Was Hanuman a Dravidian, a Brahmin, or a Dalit?

If mythology is history, then Hanuman can have only one birthplace, not many. A bunch of Hindu leaders, all men, all saffron-robed, all belonging to elite castes, met to discuss the problem a few years ago. There were those who claimed Hanuman was born in Karnataka (two locations), in Andhra Pradesh, in Maharashtra, and in Jharkhand. Before long, the holy men were arguing and exchanging taunts. The matter remained unresolved. Faith triumphed over politics.

Turning mythology into history poses a whole bunch of problems, besides birthplace. It also means asking if Hanuman genuinely had a tail, and could fly through the sky, with a mountain in his hand? Or if that is just a metaphor? Those who love history hate metaphors and symbols. They insist on reading ancient texts literally, except when there are stories of rishis eating meat of various animals.

The oldest Sanskrit text of Valmiki’s epic creates a contrast between Ravana and Hanuman. Both are Sanskrit scholars, and yet, it is clear that while Ravana is a Brahmin, Hanuman’s caste is uncertain. He is shown wearing a janeu (sacred thread) in statues built in the 21st century. But in mediaeval South Indian art, he was shown with a bell hanging around his calf, or from his tail. The reason for this is whispered, never clarified, as it may have controversial caste implications.

Many politicians, during election time in North India, have argued that Hanuman was a Dalit, strong but subservient. The bell was used in mediaeval times to announce the presence of the ‘low’ caste in many villages, so people of 'high’ caste could step away from the ‘pollution’.

We all want to see Hanuman according to our fantasies — as a forest dweller (adivasi) or as a subaltern, as claimed by many Left-wing scholars who venture into mythology in search of proto-history. But as per the Ramayana itself, Hanuman speaks perfect Sanskrit, bewildering Ravana. Sanskrit speech was limited to the elite. Hanuman introduces himself to Ram, in Sanskrit. He wonders if he should speak in Sanskrit to Sita since she has only heard Ravana speak Sanskrit and so might think Hanuman is Ravana in disguise.

None of the other vanar-sena speak Sanskrit. Why only Hanuman? Is it to hint at him being a Brahmin? There are later stories of him learning Sanskrit from the sun-god. The monkeys are described as children of Vedic gods. Does that make them Aryan, Dravidian, Brahmin, or Dalit, or forest dwelling tribes?

The villain in Ramayana is clearly identified as a Brahmin, while a character like Hanuman is appropriated by different communities, sometimes by putting a janeu on him, sometimes by putting a bell on his ankles. Wrestlers today worship Hanuman in traditional gymnasiums (akhara) because the Naga warrior-ascetics saw Hanuman as a Vaishnava form of the Shaivite Bhairava, descending to help Ram. Historians say that Siraj-Ud-Daulah had Hanuman-worshipping Nagas in his army when he fought against the British. All this makes the identity of Hanuman very confusing.

Hanuman, conceived of by Valmiki as a forest dwelling, Sanskrit-speaking, shape-shifting brahmachari, challenges our notions of Hindu identity. In South Indian art, he is painted green as is Ram. In the North, Hanuman is painted saffron while Ram is blue (and now increasingly white as marble).

In South-East Asia, Hanuman is imagined rather differently. He seems to have all the qualities of a Buddhist monk, a Tantrik expert, and a Vedic priest. As in Jain versions of Ramayana, the Hanuman of Thailand and Indonesia is shown as one who is much desired by women.

Hanuman is described as a warrior-monk, a form of Shiva himself, who seeks nothing, in Indian stories. Ravana is the structural opposite, a warrior-priest who has many wives, many treasures, and is greedy for more wealth and power and pleasures, despite being a devotee of Shiva. Ravana’s Brahmin nature is repeatedly endorsed. Even today, in North India, lots of Brahmin communities perform shraadh (post-funeral) rituals during Dussehra for Ravana, arguing Ravana has no children left to feed him in the land of the dead.

North Indian Brahmins also differentiate between those Brahmins who agreed to perform rituals to cleanse Ram of the sin of killing the Brahmin Ravana, and those who refused to do so. If Ravana, the Brahmin, is seen as a worshipper of Shiva, his brother Vibhishana is seen as a worshipper of Vishnu. If Ram, the Kshatriya, is Vishnu on earth then Hanuman, the forest-dwelling Sanskrit speaker, is Shiva on earth.

When you reduce Hanuman into a historic figure, not a symbolic figure, the deep metaphorical and cultural meanings embedded in Hanuman goes away. This is what politicians, and their troll armies, do when they yell against myths. Valmiki wanted Hanuman to communicate a profound idea — the idea of a person with power but without ambition, one who helps the helpless, and puts them in debt, and asks them to pay it forward, if they seek liberation.

(Devdutt Pattanaik is the author of more than 50 books on mythology. X: @devduttmyth.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.