Making history of Hanuman

Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai plans to build a grand Hanuman temple as part of his Anjanandri Hanuman project in Karnataka. But there’s a bone of contention between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh on the birthplace (Janmabhoomi) of Hanuman. Bommai has repeatedly asserted that Anjanadri Hills in Karnataka’s Koppal district is the birthplace of Hanuman. A proposed 215-metre-tall statue is supposed to be built by the Hanumad Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust.

A couple of years back, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) had said it will provide historical and epigraphical evidence on the birthplace of Hanuman. Its claim was that he was born in the Anjanadri Hills of Tirupati. TTD had constituted an ‘expert panel’ consisting of archaeologists, Vedic scholars and ISRO scientists (!) for this purpose.

Meanwhile, a head of a Mutt in Shivamogga claimed that Hanuman was born in Gokarna.

Behind all these claims about the birthplace of Hanuman and the zeal to build statues seems to be a well-crafted programme to make the point that Hanuman is a historical figure, and not a mythological one. This historicity is constructed by attempting to locate his birthplace. It seems like a BJP-Sangh Parivar bid to make a claim for the reality of Hanuman’s existence in the past.

Also Read | Support BJP for development, reservations: Karnataka CM Bommai

The idea of roping in these so-called experts and scientists, perhaps, was to drive home the point that they have ‘scientific proof’ regarding the birth of Hanuman and the ‘facts’ speak for themselves. Far from it, though, these ‘facts’ would be representations and arguments to construct the historical Hanuman from obscure mythology. The ‘experts’ would have done this job. Further, the political leadership of the BJP will keep making assertions about the birthplace of Hanuman. The purpose is not to locate the birthplace but to reify the birth of Hanuman.

It appears to be part of the standard programme to inject beliefs among Hindus. Hanuman as a character is first established as having a meaning in the larger religious life of the Hindu community. This meaning is later projected as an object of history. The question then would no longer be whether Hanuman was born in Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh but how to make people believe in his historicity. The TTD’s ‘expert’ exercise aided in advancing this larger programme.

Thus, the point about what appears to be a tussle of claims is to divert attention from the question that needs to be answered first: Was Hanuman a historical figure and his birth a historical event? This question is quietly side-stepped and his birth as a historical event is taken for granted by the claimants of TTD as well as those from Karnataka. Thus, mythology is easily turned into history.

There are some fundamental questions that must be raised in this context:

a) The original reference to Hanuman is to be found in the Ramayana which is Adi Kavya (First Epic). In this epic, his birth is described in a mythological fashion. The Puranas like Shiva Purana and Bhavishya Purana have their own different versions and claims. Given that we have such varied mythological accounts, what is the nature of evidence that these ‘experts’ were looking for?

As the story goes in the Ramayana, Hanuman was born to Anjana. Anjana was a goddess but due to some curse was born as a monkey. It was when Shiva and Parvati were playing in the forest, having assumed the form of monkeys, that Parvati got pregnant. As Parvati did not like the idea of a monkey-child, Shiva, through his mystical powers, transferred her pregnancy to Vayu who, in turn, transferred it to Anjana. It is stated that he was born on Mount Mahameru.

According to the Puranic Encyclopaedia by Vettam Mani, there are three more different stories of the birth of Hanuman (all mythological narratives). Such rendering of mythological narrations of Hanuman’s birth makes the very exercise of finding ‘evidence’ of his birth pointless.

There is another fundamental doubt that comes up in this context. Hanuman is a character of Ramayana and no appropriate reference to him is to be found in the Vedas. What then was the role of the Vedic pundits in the expert committee? How can Vedic experts be part of a panel on something that finds no reference in the Vedic literature?

b) Further, from a more philosophical point of view, the issue of Vedic epistemology (a philosophical study of nature, origin and sources of knowledge) comes to the fore. According to Vedic epistemology, known as Pramana Sastra, there are six means of knowledge/evidence (pramanas) -- perception, inference, comparison, non-apprehension, postulation, and verbal testimony. However, as far as the Vedas are concerned, the Vedic narrative is itself a means of knowledge and has its own validity as verbal testimony. Whatever is said in the Vedas cannot be tested by any other means of knowledge such as perception and inference. If this be the case, were not the Vedic pundits contradicting themselves by looking for historical and epigraphical evidence, which falls within the ambit of perception and inference?

c) Finally, what was the role of ISRO scientists in the expert committee? This was not spelt out. Was it merely to invoke and blend the sophistication of science and technology (like satellite imaging) into the report to make non sequitur claims? It has become very much a fashion today of the Hindutva forces to provide a veneer of scientific veracity, even if it is teetering on the brink of kitsch.

The elements of the post-truth phenomenon seem to be very much part of the agenda of influencing the beliefs of the Hindu community. Post-truth, a term coined by Steve Tesich in his 1992 article, was declared the word of the year 2016 by Oxford Dictionary. It defined the word as referring to “circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” The larger programme of the Hanuman birthplace claims is to make people believe in the historicity of the mythological Hanuman, by crafting ‘facts’ to which these ‘experts’ in different domains would have contributed in their own ways.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, Union Home Minister Amit Shah unveiled a 54-foot tall statue of Hanuman in Gujarat!

(The writer formerly taught Philosophy in the Department of Humanities and Social Science, IISER, Mohali)