Mrittika Saha

Dept. Of Comparative Literature.

Evaluating Vibhishana as a 21st-century Reader

Vibhīshana was Rāvana’s brother and Indrajit’s or the titular character of Meghnādbadh Kāvya,
Meghnād’s paternal uncle. The kāvya revolves around the event of the battle in between the
king of Ayodhyā, Rāma and Rāvana, the king of Lankā. Based on the aforesaid texts,
Vibhīshana, as a character is contradictory as there is a collision in between his idea of dharma
and his karma or what he did to satisfy his conception of dharma. On one hand, he is
considered to be an epitome of a true ‘Rāma-bhakt’, an abider of dharma in its true sense and
on the other hand he is considered to be a traitor, a betrayer to his family, clan and his country.
Evaluating such a character is very tricky, as it will require a relative perspective of right and
wrong, even though the question is not all about that.

Talking about Vibhīshana as a positive character, he knew that his brother, even though he was
the king of Lankā, was off-tracked from his path of ‘Rākshas-dharma’ by his gluttony and ego.
Vibhishana had a clear perception of dharma- abiding by the truth and the virtuousness, doing
deeds for the better, and leading a very simple, selfless life, filled with good and justice, not to
forget, praying to Gods and being grateful towards them. Vibhīshana went on to join Rāma and
in return, Rāma crowned him as the king of Lankā after the battle was over and Rāvana was
dead along with other ‘potential’ enemies. It is shown in a way that since Vibhīshana chose to
side with the virtue, he was rewarded- kāvyas were meant to be sort of didactic(in a way) and
thus, it showed how virtues lead to rewards and the vices were the reason of the fall. He can be
compared to the character of Yudhishthir from The Mahābhārata, who was known as
‘Dharmarāj’ because he always chose the path of right and was truthful in every aspect, or
made to seem so.

On the contrary, Rāvana’s actions made him question his siding with his family and thus he
sided with Rāma while he was preparing to fight with Rāvana and rescue Sītā. For this action,
he has been called a traitor by Meghnād, because when he was supposed to side with his kin,
he chose the ‘opposition’. However, Vibhīshana was very clear about what he understood and
the principles that he followed and therefore, he did not feel sorry for what he did. He helped
Rāma and Lakshmana to fight his brother by providing them with the schemes and
vulnerabilities of his family. In Meghnādbadh Kāvya, Vibhīshana asked Lakshmana to attack
Indrajit when he would be busy praying to the Family-deity, Nikumbhila. However, even after a
lot of planning and gods supporting completely, the effect of Māyā faded and Indrajit could
clearly understand what was going on behind his back. Therefore the plan was a fail, but
Meghnād identified Vibhīshana and Lakshmana as cowards who were afraid to fight fair like real
warriors.
To do a comparative study as a 21st-century reader, a few concerns that arise can be
categorised into the fact that whether Vibhīishana was being a ‘dhārmik’, secondly, whether the
idea of dharma is fluid(the concept of apādhadharma) and how to justify the seemingly unjust
actions to make it seem fair. Both of these concerns fulfil Vibhīshana as a character, who is very
much similar to human beings- that he is not completely virtuous.

To look closely, the idea of breaking rules (in this case, he deflected from the ‘rann-nīti’ or the
rules of war, to kill the mighty Indrajit), the cunning scheming that is very opposite to what virtue
speaks of, and, abandoning his family when he should have supported them, also to sum up
what Indrajit said to Vibhīshana- that a person should always stay and be grateful to where he
belongs to, the family. Kins always accept and support each other in times of need and thus,
they should always stay together, no matter what, even if it feels wrong. Vibhīshana’s multiple
deeds were clearly against ‘dharma’, but it went on to justify as ‘good’ because he sided with
Rāma, the ‘purushottama’. He sided with Rāma to destroy the ‘bad’ and to reinstate the virtue in
the city of Lankā, he sided with whom the gods sided. He did what the gods considered to be
right, he did what his perception of dharma told him, was right and also, listening to his mother
because she wanted him to side with the ‘good’.

As a 21st century reader, Vibhīshana can be considered as a normal human being who tried to
be a man filled with virtues, not thinking of harming anyone or anything unless and until a strict
action is needed. In the war as well, Vibhīshana is not known to fight tremendously but to help
the army with scheming. However, through all of this, he ultimately made his way clear to the
throne and that is something that can be considered as an opportunist move on his behalf. It
can give off the feeling all along that he wanted to ascend the throne and the what better
opportunity can it be when his brother was the cause of all the crime and anarchy and someone
was willing to fight Rāvana and probably end him. He was a man filled with pride of his
righteousness and dharma in which he became blind enough to commit subtle but clear
adhārmik deeds, something that is called ‘apādhadharma’, where the dharma can be converted
to adharma for the sake of better. Since a kavya shows the readers that all beings have a
positive and a negative side to them, Vibhīshana was or is no exception to it.