Gīdh deh taji dhari Hari rūpā (iii.cau.32): Tul’sī’s Rām-carit-mānas and the Hinduization of the Other in early modern India

The vast scientifc discussion on the sociological theorization of Otherness has generally focused on the ways in which the category of the “Other” is constructed within Western cultures. Reference texts such as those by Mead (1934), de Beauvoir (1949), Foucault (1961, 1976-2018), Bauman (1993), etc. are mainly devoted to the analysis of psycho-sociological dynamics related to contemporary Western individuals and societies. When the Orient or other “Other” cultural areas step in, they are often made the subject of studies that, especially in the post-colonial narrative, highlight colonialist cultural procedures aimed at “Othering” and (consequently) dominating alien civilizations, within strict relations of power (Said 1978, Appadurai 1993) – which however brings the risk of strengthening, instead of questioning, the stereotypes. Much less studied has been the construction of the category of the “Other” within these eastern civilizations, through procedures that belong to, and can be drawn from, their own cultural history – which at least has the advantage of taking into account the subjects, rather than the objects, of such dynamics. As the perfect epitome of a narrative that aims at circumscribing the perimeters of the identity of “Self ” and “Other”, the perennial “story of Rāma” (Rāma-kathā) has been subject to innumerable re-makings, whose communicative contents usually represented a function of the current social and political circumstances and of the related dynamics of power. The Rām-caritmānas of the Avadhī poet Tul’sī Dās (1532-1623) is characterized by the same features, although with a radical innovation: instead of simply marking the border between “Self ” and “Other”, it also shows for the first time how the “Other”, in spite of the huge cultural distance, is fully entitled to become “Self ” – which, from the opposite perspective, also paves the way for interpreting the “Other” as an alternate, conflicting form of “Self ”. Although the main objective of the present paper is to highlight Tul’sī’s project of giving life to a reformed, inclusive Hinduism through a specific process of “Othering”, the analysis it provides contributes also, in a broader perspective, to legitimizing literature as a source of reliable sociohistorical information gathered through an emic process of investigation. This in turn amounts to restoring the historicity of works that are often dealt with as literary mūrtis – i.e. narratives whose relations with history and society are not seen as important as the perennial values that inspire them and of which they are considered, at best, cultural manifestations.