Namit's Ramayana: An Epic Retelling or an Ideological Rewriting?

A visually grand spectacle that raises an uncomfortable question: Is the film telling the story of Lord Rama, or trying to change how audiences perceive the characters of the Ramayana?

Namit Malhotra's Ramayana: Rise of a Legend arrives with enormous expectations. The Ramayana is not merely a mythological story or a collection of fictional characters. It’s history. It is a civilizational epic that has shaped India's values, literature, culture and understanding of Dharma for generations.

Reinterpreting an epic is not necessarily wrong. Different regions and traditions have presented different versions of the Ramayana. Filmmakers also have creative freedom. However, creative freedom should not become an excuse to fundamentally alter the moral identities of its central characters while continuing to market the production as the Ramayana.

Unfortunately, this adaptation raises precisely that concern.

1. Ravana: From Adharmic King to an Oppressed Revolutionary?

Perhaps the most questionable narrative decision is the extensive effort to establish Ravana as a victim of oppression.

The film spends considerable time developing the suffering of the Asuras, their conflict with the Devas and Ravana's rise as a powerful ruler. He is presented as someone fighting injustice, reclaiming the dignity of his community and promising prosperity and equality to his people.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging Ravana's intelligence, knowledge of the scriptures, musical abilities, and devotion to Shiva (though not mentioned in Valmiki Ramyan). Even Valmiki's Ramayana does not portray him as an ordinary villain without extraordinary qualities.

But possessing knowledge and power does not make someone righteous.

The fundamental problem is the apparent attempt to make his actions understandable through a contemporary oppressor-versus-oppressed narrative. Ravana's conquest and ambitions begin to resemble a struggle for social justice rather than the rise of a powerful king whose ego, lust and Adharma eventually destroy him.

A person's achievements cannot be used to erase his moral failures.

Ravana's abduction of Sita was not an act of social justice. It was a violation of her dignity and autonomy.

A villain can be intelligent, powerful and even admirable in certain abilities without being morally justified. Why does a modern adaptation appear so uncomfortable with that distinction?

2. Shurpanakha: A Feminist Reinterpretation at the Expense of the Original Narrative?

The treatment of Shurpanakha is another significant departure.

The film gives considerable sympathy to her character, emphasising her attraction towards Rama, her personal relationships and the humiliation she experiences.

Giving female characters depth is perfectly reasonable. Shurpanakha need not be reduced to a caricature simply because she is an antagonist.

However, there is a difference between giving a character depth and changing the narrative to make her appear morally justified.

In Valmiki Ramayana Aranya Kanda, Sarga 17 onwards, Shurpanakha approaches Rama, expresses her desire to marry him and subsequently turns against Sita. In Sarga 34, she describes Sita's beauty with lust to Ravana and encourages him to possess her.

These details matter because they establish her role in the sequence of events.

Film shows through Sita Maa’s dialogue that Lakshman did wrong. Though Shurpanakha was going to kill Sita Maa. Also adds revenge angle for Ravana.

The question is not whether a woman should have the freedom to express her feelings. Of course she should.

The question is whether every rejection or humiliation must automatically be interpreted through a modern victimhood narrative, regardless of the character's own conduct.

Feminism should mean fairness, dignity and individual agency. It should not mean selectively removing accountability from a female character while placing the entire moral burden on the male characters.

3. Ravana's Abduction of Sita: The Most Important Narrative Shift

This is arguably the most consequential issue.

In Valmiki Ramayana, Ravana's attraction towards Sita, his desire to possess her and his arrogance are central to the abduction episode.

In Aranya Kanda, Sarga 34, Shurpanakha describes Sita's extraordinary beauty to Ravana. In Sarga 46, Ravana approaches Sita disguised as an ascetic, and his desire and entitlement become apparent.

The film, however, places substantial emphasis on revenge for Shurpanakha's humiliation and Ravana's larger conflict with Vishnu.

This changes the emotional and moral framing of the abduction.

Consider the difference:

• In the traditional narrative, Ravana's lust, arrogance and refusal to respect another person's autonomy contribute to his downfall.
• In the film's framing, his actions acquire an additional political and personal justification through revenge and his conflict with the Devas.

A revenge-driven narrative can make an audience understand a villain's motivation. But understanding motivation is not the same as justifying conduct.

The danger is that Sita Maa's abduction begins to look like a strategic act of retaliation rather than an expression of Ravana's ego and desires.

That is a significant shift in the moral emphasis of the story.

4. The Problem With Making Every Character a Victim of Circumstances

One recurring tendency in modern storytelling is to reinterpret traditional antagonists as misunderstood individuals shaped by an unjust society.

This can produce interesting cinema, but it becomes problematic when the original moral conflict disappears.

The Ramayana is not a simplistic story in which one side possesses every virtue and the other possesses none.

Ravana has extraordinary qualities. Kaikeyi has motivations. Shurpanakha has agency. Even the Devas are not beyond criticism in every retelling.

But the existence of complexity does not eliminate the distinction between Dharma and Adharma.

A powerful person can suffer injustice and still commit injustice against others.

A person can be wronged and still be responsible for their subsequent actions.

A character can be strong and independent without being morally correct.

This is precisely the distinction that an adaptation must preserve.

5. Where Is the Narrative Balance for Lord Rama?

Another concern is the disproportionate attention given to Ravana's backstory compared with Rama's emotional and moral journey.

Ravana receives an elaborate introduction, a social background, personal relationships and a detailed rise to power.

Rama, meanwhile, deserves much more than being presented as a succession of familiar milestones.

His acceptance of exile, commitment to his father's promise, His duties and Guru Bhakti, are the emotional foundation of the epic.

Rama's greatness does not come merely from possessing divine powers. It comes from his conduct, restraint, compassion and commitment to righteousness.

Showing him as a human experiencing uncertainty is not inherently wrong. But his humanity should enrich his Dharma, not diminish the significance of his character.

A compelling Ravana does not require an underdeveloped Rama.

6. Final Verdict: Spectacle Cannot Replace the Soul of the Ramayana

Ramayana has undeniable visual ambition. Its production scale, VFX and performances offer moments of cinematic spectacle. Yash brings considerable screen presence to Ravana.

But a film based on the Ramayana must be judged by more than its visual scale and casting.

Its greatest responsibility is to preserve the moral and philosophical substance of the story.

Ravana's greatness was never the problem. His Adharma was.

And that distinction should never be lost in the process of making a cinematic spectacle.

A production can have a massive budget, international ambitions and world-class visual effects. But none of these can compensate for a narrative that loses sight of the very philosophy that makes the Ramayana timeless.

My biggest question to the filmmakers is simple: If the objective was to tell the story of the Ramayana, why does so much narrative effort appear to go into making Ravana more sympathetic; instead of making Rama's Dharma the emotional centre of the story?

That is a question worth discussing, regardless of one's political or ideological position.

Comparison: Valmiki Ramayana vs. Film's Narrative Emphasis

Aspect	Valmiki Ramayana	Film's narrative emphasis
Ravana's rise	Ambition, power, Kaam and conquest	Oppression of the Asuras and resistance against the Devas
Ravana's character	Learned and powerful, but egostic and driven by desire	More sympathetic ruler with a detailed personal and political backstory
Shurpanakha	Expresses desire for Rama and subsequently acts against Sita	Greater emphasis on humiliation, personal relationships and victimhood
Sita's abduction	Desire, entitlement and arrogance are central	Revenge and the conflict with Vishnu receive greater emphasis
Rama	Dharma, duty, restraint and righteousness	A more humanised portrayal, with less narrative space devoted to his journey
Central conflict	Dharma versus Adharma	Greater emphasis on political conflict, oppression and personal grievances

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1. Is it wrong to portray Ravana as an intelligent and accomplished king?

No. Ravana's intelligence, extraordinary abilities are well established in traditional accounts. The problem arises when these qualities are used to soften or justify his Adharma.

Q2. Is giving Shurpanakha a feminist portrayal necessarily wrong?

Not at all. Female characters deserve agency and complexity. However, a progressive portrayal should not selectively remove a character's accountability or distort the events of the original narrative to create a predetermined victim-and-oppressor framework.

Q3. Did Ravana abduct Sita only to avenge Shurpanakha?

That is not how Valmiki Ramayana presents the episode. Aranya Kanda, particularly Sargas 34 and 46, establishes Ravana's attraction towards Sita, his desire to possess her and his arrogance. The film gives greater narrative emphasis to revenge and his conflict with Vishnu.

Q4. Does humanising Ravana automatically mean glorifying him?

No. Humanising an antagonist is a legitimate storytelling technique. However, glorification becomes a reasonable criticism when the narrative disproportionately highlights his virtues and grievances while reducing the moral significance of his wrongdoing.

Q5. Is criticism of this film an attack on creative freedom?

No. Creative freedom protects the filmmaker's right to reinterpret a story. It equally protects the audience's right to question that reinterpretation. Disagreement is not censorship.

Q6. What is the biggest problem with this adaptation?

The biggest concern is the apparent shift in moral emphasis. Ravana's political grievances and Shurpanakha's humiliation receive considerable attention, while the central significance of Dharma becoming secondary.

Read more- Upcoming movies 2027, Varanasi new look

Final Thought

The Ramayana has survived thousands of years because it is much more than a story about a war between two powerful kings.

It is a story about Dharma, responsibility, sacrifice, relationships, humility and the consequences of uncontrolled ego & Kaamvasna.

We can acknowledge Ravana's knowledge without celebrating his actions. We can portray Sita maa as powerful without imposing contemporary stereotypes upon her. And we can humanise Shri Rama without forgetting what makes him Maryada Purushottam.

The real question is not whether Ravana deserves a backstory. It is whether the Ramayana deserves to have its moral centre rewritten.