Karnad re-explores his Mahabharata experience to write
this drama ‘Fire and Rain’. Vana Parva chapter 135-138 deals with the theme use in this drama. The story in the mythology talks about life
of Yavakri, which is all about misapplication of knowledge which he received
from the higher power. Yavakri the son of sage Bhardwaj, acquired
the knowledge of the Vedas from Indira after undergoing penance for ten years.
He misuses this divine knowledge to take revenge on Raibhya, an intimate friend
of his father. Both Bhadwaj and Raibhya are learned and are endowed with
spiritual powers.
Yavakri, Bhardwaj’s son, nurses a grievance against all for
he feels that his father does not receive the respect and recognition which he
deserves. Bhardwaj cautions his son Yavakri against misuse of knowledge. His
fears prove well founded. To him his knowledge has become an instrument to take
revenge. Yavakri corners Raibhya’s daughter- in-law, Visakha and molests her. Raibhya takes revenge on
Yavakri by creating the Brahma Rakshasa a spirit with resemblances to Vishaka
to kill Yavakri. The spirit kills Yavakri making Bharadwaj angry and curses
Rabhiya that he will be killed by his owb son. Bhardwaj kills himself in
remorse.
Raibhyas eldest son, Paraavasu, mistakes the rdeerskin his father is
wearing and shoots an arrow at him. Thus Paravasu becomes the murderer of his
father but uses his knowledge and power to blame the crime on Aravasu. Accussed
of Brahminicide and patricide Aravasu begins his penance and worship of the Sun
God to attain knowledge and enlightenment.
At the peak of his penance the sun god appears and grands him a boon..
Aravasu asks the Sun God to give life back to Yavakri, Bharadwaj and Raibhya.
When all of them comeback to life the god’’s instruct Yavakri to repriment his
folly and use his knowledge wisely.
The most notable aberration on this
classical tale is the inclusion of a love story. Aravasu’s intimacy with a
tribal girl called Nithilai is tactfully incorporated to criticize the
Brahminical order and its practices. The tribal social order shown in the play
is liberal and open but sceptic of the Brahminical culture or the culture of
the powerful class in the society. The story revolving around the Brahmin
community which indulge in penance and prayer and is often tinted with
jealousy, sexuality and revenge, while the tribal order is simple and straight
forward. It stands antithetical to the dominant culture in its form, texture
and modus operandi. The presence of such sub-cultures have similarity to the
present day co-existence of adivasi, rustic or traditional cultures with the
mainstream cultures. The mainstream culture never draws from the ‘old’ values
propagated by these cultures, and still continue to live in its rigidity.
Nittilai’s question to Aravasu “But what I
want to know s is why are the Brahmins so secresive about everything” is such a
reference to the Brahmincal culture which also was the reason for social issue
like untouchablity in India. The
structured social stratum looses all its charm when contrasted against the life
of the hunters which is that of instinct and emotion.
Knowledge is another symbol which is used
to contrast both these cultures. Brahminical order is portrayed as people with
a Faustian crave for knowledge, even when warned of their incapability to
handle this knowledge (as Indira warns) they tend to acquire it for worse.
Anyone outside this knowledge crave is also a misfit in the society, just like Aravasu.
They operate their knowledge to kill and revenge not to create and survive.
This makes them egocentric individuals and not an organic community like that
of the Hunters.
Interestingly the two female characters
portrayed in the novel Vishakha a Brahmin and Nittilai a tribal are both
victims to the respective systems they belong to. Vishaka has a compromised
individuality and had to suffer due to her husband’s urge to acquire knowledge.
She is a women ill treated in the higher social class. Nittilai a bold,
courageous and virtuous girl who attempts to break the system is finally forced
into marriage. In both the cases women are the sufferers and this is truly an
Indian social issue too.
The inclusion of this sub-plot have lifted the
work to a that of social-critique of the Indian society, in the grips of caste
system.
Good post, I like the way you have outlined the myth first and then given your interpretation of the play. Here are some observations:
ReplyDelete1. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement: "the mainstream culture never draws from the ‘old’ values propagated by these cultures, and still continue to live in its rigidity."Do you mean that if the mainstream culture drew upon non-mainstream cultures it would be less rigid? If so, please rephrase this sentence.
2. Instead of the phrase "knowledge crave" please use craving for knowledge as that is more grammatically correct.
3. Look over your post at least once before putting it online, this may help you catch some of the grammar/syntactical errors.
Well articulated, Martin. Be careful of typos, like "myhology" for mythology. You could probably write a great paper around the tribal social order of the play. You focus a little on that theme here as you provide an excellent summary of the play. I agree with your last point that the sub-plot is a social-critique of Indian society, of caste systems, of current problems.
ReplyDeleteHow's your dissertation coming?
ReplyDelete