A Return to Indigenous Tradition in Girish
Karnad’s The Fire and the Rain
|
Dr. R. Vithya Prabha Professor
and Head Department
of English Dr.
N. G. P. Arts and
Science College,
Coimbatore Tamil Nadu, India |
Dr. S. Sudha Assistant
Professor Department
of English, Dr.
N. G. P. Arts and
Science College,
Coimbatore Tamil Nadu, India |
S. Nithya Devi Assistant
Professor Department
of English Dr.
N. G. P. Arts and
Science College,
Coimbatore Tamil Nadu, India |
Abstract:
The post-colonial theatre in India presents a lamentable spectacle with
crude imitations of western drama and few efforts at authentic and original
creations. History, myth and fables transmit their meaning through the perfect
blend of Sanskrit dramatic tradition through the folk theater of Karnataka and
the sophisticated Western theater. Karnad’s play The Fire and the Rain, he employs the iterative technique to
reinforce the subjects through three parallel stories. Karnad connects
archetype and real, past and present. The myths and fables of the past have
analogies to current issues, which give them fresh meanings and insights by
analogy, reinforcing the subject. Myths offer glimpses of understanding into
existence and its mysteries by transcending the bounds of time and place. To
demonstrate how the archetypal stories presage the problem of modern man, myths
that are ingrained in the united realization of the inhabitants are invoked.
Oriental philosophies are themselves grounded on an immediate apprehension of
reality and they make statements about reality in terms of analogy using
parables, metaphors, images, archetypes, symbols and myths.
Keywords: Archetype, fables, history, iterative, myth,
postcolonial
Girish Karnad’s plays mark a sincere effort
to give a new direction to Indian English drama which has hardly shaken itself
free of the cultural amnesia that set in with colonialization. The
post-colonial theatre in India presents a lamentable spectacle with crude
imitations of western drama and few efforts at authentic and original
creations. The rich heritage of Sanskrit theatre lay unused as dramatists
sought western dramatic modes to relate their Indian tales. Karnad shows how
myths can be reinterpreted to convey contemporary reality. By using the “grammar
of literary archetypes” (Frye 135). Karnad connects archetype and real, past
and present. The myths and fables of the past have analogies to current issues,
which give them fresh meanings and insights by analogy, reinforcing the
subject. Myths offer glimpses of understanding into existence and its mysteries
by transcending the bounds of time and place. With their associated levels of
meaning, their cyclical nature, and their applicability to current concerns,
they have a considerable part in the cultural consciousness of the nation.
Karnad
had successfully employed history in Tughlaq
and myths and fables in Hayavadana
and Nagamandala, transmitting meaning
through the perfect blend of Sanskrit dramatic tradition, the folk theatre of
Karnataka (Yakshgana) and the sophisticated western theatre. Anexcellent
example is Karnad’s play The Fire and the
Rain.The play, the latest and perhaps the most powerful of a puranic myth
from the Mahabharata, about Indra destroying his sibling out of envious rage,
is reenacted in Karnad's plays. Through the entire play, Arvasu's cries of “why
brother? Why?” resound, conveying the bewildered rage and heartbreaking agony of
betrayal from a revered sibling. A central myth that takes the shape of a
dramatic performance within the larger frame of the tale of Arvasu's disloyalty
of his brother Paravasu, the priest conducting a yajna to get rain to the
parched land, makes up the play's complex structural foundation. Karnad employs
the iterative technique to reinforce the main subject through three parallel
stories, each of which is an echo of betrayal tales from the beginning of time.
The third story speaks of revenge wrought by jealousy between the two brothers
(friends in Mahabharata), Bharadwaj and Raibhya. No explicit relationship
between the brothers Arvasu and Paravasu and Yavakri is mentioned in the
Mahabharata. Karnad remarks that years after he decided to in- corporate the
uniqueness of his work, which included the Indra-Vritra legend, he was shocked
to discover that the entire story of Yavakri takes place on the river banks,
where Indra had washed to atone for the sin of killing Vritra.
Bharadwaja’s
son Yavakri nurses a grievance against Raibhya and his sons Arvasu and Paravasu
for they win the recognition of the society, denied to his own scholarly and
ascetic father. Through rigourous penance he hopes to gain the knowledge that
could help him to excel Raibhya and his sons, only to be told by the Gods that
knowledge could be attained only through study at the base of a spiritual
leader. Yavakri’s adamant perseverance brings Indra twice before him. Since the
Gods do not relent, he decides to come back pretending that he had gained
supreme knowledge. Yavakri’s story is an echo of archetypal myths of
self-annihilation through overweening arrogance. As part of a planned plan of
retaliation meant to interfere with the fire-sacrifice, Yavakiri moles the wife
of Paravasu as soon as he emerges from the forest. Yavakri hurtles towards
destruction as the forces he has unleashed turn against him. An en- raged
Raibhya invokes a “kritya” and sends a Brahma Rakshasa a demon soul to kill
Yavakri; Yavakri is killed at the entrance to his own hermitage when Vishakha,
horrified by the callous way in which her desire for love has been exploited,
throws off the consecrated water he had kept to defend himself. When Paravasu,
the father of Raibhya, understands that Yavakri and his father were both driven
by the same blind rage stoked by forces of envy, he kills his father. Both
resented his position as chief priest and wanted to break the yajna. Myth
becomes ritual and performance doubly reinforces the myth as Karnad casts the
betrayed brother Arvasu in the role of Vritra, betrayed brother of Indra in the
play within the play. Arvasu, who had always looked up to his brother as a
father due to his superior intellect and great erudition, is devastated by his
brother's impolite public denigration after executing the penitential rites for
patricide on behalf of Paravasu. The revered, perfect sibling accuses his
innocent brother of committing the heinous crime of patricide and begs people
to expel him from the holy place as a demonic intruder. The two myths get
intertwined when Arvasu, donning the mask of Vritra for the play, is carried
away by his own emotions and pursues Indra with uncontrol- lable fury, finally
setting fire to the sacrificial enclosure. Paravasu goes into burning enclosure
and chants the mantras, allowing the flames to consume him.
Karnad
remarks that the myth might be interpreted as illustrating a fundamental fear
that permeates all of Indian mythology—the fear of a brother killing a brother.
In the Mahabharata, where the kinship between brothers in the Pandava and Kuru
clans is as strong as the animosity between cousins is vicious and unyielding,
this anxiety manifests itself fully and obtrusively. The betrayals of Sugriva
and Vibhishana serve as antithesis to fraternal connection between Rama and his
siblings in the Raghu family of the Ramayana, which represents another aspect
of the same worry.
The
title takes on symbolic dimensions as Vishakha reveals her tale of deprivation.
She has been starved of love and speech for seven years ever since Parvasu
donned the coveted role of chief priest. We realize that the drought of the
land had entered the life and soul of Vishakha through the loneliness thrust
upon her; of Yavakri in the chosen life of solitude and penance for ten years;
of Raibhya who was consumed by the fire of jealousy for his own son; and
finally of Arvasu when he loses Nittilai. The rains when they come are the
rains of love, compassion and tenderness for al human beings.
Karnad’s
plays are the festivity of humanand humane, in Hayavadana the ultimate redemptions for Hayavadana comes through tenderness and compasssion for the
orphaned child. The child’s initiation to normalcy is through laughter. The
serpent’s love brings fulfillment to the love-starved Rani in Nagamandala. In The Fire and the Rain the harshness of
myth is softened by the endearing human strand introduced by Karnad through the
story of Arvasu and Nittilai. Arvasu, with his artistic abilities, genuine
human passions, unwavering commitment, and fundamental human goodness, is a
refreshing contrast to Paravasu, who shows his wife affection in accordance
with a carefully planned schedule. Paravasu’s own comment with reference to
Yavakri’s method of coercing the Gods is self-expressive, “I went because the
fire-sacrifice is a formal rite structured. It involves no emotional acrobatics
from the participants.” (31). Visakha’s description of her life with Paravasu
exposes the harshness with which he made the most intimate human relationship
conform to a structured, time-bound pattern. Vishakha is left as the
drought-hit land, emaciated without a drop of love. She is starved of speech.
Visakha’s willing surrender to Yavakri is more an involuntary submission to
demands of the body than an act of love. She confesses her guilt to her husband
without fear and is ready to die at his hands. There is none of the maturity or
sophistication of the Paravasu-Vishakha relationship in Nittilai’s innocent and
whole-hearted devotion to Arvasu. In spite of her lover’s failure to turn up
before the elders to ask her hand in marriage, Nittilai continues to love him
and runs away from her loving husband when she hears of the tragic betrayal of
Arvasu by his brother. As a member of the hunter community, she is closer to
the elements and shows an animal-like devotion untainted by the corrupting
selfishness of the civilized world. It is highly significant that Indra appears
not because the Gods “loved the way” Arvasu “challeged Indra and then pursued
him . . . in the play. But it could also be because of Paravasu’s sacrifice or
Nittilai’s humanity.”(59). Brahma Rakshasa exploits this vulnerable point when
he compels Arvasu to ask the boon of his release from Indra because Nittilai
could never be happy to be alive if she knows that he was denied release and
was in agony be- cause of her. As the rains pour down we realise that the Gods
are pleased with this ultimate sacrifice of Arvasu. Nittilai’s humanity has
triumphed over everything else. The dramatic sacrifice succeeds in bringing the
rain that seven years of the yajna had failed to produce. This confirms the
belief that a dramatic performance may prove more successful in pleasing the
Gods.
Both
Bharatha and Kalidasa have commented upon the closeness of drama and religious
ritual. Karnad quotes Kalidasa who tells about theatre as the “desirable fire
sacrifice of the eyes KantamKratumChakshusham.” (69). Both are vulnerable to
the intrusion of external forces. The perennial possibility of disruption from
within or without poses a threat to the success of both.
Speaking
of the close link between yajna and the theatre in the Vedic society, Karnad
explains that yajna could serve as a meta- phor for life or for the theatre.
There is a striking parallel between the two activities because both involved
human performance. Both, as has alreaady been pointed out, are threatened by
the possibility of disruption.
The
dramatic tradition in India that Bharatha's Natyashastra conceptualised is
profoundly ingrained in the theatre of Karnad. The realisation of the purushart
has—namely, dharma (pertaining to the spiritual realm), artha (relating to
political and economic power), kama (relating to sexual or aesthetic
gratification), and moksha—is, in Abhnavagupta's opinion, the highest aim of
drama. (release or final liberation from human bondage). By effectively
utilising archetypal myths, which never lose their significance and resonate
with meaning for the modern world, Karnad revives the old practise. The
influence of western dramatists like Brecht and Anouilh has helped to refine
and chasten Karnad’s dra- matic sensibility. Western theatrical devices are
subtly incorporated into the eastern tradition and the result is drama of the
highest order. To demonstrate how the archetypal stories presage the problem of
modern man, myths that are ingrained in the united realization of the
inhabitants are invoked. Oriental philosophies are themselves grounded on an
immediate apprehension of reality and they make statements about reality in
terms of analogy using parables, metaphors, images, archetypes, symbols and
myths. Indra Nath Chaudhuri remarks, “Mythic thoughts, in fact, are attempts to
mediate the gap between certainty and change, thereby authenticating the idea
of ‘total poetry’ (Chaudhuri 70). This is the effect Karnad’s theatre leads to,
the effect of total poetry.
By
writing in Kannada and then translating his works into English, Karnad succeeds
in surmounting at least to a certain extent, the cultural barrier posed by
English. The discourse evolved is a superb example of adapting English to the
texture of Indian folklore and myth. They blend into the semiotic structuring
of the language of the theatre- a discourse vibrant with life and steeped in
tradition. By the use of myths that have timeless relevance and are part of the
consciousness of a people, Karnad’s plays establish a cotextual continuity with
the best works in world literature. Every reader of the age derives a new
understanding from the way they inscribe the human circumstance, connecting the
globe with the perpetual and the modern with the archetypal.
Works Cited
Karnad, Girish. The Fire and the Rain. Delhi: OUP, 1998. Print.
Karnad, Girish. Three Plays. Second Edition. Delhi: OUP, 1997. Print.
Chaudhuri, Indranath. Comparative Indian Literature: Some Perspectives. New Delhi:
Sterling, 1992. Print.
Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.
Print.
Williams, Raymond. Drama: From Ibsen to Eliot. London: Chatto and Windus.1952.
Print.