DR. K. CHELLAPPAN
The concept of Indian literature is both very
old and very new: it is as old as Bharata and Tolkappiyar, and it is also as
modern as Tagore and Subramaniya Bharati. In fact it is better to see Indian
literature not as a product, but as a process. But as Niharranjan Ray puts it,
“It is easier to talk of Indian music and Indian dance and Indian sculpture
than of Indian literature because the basis of Indian music is melody and mood
and that of Indian dance is ‘the nature and character of the time beat or Tala
and of the Bhangas, Thangi and Mudras, that is, bonds, attitudes and hand
gestures and therefore their recognition as Indian is almost direct and immediate”.1
And he adds that it is not possible to achieve in literature the kind of
“Indianness” that one finds in Indian music or dance or even in the mainstream
of traditional Indian painting or sculpture”.2 But he himself gives
a counter question, “Is there no common denominator or denominators in the different
regional literatures of India, apart from the fact of the commonness of their
historical origins, that would enable one to recognise them as authentically
Indian, a recognition which would be valid as much for Indians as for
non-lndians”? 3 and answers it in the affirmative. Most scholars
would attribute this to the network of myths which contribute to the literature
or the reservoir of meaning. ‘These myths and legends which were the sources of
the equally vast storehouse of images and symbols, ideas and concepts, shaped
and formed the mind and imagination of our peoples all over the land, by and
large, at any rate of the more conscious and articulate ones”.4 But
they were not simply vehicles of conscious meaning, and they have acquired new
areas of meaning from time to time and in different places. They are answers to
the needs of deepest layers of the collective mind of India and also the
meta-literature or the common-code of the entire country.5
Northrop Frye breaks literature into narrative
and meaning and sees in ritual the origins of narrative and adds that “all the
important recurrences in nature, the day, the phases of the moon, the seasons
and solstices of the year, the crises of existence from birth to death, get
rituals attached to them and most of the higher religions are equipped with a
definitive total body of rituals suggestive, if we may put it so, of the entire
range of potentially significant actions in human life”.6 Patterns of imagery or fragments of
significance are oracular in origin and he concludes that ‘The myth is the
central informing
power that gives archetypal significance to the ritual and archetypal narrative
to the oracle. Hence the myth is the archetype, though it might be convenient
to say myth only when referring to narrative, and archetype when speaking of
significance”. 7 He further identifies the central myth of
literature with the quest myth and its significance and he links it with the
dream and sees art “as a resolution of the anti-thesis of light and darkness, the
mingling of the sum and the hero, the realising of a world in which the inner
desires and the outward circumstances coincide. The hero who is conceived in
human likeness and yet has more power over nature builds the vision of an
omnipotent personal community beyond an indifferent nature and he contrasts
this vision of innocence with the tragic vision.
In the Indian tradition also we have the quest
myth as a basic archetype though there are significant differences. Rama’s
quest for his wife is parallel to the quest for Persephone, or the quest of
Adam for Eve, and finally the quest of Christ or God for Man. Rama was both a
hero and a god, but the emphasis varies. In Valmiki he is more a hero than a
god. As Mythili Kaul puts it, “The focus is on the hero, the man, possessed of
immense physical strength coupled with great virtue and wisdom, able to hold
his own, if need be, with the gods”.8
He performs prodigious acts but they are within the human range and he is not
free from human foibles either and what matters here is not the divine
preordination, but the human choice. In Kamban’s version too, the human
identity of the hero is still maintained – but the emphasis shifts from
military heroism to ethical heroism and Kamban’s Rama shows God’s coming down to
earth and man’s reaching God – and both in one figure – and in this process, he
has also synthesised the Valmiki tradition with that of the Sangam tradition
and Cilappatikaram. Sita is linked with Mother Earth and Rama symbolises
‘the human values divine’ and in Kamban the ethical dimension of the human
situation is more important. In Tulasidass on the other hand we see more of a
God in Rama, the all· knowing God is free from desire and unlike Valmiki,
everything here is preordained. Mythili Kaul attributes this to the change in
the climate of India – the people of his time could not believe in man’s
prodigious deeds or his ability to overcome the obstacles in the world through
his own actions. Only one superior to man could perform such wonders. Accordingly,
we find humanistic awe being replaced by divine worship and the hero being
transformed into a god”.9 The tension of choice
is lost and if in Valmiki the emphasis is on the heroic, in Tulasidass, the
emphasis is on devotion. In Kamban’s epic also, Rama represents still love
still turning, but in him there is more of choice, and he represents human
values as well as acceptance of human obligations. Though Kamban’s characters
also represent ideals of types of human behaviour they are all human, but
whether they are characters fulfilling Western concept of mimesis either like
Shakespeare or Sophocles is a different question. Rama represents an ethical
norm as well as the aesthetic equilibrium and in Kamban he represents dynamic
poise, both ethically and aesthetically. He is an archetype not only because he
represents certain quintessential human situations and through him we see how
the sub-conscious of the Indian mind trying to cope with them in different ages
– thereby he acquires different connotations, a sign acquiring new significations;
but also he is the golden mean or the pure experience which is seen through the
emotional ripples experienced by other characters, who are also archetypes for
certain emotions or situations.
Ravana represents the principle of heroism of
a different kind and his imprisoning Sita symbolises the separation of heroism
end love – both outwardly and inwardly and if we compare the treatment of this
motif with that in the Western epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey
we could see the universality of this motif as well as its uniqueness. Rama’s movement is
vertical in so far as there is ethical evolution and that is signified by the
descent of God; but it is also horizontal which means movement away from
Ayodhya and a movement back to Ayodhya. This is parallel to separation of God
and the experience of separation by God himself, as well as his reunion with
others like Guha, Vibhushna and they find fulfilment in him as he finds
sublimation through them. The separation of Asuras from Suras is only based on
ethical boundaries in Kamban and the brotherhood which Rama established is
based on the principles of equality and fraternity based on devotion on the
part of others and compassion on the part of Rama. Probably The Ramayana represents three levels
of consciousness which are symbolised spatially by Ayodhya, Aranya and Lanka
and the ability to make ethical
choice is the most distinguishing feature of the higher order.
Ravana’s is a wilful choice of evil and if
Rama represents the ability for pure action as well as evolution through sublimation, in Ravana we
experience a sense of doom in spite of all his strength. But even Ravana is not
simple evil, but evil conceived on a grand, heroic scale and he indulges in
evoking magical powers and brutal violence as opposed to the principles and
ethical heroism of Rama. In a sense Rama is Self; and Ravana, the Ego, and Sita
is the Jeevatma whom Ravana tries to arrest or possess through desire, and her
state in Ayodhya (like that of Ruth amidst alien corn) represents the yearning
of the soul for the greater soul, just as all the devotees represent the same
division and longing for union at another level. Even the evil kingdom also
represents only the inversion of this relationship. Ravana represents the
human mind clouded by passion and his brother Vibishina represents the ability
to distinguish between good and evil as well as obey a higher impulse even in
such a situation and even Kumbhakarna is able to perceive God in his own way,
but he bows to loyalties of a different kind and such parallelism is there
throughout to show the dualism in human nature. In fact even Ravana himself has
noble qualities; but after a stage he becomes frozen beyond redemption. He has
denied himself the ability to perceive the good and the freedom to change, to
grow. In the final sense he is
completely isolated and speaks of only “I”.
The Ramayana puts the emphasis on man’s ability to make the
moral choice and the characters are placed in a hierarchy based on ethical qualities
and even the animals are table to reach the higher level through this capacity.
In Kamban there is a reference to a character acquiring ethical values based
not on caste but on his adherence to Dharma and that Dharma is described as the
ability to distinguish between what is proper and what is not.
The Sita archetype has also acquired various
connotations down the ages. If in Valmiki she is archetype of suffering with a
mild protest, in Kamban she acquires more of Tamil values – but still she remains
true to the basic pattern because she subordinates her role to the sublimation
of Rama. She is closer to Mother Earth which accepts her finally. Even in all
modern versions of the Ramayana and the Mahabharatha myth we find
Panchali and Sita protesting against the male tyranny and here again we see a
Pan – Indian pattern emerging; because simultaneously we hear the protesting
voice – in Tamil starting from Panchali Sapatham down to Jayakandan’s Sundarakandam
we find this new version of the
old archetype. The modern Sita finds even her husband a Ravana – if he does not
have certain characteristics. Ramahood is also more “socialised”.
In the Kannaki archetype we find a parallel to
this based on the Kotravai-Myth which again tries to subsume the myths of Muruga
and Mayoon Kannaki’s tragedy is linked with the fury of Mother Goddess and if The
Ramayana and The Mahabharata deal with the descent of God, Cilappadikaram deals
with the ascent of Man or Woman. Kannaki is seen as parallel to Sita – and in a
sense to Panchali too. Even though they are only contrasted with each other,
all the three only represent certain common values and predicaments. All of
them suffer through male tyranny, though in Sita it is more obvious only in Uttara
Ramayanam. Sita is closer to the Egyptian pattern whereas Kannaki is closer
to the Sumerien pattern, and in both the Panchali situation and the Kannaki
situation we see the evolution of a new socio-economic pattern. Whereas
Kovalan’s behaviour can be related to the evils of a commercial culture, even
in the Mahabharatha we find woman becoming a property. However, the
archetypal significance of Kannaki is not so well recognised as that of Sita
and Panchali which could be attributed to the completely human nature of
Kannaki. But as we said earlier, the Kannaki archetype has asserted itself
through the versions of Sita and Panchali as they were conceived by the Tamil
writers, as well as in a number of characters in modern Tamil literature.
The Mahabharata provides certain other important
archetypes
of the Indian psyche – but now seen more realistically. Here again what we find
is a historical situation and the human predicament, but brought out with
reference to larger forces. If in The Ramayana, the fight is between
good and external evil, in this epic, as Swami Chidbavananda has put it, “The
good and the evil forces are of the same origin”; hence life is seen more in
tragic terms, though it goes beyond tragedy also. Pandavas and Kauravas are the
contending forces, the former embodying virtue and the latter vice – that means
that there is an external inte warfare in the ethical substance itself and the
epic seems to present like as Hegelian strife and justification of conflict and
contradiction for the evolution of life. “Seemingly Sri Krishna helps both the
parties – the one for emancipation and the other for entanglement and final
eradication. What conscience does from within, Krishna did from without; for,
conscience and Krishna are one”. 10 Krishna represents an impersonal
force, and the spirit behind history and Arjuna, the arrow of God and the
divine Lila necessitates the complication through the contradictions in human history. The characters are not
models of perfection as Rama was, but they evolve a moral sense and Krishna
helps them in this process as well as their fight with evil. Dharma and his
associates represent certain psychological features – Dharma represents a kind
of frozen virtue and he binds himself and own wife to that code, which seems to
necessitate a genuine war – and whose inadequacy is seen not only by Krishna
the cosmic law but also by his own brothers and Panchali’s voice is that of
spirit of life. Arjuna is the archetype of the hero unable to act because of
attachments and in Kama we see the tragic hero seeking identity and dying a
heroic death because of his very generosity, at the very moment of discovery of
identity. The Kama theme is situational as distinguished by Trousson, and in
the Indian tradition the Ramayana theme is more heroic than situational.
Weisstein refers to Trousson’s listing Antigone and Oedipus as examples of
situational themes because when we hear those names we do not so much think of
their bearers as of the events to which their fates are linked.” Kunti herself
can be compared with Antigone in this respect. The Greek prototypes are more
earth-centred than the Indian counterparts because they are not so dependent on
divine forgiveness. But we cannot deny Kama polyvalence, as he also provides an
image for many modern situations, which are varied.
The basic problem of the Mahabharatha
is one of jealousy and also the dispute over ownership, find this strangely but
linked with woman. It is interesting to see that all the great epics of the
East and the West deal with certain basic loyalties and values in collision and
the principal themes are possession of land and women. God’s intervention is
ultimately necessitated by the suffering woman. And Sita’s endurance, and
Panchali’s suffering have released only the mythical redeemer in the Indian psyche.
If Rama represents God reunited with his feminine counterpart or the soul as
embodied or heroism mellowed by human values, Krishna is both cosmic and human.
Possibly he is closer to humanity than Rama, but he also needs the human assent
or collaboration to fulfill His larger purpose. Here again the wicked
characters have martial strength as well as magical power. Dharma represents
the humanity though fallible but able to live in harmony with certain principles, when the great
force represented by Krishna comes to his help and his brothers represent
variations of this archetype. Duryodhana’s camp represents the other side and
the whole atrocity of his group is based on cunningness and adherence to,
verbal commitment. The motif of exile and alienation is also there. The Kurukshetra war is more tragic because it
portrays human history in conflict in the Hegelian sense and the need for so
much destruction before a new order (or the old order) is established.
To sum up, we saw certain epic characters in Indian
literature
as archetypes, as they embody certain impulses in the collective unconscious of
the Indian mind. They persist in various forms in the various Indian
literatures till today, though they have acquired new significances also and
there are very interesting new versions of characters in both the epics. These
mythical prototypes formulate certain psychic tensions in the Indian culture.
First of all even within India, there have been two traditions – the Southern
and the Northern but all the time there has been an interpenetration and in
Kamban’s The Ramayana we see a clear synthesis. Now the hero is divine
and human simultaneously and this reconciliation of the divine and the human in
the Indian tradition is different from the European pattern. We can also see a
link between the concept of skill action in all the great Indian epics. The
Ramayana, The Mahabharata and Cilappatikaram and the quintessential
impersonal drama of the Sangam poems. The dance of Shiva is the most
comprehensive image of the Indian concept of action as well as art of cosmic
creation and the creative process.
The relationship between myth and literature
in India is more cohesive, because of the Indian concept of reality as Lila,
and there is a closer identification of the readers with the characters though
they are also seen more as divine beings in the Indian tradition. The
characters are also seen not with the same psychological complexity as they are
in the Western tradition, and the notion of self and time is different. All
these led to a different concept of mimesis and also participation in the
artistic experience. The Indian view of art is closer to the Platonic concept
of ideas than to the Aristotlian notion of imitation and form and the
archetypes in Indian literature, are the ideal forms of human destiny.
Just as there is a persistent pattern in the
Western tradition from Oedipus to Hamlet, from Clytomnestra to Nora, from Satan
to Macbeth or Raskoliknov, we have a pattern in the Indian tradition
representing various conflicts but in the Indian tradition there has been
significant variation in continuity in the archetype of Sita. To Anita Desai, a
modern Indo-Anglan novelist, Sita is a neurotic character in revolt against the
male tyranny, but she also finally accepts the domestic bond. We see the
protesting woman in Kalki and Jayakandan also but they also are portrayed as
Sakti; whereas. Kalki’s Sivakami is seen a still centre of the turning wheel of
history, she is also swept away by the same forces dominated by the male values
and finally she finds fulfilment at the feet of God. In Jayakandan too the
tendency for revolt is linked with the acceptance of the existing order; Sita
in Sundarakandam waits for her redeemer and in Natikai Natakam
Parkiral too, through Kalyani asserts her identity, she serves as a symbol
for the psychic equipoise and the soul in conflict with the self. In Bharati
woman is the principle of revolution and evolution and she is linked with the
cosmic power as well as domestic peace. But even in him as well as
Bharathidasan the virgin mother archetype persists. The mother and the virgin
images dominate the portrayal of woman in modern Indian literature, though we
hear more of the unheard voice of the woman in modem Indian literature, the
archetypes are the same though the realisations are different.
NOTES
1 Niranjan Ray, Indian Literature (Centre for Advanced Studies, Simla), 1987. pp 3
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Comparative Indian Literature Problems and Perspectives, Indian
Literature, Centre for Advanced studies, Simla, 1987.
6 Northrop Frye, Archetypes of Literature, Twentieth Century Literary
Criticism Ed. David Lodge, (Longman, London,) 1986.
7 Ibid.
8 Mythili Kaul, Indian Literature, (Centre for Advanced Studies; Simla,) 1987.
9 Northrop Frye, ‘Archetypes of Literature’, Twentieth Century Literary
Criticism, ed. David Lodge, London, Longman Publishers, 1986.
10 Facets of Brahamen or the Hindu gods; Swami Chithavanadh (Sri.
Rnmakrishna Tapovanam, Tiruchirapalli) 1985, p. 89.
11 Ulrich Weisstein, Comparative Literature and Literary Theory; Survey and
Introduction (Bioomington; Indiana University Press, 1973) p. 142.