Rumaniyat

“The greatest event of world history in the twentieth century has been decolonization” is what Namvar Singh asserted in his essay ‘Decolonizing the Indian Mind’. The new literary writings that emerged after decolonization were immediately characterized under various formulations like “Commonwealth Literature”, “New Literature in English”, ‘Third World Literature” and “Post-colonial Literature”. Apparently, the west also needed the “Other” to define itself. Similarly the identity of the “Other” was closely fixed with the “Self” though it vehemently tried to push away and part with it. Still the “Occident” remained the center of the circle and “Orient” orbiting around it, vigorously rejecting, justifying and defending its separate individuality. It seemed like a discourse of the ‘Other’ trying and aspiring to be the ‘Self’. Though the radius of this circle expanded with time but still the circle and the centre remained untouched.

India got its independence in 1947 and since then most of the writings that followed in the twentieth century seemed to be a reflection of the constant tussle between finding ones own identity and justifying our own culture to the west. But the Indian literary market in the twenty first century shows a slightly different picture. The market today is flooded with unprecedented number of books based on Indian mythology. Equipped with distinctive imagination, compelling research and enthralling articulation, Indian writers today are plunging into plethora of Indian mythical stories. Never have we witnessed this large repertoire of myths being explored in such a monumental way. From Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni’s poignant The Palace of Illusions to Devdutt Pattanaik’s mystical Sita: an illustrated retelling of the Ramayana, the Indian literary scenario is submerged in the writings retelling the popular and not so popular Indian myths. These writers’ ‘demystifying’ and ‘demythifying’ of our cultural myths display a very modern India which is shorn of its previous embarrassments over its past. Much like the insight given by Namvar Singh in his essay ‘Decolonizing the Indian Mind’ on the writings of U.R. Ananthamurthy who in the quest of identity returns back to India’s past which for him is “something not to be contemplated but simply to be felt.”

This is what writers like Devdutt Pattanaik are trying to do; to feel our own past without feeling the urge to justify it to the west. In his article, ‘Desperately seeking a Role Model’ he gives a wonderfully unique insight, he says:

“In the 19th century, Indians started being educated in English. And they were exposed for the first time to European literature. This was the literature of the colonial master and was presented as the standard: how literature should be. Naturally, when Indians started retelling the epics of India they modeled their writing along the lines of the Bible and the Greek epics. They wanted to tell the master that India had its own share of Achilles and Hector and Odysseus and Moses.”

But this is quite contrary to what the twenty-first century writers are trying to do. They are digging the mythical past not to appeal to their ex-colonial masters but as modern writers to reinterpret the past and to feel it in its own naturally beautiful way.

The two great Epics of India, Ramayana and Mahabharata, are introduced early in every Indian child’s life. We grow up listening to the tales of these two great epics, making its characters identifiable from a very early age. ‘It has so much to learn from’, my grandmother would say; and truly so it has the great treasures of knowledge closely hidden inside its bosom. It does not reveal itself to everybody but only to those who care to look closely, who abandon their Self or ahem and devote themselves freely and unquestionably to the text. Ramayana is not merely the story of Ram killing Ravana; Mahabharata is not contained within the narrative of Pandavas triumphing over Kauravas; they are much more, waiting to be revealed only to those who desire to listen. The intrinsic complexities of these two epics have provided a fertile land to creative minds that are able to grow fresh narratives from them. My paper will further analyze two such writings, The Palace of Illusions by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni and Sita: an illustrated retelling of the Ramayana by Devdutt Pattanaik.

I

The tale of Ramayana seems simple enough but this simplicity is deceptive because it is a narrative which creates an underlying framework for the explanation of the chief social concepts. The various concepts which it seems to highlight are philosophy and ethics, morality and dharma, rajadharma, fidelity, kinship, property and more. Ramayana was never a single book but comes with many variations and different narratives.

In book Sita Pattanaik brings forth the Goddess before the God. His narrative is simple yet he manages to convey complex spiritual thoughts. In the process he places Sita and Ram on equal footing. Neither is anyone superior because he is a male nor someone submissive because she is a female. Sita is educated, wise, intelligent, and capable enough to surpass basic human instincts and live a life of a hermit. Sita is not a meek submissive wife of Ram but a Goddess, she says:

“Ram is dependable, hence God. I am independent, hence Goddess. He needs to do his duty, follow rules, and safeguard reputation. I am under no such obligation. I am free to do as I please.”

Pattanaik portrays Sita not as a suffering victim but a wise strong woman who knows what she is doing. With or without Ram she is complete in herself and this is something that even her husband knew and respected. In the incident when finally after war she is united with Ram, a thousand headed Ravana’s twin appeared. But before Ram could reach for his bow, Sita suddenly transformed. Her eyes widened, skin turned red, many arms sprouted with which she killed the demon who dared to interrupt her union with her husband. She crushed him and drank his blood. When satisfied she returned back to the demure Sita to sit beside her husband, with a gentle smile back on her lips. She is “Gauri who was also Kali. She had allowed herself to be abducted. She had allowed herself to be rescued. She was the independent Goddess who had made Ram the dependable God.”

But there are many incidents in Ramayana which make feminists cry foul play; incidents in which Sita as a woman is shown weak, as a property in the hands of Ram, to be protected, saved and discarded on his wishes. The major incidents that fueled this argument were the story of ‘Lakshman-rekha’, and the ‘Agni-pariksha’. Since there is no fixed narration of Ramayana as we have many different narratives ranging from Valmiki’s Ramayana to the famous ‘Adhyaatma Ramayana’ of the 14^th century, to ‘Adbhuta Ramayana’ which has Sita as the daughter of Mandodari, to ‘Ananda Ramayana’, to ‘Hanuman Samhita’, to ‘Agastya Ramayana’, to ‘Svayambhu Ramayana’ and many more. So in my paper I am strictly confining myself to the narrative given by Devdutt Pattanaik’s Sita. The book begins with the story of Vibhandaka, a rishi, who drew a line around his hermitage to protect his son from everything feminine. While the story of Lakshman-rekha fired popular imagination and made people count it as an example to prove male dominancy and female dependency, the story of ‘Vibhandaka-rekha’ did not even make it to any popular retellings of Ramayana.  Moreover the former ‘rekha’ was necessary for maintaining the social order but the latter threatened the very order of nature and culture.

Further to analyze the argument that Sita gave the ‘Agni-pariksha’ to prove her chastity of mind and body, which highlights the fact that being a woman, though she might be regarded as a Goddess, she is forced to prove herself blemish free. Again this argument takes only the part, very much to its own convenience, which proves that only a woman is subjected to give a proof of her chastity. Again the story of Lakshman also giving the ‘Agni-pariksha’ to prove his chastity is ignored. Once Indra sent an apsaras, Indrakamini, to seduce Lakshman but he shooed her away, but she decided to play a trick and dropped some strands of her hair on Lakshman’s clothes. In the evening when Sita saw the hair she remarked “This is a woman’s hair, a refined woman’s hair, for it smells of fragment oils. […] Clearly the absence of Urmila is unbearable.”  Lakshman got so angry at the suggestion of being an unfaithful husband that he jumped into the fire to prove his chastity. He said “Look, the fire does not hurt me. Do you need any other proof that I have been true to my wife?” Contrary to the popular notions of patriarchy that grants freedom to men but for a man following a hermit or celibate life, to submit to his desires for an apsaras is seen as a failure. But yes unlike the unchaste woman who threatens social code, he does not as he is not the member of a society.

Moreover it is surprising to believe that a person who so deeply loves his Sita could be so indifferent to her pain. But Dr. Binod Sarma rightly points out that Ram’s life was intrinsically bounded with the life of Sita and “her pain pleasure and reputation was his.” Therefore he was awfully hurt when people passed snide comments on the chastity of his wife, the queen. Furthermore it’s the society that needs to be blamed for Sita’s abandonment and not Ram because the imagined powerlessness of the people snatched the very power from their king’s hands through their pointless gossip. What needs to be made clear is that Ram was forced to act in that way because as a king his kingdom was above him and his relations. He tells Lakshman: “’Ayodhya matters more than Ram. All my actions are for Ayodhya, not for my wife, not for my sons, not for my brother, not for my father, not for my mother, only for my people.’” He could have refused to go to the forest but he did not; not because he had to keep his father’s promise but because a king has to be above all blots.

Devdutt Pattanaik’s Sita: the illustrated retelling of the Ramayana also gives a very precious insight on gender equations. Sulabha in one of her conversation with Janaka says: “You are a manava with male flesh and I am a manava with female flesh. We both see the world differently, not because we have different bodies, but because we have different minds.”

In this Ramayana we have female sages like Gargi who questioned everything. “Why does the world exist? What binds the sky to the earth?” She asked questions because she was hungry for answers. Though Sita’s mother, Sunaina, only knew the world that was the kitchen and her father only that of a court but “she knew both”. Sita and her sisters went to the forest with Kushadhvaja to witness Vishwamitra perform yagna, the same yagna which had Ram and Lakshman already present who later went on to kill Tadaka. This shows that though Janaka did not have sons but he took immense care that his daughters were well educated and expand their minds through knowledge and wisdom; it is reported that “daughters of Janaka were well versed in the Upanishads” and “It did not escape Vishwamitra’s notice that Janaka’s daughters asked questions like Gargi of the Upanishad; Dashratha’s sons preferred obeying commands.”

Sita was a strong woman who at a young age displayed her confidence and decisiveness. She took her own decisions without being influenced by anyone. When Ram was ordained to live a life of a hermit for fourteen years in the forest, she could have stayed back and enjoyed the luxuries of the palace. Her will to accompany her husband was so strong that everybody was stunned to see such determination and argumentation at such an early age. Sumitra tried to argue with her what fourteen years in a forest could mean because nature does not make any distinction between a princess and an insect. The nature in its entire luster treats everyone equally; that life in a forest could be harder than she could imagine. But Sita would not budge; she was not afraid; after all she was the daughter of the earth. Moreover she comforts Sumitra by saying “Mother, do not worry for your sons. In summer, I shall find shady trees under which they can rest. In winter, I shall light fires to keep them warm. During the rains, I shall find caves where we can stay dry. They are safe with me.” She is like mother earth, the nurturer, supporter and caretaker, she does not need anything in return, she rejoices in giving. The statement above also reflects her confidence in herself much like what a warrior has before stepping on the battlefield. She is not merely a shadow accompanying Dashratha’s sons but a person whose wisdom helps them to take right decisions and make their journey less harsh. “As the harshness of the exile kept unfolding before Sita, she was confident that she would find the strength to bear and ease the suffering of her husband and his brother.”

Pattanaik’s Sita: the illustrated retelling of Ramayana brings out the distinctive essence of every female bond. It explores the bond between the three queens of Dashratha devoid of competition to gain favors of the king, or Sita and Urmila’s bond and their tearful separation, or the unique bond of Sita and the women of Lanka. Sita and Mandodari’s silent yet powerful relationship is brought forth. By stopping Ravana from bringing in Sita against her will, “Only Sita understood what Mandodari had done; she had protected her own station in the palace while ensuring another woman’s freedom.” Lanka women were posted to look over Sita; while initially some spoke rudely but in no time she was able to win all hearts by her wise and modest being. Mandodari says to Ravana: “You set out to conquer her heart. And she has ended up conquering all our hearts.” 

But all female bonds were not full of love and understanding; few were made to last till the fire of vengeance was not satisfied by what it was meant to destroy. Such relationship was of Sita and Surpanakha. For her Sita was the reason why the patni-vrata Ram rejected her, made her feel ugly and cast off. Moreover was not her brother-in-law responsible for cutting her nose? She was adamant for revenge; adamant to make Sita feel that rejection and abandonment. Much later after Ravana’s death she tricks Sita to draw Ravana’s shadow on the palace floor. The picture was so real that she could not contain her tears which flowed freely and when they dropped on the picture they made it permanent. This was the start of the gossip which later forced Ram to abandon her Sita. So while many critics see Sita’s fate as a result of patriarchy, few also see it as the consequence of “women’s jealousy”. After abandonment Sita meets Surpanakha in the forest gloating over her success saying “They rejected you as they rejected me. Now you suffer as I do, stripped of status as I was stripped of beauty.” She expected to derive pleasure from Sita’s pain but Sita was not in pain. Sita offered her a berry and said “Surpanakha, how long will you expect those around you to love you as you love them? Find the Shakti within yourself to love the other even when the other does not love you. Outgrow your hunger by unconditionally feeding the other. […] You trap yourself in your own victimhood. Who loses, but you?” Finally Surpanakha lets go of her anger and enjoys the berry. “’Now I will race you to the river’, shouted Sita as she ran for the stream. Surpanakha giggled as she jumped into the waters. Once again she felt beautiful.”

Unlike Iravati Karve who writes-off Sita as being only the “shadow of her husband”, she is much more than that. She is one powerful character in her own way; she is more than what meets the eye. Sita was capable enough to take care of her own sons independently. They were Sita’s sons. She never complained or asked the king for alumni to take care of Luv and Kush. She was a single mother and she performed her role effectively, displaying immense strength of character.

II

The Palace of Illusions by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni is a novel which tells the story of Mahabharata through the eyes of Draupadi. Divakaruni attempts to give a very feminist reading to Mahabharata, trying to keep the intriguing and powerful character of Draupadi intact. The author makes a very few changes to the overall narration. But sometimes the book seems to over emphasize the dramatic personas. The feminist thought seems to sometime over ride the character in the narration. The book is interesting yet it does not seem to completely justify Draupadi’s persona. But overall some of the insights into Draupadi’s situation are compelling and fascinating.

Divakaruni’s Draupadi was full of questions from the beginning of the novel; she knows that she was carved out to stand out in history but how she was yet to discover. Unlike the claim of Iravati Karve who believed that Draupadi was a beloved daughter in the house of Drupad, Divakaruni gives a contrary picture. Like a king, Drupad is obsessed with his vengeance from Drona. And this is the sole reason for him to perform the yajna, to get a son who would kill Drona and take revenge. While reflecting on the day she and her brother walked out of yajna fire Draupadi remembers Drupad as “A gaunt, glittering man walked towards my brother and me as we stood hand in hand. He held out his arms-but for my brother alone. It was only my brother he meant to show to his people. Only my brother that he wanted.”

Draupadi was endowed with insecurities like any other teenage girl would have been. The insecurities about how she looks. She is beautiful yet nervous, charming yet doubtful. The obsession of society with white complexion even in the world of Mahabharata is amusingly provocative. Draupadi being dark in her complexion is made to spend hours and hours under skin whitening ingredients with no results. She would have despaired but Krishna taught her to believe in herself. She could easily connect as Krishna too was dark skinned. 

Much like in Homer’s Iliad where the inevitability of fate is often lamented because no matter how much a person strives against it, it cannot be changed; a similar lament is heard from Draupadi throughout the novel for her brother Dhristadyumna and other family relations. What makes the narrative poignant is the fact that few of these characters no longer remain sketchy but whole new emotions are attached with them, so later when they face their tragic fate it becomes more pathetic. Hence Divakaruni succeeds in keeping the humanness of Mahabharata alive.

Attempts are made by Divakaruni to make situations like when Kunti unwittingly asks the brothers to divide equally what they have got amongst themselves or the cheerharan episode to be dramatic. She wishes her Draupadi to deliver strong speeches but they fail to do complete justice as she does not bring in new perspective but plays safe by echoing the original version. The over dramatization of the situations to make them appear unfortunate and miserable makes the scenes tend to lose their innate catastrophe.

Additionally Divakaruni’s seems to be only intent on making Draupadi stand alone as a noble and capable woman. She forgets to give a fair treatment to other female characters. Kunti is shown as the stereotypical mother-in-law who is afraid to lose her son Arjun to Draupadi hence deliberately makes her marry all five. From the moment she steps in the house as the wife of Arjun, Kunti is shown to be skeptical of her every move and determined to fail her in every test. There seems to be constant silent war between them, one always trying to prove that she is capable enough and the other always writing her off as vain and unworthy. Draupadi blames Kunti for Arjun’s anger towards her. She says: “I blamed Kunti for this development. She knew her son’s psy­chology: if he couldn’t have me all to himself, he didn’t want me at all. He would go through the motions of marriage, but he would keep his heart from me. And wasn’t that exactly what she intended?”(Pg. 122) Kunti like Draupadi is a strong character in Mahabharata and hence confining the character of Kunti to merely a harsh mother-in-law seems inappropriate.

Moreover unlike Devdutt Pattanaik’s Sita where female bonding can be seen in various episodes, Divakaruni’s The Palace of Illusions is devoid of any. To start with Draupadi has no female bonding at her father’s place. She only converses with Dai Ma her care taker. Drupad’s queens do not like her though she was never a competition to anybody in any way, but the reason for deep dislike was never revealed; she did not have any friends. This insecurity on other females’ part seems unnecessary and a deliberate build up to make Draupadi appear more heroic and enviable than she already was.

Marwood Larson-Harris in the review fairly points out that

“Divakaruni seems more intent on retelling the plot in all its detail (well, perhaps not all), and less on letting her main character develop beyond the predictable. Instead of imagining Draupadi’s limited subjective experience of the Kuruksetra apocalypse, Divakaruni has Vyasa provide her with perfect awareness (a paradoxical, omniscient first-person narrator) -the same gift he offers Dhrtarastra in the original.”

She justly mentions that Draupadi seems to be a mere mouth-piece for the story of Mahabharata and not for herself. She even goes on to say that compared to other retellings of Draupadi, Divakaruni’s Draupadi “is simply ordinary”.

Both novels Sita: an illustrated retelling Ramayana and The Palace of Illusions give different perspectives on our great Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata respectively. But what remains the same is the confidence of two modern Indian writers who are willing to explore the epic worlds with their own perspectives. And the most assuring part of it all is that their audience is not the west but Indians. It gives a glimpse into the future where the writers would not be conscious of the pressure of depicting and substantiating India to the west but writings which are spontaneous, beautiful and devoid of such crushing burden. This is the initial step towards decolonizing, well at least the Indian writings.

Bibliography

Divakaruni, Chitra Banerjee. The Palace of Illusions. United States: The Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, 2008.

Larson-Harris, Marwood. Review. Roanoke College, Virginia: Springer, 2008

Nabar, Vrinda. Whose “Mahabharata”? A Point of View. Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, Jstor, 2005.

Pattanaik, Devdutt. Sita: an illustrated retelling of the Ramayana. New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2013.

Pattanaik, Devdutt. Desperately Seeking a Role Model. Delhi: The Times of India, 2013.

Rao, T. Gopala Krishna. Folk Ramayanas in Telugu and Kannada. Andhra Pradesh: Saroja Publications,1984.

Sarma, Binod. Ethico-Literary Values of the Two Great Epics of India: An ethical evaluation of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. New Delhi: Oriental Publishers & Distributors, 1978.

Singh, Namvar. Decolonising the Indian Mind. Delhi: Worldview Publications, 2011.