YAYATI: A TALE OF DOMINEERING
PATRIARCHY
Dr. Ram Sharma , Associate Prof and head , dept. of English , J.V. College , Baraut , Baghpat , U.P.
Dr. Archana, BBDU , Lucknow
Sukracharya
was the preceptor of Asuras (demons). The Asura king Vrishaparva greatly
respected Sukracharya as he knew the secret of Mritasanjibani, a drug that
brings the dead back to life. Devayani was Sukracharya's only daughter and
spoiled by her father’s indulgence.
One
morning, Sharmishtha, the Asura princess, daughter of Vrishaparva, came to
Sukracharya's hermitage with her friends. She asked Sukracharya to allow
Devayani to accompany them for a bath in a nearby lake. Sukracharya agreed.
They soon reached the lake and left their clothes on the bank to go into the
water. Suddenly a storm blew up and scattered their clothes. The girls hurriedly
came out of the lake and got dressed. It so happened that the princess
Sharmishtha, by mistake, clad herself in Devayani’s clothes. Angered by this,
Devayani insulted Sharmishtha, the Asura princess. Argument began and
Sharmishtha pushed Devayani into a dry well and left Devayani in the well.
It
so happened that Yayati, the king of a nearby state, came hunting in the forest
and was looking for water to drink. When he came near the well he was surprised
to find Devayani lying at the bottom. Devayani introduced herself and said that
she fell into the well. She then requested the king to pull her out. Yayati
helped her out. Devayani demanded that Yayati marry her as he has held her by
the right hand. Yayati was alarmed and turned down her request on the ground
that he belonged to lower Khatriya (or warrior) caste, and Devayani was a
Brahmin (priestly) maid. Yayati then left and Devayani continued to sit under a
tree.
When
she did not return, Sukracharya set out in search of her. He found Devayani
under a tree, her eyes filled with tears of anger and grief. When Sukracharya
inquired, Devayani told her father every thing, carefully hiding her own
faults. She refused to return to the kingdom
of Vrishaparva
Vrishaparva
wasted no time and went to Devayani taking his daughter Sharmishtha along. He
begged forgiveness for his daughter. Devayani agreed to return on one condition
that Sharmishtha be her handmaiden for the rest of her life. Sharmishtha agreed
for the sake of her father, the king. Devayani was pacified and returned to her
father's hermitage. But Devayani was vindictive and humiliated Sharmishtha by
asking to massage her legs and run errands.
One
day, king Yayati passed that way. Devayani introduced Sharmishtha as her maid
and reminded Yayati that he should marry her. Yayati repeated that he could not
marry a Brahmin maid. Devayani then took Yayati to her father. Sukrachaya gave
his blessing on their marriage. They were soon married and led a happy life.
Devayani had two sons.
Sharmishtha
continued to stay as Devayani's handmaid. Yayati made a palace for Shramishtha
at the request of Devayani. One day Sharmishtha secretly met Yayati and told
him what happened between her and Devayani. Yayati was sympathetic. Sharmishtha
begged Yayati to take her as the second wife. Yayati agreed and married her but
without the knowledge of Devayani. Sharmishtha had three sons.
One
day, Devayani met the three sons of Sharmishtha. She asked the boys the name of
their father. They pointed to Yayati. Devayani was shocked. She felt deceived
and ran to her father’s hermitage. Sukracharya was enraged and cursed Yayati
with premature old age. Yayati begged for forgiveness. Sukracharya and Devayani
felt sorry for him. Sukracharya then said, “I cannot take back my curse, but if
any of your sons is ready to exchange his youth for your old age, you will be young
again as long as you wish.”
Yayati,
now an old man, quickly returned to his kingdom and called for his eldest son.
“My dutiful son, take my old age and give me your youth, at least for a while,
until I am ready to embrace my old age.” The eldest son turned down his father’s
request and so also the next three older brothers. Then came the youngest son Pooru.
He agreed and immediately turned old; Pooru considered it his duty towards his father, adhering firmly to the
dictum of pitru devo bhava (father is god). Yayati rushed
out as a young man to enjoy his life. After years spent in vain effort to
quench his desires by indulgence, Yayati finally came into senses. He returned
to Pooru and said, “Dear son, sensual desire is never quenched by indulgence
any more than fire is extinguished by pouring oil on it. Take back your youth
and rule the kingdom wisely and well.”
Yayati
then returned to the forest and spent the rest of his days in austerities,
meditating upon Brahman, the ultimate reality. In due course, he attained
heaven.
Mental
Strength is very critical for success. A strong mind has to maintain a level of
calmness should be positive, should have the ability to regain poise if the
equilibrium is disturbed or have the ability to maintain equanimity in the
midst of all the external vagaries of work and social existence. Internal
constancy and peace are the pre-requisites for a healthy stress-free mind.
Enhanced
competition, speed and a phenomenal rate of change define today’s business. This
is the yayati syndrome. Mahabharata
has a story about a king by the name of Yayati who, in order to revel in the
endless enjoyment of flesh exchanged his old age with the youth of his obliging
youngest son for thousand years. However, he found the pursuit of sensual
enjoyments ultimately unsatisfying and came back to his son pleading him to
take back his youth. This “yayati syndrome” shows the conflict between
externally directed acquisitions (extrinsic motivation) and inner value and
conscience (intrinsic motivation.).
And there in
lies the answer to the question of whether one should adopt a strategy of ‘Win
at all costs’ or one must strengthen his mind and uphold the ethics
There
are things in this world that we would rather not talk about, but they demand
expression. In such cases myth become a safety valve of culture, expressing
unacceptable ideas in an acceptable manner. Stories allow the imagination to
flirt with what is forbidden in reality. Take the story of Kunti for example in
the Mahabharata.
The
princess Kunti served the sage Durvasa well when he visited her father’s house.
Durvasa was pleased and gave her a magic formula with which she could be call
upon any deva and have a child by him. To test the formula Kunti called upon
Surya, the sun god, and had a son by him. As she was unmarried and did not want
to soil her reputation, she put the child in a basket and left it to the
river’s whim. Kunti married Pandu, king of Hastinapur. Unfortunately, he was
afflicted with a curse that prevented him from making love to his wife. So
Kunti called upon Dharma, the god of righteousness, Vayu, the god of wind, and
Indra, the rain god and king of the devas, and bore three sons who were
addressed by all as Pandavas, the sons of Pandu.
The
story may be seen as a metaphorical retelling of premarital and extramarital
childbearing—the former as a result of youthful indiscretion with a houseguest,
the latter to resolve the issue of succession because of a husband’s impotence.
By making Kunti’s lovers devas the narrator projects an unacceptable reality
onto the realm of the gods. The audience comprehends the subtext and the social
taboos against premarital and extramarital sex.
Freud
saw myth and ritual as an unconscious expression of repressed dreams of a
community that explained universal taboos against incest and patricide. He was
deeply influenced by the story of Oedipus.
Oedipus was
abandoned at birth by his father because he was destined to kill him. Oedipus
grew up without any knowledge of who his father was or who his mother was.
Years later he met his father on a bridge. Both were proud warriors. Each one
refused to let the other pass. A fight followed. As foretold, Oedipus killed
his father. He then reached the land, which he did not know, was his father’s
kingdom. There he saved the city from a monster called the Sphinx. In
gratitude, the people of his father’s kingdom welcomed him and requested him to
marry their queen who was now a widow. Oedipus accepted not knowing he was
marrying his father’s wife, his mother. When this was revealed, years later,
after his mother had borne him children, he blinded himself. Because, though he
had eyes, he had not seen.
Freud
saw in this tale the universal unspoken need of the son to compete with and
triumph over the father for maternal affection. To him this Oedipus complex
formed the foundation of (Judaic) monotheism—a guilty response to the killing
of the founding patriarch (Moses) and enjoying what was rightfully his (the
Promised Land). To Freud religion was nothing but neurosis, and the answer to
myth lay in the unconscious.
While Greek
mythology is full of stories in which a son is responsible for the death of his
father or a father figure (Chronos castrates Uranus; Zeus kills Chronus;
Perseus kills his grandfather, Acrisius; Aegeus killed himself, believing his
son Theseus to be dead; Jason’s wife, Medea, kills his stepfather Pelias), such
narratives are not found in Hindu scriptures. This indicates that the Oedipus
complex suggested in myth is a cultural, not a universal, phenomenon.
Tales
in Hindu scriptures suggest a reverse-Oedipal, or Yayati, complex. In this case
the father destroys the son in order to have his way. The story goes that when
Devayani learned that her husband, Yayati, had secretly married her maid,
Sarmishtha, and that the maid had borne him two sons, Devayani ran to her
father the asura-priest, Shukra, who cursed Yayati to become old and impotent.
When he realized the implications of the curse, Shukra modified it, stating
that Yayati would regain his youth and potency if one of his sons willingly
bore the burden of the curse. The youngest son, Pooru, agreed to become old and
impotent so that his father could enjoy life. Pooru regained his youth and
earned the gratitude of his father years later when, after indulging his senses
in every way, Yayati realized the ephemeral nature of material things and
decided it was time to let go and grow old.
A
descendent of Pooru, Devarata also has to waylay his aspirations for the
pleasure of his father. Shantanu wanted to marry the fisherwoman Satyavati, but
she refused to accept the proposal until he promised that her sons, not
Devavrata, Shantanu’s son by his first wife, Ganga ,
would inherit his throne. To make his father happy Devavrata gave up his claim
to the throne. But this did not satisfy Satyavati. “I want a guarantee that
your descendents will not fight the descendents of my sons for the throne,” she
told Devavrata. He gave her the guarantee the only way possible: He took a vow
of celibacy. This vow earned him the wrath of his ancestors, for he would not
facilitate their rebirth. It also doomed him to an eternity in the land of the
dead, as without descendents there would be no one in the world to facilitate
his own rebirth. By condemning himself to such misery for the sake of his
father’s happiness, Devavrata earned the admiration of the gods, who renamed
him Bhisma, “he who took a terrible vow.”
In
the Greek narratives sons triumph over fathers, humans triumphs over gods, the
individual triumphs over society. The one who goes against authority and
tradition is celebrated. The rebel, whether it is Prometheus (who opposes
Zeus), Heracles (who stands up to Hera), or Ulysses (who challenges Poseidon)
is deified.
In
Hindu narratives the hero is one who submits to the will of the father,
society, and tradition. Obedience is the highest virtue. He is the good son, he
who obeys, surrenders, submits; because the father knows best. Father must win
in the Indian tradition. Father himself is tradition. Father is the great
keeper of cultural values and his indiscretions must be forgiven.
When
everyone talks about the great sacrifice of Bhisma, nobody questions the
father; an old man who was so obsessed with a fisherwoman that he was willing
to sacrifice the conjugal life of his son. In Jain traditions, Bhisma is said
to have castrated himself so that no one doubts his integrity. Imagine, a
father allowing his son to castrate himself so that he can get a wife.
In
the Ramayana, Rama is Maryaada Poorushottama, the perfect
upholder of social values, because he always does what is expected of him. In
deference to the wishes of his father, he gives up the throne and goes into
forest in exile. In deference to the wishes of his people, he abandons his
dutiful and faithful wife, Sita. His obedience, his submission to the past, to
the family, to the people, is what makes him worthy of worship.
This
difference in Greek Oedipus Complex and Indian Yayati Complex has been seen by
many to explain the cultural and intellectual differences between India
Not
everyone appreciates Freud’s rereading of myths in terms of sexual anxiety.
Some people do not agree with the view that all ritual and religion emerges
from the desire to recall, remember, and repeat primal crimes that apparently
marked the dawn of civilization in order to come to terms with them. Indeed
Freud’s mythography has been deemed reductive and phallocentric, focusing on
penis envy with an almost misogynist zeal.
Karnad engages himself in what Genette calls ‘transgeneric
practice’ i.e. adapting mythic narratives, folk narratives and historical
chronicles into drama. He takes plots from these sources and delivers them in
new dramatic forms. In that sense all his plays are transpositions in which the
original narratives are adapted with the ‘aesthetic conventions of an entirely
different generic process’ (Sanders, 20). Moulded into a new form these texts
offer a new perspective of life which is relevant in the present context. Karnad
derives plots from these sources because he feels that they are relevant and
enable him to reflect on the contemporary social and political life in a more
subtle and systematic way. There are many taboos and forbidden things in the
world which can not be discussed overtly. Otherwise you would invite irk of the
society unnecessarily. Sources such as myth, folk or historical events/lives of
historical figures offer him with a safety valve which enables the expression
of the unacceptable or forbidden ideas in an acceptable manner. To put it
simply, one can camouflage one’s comment on the present social and political
conditions with these adaptations.
Keniston
writes that “heroes” of all kinds and all ages have been alienated and their
stories are the tales of alienation and of struggles to end it. Girish Karnad’s Yayati is an Indian mythological king who
represents the modern alienated man. Karnad has borrowed the myth from great
Indian epic Mahabharta and
other Puranas.
The
play opens when Yayati is married to Devayani, the daughter of demons’ guru
Shukracharya. Sharmistha, the daughter of the Demon King Vrishparva, is shown
as her slave. Yayati was carried away with a wave of emotion to find the
miserable plight of Sharmistha, a princess, in fact, and secretly married her
in spite of the warning by his Father-in-Law that he should never let
Sharmishtha share his bed. When Shukracharya came to know this, he uttered his
curse on Yayati to become an old man. Shukracharya also said the only
concession he could give was that if Yayati wanted he could give his old age to
someone and take their youth from him.
Karnad takes a deep insight into Yayati’s
character and shows Yayati’s passion for the enjoyment of life, which
ultimately turns into detachment and aloofness. Yayati is a true ambassador of
modern common man, who in spite of having much pleasures of life, still feels
impatient and dissatisfied. Yayati takes the youth of Pooru, his youngest son,
but soon realizes the impropriety of his shallow action and feels like an
alienated common man. Yayati feels cataclysmic disillusionment and loss of
faith in life. His torment and burden for Pooru’s youth is revealed in the
following words. “Please help me, Pooru. Take back your youth. Let me turn my
decrepitude into a beginning.” (Yayati, 69)
Yayati pursued pleasure with a renewed zest. The
original Mahabharata tells us that the more he indulged, the thirstier he grew.
In his words, (crudely translated) told to Pooru, Dear
son, sensual desire is never quenched by indulgence any more than fire is by
pouring ghee in it. I had so far heard, and read about this. Now, I’ve realized
it: no object of desire–corn, gold, cattle, women–nothing can ever satisfy the
desire of man. We can reach peace only by a mental poise that goes beyond likes
and dislikes. This is the state of Brahman. Take back your youth and rule the
kingdom wisely and well. Yayati then retired to
the forest to perform penance. In due course, he attained the perfect state of
Brahman. Thus, Yayati’s disillusionment is complete only with saturation. He
has had his fill but remains unfulfilled. Karnad has borrowed the myth of Yayati
from the “Adiparva” of the Mahabharata. Yayati re-tells the
age-old story of the king who in his longing for eternal youth does not hesitate
to usurp the youth and vitality of his son. Karnad takes liberty with the myth
and weaves complex dimensions into the plot borrowed from the Mahabharata.
To the mythical story of Yayati he adds new characters and alters the
story-line so as to deepen its connotative richness which gives it contemporary
appeal.
In Karnad’s Yayati, king Yayati is married
to Devyani, an “Aryan” princess and during the course of the play, develops an
illicit relationship with Sharmishtha, an “Anarya”, and openly expresses his
desire to marry her. Pooru, here figures as the son of another of the king’s
spouse, who again like Sharmishtha, comes from the “Anarya” or the “rakshasa”
clan. The two novel characters introduced by Karnad in the plot are, Pooru’s
wife Chitralekha and the maid confidant, Swarnalata. Karnad invests new meaning
and significance for contemporary life and reality by exploring the king’s
motivations. In the Mahabharata, Yayati understands the nature of desire
itself and realizes that fulfillment neither diminishes nor eliminates desire.
In the drama, Karnad makes Yayati confront the horrifying consequences of not
being able to relinquish desire.
In
Yayati, the issue of gender is highlighted especially in the way Yayati
treats women in the play. C.N. Ramachandran feels that in Karnad’s plays choice
and consequences of choice were dissociated and the one who suffered the most
due to the choices of others was always a woman. In most plays of Karnad, “the
worst sufferers are women . . . who are caught up in a whirlpool of Hindu
patriarchy, and are sucked down helplessly.” (Ramachandran, 28)
Karnad,
in order to present the situation of a newly-wed female (had she been in the
original mythical story) adds the character of Chitralekha which throws more
light on the gender-bias of society.
The desires of
a woman are always curbed in a patriarchal order; here it makes little
difference whether she belongs to a high class/ caste or a low class/ caste.
Chitralekha in Yayati is an Aryan princess, belongs to a higher social
order but suffer at the hands of the unjust patriarchal order. The character of
Chitralekha as has already been said is Karnad’s creation. “Through her Karnad
explores the futility of being born a princess who finds reality too much to
bear and kills herself”. (Raju, 84)
Chitralekha
suffers first at the hands of her husband, Pooru, who does not think of his
wife even once before acceding to the supreme sacrifice of giving up his youth
and vitality to serve his father’s idiosyncrasies which serves no purpose but
to fill up the void in his own life. Chitralekha finds it hard to live up to
the expectations of a royal Aryan woman or to put it in general terms, of an
Indian wife who accepts all the decisions of her husband with a smile and never
dares to question his authority. When the maid confidant Swarnlata informs
Chitralekha that Pooru has accepted his father’s curse of old age, the latter
has the courage to say, “Cry? Why should I cry? I should laugh. I should cheer
... except that I have been unfair to him. So cruelly unjust. I thought he was
an ordinary man. What a fool I have been! How utterly blind! I am the chosen
one and I ... Which no other woman has been so blessed? Why should I shed
tears? (Yayati, 55-56)
But
as soon as Pooru confronts her and she sees her husband transformed from a
youth full of vigor into a shriveled old man, all her idealism withers away and
she cries out in terror and panic—“Don’t come near me…go away from here…Don’t
touch me!” (Yayati, 58)
Yayati
comes to picture and consoles Chitralekha and asks her to behave in a fashion
befitting a royal princess. Here a dialogue between Chitralekha and Yayati is
compellingly engaging:
Yayati:
... My heart goes out to you. But you are an educated woman, versed in the
arts, trained in warfare. You could have displayed more self-control....
....
Chitralekha:
I will not let my husband step back into y bedroom unless he returns a young
man.
....
Yayati:
Do you remember the vow you took ... in presence of the holy fire? That you
would walk in the path marked by his footprints: whether home or into the
wilderness...
Chitralekha:
Or into the funeral pyre?
....
Yayati:
I swear to you it never occurred to me that he would accept the curse.... Pooru
took it on of his will....Enemies on the border, rebellious forest tribes, the
prospect of a famine, the danger of rakshasa depredation. I tried discussing
these problems with him. But he is not interested. That is where I need your
help.
....
Yayati:
... Give him a little more time. Give me a little time....I shall present you
and Pooru with a future that shall be secure and yours to keep. Please think.
Chitralekha:
Think... how old I shall be by the time that future is attained?
Yayati:
only a few years. Say a decade. Or even just four or five.
Chitralekha:
... This morning I was the mistress of all that I have yearned for. But within
half a day–no, within half an hour actually – half a century has driven across
my bed and crushed my dreams on my pillows. And you would like me to wait. (Yayati, 61-65)
Here
the schism between the behaviors expected of a man and a woman in a traditional
Indian society surfaces up. While Yayati flouts the rules of morality with
ease, develops an illicit relationship with Sharmishtha and even has the cheek
to tell his wife in her face that he would marry another woman, the newly
married Chitralekha is expected to exhibit devotion and morality and remain a
dutiful wife. She asks Yatati to take her as his wife as along with her
husband’s youth she should come as a package as that was what she had married
Pooru for, a seed of a Bharta King. To which Yayati declined. Chitralekha,
unwilling to submit to the patriarchal order and with no hope of emancipation
from the mesh, commits suicide. She feels her life is a waste and there is no point
in going on with it. Her anguish is expressed in the following speech,
“Foolish? What else is there for me to do? You have your youth. Prince Pooru
has his old age. Where do I fit in?” (Yayati,
66)
She expresses
the plight of women in Indian society who find themselves completely out of
place in a world ruled by men. Finally Chitralekha commits suicide; rather the
society forces her to commit suicide.
The death of Chitralekha
makes Sharmishtha comment at the exploitative patriarchal set-up, which crushes
and oppresses women and offers them not even an infinitesimal hope of
emancipation. Sharmishtha accuses Yayati of
Chitralekha’s death—“So here is the foundation of your glorious future, Your
Majesty. A dead woman, another gone mad, and a third in danger of her life.
Goodbye, sir.” (Yayati, 68)
A
very significant portion of the play is devoted to the study of the decisions
of the patriarchal set-up that expects women to surrender to the will of the
male decision makers without protest. This fact is further illustrated through
another relationship enunciated in the play: the Swarnlata episode. Swarnalata
was jilted by her husband who thought that she had a relationship with a
Brahmin boy before their marriage. Swarnalata tried her best to prove her innocence
to her husband but failed. His husband became miserable and Swarnalata who
loved her husband very much, could not bear his condition. She decided to give
him peace of mind by lying that indeed the Brahmin boy had violated her. This
freed her husband of the dilemma and he went away never to return. The
narrative reiterates the concept of chastity and virginity which holds a place
of prominence in the Indian society. A woman whose virginity has been violated
is looked down upon, but the men are never called to question. Sita in The
Ramayana too had to take an ordeal to prove her innocence. Swarnalata’s
narrative once again scrutinizes the patriarchal norms of the society that
expects a woman to prove her innocence. She is never taken on her own worth.
In
Yayati, it is very evident that social standing (caste/ class/ race)
hardly seems to affect the condition of the woman. Chitralekha is an Aryan
princess, born into a royal family and coming from a privileged clan, the
Aryans. Despite her caste and class superiority, she has to undergo oppression
and suppression at the hands of men. She finally commits suicide for she sees
no other escape from the unjust patriarchal order, where she has to unduly
repress her feelings and desires in the name of pativrata (dutiful and
dedicated wife).
In
the same play, there is another character Swarnalata, the maid confidant, who
comes from a low class and who too like Chitralekha does not receive the love
of her family and husband, because the latter believes her to be unchaste. A
woman in Indian society in considered good only if she is chaste. Though
Swarnalata is chaste, she cannot make her husband believe her and finally in
order to free her husband from the dilemma, she falsely acquiesces to the lie.
Devyani
and Sharmishtha, both come from royal family, but the former is an “Aryan”
princess while the latter “Asura” or an “Anarya” princess. Sharmishtha is made
to serve Devyani, but Devyani’s condition is no better; her husband seems more
interested in Sharmishtha than her and finally she leaves her family out of a
feeling of insult. Thus she too, like Shramishtha becomes deprived of the
security of family and love.
Thus,
the woman in the Indian society, whether of high or low social standing is
always looked down upon by virtue of being a woman and ill-treated by the
domineering patriarchy. Whether a Queen or a maid; women are always relegated
to the background forming a marginalized group in the patriarchal order.
Chitralekha
in Yayati, rebels against the unjust and gender-biased norms and
strictures of the Indian patriarchal society. Though she finally ends up
committing suicide, she becomes a vehicle to demand the rights of a woman,
which are so easily crushed in the patriarchal order. Chitralekha does not give
in to Yayati’s persuasion to accept her husband’s old age nonchalantly, and
stands unmoved and unconvinced. Then Yayati exercises his authority as a king
and as a father-in-law and orders her to accept her decrepit husband. To this,
Chitralekha who has by that time taken her stand as a rebel - a rebel against
the patriarchal set up and the rituals which treat women not as subjects but as
objects, replies with ferocity, “I did not push him to the edge of the pyre
sir. You did. You hold forth my wifely duties.”
Yayati
asks Chitralekha to become a great woman and rise above petty considerations—“Rise
above trivialities, Chitralekha. Be superhuman.” (Yayati, 65) Female for the Eastern and for that matter to the
Western world could not have any other façade than these two—she is either
elevated to the level of goddess. It seems that womanhood could have no other
façade. The same is the case here. The selfish king wants a supreme sacrifice
from a young newly married princess while he himself indulges in sensual
pleasures, unabashed.
In
Naga-Mandala too, Rani was brought to the Village Council by her
indulgent husband as a whore to whom punishment had to be meted out for her
adultery. She is only accepted back as a goddess by the villagers. Indian
society fails to accept woman as a human being with natural desires. She cannot
win people’s hearts with love but only by performing miracles and being a
goddess. So is the case with Chitralekha who is expected to forgo all her
desires, her needs—emotional and sexual, and become a devi of supreme
sacrifice. But Chitalekha crosses the limits of all the so-called “morality”
and hypocrisy and claims directly for her sexual rights. She says that since
Yayati has taken her husband’s youth, he should also take his place in her
life. This would ensure that she would bear the child of the Bharata family.
She declares that, “I did not know Prince Pooru when I married him. I married
him for his youth. For his potential to plant the seed of the Bharatas in my
womb. He has lost the potency now.” (Yayati, 65)
Yayati
is shocked and accuses Chitralekha for harboring such “low” thoughts. Though he
himself is not ashamed to delve in sensual pleasures with his consorts, he
expects a young girl to become an epitome of resistance and penance. Unable to
see any escape from the trap closing in around her, Chitralekha is desperate
and finding no escape from the patriarchal order, she commits suicide rather
than leading a life of oppression.
The
traditional Indian woman is burdened with the idea of bearing a child, more
especially a son, for her family. A barren woman in an Indian society is looked
down upon. Women themselves have a deep-rooted notion to bear an heir for their
family. But here emerges a modern woman, unfettered and free who wishes to make
love merely for pleasure and for its own sake.
The
women in the plays of Karnad seem to be aware of their oppression and
repression in the patriarchal order but also know that they cannot do much
about it. Whenever they attempt to cross their defined limits, like did
Chitralekha in Yayati, they meet with disaster. It matters little which
class they come from, the women of all social strata seem to suffer more or
less equally. Chitralekha and the Queen from superior class/ race, and
Swarnalata and Sharmishtha from the lower class/ caste/ race, undergo
suffering. Stepping out of marital bonds or claiming their rights, whichever
the case, the result is always a disaster—the death of the female initiators.
The pessimistic message that the playwright seems to convey is that it is
difficult to escape the oppression of patriarchal order; a revolutionary
attempt more often than not ends in a disaster.
Works Cited
Chandran, S.
Subhash. “‘Bali : The Sacrifice’
and Dionysian Life Assertion.” GirishKarnad's Plays: Performance and
Critical Perspectives, ed. Tutun Mukherjee. Delhi
Karnad, Girish
. Yayati. trans. (Hindi) B.R. Narayana. Delhi
Naga-Mandala. Collected
Plays: Volume One: Tughlaq, Hayavadana, Naga-Mandala,
Mukherjee,
Tutun. “In His Own Voice: A Conversation with Girish Karnad”, Girish Karnad’s
Plays: Performance and Critical Perspectives. ed. Mukherjee.27-57.
Raju, B.
Yadava. “Race and Gender in Yayati,” Girish Karnad’s Plays: Performance and
Critical Perspectives. ed. Mukherjee. 80 - 87.
Ramachandran ,
C. N. “Girish Karnad: The Playwright in Search of Metaphors,” The Journal of
Indian Writing in English. 22. 2: 1999. 21 - 34.
http://www.the-criterion.com
The Criterion: An International Journal in English ISSN 0976-8165 Vol. I. Issue
III 13 December 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment