Girish Karnad: A Social and Humanitarian Approach through Myth

Dr. Arvindkumar Atmaram Kamble, Head & Associate Professor, Department of English, NVP Mandal’s Arts, Commerce and Science College, Lasalgaon (Nasik)

Introduction:
Myth is a word derived from Greek language ‘muthos’. Originally in Greek language, it means ‘anything uttered by word of mouth’. Myth is an imaginary story that is not real. It involves supernatural and superhuman elements. Although it is supernatural and superhuman, lacking the truth, it is being used to tell the secrets of human mind and behavior. It tells the psychological truths of human mind. Historically, the myths are readily made available in the history of literature. Even in today, they are being used by the writers like Girish Karnad in writing the literary texts.

Savitribai Phule Pune University has prescribed Girish Karnad’s Play ‘The Fire and The Rain’ under the course Appreciating Drama at second year level. Karnard has been recognized as a playwright at national and international levels. He was born in 1938. He had a major contribution in reshaping Indian theatre in the twentieth century. Originally, he wrote plays in Kannad language and later on they had been translated in English. ‘The Fire and The Rain’ is one of his successful plays performed on the stage. This play is characterized by the use of a Myth of Yavakri. I had to teach this myth to second year students. While teaching the play, I began to ask questions like: What is the Myth? What is its significance? How should I look at it as a teacher? How should I relate it with the present situation in Indian society? What should I make the students learn from it?

The Myth of Yavakri:
Girish Karnad’s play ‘The Fire and The Rain’ is based on the myth happened in Indian epic Mahabharata. In the introduction to the play, Karnad himself clarifies in Appendix 1 that, “The myth of Yavakri (or Yavakrita) occurs in Chapters 135-38 of the Vana Parva (forest Canto) of the Mahabharata. It is narrated by the ascetic Lomasha to the Pandavas as they wander across the land during their exile.” (p.289)

The myth of Yavakri is related with the major character called Yavakri. Therefore, it is called as the Myth of Yavakri in drama. The myth is that Yavakri is the only son of Bharadwaja. Bharadwaja and Raibha were the two friends in the kingdom. Bharadwaja was the most eminent and learned man comparing to Raibha. He was expected to be appointed as a Chief Priest in the kingdom by the King. It was the due respect to be given to someone. It didn’t happen so in the play. Instead of Bharadwaja, the king appointed the Paravasu, the son of Raibha, as the Chief Priest of the fire sacrifice. Yavakri, the son of Raibha, felt that his father was humiliated and dishonored in the kingdom. As a result, he had the feelings of hatred and jealousy for Raibha’s family. Yavakri says to Vishakha, “I cried at the humiliations piled on my father. He was one of the most learned men in the land. Probably the most brilliant mind. But he was scorned while this unscrupulous brother of his grabbed all the honours.” (p.130)

Yavakri projected as a super-human having Universal Knowledge in the play. Being a super-human, he felt that the whole world was at his feet. He understood that nobody can kill or defeat him. In order to become a super-human, he had undertaken the rigorous penance for ten years for Universal Knowledge. Usually, the Universal Knowledge is to be acquired from the guru and the rigorous learning in the course of time. He confessed that Indra appeared to him and said that, “No, Yavakri, you can’t master knowledge through austerities. It must come with experience. Knowledge is time. It is space”. (p.120) Yavakri needed this Universal Knowledge not through learning but directly granted by God. He began to propitiate the Lord of Indra. Unexpectedly, he offered his limbs, eyes, fingers, and tongue and at last the heart. The Lord of Indra appeared to him and granted him the Universal Knowledge. He returned back to the kingdom in triumph bearing the desire to avenge Raibha’s family.

One day, Yavakri cornered Raibha’s daughter-in-law Vishakha, his beloved, and molested her. Vishakha surrendered him by saying that, “I’ll give you the knowledge Indra couldn’t give you. My body- it’s light with speech now”. (p.123) When Raibha came to know about it, he performed the act of kritya and sent Brahma Rakshasa to kill him. As per the order given to him, Brahma Rakshasa killed Yavakri. Arvasu cremated the dead body of Yavakri.
At the end of play, Arvasu prayed to Sun God and asked to restore Yavakri, Bharadwaja and Raibha. When Yavakri was restored to life, Sun God asked him to pursue Universal Knowledge in the right manner. Karnad writes in Appendix 1 that, “When Yavakri came back to life, the gods reprimanded him on his folly and asked him to pursue knowledge in the right manner” (p.293).

Teaching Myth in Classroom:
The intention of author in using any myth is not just to tell the story but to reveal the secrets of human life and psychological truths of human mind. By teaching the myth in the classroom, the teacher must discuss the secrets of human life and the psychological truths of human mind with the students.

The King is the most responsible person in any kingdom. He should have appointed the most eminent person as a Chief Priest Bharadwaja instead of Raibha. By using his authoritative and discretionary powers in favor of Paravasu, the King put the two families in trouble. The truth that we come to understand is that the authoritative and discriminatory use of powers leads to the tragedy.

When the King appointed Paravasu as the Chief Priest, Yavakri took it as his father’s humiliation and dishonor. He had the feelings of hatred and jealousy for Raibha and his son Paravasu. What added fuel to the fire was Vishakha, his beloved, married to Paravasu. He undertook the rigorous penance to become the most powerful person in the kingdom so that he could take revenge upon the Raibha’s family. The feelings of hatred, jealousy and revenge are destructive in nature. It has disastrous outcomes in human life. The molestation of Vishakha and outrage of Raibha were the disastrous outcomes in the drama. The dramatist Girish Karnard appropriately entitled the drama as ‘The Fire and The Rain’. The fire symbolically represents the destructive feelings of Man.

Authoritative and discriminative use of powers had lastly the most severe impact on the lives of women. Vishakha is the best example from the drama. If there had not been the discrimination by the King, there could not be the myth of Yavakri. There could be the marriage between the lovers- Yavakri and Vishakha. There could not be her molestation firstly by Raibha and secondly by Yavakri. Yavakri used Vishakha as a tool to fulfill his desire of taking revenge upon Raibha’s family. What I am trying to point out that women are victimized if there is authoritative and discriminative use of powers in any society.

In order to take revenge upon the Raibha’s family, Yavakri needed to be a powerful person. What can make anyone powerful! He had undertaken the rigorous penance for Universal Knowledge. He propitiated the Lord of Indra and received the Universal Knowledge. He misused his knowledge and superhuman powers to fulfill his feelings of hatred and jealousy. This leads to his death.

As there is a play within a play, there is use of a myth within a myth. The myth within a myth is a story of Indra and Vritra taken from Rigveda- the story enacted by a troupe of actors including Arvasu emphasizing a fratricide- a crime of brother against brother. Karnard himself clarifies how to look at any myth in Appendix 1 that, “The myth can be seen as expressing a deep anxiety which informs the whole of Indian mythology, the fear of brother destroying brother”. (p. 296).

Learning values through Myth:
A teacher of English language and literature is not only expected to teach language and literature but also expected to inculcate the moral values in order to develop the human mind in turn the society. Some of the following values can be taught to students in the classroom while teaching the myth of Yavakri:

Don’t use authoritative powers discriminately whether it is home, society or office. There must be discretion rather than discrimination in human decisions.
The feelings of hatred, jealousy and revenge are destructive in nature. It had negative impacts on human life. It degrades the Man from within.
Women are not safe in authoritarian society even though they belong to upper castes in in any society.
Don’t misuse the knowledge and powers to fulfill the personal emotions, feelings and desires.
Brother destroying brother will destroy the social harmony in any society.

Conclusion:
Karnad used the myth of Yavakri as a tool to reveal the secrets of human life and human mind. It is an art that is found in his drama. He was very careful in choosing the myth for revealing the various aspects of contemporary life in India. The learning of values by students in classroom would definitely help in developing the perfection in human mind in turn the Indian society. Dr. Shailaja B. Wadikar rightly put in her research paper that, “While depicting the drawbacks and vices of both an individual and society, Karnad’s humanitarian approach and his commitment to human values are clearly perceptible” (p.449).

References

Cuddon J. A. (2013), A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory, Wiley-Blackwell, USA, (P.453).
Karnad, Girish. (2005), ‘Collected Plays: Volume Two’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi (p.289).
Ibid. (p.120)
Ibid. (p.123)
Ibid. (p.296)
Ibid. (p.130)
http://researchscholar.co.in/downloads/67-dr.-shailaja-b.-wadikar.pdf (p.449)