This week let me return to Hariscandra and post what I wrote in mid-February. Here are the links to earlier stories: Raghavanka -1, Raghavanka - 2, From Cavundaraya to Hariscandra and Hariscandra.
In these earlier posts, I had written on the Sanskritic, puranic versions of the Hariscandra narrative, as well as on the two well known Sanskrit plays by Ksemesvara (Candkausika) and Ramachandra Suri (Satya Hariscandra). Let us turn our attention to Raghavanka’s Hariscandra Kavya and in later postings to the Kannada film Satya Hariscandra. While a new Hariscandra is already being brought into existence by the Puranic narratives, (a Hariscandra whose renown is due to his commitment to truth and not because of other narratives associated with him), and the Sanskrit plays build different aspects of his personality, Raghavanka is perhaps the first author from whom Hariscandra receives ‘epic’ treatment. The film builds on Raghavanka’s story. What we need to focus on here is how Kannada narratives differ from Vedic and Puranic accounts and the values these narratives articulate. My two primary texts were produced in different eras and belong to different genres: first, a 13th century Kannada Kavya, Hariscandra Kavya by Raghavanka and second, a modern Kannada film, Satya Hariscandra. I suggest that Raghavanka provides the framework for future retellings of the story by focusing primarily on the persecution of Harischandra by Visvamitra, ignoring other elements elaborated in vedic, epic and puranic narratives. This focus on Hariscandra’s truthfulness and character make him a paradigmatic figure for the Kannada cultural imagination, to represent a steadfast commitment to values such as truth (satya) and duty (dharma) in the face of suffering. The film Satya Hariscandra, in which Raj Kumar plays the protagonist, recuperates this vision for modern times. I conclude by arguing Harischandra is the prototypical character even in social films, especially (not exclusively) in films acted by Raj Kumar.
I have suggested earlier that Harihara and Raghavanka inaugurate a Saiva narrative tradition. What they create is a narrative (epic) imagination that offers a fascinating engagement with the (human) past, in desi (native) narrative forms. It is quite likely that Tamil Saiva narratives, such as the Periyapurana, offered models for Kannada poets to write on human heroes, particularly devotees from all classes. Harihara wrote hagiographies on more than hundred Saiva devotees, making no distinction on their ideological preferences or their class/caste/linguistic background. Hence, a mystic Allama, a Brahmin minister and patron of Jangamas, Basavanna, Tamil prince Nambi, Tamil devotee Siriyala, who offered the flesh of his own son to Siva, Tamil hunter Kannappa, who plucked his own eye and offered it to Siva – they are all treated in the same way.
If devotion to Siva is at the core of Harihara’s literary imagination, Raghavanka too accepted that vision but he had written his most celebrated work Hariscandra Kavya prior to his radical transformation. Kannada critic G. S. Shivarudrappa suggests that the core thesis here is also a Saiva sensibility and devotion. Raghavanka’s Hariscandra, according to Shivarudrappa, considers Truth as Hara and Hara as Truth. Is Shivarudrappa right? What is truth according to Raghavanka and what is the nature of Hariscandra’s commitment to that truth? What are the consequences of being committed to such a truth?
From an examination of Hariscandra’s commitment to truth flows a second fascinating theme: Hariscandra’s traivails, which can be understood only as a consequence of holding on to ‘his’ truth. Here if we understand his suffering as unfair and unjustified, then a comparison with Job would be appropriate. In a future posting, I would like to focus on an insight that Latin Ameican theologian Gustavo Esteva provides on how Job himself perceived his suffering: Esteva suggests that Job’s relationship with God changed when he realized he wasn’t alone in being subjected to unfair suffering. What is Hariscandra’s attitude towards suffering and how does he respond?
As I raise these questions, I am acutely conscious of the fact that my discussion is primarily in the context of two very specific literary and cinematic representations of an epic character. So let me first offer an outline of Raghavanka’s text today and a summary of the film tomorrow, before analyzing both these narratives at some length.
The story begins, at least the parts salient for our purposes, in the assembly of the king of gods, Indra, who asks: who among the Iksvaku kings is most truthful? Vasista, the guru of Iksvakus (the dynasty which ruled Ayodhya and to which Rama too belongs), names his disciple Hariscandra as being absolutely committed to truth, a claim his bitter rival Visvamitra contests. Recall, that both Vasista and Visvamitra have been traditionally rivals (a theme best explored some other time) and they quarrel in front of all the gods, before entering into a wager.
Determined to prove that Hariscandra would lie and not keep his word, Visvamitra devises various strategies. He tricks Hariscandra into performing Bahusuvarna sacrifice and asks as daksina (gift), a pile of gold as high as a cowry shell when that shell is tossed into the sky by a strong warrior standing on a tall elephant. However, after collecting the gift, he leaves it with Hariscandra for safekeeping and returns to his hermitage, where he embarks on the next phase of his plan. He creates wild animals, which cause immense fear among the subjects, forcing Hariscandra to hunt these animals. Note, unlike in Sanskrit narratives, Hariscandra does not involuntarily go to the forest but is compelled to go. In other words, Visvamitra is the sutradhara, one who devises strategies, creates situations and circumstances, which would make it difficult for Hariscandra to hold on to his truth.
Vasista, who is aware of Visvamitra’s designs, warns Hariscandra not to go near Visvamitra’s hermitage and also insists on Hariscandra visit Virupaksa’s temple in Hampe before leaving. Here is a moment of ‘local’ vision entering into a pan-Indian narrative; otherwise, how would Hariscandra, the king of Ayodhya visit a temple in Hampi? Despite Vasista’s warnings, Hariscandra chases a wild boar, which being Visvamitra’s creation naturally lures Hariscandra towards the herimatge, where the king kills the boar. An angry Visvamitra then creates two matanga (Candala / untouchable girls) who approach Hariscandra, entertain him and ask him to marry them. He flatly refuses by claiming it is beneath his kuladharma (duty to family) to marry them. When they insist, an angry Hariscandra beats them and throws them away, at which point they complain to Visvamitra; in a rage, the sage approaches Hariscandra, kicks him and demands that he marry his daughters. Hariscandra’s refusal is based on his perception of his birth and lineage: having been born into Surya vamsa and Iksvaku kula, he will not marry Candala (untouchable) maidens and go to hell. He rhetorically says that he would rather give up his kingdom instead of marrying them.
Immediately, Visvamitra seizes the moment and asks for the throne; once he receives it, he also demands the earlier gift of gold. When a surprised Hariscandra points out that he has already given away all his possessions to Visvamitra, the sage gets angry and accuses Hariscandra of going back on his promise. The king seeks forty-eight days to repay the loan and prepares to leave for Kashi from the hermitage itself. A surprised Visvamitra attempts to shake Hariscandra’s determination and asks him to return to Ayodhya with him, so that he could convince his subjects to accept Visvamitra as their new ruler. The sage, in fact, hoped that returning to Ayodhya might make Hariscandra change his mind. A determined Harsicandra accompanies Visvamitra to Ayodhya, where he convinces his subjects to be loyal to the sage but then leaves for Kashi along with Chandramati, Lohitasva and minister, Satyakirti.
At this stage, Raghavanka creates a new character Nakshatrika, who has left an indelible mark in the popular imagination and culture due to his capacity to create trouble and make unfair demands. Nakshatrika is a disciple of Visvamitra and is sent by the latter to collect the loan from the king. He is instructed to place obstacles and ensure Hariscandra doesn’t keep his promise. More on Raghavanka’s innovations later.
By the time, they all reach Kashi there is has just one day left to repay the pile of gold Hariscandra owes to Visvamitra. Following Candramati’s suggestion, he sells her to a Brahmin, who is, in fact, Agni acting on Visvamitra’s instructions. Although Visvamitra’s loan is repaid, Naksitrika demands his allowance for the period days he had to spend in Hariscandra’s company, experiencing many hardships. This new demand compels Hariscandra to sell himself to Virabahuka, an untouchable who owns the burial grounds and employs Hariscandra to be the gatekeeper; his charge is to patrol the ground and collect toll from its users. In reality, Virabahuka is Yamadharma, who too is acting according to Visvamitra’s instructions. We will return to this irony that Raghavanka introduces: for Hariscandra a consequence of refusing to marry untouchable maidens is to be the slave of an untouchable.
If Hariscandra has to guard the burial ground, then both Candramati and Lohitasva undergo much humiliation and suffering in the Brahmin household. Soon thereafter, young Lohitasva then dies due to snakebite in the forest, where he was collecting firewood along with his friends. Describing Candramati’s grief, Raghavanka writes some of the most moving verses in all of Kannada literature. A grief stricken Candramati brings the body of her young son to the burial ground in the night, since her masters wouldn’t’ allow her to leave before finishing her housework; but Hariscandra wouldn’t let her cremate the body, if she is unable to give the cloth and rent due to Hariscandra and his master. At that moment, he also realizes the identity of the dead boy and collapses, yet he refuses to change his stance.
When a reluctant Candramati returns to get the rent, Visvamitra creates a new wrinkle; he has the prince of Kashi killed and placed on her path. When she is attracted by the cry of the young prince and walks over to the source of the sound, thinking delusionally her own son was calling her. She is captured by the soldiers, and brought to the king of Kashi, who finds her guilty and sentences her to death. Hariscandra, being Virabahuka’s slave, is asked to cut her head and he is determined to do just the same, refusing Visvamitra’s seductive offers. Hariscandra says: ‘it is enough if it is said Hariscandra did not abandon truth’ and weilds the axe. Gods, led by Siva, appear and restore order. Visvamitra praises Hariscandra’s commitment to truth, returns the kingdom to Hariscandra, apart from giving him half the merit he had acquired from ascetic practices.
Tomorrow, I will look at the film, Satya Hariscandra and provide a summary of the plot. We could then discuss the two narratives and their differing contexts.
Post a Comment