My thoughts have been very much with our epics this week and I would like to share my understanding of a few epic incidents that I feel have been wrongly critiqued in modern India. My point is that if you put things through an ideological filter––through a sausage machine, in fact––you'll only get sausages bereft of actual context and facts.
Let us take the case of Surpanakha. Over the years, I have watched attempts to portray her as "a victim of patriarchy" and "a woman wrongfully denied her right to desire", "an outright case of misogyny", and "what does the cutting off of her nose tell you about 'heroic' men?". I found such interpretations to be most unconvincing, and they grew boring because they did not acknowledge the facts of the case on the ground.
I fail to understand how anyone could want to valourise Surpanakha, who tried to destroy Sita because she wanted Sita's men. She rushed at Sita to kill her, to get rid of her so that the obstacle to her want––or so she illogically thought––could be removed. She was struck to stop her mad rush. Wrong is plainly wrong in her case, and these 'modern' attempts to legitimise her simply do not cut the mustard.
Or are these 'counter-narratives' justifying that anyone can help themselves to other people's partners? It's called 'poaching', and most people take a dim view of it. Surpanakha, for me, is a bad character without self-restraint. And she foolishly throws herself at Rama, the ultimate embodiment of correct behaviour. Story-wise, the irony cannot escape us, reader or listener. But, seemingly devoid of a moral compass, some modern interpreters have sympathised with her as a case of 'misogyny'. Sorry, I don't buy it. Today, it seems to belong to the same mindset as that of the key figures in the ongoing obscenity scandal: 'Anything goes'.
There are indeed many problems with patriarchy's attitude to and treatment of women. Nobody can deny that. Just last week, we discussed how Bhishma's silence during the disrobing of Draupadi is a big blot on his persona. But the Constitution has made us all equal citizens with equal rights. Change is irreversible as the decades roll by. In my opinion, valourising a greedy, violent and vengeful character like Surpanakha only harms the cause; it does not help it.
Let us move on to the case of Drona and Eklavya. Here, too, the valourisation of Ekalavya as a 'victim' has been much bruited in 'modern' interpretations. But what are the facts of the case? Would anyone today expect to get into IIT or IIM without proper admission? How could a teacher contracted to teach a specific group of students moonlight and set up a rival to them on the side?
Eklavya was not a poor, aspirational peasant, as some have inaccurately portrayed. He was a prince himself, the son of King Hiranyadhanus of the Nishadas. In my view, he had no business sneaking up on Drona like that and putting him in such an awkward spot with his employers. Especially a dirt-poor person like Drona, who could not afford even a drink of milk for his son Ashwatthama until he found employment.
Moreover, Drona was burned up with the desire to teach his former schoolmate, Drupada, a lesson for insulting him in public. Drona deliberately put himself in the way of the Kuru princes, whom he discovered were in dire need of a suitable tutor in the arts of warfare. He aimed to teach his royal pupils so well that when the time came for them to give him guru dakshina, he could ask them to vanquish Drupada and bring him bound as a prisoner.
Drona was not only a man badly in need of a job to support his wife and son, but also one with a bitter secret mission, which had been going well. But suddenly, Eklavya threatened to bring it all crashing down. Arjuna was already pouting in displeasure, and Drona was in danger of losing his job for apparently moonlighting and teaching another person in secret.
Tell me, doesn't a teacher have rights, too? The basic right to be loyal to the terms of his employment? Was it correct on Prince Eklavya's part to do what he did? Of course, we feel very sorry that he had to lose his thumb. But in my view, Vyasa, through his stark story-telling, conveys the moral that knowledge should not be stolen, even by a prince. From Drona's perspective, would it be correct for a nuclear scientist today to secretly pass on his work to another country or let it be stolen when his legal and ethical commitment is to the country that hired him?
So, in my view, Eklavya does not deserve valourisation. I'm ready for any brickbats since I accept that sometimes it may be hard for people to reconsider an idea put so forcefully into their minds over the years.
My third case is that of Savitri. I grew up with a poor opinion of her for 'tricking' Yama. It was a snap judgment after reading flat English versions of the epics. However, a religious discourse in 2017 gave me a new perspective. When the Sanskrit was explained line by line, I learnt how very politely and steadily she engaged with Yama and won his respect and admiration. She deserved her Satyavan for her courage and intelligence. There's so much to rediscover about stories we thought we knew.
(Views are personal)
(shebaba09@gmail.com)
Renuka Narayanan