|
Continued
from yesterdays instalment
 Sri VVS Aiyar feels that there is a flaw in the
bhavika and feels that this Sarga in question (Canto XXXI) shows so totally a different picture and interferes with the basic architectonics of the epic. "Here also we may note, in passing, Kamban's just taste in the matter of the architecture of the epic. Those who have finally arranged and revised the Benares and Southern Recensions - which agree with each other very closely - of Valmiki's Ramayana have not exhibited in this part of the story that apprehension of
bhavika which they so generally exhibit in their recensions," he observes.
The main charge that he levels is that this sounds somewhat laboured and also moves away from the main structure of the character that Ravana was. OK. Ravana listened to Marīcä and returned to Lanka. As he reaches there, his sister Surpanakha comes to him with severed limbs and Ravana is induced by her to abduct Sita, of course detailing her charms. Ravana flies back to Marīcä again, this time taking a totally different stance and threatening Marīcä to either come to his help or die a death at his hands. The two scenes do not gel as naturally.
Sri Aiyar is somewhat carping in his observation here. "This is such an obviously faulty
bhavika that we cannot understand how the commentators like Govindaraja and others did not correct the error and remove the incident of Akampana and the first meeting with Marīcä from the story. It is a still greater wonder that Bhaskara* copies even these re-duplications in his rendering of the Ramayana," he says. (* Bhaskara is the Telugu Poet who wrote the Telugu version of the Ramayana.)
 The doubts expressed by Sri VVS Aiyar are acknowledged by Right Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastriyar too, though in passing. "Unfortunately this sarga, where Akampana makes his report to Ravana, is considered to be spurious by most people," he says. He has a different reason for the Sarga find a favour with him. "It would be a pity to lose it on account of some academic considerations, because it contains some noble passages. It contains a wonderful account of Rama himself by an impartial witness, and it also bring out in an extraordinary way the attractiveness and the beauty of Sita and the glorious side of her character," he feels.
But as has been noted and accepted by both these giants, the sarga under discussion seems to be a 'later contribution' by unknown hands. Without going into the dispute, one is more appealed by what Sri VVS Aiyar says. Yes. That affects the dramatic element and the way the character of Ravana has been built. If the sarga, as Sastriyar says, merits its retention in the Ramayana because it contains 'wonderful accounts of Rama by Marīcä,' it should be remembered that the very same Marīcä once again pays even richer encomium to Rama in Canto XXXVI in better and flowery words and extols his qualities to Ravana. Therefore, the absence of the Akampana incident would not in any way affect the main story.
I went into all this to show the superiority of Kamban's art. While others have adopted the version of Valmiki with such duplications and obvious insertions, Kamban takes his own path. He builds the effect in his own way. He eliminates the Akampana incident altogether. His Surpanakha does a better work and blows the baser instincts of her brother to such proportions that one is able to justify the misadventure that Ravana undertook. But why he did not listen to anyone and send Sita back to avoid a war is a totally different question, to answer which we have to study this character threadbare.
More follows...
Published on 7th
August 2002
Hari Krishnan
Index
| Next Article
|
