Rules and Rulers

 In the original story of Sakuntala, as told in the Mahabhratha, there is no ring.

Sakuntala appears in Dushmanta's court with their son and requests Dushmanta to declare him the heir to his throne, as he had promised her, before their gandharva vivāham.

Though Dushmanta very much remembers their encounter (and thus recognises legitimacy of the claim), he still pretends not to remember and asks her provocative, insulting questions in his court. 

But he is 'being cruel only to be kind'. For, this sets the dramatic stage for  a fine articulation of her case by Sakuntala, which ends in the divine voice from the sky, declaring her to be true and for Dushmanta to accept her and their son.

And then, Dushmanta tells his courtiers that he always knew but his word would have been insufficient proof to the court.

We are of course, more aware of the storyline of KāLidāsa's play abhijñānasākuntalam, where the poet made significant departures. The elevation of the 'word/memory of the King' over his role as a servitor/upholder of the code resonates with a latter day aesthetic. Insofar as it reflects the societal norms of the time of the poet, the evolution of the public perception of regnal authority invites curious musing.

If you share my bent of mind, which has a greater regard (aspirational regard!?) for a disciplined observer over someone who privileges his individual agency, then you may find the original story far more resplendent.

It is echoed in the later story of Sitā's Agniparikshai. 

Dushmanta Feigns

I am given to understand, by the Sanskrit literate, that the expression smaraNN api , is the clincher here. It means Dushmanta DOES remember and yet chooses to be harsh to Sakuntala to provoke her to make her case in open court. And boy she does: she marshals what the scriptures have to say about the honour of a wife, the one who provides the lineage, and thus the one who ensures the ancestors are provided for, via the ritual observances. 

Mind you, this whole story is narrated by Vaisampāyanā to Janaméjaya.  So, Janaméjaya is thus hearing about the ideals of marital partnership and wifehood from the mother of his illustrious ancestor Bharatha himself.

That she focuses on this aspect of the wife (jāyā - the one who brings forth) than the other aspects (like patni - the one who is a partner in a sacrifice) is one example of her precision.

அஶரீரி

And just as she turns her heels and walks away from court, the heavenly voice declares her claims to be legitimate

And then Dushmanta explains to his courtiers that he had intentionally directed proceedings in this manner so as to scorch any trace of doubt.

After having told this to his courtiers, he then further explains to Sakuntala why he had to put her through the grind:

Unapologetic Forgiveness

He does NOT feel apologetic at all that he has put caused his beloved considerable anxiety, been unduly harsh to her. In his mind, this was needed in the pursuit of dharmā.  Of course, since Sakuntala was not aware of his motivations, her un-wife like harsh words are understandable and can be gracefully forgiven!

This absolutely stunning moment, is what seems to separate Vālmiki's Rāma and Vyāsa's Yudhishtra.

The former seems clear in his commitment. Whereas Yudhistra is perpetually vacillating between striving to conform to dharmā and the pain that his pursuit puts his loved ones through. (Earlier blogged here). 

When the AgniParikshai is over and (similar to the Sakuntala story) Brahma declares the purity of Sītā and asks Rāma to accept her, Rāmā says:

The choice of words தஶரதாம்ஜ (son of Dasaratha) and ஜானகி (daughter of Jānaki) are thrillingly precise. We are likely the last generation to understand the marital union as having (had) little to do with the two individuals concerned. The individuals were agents representing their lineages, which they were to bring forth,

So, as Dasaratha's son, Rāmā was duty bound to set aside his finer feelings that he may have had for his wife, to demonstrate that the bearer of a future heir of Raghuvamsa, the daughter of Janaka,  was beyond reproach. 

And thus he lays it bear, no holds barred in this single minded pursuit of truth.

Remember, Rāma had instructed Vibeeshana to have Sītā adorn herself before she presents herself in public. And not present herself in the state in which she was imprisoned in Lanka. It is thus suggested that the idea was to present a spectacle of her in fine glory, thusly bring forth the doubt and then proceed to demolish it.

The striking similarity between both the Kings - Rāma and Dushmanta - is how they feel no need to be apologetic. It is poignant how much confidence they would have reposed in their wives to fully appreciate the necessity of ordeal they had to put them through and still anticipate understanding and warmth at the end of it. Of course this readily escapes the modern mind which cannot but think in atomistic terms.

Kamban and Vālmiki

Much has been written about the stark contrast between Kamban's Sītā and Vālmiki's Sītā. 

Kamban - with his மானுடம் வென்றதம்மா (humanity triumphed) tempering - appeals to our sensibilities with poetic panache. Unlike Vālmīki's Sīta who rues her tragic ordeal, Kamban's Sītā lashes out in anger, rues having guarded herself, only to hear Rāma's harsh words. This we find more relatable an articulation of hurt than the idealised 'submission' in Vālmiki. After all we are chronologically closer to Kamban than Kamban was to Vālmiki!

But I don't think the gentle difference in Dasarathā's words to Sītā in the two versions has received as much attention. I say so confidently, as I have not bothered to check.

Dasaratha descends from the heavens after the AgniPariksha, embraces his sons and blesses them and Sītā.

Now in Kamban he reassures her, saying:  

“‘நங்கை! மற்றுநின் கற்பினை உலகுக்கு நாட்ட

அங்கி புக்கிடு ‘‘ என்று உணர்த்திய அது மனத்து அடையேல்;

சங்கை உற்றவர் பெறுவதும்  உண்டு, அதுசரதம்;

கங்கை நாடுடைக் கணவனை முனிவுறக் கருதேல்.

Dear Girl

Your husband - the ruler of the country where the Ganga flows

Asked you to enter the fire

Only to demonstrate your purity to the World

Do not take it to heart.

To prove to those who doubt

Is common.

Hate not your husband.

Note, how - while still reserving high praise for her action - he does not find it out of place to insist 'having to prove herself' was necessary and not unheard of (given her station as the future queen of Ayōdhyā,  one infers). 

But the tone is still one of appeal - an appeal to his daughter-in-law to understand of his darling son. 

 Whereas in Vālmiki, he addresses her tenderly but even more firmly thus:

 Make no mistake. He is all praise for her action (in the previous verse). But there is difference between 'please do not take it to heart' (மனத்து அடையேல்) and the paternal advice, which is nearly an admonishment: 'thou shalt not render wrath' 

It is to be noted that neither in Vālmiki or Kamban, is there an explicit call to prove herself by entering the fire. In Vālmiki, Rāmā tells her she can go and be with any of his brothers (Lakshmana, Bharatha, Shatrugna, Sugriva, Vibheeshana). Words so provocative that it may shock a pious reader.

Whereas in Kamban, Rāmā says she can either choose to prove herself or she is free to leave him and do as she pleases.

Dasaratha with Rāma on his lap - 17th centuryMéwar Rāmāyana paintings

SideNote: Dasaratha being allowed to return from the heavens once to visit his sons is what the ādi-kavi imagined. The painter here has Dasaratha place the warrior who had just vanquished RāvaNa, on his lap. The arms worshipfully folded Sitā written by Vālmiki is here re-imagined as drawing a veil over her face.

Lead for செய்யுள்

As I age, it is becoming nearly impossible to not see the friction between the individual instinct and the adherence to codes of conduct in almost everything. After all, the itihāsās were all about giving fullest aesthetic expression to these conundrums to us laity. 

Rama chose Ayodhya
Love's Sorrow was his own
Edward chose Mrs. Simpson
So Albert got the throne

It seems to bother none now
But I gotta pick a bone
With how Charles chose Camilla
But also got the throne

— dagalti (@dagalti) September 9, 2022

As time marches on, leaving me and my unrelatable antiquated notions in the dust, a dull anxiety that seems to persistently gnaw is the erosion of sympathies that folks may have towards almost every moment of art I regard as a high-point. 

What moved me may likely just cause most now to just shrug!

So, here I mope:

To Do

தீபுகுதீ எனும்ராகவ ராணையை பூமகளாள் பணிய

தீபுகுதீச் சுடதீயினை தீவிட வானவரும் புகழ

தீபுகுதீ மையிலாளவள் மேன்மையை யாவருமன் றறிய

தீபுகுதீ எனகூறிய கோவலி யாருமறிந் திலறே

வகை: கலித்துறை

பதம் பிரித்து

"தீபுகுதீ!" எனும் ராகவர் ஆணையை பூமகளாள் பணிய

தீபுகு தீ சுட தீயினை தீ விட  வானவரும் புகழ

தீபுகு தீமையிலாள் அவள் மேன்மையை யாவரும் அன்று அறிய

"தீபுகுதீ!" என கூறி கோ வலி யாரும் அறிந்திலரே

உரை

"தீபுகுதீ!" எனும் ராகவர் ஆணையை பூமகளாள் பணிய

தீக்குள் புகுவாயாக எனும் ராகவரின் ஆணையை பூமகள் பணிய

As the lady of the earth, obeyed the injunction of the Raghava: to enter the fire

தீபுகு தீ சுட தீயினை தீ விட  வானவரும் புகழ

தீக்குள் புகுந்த கற்புத்தீயே உருவானாவளான சீதையின் கற்புத்தீயின் வெம்மை சுட, அதைத் தாளாது, அக்நிதேவன் தீயை விட்டு வெளியேற, அவளது செயலை வானவரும் கண்டு புகழ

Her fiery chastity was too hot for the Fire-God himself to handle and he escaped the fire; her act earned encomiums from the celestials

தீபுகு தீமையிலாள் அவள் மேன்மையை யாவரும் அன்று அறிய

தீக்குள் புகுந்த தீமையே இல்லாதவளான சீதையின் மேன்மையை யாவரும் அன்று அறியுமாறு

So as to ensure all would know that day, the greatness of she who is sinless, who entered the fire 

"தீபுகுதீ!" என கூறி கோ வலி யாரும் அறிந்திலரே

"தீக்குள் புகுதீ!"  என்று கூறிய கோ (அரசன்) வலியை/வலிமையை யாரும் அறியவில்லையே

The pain (and inner-strength) of the King who ordered her to enter the fire, know one knows

References

1. Mahabharatha : Api Parva - M.N.Dutt's verse-by-verse translation: Chapter LXXIV
2. Valmiki Ramayana - Yuddha Kandam, Rama's acceptance of Sita
3. Valmiki Ramayana -Yuddha Kandam, Dasaratha's advice
4. Kambaramayam - Darasaratha's advice
5. Agnipariksha painting - The Mewar Ramayana 
6. Arthur MacDonnel's comment on the word jāyā