Archetypes in Indian Literature

The concept of Indian literature is both very old and very new: it is as old as Bharata and Tolkappiyar, and it is also as modern as Tagore and Subramaniya Bharati. In fact it is better to see Indian literature not as a product, but as a process. But as Niharranjan Ray puts it, “It is easier to talk of Indian music and Indian dance and Indian sculpture than of Indian literature because the basis of Indian music is melody and mood and that of Indian dance is ‘the nature and character of the time beat or Tala and of the Bhangas, Thangi and Mudras, that is, bonds, attitudes and hand gestures and therefore their re­cognition as Indian is almost direct and immediate”.¹ And he adds that it is not possible to achieve in literature the kind of “Indianness” that one finds in Indian music or dance or even in the mainstream of traditional Indian painting or sculpture”.² But he himself gives a counter question, “Is there no common denominator or denominators in the different regional literatures of India, apart from the fact of the commonness of their historical origins, that would enable one to recognise them as authenti­cally Indian, a recognition which would be valid as much for Indians as for non-lndians”? ³ and answers it in the affirmative. Most scholars would attribute this to the network of myths which contribute to the literature or the reservoir of meaning. ‘These myths and legends which were the sources of the equally vast storehouse of images and symbols, ideas and concepts, shaped and formed the mind and imagination of our peoples all over the land, by and large, at any rate of the more conscious and articulate ones”.⁴ But they were not simply vehicles of conscious meaning, and they have acquired new areas of meaning from time to time and in different places. They are answers to the needs of deepest layers of the collective mind of India and also the meta-literature or the common-code of the entire country.⁵

Northrop Frye breaks literature into narrative and meaning and sees in ritual the origins of narrative and adds that “all the important recurrences in nature, the day, the phases of the moon, the seasons and solstices of the year, the crises of existence from birth to death, get rituals attached to them and most of the higher religions are equipped with a definitive total body of rituals suggestive, if we may put it so, of the entire range of potentially significant actions in human life”.⁶ Patterns of imagery or fragments of significance are oracular in origin and he concludes that ‘The myth is the central informing power that gives archetypal significance to the ritual and archetypal narrative to the oracle. Hence the myth is the archetype, though it might be convenient to say myth only when referring to narrative, and archetype when speaking of significance”. ⁷ He further identifies the central myth of literature with the quest myth and its significance and he links it with the dream and sees art “as a resolution of the anti-thesis of light and darkness, the mingling of the sum and the hero, the realising of a world in which the inner desires and the outward circumstances coincide. The hero who is conceived in human likeness and yet has more power over nature builds the vision of an omnipotent personal community beyond an indifferent nature and he contrasts this vision of innocence with the tragic vision.

In the Indian tradition also we have the quest myth as a basic archetype though there are significant differences. Rama’s quest for his wife is parallel to the quest for Persephone, or the quest of Adam for Eve, and finally the quest of Christ or God for Man. Rama was both a hero and a god, but the emphasis varies. In Valmiki he is more a hero than a god. As Mythili Kaul puts it, “The focus is on the hero, the man, possessed of immense physical strength coupled with great virtue and wisdom, able to hold his own, if need be, with the gods”.⁸ He performs prodigious acts but they are within the human range and he is not free from human foibles either and what matters here is not the divine preordination, but the human choice. In Kamban’s version too, the human identity of the hero is still maintained – but the emphasis shifts from military heroism to ethical heroism and Kamban’s Rama shows God’s coming down to earth and man’s reaching God – and both in one figure – and in this process, he has also synthesised the Valmiki tradition with that of the Sangam tradition and Cilappatikaram. Sita is linked with Mother Earth and Rama symbolises ‘the human values divine’ and in Kamban the ethical dimension of the human situation is more important. In Tulasidass on the other hand we see more of a God in Rama, the all· knowing God is free from desire and unlike Valmiki, everything here is preordained. Mythili Kaul attributes this to the change in the climate of India – the people of his time could not believe in man’s prodigious deeds or his ability to overcome the obstacles in the world through his own actions. Only one superior to man could perform such wonders. Accordingly, we find humanistic awe being replaced by divine worship and the hero being transformed into a god”.⁹The tension of choice is lost and if in Valmiki the emphasis is on the heroic, in Tulasidass, the emphasis is on devotion. In Kamban’s epic also, Rama represents still love still turning, but in him there is more of choice, and he represents human values as well as acceptance of human obligations. Though Kamban’s characters also represent ideals of types of human behaviour they are all human, but whether they are characters fulfilling Western concept of mimesis either like Shakespeare or Sophocles is a different question. Rama represents an ethical norm as well as the aesthetic equilibrium and in Kamban he represents dynamic poise, both ethically and aesthetically. He is an archetype not only because he represents certain quintessential human situations and through him we see how the sub-conscious of the Indian mind trying to cope with them in different ages – thereby he acquires different connotations, a sign acquiring new significations; but also he is the golden mean or the pure experience which is seen through the emotional ripples experienced by other characters, who are also archetypes for certain emotions or situations.

Ravana represents the principle of heroism of a different kind and his imprisoning Sita symbolises the separation of heroism end love – both outwardly and inwardly and if we compare the treatment of this motif with that in the Western epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey we could see the univer­sality of this motif as well as its uniqueness. Rama’s movement is vertical in so far as there is ethical evolution and that is signified by the descent of God; but it is also horizontal which means movement away from Ayodhya and a movement to Ayodhya. This is parallel to separation of God and the experience of separation by God himself, as well as his reunion with others like Guha, Vibhushna and they find fulfilment in him as he finds sublimation through them. The separation of Asuras from Suras is only based on ethical boundaries in Kamban and the brotherhood which Rama established is based on the prin­ciples of equality and fraternity based on devotion on the part of others and compassion on the part of Rama. Probably The Ramayana represents three levels of consciousness which are symbolised spatially by Ayodhya, Aranya and Lanka and the ability to make ethical choice is the most distinguishing feature of the higher order.

Ravana’s is a wilful choice of evil and if Rama represents the ability for pure action as well as evolution through subli­mation, in Ravana we experience a sense of doom in spite of all his strength. But even Ravana is not simple evil, but evil conceived on a grand, heroic scale and he indulges in evoking magical powers and brutal violence as opposed to the principles and ethical heroism of Rama. In a sense Rama is Self; and Ravana, the Ego, and Sita is the Jeevatma whom Ravana tries to arrest or possess through desire, and her state in Ayodhya (like that of Ruth amidst alien corn) represents the yearning of the soul for the greater soul, just as all the devotees represent the same division and longing for union at another level. Even the evil kingdom also represents only the inversion of this re­lationship. Ravana represents the human mind clouded by passion and his brother Vibishina represents the ability to distinguish between good and evil as well as obey a higher impulse even in such a situation and even Kumbhakarna is able to perceive God in his own way, but he bows to loyalties of a different kind and such parallelism is there throughout to show the dualism in human nature. In fact even Ravana himself has noble qualities; but after a stage he becomes frozen beyond redemption. He has denied himself the ability to perceive the good and the freedom to change, to grow. In the final sense he is completely isolated and speaks of only “I”.

The Ramayana puts the emphasis on man’s ability to make the moral choice and the characters are placed in a hierarchy based on ethical qualities and even the animals are table to reach the higher level through this capacity. In Kamban there is a reference to a character acquiring ethical values based not on caste but on his adherence to Dharma and that Dharma is described as the ability to distinguish between what is proper and what is not.

The Sita archetype has also acquired various connotations down the ages. If in Valmiki she is archetype of suffering with a mild protest, in Kamban she acquires more of Tamil values –­ but still she remains true to the basic pattern because she subordinates her role to the sublimation of Rama. She is closer to Mother Earth which accepts her finally. Even in all modern versions of the Ramayana and the Mahabharatha myth we find Panchali and Sita protesting against the male tyranny and here again we see a Pan – Indian pattern emerging; because simul­taneously we hear the protesting voice – in Tamil starting from Panchali Sapatham down to Jayakandan’s Sundarakandam we find this new version of the old archetype. The modern Sita finds even her husband a Ravana – if he does not have certain characteristics. Ramahood is also more “socialised”.

In the Kannaki archetype we find a parallel to this based on the Kotravai-Myth which again tries to subsume the myths of Muruga and Mayoon Kannaki’s tragedy is linked with the fury of Mother Goddess and if The Ramayana and The Mahabharata deal with the descent of God, Cilappadikaram deals with the ascent of Man or Woman. Kannaki is seen as parallel to Sita – and in a sense to Panchali too. Even though they are only contrasted with each other, all the three only represent certain common values and predicaments. All of them suffer through male tyranny, though in Sita it is more obvious only in Uttara Ramayanam. Sita is closer to the Egyptian pattern whereas Kannaki is closer to the Sumerien pattern, and in both the Panchali situation and the Kannaki situation we see the evolution of a new socio-economic pattern. Whereas Kovalan’s behaviour can be related to the evils of a commercial culture, even in the Mahabharatha we find woman becoming a property. However, the archetypal significance of Kannaki is not so well recognised as that of Sita and Panchali which could be attributed to the completely human nature of Kannaki. But as we said earlier, the Kannaki archetype has asserted itself through the versions of Sita and Panchali as they were conceived by the Tamil writers, as well as in a number of characters in modern Tamil literature.

The Mahabharata provides certain other important arche­types of the Indian psyche – but now seen more realistically. Here again what we find is a historical situation and the human predicament, but brought out with reference to larger forces. If in The Ramayana, the fight is between good and external evil, in this epic, as Swami Chidbavananda has put it, “The good and the evil forces are of the same origin”; hence life is seen more in tragic terms, though it goes beyond tragedy also. Pandavas and Kauravas are the contending forces, the former embodying virtue and the latter vice – that means that there is an external inte warfare in the ethical substance itself and the epic seems to present like as Hegelian strife and justification of conflict and contradiction for the evolution of life. “Seemingly Sri Krishna helps both the parties – the one for emancipation and the other for entanglement and final eradication. What conscience does from within, Krishna did from without; for, conscience and Krishna are one”. ¹⁰ Krishna represents an impersonal force, and the spirit behind history and Arjuna, the arrow of God and the divine Lila necessitates the complication through the contradictions in human history. The characters are not models of perfection as Rama was, but they evolve a moral sense and Krishna helps them in this process as well as their fight with evil. Dharma and his associates represent certain psychological features – Dharma represents a kind of frozen virtue and he binds himself and own wife to that code, which seems to necessitate a genuine war – and whose inadequacy is seen not only by Krishna the cosmic law but also by his own brothers and Panchali’s voice is that of spirit of life. Arjuna is the archetype of the hero unable to act because of attachments and in Kama we see the tragic hero seeking identity and dying a heroic death because of his very generosity, at the very moment of discovery of identity. The Kama theme is situational as distinguished by Trousson, and in the Indian tradition the Ramayana theme is more heroic than situational. Weisstein refers to Trousson’s listing Antigone and Oedipus as examples of situational themes because when we hear those names we do not so much think of their bearers as of the events to which their fates are linked.” Kunti herself can be compared with Antigone in this respect. The Greek prototypes are more earth-centred than the Indian counterparts because they are not so dependent on divine forgiveness. But we cannot deny Kama polyvalence, as he also provides an image for many modern situations, which are varied.

The basic problem of the Mahabharatha is one of jealousy and also the dispute over ownership, find this strangely but linked with woman. It is interesting to see that all the great epics of the East and the West deal with certain basic loyalties and values in collision and the principal themes are possession of land and women. God’s intervention is ultimately necessitated by the suffering woman. And Sita’s endurance, and Panchali’s suffering have released only the mythical redeemer in the Indian psyche. If Rama represents God reunited with his feminine counterpart or the soul as embodied or heroism mellowed by human values, Krishna is both cosmic and human. Possibly he is closer to humanity than Rama, but he also needs the human assent or collaboration to fulfill His larger purpose. Here again the wicked characters have martial strength as well as magical power. Dharma represents the humanity though fallible but able to live in harmony with certain principles, when the great force represented by Krishna comes to his help and his brothers represent variations of this archetype. Duryodhana’s camp represents the other side and the whole atrocity of his group is based on cunningness and adherence to, verbal com­mitment. The motif of exile and alienation is also there. The Kurukshetra war is more tragic because it portrays human history in conflict in the Hegelian sense and the need for so much destruction before a new order (or the old order) is established.

To sum up, we saw certain epic characters in Indian litera­ture as archetypes, as they embody certain impulses in the collective unconscious of the Indian mind. They persist in various forms in the various Indian literatures till today, though they have acquired new significances also and there are very interesting new versions of characters in both the epics. These mythical prototypes formulate certain psychic tensions in the Indian culture. First of all even within India, there have been two traditions – the Southern and the Northern but all the time there has been an interpenetration and in Kamban’s The Ramayana we see a clear synthesis. Now the hero is divine and human simultaneously and this reconciliation of the divine and the human in the Indian tradition is different from the European pattern. We can also see a link between the concept of skill action in all the great Indian epics. The Ramayana, The Mahabharata and Cilappatikaram and the quintessential imper­sonal drama of the Sangam poems. The dance of Shiva is the most comprehensive image of the Indian concept of action as well as art of cosmic creation and the creative process.

The relationship between myth and literature in India is more cohesive, because of the Indian concept of reality as Lila, and there is a closer identification of the readers with the characters though they are also seen more as divine beings in the Indian tradition. The characters are also seen not with the same psychological complexity as they are in the Western tradition, and the notion of self and time is different. All these led to a different concept of mimesis and also participation in the artistic experience. The Indian view of art is closer to the Platonic concept of ideas than to the Aristotlian notion of imitation and form and the archetypes in Indian literature, are the ideal forms of human destiny.

Just as there is a persistent pattern in the Western tradition from Oedipus to Hamlet, from Clytomnestra to Nora, from Satan to Macbeth or Raskoliknov, we have a pattern in the Indian tradition representing various conflicts but in the Indian tradition there has been significant variation in continuity in the archetype of Sita. To Anita Desai, a modern Indo-Anglan novelist, Sita is a neurotic character in revolt against the male tyranny, but she also finally accepts the domestic bond. We see the protesting woman in Kalki and Jayakandan also but they also are portrayed as Sakti; whereas. Kalki’s Sivakami is seen a still centre of the turning wheel of history, she is also swept away by the same forces dominated by the male values and finally she finds ful­filment at the feet of God. In Jayakandan too the tendency for revolt is linked with the acceptance of the existing order; Sita in Sundarakandam waits for her redeemer and in Natikai Natakam Parkiral too, through Kalyani asserts her identity, she serves as a symbol for the psychic equipoise and the soul in conflict with the self. In Bharati woman is the principle of revolution and evolution and she is linked with the cosmic power as well as domestic peace. But even in him as well as Bharathidasan the virgin mother archetype persists. The mother and the virgin images dominate the portrayal of woman in modern Indian literature, though we hear more of the unheard voice of the woman in modem Indian literature, the archetypes are the same though the realisations are different.

NOTES

¹ Niranjan Ray, Indian Literature (Centre for Advanced Studies, Simla), 1987. pp 3
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Comparative Indian Literature Problems and Perspectives, Indian Literature, Centre for Advanced studies, Simla, 1987.
⁶ Northrop Frye, Archetypes of Literature, Twentieth Century Literary Criticism Ed. David Lodge, (Longman, London,) 1986.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ Mythili Kaul, Indian Literature, (Centre for Advanced Studies; Simla,) 1987.
⁹ Northrop Frye, ‘Archetypes of Literature’, Twentieth Century Literary Criticism, ed. David Lodge, London, Longman Publishers, 1986.
¹⁰ Facets of Brahamen or the Hindu gods; Swami Chithavanadh (Sri. Rnmakrishna Tapovanam, Tiruchirapalli) 1985, p. 89.
¹¹ Ulrich Weisstein, Comparative Literature and Literary Theory; Survey and Introduction (Bioomington; Indiana University Press, 1973) p. 142.