6.2. Cāṇakya: As the Hero of the Drama

[Full title: Characterisation in Mudrārākṣasa (2): Cāṇakya: As the Hero of the Drama]

The drama Mudrārākṣasa may lead us to the question as to who is the hero of the drama.The controversy arises for no other reason than this that unfortunately there are no criteria, accepted on all hands, the possession of which undoubtedly entitles a character to the status of the ‘hero’ of a piece. It is true that the character of a drama based on whom the subject matter runs forward can be assumed as the hero of that particular drama. But occasionally it does happen that there is no agreement to which all the readers of a play can come to a conclusion regarding the question as to who exercise the highest amount of influence on the action of the whole play. ‘The character in whose fortunes the reader is interested the most is the hero of the piece’–is an equally unsatisfactory criterion. It is for the simple reason that if a reader is most interested in the fortunes of the character A in a particular drama, another reader would be most interested in the fortunes of character B or C in that very play. Therefore, it is an unavoidable difficulty remaining unsolved in this regard.

There are three claimants to the title of the hero of the Mudrārākṣasa—(1) Candragupta, the sovereign ruler; (2) Rākṣasa, the former minister of the Nandas and (3) Cāṇakya, the sovereign’s preceptor and prime minister. Starting with Candragupta, he is depicted here as a powerful king. Generally in the famous dramas like Svapnavāsavadattā of Bhāsa or Abhijñānaśakuntalam of Kālidāsa the powerful kings like Vatsarāja Udayana or Duṣyanta are accepted to be the hero. Therefore, Candragupta also can have the quality to be the hero of the present play.

Secondly, the subject matter of the drama Mudrārākṣasa centers round Candragupta. Cāṇakya also make all his effort to make the throne clear for Candragupta. And lastly he can be able to be a sovereign ruler. Candragupta’s claim is easily shown to be more apparent than real. For despite the fact that kings coming from the distant shores of the oceans bend their heads low before Candragupta, but, Candragupta is entirely guided by and dependent on Cāṇakya who exercise the fullest control over Vṛṣala as he calls the emperor.

Again, generally it can be seen that the hero of a play remains on the stage from the starting act. But here in the Mudrārākṣasa, Candragupta is introduced in the third act. Moreover, all through the drama Candragupta is found as a silent character.

And Viśākhadatta also has not depicted his character as a sovereign king of the Maurya dynasty as should be. Therefore, it can’t be assumed that Candragupta must be the hero of Mudrārākṣasa.

On behalf of Rākṣasa it has been argued or suggested that the readers and the audiences are most interested in Rākṣasa when he finally got ready to sacrifice his life to save his friend Candanadāsa. Moreover it is a general rule that a play is named after the chief person i.e. the hero or the heroine or both, as can be seen from names like Cārudatta, Abhijñānaśakuntam and Mālati-Mādhavam etc. In the whole range of Sanskrit dramatic literature we can hardly find an instance where a play is named after a character who is not its hero. Again the bharatavākya is generally put into the mouth of the hero only, rather than any other character. In the Mudrārākṣasa all these considerations can be found to be in favour of Rākṣasa, Therefore, the readers spontaneously acclaim him as the hero.

But the above mentioned facts are not seems to be justifiable. Because, all the efforts showed in the drama is performed by Cāṇakya and not by Rākṣasa. Secondly, though Rākṣasa is full of self-confidence, the long-sightedness nature is less in his character in comparison to Cāṇakya. Over and above these Rākṣasa could not reach his goal till the end of the drama. Therefore, such an unsuccessful person cannot be the hero of the drama.

Now, regarding Cāṇakya we can say that in the drama he appears on the stage before anyone else from among the dramatic personae. Thus act-I brings before us Cāṇakya, while Rākṣasa consequently in act–II and III. The author thus seems to have paid greater attention to Cāṇakya’s character. Rather it can be said that Viśākhadatta is more bias in painting Cāṇakya’s character.

Mudrārākṣasa is a historical drama. The subject matter of this drama is based on purely historical background. Here, the cunning politician Cāṇakya, the destroyer of the Nanda dynasty arrestes Rākṣasa defusing all his plans against Candragupta, and at last totally against his will, makes him the minister of Candragupta. Therefore, it can be said that the steering is in the hands of Cāṇakya.

It is all accepted that Cāṇakya dominates the action of the play as none else does. Right up to the end in act VII, he towers over all. It is Cāṇakya who holds everything firmly in his grip, from starting to the end. The plain fact is that Cāṇakya voluntarily retires on being satisfied that a devoted, sincere and brave prime minister has been secured for Candragupta as he (Cāṇakya) wished to secure from the beginning. Therefore, Rākṣasa has no scope for himself, either off the stage or on the stage.

Again, Mudrārākṣasa is a drama having the sentiment of valour as its predominant sentiment. And this sentiment is brought forth by the speeches of Cāṇakya such as in—

nandakulakālabhujaṅgīṃ kopānalabahalaloladhūmalatāṃ/
adyāpi vadhyamānāṃ vadhyaḥ ko necchati śikkāṃ me//^[1]

And so on.

Again, in the last act when Cāṇakya declares about the closing of the drama in–

vinā vāhanahastibhyo muchyatāṃ sarvabandhanaṃ/
pūrṇa pratijñena mayā kevalaṃ badhyate śikhā//^[2]

It proves that Cāṇakya is the hero of the drama.

Dhanañjaya in his Daśarūpaka has mentioned the characteristics of a hero thus—

“The Hero should be well bred, charming, liberal, clever, affable, popular, upright, eloquent, of exalted lineage, resolute and young; endowed with intelligence, energy, memory, wisdom, (skill in the) arts and pride; heroic, mighty, vigorous, familiar with the codes, and a just observer of laws.”^[3]

Now, though not all, yet some of the above characteristics are found matching with Cāṇakya. He is not a person of humbles nature or he is not young, yet he is a brave, intelligent and elevating politician with sharp memory.

Again, from the rhetorical point of view though the hero of a nāṭaka should be of Dhīrodātta type yet the character of Cāṇakya is found as a mixture of Dhīraśānta and Dhīroddhata type of nāyaka.

The characteristics of Dhīraśānta type of hero is found in the Daśarūpaka of Dhanañjaya as—

“The self-controlled and calm hero (Dhīraśānta) is a Brāhmaṇa or the like, possessed of the generic merits (of a Hero).”^[4]

Here only one characteristic of Cāṇakya is found matching with this that Cāṇakya is a Brāhmaṇa by caste. But the Dhīraśānta type of hero is generally found in the Prakaraṇas.

The characteristic of Dhīroddhata type of nāyaka may again be found in the Daśarūpaka thus—

“The self-controlled and vehement hero (Dhīrddhata) is altogether dominated by pride and jealousy, wholly devoted to magic practices and deceit, selfassertive, fickle, irascible and boastful.”^[5]

Here most of the characteristics are found matching with Cāṇakya. Therefore, Cāṇakya seems to be the most unique hero in the tradition of Sanskrit nāṭaka.

At last it can be said that the title of the play itself speaks of the hero of the drama.

The title Mudrārākṣasa means—

mudrayā gṛhito rākṣaso yasmin tannudrarākṣasaṃ nāma nāṭakaṃ

“That in which there is Rākṣasa, i.e. account of Rākṣasa, won be a signet ring.”

Rākṣasa being won by a signet-ring is the principal theme of the play and in keeping with the maxim prādhānyena vyapadeśa bhavanti, Mudrārākṣasam comes to be the title of the play. In this theme it is the vanquished Rākṣasa, vanquished because of the mudrā. Here the looser is Rākṣasa and the winner is Cāṇakya. Now, in the Indian tradition losers are not portrayed as the hero of a drama generally.

Therefore, it seems that none other than Cāṇakya is the hero here in the Mudrārākṣasa.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Ibid., I. 9

[2]:

Ibid., VII.17

[3]:

netā vinīto madhurastyāgī dakṣaḥ priyaṃvadaḥ/ raktalokaḥ śucirvāgmī rūḍhavaṃśaḥ sthiro yuvā// budlhyutsāhasmṛtiprajñākalāmā nasamanvitaḥ/ śūro dṛaḍhaśca tejasvī śāstrcakṣuśca dhārmikaḥ/ Daśarūpaka. II. 1,2

[4]:

sāmānyaguṇayuktastu dhīraśānto dvijātikaḥ//Daśarūpaka, II. 4

[5]:

darpamātsaryabhūyiṣṭho māyāchadmaparāyaṇaḥ/ dhīroddhatastvahaṃkārī calaścaṇḍo vikatlhanaḥ//Daśarūpaka, II. 5