Where Bhavbhuti Excels

WHERE BHAVABHUTI EXCELS KALIDASA

By B. SATYANARAYANA, M. A., B. Ed. “Bhashapravina”

Bhavabhuti, the celebrated Sanskrit playwright, has three dramas to his credit–Malatimadhavam, Mahaviracharitam and Uttararamacharitam. Of these three plays his masterpiece is, undoubtedly, the last mentioned Uttararamacharitam which has justly won for him an undying fame. The oft-quoted Sanskrit couplet, which means that Bhavabhuti excels in Uttararamacharitam, is interpreted by some scholars to mean that Bhavabhuti is at his best in his last play Uttararamacharitam, which interpretation, I am afraid, fails to do full justice to that great drama, which is a dazzling product of his mature wisdom and magnificent erudition. This enigmatic but emphatic couplet is, however, generally, and in my view correctly, understood as a glowing tribute to, and as an unequivocal expression of preference in favour of, Bhavabhuti, the author of Uttararamacharitam, as compared with Kalidasa, the author of the world-renowned Sakuntalam. To a casual reader, Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti may not seem to present much common ground for mutual comparison but, if their two principal plays are subjected to a careful examination, the discerning student can find ample material for making a comparative study of the merits of the two great masters in handling identical characters and situations. Whatever might be the exact circumstances in which this famous couplet sprang into existence, it may be taken as unmistakably reflecting the consensus of opinion among several generations of scholars that Bhavabhuti is a giant among Sanskrit playwrights and that Uttararamacharitam is a jewel among Sanskrit dramas. And it behoves the shrewd and painstaking student of modern research to find out where Bhavabhuti excels his formidable rival Kalidasa, which subject sure to be fascinating in the extreme to all lovers of Sanskrit literature will be treated briefly in this short article.

The first major difference, in my opinion, between Uttararamacharitam and Sakuntalam lies in the selection of the heroes by Bhavabhuti and Kalidasa for their respective plays. Curiously enough, Rama and Dushyanta, the heroes of Uttararamacharitam and Sakuntalam, find themselves placed in identical situations both in regard to the discarding of wife and the taking her after a severe ordeal. Kalidasa has preferred to make his hero thoroughly mundane with all the defects and draws natural to human flesh and blood. And he tries to screen the shortcomings of the hero by introducing new episodes into the play and by pressing into service the element supernatural. The original Dushyanta of the Mahabharata story is no doubt a man of lofty ideals, but we find in Sakuntalam an undignified edition of that great monarch. Bhavabhuthi, on the other hand, presents his hero in a different manner. We have in Rama the hero of an ideal type. He is not a god, but an ordinary mortal striving for the welfare of his people. His first concern is to please his subjects and he is always at pains to find out their likes and dislikes. With this frame of mind, he abandons his wife, whom he knows full well to be perfectly virtuous. And he takes her not on any sentimental grounds, but on the openly proclaimed testimony of her character and conduct by the subjects, on whose opinion he entirely depends for the purpose. Though he is thus apparently stern towards Sita, he is really a great admirer of, and believer in, her fire-like chastity, and this is evidenced by the fact that he takes as his consort in the Aswamedha sacrifice a gold idol of Sita herself. All the same, during his separation from Sita, he never blames his subjects for the cruel verdict passed by them on Sita, but silently endures the pangs of agony. Thus in Uttararamacharitam Rama is an incarnation of nobility and high thinking and none can stand comparison with him. Thus, in the selection and portrayal of the hero himself, Bhavabhuthi excels Kalidasa, and king Dushyanta pales into insignificance before king Rama. Dushyanta creates in our minds a feeling of familiarity whereas Rama instils into our hearts a sense of reverence, and this alone is sufficient to raise Uttararamacharitam as a work of nobler art in the estimation of literary critics.

Now, turning to the heroines of Sakuntalam and Uttararamacharitam, we find that Sakuntala and Sita belong to two different patterns of Indian womanhood. Sita undoubtedly belonging to a higher and nobler pattern. Sakuntala does not hesitate to call her husband openly and publicly anarya when he disowns her in the open court and she is not satisfied in the end until her husband falls on her feet and craves her forgiveness. Sakuntala is thus thoroughly worldly and selfish in her attitude towards her husband, for whom she does not exhibit even a trace of respect in her conversation with him in the royal court. Sita, on the other hand, is a personification of feminine virtue. Though she is sorely hurt by the great calamity that has struck her, she does not utter even a word of protest against the cruel treatment meted out to her by her husband, for whom her respect is as great as her love. She does not also allow anybody to find fault with Rama. She roundly criticises Vasanti as cruel and harsh for having called Rama by those names in her presence. At the end, he is satisfied when Rama accepts her at the bidding of the elders supported by the unanimous testimony of the public, and she doesn’t make any more complaint about by-gone things. Thus, Sita outshines Sakuntala as a woman, as a wife, and as a queen. Sakuntala may be described as the earthly Ganga whereas Sita can be compared with the celestial Mandakini. The delineation of such a superb character as Sita’s is another important reason for acclaiming Uttararamacharitam as a work of higher literary art than Kalidasa’s.

The selection and development of the theme is another prominent factor in which Bhavabhuti excels Kalidasa. Agreeably to the Indian principle, that no drama can end in a calamity, Kalidasa adopts, as the theme of his play Sakuntalam, a readymade mangalanta story, where the happy reunion of the hero and the heroine is finally portrayed. Thus the task of Kalidasa has become easy and he is on safe ground. But Bhavabhuti has chosen a tragic story, for his Uttararamacharitam and he is therefore confronted with the difficulty of moulding the story suitably to his drama. Faced with such a situation, Bhavabhuti does not fall short of our expectations, but rises to the full stature of his capacity, to the wonder and admiration of all, and, the so-called tragedy of Rama’s later life changes itself into a superb comedy. This change-over is not a mere patched up work, as might have happened in the hands of a lesser poet, but a natural and gradual process in the skilful handling by Bhavabhuti. If Uttararamacharitam has been presented to us as a comedy, it is because it is conceived, developed and finalised as a comedy, and the soft and subtle way in which the mind of the reader of the play is prepared for the happy finale is quite convincing and exhilarating. A tone of subdued optimism pervades throughout the drama along with an air of melancholy that covers it, and this optimistic tone gains strength as we pass on from one Act to another. And, at last, when we reach the end of the play and find that Sita is happily reunited with Rama, we feel that the drama has come to a most natural and a long expected conclusion. The messages of infallible good wishes sent to Sita by Vasishta and Rishyasrunga in the first Act, the invoking of the divine blessings on Rama and Sita by Vasanti and Tamasa at the end of the third Act, the indignant retorts made by Arundhati against the sceptical Kausalya in the fourth Act and, finally the mysterious message sent by Valmiki to Janaka that everything about Kusa and Lava would unfold itself at the proper time–all these are clear indications of what is going to happen at the end of the play and put some cheer into the hearts of its readers even in the midst of the encircling gloom. Thus Bhavabhuti has performed a marvellous feat of originality and invention in creating and developing the plot of Uttararamacharitam and it is no wonder that he is hailed by all critics as a playwright of great merit, superior even to Kalidasa.

The last factor that, in my opinion, contributes to the superiority of Uttararamacharitam to Sakuntalam is the unparalleled naturalness of the Kumara Pratyabhignana scene which is, by a strange coincidence, common to both the dramas. In Sakutalam, as soon as Dushyanta sees his son Bharata in the hermitage of Maricha, the father exclaims that the boy attracts him like his ourasaputra and the story goes on like that. With due deference to the Kavikulaguru, it must be said that this kind of beginning of the subject is highly abrupt and artificial. In a similar situation in Uttararamacharitam, Rama on seeing Lava, merely remarks on his gambhiramadhura kalyana akruti and gradually his mind gets attached to the youngster whom he hugs to his bosom with indescribable delight. The fundamental difference between the recognition scenes of Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti is that the former depends on external factors like clay peacock and sacred talisman for hastening the process of recognition, by the father of his son, and therefore the whole thing seems too quick and artificial. Had the recognition process been a little slow and finalised only after the appearance of Sakuntala on the spot it would have been natural and convincing. Bhavabhuti’s recognition scene is not, on the other hand, dependent on any external circumstances. The conversation between Rama and Lava is extremely natural and advances step by step the process of recognition, by the father, of his son. Rama, by his skilful examination of Lava, collects useful material to draw his own inference about the parentage of the twins, between whom and Sita he sees a striking resemblance. Finally, Rama falls into a reverie discussing in his mind the pros and cons of the hypothesis he has formed about the two boys and wishes to ask the boys definitely about their parentage, but refrains from questioning them for very good reasons. And here the scene ends and Rama is more than half convinced in his mind that the two boys are his own sons, but, cautious as he is, does not give expression to his thoughts openly. Thus Bhavabhuti’s recognition scene is a masterpiece before which Kalidasa’s performance appears unconvincing and unimpressive and the natural grandeur of Bhavabhuti’s handling of this fine and delicate situation keeps unchallenged, his claim to superiority over Kalidasa, so far as Uttararamacharitam is concerned.