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 back
after a severe ordeal. Kalidasa has preferred to make his hero thoroughly
mundane with all the defects and drawbacks 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 back 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 back 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.