Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s11: Bhavabhūti's Plays as Vāda Texts

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s11

Language
English

Bhavabhūti's Plays as Vāda Texts

c10.s11.1

Bhavabhūti was born in a very orthodox family of traditional brāhmaṇas. He was also deeply steeped in Śāstric learning. He is rightly described as a *padavākya-pramāṇajña* (adept in Vyākaraṇa, Nyāya and Mīmāṁsā) in all the three prologues of his plays. One of the theories about Bhavabhūti that he is identical with the famous Mīmāṁsaka Umveka is yet to be testified or refuted. But then there has been a debate on the question whether a great philosopher like Bhavabhūti loses his *āptatva* (reliability) just because he has indulged in writing some piece of romantic dramas! Citsukha in his *Tattvapradīpa* holds both Bhavabhūti the poet and Umveka the Mīmāṁsaka as one and the same person and discusses the authenticity of his dramatic writings. He is of the view that Bhavabhūti is an *āpta* (authority) in philosophy; he does not become *anāpta* (non-authority) by having composed a few dramatic pieces (*nahi purā āpta eva san nāṭaka-nāṭikādiviracanamātreṇa anāpto bhavati bhavabhūtiḥ*).²⁹

c10.s11.2

Born at Padmapura in Vidarbha, Bhavabhūti migrated to the north and reached Padmāvatī (most probably modern Pavāyā near Gwalior district. in Madhya Pradesh) where his plays were performed during the *yātrā* of Kālapriyanātha.

c10.s11.3

There are debates on burning or crucial issues or philosophical dialogues in all the three plays of Bhavabhūti, viz. *Mahāvīracaritam*, *Mālatīmādhavam* and *Uttararāmacaritam*.

c10.s11.4

Bhavabhūti had very good relations with the repertoire which presented his plays on stage. And yet in his second play, i.e. the *Mālatīmādhavam*, Bhavabhūti expresses his anguish for being disregarded. G.K. Bhat opines that the reason for this so-called disregard lies in Bhavabhūti's neglect of his family traditions, and his indulgence in theatre. This does not sufficiently explain the outburst by Bhavabhūti. It is true that in the tradition of highly orthodox and scholarly family to which Bhavabhūti belonged, writing of poetry or play was supposed to be an inferior task of derogatory nature. However, Bhavabhūti would not expect appreciation from his family members whom he has left to seek his career as a dramatist. It is clear that he is unhappy because his first play *Mahāvīracaritam* has not been properly received. Bhavabhūti has recast the whole story of *Rāmāyaṇa* offering new interpretations to many of its characters and episodes. This redesigning of the whole story must have been somewhat startling for his audience. This in itself cannot become a reason for the disregard of which Bhavabhūti is talking in his verse — ye *nāma kecidiḥ naḥ*, etc. It is Bhavabhūti's portrayal of the character of Paraśurāma that must have caused a furor amongst a section of the society, to the extent that there was a movement to seize the copies of the text of *Mahāvīracaritam* and destroy them by putting them into fire.³⁰

c10.s11.5

In *Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa* Paraśurāma is a dreadful figure, viewed with awe and terror. He unleashed violence and created havoc by repeated massacres of kṣatriyas. But his sacrileges as well as barbarous killings of human beings including women and children have nowhere been decried. It is Bhavabhūti who questions these acts of Paraśurāma. Unlike their counterparts in *Rāmāyaṇa*, Daśaratha, Janaka and Śatānanda in his play are not at all terrified by the onslaught of Paraśurāma; they challenge him and go to the extent of vehemently condemning his murderous acts. The prolonged debate between Paraśurāma and these persons, which covers two acts in *Mahāvīracaritam* of Bhavabhūti raises questions on the former’s conduct.

c10.s11.6

The section of society that upheld Parśurāma as one of the incarnations of Viṣṇu, obviously could not tolerate this contempt of Paraśurāma. These votaries of Paraśurāma might have led a tirade against Bhavabhūti, thus causing him the anguish.

c10.s11.7

*Mālatīmādhavam*, a *prakaraṇa* (social drama) by Bhavabhūti is a text challenging the narrow moral and ethical norms. Mālatī, a young girl of tender age, dares to marry her lover without the permission of her parents, and quite significantly, she is guided and helped by Kāmandakī, a Buddhist nun in this venture. Bhavabhūti questions male chauvinism and the debate on harsh treatment to ladies by men is raised in the play by its female characters.

c10.s11.8

His *Uttararāmacaritam* presents one of the most sensitive and pathetic debates on Sītā’s banishment by Rāma. The *pūrva-pakṣa* is formed by the contention that Sītā’s modesty is under question, and Rāma should set an example by banishing her; that Rāma should forsake Sītā for duty of *lokārādhana*. In a state of introspection Rāma himself says:

c10.s11.9

Appeasement of the people is the holy duty for the good (kings) by whatsoever means possible. That indeed was fulfilled by my father by abandoning me and his life.³¹

c10.s11.10

The other view is presented by Vāsantī, Janaka, Kausalyā, Anasūyā, Vasiṣṭha, Vālmīki and several others of high rank. Vāsantī was a common friend of Rāma and Sītā during the days of their sojourn in the forest. Having exiled Sītā, Rāma meets her again after more than twelve years. Extremely shaken at the news of her friend’s predicament, Vāsantī asks Rāma:

c10.s11.11

*You are my life, you are my second heart,*
*You are moon-light to my eyes and nectar to my limbs*
*Having pleased her the simple-hearted one*
*With such and other hundreds of pleasing words*
*Then to her . . . O peace! What to say after that!*³²

c10.s11.12

When Rāma says that he had to do it as the people were intolerant, she again retorts:

c10.s11.13

*O you hard-hearted one! It was your fame that was dear to you*
*I say, what more terrible infamy can there be than this?*
*What happened to the fawn-eyed one in the forest?*
*O lord! What do you think about that?*³³

c10.s11.14

Janaka, Kausalyā and Arundhati express their deep anguish and extol Sītā's piety in highest terms.³⁴ Finally Gaṅgā and Pṛthivī (Goddess Earth) appear in the play within the play and ask Sītā not to look down upon herself; it is because of her contact that their own holiness is enhanced (*āvayor api yatsaṅgāt pavitratvaṃ prakṛṣyate* — VII.8).

Cites (4)