“Unresolved Question of
Funeral in U.R. Ananthamurthy’s Samskara”
-Ms. Sridevi
Knowingly
or unknowingly, Anantamurt(i) has portrayed a barbaric civilization, where
books, the laws are buttressed by magic and where a too elaborate social
organization is unquickened by intellect or creativity or ideas of moral
responsibility (except to the self in its climb to salvation). These people are
helpless, disadvantaged, easily unbalanced; the civilization they have
inherited has long gone sour, living instinctive lives crippled by rules…they
make up a society without a head
-
Naipaul .V S. India: A Wounded Civilization.
This paper takes up for analysis
U.R. Ananthamurthy’s Kannada novel Samskara (published in 1966 and translated
to English by A K Ramanujan in 1976) and problematises
the depiction of funeral in the novel. The paper attempts to argue that the
question of funeral is unnecessarily complicated in the novel. The paper takes
forward the assertion of the Kannada critic G.S. Amur that “Samskara as a novel fails because of the
distorted reality, individual perception and wide gap between the ideal and the
real” (Amur, G.S., 370; my translation). In the course of analysis of the
novel, the paper criticizes the author’s portrayal of pseudo “Constructed
Hinduism”.
In his novel Samskara,
U.R.Ananthamurthy introduces a conflict about the performance of funeral ritual for the dead body of
Naranappa. The author arranges the debate among the Brahmins of the agrahara
whether the body of dead Naranappa deserves Brahminical funeral. This issue has
to be solved by Praneshacharya, the
Guru like figure of Agrahara. For a solution, he goes through all the
scriptures including Dharma Shastras, but fails. He also does not get answer
from Lord Maruti. After meeting Chandri, the concubine of Naranappa, he feels
guilty and takes a step back regarding the issue of funeral. Ananthamurthy ends
the issue of funeral silently through the characters of Chandri and Ahmed Bari.
The lengthy discourse established in the novel whether Naranappa deserves a
ritual Brahmin funeral or not is surreptitiously solved when Chandri asks Ahmed
Bari to take the corpse at night and cremate it. My argument is, if ritual funeral is problematical by the religion, how
it is so urgently solved by the author within few sentences in the novel.
The point to note is that
Praneshacharya is a Brahmin in true sense. He is the symbol of his faith,
Sanathana Dharma. With his aim of
attaining Moksha, he has married an invalid
woman and practices Nishkama Karma. Above all, he was titled “Vedantha
Shiromani” and is an ideal Brahmin of that Agrahara. In spite of all these, he
fails to find the answer. But, for ignorant Chandri, the symbol of humanity in
the novel, it is a very simple task. With this, the novel tries to convey that religion is a hindrance to humanity.
G.S. Amur argues that Praneshacharya
knew that there was some solution for the funeral issue. Naranappa was not
excommunicated. “Though he left Brahminism, Brahminism has not left him”.
Besides, Praneshacharya had accepted the challenge of changing Naranappa’s
attitude. But before he could prove it, Naranappa died. He also had some
conflicts about the ways of his childhood friend, Mahabala. Thus both of these
made him lose his inner peace and turned as a matter of conflict. Thus G. S Amur
opines that it might be his inner conflict that made Praneshacharya fail. What
is implied from the observation of G S Amur is that it need not be the failure
of the religion what he believes in, instead it might be the failure of
Praneshacharya as an individual and thus the novel fails (Amur, 367-68). G S Amur’s
also argues that Ananthamurthy has deliberately made the Brahmin community
weak. This would be a food for those people who are unaware of our culture. V S
Naipaul’s observation quoted in the preface of this paper about U R
Ananthamurthy’s novel Samskara
further strengthens Amur’s arguments.
Exposing the loopholes of a culture
is not wrong, but paying no heed to its positive aspects is a severe mistake and
a disservice rendered to one’s own culture. Samskara
as a novel fails in these aspects. To me, this
issue of funeral raised in the novel is not actually a conflict at all. It
seems that a simple issue is unnecessarily made complex. In the beginning of the
novel, Praneshacharya at the lunch time runs to his neighbourhood to inform
about Naranappa’s death so that they will not have food. It is a custom that
when someone in the neighbourhood is dead, one should not eat or drink or else
he will be polluted. For those who comment that religious practices are far
away from humanity, I can say that this
very practice of not eating or drinking in the presence of corpse, means that
cremating the body, as a part of humanity is more important than food. In
other words, it is an individual’s Dharma to offer the funeral or else he will
be polluted by being unfaithful to his
own soul. In India, Religion is the blend of Humanity, Spirituality and
Science.
Similar situation arises in Yuddha
Kanda of Ramayana. After Ravana is
killed, Vibhishana does not agree to cremate
him. He says, “ತ್ಯಕ್ತಧರ್ಮವ್ರತಂ ಕ್ರೂರಂ ನೃಶಂ ಸಮನನೃತಂ ತಥಾ| ನಾಹಮರ್ಹೋಸ್ಮಿ
ಸಂಸ್ಕರ್ತುಂ ಪರದಾರಾಭಿಮರ್ಶಿನಮ್ || 93 ||” which means, “For one who has left the path
of Dharma, by being violent, untruthful and being with others’ wives, offering
funeral wouldn’t be good for me”.
For this Lord Rama
says, “ಮರಣಾಂತಾನಿ ವೈರಾಣಿ ನಿರ್ವೃತ್ತಂ ನ ಪ್ರಯೋಜನಮ್|
ಕ್ರಿಯತಾಮಸ್ಯ ಸಂಸ್ಕಾರೋ ಮಮಾಪ್ಯೇಷ ಯಥಾ ತವ | | 100 || which means, “Hatred towards one will be present only till death and
with the death it also will die”. Thus Rama convinces Vibhishana to cremate
Ravana and fulfill his dharma. When noble as well as liberal instances like the
above exist, how Praneshacharya could not find an answer about funeral ritual? This instance shows that in the spirit of criticizing
religion, Ananthamurthy fails to understand it properly.
While
condemning Brahminism, the writer condemns Maharshi Parashara, especially his
union with Matsyagandhi. Maharshi did not leave his wife and come to her for
pleasure. In fact, he did not marry at all. The statement about this Maharshi
by Naranappa was, “Quite a lusty lot, those sages. What was the name of the
fellow who ravished the fisherwoman smelling of fish, right in the boat and
gave her a permanent perfume?...” Here Naranappa agrees that the sage gave permanent
perfume to her body, which was his special ability due to his Tapas, but he is
not ready to accept the ways of Parashara are not like normal human beings.
Moreover, Parashara had promised Gandhavathi that her virginity will not be
lost. The birth of Vyasa Maharshi was unlike today. He had no infancy at all.
As soon as he was born, he went to Tapas. It is because of this smell she got
married to King Shanthanu. In Puranas, the process of giving birth did not
limit just to man-woman relationship, instead was based on Prakrithi-Purusha
relationship.
Talking about caste,
which is a major controversial issue of present day, Krishna in Bhagavadgita
says, “ ಚಾತುರ್ವರ್ಣ್ಯಂ
ಮಯಾ ಸೃಷ್ಟಂ ಗುಣಕರ್ಮ ವಿಭಾಗಶಃ| ತಸ್ಯ ಕರ್ತಾರಮಪಿ ಮಾಂ ವಿದ್ಧ್ಯಕರ್ತಾರಮವ್ಯಯಮ್|| 4/13||” which means “According to three
modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of
human society were created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system,
you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable.” Here we
need to focus on the terms Guna and Karma. Krishna did not say that caste system is based on birth. India
has not only one Smrithi, Manusmrithi. We also have Parashara Smrithi, Athri
Smrithi, Vaadhuula Smrithi and others. According to Athri Smrithi, “According
to the Atri Smruti a man is born a Shudra; by performing the Upanayana Samskara
he becomes a Dvija (twice born); by acquiring the Vedic lore he becomes a Vipra
(an inspired poet); and by realising Brahman (God) he becomes a Brahmin.” So,
according to this Smrithi, anyone can become Brahmin. It is a process and is a
way of life. Similarly we have other Smrithis describing four Varnas of the
society. Vyasa Maharshi, being born to Parashara and the fisher-woman Gandhavathi,
is a Brahmin. Western inspired
intellectuals quote only Manusmriti, as if it was the sole text that decided
the norm of the past.
You might say it is due to Patriarchal society. But, we have
another example, Ravana, the son of sage Vishravas is considered as Rakshasa
rather than a Brahmin. Take the example of Prahlada, he is usually called as
Rakshasaputra and not Rakshasa. With this background, all those
characters-Lakshmanacharya, Garudacharya and others introduced in the novel are
not at all Brahmins. Now, we should analyse who actually is a Brahmin? Rejecting
the idea of leaving religious practices suggested by Ananthamurthy, Dunkin
Julki quotes S N Balagangadhar’s words:
My only objection is that such people
“never progress beyond the mantric repetition of hackneyed criticisms from the
Eighteenth-century Europe, exactly the same realization pervades their
perception as well: a vague sense that
rejection of this or that practice and an
endorsement of this or that belief does not suffice” to renounce
Brahminism (Dunkin, Jalki 192).
Moreover, Ananthamurthy himself puts forth a statement in the
novel about Naranappa through Praneshacharya: “he may have rejected
Brahminhood, but brahminhood never left him” in which Praneshacharya also later
gets trapped. With this, knowingly or unknowingly the novelist suggests that
this method of leaving Brahminical practices is not a solution for the
controversies about caste system. So,
the best method to get rid of such problems is to understand what actually the
religion is.
At the helm of colonial rule in
India, one of the British viceroys confronted a religious issue to be solved.
He asked one of his local officers to bring the holy book of India to refer and
give verdict. But, to his astonishment, there were varied books with different
or contradictory ideas. He was perplexed. India doesn’t believe in one holy
book. India believes in ‘unity in
diversity’, the idea of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”. Swami
Vivekananda at Chicago spoke of the limitless, infinite quality of the Sanathana
Dharma. It is beyond books and scriptures. It is the way of living, a
way of responding to life situations with proper reasoning.
We
have novel examples of western scholars who supported Indian culture and
religion. Well known German scholar Max Muller,
came to India and learnt Sanskrit with passion. After studying the subject
thoroughly, he opposed introducing western
education to India. We have great ignorance about ourselves. A small anecdote
by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is very reflective. A man who wanted to smoke a
cigarette at night, searches for match stick. Without finding it, he leaves to
the neighbour’s house with a lamp. There, when he asks his friend for match
stick, the friend pointing to the lamp in his hand says, “While you have fire
in your hand, why do you want a matchstick from me”. While we have lamp in our hand, there is no
need of going to others’ house in search of light. A tree cannot survive
without the roots. Similarly, let us water our roots and automatically the
shoots will spring. “ಹಳೆ ಬೇರು ಹೊಸ ಚಿಗುರು
ಕೂಡಿದರೆ ಮರ ಸೊಗಸು”.
Reference
Amur,G.S.
“U.R.Ananthamurthiyavara Kaadambarigalalli Aadarsha-Vaastavagala Sambandha” in Hiriyadka,
Muralidhara Upadhyaya. Ed. U R
Ananthamurthy: Jeevana Haagu Krutigala Samoohashodha. Puttur: Karnataka
Sangha, 2000. P 365-381.
Ananthamurthy U. R. Samskara: A Rite for a Dead Man. Second
edn. New Delhi: Oxford, 1976 rpt 2012.
Baral C Kailash, D Venkat Rao, Sura
P Rath. eds. U R Ananthamurthy’s Samskara: A Critical Reader. New Delhi:
Pencraft, 2005.
Ganesh U H. U R Ananathamurthy and the Discourse of Modernity. Bangalore:
Abhinava, 2012.
Hiriyadka, Muralidhara Upadhyaya.
Ed. U R Ananthamurthy: Jeevana Haagu
Krutigala Samoohashodha. Puttur: Karnataka Sangha, 2000.
Jalki, Dankin.
“Orientalism as a Linguistic Behaviour: On the Anti-Brahman Rhetoric of Samskara” in Hiriyadka, Muralidhara
Upadhyaya. Ed. U R Ananthamurthy: Jeevana
Haagu Krutigala Samoohashodha. Puttur: Karnataka Sangha, 2000. P 179 – 198.
Mukherjee, Meenakshi. “Samskara” in Realism and Reality: The Novel and Society
in India. New Delhi: Oxford, 1985 rpt 2014. P 166 – 184.
Shrimadvaalmiki Ramayana. Translated
by N Ranganatha Sharma.
