Unresolved Question of Funeral in U.R. Ananthamurthy’s Samskara

“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.