Me: Sir, while reading your essay, there was one other passage which again intrigued me. I wish to have you please clarify it. This is what you wrote:
QUOTE: As one sees Kamban’s portrayal of Kumbakarna, one cannot but conclude that all these three characters (Kumbakarna , Bhishma and Radheya) were Destiny’s children, cursed, as they were, to fight for the wrong side. Towards presenting Kumbakarna this way, Kamban deviated from the original and set up a scene in which Vibhishana met Kumbakarna in the battle-field to request him to join Rama, as he was also opposed to the abduction of Sita by Ravana. Kamban achieved two objectives by presenting this scene. One, Vibhishana had to be justified in his action for deserting his brother and joining his enemy and the other, the character of Kumbakarna had to be glorified, as an heroic man of great integrity, full of love and compassion for his brothers. UNQUOTE
Me: When I read the Yuddha Kandam of Valmiki Ramayana, I find that there really is no so-called “deviation” by Kamban from the original in this context. The scene you describe — “in which Vibhishana met Kumbakarna in the battle-field to request him to join Rama, as he was also opposed to the abduction of Sita by Ravana” — is in fact very much there in Yuddha Kandam of Valmiki also.There Valmiki describes how the two brothers came face-to-face on the battlefield. I am quoting from Canto (sarga) No. 67.
Valmiki Ramayana : Canto LXVII
Looking at the great Räkshasa chief, who shone like a blazing fire, the first of men twanged his bow: Enraged by that twanging, which he could not stand, the great Rakshasa rushed upon Raghava. There appeared before him Vibhishana, armed with the mace brother to fight brother on behalf of Raghava. Kumbha-karna told him, ‘ Rain blows on me quick, be firm in following the law of the Kshattriya. Disregarding your fraternal feelings, do what would please Raghava. By your going over to Raghava’s side, great good has accrued to us. You are the only one in the world of the Räkshasas who has been solicitous for truth and Dharma. Those who are in love with Dharma never suffer from affliction. You will be the only one left to perpetuate the race. By Raghava’s grace you will obtain the rulership of the Rakshasas. Get away from my path quick, you will not be able to resist me (my might). My mind is distracted and I do not know what l am doing? So do not come before me; engaged in combat, I may not distinguish between friend and foe. But in bounden duty, I must protect you, my child, I say this in all earnestness. So leave now… at once…’
Thus told by the sagacious Kumbhakarna, Vibheeshana answered him, “In order to save the family from extinction, I advised them, O subduer of the foe, but none of the Rakshasas would listen. So I went and joined Rama.’
Having said this, Vibhishana armed with his mace, retired to a lonely spot (away from the combat zone), his eyes brimming with tears.
Me: Reading the above ‘sarga‘, Sir, it appears to me therefore that there was really no deviation from the original of Valmiki in Kamban’s Ramayana about this very poignant encounter between Kumbhakarna and Vibheeshana. Each poet only described the scene in his own way… with varying degrees of poetic flourish and eloquence. Maybe Kamban used Tamil with more flourish and dramatic effect… and Valmiki chose more of understatement… because the scene was right in the middle of a battle…. and there could have been no occasion to display any effusion of feelings in the din and heat of the bloody battle. What are your thoughts Sir?
Eepa: What I mean by “Deviation” is related to the fact that Vibheeshana asks Kumbhakarna to join Rama … as Kumbhakarna is also against what Ravana did in abducting Sita. That entreaty by Vibheeshana to Kumbhakarna to defect is not there at all in Valmiki Ramayana…. You can check it out. That’s a very dramatic variation that Kamban adds. However, Kumbhakarna turns down this offer saying that he had been faithful to Ravana and therefore complicit in all of the king’s other misdeeds. But now, knowing fully well that Ravana cannot get away with the crime, betraying him would be treachery! “Whereas by joining Rama now you, Vibheeshana, did the right thing befitting your nature”, said Kumbhakarna. “I stand by fraternal affection and not by what is right, but you stand for what is right and just … brother or no brother”.
And BTW, the meeting of Vibheeshana and Kumbhakarna is not on the battleground but Vibheeshana actually goes all alone seeking his brother in his camp .
Me: Yes, Sir … understood … ! Thank you for pointing out that fine nuance in how Kamban differed from Valmiki in portraying the scene. But there is another fine nuance too in narration here that I want to ask you about.
Eepa: What?
Me: From Kamban’s narrative we get the feeling that it was not on his own accord or at his own behest, or even at Rama’s, that Vibheeshana went to Kumbhakarna to plead with him to switch sides in the war. It was Sugreeva really who came up with the idea! He told Rama that someone should go to Kumbhakarna’s battle camp to try and persuade him to defect. Rama thought it was a good suggestion and so immediately brought up the question about who should undertake the mission. Vibheeshana himself then volunteered to go…. Which he did.
Kamban himself describes all this in his Ramayana as follows (Dr. H.V.Hande’s English translation):
“Kumbhakarna can crush fire and wind and produce water from them. He would get into the sea and kick the water with such force that the fishes inside would perish.
Mightiest of all, he has tremendous will-power. His great penances have given him lofty boons. This world is spared because he has been asleep all these days. He has a trident (given by Lord Siva) that consumed the living days of several heroes!
Whenever they had challenged him in war, Kumbhakarna had only seen the backs of fleeing Devas and not their faces.
He advised Ravana on more than two occasions that to seek another man’s wife was against dharma and would cost us our lives. He chided him for refusing to release Seeta, and gave him sound advice. After explaining to Ravana that imprisoning the wife of another was bad, and after finding that his words had no effect, Kumbhakarna has come today to face the Yama in you!”
As soon as Vibheeshana spoke thus, Sugreeva observed, “It is purposeless to kill Kumbhakarna. If possible, he must be persuaded to join us and relieve the agony of Vibheeshana. Rama agreed and wanted to know who would go and plead with Kumbhakarna.
Offering to go, Vibheeshana said, “With my intelligence (and tact), I will convince Kumbhakarna and bring him here if he consents.” When Rama approved the plan, Vibheeshana crossed the sea of vanaras and reached the big army of the Rakshasas. His arrival was conveyed by the messengers to Kumbhakarna who attained boundless joy.
Me: So, I would tend to think Sir, that more than Vibheeshana’s filial feelings for his brother, it was really Sugreeva’s cold calculation of battle-tactics that perhaps made Rama decide that it was worth attempting a covert operation … a clandestine overture to Kumbhakarna and get him to switch camp. What are your thoughts ?
Eepa: Let me remind you that according to Kamban, Kumbakarna in the open court in the Royal assembly, in an earlier meeting of the brothers, on hearing that Ravana had abducted Sita, sneered at his brother:
ஆசில் பரதாரம் அவை வெம் சிறையில் அடைப்போம் பேசுவது மானம் இடை பேணுவது காமம் கூசுவது மானிடரை நன்று நம கொற்
Me: But how does that quote relate to my question, Sir? I don’t understand…
***********
NOTE: The rough translation of the above Tamil text is: “We will imprison those innocent wives of others in our prison; yet we will desire a reputation without guilt; speaking of wealth as dignity, we will maintain it is lust too; we will shout out that humanity is our pride; indeed, and that our governance is commendable too!.”
The phrase “பேசுவது மானம் இடை பேணுவது காமம்” translates to “We will speak with dignity, yet still have lust lurking within us.”
Significance:
- Duality of Human Nature: This line captures the complexity of human interactions and relationships. It suggests that while communication (speaking) is an honorable act, the underlying motivations for maintaining relationships can sometimes be driven by desire or lust.
- Social Commentary: It reflects a critique of societal norms where the surface-level interactions may appear dignified, but the intentions behind them can be less noble. This highlights the contrast between public persona and private motives.
- Philosophical Insight: The statement invites deeper reflection on the nature of relationships, suggesting that true dignity comes from genuine intentions rather than superficial appearances. It emphasizes the importance of authenticity in human connections.
Overall, this phrase serves as a poignant reminder of the inexplicable nature of human behavior and the often hidden (Freudian) motivations that drive our actions
***********
Me: Sir, how does your quotation actually relate to my question? I don’t understand. My view is this: The kandam here is Yuddha Kandam. War is therefore the predominant theme here . So, our perspective on this scene also has got to be contextual. So, the idea of an encounter between Vibheeshana and Kumbhakarna we must see and appreciate clearly was initiated by Sugreeva only as a war strategy.
Given that context, to portray the meeting of Vibheeshana and Kumbhakarna as an occasion to vent out filial or deep brotherly feelings is rather too mushy and cloyingly sentimental when we know that a Yuddham was raging on in the background.
The meeting therefore has to be seen as only a part of a tactical military move . We can say it was a sort of psych-op as in modern warfare… a mind game to unnerve the enemy … being played on Kumbhakarna to unsettle him and roil his emotions. He was rampaging through the vaanara ranks who were running away helter-shelter in fear of him … It was then that Sugreeva cleverly hit upon a ruse which would ensure that before Rama eventually could finish him off , Kumbhakarna first was psychologically unhinged. And the brother Vibheeshana became instrumental in that effort.
The objective of Sugreeva and Rama was clear : if Kumbhakarna accepted to defect, well and good. If not , at least Vibheeshana would have succeeded in making Kumbhakarna psychologically dented and demoralised a bit. Perturbed in mind about the morality of his own engagement in the war, Kumbhakarna would surely have grave and very troubling doubts sown into his mind. His mind would be rattled by Vibheeshana’s brotherly entreaties to defect for the sake of dharma. Rama could then come in and finish him off .
It was all thus just brilliant war strategy and a ploy ! Nothing really to do with brotherly feelings between Vibheeshana and Kumbhakarna.
Sir, please do understand that I’m not being argumentative here. I’m only engaging in rasana vichaara… critical appreciation of Kamban. Your essay does trigger so many thoughts and impressions in my mind.
Eepa: I think yours is a very modern perspective….! Strategy and all that complex stuff you bring up… ! But as far as I am concerned, at that time in the Yuddha Kandam, it was only a question of a great moral dilemma … and of right or wrong. Vibheeshana was present too in the royal assembly earlier when Kumbhakarna gave Ravana a bit of his mind and expressed displeasure over the latter abducting Sita and holding her hostage. Vibheeshana therefore could not have been aware how exactly Kumbakarna might receive the idea of a surrender to Rama when he was broached with it. So, let us even assume what you say is true… that Sugriva did use a ruse in war as a strategy… and proposed thus the idea which he had hoped might appeal to Kumbhakarna. It was still an appeal to moral sense , to the conscience . And an entreaty to Kumbhakarna that too may decide to do what was right and dharmic and follow the footsteps of Vibheeshana …. .
Our conversation on that particular scene in the Ramayana ended there.
*************
Me: Sir, this is going to be my 3rd and final query on your essay. In your essay, you wrote:
QUOTE: Kamban did not translate the Valmiki’s Ramayana but trans-created it with masterly and subtle structural changes to suit his own literary views and concepts, without offending the sequential order of narration in the original. UNQUOTE
What you have said above is largely right and indisputable. However, in this specific episode in the Yuddha Kandam, it is my understanding that Kamban’s narrative is perhaps guilty of “offending the sequential order of narration in the original” Valmiki Ramayana.
Please pardon me if you think I should not have such temerity to call into question Kamban’s omission. But I want to offer you an explanation for my statement.
I think Kamban failed to include in his narrative an extraordinary scene in which Valmiki had described the pathos, the pain and paroxysm of agony into which Ravana plunged when news was brought to him that Rama had finally killed Kumbhakarna in battle. That particular narrative of Valmiki is glaringly missing in Kamba Ramayana… and therefore I say that Kamban perhaps ought to be held guilty of “offending the sequential order of narration in the original” of Valmiki.
Eepa: Go ahead…. explain it then to me.
Me: The omission in my view is quite significant because while Valmiki in his narrative dramatically underscores a very key event , Kamban in his version either inadvertantly skips it altogether; or else, he did not think it important enough to highlight it, and so completely missed reporting what was truly an extraordinarily dramatic moment in the narrative of the whole story of the Ramayana.
Let me explain.
When Ravana heard the news of Kumbhakarna’s death, his grief knew no bounds. He sank in sorrow and wailed loudly. In that moment he rued his fate. He rued the fact that he did not heed the wise counsel given him by both his brothers; that he did not return Sita to Rama and make amends to avert a disastrous war.
At the very core of Valmiki’s narration there is this sudden new revelation: for the very first time in the entire Ramayana, Ravana actually gave expression to a thought that he had never done before! It was this thought:
“After having lost my brother like this, what joy will I now experience even if I were to have Sita for myself?”!
There is no other moment in the entire epic (to the best of my knowledge) paralleling the pathos of Ravana is so poignantly, tragically portrayed by Valmiki. It is this moment when Ravana realised that even if Sita became his consort at the end of the war (either out of her accord or perforce), there would really be no joy in it for him at all!
We see here, in this moment, that he who throughout the Ramayana until then had been in the grip of a passionate obsession with Sita, suddenly found his amorous passion vanishing in a trice! Valmiki captures that moment brilliantly when Desire (Kama) suddenly vaporised, as it were, and turned into great Despair (Shoka).
It was thus the death of Kumbhakarna indeed which finally brought Ravana to his senses… rudely, brutally and permanently. It was in that almost climactic point in the entire Ramayana narration when the shocking truth of life struck him the full force of an epiphany: that Kama is after all fleeting and ephemeral, and that there would be no joy for him in Lanka without his brother Kumbhakarna (and Vibheeshana too) by his side.
The above realisation struck Ravana like a thunderbolt indeed! It was the cataclysmic moment when he realised that Sita did not matter that much to him anymore! He could end the war by giving up Sita to Rama. But then tragic Fate was now however conspiring to suddenly change the very reason for which the War — Ravana to his utter chagrin realised then — had to be fought and right to the very bitter end. Ravana now could not just retreat from the war.
It is often said by great military generals that one can never predict the course of a war once it begins. And in this scene, as Valmiki describes it, such a saying could not be truer. For Ravana, the motives why the war was being fought suddenly shifted: It was not so much about Sita that the war was now going to be about. It had now become all about avenging his brother Kumbhakarna’s death!
Me: Sir, Below I quote from Valmiki Ramayana (Canto 68):
राज्येन न अस्ति मे कार्यम् किम् करिष्यामि सीतया |
कुम्भ कर्ण विहीनस्य जीविते न अस्ति मे रतिः || ६-६८-१७
“I have nothing to do with a kingdom and what shall I do with Seetha? I have no intention to live, bereft of Kumbhakarna.”
O! How could he have fallen, a hero like him, who humbled the pride of the gods and the Danavas in the battle-field, who was as terrible as Rudra, or the fire that burns up the worlds, be slain by Rama in battle? How did you, my brother, whom no blow from the thunderbolt could discompose, come to lie down on the bare earth in the sleep that knows no waking, having suffered agonies from Rama’s arrows?
The gods in large numbers, along with the sages, have taken their stand in the sky and are shouting for joy, having seen you slain. Without a doubt, the rejoicing monkeys, having got the opportunity for which they have been waiting, will now climb over all the defences of Lanka and pass through its gates.
What shall I do with the kingdom or with Sita now?
Life without Kumbhakarna has no attraction for me. If I do not kill in battle Raghava, slayer of my brother, I would far prefer death to futile existence. I shall go and join my brother this very day. I would not like to live for a moment without my brother. The gods will mock at me, who have done them many a wrong; how can I vanquish Indra, O Kumbhakarna, now that they have slain you?
I have lived to realize the truth of the wholesome advice that the wise Vibhishana gave me, advice which in my ignorant folly I spurned. Since a cruel death came to Prahasta and Kumbhakarna, I recall Vibhishana’s words with shame. I am reaping the fruit of the grievous sin I did in repudiating the righteous and fortunate Vibhishana.
Having thus lamented long and pitiably the loss of Kumbhakarna, Dasanana, his heart convulsed by grief, fell down in a stupour, dazed by the thought that his brother, Indra’s foe, was dead.
Me: Sir, I am unable to understand why Kamban omitted such a key scene given its exremely dramatic and powerful significance and of Ravana’s utterances in it. Unless, Sir, you can refer me to the same scene in some other Kamban narrative elsewhere in his epic, I can find no light being shed upon this glaring omission by any scholar … i.e. it’s truly an omission that you may call is “offending the sequential order of narration in the original“.
Sir, can you please enlighten me?
Eepa: Of course Ravana’s lamentation described by Valmiki is truly very poignant. No doubt. But I would say that what you have explained does not necessarily mean that Kamban grossly deviated from the original story or omitted significant parts of its narratives. Kamban as a poet, he has his own license as to how he wants to portray a character. Kamban’s Ravana is an arrogant rakshasa … endowed with a never-say-die attitude.He doesn’t give up unto the last ….
‘என்னையே நோக்கி நான் இந்நெடும் பகை தேடிக் கொண்டேன்’ ‘வென்றிலன் என்ற போதும் வேதம் உள்ளளவும் என் பேரும் நிற்கும் அன்றோ அவ்விராமன் நிற்கும் வரை
My name also would last as long as Rama’s name as one who fought him unto the end. Death is certain for everybody. But one’s glory will never fade.
பொன்றுதல் பொதுமைத் தன்றோ.
புகழுக்கு இறுதி உண்டோ?
Kamban’s Rama will never lament for anything … அவ்விராமன் பேர் நிற்குமாயின்
Me: Sir, You say “Kamban’s Ravana is arrogant endowed with never say die attitude”. And yet in your essay you wrote this line about Ravana: “Kamban’s Ravana was not a hard hearted , brutal villain merely given to lust and violence”. Isn’t there somewhere an inconsistency ?
Eepa: No. I am only saying that Ravana was outwardly a hard hearted brutal villain given to lust and violence and this was the impression he had about himself too; but to his great surprise he fell in love with Janaki that he never did with the many women he had earlier lured, abducted and ravished! Kamban says that before he imprisoned Sita in Ashokavanam, he kept her in the prison of his heart. So, tell me how can it be said that Ravana’s obsession with Sita simply vanished upon hearing the news of Kumbhakarna’s death? Yes, Valmiki did write that, no doubt… but we must take it only as poetic dramatisation… a piece of poetic exaggeration. Kamban did also write:
“இதயமாம் சிறையில் வைத்தான்!”
மலர்கூந்தல் ஜானகியை
மனச்சிறையில் வைத்த கரந்த காதல் உள்ளிருக்கும் என நினைத்து உள்புகுந்து தடவியதோ ஒருவன் வாளி! (i.e. அம்பு)
When Ravana’s heart was pierced by Rama’s arrow, it shot inside into his heart and began searching for that secret love which he had hidden inside it for Sita … and removed that love out first before killing him.
Me: Truly fascinating drama, Sir!
**************
Me: All in all, Sir, the two of us over the last couple of days, have had a very enjoyable and (for me) very educative conversation on your old essay on Kamba Ramayana you shared with me. Thank you so much.
Eepa: Not at all…. I too feel happy myself that I had such an interesting dialogue with a good friend. We both after all share the same love for the Ramayana.
**** Shubham****
Sudarshan Madabushi