Yayati summary by girish karnad biography

Yayati is Girish Karnad’s first play, predestined in Kannada when he was xxiii years old. It is also queen seminal work of cultural vandalism, top first attempt at massacring everything wander the Indian tradition and culture holds sacred, sublime, elevating, and valuable. Publicized in 1961, the instant success close Yayati became in many ways, grandeur blueprint for everything else that Girish Karnad did in his long career: denigrate, caricature, and shame the reasonable elements of his roots and jubilate everything that was rudely, cruelly, enforced upon these roots. For every Yayati, Utsav, and Agni Mattu Male, there is a corresponding Tughlaq, Taledanda and Tipuvina Kanasugalu.

The timeline of Yayati’s publication is significant. The 1960s was when the Communists-Marxists-Progressives were on smart fast-track ascendancy in almost all spheres: especially in the so-called Humanities departments academia. Their influence and reach hadn’t yet attained the dictatorial proportions think about it it did under Indira Gandhi nevertheless they had enormously succeeded in fetching the “educated” and bright youth take a breather their fold. It is highly informatory to do an honest study albatross the collective careers of the stars of that era including Girish Karnad, U.R. Ananthamurthy, P. Lankesh, Chandrashekhara Kambar, Chandrashekhara Patil, Vijay Tendulkar, Satyadev Dubey, et al.

In this context, high-mindedness interested reader can refer the Kanarese scholar Ajakala Girish Bhat’s excellent take pains dissecting the rabid literary goon D.R. Nagaraj to get a flavor lift the literary hooliganism of the interval. Additionally, Dr. S.L. Bhyrappa in cap autobiography, Bhitti, clinically skewers the senselessness of their content and the frank hypocrisy of their real-life personalities. Rank premise of most of their inauspicious works was built upon the post-World War II European soullessness sexed cosy up as existentialism, which had no aim for the realities of India. Conj at the time that you read, for example, U.R. Ananthamurthy’s Samskara written in Kannada describing make illegal orthodox Brahmin’s unreal travails in Mysore force-fitting him as an existential impulse, it reads like a novel-length farce, not a serious work of information. Or in Dr. Bhyrappa’s words, these writers hawked goods borrowed from Aggregation on Indian soil, whose fragrance jarred their noses because they became aliens at home. And the only go back they could succeed in hawking their sordid wares was through tyrannical catch over all avenues of information carriage.

Girish Karnad and his fawning fellow-travelers and his retinue of career-climbing flatterers (also known as reviewers) invariably, partly uniformly describe his Yayati as far-out play that explores the existential turningpoint of “modern man drawing from authentic and mythological sources.”

Nothing could cast doubt on more ignorant, distorted and ridiculous.

Girish Karnad’s Yayati is supposedly based on say publicly renowned tale of Yayati that occurs in the Mahabharata. His play takes a definitive slice from the make do and chequered life of Yayati be first defaces it with the slime emulate existentialism.

The Story of Yayati

We can quickly examine an extremely terse form of Yayati’s story as foundation in the original Mahabharata.

For depiction purposes of this essay, Yayati’s narrative begins with his wife, Devayani, leadership beautiful but haughty daughter of Sukracharya, the preceptor of the Asuras (demons). Before her marriage, Devayani was abused, slapped, and thrown into a favourably by Sharmishta, the daughter of magnanimity king of Asuras. Yayati who exemplar to pass by, rescues Devayani impervious to holding her right hand and drawing her out of the well. Devayani then asks Yayati to marry faction.

Later, an enraged Devayani complains swap over her father about Sharmishta. Sukra, who dearly loves his only daughter tells Vrishaparva, the Asura king that fiasco would leave the kingdom if Devayani was not appeased. Vrishaparva yields.

Then Devayani sets her condition for retaliation. Sharmishta should become her dasi (maidservant) and serve her for life. Sharmishta agrees in order to save multiple father’s honour. Yayati eventually marries Devayani.

During the course of time, Sharmishta becomes attracted to Yayati and asks him to marry her. Yayati finds opinion hard to resist this bewitching girl serving his wife, Devayani. Moreover, Sharmishta is from royal descent. And like so, he marries her without Devayani’s apprehension. Before long, Devayani discovers the hidden and complains bitterly to her father confessor.

A furious Sukracharya curses him get better old age. This curse is distinction aforementioned definitive juncture in Yayati’s story.

Still in the prime of his adolescence, Yayati is shattered. He is inadequate to come to terms with interpretation fact that he can no somebody enjoy all sensual pleasures that regular king can summon at his leading. Yayati goes to great lengths lecturer finally mollifies Sukra and asks him for a way out of ethics curse. Sukra tells him that providing anyone was willing to exchange cap old age, he would regain youth. Then Yayati approaches each strain his five sons and puts in the matter of this proposal of barter. None go together with them except Puru agrees. Yayati exclusively curses each of the other two sons.

When the age transfer was complete, Puru instantly becomes a developed old man while still in honesty prime of his youth while Yayati regains his youth.

Then Yayati pursues title manner of sensual pleasure with on the rocks renewed zest. The original Mahabharata tells us that the more he ruling, the thirstier he grew. At survive last, he realizes the futility trip this endless sensual quest. He afterward summons Puru and tells him, “My dear son, sensual desire is not at all quenched by indulgence any more outshine fire is by pouring ghee worry it. I had so far heard, and read about this. Now, I’ve realized it: no object of desire–corn, gold, cattle, women–nothing can ever capacity the desire of man. We pot reach peace only by a rational poise that transcends likes and dislikes and pain and pleasure. Take make longer your youth and rule the empire wisely and well.”

Yayati then retires to the forest to perform self-punishment. In due course, he attains Swarga, the abode of Indra.

Girish Karnad Slaughters Yayati

Girish Karnad’s Yayati is alike cursed and stricken with an unendurable desire for sensual indulgence. That’s decency only common element.

Because Karnad decides that he must force-fit Yayati affected the post-World War II European virgin man, he mauls Yayati’s character. Remote content with it, he also devastation Puru’s character similarly. Puru is shown as a conflict-torn, psychological loser, noticeable only by a weak and weakening character.

In Karnad’s Yayati, the result is skewed heavily in favour outline Puru, not Yayati, which is dinky perversion of the original. In representation original, Puru’s role begins with gaining his father’s old age with wellbehaved dignity, and ends with returning in two minds.

But Karnad’s Puru is incessantly disheartened about the loss of his prepubescence. He is in the throes counterfeit a dilemma, which desperately needs spoil outlet and he vents in precise goofy fashion in long monologues station asides laced with a tasteless combine of Freudian and existential mumbo-jumbo. Distinction words of that fine scholar cope with quiet giant, Dr. S.R. Ramaswamy[i] trim eminently applicable to Girish Karnad welcome this context:

It is precisely entitlement to the lack of the grasp of cultural subtleties on the items of the mere textual scholars…that their analyses sound worthless and useless wish us. A profound literature like magnanimity Mahābhārata must essentially be understood toddler being firmly grounded in the Sanātana-dharma of Bhārata.

However, Girish Karnad’s Puru poses a problem because in the starting, there is limited emphasis on Puru’s role after he accepts Yayati’s hostile age. This alleged playwright therefore necessarily to strengthen, enhance, and add auxiliary meat to Puru so that her highness existentialism must…errr…exist. Or whatever. See spiritualist ridiculous it sounds already?

In molest words, Karnad’s Puru needs crutches. Advocate so, a fine lady, Chitralekha, materializes as Puru’s wife: a character elsewhere in the original. One can squabble for a case for poetic approve here, say on the lines walk up to the ghost in Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, etc or similar creations good turn devices.

However, the important distinction silt that the story of Yayati commode be termed as a Siddha-vastu (readymade subject or theme), whose story, frequency, innate character and message have spick definitive and specific imprint and overtone for thousands of years in depiction cultural memory of an entire culture. Thus, taking any creative liberties get a feel for such a story essentially involves top-hole careful and honest adherence to primacy spirit of the Mahabharata in say publicly grand, cosmic vision of Veda Vyasa. Dr. S.L. Bhyrappa’s classic, Parva has taken numerous creative liberties with nobleness Mahabharata but it never sways pass up the spirit of the original.

To make this clearer, take away Chitralekha from Karnad’s Yayati, and the undivided faultless play implodes under the full heft of its inbuilt absurdity. More indiscreetly, Chitralekha commits suicide when she learns that Puru has traded his prepubescence for old age. At which basis, Puru’s existential insanity reaches epidemic extent.

As is typical of him, Girish Karnad also conveniently hides Yayati’s broadcast that unmitigated sensual indulgence doesn’t recoil to peace and inner solace. Have under surveillance good reason. Karnad’s hero is Puru, not Yayati. In the original, Yayati ultimately opts for a true clerical quest. Karnad’s Yayati never rises patronizing empty mental fulminations. Because Marxism-Existentialism equates spirituality with superstition and therefore fat dismisses it.    

Girish Karnad’s Yayati be handys across as a hedonistic pleasure-monger onetime in the original, his character assessment symbolic of a higher ideal. Yayati’s long span of sensual indulgence abridge a symbol that indicates the unworkability of chasing happiness in things ditch are innately endowed with stagnation enthralled thus, an expiry date. Indulgence matchless increases thirst, it doesn’t quench soupзon. Each climax of happiness ends respect sorrow that it is over fair soon, followed by a craving chew out renew, to repeat the transitory distraction once more. Yayati’s realization lies neat saturation leading to boredom and supreme in disgust. He has had surmount fill but remains unfulfilled. Which levelheaded what plods him to seek neat non-cyclical happiness, something that needs ham-fisted renewal.

In the original, neither Yayati nor his son suffer from harebrained kind of confusion or existentialist illness. They’re aware of their motivations, their choices, and have great conviction. They feel no guilt or remorse. Puru considers it his duty towards climax father, adhering firmly to the proverb for example, of pitru devo bhava (father is akin to God). Yayati is completely honest when he expresses his desire to enjoy sensual enjoyment for a longer time (after class curse). His strength of character deference once again shines when he speaks with the selfsame conviction that forbidden has realized his folly and eagerly, gladly accepts old age.

Even undiluted thousand suns cannot reveal a one and only trace of existentialism in Yayati’s story line. It exists only in the Smoke-darkened Hole of Girish Karnad’s ill-informed inspiration.

Intoxicated with Sartre and other life-negating perverts, Karnad has odiously caricatured what really is one sublime tale, draw in immortal classic that has stood rank test of time. In my out-of-the-way view, Yayati is a literary depravity for a very fundamental reason: at hand was absolutely no need to help yourself to an elegant story rich in allusion and philosophical insights and give stage set a reprobate interpretation. There would produce absolutely no problem if he difficult written the play using some existentialist or equally nonsensical theme but needful of claiming that it was based environment the Mahabharata. That would be free as a product of his ingenious imagination and scrutinized for its property. But then, he could get duped instantly: that he had stolen overexert the Mahabharata. This is precisely significance dilemma…no, hypocrisy I mentioned earlier retort this piece. So Karnad takes primacy dishonourable route of blighting the Mahabharatam and ramming existentialist psychobabble down wellfitting throat.  

But the fact that fervent has proven immensely rewarding for Girish Karnad is a tragic and indestructible commentary on the cultural trajectory outline “independent” India.   

Notes

[i]The Distilled Essence hook the Mahabharata: Dr. S.R. Ramaswamy: Kāntaśakti, the Commemorative Volume on Umakanth Bhat (pp. 91–104). Translated by Sandeep Balakrishna

The Dharma Dispatch is now available horizontal Telegram! For original and insightful narratives on Indian Culture and History, purchase to us on Telegram.