Roll no- 19
Year - 2015-17
M.A
Semester - 2
Paper no. (7) Literary Criticism and Western- 2
Email Id: - vaidehi09hariyani@gmail.com
Assignment
topic:
Analysis of the some events and slogans of the myth Ramayana with the reference to "Ramcharitmanas" by Saint Tulsidas and "Scion of Ikshvaku" by Amish Tripathi.
Submitted
to: Dr. Dilip Barad
Smt.S.B.Gardi
DEPARTMENT
OF ENGLISH,
MAHARAJA KRISHNAKUMARSINHJI BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY,
BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT.
Before
trying to analyse some event and characters of “Ramayana.” Let us see what the
theory of Deconstruction by Jacques Derrida is.
Deconstruction:
In the criticism of literature, Deconstruction
is a theory and practice of reading which questions and claims to ‘subvert’ or
‘undermine’ the assumption that the system of language provides grounds that
are adequate to establish the boundaries, the coherence or unity, and the
determinate meaning of a literary text. Typically, a deconstructive reading
sets out to show the conflicting forces within the text itself to dissipate the
seeming definiteness of its structure and meaning into indefinite array of incompatibility
and decidable possibilities.
Derrida was
the most influential philosopher in 70s and 80s of last century. His philosophy
is the further extension of structuralism and is better called as
Post-Structuralism. He carries this Structuralist movement to its logical
extreme and his reasoning is original and startling. We have seen in this
movement that as in New Criticism, the attention was shifted from the writer to
the work of literary text; consequently textual analysis became more important
than extra textual information. Further, the author disappeared and only the
text remained. This is what we called the stylistic and Structuralist position.
The meaning as it emerges from the text (the illocutionary force) alone
counted. In this process the importance of the reader and his understanding
increased, and the Reader Response or Reception Theory came into being. Derrida
gives the same process a further and final push according to which what matters
is the reading and not the writing of the text. At times one feels, though not
quite justifiably, that, in Derrida even the text disappears and what is left
behind is an individual’s reader response to it. Now the reader rules the
supreme, and the validity of his reading cannot be challenged. However, the structure
of each reading has to be coherent and convincing.
Deconstruction
could not be understood by anyone properly because Derrida himself denies
defining it. Derrida strongly believe that to define something is to make
boundaries around it. Deconstruction can be taken as a process of inquiring the
origin and construction of the text. Deconstruction does not destroy the
construction of any text but questions it's 'origin of origin', so one can get
the idea of the existence of that text. Deconstruction gives an idea of free
play of words and not believes in dictionary meaning, as dictionary gives only
another word for one word. Deconstruction as a process happens to its own, by
reading the text or watching the movie our mind gets such symbols and signs and
mind works on that, and when it feels or identifies something not appropriate
it attacks the work with arguments and questions the problem. It is like
blasting the text and what survives is the origin of text.
Here I would
like to analyse some events, some slogans and bring in some marginalized
characters of the great Indian myth “Ramayana” with reference to
“RamCharitmanas” by Saint Tulsidas and “Scion of Ikshvaku” by Amish Tripathi.
It is not possible to analyse all the events, so I tried to take some of the
aspects.
Let’s start
this analysis by the famous line of the Ramayana,
‘Raghukul reet sadaa chali aayi,
praan jaye par vachan na jaaye’
As we know
that the Raghuvanshi are very well known for their promise. Once they promise
someone, they fulfil that promise for that they can sacrifice anything. King
Dashrath also sacrificed his life by fulfilling the promises asked by Queen
Keikaya. Promises hold so much value at that time, that fulfilling promises was
a matter of prestige.
According to
this line promises are important, but the question is that are the promises
always fulfilled or it was just about priorities. Marriage is very important
system in India especially. The Bride and Groom exchanges seven vows. All the
seven vows are as old as the concept of marriage. But it has not followed truly
from the ancient time as we have an example of our mythological characters,
which mostly considered as perfect 'man' Lord Rama in "Ramayana" but on the other side Sita has followed it well.
Sita always
stood by his husband. She went with him for banishment in the forest. She could
easily refuse to go with him, as we know she was the princess of Mithila. She
could live her life in Ayodhya happily, but as she promised to be with her
husband in good and bad situations. Same applies to a husband also to be with
his wife in both situations. Ram went to Lanka to protect her, but then why the
agnipariksha?????
Even Ram was
alone in the forest, so she could also ask him to prove his chastity.
‘Dhol shudra pashu aur nari, sakal tadna ke
adhikari’
Even these
words are quite problematic. How Dhol, shudra, pashu and nari are portrayed in
a negative way. They all are responsible for the destruction. This line
reflects the patriarchal society of that time. If we take a close look, it is
seen that indirectly Sita; a nari is responsible for the fight of Ram and
Ravan. Also Queen Keikeya is shown responsible for Rama’s banishment.
First let’s
see Sita’s character,
Sita was
princess of Mithila. Princesses are treated in a very royal manner. If Sita
asks her father he would have given her as many golden deer as she wants. But
it seems that the writer has only put this incident to make her responsible
about the whole thing.
Queen Keikeya is made responsible for Rama’s banishment, but she just asked promise
for the welfare of his own son. And it was King Dasaratha who gave her the right
to ask her to demand two promises whenever she feels like. Also King Dashrath
by mistake killed the innocent Shravana. So, we can say that it was a circle of
life. He made a son away from their parents without any reason, same happened
with him. So how Queen Keikeya is responsible?
The Epic
poem ‘Ramcharitmanas’ is very sacred text in the Hindu Religion. But we try to
see as an Epic poem or literature.
There are
many people who have written Ramayana in different ways. One of the
contemporary writers Amish Tripathi also started a series of stories of Ram in
his book “Scion of Ikshvaku”. Again all the events are not possible to analyse.
So I would like to analyse one incident from this book as well.
From
childhood we are been told to respect our teachers or guru as Lord Ram used to
do it.
In the above conversation we can see that how Ram converse with his teacher. The teacher tells that in a prince tradition a father, mother and teacher have the right to decide child’s marriage. Ram was also a normal guy who had a problem with it, we can make out from his words. And it is quite appropriate. Who would like to get married with a condition to win a competition first? If that was the case then people would think about it. And we can see that as a prince also an individual doesn’t have any right on his own life.
After reading the dialogues spoken by Rama’s guru we can see that how power is reflected through his lines. Although Ram was
a prince, he is powerless. He also has to follow the decision of the authority.
Derrida in
this theory talks about the metaphysics of presence and bringing in the
periphery in centre. In the both the works many of the characters are
voiceless.
For example:
- The character of Urmila
Laxman also joined Ram and Sita for banishment. He left Urmila alone to take care of
his parents, but after this incident she is forgotten by the writers. What
happened to her? How did she feel? No concern to her is shown.
She might be
willing to n went live with her husband Lakshman as Sita wanted and even went
in forest. In “Scion of Ikshvaku” Lakshman in worried for Urmila that she might
not be able to live in forest. Sita and Urmila were brought up in the same
atmosphere. So if Sita can live in forest then why can’t Urmila. How Urmila
passed 14 years in Ayodhya? None of them talks about this. There are many such
characters in the text that are voiceless.
Conclusion
This theory can
be applied in many ways and one can only try to complete it, because it's a
kind of a process which never ends what you have deconstructed, it can also be deconstructed by another person and it's never ending chain.
No comments:
Post a Comment