CWTVKS Volume 2

On Mudrarakshasa

What V. writes about Mudrarakshasa is good, quite all right as far as it goes; I do not think that there is omission of any serious points to be stressed that would go to show that this drama does riot conforin to the normal model. In marshalling the facts in support of the proposition that is discussed, there are one or two statements which may be open to controversy if they are made without qualification, with an assertiveness that can be assumed only in the case of self-evident, accepted truths. I am referring to these two statements:-

1) The heroic sentiment which is the chief sentiment of the play is not reinforced by other subordinate sentiments.

2) It has a peculiar code of ethics.

Let us take the first of these and see if it is really so. That the heroic sentiment is the chief sentiment is admitted, but this is technically so, and the commentators and Pundits have treated it as Virarasapradhana Nataka. At the same time one cannot escape the sentiment of marvel that is evoked at every turn in the unravelling of the plot. In fact the sentiment of adbhuta appeals so much and effectively that the chief sentiment of heroism is substantially subordinated to the plot of marvel, though according to the technique of dramaturgy the main rasa of Mudrarakshsa is heroism. To be brief and carry home this truth, I shall give the example of Uttararamacarita. Every one is overpowered by karuna here and the author himself extols karuna in the famous line “Eko rasah karuna eva nimitta-bhedat”; still according to the rules of dramatic art in India, Pundits of the technique have argued and convinced themselves that the chief sentiment in this Bhavabhuti's most famous drama is Love—vipralambha srngara—sentiment of love in separation.

Therefore if we remember the so-called subordinate sentiment of marvel in the plot, we can also explain why the plot is given preference over the suggestion of the so-called chief sentiment of heroism.

I do not know if on account of an alleged absence of subordinate rasa to reinforce the chief one, this drama is underrated at all in India. For aught I know, indigenous scholarship has treasured it with the same esteem as it has done the Naisadha among the Panca-kavyas.

Nor is it underrated for the low state of public morality disclosed in the plot. Indeed, there is “the peculiar code of ethics”—this expression is used to denote the questionable means employed in the proceedings—deception, impersonation, forgery, murder and a host of devilish schemings. The game of diplomacy has been throughout the ages an art of which suppression of truth and suggestion of falsehood—clever lying—form the soulful features. End justifying the means seems to have been the background of these proceedings in statecraft. Ancient authorities on Politics—Chanakya himself is a great authority—do not disclose a better level of morality to be displayed in practical politics. Nor is this a feature peculiar to India of Chanakya and Rakshasa as characterised by Visakhadatta. In whatever direction the world may have progressed since early times, it has done very little in the direction of high morality governing the principles of statecraft especially in regard to foreign relations or dealing with potential or actual enemies. In spite of humanism and high idealism dominating the culture of a great people, whether in ancient or modern times, in the east or in the west, if the state could not avoid secrecy, espionage and the rest of questionable morals, the root cause is to be found in the intrinsic weakness of human nature, in the imperfections of man manifested in the modes of his individual as well as aggregate living. The Evil comes from Adam.

Therefore the peculiar code of ethics was not peculiar to India of Chanakya's days. Nor could the low state of political morality be asserted to have influenced men of letters in India to deprecate the merits of this drama.

Let me then close my remarks on two of the obiter dicta of V. in his pointed reference to the salient features of Mudraraksasa as a Nataka not conforming to the normal model. The absence of feminine interest and the tough stanzas with the reasons thereof and the other points he mentions can very well go to show that this play is not of the ordinary variety. But to say that it is ‘underrated' for the absence of subordinate sentiments as well as for the’ peculiar code of political ethics’ is rather hard to swallow, as I have shown above. Before dropping the subject let me quote the line of the commentator of Mudraraksasa referring to the sentiment of marvel in the plot of the drama.

“Vidhanam vacaste'dbhuta-rasa-mayam natakavaram."

As for Mrcchakatika, it is not a far cry from Mudraraksasa so far as the fame for plot is concerned. I do not know if a candidate can answer a poser or that the examiner is not at all right in having framed a particular question. I state this because V. says that he does not at all agree with, the statement that the Mrcchakatika offers a challenge to all canons of orthodoxy. And he is emphatic when he is asked to justify the statement by the examiner. In the case of Mudraraksasa even though I do not admit that it is underrated in India, at any rate, not in the circle of Pundits, I would assume that it is not properly appreciated for various reasons—absence of feminine interest, stanzas being unsuitable for stage—and that V. has pointed, even though I may not commit myself to assertive statements which may be controverted as I have shown. Therefore it is necessary that we must assume that the question is correct and the statement therein is justifiable. Now let us see what is unorthodox about Mrcchakatika. Yes, to begin with, the title itself does not conform to the rules of dramaturgy as V. has rightly shown. The cohabitation of a Brahman with a Sudra is prohibited in the Kaliyuga, though it is recognised by Manu. The hero and the heroine are a challenge not only to orthodox sentiment, but to the rules of orthodox treatises on dramaturgy. Particular dialects are assigned to particular classes of dramatis personae in the Sastras and this rule is honoured in its breach. There are about 20 characters and more who speak Prakrit dialects, but they do not speak the particular dialect used by the classes to which they belong. This can be illustrated by a reference to the commentary under the dialects used by the several characters in the play.

This is what I have suggested for the present without going through the details with the eye of investigation, handicapped, as I am by a total innocence of Prakrit language and grammar.

Before closing this letter I may make a remark as to why this drama is a challenge to orthodox rules. No long explanation is necessary if we remember that this is a work twenty centuries old, and long before the rules were systematised in the form in which we find them in the extant works on dramaturgy. It is this fact that explains the so-called unorthodox challenge to accepted canons on the subject.

18 September 1940