A TARRED RELATIONSHIP

Stories shape a lot of minds. Mythology is the greatest repository of tales and the attraction it holds for young minds is undisputed. Recently, my cousin paid a visit to my place alongwith her son and daughter in law. This young nephew of mine always reminds me of the fascinating tale of Ganesha brought out in the Amar Chitra Katha series. In his young days when he was unable to read but was curious to know the written word, he would make me read out the tale and translate it for him repeatedly. This tale therefore has got imprinted in both his mind as well as mine. This memory however kindled my desire to put out the long festering doubt on the way the character of a maternal uncle is brought out in mythology. The impact of a presentation made by my sister in defence of Shylock of the famed Merchant of Venice had actually made me think on these lines. I had once even discussed this with some of them. A couple of my friends had ridiculed me while another couple had evinced interest in my arguments. The fact that I had received a lot of affection from my maternal uncles only aided my arguments. The catalyst to pen on this issue was the way my nephew showed his affection for this relationship.

In the South of the Vindhyas the relationship of a maternal uncle is next only to the mother. In fact, several communities accord him the place of the rightful groom and only with his consent would it be right to go in for any other alliance. Then how do we accept the roles of Kamsa, Shakuni, Shalya amongst several other such mythological maternal uncles. The tales are predominantly from the Aryan households wherein the system of patriarchal society was prevalent. In these communities it is believed to be a sin to even have a day's meal in the daughter's house. Therefore, the fact that Shakuni moves in with his sister is made much of. Similarly, the need to make Kamsa a villain when his nephew is destined to bring him death subtly puts this relationship in dark shade while the rivalry between brothers is supposed to be a macho quality.

Let us take a look at the epic through the eyes of Shakuni. He is a young prince of Gandhar, the present Kandahar of Afghanistan. He is fond of his sister and dreams of a wonderful alliance for her which would befit the royal princess. At this stage, the grandsire of the Kuru clan Bhishma makes an entry and seeks her hand for the prince of Hastinapura. In some versions, it is not even made clear as to whether the alliance is sought for Dhritarashtra or Pandu. The father of Shakuni is in a dilemma since he does not want to wage a war with the Kuru clan which would be inevitable in the background of Bhishma's war to woo the pricesses of Kashi for his brothers. Tamely, he gives in to the wishes of the mighty Bhishma. Was might right in this case? Shakuni is not in a position to disobey his father nor can he resist the tender feelings for his sister. He makes the calculated decision to be with her to ensure her protection since Gandhar would no more require an able king being a protectorate of Hastinapur. The fondness for his sister translates into a fondness for his nephew. The fact that the nephew is not even seen by his blindfolded sister makes his affection for Suyodhana greater.

Take a break to the present. Most parents want their children to fulfil their unfulfilled ambitions. The parents of Suyodhana are bound by several factors. This makes Shakuni the natural choice to ensure that at least Suyodhana is put in a position of strength. The young prince who would otherwise have been an able king of Gandhar is now the custodian of the destiny of Suyodhana. He therefore does not spare a single effort to ensure that fate does not mete him an unfair treatment. Bhishma could afford certain errors due to his status. Lack of empathy was never attributed to him since he had made a great sacrifice for the happiness of his father. But Shakuni had no such liberties. Neither did he possess the might of Bhishma's Hastinapur nor his skills and stature. The clash between the rights and wrongs become evident. From times immemorial the status determines the righteousness of an act. People would move heavens and earth to justify the acts of Bhishma. The only place where Ved Vyasa forces the society to look into the flaws of this character is through his silence during the scene of Draupadi's Vastraharana. It is here that we understand that Ved Vyasa does not seek to make any character in his epic a perfect one to be emulated. He seeks to portray different facets of human tendencies through different characters but plays along the societal mores by ensuring that the failed ones are as per the perceived notions.

Another maternal uncle Shalya's bravery during the battle for the princesses of Kashi is merely a flash in the pan to the eloquence reserved for his being taken for a ride by Suyodhana. The mighty king gives a word for one meal that is served by Suyodhana as against the love for his dear sister Madri. In fact, if he had known the extent to which Shakuni goes to redeem his love for Gandhari, Shalya's dilemma to back his nephews against the word to Suyodhana itself could be a master epic in itself. The image of this man is tarnished further when he ensures that the concentration of Karna is decimated by him.

These two characters may be reviled by most but fascinate me no end. It would have been a wonderful experience if I had the pen of a Shakespeare or a Kalidasa or a Mythili sharan Gupt to defend these characters in true style.