What strikes me...and so what Divakaruni successfully illustrates...is the relentless hold of social restriction on the characters. Regardless of their status, whether in terms of wealth, intellectual prowess, or gender each character is bound to a predetermined set of expectations and permitted behaviors. And these assigned roles are writ large to a cosmic level...as go the patterns of men and women, so go the patterns of the gods, and vice versa.
Some of the most interesting tension in the story comes from seeing how the characters play the greater or lesser power vested in their particular position. For example, Kunti the merciless and seemingly all-controlling mother of the Pandava brothers, walks a fine line in her maternal manipulations and in trying to establish her sons securely. Her personal power comes through being a mother...but that only lasts if her sons gain status. She feels the pressure. (119)
Another example, of precarious power play is the fact of Panchalii's marriage to all five brothers. On the one hand, as Dhai Ma points out Panchaali has now the "freedom men had had for centuries." (120) On the other, Panchaali has to be given the "boon" of regaining her virginity after spending her allotted period of time with each husband, to maintain her chastity as dictated by social expectations of a proper woman. Divakaruni observes that what seems to be unprecedented equity for this female character is actually another manifestation of fate assigning her the role of "communal drinking cup" or object shared among men. At the same time, this experience serves as venue for Panchaali to articulate to the reader her own desires and to gain deeper understanding into another strong female character in the story, her mother in law Kunti.
Divakaruni shows how each character behaves according to their allotted role/s (as is a prime lesson of the Mahabharata) and simultaneously turns the story inside out by illustrating the female characters' motivations, and at least one female character's internal narrative.
I totally agree! It was refreshing in the beginning to hear Panchaali's refusals of the restrictions placed on women (her interactions with Dhri's tutor demonstrate this), but as time goes on you hear her talk like this less and less. I'm not sure if it's because she comes to accept these roles and the ways you use "women's power," coming at things indirectly. It is strange because it seems like when she falls in love with Karna, she loses self-confidence in herself (I've read ahead quite a bit, so sorry if what I'm saying doesn't make sense). The other character I feel that is restricted by their fate is Karna. I don't quite understand why he is destined for misfortune. Was it because his mother left him in the beginning, or did she leave him because of his curse? If he'd grown up with his family, I think he would have been much like Arjun.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Karna. At first I had the same feelings as Alyssa about Karna and why is it that he must pay such a strong penance. As I thought about this further it cam eto me that most of the destinies whithin this story are really doomed to some kind of misfortune no matter their class status (which in Indian culture is a big deal). Karna's birth is truly a mystery to everyone in the story since he came down the river and the chariot driver picked him up. He could be a prince he could be brahmin he could just be a chariot drivers son. I think perhaps it is the story itself showing that the higher classes have their misfortunes like this and the lower class status has their misfortunes like that--even more so. To me, Karna is being made an example of to the people who study this story as their spiritual and moral compass. How do other members feel about Karna and his pre-destined tragic path?
ReplyDelete