Tripuraneni's Shambuka vadha: Foundation stone of rationalism
Tripuraneni Ramaswamy (1887-1943) was a lawyer, playwright, rationalist, poet and social reformer. His play titled ‘Shambuka vadha’ written in 1920 created a sensation in Telugu literature. It remains an outstanding piece of writing till date.
Shambuka’s episode is found in Uttara Ramayana. In Rama Rajya, it is said that there were no untimely deaths. One day, a brahmin lost his son. As per Manu Smriti, untimely death occurs to Brahmin children in a kingdom in which non-brahmins do Tapasya. On the basis of this saying, the sages lead by Vasistha informed the king that somewhere in the kingdom, a non-brahimn could be doing Tapasya and that because of this violation of varna ashrama dharma, the brahmin boy died. Rama conducted his search for the offender and found that somewhere in the southern part of the country, a Shudra by name Shambuka was hanging upside down from the branch of a tree near a lake. Rama beheads Shambuka. As soon as the head of Shambuka fell on ground, the brahmin boy in Ayodhya started breathing again. Broadly this is the story of Shambuka.
Without altering the above broad story, Tripuraneni Ramaswamy questions the injustice in practice of varna dharma from a rationalist point of view, in this four-act play. He creates the characters of Hanuman, Angad and disciples of Shambuka, which were not there in the original. In the first act, Shambuka has a dialogue with Angada,who visits him. In the second act, we have a narration of brahmin conspiracies and discussions on Shambuka’s tapsya and how Vasistha briefs Rama on the subject. In the third act, Angada forewarns Shambuka regarding the conspiracy of brahmins. In the fourth Act, Rama kills Shambuka.
In this creation of Tripuraneni Ramaswamy, Rama enters into dialogue with Shambuka and convinces himself that he is innocent. He starts his return journey to Ayodhya without any punitive action. But he is pressurised once again by Vasistha and other brahmins, after which Rama finds no alternative. He finally kills Shambuka. It is to be noted that in the original version, no such opportunity of dialogue is mentioned. Perhaps the intention of this variation by T Ramaswamy is not to make a negative criticism of the character of Rama but to portray the negativity of the practice of varna dharma. Perhaps, the idea was not to offend the sentiments of large population but to highlight how Brahminism has caused injustice to the shudras, by wrongly influencing the rulers.
In this play, Shambuka is portrayed as a representative of shudras and as a peaceful person, well versed in Shastras and as very hospitable. When Angada indicates the possibility of his killing, Shambuka replies that such an eventuality could cause more benefit to Anaryas than to the Aryas. In this play, Angada’s character asks Shambuka whether it is not true that the Shastras prohibit Tapas by shudras. Shambuka questions him how those Shastras can be our Shastras, when we were not consulted. He further elaborates how Shudras are denied from getting the knowledge from the Vedas and from reaching God.
An interesting point in this play is when Hanuman wonders how exactly brahmin boy dies because of the penance of a non-brahimn. He is given a reply by a brahmin representative, “Hanuman, your effort in asking this question is commendable; but, don’t you know that people like you have no right to take part in discussion on Shastras ? ”
Tripuraneni Ramaswamy does not indulge in blasphemy. He questions the irrational, illogical and inhuman practices and conspiracies born out of blind beliefs, but does not hurt the feelings of the believers. In this sense, he attacked Brahminism without promoting hatred against Brahmins.
(-------Bolloju Baba, Andhra Jyothi, 14.1.2023)
