The past couple
of columns have dealt with a Dhangar myth around the birthing of Parashuram
that is rather different from the standard Puranic story that we in Goa have
come to accept as set in stone. This Dhangar myth links Parashuram to the
goddess Yellamma, and suggests that both Parashuram and Yellamma established
familial relations with the Shia heroes, the Imams Hassan and Hussein.
Those who are
familiar with the popular myth of Parashuram will probably respond that there
is nothing in the Dhangar myth that contradicts the accepted mythology around
Parashuram. However, this is not true. The Dhangar myth crafts a radically
different Parashuram than from the one we are used to.
In the Dhangar
myth, or the fragment that I was able to access, both Yellamma and Parashuram
are not the brahmanical figures that we are familiar with. To note the
difference we will need to revisit the brahmanical myth that is often relied
on. In the Puranic version, Parashuram is the youngest son of the sage, or
rishi, Jamadagni, and Renuka. The story goes that suspecting Renuka of
infidelity, Jamadagni commanded his elder sons to kill their mother. Sensibly,
these young men refused to fulfil their father’s command, which only enraged
him further. Turning to Parashuram, the youngest of his sons, he repeated his
command, and Parashuram obediently took up his axe and beheaded his mother. 
Unfortunately, when he did so he also beheaded a lower-caste woman, who in
various versions of the myth, was either Renuka’s attendant, or a kindly woman
who sought to help the hapless wife of the sage. Jamadagni was delighted that
he had one son who was obedient, and promised Parashuram anything he asked
for. Apparently as much a mama’s boy as
he was daddy’s, Parashuram asked that his mother be brought to life. Jamadagni
acquiesced, whereupon Parashuram quickly joined heads and bodies together, and
stood aside for his father to work magic. On bringing the women back to life both
men realised with horror that in his haste Parashuram had switched the heads, so
that the upper-caste Renuka now had the body of a lower-caste woman Yellamma,
and Yellamma’s head was on the body of the upper-caste Renuka. The situation
was resolved by recognising the bodies as constitutive of identity. Given that
Yellamma lower-caste body now had an upper-caste head, she was granted a divine
status.
One can see that
there are a number of embellishments in the brahmanical myth that are missing
from the Dhangar myth. To begin with, there is no Jamadagni in it. Yellamma, is
not married to anyone, and Parashuram is, perhaps like Christ, born of a
virgin. Of course, one could argue that the Dhangar myth suggests Shiva as the
paternal figure, but the fact remains that the myth makes no reference to a
sexual act between Yellamma and Shiva.
However, despite
the absence of patriarchal figures, I would not go so far as to read some kind
of contemporary feminist statement into this myth. There is an element of
transgression that is present in both myths, and in both of these myths,
Yellamma is punished. While in the case of the brahmanical Renuka is punished
for harbouring sexual thoughts about man who isn’t her husband, in the Dhagar
myth, Yellamma is burdened with a child for plucking a ‘forbidden fruit’ in
Mahadev’s sacred grove. If Reunka loses her head in the Puranic myth, Yellamma
is cast out from the company of her virgin sisters as a result of her birthing
of Parashuram.
Another
significant difference between the two myths, is that the Dhangar myth has no
reference to Renuka. The only mother Parashuram has is Yellamma. Nor is there
any reference to Yellamma’s caste. This
is perhaps the wonderful feature of the Dhangar myth in that it seems to
describe a world without caste.
A further
observation that could be made is that with the absence of Vishnu, and given
that Shiva is seen as a pre-Vedic, or non-Vedic deity, what we have is a
complete absence of brahmanical deities. All we have is a myth that speaks of
the relationship between non-brahmanical, and hence indigenous deities, i.e.
Yellamma, her sisters, Mahadev, and the Shia Imams, Hassan and Hussein.
What can we make
of these aspects of the myth? I would be loathe to suggest that because of the
absence of brahmanical deities the Dhangar myth is the original version of the
myth, and that the Puranic version is a latter interpolation by wicked
Brahmins. While not averse to such a suggestion, it would be irresponsible to
assert this claim without substantial research with the appropriate skills.
What I would rather suggest is that given the Dhangar myth co-existed parallel
to the brahmanical myth, at the very least it asserts the desire of the
Dhangars to have a different world view. They imagine a world where people can
eat together regardless of their faith practice and their caste location, and
be as one family. The myth imagines a world where eating meat is not condemned.
Yellamma insists that she and her son eat with the Shia Imams even though they
are eating meat. Indeed, Yellamma’s adventure in the Dhangar myth begins when
she and her sisters are out on a hunt, indicating that she and her sisters did
eat meat. The Dhangar myth, therefore, is alive to the contradictions of the
human condition; even though it involves the shedding of innocent blood, we
hunt and eat meat, not merely for pleasure, but to sustain ourselves.
Yellamma’s returning of the meat to life suggests the desire to return life to
the animals we consume for food. Indeed, it is worth reflecting that while the
Puranic version has Jamadagni bringing Renuka back to life, in the Dhangar myth
it is Yellamma, as mother of the world, who has the power to bring innocents
back to life.
With this
interpretation before us, we can see that rather than the Puranic version which
is filled with matricide, and intolerance, the Dhangar myth of Yellamma has
more to offer Goans in terms of an origin myth that would add value to
contemporary political life.
contd...
contd...
(A version of this post was first published in the O Heraldo dated 15 May 2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment