Reflexivity and Plural Modernity in Samskara, Hayavadana, and The Cat and Shakespeare

Wrote this for my literature elective, why not post it here. Its about 3 texts in particular, but I don’t think you need to read the texts to understand it, they just serve as examples to support the themes and the arguments made

Reflexivity and Plural Modernity in Samskara, Hayavadana, and The Cat and Shakespeare

Western criticism of literature often claims that texts tend to “mirror” social realities or cultural traditions, and that they serve as a reflection of the realities within which they were made.

A. K. Ramanujan challenges this in “Where Mirrors Are Windows”. He likens Indian texts to “windows”; they reference and expose the reader to prior texts, they display awareness of their own textuality, and reinterpret existing traditions.

He argues that there are 3 types of reflexivity found in literature, the first being “Responsive”. Responsivity occurs when a text responds to earlier texts/traditions. These can almost be thought of as conversations between texts; usually in the form of a reply to certain narratives/traditions proposed by it, or a revision of the themes and tradition that exist in the original.

This is most strikingly present in U. R. Ananthamurthy’s Samskara. The entire novel comes off as a satire on orthodox Brahminical traditions, and their backwards logic. The rituals and mindsets of the residents of Durvasapura are put to ridicule: they are portrayed as selfish and egotistical, despite apparently being men of God. By doing so, the novel responds to these traditions by exaggerating and dramatizing it and its features, hence shining a critical light on the said traditions and its interpretations. It depicts tradition as fractured, and questions the ethical limitations embedded within it.

“The Cat and Shakespeare” by Raja Rao tackles responsivity in a very interesting manner. The novel is written in English but is philosophically Indian. It contains inspiration from, and themes found in Advaita Vedanta and Indian metaphysics, written in the form of a traditional English novel. This clash in cultures makes for a very unique read; it challenges the notion of English being a colonial imposition and it being a medium to be disregarded, while also staying true to Indian philosophies and ideals. As such, the interdisciplinary (yes, I really wrote this myself, it’s not from ChatGPT I swear) nature of the inherent Western narrative structures present in an English novel, combined with classic Indian schools of thought, lead to it possessing a highly responsive form of reflexivity.

The second type of reflexivity is simply called the “Reflexive” mode. This mode questions, criticizes and analyses social norms; often by diving into its finer themes like caste, religion, gender and power. It isn’t simply a rejection of said traditions, but rather an internal critique of it.

Samskara once again portrays this expertly. The rigidity of the rituals, the hypocrisy of the culture, the glaringly patriarchal social norms and structures, all build a world where despite being incredibly pious and laid at the feet of God, the residents (with the exception of Praneshacharya) are hilariously self-serving and opportunistic. The extents of scriptural knowledge are also questioned with Praneshacharya’s difficulty to arrive at a solution. It tends to be a given that the answer to any and every question is present in the scriptures; upon the failure of this, the internal fabric of the Brahman’s culture seems to fall apart. The novel also explores the Brahman’s purity culture, in regards to both caste and sexual relations. As expected, they view inter-caste relations incredibly unfavourably, and look down on those who indulge in them, yet they can’t seem to forego their lust for Chandri. They possess the typical misogynistic mindset prevalent in orthodox traditions; the women present in the novel almost exclusively exist to be objectified or portrayed as hysterical, which clash with the image of the men being god fearing and morally secure. This shines a light on the hypocritical elements present in the culture: they preach of morality and “Samskara”, they seem to live and die by these ideals, yet are noticeably morally bankrupt, and often scramble to find a scapegoat to look down upon, in order to gain a sense on moral superiority (which helps cover up their lack of it).

The central question proposed in Hayavadana is “Is identity in the head or the body?”. The play toys with the idea of identity and completeness, mocking their rigid philosophical definitions. The three main characters all represent different parts of our identity: Devadatta – Intellect, Kapila – Body, and Padmini – Desire. Padmini’s desire however, isn’t as straight forward as simply choosing one; she desires Devadatta’s mind and Kapila’s body. There is a mythical aspect to the play, with the half-horse, half-man Hayavadana, however the play does not reject myth; it uses myth to critique pre-defined notions of wholeness. As the play develops, the inadequacies of one’s longing for completeness become more and more apparent, leading to an undesired ending for all the human characters involved. Poetically, Hayavadana is the only character that achieves true completeness at the end by turning into a full horse. This depicts how humans can never truly be complete, and mocks the very desire for stable identity. In the play, the reflexive themes of modernity and identity don’t override tradition, rather it reframes and reworks it.

The third and final form of reflexivity brought up is “Self-Reflexivity”. This is when the text becomes aware of its own textuality. It breaks the theatrical illusion that is present while reading a piece of literature, and exposes its own construction.

Once again, this is very apparent in Hayavadana. Bhagavata, the narrator, constantly interjects in between to add comments and the audience is addressed directly at times, causing the immersion of the play to break. This reminds the audience that what they are witnessing is a performance, and by doing so, implies that our identity itself is somewhat of a mask or a performance we put on, or display to the world, rather than a fixed part of ourselves. The play opens up its own structure, inviting the audience to think about how stories are transmitted through tradition and how each retelling reshapes their meaning. Hayavadana, hence, can be interpreted as not just a story about identity, but a thought piece on storytelling as a cultural act.

The most significant form of reflexivity in “The Cat and Shakespeare” is Self-Reflexivity. Raja Rao was famously concerned with whether English could “carry the burden” of Indian experiences, and whether the language could do justice to a culture that is so foreign to its own creation. The “Cat” is used as a metaphor for human agency and our impact in the order of life. The way the story is told enacts the philosophy it describes, with its slow, casual pacing and the conversational tone. As such, the novel becomes aware of its own narrative pacing and structure as part of its metaphysical argument.

To conclude, these texts suggest that modern Indian literature emerges through reinterpretation. They all display how tradition is not a static set of ideals, rather it is dynamic and continuously rewritten. The layered philosophies that it contains, the inherited rituals, the aspect of Modernity that is crucial to any non-obsolete artform, it all combines into a kaleidoscope of experiences that goes beyond simple divides such as East–West or tradition–modernity binaries; it stands aa a testament to centuries of human creativity and expression that cannot be limited into any particular constraints or pre-set expectations.