We may all know the Greek mythological story of Oedipus. The story originates from the folk traditions of Albania. Finland, Cyprus, and Greece. The western culture evolved around this region over the past few millennia and influenced most of the present western thought.
Like all folk and mythological stories, there are quite a few versions of the story. The most accepted version was the play by Sophocles named Oedipus Rex, which was first performed in 429 BCE, and considered as the Greek tragedy par excellence.
Let me recount the story in short before I venture into the real issue.
The story of Oedipus.
In the story, an oracle told Laius, the king of Thebes, that his son would kill him one day. So when his wife gave birth to a son, he asked the baby to be killed. But the person entrusted to kill the baby could not do so. He abandoned the baby on a hilltop, exposed to the elements, to die. As the luck would have it, a shepherd found the baby and took it to be adopted by King Polybus of Corinth and his wife.
The boy grew up to be Oedipus. Oedipus came to know that he was fated to kill his father and marry his mother. Thinking King Polybus to be his father, Oedipus decided to leave the kingdom, never to return to Corinth.
On his way to Thebes, Oedipus encountered Laius, and in a fight, killed him. Thus the first prophecy of the oracle came to pass.
On reaching Thebes, he found that a plague was raging the city. The Sphinx was holding Thebes captive. To save the city, someone must solve the puzzle Sphinx gave. Oedipus solved the riddle and saved Thebes from destruction.
As the savior of the city, Oedipus became the king of Thebes, and as per the custom, married the widow of Laius, Jocasta, without knowing that she was his mother. Thus, without their knowledge, Oedipus became the killer of his father and married his mother.
The prophecy of the oracle came to pass.
Any Indian story with a similar theme?
Thanks to Sigmund Freud, the Oedipus syndrome is known to most of us. It is the infatuation of the son for his mother and a sense of rivalry with his father.
But is the story as straightforward as it seems?
Like all mythological stories, one can find a different understanding of society when one digs deeper.
Most Indian psychoanalysts believe that the Oedipus complex is not as relevant in the Indian context. Is it true? If it is true, why? What Indian mythology has on offer? And what do we understand of Indian society?
Let us explore what our Indian mythology has to offer.
The story of Yayati.
Sarmishtha was the daughter of a king. Her closest friend Devayani was the daughter of Shurkacharya, the King’s guru. But one day, as best friends usually do, they fought on a trivial issue. The king’s daughter Sarmishtha became so angry that she pushed Devayani into a well and went home.
King Yayati, fortunately, was passing by. He saved Devayani from drowning. Devayani went home and recounted the events to her father. She insisted that he stoped all service to the King unless the King’s daughter apologized for her behavior. So Shukracharya, the King’s guru, went to the King and announced that he would stop all the religious rituals till the King punished his daughter.
To cut a long story short, King had no other option but to agree. And princess Sarmistha became Devayani’s maid.
In the meantime, King Yayati fell in love with Devayani, and they decided to get married. Sarmistha had to accompany Devayani to her new home as a maid. But Sarmishtha had a royal spirit as well as the royal blood in her veins. Yayati noticed her. They secretly married and had children.
Devayani came to know about her husband’s infidelity and complained to her father. Guru Shukracharya cursed that Yayati would lose his youth and would become old and impotent. But then he realized that an old and weak husband and King is of no use to anyone.
But a curse once given can not be reversed. It can only be modified. So Shukracharya modified the curse. King Yayati would get back his lost youth if any one of his sons agreed to accept the curse on himself.
Yadu was the eldest son of Devayani and Yayati. He refused to accept the curse on himself. Puru was the youngest son of Sarmishtha and Yayati. He agreed to accept the curse on himself.
So Puru suffered old age, while his father, Yayati, remained young and lived his life to the full. He enjoyed his ever-lasting youth till the realization dawned that youth and virility do not bring contentment.
Finally, when the time came to announce the successor, Yayati chose Puru as his successor. His reason to choose Puru as his successor was because Puru suffered for Yayati, not because he was more competent than his other sons.
Puru was to become the patriarch of the Kuru clan and from him descended Kauravas and Pandavas.
The same theme repeated itself when Bhishma sacrificed his own conjugal life so his father could marry again. The repetition of the same theme - the son sacrificing his youth for his father’s pleasure.
The curse of Yayati sowed the seed of the Kurukshetra war much later. The natural progression of generations was thwarted, and the son’s obedience was given more value.
The study in contrast.
The stories of Oedipus and Yayati are studies of society in contrast. Both the stories tell us more than what meets the eyes. In the Greek story the son, the next generation, gets to rule, killing his father - the patriarch, the tradition, and marries his mother. While in the Indian story, the father, Yayati, continues to rule, ignoring the natural progression of inheritance, and keeps on enjoying the virility that is rightfully his son’s.
In the Oedipus story, the mother is a metaphor. The mother is the metaphor for the bounty of the earth that society tries to harness. And it is only the young that can harness the wealth and hence govern society. The Oedipus story is forward-looking, where the younger generations are the inheritors of the earth. But the youth have to wrench that privilege out from the previous generation. Hence, the feeling of guilt may be prevalent.
In Yayati’s story, we see the son sacrificing his youth so that his father can enjoy the world’s pleasures for as long as he wishes. It is no wonder that Indian society gives so much importance to obedience. We conform to the expectations of the elders and clung to the traditions.
The patriarch of the family in the Indian society retains the power till he dies. The next generation plays, at best, the second fiddle. The sons submit to their father, and in the process, are revered by society and family for their submissiveness. The father demands and secures sacrifice from the son, the next generation, and rewards the son for his sacrifice. Leadership position goes to not the most competent and suitable, but the most obedient.
No wonder we find so many young leaders in western societies. A slew of USA presidents was in their early 40s, an unthinkable phenomenon in the Indian context. The same is also somewhat true in Europe as well.
Perhaps the most telling pointer of culture is popular fiction, whether in written form or through films. In the story and the film of The Godfather, we see that in his old age, Don Corleone retires and plays second fiddle to his son, who now runs the family business. He is content to live a perfectly domestic life, pottering away in his backyard garden, horsing around with his grandson. He knows that his days in the sun are over.
In a similar gangster film, Mirzapur, made for the Indian TV audience, we find the family patriarch still thirsty for the pleasures of the flesh and like Yayati, is not averse to quench his thirst with what is rightfully his son’s.
This is a syndrome, we may as well call it Yayati syndrome, as opposed to Oedipus syndrome, which most Indian patriarchs suffer. They hold on to the reign till the last moment blocking the natural progression of the next generation.
No wonder patriarchy is so much ingrained in our blood. A habit of a few thousand years is hard to refute.
How Oedipus and Yayati syndrome help us understand Western and Indian culture