In literature, “symbol” is a word or phrase that signifies an object or

event which in its turn signifies something, or has a range of reference,

beyond itself, depending on the association of ideas it evokes. Symbols
can be culture-specific, universal or both at the same time. Girish
Karnad in his play The Fire and the Rain uses symbols, largely from
Indian mythology, that are both specific to Indian culture and at the same
time universal. “The Fire” of the title, a central symbol in the play, is
both universal and Indian. It is universal in its dual signification of
creative force, spiritual aspiration and purifying agency on the one hand,
and destructive force of passion and lust on the other. At the same time
“The Fire” has association of ideas and beliefs that are specifically
Indian, especially within Indian mythological context. Fire is
worshipped as ‘Agni Dev’, one of the elements of panchtatva, from
which human body is made. Fire is the interlocutor between human and
the Divine; it conveys human aspirations to the higher power through
Yajna.
The play opens with, and indeed centres around, the fire sacrifice
being conducted to propitiate Indra, the God of Rains, to drench the
draught-stricken land. “The Rain” symbolizes spiritual regeneration,
love and compassion; conversely draught stands for spiritual dryness and
lack of compassionate understanding of life. But Karnad’s Symbolism in
this play is by no means as simple as that. It takes complex, dialectical
and parallel forms through characters and their actions.
In the beginning, fire symbolizes the lust, anger, conspiracy, hatred,
envy, violence and death. At the end, it symbolizes the purging of evil
and sins. It is only then that the “Rain” comes as a blessing.
The myth of Yavakri, in Karnad’s adaptation, becomes symbolic of a
tragic waste of human potential in the fire of the soul-consuming
passions jealousy, worldly ambition, lust for dominating power. In the
first place Yavakri’s ascetic penance to acquire universal knowledge
from Indra was in fact a misguided enterprise for ascendance in the
priestly order over Paravasu, his cousin brother appointed by the king as
the chief priest in the seven years long fire sacrifice. What Indra said to
him was in fact his own unconscious acknowledgement that knowledge
can be gained only through lived experience in space and time. He
ignored this voice. That his penance could not make him any wiser is
evident through his deceitful seduction of Bisakha to satiate his grudge
against her husband, Parabasu and father-in-law, Raivya.
Yavakri’s act stokes the fire of passion in Raivya. He physically and
verbally abuses Bisakha, and creates the Bramha Rakhshasa to destroy
Yavakri. Bramha Rakhshasa, like Nemesis in Greek myth, is symbolic of
Yavakri’s hubris, his ego. In the original myth Raibhya also creates a
double of Bisakha, a point-to-point counter to Yavakri’s deceitfulness, to
take away the protective water that Yavakri consecrated as a shield
against Bramha Rakhshasa. In Karnad’s adaptation it is Bisakha herself
out to avenge Yavakri’s deceit, which is a realistic interpretation of the
myth.
Incensed into a cold fire of revenge, the doubly wronged Bisakha
boldly tells her husband Paravasu everything including how Raibhya
sexually exploited her and how jealous he is of his son’s ascendance in
power in the priestly order. Paravasu kills his father deliberately and not
by mistaking him for an animal in the dark as in the Mahabharata.
Having thus avenged herself on her abuse by males Bisakha commits
suicide.
Over against such wastage by the fire of negative passions, Karnad
makes his fire symbolism work towards spiritual resurgence through the
interlinked episode of Aravasu-Nittilai.
Karnad’s Aravasu is a symbol of authentic common man, a lover of
life, interested in acting. Dancing and singing and not in the observance
of Bhraminical rituals as in the original myth. Karnad has developed this
character to counterpoint the hollow Bhraminical life of rituals, false
learning and power politics.
 Through Nittilai Karnad brings in the voice of humanity-authentic,
spontaneous, instinctual and free. As soon as she hears of Yavakri’s
penance for ‘universal knowledge’, she argues that Yavakri should have
asked for rain from Indra to end the suffering of men in the parched
land. In her naïve way she raises the fundamental question: “what is the
point of any knowledge, if you can't save dying children and if you can't
predict the moment of death”.
The fire of love between Brahmin Aravasu and low caste Nittilai is
the redeeming fire of humanity that unites the elements and enlightens
the heart. Aravasu is not incensed into jealousy when Nittilai is married,
against her will, to a youth of own caste. He realizes what went wrong: it
was his caste prejudices about his duty to the dead cremating Yavakri’s
dead body and purifying himself by a bath – which delayed him in
keeping his appointment with the tribal council. He was symbolically
deterred by the dead of his caste relation.
Nittilai’s love for Aravasu continues as an authentic spiritual bond.
The travelling Actor- Manager narrates how Nittilai came running away
from her husband, family and everything to nurse Aravasu when he lay
wounded on the false charge of patricide at Paravasu’s behest. The
Actor-Manager also mentions gratefully how Nittilai helped his family
by finding food from the woods for his starving babies and seeking out
medicinal herbs for the wounded. Thus Nittilai already symbolizes the
coming of “The Rain”.
The nature myth of Indra and Vritra enacted in the play-within-the play
in the Epilogue, is symbolically parallel to that of Paravasu-Aravasu, the
common motif being fraternal feud.
Indra, Vishwarupa and Vritra are the sons of Brahma. Indra is the
King of Heaven and lord of Rains. Vitra, who swallows rivers and hides
water inside him, rules the nether world and Vishwarupa is the king of
men. Indra deceitfully invites Vishwarupa to the fire sacrifice he has
arranged in the honour of his father and kills him. Vitra, though not
invited because he is the son of demoness, forcefully enters the
sacrificial precincts to avenge his brother’s death. Indra takes this
opportunity to kill him and thereby release the waters.
Aravasu fittingly plays the role of Vritra. The mask he wears
symbolically transports him into a frenzy, while chasing the theatrical
Indra played by the Actor-Manager who had already cautioned Aravasu
not to be carried away by the mask. With his torch Aravasu sets the
sacrificial precincts on fire. He also chases Parabasu, the human
counterpart of Indra, when the latter intervenes. Parabasu enters into the
fire, followed by Aravasu in the mask. Nittilai rescues Aravasu, takes off
his mask and helps him return to himself. The fire that now consumes
Parabasu is the fire of penance for his sins.
Nittilai has to make the supreme sacrifice for her love and kindness
with death penalty by her brother But Nittilai’s humanity triumphs, even
beyond her life.
Indra, pleased with Aravasu’s performance, tells him to ask for a boon.
Aravasu wants. Nittilai returned to life, while the people, gathered to
witness the play, clamour for the boon of rain, and Bramha Rakhshasa,
the symbol of the supremacist Bhraminical ego, pleads for release from
existence. Aravasu’s wish, Indra tells him, would entail rolling back the
wheel of time and bringing back all who died at that point of time and all
the suffering and tragedy all over again. Granting release of Bramha
Rakhshasa would be to allow the forward movement of time. Brahmma
Rakhshasa argues that Nittilai would have wanted to help him, merciful
as she was. Aravasu finally asks for the Rakshasa’s release. And just at
that moment people hear the rains. It is the inner fire of love and
compassion which brews the rain that brings life back to the parched
land. The seasonal cycle of nature is thus symbolically intertwined with
the cycle of fire within human nature.