Praveen Puma’s play Sumnima writes back on the canonical representation of Kirat culture and myth in a very subtle way. The work revives the tale of Kirat culture in terms with the mythical identity of Sumnima. The story is not about goddess Sumnima, but it summons the reader to connect the story of Sumnima and Paruhong myth which is the underlying structure of the play. The difference is that the play ends with the death of Sumnima when there is a gross failure in understanding the sacredness of mythical narrative.
The play is more about documenting the myth in literary form with significant adaptations with the purpose of valuing the mythopoetic nature of culture which has been misunderstood by canonical literary forms. The act of representing the culture in alternative literary forms is one of the significant cultural acts of marginal ethnic groups in the contexts when canonical literatures define the margin from hierarchical biases. Consequently, Kirat culture needs to be comprehended from the location of the margin with the conceptual outlook that margin is the space of strength rather than weakness. The play and the use of myth as its underlying structure is the space of marginal strength. Margin is the other which needs to be understood by critiquing the discursive context of canonical culture and literary tradition. The act of revival is the act from the space of margin. Revival presupposes margin, the other, the alternative space from where culture and its multiple identities can be discoursed. Praveen Puma’s work revives the margin.
His literary effort is a minoritizing act of identity in sense that it values what it is as the myth of the margin. The literary effort, to my understanding, exposes the world of the margin to common audience or reader.
Furthermore, the choice of representing Kirat culture through dramatic mode is artistically significant in the sense that such modes speak about choosing a form which is immediate and direct. The play is staged and hence it is a performing art where the tale and the audience come face to face. The art on the stage evokes immediacy and consequently the work becomes an effective mode of communicating with the audience.
Along with the dramatic form, the theme is equally attention grabbing: the play ends with the death of the central character. The death is symbolic to the conflict within the culture which seeks to negotiate between two cultural traits: the preservation of the culture and the changed attitudes represented by a young man like Diwahong. He does not like to marry his sister-in-law. Diwahong is the male counterpart of kind and intelligent Sumnima: he loves Sumnima as his mother but is helpless to follow the tradition of marrying sister-in-law after the death of the husband. Khawahung is Diwahong elder brother who died while trying to cross a river named ; Dhudkoki.
The father, Salapa, acts against the myth and hence, he realizes by the end of the play that the disaster occurs due to his forcing his will against the mythical etymon of the culture. Mythical Sumnima is wedded to Paruhong as Sumnima of the play is married to Khawahong. Salpa acts against the myth when he forced Diwahong to marry Sumnima. Salpa tries to demythify. Interestingly, it is the elder who works against the myth of two divine lovers. Since Sumnima of the play is the archetype, she is the companion of the Paruhong/Khawahong. Salpa works against the myth that is why the tragedy occurs. Khawahong returns as Paruhong returns in the myth after years of disappearance. The mythical story ends with the union, but the play ends with Sumnima’s death because an innocent act of altering the myth by Salpa tries to warp the harmony.
Myth in this signification is the space of harmony which Salpa unknowing tries to distort. He realizes but it is too late: “Oh Kirateswor, Why did I commit such an error by defying Mundum and Kirat myth!” (Sc. III). Sumnima’s husband returns from the depths of the water like mythical Paruhong returns from meditation. Water, in symbolic comprehension, is the sacred space of flow of consciousness, the physical form of meditation. He was literally drowned but saved later.
The play seeks to value the purity of myth where humans time and again try to misunderstand it. Myth is the space of nature; it is the domain of innocence where Salpa brings in norms and codes of family rules of functioning: he brings codified culture into the myth. The nature is thus acted upon by social rules: it is this conflict between myth or nature and social norms. The play ends with the conflict which does not end with any resolution. The humans commit the errors and mythical purity is distorted, it is rather threatening.
Salpa’s character is a double: he is a prudent old man and yet he is the one who commits the error. He is supposed to understand the poetics of myth but he himself fails to preserve it. The tragedy lies in his being a good man and still becoming the cause of Sumnma’s death. Salpa understands the tradition of Kirat culture but he fails to understand its deep structural mythical etymon. To understand culture in terms with its social codes and prescriptions is inappropriate to understand its mythical values. The crisis in the play lies in this subtle misunderstanding of what culture is and what myth is. Myth is the binding principle of culture which is the representation of the former, the play seem to suggest. The roots of the culture are its mythical visions where Sumnima and Paruhong are the divine couples The human representation of the divine couple works against the essentialism of myth and hence the disaster occurs.
The play is not merely a return to the culture, but a return to the myth. The loss of myth is the loss of culture. The very name Sumnima is sensitive to Kirat consciousness, the name is overwhelmingly linked with Kirat identity. That is why the name both in the myth and the play evokes Kirat-ness as a divine figure waiting for the union. The union is ignored in social context unknowingly though, but is ignored. The language of the myths in the domain of Salpa has to be comprehended with care. Salpa understands that though he understands late. Salpa gives a lesson to the reader which is very clearly communicated by the playwright.
