Kama and Dharma: The Conflict and The Compromise

Bertrand Russell once said, “Love can flourish only as long as it is free and spontaneous; it tends to be killed by the thought of duty.” Russell alludes to the danger of oversimplifying a single pursuit that derives from such complexity as human nature. According to the ancient Indian tradition of purusarthas, or pursuits, there are four main pursuits that humans desire to attain—all of which represent a separate entity of a whole being. The two arguably most conflicting pursuits are kama, generally summarized as desire fulfilled, and dharma, or virtuous duty and responsibility. Kalidasa’s “Sakuntala” as well Daya Krishna, truly illustrate the extent of the conflicting nature of kama and dharma through a conversation between King Dushyanta and his companion, Madhavya regarding an inappropriate love between the King and the half-nymph hermit, Sakuntala, and through analysis of “the myth of purusarthas.”

According to Daya Krishna, the traditional theory of the purusarthas gives a little insight to the diversity and complexity of human seeking which makes life so fulfilling. The vague and general descriptions of these pursuits give an inadequate account of human values (Krishna, Daya. 1986). Kalidasa’s “Sakuntala” further gives insight to Daya’s ideas as Kalidasa illustrates the conflicting nature of kama and dharma in Act II of the play. When both his mother and the hermitage request King Dushyanta’s presence, he feels torn—“ two inconsistent duties sever my mind with cruel shock, as when the current of a river is split upon a rock.” As king, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that he most likely has several responsibilities to commit to at once quite frequently. Therefore, it is not the separate duties that create the “cruel shock”, but rather, having to make a choice between where he desires to be and where he knows he owes most responsibility at the given moment. Since, at this time of the play, the king was not married to Sakuntala, and considering that they are of completely separate castes, it is clear in such culture that he should have paid his respects to his mother, rather than defending the hermitage. However, his desire for Sakuntala made the decision much more difficult, and in the end, he pays the compromises his virtuous responsibility for his desires.

Kalidasa uses this stanza to illustrate the cruel, and conflicting nature of the pursuit of emotional desires and pursuit of responsibility when they are both presented at once. The difficulty of the decision shows a slightly unnatural need for a detached discipline. In an effort to recover his virtue in the eyes of his friend, Madhavya, he ensures him that it is pure duty that calls the king to the hermitage, and rashly denies his love for the “hermit-girl.” Most ironically, in an effort to defend his virtue, he lies about his love for Sakuntala, and becomes all the more irresponsible and immoral because of it. He is unable to convince Madhavya, who dismissively approves his request to not tell anyone about his pursuit.

Although the play has a positive ending of Sakuntala and the king being together, it is not without much hardship, difficulty, and most importantly, submission to duties before submission to desire, which keeps them apart. Kalidasa truly brings the beauty of the complexity of human nature to life through the illustration of the conflict between dharma and kama.