Page 149 - Communication Processes Volume 3 Communication Culture and Confrontation

124 Guy Poitevin

with Śankar. The second narrative was equally reported as the
8
.
‘story of the lot of the donkey’, the flat nostrils of which are similarly
explained as a punishment. The circumstances of the collection of the
third narrative should be kept in mind. An old man had stated that
9
-
-
the donkey is an incarnation—avatar—of Hanuman; he was, however,
unable to remember the story that would establish the validity of his
statement. The narrator was then present. It is on hearing this that
he was reminded of the narrative that he recounted to show how the
donkey is indeed really a form, rupa, of god.
Two symbolic identifications and three representations familiar
-
to the Vadars communities provide the narratives with idioms well
.
known to the ‘kindred of the donkey’ and our interpretation with a
-
safe ground. The identifications are the donkey, the Vadars’ faithful
.
-
-
carrier, and Hanuman, a divine emblem of the Vadar communities.
.
Regarding the donkey, another myth stages the close work associate as
10
-
an alter-ego and image of the unflinching and most loyal Vadar dedica-
.
tion to serve the king. The story implicitly conveys the message that at
-
the image of their docile and hard-working donkey, Vadars conceive
.
of themselves as the most devoted servants of their king and the saviours
of his kingdom, an important and significantly recurring theme in our
-
-
corpus of narratives from Vadar communities. Regarding Hanuman,
11
.
-
12
the offspring of Vayu or the ‘eleventh manifestation of Śankar, a
.
-
number of narratives portray him as a hero, and Vadars take pride in
.
recognizing him as their distinctive identity emblem on earth.
Three representations, therefore, blend in the background of the
narratives that we are to present as symbolic self-images, supports
-
of identification and claims of recognition for the Vadars: the first is
.
-
the donkey and Hanuman; the second, merged into a third one and
specific to the third narrative, is the figure of a god, a keystone of the
community.
These introductory remarks about the social and cultural context
are meant to suggest that we are entitled to read the stories as an arti-
-
culation reflecting the insight that the Vadar community shares
.
about itself by holding a discourse about the donkey, a close associ-
ate construed as the emblem of the community. The narratives make
-
sense on several accounts to the Vadar community, the addressee of
.
the discourse, as a discursive exercise of self-recognition, through the
lot meted out to the donkey, their alter-ego. I can now turn towards a
systematic deciphering of the narratives.