Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama 9780773574625

Citation preview

GENDER, RELIGION, AND MODERN HINDI DRAMA

This page intentionally left blank

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama DIANA DIMITROVA

McGill-QueenÙs University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Ithaca

© McGill-QueenÙs University Press 2008 ISBN

978-0-7735-3364-6

Legal deposit first quarter 2008 BibliothŠque nationale du Qu‚bec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free. McGill-QueenÙs University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP ) for our publishing activities.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Dimitrova, Diana, 1969– Gender, religion, and modern Hindi drama / Diana Dimitrova. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7735-3364-6 1. Hindi drama – History and criticism. 2. Theater – India – History – 19th century. 3. Theater – India – History – 20th century. 4. Hindu women in literature. 5. Hinduism in literature. I. Title. PK

2041.D 54 2008

891.4'320093522

C 2007-906334-9

This book was typeset by Interscript in 11/14 Manjushree.

For my husband

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Introduction ix 1 An Invitation to Modern Hindi Theatre

3

2 Images of the Feminine in Hindu Traditions 15 3 Remythologizing Tradition: Confinement or Liberation for Women? 23 4 Subverting Tradition: The Liberating Innovations of Upendranàth A÷k 49 5 The Heroines 71 Conclusion: Creating the Canon of Hindi Drama

86

Summary of Dramas 99 Glossary of Hindi and Sanskrit Words and Hindu Terms 103 Notes 109 Bibliography 123 Index

143

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

This book studies the representation of gender and religion in Hindi drama. The focus is on how different religious and mythological models pertaining to women and gender have been reworked in Hindi drama and whether the dramatists discussed in this book assert conservative or liberating Hindu images of the feminine. In the first chapter, ÚAn Invitation to Modern Hindi Theatre,Û I introduce the reader to major Hindi literary schools and playwrights. The dramatistsÙ interpretation of gender and religion depends on the different ideological positions that they represent. Therefore, it is essential to have knowledge of the history of Hindi theatre and of the prevalent ideological discourse in Hindi literary criticism today. This will enable us to understand the different ways that dramatists invoke Hindu religion and mythology to imbue their works with either conservative or liberating Hindu images of the feminine. In this book I clearly distinguish between texts that represent conservative Hinduism, which is oppressive of women, and texts that provide progressive interpretations of Hinduism and gender. That there are many Hindu Indian authors who criticize conservative Hindu notions reveals that Hindu tradition is pluralistic. Thus the present monograph explores an important and little-studied intellectual tradition within Hinduism and Hindi literature, one that uses liberating

x

Introduction

mythological and religious models for women in an attempt to promote womenÙs emancipation and equality. In chapter 2, ÚImages of the Feminine in Hindu Traditions,Û I deal with some central issues of women and goddesses in Hindu traditions and discuss how female protagonists in Hindi drama are based on these mythological models. As a scholar of Hinduism and Hindi literature, I am aware of the challenges that this interdisciplinary study poses. The dramatistsÙ appropriation of the mythological and religious material may not always attest to all the fine nuances that scholars of women and Hindu goddesses might wish to see. However, this does not make the texts less important or valuable. There are intrinsic links between secular literature, culture, religion, politics, and the interpretation of gender that have been overlooked by scholars of Hinduism. Most studies of women and goddesses seek to present inferences derived from sociological and anthropological research on goddesses as well as from the reality of the lives of women in an Indian village or in a specific urban community. Thus from a sociological or anthropological perspective, it would be problematic to assume that divine images translate directly into social portrayals or roles for women. However, in their dramatic works, the authors who are in favour of womenÙs emancipation have attempted exactly this (fictitious) equation of a theological model for women that is confining or liberating with a social one that is confining or liberating. Whereas the media have already widely exploited the equation of a confining theological model with a confining social model for women, it is interesting to note the innovative equation of a liberating theological model with a liberating social model for women in many of the plays. Often poets, dramatists, and novelists are Úahead of time.Û They not only copy from life but also write about their visions – visions that might influence religion and society and become true. It is therefore important to consider the role of literature in Hindu religious life and to study literary or visual texts in order to examine how they reflect the religious selfunderstanding of a Hindu man or woman.1

Introduction

xi

Why is it important to inquire into the intersection of religion and theatre? In Hindu traditions, drama, dance, and music are means of religious expression. The performing arts provide an alternative path to liberation. Furthermore, scholars show how modern Indian women seek empowerment by entering and opening up domains of Indian performing arts from which they were excluded in the past.2 Thus there has been an intrinsic link between religion and drama in India from ancient times. Although the urban Indian stage cannot be seen as a medium of religious expression and devotion to the deity, it is an influential literary and cultural forum for both entertainment and education, and it is not void of religion. It is therefore important to study the intersection of gender and religion in secular drama too. How are different aspects of Hindu religion interpreted in plays that deal with womenÙs issues? How do authors render the ensuing clash between tradition and modernity? What are the ideological implications of discourse on womenÙs issues in the dramas discussed: are conservative norms of womanhood and traditionally defined gender roles subverted or endorsed? How are Hindu religion and mythology and Western theatre instrumental in negating or asserting different role models for women? I deal with these questions by studying the issues of gender and religion in three phases. First, in chapter 3, ÚRemythologizing Tradition: Confinement or Liberation for Women?Û I analyze the interpretation of womenÙs issues by six representative playwrights.3 My analysis of the dramas reveals that there is a general trend toward remythologizing tradition. Thus in the treatment of the female protagonists, we can discern the archetypes of Sãtà, Satã, Draupadã, and Mãrà.4 Bhàratendu Hari÷candra (1850–85), Jay÷aïkar Prasàd (1889–1937), Lakùmãnàràyaõ Mi÷ra (b. 1903), and Mohan Ràke÷ (1925–72) are Hindi playwrights who endorse the religious norms of strãdharma (womenÙs duties) and the notion of pativrata (devotion to the husband) as ideals of womanhood. By contrast, dramatists Jagdã÷candra Màthur (1917–81) and Bhuvane÷var (c. 1912–57) liberate their heroines from the

xii

Introduction

confines of conservative tradition. In the plays discussed, women are portrayed as rebellious and are interpreted as embodiments of Mãrà, Draupadã, and Henrik IbsenÙs Nora in the play A DollÙs House. In this way, they anticipate Upendranàth A÷kÙs similar approach to womenÙs issues. It is exciting to observe that other scholars familiar with my work on drama have adopted and taken up in their own studies not only my choice of these six playwrights but also the dramas that I have selected for discussion. Thus the above-mentioned six playwrights and the dramas discussed in my monographs have begun to acquire the status of an academic canon.5 Second, in chapter 4, ÚSubverting Tradition: The Liberating Innovations of Upendranàth A÷k,Û I focus entirely on the interpretation of gender and religion in A÷kÙs dramatic work. The choice of Upendranàth A÷k (1910–96) as a focus of research in the chapter is not coincidental.6 His dramatic production spans a decade before and two decades after Independence and attests to the cardinal change in the reception of the different interpretation of womenÙs issues, which occurred after Independence. The author subverts tradition and asserts liberating images of the feminine. He shows that tradition is no longer ÚworkingÛ for modern women. The dramas convey the message that if women follow conservative tradition, they are unhappy. The playwright wants us to sympathize with the rebellious and independent woman who fights for individual happiness. He implies that women are not just rebels but victors as well. The author suggests that their rebellion should not end up in tragedy: the women in his plays do not fail but succeed. Thus other women are encouraged to emulate their actions. A÷kÙs dramas subvert conservative Hindu notions of womanhood and endorse both Hindu Indian and Western liberating images of the feminine. They reinforce the figures of the Goddess, of Mãrà, and of IbsenÙs Nora as role models for women. This makes the study of gender and religion in modern Hindi drama, and specifically in A÷kÙs plays, a challenge to the modern (global) reader.

Introduction

xiii

Third, in chapter 5, ÚThe Heroines,Û I study the dramatic devices that the authors employ to communicate their interpretations of religion and gender. I focus on the examination of the literary texture of the plays and discuss the concepts of hero, protagonist, and character. Special attention is given to the characterization of the female dramatis personae, who loom large as heroines in the plays, and to the issues of figure conception and characterization techniques. As central problems, I discuss the death of tragedy in modern drama, the proposed impossibility of male heroism in the age of postmodernity, and the ensuing reincarnation of the male hero in the female heroine. In the conclusion, I seek to answer the questions raised in the preceding chapters. I examine how the intersections of gender, religion, and ideology account for the creation of the canon of modern Hindi drama, specifically for the assertion of a conservative interpretation of orthodox Hindu images of the feminine as well as for the exclusion of dramatists who introduce innovative, liberating images of the feminine. The overt reason for the negative attitude toward this innovative representation of gender is that it is perceived as ÚWesternÛ and thus Únon-Indian.Û By contrast, my analysis of Hindu mythology, religion, and theatre history reveals that the new interpretation of gender is deeply embedded in Hindu tradition and is thus both Hindu Indian and modernist Western in character. Although religious dramas have been discussed in some detail,7 there are no monographs on the interpretation of religion and gender in secular drama. Thus the present study of religion, gender, and secular Hindi drama is a desideratum in the fields of both Hinduism and Hindi literature. ON METHOD

The intersections of the issues of religion and gender in modern Hindi theatre are examined by means of textual study and thematic analysis of the dramas against the historical, literary, and

xiv

Introduction

cultural background of colonial and postcolonial India. I discuss the dramas as literary texts and study the characterization of the dramatic figures from a structuralist perspective. The scope of this book does not allow me to deal with the history of reception of the dramatic performances. I examine modern Hindi drama from its beginnings in the second half of the nineteenth century until the 1960s. This is the period when urban (proscenium) Hindi theatre, which originated under Western influence, matured and thrived. After the 1960s dramatists revisited traditional theatrical forms, such as nauñaïkã, jàtrà, and tamà÷à. They created plays that are traditional in form and modern in content. Indian criticism refers to this mode of theatre as de÷ã (nativistic) and to the literary period as de÷ãvàd (nativism). Nativistic drama differs considerably from proWestern naturalistic theatre in its understanding of dramaturgy and is considered a different dramatic genre. Therefore, it is not discussed in the present book. For similar reasons, this monograph does not deal with street theatre and the work of women directors of the 1990s.8 A short summary of the dramas discussed is given in an appendix, ÚSummary of Dramas,Û at the end of the book. Hindi and Sanskrit words and Hindu terms are explained in the Glossary. ON TRANSLITERATION

The system of transliteration in this work follows a standard system for Hindi, in which long vowels are marked with a macron, for instance à, and retroflex consonants with a dot beneath the letter, for example ó. Nasalization is indicated by the sign ü, which follows the nasalized vocal, for instance bhaüvar. No special symbol is used for anusvàra (superscript dot denoting homorganic or other nasal consonant) in the transliteration, the appropriate nasal consonant being written to avoid confusion in the pronunciation, for example raïgma¤c. All Hindi names are spelled according to the transliteration system for Hindi, for

Introduction

xv

example Màthur. The names of languages, cities, and countries that have common Roman spellings have not been marked with diacritics, thus ÚUrdu,Û not ÚUrdå.Û ON TRANSLATION

All translations from Hindi into English are my own.

This page intentionally left blank

GENDER, RELIGION, AND MODERN HINDI DRAMA

This page intentionally left blank

1 An Invitation to Modern Hindi Theatre1

THE BEGINNINGS OF HINDI THEATRE

The plays discussed in this book belong to the category of sophisticated urban Hindi drama, which is performed on the elite urban stages of the big cultural centres of Delhi, Banaras, and Allahabad. These plays should be distinguished from the tradition of the urban Parsi theatre, from the religious folk dramas ràslãlà (KçùnaÙs round dance of love with the cowherd girls of Braj) and ràmlãlà (a dramatic presentation of the deeds of Ràm staged during the the Da÷ahrà festival of the first ten days of the month of â÷vin). Regional traditional Hindi theatre, which comprises the secular tradition of nauñaïkã (a type of folk-drama in the Brajbhàùà or Khaçã Bolã languages on legendary themes with music), should be considered an intermediary form between folk drama, Sanskrit theatre, and elite urban theatre.2 The beginning of professional (i.e., noncommercial) theatre in India is connected with the establishment of the British colonial state, which enabled the Indian elite to become acquainted with major works of European theatre through English translations. The establishment of several professional theatrical groups in Calcutta was the consequence of this interest in European dramatic literature. Original Bengali dramas followed soon

4

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

thereafter and influenced the work of the first national Hindi playwright, Bhàratendu Hari÷candra. The prevalent view in Indian literary criticism today is that during the nineteenth century and up to Independence, there existed no professional Hindi theatre. In the first place, contemporary critics explain this phenomenon by the fact that the Hindi-speaking region was less influenced by the British in the spheres of education and economics than were Bengal and Maharashtra.3 Second, they hold that the potent presence of the Muslims in the previous centuries resulted in a culture that showed no interest in the performing arts.4 And third, they point out that the living folk tradition of nauñaïkã was ignored by Hindi playwrights up to the 1960s and that the material provided by this tradition was not reworked into new modern dramas. However, this may also have occurred because the folk tradition of nauñaïkã was not as influential in the Hindi-speaking region as the jàtrà folk play was in Bengal, which had been constantly changing its form and could thus adapt to the requirements of the new time.5 It is generally accepted in Indian criticism that, apart from folk theatre and the traditions of ràslãlà and nauñaïkã, the Parsi theatre represented the only living theatrical tradition in the nineteenth century.6 The prevalent opinion among critics is that the Parsi theatre was interested mainly in commercial success and thus could not stimulate the growth of a professional Hindi theatre. The language of the plays staged by the Parsi companies was not Hindi but a very simplified Hindustani, which was closer to Urdu than to Hindi. Only in 1910, under the growing influence of the Hindus, did the Parsi theatre directors begin to perform dramas in Hindi as well. They used a lot of music, dance, and supernatural effects in order to attract the audience. The Indian elite saw vulgarity in the Parsi theatre and looked upon the melodramas that were staged as written for the sole purpose of entertaining an illiterate audience.7 The spread of Western education and the consolidation of Hindi as a literary language are seen as prerequisites for the growth of a professional Hindi theatre.8

An Invitation to Modern Hindi Theatre

5

Scholars are right to point out that Western drama, the spread of Western education, and the consolidation of Hindi as a literary language were very important influences in the growth of a professional Hindi theatre. However, one should not overlook the importance of Urdu court drama (for which Hasan AmanatÙs play Indarsabhà sets a standard)9 and of the urban Parsi theatre, which eagerly took on the material culture of European theatre, namely its proscenium stage, backdrop and curtains, Western furniture, and mechanical devices for staging special effects.10 In this way, the urban Parsi theatre was instrumental in introducing Western theatre to India and in promoting the creation and establishment of urban Indian theatre. Thus not only Western drama and the consolidation of Hindi but also the indigenous living theatrical traditions of both the Parsi and nauñaïkã theatres informed the establishment and further development of elite urban Hindi drama in the late nineteenth century. In this respect, the work of Bhàratendu Hari÷candra (1850–85), who understood the necessity of presenting his contemporaries with an alternative to the Parsi theatre, played a decisive role in the development of modern Hindi theatre. He disapproved of the commercial character of the Parsi tradition and ridiculed it in his play Bandar Sabhà (The Monkey Assembly). This play was a parody of the many cheap imitations of the famous Indar Sabhà (IndraÙs Assembly), which were written for the Parsi theatre by his contemporaries.11 In order to educate his contemporaries in the spirit of the reformatory ideas of Ràm Mohan Roy, the Brahmo Samaj, and the Arya Samaj, Hari÷candra began writing plays and established the National Theatre in Kashi (Varanasi), the ârya Nàñyasabhà in Prayag (Allahabad), and the Hindã Raïgma¤c in Kanpur. After his death in 1885, there were several attempts to continue his efforts. Two more theatrical groups came into being in Allahabad: the ørã Ràmlãlà Nàñak Maõóalã and the Hindã Nàñya Samiti. Similarly, the ørã Bhàratendu Nàñak Maõóalã and the Kà÷ã Nàgarã Nàñak Maõóalã were established in Varanasi.

6

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

However, shortly thereafter, most of these professional theatrical groups were dissolved, as there was little governmental and private support. In the 1940s Pçthvãràj Kapår attempted to establish a living Hindi theatre with his Pçthvã Theatre, which existed from 1945 to 1956. Nonetheless, Hindi playwrights had to continue depending entirely on amateur and studentsÙ theatrical groups for the staging of their plays. Most of these groups were concentrated in Allahabad and Varanasi and were supervised by Ràmkumàr Varmà. They performed historical dramas by Jay÷aïkar Prasàd and Harikçùõa Premã as well as naturalistic plays by Lakùmãnàràyaõ Mi÷ra, Jagdã÷candra Màthur, Upendranàth A÷k, and Mohan Ràke÷, which originated under the influence of Western theatre.12 With the founding of the Indian PeopleÙs Theatre Association in 1941, which staged 600 plays in the first five years of its existence, decisive steps were taken toward the growth of professional theatre in Hindi. However, only the establishment of the Sangãt Nàñak Akàdemã (Academy of Music and Drama) in New Delhi in 1958 and of the Ràùñrãya Nàñya Vidyàlay (National School of Drama) in 1959, which would win Mohan Ràke÷ and Dharmvãr Bhàrtã as their collaborators, improved the situation and enabled the formation of an interested and critical audience. Although much was done for the establishment of a living professional Indian theatre, one must admit that it does not yet exist. In his essay Theatre in India, Girish Karnad discusses the main reasons for the absence of a thriving theatrical tradition in modern India.13 As they apply to Hindi theatre as well, I discuss them briefly here. In KarnadÙs opinion, modern Hindi drama cannot impact the heart of contemporary Indian society in the way that Western drama has affected Western society because it is not honest about the core of Indian reality. Karnad holds that drama has remained trivial in modern India because of the double set of values underlying the life of the urban middle-class, which Úprofess[es] faith in Western values of equality, individualism,

An Invitation to Modern Hindi Theatre

7

secularism, and free competition in public while sticking to caste and family loyalties at home.Û14 He states that whereas adopting the proscenium stage and the sale of tickets to theatre productions marked the beginning of a new kind of ÚmodernÛ proscenium Indian theatre based on the Western model, these changes also brought about the mechanical and literal borrowing of Western interiors for the depiction of Indian home settings. Karnad points out that most modern Indian plays are set, as with the Western model, in the living room. However, the role of the living room in the home life of a Western individual or family is different from its role in India. The important issues in an Indian home are discussed not in the living room but in the kitchen and in the påjà (worship) room beyond the living room. Moreover, Karnad notes that by imitating Western models, modern Indian plays fail to be honest about the nature and direction of communication in India, where social life and family life are defined by hierarchies. He points out that it is not common for women to sit together with men and discuss their most private affairs openly in front of total strangers, as happens in Western plays. The author remarks that such a situation is unthinkable in a traditional Indian home. Karnad implies that Indian drama that plays against an alien background cannot address native issues and thus cannot speak to the spectatorsÙ hearts. It cannot convince people that it is about them and cannot have the desired impact on contemporary Indian society. These arguments are worth taking into consideration when discussing the problematic nature of modern Indian theatre today. De÷ã (nativistic) dramaturgy aims to bridge exactltly this gap between Indian audiences and the Western props and settings of modern Indian plays. Nativistic dramatists use folk songs, actors from villages (who perform in their own dialects), and folk legends and mythological material from the Hindu epics as the subject matter of their plays. The achievements of nativistic theatre, for example of Habãb TanvãrÙs play Carandàs Cor (Thief

8

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

Carandas, 1975) and of øàntà GàndhãÙs Jasmà Oçàn (Jasma Oçan, 1981), are indisputable.15 Indian literary criticism has sanctioned nativistic drama as ÚIndian.Û By contrast, naturalistic Hindi theatre has been stigmatized as Únon-Indian.Û Thus questions arise about the character of naturalistic Hindi drama, which originated under Western influence. Are these plays non-Indian? Are they imitations of Western models? Is the presentation of religion and gender in naturalistic Hindi drama borrowed from Western ideals of the feminine? WHICH TRADITION? NATURALISTIC H I N D I D R A M A A N D U P E N D R A N âT H A ÷ K 16

Depending on the prevailing ideology of the time, progressivism, experimentalism, and Marxism were either propagated or discarded as literary schools in the field of Hindi prose from the 1930s to the 1950s. Oftentimes, an author was considered controversial if his or her work could not be fitted into just one movement. The question Úwhich tradition?Û was important and was often asked in Hindi literary criticism. In the field of drama this question is not about different movements within Indian literature. It refers to the dichotomy between the ÚWesternÛ and ÚIndianÛ traditions. Thus the ideological polarities pertain to the influence of Western theatre. The history of modern Hindi drama encompasses PrasàdÙs neo-Sanskritic plays and Bhuvane÷varÙs, MàthurÙs, Ràke÷Ùs, and A÷kÙs pro-Western naturalistic dramas as well as nativistic dramas, written after the 1960s.17 Whereas Prasàd wrote in conformity with the aesthetic of classical Sanskrit drama and set the action of his historical plays against the background of events from the great Hindu past, playwrights producing naturalistic Hindi drama predominantly created social-problem dramas, which concentrated on issues of the day. Their plays were meant for the proscenium stage and were influenced by the dramaturgy of Western theatre. To PrasàdÙs highly Sanskritized Hindi, they

An Invitation to Modern Hindi Theatre

9

opposed a comprehensible Hindi and even a colloquial Urduized Hindustani. Thus modern naturalistic Hindi drama originated and developed mainly under the influence of the Western dramatic tradition. To explain the issues pertaining to Western influence and the reception of naturalistic Hindi drama, I deal briefly here with the controversial position of A÷kÙs dramatic work, as it is representative of the dramatic discourse of the time. A÷kÙs new dramas came into being through contact with the West, especially with Henrik IbsenÙs dramaturgy.18 Western influence in A÷kÙs oeuvre pertains to two aspects of his plays: interpretation of womenÙs issues and dramatic style. As I have discussed the issue of dramatic style elsewhere,19 I focus in this book on the interpetation of gender. How is the influence of the Western dramatic tradition revealed in Upendranàth A÷kÙs work? In his plays the author exposes social evils of contemporary Indian society and criticizes social injustice and corruption. He is an advocate of womenÙs rights and pleads for the betterment of womenÙs situation through education and more independence. This stance is unmistakably progressivist. But is it not modernist, naturalistic, and Ibsenite as well? Last but not least, isnÙt it representative of the current Arya Samaji discourse on womenÙs education in North India and especially in A÷kÙs birth place, Jullundur? A÷k was born in Jullundur in 1910 and passed his bachelor of arts examinations at the Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College in the city of his birth in 1931. The creation of Anglo-Vedic schools was an answer to the challenge posed by Western education, as practised by the British elite and the Christian missionaries in the nineteenth century. The institution of the Anglo-Vedic College offered the best synthesis of two worlds, as it taught both the new knowledge of the Anglicized world and Vedic truth.20 The languages of instruction were English, Hindi, and classical Sanskrit. Knowledge of English literature and science was required for material progress, but at the same time study of the national language and the vernaculars was encouraged, and it was insisted

10

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

that classical Sanskrit was needed for one to gain moral and spiritual truths.21 In this way, Punjabi Hindus accepted British culture without rejecting the values of their Hindu heritage. The Jullundur Arya Samaj was associated with Lala Munshi Ram, and the first Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College in the city was established in 1889.22 By the following year it had enrolled about 300 students. The school was supported by the literate, commercial groups and by the newly anglicized. Most of the members of the Arya Samaj were doctors, lawyers, merchants, and teachers, and education became one of the major preoccupations of the Aryas. During the 1890s they built an educational system throughout Punjab and the north-western provinces that provided instruction from the primary grades to college.23 The quest for the new modernized Vedic man was linked with the quest for the new woman. The members of the Arya Samaj realized that there was an urgent need for education for girls. The Jullundur Samajists were at the forefront of the movement for the establishment of girlsÙ schools. In 1895 they expanded their existing school for girls, the Kanya Mahavidyalaya, and opened a boarding house for girls.24 The institutions created to educate girls remained on a smaller scale than the Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College system and adhered to a much lower educational standard based on a different curriculum, one that comprised mostly domestic subjects and that was taught in the vernaculars. Nevertheless, the Kanya Mahavidyalaya, along with its students and teachers, made the educated young girl a reality that was clearly visible throughout the province.25 These educated young women stood for the new woman and symbolized the drive to change permanently the traditional role of women. Some of the most pertinent questions, which were debated by the members of the Arya Samaj, referred to child marriage, age of consent, arranged marriage, and widow remarriage. Although there is no evidence that A÷k was actively involved with the work of the Arya Samaj, we may assume that his educational background at an Arya Samaji institution accounts for his

An Invitation to Modern Hindi Theatre

11

excellent knowledge of Western literature and culture and for his ideas on womenÙs education. The playwrightÙs Arya Samaji educational background influenced his worldview, especially his adoption of positive and progressive trends from the Western tradition without discarding Hindu Indian values. This is also manifested in A÷kÙs views on womenÙs education and arranged marriage. Thus the intellectual climate of the Hindu reform movements of the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century informed A÷kÙs views on the Western tradition, the Hindu Indian legacy, education, the position of women, and relationships between men and women in a new modernized Indian society, which was to take and synthesize the best of the two worlds. Naturalistic Western theatre sought to portray the protagonistsÙ social milieux in a realistic way, and Ibsen was the first playwright to expose womenÙs oppression by the social system of his day. In his plays, he is an advocate of womenÙs emancipation and womenÙs rights. A÷k followed in this tradition and sought to do in Hindi what Ibsen had done in Norwegian. For instance, we can draw parallels between A÷kÙs plays âdi màrg (The Primordial Way, 1943), Uçàn (Flight, 1950), and Alag alag ràste (Separate Ways, 1954)26 and IbsenÙs A DollÙs House (1879).27 A÷kÙs admiration for the subject of the battle of the sexes can also be traced back to Western theatre, specifically to the work of August Strindberg. In this case, A÷k further developed the tradition established by his countryman Bhuvane÷var, the first mature recipient of StrinbergÙs work in Hindi drama. A÷kÙs dramas Taulie (Towels, 1943) and A¤jo Dãdã (The Elder Sister A¤jo, 1955) were influenced both by StrindbergÙs The Father (1887), Play with Fire (1892), and Dance of Death (1902) and by Bhuvane÷varÙs øyàmà: Ek vaivàhik vióambnà (øyàmà: A Marriage Anomaly, 1933), øaitàn (Satan, 1934), Làñrã (Lottery, 1935), and Romàns: Romà¤c (Romance: Horripilation, 1935).28 The issue of gender is central to A÷kÙs artistic concept. The family as a microcosm of society and the relationships between

12

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

men and women are of major importance. He is indebted to Western drama and especially to Ibsen and Strindberg for his innovative interpretation of womenÙs issues. A÷k is the only Hindi playwright who has dedicated so much attention to female characters and studied womenÙs problems from different perspectives. Women are the main protagonists in A÷kÙs plays. Most often, the female characters are round and dynamic, whereas the males are flat and static. Except for ideological reasons, the predominance of female figures in his plays can be explained by the death of tragedy in modern drama, which made male heroism less convincing and almost impossible.29 However, the most plausible explanation for the centrality of the female characters in the plays is that it bespeaks the dramatistÙs personal and deliberate choice, a decision based on aesthetics, which resulted from his admiration for womenÙs sacrifice, moral strength, and rebellious spirit. On another level, A÷kÙs female characters not only represent the female sex but also are the embodiment of the authorÙs concept of humankind and its quest for happiness. They express the playwrightsÙs belief that in an unjust and oppressive situation, one should take action and fight to achieve betterment. Even though the interpretation of religion and gender in A÷kÙs dramas is embedded in Hindi progressivism,30 we may point out that the portrayal of women in A÷kÙs plays marks a new phase in the interpretation of womenÙs issues in modern Hindi literature. In the fiction of the Hindi novelist Dhanpat Rài ørãvàstav ÚPremcand,Û the only way for women to escape their endless suffering is to commit suicide. The playwrights Hari÷candra and Prasàd portray womenÙs heroism but refrain from making their female characters independent of male authority. In Mi÷raÙs plays women are expected to adhere to the rules of traditional Hindu society. My study shows that Ràke÷Ùs handling of the subject matter is also marked by conservatism. By contrast, A÷kÙs interpretation is innovative: while he does not condemn women who prefer to follow the àdi màrg (the primordial way defined for the Indian woman by Hindu tradition), he

An Invitation to Modern Hindi Theatre

13

points to the possibility of a ÚflightÛ into independence through the education and emancipation of women. A÷k exposes womenÙs oppression by conservative Hindu society in the dramas Kaid (Prison, 1950), Uçàn (Flight, 1950), and Alag alag ràste (Separate Ways, 1954) and discusses the problems of the educated and emancipated woman in Bhaüvar (Whirlpool, 1961) and Svarg kã jhalak (A Glimpse of Paradise, 1939). In A¤jo Dãdã (The Elder Sister A¤jo, 1955) and Taulie (Towels, 1943) the author shows the difficulties in relationships between men and women in marriage without blaming these difficulties all on womenÙs nature, as many dramatists before him had done. In the play Alag alag ràste he goes even further by presenting heroines who rebel against masculine authority and the power structures of conservative Hindu society. Similar to Ibsen, A÷k sees womenÙs education and emancipation as a solution to the problems. By exposing womenÙs oppression, the author looks into the power relations of contemporary society and questions the subordinate role defined for women. Thus the gender implications of A÷kÙs plays show clearly the blending of three influences: the Hindu reform movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, progressivist ideology, and Western drama. The reception of A÷kÙs dramatic oeuvre by contemporary Indian drama criticism was marked by neglect, and his position in the Hindi world of letters was marked by exclusion from the literary canon. The reasons for this exclusion are ideological. A÷k wrote in the years of the independence movement against the British, a period in Indian cultural history that operated according to binaries: the notion of ÚIndianÛ came to be increasingly equated with ÚHindu,Û which was seen as diametrically opposed to all that is ÚWesternÛ (i.e., Únon-IndianÛ). This conservative viewpoint failed to acknowledge the multifaceted Hindu tradition, which is informed not only by images of the docile Spouse Goddess but also by the independent and empowered Devã. By contrast, the innovative and progressive interpretation of womenÙs issues was categorically labelled

14

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

Úpro-Western,Û a position that ignored and revised the discourse of the Hindu reform movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Partha Chatterjee sees the reasons for this phenomenon in the agenda of the ideology of Indian nationalism and in the specific ways that the nationalist project resolved the womenÙs question in accordance with its preferred goals. The nationalist discourse operated according to the dichotomies of material vs spiritual and outer vs inner. The ÚmaterialÛ and ÚouterÛ were linked to the West, to economic progress, and to the Indian male, who was expected to adapt and change. By contrast, the ÚspiritualÛ and ÚinnerÛ were linked to the East, to the issues of religious and cultural identity and values, and to the Indian female, who was not expected to change.31 Thus the subtle blending in A÷kÙs work of the naturalistic Western tradition, progressivist Hindi literary influences, and Hindu reform ideologies was misunderstood. It is the premise of this study that A÷k and his female protagonists belong to the Hindu Indian tradition and that his plays represent an innovative synthesis of modernist Hindu Indian and modernist Western traditions. However, the critical discourse of the time required a stereotypical framework based on a facile binary system: ÚIndianÛ versus ÚWesternÛ tradition. A÷kÙs dramatic work came to be viewed as ÚWesternÛ in character.

2 Images of the Feminine in Hindu Traditions

In my discussion of images of the feminine in the Hindu tradition, I draw on four major sources: Dharma÷àstra literature, especially the Maõusmçti; the Mahàbhàrata and Ràmàyaõa epics; the Puràõas; and bhakti (devotional) literature. First, I examine the (negative) image of Hinduism associated with roles and duties prescribed for women in the Dharma÷àstra texts and the conflicting representation of women and gender in the Mahàbhàrata and Ràmàyaõa epics. Next, I proceed to discuss alternative (positive) images of the feminine in the Hindu tradition, as revealed in the tradition of women bhakti saints and in the mythology of the Goddess in the Puràõas. In the last section of this chapter I look into the possibilities of regarding liberating female mythical figures as role models who can empower earthly women. Scholars of Hindu goddesses have argued that empowered images of the divine feminine do not translate into empowered social models for Hindu women, but they acknowledge the potential for such an equation of a liberating theological model with a liberating social one.1 The media – especially magazines,2 the Ràmàyaõa television serial directed by Ràmànand Sàgar, and commercial mainstream Bollywood films – have attempted equation of a conservative theological model with a conservative social model with great success. By contrast, modern Hindi drama has appropriated mythical models and has

16

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

reworked not only conservative, but also liberating, models. Thus in the world of Hindi drama, empowered mythical figures have been translated into empowered female dramatic figures. There is an equation of a liberating theological model with a liberating social model for women. ON WOMEN, EPIC HEROINES, BHAKTI SAINTS, AND GODDESSES IN HINDU TRADITIONS

Hinduism has often been stigmatized and stereotyped as a religion that is oppressive of women. It is generally associated with child and arranged marriages, subservient wifehood, dowry murders, inauspicious widowhood, and the custom of sati (the wifeÙs self-immolation on the husbandÙs funeral pyre). This stereotypical picture of Hinduism as a religion that oppresses women is incorrect and misleading in several ways. Hinduism is not a single uniform tradition: it is represented by several multifaceted religious traditions. Extensive scholarship has documented that HinduismÙs association with the oppression of women is a distortion, a colonial misrepresentation of its multifaceted traditions.3 The ideology of patiyoga (womenÙs religiosity as service and devotion to the husband-god) and the notion of strãdharma (the traditional norms, duties, rules, and roles of womanhood) as the ideal of female behaviour were limited to the period of classical Hinduism (200 BCE to 1100 CE ). These ideas are found in the smçti texts (a category of scripture in Sanskrit consisting of works on ethics like the Dharma÷àstras). The notorious Manusmçti (or ManuSmçti) (The Laws of Manu) is perhaps the work to which there is most frequent reference. These are all Sanskrit texts that were compiled in North India by Úhigh-casteÛ men – that is, Bràhmaõs. The Dharma÷àstras contain precepts (not rules!) for the right conduct of men and women and for order in Hindu society. Thus we should not forget that the rather restricted and conservative notion of the feminine that we find in these texts was a

Images of the Feminine in Hindu Traditions

17

projection of male fantasy. We do not know whether women were really expected to fully abide by the roles and rules defined for them in the smçti literature. Furthermore, we do not know whether womenÙs self-definition coincided with the overtly grim picture of womanhood found in the texts. As most women did not have access to Sanskrit learning and education, their ÚstoryÛ was transmitted orally and handed down from woman to woman.4 Scholars do not possess textual material enabling them to reconstruct womenÙs real position in Hindu society at the time. Even if we assumed that the smçti texts represent an authentic picture of Hindu womenÙs lives, we should not forget that these texts applied only to Úhigh-casteÛ (predominantly Bràhmaõ) women in North India. Thus it is generally accepted in current scholarship that women of ÚlowerÛ castes and women in South India enjoyed more freedom. Wives had more autonomy in the family, widows could remarry, and the custom of sati was hardly practised. However, the process of Sanskritization, or imitation of the customs of the Úhigher castesÛ by the Úlower castesÛ in order to achieve social uplift, has contributed to the spread of the above-mentioned restrictions on womanÙs behaviour to different social groups and other parts of the country. Last but not least, even the smçti literatureÙs picture of women is not uniform. The Manusmçti not only states that a woman should be dependent on and under the control of male authority (Manusmçti 9.2–3) but also argues for respect for women (Manusmçti 3.56) and places a mother higher in esteem than a teacher (Manusmçti 2.145).5 The epics comprise myths and itihàsa (the traditional understanding of things that had happened, or ÚhistoryÛ), and the epic narratives abound with active women. Damayantã, Sàvitrã, øakuntalà, and Draupadã in the Mahàbhàrata and Sãtà in the Ràmàyaõa are not passive.6 Although these female characters are loyal wives, they can also rebel and question the actions of their husbands. However, this active behaviour is almost always meant to serve the wellbeing of the husband. Sàvitrã is actively engaged

18

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

in restoring her husband to life, and Sãtà is active in carving out a ÚcareerÛ for herself as RàmaÙs companion in exile. Stephanie Jamison too has pointed to active women in the epic narratives. She sees this topos of woman as an independent agent resulting from two conflicting male religious goals: the requirement to produce sons and the idealization of asceticism. As men are in active pursuit of asceticism, Úthey do not want sex but need its products.Û7 The topos of the seduced ascetic pertains to the male who is the accidental and passive recipient of female sexual activity, which brings about the desired result: sons. Although many Indian women and men nowadays say Úyes to Sita, no to Ram,Û8 it would be difficult to overlook that the way to power for women in the classical period is based on the concept of abalà (the feminine power of the meek and docile wife).9 Mostly, it is through their self-effacing virtue, service, and selfsacrifice to the husband that women become empowered. Sàvitrã manages to restore her husband to life, and Sãtà survives the fire ordeal only because each has been chaste, faithful, and loyal to her husband. Women use this power for the benefit of their husbands, not for their own benefit. No woman is portrayed as acting for her own sake. Thus not only in the Dharma÷àstras but also in the epics, at the theological and soteriological levels, womenÙs religiosity is focused on the husband. Service to the husband is the purpose of womanÙs life on earth. Rebirth after death as a reward for good service to the husband, not mokùa (liberation), is envisioned for women. In the time of bhakti (devotional) Hinduism, a movement that originated in South India after the sixth century and was transmitted to North India after the eleventh century, where it flourished until the sixteenth century, womenÙs religiosity and self-definition changed. Female øaiva bhakti poets, such as Kàraikkàl Ammaiyàr, Akkà Mahàdevã, and Lallà Ded, and Vaiùõava poetess-saints, such as âõñàl, Mãràbàã, and Bahiõàbàã, approached the deity directly, seeking salvation (for themselves, not for their husbands) in the union with God. Some chose never to marry and devoted their lives

Images of the Feminine in Hindu Traditions

19

to a spiritual union with their divine beloved. Others walked out of their earthly marriages in order to give full vent to their bhakti (loving devotion) to God. These women expressed their longing and devotion in poems that have reached us through oral transmission and that are now available in standardized scholarly editions. Thus there have been independent women in Hindu tradition: an important role in religious life was played by female bhakti poets (who wrote Hindu devotional poetry), by devadàsãs (female temple dancers and ritual specialists), and by female tantric adepts, ascetics, and gurus.10 Furthermore, at a theological level, we find yet another instance of the multifaceted Hindu tradition. The nature of the divine feminine is revealed both in the image of the submissive Spouse Goddess11 and in the image of the Goddess – that is, the independent and powerful Devã12 – who is aware of her ÷akti (inherent female power).13 In addition, it is believed that every woman possesses ÷akti. And in tantric Hinduism human women are equated with the Goddess. Every woman is understood to be the embodiment of the Goddess and is to be worshipped accordingly. In local religious practice, many female religious practitioners are empowered through their self-identification with the Goddess.14 And indeed, in most stages of life, especially as young virgins and later as spouses, women are auspicious: they bring saubhàgya (good fortune), happiness, and prosperity to their families.15 Thus it is wrong to stigmatize Hindu Indian tradition as oppressive of women and to argue that ÚliberationÛ comes from the West. There has been cross-cultural fertilization of Western and Hindu Indian liberating images of the feminine both in India and in the West. Two figures that loom large are Henrik IbsenÙs Nora and the goddess Kàlã. While IbsenÙs play A DollÙs House has influenced modern Indian drama and culture, Hindu myths of the terrifying and powerful Kàlã have fascinated Western imagination. The appropriation of the Hindu goddess Kàlã as the ÚWestern KàlãÛ and the importance of this cross-cultural transplant for the development of feminist theology have been as

20

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

emancipating and liberating for Western women16 as were the ideas of Western advocates of womenÙs rights for Indian women. IS THE TRADITION OF EMPOWERED MYTHICAL FIGURES EMPOWERING FOR HINDU WOMEN?

Many Western feminists have attempted to approach the feminine dimension in religious expression, which they do not find in their own traditions and which they have rediscovered in the concept of the Goddess in Hinduism. In the West there is the belief that the feminine aspect of the divine feminine is empowering for women. Therefore, there is the expectation that the existence of a living tradition of the Goddess in Hinduism will automatically translate into empowerment for women in India. In effect, this expectation can be regarded as a form of cultural imperialism, an instance of the values of one particular worldview and culture being imposed on another. Scholars of Hindu goddesses have argued that such an equation of a divine feminine model with the real world of ordinary women in India does not exist. However, they have all pointed out the possibility of a different development in the future, whereby not only educated or Westernized, but also traditional, Indian women begin to identify with the Goddess in order to find empowerment.17 While reading many fascinating articles and books on women and Hinduism, I have been struck by the fixation on the figure of the Goddess as a possible source for identification and empowerment for women. It is, however, important to see the multifaceted liberating Hindu images of the feminine in their entirety. To mention just a few examples, the Goddess, active epic heroines, female bhakti poets, devadàsãs, and female tantric adepts are all role models that could empower women. Another aspect that deserves further study is the ways that the media appropriate the mythic figures and the ways that the media project them as desirable or not desirable social models for

Images of the Feminine in Hindu Traditions

21

women to emulate or reject. It is important to consider the impact of these media images on womenÙs perspectives, worldviews, identities, and religiosity, paying attention to how magazines, films, and television serials rework not only liberating, but also conservative, images of the feminine. In the media the figures of Draupadã, Mãrà, and Devã are often contravened by another myth-model, another female figure who has exercised great influence on womenÙs lives in the past four centuries, namely the figure of Sãtà in TulsãdàsÙs sixteenthcentury work Ràmcaritmànas. Tulsãdàs renders his heroine in a manner different from the Sãtà of the Ràmàyaõa epic: sixteenthcentury Sãtà is portrayed as the embodiment of the Vaiùõava bhakti religious ideal – that is, as one full of devotion to Ràma. Taken out of the religious context, however, the interpretation of this female character is easily translated into social terms, her conduct signifying unreserved and unconditional devotion to the husband. This is how the Sãtà figure has been appropriated and how she is received in popular Indian culture today. Sãtà has come to represent the perfect pativratà (loyal and devoted wife), who is loyal, obedient, and subservient. The media, represented especially by the Ràmàyaõa television serial, have contributed to promoting this distorted mythological symbolism of TulsãdàsÙs Sãtà. I agree with Klaus KlostermaierÙs view that ÚThe imagination that concretized such ideas into a humanlike figure does not agree with a one-to-one translation of its religious vocabulary into present-day sociological or feminist notions. The Údivine coupleÛ Sãtà-Ràma cannot be used as a model for working out budget problems in a modern family, be it in India or anywhere else.Û18 However, the remythologizing of the present is a potent trend in Indian culture today.19 One should not forget that most people nowadays have no authentic knowledge of the epics, TulsãdàsÙs Ràmcaritmànas, or devotional literature by Sårdàs or female bhakti poets. Their understanding of myth-models is based on television serials, on popular cinema, and on drama. Thus it is important to analyze the portrayal of women in the expressive forms

22

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

of drama, film, and other media with reference to the religious and social role models of Sãtà, Draupadã, Mãrà, and Devã. The representation of gender and religion in the media deserves special consideration, as some realistic films and dramas creatively rework the religious and mythological material: oftentimes, they subvert tradition and introduce liberating mythmodels. One should not ask Úremythologizing: yes or no?Û but rather Úwhat kind of remythologizing: leading to confinement or to liberation for women?Û

3 Remythologizing Tradition: Confinement or Liberation for Women?

This chapter discusses the interpretation of women in modern urban Hindi drama as revealed in the work of Bhàratendu Hari÷candra, Jay÷aïkar Prasàd, Jagdã÷candra Màthur, Mohan Ràke÷, and Bhuvane÷var. This sets the literary and historical context for further examination of the interpretation of womenÙs issues in the postcolonial period, for instance in Upendranàth A÷kÙs plays. It is a characteristic of modern Hindi drama that the female characters are at the centre of the plays.1 Thus the development of the protagonist in Hindi drama can be studied against the background of the interpretation of womenÙs issues. The work of Hari÷candra and Prasàd played a decisive role in the development of modern Hindi theatre. Whereas Hari÷candra set the beginning of modern Hindi drama by emancipating it from the conventions of both classical Indian and the commercial Parsi theatre, Prasàd broadened its expressive potential. The power of his language and the depth of his dramatic figuresÙ psychological characterization marked a new phase in the development of modern Hindi drama. While Hari÷candra wrote satirical, lyrical, and historical plays, Prasàd established the historical play as the main Hindi dramatic genre. The employment of highly Sanskritized vocabulary and the glorification of the great Hindu past, together with the introduction of stylistic devices from classical Sanskrit drama, gave birth to the neo-Sanskritic Hindi play, which has

24

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

been influential up to the present day and has received much acclaim by the critics. Hari÷candraÙs and PrasàdÙs female protagonists are portrayed in harmony with traditional religious values. They embody the Hindu ideal of the loyal and submissive Hindu wife who is devoted to the patidev (husband-god). In the 1930s many Hindi dramatists, influenced by Western theatre and especially by Henrik IbsenÙs problem plays, wrote dramas on issues of the day. Playwright Lakùmãnàràyaõ Mi÷raÙs conservative interpretation of womenÙs issues prompted him to pronounce himself against widow remarriage and in favour of child and arranged marriage. Therefore, he could not respond to womenÙs problems and their search for a solution. After Independence the influence of Western drama grew, and the socialproblem play, or naturalistic Hindi drama, thrived. Thus the problems in the family were seen in their relation to social evils. The plays of A÷k, Màthur, Bhuvane÷var, and Ràke÷ are most representative of this time. Ràke÷Ùs interpretation of womenÙs issues is consistent with traditional Hindu values. By contrast, A÷k, Màthur, and Bhuvane÷var introduce a new female protagonist who is to be seen as the embodiment of liberating Hindu images of the feminine, of Draupadã, Mãrà, and Devã. This new female protagonist is portrayed as suffering intensely from the restrictions imposed on her by conservative Hindu tradition. She does not submit to tradition but rebels against it and strives for independence and individual happiness. Thus if we look into the gender implications of modern Hindi drama in the plays discussed, we may state that even though the female characters in Hari÷candraÙs Nãldevã (Nildevi, 1881) and PrasàdÙs Dhruvasvàminã (Dhruvasvamini, 1933) are portrayed as heroic and courageous, they reinforce the ideal of the loyal wife, the pativratà and satã, and of the submissive and obedient Spouse Goddess.2 This interpretation conforms to traditional Hindu values. Although Hari÷candraÙs Nãldevã defeats the Muslim conquerors, she does so to save the corpse of her husband and subsequently burns herself on the funeral pyre as his satã. Similarly,

Remythologizing Tradition

25

even though PrasàdÙs Dhruvasvàminã dares to leave a weak and treacherous husband in order to marry the man she loves, brave Candragupta, she does not do so independently but with the approval and at the suggestion of another man who represents authority, the purohit (Hindu priest). Mi÷raÙs Manoramà in Sindår kã holã (The Vermilion Holi, 1934) embraces eternal widowhood out of free will and with great enthusiasm, thus becoming the mouthpiece of the authorÙs conservatism. Ràke÷Ùs Mallikà in âùàçh kà ek din (One Day in the Month of âùàçh, 1958) is portrayed as the embodiment of Sãtà, self-effacing and submissive, waiting for her Ràma alias Kàlidàsa. Thus among the dramas discussed, only the female protagonists in Bhuvane÷varÙs Sñràãk (Strike, 1938), in MàthurÙs Rãçh kã haóóã (Backbone, 1939), and in A÷kÙs Alag alag ràste (Separate Ways, 1954) appear to be truly emancipated and capable of independently making decisions and taking actions of their own and for their own sake. Although this new female figure in Hindi theatre originated under the influence of Western naturalistic drama, she is not alien to Hindu religious and literary thought. Mãrà, Draupadã, and Devã can be considered religious models for this new female protagonist in modern Hindi drama, models for the new woman aspiring to empowerment and independence. T H E T R A D I T I O N A L W O M A N : S äT â A N D S A T ä

Bhàratendu Hari÷candraÙs Nãldevã (Nãldevã): Satã and Vãràïganà The beginning of modern Hindi drama can be traced back to Bhàratendu Hari÷candra (1850–85).3 He called his plays prahasana (comedy) or viyogànta (tragedy). In this way he implied that he wrote in the tradition of classical Sanskrit dramatics as postulated in Bharata MuniÙs treatise Nàñya÷àstra (composed second century BCE to second century CE ). However, his dramatic work is only outwardly similar to a Sanskrit play. He used the form of classical Indian drama, which is characterized by an alternation between

26

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

dialogue and verse. He was the first Hindi dramatist to introduce the division of plays into dç÷yas (scenes). Although his verses are in Braj, the dialogue is written in an everyday Hindustani. Moreover, Hari÷candra intentionally used language as a means of characterization. For instance, in his historical play Nãldevã the Muslim figures speak in Urdu, whereas the Hindu ones use Hindi. He was the first Hindi playwright to emphasize the social individualization of his characters. For example, the Ràjpåts are presented as heroic and honest because they defend their country against foreign invaders, whereas the Muslims want to conquer land that does not belong to them. They take the Ràjpåt king captive by using artifice. By contrast, the Hindus want to meet the enemy in an open fight. It is suggested that the Muslim conquerors are led by base motives. They exhibit loose moral behaviour: they drink heavily and enjoy the company of dancing-girls. Nãldevã is only seemingly about the controversy between Muslims and Hindus in the past. It is an allegory of British rule in India. Owing to their moral superiority and the bravery of the Ràjpåt queen, Nãldevã, the Hindus win a victory over the enemy. Disguised as a singer, the queen goes to the amãr (the MuslimsÙ chieftain) and kills him. Similarly, it is implied that because of their moral superiority and right to their land, the Indians will manage to win back their independence from the British. Through his plays, Hari÷candra wanted to enlighten his countrymen and to awaken in them pride in their cultural legacy and faith in their own power. Hari÷candraÙs views, however, were only moderately reformatory. He believed in orthodox Hindu tradition and defended it. His nationalism drew on his reverence for traditional Hinduism. This is reflected in his understanding of NãldevãÙs moral duty toward her husband. She is portrayed as a brave woman, an epitome of the vãràïganà (heroic warrior woman), who is capable of taking action and revenging the death of the Ràjput king. However, this is not the sole reason for her deeds. Nãldevã wants to free her husbandÙs body from the Muslim enemy in order to become a satã

Remythologizing Tradition

27

(suttee) – that is, to immolate herself on his funeral pyre. Thus Hari÷candraÙs interpretation of womenÙs issues is deeply rooted in the conservative tradition of Hinduism. In Indian popular culture and the theatrical tradition of nauñaïkã, heroic warrior women, or vãràïganàs, such as the Rani of Jhansi, Razia Sultana, and Durgavati, among others, choose to forego the path of a sati in order to assume power as queens. The ideology of sati exalts the destruction of the female body and passive suffering. It is often seen as the female counterpart to male asceticism. By contrast, the vãràïganà ideal requires that the female body be actively involved in physical training and combat.4 In this respect, Hari÷candraÙs play Nãldevã is an interesting example of the harmonization of two conflicting religious and cultural notions. Nãldevã becomes a vãràïganà after her husbandÙs death in order to be able to become a satã. Jay÷aïkar PrasàdÙs Dhruvasvàminã (Dhruvasvamini): Draupadã, Mãrà, or Sãtà? Jay÷aïkar Prasàd (1889–1937) is the most prominent representative of the school of historical drama. In his essay ÚRaïgma¤cÛ (ÚThe StageÛ), Prasàd comments on the importance of language.5 The language of his plays is very exclusive. It is a highly Sanskritized Hindi, which is very powerful in its impact and full of beautiful images. Many Indian critics argue that it has remained unsurpassed in modern Hindi literature up to the present day,6 despite its being incomprehensible to both Muslims and uneducated Hindus. PrasàdÙs dramatic method is marked by features that are characteristic of the literary movement of romanticism, such as emphasis on emotions, glorification of the remote Hindu past, use of biographical material, appreciation of the natural world, and employment of poetry in old verse forms. Dramaturgically, PrasàdÙs plays do not conform to the conventions of modern theatre, which makes it difficult to present them on the proscenium stage. This is

28

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

no coincidence, as Prasàd pronounced himself openly against IbsenÙs and Bernard ShawÙs dramas and wanted to write in the wake of Kàlidàsa and Shakespeare. This also conforms to the politics of an ideological discourse that aimed to establish a national Indian theatre in the colonial and postcolonial periods in order to instil pride in the Indian theatrical tradition by equating it with the Western tradition and often by asserting the superiority of the Indian theatrical tradition over the Western theatrical tradition. This was done based on the examples of classical Sanskrit drama and Shakespeare.7 Additionally, Prasàd defends the right of a play to be just a closet drama and argues that it is wrong to discuss whether a play has been written for the stage or not. Rather, one should ask whether there is a stage for the play and whether there are experienced actors and stage directors to perform it.8 Therefore, PrasàdÙs dramatic work can be distinguished from the legacy of Hari÷candra, who wrote plays for the stage to directly address immediate problems. PrasàdÙs dramatic style was very influential and was followed by many contemporary Hindi playwrights, allowing literary critics to talk about the ÚPrasàd dramatic school,Û a reference to contemporary historical closet plays, which follow more or less the aesthetic of classical Sanskrit drama.9 Female characters are central to PrasàdÙs plays:10 the author portrays womenÙs high morality and readiness for self-sacrifice in the name of love for their beloved or country. PrasàdÙs portrayal of his female characters enables him to create the romantic mood that underlies most of his dramas. According to Prasàd, female characters were of crucial importance to the success of modern Hindi theatre. He states that the absence of actresses and the performance of the female roles by young boys was one of the main reasons for the unpopularity of Hindi theatre of his time. Prasàd argues that women performed on the stage during the period of classical Indian theatre.11 It is therefore not surprising that the main protagonist of one of PrasàdÙs most famous plays, Dhruvasvàminã (Dhruvasvamini, 1933), is a woman. Seemingly,

Remythologizing Tradition

29

this drama is about the Gupta dynasty (fourth century CE ) and CandraguptaÙs rule. However, the main problems discussed deal with womenÙs issues. Dhruvasvàminã is about political power, human morality, and the right of a woman to determine her life herself and to leave a husband who does not fulfil his obligations to her, even though he is a king. Dhruvasvàminã is married to the weak and morally impotent Ràmgupta. He is at war with øakaràj and gives her away to him as a gift. He pays no heed to the young womanÙs protests and entreaties to save her from the infamy of this treatment. Only Candragupta is ready to protect her and fight for her. At the end of the play, Dhruvasvàminã decides to leave her husband and marry his brother, Candragupta. Young DhruvasvàminãÙs actions, however, are possible only because the purohit (Hindu priest) sees the injustice done to her and sanctions her marriage to another man. Thus after Candragupta defeats the enemy, the council members and the purohit decide that Ràmgupta has authority neither over the kingdom nor over Dhruvasvàminã. They proclaim Candragupta the new ruler. The female character is at the centre of this play. The protagonist is imbued with high moral qualities and is capable of brave deeds. However, we could argue that this play pleads not for the real emancipation of women but for their passivity and submission to male authority and to tradition, as represented by the Bràhmaõical priest. The theme of woman as property that can be given away as a gift or staked in a game of dice reminds us of a similar topos in the Mahàbhàrata epic, namely the dice game and the disrobing of Draupadã.12 There are some important parallels: both Draupadã and Dhruvasvàminã are treated as a manÙs property, and both are threatened with dishonour and public digrace. In the epic poem, Draupadã is saved from infamy by the god Kçùõa and in PrasàdÙs drama Dhruvasvàminã is aided by a noble male protector, brave Candragupta. However, whereas Draupadã questions the right of a man to own her, Dhruvasvàminã is not given this freedom.

30

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

Similarly, it would be wrong to see Dhruvasvàminã as the embodiment of Mãrà, the rebellious female bhakti poet who steps out of her unhappy marriage and defies tradition in order to live out her loving devotion to the beloved of her choice, to the deity Kçùõa. Thus the figure of Dhruvasvàminã is to be seen as deeply embedded in the Sãtà tradition, which favours the ideal of the faithful and loyal wife of the Ràmàyaõa epic. Sãtà follows her husband Ràma into exile, suffers for him when kidnapped in the kingdom of demons, and obediently fulfils her husbandÙs demand to prove her chastity through the fire ordeal. Similar to the heroine of the ancient epic, PrasàdÙs Dhruvasvàminã is allowed some autonomy in her actions. Thus she tells her husband that she does not want to be given away as a gift to his enemy and asks him for protection. Nevertheless, she cannot act independently. Only through other menÙs protection and help can she survive and be happy. She does have wishes of her own, but she does not dare to live her dreams out unless male authority has sanctioned them. In this way, PrasàdÙs drama is in conformity with Hindu strãdharma (the rules and precepts of religious, ritual, and moral conduct for women), as stated in the Manusmçti. Classical Hindu thought does not conceive of women as independent of male guidance, as they ought always to be protected (and controlled) by men. Lakùmãnàràyaõ Mi÷raÙs Sindår kã holã (The Vermilion Holi): A Modern Vidhavà The first social-problem plays of Lakùmãnàràyaõ Mi÷ra (b. 1903) appeared some fifteen years before those by Bhuvane÷var, Màthur, and A÷k and were contemporaneous with PrasàdÙs Dhruvasvàminã. The subject matter of Mi÷raÙs plays is different from that in PrasàdÙs dramas. In his social-problem plays Mi÷ra does not portray the glorious Hindu past but portrays contemporary Indian society.13 Mi÷ra was the first Hindi playwright to begin writing social-problem plays, and his work is therefore representative of

Remythologizing Tradition

31

problem Hindi drama in the 1930s. Furthermore, he was the forerunner of the new generation of Hindi playwrights of the 1940s and 1950s, to which Bhuvane÷var, Màthur, and A÷k belong. His critique of Prasàd and his admiration for Ibsen and Western theatre played a considerable role in the formation of the second major school of modern Hindi drama, the pro-Western, or pro-Ibsen, school, the main representatives of which in the 1940s and 1950s were Bhuvane÷var, Màthur, Ràke÷, and A÷k.14 Dramaturgically, Mi÷raÙs plays are innovative. They are influenced by IbsenÙs dramatic style. For instance, there is a secret, an event that has happened in the past and that is revealed to the dramatic figure affected by it only at the end of the play. An example of this is the murder of Manoj÷aïkarÙs father by Muràrãlàl in the play Sindår kã holã (The Vermilion Holi, 1934). The aesthetic value of the ÚsecretÛ in Mi÷raÙs plays, however, is not comparable to IbsenÙs dramatic achievement. In IbsenÙs plays the secret – NoraÙs borrowing money for her husbandÙs wellbeing in A DollÙs House (1879), the wild duck in The Wild Duck (1884), Hedda GablerÙs love for Loevborg in Hedda Gabler (1890) – makes the action move forward and causes the ÚcatastropheÛ and tragedy. By contrast, the revelation of MuràrãlàlÙs crime in Sindår kã holã has no effect on the progress of the action or on the final decision that Candrakalà makes. Another feature of Mi÷raÙs dramatic style that was influenced by Ibsen is the open ending of his plays. Mi÷ra was the first Hindi playwright to use this technique. His plays do not offer ready solutions to the problems that they address but only present them objectively. In his dramas there are always two personages who represent two different views on the problem discussed, for instance Manoramà and Candrakalà in Sindår kã holã. The author suggests his own point of view by making the arguments of the figures, who serve as his mouthpiece, appear to conform more to the high ideals of Hindu tradition. Mi÷raÙs reduction of the number of acts and dramatis personae and his construction of the action according to the pattern of modern European drama, which consisted of an exposition, rising

32

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

action, climax, and falling action, marked a new phase in the development of modern Hindi drama. The language that Mi÷ra uses is also a deviation from PrasàdÙs dramatics: it is an understandable everyday Hindustani, which becomes more Urduized when Muslim characters speak, for instance Màhiralã in Sindår kã holã and the Afghani students in Sanyàsã (The Ascetic, 1929).15 One major difference between Ibsen and Mi÷ra, however, is the interpretation of womenÙs issues. While Ibsen is a modernist and an advocate of the emancipation of the female sex who pleads for more rights and education for women, Mi÷ra is extremely conservative in his approach and defends those Hindu customs that are antagonistic to women and that contribute to their enslavement and oppression. In Sindår kã holã, his most famous play, Mi÷ra upholds his position as a defender of the orthodox Hindu way of life. The drama has three acts and is about the social situation of the Hindu widow.16 In this play he pronounces himself against the remarriage of Hindu widows. He stresses the widowed womanÙs high morality and societyÙs need for her. The child widow Manoramà is against the remarriage of widowed women, as it entails the disaster of divorce. Moreover, she tells her friend Manoj÷aïkar that all movements for the betterment of the situation of the widows are initiated by men and are actually against womenÙs liberty. In this sense, it is interesting to note that Candrakalà becomes a widow of her own free will by marrying the unconscious Rajnãkànt on his deathbed in order to liberate herself from the potential slavery of taking a husband. The moral implications of Mi÷raÙs position in ManoramàÙs case are debatable: she was married as an eight-year-old girl and became a widow at the age of ten, and the marriage was never consummated. Nevertheless, it is implied that she will have to spend her life alone and in chastity, although she loves Manoj÷aïkar. Her fervent support for the ideal of widowhood appears even more surprising given that she is the one who tells Candrakalà not to ruin her own life by following through with her decision to become

Remythologizing Tradition

33

a widow. Indeed, the whole contest of the two young women for widowhood seems to be rather absurd and unnatural. According to orthodox Hinduism, a married woman with a living husband is a symbol of saubhàgya (good fortune, auspiciousness, and prosperity). By contrast, a widow (vidhavà in Sanskrit, vidhvà in Hindi) is conceived of as inauspicious, as bringing bad luck and misfortune, and is to be avoided. A widow is not allowed to remarry and is expected to live the life of an ascetic. While her husband is alive, a woman should observe vratas (fasts) for his wellbeing. When he is dead, she should make daily offerings to him and constantly meditate on him. Devotion to oneÙs husband, even after his death, remains the sole meaning of a widowÙs life. Historically, her plight was worse if she did not have a son at the time of her husbandÙs death. In some cases, another man, usually her brother-in-law, was ÚappointedÛ to have sexual intercourse with her. The goal was to ÚproduceÛ a son for her deceased husband. It is a Vedic belief that a son is indispensable to performing the ÷çàddha (last rites) ceremonies. Regarding vidhavàdharmàþ (the religious duties of the widow), Tryambakayajvan concluded that the best option for a widow is to die with her husband.17 And indeed, death as a satã, with the inherent glorification ascribed to it and the promise of immediate religious liberation for both husband and wife, must have looked to many women as an escape from a difficult and painful existence as widows. The practice of child marriage and the prohibition against the remarriage of widows were condemned by Hindu reformers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These outdated customs were defended by the sanàtanists (adherents of traditional Hinduism). In Sindår kã holã, Mi÷ra promotes the ideal of Hindu widowhood and child marriage as models for modern women. Thus his dramatic work is an interesting instance of an artistic encounter with Western tradition that results in innovations, experimentalism, and openness in dramatic form but retains conservatism in the interpretation of womenÙs issues.

34

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

Mohan Ràke÷Ùs âùàçh kà ek din (One Day in the Month of âùàçh): Perfect Sãtà In his first two plays, âùàçh kà ek din (One Day in the Month of âùàçh, 1958) and Lahroü ke ràjhaüs (Swans of the Waves, 1963), Mohan Ràke÷ (1925–72) follows the tradition of employing historical subject matter in order to address contemporary issues. It is a characteristic of his dramatic work that he does not seek to establish a link with classical Indian drama. In this he differs decisively from Prasàd, who sees modern Hindi drama as a successor to the plays of classical Sanskrit theatre. Ràke÷ pronounced himself in favour of a genuine Indian theatre, which was to be entirely different from Western theatre and to accord with the cultural expectations of an Indian audience. His main aesthetic concepts, however, are yathàrth (reality), saügharù (struggle), and dvandva (conflict), which correspond exactly to the Western dramatic traditionÙs notions of reality, struggle, and conflict.18 Similar to MàthurÙs work, in Ràke÷Ùs dramatic oeuvre the authorÙs creative encounter with the Western dramatic tradition is manifested. His first play, âùàçþ kà ek din, explores the dilemma of an artist faced with a choice between love and art as well as the relationship between man and woman. His last play, âdhe adhåre (Incomplete Halves, 1969), shows the impossibility of communication between the sexes.19 Dramaturgically, the dramas are closer to the aesthetic of Western drama than to PrasàdÙs work or to the legacy of classical Sanskrit theatre. In his article on âùàçh kà ek din, Konrad Meisig discerns four thematic levels in the drama.20 First, there is the conflict created by MallikàÙs having to choose between love and marriage, which is also a conflict between poetry and reality. Second, there is the separation of Mallikà from her beloved, Kàlidàsa, which corresponds to the theme of viraha (separation from a loved one) in classical Sanskrit poetry and which is emphasized by the many allusions to the historical figure and poet KàlidàsaÙs khaõó kàvya (a Sanskrit narrative poem not dealing with a heroic or sacred

Remythologizing Tradition

35

subject) Meghadåta and by the imagery of the rainy season. Third, there is KàlidàsaÙs inner disunity, caused by the fact that he is uprooted from his native soil when he leaves his village to pursue his writing career in the city. This conflict can be seen as the opposition between town and country. The three visitors from the city whom Mallikà receives are rather arrogant and consider themselves and their culture superior to the way of life in the village. KàlidàsaÙs màtul (uncle) has also experienced the differences between town and country. He says that while he lived in the royal palace in Kà÷mãr, he was never happy and that he felt restricted in his freedom because there were always guards around him. He remarks that all honoured him but that this was no pleasure, as it was not because of him but because of his position in the royal palace. A third instance demonstrating the discrepancy between town and country is KàlidàsaÙs fate. While in his native village, he lived in a poor way but was capable of love and creation. After he becomes part of city life, attaining money and power, he can continue creating only when he thinks of his native land, of his beloved, Mallikà, and of their love. Ràke÷ implies that political and economic power does not go together with true art. Yet a question arises about the relationship between art and love: did KàlidàsaÙs maturation as an artist require the sacrifice of his love for Mallikà? Fourth, there is KàlidàsaÙs loss of identity as an artist. Meisig points out that Ràke÷ Úabstains from all implausible superhuman splendour ... Instead he transfers the poet and dramatist into ... realistic social surroundings and thus brings the man and artist Kàlidàsa closer to the audience.Û21 In keeping with the subject of his article, Meisig then proceeds to explore the possible correspondence between Ràke÷Ùs Kàlidàsa and the historical figure based on material about the poet that is extant in Sanskrit literature. In my analysis here, I approach the subject matter of Ràke÷Ùs play from a different perspective. Setting aside the fact that Kàlidàsa is a historical figure, I consider how his character in the play can be seen as symbolic of any artist and any man. This allows me to look into the gender implications of his relationship

36

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

with Mallikà. My approach is justified by the fact that everything known about the real Kàlidàsa is based on legends. This circumstance gave Ràke÷ the freedom to shape the poetÙs character and actions according to his own ideas about the dilemma faced by the artist who must choose between love and art. It also allowed Ràke÷ to develop the more general theme of the relationship between man and woman according to his own views. KàlidàsaÙs creativity is nurtured by his love for Mallikà and by his memories of the happy but poor days of his youth in his native village. When he sets out for the capital in order to become a famous poet and to develop his natural endowment, he cannot know that riches, power, and a luxurious life will only destroy his talent. In abandoning Mallikà, he loses the link with his roots. Although he is a powerful ruler, a famous poet, and the husband of a royal princess, he is unhappy. When Kàlidàsa returns to Mallikà, he has a chance to overcome his self-alienation and come back to himself. Ràke÷ states that Mallikà has cherished her beloved in her heart and has not forgotten him. Mallikà asks Kàlidàsa whether he knows how she has been living all these years? Even if I did not stay in your life, you were always present in mine. I never allowed myself to forget you. You have been writing [poetry] and I understood myself needed, this was also an achievement of my life ... Do you know how these years of my life were spent? [Do you know] what I have experienced? (âùàçh kà ek din, 92–3) However, he fails to take the opportunity to come back to his beloved. At the end of the play, he assumes wrongly that his conflict is with time because he has come too late: Mallikà has had a baby. In reality, it is his abandonment and betrayal of Mallikà and their mutual love that causes his self-alienation and results in artistic inability.

Remythologizing Tradition

37

A question arises about the gender aspect of KàlidàsaÙs actions. As Ambikà, MallikàÙs mother, justly puts it, the poet is selfcentred and uses the young woman as a source of inspiration. He neglects her feelings for him and takes her sacrifice and her devotion to him for granted. He has never come back to her throughout the years, he has married another, and he has often visited prostitutes.22 But when he returns he cannot accept that Mallikà has had a baby. That she has a child is a hindrance to his starting a new life with her. His double standards of morality are not shaken when he learns of the existence of the bound pages of his works that she has gone out of her way to obtain. The manuscripts are covered with tears and traces of longing throughout the years. KàlidàsaÙs decision to abandon her again is not shaken by the knowledge of his life and misdeeds. It cannot be shaken by a desire to make Mallikà happy and to love her. Does Kàlidàsa really love Mallikà, or does he love only himself? No matter what the answer might be, it is a fact that neither he nor the young woman questions his moral right to behave as he does. A question arises about the ethical dimensions of his actions: what gives him the moral right to ruin her life? What compensates for his failure to fulfil his obligations to her as a woman – that is, to make her his wife? Was he able to live his life as he chose because he was considered a gifted artist or because he was a man, not a woman? Might the relationship between Kàlidàsa and Mallikà be seen in the light of the power structures of ancient Indian society, which entitled men to more freedom in their actions and which judged them according to moral criteria that were different from those defined for women? Ràke÷Ùs portrayal of Mallikà could answer these questions. The young woman is portrayed as being full of love and devotion to Kàlidàsa. She is brave and prefers to oppose society and her mother by remaining unmarried rather than betray her love for the poet. Even when Kàlidàsa has married and his wife, the princess, offers her a comfortable life, Mallikà does not give him up.

38

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

She wants her beloved only for herself and thus refuses to share him by accepting the role of his wifeÙs servant. Indeed, she is devoted, loyal, and full of self-sacrifice and lives up to the ideal of mythical Sãtà. âùàçh kà ek din is about Kàlidàsa, but it is Mallikà who is at the centre of the play. The great poet appears only at the beginning and at the end of the drama. Yet one cannot fail to notice the dependence of the female protagonist on her beloved. She does not have a life of her own. She seems to exist only for her love, or more precisely for her pain and suffering for the man she loves. Although she is courageous and capable of taking actions and of making independent decisions, she is paradoxically passive and unpretentious in what she requires from Kàlidàsa. Ràke÷ implies that throughout the years, Mallikà suffers, cries, and hopes, but she never protests and never blames Kàlidàsa for how he has treated her. The dramatist does not question these notions of stereotyped gender roles. The only way out that he can envisage for the female protagonist is motherhood and acceptance of her fate. When Kàlidàsa leaves Mallikà the playwright portrays her as finding comfort in her child. Even then, she remains passive. Not even in her thoughts does she dare to reproach Kàlidàsa or rebel against him or forget him. Ràke÷Ùs interpretation of the relationship between Kàlidàsa and Mallikà, and of the heroineÙs character, points to the authorÙs rather conservative and traditional stance regarding womenÙs issues. In her passivity, submissiveness, devotion to her beloved, and acceptance of his conduct, Mallikà lives up entirely to the Hindu ideal of womanhood in traditional Indian society. She is to be seen as the epitome of Sãtà, the heroine of the Ràmàyaõa epic. Sãtà loves, suffers, and waits for her husband Ràma devotedly and self-effacingly. She is a pativratà (loyal and obedient wife), a figure who will do anything for the wellbeing of her husband without any thought for herself. Similarly, Ràke÷ shows Mallikà loving, suffering, and waiting for her beloved Kàlidàsa.

Remythologizing Tradition

39

But is Kàlidàsa the epitome of Ràma? Does he fight for the woman he loves? Does he suffer, sacrifice, cross a whole continent and defeat numberless enemies to save her and get her back? The Hindu epic asserts the ideal of great love and mutual sacrifice, even though eventually Ràma makes Sãtà go through the fire ordeal. What about Mallikà and Kàlidàsa in Ràke÷Ùs play? Is Mallikà his wife in the first place? What is the meaning of the heroineÙs sacrifice and suffering? Does Kàlidàsa need her devotion at all? How is it relevant to his life? Uprooted from the mythological, religious, literary, and historical context of the Hindu epic, the religious model of Sãtà appears meaningless and absurd. Ràke÷Ùs artistic design attempts to reinforce the religious ideal of submissive and self-effacing womanhood as a model for Hindu women. However, the literary texture of âùàçh kà ek din fails to convey the meaning intended by the dramatist. Rather, in effect, it subverts conservative Hindu notions of womanhood by showing that the religious model of the loyal and submissive wife, the pativratà, has become outdated. THE REBELLIOUS WOMAN: MäRâ, DRAUPADä, OR DEVä?

Jagdã÷candra MàthurÙs Rãçh kã haóóã: Mãrà or Devã? In his one-act plays Jagdã÷candra Màthur (1917–81) addresses topical issues, for example the question of womenÙs education and the marriage prospects of educated girls.23 In the drama Rãçh kã haóóã (Backbone, 1939)24 he discusses problems of womenÙs education and points to the difficulties that an educated girl has in getting married. Ràmsvaråp and his wife, Premà, are expecting a visit from øaïkar and his father, Gopàlprasàd, who want to see whether their daughter, Umà, might be a suitable wife for øaïkar. Premà blames her husband for giving their daughter a higher

40

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

education. This turns out to be highly problematic, as Gopàlprasàd wants a beautiful, but uneducated, wife for his son. The father-in-law-to-be has a very precise idea of menÙs and womenÙs tasks in life. He considers higher education and studying to be definitely menÙs domain. Màthur suggests that young øaïkar may not quite correspond to his fatherÙs idea of manliness, as he has fallen behind with his studies. The explanation that this occurred because of the boyÙs illness does not sound very convincing. Gopàlprasàd keeps on telling his son to sit upright. He thinks that øaïkarÙs friends are right when they say that there is something wrong with his backbone. Ràmsvaråp agrees with GopàlprasàdÙs every word and does his best not to tell him that his daughter is more educated than is desired. When Umà finally enters, son and father take a close look at her, as though she were a commodity on sale. They discuss aloud how she walks and looks. They make her sing and play an instrument and ask her whether she can sew. They seem to be satisfied with everything, but when she comes closer to them, they are terrified to find out that she wears glasses. In a panic, Gopàlprasàd inquires whether the glasses may not be the result of too much reading and studying. UmàÙs father assures him that this is not the case. He answers that his daughter has a problem with her eyes and that this is why he insisted that she get glasses. Finally, they address her directly. She wants to remain silent, but they make her talk. When she speaks up, she gives vent to her suppressed wrath and injured dignity: What should I say, daddy? When chairs and tables are being sold, the shopkeeper does not ask the tables and chairs anything; he only shows them to the customer. If he likes them, it is fine, but if he doesnÙt ... (Rãçh kã haóóã, 154) When Gopàlprasàd finds out that she goes to college, he feels deeply hurt that Ràmsvaråp has lied to him. UmàÙs father tries to make his daughter shut up, but she says proudly:

Remythologizing Tradition

41

Yes, I have studied in college. I have passed my BA examinations. I have not committed any sin, I have not stolen anything. (Rãçh kã haóóã, 155) Father and son return home insulted. They are not stopped by the girlÙs comment that if they do so, everybody will know that young øaïkar has no Úbackbone.Û Umà and her parents are left alone and unhappy. Màthur exposes the narrow-mindedness of middle-class Indian society of the 1930s and 1940s. Although øaïkarÙs father has studied himself, he does not approve of female education. Moreover, he believes that men are created to be capable of great deeds in the outside world, whereas women need to be beautiful, obedient, and skilful housewives. If they have studied too much, it is feared that they are ÚcoquettishÛ and capricious. However, in his view a woman should be educated enough to keep her husband company and entertain him by singing, playing an instrument, and being able to converse about general topics. Thus his notions of femininity are similar to the Victorian ideal of woman as an educated domestic angel. He believes that all this can be learned at school and that there is no need for college education for women. To accept a girl who has completed her school-leaving examinations for his future daughter-in-law is the biggest compromise that Gopàlprasàd could make. His personal circumstances, however, are quite the opposite: although a man, his son is not as good a student as Umà, who is a woman. We learn that his son was not able to manage his medical studies and fell behind with his education. It is stated that his friends mock him because he has no ÚbackboneÛ – that is, he does not have the will and courage to pursue his goals in life. Although he is the one hoping to marry, he does not even say a word. His father defines all his actions. Despite liking Umà, he will never dare object to his father and act against his will. By contrast, not only has Umà passed her examinations, but she also has the courage to speak up and protest against the humiliating Úsales

42

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

transactionÛ that was about to take place. In doing so, she shows herself capable of making her own decisions and distances herself from her father, who is eager to agree with everything Gopàlprasàd says, lest he should reject his daughter. øaïkarÙs father does not want an educated daughter-in-law because he is conservative and believes men to be better and cleverer than women. His views are also the result of his fear that he or his son would not be able to stand the challenge of a truly learned girl like Umà and that he would lose his power at home and his traditional role as the leader of the family. What does all this mean to UmàÙs life? Her father is an educated man, who sees the importance of giving his daughter a higher education. When he arranges her marriage, however, he does all he can to hide that Umà is educated and agrees submissively with everything that øaïkarÙs father says.25 UmàÙs father loves his daughter and wants to secure a home and a husband for her. Because of his experience, he knows that he and his child need to adapt to the requirements of the boyÙs family. The young girl, however, behaves in a rebellious way and is rejected as a potential bride. Màthur criticizes the backwardness of a society where women are treated only as a Úcommodity.Û However, he implies that an educated girl can marry only if she makes a compromise and adapts, thus giving up her pride and dignity. Otherwise, she must stay alone. With his play, he shows in a realistic way that the structures of power affecting both marriage negotiations and a coupleÙs subsequent family life cannot be easily changed. MàthurÙs Rãçh kã haóóã is also interesting in a dramaturgical sense. The author employs the technique of ending the play with an anticlimax. This is a new device in Hindi drama. Thus after the tragedy has occurred and the boyÙs family has left, rejecting Umà and leaving everybody gloomy and unhappy, the servant Ratan appears on stage to announce the trivial fact that he has brought the butter that they had sent him to buy. A parallel can be seen with Anton ChekhovÙs play The Cherry Orchard (1903). The

Remythologizing Tradition

43

great tragedy has come to pass: the cherry orchard is taken over by Lopachin, who has started cutting down the trees in order to build a new city there. In this way, he destroys the beauty of the world that the orchard had represented. Mrs Ranevsky and her family depart, having lost not only the cherry orchard but also the dreams of their childhood. However, the play does not end here. In the final scene, Chekhov has the old servant, Firs, appear on stage to discover that everybody has gone and that all have forgotten him. The playwright ends his work with an anticlimax by intertwining the tragic of the plot with the trivial fact of the servantÙs ÚinsignificantÛ existence. Similarly, Màthur undermines the tragic of UmàÙs rejection by ending his play with the appearance of the servant. This innovative technique is an attempt to destroy the illusion; it brings us back to reality and prompts us to think. By creating a distance between the audience and the performance, the author invites our critical reaction. In this respect, Rãçh kã haóóã is an example of MàthurÙs creative approach to the legacy of the Western dramatic tradition. Màthur is one of the first Hindi playwrights to address openly and critically the issue of womenÙs education and the ensuing difficulties educated women have in getting married. This is a similarity between Màthur and A÷k, whose play Svarg kã jhalak (A Glimpse of Paradise, 1939) discusses similar problems. The sympathy and understanding with which Màthur approaches the subject matter points to IbsenÙs influence. Màthur appears to be an advocate of womenÙs rights. His play conveys the message that gender roles should be based on real values, such as education and ability, not on the conservatism of outdated religious customs. Revisiting Hindu mythology and religious literature, we might ask whether the character of Umà represents a modern Devã or a modern Mãrà? Although she is educated, is she truly emancipated and free? She speaks up and rebels against patriarchal authority, but is she empowered and independent like Devã in the form of Durgà, to whom all the major male Hindu gods must come for help in their quest to kill the demon? Whereas Devã does not need

44

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

a spouse in order to realize herself, Umà obviously does. Feminist critics would eagerly point out that, apart from marriage, there is hardly any way out for Umà. The end of the play implies that Umà has ÚlostÛ because she will not be able to marry øaïkar. If the female protagonist were indeed an embodiment of Devã, the failure of a prospective marriage that is doomed to be unhappy would convey the impression of Úvictory.Û At the end of the play, Umà and her family are dejected and unhappy, not victorious. Thus it is difficult to think of øaïkar and his father as demons (of patriarchy) whom Umà victoriously defeats. Thus it would be easier to compare the rebellious and educated young Umà with Mãrà. Mãràbàã, the great figure of bhakti (devotional) Vaiùõava Hinduism, manages to escape from the confines of an unhappy marriage (or widowhood and sati, according to another version of the Mãrà legend) in order to become KçùõaÙs devoted wife.26 Thus Mãrà is to be seen as the embodiment of the ideal of the devoted wife, or Spouse Goddess, not of Devã. However, there is an important difference. Unlike the orthodox Hindu woman, Mãrà chooses her ÚspouseÛ and her destiny. She does not break with tradition completely: she is still the loyal wife and sees herself as married to Kçùõa. According to the Hindu tradition, however, she is devoted to him not because it is her strãdharma (womenÙs duty, or dharma) but because bhakti (loving devotion) to Kçùõa has been her choice. She fights for happiness partly by adapting herself to tradition and partly by rebelling against it and changing it. Thus MãràbàãÙs strãdharma becomes bhaktidharma. MãràbàãÙs life and poetry convey a clear message to modern women: not marriage as such but arranged marriage, where woman is not allowed to choose her spouse, is oppressive. In this sense, Umà is not a modern Mãrà: she has not chosen her spouse and has not yet moulded her destiny to her liking. While Umà cannot be considered the embodiment of either Mãrà or Devã, she represents a new female protagonist in modern Hindi drama, a female figure who can no longer be equated with the submissive and obedient Spouse-Goddess.

Remythologizing Tradition

45

Strã (Woman) in Bhuvane÷varÙs Sñràãk (Strike): Rebellious Draupadã Bhuvane÷var (c. 1912–57) wrote one-act plays that explore issues related to difficult relationships between men and women.27 In most of his dramas, there is an instance of the eternal triangle: two men are interested in the same woman. Most often, one of them is her husband and the other her lover. The author studies the problems of the battle of the sexes and the all-pervading and oftentimes destructive force of the sexual instinct against the background of middle-class Indian families. Bhuvane÷varÙs understanding of man and woman as being engaged in a constant battle with each other is very similar to August StrindbergÙs views on this matter – as revealed in his dramas The Father (1887), Play with Fire (1892), and Dance of Death (1900) – and anticipates A÷kÙs interpretation of this issue in the plays Taulie (Towels, 1943) and A¤jo Dãdã (The Elder Sister A¤jo, 1955). In A÷kÙs dramas, however, there are no instances of the eternal triangle: the Úbattle of the sexesÛ concerns only husband and wife. By contrast, in StrindbergÙs Play with Fire and Dance of Death and in Bhuvane÷varÙs plays, we find the same constellation of one woman and two men. Like Strindberg, Bhuvane÷var has his heroines freely discuss their extramarital relationships with their husbands, which is another example of the influence of Strindberg and the Western dramatic tradition on modern Hindi drama. In this respect, Bhuvane÷varÙs portrayal of his female characters as free to choose or change a partner is unprecedented in Hindi drama. In Hindi plays it is usually men who are depicted as enjoying more sexual freedom. By contrast, women are presented as waiting for them at home, in chastity and with devotion. The only two exceptions of which I can think from the period discussed are A÷kÙs one-act play Khiçkã (Window, 1948) and Ràke÷Ùs âdhe adhåre. In both plays it is suggested that the female character has had a relationship with another man. Bhuvane÷varÙs portrayal of women does not reflect the

46

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

objective reality of Indian society of the 1930s and 1940s but is an expression of the authorÙs artistic quest. Bhuvane÷var employs dramaturgical techniques influenced by the Western tradition that differ from PrasàdÙs approach in a radical way. In Bhuvane÷varÙs plays there is no action, only a situation, a characteristic that can be explained partly by the fact that he writes one-act plays.28 Similar to Mi÷raÙs dramas, his plays contain open endings that do not provide us with any ready solutions to the questions raised. However, Bhuvane÷var also employs the innovative dramatic technique of the unexpected and abrupt, explosion-like, and paradoxical conclusion. The female protagonistÙs unexpected strike in Sñràãk (Strike, 1938) illustrates this point clearly. Only a close reading of the play reveals a clue to its interpretation, enabling one to see the hidden second layer of the situation presented. For instance, in Sñràãk, in the opening conversation with his wife, the male protagonist expresses his discontent with college graduates who disturb the work in the factory by threatening to strike (Sñràãk, 108). This statement takes on new meaning when we consider that the protagonistÙs wife too decides to go on strike at the end of the play. Bhuvane÷var does not depict women as vile creatures and a menace to men as Strindberg does. In Sñràãk he shows sympathy for women, not for men. The play consists of three scenes: in the first, strã (woman) tells her husband that she is going to Lucknow with some female friends. She plans to come back in the evening on the passenger train that arrives at 10:25. Her husband, puruù (man), calculates that she needs five minutes to reach their house from the railway station and will consequently be home at 10:30 and at the table for dinner at 10:40. He tends to talk about topics in which his wife takes no interest. Although the lack of communication between them is suggested, it is not stated explicitly in the play, and this subject matter is not developed any further. The second scene takes place in a caf‚. The husband comes to pick up his young friend, yuvak (youth), whom he takes home for dinner. In the final scene, the two men talk while waiting for the wife to

Remythologizing Tradition

47

come home. The young guest says that he has not yet married because he does not understand women. The man challenges this reasoning by asking: Why is it necessary to understand? The one wheel of the machine does not measure, weigh and understand the other wheel. Man and woman are two parts of the machine of life. (Sñràãk, 115) The host boasts of his perfectly functioning household and married life, or as he puts it, his perfectly functioning Úfactory.Û He says that if one of the wheels of the machine breaks down, one has to change the wheel. At this point a peon arrives and gives the man a letter from his wife. His wife has written to him that she will be back on the following day. The husband is in dismay: he wonders what will happen with the dinner, the house, and so on. The youth suggests having dinner at his hotel, as Úthey are striking in your factory todayÛ (Stràãk, 117). The man has done his best to automate his married life, and his wife has had to put up with the situation for years. Her not coming back as arranged is her way of protesting against her husbandÙs control over her life. It is her rebellion against his dominance. Although the womanÙs rebellion in Sñràãk cannot be compared with the rebellious acts of A÷kÙs heroines in âdi màrg (The Primordial Way, 1943), Uçàn (Flight, 1950), and Alag alag ràste (Separate Ways, 1954), Bhuvane÷varÙs interpretation is important, as it anticipates A÷kÙs similar presentation of the problem. However, it would be wrong to assume that Bhuvane÷var criticizes a society dominated by male authority. Rather, he sees the problems as coming from the antagonism between the sexes. His interpretation of womenÙs issues is an important stage in the history of modern Hindi drama. It subverts traditional Hindu notions of woman as a submissive and obedient pativratà (devoted and loyal wife), modelled on the Spouse Goddess – for instance on Sãtà or Lakùmã. Bhuvane÷varÙs strã and puruù, representative of

48

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

collective woman and collective man, are not the epitome of the Sãtà-Ràmà or Lakùmã-Viùõu couple. Similar to Draupadã, the rebellious wife of the five Pàõóava brothers in the Mahàbhàrata epic, who questions her husbandÙs ownship of her and his right to lose her in a gambling game, strã does not accept her husbandÙs right to define her life for her. She refuses to look upon her husband as a patidev (husband-god) and rebels by taking an independent course of action. Her husband, on the other hand, seems incapable of enforcing her adherence to the pativrata model any longer. Actually, he is the one who is forced to accept his wifeÙs decision. Thus Bhuvane÷var introduces a new female protagonist that differs from the religious and mythological Hindu model of the submissive Spouse Goddess. Similar to MàthurÙs Umà, strã is not Devã; she is not yet empowered. Rather, she is a struggling Sãtà, a modern Draupadã. Although loyal to her husband, she rebels by questioning male authority.

4 Subverting Tradition: The Liberating Innovations of Upendranàth A÷k Female characters are at the centre of A÷kÙs plays, for the conflict between tradition and modernity – the main conflict of his time – is best manifested in their lives. The author presents women as ÚimprisonedÛ by the old norms of traditional Hindu society and portrays them either as suffering the restrictions imposed on them or as fighting against them. A÷k does not endorse strãdharma (traditional norms of womahood) in his dramas. Rather, he presents an alternative notion of womanhood by introducing the independent heroine who is aware of the injustice done to her by conservative tradition and who rebels against outdated customs. Although the source of this new female protagonist can be traced to A÷kÙs creative encounter with the Western dramatic tradition, there are parallels with Hindu mythology and religious thought as well. Indeed, A÷kÙs female characters Rànã, Pratibhà, and A¤jo rebel against their husbands just as mythical Mãrà does, and they choose to escape from marriage through flight, divorce, or suicide. In this way, they achieve victory over their husbands and control over their lives. Neither the wellbeing of the husband nor the interest and honour of the family is at the centre of the narrative; instead, the heroineÙs individual happiness is the sole reason for her actions. A÷kÙs plays offer the first portrayals of empowered women in modern Hindi

50

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

drama. His female protagonists have become aware of their ÷akti (inherent female power) and use it in their relationships with men for their own sake. In some of A÷kÙs plays the female protagonists are loyal Sãtàs who have conformed to tradition and become surrogate mothers and wives in place of deceased sisters, as Appã does in Kaid (Prison, 1950). Or like Ràj in Alag alag ràste (Separate Ways, 1954), they have accepted a co-wife. These women are portrayed as sick, unhappy, and suffering. They are not rewarded for their ÚvirtueÛ and acceptance of tradition. In the majority of A÷kÙs plays, however, women are not subservient and obedient Sãtàs. They are rebellious Mãràs and victorious Devãs who see themselves in conflict with tradition and conservative men and who fight with the intention of winning. These female characters engage in a battle of the sexes that had been unprecedented in modern Hindi drama, and this battle shows them to be equal in their relationships, not dependent on or subservient to their husbands. Although StrindbergÙs influence on A÷k is of crucial importance, we should also point to the powerful role model of the Goddess. In Hindu mythology DevãÙs fight with various demons is often portrayed as a sexual battle, from which she emerges victorious. A÷kÙs interpretation of women as the embodiment of ÷akti is innovative. He does not divinize the empowered women in his plays, thus removing them from humanity, but renders them human and realistic in form. The plays suggest that these women should be part of everyday life, of an average Hindu family. They are worthy of emulation not only at the theological and soteriological levels (in the way that female bhakti saints are generally received)1 but also at the social level – in the context of real life. Thus A÷kÙs interpretation of womenÙs issues should not be seen as a Western cultural transplant. His dramas argue for an equation of the social model with the mythological model as presented by Devã in the Hindu tradition.

Subverting Tradition

51

IMPRISONED SäTâS: WOMEN IN CONFLICT WITH HINDU TRADITION

Some of the female characters in A÷kÙs plays are portrayed as confined in the ÚprisonÛ of old norms and customs of a society that is dominated by male authority and that requires womenÙs total subordination and devoted service to their husbands. In keeping with tradition, women are often expected to be pativratàs (loyal and devoted wives) and to sacrifice their lives and give up any hope of personal happiness if the wellbeing of the men around them requires it. A÷kÙs dramas do not reinforce strãdharma (traditional norms of womanhood) but question its legitimacy in the modern period. In Kaid 2 the female protagonist, Appã, is portrayed as being apathetic and constantly ill. In the secondary text A÷k describes the setting of the play in terms of contrast: the natural beauty of Akhnur, which is situated in the picturesque Jammu, and the stateliness of the outside of Appã and PràõnàthÙs house are in disharmony with the chaos and untidiness of its interior. This chaos exemplifies AppãÙs human condition: there is no joy around her, not a thing for which life could be worth living. She does not love her husband, and her children are only a burden to her. It seems as though she has given up hope and surrendered to a permanent illness. In the first act of the play her husband reminisces about the days when he visited her in Delhi after the death of his first wife. He says that Appã used to be happy, energetic, and full of vitality. He cannot understand why she has faded away after coming to live with him. A÷k presents the story of the play through PràõnàthÙs reminiscence about the past and the subsequent conversation between husband and wife. In this way he provides us with the background information that is necessary to understanding the plot. This conversation reveals that Appã grew up in Delhi and was in love with her childhood friend Dilãp. She used to write

52

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

poems and wanted to study at college. When her elder sister died she had to marry Pràõnàth, her sisterÙs widowed husband. As Pràõnàth says: I often come to think of it, Appã, I have constantly been thinking about it in the past eight years, that if I had not gone to Delhi after your sisterÙs death, the source of your happiness would have never dried up. (Kaid, 44) Incidentally, Pràõnàth mentions that Dilãp is in Akhnur and explains that the news of his arrival has brought about this reminiscence about the past. This news affects Appã in a magical way. By presenting her as doing with pleasure exactly the things that she had been unwilling to do beforehand, A÷k shows the total transformation that has taken place in her. The young woman becomes lively, kind, and attentive to her children and makes numerous arrangements to prepare for the expected guestÙs stay. It is obvious that she is looking forward to DilãpÙs arrival with hope, and it seems as though she has overcome her apathy and awakened to the possibility of a new life. Thus A÷k implies that the protagonistÙs illness is a result of her unhappy marriage. She was forced to sacrifice her future for the wellbeing of her sisterÙs widowed husband according to the customs of conservative Hindu society. She had to obey her family and tradition and give up her dreams in order to go to far-off Akhnur as a ÚsubstituteÛ for her deceased sister. AppãÙs situation appears to be very similar to AliceÙs circumstances in StrindbergÙs drama Dance of Death: both women live in isolated, far-off places, and both see their marriages as a prison from which there is no escape. Moreover, each awakens to new hope upon learning of the arrival of the man she loved in her youth. Thus KurtÙs reappearance in Dance of Death has the same meaning for Alice as DilãpÙs arrival has for Appã. However, whereas Alice fights with her husband and manages to gain dominance over

Subverting Tradition

53

him, Appã has become reconciled to her fate and, at the end of the play, sinks back into apathy. Also in conflict with tradition are the two female characters in Alag alag ràste.3 Similar to Kaid, the story of the play and the necessary background information are mediated narratively in the figuresÙ speeches. Rànã has fled from her husbandÙs home because she could not stand the hints and reproaches of her new relatives concerning the miserliness of her father, Tàràcand. Her father guesses the reason for the behaviour of RànãÙs in-laws: they are unhappy because they have not obtained the dowry that they had expected. They had secretly hoped to get a car and TàràcandÙs house on Kachahri Road, which had been promised to them by a friend of TàràcandÙs who had helped to arrange the marriage. While negotiating with the father, however, they had assured him hypocritically that they were interested only in his daughter and did not care about the dowry. This is how Rànã was married without fulfilling her future relativesÙ expectations and why she has had to suffer their and her husbandÙs insults and unfriendliness. RànãÙs father tries to restore her happiness by asking his friends to communicate to his son-in-law that he will get what he wants if he takes Rànã back. In the meantime, Ràj, the younger daughter, appears on stage. She has also fled from her husbandÙs home. In a scene parallel to the above-mentioned episode, she tells her sister the truth about her marriage: her husband, Madan, loves another woman, and after a long time of utter neglect he has now finally abandoned her. We come to know that Madan had been in love with his fellow student Sudar÷an long before his marriage to Ràj. However, he could not marry the woman he loved because his parents had objected strongly to the union of their son, a Bràhmaõ, with a kùatriya girl, who was an orphan as well. This is how Ràj entered into a loveless marriage in which, from the very beginning, there was no chance for her to be happy. As she explains:

54

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

Whenever I tried to come close to him, he ran away from me ... Sometimes he used to shout at me, ÚWhat material have you been made of? There is absolutely no trace of self-respect in you. I hate you so much, and you want to massage my feet!Û (Alag alag ràste, 76) Exactly at this moment TàràcandÙs friend øivràm appears and announces that TàràcandÙs son-in-law is getting married for the second time in a nearby temple. Tàràcand thinks that it is RànãÙs husband, notorious Trilok, who has inflicted this shame upon him. He is genuinely astonished when he realizes that it is not Trilok but his exemplary son-in-law, Madan, who has married for the second time.4 A÷k condemns the marriage practices of conservative Hindu society, in which material speculations and caste affiliation play a more important role than human happiness. In Kaid he shows that women are dehumanized and reduced to mere surrogates: Appã had to become the substitute for PràõnàthÙs deceased wife in order to save the additional dowry that her parents would have been obliged to pay anew if she had married somebody else. In Alag alag ràste, A÷k points to the fact that a woman is respected only if she has brought sufficient material acquisitions into the new family. In another sense, the author exposes the parentsÙ hypocrisy at the marriage negotiations. The dramas raise the question of why, if marriage means everything in a womanÙs life, one cannot be honest and lay down all conditions frankly. Instead, the playwright implies, women are held responsible for not fulfilling unknown expectations, secret hopes and wishes that were never stated beforehand. By revealing simultaneously the unhappy marriages of two different women in two different families as well as the completely different nature of their difficulties, A÷k points to the regularity of the conflict. A question arises about the gender issues at the root of the problems presented. The plays show that it is always women who suffer and that it is usually men who benefit from the sacrifices women make. By showing the

Subverting Tradition

55

different ways that men and women are treated, A÷k exposes what he considers the double standards of Hindu society. What is the role that men play in the oppression of women? A÷k portrays men as promoters of the old order. The author implies that it is men who ÚimprisonÛ women. Even when the active agents are the parents-in-law, it is for menÙs sake that women suffer. It is interesting to note that no matter what the course of events, no damage is inflicted on the male protagonists. Even when men are afflicted by life as widowed husbands, like Pràõnàth in Kaid, or as liberally thinking individuals who are not allowed to marry the women they love, like Madan in Alag alag ràste, the dramatist implies that in the final analysis it is men who benefit from the customs of the existing order. In Kaid, Pràõnàth is portrayed as a good-hearted person and an understanding husband. However, even though he was aware of the immoral aspect of his marriage to Appã, he did nothing to prevent it. Indeed, Appã could be ÚimprisonedÛ only through his actions. She would never have been married to him without his consent, and she would never have remained ÚconfinedÛ if not for his silent acceptance of their failed marriage. In Alag alag ràste, Madan decides RàjÙs fate on his own, without his wifeÙs knowledge or consent. After accepting an arranged marriage with the poorly educated Ràj, whom he does not love, only out of respect for his parents, he finds out that he is not happy with her and that he cannot live without his true beloved, Sudar÷an. He marries for a second time without telling Ràj anything about it. He knows that by doing so he has destined her to a tragic existence with a co-wife. Nevertheless, he marries, thereby neglecting both RàjÙs feelings and her future. Madan is a modern man of progressive opinion. With his second marriage, which is a marriage founded on love, he rebels against the marriage practices of conservative Hindu society. At the same time, however, he makes use of Hindu tradition, which is antagonistic to women and which allows him to correct the mistake of his first marriage at the cost of RàjÙs happiness.

56

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

A÷k implies that it is men who enable the oppression of women by Hindu society, as the customs hostile to women make themselves felt only with menÙs approval and support. Even though some of the male protagonists may disagree with the injustices done to the female characters in the plays, no man does anything to intervene. Dilãp cannot free Appã from her Úprison,Û nor can RàjÙs brother, father, or parents-in-law prevent Madan from marrying for a second time.5 What are womenÙs reactions to their difficult fate? Do they come to terms with it? Do they reflect on the restrictions imposed on them? Do they protest? In Kaid, Appã is unhappy and refers to herself as living Úin a cage.Û Only the hope of seeing Dilãp, the man she loves, gives her strength to endure her situation. He does come, and with his arrival she awakens to the hope of a new life. However, shortly thereafter Dilãp is taken away from her, and she remains alone. The final scene of the play, which shows Appã to be ill and apathetic again, is identical to the opening one. Indeed, the cyclical composition indicates that there is no way out for the protagonist. She is aware of her unhappiness but is unable to find a solution on her own and therefore has to accept her fate. In Alag alag ràste, Ràj has also chosen the primordial way of tradition. After her husbandÙs second marriage, her fatherÙs friends and her parents-in-law expect her to go back to Madan and accept a life with a co-wife. The defenders of the old order argue that this has been done for ages: they say that Hindu goddesses have put up with co-wives and insist that Ràj should do so too. They advise her to be patient and submissive. They are convinced that in this way she can win back her husbandÙs love. They refer to the Hindu notion of abalà (the power of a docile wife), which she can come to possess only through self-effacing and loyal service to her husband: Listen, daughter, your husband has made a mistake, do not make another. Forgive his mistake ... If your husband goes to

Subverting Tradition

57

this other girl, do not stop him. If this girl comes to your husband, do not hate her. This is not easy. It is very difficult. It is a task for the goddesses. But Hindustani girls have performed greater tasks than the goddesses have and very often, they have also managed the fire examination.6 If you do all this, the victory will be yours. (Alag alag ràste, 116) In contrast to Appã, Ràj is not alone. She does not have to return to her husband; she has a choice. Her brother and sister as well as her father are on her side and against her return to Madan. Nevertheless, Ràj complies with the rules and decides to return to her husband, thus accepting a life full of humiliation and unhappiness. The dramatist does not condemn his heroine. However, in the presentation of RàjÙs conflict and her decision to submit to tradition, A÷k aims to call forth no recognition of her martyrdom. He portrays her choice as an immoral and inhuman solution. The playwright points to the uselessness and absurdity of a sacrifice that can mean only self-enslavement. In this way A÷k subverts tradition: the heroines in the plays discussed are imprisoned and trapped Sãtàs. None of them is rewarded for following tradition, for being a surrogate wife and mother, for accepting a co-wife, for bringing a dowry, or for accepting a loveless arranged marriage. REBELLIOUS M äRâS A ND EMPOWERED DEVäS: A FLIGHT INTO FREEDOM

Similar to Ibsen, A÷k is an advocate of womenÙs rights and sees a possible solution to womenÙs problems in their emancipation and education. Through his plays he pleads for more independence for women. The playwrightÙs notion of the ideal woman is personified by the character of Rànã. A÷k implies that in contrast to Ràj she should be regarded as the woman to whom the future belongs. Rànã rebels against the restrictions imposed on her by society. She rejects her husband, Trilok, when he comes to take her

58

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

back upon hearing that his father-in-law will give him the long awaited dowry. Rànã refuses to live with a husband who has been bought for her. Her sisterÙs decision to return to Madan prompts her to rebel against the authority of the old paõóits (Bràhmaõs, learned scholars), the defenders of the old order. She becomes engaged in a controversy with her father, after which she decides to leave his home and to flee into independence. Her brother, Påran, follows her: he is willing to work in order to support her and to enable her to start a new life.7 A÷k implies that the future belongs to Rànã. What this future will look like, however, he does not say. Innovative for modern Hindi drama, the open ending of the play does not provide any ready solutions to the problems. In this respect, A÷k is indebted to IbsenÙs drama A DollÙs House (1879), both in his interpretation of RànãÙs conflict and in the dramaturgical technique that he employs. Nora rebels against her husband, Torvald Helmer, who treats her as a doll, not as a mature woman, and leaves him, thus fleeing into independence. IbsenÙs A DollÙs House is remarkable because of its open-ended quality. The author refrains from foreseeing NoraÙs future or giving any clues to a possible solution. With this play, Ibsen sets a new pattern for the writing of plays, which influenced dramatists all over the world. Similarly, Rànã rebels against male authority and leaves her home, and A÷k follows IbsenÙs technique by giving the play an open ending. Another female character engaged in flight is Màyà in A÷kÙs Uçàn (Flight, 1950). At the beginning of the play, she is shown to be in flight from the bombing in Burma. She gets lost and is separated from her beloved, Madan. Looking for him, she comes across the hunting camp of two other men. øaïkar is an aggressive hunter who looks upon Màyà as prey to be conquered and destroyed. His friend Ràme÷ is a poet who worships her as a goddess. Having lost hope that she will meet Madan again, Màyà wants to continue her journey. Madan arrives just as she is bidding Ràme÷ goodbye. He is jealous, thinking that Màyà and Ràme÷ are intimate friends, and is rather rude to her. She refuses

Subverting Tradition

59

to accept his possessive attitude and his wish to dominate her. At the end of the play, she is again shown to be in flight, this time from the three men around her. A÷k argues that she can be happy neither with a hunter, nor with a worshipper, nor with a possessor of women. She wants to be treated by men as their equal, as their partner and friend in an open and honest relationship: ÚYou want a slave, a toy or a goddess. You need no friendÛ (Uçàn, 152–3). Thus both Rànã and Màyà are portrayed as embodiments of Mãrà. They rebel against tradition and flee in pursuit of individual happiness. Women are not depicted as serving the patidev (husband-god). They are ÚbusyÛ with themselves and have plans for their futures. Similar to Mãrà, Rànã is given the right to choose whether to stay within or to step out of an unhappy marriage. Like the Goddess, Devã, Màyà is granted the right to be satisfied or dissatisfied with men. She does not accept her destiny but is actively involved in shaping her life. These female protagonists are not defeated: it is not implied that their flights will be tragic ones. Moreover, neither Rànã nor Màyà are divinized: they are presented as earthly embodiments of the mythical figures. However, the question arises of whether rebellion and flight into independence can be a way out. In his play Svarg kã jhalak (Glimpse of Paradise, 1939) A÷k portrays the problems that emancipated and educated women face in a traditional and conservative society. He implies that his emancipated female characters cannot start families, as the men who are attracted to them are at the same time afraid of them and thus decide to marry traditional women in the end. The drama consists of four acts. In the first act RaghuÙs family wants him to marry Rakùà, the sister of his deceased first wife, and everybody is waiting for his answer. The young man, however, does not want to marry a woman with no education again, as most of the fights with his first wife were due to their different educational backgrounds. Raghu admires his sister-in-law, who managed to pass her bachelor of arts examinations after her marriage. She is represented as his ideal woman, someone who is not

60

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

only a wife and mother but also an intelligent partner. Raghu is an editor of a newspaper, and his social position does not allow him to marry a poorly educated woman. Besides, all his friendsÙ wives have college or university degrees. Even the argument that Rakùà, being his wifeÙs sister, would take good care of RaghuÙs child cannot convince the young man to marry her. His sister-inlaw mentions Umà, who is beautiful and educated, as a potential wife. In the following two acts, the young man visits his friends, the A÷oks and the Ràjendras. As both Mrs A÷ok and Mrs Ràjendra are occupied with their careers, they have neglected their husbands, children, and households. Mr A÷ok has reconciled himself to this life and has even written a book titled Svarg kã jhalak (A Glimpse of Paradise), in which he presents his views on marital life and discusses the man-woman relationship from a new perspective. According to him, a wife ought not to look upon her husband as a god. Moreover, both partners should have independent lives and should not interfere with the other personÙs affairs. In the last act, Raghu goes to see UmàÙs theatrical performance. Full of admiration for her beauty and radiation, he goes and talks to her. She tells him that she has read Mr A÷okÙs book and agrees with every line. Thereupon, Raghu leaves immediately. His family has already arranged his betrothal to Umà. However, the young man decides to marry Rakùà, not Umà, as he would like to have a sanginã (female partner), not a titlã (butterfly), as a wife: In order to marry such an educated girl who was brought up in such an atmosphere, one must give up the old rituals entirely. Unfortunately, I could not do that now. Her glimpse of paradise is different from mine. (Svarg kã jhalak, 104) Raghu, who is fond of Umà and who wants to share his life with an educated woman like her, becomes apprehensive and prejudiced against Umà even before he has come to know her. The reason for this change is the Úglimpse of paradiseÛ that he gets by observing the family lives of his friends who have married

Subverting Tradition

61

educated career women. In his view, the result is complete chaos, unhappy and tired husbands, who are overloaded with work in the household, and neglected children. Therefore, Raghu finally decides to marry the poorly educated traditional woman chosen for him by his family in the beginning. RaghuÙs character enables A÷k to expose the cowardice of those young men who cannot stand by their ideals. Raghu is not ready to invest himself, to come to know Umà, and to give her or their friendship a chance. Initially, he is eager to consummate a union with her, but the idea that he gets of other peopleÙs married lives is sufficient to make his enthusiasm and feelings for the young woman disappear. Thus, despite his education, he is presented as a superficial young man who is not ready to assume responsibility. Of his own free will, not because of his parents, he decides to marry the poorly educated girl whom he does not love, but as with Madan in Alag alag ràste, the final result of his deeds is similar and predestines his forthcoming marital problems. A parallel can be made to the play Kaid as well. Similar to Appã, Rakùà must marry Raghu, as she is the sister of his deceased wife and is believed to be capable of taking good care of his child. Nobody thinks of her, her feelings, or her dreams. Everybody is concerned only with RaghuÙs happiness, just as the only reason for AppãÙs marriage was PràõnàthÙs wellbeing. On another thematic level, the play discusses the difficulties that young educated girls have in finding a husband. A÷kÙs treatment of this subject matter in Svarg kã jhalak is very similar to Jagdã÷candra MàthurÙs approach in Rãçh kã haóóã (1939).8 Umà is rejected by Raghu because of her education and because of her liberal ideas about womenÙs emancipation, which she expresses freely and without fear. That she approves of Mr A÷okÙs revolutionary book on marital life and a new kind of man-woman relationship causes Raghu to fear her and ultimately to change his mind about their prospects for marriage. Similarly, in Bhaüvar (Whirlpool, 1961) A÷k portrays the problems faced by educated and emancipated Pratibhà, who is too

62

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

elevated in her rather artificial life of an intellectual to ever be happy with one of the earthly men around her. After six months of marriage to Sure÷, she found him very narrow-minded. After the divorce, she was happy to be on her own and enjoyed her freedom both to go out with other men and to contemplate the difficulties of life. In the play all the men around her admire her. Professor J¤àncand, her sisterÙs friend Jagannàth, and Hardatt are all attracted to her. They would like to have a relationship with her: Hardatt even asks her to marry him. A÷k states that she is not interested in anyone. She rejects J¤àncand because he considers passionate sexual love possible only with a prostitute, not between intellectuals. Lacking intellectualism altogether, the young and sportive Jagannàth turns out to be exactly the opposite of J¤àncand. They both tell her that they love her, but she rejects them. For his part, the down-to-earth and already twice-married and twice-widowed Hardatt is attractive to her only as long as their relationship remains at an abstract and neutral level. As soon as he confesses his love for her and makes clear that he is also interested in her sexually, she becomes scared and evasive. She accuses him of imitating the cheap scenes of romantic devotion shown in the movies. Hardatt insists that his are not cheap expressions borrowed from movies. He believes that love is simple but eternal and that she should not run away from it: I love you Tãbhà ... I know, you will say: these cheap, sentimental, shoddy phrases from the movies. But, Pratibhà, all this is eternal, eternal like the stars and the moon, simple but everlasting. Why do you run away from it? (Bhaüvar, 110) However, Pratibhà is in love only with Professor Nãlàbh and rejects Hardatt as well. Where is the young womanÙs tragedy? She has everything: beauty, education, a nice home, and many admirers. Nevertheless, she is lonely and unhappy. She loves Nãlàbh, but he is not interested in her. Disappointed in his first marriage, he has fled

Subverting Tradition

63

from worldly life, taking refuge in intellectual activities. Although he knows about the young womanÙs feelings for him, he is not ready to offer her more than his friendship. It is not surprising that Pratibhà loves the wrong man. Being entirely romantic, she is unable to assume a more realistic stance and to see the merits of the other men around her. At the same time, her intellectualism makes her blind to the simple truths of life. This points to her immaturity as a person. The question arises of whether her morbid intellectualism is not just another instance of her affection for Nãlàbh and a consequence of his profound influence on her personality. If he were a cricket player like Jagannàth, would she not be interested in more earthly activities? Striving for freedom and running away from all other men in order to preserve her independence, she appears to be curiously dependent on Nãlàbh. Or is she in love with Nãlàbh because he is inaccessible to her, because she cannot have him in the way that she can have J¤àncand, Jagannàth, and Hardatt?9 At this level of interpretation, PratibhàÙs character is a symbol of our aspiration for the unknown. We all tend to long for the things we cannot have and to neglect and underestimate those we already have or can easily obtain. In this sense, A÷kÙs Bhaüvar is one of the first instances in modern Hindi drama where abstract philosophical subject matter is discussed. Remarkable is the attention given to the protagonistÙs psychological characterization. Indeed, no action, not the things that happen, but the analysis of PratibhàÙs inner life, of her feelings and thoughts, is at the centre of the play. Similar to Màyà in Uçàõ, Pratibhà is portrayed as having the right to choose among several men. She is empowered and in control of her life. Her unhappiness results from a conflict within her personality, not from a conflict with tradition. Thus she is beyond the confines of tradition and looms large as a modern character. Dramaturgically, Bhaüvar is a character drama, which is interesting because of the new coordination technique that A÷k employs. There is no action; there are only loosely connected events

64

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

linked by the binding technique of the central self. This device is an innovation in Hindi drama. The protagonist, Pratibhà, functions as a coordinator of the action sequences and of the different plot strands, as everything that happens in the play alludes to her character and is interpreted accordingly. In the plays discussed above A÷kÙs interpretation of the emancipation of women through education could appear rather controversial. Although it is true that in Alag alag ràste education is suggested as a possible way out for women, in Svarg kã jhalak and Bhaüvar such emancipation of women might be seen as a menace to family life and personal happiness, both for men and for women. However, A÷k does not argue against the emancipation and education of women. Rather, he exposes the immaturity of a society in which only women are expected to change and adapt. The author criticizes not only women who neglect their families because of their independence but also men who are afraid to accept the challenge of sharing their lives with the educated and emancipated women they like. The dramatist implies that the emancipation of both men and women, of Indian society as a whole, is a prerequisite for happy relationships between the sexes. VICTORIOUS DEVäS: BATTLE OF THE SEXES

On another level, A÷k suggests that there is no easy solution to the problems between the sexes. This becomes apparent in his analysis of difficult relationships between man and woman, who are seen as enemies engaged in a constant fight with each other. In A¤jo Dãdã (The Elder Sister A¤jo, 1955)10 A÷k portrays the illusory nature of happiness in family life. A¤joÙs house is meticulously clean, and she has done her best to make her household function with clockwork precision. Her husband, Indranàràyaõ, has reconciled himself to this state of affairs and jokes about his wifeÙs mania for cleanliness. The peace of the house is disturbed by the appearance of ørãpat, a guest who

Subverting Tradition

65

disobeys A¤joÙs orders: he does not wash or change his clothes, sleeps on the table, and incites Indranàràyaõ to rebel against the rules of the house. He even takes him to a pub: Indranàràyaõ comes back in a drunken state and, after this episode, takes up drinking as a regular habit. In the second act, twenty years later, there is no change in the interior. However, the cleanliness and the mechanization of home life are kept by A¤joÙs daughterin-law, Omã, who cherishes her mother-in-lawÙs memory and follows her principles. A¤joÙs is dead, and we learn that her husbandÙs excessive drinking has caused her untimely end. Remorseful, Indranàràyaõ has begun to live like an ascetic. ørãpatÙs second visit reveals A¤joÙs secret. A¤joÙs friend Animà tells the truth about A¤joÙs death: she did not die of natural causes but committed suicide. Indranàràyaõ is shocked to find out that his wife did this only to change him. This time, he does not give in to ørãpatÙs influence but continues to live chastely, as A¤jo would have wanted. No, my friend, I will not drink. I admit A¤joÙs tyranny and mania but when she has taken her own life for this mania, I should respect it. (A¤jo Dãdã, 111) To gain control over her husband, A¤jo commits suicide. She wants Indranàràyaõ to believe that it was he, with his heavy drinking and his bad attitude, who brought about her death. Through the feelings of guilt that she invokes in him, A¤jo does manage to change her husband and gain dominance over him. Similar to Strindberg and Bhuvane÷var, A÷k is fascinated by the subject of the battle of the sexes for power and domination and by how this battle can end in a deadly way. But whereas in StrindbergÙs dramas it is usually the man who dies, like the captain of the cavalry in The Father and the captain in Dance of Death, in A÷kÙs A¤jo Dãdã the female protagonist dies. However, even dead, A¤jo is the stronger one. She manages to influence her husband and wins the final battle with her opponent, ørãpat.

66

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

Absurd, however, is the price that she has to pay to win the battle. In this sense, the interpretation of the male characters both in A÷kÙs and in StrindbergÙs plays is similar. Men are seen as weaker than women and as losers in the fight for power at home. Clearly, I do not agree with those Indian critics who assert that A÷kÙs handling of the subject matter invites us to see A¤jo as a negative character and ørãpat as a positive one.11 A¤jo is depicted not only as a pedantic woman and a victim of her own mania but also as a woman who loves her husband and family and who does her best for them. Her world is her house and she puts all her effort into keeping it clean and tidy. Doing the household work is A¤joÙs Úbusiness,Û just as being a lawyer is her husbandÙs occupation. The author implies that unlike his wife, Indranàràyaõ works outside the house, in an office, and comes back home only to rest. For her, their home is a place both of labour and of respite. A¤jo is ridiculed and ironized, both by her husband and by ørãpat, because of her maniac obsession with order at home. But nobody tries to understand her or to help her to overcome this curious state of mind. Maybe some appreciation for her well-intended effort would have solved the problem and prevented her death. And is ørãpatÙs total denial of any kind of authority, regulations, and rules in life not just another kind of obsession, only in the other extreme? What is the result of his deeds? He influences Indranàràyaõ negatively and is the indirect cause of his wifeÙs death. A¤joÙs absence does not make her husband happier: apart from the feelings of remorse that her death invokes in him, it destines him to loneliness. A question arises about how ørãpatÙs behaviour influences his life. The author tells us of Animà, who has been in love with ørãpat her whole life and who has never married. Nevertheless, she never managed to get hold of him. Careless as he was, he never bothered about her. Whenever she reached his destination, it was only to find out that he had just left. Moreover, we learn from ørãpat himself that he was in love with a woman once and even lived with her. What attracted him

Subverting Tradition

67

to her was that she was not like other women: she did not care about order, cleanliness, or marriage. She was in favour of freedom and had a carefree approach to life. But as soon as they moved in together, he began to fear that his untidiness might become a habit and changed to cleanliness. Suddenly, their house was transformed: it looked meticulously clean and the woman became dependent on him. She confessed that she could not stand chaos: she had behaved differently in the past only because she loved ørãpat and wanted him to like her. He abandoned her immediately and never regretted his deed. The author shows that ørãpat has a rather self-centred male viewpoint. His relationships with women presuppose his dominant position. He does not hesitate to hurt or abandon them if they endanger his freedom or power. His protest against rules, cleanliness, and tidiness appears to be an expression of his immaturity as a man and of his fear of commitment in a relationship. It is no coincidence that he has remained unmarried. Therefore, I cannot agree that his character should be seen in a positive light and as the moral opponent of A¤jo. Whereas A÷kÙs treatment of the subject matter reveals the deadly battle of the married couple to be inevitable, tragic, and absurd, this does not imply that A¤joÙs character should be interpreted in negative terms and that ørãpat and Indranàràyaõ should be viewed in a positive light. In a dramaturgical sense, this play is remarkable for the authorÙs technique of pushing the action forward and revealing the background information through the introduction of an epic figure. This technique is an innovation in Hindi drama. Both the playÙs topic and its dramaturgical technique are influenced by StrindbergÙs plays. Indeed, ørãpatÙs visit is essential to the further development of the action and to the revelation of the background information. He is the third person needed to complete the constellation of three figures. Strindberg and Bhuvane÷var use a similar device. The doctorÙs appearance in StrindbergÙs The Father is necessary for the conflict between Laura and the captain

68

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

of the cavalry to be revealed. Similarly, Kurt must come to visit the captain and Alice in Dance of Death in order for us to witness their deadly battle. Analogically, in Play with Fire, Kirsten and KnutÙs marriage is nourished by the emotional involvement of KnutÙs friend Axel, who is in love with Kirsten. Symbolically, the moment that the tension disappears – that is, when Axel confesses his love and Knut lets his wife go with him – Kirsten and Axel are disappointed with each other and find out that they do not love each other. However, whereas StrindbergÙs and Bhuvane÷varÙs constellations of three figures imply an eternal (love) triangle, A÷k refrains from such a construction. ørãpatÙs appearance is neutral with respect to the love relationship between A¤jo and Indranàràyaõ. In this sense, A÷kÙs approach takes into consideration the objective reality of the life of a middle-class Indian family of the 1950s and 1960s, when it was not likely for a woman to have a lover. In the one-act play Taulie (Towels, 1943), A÷k further studies the subject of the battle of the sexes. There is neither an eternal triangle nor a constellation of three figures, as the conflict is entirely between husband and wife. The theme is similar to that in the drama A¤jo Dãdã: Vasant complains about his wifeÙs preoccupation with cleanliness. In particular, Madhu insists on using separate towels in their household and is constantly annoyed by her husband, who always forgets and uses the wrong towel. The scandal becomes so big that she wants to leave Vasant. However, he is the one who leaves, as his boss asks him to go to Varanasi on a business trip. The second scene takes place two months later. The interior of the house has changed entirely, and there is no trace of the previous tidiness. We learn that Vasant has been away longer than expected, but is due back soon, and that he has written only brief notes in the meantime. Madhu has missed him and has changed her habits completely to make him happy. Vasant comes back and is happy to see Madhu again. He is pleased that she has changed for him. But when she notices that he is not angry with

Subverting Tradition

69

her anymore, she resumes her old habits. The final scene of the play is identical to the opening one: Madhu and Vasant quarrel about the use of towels in the home. The playÙs cyclical composition shows that the partners cannot change and that the problems will remain. Although this is a one-act play, A÷k divides the two scenes of the drama by letting the curtain drop after VasantÙs departure. This Úfade in, fade outÛ dramaturgical technique is innovative, and A÷k was the first playwright to employ it on the Hindi stage. The interpretation of gender in the two plays discussed in this section subverts traditional notions of womanhood. Women are portrayed as equal to men. There is not even a hint of subservient service to oneÙs husband or of submission to male authority. The female protagonists are allowed to give free vent to their anger and to question the habits and behaviour of their husbands. Moreover, women try to change men to their liking. They are engaged in a fight for power and domination. In A÷kÙs plays there is not even a trace of the traditional notion of abalà (the feminine power of the weak and meek wife). Rather, women fight for power the way that Devã, the Goddess, does. Similar to Durgà, who is often portrayed in sexual combat with demons, the women in A÷kÙs dramas are in active combat with their husbands. Most often, they emerge from the fight victorious. They manage to gain control over their husbands, even if they have to sacrifice their lives for it. In A¤jo Dãdã, A¤jo loses only her life; she does not lose the battle. Even if the women do not explicitly win and the final ÚscoreÛ is even for husband and wife, as in Taulie, the women never lose. Although this interpretation of gender as a deadly battle between the sexes was influenced by StrindbergÙs plays, A÷kÙs dramas do not contain the misogyny inherent in StrindbergÙs presentation of women. For this positive interpretation of the fighting and victorious woman, the author is arguably indebted to Devã mythology. The mythical figure of Durgà legitimizes

70

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

female agency and power. This powerful myth-model has been reincarnated in the vãràïganà (warrior woman) figure of folklore and in the tradition of nauñaïkã theatre. The new and liberating role model for women that A÷k introduces draws on two sources: the Western dramatic tradition and Hindu øàktism.

5 The Heroines

The question of how the playwrights discussed herein either reinforce or subvert traditional religious notions of womanhood leads us to the study of the literary texture of the dramas and the issue of characterization. As readers and audience, we receive information that enables us to perceive the dramatistsÙ views on the subject matter. Most often, authors imbue their characters with their ideals and ideas. If the characters are well constructed, we find ourselves either agreeing or disagreeing with them, liking or disliking them. In this way, we internalize the ideas and respond to the messages that the playwrights convey in their work. How is this done at the level of the text? What are the devices and techniques that the authors use? The discussion of the issues of religion and gender in the previous two chapters shows that women are at the centre of the plays examined. How are the female protagonists characterized? How is the construction of the female characters instrumental in promoting the playwrightsÙ interpretation of gender and religion? In the following, I deal with the techniques of figure conception and characterization employed by the playwrights. My analysis is based on Manfred PfisterÙs structuralist model for the study of drama.1 The classical approach to the study of literature involves the question of the hero. Traditionally, the hero has been understood as the character whom the reader can identify as central to the

72

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

literary work and who receives the moral approbation of the reader. Indeed, the notion of the hero is a historical category and has been contingent on a consensus regarding the moral values and ideals of society. In the nineteenth century heroes were survivors in a hard and dehumanized society. Existential heroes were politically engaged and criticized the existing capitalist order. Nowadays, literary criticism distinguishes between the hero, the hero-victim, and the passive anti-hero. This means that the readerÙs moral approbation is not decisive in identifying the hero.2 In dramatic works, from the very beginning, the concept of the hero has been synonymous with the notion of the main character, whose gender was most often male. In classical Greek drama and up to the eighteenth century, the hero was a paragon of an individual imbued with high moral qualities, courage, self-sacrifice, and nobility. The notion of the hero as the embodiment of positive social ideals changed in the 1850s. As in other literary genres, the passive hero, the hero-victim, and the anti-hero prevailed in modern drama. Contemporary critics speak of the death of the hero, thus continuing the numerous prouncements of death in the period of modernity. It has already been extensively argued that we have seen the death of tragedy and the ensuing death of character.3 However, we should not talk of the death of the hero but of the death of the male hero. Indeed, in most dramas discussed in this book, the hero has been replaced by the heroine, a female protagonist who has taken over most of the functions of the classical hero. Although there are instances of heroine-victims, most of the heroines are courageous, active, and an embodiment of the moral values of society. It seems that humanity has found a way to nourish its inherent need for a humanistic ideal in the age of postmodernity. In a time when the death of God and of humanism has been proclaimed, when literature abounds with anti-heroes, when modern tragedies end with an anti-climax, and when people find classical tragedies pathetic and sentimental, the heroic, courageous, and noble lives on in a female body.

The Heroines

73

Similarly, in Hindi drama, the classical hero is alive but with a modified gender: the male hero has been reincarnated as the female heroine. No matter whether the authors endorse or subvert conservative notions of womanhood, they portray their female protagonists as heroines. The female characters play a leading role in the structure of the plots. As the embodiments of a humanistic ideal, they are presented as strong, noble, and active, and the reader is made to sympathize with womenÙs actions. Unlike natural persons, dramatic persons cannot be separated from their contexts. A fictional figure is a deliberate construct, and the fictional context defines the figure entirely. The dramatis personae appear as people who portray themselves in the plays. We perceive them not as individuals but in terms of how they interact with others, and they appear to us as speakers. FIGURE CONFIGURATION

The term ÚcharacterÛ alludes to the contrasts and similarities between the dramatis personae. It refers not only to the distinguishing features of an individual figure but also to the figureÙs interactions with the other personages in a play. Drama criticism refers to the interactions of an individual figure with other dramatic persons as Úfigure configuration.Û A figure configuration can have either an expanding or a repetitive structure. In a configuration with an expanding structure, there is a progressive development, in which the number of personages expands in the beginning and diminishes toward the end. To point out one example, in Upendranàth A÷kÙs Alag alag ràste (Separate Ways, 1954) the opening scene shows Tàràcand talking to his friend øivràm. In the following scenes, with the development of the conflict and the complication of the action, more and more figures are introduced. This technique of figure configuration is typical of analytical drama,4 in which the conflict is resolved only at the end. By contrast, with a repetitive structure, there is a constant repetition of figure configurations. By repeating identical configurations,

74

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

the author can demonstrate the changes in the protagonistsÙ development. For instance, in Mohan Ràke÷Ùs âùàçh kà ek din (One Day in the Month of âùàçh, 1958) Mallikà encounters her beloved, Kàlidàsa, two times: in the first act and in the last act of the play. Although the setting remains the same (MallikàÙs home) and the number of figures is identical (Mallikà and Kàlidàsa), the dialogue is different. The nature of their communication bears witness to the estrangement between the lovers and to the different paths that they have taken in life. Similarly, in Jagdi÷candra MàthurÙs Rãçh kã haóóã (Backbone, 1939) Umà appears with her parents in the same repetitive configuration in the first and last scenes of the play. Whereas in the beginning the family is preparing for her coming marriage to øaïkar, in the end it is clear that no marriage will take place. That both the setting and the characters are the same underlines the difference in situation and intensifies the feeling of tragedy. In the same way, the husband and his young guest appear in the same configuration in scene two and scene three of Bhuvane÷varÙs Sñràãk (Strike, 1938). Whereas in the second scene the husband boasts of his control over his wife and household, in the last scene he has to acknowledge that he is no longer in control. Thus the repetitive figure configuration highlights his wifeÙs protest. As a further example, in A÷kÙs Alag alag ràste the female characters Rànã and Ràj appear together several times in the same configuration. Rànã of the first act is different from Rànã of the third act, who rejects her husband and even flees her home. By having the two women always appear together in different situations and by having them share their thoughts and feelings with each other, A÷k shows that the change that takes place in RànãÙs character is also due to her involvement in her sisterÙs conflict. Other instances of a repetitive configurational structure are presented in A÷kÙs dramas Kaid (Prison, 1950) and Taulie (Towels, 1943). In both plays the two-figure configuration of the opening scene reappears in the final scene: in Kaid, Appã is shown to be ill and apathetic both at the beginning and at the end of the play; in

The Heroines

75

Taulie, both the opening and the closing scene present Madhu and VasantÙs quarreling about the petty question of how to use towels in the home. The employment of figure constellations with a repetitive structure is also connected to the cyclical composition and open-ended quality of Kaid and Taulie. Through the playsÙ repetitive figure configurations, A÷k implies the impossibility of change. AppãÙs situation cannot be improved. Nor can Madhu and VasantÙs marriage be transformed into a harmonious union; their conflict remains unresolved. FIGURE CONCEPTION

Pfister points out that figure conception is a historical category. It refers to the anthropological model on which the dramatic figure is based. Drama criticism distinguishes between statically and dynamically conceived figures, between personification, type, and individual.5 Whereas a figure conceived along the lines of personification embodies just one single quality or concept, the type encompasses a whole set of characteristics. When an author conceives a figure as an individual, he or she aims to show clearly the features that are unique to this figure. The author does so by concentrating on as many details as possible. The presented information refers to the figureÙs appearance, speech, behaviour, biography, and social milieu. This type of dramaturgy is characteristic of naturalistic theatre. Pfister points out that Eric Bentley enriched the theoretical approach to figure conception by stating the differences between ÚopenÛ and ÚclosedÛ figure conception.6 The concepts of open and closed figure conception refer to the degree of information that the audience is given with which to understand a dramatic person. When the available information is incomplete or when important pieces of information are deliberately omitted, the figure becomes enigmatic; this is a case of open figure conception. By contrast, when the available information is complete, whether

76

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

explicitly or implicitly conveyed, the figure is entirely defined by the author; this is a case of closed figure conception. Naturalistic theatre aims to achieve this kind of closed, clearly defined figure conception. In addition, naturalistic dramatists conceive figures with a reduced level of awareness. The figures appear to behave naturally and are usually not able to discuss themselves explicitly. In this case, Pfister talks of psychological figure conception.7 A figure who is able to ÚdiscussÛ him or herself is an example of transpsychological figure conception. In modern drama, there are instances when a figureÙs reduced level of awareness is partly overcome by the presentation of an exceptional situation, such as when he or she talks or experiences visions while in semi-sleep or in a drunken state of mind. This device enables the dramatist to reveal the workings of the figureÙs consciousness, or in other words, to increase his or her level of awareness. It is a characteristic of the dramatic style of the playwrights discussed in this book that their figure conception is psychological. Similar to the personages in naturalistic dramas, the female characters possess a reduced level of awareness. They cannot see themselves from without. Thus they perform their actions without being able to observe and discuss themselves at the same time. The figures appear to act naturally, and it is the spectators who become gradually aware of the reasons for the figuresÙ actions. An examination of the plays under discussion reveals that the construction of the characters is based on the dramaturgy of naturalistic theatre. The female characters are individuals about whom the authors provide information on different levels. They present details by means of each figureÙs external appearance, age, biographical or social background, speech pattern, and behaviour toward other figures. This information is included either in the secondary text – that is, in those stage directions that describe each figureÙs appearance – or in the primary text itself, whether explicitly via dialogue or implicitly via the authorsÙ deliberate choices regarding locales, costumes, certain

The Heroines

77

types of interpersonal behaviour, and the figuresÙ verbal behaviour, including its stylistic texture. Another naturalistic feature of the dramatic style of all the authors discussed is their employment of closed figure conception. The authorsÙ dramatic figures are completely defined by the information transmitted to the audience. A÷kÙs female protagonists, as well as those presented by the other authors – the characters of Nãldevã, Dhruvasvàminã, Manoramà, Mallikà, Umà, and strã – are conceived in such a way that full information is provided about each figureÙs biography, social context, verbal and interpersonal behaviour, and physical appearance, thus enabling the audience to understand the characters and the motives for their actions. For instance, biographical and contextual information makes it clear that Nãldevã is a Ràjpåt queen in exile, that Dhruvasvàminã is a queen who is married to a Gupta king, and that Manoramà is a young child-widow, educated, and of middle-class descent. We also come to know that Mallikà is a poor village girl, that Umà is an educated girl from a middle-class family, and that strã is the second wife of an affluent middle-aged man. Oftentimes, the dramatists conceive their protagonists by making use of their verbal behaviour. Thus Nãldevã tells us that she hates the Muslim oppressors and mourns for her dead husband. Dhruvasvàminã begs her husband not to sell her to his enemy, revealing that she does not really own herself and depends entirely on him for her fate. Manoramà is a supporter of widowhood and afraid to acknowledge her feelings for Manoj÷aïkar. Mallikà tells her beloved, Kàlidàsa, that she has waited for him throughout the years. UmàÙs verbal behaviour characterizes her as independent, rebellious, and impatient. Even when strã does not appear on stage, her verbal behaviour is represented by the letter that she writes to her husband, which characterizes her as a loyal but unhappy wife who is willing to fight for more autonomy and independence. A÷k constructs his female protagonists – for instance, Appã in Kaid, Màyà in Uçàn (Flight, 1950), Pratibhà in Bhaüvar (Whirlpool, 1961), Umà in Svarg kã jhalak (Glimpse of Paradise,

78

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

1939), Ràj and Rànã in Alag alag ràste, and A¤jo in A¤jo Dãdã (The Elder Sister A¤jo, 1955) – by providing information about their biography, social conduct, verbal and interpersonal behaviour, and physical appearance. For instance, in his playsÙ secondary texts A÷k describes in detail the locales connected with the figures. The interiors of both AppãÙs and A¤joÙs houses are described in the stage directions at the beginning of the dramas. In Kaid the chaos and untidiness of AppãÙs home and the late hour at which she is still in bed suggest her apathy and illness. By contrast, the orderliness in A¤joÙs house and the remark that this is not IndranàràyaõÙs but Mrs IndranàràyaõÙs home point to A¤joÙs mania for cleanliness and order and to her dominant position in the household. In A¤jo Dãdã, A÷k describes the appearance of all the personages immediately before they come on stage. These descriptions not only provide information about the figuresÙ physical looks but also offer glimpses into their inner lives or behaviour. A¤joÙs friend Animà is portrayed as a young woman of twenty-five, as middle-sized, and as having a half-ripened body. As the audience will find out, she is not married. In this respect, the detail about her Úhalf-ripenessÛ alludes to the incompleteness of her sexual life. A¤jo is described as a thirty-year-old woman who looks five years older than her age, who is busy only with the household, and who is very serious, has wrinkles, and does not smile. This physical portrayal is consistent with her behaviour, which is that of a pedantic person who takes life too seriously. In the opening stage directions of Bhaüvar, A÷k provides biographical information about PratibhàÙs past, which helps us to understand her behaviour and beliefs. Her unhappy first marriage, which was based only on physical attraction, left her disappointed and lonely and accounts for her distance from all the men around her and for her aspiration for a purely intellectual relationship with a man. Thus, in the stage directions, the author individualizes the young woman not only by referring to her beauty, youth, and education but also by presenting important biographical details about her.

The Heroines

79

Some figures are conceived only in terms of their behaviour toward the other dramatis personae. For instance, in Alag alag ràste, Madan never appears on stage but is portrayed only through his misbehaviour toward his wife, Ràj. Although we never see Madan, we perceive him as an individual and can easily distinguish him from Trilok. This fact becomes even more apparent when we consider the one-act version of this play, âdi màrg (The Primordial Way, 1943), in which neither Madan nor Trilok appears on stage. Despite their absence, both are clearly conceived as individuals; how each behaves toward his wife is entirely individualized. Their offstage interactions with the female characters are also important for the chracterization of the heroines. For instance, we learn that Rànã is independent and rebellious, whereas Ràj is dependent on her husband and submissive. Most often, biographical information, which is essential to the conception of a figure as an individual, is provided explicitly in the primary text. Indeed, in Kaid we come to know the sad story of AppãÙs marriage through PràõnàthÙs reminiscence about the past. This information is transmitted in the dialogue between husband and wife. Similarly, in the second act of A¤jo Dãdã, ørãpatÙs semi-monological utterance, when talking to Animà, reveals details about his life. These details enable us to perceive him as an individual with a male-centrist viewpoint who is afraid of commitment and whose relationships with women are marked by the desire to dominate them. Likewise, in Svarg kã jhalak the information about RaghuÙs unhappy first marriage to a poorly educated woman is conveyed in his utterance. This piece of biographical information gives us insight into his wish to marry an educated woman after the death of his first wife. Moreover, it exposes his final decision to marry the uneducated Rakùà as cowardice and as a personal failure to live up to his ideals. A÷kÙs critique of RaghuÙs decision clearly illustrates the authorÙs view of marriage as a spiritual and intellectual friendship between husband and wife. In a larger cultural context, this view can also be understood as an ideal of modernity.8

80

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama CHARACTERIZATION TECHNIQUES9

Characterization is a suprahistorical category and refers to the formal techniques of information transmission that are employed to present a dramatic figure. Drama criticism distinguishes between figural characterization, where the information about a character is conveyed by one of the figures, and authorial characterization, where the information is provided by the author him or herself or by the implied author. This character information can be communicated explicitly or implicitly. Figural Characterization Techniques Two techniques of explicit figural characterization are selfcommentary and commentary by others. In MàthurÙs Rãçh kã haóóã the initial conversation between UmàÙs mother and father represents a commentary by others. Through their exchange we are first introduced to the problems that their daughter could face because of her college education. UmàÙs self-commentary, in which she declares that she is proud of her education, reveals her to be a freethinking and rebellious young woman. Similarly, in Bhàratendu Hari÷candraÙs Nãldevã (Nildevi, 1881) the heroine reveals in a self-commentary that she wants to free the corpse of her husband in order to immolate herself on his funeral pyre. All of the above-mentioned cases are self-commentaries in the form of dialogue. Nãldevã talks to her son, and Umà talks to her parents, øaïkar, and his father. In Ràke÷Ùs âùàçh kà ek din, Mallikà states in a self-commentary that she has not allowed herself to forget her beloved and has gone out of her way to obtain the manuscripts of his works. From her self-commentary, we learn that she has cherished his memory, waited for him, and suffered throughout the years. Although the technique of explicit figural characterization through self-commentary is not widely used by A÷k, it does occur in some of his dramas. In Kaid, for instance, PràõnàthÙs

The Heroines

81

reminiscence about the past is a self-commentary that reveals his questions about the moral aspects of his behaviour when he agreed to marry Appã, who did not love him, and to take her from her home to far-off Akhnur. Similarly, in the last scene of A¤jo Dãdã, Indranàràyaõ explains in a self-commentary why he will not resume his drinking even after he has learned of the real reason for his wifeÙs death. His self-commentary reveals him to be a loving and respectful husband who values propriety and makes clear to the audience that he is completely different from his friend ørãpat. In the same way, RaghuÙs self-commentary in the last scene of Svarg kã jhalak is a key to understanding his motives for not marrying Umà. His utterance enables us to perceive him as a young man who is afraid to fight for his happiness and who is unwilling to sacrifice his comfort for it. MàyàÙs self-commentary at the end of Uçàn reveals to the three men around her that she wants an equal relationship and can therefore accept none of them as her friend and future partner. Her utterance characterizes her as an independent woman who knows what she wants from life and who will fight for her dreams. In Alag alag ràste there are several instances of explicit figural characterization through self-commentary. For instance, TàràcandÙs self-commentary about the reasons for TrilokÙs false expectations regarding the dowry reveals him to be a conservative man who adheres to the old rules and who believes in the marriage conventions of orthodox Hindu society, which are antagonistic to women. RàjÙs self-commentary about her relationship with her husband characterizes her as a loving woman capable of devotion and sacrifice. It shows that she was not blind to her husbandÙs neglect but was unwilling to give him up before she had done her best to win his love. All of the above-mentioned cases represent self-commentaries in the form of dialogue. PratibhàÙs utterance in the last scene of Bhaüvar is one of the few instances in A÷kÙs plays of selfcommentary in the form of soliloquy. It reveals the heroineÙs troubled state of mind and poses one of the main questions of her

82

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

dilemma. We may question whether she has been obsessed with Nãlàbh because she loves him or because she is running after a ÚmoonÛ that she can never have. Oftentimes, the dramatists characterize the female figures explicitly by means of commentaries by others. For instance, we find out that UmàÙs education is considered a problem through her motherÙs commentary. The commentary by øaïkarÙs father confirms this inference. The commentary by MallikàÙs mother characterizes the young woman as submissive and undemanding. It seems that Mallikà is unable to see that her loyalty and devotion to Kàlidàsa are taken for granted and not appreciated. Bhuvane÷varÙs strã is characterized as a paragon of wifely devotion in a commentary by her husband. It turns out that this is misleading and that his wife has different views on the matter. Instances in which A÷k delineates his figures through explicit figural characterization in the form of commentary by others include the servantsÙ remarks on AppãÙs ÚimprisonmentÛ in Kaid as well as RànãÙs comment on the moral implications of MadanÙs behaviour toward his wife and TàràcandÙs commentaries on the characters of Madan and Trilok in Alag alag ràste. The dramatists also portray the female figures through verbal implicit characterization techniques. Whereas nonverbal implicit techniques of characterization include physiognomy and facial expression, stature and gesture, masks and costume, and locale and behaviour, verbal techniques are revealed in the choice of verbal behaviour and include the idiolect, sociolect, register, and stylistic texture of the utterances. For instance, specific aspects of language characterize Nãldevã as a Hindu Ràjput queen, Dhruvasvàminã as a Hindu princess of ancient times, and Manoramà and Umà as urban, educated middle-class girls. With the exception of Ràj in Alag alag ràste, A÷kÙs female figures are all educated middle-class women. Authorial Characterization Techniques The playwrights also implicitly characterize their dramatic figures by employing the stylistic device of correspondence and

The Heroines

83

contrast and by choosing implicitly characterizing names. In Nãldevã, Hari÷candra contrasts the virtue of the Ràjput queen with the mean behaviour of the Muslims. Similarly, in Jay÷aïkar PrasàdÙs Dhruvasvàminã (Dhruvasvamini, 1933) RàmguptaÙs cowardice is contrasted with CandraguptaÙs courage. Confronted with the same situation, the two men react differently. Whereas Ràmgupta gives away his wife as a gift, Candragupta fights for his brotherÙs wife and protects her honour. Màthur too contrasts UmàÙs and øaïkarÙs behaviour when faced with the same situation: the arranging of their marriage. UmàÙs bravery is the opposite of øaïkar Ùs lack of Úbackbone.Û Similarly, A÷k constructs the characters of the dramatis personae by presenting the correspondences and contrasts between the figures. The charactersÙ differences are often articulated by the figures themselves. In the second act of Alag alag ràste the author has Påran and Trilok confront each other and engage in an intensive discussion about the values of life, marriage, and tradition. Both protagonists express their views openly, and it is not difficult to define Påran as an honest and educated young man of progressive opinion and as an advocate of womenÙs rights with whom the author sympathizes. Conversely, Trilok is portrayed as a conservative person who believes in a society dominated by masculine authority and who does not love his wife but is interested in her only because of the profit that she can bring him. By employing this technique, the author enables the audience to make contrastive comparisons as a means of forming an opinion about the figuresÙ characters. Additionally, in Alag alag ràste A÷k confronts both Rànã and Ràj with a similar situation. He states that both women have been unhappy at home and have left their husbands, seeking refuge and protection in their fatherÙs house. In the end, it is possible for both of them to go back. But whereas Rànã refuses to return to her husband and decides to start a new life, Ràj accepts the humiliation and goes back to Madan and his new wife. By showing the similarity of their situations and the different way in which each reacts, A÷k underlines their individuality.

84

Gender, Religion, and Modern Hindi Drama

The dialogue between husband and wife in A÷kÙs Taulie is another instance of the use of the technique of correspondence and contrast. The characters in the play themselves articulate the differences between them. Through Madhu and VasantÙs stormy disputes about how to use towels at home, we come to know of their different social backgrounds and upbringings and of the different expectations that they have brought with them into their marriage. While Madhu was brought up in a luxurious home, Vasant grew up in a family in which there was not enough money and not everyone had his or her own towel. However, despite the poverty, the husband spent his childhood in a home where there was a lot of warmth and where people were close to each other. His wife, on the other hand, grew up in a sterile but cold atmosphere, where cleanliness was used as an excuse for not coming into physical contact with others. By having Madhu and Vasant articulate their contrastive viewpoints, A÷k implies that husband and wife are both right and wrong in blaming the other and that the only solution is to be tolerant and make compromises. Furthermore, A÷k characterizes his figures contrastively by portraying the different ways that they address another figure. For instance, in Uçàn, øaïkar, Rame÷, and Madan are characterized by their different attitude toward Màyà. Whereas øaïkar wants to destroy her and ÚconquerÛ her, Rame÷ worships her devotedly, and Madan cares about her only as long as he feels that he can possess and control her. In Kaid the contrastive ways that AppãÙs relationships with Pràõnàth and Dilãp are presented likewise serve to characterize the heroine. Whereas in the presence of her husband she is apathetic and ill, preferring not to join him for a walk, the news of her friendÙs arrival makes her lively, energetic, and full of hope. Not only does she go for a walk with Dilãp, but she also enjoys it and can admire the beauty of a place that she has only detested so far. In this way, it becomes clear to the audience that she loves Dilãp, not Pràõnàth, and that the real reason for her illness is her unhappy marriage. The foregoing examples show that figure delineation by means of portraying the correspondences and contrasts between the

The Heroines

85

dramatis personae is one of the implicit characterization techniques most widely employed by the playwrights. Another technique of implicit authorial characterization is the use of interpretative names that help the audience to associate a dramatic figure with a particular feature of his or her character. This stylistic device is important in drama, where the absence of a mediating communication system limits the possibilities of transmitting information and of characterization by means of additional narrative elements.10 Thus it is no coincidence that the names of several female figures refer to goddesses and courageous deeds. Nãldevã, Dhruvasvàminã, and Umà appear to be goddess-like in their behaviour, living up to all their ideals with much devotion and sacrifice. Nãldevã and Dhruvasvàminã do so by following the primordial way and Umà by venturing to go along a new path in life. Bhuvane÷var names his protagonist strã, which is the common Hindi word for Úwoman,Û not an individualized female first name. In this way, he signals that his heroine stands for the collective woman and points to the typicality and universality of the problems discussed. A÷k makes similar use of interpretative names. For instance, RàjÙs and RànãÙs names mean ÚkingdomÛ and ÚqueenÛ respectively; PratibhàÙs Úgenius, brillianceÛ; MàyàÙs ÚillusionÛ; and AppãÙs (AparàjitàÙs) Úunconquered.Û Both Ràj and Rànã appear to be like queens, one exemplifying the primordial way and the other the new path in life. PratibhàÙs intellectualism and exceptional ability to reflect upon her fate are also revealed in the choice of her name. Màyà turns out to be like an illusion for the three men who are attracted to her. At another level, the choice of her name may point to the fact that she is not to be found in real life. Few women are as emancipated and tenacious in the pursuit of happiness as she is. Similarly, AppãÙs name symbolizes her love for Dilãp, which can be ÚconqueredÛ neither by her husband nor by the power of time. The use of interpretative names for the main protagonists enables the dramatists to enrich their characters by suggesting additional possibilities of interpretation.

Conclusion: Creating the Canon of Modern Hindi Drama

In conclusion, I want to look at how the dramatistsÙ interpretation of gender and religion is related to the creation of the canon of modern Hindi drama. The ideologically coloured concept of the ÚIndian characterÛ of the dramas accounts for the selection of playwrights and their work. Works are considered to be ÚIndianÛ in character in two instances: (1) if a dramatist writes in conformity with the poetics of classical Sanskrit or Indian folk theatre (the neo-Sanskrtic and the nativistic play) and (2) if a dramatistÙs interpretation of gender and religion endorses traditional values. By contrast, works are not considered to be ÚIndianÛ in character (1) if a dramatistÙs work is consistent with Western dramatics (the naturalistic Hindi play) and (2) if the dramatistÙs interpretation of gender and religion subverts or reinterprets tradition. In some instances, naturalistic playwrights – those influenced by naturalistic Western dramatics – are selected for the literary canon if the interpretation of gender and religion is traditional. This is the case with Mohan Rake÷. Dramatists such as Bhuvane÷var and A÷k who do not offer a conservative religious representation of gender are never selected for the literary canon. Although the liberating role models that these authors introduce have their parallels in Hindu mythology and religion, they are interpreted stereotypically as non-Indian and Western. Thus Hindi drama and the creation of

Conclusion

87

the literary canon bear witness to a potent ideological basis for the interpretation of gender and religion. In what follows, I examine this phenomenon by focusing on the work of Mohan Ràke÷, Bhuvane÷var, and Upendranàth A÷k. All three naturalistic dramatists wrote in the wake of Western theatre and were opposed to PrasàdÙs influential neo-Sanskritic theatrical school. Their work was received differently: whereas Mohan Ràke÷Ùs dramas were selected as ÚIndian,Û Bhuvane÷varÙs and A÷kÙs plays were discarded as ÚWestern.Û The history of reception of A÷kÙs work is even more confusing, as his plays were popular in the pre-Independence period and in the early 1950s. What is the ÚIndianÛ theatrical tradition? Does it comprise only Western (British), or Bràhmaõic (Sanskritic), or indigenous (folk) elements and influences, or is it informed by all of them simultaneously? Does the fact that naturalistic Hindi drama is meant for the proscenium theatre, which came from abroad, mean that its character is non-Indian? If yes, why has Mohan Ràke÷Ùs work been received positively, as ÚIndian,Û and Bhuvane÷varÙs and A÷kÙs negatively, as Únon-IndianÛ? WESTERN DRAMATIC INFLUENCE AND THE CANON OF HINDI DRAMA

One reason for the negative reception of naturalistic dramatists who wrote in the wake of the Western theatrical tradition is the negative attitude toward Western dramatic influence. To understand this phenomenon, we should turn to the historical, political, and cultural background of the pre- and post-Independence period. The Western dramatic school and naturalistic Hindi drama were of crucial importance to the beginning and further development of contemporary Hindi theatre. However, the ideological apparatus of Indian criticism associated the notion of ÚWesternÛ with the hegemonical position of the British in India. Because of political controversies with the British, ÚWesternÛ influence also

88

Conclusion

came to be understood as Únon-IndianÛ in the sphere of literature. This resulted in a negative stance toward the naturalistic Hindi play and toward those dramatists who wrote such plays. How does the issue of Western influence relate to naturalistic Hindi drama and to its ÚIndianÛ character? Modern Hindi drama was indebted to the Western tradition for its origin and development, as Bhàratendu Hari÷candraÙs plays would not have been possible without his knowledge of Western drama. This influence concerned mainly a new dramatic form meant for a new type of theatre, namely the proscenium theatre. The Hindi playwrights Ràke÷, Bhuvane÷var, and A÷k, wrote in the wake of Western naturalism. The Western school inspired the employment of understandable dramatic language, which contrasted with Jay÷aïkar PrasàdÙs Sanskritized Hindi. For the open-ended quality of their plays, they were indebted to Henrik Ibsen, and for their dramasÙ cyclical composition, they drew on the plays of August Strindberg. Anton ChekhovÙs mode of writing influenced the psychological characterization of their protagonists.1 In Hindi drama Bhuvane÷var was the first playwright whose work showed the influence of StrindbergÙs naturalism.2 In his plays øyàmà: Ek vaivàhik vióambnà (øyàmà: A Marriage Anomaly, 1933), øaitàn (Satan, 1934), Làñrã (Lottery, 1935), and Romàns: Romà¤c (Romance: Horripilation, 1935),3 he explores difficult relationships between men and women in marriage. Most often, there is an eternal triangle in which it is not the man but the woman who has both a husband and a lover or who hesitates between two marriage partners and needs to make up her mind. A parallel can be seen between Bhuvane÷varÙs plays and StrindbergÙs Play with Fire (1892) and Dance of Death (1902). Similarly, A÷kÙs admiration for the subject of the battle of the sexes, as revealed in the dramas Taulie (Towels, 1943) and A¤jo Dãdã (The Elder Sister A¤jo, 1955), can also be traced to StrindbergÙs work. In this case, the dramatist further developed the tradition established by his countryman Bhuvane÷var. A÷k also followed in IbsenÙs steps by exposing womenÙs oppression

Conclusion

89

and advocating womenÙs rights. He sought to do in Hindi what Ibsen had done in Norwegian. Thus we can draw parallels between IbsenÙs A DollÙs House (1879) and A÷kÙs plays âdi màrg (The Primordial Way, 1943), Uçàn (Flight, 1950), and Alag alag ràste (Separate Ways, 1954). Similar to Bhuvane÷varÙs and A÷kÙs works, a creative encounter with Western theatre is also manifested in Ràke÷Ùs dramatic oeuvre. His first play, âùàçþ kà ek din (One Day in the Month of âùàçh, 1958), explores the dilemma faced by the artist who must choose between love and art and also examines the relationship between man and woman. His last play, âdhe adhåre (Incomplete Halves, 1969), shows the impossibility of communication between the sexes. Dramaturgically, the dramas are closer to the aesthetic of Western drama than to PrasàdÙs work or to the legacy of classical Sanskrit theatre. Ràke÷, Bhuvane÷var, and A÷k, who were the first mature recipients of the Western school, were most productive as dramatists in the immediate decades before and after Independence. Historically and politically, this time was marked by the struggle for national freedom, which expressed itself in nationalist movements and in a wave of anti-British and anti-European sentiment. In this sense, the endeavours to create a cultural svaràjya (independent rule) could not have been based on a liking for the pro-Western school of modern Hindi drama, as reflected in the works of the three authors discussed. The dominance of Western or vide÷ã (foreign) ideas was soon contested by the counter-dominance of Sanskritic or Bràhmaõic revivalism. Thus British (cultural) imperialism was replaced by Sanskritic (cultural) neo-imperialism. In the 1960s the notion of creating ÚIndianÛ art and writing ÚIndianÛ plays changed. The prevalent cultural movement was de÷ãvàd (nativism),4 which opposed both the Anglicized and the Sanskritized elites of contemporary society. It emphasized the primacy of the language of the masses in the production of culture. Many Indian intellectuals have seen it as a form of Úindigenism,Û as an expression of cultural nationalism, and as

90

Conclusion

self-assertion of a marginalized literary culture. They have also viewed it as an attempt to emancipate a formerly colonized nation from the hegemony of Anglo-American universalistic critical discourse.5 There was deliberation about creating a national Indian theatre by encouraging playwrights to adopt the mode of folk-theatre traditions. Influential critics propagated this new theatrical policy.6 The Ràùñrãya Nàñya Vidyàlay (National School of Drama) and the Sangãt Nàñak Akàdemã (Academy of Music and Drama) organized seminars and awarded prizes to playwrights who complied with the new directives for creating a de÷ã (national) theatre. As the dramatist Prasanna states, one could be successful as a playwright only if one limited oneÙs artistic quest to the requirements defined by the institutional theatrical apparatus.7 The prescriptive dogmatism of this theatrical policy has ignored the plurality of cultural tradition in India. The ÚIndianÛ theatrical tradition does not comprise only Western/English, or Bràhmaõic/Sanskritic, or indigenous/folk elements and influences but is informed by all of these simultaneously. Indeed, the development of modern Hindi theatre has been hindered by the nativistic discourseÙs underlying assumption that Úif you want to be an Indian you should reject proscenium theatre because we think that proscenium came from abroad.Û8 This assumption has excluded from literary histories, critical studies, and potential theatrical performances many gifted playwrights and many dramas worth consideration. What have been the implications of this shift in ideology for the future of modern Hindi drama and the literary canon? In the first place, it has meant that PrasàdÙs dramatic work, which is Úneo-SanskriticÛ both in its subject matter and in its language and dramaturgical form, was considered exemplary and was identified as a standard by the institutional ideological apparatus of Indian drama criticism. The Ràùñrãya Nàñya Vidyàlay and the Sangãt Nàñak Akàdemã, which were founded in the late 1950s, did not seek to encourage contemporary plays dealing with contemporary

Conclusion

91

subject matter and written by contemporary playwrights, such as Bhuvane÷var and A÷k, as these dramatists openly pronounced their admiration for Western dramatists. Rather, the prevailing ideological discourse considered the neo-Sanskritic and nativistic Hindi play to be ÚIndianÛ in character, while naturalistic drama was discarded as pro-Western and thus vide÷ã (foreign). Although the dramaturgical form of Ràke÷Ùs work was also influenced by Western theatre, the subject matter of his historical plays could claim to be in conformity with the standard set by Prasàd. Therefore, his dramatic production was included in the canon of modern Hindi drama. Bhuvane÷var and A÷k had no such alternative to offer. A÷k wrote just one historical play, Jay paràjay (Victory and Defeat, 1937), and announced publicly that he did not intend to write historical dramas like this any more, as the new time required modern plays that treated topical subject matter.9 Consequently, the work of these two authors could not be fitted into the Indian (i.e., neo-Sanskritic) canon of Hindi drama, as envisaged by its makers in the 1950s. THE INTERPRETATION OF GENDER AND THE CANON OF HINDI DRAMA

An additional argument for accepting Ràke÷Ùs plays while excluding those by Bhuvane÷var and A÷k was Ràke÷Ùs different interpretation of womenÙs issues. Ràke÷Ùs female characters are cast rather conservatively and traditionally and are depicted as being dependent on the men in their lives. By contrast, Bhuvane÷var and A÷k portray women as free and independent individuals who make their own decisions and oppose male authority. For instance, in Ràke÷Ùs âùàçh kà ek din (One Day in the Month of âùàçh, 1958) Mallikà is portrayed as a perfect Sãtà: she is self-effacing, subservient, and loyal to Kàlidàsa and his emotional needs. Although in âdhe adhere, Sàvitrã works in a company and is financially independent, and although she is highly ambitious and wants her family to progress, she does not consider

92

Conclusion

the possibility of having a career of her own. Instead, she is desperate in her attempt to find realization for herself through the men around her, be it her husband, her son, or her former friend Jagmohan. In all cases, she fails. In the last scene, Ràke÷ prompts the audience to take the side of the male characters by implying that Sàvitrã Ùs high requirements and her dissatisfaction with men account for the problems. By contrast, in Bhuvane÷varÙs Sñràãk (Strike, 1938), the female character goes on ÚstrikeÛ to protest against the rules of marital life set by her husband. Similarly, in A÷kÙs Alag alag ràste, Rànã is married to a man whose family is not satisfied with the dowry that her father has given them. After much humiliation and pain, she has fled to her fatherÙs home. She is required to act as a loyal Sãtà and go back to her husband after her father arranges for the additional dowry. Rànã refuses to go back, however, and flees into independence. She rebels against the existing order by defying the authority of both her father and her husband. In both plays, we are encouraged to sympathize with the female characters and to approve of their courage. Thus the female protagonists emerge as modern Mãràs who rebel against tradition. Moreover, the authors do not depict these female characters as suffering: they are not weak and are aware of their ÷akti (inherent female power). Bhuvane÷var and A÷k subvert traditional norms of womanhood and introduce the image of the empowered woman, of Devã, as their ideal of the feminine. Another innovation in Bhuvane÷varÙs and A÷kÙs interpretation of their female characters is the unprecedented freedom that their heroines are given to choose or to change their partners, particularly in Bhuvane÷varÙs øyàmà: Ek vaivàhik vióambnà and Làñrã.10 A÷k develops this theme in his Bhaüvar (Whirlpool, 1961). Frequently, the Hindu mythological pattern of Ràdhà-KçùõaMãrà has been reworked in literature and film.11 Two women are in love with a man, and it is the man who has the right to choose. Bhuvane÷var and A÷k subvert this traditional notion. In their dramas it is the female protagonists who must choose between two

Conclusion

93

men. While this portrayal of female characters is in harmony with Western ideals, it did not reflect the objective reality of Indian society in the 1940s and 1950s and did not appeal to the dominant critical discourse of the time. There has been a tendency in Indian literary and film criticism to view female characters that embody the Sãtà-Satã model as ÚIndianÛ and Úgood.Û By contrast, modern emancipated female protagonists are considered ÚWesternizedÛ and Úbad.Û12 This interpretation does not do justice to HinduismÙs multifaceted religious tradition. Hindu Indian religious, literary, and cultural thought has created both the image of the submissive and obedient Spouse Goddess (Lakùmã, Sãtà, and Satã) and the image of the independent Devã. All the female protagonists discussed in this book – not only the traditional female protagonists (Hari÷candraÙs Nãldevã, PrasàdÙs Dhruvasvàminã, Mi÷raÙs Manoramà, and Ràke÷Ùs Mallikà) but also the rebellious heroines (MàthurÙs Umà, A÷kÙs Rànã and A¤jo, and Bhuvane÷varÙs strã) – represent women who are ÚIndianÛ (and universal) and Úgood.Û Hindi drama is indebted to and draws on two major sources for its interpretation of womenÙs issues: (1) the mythological models of the Hindu epics, the ÷àstras, and the Puràõas; and (2) the works of Western playwrights who were advocates of womenÙs rights, education, and emancipation. Additionally, an indigenous dramatic source informs the construction of gender in Hindi plays: the tradition of nauñaïkã. Thus it is important to take into consideration the interpretation of womenÙs issues in plays of the nauñaïkã tradition. Nauñaïkã heroines both reiterate and question the Sãtà paradigm: the dramas of nauñaïkã theatre focus on the vãràïganà (warrior woman) and on the Satã-Sãtà-Sàvitrã heroine. Whereas some of these plays treat the problems of modern emancipated female protagonists who are widows, unwed mothers, and even working women, most extol an ideology of female chastity and submission to the male.13 Is this an isolated phenomenon? How are women portrayed in other media, for instance in films? Can we argue that the

94

Conclusion

representation of women in urban Hindi drama has parallels not only in nauñaïkã theatre but also in popular Indian cinema? Hindi popular cinema too reinforces the Sàtã-Sàvitrã image and underlines this image as one that is good, ideal, and desirable for all women to emulate and follow. Whereas in realistic films and in New Cinema the Devã and the ÚMother IndiaÛ elements have been highlighted, the female figures who embody this image appear to be defeated rather than victorious Devãs. Women are losers or experience tragedies.14 Hindi popular films promote the values of the upper middle class and present women stereotypically as ÚgoodÛ or Úbad.Û There are conflicting views about education for women, which is presented either as undesirable or as desirable only in a domestic context. Some of the most successful recent films, such as Ham àpke haiü kaun (Who Am I to You, 1994) and Kuch kuch hotà hai (There Is Something, 1998), promote a sophisticated modern Indian equivalent of the Victorian ideal of the domestic angel. The female protagonists in these films are educated housewives. Education is welcome, but it is implied that women should exercise it only in the private sphere to entertain their husbands and bring up (and educate) their children. The female protagonists in both films live up to the ideal of the submissive and obedient Hindu wife of conservative Hinduism. They are ready to submit to tradition and marry the widowed husbands of their deceased sisters. Only a happy intervention saves them from this tragic fate. The bridegroom-to-be, who has realized that the surrogate bride-to-be loves another man, cancels the marriage. Thus women are encouraged not to act independently or to fight for individual happiness but to submit to male authority and tradition. If they are lucky (and in the unreal world of film they are!), this representative of male authority takes their happiness into consideration. If a woman has a profession and is independent, like Tàrà in Dil càhtà hai (What the Heart Wants, 2001), she is portrayed as divorced and unhappy, and she dies in the end. All of these recent films were blockbuster hits in India and have also won prizes

Conclusion

95

abroad. In each case an orthodox male point of view is privileged, and a conservative and traditional notion of the feminine is presented. Katherine Young remarks that Úultimately, conservative values on the model of TulsãdàsÙ Sãtà are affirmed for women. When the independent woman or vãràïganà (Øwoman-warriorÙ) is portrayed, she is a mythic figure, not a sociological reality.Û15 Educated women are portrayed as too independent and selfish, too Westernized. These ÚWesternizedÛ Indian women are often raped in Hindi films and are thus ÚpunishedÛ for not following the SãtàSàvitrã idiom. By contrast, women who are submissive and adhere to tradition are ÚrewardedÛ with a happy marriage.16 What are the reasons for this negative reception of educated, liberated, and independent women? How can we explain the equation of ÚmodernÛ woman with ÚWesternÛ ideals of the feminine? Why is this ÚWesternÛ model for women automatically understood as antithetical to the Indian one? Why do the media imply that women should return to traditional Indian images of the feminine? And why is the desirable Indian role model for women associated with Sãtà, the submissive woman, rather than with Devã, who is empowered? To return to the study of drama, why is the selection of works for the literary canon of Hindi theatre contingent upon the affirmation of traditional notions of gender? The canon of Hindi drama promotes a return to traditional Hindu images of the feminine for religious and literary reasons. Moreover, this characteristic of the canon also attests to the complexity of the postcolonial socio-political and cultural situation in India today. In his introduction to Fundamentalism and Gender, John Stratton Hawley argues that there is an important connection between the globally defined ideologies of fundamentalism and the construction of gender that has been persistently ignored in books on fundamentalism.17 Similarly, in her introduction to Invented Identities: The Interplay of Gender, Religion and Politics in India, Mary McGee examines gender dynamics in India

96

Conclusion

and shows that the complex notion of gender identity is related to cultural and religious ideas that are specific to the subcontinent.18 Furthermore, the seminal study Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament, edited by Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer,19 examines important questions of scholarship on South Asia by taking into account the problematic legacy of orientalism in the modern period, although it does not specifically address the study of women. In his study The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, Partha Chatterjee also reflects on the links between the ÚwomenÙs questionÛ and the nationalist project.20 Before concluding, it is important to look briefly at the issues of religion and women in the light of orientalism, colonialism, nationalism, and postcolonial academic discourse. In an attempt to unify Hindu law, the British colonialists universalized and subsumed under the general notion of Hinduism and Hindu law a historically limited, conservative, and varõa-specific religious tradition (varõa being the largest social unit, based on birth).21 Thus they made the ÚliberationÛ of Hindu women from this ÚoppressiveÛ Hindu tradition the legitimate reason for their rule in India. This prompted Hindu reformers in the nineteenth century to free women and better their situation by introducing numerous reforms of Hinduism. In response, the British liberalized the conservative law that they themselves had institutionalized as universally applicable to Hindu women. Gandhi involved women in the anti-British movement for national liberation. He helped women to break out of the confines of their homes by asking them to redirect their service and devotion from husband to nation. The cause of the national movement had united men and women in the fight against the British. After Independence, however, the gap between menÙs interests and womenÙs interests increased. Statistics show that arranged marriages, dowry murders, and bigamy are still part of womenÙs lives.22 Both the growing religious and political fundamentalism in society and the cultural reaction

Conclusion

97

against Anglo-American and Western influence and ideology have led to a new definition of the Hindu ethic and identity in the postcolonial period. The secular notion of hindutva (Hindudom), which understands Hinduism as a unifying cultural and political reality in modern India, not as the religious concept of ÚHindu dharma,Û has not remained immune to the general process of a conservative remythologizing of the present. There is a call to return to orthodox tradition and religious values. The media, especially popular Indian cinema, reinforce the figure of the self-effacing pativratà (loyal and devoted wife), or Sãtà, as a symbol of hindutva. Most often, a more liberal representation of womenÙs issues is stigmatized as ÚWestern,Û non-Indian, and unworthy of imitation. The reception of the plays of Rake÷, Bhuvane÷var, and A÷k and the selection of traditional feminine archetypes as markers of hindutva for the literary canon attest to an identical situation in the field of Hindi drama. Ràke÷Ùs interpretation of his female characters is along the lines of traditional Hindu values. This accounted for the ÚIndianÛ (which asserts orthodox Hindu) character of his dramas and for their inclusion in the Hindi literary canon. By comparison, Bhuvane÷var and A÷k introduce a new female protagonist to Hindi drama: the self-confident and rebellious woman striving for independence and individual happiness. This new female protagonist is portrayed as suffering intensely due to the restrictions imposed on her by conservative Hindu tradition. She does not submit to orthodox tradition but rebels against it. This new female figure in Hindi theatre came into being under the influence of Western naturalistic drama. Therefore, this new interpretation of women and gender was considered ÚWesternÛ or Únon-Indian.Û Is this new heroine in modern Hindi drama ÚWesternÛ or ÚIndianÛ? This new heroine may have originated under the influence of Western naturalistic drama, but she has important parallels in

98

Conclusion

Hindu mythology, namely the figures of Draupadã, Mãrà, and Devã. Vasudha Narayanan states that Úas embodiments of bhakti women serve as role models; interestingly enough, as shakti they are removed from humanityÛ23 – that is, they are divinized. Empowered øaktis are not social but theological models of the human being who seeks to attain mokùa (liberation). Human women are not encouraged to follow this lifestyle in an earthly existence. The contemporary settings of Bhuvane÷varÙs and A÷kÙs plays and their secular interpretation of womenÙs problems point exactly to such a social model. The heroines in the dramas discussed are not divine but earthly women. They are empowered and independent modern Mãràs and Devãs. This circumstance explains the reluctance of (male) critics to see Bhuvane÷varÙs and A÷kÙs female protagonists as embodiments of the accepted and venerated Hindu mythological figures and role models, of the female bhakti (Hindu devotional) poets, and of the Goddess. Instead, Bhuvane÷varÙs and A÷kÙs heroines came to be understood solely as Indian versions of Nora, the female protagonist in IbsenÙs A DollÙs House. Thus this new interpretation of gender was considered ÚWesternÛ or Únon-Indian,Û and Bhuvane÷varÙs and A÷kÙs dramatic works were not selected for the Hindi literary canon. As a result, women were deprived of a contemporary literary model for positive self-definition, emulation, and empowerment in the modern period.

Summary of Dramas

A ÷ K , U P E N D R A N âT H

Alag alag ràste (Separate Ways), 1954 Sisters Rànã and Ràj have both fled from their husbands. RànãÙs husband, Trilok, requires additions to the dowry, and his family harasses the young woman. RàjÙs husband, Madan, is in love with another woman and neglects his wife. Without RàjÙs knowledge or consent, Madan marries for a second time. Ràj goes back to her husband and accepts a life with a co-wife. Rànã refuses to return to her husband and flees into independence. A¤jo Dãdã (The Elder Sister A¤jo), 1955 Wife A¤jo and husband Indranàràyaõ receive a visit from a guest, ørãpat, who ridicules A¤joÙs mania for cleanliness and entices Indranàràyaõ to rebel against the rules set by his wife. A¤jo dies and her husbandÙs bad behaviour is blamed for her untimely end. Indranàràyaõ is remorseful and changes. When he finds out the real reason for his wifeÙs death, he does not give in to ørãpatÙs renewed attempts to turn him against his wifeÙs memory. He allows his deceased wife to be the ÚwinnerÛ in the battle of the sexes fought in their household.

100

Summary of Dramas

Bhaüvar (Whirlpool), 1961 Young Pratibhà is educated, successful, and divorced. She longs for professor Nãlàbh, who is oblivious to her infatuation with him. At the same time, she interacts with and rejects three admirers: Jagannàth, Hardatt, and J¤àncand. Kaid (Prison), 1950 Appã is married to Pràõnàth, the widowed husband of her deceased sister. She lives with him and his two children in far-off Akhnur. Eight years after her marriage, she receives a brief visit from Dilãp, the man she loves. At the end of the play, Dilãp leaves and AppãÙs life remains unchanged. Svarg kã jhalak (Glimpse of Paradise), 1939 Educated and young Raghu is a widower. He is looking for a new wife. He is attracted to young and educated Umà. However, he rejects her as a potential wife because he finds out that she is independent and does not have traditional views on marriage. Raghu marries the poorly educated and traditional Rak÷à, who is also the sister of his deceased wife. Taulie (Towels), 1943 Wife Madhu and husband Vasant are engaged in a battle of the sexes over the use of towels at home. Vasant leaves on a twomonth business trip. He is not in touch with his wife, as he is deeply hurt and upset by her behaviour. Madhu changes to please him, but when Vasant comes back and the couple is reunited and reconciled, the battle of the sexes over the use of towels is resumed. Uçàn (Flight), 1950 Màyà has fled from the bombing in Burma. On the flight, she gets lost and is separated from Madan, the man she loves. She comes across the hunting camp of two men: øaïkar and Ràme÷. Madan reappears at the end of the play. All three men are in love with Màyà, but she rejects all of them.

Summary of Dramas

101

BHUVANE÷VAR (BHUVANE÷VAR PRASâD ÷ RäVâSTAV)

Sñràãk (Strike), 1938 Strã (woman) has gone to visit friends in Lucknow. Her husband, puruù (man), awaits her return and talks to a friend, yuvak (youth). At the end of the drama, the husband receives a letter from his wife, in which she communicates to him that she will not come back home at the time that he has planned for her. HARI÷ CANDRA, BHâRATENDU

Nãldevã (Nildevi), 1881 The Ràjputs are engaged in a fight with their Muslim adversaries. The Ràjput king is taken captive and murdered. His fearless wife, Queen Nãldevã, disguises herself as a singer and penetrates the camp of the enemy. She recovers the corpse of the king in order to become a satã (a wife who burns herself on her husbandÙs funeral pyre). MâTHUR, JAGDI÷ CANDRA

Rãçh kã haóóã (Backbone), 1939 Umà and her family meet with øaïkar and his father to arrange the wedding between øaïkar and Umà. In the course of the conversation, father and son find out that Umà is educated and independent. They reject her as a potential bride. MI÷ RA, LAKúMäNâRâYâö

Sindår kã holã (The Vermilion Holi), 1934 Eighteen-year-old Manoramà is a widow. She was married when she was eight years old, and her much older husband died when she was ten. She loves Manoj÷aïkar but refuses to marry him, as she wants to uphold the Hindu ideal of widowhood.

102

Summary of Dramas

Twenty-year-old Candrakalà loves Rajnãkànt, who is married. She becomes a widow out of free will, symbolically marrying the unconscious Rajnãkànt at his deathbed by putting the unconscious manÙs hand on her head and applying sindår (vermilion). PRASâD, JAY÷ AðKAR

Dhruvasvàminã (Dhruvasvamini), 1933 Dhruvasvàminã is a princess and is married to King Ràmgupta of the Gupta dynasty (fourth century CE ). He is at war with øakaràj and gives his wife away to his adversary as a gift in order to appease him. His brother, Candragupta, saves young Dhruvasvàminã from disgrace and defeats øakaràj. At the suggestion of the purohit (Hindu priest), Candragupta becomes the new king and marries Dhruvasvàminã. R âK E ÷ , M O H A N

âùàçh kà ek din (One Day in the Month of âùàçh), 1958 Young Mallikà is in love with the poet Kàlidàsa. The young man leaves for the city in order to cultivate his talent, promising to return to his native village soon. In the city, he becomes famous, marries a princess, and does not go back to Mallikà and his village. Although rich and famous, Kàlidàsa is unhappy, and after many years he visits Mallikà. She cherishes his memory and still loves him. He finds out that she has a baby and abandons her again.

Glossary of Hindi and Sanskrit Words and Hindu Terms

abalà àdi màrg amãr bhakti Bràhmaõ dç÷ya de÷ã de÷ãvàd devadàsã Devã

Dharmaֈstra dvandva hindutva

a woman; the power of a weak, meek, and docile wife primordial way Muslim chieftain loving devotion to God the first and highest varõa: priests, scholars, counsellors scene (in a play) nativistic nativism female servant of the deity; a woman who was dedicated to temple service; a dancing-girl a name of the Goddess; a term for feminine divinity, often applied to the wife of øiva but to other goddesses as well; also designates the highest principle, imagined as female in general, the Hindu code of law (precepts) having religious sanction; or a specific work on law, such as the Manusmçti. conflict (in drama) Hindudom; Hindu qualities; Hindu identity; Hinduism

104

itihàsa jàtrà/yàtrà khàõó kàvya kùatriya Mahàbhàrata Manusmçti màtul màyà mokùa nàñya÷àstra nauñaïkã paõóit patidev pativrata pativratà patiyoga prahasana påjà Puràõas

Glossary

Úso it has been saidÛ; a generic term for traditional history, specifically applied to the Ràmàyaõa and the Mahàbhàrata popular dramatic form in Bengal featuring dance and song Sanskrit narrative poem not dealing with a heroic or sacred subject member of the second varõa: warrior, ruler, administrator, noble the Sanskrit epic poem describing the great war of the Bharatas, composed c. 300 BCE to 300 CE the most influential of all Hindu codes of law (moral precepts); it gives an elevated position to Bràhmaõs uncle supernatural power; illusion; the world as perceived by the senses (considered illusory) liberation dramatic theory (includes acting, dancing, and music); also the title of a work by Bharata Muni a type of folk-drama in the Brajbhàùà or Khaçã Bolã languages that treats legendary themes and includes music a learned scholar; a Bràhmaõ husband-god loyalty, fidelity, and devotion to the husband a faithful and devoted wife self-renunciation directed toward the husband a farce, satire, comedy Hindu worship, especially of an image, usually involving an offering of fruit, cooked food, water, incense, flowers, etc. a class of voluminous work in Sanskrit dealing with aspects of ancient Indian history, legend, mythology, or theology

Glossary

purohit puruù Ràjpåt

105

Hindu family priest man member of a loose grouping of Hindu communities equated ritually with the ancient kùatriyas Ràmàyaõa the deeds of Ràma; name of an epic poem composed in Sanskrit c. 200 BCE to 200 CE by the legendary sage Vàlmãki Ràmcaritmànas the version of the Ràm story composed in Avadhã by Tulsãdàs in the sixteenth century ràmlãlà a dramatic presentation of the deeds of Ràm staged during the Da÷ahrà festival of the first ten days of the month of â÷vin raïgma¤c the stage, the theatre ràslãlà KçùõaÙs round dance of love with the cowherd girls of Braj ÷àkta pertaining to øakti, the Goddess; worship of the Goddess; a devotee of the Goddess ÷akti inherent female power, strength, energy; the energy of a deity personified as his wife; also a name of the Goddess (øakti) øàktism pertaining to øàkta Hinduism; personified in a female divinity, it is a common feature of all forms of Hinduism; specifically, it designates the tradition in which the Goddess is identified with the supreme principle and worshipped in an exclusive way saügharù clash, conflict, struggle (in drama) sanàtanists adherents of traditional Hinduism sanginã female partner satã a wife who ascends the funeral pyre of her deceased husband satyàgraha truth-grasping; a term coined by Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa, describing his insistence on claiming his rights; described as the strength born out of truth, love, and non-violence

106

saubhàgya sindår smçti

÷çàddha strã strãdharma svaràjya tamà÷à tantra

titlã varõa

vide÷ã vidhavà viraha vãràïganà viyogànta vrata

Glossary

good fortune; fortunate or blessed state; happy state of a married woman vermillion what has been remembered; tradition as opposed to ÷ruti (revelation); all authoritative writings pertaining to Hindu tradition that are not ÷ruti, namely all works composed after the Veda, such as the epics and the Puràõas a Hindu ceremony in honour and for the benefit of deceased relatives, observed at fixed periods woman womenÙs dharma; the part of the Hindu lawbooks that deals specifically with the duties of women independent rule show, spectacle, entertaining dramatic form ritual, rule; the designation of a class of works connected to goddess worship; also a form of Hinduism in which ÷akti, the energy of Shiva, is worshipped butterfly the largest social unit, based on birth; the four varõas are Bràhmaõs (priests, scholars, counsellors), kùatriyas (warriors, rulers, administrators, nobles), vai÷yas (landowners, businesspeople, artisans), and ÷ådras (servants, landless labourers, menials) foreign a widow separation from a loved one; the anguish of separation heroic warrior woman; heroine ending in separation; a tragedy (drama) vow; religious rite or observance as enjoined by the gods or undertaken in devotion, such as

Glossary

yathàrth yàtrà/jàtrà yuvak

107

rituals often done by women to protect their households and family members; a fast reality, objectivity popular dramatic form in Bengal featuring dance and song a youth, young man

This page intentionally left blank

Notes

INTRODUCTION

1 The scope of this book does not allow me to deal with this issue. This could be the subject matter of a future study of the role that secular drama and film play in the changing social perceptions of religion and gender. Steve Dern‚, ÚMarket Forces at Work,Û 203, poses similar questions about the influence of secular Hindi film on Hindu religiosity. 2 Vasudha Narayanan, ÚBrimming with Bhakti, Embodiments of Shakti,Û 49–57. 3 On the reasons for choosing exactly these six playwrights and for a detailed study of their dramatic work, see Diana Dimitrova, Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre, 11–38. 4 See chapter 2. 5 Vasudha DalmiaÙs most recent book on drama, Poetics, Plays and Performances (2006), 1–149, reveals intimate knowledge of my book Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre (2004) and of my PhD thesis, ÚUpendranàth A÷kÙs Dramatic Work: Women and Gender in Modern Hindi Drama and as Revealed in the Plays of Upendranàth A÷kÛ (2000). Dalmia refers to my work only once, on page 142, when she discusses the work of Upendranàth A÷k.

110

Notes to pages xii–4

6 Dimitrova, Western Tradition, 39–51. 7 See Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrich von Stietencron, eds, Representing Hinduism, 142–54. 401–19. 420–41. 442–67; Monika Thiel-Horstmann, ed., Ràmàyaõa and Ràmàyaõas, 9–27. 153–68. 169–84. 185–205. 207–28; and Paula Richman, ed., Many Ràmàyaõas. 8 On nativistic theatre, street theatre, and women directors of the 1990s, see Nandi Bhatia, Acts of Authority/Acts of Resistance; Dalmia, Poetics; and Aparna Bhargava Dharwadker, Theatres of Independence. CHAPTER ONE

1 Based on Vasudha Dalmia, The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions, 300–11; P. Gaeffke, Hindi Literature in the 20th Century, vol. 8.5, 93–104; R.L. Handa, A History of Hindi Language and Literature, 369–87; Nemicandra Jain, âdhunik hindã nàñak aur raïgma¤c, 120–34. 191–209; Nemicandra Jain, Úâdhunik hindã nàñak,Û 83–101; Nemicandra Jain, Indian Theatre; Rãtà Kumàr, Svàtantryottar hindã nàñak, 13–48; Girish Karnad, ÚTheatre in India,Û 331–53; Vacandev Kumàr, ed., Hindã nàñak; Sarat Babu Manchi, Indian Drama Today; S. Potabenko, ÚK istorii razvitija sceni‡eskoj dramaturgii i teatra chindustani,Û 105–48; S. Potabenko, Dramaturgija chindi v borÙbe za svobodu i nezavisimostÙ Indii; and N.A. Vi÷nevskaja, Indijskaja odnoaktnaja drama. 2 See Kathryn Hansen, Grounds for Play, 41. 3 See Gaeffke, Hindi Literature, vol. 8.5, 94–5. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Some of the most famous Parsi companies (e.g., Orijinal Vikñoriya, Empres Vikñoriya, Elphinsñan Thiyeñrikal Kampanã, Alphred Thiyeñrikal, and Nyå Alphred Kampanã) were established in Mumbai (Bombay), Lucknow, Varanasi, and Delhi, among other cities. They travelled from place to

Notes to pages 4–9

7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17

18

111

place in order to perform Hindi plays; see Gaeffke, Hindi Literature, vol. 8.5, 94–5. For a very informative study of the Parsi theatre, see Anuradha Kapur, ÚThe Representation of Gods and Heroes in the Parsi Mythological Drama of the Early Twentieth Centry,Û 401–19. See Hansen, Grounds for Play, 72–82. See Gaeffke, Hindi Literature, vol. 8.5, 94–5. See Hansen, Grounds for Play, 73–9. Ibid., 73–83. Gaõe÷ âgàhasan ÚAmànatÛ LakhnavãÙs Indar Sabhà is considered the first noncommercial Hindi play. It was performed in the court of Vàjidalã÷àh (Wajid Ali Shah) in Lucknow in 1853. It became so popular that many other ÚsabhàsÛ appeared shortly afterward, among them MadàrãlàlÙs Indarsabhà, Daryàã Indarsabhà, and Havàã Indarsabhà. They were all written for what Hari÷candra considers the unpretentious Parsi stage; see Bhàratendu Hari÷candra, ÚBhåmikà,Û in Andher nagarã, 8. On naturalistic Hindi drama and Western influence, see Diana Dimitrova, Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre. See Karnad, ÚTheatre in India,Û 331–53. Ibid., 336. On the dramas Carandàs Cor and Jasmà Oçàn, see Vasudha Dalmia, Poetics, Plays and Performances, 258–68. 192–3. See also my discussion of similar issues in Diana Dimitrova, ÚThe Indian Character of Modern Hindi Drama, 173–83. I have introduced the terms Úneo-SanskriticÛ and ÚproWestern naturalisticÛ in order to refer to aspects of dramaturgy, ideology, and influence; see Dimitrova, Western Tradition, 11–13. On Western influence and especially on the importance of Henrik Ibsen, see Dimitrova, Western Tradition; and Vi÷vanàth Mi÷ra, Hindã nàñak par pà÷càtya prabhàv, 53–187, 269–409. I use the critical term ÚinfluenceÛ to designate the affiliative relations between past and present literary texts

112

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Notes to pages 9–15

and/or their authors. I do not refer either to Harold BloomÙs series of studies on the Úanxiety of influenceÛ or to the six tropological strategies (clinamen, tessera, kenosis, daemonization, askesis, and apophrades) that he proposes for studying the authorÙs act of repressing/misleading his precursor. See Louis A. Renza, ÚInfluence,Û 186–203. See Dimitrova, Western Tradition, 59–100. See Kenneth Jones, Arya Dharm, 68. Ibid., 72. Ibid., 87. Ibid., 88. Ibid., 215. Ibid., 218. A brief summary of the plots of all Hindi dramas discussed in this book can be found in the appendix, ÚSummary of Dramas.Û On modernism and Henrik IbsenÙs play A DollÙs House, see Toril Moi, Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism, 224–47. Ràje÷var Bedàr and Ràjkumàr øarmà, eds, Bhuvane÷var Sàhitya, 45–51, 53–61, 87–93, 95–103. On the death of tragedy and the reincarnation of the male hero in the female heroine in modern Hindi drama, see chapter 5. On the progressivist movement in Hindi literature and Upendranàth A÷k, see Dimitrova, Western Tradition, 42–6. See Partha Chatterjee, ÚThe Nationalist Resolution of the WomenÙs Question,Û 238–40. CHAPTER TWO

1 See Tracy Pintchman, The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition, 201–14; Alf Hiltebeitel and Kathleen M. Erndl, eds, Is the Goddess a Feminist?; Rita M. Gross, ÚHindu Female Deities as a Resource for the Contemporary Rediscovery of the Goddess,Û 217–30; and Nancy Auer Falk and Rita M. Gross, eds, Unspoken Worlds, 277.

Notes to pages 15–19

113

2 On the conservative representation of women in magazines, see Shoma A. Chatterji, Indian Woman in Perspective, 197–203. 3 See Vasudha Narayanan, ÚBrimming with Bhakti, Embodiments of Shakti,Û 25–77; Katherine Young, ÚHinduism,Û 59–103; Katherine Young, ÚWomen in Hinduism,Û 77–135; Katherine Young, ÚUpholding Norms of Hindu Womanhood,Û 171–98; and Laurie Patton, ed., Jewels of Authority, 3–10. 4 For an examination of how women present their views on Sãtà and her story in oral versions of the Ràmàyaõa epic, see Velcheru Narayana Rao, ÚA Ràmàyaõa of Their Own,Û 114–36. 5 T.S. Rukmani makes a similar reference in her foreword to Patton, ed., Jewels of Authority, ix. Kathleen M. Erndl, ÚIs Shakti Empowering for Women?Û 96, sees no contradiction between these two passages in the Manusmçti, arguing that Úthey recognize womenÙs power and propose to control it for patriarchal purposes.Û 6 See Sally J. Sutherland Goldman, ÚThe Voice of Sãtà in VàlmãkiÙs Sundarakàõóa,Û 223–38. 7 See Stephanie W. Jamison, Sacrificed Wife, SacrificerÙs Wife, 16–17. 8 See Madhu Kishwar, ÚYes to Sita, No to Ram,Û 285–309. For a discussion of similar issues related to the reception of Ràm and Sãtà in India, see Linda Hess, ÚRejecting Sita,Û 1–32. 9 Young, ÚHinduism,Û 94, notes that much of GandhiÙs ideology of satyàgraha (truth-grasping) was derived from the concept of abalà. 10 On female bhakti poets and saints, see A.K. Ramanujan, ÚOn Women Saints,Û 316–24; Uma Chakravarti, ÚThe World of Bhaktin in South Indian Traditions,Û 299–321; and the special triple issue of Manushi, nos 50–2 (1989). On devadàsãs, see Amrit Srinivasan, ÚReform or Conformity?Û 175–98. On female asceticism, see Lynn Teskey Denton, ÚVarieties of

114

Notes to page 19

Hindu Female Asceticism,Û 211–33; and Meena Khandelwal, Women in Ochre Robes. On women in the øaiva ethos, see Sanjukta Gupta, ÚWomen in the øaiva/øàkta Ethos,Û 193–209. 11 On the distinction between Devã, Úthe control-free, nonSanskritic version of the female principle in India,Û and the Spouse Goddess, Úthe control-defined Sanskritic version of the female principle,Û see Lynn E. Gatwood, Devã and the Spouse Goddess, 1–7. Stanley Kurtz, All the Mothers Are One, 20–6, argues that a motherly-unmotherly model is to be taken into account and that the marriage-control model is to be re-evaluated when discussing the nature of the Hindu goddesses. For an excellent discussion of Hindu goddesses, see also David R. Kinsley, Hindu Goddesses; Carl Olson, ed., The Book of the Goddess Past and Present; John Stratton Hawley and Donna Marie Wulff, eds, Devã: Goddesses of India; and John Stratton Hawley and Donna Marie Wulff, eds, The Divine Consort. 12 Throughout this book, I use the Sanskrit name ÚDevãÛ (singular) to refer to the Great Goddess as opposed to ÚDevãÛ (plural), which refers to the goddesses of India (i.e., the Spouse Goddess, the female consorts of the male Hindu gods, and village goddesses). Tracy Pintchman, The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition, 2–16, argues that the concept of Úthe Great Goddess develops over time as a result of the blending of Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical religious tendencies and divinities. Yet the essential identity of the Great Goddess as ÛGreatÛ appears to be constructed at least initially largely in and by the Brahmanical tradition.Û 13 The concept of ÷akti is complex and warrants further clarification. It is understood as the creative energy that generates and continues to activate the universe. It is conceived as female and often personified as the consort of a male deity (i.e., as the Spouse Goddess) or as the independent Goddess (Devã).

Notes to pages 19–27

115

14 See Kathleen M. Erndl, ÚThe Goddess and WomenÙs Power,Û 17–38; Mary Hancock, ÚThe Dilemmas of Domesticity,Û 60– 91; and Madhu Khanna, ÚThe Goddess-Women Equation in øàkta Tantras,Û 109–23. 15 See Mary McGee, ÚIn Quest of Saubhàgya,Û 147–70; and Holly Baker Reynolds, ÚThe Auspicious Married Woman,Û 35–60. For a new perspective on female auspiciousness, see Fr‚d‚rique Apffel Marglin, ÚFemale Sexuality in the Hindu World,Û 35–9. 16 See Gross, ÚHindu Female Deities,Û 217–30; and Rachel Fell McDermott, ÚThe Western Kali,Û 281–313. 17 See Cynthia Ann Humes, ÚIs the Devi Mahatmya a Feminist Scripture?Û 133, 138–9; Erndl, ÚIs Shakti Empowering for Women?Û 96; and Pintchman, Rise of the Goddess, 201–14. 18 Klaus K. Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism, 368. 19 See Kim Knott, Hinduism, 40–9; and Young, ÚUpholding Norms,Û 171–98. CHAPTER THREE

1 See Diana Dimitrova, ÚOf Satis, Sitas and Miras,Û 66–78. 2 Ibid. 3 On Hari÷candraÙs formation as a playwright, see Vasudha Dalmia, The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions, 300–14. Dalmia analyzes two of Hari÷candraÙs earlier plays, Prem joginã (The Yoginã of Love, 1874–75) and Viùasya viùamauùadham (Poison Is the Antidote of Poison, 1876). On Hari÷candraÙs role in the establishment of a national Hindu theatre, see Vasudha Dalmia, ÚA National Theatre for the Hindus,Û 181–206. 4 Kathryn Hansen, Grounds for Play, 189. Cyntia Ann Humes, ÚIs the Devi Mahatmya a Feminist Scripture?Û 133, 138–9, draws on the image of the vãràïganà to analyze the warriorlike bahaviour of the Goddess in the Devã-Màhàtmya. 5 Jay÷aïkar Prasàd, ÚRaïgma¤c.Û

116

Notes to pages 27–31

6 See P. Gaeffke, Hindi Literature in the 20th Century, vol. 8.5, 96–9. 7 On the importance of Kalidasa and Shakespeare and the links established to them in the light of the politics of the creation of a national Indian theatre, see Nandi Bhatia, Acts of Authority/Acts of Resistance, 51–75; and Vasudha Dalmia, Poetics, Plays and Performances, 41–9. 8 Prasàd, ÚRaïgma¤c,Û107–8. 9 See Rãtà Kumàr, Svàtantryottar hindã nàñak, 14–19; Diana Dimitrova, Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre, 11–13. 10 PrasàdÙs play Candragupta (Candragupta, 1931) presents women as actively engaged in the fight for IndiaÙs independence from the Greeks. It is an allegory of the national Independence movement against the British. Women are portrayed as courageous and capable of self-sacrifice. See Dimitrova, Western Tradition, 15–20. 11 Prasàd, ÚRaïgma¤c,Û 98–9. 12 Alf Hiltebeitel, ÚDraupadiÙs Question,Û 118, points to Gayatri Chakravorty SpivakÙs discussion of male lordship, the question of territoriality, and the figure of the exchanged woman in his discussion of DraupadãÙs question and Mahasveta DeviÙs Bengali short story Draupadi. See Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, In Other Worlds, 219–20. 13 Mi÷ra wrote many historical plays, which differed dramaturgically from those of Prasàd mainly in the absence of songs and in the fact that they consisted of only three acts. See, for example, the historical plays Da÷à÷vamedha (The Vedic Sacrifice of Ten Horses, 1950) and A÷vamedha (The Vedic Horse-Sacrifice, 1966). 14 The scope of this book does not allow me to consider the dramatic oeuvre of Ràmkumàr Varmà, whose most representative works are historical one-act plays, and of Dharmvãr Bhàrtã, who wrote the famous lyrical drama Andhà yug (The Blind Age, 1954). Bhàrtã employs devices of traditional folk

Notes to pages 32–46

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

117

theatre. Thus Andhà yug belongs to a different dramaturgical genre than is treated here. On Andhà yug, see Dalmia, Poetics, 194–5. Mi÷raÙs play Sanyàsã is interesting with reference to the interpretation of womenÙs issues; see Dimitrova, Western Tradition, 20–2. Mi÷raÙs play Sindår kã holã also touches on the issue of corruption in contemporary Indian society. See Julia Leslie, ÚThe Duties Common to all Women,Û 273–88. See Vasudha Dalmia, ÚNeither Half nor Whole,Û 189. On Ràke÷Ùs drama âdhe adhåre, see Diana Dimitrova, ÚThe Treatment of Women and Gender in the Plays âùàçh kà ek din and âdhe adhåre by Mohan Ràke÷ (1925–1972),Û 177–88. See Konrad Meisig, ÚKàlidàsaÙs Life and Works as Reflected in Mohan Ràke÷Ùs Play âùàçh kà ek din,Û 296. Ibid. See Mohan Ràke÷, âùàçh kà ek din, 96. See Dimitrova, ÚOf Satis, Sitas and Miras,Û 66–78; and Dimitrova, Western Tradition, 28–31. Jagdã÷candra Màthur, ÚRãçh kã haóóã,Û in Upendranàth A÷k, ed., Pratinidhi ekàïkã, 141–56. UmàÙs father behaves in this way because according to Hindu tradition, the girlÙs family is considered inferior to the boyÙs family at the marriage negotiations. See Madhu Kishwar and Ruth Vanita, ÚPoison to Nectar,Û 75–93. The interpretation of gender in Bhuvane÷varÙs work is far more complex; see Dimitrova, Western Tradition, 22–8. Modern drama criticism postulates the opposition of action and situation as one of the differences between the full-length and the one-act play; see Gerhard Neumann, ÚEinakter,Û in Dieter Borchmeyer and Viktor Zmegac, eds, Moderne Literatur in Grundbegriffen, 102–9. Nevertheless, there are many one-act plays that differ from their full-length counterparts

118

Notes to pages 50–3

only in the different number of scenes and acts. For instance, many of MàthurÙs, Ràmkumàr VarmàÙs, and A÷kÙs one-act plays disclose actions, not situations. Therefore, Bhuvane÷varÙs approach is innovative. CHAPTER FOUR

1 Vasudha Narayanan, ÚBrimming with Bhakti, Embodiments of Shakti,Û 65. 2 Upendranàth A÷k, Kaid aur uçàn. This work consists of two independent plays, Kaid and Uçàõ, which have always been published together by A÷k because of their similarity in theme. Although the plots and dramatic figures are totally different, the two plays can be handled as two aspects of one drama. In this study, Kaid and Uçàn will be treated separately, as independent works. They were first published in 1947 in the Maktabà-e-urdå (Urdu Library) series with the Urdu titles Kaid-e-hayàt (Kaid) and Parvàz (Uçàn). Kaid was the first Indian play chosen for broadcast by Inter-Station Play in 1958, accepted into the National Programme of All India Radio, and translated into the official Indian languages. It was broadcast by all stations of All India Radio in India. See Upendranàth A÷k, Paccãs ÷reùñh ekàïkã, 194; and Upendranàth A÷k, ÚPrasaïgva÷,Û in Lauñtà huà din. The world premiŠre was produced by Satyvrat Sinhàs in 1962 at Prayàg Raïgma¤c in O. òã. Es. Hall in Allahabad (A÷k, ÚPrasaïgva÷,Û 16). The drama Lauñtà huà din (Returning Days, 1972) is a revised version of Kaid. 3 Upendranàth A÷k, Alag alag ràste. The world premiŠre was at Lakùmã Palace Theatre in Allahabad in 1953. This full-length play is a revised version of A÷kÙs one-act play âdi màrg, first published in 1943. The full-length version was broadcast on Soviet television in 1958. A Russian translation is available, entitled Puti razchodjatsja: PÙesa v treh dejstvijah, trans. I. Kudrevceva and I. Rabinovi‡.

Notes to pages 54–64

119

4 This is the climax of the play, which is intensified by the stylistic device of dramatic irony. The audience is familiar with the story of RàjÙs unhappy marriage through her conversation with her sister in the previous scene. This information, however, remains unknown to Tàràcand. When the news of MadanÙs second marriage is announced, the audience anticipates who is truly involved, whereas Tàràcand and his guests are taken by surprise. A÷k uses dramatic irony to intensify the dramatic conflict and to sustain the suspense. In another sense, this technique enables him to expose the absurdity of TàràcandÙs arguments, to show the playwrightÙs distance from the old paõóitsÙ views concerning marriage and happiness, and to evoke the audienceÙs critical reaction. 5 Påran is the only male protagonist in A÷kÙs plays who is not portrayed as an oppressor. It is no coincidence that this single exception in the authorÙs work, which shows man as a selfless emancipator, is the protagonistÙs brother, not her husband. 6 This is a reference to the sati rite, in which the widowed wife burns herself on her husbandÙs funeral pyre. 7 It should be pointed out that womenÙs fate in A÷kÙs plays is always defined by others: first by the father, then by the husband. The dramatist invests the play with realistic features by implying that RànãÙs way into independence could be successful, as it will be supported by her brother. Thus the moderately emancipatory quality of the play takes into account the objective reality of Indian society. 8 Jagdã÷candra Màthur, ÚRãçh kã haóóã,Û 141–56. 9 Surendrapàl, ÚBhaüvar: Ek vivecnàtmak paricay,Û 9–48. 10 The original version of the drama is the one-act play A¤jo Dãdã (1943), published in the collection âdi màrg: Càr sàmàjik nàñakoü ke raïgma¤c saüskaraõ. In 1955 A÷k reworked the drama into a full-length play of the same name. The play was staged in London, Tokyo, Allahabad, and Patna. In March 1980 A÷k produced it for the Delhi TV centre.

120

Notes to pages 66–85

Because of its success, it was televised by all Indian TV centres. See Satã÷candra ørãvàstav, ÚA¤jo Dãdã,Û 144. 11 See, for example, Kamle÷var, ÚA¤jo Dãdã,Û 5–18; and Sådhãndra Kumàr, ÚA¤jo Dãdã,Û 109–141. ørãvàstav, ÚA¤jo Dãdã,Û 113–44, assumes a different stance by pointing to the flaws in ørãpatÙs character as well. CHAPTER FIVE

1 Manfred Pfister, Das Drama. 2 Mieke Bal, Narratology, 132. 3 Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 29–31; Bal, Narratology, 131–2. 4 Whereas the decisive event in conflict- or goal-oriented drama takes place only toward the end of the action that is presented scenically, in analytical drama this event has happened before the beginning of the presented action. In this sense, the progression of the action serves to reveal this past event. 5 Pfister, Das Drama, 176–81. 6 Ibid., 180. 7 Ibid., 225–50. 8 A÷k also reflects on this subject matter in the drama Alag alag ràste. While MadanÙs marriage to Sudar÷an is shown to be immoral because of the unfair treatment of Ràj, the union of the two fellow students represents a spiritual and intellectual friendship between the two partners. Màthur discusses the nature of marriage along similar lines in his play Rãçh kã haóóã (1939). 9 On characterization techniques, see Pfister, Das Drama, 184– 96; Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 29–42, 70; and Bal, Narratology, 114–32. 10 Whereas a narrative text consists of three communication systems – external, mediating, and internal – a dramatic text operates only with external and internal systems. On the

Notes to pages 88–95

121

difference between the communication systems of dramatic and narrative texts, see Pfister, Das Drama, 20–2; and Diana Dimitrova, Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre, 54–5. CONCLUSION

1 See Diana Dimitrova, Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre, 11–37. 2 Ibid., 22–7. 3 See Ràje÷var Bedàr and Ràjkumàr øarmà, eds, Bhuvane÷var Sàhitya, 43–51, 63–72, 87–94, 97–103. 4 Bhalchandra Nemade introduced the term ÚnativismÛ in his essay in the Marathi language ÚSahityateel DeshiyataÛ (1983). For more information, see Makarand Paranjape, ed., Nativism: Essays in Criticism. 5 See Prasanna, ÚA Critique of Nativism in Contemporary Indian Theatre,Û 95–101. 6 Prasanna mentions Sure÷ Avàsthã and Nemicandra Jain; see ibid, 95. 7 Ibid., 95–101. 8 Ibid., 99–100. 9 Upendranàth A÷k, ÚHindã ekàïkã aur jãvant raïgma¤c,Û 9. 10 See Dimitrova, Western Tradition, 22–8. 11 See Shoma A. Chatterji, Subject: Cinema, Object: Woman, 208. 12 See Shoma A. Chatterji, The Indian Woman in Perspective, 193–208; Chatterji, Subject: Cinema; and Katherine Young, ÚUpholding Norms of Hindu Womanhood,Û 171–98. 13 Young, ÚUpholding Norms,Û 171–98; Kathryn Hansen, ÚTraditional Media and the Construction of Gender,Û 207–19. 14 See Chatterji, Indian Woman, 204. 15 Young, ÚUpholding Norms,Û 188. 16 Ibid., 178–90. 17 John Stratton Hawley, ÚIntroduction,Û in John Stratton Hawley, ed., Fundamentalism and Gender, 25–7.

122

Notes to pages 96–8

18 Mary McGee, ÚIntroduction,Û in Julia Leslie and Mary McGee, eds, Invented Identities, 3–8. 19 Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, eds, Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament. 20 See Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments, 116–57. See also Partha Chatterjee, ÚThe Nationalist Resolution of the WomenÙs Question,Û and my discussion of this essay in chapter 1. 21 In 1772 Warren Hastings asked ten paõóits (Bràhmaõs, learned scholars) to compile a unified digest of Hindu civil law. They recorded the conservative precepts of the Manusmçti, to which they adhered, as representative of all Hindu varõas. See Katherine Young, ÚWomen in Hinduism,Û 79. 22 Ibid., 134. 23 Vasudha Narayanan, ÚBrimming with Bhakti, Embodiments of Shakti,Û 65.

Bibliography

PRIMARY SOURCES IN HINDI

A÷k, Upendranàth. âdi màrg: Càr sàmàjik nàñakoü kà raïgma¤c saüskaraõ. 1943. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1961. – Alag alag ràste. 1954. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1986. – A¤jo Dãdã; Do aïkoü kà ek sàmàjik nàñak. 1955. Reprint, Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1983. – Bhaüvar. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1961. – Carvàhe. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1961. – Jay paràjay. 1937. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1984. – Kaid aur uçàn. 1950. Ilàhàbàd: Nãëàbh, 1972. – ÚKhiçkã.Û In Carvàhe, 127–45. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1961. – Lauñtà huà din. 1972. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1983. – Mere priya ekàïkã. Ilàhàbàd: Racnà, 1975. – Mere ÷reùñh raïg ekàïkã. Nayã Dillã: Ne÷anal, 1978. – Paccãs ÷reùñh ekàïkã. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1969. – ÚPrasaïgva÷.Û In Lauñtà huà din. 1972. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1983. 5–26. – Svarg kã jhalak. 1939. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1971. – ÚTaulie.Û In Paccãs ÷reùñh ekàïkã, 79–102. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1969. – ed. Naye raïg ekàïkã: Sàt naye ekàïkiyoü kà saïgrah. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1956.

124

Bibliography

– ed. Pratinidhi ekàïkã. 1950. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1969. Bedàr, Ràje÷var, and Ràjkumàr øarmà, eds. Bhuvane÷var Sàhitya. øahjahàüpur: Bhuvane÷var Prasàd ÷odh sansthàn, 1992. Bhàrtã, Dhamvãr. Andhà yug. Ilàhàbàd: Kitàb Mahal, 1967. Bhuvane÷var. ÚSñràãk.Û In Ràje÷var Bedàr and Ràjkumàr øarmà, eds, Bhuvane÷var Sàhitya, 105–17. øahjahàüpur: Bhuvane÷var Prasàd ÷odh sansthàn, 1992. Gàndhã, øàntà. Jasmà Oçàn. Naã Dillã: Ràdhàkçùõa, 1984. Hari÷candra, Bhàratendu. Andher nagarã. Naã Dillã: øàrdà Prakà÷an, 1978. – Nãldevã. 1881. Reprint, Dillã: Ràje÷ Prakà÷an, 1977. Màthur, Jagdã÷candra. Mere ÷reùñh raïg ekàïkã. Dillã: Ne÷anal, 1972. – ÚRãçh kã haóóã.Û In Upendranàth Aùk, ed., Pratinidhi ekàïkã, 140–58. 1950. Reprint, Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1969. Mi÷ra, Lakùmãnàràyaõ. Sanyàsã. 1929. Reprint, Nayã Dillã: Vàõã, 1993. – Sindår kã holã. 1934. Reprint, Ilàhàbàd: Bhàrtã Bhaõóar, 1961. Prasàd, Jay÷aïkar. Candragupta. Ilàhàbàd: Bhàrtã Bhaõóar, 1960. – Dhruvasvàminã. 1933. Reprint, Ilàhàbàd: Bhàrtã Bhaõóàr, 1962. Ràke÷, Mohan. âdhe adhåre. 1969. Nayã Dillã: Ràdhàkçùõa, 1985. – âùàçh kà ek din. 1958. Dillã: Ràjpàl eõó sanz, 1963. – Lahroü ke ràjhaüs. Nayã Dillã: Ràjkamal, 1990. Tanvãr, Habãb. Carandàs Cor. Nayã Dillã: Pustakàyana, 1988. PRIMARY SOURCES IN SANSKRIT AND TRANSLATIONS

Devã-Bhàgavata Puràõa. Banaras: Paõóita Pustakàlaya, 1969. The Shri Mad Devi Bhagavatam. Trans. Swami Vijnanananda. Sacred Books of the Hindus, vol. 26, parts 1–4. 1921–23. Reprint. New York: AMS Press, 1974. Devã-Màhàtmya: The Glorification of the Great Goddess. Trans. Vasudeva S. Agrawala. Sanskrit text with English translation. Banaras: All-India Kishiraj Trust, 1963.

Bibliography

125

Mahàbhàrata. Ed. Vishnu S. Sukthankar, S.K. Belvalkar, and P.L. Vaidya. 19 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1933–59. The Mahabharata. Ed. and trans. J.A.B. van Buitenen. Books 1–5. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973–78. The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa. Trans. Pratap Chandra Roy. 12 vols. Calcutta: Oriental Publishing Co., 1883–96. Manu-Smçti with the ÚManubhàùyaÛ of Medhàtithi. Ed. Gaïgànàtha Jhà. Bibliotheca Indica, no. 256. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1932–39. The Laws of Manu, Translated with Extracts from Seven Commentaries. Trans. G. Buehler. Sacred Books of the East, vol. 25. 1886. Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988. The Laws of Manu. Trans. Wendy Doniger, with Brian K. Smith. New York: Penguin, 1991. Ràmàyaõa. Ed. J.M. Mehta et al. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1960. The Ramayana of Valmiki. Trans. Hari Prasad Shastri. 3 vols. London: Shantisadan, 1957–62. Ràmcaritmànas by Tulsãdàs. Gorakhpur: Gãtàpress, 1968. PRIMARY SOURCES IN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Cekhov, Anton P. Polnoe sobranoe socinenij i pisem v 30 tomah. Vols 12–13. Moskva: Nauka, 1980. Ibsen, Henrik. Four Major Plays. Trans. Rolf Fjelde. Vol. 1. New York: The New American Libraray, 1965. Shaw, Bernard. The Complete Plays of Bernard Shaw. London: Hamlyn, 1965. Strindberg, August. Dramen in drei Baenden. Trans. Artur Bethke and Anne Strom. Ed. Arthur Bethke. Vols 1–3. Muenchen: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1984.

126

Bibliography SECONDARY SOURCES IN HINDI

A÷k, Upendranàth. ÚHindã ekàïkã aur jãvant raïgma¤c: Ek gahrã óhalàn ke donoü chor.Û In Paccãs ÷reùñh ekàïkã, 1–32. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1969. – ÚMere ekàïkiyoü meü vyaïgya kà srot.Û In Mukçà badal gayà, 13–29. Ilàhàbàd: Anàmikà, 1980. Bedã, Suùam. Hindã nàñya, prayog ke sandarbh meü. Dillã: Paràg Prakà÷an, 1984. Bhàratã, Dharmvãr. ÚVyàkhyà.Û In Upendranàth A÷k, Kaid aur uçàn, 13–33. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1972. Bhàñã, Karõa Siüh. Lakùmãnàràyaõ Mi÷ra ke samasyà nàñakoü kà svaråp vi÷leùaõ. Nàgpur: Vi÷vabhàratã, 1981. – Samasyà nàñakkàr Lakùmã Nàràyaõ Mi÷ra. Naã Dillã: Takùa÷ilà, 1976. Jain, Nemicandra. âdhunik hindã nàñak aur raïgma¤c. Dillã: Maikmilan Kampanã, 1978. – Úâdhunik hindã nàñak: Pratimàn kà anve÷aõ.Û âlocnà (JulySeptember 1967): 83–101. – Janàntik. Hàpuç: Saübhàvnà, 1981. – ÚMohan Ràke÷ kã nàñya-bhàùà.Û Nañraïg (October-December 1972): 33–43. – ÚNàñak kà adhyayan.Û âjkal (April 1963): 15–30. – Raïg paramparà: Bhàratãya nàñya meü nirantartà aur badlàv. Nayã Dillã: Vàõã, 1996. Kàlà, Mãnàkùã. Prayogdharmã nàñakkàr Jagdã÷candra Màthur. Naã Dillã: øàrdà, 1983. Kamle÷var. ÚA¤jo Dãdã: Ek målyàïkan.Û In Upendranàth A÷k, A¤jo Dãdã, 5–18. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1983. Kathåriyà, Sundarlàl. Prasàdottar svàtantrya-pårva hindã nàñak. Dillã: Vikram, 1989. Kumàr, Rãtà. Svàtantryottar hindã nàñak: Mohan Ràke÷ ke vi÷eù sandarbh meü. Bambaã: Vibhå, 1980. Kumàr, Sudhãndra. ÚA¤jo Dãdã.Û In Sudhãndra Kumàr, Hindã nàñak: Paramparà aur prayog. 109–41. Dillã: Sa¤jay, 1998.

Bibliography

127

Kumàr, Vacandev. Hindã nàñak: 1960 ke bàd. Pañnà: Vibhå, 1982. Kumàr, Vinay. Hindã ke samasyà nàñak. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1968. Làl, Lakùmãnàràyaõ. âdhunik hindã nàñak aur raïgma¤c. Ilàhàbàd: Sàhitya Bhavan, 1973. Madàn, Indranàth. Hindã nàñak aur raïgma¤c. Dillã: Lipi, 1975. Mahendra, Ràmcaraõ. ÚØA÷kÙ ke sàmàjik vyaïgya.Û Kalpnà (December 1951): 81–7. – Ekàïkã aur ekàïkãkàr. Nayã Dillã: Vàõã, 1989. Màthur, Jagdã÷candra. Nàñakkàr A÷k. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1954. Mi÷ra, ânand Màdhav. ÚHindã ekàïkã sàhitya meü yathàrthavàd.Û Nayà path (March 1955): 243–6. Mi÷ra, Satyaprakà÷, ed. Sçjan aur parive÷. Ilàhàbàd: Ilàhàbàd Saïgrahàlay, 1997. Mi÷ra, Sàvitrã, ed. Pratij¤à Pratãk: Upendra Nàth ÛA÷kÛ par kendrit. N.p., 1998. Mi÷ra, Ume÷ Candra. Lakùmãnàràyaõ Mi÷ra ke nàñak. Ilàhàbàd: Hindã sàhitya, 1959. Mi÷ra, Vi÷vanàth. Hindã nàñak par pà÷càtya prabhàv. Ilàhàbàd: Lokbhàratã, 1966. Ojhà, Da÷rath. Hindã nàñak: Udbhav aur vikàs. Dillã: Ràjpàl eõó sanz, 1995. Ojhà, Màndhàtà. Hindã samasyà nàñak. Dillã: Ne÷anal, 1968. Pàlãvàl, Rãtàrànã. Raïgma¤c: Nayà paridç÷ya. Naã Dillã: Lipi, 1980. Prasàd, Jay÷aïkar. ÚRaïgma¤c.Û In Kàvya aur kalà tathà anya nibandh, 92–108. Ilàhàbàd: Bhàrtã Bhaõóàr, 1958. Premlatà. âdhunik hindã nàñak aur bhàùà kã sçjan÷ãltà. Ilàhàbàd: Lokbhàratã, 1993. Raghuvaü÷. ÚHindã ekàïkã meü madhya-varg kã samasyà.Û Ajantà (December 1955): 9–14. Ràke÷, Mohan. Sàhitya aur sanskçti. Nayã Dillã: Ràdhàkçùõa, 1990. Rastogã, Girã÷. Hindã nàñak: Siddhànt aur vivecan. Kànpur: Grantham, 1967.

128

Bibliography

ÚRatne÷,Û Ràmà÷ray. Hindã nàñakoü meü naitik cetnà kà vikàs. Kànpur: Vidyà vihàr, n.d. Rày, Lakùmã. âdhunik hindã nàñak: Caritra sçùñi ke àyàm. 1979. Reprint, Naã Dillã: Takùa÷ilà, 1989. Rày, Naranàràyaõ. Jagdã÷candra Màthur kã nàñyasçùñi. Naã Dillã: Kàdambarã, 1988. øarmà, Omprakà÷. Svàtantryottar hindã raïgma¤c. Kànpur: Atul, 1994. øarmà, Ràjkumàr, ed. Bhåvane÷var: Vyaktitva evaü kçtitva. Lakhnaå: Uttar Prade÷ Hindã saüsthàn, 1992. øarmà, Ràmjanma. Svàtantryottar hindã nàñak 1947 se 1984 tak. Ilàhàbàd: Lokbhàratã, 1985. øarmà, Sårajkànt. Hindã nàñak meü pàtra-kalpnà aur caritracitraõ. Dillã: Es. I. Es. Buk Kampanã, 1975. øarmà, øyàm. âdhunik hindã nàñakoü meü nàyak. Naã Dillã: Abhinav, 1978. Sàñhe, Gajanan. ÚØAlag alag ràsteÙ par ...Û Ràùñravàõã (January 1959): 53–60. Siüh, Es. Pi. ÚA÷k ke nàñak aur ekàïkã.Û âjkal (April 1966): 32–6. Siüh, Umà÷aïkar. Hindã ke samasyà nàñak. Ilàhàbàd: ærjà, 1978. – Samasyà nàñakkàr A÷k. Vàràõasã: Sa¤jay Buk Senñar, 1982. Sisaudhiyà, Malphàusiüh. âdhunik hindã nàñakoü meü nàyak evaü nàyikà kã parikalpnà. âgrà: Pragati, 1978. ørãvàstav, Satã÷candra. ÚA¤jo Dãdã: Ek målyàïkan. Aitihàsik paripàr÷av.Û In Upendranàth A÷k, A¤jo Dãdã, 113–44. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1983. øukla, Sure÷candra. âdhunik hindã nàñak. Naã Dillã: Lipi, 1981. Surendrapàl. ÚBhaüvar. Ek vivecnàtmak paricay.Û In Upendranàth A÷k, Bhaüvar, 9–48. Ilàhàbàd: Nãlàbh, 1961. Tanejà, Jaydev. âj ke hindã raïg nàñak: Parive÷ aur paridç÷ya. Naã Dillã: Takùa÷ilà, 1980. Tripàñhã, Narendranàth. Hindã nàñak. Badalte àyàm. Dillã: Vikram, 1987.

Bibliography

129

– Sàñhottar hindã nàñakoü meü strã-puruù sambandh. Nayã Dillã:

Sàrasvat, 1985. Vàndiveókar, Candrakànt. ÚAlag alag ràste.Û Ràùñravàõã (June 1957): 51–3. Varmà, Dine÷candra. Svàtantryottar hindã nàñak: Samasyàeü aur samàdhàn. Kànpur: Anubhav, 1987. Vàrùõey, Raghuvardayàl. Raïgma¤c kã bhåmikà aur hindã nàñak. Dillã: Vidyàrthã, 1995. Vinay, ed. Samkàlãn hindã nàñak aur raïgma¤c. Dillã: Bhàrtã Bhàùà, 1981. Yàdav, Ràjendra. ÚA¤jo Dãdã.Û J¤ànoday (January 1957): 94–6. SECONDARY SOURCES IN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Altekar, A.S. The Position of Women in Hindu Civilization. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1956. Appadurai, Arjun, ed. Gender, Genre and Power in South Asian Expressive Traditions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985. Bhatia, Nandi. Acts of Authority/Acts of Resistance: Theatre and Politics in Colonial and Postcolonial India. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. Borchmeyer, Dieter, and Viktor Zmegac, eds. Moderne Literatur in Grundbegriffen. Tuebingen: Niemeyer Verlag, 1994. Bose, Mandakranta, ed. The Ràmàyaõa Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Breckenridge, Carol A., and Peter van der Veer, eds. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Brown, C. Mackenzie. The Triumph of the Goddess. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990.

130

Bibliography

Brubaker, Richard L. ÚThe Untamed Goddesses of Village India.Û In Carl Olson, ed., The Book of the Goddess Past and Present, 145–60. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Chakravarti, Uma. ÚThe World of the Bhaktin in South Indian Traditions: The Body and Beyond.Û In Kumkum Roy, ed., Women in Early Indian Societies, 299–321. Delhi: Manohar, 1999. Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. – ÚThe Nationalist Resolution of the WomenÙs Question.Û In Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid, eds, Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History, 233–53. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press, 1990. Chatterji, Shoma A. The Indian Woman in Perspective. Delhi: Ajanta, 1993. – Subject: Cinema, Object: Woman: A Study of the Portrayal of Women in Indian Cinema. Calcutta: Parumita, 1998. Cixous, H‚lŠne. ÚThe Laugh of the Medusa.Û Trans. K. Cohen and P. Cohen. Signs 1 (1976): 875–94. Cl‚ment, Catherine, and Julia Kristeva. The Feminine and the Sacred. Trans. Jane Marie Todd. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Coburn, Thomas. ÚDevã: The Great Goddess.Û In John S. Hawley and Donna M. Wulff, eds, Devã: Goddesses of India, 39–48. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Cossio, Cecilia. ÚContradictions of the Feminine in the Writing of Mohan Ràke÷.Û In Mariola Offredi, ed., Literature, Language and the Media in India, 181–206. New Delhi: Manohar, 1992. Dalmia, Vasudha. The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions: Bhàratendu Hari÷candra and Nineteenth-Century Banaras. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997. – ÚA National Theatre for the Hindus: Hari÷candra of Banaras and the Classical Traditions in Late Nineteenth Century India.Û

Bibliography

131

In M. Offredi, ed., Literature, Language and the Media in India. New Delhi: Manohar, 1992. – ÚNeither Half nor Whole: Dialogue and Disjunction in the Plays of Mohan Rakesh.Û In Dilip Chitre et al., eds, Tender Ironies: A Tribute to Lothar Lutze, 184–205. New Delhi: Manohar, 1994. – Poetics, Plays and Performances: The Politics of Modern Indian Theatre. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006. – ÚTelevision and Tradition: Some Observations on the Serialization of the Ràmàyaõa.Û In Monika Thiel-Horstmann, ed., Ràmàyaõa and Ràmàyaõas, 207–28. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1991. – and Heinrich von Stietencron, eds. Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity. New Delhi: Sage, 1995. Damsteegt, Theo, ed. Heroes and Heritage: The Protagonist in Indian Literature and Film. Leiden: Research School CNWS Publications, Leiden University, 2003. De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. 1949. Ed. and trans. H.M. Parshley. New York: Modern Library, 1952. Dern‚, Steve. ÚMarket Forces at Work: Religious Themes in Commercial Hindi Films.Û In Lawrence A. Babb and Susan S. Wadley, eds, Media and the Transformation of Religion in South Asia, 191–216. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995. Dharwadker, Aparna Bhargava. Theatres of Independence: Drama, Theory, and Urban Performance in India since 1947. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2005. Dimitrova, Diana. ÚThe Indian Character of Modern Hindi Drama: Neo-Sanskritic, Pro-Western Naturalistic or Nativistic Dramas?Û In Clara Joseph and Gaye Ortiz, eds, Theology and Literature: Rethinking Reader Response, 173–83. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. – ÚOf Satis, Sitas and Miras: Three Female Protagonists in Modern Hindi Drama.Û In Theo Damsteegt, ed., Heroes and

132

Bibliography

Heritage: The Protagonist in Indian Literature and Film, 66– 78. Leiden: Research School CNWS Publications, Leiden University, 2003. – ÚThe Treatment of Women and Gender in the Plays âùàçh kà ek din and âdhe adhåre by Mohan Ràke÷ (1935–1972).Û In Dirk W. Loenne, ed., Toþwa-e-dil: Festschrift Helmut Nespital, 177–88. Reinbek: Wezlar, 2001. – ÚUpendranàth A÷kÙs Play ØTåfàn se pahleÙ (1946) and HinduMuslim Cultural Hybridity.Û In Theo Damsteegt, ed., Voices from South Asia: Language in Indian Literature and Film, 127–48. Zagreb: Bibliotheca Orientalica of the Croatian Philological Society, 2006. – Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Doniger, Wendy. Splitting the Difference: Gender and Myth in Ancient Greece and India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard, and Wendy Doniger, eds. Off with Her Head! The Denial of WomenÙs Identity in Myth, Religion and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Erndl, Kathleen M. ÚThe Goddess and WomenÙs Power: A Hindu Case Study.Û In Karen L. King, ed., Women and Goddess Traditions in Antiquity and Today, 17–38. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. – ÚIs Shakti Empowering for Women? Reflections on Feminism and the Hindu Goddess.Û In Alf Hiltebeitel and Kathleen M. Erndl, eds, Is the Goddess a Feminist? The Politics of South Asian Goddesses, 91–103. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Falk, Nancy Auer, and Rita M. Gross, eds. Unspoken Worlds: WomenÙs Religious Lives. Belmont, CA : Wadsworth and Thomson Learning, 2001. Flueckiger, Joyce Burkhalter. Gender and Genre in the Folklore of Middle India. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1996.

Bibliography

133

Gaeffke, P. Hindiromane in der ersten Haelfte des 20. Jhd.s. Leiden: Koeln, 1966. – Hindi Literature in the 20th Century: A History of Indian Literature. Ed. Jan Gonda. Vol. 8.5. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1978. A Gandhi Reader. Ed. K. Swaminathan and C.N. Patel. Madras: Orient Longman, 1988. Gatwood, Lynn E. Devã and the Spouse Goddess. Riverdale, MD : The Riverdale Company, 1985. Goldman, Sally J. Sutherland. ÚThe Voice of Sãtà in VàlmãkiÙs Sundarakàõóa.Û In Paula Richman, ed., Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian Tradition, 223–38. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Gross, Rita M. ÚHindu Female Deities as a Resource for the Contemporary Rediscovery of the Goddess.Û In Carl Olson, ed., The Book of the Goddess Past and Present, 217–30. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Gupta, Sanjukta. ÚWomen in the øaiva/øàkta Ethos.Û In Julia Leslie, ed., Roles and Rituals for Hindu Women, 193–209. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1991. Hancock, Mary. ÚThe Dilemmas of Domesticity: Possession and Devotional Experience among Urban Smàrta Women.Û In Lindsay Harlan and Paul B. Courtright, eds, From the Margins of Hindu Marriage, 60–91. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Handa, R.L. A History of Hindi Language and Literature. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1978. Hansen, Kathryn. Grounds for Play: The Nauñaïkã Theatre of North India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. – ÚTraditional Media and the Construction of Gender: The Case of Nauñaïkã.Û In M. Offredi, ed., Literature, Language and the Media in India, 207–19. New Delhi: Manohar, 1992. Harlan, Lindsay. ÚPerfection and Devotion: Sati Tradition in Rajasthan.Û In John Stratton Hawley, ed., Sati: The Blessing and the Curse, 79–99. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

134

Bibliography

– and Paul B. Courtright, eds. From the Margins of Hindu Mar-

riage: Essays on Gender, Religion and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Hawley, John Stratton. ÚIntroduction.Û In John Stratton Hawley, ed., Fundamentalism and Gender. 3–44. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. – Three Bhakti Voices: Mirabai, Surdas, and Kabir in Their Times and Ours. Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. – ed. Fundamentalism and Gender. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. – ed. Sati: The Blessing and the Curse. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. – and Donna Marie Wulff, eds. Devã: Goddesses of India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. – and Donna Marie Wulff, eds. The Divine Consort: Ràdhà and the Goddesses of India. Berkeley: Religious Studies Series; Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982. Hess, Linda. ÚLoversÙ Doubts: Questioning the Tulsi Ràmàyaõ.Û In Paula Richman, ed., Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian Tradition, 25–47. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. – ÚRejecting Sita: Indian Responses to the Ideal ManÙs Cruel Treatment of His Ideal Wife.Û Journal of the American Academy of Religion 67, no. 1 (1999): 1–32. Hiltebeitel, Alf. ÚDraupadiÙs Question.Û In Alf Hiltebeitel and Kathleen M. Erndl, eds, Is the Goddess a Feminist? The Politics of South Asian Goddesses, 113–22. New York: New York University Press, 2000. – and Kathleen M. Erndl, eds. Is the Goddess a Feminist? The Politics of South Asian Goddesses. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Humes, Cynthia Ann. ÚIs the Devi Mahatmya a Feminist Scripture?Û In Alf Hiltebeitel and Kathleen M. Erndl, eds, Is the Goddess a Feminist? The Politics of South Asian Goddesses, 123–50. New York: New York University Press, 2000.

Bibliography

135

– ÚVindhyavàsinã: Local Goddess yet Great Goddess.Û In John

Stratton Hawley and Donna Marie Wulff, eds, Devã: Goddesses of India, 49–76. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Jacobson, Doranne, and Susan Wadley. Women in India: Two Perspectives. New Delhi: Manohar, 1996. Jain, Nemicandra. Indian Theatre: Tradition, Continuity and Change. New Delhi: Vikas, 1992. Jamison, Stephanie W. Sacrificed Wife, SacrificerÙs Wife: Women, Ritual, and Hospitality in Ancient India. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Jehlen, Myra. ÚGender.Û In Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin, eds, Critical Terms for Literary Study, 263–74. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Jones, Kenneth. Arya Dharm: Hindu Consciousness in 19thCentury Punjab. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Kapur, Anuradha. ÚThe Representation of Gods and Heroes in the Parsi Mythological Drama of the Early Twentieth Century.Û In Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrich von Stietencron, eds, Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity, 401–19. New Delhi: Sage, 1995. Karnad, Girish. ÚTheatre in India.Û Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Fall 1989): 331–53. Kersenboom, Saskia. ÚThe Traditional Repertoire of the Tiruttaõi Temple Dancers.Û In Julia Leslie, ed., Roles and Rituals for Hindu Women, 131–47. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991. Khandelwal, Meena. Women in Ochre Robes: Gendering Hindu Renunciation. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004. Khanna, Madhu. ÚThe Goddess-Women Equation in øàkta Tantras.Û In Mandakranta Bose, ed., Faces of the Feminine in Ancient, Medieval and Modern India, 109–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

136

Bibliography

Kinsley, David. R. Hindu Goddesses. Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. – Hinduism: A Cultural Perspective. Upple Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall, 1993. Kishwar, Madhu. ÚThe Burning of Roop Kanwar.Û Manushi, nos 42–3 (1987): 15–25. – Off the Beaten Track: Rethinking Gender Justice for Indian Women. New Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. – ÚYes to Sita, No to Ram: The Continuing Hold of Sita on Popular Imagination in India.Û In Paula Richman, ed., Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian Tradition, 285–308. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. – and Ruth Vanita. ÚPoison to Nectar: The Life and Work of Mirabai.Û Manushi, nos 50–2 (1989): 75–93. Klostermaier, Klaus K. Mythologies and Philosophies of Salvation in the Theistic Traditions of India, 192–234. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfried Laurier University Press, 1984. – A Survey of Hinduism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994. Knott, Kim. Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. Trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. Kurtz, Stanley. All the Mothers Are One: Hindu India and the Cultural Reshaping of Psychoanlysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Leslie, Julia. The Perfect Wife: The Orthodox Hindu Woman According to the Strãdharmapaddhati of Tryambakayajvan. Dehli: Oxford University Press, 1989. – ed. Roles and Rituals for Hindu Women. London: Pinter, 1991.

Bibliography

137

– and Mary McGee, eds. Invented Identities: The Interplay of

Gender, Religion and Politics in India. New Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lutgendorf, Philip. ÚInterpreting Ràmràj: Reflections on the Ràmàyaõa, Bhakti and Hindu Nationalism.Û In David N. Lorenzen, ed., Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action, 253–87. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. – The Life of a Text: Performing the Ràmcaritmànas of Tulsidas. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Malinar, Angelika. ÚThe Bhagavadgãtà in the Mahàbhàrata TV Serial: Domestic Drama and Dharmic Solutions.Û In Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrich von Stietencron, eds, Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity, 442–67. New Delhi: Sage, 1995. Manchi, Sarat Babu. Indian Drama Today: A Study in the Theme of Cultural Deformity. New Delhi: Prestige Books, 1997. Marglin, Fr‚d‚rique Apffel. ÚFemale Sexuality in the Hindu World.Û In Clarissa W. Atkinson, Constance H. Buchanan, and Margaret R. Miles, eds, Immaculate and Powerful: The Female in Sacred Image and Social Reality, 39–59. Boston: Beacon Press, 1985. – Wives of the God-King: The Rituals of the Devadasis of Puri. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. McDermott, Rachel Fell. ÚThe Western Kali.Û In John Stratton Hawley and Donna Marie Wulff, eds, Devã: Goddesses of India, 281–313. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. – and Jeffrey J. Kripal, eds. Encountering Kàlã in the Margins, at the Center, in the West. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. McGee, Mary. ÚIn Quest of Saubhàgya: The Roles and Goals of Women as Depicted in Marathi Stories of Votive Devotions.Û In Anne Feldhaus, eds, Images of Women in Maharashtrian

138

Bibliography

Literature and Religion, 147–70. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. – ÚIntroduction.Û In Julia Leslie and Mary McGhee, eds, Invented Identities: The Interplay of Gender, Religion and Politics in India. 1–56. New Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Meisig, Konrad. ÚKàlidàsaÙs Life and Works as Reflected in Mohan Ràke÷Ùs Play âùàóh kà ek din.Û In Dilip Chitre et al., eds, Tender Ironies: A Tribute to Lothar Lutze, 286–307. New Delhi: Manohar, 1994. Moi, Toril. Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism: Art, Theater, Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. – Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London: Routledge, 2002. – ed. The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. Narayanan, Vasudha. ÚBrimming with Bhakti, Embodiments of Shakti: Devotees, Deities, Performers, Reformers, and Other Women of Power in the Hindu Tradition.Û In Arvind Sharma and Katherine Young, eds, Feminism and World Religions, 25– 77. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Neumann, Gerhard. ÚDer Einakter.Û In Dieter Borchmeyer and Viktor Zmegac, eds, Moderne Literatur in Grundbegriffen, 102–9. Tuebingen: Niemeyer Verlag, 1994. Offredi, Mariola, ed. Literature, Language and the Media in India. New Delhi: Manohar, 1992. Olson, Carl, ed. The Book of the Goddess Past and Present. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Paranjape, Makarand, ed. Nativism: Essays in Criticism. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1997. Patton, Laurie. Jewels of Authority: Women and Textual Tradition in Hindu India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Pauwels, Heidi Rika Maria. KçùõaÙs Round Dance Reconsidered: Hariràm VyàsÙs Hindã Ràs-pa¤càdhyàyã. Richmond and Surrey: Curzon, 1996.

Bibliography

139

The Penguin Gandhi Reader. Ed. Rudrangshu Mukherjee. New York: Penguin, 1993. Pfister, Manfred. Das Drama: Theorie und Analyse. Rev. ed. Muenchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1988. Pintchman, Tracy. ÚIs the Hindu Goddess a Good Resource for Western Feminism?Û In Alf Hiltebeitel and Kathleen M. Erndl, eds, Is the Goddess a Feminist? The Politics of South Asian Goddesses, 187–202. New York: New York University Press, 2000. – The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994. Potabenko, S. Dramaturgija chindi v borÙbe za svobodu i nezavisimostÙ Indii. Moskva. IzdatelÙstvo vostoènoj literatury, 1962. – ÚK istorii razvitija sceni‡eskoj dramaturgii i teatra chindustani.Û In I.S. Rabinovi‡ and E.P. Cely÷ev, eds, Literatury Indii: Sbornik statej, 105–48. Moskva: IzdatelÙstvo vosto‡noj literatury, 1958. Prasanna. ÚA Critique of Nativism in Contemporary Indian Theatre.Û In Makarand Paranjape, ed, Nativism: Essays in Criticism, 95–101. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1997. Rabinovi‡, I.S. ÚPÙesa ØPuti raschodjatsjaÙ kak va’nej÷ij etap stanovlenija realizma v tvor‡estve Upendranatha A÷ka.Û In Dramaturgija i teatr Indii, sbornik statej, 189–234. Moskva: I zdatelÙstvo vosto‡noj literatury, 1961. Raheja, Gloria Goodwin, and Ann Grodzins Gold. Listen to the HeronÙs Words: Reimagining Gender and Kinship in North India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Ramanujan, A.K. ÚOn Women Saints.Û In John Stratton Hawley and Donna Marie Wulff, eds, The Divine Consort: Ràdhà and the Goddesses of India, 316–24. Berkeley: Religious Studies Series; Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982. Rao, Velcheru Narayana. ÚA Ràmàyaõa of Their Own: WomenÙs Oral Traditions in Telugu.Û In Paula Richman, ed., Many Ràmàyaõas: The Diversity of Narrative Tradition in South Asia, 114–36. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.

140

Bibliography

Renza, Louis A. ÚInfluence.Û In Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin, eds, Critical Terms for Literary Study, 186–203. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Reynolds, Holly Baker. ÚThe Auspicious Married Woman.Û In Susan S. Wadley, ed., The Powers of Tamil Women, 35–60. Syracuse, NY : Syracuse University Press, 1980. Richman, Paula. ÚQuestioning and Multiplicity within the Ramayana Tradition.Û In Paula Richman, ed., Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian Tradition, 1–21. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. – ÚThe Ramlila Migrates to Southall.Û In Paula Richman, ed., Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian Tradition, 309–28. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. – ed. Many Ràmàyaõas: The Diversity of Narrative Tradition in South Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. – ed. Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London and New York: Methuen, 1983. Robinson, Catherine A. Tradition and Liberation: The Hindu Tradition in the Indian WomenÙs Movement. New York: St MartinÙs Press, 1999. Robinson, Lillian. Sex, Class and Culture. New York: Methuen, 1986. Rockwell, Daisy. Upendranath Ashk: A Critical Biography. New Delhi: Katha, 2004. Rosenstein, Lucy. The Devotional Poetry of Svàmã Haridàs: A Study of Early Braj Bhàùà Verse. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1997. Sarkar, Tanika, and Urvashi Butalia, eds. Women and the Hindu Right: A Collection of Essays. New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1995. Sangari, Kumkum, and Sudesh Vaid, eds. Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press, 1990.

Bibliography

141

Schomer, Karine. Mahadevi Varma and the Chayavad Age of Modern Hindi Poetry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Sharma, Arvind, ed. TodayÙs Woman in World Religions. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994. – ed. Women Saints in World Religions. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000. – and Katherine Young, eds. Feminism and World Religions. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Sherma, Rita DasGupta. ÚSacred Immanence: Reflections of Ecofeminism in Hindu Tantra.Û In Lance E. Nelson, ed., Purifying the Earthly Body of God: Religion and Ecology in Hindu India, 89–131. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. Showalter, Elaine. The New Feminist Criticism: Essays on Women, Literature, and Theory. New York: Pantheon Books, 1985. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. In Other Worlds. New York: Routledge, 1988. Srinivasan, Amrit. ÚReform or Conformity? Temple ØProstitutionÙ and the Community in the Madras Presidency.Û In Bina Agarwal, ed., Structures of Patriarchy: State, Community and Household in Modernizing Asia, 175–98. Delhi: Kali for Women, 1988. Sunder Rajan, Rajeswari. Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture and Postcolonialism, 15–39. London: Routledge, 1993. Teskey Denton, Lynn. ÚVarieties of Hindu Female Asceticism.Û In Julia Leslie, ed., Roles and Rituals for Hindu Women, 211– 33. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1991. Thiel-Horstmann, Monika, ed. Ràmàyaõa and Ràmàyaõas. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1991. Toolan, Michael J. Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 1988. Torsney, Cheryl B. ÚThe Critical Quilt: Alternative Authority in Feminist Criticism.Û In G. Douglas Atkins and Laura Morrow, eds, Contemporary Literary Theory, 180–200. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1989.

142

Bibliography

Uberoi, Patricia, ed. Family, Kinship and Marriage in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993. van der Veer, Peter. ÚThe Politics of Devotion to Ràma.Û In David N. Lorenzen, ed., Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action, 280–305. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Vi÷nevskaja, N.A. Indijskaja odnooktnaja drama. Moskva: IzdatelÙstvo Nauka, 1964. Woolf, Virginia. A Room of OneÙs Own. New York: Harcourt, 1929. The Words of Gandhi. Selected by Richard Attenborough. New York: Newmarket Press, 1982. Young, Katherine. ÚHinduism.Û In Arvind Sharma, ed., Women in World Religions, 59–103. New York: State University of New York Press, 1987. – ÚUpholding Norms of Hindu Womanhood: An Analysis Based on Reviews of Hindi Cinema.Û In Morny Joy and Eva K. Neumaier-Dargyay, eds, Gender, Genre and Religion, 171–98. Waterloo, ON : Wilfried Laurier University Press, 1995. – ÚWomen in Hinduism.Û In Arvind Sharma, ed., TodayÙs Woman in World Religions, 77–135. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.

Index

abalà, 18, 56, 69 action, dramatic, 8 actor, 7, 28 Amanat, Hassan, 5 amãr, 26 Anglicized, 9, 10, 89 Anglo-Vedic College, 9, 10 anticlimax, 42, 43 artistic concept, 11 ârya Nàñyasabhà, 5 Arya Samaj, 5, 9–11 ascetic, 18, 19, 33, 65 asceticism, 18, 27 A÷k, Upendranàth, xii, 6, 8, 9, 23, 73, 86–9, 91–2, 97–8 audience, 4, 6, 7, 34, 35, 43, 71, 75, 77, 78, 81, 83–5, 92 auspicious, 19, 33 battle of the sexes, 11, 45, 50, 65, 68, 88 Bentley, Eric, 75

bhakti, 15, 16, 18–21, 30, 44, 50, 98 Bhàrtã, Dharmvãr, 6 Bhuvane÷var, xi, 8, 11, 23–4, 31, 45–8, 74, 82, 86–9, 91–2, 97–8 Bollywood film, 15 Bràhmaõ, 16, 17, 29, 53, 58 Brahmo Samaj, 5 Braj, 3 Breckenridge, Carol, 96 British elite, 9 British rule, 26 canon, literary, 13, 86, 87, 90, 91, 95, 97, 98 caste, 7, 16, 17, 54 character, 8, 12, 14, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 38, 43, 45, 49–51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71–4, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83–5, 91–3, 97

144

Index

characterization, 23, 26, 63, 71, 72, 80–2, 85, 88 Chatterjee, Partha, 14, 96 Chekhov, Anton, 42, 88 cinema, 21, 94, 97 closet drama, 28 colonial, 16, 28, 96 colonialism, 96 colonial state, British, 3 comedy, 25 conservatism, 12, 24, 25, 33, 43, 86, 91, 94–6, 97 conservative/orthodox Hindu society, 13, 49, 52, 54, 56, 81 co-wife, 50, 55–7 culture, 4, 5, 10, 11, 19–21, 27, 35, 89, 90 cyclical composition, 56, 69, 75, 88 Damayantã, 17 Dayananda Anglo-Vedic College, 9, 10 death of tragedy, 12, 72 de÷ã, xiv, 7, 90 de÷ãvàd , xiv, 89 devadàsã, 19, 20 Devã, 13, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 39, 43, 44, 48, 50, 57, 59, 64, 69, 92–5, 98 dharma, bhakti , 44 dharma, strã, 30, 44, 49, 51 Dharma÷àstra, 15, 16, 18 double standards, 6, 37, 55

dowry, 16, 53, 54, 57, 58, 81, 92, 96 drama: Bengali, 3; character, 63; classical Sanskrit, 8, 23, 28, 86, 89; folk, 3; Hindi, 3– 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 23–5, 31, 32, 34, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49–70, 73, 86–91, 93–5, 97; Indian, 7, 19, 25, 34, 90; nativistic, xiv, 8, 86, 91; naturalistic, 8, 9, 25, 87, 91, 97; neoSanskritic, 8, 23, 86, 91; urban, 3, 5; Urdu, 5; Western, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 24, 34, 49, 70, 88, 89 dramatic/dramaturgical technique, 46, 58, 67, 69 dramatic figure, 16, 23, 31, 75, 77, 80, 82, 85 dramatic literature, European, 3 dramatis personae, 31, 73, 79, 83, 85 dramaturgy, 7–9, 63, 75, 76 Draupadã, xi, xii, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 48, 98 dç÷ya, 26 Durgà, 43, 69 dvandva, 34 education, Western, 4, 5, 9 education of women, 9–11, 13, 17, 64, 93, 94 emancipation, x, 11, 13, 29, 32, 57, 61, 64, 85, 93

Index

epic figure, 67 experimentalism, 8, 33 family, 7, 11, 17, 21, 24, 42–4, 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 60, 61, 64, 66, 68, 74, 77, 84, 91, 92 female protagonist, 14, 24, 25, 38, 44, 46, 48–51, 59, 69, 71–3, 77, 78, 92–4, 97, 98 figure conception, 71, 75–7 film, 21, 22, 92–5; Bollywood, 15 fire ordeal, 18, 30, 39 Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand, 96 Gàndhã, øàntà, 8 gender, 12, 13, 15, 22, 24, 35, 37, 38, 43, 54, 69, 71–3, 86, 87, 93, 95–7, 98 Goddess, the, 15, 19, 20, 50, 56–9, 69, 85, 93, 98 Hari÷candra, Bhàratendu, xi, 4, 5, 12, 23, 25, 80, 88 Hawley, John Stratton, 95 hero, 71–3 heroine, 13, 20, 21, 30, 38, 39, 45, 47, 49, 57, 72, 73, 79–81, 84, 85, 92, 93, 97, 98 heroism, female, 12; male, 12 Hindi, 4, 5, 9, 11, 26, 33, 49, 64, 67, 69, 73, 85 Hindi, Sanskritized, 8, 27, 88

145

Hindi drama, xii–xiv, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 23–5, 31, 32, 34, 42, 44, 45, 47, 73, 91, 93–5, 97 Hindi plays, 45, 87, 88, 91, 93 Hindi playwrights, 4, 6, 12, 28, 30, 31, 43, 88 Hindi theatre, 4, 5, 6, 8, 23, 28, 87, 90, 95, 97 Hindã Nàñya Samiti, 5 Hindã Raïgma¤c, 5 Hindu epics, 7, 93 Hindu goddess, 15, 19, 20, 56 Hinduism, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 33, 44, 93, 94, 96, 97; tantric, 19 Hindu mythology, 7, 43, 49, 50, 86, 92, 98 Hindu reform, 11, 13, 14 Hindu reformer, 33, 96 Hindus, 4, 10, 26, 27 Hindu society, 12, 13, 16, 17, 49, 52, 54–6, 81 Hindustani, 4, 9, 26, 32, 57 hindutva, 97 historical play, 8, 23, 26, 91 humanism, 72 humanistic, 72, 73 Ibsen, Henrik, xii, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 28, 31, 32, 43, 57, 58, 88, 89, 98 ideal of woman, 38, 41 ideals of the feminine, 8 ideological, xi, 8, 12, 13, 28, 86, 87, 90, 91

146

Index

ideology, 8, 13, 14, 16, 27, 90, 93, 95, 97 illusion, 43, 85 implications, gender, 24, 35 inauspicious, 16, 33 Independence, of India, 4, 9, 13, 24, 87, 89, 96 Influence: dramatic, 87; Western, xiv, 6, 8, 9, 88, 97 Indian PeopleÙs Theatre Association, 6 indigenism, 87, 89, 90, 93 interpretation: gender, 12; of womenÙs problems/issues, x, xi, 12, 13, 23, 24, 27, 32, 33, 47, 50 itihàsa, 17 Jamison, Stephanie, 18 jàtrà, xiv, 4 Kàlã, 19 Kàlidàsa, 25, 34–9, 91 Kapår, Pçthvãràj, 6 Karnad, Girish, 6–7 Kà÷ã Nàgarã Nàñak Maõóalã, 5 Kçùõa, 3, 29–30, 44 kùatriya, 53 Lakùmã, 47–8, 93 language, 3–5, 9, 23, 26, 27, 32, 82, 88, 89, 90 law, Hindu, 96 liberation, 18, 19, 22, 23, 33, 96, 98

literary criticism, Indian, 4, 8, 93 Mahàbhàrata, 15, 17, 29, 48 Manusmçti, 30 marriage: arranged, 10, 11, 16, 24, 44, 55, 57, 96; child, 10, 33; practices, 54, 55 Marxism, 8 masculine authority, 13, 83 Màthur, Jagdã÷candra, xi, 6, 23–5, 30, 31, 34, 39–43, 48, 61, 74, 93 McGhee, Mary, 95 media, 15, 20–2, 93, 95, 97 middle-class, 6, 41, 45, 68, 77, 82 Mãrà, xi-xii, 21, 22, 25, 30, 44, 48, 50, 57, 59, 92, 98 Mãràbàã, 18, 44 Mi÷ra, Lakùmãnàràyaõ , xi, 6, 24, 30 model: liberating, x, 16, 22, 86; Western, 7, 8 modernity, 49, 72, 79 mokùa, 98 Mother India, 94 movement, reform, 11, 13, 14 murder, dowry, 16, 96 Muslims, 4, 26, 27, 83 mythical figure, 15, 16, 20, 59, 69 myth-models, 15, 20, 70 mythological, x, 7, 21, 22, 39, 48, 50, 92, 93, 98

Index

nationalism, cultural, 89 nativism, xiv, 89 nativistic, 7, 8, 86, 90, 91 nàñya÷àstra, 25 nauñàïkã, xiv, 3–5, 27, 93, 94 New Cinema, 94 new Vedic man, 10 non-Indian, 86–8, 97, 98 old order, 55, 56, 58 open ending, 31, 46, 58, 75, 88 oppression of women, 11, 13, 16, 19 orientalism, 96 orthodox, 26, 32, 33, 44, 81, 95, 97 paõóit, 58 Parsi theatre, 3–5, 23 patidev, 24, 48, 59 pativrata, 21, 48 pativratà, xi, 21, 24, 38, 39, 47, 51, 97 patiyoga, 16 performing arts, 4 Pfister, Manfred, 71, 75, 76 play, 3–14, 19, 23–32, 34, 36, 38–40, 42, 47, 49–69, 71, 73–6, 78, 79, 81, 84, 86–93, 97, 98; Hindi, 23, 45, 86, 88, 91, 93 plot, 43, 51, 64, 73 plot strands, 64 poetry, devotional, 19 poets, bhakti, 18–21, 30, 98

147

postcolonial, 23, 28, 95–7 power relations, 13 power structures, 13, 37 prahasana, 25 Prasàd, Jay÷aïkar, xi, 6, 8, 12, 23–4, 27–32, 34, 46, 83, 87– 91, 93 Premcand, Dhanpat Rày Srãvàstav, 12 Premã, Harikçùõa, 6 progressivism, 8, 12 protagonist, 11, 12, 14, 23–5, 29, 38, 44, 46, 48–52, 55, 56, 59, 63–4, 69, 71–4, 77, 83, 85, 88, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98 påjà, 7 Puràõas, 15, 93 purohit, 25, 29 puruù, 46, 47 Ràdha-Kçùõa-Mãrà pattern, 92 Ràjpåt, 26, 77, 82, 83 Ràke÷, Mohan, xi, 6, 23, 34, 74, 86, 87 Ràma, 18, 25, 30, 38–9 Ràmàyaõa, 15, 17–18, 21, 30, 38 Ràmcaritmànas, 21 ràmlãlà, 3 ràslãlà, 3–4 Ràùñrãya Nàñya Vidyàlay, 6, 90 reform movements, Hindu, 11, 13, 14, 96 relationship, between man and woman, 11, 13, 34, 36, 64, 89

148

Index

religion, 12, 16, 22, 71, 86, 87, 96 religiosity, 16, 18, 21, 49 remarriage, 10, 17, 24, 32, 33 remythologizing, xi, 21, 22–48, 97 role model, xi, 15, 20, 22, 50, 70, 86, 95, 98 romanticism, 27 Roy, Ràm Mohan, 5 Sàgar, Ràmànand, 15 saints, bhakti, 15, 50 øakuntalà, 17 ÷akti, 19, 50, 92, 98 øàktism, 70 salvation, 18 saügharù, 34 sanàtanist, 33 Sangãt Nàñak Akàdemã, 6, 90 Sanskrit, 3, 8–10, 16, 17, 23, 25, 28, 33–5, 86, 89 Sanskritization, 17 Sanskritized, 8, 23, 26, 88, 89 ÷àstra literature, 93 sati, 16–17, 27, 44 satã, xi, 24–6, 33, 93 saubhàgya, 19, 33 Sàvitrã, 17, 18, 91, 92–5 scene, 26, 43, 46, 53, 56, 62, 68, 69, 73–5, 81, 92 secular, 3, 97, 98 secularism, 7 sex, 18, 32 sexual, 18, 33, 45, 62, 69, 78

Shakespeare, William, 28 Sãtà, xi, 17, 21–2, 25, 30, 34, 38–9, 47–8, 50–1, 57, 91–3, 95, 97 smçti, 16–17 social-problem dramas, 8, 24, 30 soteriological, 18, 50 special effects, 5 Spouse Goddess, 13, 19, 24, 44, 47, 48, 93 ÷çàddha, 33 ørã Bhàratendu Nàñak Maõóalã, 5 ørã Ràmlãlà Nàñak Maõóalã, 5 stage, 53, 69, 77–9; proscenium, 5, 7, 8, 87, 88, 90 stage directions, 28, 76, 78 strã, 45–8, 77, 82, 85, 93 strãdharma, xi, 16, 30, 44, 49, 51 Strindberg, August, 11, 12, 45, 46, 50, 52, 65–9, 88 Sårdàs, 22 svaràjya, 89 tamà÷à, xiv Tanvãr, Habãb, 7 theatre: European, 3, 5; Hindi, 3–7, 23, 25, 28, 87, 90, 95, 97; Parsi, 3–5, 23; proscenium, xiv, 87, 88, 90; urban, 3, 5; Western, xi, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 24, 28, 31, 34, 87, 89, 91

Index

theological, 15, 16, 18, 19, 50, 98 theology, feminist, 19 tradition: Hindu, 12, 13, 15, 19, 24, 26, 31, 44, 50, 55, 96, 97; orthodox Hindu, 26, 32; theatrical, 27, 28, 87, 90; Western, 11, 14, 28, 33, 34, 43, 45, 46, 87, 88 tragedy, 12, 25, 31, 42, 43, 62, 72, 74, 94 transplant, cross-cultural, 19 Tulsãdàs, 21, 95 union with God, 18, 19 values, Western, 6 van der Veer, Peter, 96 Vedic truth, 9 vide÷ã, 89, 91 vidhavà, 30, 33 viraha, 34 vãràïganà, 25–7, 70, 93, 95 viyogànta, 25 varõa, 96 vrata, 33

149

Western Kàlã, 19 Western, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31, 33, 34, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 70, 86–91, 93, 95, 97, 98 Western drama, 12, 13, 24, 34, 49, 70, 88, 89 Western influence, 8, 9, 50, 88, 97 Western theatre, 11, 24, 28, 31, 43, 87, 89, 91 Western tradition, 11, 14, 34, 43, 45, 88 Westernized women, 20 widow, 17, 24, 32, 33, 52, 55, 62, 77, 93, 94 widows, remarriage, 10, 24, 32, 33 womanhood, 16, 17, 38, 39, 49, 51, 69, 71, 73, 92 yathàrth, 34 Young, Katherine, 95 yuvak, 46