Chapter – 3

Communal Issues as Locus: A Comparative Approach in

the Selected Plays of Karnad, Dattani and Padmanabhan

3.1 Issue of Communal Violence in Karnad’s Selected Plays

Communal issues and tensions may be best defined as the gift of British in colonial

times and of the politicians in the post-colonial times. Due to this communal intolerance,

there is an atmosphere of mutual distrust, religious bigotry, cheating, frustrated idealism,

corruption, and sedition.

Karnad's play Tughlaq is the best example of modern India which has been passing

through a crucial stage due to the conflict between Islamism and Hinduism primarily,

religion and politics, idealism and realism, the old and the young in general prevalent in the

14th century whose seeds were sown by Tughlaq. This communal turmoil of opposites

constitutes the main charm of the structure of Tughlaq.

The conflict between the opposites begins in the very first scene of the play. The

old people who are staunch followers of Islam think that the country is not in safe hands

because Tughlaq is liberal to Hindus and deviates from the holy tenets of the Koran. The

abolition of Jiziya tax on Hindus enrages Muslims. Young people admire and support the

liberal and secular policies of the Sultan, because his rationalistic and modernized attitude

appeals the youth. Their conflict in thought process is perfectly understood by these lines:

OLD MAN: God, what's this country coming to!

YOUNG MAN: What are you worried about, grandfather? The country’s in

perfectly safe hands-safer than any you’ve seen before. (Tughlaq 1)

The young supported him but the old opposed him. The old called his policy “an

insult to Islam.” When Tughlaq acceded to the throne of India he found it difficult to rule
the country because the country was divided between Islamism and Hinduism. An idealist

and visionary by temperament, Tughlaq aimed at Hindu-Muslim unity, secularism, justice

and equality for all for the welfare of his people. Aiming at cordial co-existence of the

Hindus and Muslims he said:

…. how justice works in my kingdom without any consideration of might or

weakness, religion or creed.May this moment burn bright and light up our

path towards greater justice, equality, progress, and peace – not just place

but a more purposeful life. (3)

He requested his subjects to extend him their valuable cooperation. He wanted

Hindus and Muslims to be united. So he decided to shift the capital from Delhi to

Daultabad, one of his ambitious dreams was the greatest failure and irony is that Tughlaq

was the most intelligent ruler but was termed as foolish Emperor of Delhi.

Even the people like Aziz, one of the cleverest characters of the play wanted to take

advantage of the Sultan's policy keeping in mind that sultan wanted Hindu-Muslim to be

united and started to play political games to gain power and luxury.

Tughlaq, the idealist and scholarly Sultan in fourteenth century India, is torn

between religion and politics. Religion, which aims at the fundamental unity of mankind,

was dragged into the dirty game of politics. The idea of brotherhood which is very

important in Islam and which the Sultan himself practices annoyed the ecclesiastics

because it undermined their political interests. The efforts of the Sultan to bridge the

differences between Hindus and Muslims become miserable. The old man in the first scene

of the Tughlaq says:

2
 OLD MAN: ….Beware of the Hindu who embraces you. Before you know

what, he'll turn Islam into another caste and call the prophet an incarnation

of his God…(2)

Before Tughlaq there has been an internecine conflict between Hindus and

Muslims. He tries to adopt the secular and liberal policy. He wants to cultivate Hindu-

Muslim unity. He wants all his countrymen to enjoy equality, justice, peace, progress and a

more purposeful life. But no one was happy with the decisions of Sultan. Muslims call him

irreligious. And Hindus distrust him. A Hindu citizen says:

HINDU: Look, when a Sultan picks me in the teeth and says, pay up you

Hindu dog, I'm happy. I know I'm safe. But the moment a man comes along

and says, ‘I know you are a Hindu, but you are also a human being' – well,

that makes me nervous. (2)

Tughlaq is out and out sympathetic to Hindus and is well-versed with Hindu

thought and philosophy. Tughlaq wanted his people to be united whether Hindu or Muslim

but all his efforts were in vain. Once he says:

MUHAMMAD: … I want to climb up, up to the top of the tallest tree in the

world and call out to my people: ‘Come, my people, I am waiting for you.

Confide in me your worries. Let me share your joys. Let's laugh and cry

together and then let's pray. Let's pray till our bodies melt and flow and our

blood turn into air. History is ours to play with-ours now! Let's be the light

and cover the earth with greenery. Let's be the darkness and cover up the

boundaries of nations. Come! I am waiting to embrace you all!' (10)

3
 When Sheikh Imam-Ud-Din tells him of ‘score of transgressions' on his part,

Tughlaq clearly tells him he cannot ignore the interest of millions of Muslims, Hindus, and

Jains in his Kingdom.

Imam warns Sultan against his distancing religion from the state and says:

Religion! Politics! Take heed, Sultan, one day their verbal distinctions will

rip you into two. (21)

But Tughlaq was very determined to his policies and has decided to shift the capital

from Delhi to Daultabad in order to strengthen Hindu-Muslim unity. Daultabad is a Hindu

dominated city. Amirs of Delhi oppose this move. They find themselves strong in Delhi

rather than Daultabad.At this moment Shihab-Ud-Din proves to be an advocate of Hindu-

Muslim unity who is also loyal to Tughlaq, reminds them about Sultan’s good works. But

no one was in favour of Sultan and it is also clearly understood with the conversation of

Shibad-Ud-Din and Ratan Singh, adopted brother of Shihab-Ud-din:

SHIHAB-UD-DIN: I’m sorry but you have never liked the sultan, I don’t

know why. After all that he has done for the Hindus –

RATAN SINGH: yes indeed, who can deny that! He is impartial! Haven't

you heard about the Doab? He levied such taxes on the poor farmers

that they preferred to starve. Now there's a famine there. And of

course, Hindus, as well as Muslims, are dying with absolute

impartiality. (28)

The Sultan's move to shift the capital from Delhi to Daultabad is motivated to help

the Hindus but it is a great paradox that it spells disaster and sufferings to both Hindus and

Muslims. Both Hindus and Muslims suffer alike. They become equal in suffering, poverty,

4
and death .They get a fistful of grains after paying twenty dinars of silver. There is a galaxy

of skeletons everywhere. People are helpless. They are compelled to eat barks off the trees

in order to survive. The condition of women is so pathetic. They have to make do with

skins of dead horses.

Shihab-Ud-Din who was very respectful to Sultan and his step mother tries his best

to stop the Sultan by making the biggest blunder, but nothing works, resulting in dirtier

political games and bloodshed.

SHIHAB-UD-DIN: I implore your majesty not to move the capital to

Daultabad. I am not from Delhi myself and have no stake in it. But I

know the people of Delhi are very unhappy about the move. I have

seen-

MUHAMMAD: What am I to do, Shihab-Ud-Din? I have explained every

reason to them. Shown how my empire can flourish with Delhi as its

capital. But how can I explain tomorrow to those who haven't even

opened their eyes to the light of today? Let's not waste more time

over that. They'll see the point soon. It's getting late and I must tell

you the more important news. From next year, we shall have copper

currency in our empire along with the silver dinars. (39)

After such fanatic behaviour of Sultan, Shihab-Ud-Din takes part in the conspiracy

against him. But, he was brutally killed by the Sultan. The double faced Sultan makes an

announcement that Shihab-Ud-Din died a martyr defending the Sultan in rebellion in the

palace.

5
 Sultan organizes a grand affair for his funeral to prove himself as an idealistic

figure among his public. Everyone who tries to stop him for such blunder becomes the

victim of his cruelty.

Even he didn't care about his mother who killed Najib for his sake. She tries to

remind him of his goodness but he also punished his mother by sentencing her stoned to

death publicly.

It’s really ironical that Sultan punishes all those who oppose his scheme. Both

Hindus and Muslims unite to hatch a conspiracy to kill him at prayer time. The idea to kill

the Sultan flashes in the mind of Ratan Singh, a Hindu. But the rebellion is crushed and the

Hindu soldiers protect the Sultan. The Hindus whom the Sultan defended do not support

his policy of introducing token currency but misuse it for making counterfeit coins.

Thus politicians corrupt religion. Tughlaq was very particular about prayer but

misused religion and prayer for his political purpose as same in the way of politicians. He

killed his father at prayer time in order to regain political power. Even the conspiracy of his

murder was to be executed at prayer time. Sheikh Shams-Ud-Din Tajuddarfim opposed

that prayer should not be polluted by the Sultan’s murder. At this Shihab-Ud-Din also

sarcastically remarked:

Does your Islam work only at prayer?....

I am sure that Lord will not mind an interrupted prayer (36).

Religion is used as a medium to befool the common people by rulers and

politicians. They pollute religion by misusing it for fulfilling their dirty political moves.

They are impious and corrupt both religion and prayer. A double faced politician can never

be religious. Religion and politics are dramatically opposed. Religion stands for virtue,

6
goodness, righteousness and moral conduct; whereas politics thrives on craftiness,

deceitfulness, dishonesty, and intrigue. So, they cannot remain together.

As time passes idealism of Tughlaq disappears and he turns out to be a shrewd

politician, a callous and heartless murderer and intriguer who uses religion to fulfil his

selfish motives. In the world of politics, religion is polluted. Idealist politicians like

Tughlaq hurl the country into turmoil and troubles and fail to give shape to their ideas. He

is lonely and frustrated.

In nutshell, the conflict between Hindu and Muslim community, politics and

religion, the old and the young for supremacy brings destruction and ruin to the most

flourished and developed reign of Muhammad-Bin-Tughlaq and his cherished long ideals.

Even his subject called him ‘Mad-Tughlaq'.

Through this play, Karnad gives the message that there was a king long back in the

history who had dreamt about Hindu-Muslim unity to stop communal violence but he

couldn't maintain it himself.

Karnad's another play Tale-Danda also presents communal issues with a different

perspective. During an interview with Tutun Mukherjee, Karnad explains the atmosphere

in which the play was written and the relevance of the play. He says:

When I returned from the USA, India was in turmoil over the Mandal-

Mandir issues. The society was being polarized and the country was moving

in dangerous directions. Tale Danda is a solid issue-oriented ‘literary' text

that tries to address issues of religious belief that create social and political

crisis. Whereas Tughlaq was obliquely political, this was straight forwardly

so, I wanted to present the consequences of religious fanaticism and

7
 highlight the futility of such attitudes in the face of people's aspiration for

happiness, peace, and prosperity (45).

Through his play, Karnad tries to represent the clash between the reformative

movement (Orthodox defenders) called Sharana movement and the safeguards of caste

system for their power in society. The preface of the play described its importance and

relevance to the Indian situation. He writes:

I wrote Tale-Danda in 1989 when the ‘Mandir' and the ‘Mandal' movements

were beginning to show again how relevant the questions posed by these

thinkers were for our age. The horror of subsequent events and the religious

fanaticism that has gripped our national life today have only proved how

dangerous is to ignore the solutions they offered. (Preface Tale-Danda)

The foundation of the play was laid on the event that took place in the city of

Kalyan around eight hundred years ago in the 12th century. There was a man called

Basavanna who created a period unmatched in the history of Karnataka. And it was unique

in its approach because of its courage and social commitment. Tale-Danda as the name

suggests, literally means death by beheading. ‘Tale’ means head and ‘Danda’ means

punishment. Basavanna, the central figure after expresses his outrage at a particular

situation to mean something like ‘Make my head roll' or ‘I offer my head’ -? Basawanna

and his followers condemned idolatry and temple-worship. They opposed the caste-system

and were in favour of a casteless society based on equality. And they did it not just in

theory, but in practice.

In this play which is initially based on history but a drama of ideas, Karnad has

carved inter-caste marriage as the main focus of ‘Sharna Movement’. Even the king Bijjala

himself appreciates the notions of the movement. He says to Rambhavati (his wife):
8
 In all my sixty-two years, the only people who have looked me in the eye

without a reference to my lowly birth lurking deep in their eyes are the

sharanas. Basvanna and his men. They treat me as-is what? – as a human

being. Basvanna wants to eradicate the caste structure, wipe it off the face

of the earth. Annihilate the Varna system. What a vision! And what

prodigious courage! And he has the ability. Look at those he has gathered

around him: poets, mystics, visionaries. And nothing airy-fairy about them,

mind you. All hard-working people from the common stock. They sit

together, eat together, argue about God together, indifferent to caste, birth or

station. And all this is happening in the city of Kalyan-my Kalyan! (Tale-

Danda 15)

Sharana movement influenced economic, political and religious aura of the city of

Kalyan. And as a king of the Kalyan, Bijjala only wants progress and prosperity in his

kingdom. So, when Manchhanna Kramita who was a Brahmin by birth and an advisor to

the king tried to put forth his views against Basvanna and Sharna movement, the king

replied very pragmatically:

Every ‘Sharana’ seeks only to earn the day’s keep, makes no extra demands,

and treats profit with contempt. So who benefits? From every corner of the

country, trade and commerce have come pouring into Kalyan and now the

city is bursting at its seams with money and activity. Even those who

despise the ‘sharanas’ for their beliefs need them for their economic

enterprise – as indeed I do and so they pour money into the ‘sharana’

coffers. (24)

The play significantly stresses upon the importance of human beings. They should

9
be treated as human beings. There are so many times in the play when the miserable

condition of inferior people was reflected as they're treated on the basis of caste and creed.

Mallibomma is ill-treated by Amba because he belongs to a lower caste. She disliked his

presence in her home and talks about purifying the house later.

Sharna movement was growing with great support day by day which causes fear

and worries to the Hindu divine class. Damodara, the royal priest was strongly in favour of

the ‘Varna’ system, a practice in ancient India which provides every member a place,

function, and support in the society. But soon it took the shape of a caste system. Brahmins

became superior and set down a hierarchical pattern in the society. As this priestly class

doesn't want to lose its power so they support ‘Varna’ system. It is clear from the

conversation between Damodara and Indrani, a courtesan:

INDRANI: But the sharanas have done so much for the downtrodden and

the destitute. For women like us-

DAMODARA: Nature is iniquitous. Struggle, conflict, violence that's

nature for you. But civilization has been made possible because our

Vedic tradition controls and directs that self-destructive energy.

How large-hearted is our dharma! To each person, it says you don't

have to be anyone but yourself. One's caste is like one's traditions.

And that is why the Vedic tradition can absorb and accommodate all

differences, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. And even those said to

be its victims have embraced its logic of inequality. (56)

Damodara was a strong defender of caste-system and great opponent of Basvanna

and Sharanna movement. He doesn't like the rejection of temple worship, non-violence,

and support of inter-caste marriage. It has become an issue of pride and honour for him for
10
the establishment of typical orthodox thinking. He thinks, Basavanna is a bitter enemy of

Brahminism. He doesn't believe in his ideals of uniformity and non-violence. He feels

Basavanna is a fellow, for him, the Brahmin:

Is like the jackal

Who eats the vomit-nut,

gets dizzy,

and thinks all creation

is whirling:

Why talk of these twice born

who caste-mark their bodies with mud?

If the owl blinded by day

thinks it’s nightfall

does the world plunge into night,

You crazy fool?(56)

And the city of Kalyan burns into flame after getting the news of a marriage

between the daughter of a Brahmin Sharana and the son of a cobbler turned sharana. This

incident spreads great unrest among the priests. Mercenaries and band of fighters are ready

to fight against sharanas.

This marriage beyond the rules of society was a kind of threat to the caste based

system of society. This marriage parted people into two groups. It becomes the issue of

communal violence. King Bijjala tries to establish peace in his kingdom by providing

security to the wedding. But shrewd people like Damodara and Manchanna bring politics

in this matter. Again power-politics affected an attempt of abolishing this caste-system.

They were successful in their attempt to raise highly ambitious prince Sovideva against his

11
father king Bijjala. The king was dethroned. Sharanas were brutally killed. There was only

bloodshed, nothing else. Sovideva orders:

Pursue them. Don't let them escape. Men, women, children cut them all

down. Set the hounds after them. Search each wood, each bush. Burn the

houses that give them shelter. But their books. Yes, the books! Tear them

into shreds and consign them to the wells. Their voices shall be stilled for

ever - ….(90)

He orders that everyone should be ready to sacrifice his/her life in the name of

loyalty and the people belong to lower caste have to follow all the traditions otherwise

they'll suffer like dogs.

In that way, the reformation started by Sharanas ended in bloodshed. Again

orthodoxy was established, Basavanna was against any kind of violence in the name of

caste or religion.

BASAVANNA: Violence is wrong, whatever the provocation. To restore to

it because someone else started it first is even worse. And to do so in

the name of a structure of brick and mortar is a monument to

stupidity.

The rich

will make temples for Shiva.

What shall I, a poor man, do?

My legs are pillars,

the body the shrine,

the head a cupola

of gold.

12
 Listen, O lord of the meeting rivers,

things standing shall fall,

but the moving shall ever stay. (28-29)

Through his play, Karnad has not only presented the nature of orthodox thinkers

but also highlighted the arrogance and self-conscientiousness of Sharanas. Moreover, it

was not a marriage of individuals but of ideologies. Even parents were ready to sacrifice

the lives of their children without knowing their consent. Sharanas were highly

overwhelmed over the issue of inter-caste marriage and they just wanted to prove

themselves superior over the ‘Brahmins’ and ‘non-sharanas’. They rumoured that

Basvanna was performing miracles just to prove their superiority. Jagadeva, a Brahmin-

turned-sharana finally killed king Bijjala.

In a nutshell, we can say that sharana's approach did not match with their religion;

they were trying to break out of the typical and traditional set-up of society. The city of

Kalyan was divided into superior ‘sharanas’and inferior ‘non-sharanas’ due to their

arrogance and religious ego. In his last words, Basavanna says:

Whose name? And whose face? Whose wound and whose blood? This

carcass is mine. And I am also the king's slayer. So this is the last of

Allama's tableaux. The festivities are over the streets deserted. The night has

departed and the world is silent. Lord of the meeting Rivers, absorb the

inner shrine into the fine tip of your flame. Until all becomes light.Light

within light.The great dawn of light. (88)

As Karnad writes in the preface of the play:

In Karnataka, as elsewhere in India, a man has only open to his mouth and

his speech will give away his caste, his Kannada version of Tale-Danda, the

13
 language of the play engages with the implications of this fact for a situation

in which a group of people is trying to fight caste and social inequality. (iii)

This social inequality, caste-system arouses communal violence and ended in

bloodshed with devastation.

His next play Bali: The Sacrifice presents the conflict between two ideologies i.e.,

Brahminism versus Jainism or we can say violence versus non-violence.It is an English

translation of his play Hithina Hunja.About his play Karnad says:

For Bali: The sacrifice, I have drawn upon the thirteenth-century Kannada

epic, Yashodhara Charite, by Janna... Some elements of the tale have been

traced back to the first century. Stories and legends play multiple roles in

Indian culture. (Preface Two Plays)

The most interesting fact about the play is that it has only four characters

throughout the plot. They are the King, the Queen, the Mother Queen and the Mahout, The

play starts with the Queen's song subsumes ideologies of violence and non-violence:

QUEEN: As the world is divided

into two orbs:

One lit up by the Sun.

the other hid in the shade,

so also the human soul,

the habitation of gods,

In split into two realms-

one of the spirits that adore

The blood and gore

of the bright, shining blade

14
 slicing smoothly

through the lamb

and the other

ruled by the spirits that bid

you pause

before you use

the knife on a sapling

or clap the air-

lest you harm a life. (73)

The song very clearly describes the two halves of a human soul, one is echoed with

violence and the other completely ignores it. The Queen is staunch follower of Jainism and

the King marries her even after a great opposition of his mother. The Mother Queen had

great faith in the rituals and traditions of Brahmanism which encourages Bali for the sake

of future betterment. Even she believes strongly; that animals are graded according to the

occasion. For her, sheep and goat for more important rituals than Buffalo.She is not ready

to give up her old traditions in spite of knowing the fact that it involves violence.

After getting the news of Queen's pregnancy the Mother Queen wants to celebrate

in her own way. As she wants each and every member of the family should be governed by

her orders. But the Queen who was a follower of Jainism, opposes the way of the

celebration as the Mother Queen wants to celebrate it by her old tradition of sacrificing or

bali:

QUEEN: I don't want to hurt her. She can live by her beliefs. But we are

Jains. Our son will be a Jain. He will have to uphold the principle of

compassion for all living beings, of non-violence. Should we allow a

blood rite to mark his arrival? It would be wrong. Terribly wrong!

(97)
15
 Then the king moves to the Queen Mother's quarter. The king finds himself in a

difficult situation. He tries to make her understand that he doesn't want any blood sacrifice

in honour of his child.It is completely against the ideology of Jainism. He believes in non-

violence.Mother Queen becomes very angry after hearing this.

He puts his point of view that he has adopted Jainism because he believes in it and

cannot greet his child with the infliction of death. He further implies the fact that no one

would ever stop her from the worship of her goddess but he won't tolerate any kind of

violence in the name of his son. But for the Mother Queen, her grandson is the gift of her

goddess so she is not ready to give up her old tradition of sacrifice.

Now, the real agitation begins between the two different religious ideologies and

presents a picture of communal differences, violence versus non-violence. The play turns

into more miserable condition when the king wants to relieve his agony and feels

suffocated moment by moment but when the mother queen asks he tries to hide his feelings

and says I had a bad dream, nothing else. Then the mother queen explains the relevance of

dreams:

MOTHER: Dreams have spoken to me. And whenever I ignored them. I

suffered. Listen when I lost your father. I was warned. You know

that. I still blame myself. A dream like this is like an epidemic. The

longer you ignore it. The more it spreads, eats into more of the

family and the populace. It's fortunate I came to know right now.

(104)

But again she suggests something that is against non-violence, destructive and

demands blood:

MOTHER: I shall offer the goddess a hundred fowl in sacrifice. A hundred

16
 fowl. If we stake her parched throat, we may yet avert disaster. (104-105)

But the king refused and in favour of no bloody rite. But the mother disagreed with

her son's suggestion of no sacrifices or no bloodshed. In sheer agony, the king revealed the

truth that there is no dream. It was only a piece of fiction. Then the mother wants to know

what has happened actually, the king says:

Oh, my mother! Don't tell me! I knew it would happen ultimately… But

don't tell me she's done it… she is with someone. A lover! Oh, my God-

(The king turns away) (107)

The king explains to her mother that whatever has happened was a chance

occurrence. Nothing was planned. It was a cold night when the queen was infatuated by

melodious songs of the mahout and went into the ruined temple. At last, they're in the arms

of each other. The Mother Queen was shocked and in great anger.The king tries to calm

down her mother but of no use. Again her liking for violence shows in her anger.

MOTHER: Throw her bones to the dogs. She has betrayed you. You are not

bound by your vows now. All this nonsense about non-violence. It

had to go. Let it go. Kill the harlot and her lover. If you won’t do it,

I’ll do it. Let me fetch my sacrificial knife from the temple. I’ll –

(She turns to go to the temple. He holds her back) (107)

The king finds himself fluctuating between his mother and wife, or between

violence and non-violence. He doesn't want any kind of bloodshed as he believes in the

fundaments of Jainism against his mother’s beliefs.

He loves his wife and has become a staunch follower of Jainism so he is against

any kind of blood-shed whether animal or human being. He is completely lost and not

17
getting any appropriate way to get rid of such mess. He begs for help to his mother because

he doesn't want to let her wife go.

So, the mother suggests sacrificing a cock of dough in the atonement of the sin that

is done by the queen and the mahout, there'll be no bloodshed and the goddess will be

happy. And the king agrees with her mother this time and tries to convince his wife. But

she strongly opposes any kind of act of violence.

KING: But it’s only dough. There’s no violence in it.

QUEEN: But…but... this sword. This plunging in of the blade. The act…

it's violence.

QUEEN: Then why are you doing it? Why? Blood at least makes sense if

you believe in blood thirsty gods. But this… you can’t knowingly

fool yourself. (111)

They both love each other passionately and can't imagine life without each other.

After a heavy argument, the queen was ready to sacrifice a cock of dough. Then the king

raises the sword. The queen places her hand on the hilt of the sword but when the king tries

to plunge the sword into the cock, the cock begins to crow. The cock was not alive it was

her hallucination. She believes that cock is alive and offers grains. Suddenly, she presses

the point of the blade on her womb and impales herself on the sword. She collapses into the

arms of the king. The king holds her, but at the end of the play he is emptyhanded. And the

Queen sacrifices her life for the cock of dough.

The play ends with the chanting of the song:

In the world once divided into orbs –

18
 one lit up by the sun.

The other hid in the shade.

The orb in the shade

Opens itself to the light

And warmth of the sun.

Night gives in to day.

Death yields to life.

Like monsoon piled on monsoons

So life follows life.

And through the days,

Through endless rainy nights

Through life after life

We hear the cock crow. (124-125)

Finally, the Queen becomes the real sacrifice: Aparna Dharwarkar says:

Karnad has shown us how the matter of the myth and legend resonates in

modern experience….. and how the past history of

the nation prefigures its present. (87)

The play presents the plea of communal conflict between Brahminism which

believes in the ritual of sacrifice to plase gods and on the other hand Jainism which
19
opposed it strongly.

In all these three plays Karnad focuses on the drastic results of communal issues.

He tries to convey his message through his plays that any kind of communal clashes will

bring only turmoil and disapproval among the citizens. So, any kind of violence in the

name of religion and caste should be eradicated from the society.

3.2 Communal Violence in Dattani’s Selected Plays:

The theme of communal issues has been playing a pivotal role in the plays of

Dattani also. But the way he deals with these issues is entirely different from Karnad.

Karnad goes back to the history or myth for his writing but not Dattani. Dattani portrays

what he sees. So, there is a thorough analysis of communal issues in the two plays of

Dattani i.e. The Swami and Winstonand Final Solutions.

The Swami and Winston, a radio play, probes into the theme of religious

fundamentalism with the murder mystery of a member of the English aristocracy. The

murder mystery is solved by research scholar Uma, daughter-in-law of Bangalore's Deputy

Commissioner of Police and wife of the Superintendent Suresh. She is researching her

thesis on the violence in India. While investigating the death she comes in contact with

religious fanaticism at its most extreme. This play was first broadcasted on 3rd June 2000 at

3.00 PM on BBC Radio 4. It was directed by Jermy Mortimer.

Though the play is narrated in a very simple and lucid language, it thrilled us from

the very beginning. Through his play, Dattani tries to present the true face of people who

cheat in the name of religion of philosophy. Through this play, he tries to convey his

message that religious fundamentalism is toxic for humanity as it strikes its roots.

20
 Lady Montefiore, a rich woman with impressive background from the west comes

to India with her dog Winston. Her main reason for being there in India is to meet her

brother who lives in an ashram in Karnataka. That's why she had little interest in visiting

and exploring different places of India. She only wants to meet her brother and in the very

beginning, she clears this fact to the driver in a very straightforward manner by telling him

that she is not a tourist.But the driver pushes her so hard to visit Shivtemple because of its

religious importance. But she says:

LADY MONTEFIORE: I want to go to the ashram. I am not here to waste

my time looking at your bulls! Can you understand that?

DRIVER (hurt). Not my bulls. I am a Muslim. This is a very sacred bull, the

vehicle of God Shiva Himself. (147)

Here, the driver at one place wants to show her a temple of religious importance but

on the other hand, he isn't ready to accept the bulls belong to him as he is a Muslim. It

shows his religious conflict between Hindu philosophy and Muslim community. In spite of

being an Indian even in front of the foreigners,this conversation shows that lady

Montefiore had little interest in Hindu religion. And when her dog Winston is lost she

blamed herself for visiting the temple because of which she had left her dog alone. Quite

contrary to Lady Montefiore, her brother was greatly fascinated by Advaitaphilosophy of

India. So he joined the Ashram and becomes a staunch follower of Hindu religion. He tells

about his meeting with a man in London to Uma, therefore, he comes to India:

CHARLES: I met a man in London. An Indian.He talked a great deal about

Advaita philosophy and so on. I was impressed and accepted his

invitation to visit him in India. He turned out to be the most bigoted,

racist, casteist, classiest man I have met. (566)

21
 As the play opens, Lady Montefiore is looking for her brother, and then she lost her

dog Winston which is finally found. Thus incidents take place one after another. In the

meanwhile during the search for her brother, she is found dead inside her car somewhere

on Whitefield road! And the prime suspect is the driver, a Muslim arrested.

DRIVER: What is my crime? Being a Muslim? I tell you they will not have

arrested me if I was not a Muslim! Who will believe me? You are

also a Hindu.

UMA: No. You misunderstand. I want you to help me find out who killed

the English lady.

DRIVER: How can I help you? I don't know anything! I leave her for half

an hour and when I came back she is dead. In my car.Couldn’t she

die somewhere else? Why don't you help me also?

My life is not important? (264)

Through this conversation, playwright portrays distrust between two biggest

communities of India i.e. Hindu and Muslim. And he also reveals that the people belonging

to the minority are ill-treated. The Driver wants help from Uma and Uma also needs his

help. They both feel helpless. Their inability of being helpful to each other is the outcome

of their marginalization in unsimiliar ways. Their subaltern expresses her.

DRIVER: I will try to help you. I don't know anything. I am just a Muslim.

You should help me.

UMA: I will try. I am just a woman. (269)

22
 Going deep into their investigation Uma and Munswamy met with a person named

Sitaram Trivedi, a North Indian, and a Vaishnav Brahmin. He is a pseudo person and

disguises himself under the outfit of religion. He pretends to be very honest and

responsible citizen by telling her about the English lady. Even Uma also appreciates him

for his kind, modest and helpful behaviour.

Sitaram is successful in convincing Uma by telling her about that English lady. But

soon Uma realizes that he is not what he pretends to be. She feels, he is a very dangerous

person, a real right wing Hindu fanatic.

He is the person who believes in his own fundamentalism. He is very cunning and

treacherous person. He uses religion for the benefits of material growth. While talking to

Uma, he gives clues about his fanaticism.

SITARAM TRIVEDI: There are two types of Europeans. Ones who

understand and appreciate the depth and complexity of Hindu

Philosophy and the others who feel threatened by it. The world will

realize the greatness of Hindu way of life. Wait and see. It is a

question of time. They can't be blind for ever even if they choose not

to see. They have to open their eyes sooner or later. We shall have

our temples all over the world.

Uma wants to know what he is scheming in the name of religion and philosophy so

she asks more questions to him.

UMA: What if it leads to a civil war? The horror of partition all over again.

Is Hindu pride worth all that? Isn't there any other way of

establishing Hindu Pride?

23
 SITARAM TRIVEDI: you are still young. What do you know of the

horrors of partition? I have lived through it! Is there anything else

you want to know about the lady? I believe I have said all that I can

recall. (318-323)

He is the real criminal who is solely responsible for the murder of English lady as

he wants to fulfil his dream of establishment of Hinduism all around the world and for that

he needs a lot of money. He is a scheming person and knowingly leaves the raincoat of

Swami Ji, gifted by Charles to prove him guilty only because he is not happy with the

teachings of Swami Ji. He is a pseudo philosopher. But Swami Ji is a person with a pure

soul. He is a scholarly man and has great faith in Hindu philosophy. He firmly believes in

Hindu teachings and advises his pupil to follow the path of righteousness.

SWAMI: The mind of man has lost the point of balance and harmony in

every sphere of existence. We are so engrossed in material survival

that we are no longer aware of what is happening to us. Today we

are so preoccupied with our own sense gratification that we are

unaware of the existence of our fellow human beings. We see our

brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, children – merely as means

to fulfill our own needs. They do not exist for us unless they fulfill

some need or want. That is the cause of violence today.

Because we feel that anyone who does not fulfill our needs or wants

is not required on this planet. And sometimes the death of fellow

human beings may also fulfill some basic need in us…. (469 - 475)

On the other hand, Sitaram Trivedi uses religion to satisfy his own pride and ego.

He hates preachings of Swami Ji, so he wants him to be imprisoned in the murder case of
24
Lady Montefiore. By framing Swami, he can get rid of directopposition. But Swami is

truly spiritual and against such kind of practices in which Sitaram Trivedi is involved.

Finally murder mystery is solved and Sitaram Trivedi is caught red-handed. Then Charles

asks a very sophisticated question from Sitaram Trivedi:

CHARLES: How could you have killed her? How do you wake up in the

morning and justify your actions to yourself?

SITARAM TRIVEDI: I – I didn't want any of it for myself. (His breathing

is heavy) I – I only wanted to help the Hindu cause. (712-721)

Then Uma interrupts their conversation and makes Sitaram Trivedi realize that he

could have helped Hindus in a more genuine way by being a good Hindu himself. In spite

of all these facts, Suresh forces Uma to manipulate the facts by presenting them as an

accident. He tries to defend Sitaram Trivedi. Again Politics is involved in the name of

religion.

But Uma is very honest with her investigation. She listens to her conscience. She

reveals the truth in the court by going against her husband. Charles is very thankful to Uma

for whatever she has done for him and his sister. The play ends by rewarding Munswamy

five pounds for being so careful of Winston.

Through this play, Dattani attacks indirectly on narrow-minded religious people

who are real enemies of humanity in the form of sadhus, saints or Maulvis and create the

atmosphere of disharmony among people on the basis of Hinduism, Islamism or

Christianity, etc. This play in a real sense is a biting satire on persons indulging in criminal

acts, violence, arising communal tensions under the façade of religious activities in

contemporary society in India.

25
 Dattani's Final Solutions is a well-known play based on the most talked about

contemporary problem in India which is communal disharmony. This communal hatred

and violence is between two major communities of India. Hatred among the Hindus and

the Muslims has been an issue of great concern since the partition of India in 1947. Alyque

Padamsee's introduction to the play puts light on the burning issue of communal

disharmony. He writes:

The demons of communal hatred are not out on the street…they are lurking inside

ourselves. He continues, can we shake off our prejudices or are they in our psyche

like our genes? Will we even be free or even locked in the combat…Arabs against

Jews, Whites against blacks, Hindus against Muslims? Are there are any final

solutions? (Collected Plays 161)

Ramnik's house is the locale of the play and the plot revolves around the characters

are his daughter Smita, wife Aruna and mother Hardika, besides himself and two Muslim

boys Bobby and Javed.

When the play opens, a young girl named Daksha is reading out what she has

written in her diary, but now she is old and her name is also changed after marriage. The

young Daksha is old Hardika. Dattani presents young Daksha and old Hardika concurrently

on the stage. When Daksha is reading her diary, Hardika is seated motionless, on the same

level. By reading her diary Daksha recalls the past of Hardika and Hardika is haunted by

her past. Her past reminds hatred relationship between Hindu and Muslim.

Even she realizes nothing has changed much. After forty years, there is again

miserable condition due to Hindu-Muslim riot. Two Muslim boys Bobby and Javed enter

into Ramhik Gandhi's house as they are chased by the violent mob. This communal tension

26
is aroused by the attack on Rath Yatra procession. Through the conversation among chorus

members (Hindu) Dattani tries to reveal the feelings of communal disharmony.

CHORUS 1. How dare they?

CHORUS 2, 3. They broke our rath. They broke out our chariot and felled

our Gods!

CHORUS 1, 2, 3. This is our land! How dare they?

CHORUS 1. It is in their blood!

CHORUS 2, 3. It is in their blood to destroy! (Final Solutions 6)

The violent mob reached the door of Ramnik's house. They want these two Muslim

boys back so that they can take their revenge by killing them. As the play proceeds under

the threat of communal violence, Smita heard about the girls' hostel, it was bombed.When

the Muslim members of chorus appear on the stage they express their plea in a very

impressive manner.

CHORUS 1: Their chariot fell in our street!

CHORUS 2: Their God now prostrates before us!

CHORUS 3: So they blame it on us?

CHORUS 1: Was, the chariot built by us?

CHORUS 2, 3: Blame the builders of those fancy thrones.

CHORUS 4: A manufacturing defect!

CHORUS 5: Doesn't their God have a warranty?

27
 CHORUS ALL: We are neither idol-makers nor breakers! Breaks away.

CHORUS 5: But they blamed it on us!

CHORUS ALL: Why did they? Why did they: Why?

CHORUS 5: (Emotionally) Why? (10)

Hardika is obsessed with her past experience of communal riot. On the one hand,

Ramnik and his daughter supported Javed and Bobby and try to protect them, but Hardika

and Aruna were against of it.Just like Hardika, Javed is equally crushed and humiliated by

other community. Now he is a hired hoodlum. Bobby explains the incident which changed

Javed entirely.

BOBBY: When the postman asked Javed to hand over the letter to the

owner but it was unbelievable instance when the man came out with

a cloth in his hand. At first, he wiped the letter at the spot where the

letter was lying. We all were shocked at this sight. But what happens

next is more unbelievable than the previous one. That man was

running out on the street and his eyes were filled with tears and fear

as someone had dropped pieces of meat and bones into his backyard.

And after that Javed was in his own eyes no-longer neighbourhood

hero. (46)

Each character in this play has their own reason for the different level of hatred

towards other community. Hardika and Javed believed so because of their past. While

Bobby and Smita were the supporters of change. Aruna, due to her religious ignorance

carries communal chords. While Ramnik appears as a pseudo – liberal and has guilt

28
consciousness so he offered a job to Javed in his ‘Kapda’ shop. As Padamsee puts it, "This

is a play about transferred resentments."

Due to his guilt, Ramnik offers a job to Javed. But Javed is not interested as he had

great hatred towards Hindu community. As the play advances it also becomes clear that

Bobby and Smita knew each other. That's why she was helpful towards him. Even Javed

offered her help while she was going to fill puja water. At that time Aruna's expression and

reaction made Ramnik laugh and was a shocking moment for Javed.

ARUNA (TO JAVED): Please try to understand. We have nothing against

you it is only that we have our ways and customs and… and… we

are all equal. There is no doubt. We respect your religion and we

wish you well. Why we have friends who are… Smita has so many

friends who are not… All religion is one. Only the ways to God are

many. (55)

Now, there is an argument between mother and daughter over religious beliefs.

Smita completely disagrees with her mother's thoughts on religion. She wants her mother

to move with the change in time but Aruna is not ready for that which goes against her

religious beliefs. Because of her, Smita feels like a rat in a hole.Through this play, Dattani

does not pave the way for any solution to such communal turmoil and tensions instead, he

provides numerous possibilities which the play has henceforth entitled ‘Final solutions'.

One of the ways he tries to show through Bobby's act. He goes into Aruna’s puja room.

She tries her best to stop him but fails. There is an incident in the play when Bobby

suddenly picks up the image of Krishna and speaks:

BOBBY: He does not burn me to ashes! He does not cry out from the

heavens saying He has been contaminated!

29
He continues,

BOBBY: Look how he rests in my hands! He knows I cannot harm Him. He

knows his strength! I don't believe in him but he believes in me. He

smiles! He smiles at our trivial pride and trivial shame. See, Javed!

He doesn't humiliate you. He doesn't cringe from my touch. He

welcomes the warmth of my hand. He feels me. And he welcomes it!

(73-74)

Aruna became so annoyed because of this act of Bobby but realizes that if we

believe in one another then this earth will be the most beautiful place for living.

So, the answer of Bobby to the question of Aruna provides a very apt solution to

the problem of communal violence. Even Hardika regrets the past misunderstanding and

change of heart when Ramnik tells her about the truth of their shop that we burnt it actually

and bought fromthem at the half of its value.Dattani also suggests a solution hinted at the

end of the play:

HARDIKA: Do you think… do you think those boys will ever come back?

RAMNIK: If you call them they will come back. But then again – If it's too

late – they may not. (75-76)

Thus, Dattani presents his rational approach to the problem of communal divide in

our country. In his e-mail to Bijay Kumar Das, he said,

It takes a great deal of confidence and courage to be self-critical. Being

blind to one's failings is a weakness and not a matter of pride. If we as

Hindus can criticize ourselves that should be seen as a virtue rather than a

30
 failing. Sweeping things under the carpet does not make a society grow or

remain functional." (Das 54)

3.3 Issue of Communal Violence in Padmanbhan’s Selected Play:

Not only the playwrights like Karnad and Dattani but women writers due to their

sensibility and skills have got a respectable position in the development of Indian English

drama. Commenting on the presence of women writers Dr. M.F. Patel writes:

Women writers in India are moving forward with their strong and sure

strides, matching the pace of the world. We see them bursting out in full

bloom spreading their own individual fragrances. They are considered for

their originality, versatility and the indigenous flavour of the soil that they

bring to their work. Yes, they are out women writers. Writers first, I must

insist. Gender is only incidental… but one must admit, it does spice up their

work. (Sharma 93)

Worth mentioning, Padmanabhan because of her sensitive writings and portray the

true picture of her age rather than fanciful imagination. She targets the issue of communal

violence in her play Hidden fires. And the way she deals is really appreciating. She is

among the fewest dramatists of the twentieth century,who contributed fruitfully to the

theatrical development in the country.

The play Hidden fires was written by Padmanabhan on the request of Jayant

Kriplani, Director of the play, Kriplani was filled with great disappointment because of the

turmoil and violence as the outcome of the riots in the country. He felt so helpless and

states the reason behind this play.

When I saw the first riots in 1992 in Bombay I felt completely helpless.

31
 However powerful you are or well-known you are, or well networked you

are, you feel this sense of helplessness because no one is doing anything.

One felt completely stifled by one's inadequacy to do anything. And then

came Gujarat and what happened there is open knowledge, very well

covered up open knowledge.

This makes the significance of writing this play very lucid that "this is a very small

way of showing my anguish at what's happening…” (“A Word from the Director” Hidden

Fires)

Padmanabhan pens down Hidden Fires in the form of monologues and made a very

bold experiment. It is a series of five monologues and each monologue replicates entirely

different perspective of violence. Through her series of monologues, she tries to put forth

the catastrophic and adverse results of communal violence and riots in the country. Alka

Saxena writes about this play:

Through Hidden Fires, Manjula Padmanabhan attempts to come to grips

with the violence of our times. Hidden Fires comprises five powerful hard

hitting monologues in which the playwright takes head on issues of

violence, intolerance to others and narrow concepts of community and

nation. (Saxena 29)

Hidden Fires: Monologues by Padmanabhan was first presented at the Red Curtain

at G.D. Birla Sabhagar, Calcutta, on 7th July 2003 as part of Seagull Foundation for the

Arts. After that, it was staged and directed by Arvind Gaur of Asmita Theatre in 2004.

About his choice of stage production for this play Gaur says:

32
 At a time when our society by the large is in flux-with a spate of sectarian

violence hitting hard at its heart strings, I could not stop believing in the

hard hitting monologues in Hidden Fires. (Saxena 30)

Through her play Hidden Fires, Padmanabhan tries to expose the uselessness of

violence. It only brings lots of suffering and pain. The outcome of violence is always

destructive and causes hue and cry everywhere. She condemns the act of communal

violence by calling it inhuman which spreads only hatred among the common people. As

Jayant Kriplani says in ‘A word from the director' in the play:

We've come to accept violence as a normal, everyday occurrence. All kinds

of violence.The violence of Hindus against Muslims and vice versa, because

all fundamentalists are equally contemptible.Or the violence that's been

institutionalized by our government.Or the violence of poverty. So I'd like

to adopt the term ‘Minority Community' to describe the section to which I

belong. A ‘minority' that thinks secularism is good, sectarianism is bad,

violence unacceptable. These peace words are where we should be going.

(Hidden Fires)

In the first monologue i.e. Hidden fires, a man shares his unforgettable experience

and his feelings of that devastating riots. He finds chaos everywhere. There were

firesrunning everywhere. The city is under threat. The whole city is burning from within.

As day by day riots grow on a large scale he justifies his transformation from a

common man to a slayer. He defends himself:

When your life's in danger, you'll do anything to defend it, won't you?

When your country's in danger, you'll do anything to protect it, won't you?

33
 That's what we did. Defend ourselves. Saved our country. We saw fires and

we – stamped them out. (4)

He further says there were only killings everywhere. We got the news that two

hundred were dead at the end of the first day, then three hundred, at the end of the month

two thousand and it crosses ten thousand at the end of six months. In that condition what

would you do? I'm not ashamed of being a part of this violence. I just did it to save my life

and follow the rule of stamping out a fire.Throughout his monologue, he tries to justify his

action and to defend himself by saying that he didn't kill anyone. He saw fires and just put

them out.

He further explains it wasn't easy to find out all the fires near and around because

some of them are hidden. But to identify those hidden fires specific kind of vision is

needed because it is really difficult to guess that: is that one of Them or one of Us?

At last, he shares his opinion, how these riots, communal violence provoke the

common people to follow the same adverse path of violence. He explains the brutal

murders of his family in front of his eyes are the reason which makes him to be a murderer:

They didn't even ask questions. They just began to beat me up. Then they

threw me out of my house and set fire to my wife. She was not yet forty.

They took away my sisters and daughters. They strangled my son in front of

my eyes and pissed inside his dead mouth. (6)

At last he conveys his message to all of us very impressively:

If they could beat me up, they could beat you up-no, no, no! you must listen, you

must! Please! It's for your own sake-believe me! If it could happen to me, it could happen

to you – (6).

34
 Thus, through his message, he wants to warn us that anyone of us can be the victim

of communal hatred without his/her direct involvement in violence as these are hidden fires

and the only thing we have to do is that eradicate these fires within themselves.

In the second monologue i.e. ‘Know the Truth!’ there is a young woman sitting in

the posture of a newscaster, introduces herself as Pranam Shanti.Through her programme

she deals with the problems of the people who are under threat due to the riots in few

regions of the country.

These monologues took us back to the Gujarat riots of 1992 in which more than a

thousand people died. There were both Hindus and Muslims who were brutally killed in

the riots of 2002 resulting in massacres, killing, public rape of women, burning homes and

the displacement of more than 200,000 Muslims.

This was not over yet, due to hatred and unclear events between Hindus and

Muslims, 58 Hindus were burned to death at a railway station. And media just fuelled the

flames by giving headlines like "Average Blood with blood."

Wasn't it a joke? There was turmoil and violence everywhere still she insists

throughout her program that everything is under control with her charming smile. Even

these media persons try to manipulate the facts by showing the video shoots in their own

studios.

Visual shows a crowded market place in Rajasthan. It is the ‘Pushkar fair’ and

colourful Rajasthan villagers are shown haggling over camels. It is a standard tourist

brochure shot and there is no sign of any disturbance anywhere.

Thereafter another visual shows a shot taken in a studio, of a child-actor dressed in

35
Rajasthani pleasant clothes. He is holding up his elbow, which has been covered in a huge

white bed sheet with red ink splashed on it to suggest blood.

Later on, it's clear that everything in the program is the result of political influence

when she played a direct message of a politician.

(Voice over Politician)

... Inform the people of our beloved country that there is Absolutely

Nothing To Fear! The Government has been completely successful in its

campaign to put an end to terror within the nation's borders. There have

been no live burnings or gang rapes in any of the disputed territories in the

past six hours.......We are committed to the path of peaceful and nonviolent

suppression of all anti-national behaviour… So long as all our citizens avoid

over-reacting when they are faced with mobs or rapist gangs, so long as they

maintain patriotic silence when approached by foreign news agencies, we

are certain that complete normally will be restored in less than half a year.

JAI HIND! (12-13)

Then she introduces the politician, “And that message was from one of our leaders,

speaking from an undisclosed location somewhere in the world.” (13)

Through this monologue, Padmanabhan directly criticizes the role of government at

this crucial time. It is a satire on the Indian politics that leaders have hidden themselves for

their safety but appeal to public not to react to any situation whether it is gang rape or mob

killing. Then the young woman receives the last call of the day, the lady on the other side

tries to tell her what's happening in the neighbourhood, she refuses to admit it and calls it

36
her nightmares. Even she doesn't show any concern towards her problem and justify by

giving it a name of her delusion.

In nutshell, we can say that both media and politicians present a false picture just

because of their own safety and benefits.

In the third monologue i.e. Famous Last Words a game show in which a young host

plays a game with real lives. It is a game of killing and violence. Through this monologue,

Padmanabhan tries to explain the fact that human lives have no importance. Their lives are

just like a game, in which life and death play their part. ‘Famous Last Words' is hitting an

example of such adverse condition. It is a game of guess correctly, but a mistake can cause

the death of one person every time. He says:

Because for every minute of silence, someone belonging to the weaker

sections of our society will be burnt to death. Naturally, I wouldn't want to

offend the sensibilities of this audience. So I will spare you the right of

these minority deaths and as for sound, you’ll hear a small scream to

punctuate each execution. As the seconds tick by, you’ll see that screen at

the back begins to fill up with small fires. Once the entire screen is covered

in flame, your time as an audience is up. You’ll ALL go up in flames. (18-

19)

Padmanabhan presents the stark reality of our lives through comparison between

riots and this bloody game. Both are alike, where life does not have any importance, it

seems that violence is a game for all ages, unstoppable and unpredictable. This game never

ends. It always has begun as it happens in this game show.Thus the game continues…with

unending series of death and disaster.

37
 In her next monologue ‘Points' a young woman appears with an unlit candle in her

hand. She narrates nine points over all to explain; where do we exist? Who are we? And

where are we? What's the significance of our being here?

She has a candle in her hand and the flame represents the spirit of ‘my country’.

She further explains, what is it meant by ‘my country’.She explains ‘my country’ is

everything.It is air,roof and surface or in one word ‘my country’ is my life.It has

boundaries,regions,mountains and rivers but all these are part of it what it has.In her third

point she talks about its ownership and clears the fact that I or We belong to the country

but it doesn’t belong to anyone else.In her next point she talks about its beginning and

citizens.She calls the plants its first citizens.She further admits the fact that it’s only our

guess we don’t know the reality.In her fifth point she discusses about guessing and

concludes by calling ourself ‘rearrangements of matter’.

Till the fifth point, the young woman explains about the beginning of a country and

its citizens. Further, she talks about rearrangements.She says we are all rearrangements of

something else as plants are rearrangements of air, water, sunlight and molecules,animals

who depend on plants for their food are arrangements of the plants,and so on .In this way

this cycle goes on and we become rearrangements of something else.She further goes deep

into this something else. She describes:

We are something other than the physical matter of which we are made. We

are also the words we speak and thoughts in our minds, and our feelings and

our ideas…We are also composed of matter that cannot be measured by

weight or height.

38
 What is the weight of a word? Or the dimension of a thought? How do we

measure those things which exist beyond measurement? How do we capture

what cannot be grasped? (27)

In her eight points, she talks about which cannot be grasped.In this regard she lists

out few things like essence of ourselves,flame of the candle, and spirit of living beings.

These are the things that cannot be measured in terms of money.We can’t control or grasp

them according to our own wishes. Then she comes to her main point at the last i.e., about

reality:

We all know what reality is even if we cannot grasp it, or tie it down or own

it. Reality is the sum of everything without being any one thing. Reality is

the flame of a candle of which we… are the wick. (28)

Thus she winds up her point to make us aware of the reality and our existence.

In the last monologue ‘Invocation’ there is a woman who calls out names of many

people but the notion behind this calling of several names is that ‘name’ of any person is

the most important and powerful thing.First we’re recognized by our name in the society

after that by our actions.This is the only thing which makes us survive even after our death.

Name is our real power it shows who we are, where we came from and to whom we

belong.

Through this last monologue Padmanabhan effectively makes us think whenever

there is a riot, lots of killings, murders and deaths, the victims are only counted in numbers,

why not by their, names? There is deep analysis of the property that has been

damaged,thorough analysis on those who may have been responsible for all this destruction

39
but rarely talks about those who have been died during riots.The main concern about

bearing ‘name’ is just remembrance, nothing else! She mentions:

If there is one lesson that the Jews of Hitler’s Germany have taught us, it is

the value of remembrance. Six million died in Europe, but their names have

not been forgotten. Their deaths continue to resonate amongst our lives, as a

remembrance of what must not be allowed to happen again. Their names

have become the capital from which a currency of justice has been minted.

(38)

Through her series of monologues, the play might discuss the different approach of

violence and communal disharmony and the closing lines of the last monologue

‘Invocation' evoke a great sense of thinking:

Let us be done with violence. Let us those who have indulged in violence be

named and punished. Let those who have died in violence be named and

remembered.

With this, I end my invocation. (40)

Thus, Padmanabhan not only exposes the evils of society but also make the people

realize its disastrous consequences. Through her every monologue she conveys her

message that violence in any form only brings sufferings and pains. Padmanabhan deals

with such kind of sensitive issues very bravely.

All these three first rank dramatists of India English drama choose communal

issues as a theme for their plays but the way they deal it is entirely different with one-

another. As Karnad goes back to the history, myth, and folk, on the other hand, Dattani

40
writes actually what is happening around us as well as Padmanabhan talks about social

evils and sensitive issues like communal violence with real incidents.

41
 Works Cited

Das, Bijay Kumar. Form and Meaning in Mahesh Dattani’s Plays. New Delhi: Atlantic

Publishers &Distributors(P) Ltd., 2008. Print.

Dattani, Mahesh. The Swami and Winston: A Radio Play. Collected Plays, Vol. II, New

Delhi: Penguin e-single.

---. Final Solutions. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2000. Print.

Dharwarkar, Aparna. “Another Look Playwrighting and Criticism at Girish Karnad,”

Theatre India 1( May 1999): 87. Print.

Karnad,Girish. Tughlaq. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1975. Print.

---. Interview by Tutun Mukharjee.Girish Karnad’s Plays, Performances, and Critical

Perspectives. New Delhi: Pencraft, 2008. Print.

---.Tale-Danda.Ravi Dayal Publishers, 1993. Print.

---.Two Plays. New Delhi:OUP,2004. 70.Print.

Kriplani, Jayant. “A Word from the Director.”Hidden Fires.By Majula Padmanabhan.

Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2003.vii-ix.Print.

Padamsee, Alyque. Introduction.Collected Plays.By Mahesh Dattani. New Delhi:Penguin

Books, 2000. Print.

Padmanabhan, Manjula. Hidden Fires.Calcutta:Seagull Books,2003. Print.

Saxena,Alka. “It’s a Bloody Stage.” Perspective and Challenges in Indian English Drama.

Ed. Neeru Tondon.New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers.2006. Print.

Sharma, S.C.,Shewta Bakshi. Studies of Indian Women Writers in English. New

Delhi:A.KPublication. 2009. Print

42