Negotiating the Ethical Crisis: A View of Contemporary Indian Drama    

Alpna Saini 

The question of ethics has become extremely crucial with the advent of postmodern and postcolonial consciousness.Cross-cultural influences through mass migrations and globalization have become increasingly prominent resulting in a hybrid world culture. The uneasy co-existence of the global and the local has made the issue of ethics extremely complicated and problematic, especially on account of the multiple and often incompatible subject positions which a person has to adopt in everyday situations. 

          It is very difficult for a postcolonial and postmodern indian subject to pinpoint the definition of ethics. The subject moves back and forth between  various rationalities. He/she is never able to totally cast off the influence of  his/her own culture and traditions while he/she is conscious of and attracted  towards modern discourses. The subject is always caught up between the  popular discourses on Indian/ Western, traditional/modern, old/new. He/she thus  himself/herself has to choose his/her definition of ethics and the extent to which  they can or cannot be followed.       

         The postcolonial literature has been very successful in the depiction of this conflict, showing the difficulty of an individual forced to make these difficult  choices. Contemporary Indian drama has very beautifully dealt with this  complex issue and depicted the aspects of this conflict with utmost precision  uncovering many layers of complexity and offering new tentative definitions of ethics and ethical crisis. Vijay Tendulkar, for example, has dealt with social ethics in his dramas such as Silence, the Court is in Session, Kamala and Sakharam Binder. Girish Karnad has taken up political and religious ethics in plays like Tughlaq, Dreams of Tipu Sultan and Bali while Mahesh Dattani's major concern has been forging newer sexual ethics through plays like A Muggy Night in Mumbai, Bravely Fought the Queen and Do the Needful.

          In this paper I have undertaken a comparative study of the ethical crises of various postcolonial subjects in the dramatic world of Vijay Tendulkar, Girish Karnad and Mahesh Dattani.

 Leela Benare, the protagonist of  Vijay Tendulkar’s Silence! The Court is in  Session can be best appreciated if we treat her as a subject signifying both  freedom and subjugation, a subject who would act freely but whose freedom is shaped and limited by social and cultural structures. As a result she is both  free and unfree in her utterances and actions. She can be compared to Sarita in  Kamala and Jyoti in Kanyadaan. All three of them are at the mercy of complex  socio-cultural forces and obscure psychological motivations. They are educated  women, strongly aware of their rights, individualistic in outlook, but they are also  constrained by the forces of tradition which chain and hold them back. The issue  of concern here is however, that this oppression and constraint is considered  legitimate by these women being steeped in patriarchal discourses themselves.

 It can be said that these women are caught between the discourses of personal  freedom on the one hand and those of social norms and traditions on the other.  The question is whether to site ethics in an individual or a society at the time of  crisis.

             To consider Leela Benare’s case in particular, she can be described as a representative of contemporary Indian women in similar situations. She displays independence, self-assertiveness and skepticism but she is also extremely sensitive to the traditional norms of morality. She is tied down by the oppressive constraints of the label of Indianness that is imposed on her by the self-styled guardians of social norms and cultural ideals even as she tries to live life on her own terms. The fact that she makes a desperate attempt to assert what may be called her personal philosophy of life hints at a deeper fear that her dream of freedom may never be realized. Indeed, there is a duality in her character: she is both subject to the oppressive social apparatus as well as a subject possessed of the liberating western individualism. This duality makes her what she is as a postcolonial subject. 

            The play is about a play which somehow spontaneously turns into a cruel mock-trial. An amateur theatre group arrives in a village to perform a consciousness-raising play about the dangers of atomic warfare. The group consists of various characters who represent different sections of society. Among them is Leela Benare, the protagonist. She seems to have tried to live her life on her own terms and has remained more or less unfazed by criticism so far. She is cheerful and carefree like a child. And she is free of the hypocrisy that characterizes everyone else in the group. It is not that her life has been easy; she has suffered a lot but she tries her best to enjoy her life and work.  The others consequently envy her.  

The play is scheduled to be performed in the evening. The group has nothing to do before that. Bored, they hit upon a plan. They would enact a mock-trial. The proposal is, ironically, made spontaneously by Leela. It, however, turns out that the others find in it an opportunity to dig up Leela’s past ‘sins’ – her socially unacceptable conduct – so that they can humiliate and punish her publicly and pat themselves for being the conscience-keepers of society.

Leela Benare’s sin in the public eye is that she is going to be an unwed mother. She has been in love with Professor Damle for his intellect. He is a much older, married man, with five children. Damle, however, exploits her physically and discards her when she asks him to help her. About him, she says:

                               He wasn’t a god. He was a man. For whom everything was of the            body, for the body! That’s all. . . . (118)

  Leela’s infatuation with Damle is representative of her ambivalent relationship with authority as such. She both spurns and reveres authority, whether it is of Damle, of the Kashikars, or of social institutions.  Damle appears to her as a father figure because of his age as well as his intellectual and professional status. He is thus in a position to exploit her emotionally and physically. Indeed he is the second elderly man in her life who uses her body and then casts her off. The first was her maternal uncle who exploited her when she was an innocent child of thirteen years only.   He too is now the object of her hatred and scorn. This ambivalent relationship of love/hatred and respect/scorn can also be seen in her attitude towards the authority of the mock-trial court, particularly as represented by the Kashikars and Sukhatme. She despises them, yet she cannot bring herself to refuse to stand trial before them. She simultaneously protests against and submits to their authority.  

           The play  throws light on the double-edged weapon of the popular discourses of motherhood, honour, nationalism and social responsibility. Robert J.C. Young remarks: 

The ideal of the nation is often imaged as a woman, and the ideology of nationalism often invests the nation's core identity upon an idealized, patriarchal image of ideal womanhood. (63-64)

 These discourses are supposed to empower women but are often used to harm women’s interests. Woman is held responsible for the dignity and honour of motherhood and through that for preserving the ancient cultural traditions of the country. In practice however, instead of empowering her, these discourses compromise her freedom in the name of responsibility. The vague and questionable notions of morality and motherhood are used to curtail Leela Benare’s freedom during the trial. According to Sukhatme: 

The woman who is an accused has made a heinous blot on the sacred brow of motherhood . . . Her conduct has blackened all social and moral values. . . . If such socially destructive tendencies are encouraged to flourish, this country and its culture will be totally destroyed. . . . Woman is not fit for independence. . . . (114-115)       

They are thus using a rationale for which, however, they offer no ground. So this discourse is presumed to be self-legitimating. Their anti-rational attitude is confirmed also when Kashikar supports the custom of child-marriage, wishing that it should be revived (98). The most interesting thing is that the opposition to ideas and institutions of social progress is expressed in the guise of preservation of national culture.  

We find here two opposing discourses warring against each other to take possession of Leela's self-identity. On the one hand she is unable to shake off the influence of these patriarchal, subjugating discourses, while on the other she vehemently asserts her individuality, defends her personal freedom and  the rights of the body:

I despise this body – and I love it! I hate it – but it’s all you have in   the end, isn’t it? It will be there.  It will be yours. Where will it go without you? And where will you go if you reject it? Don’t be ungrateful. It was your body that once burnt and gave you a moment so beautiful, so blissful, so near to heaven! . . . (118)

 The ambivalence and complexity of Leela’s attitude are duly articulated by the playwright and seem to indicate the absence of any easy solutions. The conflict between the claims for freedom as an autonomous person and the demands made by society reveal the self as an embattled territory. Leela Benare wants to be independent, assertive and alive to the senses, to be the self that she was before the trial, but the society wants her to be submissive and a slave to the rules of morality created by it. The demands of society make her what she is post-trial. Her self undergoes a terrible change during the process of the trial. And she only reluctantly accepts the new self that others have given her. 

         The play can be also seen as deconstructing the idealized image of the Indian woman as Devi or Shakti. There is no ideal Indian woman as such, apart from the real flesh-and-blood women. The identity of a woman in India (or elsewhere for that matter) is socially and culturally constructed and the constructions serve certain socio-political and personal ends. 

         We see in the play a conflict between the real self and the performed self: what the people in the amateur theatre group really are, what they would like to be, what they present themselves to be, and how the implicit and explicit social codes determine their identities. There is a kind of duplicity of self in the identities of almost all the members of the group, including Leela Benare, of which they themselves may not be aware. And this duplicity can be clearly grasped if we consider it in the light of the concept of subjectivity. Though Leela is different from others in not deceiving herself about her motives and intentions, yet she is helpless before the so called system of morality. It is for this reason that she so desperately looks for someone who would lend to her unborn child his name as father:

 He must have a mother . . . a father to call his own – a house – to be looked after – he must have a good name! (118)

 The society, with its moral codes and restrictions, is therefore already housed in Leela’s consciousness. She has so internalised the patriarchal codes that she cannot bring herself to violate them despite her individualistic, modern and right-conscious protestations. She is a subject pulled apart by traditional patriarchal system of ethics on the one hand and modern western individualistic ethics on the other, which teach her to respect freedom and rights of an individual. The play thus depicts the predicament of a postcolonial subject,who has to find her own answers and make her own decisions. The aim of art remains, however, to dramatise the difficulty of a subject caught in this conflict, which Tendulkar's art definitely succeeds in achieving, though the playwright does not offer any easy solutions and suggests that no easy solution is, infact, available.  

          A not too dissimilar ethical dilemma is faced by the protagonist of Girish  Karnad's play Dreams of Tipu Sultan. Tipu Sultan, one of the most politically  perceptive emperors in India during the British rule, kept on wavering between nationalistic associations with India and everything Indian and his respect for  the British way of life, their undying love for their nation and their passion for  trade.Tipu knew that  the English were thriving in India due to their clever  political machinations and their stronghold in trade. 

. . . think of the John company - how they came to this country,  poor, cringing, and what they have become in a mere fifty years. They threaten us today. It's all because of their passion for trade. (26)

 He wished the Indians to wake up to this fact and instead of letting Indian resources open to exploitation by the British, be their own master and earn  profits by trading Indian goods.

This land is ours and it's rich, overflowing with goods the world hungers for, and we let foreigners come in and rob us of our wealth! Today the Indian princes are all comatose, wrapped in their opium dreams. But some day they'll wake up and throw out the Europeans. . . . It's them or us. . . .(36)

That is why Tipu sent delegations to China, France, Instanbul and so on to extend trade relations with these countries. He imported technology from these countries and exported rare Indian products to them, thus, strengthning the ecomomy and building a trading empire.But though Tipu was full of nationalistic and patriotic feelings, he could not help wondering at European enthusiasm and energy and wishing it for themselves: 

                     . . That's what makes Europe so wonderful - it's full of new ideas -    inventions - all kinds of machines - bursting with energy.         Why    don't  we in our country think like them? (25) 

        Tipu was relentless in his criticism of his fellow native rulers, who supported  the British and facilitated their ruling them. He lashed at the Nizam and the  Marathas when they joined hands with the British against him:

                     We are blocked by our own people. (40)

 Tipu feared that his own trusted officers might stab him in the back, when the  moment came. He envied the British nationalism, their love for England and their  steadfastness. In a dream, while talking to his father, he discloses his deepest  fears and his admiration for the British in a long speech:

But, Father, often, suddenly, I see myself in them - I see these

white skins swarming all over the land and I wonder what makes

them so relentless? Desperate? . . . They don't give up. Nor would

I. Sometimes I feel more confident of them than my own people. . . 

 They believe in the destiny of their race. Why can't we? . . . But

the English fight for something called England. What is it? It's just

a dream for which they are willing to kill and die. Children of

England! (51-52)

 He feels a kinship with the British in their undying love for their nation and their never-say-die attitude. But at the same time Tipu feels revolted by their apathy when the British demand his sons as hostages. He doesn't want his sons to be influenced by the violence ingrained in their language:

                       The danger is : they'll teach my children their language, English.

                       The language in which it is possible to think of children as

                       hostages. . . .(43)

 Tipu's predicament is the predicament of a contemporary Indian subject, who is  indecisive about whether to admire the developed countries of the world for their  progressive ideas, wealth, work culture and propriety or to look down upon them  for their lack of what we call Indian values of trust, sympathy and love. what do  ethics consist of, in other words? Do they mean that we must achieve our ends  relentlessly without caring for means or do they stand for the eternal human  emotions of love, bonding and fraternity? Tipu seems to be very clear about  what to inculcate from the west and what to reject.

   A different plane of ethical considerations is provided by Mahesh Dattani's  plays based on the theme of alternate sexuality. In A Muggy Night in Mumbai,Dattani chooses to dwell on same-sex relationships crumbling under the exerting influence of social demands. The play throws light on a variety of responses of people with alternate sexual preferences to social pressures. Prakash represents the usual problematic homosexual, who begins to doubt his own reality and tries to reorient himself towards being 'straight'. Then there is Sharadwho is the most upfront about his identity. He says:

                            If any one of us can be straight, I am Madhubala.(85)

Bunny Singh, the TV actor, who would hide his sexuality behind the sham of a  successful marriage, suggests: 

Camouflage! Even animals do it. Blend with the surroundings.

 They can't find you. You political gays deny yourself the basic

 instinct of camouflage.(70)

Bunny represents probably the typical Indian attitude towards the issue. This attitude is shared by Nitin in Bravely Fought the Queen. Nitin tries to continue a loveless relationship with his wife, Alka behind which he might hide his clandestine gay relationships. Nitin too appears to be a victim of the righteousness and highhandedness of the world of 'normal' men. Asha Kuthari Chaudhary points out:

 Dattani seems to be pointing at the common spaces between feminism and gay liberation where both situate a familiar oppressiveness in the 'straight' male and his assertion of phallocentric 'normal' pre-eminence - the self-delusion of their creed. (52)

The same hypocrisy and sham that Dattani rejects in A Muggy Night in Mumbai, are presented as probably the only alternatives to maintain peace with the social convention without taking a risk of upsetting them in Do the Needful. Alpesh, a gay man whom his parents want to marry off a second time after his first unsuccessful marriage, finds his solution in consenting to marry Lata, who loves another, whom she cannot marry, he being a terrorist. This marriage is preferable to the anarchic damage impending on the social status of the two families, should the young have their way.

               The play raises serious ethical questions as to whether suppressing one's real sexual identity could create long-lasting social well-being and happiness and whether it would not be better to come out openly once for all than making lives miserable. The conflict in terms of normative heterosexual behaviour and alternative sexuality forms the major concern here.

             The postcolonial subject in India and elsewhere is oscillating between two kinds of rationality - one represented by the traditional cultural thought and the other by modern western discourses. This conflict between the two cultures/ traditions/ civilisations becomes apparent in the works of Vijay Tendulkar, Girish Karnad and Mahesh Dattani, where ethics find a new definition and succeed in taking the centre-stage.

             A study of these three dramatists shows how the issue is dealt in various ways and in various classes of society. Tipu Sultan belongs to royalty and aristocracy, Leela Benare to lower middle class while Dattani's subjects to an upper metropolitan class of society. Also the three dramatists deal with the issue differently. In Tipu's case for example, he knows how to selectively appropriate western ideas and culture. In contrast to Tipu, Leela Benare remains unresolved till the end of the play between individualistic concerns and social concerns. In Mahesh Dattani's plays, however, western modernity provides a discourse to those sexualities which are otherwise suppressed under the weight of convention in India, giving them a respectable space. By studying these three dramatists in a comparative analysis, we are able to address a diversity of subject positions and explore the possibility of a composite conception of ethical stand as we see it in contemporary Indian drama.

Works Cited :

Chaudhuri, Asha Kuthari. Mahesh Dattani. New Delhi: Foundation Books, 2005.

Dattani, Mahesh. Collected Plays. Noida: Penguin Books, 2000.

Karnad, Girish. Two Plays by Girish Karnad. New Delhi: Oxford University, 2004.

Tendulkar, Vijay.  Collected Plays in Translation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Young, Robert J.C. Post-colonialism; A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.