Michel Foucault was a philosopher, social theorist, and intellectual historian who lived from France.

Michel Foucault's Discourse Theory, often known as Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, has greatly
aided in the explanation of modern philosophical concepts. He focuses on the relationship between
power and knowledge in his article, "Power, Knowledge, and Discourse. He connects power with
discourse formation. He denotes a change in focus away from language and towards discourse.
Discourse, he claims, is a linguistic idea and a system of representation. By focusing on rules and
practises that resulted in significant assertions in historical time, he presented diverse meanings. It's
a set of assertions that serve as a lexicon for discussing or communicating knowledge at a specific
point in time. It's a set of assertions that serve as a lexicon for discussing or communicating
knowledge at a specific point in time. Undefined every person's identity is unique and adaptable,
based on several discourses, implying that each individual contributes something unique to society.
As a result, each person internalises various social discourses that create their personalities.
Individuals are classified into the discursive category on the basis of this, and their power functions
are categorised accordingly. According to Discursive Psychology, knowledge is created more when
two individuals interact and discuss than it is learned by directly experiencing true reality. The
spoken or written language is then analysed, which is known as Discourse Analysis. Discourse, in its
most basic form, is talking about something that makes sense (a course or a subject). It's a language
for expressing one's own thoughts and opinions in any medium. This can be done either vocally (oral
communication) or nonverbally (sign languages) (semantics).

Undefined discourse can be characterised as every person's identity is different and adaptable based
on different discourses, which means that everyone contributes something different to society. As a
result, each person internalises various social discourses that mould them. Individuals are positioned
in the discursive category at various positions depending on where their power functions. It is then
that the spoken or written language is analysed known as the Discourse Analysis. Postmodern
theory, in contrast to modern theory, considers individual differences rather than social laws. As a
result, they realised the importance of discourse as a result of communication and conversation.
There is no one-size-fits-all response to any question. When you ask different people the identical
questions, you'll notice that each response differs from the previous one because the same thing
was seen through the eyes of many different people. Modernists sought to discover truths, while
postmodernists sought to understand how these facts came to be and how they were generated.
What prompted someone to assert that the truth that exists is the truth? Postmodernists were
interested in seeing if there were any alternatives to these pre-existing realities. And they came up
with a solution through discussion. Postmodernists argued that knowledge and truth are
multifaceted, and that they have been historically extended through discourses till today. They sat
down to examine several discourses, including texts, language, and policy. Discourse is the process
of producing knowledge through words and then putting it into practise. What one says is language,
and what one does is practise. It has an impact on how ideas are implemented and is regulated.
Episteme is the discourse that is defined by the style of thinking or the level of knowledge at any
given time. He claims that nothing has significance outside of discourse and that every social
configuration is relevant in understanding discursive production. In this regard, he backs up his claim
with the Constructivist Theory of Meaning and Representation, which explains how the meaning of
physical objects becomes an object of knowledge in discourse and how humans construct
knowledge based on their experiences.
Subaltern theory

Subaltern Studies, postcolonial theory, and critique gained traction in the last two decades of the
twentieth century, particularly as a result of globalisation in Third World countries. Subaltern studies
take its impetus from Marxism and post structuralism, and so becomes a part of postcolonial
criticism, if postcolonial criticism is considered a branch of postmodernism.

Antonio Gramsci coined the word "subaltern," which means "of lower rank," to describe working-
class people in the Soviet Union who are subservient to ruling-class hegemony. Peasants, labourers,
and other people excluded from hegemonic power are examples of subaltern classes. Gramsci was
fascinated by the history of the 'classes' of the working class. Although the dominant classes' history
is considered as the "official" history, Gramsci contended that the history of the subaltern classes
was just as complex. Even when they revolt, subaltern social groups' history is forced to remain
fragmented and episodic, according to him, because they are always susceptible to the ruling
groups' activities. The phrase was coined by the Subaltern Studies Group, a group of historians
whose goal was to foster systematic debate of subaltern issues in South Asian studies. It is a term
used in Subaltern Studies to describe the overall attribute of subordination in South Asian society,
regardless of whether it is represented in terms of class, gender, race, or other factors. Shahid Amin,
David Arnold, Partha Chatterjee, David Hardiman, Dipesh Chakrabarty, and Gyanendra Pandey were
among the members of Ranajit Guha's group.

The dominant powered narratives have been challenged by post-colonial scholars, who have
replaced them with counter narratives in which power is redistributed from the elite to the non-elite
of the society or narrative. Gayatri Spivak and Homi K. Bhaba are two of the most influential thinkers
of the time. Subaltern theory occupies a significant position among the numerous theories of
postcolonialism. In his book Prison Notebook, Antonio Gramsci coined the term "subaltern" to
describe the downtrodden class, which was eventually appropriated by historians and researchers.
Ranjit Guha, a member of the Subaltern Studies Group, borrowed the term from Gramsci and
applied it to Indian peasants. "A name for general attribute of subordination in South Asian society,"
Guha notes, "whether this is represented in terms of class, caste, age, gender, and office or in any
other way." (Guha, p.vii, 1997) Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak is another scholar who has popularised
the term. Spivak is most known for her divisive essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" "The subaltern
cannot speak for himself or herself since the entire structure of colonial power forbids speaking,"
writes Spivak in one of her works (Nayar, 2011, p.54) She begins by referring to the subalterns as an
oppressed class, but eventually shifts her focus to the colonised women, whom we interpret as the
subaltern women, who are oppressed by both colonialism and patriarchy. She claims that because
the oppressed cannot speak for themselves, they must be ‘spoken for,' and it is the intellectuals' and
academicians' job to make them visible and heard. In her piece, she claims that 'third-world women'
required liberty, which white males were supposed to supply (Nayar, 2011, p.54)

The revisionist narratives are now being written from different and new perspective with new
ideologies to interpret the narrative and characters, setting the characters who weren’t given
importance by the conventional authors of the text as the protagonist and presenting the story from
their perspective, bringing the era of retellings. Marginalization gives rise to the fire of rebellion and
resistance for the on-going power structure. Therefore, these new narratives by contemporary
authors are resistance against the old narratives. There are many retellings of Ramayana and
Mahabharata that are bringing the non-elite subalterns of these age old epics in the centre and are
being spoken. Texts like Sita’s Sister, Lanka’s Princess, Mandodari and others such narrative give
voice to subaltern women characters of mainstream Ramayana and Mahabharata. These texts try to
give voice to the characters and tell their side of the story behind their actions. Myth holding people
together through their beliefs was shaken when revisionists presented newer and shifted
perspective to the narrative, making the voices of unheard characters of the flat toned narrative of
Ramayana heard.

“Revisionist myth making counters hegemonic narratives and is commonly used as a strategy by
writers with an objective of revaluing the experiences of marginalized people. These become fertile
grounds for multiple versions and layers to emerge.” (Beena, 2019, p.13)

These new versions provide space for subaltern voices and render a new identity.

Derrida

Derrida is a French philosopher who was profoundly affected by the structuralism movement,
which swept the continent Europe. Postmodern philosophers such as Baudrillard and Lyotard
launched a war against the founding fathers of sociology and their foundational-universalistic
notions before Derrida entered the arena of postmodernity. Grand theories and metanarratives
were universally condemned. Postmodernity took on a new meaning thanks to Jacques
Derrida. He has created his own poststructuralist synthesis of philosophy, linguistics, and
literary criticism. Deconstruction is what it's called. The idea of objects having a single, basic
meaning is rejected by postmodern philosophy. There isn't just one explanation; there are
plenty. In terms of history, identity, and culture, postmodernity incorporates fragmentation,
conflict, and discontinuity. Any attempt to propose all-encompassing, comprehensive theories
is suspect. Furthermore, it dismisses the idea that any cultural occurrence can be described as
the result of a single, objectively existing, underlying cause. The major theoretical focus of
Jacques Derrida is deconstruction. Derrida's deconstruction attempts to unearth the meaning
of meaning. A literature like the Mahabharata, for example, provides us meaning: if injustice
is done to us, we must fight. This isn't the only interpretation of the passage. Mahabharata
could have a number of different interpretations. The Pandavas were eager to establish their
own kingdom. They were imperialists, and the call for justice was only a pretext. The
Mahabharata war could have a variety of interpretations. The structuralists are interested in
the relationships between language and mind, and they look for conditions that allow writings
to be meaningful. In his deconstruction theory, Jacques Derrida is more interested in figuring
out how texts' meanings might be numerous and unstable rather than tying them to a rigid
framework.
Derrida was an outspoken opponent of logocentrisim. The search for a universal system of
thought that discloses what is true, right, and beautiful, among other things, is known as
logocentrisim. The concept of logo-centrism dominated the western world. It outlawed all
writing dating back to Plato. Not only has logocentrisim brought philosophy to an end, but it
has also brought the human sciences to an end. Derrida is concerned in deconstructing or
removing the causes of this enslavement in order to write from the things that enslave it. It is
possible to best define Derrida's deconstruction as the deconstruction of logo-centrism. The
focus on epistemology is one of postmodernism's main goals. Baudrillard, Lyotard, Foucault,
and Derrida all attempted to discover the truth about the reality of the world. They have also
rejected the foundational ideas or theories of the type of logo-centrism in order to achieve
their goal. As a result, epistemology is the central question of postmodernism. In his writings,
Derrida attempts to strike at the base of knowing in his own unique way.

2.9 POSTMODERN FEMINIST THEORY:

A blend of postmodernism and feminist ideas is postmodern feminism. In the last few
decades, it has become a part of feminist theory. Postmodern feminists, like postmodernists,
criticise phallocentric thought, meaning, and concepts fashioned by absolute words that are
"masculine" in manner. They also ignore all feminist ideas that offer a single explanation for
women's subjugation or recommend methods toward their emancipation. Postmodern
feminists support the notions of multiplicity, diversity, and difference in this way. As they
say, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to becoming a "good feminist." The foundations of
postmodern feminist theory are postmodernism, post structuralism, and French feminist
thought. All of these movements have appeared at the same time. It's crucial to know what
each of these terms means in order to comprehend postmodern feminist philosophy.

Structuralism is an approach to studying organisational structure and relationships as a

complex system of interconnected pieces. It was created by the Swiss linguist theorist
Ferdinand de Saussure in the twentieth century and has since been used by sociologists,
psychoanalysts, anthropologists, and others. The structuralists believe that thoughts and
perceptions are produced by the words used to explain them, as language gives meaning to
everything. As a result, structuralism is concerned with signs, communication, and symbols.
Marx, Levi-Strauss, de Saussure, Lacan, Piaget, and Freud are all well-known structuralists.
These theorists have stressed the role of language in the formation of power relationships. To
do so, they created and suggested a mental model that provided lawful and explanatory deep
structures. However, in the 1970s, a school known as poststructuralists formed, arguing that
the meanings that language produces are inherently unstable, numerous, and susceptible to
interpretation, and hence cannot be fixed. To analyse the meaning of language, one must take
into account the political, social, and historical context in which it is written or spoken. As a
result, discourses and readers are located; as a result, they are unable to be positioned.

2.10. POSTMODERN FEMINISM:

Postmodern feminism is a new branch of feminism that aims for gender equality within the
female category. They do so while taking into account the variations amongst women in
terms of class and race. As a result, it takes an intersectional perspective. The goal of
postmodern feminist theorists, according to Flax, is to: 1. Identify feminist perspectives on
society. 2. Consider how the social environment influences women. 3. Examine how
women's perceptions of the social environment are shaped by power and knowledge
interactions. 4. Create strategies for changing the social world (Anonymous) The most well-
known postmodern female philosophers are Helen Cixous, Luna Irigaray, and Julia Kristeva.
"Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Approach," by Rosemarie Tong in her book,
“Feminist Thought: A more comprehensive introduction” has discussed Helen Cixous.
Helene Cixous is a novelist. She is inspired by Derrida’s concept of “differance”. Applying
Derrida’s idea of “difference” to writing, she differentiated feminine writings form that of
masculine writings. She contends that in a psychoanalytic framework, masculine texts are
anchored in their genital and libidinal economies, which are represented by the phallus. As a
result, Cixous asks women to express themselves through words. She encourages children to
write about themselves outside of the world that man has created for them. She defines
women's writing as scribbling, scratching marks, but men's works as composed and full of so-
called human wisdom. As a result, male texts are marked with social acceptability. As a
result, they are too hefty to be replaced. Cixous encourages women to write because their
work will change the way the Western world "thinks, speaks, and acts." This will eventually
change the cultural and social norms. However, she cautions women against writing about
nonexistence as existence, i.e. "foreseeing the unpredictable."s a straining and difficult task
(275-77).

Luca Irigaray is a psychoanalyst who was influenced by Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida.
Her main goal was to liberate feminine philosophy from men's ideologies; hence she
produced "feminine" philosophical thought. She claims that the types of ladies we are
familiar with are "masculine feminine." She is not the real woman, but rather the woman as
seen by men. This is due to the fact that in masculine speech, a woman is merely a reflection
of man's vision of her. As a result, she insists on seeing another woman who is "feminine,"
i.e. the lady as women see her. This woman defies categorization. If a woman wishes to see
herself as a woman, she must take three steps. To begin, women should abandon masculine
vocabulary in favour of developing gender-neutral female language. Second, women should
cultivate their sexuality. Women can determine their potential with the support of lesbian and
autoerotic practises. Women will be able to talk words, think thoughts, and execute deeds that
will displace the phallus through investigating the diverse body. Third, "women should
imitate the mimes imposed on them by men." Men's images of women should be multiplied
and reflected back to men by women. Women can "reverse the consequences of phallocentric
discourse simply by overdoing them" by miming. (266-29)

Julia Kristiva is a psychoanalyst who was influenced by Jacques Lacan's work. She expands
on Lacan's theory of Oedipal and post-Oedipal stages with the Symbolic order. She opposes
connecting "feminine" with female biology and "masculine" with male biology. She claims
that as a child enters Symbolic order, he or she begins to identify with their mother or father.
They become masculine or feminine based on their choosing. "The belief that 'one is a
woman' is almost as absurd and obscurantist as the belief that 'one is a man.' I say 'almost'
because there are still many goals which women can achieve: freedom of abortion and
contraception, day care centres for children, equality on the job, etc. Therefore, we must use
'we are women' as an advertisement or slogan for our demands. On a deeper level, however, a
woman cannot 'be'; it is something which does not even belong in the order of being."(230)

Thus, she argues that “women” is not natural rather a socially construction’. Therefore, it
cannot be and shouldn’t be defined.

Traditionally, Indian mythology served the patriarchal objective of putting women where
they belonged - at the bottom of the social ladder with the shudras. However, the tide is
finally turning. The subaltern is now utilising the precise instruments that have been used to
legitimise their enslavement for centuries as a form of empowerment. Many current mythic
fiction writers are taking up female cudgels, frequently turning known motifs on their heads.
There are more new voices than ever before, thanks to accessible options in digital and self-
publishing. While purists condemn these "inventions," literature serves its aim of stimulating
thought. Fortunately, a new generation of readers may find these different translations on the
shelves of bookstores and libraries, as well as on their mobile devices. As parents today, we
can choose to tell our children stories about a powerful Shakuntala, a brave Satyabhama, a
wise Satyavati, or an independent Urmila. Pratibha Ray's Yagnaseni: the Story of Draupadi
and Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni's The Palace of Illusions were at the forefront (also about
Draupadi). We can detect a definite progression of emboldening feminist voices from Ray's
Draupadi (1995) and Divakaruni (2008). Although both are retellings of the hyper-masculine
epic from Draupadi's point of view, the telling shifts from the "other" to the self. Whereas
Ray portrayed Draupadi as a woman who took pride in being the perfect wife, Divakaruni
allowed her heroine to openly yearn for the love of two more amazing men — Karna and
Krishna. With Sita: An Illustrated Retelling of the Ramayana, Devdutt Pattanaik, India's most
beloved mythological explicator of the time, added to the genre (2013). Pattanaik did reverse
the gaze by telling the Ramayana from Sita's perspective, but his heroine did not leave an
effect on me. This is most likely due to his sticking to the original story of the Valmiki
Ramayana. He did not, like most other writers, make up stories. Pattanaik's Sita is smart and
elevated, but not dissimilar to the Sita we get from collective consciousness. Her first novel,
Karna's Wife: The Outcast's Queen (2014), recounts the narrative of Karna through the eyes
of his imaginary wife, Uruvi. Kané chose to recount Karna's narrative through the lens of
mythological fiction by introducing a totally new character. Uruvi is not mentioned in the
Mahabharata. Karna is married to Vrushali, Duryodhana's charioteer's sister, as well as
Supriya. Both are one-dimensional characters with little to say or do in the epic. But Kane
envisioned her as a living, breathing heroine who holds the fort when everything is falling
apart and everyone important has fled.

Kavita Kane is well-known for bringing to light the often-overlooked female characters of
Indian mythology. Women are rarely mentioned in epics like the Ramayana and
Mahabharata, with a few exceptions, and her work continues an important tradition of
resurrecting the stories of marginalised female characters from these epics. Her works are
women-centric, including mythological heroines who are comparatively lesser-known, and
highlight challenges and problems that women face even in the present period. The following
is a list of her works, which are all feminist retellings of Indian mythology. Sita's Sister,
Kane's second novel, is a part-reality Ramayan told through the eyes of Urmila, Sita's
younger sister and Lakshman's wife. It is really a novel about all of the women in the
Ramayana, but Urmila emerges as the most powerful figure, one who is headstrong yet
serene in the face of adversity and can see the larger picture. She comes across as a someone
who gracefully accepted her circumstances, whether it was playing second fiddle to her
adopted elder sister Sita or accepting the reality that her husband would continue to prioritise
his brotherly obligations above her. Rather than moaning, she responds by being a pillar of
support for her loved ones. The story delves into the many dimensions of Karna, the
embodiment of moral virtue who, because to his devotion to Duryodhana, made all of the
wrong judgments in life. Uruvi is unable to forgive Karna for his sin in ordering Draupadi's
disrobing after the dice game. As a wife, she is depicted as a powerful lady who tries to keep
her husband safe from the evil Duryodhan and Shakuni, and as a mother, she raises her child
alone and abdicates the Hastinapur crown.

Menaka's Choice tells the story of Menaka, the most beautiful apsara in heaven. Menaka's
experiences and tribulations are retold in her own voice in this book. She refuses to be
dominated and fights for her rights and honour after being continually degraded and relegated
to the role of seductress. Menaka demands that she be treated as a woman, with the same
rights as 'devis,' and that she and her companions be treated as more than just entertainers at
Indra's court. Menaka affirms her freedom to choose at the end of the novel, which serves as
a last statement of empowerment. The novel 'The Fisher Queen's Dynasty' tells the
Mahabharata story through the eyes of Satyavati, King Shantanu's wife and Bhishma
Pitamah's stepmother. Through the tale of Satyavati, a fisher-girl who rose to become a
queen, the book tackles human inconsistencies, such as keeping to values versus moving up
the social ladder through deception. Satyavati was abandoned as a newborn and preyed on by
a rishi, yet she rose through the ranks to become a queen and the Kuru dynasty's grand
matriarch. The plot of the narrative follows Satyavati's fortunes and Bhma's sense of idealism
as they rise and collapse.

Sharath Komarraju's The Winds of Hastinapur (2013) is another example of myth retelling
from a different perspective. The story is told from the perspectives of Ganga and Satyavati.
The work is a continuation of the Mahabharata, written as a sequel. Ganga, who is nearing
death, relates the Mahabharata epic from her perspective during on their final voyage, when
all the Pandavas have died. The first part of the tale is told by King Shantanu, while the
second is told by Satyavati, the fisherwoman he married. The second section concludes with
Dhritarashtra's birth, with Pandu and Vidur to follow. The author emphasises the female
characters, who were previously overlooked. It is not just the retelling of the Mahabharata
myth, but also about the women of the epic, for it is told through the eyes of an ensemble all-
woman cast

The book 'Ajaya - Roll of the Dice' by Anand Neelakantan is a retelling of Jaya, or the
Mahabharata. The novel is told from the viewpoint of the Kaurava. Because the losers never
get a chance to elaborate their plot, history has always been on the side of the triumphant.
Ajaya - Roll of the Dice grants them the ability to speak, allowing them to tell their narrative
rather than the 'His story' version.

Through a sequence of pre-battle coaxes and doings that led the epic to emerge in the first
place, the Author beautifully shows the Mahabharata times' philosophy, lifestyle, and caste
dominance. The fact that Arjuna was not the first to win the contest for Draupadi, but rather
Karna, King of Anga; and the fact that Krishna instilled hatred for Suyodhana and love for
Arjuna in Shubadhra's heart; and the fact that according to Vedic law, a woman can only
marry four men before being considered a prostitute, but that rule was ignored for the sake of
avoiding conflict between The Pandavas! The novel comes to a close with a request that
Draupadi be given to the Kaurava Clan, who will decide her fate.