South Asian Review

ISSN: 0275-9527 (Print) 2573-9476 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsoa20

Injustice, Resistance, and Subversion: A Study of

Selected Plays by Indian Women Playwrights

Seema Malik

To cite this article: Seema Malik (2008) Injustice, Resistance, and Subversion: A Study
of Selected Plays by Indian Women Playwrights, South Asian Review, 29:1, 103-114, DOI:
10.1080/02759527.2008.11932580

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02759527.2008.11932580

Published online: 08 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsoa20
 103

Injustice, Resistance, and Subversion:

A Study of Selected Plays
by Indian Women Playwrights
SeemaMalik
M L Sukhadia University, Udaipur

T he inherent plurality of the concept of social justice defies any

monolithic understanding of its meaning and implication. Social
justice has multiple contexts and sites as it is influenced by various
ideas, expectations, mechanisms, and practices. It is rather relative,
depending upon varying situations, subjectivities, and marginalities.
The sheer durability of the marginalization of women and gender
inequality led to various movements and campaigns by women in India.
Blurring the public/private dichotomy, such campaigns resulted in a
broad spectrum of legal and governmental measures that were not
confined to merely political or economic justice but encompassed
issues like bodily integrity, domestic violence, health, education, and
women's social status. Besides these conventional parameters, there are
certain non-conventional dimensions like mental and emotional well-
being, dignity, self-respect, betrayal, non-humiliation, agency, and
freedom of choice that are particularly salient for women. They may be
difficult to measure but need to be given due consideration in order to
make gender justice more comprehensive and all-inclusive. 1
However, the question that confronts one today is whether gender
justice can be approximated merely by passing stricter laws? Can the
progressive legal changes for women's equity exist in a vacuum? Can
the desired social change be brought about despite the underlying
mechanism for containment and the processes of internalization? It
goes without saying that social justice is an area only partly covered by
law. It is the milieu and the sociocultural dynamics therein that not only
facilitate or impede social justice but also greatly influence the delivery

South Asian Review, Vol. 29, No.1, 2008

104 Seema Malik

mechanisms or Legal measures. Aesthetic practices are a significant

component of the concerted efforts being made across sections to bring
about the conducive attitudinal shift in the mindset of the people.
Indian women playwrights, through their plays as cultural
enterprise, embody a conscious social perspective, critique the existing
power structure, and uphold the selthood of women. "Self' means
individual consciousness and the seat of subjective thought and action.
with its four constituents being body, mind, intellect, and emotions.
Control over body inevitably includes sex, rape, marriage, procreation.
birth contro~ and abortion-in short, bodily integrity. Intellect
presumes the right to know, to rationalize, and to have ideas, and mind
implies the wiLL to exercise discretion. consider a decision. make a
choice, and have the freedom to act. Emotion implies the right to fee~
respond, and relate (Jain and Singh 84). These playwrights chaLLenge
the repressive, patriarchal societal norms, articulate subjective
experiences of injustice, and take up sensitive issues Like girl-child sex
abuse, female foeticide, bigamy, and rape in plays such as Getting
A way with Murder by Dina Mehta, Lights Out by Manjula
Padrnanabhan. Mangalam by Poile Sengupta, Gamble by Muktabai
Dikshit, and Woman by Rasheed Jahan.
Besides this, Indian women playwrights also foreground certain
non-conventional dimensions of gendered injustice that are rather
elusive but no Less oppressive and are difficult to measure. They Leave
the body intact but dent the mind and soul forever and are a pivotal
aspect of gender justice. Through their cultural agency, these
playwrights incorporate autonomy, dignity, choice, desire, and space
fur extension under the broad umbreLLa of social justice. They speak of
the power matrix and gender disparity and make specific caLLs for
justice.
Resistance to oppressive hegemonic tactics and power differentials
is both integral to and distinct from all resistances to global injustice.
The paper seeks to bring forth the respective notions of injustice,
resistance, and strategic subversion as rendered in play texts Like
Mandodari by Varsha Adalja, Medea by Nabaneeta Dev Sen. and The
Swing of Desire by Mamta G. Sagar. Though the Indian women
playwrights' texts vibrate with resistance to injustice, this paper is not
an attempt at a systematic scrutiny of their entire corpus. The play texts
chosen for the study dramatize resistance and subversion in the cultural
context and focus upon the overlapping networks of desire, freedom,
betraya~ commitment, responsibility, and obligation within the cultural
space of fumily through which injustice and/or oppression is not only
understood but also negotiated and transfOrmed. These plays represent
the subtle and subjective kind of injustice that succeeds in eluding the
Legal orbit. The representation of resistance and subversion in these
 Injustice, Resistance, and Subversion 105

plays is nuanced and indigenous, i.e., their treatment and differentiation

reproduced therein do not neglect the overall stratification of the Indian
social system and are cognizant of ethical and cultural values. While
portraying resistance and subversion, these playwrights keep in mind
the behavioral constraints that are implicit and socially attitudinal.
As opposed to "protest," which generally is associated with
collective activism, "resistance" can be understood as a non-
confrontational, non-apparent motive constantly present in the behavior
and consciousness of the subaltern having the power to "tear through
the fabric ofhegemonic forms" (Haynes and Prakash 1). Patriarchy and
tradition work in conjunction as hegemonic forms vis-a-vis gender
relations, empowering men and disempowering women. Multiple
structuring of power inherently has the seeds of resistance. Dominance
and resistance are not mutually exclusive because it is the lived
experiences, or the experiences of social marginality, that start the
politics of thought and resistance.
Since resistance is enacted in the sociocultural milieu, any
approach to it needs to be culture specific. It is a subtle act that can be
expressed overtly or covertly by gestures, actions, words, or mood. In
the Indian context, the heavy weight of tradition, combined with the
effect of socialization, prevents women from being vociferous. Having
accepted and internalized the patriarchal notion of femininity, they
exhibit what Amartya Sen calls "adaptive preferences," or preferences
that have adjusted to their second class status (qtd. in Nussbaum 38).
The tolerance of gender inequality is closely related to notions of
legitimacy and correctness (A. Sen 421). In fact, the behavioral
practices of women reflect those aspects of gender ideology and
identity that project women as passive recipients in the cultural-cum-
material patriarchal setup. The indigenous construction of femininity
functions as a sort of cultural disarmament of women's fighting-back
potential. The expression of dissent and negotiation for a better deal for
themselves is, therefore, quite indirect. The masculine yardstick of
"heroic" resistance cannot measure women's resistance. Because of
"women's complex and differentiated relations with men and with
patriarchy" (Sunder Rajan, "Introduction" 158), their resistance
becomes difficult and variable. They are in a state of flux, caught
between the conflicting emotions of consent and dissent. Moreover,
their subjectivity is marked with differences on the basis of gender as
well as caste, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds. Therefore,
women's resistance, as pointed out by Meenakshi Thapan, "may not be
a situated act but varies according to not only multiple subjectivities but
also different contexts" ( 11 ). Taking upon themselves the task of self-
actualization through their cultural agency, yet working from within the
106 Seema Malik

sociocultural milieu, these playwrights reproduce the indigenous

character of resistance that is not bereft of moorings.
As cultural agents, their creativity is also subjected to the same
social and ideological constraints. They do not transgress the cultural
constraints; rather, they draw upon the available resources and wring
the maximum out of them by refocusing or reinterpreting them. They
thus become the users as well as the makers of culture and subtly
incorporate the idea of change. They deploy a variety of strategies,
including resistance and subversion through revisionist myth. While
examining the reconstruction of mythical women by Indian playwrights
in "Interrogating Tradition: Reconstruction of Mythical Women,"
Pankaj K. Singh writes,
The use of myth in drama has definite aesthetic advantages, both as a
thematic statement and as a structural principle. It provides a
structure of shared beliefs through which the playwrights work out
their ideological preoccupations in a temporal and spatial framework
wider than the immediate social specificity. (22)
Through "revisionist myth making" (35), to use Adrienne Rich's
phrase, the Indian women playwrights interrogate, re-evaluate, and
reconstruct the structure of shared beliefs that the myth provides. An
iconic figure or culturally accepted tale is appropriated, transformed, or
transcreated for the desired end. The arbitrary privileging of the
traditiona~ oppressive power structures is exposed and/or subverted,
which often is reflected in the choice and portrayal of the protagonist.
This is highlighted in Mandodari, a Gujarati play by Varsha Ada~a,
which presents an eponymous character Mandodari from Ramayana.
Mandodari espouses the cause of innumerable wives and mothers
who inevitably suffer the consequences of war that take place as a
result of pathogeny of male lust for power and passion. But the play is
predominantly about betraya~ deep sense of hurt, violation of dignity,
and a woman's strategic triumph in her personal struggle. In her
chamber, Mandodari suddenly encounters the omniscient, omnipresent,
and immortal Kaaldevta, who holds the entire universe in his fist. He
proclaims the destruction of the golden Lanka and Ravana's life.
Mandodari pleads fur mercy, but when Kaaldevta insists that his
decision is unalterable, she invites him to accept her challenge that
Kaal's task will remain unfulftlled Confident of his victory, Kaal
accepts the gauntlet and plays the game with pawns invented by
Mandodari Kaaldevta plays a number of moves that are desperately
countered by Mandodari. She is anguished by Ravana's abduction of
Seeta and tries to persuade him: "Lankesh, a woman is not an object to
be used to settle enmity nor a victim of lust. Listen to me, my Lord,
please free Seeta . . . some unseen power maintains the balance of
 Injustice, Resistance, and Subversion 107

justice and injustice in this world. Do not upset that balance" (Adalja
105, 108).
She sends Bibhisana to dissuade Ravana but to no avail.
Meanwhile, all the pawns of Kaaldevta are in motion-Lanka is in
flames, Ravana tries to seduce Seeta, and both the armies are ready for
battle. But Mandodari pleads Kaaldevta to allow her to play her last
pawn: herself. She goes to Seeta and asks her to surrender to Ravana.
Taken aback, Seeta reprimands Mandodari:
Seeta: Do women get no respect in asura culture? Among aryans,
woman is worshipped as goddess.
Mandodari: 0 Seeta, the daughter-in-law of the Suryawamshis, don't
you think that there is ambiguity in the treatment of women as
goddess? When the victorious kings confiscate kingdoms, don't
they also take the women folk of the defeated kings? (II 0)
Mandodari thus draws attention to the paradoxical status of women in
India. On the one hand, culture theoretically deifies and empowers
women but on the other, in practice, renders them powerless and treats
them as puppets. Ultimately, Kaaldevta claims Ravana's life. In the
following passage, he consoles Mandodari:
Kaaldevta: Maharani Mandodari, in this life the only truth is death. I
am touched by your love for your country. I bow to you and
bless you. May you always be honoured as a great Sati. Now I
take leave of you, Devi. My mission is complete. I had told you
earlier that Kaal can never be defeated.
(As Kaaldevta turns to go, Mandodari laughs loudly and scornfUlly.
Kaaldevta is surprised.)
Mandodari: You are mistaken, Dev. You have lost the game and I
have won.
Kaaldevta: What are you saying?
Mandodari: Yes, every move of yours led me towards my ultimate
goal.
Kaaldevta: Then was your ultimate goal, war?
Mandodari: No, I was waiting for my lord's death.
Kaaldevta: What are you saying, Mandodari?
Mandodari: How is it that you are omniscient yet did not know my
thoughts? Well, to read a woman's heart one has to be a woman
perhaps! How would you understand the agony of being the wife
of such a lustful yet blind man?
Kaaldevta: I don't understand you.
Mandodari: Through Seeta's abduction and the ensuing war, I sought
redemption of my clan. The arrow that killed Ravana actually
released his soul and gave the egoistic man his salvation.
108 Seema Malik

Though I am widowed now, I am a happy woman. I have

succeeded in what I set out to do, ha, ha, ha. ( ll4)
Mandodari's apparent desperation, helplessness, and the conforming
surfuce behavior form a subterfuge that conceals a hidden transcript of
subversive female rage and her dogged resolve to achieve her goal. She
maintains a balance between complicity, conformity, and the under-
current of resistance. Conformity, without subscribing to its implied
ideals and values, is the strategy employed by Mandodari to accomplish
the desired subversion. Thus, resistance may not necessarily be
transparent. Differentiating women's resistance from protest, Sunder
Rajan states:
Women's quietism, passivity, their consent and acquiesce to and even
complicity with, patriarchy are no longer understood simply as signs
of abject powerlessness or of false consciousness. These are instead
recognized as real alternatives to 'resistance' available to women in
negotiating a better deal for themselves in an objectively real
situation of disempowerment. ("Introduction" 158)
Locating resistance within the scene of cultural production, Sunder
Rajan explains, "Resistance is not always a positivity; it may be no
more than a negative agency, an absence of acquiescence in one's dissimulation- when a
person let false sign
oppression" (Real and Imagined Women 12). In the play Medea by and opinions about
him/her without
Nabaneeta Dev Sen, Rupsa does not acquiesce and registers her correction- permits
resistance through the subversive mode of simulation and dis- others to misinterpret
showing the false one about his behavior
simulation. To simulate is to assume a false appearance and to and actions
hiding the real simulation- person
dissimulate is to pretend the contrary of what one is, that is, to conceal who lies about himself
or disguise. In the play, Rupsa refuses to accept that she is Manas's to hide his real self.

wife and pretends to be a stranger. Nearly a decade earlier, Rupsa 's

husband, Manas, just vanished out of her life without a thought about
his responsibility toward their two children: Tutu and Ratan. He was
involved in fraudulent activities, which he had not disclosed to Rupsa,
and he had to leave the country to save himself. Rupsa is hurt and
embittered due to the irresponsible behavior of Manas, whose sudden
disappearance left a vacuum in her life. She does not hear from him
even once during his absence. She finds his indifference toward her and
their children unpardonable and wants to sever all ties with him.
The play begins with the sudden meeting of Manas and Rupsa on a
railway station after a lapse of eight to ten years. Both in their forties
now, the man recognizes the woman and is pleasantly surprised. He
inquires about their children, but she refuses to recognize him as her
husband or acknowledge their children. In a society that not only
privileges men but also glosses over their lapses vis-a-vis women,
Rupsa does not hope to get any justice and decides to tackle the
 Injustice, Resistance, and Subversion 109

situation on her own. As a potent tool of resistance, she adopts the

strategy of simulation and dissimulation and feigns amnesia:
Woman: Tutu-Ratan? Who are Tutu-Ratan?
Man: Who are Tutu-Ratan? (Hesitating.) Then, aren't you ... well,
aren't you Rupsa, then?
Woman: Yes, my name is Rupsa. And yours?
Man: Rupa! Don't you know me? I am your ... I am Manas.
Rupsa: Manas? Now, which Manas would that be? Majumdar or
Roychoudhury?

Manas: Two men called Manas! You knew two men.... What are
you saying, Rupsa? Aren't you Rupsa Mullick? Or have you
another name now?
Rupsa: My name is Rupsa Mullick.
Manas: Then can't you recall the name of Manas Mullick?
Rupsa: Manas Mullick? Sounds very familiar indeed. Are you related
to the family ofRajen Mullick?
Manas: Rupa! Don't try to be fimny. There is a time and a place for
everything!
Rupsa: Look here, please don't speak to me like that. When I don't
even know you, where is the question of trying to joke with
you? (86--87)

And she then informs him that she is going to McCluskiegunj to bring
her foster children Ratan and Tutu home for the puja vacations, that
they are orphans and live in a hostel, and that she had adopted them
from Mother Teresa's orphanage:
Manas: Mother Teresa! Rupu! Rupu, dear. Are you calling Ratan
and Tutu orphans? Don't you remember the pain of Ratan's
birth? ... And for Tutu, there had to be a caesarian operation.
And now you . . . you so calmly call them orphans! . . . Rupa
darling, can't you recall that day of Ratan's birth? That was the
month of Sravan, of ceaseless rain ...
Rupsa: (Repeating to herself, dreamily) That was the month of
Sravan ... of ceaseless rain ... I had gone to Mother Teresa's
ashram ... I asked Mother, please give me this child! That was
the first ... our first child. (88)
Rupsa negates every association and event with Manas and fabricates
alternate stories to all the factual happenings and memories that she
shared with Manas. When he reminds her of their marriage at the
Registrar's office, she says that her father married her off in a great
style to a man in the railways. Instead of saying overtly that she had
severed all relations with Manas when he suddenly disappeared from
110 Seema Malik

her life, she says that her husband died in a train accident at the age of
thirty-six. She hits below the belt by saying that her husband was
impotent:
Rupsa: Oh, he was overjoyed and so grateful the day l brought Ratan
home. ln fact, he had a little physical problem, you see, and we
could not have children ... He didn't confide in me, though. l
suppose it is not easy for a man to volunteer such information.
No man can. He could not either ... Poor thing! Just imagine
the distress, the cruel injustice of fate ... to deprive a man of the
essence of manhood? lt is not fair to be angry with such a man.
He must have suffered too-all by himself-trying desperately
to hold on to his self-respect-unable to share his anguish with
me. (91-92)
Manas desperately pleads forgiveness, "Don't people make mistakes? ...
Why are you letting your anger destroy every thing? Think of Tutu-
Ratan, at least?" (93). To this Rupsa says, "You are still mistaken....
One has to make a choice but who can tell what might be lost in the
process?" Then gently pushing Manas aside, she walks away toward the
train. He shouts that he wants to go to the hostel and meet the children.
Rupsa says, "Hostel? What hostel? Whose children?" and goes away in
the train, leaving the dejected man behind in darkness. The lights come
on and the director comes to the stage along with the actors. She says,
''This play may be called Medea; it might also be called Jason. You can
choose to call it what you wilL But, tell me, who do you think is the
subject of this drama? To whom does the drama really belong: Jason or
Medea?" (94).
The play makes an interesting comparison to the Greek
mythological figure Medea, who fell in love with Jason. Later, Jason is
said to have married Glauce of his volition, whereupon the enraged
Medea bewitches a robe with magic herbs and sends it to the princess
as a gift. When Glauce puts it on, the garment immediately catches fire
and burns her to death. Medea then kills her own children by Jason and
escapes in a chariot to Athens. She resorts to filicide because she is
extremely distressed and furious at Jason fur his betrayal and feels it to
be the best way to hurt him. She revels in his pain at being separated
from his children forever. However, Medea's actions have been seen as
erratic and extreme and not in keeping with the feminine demeanor.
In the Indian context as well, women are inextricably caught in the
traditional web. Rupsa's sense of hurt and betrayal is so deep that it is
difficult for her to reconnect to Manas, but it is equally difficult for her
to overtly sever all ties with the man who now professes love for her
and her children and seeks forgiveness. Therefore she feigns amnesia,
and the strategy of simulation and dissimulation adopted is her act of
resistance
dissidence through which she produces a kind of impasse, a sheath that
 Injustice, Resistance, and Subversion 111

Manas cannot pierce. She cannot and does not want to forgive Manas.
As punitive measures, like Medea, she negates the existence of
Manas's children. Without giving a clue of their whereabouts, she
leaves Manas in the wilderness.
While the two plays, Mandodari and Medea, exhibit the unlikely
forms of resistance that can be termed as subversions, in The Swing of
Desire by Mamta G. Sagar, Manasa breaks the silence and articulates
her resistance in words and deeds. Cultural values and gendered
prescriptions of behavior leave no scope for the unraveling of a
woman's autonomous self. Having internalized the notions of sacrifice,
guilt, and shame, she sees herself only in relation to the significant
others. Woman's real self is crushed between the relational self and the
ethics of care. Negotiating for personal freedom and desire within the
family structures is fraught for women, as it leads to conflict and
allegations of irresponsibility and self-centeredness. In this play,
Manasa questions the traditional imperatives of self-abnegation.
Resistance in her stems from desire: the desire to assert her identity, the
desire to exercise freedom of choice and the desire to fulfill her dreams:
Manasa: I want to be a star ... a butterfly dancing in the sun. I want
to fly away, spreading my wings far and wide. I want to be a
song, to step to the tune, to dance and sway and twirl. ... I want
to chase my dreams! (Sagar 243)
But Manasa's husband, Pratap, strongly opposes her desire to pursue
her career in dancing. The play brings out the sham, hypocrisy, and
double standards in the patriarchal society:
Manasa: A woman glows at her husband's success. She never
complains, never envies. Have you ever heard a woman envying
her husband? ... Why can't a man accept the fact when his wife
goes ahead of him? (234)
She feels stifled, trapped in quicksand. With a determined exertion of
will, she crosses the threshold. But she cannot escape the critical gaze
of the society because "if female identity within the legitimate sphere
of domesticity is always manifested in the functional aspects of
woman's life, identity of woman outside the parameters of domesticity
becomes a loaded sphere of moral values and judgmental comments"
(Mangai 33). In The Swing of Desire, Manasa voices a similar opinion,
"No matter what a man does, society is ready to support and defend
him. But for a woman, the smallest mistakes become monstrous. She is
insulted and thrown out of the society. She belongs nowhere, has
nowhere to go, no place to live" (Sagar 246).
Women are not only socialized into rendering selfless service but
are also discouraged from negotiating for justice. However, Rupsa in
Medea and Manasa in The Swing of Desire evolve their own punitive
112 Seema Malik

measures as a redressal fur their suffering and the injustice meted out to
them. While Rupsa leaves Manas pining fur his two children, Manasa
in The Swing of Desire leaves her husband Pratap restless, humiliated,
and bewildered by saying that he has not fathered one of her children.
She says, "Even though he declares that he left me, that one arrow I
shot hasn't let him rest in peace, and never wil~ I know that!" (246).
In her discussion of anti-realist plays, Aparna Dharwadker
considers plays like Girish Karnad's Hayavadana, Chandrashekhar
Kambar's Jokumaraswami, and Habib Tanvir's Charandaschor as
important contributions to the dialogue on gender because they embody
several principles largely absent in realist drama. She says that women
in these plays are objects of desire as well as desiring subjects (330).
But in the plays chosen fur the study, these women playwrights do not
resort to the anti-realist or the utopian mode to portray women as
"desiring subjects." Grounded in social reality, they foreground the
immediacies of women's experiences and their desire for the extension
of the self Through the subversive mode of dramatic idiom, Varsha
Adalja, Nabaneeta Dev Sen, and Mamta G. Sagar, in their plays
Mandodari, Medea, and The Swing of Desire, respectively, draw
attention to the subtle kind of injustices and the subsequent
psychological conflicts experienced by women in everyday life. They
bring to the fore the invisible or the seemingly not so important
experiences of women which otherwise get subsumed or deflected. The
"woman-subjects" in these plays negotiate their identity and redefme
their social position despite the underlying cultural exigencies and "flag
the direction and thrust which they intend to move coUectively and as
individuals" (Chatty ll ). These women playwrights do not aim at a
cultural catharsis or equipoise through their play texts. Instead, they
"roil the equilibrium, disturb the mind, resist closure and deny a
therapeutic purging of the mind" (Mukherjee 19). They aim at
"consciousness raising" and envision a more just and equal society by
bringing about attitudinal change.
Notes
L See the list endorsed by Martha C. Nussbaum in "Capabilities as
Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social. Justice."
2
In Pradip Bhattacharya's "Five Holy Virgins, Five Sacred Myths: A
Quest for Meaning," it says:
Ahalya Draupadi Kunti Tara Maru:kxiari tatha
Panchkanya smaranityam mahapataka nashaka
[Ahalya, Draupadi, Kunti, Tara and Mandodari: constantly
remembering these virgins five destroys great failings.J (4)
 Injustice, Resistance, and Subversion 113

By remembering these five women-Ahalya, Draupadi, Kunti, Tara, and

Mandodari-all sins are destroyed. These mythological women have become
icons of chastity, and women in orthodox Hindu families recite the above verse.
Adalja, in her play Mandodari, transcreates the eponymous character.

Works Cited
Adalja, Varsha. "Mandodari." Trans. K. L. Vyas. Staging Resistance: Plays by
Women in Translation. Ed. Tutun MukheJjee. New Delhi: Oxford UP,
2005. 99-116.
Bhattacharya, Pradip. "Five Holy Virgins, Five Sacred Myths: A Quest For
Meaning." Part l. Manushi 141 (2004): 4-12.
Chatty, Dawn. "Foreword." Casting Gender: Women and Performance in
Intercultural Contexts. Eds. Laura Lengel and John T. Warren. New York:
Lang, 2005. xi-xii.
Dharwadker, Aparna Bhargava. Theatres of Independence. New Delhi: Oxford
UP, 2005.
Dikshit, Muktabai. "Gamble." Staging Resistance: Plays by Women in
Translation. Ed. Tutun Mukherjee. New Delhi: Oxford UP, 2005. 310-60.
Haynes, Douglas, and Gyan Prakash. Contesting Power: Resistance and
Everyday Social Relations in South Asia. Delhi: Oxford UP, 1991.
Jahan, Rasheed. "Woman." Staging Resistance: Plays by Women in
Translation. Ed. Tutun Mukherjee. New Delhi: Oxford UP, 2005. 517-38.
Jain, Jasbir, and A. K. Singh, eds. Indian Feminisms. New Delhi: Creative,
2001.
Kambar, Chandrashekhar. Jokumaraswami. Trans. Rajiv Taranath. Calcutta:
Seagull, 1989.
Karnad, Girish. "Hayavadana." Three Plays. Trans. Girish Karnad. New Delhi:
Oxford UP, 1994.67-140
Mangai A. "What Does She Want? Female Identity in Indian Drama." Theatre
India 2 (2000): 29-35.
Mukherjee, Tutun. "Prolegomenon to Women's Theatre." Introduction. Staging
Resistance: Plays by Women in Translation. Ed. Tutun Mukherjee. New
Delhi: Oxford UP, 2005. 1-27.
Nussbaum, Martha C. "Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and
Social Justice." Capabilities, Freedom and Equality: Amartya Sen's Work
From a Gender Perspective. Ed. Bina Agarwal, Jane Humphries, and
Ingrid Robeyns. New Delhi: Oxford UP, 2006. 39-69.
Padmanabhan, Manjula, Dina Mehta, and Poile Sengupta. Body Blows: Women.
Violence and Survival. Three Plays. Calcutta: Seagull, 2000.
Rich, Adrienne. On Lies, Secrets, and Silences: Selected Prose, 1961-1978.
London: Virago, 1980.
Sagar, Mamta G. "The Swing of Desire." Trans. Chaitra Puttaswamy. Staging
Resistance: Plays by Women in Translation. Ed. Tutun Mukherjee. New
Delhi: Oxford UP, 2005.232-48.
Sen, Amartya. "Gender Inequality and Theories of Justice." Capabilities,
Freedom and Equality: Amartya Sen's Work From a Gender Perspective.
Ed. Bina Agarwal, Jane Humphries, and Ingrid Robeyns. New Delhi:
Oxford UP, 2006. 420-36.
114 Seema Malik

Sen, Nabaneeta Dev. "Medea." Trans. Tutun Mukherjee. Staging Resistance:

Plays by Women in Translation. Ed. Tutun Mukherjee. New Delhi: Oxford
UP, 2005. 86-95.
Singh, Pankaj K. "[nterrogating Tradition: Reconstruction of Mythical
Women." Theatre India 4 (2000): 22-29.
Sunder Rajan, Rajeshwari. Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture and
Postcolonialism. London: Routledge, 1993.
---.Introduction: Feminism and the Politics of Resistance." Indian Journal
ofGenderStudy 7.2 (2000): 153-65.
Tanvir, Habib. Charandaschor. New Delhi: Pustakayan, 1997.
Thapan, Meenakshi. "Gender and Embodiment in Everyday Life."
£ntroduction. Embodiment: Essays on Gender and Identity. Ed. Meenakshi
Thapan. Delhi: Oxford UP, 1997. 1-34.