THE PLAYS OF VIJAY TENDULKAR:

A STUDY
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the award of the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
ENGLISH

By
Mr. Nelaballi William, M.A., M. Phil
Research Scholar
Reg. No: OPPHEN- 057

Research Supervisor
Dr. M.A.K. Sukumar,
M.A., M. Phil., Ph. D
Professor and Head, Department of English
S.V. University, TIRUPATI

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY
SRINIVASAVANAM, KUPPAM–517 425, A.P. INDIA

MARCH, 2016
Prof. M.A.K. SUKUMAR,
M.A., M. Phil., Ph. D Phone: 0877-2289496
Professor and Head Res: 0877-2249368
Department of English Mobile: 9848143489
Sri Venkateswara University E-mail: drmylari_svu@yahoo.com
Tirupati – 517 502, A.P. INDIA

Certificate
This is to certify that the Thesis, entitled THE PLAYS OF

VIJAY TENDULKAR: A STUDY is a record of the Research work

done by Mr. Nelaballi William during the period of his study under

my supervision and that the Thesis has not previously formed the

basis for the award to the candidate of any Degree, Diploma or

Associateship or Fellowship or other similar title.

Place: Tirupati M.A.K. SUKUMAR

Date : Research Supervisor
 Mr. NELABALLI WILLIAM,
M.A., M. Phil
Research Scholar
Dravidian University
KUPPAM – 517 425

Declaration
I hereby declare that the Thesis entitled, THE PLAYS OF

VIJAY TENDULKAR: A STUDY is a record of the Research Work

done by me during the period of my study under the supervision of

Dr. M.A.K. Sukumar, M.A., M. Phil., Ph.D., Professor of English, S.V.

University, Tirupati, and it has not previously formed the basis for the

award of any Degree, Diploma or Associateship or Fellowship or

other similar title.

Place: Kuppam NELABALLI WILLIAM

Date : Research Scholar
Reg. No: OPPHEN-057
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

Preface i-iii
Chapter I: Introduction: 1-37
Tendulkar: An Out-spoken, Realist Indian
writer
Chapter II: Silence! The Court is in Session: 38-69
A Reversal of Natural Justice
Chapter III: Sakharam Binder: 70-99
Woman! Thy name is Exploited
Chapter IV: Ghashiram Kotwal: 100-129
Suppression Through Tenderness
Chapter V: Kamala: 130-156
The Scenario of Press in India Today
Chapter VI: Kanyadaan and The Vultures 157-193
An Unsuccessful Experiment of Dalit Cause
& The Vulturine Human Instinct
Chapter VII: Conclusion 194-223
Tendulkar: A Genius par Excellence

Bibliography 224-232

Appendices
 PREFACE
The Thesis entitled THE PLAYS OF VIJAY TENDULKAR: A STUDY is
the outcome of my Research in the Department of English, Dravidian University,
Kuppam.

The study of the plays of Vijay Tendulkar gives highly rewarding experience to
me as he is purely an Indian writer to the core with no foreign influence on his
writings but dealing with Indianness in every aspect of his writings. Moreover, he is a
writer with relevance and naked reality. The deep insights into his writings give me
touching experience with regards to his divergent themes and narrative technique.
The way he deals with the ‘dramatic ideas’ with realistic social issues, mature social
consciousness and an undercurrent of agonized cry is appreciable.

Six plays of Tendulkar have been selected for in-depth study in Seven Chapters
of which Chapter I is the Introduction that discusses the writer, his works, and major
aspects of his plays, his style, major themes and his narrative techniques.

Chapter II has been allotted for his popular play, Silence! The court is in
Session, a mock play within a play. The play raises several questions about love, sex,
marriage, moral values and legal system in a sarcastic way. The writer makes ample
use of irony, satire, pathos and even mock element to highlight the hollowness of
middle class moralities.

Chapter III discusses Sakharam Binder which explores the complications of

human nature and the manifestation of physical lust and violence in a human being.
The play throws light on the institution of marriage, sex, exploitation of women and
domestic violence. Sakharam, the eponymous character abhors marriage and believes
in contractual cohabitation with castoff wives or walked out wives.

Chapter IV unfolds the intricacies, theme, characterization in Ghashiram

Kotwal, the political play which is based on Folk Tradition thereby imbibing musical
cadence. Though the play is adapted from Marathi History of Peshwa regime, the
main focus is on the contemporary political scene.
 Chapter V discusses Kamala, a woman sympathy play. It highlights
sensational journalism which engages itself in adventurous investigation with a hidden
agenda of publicity, propaganda and professional growth. The play is bitter criticism
on investigative journalism, the attitude of journalists, modern and unhealthy
approaches.

Chapter VI makes an elaborate discussion of two plays of Tendulkar namely,

Kanyadaan and The Vultures. Kanyadaan is a play based on family, gender relation,
inter-caste marriage and Dalit cause. Home is an important setting in any of Vijay
Tendulkar’s plays, a battle ground to discuss the social issues. The play shows the
hollowness in ones ideologies and their real practice. Inter-caste marriage is one
failure to certain extent in the Indian society is what the writer would like to convey in
this play.

Tendulkar wrote The Vultures with the conviction that the vulturine instinct in
man is deeply rooted. For this Tendulkar uses family which is the microcosm of
humanity. By using analogy of vultures the play dramatizes deep-rooted, unmitigated
depravity, perversity, greed and diabolic villainy in humanity. The plays portrays a
family of human vultures consisting of parent vulture, his illegitimate son, Rajaninath,
his elder son, Ramakant, his wife Rama, his second son, Umakant and his daughter,
Manik. Almost all characters in the play are corrupt except Rajaninath and Rama.

The last chapter, Chapter VII is the Summing up of the entire thesis, which
reassesses the writer’s greatness as a social critic as well as critically evaluating the
credit of each of the select plays in terms of theme, style, presentation, technique,
relevance, modernity emphasizing on the social issues in particular.

I wish to express my profound sense of gratitude to my Research Supervisor,

Prof. M.A.K. Sukumr, Professor and Head, Department of English, S.V. University,
Tirupati for extending his mature counsel and vast research experience, rendering me
invaluable guidance and correcting me wherever necessary.

My deep sense of gratitude is due to Prof. Mallavarapu Madhusudhana Rao,

Professor of English, Nagarjuna University, Guntur for his invaluable suggestions.
 I thank Dr. Medikonda Sambaiah, Assistant Professor in English, JNTU
college of Engineering, Pulivendula for extending his cooperation and good counsel.

I thank my family members-parents, wife and children, in-laws and friends for
their moral support and encouragement who stand beside me in every ups and downs
of my life.

NELABALLI WILLIAM
Research Scholar
Chapter-1

Introduction
Tendulkar: An Out-Spoken, Realist Indian Writer
 Vijay Tendulkar is the representative of the contemporary modern Indian drama. One can
find varied characters – criminals coming out of the jail, exploited women, precarious life of
middle class couples, broken promises and adamant decis
ions creating turmoil in the emotional world etc., picked up from extraordinary situations.
Regional drama in India is getting the status of “National Theatre” which in turn will
make Indian English Literature rich and varied, forging a link between the East and West,
North and South. Major Indian language theatres in India -Hindi (Mohan Rakesh), Marathi
(Vijay Tendulkar), Bengali (Badal Sircar), and Kannada (Girish Kannada) have made fruitful
experiments.
Tendulkar’s themes are woven round the characters that are always the dregs of
society, the debased, the fringe people and persons leading life not in keeping with the
accepted norms and values of society. His plays are the ‘plays of ideas’ falling in the line of
G.B. Shaw, Ibsen etc., He deals with social themes in naturalistic or realist manner. The
thesis takes up six plays for the in-depth study and analyses: Shantata Court Chalu Ahe
(1967), Gidhade (The Vultures,1971), Sakharam Binder (Sakharam, the Bookbinder,1972),
Ghashiram Kotwal (Ghashiram, the Chief Inspector, 1972), Kamala (1981), Kanyadaan
(The Gift of a Daughter, 1983), each of which is an enigma by itself, vivid, unsurpassing in
characterization. All these six plays are significant writings of Tendulkar and each play is a
separate entity in theme, presentation and conflict. In all these plays Tendulkar used common
man’s language. His plays do not deal with rich or elite class and their sophisticated life style
but down to the earth characters. He has changed the form and pattern of Indian drama and
was noted for criticizing the hypocrisies, promiscuity, dishonesty and such other vices
existing in the society.
Vijay Tendulkar, who started his career as a journalist turned to full time play writing
finished 30 full length plays, 24 one act plays, several middles, articles, editorials and 11
plays for children. For almost 40 years he stood as a stalwart in the Indian writings in
English. He started his career with Shreemant (The Rich Man), in 1955. He is a Marathi and
has written his plays in Marathi language and pioneered the experimental theatre movement
in Marathi and guided it till his death.
Tendulkar and his colleagues were dissatisfied with the decadent professional theatre that
characterized the Thirties and Forties. They wanted to give theatre a new form and therefore
experimented with all aspects of it including content, acting, décor and audience
communication. His one-act plays are more experimental than his full-length plays. Most of
them have been translated and produced in major Indian languages and some of them into
English.
Each of Tendulkar’s plays is an enigma by itself that sensitizes the readers or the
audience to all the beastly as well as redeeming aspects of man-woman relationship. He is
poignantly alert to the vulgar, the pervert and the violent to which man has shown a natural
proclivity. The astonishing range of his plays, be it the victimization of the individuals by a
hypocritical society and a play within the play that present a mock trial where one can see a
bitter criticism of life in Silence! The Court is in Session(1968) Sexual degeneration and
moral collapse of a family in The Vultures(1971), ruthlessness of media and marriage as a
farcical institution in Kamala (1982)the sheer bawdiness and bloodiness in Sakharam
Binder(1972), the issue of class conflict in Kanyadaan (1983) or the concept of romantic love
with both of its homosexual and heterosexual aspects – shows a shocking but genuine
complexity of human relationships and is bereft of any moralizing that gives them a very
open-ended feel.
Tendulkar became one of the leading Indian playwrights with his play, Silence! The
Court is in Session in the late Sixties. It won Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay Award and Sangeet
Natak Akademi Award for playwriting in 1971. His Ghashiram Kotwal which is a political
play won him international reputation in the 1970s. He was also honoured with India’s
Padma award, Padma Bhushan. His reputation is equally marked with controversies as anti-
Brahmin and anti-Dalit. And he received both applause and sneering with equanimity.
His experience of life, travelling around the country, watching of the plays and
Hollywood movies had strong influence on him as a successful dramatist. He shares his
memories of childhood days in an interview:
As a school boy I had watched the Hollywood films playing in my
hometown, not once, but each one over and over again. I still remember the
visuals, not the dialogues which I didn’t understand. A more conscious
education in what the visual could do came when I worked with Rangayan
Theatre group in Bombay… After that I wrote mimes for quite a while. I
felt the visual had unlimited possibilities, the word was useless. But I am a
playwright, words are my tools, I had to use them.1
The violence, the oppression and the exploitation in the society that he witnessed
made him restless. His journalistic experience helped him to expose the violence in the
society through his plays. Talking about violence Tendulkar says, “Unlike Communists, I
don’t think that violence can be eliminated in a classless society, or, for that matter, in any
society. The spirit of aggression is something that the human being is born with. Without
violence, man would have turned into a vegetable.”2
Tendulkar is a realist and refuses to be fooled by romantic concepts of Reforms and
Movements. This is evident in his plays Kanyadaan and Kamala. He is concerned with the
middle class individuals set against the backdrop of a hostile society. He is drawn towards
‘the real’ with all its limitations. Wary of ideological labels, Tendulkar once explained his
position:
But when I look back at what I have written during these years and what I
have been doing as a conscious social being, I find that my writing reflects a
mind which is distinctly different from the mind which acts in real life as a
socially aware person. As a writer I felt fascinated by the violent, exploited-
exploiter relationship and obsessively delve deep into it instead of taking a
position against it. That takes me to a point where I feel that this
relationship is eternal, a fact of life however cruel, and will never end. Not
that I relish this thought while it grips me but I cannot shake it off.3
Most of his Marathi plays are not translated into English though they are not inferior to
his other plays. He has been a great source of inspiration and guidance to his contemporaries
like Mahesh Elkunchwar, Satish Alekar and other Marathi playwrights.
After Shreemant (The Rich Man, 1955), his first play, he wrote Mitrachi Goshtha (The
Story of Mitra, 1961) which stands apart from his other plays both in its theme and structure.
It is about Sumitra, a lesbian woman, whom Bapu loves. She, being deserted from her family
and friends, attempts suicide. Talking about his Marathi plays, Arundhati Benerjee in her
Introduction puts:
Tendulkar’s first major work that set him apart from previous generation Marathi
playwrights was Manus Navache Bet (An Island Called Man, 1955), which gave
expression to the tormenting solitude and alienation of the modern individual in an
urbane, industrialized society. His dramatic genius was cut out for the newly
emerging, experimental Marathi theatre of the time………. There seems to be a
consistency of theme and treatment in them despite the apparently desperate
nature of their subjects. In all these early plays, Tendulkar is concerned with the
middle class individual, set against the backdrop of a hostile society (vii) 4.
Most of the other Tendulkar’s plays are in naturalistic writing. The plays like
Silence! The Court is in Session, (1967), The Vultures, (1970), Sakharam Binder (1972),
Ghashiram Kotwal (1972), Encounter in Umbugland (1974), Kanyadaan (1983), Kamala
(1981) and A Friend’s Story are translated into Eng lish and widely debated on the Indian
literary scene. Ghashiram Kotwal is in the folk tradition while his last two plays Niyaticya
Bailala (To Hell with Destiny) and Safar (The Tour) employ fantasy.
Vijay Dhondopant Tendulkar was born in a Brahmin Marathi family on 7 th January
1928 in Kolhapur, Maharashtra and died on May 19, 2008. He was a leading playwright,
movie and television writer, literary essayist, political journalist and social commentator.
Many of his plays derived inspiration from real-life incidents or social upheavals,
which provides clear light on harsh realities. The rise of Shiv Sena in Maharashtra in the
1970s was reflected in Tendulkar’s Ghashiram Kotwal. The true story of a journalist who
purchased of a woman from the rural sex industry in order to reveal police and political
involvement in this trade, only to abandon the woman once he had no further need for her, is
detailed in Kamala. The real-life story of an actress whose acting career got ruined after her
same-sex affair became public knowledge inspired him to write “Mitrachi Goshta”.
He has also provided his guidance to students studying “Playwright writing” in US
universities. He has translated nine novels, two biographies, and five plays by ther authors
into Marathi.
His father was a clerk and ran a small publishing business. Hence, he was influenced by
the literary environment at home and took up writing at an early age of six.
He grew up watching western plays, and felt inspired to write plays himself. At age
eleven, he wrote, directed, and acted in his first play. At age 14, he participated in the 1942
Indian freedom movement, leaving his studies. The latter alienated him from his family and
friends. Writing then became his outlet, though most of his early writings were of a personal
nature, and not intended for publication.
Tendulkar’s early struggle for survival and living for some time in tenements in
Mumbai provided him first-hand experience about the life of urban lower middle class. He
thus brought new authenticity to their depiction in Marathi Theater. His writings rapidly
changed the storyline of modern Marathi Theater in the 1950s and the 60s, with experimental
presentations by theater groups like “Rangayan”. At seventies too, Tendulkar continued to
write. He shifted his attention to the writing of novels. His first novel, Kadamabari: Ek has
already been published.
Tendulkar has been awarded Maharastra State Government Award (1956, 1969 and
1973), the Sangeeth Natak Akademi Award (1971), the Film fare Award (1980 and 1983),
the prestigious Padmabhushan (1984), the Saraswati Samman (1993), the Kalidas Samman
(1999), the Maharastra Gourav Puraskar (1999), the Jansthan Award (1999). The latest
recognition, for life time literary achievement, was the Katha Chudamani Award in 2001
Tendulkar has held many offices and has been felicitated with many awards and honours.
He worked as a Sub-Editor and Executive Editor in journals and an assistant editor of a daily.
He worked as a vice chairman to Rangayan, National School of Drama and Member of
General Council, Sahitya Akademi and National Integration Committee.
Tendulkar deals with gender inequality, social inequality, power games, self-alienation,
false consciousness, sex and violence in his plays. The issues of power and violence find
place in all his plays in English translation. He studies power and violence in spaces
institutionally defined, the specifices more often than not serving to camouflage the violence
in the exercise of power. The institutions that are exposed with their power mechanisms
include media (Kamala), performance (Silence! The Court is in Session), the family (The
Vultures), the State (Ghashiram Kotwal) and (Encounter in Umbugland), society and
morality (Kanyadaan) and sexual mores (Sakharam Binder and A Friend’s Story).
An article, published in ‘The New Sunday Express’ after his death paid rich tribute
with the heading, “A Profound Student of Violence” which sums up his personality and the
nature of his writings, “..But Tendulkar’s plays went beyond all the others in their capacity to
deal blow after blow. The directness of the language, the four-letter words one heard on the
street all the time but never on stage; the themes, with sex and violence invariably linked; the
taut visual depictions…emerging from a Tendulkar play was almost a relief. Yet the
characters stayed with you for days; you kept wondering if it was possible for humans to be
so cruel with one another. Despite his pessimistic view of the human condition, Vijay
Tendulkar agreed to associate himself with a number of idealistic movements” 5
Tendulkar’s depiction of violence and corruption in all walks of life is extremely
disturbing, yet, real, and applicable today if not more. Talking about the relevance of
Tendulkar, actor, Amol Palekar says:
Tendulkar is not only contemporary but also relevant. It’s we who have
failed. We have to find answers to the questions that are raised by his work. I
have been trying to talk about the place of women in our society in my work.
When I look at Tendulkar’s plays, the turmoil and questions, I have
understood his men through the failures of his women; through the fights, I
want his women to put up, but they don’t. And I think what a crushing male
dominated system! Tendulkar gives you a sheer range of work with quality
and hard-hitting strength.6
 Women’s issues, raised in his plays continue to be relevant today. His famous two
plays Silence! The Court is in Session and Kamala, express feministic ideology, which pits
women in direct encounter with chauvinistic male oppressors. In characterization too, though
many of his women do not succeed in overcoming their hellish existence, he has deliberately
given them a greater variety and depth and thus a definite edge, over their male counterparts.
No one can consider Tendulkar’s woman as a weak person.
Another issue that Tendulkar raises throughout his plays is the meaningless behaviour
of modern man with that of equally self-centered society. Tendulkar harps upon the theme of
isolation of the individual and his confrontation with the hostile surroundings. His
imagination is preoccupied with the exploration of the real and therefore his plays may be
described as realistic exposures of middle class moral and psychological dilemma. In
concluding his paper on Athol Fugard and Vijay Tendulkar, C. Coelho aptly observes:
In his portrayal of human relations and tensions, Tendulkar depicts the violent
tendency of egotistical man and equally self-centred society. His primary
concern in plays like Sakharam Binder, The Vultures, Ghashiram Kotwal and
Silence! The Court is in Session is the failure of human relations due to man’s
inherence to his fellowmen. There is nothing superficial or exaggerated in his
depiction of the vital and often violent stages of man in our society today.7
Tendulkar’s men and women suffer not only for their inherent weakness but also by
the cruel attacks of the society. In Kamala, Jadhav loses his job on political as well as
commercial grounds. He is a victim of the popular journalism and false prestige. Also the
protagonist, Kamala is the product of male dominant society, corrupt moral and ethical values
prevailing in the society, the society which looks down upon women mere slaves in other
words sex slaves. In Ghashiram Kotwal, Ghashiram sees his own destruction both by his
inherent craze for power and Nana’s power politics. He is a victim of power game.
Tendulkar depicted the maneuvers of power in its worst facet. Benare, in Silence! The Court
is in Session becomes a silent sufferer by her submission to her passions and exploitation of
women by men and cunning intrigue plotted against her by her fellow human beings. The
society maintains double standards, favourable ones for men and biased ones for women.
The mock trial scene mocks women. It generalizes that women despite of the injustice meted
to them in the society are supposed to show loyalty towards men, humiliating themselves
silently but pretending decency outwardly. No doubt, Sakharam in Sakharam Binder is
responsible partly due to his own arrogance and partly by his inhuman parents. He imposed
his own code of conduct or law, exercizing his power in the domain of his house on weak and
miserable, abandoned wives that have been brought to his house. In one way his character is
low, wretched and throwing challenges on the degraded values in the so called honourable
society.
Tendulkar’s art of characterization is marvellously mingled with the bleak reality. His
characters are very much real. They are neither completely good nor completely evil. His
characters lean towards more evil or they are more vicious than to be good. It shows his
disgust towards the corrupt society. He is neither a commercial writer nor he is catering to
the tastes of the readers showing a beautiful life. His mark of writing is that he presents the
other ugly side of the society, whether one accepts it or because it is truth. He never
philosophises nor is his intention moralizing. Sometimes he appears to be pessimist. His
characters are extremely violent, sexual, political, treacherous, wicked, immoral and down to
earth. He does away with the ‘hero-villain’ polarization of characters. They do not look like
puppets or the kings and queens on a chess board. But they are living persons of distinction
with their own minds, ways and destiny. Tendulkar speaks about his own characters:
The one characteristic of my plays which I can legitimately boast of is
characterization. My characters are not cardboard characters; they do not
speak my language; rather I do not speak my language through them; they
are not my mouth-pieces; but each of them has his or her own separate
existence and expression.8
Tendulkar’s art of characterization has both dialogue and silence in dialogue.
Tendulkar’s this way of ‘marginalized’ portrayal keeps the audience on the edge of thrill up
to the end of the play and the audience leave the theatre with mixed feelings. That’s why no
one can conclude that Sakharam is a villain or innocent completely. His struggle to satisfy
both radical Champa and religious Laxmi makes him hopeless and demands sympathy from
audience by leaving their cynicism. Benare in Silence! The Court is in Session is less
acceptable than Rani of Karnad’s Nagamandala, though both are equally innocent.
Similarly, Champa of Sakharam Binder is more offensive than Padmini of Hayavadana
though both of them commit adultery.
Tendulkar is relevant in the sense that he portrays the contemporary society and the
predicament of man in it with a special focus on morbidity in his plays. His plays touch
almost every aspect of human life in the modern world and share the disillusionment of the
post-modern intellectuals. He neither goes for mythology with outdated ideals nor dreams for
future with impossible aims. He always replaces modernism for ‘mono-ism’ by introducing
variety of themes in his plays. One can’t misunderstand him that the note of optimism has
gone from his writing and is replaced by a spirit of cynicism- when it means modernism. His
modernism can be understood as a satiric note which is prevalent among writers of today and
as a critical approach, an exploration of the problems of life. Tendulkar released the Indian
literature in one sense, from the victim of regionalism. Benare is no more a Marathi woman,
she is a modern working woman and Jadhav is a ‘somehow-win’ attitude, success syndrome
modern man. Sakharam is a post modernist, who believes that ‘everything is relative’ and
Ghashiram symbolizes modern civilization as ‘a universal neurosis’ for power.
By taking various themes and various walks of Indian way of life, Tendulkar achieved
the unity in diversity in his literary works. His modern man transcends the barriers of
diversities and brings us all nearer to one another to the point of common human experience.
The character of Laxmi can’t be understood out of the Indian context. Tendulkar proved that
by borrowing things from the West, one can’t bring about change and enter the modernity.
Thus, Nishikant D. Mirajkar rightly puts:
The fact that majority of his plays became the most controversial, mostly
from ex-dramatic point of view, and have almost churned the public opinions,
inviting violent responses and reactions, does not dilute this statement. But on
the contrary, strengthens it. Tendulkar symbolizes the new awareness and
attempts of Indian dramatists of the last quarter century, to depict the agonies,
suffocations and cries of man, focusing particularly on those of middle class.
He has been vocalizing different human relations and the tensions implied
therein, through his plays, which depict the tragic consequences of
confrontations of egos in these relations.9
Structure in Tendulkar’s plays is not visible but is felt. It is not static but it is
flowing. The heated debate, discussion and polemic in the play Silence! The Court is in
Session offers a crystallized picture of modern courts. The exploration of the body and
sexuality is done through fierce and bold debate. Monologues often rendered in
melodramatic style echoed in the hall. Tendulkar’s own troubled vision and his emotional
world can be felt by either reading or watching.
Structurally, the songs Tendulkar assigns to Benare are of great dramatic
significance. In Silence! The Court is in Session, Tendulkar raises several questions about
love, sex, marriage and moral values prevalent in the society. It is a society which asks
everyone to confirm to its own yardsticks of decorum and propriety. The writer makes ample
use of irony, satire, pathos and even mock-element to highlight the hollowness of middle
class moralities.
In this ‘play within play’ a ‘mock law court’ is planned and Benare is made a
scapegoat. Benare is horror-struck at the naked display of cruelty by Kashikars, Rokde,
Sukhatme, Ponkshe and Karnik against her who heap evidence after evidence against her.
The victim in this process is always a woman, because love is only an episode in man’s life
but to a woman it is life itself.
Tendulkar as an artist and explorer of life not only remarks the realities of life but also
expounds the mental sufferings of the victims. When asked in an interview: “This play is a
caustic satire on the social as well as legal justice…The mental agony suffered by the girl
throughout the play is no way less than the legal punishment. Is that all you wished to
convey or something more?” Tendulkar said:
This is exactly what I had in my mind. If I say anything else now, that will be
an after-thought. An undaunted girl of Benare’s make-up could have, besides
defending herself, made a counter-attack, tearing to pieces the do’s and don’ts
of the selfish society. Had I shown her aggressive that would have been
attitude, not hers otherwise also the play should only suggest leaving the rest
to the viewers.10
In another play, Sakharam Binder Tendulkar presents an extremely explosive subject
matter in which the controversy revolved around Sakharam’s lasciviousness, his women, and
his apparently vulgar language. But actually controversy should have been around his outlook
on life. One of the interesting features of the play is that Tendulkar does not take sides. He
has not observed complete artistic detachment from his characters, nor does he take any
specific moral position. He cleverly brings out the dramatic tension among Sakharam and
Laxmi and Champa. Talking about the origin of the play Sakharam Binder, Tendulkar
testifies:
I never met a man like him (Sakharam). But I was once told about a man who
worked as a binder in a printing press in a small town and lived a strange kind
of life. He did not marry but was on the lookout for a woman who was
thrown out by her husband whom he brought home and stayed with her till
one of the two got fed up of the other …. The contract ended by mutual
consent. This was all I was told.11
The play has evoked extreme reactions. For some it has been ‘hot stuff’ while others
have found it to be extremely superficial and sensational. Some others interestingly give the
play metaphysical interpretations. Keeping all these extremes aside, the play has something
significant to say about man-woman relationships and about the institute of marriage.
Laxmi and Champa are not only two women coming into Sakharam’s life but they
represent two tendencies and having a different attitude to life. Laxmi represents values like
purity, patience, and charity whereas Champa stands for a carefree attitude to life that looks
upon the body entirely as a medium of pleasure and she is interested in finding out the
manliness in man. The presentation of conflict between these two visions makes the use of
bold and explicit idiom which is artistically inevitable. The play begins to unravel its
meaning only when we grant this basic inevitability of the idiom. The grey in the pure
whiteness of Laxmi’s character is provided by her pious arrogance, the kind that will believe
and see themselves as being full of virtue betray towards those who don’t hold to their kind
of religion.
One can see the working of masculinity and femininity in Sakharam Binder. In Act III
the binaries of traditional masculinity and femininity are collapsed, with the establishing of
the courtesy and caring relationship of the two ‘mistresses’ Champa and Laxmi. These
women, as a subversive counter discourse to patriarchy, slight male impotency. However,
the female bonding that has the potential to fracture the supremacy of the male is thwarted
when Sakharam murders Champa by squeezing her neck, after Laxmi leaks out Champa’s
infidelity with Dawood.
Tendulkar locates violence in lower class Indian society in patriarchal, caste bound
family structures that have seared the consciousness of men like Sakharam. Women with
religious faith like Laxmi, emerge as stronger individuals. The play ends on a note of
domestication of the male by the combined onslaught of the ‘benign’ and ‘terrible’ aspects of
female power in Indian culture. It is Sakharam’s mother’s insulting remarks in his childhood
that ‘labels’ him as a Mahar (untouchable) that scars his identity to the extent that he chooses
to become a social deviant, an outsider by choice. Despite a caste-based explanation,
Tendulkar drives home with irony that a man like Sakharam can never be outsider to his own
masculine choices.
Degenerated relationship is one important aspect in Sakharam Binder. Many holy
books about husband and wife relationship say that wife is a part of man’s body and
emphasize rules on how to take care of her and how to renounce her with proper legitimacy.
A woman outside her family is considered as everybody’s property. Every one tries to get
her. Hence, a woman’s condition outside her family is as wretched as a prostitute. The
person who takes control over such a left-over woman cannot respect her but treats her as a
slave which is quiet evident in the case of Sakharam.
 Sakharam’s nature is that he exaggerates his kindness towards Laxmi and Champa as
generous, acceptable and right. Sakharam seems to think that he has helped the helpless
women by providing them with food, clothes and a shelter. In return, he expects them to
slave for him and satisfy his animal instincts. Catherine Thankamma comments. “He is not
bothered by the fact that by exploiting their helplessness he is subjecting them to a kind of
prostitution”.12
Tendulkar presents two polarities in women’s character through Laxmi and Champa.
Champa tells Laxmi the reality of life: “They don’t come and live your hell for you – those
gods and Brahmins.”[180] Champa is considered ‘a real woman’ as she is ‘tough’ and ‘ready
to fight.’ She ridicules the rules imposed by Sakharam: “Rule! Is this a school or a court or
something?”[161]
The readiness with which Champa offers Laxmi shelter wins sympathy. Though she
looks seductive, she is the one who has suffered most on account of her voluptuous body
while the men have sought their selfish pleasures from it. She represents the western outlook
whereas Laxmi stands for the conservative oriental outlook.
Champa has many appreciable qualities. She is outspoken, frank, rebellious at the
same time kind and sympathetic. Laxmi stands for a traditional Indian woman with her god-
fearing religious, docile nature and her unflinching devotion towards her husband, no matter
how great a tyrant he is. When she is thrown out of her house by her husband on her failure
to give birth to a child and is rescued by Sakharam, she accepts the vicissitudes of life
without any protest. She clutches Sakharam as her only option to survive and begins to
worship her ‘saviour.’ She demonstrates the patterns of thinking instilled in women by the
patriarchal tradition.
Tendulkar shocks the audience with his harsh criticism on the marriage institution.
What shocks the audience is not the fate of Laxmi, Champa and Sakharam but the ugly reality
of moral deprivation and corruption that seeps within the soul in the institution of marriage as
it exists in the society today. It is an institution in which sexual relationship for a woman is
possible only if the self is forgotten, pleasure is possible only through inflicting pain on the
others and self awareness is nothing but the mute and moron-like acceptance of inhuman
subordinate or supremacy. Sakharam, Laxmi and Champa are all victims of this familial
ideology. Champa and Laxmi also provide the oppositional pair of frightening morality as
against alluring sexuality – the two poles of the imaginative landscape called woman in the
social imagery.
When it comes to his political play Gashiram Kotwal which is based on the Marathi
history, the last phase of the Peshwas, the distinctive feature of Tendulkar’s writing is that he
doesn’t like to glorify history. It is the most controversial and agitates the minds of the
audience. In Gashiram Kotwal, he seems to be a propagandist criticizing the social system of
the time in the play. He wrote about Nana Phadnavis in his Gashiram Kotwal who has been
praised by many historians as one of the best administrators and a wise ruler. During the last
phase of the Peshwas, Nana controlled everything successfully. Both Nana Phadnavis and
Gashiram Kotwal are historical figures. But it seems that Tendulkar presents them from his
own point of view. Tendulkar comments on the corrupt cunning culture of the time. He
projects Nana with his weaknesses with the specific purpose of showing immortality in the
society.
Tendulkar has said that he has borrowed his theme from history, but it is not a
historical play. He means to say that the source is historical but the treatment is not
historical. Tendulkar consumed as a playwright and his journalistic experience early in his
life helps him create a play dealing with the dynamics of power politics where not a word is
out of place. Every word is meant to be where it has been put in this lightly structured fast-
paced play. Written and performed in 1972, it is the story of a common man from Kannuj,
Gashiram Savaldas, a Brahmin who rises to power and eventually falls from grace. The play
is set in 18th century Maharashtra when Nana Phadnavis ruled over Poona as the Peshwa’s
deputy.
The treatment of women characters in this play reflects the contemporary
sociological condition. The two major women characters are Gulabi and Gauri in this play.
Ghashiram does not hesitate to exchange his only daughter in the bargain of power.
Though in the beginning she escapes, later she offers herself to satisfy Nana’s sexual urge
without marriage. Gauri lacks the spirit to rebel against her father. It projects the male
chauvinism which has been prevalent in the society till today. Arundhati Benerjee rightly
comments, while discussing Tendulkar’s another play, Kamala:
But the evaluation of the role of an Indian woman within the institution called
marriage, considered to be the holiest of the holy in our society, definitely
provides a completely novel point of view showing that women are still mere
slaves to their male owners in Indian Society in the later half of the 20 th
century.13
The exploitation of ‘human wall’ ‘chorus’ and ‘Sutradhar’ serve the purpose of folk
theatre in the play Ghashiram Kotwal to delineate the characters of Nana and Ghashiram.
Tendulkar is a keen observer of people and society. He enjoys to speak with people,
watch people and to listen to people. He thrills to experience the realities of human life. He
does not go beyond the realities. He is neither an idealist nor a metaphysicist. Talking about
his observation of people, Tendulkar says:
One more thing needs to be mentioned. At a very early stage of my life, I had
developed a curiosity for people … Without consciously trying I have an ear
for the speech habit of people and also an eye for their mannerisms and
personal peculiarities. I do not have to exert myself to do it. It happens
automatically. Everything gets recorded and stored in the computer of the
brain.14
The play also throws light on the satirical aspect of the play. The bitter criticism on
moral, ethical, social and political levels made Tendulkar’s plays not only controversial but
also dear to the readers as well as critics. Shailaja B.Wadikar commenting on the play says:
“The play is a powerful satire on the power politics. Through the story of Ghashiram,
Tendulkar depicts the rise and growth in public life of demons that are created by political
leaders for the fulfillment of their selfish motives. They do nothing to fellow beings though
they appear; they manage to achieve what they deserve. When these demons prove
dangerous, they goad on others to violently destroy them.”15
The personality clash between Nana and Ghashiram is an interesting theme of the play
at the surface level. At the deeper level, the play explores and exhibits the essential nature of
the game of power politics which is characterized by violence, corruption, humiliation,
suppression etc.
Gauri’s sacrifice of her virtue brings rich dividends to Nana rather than to Ghashiram.
It gives Nana an opportunity to satisfy his physical lust and to establish the reign of terror.
Doing nothing outwardly, he remains victorious and continues to thrive. It gives an
opportunity to Ghashiram to fulfill his ambition. The sadistic objective in his mind renders
him blind and fails him as a father, as a Kotwal of the city; he creates a hell not only for the
Brahmins but for himself and for his daughter also. He fails to realize the treacherous ways
of the culprit Nana and is reduced to a stooge in Nana’s power game. Had Ghashiram taken
revenge on Nana instead of falling on the dwellers of Pune, he would have been a hero and
would have achieved a greater cause for humanity. Here lies his failure and his degradation.
Religion and secular ceremonies are one depiction of manifestation of power in
Ghashiram Kotwal. In this respect D.K. Pabby comments:
The power and strength of the playwright lies in the creation of a whole aura
of hymns and religious ceremonials providing the ironic screen that is pierced
through and through by the crudest exercises of power. A typical scene is the
 one in which Nana tries to seduce the young girls praying before Ganapati, at
the end of one of the ceremonies. When the girl points to the God, saying “He
will see,” Nana says mockingly “that idol of holiness?” and the facade of
religious ceremony collapses at once. Religion, as manifest in caste
hegemony and ceremonies is a device of power in Ghashiram Kotwal, but it is
more as ‘awe’ than as a material force………..It is clear that Nana needs
Ghashiram and vice-versa; but in the shifting game of power, it is only a
temporary arrangement that Nana would like to exploit only as long as
necessary and will drop unceremoniously like a proverbial piece of burning
coal, the moment it has served its purpose.16
In addition to religious and secular ceremonies, the deceptions of deputation
constitute yet another device of power. The real power uses the ‘masks of deputation to
broker and meditate the exercise of power, to hide from the victims the real face of
exploitative power, so that all resistance may be effectively deflected. By implication and
extension, contemporary democratic institutions, or the paraphernalia of bureaucracy, too
often are regarded as repositories of at least executive power, put a veil on the actual exercise
of power and hide the perpetrator from the eyes of the victim.
Tendulkar shows the demoralized society, probably of his own time. When
constraints of civilization and culture are removed, the beast inside the man peeps out and
crawls in the society. As a writer it is the duty to portray the dark side or invisible man.
Historians see the outside or superficial, success of any historical figure. Appearance is
deceptive. Ruling class has many wretched qualities and they cleverly cheat people with
their oratorical and Machiavellian tactics. The success stories of many celebrities have very
dark sides with which common man is unaware.
Kanyadaan is Tendulkar’s another social play, highlighting the failure of inter-caste
marriage. Kanyadaan, a two-act, five-scene play, is tightly written – with only seven
characters. Jyoti, the daughter of Nath Devalikar, an MLC who insists on democracy at
home, has promised to marry Arun Athavali, a Dalit youth. Jyoti’s decision to marry Arun
leads to a crisis which worsens after marriage, as Arun proves to be a violent husband.
Tendulkar has focused on a problem that there is no bridge between the various sections of
society, and that the attempt to overcome a taboo often leads to greater pitfalls than one can
handle.
Vijay Tendulkar was awarded the Saraswati Samman for this play. What follows is
excerpted from his speech at the awards ceremony. The extract throws some light on the
ideas governing the play.
 The work which has been selected for the Saraswati Samman is not the story
of a victory; it is the admission of defeat and intellectual confusion. It gives
expression to a deep-rooted malaise and its pain. Victory and fame are
normally honoured. The ambition of those who jump into the gray with the
aim of winning is honoured. That is why this award leaves me disturbed and
confused. I am wondering what I have really done to deserve it. ….
……..Sometimes my plays jolted society out of its stupor and I was punished.
I faced this without regrets. It is an old habit with me to do what I am told not
to do. My plays could not have been about anything else. They contain my
perception of society and its values and I cannot write what I do not perceive.17
Kanyadaan is a serious “social problem play” by Tendulkar. Tendulkar effectively
presented complexity of human situation in this drama, the emotional connections and
conflicts between the downtrodden and elite segments of society. The play can be seen as
“the play of ideas” about the relation of the political to the personal and of the public to the
private. The incompatibility of Brahman and Dalit ceases to be an abstract principle and
manifests itself as the friction between parent and child, sister and brother, husband and wife.
Though all the characters of Tendulkar are very much real, it is obvious that he never
has one single living person in his mind as his character. Even if he does at the beginning,
the character takes its own shape as it moves through the play and changes considerably in
the course. The incident may have been factual but the characters do not remain so. They
turn themselves and the incident into fiction and the final test is how near to reality is the
fiction in the play.
The play, Kamala by Vijay Tendulkar highlights sensational journalism which
engages itself in adventurous investigation with a hidden agenda of publicity, popularity,
propaganda or professional growth. Society has been exploited by certain powerful people or
media tycoons for their personal promotion. Self-interest is predominant quality in the nature
of some people usually in the upper rungs of the society. In Kamala Vijay Tendulkar made
this attitude a point in the character of a journalist, Jai Singh, a typical journalist. The play
discusses the nature of journalists and brings out evils of the society, like flesh trade of
women and the inhuman methods employed by the modern journalists.
Tendulkar, who is actually a journalist in the beginning of his career, moved around
and saw the society closely. In one way journalistic experience is ignited by a real life
incident reported in The Indian Express by Ashwin Sarin, a journalist who bought a woman
in a rural flesh market and presented her at a press conference to expose the inhuman flesh
trade. The play is a bitter criticism on journalism, the attitude of the journalists, unhealthy
competition, and modern approaches.
The journalist’s attitude raises interesting question like how media exploits the
intimate relationship between man and women for commercial purpose. As a professional,
Jadhav not only looks upon a woman as an instrument of joy but judges solely on the basis of
the extent to which they satisfy them, but also indulges himself in the shameful practice. He
treats Kamala merely as an object who will enhance his professional prospectus. He does not
allow her to take bath, to sleep and takes her to press conference against her wishes in a torn
sari.
It is clear that comparably with other communities of India, Dalits and Adivasis still
face poverty, gender discrimination, illiteracy and sexual harassment. Through this play
Tendulkar presents the scenario of press in India as corrupt. Media is an essential link in the
chain of information which challenges people to come together. The media is using the
issues of women as a tool for increasing the circulation of the newspapers. Print media either
portrays women sporadically, with sexist-bias or in complete disregard of her reality.
Tendulkar sends, through Kamala’s case, a message that apart from education,
empowerment, equal rights, opportunities and access to resources, media has to take special
responsibility of taking these marginalized societies centre. Only then can one move towards
stronger civil society. But this doesn’t happen with media.
Sarita’s ironical cry in the play is an indirect call for women to react against hypocrite
media. Her views penetrate into the weak areas of a few women’s voluntary submission
which ultimately brings a stigma to the whole world of women. In one way Sarita is the
writer’s mouth piece to fight for women’s rights.
Tendulkar presents reality of confessional journalism which is characterized as
involving an intense but depoliticized exploration of emotion, so that people’s ‘feeling’ about
events become more important than the ‘events’ themselves. Victim’s feelings and exposing
the intimate thoughts of the rich and famous are the heart of Confessional Journalism and
Therapy News. The trend provoked BBC’s foreign correspondent Kate Adie to remark in
2001:
I am out of step with the kind of journalism which says that to understand
anyone’s motives or deeds and intimate scrutiny of their private family and
sexual life are necessary. One of the great modern weasel word is “will you
share with us? “Meaning” come on, open up, tell us all! 18
Vijay Tendulkar has created memorable male and female characters. He explores the
position of women in contemporary Indian society through his female characters. It is his
women who help to reveal his social conscience on account of their position in society.
Speaking about his characters Anshul Chandra says, “As characters Tendulkar’s women are
among the most convincing in Indian theatre. He depicts women as being equal underneath
their socio-economic class.”19
His women are loyal, docile, religious, hardworking, self-effacing and tender hearted. In
Kamala Sarita and Kamala are in contrast to each other. Sarita is educated and self-assured
while Kamala is illiterate village woman. Sarita is childless. It is illiterate Kamala who
understands the man-woman relationship and says to Sarita:
Madam, can I say something if it won’t? upset you? The owner has bought
you and he has bought me. He’s shelled out big money for two women,
no?....so we must stay together here, like two sisters. We’ll keep the owner
happy….( Act II, p.35)
Sarita’s position in the play brings out a typical picture of Indian women, how
women have been shaped, conditioned and marginalized by patriarchy. The play highlights
the gender stereotyping that is forced upon them. The roles allotted to women in the
patriarchal set up are purely domestic – daughter, sister, wife and mother. As part of the
gender differences that is emphasized from childhood the girl is taught to believe in the
importance of ‘family values’ – values which are presumed to be her responsibility and not
the males. Sarita accepts her subordinate position in the house. Pringle and Watson observe
that it is by controlling the distribution of social wealth that men confine women to a lower
position. To certain extent that is true.
Tendulkar’s Kamala is a mighty mouthpiece in debunking the dominant prevailing
patriarchal philosophical view. Literature has a purpose in the society, either reformation or
truthful presentation of the evils and sometimes there are only issues and questions without
solutions. “Earlier literature did have an influence on society. Today it is media persons and
politicians who wield considerable influence and together they can do anything”, is the
comment of Tendulkar.
Speaking on the role of women, Arundhati Benarjee says, “Kamala is an indicement
of the success-oriented, male-dominated society where women are often victims or stepping
stones in men’s achievements.”20
Tendulkar most sensitively presents the conditions of educated house-wives in the
character of Sarita. The ideology of security and luxury cloisters up her within her four walls
where she is totally alienated from the male world that dominates her in all areas and deprives
her of the knowledge of crimes committed against women by husbands- ‘lords’ or ‘gods’.
She is hegemonically suppressed under the title of ‘educated wife’. For her, the present
position is a sense of ‘reality’ because she can’t possibly think beyond that ‘reality’ in most
areas of her life unless a woman like Kamala confronts her. Trapped within the complexities
of a transitional society with a ‘modern face but traditional soul’ the position of Sarita
remains powerless.
Sarita is indeed an unpaid domestic bonded labour. Her bondage in the home
prevents her to become another Jadhav, to expose the male chauvinism of her husband at a
press conference but is overcome by Indian concept of wife, where Indian society has
accepted the laws of Manu which denies independence of women.
Similarly, he depicts the male domination through Jaisingh. Tendulkar has rarely
eulogized the male characters in his plays. He lashes at them, dissects, portrays what all
crooked and wretched. In this regard Maya Pandit says that “Jaisingh is a pukka
representation of the patriarchal ideology of what it means to be a husband”. 21
Tendulkar can be seen as a revolutionist trying to bring out the social evils. Indian
society is under the grips of Manu Smriti. The women are fixed in a frame of tradition,
marriage and loyalty to husband. This has been well depicted in Kamala. He has shown the
familial situations, the working of ‘family drama’ a drama of suppressing women. Tendulkar
clearly pointed out these familial situations through Jadhav and Sarita. Jadhav turns out to be
cruel not only towards Kamala but also towards his own wife, Sarita. Kamala, to him, is only
an object that helps him win instant fame as a journalist. Sarita to him is again, an object to
be paraded as a wife at parties, to enhance his status as a successful journalist. In essence, he
is the typical Indian husband, who has no time to spare for his wife assuring her of his
‘affection’ for her. Women are oppressed and exploited more than men in our society as it
remains culturally patriarchal. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar points out, “A woman under the laws of
Manu allows the husband the right to beat his wife.” 22 Indian Society which has accepted the
laws of Manu denies women education and thus mental growth. Manu says, “Women have no
right to study the Vedas”.23
Tendulkar’s ideas are not only regional but also universal when we see certain issues.
Showing women as sex symbols is universally acknowledged. This is well depicted in
Kamala. Jaisingh’s act of exposing a woman to the public, in order to prove the existence of
prostitution after thoroughly checking her fitness, clearly, resembles rape at psychological
and theoretical levels
Home as symbol, a stock writing device for Tendulkar has well been implemented in
all his dramas. Home as a microcosm of the world is a fact, inevitable and crucial for the
society’s growth. The authorial reflections on realism, their transmutation into literary drama,
and their collective realization on the urban stage have created, then, a substantial typology of
home in post-independence Indian drama. A range of individualistic representations drawing
on ideas of ennui, violence, and disillusionment have kept home as a literal and symbolic
place in the forefront of urban theatre since the early 1960s.
Vijay Tendulkar’s drama of ideas represents perhaps the most substantial exploration
of the symbolism of home because his customary method is to translate social and political
conflicts into personal dilemmas and reinstitute them within the domestic sphere. The
material-visual “look” of a home in his plays is always replete with the signs of class,
ideology and cultural positioning. Home is the domain of private experience, but the social
criticism of its inhabitants is entangled in the problems of caste, class, gender, community,
marriage, and the family. This involvement threatens every one of the relationships on which
the family is founded, especially those of husband and wife, parent and child, brother and
sister.
Vijay Tendulkar’s plays persistently prove the operations of power, the harsh realities
of violence in Indian history, Socio and political fields and explore the obstacles that stand in
the way of social change and modernization. Gender problems of masculinities and feminism
in the context of caste and family structure are pivotal to the deconstructive dramatic axis of
Tendulkar. Speaking on the handling of the above situations, Sudha Rai Comments on
Tendulkar’s style: “Tendulkar takes up a family situation, an existing set of relationships and
roles. This domestic and private space is gradually propelled into a vortex of turbulent
conflict belonging to the public space of communalism or secularism, politics and power. In
Sakharam Binder, Sakharam’s masculinity overrides his much valorized friendship with the
Muslim Dawood, whom he has earlier defended against his ‘wife’ Laxmi over the issue of
her excluding Dawood at the Ganesh Chaturthi aarti in their home. Kamala, makes
transparent the journalist Jaisingh’s selfless ‘protection’ of the adivasi Kamala, as only a
career- boosting ploy. By the time one moves to the testing ground of Kandyadaan,
Conservative Brahmin’s patriarchy is rejected in plain speech and through actions by Jyoti, a
young, educated Brahmin, when she marries a Dalit poet.”24
 Masculinity is constructed as a weak and regressive force, prone to violence and
corruption in Kamala. In Tendulkar’s Kamala the theme of the purchase of an adivasi girl,
Kamala by the journalist Jaisingh, moves beyond the social problem of trafficking in women,
to subvert the sexism within marriage. Sarita, a role model, as Jaisingh’s wife, makes a
radical interrogation of the slavery of women within marriage. Her consciousness is
awakened by her dialogue with Kamala, who is an exhibit, a mere pawn in the power game
between media and society.
Through Kamala Tendulkar raises certain cardinal questions regarding the value
system of a modern success oriented generation who are ready to sacrifice human values even
in the name of humanity itself and how in a success-oriented male-dominated society, women
are often victims or stepping stones in men’s achievements.
Tendulkar’s failure to offer any solution for the problems of mankind out of his
philosophy separates him from the other playwrights of the age. ‘Who am I ?’ asks
Rajininath one of the characters in the play The Vultures.
Speaking about how his social awareness helps him to create characters, Tendulkar
rightly insists that his play writing always,
…. begins with a germ or an idea … sometimes just an incident someone has
narrated, or a person who has met me may be for a brief time but has left me
guessing as to what kind of a character he or she can be, or even a news item
which I read in the morning’s paper …. Can even be some other play.25
The task of creating a democratic society can be effectively accomplished only by the
writer. It is the writer who is first aware of the internal currents in society. It is he who first
understands and evaluates events in the life of society because he is ‘antenna’ of society. As
Auguste Comte and Taine have said, just as society affects the writer so does he affects
society. To write about social problems is not just the responsibility of a writer but it is his
duty.
Besides being a participant in a protest meeting or a dharna or a fast or a morcha or
satyagraha as a reaction against the maladies of the society, any reader or spectator of
Tendulkar’s plays can strongly conclude that as an individual or rather as a social being- he
feels deeply involved in the existing state of his society and reacts against it with the equal
intensity by exploring it through his powerful plays – dauntless evidences for his social
consciousness.
 Vijay Tendulkar, who is named for his rage of a radical consciousness, for the first
time, shows real life on stage. He feels that drama is no longer make-up and delivering
romantic lines. In The Vultures, the abuse being exchanged between a father and his sons is
shocking. So is the naked language of the market place, and a brothel, being used to describe
human relations is captivating. It is like a slap on the face of all genteel pretensions so far
associated with theatre.

Tendulkar himself has said in this context that as the play was being staged he was
rather doubtful about what he should do of the characters because they were part of his
personal life. Not that had he any anger towards the names and the persons. Tendulkar’s
response to one of the questions often raised in Marathi circles in respect of The Vultures how
and why is it that Tendulkar sees only the vulture in man? Why can he not see the ‘eagle’! –
has provided ample discussion for this chapter. Tendulkar has expressed whatever life’s
experience kindled his imagination. He needed an idiom which would allow him to explore
the workings of the unconscious mind in an attempt to bring out the culture mentality
residing in the deeper recesses of human psyche.

The paradoxical quality of human nature is not only the rejection of their evil
mentality, but also the exhibition of manipulated outward behaviour. Outwardly they are
saints, but inwardly they are sinners and sadists. Tendulkar’s observation is not theoretical or
philosophical but practical. He expressed some unforgettable memories witnessed in his
childhood days. For him violence is all around us. It is the culmination of festering elements
in many areas. He wonders, in a city like Bombay, one can be assassinated like a fly. The
cost of life ranges from Rs.500 to lakhs. There are professionals who survive by regularly
killing other people. When asked why there are scenes of atrocity of bizarre sadism in some
of his plays such as the kicking of pregnant woman in the belly in The Vultures, Tendulkar
reacts:

In Gidhade, the cruelty is great because it deals with an exceptional family.

As for what you call perversion, let us accept that human existence is full of it.
We shut our eyes to it, or worse, don’t recognize it when we can come across
its manifestations……………………….. They are outwardly decent folk and
you don’t suspect they have this dark side. So, when I deal with masochism
or homosexuality, I am drawing your attention to something near you.26

The play has a grave message for India; so imbued with strength, so splendidly
attractive, so rich in resources and so glorious in culture. But here, too, the culture is living
with philosophical risk, not pausing to uncover, even for a moment, the ramifications for the
self. One strongly suspects that in story after story that headline the news almost every day
of the week there is a betokened, a deep disfigurement in the soul of culture.

Tragedies and atrocities are common fare, and in any corner coffee shop discussions
can be heard of the latest horror or carnage to strike at our communities. Evil has taken on
forms and concoctions that shock the world. Any catalogue at the end of any given year tells
a painful story of what is happening in our institutions, streets and homes. With increasing
frequency journal articles and scholarly writings voice the bedeviling question unmitigated
evil and cry for answers. As neutrality on these issues is impossible, it will not do to just
bemoan the reality or to condemn the evil. Much more is required of us as thinking the evil.
Much more is required of us a thinking people before we can get past the symptoms and
diagnose how this has all come about. Behind an every seeming thoughtless act there is a
thought or a belief.

Tendulkar, as a radical realist, itches one to think and shocks to react. He does not
scrutinize to thoughts and acts but calls for the response of the heart, mind and soul.
Neutrality on these issues is impossible. On the whole, the power of the play The Vultures
lies in its most central idea: can an individual or society live with complete disregard for a
moral centre?

Tendulkar wrote this play with the conviction that the vulturine instinct in man is
deeply rooted. The vulturine nature dominating the relations of modern man is the motif of
the play. By attempting to explore the meaning of man’s life victimized by sinful nature,
Tendulkar hits the shackles of egalitarians’ belief at two levels. Firstly, Tendulkar seems to
be totally against to the basic belief of Indian mythology aham brahsmi. - I am the Brahma.
Secondly, Tendulkar rejects the creed of humanism which upholds the ultimate goodness of
humanity. Tendulkar has made use of family system which is the microcosm of humanity and
which should be the embodiment of humanism.

The play, Gidhade (The Vultures) was produced in May 1970 and published in 1971.
By using analogy of vultures the play dramatizes deep-seated unmitigated depravity,
perversity, greed and diabolic villainy in humanity. The play portrays a family of human
vultures which consists of paternal vulture, his illegitimate son, Rajaninath, Ramakant his
elder son and his wife Rama, his second son Umakant and daughter Manik. Almost all
characters in the play are corrupt and violent except Rajaninath and Rama. The symbol of
vultures is used constantly in referring to the characters, their action and also the screaming
of vultures at the end of almost every scene, where there is necessary. The characters
symbolize the rapacious vultures, their betrayal, their avarice vices and immorality which
evince the repulsive sensuality and domestic violence, manifesting the infernal atrocities of
human inclination towards evil.

Though the play revolves on different levels and there are various themes that are
brought forth by the dramatist, the most pervasive one is the theme of violent nature of
mankind. Condemning all violence out of hand and try to eradicate even the possibility of
violence from human being is like taking away an essential element of full humanity.
Because, it is always an ultimate possibility for a self respecting human being. It will be
resorted to less if admitted than if suppressed. Thus, violence finds a good illustration in the
play. The play exemplifies both verbal and non-verbal violence.

In the polarization of multi-coloured human nature, according to Tendulkar, violence

is the dominant radiance. He does not consider the occurrence of human violence as
something loathsome or ugly, as it is innate in human nature. Violence is an experience and a
reality to Tendulkar.

The Vultures has a two-act multiple scene structure. Tendulkar punctuates the
structure with the poems. In these sequences, he also suspends the chronological movement
of the play. This gives an interesting twist to the play otherwise conventional in structure.
Scene I of Act I starts with Rajaninath’s poems. Rajaninath like, Samant in Shantata and
Prannarayan in Makabala, is an observer and also a commentator. He is a poet and he too,
like Rama, has a sensitive personality. Tendulkar makes Rajaninath recite three poems, at the
beginning and end of Act I and at the conclusion, which add a special dimension to the play.
The innate compassion of the dramatist, who remains an objective onlooker for a major part
of the play, neither condemning nor judging either the characters or their actions, finds
expression in the lines of these poems. His deep empathy for the victims of human
viciousness flows like an undercurrent throughout the play.

Rajaninath has two roles in the play. In the first place he is the chorus, for it is from
his songs that we know of the past and present of the Pitale family. In the opening scene he
sings a rather long song from which we understand that twenty-two years have passed during
which time the incidents narrated in the play took place. He notices Ramakant and Rama
leaving the house locking it. This sight kindles his memory and begins to write a song. He
remembers the day Ramakant married Rama. She was like a doe brought to the house of the
Pitales.

Moreover, Ramakant, being an addict to liquor, failed in his duty as a husband to

make a mother of his wife. Rajaninath tells us that Rama thus spent twenty years in the
following lines:

“After that living impotence

Of twenty-two endless years”

………………………. [202]

But she only knew .One longing,

Only one ….

Threw of her chains in her need

The need to swell with fruit” [205]

Manik, her sister-in-law, aborted her and therefore Rama, once again, to quote
Rajaninath, become “empty of pain, And empty of desires”. [206] The house of the vultures
disintegrates. Ramakant becomes a pauper.

The second scene opens with uproars, shoutings and sounds of blows and
beatings. Through these voices audience can understand the antecedent of the story. Pappa
Hari Pitale and his brother Sakharam build up a huge business firm called “The Hari
Sakharam Company” — a construction firm. It is through sheer hard work they achieve this
feat. As days pass by Pappa wrists the company from his brother by means of treachery and
false law suits. As a result, Sakharam Pitale finds himself on the street. As a universal law
like cause-effect and as old as human history — ‘as you sow, so you reap’ — Pappas’ sons
and daughter plot against their father and waiting to drive him out one day.

Manik appears to be a hysterical type. She smokes and drinks liquor. Her attitude
towards money and other members of the family reveals her character. When the gardener is
driven out for asking for his wages, Manik’s character reveals itself in her response to Rama:

RAMA : But we haven’t paid him for the last too

months….

MANIK : Oh! What a sin! There isn’t enough even for

 us? The last two months, I have been dying for

that Latest necklace at Harivallabh’s. [207]

Manik is an embodiment of materialism. Perhaps nowhere in Indian English

literature we can see a woman like Manik. No Tendulkar’s woman character is like Manik.
No Tendulkar’s woman character is so ugly portrayed as Manik’s does. She pursues poor
substitutes in pleasure with diminishing returns. Tendulkar reminds, through her character,
how the meaningless pursuit for pleasure makes her of easy virtue. She prowls and
scavenges relentlessly through a variety of life styles in search of that all-fulfilling treasure.
She seems to have forgotten that this hyperactive pursuit and empty-hearted feelings are not
new to the human experience. For although such terms as progress and wealth are common
in the twenty first modern socio-economic lexicons, the reality is that the millions of people,
though blessed by material abundance and dynamic options in life, still seek liberation from
their personal enslavement to habits and from pursuits that have brought disintegration within
and fragmentation without. Her pleasure that jeopardize the sacred rights of another like
Rama leads to loneliness and to a kind of ever growing insecurity feeling

She, later, gives an instance to support her fear, “when I had typhoid last year, far
from looking after me, you’d all plotted to put poison in medicine!.” [208] Manik’s intention
of being alone which results out of her feeling of insecurity is the essence of modern man.
Novelist and writer Thomas Wolf, having himself lived an emotionally turbulent life,
articulated one of the most deeply felt aches within the human heart:

The whole conviction of my life now rests upon the belief that loneliness,
far from being a rare and curious phenomenon; peculiar to myself and to a
few other solitary people is the central and inevitable feature of human
existence.27

Hari Pitale is also a smoker. He has a habit of working his toothless mouth. He
doesn’t have any respect for his two sons. He expresses his disgust for his selfish children.

PAPPA: If I die, it’ll be a release! They’re all waiting for it.

But I’m your own father. After all! If I die, I’ll become a
ghost. I’ll sit on your chest! I won’t let you enjoy a rupee
 of it. I earned it all. Now, these wolves, these bullies!
[209]

He is considered as a ‘confounded nuisance’ by his son and eats other’s food and
‘tries to act smart.’ His diseased wife is an enemy to him and left three children with him.
But he becomes a burden to them. When Pappa says it has been his stupidity to produce
bastards like them. Ramakant retorts:

RAMAKANT: Pappa, pappa! As the seed, so the tree!

Did we ever ask to be produced? [211]

Ramakant tells his brother Umakant that “a mangy dog would have made a better
father.” [213] Umakant is only too ready to agree with his brother. And all these in the
presence of their own father! However, the old man, hardened by his own past crimes,
remains nonchalant. He doesn’t want to pay his servant. He and his brother hate each other.
They both hate their own sister Manik. For him lying for business is a convenience. He
believes that money can buy anything like lawyers, courts and justice. Even when Ramakant
and Umakant talk to their own sister about her affair with the Rajah of Hondur, they use
obscene language, which is suggestive of their incestuous nature.

In an interview with Veena Noble Dass28, Tendulkar has said that though he is not
directly influenced by the western dramatists, he had read widely the plays of Arthur Miller
and Tennessee Williams. These two dramatists have written plays depicting the problems of
family life. Miller represents an attempt to move out of the dead lock comic rule by relating
the individual and his family to society. He attempts to turn the connections and energies of
the family situation outward to show a clash between the private loyalties of the household
and the public responsibilities of living in society.29 The tendency of portraying a clash
between the private loyalties of the household and the public responsibilities of living in
society can be seen in Tendulkar’s characterization. Tennessee Williams dramatizing an
inward tendency asserts the painful isolation of life and tests the inner psychological limits of
individual existence. Tendulkar while reading these two playwrights had come across the
problem of family and its strife and violence which he depicted in this play also bears great
affinity to the Black theatre of America.

The suspicion that Ramakant and Umakant’s father still has some money stacked
away somewhere leads them to have a cruel plot against their own father. Manik’s crave for
money to purchase a thousand-rupee necklace at the cost of her life gives a kind of public
demonstration of the bestiality and monstrosity of people in a family living in a nauseatingly
consumerist world. Though Ramakant and Umakant have already received their share of the
father’s wealth, their plan to squeeze him to his best penny and planning a murderous assault
on him to drive him out is a kind of heinous hounour that could be given to a father. It is a
rare incident one could witness in human history.

Set against these scenes of violence are those involving Rama and Rajaninath who
live in the garage as an outcast. Rajaninath helplessly watches the ordeals that Rama
undergoes in the house of vultures. The love and affection between Rama and Rajaninath is a
kind of coincidence that almost arises out of a sense of helplessness and an attempt to escape
from the ugliness of the internal and interpersonal family violence. Through her character,
Tendulkar is able to create a sensitive, naturally kind and good hearted individual. She is like
a helpless, submissive tender little bird among the vultures. Her character proves to be the
possibility of maintaining values in spite of prevailing wicked conditions. Here, audience can
see the similarity between the vulturic male characters in The Vultures and that of Silence!
The Court is in Session. Tendulkar himself underscored the similarity between Shantata and
Gidhade.

In Gidhade it is the pack of human vultures pitched against a defenceless

female character, the wife of Ramakant. In Shantata it is Miss. Benare
against a pack of middle-class vultures. In Gidhade, Rajaninath, that bastard
brother suffers for the defenceless female in the play. In Shantata it was the
character of Samant who did it for the psychologically molded Miss. Benare.30

Like Rama, Rajaninath has a sensitive personality. His deep empathy for the victims
of human viciousness flows like an undercurrent throughout the play. If one recalls
Tendulkar ambivalent ‘ethics’, the split between the social self and the more individualistic
writer self, one can read something of the ‘writer’ in Rajaninath, who watches the violent
disintegration of the family, and bears witness to it. But like Tendulkar’s writer self, he
maintains the ‘coldness’ that allows him to record the cruelty of the people involved in the
process, without interfering in it. But one should not think that by creating such character
Tendulkar has vainly fluttered in the romantic world.

The most violent incident in the play comes after driving away Sakharam, Ramakant,
Umakant and Manik make their Pappa drink to extract the truth about the money. The sons
pretend to fight each other with the father getting trapped between them. Pappa gets injured.
 In order to escape from further assault, he admits to them that he has deposited some money
in the Punjab Bank. He says pathetically:

PAPPA : [shouting]. “There’s no more you devils! There’sn’t!

That’s all there is, really. Please don’t kill me! I am
your father, you pimps! Your father!” [230]

In most violent and cursive way they get signed on the cheque book. However, his
refusal to part with the money enrages his children who try to kill him. Therefore, Pappa
runs and to quote Rajaninath:

RAJANINATH: “The oldest vulture,

The stubborn ghost

With death in his desires

Hiding us ugly man

Trailing a wing

Departed from the hollow of a tree

Where he lived,” [232]

All the Pitale’s drink, and liquor flows like a river in the house. It is liquor that makes
them violent and ruthless towards one another. The people, who believe that they can enjoy
the life with monitory pleasures, become more and more miserable in their pursuit. The
drunkards and drug addicts who try to forget themselves and their problems under the
influence of intoxication will face the reality when they come back and lose their joy.
Through the scene it is very clear that man is not only constantly failing in defining pleasure
principle but also searching for it in wrong places.

The theme of violence pervades quite blatantly in most of Tendulkar’s plays. Ever
since he wrote Silence! The Court is in Session, he has discovered that violence makes man
fascinating and there are many variations in the way violence manifest itself in the way man
expresses it. He does not consider the occurrence of human violence as something loathsome
or ugly as it is innate in human nature. He believes that violence is a basic quality. When
this understanding of human nature is translated into a play it not only becomes an explosive
piece of art but a thesis. Tendulkar unabashedly presents and defends it. According to him
the most important point is to keep the violent raw while depicting it on stage, not to dress it
up with many fancy trappings and not to make it palatable. He said it must be acutely
disturbing.

Tendulkar was influenced by Artaud’s idea of relating the theme of anguish with the
form of violence. According to Artaud, theatre is like a plague. The plague signifies man’s
disharmonious split between the physical and spiritual force and is a vivid metaphor for
theatre. The odd analogy of the plague set the tone for Artaud’s theatre of cruelty. It
presumed that man is beset by a grotesque illness from which neither the audience nor the
actors are exempted and that the audience come to the theatre to undergo a violent therapy in
the hope of being transformed.

The uncertainty is a brilliant dramatic puzzle, a sign once more of Tendulkar’s sheer
dramatic craftsmanship. The Vultures is indeed the most violent of Tendulkar’s plays. It
reminds one of the T.S. Eliot’s modern epic The Waste Land. It is replete with thirst for
materialism, degradation of familial relations, crave for momentary intrigues, defending
sexual relations, individual confession, death by liquor, degradation of spiritual values,
circular construction, as the five vultures do not have ‘an escape’, and series of incidents
packed together and morally dead men lost their bones in rat’s valley.

The structure of the play though seems to be packed with rapid incidents and packed
together has been written within the conventions of the theatre of cruelty. And these
conventions do not go very far because of the presence of an omniscient and omnipresent
chorus in the form of Rajaninath. His soliloquies offer objectivity comments on the action.
He cites poetic dialogues. The action of the play takes place inside the house at different
times like dusk, morning, evening and late at night, adds to the attitude of the characters and
the two outsiders Rama and Rajaninath are away from it. The play does not have redeeming
humour of Silence….. It is intensely morbid in the portrayal of its characters and action. The
decadence and degeneration of human individuals belonging to middle class milieu is
exposed through the interactions to among the members of a family. Tendulkar punctuates
the structure with the poems. In the sequences, he also suspends the chronological movement
of the play. The plot of the play is very concise. The play has a cinematographic technique
in which Tendulkar gives elaborate stage directions for the actors’ movements and
enactments. Sets and light effects and makes adroit use of soliloquies.
 The imagery of the play reiterates the thematic design of the play. Images of animals
and disease, images that stress the disjunction between appearance and reality. Taking clues
from N.S. Dharan’s suggestion that The Vultures could be compared with The Duchess of
Malfi, A.P. Darani brings out the similarities of imagery, theme, and characterization in the
play. She observes:

The avaricious and vicious villains in both the plays are in consonance with
ferocious animals like bloodhounds and wolves and preying birds like
vultures and hawk. The Duchess mentioning the trees evinces life and
continuity. Rama’s attachment to the Tulsi plant in Tendulkar’s play also
suggests the same. 31

When Tendulkar was asked whether such vultures like characters exist in our society
and also some incidents occur, like two abortions that take place in the play without any
further implications, he said that:

There are some exceptions. We do not come across this often. But looking
from another angle these characters do exist in society. In home not
exaggerated them at all. Each character become more or less symbolic and as
a group resembles reality. Obsession for materialistic gain is not uncommon
in our society. They do sound realistic; I wanted to have them as exception to
establish a theme.32

The birds’ call serve as a non-human sound reference, offering sound transfer for the
human which have lost their humanity altogether. The language of the play is obscenity but
quite realistic. “As the heart is filled with so is the mouth is spoken”, the language is the
reflection of the human nature, steeped in debts and immorality uses. The swearing by
almost all the characters and the use of the word ‘bastard’ is used very commonly. An
example can be seen in the following lines:

RAMAKANT: It’s that bastard Rajininath! … It’s your half brothers!

Your bastard brothers! That son of a whore’s!

RAMAKANT: (Raging suddenly) You bastard. Umya shut your mouth!

[255]
 Tendulkar himself revolutionized speech rhythms by making the spoken resonate with
the unspoken. He wrote half sentences, part phrases, tentative expressions, pauses and
silences as no one had done before him (or after).“I have an ear for the speech habit of people
and an eye for mannerisms and personal peculiarities.” He admitted. “Everything gets stored
in the brain. I don’t have to call for it when I write it comes by itself.”33

As Tendulkar wishes to be “in the present, however painful and unbearable it is want
to be a man without a past” 34seem to apply the same to his characters. Sometimes it seems to
be that he looses the logic of ‘cause and effect’ in his characterization. The reasons why
Sakharam was driven out by his parents in the childhood were not properly presented in the
play Sakharam Binder. Benare, though well educated, lacks a sense of beginning her
relationship with Damle seeing the end in the mind. It is doubtful how she could have related
herself with others of the drama troupe until that tragic incident bursts out! In Kamala too,
Jay Singh is so enthusiastic that he can’t anticipate what happens if he exposes such a great
sex racket! Here in The Vultures too, one suspects, how the members of Pitale family are
dragged to the present situation of intending to kill one another! Were they all brought up
under one roof unknowing of the nature of one another? How could Rama wait for twenty
years for children and how could they allow Rajaninath to be there during these years?
According to Bhagwant Charu “The Vultures is interesting and has a novelty of plot and
stagecraft but suffers from a lack of united vision and is therefore not dramatically
meaningful as a whole.”35

Tendulkar’s art of characterization is nothing but reflection of the existing bleak

reality. The man and woman hardly repeat themselves. He opens up their weaknesses, their
pretensions, their illusions and also their strengths. Tendulkar’s insights into human
behaviour are unique. He does not follow the path that is taken. He never follows standard
patterns of narration. What makes his work unique is the penetrating vision that can go
beyond the surface, into the minds of the character and come out with insights that no one
else would be able to conceive. Thus even when he is using a lot of violence in the play The
Vultures, it is not really violence, because he also depicts how the characters rise above the
brutality and violence. His persons are not quantity, but quality. Thus Govind Nihalani
remarks:
 Tendulkar plays home this unforgettable quality to them they remain with
you, grew into your psyche and sometimes even haunt you. And you never
forget them because you know somewhere deep down, that it is the truth.36

Thus, today, thirty years later, it is possible to judge the play with objectivity. The
play is a ruthless dissection of human nature revealing its inherent tendencies to violence,
avarice, selfishness, sensuality and sheer wickedness.
 REFERENCES

1. Gowri Ramnarayan. “A New Myth of Sisyphus! Vijay Tendulkar and Girish Karnad
in conversation with Ramnarayan”, The Hindu, folio on theatre, Feb. 1998, p.16
2. Vijay Tendulkar, “Interview” India Today, December 16-31, 1980, p.157
3. Vijay Tendulkar. “A Testament”, Indian Literature no. 147, January-February
1992.p.65.
4. Arundhati Benarjee, “Introduction” Five Plays by Tendulkar, Bombay: Oxford
University Press, 1992, pp.27-28
5. “A Profound Student of Violence”, An Interview given to Jyoti Punwani, The New
Sunday Express, May25, 2008.
6. Prachi Pinglay. “To Preserve a Theatre Tradition” an interview with Amol Palekar.
The Hindu, folio on Theatre, 1998, Oct. 30, p.5.
7. C. Coelho. “The Cult of Violence and Cruelty in Modern Theatre: A Study of Athol
Fugard and Vijay Tendulkar”, Indian Literature Today, ed. R.K. Dhawan, Delhi,
Prestige, 1994, Vol. I, p.34.
8. Vijay Tendulkar. “The Play is the Thing”, taken from Sri Ram Memorial Lecture,
Lecture-1, 1997, p.10.
9. Mirajkar Nishikant D. “Two Recent Plays of Vijay Tendulkar”, New Directions in
Indian Drama, ed. Pandey and Barva, Delhi, Prestige, 1994, p. 37.
10. Vijay Tendulkar, “Drama: The Most Difficult, But the Most Powerful Medium.”
Interviews with Indian Writers”, New World Literature Series, B-18, p.280
11. Vijay Tendulkar. “The Play is the Thing”, taken from Sri Ram Memorial Lecture,
Lecture I, 1997, p.11.
12. Catherine Thankamma. “Woman that Patriarchy Created:The plays of Vijay
Tendulkar, Mahesh Dattani and Mahasweta Devi”, Vijay Tendulkar’s plays: An
Anthology of Recent Criticism(Ed) V.M. Madge, Pencraft International, Delhi 2007,
p, 83.
13. Arundati Benarjee. “Introduction”, Five Plays by Vijay Tendulkar, Bombay: OUP,
1992, p.18.
14. Vijay Tendulkar, “Interview,” The Indian Express, March 27, 1983, Magazine
Section, p.5
15. Shailaja B.Wadikar, “Power as a Theme in Ghashiram Kotwal”, Vijay Tendulkar’s
Ghashiram Kotwal, A Reader’s Companion, Ed., by M. Sarat Babu, Asia Book Club,
New Delhi, 2003. P.123.
16. D.K. Pabby, “Challenging the Canons: A Study of Ghashiram Kotwal,” Vijay
Tendulkar’s Ghashiram Kotwal, A Reader’s Companion, Ed., by M. Sarat Babu, Asia
Book Club, New Delhi, 2003. P.117.
17. Vijay Tendulkar. “The Play is the Thing”, taken from Sri Ram Memorial Lecture,
Lecture I, 1997, p. 11.
18. K.Adie, The Kindness of Strangers, London, Headline Book, 2002, p.xii
19. Anshul Chandra, “Vijay Tendulkar: A Critical Survey of his Dramatic World,”
Perspectives and Challenges in Indian-English Drama, Ed., Neeru Tandon, Atlantic
Publishers and Distributors Pvt., Ltd, New Delhi, 2006, p.159
20. Arundati Benarjee. “Introduction”, Five Plays by Vijay Tendulkar, Bombay: OUP,
1992, p.18.
21. Maya Pandit, “Representation of Family in Modern Marathi Plays: Tendulkar, Delvi
and Elkumcha”: Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays: An Anthology of Recent Criticism (Ed)
V.M.Madge, Pencraft International, Delhi, 2007. P.69
22. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches.Bombay: Education Department,
Govt. of Maharashtra, 1987, vol.3, p. 431.
23. Manu is an ancient Hindu Lawgiver, and his laws are widely accepted and observed.
24. Sudha Rai, “Gender Crossings: Vijay Tendulkar’s Deconstructive Axis in Sukharam
Binder, Kamala and Kanyadan, Perspectives and Challenges in Indian-English
Drama, Ed by Neeru Tandon, Atlantic Publishers, 2006, New Delhi, p.150
25. Vijay Tendulkar’s lecture delivered at Maharashtra Cultural Centre, New Delhi in
1990.

26. Vijay Tendulkar In Conversation With Gowri Ramnarayan: Interview, Vijay

Tendulkar’s Plays an Anthology of Recent Criticism, (Ed) V.M.Madge, Pencraft
International, Delhi, 2007, p, 50.

27. Thomas Wolf, God’s Lovely Man in the Hills Beyond, New York, Plume, New
American Library, 1982. P. 146

28. Veena Noble Dass, Vijay Tendulkar Interviewed, Bombay, 1984 (Unpublished)
29. Arthur Miller, The Family in Modern Drama, Atlantic Monthly, vol. 197, April,
1956, p. 35

30. Samik Bandhopadhya, Introduction Vijay Tendulkar, Collected Plays in Trans., 4th
Impression, New Delhi, OUP, 2007 xi

31. A.P. Dharni, “Vijay Tendulkar’s Gidhade and John Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi”
Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays: An Anthology of Recent Criticism (Ed) V.M. Madge,
Pencraft International, Delhi, 2007, p. 118

32. Dhyaneswar Nadakarni, “The case of Sakharam Binder”, Enact No. 66, June, 1972.

33. Gowri Ramnarayan, “Writing for Life” Obituary, Front Line, June 20, 2008, p. 90

34. Ibid p. 91

35. Bhagwant Charu, “The Vultures: A Review” Quest, 1975, P. 94

36. Govind Nihalani, “Tendulkar Exposed Middle Class Reality”, Book Plus, Deccan
Chronicle, 24 May, 2008, P.9
Chapter-2

Silence! The Court is in

Session:
A Reversal of Natural Justice
 Vijay Tendulkar is one of the most influential Indian writers of present times. His
creative writings are not limited to the Marathi speaking people but have relevance
universally. Tendulkar got inspiration from the society around him. He is a keen observer of
human relationships especially in lower and middle class society. He has written twenty-
eight full-length plays and in almost all of them, women play crucial roles. In this regard
Geeta Kumar rightly observes, “One gets a feeling that there is an underlying current of
sympathy towards the women characters created by him.”1

Most of Tendulkar’s plays concentrate on the individual life of modern man and
injustice done to him/her by fellow beings on social, political, religious, cultural, and legal
and gender basis. Silence! The Court is in Session is also a caustic satire on the social as well
as legal justice. It also suggests that the present day justice in both the fields is just a
mockery as it rests exclusively on witnesses. During the proceedings of the ‘court’ all sorts
of allegations are made against Benare, an unmarried girl and she is held guilty on the basis
of witnesses only. Tendulkar’s reply to a question asked in an interview unfolds his views.
“My experiences of my times, my life have shown me that the individual is largely
disempowered, made miserable and reduced to the role of a spectator by the logic of certain
events and social grouping. The history of human culture has taken very complex twists and
turns. Yet, even today, my inspirational strength lies in the hope with which I look forward
to tomorrow.”2

The title selection by the playwright is significant in many ways. The imposed
silence of the accused in the mock trial, might have suggested the dramatist, the title, Silence
the Court is in Session which is an ironical statement on the state of the present working of
courts of law. By using the word, ‘silence’ the judge imposed on himself seriousness and
commanding voice. With serious accusations and shocking remarks on Benare who was
caught in the cage of mock trail got used to this imposed silence. When the mock-trial begins
with Kashikar’s sudden interrogative statement,”prisoner Ms.Benare, under section No: 302
of the Indian Penal Code you are accused of the crime of infanticide. Are you guilty or not
guilty of the afore-mentioned crime?”(SC 74), Benare is dumbfounded. Even the comic
relief provided by the ‘pan-spitting’ contest helps her regain her composure only for a brief
while, for the short respite she gains is not long lasting. As the ‘mock-trial ‘is resumed,
Benare increasingly seeks shelter in her self-imposed silence. Further, all her attempts at
protest are callously drowned in Kashikar, the mock-judge’s imposition: ‘silence.’ In such a
helpless, hostile situation, Benare has no other choice but to remain silent, as no language can
come to her rescue.

In Silence! The Court is in Session, Tendulkar raises several questions about love, sex,
marriage and moral values prevalent in the society. It is a society which asks everyone to
conform to its own yardsticks of decorum and propriety. The writer makes ample use of
irony, satire, pathos and even mock-element to high light the hollowness of middle class
moralities.

In this ‘play within play’ a ‘mock law court’ is planned and Benare is made a
scapegoat. Benare is horror-struck at the naked display of cruelty by Kashikars, Rokde,
Sukhatme, Ponkshe and Karnik against her who heap evidence after evidence against her.

When one comes to structural aspect in Silence! The Court is in Session, the play is a
‘discussion play’ and social issues are discussed in the form of a debate. The setting is a city
and the general atmosphere is tense throughout the play with some occasional ‘comic relief’
presented in the form of ‘pan spitting and smoking.’ The language that is used in the play is
ordinary people’s language. There are Three Acts in the play with 20th century as time and
there are no scene divisions of the Acts. The plot is expertly structured so that the
denouement unravels itself as ‘reversal.’

In Silence! The Court is in Session the absurdities of man are juxtaposed in a

situation, where they could be more obvious and also the play is an authentic expression of
the dramatist. The plot amounts to a succession of writhing tableaus of the middle class
rooted in their meanness and yet it begins as a game just to pass time. The reversal from the
mock element of a game to grim seriousness constitutes the craft of Tendulkar.

To stage the ‘Mock Trial’ of President Johnson for producing atomic weapons, a
group of amateur actors and actresses come to a village. They belong to ’The Sonar Moti
Tenement (Bombay) Progressve Association’ and the actors are Leela Benare, Sukhatme,
Rokde, Ponkshe, Karnik, Mr.Kashikar and Mrs.Kashikar. Prof.Damle, who has a role to play,
has not come, and there is an inexplicable unease about his absence. Sukhatme decides to
play Damle’s role in addition to his own. Rawte is also missing and his place is to be filled
by Samant, a local resident of the village.

The ‘Progressive Association’ has no need to rehearse as it has staged the trial seven
times in the past three months. So, to kill time, the members of the Association decide to
bring an imaginary case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Leela Benare would
be accused of the crime of Infanticide. The harmless game would also serve as a ‘visual
enactment’ to initiate the local chap, Samant, into the intricacies of acting.

The play starts with Leela Benare, the teacher, telling Samant about her Play Group
(I, p.6) –the barren couple, Mr.Kashikar and Mrs.Kashikar; the young boy Rokde, who has
been adopted and ‘made a slave’ to the barren couple; a real life lawyer, Sukhatme, ‘swatting
flies with legal precedents’ at the court and ‘killing houseflies’ at home; Ponkshe, the
‘Scientist! Inter-failed’ and Damle, the Professor, who runs away from a ‘real-life problem.’
There is, in addition, Karnik, a man with a grasp of ‘intimate theatre’ (p.11)

A play within the play is a well-known dramatic device. But Tendulkar introduces a
mock trial before the Mock Trial to be staged that night. This rehearsal of sorts ‘little more
than an inset’ (Introduction, p.IV), becomes the very enactment which one witnesses in the
play. Benare, who, at the outset, tries to play it in an absolutely light hearted manner, gets
into paroxysms of torment at the end. The idea of a’ game’ assumes the aspect of dragging
up her private life to public gaze as all the other members of the troupe seem to have
deliberately ganged upon her. Benare thus becomes the ‘hunt ‘and the ‘quarry’ (p. VI).
Tendulkar’s knowledge of the Indian middle-class society makes him look deeply at the
pettiness that floats in the air and laps the heart of men. As an artist with social awareness he
cannot but be articulate about this. He does not desire to take a metaphysical leap over these
appalling men in our society who would shout themselves hoarse on the badness of others,
though they are no better. At this juncture Jesus Christ’s remarks in the New Testament
reminds: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way as you judge others,
you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you
look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank ion your
own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all
the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own
eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”3

Benare sings the song of a sparrow (I, p. 23). The same song is heard by her, from
somewhere unseen, at the end of the play

“Someone has stolen my nest away.”

Sparrow, sparrow, poor little sparrow.

“Oh, brother crow, oh, brother crow,

Were you there? Did you see it go?”

 “No, I don’t know, I didn’t see.

What are your troubles to do with me?” (III, p. 78).

It is an uncaring world. The troubles of a woman or a man have nothing to do with

his fellow beings. Mindless of an individual’s troubles, the world is only quite eager to heap
upon that person unjustly, insults and pains. But as Rabindranath Tagore puts it, “Our world
of expression does not accurately coincide with the world of facts because personality
surpasses facts on every side…….A news paper accounts of some domestic
incident……..may create agitation in society, yet would lose all its significance if placed by
the side of great works of art….The disposition of a great battle may be a great fact, but it is
useless for the purpose of art. But what the battle has caused to a single individual soldier,
separated from his loved ones and maimed for his life, has a vital value for art which deals
with reality.” 4 Tendulkar’s Silence! The Court is in Session deals with reality. It has a vital
value for art as it deals with a single individual, Miss.Benare, maimed for her life.

The marvellous use of the technique ‘the play within the play’ indirectly exposes the
cruel nature inherent in our so called ‘elite’ and ‘judicial’ male dominated society. The
professor who is responsible for Benare’s humiliation goes unscathed and unnoticed, but she
is deposed literally naked in front of those men. The very men who talk about dignity of
women and motherhood are responsible for inflicting shame and indignity on her. Slowly the
“mock trial” is developed, into a serious affair, with serious charges, stunning blames in an
extraordinary somber and tense atmosphere resembles our modern courts. Often rendered
echo melodramatic monologues in the hall, the heated debates, discussions and polemics
offer the audience to realize the cruelty that is latent in the collective psyche of the Indian
court. In fact, the play and its structure revolve wholly round the idea of a game and include
the essential ingredient of ‘reversal’ of the ‘natural justice.’

The dialogues in the play are characterized by a certain idiosyncratic use of syntax.
Most of the utterances are short and there are abundant pauses, marked by numerous dots and
dashes. The ‘demotic’ and ‘rounded’ style of dialogues can convince the audience about the
‘bare faced lies’ of the characters.

When heated debates are going on in India on premarital sex among unmarried girls
and boys with statements given by some actresses in favour of premarital sex, this play poses
some ethical and moral questions. Though the question is not about premarital sex is right or
wrong here, premarital sex is viewed seriously because it is a shame in our society, a society
which is mostly conservative.

There are cases happening in India in the way Benare has experienced. There is no
fault of her. Prof. Damle has committed a breach of character. The ‘court’ should have tried
Prof.Damle, but it hasn’t tried the person who is solely responsible. On the other hand it
made Benare a scapegoat. This type of behavior is becoming the way of the world since ages
for which one should pity.

Tendulkar has concentrated much on women problems-domestic violence, sexual

harassment, rape, unequal pay, sexual discrimination. The courts of law are not doing full
justification for solving women problems. In fact, the play highlights the duty of courts of
law towards women problems and a sense of responsibility is necessary on the part of courts
of law in solving these problems. It is a criticism on elite-court relations in India as an
unsatisfactory arrangement, where being structurally part of the state, the courts are expected
to maintain high degree of independence and to be ensured of a democratic policy.

The play, Silence! The Court is in Session is the outcome of a real incident for the
writer. Tendulkar met an amateur group which was on its way to stage a mock-trial in Vile
Parle, a suburb of Bombay. While overhearing their conversation, the outline of the play
began taking shape in the writer’s mind and resulted in the creation of Silence! The Court is
in Session. The play was written for Rangayana at the instance of Aravind and Sulabh
Despande and was first performed in March, 1978 in Madras.

Tendulkar’s bleak portrayal of women has been criticized. Many women in his plays
are portrayed as victims of society with a sense of resignation for not overcoming their
hellish existence. But one thing can be obvious that women’s issues are relevant today and it
is a defeat of our society. The position of women in Indian society has always tormented the
minds of social reformers, planners and administrators for ages. Women are endowed with a
feeble mind as well as body. Her position in society is respectable and veneered. Concerted
efforts have been made particularly, after the Indian independence, to raise women from their
present state and bring them decency and dignity on par with men. Indian constitution is
ensuring women rights, prohibits discrimination and guarantees equality of opportunities for
all citizens. Whatever may be the enactments, in practice the women are still neglected.
They are not enjoying their rights and suffer from a number of socially inexorable disabilities
and inhibitions. The position of women in the middle class families is further worse. Dowry
cases in particular are more prevalent, wretched and are not entering the records. The
suppressions and harassments resulting from dowry cases are being limited to the indoors in
this male dominated society. The social structure, norms and values which govern human
behavior do not favour women to use their rights and thus create obstacles towards the
enforcement of legislation.

Considering the ‘great social significance’ (p 67) of the case, the worshipful judge,
Kashikar, breaking tradition, enters the witness box. He has evidence to prove that orders for
the dismissal of Benare from her school are under issue, for, “it is sin to be pregnant before
marriage. It would be still more immoral to let such a woman teach, in such a condition!” (p
69).

Storms raged about Benare’s throat and there was a wail-like death-in her heart. But
each time she has shut her lips tight. At the end of the play she stretches to loosen her arms
and communicate. She puts up her defenses:

An enquiry is not to be held against me. But against life itself. ‘Life is
not worthy of life!’

…………………………………………………………………

And now it carries within it, the witness of that time- a tender little bud –
of what will be a lisping, laughing, dancing little life- my son- my whole
existence! I want my body for him – for him alone. (pp 73-75)

Is Benare’s final say in the drama the knowledge of self or mere self justification?
Kumud Mehta’s testimony that the spectators, who witness the play, find it “the most
absorbing part of the play.”5 It is most absorbing, because it is not self justification but
knowledge of self. Tendulkar’s craft has created in this play a claustrophobic atmosphere
that makes Benare go beyond the hungers of flesh. The bolt of the door where the members
of the troupe have gathered slipped and shut outside. Benare could not go out and get away
from the people who have turned a mock game into an assault on her private life. When
barred of an outlet at the physical level she finds an outlet for her deeper mental realizations.

The judgment is pronounced. “Marriage is the very foundation of our society’s

stability. Motherhood must be sacred and pure. This court takes a serious view of your
attempt to dynamite all this…………The future of posterity was entrusted to you. This is a
very dreadful thing. The morality which you have shown through your conduct was the
morality you were planning to impart to the youth of tomorrow……. The school officials
have done a work of merit in deciding to remove you from your job….No memento of your
sin should remain for future generation: Therefore, this court hereby sentences that you shall
live, but the child in your womb shall be destroyed” (pp 75-76). Stifled sobs come from
Benare and she cries, “I won’t let it happen” (p.76).

Prof.Damle, a family man with five children, could merrily have an affair with Benare
and also do a symposium in the University. But Miss. Benare must lose her teaching job, her
only source of livelihood, because, when she offered her body to Damle, a tender little bud
entered her womb. Justice!

The cup of Benare’s crime is full and not only today’s but tomorrow’s society stand
endangered by her criminal conduct. So does the court opine. It may be a mock court and a
mock trial. But the dart strikes home and one is made to reflect. Is it a lasting, brave new
world that would be ushered in, or a fugitive world addled on erosion of values?

Motherhood is pure and noble, enjoining us to perpetual worship; mother and

motherland being higher than heaven – are these, as Benare says, only ideas “straight out of a
school composition book?” (II, p. 31)

Karnik in the play says that motherhood is nothing but “giving birth to a child” (p.
36). The woman who protects the infant she has borne and the one who cruelly strangles it to
death-both are mothers, because both have given birth (p.36). Karnik affirms that his ‘new
plays’ do not mention anything about mothers. “They’re all about the futility of life. On the
whole, that’s all man’s life is” (p. 35). Is it all?

Perhaps one may conclude with the poet of Swan Song

Not for us the clairvoyance;

Nor with us the last word.

The play may be full of banters and crudities and pettiness, but there is a complexity,
which can be interpreted in two ways: (i) No man can ever say that he is free from sins and
vices. Yet he feels that he has the right, so honestly that it is no longer a question of our
personal beliefs, but of our participation in the playwright’s experience of world and man-the
experience of soul’s love for virtue and the body’s attraction to sins and desires carnal. The
victim in this process is always a woman, because love is only an episode in man’s life but to
a woman it is life itself.
 Tendulkar as an artist and explorer of life not only remarks these realities of life but
also expounds the mental sufferings of their victims. When asked in an interview: “This play
is a caustic satire on the social as well as legal justice…The mental agony suffered by the girl
throughout the play is no way less than the legal punishment. Is that all you wished to
convey or something more?” Tendulkar said:

This is exactly what I had in my mind. If I say anything else now, that will be
an after-thought. An undaunted girl of Benare’s make-up could have, besides
defending herself, made a counter-attack, tearing to pieces the do’s and don’ts
of the selfish society. Had I shown he aggressive that would have been
attitude, not hers otherwise also the play should only suggest leaving the rest
to the viewers.6

Benare functions as the central conscience in Silence! The Court is in Session. It is

mainly through her ironic perception that the audience gets an insight into the other
characters. She is a responsible school teacher who is a sprightly rebellious and assertive as
the heroines of Shakespeare’s romantic comedies, as some critics have already observed. She
is conscious in her work and commands the love and respect of all her pupils. She is also
enlightened activist, being a member of the amateur theatre group called, “The Sonar Moti
Tenement Progressive Association.” (Bombay)

The play begins, Samant, a local chap and Leela Benare, the heroine found
conversing. Benare tries to take every opportunity, to get closer to him as she enjoys his
physical proximity though as yet, Samant has no reason to suspect her. However, Samant’s
total indifference to her maneuvers and his complete innocence leaves Benare with no option
but to accept him as good company till the arrival of the rest of the troupe. Benare feels light-
hearted and gay in Samant’s company. She springs a surprise on the rustic Samant with a
sudden confidential proposal: “Let’s leave everyone behind, I thought and go somewhere far
away with you.”7 In utter confusion the shocked Samant exclaims: “with me” (55) She
cautiously and inquisitively asks about his wife: “Your wife is in Bhajan Group, I
suppose?”(56) In fact, she is trying to know whether or not Samant is married. Benare tries
to make sexual overturns to Samant, when she dares to him to do the act of “cutting a tongue
and putting it together again,” (56) to which he had referred during his conversation with her
earlier. Then she talks to Samant of her career as a teacher, saying her pupils are “So much
better, than adults.” (56) When she makes this observation, she has Prof. Damle in her mind
– and the audience realize this fact in the course of the play, especially, when she says:
 Benare : At least they don’t have the blind pride of thinking
they know everything. There’s no nonsense stuffed in their heads.
They don’t scratch you till you bleed, then run away like
cowards. (57)

Benare, after telling Samant that the school management is holding an enquiry against
her “Just because of one bit of slander,”(58) ignoring the fact that she is in the presence of a
stranger, who is in no way connected with her present plight, bursts out, placing her hand on
her swelling stomach and continues her tirade:

Benare: Throw me out? Let them! I haven’t anyone. Anyone at all! If I’ve hurt
anybody, it’s been I. But is that any kind of reason for throwing me out? Who
are these people to say what I can or can’t do? My life is my own – I haven’t
sold it to anyone for a job! My will is my own. My wishes are my own. No
one can kill those – no one! (58)

Tendulkar turns the opening scene of the play into a marvelous piece of satire by
pitting the self consciously independent, vehemently assertive and immensely cheerful
Benare against the utterly selfish, hypocritical and malicious amateur artists and paves the
way as to how they are going to judge and reverse the natural justice.

The scene also shows the problems that exist among Indian women towards legal
rights. Benare’s situation reminds us instances of Jessica Lal, (Delhi model) Tasneem Sheikh
Suhail, Nina Sahni. Tendulkar as a man of relevance to the contemporary society, where the
practices like – eve teasing, sexual harassment, bottom pinching, showing women vulgarly by
the media are all common phenomenon in the Indian society apart from big incidents like
rapes and murders.

Benare is extremely caustic about others. She begins to provide Samant with
additional information about her co-actors. It is mainly through her ironic perception that the
audience gets an insight into the other characters. She sarcastically refers to Mr. Kashikar as
“Mr.Prime Objective” (59) and Mrs. Kashikar as “Mrs.Hand that rocks the cradle.”(59) She
says, “Mr. Prime Objective is tied up with up-lifting the masses. And poor “Hand that rocks
the cradle” has no cradle to rock.”(59) She also informs that childless Kashikars have adopted
Rokde in order to escape their boredom in life, and in the process, have made a slave of the
poor fellow.”
 Benare’s description of her colleagues is punctuated with shrewdness and sarcasm.
She refers to Sukhatme as “an Expert on the law.” (59) Ironically, “He is such an authority
on the subject, even a desperate client won’t go anywhere near him! He just sits alone in the
barrister’s room at court, swatting flies with legal precedents.”(59) Ponkshe, to her is a
“Hmm! Sci en tist.” Inter-failed!” (59) Benare then comments Prof. Damle who is one of the
actors in the troupe: “And we have an intellectual too. That means someone who prides
himself on his book learning but when there’s a real-life problem, away he runs! Hides his
head. He’s not here today. Won’t be coming, either. He wouldn’t dare! [60]

Benare’s opening compliments about Samant not only indicates his graceless and
embarrassed acceptance, but also ridicules the nature of Kashikar and others later. The
discussion about the fourth mission’s witness Rawat and substitution for with a local person
who has neither seen a court nor acted in the play – reveals how modern courts jumble the
things and fulfill their whim’s and fancies by hook or crook.

The play raises some ethical and moral issues related to the character of Benare. It is
the tendency of human nature for ages to look down upon women particularly when they
commit a sin. For centuries women have been socially expelled, isolated, and even severely
punished for just a breach in character. Whereas this society considers doing sinful acts is the
birth right of men. Man and women are created equal in the eyes of God and no scriptures
are supporting men for their sinful behavior

Commenting on Benare, Sarat Babu says, “Leela Benare, the central character, is
agile and spontaneous by nature. She has a strong desire to enjoy life without being
suffocated by the hegemony of culture. She is an embodiment of Nature’s innocence and
spontaneity.”8 The above comment is apt in view of her conversation in the following
passage:

Benare: Why, in the classroom, I’m the soul of seriousness! But I don’t see why
one should go around all the time with a long face. Or a square face! Like that
Ponkshe! We should laugh, we should play, we should sing! If we can and if
they’ll let us, we should dance too. Shouldn’t have any false modesty or dignity.
Or care for anyone! I mean it. When your life is over, do you think anyone will
give you a bit of theirs? (60-61).
 These words express her point of view in life. Her speech reveals her character and
mental process. She is outspoken, frank and firm in her views.

The same writer further comments about her character, lifting her to the exalted
position: “Her lively nature and innocent beauty that are not distorted by culture attract
philanderers and thus lands her in danger several times. She withstands the violence and
continues living joyfully. In her teens, she is seduced and sexually exploited by her own
uncle. He does not marry her and is supported by her own mother. Benare overcomes this
shock and completes her education. She becomes a teacher and earns a good reputation as a
teacher. Her academic interest takes her to Prof.Damle whom she respects for his scholarship
and intelligence. Though married, he exploits her sexually and betrays her. She requests
Balu Rokde and Ponkshe to marry and save her from ignominy. But they are neither
compassionate nor courageous to help her. Benare ridicules their diffidence and hypocrisy.
She is frank and open. She exposes the hypocrisy of people and laughs at their flaws.”9

Though men commit worst sexual crimes, people still say that women spoil the
society. Pro women argue, men are tacitly permitted to seek extra marital sexual pleasure
while women’s sexuality is limited to motherhood within the marriage. Leela Benare
strongly protests against these unjust patriarchal values and demands not only freedom but
also the right over her body and to live in the way she like. She says:

Who are these people to say what I can or can’t do? My life is my own, I haven’t
sold it to anyone for a job! My will is my own.(58)

Like most of the women, she supports patriarchal values in spite of their being
harmful to women. That is why the cynics of feminism declare that women are the enemies
of women. But this is due to the fact that women are urged for their survival to absorb,
observe and propagate patriarchal culture as aptly argued by Srilatha Batliwala in her brilliant
article, “Why do women oppress women?”10 Patriarchy is the system that traces familial
descent and economic inheritance down the male line. Indian society is mostly patriarchal.
Yet there are by enthusiasts, social activists and militant feminists. The earliest image of
woman that history provides is that of the “…..food-gathering, child-feeding female….who is
both protects and victimized by the brute strength of the male, who gains a brief respite as
mother-goddess and matriarch- then loses all claims to power and status as man invents the
plough and takes over farming.”11
 This Play can be compared with Girish Karnad’s Naga Mandala. Appanna marries
Rani. He looks her in and goes to his concubine. She gets an aphrodisiac root and mixes its
paste in the curry to serve her husband to wean him away from the concubine. But she
throws it out on the anthill in the premises as it explodes and boils with fearful fumes. Naga,
the Kind of Cobra living in the anthill, consumes the curry and falls in love with Rani at once.
He assumes the form of Appanna and makes love with Rani. Consequently, she becomes
pregnant. Appanna drags her to the village court where the village elders order her to prove
her chastity by taking the ordeal of red-hot iron while conniving at the extra-marital relation
with his concubine and his inhuman treatment of his wife. This juxtaposition of innocent
Rani and Appanna, the blatant male culprit, exposes the gender biased value system of the
patriarchal society. In Tendulkar’s play, Damle’s crime is connived at whereas Benare is
accused of indecent behavior.

Rakesh’s play, One Day in Ashadha, also illustrates how women are victimized by
men. Kalidasa, the protagonist of the play, loves Mallika who inspires him in composing
beautiful pieces of literature. He becomes famous and a poet laureate. He betrays Mallika
and marries the Princess of Kashmir. He lives in royal luxuries while Mallika lives in abject
poverty. He behaves in the same way as Dushyanta, the protagonist of his famous play,
Abhijnana Shakuntalam, who marries Shakuntala at her foster father’s monastery and betrays
when she, having become pregnant, comes to his court.

Vijay Tendulkar is the avant-garde Marathi playwright who transformed the image of
women in his plays, the image different from the images depicted in the mythologies. In
most of him plays, particularly in his Silence! The Court is in Session, Vultures, Sukharam
Binder, Vultures and, Kamala. Prof.Veena Noble Dass’s remarks are apt: “The image of
woman in contemporary Indian literature has changed drastically. No more is woman
considered or portrayed as a weak person, or falling at the feet of her husband or trying to
please him always. Traditionally, a good woman is synonymous with a good wife. This is
reflected in the most popular and well-known myths about women, for example in the stories
of Savitri and Sathavan, Nala and Damayanti and above all in the Sita-Rama legend. Others
like Draupadi, Gandhari, Arundhati and Ahalya are all seen in the contexts of their husbands.
So overwhelming is this pattern that one is struck by the fact that the mother-child
relationship features in the classical mythology, in spite of motherhood being considered a
crucial factor in the shaping of feminine identity.”12
 The Modern woman is clever and courageous to face the society. Most of the
portrayals about women are shown in Tendulkar’s plays as strong, holding utmost belief in
what they do. This doesn’t mean that the writer is a favorite of women or a champion of
women’s rights but he is depicting a true picture of modern women which is evident in many
of the modern instances. In Vultures, Rama is the daughter-in-law of the family, married to
Ramakanth who is impotent and not able to give her the boon of pregnancy. So, she turns to
Rajanikanth, an illegitimate child. Rama says:”This womb is healthy and sound, I swear it, I
was born to become a mother. This soil’s rich, it’s hungry, but the seed won’t take root. If
the seed is soaked in the poison, if it’s weak, feeble, lifeless, devoid of virtue, then why
blame the soil?”(89)13

In the character of Rama, Tendulkar has portrayed a woman who does not believe in
her fate but would do anything to change her life. Rama becomes pregnant not through her
husband but through Rajaninath. She is not ashamed to accept this fact. She knows that her
womb is healthy and she has every right to nurture it – if not by her husband but by any other
man. Thus Tendulkar has portrayed a very bold woman in the character of Rama in his play
Vultures.

It is important to note that through this play Tendulkar showed the back-biting nature
of people in the Indian society. The narrow and mean-minded nature of people who are
bereft of steadfastness and courage often are back-biting others. In the mock trial all are
ganged together against Benare giving an impression that they know nothing about her real
character but are only playing in the fictitious trial a fictitious play which is far from reality.
Commenting about this attitude of people Prof Veena N.Dass observes:”……It is important
to note here that these charges become verbalized only in the absence of Damle. If he were
present, the typical back-biting nature of the self-righteous Indian male would not have
spoken...Miss Benare is thrown into the dock, and there she remains trying to joke herself out
of it, but trapped too murderously by the vulture males around her.”14

The play depicted another important theme -psychological implications of frustrated

men who are flops and try to unleash their failure by revenging on weaker characters in the
society. When Benare appeals to them to father her child, they are not ready to accept the
responsibility but turn cruel towards her. Prof Veena Noble Dass again remarks “A young
woman belonging to middle class society in our country is denied the privilege of living a
decent life, of becoming a mother. The so-called intellectual Prof.Damle, after seducing and
using her, does not come forward to protect her. An extreme form of powerlessness for a
woman is the denial to bear a child. This kind of sheer cruelty and inhumanity is inherent in
all these characters because they know no way of relating to other people except by
exploitation.”15

The purpose why the dramatist has selected different persons from different
backgrounds can give some clues about the judicial circle and their judicial culture. In fact,
all these characters are the representatives of the existing personalities in judicial circle with
their personal, familiar, educational, ethical and professional defects. Mr. Kashikar’s prime
objective is to uplift the masses where he utterly fails in his personal as well as familial life.
Mr. Kashikar’s relation with Mrs. Kashikar in the play brings out the humiliation and
subjugation of the typical Hindu Brahmin wife in the idolized family. The very fact of Mrs.
Kashikar’s collusion in the attack on Benare demonstrates how women internalize the
dominance of men over themselves as a natural phenomenon and turn against other
transgressing women as the ‘other’. The power of family as an ideological state apparatus lies
in its function of reproducing conditions in which women learn to submit to the rules of
established patriarchal order. The trial of Benare brings this out transparently. Tendulkar also
debunks the myth that women’s subordinate status is a result of their inherent psychological
and biological traits by revealing through the trial how the inner workings of the damnation
are actually put into practice. Mrs. Kashikar on the other hand, is conventional and
disapproving of ‘free’ women like Benare. She is also a social worker who has her role in the
prime objective of uplifting masses who are depressed and suppressed. The most important
thing in the play about her is that she is childless. As a woman she can understand the pain of
barrenness as well as premarital pregnancy. But, she, as much as the men, is keen to draw
blood when Benare is put on trial. She has an obvious problem with Benare. She is the single
free woman, the working woman, the one who is vying for equality with men in their own
world. Her very existence places a question mark against the emptiness of Mrs. Kashikar’s
life. That is why she offers her help with such alacrity when the men shy away from
physically forcing Benare into the dock. They are all middle class men who must not be seen
to harass a woman. Tearing her apart emotionally is perfectly permissible.

Mrs. Kashikar can’t have ever admitted, even to herself, that it is on account of the
sacrosanct institution of marriage that she is open to Mr. Kashikar’s constant insults and
snubs. He has an automatic right to do so by virtue of being a man and her husband. The
insults notwithstanding, he is still seen as a caring husband, as much by her as by others,
because he has bought a string of flowers for her hair, a token of not just love, but romance.
Such is Mrs. Kashikar’s innocence (and Tendulkar’s touch of irony) that, when the group is
considering names for the accused in the mock trial they wish to conduct as a practice before
the real thing, she offers herself. This is how the exchange goes:

Mrs. KASHIKAR: Shall I do it? I will if you like.

KASHIKAR: No. [Mrs. Kashikar falls silent]

She can’t get among a few people without wanting to show off! Shows off
all the time.

MRS. KASHIKAR: [quite put out]. Enough. I won’t do it

Satisfied? [She is thoroughly disheartened]. [72-73]

Mrs. Kashikar doesn’t take such suppression of her mind and spirit quietly. She
mutters angrily. When she is asked why Miss. Benare has remained single till such an
‘advanced’ age, her response is:

Mrs. KASHIKAR: “That’s what happens these days when you get everything
without marrying. They just want comfort. They couldn’t care less about
responsibility! Let me tell you in my time, even if a girl was snub-nosed, sallow,
hunchbacked, or anything whatever, she–could-still-get-married! It’s the sly
fashion of women earning that makes everything go wrong. That’s how
promiscuity has spread throughout our society”. [99-100]

One suspects that, had Benare had the economic power, she might have protested
more actively. Her present position is evidence that among educated women, concern for
status has positive relationship with age and employment. It has been found that the working
educated women have higher concern for status than the non-working women or house wives.
Concern for status among educated women has deeper roots in personality and is closely
related to certain personality dispositions. It has been found positively related to ego-strength
and emotional stability. Concern for status bears significant relationship with value
orientations like liberalism, non-authoritarianism, and science. All the relationships of these
values are influenced by interactional affects of age, employment and some other social,
personal background factors. However, the way things are, there is no choice for Mrs.
Kashikar but to be a participant in the patriarchal system.
 One can’t help feeling a twinge of compassion for this bitter woman who will let
down her own kind to establish herself on the right side of manmade social codes. She
chooses to be an enthusiastic one because, if she is to retain a shred of self-esteem, the least
she must do is to glorify her own state. That is why her testimony against Benare is such a
bitter diatribe, but brazenly parading as sociological observation. Apart from having a shred
of self-esteem about her state and a concern for fellow women like Benare, the role of Mrs.
Kashikar suggests the audience that how an Indian educated woman has been hegemonised
and lacks her involvement in the judiciary system as a female judge, thereby championing the
causes of women.

Tendulkar never showed his women in his plays as weak, liveried heart. His women
characters fight till the last minute never losing heart however terrible the situations are. In
the case of Benare also Tendulkar does not let her kill herself or feel shy about the whole
episode, but makes her fight till the end. She knows that the male who is responsible for her
fate will no confess, yet she is determined to defend herself.

Ms.Benare breaks her silence most eloquently in Act III. This monologue sums up
her point of view and self-confidence.

Benare: Yes, I have a lot to say.(Stretches to loosen her arms.) For so many
years, I haven’t said a word. Chances came, and chances went. Storms
raged one after another about my throat. And there was a wail like
death in my heart. But each time I shut my lips tight. I thought, no one
will understand. No one can understand! When great waves of words
came and beat against my lips, how stupid everyone around me, how
childish, how
silly…………………………………………………………………...
My life was a burden to me. But when you can’t lose it, you
realize the value of it. You realize the value of leving. You see what
happiness means.(p.116)

In fact, it is this monologue that has captured the imagination and admiration of the
audiences. Tendulkar deliberately makes Benare break her silence through this stunning
monologue which expresses the hypocrisy of the urban middle class male domination who
collected enviously against her assertive confidence and uncompromising independence of
spirit.
 Tendulkar’s women characters are mouthpiece to him. They express the writer’s
point of view towards life. Benare better understands human nature. In her conversation
with Samant one can understand her wisdom. She is a school teacher and perfectly
understands human psychology.

Samant: But I didn’t say it at all! A schoolmarm just means. . . someone who –
teaches-instructs!-children- that’s what I meant to say. . .

Benare: They’re so much better than adults. At least they don’t have that blind
pride of thinking they know everything. There’s no nonsense stuffed in
their heads. They don’t scratch you till you bleed, then run away like
cowards. Please open that window..(p57)

On another occasion she sums up her attitude towards ideal teachers which is typical.

Benare: I am used to standing while teaching. In class, I never sit when teaching.
That’s how I keep my eye on the whole class. No one has a chance to play
up. My class is scared stiff of me! And they adore me, too. My children
will do anything for me. For I’d give the last drop of my blood to teach
them. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

But my teaching is perfect I’ve put my whole life into it – I’ve worn myself to
a shadow in this job! Just because of one bit of slander what can they do to
me?(p.58)

The period in which Tendulkar wrote his plays is significant for showing sympathetic
attitude towards women. The post-war period was marked by its negotiation with
modernism, its revaluation of old values and its march towards individualism leading finally
to fragmentation of family. Globalization and economic liberalization brought changes in
human life style. In such an ethos, all social transactions are market-controlled. A direct
result of this on human relationships is seen in the increasing aloofness, cruelty and violence
in our times. When Tendulkar wrote his plays this consequence was not felt as widely as it is
now; but he seems to have had a premonition of it. If he were to write Sakharam Binder,
The Vultures and Baby in today’s times perhaps they would not evoke as sharp a reaction as
they did in the 70s. The middle classes which upturned their noses against these plays in a
self-righteous manner are seen today participating consciously or unconsciously in acts of
violence against women. Many women even today pass through the humiliation and plight of
Baby who has to strike indecent poses in order to gratify the perverse lust of Shivappa. The
village panchayats and caste councils continue to harass women in the name of honour of the
village or the caste much in the same way as the mock-court does to Leela Benare in, Silence!
The Court is in Session. Sometimes they have to face even death sentences at their hands. At
a time when the institution of family is collapsing, a brother murders brother, sexual
perversity has reached a new high. Tendulkar foresaw all this and has even paid the price of
dealing with it in his plays.

Talking about his inner powers and insightful nature into humanity and their inner
conflicts Kalindi Deshpande rightly observes, “……Tendulkar dips into the deeper recesses
of the human mind and comments on man-woman relationship in his plays, one it’s deeply
struck by his extraordinary sensitivity as a dramatist. Like a blotting paper he absorbs the
nuances and complexities of human relationships. His experience leads him to unmitigated
mental disturbance and uneasiness.”16

It is saddening to know that almost all his women characters meekly submit to the
injustice, violence and harassment done to them. They seem to be helpless and have no other
alternative but to go through the way that life has chosen for them. But probably the question
does not end there. Tendulkar doesn’t show his characters as victoriously coming out of the
problems as - all is well, happy weddings, virtue getting victory over evil. Tendukar never in
his plays try to portray women character or in that case any characters rosy picture. As a
good writer who reflects true picture of life Tendulkar is faithful in his depiction of human
life. For he is not a commercial writer whose intention is not to make money out of writings
but highlights human complexities as it is. It is remarked rightly, “Tendulkar, by giving an
existential – fatalistic – twist to a woman’s suffering, tries to wriggle out of his responsibility
of putting a woman’s suffering in a social context and interpret it accordingly. Consequently,
at least so far as his women characters go, Tendulkar seems to capitulate before the
established and its reactionary value system.”17

In the case of women characters Tendulkar always shows the triumph of reactionary
and revisionist values. It is interesting to speculate about the origin of this dichotomy in
Tendulkar’s psyche. Values of life – whether positive or negative – are of course related to
the society in which they operate. The sense of quiet resignation, not altogether unmixed
with a sense of cynicism is that one finds in most of Tendulkar’s women tend to suggest the
essential futility and meaninglessness of life. One wonders if it is because the dramatist
himself turns his back on the vital relationship between the value system and the social
structure. This is a somewhat frightening thought in as much as it forecloses the very
possibility of amelioration. Tendulkar has of course put before the world the frightening
truth about life but what disturbs one is the signal that his plays send out: they seem to say
that there is no escape from this frightening reality.

The elements of surprise and suspense, levity and seriousness not only make the
spectator sit on edge, eagerly looking forward to the next turn of events, but also depict the
ruthless exertion of legal authority among the four walls of the modern courts. Drawing clues
from Dr. Samuel Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare18 and T.S Eliot’s essay on Andrew
Marvell,19 about playwrights mixing of the comic and tragic scenes in the same play and
levity and seriousness in the poetry respectively, Jyoti Havnurkar 20 observes the note of levity
and seriousness in the play Silence! The Court is in Session. The element of levity, far from
neutralising the seriousness, not only intensifies the theme of the play but also gives the play
a much wider scope and relevance.

The play is a satire on the conventions and hypocrisy of male dominated society
which is concerned only with a farcical moral code. Talking about social suppression and
violence Deborah Rhode maintains that “patriarchy is sustained by both ideological and
structural factors.” The ideological support stems from a system of socialization which
conditions both man and woman to accept male domination as ‘natural’. Women are
socialized into adopting compliant, submissive and passive roles and accepting their
essentially subordinate position. Structural constraints reinforce this order. She identifies the
family, the class and the economic and educational systems as the main structural bulwarks
of patriarchy.

In a perceptive analysis of justice, gender and the justice in American society,

Deborah Rhode observed:

Without a fundamental reordering of cultural values, women cannot hope to

secure true equality, and social status. In that constructive enterprise, law can
play a modest but more effective role.21

This is more so in Indian society with a high level of illiteracy and strong traditions of
gender inequalities. That is what happens in Benare’s case. Certainly, the play Silence! The
Court is in Session is a question against existing legal curriculum. There is no roadmap for
the image of reality in the procedure of the prosecution. There is an absence of trial
dynamism in the play. The entire trial rotates around gimmick but is not based on evidence.
There is no opening statement which tells to the jury the plaintiff claims in a direct and
reasonable way. It must give the jury an overview of what the evidence will show and what
the evidence will be without argumentative hype and individualistic exhibitionism.

There is no proper direct or cross examination. The fundamental rules of natural

justice i.e. ‘nobody can be a judge in his own cause’ and ‘nobody should be condemned
unheard’ are ruthlessly ruled out. The foundation for the verdict ‘let the witness be himself’ is
not at all observed. There is no review of the evidence offered by both sides. The judge rules
are based on what the lawyer presents. It seems that instructions to jurors will directly affect
their judgment. The doctrine of locus standi,22 a principle that the judicial time as well as
energy ought not be wasted over hypothetical or abstract questions, has been neglected and
the truth that the trial is the ‘time of decision’ and the ‘moment of truth’ has been gained and
gathered, assessed, weighed and measured for hours together in the dock room.

Another angle in the Indian unfair legal system can be found in Sukhatme’s
interrogatory procedure which is so convincing that all his hints are gleefully accepted by
others including Benare, when he is keenly intent on not letting Benare off the hook, feebly
defends Benare’s misadventures, saying that “human beings are prone to err”. [115] But, as
the lawyer for prosecution he requests Kashikar, ‘the mock-judge’ to mete out to Benare the
severest sentence possible and not to show her any mercy. In all his arguments there is no
ethical creation of evidence. He indulges simply in word games and forgets the joint liability
of Damle. All his questions are not legally persuasive but emotionally targeted towards
Benare. He always puts the client on stand and barbs with ruthless logic by asking questions
like: “Miss. Benare, the game’s really warmed up, hasn’t it”? [101] and walking around in
front of Benare for a while, suddenly points a finger at her and says: “your name is Leela
Damle.” All these things show that Mr. Sukhatme’s role in the play is a replica of the legal
professionalism and an evidence of how “there is a fall in efficiency and standard at the Bar
and which is on the verge of collapse.”23 The legal professionals have been encouraging
litigation more and more by giving impetus to disputes, where the role of the legal profession
is to resolve disputes and only as a last resort the matter should be permitted to go to a court.
There is a widespread belief both among litigating public and legislators, the intervention of
lawyers in court proceedings have the built-in tendency to delay the disposal of cases. The
legal profession is no longer service-oriented but profit-oriented. Sometimes lawyers on both
sides join hands to make both the parties compromise even if the clients have to suffer the
loss. Majority of the lawyers harass their clients for more and more fee, false bills, while not
taking the required interest in the case.

When Sukhatme begins the prosecution’s argument with a homily on motherhood,

Ms. Benare’s pointedly asking him as to how he, a man, knows motherhood to be a sacred
thing! – suggests the same inherent and latent limitations of the law. There are some aspects
that men cannot understand regarding women. A judge or a lawyer may be an expert in law
but they are poor in studying the sensitive areas of human personality. It is the universal
tragedy of the history that ‘genius and ‘truth’ were ignored by the courts and law. Socrates
was judged for his ‘genius’ by Greek authorities and Jesus Christ was judged for his ‘truth’
by Pilate.24

Vijay Tendulkar who is acclaimed as the articulator of violence in the modern

Marathi theatre brings another dimension of the ‘cruelty’ in the play. He reminds that the
concept of cruelty is to be redefined along with the socio-economic changes in the society. It
is generally accepted that cruelty is not restricted to physical violence and may extend to
behaviour like words, gestures which may cause pain and injury. In ‘Monshee Buzloor Rahin
vs Shamsoonisa Begum’, the husband disposed of the property of his wife. When she
objected, she was badly treated and confined in a room. It was held that it was a good case of
mental cruelty [1867] II, MIA 551-p.267. But the playwright proves how it could be possible
that cruelty was ‘intentionally aimed at’ by the provisions of the law itself. It seems that he
joins with radical criminologists in seeking to redefine ‘harm’. In the criminological arena of
victim logy recent attempts have focused upon defining certain types of ‘harms’ beyond those
normally recognised. Similarly, the playwright focuses on the maleness of legal proceedings,
specifically the trial of sexual crimes like abortion and pre and extra marital relationships.
Simply, in trials the procedure is designed to break down the story of the woman complainant
both by subjecting it to vigorous doubt and by implicitly sexualizing it. The victim becomes
an object of the male gaze and forced to relieve her ordeal, which itself becomes another
assault. It is very clear that the exploration of body and sexuality is done through fierce and
bold debate by the testimonies of Balu Rokde and Karnik.
 The violence of the play is superbly sugar-coated with the technique of play within
the play. Without this technique Tendulkar could not have made his characters directly attack
Benare on the charge of infanticide. The play is widely acclaimed for this technique.

One cannot simply set aside the questions raised by Leela Benare and her plight in
Indian urban middle class ethos. Her predicament has no foreign origins; it is indigenous. The
agony in her words is symbolized and representative of Indian experience. The tragedy is that
Benare’s suffering doesn’t reach the people. Instead of empathizing with her, the society likes
to play or toy with her feelings. Her conviction no doubt is born of her experience that her
private life is her own affair and that she is free to do what she wants to do with it; but it was
an unsettling position to take for the middle class audience at the time. Some time had to pass
before it gained acceptability. The following words clearly show her craving for freedom:

Benare: ..We should laugh, we should play, we should sing! If we can and if
they’ll let us, we should dance too. Shouldn’t have any false modesty or dignity
or care for anyone! I mean it. When your life’s over, do you think anyone will
give you a bit of theirs? What do you say, Samant?(p.60)

Tendulkar punctuates Benare’s monologue with a lot of paradoxical statements. Her

loneliness of life expressed through, “Throw your life away – and you realize the value of
having it. Guard it dearer than life- and it only seems fit to throw away”. [116] This body is a
traitor! I despise this body and I love it” [118] – lend a certain enigmatic intensity of destiny
of a woman created by Indian legal patriarchy. It is very heart touching to know that
Tendulkar has also experienced great humiliation in his life. Girish Karnad once commented
“no one understands the sense of humiliation as Vijay Tendulkar did”25

Benare’s final collapse leaves one with a feeling of pity and horror. It is true, “there is
in it (the play), pity and horror and not just violence.”26 There is pity in the play because of
the undeserved sufferings of Benare. Her agony and helplessness rouses pity among the
audience which is apt for a tragedy as per the norms given by Aristotle. Her condition is
pitiable because she bestows trust in the people who ultimately betrays her. Now she bears a
testimony of this betrayal in her womb which she considers dear and sacred.

The mock trial of Benare reminds the reader of the tragedy of Saint Joan. Saint Joan
was a depiction of how a young innocent girl was crushed between two mighty forces- the
law and the church. ‘Silence’ is depiction of how a young woman is crushed between two
forces the law and the patriarchy. Saint Joan was a record of what mankind did to its saints
and geniuses. They have crucified, poisoned, burned, imprisoned, exiled or otherwise
neutralized by those to whom they seek to minister. Commenting on the death of Joan of Arc
the playwright added in his Epilogue in St.Joan “The world is not yet ready to receive its
27
saints.” This reminds us of the social set up as well as legal set up in India which is still
looking down upon the innocents, the righteous and the noble. “As honest a lot of poor fools
have ever burned their betters” 28– Benare is judicial murder, a pious murder, and a murder
that is not committed by a murderer.” In an interview when Ranvir Ranger asks “the mental
agony suffered by the girls throughout the play is no way less than the legal punishment. Is
that all you wished to convey or something more?” Agreeing with him, Tendulkar says
“What you say is correct, this is exactly what I have in mind.”29

It may be said Tendulkar’s journalistic background helps him to keep the drama
intact, where his grip never weakens, and where not a word is out of place. The three
women characters, Laxmi, Champa in Sakharam Binder as two contrasting characters, one
traditional and the other rebellious, would be superfluous. Laxmi may appear to be a
traditional door-mat type of woman in the beginning but she proves to be the shrewder one,
more practical and hence more successful in her objectives. She gets what she wants. She
may have beaten a hasty retreat when she is thrown out by Sakharam but comes back
determined to stay in Sakharam’s house at any cost.

On the other hand Champa who appears to be more stern, ruthless and looking after
her interests may be called a female Sakharam, is in fact not discreet enough and dies an
ignominious death. These two are unique characters whereas Leela Benare in Shantata Court
Chalu Aahe comes from the noblest of professions-teaching-but falls from the normal tenets
of morality. She is more to be sympathized rather than to be condemned but it is time that
she tries to entrap men into marriage. When she is already pregnant with the child of her
lover who abandons her, she has strayed from the straight path of accepted norms of society
and consequently suffers. Talking about Tendulkar’s women, Laxmi, Champa and Leela
Benare in Sakharam Binder and Silence! The Court is in Session, Geeta Kumar says, “It may
be said that Tendulkar has created these three unique women character in ….Who leave an
indelible impression on our mind. These are not just fictional characters but clearly prove
Tendulkar’s competence in probing and portraying the intricacies of the female mind.” 30
 Tendulkar poses another important question to the legal provisions of women in India.
As an artist he questions the very existence of human life in the sight of law. One should not
misunderstand the playwright that he shows a multitude of factors like-social pressure,
learning economic disadvantage, sexual force, inadequate contraception, and weak laws
against sexual assault impact so that women do not control the circumstances under which
they become pregnant and this structurally forced maternity is a perpetuation of economic,
domestic and sexual inequality and consequently abortion is needed to redress a woman’s
basic lack of control over the process of reproduction. But he broods over the determination
against the woman and negation of welfare of the child. If the child is a legitimate one, the
father is honoured with the guardianship of the child. But if the child is illegitimate the
mother is the guardian, and she alone has to bear the stigma and humiliation of every day
social pin-pointing as well as the responsibility of bringing up the child. The law makes no
distinction between legitimate and illegitimate child when it imposes on the father an
obligation to maintain his children. But if it is under the guardianship of the mother, the man
escapes everyday disgrace by merely paying the maintenance amount, at the most! That too,
only if the woman is bold enough to claim it! So, what is the solution? The mock-judge,
Kashikar, pronounces the final savage verdict:

KASHIKAR: Prisoner Miss Benare, pay the closest attention. The crimes you have
committed are most terrible. Marriage is the very foundation of our
society’s stability. Motherhood must be sacred and pure. The
morality that which you have shown through your conduct was the
morality you were planning to impart to the youth of tomorrow. No
memento of your sin should remain for future generations. Therefore
this court hereby sentences that you shall live. But the child in your
womb shall be destroyed. [118-119]

To put it briefly, ‘the law recognizes the patriarchal system of family in which father is
supreme.”31 But ‘both father and mother are to be treated equally’ is the message of the play.
As Kashikar pronounces his final judgment on the case, two or three faces walk on to the dais
and look around to see the real show. The acting has been so superb that they ask,

FIRST FACE. “Has the show begun? The Living Courtroom”? [119]

The innocence of this question enlivens all the more the cruelty of what we have
witnessed before. In the same way it also reminds us of the naval officer’s question to Ralph
after his life and death battle with Jack “are you playing games?” In Golding’s Lord of the
Flies.32 Here the distinction between game and battle, between fun and inquisition is blurred.
As if to rub salt over the wounds, they have inflicted on her, the colleagues speak to
Ms.Benare with over-zealous anxiety.

Mrs. KASHIKAR : She’s taken it really to heart. How sensitive the

child is!

KASHIKAR : You’re telling me. She’s taking it too much in heart.

After all it was…

SUKHATME : Just a game! What else! A game! That’s all!

PONKSHE : A mere game!

KARNIK : Benare, come, come on, get up. It’s time for show. The
show must go on.

Mrs. KASHIKAR : (Shaking her) Do get up Benare … look, it

was all untrue. It would hardly be true,
would it? [120]

These words of defense mechanism not only suggest the assassination of character but
also remind us of their lack of guilt consciousness. All that Benare can do is to hail out
tragically her favourite parrot and sparrow song.

The play can be understood as a fierce attack on the ideology of glorification of

motherhood. The first feminist attack on Indian Society by Tarabaishinde 21 in the nineteenth
century also had been inspired by a case in which an unwed mother had been sentenced to
life for committing the same crime. In a sense Tendulkar was realigning with the attack.
Benare’s defiance of the male domination and her subsequent trial explode the myth of
motherhood as a sacred phenomenon and demonstrate how the biological phenomenon is
deliberately glorified in order to obtain controls over women’s sexuality. The play also
exposes the symmetrical relationship of power between husband and wife in married life, and
also between married women and unmarried women.

The play is free from any easily recognizable flaws. The playwright doesn’t indulge
even for a moment in any of this for the sake of sheer theatricality. The situations evolve and
unfold themselves rather imperceptibly. The ‘reversals’ surprise not only the characters in the
play but the readers and spectators as well. The audience has the satisfaction of having
witnessed a few rarified moments of pure aesthetic delight and intellectual insight designed
by an extremely powerful artist. The play has been taken as a play that shows how a woman
is tormented in a male-dominated society and how words are more powerful, than weapons.
The deeper interpretations are to expose the way how inferior, mediocre persons – small men
as Shakespeare calls them – trap superior individuals and fulfill their innate burning itch of
publicly denouncing them – a kind of character assassination. Because they do not do it
openly, they take recourse to such subterfuges as a mock-trail. Contextually it is interesting to
know that Tendulkar, like his women protagonist Benare, was also attacked by many critics
for his bare portrayal of the men and morals.

The theme of violence pervades quite blatantly in most of Tendulkar’s plays. Ever
since he wrote Silence! The Court is in Session, he has discovered that violence makes man
fascinating and there are many variations in the way violence manifest itself in the way man
expresses it. He does not consider the occurrence of human violence as something loathsome
or ugly as it is innate in human nature. He believes that violence is a basic quality. When
this understanding of human nature is translated into a play it not only becomes an explosive
piece of art but a thesis. Tendulkar unabashedly presents and defends it. According to him
the most important point is to keep the violent raw while depicting it on stage, not to dress it
up with many fancy trappings and not to make it palatable. He said it must be acutely
disturbing. He says:

A torture scene must never seem comfortable. The problems arise at times
because of the scale of action (on stage) for instance the mass scene in
Ghashiram. Their experimentation with new forms became necessary. Gidhade
was for me a tremendous release. I broke out of the frame work in which I was
operating. It was shattering of the frame work I was operating. It was shattering
of the norms.14

As it is felt by Gowri Ramnarayan “Each time we read him, he lives in the present,” 22
Tendulkar touches the most crucial issues of the contemporary society. The issue of abortion
has never been more studied, offered up, and pondered to in public, yet we have never been
more confused about what is right or, for that matter, even normal in such expressions. The
debate over abortion is admittedly complex. It has medical, legal, theological, ethical, social
and personal aspects. It is also a highly emotional subject, for it touches on the mysteries of
human sexuality and reproduction, and often involves acutely painful dilemmas. As an ever
growing problem, it is evident that the number of legal and illegal abortions throughout the
world has been increasing. But for ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ abortionists, it has become an ethical
dilemma for debate. However, though, the abortion is more a woman’s issue than a man’s,
Tendulkar shows how patriarchy has made the inevitable role of man in cases of Benare in
Silence! The Court is in Session and Manik and Rama in The Vultures. Moreover, Tendulkar
as an exponent of modern psyche and human nature makes it clear that ‘coercive abortions’
and ‘unjustifiable feticides’ are the results of illegal relationships from any either party. He
seems to have an opinion that any society which can tolerate these things has been ceased to
be civilized and signs of decadence.
 REFERENCES

1. Geeta Kumar, “Portrayal of Women in Tendulkar’s Shantata Court Chalu AAhe and
Sakharam Binder” New Directions in Indian Drama Ed., by Sudhakar Pandey and
Freya Barua, Prestige, New Delhi, 1994, p.16

2. Vijay Tendulkar, “Natak Ani Mee,” Interview with Shirish Pai, Priy Tendulkar,
Dimple Publications, Thane, 1997. P:188

3. The Holy Bible,( The New Testament), The Gospel According to St.Mathews,
Chapter:7, Verses:1-7

4. Rabindranath Tagore, “What is Art?” The English Critical Tradition, Volume II, eds.
S. Ramaswami andV.S. Seturaman (Madras: The Macmillan Company of India
Limited, 1978), pp. 737-38.

5. Kumud Mehta, “Introduction,” Silence! The Court is in Session, Vijay Tendulkar

(Bombay:Oxford University Press, 1978), p.vi

6. Vijay Tendulkar, “Drama: The Most Difficult, But the Most Powerful Medium.”
Interviews with Indian Writers, New World Literature Series, B-18, p.280

7. Vijay Tendulkar. “Collected Plays in Translation”: Silence! The Court is in Session,

Translated by Priya Adarkar, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.55 (All the
textual references in this chapter are taken from the same text.

8. M. Sarat Babu , Vijay Tendulkar and His Plays: An Introduction, Asia Book Club,
New Delhi, 2003, p.34

9. Ibid. p.35

10. Srilata Batliwala, “Why do Women oppose Women?” The Hindu, Sunday
Magazine, 2 May 1992,p.3

11. Elise Boulding, The ugnderside of History: A View of Women Though Time, Vol 1,
London: Sage Publications, 1992, p.30

12. Veena N.Dass, “Transformation of the Image of Woman from Myth to Reality in
Contemporary Indian Drama,” Feminism and Literature (Trivandrum: Institute of
English, 1987), p.5
13. Vijay Tendulkar, The Vultures, trans. Priya Adarkar (Delhi:Hind Pocket Books, 1974)
p. 76

14. Veena N.Dass “Women Characters in the Plays of Vijay Tendulkar,” New Directions
in Indian Drama, Ed by Sudhakar Pandey, New Delhi, Prestige Books, 1994. 140

15. Ibid. p.141

16. Kalindi Deshpande, “Capitulation to Conservatism: Vijay Tendulkar’s Women

Characters” Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays: An Anthology of Recent Criticism Ed by
V.M.Madge, Percraft International, Delhi, 2007. p.42

17. Ibid. p.43

18. Samuel Johnson. Preface to Shakespeare, in Johnson on Shakespeare (Ed). By R.N.Wesai

New Delhi; Orient Longman, 1979, pp. 94-96.

19. T.S. Eliot. “Andrew Marvell”: Selected Essay, London: Faber & Faber, 1980. pp.292-304

20. Jyoti Havnurkar, “Levity and Seriousness in Silence! The Court is in Session,” Vijay
Tendulkar’s Plays: An Anthology of Recent Criticism, Ed., by V.M.Madge, Pencraft
Internatioal, New Delhi, 2007, p.54

21. Deborah Rhode. “Justice, Gender and the Justice” in Crites Lawra L, and Hepperle
Winifred L (eds), ‘Women, The Courts and Equality’. 1978, p.10.

22. Rama Mukherjee. Women, Law and Free Legal Aid in India, Deep & Deep
Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1998, p.64.

23. Quoted in “System on the Verge of Collapse”, India Abroad New York, February 4,
1994.p.10

24. Hamilton Smith. Great Men of the World, Chicago. Ronald and Ronald, 1976, p.235

25. Sudhir Sonalkar. “Vijay Tendulkar and the Metaphor of Violence”, The Illustrated
Weekly of India, November 18-24, 1993. p.19.

26. Ibid.p.20

27. Bernard Shaw. St Joan C. Macmillan, New Delhi, 1984, Epilogue, p.7

28. Ibid. p.9

29. Ranger. “Drama: The Most Difficult, But the Most Powerful Medium”. Interviews
with Indian Writers. Delhi, New World Literature Services. 1992, pp.275-284.

30. Geeta Kumar, “Portrayal of Women in Tendulkar’s Shantata Court Chalu Aahe and
Sakharam Binder” New Directions in Indian Drama, Ed., by Sudhakar Pandey and
Freya Barua, Prestige, New Delhi, 1994, p. 30

31. Ved Kumari. “Place of Women and Child in Guardianship” in Lotika Sarkar and B.
Sivaramayya (eds), ‘Women and Law: Contemporary Problems’ Vikas Publishing
House Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, 1994, p.242.

32. William Golding. Lord of Flies. London, Faber and Faber, Ltd.1973, p.65.

33. Ketkar Kumar. “Vijay Tendulkar’s Human Zoo”, The Illustrated Weekly of India, 20
Nov, 1983, p, 62.

34. Gowri Ramnarayan. “Writing for Life”, Obituary, Front Line, June20, 2008, p, 86.
Chapter-3

Sakharam Binder:
Woman! Thy name is Exploited
 Each of Tendulkar’s plays is an enigma by itself that sensitizes the readers or the
audience to all the beastly as well as redeeming aspects of man-woman relationship. He is
poignantly alert to the vulgar, the pervert and the violent to which man has shown a natural
proclivity. The astonishing range of his plays, be it the victimization of the individuals by a
hypocritical society in Silence! The Court is in Session(1968) Sexual degeneration and moral
collapse of a family in The Vultures(1971), ruthlessness of media and marriage as a farcical
institution in Kamala (1982)the sheer bawdiness and bloodiness in Sakharam Binde(1972),
the issue of class conflict in Kanyadaan (1983) or the concept of romantic love with both of
its homosexual and heterosexual aspects – shows a shocking but genuine complexity of
human relationships and is bereft of any moralizing that gives them a very open-ended feel.

Sakharam Binder is Tendulkar’s most intensely naturalistic play. According to

critics, “for many decades no play has created such a sensation in the theatre world of
Maharashtra as Vijay Tendulkar’s Marathi play Sakharam Binder. It explores the
complication of human nature and the manifestation of physical lust and violence in a human
being. After the production of Sakharam Binder, Tendulkar was accused of deliberately
choosing sensational themes to get cheap publicity. He says, “Every play is not for
everybody, a play is a work of art when it reveals its theme and essence exclusively through
its mode attendant detailing rather than through statement and speech.” 1 Sakharam Binder
fulfils these criteria and is therefore an artistic play.

Talking about Tendulkar’s characters, Anshul Chandra says, “Vijay Tendulkar has
created memorable male and female characters. He explores the position of women in
contemporary Indian society through his female characters. It is his women, who help to
reveal his social conscience on account of their position in society. As characters Tendulkar’s
women are among the most convincing in Indian theatre. He depicts women as being equal
underneath their socio-economic class.”2

Indulekha Roy commenting on Sakharam Binder says,” It is a fascinating study of

man and woman relationship. It reveals the morbid, squalid aspects of human life against a
bizarre backdrop of Plebeian society. Here, Tendulkar’s love for the macabre and the
obsession with sex and violence as an integral part of human nature and relationships receive
a vitriolic expression. With cruel objectivity Tendulkar depicts the triangular relationship
between Sakharam and his two mistresses, Laxmi and Champa.”3
 Sakharam, the eponymous character abhors marriage as an institution and believes in
contractual cohabitation without rites. The following lines depict Sakharam’s way of dealing
with the new arrival, Lakshi and his character and how he puts forward the terms and
conditions and his style of presentation:

Sakharam: I won’t have you leaving the house unless there’s work to be done,
you understand? If someone calls, you’re not supposed to lok up
and talk. If it’s a stranger, you’ll have to cover your head and
answer him briefly. ……May be I am a rascal, a womanizer a
pauper. .. And I drink. But I must be respected in my own house.
I am the master here. You agree to all this? …..In this house what
I say, goes. Understand? Te others must obey, that’s all.And one
last thing. . . you’ll have to be a wife to me.

(She is looking at the house) You agree to the dea? Right, then, go
in and make some tea.(p. 126)

His passion is being to bring to his den wives deserted by their husbands or who
have walked out on them. Sakharam is the patron of ‘symbiotic’ polygamy, who demands
from his mistress absolute submission along with domestic comfort and physical
gratification. The wretched women are turned into his slaves in his kitchen as well as in his
bed. They are also promptly dismissed from his haven on the slightest offence.

Sakharam Binder throws light on the institution of marriage, sex, exploitation of

women, domestic violence. The character study of Sakharam Binder, Laxmi and Champa
shows an interesting human relationship and these characters are symbolical. Sakharam is in
the habit of and has the talent to bring women to his house and make them sexual and work
slaves. Sakharam particularly selects or catches the women who happen to be unfortunate,
either expelled by their husbands or escaped from the houses. Like this Sakharam invited
into his life eight women. After the entry of seventh and eighth women, namely Laxmi and
Champa respectively his life receives a big jolt. These two women represent two polarities
of feminine response towards this sensual patriarch. Laxmi stands for a traditional Indian
woman with her god-fearing religious, docile nature and her unflinching devotion towards
her husband, no matter how great a tyrant he is. When she is thrown out of her house by her
husband on her failure to give birth to a child she is rescued by Sakharam, she accepts the
vicissitudes of life without any protest. She clutches Sakharam as her only option to survive
and begins to worship her ‘saviour.’ She demonstrates the patterns of thinking instilled in
women by the patriarchal tradition.

On the other hand Champa is a boiling cauldron of fierce revolt that guts down all
the men around her, irrespective of her protector or annihilator. She is a woman who has
walked on her alcoholic husband as a strong rebuff to his cruelty perpetrated upon her. In
her, Tendulkar points out that marriage is an institution in which sexual relationship for a
woman is possible only if the self is forgotten in the stupor of alcohol, pleasure is possible
only through inflicting pain on the other and self-awareness is nothing but the mute and
moron-like acceptance of inhuman subordination or supremacy. The wild, wayward,
vivacious and defiant Champa’s final surrender to Sakharam, after considerable resistance,
signifies a kind of ‘compromise’ or ‘payment’ for what she has been provided by him – food,
clothe and shelter.

Tendulkar is able to achieve in his characterization, not only of Sakharam but also
of Laxmi and Champa, a total objectivity. All kinds of moralizing and judgment are avoided.
Tendulkar seems keen to demonstrate the basic and essential complexity of human nature
which is neither black nor white but varying shades of grey. Therefore, all his characters are
a combination of good and bad, evil, weakness and strength, though apparently crude,
aggressive and violent. Sakharam has his own personal morality. He is a man who is
primarily honest and frank. This openness of his personality becomes in itself a criticism of
the hypocrisy of the middle class. The conversation with Lakshi in the beginning of the play
introduces Sakharam’s character and his making up to the state gives an honest depiction of
his character:

Sakharam: I’ve been like this right from birth. Born naked, I was. My mother
used to say, the brat’s shameless. He’s a Mahar born in a
Brahmin home. And if I was, who’s to blame? It wasn’t my
doing…………………

I ran away from home when I was eleven. Got fed up with my
father’s beatings. Nothing I did ever seemed right. You’d think I
was his enemy or something. The way he’d thrash me!(p. 127)

Sakharam ridicules the double standards of the middle class. His straightforwardness
in dealing with helpless women such as Laxmi demands a certain admiration. He flaunts his
virility as make-believe to compensate for his inner weakness and loneliness, only to discover
its transient nature later on in the play. Laxmi, on the other hand, the embodiment of the
ideal Indian woman, Savitri – loyal, docile, religious, hard-working, self-effacing and tender-
hearted – turns out to be wily and vicious when her survival is threatened by the presence of
Champa. After Champa’s murder she shows greater ruthlessness and presence of mind in
covering it up than Sakharam, who is totally bewildered by what he has done. Champa,
gross, sensuous, brazen on the surface, shows strange kindness and generosity when she
convinces Sakharam to give shelter to Laxmi, who for all she knows, may turn out to be her
rival.

Among the minor figures, Champa’s husband, Fazdar Shinde, is a rather interesting
character. In this regard Arundhati Benarjee says, “There is a touch of masochism in the way
he returns to Champa again and again to get abused and beaten.” 4 His friendly relationship
with Laxmi shows the inherent affinity between their characters. Just as Laxmi is a
counterfoil to Champa so is Shinde to Sakharam, at least within the periphery of the play.
Daud Miyan, the only other character, is the least complex of them all. His admiration for
Laxmi and physical attraction to Champa emphasizes the fundamental nature of these two
women. Daud, through his comments and observation, is also able to reveal the essential
difference between the relationships which Sakharam has with the two women.

Tendulkar weaves a matrix of intricate interrelationships between his characters.

Sakharam in his association with Champa is transformed into a sensuous, lewd drunkard with
thoughts only of sexual enjoyment. The presence of Champa and Laxmi at the same time has
a strange effect on Sakharam as if the two different strands in his character come into direct
confrontation, creating a psychological turmoil in him and resulting in his temporary
impotence.

Laxmi and Champa are also connected in an extremely complex relationship. When
Laxmi returns, Champa does not visualize any possibility of competition from her for she is
confident of her own sexual attractions. In fact, she pities this homeless, shelterless woman.
It is the kindness of this otherwise hard-hearted woman that makes it possible for Laxmi to
stay in Sakharam’s house. Yet there is also a touch of contempt in Champa’s treatment of
Laxmi - the contempt that a stronger person feels for a weakling. The two women between
themselves satisfy the different needs of the male they share – one his domestic, the other his
physical demands. Though Laxmi finds nothing wrong with her own association with
Shinde, her moral sense is outraged by Champa’s affair with Daud and she uses this
opportunity to malign her rival. This brings out the latent hatred in Laxmi for Champa.
Sakharam’s masculinity is doubly hurt through the knowledge of Champa’s physical
association with Daud, since he himself can no longer satisfy her.
 There is in the play as in Gidhade, a subtle underlying tone of sensitivity and
tenderness towards humanity as a whole. One can discern, if one delves into the core of the
play, the seeds of basic human values. In Sakharam’s playing of the ‘mridanga’ and the joy
he finds in it, in Laxmi’s friendship with birds and insects, and Daud’s loyalty to his friend
until he is lured by Champa’s attractions, in Champa’s generosity towards Laxmi – the kinder
aspects of human nature and its inclination towards higher values are unfolded.

The authority of the play does not lie in the roughness of the language – though
one must realize the skill with which the playwright has caught this rhythm, idiom and
vocabulary of the social class without interposing any foreign note, which gives it both its
vitality and its freshness – but its theme is the struggle and consequently suffering that the
dropouts of family and society have to undergo in order to stay alive and come to terms with
life. Of these one has a strong instance in the play. Sakharam turns a rebel against the
hypocrisy of the affluent of his own class and their double standards of sexual morals.

It has been accepted that in the imagination of man certain images occur again and
again to represent the elements of existence. As an individual finds these images in the
myths of his culture, he knows their symbolic meanings intuitively, although he may not be
able to articulate those meanings. In literature, which is a play of two constructive principles,
system and creativity, the presentation of these mythic images is very common. The images
themselves serve as a semiotic system and their presentation, usually unconscious, in art is
the creative principle. A study of such archetypal images contributes to the understanding of
a piece of literature. In Sakharam Binder, one sees Laxmi, represents Savitri, the heroine of a
mythical episode in the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata.

The story of Savitri is well known to the Hindus. Savitri is the ideal or archetypal
wife in Hindu mythology. She is a beautiful princess sent by her father to choose her own
husband, whom she finds in Satyawan, the son of an exiled king, living in a hermitage in a
forest. Even though warned that her spouse was not destined to live beyond a certain day
fixed a few months from then, Savitri goes ahead and marries Satyawan. She serves her
husband and his blind parents with extreme devotion and leads a frugal woodland life of self-
negation. Before the day of disaster, she fasts and does hard penance and accompanys her
husband on the dreaded day to collect fruits and roots. When Satyawan faints while working,
Savitri takes his head in her lap and awaits Yama, god of the dead. She follows Yama when
he carries off the soul of the dead Satyawan. Yama tries to dissuade her from her futile
pursuit of him, but to no avail. Finally, she wins the admiration of Yama and gets back
everything.
 This is the model of the ideal wife one finds in a highly displaced form in Laxmi,
the first of Sakharam’s two mistresses. It might seem strange that Laxmi, deserted by her
husband and living as a kept woman with another man, is suggested to be the type of Savitri,
but a careful examination of Laxmi’s attitude towards Sakharam proves the validity of this
suggestion. For Laxmi, Sakharam is husband. When Laxmi’s legal husband deliberately
snaps her wedding necklace (p.77), he ceases to be her husband in the spirit of matrimony.
Her de facto husband, as far as she is concerned, is Sakharam, who gives her shelter. Laxmi
herself is not tired of emphasizing this point as in her following words:

My ritual marriage didn’t work out. So, I began looking upon Sakharam as
my real husband, worshipped him and adored him even after he forced me
out. (Taking out the wedding chain from her blouse) See, I put this on for
him because I am his. When I die, I’ll die in his lap as his true wife. (pp. 66-
67)

On a previous occasion while taking leave of Sakharam as he throws her out, she
has similar things to say:

What the gods and priests gave me (my formal husband) I couldn’t enjoy. He
didn’t want me. So, I came here and regarded you as my own (husband) and
became your wife for all practical purposes, didn’t hold back a thing.(p.29)

Who deserted who is very important for Laxmi. In fact, it is the chief criterion on
which she judges questions of marital fidelity. This is the basis on which she distinguishes
her case from that of Champa, the second mistress of Sakharam. He brings Champa to his
house after he kicks Laxmi out. In the eyes of Laxmi, Champa is immoral because she has
deserted her husband. Nobody could accuse Laxmi of having deserted her husband. This
simplistic, yet clear-cut, distinction makes Laxmi feel very self-righteous and lets her
consider herself as chaste and Champa a tramp. The witness, for instance, what she has to
say in this regard:

Poor little him (Champa’s husband)! She kicked him out. She married him at
the holy altar in the presence of gods and priests. He wants her; that’s why
he keeps coming here, after her. But she doesn’t want him. . . that bitch! I’m
innocent, a proper woman, a true coin. I’ve always behaved piously. (p.71)

Since for Laxmi an irrevocable marriage bond exists between Sakharam and
herself, she, like a good wife, exerts wholesome influence on him. Not just a sexual
companion for Sakharam, she begins and continues with steadfastness a process of reforming
him. Even though Sakharam often mistreats her, she is soft-spoken and submissive. Through
these traditional means of an unassertive chaste wife (pativrata), she brings about Sakharam’s
slow reformation. He confides to Daud, his close Muslim friend, that, contrary to his
expectations, Laxmi affected him in an uncanny, mysterious way as none of his previous
mistresses did (p.29). Sakharam becomes aware that under her meekness Laxmi conceals a
tenacious strength of will. He expresses the feeling that she is somehow different and has
subtly influenced him.

In this regard the comments of Prof. Veena Noble Dass are apt: “The character of
Laxmi is portrayed in a realistic manner when compared to the ideal mythic character of
Savitri in the Savitri-Satyawan story of the Mahabharata. It might seem strange that Laxmi,
deserted by her husband ad living as a kept woman with another man, is suggested to be the
realistic type of Savitri, but a careful examination of Laxmi’s attitude towards Sakharam
proves the validity of this suggestion. For Laxmi, Sakharam is husband. When Laxmi’s
legal husband deliberately snaps her wedding necklace, he ceases to be her husband in the
spirit of matrimony. Her husband now is Sakharam, who gives her shelter. Laxmi herself is
not tired of emphasizing this point. But when Sakharam kicks her out of the house and brings
Champa, from Laxmi’s point-of -view Champa is immoral, because she has deserted her
husband. Nobody could accuse Laxmi of having deserted her husband. This simplistic yet
clear-cut distinction makes Laxmi feel very righteous and lets her consider herself as chaste
and Champa a tramp.”5

There is reversal in the play in the identification of Laxmi with Savitri. Satyawan
is showed in the epic as lying in Savitri’s lap. Laxmi insists that she is going to die in
Sakharam’s lap- an expression of the common wish on the part of a chaste Hindu wife to die
before her husband. This reversal is one of the many forms which the displacement of an
archetypal symbol assumes in modern literature. And again Veena Noble Dass says,
“Tendulkar in the character of Laxmi has portrayed a woman belonging to lower middle class
and living the life of a prostitute as one who is still capable of having morals and is capable
of protecting herself as well as her lover.” 6 Towards the end of the play we find Sakharam a
different kind of a man – an impotent and a murderer of Champa.

As an extremely explosive subject matter the controversy revolved around

Sakharam’s lasciviousness, his women, and his apparently vulgar language. But actually
controversy should have been around his outlook on life. One of the interesting features of
the play is that Tendulkar does not take sides. He has not observed complete artistic
detachment from his characters, nor does he take my specific moral position. He cleverly
brings out the dramatic tension among Sakharam and Laxmi and Champa.

The play has evoked extreme reactions. For some it has been ‘hot stuff’ while others
have found it to be extremely superficial and sensational. Some others interestingly give the
play metaphysical interpretations. Keeping all these extremes aside, the play has something
significant to say about man-woman relationship and about the institute of marriage.

Laxmi and Champa are not only two women coming into Sakharam’s life but they
represent two tendencies and having a different attitude to life. Laxmi represents values like
purity, patience, and charity whereas Champa stands for a carefree attitude to life which looks
upon the body entirely as a medium of pleasure and she is interested in finding out the
manliness in man. The presentation of conflict between these two visions makes the use of
bold and explicit idiom artistically inevitable. The play begins to unravel its meaning only
when one grants this basic inevitability of the idiom. The grey in the pure whiteness of
Laxmi’s character is provided by her pious arrogance, the kind that will believers who see
themselves as being full of virtue betray towards those who don’t hold to their kind of
religion.

Laxmi is brought by Sakharam from Sonovaan where she has come after being
thrown out by her husband because she is barren. As per the agreement between Sakharam
and Laxmi, the former has all kinds of rights over her, conjugal or otherwise but poor Laxmi
has hardly any choice and very limited rights in Sakharam’s house. Food and two ordinary
dhotis in the beginning and then one once a year and of course safe shelter in the house, is
what she is promised. She is never to ask ‘why’ about anything. She is not to go out or talk
to other men. She is to look after Sakharam properly. She is just a sexual object for
Sakharam. She is deprived of any but the most trivial sources of dignity or self-respect. It’s
Laxmi’s duty to please, entertain, gratify, flatter and satisfy Sakharam. She is to tolerate his
sexual advances whenever he wishes.

Laxmi has a surprising friend, an insect. It climbs over her body, it gets sugar
crystals from her, and she talks to the insect as if to an intimate friend. She feels tickled by
its touch. She giggles in such a way while conversing with the insect that Sakharam gets
jealous and asks her to do the same when he is making love to her.

Laxmi: You little rascal, you’re trying to trick me, are you? I put you out, and
you stel in again. You want me to feed you all the time? You’re
getting spoilt, aren’t you? No you won’t get anything now. I told
 you. Didn’t I ? No. Nothing. Don’t look at me like that. Get away
from here. Get away. Don’t I tell you to move off? Pawing me all
the time. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . … . . . . .. . . . .You’ve become a regular
pest. Get off me first. (p.136)

Laxmi is not just a victim of Sakharam’s strange code of sexual conduct. She also
comes to know that he is an extremely rash and choleric character. He is abusive,
calculating, pitiless, drunkard and a sadist. He frequently uses his belt to beat Laxmi cruelly
when he is even slightly annoyed. Laxmi tolerates everything for about a year and then one
day Sakharam gets tired of her and cancels the agreement. Laxmi decides to go to her
nephew’s house in Amalner.

Sakharam : You’ve been a lot of trouble to me, this whole year. I

tormented you, too. But I’m fed up now. And you’ve had
enough. Isn’t that right? Say, yes.

Laxmi : Yes

Sakharam : You can’t really cope with me any more. And I can’t cope with
your sort of nature. The blood goes to my head. I feel it
brusting.

Laxmi : Yes

Sakharam : what do you mean, ‘yes’? I sometimes feel I’ll go mad with
your….

Laxmi : Yes

Sakharam : Stop your yessing. Enough is enough. We are not married.

There’s nothing to bind us. We don’t need to remain tied to
each other. You can go your way. I can go mine. You don’t
owe me anything. I owe you nothing either. Let’s be free of
each other. Didn’t you say had a nephew in
Amalner?. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. … .Go in peace I don’t blame
you for anything that’s happened. But it’s best to break it up
now. You understand? Don’t you? (p. 151-152)
 According to Sakharam, Laxmi has had a sobering effect on him. Six women have
passed through his life but he never listened to any one of them. It is only now that he has
started drinking less, wearing clean clothes and even worshipping daily. As far as his
behavior is concerned, he has made everything clear in the beginning of their relationship.

Laxmi is praised by Sakharam behind her back and after she has left. He tells his
friend, “This house seems empty without her…….She was tired because of advancing
age…..You know this body is a store-house of lust…..I thought I should not trouble her too
much…..No, don’t call her a headache.”(p.37)

Champa is an antithesis of Laxmi. She leaves her husband as she can no longer bear
the sadistic torture of Shinde, while Laxmi is left by her husband for not bearing children.
Champa never bothers about tradition. She is confident and courageous. Her mother sells
liquor and tobacco. Fouzdar Shinde comes to the shop on a raid and sees Champa. He takes
her away from her mother even before she becomes a woman. The sadistic treatment of her
husband makes her confident and courageous, but alienated and frigid. After beating Shinde,
who comes to take her back, she says to Sakharam about the sadistic nature of her husband:

CHAMPA “No, I don’t have heart. He chewed it up raw long ago. [Pulls
herself free.] He bought me from my mother even before I became a
woman. He married me when I didn’t even know what marriage meant.
He’d tortured me at night. He branded me, and stuck needles into me and
made me do awful, filthy things. I ran away. He brought me back and
stuffed chilly powder into that god-awful place, where it hurts the most.
That bloody pimp! What’s left of my heart now? He tore lumps out of it, he
did.” [167]

The comprehensive sex of Sakharam exhausts her completely and she explains: “My
head and body – just a bundle of pains and aches”. [179] Later she says to Laxmi: “But your
Sakharam, he really takes his money’s worth out of woman.” [181] She has little faith in
religion and does not believe in great sayings like —

Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid of good

qualities, yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful
wife. [Manu V., 147-156]
 She tells Laxmi the reality of life: “They don’t come and live your hell for you –
those gods and Brahmins.”[180] Champa is considered ‘a real woman’ as she is ‘tough’ and
‘ready to fight.’ She ridicules the rules imposed by Sakharam: “Rule! Is this a school or a
court or something?”[161] The readiness with which she offers Laxmi shelter she wins
sympathy. Though she looks seductive, she is the one who has suffered most on account of
her voluptuous body while the men have sought their selfish pleasures from it. She represents
the western outlook whereas Laxmi stands for the conservative oriental outlook. Champa has
many appreciable qualities. She is outspoken, frank, rebellious at the same time kind and
sympathetic.

Champa likes Dawood for his human nature and she feels enamored with him.
Finally, she enjoys sex with Dawood when Sakharam becomes impotent. She finds human
love more in Dawood than in Sakharam. She is honest in what she does. Unlike Laxmi, she
prefers human goodness to human tradition and unlike Sakharam; she breaks the tradition in
order to be human and humane. But she can’t forgive her husband because he has torn her
heart. Shinde and Sakharam have tormented her. She takes tobacco and liquor to numb the
sensations of pain in her body. However, she does not suffer from powerlessness as
Sakharam and Laxmi do.

It is through Laxmi and Champa that Tendulkar shows how deep-rooted women’s
exploitation in society is. Laxmi is hegemonically suppressed, used and abused. But there is
no ‘reversal’ in her realization still resumes continuing in the same condition with more
fervor. But Champa is different. It is interesting whether Tendulkar shows that revolt or
retaliation is possible when suffering is inevitable. For, here is a woman who is
unconventional and strong enough to have left her husband. Here, is a woman who can
nonplus Sakharam by not behaving like a destitute dependent. Here is a woman who will not
let a man use her body simply because he is her husband or her patron. However, in the
ultimate analysis, she must still submit to Sakharam without exercising her ‘natural’ rights.
Though on the first day she casually asks him to arrange some food because she’s ravenous,
she is soon cooking for him as Laxmi did. She even rejects to his sexual demands:

CHAMPA : “I am not that sort of woman, now you just behave yourself. Don’t
go around like a dog behind a bitch. [162]
 If I feel like cut up, I can turn nasty. [Straitens her Sari] take care
not to rub me the wrong way I don’t like it all that man-woman
stuff”. [168]

But soon Champa submits to him though with enough liquor in her not to give a
damn about what is done to and with her body. Shanta Gokhale opines that Champ’s
rejection is because “his torture and not treating her as respectful passion and her passion for
Dawood ‘though she is not in love with’ – are the off-stage events and plot devices to take
the play in the desired direction”.7

The success of Sakharam Binder lies in the playwright’s skill in characterization.

Sakharam, Laxmi and Champa are neither characters nor schematic types. All these are
basically images of astonishing creativity. Sakharam is the least effective since he is seen in
various roles. He is not an intellectual nor is he a reformer like Nath of Kanyadaan. Laxmi
is a superlative image of darkness and death. She is one of the champion life haters in drama.
There is a rich interplay of ambiguity about her. She wins the sympathy of certain critics like
Veena Noble Dass who compares her to Savitri. Champa is not a feminist as expected by
Renuka and does not champion the cause of women. She is not that enlightened. Through
her bitter experiences, she learns to protect herself. She succeeds in protecting herself and
protesting against the male chauvinism of Sakharam.

Geetha Kumar identifies many similarities between Champa and Sakharam and calls
her ‘a female Sakharam’. However, Champa has a power for life, full of the rich sap. She is
lewd but not lewd enough to engage in loveless sex. The disintegration and death of Champa
is one of the most moving spectacles in modern drama.

According to Brijraj Singh the final scene of the play is a dramatic triumph of pure
evil as witnessed on the stage. That Tendulkar could suggest “a cosmic clash within the drab
setting of a mean house is a measure of his great talent.”8

The action in the play is fast moving and packed with incidents. The complexities of
situations and relationships are well handled. There is a plenty of irony in the play. There is
suspense at the end of the play which keeps the interest alive. Critics have often found fault
with the ending of the play. Talking about Champa’s inconsistent sexual relationships with
Sakharam, Dawood and Fauzdar Shinde, Brijraj Singh says that “the ending of the play is
melodramatic but it is not unexpected.”9
 The conversation between Sakharam and Laxmi renders a wonderful picture for
modern man-woman relationships. Dr. Deborah Tannen in her book, You Just Don’t
Understand: Women and Men in Conversation writes:

For men conversation is primarily a language of rapport: a way of establishing

connections and negotiating relationships. Emphasis is placed on displaying
similarities and matching experiences to increase unity.10

The difference in style will result in decisions reached by consensus rather than
hierarchy. General Burrows reinforces this thought:

I agree….. that man and woman are of two different psyches, and each has its
own gifts to bring. I see a difference in the style of leadership. Men are more
ambitious and plan ahead. Women are more involved and concerned with
people. It isn’t just culture-conditioning; it is their nature. I wouldn’t think of
myself as leading in a masculine way, which is normally aggressive and
competitive. Women have more sensitivity to people and greater tolerance than
man.11

Sakharam, the binder has run away from home having been fed up with his father’s
beatings when only eleven years. He grew up like a cactus out in the open. He disowned his
father and would not let anyone boss over him. He thinks he is his own master. Talking
about his nature, Ashok H. Desai says, “His rough idiom seems the right vehicle for the
values he has evolved for himself. He tries to work out an independent philosophy of life,
with no sense of false obligations”12

Sakharam’s defence of his male sexual needs, euphemistically referred to as “the itch”
in the play, obstructs his sensitivity to the impact of such masculinity upon the body and
mind of women. Tendulkar penetrates the so called honesty of Sakharam as a desired value,
by interrogating it with Laxmi’s silences, her cowering and whimpering and finally her
outbursts against Sakharam’s aggressive masculinity, when he orders, “You’ll have to be a
wife to me”. “But I must be respected in my own house. I am the master here” (126), he
proclaims, even more offensive when drunk. “We’re not saints. We’re men” (127), he
opines. Sakharam betrayss the hypocrisies of husbands who frequently visit prostitutes on
the sly. He condemns their violence stating

Sakharam : I tell you, Miyan, those fellows – they can’t father a brat and
they take it all out on their wives. Beat her, kick her every
 single minute of the day. They’re an impotent lot! For them the
woman’s just dirt, that’s all.. ……I have yet to meet a more
gutless breed than these husbands. We’re a whole lot better
than those swine!( p. 129)

Sakharam in a way is like Arun in Kanyadaan. Sakharam’s character is shaped out of

the treatment he received in his boyhood days in his family. His family left on him a terrible,
nightmarish experience. His father’s beatings, the wretched family atmosphere, the
negligence of his parents left an awful impression on him that shaped his character in his later
years. He developed antagonistic attitude towards family and society. He lost faith in the
ideal parenthood or loving husband role. In the same way Arun too in Kanydaan developed
hostile attitude towards the oppressing high caste in particular and the society in general.
Though he had the opportunity to revive and develop himself through the marriage with
Brahmin girl with the blessing of the girl’s parents, Arun never believed them and took
revenge on his wife, tortured, ill-treated directly on her and caused a great mental agony to
the parents who gifted her to him. In the same manner Sakharam took revenge on the wives
of other men who came to his refuge. He used them. He was the ‘king’ in his house,
formulating his own laws and tried to implement them failing of which he explained the
penalty for the breach of the laws.

Sakharam belongs to the class of men that is base, crude, uncivilized, uncultured, anti
social and unethical. He becomes a slave in the hands of women whom he wants to enslave.
He becomes a puppet in the hands of Laxmi towards the end of the play and in a fit of anger
kills Champa. Laxmi gets power over him with her reasoning and convinces him that his
deed of killing her is justifiable in the view of gods.

Champa, like Sakharam and Arun in Kanyadaan is an outcome of her past. She
received bitter experience at her tender age and she was a victim of the society. Men and
women are born basically with good nature but it is the family or the society that shapes them
and what they are not their real selves but an impact of their surroundings.

Champa’s physical deformity is the result of her husband’s marital rape and torture.
It makes her frigid and she detests sex. However, her yielding to Sakharam as she sees no
alternative “Face half a dozen animals every day! Easier to put up with this one” [180] is fine
example for her physical degradation. She drinks liquor before she goes to bed with him.
 CHAMPA : You’ll have your fun … Wait. I’ll give.

It goes you. [Keeps on drinking and making him drink. Laughs

uncontrollably.] Fun for anyone who comes along. A dog a
corpse even. [171]

Tendulkar says, “Even in plays like Sakharam Binder and The Vultures, the theme is
not violence. Violence comes as a way of life – a natural way of life if you consider the
background of the characters. It is these as part of the functioning of a character.”13

Possessive to the core, Sakharam has the traits of a sadist; he inflicts pain on Laxmi
and orders her to laugh, “Laugh or I’ll choke the life out of you” (141). Employment of
deconstructive technique in the character of Sakharam, Sudha Rai comments: “Tendulkar
deconstructs the universalisms that originate from Sakharam’s masculinity, questioning
Sakharam’s essentiality of truth.”14 “They recognize only one sin in God’s court. That’s
falsehood. It is the worst possible sin” (142). Act I concludes with a parting between
Sakharam and Laxmi (who leaves to live with her nephew), both parties exasperated with the
year-long association.

Act II presents Sakharam with a new mistress Champa. More self-confident than
Laxmi, she orders Sakharam around. He repeats his formula of himself being the master of
the house and she a mere wife. Tea making is in his view “a woman’s job.” He says, “the
women must always speak with restraint. She has to carry out all the duties of a wife” (159).
Champa who has walked out on her drunken husband Fauzdaar Shinde, is a strong woman
who retaliates with physical blows and verbal abuse for all the physical abuse her husband
did on her. She is the other to the ‘pativrata nari’, Laxmi. As a strategy of characterization,
Tendulkar also uses Champa as a female mirror of aggressive masculine behavior; she drinks,
swears, beats men and is an idler rather than the angel in the house. When Laxmi returns,
thrown out by her nephew’s wife, Sakharam too throws her out of his house.

One can see the working of masculinity and femininity in Sakharam Binder. In Act
III the binaries of traditional masculinity and femininity are collapsed, with the establishing
of the courtesy and caring relationship of the two ‘mistresses’ Champa and Laxmi. These
women, as a subversive counter discourse to patriarchy, slit male impotency. However, the
female bonding that has the potential to fracture the supremacy of the male is thwarted when
Sakharam murders Champa by squeezing her neck, after Laxmi leaks out Champa’s infidelity
with Dawood.
 Tendulkar locates violence in lower class Indian society in patriarchal, caste bound
family structures that have seared the consciousness of men like Sakharam. Women with
religious faith like Laxmi, emerge as stronger individuals. The play ends on a note of
domestication of the male by the combined onslaught of the ‘benign’ and ‘terrible’ aspects of
female power in Indian culture. It is Sakharam’s mother’s insult in childhood, where she
‘labels’ him as a Mahar untouchable that scars his identity, so that he chooses to become a
social deviant, an outsider by choice. Despite a caste-based explanation, Tendulkar drives
home with irony that a man like Sakharam can never be outsider to his own masculine
choices.

Degenerated relationship is one important aspect in Sakharam Binder. According

to the Bible, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ says about husband and wife relationship
that “Who so ever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery; and whosoever
marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery.” 15

A woman outside her family is considered as everybody’s property. Each one tries to
get her. Hence, a woman’s condition outside her family is as wretched as a prostitute. The
person who takes control over such a left over woman cannot respect her but treats her as a
slave which is quiet evident in the case of Sakharam. He is exaggerating his kindness
towards Laxmi and Champa as generous, acceptable and right.

Sakharam seems to think that he has helped the helpless women thrown out by their
husbands by providing them with food, clothes and a shelter. In return, he expects them to
slave for him and satisfy his animal instincts. Catherine Thankamma comments. “He is not
bothered by the fact that by exploiting their helplessness he is subjecting them to a kind of
prostitution”.16

Champa and Shinde, her former husband, once again bring out the sordid aspect of a
degenerated relationship. Champa considers that it is better to be a concubine to Sakharam
than to be a wife to Shinde. When Champa made a sin by sleeping with Dawood, Sakharam
took it for granted to punish her though he is not her legitimate husband. It is the way of the
world that a man can do a sin openly and can live respectably in the society, lifting his head
high whereas a woman can’t do the same sin secretly.

The play is set on motion when Sakharam, Champa and Laxmi embark upon a
trilateral symbiotic relationship under the initiative of Champa who is confident of her
‘physical superiority to Laxmi and arranges for the latter’s permanent lodging in her
household. With a cool business-like attitude, that is reminiscent of Sakharam, Champa
confers upon Laxmi all the menial arduous tasks of the household and herself takes the
charge of quenching Sakharam’s unabashed sexual hunger.

It is curious to note, how Sakharam is gradually being usurped from his own position
as a decision maker. But while the two women somehow adjust with the new set-up,
Sakharam the veteran womanizer, now feels too fettered to indulge in his lust for Champa as
freely with Laxmi around. As he secretly writhes under the agony of a growing sense of
impotence, Champa, probably cured of frigidity, initiates a clandestine affair with Dawood
and proffers to him a share of sheer animal appetite, the ‘official proprietor’ of which is
Sakharam. Laxmi, on the other hand, while developing a secret asexual relationship with
Shinde, Champa’s wretched husband, senses a potent enemy in the form of Champa. When
Laxmi finds Champa and Dawood in an objectionable condition, her sense of morality gets
immediately beefed up against Champa’s fornication. In Laxmi one finds a queer
amalgamation of a genuine fellow-feeling for the opposite sex viz., Sakharam, Shinde and a
virtual non-understanding of the same sex, the latter partially being due to her urge for
survival in an unequal triangular relationship. She cannot bear the misery of Shinde and
accept the betrayal committed against Sakharam by Champa. But she remains surprisingly
blind to Champa’s generosity towards her and the fact that Champa herself once used to be
tortured by her husband.

Sex and sexual exploitation is an important aspect in Sakharam Binder. Sakharam, the
eponymous character is the embodiment of sexual desire. He is indulging sex with many
women having sexual contact beyond the bondage of marriage. He exploits Champa, his
keep by intoxicating her to fulfill his desire. There are so many instances of this in the
society. Whatever Tendulkar depicts in this play is an exact replica of real life. Here, in the
case of intoxicating Champa by Sakharam in order to have unclenching sex with her against
her will, forcibly capturing her body like an animal is reflecting the moral degeneration of
modern civilized man. Once again it reminds the novel, Lord of the Flies by William
Golding in which the so called modern man falls down from his polished assumed
civilization.

Sakharam : We made a deal. The woman I bring here has got to be a wife to me.
That’s all fixed when I decide to keep her here. There were seven and
not one said no.
 Champa : May be they were that sort. But not me. Now let me sleep.

Sakharam : You mean I can’t have what’s here in my own house!

Champa : I can’t do it! Now go out. Or I won’t sleep, I tell you. ..To hell with
you! (Drinks some more) Damn you!

Champa : Shut up. I’ll give it to you. All of it. Just hand me the bottle. Damn
you, where’s the bottle? Where’s the bottle? Now sit there.

Champa : (In a drunkan slur) Just a few minutes more. Then you can take me.
Do what you like with me……( p. 168-169)

Tendulkar like Charles Dickens writes about the dregs, debased, the fringe people
persons who go against the accepted norms and values of society. Once Tendulkar says:
“The characters I write about reflect my interest……Besides, it is one thing to be assured of
your security and stage a fight against the accepted norms and values; and another to fight for
the same when cornered altogether. It is the latter that catches my eye.”17

Sakharam has no social taboos. He drinks heavily, has no sense of guilt and admits
to all his vices. V.S.Naipaul observes –Hinduism in him has been reduced to a belief in
honesty and a rejection of all shaming action.” 18 Thus, Sakharam reminds us of Naranappa of
U.R.Anantha Murthy’s novel Samskara. Naranappa also broke every known taboo, drank
liquor, and moved closely with his Muslim friends, had cast off his lawfully-wedded Brahmin
wife, and lived with a ‘low caste’ woman.

Sakharam is a bitter critic of the institution of marriage and attacks ‘husbands’

while pitying the ‘wives’:

Mention your husband’s name and your eyes begin to brim over with tears.

He kicks you out of the house; he is out to squeeze the life out of you.

But he’s your God. You ought to worship a god like that with shoes and
slippers! He should be whipped in public. Gods, eh? (p.129)

Sakharam assures every woman he brings to his house of his ‘good’ treatment. He
tells her that he “is not like” her “previous man”:

And you’re free to take all that you’ve been given here. I mean clothes
chappals, bangles. (1.II.32)
 Thus, Sakharam plays the role of a giver while his woman is a taker. That’s why he
frames certain ‘rules’ for his women-companions He tells Champa: “And you’ll have to
make the food yourself. That’s a woman’s job.” (2.I.70) Thus, Sakharam, in his passionate
rejection of the tdraditional moral values, tends to contradict himself in word and deed in the
absence of well-considered moral alternatives.

Tendulkar himself is accused of making his wife tuck away her talent to tend to his
needs and raise his children while exploiting on stage and screen the theme of the new
woman and her struggle to find a voice. His wife Meena complains of him:

Even when I used to be a working woman, soon after our marriage, he was
very possessive and cautious. . . He used to keep an eye on who I spoke with,
moved about with…..it s only now, with age, that he has become more
understanding.19

Hence, Sakharam can be considered a replica of his creator, Tendulkar, who,

according to Nitin Samant, is “confused” and “has no scientific method of analysis”20

Though Sakharam says, “It’s good thing I’m not a husband,” (124) and repeats time
and again that he’s “no husband to forget common decency,” (132) and asks his woman to
come ‘closer’ to him ‘not like a wife,’ (135) Sakharam wants that the woman who lives with
him “shall have to be a wife” to him: “Anyone with a little sense will know what to make of
that.” (19) While he tells Laxmi this, he says to Champa: “Here you will have to carry out all
the duties of a wife.” (167)

Sakharam’s behavior towards his women seems to bring out his brutality. It makes
him out to be a downright beast. The humaneness in him seems to have been subjected to
such a cynicism under the weight of the hypocritical social mores so much so that it manifests
itself in a perverted form. In consequence all that is best in him seems warped and devilish.

Though he advocated women’s rebellion, Sakharam feels, at heart, that the suppressed
wives should respect their husbands however inhuman and brutal they may be. This is
evident from his utterings like “I am the master here….the others must obey, that’s all. No
questions to be asked,” (119) and “No free and easy ways here, see? I’m hot-headed. When I
lose temper I beat the life out of people.” (18) Tactful he is; Sakharam attracts the discarded
women, shedding crocodile tears at their pitiable condition created by their husbands whom
he appears to attack vehemently.
 Sakharam turns out to be neither a rebel nor a savior, but a confused hedonist. For
him, sexual activity is justifiable for its immediate and pleasurable return. He is a hypocrite.
His hypocrisy reaches its peak when he murders Champa. The bitter critic of the institution
of marriage and of the inhuman husbands himself turns out to be a puny male chauvinist.
Sumit Mishra in this regard says, “...The sexual jealousy in him wells up only when Champa
shares her bed with Dawood, a Muslim.”21 Sakharam’s sexual and familial situation is
abnormal. Such situations definitely end in tragedy.

The killing of Champa is the outcome of Sakharam’s extreme nature. He is the cause
for her addiction of liquor and sleeping with Dawood. But he sees her relationship with
Dawood as something intolerable and great sin while he forgets his own de-bachelor life. In
any case woman is a victim of man’s mistakes.

Sakharam’s life is an example that should not be followed. Laxmi who took shelter in
the house of Sakharam is also not safe in the hands of Sakharam. He treats every woman
whether she is ‘pativrata’ or ‘whore’ alike. As long as any woman who comes to his house
fulfills his physical and sexual desires will stay at his house otherwise she is expelled from
his house.

Sakharam’s life style appears absurd and his behavior eccentric. The world witnesses
cases which are more wretched than that of Sakharam. One can see Sakharams in every
society. Criticizing Kanyadaan, which is one of the later plays of Tendulkar, Vijay Tapas
says, “But this kind of life is lived by a microscopic minority.” 22 Here one should note that
Sakharam’s mentality is owned by many people latent but they are afraid of the society and
the existing norms and they suppress the same tendency that Sakharam exhibits. Whereas on
the other hand Sakharam, like a rebel, out-spoken, never caring the world that he is living,
pointing out that this world is full of imperfection and falsehood and defending himself that
he is far better than any husband though he himself is not a husband.

Sakharam is a hedonist, for whom pleasure is life. But he does not understand that
unlimited pleasure is an addiction and will lose real pleasure. Hence, marriage is a strong
social and physical institution by which one can enjoy meaningfully all the pleasures. Family
is a base for any society. Indian society is privileged for its strong institution of marriage
which is unlike in the case of Western society. But in Western society the couples won’t do
harm to each other. If they have differences between them they would separate smoothly
without doing harm to each other whereas, in the Indian society, man takes authority over
woman and grows violent as in the case of Sakharam, Shinde and Laxmi’s former husband.
There is no right for any person on the earth to kill anybody. Killing is not ultimate but
forgiveness is recommended.

The play touches many things related to sex, moral ethics and psychoanalysis.
Here, the comments of greatest psycho analyst of the present time, Freud and the comments
of sociologists in the light of Sakharam’s character analyses the type character. Veena
Noble Dass applies the concepts of psychoanalysis to analyze Sakharam Binder. She
observes:

It was in essence a protest against exorbitant demands of society, especially in

the sexual sphere, on the life of the individual.23

Sigmund Freud for the first time delves into the field of sociology and it is inspired
throughout by warm humanitarian feeling. The starting point of the paper was a book of Von
Ehr Engels called ‘Sexual Ethics’24 which speaks about the prevailing sexual morality of the
civilization characterized by the transference of feminine demands on to the sexual life of the
men, with depreciation of any sexual intercourse outside marriage. This leads to a double
moral life with evil consequences for honesty and humanity. The other is the glorifying of
monogamy which paralyses the process of selection which is the only hope of improving the
human constitution.

At this juncture, Freud set himself the task of expounding an aspect of the harm done
by civilization that was seldom mentioned: the effects of the restriction on sexual activity.
Freud admitted that the achievement of civilization had been brought about by the
suppression of instincts, but he raised the question whether the limit of this process had not
been reached, and whether the gain to civilization was not being more than counter balanced
by the loss to it through the harm it does.

Though Sakharam Binder shocked the conservative society even more than The
Vultures and acclaimed as ‘Tendulkar’s most intensely naturalistic play’, the play is not
without faults. One of them is that Sakharam is very verbose and repetitive. Some of his
repetitions could have been avoided without affecting his portrayal. Nadkarni feels that the
play is not an artistic success since it acquires a tinge of melodrama. He says:

It is impossible to believe that a cold and calculating man like Sakharam would
rush to throttle Champa on the nearest hint of her infidelity. To murder even
 when angered is not so easy a task, and it is only a Shakespeare who gradually
builds up the climax of Othello in the fashion to make it fully convincing.
However, even if it is a failure it is a glorious failure.25

The play can be understood as a revelation of political meaning of the institution

of family and man-woman relationships. The Censor Board had refused to issue the play a
certificate on the ground that it lowered the sacredness of the institution of marriage, that it
aroused the passion of dogs and pigs and even that it showed a Hindu wife who assaulted her
husband in spite of his divine rights. Sakharam is a victim of the same fate for what he calls
other husbands ‘impotent’ ‘swine’ and ‘gutless breed’ ideological perception of his relation
with the women he keeps in his house is not at all different from that of a regular husband.
The contractual arrangement between him and the woman he keeps represents a replica of the
arrangements in marriage. Here all the romance and glamour of marriage evaporates under
the terrible scrutiny of Tendulkar’s critical eye. Laxmi’s calling him her husband and her
subsequent elevation of him into a ‘god’ demonstrates the patterns of thinking instilled in
women by the patriarchal tradition.

Laxmi’s blind belief in an oppressive system appears even more stifling than
Champa’s gross vulgarity. In a sense, this makes the murder of Champa at his hands
inevitable. Nothing human can survive the murderous tentacles of these institutions. What
shocks the audience is not the fate of Laxmi, Champa and Sakharam but the ugly reality of
moral deprivation and corruption that seeps within the soul in the institution of marriage as it
exists in the society today. It is an institution in which sexual relationship for a woman is
possible only if the self is forgotten, pleasure is possible only through inflicting pain on the
others and self awareness is nothing but the mute and moron-like acceptance of inhuman
subordinate or supremacy. Sakharam, Laxmi and Champa are all victims of this familial
ideology. Champa and Laxmi also provide the oppositional pair of frightening morality as
against alluring sexuality – the two poles of the imaginative landscape called woman in the
social imaginary.

The play is a very Indian play. This is not because of frequent references to Indian
conditions but characters and events which are an inseparable part of the play would be
possible only in the Indian ethos. The play is successful because it is able to make certain
statements about life which are applicable to all people and in all places. One may need to
know about India in order to understand the play fully but its final effect transcends the need
for this kind of knowledge and makes a universal appeal. The play has given Tendulkar a
status in the theatrical world and confirmed his dubious image as the controversial playwright
of present times.

Tendulkar is a herald of human predicament. His predilection to explore man-woman

relationships especially marital is a grand theme of his works from the beginning. As
marriage plays a pivotal role in social discourse Tendulkar, as a writer, by counterpoising the
existing familial relationships in Kanyadaan with that of other plays like Sakharam Binder
and The Vultures, tries to establish the moulding nature of a family in the society. In the
present society, the intimate and stable network of community has been dissolved in the mass
society. For most urban and suburban Indians, the relationship with neighbours has become
guarded and transitory, and does not contribute much to self knowledge or self acceptance.
While other institutions have been losing their personal and local quality, the family is the
one institution in our society that has become smaller and more decentralized; the only
institution to retain human scale. As primary function of marriage is to provide the continuity
and intimacy that neither man nor women are likely to find in any other relationship,
Tendulkar is not only portraying the unbalanced relationships of Nath and Seva, but also
prophesizing their effects on their children's future. The practice of exogamy is a grand
experiment hi the sense that the intellectuals like Nath and Seva should not only propose and
preach the theories but also plan and practice deliberately. The celebration of ideal marriage
should not be a coincident but a conviction.

The plays of Tendulkar reveal that in the patriarchal set up, marriage not only
regulates sexual reproductive behaviour and means of upholding male dominance but also
victimizes both man and woman. Indian institution of marriage is hegemonic in its nature.
Laxmi is a perfect example of victim of hegemonic patriarchy. Laxmi is thrown out of her
house by her husband but she still considers him her god. Champa on the other hand is a
figure of revolt. She hates her husband for the physical and sexual torture he inflicted on her.
So, when he follows her to Sakharam’s house she abuses him and kicks him out. Laxmi who
accepts and upholds the patriarchal value system, hates Champa for ill-treating her husband
and sees her death as a kind of divine retribution. Such a blind belief in an oppressive system
appears even more stifling than Champa’s gross vulgarity. Sakharam represents the double
standards that hegemonic patriarchy sanctions. Sakharam picks up helpless abandoned
women and gives them shelter in his house so that they will take care of his physical and
domestic needs. He does not want to be restrained by the responsibilities that marriage
entails.

Champa is an interesting character in many ways. Tendulkar is suggesting that a

woman cannot be treated on par with a man. A woman should lead a homely life. If she is
away from this domain her life is at stake. Had her life been that of a prostitute after coming
out of her house leaving Shinde, she would have lived a different and safe life and would not
have been killed. The truth is here, that she cannot lead a life on her own as she likes as
Sakharam is leading a life of debauchery.

The world is imposing double standards to a man or a woman or in other words man
and woman by nature law are destined to be controlled by two different standards. Sakharam
is openly defending his carefree life spending his sexual life with series of different women.
On the other hand he expects Champa to be faithful to him, silently suffering agony,
injustice, or even suppressing sexual pleasure.

Champa is a modern woman in many respects. Modernity in the sense she is

practical, reasonable and sensible in her deeds and words. She is a woman who never
compromise and is unlike Laxmi who blindly worships her former legal husband and the
latter, illegal husband, Sakharam. Under the instigation of Laxmi, Sakharam commits a
grave crime otherwise he is not such a person who goes to the extent of killing another
person on the grounds of infidelity.

Violence, abuse, exploitation in the domestic side of Indian society is a bitter

criticism that Tendulkar highlights through Sakharam Binder. Sakharam brings home six
abandoned wives or run away wives. There is no safety for wives or marital bliss in the
families. Either there is violence at home or sexual exploitation that is driving women out of
their houses. As long as this situation prevails in the society, characters like Sakharam try to
make use of the opportunity and exploit women.

The romance and glamour of marriage evaporates under the terrible scrutiny of
Tendulkar’s critical eye. Laxmi’s calling Sakharam as her husband and her subsequent
elevation of him to a ‘god’ demonstrate the patterns of thinking instilled in women by the
patriarchal tradition. Laxmi’s blind belief in an oppressive system appears even more stifling
than Champa’s grass vulgarity. In a sense, this makes Sakharam to murder Champa. No
human can survive the murderous tentacles of these institutions.

What shocks the audience is not the fate of Laxmi, Champa and Sakharam but the
ugly reality of moral deprivation and corruption that seeps within the soul in the institution of
marriage and family as it exists in the society today. It is an institution in which sexual
relationship for a woman is possible only if the self is forgotten, pleasure is possible only
through inflicting pain on the others and self awareness is nothing but the mute and moron-
like acceptance of inhuman subordinate or supremacy. Sakharam, Laxmi and Champa are all
victims of this familial ideology. Champa and Laxmi also provide the oppositional pair of
frightening morality as against alluring sexuality – the two poles of the imaginative landscape
called woman in the social imagery.

V.M. Madge observes “an unwitting deconstruction lies beneath the play as it
purports to present the ‘shocking’ lifestyle of an unconditional Sakharam Binder.” 26
Sakharam is blissfully unaware of his exalted nature of himself and his love of showmanship.
Through the two ironical scenes Tendulkar and protagonist seem to be lost in the desire of
shocking the audience. Sakharam’s tirade against husbands and bringing the Ganesh idol
home are two conventional to the audience. The change in him is not due to Laxmi as he is
nether struck by her nor is stuck with her, as he is to become later on with Champa.

The basic contradiction in Sakharam’s character and situation comes to the force with
the entry of Champa. Champa is certainly more than a match to Sakharam. Sakharam gets
what he wants from her. This is another dimension in man-woman relationship.

The picture of an “angry man” before Champa’s arrival has now become empty
bravado of an egotist. He is unaware of the deep irony that the very words in which he
condemns people’s hypocrisy strongly apply to him also.

SAKHARAM : People! What do owe them or their bloody fathers … Do not

talk to me about people,

DAWOOD : Ruin after whores themselves, and carp at others. Nobody in this
place can be cleaner than me. Trying to look clean outside.
Stuffed with dirt inside. Do not talk to me about people. [173]

In Sakharam too there is the same dichotomy between outer and inner selves. He is
trying to look unorthodox outside, but stuffed with obscurantism inside. He condemns
Champa for drinking on the day of Dassera. Sakharam’s wanting to puja on Dassera is irony
of all ironies. It is as if the roles during the Ganesh Puja in the first act have been reversed!
Laxmi’s return has brought further battle between Sakharam’s unorthodoxy and hypocrisy.
He is finally led to be in the hands of Laxmi. His role as the eponymous hero of the play has
shifted to Champa. This contradiction has raised many questions about the play. It is
doubtful whether Tendulkar tries to show the triumph of social-moral radicalism, or simply a
sensational starry aimed at shocking the ever fragile middle-class sensibilities, or the
inevitable consequences in man-woman relationships.

The performance of Sakharam Binder in 2004, a month long Festival in New York
has proved that Tendulkar was wholly accessible to a new audience across the Atlantic. One
reviewer called it the “Spell Binder”.27 The Fifth Woman, a play written in English as a
prelude to Sakharam Binder, is performed at the festival. The New York Times wrote about
Sakharam Binder.

Sakharam’s tragedy turns out to lineage on his budding social consciousness,

his arrested enlightenment …. he exploits a corrupt system for personal
advantage, and then discovers that the price of playing the game is everything
he hoped to protect. ….. Mr. Tendulkar never judges his protagonists but
concentrates instead and painting him with unsetting compassion, receptiveness
and thoroughness. His play deserves to be much better known in the U.S than it
is 28

One has to see how Tendulkar discusses women’s issues with remarkable sensitivity
from the beginning. Tendulkar, throughout his writings, maintained that a woman has a body
and the body has its own needs. In other words instead of reviling female sexuality he talked
about it with respect. For him sexual desire and the maternal longing are two different
strands of female sexuality. Therefore, it can also be understood Rama(Vultures) as an
Indian woman, who is denied the needs of female, struggling between cultural and social
identities at one hand, and natural instinct of sexual desire at an other hand, how is forced to
deprive herself to be fathered by another man. A woman who does not conceive becomes an
‘aberration’; even when the fault is not hers. One wonders to what extent is the much
publicized urge for motherhood biological and to what extent is it socially conditioned.
Psychologically speaking, as a theory proposed by Abraham Maslow, Rama cannot come
out of her “being motives” as her physiological and safety needs are not met; thus struggles
with “lower motives” and “felt deficiency”. Thus even the timid and submissive Rama,
among all the vultures will fully seduces her illegitimate brother-in-law Rajaninath that she
must become pregnant.
 REFERENCES

1. Priya Adarkar, “Vijay Tendulkar Interviewed,” ENACT, 49-50 (1971)

2. Anshul Chandra. “Vijay Tendulkr: A Critical Survey of his Dramatic World,”

Perspectives and Challenges in Indian English Drama, New Delhi, Atlantic
Publishers, 2006, p.159

3. Indulekha Roy, “Man-Woman Relationship in the “Sakharam Binder,” Perspectives

and Challenges in Indian English Drama, New Delhi, Atlantic Publishers, 2006,
p.163

4. Arundhati Benarjee, “Introduction” Five Plays by Vijay Tendulkar, Bombay, Oxford

University Press, 1992, p.12

5. Veena Noble Dass, “Women Characters in the Plays of Vijay Tendulkar,” New
Directions in Indian Drama, New Delhi, Prestige, p.12

6. Ibid, p.13

7. Shanta Gokhale. “Tendulkar on his own Terms” in Vijay Tendulkar: Shoma

Chowdary and Gita Rajan (Ed) Kathavilasam Publications, New Delhi, 2001, p.109.

8. Brijrij Singh. ‘Sakharam Binder: A Reappraisal”, New Quest.(Feb.6, 1978., p.39.

9. Ibid p.42.

10. Valdez Edna and Kim Wright. “What Men Can Learn From Women and
Leadership” Together, October-December.

11. Henry Gariefpy. General of God’s Army.Wheaton, 11. Victor Books, 1993, p.205.

12. Ashok H.Desai, “Sensorship and Sakharam Binder,” Preface to Sakharam Binder,
Enact, 1987, p.7

13. Vijay Tendulkar, “Conversation,” Outlooker, June 8-22, 1983, p.43

14. Sudha Rai, “Gender Crossings:Vijay Tendulkar’s Deconstructive Axis in Sakharam

Binder, Kamala, Kanyadaan,” Perspectives and Challenges in Indian English
Drama, New Delhi, Atlantic Publishers, 2006, p.103

15. The Holy Bible, The New Testament, Luke:16:18

16. Catherine Thankamma. “Woman that patriarchy Created: The plays of Vijay
Tendulkar, Mahesh Dattani and Mahasweta Devi”, Vijay Tendulkar’s plays. An
 Anthology of Recent Criticism(Ed) V.M. Madge ,Pencraft International, Delhi 2007,
p, 83.

17. Vijay Tendulkar, “Conversation,” Outlooker, June 8-22, 1983, p.43

18. V.S. Naipaul, ‘India: A Wounded Civilization,’ New York, Penguine, 1980, p.50

19. Meena Tendulkar, Kirloskar, Quoted by Sathya Saran and Vimla Patil, “Interview”,
Femina, June 8-22, 1984, p.36

20. Nitin Samant, “Tendulkar: A Confused Perspective,” Adhikar Raksha, Jan-June,

1983, p.67

21. Sumit Mishra, “India’s Master Playwright,” India Today, December 16-31, 1980,
p.159

22. Vijay Tapas.“Tendulkar: The Number Two Anti-Dalit”,Adhikar Raksha,

VI, 1983.

23. Veena Noble Dass. Modern Indian Drama in English Translation, Hyderabad: 1988,
p.103.

24. Ernest Jones. “The Libido Theory”, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud,
Vol.2 ,New York: Basic Book Inc., 1955, p.293

25. Dhyaneshwar Nadkarni. “The Case of Sakharam Binder”, Enact No.66, June, 1972,
p.43.

26. V.M. Madge. “Sakharam Binder: An Unwitting Construction” Vijay Tendulkar’s

Plays: an Anthology of Recent criticism, Pencraft International, Delhi. 2007, p.64.

27. Gowri Ramnarayan. “Writing for Life”. Front Line, June, 20, 2008, p. 90.

28. Ibid, p. 90.

Chapter-4

Ghashiram Kotwal:
Suppression through Tenderness
 Gashiram Kotwal (1972), a controversial play moves from the naturalistic writing of
Tendulkar’s other plays to the folk traditions. It is based on history though the focus is on the
contemporary political scene rather than history. Tendulkar’s declaration that he was not
writing a historical play can be reinforced only if one goes back to the genesis of the play.
Tendulkar was an assistant editor of the Loksatta when the Shivsena was being newly formed
at the time that Vasant Rao Naik was chief minister of Maharastra. A gang of young activists,
calling themselves the Shivsena had created quite a furor. Though the members of the Sena
were very ordinary, average youth, no newspaper was willing to condemn them, even the
politburo. This resulted Tendulkar to wonder at the fear that they were able to create and the
psychology that transformed ordinary young men into raging, destructive mob. Tendulkar
realized that Shivsena was formed by the ruling party to counter the communists in
Maharastra. Neela Balla translates Tendulkar’s intention on the issue:

He hunting dogs got transformed into ferocious tigers and the

Government began to fear them. When I saw this, I left the usage to use this
theme in a play and as I traversed backwards in history, I noticed that this was a
representative pattern – such individuals and parties had been created through
history. Hitler was one such example. I felt that using a contemporary
personality, party or setting would limit my space. When I was exploring further
and further into the part, the idea of Ghashiram and folk theater came to my
mind.1 [okprabha, Diwali.1991, P.23]

Tendulkar shapes the play to rise above the status of a historical play by raising
questions of the politics of power so relevant to the contemporary Indian society and by
challenging contemporary values. That is why; the play indicates a particular social situation
which is neither old nor new. Ever since the first performance of Ghashiram Kotwal by the
Progressive Dramatic Association of Pune on December 16, 1972, Vijay Tendulkar has
remained the most controversial personality in Indian Theatre with charges of being anti-
Brahmin, misrepresenting historical facts. But the play has successfully survived even 28
years after its first performance and it has recently completed 1000 shows. Criticism and
feelings of condemnation took a serious turn when the play was invited to a drama festival in
Berlin in 1979; and shockingly enough, eminent historians, actors, performers, artists and
politicians all joined to protest against the play being staged overseas. It was only after the
Oscar Winner Satyajit Ray intervened and persuaded Mrs. Indira Gandhi to give her consent
that the play was finally allowed to travel outside India. The storm of controversy
surrounding the performances of Ghashiram Kotwal has caused deep personal agony to the
playwright. Vijay Tendulkar himself observes:

At times I feel that I should not have written Ghashiram Kotwal, as not only has it
been the cause of personal turmoil, but it has also been the cause of many of my
other plays being sidelined2

It is set in the late 18th century history of Maharashtra when Balaji Janardan Bhanu
through heredity became the Chief Administrator (Nana Phadnavis) after his father’s death
when he was fourteen years old. He married nine women and had no children. He was
known as the Marathi Machiavelli of the late 18th century.

The chief focus of the play is not on the historical situation, but on its relevance to the
contemporary political scene. It projects cruelty and violence involved in the power struggle
of the individual versus the individual and that of the individual versus society. Tendulkar’s
plea as stated on the blurb of the printed play, Ghashiram Kotwal is: “This is not a historical
play. This is a non-historical opera-like legend based on a historical fact. Ghashiram is an
offspring of a specific social situation. This social situation and this Ghashiram both go
beyond time and place.”3

Although the author undertakes all the responsibility of the historical base of the
episode, he doesn’t intend to express here his opinion on the Peshwa regime, Nana Phadnavis
and Ghashiram Kotwal in their so-called authentic life stories in the relevant history.

Vijay Tendulkar’s Ghashiram Kotwal exposes power politics, abuse of power and its
various manifestations like violence, treachery, greed, brutality, womanizing, cunningness,
opportunitism etc. Gashiram Kotwal deals with the Marathi history, the last phase of the
Peshwas. The distinctive feature of Tendulkar’s writing is that he doesn’t like to glorify
history. In Gashiram Kotwal, he seems to be a propagandist criticizing the social system of
the time in the play.

He wrote about Nana Phadnavis in his Gashiram Kotwal. Nana has been praised by
many historians as one of the best administrators and a wise ruler. During the last phase of
the Peshwas, Nana controlled everything successfully. Nana was born on 12 February, 1742
and died on 13th March, 1800. His real name was Balaji Janardan Bhanu. Nana has been
praised by the Britishers also. Both Nana Phadnavis and Gashiram Kotwal are historical
figures. But it seems that Tendulkar presents them from his own point of view. Tendulkar
comments on the corrupt cunning culture of the time. He projects Nana with his weaknesses,
with the specific purpose of showing immortality in the society.

The play is considered as Tendulkar’s “best work today.” 4 Published in 1973,

Gashiram Kotwal is the story of Gashiram Kannuji and Phadnavis. Tendulkar has said that
he has borrowed his theme from history, but it is not a historical play. He means to say that
the source is historical but the treatment is not historical. Tendulkar consumed as a
playwright and his journalistic experience early in his life helps him create a play dealing
with the dynamics of power politics where not a word is out of place. Every word is meant to
be where it has been put in this lightly structured fast-paced play. Written and performed in
1972, it is the story of a common man from Kannuj, a Brahmin, Gashiram Savaldas who rises
to power and eventually falls from grace. The play is set in 18 th century Maharashtra when
Nana Phadnavis ruled over Poona as the Peshwa’s deputy.

The play begins with the prayer to Ganesha (God of Success), Saraswati (Goddess of
Wisdom) and Lakshmi (Goddess of Wealth). The actors praying to the deities exit and the
Sutradhar asks them to stop the prayer song. He learns about the professions of the
Brahmans that make the human curtain. Each one of them tries to sneak one after the other.
He questions them where they are going. They try to avoid telling the truth but he cleverly
traps them into telling the truth. They curse him for it and go to Bavannakhani, the ‘red light’
area, the place of prostitutes. The beginning of the play juxtaposes the holy prayer and the
unholy lust of the Brahmans and thus betrays the hypocrisy of the society. While Brahmans
enjoy erotic pleasure at Bavannakhani, their wives are condemned to solitary confinement at
home.

Sutradhar : The Brahmans go to Bavannakhani and the Brahman wives stay at

home. They stay at home. Oh! They stay at home. (p.367)

Sutradhar : The Brahmans have lost themselves in Bavannakhani and the

Brahman women are at home; they stay at home; oh yes, they stay
at home. The Brahmans have lost themselves in the cemetery, in
kirtan; the Brahman women are sentenced to solitary confinement.
(p.375&376)

This shows the oppressive patriarchal culture of Hindu society. The essence of Hindu
culture tacitly conveys: “No sex in marriage please, we’re Indians,” 5 as Sudhir Kakar rightly
puts it. So, in the patriarchal Indian society, male domination continues to prevail,
suppressing the legitimate desires of women. Even in the recent verdict of the Apex Court in
India considered sexual satisfaction of women is the bound and duty of husbands as it is the
main part of wedlock and hence the violation of this inherent satisfaction is also punishable.
At this juncture the comments of Jandhyala Kameswari are apt:

This pleasure was to be sought by men from courtesans well versed in the arts,
women by definition did not fit into the socially accepted norms of the respectable
family women,” and “with woman’s sexuality so closely bound with marriage and
her role as wife and mother, there was no possibility of considering her sexual
needs and desires.6

The eponymous character is a Brahman from Kanauj. He comes along with his wife
and daughter to Poona for livelihood. In spite of his caste, he has to become a servant in the
house of Gulabi, a courtesan. He not only does housework but also accompanies Gulabi in
her erotic songs and dance. One day, Nana visits Gulabi and hurts his ankle in doing a step in
the dance. Ghashiram takes his foot into his hands and sings a poem, praising him. Nana
feels flattered and gives him a string of pearls. But Gulabi snatches it from him with the help
of her thugs. This is the first humiliation to him in the city of Poona. He leaves her forever
and is again on the streets. He goes to the feast offered by the Peshwa for Brahmans in the
park at the foot of the holy hill of Goddess Parvati. But the soldiers do not let him in and a
Brahman whose money is stolen accuses him of theft. He, being an alien to Poona, is
suspected to be thief. Nana sees it and tells them he is not the thief. But they do not believe
him. Moreover, they put him in jail. This is the second humiliation to him. Later a soldier
throws him out into the people and warns him not to enter Poona again on the pain of death.
Utterly humiliated and hurt, he becomes furious and says to the people of Poona who are
watching his humiliation as a fun:

But I’ll come back. I’ll come back to Poona. I’ll show my strength.
It‘ll cost you! Your good days are gone! I am Kanauj Brahman, but
I’ve become a Shudra, a criminal, a useless animal. There is no one to
stop me now, to mock me, to make me bend, to cheat me. Now I am a
devil. You have made me an animal. I will be devil inside. I’ll come
back like a boar and I’ll stay as a devil. I’ll make pigs of all of you.
I’ll make this Poona a kingdom of pigs. Then I’ll be Ghashiram again,
the son of Savaldas once more. (p.376)

So he decided to buy power as the Kotwal from Nana. He knows Nana’s hunger for
sex. He baits him with his daughter and demands him to make him the Kotwal of Poona.
Nana says to him: “You’ve got me in a narrow pass.” And Ghashiram replies: “yes, the
narrow pass of my only daughter.” Nana issues orders making him the Kotwal of Poona.
Nana says to himself:

Go Ghashya, old bastard. We made you Kotwal. Raise hell if

you wish. But you don’t know the ways of this Nana. This
time, there are two bullets in this gun. With the first one, we’ll
fell your luscious daughter. But with the second we’ll make the
city of Poona dance. Ghashya, child, you’re a foreigner. I have
put you on Poona’s back. Why? As a countercheck to all those
conspirators. You’ll not be able to join them; they’ll never trust
even if you do…What will happen is that our misdeeds will be
credited to your account. We do it; our Kotwal pays for it.
(p.384)

Thus, Nana cleverly makes Ghashiram the Kotwal who will persecute his enemies
and gets his daughter to enjoy his erotic pleasure. Nana and Ghashiram rescue each other.
Nana uses his power to enjoy sex with the girls of his choice while Ghashiram uses his
daughter to enjoy power.

Sex, for Nana, is not only a source of enjoyment but also an effective way of
displaying one’s power while violence serves the same for Ghashiram. As quoted in the
epigraph, Ghashiram needs an official title, the Kotwalship, to be the Persecutor, in order to
feel powerful and thus overcome his powerlessness. At once, Ghashiram starts persecuting
the people of Poona severely for petty offences and sometimes on mere suspicion. He
‘straightens’ the city literally: ‘revenues increased and crimes decreased.’ The city of Poona
trembles at the name of Ghashiram. He is happy and proud about his work. His revenge is
fulfilled and his egotism is satisfied. Ghashiram has given his daughter as a ransom to Nana
to get Kotwalship of Poona and is now ready to make entire Poona ‘kingdom of pigs.’

Now he is in my hands . . . Oh, my daughter. . The beast. . . (Then

yells at the audience.) Oh, you people. Look! I’ve given my
beloved daughter into the jaws of that wolf! Look. Look at this
father. Putting the child of his heart up for a sale. Look at my
innocent daughter – a whore. That old overripe bastard! Look at
his, eating her like a peach . . Spit on me. Stone me. Look, look,
but I will not quit. I’ll make this Poona a kingdom of pigs. (p.381)
 He is happy and proud about his work and now he thinks of his daughter’s marriage.

Enters smoothing his moustache)I’ve got the Kotwali and I’ve got
Poona straightenedout! All these hard, proud Brahmans are soft as
cotton now. No one dares to look at Ghashiram straight in the eye!
Now once I find a fitting husband for my darling daughter –that piece
of my heart named Lalita Gauri-and get her married, then everything
will be the way I want it. I’ll make such a show of the wedding that no
one’s tongue will move to utter one bad word about my daughter.
(p.398)

The above lines also indicate that Ghashiram is utterly selfish. It is the duty of any
father solemnizing his daughter’s marriage decently, protecting her chastity. Ghashiram’s
mind is so wretched that he is prepared to get good out of bad. He has love for his daughter,
Gauri but his love has no meaning. Ghashiram couldn’t think of the consequences that may
befall out of his wretched plan. As a result Nana kills his daughter in his crude attempt to
terminate her pregnancy. Ghashiram learns it and grows furious and rushes to Nana. But
Nana manages to tame his emotion by praising his work as the Kotwal, by threatening him
with dire consequences if he dares to touch him, the Chief Administrator of the Peshwa by
quoting religious scriptures about the ephemeral nature of life and finally by encouraging him
to use his power to behead everybody who dares to speak ill of his daughter. Ghashiram, like
a wounded tiger, persecutes the people cruelly, by beating and killing them and then he says:
“The Kotwal has acquired a penchant for human blood.”(p.407)

Finally, the people cannot bear it any longer and complain to the Peshwa who sends
for Nana. They go to Nana who does not need Ghashiram anymore and who gives them
orders to punish Ghashiram as they like. They humiliate, torture and kill Ghashiram who
feels guilty for selling his daughter for power and who invites the punishment as a nemesis
for his ill doings. Ghashiram, thus, loses both his power and his beloved daughter while
Nana gains in two ways.

Ghashiram is a political character created by the Machiavellian politicians for their

purpose. Finally these political characters turn against their own creators thereby bringing
their own doom. Girish Karnad points out: “A decade after the play was written, in Punjab,
Sant Bhidranwale and Mrs. Indira Gandhi seemed to be re-enacting the theme in real life in
horrifying detail.” 7
 Women and sex is an important facet of power politics. The entire atmosphere of the
earlier part of the play is erotic. Both the ruler and the ruled are involved in erotic sex. The
treatment of women characters in this play reflects the contemporary sociological condition.
The two major woman characters are Gulabi and Gauri in this play. Gulabi is a courtesan
who encourages the sexual impulse in the public for her livelihood. The other character is
Gauri. She is also used as a tool in the power. The other minor characters like Nana’s wives
and a Brahman lady also appear on the dais only in the situation of gratifying the sexual urge.
Nana’s wives appear only to dance with their husband when he is erotically engaged with
other new girls. A Brahman lady comes out disheveled, whimpering, straightening out her
clothing from the house of a Brahman at night who is not her husband.

The play also exposes male chauvinism which has been prevalent in the society till
today. When Ghashiram offers his daughter, Gauri to Nana, Gauri lacks the spirit to rebel
against her father. Arundhati Benarjee rightly comments, while discussing Tendulkar’s
another play, Kamala: “But the evaluation of the role of an Indian woman within the
institution called marriage, considered to be the holiest of the holy in our society, definitely
provides a completely novel point of view showing that women are still mere slaves to their
male owners in Indian society in the latter half of the 20th century.”8

Much detail has been mentioned about Ghashiram’s daughter, Gouri in this play. The
whole concentration has been focused on power game, abuse of power and Nana’s
debauchery. Some details are given about Gulabi, the prostitute cum dancer to show that how
harmoniously politics and police are interlinked to prostitution, one of the ancient, powerful
institutions of our society. Gulabi is a typical prostitute who under the patronage of
politicians enjoys money and a secured place in society. She also behaves unjustly and
cruelly towards Gashiram when Nana gives a necklace to Ghashiram in appreciation of his
service for him. She snatches the necklace and throws him out.

Tendulkar’s plays throw much light on the oppression and exploitation of women in
most of his plays. The eponymous character of Ghashiram Kotwal only thinks of his
revenge but doesn’t bother much about his daughter. She is killed cruelly while a crude
method of abortion is being administered to her. This act raises questions and rationality on
the modern civilized practice of abortion which is mostly prevalent in the Indian society.
When there are serious discussions going on in the world whether abortion is good or bad,
this play also questions about the rationality of this practice.

When one watches Ghashiram Kotwal, at times one feels that politics and prostitution
are not two different words with different meanings, but they are actually synonyms. The
stereotyped image of politicians as great whore mongers and fuckers has been condemned by
the people all over the world but this has made no difference to the present thick-skinned
leaders of lust. It is an acknowledged fact that prostitution is the oldest profession in the
world, and a report prepared by the Advisory Committee of the League of Nations supports
this view.

Prostitution has outlived every social, economic, ethical, and political

system which the West has known since the time of the Greek states. It
has had its vicissitudes: but flourishing or languishing, public or
clandestine, it has existed in large towns for the last 2500 years,
thereby proving how deeply it is rooted in human social life.9

Adultery is not a mere human weakness, but a moral breakdown in a shamelessly

immoral person. It knows no age, no nation, no caste or religion. But during the regime of
the Peshwa, it touched on all time high in the community of the rulers and the Kotwal rightly
describes Poona as “the adulterous city”. Ghashiram Kotwal is not only a criticism of the
institution of prostitution which nurses the social evils like adultery and womanizing, but the
play’s significance and force lie in the playwright’s indirectly conveyed message that the
institution of marriage must be saved for the survival of social stability and harmony. As this
counsel is only indirectly communicated, it shows Vijay Tendulkar’s social awareness and
concern as a great dramatist. A noble and invaluable thought is always hidden in a work of
art and it is the wisdom of the audience or reader to find a message out of a literary text.

The treatment of women characters in this play reflects the contemporary sociological
condition. The two major women characters are Gulabi and Gauri in this play. Ghashiram
does not hesitate to exchange his only daughter in the bargain of power. Though in the
beginning she escapes, later she offers herself to satisfy Nana’s sexual urge without marriage.
Gauri lacks the spirit to rebel against her father. It projects the male chauvinism which has
been prevalent in the society till today. Arundhati Benerjee rightly comments, while
discussing Tendulkar’s another play, Kamala:

But the evaluation of the role of an Indian woman within the

institution called marriage, considered to be the holiest of the holy in
our society, definitely provides a completely novel point of view
showing that women are still mere slaves to their male owners in
Indian Society in the later half of the 20th century.10
 This point is evoking questions of hypocrisy and boasting on the part of marriage as
an important point of honour and strength of Indian society when compared with the western
Christian society. Under the guise of marriage the society delegated powers to the male
chauvinists over wives and these wives are accustomed to silent suffering and obedience as
the fitting duty of a woman. Woman as having an honourable place in the society is read
only in the epics in terms of Seeta in the Ramayana, Sati Savitri, Ahalya in the Puranas. And
one is boastful of these characters whereas in practice the modern society is witnessing
atrocities towards women. The character of woman, her role at home and office is still
unsecured and a matter of concern. How much priority one gives to women rights in the
house of Parliament, the apex law making body with the increase of reservation up to 33 per
cent in order empower women, still in reality women are facing suppression and violence.

Young girls are subject to obedience and respect to elders at home before their
marriage. The fate of any young girl in India is in the hands of parents. The young girls have
no voice of their own. They are becoming an easy prey to the patriarchy in the form of
father’s ambition and a powerful man’s influence that forces the audience to wonder and
accept that there are certain aspects that the overt sexuality glasses over. Gouri’s submission
and passivity and unquestioning acceptance of her destiny can be understood as playwrights
attempt to expose the mechanisms of patriarchy a visible voice to woman by sharing her
experiences of humiliation, marginalization and victimization is an important part of the
techniques in Radical Feminism. Though the play was written in the early 1970 and the
preceding decade was a period of great feminist activity.

Tendulkar’s purposeful denying of Gauri’s voice in the play has two choices. Gauri
neither shares her experiences of shame and humiliation nor protests and rages against being
used as a commodity. Her natural dreams of love and fulfillment are shattered when at a very
tender age she is called upon to become Nana’s mistress. She is discarded, after being used,
and even her death is not accorded any importance. Through Ghashiram’s agony only,
readers can understand the pathetic condition of Gauri. Nana wants no testimony of her life
as of her death to be left behind. He threatens dire consequences if even a bone of Gauri’s
body is found.

Tendulkar’s art of characterization structurally marginalizes Gauri’s invisible inner

experiences too. Though the play exposes a patriarchal culture which traps women into
destinies not of their choosing and legitimizes the violence against them, Tendulkar only lets
the actions against Gauri speak for themselves. Although on the one hand, the manner of her
death underlines her insignificance, yet on the playwright’s treatment of Gauri and her
ostensible marginalization is ambiguous thus Spivak’s question “Can the subaltern speak?” 11
Gets an answer “Yes, if at all need words!” Tendulkar once again uses ‘Silence’ as a
powerful weapon through Gauri by making her invisible yet central. Gauri speaks through
action, not words.

This tendency of playwright, making Gauri’s character invisible may be viewed from
exploiting nature of the central theme- power politics. Apart from seeing Tendulkar along
with dramatists like Albee, Ibsen and Shaw who “While being hailed as pioneers of the
feminist cause were also criticized for their male biases in their treatment of women.” 12 One
has to understand how Gauri has been used and manipulated to function as the only key to
expose dynamics of the power.

Ghashiram’s wife, though invisible on the stage, but referred in the play, keeps silent
on the offering of her daughter by her husband for illegal sexual contact with Nana without
marriage. This shows the place of a woman in society. Even the wives of Nana never
question him when he is engaged sexually with small young girls. Ghashiram Kotwal is a
condemnation of politics, policemen and prostitutes who all join in to create a state of social
disharmony, lawlessness, injustice, adultery, corruption, confusion and chaos indeed a
challenging task carried out by the 3Ps in collaboration. Tendulkar takes the period of the
Pune Peshwa as his background, and an incident from that period to comment on the socio-
political conditions of the contemporary Pune city. The play criticizes and condemns the
honoured and respectable classes of society involved in unlawful and immoral practices like
corruption, murders, and whoring.

A close reading reveals that the play is a strong attack on the unholy nexus between
politicians and police who both hold innocent citizens to ransom are shown as the enemies of
peace, law and order, and even humanity. Cruelty and moral corruption are the two
characteristics which differentiate politics from other professions, and these were not the
features of the Peshwa regime alone, but a universal phenomenon. Criminalization of politics
is one of the hottest topics of debates and discussion today, but the nexus between politicians
and criminals is quite ancient.

The play is a severe attack on Brahmanic element. In India, the Brahmins have
professed and preached morality, religion, and spirituality for thousands of years: but it is
paradoxical that the same community is highly materialistic, practical, down to earth, and
always showing love for luxury. The Brahmins were the ruling community during the regime
of the Peshwa, and the immoral licentious, and criminal acts committed by this community
are all exposed by Vijay Tendulkar’s bold depiction of characters like Nana Phadnavis and
Ghashiram. The Sutradhar ridiculously calls the Brahmins as ‘pious, priestly, lordly, and
honoured’ but the same pious and holy Brahmins brought dishonour to humanity during the
regime of the Peshwa. Tendulkar perceives the realities of the human society without any
preconceived notions, reacts to them as a sensitive and sensible human being and writes
about them in his plays as a responsible writer.

Tendulkar’s plays not only disturb but also shock. His plays are documents on the
innate cruelty of man. Ghashiram Kotwal focuses on cruelty and inhuman strategies
embedded in the power games where women and religion are also exploited. Nana exploits
Ghashiram’s thirst for power and revenge and hands him over to the Brahmans of Poona who
stone him to death. Ghashiram makes his daughter a victim in the game of power. Nana
dares to corrupt even Gods.

The play exposes the failure of Human relations owing to man’s inherent cruelty to
his fellow man. There is an innate urge for cruelty in man whether he is a ruler or subject.
Cruelty is based on revenge and humiliation. This truth is evident in History. The motivating
force is revenge.

The Brahmins of Poona humiliate Ghashiram on a false charge of stealing money. He

is imprisoned and tortured by soldiers without any sense of justice. He threatens them that he
would avenge them. He warns them:

I’ll come back like a boar and I’ll stay as a devil. I’ll make pigs of
all of you. I’ll make this Poona a kingdom of pigs. Then I’ll be
Ghashiram…..(p.377)

The play is a severe attack on the police. The department of police which is the law
enforcing instrument in the government has been notorious for its criminal attitudes and
exploitation of power. The writer criticizes police system vehemently.

Ghashiram : But I didn’t steal. I swear to God I didn’t. I’m not a thief……
Sutradhar : If the police let you!
Friends, the thief is dependent on the police.
If not- they’ll soften your bones.
Sometimes they break you bones.
Sometimes they crack your bones.
Sometimes you lose your life.
The thief earns what he thieves.
 It’s easy income for the police.
It’s partnership.
The thief is a simple thieve.
The police are official thieves
…………………………….
One petty theif less in a world of big thieves.
So, little servant,
Go to the feet of God. (p. 376)
Nadakarni says about the play: “Its theme is a searching comment on the power
politics of the type of oligarchy which we see increasingly taking root in Maharashtra’s
politics. Tendulkar achieves this without deviation from the artistic propriety of his
characters or situation; but it is foolish to imagine that we are witnessing a good old
“historical” with nothing pertinent to our times.”13

Man is learning from past mistakes and is making his times better from the old
mistakes. One should not forget ones past. But history is repeating in power politics and
sometimes becoming even worse. Politics and power are harmoniously mingled with
Machiavellian tactics. In Ghashiram Kotwal Nana and Ghashiram exercise power
unscrupulously when the former does it cautiously without harming to himself as the present
day politician does, the latter does it blindly and indiscriminately, blinded by revenge thereby
his own cruelty is boomeranged to him as he is new to politics.

Vinitha Bhatnagar comments on the hypocritical nature of Nana who begins his
hypnotic exercise of power in the name of “social custom, responsibility and authority.” 14
It’s the authority which makes him to behave in such a lustful manner. Authority brings with
it many qualities to Nana – commanding voice, capacity to manipulate situations in his
favour. Nana is a clever and cunning politician who knows how to exploit power. The
absolute power delegated to him by Peshwa is absolutely corrupting in nature. Nana and
Ghashiram’s authority work in perfect harmony with social custom and responsibility in other
words in the guise of social custom and responsibility. Ghashiram feels that it is his
responsibility as Kotwal to maintain law and order and his instrument to achieve this
responsibility is ‘reign of terror’ In the name of interrogation he exercises his authority
unscrupulously. In a scene, an innocent Brahman is caught. He tells on the oath of ‘Tulasi’
that he is innocent. But Ghashiram orders to burn his hands with a red-hot ball.
 The ordeal shall be done. You heretic. Bring that hot Ball over here.
Tightly, if he yells, don’t let go. (p.396) Let his hands burn. You should smell
them burning, smell them!(Brahman yells). Mime of the ball falling off. The
Brahman falls to the ground and writhes in agony. Ghashiram watches,
enjoying it all. He smoothes his moustache. (p.397)

Ghashiram resorts to a reign of terror and oppression in order to terrify the people.
The manifold power game in Ghashiram Kotwal has well been described in the words of
Satish Barbuddhe. “The play also deals with mechanics of power. It is the power of Nana
which makes Ghashiram the Kotwal of Pune. It is the power of Ghashiram which terrorizes
the citizens of Pune. It is the power of beauty of Lalita Gauri which enthralls Nana for
sometime. The power-politics is undercurrent of discontent in the citizens of Pune. It is
Ghashiram who brings dishonor on Nana by his unmindful terror. Ghashiram’s insolent
behavior is the principal cause of his end of power.”15

Ghashiram’s thirst for power is satisfied and grows unlimited towards the end of the
play. But each time his conscience is pricking him over the death of his daughter, Gouri.
Gashiram who by instinct a good father and a good citizen is conscious of his mistaken
decision and is burning with repentance in his inner most heart is evident towards the play.
He knows the innocence of Gouri but an unexpected twist contrary to his expectation for his
daughter, a decent marriage foiled all of his hopes. The report of Gauri’s sudden death makes
Ghashiram ferocious and mad. He repents of his action, but has gone too far to turn back the
tide. So, for him, like Macbeth, “returning is as tedious as go over.” M. Sarat Babu says:
“Once, he has sold his daughter for acquiring power. Now he accepts her death only to
continue with the exercise of his power.”16

As Vinita Bhatnagar says, “Gauri has few lines in the play and certainly none that
hint at her own perception of her experience. But Ghashiram’s guilt is voiced at various parts
of the dramatic text. Thus even in the triumphant celebration of his power, Ghashiram
worries over the fate of his daughter.”17

It’s the authority which makes him to behave in such a lustful manner. Authority
brings with it many qualities to Nana- commanding voice manipulation capacity, religious
sermonizing (Gitopadesham). The absolute power delegated to him by Peshwa is absolutely
corrupting in nature. Ghashiram exercises power in the guise of social responsibility and
justice.
 Commenting on the historical plays Urbashi Bharat says, “It is the male who
dominates the power politics. The female has a very limited role to play. They are supposed
to suffer patiently. The hesitant women in such plays grieve as they suffer but they hardly act
on their own. To act boldly, to oppose or to use power, are mostly qualities of men in
historical plays: The female role in the politics of power is limited only to resignation,
acceptance and lamentation; if she tries to act, she becomes a threat to male hegemony, and
must be punished, in a way that reinforces the patriarchal norms of gender. She must,
accordingly, be punished for sexual misconduct, which in patriarchy is the worst crime of all
for a woman. Sexuality then is clearly linked to strategies of power, and it is this link between
sexuality and power that Ghashiram Kotwal too probes in its story of the rise and fall of
Ghashiram.”18

Ghashiram exercises absolute power and creates his own world. He very soon grows
arrogant, imposes very strict rules, some of them are absurd, for example no whoring,
cremation or inter-caste dining can be done without permit. For everything you need permit.
Ghashiram suspects even a real permit to be a counterfeit one. A woman goes directly to
Nana Phadnavis with a complaint: “My husband and his brother have been arrested by the
Kotwal’s soldiers. My father-in-law died. They won’t let them hold the funeral. The permit
is real but they call it counterfeit. Sir – the corpse has been lying in the cremation ground
since morning. The dogs are gathering. Sir, please give me justice.”(p.393) Nana has no
time for such genuine grievances. He makes a show of pharisaic ruler performing ‘Ganesh
puja’ and enjoying the company of girls.

The play also throws light on the satirical aspect of the play. The bitter criticism on
moral, ethical, social and political levels made Tendulkar’s plays not only controversial but
also dear to the readers as well as critics. Shailaja B.Wadikar commenting on the play says:
“The play is a powerful satire on the power politics. Through the story of Ghashiram,
Tendulkar depicts the rise and growth in public life of demons that are created by political
leaders for the fulfillment of their selfish motives. They do nothing to fellow beings though
they appear; they manage to achieve what they deserve. When these demons prove
dangerous, they goad on others to violently destroy them.”19

The personality clash between Nana and Ghashiram is the theme of the play at the
surface level. At the deeper level, the play explores and exhibits the essential nature of the
game of power politics which is characterized by violence, corruption, humiliation,
suppression etc. Gauri’s sacrifice of her virtue brings rich dividends to Nana rather than to
Ghashiram. It gives Nana an opportunity to satisfy his physical lust and to establish the reign
of terror. Doing nothing outwardly, he remains victorious and continues to thrive. It gives an
opportunity to Ghashiram to fulfill his ambition. The sadistic objective in his mind renders
him blind and fails him as a father, as a Kotwal of the city; he creates a hell not only for the
Brahmins but for himself and for his daughter also. He fails to realize the treacherous ways
of the culprit Nana and is reduced to a stooge in Nana’s power game. Had Ghashiram taken
revenge on Nana directly by killing him, instead of falling on the dwellers of Pune, he would
have been a hero and would have achieved a greater cause for humanity. Here, lies his
failure and his degradation.

Religion and secular ceremonies are one depiction of manifestation of power in

Ghashiram Kotwal. In this respect D.K. Pabby comments: “The power and strength of the
playwright lies in the creation of a whole aura of hymns and religious ceremonials providing
the ironic screen that is pierced through and through by the crudest exercises of power.” 20 A
typical scene is the one in which Nana tries to seduce the young girls praying before
Ganapati, at the end of one of the ceremonies. When the girl points to the God, saying “He
will see,” Nana says mockingly “that idol of holiness?” and the facade of religious ceremony
collapses at once.

Religion, as manifest in caste hegemony and ceremonies is a device of power in

Ghashiram Kotwal, but it is more as ‘awe’ than as a material force. It is clear that Nana needs
Ghashiram and vice-versa; but in the shifting game of power, it is only a temporary
arrangement that Nana would like to exploit only as long as necessary and will drop
unceremoniously like a proverbial piece of burning coal, the moment it has served its
purpose.

In addition to religious and secular ceremonies, the deceptions of deputation

constitute yet another device of power. The real power uses the ‘masks of deputation to
broker and meditate the exercise of power, to hide from the victims the real face of
exploitative power, so that all resistance may be effectively deflected. By implication and
extension, contemporary democratic institutions, or the paraphernalia of bureaucracy, too
often regarded as repositories of at least executive power, are more often than not masks or
mediations that put a veil on the actual exercise of power and hide the perpetrator from the
eyes of the victim.
 Tendulkar shows the demoralized society, probably of his own time. When
constraints of civilization and culture are removed, the beast inside the man peeps out and
crawls in the society. As a writer it is the duty to portray the dark side or invisible man.
Historians see the outside or superficial, success of any historical figure. Appearance is
deceptive. Ruling class has many wretched qualities and they cleverly cheat people with
their oratorical and Machiavellian tactics. The success stories of many celebrities have very
dark sides with which common man is unaware.

As Kate Millet puts it, Tendulkar’s play Ghashiram Kotwal may be cited as a brilliant
instance of a text in which ruthless manipulation of power is resorted to by these two major
characters, Ghashiram Savaldas and Nana Phadnavis, to achieve their own selfish ends.
Whether he conceives the play as an expose of Brahmin corruption and pretension or as a
study of the power game in more general terms, can be understood from what he said;

It is rather difficult to go back to the point when I thought of writing this

play and recollect everything that happened to me on the conscious and
subconscious levels. Broadly speaking I had in mind the emergence, the
growth and the inevitable end of the Ghashiram. ……The decadence of
the class in power (the Brahmins, incidentally during the period which I
had to depict) also was incidental, though not accidental. 21

The concept of ‘Power’ can be understood and explained in many ways. ‘Naturalism’
concludes that the power is ultimate consequence in the struggle for existence. Primitive
human beings started feeling alienated from nature as they grew conscious of their identity
and felt inferior by seeing gigantic and mysterious nature. Ever since, they have been
striving to prove themselves superior and powerful. The alienation too brought various
divisions in society and the urge to be more powerful than one another to hierarch those
divisions. This has made the society pyramidical where the few at the top usurp the colossal
power of the masses at the bottom. The people of the lower rungs give away their power by
accepting the hierarchy and the ideologies – religious and secular – which approve and justify
the hierarchy. People at the higher rungs of the society are more privileged and more
powerful than the lower rungs; people always struggle hard to scramble up the ladder of
power. In this rat race, some go up and some go down and eventually here starts the power
game.

‘Power’ as a basic ‘instinct’ of mankind is imbibed with numerous psychological

complexities. In the initial stage when human beings were living in the forests the basic
human instinct of violence used to be satisfied with securing food or protecting themselves
from various dangers. The education and civilization have made them mild outwardly. But
the basic instincts of violence and sexual urge remain as they were in the heart suppressed.
Under certain pressures of the inevitable conditions prevailing in the society, these two basic
instincts of man- violence and sexual urge come out from his heart violently. Naturally these
two have become the important constituents in the power game. One can also find the
inherent evil nature of man in the novel of ‘Lord of the Flies’ where William Golding
presents the life of young boys on the island as degenerating.

One can also find parent and child behavior as a state of dependence and innocence.
In this state parents may spoil children or may bring their ruin. The Modern Child
Psychology observes some interesting things in child behavior as Gerald S Blum, the father
of Individual Psychology and a neo-Freudian, talks about this universal feeling of inferiority:

The child, by virtue of his small size and helplessness, inevitably considers
himself inferior to the adult figures in his environment. Parents who neglect,
ridicule, or lack tenderness in their dealings with the child often accentuate his
feelings of being subordinate. The mother plays an especially crucial part in
this process, for by treating him highly or by pampering and overprotecting
him she hinders the acquisition of social skills. The family constellation also
serves to intensify inferiority feelings22

There is a relationship among the words-revenge, power and violence. Political

power is supreme in a State which resorts to violence unwittingly and maneuver. Revenge is
one manifestation of violence in this respect. Antonin Artaud says:

It seems to me creation; life itself can only be defined by a kind of strictness,

the fundamental cruelty guiding things towards their inexorable goal, whatever
the cost.23

Artaud’s philosophy of the theatre rests on the perception of cruelty at the heart of
human nature. Human nature has a taste for power, crime, sexuality and savageness. He
feels that a play must disturb our peace of mind and release our repressed sub consciousness.
He maintains that theatre should provide the spectator with the true essence of dreams in
which his fondness for crime, his erotic obsession, his savage, his neurotic fantasies, his
utopian sense of life and things and even his cannibalism gush forth not on a theatrical and
illusory level but on an inner plane. This concept reminds us of “Aristotle’s concept of
tragedy.”24 Tendulkar also believes that the theatre has to disturb the peace and pent-up
emotions of the readers. His plays not only disturb the readers but even shock them.

Theatre of Oppressed is very clear in defining the term ‘power’. In fact, it is the ‘vital
ingredient’ in human relationships. Augusto Boal, the originator of the Theatre of the
Oppressed, says:

Sometimes you can oppress by giving, you can oppress through

tenderness, you can oppress through suffering.25

He makes it clear that the suppression that has been imposed through ‘tenderness’ and
‘giving’ is more dangerous than that of ‘suffering’. The latter one has a way to come out
from, since that can make one think and revolt against it. But the suppression through
‘tenderness’ and ‘giving’ makes man paralysed and numbs his sense to the extent of
accepting it and transforming it to the other generations too. In the modern days we find this
type of slow tactics owned by rich and clever and intelligent people as a weapon to colonize.
Superficially this type of kindness gets the shape of generosity by which people are fooled.
He observes that people can be oppressed not only through cruelty but also through kindness.
Ghashiiram Kotwal is an example in which the ‘generosity’ and ‘kindness’ of Nana towards
Ghashiram trapped him. Gramsci, a Marxist-scholar who propounded a theory called
‘hegemony’, can be referred here. He says:

The state is the chief instrument of coercive force, the winning of consent by
ideological domination being achieved by the institutions of civil society,
the family, the holy place and trade unions, for instance.26

His argument is though not confined to capitalist society but by and large it is so. The
meaning of the hegemony captures ‘the domination of a class over the other through
consensuses. In that situation a group or groups who are being oppressed do not understand
the oppressive nature of a dominant class. It does take place at cultural levels in all the stages
of human development.

‘Power’, according to Organizational Behaviour is ‘a capacity that ‘A’ has to

influence the behaviour of ‘B’ so that ‘B’ acts in accordance with ‘A’s wishes’.27

French and Raven proposed five bases or sources of power: “coercive, reward,
legitimate, expert and referent. The ‘coercive power’ is defined as being dependent on fear.
Of all the bases of power available to man, the power to hurt others possibly most often used,
most often condemned, and most difficult to control is the coercive power. The opposite of
coercive power is ‘reward power’. It is compliance achieved based on the ability to distribute
rewards that others view as valuable. The power a person receives as a result of his or her
position in the formal hierarchy of an organization is ‘legitimate power’. ‘Expert power’ is
influence wielded as a result of expertise, special skill or knowledge. ‘Referent power’ base
is identification with a person who has desirable resources or personal traits. It develops out
of administration of another and a desire to be like that person.” 28 All these kinds of powers
are directly or indirectly exploited and polarized by Vijay Tendulkar in the play.

All the plays of Vijay Tendulkar are the documental evidences for his social
consciousness. They not only exhibit his social consciousness but also prove their social
relevance. Tendulkar never fantasizes beyond human element. In fact his primary aim is to
focus man, especially- the contemporary man.

It is very obvious that Tendulkar’s hero is a common man, who is so frank and goes
through all kinds of human experiences. In fact, he has no extraordinary personalities. He is
against heroism and hero worship. Throughout his plays one can see Tendulkar as a person
who champions the cause of the common man. One can see a democratic note in his plays
like Encounters in Umbugland and Ghashiram Kotwal. In the beginning tyranny may win,
but at the end common people are the winners. Ghashiram persecutes the common man in
different ways but at the end he is forced to bend his head. This is a typical play exactly
applicable to the contemporary Indian society where democracy is to be exercised at its fuller
length and width. It is a powerful political as well as social satire.

Speaking about ‘political deformity’, Sarat Babu applies Steiner’s ‘Rescue Triangle’ 29
to the play Ghashiram Kotwal. He argues that one can miss the theme and fail to understand
the power game of the play since the central weakness of the play lies in the characterization
of Ghashiram, where he has been provided with too explicit reason for his conversion from
man to monster. Karpam, a Transactional Analyst, identifies three roles in this situation of
oppression: Rescuer, Persecutor, and Victim. According to him, they form a triangle called
‘Drama Triangle’ that Steiner calls ‘Rescue Triangle’. Steiner explains the Rescue Triangle
as an efficient training ground for the acceptance of hierarchies of power in which every
person is one step up to some and one step down to other.

The play presents Ghashiram as a typical Persecutor. When he enters Poona, he is

powerless and in the position of a Victim. He understands that he needs an official title to
become powerful enough to persecute the people. He sells his own daughter where she
becomes a Victim. In the power game, his victims become his persecutors towards the end of
the play. He loses both his daughter and his power.

The play Ghashiram Kotwal is relevant to Indian Hindu Society. The beginning of
the play juxtaposes the holy prayer and the unholy lust of the Brahmans and thus betrays the
hypocrisy of the society. While Brahmans enjoy erotic pleasure at Bavannakhani, their wives
are condemned to solitary confinement at home. This shows the oppressive patriarchal
culture of Hindu Society.

The dynamics of power manipulation has been a central theme since ancient times in
political thought. In case of Ghashiram, personal aggrandizement is the driving force for
power manipulation. Plato’s explanation of the decline of ideal state starts when despot
excludes all other passions but thirsts for power:

When a master passion (power) is enthroned is absolute dominion over

every part of the soul … it leads to the creation of the despot, whose
soul in also under the most tyrannical despotism30

The political thinkers like Machiavelli, Frederick Nietzsche, Thomas Hobbs and
Rousseau concluded that Man’s nature and the origins of human society could be explained
by the striving for power. Between the two powers, the bad power leads to authoritarian
dominance, coercion and tyranny, where the good power leads to leadership and guidance.
But one day the bad power ceases.

He (the despot) is fatally bound either to be destroyed by his enemies to

change from man to wolf and make himself tyrant. And if he is exiled and
then returns a finished tyrant…. And if they are unable to banish or kill him,
they form a secret conspiracy to assassinate him31

If Ghashiram is the juggernaut hurling through the play, Nana is the wily puppeteer,
pulling the strings. He is cunning and lasciviousness. The Machiavelli of the Peshvas, he
outmaneuvers Ghashiram and the play testifies to his mental agility and cunning. He is the
ace manipulator who makes Ghashiram the fall guy. “We do it. Our Kotwal pays for it.”[385]
He trusts no one and he sees his opportunity to use Ghashiram against the Brahmins of Pune
and vice versa. He plays his cards well, banking on Ghashiram’s inability to become a part of
the Punekars because of the power vested in him. Thus, mutual distrust works to his
advantage as check and countercheck; in the meanwhile “the luscious peach is at hand to be
devoured by Nana”. He callously discards Lalita Gouri, when he has had enough of her,
spacing no through for her death, and merrily goes on to a seventh marriage before her body
has turned cold. Not only does he get the better of Ghashiram, he even confuses him with
philosophical talk about the transience of life and the subjectivity of perceived reality, at the
time when Ghashiram has gone berserk after Gauri’s death.

The play exposes the cruelty and lack of principles in the rulers and their subjects. In
Ghashiram Kotwal power is defined, ‘horizontally’ (in the sense in which Maurice Duverger
uses it in The Idea of politics, London 1966), in terms of individuals against individuals; from
humiliation, to revenge in assertion, to eventual victimization, played out against a
background of political and moral decadence and degeneracy, with sexuality impinging on
strategies of power. In fact, in his social criticism, Tendulkar is more concerned with the
‘mechanism’ of power operating within the society than with the economic and political
implications and sources of that power.

In this play, Tendulkar observes the operations of religiosity, sexuality and politics as
services of power. All these are thematic principles imbued with the elements of universality
operating in almost all societies at all times.

Religion is another most powerful means to exercise the power in Democracy. Vijay
Tendulkar has fully succeeded in depicting how Nana uses religion to enjoy both his sexual
and political life. A whole aura of hymns and religious ceremonies provide the ironic screen
that is pierced through and through by the crudest exercises of power. A typical scene is the
one in which Nana tries to seduce the girl praying before Ganapathi, at the end of one of the
ceremonies, and when the girl points to the god, saying ‘He will see’(378), he says
mockingly, ‘that idol of holiness?’(378) and the façade of ceremony collapse at once.
Religion manifest in caste dominance and ceremony is a device of power in Ghashiram, but
more as an abstraction of awe than as material force. Another typical scene is the one in
which Nana consoles Ghashiram, who loses his daughter. Nana quotes from the scriptures
and advises him to forget the past:

NANA : “The Vedas have said that. After all, Ghashya, will we live
for ever? [sighs] we too, every one of us, will leave, Ghashya…This
 body is earth, just dirt. You cannot rely upon it. What come, that
goes. Four handfuls of ash remain.”[405]

Thus, Nana, like the people of the higher rungs of the society, uses religious ideology
to justify the hierarchy of power and the unjust oppression and exploitation. It is one kind of
hegemonic attempt to oppress people in the name of religion.

Tendulkar’s subtle criticism of colonial perspective can be seen through characters of

British officer in the play who are interchangeable and stand for the presence in India. He
can be seen as a critique of Eurocentric universalism which takes for granted both the
superiority of what is Western and the inferiority of what is not, as pointed out by Edward
Said in his book Orientalism.

This means in effect that the East becomes the repository or projection of those
aspects of themselves which Westerners do not choose to acknowledge (cruelty, sensuality,
decadence, laziness and so on). At the same time, and paradoxically, the East is seen as a
fascinating realm of the exotic.32

The musical composition used in the play has a distinctively folk rhythm. It is derived
from the Marathi ‘Tamasha’. The rich musical quality of the play makes musicians like
Vasantrao Deshpande call the play, “the first ‘Sangeet Natak’ in the real sense of the term.” 33
This kind of musical element has its links with the classical Sanskrit drama and its aim is to
arouse the interest of the audience, to instill a feeling of seriousness and to arrest their
attention.

‘Chorus’ is another device that has been introduced by Tendulkar. His innovative and
experimental skill comes handy in devising quite a novel and interesting chorus that is
endowed with tremendous potential for spectacle. The chorus in this play is in the form of a
‘Human wall’. It was used in ancient classical drama mainly to comment on moral valued and
positions and to fill in the time spans and action of the stage. It comprises twelve men in a
row, walking up to the stage from the hall. Both Greek play wrights like Aeschylus and
Sophocles and Roman dramatists like Seneca used the chorus. In Elizabethan drama, there
was often a single character who spoke the prologue and the epilogue. Sometimes, as in
Antony and Cleopatra, there was a choric character who also participated in the action. In
Marathi folk drama, the role of the chorus was to serve the purpose of refrain. It picked up
and repeated the last few words spoken by the main character. However, in Tendulkar hand’s
the role of the chorus goes much beyond this. The chorus participation is threefold. Besides
the conventional role of repetition and commentary, the chorus participates in the action and
selectivity shields and reveals picture of eighteen century decadence and intrigue. Secondly,
they also become props like doors, arches and templates. Their most significant participation
is as vehicles of satire which works in two ways. They make direct satirical comments by
slyly altering a word here and there and also indirectly undermine the action on the stage

The ‘human wall’ serves another purpose to ‘Folk Theatre’. Tendulkar’s human
curtain is a radical innovation for the modern urban stage. The difference between the
western stage and the stage of Tendulkar is most spectacularly evident in the use of a curtain
as a theatrical device. The human wall serves as an excellent symbol of the mechanism of
secrecy, hiding, revealing happenings by human devices. Tendulkar cleverly exploited the
‘human wall’ to disclose the ‘naked truths’ of the characters and displays them triumphantly
in front of the public.

In addition to this, the human wall serves another important purpose that is not
touched by critics. It functions as a single character that represents the people who play the
victim. People are actually more powerful than any individual however great he or she may
be. But they give away their power and feel powerless by accepting the hierarchy of power
that has been socio-culturally constructed. They remain mute witnessing the unjust
oppression. So Ghashiram accepts Nana’s authority and behaves like a tamed animal though
he feels enraged for killing his daughter. He then starts tormenting the people severely for
petty offences, yet they accept his authority. They shift to the role of the persecutor and
humiliate and kill him when his persecution goes beyond the threshold of tolerance. Even
here, they get this power from Nana as Ghashiram does. Thus the human wall represents the
powerless people who undergo the unjust oppression mutely and who rebel only to reduce the
intensity of the oppression, if it reaches the unbearable stage.

While the play successfully brings out the theme, certain flaws can be found in it.
The scene introducing a woman with a complaint to Nana regarding the cremation of her
father-in-law is superfluous because the dramatist has already well established the style of
Ghashiram as the Kotwal and the nature of Nana. The interference of a British officer and a
British man spoils the economy of the play. Ghashiram punishes a Brahmin on the charge of
theft and ignores the other Brahman, who sleeps with a Mahar woman. When Ghashiram
comes to know that his daughter is killed he becomes wild with rage. But surprisingly, he
becomes a tamed dog which is not congruous with the style of Ghashiram so far established
in the mind of the audience.
 The popularity of the play is seen in the controversy it has created recently when it
was staged abroad. Bal Chandra Kelkar, Founder President of the Progressive Dramatic
Association said while banning the play directed by Jabbar Patel:

The whole drama has been written with an animus for Brahmins (alluded
to as ‘asses’), patriotic Maratha chancellor Nana Phadnavis has been
portrayed as a lecherous character and the golden period of the Peshwa
rule has been shown as a period of decadence.34

‘Sutradhar’ is another significant dramatic tool, used by Tendulkar. The traditional

function of the Sutradhar is to introduce the characters and initiate the events as well as
comment on the action. As is usual with the ‘Tamasha’ convention, abusive language is
used here and there in the play. The dialogues are often filled with sarcasm. For instance, in
the following dialogue, the sarcasm implicit in the Sutradhar’s tone is quite evident:

Brahman : Oy, Oy, You son of a bitch.

Don’t you have eyes and ears?
Sutradhar : I’m sorry. O Priestly Brahman.
Brahman : Don’t you have any manners?
Sutradhar : I’m sorry, O lordly, Brahman
Brahman : Don’t you have any brains?
Sutradhar : I’m very sorry, O honoured Brahman. [364]
Nana’s clever way of dealing with Ghashiram shows his cunning nature. He
philosophises life in his talk with Ghashiram when the latter is enraged with the death of his
daughter and approaches Nana for an explanation.

Nana: It is misapprehension to think that she was here. It was illusion. The
body will burn. It is misapprehension to think that she is no longer here.
Death is without meaning, Ghashya. Life, too, is without meaning. No
one belongs to anyone. In the end, only oneself belongs to oneself. Life
is a dance of four days’ charm. One must do ones duty. That’s enough.
I am the Chief Minister. You are the Kotwal. These are our duties. So
go, go to your duty. There is a great trust given to you, Ghashya. The
responsibility of all Poona is yours alone. Ghashya, we are pleased with
you.(p. 405)
 Towards the end of the play Nana’s manipulation of things in the political
game is the peak of political drama. All the misdeeds of Ghashiram and even the
misdeeds of Nana are credited into the account of Ghashiram and he pays the
penaulty. The last speech of Nana clearly shows a typical politician’s speech,
maneuvering the situation in his favour.

Nana: Ladiesand gentlemen. Citizens of Poona. A threat to the great city of

Poona has been ended today. A disease has been controlled. The
demon Ghashya Kotwar, who plagued all of us, has met his death.
Everything has happened according to the wishes of the gods. The
mercy of the gods is with us always……..we have commanded that
there be festivities for three days to mark this happy occasion.
(p.416)

Thus Ghashiram Kotwal becomes a victim in the political game and loses his
daughter, Gowri as well as his own life towards the end of the play.
 REFERENCES

1. Neela Balla. “Ghashiram Kotwal: Text and sub text”: Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays an
Anthology of Recent Criticism, (Ed)V.M.Madge, Pencraft International, Delhi,
2007, pp. 141-2

2. Naik. “Ghashiram Kotwal Remains Controversial”, The Times Of India, June 20,
2000.p.29.

3. Vijay Tendulkar, Ghashiram Kotwal (Pune: Nilkanth, 1992).

4. C. Coelho. “The Cult of Violence and Cruelty in Modern Theatre: A Study of

Athol Fugard and Vijay Tendulkar”, Indian Literature Today, ed. R.K. Dawan,
Delhi: Prestige, 1994, Vol.1, p.34.

5. Sudhir Kakar, “Marriage:War between the sexes,” The Indian Express, Weekend
Magazine, 7 June, 1987, p.1

6. Jandhyala Kameswari, “At his Majesty’s Pleasure,” The Indian Express, Weekend
Magazine, 25 November, 1989, III.

7. Girish Karnad, “Author’s Introduction,” Three Plays (Delhi: Oxford University

Press,1994), p.15

8. Arundhati Benarjee, “Introduction” Five Plays by Tendulkar, Bombay: Oxford

University Press, 1992, pp.27-28

9. Vijay Tendulkar. Collected Plays in Translation: Ghashiram Kotwal, Translated by

Jayant Karve and Elenor Zelliot, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.370
(All the textual references in this chapter are taken from the above text).

10. Arundhati Benarjee, “Introduction” Five Plays by Tendulkar, Bombay: Oxford

University Press, 1992, pp.27-28

11. G. Spivak. “Can The Subaltern Speak”? Speculations on Widow- Sacrifice.Wedge

Winter/Spring. pp. 120-130.

12. Absham Taisha. Feminist Theory and Modern Drama, Delhi,Pencraft, 1998. p.19.

13. Dnyaneswar Nadkarni, “Ghashiram Kotwal,” Enact, No.73-74, Jan-Feb 1973, no page
no.
14. Vinitha Bhatnagar, “Theatre as Translation: A Performance based Reading of
Ghashiram Kotwal.” Dramatic Theory and Practice: Indian And Western, ed.
M.S.Kushwaher(New Delhi: Creative, 2000), p.146

15. Satish Barbuddhe, “Ghashiram Kotwal: The Mechanics of Power,” Vijay Tendulkar’s
Ghashiram Kotwal, A Reader’s Companion, Ed., by M. Sarat Babu, Asia Book Club,
New Delhi, 2003. P131

16. M. Sarat Babu, Indian Drama Today (New Delhi: Prestige, 1994), p.76.

17. Vinitha Bhatnagar, “Theatre as Translation: A Performance based Reading of

Ghashiram Kotwal.” Dramatic Theory and Practice: Indian And Western, ed.
M.S.Kushwaher (New Delhi: Creative, 2000), p.150

18. Urbashi Barat, “Gender and Power in Ghashiram Kotwal,” in Vinod Bala Sharma, pp.
87-88.

19. Shailaja B.Wadikar, “Power as a Theme in Ghashiram Kotwal”, Vijay Tendulkar’s

Ghashiram Kotwal, A Reader’s Companion, Ed., by M. Sarat Babu, Asia Book Club,
New Delhi, 2003. P.123.

20. D.K. Pabby, “Challenging the Canons: A Study of Ghashiram Kotwal,” Vijay
Tendulkar’s Ghashiram Kotwal, A Reader’s Companion, Ed., by M. Sarat Babu, Asia
Book Club, New Delhi, 2003. P.117.

21. Samik Bandyophadhya. “Introduction”, Ghashiram Kotwal, Calcutta: Seagull Books,

1984, p. 4.

22. Gerald S. Blum. Psychoanalytic Theories of Personality. New York: McGraw, 1953,
p.165.

23. Antonin Artaud. The Theatre of Cruelty and Its Dubble, trans. Victor Corti, London:
Calders and Boyars, 1974, p.79.

24. Thora B.J and Bernard De B.N. Neo-Classical Dramatic Criticism. London
Cambridge University Press, 1977, p.8.

25. Arjun Katyal. (ed) “Interview with Augesto Boal”, Seagull Theatre Quarterly. April
1994, p.8.
26. Gramsci.A. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Lawrence and Wishart, London,
1971, p.77.

27. Robins P. Stephen. Organizational Behaviour. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India,
2001, p.352.

28. J.R.P. French, Jr and B. Raven. “The Basis of Social Power”, in D. Carwright (ed.),
Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research, 1959, pp.150-67.

29. Manchi Sarat Babu. Indian Drama Today: A Study in the Theme of Cultural
Deformity. New Delhi, Sangam Books Ltd., 1997, p.73.

30. Plato. The Republic. Tr. Desmond Lee. New York, Penguin Books, 1974, P.397.

31. Jandhyala Kameswari. “At His Majesty’s Pleasure”, The Indian Express, eekend
Magazine, 25 November 1989, p.3.

32. Edward Said. Orintalism. New York ,Pantheon .1978.p.45

33. Pushpa Bhave. Contemporary Indian Theatre: Interview with the Directors (New
Delhi: Sangeet Natak Akademi, 1989), p.47.

34. Naik, “Ghashiram Kotwal Remains Controversial”, The Times of India, June 20,
2000.p.32
Chapter-5

Kamala
The Scenario of Press in India Today
 Vijay Tendulkar is perhaps the only literary playwright who has defined his art in
relation to his “public” because he views theatre as essentially a spectator-driven form.
Tendulkar’s mission from the beginning, however, has been to challenge the complacency of
a middle-class urban Marathi audience whose desire is for brisk, light, and mindless
entertainment according to Tendulkar. He also blames the reason for this as the ascent of the
medium of film and the decline of serious drama. His concern with the audience, therefore,
is inseparable from a blunt declaration of independence.

Most of his plays including Kamala (1981) and Kanyadan (1983) are among the most
controversial. Although Tendulkar’s approach to the audience may be qualitatively different
from that of his counterparts, ultimately his drama does not disturb or dislodge the literary
contract but only enlivens it with debate and polemic.

In late sixties, Tendulkar has created sensation with his women centered or women
sympathy plays, Kamala, Kandyadan and Sakharam Binder. Tendulkar belongs to the group
of writers who were part of the dramatic renaissance in India like Badal Sircar, Mohan
Rakesh, Dharam Vir Bharati and others. Socio-political engagement is predominant in the
writings of these writers. Each one of them has made a mark on the Indian drama with his
experiments in theatrical form.

The play, Kamala by Vijay Tendulkar highlights sensational journalism which

engages itself in adventurous investigation with a hidden agenda of publicity, popularity,
propaganda or professional growth. The evils of the society have been exploited by certain
powerful people or people in the media to their personal promotion. Self-interest is
predominant quality in the nature of some people usually in the upper rungs of the society
who exhibit tactics or cleverness to manipulate, to distort, to magnify or to minimize the
situation as they wish to suit their purpose. This type of attitude of the people gives false
picture and there is the danger that truth dies and falsehood prevails. In Kamala Vijay
Tendulkar made this attitude a point in the character of Jai Singh, a typical journalist. Thus
the play discusses the nature of journalists.

Investigative journalism is the out-come of Modern Press. Sensational news, stunning

news or breaking new is the tool to increase the circulation of modern media.

The play brings out evils of the society, like flesh trade of women and the inhuman
methods employed by the modern journalists. Hegemonic and sexist behavior of the
educated, culinary men in the society is brought out. Appearance is often deceptive. Sarita,
the homely, decent and dignified wife of Jai Singh’s final realization in the company of
crude, down-caste, illiterate Kamala that she is no better than Kamala is another key point in
this play.

Tendulkar, who is actually a journalist in the beginning of his career, moved around
and saw the society closely. In his own experience about journalism: “It started with my
journalistic dissatisfaction, but it grew into much bigger proportions in the sense that it
became a matter of conscience as a human being. I became restless.”1

In one way journalistic experience is ignited by a real life incident reported in The
Indian Express by Ashwin Sarin, a journalist who bought a woman in a rural flesh market and
presented her at a press conference to expose the inhuman flesh trade. Gowri Ramayan,
therefore, points out that: “With his exposure to Marathi theatre from childhood, and
journalistic background, Vijay Tendulkar turned contemporary socio-political situations into
explosive drama.”2 Violence, oppression and exploitation in the society made him restless
and journalism couldn’t satisfy him anymore but dramatic career for him became a right
medium through which he could whip on the evils of the society.

The play is a bitter criticism on journalism, the attitude of the journalists, unhealthy
competition, and modern approaches. Kaka Saheb is the uncle of Sarita who is owner of a
newspaper represents good journalism. Kakasaheb’s every conversation with either Sarita or
with her husband typically brings out the shortcomings of journalism. In the very opening
scene of Kamala there are numerous satirical hints in which Kakasaheb refers to the ‘High-
Speed type’ journalism practiced by Jaisingh Jadhav. He pooh-poohs his craze for “Eye-
witness report” [5] saying ‘being on the spot- that’s what’s important! Never mind what you
write.’[5] When Sarita, in an attempt to defend her husband, tells Kakasaheb ‘If it’s (murder,
bloodshed, rape, atrocity, arson) happening shouldn’t he observe it’? [6], he replies it: “Why
does he have to? My dear, it’s not the facts of an occurrence that are important. But the topic
is. Discuss that. Comment on it. Suggest a way to stop it – suggest that. After all, any
murder, rape or arson is like any other. What difference can there be? What sort of journalism
is it that smacks its lips as it writes bloodthirsty descriptions instead of commentary? Its
business isn’t news- it is bloodshed!” [6]

Kakasaheb’s apprehension regarding Jadhav’s safety becomes evident in his question

to Sarita. Can’t he write them “From our correspondent”? [7] Sarita replies that he is
absolutely determined to write everything under his name. Once they forgot to print his name
and he nearly resigned” [7] Sarita knows that it is futile as her husband will not pay heed to
her advice regarding his own personal security. This conversation highlights Jai Singh’s
ambition for publicity and popularity.

Coming to main characters in the play- Jaisingh Jadhav is a well-known young

journalist associated with English Daily published by an unscrupulous press tycoon, Sheth
Singhania. Sarita is his wife. She is well educated and hails from a village called Phalton.
They live in a small bungalow in a fashionable locality around New Delhi in the
neighbourhood of Neeti Bagh. Kamalabai is Sarita’s servant maid and she too hails from
Phalton. Kakasaheb is Sarita’s uncle and, he is currently in Delhi in order to procure his
quota of news print with Jadhav’s help. Born in an aristocrat family, Kakasaheb runs a paper
in the vernacular. He lives a simple life on Gandhian principles.

A journalist is supposed to be concerned with ‘truth’ and ‘public accountability’,

honest in providing complete report, version of events, and leave the rest for further
investigation. A journalist’s role in the society is vital as he moulds the public opinion on
different issues. He can make a mockery of incidents or a faithful representation of incidents.
Unfortunately today’s journalism in the name of ‘investigative journalism’ is misleading the
public and diverting the attention of the public on the wrong side totally moulding the public
opinion as per the wish of the reporter. Writing for news papers is like running an intellectual
revolutionary war. Journalism is a ‘romantic calling’as much of the news is unpredictable.
Print media has a big role to play in originating opinions on vital issues in a democratic
system, where the constitution has guaranteed freedom of press. Freedom has deeper roots
where free press is encouraged. News papers have to extend that freedom by making people
think on their own because a free press and democracy are indivisible. One can’t survive
without the other.

As part of communication the society is largely depending on the media for getting
information now-a-days. The duty of any journalist is to present information and leave
conclusion or analysis to the reader. Speaking on the role of press, London Times (1852) put
it: “The first duty of the press is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the
events of the time, and instantly, by disclosing them to make them the common property of
the nation. The press lives by disclosures…. The duty of the journalist is the same as that of
the historian- to seek out the truth, above all things, and to present to his readers not such
things as statecraft would wish them to know but the truth near as he can attain it”.3
 Jai Singh Jadhav in many ways is a journalist with worldly wisdom who tries to
encash the surrounding situations and gain name and fame. Kakasaheb feels honoured when
Sarita tells him that his house boy, who is now the defence minister, enquires after him,
whenever he meets Sarita and Jadhav at a party in New Delhi. Kakasaheb’s response in this
context, with a bitter sarcasm is significant, for, his words clearly indicate the difference
between his kind of journalism and that of Jadhav’s. He says:

KAKASAHEB : I’m honoured. Who asks after me now? I ‘m a back

number – remnant of times past. A dead journalist – who’s just about
staying alive! Now it is the day of yours husband’s type of journalism. The
High-Speed type! … Eye- witness report![5]

Kakasaheb does not approve of Jadhav’s style of functioning mainly because of the
damage involved in the manner of his reporting when he is honoured by his house boy – the
defence minister. Jadhav’s crusade like attempt ‘to wake up the jungle’ typically reminds one
of the modern ways of journalism, where the slogans like – ‘print the news and raise hell’, ‘
all the news that’s fit to print’ and ‘when there is no news, send rumours,’ are corrupting the
system like snake in the grass. C.P. Scott, the chief editor of Manchester Guardian says:
“There are two sides to news paper. One is business and the other one was much more than
business. It has a moral as well as a material existence and its character and influence are
determined by the balance of these forces.”4
Jai Singh’s conversation with his wife Sarita on the ‘flesh-trade’ of selling and buying
women in a market just like a commodity, bargaining, estimating the quality and quantity of
the thing that is sold in the market presents the other side of the human society.
Jaisingh Jadhav has bought Kamala for two hundred and fifty rupees in a village in Bihar
with the intention to present her in the Press Conference and draw the attention of the world
on heinous flesh trade prevailing in the society. However, Kamala does not know that
Jadhav is going to present her at the ‘Press Conference’ on the other hand she thinks that
Jadhav has bought her in order to keep her in his house forever as his mistress.
Sarita is shocked to hear from Jadhav how women are sold in the Luchardaga Bazaar in
Bihar. Noticing Sarita’s reaction, he adds: “They sell human beings at this bazaar… they
have an open auction for women of all sorts of ages….” (14). He goes on to add: “The men
who want to bid handle the women to inspect them… How they feel in the breast, in their
waist, in their thighs and…” [14] Out raged, Sarita asks him to stop.
Poignant depiction of buying and selling women in the flesh market brings out
another important aspect of the play. The ignoble practice makes the invisible variable,
namely Dalits and Adivasis. This inhuman practice of buying a woman as one buys a hat or
an apple is “a sort of cancubinage permanently subjugating the female slave to the will of the
masters,”5 says P. Gisbert.
The journalist’s attitude rises how media exploits the intimate relationship between
man and women for commercial purpose. As a professional, Jadhav not only looks upon a
woman as an instrument of joy but judged solely on the basis of the extent to which they
satisfy them, but also indulges himself in the shameful practice. He treats Kamala merely as
an object who will enhance his professional prospectus. He does not allow her to take bath, to
sleep and takes her to press conference against her wishes in a torn sari. Through this, it is
clear that comparably with other communities of India, Dalits and Adivasis still face poverty,
gender discrimination, illiteracy and above all sexual harassment.
The scenario of press in India is corrupted. Media is an essential link in the chain of
information which challenges people to come together. The media is using the issues of
women as a tool for circulating the newspapers. Print media either portrays women
sporadically, with sexist- bias and in complete disregard of her reality or picturizes as
common phenomena in the spheres of political, economical, social, religious and women
movement. In politics, women are puppets in the hands of their husbands. They give up their
sector as totally male dominated. In economical scene, woman is portrayed as one who never
produces knowledge or wealth, but always consumed a sort of hanger on to her male. In
social scene, woman is viewed as somebody’s daughter, wife, sister or mother not an
individual who succeeds on her own. Thus, it is obvious that media not only ‘reflects’ but
also ‘affects’ social reality by being selective in ‘what’ it reports and ‘how’ it reports and
interprets.
Surveys tell that women trafficking is occurring among the economically and
culturally challenged people who are nothing but Dalits and Adivasis. Tendulkar sends,
through Kamala’s case, a message that apart from education, empowerment, equal rights,
opportunities and access to resources, media has to take special responsibility of taking these
marginalized societies to centre. Only then one can move towards stronger civil society but
this doesn’t happen with media.
 Jadhav warns her strictly not to tell anyone that he is going to exhibit Kamala at the
‘press conference’ to counter the government’s allegation that newspapermen tell lies. He
hopes: “There will be high drama at today’s press conference. It will create uproar!” (15).
Jadhav warns her strictly not to tell anyone that he is going to exhibit Kamala at the press
conference to counter the government’s allegation that news paper men tell lies. He hopes
“There’ll be high drama at today’s press conference. It’ll create uproar!” (15) As the time for
the press conference draws near, Jadhav calls Kamala to him and engages her in a deceptively
sweet conversation.
JAISINGH : How do you like it here, Kamala?
KAMALA : Very much, Saheb
JAISINGH : Kamala, this evening we’re going together.
KAMALA : Oh! I’ll see Bombay! They say it’s a very big city [19]

Kamala is so ignorant and illiterate that she does not even know that she is in Delhi
and not in Bombay. The deceptive and misleading mentality is very clear when Jadhav says
her that he is going to take her to a place where ‘big feasts’ take place and that the people
there “will want to meet her.” [20] Jadhav’s hardening order “You will ‘have’ to came,
Kamala”, [20] in spite of Kamala’s rejection to go with her rags, tells more about his
inhuman nature of trendy journalism. Now Sarita tells Kakasaheb that she is going to
convene a press conference at which she intends to declare before the whole world, the real
state of affairs at home.
SARITA : I am going to present a man who in the year 1982 still keeps
a slave, right here in Delhi, Jaisingh Jadhav. I am going to
say this an’s a great advocate of freedom. And he brings
home a slave and exploits her… the after slave he got free –
not just free – the slave’s father shelled out the money – a big
sum. [46]
Sarita’s ironical cry is an in direct call for women to react against hypocrite
media. Her views penetrate into the weak areas of a few women’s voluntary submission
which ultimately brings a stigma to the whole world of women. It is true Kakasaheb makes
some feeble attempts to nullify her, but all his efforts are of no avail. For she screams at him:
SARITA : Why? Why can’t men limp behind? Why aren’t
women ever the masters? Why can’t a woman at least
ask to life? Her life the same way as a man? Why must
 only a man have the right to be a man? Was he have
one extra sense? Women can do everything a man
can. [47]
Besides being wondered how Sarita gets such kind of sudden illumination, one has to
understand that it is a genuine cry of women on par with men. She is no way inferior to man
in prioritizing her morals to make up, character to cash and even heart to art in the arena of
media. If at all she is made to violate her prioritization, there is an inevitable role of man
behind the screen.
This kind of conducting ‘press conference’ by Jadhav and his ‘eagerness to throw the
whole caboodle in the government’s lap’ – is a way of “social organization of news”- a
prevalent feature of trendy journalism. A reporter does not go out gathering news, picking up
stories as if they were ‘fallen apples’ or ‘the world is no sitting quietly out there waiting to be
discovered’ , but he is placed in locations where stories might occur, locations like – police
stations, courts, hospitals, corporations, political chambers etc. Thus, news is constructed
within the parameters of a bureaucratic universe. News papers need bureaucracies because
the journalistic system of ‘account production’ is itself bureaucratically organized.
Therefore, the press normally records what has been recorded for it by working of
institutions. It obviously omits those events which take place outside the purview of
reporters.
Ordinary people have remote chance of being caught in the news net, since they lack
power. But ‘unknown’ like protesters, victims, voters, get into the media only when involved
in unusual activities, natural disorders and calamities. Thus, Raocho puts: “Prevailing social
conditions, and the social arrangements that cause and maintain them, usually are widely
accepted as the natural environment by media. This in-built-bias in the process of news
selection is ideological in which one picture of the world is systematically preferred over the
other.”6
Before Jadhav goes out with Kamala to the press conference, Kakasaheb makes an
attempt to persuade him but Jadhav tells him that someone should take up the cause of the
common man and so, he is doing it. Kakasaheb ironically asks Jadhav what he hopes to gain
from the reports that he writes in English which will certainly not be read by the common
man whose cause Jadhav is fighting for. Here, Tendulkar, highlights the contrast between
journalism in the vernacular and that in English to drive home the fact that it is the dailies in
the vernacular alone that reach the masses, which is totally ignored and neglected by Jadhav
and entrapped himself in the clutches of capitalism which he realizes later. Moreover he is
under the illusion that he will be protected by both his editor and his boss, in the event of any
danger.
This experience proves that there may not be any conspiracy on the part of the media
in producing ideologies, but ideological character of news is embedded within the practices
of journalists and their reliance on material provided by certain institutions and sources. The
practitioners may perceive it to be hegemonic since they incorporate the code of neutrality
and objectivity, but reporters absorb the views of the powerful and share the hegemonic
assumptions.
Since hegemony is adjustable and negotiable, though media covers opponents too, it
ignores underlying issues, because media is powerful. In this sense, the media willingly and
unwillingly contributes towards idealizing and legitimizing certain situations and people in
order to meet their organizational needs while marginalizing other social groups and their
voices thus also supporting the consensual nature of society. Thus, Kakasaheb remarks:…
“But you’re doing all this for the small percentage of the common people who have the good
fortune of knowing English. And these fortunate people are going to effect a change in the
government of this country. The rest of the population – the majority – poor things – are
going to carry on in their haze. Because they don’t know English”. [24]
At the press conference Jadhav presents Kamala, as proof of the existence of flesh –
trade in some villages in Bihar. Jadhav exposes Kamala to the public and allows them to ask
innumerable questions. He did it at the cost of her individuality. As a responsible journalist
he has forgotten that there is a prohibition on publication of matter. Disclosing identity of
such a victim has ostensibly been provided to protect the victim from social stigma. It is
accepted that; “In the absence of public sensitivity to these (of empathy and safety), the
experience of figuring in a report of the offence may itself become another assault”. 7
This kind of confessional journalism is characterized as involving an intense but
depoliticized exploration of emotion, so that people’s ‘feeling’ about events became more
important than the ‘events’ themselves. Victim’s feelings and exposing the intimate thoughts
of the rich and famous are the heart of confessional journalism and thereby news. The trend
provoked BBC’s foreign correspondent Kate Adie to remark in 2001: “I am out of step with
the kind of journalism which says that to understand anyone’s motives or deeds and intimate
scrutiny of their private, family and sexual life are necessary…….One of the great modern
weasel word is “will you share with us? Meaning- come on, opens up, and tell us all!”8
Confession can be useful in certain circumstance but to confess to the masses rather
than the individual is a cheapening process. Mayes says: “The prioritizing of emotions over
other issues in news reports gives victims expert status, implying that their suffering imbues
them with authoritative knowledge about the causes and implications of the event. Failing to
distinguish between the professional and personal means that reporting is in danger of
becoming an act of emotion, and objectivity could diminish as a result.”9
Vijay Tendulkar has created memorable male and female characters. He explores the
position of women in contemporary Indian society through his female characters. It is his
women who help to reveal his social conscience on account of their position in society.
Speaking about his characters Anshul Chandra says, “As characters Tendulkar’s women are
among the most convincing in Indian theatre. He depicts women as being equal underneath
their socio-economic class.”10
Tendulkar’s women are loyal, docile, religious, hardworking, self-effacing and tender
hearted. In Kamala Sarita and Kamala are contrasts to each other. Sarita is educated and self-
assured while Kamala is illiterate village woman. Sarita is childless. It is illiterate Kamala
who understands the man-woman relationship and says to Sarita:
Madam, can I say something if it won’t? upset you? The owner has bought
you and he has bought me. He’s shelled out big money for two women,
no?....so we must stay together here, like two sisters. We’ll keep the owner
happy….(35)
Speaking again about his women characters Anshul Chandra again says, “In his plays
Tendulkar describes the basic and essential complexity of human nature, which is neither
black nor white but varying shades of gray. He has portrayed his characters with utmost care.
His characters are a combination of good and evil.”11
Like Kamala, Sarita too functions as a mere pawn in Jadhav’s game of chess. She
represents the educated sophisticated women. They do not realize that their education makes
them sophisticated slaves. Sarita takes care of all her brilliant and an agile husband. She
takes the telephonic message and notes them for him. She keeps delicious food and
intoxicating drinks for him. When Kakasaheb asks her why she wants the name of the caller
to whom he has just been talking, Sarita replies: ‘I have to write down each phone call”. [3]
If she fails to do so, in Sarita’s words, ‘If I say they did not tell me their names he (Jadhav)
gets angry with me for not asking”. [3] Education seems to impoverish her awareness instead
of improving it.
Sarita’s position in the play brings out a typical picture of Indian women, how
women have been shaped, conditioned and marginalized by patriarchy. The play highlights
the gender stereotyping that is forced upon them. The roles allotted to women in the
patriarchal set up are purely domestic – daughter, wife and mother. As part of the gender
differences that is emphasized from childhood the girl is taught to believe in the importance
of ‘family values’ – values which are presumed to be her responsibility and not the males.
Kakasaheb ensures the continuance of the status give in subversive way, wonders one
whether it is an act of self – sacrifice or a more product of social conditioning. It is most
likely a blend of the two. Pringle and Watson observe that is by controlling the distribution of
social wealth that men confine women to a lower position. To certain extent that is true. A
woman who has economic power Princess Vijaya in Encounter in Umbugland – can
circumvent patriarchy to a great extent. Male characters find more place in sociology than
psychology with Tendulkar. A remark of Kakasaheb endorses this idea. To Sarita’s question
why only women must suffer quietly while men are hailed for their so – called achievements.
Kakasaheb answers:
KAKASAHEB : “You’re wrong. Do you think men don’t have a
Problem? Once you put your hand in a cow’s mouth, it
follows that you will say it is cold, whether you’ve a
man or a woman”(47)
Later, when Jaisingh passes out after an evening of drinking followed by the shocking
news of his dismissal, Kakasaheb says to Sarita, “This is the problem men face, the problem
of achievement in the outside world”.
Tendulkar’s Kamala is a mighty mouth piece in debunking the dominant prevailing
patriarchal philosophical view. Literature has a purpose in the society, either reformation or
truthful presentation of the evils and sometimes there are only issues and questions without
solutions. “Earlier literature did have an influence on society. Today it is Media persons and
politicians who wield considerable influence and together they can do anything”, 12 is the
comment of Tendulkar.
Though such comments make furore, particularly when he criticized Gujarat
genocide, and some Media persons and the Theatre persons suggested not to mix up politics
and literature, Tendulkar never looks back on his dissecting the society. Achut Santosh on
this point made encouraging and right comment: “I totally disagree. I believe art and
politicians never be separated. You can’t separate art and politics because politics in life. It’s
also a fact that life is political and art is about life, so it is inevitable that art should be
political”13
Women are weaker than man in every respect. She is dependable, fragile and
respectable. She needs protection. Many philosophers and religious books consider women
next only to men. The realization toward the end of the play that dawned on Sarita was
shocking and painful. Jadhav asked her to go with him to a party. Sarita refused. Surprised
and dejected Jadhav left for the party. When Kaka Saheb who had ben away to the city, now
came in and saw Sarita who was depressed and asked her the reason. Here, Sarita referred to
her husband by the term ’gentleman’. Sarita realized finally that her husband was no better
than any other men. Sarita’s humanistic and changed personality is depicted at the end of the
play.
Jadhav is betrayed by his Editor for conducting Press Conference and ‘revealing’ the
truth. Here, Jadhav’s decision boomeranged to him. Sarita defers her own decision about the
future in order to give him the moral support he needs. She may have decided to stop being a
slave but not to stop being a compassionate human being. Now, Sarita tells Kaka Saheb that
she is going to convene a press conference at which she intends to declare before the whole
world the real state of affairs at home. When asked what happened to her by Kaka Saheb her
answer is “marriage.” Here, Kamala is a satire on husband and wife relationship. Her
answers to Kaka Saheb reveal her inner self:
I was asleep. Kamala woke me up. With a shock, Kamala showed me
everything….I saw that the man I thought my partner was the master of a
slave. Slaves don’t have rights….laugh, when he says, laugh, cry, when
he says, cry…..When he says lie on the bed, lie. (She is twisted in pain)
(46)
Speaking on the role of women, Arundhati Benarjee says, “Kamala is an indicement
of the success-oriented, male-dominated society where women are often victims or stepping
stones in men’s achievements.”14
Sarita has seen passively the entire case of Kamala, how Jadhav handles the situation
and finally his failure. She is determined that she can be a better human being than her
husband. She says:
Sarita : I’ll go on feeling it. ….i am going to lock all that up in a
corner of my mind and forget about it. But a day will
come, Kaka Saheb when I will stop being a slave…..That
day has to come. And I will pay whatever price. I have to
pay for it.” (52)
The ideology of security and luxury cloisters up her within her four walls where she
is totally alienated from the male world that dominated her in all areas and deprives her of the
knowledge of crimes committed against women by her ‘husband’ ‘lord’ or ‘god’. She is
hegemonically suppressed under the title of ‘educated wife’. For her, the present position is a
sense of ‘reality’ because she can’t possibly think beyond that ‘reality’ in most areas of her
life unless a woman like Kamala confronts her. Trapped within the complexities of a
transitional society with a ‘modern face but traditional soul’ the position of Sarita remains
powerless. For instance Jain, a friend of Jadhav, addressing Sarita says:
JAIN : “Hi, Bhabhiji, I mean, an English, ‘hi’ to him, and a Marathi,
‘hai’ to you. This warrior against exploitation in the country is
exploiting you. He’s made a drudge out of a horse – riding
independent girl from a princely house, ‘Hai’, ‘hai’
(Theatrically to Jaisingh) Shame on you! Hero of anti-
exploitation campaigns makes, slave of his wife… (Sarita)
Bye, lovely bonded labour… [17]
Maya Pandit says that “Jaisingh is a pukka representation of the patriarchal ideology
of what it means to be a husband ”. 15 Sarita is indeed an unpaid domestic bonded labour. Her
bondage in the home prevents her to become another Jadhav, to expose the male chauvinism
of her husband at a press conference but is overcome by Indian concept of wife, where Indian
society has accepted the laws of Manu which denies independence of woman.16
Jadhav turns out to be cruel not only towards Kamala but also towards his own wife
Sarita. Kamala, to him, is only an object that helps him win instant fame as a journalist.
Sarita, to him, is, again, an object to be paraded as a wife at parties, to enhance his status as a
successful journalist. In essence, he is the typical Indian husband, who has no time to spare
for his wife assuring her of his affection for her. Women are oppressed and exploited more
than men in our society as it remains culturally patriarchal in spite of democracy. Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar points out, “A woman under the laws of Manu allows the husband the right to beat
his wife.”17 Indian Society which has accepted the laws of Manu denies women education and
thus mental growth. Manu says, “Women have no right to study the Vedas”. In modern
India, women are allowed to study so that they may become sophisticated slaves.
Sarita is shocked at the way Kamala has been treated at the ‘Press Conference’. She
asks: “So while they were asking her those terrible questions, and making fun of her – you
just sat and watched, did you?” (30) This reaction shows that only women can understand the
problems of women. She slowly started to realize her situation through Kamala’s situation.
Slowly she started to question male hegemony.
Even in journalism too, women tend to be more interested and considerate towards
women problems. In a personal interview Jaya Menan, a renowned journalist says: “I
personally tend to believe that a woman understands issues or events in a large context than a
man. It may not be the most rational, intellectual thinking. There may be even a slight touch
of emotion, but certainly it is a very human way of thinking. I think woman make better
analyst than man”.18
Jadhav ties to convince both Kakasaheb and Sarita of the ‘social purpose’ behind the
‘press conference’ saying ‘I did not hold this press conference for my own benefit. It was to
drag this criminal sale of human beings into the light of the day.”(31) At this Kakasaheb, in a
satirical tone tinged with extreme sarcasm, says: ‘And you sold a woman to them to do so”
(31) referring to Kamala who has been ‘sold’ in the market of commercialistic journalism.
Thus, he drives home the fact that Jadhav has been more ‘inhuman’ under the pretence of the
‘humanizing the news’. Talking about ‘humanizing the news in media’ 19 Linda Christmas
argues that her research on UK women journalists demonstrates that women journalists tend
to put readers needs above those of policy makers. Secondly, women are inclined to be more
people oriented rather than issue oriented. Thirdly women emphasize news in context rather
than in isolation. Fourthly women prefer to clarify the consequences of events.
Jaisingh’s act of exposing a woman to the public, in order to prove the existence of
prostitution after thoroughly checking her fitness, clearly, resembles rape at psychological
and theoretical levels. Robin Morgan observes that “pornography as the theory is rape in
practice”.20 Kamala’s case is no way lesser than a ruthless attempt of pornography by media.
The word pornography comes from the Greek term ‘porno’ meaning ‘female captive’;
‘erotica’ which involves a mutually pleasurable sexual expression. Against her will, Kamala
is taken away to the press conference. Kamala is not only kept for sale in the flesh market
but also forced to resale herself by answering violent questions. Brown Miller observes
“Rape is the crime of violence – a conscious process of intimidation by men to keep women
in a state of fear rather than act of sexual violence”.21
Jai Singh receives many compliments next morning and feels very happy. As the
police are after him to take custody of Kamala, he hastens to take her to ‘Nari Niketan’ an
orphanage and ‘washes his hands.’ Sarita opposes this and requests him to allow Kamala to
stay with them in their house. Then, the dormant male chauvinist in him wakes up and says:
“It’s I who take decisions in this house, and no one else.” [42] He takes Kamala to the
orphanage and attends a party in the evening. What Simon de Beauvior says about the
modern men applies aptly to Jai Singh here: “The men of today show a certain duplicity of
attitude which is painfully lacerating to women; they are willing on the whole to accept
woman as a fellow being, an equal, but they require her to remain the inessential”.22
 Sarita, however, becomes aware of her real condition only when she converses with
Kamala who asks her what price Jadhav has paid for her. To quote from one of the most
pungent, ironic episodes in the play:

KAMALA : Can I ask you something? You won’t be angry?

SARITA : No, Go on.
KAMALA : How much did he buy you for? [34]

Kamala’s question opens Sarita’s eyes suddenly and, for the first time, she finds no
difference between herself and Kamala. She coolly tells Kamala that Jadhav bought her for
seven hundred rupees. Kamala, though naïve, ignorant and illiterate, sympathizes with Sarita
over her barrenness… “If you pay seven hundred and there are no children…” [34] Sarita
asks her: “How many children do you have, Kamala?” Kamala replies: “I will have as many
as you want,” [34] Kamala, thus, expresses her readiness to bear Jadhav’s children to make
the house pleasant place to live in. She then proposes that she will do all the housework
while Sarita will look after accounts and such ‘sophisticated’ things. She adds that each of
them will share their master’s bed half a month each. Sarita agrees to this. She realizes that
she is also a slave like Kamala. For the doubt that Sarita’s sudden recognition of her own
enslaved condition with Kamala’s question seems to be illogical, Tendulkar reacts in an
interview with Gowri Ramnarayan. “The Indian woman is emerging from the traditional
stronghold and finds things rather confusing. She has learned that unless she asserts herself
there is neither existence nor survival. In Kamala the wife’s realization is the result of an
accidental confrontation. The village woman’s imminent question, ‘For how much did he buy
you’? Is a revelation? ‘How dare she asks such question’? becomes “She’s right after all!” 23
The authorial reflections on realism, their transmutation into literary drama, and their
collective realization on the urban stage have created, then, a substantial typology of home in
post-independence Indian drama. A range of individualistic representations drawing on ideas
of ennui, violence, and disillusionment have kept home as a literal and symbolic place in the
forefront of urban theatre since the early 1960s.
Vijay Tendulkar’s drama of ideas represents perhaps the most substantial exploration
of the symbolism of home because his customary method is to translate social and political
conflicts into personal dilemmas and resituate them within the domestic sphere. The
material-visual “look” of a home in his plays is always replete with the signs of class,
ideology and cultural positioning; home is the domain of private experience, but the social
consciousness of its inhabitants is entangled in the problems of caste, class, gender,
community, marriage, and the family. This involvement threatens everyone of the
relationships on which the family is founded, especially those of husband and wife, parent
and child, brother and sister.
In Kamala, Jaisingh Jadav’s “small bungalow in the fashionable New Delhi
neighbourhood of Neeti Bagh” is an appropriate setting for his callow careerism as an
investigative journalist and the spatial expression of a sense of proprietorship that turns
Jaisingh’s upper-class wife, Sarita, into the same kind of commodified object as the tribal
woman, Kamala, he has bought in a flesh market to “expose” the continuing traffic in
women. In perhaps the most resonant example of the intersection of private and public
spheres, the middle-class Brahman home of the Deolalikar family in Kandyadaan becomes
the site of a fierce battle when Nath, an idealistic politician, tries to bring his progressive
caste politics into his home by encouraging his young daughter to marry an unemployed
writer from the Dalit community.
Kamala has emerged as a kind of serious ‘social problem play’ by Tendulkar. His
plays explore the dynamics of modernity and social change in urban India and reinforce
Tendulkar’s reputation as a serious thinker and gifted craftsman of theatre.
Vijay Tendulkar’s plays persistently prove the operations of power, the harsh realities
of violence in Indian history, Socio and political fields and explore the obstacles that stand in
the way of social change and modernization. Gender problems of masculinities and feminism
in the context of caste and family structure are pivotal to the deconstructive dramatic axis of
Tendulkar. Speaking on the handling of the above situations, Sudha Rai Comments on
Tendulkar’s style:
Tendulkar takes up a family situation, an existing set of relationships and
roles. This domestic and private space is gradually propelled into a vortex of
turbulent conflict belonging to the public space of communalism or
secularism, politics and power……………………… By the time we move
to the testing ground of Kandyadaan, Conservative Brahminical patriarchy is
rejected in plain speech and through actions by Jyoti, a young, educated
Brahmin, when she marries a Dalit poet.24
Masculinity is constructed as a weak and regressive force, prone to violence and
corruption in Kamala. In Tendulkar’s Kamala the theme of the purchase of an adivasi girl,
Kamala by the journalist Jaisingh, moves beyond the social problem of trafficking in women,
to subvert the sexism within marriage. Sarita, a role model, as Jaisingh’s wife, makes a
radical interrogation of the slavery of women within marriage. Her consciousness is
awakened by her dialogue with Kamala, who is an exhibit, a mere pawn in the power game
between media and society.
Kamala’s frank and innocent description of her understanding of man-woman
relations through the idea of ‘purchase’ ‘sale’ and ‘slavery’ and her willingness to be
Jaisingh’s ‘kept woman’ and the womb that will bear the children. The mirror self of Kamala
underlines Sarita’s marginalization within marriage and it is as if through a single, powerful
leap of consciousness, she crosses over to the new feminist ground of reality.
Based on a real life incident, Kamala exploits the incident in dramatic terms and locates
the two women, namely Kamala and Sarita in opposition as well as commonality.
The‘strange’ element is introduced in the drawing room of an educated man, the material
aspects of the marriage institution are also revealed. Trafficking in women is not only an
economic exploitation but also a sexual one. Middle class men deal with it under the garb of
marriage. In the enclosed house of Jai Singh the two women representing a clash between
human values, social space and physical space. So tension gradually mounts. Questions
regarding the definition of respectability of equality, of dignity and freedom are raised as
Jaisingh Jadhav(the Journalist) and his wife Sarita debate these issues.
It is strange that even in the context of intimate relationship between man and
woman, in which they both ought to be equal partners giving and receiving pleasure from
each other; women are looked upon as mere instruments of joy judged solely on the basis of
the extent to which they satisfy the man. Ironically, while exposing this shameful practice
Jaisingh himself indulges in it. He treats Kamala merely as an object who will enhance his
professional prospects. He doesn’t allow her to take bath, to sleep and takes her to press
conference against her wishes in a torn saree.
This inhuman practice of buying a woman as one buys a hat or an umbrella is “a sort
of concubining permanently subjugating the female slave to the will of the master”, says
Gisbert22. In India, dalits and adivasis have entered a limited political arena but they still
face poverty, gender discrimination, illiteracy, child abuse etc. Education, empowerment,
equal rights, opportunities and access to resources can only bring India’s marginalized
societies into the centre.
In the play, Kamala is not just a woman who is bought at an auction for Rs.250/- a
price less than that of a bullock, but is also a lens through which Sarita discovers the
oppression she faces in her marriage. Sarita at the time of her marriage and Kamala, at the
auction in Luhardaga juxtaposes the characters of Kamala and Sarita to analyze the complex
question of subjugation and discrimination that women face even today in modern India.
Like Kamala, Sarita is also an object in Jaisingh Jadav’s life, an object that provides physical
enjoyment, social companionship and domestic comfort. Kamala’s entry into the household
reveals to Sarita the selfish hypocrisy of her husband and the insignificance of her own
existence. Simon De Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex” explores the nature of woman’s life and
status in society. Woman has always been she says, “Man’s dependent, if not his slave; the
two sexes have not shared the world in equality. Man’s domination over woman’s body, mind
and life is one of the many forms of colonization that are found in the world. She puts at par
different types of slavery – a sex, a race or a class. Whether it is a race, a caste, a class or a
sex that is reduced to a position of inferiority, the methods of justification are the same.” 26
The Black or the Jew is reduced to a type, a fixed image, an “other” against
whom the Master recognizes and establishes his achievement. The subjectivity, existential
freedom of these persons comes into conflict with their subordination. But the “compulsions
of the situation” enforce an “inessential” status and women, like other oppressed human
beings, have been forced into inauthentic, inessential roles.
Speaking about male hegemony and the subjugation of women Sudhir Kakar in his
book, The Inner World, says: “In daughterhood an Indian girl is a souvenir in her own family
and with marriage she becomes less a wife than a daughter -in-law. It is only with
motherhood that she comes into her own as a woman and she can make a place for herself in
the family, in the community and in her life circle.”27
Also speaking about the importance of male children in the Indian society as solace
and happiness to the parents, Ashis Nandy in his book Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias, says:
“A male child in patriarchal system may be seen as a means of ensuring the continuity of
lineage. Even in the modern times parents see children as sources of economic security, old
age insurance and as allies in the cruel world of competition, work and day to day politics.” 28

Tendulkar's plays reveal several oppositional themes through which the critique of
reality and family is affected. The family in Tendulkar's plays is essentially nuclear. In this
family, women are equated with the 'inner' or the 'private' domain whereas the 'public'
domain is reserved for man. The dominant ideology perceives that women are essentially
agents who produce various forms of domesticity necessary for the existence of the society.
Tendulkar's women, at least Miss Benare in Silence! The Court is in Session and Sarita in
Kamala, figure as political subjects in direct opposition to and repudiation of their identity as
female subjects. Family is a political and not a natural unit in that it interpolates men and
women in different subject positions.

The organization of 'family' is patriarchal in that all men are considered to be superior
to all women though this does not mean that women have no place within it. They are often
awarded positions of spiritual reverence and authority. This does not occur in a neutral zone.
It is related organically with several other structures and apparatuses of domination such as
religion, caste, class, state etc. The characters have a wide range of social location. They
come from lower and upper middle and Dalit caste; urban, industrialized centres as well as
tribal areas. Yet all of them debunk the myths about family as a place of security, comfort
and protection. They bring out the sham, hypocrisy and double standards for men and
women. What is common to all of the characters is the control of the rigid norms of
patriarchy exercised on the behavior of both men and women.

Towards the end of the play Sarita realizes her position within the institution called
marriage. The play provides a completely novel point of view showing that women are still
mere slaves to their male owners in Indian society in the latter half of the twentieth century.
One should understand in the play that all three female characters in Kamala are in some way
or the other subjected by the dominant male character Jaisingh Jadav, who occupies the
centre of the frame. In much the same way John Stuart Mill in his book, The Subjection of
Women, notes, “Marriage is the only actual bondage known to our Law. There remain no
legal slaves, except the mistress of every house.” In this regard Nishi Upadhyaya’s
comments support J.S.Mill’s opinion “The only difference is that in some cases bondage is
defined by religion, as in Hinduism, in some cases by custom, and in some by interpretation
of doctrinal texts, as in Islam. In all cases, women are considered, inferior to men and
therefore the overpowering need to have a separate set of rights altogether for women.”29
The setting of action in the entire play is drawing room. The wife is shown as never
leaving the room whereas the husband moves in the entire house. Her physical periphery is
restricted. She is allowed a limited space in which she has to fulfill her household chores.
The continuous ringing of the phone in the drawing room is symbolic of the dull,
insignificant, monotonous and mundane routine of a housewife. She is a wageless servant
who looks after the house, answers phone calls, attends visitors and fulfills the wishes of her
husband. The restriction of space enforced on a woman is symbolic of the restraints imposed
on her in a patriarchal system. Commenting on the state of women in India Nishin
Upadhyaya again says, “Extreme restrictive lifestyle is stifling and self-denying. It is based
on the principle of inequality and implies the dual strategy of control and exclusion. Women
are viewed as weak, fragile and therefore need to be protected and guarded. The limited
space available to a woman gives a limited scope for the development of her personality and
talents.”30
Through Kamala Tendulkar raises certain cardinal questions regarding the value
system of a modern success oriented generation who are ready to sacrifice human values even
in the name of humanity itself and how in a success-oriented male-dominated society, women
are often victims or stepping stones in men’s achievements.
In the conversation that follows between Kakasaheb and Jadhav, hints are given which
show Jadhav’s self-centeredness and headstrong disposition. Kakasaheb asks Jadhav:
KAKASAHEB : “But tell me this, what are you planning to do
about this girl Sarita?[10]
JAISINGH : This girl? Why?
KAKASAHEB : You go off anywhere-you come back any add
time-you don’t even say where you’ve going…
all kinds of threatening phone calls came
here-you don’t carry any kind of weapon with you
JADHAV : Kakasaheb, if one’s going to die one can die sitting at home
[11]

Besides being wondered how Sarita gets such kind of sudden illumination, one has to
understand that it is a genuine cry of women on par with man. She is no way inferior to man
in prioritizing her morals to makeup, character to cash and even heart to art in the arena of
media. If at all she is made to violate her prioritization, there is an inevitable role of man
behind the screen.

Though, according to Sudhir Sonalkar, “almost all the characters in Kamala are hastily
drawn and nothing is developed”31, the play, as a film, succeeded in creating an impact on the
Indian social scene. The closing scene of the play is a universal call to the modern women
for establishing gender harmony, the greatest need on planet earth. It is in the hands of
illuminated women like Sarita who can make or break the cosmic goblet of men and women
relationships.
 The abrupt ending of the play cleverly throws a challenge to modern woman either to
resolve herself to take revenge or to resurge herself to fight against male dominated society.
So called ‘successful journalist’ and ‘educated elite’, Jadhav is in the hands of Sarita. But her
gaze is calm, steadily looking ahead at the future but in case of Jadhav the entire situation has
turned into both political and commercial, as he already guessed it, “There have been
pressures on the proprietor. I learnt that some very big people are involved in this flesh
racket”. [48] All his attempts to ‘culturalize Kamala’s issue has turned to the services of
capitalism. But this does not mean that he is not commercial in origin or that he is perfectly
or inherently homologous to capitalist structures or requirements for their preservations.

It is the ‘Macro-approach’ which has been worked out, in which economy and politics
are the key determinant in shaping the news. Tendulkar himself says: “Kamala after a time
becomes a symbol. The wife of the journalist becomes ‘Kamala’ and ultimately even he (the
journalist) becomes Kamala”.32 Thus, in a sense, one may justifiably call Kamala a political
satire too.

Tendulkar’s Kamala is surely thought provoking and realistically presents the women
conditions in the domestic and societal arena of India. As long as there is no real freedom for
women there is no real growth in the society and it is suicidal to the Indian family. The
treatment given to women particularly downtrodden ones is horrible. Kamala who has been
brought to Jaisingh’s house is refused a saree on the reason of realistic presentation in the
press conference. Here, Jaisingh is treating her just like an animal purely on business terms.
He is more interested in the promotion of his career on the innocent adivasi girl. Whereas
Sarita is following humanistic approach and doesn’t consider caste, creed or status. The
following conversation between Sarita and Jaisingh shows how cruelly Jaisingh treats with
Kamala.

Sarita : She is asking me to lend her one of my saris.

Jaisingh : (Angrily) Who? Kamala? Don’t do anything of the sort. Don’t give
her anything. I tell you, don’t give her a thing without asking me.
Sarita : But I am asking you
Jaisingh : That’s exactly what I’m telling you. She will come to the Press
Conference in the same clothes she’s wearing now.
 Sarita : She’s a woman, after all. And her sari is torn.
Jaisingh : I know, I know, You don’t have to tell me, understand? I have a very
good idea of all that. I want her to look just as she is at the Press
Conference. It’s very important (p.22)

The play is a social problem play as it unfolds the Adivasi people’s condition. Their
wretched condition is taken for granted by the civilized society as ‘tough people’ who can
withstand physical as well as mental torture. Adivasi people are the fringe people in the
society who are alienated from the society, separated and devoid of all comforts and benefits
provided by the government. They can be compared to the aboriginal people of Australia and
the Red Indians of North America whose condition is more or less comparable to the
Adivasis in India. The following conversation is an excerpt from Kamala:
Jaisingh : We look at things too sentimentally. These people from the
jungle are good and tough. They can take a lot. I tell you,
Kakasaheb, I’ve seen adivasis clawed to the bone by bears –
coming to the Mission Hospital on their own two feet. Those
missionaries operate on them without anaesthetics - out there in
the jungle- and no one makes a sound. They’ve got natural
endurance. (p.30)
The final part of the play is unexpected twist which is never anticipated by Jaisingh.
He was dismissed from his job instead of being promoted to higher position. It is the fate of
Jaisingh after all his efforts in the journalistic profession to bring out stunning news.
Jain : Jaisingh’s boss has dismissed him from the job
Kakasaheb : Just like that? With no warning?
Jain : It was decided only this evening. He’ll get the letter tomorrow.
I ran here as soon as I got the news. I went to the Press Club on
the way. I thought he would be there. The news had reached
there already. They were discussing it.
Kakasaheb : Why was he dismissed?
Jain : There have been pressure3s on the proprietor. I learnt that
some very big people are involved in this flesh racket.
Kakasaheb : But a man who’s doing such a wonderful job – his proprietor’s
paper has become famous and respected because of it.
 Jain : A big paper doesn’t recognize respect and all that, Kakasaheb-
it only knows about circulation and advertisements. And profit
and loss……………….
Jain : His mistake was to cross the path of the wrong people. He
jeopardized the wrong friendships.(p.48)

The above conversation clearly shows that instead of dividends being given for a
good deed punishment is due. The way of the world has been like that. If ones act hinders
the wrong doings of big people his life is at risk. Many sincere officers either met with
mysterious deaths or face problems. It is politicians or industrialists that rule the world and
control the government. The nexus between them is unholy. The government cannot control
them because they grow stronger and stronger to the extent that the law makers have to take
their help come to power in order to get Party Fund or dividends for giving Contracts.
 REFERENCES

1. Vijay Tendulkar, “Interview,” The Indian Express, March 27, 1983, Magazine
Section, p.5

2. Gowri Ramayan, “A New Myth of Sisyphus”, Vijay Tendulkar and Girish Karnad in
Conversation with Gowri Ramayan, The Hindu, Folio on Theatre, Feb.1998, p.13

3. Louis Heren, “The Power of the Press?” Orbis, London, 1985, p16

4. Ibid, p.17

5. Vikram Gokhale, “On Kamala”:Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays: An Anthology of Recent

Criticism Ed V.M Madge, Pencraft International, Delhi, 2007, p.152

6. B. Roscho, News Making, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1975, p.82

7. L. Sarkar and B. Siva Ramayya (Eds) Women and Law: Contemporary Problems,
Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 1994, p.114

8. K.Adie, The Kindness of Strangers, London, Headline Book, 2002, p.xii

9. T. Mayer “Submerging in Therapy News, British Journalism Review, (2000) 1(4)

p.p.30-35

10. Anshul Chandra, “Vijay Tendulkar: A Critical Survey of his Dramatic World,”
Perspectives and Challenges in Indian-English Drama, Ed., Neeru Tandon, Atlantic
Publishers and Distributors Pvt., Ltd, New Delhi, 2006, p.159

11. Ibid, p.161

12. Kannan.K. “VijayTendulkar-When Writing Is Life Itself” Interview with K. Kannan.

The Hindu, New Delhi, 16, Sept, 2001.p.54.

13. Ayachit Santosh, “We can never understand Vijay Tendulkar”.

//html.www.Vijaytendulkar.google search.com html//20/06/2008.

14. Arundati Benarjee. Introduction, Five Plays by Vijay Tendulkar, Bombay: Oxford
UP, 1992, p.18.
15. Maya Pandit, “Representation of Family in Modern Marathi Plays: Tendulkar, Delvi
and Elkumcha”: Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays: An Anthology of Recent Criticism (Ed)
V.M.Madge, Pencraft International, Delhi, 2007. P.69

16. Manu, Manusmriti,( An Ancient Hindu Law giver)

17. B.R. Ambedkar, “Writings and Speeches, Bombay: Education Department Govt., of
Maharashtra, 1987. Vol 3. P.431

18. Jaya Menon, Women and the Indian Print Media”: Portrayal and Performance,
Chanakya Publications, Delhi, 1992, p.62

19. Linda Christmas, “Chaps of both Sexes? Women Decision-Makers in News Papers.
Do they Make Difference?” Women Journalism, London, B.T. Forum, 1992, p.213

20. Robin Morgan, “Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape” L. Lader (Ed) Take
Back the Night, New York, 1980, p.139

21. Susan Brown Miller, Against our Will, New York, Mount View Publications, 1975,
p.142

22. Simone De Beauvior, The Second Sex (Le Deuxieme Sexe, Paris) Trans., and Edited
by H.M.Parshley, London, Jonathon Cape, 1949, p.112

23. Gowri Ramayan, “Vijay Tendulkar in Conversation with Gowri Ramayan,

Interview”: Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays an Anthology of Recent Criticism, Ed.
V.M.Madge, Pencraft International, Delhi, 2007, p.152

24. Sudhir Rai, Gender Crossings: Vijay Tendulkar’s Deconstructive Axis in Sukharam
Binder, Kamala and Kanyadan, Perspectives and Challenges in Indian-English
Drama, Ed by Neeru Tandon, Atlantic Publishers, 2006, New Delhi, p.150

25. Gisbert P, Tribal India, Rawat Pubishers, 1978, Jaipur, p.76

26. Simon De Beauvior, The Second Sex Trans and Ed by H.M.Parshley, London,
Jonathan Cape. p.150

27. Sudhir Kakar, A Psychoanalysis Study of Childhood and Society in India, Delhi,
Oxford University Press, 1991, p.145

28. Ashish Nandy, The Inner World: Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias, Delhi, Oxford
University Press, 1987, p.36
29. Nishi Upadhyaya “Vulnerable Victims: Vijay Tendulkar’s Kamala, Perspectives and
Challenges in Indian-English Drama, Ed., by Neeru Tandon, Atlantic Publishers,
New Delhi, 2006, p.247

30. Ibid, p.248

31. Sudhir Sonalkar. “Vijay Tendulkar and the Metaphor of Violence” The Illustrated
Weekly of India, Nov. 20-26, 1983, p.21.

32. Vijay Tendulkar, , “Interview,” The Indian Express, March 27, 1983, Magazine
Section, p.5
Chapter-6

Kanyadaan & The

Vultures
An Unsuccessful Experiment of Dalit Cause
&
The Vulturine Human Instinct
 Vijay Tendulkar was awarded the Saraswati Samman for Kanyadaan play. What
follows is excerpted from his speech at the Award’s ceremony. The extract throws some light
on the ideas governing the play.

The work which has been selected for the Saraswati Samman is not the story of
a victory; it is the admission of defeat and intellectual confusion. It gives
expression to a deep-rooted malaise and its pain………You are honouring me
with the Saraswati Samman today for a play for which I once had a slipper
hurled at me. Perhaps it is the fate of the play to have earned both this honour
and that insult. As its creator, I respect both verdicts.1

Tendulkar is not a commercial and moralizing writer like William Shakespeare. In

his perspective, the world is full of problems and he is not idealizing the world and its
problems. Human nature is corrupted as has seen by William Golding, and Tendulkar's
writings reflect this tendency in his characters when they suffer. It is not fate that works on
the misfortunes of his characters rather than it is society which is degenerated in its values-
hypocrisy, and the corrupt human nature.

Kanyadan located family and gender relations. The self-critical awareness of the
earlier plays like Shantata…… and even Kamala and the faint glimmer of the hope of a
political action for change were present there but with Kanyadaan and even Ghashiram
Kotwal, the vision becomes dark and pessimistic. In Kanyadaan, Jyoti becomes a site, a
battleground on which the upper caste and the Dalit castes take shape. She becomes the
vessel in which the conflicting caste ideologies pour their aspirations for power. The
complete submission of the girl's gendered self to the violence perpetrated on her by the caste
politics leaves no scope for even an ideological alternative. That she deliberately chooses to
become the model, ideal, Hindu, Brahmin housewife to him, that she will call her husband's
people and home her own, sacrifices her career for him and mutely suffer all the physical,
sexual and psychological violence and humiliation inflicted upon her by him is the
problematic of the play. Why has this happened? Is this the failure of the progressive
movement which failed to instill in her a consciousness of her identity as a woman? Of her
civil rights? Of her bonding with the women from the lower castes? Incidentally they remain
not only marginalized but plainly and simply invisible in this whole process. The girl lacks
the awareness that the issues of caste and gender are interlinked.

The answer to the question of caste domination does not lie in imaging upper caste
women as the other of the lower caste men. But Nath, the successful progressive social
reformer, puts the entire onus of bringing about the transformation in society on Jyoti. It is
the duty of girls like Jyoti, he claims, to bring out the hidden goodness and talent in Dalit
men who have suffered humiliation for generations. Jyoti becomes for him the instrument to
seek the atonement of the sins the upper caste had committed. Marriage is the solution for
this and once it has taken place, girls like Jyoti will have to keep it intact no matter at what
cost. This is a path of no return.

The entire process of posing the problem here seems to raise interesting questions.
Inter-caste marriage has been offered as a solution to the caste problem. Tendulkar claims to
have written the play from an actual case he had seen of such a marriage. But this resolution
of the problem leads us to believe that finally the marriage institution is sacrosanct. Jyoti has
to tread the path of self-annihilation. No other alternative is possible. Not even that of looking
at the Dalit women themselves as an agency of political change.

Kanyadan occupies a unique place in the Tendulkar canon. It is the first major play to
be staged after Ghashiram Kotwal, Talking about the subject in Kanyadan, Nutan Gosavi
observes, "Tendulkar is flogging the dead horse of the inter-caste marriage."2

The question that bothered critics about Kanyadaan has been asked by Ranjit Pardesi
in his interview with Tendulkar. The interviewer wonders, “why the Dalit poet character,
Arun Athavale, should not be seen as Tendulkar's idea of Dalits in general; and if he isn't to
be seen as representing Dalits as a group, why Tendulkar should make him such a negative
charactei."3

Tendulkar presented politics and the home or the politics of home in Kanyadan
effectively. According to Manusmriti, the great ancient Indian scholar, the definition for
'kanyadan' is a man should give his daughter, in accordance with the rules, to a distinguished,
handsome suitor who is like her, even if she has not reached (the right age). But it would be
better for a daughter, even after she has reached puberty, to stay in the house until she dies
than for him ever to give her to a man who has no good qualities.

‘Kanyadaan,’ the father's gift of the daughter in marriage to a suitable groom is a

central ritual within the Hindu marriage ceremony, completed before the couple recites their
wedding vows around the ceremonial fire. As codified in the Manusmriti (a socio-religious
compendium composed around the beginning of the Common Era), the ritual appears as one
important link in men's lifelong guardianship of women, in their roles as daughters, wives,
and mothers. The text states repeatedly that women cannot have independence in childhood a
woman should be under her father's control in youth under her husband's, and when her
husband is dead, under her sons.

Once a woman is given in marriage, she must obey her husband while he is alive and
keep her vows to him till his death, according to all the Holy Scriptures, the Quran, The Bible
and the Gita. In the laws of Manu, however, male authority carries legitimacy only when
male responsibilities are discharged in the proper way; for marriage, these responsibilities
include careful and selfless selection of a mate for the woman. A father who demands a
bride-price for his daughter unacceptably turns her into a commodity sold to the highest
bidder. The best kind of marriage is that when a father offers his daughter as a gift to a man
he has summoned one who knows the revealed canon and is of good character. Another
crucial consideration in marriage is a parity of ritual and social status. A woman of high caste
should match with a man of her own caste, or class, if she doesn't wish to reduce her
offspring to the status of servants, and the opposite event the marriage of a high caste woman
to a low- caste man - is so unimaginable as not to be mentioned in the Manusmriti at all.
Good fortunes also come only to families in which men value women. By offering their
loyalty and obedience to deserving male guardians, women thus earn their respect and
protection; the object of this reciprocity is to create the ideal family through which society
may successfully perpetuate itself.

Family and gender relations are the most pivotal themes in Tendulkar's plays. Talking
about these two aspects in Kanyadaan Maya Pandit says, "Kanyadaan and Ghashiram
Kotwal are the two plays which located family and gender relations in the larger contexts of,
respectively, the caste conflict and the corrupt nature of state. These also are the plays, along
with Baby, which represent women as passive carriers of familial ideologies without any
political will for change. In fact these three plays complete the transformation in Tendulkar
where his vision becomes increasingly modernist rather than avant-gardist."4

In Tendulkar's Kanyadaan, the familial and social symbolism of this ancient ritual
collides against contemporary social processes whose very purpose has been to subject
patriarchal authority, prescribed gender roles, and caste divisions to radical scrutiny.
Tendulkar presented familial situations very well in Kanyadaan, a critical perspective of the
modern typical family situation. There is no time for the parents to discuss an important
matter, marriage. Both Devlalikar and his wife, Seva are too busy to discharge their
inevitable duties at home. Nath is a legislator and Seva is an organizer of women's rallies and
an activist of some sort. In accordance with their political philosophy both have been
championing the cause of eradication of castes from present society.

This, in its own way is a comment on the quality of the family life these social
reformers have been able to give to their children, despite their observance of democratic
norms. Keeping Seva's oscillating role between a mother and a social worker aside through
her role the play talks about one of the crucial features of Indian caste system and. institution
of marriage. In the name of compatibility the institution of marriage upholds a truth. E.A.
Westmark in this regard says, "Endogamy is the essence of caste system." 5 Though, to all
appearances, the atmosphere in the house is liberal and democratic, the cruel fact that the
parents have really no tune for their children. The parents are trying to reform the society in
their own ways whereas they neglect their duties at home towards their dear ones. The
children are seen not as individuals with their own aspirations, but as mere extensions of their
parents' social experimentations. This fact about the family is the most pivotal one as the
whole play turns upon it. The observation by Putney Fullerton Gail is apt, "we control a
man's environment in business and we lose it entirely when he crosses the threshold of his
home"6

When Jyoti declares her intention to marry a Dalit boy, the parents realize that their
integrity as public advocates of inter-caste marriages and casteless society is on test. Seva's
response to this issue displays a gap between her theory and practice. She finds one excuse
after another to stop the marriage although she is self-righteous enough to say that she is not
opposed to inter-caste marriages. At first, she declares that Jyoti is acting in haste and then
she talks of the incompatibility of their lifestyles.

Seva: Jyoti, in my opinion, you are acting in haste. Not even two
whole months have passed since you two got acquainted. Don't
have a clear and complete understanding of the man. (506-7)
…………………..

Seva: My anxiety is not over his being a Dalit You know very well
that Nath and I have been fighting untouchability tooth and
nail......But your life has been patterned in acertain manner.
You have been brought up in a specific culture.....He is
different in every way. You may not be able to handle it. (509)
 When Arun comes to Jyoti's home in Act I, ii, quite expectedly one sees the typical
tale of suffering and exploitation, which Arun says her parents and ancestors have undergone
down the ages. One also hears about phobia of big houses and big people. All in all, from the
contrast between the soft and protected life of Jyoti and the harsh existence through which
Arun has come becomes all the more glaring. He tells her clearly, "Surely we can't fit into
your unwrinkled Tinopal world. How can there be any give and .take between our ways and
your fragrant, ghee-spread, wheat bread culture?" (p.513) When he further bluntly asks her,
"Will you marry me and eat stinking bread, with spoilt dal in my father's hut? Without
vomiting? Tell me, Jyoti, can you sit every day in our slum's village toilet like my mother?"
(513), Perhaps Arun is challenging Jyoti whether she is daring enough to marry him. There is
roughness in his language, realistic presentation of Dalit wretched life. When Jyoti is
weeping Arun continues to talk, "And you thought of marrying me. Our life is not the
Socialist's service camp. It is hell, and I mean hell. A hell named life." (p.514).

In their interrogative speech with Arun, Seva sees harsh reality whereas Nath sees
blind idealism. Seva asks him about his future plans for the marriage and especially about his
prospects for any job so as to ensure economic security so essential for running any
household. His answer shocks her sensibilities.

Seva: It is no longer an easy thing to run a household. If there is no

money, there should be a stable career at least. Otherwise one
suffers, and the wife has to suffer for no reason………..

Arun: It is a first class profession for two persons. The man bribes
the police and the wife serves customers. People call her aunty.
The more striking the aunty's looks, the brisker the trade...
(p.516-17).

Seva is shocked, stunned and hardened her heart towards his daughter's marriage with
Arun. The battle lines between them are clearly drawn. Arun goes on explaining the
advantages of brewing illicit liquor. The atmosphere is tense to the breaking point when Nath
walks in. Extremely unmindful of the brewing storm in the house he quite gushes over the
son-in-law. In the circumstances his loquacity sounds quite comic and ingratiating too. He
gives a mini speech on inter-caste marriage, from which it is clear that he is overjoyed by the
prospective marriage not because his daughter has found a good husband but because it will
fulfill his long cherished dream of breaking the caste barriers. Speaking about Nath's
character, Nutan Gosavi says, "He completely misses the human aspect involved in the matter
and is carried away by its ideological import. It is important to notice this point here for, as it
turns out later on in the play, Jyoti's marriage for Nath is only a means of promoting his
ideological agenda."7

One can appreciate Nath's ideals and his commitment for Dalit cause. He is even
ready to experiment the Dalit cause with his own daughter. Sometimes great ideologies
intoxicate a human and finally prove wretched. With the parents being so irreconcilably
divided over the marriage, the decision is left to Jyoti, who is also not very clear about her
own feelings. When pointedly asked about her opinion of Arun, she can only reply,

Jyoti: (Diffident, immersed in thought) Bhai, I told you at the outset... I don't
know much about his... He asked me, I said yes, quite spontaneously...
And sometimes he shows such a different side, that it strikes me, I don't
know him at all. At times I feel I can trust him, but the very next instant
I am left miles behind him. I ask myself- this thing that I want to do, is it
the right thing ...? (524-5)

Kanyadan inevitably evokes the twentieth-century history of the struggle over the
practice of untouchability, as well as the more immediate phases of the Dalit Movement in
Maharashtra and in the nation as a whole. By making the emancipation of the so-called
untouchable classes a vital part of their political programs throughout the nationalist
movement, Gandhi and B.R.Ambedkar had ensured the constitutional abolition of
untouchability in the written document that was adopted in 1950. By steering his own Mahar
caste in Maharashtra in the direction of sustained political action, Ambedkar also instilled a
new consciousness that developed rapidly after independence into a mass movement in that
state and in other regions where similar communities were concentrated. In 1956 Ambedkar
led a mass conversion of Mahars (untouchables) and several other untouchable castes to
Buddhism in the city of Nagpur as a means of stepping outside the fold of hierarchical
Hinduism altogether. In 1958 a national-level conference formally adopted the term "Dalit"
as an "intentionally positive" alternative to such pejorative or official terms as ''untouchable"
and "scheduled caste." In 1972, a group of radical Dalit writers launched the Dalit Panther
movement along the lines of the American Black Panthers and the Indian Naxalites,
expressing "a new level of pride, militancy, and sophisticated creativity."8
 Mahatma Gandhi, the father of our Nation who struggled too to eradicate caste system
tried to do it in his own style. Varnasrama according to Mahatma Gandhi is inherent in
human nature, and Hinduism has reduced it to a science. It does attach by birth. A man
cannot change his varna by choice. In this regard Lakshmi Narsu says, “Prohibition against
inter-marriage and inter dining is essential for a rapid evolution of the soul.”9

The presence of Arun in Kanyadaan connects the play to this history of the Dalit
Movement, just as the presence of Nath, the Brahman socialist, recalls upper-caste
progressive reformers, such as Jyotirao Phule and Sane Guruji (Whose photographs hang in
Nath's living room). Tendulkar's choice of subject also appears to be deliberate and strategic,
because any fictional representation of Dalits necessarily intersects with the community's
highly visible profile in the social and political life of Maharashtra. The play's reception on
the stage and in print, however, points to the skillful but provocative, and ultimately
apolitical, nature of Tendulkar's intervention in the sociopolitical debate, leaving the work
open to praise and censure in equal measure. When Kanyadaan was staged, Dalit groups in
Maharashtra attacked it as a malicious, destructive portrait of their community, made more
objectionable by Arun's resemblance to a prominent Dalit writer.

Kanyadaan has emerged as the kind of serious ‘social problem play’ by Tendulkar.
Tendulkar effectively presented complexity of human situation in this drama, the emotional
connections and conflicts between the downtrodden and elite segments of society. The play
can be seen as ‘the play of ideas’ about the relation of the political to the personal and of the
public to the private. The incompatibility of Brahman and Dalit ceases to be an abstract
principle and manifests itself as the friction between parent and child, sister and brother,
husband and wife.

Kanyadaan can be seen as a ‘political’ play is not exaggeration. Every major

character regards home as the touchstone of ideology as well as experience. For Nath, home
is a microcosm of the political world - indeed, of the nation - where by resorting sporadically
to the language of parliamentary process, legal rights, resolutions and rules of order, he can
claim to "uphold democracy vigorously in our home. Democracy in the world but tyranny at
home - we don't deal in double standards like that." (p.520)

In the relationship between Jyoti and Arun, home becomes the predetermined symbol
of a difference that Tendulkar expresses not in abstract cultural or ideological terms but
through the juxtaposition of two basic human necessities: food and shelter. In Arun's mind
Jyoti's middle-class home is always and only the alienating opposite of his family's one-room
hut and shared village toilet; the exquisiteness of Brahman cuisine, only a reminder that his
tongue is accustomed to rotting handouts and the flesh of dead animals.

Family forms the basic training ground where children are trained from the beginning
in these roles. In a typical family, father plays the persecutor, mother plays the rescuer and
children play the victim. When father hurts children, mother rescues them. Father becomes
her victim as she persecutes him for hurting children. Later, she becomes the victim of
children who exploit her kindness and father rescues her by persecuting them. They rescue
mother when father hurts her. When they grow up, they persecute their parents for being
persecuted for long by them. In Kayadaan, Nath, an ideal socialist Brahmin, and Jyoti, his
daughter, play the rescuer while Arun, a progressive Dalit writer, plays the victim in the
beginning. And Arun, after his marriage with Jyoti, persecutes her and Nath. Jayaprakash, the
brother of Jyoti, remarks on the situation: "in other words, yesterday's victim is today's
victimizer." (51)

Hindu society is largely based on Manu's Manusmriti which emphasizes on child

marriages, male hegemony, and patriarchal society. The custom of giving dowry to the boy is
so prevalent in India. There is the informal custom of marrying woman who is the highest
bidder in the auction of women. This custom is so strange and is looked down upon among
the other nations. Another thing which tells of parent and child relation is investing on the
children on their education, or on their well being is rightly compensated with dowry. The
more the investment on the boy his parent the more the dowry he expects from the girl. It is
true marriage is holy. But in practice it is becoming a kind of business. Marriage is necessary
for both boy and girl.

The belief that romantic love is the only acceptable basis for marriage in Indian value
system will certainly see its end one day. To build a marriage on romantic foundation is to
build on quicksilver. Marriage is not arranged for reasons of social, economic and even
political convenience, love is a thing apart, hi-caste based society like India going beyond the
norms of culture and tradition in marriage will only be a tragedy. Tendulkar put forth a
question — whether marriage is supposed to be for love? Or love for marriage? And
eventually he proves that there is no happy ending for romantic love. Tendulkar is a realist in
the sense that one can never see anywhere in his plays the happy ending of romantic love
unlike most of the imagination and commercial literature.
10
Though Tendulkar has been called an 'advocate of violence', in Kanyadaan he
selects the method of Non-Violence to a great problem of India. This method of his is truly
characteristic of a genuine playwright whose foremost concern is to open his reader -
audience's eye to a social problem which continues to evade solutions.

The ideal image that Jyothi cherishes so dearly about Arun, "He writes poems. I like
them. Now he is writing autobiography. I have read some parts of it. I felt that I could do
anything to make him happy" (506) is fabricated from alienated facets of the self; its very
existence indicates a lack of self-knowledge. The romantic love is as dangerous as
sympathetic love. Love which roots on the strong moral ground with certain degree of
maturity only can survive beyond caste, creed and ' culture otherwise the observance of
exogamy will be a day-dream.

In spite of this candid confession about her state of mind which clearly stands in need
of guidance, Nath, almost pushes her into the marriage, less out of parental affection than out
of his perception that it is a great opportunity for an ideological experiment of his to work
itself out. He reassures her, "doesn't matter, Jyothi, don't worry. We are all with you" (509),
and leaves for his bus.

Jyothi brings Arun to her house to introduce him to her parents and brother. Arun is a
dark complexioned and has a harsh face. Yet he is good looking. On entering the comfortable
middle class house, Arun feels quite nervous and ill at ease. He does not want Jyothi to leave
him alone, saying "I feel uncomfortable in big house ..." [512]. Jyothi is surprised. As the
conversation progresses, Arun grows more and more eloquent on the subject of
untouchability. His words spit venom. They express his hatred for Brahmins.

ARUN: Our grandfather and great grandfathers used to roam,

barefoot, miles and miles, in the heat, in the rain, day and
night ....till the rags on their but fell apart ... used to wander
shouting 'Johaar, Maayi-baap! Sir- Madam, Sweeper'! and
their calls polluted the Brahmins' ears.....................................

ARUN: Generations after generation, their stomachs used to the stale,

stinking bread they have begged! Our tongues always
tasting the flesh of dead animals.... How can there be any
give and take between our ways and your fragrant, ghee
spread, what : bread culture?" [513]

Jyothi perhaps for the first time feels the roughness of his language. Seva asks Arun
about his education, future prospects etc. As she puts her finger on his raw nerve, Arun feels
cribbed by this button holing of his. He retorts by giving her an answer which shocks her
sensibilities.

SEVA: It is no longer an easy thing to run a household.....If there is no

money, there should be a stable career atleast. Otherwise one suffers
and the wife has to suffer for no reason.

ARUN: (Patience running out) We don't worry about such problems.

SEVA: You have to worry. How can anyone escape them?

ARUN: No problem. We shall be brewing illicit liquor [516-17]

Seva is more likely to give the couple her blessing if the young man has a 'suitable
station', but the marriage is supposed to be an ideal match. Though the marriage creates the
assumption of equality and alliance between the family of the bride and the family of the
groom, the financial status creates obstacles to their marriage. But the thing is ignored. As
education remains a significant but not important element of class status, in match selection
in India, violations of educational endogamous, like violations of caste endogamy are more
socially acceptable if a woman marries financially 'up' than 'down'. The notable thing is that
the possibility of experimenting exogamy on the financial status is a myth because the lower
castes are denied property right from centuries together.

Babu Rao Bagal observes: "It was indeed a Machiavellian act of manipulating the
institution of property rights - achieved with great skill and extreme crookedness. As a result,
society became frighteningly divided due to inequality. The fundamental division was: people
who were endowed with wealth, comfort, power, on the one hand; and on the other, those
who were supposed found damnable by God and religion, eternally condemned to life of
sorrow, misery servitude and untouchability."11 In the case of Jyoti and Arun's marriage ideals
failed where as Jyoti's decision to follow her husband somehow managed to show the partial
success of inter-caste marriage. In the play, Kanayadaan all these familial and social
symbolisms of the ancient rituals collide against contemporary social process whose very
purpose has been to subject patriarchal authority, prescribed gender roles, and caste divisions
to radical scrutiny.

The play also shows how the traditional system of arranged marriages is sound in its
way. Traditional marriages today lost their traditional character and become just trading,
selling and buying on the basis of bidding, bargaining. Talking about the degradation of the
arranged marriages through matrimonial advertisements, Nirad C. Chowdari remarks:
"Suitable match for convent, educated, 23 years old, tall (164 cm), slim, fair, handsome,
vaisya, Bengali girl, permanent lecturer in a college in Delhi, also and proficient in French...
In what way does this advertisement differ from any in the "kennel and livestock", section of
the classified advertisement of a news paper?"12

As an exponent of contemporary issues, by counter-posing two different arguments,

arranged marriages and love marriages, Tendulkar not only advocates the voice of the latter
one for the grand experiment of exogamy, but also ridicules the brazen practice of caste
system through arranged marriages. Love between Arun and Jyoti has led to their love and
arranged marriage otherwise the marriage between them would not have happened. In most
cases in India of inter-caste marriages is of these types of love marriages. Love among the
people of different clans is leading to marriages, forcibly or convincingly. In the case of
Nath, Jyoti's love created a situation or stage to realize his Dalit cause. Love marriages in
India are so fast and hasty but within no time divorces are equally rampant.

Returning home, Nath can freely denounces the book as an artistic house. If it is a
form of literature, the autobiography stands or fails by its factuality, unlike fiction. And
Arun's book is a pack of lies. Incidentally, what Nath says publicly about the book and what
he says at home is a symbolic of the way of similar Dalit autobiographies in Maharastra being
treated by scholars and leaders of Nath's pervasion. It is doubtful whether Tendulkar tries to
prove the factuality later as against and on the basis of sole illustration of Arun, a Dalit
autobiographer or vise verse! However, it can be understood as a personal experience in
Tendulkar's life. Talking about the biographical element in Kanyadaan, Tendulkar says:

Nath Devalikar, the protagonist of Kanyadaan is me and many other liberals

of my generation whom I understood and completely. The pain of these
today, the defeat they have suffered, the fundamental confusion and naivete
that has lead to their pain and defeat, these form the theme of Kanyadaan and
I wrote about it because if came so close to me.13

With the same fervor some critics have responded as to what extent is it justifiable to
portray a Dalit writer as a device to reveal his protagonist naivete. Shanta Gokhale doubts,
“In status that his theme was liberal like Nath Deolalikar, is Tendulkar saying that he
therefore used Arun Athavale merely as a device to reveal his protagonists naivete?”14
 Nath now realizes, 'after going through suffering at the hands of Arun himself, as to
what a sea of misery he has pushed his daughter into. And, to his credit, it must be said that
in a moment of extreme self-condour he castigates himself no end.

NATH: I put our social commitments to the test. Told her "well
done, go ahead! This is also a revolutionary method! I closed
the doors upon her return……………………………….

NATH: You warned me reveal times. But I did not pay any attention.
I had his maniacal urge to uproot castiesm and caste
distinctions from our society. As a result I pushed my own
daughters into a sea of misery (557).

Arun, as if to prove him wrong, not only rings up but come home to say sorry to
Jyothi. He declares his love for her. When Seva asks him why he beats her, he tells her to
take at his love and not at his beatings! Soon an argument develops between them about who
is in the right and who is in the wrong. Arun's continued declaration of being against 'white
collar culture' cannotates many meanings.

ARUN: "What am I but the son of scavengers? We don't know the

non-violent ways of Brahmins like you. We drink and beat
our wives…….. We make love to them ….. but the beating
is what gets publicized ……….………………………….

ARUN: I am a barbarian, a barbarian by birth. When have I

claimed any white collar culture? (540)

The above conversation reveals that Dalit culture is based on openness, fair and frank
sharing and accuses the high caste hypocrisy is unknown in his community.

Talking about wife and husband relationships between Hindu and Dalit families,
Kancha Ilaiah, a Dalit critic and an anthropologist observes, "In other words, man-woman
relations among Dalit bahujans do not go beyond natural relationships. ………... Among the
Hindus the man-woman relationship is conditioned by manipulation and receptivity. Dalit-
bahujan relationship on the another hand is based on openness" 15

The above comments estimate that ‘bahujans’ do not know the crooked ways of the
high- caste people and that the world sees the outward roughness and uncleanly habits of
them but they don't see the inner qualities which are not harmful to anybody. There is an
indirect remark in the tone of Arun when he is arguing with Seva that the world has not yet
understood and appreciates the feelings and good qualities of Dalits.

The play throws much light on caste and problems. Caste is hideous and vital topic
and this practice is eating away present society and is a black mole on society. In spite of the
efforts of many reformers caste is continuing with its strong roots. It is so deep rooted in
present society that a strong law against it can only control it. L.S Ainapur says, "Anything
that you will build on the foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole" 16, Nath's
intention of building the institution of marriage on the presumed physical structure of caste
has forgotten a vital aspect of the caste system. Caste is not a physical object like a wall of
bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents a Hindu from mingling and which has,
therefore, to be pulled down. Caste is a notion. It is a state of mind. The destruction of caste
does not therefore mean the destruction of a physical barrier. It seeks a notional or
psychological change

Jyoti's character in the play is like a martyr for her father's cause. Her vision about the
love marriage is not mature enough to get married as she is not sure about the seriousness of
her love and marriage with Arun. She is pure, innocent like Cordelia in King Lear and
Isabella in The Tempest. She stands as a true symbolism of Hindu marriage, forbearing and
steadfast. She is unaffected by caste politics and ideal politics. In other words she is not
contaminated by caste.

Jyothi has been a severe critic of Nath's speeches right from the beginning. Jyothi
knows that, by his hypocritical and insincere participation in the discussion, Nath has
compromised on his ideology for the sake of which he had turned his back to Arun and which
she, with full trust in him, had accepted despite her suffering. In short, Jyothi now realized
that his ideology and his public image were far more important to her father than his own
daughter, that she has become a mere pawn on his ideological chess-board. Jyothi' s position
is caught in conflict, one is an Utopian by a girl's marriage and another is taking revenge by
the same girl, reminds the audience the famous argument made by Ivan Karamazov in
Dostoevsky's master piece The Brothers Karamazov:

Tell me yourself- I challenge you: let's assume that you were called upon to
build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and
would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order, to attain this, you
would have to torture just one single creature, let's say the little girl who beat
 her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unevanged tears you
could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don't he."17

Through the classical encounter between Jyothi and Nath, Tendulkar completely
demolishes the school of thought that regards man as innately good and violence as merely a
matter of environment. He particularly wants to show the image that idealistic parents like
Nath do to their children by adhering to this philosophy. To her question why he praised the
book when he did not like it and hated its author, Nath flatly denies that he hates Arun by
taking recourse to the Gandhian doctrine- 'hate sin, not the sinner'. Referring to her own
specific case, Jyothi poses the question as to how to separate the evil Arun from the good
Arun for both are inextricably twined up with each other; Arun is both the passionate lover
and evil tormentor. Jyothi cries out in pain to her father:

JYOTHI: Tell me, where is that beast I should drag out and destroy, where is
that God I should.... from his sleep? Tell me .... Arun is made of all
these things bound together and I have to accept him as he is,
because I cannot reject him [564].

Jyothi's agonised cry is a genuine probe into mystery of human personality. In spite of
her being betrayed, she has not become a skeptic, but she cries for a reason in suffering. She
is not against the noble cause for human existence, but her mind and heart wrestles sincerely
with the problem. Separating evil from man is a universal story of philosophy for centuries
together. She doesn't want to deny or surrender her reasoning for the problem of innate evil in
man. Jyothi, here, resembles her creator Tendulkar who also simply agrees his hopelessness
in giving solutions to the problems of mankind. In fact this kind of attitude can only serve one
to be a conscious agent of a social change. Instead of philosophizing the problem, one needs
to learn to live. As Jyothi tells her father, "I have to stop thinking and learn to live." Jyothi
makes a progressive choice, by destroying an imbibed caste consciousness while ironically
Nath constitute his own requirements of ideal masculinity. The message she leaves with is a
clear one it is not communities that are superior or inferior, but individuals who are so. If at
all change is expected, it should start with an individual.

Talking about the 'Drama Triangle Manchi Sarat Babu applies Rescue Triangle to the
play Kanyadaan. He observes:

Jyothi thus becomes mindless and surrenders to the situation. She, like her
father plays the Rescuer while Arun plays the victim. Her rescuing, at first,
 makes him behave more helplessly and then triggers his feelings of inferiority.
………….. The unreal idealism of Nath and Jyothi reflects their favourite role
of rescuing which impairs their perception of the reality.18

Illustrating the concept of 'gender crossing', of masculinities and femininities, in the

context of caste and family structures, pivotal to the deconstructive dramatic axis of
Tendulkar, Sudha Rai observes: "The deconstructive moment is shaped by Tendulkar as one
wherein individuals transcend the strategies of systemic manipulation, choosing to stand by
their own values of humanity and womanhood. Masculinity is therefore constructed as a
weak and regressive force, prone to violence and corruption. The charge of the
deconstructive moment of theatre lies in the fact that what is achieved at the level of
women's consciousness is a realization that is not only personal, but pierces through the
system as a whole."19

The last words of the play are the indictment over the failure of exogamy in
caste based society. Jyothi's frustrated expression "We shall continue to lose our lives
as guinea pigs in the experiment" [565] is an indirect verdict declaring the tragic end
of inter-caste marriages.

It is often said that in a marriage a father loses his daughter, but Nath loses not only
his paternal authority but the right to love and protect his daughter. Kanyadaan-giving away
of the daughter has been doubly painful to Nath. The ritual meaning of Kanyadaan undergoes
a double reversal here - the father condemns his daughter to fate, worse than death by giving
her away thoughtlessly "to a man who has no good qualities", but it is the daughter who
reminds him of the irreversible nature of the gift. This reversal of roles - in which Jyothi lays
down the conditions of her future life - rewrites the text of Manu while marking a radical
movement in the contemporary treatment of gender. But if Jyothi makes a "heroic" departure,
the real place of victimize is the home she is going to, not the home she has left. Among the
few protagonists in contemporary Indian theatre, male or female, who asserts their will in
order to alter their condition, Jyothi stands apart because she chooses a worse life, not to
continue it but to change it as she resembles Cordelia in King Lear who prepares for the
values, principles and morals she is committed. Veena Noble Dass observes that the image of
woman in contemporary Indian literature has changed drastically. She observes woman is
considered or portrayed as a weak person, or falling at the feet of her husband or trying to
please him always.... Modern writers have tried to transform this image of woman as seen in
the myths by portraying them in a more realistic manner. One such writer is Vijay
Tendulkar.20

Vijay Tendulkar, who is named for his rage of a radical consciousness, for the first
time, shows real life through drama. He feels that drama is no longer make-up and delivering
romantic lines. In The Vultures, the abuse being exchanged between a father and his sons is
shocking. So is the naked language of the market place, and a brothel, being used to describe
human relations is captivating. It is like a slap on the face of all genteel pretensions so far
associated with theatre.

Tendulkar’s response to one of the questions often raised in Marathi circles in

respect of The Vultures how and why is it that Tendulkar sees only the vulture in man? Why
can he not see the ‘eagle’! – has provided ample discussion for this chapter. Tendulkar has
expressed whatever life’s experience kindled his imagination. He needed an idiom which
would allow him to explore the workings of the unconscious mind in an attempt to bring out
the culture mentality residing in the deeper recesses of human psyche.

The paradoxical quality of human nature is not only the rejection of their evil
mentality, but also the exhibition of manipulated outward behaviour. Outwardly they are
saints, but inwardly they are sinners and sadists. Tendulkar’s observation is not theoretical or
philosophical but practical. He expressed some unforgettable memories witnessed in his
childhood days. For him violence is all around us. It is the culmination of festering elements
in many areas. He wonders, in a city like Bombay, one can assassinated like a fly. The cost
of life ranges from Rs.500 to lakhs. There are professionals who survive by regularly killing
other people. When asked why there are scenes of atrocity of bizarre sadism in some of his
plays such as the kicking of pregnant woman in the belly in The Vultures, Tendulkar reacts:

In Gidhade, the cruelty is great because it deals with an exceptional family.

As for what you call perversion, let us accept that human existence is full of it.
We shut our eyes to it, or worse, don’t recognize it when we can come across
its manifestations……………………….. They are outwardly decent folk and
you don’t suspect they have this dark side. So, when I deal with masochism
or homosexuality, I am drawing your attention to something near you.21

The reason why Girish Karnad wrote “the production of Gidhade shocked the state of
Maharastra as if it was hit by a sudden bomb explosion”22 cannot be properly understood
unless one understands Tendulkar’s perceptive observation of human nature. Tendulkar
wrote this play with the conviction that the vulturine instinct in man is deeply rooted.

The vulturine nature dominating the relations of modern man is the motif of the play.
By attempting to explore the meaning of man’s life victimized by sinful nature, Tendulkar
hits the shackles of egalitarians’ belief at two levels. Firstly, Tendulkar seems to be totally
against to the basic belief of Indian mythology aham brahsmi. - I am the Brahma. Secondly,
Tendulkar rejects the creed of humanism which upholds the ultimate goodness of humanity. 23
Tendulkar has made use of family system which is the microcosm of humanity and which
should be the embodiment of humanism.

The play, Gidhade (The Vultures) was produced in May 1970 and published in 1971.
By using analogy of vultures the play dramatizes deep-seated unmitigated depravity,
perversity, greed and diabolic villainy in humanity. The play portrays a family of human
vultures which consists of paternal vulture, his illegitimate son, Rajaninath, Ramakant his
elder son and his wife Rama, his second son Umakant and daughter Manik. Almost all
characters in the play are corrupt and violent except Rajaninath and Rama. The symbol of
vultures is used constantly in referring to the characters, their action and also the screaming
of vultures at the end of almost every scene, where there is necessary. The characters
symbolize the rapacious vultures, their betrayal, their avarice vices and immorality which
evince the repulsive sensuality and domestic violence, manifesting the infernal atrocities of
human inclination towards evilness.

Though the play revolves on different levels and there are various themes that are
brought forth by the dramatist, the most pervasive one is the theme of violent nature of
mankind. Condemning all violence out of hand and try to eradicate even the possibility of
violence from human being is like taking away an essential element of full humanity because;
it is always an ultimate possibility for a self respecting human being. It will be resorted to
less if admitted than suppressed. Thus, violence finds a good illustration in the play. The
play exemplifies both verbal and non-verbal violence.

In the polarization of multi-coloured human nature, according to Tendulkar, violence is

the dominant radiance. He does not consider the occurrence of human violence as something
loathsome or ugly, as it is innate in human nature. Violence is an experience and a reality to
Tendulkar. In response to a question asked by Amitava Kumar about his making as an artist,
Tendulkar told him that when he was 40, he had been awarded a two-year Nehru Fellowship
to research what he had titled “Emerging Patterns of Violence and Its Impact on Literature” 24.
He went throughout India, especially Bihar, equipped with a tape-recorder and two cameras,
and tried to get a sense of ordinary life. He roamed in rural areas as well as mofussill towns.
He traveled to the border. He had visited jails and attended trials but he did not write single
word toward thesis. But he said, every bit of creativity writing that he did afterward had “a
genuine complexity of experienced reality.” 25

The Vultures has a two-act multiple scene structure. Tendulkar punctuates the
structure with the poems. In these sequences, he also suspends the chronological movement
of the play. This gives an interesting twist to the play otherwise conventional in structure.
Scene I of Act I starts with Rajaninath’s poems. Rajaninath like, Samant in Shantata and
Prannarayan in Makabala, is an observer and also a commentator. He is a poet and he too,
like Rama, has a sensitive personality. Tendulkar makes Rajaninath recite three poems, at the
beginning and end of Act I and at the conclusion, which add a special dimension to the play.
The innate compassion of the dramatist, who remains an objective onlooker for a major part
of the play, neither condemning nor judging either the characters or their actions, finds
expression in the lines of these poems. His deep empathy for the victims of human
viciousness flows like an undercurrent throughout the play.

Rajaninath has two roles in the play. In the first place he is the chorus, for it is from
his songs that we know of the past and present of the Pitale family. In the opening scene he
sings a rather long song from which we understand that twenty-two years have passed during
which time the incidents narrated in the play took place. He notices Ramakant and Rama
leaving the house locking it. This sight kindles his memory and begins to write a song. He
remembers the day Ramakant married Rama. She was like a doe brought to the house of the
Pitales. Rajaninath sings:

She was like a doe

An innocent doe, untouched

As loving as the earth. [203] 7

…………………………

But it was no home

Not a home, but a hole in a tree

Where vultures lived

 In the shape of men [204]

Moreover, Ramakant, being an addict to liquor, failed in his duty as a husband to

make a mother of his wife. Rajaninath tells that Rama thus spent twenty years in the
following lines:

“After that living impotence Of twenty-two endless years”

………………………. [202]

But she only knew .One longing, Only one ….

Threw of her chains in her need

The need to swell with fruit” [205]

Manik, her sister-in-law, aborted her and therefore Rama, once again, to quote
Rajaninath, become “empty of pain, And empty of desires”. [206] The house of the vultures
disintegrates. Ramakant becomes a pauper.

The second scene opens with uproars, shoutings and sounds of blows and beatings.
Through these voices audience can understand the antecedent of the story. Pappa Hari Pitale
and his brother Sakharam build up a huge business firm called “The Hari Sakharam
Company” — a construction firm. It is through sheer hard work they achieve this feat. As
days pass by Pappa takes the company from his brother by means of treachery and false law
suits. As a result, Sakharam Pitale finds himself on the street. As a universal law like cause-
effect and as old as human history — ‘as you sow, so you reap’ — Pappas’ sons and daughter
plot against their father and waiting to drive him out one day.

Manik appears to be a hysterical type. She smokes and drinks liquor. Her attitude
towards money and other members of the family reveals her character. When the gardener is
driven out for asking for his wages, Manik’s character reveals itself in her response to Rama:

RAMA: But we haven’t paid him for the last too months….

MANIK: Oh! What a sin! There isn’t enough even for

us? The last two months, I have been dying for that Latest
necklace at Harivallabh’s. [207]
 Manik is an embodiment of materialism. Perhaps nowhere in Indian English
literature one can see a woman like Manik. No Tendulkar’s woman character is like Manik
who is so ugly portrayed as Manik’s does. She pursues poor substitutes in pleasure with
diminishing returns. Tendulkar reminds through her character, how the meaningless pursuit
for pleasure makes her of easy virtue. She prowls and scavenges relentlessly through a
variety of life styles in search of that all-fulfilling treasure. She seems to have forgotten that
this hyperactive pursuit and empty-hearted feelings are not new to the human experience.

Manik’s intention of being alone which results out of her feeling of insecurity is the
essence of modern man. Novelist and writer Thomas Wolf, having himself lived an
emotionally turbulent life, articulated one of the most deeply felt aches within the human
heart:

The whole conviction of my life now rests upon the belief that loneliness,
far from being a rare and curious phenomenon; peculiar to my self and to a
few other solitary people is the central and inevitable feature of human
existence. 26

Hari Pitale is also a smoker. He has a habit of working his toothless mouth. He
doesn’t have any respect for his two sons. He expresses his disgust for his selfish children.

PAPPA: If I die, it’ll be a release! They’re all waiting for it. …….. I
earned it all. Now, these wolves, these bullies! [209]

He is considered as a ‘confounded nuisance’ by his son and eats other’s food and
‘tries to act smart.’ His diseased wife is an enemy to him and left three children with him.
But he becomes a burden to them. When Pappa says it has been his stupidity to produce
bastards like them. Ramakant retorts:

RAMAKANT: Pappa, pappa! As the seed, so the tree! Did we ever ask to be
produced? [211]

Ramakant tells his brother Umakant “a mangy dog would have made a better father.”
[213] Umakant is only too ready to agree with his brother. And all these in the presence of
their own father! However, the old man, hardened by his own past crimes, remains
nonchalant. He doesn’t want to pay his servant. He and his brother hate each other. They both
hate their own sister, Manik. For him lying for business is a convenience. He believes that
money can buy anything like lawyers, courts and justice. Even when Ramakant and Umakant
talk to their own sister about her affair with the Rajah of Hondur, they use obscene language,
which is suggestive of their incestuous nature.

In an interview with Veena Noble Dass27, Tendulkar has said that though he is not
directly influenced by the western dramatists, he had read widely the plays of Arthur Miller
and Tennessee Williams. These two dramatists have written plays depicting the problems of
family life. Miller represents an attempt to move out of the dead lock comic rule by relating
the individual and his family to society. He attempts to turn the connections and energies of
the family situation outward to show a clash between the private loyalties of the household
and the public responsibilities of living in society.28

The tendency of portraying a clash between the private loyalties of the household and
the public responsibilities in society can be seen in Tendulkar’s characterization. Tennessee
Williams dramatizing an inward tendency asserts the painful isolation of life and tests the
inner psychological limits of individual existence. Tendulkar while reading these two
playwrights had come across the problem of family and its strife and violence which he
depicted in this play also bears great affinity to the Black theatre of America.

Scene four is a kind of tragic relief in the play. Set against these scenes of violence
are those involving Rama and Rajaninath who live in the garage as an outcast. Rajaninath
helplessly watches the ordeals that Rama undergoes in the house of vultures. The love and
affection between Rama and Rajaninath is a kind of coincident that almost arises out of a
sense of helplessness and an attempt to escape from the ugliness of the internal and
interpersonal family violence. Through her character, Tendulkar is able to create a sensitive,
naturally kind and good hearted individual. She is like a helpless, submissive tender little
bird among the vultures. Her character proves to be the possibility of maintaining values in
spite of prevailing wicked conditions. Here, audience can see the similarity between the
vulturic male characters in The Vultures and that of Silence! The Court is in Session.
Tendulkar himself underscored the similarity between Shantata and Gidhade.

In Gidhade it is the pack of human vultures pitched against a defenceless

female character, the wife of Ramakant. In Shantata it is Miss. Benare
against a pack of middle-class vultures. In Gidhade, Rajaninath, that bastard
brother suffers for the defenceless female in the play. In Shantata it was the
character of Samant who did it for the psychologically molded Miss. Benare.29
 Like Rama, Rajaninath has a sensitive personality. His deep empathy for the victims
of human viciousness flows like an undercurrent throughout the play. If one recalls
Tendulkar ambivalent ‘ethics’, the split between the social self and the more individualistic
writer self, one can read something of the ‘writer’ in Rajaninath, who watches the violent
disintegration of the family, and bears witness to it. But like Tendulkar, he maintains the
‘coldness’ that allows him to record the cruelty of the people involved in the process, without
interfering in it. But one should not think that by creating such character Tendulkar has
vainly fluttered in the romantic world. Applying Rajaninath’s most convinced philosophical
statement to his creator, Diwan Singh Bajeli observes:

Through his character Rajaninath, he questioned middle class intellectuals

and asked them to discover their own identity in a world afflicted with
economic and social chaos.30

Fifth scene dramatizes the most violent incident in the play. After driving away
Sakharam, Ramakant, Umakant and Manik make their Pappa drink to extract the truth about
the money. The sons pretend to fight each other with the father getting trapped between
them. Pappa gets injured. In order to escape from further assault, he admits to them that he
has deposited some money in the Punjab Bank. He says pathetically:

PAPPA: [shouting]. “There’s no more you devils! There’sn’t!

That’s all there is, really. Please don’t kill me! I am
your father, you pimps! Your father!” [230]

In most violent and cursive way they get signature on the cheque book. However, his
refusal to part with the money enrages his children who try to kill him. Therefore, Pappa
runs and to quote Rajaninath:

RAJANINATH: The oldest vulture, The stubborn ghost

……………………. Departed from the hollow
of a tree where he lived [232]

All the Pitale’s drink, and liquor flows like a river in the house. It is liquor that makes
them violent and ruthless towards one another. The people, who believe that they can enjoy
the life with monitory pleasures, become more and more miserable in their pursuit. The
drunkards and drug addicts who try to forget themselves and their problems under the
influence of intoxication will face the reality when they come back and lose their joy.
Through the scene it is very clear that man is not only constantly failing in defining pleasure
principle but also searching for it in wrong places.

The theme of violence pervades quite blatantly in most of Tendulkar’s plays. Ever
since he wrote Silence! The Court is in Session, he has discovered that violence makes man
fascinating and there are many variations in the way violence manifest itself in the way man
expresses it. He does not consider the occurrence of human violence as something loathsome
or ugly as it is innate in human nature. He believes that violence is a basic quality. When
this understanding of human nature is translated into a play it not only becomes an explosive
piece of art but a thesis. Tendulkar unabashedly presents and defends it. According to him
the most important point is to keep the violent raw while depicting it on stage, not to dress it
up with many fancy trappings and not to make it palatable. He said it must be acutely
disturbing.

The fact that both Ramakant and Umakant want to get rid of their sister becomes clear
in Scene 1 of Act II. Playing game of cards of members of a family for serious transaction of
money not only stuns the audience but also alerts them how human relations have been
gradually taking the shape of commercial dimensions. At the game of cards, Umakant is
about to choke Manik to death. Watching these Ramakant goads on Umakant saying:

RAMAKANT: “Don’t bloody let her go. Umya! Drag the bloody
money out! Look, how she’s wriggling! Squash her bloody
neck! Twist it!” [235]

His words reveal the inherent violence in him. Discussing Manik’s love affair with
the Raja of Hondur, Umakant tells Ramakant that he might marry her “If her belly swells
out.” (236) If It happens, they can blackmail the Hondur fellow for money. In this regard
Ramakant says:

RAMAKANT: Ha! Who’s going to tell her? Let her make love! Romance!
Picnics! I tell you, in any case, sooner or late, this Raja’s
going to give her slip! Bloody bet you he will!”[236]

Tendulkar portrays the barrenness of Rama and Rajaninath through their utterances.
Rajaninath accepts how his and Rama’s presence among other vultures have been corrupted.
He says:

RAMAKANT: My blood corrupts. It’s in the family. First your blood

rots. Then your brain decays. And then, throughout the
 body, it’s as if a wild animal’s rampaging. Thirsting
for blood. You humanity itself gets destroyed.[238]

She is disgusted with her husband’s drunken-love making and feels commit sati every
moment. It is a living death of her wifehood. So, she declares to Rajaninath her intention of
immolating herself. Rajaninath, sensitive to Rama’s yearnings to become a mother, reacts
positively.

The way Tendulkar depicted the mental upheaval of Rama and her agony of
unfulfilled desire after she sees the half naked Rajaninath is highly intense and sensitive.
Here Tendulkar has paid a fulsome compliment to female sexuality. In the soliloquy of Rama
it appears as if the age-old oppression of the womankind and her pent-up unfulfilled desires
for sexual transaction finds an outlet by angrily setting aside all the confines of
conventionality. The intensity with which she embraces Rajaninath after the soliloquy is like
a river breaking through all its dams. Rama’s relationship with Rajaninath in the play has
been interpreted and understood in diverse ways. According to Dr. Shriram Lagoo there is
something archetypal and primordial in this embrace. 31 Veena Noble Dass observes ‘an
affair’32 between them. As an approver, Kalindi Deshpande, tries to establish an eternal truth
in this connection. She feels:

Because of this archetypal appeal although Rama’s action may appear

adultery in the eyes of the world, the reader/spectator does not disapprove of
her33

Arundhati Benerji in her Introduction to the play comments —

Her (Rama) illicit relationship with her half-brother-in-law… may raise a

few conservative eyebrows… but one has to admit that it is the single
genuine and human relationship in the context of the whole play. The
sexual aspect of their association is merely an extension of their love which
is the only redeeming feature in the morbid and claustrophobic atmosphere
of the family.34

As Ramakant and Umakant exhaust their share of money and want some more,
together they decide to blackmail the Raja of Hondur who is in love with Manik and
impregnated her. So, in order to prevent her from meeting her lover further and informing
her lover about their blackmailing him, they hatch a plot to break Manik’s leg. They
ruthlessly execute the plan and hope to get twenty five thousand rupees from the Raja of
Hondur. However, a phone call informs them that the Raja of Hondur has died of heart
attack. As a result, their plan of black mailing Manik’s lover is vanished. In a rage, they say
each other:

UMAKANT: Let’s knock him out! The Raja in little Manik’s belly!

RAMAKANT: An idea, dammit! Let’s abort him! … Come on! Let’s

finish off the Raja’s bloody offspring. First come on!
Little Manik scream till she bloody burst! How she’ll
scream, dammit. What a bloody riot! Knock him out!
[247]

So, they break Manik’s room open and Ramakant kicks Manik’s belly hard. She
aborts, and in sheer agony runs away. Another vulture, thus, leaves the hollow of the Pitale’s
house. This is another most violent scene in the play. Though in keeping with the tone of the
rest of the play, this particular incident is strongly disturbing. Behind the curtain the action
takes place in most unexpected way. To quote from the text:

Then there is a rapping on a door-kicks and blows on it. ‘Manik, open the door!
… All this rises to a crescendo. Then, in a moment, a horrific scream from
Manik. In another moment, Manik, screaming terrifyingly comes. Half-
crawling down the stairs. One leg in plaster. Her white sari soiled with blood.
Pressing one hand to her abdomen, writhing in pain, looking back constantly,
she exits through the front door. [248]

Tendulkar touches the most crucial issues of the contemporary society. The issue of
abortion has never been more studied, offered up, and pondered to in public, yet we have
never been more confused about what is right or, for that matter, even normal in such
expressions. The debate over abortion is admittedly complex. It has medical, legal,
theological, ethical, social and personal aspects. It is also a highly emotional subject, for it
touches on the mysteries of human sexuality and reproduction, and often involves acutely
painful dilemmas. As an ever growing problem, it is evident that the number of legal and
illegal abortions throughout the world has been increasing. But for ‘pro’ and ‘anti’
abortionists, it has become an ethical dilemma for debate. However, though, the abortion is
more a woman’s issue than a man’s, Tendulkar shows how patriarchy has made the inevitable
role of man in cases of Benare in Silence! The Court is in Session and Manik and Rama in
The Vultures. Moreover, Tendulkar as an exponent of modern psyche and human nature
makes it clear that ‘coercive abortions’ and ‘unjustifiable feticides’ are the results of illegal
relationships from any either party. He seems to have an opinion that any society which can
tolerate these things has been ceased to be civilized and signs of decadence.

Many critics think that Tendulkar’s plays deal with the violence in its various forms.
But Tendulkar contradicts them:

Even in plays like Sakharam Binder and The Vultures, the theme is not
violence. Violence comes as a way of life – a natural way of life if you
consider the background of the characters. It is there as part of the
functioning of a character.35

Kumar Ketkar complains that Tendulkar “began to fondle the theme of violence
mindlessly.”36 When material things become more important than man, loveless people will
resort to any gross atrocity. As Tendulkar feels, violence becomes a natural consequence of
such a situation. However, if Tendulkar is considered to be a writer of radical consciousness,
it is due to his exploitation of theme of violence as an ultimate emergence of human distorted
relations.

Rama becomes pregnant. Ramakant takes care for her thinking that the seed that
grows in her womb is his. His belief is so firm, that when Umakant informs of the real
source of Rama’s pregnancy, he assaults him. Rama feels claustrophobic and says to her
husband, “This house is devouring me.” [249] She begs him to be with her. But he insists
that he should leave to look after his business. She finally implores him in anguish:

RAMA: Take a job somewhere! Whatever you get. Never mind if it

doesn’t pay well. ……. But lets’ finish this death by
imprisonment. Let’s end this dreadful play – acting…. Let’s get
out of this overpowering house. Go far away. No, one, no one
at all can live happily here. Not at all… never at all. [250-51]

Rama intuitively knows that material prosperity may give satisfaction but cannot be a
solution to despair. For her, the house is full of individualism, competitiveness and power
games. Thus she feels insecure and says “I see lots of things. I hear them too. I feel so very,
very scared.” [248] Such a house cannot accommodate love, compassion and joy. It is a real
hell. The message of the play is very clear. The modern man has taller buildings, but shorter
tempers; bigger houses and smaller families; more degrees, but less common sense; more
knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems. One has multiplied ones
possessions but reduced values. One talks too much, loves too seldom. One has more
acquaintances but fewer friends. These are the times of steep profits and shallow
relationships. Modern man has learned to make a living, but not a life; add years to life, not
life to years he knows more how to destroy than how to construct. These are the times of
world peace, but domestic warfare. This paradoxical nature of humanity can be clearly seen
in the words Ramakant, who is intoxicated by egoism and male chauvinism. He cannot
perceive the wisdom of his wife’s advice; nor can he understand her agony. So, he says to
her:

RAMAKANT: “Look here, Rama! In this house, we’re not

accustomed to listening to any smartness from
woman! No man in our family’s been a bloody hen
pecked husband, what? I know very well indeed what
to do, what not to do. No need for a woman to teach
me sense.” [251]

As individual degradation is increasing, the gradual disintegration of the family is also

clearly seen. Ramakant becomes pauper. Ramakant and Umakant quarrel for sharing the
business and property. Umakant learns that there is a double mortgage on their house.
Ramakant advises his brother to go ahead with his flourishing business and leave the house to
him. But Umakant demands him to settle their account about their father’s hidden property,
their sister’s money and mother’s jewels. “Otherwise” he says “I’ll quit when I’ve got every
single paisa, you bastard! I won’t let you get away with it! I’ll sit on your neck. I’ll make you
puke it out!” [255] Then, he tells his brother that his wife is carrying in her womb the child of
Rajaninath with chapter and verse. This enrages Ramakant, and he scolds Umakant and
twists his hand. So, Umakant goes out. Ramakant calls Rama down and talks to her tenderly
only to elicit her tender feelings for Rajaninath. Unknowingly Rama pours out her concern
for Rajaninath.

RAMA: I am there. But how long can I last him? Not this whole
life. Surely. I sometimes think who’ll marry about him
there? Who’ll ask him to eat, to drink! Who’ll ask him,
‘Bhaiya, did you sleep well! Have you dined? And I suppose
there’s no one left to care. Then what’ll happen to his mind,
so tormented already?[257]
 In the mean time, Hari Pitale, the Pappa, and Manik have been hanging around the
house, thirsty for revenge. Hari Pitale realizes that his legitimate children will kill him for
property. He knows that Rajaninath, his illegitimate son, is human. So, he seeks his
protection from his own children and promises Rajaninath to make his ‘will’ in his favour by
back dating. He says:

PAPPA: I am telling you. I can’t endure this, Rajani. Nor would you.
This must be changed. Listen to what I’m telling you. I’m
behind you. … I’ve made a new will. A backdated one.
I’ve got hold of a lawyer for the seal, too. In this will, I’ve
divided the whole estate between you and Manik... [259]

Rajaninath is repulsed by the property as it has made the people loveless vultures.
He detests the very idea of inheriting the property. So, he cannot show any compassion to
him and mercilessly asks him to get out.

Pappa Pitale is a one who has lost his guilt consciousness. In spite of his rearing
children in such that way that they attempted to kill him, he doesn’t seem to have any traces
of repentance. This is one of the interesting things with Tendulkar. Audience can hardly see
a kind of ‘repentance’ in Tendulkar’s characters. The problem of guilt is the battle for court
rooms, philosophy for class rooms, a corner stone of all neuroses in psychology, central
theme to the pulpits and crux of the problem to private lives. Though, this universal feeling
has been tackled effectively throughout literature from Shakespeare to Dostoevsky,
Tendulkar’s ignorance of the issue should not be misunderstood. Tendulkar’s characters like
Sakharam and Pitales do not dismiss guilt as cultural or deny it by innocence. They suppress
it under the weight of their egos. Guilt can be smoothed by pride. Rama tries to conceal it
and lives with the fear of exposure, which is one of the most tormenting ways. All these
wicked characters of Tendulkar seem to expel all personal guilt with brazen conviction of
irreverence and irrelevance which finally, end up victimizing themselves. Victimless crimes
are an illusion.

Pappa collides with Ramakant who has been eavesdropping. So, he runs away.
Manik comes to the garage triumphantly announcing that she has succeeded in aborting
Rama by black magic. She says:

MANIK: “I have done it … I’ve done as I planned. I cut the

lemon … I rubbed the ash. Seven times, on my loins and
 stomach! It’s going to abort … Sister-in-law’s baby’s going
to abort. [260]

Ramakant, in utter despair, caused by drunkenness behaves like a mad. He sings and
dances. He doesn’t allow Umakant into house and suspects his intention of grabbing house
through black magic, he says “Brother … the day after one new moon. I found a lemon, a
coconut and red power, in the bloody grounds … The ghost was in your bloody control! And
was sucking me dry!”[262]Talking about the belief system of Pitale’s family Veena Noble
Dass observes: “The play is of lower middle class beliefs in superstitions and black magic
and whose intellect is blunted by their sadistic temperament.” 37 Apart from their materialism,
momentary pleasures, it is clear that their mechanical religious belief has blunted their faculty
of reason. Religion, which is expected to create common good, lacks moral vision in Pitale’s
family. This is not only an example of the theatre of cruelty, but also a fore runner of a new
genre theatre which is emerging that explore and examine the religious and social behaviour
of dominant middle class society. Man behaves as he believes. The play alerts pseudo
religious intellectuals to be aware of the paradoxical nature of religion. No doubt, in
emerging materialistic and scientific advancing society, spiritual values are almost
disappeared in spite of ever growing religious rituals.

As the play comes to an end, Ramakant who is stricken by drunkenness and is

suspected for his potency by Rama and Rajaninath ruthlessly aborts Rama for the child is not
his. At the end of the play, Rajaninath expresses his hidden compassion for the loveless
vultures in the family though they have ill treated him:

The tale of the five vultures. Had this end.

The story of men accursed. Or else of vultures cursed.

Top live their men. Oh, show them some compassion. [265]

There is no evidence in the play to show that Ramakant causes with Rajininath song
which begins in the form of a prayer to God to show the Pitale’s the right path. But, he also
knows that all is in vain, for they do all these knowingly as waste landers though they know
that “there is no escape for them, No there is none”.[265] Sustaining this very thought,
psychologists, Frank Mimirth and Paul Meier in their book Happiness is a Choice observe:

Dr. Mimirth and I are convinced that many people do choose happiness but
still do not obtain it. The reason for this is that even though they choose to
 be happy, they seek for inner peace and joy in the wrong
places………………………………………………………..……………
They have everything this world has to offer except one thing inner peace
and joy. Why? The answer is not simple. The human mind and emotions
are a very complex, dynamic system. 38

The last scene of the play ends with some kind of dramatic puzzle. One is not sure it
is the end if the child has been really ‘pushed’ out of Rama’s belly, as Ramakant has once
threatened. Far as the first is scene drawn back, in the continuity of the storm and wind
sounds, one almost feels that Ramakant has come to terms with the ‘bastard’; but again, in
Rajaninath last prayer to ‘point out them’:

The burning ground and its ghat

Where the sinful soul

Burns off its being

Takes its first free breath. [265]

 REFERENCES

1. "Natak Ani Mee", Selected Writings on Theatre, Vijay Tendulkar, Dimple

Publications, Thane, 1997, p.l40

2. Nutan Gosavi, "Kanyadaan: An Expose of Political Progressives" Vijay

Tendulkar's Plays: An Anthology of Recent Criticism, Ed., by V.M.Madge, Pencraft
International, Delhi, 2007, p. 153

3. "Natak Ani Mee" Selected writings on theatre, Vijay Tendulkar, Dimple Publication,
Thane, 1997,pp.96-97.

4. Maya Pundit, "Representation of Family in Modern Marathi Plays: Tendulkar, Dalvi

and Elkunchwar", Vijay Tendulkar's plays: An Anthologgy of Modern Criticism. Ed
by V.M. Madge, Pencraft International, Delhi,.2007, p.68

5. E.A. Westmark, History of Human Marriage. New York, Penguin Paperback.,

1985,p.59.

6. Putney Fullerton Gail, Survival in Marriage: Introduction to Family Interaction,

Conflict and Alternations New York, Halt, Rinehart Winston.Inc. 1972, P.211.

7. Nutan Gosavi, "Kanyadaan: An Expose ofs Political Progressives," Vijay Tendulkar's

Plays: An Anthology of Recent Criticism, Ed., by V.M.Madge, Pencraft International,
Delhi, 2007, p. 155

8. Eleanor Zelliot From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on Ambedkar Movement, New

Delhi, Manohar, 1992.2673

9. P. Lakshmi, Narsu. A Study of Caste. Asian Educational Services, New Delhi,

2003, P.131.

10. Vijay Tapas. "Tendulkar: The Number Two Anti-Dalit", Adhikar Raksha, Bulletin of
the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, Bombay, Jan-June 1983, p.64.

11. Baburao Bagal. "Dalit Literature is but Human Literature". Poisoned Bread:
Translations from Marathi Dalit Literature, (Ed) Arjun Dangle, Hyderabad, Orient
Longman, 1992.p, 273.

12. Nirad.C.Chowdary. "A Marriage in Hindu Society." To Live or Not to Live: Delhi,
Hind Pocket Books (p) Ltd., 1992, p, 163.
13. Vijay Tendulkar. "NatakAni Mee", Selected Writings on Theatre Tendulkar,
Dimple Publications, Thane, l997"Mazha Natya Shikshan"My Theatre Education,
p.96-97.

14. Shanta Gokhale. "Tendulkar on His Own Terms": Vijay Tendulkar's Plays an
Anthology of Recent Criticism, (Ed) V.M.Madge, Pencraft International, Dilhi, 2007,
p.45

15. Kancha Ilaiah, "Why I am not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva

Philosophy" Culture and Political Economy, Calcutta, Samya, 1996, p.33-34.

16. L.S. Ainapur. "Abolition of Caste", Ambedkar's Perspective: Ambedkar and Social
Justice. vo-11. New Delhi. Director Publication Division, Ministry of Information and
Broad Casting, 1992, p, 167.

17. Dostoesky Fyodar. The Brothers Karamazov.Trans.Andrew R. Mac Andrew New

York, Batam, 1981,p,269.

18. Munchi Sarat Babu. Indian Drama Today: A Study in the Theme of Cultural
Deformity, (New Delhi, Sangam Books Ltd., 1997, p.73.

19. Sudha Rai. "Gender Crossing: Vijay Tendulkar's Deconstructive Axis in Sakharam
Binder, Kamala and Eanyadaan". Contemporary Indian Drama: Astride Two Roads.
(Ed) Urmil Talwar and Bandana Chakravarthy.Delhi, 2005, Rawat Publications, p.
103.

20. Veena Noble Dass. "Women Characters in the Plays of Tendulkar", New Directions
in Indian Drama (Ed) Sudhakar Pandey and Freya Barva Prestige publications, New
Delhi, 1994, p.11

21. Vijay Tendulkar In Conversation With Gowri Ramnarayan: Interview, Vijay

Tendulkar’s Plays an Anthology of Recent Criticism, (Ed) V.M.Madge, Pencraft
International, Delhi, 2007, p, 50.

22. A.P Dani. Vijay Tendulkar’s Gidhade and John Webster’s the Duchess of Malfi. Vijay
Tendulkar’s Plays an Anthology of Recent Criticism, (Ed) V.M.Madge, Pencraft
International, Delhi, 2007, p, 50.

23. Ian Brownlie. (Ed).Basic Documents on Human Rights, Claredon, 1981. P. 103.
24. Amitav Kumar. “Rage of Radical Consciousness. Literary Review”, The Hindu.1June,
2008, p. 3.

25. Ibid, p, 4.

26. Thomas Wolf. God’s Lovely Man in the Hills Beyond, New York, Plume.New
American Library, 1982.p, 146.

27. Veena Noble Dass. “Vijay Tendulkar Interviewed”, Bombay: 1984, (Unpublished)

28. Arthur Miller. The Family in Modern Drama. Atlantic Monthly.Vol.197, April1956,
p, 35.

29. Samik Bandhopadhyaya. Introduction. Vijay Tendulkar, Collected Plays In

Translation, Fourth Impression, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2007,xi

30. Divan Beljei Singh. “Curtains Down on an Epochal Era” The Hindu, Tribute,
Magazine Review, 21, May, ix.

31. Vijay Tendulkar. “Natak Ani Mee”, Selected Writings on Theatre Tendulkar, Dimple
Publications, Thane, 1997,“Mazha Natya Shikshan”My Theatre Education, p.36.

32. Veena Noble Dass. Modern Indian Drama in English Translation. Hyderabad: 1988.
p, 92.

33. Desh Pande. Capitulation To Conservation: Vijay Tendulkar’s Women Characters.

Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays: an Anthology of Recent Criticism, (Ed) V.M.Madge,
Pencraft International, Delhi, 2007, p, 90.

34. Arundhati Banerjee. Introduction: Five Plays by Vijay Tendulkar, Bombay: Oxford
UP, 1992.p.xiii.

35. Vijay Tendulkar. Interview the Indian Express.27, March, 1983, Magazine Section,
5.

36. Ketkar Kumar. “Vijay Tendulkar’s Human Zoo”, The Illustrated Weekly of India, 27
Nov, 1983, p.24.

37. Veena Noble Dass. Modern Indian Drama in English Translation. Hyderabad:
1988.p, 132.

38. Minirith .Frank .B. And Paul D.Mier. Happiness Is A Choice. Grand Rapids, Michi,
Baker, 1994, p, 13.
Chapter-7

Conclusion
Tendulkar: A Genius par Excellence

Tendulkar is true to his age and faithfully presented the contemporary situations
authentically. Never does he eulogize or exaggerate. Never is he idealistic in his depiction of
the society. All that is wretched made him unrest. The violence, the oppression, the
exploitation, the aggression in the society are the themes he has dealt with in his plays. He
refused either to theorize or to reform but portrayed middle class individuals with all the
strengths and weaknesses against the backdrop of a hostile society.

Marathi drama has its own tradition and further has adjusted itself to the new trends
especially focusing on social relevance. In this context, Tendulkar establishes himself as a
peculiar artist by following a realistic pattern in his plays. Continual innovation in the field
of performing arts and more particularly in the plays written with the ‘stage’ in focus is of
great significance. The need for novelty on the stage and the resultant better response from
the audience makes heavy demands on dramatists and constant experimentation with the
‘form’ sometimes touches the contours of obsession. Though Tendulkar is not exemption to
this category, certainly his theatre has quenched the want of the living theatre. By raising
controversies and turbulent oppositions, his plays have registered a remarkable growth in
Indian dramatic history.

By inspiring many of his contemporaries, his plays have contributed to the growing
richness of contemporary creative consciousness. His diverse themes have made the study of
Indian literature so crucial and meaningful for the modern man. He has replaced cynicism by
modernism and overcome the victimization of regionalism. He introduced intellectualism
through ‘holistic experience’ of modern man and woman. He shifted the readers’ sight from
Euro-centric modernism to Indian modernism. By making common man as his hero, he
rejected the function of myth. His plays helped to refine Marathi drama that was so far
polluted by propaganda for political awakening, and social reforms, cheap and vulgar
entertainment.

It is significant that most of Tendulkar’s plays are gyno-centric. Moreover, as a

playwright, he seems often to be on the side of feminists, for, he projects women as victims
of chauvinistic oppression. The male figuring in his art emerges as puerile creatures, for; he
portrays them as embodiments of hypocrisy, selfishness and treachery. Among them are
people like Kashikar, Sukhatme, Ponkshe, Karnik, Sakharam Binder and Jadhav whose
words and deeds expose their inherent malice and hypocrisy. Women, on the other hand, are
portrayed as helpless victims of the conspiracies hatched by men. Though, Tendulkar’s
women like Sarita, Benare, and Champa are made to realize their hellish conditions, they are
helpless to come out from the situation.
 However, by introducing ‘reverse’ in their characters, the playwright has given
another dimension to the women characters in modern drama. Their struggle to ‘go against’
proves their self-assertion and self-respect. Though the sin is established against Benare, she
does not allow killing herself and her womb. Sarita may resolve to continue to be a slave, but
she decides to continue to be a better-half to impart her love and compassion. Though
Champa is hired and fired, used and abused from her childhood, she does not turn back from
exercising her freedom and to be natural, even at the cost of her life. Interestingly, innocent
Kamala also has become a powerful weapon in the hands of the playwright to bring a turn in
Sarita’s life. At the same time, there are some women like Gulabi and Mrs. Kashikar who
can’t think beyond the reality of their womanhood and are carried away by their passions of
flesh and society.

Tendulkar’s satirical barbs are targeted against various maladies of the society and
individual. Silence! The Court is in Session satirizes the respectable façade of middle class
men such as Kashikar, Sukhatme, Ponkshe and Karnik. The play satirizes the values they
profess. These men are utterly hollow in their day-to-day life, and hence, are impatient with
Benare, a successful teacher who leads a fairly independent life in society. Kamala is a satire
on trendy journalism – the kind practiced by self-seeking journalists like Jaisingh Jadhav,
who sacrifices human values in the name of humanity itself. Sakharam Binder is another
powerful satire on the irresponsible relationships of men and women. Ghashiram Kotwal is a
political and religious satire, which ridicules the hegemonic democracy and Indian Brahman
societies.

Tendulkar successfully brought out the ugly cultural deformity of society through his
plays. He depicted gender deformity in Kamala, political deformity in Ghashiram Kotwal,
physical deformity in Sakharam Binder, intellectual deformity in Silence! The Court is in
Session. In his plays, one finds people using violence, sex, money and intelligence to get
pleasure, power and success. Though there are no direct traces to establish intellectualism in
his plays, Tendulkar tends to point out, here and there, the existing values from that point of
view. In Silence! The Court is in Session! he depicted the futile attempt of the law to punish
the real culprit in the society. He also hinted that ‘Law and Order’ could only control the
external behaviour of man but not internal motifs. In Kamala, he suggests how ‘education’
the greatest source of man’s inspiration and salvation can be misused and manipulated. And
he was successful in projecting the distorted values of the media, which could be said to be
the protector of democracy. In Sakharam Binder and Ghashiram Kotwal too, he explored the
Institution of marriage, which is intended to establish the purity in society.

Tendulkar dealt with gender in equality in Kamala in which Kamala and Sarita are
pitted against the hegemonic Jadhav. In Sakharam Binder the theme of sex and violence are
presented with a stunning reality and also in Ghashiram Kotwal, sex, power, exploitation are
stock ingredients for all of his plays. He bitterly criticized certain institutions either social or
political. Marriage, caste in Kanyadaan, media in Kamala, the family in The vultures,
political institutions like State and Power in Ghashiram Kotwal and Encounter in
Umbuzland, sexual mores in Sakharam Binder makes one connotative.

The cardinal ethical, moral questions that he raised in his plays were not properly
answered as had been pointed out by Amol Palekar, the actor. The solutions are left to the
audience because certain questions cannot be answered for life is like that.

Tendulkar’s portrayal of women in his plays was vivid and they bore his mark. They
were neither completely defeated nor they met the expectations of the audience. For
example, Benare and Kamala are women with shrewdness and Champa in Sakharam Binder
come under this category. They are not weak but they make their mark in facing the
challenges.

Another issue that Tendulkar discussed was the meaningless behavior of the modern
man. Modern man is not natural. He has assumed many artificial traits, perversions in the
name of advancement or variety. The problem that Tendulkar mostly touched was that
modern man was losing certain basic feelings and duties towards another man. The
conviction that motivated his characters was finally leading them to the ditch. It is the fact
that the individuals in his plays are cheating themselves and cheating others.

The cruel attacks of the society on the weaker sections of the society, leading to their
undue sufferings is a stock theme for Tendulkar. Ghashiram, a victim of corrupt moral and
ethical values in the society is well depicted. Sakharam is a victim on one hand and on the
other hand, his own weakness brings his downfall. He imposes his own code of conduct,
exercising power in his house.

The morbid fascination that Tendulkar is exercising in his plays delineates the
disillusionment of modern man. The delinquent nature of Sakharam, Ghashiram and Nana is
sometimes shocking. Tendulkar is real and frank both in his writings and life. He feels that
the human situation is so complex that we can hardly suggest any viable solutions. It is not
his pessimism towards life but it is his truthfulness one can see in his plays. “A writer is not
a social scientist, nor is he an astrologer. He does not strive for answers on a mathematical
basis,”1 Tendulkar affirms.

As a seeker of liberty and truth and as a journalist and a dramatist, he never tries to
inflict his fellow human beings by establishing his own ideologies and solutions, but he says,
“I try to take my audience with me in this exploration. At its best, it can provide insights into
the great jigsaw puzzle of human existence and enriches ones understanding of life”. 2
Therefore, the issues raised in Tendulkar’s plays continue to be relevant today, and it is an
admission of defeat for present generation and the era as a whole. However, if there is a
rebellion, Tendulkar had declared, “I must, therefore, warn you that I will continue to
write….”3

When comes to the aspect of God and religion in his plays, they have their
minimized role that is beyond to effect human nature. Religion is shown in his plays as
something ritualistic, showy but not instrumental. Uncertain and cynical nature of the
modern ways has nothing to do with religion. It is something that cannot influence corrupt
society.

Tendulkar is critical about prevailing human values that make a mockery of the
society. He sounds satirical when one reads his Silence! The Court is in Session and his other
socio and political plays. Power has the neurotic effect on his individuals. Ghashiram
Kotwal and Encounter in the Umbuzland best illustrate this point. The murderous attitude of
some characters is a serious threat to mankind.

Satire, irony, pathos and mock elements are the weapons of the writer. Tendulkar
uses the above things to dissect persons’ characters, social evils, and the hollowness of
human values to condem.

It is the family drama that is more vital in his plays rather than stories of adventure.
With his, there is no morale aim, no glorification nor idealization, no preaching or no
teaching. Morbidity, vulgarity, pathos, struggles, ditching one another, exploitation, husband
against wife, father against his son or daughter; the strong against the weak mark his plays. If
one wants to escape from reality his plays are not ones choice. His plays are suitable for study
of reality, a naked reality which is stunning, morbid. There is helpless cry of women heard or
unheard. And also there is writer’s question challenging the society towards the end of the
play which is latent and implied. The victim in his plays agitates the mental peace.

Tendulkar is brutally honest with himself. Whatever he said from his point of view
had force of conviction that one cannot deny. One may agree or disagree with him, but one
errantly cannot ignore Tendulkar. He frankly accepted the reality of humanity. He didn’t
want to manipulate himself and the human situation. In an interview he says:

Man is a complex phenomenon; any attempt at simplification through

generalization would be foolish. I feel it also falsifies the picture, I
wouldn’t do that, it’s an obsession with me to capture human behaviour,
exclusive and ever-changing. At every stage, what I perceived has been
reflected in my work. Its not that I am writing now on a conclusion
reached long ago.4

The family drama in Sakharam Binder is typical of any modern family. The polarities
in the outlook of women, Western or Oriental, traditional or modern are highly impressive in
his plays. These polarities in character can be seen in Champa and Laxmi (Sakharam
Binder). Champa who is rough, rude, reckless, outspoken and at the same time compassionate
is a typical woman of lower middle class family. On the other hand, Laxmi who symbolizes
Savitri of Hindu Puranas is quite opposite to Champa in her religious practices by submitting
to Sakharam and safe-guarding her ‘pathivrathyam’.

Women who are expelled from home are considered disgraceful, serious and
catastrophic in any family drama in the world, either Western or Eastern society. This
situation is far worse in India. Today number of women are expelled from their secured
places and face a hostile society. Laxmi who was once expelled from home by her husband
is not ready to be expelled for the second time by Sakharam. Champa who herself left home
thinking that it is better live with another man instead of living with an impotent husband is a
routine family scene one can see in the society. She is also not willing to leave Sakharam’s
home for the second time and silently bears the sexual exploitation in the hands of Sakharam,
who uses her body day and night.

Home is not only a place of living for any woman but it is a symbol of security for
their chastity and dignity. Otherwise, their condition would be as worse as a bitch. Home is
a temple for woman and the husband is her God as per Hindu concept of family.

Conflict between two women living in the same house is another family drama, well
presented in Tendulkar’s plays. The arguments and the intrigues, the competition to win the
favour of the husband and the beatings women receive from husbands are stock elements in
his plays. Even a powerful husband is weak before the powerful arguments of his wife. It is
her powerful weapon with which she softens her husband.
 Crisis starts in Sakharam’s home when the two women, Champa and Laxmi compete
with each other to win Sakharam’s favour. Ultimately, it is Champa who wins him with her
sexual appeal and erotic body. Finally, Sakharam expels Laxmi from his house who after a
few days comes back home with the intervention and help of Champa. But irony is that
Laxmi towards the end of the play betrays Champa and finally Champa is killed by
outrageous Sakharam for having illegal relationship with Sakharam’s friend.

The play has something significant to say about man-woman relationship and about
the institution of marriage, the dominant theme in most of Tendulkar’s plays. Laxmi and
Champa are not only two women coming into Sakharam’s life but they represent two
tendencies and having a different attitude to life. Laxmi represents values like purity,
patience, and charity whereas Champa stands for a carefree attitude to life that looks upon the
body entirely as a medium of pleasure and she is interested in finding out the manliness in
man. The presentation of conflict between these two visions makes the use of bold and
explicit idiom artistically inevitable. Sakharam Binder begins to unravel its meaning only
when one grants this basic inevitability of the idiom. The grey in the pure whiteness of
Laxmi’s character is provided by her pious arrogance, the kind that believes and sees itself as
being full of virtue and betrays those who don’t hold to this kind of religion.

One can see the working of masculinity and femininity in Sakharam Binder. In Act
III the binaries of traditional masculinity and femininity collapse, with the establishing of the
courtesy and caring relationship of the two ‘mistresses’, Champa and Laxmi. These women,
as a subversive counter discourse to patriarchy, slit male impotency. However, the female
bonding that has the potential to fracture the supremacy of the male is thwarted when
Sakharam murders Champa by squeezing her neck, after Laxmi leaks out Champa’s infidelity
with Dawood.

Tendulkar locates violence in lower class Indian society in patriarchal, caste bound
family structures that have seared the consciousness of men like Sakharam. Women with
religious faith like Laxmi, emerge as stronger individuals. The play ends on a note of
domestication of the male by the combined onslaught of the ‘benign’ and ‘terrible’ aspects of
female power in Indian culture. It is Sakharam’s mother’s insulting comments in his
childhood, labelling him a Mahar (untouchable) that scars his identity, to the extent that he
chooses to become a social deviant, an outsider by choice.
 Degenerated relationship in Sakharam Binder is a stock theme. The husband and wife
relationship has lost significance in the modern days. Family as a basis for any society is
meaningless when it collapses. Family is vital for any harmonious human relationship, which
is lacking particularly in lower and upper middle classes. The husband is not appreciating his
wife, the parent is humiliating the children and the children are disobeying their parents.
Hence, domestic violence reached its peak, which is not at all coming to the light and to the
court of law.

A woman outside her family is considered as everybody’s property. A woman’s

condition outside her family is as wretched as a prostitute. The person who takes control
over such a left-over woman cannot respect her but treats her as a slave which is quite evident
in the case of Sakharam. Bombay’s social conditions surely provided the author material in
portraying the family drama. Since Bombay, the hub of economic growth and all types of
illegal activities might have influenced the writer. Sakharam is exaggerating his kindness
towards Laxmi and Champa as generous, acceptable and right. He seems to think that he has
helped the helpless women thrown out by their husbands by providing them with food,
clothes and a shelter. In return, he expects them to slave for him and satisfy his animal
instincts.

Tendulkar is a serious critic of of the institution of marriage. Sakharam seems to be

the mouthpiece of the writer. The same opiion is echoed in the comment of Renuka who
says, “Sakharam is a bitter critic of the institution of marriage and attacks ‘husbands’ while
pitying the ‘wives5

Tendulkar’s presentation of two polarities in women’s character through Laxmi and

Champa is very interesting. Champa tells Laxmi the reality of life: “They don’t come and
live your hell for you – those gods and Brahmins.”[180] Champa is considered ‘a real
woman’ as she is ‘tough’ and ‘ready to fight.’ She ridicules the rules imposed by Sakharam:
“Rule! Is this a school or a court or something?”[161] The readiness with which she offers
Laxmi shelter wins sympathy. Though she looks seductive, she is the one who has suffered
most on account of her voluptuous body while the men have sought their selfish pleasures
from it. She represents the western outlook whereas Laxmi stands for the conservative
oriental outlook. Champa has many appreciable qualities. She is outspoken, frank, rebellious
at the same time kind and sympathetic.
 Laxmi stands for a traditional Indian woman with her god-fearing religious, docile
nature and her unflinching devotion towards her former husband, no matter how great a
tyrant he is. When she is thrown out of her house by her husband on her failure to give birth
to a child, when she is rescued by Sakharam, she accepts the vicissitudes of life without any
protest. She clutches Sakharam as her only option to survive and begins to worship her
‘saviour.’ She demonstrates the patterns of thinking instilled in women by the patriarchal
tradition.

The familial situations in Kamala and Kanyadaan are ideal and sophisticated when
compared with Sakharam Binder. The debates among Dev (the father), Jyoti (the daughter),
Arun (the dalit husband of Jyoti), Jayprakash (Dev’s son) and finally the concerned mother,
Seva are the best of family discussions in Kanyadaan.

Caste and gender are two vital things that shape family and the society in India. They
influence Indian society than any other institutions. Deep-rooted Caste in Indian system is
unique and it degraded human values for centuries. The self-critical awareness of the earlier
plays like Shantata…….and even Kamala and the faint glimmer of the hope of a political
action for change was present there but with Kanyadaan and even Ghashiram Kotwal, the
vision becomes dark and pessimistic.

In Kanyadaan, Jyoti becomes a site, a battleground on which the upper caste and the
Dalit castes take shape. She becomes the vessel in which the conflicting caste ideologies
pour their aspirations for power. The complete submission of the girl’s gendered self to the
violence perpetrated on her by the caste politics leaves no scope for even an ideological
alternative. That she deliberately chooses to become the model, ideal, Hindu, Brahmin
house-wife to him, that she will call her husband’s people and home her own, sacrificing her
career for him and mutely suffering all the physical, sexual and psychological violence and
humiliation inflicted upon her by him is the problematic area of the play. Why has this
happened? Is this the failure of the progressive movement which failed to instill in her a
consciousness of her identity as a woman? Of her civil rights? Of her bonding with the
women from the lower castes? Incidentally they remain not only marginalized but plainly
and simply invisible in this whole process. The girl lacks the awareness that the issues of
caste and gender are interlinked.

The answer to the question of caste domination does not lie in imaging upper caste
women as the superior to the lower caste men. But Nath, the successful progressive social
reformer, puts the entire onus of bringing about the transformation in society on Jyoti. It is
the duty of girls like Jyoti, he claims, to bring out the hidden goodness and talent in Dalit men
who have suffered humiliation for generations. Jyoti becomes for him the instrument to seek
the atonement of the sins the upper caste had committed. Marriage is the solution for this and
once it has taken place, girls like Jyoti will have to keep it intact no matter at what cost. This
is a path of no return.

The entire process of posing the problem here seems to raise interesting questions.
Inter-caste marriage has been offered as a solution to the caste problem. Tendulkar claims to
have written the play from an actual case he had seen of such a marriage. However, this
solution of the problem leads us to believe that finally the marriage institution is sacrosanct.
Jyoti has to tread the path of self-annihilation. No other alternative is possible. Not even that
of looking at the Dalit women themselves as an agency of political change.

Tendulkar, as an inveterate observer of human kind, shows an impeccable curiosity

for people and rejoices in the beauty and nobility in the world though he is not blind to the
ugly and ignoble in it. Though his eyes are focused on the middle class man and his
suffocations and sufferings, his chief target is the human mind as a whole, and the way of life
and the complexities therein.

While depicting the man-woman relationships too, he shows something uncommon

and strange but it is equally true that he never gives a perverted and vulgar form to this
depiction. He does not appear to be talking about the great problems of the world and seems
to restrict himself, but he offers the very essence of man and society. At once, he seems to
capture the whole world as his own to explore, but if anyone confronts and asks, he reacts as
if he searches for a common man. Behind every dialogue, there are some unspeakable truths.
It seems that some of the loveliest and ugliest things of the world can be told through a
‘play’. Undoubtedly, this kind of dual portrayal made him one of the most turbulent and
controversial dramatists inviting both hate and high honour, simultaneously.

Human existence, the deep understanding of human psyche and expressing them
through drama is an obsession with Tendulkar. He prefers restraint and simplicity to
excessive freedom and gaudiness. He seems to like the serious and tragic plays more than the
plays, which show the essential nature of man, the exposed, penetrating plays. His extra-
dramatic writing also reveals his pure taste for drama which tries to capture the different
tensions and through them, finds the dramatics accurately.
 Tendulkar’s own misfortunes- the deaths of his family members made him to see the
reality more closely. The uncertainties of this world had their influence on his personality
and writings. He showed compassionate critical perspective and expected the audience to see
the reality. His life was continuously in struggle in Bombay. Born in a lower middle class
Brahmin family he is a witness to his father’s threatening of his mother. His father could not
get his daughter married, two uncles turned mad, and he found his missing brother, an
alcoholic dead in a ditch. A profession in journalism brought awareness of the unravished
reality, while the rambles at night made him witness desperate moments – a sex worker who
plied her trade with a child under the cot, a sudden brawl where he saw a man decapitated by
a cracked liquor bottle. Blows like long illness of his bed-ridden wife, the death of a son and
a daughter, his own mounting health problems and financial uncertainties could not destroy
his love of life.

Tendulkar himself is accused of making his wife tuck away her talent to tend to his
needs and raise his children while exploiting on stage and screen the theme of the new
woman and her struggle to find a voice. His wife Meena complains of him:

Even when I used to be a working woman, soon after our marriage, he was
very possessive and cautious . . . . .it is only now, with age, that he has
become more understanding.6

Hence, Sakharam can be considered a replica of his creator, Tendulkar, who,

according to Nitin Samant, is “confused” and “has no scientific method of analysis”7

Tendulkar’s dramas are not based completely on Aristotle’s “tragic flaw” or on

Thomas Hardy’s “destiny.” It is some destiny and some weakness in the character that brings
the tragedy in his plays. His attitude towards life is very near to the view that “basically
human nature is corrupted and sinful” which is also being the statement in the Bible, “By
birth human nature is sinful.”8 In spite of this sinful nature, man can be good provided his
thoughts and acts towards life are good. Though man by instinct is bad he has religion,
prophets and social reformers with him that he can follow their teachings and make his life
good.

Tendulkar’s plays are without hero or heroin contrary to popular tradition of story
writing. Melodramatic ‘masala’ - love themes, conflict, sensation, glamour are lacking in his
plays. For an exceptional writer like Tendulkar every character has some crucial role to play
and a moral responsibility to share. They are true middle class or lower middle class people.
The play seems to be serious but the irony; mock elements give comic relief in the play and
sustain our interest.

The playwright has given another dimension to the women characters in modern
drama. Their struggle to ‘go against’ proves their self-assertion and self-respect. Though the
sin is established against Benare, she does not allow killing herself and the foetus in her
womb. Sarita may resolve to continue to be a slave, but she decides to continue to be a
better-half to impart her love and compassion. Though Champa is hired and fired, used and
abused from her childhood, she does not turn back from exercising her freedom and to be
natural, even at the cost of her life. Interestingly, innocent Kamala also has become a
powerful weapon in the hands of the playwright to bring a turn in Sarita’s life. At the same
time, there are some women like Gulabi and Mrs. Kashikar who can’t think beyond the
reality of their womanhood and are carried away by their passions of flesh and society.

The world is moving from legitimacy to illegitimacy. Human values are at stake.
Tendulkar’s plays are an attempt to reconsider human values, ethics and to strive for a better
world. Social customs, practices, institutions are losing their credibility and significance.
This trend caused its havoc in the West and has captured the East and has done terrible
damage than the damage caused in the West. Anything either good or bad first starts in the
West and then enters the East but it is the West which recovers first from the damage and the
nations which imitate these practices meet the worst. The Western society is already treating
marriage redundant and the fashion of man and woman living together without marriage is
becoming popular. Families are separated. Gay culture and lesbian practice are getting
momentum and gays are fighting for legitimacy.

Human rights all over the world are violated. Free and indiscriminate sex is no more
a taboo. At this state of affairs, Tendulkar’s plays are apt and the need of present times.
There are so many Sakharams living in ones vicinity today, living with as many girls as
possible without being married, a flexible contract system agreeable for both of the parties.
So many modern Ghashirams are leading ‘decent’ life who are even ready to send their wives
or daughters with another man just for money or position. There are many Jadhavs in this
competitive world ready to do anything for his or her professional advancement. Many
Aruns today are becoming a hindrance for social reforms and acting with a revenge motto.
One can also see Benares living next door to facing discrimination, accusations, suppression,
mockery and blatant shame.

Ghashiram himself handing his daughter over to Nana, Sakharam’s desertion by his
parents and Laxmi by her husband and Benare’s betrayal by her own maternal uncle, Nath
and his wife, Seva giving their daughter, Jyoti in marriage to Arun, a Dalit boy – all these
make the audience ponder and question. In all the above cases, it is not the out-siders who
are causing humiliation but it is their own dear family members that are causing problems.
The family has got greater responsibility towards family members, particularly towards
children and women, the weaker members of the family to safeguard their rights and to show
affection and care. This clarification one can get after reading Tendulkar’s plays as inner
reality.

Tendulkar’s story revolves round man and his psychological processes, his ego, his
associations, the futility of relationship with his family members, the resultant sense of
loneliness, the ideas of sex and virtue above all his hypocrisy the individual identity of man
and his social existence. Tendulkar has not failed in explicitly offering any solutions to the
problems of mankind but his solutions are implicit. His philosophy is very clear – the
degenerated ethics or values in the family set up which is adversely affecting the society.

Another interesting thing in the psyche of most of Tendulkar’s characters is their

intensive desire to establish their ‘egos’ freely and strongly. When this becomes impossible,
they are terribly annoyed. Sakharam’s order “I must be respected in my house” (126),
Jadhav’s demand….. “Don’t I have the right to have my wife when I feel like it?” (32) – are
the evidences for the manifestation of their egos and central substance of their psyche. The
human psyche to dominate in the family is crossing the limits and the policies and ideas of
the head of the family or husband are imposed on the rest of the family. This clearly
indicates lack of democracy at the domestic level and elevating the husband to the level of
dictator. It is a fact that dictatorship cannot bring peace, equality and harmony in family.
Unfortunately, false ideologies are being established in the family and society as righteous
things.

Various tendencies and life philosophies in Tendulkar’s plays indirectly show the
writer’s philosophy in Kanyadaan, Kamala and also in Silence! The Court is in Session. In
fact the dramatic element in it is derived from the situation in which the ‘being’ of Benare is
engulfed by the social existence of her individuality. She expresses her attitude towards life
freely; and finally it is throttled. “Life is something like nothing” – these crazy words of
Benare are a good comment on the nothingness of modern being.
 Tendulkar is a part of Indian theatre’s cultural, social and emotional consciousness.
He was writing at a time when there were playwrights like Girish Karnad, Mahesh
Elkunchwar, Mohan Rakesh and Badal Sircar. And together they were creating a kind of
Renaissance in Indian theatre – a golden period in modern Indian Theatre. Tendulkar was a
revolutionary writer because his ideas and themes are modern, contemporary and most out-
spoken, an inspiration for the younger generation and the modern writers.

Tendulkar is an outstanding writer. He is a writer of par excellence among the Indian

writers who has the courage and commitment to speak truth and to show truth through his
plays. His Ghashiram Kotwal, Sakharam Binder, Kanyadaan are the plays vehemently
expressing the naked truth though this truth is bitter for many. He has the guts and dare to
face the criticism. Drama for him is not only a medium of ideas but also an emotional outlet,
a social responsibility and a philosophical approach. Indian drama is very much indebted to
him for his dramas are most original, indigenous and more appropriate to contemporary
Indian society.

Apart from the art of general characterization, in Tendulkar every character has its
own invisible but solid foundation in the philosophy of life. Benare’s monologue expounds
her love for life and it is a plea for the self-assertion of modern women. Kakasaheb is the
living manifesto of journalism. Sakharam is a post modernist, where as Laxmi is a typical
Indian woman with her belief in Indian culture. Ironically, no one’s philosophy is achieved
anywhere in the plays as it happens with other writers too. Tendulkar’s philosophy of life
includes man, his body and soul, his ego, his associations, the futility in the relations between
men, the resultant sense of loneliness, the ideas of sex and virtue, the uncertainty of all these,
in short the individual identity of man and his social existence, the harmony and disharmony
between the two these form the essence of Tendulkar’s thinking. Tendulkar’s failure to offer
any solution to the problems of mankind out of his philosophy separates him from the other
playwrights of the age.

Another interesting thing in the psyche of most of Tendulkar’s characters is their

intensive desire to establish their ‘egos’ freely and strongly. When this becomes impossible,
they are terribly annoyed. Sakharam’s order “I must be respected in my house” (126),
Jadhav’s demand….. “Don’t I have the right to have my wife when I feel like it?” (32) – are
the evidences for the manifestation of their egos and central substance of their psyche.

The existentialist tendencies in Tendulkar’s plays are anticipated in Ghashiram

Kotwal while they are clearly discernible in Silence! The Court is in Session. In fact the
dramatic element in it is derived from the situation in which the ‘being’ of Benare is engulfed
by the social existence of her individuality. She tries to express her ego openly and freely;
and finally it is throttled. “Life is something like nothing” – these crazy words of Benare are
a good comment on the nothingness of our modern ‘being’.

Sakharam Binder is another example in which the existentialist tendency is openly

manifested. Sakharam’s ego tries to manifest itself in a challenging way. It is not prepared
to be dominated by anything. His acquaintance with Laxmi accelerates an inner conflict in
Sakharam – the conflict between existential ego and metaphysical ‘I’. He is afraid of both
women, of Laxmi because she is a moral force and Champa because she is a sexual
challenge. If Laxmi draws her strength from being unconventional, Champa draws it from
being an independent, self-responding individual. As a result, he loses his self and becomes
pitiable because of his spinelessness. He realizes that he loses himself and goes astray and
finally his living corpse gets pacified after lifeless and senseless activities. Sakharam is
unpolished and hence the play Sakharam Binder appears to be rough.

By delving deep into human psyche and their consequent relations, Tendulkar writes
plays without indulging in painting superficial conflicts in gaudy colours; on the other hand
he paints the egotistic tensions effectively in pastel shades. No other dramatist seems to have
done this before. To sum up, Tendulkar was the pioneer who changed not only the external
frame work of Marathi drama but also the limits of the picture of life at the core. Since 1955,
he has written over twenty eight plays. He deserves credit, for he not only gave a pure
dramatic taste to the Marathi play, but also cultivated that taste to focus it on the very
existence of one’s being directing it to the origin, to the subtle.

Chandra Sekhar Barve expresses an opinion of appreciation about Tendulkar’s

contribution to Marathi Theatre: “We can say with certainty that Tendulkar has guided
Marathi drama that seemed to have lost its proper track, and has kept leading it for over two
decades. His place and importance in this respect shall remain unique in the history of
Marathi drama. There may be controversies regarding his greatness but his achievements are
beyond question.”9

Tendulkar is a meaningful writer with social understanding of life. Tendulkar’s art of

characterization and view of the life and world are non-conformed in nature till the end of his
life. He neither gives happy endings to his plays nor suggests any solutions such as
‘reconciliation’ and ‘forgiveness’ for the maladies of humanity though they are primarily
engaged in giving theatrical forms to the narrative in which it is easier to see that without evil
there could be no artistic good. Tendulkar is neither an idealist nor a meta-physicist. He
does not talk about the ultimate realities like death and eternity. Tendulkar is a realist till
end. His last plays The Cyclist and His Fifth Woman and two novels too depict the dark side
of human life.

Tendulkar’s words “I want to be in the present, however, painful and unbearable it is I

want to be a man without a past”10 reflect his agony for the past and his longing for the
present. Tendulkar is contemporary in time and spirit. Tendulkar’s modernity is not
improvement over the ancient, nor short lived as far as time is concerned, the thing or an idea
may be ancient but how Tendulkar sees and shows it is different. He finds his subjects in the
world around him. Tendulkar was always flummoxed and often deeply hurt by the attacks he
came under due to his modern outlook and how he interpreted it.

For him play-writing was often sheer play as in Pahije Jaatiche ( Its How You are
Made), a delightfully satirical look at small town politics or Ashi Pakhare Yeti which took its
inspiration from The Rain Maker. Others could have seen what he saw, for it was there for
all to see – the violence, the inequalities, gender discrimination, hollow institutions, and
hypocrisies. But others choose not to see. He not only saw, but was personally troubled by
what he saw. His plays were genuine attempts to get to the roots of what disturbed him. The
issues raised by him continue to be relevant today. On receiving the Katha Chudamani
Award, Tendulkar confessed:

I have been writing about life around me, when I feel the need to say or do
something, I do it otherwise I will not be able to sleep. Earlier, literature did
have an influence on society. Today, it is media persons and politicians who
wield considerable influence and together they can do anything.11

Tendulkar’s early introduction to the world of journalism was in some ways

advantageous and in some others proved disastrous. Talking about how his hectic association
with news papers seems to have left no time for him to mule over the mutinous ramifications
of various metaphysical positions and their complex interrelationships, Ms.Deshpande
observes.

Thus for example, he, on the one hand, strikes a social reformist stance while, on the
other, he also embraces the alienations, modern positions of Camus and Sartre in his desire to
be in the vanguard of modern Marathi drama, hardly showing any awareness of the mutually
exclusive nature of both these positions.12
 Vijay Tendulkar is a writer with radical consciousness and shows real life problems
through drama. He feels that drama is no longer make-up and delivering romantic lines. In
The Vultures, the drama between a father and his sons is shocking. The naked language of
the market place, and a brothel, being used to describe human relations is captivating.

Tendulkar has seen the vulture in man. No other animal has instigated his imagination
as the vulture has done. This is an apt symbol to describe human latent wolf nature.
Tendulkar has expressed whatever life’s experience kindled his imagination.

The paradoxical quality of human nature is not only the rejection of evil mentality,
but also the exhibition of manipulated outward behaviour. Outwardly they are saints, but
inwardly they are sinners and sadists. Tendulkar’s observation is not theoretical or
philosophical or didactic but practical. He expressed some unforgettable memories witnessed
in his childhood days. For him violence is all around us. It is the culmination of festering
elements in many areas. He wonders how sinful nature in man is so deep rooted in the
society and rottens every walk of life. When asked why there are scenes of atrocity of bizarre
sadism in some of his plays such as the kicking of pregnant woman in the belly in The
Vultures, Tendulkar reacts:

In Gidhade, the cruelty is great because it deals with an exceptional family.

As for what you call perversion, let us accept that human existence is full of it.
We shut our eyes to it, or worse, don’t recognize it when we can come across
its manifestations……………………….. They are outwardly decent folk and
you don’t suspect they have this dark side. So, when I deal with masochism
or homosexuality, I am drawing your attention to something near you.13

Tendulkar seems to be totally against to the basic belief of Indian mythology or

Western mythology and he rejects the creed of humanism which upholds the ultimate
goodness of humanity. Tendulkar has made use of family system which is the microcosm of
humanity and which should be the embodiment of humanism.

The play, Gidhade (The Vultures) used analogy of vultures by dramatizing deep-
seated unmitigated depravity, perversity, greed and diabolic villainy in humanity. The play
portrayed vulturine family consisting of parent, his illegitimate son, Rajaninath, Ramakant his
elder son and his wife Rama, his second son Umakant and daughter Manik. Almost all
characters in the play are corrupt and violent except Rajaninath and Rama. The symbol of
vultures is used constantly in referring to the characters, their action and also the screaming
of vultures at the end of almost every scene, where there is necessary. The characters best
symbolized the rapacious vultures, their betrayal, their avarice vices and immorality which
evinced the repulsive sensuality and domestic violence, manifesting the infernal atrocities of
human inclination towards evilness.

Various themes were brought forth by the dramatist of which the most pervasive one
is the theme of violent nature of mankind. The writer condemned all violence out of hand
and tried to eradicate even the possibility of violence from human being was like taking away
an essential element of humanity. Violence found a good illustration in the play. The play
exemplified both verbal and non-verbal violence.

In the polarization of multi-coloured human nature, according to Tendulkar, violence

was an essential part and parcel of human nature but not an occurrence of something
loathsome or ugly. Violence was an experience and a reality to him. He had firsthand
experience of human society around him as he witnessed violence in his tour as part of his
Research Fellowship

The Vultures has a two-act multiple scene structure. Tendulkar punctuated the
structure with the poems and suspended the chronological movement of the play which gives
variety and an interesting twist to the play otherwise conventional in structure. Rajaninath’s
poems are like songs of Samant in Shantata and Prannarayan in Makabala. Tendulkar made
Rajaninath recite three poems, at the beginning and end of Act I and at the conclusion, which
added a special dimension to the play.

Tendulkar used the technique of chorus and made use of it through Rajaninath from
whose songs that one understands the past and present of the Pitale’s family. The writer
made Ramakant, an addict to liquor and an impotent husband thereby bringing family drama
significance turn. Rama thus spent twenty years of barren life:

“After that living impotence

Of twenty-two endless years”

………………………. [202]

But she only knew .One longing,

Only one ….
 Threw of her chains in her need

The need to swell with fruit” [205]

Tendulkar well depicted barrenness, impotency of husbands, abortions of foetus, and

liquor addictions through The Vultures. Manik is aborted and Rama, once again, to quote
Rajaninath, become “empty of pain, And empty of desires”. [206] The house of the vultures
disintegrated. Ramakant became a pauper.

Uproars, shoutings and sounds of blows and beatings symbolic of Vulture sounds
were the antecedent of the story. Pappa Hari Pitale and his brother Sakharam built up a huge
business firm called “The Hari Sakharam Company” — a construction firm through sheer
hard work. Pappa treacherously betrayed his brother, took the company from his brother but
finally he had to pay the penalty in the same coin as he did to his brother when his own
children plotted against him and drove him out of home. This is the routine family drama in
the Indian society.

Manik was another typical character appeared to be hysterical type who indulges in
many unhealthy habits like smoking and drinking liquor. Her attitude towards money and her
interaction with other members of the family revealed her greedy nature and mean mind.
When the gardener was driven out for asking for his wages, Manik’s character was revealed
itself in her response to Rama:

RAMA: But we haven’t paid him for the last too

months….

MANIK: Oh! What a sin! There isn’t enough even for

us? The last two months, I have been dying for

that Latest necklace at Harivallabh’s. [207]

Manik was an embodiment of materialism and her meaningless pursuit to get

pleasure. The world like Manik was going after mad pleasures, relentlessly striving in
different life styles believing in easy money making. Human nature doesn’t understand the
hollowness of this type of life style and pursuits and they even die without knowing their
mistakes. She pursues poor substitutes in pleasure with diminishing returns. Tendulkar
reminded through her character, how the meaningless pursuit for pleasure makes her of easy
virtue. She prowls and scavenges relentlessly through a variety of life styles in search of that
all-fulfilling treasure. She seems to have forgotten that this hyperactive pursuit and empty-
hearted feelings are not new to the human experience.

Manik’s belief of being alone resulted from her feeling of insecurity is the essence of
modern man reminding one of Eliot’s The Waste Land. The present generation feels
alienated or deserted though they are surrounded by crowds. This feeling generates out of an
internal alienation rather than physical one.

The father in the play disgusted his children and the children felt their father an
unnecessary burden on them. Hari Pitale doesn’t have any respect for his two sons. He
expresses his disgust for his selfish children.

PAPPA: If I die, it’ll be a release! They’re all waiting for it.

……….. I earned it all.

Now, these wolves, these bullies! [209]

Tendulkar was a keen observer of life. He wrote the issues of father and children in
this play. One can’t see his characters as overcoming issues of life but degrading and total
failures in their lives. When Pappa says it has been his stupidity to produce bastards like
them.

Tendulkar is driving a point home that the parents in family are crucial in the healthy
growth of it. They are the role models to their children. One cannot get order or virtue
through wrong ideals. Ramakant tells his brother Umakant “a mangy dog would have made a
better father.” [213] Umakant is only too ready to agree with his brother. And all these in the
presence of their own father! However, the old man, hardened by his own past crimes,
remains nonchalant. He doesn’t want to pay his servant. He and his brother hate each other.
They both hate their own sister, Manik. For him lying for business is a convenience. He
believes that money can buy anything like lawyers, courts and justice. Even when Ramakant
and Umakant talk to their own sister about her affair with the Rajah of Hondur, they use
obscene language, which is suggestive of their incestuous nature.

The tendency of portraying a clash between the private loyalties of the household and
the public responsibilities in society can be seen in Tendulkar’s characterization coming
across the problem of family and its strife and violence which he depicted in this play also
bears great affinity to the Black theatre of America.
 Tragic relief in the play is brought forth in the characters Rajaninath and Rama amidst
the scenes of violence. The love and affection between Rama and Rajaninath is a kind of
coincidence that almost arises out of a sense of helplessness and an attempt to escape from
the ugliness of the internal and interpersonal family violence. Through her character,
Tendulkar was able to create a sensitive, naturally kind and good hearted individual. She is
like a helpless, submissive tender little bird among the vultures. Her character proves to be
the possibility of maintaining values in spite of prevailing wicked conditions. Here, audience
can see the similarity between the vulturic male characters in The Vultures and that of
Silence! The Court is in Session. Tendulkar himself underscored the similarity between
Shantata and Gidhade.

In Gidhade it is the pack of human vultures pitched against a defenceless

female character, the wife of Ramakant. In Shantata it is Miss. Benare
against a pack of middle-class vultures. In Gidhade, Rajaninath, that bastard
brother suffers for the defenceless female in the play. In Shantata it was the
character of Samant who did it for the psychologically molded Miss. Benare.14

Like Rama, Rajaninath has a sensitive personality. His deep empathy for the victims
of human viciousness flows like an undercurrent throughout the play. If one recalls
Tendulkar ambivalent ‘ethics’, the split between the social self and the more individualistic
writer self, one can read something of the ‘writer’ in Rajaninath, who watches the violent
disintegration of the family, and bears witness to it. But like Tendulkar, he maintains the
‘coldness’ that allows him to record the cruelty of the people involved in the process, without
interfering in it. But one should not think that by creating such character Tendulkar has
vainly fluttered in the romantic world.

Fifth scene dramatizes the most violent incident in the play. After driving away
Sakharam, Ramakant, Umakant and Manik make their Pappa drink to extract the truth about
the money. The sons pretend to fight each other with the father getting trapped between
them. Pappa gets injured. In order to escape from further assault, he admits to them that he
has deposited some money in the Punjab Bank.

In most violent and cursive way they get signature on the cheque book. However, his
refusal to part with the money enrages his children who try to kill him. All the Pitale’s drink,
and liquor flows like a river in the house. It is liquor that makes them violent and ruthless
towards one another. The people, who believe that they can enjoy the life with monitory
pleasures, become more and more miserable in their pursuit. The drunkards and drug addicts
who try to forget themselves and their problems under the influence of intoxication will face
the reality when they come back and lose their joy. Through the scene it is very clear that
man is not only constantly failing in defining pleasure principle but also searching for it in
wrong places.

Tendulkar portrayed the barrenness of Rama and Rajaninath through their utterances.
Rajaninath accepts how Rama’s presence among other vultures has been corrupted. He says:

RAMAKANT: My blood corrupts. It’s in the family. First your blood

rots. Then your brain decays. And then, throughout the
body, it’s as if a wild animal’s rampaging. Thirsting
for blood. You humanity itself gets destroyed.[238]

She is disgusted with her husband’s drunken-love making and feels commit sati every
moment. It is a living death for her. So, she declares to Rajaninath her intention of
immolating herself. Rajaninath, sensitive to Rama’s yearnings to become a mother, reacts
positively.

The way Tendulkar depicted the mental upheaval of Rama and her agony of
unfulfilled desire after she sees the half naked Rajaninath is highly intense and sensitive.
Here Tendulkar has paid a fulsome compliment to female sexuality. In the soliloquy of Rama
it appeared as if the age-old oppression of the womankind and her pent-up unfulfilled desires
for sexual transaction finds an outlet by angrily setting aside all the confines of
conventionality. The intensity with which she embraces Rajaninath after the soliloquy is like
a river breaking through all its dams. Rama’s relationship with Rajaninath in the play has
been has been justified by Tendulkar and many critics have been unanimous about this
relationship calling it “ archetypal and primordial’ ‘an affair’ ‘an eternal truth”.

Arundhati Benerji in her Introduction to the play comments —

Her (Rama) illicit relationship with her half-brother-in-law… may

raise a few conservative eyebrows… but one has to admit that it is the single
genuine and human relationship in the context of the whole play. The
sexual aspect of their association is merely an extension of their love which
 is the only redeeming feature in the morbid and claustrophobic atmosphere
of the family.34

As Ramakant and Umakant exhaust their share of money and want some more,
together they decide to blackmail the Raja of Hondur who is in love with Manik and
impregnate her. So, in order to prevent her from meeting her lover further and informing her
lover about their blackmailing him, they hatch a plot to break Manik’s leg. They ruthlessly
execute the plan and hope to get twenty five thousand rupees from the Raja of Hondur.
However, a phone call informs them that the Raja of Hondur has died of heart attack. As a
result, their plan of black mailing Manik’s lover is vanished. This scene brings out the fact
that how human beings behave at times of economic crisis, unconscious of ethical values.

So, they break Manik’s room open and Ramakant kicks Manik’s belly hard. She
aborts, and in sheer agony runs away. Another vulture, thus, leaves the hollow of the Pitale’s
house. This is another most violent scene in the play. Though in keeping with the tone of the
rest of the play, this particular incident is strongly disturbing. Behind the curtain the action
takes place in most unexpected way. To quote from the text:

Then there is a rapping on a door-kicks and blows on it. ‘Manik, open the door!
… All this rises to a crescendo. Then, in a moment, a horrific scream from
Manik. In another moment, Manik, screaming terrifyingly comes. Half-
crawling down the stairs. One leg in plaster. Her white sari soiled with blood.
Pressing one hand to her abdomen, writhing in pain, looking back constantly,
she exits through the front door. [248]

Tendulkar touched the most crucial issues of the contemporary society. The issue of
abortion has never been more studied, offered up, and pondered to in public, yet we have
never been more confused about what is right or, for that matter, even normal in such
expressions. The debate over abortion is admittedly complex. It has medical, legal,
theological, ethical, social and personal aspects. It is also a highly emotional subject, for it
touches on the mysteries of human sexuality and reproduction, and often involves acutely
painful dilemmas. However, though, the abortion is more a woman’s issue than a man’s,
Tendulkar shows how patriarchy has made the inevitable role of man in cases of Benare in
Silence! The Court is in Session and Manik and Rama in The Vultures. Moreover, Tendulkar
as an exponent of modern psyche and human nature makes it clear that ‘coercive abortions’
and ‘unjustifiable foeticides’ are the results of illegal relationships.

Rama becomes pregnant. Ramakant takes care for her thinking that the seed that
grows in her womb is his. His belief is so firm, that when Umakant informs of the real
source of Rama’s pregnancy, he assaults him. Rama feels claustrophobic and says to her
husband, “This house is devouring me.” [249] She begs him to be with her. But he insists
that he should leave to look after his business. She finally implores him in anguish:

RAMA: Take a job somewhere! Whatever you get. Never mind if it

doesn’t pay well. ……. But lets’ finish this death by
imprisonment. Let’s end this dreadful play – acting…. Let’s
get out of this overpowering house. Go far away. No, one,
no one at all can live happily here. Not at all… never at all.
[250-51]

This paradoxical nature of humanity can be clearly seen in the words Ramakant, who
is intoxicated by egoism and male chauvinism. He cannot perceive the wisdom of his wife’s
advice; nor can he understand her agony. So, he says to her:

RAMAKANT:“Look here, Rama! In this house, we’re not accustomed to

listening to any smartness from woman! No man in our
family’s been a bloody hen pecked husband, what? I know
very well indeed what to do, what not to do. No need for a
woman to teach me sense.” [251]

As individual degradation is increasing, the gradual disintegration of the family is also

clearly seen. Ramakant becomes pauper. Ramakant and Umakant quarrel for sharing the
business and property. Umakant learns that there is a double mortgage on their house.
Ramakant advises his brother to go ahead with his flourishing business and leave the house to
him. But Umakant demands him to settle their account about their father’s hidden property,
their sister’s money and mother’s jewels. “Otherwise” he says “I’ll quit when I’ve got every
single paisa, you bastard! I won’t let you get away with it! I’ll sit on your neck. I’ll make you
puke it out!” [255] Then, he tells his brother that his wife is carrying in her womb the child of
Rajaninath with chapter and verse. This enrages Ramakant, and he scolds Umakant and
twists his hand. So, Umakant goes out. Ramakant calls Rama down and talks to her tenderly
only to elicit her tender feelings for Rajaninath. Unknowingly Rama pours out her concern
for Rajaninath.

In the mean time, Hari Pitale, the Pappa, and Manik have been hanging around the
house, thirsty for revenge. Hari Pitale realizes that his legitimate children will kill him for
property. He knows that Rajaninath, his illegitimate son, is human. So, he seeks his
protection from his own children and promises Rajaninath to make his ‘will’ in his favour by
back dating.

Rajaninath is repulsed by the property as it has made the people loveless vultures.
He detests the very idea of inheriting the property. So, he cannot show any compassion to
him and mercilessly asks him to get out.

Pappa Pitale is one who has lost his guilty consciousness. In spite of his rearing
children in such that way that they attempted to kill him, he doesn’t seem to have any traces
of repentance. This is one of the interesting things with Tendulkar. Audience can hardly see
a kind of ‘repentance’ in Tendulkar’s characters. Tendulkar’s ignorance of the issue should
not be misunderstood. Tendulkar’s characters like Sakharam and Pitales do not dismiss guilt
as cultural or deny it by innocence. They suppress it under the weight of their egos. Guilt
can be smoothed by pride. Rama tries to conceal it and lives with the fear of exposure, which
is one of the most tormenting ways. All these wicked characters of Tendulkar seem to expel
all personal guilt with brazen conviction of irreverence and irrelevance which finally, end up
victimizing themselves. Victimless crimes are an illusion.

Pappa collides with Ramakant who has been eavesdropping. So, he runs away.
Manik comes to the garage triumphantly announcing that she has succeeded in aborting
Rama by black magic. She says:

MANIK: “I have done it … I’ve done as I planned. I cut the

lemon … I rubbed the ash. Seven times, on my loins and
stomach! It’s going to abort … Sister-in-law’s baby’s going
to abort. [260]

Ramakant, in utter despair, caused by drunkenness behaves madly. He sings and

dances. He doesn’t allow Umakant into house and suspects his intention of grabbing house
through black magic, he says “Brother … the day after one new moon. I found a lemon, a
coconut and red power, in the bloody grounds … The ghost was in your bloody control! And
was sucking me dry!”[262]Talking about the belief system of Pitale’s family Veena Noble
Dass observes: “The play is of lower middle class beliefs in superstitions and black magic
and whose intellect is blunted by their sadistic temperament.” 16 Apart from their materialism,
momentary pleasures, it is clear that their mechanical religious belief has blunted their faculty
of reason. Religion, which is expected to create common good, lacks moral vision in Pitale’s
family. This is not only an example of the theatre of cruelty, but also a fore runner of a new
genre theatre which is emerging that explore and examine the religious and social behaviour
of dominant middle class society. Man behaves as he believes. The play alerts pseudo
religious intellectuals to be aware of the paradoxical nature of religion. No doubt, in
emerging materialistic and scientific advancing society, spiritual values are almost
disappeared in spite of ever growing religious rituals.

As the play comes to an end, Ramakant who is stricken by drunkenness and is

suspected for his potency by Rama and Rajaninath ruthlessly aborts Rama for the child is not
his. At the end of the play, Rajaninath expresses his hidden compassion for the loveless
vultures in the family though they have ill treated him:

The tale of the five vultures. Had this end.

The story of men accursed. Or else of vultures cursed.

Top live their men. Oh, show them some compassion. [265]

The last scene of the play ends with some kind of dramatic puzzle. One is not sure it
is the end if the child has been really ‘pushed’ out of Rama’s belly, as Ramakant has once
threatened.

Tendulkar symbolizes the new awareness and attempts of Indian dramatists of the
last quarter-century, to depict the agonies, suffocations and cries of man, focusing
particularly on those of the middle-class. Nishikant’s remarks in this regard are apt: “He has
been vocalizing different human relations and the tensions implied therein, through his plays,
which depict the tragic consequences of confrontations of egos in these relations.”17

Tendulkar as a playwright defines his art in relation to his “public” because he views
theatre as essentially a spectator driven form. “Every playwright”, he argues, “has fixed before
him an image of his viewer. If the viewer is not kept in sight, playwriting is not possible at
all”. His concern with the audience, therefore, is inseparable from a blunt declaration of
independence.

I am not ready to surrender the freedom of choosing my subjects to my

audience, nor am I ready to accept the restriction to my audience, nor am I
ready to accept the restriction of writing plays according to the audiences’
whining. It’s not just that I want a viewer – it is only for him that I write my
plays. But his viewer has to be same one who respects my freedom to choose
the subject.. The viewer doesn’t have to be an intellectual. If he can simply be
 as alert, thoughtful, and open-minded in the theatre as his own offspring,
that’ll be enough! Are these illegitimate expectations?18

Finally, a note of compliments about his style of dialogue writing is that his use of of
the spoken language amounted to nothing short of a revolution on the Marathi stage at the
time when he first began to write. Vijay Mehta reports:

For the first time Tendulkar attempted to show that an unspoken meaning lay
beyond the spoken word. People loved teasing us in those days, saying, ‘your
Tendulkar writes only half sentences’. But these half sentences had the
power to create something quite tremendous. That is why I feel that the
acting idiom I was exploring found its perfect match in Tendulkr’s writing 19

REFERENCES

1. Vijay Tendulkar. “Saraswati Samman Acceptance Speech” edited by Shoma

Chowdary and Gita Rajan, Katha Vilasam publications, 2001, p.39.

2. Ibid. p.5.

3. Ibid. p.6

4. Gowri Ramnarayan. “Vijay Tendulkar in Conversation with Gowri Ramnarayan:

Interview”. Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays An Anthology of Recent Criticism: (Ed) V.M.
Madge. Pencraft International, Delhi, 2007, p. 172

5. Renuka E, “Casanova as the Saviour: A Study of Vijay Tendulkar’s Sakharam

Binder,” New Directions in Indian Drama, Prestige, 1994, New Delhi. p. 32

6. Meena Tendulkar, Kirloskar, quoted by Sathya Saran and Vimla Patil, “Interview,”
Femina, June 8-22, 1984, p.36

7. Nitin Samant, “Tendulkar: A Confused Perspective,” Adhikar Raksha, Jan-June 1983,

p.67

8. The Bible, New Testament, Epistle written to the Romans: Chapter 3, 10-18
 9. Chandra Sekhar Barve, “Vijay Tendulkar: The Man who Explores the Depths of
Life,” Contemporary Indian Drama, Ed.Sudhakar Pandey and Freya Taraporewala
(New Delhi: Prestige, 1990), p.9

10. Gowri Ramnarayan. “Writing for Life”. Front Line, June 20, 2008, p.91.

11. K.Kannan. “When Writing Is Life Itself” Interview with Tendulkar Vijay. The
Hindu, New Delhi, 16, Sept, 2001, p.4

12. Kalindi Deshpande. “Capitulation to Conservatism: Vijay Tendulkar’s Woman

Characters”, Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays: An Anthology of Recent Criticism (Ed) V.M.
Madge, Pencraft International, New Delhi 2007, p.

13. Vijay Tendulkar In Conversation With Gowri Ramnarayan: Interview, Vijay

Tendulkar’s Plays an Anthology of Recent Criticism, (Ed) V.M.Madge, Pencraft
International, Delhi, 2007, p, 50.

14. Samik Bandhopadhyaya. Introduction. Vijay Tendulkar, Collected Plays In

Translation, Fourth Impression, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2007,xi

15. Arundhati Banerjee. Introduction: Five Plays by Vijay Tendulkar, Bombay: Oxford
UP, 1992.p.xiii.

16. Veena Noble Dass. Modern Indian Drama in English Translation. Hyderabad:
1988.p, 132.

17. Nishikant D. Mirajkar, “Two Recent Plays of Vijay Tendulkar, New Directions in
Indian Drama, Prestige, 1994, New Delhi. P. 37

18. Vijay Tendulkar. “Natak Ani Mee”, Selected Writings on Theatre Tendulkar, Dimple
Publications, Thane, 1997,“Mazha Natya Shikshan”My Theatre Education, p.36.

19. “Ten Ani Amhi”, ed. Pradeep Mulye, Rajiv Naik, Vijay Tapas, Awishkar Prakashanm,
Mumbai, 1992, p. 14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES:

Tendulkar, Vijay. Collected Plays in Translation, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
2003. (Containing the following texts)

----- Kamala, Translated by Priya Adarkar.

----- Silence! The Court is in Session, Translated by Priya Adarkar.

----- Sakharam Binder, Translated by Kumud Mehta and Shanta Gokhale

----- Ghashiram Kotwal, Translated by Jayant Karve and Eleanor Zelliot.

----- The Vultures, Translated by Priya Adarkar

----- Kanyadaan, Translated by Gowri Ramnarayan.

----- Encounter in Umbugland, Translated by Priya Adarkar

----- A Friend’s Story, Translated by Gowri Ramnarayan

----- His Fifth Woman, Translated by Balwant Bhaneja, Oxford University Press,
New Delhi, 2006.

----- The Cyclist, Translated by Balwant Bhaneja.

SECONDARY SOURCES:

Books

Adie, K. The Kindness of Strangers, London, Headline Book, 2002 Artaud, Antonin. The
Theatre of Cruelty and Its Dubble, trans. Victor Corti, London: Calders and
Boyars, 1974.

Babu, Sarat. M, Vijay Tendulkar and His Plays: An Introduction, New Delhi Asia Book
Club, 2003.

Babu, Sarat. M. Indian Drama Today, New Delhi: Prestige, 1994.

Bandyophadhya, Samik. “Introduction”, Ghashiram Kotwal, Calcutta: Seagull Books, 1984.
Benarjee, Arundati. “Introduction”, Five Plays by Vijay Tendulkar, Bombay:
OUP, 1992
Benegal, Sam. A Panorama of Theatre in India, Bombay: Popular Prakashan(for) Indian
Council for Cultural Relations, 1967.
Blum, Gerald. S. Psychoanalytic Theories of Personality, New York: McGraw, 1953.

Boulding, Elise. The Underside of History: A View of Women Though Time, Vol 1, London:
Sage Publications, 1992.

Brown Miller, Susan. Against our Will, New York, Mount View Publications, 1975.
Chandra, Anshul. Vijay Tendulkar: A Critical Survey of his Dramatic World, Perspectives
and Challenges in Indian-English drama, Ed., by Neeru Tandon, New Delhi,
Atlantic Publishers, 2006.

Chandra, Subhash. Viewing Tendulkar's Kanyadan Through Reader-Response Frame Work.

The Indian Journal of English Studies. Vol. XLI, 2003-04.
Christmas, Linda. “Chaps of both Sexes? Women Decision-Makers in News Papers. Do they
Make Difference?” Women Journalism, London, B.T. Forum, 1992.

Das, Bhasker. Theme of Sexual Colonization in Vijay Tendulkar's Kamala. The Atlantic
Critical Review. July-September, 2006, Volume 5, Number 3.
Das, S.K. A History of Indian Literatures, Vol. 9: 1911-1956. New Delhi, Sahithya Academy,
1995.
De Beauvior, Simone. The Second Sex (Le Deuxieme Sexe, Paris) Trans., and Edited by
H.M.Parshley, London, Jonathon Cape, 1949.
Deshpande, G.P. ed. Modern Indian Drama: An Anthology, New Delhi: Sahitya Academy,
2000.

Dharan, N.S. The Plays of Vijay Tendulkar. New Delhi: Creative Books, 1999.
Dhawan, R.K. (ed) Indian Writing in the New Millennium. New Delhi: Indian Association
For English Studies, 2000.
Dodiya, Jaydipsinh K. & K. V Sunderan (eds). Indian English Drama: Critical Perspectives.
New Delhi: Sarup& Sons, 2002.
Dongier, Wendy. with Brian K. Smith, Trans. The Laws of Manu, London: Penguin, 1991

Eliot, T.S. Andrew Marvell: Selected Essay, London: Faber & Faber, 1980.

Gail, Putney Fullerton. Survival in Marriage: Introduction to Family Interaction, Conflict and
Alternations New York, Halt, Rinehart Winston.Inc. 1972.

Gariefpy, Henry. General of God’s Army, Wheaton, 11., Victor Books, 1993
Gisbert P, Traibal India, Jaipur Rawat Pubishers, 1978.
Gokhale, Shanta. Playwright at the Centre: Marathi Drama from 1843 to the Present,
Seagull, Calcutta, 2000.
Gramsci. A. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1971.

Johnson, Samuel. Preface to Shakespeare, in Johnson on Shakespeare (Ed). By R.N.Wesai,

New Delhi, Orient Longman, 1979.

Jones, Ernest. “The Libido Theory”, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Vol.2 New York:
Basic Book Inc., 1955.
Kakar, Sudhir. A Psychoanalysis Study of Childhood and Society in India, Delhi, Oxford
University Press, 1986

Karnad, Girish. TaleDanda. Delhi: Ravi Dayal, 1993.

Kumar, Satish, A Survey of Indian English Drama. Bareilly: Prakash Book Depot, 1993.
Louis, Heren. The Power of the Press, London, Orbis, 1985.

Mehta, Kumud. ”Introduction,” Silence! The Court is in Session, Vijay Tendulkar, Bombay:
Oxford University Press, 1978.

Menon, Jaya. Women and the Indian Print Media: Portrayal and Performance, Delhi,
Chanakya Publications, 1992.

Mishra, Smita. An Estimation of Vijay Tendulkar as a Playwright. Zenith, Vol. XI, 2005-06.
Morgan, Robin. “Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape” L. Lader (Ed) Take Back the
Night, New York, 1980.

Mukherjee, Rama. Women, Law and Free Legal Aid in India, New Delhi, Deep & Deep
Publications Pvt. Ltd. 1998.

Naipaul, V.S. India: A Wounded Civilization Penguine, New York 1980.

Nandy, Ashish. The Inner World: Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias, Delhi Oxford University
Press, 1987.
Narsu, Lakshmi. P. A Study of Caste. Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 2003.
Noble Dass, Veena. Modern Indian Drama in English Translation, Hyderabad, 1988

Pandey, Sudhaker & Freya Taraporewala (eds). Contemporary Indian Drama. New Delhi:
Prestige, 1990.
Prasad, A.N. & Saryug Yadav (eds). Studies in Indian Drama in English. Bareilly: Prakash
Book Depot, 2003.
Reddy, Venkata K & R. K. Dhawan (eds). Flowering of Indian Drama: Growth and
Development. New Delhi: Prestige, 2004.

Robins, Stephen. P. Organizational Behaviour. New Delhi, Prentice Hall of India, 2001.
Roscho, B. “News Making”, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Sarat Babu Munchi. Vijay Tendulkar’s Ghashiram Kotwal, A Reader’s Companion, New
Delhi, Asia Book Club, 2003.
Sarat Babu, Munchi. Indian Drama Today: A Study in the Theme of Cultural Deformity,
New Delhi, Sangam Books Ltd, 1997

Sarkar, L and Siva Ramayya. B. (Eds) Women and Law: Contemporary Problems, New
Delhi, Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd, , 1994, p.114

Shaw, Bernard. Joan of Arc. Epilogue, Macmillan, New Delhi, 1984.

Smith, Hamilton. Great Men of the World, Chicago. Ronald and Ronald, 1976,

Tagore, Rabindranath. “What is Art?” The English Critical Tradition, Volume II, eds. S.
Ramaswami and V.S. Seturaman, Madras: The Macmillan Company of India
Limited, 1978.

Taisha, Absham. Feminist Theory and Modern Drama, Delhi, Pencraft, 1998.
Tandon, Neeru. Perspectives and Challenges in Indian-English drama, New Delhi, Atlantic
Publishers, 2006.

The Holy Bible, The New Testament, Luke:16:18

Westmark, E.A. History of Human Marriage. New York, Penguin Paperback. 1985.
Zelliot, Eleanor. From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on Ambedkar Movement, New Delhi,
Manohar, 1992.

Articles and Interviews

A Reader’s Companion, New Delhi, Asia Book Club, 2003.

Bagal, Baburao. “Dalit Literature is but Human Literature”. Poisoned Bread: Translations
from Marathi Dalit Literature, (Ed) Arjun Dangle, Hyderabad, Orient
Longman, 1992.

Barbuddhe, Satish. “Ghashiram Kotwal: the Mechanics of Power, a Reader’s Companion,

New Delhi, Asia Book Club, 2003.

Barve, Chandra Sekhar “Vijay Tendulkar: The Man who Explores the Depths of Life,”
Contemporary Indian Drama, Ed.Sudhakar Pandey and Freya Taraporewala
(New Delhi: Prestige, 1990), p.9
Bhanegaonkar. S. G. Depiction of Politics, Police, and Prostitution in Ghashiram Kotwal”, A
Reader’s Companion, New Delhi, Asia Book Club, 2003.

Bhatnagar, Vinitha. “Theatre as Translation: A Performance based Reading of Ghashiram

Kotwal.” Dramatic Theory and Practice: Indian And Western, ed.
M.S.Kushwaher, New Delhi: Creative, 2000.

Chaugule R. B. The Theme of Human Relationship in Vijay Tendulkar's A Friend's Story

Coelho. C. “The Cult of Violence and Cruelty in Modern Theatre: A Study of Athol Fugard
and Vijay Tendulkar”, Indian Literature Today, ed. R.K. Dawan, Delhi:
Prestige, 1994.

Ghanshyam G. A. & Tanjeem Ara Khan Tendulkar's Kanyadan: A Saga of Dichotomy

Gokhale, Vikram. “On Kamala”:Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays: An Anthology of Recent Criticism
Ed V.M Madge, Pencraft International, Delhi, 2007

Gosavi, Nutan. “Kanyadaan: An Expose of Political Progressives” Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays:

An Anthology of Recent Criticism, Ed., by V.M.Madge, Pencraft International,
Delhi, 2007.

Ilaiah, Kancha. “Why I am not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy” Culture
and Political Economy, Calcutta, Samya, 1996.

Kakar, Sudhir. “Marriage: War between the sexes,” The Indian Express, Weekend Magazine,
7 June, 1987.

Kameswari, Jandhyala. “At his Majesty’s Pleasure,” The Indian Express, Weekend
Magazine, 25 November, 1989.

Kanade, S.S. Thematics: A Peer-Reviewed International Journal of English Studies, Volume,

January, 2010.

Kannan.K. “When Writing Is Life Itself” Interview with K. Kannan. The Hindu, New
Delhi, 16, Sept, 2001

Karnad, Girish. “Author’s Introduction,” Three Plays (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Katyal, Arjun. (ed) “Interview with Augesto Boal”, Seagull Theatre Quarterly. April 1994.

Khatri C. L. Silence! The Court is in Session: Illusion and Reality

Kulakarni, Prahlad. A. “Ghashiram Kotwal: a Reassessment” A Reader’s Companion, New
Delhi, Asia Book Club, 2003.
Kumar Ashok Vijay Tendulkar's Journey towards Self-discovery: Some Reflections
Kumar, Geeta. “Portrayal of Women in Tendulkar’s Shantata Court Chalu Aahe and
Sakharam Binder” New Directions in Indian Drama, New Delhi, Prestige,
1994.
Kumar, Geeta. The Play of Power –Politics in Ghashiram Kotwal A Reader’s Companion,
Asia Book Club, 2003, New Delhi.
Limaye, Mohan. R. The Archetypal Identity of Laxmi in Sakharam Binder, Modern Asian
Studies, 1978.
Madge. V.M. “Sakharam Binder: An Unwitting Construction” Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays: an
Anthology of Recent criticism, Delhi, Pencraft International, 2007.
Mallikarjuna. G. “Ghashiram Kotwal”: A Study, A Reader’s Companion, New Delhi, Asia
Book Club, 2003.
Mirajkar, Nishikant. D. “Two Recent Plays of Vijay Tendulkar,” New Directions in Indian
Drama, Prestige, 1994, New Delhi.
Mishra Binod Streak of Feminisrn in Vijay Tendulkar's Silence! The Court is in Session

Mishra, Sumit. “India’s Master Playwright,” India Today, December 16-31, 1980.

Nayak Bhagabat Vijay Tendulkar's Kamala: A Study of Investigative Journalism on

Gendered Subalterns
Noble Dass, Veena. “Women Characters in the Plays of Tendulkar”, New Directions in
Indian Drama, New Delhi, Prestige.
Obula Reddy P. Power and Cruelty in Ghashiram Kotwal A Reader’s Companion, New
Delhi, Asia Book Club, 2003.
Pabby. D.K. Challenging the Canons: A Study of Ghashiram Kotwal
Pandey, Sudhakar and Barua Freya. New Directions in Indian Drama, New Delhi, Prestige,
1994.

Patel M. F. Vijay Tendulkar: A Playwright with Difference!

Patil Mallikarjun Vijay Tendulkar's Ghashiram Kotwal: A Portrayal of Marathas' Power-
Politics
Rai, Sudha. “Sakharam Binder, Kamala and Kanyadaan”, Perspectives and Challenges in
Indian-English drama, Ed., by Neeru Tandon, Atlantic Publishers, 2006, New
Delhi.
Ramadevi. N. Ghashiram Kotwal: Folk Theatre, A Reader’s Companion, New Delhi, Asia
Book Club, 2003.
Rangra, Ranavir. Interview with Indian Writers: New World Literature Series: New Delhi,
B.R. Publishing Corporation 1992.
Renuka. E. “Casanova as the Saviour: A Study of Vijay Tendulkar’s Sakharam Binder”
New Directions in Indian Drama, Prestige, 1994, New Delhi.
Roy, Burman, Indulekha. Man-Woman Relationship in the Sakharam Binder Perspectives
and Challenges in Indian-English Drama, Ed., Neeru Tandon, Atlantic
Publishers, 2006, New Delhi.

Samant, Nitin.“Tendulkar: A Confused Perspective,” Adhikar Raksha, Jan-June, 1983.

Singh Krishna Vijay Tendulkar's Kanyadan: A Perception of Indian Society and its Values
Singh, Brijraj. “Sakharam Binder: A Reappraisal”, New Quest.(Feb.6, 1978

Tendulkar, Meena. Kirloskar, Quoted by Sathya Saran and Vimla Patil, “Interview”,
Femina, June.

Thankamma, Catherine. “Woman that Patriarchy Created: The Plays of Vijay Tendulkar,
Mahesh Dattani and Mahasweta Devi”, Vijay Tendulkar’s Plays. An
Anthology of Recent Criticism(Ed) V.M. Madge, Pencraft International, Delhi
2007.

Upadhyaya, Nishi. “Vulnerable Victims: Vijay Tendulkar’s Kamala, Perspectives and

Challenges in Indian-English Drama, Ed., by Neeru Tandon, Atlantic
Publishers, New Delhi, 2006.

Wadikar, Shailaja. B. Power as a Theme in Ghashiram Kotwal A Reader’s Companion, New

Delhi, Asia Book Club, 2003.

INTERVIEWS

1. Adarkar, Priya. “Vijay Tendulkar Interviewed” Enact 49-50 (1971).

2. Dass,Veena Noble. “Vijay Tendulkar Interviewed”, Bombay: 1984, Unpublished.

3. Tendulkar, Vijay. “Interview”, India Today, 16-31 Dec. 1980.

4. Tendulkar, Vijay. “I Portray Women as I see them” Femina, 8-22 June 1984.

5. Tendulkar, Vijay. “When Writing Is Life Itself” Interviewed The Hindu, New
Delhi, 16Sept, 2001.

6. Tendulkar, Vijay. “Interview”, The Indian Express, 27 March, 1983, Magazine Sec,

7. Wasi, Jehanara. “New Trail in Marathi Theatre”,Link,1 Oct.1989.

8. Habib Tanvir. “Interviewed.” Enact 87 (March 1974)

ARTICLES FROM INTERNET
1. Carolyn. M. Byerly and Karen Ross.“Woman and Media: A Critical Introduction”
Blackwell Publishing; Howard University.
http://www.mediaandwoman.org\\
2. Mohan. R. Limaye.“The Archetypal Identity of Laxmi in Sakharam Binder”.Modern
Asian Studies, Vol.12, No.1 (1978), pp.135- 143. Cambridge University Press.
http://www.jstor.org\\
3. Robert S. Moog.“Elite-court Relations in India: An Unsatisfactory Arrangement”
Asian Survey, University of California Press, Vol. 38, No.4, (Apr., 1998),pp. 410-423.
http://www.links.jstor.org\\
4. Ayachit, Santosh. “We can never understand Vijay Tendulkar”.
//html.www.Vijaytendulkar.google search.com tml//20/06/2008.
5. Chaitanya. “Conversation with Vijay Tendulkar”.
//html.www.vijay Tendulkar.google.com.html//13/05/08
6. Bahadur, Sona. “The Legend Endures”Wednesday, 2 Oct/08 Indian Express.
<//html.www.google search. Vijay Tendulkar.html//>
7. Panikkar, K.N. “Nehru Theatre Festival.”
http:// www.3to6.com/final_theatre/review-ntf.htm.
8. “Tendulkar Is a Scathing Interpreter Of Maladies”
<//html www.DNA online news Analysis s html//>
9. “Vijay Tendulkar, Voice Of Social Stage Is Dead”
<//www. The Telegraph,Tuesday,20 May2008//>
10. Deepa,Gahlat. “Tendulkar :The World Is His Stage”
<//www. Spectrum, The Tribune, Sunday, Oct, 2004. //>
11. Raghunath, Ram. “Response To Conversation With Sir Vijay Tendulkar”
<//Www. Vijay Tendulkar Google Search, 20 Dec 2006//.
12. Divan Singh, Bajeli. "Unmasking Reality”
<// vijay tendulkar, The Hindu, 21 nov2005//>
13. Stespen, S.Vnod. “Woman- Social Justice”Asian Survey, University of California
Press, Vol. 38, No.4, (March., 1997),pp. 4---13.
http://www.links.jstor.org\\
Appendices
 TENDULKAR’S DRAMATIC WORKS

S. Date of
Title Institute First Show
No Publications

1. Ghrihasth Mumbai Marathi Sahitya 1955 -

(The House Holder) Sangha, Drama wing Exact date not known

2. Shrimant (The Rich) Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 12thDec, 1955 1955

Kala Kendra

3. Manus Navache Bet Lalit Kala Kendra 28th Oct, 1956 1956
(An Island Called Man)

4. Madhalaya Bhinti Best Arts Section 4th Nov, 1958 1958

(Middle Walls)

5. Chimanicha Ghar Hota Rangmancha 27th Dec, 1959 1960

Menacha (The Wax House
of the Sparrow)

6. I Jinkalo, Mi Haralo Rangayan 20th Oct, 1963 1963

(I won, I Lost)

7. Kavlyanchi Shala (School Rangayan 55th Dec, 1963 1964

for Crows)

8. Sar Ga Sarj Mumbai, Marathi Sahitya 18th May 1964 1964

(Drizzle O Drizzle) Sangh , Drama Wing

9. Ek Hatti Mulagi Kala Vaibhav 21st Nov, 1966 1968

(An Obstinate Girl)

10. Shantata! Court Chalu Ahe Rangayan 28th Dec, 1967 1968
(Silence! the Court is in
Session)

11. Jahala Anand Hanumant - - 1968

12. Dambdwipacha Makabala Rangayan 10th Dec, 1969 1974

(An Encounter in
Umbugland)

13. Gidhade (The Vultures) Theatre Unit 29th May, 1970 1971

14. Ashi Pakhara Yeti Progressive Dramatic 26th Nov, 1970 1970
(So Come Birds) Association, Pune
15 Sakharam Binder Welcome Theatres 10th March, 19972 1972

16. Bhalya Kaka Natya Mandar 5th April, 1972 1974

17. Gharate Amuche Chan Welcome Theatre 28th Oct, 1972

(Nice is our Nest) 1973

18. Ghashiram Kotwal Progressive Dramatic 16th Dec, 1972

Association, Pune 1973

19. Baby Nateshwar 29th Aug, 976 1975

20. Bhai Murarao Theatre Academy, Pune 13th Sep, 1977 1975

21 Pahije Jattiche - - 1976

22 Mitrachi Goshta Bhumika 15th Aug, 1981 1982

(A Friend’s Story)

23. Kamala Kala Rang 7th Aug, 1981 1982

24. Kanyadaan INT 12th Feb, 1983 1983

25. Vithala INT 22nd May, 1985 1983

26. Chirajneev Saubhagya Abhishek 14th Dec, 1991 -

Kanshini

27. Safar Avishkar 6th Jan, 1992 -

28. Niyatichya Bailala Ho (To

Hell With the Bull of the - - -
Fate)
Vijay Dhondopant Tendulkar (1928-2008)
Vijay Tendulkar
with his daughter