Prakash 166

Chapter – IV

Study of Socialistic Perspectives

Introduction

Both Ibsen and Tendulkar have taken up contemporary social issues for discussion

in their plays. Ibsen’s plays feature modern heroines like Nora and Hedda Gabler who

are the product of their times; same could be said of Miss.Leela Benare and Champa.

The plays chosen for study reveal the social vision of both playwrights.

Socialistic perspectives in the plays of Vijay Tendulkar

In Tendulkar’s plays, generally, women are at the centre. It is around women that

most of the action revolves. The roles Tendulkar’s female protagonists play eclipse those

played by the men figuring in them. It is Leela Benare in Silence! The Court is in Session

and Sarita in Kamala who play the leading roles in these plays which present a world

apparently dominated by male chauvinists. Both Leela Banare and Sarita are educated

and efficient and refuse to be cowed down by men. Tendulkar treats his women

characters with understanding and compassion, while pitting them against men who are

selfish, hypocritical and brutally ambitious. So, these plays can justifiably be defined as

gyno-centric.

Leela Benare is a school teacher who is as sprightly, rebellious and assertive as

the heroines of Shakespear’s romantic comedies, as some critics have already observed.

She is conscientious in her work and commands the love and respect of all her pupils. She
 Prakash 167

is also an enlightened activist, being a member of the amateur theatre group called “The

Sonar Moti Tenement (Bombay) Progressive Association” (S.C.S.59). The other

members of this amateur theatre are the Kashikars, Balu Rokde, Sukhatme, Ponkshe,

Karnik, Professor Damle and Rawte, who all belong to the urban middle class of

Bombay. Mr. Kashikar is the chairman of the association while Mrs.Kashikar is a house

wife who follows her husband like a meek shadow. Balu Rokde is a college student

whose education is taken care of by the childless Kashikars. Sukhatme is a lawyer and

Ponkshe is a clerk in the Central Telegraph Office. Karnik is an actor in the experimental

theatre with pretensions to being an expert on ‘Intimate Theatre’. Damle is a professor

who plays a key-role in the action of the play, though not physically present.

Leela Benare and Samant, an innocent villagers, are the first to arrive at the

village hall where the artistes from Bombay are to hold a “’Mock Law Court’. When

Benare hurts her finger, mishandling the door bolt, Samant, looking at her bleeding

finger, tells her how he also had hurt his finger once in the same way. Benare feels light-

hearted and gay in Samant’s company. She springs a surprise on the rustice Samant with a

sudden confidential proposal: “… Let’s leave everyone behind, I’ thought, and go

somewhere far, far, away – with you!” in utter “confusion” the shocked Samant exclaims

“With me?”(S.C.S.55).

Benare tries to make sexual overture to Samant, she takes every opportunity to get

closer to him as she enjoys his psysical proximity. Samant has no reason to suspect her.

Meanwhile, she talks to Samant of her career as a teacher, saying her pupils are “so much

better than adults” (S.C.S.56). When she makes this observation, she has Professor Damle

in her mind and the audience realizes this fact in the course of the play. Samant’s total
 Prakash 168

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.

They will do anything for her; for she would give “the last drop” (S.C.S.58).

Benare loves her profession very much, and likes to teach students until die. Her fellow

teachers, and even the management, are extremely jealous of her. Samant becomes

“embarrassed” when Benare, after telling him that the management is holding an enquiry

against her “just because of one bit of slander” (S.C.S.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 continuing her tirade:

Throw me out? Let them! I haven’t hurt anyone. Anyone at all! If

I’ve hurt anybody, it’s been myself. 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 will is my own. My wishes are my own. No one can

kill those – no one (S.C.S..58).

Gradually, Benare regains her poise and tells Samant, who asks her if she is not

feeling well, that nothing is the matter with her, and, to convince him of her fine health,

sings, with a sudden burst of energy, an English song to herself. Benare begins to provide

Samant with additional informantion about her co-actors. For instance, she sarcasticaslly

refers to Mr.Kashikar as “Mr.Prime Objective” (S.C.S..59). Benare also informs Samant

that the childless Kashikars have adopted Balu Rockde in order to escape their boredom

in life, and in the process, have made a slave of the poor fellow:
 Prakash 169

Samant enjoys listening to Benare’s portrayal of her own self as a dedicated

teacher, and highly sarcastic comments on most of the members of the theatre troupe to

which she belongs, missing only the significance of the nuances of her jobs at her co-

actors. To him, it is all great fun. When Sukhatme, Ponkshe and Balu Rokde arrive,

Samant is simply overawed by Ponkshe’s Sahib-like appearance. No wonder, he is

prepared to be at their back and call, doing menial jobs for them, like buying tea,

cigarettes, beedies and pan-masalas. He is totally oblivious of the fact that these city-

wallahs, except Benare, treat him with contempt because of his rustic background.

Arrangements are being made to stage a ‘mock-trial’. Benare goes into the inner

room to wash her face, all the while, humming to herself, Karnik takes Ponkshe aside

and, indicating the inner room into which Benare has just gone, tells him if he knows

anything about her” “About Her, About Miss.Benare, Rokde told me.”. Ponkshe, too,

says: “I’ve got something to tell you, too, About Miss Benare” (S.C.S.72). This aside

between Karnik and Ponkshe has a great dramatic significance. At Sukhatme’s

suggestion, they all decide to frame Benare as ‘the accused in the ‘mock-trail’.

Ponkshe calls everyone around him and almost in a conspiratorial tone “whispers

some plan to them, gesticulating” (S.C.S.73), all of them arrange the furniture as in a

court, with Ponkshe taking the lead. The furniture arrangement having been completed,

Ponkshe and Kashikar stand by the door of the inner room, while the others go into the

wings at the left. Now Benare comes out singing. She looks very fresh. She puts away her

things in a basket on the dias at right, all the while, singing:

 Prakash 170

The parrot to the sparrow said.

‘Why, oh why are your eyes so red?

‘Oh my dear friend, what shall I say?

Someone has stolen my nest away’

sparrow, sparrow, poor little sparrow! (S.C.S.74)

Ponkshe, coming from the door way of the inner room, and standing before

Benare on the dais, starts her saying: “Miss Leela Benare, you have been arrested on

suspicion of a crime of an extremely grave nature and brought as a prisoner before the bar

of this court” (S.C.S.74). At this, Benare stiffens, while Karnik and Rokde arrange a

wooden dock around her. Benare is suddenly felt sad and seriously accused of a grave

crime, and Kashikar, the judge of the ‘Mock Law Court’, asks Benare: “Prisoner Miss

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 aforementioned crime?” (S.C.S.74)

On hearing this sudden charge, Benare is stunned, and the entire atmosphere

becomes extraordinarly somber and tense. Ironically enough, this is so-called illusive

‘mock-trial’, ‘the play-within-the-play’, slowly but steadily, grows into a serious affair,

with the promise of some enormously sadistic kind of pleasure to Sukhatme, Ponkshe,

Balu Rokde and Mrs.Kashikar, as the audience are to realize later in the course of the

play.
 Prakash 171

It is in this extraordinarily somber atmosphere that Act II opens with Kashikar

repeating his question as to whether or not Benare is guilty of the crime of infanticide,

Benare stands numb holding on to a chair for support. However, Samant’s entry lightens

the atmosphere a little, for he offers them cigarettes, beedis and panmasalas. There ensues

a pan-spitting context. Tendulkar introduces this comic interlude in his play in order to

help Benare regain her usual sense of gay abandon and confidence. Benare quickly

recovers her poise when Sukhatme enquires of her” “Why are you so grave all of a

sudden? After all, it’s a game. Just a game, that’s all. Why are you serious?” (S.C.S.75). It

is now that the ‘mock-trial’ begins. To start with, Sukhatme asks Ponkshe a few questions

about the accused Benare’s private life and her general behaviour in public:

SUKHATME: Mr.Ponkshe, is the accused marked or unmarried”

PONKSHE: Why don’t you ask the accused?

SUKHATME: But if you were asked, what would you say?

PONKSHE: To the public eye, she is unmarried. (S.C.S..81)

This leads Sukhatme to seek information from Ponkshe about Benare’s moral

conduct. He triumphs in making Ponkshe admit that Benare is a woman who “runs after

men too much” (S.C.S..81). Further, Karnik, the next witness, is persuaded to confess the

fact that Rokde has seen Benare in “a compromising situation” (S.C.S.85)

Rokde is called as a witness. With his innate fear, Rokde feels utterly afraid and

hence, is close to tears. But Mrs.Kashikar persuades him to give “a marvelous, unbroken

bit of evidence” (S.C.S.85) against Benare. Despite all this, Rokde is speechless, and

when goaded again and again by Sukhatme, with great difficulty, he says: “I saw – shall!”
 Prakash 172

(S.C.S. 86). Benare has been taunting Rokde all along and her words, “Speak, Balu, speak

A-B-C”. (S.C.S.86) Infuriate him and, wiping away the sweat on his forehead, he tells

Sukhatme that he saw Benare in Professor Damle’s hostel room, after disclosing this vital

bit of information. Rokde, looking at Benare, says vengefully: “Now laugh!” (S.C.S.86)

Benare has already stiffened considerably and Karnik signals to Ponkshe to observe this

dramatic change in Benare. Thus Benare leads herself in trouble, much to the perverse

excitement of her tormentors.

Benare comes to the stage, takes her bag and purse, and goes to the door to open

it. She finds the door locked from outside. At this point, namely the end of act II, a

claustrophoubic atmosphere is deftly built up by the playwright. The door can be opened,

as Samant says, only when the villagers come to see the real ‘Mock-Law court’, the real

performance of the night which is to take place after some time. Again the door-bolt has

slid itself shut because of Benare’s mishandling of it, for Samant says. “Madam, when

you pulled the bolt you did it the wrong way. You should have pulled it back fully”

(S.C.S.95). Thus, Benare finds herself trapped with none coming forward to help her. The

trial, as Kashikar says, has to go on in this manner, for they have to while away the time,

till the arrival of the villagers. Thus, Act II comes to a close with Sukhatme praying to

Kashikar, the ‘mock-judge’, to allow him to call Benare, the accused, to the witness-box.

Ignoring Kashikar’s call, Benare remains rooted to where she stands. This results

in Mrs.Kashikar dragging Benare, ‘softly’ suggests to her. “why not get it over with Miss

Benare? It’s all a game” (S.C.S.97). Karnik asks Sukhatme to “fire away” (S.C.S.97) his

questions at Benare Sukhame, walking around in front of Benare for a while, suddenly
 Prakash 173

points a finger at her and says. “Your name is Leela Damle.” (S.C.S.97). Samant at once

corrects Sukhatme saying: “No, no, Benare. Damle is the Professor” (S.C.S.97). Benare

does not answer any of Sukhatme’s questions and whenever he approaches her, she

moves away from him.

Karnik tells the court that it was not Balu who slapped Benare but Benare who

slapped Balu. He also says, describing the conversation between Balu Rokde and Benare

that Benare did propose to Balu Rokde. Another piece of vital information that he tells

Kashikar, the mock-judge, is Benare’s unsuccessful attempt at suicide when she happened

to fall in love with her own maternal uncle. Kashikar listens to Karnik intently and at the

end, observes with respect to Banare’s immoral behaviour: “… just one step away from

total depravity” (S.C.S.111).

Kashikar wants to be openly examined as a witness, something unprecedented in

the very history of court proceedings. He tells Sukhatme, the lawyer for prosecution, that

the Chairman of Benare’s school, Nanasahib Shinde, has already decided to dismiss her

from service. This shocks Benare who realizes suddenly that she is going to lose her job

the very next day. In sheer despair, she tries to swallow the TIK – 20 that she keeps in her

bag. Karnik dashes forward and pushes it away beyond her. The light is now focused on

focused on Benare, who remains motionless. The whole court freezes in the position and

Benare stands up erect and says: Yes, I have lot to say (S.C.S.116).

How new, how wonderful every moment is! Even you seem newto

yourself. The sky, birds, clouds ….. even the strong smell of medicines in

a hospital, even that seems full to bursting with life. Life seems to sing for
 Prakash 174

you! There’s great joy in a suicide that’sfailed. It’s greater than the pain of

living. (S.C.S.116)

Leela Benare, in her monologue, accuses all men as ‘hypocrites’ whose only

interest is in her body and not in her bleeding heart or agonized mind. Commenting on

her co-actors, she observes,

These are the moral remains of some cultured men of the twentieth

century. See their faces-how ferocious they look! Their lips are full of

lovely worn-out phrase! And their bellies are full of unsatisfied desires.

(S.C.S.117).

Finally, Benare ends up confessing that she is afraid of them all. She admits

further the fact that she committed a sin once in falling in love with her maternal uncle as

a teen-aged girl, though, she had enough sense even at that stage to ask him to marry her.

On the other hand, she was sad to learn that the man was a pervert and he had his eyes

only on her newly-blossomed beauty. At the end, confronted with, her demand to marry

her uncle “turned tail and ran” (S.C.S.117). This incident hurt her mind so much that, she

tried to commit suicide by throwing herself off a parapet of her house yet she would not

die.

Leela Benare confesses that as a grown-up woman, she fell in love again. This

time it was an intelligent love, she fell in love, she thought. However, Professor Damale,

the unusual intellect” exploited her hero-worship and, when she offered to him her own

body on the altar of her worship, “my intellectual god took the offering and went his

way” (S.C.S.118). Benare mumbles freebly:

 Prakash 175

He wasn’t a god. He was a man. For whom everything was of the body, for

the body! That’s all! Again, the body! (S.C.S.118).

In short, all her bitter experiences have taught Benare that it is her body that has

brought about her current sad plight. Nevertheless, much as she may hate her body she

would not totally reject it. Her agony finds expression in the depiction of the conflict

within:

This body is a traitor! (she is writhing with pain) I despise this

body-and I hate it-but-it’s all you have, in the end, isn’t it? …

and where will you go if you reject it? … It was your body

that once burnt and gave you a moment so beautiful, so blissful, so

near to heaven! … It took you high, high, high above yourself into a

place like paradise. 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 now for

him for him alone. (S.C.S.118)

She asserts in pain and anxiety that here is a selfless mother’s quest, founded on

her would be son’s most essential needs.The boy must have a mother, a father, a house

and a good reputation in society. Kashikar, the judge of the ‘mock trial’, now declares

that her time is up, and prepares himself to give the verdict. He tells her that she has tried

to “dynamite” (S.C.S.118). Social customs and the sacredness of marriage and

 Prakash 176

motherhood, and hence, deserves no mercy. Moreover, as a teacher, she has set a very bad

example, by daring to conceive a child out of wedlock. Therefore, the sentence meted out

to her by him is that she must destroy the foetus in her womb.The play is a satire on the

convention and hypocrisy of the middle-class, male dominated society which is

concerned only with a farcial moral code. It is Benare fear of such a code that makes her

crave for marriage and forces her to beg the inferior men around one after another to

marry her in order to play the role of a father to her child. Benare’s final collapse is

unexpected and it leaves the audience with the feelings of pity and horror.

The theme of Tendulkar’s Kamala a two act play is flesh trade and how well-

known young journalist like Jaisingh Jadhav seeks to capitalize on it in order to further

succeed in their careers in the least for the victims of this trade in a democratic country

like India. The play offers Vijay Tendulkar enough scope to scoff at the kind of trendy

journalism practiced by Jadhav and also to strike a contrast between the journalism in the

vernacular and that in English. Tendulkar uses the play also to dwell on the characteristic

suffering of the Indian middle class women perpetrated by selfish, malicious, secretive

and hypocritical male chauvinist. The man-woman relationship, another of Tendulkar’s

favourite themes, is also deftly touched upon in the complex relationship between Jadhav

and his wife, Sarita.

Kamala is a gyno-centric play in the sense that it is built on the metamorphosis of

Sarita emerging from being a docile wife to an assertive, mature woman in the end.

Jaisingh Jadhav is a well-known young journalist associated with an English dialy

published by an unscrupulous press baron. Sarita is his wife. She is well-educated and

hails from a village called Phaltan. They live in a small bungalow in a fashionable locality
 Prakash 177

around New Delhi in the neighbourhood of Neeti Bagh. Kamalabai is Sarita’s servant-

woman and she, too, hails from phaltan. Though highly educated, Sarita lets herself be

reduced to the status of a slavish, docile wife. Kakasaheb is Sarita’s uncle and, he is

currently in Delhi in order to procure his quota of newsprint with Jadhav’s help. Born in

an aristocratic family, Kakasaheb runs a paper in the vernacular. He lives a simple life on

Gandhian principles.

Hectic phone calls form a recurrent ‘motif’ throughout the play. Act I of Kamala

begins with Kakasaheb speaking on the phone. In the dialogue that follows between

Kakasaheb and Sarita, Sarita has to make a note of all the incoming calls and any failure

on her part to do so will inevitably attract Jadhav’s displeasure leading eventually to

domestic discord.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”.

(K.3). The phone rings at such regular intervals that Kakasaheb suggests to Sarita. “Why

don’t you make Kamalabai sit by the phone?” (K.4). That Jadhav does not tell her any

thing about his frequent outings become obvious when Sarita says” “He’s gone out of

town somewhere.”(K.4)

After sometime, Sarita receives the message that Jadhav is returning to Delhi from

the newspaper office. Receiving this message, Sarita goes about busily making all

arrangements for a warm reception for him. As a wife, she is extremely sensitive to her

husband’s needs and tastes, quite eager to pamper to his own whims and fancies. She

spreads some mangoes and cauliflower on a plate and keep Jadhav’s beer ready. Sarita,

thus, attends to her husband’s needs with an alacrity that makes wonder how she, an

educated girl, rich enough not to depend on any one, could be so slave to her husband.
 Prakash 178

Kakasaheb rightly observes: “you may be highly educated, Sarita, but you

are still a girl from the old Mohite Wada”( K.5).

Though, Jadhav’s reputation as a journalist is admirable, and even enviable, as a

husband, Kakasaheb and his friends like Jain, have nothing good to say about him.For

instance, Jain, addressing Sarita, says:

Hi, Bhabhiji, I mean, an English ‘h’ 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 this wife…(to Sarita) Bte, lovely

bonded labourer…( K.17)

Sarita is indeed a “lovely bonded labourer”, taking note of all phone calls,

attending to all Jadhav’s physical needs and running about in the house carrying out all

his presumptuous instruction.Sarita is shocked to hear from Jadhav that he has bought

Kamala for two hundred and fifty rupees in the Luhardaga 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…” (K.14).

He goes on to add: “The men who want to bid the women have to inspect them…

How they feel in the breast, in their waist, in their thighs and …” (K.14). Outraged, Sarita

asks him to stop. Jadhav warns her strictly not to tell any one that he is going to exhibit

Kamala at the ‘Press Conference’ to counter the government’s allegation that

newspapermen tell lies. He hopes: “there’ll be high drama at today’s press conference.
 Prakash 179

It’ll create an up roar!” (K.15). When Sarita asks him if she can ask Kamala to bathe and

then give a fresh sari to wear, Jadhav shouts at her: “No! He adds just let this evening’s

Press Conference get over. It’s very important.”( K.18).

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, Sahib.

JAISINGH: Kamala, this evening we’re going out together.

KAMALA: Oh: I’ll see Bombay! They say it’s a very big city (K.19)

Kamala is so ignorant and illiterate that she does not even know that she is in

Delhi and not in Bombay. Jadhav tells her that she is going to take her to a place where

‘big feasts’ take place and that the people there “will want to meet” her. Kamala,

however, tells Jadhav that she cannot go with him in her rags. Jadhav, hardening his

expression and voice, tells her: “You will ‘have’ to come, Kamala. Finally, Kamala

agrees to go with him in her rags.

Before Jadhav goes out with Kamala to the Press conference, Kakasaheb makes

an attempt to persuade Jadhav to see the danger that he is landing himself in. Jadhav tells

him that someone should take up the cause of the common man and so, He is doing it.

Kakasheb 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, highlsights the contrast between journalism in the
 Prakash 180

vernacular and that in English to drive home the fact that it is the dailies in the vernacular

alone that reach the masses.

To the surprise of Jadhav, Kakasaheb argues that none can effect any meaningful

social or political change in India through English dailies, as they reach only a very small

section of Indian population. Then Kakasaheb advises Jadhav saying:

…This new journalism of yours- if money- making is not the object of it-

then it’s a ‘Vandhya-Sambhog’… What I mean is nothing will ever come

of it. ‘Arre’, write the people’s language first, speak it. Then try and teach

them. (K.24)

Hearing Kakasaheb speaking in such categorical terms, Jadhav becomes tense.

Seeing the change that comes over him, Kakasaheb apologizes profusely: “Arre Baba’. I

apologize, Is that all right? Seeing I’m a journalist born and bred, I’ll apologize, as often

as you like-special apologizes-without any reserve” (K.25). Jadhav becomes relaxed,

much to Sarita’s relief. Act I ends in Jadhav’s taking Kamala to the Press Conference.

Act II of Kamala opens with Jadhav celebrating his success at the Press

Conference with his friend Jain. Both Jadhav and Jain are dead drunk. Kakasaheb

watches them in silent amusement. However, very soon, he gets so disgusted with the

friends, narration of what happened at the Press Conference that he exclaims: “this is your

press conference!” (K.29). The two friends, nonetheless, continue their drunken revelry.

They say that they had great fun at the press conference.
 Prakash 181

Sarita asks them: “So while they were asking her those terrible questions, and

making fun of her- you just sat and watched, did you?” (K.30). Jadhav, rather drunk, says:

“I didn’t hold this press conference for my own benefit. It was to drag this criminal sale

of human beings into the light of day” (K.31). At once Kakasaheb tells him: “and you

sold a woman to them to do so.” (K.31). Jadhav gets infuriated at Kakasaheb’s

observation and asks him to apologize, which he does at once.Yet; the success Jadhav has

been proud of is punctured by both Sarita and Kakasaheb. Jain now takes leave of them

and Kakasaheb goes into his room. This leaves Jadhav and Sarita alone. Jadhav wants to

go to the bed room at once with Sarita. Sarita reples his advances towards her which

makes him ask her the question:

“…Don’t I have the right to have my wife when feel like it? Don’t I? I’m

hungry for that to- I’ve been hungry for six days. Is it a crime to ask for it?

Answer me.”( K.32).

Sarita, trying to control her aversion, goes to the kitchen, and Jadhav goes upstairs

drunk, emerged and dejected. Like Kamala, Sarita too function as a mere pawn in

Jadhav’s game of chess. However, she 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 won’t be angry?

SARITA: No, go on.

KAMALA: How much did he buy you for? (K.34)

 Prakash 182

Kamala’s question opens Sarita’s eyes suddenly and, for the first time, she finds

no difference between herself and Kamala whom her husband has bought to exhibit at the

press conference. She coolly tells Kamala that Jadhav bought her for seven hundred

rupees. Only women understand the problems of women, a fact that emerges from the

frank and unreserved conversation between Sarita and Kamala. Kamala, though naïve,

ignorant and illiterate, sympathizes with Sarita over her barrenness: “…If you pay seven

hundered and they bare no children…” (K.34). Sarita asks her how many as you want”

(K.34). Kamala, thus, expresses her readiness to bear Jadhav’s children to make the house

a pleasant place to live in. In a rather long dialogue Kamala tells Sarita,

Memsaheb, if you won’t misunderstand, I’ll tell you. The master bought you; he

bought me, too… So, Memsahib, both of us must stay here like sisters. We’ll keep the

master happy…The master will have children. I’ll do the hard work, and I’ll bring forth

the children. I’ll bring them up. You keep the accounts and run the house…fifteen days of

the month, you sleep with the master, the other, fifteen, I’ll sleep with him agreed?

Totallay cornered by Kamala’s suggestion, Sarita at once says: “Agreed” (K.35)

It is now that Sarita’s eyes open and the she realizes, at least, that in her husband’s

scheme of things, there is not much difference between herself and Kamala. That Jadhav

has been using her as a mere object to satisfy his own carnal desires, and as an object to

parade his own status in the capacity of his wife at parties, is suddenly recognized by

Sarita.On his return from the ‘Nari Niketan’, Jadhav asks his wife to go with him to a

party. Sarita, defiant now, tells him that she does not want to accompany him there:
 Prakash 183

JAISINGH: You don’t want to come? Why?

SARITA: That is my will.

JAISINGH: (Rather surprised) your will?

SARITA: Aren’t allowed to have a will of my own? (K.45)

Jadhav, surprised and dejected, leaves alone for the party. Kakasaheb, who has been away

to the city, now comes in, and sees Sarita sitting, rather depressed, on the sofa. To quote

from the play,

KAKASAHEB: “Is your head aching?”

SARITA: If I had one, it would.

KAKASAHEB: You don’t have a head? Then who does?

SARITA: The gentleman who just left.

KAKASAHEB: Gentleman? What gentleman? I didn’t meet any

one.

SARITA: I did. (K.45)

Here Sarita refers to Jadhav, her husband, by the term ‘gentleman’ underlining the

fact that he has become a stanger in her life. Sarita is here compared with Nora in Ibsen’s

A Doll’s House, has, thus, undergone a sea change, and now is entirely an independent

and assertive woman who has finally discovered her real identity. 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:
 Prakash 184

I am going to present a man who in the year 1982 still keeps a slave, right

here in Delhi. Jaisingh Jahdav. I am going to say this man’s a great

advocate of freedom. And he brings home a slave and exploits her… listen

to the story of how he bought the slave Kamala and made use of her. Th

other slave he got free – not just free - the slave’s father selled out the

money – a big sum (K.46).

When Kakasaheb asks her why she suddenly begins to think thus in strange terms, Sarita

says:

… I was asleep… Kamala woke me up with a shock. Kamala showed me

everything… I saw that the man I though my partner was the master of a

slave. I have no right at all in this house… slaves don’t have rights, It is

true Kakasaheb makes some feeble attempts to mollify her, but all his

efforts are of no avail. He screams at him in impatience in the end: Why?

Why can’t men limp behind? Why aren’t women ever the masters? Why

can’t a woman at least ask to live her life the same way as a man? Why

must only a man have the right to be a man? Does he have one extra

sense? A woman can do everything a man can. (K.47).

Jain, Jadhav’s friend, now comes in to inform Sarita and Kakasaheb the shocking

news that Sheth Singhania, the unscrupulous press baron, who is hand in glove with the

equally unscrupulous politicians, has dismissed Jadhav – a result of Jadha’vs expose of

flesh trade at the Press Conference. Jain says: “There have been pressures on the

proprietor. I learnt that some very big people are involved in this flesh market.” (K.48).

Sarita, at once, asks Jadhav over the phone to come back from the party.
 Prakash 185

Jadhav returns and asks Sarita why she has called him away from the party.

Sarita’s reply is soaked in irony: “Your owner is pleased with you and he’s decided to

relieve you from your job.” (K.49). Jadhav is shocked to hear the news and he curses his

boss and then goes on drinking. And then he suddenly flares up and then goes on banging

his fist on the table, bursting out: “The bastard! Do you hear me? He is a bastard. That

Sheth Singhania! I’ll teach him a lesson” (K.50). Little by little his voice weakens, is

control over his limbs gradually decreases, and finaly, he collapses on to the sofa.

Kakasaheb tells Sarita: “This is the mistake men make. That manhood makes. Do

you understand me?” (K.51) Sarita tells him that she understands him. Nevertheless, she

is not ready to change her opinion about marriage and husband- wife relationship. She

says,

I’ ll go on feeling it. But at present I’m going to lock all that up in a corner

of my mind and forget about it. But a day will come, Kakasaheb, when I

will stop being a slave. I’ ll no longer be an object to be used and thrown

away. I’ll do what I wish, and no one will rule over me. That day has to

come. And I’ll pay whatever price I have to pay for it. (K.52).

Benare in Silence!The Court is in Session and Sarita in Kamala are playing roles

which anger, mystify their male counterparts. In fact, these two plays are Tendulkar’s

attempts at delineating women, who, inspite of their supposed inferior status in Indian

society, reel against all odds and commands the audiences admiration.The principal

action in both the plays revolves around women protagonists. Benare in Silence!The

Court is in Session and Sarita in Kamala stand for the central consciousness in the

respective works of art, beyond any shade of doubt, and, hence, the plays can be rightly
 Prakash 186

called woman-centered. Through them, Tendulkar projects a point of view that is

peculiarly feminine-tending to be even feministic as the entire denouement in both the

plays in question bears it out. In these women centered works, feministic ideology, which

puts women in direct encounter with chauvinistic male oppressors, finds its full and free

expression. In characterization too, Tendulkar has deliberately given his women

characters a greater variety and depth – and thus a definite edge, over to their male

counterparts.

Vijay Tendulkar’s “Sakharam Binder” is an expose of the hypocrisy, jealousy,

masochism, and lust of the middle class male. Sakharam Binder, born in a Brahmin

family, ill-treated by both his father and mother, runs away at 11, fends for himself and at

last finds a job in a press. He is foul-mouthed and rough in manners, but honest. In

Tendulkar’s words he is “a coarse but impressive personality”. As he does not believe in

marriage, he brings home cast-off women whom, however, he does not keep with him

long. Thus, he spends fourteen years with six women. The play begins when the sixth

woman has left him and when he brings the seventh woman, the typical Indian woman,

Laxmi to his house.

Sakharam Binder is very arrogant in his manners. He exposes his ego in order to

escape from his super-ego. He always glorifies of himself as a self-made man who has no

respect even for Gods. In his own words” This Sakharam Binder he’s not scared of God

or God’s father”. (S.B.126) On seeing Laxmi looking for framed God he says,

We’re not saints. We’re men. I tell you, Worship and prayer can’t

satisfy the itch. If you want a thing, well you’ve got to have it:
 Prakash 187

what’s there to hide? And from whom our father? (S.B.127)

All this crude atheistic out bursts of Sakharam Binder, and his own reference to himself

as a ‘terror’ stand in sharp contrast to what he tells the terrified Laxmi a little while later.

… I know I’m foulmouthed. Bothers you, doesn’t it, even to hear

me talk? I’ve been like like this right from birth. (S.B.127)

Such recounting of the childhood by Sakharam Binder occurs again and again in

the play. One cannot escape the feeling that but for an unpleasant childhood he would

have been a true Brahmin throughout his life. Sakharam loves his mirudanga and chillum

(ganja). He plays on his mirudanga after having his heart’s fill of ganja, and then he falls

into a trance. Strangely enough, this same man, who has the aesthete in him, is still

capable of shocking cruelty towords his women. It is here that Tendulkar let people have

a peep into the inherent lust in men, which brooks no resistance, the insatirable “appetite”

in Sakharam’s words.

…This house is like me… This is not a royal palace. It’s Sakharam

Binder’s house … I’m the master here… But a house must be a

home you understand?... May be I’m a rascal, a womanizer, a pauper.

Why may be? I am all that. And I drink. But I must be

respected in my house … You’ll have to be a wife to me…( S.B.126)

 Prakash 188

Those above dialogues of Sakharam show how he is deeply rooted in his manliness. He is

so strong in his principles.

…She ‘ll go up to God with her head held high. She’ll say to him,

“I had aliving to make. I had to eat, But I didn’t cheat anybody. …

If I gave anything at all, I gave men joy. They’re born with an itch.

I satisfied them. Big and small ..I treated them all alike. As equals:

O Lord: If anyone has sinned at all, it’s the others. Not me:”( S.B.130)

On the first night itself, while letting her rest, Sakharam warns her that her

religious fasting should stop, for she will need all her strength to serve him. He says,

“Mine is no ordinary appetite (S.B.135). Laxmi though frightened at first, however, soon

learns to adapt herself to her new environment. She discovers that in his heart of hearts

Sakharam, whom she has by now begun to regard as her own husband,is not a bad man,

especially after hearing how he conducted his last woman’s funeral rites.

Sakharam’s friendship with Dawood Miyan causes a minor problem in the house.

Strongly asserting her Hindu religious faith Laxmi does not allow Sakharam to have the

‘aarti’ to Lord Ganapathi perfomed by Dawood too. She gets beaten up, yet she refuses to

give in. Strangely enough, a year’s life with Laxmi brings about some inexplicable

change to Sakharam. But, excess of work and sex make her a scarecrow of a woman. One

day Sakharam explodes and decides to send Laxmi out. In spite of Dawood’s intervention

he does so.
 Prakash 189

The arrival of next woman, Champa, turns the tables against him. She is younger

than Laxmi, slightly more plump and better built. She is the wife of a police fouzdar in

chimkhada who has just been sacked for drunken irresponsibility.Sakharam’s lectures to

her in his usual vein to which she responds infatuated by her body. Even Dawood find her

irresistible. It seems that men to Champa are flesh-hungry. No wonder, at the very first

sight of Dawood, she observes, “He’s nice “(S.B.159). This remark not only rouses

Sakharam’s jealousy but also damages his image of himself as a tireless love-maker.

Champa needs drinks to satisfy Sakharam’s itch. Sakharam even shirks his duty

for a few days just to get drunk and extract the maximum out of the drunken and

motionless body of Champa. Fouzdar Shinde, Champa’s husband, a masochist himself,

comes to Sakharam’s residence, fully drunk, begging her to kill him. Sakharam is

shocked to see the way Champa beats him up. He asks her “What kind of a woman are

you?” Look what you’ve done to him: he’s your husband. Haven’t you a heart?( S.B.167).

Here, he seems to forget the fact that he himself has done the same to Laxmi. Dawood

warns the paralysed Sakharam:

DAWOOD: (in a low voice) Packed him off. My God, she did

give it to him: the very throught of it scares the life

out of me: Watch out, this bird is different from the

others. God, What a woman. (S.B.168)

The warning of both Laxmi and Dawood come true in Sakharam-Champa

relationship. Tendulkar probes deep into man-woman relationship in this play. Sakharam
 Prakash 190

falls because of his ‘appetite’, to satisfy which he goes to any extreme. His ill-treatment

of Laxmi, and his helpless slavery to Champa are proofs of this fact. Inwardly, he is a

coward. Though he condemns Gods for his hard life, he has innate faith in them. He tries

to cover up his cowardice, helplessness, and above all, his loneliness behind a mask of

aggressive boastfulness and animal behaviour. Yet, he is aware of his need for

reclamation, which occur in the last act.

Laxmi return to Sakharam’s house, driven away from her nephew’s house. Her

nephew’s wife has accepted her of stealing. She has none else to turn to. She has already

accepted Sakharam as her husband, as the mangalsutra of pearls she wears signifies.

Sakharam tries to turn her out. He beats her up. Champa intervenes and let her stay, for,

as she tells Sakharam, “….she can help me in the house. Anyway, I can’t cope with the

house and with your….”( S.B.184). The mysterious disappearance of Champa during the

afternoon, rouse, Laxmi’s suspicion. She follows Champa and discovers, to her shock,

that the latter have been having an affair with Dawood. She prays to God for advice. In

her prayer she reveals her true relationship to Sakharam.

….The whole of last-week. Where does she go every afternoon?

I went for his sake. My misfortune. I couldn’t keep the man I married.

For me this one was my husband. I worshipped him. Even when I

was away, I’d worship him in silence every day…if have to die,

let me die on his lap – infull glory like a married women…. Oh,

God, he doesn’t know. The though of it makes me sick.( S.B.187-88)

 Prakash 191

Laxmi takes pity on Champa’s husband and feeds him. When Champa comes to know of

it, she turns nasty and tells Laxmi:

(stands before her,hands on hips) look here. Don’t double cross me.

I warn you. (Laxmi wants to say something, but the words

don’t leave her mouth) it you act stright,you can stay….( S.B.191)

In scene 5 of act III the conflict between Champa and Sakharam reaches its

climax. Champa refuses to sleep with him. The enraged Sakharam compels her. She tells

him “My body can’t take it, not any more”.( S.B.193). She drives the dart into Sakaram’s

heart when she further adds that she did’t minds it as long as he was a man. There follows

a heated exchanged of words, between them :

SAKHARAM: Champa-

CHAMPA: stop that ‘Champa-Champa’ ‘you’re not a man-not

since she came. She’s made an impotent ninny of

you. Don’t have the guts to take me before her. You

turn into a corpse-a worm.[ S.B.193]

The enraged Sakharam beats Champa into taking more and more liquor and has

his way.While Champa is asleep; Sakharam comes to Laxmi and orders her to get out.

She tells him that she will go after telling what she has been yearning to tell him. Her

disclosure to Sakharam of Champa’s clandestine relationship with Dawood enrages

Sakharam. First, he rains blows on Laxmi, and then drives her out. In a blind fury he
 Prakash 192

rushes out. He returns quickly, and chokes champa to death. While all this happens, he is

unaware of Laxmi’s presence, outside the house.

Sakharam shudders at the thought of having murdered Champa. All his strength

leaves him. Laxmi takes over, she urges him to bury Champa in the kitchen. Finding that

Sakharam is too dazed to dig the grave, she summons all her strength and digs away.

Fauzdar Shinde comes and knocks at the door.Laxmi asks Sakharam to keep quiet. The

knocking grows fierce.The play ends here. Are readers to conclude that Laxmi and

Sakharam are to live like husband and wife? Are readers to assume that Fauzdar Shinde

also dies? Tendulkar, as is usual with him, does not hint at anything.

In Vijay Tendulkar’s Kanyadaan, Jyoti is a beloved daughter of her parents who is

also interested in social work; Jyoti is one of the significant characters in Kanyadaan. She

is the titular heroine of the play because the major concern of the play is Jyoti. It is not

Arun, but the autobiography and the poems of Arun attract her towards him. She loves

Arun and marries him. It is Jyoti who is victimized due to the philosophy of her father.

Jyoti marries Arun because she likes his writings. A girl, who is educated, economically

independent, born and brought up in a civilized, sophisticated Brahman family, marries

with an untouchable boy purposely and she is to face her destiny. When beaten by Arun,

Jyoti comes to her father’s house and she decides not to go back to him. But when Arun

comes to take her away, she accompanies him. She is oppressed by her husband in an

inhuman manner but she does not tell anything about it to her parents. She dislikes Nath’s

attending the function and praising Arun’s book. She also cannot understand the Arun’s

character. She says:

 Prakash 193

“Come and watch Arun at night when he staggers home roaring drunk,if

you have the guts. There is a savage beast in his eyes, his lips, his face…in

every single limb. And bestiality is something which cannot be separated

from him. In the beginning, like an idiot, I used to search for that Arun

who is above and beyond this beastliness, I used to call out to him, take

him in my arms. Hard experience taught me I would always fail. Arun is

both the beast, and the lover. Arun is the demon, and also the poet. Both

are bound together, one within the other, they are one. So closely bound

that at times it is not possible to distinguish the demon from the poet.”

(S.B.82)

Though Jyoti’s marriage turns into a nightmare, the failure of marriage changes

her from a simple, sensitive girl into an assertive, determined lady.She does not give up

the chosen part despite the fact that it is strewn with miseries and sufferings. It is Seva

and Jayaprakash, right from the beginning oppose the marriage of Jyoti with Arun. In the

first meeting itself, Seva and Jayprakash dislike Arun’s behavior, his way of talking and

his actions. Despite the warnings of Seva and Jayaprakash, Jyoti marries Arun. Seva is

the mother who worries about the future of her daughter. She thinks of economic stability

of the person. She makes Nath to attend the function because she is afraid of Arun’s

brutality.

Father-daughter relationship in the play reveals how idealism manifests in

freedom of thought and action becomes the cause of misery, Thus, the play Kanyadaan

depicts the senseless wastage of Jyoti in translating her father’s dream or idealistic values

into reality. She exhibits total apathy or indifference to her mother’s and brothers rational
 Prakash 194

arguments and blindly follows her father’s path of idealism. Towards the end of play, her

father also implicitly suggests her to give up the ideals, but she rejects it for she thinks it

cowardly to succumb to circumstances. She leaves her father’s house with a firm decision

never to return and to accept life as it comes to her. Thus, she is willing to rather put up

with a marital life of misery and humiliation than forsake her husband.

Kanyadaan is perhaps the most controversial of all the plays written by Vijay

Tendulkar. It dwells on an extremely sensitive social and political issue namely the

conflict between upper castes and dalits a phenomenon still rampantly prevalent in

several parts of India. Despite fifty years of independence dalits continue to suffer object

misery and ill-treatment at the hands of the upper castes, politicians, instead of trying to

uproot this evil seem to capitalize on it. Tendulkar delves deep into this social evil and

presents it as it is. He raises disturbing questions but never bothers to answer them. This

method of his is truly characteristic of a genuine playwright whose foremost concern is to

open his reader –audience’s eyes to a social problem which continues to evade easy

solutions.And as a creative writer he does not take sides.

Jyoti in her decision to marry him, Jyoti informs her parents and brother that she

has decided to marry Arun Nath Devlalikar the idealist who dreams of a casteless society

gives her his consent immediately nevertheless as they are used to Nath’s ways they

finally agree Jyoti and Arun get married what follows is a sequence of violence misery

and disillusionment. The play is divided into two acts each of which is further divided

into scenes. Act I has two scenes and Act II has three scenes comparatively speaking it is

a shorter play by Tendulkar yet it is the most gripping of all his plays the evaluation of

Jyoti from a soft-spoken highly cultured brahmin girl into a hardened dalit girls is really
 Prakash 195

incredible and distressing one cannot but wonder if such a sacrifice as Jyoti’s is possible

among modern woman the imperceptible transformation occurring in Nath attitude to the

world is also vividly portrayed by the master, Nath the idealist in the end turns into a

disillusioned realist the play therefore is at once a domestic social and political one.

In scene 2, Act I, Jyoti brings Arun to her house to introduce him to her parents

and brother. Arun is 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 Jyoti to leave him alone saying “I feel uncomfortable in big houses…”

(KN.16). Jyoti is surprised Arun continues:

If you see my father shut you’ll understand ten of us big and small lived in

that eight by ten feet the heat of our bodies to warm us in winter no clothes

on our back no food in our stomach but we feel very safe here these damn

house of the city people they’re like the bellies of sharks and crocodiles

each one alone in them (KN.16).

Jyoti finds such talk revolting and covers her face with her hands she begins to

weep uncontrollably on hearing Arun’s say:

And you thought of marrying me: our life is not the socialists’

service camp. It is hell, and I mean hell. A hell named life. (KN.18)

Seva enters witnessing this scene. She hides her displeasure and asks Arun about

his education, future prospects etc. the moment she hints at a ‘stable career’ Arun bursts
 Prakash 196

out saying, “No problem.We shall be brewing illicit liquor” (KN.21). Both Seva and

Jayaprakash are shocked of his reactions; Arun goes on talking in a rather obscene

language about the advantages of brewing illicit liquor. Nath’s entry eases the situation a

little. He is pleased with Arun’s appearance. He tells his wife:

….Seva until today, ‘Break the caste system’ was a mere slogam

for us. I’ve attended many intercaste marrige and made speechs but

today I have broken the caste barrier in the real sense my home

has become Indian in the real sense of the term I am happy

today very happy….(KN.23)

After sometime Arun leaves not caring even to touch the tea that Jyoti brings him

on his departure Seva tells her husband that Arun is someone who can fit among them on

being informed of Arun’s rude behavior Nath says:

Not only is he not a middle class man he is a dalit he has been brought up

in the midst of poverty and hatred these people’s psychological make –up

is altogether different we must understand him and that is extremely

difficult. (KN.27)

Though Nath speaks in defense of Arun’s vile behaviour he advises Jyoti to think

the matter over but Jyoti says that she does not want to change her mind and that her

decision is final Nath decides to stand by her side. Jyoti gets married to Arun. Scene I of

act II opens to show its readers, Jyoti who has become tired and crushed after a few

months of married life with Arun she comes home with the determination not to return to
 Prakash 197

him to her father proposal that both of them could stay in her house she replies in sheer

agony:

….he…will not enter this house because I have left him …

I am not going back to him again never.(KN.39)

All are stunned to hear Jyoti speaking so agitatedly. Nath however is firm on his

resolution not to break the relationship to quote him addressing his wife:

…Seva let not his wonderful experiment fail this dream which is

struggling to turn real let it not crumble into dust before our eyes

…We must save this marriage…this experiment is a very precious

Experiment (KN.41)

Jyoti who has been watching all this leaves the house with Arun perhaps to

prevent further embarrassment to her parents and brother. On seeing this, Nath feels

proud and expresses himself in the following words:

Jyoti I feel so proud of you the training I gave you has not been

in vain (suddenly dejected). if only I believed in god then Jyoti

this is the moment I’d go down on my knees and pray for you…(KN.45)

This utterance is indicative of the pride and anguish that swell up in his heart. He

wishes against all odds that her daughter would be able to lead a happy domestic life with

Arun. At the same time, it also shows that he is besieged by unknown fears. In scene 2,

Act II , Nath immersed in Arun’s autobiography which has just been published. Seva
 Prakash 198

reports to him that Jyoti is pregnant and advised rest by the doctor but she has failed in

her attempts at persuading her to come home. Nath is all praise for his son –in-law who

has shown the world that he is a powerful, creative through his autobiography. Seva

responses,

…The truth is that your dalit son-in-law who can write such a wonderful

autobiography and many lovely poems wants to remain an idler he wants

his wife to work ..on top of that for entertainment, he wants to kick his

wife in the belly, why not? Doesn’t his wife belong to the high caste? In

this way he is returning all the kicks aimed at generations of his ancestors

by men of high caste. It appears that this is monumental mission he has set

out to fulfill (KN.47-48)

Nath tries his best to convince her affirmating that Arun’s autobiography is a very good

book. But Jyoti continuously to batter him saying that it is all a lie for she knows:

You attended that meeting and made a speech only because you

were afraid that if you didn’t Arun would torture me more.(KN.66)

Jyoti’s words sting Nath. He feels helpless and defenseless. He is pained to see his ideals

crumbling before him. When Nath asks her who will take care of her during delivery

Jyoti harshly replies:

…I have my husband, I am not a widow even if I become one I

won’t knock at your door. I am not Jyoti Devlaikar now I am

 Prakash 199

Jyoti Arun Athavale, a scavenger. I don’t say harijan I despise

the term I am an untouchable a scavenger, I am one of them don’t

touch me fly from my shadows otherwise my fire will scorch

your comfortable values (KN.70)

Saying these words, she leaves the house obviously never to return. Nath breaks

down and lies on the sofa a totally defeated idealist. The play ends here. The readers is

left wondering what could be the future of Jyoti and of course her father.Tendulkar delves

deep into this social evil and presents it as it is. He raises disturbing questions but never

bothers to answer them. This method of his truly characteristic of a genuine playwright

whose foremost concern is to open his readers and audience’s eyes to a social problem

which continues to evade easy solutions.

Socialistic Perspectives in the plays of Henrik Ibsen

The theme of captivity is demonstrated in the female protagonists Nora, Hedvig,

Ellida, and Hedda.The theme of captivity also serves as a performance guide for the

portrayal of these characters. Ibsen's female protagonists are in bondage to an object or

person that manipulates the character's mental and emotional senses. The character's inner

captivity reaches a climax where a decision must be made to abolish the chains of

captivity or forever remain enslaved.

Henrik Ibsen has written many influential plays that have forever changed western

society, dramatic literature, and theatre performance. Henrik Ibsen's notable female

characters continue to illuminate the role of the woman in performance; the female

characters often encounter the issues of incest, hopelessness, unjust laws, unrequited love,

and suicide. The theme of captivity is also prevalent in Ibsen's work, encapsulating the
 Prakash 200

female characters in a myriad of bonds. Henrik Ibsen's scripts A Doll's House, The Wild

Duck, and Hedda Gabler, demonstrate the theme of captivity as a literary tool for the

development of the female protagonist and as a performance guide for the portrayal of the

female protagonist.

The theme of captivity as the dominant idea of a literary works, explores the

imprisonment of a character's inner being captors using non-physical imprisonment

impair the character's normal judgment and passion forcing the character into mental or

emotional subjection. Non-physical captivities attack reason and feelings, claiming

control over a character's interaction with this outside entity (lbsen's female characters are

victims of mental and emotional captivity to objects, attitudes, and people. Captivity can

begin as a voluntary act of submission, but it is not a true form of bondage till the

individual is no longer in full control of his or her mental or emotional faculties).

A character in captivity has a misconstrued identity leading to a lack of

understanding or belief in self. In Ibsen's work, a second and sometimes third captor also

enslaves the character in increasing levels of captivity the deep oppression of an

imprisoned identity forces these characters to make decisions for life or death. The theme

of captivity has several applications in the areas of literature and performance. Through

an understanding of the literary theme of captivity, the reader will be able to more

profoundly connect with the struggles of Ibsen's female protagonists and unite this theme

of non-physical captivity to the realm of human nature. The actor can also benefit from an

increased understanding of the textual theme of captivity in Ibsen's plays, and portray the

character's mental and emotional bondage through a realistic acting style. The literary

idea of non-physical captivity is integral to a significant understanding of Ibsen's

 Prakash 201

characters, and a meaningful representation of these characters. The theme of captivity

begins as a literary tool in the development of the female protagonist through the genius

of playwright, Henrik Ibsen.

Ibsen explores this issue in the play A Doll's House through Nora's experience

with a counterfeit loan and the ensuing consequences. Women held a minority status in

nineteenth-century western culture. Ibsen recognized the rights of these unheard and

powerless people groups. And believed the underprivileged should join together to tight

for improvement.

Ibsen grapples with the social problem of poverty in The Wild Duck. The Ekdal

family endures biting poverty that affects living conditions and available food. Ibsen also

recognized the debilitating relationship of poverty and womanhood. A poor woman in the

nineteenth century lacked resources to fashion an agreeable life, and often felt enslaved in

a marriage of convenience. Women of the nineteenth century had narrow possibilities and

were always looking for a way out. Henrik Ibsen's female characters provide a compelling

portrait of the theme of female captivity in society. This theme of captivity, as a tool in

the development of the female protagonist, begins with Ibsen's great interest in what it

means to be a woman.

Ibsen presents women as complex riddles with a deep musing and curiosity. Ibsen

recognized the confusion of portraying women in literature, which was often over-

simplified by other male playwrights of Ibsen's time. These playwrights constructed

victimized female characters or a universal female character lacking individuality. In

contrast, Ibsen created characters that transcend the bonds of a mere acting role and

portray humanity. The human beings in Ibsen's plays struggle with many diverse

difficulties, but retain an insatiable fighting desire. Ibsen's female characters are further
 Prakash 202

expanded through relationship. In Ibsen's characters, the theme of female captivity is

often observed through relationship. Ibsen creates a large number of father-daughter

relationships with the daughter as a replica of the father. The daughter is often held

captive to the memory, expectation, or person of the father. Ibsen's character of Hedda

Gabler is deeply influenced by the memory of her father, General Gabler.

Ibsen's character of Nora is also influenced by a paternal relationship. Nora feels

transferred from the home of her father into marriage. Nora exclaims to husband Torvald:

"I mean, then 1 went from Papa's hands into yours ... it's a great sin what you and Papa

did to me" (Ibsen, Four Major Plays: I09). The character of Hedvig in The Wild Duck is

also a victim of an overtly domineering father figure that defines this character's captivity.

Ibsen's use of the strong father adds to the female character's struggle with captivity.

Ibsen's daughter characters face a climactic choice of forsaking or dying to the captivities

of their fathers. Ibsen characters are dynamic and innovative portrayals of human beings

that have transcended tradition and reshaped literary trends.

The theme of female captivity further layers these characters providing another

element to the intricate and organic struggle. Henrik Ibsen's characters mirror reality and

deal with a multitude of problems, including the captivity of the female protagonist. Nora

in A Doll's House captivity to money. The theme of socialistic perspectives as a literary

tool in the development of the female protagonist is seen in Ibsen's play A Doll's House.

The theme of captivity directly affects the development and decisions of the character

Nora Helmer.

This character's perilous journey to self-enlightenment begins with the captivity to

money. The play A Doll's House is about the power of money . Nora is enthralled by the

power and freedom of money available only to men. The captivity to money begins as a
 Prakash 203

tasting of the freedom of this world. Nora decorates for the Christmas holiday and

lavishly purchases decorations, gifts, and a Christmas tree. Nora even gives the Christmas

tree delivery boy the extra change, enhancing a bountiful image of plenty. This image is

brought into focus upon meeting the character Torvald Helmer, Nora's husband. This

character questions Nora's use of money: "Bought, you say? All that there? Has the little

spendthrift been out throwing money around again?" (D.H.44). The couple is

immediately at odds in regards to financial matters. Nora feels a great freedom to spend

money due to Torvald's anticipated salary raise:

"Torvald, we can squander a little now. Can't we? Just a tiny we bit.

Now that you've got a big salary and are going to make piles and

piles of money?" (D.H.44).

Torvald dislikes spending and borrowing money and is particularly wary of

spending extra money from the anticipated raise.The theme of Nora's bondage to money

is further enhanced by the couple's discussion of monetary loans. Nora mentions the

nature of borrowing money to which Torvald responds aghast:

"Nora, You know what I think about that. No debts! Never borrow!

Something of freedoms lost and something of beauty, too-from a home

that's founded on borrowing and debt" (D.H.44).

Ibsen creates this early protestation against debt to set the tone for financial issues

throughout the play. Despite Torvald's heated objections to debt and frivolous spending,

he generously supplies Nora with forty extra dollars for household expenses. Nora

quickly rejuvenates and asks for a Christmas present of money. Nora becomes ensnared

by an obsession for money through which she hopes to gain a sense of freedom. The
 Prakash 204

couple lived through a period of financial burden in which Nora had to make homemade

Christmas decorations and presents.

This picture is juxtaposed with the current Christmas season of plenty. Ibsen gives

further depth to Nora's monetary conviction with the arrival of Nora's old friend, Cristine

Linde. Nora immediately discusses the Helmer family successes despite an absence of ten

years. Nora exclaims:

"My husband's been made manager in the bank, just think! From now on

we can live quite differently- just as we want .. Won't it be lovely to have

stacks of money and not a care in the world?" (D.H.49).

Nora has begun to surrender her will and identity to the comfort and freedom of

money. Ibsen carefully layers Nora's jubilant monetary reactions to portray the illusion of

a carefree and almost foolish woman. This illusion is soon broken by Nora's revelation of

the source of her monetary obsession, a secret loan of four thousand, eight hundred

crowns to provide for a trip to Italy to save Torvald's life. Nora is very proud of these

successful efforts of saving Torvald's life, despite her illegal actions of borrowing money.

Nora is profoundly satisfied with her quiet work of sacrifice, but this is

nevertheless an illegal action. Women in Ibsen's day were not permitted to borrow money

without a husband's approval, and the consequences of such actions were dire. Nora does

not initially understand the ramifications of the law and the true state of her mental and

emotional captivity to money. The captivity of money deceptively provides Nora with a

sense of freedom in the world of men. Nora finds clever ways of utilizing the household

allowance from Torvald, as well as stealthily working on copying jobs. Nora is blind to

her initial captivity to money, but slowly feels the pressure and tension of repaying the
 Prakash 205

loan. Torvald's future salary raise will provide the additional funds necessary to repay the

loan, and Nora happily exclaims:

"Now I'm free. Oh, how lovely to think of that Cristine! Carefree! To

know you're carefree, utterly carefree . . . it is so marvelous to live and be

happy!" (D.H.56).

Nora's apparent obsession with money is a truly elated rejoicing at the near

freedom from the captivity of the loan. Unfortunately, this freedom does not bloom to

fruition as Nora sinks deeper into monetary captivity and a secondary captivity to the

demands of male society. Nora is a captive to male society through the secret loan

provided by Krogstad. This money lender reveals that Nora has forged her father's

signature and committed a crime:

"If I introduce this paper [the loan document] in court, you'll be judged

according to the law" (D.H.67).

Krogstad uses Nora's forgery as blackmail, entrenching this female protagonist in

a second layer of captivity to the rules set by male society. Nora begins to understand the

ramifications of this legal transgression and works to appease Krogstad by trying to

convince Torvald to retain the money lender's position at the bank. Nora's secondary level

of captivity becomes exceedingly provoked when, despite Nora's pleadings, Torvald

sends Krogstad's notice. Torvald, a member of male society further encapsulates Nora in

captivity to male society by enforcing his will.

Nora is in danger of undergoing serious legal action that would affect her

relationship with Torvald and the children. The captivity to male society proves to be a

more difficult burden than monetary captivity. Torvald, a member of male society, sets a

firm opinion against borrowing loans in the beginning of A Doll's House, and makes a
 Prakash 206

stiff declaration against the moral aptitude of a law breaker. Nora's captivity expands into

a teritary level of bondage to Torvald's patronizing and moralistic attitude.Torvald's

patronizing and moralistic attitude serves as a third snare of captivity for the character of

Nora.

Torvald further cements Nora's role as a doll-wife by often requiring

performances of song and dance. Nora mentions to Mrs. Linde the viable danger of

Torvald tiring of her appearance or habitual play-acting. The theme of captivity is present

in Torvald's possessive and selfish treatment of Nora.Nora cannot directly communicate

with Torvald about the loan as this would not be fitting for a doll-wife. Nora is a captive

to the patronizing expectations of Torvald, as well as the moralistic expectations. Torvald

holds to a high level of morality regarding money, business and family.

Nora is a captive to the tertiary bondage of Torvald's patronizing and moralistic

expectations. Nora's three levels of captivity to money, to male society and to Torvald's

patronizing and moralistic expectations prove to be an unbearable burden. Nora is

desperately seeking release from captivity and seductively turns to Dr. Rank in a veiled

cry for help. Nora uses flirtatious language and a pair of silk stockings with the intention

of seducing Dr. Rank into giving money. Nora's desperation at the third level of captivity

is observed in the sexual treatment of Dr. Rank. Nora's behavior causes Dr. Rank to make

a daring confession of love since he has misunderstood Nora's sexual advances as a sign

of true affection. The levels of captivity continue to pressure Nora as she grapples for

relief from the burden. Nora contemplates suicide as a respite from the three levels of

captivity.

Nora's death would not save the Helmer family from the severity of Krogstad's

accusations. Nora recognizes her utter powerlessness and pours all of her fears and
 Prakash 207

anxieties into a performance of the tarantella dance. This is a dance of death, and Nora

dances to postpone death as the result of captivity . Nora recognizes that her comfortable

livelihood is coming to an end and hopes for a miracle. Nora says very little as she

endures this tirade of selfish comments and accusations which quickly turns to a torrent of

jubilation with the returned loan from Krogstad. Torvald happily forgives Nora and

reinstates her position as doll-wife. Nora decides to leave her marriage, children, and

livelihood. Nora makes the decision to break out of the final chains of captivity and leave

Torvald.

There are two kinds of spiritual law and two kinds of conscience, one in man and

another, altogether different, in woman. They do not understand each other. The

superstructure of Torvald conscience , his sense of right and wrong, is founded on the

formulation: the most important thing is that I be a success; all else will follow from that.

Nora’s moral sense, on the other hand, is that “the most important thing is that people live

in, and out of, the truth of people feelings; all else will follow from that.What is at stake is

nothing less than the respective definitions that the society allows of a man and a woman.

Ibsen lives in a universe where essences are no longer given a priori, out of a

fixed, eternal order, out of some platonic idea of man and woman, but rather in a flowing

process where selves are chiefly defined by the choices they make, the unenlightened

struggle of Torvald and Nora to define themselves along separate paths inevitably bring

them into conflict. It is crucial, however to note that whereas the play begins with Nora,

and in time Torvald appears, after the action has run its course Nora withdraws, and the

play ends with Torvald at the conclusion is more pathetic: his bland, common – sensical,

self – righteous attempt to establish his authority has failed, and, although Nora has been

strengthened by facing up to at least a glimpse of the truth, Torvald has had love pulled
 Prakash 208

from under his feet while, by the nature of his conventional code, he has hardly an inkling

of what he can possibly have done that was wrong.

The mental and emotional pull of captivity also affects the development of the

character Hedvig in The Wild Duck. Hedvig in The Wild Duck is captivity to Hialmar.

The theme of captivity as a literary tool in the development of the female protagonist is

prevalent in the character of Hedvig in The Wild Duck. Hedvig blindly adores her father

Hialmar, and is held captive to his selfish moods and unrealistic ideology. At age

fourteen, Hedvig is blissfully content to live in a simplistic world of imagination. Hedvig

also has the opportunity of playing in the family's attic that is filled with various live

birds. The Ekdal family created an indoor forest for enjoyment that is home to Hedvig's

wild duck. Hedvig's childlike imagination is formed by playing with this wild duck.

Hedvig's life of fantasy is encouraged by her parents and grandfather. Hedvig has

the mannerism of a child due to Hialmar's selfish treatment. Hedvig is a captive to

Hialmar's egotistical treatment and is continually trying to please her father, which

considerably boosts Hialmar's egotism. Hedvig is enslaved by Hialmar's egotistical

attitude, and longs for mere scraps of affection. On one occasion, Hedvig excitedly

anticipates a treat from Hialmar's dinner party, and is disappointed when he carelessly

forgets. Hialmar launches into a verbal tirade after seeing Hedvig's disappointed face,

which Hedvig patiently endures. Hialmar's negligence and harsh words are met with

adolescent adoration and Hedvig is overjoyed by a sudden apologetic hug.

The captivity to Hialmar causes Hedvig contentedly to work for her father and

when asked about future goals, she resolutely states her plans to remain at home. Hedvig

comments:"I'm going to stay at home always and help Daddy and Mother" (D.H.163).
 Prakash 209

Hedvig's paternal affection is visible in the usage of the term "daddy" and her desire to

stay at home. This peaceful existence is threatened with a revelation from Hedvig's

mother of the child's potential illegitimacy.

The climax of Hedvig's captivity to Hialmar is reached in his violent response to

the news of Hedvig's true paternity. Hedvig is traumatized by Hialmar's treatment and

looks for means of restitution. Hedvig desperately longs to please her father. Hedvig is

entrenched in captivity to Hialmar that continually serves his selfish moods and

ideologies with the hope of small sign of affection. In Hialmar's treatment of Hedvig, this

father has manipulated his daughter's mind and emotions forcing Hedvig to work for his

love. When Gregers Werle, Hialmar's friend, suggests that Hedvig sacrifices her prized

wild duck to demonstrate the extent of her love.

Hedvig's captivity to Hialmar causes her to sacrifice a most prized possession for

reconciliation. Hedvig makes the climatic decision to give up her own life in a final love

offering to Hialmar. Hedvig's sacrificial suicide represents a trend in Ibsen's female

protagonists of giving one's self for freedom. Hedvig's response of suicide as a love

offering leaves the dichotomous result of dying with captivity as well as becoming

physically free from this captivity through death.

Ibsen's next female protagonist, Ellida Wangel in The Lady from the Sea also

struggles under the power of bondage in captivity to mental illusions.The theme of

captivity as a literary tool in the development of the female protagonist is evident in the

development of the character Ellida Wangel in The Lady from the Sea. Ellida is a captive

to her own mental illusions and is wracked with mental fantasies regarding a former

lover, the Stranger. Ellida also becomes obsessed with the world of the Stranger- the sea.
 Prakash 210

The title of the play, The Lady from the Sea, also connects this character to the

sea. Ellida is often called "the Lady from the Sea" and the "mermaid" . Ellida takes a daily

swim and is enchanted with stories about "the spell of the sea". Ellida's mental captivity

to the Stranger is manifested in an obsession with the sea and a life of fantasy. Ellida's

mental captivity to the Stranger is a growing force affecting her marriage to Wangel.

Ellida's mental captivity to the Stranger threatens her marriage and family. Ellida's

mental captivity forces her to resent her marriage to Wangel since it comes after a

symbolic marriage to the Stranger. Ellida's mental fantasies cause her to view her

marriage to Wangel as "involuntary imprisonment". Ellida is consumed by the captivity

of the mind and condemns her marriage to Wangel. Through Ellida's mental captivity, she

fantasizes a captivity of marriage to Wangel and becomes alienated from her

stepdaughters.

Ellida's obsession with fantasies also clouds her judgment in regards to Wangel

and the true nature of their marriage. The mental captivity of fantasies has hindered

Ellida's view of Wangel's affection. Ellida is not able to participate in sexual relations

with Wangel due to the strangling mental captivity of fantasies about the Stranger. Ellida

believes the Stranger took over Wangel's body to father her child who soon died. Ellida

confides to Wangel:

"The child had the stranger's eyes . . . now you can understand why I

never again want- why I never again dare to live with you as your wife"

(D.H.266).

Ellida's captivity of the mind prevents intimacy between husband and wife. Ellida

suffers from a mysterious depression that began when her baby died. She no longer has

sexual relations with her husband, and is experiencing an emotional and mental anguish.
 Prakash 211

Through the captivity of the mind, Ellida believes her dead child possessed the Stranger's

eyes as proof of the Stranger's controlling power. Ellida longs for freedom from her

supposed physical captivity of marriage as well as her deep mental captivity consisting of

fantasies of the Stranger. The climax of captivity is reached when Ellida must choose

between the Stranger and Wangel.

The theme of captivity reaches a climax in Ellida's decision between the Stranger

and Wangel. Ellida longs to break out of the bonds of captivity and make an independent

choice. Ellida resolutely comments: "I have to talk to [the Stranger] myself. It's the only

way I can make a free choice" (305). Ellida can shatter the shackles of mental captivity

through the freedom of choice. It is recognized , since the Stranger only represents for

Ellida her own imperfect understanding of what she wants from life, it only takes a final

maturity of will to break his power and let him sink into nothingness.

Ellida is given the power to conquer the demon of mental captivity through

Wangel's sacrifice. Wangel abolishes Ellida's false image of marital captivity, to enable

her to conquer the actual mental captivity to the Stranger. Wangel notes: "Now you can

choose your own path- in full freedom . . . because I love you so much" (L.S.319).

Wangel's gift of free choice enables Ellida to vanquish the demon of mental captivity by

refusing the Stranger. Ellida victoriously dismisses the Stranger: "Your will hasn't a shred

of power over me now. To me you've become a dead man who came up out of the sea-

and who's drifting back down again. There's no terror in you now. And no attraction"

(L.S.320). Ellida destroys the hold of mental captivity to the Stranger by exerting her own

free will. Ellida's successfully removes her mental captivity to the Stranger and sees with

fresh eyes the beauty of Wangel's love.

 Prakash 212

The theme of captivity also affects the inward life of another Ibsen protagonist is

Hedda Gabler. Hedda Tesman in Hedda Gabler captivity to the attitude of selfishness.The

theme of captivity as a literary tool in the development of the female protagonist is

observed in the character Hedda in Hedda Gabler. This character is a captive to the

attitude of selfishness, and lacks of courage to live differently. Hedda is egotistically in

love with self and incapable of caring for others or having true joy.

Hedda is captured by a constant inner focus that makes no time for anyone else,

including her new husband. Hedda's captivity to selfishness directly affects her marriage

to George Tesman. As a new bride, Hedda is completely uninterested in husband,

Tesman's affairs. Hedda does not feel any love or interest towards her new husband, and

chooses to concentrate solely on her own interests. When Tesman asks if Hedda has been

worried about him, she responds: "No, that never occurred to me" (H.G..276). Hedda

shows no interest in the life of her husband and withholds affection.

Hedda's captivity to self is also evident in the play's title. Ibsen's titling of the

play, "Hedda Gabler," reflects Hedda's identity of self over husband. Hedda's married

husband’s name is Hedda Tesman, but the play's title uses Hedda's maiden name

enhancing this character's identity apart from marriage. Hedda refuses to merge her life

with Tesman's or enjoy the company of his family by showing great disinterest and

rudeness. Hedda refuses to like anyone and is continually hurtful with insults of bored

pricks or calculated piercings. Hedda deliberately insults Tesman's aunt who has greatly

sacrificed to provide extra money for the new couple. Hedda is entrenched in captivity to

selfness, and has been recognized as, "one of the meanest romantics in literature".
 Prakash 213

Hedda's captive attitude of selfishness is also exhibited in biting jealousy. Hedda's

obsession with self arouses an inane jealousy of others. Hedda is greatly jealous of the

character Thea Elvsted. Hedda's selfishness results in feelings of jealousy over the

appearance of Thea Elvsted. Hedda's jealousy over Thea's appearance stems from

captivity to selfishness and boredom with life. Hedda is bored and restless; her captivity

to selfness has deepened to a blase view of daily life. Hedda's captivity to selfishness has

removed any excitement and joy from life. Hedda notes that she has one talent, to bore

herself to death (H.G.257).

Hedda is captured by an obsession with self that threatens her very existence.

Hedda longs to escape the bonds of languor but is unwilling to dismiss the egotistical

bend to put self above everything else. Hedda's captivity and obsession with self is in

direct contrast to the courageous drive of character, Eilert Lovborg. Hedda longs for the

same courage as Lovborg to live beautifully. When Lovborg desires to commit suicide,

Hedda passionately asks him to die beautifully in a selfish attempt at finding vicarious

satisfaction. Hedda's captivity to self and habitual boredom provides the means for

Lovborg's death. Hedda views Lovborg's death as a worthy escape from the monotony of

life, but soon learns the truth of his death in the climax of captivity.

The climax of captivity is reached when Hedda learns that Lovborg's death is not

intentional and far from beautiful. With Lovborg's failure to die courageously, Hedda

feels the growing sense of hopelessness amidst the captivity of self. Hedda bemoans:

"what is it, this-this curse-that everything I touch turns ridiculous and vile?" (H.G.299).

Hedda's captivity to self is a dark trap of depression and gloom. Hedda's bounds of

captivity also grow tighter with the realization that Judge Brack could reveal her

connection to Lovborg's death resulting in scandal.

 Prakash 214

Hedda aimlessly dies in the captivity of selfishness. The theme of captivity as a

literary tool in the development of the female protagonist is marked through the mental or

emotional manipulation of an object or person. The theme of captivity also serves as a

performance guide for the portrayal of the female protagonist, providing the actor with a

powerful foundation of character development and understanding. The Theme of

captivity as a performance guide for the Portrayal of the female protagonist .The theme of

captivity in the works of Henrik Ibsen serves as a performance guide for the portrayal of

the female protagonist. Ibsen's female protagonists were written as dynamic characters for

the stage and have forever changed the history of acting style and performance.

Ibsen's female protagonists struggle through a myriad of captivities that are

pivotal to the central thrust of each play. The Ibsen actor will face a complexity of

morality issues within the theme of captivity. The character of Nora makes the decision to

leave her husband as a response to the captivities of money, male society and husband

Torvald. The character of Hedvig takes her own life in a sacrificial love offering amidst

the throes of captivity to her father Hialmar. The character of Ellida is an extremely weak

captive to the fantasies of her mind. The character of Hedda leads an acerbic existence

that responds to the captivity of selfishness with a suicidal gun shot. Ibsen's women

undergo a myriad of situations that must be respected, researched, and adopted in the

actor's portrayal of these characters.

The plays of Henrik Ibsen, A Doll's House, The Wild Duck, The Lady from the

Sea, and Hedda Gabler, demonstrate the theme of captivity as a literary tool in the

development of the female protagonist through bonds of captivity, the climax of the

character, and then the character's response. Nora's is a captive to the tertiary bonds of

money, male society, and Torvald, and responds these chains of captivity by leaving.
 Prakash 215

Hedvig is a captive to Hialmar and sacrifices her life as a love offering. Ellida is a

captive to mental fantasies and is freed by the gift of free choice. Hedda is a captive to

selfness and stays ensnared in captivity with suicide. The theme of captivity also serves as

a performance guide to the performance of the female protagonist through the creation of

the distinct Ibsen acting style. This acting style of realism broke down the walls of

nineteenth-century cultural captivity by enlarging the role of the actress and continues to

affect contemporary performance. The theme of captivity in the work of Henrik Ibsen

provides fresh literary reading and a tool for creating dynamic characterization for

performance.

Conclusion

Thus, this chapter has brought out the sociological perspectives on the plays of

Ibsen and Tendulkar.