Research Chroniclerresearch-chronicler.com/reschro/pdf/v3i5/3504.pdfRangacharya. But I never considered it a modernist play, nor had I any sympathy with the kind of modernity which

www.rersearch-chronicler.com Research Chronicler ISSN-2347-503X International Multidisciplinary Research journal

Volume III Issue V: May 2015 Editor-In-Chief: Prof. K.N. Shelke

Research Chronicler A Peer-Reviewed Refereed and Indexed International Multidisciplinary Research Journal

Volume III Issue V: May 2015

CONTENTS Sr. No. Author Title of the Paper Page No.

1 Shailendra P. Singh

Imparting Idea Generation Skills for Effective Writing

1

2 Dr. Dhanesh Mohan Bartwal

Depiction of Pain and Misery of a Dalit in Omprakash Valmiki’s Joothan: A Dalit’s Life

6

3 M. Sraddhanandam

Women Empowerment through Education in Mahabub Nagar District of Telangaana State: Some Observations

17

4 Talluri Mathew Bhaskar Girish Karnad’s Yayati: a Mythical Play 22 5 Dr. Patil Vijaykumar

Ambadasrao Blanche: A Barren

37

6 B. Niraimathi

From Self- adjustment to Self- alienation in Anita Desai’s Fire on the Mountain

43

7 Mrs. Aphale Jayashri Ajay Use of Literature in Language Teaching 47 8 Anisha Rajan

The Gendered Other in the Forty Rules of Love

53

9 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Shrawan Bhandare

Dramatic Techniques in Vijay Tendulkar’s Ghashiram Kotwal

58

10 ¯ÖÏÖ. ›üÖò. •ÖµÖÓŸÖ ¿Öê¾ÖŸÖê�ú¸ü †Ö¿ÖµÖÖÖã¹ý¯Ö ÃÖÓ¾ÖÖ¤ü ¾Ö ÃÖÓ̄ Ö�úÖÔ�ú×¸üŸÖÖ �ÓúšüÃÖÖ¬ÖÖê“Öß †×Ö¾ÖÖµÖÔŸÖÖ

62

11 kaMbaLo ema. ema. jaagaitkIkrNaacaa marazI kivatovar Jaalaolaa pirNaama 67 12 izk-fparke.k f/kanGs

vkfnoklh dforsr meVysys tkxfrdhdj.kkps fp=.k

72


Volume III Issue V: May 2015 (22) Editor-In-Chief: Prof. K.N. Shelke

Girish Karnad’s Yayati: a Mythical Play Talluri Mathew Bhaskar

Lecturer in English, Andhra Pradesh Residential Junior College, Vijayapuri South, Guntur, (A.P.) India

Abstract

Girish Karnad’s three plays, Yayati, Tughlaq, and Hayavadana are existential plays. They are related with the search of identity. His plays have been translated into several languages in India and abroad. His first play was translated into English in 2008. He used the myth of king Yayati from The Mahabharata and made it the vehicle of a new vision. The myth of Yayati has been taken from The Adiparva of The Mahabharata. The play, Yayati is a self-consciously existential drama on the theme of responsibility. Karnad, under the influence of Sartre and Camus, wrote the play to acquaint people that Camus and Sartre were his mentors who inspired him to write a play on existential lines. Karnad’s Yayati retells the age-old story of the mythological king who in his longing for eternal youth sought to borrow the vitality of his own son. Puru, Sharmishtha’s son offers to exchange his youth for the decrepitude of his father. After that, at the end of the play Yayati gives up the throne and retires to forests to lead a life of renunciation with Devayani and Sharmishtha. The playwright has given this traditional tale a new meaning and significance highly relevant in the context of life today. King Yayati recognises the horror of his own life and assumes his moral responsibility after a series of symbolic encounters.

Key Words: Yayati, Decrepitude, Vitality, Renunciation, Existential.

Girish Karnad took legend, history and myth for the plots of his three plays – Yayati, Tughlaq and Hayavadana respectively. His first play Yayati reinterprets an ancient myth from The Mahabharata in modern context. It would not be an exaggeration to say that thematically Karnad’s whole corpus can easily be divided into two categories: Myth- plays and History-plays. In Nagamandala, Yayati, Hayavadana and The Fire and the Rain we find the predominance of mythical element and structure. In Tale-Danda and Tughlaq, we find a predominant historical structure. However, Karnad also treats history as a myth and rather than writing a strictly factual historical play he gives it symbolical reshaping to reinforce the

contemporary issues. In Yayati, Karnad has taken traditional puranic theme but has given a fresh interpretation to it. He employs myth structure to synchronize the past and the present to blend appearance and reality, to put contemporaneity side by side with history. Myths come from racial collective unconscious and there may be a real meaning concealed beneath its apparent meaning. Mythology is a cultural document. It can also be created for ulterior motives. Girish Karnad’s Yayati retells the age-old story of the mythological king who in his longing for eternal youth sought to borrow the vitality of his own son. Karnad has borrowed the myth from The Mahabharata and other puranas. Mythology has been Karnad’s most favourite muse. He has probably



promised the most genuine platform for Indian mythology by transposing folk-tales and legends from epics like The Mahabharata into a modern context. The play Yayati was written and produced in Kannada, and it was an instant success. The presentation of the myth no doubt irritated the orthodox viewers, but the more enlightened critics appreciated the new approach in the play. What impressed the modern spectators was the re-interpretation of the ancient myth in a contemporary context. The Mahabharata is the most systematic inquiry into the human condition. Its principal concern is the relationship of the self with the self and with the other. This great epic provides us with a method to understand the human condition itself. Every story in The Mahabharata is an answer to a personal question. A question which troubles men and women everywhere arises from the apparent conflict between the truth of desire and the truth of what is right. And the epic reflects honestly upon this question. Karnad has used the myth of king Yayati found in the Adi parva of The Mahabharata. A unique distinction of the play is that a juvenile enterprise of a twenty-two year old inexperienced Karnad in Kannada has got translated by the sixty-nine year old mature and theatre-screen thespian Karnad ( as he himself translated the play in 2008). Another important thing about this play is that its first performance in Hindi in the seventies with Amrish Puri in its eponymous role established Satya Dev Dubey as a theatre director with a distinct vision. It has been translated into various modern Indian languages, it has been one of the favourite plays of the performers. In The Mahabharata Yayati marries Devayani, the daughter of the sage Sukracharya, and also takes Sharmishtha,

an Asura girl, as his wife, as required under certain niceties of Dharma. His marriage to Sharmishtha infuriates Devayani who in her seething anger and jealousy goads her father to bring a curse of senility and decrepitude upon Yayati. There is saving class, however, if Yayati is able to persuade someone else to bear the curse on his behalf, then he would enjoy everlasting youth. As a remedy, he is allowed to escape from the curse if any youth is ready to exchange his youth with his old-age. Yayati is susceptible to sensual pleasures. He promptly asks the people of his kingdom and then in desperation, his sons to exchange their youth with him. Only Puru, the youngest son, willingly offers his youth in filial devotion. Disappointed by each of his subjects and relatives, he finally turns to his youngest son Puru, who agrees to do so out of his love for his father. Yayati promptly accepts Puru’s offer. Yayati remains young while his son Puru turns into a weak and senile man. Yayati forsakes his life of sensual delights only after indulging in it for a thousand years. This story is recounted in the first chapter of The Mahabharata. Yayati returns Puru his youth and leaves for forest to lead a life of renunciation with Devayani and Sharmishtha. Karnad has given this traditional tale a new meaning and significance highly relevant in the context of life today. He used the myth of king Yayati and made it the vehicle of a new vision. His treatment of the myth inaugurated an affirmed conviction of the playwright, in the words of Dharwadkar:

Yayati establishes at the outset of Karnad’s career that myth is not merely a narrative to be bent to present purpose, but a structure of



meanings worth exploring in itself because it offers opportunities for philosophical reflection without the constraints of realism or the necessity of contemporary setting 1

Karnad weaves a complex dimension into a pre-existing narrative or plot. Karnad adds new characters to deepen connotative richness of his play and gives it a contemporary appeal. The play shows Yayati as already married to Devayani. He accepts Sharmishtha during the gradual unfolding of the dramatic events. Karnad introduces two new characters to the plot: Puru’s wife Chitralekha and the maid confidante Swarnalatha. Karnad’s originality lies in working out the motivations behind Yayati’s ultimate choice. In the epic, Yayati recognises the nature of desire itself and realises that fulfilment does not diminish or finish desire. In Yayati, however, king Yayati recognises the horror of his own life and assumes his moral responsibility after a series of symbolic encounters. The play is on the theme of human relationship which has suffered a serious jolt in modern age. The mind of modern man disturbed by various sensuous and worldly passions has been gradually turning into a veritable zoo.... inhabited by ravenous wild animals of worldly pleasures, sensual desires, irresponsible exercise of power and utter forgetfulness of the imperishable values of life. Modern man, who has failed to establish his identity, is drifting like a rudderless boat on the pathless sea of life. Modern man is no better than the Yayati of the epic The Mahabharata. V.S. Khandekar, the eminent Marathi novelist also used the Yayati myth in his novel Yayati, published in 1959, the novel received several awards such as State

Government Award, the Sahitya Akademi Award (1960) and The Jnanapith Award (1964). In his novel Khandekar made Yayati, a representative of modern common man who inspite of receiving much happiness in life remains restless and discontented. The mythical Yayati ran after sensual pleasures but Khandekar’s Yayati runs after all kinds of materialistic pleasures--- cars, bungalows, fat bank account, beautiful clothes, dances, music etc. Khandekar’s Yayati is a modern man. Rabindranath Tagore wrote his famous play on Kacha and Devayani on the same theme. The myth of Yayati has been reported time and again. It traverses the generations, it has liberated itself from time frames and spatial constraints. But Karnad is the first person to use this myth in theatre within the three unities of time, space and action. Karnad explains the modernity of the play to Kirtinath Kurtkoti:

In fact you are responsible for this opinion. You called it in your preface “a play with a new outlook” and this statement provoked many senior writers like Adya Rangacharya. But I never considered it a modernist play, nor had I any sympathy with the kind of modernity which was being propagated by Gopalkrishna Adiga and his followers like Ananthamurthy and others. I did who influenced me were from Dharwad, Dr. Bendre and yourself. Whatever modernity the play has might have been due to my young age and the influence of the European modernists whom I had read. 2

As the play opens, the Sutradhara informs the audience that it is a mythical play. The



purpose and theme of the play are revealed through the character of the Sutradhara. He says:

Our play this evening deals with an ancient myth. But, let me rush to explain, it is not ‘mythological’. Heaven forbid! A mythological aims to plunge us into the sentiment of devotion. It sets out to prove that the sole reason for our suffering in this world is that we have forsaken our gods. The mythological is fiercely convinced that all suffering is merely a calculated test, devised by the gods, to check out our willingness to submit to their will. If we crush our egos and give ourselves up in surrender, divine grace will descend upon us and redeem us. There are no deaths in mythological, for no matter how hard you try, death cannot give meaning to anything that has gone before. It merely empties life of meaning. Our play has no gods. And it deals with death. A key element in its plot is the ‘Sanjeevani’ vidya – the art of reviving the dead, which promises release from the limitations of the fleecing life this self is trapped in. The gods and the rakshasas have been killing each other from the beginning of time for the possession of this art. Humans have been struggling to master it. Sadly, we aspire to become immortal but cannot achieve the lucidity necessary to understand eternity. Death eludes definition. Time coils into a loop, reversing the order of youth and old age. Our certainties crumble in front of stark demands of the heart.

We turn to ancient lore not because it offers any blinding revelation or hope of consolation, but because it provides fleeting glimpses of the fears and desires sleepless within us. It is a good way to get introduced to ourselves.(pp.5-6)

The drama opens with the sutradhara’s hint to the spectators that though the characters and the incidents of the play relate to earlier times, they could as well be applicable to contemporary times. The play is planned in four compact acts. It opens to show the anticipation of Puru’s return home with his newly-wedded bride Chitralekha. The palace is being decorated for the prince’s arrival. On Puru’s request, the special chamber where his mother used to stay has been opened and is being prepared for the new couple. The play starts on a quiet note, with Swarnalatha complaining to Devayani against Sharmishtha. Though Devayani defends Sharmishtha we soon learn of the on-going conflict between the two. Sharmishtha does not accord proper respect to Devayani because she knows too well that Yayati married the latter as she was the daughter of Shukracharya who could bless him with immortality. The play Yayati has the maximum number of women characters. There is the queen Devayani with her maid-cum-friend, Sharmishtha, one more maid Swarnalatha. Chitralekha arrives as daughter-in-law of the Bharata dynasty. Two male characters are Yayati and Puru. B.V. Karanth says:

In Yayati every character seems to carry his/her own complexity. Women in The Mahabharata are always a subversive voice, they are dumb. Women were not permitted to decide for themselves. This thing has



been beautifully expressed through the character of Sutradhara. He comes on the stage followed by female Sutradhara with her hand and tied with a rope. She does not speak. It is only the male Sutradhara who narrates. A clue has been given about the theme of the play. 3

The presence of dumb female Sutradhara, the poetic rendering of the male Sutradhara gives an idea of Devayani’s position in the palace. Karanth’s opinion about Devayani is that she wanted to be wife of Yayati only. She succeeds and Sharmishtha is envious of this success. The point is clear. Women in The Mahabharata era endeavour to be related to men of status only. Everything was to be understood in male terms. Devayani is the wife of Yayati and Chitralekha is the wife of Puru. Sharmishtha has no male support so she strove for one. The childhood friendship of Devayani and Sharmishtha has been turned into intense enmity because they try to be well positioned in the male dominated world. Sharmishtha brings turmoil in the life of Yayati. It is because of her that Devayani falls into the well and Yayati appears on the scene and saves her. That is what Yayati intends. The conversation between Yayati and sharmishtha goes on:

YAYATI: Don’t be stupid, Sharmishtha. You pushed Devayani into a well. And now you are plunging down a crueller abyss. SHARMISHTHA: But you turned up in time to pull her out. I am a barbarian. My arms have thorns. (She is about to drink the contents of the vial when Yayati jumps forward and grabs her right hand.) YAYATI: Drop it, Sharmishtha. Instantly.

(They both stand frozen. Sharmishtha drops the vial, which falls on the bed.) SHARMISHTHA (without any emotion): Sir, you are holding my right hand. And I am a princess. (Yayati instantly lets go of her hand and withdraws. Sharmishtha sits down on the bed.) Forgive me, sir. I did not mean to trap you in my words. I know I have no life but of a slave. But please, sir. I can’t go on living, floundering around in this hell hole. (Swarnalata enters.) SWARNALATA: Your Majesty, the floral decorators are outside awaiting orders. YAYATI: Send them away. I shall ask for them. And listen, I don’t want anyone to be admitted until I say so. (Swarnalatha exits, expressionless.) So you see, Sharmishtha, I too am joining in. (The stage darkens.) (Pp.21-22)

The play is a tale of racial tensions, female jealousy, the royal lust and existential escape. In addition to the mythical characters of king Yayati, Sharmishtha, Devayani and Puru, Karnad has added two new characters -- Chitralekha, the newly-wedded wife of Puru, and Swarnalatha, the royal maid. While portraying the character of king Yayati, the playwright has not only retained major traits of Yayati’s character but also portrayed him more lecherous than he is found in the myth. The playwright does not spare any opportunities to mark Yayati’s lechery and makes not only the other characters speak about his lechery but also makes Yayati himself confess of his fascination for



women. The significance he attaches to sex is obvious in his speech.

YAYATI: No, no, you cannot possibly imagine the horror of it. You will always be an outsider. An outsider to my anguish, to my grief, to my nightmare. You can only watch. With such care, with such pride, I had gathered the rarest moments of my life in my palm like precious stones. So I could play with them. Relive them. Juggle them. And suddenly, they explode, each moment hurtling through my muscle and bones like a meteorite. SHARMISHTHA: Everything has been a game for you so far. An object of diversion, to be used and discarded. But there are things far important. Let us go and seek them in solitude. YAYATI: Solitude? What are you talking about? I don’t want solitude. I can’t bear it. I want people around me. Queens, ministers, armies, enemies, the populace. I love them all. Solitude? The very thought is repulsive. If I have to know myself, Sharmishtha, I have to be young. I must have my youth. ( He sits down on the bed and starts feeling the mattress, like a blind man searching for a lost object,) SHARMISHTHA: Sir, what are you doing? YAYATI: I am trying to recapture my youth. Moments when I handed out pain, moments when I slaughtered enemies, razed hostile cities to ground, made my queens writhe in pain and demanded that they laugh and make love to me in gratitude. Why do I think of those

moments now, Sharmishtha? Why do moments of tears and torture and blood seem priceless? (pp 42-43)

Sharmishtha was the daughter of the Asura king, while Devayani was the daughter of the Brahmin sage Shukracharya, the royal priest of the Asuras. Both of them are proud of their lineages though for several years such matters had no bearing on their deepening friendship. Karnad’s play opens to show Devayani married to Yayati and Sharmishtha has her slave. The atmosphere of the palace is vitiated by bitterness between the two erstwhile friends and everyone around them is tense, seen in this light, the conversation between Devayani and Sharmishtha is understandably loaded with mutual distrust and anger. By peeling off layers of behavioural traits gradually, Karnad lays bare the class-caste-race conflict in the play. The first episode brings Swarnalatha to Devayani carrying a complaint against Sharmishtha. It becomes apparent that a sort of undeclared war is raging between Devayani and Sharmishtha who were once the best of friends. Whoever is caught in this tension is inevitably dragged into the whirlpool of volatile emotions. The point to note is that the cause of this war was the issue of class/caste. All the major characters in the play Devayani, Yayati, Puru, Sharmishtha belong to different castes, classes and races namely Kshatriya, Aryan Brahmins, Rakshasa respectively. Yayati is a kshatriya warrior and Puru is the product of the Rakshasa and the Kshatriya race. Devayani belongs to Aryan Brahmins, Sharmishtha is of Rakshasa stock. Her world is uncivilized, chaotic, plain, robust and revengeful, while Devayani’s is the world of pre-planned shrewdness craving for power. Both are unconsciously



conscious of their races. Sharmishtha narrates to king Yayati her friendship with Devayani:

SHARMISHTHA: Of course I don’t. I accept the responsibility for every act, including the first, which was, actually, to love Devayani. Until she stepped into my life, I was a perfect rakshasa princess. Spoilt. Proud. But not too much. I liked being with other rakshasa girls and boys. Go singing and dancing with them under the bright moon. Weave garlands of wild flowers for our festive games. Prance around in the river naked on dark nights, aware of the naked boys sensing us from the distance. But outside that world, conscious every moment that we were rakshasas, held in contempt. Then Devayani came into my life. Devayani. She was unlike any women I had met. She seemed completely unconscious of the fact that she belonged to a superior race. Actually let me confess, sir. She was equally affectionate to everyone in our tribe. It was I, as the princess, who claimed her for myself. I wallowed in the privilege her equality endowed me with. I gloated. I flaunted her company in the face of other rakshasa girls. And she accepted all that with such easy grace. If she had mocked me as a rakshasi even by suggestion, we might have been happier today. (pp.18-19)

Girish Karnad renders this epic episode of The Mahabharata into a play of racial tensions caused by the racial consciousness of the characters; like the caste consciousness as portrayed in Tale-

Danda. In her answer to Yayati, who is curious to know why Sharmishtha had been so cruel as to push Devayani into a well, Sharmishtha explains how she had in fact worshiped Devayani during the days of their shared childhood. Devayani had made her feel comfortable in her company and had manifested no discrimination on the matter of Sura-Asura differences. Gradually Sharmishtha had forgotten the differences of class and caste and had become close to Devayani in friendship. They had become inseparable companions. Sharmishtha guarded her friendship zealously and did not allow any other Asura girl to come close to Devayani. One day, the two of them had gone to the lake for a swim. They frolicked around in the water till they were exhausted and lay on the bank to dry their hair. Sharmishtha felt utterly blissful as she lay with her eyes closed; contemplating their perfect friendship. Sharmishtha was very disturbed and told Devayani that the beautiful dream of eternal friendship was spoilt. Perhaps Devayani misunderstood Sharmishtha’s disappointment because she immediately retorted. The insult contained in her remark was intolerable to Sharmishtha. Unable to control her anguish and anger, Sharmishtha dragged Devayani by the hair and pushed her into a dry well. This incident is the root cause of their feud and it generated bitterness and gall between them. Devayani was subsequently rescued from the well by Yayati who married her and to satisfy her demand for revenge, her father, sage Shukracharya, forced Sharmishtha to become Devayani’s slave. By such an act, Devayani wanted to prove her superiority to the daughter of the Asura race. This issue led to a humongous one. Thus began a war of race, class and caste. Even after



being the Kshatriya queen, Devayani’s consciousness of being a Brahmin girl is not diminished. It is obvious in the conversation among them.

DEVAYANI: Let her go! Don’t you have enough concubines to keep you occupied? SHARMISHTHA: Me his concubine? You must be joking. Yes, I got him into bed with me. That was my revenge on you. After all, as a slave, what weapon did I have but my body? Well, I am even with you now. And I am free. I shall go where I please. YAYATI (to Sharmishtha): You are not fooling anyone. (To Devayani) I am not out to make her my concubine. She will be my queen. DEVAYANI (horrified): Your queen? Your royal consort? YAYATI: Yes, but you don’t need to worry, Devi. Your position will not be touched. You will remain the Senior Queen. You will share my throne. You will be at my side in all public celebrations. That goes without saying. She can never be a threat to your position, you know that, because of her race. DEVAYANI: Oh god! This slave of mine is to be... No. That is not possible. YAYATI: She is not a slave anymore; you have just freed her. SHARMISHTHA: So I am free to spurn your proposition. YAYATI: Very nice. Exquisite. (Grabs her by her arm.) Now speak the truth. Aren’t you desperate to be my queen? Aren’t you?

SHARMISHTHA: Let go of me. Let go. Please. DEVAYANI: Let go of her, sir. Does my being here mean nothing to you? YAYATI: What is the point of all these theatrics, Sharmishtha? (Lets go of her.) Devi, what are you upset about? She will be lodged in a separate residence. I shall ensure that she does not impinge on your life for one fleeting moment.(p.29)

King Yayati knows that his problems are due to Sharmishtha’s presence in the palace but he does not want to ask her to go away. Even Devayani does not do so and Yayati is conscious of this. The crisis in Yayati’s life is precipitated by his refusal to part with Sharmishtha. Devayani does not want Sharmishtha in the palace and bluntly asks her to leave the palace. Shukracharya has cursed him with old-age. He does not accept the responsibility of what he had done. He accused Sharmishtha for this. In the drama, Karnad makes Yayati confront the horrifying consequences of not being able to relinquish desire. And through the other characters Karnad highlights the issues of class, caste and gender coiled within a web of desire. Yayati, thus suddenly stricken with age in the very prime of his manhood, begged so humbly for forgiveness that Shukracharya who had not forgotten Devayani’s rescue from the well, at last relented. The curse of Yayati cannot be recalled, but if Yayati could persuade anyone to exchange his youth for Yayati’s age the exchange would take effect. But as has already been told, Yayati became prematurely old by the curse of Shukracharya for having wronged his wife



Devayani. It is needless to describe the misery of youth suddenly blighted into age, where the horrors of loss are accentuated by pangs of recollection. Now, Yayati, who found himself suddenly an old man, was still haunted by the desire for sexual enjoyment. Yayati is fully frightened at the thought of decrepitude though in the beginning he tries to show to be unmoved by Shukracharya’s curse. But when he realized its seriousness, he loses his patience and begins to shout at Sharmishtha, Devayani, Shukracharya and Puru. But the moment he comes to know that the curse will not have its effect on him if any young man agrees to take it upon himself and offers his youth to him in exchange, he is overjoyed like a child. Sharmistha tries to pacify him by asking him to accept what has come his way. Yayati gets violent and refuses to accept old age. Puru is not Sharmistha’s son. He is the son of another woman in the myth. Prince Puru and his young wife Chitralekha become victims to Yayati’s uncontrollable desire for youth and viger as attributes of his sensuality. The character of Chitralekha is Karnad’s creation. B.V.Karanth’s words deserve mention:

The character of Chitralekha is a very remarkable one. There are only two suicides in The Mahabharata. Both the suicides are to bring some point to light. The one is of Amba and other of Chitralekha. Chitralekha prefers to kill herself because she has been denied the right of conceiving the would-be prince of the Bharata dynasty.

Chitralekha is the most rebellious character in the play. She is even greater than Sharmishtha in her revolt when

Swarnalatha gives Chitralekha the news that Puru has accepted his father’s old age, she is absolutely stunned but takes courage to say:

Chitralekha: Cry? Why should I cry? I should laugh. I should cheer... except that I have been so unfair to him. So cruelly unjust. I thought he was an ordinary man. What a fool I have been! How utterly blind! I am the chosen one and I... Which other woman has been so blessed? Why should I shed tears? (pp. 55-56)

Chitralekha is not a modern woman but she is endowed with energy which she tries to use for a place in a male-dominated world. She acts that old age as a curse has come to him at the right time, otherwise she would have cursed her husband and her luck like a mad person. Now she can curse her foolishness. Puru wants the support of Chitralekha for the responsibility he has undertaken. She gladly extends her support. But when she sees the face of old Puru, she realises what has befallen her. She gets frightened. She curses herself for not being as great as her husband, for turning her husband out. She requests Puru to reconsider his decision but to no avail. The conversation between Chitralekha and Swarnalatha deserves mention:

CHITRALEKHA: I don’t know anything. Don’t ask me. Forgive me, but please... please, get out of here. At once, Swaru... (Swarnalatha comes in running. Puru gets up slowly.) SWARNALATA: Madam... CHITRALEKHA: Take him out. Right now. Please. ( Swarnalatha leads Puru out. Puru lets her, without a word. Chitralekha



collapses on to the bed and bursts into a crying fit. Swarnalatha comes, sits by her and gently pats her on her head: Chitralekha reacts. ) CHITRALEKHA: Don’t touch me. I am a sinner. Kill me please. But leave me alone. Go out and... SWARNALATHA: Now, now. Don’t blame yourself. CHITRALEKHA: I don’t deserve the Prince. I am unworthy of him. But... but what am I to do, Swaru? I couldn’t help myself. I can’t take it. I can’t. SWARNALATHA: Go on. Cry. Don’t stop yourself now. It’s all right. Don’t blame yourself. Just let go... (Chitralekha bursts into renewed sobs as Swarnalatha goes and shuts the window and comes and sits next to her. Takes Chitralekha in her arms and caresses her like a child.) (CHITRALEKHA: Please, say something. Scold me. Punish me. Say anything. I can’t bear the silence. (Pp.58)

Yayati tries to console Chitralekha. He even advises to behave in a way befitting the daughter-in-law of the Bharata family. He asks her to accept Puru as he was and that her sacrifice would be remembered with gratitude by the dynasty and be recorded in golden letters in the annals of history. When Chitralekha refuses to be consoled or accept what Yayati has imposed on them as her faith, he tries to exercise his authority as her father-in-law and the king of the realm, and orders her to do as told. But Chitralekha remains adamant in her refusal to accept the circumstances forced on her and is ready to leave the kingdom. She declares that no one understood her predicament as a woman and a newly-wedded wife. She was

not consulted when her husband took a decision that would change their lives forever. She rebels against impositions forced on her and holds Yayati responsible for her plight she says:

CHITRALEKHA (flaring up): I did not push him to the edge of the pyre, sir. You did. You hold forth on my wifely duties. What about your duty to your son? Did you think twice before foisting your troubles on a pliant son? (p.62)

The existentialist version of reality and reality of man-woman relationship is beautifully presented in the play. In Yayati’s pre-mature old age, which is the result of a curse by Shukracharya, is expressed in the problem of the existence and seems to be closer to Camus and Sartre:

Puru, do not ridicule me, I beg you, do not talk like this. It seems you cannot imagine the extent of my suffering. Do not laugh inhumanly. If old age had come to me in its normal course of time I would have had the patience to bear it .... This is a curse.... If somebody accepts my curse I would free him in five or six years ... He should not feel disheartened for that. If I accept his curse, think ... Puru, I would be left with just one thing ... To go on and on. To return from such a path would be impossible. It is possible to take path that is without light, Puru, but how to go on a dreamless path? 5

Puru never thought of the plight of his young wife Chitralekha, nor did the king Yayati think if his act was socially as well as morally justified. When Chitralekha faces her husband, now feeble, emaciated



old looking man, she is shocked and the woman in her breaks the social barriers. She categorically challenges the very authority of the king. She doesn’t yield to the arguments of Yayati but retorts. To make the man’s ego more miserable, Chitralekha puts a proposal before Yayati. She would like him to take the place of Puru in her life so that she can bear a child of the family:

CHITRALEKHA: I did not know Prince Puru when I married him. I married him for his youth. For his potential to plant the seed of the Bharatas in my womb. He has lost that potency now. He doesn’t possess any of the qualities for which I married him. But you do. (pp.65-66)

In Chitralekha, the dramatist has initiated the very concept of a conscious woman who struggles to her space and voice heard. Karnard’s Puru does not give his youth out of his love for his father but to escape from the royal responsibilities to which he considers himself unworthy. All the time a mysterious consciousness fills him with the feeling of inferiority that he is a misfit among the Bharata dynasty. He admits it to his father Yayati:

PURU: I did. I agreed with them. I had not the slightest inclination to follow in the steps of my illustrious forefathers. I found their deeds pompous. I was bored by the hermitage, unembarrassedly. I wanted to run away from all that it represented: that history, those triumphs, those glorious ideals. (p.35)

It becomes obvious that he wants an escape from the possible responsibility of

the state, as he is the crown-prince. Sacrificing youth for his father appears as an easy and honourable excuse for him. Yayati is aware of this trait of Puru’s being. As the play shows, no knowledge, no self realisation is gained by anyone: What persists is only the senselessness of a punishment meted out to the king and the guilt of having forced the burden for a young to carry. Having failed as both king and father, Yayati is left to face the consequences of shirking responsibility for his own actions. However the play ends on a note of peace. Yayati asks Chitralekha to rise above petty consideration and become a great woman. He is shocked and accuses Chitralekha of harbouring low thoughts. Chitralekha could think of only one path left open to her. She commits suicide to end her misery. Chitralekha’s end is described beautifully:

CHITRALEKHA: Foolish? What else is there for me to do? You have your youth. Prince Puru has his old age. Where do I fit in? (She lifts the vial to her lips.) YAYATI: Chitralekha, wait. Listen to me. (He rushes forward and grabs her hand. Then recoils in horror.) CHITRALEKHA: There you are. You say I shouldn’t be foolish but you can’t even bring yourself to stop me. YAYATI: No, no! It is not that. Wait ... Listen ... (calls out.) Sharmishtha, maid ... (Chitralekha smiles defiantly and swallows the poison. Suddenly she crumbles up with pain. Sharmishtha and Swarnalatha rush in. Chitralekha collapses, writhing, in their arms. )



SWARNALATHA: Devi, devi ... CHITRALEKHA (screaming): Help me. Please. Don’t let me die. I don’t want to die. Swaru, Swaru, help. (Dies.) SWARNALATHA: No, oh my god, no... (Falls on her and weeps.) (Pp.66-67)

Sharmishtha accuses Yayati for this:

SHARMISHTHA (erupting): What does it matter who she was. You destroyed her life. I pleaded with you but you were drunk with your future... (p.67)

Yayati proposes to Sharmistha to accompany him to the forest before the night fell. When Chitralekha dies, Puru is stunned but doesn’t cry. It is only when he regains his youth that he repents for what he has done. In Khadekar’s novel, Puru’s sacrifice brings a new liberating awareness to Yayathi. Carnal desires blind Yayati temporarily but his ‘Dharma’ brings him to his senses. A very significant portion of the play is devoted to the study of the decisions of the patriarchal-social setup that expects women to surrender to the will of the male decision-makers without protest. This fact is further illustrated through another relationship that forms the sub plot of the play: the Swarnalatha episode. The character of Swarnalatha, the maid, is also Karnad’s creation. She is Devayani’s servant in the play. She also has a sad story of her past to share with the audience:

CHITRALEKHA: Please. Say something. Scold me. Punish me. Say anything. I can’t bear the silence. SWARNALATHA: I know. I know the terror of silence.(pause.)

I started to tell you about myself, but didn’t. Couldn’t bring myself to. But even my story is not as terrifying as ... as your situation. I was my father’s only child. He was not very well-to-do. Didn’t have enough money to engage a proper teacher for me. So he persuaded a poor Brahmin to teach me in return for a free meal a day. My teacher was naturally anxious that the news of this arrangement should not get around. So he would come to our house after dark, teach me, stay the night with us, and leave early next morning. I was a keen student. I learnt well and when I came of age, I was married off. I couldn’t have prayed for a nicer husband. All he wanted was for me to be happy. He showered me with endearments, with love, with gifts. It was ‘My Swaru-’, ‘My darling Swaru-’ every minute. Then, one day, he came to know about my teacher. Misgivings sprouted in his mind. I told him there was no basis for his doubts. I begged and pleaded. If there was the slightest evidence for his apprehension, he would have forgiven me. But there was none. Doubt grew into suspicion and then slowly twisted itself into an obsession, a laceration he had no means of controlling. As months passed and the disease spread, I could see him tossing and turning in his bed. And yet there was not the slightest abatement in his love for me. There was also his conviction that I was innocent. He began to look for solution to his torment. To revenge himself on me



by indulging in women, in drinks, in the campaigns. And he hated himself for inflicting this torture on me. And the more I loved him, the venomously he hated me and himself. At last I decided I had to help him out. I still shudder when I think of it. One night as he was moaning in his sleep, I woke him up and admitted that my teacher seduced me. SWARNALATHA: I described the scene in convincing detail. My husband smiled at me, turned on his side and for the first time in many years, fell into deep sleep. With that, Swarnalatha’s story too ended. But now Swaru’s private hell. He disappeared next morning. I haven’t seen him since. I still deck myself up as a married woman. Our house awaits his return: every one of his possessions in its place, exactly as he left it. But if he doesn’t return, I hope he at least found peace in death. That is the great thing about death, isn’t it? The assurance of peace, the deliverance from uncertainty? (pp.58-60)

Yayati has been written under the influence of the existentialists like Sartre and Camus. In an interview Karnad expresses:

I was excited by the story of Yayati. This exchange of ages between the father and son which seems to me terribly powerful and terribly modern. At the same time I was reading a lot of Sartre and the existentialists. This consistent harping on the responsibility which the existentialist indulges in

suddenly seemed to link up with the story of Yayati. 6

The play ends with the entry of Sutradhara once again.

SUTRADHARA: So perhaps Pooru at last found the courage to ask a question. But was it really a meaningful question or was it a cry of despair that he could hope for no meaning? Well, conventions of Sanskrit drama require that a play have a happy ending. So let us assume that this question led to many more and that finally Pooru found the question he was seeking. For we have it on the authority of the epics that Pooru ruled long and wisely and was hailed as a philosopher king. (p.70)

Karnad’s first play, a retelling of a myth from The Mahabharata won critical acclaim. He has given the Indian theatre a richness that could probably be equated only with his talents as an actor-director. His contribution goes beyond theatre. When Karnad was preparing to go to England, amidist the intense emotional turmoil, he found himself writing a play. One day he was reading The Mahabharata just for fun, he read the story of Yayati. It clicked in his mind. He started writing. It came as a play. He suddenly found he was a playwright and a Kannada playwright. This was so sudden and so natural. While the theme and language was typically native, the play owed its form, not to numerous mythological plays he watched, but to western playwrights whom he had read. While the subject matter was purely native and traditional, the form and the structure were essentially western. His writing of the play without any



premeditation set things straight. He was to write plays, not poetry which he aspired to write, and that the source of his information was native stuff, mythology and folklore. Even at the age of twenty-two he realised that he could not be a poet, but only a playwright. Until he wrote this play, Karnad fancied himself a poet. The publication of Yayati in 1961 and Tuglaq in 1964 established Karnad as a master dramatist. He has enriched the Indian literary scene by his contribution to art, culture, theatre and drama. His Yayati reinterprets an ancient Hindu myth on the theme of responsibility and emerges almost like a self-consciously existential dream. Regarding this play, Karnad frankly confessed in an interview that he wanted to tell people that he had read Sartre, Camus and others. In all his plays--be the theme mythical, historical, legendary, Karnad’s approach is modern. He uses the conventions and motives of folk art, like masks and curtains to project a word of intensities, uncertainties, unpredictable denouements. Karnad’s reinterpretation of the familiar old myth on the exchange of ages between father and son seems to have baffled and even angered many of the conventional critics. But to others, Karnad’s unheroic Puru is a challenging experience. Karnad’s plays with the mythical and the folk tale setting have wider appeal as they describe the universal instincts of the human beings. The myth of Yayati is linked back to the wars between Gods and Rakshasas. The Rakshasa king accepting the Brahmin sage Shukracharya as their guru for the Sanjeevani vidya (art of reviving dead back to life) is also a part of the same racial tensions. Kacha’s entering the hermitage of sage Shukracharya and his love affair with his daughter Devayani is

also a part of the divine conspiracy against the Rakshasas. Karnad is perhaps the last generation of urban-Indian playwright who heard narrative from the native myth, legends, folklore and history. The fact confirmed his belief that these narratives formed a significant link of an author with his audience, and shaped his dramatic self. This made him draw on these narratives for the plots of his plays. Karnad has Indianised English by using Indian metaphors, translating Indian idioms and proverbs and transliterating the Indian expression. His use of English authentically constructs Indian social reality. Every aspect of these plays--setting, theme, characters, dialogues and techniques, is Indian. His plays are the fitting examples of Indianness as V. K. Gokak observes it:

An Indian is a person who owns up the entire Indian heritage and not merely a portion of it. This integral cultural awareness is an indispensable feature of Indianness. The Indianness consists in the writer’s intense awareness has to be vertical as well as horizontal. The continuity of this culture for three to five thousand years has to form part of the warp and woof of his consciousness as well as a vivid awareness of the panorama of Indian life from Kashmir to Cape Comorin. The consciousness cannot be subordinate to any philosophic system. Nor can any metaphysical creed iron it out. The greater the co-substation in the writer’s consciousness, the more inclusive and many faceted will be his expression of it.



Works Cited: 1. Dharwadkar, Aparna. Introduction, Collected Plays by Girish Karnad. Vol. Two. New Delhi: OUP, 2005, xiii-xxxvii. 2. Kurtkoti, Kirtinath, Girish Karnad interviewed: Contemporary Indian Theatre, Interviews with playwrights and Directors, Nehru Satabdi Natya Samaroh, New Delhi, Sangeet Natak Academi, Aug.23, 1989. 3. B.V. Karanth interviewed (second session) by Manoj Kumar Pandey, Allahabad, Sept.19, 2002. 4. Ibid 5. Karnad, Girish. Yayati, translated into Hindi by B.R. Narayana. (New Delhi: Saraswati Vihar, 1979.) 6. Rajinder Paul, “Girish Karnad Interviewed” (No.54, June, 1971). 7. Gokak V.K. “The Modern Kannada Theatre.” Drama in Modern India and writers’ responsibility in a rapidly changing world. Ed. K. R. S. Iyengar. Bombay : PEN, 1961. (Pp.24-25).

Documents

Research Chroniclerresearch-chronicler.com/reschro/pdf/v3i5/3504.pdfRangacharya. But I never considered it a modernist play, nor had I any sympathy with the kind of modernity which