Marginalization/Oppression of Women in Vijay Tendulkar’s Kamala and Mahesh Dattani’s Where Did I Leave My Purdah
Abstract
In India, marginalization and oppression can be observed almost in every field. There are individuals and groups in Indian society that are disadvantaged on the basis of social, cultural, economic, caste, creed, class, gender and other factors. There are dalits, tribals, scheduled caste people, muslims, the poor, homosexuals, aids patients and drug addicts who are being exploited. These marginalized people face oppression in their day to day life who often feel exploited, subjugated, victimized and suppressed. Vijay Tendulkar (1928-2008) was an Indian English playwright, movie and television script writer. Mahesh Dattani (1958 - ) is the first young Indian English playwright to receive the prestigious Sahitya Akademi award in 1998 for his book Final Solutions And Other Plays. Both as the contemporary dramatists have been successful in portraying the social issues of contemporary India in their plays. The present research paper aims to analyse marginalization and oppression of women in Vijay Tendulkar’s Kamala and Mahesh Dattani’s Where did I Leave My Purdah. Tendulkar, in his play Kamala, presents the oppressed state of women in the family and society whereas Dattani, in Where did I Leave My Purdah deals with subjugation of woman during the partition of India where women were victims of communal violence committed by the men of other communities and its consequences on her life afterwards.
Key Words: Marginalization, Oppression, Tendulkar, Dattani, Women, exploitation, Resistance, Violence.
Introduction
Woman is represented in Post Colonial Indian context as severely marginalized and oppressed. She is given secondary position in her family and society. Tendulkar and Dattani have presented the theme of women marginalization and oppression in Indian society in their plays. They have portrayed how women are treated as lifeless objects as if they are not human beings. Tendulkar has showed in Kamala that women in the family are given secondary place and considered inferior to male. They are also treated like slaves who have no rights to speak in front of their owner, but are expected to fulfil their responsibilities prescribed by Patriarchal society. Mahesh Dattani in his play Where Did I leave My Purdah expresses the victimization of women during the partition of India and Pakistan and physical oppression they faced in communal violence.
Marginalization and Oppression of Women in Tendulkar’s Kamala
Vijay Tendulkar’s play Kamala (1981) was inspired by a real life incident in which Ashwin Sarin who actually bought a girl from rural flesh market and presented her at press conference. The play basically deals with the marginalization and oppression of three women characters in the play named Kamala, Sarita and Kamalabai who are subjugated and exploited in the play by the male protagonist Jaisingh Jadhav. Simone De Beauvoir, a French feminist, in her book The Second Sex writes about the secondary status of women in family and society. She avers, “She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the subject, he is the Absolute-she is the other” (Beauvoir xxii). In the play, Jaisingh is a self seeking journalist who ill-treats the woman Kamala whom he has purchased from the flesh market as an object that can give him promotion in the job and reputation in his professional life. He buys Kamala to prove the veracity of such auctions taking place in India. After his work is complete, he discards her and sends her to orphanage. Similarly, he exploits his wife Sarita who works for him day and night in the name of marriage. Arundhati Banerjee aptly remarks, “Like Kamala, Sarita is also an object in Jadhav’s life object that provides physical enjoyment, social companionship and domestic comfort” (CP 581).
In the play, Jaisingh reveals how women in modern times are being bought and sold like animals. The auction procedure is exactly as that of a cattle trade where all animals are inspected of their size, age and health. Beauvoir avers, “her value compared to the male’s is like the slave’s compared with the free man’s” (Beauvoir 88). In the play, Kamala is treated like a slave by Jaisingh. Instead of being outrageous at such a human sale, he keeps on narrating the minute details of the auction to his wife Sarita and when Sarita expresses her disbelief, he explains, “Can’t believe it, can you? The men who want to make the bid- handle the women to inspect them. Whether they are firm or flabby. Young or old. Healthy or diseased. How they feel in the breast, in their waist, in their thighs…” (CP 14). Having no customer, Jaisingh purchased her and does not bother at the future of the woman or what she might feel of their harmful activity of making her an instrument for his inhuman gesture. He tries to make it secret from Jain, his friend and a journalist. When Jaisingh hands over Kamala to Sarita, he is not sympathetic towards Kamala and is only concerned about presenting her condition in the presentation. Jaisingh himself takes bath after the tiresome journey, but he does not want Kamala to take bath as he feels that the art lies in presenting the case than the case itself. He feels that a dirty and pitiable looking victim of flesh trade will suit his purpose better. He tells Sarita, “She can have her bath tonight or tomorrow morning. And people of her kind don’t have bath for days on end... She’ll feel dirtier after her bath. Please don’t do anything concerning her without asking me first” (18). Kamala is insulted at the conference and is put to all sorts of shameless and insensitive questions like, “If there is free sex among you, what do you do with the illegitimate children? ... How many men have you slept with? ... You must have had some free sex with your new Seth- tell us something about it-how did it compare?” (28-29). After the press conference, Jasingh and Jain make fun of the conference and Kamala. Both Sarita and Kakasaheb (Sarita’s uncle) are shocked to know about the indecent questions put to Kamala by the journalists. Kamala feels compassionate towards her master, Jaisingh, because Sarita has not given him any child. She tries to take the consent of Sarita for making a compromise by saying, “The master bought you; he bought me too. He spent a lot of money on the two of us. Didn’t he? ...We’ll keep the master happy; Fifteen days of the month you sleep with the master; the other fifteen. I’ll sleep with him. Agreed? (35). All dreams of Kamala for making a family and bringing up children, break when Jaisingh takes her to an orphanage in order to fortify his arguments in the court against the wishes of Sarita who has kept her as a maid. He, like a master, issues orders which are to be enforced upon his wife, the slave, without any questioning. He shouts on Sarita: “It’d I who takes decision in his house and no else. Do you understand” (42). He forces Sarita to obey every order of him.
The character portrayal of Kamala is so strong that Tendulkar himself has observed that “in the play Kamala becomes a powerful symbol of being exploited and oppressed. Kamala after a time becomes a symbol...” (Babu 30). Afterwards, Sarita also becomes Kamala who suffers from psychological violence committed by her husband. Beauvoir says that it is the patriarchy which decides the fate of woman: “Thus the paternalism that claims woman for hearth and home defines her as sentiment, inwardness, immanence…” (Beauvoir 269). It is also written in The Laws of Manu about the duties of a wife: “She must always be cheerful, clever in (the management of her) household affairs, careful in cleaning her utensils, and economical in expenditure” (V, 150). Such kinds of duties are expected by Sarita to be fulfilled as a wife. Sarita does all the household chores for Jaisingh such as keeping the records of his phone calls, fulfilling his every need of clothes, eating food and so on which are expected from a good Indian wife. Jain, Jaisingh’s friend, while biding goodbye to Jaisingh and Sarita, hints at the oppression of Sarita, “Hi, Bhabhiji, I mean, an English ‘hi’ to him and a Marathi ‘hai’ to you. This warrior against exploitation in the country is exploiting you. He’s made a drudge out a horse-riding independent girl from princely house... Bye, lovely bonded labourer…” (17). Jaisingh turns himself into an exploitative chauvinist who does not give any consideration for his wife’s likes or dislikes and reminds her of the duty of a wife to satisfy the physical needs of a husband. On his advances to Sarita and her rejection, he does not even hesitate to call his wife a bitch. It is Kamala who makes Sarita realize that she is not more than slave in her husband’s house. It suggests the thoughtful and submissive nature of Sarita who makes every effort to please her husband. She becomes conscious of her pathetic situation as Kamala asks Sarita innocently: “How much did he buy you for?” (34). For the fun of it, Sarita says that she was bought for seven hundred rupees. Kamala feels it a very big deal, “It was an expensive, memsahib. If you pay seven hundred and there are no children” (34). In India women are thought to be useless if they are unable to bear a child. Kamala thinks that all women are bought by their masters which is quite true in the modern world. Women are turned into objects as price tags attached to them in the marriage market in the name of dowry.
Tendulkar brings out Sarita’s realization of marginalization and oppression which she faces in the house of Jaisingh. She suffers from Psychological violence at the hands of her husband. She begins to assert herself and oppose Jaisingh velleities. She refuses to sleep with him and accompany him to a party. She tells Kakasaheb that she is very seriously planning to call press conference and announce: “I am going to present a man who in the year 1982 still keeps a slave… he brings home a slave and exploits her. He does not consider a slave a human being – just a useful object. One you can use and throw away…” (46). Here Sarita acquires the consciousness of her dependent status in the man-made world. Tendulkar presents the pathetic and oppressed state of majority of Indian women who in spite of their qualification or ability are treated just as object in the present day matrimonial scenario and the treatment continues throughout their married life. In The Laws of Manu, “a woman is asked to keep in subordination to the male. In childhood, a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent” (V.148). In the play, Sarita answers to Kaksaheb’s questions as to what had happened between them. She answers “marriage” (46). To which he says: “That’s has been going on for last ten years. Why did you think of all today?”(46). Sarita clarifies his doubt and explains that it was Kamala who shook her out of her long slumber and made her realise about her slavish life. She says, “I saw that the man I thought my partner was the master of a slave. I have no rights at all in this house. Because I’m a slave. Slaves don’t have rights” (46). Kakasaheb, though sympathetic towards Sarita, turns an apostle of the whole man population by providing no hope at all and presents a very bleak, but true picture. He categorically substantiates his point by justifying Jaisingh’s behaviour pointing that all men are always the masters and that he himself was so when he was young, perpetually troubling his wife and marching ahead with the confidence that his wife, would follow him, as it was expected from a wife to follow her husband unquestioningly. Shailaja Wadikar writes, “Tendulkar throws light on the exploitation of women in society for centuries through the character of Kakasaheb” (123). It seems that Kakasaheb does not mind Jaisingh’s insensitive treatment to Sarita. She is now determined that she is not going to allow Jaisingh to exploit her any more as she has given up the thought of rebellion presently due to Jaisingh’s dismissal from the job. Sarita tells Kakasaheb not to rebel right now: “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...That day has come” (52). The play ends with Sarita looking ahead with a calm gaze that suggests her hopefulness about the freedom from slavery to her husband for the future. Arundhati Banerjee perceives, “Women are still mere slaves to their male-owners in Indian society in the latter half of the twentieth century… all three female characters in Kamala are in some way or the other subjugated by the dominant male character, Jadhav, who occupies the centre of the plot” (CP 582). Through the character of Sarita, Tendulkar has given an interesting picture of a modern urban Indian woman who is caught between the opposite pulls of tradition and modernity. But now, she is mentally prepared for the struggle with the society to assert her identity and turns into a rebel.
Kamalabai, who is a servant in the house of Jaisingh, feels marginalized due to her poverty at the hands of Sarita and Jaisingh. She is overburdened with work and has to do most of the house chores in spite of so many servants in the house. She keeps on complaining about the other servants for not doing work. Sarita gives a list of tasks to do: “Sahib is just coming. Make a curry from that cauliflower in the Fridge. see if those mangoes in the basket Kakasaheb brought are ripe. If they are, put out six or seven. See if there is any beer. If there isn’t, send Ramadev to get some. Is last night’s biryani still good? .... Did Ramdev get the clothes from the dhobi?” (4). Kamalabai expresses her resistance to Sarita: “I want to go back to Phaltan. Buy my ticket… And then, these servants. Not one of them does any work. You’ll be asking me, why isn’t the work done?” (5). Kamalabai goes on working and obeying orders be it be to attend the phone call and cooking, washing clothes and maintaining the decor of the house. She is even scolded by Jaisingh for not folding the paper: “How often have I told you that once I’ve read the papers, you are to fold them and put them on the rack?” (39). He orders her to fold the paper at once. She is quite irritated at the presence of Kamala and her suggestion: “Servants shouldn’t raise their head and answer back. They should be grateful for daily bread” (25). Thus Kamalabai is also treated like a slave in the house of Jaisingh because she does not belong to the affluent section of the society. Thus Kamala, Sarita and Kamalabai epitomize the different paradigms of slavery and subjugation.
Marginalization and Oppression of Women in Dattani’s Where did I Leave My Purdah
Dattani’s play Where did I Leave My Purdah was first performed on 27 October 2012 at TATA theatre, National Centre for performing Arts, Mumbai. In the play, Dattani has successfully portrayed the women marginalization and oppression through the character of Nazia Sahiba, a muslim girl. He presents the partition of India and its consequences on the lives of common people. Dattani conveys his vision through his women protagonist who exhibit exemplary resilience despite confronting the turmoil of partition. The play highlights Dattani’s attempt to explore how every society ascribes meaning to a woman’s body where a woman’s body becomes a space of control by men. Woman body is constructed as a contested space over which various ethnic, political and religious groups fight top acquire this symbolic territory. According to Seema Malik: “In this hyper masculine revenge drama of mutual humiliation, women’s bodies were the territories that were violated, mutilated and tattooed with the symbols of other religion” (49). In the play, Nazia and her sister are considered as territories by the men of other community.
Menon and Bhasin comments on the use of women bodies as preferred sites for the hieroglyphics of power during partition, “The most predictable form of violence experienced by women, as women, is when the women of one community are sexually assaulted by the men of the other, in an overt assertion of their identity and a simultaneously humiliation of the other “dishonouring” their women” (41). The humiliation and dishonour which women were subjected to in community violence during the partition of India on 15th August 1947 has been presented in the life of an octogenarian former muslim film star, Nazia Sahia. During the partition of India, The people of Hindu religion living in Pakistan were forced to shift to India and Muslims staying in India were asked to migrate to Pakistan. The play is a depiction of series of tribulations which Nazia faces during partition be it the trauma of being gang raped by men of other community in front of her husband, giving birth to a child who is born out of this heinous act or witnessing the cold blooded killing of her sister. After experiencing these painful incidents, Nazia’s character undergoes a complete transformation which is not that of lamenting at the past but looking forward to the future. In the play, while going to Delhi in train, Nazia and Zarine become the prey of communal violence of the partition, leading to their marginalization and oppression. Muslims were killing the Hindus and were being murdered by them in the violence. Females were the victims of the sexual violence committed by the men of other communities. On the way to Delhi, Zarine was brutally killed by the muslims, thinking her a Hindu girl as she was not in her burqa which she gave to her sister Nazia. Nazia had forgotten her burqa somewhere. Therefore, Zarine saved the life of Nazia form the intruder by sacrificing her own life as she made a promise to her parents to take care of Nazia. The muslims attacked the train and killed all the Hindus leaving the people who had worn muslim burqas and caps. Nazia considers herself responsible for the death of her sister Zarine. It is the sheer criticism of all those societies where people are judged from their clothes prescribed by their communities. It was Naiza’s burqa which saves her from muslims in Pakistan and becomes the reason of her victimization and oppression in India. The incident raised many questions in the mind of Nazia. She thinks of the innocence of her sister: “She gave me her burqa! She was always the one who was uncertain. She was always afraid of making a wrong decision! But now-she did not think twice! There was no doubt in her mind” (130). Nazia was raped by Hindus in India in front of Suhel who was unable to protect her from the sexual violence she was suffering from. She was supposed to be saved by Suhel from Hindu miscreants because she feels that they were the people of his community. She develops a certain kind of hatred for Suhel because she feels that she killed a muslim in order to save Suhel in Pakistan, but he did nothing to save her from the mob. Through the episodes of Zarin’s killing and Nazia’s gang rape, Dattani depicts the gravity of sexual violence which women’s bodies were subjected to during partition. Such victimization of women was the result of patriarchal power where women have often been treated as instruments for men to display their power and honour. Nazia expresses the cruelty of Hindu men who treated her as an object to prove their victory over muslims: “But… you see… I was still wearing that piece of cloth. But we were in another country, with a different set of demons... They pushed me down behind the bushes. Five or six or seven, eight of them. I don’t know. They tore at my clothes and at my flesh. All I could think of was why isn’t Suhel saving me? These are his people! I stopped looking at those eyes, so much anger and hatred! Hell-bent on humiliating me”(131-32). Being vulnerable, women become easy targets of oppression and women’s bodies became the subject of patriarchal control during the riots when the partition of the country was actively under consideration.
Dattani alludes to the myth of Shakuntala to exhibit how Nazia revolts against a patriarchal image of women in India. Shakuntala epitomizes patriarchal subjugation of woman who is beautiful and destined to submit herself to male hegemony where she is used, abused and reduced. Dattani has used the technique of flash back in the play to merge the interior and exterior personalities of the characters into a single whole. Nazia was playing the role of Shakuntala and her co-star Suhel was Dushyant in their Pakistan theatre performances. Patel avers, “The play moves between the past and the present as the audience are led into the back story of the young and ambitious Nazia and her love affair with a young Hindu actor Suhel”( Review ). In the play, people were feeling the horrors of partition at that time. During their performance in Pakistan, suddenly Pandemonium breaks out and a woman shouted that they should not allow Hindus in the troupes who are supposed to migrate to India. Nazia, suddenly, transforms from a meek Shakuntala to an assertive woman when she declares that there is no Hindu in the group except artists. Nevertheless, the societal mind set, represented in the insulting words of people, does not shake her and she tackles the situation quickly. The relationship of a Hindu and a Muslim is denied strictly by Indian society. It is quite obvious from the words of the mob: “We know the kind of plays you put up, prancing naked on stage. then you move around with that Hindu. Whores like you will find no place in Hell!” (77). These lines depict the patriarchal ideology where woman is blamed for every situation. Suhel tries to search some weapon, whereas Nazia shoots the miscreant and saves Suhel whom she loves a lot. She decides to go to India with Suhel and convinces her sister, Zarine to shift to India with her where they can start a theatre group, hence fulfilling their dramas. She reprobates the patriarchal code of conduct by liberating herself from family and does not marry according to the wishes of her father and advises her to realize her own existence: “Don’t be so foolish! Always dithering. For once in your life make a decision that will do some good. Obedient girls like you always end up in unhappy marriages… Well, you make up your mind now” (81). Nazia in her pre-partition career as a film star rejoiced at performing the role of charming and sacrificing Shakuntala. Nevertheless, her encounter with the savagery and barbarism during partition evolves her into a rebellious woman who openly rebels against the established mores of patriarchal set up despite all her social criticism. Albert Camus in his work, The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt, uses the word “rebellion” for resistance which is a principle of “superabundant activity and energy” (17). Resistance is born out of the spectacle of irrationality. It is an active force that “liberates stagnant water and turns them into a raging torrent top create in the middle of the Chaos as well as to renew hope for transformation”(10-11). When the play begins, Nazia has been portrayed as frail, wrinkled woman in her eighties. She abandons a film shooting when the director of the film, Sanjay, wants to restrict to a single line and she reads out the mail to Vinay, the assistant: “Since I am the matriarch I feel it need to deliver that punch. I need to gather everything so that the audience can recall the plot. Times have changed and you need to recap…” (Dattani 57). These words of Nazia reflected the yearnings of women to transform and subvert the power structure that deny them space by changing themselves into power generating and transmitting communities. On refusing to change the script by Sanjay, she keeps a defiant attitude towards him and succeeds in breaking the constraints: “This is it. There’s always a time in your life when truth strikes you… Why didn’t I see it? What am I doing here? I don’t belong here! ... I am going back to the theatre!...” (58). Friedan comments on the recognition of the self as starting point for women’s liberation, she asserts, “She could begin not by changing the world, but by reassessing herself” (The Feminine Mystique 04). Nazia speaks of her feeling and longing for theatre: “Your cinema is too small for me...Only the theatre deserves me!” (59).
Nazia’s resistance is expressed in her courage to come out of the trauma and begins a new life refusing to accept patriarchal codes of conduct. She abandons Suhel. Nazia has made an effort to adjust to the occurrences of life by involving herself in the world of theatre, but she expresses her fractured relationship with Suhel and her resentment to Suhel in her words: “We are not what we were...We were both beautiful but- what’s the point now? It’s over. No Point. Cobwebs. (92). Cobweb works as a powerful metaphor for Nazia’s troubled past. She emphatically pronounces: “Cobwebs! I hate cobwebs…” (69). Despite her efforts, her past always returns to torture her present: “(pulling at a cobweb) Look at these cobwebs! No matter how often I clean them all, they keep coming back” (107). Her quest for identity in India is obvious through her words to Suhel: “Oh, so I am helpless! And I need you to help me? So you can take control over my life...I certainly don’t need your help bringing about my destruction!” (98-99). Nazia opposes sexual politics which operates in marriage. That is why, Nazia who once felt great sense of achievement in performing the role of Shakuntala, brings about complete reversal of the character. Camus believes if oppression becomes a universal phenomenon when freedom and justice regress in the world, resistance too must acquire universal tones. Freedom is humiliated and is in chains today. So, it becomes the concern of the oppressed; and the protectors of freedom must always come from the oppressed (Resistance 89). Nazia launches a new play “Shaku” which signifies her liberation from the appalling past. She makes her character Shaku as an embodiment of woman’s courage to fight, to question and to rebel. Nazia’s Shaku raises conflict with her mythical character Shakuntala who succumbed to the patriarchal domination and silently accepted the injustice as her fate. Nazia’s interpretation of Shaku is her rebellious way or revisiting male hegemony in marriage: “You see, this is the interpretation I always wanted for Shakuntala! Not this whiny little creature whose entire future depends on whether her husband can remember having slept with her or not” (112-13).
Therefore Nazia becomes an independent identity with her own aims in life. She is now no longer fearful, dependent and suffering in silence. Nazia leaves behind the traces of her traumatic past, abandons her daughter, Ruby, born out the rape, but is constantly Nazia’s revealation of Ruby’s parents is painful both for mother and the daughter and reflects the agony of a rape victim. She says, “You were my flesh, wounded, humiliated. I didn’t cry when you came out. I was relieved…Not because I hated you but because I hated myself” (134-35). On the partition violence and their effect on the lives of people, Madhusudan Prasad and Alok Kumar in their research paper “Sanitized Silence; Towards a Theory of The Partition Novel in English” comment, “The partition violence does not seem too distant; it does not just rankle our memory, it poisons our present as well” (Prasad 25). The incident of partition does not only spoil Nazia’s present, but her future also. The effect of Nazia’s past can be felt in the lives of her daughter Ruby and granddaughter Nikhat. Nazia’s daughter Ruby is portrayed as an unconventional woman who despite of her rejection by her mother and husband becomes educated, self-reliant and brings up her daughter, Nikhat. Her only wish is to establish identity of her dead mother and as a result, she undergoes mental agony and struggles to search her true identity: “Everyone said my mother died after giving birth to me... Even as a little girl, being handed over from an actress backstage to a seamstress to the washerwoman...I didn’t exist. Everyone sympathized with me. Poor girl, her own aunt does not want to look at her” (124). Dattani’s vision of re-visioning the gender stereotypes is presented in three women characters of the play. These three women characters reflect the playwright’s point of view. Nikhat’s Ruby’s daughter is a young woman of twenty. She is the student of theatre at Yale. She presents herself to play the role of Shakuntala to pay homage to her grandmother. She also realizes the pain of her mother and expresses to her mother: “You gave what you got... But even when you were holding, my hand waiting for the school bus to pick me up, you too were thousands of miles away” (126). Thus, the play expresses physical violence and oppression of women in the partition of India and Pakistan.
Conclusion
Vijay Tendulkar and Mahesh Dattani are dramatists with desire to strive tirelessly for a society where there is no barrier of gender. Vijay Tendulkar has presented the discrimination of women in a family and the slave like treatment and objectification of woman, whereas Dattani has depicted the exploitation of women in the communal violence and its disastrous effects on the lives of women, with a vision of eradicating the female discrimination which leads to their oppression. Both the playwrights wish for social equality and justice for women by representing women marginalization and oppression in their plays.
Works Cited and Consulted
Shelly Sood, Research Scholar, Department of English, RIMT University, Mandi Gobindgarh.