Abstract:
Domestic violence is major violence affecting some one-third of female populations across all the continents. It is circulating with increased severity over time as effective remedies remain to be evolved. Its intended victims are broadly women and girls aged 15-49 and account for about 243 million positive cases annually. Domestic violence as a social malady is commonly defined as violent behaviour intended to possess control over a spouse or partner. It typically manifests in symptomatic and asymptomatic forms and causes severe physical and mental health issues while following the trajectory of a three-phased cyclic pattern. The Marathi dramatist, Vijay Tendulkar, has identified the virulent nature of this social disease affecting the peace of Indian middle-class homes and rightly discusses the theme of domestic violence in most of his successful plays. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, the present paper aims to analyse Vijay Tendulkar’s play Kanyadaan to situate Lenore Edna Walker’s proposition that domestic violence is operational in a patterned cycle and the unfortunate victim prefers to lodge with the abuser out of learned helplessness caused by choice limitation. It will also try to explore how parents exert psychological violence on their children for the sake of their wish fulfilment and limit the latter’s critical thinking and decision-making process.
Key Words: Domestic Violence, Parental Abuse, Cycle of Violence, Vijay Tendulkar, Lenore Walker, Kanyadaan.
Globally, any form of violence which harms women phenomenally is domestic violence. The World Health Organisation estimates about one-third or 35% of women worldwide have encountered some forms of domestic violence in their lifetime (“Violence”). The UN Women, an associate entity of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) as per its global survey reports 243 million women and girls within the age bracket of 15-49 years experienced diverse forms of domestic violence in 2019 (“The Shadow Pandemic”). Its prevalence in India goes beyond the world average, as 45% of married women have reportedly experienced violence and tortures at the hands of their husbands (Sarkar 312). “It is one of the most pervasive of human rights violations, denying women and girls equality, security, dignity, self-worth, and their right to enjoy fundamental freedoms” (Kapoor 2). Domestic abuse causes both short and long-term physical and mental health issues. The physical injuries include cuts, bruises, bone fractures, miscarriages, impaired hearing and vision loss, migraines, arthritis, etc. (Alejo 84). Some domestic violence-induced mental health complications are anxiety, depression, personality disorders, insomnia, loss of appetite, a tendency for suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc. (85). The UN Women measures the price of violence against women and girls to be close to about 1.5 trillion US dollars (“The Shadow Pandemic”).
Domestic violence as a social disease having pandemic proportions precisely means any violent behaviour intended to possess control over a spouse or partner. The definition broadens over time to include family members, children and cohabitants so that “wives are not the only ones who can fall victim to domestic violence” (“Definition...Victims”). The United Nations’ Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women comprehensively defines it as:
Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence and violence related to exploitation. (“The General Assembly” 2)
The Indian law, “The Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005” also moves beyond the conventional definitions to add violence in cohabiting or live-in-relationships under the purview of domestic violence. The legislative document of 2005 allows victims in such relationships to seek appropriate remedies, including economic safeguards (“The Protection” 3).
Domestic violence also referred to as intimate partner violence or spousal violence typically manifests in symptomatic and asymptomatic forms. The symptomatic carriers of domestic violence experience physical violence like direct harm on their bodies, threatened with brutal assaults, withholding of biological needs, denial of critical care/help when sick or injured, etc. It exposes the asymptomatic ones to emotional and psychological abuses that are mild or may experience nothing at all for an extended period. The abuses in this offensive category include harassment, degradation, devaluation, manipulation, intimidation, brainwashing, and blackmailing, spending financial resources on non-essential pursuits like intoxicating substances, etc.
Domestic abuses typically follow a recognisable cycle comprising three phases. Lenore Edna Walker (1979), an authority in Domestic Violence Studies, tried to explain the pervasive phenomenon through her cognitive theory, “The Cycle Theory of Violence” (Walker The Battered Woman 55-70). Walker posits that the abuses follow a patterned cycle of three phases–the tension-building phase (56), the acute battering incident (59), and kindness and loving behaviour (65). The tension-building stage results from the accumulated stress of the abuser. As the tensions spike, he releases them by resorting to violence against his wife/partner. His abusive strategies include snapping communication, isolating her from society, and producing verbal, emotional, psychological violence against her. Physical violence is mostly conspicuous by its notable absence during this phase. The second stage, additionally referred to as the acting stage, is the time when the abuser loses management of his accumulated tensions and resorts to physical violence and other forms of abuse. However, the abuser regains his disposition in the terminal stage (honeymoon phase) because of certain compelling reasons and permits the trail of reconciliation. He bitterly repents over his alleged misdeeds and tenders apology with a comforting assurance of no recurrence in the future. The abused buys his words with the fond hope that things have eventually settled down. But the apparent calmness in the turbulent relationship might either prosper or relapse with a fresh cycle of violence. Extensive research, numerous counselling strategies, and strong deterrent measures are in place for an effective remedy, but grievances continue to spike in a never- ending vertical trajectory. Leading experts on domestic violence research, counselling and intervention unanimously posit that victims of spousal or domestic violence have two workable options–either to abandon the violent relationship or coexist with the abusers (48). This is precisely when the dilemma of “Sophie’s Choice” comes into play in the life of these helpless women.
Sophie’s Choice, according to the online Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary, Thesaurus, and Spanish to English Translator refers to a tough state of affairs during which a person should make a choice from two equally deserving alternatives (“Sophie’s Choice”). The term derives from William Styron’s 1979 novel Sophie’s Choice and afterward adopted for the silver screen in 1982 by Alan J. Pacula (Rastogi). Sophie Zawistowska, the Polish inmate of a Nazi concentration camp, encountered an option of choosing which of her two offspring will live and which will die – a choice terrible for a mother to select between two painful alternatives (Styron Sophie’s Choice 595). Similarly, in intimate partner violence, the abused spouse has to decide whether to stay or exit from the abusive relationship, each outcome being equally abominable for the victim.
Literature in common is the artefact of social constructs for readers to visualise the world around them. Contemporary Indian literature stands enriched by the visible presence of some critical writers who could reflect and interpret the issues confronting the average man and show directions to negotiate the challenges. In the body of modern Indian theatrical literature, dramatists like Girish Karnad, Vijay Tendulkar, Badal Sircar and Mahesh Dattani, etc., have assumed the social responsibility of broadening awareness of those complex issues afflicting the society. Vijay Tendulkar, the iconic figure of regional drama, was apprehensive of the pernicious influence of domestic violence in both married and cohabitated spaces. In four social plays of his–The Vultures, Sakharam Binder, Kamala and Kanyadaan–the thespian has dealt with the terrible scourge unsettling the peace and tranquillity of Indian middle-class homes. His acclaimed play Kanyadaan develops the fascinating drama of an inter-caste marriage between Jyoti Yadunath Devalikar, a Brahmin urban middle-class girl and Arun Athavale, a Dalit boy from a humble rural background. The plot of the play depicts the clash between cultures, causing domestic violence between the newly married couple. The play again foregrounds the catastrophic impact of parental abuses in the cognitive development of children.
Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, the present paper aims to analyse Vijay Tendulkar’s play Kanyadaan to situate Walker’s proposition that domestic violence is operational in a patterned cycle and the unfortunate victim prefers to lodge with the abuser out of learned helplessness caused by choice limitation. It will also try to explore how parents exert psychological violence on their children for the sake of their wish fulfilment and limit the latter’s critical thinking and decision-making process.
Stage-I: Tension building
Vijay Tendulkar’s play Kanyadaan represents the story of a volatile wedded relationship between Jyoti Devalikar and Arun Athavale. They are in common both undergraduate students in Arts and effective followers of Socialist ideology. Besides his ongoing studies, Arun serves as a part-time journalist in the vernacular newspaper Sramik Samachar. Their initial encounter typically takes place in a “Socialists’ study group'' (Tendulkar Kanyadaan 9) gathering. Arun’s impressive poems and segments of his incomplete autobiography pierced the heart of Jyoti to fall in love with him. The might of his creative pen is so alluring that Jyoti instantly consents to Arun’s casual proposal of marriage, producing no critical thought to other practical considerations like cultural background and economic status of the latter. Initially, the concurrence of a Brahmin girl to his casual proposal causes an element of surprise for him, as he never expected such easy confirmation. The very contemplation of ambushing a young woman from a superior caste and making her his lifelong consort concerns him. However, tension builds in him over the assessment whether Jyoti could adjust with his Dalit background or would it be workable for him to provide a reasonable domestic space consistent with her social background and upbringing. Arun hails from an impoverished peasant family of ten members, and a significant section of his part time income diverts to his village home at Chirholi near Karhad in Maharashtra. Symptoms of the simmering tensions surface in the verbal and non-verbal actions of Arun. He seeks to dissuade Jyoti from wedding him by verbally communicating negative signals related to his volatile personality, the filthy atmosphere of his cramped village home, and the social ignominy of marriage to a low-caste Dalit. The covert psychological pressures cannot influence the adamantly committed Jyoti to her words of marrying him. This further exacerbates the tension of Arun, and it erupts when he arrives at Jyoti’s home to meet her family for the first time. Like most educated Dalit youths, Arun is fairly cognisant of the historical wrongs allegedly perpetrated against their disadvantaged community by the upper castes. A sense of revulsion against the oppressive and exploitative upper castes lies embedded in his psyche. The sight of her spacious mansion wakes the smouldering hatred, and he reacts sharply. He instantly communicates his uneasy feelings of being “uncomfortable in big houses” because they are “just like crocodiles and sharks” and “whenever they want, they can gulp you [a low caste] down” (16). Tendulkar knows that the contagious effect of the caste-virus persists in Indian society, and the following words of Arun affirm the unhealed nature of the infection:
At times a fire blazes–I want to set fire to the whole world, strangle throats, rape and kill. Drink up the blood of the beasts, your high society. Then I calm down like the tantric when he comes out of the trance. Like a corpse, I live on. I’ve made you suffer, I’m sorry. What am I but a troublemaker... (18)
Arun’s apparent hatred affects Jyoti, and tears roll down her cheeks when she experiences the unexpected mood shift of Arun. His uncontrollable anger erupts when her brother, Jayaprakash, arrives. Jyoti is greatly embarrassed as her brother realises she was crying. She inquires with Arun what could represent the reaction of her brother’s observation of her tears. The latter replies casually that Jayaprakash must have thought Arun beat his sister. She accuses him in a bantering manner that he is a wife-batterer. In a split second “Arun grabs her arm and twists” causing Jyoti to moan in pain. Then in the succeeding moment he is apologetic and justifies her, “When anyone throws a challenge at me, I lose all control... (19). Here, we must recognise that in this phase, if physical violence ensues, it is normally in mild and moderate form. Another instance of Arun’s aggressive behaviour comes to the fore when Jyoti’s mother shows up. Like every responsible mother, she gently asks her prospective son-in-law a ragged volley of pragmatic questions concerning his career plans. This irritates Arun and in a most blunt manner informs her that he and Jyoti would brew illicit liquor and engage their children in washing glasses and plates and allow them to fetch paans and cigarettes for the potential customers. Jyoti interrupts and tries her best to lighten the embarrassing situation by informing her mother, “You know, Ma, sometimes Arun can take his jokes too far” (21). But Arun is still uncontrollable. He harshly informs Seva and Jayaprakash not to grasp Jyoti’s words seriously because she is yet to comprehend him perfectly. He even refuses to shake hands with Nath when the latter seeks to congratulate him and his fellow enlightened Dalits for waging a befitting war against their eternal upper caste oppressors. At that moment Arun abruptly rises from his chair and departs from the house discourteously. Despite Arun’s outrageous behaviour, Seva and Jayaprakash’s fierce resistance, the marriage inevitably takes place with the tacit support from the idealistic Nath.
Stage-II: Acute battering incident
Arun’s contempt for the superior castes has not diminished even after the wedding of a Brahmin lady. Even the steady decline of the caste dichotomy in post-independent Indian society hardly affects the sensibilities of Arun. The deep-seated hatred robs his human qualities and fails him in discharging his obligations of a caring and responsible husband. He has been until now to get a secure job and provide decent accommodation to his wedded wife. No landlord in Pune allows him rented accommodation as he is incapable of paying the security deposit. His unemployed status practically reduces him to a nomadic existence–drifting from one associate’s house to another every day for a night’s halt. Hitherto, he thrives on Jyoti’s salary and squanders her hard-earned income in consuming alcohol. Jyoti is unaccustomed to his reckless way of life and experiences serious coping issues. Failure to experience his responsibilities as a husband has increased the degree of his stress to unmanageable levels. Arun falls back on domestic violence as a ploy to disguise his failures and resorts to all forms of abuse, including physical tortures. His battering has left visible dark spots all over the body of Jyoti. Intensity of the abuses increased by the day and they are distinguishable in her appearance and body language. The pre-marriage cheerful radiance of Jyoti stands replaced by “tired and crushed” looks, and she “appears slimmer... as if she has suddenly become older” (32). She abandons his company for good and lives like a stranger by taking “shelter” in her parents’ home “out of sheer necessity” (33). But the abuse continued as she encountered him while returning from office. Arun’s abusive behaviour has not only harmed Jyoti, its burden also transfers to her family members. Her mother invests anxious hours waiting for Jyoti’s safe return from office. Even her father, the vociferous proponent of this inter-caste marriage, cannot sleep and remains awake late into the night fretting about her. He is so disturbed that he could not concentrate on anything and broods his time thinking about her predicament. The scars of spousal abuse find adequate representation in the following words of her mother:
After your marriage the atmosphere of this house has changed. And do you think you have remained the same, Jyoti?... You are no help to us, nor are we able to depend on you. You are lost in yourself. If you go out we don’t know when you will return, and when you do return it is like this! Like a stranger... (33)
Such is the legitimate worry in her distressed family that Nath even proposes that both Jyoti and Arun should stay in his house until his son-in-law can sustain rented accommodation. But Jyoti was contemplating a different option and exited temporarily from the volatile relationship as she could no longer bear the burden of the aggravated abuses in her tender shoulders.
Stage-III: Kindness and contrite loving behaviour
Third phase of Walker’s ‘Cycle of Violence’ theory characterises an “unusual period of calm” as the abuser “knows he has gone too far, and he tries to make up with her” (Walker 65). The batterer acknowledges his mistakes and adopts reconciliatory measures to refresh the relationship. When Jyoti returns to her father’s place and is thinking of snapping the antagonistic relationship permanently, realisation dawns upon Arun and he becomes conscious of his aggressive self. With a guilty consciousness, he inevitably comes to her place with the sole aim of tendering unconditional apology and to take her back. On his arrival, he feebly expresses his heartfelt apology to Jyoti’s family and grudgingly admits his wrong doings. He informs them that because of his disturbed childhood experiences he has developed certain tendencies towards violence. To show his passionate love for Jyoti, he produces a knife from his pocket and in melodramatic fashion intends to cut his arm as a suitable punishment for his criminality. Jayaprakash’s timely intervention, however, stops him short from conducting such a drastic step. Jyoti is in contrast, however, not fully convinced over his change in heart. Even then, she overrules her decision to part ways and agrees to revive the turbulent relationship. Her sole hope rests on the speculation that Arun might radically change his brutal ways and settle for a life of domestic harmony and peace. Jyoti is also guided by the consideration that she cannot remain in isolation and become an overwhelming cause for the traumatic experiences of her parents and lone brother.
Walker posits, “It is during this phase that the battered woman’s victimisation becomes complete” (65) but in most cases “the phase-one tension recurs; a new cycle of battering behaviour begins” (69). In this period of relative calmness, Jyoti conceives for the first time. But in the aftermath of the reconciliatory stage of just a few months, Arun is back to where it typically began. As “alcohol played havoc” in his life, a “coercive economic situation occurs” because Arun “does not work and the woman’s income must support” (Walker 132) him. Arun resorts to aggressive forms of psychological and physical violence to gain control over her financial resources and “drown himself in drink, and have a hell of a time with his friends” (Tendulkar Kanyadaan 48). Beside the frequent verbal abuses, her body becomes the site of ruthless kicks and fierce beatings of his “toxic masculinity” (Kuppers qtd. in Ging 3). His torturous adventures escalate by the day and the impregnated Jyoti had to be hospitalised once in Dr Kumud’s nursing home because of an internal “bleeding” (45) caused by his “kicks” (47). His invectives remain isolated, not to Jyoti’s personality alone. He intentionally maligns the moral characters of his in-laws to ensure his hegemonic control over her mind-space. Arun’s neighbours in the overcrowded slum inform Seva:
...he gets drunk and bashes her up. Constantly he taunts her about her caste and about her parents, heaping foul abuse on them for being high born. (49)
The neighbours further inform that Arun tortures Jyoti by accusing her mother to be a “procuress who supplies girls from the Seva dal to the Socialist leaders” (49). They tell Seva that they have overheard Arun saying that Jyoti’s father is a “eunuch” (50) and her actual father was someone else. Arun does not end here; he indulges in a nasty game of emotional blackmailing to use the enduring popularity of his father-in-law to promote the marketing of his published autobiography. Emotional blackmailing represents an ideal psychological apparatus of a wife-batterer (Doll) to force his in-laws to do something by exploiting their emotions. Arun invites Nath to preside over a discussion on his new publication. He warns his father-in-law, “if you don’t come, all sorts of rumours will float ... [and] silly reasons will be fabricated.” He says that people would deliberately interpret his absence as “father-in-law and son-in-law don’t see eye to eye” because of the regular tortures inflicted upon his daughter. Arun additionally informs him that people would gossip “The rise of the dalit son-in-law to literary heights caused heartburn in the upper caste, socialist father-in-law” (55). Despite the explicit blackmailing, Nath expresses his reluctance to preside over the proposed scholarly discussion. This angers Arun, and he tells his father-in-law that it should prepare him to bear the adverse consequences of his pretence as a champion of the Dalit community and a staunch supporter of inter-caste marriages. After those disguised threats, “he left the room like a triumphant wrestler departing from the arena” (57). However, Nath caves in not because of Arun’s blackmailing tactics but on his wife’s insistence that he should attend the scholarly discussion for decreasing their daughter’s “torment” (58) and to assuage himself from the guilt of imposing his ideology on Jyoti.
Parental abuse of children:
Tendulkar’s keen observation of the society has enabled him to recognise the hideous truth that domestic violence stands unconfined to husband-wife/partner abuse. It remains visible within the family where parents may abuse their children and vice versa. Jyoti’s parents in common are hardcore practising Socialists having radicalised beliefs of a casteless society and eradication of the medieval practise of ‘untouchability.’ Her father, Nath Devalikar, remains a Member of the Legislative Council, while her mother Seva is a committed social-worker. Both of them are staunch followers of Mahatma Gandhi, and Socialist leaders like Acharya Narendra Dev, Yusuf Meherali and Pandurang Sadashiv Sane, aka Sane Guruji. Nath approaches Socialism from behind the focused lenses of philosophical idealism, whereas Seva is practical to the core. The committed Nath couple spend days and weeks touring across Maharashtra promoting and preaching their ideology of choice. Their ideology rubs into their children, Jyoti and Jayaprakash, and the siblings unconsciously get trapped in it. But this ideology turns out to serve as a contributing cause for psychological abuse of the female offspring, Jyoti.
Nath Devalikar has been throughout his social life a charismatic preacher, brainwashing people on democratic socialism for ushering social transformation through slow reforms rather than a quick revolution. Brainwashing in common is a term to refer to a technique or process to shape an individual’s views on the consistent basis of a particular ideology or beliefs. It is an abusive practice on the domestic front if parents use it to impose their ideological beliefs upon their children rather than allowing them to adhere to independent views. Nath’s ideological preaching begins from his home and he indoctrinates both his children with mild doses of Socialism to shape their beliefs on the principles of this socio-economic ideology. The siblings have their share of exposure to their father’s brainwashing/indoctrination right from their formative days. Nath’s ardent desire of installing a casteless society attracts Jyoti, in particular. Jyoti attends his political meetings and rallies and joins the Socialist Study group to enrich her knowledge on Socialism. The revolutionary poems of the British poet, Lord Byron, and other prominent Marathi poets find regular space in her reading habits. Sublime virtues like “one must not turn one’s back upon the battlefield” and “cowardly bow down to circumstances” (68) become part of her ideological fodder. By the time she was eleven she gained the critical insight to become “a relentless critic” of her father’s “speech-making.” Whenever he slips, she was the first to point, “Bhai, you talked nonsense, don’t do it again” (61). However, her eyes sparkle with delight and pride when he delivers a fantastic speech.
Her father’s brand of idealistic Socialism proves to be a curse in her domestic life. It addicted her like a “drug” and its toxicity “benumbed” her “entire consciousness” (69). Her initial attraction towards Arun was not on the callings of the heart but the hyperbolic lines of his ideological poetry and unpublished autobiography. Considerations like compatibility of the two personalities, cultural/family background, and economic stability weighed little to Jyoti when she gave her consent to marry Arun. Her father’s “maniacal urge to uproot casteism and caste distinctions from our society” becomes the decisive factor in marrying the emerging Dalit scholar. Years of brainwashing cripples her consciousness and she can think no more beyond becoming a guinea pig of her father’s social experiment of inter-caste marriages, a reality. The outcome of the inter-caste experiment is unproductive, and she ends up “pushed... into a sea of misery” (61).
Experiencing cycles of violence and exposure to Nath’s pretentious speech at the ‘discussion’ of Arun’s autobiography finally opened Jyoti’s ‘critical consciousness’ that she is not only a victim of her husband’s violence but an asymptomatic carrier of parental abuse. Critical consciousness is a proposition advanced by the Brazilian educator, Paolo Freire in his work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970). Freire explains it as a learning process through which an oppressed discovers his oppressive condition, and through transforming action achieves his/her humanisation (Freire 21). With her awakened consciousness, she identifies the causes of her current suffering. She comes to the conclusion that a blind following of her father’s “false, vicious” ideology has severely undermined her personal capacity to contemplate. She tells her father that she wasted “twenty of my life before I could discover this” (67). Had it not been for her bitter encounter with Arun, she would have remained unlearned with life’s “struggle” (68). She realises that copybook ideology and routine life are contradictory propositions. The former is on the premises of romanticism, whereas the latter calls for a pragmatic approach. She seeks a reply from her father regarding his pretentious propensities:
I am deeply offended by your hypocrisy. I thought: why did this man have to inject and drug us every day with truth and goodness? And if he can get away from it at will, what right had he to close all our options? (69)
Her critical consciousness enables her to revisit the antagonistic relationship with pragmatism. The renewed approach makes her understand that it is a futile exercise to think of Arun without his “beastliness.” Jyoti discovers that Arun’s enigmatic personality comprises “both the beast and the lover... the demon and the poet”–all intricately “bound together.” She tells her father that cursing with filthy language is an extension of Arun’s “frenzied love,” while, “ardent kisses accompany the rain of blows” (68). She realises a volatile phase gets compensated by a productive calmness in which amazing lines of poetic brilliance flow from his creative pen. Love dawns once again, albeit with vile sounds to defile an unsuspecting well-wisher’s attentive ears. This critical understanding informs Jyoti of her ‘learned helplessness’ (Walker 25)–whether to abandon or cope adequately with the abusive relationship. She decides, for the second option, to bear his cruel tortures and eagerly seek happiness from those more striking aspects of Arun’s split personality.
Jyoti’s cultural roots, higher education and economic security mystify the reader why she should continue with the abusive relationship. These socio-economic indicators are enough reasons for a victim of spousal violence to confront and contest the abusive behaviours. However, research in domestic violence paints a different picture and suggests that a high percentage of abused women choose to cope with their batterer. Psychologists like Joseph M. Carver identify certain reasons quantifying the changed attitude of a victim towards the abuser. Perceived threat to survival, perception of small kindness, submitting to perspectives of others, helplessness to escape, unhappy investments, and parental interference, etc. are grounds sufficient for the victim not to abandon the volatile relationship (Carver).
In Jyoti’s abusive life, the reader may interpret that walking out of the relationship could prove counterproductive to her survival as her self-esteem; self-confidence and psychological energy have drained out, putting up with the abuses of Arun. His passionate lovemaking and the flow of creative poetry in the phases of calmness make her see and understand the softer aspects of Arun’s personality. Jyoti identifies that excessive interference of her parents trigger streaks of insanity and volatile behaviour in her husband. Her parental support angers Arun, and if she can isolate herself from her family, it may diminish his outbursts and contribute to a cheerful mood. Here, the reader encounters that her increased isolation from her family is not by default but a designed strategy for avoiding the pitfalls of excessive parental concern and interference in her marital life. The unborn baby in her womb and the shame and disgrace associated with a divorcee convince Jyoti that escaping options have limits. Jyoti is aware that she has heavily invested in the relationship, and a reverse turn could drain the resources with no productivity. Her investments with her abusive husband are in the form of emotions, social, family, financial and intimacy (Carver 2-3).
As a stakeholder, Jyoti wholeheartedly invests her emotions into the relationship and even loses all tracks of her tears while coping with the abuses of Arun. She wants value for her emotional investments and “see the relationship through to the finish.” Jyoti desires to reap the dividends of her social investment as separation would cause “social embarrassment” to the repute of her parents and create “uncomfortable social situations” (Carver 3) to her unborn child. She cannot allow her future child to experience the pain and trauma of living with a single-parent. Her earnings remain the only source for maintaining the household expenditures and in flattering the extravagant habits of Arun. All the fruits of her intellectual labour would flow down the drain if she withdraws now for the sake of relief from the abusive existence. The intimate moments and secrets shared by her with Arun are also on the brink of exposure if she walks out of the relationship. Jyoti tests the prospects and consequences of her disturbed relationship with Arun, and concludes that coping with the abuses presents her better possibilities than abandoning it.
Thus, Vijay Tendulkar’s play Kanyadaan recognises the pandemic of intimate partner violence and parental abuses in Indian domestic homes. The spousal violence appears both in symptomatic and asymptomatic forms and operates in a three-phase cyclical pattern. Parental abuses in tangible and intangible constructs and the harm they cause on the psychological development of a child also get exposed in the play. The only way out for the innocent victims of domestic violence lies in proper identification and knowledge of its causes to adopt effective strategies to cope with the aggressive behaviour and live with this pervasive reality. Through this recurring theme of domestic violence, Vijay Tendulkar not only broadens awareness of the core issue but also urges victims of domestic violence to make prudent choices – whether to seek workable solutions for the sake of rolling the motions of relationships or settle for a life of separation.
Works cited
- Alejo, Kavita. “Long-term Physical and Mental Health Effects of Domestic Violence.” Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, vol. 2, Spring 2014, pp. 82-97.
- Carver, Joseph M. “Love and Stockholm Syndrome: The Mystery of Loving an Abuser.” Counselling Resource, 25 April 2011, pp. 1-4. Accessed 27 Mar. 2021.
- “Definition of Domestic Violence: Victims.” What is the Definition of Domestic Violence? FindLaw, 03 Oct. 2018. Accessed 21 Mar 2021.
- Doll, Karen. “18 Ways to Handle Emotional Blackmailing.” Positive Psychology, 13 Oct. 2020. Accessed 26 Mar. 2021.
- Freire, Paolo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Classics, 2017.
- Ging, Debbie. “Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere.” Men and Masculinities, vol. X, no X, 2017, pp. 1-20.
- Kapoor, Sushma. “Domestic Violence against Women and Girls.” Innocenti Digest, UNICEF, June 2000. Accessed 23 Mar. 2021.
- Rastogi, Nina Shen. “Sophie’s Choice and Other Choice Choices.” Slate, 12 July 2011, Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.
- Sarkar, Madhulata. “A Study of Domestic Violence against Adult and Adolescent Females In a Rural Area of West Bengal.” Indian Journal of Community Medicine, vol. 35, no. 2, 2010, pp. 311-315.
- “Sophie’s Choice.” Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary, Thesaurus, and Spanish to English Translation. Oxford Lexico, 2020, Accessed 24 Mar. 2021.
- Styron, William. Sophie’s Choice. Vintage, 2004.
- Tendulkar, Vijay. Kanyadaan. Translated by Gowri Ramnarayan, Oxford India Paperbacks, 2002.
- “The General Assembly.” Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. United Nations Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioner, 20 Dec. 1993. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.
- “The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.” The Gazette of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, 14 Sept. 2005. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.
- “Violence against women.” World Health Organisation, 29 Nov. 2017. Accessed 23 Mar. 2021.
- “The Shadow Pandemic: Violence against Women and Girls and COVID-19.” COVID-19 and Ending Violence Against Women and Girls, UN Women, 2020, Accessed 22 Mar. 2021.
- Walker, Lenore Edna. The Battered Woman. William Morrow, 1980.