Denigrating Indian Culture: the Girish Karnad Way Part 1
Tuesday, 10. May 2005 - 9:34 PM
It is surprising how somebody whom you’ve had as your personal icon later transmogrifies in your eyes and then becomes the object of shallowness and intellectual vacuity. To me, Girish Karnad symbolizes this metamorphosis. I was an ardent admirer of this dramatist in my late teens; this admiration spilled over into my early twenties, too. I’ve read almost all of his plays in the original, Kannada, and was swept away especially after seeing most of them performed on stage.
Over the past three or so years I realized how wrong I have been.
Karnad is a fine actor, a decent director, and a mediocre playwright; necessarily in that order. While the first two statements can be reasonably verified after watching his plays on stage, and his movies on screen, the other, last statement needs some analysis, which is what I’ve attempted here. I plan to do this as a multi-part series. However, I can’t promise I’ll post-a-piece everyday.
As a playwright, Karnad like so many of the writers of his time, wrote only with the Western audience in mind. Apart from assured monetary returns, these plays fitted well with the prevailing ideology of his time: socialism/communism, nay pseudo secularism. Most of Karnad’s plays are hewed around existentialism: his first play, Yayati, then Tughlaq, and Agni Mattu Male contain heavy-duty existentialism, which Wikipedia defines as:
Existentialism is a unilateral philosophical movement that views the individual, the self, the individual’s experience, and the uniqueness therein as the only reality.
and says, an Existentialist is one who
…prefer(s) subjectivity, and view general existence as arcane, that they are isolated entities in an indifferent and often ambiguous universe.
This definition of Existentialism as a philosophical concept is important to understand and interpret Karnad’s plays. I’ve selected these three plays with a specific reason. These are regarded as Karnad’s greatest: Agni Mattu Male (The Fire and the Rain) is rated by some as his finest till date–its staging by Arjun Sajnani was so hugely successful in the Indian theatre circuit that Sajnani roped in the likes of Jackie Shroff, Raveena Tandon, and Milind Soman to make its celluloid version entitled, Agni Varsha. Apart from their emphasis on Existentialism, what stands out in these plays, subtly though, is their denigration of ancient Indian culture by misinterpreting mythology, epics, history, and folklore.
As he himself admits, Karnad’s plays are drawn from, and based upon Indian mythology, epics, history, and folklore. While critics damn him for lack of originality, the playwright says,
Often accused by his detractors of doing to death the use of myths and folklore in his plays and about a lack of originality, the playwright himself subscribes to the view that there is nothing called originality. He believes that it is nothing but a western concept which came to us as a result of colonization.One of few existing and flourishing playwrights of modern India, Karnad believes that we have lost the tradition of writing plays. After Sanskrit drama died out, the entire tradition of writing plays also died out. He rues the fact that in India we have lost the art of improvisation. It is perhaps this search for a dramatic tradition of acting which has lead Karnad to folk lore
A commendable thought indeed. When Karnad made the remark about originality as a non-existent concept, he probably referred to the following (famous) verse from Jayantha Bhatta:
kuto vaa nutanam vastu vayam utprekshitum kshamaah
vaakya vinyaasa vaichitriya maatramatra vicharayataam
What new (thing) am I capable of showing to the world?
All that I can do perhaps, is provide some delight using new words (word play)
In essence, this sloka says that all thoughts/things/objects already exist in nature, and it only awaits to be discovered by some person. The person therefore cannot claim the thought as his own. However, one can embellish these thoughts, add novelty, and grace by external aids such as language. This is perhaps one of the reasons why we find such elaborate imagery and word play in poetry: a brook is not a mere body of flowing water, a skylark is not a mere bird, and thought is a fox.
However, for dramatists, especially those who base their plays on mythology, history, etc, this is hardly an issue. The raw material is readily available. How they use it without altering facts so the audience will have a good (maybe instructive?) time is the test for their skill. Which is where Karnad has failed. He has resorted to (mis)interpretation. A quick comparison: Shakespeare used Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Romans as the basis for his Julius Caesar. We do not find Shakespeare interpreting (although he introduces the supernatural element merely as a dramatic device) Caesar or Brutus or Cassius or Antony’s characters; he rather lets us interpret them. Karnad however, has cast his protagonists: Tughlaq, Aravasu (more on him later), and Yayati as persons living an existential life, which is grossly opposed to their characterisation in the Originals.
The next part will devote a sizeable chunk to tell as briefly as possible, the stories of Yayati and Aravasu. I’ll also make a couple of remarks about the much-touted “art” film Utsav, which is based on Shudraka’s Mricchakatika.
11. May 2005 - 9:31 AM
Excellent entry Sandeep. The writeup has come out very well, and your
subsequent posts will be something that I will really look forward to.
For a change, posts on playwrights and stories from mythology and their
parallels will make your writing wholesome.
I am watching out for this space.
11. May 2005 - 10:24 AM
Good post, Sandeep. Like you, I too have mixed feelings for Karnad: admiration for him as an artiste, and contempt for his base politics. Here is my explnation for why he is what he is:
My personal observation is that Theater in any Indian language over the past two to three decades has largely been held hostage to group-think and a tried-and-tested political correctness formula. A lot of these playwrights and actors have their eyes on awards, and the juries often seek safety in going by the current ideological fashion than swim against it. Therefore, for an ambitious artiste, confirming to the fads of the day is a necessary strategy for survival.
Second, long ago in Hindu India the royal courts extended patronage to artists, but since then ‘democratic’ governments have taken over that function. Those who dedicate their lives to art depend on the government for reward and recognition. Add to it the fact that the world of artistes is a very mean, nasty world: brimming was petty jealousies and personal rivalries. Artistes have phenomenally humongous egoes. There have been instances of person A rejecting an award because it has also been given to person B! These reasons propel artistes to actively seek the patronage of political godfathers.
Karnad appears to me to be an overambitious man who does not know where to draw the line between adapting to an environment to survive and fostering one where sycophancy rules. The street “theater” he staged just before elections last year, protesting ‘communalism’, was just disgusting. It should have been obvious even to fools that the stunt was staged to get into newspapers and TV. Was he adequately compensated for his ‘initiative’? What has he been made chairman/president of?
11. May 2005 - 12:28 PM
Ramaa,
Thanks for the fulsome praise
Dunno if I deserve it.
11. May 2005 - 12:32 PM
RR,
As I said in my entry, Karnad writes only for the Western audience who know little about the intricacies nay, even the original Indian mythological stories. So he like others in his category easily get away with what they strut around.
As for the compensation part for his disgusting street play, he was I believe more than adequately compensated by S.M. Krishna who must’ve had a hearty laugh at this “intellectual” making a fool of himself. More on this in a separate entry.
23. August 2005 - 5:29 PM
Well! I have read KARNARD with great enthusiasm and it has not died down, especially, after reading “The dreams of
Tipu Sultan”-an aggressive blend of history,interpertation and colonial divide-and i think that writing for Western or
Eastern audience is a collateral fact whether we want to disengage or engage with it is a question of Reader’s autonamy.Originality is a relative pre-occupation,intself a starting piont of forgotten things.To repeat things,as
KARNARD does help the cause of orignality.
27. January 2006 - 12:38 AM
sandeep and RR right now I have no time to deal in detail the objections raised by sandeep but I can say only this much that I agree with Karnad in his argument that there is nothing like originality. So far as patronage etc. I think that we must not be cover our subtle feeling of jealousy for any writer or critic who is awarded by the prevailing ideology or by those who uphold that ideology in government. I as a Marathi person can give you a point to think that the same patronage is available for Marathi playwrights or but very few have the ability to write in Marathi and English as well. Basically the knowledge of our literary tradition which is not only Sanskrit as you say but pre- Sanskrit and post Saskrit Prakrit folklore which Karnad relates in his plays. What about Lohita’s son in Hayawadana? Can’t a blacksmith’s son or an ordinary village farmer’s son identify himself with kapila?I would like to elaborate later once I get a reply from you through mail or here only…I don’t know whether my idiom is allright to communicate well, if I fail, I am sorry but atleast I tried…thanks
23. February 2006 - 9:02 PM
I am an admirer of Karnard’s plays.His treatment of myths is remarkable.He has given an interesting interpretation to it.I would suggest one should read the plays objectively and not be biased, that would be real criticism.
10. May 2006 - 2:47 AM
Wonderful!
A thoroughly researched topic!
Would have been better if commented in detail on Karnad’s other works too.
10. May 2006 - 2:49 AM
Wonderful!
A thoroughly researched topic!
Would have been better if commented in detail on Karnad’s other works too.
23. June 2006 - 3:10 PM
I was really excited by the plays ‘Nagamandala’ and ‘Hayavadana’.
I would like to learn whether one can get the video of the drama ‘Hayavadana’ directed excellently by B. V. Karanth.
6. July 2006 - 9:26 PM
This is the problem with the “intellectualisation” of theatre. A play script should be looked at from the dramatic point of view – its superobjective and whether this is achieved through the characterisation, the dialogue and the action. Why does the the story as written in the original have to be adhered to? Read the original or listen to a discourse on it or even, watch a teleserial on the topic. Theatre is not about carbon copies. There would be no theatre if it were and we actors, directors and everyone else who lives and breathes theatre would be – well – dead!
13. December 2006 - 7:21 PM
i have read karnad’s plays in English. though iam not much familiar with hindu mythology but i do feel that like the african writers have used african myths and legends to comment on their contemporary situations so does karnad. i believe karnad has done a commendable job in taking up issues that pinch and raised questions that need to be addressed especially in the poor countries like india and pakistan. as far the originality is concerned it comes with the dramaturgy and karnad certainly is an innovator. i would like to know how and where can i get the videos of karnad’s plays in english.
5. February 2007 - 8:12 PM
i have read Tuglaq, Heyvadana and looking for the first yayati play of girish karnad whether its english version is avaiblable or not.If yes form where i can get this. All i want to say that karnad has not only translated but hightlightened the problem with the current point of view. In Tuglaq the political unstability, in tale Dada castism, Heyvadana the hidden human desires.
6. February 2007 - 9:00 PM
This Karnad fellow is a rewriter of history in the hallowed secular tradition, few months ago there was a debate about the jihadi Tipu Sultan and from what I gathered online all this guy did was come out with abuses in Kannada vernacular press about anyone questioning Sultan’s greatness.
12. February 2007 - 12:47 PM
Hi!
I think your knowledge on Karnad and Existentialism is profound. I would appreicte it if you could tell me more about the Existentialist aspect of Karnad’s plays.
18. February 2007 - 7:57 PM
I was introduced to the work of Girish Karnad by a friend, a Tamil literary scholar who teaches English. We first discussed “Nagamandala,” and I found it a facinating expression of the delimas posed by the cultural role assigned to Indian women. Indian women are socialized to be loyal to their husbands, but within the bonds of marriage to be sexually unrepressed. This creates a conflict between women’s cultural idenities, and their sexual needs. Kanard uses Indian folklore to elisit the conflict. I do not se him denigating Indian culture by doing so.
There is no doubt that Kanard is influanced by Western culture including existentualisam. there is more than a little influance of Sartre in “A Heap of Broken Images.” But Kanard is on to something. I noted in my own blog:
“I recently have looking at the impact of Islam on Hindu civilization. Muslims Conquored Northern India around a thousand years ago. The impact on Hindu culture of the Muslim conquest, at least in Nothern India was quite dramatic. No Hindu temple in the area of Muslim conquest is more than 300 years old. This cut off age is directly related to the emergance of British rule in India, as the British East India Company gradually surplanted Muslim rule.
The cultural impact of British rule on Hindu civilization cannot be underestimated. The British liberated the Hindus of India from the truely oppressive rule of their previous Muslim overlords. After 700 years of Muslim rule, this liberation gave Hindu civilization a new beginning. At the same time that renews civilization found itself in a cultural dialogue with their British overlords, and through the British with the West. For better or for worse the English language and the whole of Western civilization haxs taken root in the Indian Soul. This westernization has not displaced the Hindu idenity, rather it has become an aspect of the self of the educated Indian, a self which is in dynamic tension between renewed traditional India, and the western English language heritage.
Girish Karnad understands this devision of the Indian self.
26. March 2007 - 10:50 AM
all i have come to know with little reading on karnad is that he is one of the post colonial indian writer with his uncanny ability to remake past within contemporary vision.i wish to read his work yayati in english translation.Is it available? From where can i get it
22. April 2007 - 11:34 AM
To know about Indian Culture.
It’s a great to understand and know about.
http://indiankulture.blogspot.com/
Regards
21. September 2007 - 11:15 AM
can any 1 here give me some more information about G.KARNAD’s HAYAVADANA?
21. January 2008 - 3:42 PM
Wonderful Sandeep.
It is a pleasure reading you in the Girish Karnad way. I have been guiding scholars on Indian English Drama for the fifteen years. Attemptswere made by them on so many topics – Gender relations, folklore, culture, history, contemporaniety, post colonial elements, Performance and the recent one is comparing Karnad with Tamil theatre writer Sundara Ramaswamy. Your write up would be useful and interesting too. It becomes inevitable that one cannot miss writing the culture in ahatever the genre may be.
21. April 2008 - 4:21 AM
Seems the only critic in the world lashing all the time the best Indian English dramatist. Readable opinions – though. Any opinion on Karnad’s “The Dreams of Tipu Sultan” and “Bali: the Sacrifice”? and on his Two Monologues?
Eagerly awaiting the positive reply.
P.D.Kulkarni
http://www.freewebs.com/indiandrama
1. August 2008 - 11:51 PM
sir,
i wish i could have all the articles you wrote on Mr. Girish Karnad.
if you please send me those valuable things, i will be highly grateful.
13. February 2009 - 9:14 PM
please give our mail ids if you want to publish an article on girish karnad. I have written to Sanddep to contribute something on Karnad so that the scholars would be benefited much. Now that the chance has come, please givce the address of those who have interest and committment to write articles.
30. October 2009 - 8:52 PM
yes
Girish karnad is a gifted indian dramatist who has succeeded in contemporising the social and psychological
issues throuth the eye of mythology. Women characters in his plays are more powerful than the men since the issues
projected for the debate is their own.
Expecting more from his pen….
Ravi kumar Nalli
19. November 2009 - 10:08 PM
sir,
My work is on karnad and i m searching for image of woman particularly in three plays Bali:the sacrifice, Tughlaq and Tipu Sultan that can be hardly found out as there is the scarcity of matters on it . so i wish if u could send me something on the status of women in these plays, i shall be highly thankful.
11. May 2010 - 1:43 PM
Excellent!have started to read Karnard.get a good many informations.want to know about the element of sacrifice.
12. May 2010 - 12:26 PM
@Charles Barton
The worst thing that happened with Islamic rule in India was that the connection between East and West was severed, and the West knew of India only through Arabs who take credit for Indian achievements. Why do you think Columbus had to sail the world to discover India when the Greeks were frequent visitors? But the worst was that in 700 years they built not a single university or any institution of learining for the people, but just destroyed and built buildings like Taj Mahal (where the native talet of craftsmen is evident, just as the Burj Dubai built by Western architects can hardly be called Arab architecture) and harems for themselves….countless Hindus were taken to Central Asia to build architecture for Muslims….In the North most of Hindu architecture was destroyed, most of the great temples survive in the South where they were shielded from Muslims’ destruction….
12. May 2010 - 1:34 PM
“Indian women are socialized to be loyal to their husbands, but within the bonds of marriage to be sexually unrepressed. This creates a conflict between women’s cultural idenities, and their sexual needs.”
This is a funny statement. -One can say rather that the ‘Western” liberated woman is often confused as to sexual needs because in the West as one good writer put it, where “men and women separate and remarry repeatedly for the most frivolous and ridiculous motives, as typically happens in the the United States, marriage ends up being little more than a
puritanical veneer for a regime of high prostitution or legalized free love.” I think the unliberated woman of the East for whom marriage still entails the continuation a heritage, a continuity of a bloodline, and continuation of a way of life is often much less confused than the Western counterpart.
As for the “sexual’ revolution in the West supposed to remove both inner inhibitions and repressive social taboos the same writer sums it up well:
“I must emphasize above all that the direction of the processes at
work is toward a freeing of sex, but in no way a freeing from sex. Sex
and women are instead becoming dominant forces in present society,
an evident fact that is also part of the general phenomenology of every
terminal phase of a civilization’s cycle. One might speak of a chronic
sexual intoxication that is profusely manifested in public life, conduct,
and art. Its counterpart is a gynocratic tendency, a sexually oriented
preeminence of the woman that relates to the materialistic and practical
involvement of the masculine sex: a phenomenon that is clearest in
those countries, like the United States, where that involvement is more
excesslve.”