ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 HERO AND ROBIN HOODS: A POSTMODERN IDENTITY INTRUSION INTO CHARANDAS CHOR BY HABIB TANVIR
Dr. Avishek Deb Assistant Professor Department of English, GLA University, Mathura, U.P. 281406. E-mail id: [email protected]
Received: 14 March 2020 Revised and Accepted: 8 July 2020
When a collective rebellion cannot be tuned against an oppressive apparatus, folklore has often referred to a symbolic alternative form of rebellion where a certain outlaw‘s heroism is rather celebrated by the commoners, as these vigilantes defy the corrosive administration, to help the poor. In the acts of these vigilantes, the commoners locate their brewing rebellious spirit which has been battered often by the socio-political hierarchies. Apparently such an outlaw hero can be said to be an individual who commits crimes and feeds on the riches‘ money only to provide for the poor. Commonly it is and has been mistaken as the vigilantes‘ act out of sympathy for the oppressed. However minutely studied, this process of hero-ization depicts an act of unity within the oppressed masses whenever inequity is catered to them on social, political and economic levels by the ruling apparatus. The outlaws (who are eulogised) and the common people in these circumstances are actually interdependent. The first banditry or outlawry might be committed with a sudden surge of violence, but if the felony is committed upon the rich in a region where oppression upon commoners is practised with the firmest hand, these outlaws are eulogised for having harmed the ruling class. If these outlaws choose to help the poor, rather than transforming into a common villain, they may ascend to a heroic status in the eyes of the poor. These outlaw heroes are termed by the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm as ‗social bandits‘ in his seminal work,
Bandits (1969). He defines the term and its relevance in contemporary society: The point about social bandits is that they are peasant outlaws whom the lord and the state regard as criminals, but who remain in the peasant society, and are considered by their people as heroes, as champions, avengers, fighters for justice, perhaps even leaders of liberation, and in any case as men to be admired, helped and supported. This relation between the ordinary peasant and the rebel, outlaw and robber is what makes social banditry interesting and significant. (Bandits 17-18) He follows it up with the potentiality of social banditry or its impact factor: … reformist or revolutionary, banditry itself does not constitute a social movement. It may be a surrogate for it, as when peasants admire Robin Hoods as their champions, for want of any more positive activity of themselves. It may even be a substitute for it, as when banditry becomes institutionalized among some tough and combative section of the peasantry and actually inhibits the development of other means of struggle. (26) But it is a question posed by many historians, political scientists, and social scientists, whether such nobility in bandit and outlaws can exist at all or not. Anton Blok for example, after coming through Eric Hobsbawm‘s hypothesis doubted if the concept of the heroism was sung by the peasants more than it was performed by the so-called good bandits. He also questioned the lack of distinction in banditry (how a good bandit and a bad bandit can be classified), and argues about the obscurity of the versions of myth. Hobsbawm in a reply letter addressed to the arguments posed by Blok accepts the last objection but also defends his belief in the social bandit: My discussion fails to distinguish clearly between the versions of ‗myth‘ which are held about bandits who are personally known to those who hold it, and versions held by those at a more or less great distance in time and place from them; between what is said about the active bandit now and about the remembered bandit; about the local or remote bandit. These
4201
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 distinctions have not so far been adequately investigated to my knowledge. I see no reason to believe that such a study would eliminate all living examples of Robin Hoods. (Bandits: Reply 4) Blok actually poses a very important question through Hobsbawm‘s own Marxist paradigm. Before attesting the probability of the social bandits and outlaw heroes, the complexity of this class, as explicated by Marx and Engels, has to be highlighted and studied. While discussing about the June insurrection of the Paris proletariat in 1849, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl Marx advances analyzing how the peasantry, could prove as an ally of the working classes in the revolution, and exposes the role of the political parties as proponents of Bonapartism. Karl Marx stated how a bourgeois monarchy of Luis Philippe is succeeded by a bourgeois republic and how the lumpenproletariat joins hands with the bourgeoisie, against the working class. Marx comments: The demands of the Paris proletariat are utopian nonsense, to which an end must be put…. The bourgeois republic triumphed. On its side stood the aristocracy of finance, the industrial bourgeoisie, the middle class, the petty bourgeois, the army, the lumpen proletariat organized as the Mobile Guard, the intellectual lights, the clergy, and the rural population. On the side of the Paris proletariat stood none but itself. More than three thousand insurgents were butchered after the victory, and fifteen thousand were deported without trial. (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte 8) What Marx also tried to suggest is the thirst of this class for easy money when Bonaparte was trying to lure the entire mass with it, it was the lumpenproletariat which fell vulnerable: ―Money as a gift and money as a loan, it was with prospects such as these that he hoped to lure the masses. Donations and loans — the financial science of the lumpen proletariat, whether of high degree or low, is restricted to this‖ (33). He also condemns it as a ―disintegrated mass‖. Even Friedrich Engels disapproves the lumpenproletariat as foes to the proletarian revolutionary motive, ―The lumpenproletariat, this scum of the decaying elements of all classes, which establishes headquarters in all the big cities, is the worst of all possible allies. It is an absolutely venal, an absolutely brazen crew.‖ (The Peasant War in Germany 5) Mao Tse-tung refers to this class as ―vagabond proletariat‖ in his essay ―Analysis of the Various Strata of Chinese Peasantry toward Revolution‖. He understands how oppression and de- industrialisation might have driven them to outlawry or illegal actions, but also points out how least significant these actions of the ‗vagabond proletariats‘ become for the oppressed lot of society. In the first objection raised by Blok (mentioned earlier), dealing with the predominance of ‗mythification‘ above the ‗actual action‘, an outlaw without performing a socially useful action is carved into a larger-than-life image. Eric Hobsbawm agrees about the ambiguous position of bandit heroes (‗Social Bandits: Reply‘ 3) and quotes an extract from his Bandits: He is an outsider and rebel, a poor man who refuses to accept the normal rules of poverty, and establishes his freedom by means of the only resources within reach of the poor, strength, bravery, cunning and determination. This draws him close to the poor: he is one of them. It sets him in opposition to the hierarchy of power, wealth and influence: he is not one of them. At the same time the bandit is, inevitably, drawn into the web of wealth and power, because, unlike other peasants, he acquires wealth and exerts power. He is 'one of us' who is constantly in the process of becoming associated with 'them‘. The more successful he is as a bandit, the more he is both a representative and champion of the poor and a part of the system of the rich. (Bandits 87-88) It is the modernization in the first and the second worlds which is preventing the socio-political and financial conditions to arise among the exploited lot, conditions apt for the birth of Robin Hoods. While devising a post-independence new face of theatrical production in India, Habib Tanvir took recourse to the folk genre basically due to the crudity and simplicity with which social and political issues were held up without imposition, and also the naturalness and the fluency with which the roles were being enacted in the actors‘ mother-tongue. But definitely Habib Tanvir is not a practitioner of ‗pure folk theatre‘. He merely uses the folk elements in the proscenium theatre in order to ferment the proscenium theatre‘s colonial fabric. Anjum Katyal comments in the introductory essay of her book: ―Yet his was not folk theatre, although, since he frequently used material such as folktales, folk songs and rituals in his productions; it is often mistaken for an attempt of it. But this would be a misreading of his work.‖ (Habib Tanvir: Towards an Inclusive Theatre xix) That is why Charandas, the thief in his play Charandas Chor, is more similar to the social bandit or outlaw hero image, like Robin Hood, described in the rural folklore. A Rajasthani folk tale written by Vijaydan Detha, of a so-called thief is the inspiration of this play and a closer look makes it clear how not only Charandas, but the entire culture, piety, traditions, and class interest of the rural community, stand in opposition against an oppressive class consisting of landlords, impious priests, corrupt ministers, and a tyrant monarchy itself. The play is a battle of dignity and perseverance of the resistive existence of the oppressed versus a suppressive force existent in all levels of the establishment.
4202
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 Charandas is basically a noble hearted thief who understands the difference between lavish desires of the rich and the dire needs of the many people who are dying without food, clothing, and shelter. Thieving, to him, is a clear cut profession with ethics. He never steals or robs off the rural section. His whole concentration is upon the rich class who have more than enough jewellery, and food to stuff their bellies, yet who covet for more. But this does not imply that Charandas degenerates to the level of inhumanity; rather he feels sorry when a rich housewife starts to cry in front of him on being robbed off her precious jewellery. Such is Charandas‘ pity that he returns the jewellery which he robbed from the woman. This event takes place right in the first scene of the play. As soon as Charandas returns the stolen items to her, she stops her sobbing and pleading, and suddenly triggers off to swearing instead of being indebted to Charandas‘ kindness. The rich lady‘s profanity was merely wearing a garb of tears always ready to come out unabashedly. The woman infact symbolizes a bourgeois individual, as someone who lives a life packed with privileges, and therefore is wrought by them. This inclines his or her perspective towards subjectivity; occupying one of the apex points in the syntagmatic society which itself progresses paradigmatically, making that bourgeois individual feel an air of ‗natural‘-ness about this raised status. Charandas is seen running from the clutches of a corrupt Havaldar, who though is a servant of the law, keeps bugging the former to hand over half of the stolen bounty. In order to get rid of him Charandas hides and seeks refuge to a Satnami guru who was sitting close by them. This guru is no less corrupt than the Havaldar and always attempts to draw monetary benefits through cashing in the concept of salvation in the name of seeking alms while chanting hymns based on the principle of truth among smokers, dopers, drunkards, gamblers, thieves and many others. This guru relieves Charandas from the havaldar‘s grasp but discourages the latter‘s habit of stealing. To this Charandas replies that thieving is his profession and his means of survival and that is why he cannot detach from his occupation. Charandas also wishes to acquire salvation or rather buy it off for a few coins and thus pledges himself to the guru. However, the actual picture is something different: it is a symbolical display of a vitiated offering. Enamoured with the guru‘s art of stealing by fooling people in broad daylight, Charandas bestows himself to his greater counterpart, as unlike the guru, he had to wait till the wake of night in order to commit thievery. Unable to deter Charandas from his stand, the Guru instructs him to lead an honest life. Also in order to test his new disciple, he makes a demand to Charandas to assure him of a vow to which the latter can honestly abide by. Instantaneously, Charandas replies that he can make four vows instead – never to eat in a golden platter, never to lead a procession on an elephant‘s back, never to become a king even when pleaded to do so, and never to marry a princess. The Satnami guru laughs at such stupid vows which, according to him, are never likely to occur in order to test his disciple‘s dignity. So he asks Charandas to swear never to lie to anyone. Charandas is baffled at the complexity of such a vow. But seeing his guru adamant, Charandas agrees to make this fifth vow. Though comically onwards, Charandas manages to hold on to his vow of telling the truth while stealing and robbing the rich. In the third scene of the play, he is informed by a local peasant of a village that they have been struck by famine while their landlord has been hoarding all the rice in his godown under the protection of his hirelings. The landlord is extremely cruel and would not distribute even a gram of rice among his own villagers. Hearing this, Charandas decides to rob the godown filled with rice, to strike down the hollowness of the exploitative landlord. Since he has sworn to tell the truth, Charandas openly threatens the landlord of the former‘s plan to rob the latter. The fact that this social bandit is not ashamed of his profession is depicted when he announces in front of the inquisitive landlord, ―My name is Charandas and my profession thieving. Taken together, that makes me Charandas the thief!‖ (80). In the disguise of a Rawat dancer, Charandas manages to steal all the sacks of rice right under the nose of the landlord and distributes them among all the villagers. Now that the landlord has become bankrupt, even he joins the queue and gets an equal share of rice from Charandas. The fact, that he lives by thieving, is not a matter of shame to him. Rather, he finds himself a lesser evil amongst an ocean of greedy monsters. Secondly, his position is the same as any commoner, who finds himself against imposing socio-political hierarchies. This is why robbing a covetous and cruel landlord is a far lesser evil than those practised by the latter. Distributing rice equally amongst the starving commoners gave him a moral satisfaction. The Bakhtin-esque ‗reversal‘ that occurs while his being a thief getting transformed to a Robin Hood status, arises clearly out of the socio-political and financial condition in the scene. The equity of status quo was harmed by one of the members of the hierarchy: here, the landlord. Retaliation was bound to happen someday. It only gets propelled by the entry of Charandas. After this event, the thief becomes a hero of the exploited mass. His characteristic of truth stands for the collective characteristic of the mass, for social justice and equality which had been forbidden for so long. Habib Tanvir in a comic way though, brings out this form of interdependence between the thief and the mass. Charandas‘ elevation to the stature of a social bandit or a Robin Hood rather than a mere thug, is authenticated in the fourth scene when the chorus representing the sentiment of the common mass about their hero sing:
4203
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 Oh listen, brothers and sisters, to what we have to say. Charandas is not a thief, not a thief, no way! Palaces and mansions, he‘ll break into and steal, The poor man‘s hut is safe from him, he gives us a good deal. There are so may rogues about, who do not look like thieves, Impressive turbans on their heads, softly shod their feet, But open up their safes and you will surely see, Stolen goods, ill-gotten wealth, riches got for free. (84)
Thus, Charandas transforms into a symbolic representative of the common people. His principles are a product of the proletarian social ideology, as Tanvir starts building this play in a comic fashion. Charandas lives by his word of speaking the truth and this is how he starts seeing the amount of inequality of a class-based society with wealth belonging or grasped by a handful of people through corruption in all administrative spheres – be it the constable who lives on bribes, his own guru exploiting people upon their blind religious adherence, the landlord who hoards food, or others whom he meets in the next scenes. But while Charandas in this scene gives the landlord his share of rice, the landlord grabs him by the throat and charges him for thievery. The cat and mouse chase between the Havaldar or Constable and Charandas again begins and the scene ends on a humorous note with Charandas‘ escapade. In the fifth scene, while a priest in a temple is busy distributing prasad on a plate to the devotees receiving their offerings, the comic chase between the thief and the policeman continues. Charandas comes forth and donates a basket of stolen jewellery and gems to the priest. The priest is bewildered seeing such an act of immense generosity and laughs at Charandas, when the latter introduces himself as a thief. Obviously, his act of contribution contradicted his clear confession. Charandas also says that the reason of his coming to God is due to his own desire of amassing more wealth. The pietism depicted in the scene is deliberately intercepted in a funny way by the cat-and-mouse pair of the Charandas and the Havaldar pretending to be worshippers all the while. While the Havaldar waits outside the temple for catching Charandas, the thief in the meantime, startles everyone by managing to escape at night stealing not only the jewellery and gem he had offered but also the idol of god when the priest and the havaldar were asleep. In the first scene of Act Two, Charandas after robbing the landlord and the priest discloses to his guru-ji of his last plan to rob the royal treasury. By this time he has become a hero of the exploited mass by distributing money among the poor. The thief seeks his guru‘s help in robbing the royal coffers guarded by a munim (treasurer). Charandas informs his guru that a minister of the royal court is to arrive for inspection of the treasure. The guru‘s job is to divert and delay the new minister. Unwillingly, the guru does as asked. Charandas takes advantage of this delay and befools the munim and robs the treasury by disguising as the new minister. To the amazement of the audience, he snatches merely five gold coins from a treasury studded with gold bricks, diamonds and other precious stones. Discovering the meagre theft of five gold mohurs, the munim steals five more gold mohurs in order to make it look like a robbery. A fake robbery of ten gold coins is naturally bound to overshadow the true report of mere five coins. On the queen‘s order Charandas is dragged to the court. The guru also comes alongwith his disciple. When questioned, Charandas announces that it was his deliberate intention to catch the attention of the royal court. Indirectly he sets forth his motive of seeking attention like this because he wanted to expose the corruption of the entire administration from the grass root level up to the apex. He conveys this to the queen by saying, ―Others steal on the sly, while I do it in broad daylight, with great fanfare. That‘s the only difference‖ (Charandas Chor 99). When he is accused for the theft of ten gold coins, he takes responsibility of five coins that he stole. In this way he also exposes the secret theft committed by the corrupt munim who stole the remaining five gold coins. Comprehending that the mole is in her own administration, the queen gets impeded in subduing the pride of Charandas. She inquires the reason of Charandas being a thief even though the latter‘s strong adherence to truth. Charandas frankly admits, ―… it‘s my dharma! How can I give up my dharma?‖ (101) As any other working class member, he believes it is the labour in which he is skilful. That is why he cannot quit the only means of his livelihood. So the queen devises a new way to rob the dignity of the common man of the working class instilled in Charandas through a gift of the extra five coins that initially the munim had stolen. But Charandas refuses to accept it because it was not the product of his hard-earned labour. He says, ―But I didn‘t earn them. The coins I earned are in my pocket. I live off my own hard-won wealth. I have no need for the extra five coins. By the grace of god I have more than enough‖ (101). The queen, on finding the sternness of a simple man like Charandas against the entire ruling structure, tries a new way to cage his simplicity by separating him from his people through de-image-isation. This is not a way to make one‘s image from famous to infamous; infact, it is a way of distancing the image or fame. Charandas to the queen and her structure appeared as a hero of the people. So the queen decided to create a distance between the people and the hero by including their hero into the existing ruling structure. This she knew would destroy the backbone of any future revolt of the toiling masses. With no leader, they would have no inspiration. Overtly showing that it is the thief‘s honesty that drew her admiration, the queen orders a royal procession to honour Charandas. She
4204
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 also forwards her request that Charandas has to lead the procession on an elephant‘s back. However his vow of not to do so stops him from accepting the request and he is tied and dragged to the royal court by the minister. The queen on hearing how Charandas‘ vow impeded him from fulfilling her wish understands the latter‘s inability. So she requests the honest thief to dine with her. But since the plate is made of gold, Charandas is reminded of his vow again (though this time by his guru), and therefore turns down the plea of joining the feast. He even violates the queen‘s order who had commanded him to eat. So on the queen‘s order, who is greatly annoyed with the firmness of the thief, Charandas is imprisoned. But the fact is that the queen‘s efforts in caging the simplicity, honesty, and dignity of the common man had failed miserably. The arrest was the result of that frustration. Tanvir‘s play throughout is replete with such serious political messages in a cushion of humour. In the final scene of Act Two, the plot approaches the climax where Charandas is stealthily brought to the palace bedroom of the queen on the order of the latter. The frustrated queen now tells him that she has fallen in love with Charandas as it is his honesty that has stolen her heart. She proposes to Charandas to marry her. She also tempts the latter that this marriage will make Charandas the king of the state. Comically enough, Charandas again is hindered from accepting her request owing to his two vows of never to become a king and never to marry a queen. So he refuses to oblige the queen again and goes to leave. But when the queen pleads to keep this proposal a secret, as it would defame her, Charandas says that his vow of telling the truth compels him from keeping secrets. This maddens the queen and she shouts out at him in a threatening tone, ―Vowed to tell the truth! Vowed to tell the truth! You can do that only if you live to tell the truth!‖ (Charandas Chor 111). Charandas was already scared, but this threatening almost takes the life out of him. The queen further says in an agitated manner, ―Dead men tell no tales! Have you lost your desire to live, Charandas?‖ (111). But Charandas begs that it is his vows that are compelling him to fulfil her wishes and he can‘t break his vows. So, on the queen‘s orders Charandas is slaughterd by the soldiers and this action on the stage and the page leaves the audience and the readers bewildered. A comic play moving smoothly gives a sudden jolt with the death of the protagonist. Tanvir says:
I also had this other idea in my mind, that there's this man called Socrates who died for Truth, and accepted it, but wouldn't budge from his path of truth. There was Jesus Christ—same thing. There was Gandhi, who also stuck to his principles, and died. Here is a common man— and that's why he must remain a common man—an unheroic, simple man who gets caught up in his vows and though he fears death, can't help it and dies. And the establishment cannot brook this… The queen is not simply a tyrant, but a politician. There is no way she can let him go free, because she entreats him not to tell anyone, and he says, but I must tell the truth; and as soon as she knows that the praja the populace, will get to know, she fears for her position. As we have seen throughout history, such people are always eliminated. So the inevitability of it was perfect. That was my argument, that this is, in the classical sense, a perfect tragedy. It makes you laugh till the last moment and suddenly you're silent. You're in the presence of death. And if you're receptive enough, there's absolute silence… I don't know what it is. It's difficult to put it in a category. And I think that's the secret of the success of the play. To this day I'm convinced that the death is the secret of it's success. (―It Must Flow‖ 28)
However, the play ends with the deification of Charandas as a saint after his death with a ritualistic song by the Satnamis and the Chorus. About the tragic end and posthumous eulogy of the play, Habib Tanvir mentioned that the original version of the tale of Vijaydan Detha does not make a martyr out of Charandas, rather his story depicts how oppressor appears as a victor with the marriage of Charandas‘ guru (who was proposed by the queen) and the queen. It symbolically depicts a peddling of religious sentiments actually fused with a cruel, oppressive rule in this way. But Tanvir does not choose to end his play on such a negative note which will bracket the play entirely as a tragedy, even before it is performed. He wanted to keep the audience wondering about the play between the polarities of a comedy and a tragedy. He appears successful in that attempt, and is also capable of projecting ‗the Robin Hood principle‘ which does exist in the folklore in an organised scientific way. Graham Seal in his essay ―The Robin Hood Principle: Folklore, History and the Social Bandit‖ talks about the outlaw hero cycle in a detailed way, a cycle which tends to explain Habib Tanvir‘s entire play Charandas Chor:
An outlaw hero tradition exists within a culture. A set of social, political, and economic circumstances involving conflict between one or more social groups develops - almost always over access to resources, wealth, and power - and combines with a charismatic individual perceived as being on the side of an oppressed group. Some usually trivial incident impels the charismatic individual from antagonism to armed defiance. When this occurs the tradition comes into action almost immediately, using the narrative framework and its embedded moral code to produce songs and stories about the outlaw hero and his (very rarely her) exploits...
4205
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020 These elements then play out in the form of an ostensive cultural script in which the outlaw hero almost invariably is betrayed and comes to a violent end. These combined factual and fictional elements continue to be reprocessed through the outlaw's afterlife, thus becoming another chapter in a shorter or longer tradition and thus available to be invoked again at some future time when circumstances dictate the need. This is the outlaw hero cycle observable, in one variation or another, across time and space. (Seal 83)
The outlaw hero tradition is not definitely alien to Indian culture. Charandas arises out of the conflict of the two classes: oppressor and the oppressed. His charisma is in his excellence to rob the rich and slip away only to provide for the poor. However, his defiance is not an armed one, rather one of moral resistance. Charandas‘ deeds are then celebrated through songs and stories by the oppressed mass, as if an embodiment of their resistance. His death occurs to shock everyone and acquaint the audience and the readers about the moral absence of the ruling apparatus. The queen, who was all praising about the honesty of the thief, gives the orders of his execution. The play therefore, moves exactly in the cyclical pattern that Seal points out. Further discussing what makes the Robin Hood principle occur, he says, ―Wherever and whenever significant numbers of people believe they are the victims of inequity, injustice, and oppression, historical and/ or fictional outlaw heroes will appear and continue to be celebrated after their deaths‖ (Seal 83).
A utopic outcry of a classless world juddering the existing class-based society is integrated with the actions of a social bandit or a Robin Hood like Charandas. His resistance against the falsities of religion, corruptions of the economic and administrative levels, and oppressive regime stands as a symbolic embodiment of the collective resistance of the exploited mass. He stands tall against all the mockeries of the administrative structure. The posthumous eulogy of Charandas as not a thief, but rather as a saint, depicts how even a common man is able to fight so hard for protecting his dignity that he is able to instil fear in the hearts of the oppressive apparatus. When defaming fails on one side, deification succeeds on the other. The difference is that while infamy was the act of the state, glorification is the act of the proletarians. Charandas is killed as his principle of truth scared the queen of her social status amongst her populace. Clearly, the queen could not bear the future mockery and hence the simple, honest and afraid Charandas had to pay the price. But the life how he lived is what makes him immortal – a symbol of unending resistance and a champion of the people‘s crusade for justice and classless structure.
REFERENCES:
[1] Engels, Friedrich. The Peasant War in Germany. Trans. Moissaye J. Olgin. Marxists.org. Web. 7th July.
4206