A Postmodern Identity Intrusion Into Charandas Chor by Habib Tanvir
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.