Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad Paper

UGC MHRD e Pathshala Subject: English Principal Investigator: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad Paper: 09: “Comparative Literature, Drama in India” Paper Coordinator: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad Module No 27: Ratan Thiyam: Chakravyuha; Kanhailal Heisnam: Pebet Content Writer: Saidul Haque, Tehatta Govt. College, West Bengal Content Reviewer: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad Language Editor: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad Introduction This module introduces two very important dramas by Ratan Thiyam and Heisnam Kanhailal. Both Chakravyuha by Thiyam and Pebet by Kanhailal are critically introduced along with the analysis of their performance and reception. Modern Indian drama in the 1970s entered an unprecedented radical phase with the advent of an alternative idiom. During this period (preceding immediate 70s and post 70s) experimentation in dramatic theme and dramatic technique took a new shape in the hands of stalwarts like Badal Sircar, Habib Tanvir, K.N. Panikkar, Saoli Mitra, Ratan Thiyam, Kanhailal Heisnam et.al. Dramatists like Badal Sircar challenged the idea of proscenium theatre and proposed an alternative ‘Third Theatre’ that would be portable, flexible, inexpensive and more nearer to the masses. Habib Tanvir and Saoli Mitra started thematic experimentation in their plays by incorporating regional flavors like Chattisgarhi folk elements and the kathakata of Bengal respectively. Relevance of Ratan Thiyam and Heisnam Kanhailal in this phase of alternative dramatic revolution is exceedingly significant not only because of their conscious choice of alternative and radical theatre but also because of their cultural location in Manipur, a state in northeastern India. Manipur can boast of a rich performance tradition. Anjum Katyal puts it nicely: “Manipur is intensely theatre active.The performance arts traditions of this state are rich and varied. The Sankeertana and Lai Haraoba, for example, though religious ceremonials, contain dramatic and performative elements. Several spheres of theatre, each a complete system in itself, overlap and coexist: the older traditional performance forms, particularly the Sumang Leela or ‘courtyard’ theatre; the established proscenium theatre; and the ‘modern’ experimental, alternative theatre (5).” Theatre practitioners like Thiyam and Kanhailal had then a rich cultural heritage of their own apart from the traditional Indian plays which follow classical Sanskrit treatise, Natyashastra. Manipur is also culturally and politically fraught area since pre-colonial time. There are different cultures in Manipur like the Mainland that is mostly Hindu predominant culture and Meitei culture. Within the state there is constant tension between the mainstream Meitei community and the tribes, between different tribes, rival insurgent factions, civilians, state military forces and the insurgents. Rustom Bharucha has also argued that Manipur is imagined as ‘exotic’, ‘distant’ and ‘threatening’ space within Indian nation state. Writing plays from this axiom of ‘otherness’ and violence was a challenge for them and therefore the burning social issues of the time got reflected in the works of Ratan Thiyam, Heisnam Kanhailal, Haorokcham ‘Sanakhya’ Ebotombi and Lokendra Arambam. They became, although diverse in style and signature, the pioneers of a new phase in the experimental, alternative theatre tradition. Ratan Thiyam Ratan Thiyam(1948-) is a prominent Indian playwright and theatre director who won the prestigious Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and acted as the Chairperson of National School of Drama. He is also the founder-director of ‘Chorus Repertory Theatre’. He is considered as one of the leading figures of the “theatre of roots” movement in Indian theatre, which started in the 1970s. Among his notable plays include Imphal Imphal (1982), Lengshonnei(1986)[An adaptation of Anouilh’s Antigone], Uttar Priyadarshi, Chinglon Mapan Tampak Ama (Nine Hills One Valley), Ritusamharam (Ritusamharam by Sanskrit playwright Kalidasa) etc. Ratan Thiyam also completed a Mahabharata triology with Bhasa’s Urubhangam in 1981, following it up in 1984 with his own Chakravyuha, and culminating with Bhasa’s Karnabharam in 1989. The plays are linked thematically through “the central presence of an individual facing an onslaught of violence, a kind of cosmic, global flow of violence, that compels him to question his identity (Bandyopadhyay, “Introduction” viii).” Ratan Thiyam engages with Mahabharata story from a different perspective. He chose for his heroes characters who are traditionally ignored and marginalized in Brahmanic exegesis. According to Samik Bandyopadhyay, “As he identified with Bhasa’s characters, non-heroes turned into heroes, Ratan was taking a position in relation to the mainstream institutalization of the mythical heroes (“Introduction” ix).” Duryodhana, Karna and Abhimanyu takes centre stage in Thiyam’s production of Mahabharata triology. Chakravyuha Chakravyuha (1984) is a seminal play, which has been performed widely and won critical acclaim, including the Fringe First Award at the Commonwealth Arts Festival in 1986. The episode of Chakravyuha is taken from the Drona Parva (Chapters 34-40) of the Mahabharata. The play banks on the story of Abhimanyu’s assassination in the hands of the Saptarathis (seven charioteers) from the Kaurava side in the battle of Kurukshetra. Ratan Thiyam employs this classical story to address contemporary issues, from a Manipuri perspective.According to Samik Bandyopadhyay, “The Abhimanyu story offers him[Ratan Thiyam] an opportunity to attack the cult of heroism which is only too often held up to the Manipuri youth by political forces playing for sectarian stakes, to drive them to senseless acts of virtual suicide. For him [Thiyam], ‘Abhimanyu trusting so foolhardily his technique is one of the younger generations in Manipur.’ (“New Karnas in Manipur” 74).” Thiyam himself has asserted that the classical sources are re- appropriated in the Manipuri context. Through the play, Chakravyuha, he then interrogates the system, the state machinery, the power structure embedded in the society and finally the position of an individual in the society. Thiyam explains, “…I am asking myself again and again: where do I stand as an individual? I feel a whole burden of anxiety. Talk of peace, talk of war, or talk of struggle, I feel that an individual is trapped. With all these things, as an individual, I have to take a position against the violence going on, against the corruption, against this system. Talking about the system, as a theatre worker, I have always felt it my duty to attack this system (qtd. in Bandyopadhyay, “Introduction” x).” Thiyam’s play is then a play of resistance too. Thiyam questions Abhimanyu’s sacrifice as a heroic act. Abhimanyu himself affirms within the play: “I set out on this last journey with an unanswered question in my heart-am I a scapegoat or am I a martyr? (Thiyam 51)” Kurukshetra war is also portrayed in the play not as a sacrosanct divine war aided by gods and goddess or fought by larger than life figures. Rather Thiyam depicts the war as a war of ‘power-grabbers’. The flags become the symbols of divisive passions leading to violent confrontation/war between the nation states. The Kauravas through the rhetoric of pressure, patriotism and provocation strategically manipulate Drona to create the Chakravyuha- ‘the cosmic formation of military warfare’. On the other hand the Pandavas like Bheema and Yudhishthira beguile Abhimanyu to enter the Chakravyuha even after knowing that Abhimanyu knows how to enter this dangerous trap, but doesn’t know how to get out of it. The provocation of Yudhishthira: “O my son Abhi (embraces him), you are so daring, so brave. I am pleased. In fact I am overjoyed…(Thiyam 28)” is followed by the description given by the dramatist: “The moves, gestures, expressions of Bheema and Yudhishthira indicate a preplanned intention (Thiyam 28).” Ratan Thiyam’s scheme to situate each of the classical character in contemporary time is clear when he talks about Duryodhana. In the play Duryodhana manipulates Gita’s sloka to interpellate Drona. He also blurs the distinction between dharma and adharma in order to force Drona to create chakravyuha against the Pandavas. Ratan Thiyam justifies: “I was looking at the Gita from the standpoint of Duryodhana and also from the point of view of contemporary reality. We live in a materialistic world and so how can any Duryodhana, a man who has fulfilled his duties as a king, find this absolute truth? He has been systematic, calculating and aware of the course of events. For him truth stems from this concrete reality. He is logical….Duryodhana believes he is fighting a war because he has to… (qtd. in Nagpal xliii-xliv).” So Thiyam exposes the inherent politics of interpellation working on both the warring side and this is very relevant to the society from where Thiyam is writing. Ratan Thiyam himself asks: “Why were so many tricks employed by both sides to entrap a boy? What was the truth of the situation? This was my concern. Dharmaputra Yudhishthira stands for truth, but did he tell Abhimanyu the whole truth about Chakravyuha? Did Bheema the strong Pandava uncle warn his nephew, or did they just want to solve the problem, save the situation by exciting valour in the young man? They urge him to become a hero. Yudhishthira pretends to dissuade Abhimanyu, but his words and gestures are designed to spur him on (qtd. in Nagpal xxx).” This is also pertinent to note that like the blurring of dharma and adharma in the play, the distinction between good and evil; fair and foul becomes indistinct. While traditionally ‘good’ characters are engaged in vile manoeuvres; ‘evil’ characters like Shakuni sway in agony, as he blames Krishna: “I fear for Abhimanyu’s life…No…No. O Krishna…You cannot do this even though you are God…No, I say, no, you cannot do this. (Thiyam 44)” Arjuna-Subhadra Episode of Chakravyuha As opposed to this darker world of machination and power play, Ratan Thiyam in the Arjuna-Subhadra episode of Chakravyuha introduces a more sacred and serene private space of womb, a space made of memories and dreams.

Load more