159 © the Editor(S) (If Applicable) and the Author(S) 2016 Diana

C ONCLUSION: A HINDU–HINDI DRAMA? In conclusion, I want to summarize the inferences made in the preceding chapters. I would like to point to the intersections of Hinduism and Hindi theatre and stress the importance of both myth and discourse in the representation of Hindu traditions in the dramas of the seven authors discussed. In Chapter 2 , I discuss central theoretical issues pertaining to myth and discourses in Hinduism. I stated that the study of myth has been of great importance to the refl ection on religion from the sixteenth century onwards. I elaborated on the ways promi- nent thinkers have approached myth from different angles. Next I examined the major theories of myth in the fi elds of religious studies. I then proceeded to explore the importance of myth in South Asia and the process of remythologizing of South Asian culture. In the second part of the chapter, I elaborated on the considerable scholarship on the concepts of “ideology” and “discourse.” I referred to the work of Foucault, Stuart Hall, and my own theoretical work on the discourse of otherism in order to outline the differences between these notions and to clarify my use of the concepts in this book. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 159 Diana Dimitrova, Hinduism and Hindi Theater, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-59923-0 160 CONCLUSION: A HINDU–HINDI DRAMA? In Chapter 3 , I studied the complex implications of inventing the tradition of Hindi theatre as a neo-Sanskritic one. I discussed the invention of the theatrical tradition of Hindi as a continuous fl ow originating in classical Sanskrit theatre. Next, I elaborated on Hindi drama from its origination in the second half of the nine- teenth century until the 1960s. I emphasized the importance of court Urdu drama, the Parsi theatre, and Western plays for the origination and development of Hindi theatre. In order to explain the representation of Hinduism in Hindi theatre, I examined the literary scene of the time, specifi cally Urdu–Hindi Progressivism, and refl ected on the contribution of the ideas of the Hindu reform traditions, especially of the Arya Samaj, to the formation of the world view of several authors. Thus, we discerned Prasad’s neo-Sanskritic plays, Bhuvaneshvar, Mathur, Rakesh, and Ashk’s pro-Western naturalistic dramas, and nativistic dramas after the 1960s. The work of Harishcandra and Prasad played a decisive role in the development of Hindi theatre. Whereas Bharatendu set the beginning of Hindi drama by emancipating it from the conventions of both classical Indian and the commercial Parsi theatre, Prasad broad- ened its expressive potential. The power of his language and the depth of the psychological characterization of his dramatic fi g- ures marked a new phase in the development of Hindi drama. While Bharatendu wrote satirical, lyrical, and historical plays, Prasad established the historical play as the main dramatic genre of Hindi. The employment of highly Sanskritized vocabulary and the glorifi cation of the great Hindu past, together with the intro- duction of stylistic devices of classical Sanskrit drama gave birth to the neo-Sanskritic play of Hindi, which has been infl uential up to the present day and has received much acclaim by the critics. In the 1930s, many Hindi dramatists were infl uenced by Western theatre, especially by Ibsen’s problem plays, and wrote dramas on issues topical to the day. After Independence, the infl uence of CONCLUSION: A HINDU–HINDI DRAMA? 161 Western drama grew and the social- problem play, or naturalistic Hindi drama, thrived. I also explored the implications of the invention of the tradition of Hindi theatre as a neo-Sanskritic one for the creation of the literary canon. The ideologically shaped notion of the “Indian character” of the plays determined the selection of playwrights and their works. Works were perceived as “Indian” in character if playwrights adhered to the poetics of classical Sanskrit or Indian folk theatre (the neo-Sanskrtic and the nativistic play). Conversely, works were not understood to be “Indian” in character if an author’s work followed the conventions of Western dramatics (the naturalistic play of Hindi). In Chapter 4 , I discussed the reworking of issues pertaining to caste and the socio-religious ordering of life (var ṇāśramadharma ) as well as the interpretation of Hinduism and nationalism in the dramas of Bharatendu Harishcandra, Jayshankar Prasad, Lakshminarayan Mishra, Bhuvaneshvar, Jagdishcandra Mathur, and Upendranath Ashk. The authors introduced various religious “others,” such as Buddhists, Muslims, Huns, Greeks, and the British in order to promote and assert a distinct and morally superior Hindu identity of their dramatis personae. They eulo- gized Hinduism and interpreted positively the Hindu identity of their main dramatic fi gures, depicting them as superior to their Buddhist, Muslim, Greek, or British enemies. An exception here is Upendranath Ashk’s play “Tūfān se pahle,” where in place of the othering through mythologizing of Hinduism’s “others,” we fi nd demythologizing and critique of the creation of religious boundaries between Hindus and Muslims. The author argues and promotes a very different Hinduism that is devoid of religious nationalism and is thus informed by Hindu–Muslim hybridity. I also analysed the links between the interpretation of Hinduism, nationalism, and var ṇāśramadharma , and the construction of cul- tural identity. The inferences of my study showed that the inter- 162 CONCLUSION: A HINDU–HINDI DRAMA? pretation of Hinduism, nationalism, and var ṇāśramadharma in the plays discussed is to be understood as essential to the con- structing and the defi ning of the “narrative of the Indian nation” and as a means of inventing the Hindu–Indian tradition of the imagined Hindu–Indian community. In Chapter 5 , I refl ected on Hindu images of the feminine and then proceeded to study the conservative and progressive mythologizing of the interpretation of women in the work of the seven playwrights discussed in the book. I analysed the work of Bharatendu, Prasad, Mishra, and Mohan Rakesh who promote neo-Sanskritic values and primordial Hindu ideals and who argue for conservative and orthodox Hindu myth-models for women. These playwrights use Hindu imagery in order to embrace conservatism and argue for traditional education and gender roles. Next, I examined the dramas of Mathur, Bhuvaneshvar, and Ashk and looked into the ways these authors represent the ques- tions of Hinduism and gender differently. In their plays, they sub- vert tradition and question traditional myths and values. We may state that while we can discern idealization of orthodox Hindu tradition in the work of Bharatendu, Prasad, Mishra, and Rakesh, the playwrights Mathur, Bhuvaneshvar, and Ashk question this idealizing of conservative Hinduism and argue in their plays for a modernized and progressive Hinduism. The female protagonists in the plays of Bharatendu and Prasad are portrayed in harmony with traditional religious values. They embody the Hindu ideal of the loyal and submissive Hindu wife who is devoted to the patidev , the husband-God. Mishra’s conservatism in the interpretation of women’s issues prompted him to pronounce himself against widow remarriage and in favour of child and arranged marriage. Rakesh’s reworking of women’s issues, too, is along traditional Hindu values. By contrast, Bhuvaneshvar, Mathur, and Ashk introduce a new female protagonist who is to be seen as the embodiment of liberating Hindu CONCLUSION: A HINDU–HINDI DRAMA? 163 images of the feminine, of Draupadi, Mira, and Devi. This new female protagonist is portrayed as suffering intensely from the limitations imposed on her by conservative Hindu tradition. She does not submit to tradition, but rebels against it and strives for independence and individual happiness. Thus, if we look into the gender implications of Hindi drama in the plays discussed, we may state that even though the female characters in Bharatendu’s N īldevī ( Nildevi ), 1881, and Prasad’s Dhruvasvāminī ( Dhruvasvamini ), 1933, are portrayed as heroic and courageous, they reinforce the ideal of the loyal wife, the pativratā and satī , and of the submissive and obedient Spouse Goddess. This interpretation is in conformity with conservative Hindu values. Although Bharatendu’s Nildevi defeats the Muslim conquerors, she does so in order to save the corpse of her husband and burn herself on the funeral pyre as his sat ī . In this sense, Prasad’s Dhruvasvamini dares to leave a weak and treacherous husband in order to marry the man she loves, brave Candragupta, not independently, but with the approval and at the suggestion of another man who represents authority, the puro- hit (“Hindu priest”). Mishra’s Manorama in Sind ūr kī holī ( The Vermilion Holi ), 1934, embraces eternal widowhood out of free will and with great enthusiasm, thus becoming the mouthpiece of the author’s conservatism. Rakesh’s Mallika in Ā ṣāṛh kā ek din ( One Day in the Month Āṣāṛh ), 1958, is portrayed as the embodiment of Sita, self-effacing and submissive, waiting for her Rama alias Kalidasa. Thus, among the dramas discussed, only the female protagonists in Bhuvaneshvar’s S ṭrāīk ( Strike ), 1938, in Jagdishcandra Mathur‘s Rīṛh kī haḍḍī ( Backbone ), 1939, and in Ashk’s Alag alag rāste ( Separate Ways ), 1954, appear to be really emancipated and capable of making decisions and taking actions independently, of their own and for their own sake. Though this new female fi gure in the play of Hindi originated under the infl uence of Western 164 CONCLUSION: A HINDU–HINDI DRAMA? naturalistic drama, she is not alien to Hindu religious and literary thought. Mira, Draupadi, and Devi can be considered a religious model for this new female protagonist in modern Hindi drama, for the new woman aspiring to empowerment and independence.

Load more