THE THEME OF BETRA YAL IN INDIAN DRAMA IN ENGLISH This chapter tries to evaluate the theme of betrayal in Indian Drama. For this purpose five plays written by Indian dramatists representing five different languages have been undertaken for study. Indian theatre could not promote Indian drama in the English language. The foremost factor responsible to harness the growth of Indian drama in English is the non­ availability of the living theatre. English drama written by Indian playwrights is neither excellent in quality nor greater in quantity. English, being a foreign language, was not intelligible to the masses and the playwrights found it difficult to write crisp, natural, lucid and graceful dialogues in English, which was not the language of their mental make up. Their dialogue was bound to be stilted and artificial. The English language, in India, is confined to the urban elite. R. K. Narayan ( 1999 :22 ) rightly puts it, thus : English has been with us for over a century, but it has remained the language of the intelligentsia, less than ten per cent of the population understands it. Indian dramatists cannot attain mastery to produce eloquent and elegant dialogues in English. At a national seminar on drama Dnyaneshwar Nadkarni (1984:163 ) goes to the extent of saying : Butcher them ( the Indo-AngUcan playwrights ) castrate them, and force them to write in their native Hindi or Urdu or whatever Indian languages their fathers and mothers used to speak. 260 The linguistic barrier created hurdles in the growth of Indian drama in English. Moreover, there was no English culture in India. India is a multi-lingual nation. Language and culture are inter-related with each other. John Lyons (1997:324 ) in this respect states : Particular languages are associated historically with particular cultures; the languages provide the key to associated cultures, and especially to their literature; the languages themselves cannot be fully understood otherwise than in the context of the cultures in which they are inextricably embedded ; so language and culture are studied together. In India the theatre is occupied by the plays written in regional languages and has acquired the height of maturity. Indian drama, before the arrival of the English people, existed in the folk forms viz Jatra and Navatanki in Bengal, Bhand Jashan in Kashmir, Rasadari plays in Mathura, Ramlila in Northern India, Bhavi in Gujarath, Lalita Khela, Dashavatara and Tamasha in Maharashtra, Yakshagana, Bayalata Attadata, Doddata and Sannata in Karnataka, Vidhi Natakam, Mohiniattam and Kathakali dance drama in Kerala. It is not only with the English plays in India, but it happens with the plays written in the regional languages also. For example, an Assamese play cannot attract audience in any other state. A translated version of it is required to be performed in another state. A Tamil play requires a Marathi 261 version to be staged in Maharashtra and a Hindi version in North India and vice versa. Krishna Mohan Banerji wrote the first English social play, The Persecuted, in 1831. Writers like Rabindranath Tagore, Sir Aurobindo, H. N. Chattopadhya and T. P. Kailasam attempted their hand at theatre. Though their attempt was occasionally brilliant, their plays seemed imitative, halting, inept or an awkward translation of a vernacular rhetoric, mode or idiom. A few Indians prefer to watch English pictures; otherwise most of the people like to see the translated versions. Espesially in the Northern parts of India, the Hindi versions of Jurasic Park and Tetanic are accepted more than the English versions. At present Hindi versions of the famous English movies are highly welcomed in India. After Independence various steps have been taken to make Indian drama flourish. National School of Drama was established under the directorship of Ebrahim Alkazi. The Annual National Drama Festival was started in New Delhi by the Saneet Natak Academi in 1954. New modern drama in English in the hands of Girish Karnad, Mahesh Dattani, Manjula Padmanabhan shows a new ray of hope in this field. We must not forget that literary artists like Tagore, Sir Aurbindo, T. P. Kailasam, Asif Currimbhoy and Girish Karnad had studied abroad. The English plays are staged occasionally in the metropolitan cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai only. 262 Even though the staging of Indian drama in English is a sporadic activity still a great number of Indian dramatists have handled the theme of betrayal opulently in their plays. KARNABHARAM Bhasa can be regarded as the father of Indian drama. It is agreed upon that he must have lived during the period of Chandragupta Maurya in the fourth century B.C. His Karnabharam is a one-act Sanskrit play based on Kama of the Mahabharata. The play depicts the seventeenth day when Karna took over the command of the Kaurava army after the death of Dronacharya. There was a burden on Karna's mind about the secret of his origin. His mother, Kunti revealed him that he was the eldest son amongst the Pandavas. His sole desire to defeat the great archer, Arjuna came to dust as he promised his mother that he would not use the serpent-shaft to kill Arjuna. He realised the vitality of the curse. He told Salya, his charioteer, how he was cursed t)y the most dreaded guru Parasurama. He could not use the Bramhastra whenever he wanted to use it. The great, noble, generous, formidable warrior faced an unresolved burden. The play revolves around the theme of betrayal. Lord Indra knew the generosity of the magnanimous Karna. He knew that only Karna could crush Arjuna. So he came in the guise of a brahmin mendicant on the battlefield and cajoled Karna's generosity. Karna felt honoured and offered him a number of cows, horses, elephants, gold, earth and even his head. The 263 brahmin didn't demand directly what he wanted but just tickled Kama's vanity. LxDrd Indra's intention was to betray Karna and the disguise as a brahmin fool suited his evil purpose. Karna was misled by the cunning plot of Lord Indra. Karna unwittingly fell into Lord Indra's trap. When the brahmin was reluctant to accept the gifts, Karna gave the brahmin the most precious kavachakundala. The brahmin who became very happy said : Ha, I have taken these. Now I have done what was formerly decreed by all the gods for the victory ofArjuna. (p.21) It shows that all the gods had conspired against the magnanimous Karna. Salya warned Karna not to part with his kavachakundala. Realising the deception, he pointed out to Karna : O King ofAngas, you have been duped. (p.21) Karna also suspected a foul play. He felt that it might be a trick of wily Krishna who was adept in manifold frauds, but of no use. Karna was offered a boon in exchange of the kavachakundala by the brahmin. But Karna wasn't ready to accept anything in return. Karna unwillingly accepted the unfailing weapon ( astra ) called Vimala when he was informed that it was the brahmin's bidding. Karna was so proud of his generosity that he thought that he had actually betrayed Lord Indra by giving the precious gift to the god. His principle was that everything else (even good learning, firmly rooted trees and fountains of water ) 264 vanishes but sacrifices and charities live till the end. In this way Kama's personality has been highlighted by the dramatist. Kama then ascended his chariot and asked Salya to take him to the place where Arjuna was. The play ends with the epilogue (Bharatvakyam ). Lord Indra in disguise of a brahmin betrayed the formidable warrior, Kama. Kama was made unarmed and unprotected. Indra didn't bless him for a long life. On the contrary, he plotted against the noble soul. Lord Indra lied and misrepresented himself as a poor brahmin before Kama and treacherously took away his kavachakundala to protect his son Arjuna. This is the central theme of the play. Bhasa has brightened the protagonist's limitless and self-effacing generosity which proved fatal for Kama. He made some changes in the original source for his dramatic purpose. Indra took away the gift of Kama's kavachakundala much earlier when Kama was offering his daily worship to the Sun. In the original, Kama demanded the Shakti weapon (astra) from Indra in return for the kavachakundala. But in the play he accepted the Vimala ( astra ) reluctantly. The deviation highlights Kama's magnanimous character, Salya, in the original source, was a bitter critic of Kama who discouraged Kama from time to time. But in the play Salya is painted as a true supporter, a sincere companion and a well-wisher who warned against Lord Indra's machinations. The original Kama was not under distress and gloom. In Bhasa's play Kama was under distress, burden and predicament. In spite of his 265 courage, valour and many redeeming qualities Karna in the play was driven towards his doom by his adverse destiny over which he had no control. Of the three important characters, Lord Indra is a deft-intriguer and Karna is the victim. The play is full of pathos. Kama's mind was burdened with many distressing thoughts like Parasurama's curse, the great responsibility of the war, the secret of his origin which he tried to unburden. ^The predicament of killing his own kith and kin is a burden on Kama's mind can be the right interpretation of the title 'Karnabharam.' Some scholars felt that those Kundalas were a burden to Kama's ears. Bhasa has shown that the tendency to betray others is in man's blood. Even the gods cannot achieve their desired end without using treacherous or deceitful means and ways.