Jana. Space and Culture, India 2015, 2:4 Page | 3 SPECIAL ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS Shakespeare in Comparative Discourse and Influence Studies in the Assamese Language Print Media Dr Jyotirmay Jana† Abstract This article is a survey of some essays, articles and other kinds of writings published in Assamese language newspapers, magazines, tabloids and anthologies from 1947 to 2002 Key words: Shakespeare, Assamese language, print media † Associate Professor, Nowgong Girls’ College, Nagaon, Assam ©2015 Jana.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Jana. Space and Culture, India 2015, 2:4 Page | 4 Introduction Satyendranath Sarma, Jajneswar Sarma, Apurba There is a tendency in Assam, as in the rest of Chandra Barthakuria, Upendranath Sarma, the globe, of comparing great literary works Hiren Gohain, Pona Mahanta, Makhan Prasad dealing with passions like love, hatred and Duara and Ananda Barmudoi. jealousy with such works by Shakespeare. In an article in Navayug in 1964, Hiren Gohain Again, there is no negligible amount of writing declared his opposition to Rabindranath in Assamese tracing the influence of Tagore’s view that Kalidasa’s Sakuntala Shakespeare on remarkable Indian literary represents a world of cohesion and unity, works. This is quite natural and usual. However, whereas Shakespeare’s The Tempest represents what is unusual - and probably unnatural too - a world of discord and disharmony.ii is the innovation of correspondence between Contradicting Tagore’s view that Sakuntala the entire spirit of a folk culture of a land with represents the spiritual superiority of the East the ruling spirit of a certain kind of work by over the West, Gohain argues that Shakespeare. Jajneswar Sarma, a great literary Shakespeare’s spiritualism was humanism at savant of the state, has observed that the spirit bottom, and this humanism was integrative and of the Bihu (that is, the spring festival in Assam) cohesive – a making of different ethos, and the ruling spirit of the comedies of attitudes and ways of life growing at different Shakespeare are indistinguishable. times in Europe. Gohain refuses to be in line Materials available in this area can be discussed with Tagore’s praise of Kalidasa’s device of separately as garbing an uncouth reality of polygamous ancient Indian society with the curse of a Shakespeare in comparative studies Brahmin named Durbasa. The reality garbed is proper; and that the women who are hunted (that is, Shakespeare in influence studies. deceitfully married and/or sexually enjoyed) by men are often forgotten by those who hunt We will discuss here only such writings them. Gohain says that nothing like the curse of as appeared in Assamese language newspapers, Durbasa – a result of the divisive and magazines, tabloids and souvenirs from 1947 to discriminatory barnasram system of Hinduism – 2002. has ever been faced by anybody in The A. Shakespeare in Comparative Studies Tempest. Avowal of the divine dictum that all men are equal and again justification and Materials available in this area can be sub- retention of the age-old barnasram system, as classified as follows: was done by the great avatar Krishna – which Shakespeare in comparative literary paradoxically exists in Hinduism even today – studies; and has never been acceptable to the West, asserts Gohain. He does not seem impressed by Shakespeare in comparative cultural Tagore’s observation that nature in the forms studies. of Caliban and Ariel is held in bondage and We will discuss these two separately. compelled to serve man as his slave. He, on the (a) Shakespeare in Comparative Literary other hand, thinks that Caliban represents the Studies untamable beast in man, whereas Ariel stands for man’s indomitable urge for sublimity and i The dramatic works of Kalidasa, Ibsen, Shaw, divinity. Prospero receives no spiritual wisdom, Brecht and also of leading Assamese but can pronounce an eternal promise of the playwrights of the formative years of modern human soul: ‘It’s new to thee’ (V.i). He is aware Assamese drama are often discussed with of the transitoriness of things, of the fast paces reference to those of Shakespeare, and the of time, and yet he can remain an eternal Assamese scholars and critics to have adorer of the new. This renaissance spirit contributed outstandingly in this field are Gohain sees lacking in Sakuntala. The garbing Jana. Space and Culture, India 2015, 2:4 Page | 5 of an uncouth social reality with the curse of an woman is Miranda. Barthakuria quotes arrogant Brahmin and Tagore’s support to it Ferdinand’s words to Miranda in this does not appear proper to Gohain. connection: ‘Full many a lady I have ey’d with In this essay of his early youth, Gohain uses best regard; and many a time the harmony of sarcasm and banter against all those who are their tongues hath into bondage brought my not satisfied with Shakespeare’s too diligent ear; for several virtues have I liked anthropocentric spiritualism. Without naming several women never any with so full soul’ Tagore, but meaning him, he says: (III.i). Mystics are very fortunate because they From a materialistic point of view, both are quite sure that they possess a rare Dusyanta and Ferdinand are high-placed and insight and a monopolistic right to do wealthy members of society, whereas neither away with all the sufferings and agonies Sakuntala nor Miranda is in good material of man and eliminate all conflicts, conditions of existence; yet the difference in wealth and status does not stand in the way of discriminations and injustice from the universe and make them a part of an the growth of their love. This, according to indivisible infinite. But Shakespeare’s Barthakuria, proves the genuineness of their humanistic spiritualism was not so sure. love. Barthakuria points out that, though (Gohain, 1964: 25) Sakuntala had seen human beings of both sexes before meeting Dusyanta, the life she led was Apurba Chandra Barthakuria, however, does one of complete austerity. Feeding the deer not see much ideological difference between and watering the plants were all she did before Kalidasa and Shakespeare at least in their meeting Dusyanta. Her scope of mixing with treatment of love. In an article in Asam Sahitya men – even with Kanva – was very limited. Yet Sabha Patrika, he writes: ‘The ideology of soon after seeing Dusyanta she confesses: ‘I Kalidasa’s Abhijnana Sakuntalam is the same as can’t say why, after having seen the stranger, I that of The Tempest. These two great have been so overpowered by an unusual dramatists of the world have surprised all by sensation – a sensation hitherto unfelt by a upholding the greatness of love’ (Barthakuria, tapobaniii-dweller like me’. Miranda’s is a worse 1973: 33). case than Sakuntala’s, writes Barthakuria. She Barthakuria has compared some speeches of had not seen any woman except her own Dusyanta to Sakuntala with Ferdinand’s to reflection in the glass (and, therefore, did not Miranda and has attempted to prove that both know how other women felt in male contact) of them are earnest in love. Barthakuria quotes before meeting Ferdinand. Yet, as soon as she Dusyanta saying to Anasuya and Priyambada, sees him, the eternal woman in her rushes out two female mates of Sakuntala: “Though I have and compels her to say to Ferdinand: ‘I would many wives I consider only two – this earth not wish any companion in the world but you’ with the sea as her garment and your friend (III.i). Sakuntala worthy of my lineage.” Barthakuria is all praise for both Kalidasa and The earth is just a metaphor for a woman, unfit Shakespeare in transforming love at first sight to occupy the place of a ladylove. Barthakuria, into permanent love. As such, both of them thus, proves that Sakuntala is the only woman endow their heroines with rare physical beauty, the polygamous Dusyanta really loves. All other in addition to extraordinary mental resources. women he married were simply his wives, not In Assamese literary criticism, there exists no his love. But Sakuntala is an exception, his wife negligible amount of comparison between the and love in one. characters, themes, ideas, etc. in regional Ferdinand, in the same way, came across many literary productions and those in Shakespeare. women in his life, liked several of them, but The fact that Shakespeare was the most liked only one ‘with so full soul’ and that formidable influence on the Assamese Jana. Space and Culture, India 2015, 2:4 Page | 6 playwrights of the formative period of modern Sarma and Satyaprasad Baruah discover Assamese drama justifies such comparisons, Shakespeare’s influence on Jyotiprasad’s though many of these do not go far. In depiction of Bapura by looking at the character Padmanath Gohain Baruah’s play Jaimati from a different perspective. Baruah says that, (1900), Jaimati, Gadapani’s wife, was put to as Shakespeare’s treatment of the common death by the Ahom king Chulikfa, better known man with adequate importance did influence as Lora Raja, for no fault of hers. The king, in the Assamese playwrights also, Shakespeare fact, wanted to kill Gadapani, the absconding must have been in Jyotiprasad’s mind as he was prince of the Tungkhung clan, but, failing to nab sketching the character of Bapura (Baruah, him, put his pregnant wife, Jaimati, to death 1999: 42). Sarma, on the other hand, observes under the ill-advice of his ambitious minister, that Jyotiprasad’s Bapura, like Shakespeare’s Rajmantri Phukan (Atan Buragohain), who was, Fool, is both a clever servant and a faithful then, pursuing a ruthless policy of massacring companion to his master.