Feminism, since its coinage has been used and interpreted in numerous shades and shapes of its meaning. The essence of feminism has, however, always been more or less the same. It stands for the belief that women have the same rights and opportunities that men have. In this way, feminism serves as an aid to women's empowerment. Feminist literary criticism is the direct product of the ‘women’s movement’ of the 1960s. This movement being literary from the start realized the necessity to combat the images of women promulgated by literature and aimed at exposing the mechanisms of patriarchy, that is, the cultural mindset in men and women which perpetuated sexual inequality. Notwithstanding its Western origin, literature all over the world through this outlook has questioned and challenged the imprisoning customs of patriarchy.
Indian English literature in the post-independence era has witnessed a spurt in women’s writing as well as feminist literary criticism. This explosion of feminist writing has uncovered the ideology of patriarchal society in the works of art. While many feminist critics have decried the literature written by men for its depiction of women as marginal, docile, and subservient to men’s interests, some of them have also identified male writers who have managed to rise above the sexual prejudices of their time. One such male playwright of the post-independence era is Girish Karnad, who has nearly falsified the words of Hardy’s heroine Bathsheba Boldwood in Far From the Maddening Crowd who had lamented that “It is difficult for a woman to express her feelings in a language which is chiefly made by men to express theirs.” The force with which Karnad has articulated feminist concern in a language which is arguably ‘made by men to express theirs’ in his plays like; Hayavadana, Naga-mandala, and Yayati, has made him a pro-feminist. This paper, therefore, undertakes a feminist perspective on Karnad plays with special reference to Hayavadana.
In Hayavadana, the main plot starts with Bhagvatha’s introduction of the two friends having “One mind, one Heart”, namely, Devdatta and Kapila. “The former is a slender, delicate-looking person and the latter is powerfully built.” Devdatta is known for his intellectual and creative power and Kapila is known for his muscular physique and is popular as a wrestler. Karnad describes the beauty of Padmini through Devdatta who falls in love with her. “Her beauty is as a magic lake. Her arms the lotus creepers. Her breasts are golden urns”. Padmini is portrayed with all the feminine qualities which reminds one of Sita of Ramayana, an embodiment of domesticity. Kapila’s description of Padmini at first sight as “She is Yakshini, Shakuntala, Indumati- all rolled into one’ strengthens the idea of feminine. The above description of Padmini by Devdatta and Kapila also points to the fact that the projection of the image of women has been compressed into a few roles which can be categorized into positive roles and negative roles. The positive roles depict women as Sita or Savitri, and the negative roles, which being misogynic in nature depict them as a vamp, seductresses, and so on. Moreover, the description of Padmini by Devdatta and Kapila also foregrounds the images of women in patriarchal eyes.
Kapila helps in introducing Devdatta to Padmini which results in the marriage of the two. After the marriage whenever Padmini mentions Kapila, the Indian masculine mind of Devdatta comes out and compels him to say “He just can’t go as before”. He starts to act like a husband who wishes to overpower and dominate his wife and moreover, the one who tries to circumscribe his wife’s freedom of expression. Devdatta here is denying the common rights to Padmini. In this episode, Karnad’s presentation of Padmini is very near to William Shakespeare who in his famous play, Othello, presents a very truthful presentation of a woman and feminine sensibilities. Emilia, a woman character flings irony of male domination and argues for the freedom of women, saying:
“Let husbands know
Their wives have sense like them; they see and smell,
And have their palates both for sweet and sour
As husbands have. What is it that they do
When they change us for others? Is it sport?
I think it is. And doth affection breed it?
I think it doth. Is’t fraility that thus errs?
It is so too. And have not we affections,
Desire for sport, and fraility, as men have?
Then let them use us well; else let them know.
The ills we do their ills instructs us so.”
We cannot rule out the fact that Devdatta’s insecurity is growing and to comfort his sense of insecurity, he is trying to ‘change’ Padmini. Devdatta chides Padmini saying, “You have no sense of what not to say. So long as you can chatter and run around like a child… and drool over Kapila all day.” To which Padmini retorts, “Oh! That’s biting you…aren’t you jealous of him?” Later, Padmini even shows her concern over Devdatta, who “can’t bear a bitter word or an evil thought” and is gentle. She says:
“But you are so fragile! I don’t know how you are going to go through life wrapped in silk like this! You are still a baby…”
This remark of Padmini holds true what Kapila had said of Padmini before marriage to Devdatta:
“But this one is fast as lightning- and as sharp. She is not for the likes of you. What she needs is a man of steel.”
Padmini being denied the fulfilment of companionship in Devdatta develops an admiration for Kapila. When they travel to Ujjain by cart Padmini admires the way Kapila drives. Her admiration for him reaches momentum when he climbs to pluck Fortunate Lady Flower for her. She exclaims, “What an ethereal shape!” Such open patriarchal moral transgression burns Devadatta’s heart. Her gaze on him disturbs Devdatta. Soon after this, in hopelessness and despair, he cuts off his head to carry out his promise to Kali. Kapila comes in search of him and also beheads himself saying,” I can’t live without you”. Padmini comes in search of them but finds their bodies. She thinks that society will blame her for the death.
“What shall I do now? Where shall I go? How can I go home? ... And what shall I say when I get there? What shall I say happened? And who’ll believe me? They’ll all say the two fought and died for this whore.”
Anticipating the humiliation, she decides to kill herself. As she is about to kill herself, the goddess Kali turns up. Padmini implores Kali to save her from social slanders. “I can’t show my face to anyone in the world. I can’t….” (TP 102) It shows that Padmini cannot rise above the patriarchal politics of sexism inwardly and is also fettered by the man-made laws of society. Kali orders her to attach the bodies to their respective heads but in excitement, she mixes them. Consequently, Devadatta’s head got Kapila’s body and Kapila’s head got Devadatta’s body. Thus, Padmini’s dream of an able-bodied man with sharp head is fulfilled. Now a feud rises over regarding the real husband of Padmini between Kapila and Devadatta. When Padmini pleads with Kapila to allow her to go with Devdatta, he says,” I know what you want, Padmini, Devdatta’s clever head and Kapila’s strong body”. Hearing this Devdatta says in defence of Padmini, “It is natural for a woman to feel drawn to a fine figure of a man”. This brings out the hypocritical nature of Devdatta, now blessed with the best of mind and body, who defends Padmini’s passion for perfection who earlier accused her of “drooling over Kapila”. Devdatta siding with Padmini shows his selfish desire to appropriate Padmini even at the cost of friendship; and once again to tie her in the patriarchal codes of conduct. One is saddened to think that Padmini’s passion for perfection and completeness becomes acceptable only after getting the nod of Devdatta, a symbol of patriarchal order. The feud that ensues between Devdatta and Kapila over Padmini after the transposition of heads points to the degradation of Padmini from a human to a doll going to the best bidder. This is exemplified when Devdatta says, “Of all the human limbs the topmost- in position as well as in importance- is the head. I have Devdatta’s head and it follows that I am Devadatta”.
Female sexuality, in this play, finds its full expression through Padmini. We say so, because, it is free from the tight noose of traditional marriage. Where the traditional patriarchal Hindu society expects women to be pativratas; karnad questions this submission to the old order by putting forward his view through the Female Chorus:
“why should love stick to the sap of a single body? When the stem is drunk with the thick the yearning of the many-petalled, many-flowered lantana, why should it be tied down to the relation of a single flower?
Padmini’s satisfaction with the new version of her husband is short-lived. Again, she is haunted by her passion for perfection and in her inability to supplant her desire, she goes back to meet Kapila in the woods. On meeting Kapila, she asks, “Must the head always win?” This question of Padmini manifests her inner conflict, that is, the societal norms which give propriety and intellect the prime seat of importance and which look down upon the physical aspects of life, suppress instincts and encourage self-effacement. Here, we are reminded of D.H Lawrence’s vision in Sons and Lovers, where he says that the instinct is as real as the spirit and advocates to redress the balance between the body and the spirit. Padmini is not only torn apart because of “the mad dance of incompleteness”, but also because of the subjugation of her feminine sensibility in the male-dominant hierarchical set-up. She says:
“You won, Kapila. Devdatta won too. But I – the better half of two bodies- I neither win or lose…”
Kapila after getting discovered by Devdatta with Padmini in the woods proposes, “ Couldn’t we all three live together- like Pandavas and Draupadi?” To which Devdatta replies, “No, it can’t be done…what won’t end has to be cut… We must both die”. Here, one may ask if polygamy is right, and how polyandry is abhorrent. One may conclude that Padmini out of alienation chose to become Sati, but this act of her’s is an instance of her free-will, that is, in choosing not to languish in the patriarchal bars and to stand for her dream of a man of unrivalled intellectual and physical prowess, of perfection of man. It is this that makes Bhagvata remark, “but it would not be an exaggeration to say that no pativrata went in the way Padmini did.” Furthermore, Padmini belies Shakespeare’s dictum, “Fraility, thy name is woman.”
The play gives primacy to women in the relations of marriage and creates space for the expression and fulfilment of female desires which are amoral and unbearable to patriarchal eyes. In this context, the genre of ‘urban folk theatre to which Hayavadana belongs offers a contrast to the representation of women in the ‘urban realist drama of such playwrights as Vijay Tendulkar, Badal Sircar and Mahesh Dattani. The essential difference lies in the different attitudes to gender that emerge within the plays when the playwrights move out of the urban social-realist mode into the anti-realistic realm of folk culture. For instance, Hayavadana embodies several aspects of gender that are absent in realist plays. First, Padmini is the object of desire as well as the desiring subject, she wants something other than what society has ordained for her. The very articulation of this desire violates the norms of feminine behaviour and tampers with the established order of propriety. Second, she succeeds in achieving her passion because of the transposition of heads. Third, while realist drama emphasizes the maternal role, folk drama asserts the feminine, that is, it detaches womanhood from motherhood( for instance, Hayavadana’s mother on being cursed to become a horse prances away happily leaving behind him) . In this play, the women want or get men they cannot legitimately have, for instance, Hayavadana’s mother, the Princess of Karnataka, chooses to marry a white stallion over the Prince of Araby, and Padmini also enjoys the bliss of a fantastic body and fantastic mind in Devdatta, though short-lived. With this women in folk drama find the means of exercising unattainable freedom, unlike their counterparts in such plays as Mahesh Dattani’s Tara or Vijay Tendulkar’s Silence! The Court is in Session.
Thus, through our present study, we may consider Girish Karnad’s play Hayavadana to be an example of the universally held assumption of women in a patriarchal set-up as voiced in Milton’s Paradise Lost, ‘He for God only, she for God in him. This division of sex and gender roles basic to patriarchy is brought to the fore through Padmini, a strong, aspiring, bold, independent woman who raises questions against patriarchy throughout the play. In trying to examine the place of Padmini in the patriarchal setup we also witness how Padmini becomes archetypal in her marathon struggle to seek completeness.