 |
| Research Substance ISBN: 978-93-93166-22-7 For verification of this chapter, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/books.php#8 |
Social Distinctions and Rise of Trends like ‘Angry Young Man’and ‘Dalit Panther’: a Study in Social History through Films and Plays |
|
Dr. Suddhasattwa Banerjee
Assistant Professor
English
Hiralal Bhakat College,
Kolkata, West Bengal,
|
|
DOI: Chapter ID: 16062 |
| This is an open-access book section/chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
Abstract The great economic depression following the World War II
led towards several kinds of social and economic deprivations of the working
class and the lower middle class of England as well as of almost entire Europe
and America. Almost all the industries became sick and the workershad to face
huge pay-cuts, joblessness and unsuitable working conditions. Hence strikes
became almost regular events. Social security measures were almost hurled down
to a dead end. In this condition a generation popped up with a gust of anger
caused by the entire range of social deprivationsthrust upon the lower strata
of the society. The term “ Angry Young Man “ is thought to be derived from the autobiography of Leslie
Paul, founder of the ‘Woodcraft
Folk’, whose Angry Young Man was published in 1951. "Angry young men"
were a group of mostly working-class
and middle-class British
playwrights and novelists who became
prominent in 1950s and 1960s. The group's leading figures included John
Osborne and Kingsley
Amis. The phrase was originally coined by the Royal Court Theatre's
press officer in order to promote Osborne's 1956 play Look Back in Anger.
Following the success of the Osborne play, the label "angry young
men" was later applied by British media to describe young writers who were
characterised by disillusionment with traditional class-distinction of British
society. This trend is
apparent in Indian film and theatre in late 70s and early 80s. Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyoon Aata Hain is a
1980 Bollywood film directed by Saeed Akhtar Mirza based on his own story. The
film starred Naseeruddin Shah, Shabana Azmi and Smita Patil as leads. It won
the 1981 Filmfare Critics Award for Best Movie. Mumbaibased motor mechanic Albert
Pinto's anger is definitely an inheritance from that of London based Jimmy
Porter in Look Back in Anger. The way Pinto challenges the orthodox class
distinction of Indian society and political interventions making it all the
more complicated is almost a trendsetter in itself. ‘Angry Young Man’ movement of United Kingdom of
1950s and 1960s and ‘Dalit Panther’ movement of Maharashtra (India) of 1970s
and 1980s have certain common aspects. Both of them are dissatisfied with the
prevalent system, they are in and this dissatisfaction is usually vented out
through anger. The source of this anger is a persistent feeling of being a
misfit in the society one is in. This feeling is somewhat parallel to the
feeling of being a social outcast or a ‘Dalit’. Though the idea of ‘Dalit’
originates from ancient Manusmrity and
Indian caste system being a unique system, rather a notion and a state of
mind that prevents one from having a ‘Consciousness of kind’ as is
mentioned by B.R. Ambedkar in his ‘Annihilation of caste’. He, in a way invokes
the idea of Franklin Giddings, American Sociologist who has traced certain
commonness between Indian Caste System and the class distinctions in Western
societies. This commonness of feeling oneself a social outcaste projects both
Jimmy Porter and Albert Pinto as Dalits just as Arun Athawale, a scavenger
(Mahar) in Vijay Tendulkar play, Kanyadan (1983).
Jimmy Porter, labourer in a factory and the protagonist of John Osborn play Look back in Anger (1956), Albert
Pinto, a motor mechanic and the protagonist of Saeed Akhtar Mirza film Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyoon Aata Hain (1980)
and Arun Athawale, a scavenger and the villainous character of Vijay Tendulkar
play Kanyadan (1983) in my
opinion are on the same platform having a perfect balance between the trends of
‘Angry Young Man’ movement and ‘Dalit Panther’ movement.
The first performance of John
Osborne’s famous play Look Back in Anger
at the Royal Court Theatre on 8
May 1956 is commonly regarded as the
beginning of a new era in the British
Drama. One of the famous critics of
its time, John Russell Taylor, calls the
play “the beginning of a revolution
in the British theatre” (Abeles,1975)). Kenneth
Tynan from the Observer writes the day
after he has seen the play: “I doubt
if I could love anyone who did
not wish to see Look Back
in Anger” (Abeles,1975). Emil Roy affirms
that “British drama renewed its claim
on literary eminence with the premier
of John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger”
(Prentice,1962). Arthur Miller calls the
play “the only modern, English
play” that he has seen
(Prentice,1962). Another critic, George
E. Wellwarth claims that
“the ‘new movement’ in the British
drama actually began officially on the
night of May 8, 1956” (Prentice,1962).
Arnold Wesker describes the play as
“having opened the doors of theatres for
all the succeeding generations of writers”
(Abeles,1975). Look Back in Anger is
called a significant play
owing to the fact that it can
be considered as a moment of
change and also a reaction. Because,
since the end of World War
II British theatre was believed
to have been in rapid decline. Audiences
were falling off and theatres were
closing all over the country. Some of
the theatre companies were restaging
Chekhov, Ibsen, Shaw plays and Restoration
comedies. Most of the companies were
trying to restore Elizabethan theatre by restaging
Shakespeare plays over and over. Two
of the most successful dramatists in
Britain of the time were
Noel Coward and Terence Rattigan but
unfortunately their celebrated plays dated back
to the 1930s, so they could hardly
be regarded as rising new and young talents. Berkowitz
claims that anger is a feeling,
experienced when a desired goal is blocked.
According to the frustration-aggression
hypothesis when a negative affect is
stimulated it elicits an experience of
anger. Therefore, anger is considered as
the emotional state that intervenes
between the thwarting and expression
of angry and aggressive acts. Berkowitz
states that when “a person displays violently
hostile actions upon being frustrated (and)
may do this because he is
in an intense emotional state, i.e., his anger level is
very high” (Storr, 1968). There can be
many reasons for experiencing the emotional
state of anger. According to the
frustration-aggression hypothesis the main reason
that produces anger is frustration. The
emotions of isolation, alienation, anxiety,
loneliness also trigger frustration therefore
angry feelings. This chapter will look
into the reasons of Osborne’s protagonists’
angry feelings particularly the causes that
make them frustrated. Look Back in
Anger (1956) is commonly credited with
being the play in which Osborne expressed a
sense of frustration and anger at the
depressing circumstances of post-war Britain.
Jimmy Porter is regarded as an
embodiment of the frustrations of a
particular age and class especially the
generation of young men who have been
expecting to leave behind their lower-class
origins by using higher education. Jimmy is
educated beyond his social roots; however,
he cannot get what he expects from
his education. Despite his university
degree he has worked as an advertising
salesman, a neophyte journalist, and a
vacuum-cleaner salesman. Then he starts to
run a sweet stall for a living
which is also not a proper job
for a graduate man. According to
Berkowitz “inability to fulfil the
anticipations is a frustration” (Mortimer,1997). Jimmy should
have been working in a job suitable
for his university education. It can
be said that Jimmy is not working in
a proper job due to his working-class
origins. His university degree does not
make him a member of a higher
class. Carl Bode suggests that, “Jimmy
knows that he is the displaced intellectual
and that surely embitters him”
(Mortimer,1997). Because he is aware of the
fact that he cannot change his social
status only by a university degree however
hard he tries. Therefore, as Bode
claims Jimmy is “a man who has tried and
failed to become middle-class” (Mortimer,1997). According
to the frustration-aggression hypothesis Jimmy’s
not having a suitable job despite
his university degree can be considered
a “frustration produced instigation.” Jimmy is
frustrated due to the fact that his
educational background does not fulfil his
anticipations. Therefore, it can be counted
as one of the reasons for
Jimmy’s rage. “His outbreaks of anger
derive from this failure to find fulfilment ”
as Simon Trussler asserts. (Roy,1972) Throughout
the play Jimmy rails about politics,
religion and other social institutions. Jimmy
feels betrayed by the previous generation
because his generation is experiencing the
disappointment of World War II.
However, Jimmy is looking for some enthusiasm instead of exhaustion.
Because he had a father who believed
that there were still, even after the
slaughter of the first World War, causes
good enough to fight for and
collective actions worthy of individual support.
He claims: I suppose people of our
generation aren’t able to die for good
causes any longer. We had all that
done for us, in the thirties and the
forties, when we were still kids. There
aren’t any good, brave causes left. If the big
bang does come, and we all get
killed off, it won’t be in aid of
the old-fashioned, grand design. It’ll just be for the
Brave New–nothing-very–much–thank-you etc are as pointless and inglorious as
stepping in front of a bus (Roy,1972). It can
be asserted that Jimmy’s anger arises
from a sense of having missed out the
opportunities for idealism, or heroism, or
at least for an action which had been
provided to the previous generation. Having
missed out the chances to take an
action can be considered a barrier
for Jimmy to do something good for
himself or for the welfare of the
society which is another reason for
him to feel frustration and therefore anger.
Christopher Bigsby affirms,“It was not the
injustice of his society which
angered Jimmy Porter, but the viciousness
of his own life. Education had given
him articulateness but nothing to be
articulate about. The old England was dead
but no convincing new one had taken
its place. The country seemed like an endless succession of Sunday
afternoons. It was its triviality, its
pointlessness, which appalled Jimmy Porter, who
was in effect an absurd hero rather
than a social rebel. His anger was
his attempt to simulate life; his
violent language an effort to insist on his existence (Demastes,1997). Many
critics have called Jimmy a despot
husband for bullying and attacking Alison
all the time. Indeed, as Austin E. Quigley
suggests, “Jimmy’s attacks on Alison repeatedly
focus on what he perceives as her
lethargy, her timidity, and her readiness
to accept whatever comes her way”
(Demastes,1997). Jimmy comments on Alison’s passivity from the very
beginning of the play.It can be noted that
one of the main reasons of Jimmy’s
anger is Alison’s timidity. Jimmy expects
Alison to react against him when he
taunts her with such words as “sycophantic,
phlegmatic and pusillanimous.” (Singer,1980) However,
the more Jimmy provokes, the more Alison withdraws. When Jimmy goes on calling
her‘pusillanimous’ and bullies her Alison
‘leans against the board, and closes her
eyes.’ Jimmy
complains about Alison’s hypocrisy in
refusing to express her anger at betrayal
which can also be considered a
middle-class manner. Even while leaving Jimmy, she is trying to be
polite. However, Jimmy might have much
preferred her to have emphasized, rather
than suppressed, what she really felt. It
might be her lack of response and
affection towards Jimmy which causes him to
treat her badly. For Luc Gilleman,
Jimmy is “a frustrated husband who is
brought to despair by his wife’s passivity”
(Singer,1980). Jimmy is frustrated by
Alison’s timidity and silence due to the
fact that he expects her to have
some enthusiasm and energy. However he
complains that “that girl there can
twist your arm off with her silence”
(Pinker,2002). At
one of the rare moments that Alison
could openly react against him the stage
direction says: “The wild note in her
voice has re-assured him. His anger cools and hardens.
His voice is quite calm when he speaks” (Singer,1980). Jimmy feels better when
Alison expresses her anger openly. Jimmy also wants
Alison to take the responsibility of
being alive. He thinks that Alison should
have stayed at home to fight with
himself in order to solve their problems.
It might be suggested that, like
Strindberg characters, Jimmy expects from women
more than he could hope to get
from them and when he is disappointed he turns on
them with savage resentment. Susan Rusinko
claims: Jimmy’s anger indiscriminately hits
those who cannot share his pain or
his real feelings, especially those whom
he loves. At one point Jimmy accuses
everybody else of wanting “to escape from
the pain of being alive.” His pain
is deep-rooted, going back to a father
who came back from the war in
Spain when Jimmy was only ten and whom
Jimmy watched die for twelve months (Pinker,2002). It can
be suggested that Jimmy is frustrated
on account of the fact that he cannot
awake the people he cares about. For
instance, Alison’s inertness can be considered
as a barrier for Jimmy, keeping
him from fulfilling his expectation to make
her more active. As Berkowitz
claims; “people become angry and aggressive
on being kept from reaching a desired
goal to the extent that they think
that someone had intentionally and
unfairly prevented them.” It is
called “aggression or anger-provoking situation” (Buss,1961). Jimmy
feels that Alison remains silent
deliberately in order to make him angry.
Her timidity can be regarded as a reaction to Jimmy’s aggressive
behaviour. According to
Berkowitz’s frustration–aggression
hypothesis, “every frustration increases the
instigation to aggression which is anger. Anger is the
primary, inborn reaction to thwarting” (Buss,1961). As a result, Jimmy is
angry because he is frustrated. He is frustrated
because he is running a candy stall
despite his university degree; he is
frustrated owing to his middle class wife’s
passivity; he is frustrated on account
of the fact that people whom he loves
do not try to share his pain; he
is frustrated since the older generation
had made a thorough mess of things,
and he thinks that there was nothing
his generation could do except for talking
nostalgically of the good old days. Vijay Tendulkar’s
seminal play ‘Kanyadaan’ is a ruthless criticism
of this caste ridden Indian society. But
what is interesting is that Tendulkar highlights
here caste system, rather he pinpoints how all
attempts of social amelioration prove
fruitless in our progressive post independent
society. This article shows the predicament of Nath
Devalikar, the protagonist of this drama when he
confronts hazards in real life in his
effort to abolish caste system. Side by
side with this ‘dalit’ and ‘elite’
issue, this play also shows foolishness of
a theorist who keeps his daughter’s life at
stake to prove the supremacy of his theory. The
play also obliquely hints at the
pathetic condition of women in a patriarchal
society. Vijay Tendulkar belongs to those
avant- guarde group of dramatists who can
represent reality as it is. His plays
become sharp criticism of Indian society
and the condition of women in such
patriarchal society. They also deal with the
complexity of human relationships. Each of his
plays contains a subtle critique of modern Indian
society ,and a distinct character and
message. ‘Kanyadaan’ explores the texture
of modernity and social change in
India through marriage between two people of
different castes and backgrounds. It shows
that what we assume as social and
cultural progress in modern India ,is
nothing but a big hoax the play entitled
‘ Kanyadaan’ alludes to the traditional hindu
custom of marriage in our society-to give
a marrigable daughter by one’s guardian
to an eligible young man who will
give her safety and security in life.
It is also desired that the young man
will prove himself a constant companion of
this woman Naturally it concerns much to
the bride’s father about her daughter’s
post-marriage life. The play ‘Kanyadaan’ is also
about marriage, marriage between two
persons belonging to different cultures.
the dramatist shows that to obliterate caste
system, to uplift dalit community ,such an
inter-caste marriage can never be a solution. The play opens
in Nath Devalikar’s house where we meet
Nath,an idealist Gandhi supporter and an active
social worker as well as an MLA is rebuking
the irregular transport system of
post-independent India.From the beginning,it becomes clear
that Nath is very much idealistic.He is the
father of Jyoti and Jayaprakash-who are also nurtured
by Nath’s idealistic philosophy.His philosophy is also
based on democracy-both in thought and
deeds.This progressive person hates casteism and
he takes an active part to eradicate this
social evil and to cause dalit upliftment.
Nath’s wife Seva is also an active social
worker who works for the upliftment
of women’s causes in society. Nurtured in
this situation , when Jyoti expresses
her desire to marry Arun Athavale, a
dalit boy whom she has known for
three months, Nath’s happy family gets a
sudden jolt. The family becomes divided in
two opposite groups-one comprising Nath Devalikar the
idealist-reformist who dreams of changing
this caste- ridden society with his
daughter Jyoti as a soldier. Nath is
naturally very elated as he declares
in actI scene II, “Seva , until today,
‘Break the caste system was a mere slogan for
us. I’ve attended many inter caste marriages and made
speeches. But today I have broken the caste
barrier in the real sense….Today I have
changed.’’Nath’s fervent zeal gets a jolt
from his wife Seva and son Jayaprakash who
feel apprehended of Jyoti’s disastrous future
after her marriage with that dalit boy. Actually
Nath, in the halo of romantic illusion
overlooks his concern and responsibility as a
father. To quote the critic, “By encouraging
his daughter to be an experimental guinea-pig
in the dalit uplift experiments Nath betrays
his monumental ego and sense of superiority
as an intervener in the fate of the
dalits as represented by Arun and
women as represented by his daughter.
Almost all the speeches concerning Jyoti’s
marriage made by Nath Devalikar in act I is
steeped in irony, which reveals that he is
a dreamer to whom his daughter
becomes a scapegoat. Seva as an active worker
engaged in women - upliftment,is very realistic and
for this she strongly opposes Jyoti’s
marriage outside the territory of her cultural periphery”.
(Loomba,2013) She bursts out, ’I will oppose
this marriage .In your words I shall break
party discipline and revolt. Does Jyoti’s revolt seem
sensible to you. Tell me as a father, hand on heart.’ (Ramnarayan,1996)
Inspite of repeated warnings from his family
Nath describes Arun ‘as a human being he
has potential. He has intelligence, drive and
creativity………He is like unrefined gold, he needs to
be melted and moulded. This is the need of the hour.
Who can perform this task if not girls like
Jyoti’. (Ramnarayan,1996) He gives courage and support
, “I stand by you.Go ahead my child, let us see what
happens.’’ (Ramnarayan,1996) Nath’s lack of fore-sightednessultimately
recoils back him. From here also begins his journey from ignorance
to experience. Arun Athavale, as
projected from the beginning is a strong
fellow both in body and mind. As a
dalit boy having a poor financial and
so-called backward ‘cultural ‘background, he is
supra sensuously conscious about his existence,
about his being a ‘Dalit'. (Mahida,2013) He is a stubborn fellow who
refuses culture and nurture. He is direct as he has no cultural
pretensions. His poetic self is also the
product of his spontaneity. When his proposed wife’s
mother asks him about his financial
condition in their very first
meeting, he quickly understands her pricks and
retorts her by talking about their
traditional livelihood of illicit liquor–selling
only to hurt Seva’s culture. His
manners and conversation with Seva, Jayaprakash
and Nath prove his deep-rooted abhorrence
for elite society and their culture. At the
end of act I, virtually it becomes a
confrontation of two cultures ,one elite and
dignified ,another dalit and neglected. The dramatist
neatly divides the drama in two acts. If the act
I is the representation of Nath Devalikar’s
deep-rooted idealism, his dream of social
upliftment and his ignorance ,act II shows the
disastrous result of his ignorance.It
depicts his excruciating pain and it
becomes a saga of his failure. (Loomba,2013)
In act II, scene I, we see Jyoti no longer a
joyous, happy married girl; but an experienced,
older’ woman who bears the burden of his
marriage submissively. Seva, as a
mother is totally despaired of his
consequence and tries io move his daughter
against this unhappy marriage. She repeatedly
bursts out against Jyoti’s submissiveness
to Arun, but Jyoti refuses to give in
to her mother. Nath, Jyoti’s father is
also worried about Jyoti’s present situation,but the
dreamer in him cannot cast off
his long-cherished idealism. Nath, the
father cannot separate himself from Nath
the progressive party-worker, from Nath the
democrat who believes in equality as he
says , “The values I uphold in my
public I live by in my personal life.”
(Ramnarayan,1996) Like a responsible father, he offers
Jyoti to stay in his home with Arun, only
to prevent abuses and physical tortures
done to his darling daughter. But Jyoti
refuses to stay and inspite of her
decision to leave Arun forever, when Arun
comes to to her house and shows love
theatrically before her parents, Jyoti leaves
her father’s house with Arun. It is not for
Arun’s love, but to give riddance to her
family of this uncouth, dalit Arun Jyoti takes
this decision. Here also Nath fails to
understand his own daughter ignorantly shows her happiness
because he thinks that his social
experiment of breaking cultural barriers is
not going to be failed. This is the
reason why elated Nath cries out in
joy,“I feel so proud of you. The
training I gave you has not been
in vain.’’ (Ramnarayan,1996) In scene II of
act II we see Nath reading and praising the
autobiographical work written by Arun Athavale. To Nath it
is a good specimen of dalit literature
written in living language. Nath’s enthusiastic praise
stands out almost as an indecency against
his wife’s anxiety and anger at Arun’s growing
crime against pregnant Jyoti . In the
previous act it has been made obvious
how Jyoti is being physically and mentally
harassed by a sadistic dalit husband. Already
Nath’s high idealistic notions about social
upliftment have begun to get crumbled. Jyoti’s pain and
suffering makesNath annoyed and distressed as a father. Meanwhile Jayaprakash,
Nath’s son informs his father about
the Palestinian guerillas and attack continued
on them by Israeli forces. These Israelists
who were once beaten down is now launching
fresh attacks on others .This is an
eye opening incident because even the
tortured people do not discard evil and
violence.Rather they want to take revenge done to
them by attacking others.If Arun- Jyoti
incident and their unhappy marriage, Arun’s
violence and torture is microcosmic; attack of Isareli
forces against the Palestinian guerillas
are macrocosmic. Actually,there is no progress and cultural
upliftmentinour civilization. Verysoon,ArunAthavale comes to invite his
father-in-law in his book launching ceremony. The way he
invites his father-in-law in boastful manners
is highly indicative of Arun’s selfishness,his
bestiality, who wants to aggrandize on elite sympathy
to cater his personal needs. His language is that of a
first–rate blackmailer with potential threatening. Arun’s arrival makes Nath
‘tense’ and in disgust, he avoids eye contact with him. After
Arun’s departure, Nath becomes enraged and
he bursts out against Arun’s hypocrisy
.What seemed to him true in actI,
turned false before his own eyes. His hysterical
cry “I was nauseated by his overweening arrogance. And he’s
the same man who wrote that
autobiography….his visit has polluted this
drawing room ,this house, and this day…It
stinks….This furniture, this floor…all this
…he has made them filthy, dirty,
polluted! Why did I have to come into
contact with a man like this?” (Ramnarayan,1996)
Arun, far from being a representative character of
dalit community ‘emerges as a
‘Machiavellian character eager to capitalize on
the high tide of Dalit sympathy both
in personal and intellectual fronts.’ (Mahida,2013) Seva Devalikar though
never supports Jyoti for marrying Arun and
bearing all pains silently still requests
Nath to preside Arun’s book-publishing ceremony.
Her desire as a mother to see Jyoti
as a happily wedded girl drives her here,
because she is more practical. Her active participation
in women’s causes hasmade her mature. Following
her advice, Nath attends the inaugural
ceremony of Arun’s autobiography and delivers
speech which is nothing but hollow,
rhetorical outburst. Nath confesses before her wife and son that what
he has done, done only to save her daughter’s life. He knows well ‘…this kind
of hypocrisy marks a rank opportunist. That book is no autobiography; it is
pulp fiction based on half truths. [Taking a deep breadth.] No. Not all dalits
can be like that. Nath goes through tremendous mental anxiety and a
hopeless,disillusioned father,makes his son cautious not to follow his father’s
idealism’ Jayaprakash, do me a favour. Reject your father. Learn to see through
his naiveté and idiocy. Don’t ever rely on his
wisdom.’ Tendulkar identifies the
character of Nath Devalikar with himself. ‘Nath Devalikar ‘the protagonist of
‘Kanyadaan’ is me and many other liberals of my generation whom I understand
completely. The pain of these people today ,the defeat they have suffered
,the fundamental mental confusion and naiveté that had led to their pain and
defeat, these form the theme of ‘Kanyadaan’, and I wrote about it because it
came so close to
me.’(Loomba,2013). But it is not only Nath’s mental
confusion, his ignorance about dalit mentality and his naivete which are
responsible for his tragedy; rather he has some inherent drawbacks also. Nath
is an enthusiast,a detached reformist who feels and boasts of his superiority
of being a Brahmin and takes it as a social duty to uplift dalit community. His
social experimentation as a reformist brings ruin to his family. Even his
daughter who has hero-worshipped him turns against her father and finally
denunciates his naïve, impractical wisdom.Jyoti demands straight answer from
his father for delivering such a hypocritical speech. Nath tries to patch up
the matter by saying, “You are making a mistake .I don’t hate Arun, I hate only
those tendencies...’’ Angry Jyoti retorts ‘’Tendencies! I grew up listening to
such talk day in and day out. All false, vicious claptrap.’’ (Ramnarayan,1996) She makes his father face to face
with open reality. She further accuses her father of making them crippled from
childhood by his ineffective theory. Raw experiences with reality make her
acutely conscious of the fact that divinity and bestiality are inseparable.
Putting man’s beastliness to sleep and awakening the godhead within is an
absurd notion. You make me waste twenty years of my life before I could
discover it.’’ (Loomba,2013) Jyoti accuses her father also as a hypocrite and
brings him in the same line as Arun Athavale, herhypocrite dalit husband.
(Mahida,2013) Jyoti’s final breakdown reminds us of Louisa in Dickens’ ‘Hard
Times’, because in both cases,their father’s wrong philosophical attitude to
life have destroyed their lives. A shoe was hurled at
Tendulkar in 1988. Following is an excerpt from his prize acceptance speech
after receiving ‘Saraswati Samman’ award, that appears as an Afterword in Gowri
Ramnarayan’s edition (Delhi: OUP), 1996: “The work which has been selected for
the Saraswati Samman is not the story of a victory, it is the admission of
defeat and intellectual confusion. It gives expression to a deep-rooted malaise
and its pains….. I have written about my own experiences and what I have seen
in others around me. I have been true to all this and have not cheated my
generation. I did not attempt to simplify matters and issues for the audience
when presenting my plays though that would have been an easier option.
Sometimes my play jolted the society out of its stupor and I was punished. I
faced this without regrets. You are honouring me with the Saraswati Samman
today for a play for which I once had a slipper hurled at me.” (Ramnarayan,1996) Albert Pinto in Saeed
A. Mirza film is placed in post emergency Mumbai and represents the angst of
the common man with a spotlight on the strikes by mill workers in Mumbai. He
loves to drive around in expensive cars owned by his clients and at first
dismissive of his father’s idea to join a labourers strike at the mill he works
in. But gradually he is made to realize the difference between the class he
belongs to and the class his clients belong to. The kind of rejection he faces
from different segments of the society he belongs to seems somewhat similar to
the rejection faced by his sister for being lame footed. His identity itself
works as a source of his anger just as it is apparent in case of Jimmy and
Arun. His relationship with Stella is as turbulent as Jimmy’s relationship with
Alison and Arun’s relationship with Jyoti. All the three want the ladies they
are in relationship with to mould their philosophy of life in the track they
are in. If they can not be angry with everything and everybody around them they
should share the dissatisfaction and desperation their men are having. All the
three treat their ladies abusively and Jyoti had to bear repeated physical
abuses too. All the three ladies initially plan to quit these relationships and
then they actually move away from their men but ultimately they realize the
justification of the anger of their men and get back to their relationships in
spite of all the turbulences of their lives. While dealing with the anger of
all the three characterswe can trace certain commonness both in case of the
source and the expression of it. The feeling of otherness is the most
significant and common aspect of it. Hatred for the middle class is another
common aspect especially for certain hypocritical practices and values
overburdened with prevalent practice of inaction. Jimmy used to use Alison as a
hostage while visiting the residences of the relatives of Alison. These visits
for him were battles rather class struggle. Pinto insults Stella’s boss by using
the benefit of his middle class values leading towards restraining the
reactions in different shocking situations.Alison’s mother and Jyoti’s mother
behave almost in the same way while responding to their sons in law. Both are
unable to appreciate the choice of their daughters and attempt to stop their
daughters to marry their counterparts. Alison’s mother even employs a private
detective to monitor the behavioural practices and acquaintances of Jimmy
whereas Seva repeatedly argues with Nath to stop Jyoti to marry Arun. But Nath
fails to overcome his weakness for Gandhian idealism related to the probable
upward movement of the so called lower castes by arranging inter-caste
marriages. Arun uses the same weakness of Nath for using him as the introducer of
his autobiography. Tendulkar in the same way had to introduce Mallika Shaikh’s
autobiography, I Want to get Ruined (1983)
following her separation with Namdeo Dhasal whose Golpitha (1972)
was also introduced by him. Both these works bear definite trends of Dalit
Panther Movement which traces its legacies from Heera Dom’s ‘Achut ki Sikayat’
(1914) and Drarika Bharati’s ‘Sailab’. Progressive Dalit Literature Circle led
by Hamneer Rao Kamle uses Tendulkar to acquire a wide range of reception in the
70s but does hardly hesitate to bring Anti-Dalit charge against him following
the success of Kanyadan. Osborn in
the same way charged for presenting a sexist story through Look Back.On the contrary Mirza’s depiction
of post emergency reality was appreciated by the critics whereas the film
became flop. Anger in all these cases emerge as the key response towards each
and every undesired aspect of life and work as the connecting link among them. Reference
|