This book studies the representation of Hinduism through myth and discourse in urban Hindi theatre in the period 1880–1960. It discusses representative works of seven influential playwrights and inquires into the way they have “imagined” and “reimagined” Hindu tradition. The major questions that I seek to answer are: What are the Hindu myths that the authors have appropriated and reworked in their plays and what are the ideological discourses that we can discern? Why are the ancient myths relevant to the contemporary and modernist agenda of the playwrights? What are the ideological implications of the interpretative discourses and how are they informed by the power structures of society?
There has been an intrinsic link between religion, theatre, and performance in India since ancient times. It suffices to mention the numerous enactments of the epics Ramāyāṇa and the Mahābhārata, as well as a myriad of folk performances from ancient times and up to present day as an intrinsic part of Hindu religiosity and culture. Oftentimes in Hindu traditions, the human body dancing and performing to the gods has been thought to represent as deep an insight into the religious nature of phenomena as the introspective discussion of philosophical or theological texts.
In the age of nationalism and modernity, religion and theatre, especially urban theatre, seem to have become two completely separate domains. However, religion continues to inform the imagination of Hindi dramatists and remains highly topical and relevant to comprehending Hindi theatre. As my discussion shows, the study of the representation of Hinduism in Hindi theatre can deepen our understanding about the multifaceted Hindu traditions. It also helps us analyse the various ideological, nationalistic, and cultural discourses which Hinduism used to legitimate, thus reaffirming the innate link between religion, literature, and the performing arts in the age of modernity.
In Chapter 2, I discuss important questions related to myth and discourses in the Hindu traditions. The exploration of myth has been of great significance to the study of religion from the sixteenth century onwards. Scholars have analysed myth from different angles. I therefore look into the major theories of myth in the fields of religious studies. I then proceed to discuss the significance of myth in South Asia and the process of remythologizing of South Asian culture. Similarly, there has been considerable scholarship on the notions of “ideology” and “discourse.” I point to the work of Foucault and Stuart Hall in order to define the differences between the two concepts and to delineate my use of the terms in this book.
In Chapter 3, I elaborate on the complex implications of inventing the tradition of Hindi theatre as a neo-Sanskritic one. I reflect on the invention of the theatrical tradition of Hindi as a continuous flow originating in classical Sanskrit theatre. Next, I discuss Hindi drama from its origination in the second half of the nineteenth century until the 1960s. I stress the significance of court Urdu drama, the Parsi theatre, and Western plays for the beginnings and growth of Hindi theatre. In order to understand the way Hinduism has been represented in Hindi theatre, I look into the literary scene of the time, especially at Urdu–Hindi Progressivism, and discuss how the ideas of the Hindu reform movements, specifically of the Arya Samaj, have contributed to the formation of the world view of several authors. I also look into the creation of the canon of modern Hindi drama and the role that mythologizing of Hindu traditions plays for the inclusion or exclusion from the canon.
In Chapter 4, I study the interpretation of questions related to caste and the social and religious ordering of life (varṇāśramadharma) as well the representation of Hinduism and nationalism in the plays of Bharatendu Harishcandra, Jayshankar Prasad, Lakshminarayan Mishra, Bhuvaneshvar, Jagdishcandra Mathur, and Upendranath Ashk. The authors represented Buddhists, Muslims, Huns, Greeks, and the British as “the others,” thus affirming a clear-cut Hindu identity of their protagonists. They asserted Hinduism and Hindu identity of their positive main characters, representing them as superior to their Buddhist, Muslim, Greek, or British counterparts. An exception here is the work of Ashk who instead of mythologizing the religious “other,” demythologizes the construction of religious divide between Hindus and Muslims and clearly locates the cultures of his dramatis personae in religious hybridity. I also emphasize the plurality and multiple perspectives of Hindu traditions. At the same time, I point out that despite this plurality, we can discern a distinct Hindu cultural identity that the dramas help to promote.
In Chapter 5, I first discuss Hindu images of the feminine and then proceed to analyse the conservative and progressive mythologizing of the interpretation of women in the work of the seven playwrights discussed in the book. I analyse the work of Harishcandra, Prasad, Mishra, and Mohan Rakesh who promote neo-Sanskritic values and primordial Hindu ideals and argue for conservative and orthodox Hindu myth models for women. The playwrights use Hindu imagery in order to embrace conservatism and argue for traditional education and gender roles. Next, I study the work of Mathur, Bhuvaneshvar, and Ashk and show how these authors represent Hinduism differently. In their works, they subvert tradition and question traditional myths and values. Similarly, while we can discern idealization of the Hindu tradition in the works of Harishcandra, Prasad, Mishra, and Rakesh, authors like Mathur, Bhuvaneshvar, and Ashk question this idealization of primordial and orthodox Hinduism, arguing in their plays for a modernized and progressive Hinduism. I also discuss the ways in which the processes of mythologizing and othering of women impact the construction of the literary canon.
In the conclusion, I summarize and discuss the inferences made in the preceding chapters. I examine the intersections of Hinduism and Hindi theatre and emphasize the important role that both myth and discourse play in the representation of Hindu traditions in the works of the seven authors discussed. While my analysis has pointed to either a traditionalist or to a more modernist stance towards religious issues, there has never been any doubt about the “Hindu” nature of all questions discussed. It was not possible to identify any Hindi-speaking authors who deal with issues implicit to the Muslim, Sikh, or Jain, etc. traditions. Thus, my study of Hindi theatre had to imply “Hindu” theatre which argued on behalf of Hinduism by means of its myths and the various ideological discourses with which one either endorses or refutes the (orthodox) Hindu tradition. We may therefore suggest that Hindi theatre of the period 1880–1960, as represented in the works of the seven dramatists discussed, is truly “Hindu–Hindi” theatre.
Hindi theatre has been the subject of several publications, which points to the growing interest in this hitherto neglected field. Some recent works include Acts of Authority/Acts of Resistance: Theatre and Politics in Colonial and Postcolonial India and Performing Women/Performing Womanhood: Theatre, Politics and Dissent in North India by Nandi Bhatia; Poetics, Plays and Performances: The Politics of Modern Indian Theatre by Vasudha Dalmia; Theatres of Independence: Drama, Theory and Urban Performance in India since 1947 by Aparna Dharwadker; and my own books on this subject: Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre and Gender and Religion and Modern Hindi Drama.
1
Although there have been several recent studies on Hindi drama and on religion and gender in Hindi drama, there are no monographs on the interpretation of Hinduism, myth, and discourse in Hindi theatre. Thus, the present study is a desideratum in the field of both Hinduism and of Hindi theatre.
On Method
Methodologically, two perspectives can be defined in the course of this study. The first one refers to the thematic analysis of the dramatic work of seven representative authors in the period 1880–1960, and the second one to the critical study of the representation of Hinduism in the plays and to issues pertaining to ideology, discourse, nationalism, gender, and mythologizing.
The study of the historical and socio-cultural background in which modern Hindi theatre and drama developed accounts for the emphasis I place on sources for the formation of the dramatists. I interpret the texts not as trans-historical but as deeply embedded in the socio-cultural life of contemporary Indian society. In addition, the thematic analysis of the authors’ work, which points to various ideological discourses on Hinduism, nationalism, and gender, prompts me to broaden the perspective of my approach to the plays by taking into consideration major concepts of theories of nationalism, gender, mythologizing, and othering. Thus, my goal is to examine the power configurations of Hinduism as revealed in the plays. I inquire into the nature of marginalization and othering in Hindu society and discuss the interpretation of issues related to caste and gender. Some of the questions that I ask are: Do the playwrights promote a conservative and orthodox vision of Hindu tradition or a modernized one? Who owns the discourse—who are the “we” and who are the “others”? Are these Hinduism’s “others”—and are these inner or outer “others” or both?
On Transliteration
The system of transliteration in this work follows a standard system for Hindi, in which long vowels are marked with a macron, for instance, ā, and reftroflex consonants with a dot beneath the letter, for example ḍ. Nasalization is indicated by the sign ṃ, which follows the nasalized vocal, for instance, bhaṃvar. No special symbol is used for anusvāra (superscript dot denoting homorganic or other nasal consonant) in the transliteration, the appropriate nasal consonant being written to avoid confusion in the pronunciation, for example, raṅgmañc. All Hindi words and titles of works are spelled according to the transliteration system for Hindi, for example, kavitā. The names of authors, the names of deities, of characters in fiction and scripture, of languages, and of cities and countries have not been marked with diacritics. The character “c” in the Indian words and names should be read as “ch” in English, for instance, Candragupta (read: Chandragupta).
Note
- 1.See N. Bhatia, Acts of Authority/Acts of Resistance: Theatre and Politics in Colonial and Postcolonial India (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004); N. Bhatia, Performing Women/Performing Womanhood: Theatre, Politics and Dissent in North India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010); V. Dalmia, Poetics, Plays and Performances: The Politics of Modern Indian Theatre (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005); A. Dharwadker, Theatres of Independence: Drama, Theory and Urban Performance in India since 1947 (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2005); D. Dimitrova, Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), and D. Dimitrova, Gender, Religion and Modern Hindi Drama (Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2008).