Magazine 2015
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
HYPOCRISY IN VIJAY TENDULKAR’S SELECTED PLAYS
Sharmila Jajodia
ABSTRACT
This paper is directed to probe the psycho-social hypocrisy through Vijay Tendulkar’s selected plays-
”Silence! The Court Is in Session” and “Kamala” as the basic human nature, the social attitude and perception
do not undergo much change even after too much social development and awareness in terms of
liberalisation, globalisation, spread of mass education and attempts for gender equality due to the prominent
psychological barrier - resistance to change. This paper seeks to analyse how the society in the two plays
reacts to certain social situations in which women are targeted. These targeted women are not always
illiterate, poor or downtrodden but highly educated, brave and financially strong women too are not
spared. The various entities of society- family, school, judiciary and media too show indifferent attitude and
not only males but the females also become enemy and tyrant to these female victims. In both the plays, the
society considers woman as a puppet to serve its selfish motives and exposes its own double standard and
basic hypocrisy on which it is founded.
Key Words : Change, Hypocrisy, Psychological, Social, Resistance
This paper is an attempt to show how Vijay Tendulkar, a multifaceted genius, winner of several national
and international awards and honours, has depicted the plight of women in the male dominated urban
middle class society. His prolific versatility sharpened by his experiences as a journalist and seasoned by
his keen observation probes the basic hypocrisy deep rooted in our Indian society.
This paper seeks to analyse how the society in the two plays Silence! The Court Is in Session and Kamala
observes and understands women, concretizing the strongly held beliefs into a cluster of values and
bundle of taboos placing women in a disadvantaged position. These biased views about women- the
‘
female’ and the ‘feminine’ - have not allowed women to lead a free life authentically.
Junita Williams also points out that “Man has always felt the need to explain and to codify woman, to
come to terms with her presence on earth, and to accommodate her within his rational system.”(Mittapalli,
001,p.148)
2
In both the dramas, Tendulkar though not a self acknowledged feminist, has portrayed that men are
selfish, hypocritical, brutal and ambitious while women are understanding, compassionate and efficient.
These women pit themselves against the man made rules and double standards prevalent in the society,
however hard the society tries to treat them as a puppet to serve its selfish motives.
In Kamala, the central character Jaisingh Jadhav is a self-seeking journalist. This so-called the great
advocate of freedom and gender justice commits a crime intentionally by buying a woman, Kamala, from
the flesh market in an auction. He treats her as an object, presents her as a show piece in a surprise press
conference to gain popularity and promotion in his professional life and also to prove that such things
still happen in modern democratic India. When his wife Sarita comes to know this truth, she is stunned.
She asks him why he only needed to buy a woman. Jaisingh tells her although police know this fact but
they need evidence to admit it. By presenting her at the conference, actually he wants to create an
uproar and high drama and blast out this shameful affair but he does not tell these facts to his wife, her
uncle Kakasaheb and his own friend Jain till the conference is reported in the news papers. When Jaisingh
and Jain enjoy discussing the happenings at the press conference, Sarita and Kakasaheb realise that
they had some fun at poor Kamala’s expense. Both friends describe the conference as ‘tamasha’ and
‘
drama’ and also relish the obscene questions asked by the fellow journalists. Thus Kamala is made
laughing stock but Jaisingh doesn’t mind it at all.
The next day when police want to contact Jaisingh, he understands that they want custody of Kamala
and therefore does not attend the phone calls made by the police department and decides to keep
Kamala in a woman’s home or an orphanage. Sarita protests this move of her huband but he wants to
save himself from being arrested and considers this as the only way out. Their servant Kamalabai approves
it but Sarita considers it a deceiving act and opposes it.
(139)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
Then Jaisingh retaliates, “It’s I who takes decision in this house, and no one else. Do you understand? “
(
42) and orders the woman Kamala to accompany him. He orders his wife too to attend, reply and note
down the phone calls as usual. Kamala feels she is being dragged away while Sarita stands like a statue
on watching all this. Their servant Kamalabai considers that the woman Kamala was a bad sort. Kakasaheb
tells Sarita that Jadhav’s reasons to take Kamala away from home are shallow ones and “Kamala is just
a pawn in his game of chess”. (43) Sarita bursts out saying, “Not just Kamala, Kakasaheb. Not just
Kamala, Kakasaheb. Me too . . . Me too.” (43) She realises that she herself is an object in Jadhav’s life
that provides him physical enjoyment, social companionship and domestic comfort. She also feels that
her husband is selfish and hypocrite and her existence does not have any significance for him. Jadhav
does not tell her about his whereabouts whenever he goes out of Delhi for official work.
His friend Jain’s comments also support Sarita’s realization when he addresses Sarita while taking leave.
“
Hi, Bhabhiji, . . . this warrior against exploitation in the country is exploiting you. He’s made a drudge
out of a horse-riding independent girl from a princely home. Hai, Hai [theatrically to Jaisingh] Shame on
you! Hero of anti-exploitation campaigns makes slave of wife. Bye, lovely bonded labour.”(17)
Not only this Jadhav also dictates Sarita to take his permission before doing anything for Kamala and
wants to take Kamala to the press conference in the worn out sari only. When Sarita rebels saying that
after all she is a woman; he raises his voice to snub Sarita, “I know, I know! you don’t have to tell me,
understand? I have a very good idea of all that. I want her to look just as she is at the press conference.
It is very important.” (22) He also gets angry when his wife asks about Kamala’s whereabouts after she
leaves their home.
Then the conversation between Sarita and Kakasaheb discloses how Sarita feels that Jaisingh is a slave-
driver. She tells that she will also hold a press conference to tell the young journalists that Jadhav keeps
slaves and exploits them. “ . . . The other slave he got free- not just free- the slave’s father shelled out the
money- a big sum. Ask him what he did with it.” (46) She also tells Kakasaheb, on being questioned why
she thought like that on that particular day. “. . . . I was unconscious even when I was awake. Kamala
woke me up. With a shock, Kamala showed me everything . . . clearly I saw that the man I thought my
partner was the master of a slave. . . . Dance to their master’s whim. Laugh, when he says laugh. Cry,
when he says cry .....”(46) When Sarita asserts to rebel the slavery in their relations, Kakasaheb advises
her. “Look Sarita, Jaisingh is no different from other men. He is not unusual. You are wrong to think that
he is a bad man.”( 46) The same Kakasaheb has criticised Jaisingh earlier the way he handles journalism
and has expressed his concerns for Sarita’s safety. He later on tells Sarita that the answers for all these
questions is -”That’s why he is a man. And that’s why there is manhood in the world.” (47) He also tells
Sarita that he also used to treat her aunt the same way as Jaisingh does to Sarita. He advises her to go
behind her master, her husband like that only and emphasizes it as her duty. He further states that “It may
be unpleasant, but it’s true. If the world is to go on, marriage must go on. And it will only go on like this.”
(
47) When Sarita stresses that men and women are equal and so woman should be given the right to live
her life as the man does because a woman can do everything a man can, Kakasaheb replies- “But that
isn’t manhood.”(47) The same Sarita provides emotional and moral support to Jaisingh when at the
close of the play he is treacherously deprived of his job. Thus Jadhav symbolises the modern day
individuals who pursue their goals unquestioningly with a single minded perception and proposition.
They are ready to sacrifice human values in the name of humanity itself.
In Silence! The Court is in Session Leela Benare, the central character is a sprightly rebellious and assertive
heroine. She is a school teacher, possesses a natural lust for life and ignores social norms and dictates.
She is different from the other members of the theatre group. So she is easily isolated and made the
victim of a cruel game executed by her cunning co-actors. She is compelled to play the role of an
accused as time is hanging heavy on their hands. They also want to make one new co-actor- Samant
understand how the court proceedings take place. They also consider if a woman is an accused, the
mock play will be more interesting and exciting one. It is quite clear when Sukhatme states, “But when
there’s a woman in the dock, the case does have a different complexion” (73) and he is supported by
Karnik, Ponkshe, Rokde, Mr. and Mrs. Kashikar. Mr. Kashikar desires the charge to be socially significant.
So Benare is accused of the crime of infanticide under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the
course of this so-called mock play which is set in the backdrop of the mock trial, her private life is
publicly exposed, much to the malicious glee of her male tormenters including Mrs. Kashikar. This mock
trial i.e. the play-within-the play appears an illusion in the beginning but assumes the garb of reality as it
(140)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
becomes a very serious affair and a real trial for Benare. At the same time it gives sadistic pleasure to the
hypocrite group excluding Samant, the innocent villager.
During this mock trial, Ponkshe admits that Benare runs after man too much. Further Karnik, the next
witness is persuaded to confess the fact that Rokde has seen Benare in a compromising situation.
Rokde tells Sukhatme that he saw Benare in professor Damle’s hostel room. Samant watches the mock
proceedings out of sheer enthusiasm intently as he is to play the role of fourth witness. But when he is
called to depose, he says that what is true for the trial is quite false really. Ironically, whatever he reads
from a cheap novel to answer Sukhatme’s (the lawyer’s) questions proves quite fit/ fits in with what Benare
has undergone recently in professor Damle’s room on that fateful night. The learned professor refuses to
accept her despite knowing that he has been responsible for her (Benare) carrying a baby out of wedlock
as he fears of losing his own reputation. A tense and stunned Benare who has remained mute till then,
suddenly asks Samant to stop saying anything. “That’s enough. . . . it’s all a lie ! A complete lie!” (93) She
turns around and accuses all of them saying, “You’ve all deliberately ganged up on me ! You’ve plotted
against me.” (93) Mr. Kashikar, the judge in the mock-trial but a social worker in real life, thinks that
Benare should not be less than thirty four, when she is asked her age and she refuses to answer. He
considers that promiscuity is a bane in the society and society should “revive the old age custom of child
marriage . . . All this promiscuity will come to a full stop.” (98) He blames social reformers - Agarkar and
Keshav Karve for ruining the society.
Benare chooses not to answer any question why she remained unmarried to such a mature age. Later
Mrs. Kashikar deposes before the court, “That . . . when you get everything without marrying. They just
want comfort. They could not care less about responsibility! . . . It’s the sly new fashion of women earning
that makes everything go wrong. That’s how promiscuity has spread through our society.” (99-100) and
Benare’s case is a solid proof of that as she behaves somewhat differently although she is one of us. Mrs.
Kashikar as a society has strong objections to Benare’s attitude as a free unmarried woman.
She further states, “Look how loudly she laughs! How she sings, dances, cracks jokes! And wandering
alone with how many men, day in and day out!” (100) Rokde who gives evidence also has something
bad to tell about Benare. In Sukhatme’s words, “ . . . the accused committed an outrage in a lonely spot
on a boy like Rokde, much younger than her-almost like her younger brother . . .”(103) She threatened
him with dire consequences if the matter comes to light and thus “she tried to cover up her sinful deed.”
(
103) Then Ponkshe also makes shocking revelations as a witness by telling how she (Benare) has asked
him to marry her but at the same time she also confirms in advance that he has not been fixed up
somewhere. Ponkshe tells her that girls are silly and frivolous; so he wants to have a mature partner and
is not interested in marrying unless he finds one to his taste. Then Benare gives her own opinion about
maturity and even tells him that she has a promising bride in mind and the girl has “just gone through a
shattering heartbreak and the fruit of her love . . . is in her womb.” (107) Indirectly it becomes plain to
Ponkshe that Benare is pregnant and she wants Ponkshe to marry her. The “scoundral responsible” (108)
for this tragic situation is Prof. Damle.
The anti-climax comes when she tells Ponkshe that she was telling a joke. Karnik also tells about her
sinful past, her immoral relationships with her own maternal uncle at the age of fifteen and her attempted
suicide because of the disappointment in love. Mr. Kashikar too violates the code of conduct and dignity
of court and narrates how his visits to Nanasaheb’s house confirm that the teacher who has become
mother before marriage is Benare only and she has been terminated from job. He considers such girls as
a sinful canker on the body of society. Thus evidence after evidence is piled up against Benare to prove
her guilty. But Damle, who has also his share of guilt in the situation, is not even held an accused at all
and left scot-free.
Then Sukhatme, as the counsel for prosecution shows his concerns for society by mentioning Benare’s
conduct and mistake as “heinous blot” (114), “a very great sin”(107) and its fatal result contributing to
flourishing immorality, destruction of society and culture completely. She should not be given any
concession for being a woman, should be punished severely without showing any mercy. Even that will
be a mild treatment keeping in mind the gravity of the sin. Later on he takes the role of the counsel for
accused and pleads for mercy as she is a youth led astrayed and human being is prone to error.
(141)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 5 JULY 2015
Kashikar in his role as the ‘mock judge’ asks Benare if she wants to say anything in defence before the
judgement is made. Later Benare stands up erect and says, “Yes, I have a lot to say.” (116) She recalls
her past to reveal how she had been violated physically twice, at an immature age by her own maternal
uncle and later on as a grown up woman by an intellectual. Benare, in that long monologue, accuses all
men as ‘hypocrites’ whose only interest is in her body and not in her bleeding heart or agonised mind.
Commenting on her co-actors she observes, “These are the mortal remains of some cultured man of the
twentieth century. See their faces-how ferocious they look! Their lips are full of lovely worn out phrase!
And their bellies are full of unsatisfied desires.”(117) Writhing in pain, she goes on to reveal that
Professor Damle ‘the unusual intellect’ has exploited her hero-worship. “My intellectual god took the
offering and went his way. He wasn’t a god. He was a man. For whom everything was of the body, for the
body! That’s all! Again the body!” (118) Kashikar, the judge, tells her that she has tried to dynamite the
social customs and sacredness of marriage and motherhood and hence deserves no mercy. Moreover,
as a teacher she has set a very bad example when future of posterity has been entrusted to her. So the
sentence meted out to her is that she must opt for infanticide. On hearing Kashikar’s cruel verdict, Benare
writes and cries in intolerable pain, “No! no! no!- I won’t let you do it- I won’t let it happen-I won’t let it
happen!”(119)
Thus the play scathingly satirises the moral code, conventions and hypocrisy of middle class patriarchal
society. Tendulkar makes us realise that it is Benare’s fear of such code that compels her to crave for
marriage and forces her to beg the inferior men around one after another to marry her in order to play the
role of a ‘father’ to her child. But at the same time Tendulkar depicts Benare as a modern woman who is
capable of protecting herself.
As Dass observes, “Tendulkar does not let Benare kill herself or feel shy about the whole episode, but
makes her fight till the end.”( Dodiya and Surendran, 2000, p. 89)
Sarita is silenced by Jadhav, the way Mrs. Kashikar and Leela Benare are silenced by Mr. Kashikar and
the society. ‘Jadhav’ in “Kamala” and ‘male members of the troupe’ in “Silence! . . .” never stop to think
what will happen to Kamala and Benare respectively after the expose. Thus Vijay Tendulkar exposes the
chauvinism intrinsic in the so-called modern and liberal minded Indian males. “Kamala” is also an indictment
of the success oriented male-dominated society where women are often victims or stepping stones in
men’s achievement. Kamala and Sarita are built of the same stuff as Mrs. Kashikar and Leela Benare.
Though being educated Sarita and Benare are empowered in comparison to the uneducated Mrs. Kashikar
and Kamala, yet they don’t have the spirits to revolt against their present conditions. Thus VIjay Tendulkar
seems to be on the side of the feminists for he projects women as helpless victims of the conspiracy
hatched by men.
What George Herbert Mead once observed is quite justifiable: “The ‘self’ cannot be understood except in
relation to the ‘other’. So unless men understand this concept ‘feminism’ there will be precious little
purpose or outcome for the intellectual endeavour as we enter another new century.” (Sinha, 2006, p.83)
To conclude, by these two plays Vijay Tendulkar tries to bring out the fact that it is essential for both the
partners to understand the “otherness” of the other for the better survival.
References
Dodiya, Jaidip Sinh K. and K.V.Surendran. eds. Indian English Drama: Critical Perspectives. Sarup &
Sons. New Delhi. 2000. Print.
Mittapalli, Rajeshwar. ed. The Atlantic Literary Review, Quarterly, Vol.2, No.1, Jan-March 2001. Print.
Sinha, Ravi Nandan. ed. The Quest: A Journal of Indian Literature and Culture, Vol.20, No.2, December
2
006. Print.
Tendulkar, Vijay. Five Plays. Oxford University Press. New Delhi.1998. Print.
Sharmila Jajodia, Assistant Professor, Dept.of English, Ramniranjan Jhunjhunwala College, Mumbai
(142)