UGC MHRD e Pathshala

Subject: English

Principal Investigator: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad

Paper: 09: “Comparative Literature, Drama in India”

Paper Coordinator: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad

Module No 28: Dina Mehta: Brides are Not for Burning; Shaonli Mitra:
Nathabati Ananthabat,

Content Writer: Dr. Shrabani Basu, St. Francis College, Hyderabad

Content Reviewer: Prof. Ipshita Chanda; Jadavpur University

Language Editor: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad
 This module will look into two plays, rather a full length play and a narrative performance
concentrating on feminist issues in India. Around 1980s and the early 1990s, several texts
exploring the predicament of women in Indian society surfaced. They ranged from non-fictional
researches of contemporary feminist issues (the immolation of Rup Kanwar in 1987 for
example), through plays and literary texts blatant portraying the patriarchal evils (like Dina
Mehta’s Brides are not for Burning) to retellings of Ramayana and Mahabharata from a feminist
point of view (like Irawati Karve’s Yuganta and Shaonli Mitra’s “Nathabati Anathabat” and
“Katha Amrita Saman”). In this module we would study two such texts—Shaonli Mitra’s
narrative performance of “Nathabati Anathabat” and Dina Mehta’s Brides are not for Burning.

1. “Nathabati Anathabat”

1.1. Introduction

“Nathabati Anathabat” (roughly translated as the orphaned wife or as Nabaneeta Deb Sen
states in her translation “Five Lords Yet None a Protector”) is reputedly adapted from Irawati
Karve’s interpretation of Mahabharata, Yuganta: the End of an Epoch and was first staged in
1983. For her performance, Shaonli was awarded the Critic Circle of Indian Award, the
Shiromani Puraskar in 1985, and the Prafulla Kumar Smriti Ananda Puraskar in 1991. Shaonli
Mitra was also awarded The Sangeet Natak Academy Award in 2003 for acting in Bengali
Theatre and in 2012 she was honored with The Banga Bibhushan for lifetime achievement in the
theatre. In an article named "The Stage Is Her Own", published in Applause of July 22, 1991,
Lekha J. Shankar said that Shaonli Mitra's “Nathabati Anathabat” had already enjoyed two
hundred and fifty five house-full shows in Calcutta for the past eight years.

DID YOU KNOW?

• Irawati Karve does not retell the Mahabharata story in her Yuganta: the End of an Epoch. She
rather very dispassionately delves into the psychological aspect of some of the characters:
Gandhari, Kunti, Vidura, Bhishma, Draupadi and others.
• In “Nathabati Anathabat”, Shaonli Mitra chooses to highlight the portion about Draupadi, and
puts in all her understanding and empathy as a woman to try retelling her story holding almost
all the other major characters culpable for her predicament.
• Mitra also mentions Karve several times during her narrative performance, referring her as
“Irawati didi.” This almost sounds like that a group of sisters in this epoch looks at the empty
life of another several millennia ago.
1.2. Life of Shaonli Mitra

Born to the famous theatre couple, Shombhu and Tripti Mitra, Shaonli Mitra got involved in
the vibrant theatrical milieu of her parents at the age of four in “Dashachakra”,
a Bohurupee play. The list continued with “Chenra Taar”, “Daakghar”, “Pagla Ghora”,
“Kimbadanti”, “Ghare Baire”, “Raja”, etc. However, long spells of illness that sometimes
extended for years at a stretch, ultimately made her decide to stay away from the theatre from
1978. Sohini Sen in her article named "The arc of a vaulting soul" published in The Telegraph of
18th August 1995, sheds light on the fact that Shaonli Mitra was unable to find any meaning in
the works done in the contemporary theatre during the year 1978. However, Shaonli turned to
translating Ionesco, scripting stories for radio plays, recitations and experimenting with audio
plays for the next few years preparing to find something meaningful to be committed to.

Around this time, in 1982, Shaonli’s father Sombhu Mitra introduced her to the rich world
of Mahabharata through Iravati Karve's Yuganta. Being inspired by the history of discrimination
and systematic oppression of women from the mythical age to the contemporary one, she gifted
the theatre world two outstanding 'feminist' interpretation of the Great Indian Epic – “Nathabati
Anathabat” and “Katha Amrita Saman”.

1.3. The Setting of “Nathabati Anathabat”

Shaonli Mitra uses the Bengali indigenous folk form of story-telling tradition of kathakata for
both “Nathabati Anathabat” and “Katha Amrita Saman.” However, Shaonli modernizes the
genre by introducing several other features from different story telling traditions throughout the
country. Shaonli defines the Kathak as a narrator, a story-teller in pre-modern Bengal who would
narrate the major Hindu scriptural texts with verbal and musical embellishment. Such performers
were mostly males paid to perform at annual rituals or family rites of passage. Shaonli reverses
the hegemonic role of the male narrator by replacing it with the kathak-thakrun or Madam
Storyteller. The kathak-thakrun, interestingly does not wear the traditional garbs of a Bengali
woman. She, rather, pleats her sari differently and wears Orissi nose rings and ornaments.
Shaonli She is the conscious representation of contemporary times who looks back with empathy
and speaks to the fellow members of the society.

Mitra realizes the flexibility of having a story-teller who can slip from one narrative to the
other, from the past to the present and the perspectives of the characters through her oratory. She
contemporizes the Epic and through certain characters of the Epic focuses on different issues and
characters of her times. But instead of being the dispassionate male story-teller, kathak
thakrun unabashedly empathizes with the characters with an easy grounding of the epic
scholarship mentioning the names of Iravati Karve, Kashiram Das, Rajshekhar Basu and
Kaliprasanna Singha in between her narration, admitting that the story of Mahabharata has been
much discussed already, but dispassionately until now.

Many scholars have compared Mitra’s rendition of the epic with that of the celebrated
Pandavani performer Teejan Bai. But Mitra denies having witnessed any of Teejan Bai’s
performance before the first staging of “Nathabati Anathabat,” though she also admits that it
would have enriched the narrative in more ways than one.

DID YOU KNOW?

Pandavani (about the Pandavas) is a narrative ballad form of Chattisgarh, sung primarily by the Pardhan
and Devar castes, which is based on the stories from the Mahabharata. Since the epic was read by and
was accessible only to upper castes, a body of folk poetry developed around it that became popular in
villages and among lower castes in forms that are a little different from one another - Kapalik literally,
from the forehead, and Vedamati, based on the Vedas. The former uses the outline of
the Mahabharata but has Bhim as its hero. It is highly improvisatory, freely bringing in local legends
and myths stored in the head, which exist in the collective popular consciousness. The latter bases itself
strictly on the epic. The Kapalik performer stands and moves around, incorporating song, dance, and
acting to create a solo theatrical show. Vedamati consists of pure ballad- singing from a seated position.
It features mostly a single performer who sings the couplets form the text, set to folk tunes. The singer
uses a rural three- stringed tambura with bells tied at one end with castanets, symbols both as
accompaniment and as props, the performer brings alive the characters, their traits, moods and situations
while sitting on his knees. There are other instrumentalists also. The singer-actor brings also provides
explanations of the couplets as he goes along. In some cases, there is the ragi, a companion who asks
questions to facilitate relevance so that the audience can bond with the story. Pandavani is a
mesmerising genre of storytelling in either of its varieties. Vedamati has its most famous exponents in
Peenaram, Chetan Ram and their mentor Jhaduram Devangan. The Kapalik form is best represented by
Teejan Bai - possibly its first woman practitioner and celebrity who has made it on her own without help
from her community or family.
1.4. The Narrative of “Nathabati Anathabat”

In “Nathabati Anathabat”, Mitra starts with the slightly rustic accent of the Madam Storyteller
as she greets her audience and introduces her chorus companions or jurir dal and the context of
her story. She sings, weeps and laughs while telling the story with a passionate involvement,
otherwise denied to the traditional male narrator. She announces that she would talk about the
empty life of Draupadi, who was left unprotected in the oppressive society, in spite of having
five husbands. She starts how Draupadi falls in love with Arjun in the swayamvara and chooses
a life of poverty and suffering thinking him a poor Brahman. But instead, she is bartered to all
the five brothers as their wife in order to preserve the familial harmony between the brothers,
which might get disrupted as all of them lusted after Draupadi.

The story jumps to the gambling which ultimately leads to Draupadi’s forced public-
disrobing. Madam story teller gleefully narrates the brief period of opulence and peace of
Draupadi and the comic episode where Duryodhan is humiliated in the legendary palace of
illusions. As the narrator sings of Draupadi’s brief prosperity, she also talks about the disastrous
consequence of this harmless episode as Duryodhan decides to avenge his humiliation and ruin
the Pandavas. He lets his uncle Shakuni arrange for a dice-gambling and invites Yudhisthir to
participate. After losing everything, Yudhisthir also wagers the life of his brothers and his own
and ultimately that of Draupadi. As she is ignominiously dragged in the public courthouse,
Draupady tries to argue that having lost his own freedom in the game, Yudhisthir has also lost
his ownership on her and cannot stake her anymore. But egged by the silence of the elderly
politicians and the jeering of the younger ones, Dushwasan attempts to strip the meagerly clothed
and menstruating Draupadi and force her to surrender her body to the Kauravas.

Mitra unequivocally reveals the hypocrisy of Yudhisthir and the entire glorified concept of
unimpeachable honor and honesty associated with his honorific Dharmaraj, when he does not
refuse to participate in a dice-game that the Hindu scriptures otherwise disapproves. Draupadi’s
scream for help is stifled in a male dominated court. Mitra critically remarks that at times the
wise and the learned keep silent while the weak are tortured to save the harmony of the nation
state-- “They too have been robbed of speech!” Draupadi when dragged to court appeals to
Bheesma, critiquing the preposterousness of such a heinous act about to take place in his
presence without any kind of protest from him. Karna’s unethical suggestiveness disturbs her
further. Yet she chooses her dignity over prescribed norms of sexual sanctity and refuses to fall
on her knees and beg for mercy. Draupadi infers that it is they and not her who “should be
ashamed for shattering the bounds of decency.” She also hints that the alleged supernatural help
from Krishna did not come at all. Instead, Dhritarashtra had returned their property fearing
public outrage. She also mentions how only a younger brother of the Kauravas, Bikarna, had
attempted to voice his moral outrage and how Bheem had announced his intention to burn
Yudhisthir’s hands to punish him for Draupadi’s humiliation, but was stopped by Arjun with
words echoing honor.

This starts Draupadi’s grievances as they embark on an epoch long exile which is often
disturbed by Duryodhan’s assassins and conspiracies. The final year of disguised existence
brings her more humiliation as Kichak, the general and brother-in-law of the King they were
serving attempts to molest her. Feeling helpless from every quarter, Draupadi takes the help of
Bheem, who with silent warmth assures her safety and kills Kichak cruelly to ensure it. After
their exile, Draupadi eggs her husbands for a justice war, but is repeatedly thwarted until they
decide to fight it in the name of their honor not hers. She declares that if her husbands will not
avenge her honor, her five warrior sons would. Finally as the war starts, she is dejected to see the
mass genocide, and loses her senses as her five sons are murdered in their sleep.

In the final stage of “Nathabati Anathabat”, the Pandavas decide to leave for their final
journey along with Draupadi trusting their virtue to show them the path to heaven. As Draupadi
falls due to exhaustion and suffering, Yudhisthir explains the reason of her fall. He says that in
spite of being married to the five brothers, Draupadi unlawfully preferred Arjun over the other
four. Overhearing his declaration, Draupadi feels sad for Yudhishtir as she realizes that most of
his actions may be out of spite feeling neglected of Draupadi’s affection. As she lies dying,
Draupadi recollects her life and looks for some vestige of happiness. She realizes that out of all
the five brothers, it was only Bheem who loved her selflessly. It was he who had avenged her
dishonor but could never express his affection in words. As she waits for her death praying to
have Bheem back in her next life, he walks back to her and comforts her in her last moment.

Mitra ends her narration pointing out that Draupadi, being a princess by birth and a Queen by
marriage did not have the privileged life of the royalty. Instead, she was oppressed and
humiliated throughout her life, like most of the contemporary womenfolk. She also points out
that this has been the fate of women throughout history.

2. Brides are not for Burning

Brides are Not for Burning by Dina Mehta is a theatrical presentation of the domestic
violence against women perpetrated by the family or the in- laws. The inherent sexism and the
patriarchal social setup marginalize women and force them to fit into the category of ‘subaltern’.
A woman’s social position is determined by her relationship to men. The extent to which women
believe in the precepts of sexist ideology is only a reflection of the powers of coercion and social
control. The play reveals how women as the gendered subaltern passively bears social tyranny in
the form of oppression exercised by her father and brother before marriage and the jibes and
taunts of in-laws after it in demand for dowry or male offspring. The dramatist, with this
sensitive issue of bride-burning, questions the different institutions of society which are held
responsible for its smooth running.

DID YOU KNOW?

The anti-dowry laws in India were enacted in 1961 but both parties to the dowry, the
families of the husband and wife are criminalized. The laws have done nothing to halt
dowry transactions and the violence that is often associated with them. Police and the courts
are notorious for turning a blind eye to cases of violence against women and dowry
associated deaths. It was not until 1983 that domestic violence became punishable by law.
Some of the reasons for the under-reporting are obvious. As women are reluctant to report
threats and abuse to the police for fear of retaliation against themselves and their families.
In India there is an added hindrance. Any attempt to seek police involvement in disputes
over dowry transactions may result in members of the woman’s own family being subject to
criminal proceedings and potentially imprisoned. Moreover, police action is unlikely to stop
the demands for dowry payments. Many of the victims are burnt to death; they are doused
in kerosene and set light to. Routinely the in-laws claim that what happened was simply an
accident
2.1. Life of Dina Mehta

Dina Mehta is an Indian Persi writer. There are several short stories to her credit along with
several plays and a novel titled, And Some Take a Lover. The play Bridesare not for Burning has
been immensely popular with Mumbai audience. The novel And Some Take a Lover, centers on a
proposed inter-caste marriage between a sophisticated Parsi girl by the name of Miss Roshni
Wadia and the simple Gandhian boy Sudhir, for whom public duty is of greater importance than
any other thing in life.

Her first full-length play The Myth Makers (1969) won the Sultan Padamsee Playwriting
Competition and Tiger Tiger (1978) based on the life of Tipu Sultan won critical acclaim. Brides
are not for Burning won the theatre competition organized by BBC. Her other significant play
Getting away with Murder deals with childhood trauma, sexual abuse, infidelity and insecure
relationships in the modern urban spaces. She also brings out the parochial narrow-mindedness
in Mumbai and other metropolis.

2.2. Set Design and Stage Direction of the play

The play has a complicated set design and numerous stage directions strewn throughout. The
setting needs five different acting areas: the Desai tenement room with its shabby and grim
sparse furnishing; Sanjay’s living room with its rich and plush furnishing; Vinod’s office; Tarla’s
kitchen and the in-law’s living-cum dining room with its rich but ugly furnishing. Mehta gives
detailed description of each of the acting areas with its furnishing and positioning of the props.
She also mentions that out of the three scenes of Act I, the first two will be acted in the Desai
tenement room and the third one in Sanjay’s living room. In the second act, the first scene and
the last are acted in the Desai tenement room, the second one in Vinod’s office, the third one in
Tarla’s kitchen and the fourth in the in-law’s living cum dining room. Mehta gives precise
directions for actions, lights, expressions and costume for each of the scenes as well. The final
stage direction resolves the stalemate between Roy and Malini as she is shown to grow in stature
as they confront each other.

2.3. Plot Overview of Brides are not for Burning

The plot revolves around the suspicious and premature death of the eldest daughter of the
Desai family—Laxmi. Her siblings Anil and Malini try to get justice for her but are thwarted
repeatedly due to corrupt judiciary and police.

Act I, Scene i, introduces Anil, Malini and their almost senile father, who discuss Laxmi’s
death, which has recently been ruled as an accident. We learn that Anil is a gifted but poor
school teacher and Malini is a college student who once aspired to study law. They discuss the
gruesome death and mourn the fact that they cannot get justice for the victim. Malini spiritedly
argues that she has learnt from Laxmi’s neighbor Tarla that Laxmi was systematically harassed
for dowry and for not bearing any children even after five years of conjugal life. She also
declares her suspicion of dowry death. Anil protests her jumping to conclusion. We also learn
that following the early death of their mother Laxmi had to give up studies to care for her
siblings and was married off early to a rich family. Anil announces that he will not give up his
ideals and therefore, will not join Malini’s boyfriend Sanjay’s corrupt company. Roy, one of the
so called political rebels comes to sexually harass Malini and to urge her to run away with him to
aid his rebellion. He has a tiff with Anil who gets suspicious of Malini’s actions.

Scene ii opens with Anil entertaining his father by playing cards with him. Professor Palkar,
Anil’s old teacher comes to extend his condolences and to warn Anil that Malini is consorting
with political undesirables. Moreover, he mentions his friendship with the doctor who attended
Laxmi after her death, and points out that the doctor was called three and a half hours after
Laxmi’s death. He also expresses concern over Roy, who, in his opinion, is a trouble maker.
Anil’s suspicion increases and he finally opens Malini’s old trunk, in which he finds
revolutionary manifestos with firearms.

Scene iii shifts the stage to Sanjay’s living room, where he tries to seduce Malini but admits
that he does not want to marry her. Malini argues her position but gives in Sanjay’s demands out
of self-disgust and bitterness. She also finds out that Vinod, Laxmi’s husband had requested
Sanjay to reinstate Tarla’s husband in his earlier job, and realizes Tarla’s unwillingness to testify
truthfully.

Act II, scene i shifts back to the Desai tenement room, where father is seen complaining about
everything to Malini, often mistaking her for Laxmi. Anil comes in and informs that Professor
Palkar has been assaulted and had died in the hands of the political rebels. He also discusses with
Malini about Laxmi’s death and realizes that it was orchestrated by Vinod and his family to get
Laxmi’s life insurance money.

Scene ii is acted in Vinod’s office where Anil confronts him and reveals that he knows the
truth about Laxmi’s death and will bring legal justice. Vinod aggressively denies all accusations
and later tries to bribe Anil to forgo the legal suit and is uncomfortable when he refuses it.

Scene iii shifts in Tarla’s kitchen where Malini confronts her as she is frying sweets for her
daughter’s birthday. She worms out half the truth from her and realizes that Laxmi tried to
commit suicide after being repeatedly harassed and her in-laws did not try to break the door of
the kitchen to save her. Laxmi’s mother-in-law overhears the conversation and threatens to ruin
Tarla’s family for disclosing the secret to Malini.

Scene iv happens in Laxmi’s in-law’s place, where Malini bribes Vinod’s younger brother
Arjun with sweets to tell her the truth. She learns from the servant Kallu and Arjun the entire
truth—the day of the incident Laxmi was abused by her in-laws and had locked herself in the
kitchen trying to self-immolate. Though her in-laws could have broken the door and save her,
they decided not to do anything and to let her die.

The last scene comes back to the Desai tenement room, where Malini discloses the horrible
truth to Anil. And together they realize that they would never be able to bring justice from the
corrupt system. Malini prepares to leave with Roy, but reconsiders later realizing that no political
change with affect this social evil, unless women themselves make a stand for their own. She
declares, “I see now that if I follow you, I only exchange one servitude for another. The boot in
the face for a place in the kitchen; Brides will not stop burning when you take over the world,
Roy. All I can learn from you are new dishonesties, so GO” (Mehta 1993:94). She stands up to
Roy as an equal who continues to abuse her. The play ends with the two of them confronting
each other, with Malini gaining the highlight as the curtain closes.
2.4. Major Themes in Brides are not for Burning

Patriarchal Oppression: the play majorly addresses the innate sexism of our patriarchal
society, where women are always treated as the downtrodden without any resources or means to
make a life of their own. Their role as mother, wife, sister and daughter are often fraught with
systematic oppression by their family and the society at large. They are subjected to sexual
abuse, parental tyranny, sacrifices and humiliation occasionally. From the father’s senile
declarations, we learn how he had abandoned his first wife when she could not present him with
children. We also learn from his sleepy mumblings how his second wife was repeatedly
subjected to marital rape. It becomes apparent that Laxmi had to stay home abandoning her
studies to take care of her younger siblings. She was also married off to a rich family to preserve
the honor and reputation of the Desais. Her systematic domestic abuse in her in-law’s house
drove her to suicide. Malini is being sexually abused by her political compatriot Roy and her
lover Sanjay. Even Anil tries to curb her political aspirations occasionally.

Corruption: Malini and Anil are repeatedly thwarted in their attempt to seek justice for
Laxmi, as they realize that Laxmi’s rich in-laws have bribed the officials who will not investigate
the death objectively. It is also hinted that Sanjay’s business has several shady dealings and that
he had reinstated Tarla’s alcoholic husband as a favor to Vinod. Vinod, in turn, maneuvers
Tarla’s gratitude trying to stop her from testifying truthfully about Laxmi’s death. He also bribes
Kallu to stop him from being another witness to the heinous crime. In the play, Malini
prophetically questions whether a Harijan, or an untouchable will ever be able to seek justice in
our corrupt judiciary. She also declares her contempt for this system: “I spit on your law courts!
Playthings in the hands of exploiters and reactionaries, they deal out one kind of justice to the
rich, another to the poor” (Mehta 1993:18).