Muktadhara

Muktadhara is a dramatic work written by Tagore in the year 1922. It exhibits

Tagore’s message to the downtrodden people, who are robbed of their elementary needs and
dignity, to rise in revolt against all forms of oppression.
In the play, Tagore chronicles the fate of Uttarakut, a small kingdom, whose King
Ranajit is a despotic ruler. He decides to build a dam across the waterfall Muktadhara so that
he could deny water to the people of the neighbouring state Shivtarai and augment his
command over them. Ranajit wants to make the people of Shiv-tarai depend on him for food
items. This causes great social injustice in the hearts of the people of Shiv-tarai for not having
water supply.
After building the dam, the people of Shiv-tarai cannot produce any crops. They
suffer a lot. The king does not bother about their sufferings. He wants to collect taxes from
Shiv-tarayans. He does not show them mercy. He causes injustice to Shiv-tarayans.
Ranajit does not know the value of human life. Suman is the son of Amba. He is made
as a slave. He is washed away by water while constructing the dam. His mother is not
informed of her son’s death. She is not given justice for the lost of her son. Her appeal is
unheard and ignored. Amba says
“Suman! My Suman! All the rest have come back, baba, but my Suman
hasn’t come home yet. They took him somewhere.
Under such circumstances, the character named Dhananjay Boiragi Dhananjaya
stands against injustice. He is an advocate of non-violence. He encouraged the people to fight
for their emancipation from the prevailing tyrannical political order. He says, “Won’t stop the
storm but hold your rudder steady and you win.” Eventually, Prince Abhijit ascends to the
throne of Uttarakut and has the dam demolished.
The play ends with the death of the crown prince. Abhijit releases Mukta-Dhara from
the imprisonment of the dam. His spirit is shown as triumphant over the injustice forces
unleashed by the king. Some injustices are made to the people of Shiv-tarai, but the crown
prince stands against these injustices through the destruction of dam in order to free flow of
water. Thus Mukta-Dhara has two important issues- man against machine and the other non-
violence against violence.
The title, Mukta-Dhara is a perfect symbol of individual freedom. The picture of
social inequality, exploitation of the poor’s manpower and unhealthy consequences of
economic crisis has made Muktadhara a bundle of social injustice. Thus the title
“Muktadhara” is not only the freed flow of a mountain river by the name but the torrential
flood of “love” of the prince which has been held by the “dam” called throne.

*********************
Nalini: A Comedy in Three Acts
- Nissim Ezekiel

Nalini: A Comedy in Three Acts (1969) is a paly written by Nissim Ezekiel. It is based on the
playwright’s personal experience and observations. Ezekiel has worked as an art critic of Times of
India and also as a manager in Shipli advertising. He was familiar with art exhibitions of painters like
Nalini and the fake world of business executives. He has subtitled Nalini as a comedy which reveals
hollow life of business executives. But it is more a tragedy of human life which is successfully
portrayed through the characters Bharat and Raj.
The play opens humorously and ironically. Bharat is listening to music, gets disturbed by the
entrance of Raj. Bharat’s sitting still shows the idleness in his life. It is seen through his dialogue
when he quotes
Pascal:
“the sum of evil in the world would be much diminished if men
could only learn to sit quietly in their rooms... I am busy
diminishing the sum of evil in the world.” (Ezekiel. 1969.9)
A very trivial situation is interpreted seriously. We find the juxtaposition of opposites: action
and inaction which creates the humour. Nalini, a young woman painter, wants an exhibition of her
paintings. Bharat and Raj are advertising executives. Nalini approaches Raj for his help. Raj wants to
win favour of Nalini, so he approaches Bharat to ask for his help to organize publicity for Nalini ’s
paintings.
Bharat too agrees to help as he has more contacts with the journalists and especially
“contacts in the right places.” (Ibid. 11). But Bharat is totally ignorant of art. He cheats people by
manipulating words. The hollowness and insincerity of his life is revealed in his encounter with
Nalini, who rejects his help.
Ezekiel portrays the two worlds: the hollow world of young executives and the contrast
between the two Nalini’s - one of Bharat’s dream and the other real. The life of Bharat and Raj is full
of insincerity.
These business executives are portrayed as skilled players of the game of deceit. Raj, who
has no idea about the art of painting, is interested in the exhibition of Nalini’s paintings. When
Bharat asks him whether the paintings are worth exhibiting, he replies:
“Does it matter? They are paintings, canvases with colour on them,
plenty of colours in various forms. ” (Ibid)
Nalini is a social satire on the executives like Bharat and Raj. They
are modem but hollow inside and full of vanity. Ezekiel shows that the
glitter and show is modernity for the middle class urban people. There is
nothing as such creative and serious in their life. It is shown through
Bharat’s dialogue:
“I can’t build anything; I can mix only with people like myself,
who dress like me. I can’t stand people who don ’t dress well. ”
(Ibid. 12)
The cause of Bharat’s suffering is the false notion of superiority. Nalini exposes him by
pulling his mask. She does not fall prey to the magical words of Bharat. Nalini exposes Bharat ’s two
lives - the outward and the inward.
The pretentiousness and snobbery in the world of middle class is exposed. Bharat is a person
suffering with alienation. The Nalini which he expects to fulfill his sensual desires lets herself to be
seduced by him. It is only the illusion of Nalini. But the dream gets shattered when he encounters
the real Nalini. The real Nalini is an intelligent woman but not as attractive as in the dream of Bharat.
Raj is also struggling with alienation. It is seen through his dialogue:
“ I have eyes and I can see, I have ears and I can hear. Though I do
nothing about it, I feel everything. ” (Ibid.21)
Raj’s helplessness is not fixed. He feels that he could get rid of his passivity. He narrates his
first love affair when he was just thirteen years old. He describes his early experiences in a school
hostel where he used to go to meet Sally. He climbed over a glass-covered wall and fell. His bleeding
knees were being licked by her. But they never met in future.
The sadness is abiding on him and he continues to live in isolation. His failure to
communicate continues right from his childhood. Raj and Bharat are alienated at the same level. But
Raj’s alienation is more tragic because it is related to his personal experiences. On the other hand,
Bharat’s alienation is related to brain. It is related with business of living and in this way it is static
and isolated. The way in which he visualizes his other self in his meetings with Raj and the two
Nalini’s is the evidence of his alienation.
Raj and Bharat both encounter the first Nalini which is visualized by them. She is just a
female for them; a dreamt woman. They praise her unnaturally. When Bharat compliments Nalini as,
“you are not a virgin.” (Ibid.37), she slaps him. Now the first Nalini disappears and the bell rings for
second Nalini. But she does not appear. The bell continues to ring loudly like a roar. Nalini cannot be
considered a character, as there are two Nalini ’s. Nalini is a dream as well as a reality. The reality is
Bharat and Raj’s development of alienation, the different states of isolation. The symbol of ringing
bell is skillfully handled by the playwright. Each scene starts with a ringing of the bell. At the end of
the play the noise of bell goes beyond control. Raj and Bharat, pretending to be sophisticated
gentlemen are tormented with confusion. They are helpless before the external force in the form of
a bell which over-powers them. This force is used to show the reality of their isolation.
Being a poet foremost, Ezekiel was very keen in his selection of verse, but as a dramatist too,
he deals with situations very seriously. He controlled the significant experience by using stylized
expression of ideas.
When the situation went out of control, he transferred it into a symbolic metaphor like the
bell. We find the conversation between Raj and Bharat in this vein; especially when Raj replies to
Bharat’s accusation:
“That everybody does, except the saints. The important thing is to
keep both lives in some sort of control and not let them drift apart
too much.” (Ibid. 18)
This leads to the two lives-the inner and the outward. And perhaps this is true of Ezekiel as a
poet and as a dramatist too. This is the point at which Ezekiel’s plays and verse come close together.
As a poet, he reveals “the ordinariness of most events.” Ezekiel tries to show recurrently, the ability
to keep ordinary events from dissolving into insignificance. But he also uses the ordinary events as a
measure to control his verse for preciseness. Thus his drama portrays reality of life.
Ezekiel’s success in keeping the same values in his plays as of verse is in question. His verse is
significantly marked by silence, his experiences are precise. His sensibility is totally lyric but with his
plays it is not fully harmonious. This can be seen in the lack of action in Nalini.
But the selection of a theme and the impact of the dialogues on the reader make the play
dramatic, highlighting the dramatist in Ezekiel. Nalini is both amusing and a disappointing
commentary on the contemporary art scene in India. Raj and Bharat are ready to help Nalini towards
the publicity of the exhibition of her paintings only because they can come closer to her and exploit
her. The play is an attack on the artists who have become commercial and art critics who have no
knowledge about art. The play is realistic and mirrors the vulgarity of the intellectuals. Ezekiel’s
characters have double personalities. They have inner as well as outward pretentious personalities.
Raj refers to himself as “I am not an intellectual.” (Ibid. 17). Bharat ’s reply is also very satiric,
“That’s what all my friends say, and everybody in my circle says it. I am not an intellectual.” (Ibid).
Bharat and Raj live in an illusion. They ignore the voice of conscience. This ignorance crushes their
soul. Bharat thinks that action should precede thought. When he comes out of the fantasy of dreamt
Nalini; the real Nalini fires him:
“You’re incapable of being truthful... but you just can’t help
shooting a line at me, hoping for the best... You’ve essentially a
gambler.” (Ibid. 37)
Bharat and Raj’s thoughts about Nalini show the prejudices of men against women artists.
They generalize all women in a category. Nalini ’s severe commentary reveals this:
“You have a formula; you can’t imagine an individual woman. You
can’t believe that a woman may want to create a world of her own just as
a creative man does, a woman with a will to explore herself and the world
around her.” (Ibid.38)
Nalini explains the creative process to Bharat. According to her every piece of art involves
creativity. Ezekiel shows the immaturity of whole middle class through Bharat and Raj. They are the
types and can be found anywhere. Ezekiel presents the shallow world of business executives. The
play presents the conflict of two selves which go in parallel with two Nalini’s - one which he dreams
as a woman fulfilling his sensuous desires and the other the real Nalini. Bharat is an exploiter of
innocent artists. Ezekiel shows through Nalini, the struggle which a pure artist has to do for
establishing herself. Perhaps somewhere in the Nalini ’s search lies the reflection of Ezekiel the
poet’s search for the dramatist - a search for a new creative man hidden behind the known poet.
Maybe he too struggled with this new genre to establish himself and break the well known type into
which he had fit as a poet. New avenues always offer challenges end to an established poet like him,
the genre of drama has maybe a new spice to life.
Ezekiel has structured the play very successfully. There is conversation between two persons
in three scenes. Bharat and Raj discuss their hopes and wishes in the first act. Nalini enters in the
second act; both in the dream of Bharat and in reality. It shows that Bharat is a day dreamer and not
a person who runs with facts. And in the third act, Raj and Bharat discuss the aftermath of the
situation. Bharat’s reference to himself as an intellectual is only a satire on his false notions about
himself. Ezekiel shows pseudo - intellectualism of Bharat.
The play ends as a burlesque. Bharat and Raj try to come out of the schizophrenia of Nalini.
They conclude that creation comes out of suffering only. Ezekiel dismisses the hollowness of both
Bharat and Raj. The ringing of the bell at the end announces a revolution for the consumption of
these men. Ezekiel has mirrored the vulgarity of the middle class in India. The disappointment of
Bharat and Raj is portrayed as follows:
Raj: She’s gone.
Bharat: What next?
Raj: Call the second Nalini.
Bharat: Wait a minute. Let’s drink and recover form the first Nalini,
we shouldn’t have upset her. She can’t help being what she is, just
as we can’t help being what we are.
Raj: All the same, call the second Nalini.
Bharat: Are you sure you want her? She’ll be even more difficult.
She may upset us.
Raj: Do you think so?
Bharat: Certainly, certainly. But you’re right. Let’s call her. We
have no alternative. We have no alternative. We can’t stop now.
(Ibid.51)
Bharat and Raj look at Nalini as a stereotyped image. Ezekiel demolishes these stereotypes
by presenting the real Nalini as a woman of greater intelligence. The male attitude towards a female
is clearly seen when Raj calls Nalini as, “You are 35-24-35.” (Ibid. 49). Ezekiel tries to liberate women
from the male gaze. The exhibition of Nalini ’s paintings is a mere vehicle for Raj and Bharat to come
closer to her only physically.
The real Nalini is shown as less attractive. She stands in contrast with Bharat’s fantasized
Nalini. The real Nalini is a modem woman who does not want to be dependent on anyone. She
rejects Bharat’s advances.
Ezekiel explores the inability of the male to accept rejection from a woman. Bharat and Raj
think of Nalini as a readily available commodity' but she turns them down. Being rejected, Bharat
and Raj try to reconcile the real Nalini. But it is not possible for them. Bharat’s reaction “Damn her.”
(Ibid.45) shows their hollowness. Ezekiel ridicules all men who cannot visualize a woman as a human
being. Ezekiel satirizes the superficial lifestyle of male characters and exposes traditional attitude
towards women.
As a dramatist Ezekiel performs his socio-cultural function well, even though as a pure
dramatist perhaps does not attain the heights of the poet he is. Yet one cannot deny him a place in
the world of drama.

The Sentry’s Lantern is a symbolic articulation of the renewed hope of a new era for the
downtrodden mass.