Loka Shakuntala
I do not say for certain that this play is just what I think it is. Nor do I think of any work of art as a bundle of 'meanings'. It is a living being, a breathing entity that is capable of 'flashing' on one's mind innumerable meanings. It does not go out distributing 'meanings' from its inexhaustible bag. It can evoke only such meanings as might be present in the sympathetic viewer (sahridaya), and not give out its own makings. It is because of this view of mine that I am not attracted to what is known as 'practical criticism". Sorry, if I have gone too far on history and literature. But, please note that in the process, I have said much of what I should say about the viewpoint, and the thought process behind my production of the play.
In his play, Kalidasa portrayal the mythical culture of Hastinawati. He does this suggestively, and under its cover, that is in reality, he goes on to portray the Gupta period known as the golden age of human culture. On this backdrop he tries to explore the man-woman relationship as well as the memory-oblivion dialectic. With all this, there is reason that Kalidasa comes close to me: even today, we are struggling to create heroes, to centralise power and produce material comforts as necessary concomitants to cultural development. But now like the good it also gives rise to the evil, viz. dictatorship, violence, exploitation, oppression and suppression of individuals freedom and so on! And the poison that would radically destroy humanity somehow gets mixed up with the very process that carries humanity to its glory! (This was my prime concern even when I directed Ghasiram Kotwal sometimes ago).
How the very same memory-oblivion tussle has been going on even now not in man-woman relationship alone but in all human relationships! And how due to the tragedy of the memory-oblivion tussle man has neither been able to live peacefully forgetting the past like animals, nor has he been able to live an enlightened life remembering everything and not repeating the past mistakes!
While the backdrop of the Vyasa and Gupta periods created a sense of remoteness where the time of action is concerned, Shakuntala came handy to me in exploiting in its perspective our public institutions and the peculiarities of the private individuals, the very many interactions between the two, often obvious and often subtle, going on endlessly as a result, such as man and society, liberty and equality, centralisation and decentralisation, leadership and anarchy, village and town, mechanisation and demechanisation, patriotism and nationalism, violence and non-violence, greed and sacrifice, economy and extravagance, and memory and oblivion and so on.
**** **** ****
|
