Recently I got to watch 'Sakharam Binder', a controversial Marathi play by Vijay Tendulkar. It was first brought on stage in 1972 by Kamlakar Sarang, amidst much controversy. I got to watch a recent production of the play in video version and thought of jotting down my thoughts on the play.
The play has three central characters, Sakharam Binder, Laxmi and Champa. Sakharam, the play's namesake, is the pivotal character. An opportunistic male, a self proclaimed womanizer who loves to drink and doesn’t give a damn about social values. Like a predator preying on the weakest among the herd, he finds women abandoned by their husbands. Dishonored from society and unable to provide for themselves, Sakharam with his offer of a house to stay, two square meals, two set of clothes might at first seem like a savior. But it comes with a heavy price. An almost slave like existence under a tyrant master, who demands satisfaction of his hunger and other bodily needs and liberally uses his mouth for slander and hands for beating.
The play starts with Sakharam bringing home Laxmi, a timid soul, abandoned by her husband for not having kids. Of course Sakharam is exceptionally clear in telling her of what's involved, in an almost well practiced speech (apparently this is his seventh woman). We don’t know what happened with most of them, except that the previous one died of TB. And while talking about her we come across a side of Sakharam which seems almost human. Also what comes across is his hatred of the institution of marriage, husbands in particular. Therein lays the complexity of the character. The same person, who seems to hate marriage, tells each woman that he expects them to stay with him as if she is his married wife. The women are each free to leave him whenever they desire, yet as long as they live in the house they are not even supposed to talk or keep contact with anyone else. Is this irony just his selfish assumption of what a marriage should be or a mockery of that institution? There are subtle hints about his background, his childhood which make one wonder whether he too is just a victim of his past.
Laxmi seems to settle in with this way of life, working hard and making amends with her loneliness by talking to insects and birds. In her own simple ways she seems to bring about some changes in Sakharam, peeling the outermost layer at most. The inner demon however keeps coming out at the slightest instigation. The audience is kept wondering about this character. He seems to hate religious discrimination (an incident involving Laxmi and his Muslim friend, Dawood), appears tender enough to want to listen Laxmi's laugh but the effect is painful and chilling. A year or so passes and Laxmi feels settled enough to complain about the hard work and any lack of regard. Sakharam in turn decides its time to send Laxmi packing. The departure is painful for Laxmi as she has almost started accepting this as her house.
And in comes a new 'bird', a fiery woman named Champa. She too is an abandoned woman like those before her. But unlike Laxmi she is not timid, silently obeying orders. Surprisingly Sakharam seems to take this in, if only dumbstruck by Champa's oozing sexuality. But she is not interested, telling him "I am not that kind of woman". On his insistence though she agrees, but drowning herself in alcohol first to hide the disgust. Things seem to settle in for Sakharam once again until one day Laxmi returns back, with nowhere else to go. He throws her out only to find Champa and Laxmi in alliance together, mutually in agreement for Champa to handle him and Laxmi to manage the house. Such a 'marriage' of convenience can only have disastrous effects.
Feeling that she has lost Sakharam and the house to Champa, Laxmi starts suspecting and secretly criticizing Champa's character. Champa in turn accuses Sakharam of losing his 'masculinity' in presence of Laxmi. Riled by this accusation he tries throwing Laxmi out of the house. In a final twist Laxmi tells Sakharam of her suspicion about Champa (an affair with Dawood) which leads him to kill Champa in rage. The play ends with Laxmi convincing a shocked, mutely stricken Sakharam to bury Champa so no one finds out.
Laxmi's behavior at the end makes one question whether everything is just a game of survival, where love, innocence and gratitude are at stake. Champa's so-called affair is never truly proven. So, did Laxmi just make it up, drawing it up as an ace to win the final game? Did Champa agree to take in Laxmi hoping to divert Sakharam's attention from herself? Does the society hate Sakharam for being a wolf, calling himself a wolf and wandering as such? What about the wolves (husbands) who hide themselves in a lamb's skin (marriage) silently preying on the flock? Does society purposefully turn a blind eye towards them, licensing any abuse under the garb of marriage? These and much more questions that one is made to ask themselves. That is the strength of Tendulkar's play.
Personally I do seemed to notice some flaws (they may not appear so to others). One such is the presence of Champa's husband. I doubt how much value his character adds to the play. I don’t think anything would have lost with the total absence of that character from the play. Second is Champa's blatant physical display, almost making it a tease in spite of her own admittance of disgust at physical relationship. Is she just unaware of her sexuality? Her character seems smart enough that she would be conscious of it. Laxmi's dialogues with the insects and birds seem to be somewhat overdone in the script (I agree though that they are a delight for the actor to play and the audience to watch). Maybe it is so to bring out her feelings to the audience or to emphasize her loneliness. I wonder whether Tendulkar could have brought it out more subtly.
The biggest tool of the play is the shock treatment that Tendulkar uses, not just through the play's subject but through the character's language, actions, behavior, conflicts. I seem to be in dual minds as to whether this works for or against the play. It seems the former in most instances but apparently enough people were shocked and took exception to it (based on some reactions in the audience when I saw it, this still seems to be true). Maybe that’s what Tendulkar had in mind. Also I wonder how much of it was contributed by the play's original director, Kamlakar Sarang, in his treatment of the play, interpretation of characters and its depiction on stage. (I have seen comments from no other than theater veteran Vijaya Mehta, about how director Jabbar Patel's choice of form, for another of Tendulkar's play 'Ghashiram Kotwal', feels overpowering the content)
I am unfortunate enough not to have seen the original play so I cannot make any comparisons with the recent production. But it is my guess that it has its heavy influence. That said all the main actors, Sayaji Shinde, Sonali Kulkarni and Chinmayee Sumit do a truly amazing job, perfectly slipping into their roles.
Lastly the question comes of relevance of the play as of today. Only in the recent years the Indian Supreme court has ruled that cohabitation out of wedlock is legal. Divorce/ remarriages are much more common. More women are independent, so as not to fall prey to any social vultures. So at least that aspect seems somewhat dampened if not totally eliminated. However the survival game of every living being, where money, relations, emotions are freely traded, is very much in play as it has been throughout the history of mankind. So every generation is bound to have a Laxmi, a Champa and a Sakharam amongst it, in some form or other no matter what.
Suresh Nair
(Apr - 2010)
The play has three central characters, Sakharam Binder, Laxmi and Champa. Sakharam, the play's namesake, is the pivotal character. An opportunistic male, a self proclaimed womanizer who loves to drink and doesn’t give a damn about social values. Like a predator preying on the weakest among the herd, he finds women abandoned by their husbands. Dishonored from society and unable to provide for themselves, Sakharam with his offer of a house to stay, two square meals, two set of clothes might at first seem like a savior. But it comes with a heavy price. An almost slave like existence under a tyrant master, who demands satisfaction of his hunger and other bodily needs and liberally uses his mouth for slander and hands for beating.
The play starts with Sakharam bringing home Laxmi, a timid soul, abandoned by her husband for not having kids. Of course Sakharam is exceptionally clear in telling her of what's involved, in an almost well practiced speech (apparently this is his seventh woman). We don’t know what happened with most of them, except that the previous one died of TB. And while talking about her we come across a side of Sakharam which seems almost human. Also what comes across is his hatred of the institution of marriage, husbands in particular. Therein lays the complexity of the character. The same person, who seems to hate marriage, tells each woman that he expects them to stay with him as if she is his married wife. The women are each free to leave him whenever they desire, yet as long as they live in the house they are not even supposed to talk or keep contact with anyone else. Is this irony just his selfish assumption of what a marriage should be or a mockery of that institution? There are subtle hints about his background, his childhood which make one wonder whether he too is just a victim of his past.
Laxmi seems to settle in with this way of life, working hard and making amends with her loneliness by talking to insects and birds. In her own simple ways she seems to bring about some changes in Sakharam, peeling the outermost layer at most. The inner demon however keeps coming out at the slightest instigation. The audience is kept wondering about this character. He seems to hate religious discrimination (an incident involving Laxmi and his Muslim friend, Dawood), appears tender enough to want to listen Laxmi's laugh but the effect is painful and chilling. A year or so passes and Laxmi feels settled enough to complain about the hard work and any lack of regard. Sakharam in turn decides its time to send Laxmi packing. The departure is painful for Laxmi as she has almost started accepting this as her house.
And in comes a new 'bird', a fiery woman named Champa. She too is an abandoned woman like those before her. But unlike Laxmi she is not timid, silently obeying orders. Surprisingly Sakharam seems to take this in, if only dumbstruck by Champa's oozing sexuality. But she is not interested, telling him "I am not that kind of woman". On his insistence though she agrees, but drowning herself in alcohol first to hide the disgust. Things seem to settle in for Sakharam once again until one day Laxmi returns back, with nowhere else to go. He throws her out only to find Champa and Laxmi in alliance together, mutually in agreement for Champa to handle him and Laxmi to manage the house. Such a 'marriage' of convenience can only have disastrous effects.
Feeling that she has lost Sakharam and the house to Champa, Laxmi starts suspecting and secretly criticizing Champa's character. Champa in turn accuses Sakharam of losing his 'masculinity' in presence of Laxmi. Riled by this accusation he tries throwing Laxmi out of the house. In a final twist Laxmi tells Sakharam of her suspicion about Champa (an affair with Dawood) which leads him to kill Champa in rage. The play ends with Laxmi convincing a shocked, mutely stricken Sakharam to bury Champa so no one finds out.
Laxmi's behavior at the end makes one question whether everything is just a game of survival, where love, innocence and gratitude are at stake. Champa's so-called affair is never truly proven. So, did Laxmi just make it up, drawing it up as an ace to win the final game? Did Champa agree to take in Laxmi hoping to divert Sakharam's attention from herself? Does the society hate Sakharam for being a wolf, calling himself a wolf and wandering as such? What about the wolves (husbands) who hide themselves in a lamb's skin (marriage) silently preying on the flock? Does society purposefully turn a blind eye towards them, licensing any abuse under the garb of marriage? These and much more questions that one is made to ask themselves. That is the strength of Tendulkar's play.
Personally I do seemed to notice some flaws (they may not appear so to others). One such is the presence of Champa's husband. I doubt how much value his character adds to the play. I don’t think anything would have lost with the total absence of that character from the play. Second is Champa's blatant physical display, almost making it a tease in spite of her own admittance of disgust at physical relationship. Is she just unaware of her sexuality? Her character seems smart enough that she would be conscious of it. Laxmi's dialogues with the insects and birds seem to be somewhat overdone in the script (I agree though that they are a delight for the actor to play and the audience to watch). Maybe it is so to bring out her feelings to the audience or to emphasize her loneliness. I wonder whether Tendulkar could have brought it out more subtly.
The biggest tool of the play is the shock treatment that Tendulkar uses, not just through the play's subject but through the character's language, actions, behavior, conflicts. I seem to be in dual minds as to whether this works for or against the play. It seems the former in most instances but apparently enough people were shocked and took exception to it (based on some reactions in the audience when I saw it, this still seems to be true). Maybe that’s what Tendulkar had in mind. Also I wonder how much of it was contributed by the play's original director, Kamlakar Sarang, in his treatment of the play, interpretation of characters and its depiction on stage. (I have seen comments from no other than theater veteran Vijaya Mehta, about how director Jabbar Patel's choice of form, for another of Tendulkar's play 'Ghashiram Kotwal', feels overpowering the content)
I am unfortunate enough not to have seen the original play so I cannot make any comparisons with the recent production. But it is my guess that it has its heavy influence. That said all the main actors, Sayaji Shinde, Sonali Kulkarni and Chinmayee Sumit do a truly amazing job, perfectly slipping into their roles.
Lastly the question comes of relevance of the play as of today. Only in the recent years the Indian Supreme court has ruled that cohabitation out of wedlock is legal. Divorce/ remarriages are much more common. More women are independent, so as not to fall prey to any social vultures. So at least that aspect seems somewhat dampened if not totally eliminated. However the survival game of every living being, where money, relations, emotions are freely traded, is very much in play as it has been throughout the history of mankind. So every generation is bound to have a Laxmi, a Champa and a Sakharam amongst it, in some form or other no matter what.
Suresh Nair
(Apr - 2010)
I think the character of faujdar or Champa's husband is mainly used to establish the character of Laxmi as an opportunist. After getting help from Champa to get reentry in Sakharam's house, she considers herself superior to her. Her conversation with Champa's husband establish her way of thinking and her take on Champa
ReplyDeleteCouldn't find a good analysis or summary of this play till this. Thank you for your insights.
ReplyDelete