 This lecture is titled, Interacting Continuum of Classical Folk and Modern Drama. This of course requires close reading and understanding of the previous lectures, but I think we do want to move forward with these ideas primarily from the point of view of playwriting and therefore, we will also maintain a balance between Natak and Bhan or plays with many characters and monologues with a single character. So, let me share the outline of this lecture, so that you are able to see the point of view that I am trying to share with you. The first part is devoted to this idea of interacting continuum of classical folk and modern drama, where we will explain these terms clearly to you and we will also point out how this process has been a very complex set of exchanges between various countries and also within the countries between different languages and aesthetic practices. We will then move on to show the outcome of these encounters by way of textual details. We are trying now to develop momentum in terms of textuality, so that you can also have some sense of how a full script works out, due to copyright reasons we have not been able to do that to our satisfaction, but I think in the next two lectures we would have taken care of some of this difficulty. So, the second part will deal with postcolonial adaptations and interpretations and once again we would move from Natak to monologue and in the third part therefore, our focus will be on monologues. At no point do we want to give up the term dialogue, because I feel that theatre or drama is inherently a dialogic form in the sense of trying to develop a dialogue between the performers and or a performer and the audience. So, it is always a very dynamic process, we have shared these ideas with you earlier and therefore, even while talking about monologues I really do not want to give up this sense of dialogues. So, this is the way we have structured this lecture and first of all we would start with this idea of the continuum, why is it that we have been harping it time and again. That is because often students ask us and these are of course very earnest questions, they ask us about a worldview, how do we develop a creative outlook, how do we develop a creative worldview and that is a very difficult question to answer indeed, but it is as I said a very earnest question and therefore, you know when we talk about these encounters, these exchanges, these dynamic layerings between different kinds of traditions and historical periods, because many of them have emerged in different historical conditions, but the aesthetic forms have remained, the times have changed, but the aesthetic forms have remained. So, I think what we are trying to suggest is this need for a great deal of alertness in terms of locating yourself within the complex cross currents of your own location, the complex cultural cross currents and not really keep your options very very limited, this is what we are trying to suggest and we also feel very strongly that one way of trying to understand how to develop one's own creative outlook or a very sustainable dynamic way of dealing with one's own potential and creativity is to also read other important writers and realize or notice that there has been tremendous creative tension especially in the Indian writers, Indian playwrights by way of the indigenous traditions which are so rich, so prolific, but they come with a particular world view and also the impact of western forms which of course, within drama we will try and locate what exactly that means in the next slide. For example, when we talk about these key terms like the classical, the folk and the modern, we have also earlier mentioned to you how so far as drama is concerned, the classical was also invested in the dominant world view. Although it does seem to be inclusive when we read Kalidas, it is not as if it is a complete wiping out of different kinds of people, but the focus is definitely on dominant value systems of that time and I will not go into that in too much detail, but it is also linked in various other forms that developed around it apart from written plays, other forms like dance drama or by way of other theater practice, what it really continued to do is to have a vibrant relationship with ritual and devotional traditions. So, then this is what the Sanskrit theater evokes and even in contemporary practice for example, playwrights like Badal Sarkar have often had said in the 70s and I remember this interview that was published in an act while he was talking to Richard Shekna. He pointed out that he is not inspired by the classical traditions because they seem to him obscurantist, that was his position at that point in time. Of course, later on he developed the theater of rural urban links which actually went into folk theater and participatory forms, but I think that is a kind of predilection that many contemporary playwrights have expressed. People like Habib Tanbir on the other hand have taken some very vigorous elements from Sanskrit theater, but in other words I think the issue of content and issue of form cannot be separated very easily and that is why there are a lot of issues when we begin to talk about examining these forms and when we suggest to you that you should look at multiplicity of aesthetic practice that exists in country. It is really not an easy situation because each of these issues come with as I said the world view and also the attendant political cultural problems that may emerge out of this confrontation. Of course, so Sanskrit theater it does in its own way exists in practice even today and then you have the folk forms which we have discussed earlier. I do want to add to it though because during the period of colonization the folk forms were actually labeled as the intermediary forms because in addition to their loose structure the folk forms have been known for their episodic loose structure. What happened to these forms is related to the vigor of the political will of the people. So, the intermediary forms the folk forms became intermediary forms much more political in their intent. They were anti-British and they were powerful, they were robust and the British were shaken by them because wherever they applied censorship in other domains or they curb people in other domains theater had at that time become a vigorous mode of you know critiquing the British system protesting against it very very stridently. So, I think it is very interesting to note that this element also of constant change within each form because it reflects the will of the audience and the will of the playwright, the will of that historical period if you will. I think that is something that one should take note of and a lot of street theater that we see today is also in that sense intermediary. It is political in intent, it wishes to make a point and it also is very loosely structured. Modern theater on the other hand really was based on the influence of prose plays that were written in the west before they were written in India and these plays were often problem plays that is they identified like in the plays of Ibsen or in the plays of Strinberg and to some extent in the plays of Chekhov some important issues of social importance and they placed the individuals within those issues of some social magnitude and therefore I think this modern theater initially was highly influenced by the Aristotelian model which indeed Ibsen to a great extent, Strinberg to some extent and Chekhov to a lesser degree all of them function within the Aristotelian model of sort of fast moving plot and also a sense of causality that was very important in understanding the problems of the modern character. But gradually of course this also got modified and then you had in 1940's Bertolt Brecht the great German playwright who questioned the Aristotelian pattern very vigorously and created epic theater with its own outlook of you know sort of provoking the audience into thinking and he was influenced by the classical Asian model the no theater in Japan and he also was influenced by the range and power of epics and also some of the theater forms in India. So then in other words this is also not a very very simple scene and when we talk about the continuum I think we should also include this tension with western forms. It is a creative tension and I think in that sense it is a very very productive situation when you begin to write and you begin to think about the forms because the forms also in some ways will help you flesh out the content. So now this balance that I earlier talked about this balance between Natak and Vaan from Bharat Muni's category of 10 types of plays. We have singled it out primarily because it creates resonances for us in terms of drama as a full-fledged many act play with lots of characters and then Vaan with the focus on one single character. So please do not look at it in a very literal fashion but you know also see the wider ramifications of these two forms and see which one appeals to you although I think you need to understand both. So as I said the textually although we have a certain limitation right now but I thought what we could also do now is to show you how because it's not a simple process of looking at just any model you pick it up and you begin to use it it's not a simple process. So one way of doing this is to suggest some critical reading to you based on reading of Shakuntalam. Since we have undertaken that in the last lecture we thought we could we can build on this and so let's look at critical readings of Shakuntalam. We would like you to read the full play either in Sanskrit original if you can read Sanskrit or in translation but we would also recommend a play essay an essay by Rabindranath Tagore which we have listed here and we would only be able to give the excerpts from this essay. So you can try and build the total picture by looking or reading this essay after reading the play forming your own opinions reading this particular essay and then in turn we will place Romila Thapar's reaction to Tagore's essay on Shakuntalam. So that will give you some idea about the critical process that is involved in taking a position by way of combining various elements of existing traditions because the content and aesthetic form cannot be separated very sharply. So now this is what Tagore had to say about Shakuntalam. First of all Tagore went back to Kalidas' time and again that has been well documented. So this is what he has to say about Shakuntalam the play and Shakuntala the protagonist. Kalidas has let his hermitage bred youthful heroine follow the unsuspecting path of nature nowhere has he restrained her. He is trying to sort of map his response to the play and also the transformation that occurs in Shakuntala. Now as you know in drama it is very important for the play right to show a situation of conflict. I mean conflict is at the heart of drama and in that sense on the one hand he shows the you know childlike nature of Shakuntala in the beginning Kalidas portrays that. He also places her in the hermitage and according to Tagore initially this is this unsuspecting path of nature. She follows the unsuspecting path of nature. You begin to see that he is going to say something else about the next stage where Shakuntala is rejected by Dushyant and also then she undergoes certain kind of change in her world view or in her outlook. So now this is what he has to say and yet he has developed her into the model of a devoted wife with her reserve endurance of sorrow and life of rigid spiritual discipline. This is Tagore's take on the second phase of Shakuntala because you know she is forced to reflect about her own condition as a woman's spurn and also a mother. Then he goes on to say at the beginning we see her self-forgetful and obedient to nature's impulses like the plants and flowers at the end we see her deeper feminine soul. So at the end we see her deeper feminine soul. So of course this is Tagore's take and obviously Tagore took this play seriously enough. It had a deep impact on him and he raised some of these issues in another play that he himself wrote and let us see if we can find that. We will in a minute mention that aspect of Tagore but I think it may be useful to see how Romila Thapar responds to Tagore's point of view which of course we have constructed for you only through selected excerpts. So what happens is that when you select these excerpts you do it from your own point of view. So therefore if you read the full essay you will get many more angles to this discussion. In terms of Romila Thapar's response it is very visible from the title itself. Romila Thapar is a very well known very important historian and this is I think her sort of attempt to place a literary text in a historical context. I will not go into her methodology but right now she is responding to Tagore and this is title Shakuntala and Middle Class Nationalism. She says that Tagore trees the play as an allegory. He is of course free to read it differently. What is of interest is the degree to which Tagore's reading reflects the social and moral concerns of his own time and his response to both Orientalism and Nationalism. So two things about this one is that I think it shows very clearly that when you begin to read any text I think your own sense of self your own value system is reflected in that reading. Your own concerns are reflected in that reading and that is what makes reading very enjoyable and that is why now you will notice that the classics have been re-read from number of positions including the position of the marginalized people in terms of you know marginalized cast groups or marginalized gender issues. There are lots of re-readings of classical texts and of course Tagore you know she links reading by Tagore within the framework of Orientalism and Nationalism debates that were also very important issues of Tagore's time. Here of course the term Orientalism refers to the debates between the Orientalists and Anglicists during the period of colonization where the Orientalists emphasize the significance of Indian classical texts as opposed to the Anglicists who emphasize the need to introduce English language and literature. So there were these contending viewpoints and Tagore's reading of Kalidas is his response to this notion of Orientalism and Nationalism. So it is part of the national project to also discover the strengths of our own roots, our own culture but of course it is fraught with lots of difficulties. So partly this and then of course the other aspect of this reading of Kalidas by Tagore that Tagore not only wrote this analytical essay because that is really fascinating on the one hand he is very analytical and you know it sort of goes into his ideas in great detail in terms of his motivations, his understanding and on the other hand the creative impulse takes its own path and in that sense although he seems to read Shakuntala as someone who actually has fallen because of this Gandharva marriage with the Shant and therefore later on when he rejects her this period of reflection in you know enhances her status as a woman. It gives her another philosophical realm which Tagore seems to relish. Now that is a very, very controversial reading and a very controversial point of view and on the other hand what he did in Chitrangada is to raise these very issues in a very different framework though. You can have a look at Chitrangada on YouTube and examine the parallels but I think two things can be said here. One is that the problem that Tagore raised and the reason we mentioned these examples is to show that while writing plays and finding your own sources of inspiration you will realize that a very sharp critical process is also very, very active. So, in Chitrangada the problems that Tagore raised are problems again of Gandharva marriage and also the portrayal of the protagonist just as in Kalidas' Shakuntala. The protagonist's portrayal is very sensuous. You saw that in Raja Ravi Verma's paintings also and Kalidas is really sort of one of the greatest I think poets of Shanghara's. So, in that sense the sensuous portrayals also this issue he did not really run away from but I think what Romila Thapar has pointed out is that this sensuous portrayal in Indian art and therefore in Tagore also you know one can try and understand it in terms of its value as a symbolic value as a spiritual activity. Let me read this sentence. The sensuous in Indian art and literature was frequently justified as being symbolic of the spiritual. So, Thapar is also trying to understand this creative locus of Chitrangada while on the one hand Tagore is very judgmental about Shakuntala and her character and he places her in a way that I suppose many of us women today would find very troublesome. This punishment that is meted out to her I do not think we would be able to empathize with that as a source for spiritual upliftment but certainly she is trying to understand how Tagore views it and in that sense this play also is worth looking at. So, this is a kind of response to the play and in that sense it is a interpretation and adaptation of sorts also. There is one more idea that we just want to quickly foreground and not spend too much time over this. There is some kind of ambivalence in the way Tagore portrays nature because the ashram of Kanva for example is seen as a place where there is you know nature and life. There is kind of total harmony between the individual and nature and elsewhere he is also talked about the tempest where nature is an enemy with the you know. So, I think this contrasting view we want to develop some discussion of it not right now but later on discussion of his two short stories Lamb and Balai because I think that really grips one's attention and I think we can also place it within Shakuntalam and Shakuntala as nature's child and take the discussion forward but I think we will wait for that to happen later on. The other thing that I think one cannot quite ignore is the sense of a gender divide in Shakuntalam. As I said as contemporary women looking for empowerment I think it would be difficult to accept this viewpoint that the responsibility of the Gandhar marriage is totally on Shakuntala and therefore I think what I would like to do is to give you not just an analytical response but a creative response in terms of how this whole tradition of you know the classical sort of male gaze how at least personally I have responded to it because this is not just a response to Shakuntalam although it is a response to Shakuntalam and the weight of a tradition that she feels and on the other hand also classical Sanskrit dramaturgy with the Sutradhar at the center and again the absence of either a director as a woman or absence of the Sutradhar as a woman absence of a woman as a playwright in that period and in that sense I like to share this creative response very briefly with you from this play that I have written and in lecture 11 of module 2 some of the students had performed it. They had read the first act I am reading the prologue and the epilogue mainly to point out the attraction of Sanskrit theatre because it does have a better textual elements that are fascinating and at the same time the thematic weight and also the structural weight which is tilted in favor of men. So, this is a response I mean you can also view this response critically except or reject it that would be perfectly fine. So, here is the prologue of a dream in three acts locale near a forest the play begins with the appearance of the Sutradhar whose dressed in conventional style in impeccable dhoti kurta shining red turban a string of pearls on his neck and a formal silk shawl on his left shoulder a woman should play this part in an agonized manner she will reveal her actual female identity later on the Sutradhar in a compelling and authoritarian manner. Namaskar from Kalidas to Karnat I have invoked the gods for unhindered completion of our play imitates the prologue of Shakuntala eight forms has Shiva lord of all and king and these are water first created thing and fire which speeds the sacrifice begun the priest and times dividers moon and sun the all embracing ether path of sound the earth where in all seeds of life are found and air the breath of life may he draw near reveal in these and bless those gathered here pauses and then annex the mudra of Garnapati and resize the prayer from Karnat's high wedding after this meditative offering I am leaving out that prayer after this meditative offering the sutradhar's expressions change as he hears sounds of footsteps with a lack to say alacrity I hear footsteps the theater troupe has arrived after a pause but but where are the kingly men and their Bhartcharans the twisted Vidushaka and the Darseys instead I see actresses only two of them I am not trained to manage a play of this kind I refuse to be a party to it hides behind a luxury leaving the actresses anchor less and the epilogue that is the end of the play the sutradhar who has been hiding all this time watching the shifting scenes clandestinely appears on the stage again this time dressed in the same dhoti kurta that the silk dupatta is worn the vedupattas are worn with salwar commies instead of the turban her hair is flowing opulently the manner of talking is much more relaxed and communicative the voice is mellyfluous somewhat unschooled sutradhar oh I am so tired why was I hiding all this time I was partly awake partly asleep hiding from myself to play a role as per convention but the actresses presented presented the reality that I know of and dreams that grow out of them the play is over for the time being but the dreams flicker like a dia on a star b night I am affected by this freedom of expression now on I shall not abandon an all-actress play let me sing a new prayer for the audience a new prayer of my own to celebrate this play sing softly almost like a lullaby I am leaving out that prayer and with the gesture of namaskar the play ends so this is my response to this whole sense of tradition with also its thematic I would say weight I like to move on to other examples and as I said you do not have to accept whatever is being presented before you you can critique it you can also examine it critique is possible only after examining the ideas but you really do not have to accept them totally let us move on to other examples in part b we will look at some postcolonial adaptations and interpretations and we will mainly mention some because we will not be able to talk about them much I think it is really very interesting to look at Habib Tanbir's adaptation of Shudraksh Britsha Kartikam the title of that adaptation is Mitti Ki Gadi because as I pointed out earlier to you I think Tanbir and Girish Karnad both actually owe a debt hysterically and also in terms of the creative vision they owe a debt to Berthold Brecht which they have acknowledged and they are two very very different kinds of playwrights I think Tanbir is highly politically charged and his plays also are really enhance your awareness of political issues and on the other hand Karnad is much more into the cultural politics of his times but in Hayabadan and other plays I think again he has acknowledged that he came to the folk traditions via this notion of alienation effect that Berthold Brecht had developed with reference to his epic theater. Interestingly Brecht himself came to that notion by rejecting the Aristotelian prose plays of his own framework playwrights like Ibsen for example their work he completely rejected that model and he felt that for the age of science it was very important to write plays where the audience which had already begun to question things around them was provoked into thinking and so the playwright and the director of any you know such play should not take the audience for granted whereas in the modern Ibsen kind of theater the audience went to theater identified with the middle class characters or the proletariat characters that were presented if this was a play exclusively devoted to proletarian themes and through this identification they more or less confirmed their own way of looking at the world whereas the kind of theater Brecht wanted to build was theater which would awaken the audience into thinking so all the thoughts are with the audience but he through theater through aesthetic practice through entertainment their own consciousness would be awakened. So both Karnad and Tanvir in their own very very different ways acknowledged that they really came to the aesthetic structure of folk tradition which is as I said earlier also it is loosely structured it is also much more questioning in terms of the world around so they came to these forms via Brechtian notion of certain amount of critical distancing and also complex seeing. So therefore I think I would strongly recommend that you read especially these two plays and definitely these two playwrights but right now we would like to shift our attention to Bhan because we have already discussed Shakuntalam so we would like to move to Bhan because we are equally interested in monologue form and in that sense let us try and see why the monologue form has grown in strength in contemporary period although in terms of a sense of continuity at least so far as I am concerned I did not find any prose play written within the Bhan framework we have talked about Bhan earlier and his transformation but you know that is really a very different kind of path where it got transformed into Tamasha and certain aspects of Tamasha whereas Bhan by way of prose plays of the kind that we are working out these really we have not chance on any of these examples so I think we will soon begin to look at monologue and one idea that we are emphasizing is the incredibly complex braiding of traditions and counter traditions that unfold when you begin to look at folk classical modern continuum. I think we will sort of move on to the monologues and before that perhaps I can also point out to you one more idea which is related to the fact that I think I have already mentioned it but I just in case I have missed out and you want to pursue this further we have as Indian writers looked at western models and it's often linked to the colonization process but I think it is also important to know that the westerners have also examined Indian writing from very early stages and you know some of this became very very dominant post 60s in terms of theatre Brecht is the milestone in terms of breaking away from Eurocentrism in terms of search for new forms participatory theatre important ways of talking to the audience about contemporary issues changing the meaning of theatre space but you know later on for example 60s onwards another kind of theatre sort of work has grown around Grotowski who also actually interpreted Shakuntalam to find universal themes of relevance and then Peter Brogues produced Mahabharat there's been that feeling of certain amount of critical uneasiness that has been expressed about these movements and if you are interested in following this up I think you should look at Barocha's politics of cultural practice thinking through theatre in an age of globalization and I think the reason I think it may be important is because the question that you have to ask is whether you are only imitating a particular model or it goes beyond that in terms of what you really want to say and you know so those are difficult strands to separate but if you want to pursue this would be the line of action for you. I will now move very quickly to monologues that have been written in recent years and also you know talk about their significance. I have been trying to figure out why so many monologues have appeared many of the monologues that we will share with you are not like monologues in the way Daisy's monologue and vocation as a monologues has sort of unfolded. These are playwrights who in addition have also written monologues so that makes for interesting combination and contrast. We won't go over the definition of monologue again but you can have a look at it in terms of what we have said earlier by way of a single character being at the center of this creative work and therefore now let us see what is this new idea that what we want you to consider. So, in trying to figure out the reasons for this unfolding of monologues I felt that may be this idea that talk will had mentioned in democracy in America and Robert Corrigan went on to foreground it in his excellent reading of modern drama in the book Theater in Search of a Fix. I think if we foreground that idea maybe we will begin to understand something about contemporary monologues in India or the use of monologue form in fairly distinctive ways. Talk will has actually mentioned in his famous book Democracy in America that in democracy drama would and this is seen as a prophetic statement that he made that drama would inevitably begin to focus on the individual divested of external trappings on the individual alone. And I think what he was can trying to emphasize is this unit of the individual which is so very important for any democracy and in that sense perhaps if we place this idea with reference to the monologues and the focus on a single individual and the ability of the playwright to sustain that monologue by way of a performative activity which people go and see. I think we may be able to see the kind of turmoil that exists in our own democracy you know or has existed for quite some time. And then also this the deep sense of the individual different kinds of individuals and the conflicts that they encounter what are the kinds of conflict conflicts that they encounter. So, I am not saying that a thesis can be built round it a predictable pattern can be you know worked around it, but certainly what I am suggesting is the emergence of this monologue in terms of this growing sense of democracy and the turmoil that the individual faces. So, then I think the two monologues in this session that I will present are both written by Girish Karnad an important contemporary Indian playwright who actually started his career with writing in Kannad, but he wrote Yayati he mentioned and this is a very vivid description where he mentioned that he wanted to write in English and he wanted to be a poet in English, but when he sat down to write and he want I mean he was compelled to write he wrote in Kannad and also mythic themes just surfaced in his consciousness. So, that was the starting point of Girish Karnad's career but in 2004 he wrote these monologues for the first time in English that is a big big surprise and also the other big surprise so far as I am concerned is the kind of I think ambivalence that I notice about the characters this certainly a sense of a conflict but both the plays that monologues that we will share with you by way of just giving you some lead questions are monologues that really end up raising doubts and confusion and so I really feel I wonder as to what is the locus of this creative effort. The first one flowers in some ways is very reminiscent of Sanskrit theatre both in terms of the ritual oriented religious theme, the protagonist at the center who is a priest and the sort of weight of that whole tradition that within which the conflict is located but of course it is based on a folklore the folklore and the folk tradition also contains elements of the sacred and then of course the transition to the profane is also something that occurs within that tradition. So, this is based on folklore and it shows the intense internal conflict in the character between his vocation as a priest and his longing alongings as a man and there are also two very different kinds of women who are placed in the play one is his wife and the other is the courtesan with whom he falls in love and he takes all his puja flowers and offers them to her after the pujas and finally you know he is indicted by the king for you know transgressing his role as the priest and the play ends with the ambivalent power of the priest's prayers and I would not go into exactly how this happens because I think I much rather that you discover it yourself and finally the play ends with self annihilation as a resolution of the priest's internal conflict all in all it in some ways it may not be Bhan but it somehow binds you of the trajectory of Sanskrit theater and it leaves you very very confused but it is in performance it really works quite strongly I saw performance where a very good actor played the part and the performance worked very well so it does raise questions but as I said the answers are very difficult to come by the second one is another big surprise so this two is written in English has been translated in other languages also this is called broken images and you may have heard of it because it has been staged quite frequently and some good actresses have played the part and they have liked the play very much it is a way it has a very high tech feel this play has very high tech feel and I think Karnad is exploring this contemporary ethos very actively. The locale here is the interior of a television studio and there is a big plasma screen which hangs on one side big enough for a close up on it to be seen clearly by the audience and the protagonist is Manjula and actually then the she has this television image which is her doppelganger that is it is her other self and it is the questioning self. Now in this play Manjula dissembles throughout and these acts revolve around creative writing in Kannad versus writing in English, politics of publishing, issues of authorship, ethics of interpersonal relationships, Indian writing in English, fiction versus drama. I think the character is loaded with too many issues of significance and I am not able to really fathom as to what kind of central issue of magnitude Karnad is trying to raise through the character of Manjula. Why the woman protagonist who actually used to write in Kannad but then she steals the manuscript that her handicapped sister had written and she passes it off as her own after the death of this sister and then she stakes the claim to all the fame, the money that comes with this and of course loses her husband because he finds out that this is an absolute fraud and so she loses on that front. What is the locus? What is the driving energy behind creation of this female protagonist as a fraud and also is this an allegory? If this is an allegory how does this work out? I think I will leave these questions to you but the play in a certain sense has dramatic moments where this exchange between Manjula and her doppelganger it sort of builds up and slowly Manjula is forced to tell the truth and face the truth and you know she is sort of from time to time explodes in great anger because she does not want to be questioned. She just does not want to be held accountable by anybody. So she is a very immoral, a very harsh cruel protagonist but this is the way I look at it some other actresses who did this part they have mentioned that they found the balance between Manjula and her sister Malini as you know equal in dramatic power. I am not able to actually see that anywhere in the play. So I think what we would do is to leave the reading to you the script is very good very well written but the content it really leaves you very confused. And that is where I mean I think this whole question of your own worldview what is your driving energy you do not have to give a message as such but I think they should be some palpable sense of your belief in your character or if it is a satire or if it is a parody or it is an act of questioning that questioning should be anchored so powerfully that you are able to understand what this is. It evokes that sense in you you know by way of a response. So I personally feel very dissatisfied with both the monologues although in some ways you can say these are very very democratic themes about different kinds of characters. You can wish away different kinds of people and different kinds of issues that have unfolded the issue of immorality may also be seen by Karnad as an issue of globalization. I do not really know. So I think you will have to figure it out and if you get a chance to talk to Mr. Karnad you can talk to him or you can have your own take. We are very happy to say that in the next two lectures we will be able to actually have a play reading by an important playwright Ramu Ramanathan himself and that is also an interlink monologues in that play. He is a very familiar figure in IIT Bombay because he has come here time and again and done lots of productions, professional productions plus also interacted with students. His play Mahadev Bhai was staged last year. So far as this particular play that has been presented to you in the next lecture and followed by a discussion with the students between the playwright and the students. This play is three Sakina Manzil. The research for which was done by Amrit Gangar and the play premiered in Prithvi theatre in 2004. I think you will enjoy that session very much and I think I really would like at the outset to thank Ramu for being so very generous with the script and the reading and Pooja Asher for participating in the reading and all the students who participated in the discussion. I think you will enjoy that way, way much and we are so happy that we will be able to share one full play without any copyright issues because the playwright has given us the permission and he himself is reading the play. So I sort of look forward to that session and you will notice all the things that we have already talked about. For example, hybrid language, interlink monologues and the rest of course you will discover yourself. Just place the work cited list for you and that is the end of this session. Thank you very much.