 This lecture is titled From the Perspective of Playwriting and the lecture is divided into three parts. In the first part, we will talk about learning to write by reading great works of fiction and drama. In the second part, we will look at Anton Jekov's world through his diaries and letters because we are going to now focus on Anton Jekov, the Russian short story writer and playwright and then we will deal with a particular story by Jekov which also has been adapted as a play by a very important Indian playwright. So, these are the three aspects and I would like to place our discussion in some kind of perspective because often what we do in the classroom intuitively and also based on the you know vibrant interaction with students. We also back it up by looking at other models and paradigms and also try to incorporate ideas from other people very often they seem to reinforce our own intuitive approach. So, I would in that spirit quote first of all Gardner in the first part of lecture learning to write because Gardner spent a lot of time trying to work out exercises for creative writing and this particular quotation you know is taken from that last segment of the book in which he says that some of the things that ought to be covered in every course on writing prose fiction and you know of course he uses the term fiction in a larger sense and therefore drama is included within this larger definition. So, we are you will beginning to you will begin to notice that we are dealing with both the forms and we are not really interested in watertight separation, but at the same time we would like to make sure that you do not leave out drama in this assessment because often times this is a form which has been marginalized for reasons that I still do not understand. Some of the things that ought to be covered in every course on writing prose fiction drama can be covered efficiently only by a class working as a group. Let me just pause here later on you will notice that we tried this out again intuitively and based on the vigorous interaction that we have had with students we decided to sort of you know the students actually decided to perform cherry orchard and very often it is not enough to do things on your own it is important to stretch yourself and do things with other people because often writing requires the sense of the other and by this participatory activities such as performing a play I think your sense of the self is extended in a beautiful concrete way. So, he also seems to endorse this idea and then he goes on to of course talk about his own book and he says that this kind these kinds of exercises have been listed by him no one class and this is what I would like to emphasize. No one class can get through all of them and it should always be borne in mind by both the teacher and his and I have added her students that the most important thing that can be done in class once the basics have been covered is the reading and criticism of original fiction drama. Now these basics we have already covered and these basics revolve around first of all the spirit or the impulse to write when you have that impulse the next state stage is to try and understand the form of writing after you know developing your instinct for writing and you know maintaining a notebook in which you jot down fragments of your epiphany experiences or anything else which you find relevant the next step is to deal with plot character and other ideas. So, after that according to him reading and criticism of original writing is very important and so we have decided to focus our attention on checker and we have also tried to help you understand as to why we have decided to focus on checker. Before I do that I would like to place one or two definitions of drama because we are going to focus on cherry orchard. So, I thought this particular definition of drama is very important because drama is a performative form. So, it is not necessary that it would always be printed you know the text would always be printed. So, considering that let us keep in mind this definition while talking about cherry orchard checker the short stories are printed. So, for print culture and literary forms that are meant for printing there is no issue, but forms which are fluid in nature I think we need to again look at some of these basic definitions. So, two things are valuable in terms of this definition that I have picked up from Dharmakar's book on post independence Indian drama and in her definition of post Indian post independence Indian theater and drama she says well she has basically dealt with urban literary drama and experimental performance associated with dramatic authorship. So, there is this identifiable well established notion of the author which is available in the plays that she has discussed. Now, why am I using this definition while talking about checker? That is because I also want to point out that checker like other western playwrights has been read adapted translated in India. So, the notion for that kind of cross cultural reading she has used the term which is widely used the intertext. So, do not feel you know bothered by the text do not feel weighed down by it in other words, but in this particular book she has provided a list of plays Euro American into text she called these as of independence post independence drama and theater and it is very interesting list because it does show many of the western modern playwrights who have been staged in India. And you will notice you know if you become more familiar with drama and its variations then you will notice that both realistic drama that is drama written by playwrights like Henry Gibson or by checker himself or August Trinberg which is in the realistic mold the mold of representation of life in a sort of fairly accurate manner. So, plays of that mold are also staged, but plays that completely challenge that notion and you know these are described here through the term non naturalistic drama. These two have been performed extensively in fact these have been performed more you know extensively for very interesting reasons. But all of these plays whether it is an Indian play that is realistic in nature or non naturalistic in nature I think it has to be noted very, very emphatically that they are located those creative efforts are located in India's own sense of trist with destiny and I use this sort of term from Pandit Nehru deliberately because this particular notion can be seen from so many angles. So, I think the originality of Indian effort remains very, very important in all this effort. Very briefly I will just point out that Bresht has dominated this scene as I said earlier you know a lot of modern Indian playwrights who were influenced by folk forms they actually have acknowledged the influence of Bresht because whether it is Habib Tanbir or Girish Kannadev said that Breshtin mode allowed them to look at the material critically because Bresht was dedicated to political thought processes. His intent was political theatre and what his mode and model which in turn was inspired by Asian classical model where song, dance, conversation all these are mixed together in Bresht these are mixed together for a contemporary political intention. So, this has had an enormous impact on Indian theatre Ibsen also has a very visible presence by way of translations, adaptations and performances of his plays. Check of however is a low key presence, but I think what we can also now begin to notice is the fact that his plays may not have been done that frequently, but certainly many of his short stories have inspired theatre productions. So, this is what we will share with you today and I think another point that I would like you to notice in the next two or three lectures that will revolve around Checker is related to the fact that his theatre also or his drama also almost is like a bridge between a narrative of short story you know framework and narrative within drama it is almost seamless and in fact that is why Checker poses a lot of problems because the highest and lowest of dramatic conflict that are noticed elsewhere these remain very muted in Checker. So, right now it is not sufficient really to expere it is this is not a sufficient explanation because we need to read these texts before we can begin to talk about it. So, that is precisely what we are now going to do. So, first of all let me just place the historical facts of Checker's life he was born in 1860 and he died in 1904. He was a great short story writer playwright he was also a physician although he himself would have given priority to his role as a physician first and to his writing as something that happened alongside. But this is a very interesting trajectory and a very interesting sensibility that we are dealing with two things again can be identified in this regard I think we will try to understand not only Checker's world, but also his world view that will also try and understand the issue of point of view. Because definitely between the short story the chameleon that we have chosen and the play Cherry Orchard there is a big difference in the way point of view is handled. In the chameleon naturally you know the possibilities are different and in the dramatic framework with number of characters how does a writer's point of view come through. So, these are two issues that we would like you to keep in mind because as you listen to some of the reading that is being presented to you can also begin to sift through these ideas and also sift through the reading in order to arrive at your own understanding. In the second part therefore, we will first look at Checker's diaries and letters and we have titled it Checker's world. The video if we are able to get the permission to play this for you that video that deals with Checker we were trying to sort of get this permission because you know it is read in Russian in his own words the flow of course even if it is something that is not accessible in terms of the meaning it evokes a wonderful feeling of the Russian language the landscape and Checker's life through his own words and the subtitles give you the translation and the translation is also extremely evocative. We will play this for you so that you can relish the background much more effectively. We would also like you to now look at the diaries and also some of the letters which we have requested are one of our students to read for you. What we would like you to keep in mind is our earlier discussion about the writing process and the value of literary notebooks. You remember we had pointed out how you know not only for a person who is starting his writing career or who wants to understand how far he or she can go with the writing process not only for a person like this is the diary or the notebook important but for great writers also you notice that they maintained certain kind of raw material through which they worked and so this diary and also the letters together give a wonderful sense of what Checker was trying to do. So Tala Pari would read it from this particular translation that we picked up from Project Gutenberg sources. It is translated by S.K. Kotelianoski and Leonhard Wolf. The translators have a wonderful introduction to this material and I will read this quotation they have pointed out and this is a quotation. This volume consists of notes, themes and sketches for works which Chekhov intended to write and are characteristic of the methods of his artistic production. Among his papers was found a series of sheets in a special cover with the inscription themes, thoughts, notes and fragments. Madame L.O. Nipper Chekhov Chekhov's wife also possesses his notebook in which he entered separate themes for his future work quotations which he liked etc. If he used any material he used to strike it out in the notebook. The significance which Chekhov attributed to this material may be judged from the fact that he recopied most of it into a special copy book. So again you know I mean Kamu had such a different method of writing because of his sensibility Chekhov has yet another method. So we are not really asking you to imitate any method but it does help you decide what really works very well for you. So from that point of view I think if you listen to the reading you will begin to get a sense of what Chekhov was trying to do. You can hear it almost in his own voice. Chekhov's notebooks 1898, Solomon Alone. Oh how dark is life. No night when I was a child so terrified me by its darkness as does my invisible existence. Lord, to David my father thou gavest only the gift of harmonizing words and sounds, to sing and praise thee on strings, to lament sweetly, to make people weep or admire beauty. But why hast thou given me a meditative, sleepless, hungry mind? Like an insect born of the dust I hide in darkness and in fear and despair all shaking and shivering I see and hear in everything an invisible mystery. Why this morning? Why does the sun come out from behind the temple and gild the palm tree? Why this beauty of women? Where does the bird hurry? What is the meaning of its flight? If it and its young and the place to which it hastens will, like myself, turn to dust? It were better I had never been born over a stone to which God has given neither eyes nor thoughts. In order to tire out my body by nightfall all day yesterday like a mere workman I carried marble to the temple. Now the night has come and I cannot sleep. I'll go and lie down. Forces told me that if one imagines a flock of sheep running and fixes one's attention upon it, the mind gets confused and one falls asleep. I'll do it. Exit. Why did Hamlet trouble about ghosts after death when life itself is haunted by ghosts so much terrible? I'm sorry, so much more terrible. A bedroom. The light of the moon shines so brightly through the window that even the buttons on his night shirt are visible. The children growing up talked at meals about religion and laughed at fasts, monks, etc. The old mother at first lost her temper, then evidently getting used to it, only smiled. But at last she told the children that they had convinced her that she is now of their opinion. The children felt awkward and could not imagine what their old mother would do without her religion. There is no national science, just as there is no national multiplication table. What is national is no longer science. A scholar without talent, a blockhead, worked for 24 years and produced nothing good, gave the world only scholars as untalented and as narrow-minded as himself. At night he secretly bound books. That was his true vocation. In that he was an artist and felt the joy of it. There came to him a bookbinder who loved learning and studied secretly at night. But perhaps the universe is suspended on the tooth of some monster. How pleasant it is to respect people. When I see books, I am not concerned with how the authors loved or played cards. I see only their marvelous works. To demand that a woman one loves should be pure is egotistical. To look for that in a woman which I have not got myself is not love but worship, since one ought to love one's equals. I am not a liberal, not a conservative. I should have liked to have been a free artist and nothing more. And I regret that God has not given me the strength to be one. I hate lying and violence in all their forms. The most absolute freedom, freedom from force and fraud in whatever form the two latter may be expressed. That is the program I would hold to if I were a great artist. Chekhov's Letters To Alexander, my brother. My writing program is Absence of lengthy verbiage of political, social, economic nature Total objectivity Truthful descriptions of persons and objects Extreme brevity Audacity and originality Or fleeing the stereotype And compassion His second letter To D.V. Gregorovich, Moscow, March 28, 1886 Your letter, my kind, fervently beloved bringer of good tidings Struck me like a flash of lightning. I almost burst into tears. I was overwhelmed. And now I feel it has left a deep trace in my soul. May God show the same tender kindness to you in your age as you have shown me in my youth. I can find neither words nor deeds to thank you. You know with what eyes of ordinary people look at the elect such as you. And you can judge what your letter means for my self-esteem. It is better than any diploma. And for a writer who is just beginning, it is payment both for the present and the future. I am almost dazed. I have no power to judge whether I deserve this high reward. I only repeat that it has overwhelmed me. If I have a gift which one ought to respect, I confess before the pure candor of your heart that hitherto I have not respected it. I felt that I had a gift but had got into the habit of thinking that it was insignificant. Purely external causes are sufficient to make one unjust to oneself, suspicious and morbidly sensitive. And as I realize now, I have always had plenty of such causes. Part C now will deal with story to drama and Indian response. So you have had some sense of Chekhov's own take on his writing process and also how he actually did not take it himself seriously. Although he started writing by way of a mode of survival. His family really was in fairly bad economic situation and he had a tremendous struggle right from his childhood. But only when it was pointed out to him that he had great talent and this was pointed out by a fellow author. Did he wake up to his own possibilities? So after this now, we will shift to his story where he tries to be as objective as possible. Let me once again evoke Mr. Gardner who says, In great fiction, we are moved by what happens, not by the whimpering or bawling of the writer's presentation of what happens. That is in great fiction, we are moved by characters and events, not by the emotion of the person who happens to be telling the story. Sometimes as in the fiction of Tolstoy or Chekhov and one might mention many others, the narrative voice is deliberately kept calm and dispassionate so that the emotion arising from the fictional events comes through almost wholly untinged by presentation. I think Chekhov of course really wanted that calm, dispassionate point of view. In terms of Chekhov's world view, perhaps we can point out to you because you may not be a regular reader of Chekhov, we may point out to you that Chekhov has portrayed life in the Russian small towns and brought out the problems and conflicts of what I would like to describe as a naturalized, unexamined value system. Everything seems very serene on surface, but there is this sharp sense of observation that you cannot escape, but I like you to discover it yourself. In terms of the short story, the Chameleon, he has used third person limited point of view and of course in the Cherry Orchard, this operates in an entirely different manner. We will talk about it when we come to Cherry Orchard. The Chameleon of the title is a metaphor for the constantly changing stance of Achimilov, the police superintendent and I am giving you these comments so that you have some lead into the actual reading of the short story. I would like you to know the changing descriptions of the white bourgeois puppy, the accused in this case. So, do note your responses as the story unfolds and then later on exchange notes with other people. We may give you an exercise or two for different kind if we are able to get all the things that we want in order to generate some different kind of discussion. But now, here is the reading of the Chameleon by one of our students. A Chameleon by Anthocheko, the police superintendent Achimilov is walking across the market square wearing a new overcoat and carrying a parcel under his arm. A red-haired policeman strides after him with a sieve full of confiscated gooseberries in his hand. There is silence all around. Not a soul in the square. The open doors of the shops and taverns look out upon God's world disconsolately like hungry mouths. There is not even a beggar near them. So you bite, you damned root. Achimilov here certainly. Lads, don't let him go. Biting is prohibited nowadays. Let him! Ah! Ah! There is the sound of a dog yelping. Achimilov looks in the direction of the sound and sees a dog hopping on three legs and looking about her, run out of Pichujin's timber yard. A man in a starched cotton shirt with his waistcoat unbuttoned is chasing her. He runs after her and throwing his body forward falls down and seizes the dog by a hind legs. Once more, there is a yelping and a shout off, don't let go. Sleepy countenances are portrayed from the shops and soon a crowd, which seems to have sprung out of the earth, is gathered round the timber yard. It looks like a royal honor, says the policeman. What's it all about? Achimilov inquires and pushing his way through the crowd. What are you here for? Why are you waving your finger? Who was it shouted? I was walking along here, not interfering with anyone, your honor. Rukin begins, cuffing into his fist. I was talking about firewood to Mitri Mitrich, when this lobe root for no rhyme or reason bit my finger. You must excuse me, I'm a working man. Mine is fine work. I must have damages, for I shouldn't be able to use this finger for a week maybe. It's not even the law your honor that one should put up with it from beast. If everyone is going to be bitten, life won't be worth living. Very good. See, is Achimilov sternly, cuffing and raising his eyebrows. Very good. Whose dog is it? I won't let this pass. I'll teach them to let their dogs run all over the place. It's time these gentry were looked after, if they won't obey the regulations. When he's fined the black guard, I'll teach him what it means to keep dogs and such stray cattle. I'll give him a lesson. Yeldrin cries the superintendent, addressing the policeman. Find out whose dog this is and draw up a report. And the dog must be strangled without delay. It's sure to be mad. Whose dog is it? I ask. I fancy is the general Ziggalos, says someone in the crowd. General Ziggalos? Help me off with my coat, Yeldrin. It's frightfully hot. Must be a sign of rain. There's only one thing I can't make out, how it came to bite you. Achimilov turns to Hurricane. Surely it couldn't reach your finger. It's a little dog, and you're a great hulking fellow. You must have scratched your finger with the nail, and then the idea struck you to get damages for it. We all know your sort. I know you devils. He put a cigarette in her face, your honor, for a joke. And then she had the sense to snap at him. He's a nonsensical fellow, your honor. That's lies, Gwentai. You didn't see it. So why tell lies about it? His honor is a wise gentleman. And we'll see who's telling lies and who's telling the truth as in God's sight. And if I'm lying, let the court decide. It's written in the law. We're all equal nowadays. My brother is in the Gent arms. Let me tell you. Don't argue. No, that's not the general's dog, says the policeman with profound conviction. The general hasn't got one like that. Hills are mostly setters. Do you know that for a fact? Yes, your honor. There's no need to waste time asking, says Ocimolo. It's a stray dog. There's no need to waste time talking about it. Since he says it's a stray dog, a stray dog it is. It must be destroyed. That's all about it. It is not our dog. Prohor goes on. It belongs to the general's brother who arrived the other day. Our master doesn't care for hounds, but his honor is fond of them. You don't say his Excellency's brother is here. Vladimir Ivanovich inquires Ocimolo and his whole face beams with an ecstatic smile. Well, I never. And I didn't know. Has he come on a visit? Yes. Well, I never. He couldn't stay away from his brother. And there I didn't know. So this is his honor's dog. Delighted to hear. Take it. It's not a bad pup. A lively creature. Snapped at this fellow's finger. Come, why are you shivering? The rogue's angry. A nice little pup. Prohor calls the dog and walks away from the timber yard with her. The crowd laughs at you, Ken. I'll make you smart yet. Ocimolo threatens him. And wrapping himself in his great coat goes on his way across the square. From this reading of the short story, let's shift to the drama Girgit, which is an Indian adaptation of the same story by Ramesh Upadhyay, his title Girgit. And this is an important street play or Nukkad Natak. So again when we talk about intertextuality, stories can become plays, plays can become stories, they can become part of cinematic productions, indeed that has happened in the case of Ipsen, for example. You have Satyajit Ray using Ipsen's Enemy of the People and working out a whole film. So in other words, in terms of creative process as different kinds of things happen. We want to take note of this particular play and again we bring back this idea that Indian writers when they write about their own milieu from whatever position in terms of the mainstream as if they are seen as mainstream writers or marginalized writers, most of the time they really are interested in locating their own sense of the self within the fast changing milieu. And in other words, these have the air of problem posing of a different kind. In this case, this is clearly a part of political theatre, we would like you to note your own response to the given interpretation and performance in order to understand the complex intertextual processes that unfold. But before we bring the performance to you, let me also point out that Ramayesh Upadhyay has written many other important street plays on Nukkad Nataksh, Harijan Dehan, Raja Ki Rasoi, etc. and the play Bharat Bhagya Vidhata. So then I like you to place this play also within the same category because Nukkad Nataksh are slightly loosely structured although now you know scripts are available, people prepare and write scripts before performance. But it still has a slightly different feel in terms of the performative framework because it is always you know unexpected street performance and therefore certain things are improvised in each performance in a much more pronounced manner as opposed to an actual closed door theatre performance. I would also like to mention the impact of Badal Sarkar's Julus on experiments in street theatre models and I mention this because I really would not like to miss this opportunity to point out to you that if you get an opportunity to see Julus, read Julus, perform Julus, do so. I think it shows street theatre and its potential at its best, absolutely the best because it is also very nuanced. The issues of authorship versus collective, collaborative writing by group have been a kind of part of the discourse of Nukkad Nataksh. Ramesh Upadhyaya believes in the notion of the author for Nukkad Nataksh too but there are other groups that really have abandoned this idea and they think of this as a collaborative production including the writing is also part of everything else that happens there. So now with that preamble I hope you will be able to understand Girgit in your own way and this reading analysis and performance is coordinated by Himanshu Singh. I have absolutely no role in this process and therefore you will really see it from the point of view of those who participated in this process. So here is the student presentation followed by the work cited list and I will have to say goodbye to you at this point. Thank you very much sir. You are very much. I made a mistake sir. You are lying. I didn't make a mistake sir. Then you are lying. I believe in my mistake sir. What is the mistake? If you have anything to offer then talk to me. Of course sir. Today? So right now? No, not right now. Right now I have to get some fruit from the market for the elder sir. This is the market. This is the market. And in this market we have these small and big offices to make peace and stability. We keep wandering around here and there. Hold it. Hold it. I don't know. Hold it. Hold it. In the market there are dogs and jeeps. Dogs bite people and jeeps bite people's pockets. What kind of work is this? Some young dog knows. Don't you know him? I think so sir. Otherwise I know all the dogs here. Hold it. In the story of Chekhao, a dog comes to a boy's place. Where did we get the dog from in this drama? So we made this boy a dog. Dogs are more expensive than boys. Anyway, what do you do with it? If we would have brought the elephant instead of the dog, then you would have to believe that the elephant is a dog. Take a run. Run more. But where will you go? You have been caught. Now there is a law against cutting. What are you saying? Who was shouting? And why are you holding your finger? And why are you all hanging around here? Look, sir. I was quietly going to my work. I was hanging around at a shop. I thought maybe there was a sale rail. Maybe even my hand would be of some sort. That's why I stood there. And the government didn't know why. This scoundrel cut my hand one by one. He is a small officer. He is a man with a pocket knife. He is a small officer. I know him. He has been here for months. So you are the one. Forgive me, sir. I am a working man. And my work is so hard. If my fingers aren't fine, then how will you be able to do any work? And this scoundrel cut my fingers so that he won't work for a week. That's why I request you to make me go through with this scoundrel. And sir, it's not written anywhere in the law that we tolerate animals secretly. If everyone starts cutting like this, then it will be difficult to survive. You make me go through with this scoundrel, sir. But who is this scoundrel? What do I know, sir? Ask him who he is. Who is this scoundrel? Does anyone know who this scoundrel is? Look, everyone has heard of this scoundrel for years. But I am also a scoundrel. I won't spare him. This scoundrel doesn't seem to be a scoundrel. And if he is a scoundrel, then he must be a scoundrel. I am telling him that what does it mean to leave a scoundrel? Those who don't follow the law will have to face me seriously. I will be punished so much that they will remember me. Ram Singh, find out who this scoundrel is. And if you don't know, then call the committee members and shoot him. I say, tell me who this scoundrel is. If you don't tell me, then I will find out. And if I find out, I will tell you. Then I will find out who this scoundrel is. That's strange, sir. Now we are talking about finding out the owner of this scoundrel. He knows that why this scoundrel has cut him. So, there is a secret behind this scoundrel. It's not a secret, sir. But it should be known why the scoundrel has cut him. You have to find out the whole thing without killing this scoundrel and talking about giving his owner a scoundrel. Hey mister, you teach us the law. Is this dog yours? Mine? I I show you how to raise dogs. I have raised my own dogs. That's a lot. So, what is this nonsense? You don't stay quiet. You don't know that your law is a crime in our work. But sir, think about it. This dog looks mad at you. He is a straight dog. And I have seen it with my own eyes that Salif was putting his burning cigarette on the face of a dog. Tell me, is this a pain? And he is a dog. He is a dog. He is not a man. He should tolerate everything. He didn't like this joke and he cut him. If you have seen everything with your own eyes, then... Sir, he didn't see anything. He is lying. Why? Why is he lying? When he cut me, you didn't even have tea there. And sir, he is a fool. Sir, he knows who is lying. Who is the truth. If I am lying, then come to the court. The decision is final. It is written in the law. Now we are all equal. Look, I tell you. Don't leave the law too much. Otherwise, I will tell you right now that you are a fool and a cheater. I don't care what you think. I am my own brother in the police. I will tell you. Stop this nonsense. Hey, Mr. Shreeman. If you know everything about him, then you must know about that dog too. Tell me. It's him. You are amazing, sir. You don't say anything about this nonsense. You stop me. The dog belongs to someone else. What do I know? I have found a job to keep some dog's information. Listen, sir. Maybe this dog is Mr. Ram Prasad Beni Prasad. What did you say? Mr. Ram Prasad Beni Prasad is this dog. Ram Singh, there is some cold. Give me my coat. Hmm. Now look at the dog carefully. Hmm. But I don't understand one thing. Why did you cut it? How did it reach your finger? This is a little animal. And you are a very lowly man. You are right, sir. He must have snatched the finger from some yellow wheel and thought of killing the dog. Absolutely. Exactly. I know everything. So I am a bad man like you. But this dog is not Mr. Ram Prasad. I often go to Mr. Ram's house. I know that Mr. Ram Prasad is fond of being a dog. But he doesn't have such a dog. He has all the dog's hunting pointers. Do you know anything? Yes, sir. Uff. The weather is terrible. I can't understand anything. It's getting hot in the coat. Is this dog Mr. Ram Prasad? Yes, sir. Yes. This is how a dog can be. I don't know his dog. He has all the dog's hunting pointers. He has all the precious dogs. But this is a very ordinary dog. Mr. Ram Prasad will hunt such a dog. Have you lost your mind? Have you lost your mind? Mr. Ram Prasad will hunt such a brave dog. He can even shoot a dog somewhere. So, sir, I have to go. Yes, sir. Yes, you can go. But tell me, who is this dog? I will make Abluz Haramzade stop hunting. People have made fun of him. Because he doesn't have any respect. He has left the mad dogs. Is there any way? It will be difficult to protect such people. Do you know who this dog is? This dog is Mr. Ram Prasad. He is Mr. Beniprasad. Why, Ram Singh? What are you saying? It can be him. It's not written on his forehead. Sir, you are right. This dog belongs to Mr. Sir. I have seen such a dog in his hand. Ram Singh, give me a coat and look at the dog properly. They say it belongs to Mr. Sir. Ram Singh, you do this. Take it to Mr. Sir and find out there. If the dog belongs to him, then take my name and say that it was shown on the street. And I have sent it back. And yes, tell Mr. Sir not to let it go on the street. I don't know how expensive this dog is. And you go down and say that it belongs to Mr. Prasad. Do you know what Mr. Ram Prasad and Beniprasad are? They have come to know that you were smoking in their dog's mouth. They will kill you. Got it? Now you walk from here otherwise I will break your bones. Sir, Mr. Sir's servant is coming here. First ask him and see. Yes, ask him. Hey, listen to me. Look at this dog belongs to Mr. Sir. No, sir. Did you see, sir? Was I lying? No, you were right. I was at the wrong place. It is possible that Mr. Ram Prasad and Beniprasad belong to Mariel and Awara. See, Ram Singh. Now we have to waste our time talking about this dog. Awara is a dog and we have to cut it. Don't you know that you are crazy? You should call the committee members. Listen to me, sir. I said that this dog belongs to Mr. Sir. But I said that it belongs to Awara. So? This dog belongs to our Mr. Sir's brother. But I have come with him from Calcutta. What did you say? Mr. Sir's brother has come. Along with Mr. Ganga from Calcutta? Yes. And the dog here belongs to Calcutta. So his dogs have also started running away from Calcutta? Don't talk nonsense. So Mr. Ganga also started running away from Calcutta? Not today, sir. But it is his choice. Our Mr. Sir doesn't like this dog. But Mr. Ganga likes this dog. Here you go. Mr. Ganga is here and I don't know him. We will wait for him. Yes. So this dog belongs to him. Ram Singh, you are so stupid. You don't even know who this dog belongs to. Look at this beautiful dog. It is such a lovely dog. Wow! Here you go. Take it carefully. And listen to me. Let Mr. Ganga remember me. Let me stay here. I will come and meet him. What if he falls down from Calcutta? I won't be able to forget him. Very good. Yes Mr. Shreeman. Now who will give you a discount? I will give you a discount. You rascal. You are asking for a discount. Now get lost from here. Or else I will beat you to death. You rascal. And you are also from here. Is there any drama here? Let's go. Let's go Ram Singh. The useless bastard ruined the mood. Yes, sir. Get it. Get it. It doesn't work with one move. It doesn't work with one move. Change the color of the chapear. Get it. Thank you. Thank you.