102

CHAPTER 3

ECO-FEMINISM IN KAMBAR AND SHIVAPRAKASH

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The term ‘eco-feminism,’ introduced by Françoise d ‘Eaubonne in

1974, refers to the power of women in ecological revolution. Westbury (1991)

observes that “eco-feminism is the third wave of the feminist revolution. It

says that the feminine values of non-violence, cooperation, and nurturing will

help to connect us with nature and prevent ‘ecocatastrophe’.” It is based on

‘interconnectedness’ and regards the cosmos as an ecological self that is

worthy of moral consideration. Warren (1987) defines eco-feminism as “the

name given to a variety of positions that have roots in different feminist

practices and philosophies … they also reflect different understanding of the

nature of and solution to pressing environmental problems.” It became

popular in 1980 when the cultural feminists identified how both women and

nature could be liberated together.

‘Ecology’ derived form Greek ‘oikos’ (house) is the science of

household. As women have mediated the connection between the earth and

the house, the connection between nature and women and between ecology

and feminism has been explored (Warren 1987). Eco-feminism “is a

philosophy and movement born from the union of feminist and ecological

thinking, and the belief that the social mentality that leads to the domination

and oppression of women is directly connected to the social mentality that

leads to the abuse of the environment” (Sinha 2008). Women and nature have

103

an age-old association between them. The interest in both women’s

movement and the ecology movement has been astonishing over the past few

decades and both the movements depend on the talent of female in the

maintenance of environmental integrity.

That the environment is a feminist issue has been defended by

many feminists and ecological feminists since 1970. Eco-feminists point to

the twin domination of women and nature. According to Warren (1987), there

are eight kinds of important connections between the domination of women

and the domination of nature and if they are understood well, they can help in

understanding the issues of feminism, environmentalism and environmental

philosophy. These are Historical connections, Conceptual connections,

Empirical and Experiential connections, Symbolic connections,

Epistemological connections, Political connections, Ethical connections and

Theoretical connections.

Thus, eco-feminism is an attempt to call women ‘to lead an

ecological revolution to save the planet’ and to promote new gender relations

between women and men and between humans and nature. It recognizes both

women and nature as ‘super-green-cleaners’ who can understand and heal

environmental destruction.

This chapter examines the principles of eco-feminism expressed in

Kambar’s ‘Jokumaraswami’ (JO), ‘Siri Sampige’ (SS), and Shivaprakash’s

‘Madaiah the Cobbler’ (MTC), and ‘Madhavi’ (MA).

3.2 ‘JOKUMARASWAMI’

Kambar offers numerous insights into the issues of feminism and

ecology and exposes the role of patriarchal culture in the oppression of

women and nature. Some of the characteristics of the patriarchal society

104

identified in the play are (i) Representation of patriarchy through religion and

culture, (ii) Urge to dominate other creatures, (iii) Association of women with

nature for the domination of both, (iv) Neglect of women and their wisdom,

(v) Domination through conceptual structures, and (vi) Representation of

women at the physical realm and men at the mental realm.

Eco-feminists believe that images of nature as female are ‘deeply

encoded’ into the texts of literature and “any feminism, environmentalism or

environmental philosophy that fails to recognize important women-nature

connections is simply inadequate” (Warren 1987). As women and nature have

an age-old bond between them - it is identified that the devaluation of women

leads to the destruction of nature - they can attain liberation together too. In

order to gain liberation, various ‘isms of domination’ that oppress women and

nature must be found and dismantled (Warren 1987). In this regard, Rosemary

Radford Ruether (1975) wrote:

Women must see that there can be no liberation for them and

no solution to the ecological crisis within a society whose

fundamental model of relationships continues to be one of

domination. They must unite the demands of the women’s

movement with those of the ecological movement to

envision a radical reshaping of the basic socioeconomic

relations and the underlying values of this (modern

industrial) society.

In ‘JO,’ Kambar reveals how the patriarchal society fashions

religion and culture by dislocating them from women and nature. In the play,

only the male gods are attributed virility and are portrayed as the icons of

male power. In the name of religion, men retain all the activities that are

considered active by their culture. They consider all men virile and blame

women for their barrenness. Barrenness is for both men and women, but in

105

the play, Sutradhara associates barrenness only with women and says that if barren women, offer worship to Jokumaraswami and afterwards make a curry

out of him to feed their husbands, ‘dozens of children will be born in a jiffy.’

Moreover, in the play, unproductive men are not termed barren and are allowed to throw the blame on their wives.

In the play, most of the women suffer due to the stigma of

barrenness. Their dialogues disclose that they are not responsible for their lot and expose their husbands who could not bless them with a child. These

women converse among themselves about the weaknesses of their husbands

but they are submissive before their husbands. They do not have the guts to challenge their husbands for their false accusations. Rather, they are

controlled by the systems of patriarchy that curtail their power before their male counterparts.

Men practice all means to hide their own weakness or inability as

they are considered passive and feminine in the patriarchal culture. On the

other hand, they handle the license granted by their male governed systems to use women as scapegoat. It is this mentality that leads them to associate

barrenness with land forgetting their role in the cause of barrenness. Men play

a vital role in the barrenness and lack of productivity of both women and nature. As they are guarded by the patriarchal system, they refuse to accept

their responsibility. Moreover, they assume all their errors as correct and rational.

Kambar underscores the shortcomings of patriarchal religion and

culture through ‘JO.’ In this play, Sutradhara asks Himmela ‘to get some

flowers and fruits, and to offer worship a chaste woman’ and the reply given by Himmela is highly sarcastic and culturally constructed. Himmela replies

that the god is highly expensive. He can bring flowers and fruits but he cannot

‘manage this chaste woman business’ because he feels there is not anyone of that sort available these days. Even the god Jokumaraswami laid all the girls

106

within two days of his birth (as per mythology), menstruating maidens he laid on the third day after his birth, the old women he pulled on the fourth day,

wives he pulled on the fifth day and he tugged the widows on the sixth day

(Kambar 1989). Eco-feminists blame the patriarchal culture that fashions even gods after them and the mythology behind Jokumaraswami is just an

embodiment of the glorification of male virility which eco-feminists try to dismantle.

In the patriarchal society, men deliberately distinguish themselves

from women by representing women falsely and without any dignity. They

create a wonderful and attractive image of themselves by degrading women to

the core. In the play, men cherish the Jokumaraswami myth, which helps

them to assume magnificence at the expense of women. The god seduces all

women and implies the right of man to choose any woman he likes. Women

are shown as toys to be used for the pleasure of men and they are used only

when the men feel the urge. By circulating stories that glorify men and

denigrate women, men retain and continue their right to oppress women and

dominate nature. Himmela attempts to claim his superiority to women by

terming them as immoral and amoral. Himmela is just a representative of the

male community that dominates and oppresses women and nature by its false

notions of masculine and feminine qualities.

Through the play, Kambar illustrates how the patriarchal society

poses man as the lord and the decision maker, and breeds domination. In ‘JO,’

Gowda is the product of the patriarchal society which sustains conceptual

framework that maintains structures of domination. He considers himself the

Lord of the town and its boundary and claims all things in the world are his:

Mela: Gold, Silver and gold again,

And pretty wench and girl.

All, claims the Gowda, are his (Kambar 1989).

107

He regards women and nature as irrational beings and they are present to be

dominated and exploited for the needs of man. He tries to dominate all

creatures forgetting that they have their own right to live independently. He

considers his welfare alone and denies the dignity of women and nature.

When Gowdathi, his wife, asks ‘What, are you going somewhere?’ Gowda

replies arrogantly, “You have the nerve to ask me! Haven’t I told you not to

ask where and why I am going out?” (Kambar 1989) and insults her further.

Through Gowda, Kambar reveals how women are not given the right to

question men in the patriarchal society and how they are always ill-treated

and denied human rights.

In the patriarchal society, women do not have a voice of their own.

They are unable to utter even their sufferings and injustice. Gowda has not

given Gowdathi the right to question him about his activities. He treats her as

a lifeless object that awaits his call to be used as he wishes. The object does

not have its own value and it is present only for his use. Moreover, it is his

possession and he can claim it his own. His attitude toward Gowdathi

(a woman) is reflected even in his perception of nature. He sees nature as just

a commodity that helps him to amass wealth and power. Moreover, he

believes that all the elements of nature exist only to satisfy him and they do

not have intrinsic worth.

In the play, Kambar unveils how the association of women with

nature results in the domination of both women and nature. Gowda exclaims

about Ningi “What a mouth-watering bit of a girl she is!” (Kambar 1989). He

asks Gurya (another character) about Ningi as “Who is this bird Gurya?”

(Kambar 1989) and degrades her when she exits by saying “To come to my

place and give me such cheek! The chick has flown away” (Kambar 1989).

Gowda compares women to the objects of nature and the comparison leads to

108

the domination of both women and nature. The following dialogue between

Gowda and Gurya carries the overtones of patriarchal culture:

Gowda : Will you marry her?

Gurya : Heh, heh, heh....

Gowda : I’ll sell her for three rupees. Will you buy?

Gurya : Heh, heh, heh....

Gowda : Stop cackling, you bastard, which girl will fall

for a cur like you? How old are you?

Gurya : Twenty-five

Gowda : Have you ever seen a woman’s thighs?

Gurya : No, Sir.

Gowda : How can you understand? Gurya, I want to catch

this jungle fowl (Kambar 1989).

Through ‘JO,’ Kambar unfolds the cleverness of women and

illustrates how the wisdom of women is neglected in the patriarchal society.

Gowdathi and Gowda do not have a child even after several years of their

marriage. Gowdathi has been yearning for one since their marriage. She

believes in the healing power of the vegetable god Jokumaraswami and asks

Gowda, during Jokumaraswami’s full moon night, to come home for dinner.

She says that if they cook and eat the vegetable god they will have children.

But Gowda does not pay any attention and ignores her words. When Gowda

fails to understand her needs, she sarcastically asks Gowda “How can you

understand a woman’s need?” (Kambar 1989). Moreover, she complains to

Gowda that “you have a field as big as the forest, a house as big as the village

but there is no child in the house” (Kambar 1989) and juxtaposes her

cleverness and sensibility with the stupidity of Gowda.

109

Gowda poses himself a virile man by sleeping with all the maidens

of the village. In fact, he is not virile enough to bless his wife with a child but

hides the reality by sleeping with other women. Shari, a whore, publicizes the

true nature of Gowda by saying:

Yes, others may have, but you still don’t know Gowda’s

nature. Except for a vain desire to claim everything in this

world as his, what else does he have? .... On the day I had

my first period Gowda came to ceremonially break my seal.

He gave me a bag of rice, a sari, a blouse and five rupees.

What wouldn’t a young whore give to have Gowda as her

first client? When I entered the bedroom with my Sari

loosened ... Gowda was snoring. I spent the night pressing

his feet. He went away in the morning as if nothing has

happened. Since that day he has broken the seals of ten or

fifteen girl whores and when you ask them how, they say

what I’ve just said. (Kambar 1989)

By the wisdom of ages, Shari examines the weakness and hypocrisy of

Gowda to his wife Gowdathi and stands testimony to the fact that women are

wiser than men. Patriarchal society sustains false notions about men and

keeps them blind to their real side. Though Gowda is impotent, he tries to

create an impression that he is virile and active. He tries to save his honor in

the patriarchal society that expects a man to claim his virility. The society

does not acknowledge sleeping with single woman as virility. It wants

continuous demonstration of masculine performance through a variety of

women. The connection between masculinity and virility is a cultural

construct and it does not have a strong reason to be perpetuated. Men

themselves fall prey due to the false notions promoted by their systems. The

systems do not affect men alone and they lead to the subjugation and

110

suffering of women too. Women lose their self respect and dignity and they

are dominated by the masculine force. It is this force that compels men to act

against nature too.

The depiction of the link between the oppression of women and the

domination of nature as a cultural construct in the play is commendable.

Eco-feminism declares that the idea of dominating nature stems from the

domination of human by human and an ecological society is possible only by

ending all systems of domination. Gowda is a tyrant who oppresses women

and nature through his status and authority. He maintains ‘value dualisms’

and ‘value hierarchy’ which are the components of conceptual structures and

are located, according to Warren (1987), “in an oppressive patriarchal

conceptual framework characterized by a logic of domination.” This depicts

the fact that Gowda has been brought up by the conceptual structures of

domination that construct women and nature in male biased ways.

Gowda tries to dominate his wife and proclaims his authority on

nature. He confiscates the lands of other people in the village due to the

feminine association attributed to them in the patriarchal society. He even

kills the father of Basanna (central character) just to possess his land. Gowda

says to Basanna thus: “As from today, the field you plow is mine. Know that

if you even step on that field hereafter your legs will not be yours” (Kambar

1989). He fails to recognize his connection with the earth (land) and wants to

rule the entire environment. As he fails to understand a woman’s need, (as

asserted by Gowdathi) he could not realize the importance of environment. He

is a personification of patriarchy which is one of the root causes of

‘ecocatastrophe.’ As the product of patriarchal culture, he fails to understand

the importance of women and does not maintain correspondence with the

cycles of nature.

111

In ‘JO,’ women and nature are often described in female and sexual

terms. Basanna compares Gowdathi to the objects of nature when he is about

to seduce her. He compares her arms and thighs to smooth young banana

stems, lemons on her chest, and eyes like mango slices. Not only Basanna, but

also others associate women with nature throughout the play. Gowda goes to

the extent of sleeping in the field to claim his ownership and Gurya mentions

Gowdathi as the field of Gowda and uses sexual and natural terms when he

declares how Gowda is cuckolded: “Really? Basanna has been sleeping in

your field for three months now, do you know that?” (Kambar 1989).

By showing the representation of patriarchy in religious practices

and the fashioning of gods, Kambar points out its pit-falls and calls for a new

religion that acknowledges the contribution of women. By exposing the false

centrality of man, he discredits the illusion of superiority. He illustrates the

false association of women with nature and the neglect of women and their

wisdom to reveal the cunningness of patriarchy. Further, he presents the

shortcomings of conceptual structures and places women at the centre of

discussion. Moreover, by pointing out the dualism practiced in the patriarchal

society, he blames its unreasonable premises. Thus, the study captures how

Kambar insists on the need for ‘symbolic revolution in the social, sexual and

economic structures’ that exploit both women and nature to liberate them.

3.3 ‘SIRI SAMPIGE’

‘SS’ (Siri Sampige) was first produced in Kannada by Ninasam at

Sivaramakaranth Rangamandira in Hegoodu on 21 August 1986 and then in

New Delhi at the Sri Ram Centre for Art and Culture on 28 August 1986. It

was translated into English from the Kannada by Rowena Hill with

K.P. Vasudevan and N.S. Ramaswamy. The play indicates Kambar’s interest

in the liberation of women and nature and his views on patriarchy.

112

The story of the play revolves around the heroine Siri Sampige,

whose name is given to the title of the play. Siri Sampige is married to the

Prince of Sivapura who is in love with the “impossibly perfect lamp-maiden

who comes to life one night in his bed chamber and disappears dancing into

his own body” (Kambar 1991). Before his marriage with Siri Sampige, he

demands that his body be split into two and stuffed into two pots as he

believes the lamp maiden could be recovered. Against everybody’s wish, the

act is performed. Out of one pot, he comes out without any harm and from the

other pot emerges a hooded cobra. As his lamp maiden is not found, he

accepts to marry Siri Sampige. Even after his marriage he is intoxicated by

the beauty of the lamp maiden and fails to pay attention to Siri Sampige. Most

of the time, he goes out in search of the lamp-maiden forgetting that the

maiden he is wed to is the paragon of beauty. Meanwhile, Siri Sampige is

enchanted by the Snake-god Kalinga and she conceives. The furious Prince

orders for a trail and asks Siri Sampige to prove her chastity. As per the trail,

she puts the snake that coils round the Nagalinga on her body and stands

unharmed. The Prince goes out of the place angrily. After some time, he

suspects a stranger in Siri Sampige bed chamber and urges the soldiers to kill

him. When the snake-god is found out, the Prince kills him in a duel.

According to the prophecy, the Prince will die if his brother dies. As the

Prince killed his own brother (who emerged from his body), he too dies and

the ancient prophecy is fulfilled.

Girish Karnad has also dealt with the same theme in his ‘Naga-

Mandala.’ In the play, Rani is ill-treated by her husband Appanna. She wants

to win her husband’s affection and tries to drug him with the mixture of a love

root. Unexpectedly, Naga, the King of cobra drinks it and starts visiting her in

the form of her husband during night time. She becomes pregnant and her

husband orders for a trial. She is asked to put her hand in the snake burrow

and to take a vow that she has not committed adultery. She puts her hand in

113

the snake burrow and stands unharmed. Appanna is suspicious and waits for

the suitable opportunity. As he desires, he finds Naga visiting Rani in the

form of Appanna and becomes furious. He kills Naga in the duel. Eventually,

he realizes his mistake and starts loving his wife Rani and the child in her

womb.

In ‘SS,’ Kambar projects a culture that is dominated by men under

the name of patriarchy. The culture is not healthy and it is against the welfare

of women and nature. It tries to oppress women and dominate nature through

its conceptual framework. According to Warren (2000),

A conceptual framework is a set of basic beliefs, values,

attitudes, and assumptions which shape and reflect how one

views oneself and one’s world. A conceptual framework

functions as a socially constructed lens through which one

perceives reality. It is affected and shaped by such factors as

sex-gender, race/ethnicity, class, age, affectional orientation,

marital status, religion, nationality, colonial influences and

culture.

Warren further says that some of the conceptual frameworks are oppressive in

nature and they help, aggravate and ‘justify’ “relationships of unjustified

domination and subordination. When an oppressive conceptual framework is

patriarchal, it functions to justify the subordination of women by men.”

Kambar attempts to disseminate the evils of conceptual framework through

‘SS.’

Kambar believes in the interrelatedness of all beings and expresses

the principle of oneness in the opening of the play through Bhagavata. He

refers to the great lord Nataraja Ardhanarishwara who split in his “divine

play, into man and wife … body and mind, sprit and matter” (Kambar 1991)

114

and “beyond duality” (Kambar 1991). By referring to Ardhanarishwara,

Kambar highlights the sacred bond of the cosmos expressed in creation

stories. The creation stories “reflect the assumptions about how the divine and

the mortal, the mental and the physical, humans and other humans, male and

female, humans, plants, animals, land, water, and stars are related to each

other” (Reuther 1993). Kambar demonstrates the unity between man, woman

and non-human others and urges people to avoid differences like

Man/Woman, Humans/Nature, Body/Mind, Active/Passive, and

Culture/Nature. Eco-feminism too highlights the view of Kambar.

Some of the characteristics of patriarchy found in the play are

(i) Subordination of female rights to men (ii) Glorification of male

(iii) Female goddesses being replaced by male gods (iv) Women as objects to

be explored and possessed (v) Irrational acts against creation and regeneration

(vi) Vulgarity toward nature and female beauty (vii) Duality, and

(viii) Denigration of female wants.

Through the play, Kambar exposes how female rights are

subordinated to the rights of men through his portrayal of Queen Mayavati.

The Queen herself says that she is a “rightful wife of King Nagara Nayaka of

Sivapura, city whose virtues shine upon the earth” (Kambar 1991). The right

to rule is retained by males and the female cannot claim it as long as the male

lives. Mayavati became the queen only when her ‘revered husband’ was

“borne away by time into timelessness” (Kambar 1991). After the death of her

husband, she takes care of her subjects and rules them righteously. As a

female, she is in no way different from her husband in the maintenance of

kingdom. It is the patriarchal culture that keeps her away from rule till her

husband’s death and the culture fails to understand the talent of female in the

maintenance of environmental integrity.

115

In ‘SS,’ Kambar reveals how patriarchal culture glorifies male and

trains even women to promote it. Queen Mayavati has started taking much

care of her son as her husband passed away when the child was only one year

old. She is very proud of her son and associates all bravery with him.

Whatever is termed as bravery by the patriarchal culture is being attributed to

the boy by the Queen. She boasts of her son by saying that he is as “strong as

a mountain, he is well fitted to be Lord of forest and field in this Kingdom”

(Kambar 1991). She is overpowered by the patriarchal culture and considers

her son superior to other entities. The Queen proclaims that her “son is of

robust beauty and lively. He can neither stand still nor sit still, but like a fresh

young bull is always active, and I have seen the young girls of the clan

sighing as they watch him” (Kambar 1991). She associates with her son all

that are considered active by culture and fixes passive qualities such as

shyness to the girls who represent womanhood. Moreover, the Queen says

that “I am worried now whether there exists anywhere on earth a maiden he

can admire” (Kambar 1991). The queen unwittingly follows the dictates of

patriarchy which the eco-feminists try to dismantle. Warren (2000) defines

patriarchy as “the systematic domination of women by men through

institutions (including policies, practices, offices, positions, roles), behaviors,

and ways of thinking (conceptual frameworks), which assign higher value,

privilege, and power to men (or to what historically is male-gender identified)

than to that given to women (or to what historically is female-gender

identified).” The queen is made the victim of patriarchy.

Kambar’s portrayal of the replacement of a male god by female

goddesses is highly commendable. The god worshipped by the people in the

play is male and there is no goddess. They have a male god as their family

god who distances them from nature and aggravates the difference between

man and woman. It is the family god who announces two dangers that

threaten the royal family. The god foretells that the Prince may become a

116

monk when his ‘voice breaks’ and he will die if his ‘brother dies.’ He warns

Queen Mayavati by saying that “Daughter, there are two hindrances in the

way of your son’s good fortune. When his voice breaks, he may become a

monk, and if not he may die because of one who is heir to what he is heir to”

(Kambar 1991). The Queen undergoes terrible pain and begs the lord to keep

her son away from troubles. She further says that the god is pleased and

blessed her “with a small smile and said, ‘when your son’s voice breaks,

arrange without delay for his marriage. Make sure he does not see his own

image in water. Beware!’” (Kambar 1991). The god tries to keep people away

from nature. Water is the source of all lives, but the god tries to keep the

Prince away from it. The nature of the male god is totally different from the

female goddesses represented traditionally. Merchant (1996) observes that in

the matrilineal societies, female goddesses occupy the center stage and they

generate creation and foster fertility and further says that:

Many cultural feminists celebrate an era in prehistory when

nature was symbolized by pregnant female figures, trees,

butterflies, and snakes and in which women were held in

high esteem as bringers forth of life. An emerging

patriarchal culture, however, dethroned the mother

goddesses and replaced them with male gods to whom the

female details became subservient.

Awali, the court jester describes the true nature of the male god. He describes

him as, “a huge, big fire-pit of arrogance. He is arrogant because the atoms of

dust and blades of grass, even the sun and moon are under his control”

(Kambar 1991). Thus, Kambar captures the inability of male god in

promoting ecological values.

In the play, Kambar depicts how women are considered as objects

to be explored and possessed in the patriarchal society. Awali and Jawali are

117

characters in the play: “the emperors of humor, the laughing stock monarchs,

the great twins” (Kambar 1991). Their story forms a subplot of the main story

of the play. They are brought up in patriarchal culture and they degrade both

women and nature in notable ways. They consider women as means to attain

sensory pleasures and to fulfill their carnal desires. When Bhagavata refers to

marriage, Jawali says that Awali should get married. He resembles him so

much that his wife may go to bed with Awali mistaking him for Jawali. They

begin a quarrel over this. Meanwhile, a woman enters dancing. Overwhelmed

by her beauty, they stop fighting. She is the woman whom Bhagavata referred

to them. The woman discloses her name in a riddle that displays her concern

for nature. She says that “Mire is her birth place. Water is the place of

relations. Looking at the man of light, she blooms. Say, what is it?” (Kambar

1991). Jawali interprets it as ‘Big frog’ and Awali identifies her name as

‘Green moss.’ Bhagavata chides both of them and unearths her name as

“Kamala, the Lotus” (Kambar 1991). Awali and Jawali start fighting to decide

who should marry her. Bhagavata rightly points out that “Do you think

Kamala is a lottery? Isn’t she the one to decide which of you she wants?”

(Kambar 1991). As both of them look alike they are asked to fight with each

other. Jawali wins the duel and marries Kamala. Awali goes to the forest to

“do penance and return a God to bestow the boon of death on both of them”

(Kambar 1991). The woman preserves and nurtures her relationship with

nature. Awali and Jawali as products of patriarchy try to spoil her connection

with nature and consider her only as a possession.

Through the play, Kambar points out how the irrational acts of

patriarchy lead to destruction curtailing creation and regeneration. Awali, who

has been brought up in the patriarchal system holds its traits and opposes

creation. One day, he watched Jawali turning into a snake and involved in the

‘love-play’ with Kamala. He decided to kill Jawali and devised a plan. He

himself narrated the incident to the Prince as “I made a small fire and put the

118

milk on to boil…. The boiled milk began to overflow. The smell of the

overflowing milk reached the serpent inside Kamala. The serpent came out.

Since he was hungry, he spread his hood and dipped his mouth right into the

pot. His mouth was burnt and he died writhing badly” (Kambar 1991). His

plan worked out and Jawali died. Kamala did not know about the death of

Jawali as her “eyes closed in intoxicated pleasure” (Kambar 1991). As Awali

resembled Jawali, Kamala thought him Jawali and both of them were

returning home. While walking, Kamala felt tired and sat down. When she got

up, Awali found out that she had laid an egg. Out of his jealousy, he ‘crushed

it’ between his hands and found some more. He crushed the second egg too.

When he tried to crush the third one, Kamala came to know that and she:

…began to tremble with anger enough to fill the seven

worlds. The pearl-ornament on her nose split into bits. Milk

streamed down from her breasts like tears and her blouse

became wet. Screaming in a terrible voice and shouting,

‘wretch you have destroyed my progeny’ she tore her

loosened hair, threw it at him and disappeared into the forest

(Kambar 1991).

Awali goes against creation by destroying the eggs. He fails to realize

sacredness of life and the sanctity of creation. Irrationality practiced in the

patriarchal culture is always destructive to women and generation of lives.

In ‘SS,’ Kambar elucidates how the patriarchal culture associates

women as well as their beauty with nature and vulgarizes them. Jawali

compares Kamala to a bird in his dream and worries that Awali also does the

same. He could not make love to his wife, as he finds Awali in her eyes.

Kamala is worried about her lot and informs Bhagavata of her condition.

Bhagavata asks her to consult the family god. The family god appears in her

dream and instructs her by saying that “My daughter, on the anthill, under the

119

banyan tree, outside the city, there is a creeper of blooming Jasmines. If you

first worship, then pluck the flowers, make a garland out of them and put it

round your husband’s neck, he will transform himself into a serpent and unite

with you” (Kambar 1991). Kamala is degraded both by her husband and by

the religion that grants patriarchal oppression.

The snake-god Kalinga is overtaken by the beauty of Siri Sampige

and searches every region of the earth. After finding her in the Sivapura, he

says that “She’s the one who stole my mind away! Even at this distance the

smell of ploughed earth that her body exhales makes me tingle” (Kambar

1991) Kalinga considers only her beauty and fails to respect her position.

Kalinga is determined to possess her for her beauty. He says that he does not

mind her marriage with the Prince of Shivapura. Further, he expresses his

carnal desires by saying “Aha! Her body is like a festival for my aroused

senses. It seems to be beckoning. Big buttocks, big big breasts! small waist,

pool of pleasure! Eyes trained in hunting. Whether she’s maid or wife, even if

my life is lost in the attempt, it doesn’t matter. Unless I bed her, my life has

been wasted” (Kambar 1991). Patriarchal society values the beauty of women

and nature as possession as they are considered passive in their culture.

In ‘SS,’ Kambar explicates how patriarchy maintains dualism. The

Prince refuses to marry the maidens chosen by his mother. He finds ‘some

defect, or other’ in them and believes in a ‘flawless one.’ His mother rightly

points out that “Which maiden is flawless? Son, if you want such a maiden,

then you yourself must be your own wife” (Kambar 1991). But the Prince

persists in his belief and convinces his mother by saying that “I have faith that

a flawless one must exist, mother. From the day my voice broke, I have felt

that she is hiding some where, like butter in milk. She is also trying to come

out of her hiding place somewhere. Give me time to show her to you”

(Kambar 1991). Pestered by him, Queen Mayavati gives him “One week’s

120

time to say who the maiden is” (Kambar 1991). The Prince is perturbed by the

thought of a ‘flawless maiden’ and one day, he finds her in his dream. He

narrates that:

While I was fast asleep, it seemed that the wall of this palace

cracked, and someone drew a sword from its scabbard and

let my thighs feel its edge…. Well, it is suddenly filled with

life, and its face bloomed with youth, and blossomed with a

mysterious smile. While I went on watching it-no, her-she

started to dance around me holding the holy flame in her

palm. As she danced the sight of her flooded my limbs with

pleasure and the pleasure became a creeper winding tightly

all round my body and blocking my breath so that I was

stumbling and in this tight embrace she dissolved into me

(Kambar 1991).

The Prince wants to marry the Lamp-maiden and demands that the

elders should get her for him, “in whatever form she is” (Kambar 1991). The

elders humbly reply that it is their responsibility to get the maiden desired by

the Prince. Moreover, the Prince urges the elders to split him into “two equal

pieces” and stuff them in two different pots. Then “both pots should be buried

among flowers. On the next full-moon day, when you open the two pots, you

will see come out of one a Prince of matchless charm, that is, myself. From

the other will come the palace Lamp-maiden, a woman of statue-like beauty

holding a light in her hand” (Kambar 1991). The elders are compelled to carry

out his wish and in the end they find the Prince in one pot and a snake in the

other, instead of the Lamp-maiden. As the Lamp-maiden is not found, the

Prince is compelled to marry Siri Sampige.

After his marriage with Siri Sampige, problems arise in their

married life due to the Prince’s duality. He fails to see woman as both body

121

and mind. He is not satisfied by Siri Sampige and “everywhere he went

searching only for the Lamp-maiden” (Kambar 1991). The Prince starts going

out at odd hours in search of the Lamp-maiden. One day, when he goes in

search of her, he becomes thirsty and looks into the pond. Even the pond

resists his dualism:

At the touch of his breath, as if angered, the water in the

pond trembled and waves rose and broke up the reflected

clouds and the deep blue sky seemed to be sliced by cruel

knives. But my friend and Prince did not draw back. Until

the play of the water was finished he remained still, and then

again he looked at himself in the water.… He caught the

reflection in his cupped hands and looked at it. The water

spilled out between his fingers. Again he caught it and again

it spilled. Then, as if the whole forest were crying, he raised

his voice saying ‘Maiden, Maiden!’ and weeping (Kambar

1991).

The Prince’s behavior is the result of patriarchal dualism. Patriarchy has the

habit of distinguishing body from the mind and emotion from reason. The

Prince dislocates the beauty of the Lamp-maiden away from bodily form and

searches for her impossible existence. By practicing duality, he suffers and

even happens to be the cause of others’ suffering.

Kambar points out how the wants of women are forsaken in the

patriarchal society. Sri Sampige is very loyal to her husband and she resists

Kalinga’s attempts to seduce her. Even after many days of married life, the

Prince has not paid any attention to her desires. She has been longing for a

person to share her feminine wants. During this time, Kalinga tries to seduce

her. Though she is disturbed by him, she is determined not to yield. She says

“I have become like a boat caught in a storm and overturned. Someone is

122

opening the doors of my youthful breast, and shaking all my desires to

awaken them. No, I must not sacrifice my judgment to such base desires. I

will talk with that man … scold him and send him away” (Kambar 1991). She

is overpowered by the charm of Kalinga and conceives out of the relationship.

But she strongly feels that “My body is not a commodity, Kalinga. For you

the child may be an extension of your pride in yourself, but for me it is a

wound you have given me” (Kambar 1991). When the Prince comes to know

her illicit pregnancy he accuses her of her guilt. Siri Sampige boldly replies

that:

That is your ill fortune. My immorality started, my Lord,

when you forgot the body and began carving for the god,

and slipped away from our bed…. I am already half widow,

my Lord. When you are before me, my body is widowed;

when I am with him, lying with him, my mind is widowed.

Thus I am always half widow. There is nothing to equal such

a torture. My sorrow is that no one understands me. I am

alone… (Kambar 1991).

The fury of the Prince does not subside even after her explanation

and he starts searching for, Kalinga. One day, he finds Kalinga in Siri

Sampige’s bed chamber and challenges him for a duel. In the duel, he kills

Kalinga and comes to know that he has killed his own brother. As per the

prophecy, he dies as his brother died. Finally, he reconciles with Siri Sampige

and quits the world. Through the study, it is found out that the mentality that

forsakes the wants of women fails to acknowledge the rights of nature too.

The Prince fails to understand both women and nature due to his patriarchal

culture.

Kambar has powerfully portrayed the oppression of women and the

domination of nature through his representation of patriarchal culture. He

123

pictures how patriarchy isolates women from power and uses it to subordinate

them. He also depicts the absence of women and creation in religion and

explicates the glorification of male in patriarchal culture. Moreover, he

highlights the acts of patriarchy that oppose regeneration and creation.

Further, he reveals how women and nature are considered possession as a

result of the patriarchal misinterpretation of woman-nature connection. By

capturing the dualism of patriarchy and the denigration of feminine wants,

Kambar exposes its shortcomings.

3.4 ‘MADAIAH THE COBBLER’

‘MTC’ (Madari Madaiah) was first performed in Ksetrayya,

Kalakshetra, Vijayawada, at the Central Sangeet Nataka Akademi South Zone

Festival, 1991. It was translated from Kannada into English by Lakshmi

Chandrashekar. This section focuses on Shivaprakash’s depiction of the

impact of patriarchy on women and nature.

Merchant (1996) remarks in her book ‘Earthcare: Women and the

Environment’ that “Hallen sees eco-feminism as a broad, diverse, worldwide

movement, dedicated to preventing ‘further deterioration of both women’s

condition and that of non-human nature’ … having generated a number of

unique eco-feminist approaches, bringing together women and men who offer

a variety of ideas and strategies.” Through the play, Shivaprakash portrays

how the attitude of men toward women is linked to their attitude toward

nature and vice-versa. The society which fails to acknowledge the value of

women is unhealthy for the promotion of ecology. In ‘MTC,’ Shivaprakash

also portrays a culture which is totally patriarchal and illustrates how it needs

to refine itself so as to accommodate women and nature.

Shivaprakash exhibits the domination of women and nature through

religion in the play. Gaia and Isis are female deities who saved the earth from

124

chaos and represented female power and force for change. In the pre-historic

era, the society was ‘matrifocal,’ ‘matrilineal’ but the condition was changed

gradually due to ‘patriarchal dualism’ (Merchant 1996). In this play, the

concept of God, framed by the patriarchal society, occupies the stage right

from the beginning. When the play opens, seven Guddas appear on the stage

and introduce themselves. From their introduction, they are identified as the

‘Elephant Hill,’ ‘the Honey Bee Hill,’ ‘the Wild Wood Hill,’ ‘the Cobra Hill,’

‘the Gunji Hill,’ ‘the Gulganji Hill,’ and ‘the Cobbler.’ The word ‘Gudda’

literally means guru or wise, elderly man.

In the play, even the Guddas invoke male gods rather than female

goddesses. ‘Blessed man of miracles,’ ‘Lord Ishwara of Sangama,’ ‘Lord of

the moon-lit night,’ ‘Madeva,’ ‘Madappa, the miracle maker,’ ‘Lord

Thimmappa of Tirupati,’ ‘Bless us O son of Hara!,’ ‘Hail to the Elephant

God,’ and ‘Father Shani’ are the representations of male authority and

glorification. Patriarchal culture has replaced female goddesses with its male

gods.

Some eco-feminists even advocate the revival of ancient rituals

centered on goddess worship and the female reproductive system. The

biological activities are misunderstood by men, who are the product of

cultural dualism and patriarchal society. They associate women with nature

due to their biological activities and degrade both women and nature. In order

to create awareness of women’s reproductive system and biological activities

eco-feminists look for the revival of creation stories. They believe that the

difference in biological activities does not pose any problem to women in

being equal to men. The differentiation is due to patriarchal culture that

distinguishes women from men. In this regard, Simon de Beauvoir (1972)

rightly points out that women and men are biologically different but women

can ‘transcend their biology’ to assume masculine values. By denying women

125

their rightful choice in representing the environment through religion,

patriarchy blocks the promotion of ecological values in the society.

In ‘MTC,’ Shivaprakash points out the failure of patriarchal culture

in understanding women and nature. The association between women and

nature is misunderstood by patriarchy and men think that they are superior to

and cleverer than women. They forget the fact that women are saner and

closer to wisdom than men. Owing to their reverence for nature, women can

understand better the cycles of nature and display ecological wisdom. De

Beauvoir (1972) exposes the false representation of women and nature in

patriarchy thus: “Woman is related to nature; she incarnates it: Vale of blood,

open rose, siren, the curve of a hill, she represents to man the fertile soil, the

sap, the material beauty and the soul of the world.” The false representation is

due to the lack of understanding about women and nature among men.

Eco-feminism insists on the connection between the domination of

women and the domination of nature. The connection between the twin

domination of women and nature can be well defined through Sravana. In

‘MTC,’ King Sravana tries to possess Earth Mother and his attitude of

possession created in him the urge to possess other elements too. Five

elements, guardians of the eight directions, trinities, gods and demons cannot

save the Earth Mother because king Sravana has imprisoned all of them.

Shivaprakash brilliantly explains how women are treated as

commodity and are denied individuality in the patriarchal culture. Madaiah

goes in search of the sandals made of human skin. While he is walking

through the forest, a few Robbers (products of patriarchal society that treats

women as objects of possession) block his way and inquire about the

palanquin. Madaiah says that it contains a lovely young woman, laden with

jewels and money. The robbers become energetic and compete for the

belongings:

126

Robber 1 : I’ll take the money !

Robber 2 : I’ll keep the jewels !

Robber 3 : And I will have the lovely young woman

(Shivaprakash 2002c).

The robbers consider even the woman as an object to be possessed and deny

her the right of a human being. They consider her as commodity rather than

their counterpart.

Shivaprakash’s portrayal of women’s correspondence with nature

and patriarchy’s accusation is highly commendable. The evil men in King

Sravana’s kingdom failed to realize not only the importance of non- human

environment but also the dignity of females. Madaiah meets Sankavva in the

forest when he goes in search of the sandals. She is the daughter of the forest

deity. She emerged from a conch and is therefore called, ‘the conch-woman.’

She has been living in the forest fostering her daily communion with it. She is

quite happy amidst trees and flowers and is self-content. Moreover, her birth

itself shows her connection to nature and her association with it. Madaiah and

the Guddas find her in a thorny hut which is not big enough for a human. The

thorns must be pricking her every time she turns. She shouts “Oh! The pain!

The pain!” (Shivaprakash 2002c). Moreover, the hut is surrounded by charms

and spells. She cannot come out and no one can enter it.

Gudda 2 desires to rescue Sankavva but Madaiah stops him saying

that “It isn’t that easy, Gudappa. There are magic circles drawn round the hut.

Anyone trying to cross the circles is sure to be bitten by a black cobra. Watch

me break through these magic circles” (Shivaprakash 2002c). Madaiah breaks

the circles and releases Sankavva from the hut. He inquires her about her

husband and the cause for her predicament. Sankavva reports that

Neelagowda of the soligas is her husband. As she could not bear him a child

127

even after many years of marriage, he started taunting her about her

barrenness and made her suffer unbearable pain in the thorny hut. She,

moreover, tells Madaiah that “The forest turned barren like me. There was no

more game. Plants and trees were without fruits and berries. Our tribesmen

moved off to other forests and towns. My husband, too, went with them”

(Shivaprakash 2002c).

Patriarchy fails to appreciate women’s correspondence with nature

and blames them for no fault of theirs. In his conversation with Sankavva,

Madaiah exposes the hypocrisy of patriarchy to Sankavva by saying, “Dear

Sankavva! you aren’t barren. Your husband and tribesmen have made you

barren. Come out, my child” (Shivaprakash 2002c). Through Sankavva,

Shivaprakash points out how patriarchy fails to understand women’s

connection to nature and how it ignores both women and nature. He also

shows how their rejection leads to the ‘twin domination.’

In the play, Shivaprakash tries to expose the systems that dominate

women and nature and attempts to liberate them. Anthropological studies

have suggested that the identification of women with nature and males with

culture is both ancient and widespread and new archeological discoveries of

early civilizations in Mesopotamia detect that an egalitarian attitude was

practiced among the ancient people of the region (Merchant 1996). According

to Carolyn Merchant (1996), “An organically oriented mentality in which

female principles played an important role was undermined and replaced by a

mechanically oriented mentality that either eliminated or used female

principles in an exploitative manner.” Shivaprakash too clarifies the same

through the play.

In ‘MTC,’ King Sravana (also Samana) of Bankari arranges for a

feast to celebrate his conquest of the three worlds. He is not satisfied

128

conquering the three worlds and wants to conquer the Sun, Moon and Earth

Mother. He begins his war with the moon God first:

Guddas’ Song: Soldiers of Samana

Set off for the moon.

Two hundred behind him

Three hundred before,

In the centre goes Samaniah

Wearing his titles

Riding on the Elephant God

Marching to battles (Shivaprakash 2002c).

Before Sravana’s might, Moon God looses his grandeur and is even afraid of

him. Gathering all his stars together, Moon God begins his battle and loses it

even before it begins. King Sravana marches with Moon God as his prisoner

‘tied to his elephant’s leg.’ Then he proceeds toward the Sun:

Guddas’ Song: Two hundred before him

Three hundred behind

Marches King Samanaiah

To conquer the Sun (Shivaprakash 2002c).

After hearing “the arrest of his brother, the Time-Keeper of the world has

fallen into deep thought” (Shivaprakash 2002c). He does not find ways to

escape from Sravana and surrenders to him. Sravana captured both Moon and

Sun. Not satisfied with his victory, he wants to reach the pinnacle by

capturing the Earth Mother: “Having taken both Sun and Moon prisoners,

Samanaiah rushes with his army to the Kingdom of Earth Mother”

(Shivaprakash 2002c).

129

Shivaprakash explains through Sravana how the association

between women and nature leads to the domination of both. Eco-feminists

blame the patriarchal culture that glorifies men and dominates women. King

Sravana is just an embodiment of the glorification of male authority which

eco-feminists try to ‘dismantle.’ As the Earth is represented through female

(Mother), the male (Sravana) tries to possess and control her. He haughtily

boasts, “...during all these epochs, we were under your control. Now, you are

our possession. In future, you will not threaten us with your weapons like

famines and floods. You will not hide from us your precious stones, roots and

minerals” (Shivaprakash 2002c).

When King Sravana is adamant in capturing Earth Mother, she

comments wittily to point out the bond between humans and earth thus:

“Sravana, my child! What do you intend to do with me? Kill me if you like.

But, mark this-When I die, you will all die with me” (Shivaprakash 2002c).

There is none to prevent King Sravana from his cruelty. King Sravana has

already captured all the powerful gods and no one is there to save the Earth

Mother. Sravana ignores also the warnings of Earth Mother. Moreover, he

fails to remember the benefits received from her. He is ready to sacrifice

everybody for his egotism and irrationality. He represents the attitude of

patriarchy that puts the life of the planet Earth and women into danger due to

their association constructed by patriarchal culture. To save the Earth Mother,

the Guddas decide to seek the help of Madaiah. Gudda 7 says: “Sure! When

Samana treats Earth Mother like footwear, who else but a cobbler should

rescue her?” (Shivaprakash 2002c).

Madaiah was born the son of Utrajamma and Chandrasekar appa, a

cobbler couple living a lowly life beyond the seven fences. Therefore, Madari

is the other name by which he is known. As Madaiah says, his home is: “A

snake-pit on the Honey Bee Hill, under a tree laden with hives or the tall cliffs

130

of the Elephant Hill, beyond the wings of birds and bees” (Shivaprakash

2002c). It seems that Madaiah gains power due to his observance of the laws

of nature and he devises a plan to free Earth Mother. He promises King

Sravana that he would bring a pair of sandals made of human skin which

nobody has ever worn before. As Sravana tries to oppress and dominate

humans and non-human others, Madaiah attempts to teach him a lesson.

Thus, Shivaprakash demonstrates the irrational acts of patriarchy in

aggravating the domination of women through woman-nature connection.

Through Madaiah, he stresses that Earth Mother can be saved only when

people remember the sanctity of environment and associate themselves with

it.

Shivaprakash explicates how the sexual terms that represent women

and nature help in the domination and oppression of both. Nature is often

described in sexual terms and degraded to the core. King Sravana considers

Earth Mother as an object that can be used to satisfy his vulgar desires. He

tells Earth Mother “Don’t deceive me with your fancy words. I know you are

deathless. Besides, beauty ought to be relished in living being, not in a

corpse” (Shivaprakash 2002c). When Earth Mother calls him child, he

proclaims haughtily that he shall be her husband. He shall ‘explore all her

secrets and taste all her pleasures.’ He says that Earth Mother is an

‘inexplicable riddle.’ Owing to the feminization of nature, the domination of

women and nature is prevalent in the society. ‘MTC’ depicts many incidents

that connect women with nature and vice versa. These incidents allude to the

degradation of both women and nature.

Shivaprakash establishes the value of nature through the play.

Eco-feminist ethics proclaims the autonomy of nature and asserts that man is

dependent on environment whereas environment is independent. Men have

separated the material world from them and symbolically linked it with

131

women. Even the earth, (the place from which plant and animal life arise) is

linked with the bodies of women (from which babies emerge). Eco-feminists

suggest that man must realize his orientation with nature and maintain

correspondence with the cycles of nature. King Sravana fails to feel his

connection to the earth (Land) and wants to rule the entire environment,

without acknowledging the importance of environment. He is totally the

paragon of patriarchy which is one of the root causes of ‘ecocatastrophe.’

Through ‘MTC,’ Shivaprakash attests that the liberation of women

from the clutches of patriarchy alone can promote a healthy ecological

society. Salleh (1988) points out that “Eco-feminism is a recent development

in feminist thought which says that the current global environmental crisis is a

predictable outcome of patriarchal culture.” King Sravana has been brought

up by the conceptual structures of domination that construct women and

nature in male biased ways. His activities do admit that the domination of

nature is the result of the oppression of women. It is his attitude toward

woman that initiates him toward the domination of nature.

Eco-feminists strongly believe that nature can be liberated, only

when women are liberated. King Sravana is a tyrant who oppresses women

and nature through his status and authority. He considers women and nature

as passive and irrational and his attitude compels him to dominate them. Eco-

feminists observe that women are not included in discussion and debates that

define their own nature as emotional and passive. Male nature is identified as

active and female is considered passive. The division between the sexes leads

to the domination of nature. Warren (1987) asserts that women are considered

by men as the realm of physical because they are identified with nature and

men identify themselves with ‘human-mind’ and therefore the realm of the

mental. Eco-feminism wants to liberate both women and nature from this

domination.

132

Through the play, Shivaprakash underlines the value of non-human

others and Eco-feminism too hints at the same. Not surprisingly, the stone

speaks philosophically in this play thus: “I have been a stone for hundreds of

years…. Forgive me! Having been a stone for hundreds of years, I had

forgotten the manners of the civilized world…” (Shivaprakash 2002c).

Shivaprakash points to the downfall of patriarchy through the play.

When King Sravana forces Earth Mother to sit on his lap, Madaiah interferes

and hands over the sandals. King Sravana wears the sandals and shouts in

agony “Madari! Oh, Madari! My eyes are filled with red flame! My body is

filled with unbearable heat! My ears are deafened…” (Shivaprakash 2002c).

He collapses on the ground and Earth Mother stands breathing hard, the

personification of anger. Madaiah removes Sravana’s crown and holds it

before her like a begging bowl. He pleads with her “Dear Earth Mother!

Forget the wrongs committed by your children…. Renounce your terrible

anger and give alms of mercy to your children” (Shivaprakash 2002c).

By pointing out the aggravation of ‘twin domination’ through

religion, Shivaprakash calls for the reformation of religion. He establishes

women’s correspondence with nature and proves their worth in the

maintenance of environment. He further pictures the hurdles posed by

patriarchy in the woman-nature connection to expose its irrationality and anti-

ecological beliefs. Moreover, he declares the dualism practiced in the

patriarchal society and insists on the need to respect women and nature for

their merits. He also presents how the metaphors that are suggestive of sexual

assault render women and nature passive and submissive in the patriarchal

society.

Eco-feminism insists on the need for symbolic revolution in the

social, sexual and economic structures that exploit both women and nature to

liberate them. In ‘MTC,’ Shivaprakash has brilliantly captured all the evils of

133

patriarchy and suggests reconsideration of masculine values. Through this

study, the role of patriarchal duality in ‘the twin dominations of both women

and nature’ is identified and the unhealthy connection between women and

nature is also analyzed.

3.5 ‘MADHAVI’

‘MA’ (Madhavi) was originally written in Kannada and performed

in 1994. It was translated from Kannada into English by Lakshmi

Chandrashekar. It puts up the ‘other side’ of the popular Tamil epic

‘Silappadikaram.’ The cover page of the play states that it “tells the story of

the eponymous heroine, a courtesan of unmatched beauty and talent,

following the desertion by her lover, Kovalan. The play is a compelling

expression of her sense of loss and the denouement is a moving testimony to

the mutual exclusivity of the worlds of reality and fantasy” (Shivaprakash

2002e).

The play is very short and there are only three characters and a

band of musicians. Madhavi, Selvi and Valli are the three characters whose

dialogues do provide impetus for the eco-feminist reading of the play. The

undercurrent of patriarchy runs all through the play. In the play, the women

are conditioned by oppressive conceptual structures and their dialogues do

reveal their subjugation.

This section focuses on the impact of patriarchy on women and

nature. Through the analysis, some of the notable traits of eco-feminism are

identified. They include, (i) Talent of women in leading a harmonious life

with nature, (ii) Women’s acceptance of oppression as their lot, (iii) Women

considered as objects that satisfy men, (iv) Domination through woman-

nature connection, (v) Women’s knowledge of nature, and (vi) Patriarchal

dualism.

134

Through the play, Shivaprakash cherishes the talent of women in

leading a harmonious life with nature. The women in the play are aware of the

comforts of nature and they have chosen the sea-side mansion as their

dwelling place. Moreover, they are aware of the ways to maintain

correspondence with nature. The play opens with the roar of the stormy sea

and “Selvi enters with a light and begins to light the lamps in the room one by

one while she sings the following song” (Shivaprakash 2002e). The song

unfolds the feminine wisdom that points out mysterious workings of nature.

She declares that nature takes its course from evening to night when “black

clouds scowl and rough winds howl” (Shivaprakash 2002e) and she further

tries to accommodate herself by “breathing life into the lamp” (Shivaprakash

2002e). She is confident that the light will bring life into the place though it

will allow the roar of rough winds in the “black bosom of the night”

(Shivaprakash 2002e). Moreover, she says that it is going to rain soon and on

the other hand, her mistress Madhavi will have “nascent summer”

(Shivaprakash 2002e) in her room. Thus, Selvi declares her intimate

knowledge about the cycles of nature and handles it in an efficient way.

Madhavi too exhibits her talent in interpreting the cycles of nature.

She points out the uncontrollable nature of time and reveals its power over

humans. She says that “the wheel of time keeps rolling on” and “seasons will

come and go” (Shivaprakash 2002e). She invokes the rising sun and the

setting moon to share her feelings. She could not bear the pangs of separation

and at the same time, she could not overcome the unconquerable time.

Valli, the maid of Madhavi, also declares her affinity with nature

and desires to lead a harmonious life with it. When Selvi chides Valli for

coming late, she replies that she is retained in the coast as it happens to be a

“feast day for all the fishing folk” (Shivaprakash 2002e). She expresses her

discomfort when Selvi asks her to close the windows. Valli feels that the

shutting of the windows will obliterate the chance of enjoying “the wild dance

135

of the waves or the terrifying forms of the clouds” (Shivaprakash 2002e).

Moreover, she announces her dislike for the life that distorts her connection to

nature and wishes:

How I wish I had been born in that broken hut on the sea-

shore instead of being this rich lady’s maid! Then, you and

your mistress couldn’t have stood between me and the sea

(Shivaprakash 2002e).

In ‘MA,’ Shivaprakash expounds how women themselves accept

patriarchal tendency in spite of their feminine wisdom. Though Valli

considers nature supreme, she succumbs to patriarchy that dominates nature.

During the feast day for the fishery folk on the coast a ‘bronze-bodied gallant’

has caught a fish ‘as large as a house’ and brings it to the shore. Valli believes

that some pretty maid had promised to marry him if he would prove his valor

by catching a giant fish risking the stormy sea. Right from the moment, the

man haunts her mind and she cannot think of anything else other than that

“gallant who brought home that house-large fish” (Shivaprakash 2002e). Valli

accepts the taming of nature as masculine trait and appreciates the man for it.

She voluntarily subordinates female power to the lure of masculinity operated

by the patriarchal culture. She represents the women who are carried away by

the influence of patriarchy. In this regard, Kelly (1997) exposes the dexterity

of patriarchy thus:

Men’s domination of women is deep and systemic, and it is

accepted around the world by most men and many women as

“natural,” as something that somehow cannot be changed.

But norms of human behavior do change. Because the

oppression of women is so deeply embedded in our societies

and our psyches, it continues to be invisible, even to those

who are working to overcome other forms of injustice.

136

Shivaprakash underscores that women must understand their might

and come out of all shackles. Their subjugation and oppression are linked to

the domination of nature by men. By liberating themselves from the clutches

of patriarchy, they can liberate nature from domination.

In the play, Shivaprakash declares how patriarchy considers women

as objects that satisfy men. The sad state is that women themselves help men

to perpetuate it. As men mark their ‘transcendent subjectivity’ (Alaimo 2000)

by separating themselves from the world of nature, eco-feminists want to

transform gender relations and to create an appropriate view of nature. The

play illustrates how women are deceived in the name of gender. Madhavi, the

heroine of the play, sacrifices all her whims and fancies to patriarchy and

considers satisfying her lover (the male) is her only duty.

Selvi brilliantly exposes Madhavi’s irrationality through her clever

arguments. Madhavi asks Selvi to verify whether the ‘samrani’ fragrance in

her hair is mild. She urges Selvi “to get a good whiff” (Shivaprakash 2002e)

as “Kovala finds it unpleasant when the fragrance is too strong”

(Shivaprakash 2002e). When Selvi is about to tie the hair of the mistress,

Madhavi asks her whether Selvi is going to tie the hair, ie, “plait it or make a

knot” (Shivaprakash 2002e). She is so curious because Kovala prefers a

different style every time. When the hair was put up he used to ask why it was

not plaited as her plait was like their “love bond” (Shivaprakash 2002e). In

case it was plaited, he demanded knot as “plait is like a rope” (Shivaprakash

2002e). Selvi sarcastically comments that Kovala prefers a kind according to

his mood. She asks for the mood of the mistress to tie it as the hair is not tied

yet. Madhavi comments that untied hair is suitable for women who are

separated from their lovers permanently. Hers is a separation that is full of

hope and the hair style should suit that “kind of a mood” (Shivaprakash

2002e). For that, Selvi ironically states that it is her face that can express “the

137

feeling of hopeful separation” (Shivaprakash 2002e) and not her hair and she

asks “when hopes materialize, where is the need for a hair-do?”

(Shivaprakash 2002e). Pricked by her words Madhavi asks Selvi to stop such

‘thorny words’ but demands ‘working’ on her hair.

Madhavi used to make use of her forehead to win the affection of

Kovala by drawing some designs on it and terms it ‘one more ornament to her

face.’ Selvi attempts to draw ‘the design of a flame’ on the forehead of her

mistress to capture the passion of the lovers. But she withdraws herself due to

the lesson she learned from her past experience. In the past, whenever she

drew the design of the flame, Madhavi used to chide her for not drawing the

crescent moon and star which her darling Kovala likes. Selvi solves the

problem by drawing a flame surrounded by stars. When the design is over,

Madhavi urges Selvi to deck her ‘up with the jewels’ which Kovala likes. For

that, Selvi comments that Madhavi herself is a jewel and there is no need to

“deck up a jewel with jewels” (Shivaprakash 2002e). She further questions

the intensity of Kovala’s love by asking “How can he be in love if he loves

the mistress for her jewels” (Shivaprakash 2002e). Thus, Shivaprakash

reveals through the actions of Madhavi how women are made to satisfy men

as worthy objects.

In ‘MA,’ Shivaprakash authenticates how the patriarchal system

perpetuates its dominance over women and nature by comparing one with the

other. The musicians as a part of patriarchal culture proclaim that the color of

Madhavi’s hair is “blacker than the clouded stormy night” (Shivaprakash

2002e) and lightening is brighter than the ‘sparkle’ of her hair. The ‘glow’ on

her face is more luminous than the emerging moon and the ‘cool’ of her

“moon-like face” is “more soothing than the milky moon-light”

(Shivaprakash 2002e). Eco-feminists blame the tendency that aggravates the

‘twin domination’ by associating with the other.

138

In the play, the woman-nature comparison leads to their

domination. Women are deceived by the design of patriarchy and they help

men to oppress them. Madhavi is made the victim of patriarchy as she allows

herself to be exploited by the woman-nature connection. Even she goes to the

extent of feeling the comparison a just one and feels happy about it. When

Selvi finishes tying Madhavi’s hair, Madhavi appreciates her:

You have tied them together and made them look like the

udders of the sacred cow, Kamadhenu. My hair feels like it

is hanging loose though it is tied up. And the pearls

encircling it hardly seem to be there, like little lamps,

frightened by the dark, stormy night burning feebly inside

tiny houses. How did your fingers acquire such skill?

(Shivaprakash 2002e).

Influenced by patriarchy, Madhavi compares herself with passive qualities

and allows to be dominated. Even her mother did the same. In her death-bed

she told Madhavi, “Madhavi, many birds come to sit on our branches and

taste our fruits. Why this stubborn decision to retain this one bird which came

one spring? Look, the bird is for ever flying away. Spring is passing”

(Shivaprakash 2002e). Madhavi replied “But in that spring, this tree

blossomed for that bird alone” (Shivaprakash 2002e). By accepting

themselves as trees, that feed all people, these women create chance for men

to misuse them. Patriarchy dominates both women and nature and these

women unwittingly allow themselves to be exploited. It is their assumed

connection with nature that indirectly helps men to establish their power over

them.

Shivaprakash emphasizes that women should identify the pitfalls of

woman-nature connection and guard themselves against succumbing to

patriarchy. They must oppose all kinds of representation that connect them

139

improperly to nature and degrade them. In this regard, Birkeland (1993)

observes that:

This association of women and nature has had tragic

consequences for humans and the rest of nature. Some

feminists have suggested, however, that this association can

be converted into a positive by affirming so-called feminine

values, such as caring, openness, and nurturing. This

affirmation has been distorted by some who seem to fear that

women will somehow take power and do what men have

done. However, the very essence of Ecofeminism is its

challenge to the presumed necessity of power relationships.

It is about changing from a morality based on “power over”

to one based on reciprocity and responsibility (“power to”).

Through ‘MA,’ Shivaprakash dramatizes women’s knowledge of

nature. Madhavi has learned the art of reading the voice of nature by her sheer

correspondence with it. When Kovala is away, she can see him and can hear

his ‘heart beating’ for her. His heart beat is “louder than the sound of that

mighty wave” and “the tempest that unleashes it” (Shivaprakash 2002e). She

hears the thunder and hopes that “he doesn’t get soaked in the rain”

(Shivaprakash 2002e). Failure to observe the functioning of nature brings

doom and Kovala fails to notice the course of nature and sets his voyage to

fulfill his ‘deeply felt desire.’ As a consequence, he faces “Thunder bolt that

seems to cleave the raging seas into two, pouring down rain the next moment!

Ceaselessly like a falling sea from above and the hapless ship reeling like a

dry leaf afloat” (Shivaprakash 2002e). Kovala and the travelers are frightened

and they start praying, after thinking that “their search for wealth would end

this way” (Shivaprakash 2002e). As Madhavi possesses the knowledge of

nature, her apparition appears before Kovala and urges him to remember the

140

goddess of thunder Manimegalai and to appeal “to return calm into the sea

she herself has enraged” (Shivaprakash 2002e). He heeds to her advice and

prays to the goddess and finds “the storm ceased in a short while, the sea

sighed in relief. Rain became gentler with every drop. The ship stood still,

motionless like the earth” (Shivaprakash 2002e). Kovala fails to interpret

nature as he does not possess knowledge of it. He puts his life in danger.

Madhavi has observed nature and learned its functioning. She protects herself

and saves the life of Kovala too.

In the play, Shivaprakash portrays the patriarchal culture that

associates man with valor and economic decisions and women with beauty

and nature. Kovala wants to get a necklace that could match the beauty of his

mistress and sets on another voyage. He explores “Kamboja in the east, Persia

and Greece in the west. The wide blue seas between them... Emerald-green

forests, burning deserts... frozen mountains... pearl-while rivers....”

(Shivaprakash 2002e) and “in short he searches the whole earth”

(Shivaprakash 2002e) to get a necklace for his mistress. He retains the right to

earnings to himself and considers Madhavi only for her beauty.

Kovala is crazy about flowers. His love for nature is irrational and

it is unhealthy. The dialogue between Madhavi and Selvi exposes it. Madhavi

inquires Selvi whether she had collected the flowers to please him. For that

Selvi replies that she had arranged for “a virtual flower-fair” (Shivaprakash

2002e) in the bedroom. Then Madhavi inquires further about the garland that

Selvi brought “to adorn his neck”( Shivaprakash 2002e). Selvi reveals that

Madhavi herself is not sure of the garland. Madhavi terms jasmines as ‘pale

faced,’ champak as ‘frowning flowers.’ Further, Selvi says that if she brings

needle-shaped jasmine, Madhavi wants the round one and if she brings the

round one, Madhavi demands twilight jasmines. Whenever she brings both,

Madhavi asks for the ‘ball-like chrysanthemum’ (Shivaprakash 2002e). So

141

she brought “garlands of various flowers waiting in this basket competing

with each other to embrace your darling’s neck” (Shivaprakash 2002e).

Madhavi herself says that when she meets Kovala her “bosom unfurls like a

flower and disperses its fragrance of love in the winds. But while waiting, it

keeps everything inside and guards it form exploding like the earth hiding

gold in her womb” (Shivaprakash 2002e). Thus, these women represent how

men value them for their beauty. These women are powerless and accept

patriarchy as their lot.

Through the play, Shivaprakash shows how patriarchy distorts the

rationality of women. Madhavi is deserted by Kovala and she undergoes

inexplicable trauma due to the separation. Most of the time, she used to live in

the fantasy world of her own. Madhavi and Kovala have a child named after

the sea-goddess. When it starts crying Madhavi comes to reality and her

world of fantasy is broken. She says to her child, “…sleep Kovala’s offspring.

We are both crying. I will be sucking the breast of sleep and you go to sleep

sucking my breast” (Shivaprakash 2002e) and she further asks Selvi that “But

tell me, why did my Kovala go to that wretched Madurai? When is he coming

back? Tell me. Why did he desert me?” (Shivaprakash 2002e). Had Madhavi

followed the advice of her mother, she would have acquired riches but she

considered Kovala the most precious of all wealth. Patriarchy associates

women with emotions and distances men from it. It associates men with

reason and ignores women’s emotion as irrationality.

By acknowledging women’s ability to maintain integrity in the

environment, Shivaprakash urges men to follow women. He exposes how

women fall prey to patriarchy by accepting subordination as their lot and put

nature under the control of men. He further attests that by allowing

themselves to be considered as objects, women perpetuate their own

oppression. He also points out how improper comparison of women and

142

nature leads to the downfall of both women and nature. He appreciates the

wisdom and knowledge of women in preserving the environment. Finally,

Shivaprakash reveals the shortcomings of patriarchy by exposing its duality.

3.6 CONCLUSION

A comprehensive study of the select plays of Kambar and

Shivaprakash depicts their espousal of the principles of eco-feminism.

In ‘JO,’ Kambar points out the false ideologies of patriarchal

culture and its impact on women and nature. He shows how patriarchy

assumes its own masculine values that disregard both the feminine wisdom

and the bounties of nature. Through “SS,’ Kambar reveals the dualism of

patriarchy and establishes its actions against creation and regeneration of

lives.

In ‘MTC,’ Shivaprakash renders the patriarchy’s urge to dominate

women and nature and captures its downfall. He also claims the significance

of women and nature and conveys their might and worth. Through ‘MA,’

Shivaprakash explicates how patriarchy victimizes women and nature by

treating them as objects that exist for the pleasure of men. He further

expounds women’s submission to patriarchal values.

Thus, Kambar and Shivaprakash express their stand against the

oppression of women and nature and call for the replacement of patriarchal

culture. A study of their plays illuminates the representation of the principles

of eco-feminism.

The next chapter focuses on their principles of eco-marxism in their

select plays.