BENGALURU: Narratives of female characters in our epics have all been from a male perspective. Rarely the character of the woman had an ‘agency’ that is feminine.
Even Shurpanakhi- the disfigured (sic) sister of Ravana in Ramayana is as she appears to men than what she felt as a woman herself. So too is Kunti or Gandhari. Why not a woman-centred narrative, an enraged ‘audience’ in a play questions the Bhagavat? Draupadi Helthavale, at Ranga Shankara made a bold attempt in tilting the balance.
For most of the 21st century, visualisation of characters from Mahabharat or Ramayana are stereotypes based on imageries in Chandamaama, calendars, and or popular films and TV Series. The portrayal of characters, especially of female ones– from having been young to becoming mothers or, even grandmothers, remains the same over a period of time.
In Draupadi Heltavale, we get to watch four different Draupadi, including one of a ‘flashback’ of her previous birth! Each has her finesse and a very impressive singing voice.
The play is a product of combining the ‘story’ drawn from a Kannada classic, Kumara Vyasa’s Karnataka Mahabharata, and a folk version by Lakshmisha Tolpadi. The finer elements of a feminist perspective could have been perceived more meaningfully with a proper understanding of this hybridization. Yet, renditions of songs by the performing artists with the accompanying music were pleasant to the ears. What many of us carried home as a lasting impression also were the dances. Not once did any of the performers miss the beat! Rangashankara’s acoustics was put to perfect use.
It is not an ordinary challenge to narrate a well-known story. There are far too many templates to beat! Director Ganesh Mandarti did impressively and with refinement: Arjuna’s shooting the revolving fish, the wrestling duel between Bheema and Keechaka, the rescuing of Draupadi’s honour by Krishna, or the entrapment and collapsing of Dushyashana: they all had a welcome departure from the routine with which most of us are familiar.
The audience's reaction to the portrayal of popular characters from our epics is an interesting sociological phenomenon indicating the times in which we now live. Roles of Siva and Keechaka certainly received as much applause as did the different versions of Draupadi. The presentation of ‘Lord’ Siva as a person of the indigenous society – the folk version – was brave on the part of the Director.
The actor too did justice to the director’s idea of the character. Keechaka stole the show – thanks perhaps to what his costume, dialogues, and gestures reminded the audience: a perfect mix of the several popular ‘woods’ – the Holly/Bolly/Tolly/Mollywoods, if not so much of Sandalwood! Was the audience’s reaction to the folk villain a reaction to the linguistically sophisticated or ‘puritanic’ presentation of the other characters or was it a left-handed response to the contemporary violence against women? Perhaps both. But as a character, Keechaka must be quite contended, for it was performed by one who fitted the bill of the popular imagination of the person. So to the key character Draupadi: each of them made a lasting impression – whether as actors, dancers, or singers.
My own special pick appeared at the very end, with Krishna and Draupadi reflecting on victory and the losses. Whether in ‘high-brow’ or folk Kannada, expressing dejection or optimism seems to be identical! The Script, enactment, voice production, and music were accompanied by perfect lighting. Good show by the Draupadi(s), Siva, Keechaka, Krishna, Bhagavatar, … practically everyone on and behind the stage, and Rangasthe in making it possible.
GK Karanth
(The writer is a well-known sociologist and theatre lover)