Bhavnagar : Rang-mohan-29th-youth-festival-2019.

Rangmohan intercollege youth festival,

Maharaja krishnakumarsinhji university,

Bhavnagar,

25-29 september, 2019.

-Organised by department of physical education😊

Have a glimpse of youth festival 

we know friends "youthfestival" has its own significance, in which our culture is reflected in various forms, such as dance, fine arts, literary events, drama etc..

On the very first day of youthfestival(25th sept.) "Kalayatra was held" in which from various colleges and departments, have taken part in exhibiting their various tableaus on particular theme called 'Gandhiji', themes such as "Gandhiji posing to keep mum, to shut the eyes and not to hear, that is inessential"🙈🙉🙊also on "swacch bharat abhiyaan" and likewise many things, comprising in it.

Moving further, we also see some major and minor themes, shown in one-act play, skit, mono-act etc.

Themes: 

Many themes were based on women like literacy, rapes, violence and love, with a touch of comic effect. 

Some themes like "Artificial intelligence", "mehulo" , "guruvandan" etc.

"Also conventionality of society was highlighted in dramatic way".

Taking "Artificial intelligence" for evaluation by applying "Aristotelian tragedy" , we are to see how it had taken place at one time, at one place and with unity of action.

There was a main conflict, that furthers the plot. Which was "the conflict between emotionality and rationality". Where a girl is telling to her friend, not to go at her home as tomorrow is her exam and if she is suppose to go to attend her father's death ceremony, perhaps she would spoil her one year and also in aftermath her career.

Chain of causes and effects was maintained "as if the girl would go at home(cause) she may loose her career(effect). If she isn't going (cause), she may be shaping her bright future ahead(effect){both positive&negative}.

While the concluded part was to make her differentiate on  her own, in actual way what is appropriate for her, to go at home?/ to give exam tomorrow? in what manner she would be benefitted, where they emphasized the idea of becoming rational, by giving exam tomorrow than joining her father's death ceremony, which is actually "the main evolutionary idea of 21st century".

"Three classical unities were maintained in some manner".

when known at the end that it was to make the girl realize on her own, it also gives 'a cathartic effect'.

If the girl had chosen 'the conventional path' there would be flaw in one-act play, but she chosen the revolutionary path  on which she is to tread upon and reach at its highest peak.

It also conveys a positive idea amidst the public "rather than being emotional, they should be rational"!

While watching some folk songs, it gives aesthetic effect, such as when boys lift themselves up in the dance and curving round their legs😍seems as somewhat dramatic/miraculous.

we also have an example of "absurd theater . where a girl is in search of  'epistolary lover', who was at times writing her love letters, but now it is stopped so some well-wishers tried to heal her from that particular trauma. At last in 'one-act play' she says "kya chhe maru raday"!

Theme seems somewhat absurd as it fails to make impact on audience and at times becomes senseless altogether with her emotions, travels from her heart. Perhaps as it is the 21st century era, this theme doesn't appeal to audience's mind. 

While placing beside it a skit performed by the same heroine of aforementioned 'one-act play' , "stage theme" was with full of impact, impressive and seems as enacted instantly. which can be analyzed with sentimental comedy, the term introduced by "Richard Steele" and we also have an example of "conscious lover", a sentimental comedy reinstated by him.

 it also gives an impact of "comedy of menace" the term introduced by Irving Wardle. Where it make one feels when the girl was narrating the life story of the stage and tried to personify it, that has come into existence from 26th september, that how the particular event, enacted by a particular performer has made inpact on audience, where analyzing their psychology they must be feeling insecure or in danger of loosing their imaginative positions.

While from our department "a skit on LGBTQ" was performed, that would have perhaps given a touch of modern tragi-comic effect, if it would have retained its charm. But it eventually loosen  or can say evaporated in some extent.

As i haven't seen each and every event, i can only offer this much to my readers. Perhaps, all events can be compared with one and other form of comedy or theatre.

Critically evaluating all these aspects, one thing struck in my mind that majority of themes were based on women's present status or we can say not the actual state of women. No one tried to put forward about "what our society ought to be" as our literature aims at. Though women are bestowed with their rights and empowered in such measure, they are still unable to utilize those in fruitful way. Instead they are violating and exploiting the rights and using those as a medium to cause damage to others or their society to which they belong or not belonging to.

While the integral thing, which works as a medium to evolve the nation is lacking. 

That is "evolutionary and innovative thinking"!

Creative/Critical thinking - Problem solving

It seems as all are after grabbing their positions in youth festival 'as a speaker also orated that "what he had seen earlier, seems as imitated by others this time, so that as former participants got, they would be able to bag such positions". While no one is thinking innovatively or bothering himself/herself to bring some new idea forward.

Why we are only highlighting the relation of "pati-patni and woh". why we aren't saying that we all indians have become blind in imitating western culture, that our actual moral sense is almost dead, of differentiating what is good and what is bad!

We always give priority to attraction, as we're attracted towards someone, we should be with him/her no matter how many girlfriends/boyfriends one has bagged in his/her purse. But we don't try to find what is concealing behind?what harm it is going to cause to our culture?  what impact it is going to establish on human minds?

Attraction = emotions

"Emotions are good, when it is healthy"!

We should highlight:

"where we are"

"what we're doing" 

"where we have involved ourselves"

We are only after highlighting, what would attract people/public and how they are going to bestow upon us such hierarchical ranks/titles.

All in all the experience of enjoying youthfestival was somewhat delightful and dormant due to some technical issues, while also thoughtful to muse upon in some extent.

Hence whether themes of various events are contemporary or not, does it contain the characteristics of particular form of comedy/tragedy or not and if it is.. How it succeeds in giving us aesthetic delight and if it gives then in what manner and what measurement! Finally what is our overall experience of enjoying the entire youthfestival.

***Thankyou***

work citations:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy_of_menace

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Esslin

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/heenabazala3/sentimentalism-anti-sentimentalism

https://sites.google.com/view/maenglishmkbu/part-1/3-lit-crit-1

John Milton : paradise-lost

Hello readers

Let's  see how 'human perspective' differs from 'God's perspective' how 'Eve' is transgresser yet defendable and acts accordingly in "paradise lost".

-Task assigned by sir (Dilip Barad)

"Examining the first question, that how is  divine perspective and human perspective is implied in paradise lost"..

We have two points in our mind regarding "Genesis":

Genesis: 2:27, 5:2

At first it is mentioned that "man and woman are created at one act, they are equal, together and so there isn't any difference between them.

Secondly it is said: "Adam is created from dust, God had breathed in his nostril and placed him in Eden". where Eve is generated from his rib, and as she is emerged out from 'Adam's rib' she is second/inferior to him.

Taking the last "long story of genesis" to see it in divine/folklore perspective"to analyze in context with paradise lost 'book no:9' . its roots are somewhere in "Hebrew"(1000-900 BCE). which is said to have written in historical context rather than in divine context. Which is said to be a construction of society, prevailing since the folklore was existing(155/160-220). Obviously it is the concept which was primarily rooted in west and whose definition was justifying those men and women status, loving in western countries.

Supporting arguments as mentioned in genesis is "a woman is disobedient, weak-willed, deceitful, prone to temptation, untrustworthy, disloyal and many other attributions. To which St. Paul  presents this document as a cause of why women are treated as such, why they should be curtailed in action as well as in rights, they must be limited to some extent.

"Men shouldn't trust women,

Women shouldn't trust other women".

Seeing this with human perspective, it strongly suggests us..

May the God can perceive his disciple as ' betrayal', as what knowledge he was getting by eating an apple of knowledge, the same was dared by the

Eve!!

Perhaps Eve was thinking "let me see, after experiencing what the God is able to gain, if I can".

Centralizing literary writers, they are always further to talk on humanity, and always talk by keeping human in centre, which John Milton has attempted in "Paradise lost".

"Necessity is the mother of invention"!

Eating apple from "forbidden tree"

The same happened with Eve. When she knew that "what is 'good' and 'evil' that she doesn't know but God is knowing. She became curious to know more, and which was impossible without eating an apple from the "forbidden tree".

A human though she/he attempts much but one can't escape oneself looking comparatively from one another, there may be some who have hammered themselves from succumbing to these tempted feeling, that is all in all leading towards destruction, while give pleasure at first.

As satan says..

"Provokes my envy, this new favourite

Of Heaven, this Man of Clay, son of despite".

where we can literally see the difference between 'man in heaven and man in hell' and his concept of hell and heaven.

We should stick to one point here that this all was prevailing during ancient times, but not after the advent of education as hailed by britishers. It had been subsequently sublime into something fruitful.

As there was also flourishing two systems side by side "patriarchical and matriarchical".  where the former one has their own customs and rules to follow, while the latter one has their own.

For example: we also have some hypothesis that at specific time, tribals were used to worship trees or nature as their God.

So as it is mythologised, they may have constructed their own society stories, from which subsequently we had many blind followers, who hadn't thought about as god knows of "what is good and evil". As he doesn't want his people to be civilized.

With moral sense only one can civilise oneself, if that sense is lost there won't be any distinction between "animals and humanbeings".

if we see in God's differentiating manner of gender, we also have "Mobydick" as an example by Hermen Melville..

Where 'the white whale' who is all powerful, more than a humanbeing, that is somewhat possessing supernaturality, with which our God is associated.

 "Heart of darkness": We have 'Kurtz' who himself consider to be the God of the people surrounding him as he is all powerful.

"The strange case of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde": Where a man derogate himself from his position to barbaric and test his power upon a girl by stumbling over her.

In three of these examples, we see power at the centre and evaluating with human Psycology  only man is elected as a power occupier, while woman is considered as inferior to him.

Hence a divine/constructed perspective may seem to be embedded somewhere in human mind, in comparative tendency and so the concept of gender or sex is prevailing over the world.

Evaluating this with human perspective, taking the first story of 'Genesis', and as we know what is the concept of the story.

A humanbeing always want him/her to be equally treated, tolerated.

So perhaps John Milton has uniquely presented his view on how and what humanbeing is carving for, what are their desires here especially considering a woman and if they are given acceptance what they may be.

But it can be also kept in mind that one shouldn't utilize his/her power beyond its limitations, otherwise what would happen, priorly he/she may be taking pride, enjoying power by inflicting pain on others, but gradually it will lead to one's downfall and that is very painful, not exactly painful but beyond that.

For example: "Tughlaq-Girish karnad"

Tughlaq is the character, who is philosophically/mentally,  physically strong, has many abilities, skills to run the kingdom, but his downfall is invited by his own self as he had tried to overtly use his power, where we may say "a carving desire to become the God".

Why one should be happy with what one is blessed. A human nature is such that as he/she gets what one has desired, one may be cherishing for something other, in this way one's desire is never satiated but it keeps on increasing after the satisfaction of one.

In this manner, if we evaluate 'Eve' as a leading character of "paradise lost". It seems as she is also craving for knowledge, that is a good aspect of her, but when she thinks that "Adam can't be excluded from this sin". Though it is considered as intellectuality, but literally seems as her thought is tainted here because one is responsible for what one has done, he/she doesn't have that privilege to drag someone of what she herself is responsible.

where we see a particle of deceitfulness, that perhaps in coming time would take a very shape like "asteroid" and that is the thing which leads a humanbeing to her/his downfall.

But John Milton has endeavored to equal woman with man, or we may say to make her supreme than man. Eve is there who has curiosity of what is knowledge of "good and evil" and in this respect she is right that one should have that developed moral sense, then only one can differentiate accordingly and as humans are blessed with brain, they need something to store in it and if here instead of Adam, Eve is carving for then what is wrong in it!😍

As we move further "John Milton" highlights how God is also behind making women inferior to men. As he kills snake but not 'satan's who is covered in the snake, Adam is also responsible of what he has done because "one should look before leaping".

It is something that if one wants to come out from gorge one cannot. since early times it is happening that women are accused in many ways, yes most of are inferior by their Psycology as we may say that their intellectuality flourishes in the environment, which they are given. If women are able to utilize their qualities, they can construct the nation altogether with their home, beyond their imagination but when some destructive traits start peeping into her personality, she is ruining herself and everything surrounding her.

It is she,  "who can make a home a heaven". 

BUT FAILS TO...

Hence we learnt how 'human perspective' and 'divine perspective' are minutely contrasting with each other while all in all it is the perspective that keeps on changing as time changes.

Coming to the question that how 'Eve' is perceived  to be a transgresser yet defendable...

Transgresser yet defendable

By divine perspective 'a woman is seen an 'archetypal'. who is conditioned or trapped amidst right wing's aspects, from where she can't be escaped.

while in paradise lost, seeing 'Eve' as a transgresser we found that, though she is forbidden to eat the fruit of forbidden tree she eats, which in God's kingdom is 'a sin' and for which his people should be punished. It isn't yet enough, she also 'offers that fruit to Adam' and Adam eats it and in God's view he also becomes disobedient but with different story..

Adam is made to eat that apple, nevertheless he wasn't willing to.

Here Eve's seductive aspect is shown.

Then as the story moves further, we also see the transgression of Eve, leads herself and Adam's downfall and they are kicked from the Eden garden. Both aspects of 'human perspective' as well as 'divine perspective' contradicted.

Evaluating it with contemporary times, we see a female in many aspects, are revolting against suppression, as with what they were 'repressed' earlier, has now become 'the revolution'.

For example: Dangal movie{where women characters are coming out of their conventional surroundings, (though the protagonist himself is willing to fling his daughters in wrestling) and playing at international level to get success}.

"Suppressive can be destructive or evolutionary".

"Staunch feminists"

Here it is evolutionary, but many a times it happens that woman, herself misuses privileges, that are attributed to her, so it is leading to destruction, where we don't know unknown harm is inflicting, and which as the time furthers, transform into a very big form.

While evaluating Eve's character as a defendable. We see that a woman has full privilege to live her life as she wants and that is what she is doing.

Out of her curiosity of what is actually "good and evil" that is known to God, but not to her, then why she herself can't go and gain the knowledge and she goes.

As we know knowledge is free to all, anyone can access, anyone can learn, no matter at what time or at what place. That was  what Eve was doing, but unfortunately she was punished.

Hence we learnt, though Eve being a transgresser is yet 'defendable character.



Thankyou👏👸👍






work citations:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WG1ZgOVqAS3_4kmou_bsavrYruUdS0t4qckyTKLa8Dg/mobilebasic

https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2014/09/human-perspective-vs-divine-perspective.html

Preface to lyrical ballads(1798) : wordsworth vs. coleridge

Hello readers,

as we all are stuck somewhere about "what is poem" according to Coleridge and Wordsworth  as they represents classicism and romanticism side by side "how their views are contrasting and combining with each other" and in what manner they are representing themselves as an individual of a particular concept of writing poem

 -Task Assigned by sir (Dilip Barad)

Concerning "biographia literaria of coleridge(1815-17)" we come to know that he is against wordsworth's views on writing poems. He considers "wordsworth's poem style to be silly, childish, which has meanness of language, inanity of thoughts etc.

while seeing wordsworth, to which coleridge is telling "inanity of thoughts". wordsworth says it "spontaneous overflow of powerful passion". furthermore he says that "his poetic diction is based on villagians". The language which is spoken by a common men living in his vicinity or village. So obviously the characters, events and images would be from his surroundings not from outside world, moving ahead he says when he is about to write poetry or poem "emotions or feelings get recollected in tranquility" but thoughts arises in mind, when poet is in joyful mood or somewhat in excitement.

On the other side, when evaluating coleridge's writing style of poem we come to know that "though meter or rhyme isn't in his poetry/poem, but if it is superadded it must be harmonised with meter, rhyme, theme and diction", while its ultimate object should be to provide pleasure than fact or truth related to science and history. furthermore he also states that "poem is an expression" not verbal expression associated with poetry.

Relating poem as an expression, perhaps coleridge is here indicating brutal sounds, that was prevailing in ancient times, when the language wasn't developed and  it was in idle state, while people were also unaware of that gift, which makes humanbeing exceptional from animals.

For example:

The origin of language(F.T. Wood)

"Ding dong theory".

"Bow wow theory".

"pooh-pooh theory".

"Gesture theory".

let's analyze some lines of "Daffodil poem" by Wordsworth to see if the views introduced by wordsworth is befitted or not...

"I wandered lonely as a cloud 

That floats on high o'er vales and hills.

When all at once I saw a crowd,

A host of golden daffodils".

Wordsworth has described himself "as seeing cloud, floating over vales and hills and also as seeing a host of golden daffodils'. 

where he has abundantly used metaphors from nature written in very simplistic diction, so the common men can also decode the language easily and make it understandable atleast to themselves. 

In last stanza, we see how he has "recollected his emotions in tranquility"...

"For oft, when on my couch I lie;

  In vacant or in pensive mood,

  They flash upon that inward eye,

  Which is the bliss of solitude".

 while in first three stanzas, it is "spontaneous overflow of powerful passion".

"The waves beside them danced, but        they

  Out did the sparkling waves in glee".

Seems as the poet is "just wandering and describing what he feels" but in very simplistic manner. which a common man can also do with the help of general observing power. But as we know that his prime aim was to write for the village people or its nearby vicinity, so his writing style was such.

Moving forward, we will also see some hindi poems, which represents the characteristics of writing style of poem of coleridge...

"Aankhon se door dil ke Kareeb tha;

 Main uska aur woh mera naseeb tha,

 Na kabhie mila na kabhie juda huva,

 Rishtaa hum dono ka kitna ajeeb tha".

We can easily decode the meaning of this poem. That it is 'a hindi love poem'. Where a lover/beloved is addressing his/her love that though they were far from each other, unable to meet or separate, but considering one another as each other's fate and in that manner their relation with one another was peculiar.

which gives pleasure harmonising with all its elements, written in very simplistic language, lines rhyming at the end "kareeb tha"

               "naseeb tha". 

Furthermore the below mentioned hindi poem "tum  ladki ho" describes an advisor, who is telling a girl to take precautions before moving further in her life.

"Tum ladki ho 

  ye achchi tarah yaad rakhna

  Tum jab ghar ki chaukhat langhogi

  log tumhe tedhi-medhi nazron se            dekhenge

  Tum jab gali se hokar guzrogi

  Log tumhara picha karenge

  siti bajaaenge".

Here we can see, someone is threatening or making her aware of her limitations towards life. How by being a girl, a girl has to made many precautions before going ahead in her life.

When guided on how to live.. A girl must be thinking that "only she is there to follow each and every instructions, why she doesn't have a free will of living, always have to live in fear and in insecurity and when one is there to secure her, it would be always in upper hand manner. But what to do, from where she would accumulate such strength to revolt against, from what she is suffering and as she is alone in her journey she succumbs to that specific situation.

In this poem the meaning is explicitly mirrored and understandable to the reader and avoided using various images or metaphors, by putting various ideas about a girl or a woman.

Hence we are to see how "wordsworth and Coleridge" have given their different views on the style of writing poems and how it is applicable in various simplistic poems.



Thankyou👏😍🤝👍

References:

https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2015/10/coleridge-biographia-literaria.html

https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2014/09/short-learning-video-on-wordsworths.html

Wikipedia:for poems









                    

• 
  

India : Diversity of cultures/ religions

With reference to the task on "Diversity of Cultures / Religions" I'm happened to write this. In which i had written how "Cultural Diversifiction is happening, how people are having various religious beliefs, how beliefs come into being, how it is being stimulated and how from generation to generation it's transforming into new modification or with the wisdom of education getting faded day by day.

Indian Cultural Diversity

As our festivals are based on 'myth', it must have somewhere its root. As seeing the past, there wasn't awareness of education, so people by seeing those circumstantial activities, weren't able to differentiate or see with their point of view or perhaps they don't have that wise moral sense, or it was already shaped on their made beliefs so they weren't able to come out from it.

When something accidentally or incidentally going on, in unknown manner, but as it gets connected with miracle, which is also linked circumstantially, and as proved to be beneficial for people, it becomes belief and perhaps it was the reason that 'myth' was adding to its number day by day. But at present with the advent of education, and with its spreading roots as it has made its mark in many fields, and developed humansense towards betterment of the society, gradually all types of myths are fading away.

Concerning "shitlaa saatam" here. We see at first its tikahs(inoculation) was performing in traditional way, in Northern and Southern parts of India, from India went to China, also a special sect of Brahmins were also practicing but ultimately in 17th century, with the advent of "cowvaccine" invented by "Edward Hemmer" to increase immune system in 'human body' so that it can fight against any disease here particularly small pox. As Portugese and Muslims are bounded with consuming fish, milk and ghee, they as well as others, who are inflicted with this particular disease were told to abstain themselves from those things.

Fish is somewhat hot in tendency, and if fish, chicken, beef, meat and egg is eaten, it would increase the disease which would spread with itching sensation. As itching sensation gives pleasure, it also attributes punishment to the occupier.

Concerning myth, our sir has also given an example of (squeezing cat in milk) and as circumstantially, something fruitful was happened, people of that particular era were following this as their ritual(myth). So their understanding was developed that if a God of Goddesses cursed anyone, he/she would face this disease but wasn't the case.

"As it is said, what one believes comes forth".

It is all about human psychology, in what direction one wants to develop his/her psychology, one can. But its result would be according to your seeds that you have sown.

Coming to "Eid-ul-Adha". This festival is believed to be "the sacrifice of animals". Where a Muslim has to divide a male sheep, goat or buffalo into three parts. One part for their relatives and friends, other respectively for 'poor and needy'(Muslims and non-Muslims both) also the last to the 'immediate relatives'.

It's also connected with a "myth", which isn't yet proven, but seen in "Quran Shareef" a holy book of Muslims. Where "prophet Ibrahim" dreamt of his son, as sacrificed for "Eid-ul-Adha". So another day, when this ritual was about to happen, he preferred his son to be slaughtered as he perceives that God wants him to sacrifice his son. As God moved by his devotion, he sent a sheep by angels to cut 'as a sacrificial animal'. Since then it is going on in same manner, sacrificial is done in form of male sheep, goat or buffalo.

So all festivals have roots in 'myth' which is blindly followed or can say to be authentic, it needs very sincere research. if any concept like 'myth' is existing or not? and if it is existing, how it has come into existence? And if it is, 'myth' and blinding people, then what would be the vaccine to abstain people from those beliefs?

We may notice, as our various festivals are based on some occasion based at a particular time and then they are baptised as a belief. we weren't existing, but it transfers as inheritancy from generation to generation, so we are made to believe.

Due to this reason only, if intellectuals who knows how to differentiate religion from science and when they embark on their task in persuasion they are contemplated by various human tempers(right wing people, purely religious). Whether they are punished or banished from the country.

For Example: (JNU) University is known for its intellectuals and often they are contemplated by honorary or various right wing people, but the people who have identical ideals as them, facilitate them. It is a surprising thing, that they are only in few numbers, While we have a herd of people who are identical in their false views.

Going to mediaeval/classical idea of "English literature" "Greek and Roman mythology" was deeply rooted but with the advent of "Renaissance period" gradually faded away. Subsequently age after age, it can be now seen in very least manner.

While seeing it in Indian context, it had been started since 'neolithic age' as tribals were used to worship nature, and also they were rigidly superstitious so perhaps it may have somewhere their roots and they successively inherited those things to their descendants and from descendants they had many successors as followers and it get wildly spreaded.

Perhaps it is the result of wide-spread education, social and political reformation, awareness in many fields, development in science & technology and with dissemination and exchange of information from state to state or country to country. 

So all the festivals are more or less connected in same manner, a deep and sincere pondering altogether with investigation is required.


Thankyou...

References:

https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2019/08/shitala-saatam-religion-vs-science.html?m=1

https://www.firstpost.com/india/bakri-eid-2019-from-history-to-significance-heres-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-muslim-festival-eid-al-adha-7148071.html

Wikipedia-janmashtmi, Gauri brat and ekadashi

• 
  

Patriotic Euphoria

Hello readers,

With reference to our task on "patriotic Euphoria" assigned by Dilip Barad(sir), I am inscribing this so that we may know, what is its significance, how much it matters in our life, how we have become so ignorant of all these things as failing to recognise, what are our duties. Being an Indian citizen, we're always concerned with our rights, but not with our duties. Concerning our duties and morals, how we can built our country, in a new direction, lead some ignorants to see where they are lacking their insight, and though we don't know where it will lead us, but atleast our forth coming generation would incarnate those morals and values in their lives and perhaps develop our country towards "a new India"❤️💛💚

As we know friends that our India was dominated by "British rulers" from 1858-1947, with constant struggles of our freedom fighters. Subsequently,  it was made free on 15th August,1947 and as a result on mid-night  14 and 15 there emerged out "two dominion independent states" Pakistan and India. But still due to some problems, faced by India, it literally seems as it hasn't gained freedom in literal sense. According to the short film of W.H. Auden(The bloody line) where "Ciril Redcliff" a British officer is claimed to have drawn 'a bloody line' between India and Pakistan, and it was due to "Redcliff" that there is separation, or else it won't be. But he 'W.H. Auden' is only able to see the black dots, in the form of bloody line, but don't know the story of how 'Redcliff' was pressurised by some officials to do so, though refused '300 pounds' as a reward of drawing a line between India and Pakistan.

 Perhaps it must have happened then that he was threatened for his life, so he forcefully drew a line of separation considering that, that as he is about to move for England, as it also has been bankrupted, who is going to come in India but perhaps didn't think about the people, living in India, about its aftermath consequences. Then a question arises in our mind that, was the dilemmatic decision of drawing a line was justifiable, concerning Redcliff's conscience? Or it was a selfish move from India as ignorant of coming sequences? Having refused for money, can remove him from the guilt of separating two countries hand in hand? Refusal of money was only enough to exonerate himself from the guilt of committing immoral deed?

For Example : We also have an example of those volunteers, who believe in sacrificing their lives for the sake of their motherland.

"Mera Karma Tu Mera dharma Tu, tera Sab Kuch main Mera Sab Kuch Tu".https://youtu.be/BEh5CyF-Ozs

It seems that if he would have denied to 'draw a line between two nations' perhaps he would have lost his life, so he thought that as he is about to leave India, why to think further on it and to release himself from guilt he denied 300 pounds, to console himself that he isn't involved in separation of any nation but it doesn't seem ethically right, as did by a morally influenced person. If we see at another side he would have lost his life for the sake of the country, Then perhaps he would have justly paid his duties towards a country, then a person belonging to a nation.

As said in "Bhagwat Rawat's poem"about 'Nation vs. Country'. Where nation means in Hindi 'a rajya' or in English 'a state'. While country means 'Desh', which has intimacy in the word altogether with its bondage. So we may perhaps think that what 'Ciril Redcliff' did then was justifiable, looking in this context? It seems as he wasn't belonging to India but he was an intruder belonging to England. Where we can fairly see the person's perspective of nation and country, how it is reflected, concerning Redcliff'.
Again coming to 'Bhagwat Rawat', we see that he is emphasizing "the concept of country" rather than on nation. For him or concerning his poem, it means that 'a country is built on many diverse nations as children are part of his/her parents/family from where they cannot be separated. Though diverse in many ways but they would be recognised by their roots so is the country.

For Example: "India", Having diversity in many aspects, though it has many states in it but spreading roots are India, and its branches are various states. So how country can be separated from states.

Here also we can take an example of 'Diljale movie' where the protagonist 'Ajay Devgan' is trapped, and as he failed to gain trust of his beloved, he goes astray and joins terrorism with other accomplices. But later on he was realized, as he was first a lover of his country now he isn't. He seems to be a destroyer of his country by his beloved in a song.

"Mera mulk Mera desh Mera yeh watan, shaanti Ka unnati Ka pyaar Ka chalan".https://youtu.be/94KSCBJPCz4

Furthermore 'Bhagwat Rawat' says that the emotions of one's country should be as severe as an outsider, working in another area or nation but misses his 'desh' and he won't be satiated until he is roofed in his own place.

Gradually we learn as proceed forward that who will be the initiator, to mirror all these deficiencies in front of his people. As formerly we have seen that 'Sonali bendre' becomes a medium to make  Ajay Devgan realise of his wrong doings.

While here we have 'Navazuddin Siddique', who without fearing writes for prostitutes, and highlights the taints of the society. So that people realize where they are lacking  and where they need to improve.

Perhaps if he isn't highlighting the current situation of the society, or always presenting by polishing it but not presenting in its actual state, then what would be the society? And if it is going to happen constantly, then we people can't expect or hope for any change in our existing world. Though we get nervous, weary and disappointed by reading the actual state of society, we should always encounter the actual situation. If it isn't happening then we must be living in illusion. Why not by being open in actuality, we could modify ourselves as well as our society. So we may knew in the form of our literature that how our 'literature' or 'adab' as said by "Navazuddin Siddique'" changes from time to time, and it has to as it has impact of its society. It would be better to be frustrated than by being in imaginary mockery.

Concerning our India, K.R.S. Iyengar says that "what was the purpose of our freedom fighters in gaining freedom, isn't yet fulfilled". As they had dreamt "unity in diversity" for which we Indians are still lacking due to unknown external influences, who are still hidden in vaguely state or existing in misleading way.

For example: Salman Rushdie, as he is an open criticized, he was banished from India but now in foreign nation he is living freely and his criticism is embraced whole-heartedly for the nation's welfare.

If citizens of any country, aware of the existing facts, and has that digestion power to accept defeciences in them as well as in their countries, can solely lead their nation towards a newer one.

References:

https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2017/03/bigshorts-for-india-of-tomorrow.html?m=1
https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2019/01/country-vs-nation-state-bhagwat-rawat.html?m=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

The Purpose : Eklavya/Arjuna

Hello readers,

The task to write on the play "The Purpose" was given to us by Mam(Vaidehi Hariyani), so that she may know what we are able to dinned, grasp, how much we are concentrating, during her ongoing lectures as "Dronacharya" wants his pupil(Arjuna) to be concentrative, while learning the art of archery. This is all about following instructions of one's guru, applying it and getting its results, no matter what the consequences would be.

.

Que.1:  

Compare and Contrast Arjun and Eklavya's Character.

Answer-1: Concerning "Arjuna" and "Eklavya's" character. They are contrasting and we can compare in many respects; Like in class, personality , traits, thoughts, skills, abilities, mannerisms, decorum and many other things. But here the theme centralizes, is "what is their purpose behind learning archery"?.

*Arjuna, who belongs to 'upper-class', has a trainer in the form of 'Dronacharya', has everything surrounded what an upper- class fellow requires. While on the other side, Eklavya belongs to lower-class, lost his father and in the hope of mastering archery from "Dronacharya"(gurujee). The former's purpose of mastering archery is to "acquire fame and name"(self-centred) while the latter wants to save "the deer, fawns from the wild beast", a nobler one purpose. One is following "Karmanna Swarthaha" and another "Karmanna Uttamaha".

*When gurujee makes Arjuna to learn archery, he is lacking in grasping power and concentration, while behind 'Dronacharya' stands  Eklavya, who learns the four elements, which Dronacharya was explaining to Arjuna those are ; to attempt archery with "correct movements" , "ability to concentrate" , "a deep and fervent love for guru" and "guru's whole-hearted willingness to teach his pupil".. Here "Eklavya" is able to master all those skills, told by gurujee but lacking in acquiring 'his guru's whole-hearted willingness" which will lead him to master 'bowmanship'.

*One learns under the surveillance of his guru, while another by placing great faith on his guru and making his clay idol in front of him, so it can make him realise, that "never mind, if he isn't able to gain his guru's actual attention, but his guru is with him metaphorically. One masters without gurujee, and is able to attain mastery, while the another inspite of being with his guru, lacking in mastering the art of archery. Arjuna isn't as skillful in bowmanship as Eklavya is, and as it is happening that when a student or someone working under someone fails in something, the credit is attributed to teacher or someone under whom one has learnt or studied something. The same happens in "Dronacharya and Arjuna's case" . When Arjuna came to know that 'Eklavya is far more better in archery than him and as appreciated by gurujee, that... 

"He is far more better from my stretched imagination, and better than him and also than Arjuna"

*He asks gurujee in turn that "what will be about the promise, which he had kept to him that 'he would be the greatest archer of the world". While altogether the case has become different from what it was earlier. When "Eklavya" was pleading in front of  "Dronacharya" to teach him archery, and as Arjuna, being arrogant, fearful and insecure that ..

"if this little nishada man will learn and become the greatest archer, then what will become of him".

*Here also we see, while the both are conversing with each other "the contrasting thoughts", one is following rationalism and another is becoming emotional. One is lacking in faith in his ownself, while the other encounters with great faith in himself. "As Arjuna opposes his guru, not to teach the nishada 'an art of archery'. When at last "Dronacharya" is accused by Arjuna, that he hasn't fulfilled his promise, as he isn't the greatest archer as Eklavya is. There Eklavya, to exonerate his loving guru from the accusation, cuts his thumb so he couldn't be able to feat the shaft from the bow from now onwards and  Arjuna can be the master of 'bowmanship'. Arjuna seems to be the subaltern, regarding his thoughts as he due to his inability accuses "Dronacharya" while "Eklavya" seems to be subaltern to the readers or audiences of the play, ere in literal sense , he isn't, by comparing 

With Arjuna or it differs from person to person. We see here that what "Arjuna" has acquired isn't on his own, but by crushing "Eklavya's emotions, feelings, desires, faith, hopes and dreams under his feet, as he wants him not to flourish more than him and as he is "nishada" and a subaltern, he should eat, what he throws in front of him like a dog or an animal is treated by his master.

For Example: *Robinson Crusoe: Robinson Crusoe treats  Friday(effeminacy), though in some measure positively, but to prevent someone from gaining something or impose on someone what one wants, is crime.

                          *As it was condition of humans before "Queen Victoria" came to the throne, reflected in "Victorian age:social unrest" before "the slavery bill was abolished in 1833".

Hence both can be contrasted and compared in this manner, concerning their all aspects of living life.

Q.2: What is Subaltern? Who do you think is the Subaltern in this play? Explain with examples.

Answer-2: A subaltern is a person, who is below one's hierarchy, concerning political, imperialism, colonialism, statical, cultural, thinking(invisibly), abilities and skills concerning this play.

As also it is a term coined  by 'Antonio Gramsci' for the excluded societals from social groups also  'Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak' asks that..  

"can the subaltern speak"?

"Are they heard"?

*Invisibly if we see, we are to see that "Arjuna has become subaltern, as when he knew that "Eklavya" also wants to be the greatest archer. He doesn't allow him, and considers him inferior and also in deep feels insecure, fearing that 'if this nishada would become greater than him, then what would become of himself'. But didn't think that everyone has his right to perform, whether he/she belongs to upper-caste or lower-caste and when there is healthy competition, then and then only something new can be generated or make degenerated. If he had thought in that way, then perhaps his thoughts won't be considered as sprinkled with subalternity. He reflects in this play emotionality  while Eklavya, rationality with critical thinking. T.P. kailasam's bohemian aspect is also reflected in this play by Eklavya.

Where we can find, when one is excluded from the society one can either be subaltern(who easily succumbs to any situation, considering it as his fate, destined by God,  but never attempts to change it). Concerning the writer "T.P. Kailasam, he himself come out with "I don't care" and "taking easy" policy, which seems the characteristics of the "Bohemian personality". As it is his self-chosen path, he is strong enough to tread upon it(can be considered subaltern but in positive way) also some traits of the writer can be fairly seen in "Eklavya" in "The Purpose".

*While evaluating with 'Antonio Gramsci's' point of view, here as Eklavya belongs to lower-class, he can be considered as 'subaltern', while Arjuna has upperhand on him.

*Dronacharya can also be considered as "subaltern".Though he had promised Arjuna that he will make him the great artist but when the things weren't working in his way, and when he knew the contrasting approaches of 'Eklavya' as well as 'Arjuna', the ball was in his court. He would have come out but he didn't do till the end, and his dumbness cost "Eklavya" to abandon his thumb. He can be said "as victimised by Arjuna".

*while evaluating with "Gayatri chakravorty's question" that if they are heard or not? We see here that 'Eklavya' isn't heard till the end, even he sacrifices his thumb. It is his will power that helps him to resist, otherwise  he wouldn't  have been able to master archery. Dronacharya knows who is right and who is wrong but lacks  in decisive power, says allegorically, but cannot openly appreciate "Eklavya" for his greatness, love towards him and his achievements.

*Concerning places, we see that Eklavya lives in forest and obviously Arjuna in palace, also sees reflection of colonialism, statical and cultural thinking.

Thus we see here, how subalternity is reflected in "Arjuna, Dronacharya, Eklavya and in some respects also in Bheeshma".

Q.3: 

Write your views about Education system in India with reference to Past and Present time.

Ancient vs. Modern
education system

*In ancient times, there was a gurukul system(title of the type of school itself suggests intimacy between guru and his disciples) 'guru means teacher' and 'kul means family' , where gurus were requested to teach one's child, they had strong bondage with nature and life, interlaced with one another,where they were teaching from Sanskrit to holy-scriptures.

For example: "Didi movie" starring Sunil dutt, where there is school system but the atmosphere created by Sunil dutt among students is almost as gurukul. "Apne watan mein"(a patriotic song).

*With the advent of 'modern education system' in 1830, by "Thomas Abington", the gurukul system was changed to physical structure of schools/classrooms, where instead of Sanskrit/holy scripture books "English language, Mathematics, Science, Metaphysical, Philosophy etc. subjects were introduced. Nature was interchanged with artificial.

*Talking on the contemporary system, now education system in India has been professionalised. Where everywhere there are coaching centres, though students study in schools but they are served with limited information, so that they may attempt for coaching classes. While in many honorary schools, they are generating their own tution classes and child's parents won't even dare to ask them any question about their serving manner, concerning specifically with school. At the other side many in India, are now going abroad to acquire qualitative education, for which India is lacking.

(For example: the protagonist of "Article-15").

*That if their children is to require to have extra tution classes, then what he is taught in the school? 

*Are they knowingly serving in bit? 

*What is the difference between school or tution education system?

*What is important then, school or tution? 

*Why there is partial system of teaching method in both, school and tution, while dealing with the same curriculum?

For example: If in ancient times we have "Didi and many Indian movies similarises this". We also have in contemporary times, the contrasting concept of education, reflected in "super 30". At one side coaching classes, which earns hefty fees from upperclass folks and at another side, an initiative taken by "Anand Kumar" to give education free of cost, especially to economically, socially and financially backward classes.

While in this play "The Purpose" by  T. P. Kailasam, we see the same ancient method of intimacy between guru and shishya, but serves treatment with partiality.

Hence the education system in India is contrasted at ancient, medieval level and also in contemporary times.

Q.4: 

Is Dronacharya an ideal teacher? If yes, then how? and If No, then Why? Explain with examples

.

Answer-4: He can be considered "as an ideal teacher for Eklavya" as he loves to learn archery under him, pleads in front of him, only allow him to come where he is teaching archery to Arjuna, so that he can learn only by observing. But as Dronacharya has made promise to Arjuna that 'he will made him the greatest archer of the world', how he can break his promise and turn to Eklavya, who is almost a "Nishada". But he doesn't have any intention of treating in partial way with either of them, but is compelled before the man made culture.

 

Serving style of Dronacharya

*While on contradictory Arjuna has least concerned with this emotions. As throughout the play, he only remembers his promise, given to him by gurujee that he would made him 'the greatest archer of the world' as breaking promise is perceived as committing crime, and arises doubts that if with his instructions 'Eklavya' is able to learn archery then why he isn't? So intentionally, he wants to say that gurujee is lacking somewhere. He always reminds his guru that he is assigned a work to do and if he hasn't finished it at stipulative time, then it would alternate it's meaning.

*Dronacharya knows internally that "Uttamaha" is only Eklavya and Arjuna is concerned with "Karmanna Swarthaha". As he is concerned with the latter, he is unable to learn the correct movements, lacks in concentration and subsequently in loving his guru. Seems as he lives in fantasy of transformed into the greatest archer, while the guru denies him to stuff his head with such fantastical thoughts, and it would be best for him if he would concentrate on the present task without fantasizing anything about future.

 

*If Dronacharya had given acceptance to 'Eklavya's cherish desire to become the greatest archer under him' the case would be at the peak of idealisation. But as he lost his moral sense and as he was indecisive in his judgement, in what to do? He would have selected both of them, maintained equilibrium between them but it can be supposed that perhaps if he would be able to do so but he wasn't allowed to as his voice was suppressed under mighty heavy feet of mightier personalities, where speaking against is considered as crime. His mental psychology seems to be very strong and pure, as being an indecisive one can be easily succumbed to 'enantiodromia'. But he isn't succumbing. While knowing how to differentiate between the two ideal concepts.

Seeing from 'Eklavya's perspective' he can be considered as "ideal gurujee" while looking from 'Arjuna's perception' he can be considered as mere trainer, whose work is to train him anyhow, at any cost.

Hence it is all about a person's perception, what one person looks from one's perspective can be considered as  true, while on the another side it can be considered as 'flawy one' . So is the difference between 'Eklavya' and 'Arjuna's  perception'

(the trap metaphor is applicable here:seeing and knowing).

Q.5: 

Write something about your experience like Eklavya or Arjuna with any

 teacher during your study phase till now. (Not necessary to mention any name)

Answer-5:  Throughout my entire educational journey, I encountered many teachers. As it is said, 'along with good something bad exists', same was happened with me. I had many teachers in my life, and majority of them were true to their duty, quite talented, believing in perseverance and co-operative by nature, while there was only one, who was a "unique example of the best teacher", who taught me, never place trust on strangers, who knows they will try to bite you, of which you haven't even thought of. But I must say perhaps it is always "God's grace upon me that how  worst the situation is or the people are, I am always able to find my way out". No matter how difficult it was.

*Also as advised by my mother, not to evaluate people, "kamiyaan Apne AAP mein dhoondo, kisi aur mein nahi". Capturing this quote in my mind,  I advanced  in my life further.

Hence bitter and fruitful experiences are interwoven with each other, no-one can deny this truth of life and it is part and parcel of everyone's life.

Works citations: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._P._Kailasam

Various critical approaches from handbook

Slide share- vaidehi Hariyani and Heenaba zala 

"The Purpose" - T.P. Kailasam