Poetic Justice Vis-A-Vis Power: A Reading of Ghashiram Kotwal

Lakshminath Kagyung

Assistant Professor, Dept. of English, Dibrugarh University
Email: [email protected]

“Use a thorn to take out a thorn…Anyway, he was no use any more.” (Ghashiram Kotwal 59)

How far can a man go to avenge humiliation he has suffered; can he go to the extent of selling his daughter to that end? Vijay Tendulkar in his play Ghashiram Kotwal deals with very pertinent questions and issues: who is responsible for creation of Ghashiram(s) in the society? How power corrupts and how it is always the weak, the poor and the women, who have to suffer humiliations and injustice in the hands of the powerful. A reading of the play will make one realize that Ghashiram is symbolic of- cruelty, callousness and indiscriminate use of power to commit atrocities on people. Humiliations and atrocities meted out to Ghashiram Savaldas, a Brahman from Banaras who came to Poona to make his fortune, change the course of his life. Ghashiram Savaldas is transformed into Ghashiram Kotwal and that transformation was ominous for the Brahmans of Poona. The madness for revenge makes Ghashiram almost inhuman. This paper is an attempt to examine the factors that are responsible for the creation and flourishing of Ghashirams in the society. It would make an attempt to understand the politics of power and the dynamics of power relations in the society. The issue of poetic justice would be viewed from various lenses. The paper would argue that the fall of a Ghashiram or eliminating one Ghashiram is not the solution for ending the misuse of power in the society; one must find out the root cause of the problem and find solutions accordingly.

Many a times it is noticed that economic reasons are responsible for the movement or displacement of people from one place to another; Ghashiram Kotwal, the protagonist of Tendulkar’s play, is not an exception to that rule. He is a Brahman from Kanauj and has come to Poona to make his fortune. But there in Poona he was mistaken for a thief and was mercilessly beaten, imprisoned and humiliated. Samik Bandyopadhayaya referring to Tendulkar’s Ghashiram Kotwal opines that the later in his social criticism is more concerned with the mechanism of power within the society and perhaps is not much concerned with the economic and political implication of power and the source of power (83-84)¹. One can perhaps contradict this argument of Bandyopadhaya with ample evidence from the text. A close reading of the text would reveal that there exits an intricate relationship between the source of power, economic and political implication of power and the mechanism of power within the society. One is dependent on the other and one affects/effects another. The humiliation and atrocities meted out to Ghashiram Savaldas, an innocent Brahman, makes him revengeful. It has lead to the transformation of an innocent Ghashiram Savladas into the cruel and merciless Ghashiram Kotwal. This transformation was ominous for the Brahmans of Poona. Ghashiram in great anger has pledged to make Poona the “kingdom of pigs”. (Ghashiram Kotwal 21) His course of action from that time onwards was determined by his revenge motive. He is in search of ways to avenge his humiliation. Perhaps he has realised that if he could manage to acquire power than that power would enable him to materialize his desire for revenge. Ghashiram’s desire to avenge his humiliation by any means or manner is going to effect and change the whole societal set up of Poona and its people.

Ghashiram has pledged to make Poona a kingdom of pigs. In order to avenge his humiliation he would need power. He was constantly pondering how he would derive power so that he could take revenge from the people of Poona. Ghashiram soon discovers that Nana Phadnavis, the chief minister of the Peshwa has a notorious weakness for woman.  Ghashiram becomes so power thirsty and is mad for revenge that he decides to use his young beautiful daughter Lalita Gauri as bait to entrap Nana Phadnavis, so that he could get some powerful position for himself in return. The desire for revenge and thirst for power is such that Ghashiram did not hesitate to sacrifice his own daughter.  He is so blind for revenge that he did not think once of the consequences. This excessive desire for power and the indiscriminate use of the same may be regarded as the tragic flaw of Ghashiram. It would not be exaggeration to say that the madness for power has made Ghashiram almost in human. Nana Phadnavis has power by virtue of his position but he has weakness for women. And this weakness for women makes him misuse his power. He uses Ghashiram as a tool to get his sex object Lalita Gauri. But there is every possibility that when his purpose is served he would discard and would conveniently get rid of both Gauri and Ghashiram and that is what exactly happens at the end. Ghashiram might have thought that by becoming the ‘kotwal’- chief of Police of Poona he was all powerful but he was greatly mistaken for he was only a tool in the hands of Nana. Nana used Ghashiram at/for his convenience. Ghashiram is too novice to have understood the politics of Nana’s power.

Nana uses his political power as a minister to solicit women and satiate his sexual desire. This is utter misuse of power and position. Nana, a prominent and powerful minister, instead of protecting the honour of the womenfolk tries to prey upon them. The irony is that the protector has turned into a predator here. In fact he considers it dishonour if he cannot get the woman he desires and uses his power and authority to attain his objective. Referring to Gauri Nana says, “If she is not found, no one will keep his head! Our grandeur’s is gone if she’s not had”. (Ghasiram Kotwal, 24)

It seems that there exists an intriguing relationship between ‘power’ and ‘helplessness’. In power relations the one who is in the receiving end experiences a state of helplessness. If one looks at the play Ghashiram Kotwal one would find that both Nana Phadnavis and Ghashiram Kotwal enjoys one kind of power or the other. The former has political power by virtue of his position as a minister and the latter has power by virtue of his daughter whom he had used as a sex object to control Nana Phadnavis. At one instance in the play Nana’s helplessness is very clearly evident when Ghashiram refuses to send Gauri to him on the pretext of marrying off the latter. Nana is so desperate to have her for satisfying his sexual urge that he is willing to do anything to that end. Ghashiram takes full advantage of Nana’s helplessness and weakness and urges him to make him the kotwal of Poona. Nana yields to his suggestion and makes him the kotwal of Poona. So, here one can see how Nana’s helplessness or weakness for Gauri was exploited by Ghashiram. Ghashiram perhaps feels that he has succeeded in his clever plans but like a tragic hero he does not foresee the future trap into which he was entering (Naikar 86-87). Nana had his own plans in appointing Ghashiram as the kotwal of Poona. Two purposes were served by this decision of Nana, one sexual and two political (Naikar 87). He would now get an easy and unrestricted access to Gauri and secondly he would be able to use Ghasiram as a tool to control or eliminate his enemies. In other words a thorn has been used to remove another one. Later in the play one can see that Ghashiram is entrapped in his own trap. The trap he made for Nana by using his daughter as the bait, he falls into that same trap or he meets the consequence for his actions. Ghashiram for his revengeful nature and for his indiscriminate actions has got himself into such a whirlpool from where he cannot come out. Now he is at the receiving end; he is helpless and weak in front of Nana.

Nana is a very shrewd and selfish politician. He is far sighted and very calculative in his actions unlike Ghashiram. Ghashiram is no comparison to him as far as politics of power is concerned. He might consider himself to be very smart but he fails to comprehend that Nana can be smarter than he (Naikar 87).  Nana very well knew that the Brahmans from Poona will never trust Ghashiram as the latter is an outsider; so even if at some point of time Ghashiram happens to realise the plot of Nana he will not have supporters to raise a revolt against Nana. Nana compares Ghashiram to a dog, the dog that barks and works for his master. Nana’s inner mind is manifested when he says that their misdeeds would be credited to Ghashiram’s account. (Ghashiram Kotwal 29) So, the actual reins of power are in the hands of Nana; Ghashiram is merely a tool or puppet in his hands.

The objectives of the two- Nana and Ghashiram are to a large extent responsible for determining their modus operandi and their eventual success or failure in the overall structure of power politics/games. Ghashiram desired power and executed that power in order to avenge his humiliation of the people of Poona. He was successful in that objective of his. Nana executed his power in a more subtle and clever way. Three objectives were served by his shrewd execution of power. One, he could exploit Gauri and satiate his sexual desires. Second, he could use Ghashiram, the kotwal, as a tool to silence his critics and eliminate those who conspired against him. Third, he could eliminate Ghashiram when the latter was of no use to him. Nana has pitted Ghashiram against the Brahamans of Poona for he very well knew that this move of his will lead to the elimination of Ghashiram, for the people of Poona will avenge for the atrocities meted out to them by Ghashiram in his tenure as the kotwal of Poona. Nana being a shrewd politician could comprehend the complexity of things and had planned his actions accordingly. Ghashiram, unlike Nana, could not assess the complexity of things. He goaded with the desire for revenge takes his decisions emotionally without assessing situations critically and thus falls prey to the power politics of Nana. Ghashiram’s focus was one-dimensional. He wanted to take revenge from the people of Poona for the humiliation he had to suffer in their hands. He used his power to that end and had achieved that end. But he, unlike Nana, had no plans to evade punishment for his actions. But Nana’s focus was multi dimensional. He being far more adapted in power politics than Ghashiram, plans his actions cleverly and in spite of leading an amorous life and misusing his power as a minister he survives. This is in fact the irony and the saddest part of the play. It perhaps leads one to question, is there any Poetic justice in the play?

In the game of power between Nana and Ghashriam it is Gauri, a woman, who has to suffer. Tendulkar in his play is perhaps trying to highlight the fact that in the Indian society it is generally a woman who is oppressed and marginalized. It is very rightly said that it is always a goat that is sacrificed and never a lion. In other words, one who is weak always has to suffer. Gauri, a woman, is weak and voiceless. She could not resist or revolt against her father’s decision to employ her as a sex tool to entrap Nana. She gets impregnated by Nana and has to die an untimely death for no fault of hers. Nana compels her to get aborted and in the process she dies. He does not want his name to be soiled. He employs Chandra, the mid wife to carry out the abortion of Gauri. This incident suggests how patriarchy employs a woman to exploit another woman and perhaps this is one of the reasons why patriarchy has been and is flourishing with much ease in the society. It is evident that Nana exploits a women’s body but he does not have the courage or morality to own her; in order to hide his misdeeds he can go to the extent of killing that woman. But again the woman is helpless, she cannot do anything. In the dynamics of power relation in the play, the women seem to be the weakest.

Tendulkar in his play has vehemently criticized the misuse of power in the hands of the likes of Nana. Nana, the powerful chief minister of the Peshwa, instead of using his power and position for the protection of the honour of women uses it to exploit them. In an instance when Nana fails to catch Gauri and in blind lust grabs the servant, Ghashiram, at the door; he makes a deal with the latter to get the girl. He exclaims that his grandeur would go if she is not had. Tendulkar very aptly mocks at the irony inherent here. Morality and good sense demanded from the minister to have said that my grandeur would go if she is had but instead he says that his grandeur would go if she is not had. Samik Bandyopadhyay in his “Introduction” to Ghashiram Kotwal has rightly pointed out that the “omnipotent” Nana cannot accept the humiliation of failing to achieve what he desires. Anything referring to his “impotency” as a ruler is not acceptable to Nana. (ix) He can and would go to any extent to execute his power and would have what he desires. When Nana was complying with the wishes of Ghashiram the latter might have thought that Nana was under his control. But he was gravely mistaken for this was a calculated move on the part of Nana, it was merely a temporary shifting or adjustment of power, Nana could turn the table at any moment when his purpose was served.

Nana is so intoxicated with power that he does not have any remorse for the death of Gauri. When Ghashiram enquires about Gauri to Nana, he tries to divert the matter by referring to Vedantic philosophy. He tells Ghashiram, “It is misapprehension to think that she was there. It was illusion… No one belongs to anyone. No one is anyone’s daughter. No one is anyone’s father”. (Ghashiram Kotwal 51) Ghashiram is helpless in front Nana, he cannot do anything to Nana. So, the question arises in mind that how powerful is the kotwal, the police chief, in front of the minister?

Basavaraj Naikar in the essay “Ghashiram Kotwal: A Tragedy of Power” opines that Ghashiram was bound to meet his fate for he had violated the holy institution of marriage by surrendering his unmarried daughter to an old man. (Literary Vision 90) The pertinent question that arises in one’s mind is had Ghashiram not surrendered his daughter to Nana could her honour be saved from the lascivious eyes of the powerful and promiscuous Nana? The answer perhaps is an emphatic ‘no’. The kind of powerful position Nana was enjoying could have easily enabled him to exploit the honour of Gauri. Further, one should not forget that Ghashiram was an outsider; any allegation made against him by Nana, an insider and a powerful minister would have been accepted by the masses of Poona.

Regarding the retribution meted out to Ghashiram, Naikar in his essay “Ghashiram Kotwal: A Tragedy of Power” argues that he who negates the moral order of the universe gets negated by it ultimately. (Literary Vision 91) If one goes by that logic than perhaps Nana deserves more punishment than Ghashiram. Nana, as evident in the play, was responsible for the dishonouring of and eventual death of many women for satiating his sexual appetite, Gauri being one example.

Hegel, the German aesthetician and philosopher² has vouchsafed that a lesser evil has to be defeated by a greater evil. If one goes by the above philosophy then perhaps one can argue that Ghashiram’s end is justified. But if that is the case then it would be supporting the evil ways of Nana. It would be giving licence to the likes of Nana, the larger evils, to carry out their immoral and evil ways and eliminate ruthlessly the likes of Ghashiram, the lesser evils.

Tendulkar in an author’s note has specifically mentioned that Ghashiram’s are “creations of socio-political forces which know no barriers of time and place”. (Introduction.  Ghashiram Kotwal viii). This is a very serious issue; anyone may be a victim of such socio-political forces. This perhaps would make one more sympathetic towards Ghashiram and one would feel that the punishment meted out to him was more than what he deserved.

Samik Bandyopadhyay in “Introduction” to Ghashiram Kotwal has remarkably pointed out how ‘deceptions of deputation’ has been employed as a device of power in the play. He has rightly argued that “the real power uses the masks of deputation to mediate the exercise of power, to hide from the victims the real face of power, so that all resistance is effectively deflected”. (x) If one tries to elaborate the idea inherent in the above lines then one would find that Nana, the representative of real power, uses masks of deputation, he deputes Ghashiram as the kotwal, and through him he exercises and executes his power over his subjects. The effectiveness of his plan is such and the irony of the matter is that the victim, in this case both Ghashiram and the Brahmans of Poona, would never be able to comprehend that it is Nana who has the real power and that it is he who is executing his power. The irony is that, Ghashiram the fool he is thinks that kotwali would mean power in his hands. On the other hand, the mass or the Brahmans of Poona, thinks that it is the kotwal who is tormenting them by misusing his power so they would try to punish Ghashiram for the tortures meted out to them. They would never be able to comprehend that the kotwal was simply a tool in the hands of Nana to silence and eliminate those who conspired against the latter. Nana saying that our misdeeds would be credited to the kotwal’s account reiterates the efficacy of his plans.

Thus, Foucault’s ideas on the mechanism of power as mentioned in Power/Knowledge would be pertinent here. Foucault has argued, “… power isn’t localized in the State apparatus and that nothing in society will be changed if the mechanisms of power that function outside, below and alongside the State apparatuses, on a much more minute and everyday level, are not also changed”. (60) Hence devices of power, as observed by Tendulkar in Ghashiram Kotwal, such as the operations of religiosity, sexuality, and deputationist politics³ are to be rectified and changed in order to bring in positive change in the society.

One would wonder why Tendulkar allowed Nana to go scot free at the end of the play and subjected only Ghashiram to retribution. Praising the critical acumen of Tendulkar as a playwright Sailaza B. Wadikar has said that the former is at once subjective and objective, individual and social and local and cosmopolitan. Considering the kind of dexterous playwright Tendulkar is it would not be exaggeration to say that he has intentionally left it upon the readers/audience to see and understand the real problem that is affecting the society and decide. He has not given the judgement but has allowed the reader/audience to be the judge. There is no denying the fact that Ghashiram(s) are created by the socio-political forces and the perhaps the punishment meted out to Ghashiram Kotwal is more than what he deserves. But perhaps by giving such an ending to the play the playwright has succeeded in depicting the irony and intensity of the matter. One might conclude by reiterating what Foucault opined in Power/Knowledge on the mechanism of power. He has very rightly opined that in order to bring positive changes in the society one must understand the intricacies of the functioning of the mechanisms of power in the society and act accordingly.