“Introduction: What is Comparative Literature? How it came into being? -Susan Bassnett

Siddharth G. Desai

Roll no. - 07

SEM - II

Paper no. – 10 E-E-205-A

Year – 2010-11

Topic: “Introduction: What is Comparative Literature? How it came into being? -Susan Bassnett

Submitted to Dr. Dilip Barad

Department of English,

Bhavnagar University.

         

           “Comparative Literature”, this is extremely confused word, because different critics have their various views regarding this word. Many writers have defined this term by giving their own views. In simple words, we can say that comparative Literature involves the study of texts across cultures, that it is interdisciplinary. We can take one text to compare with another one. By doing that, we can get the idea which is the best text or unique text? We set particular parameters to know which text is unique. That is called comparative Literature. It is an area of exploration from where we can get a lot of information about the different literatures.

          Susan Bassnett says that most of the people do not start with comparative literature but they end up with it in some way or other. Generally, we, first start reading the text and then we arrive at comparison. I mean to say, we start comparing that text with another that has similarities and dissimilarities. Comparative Literature emerged in 19^th century. Comparative Literature is different from national literature, general literature and world literature. It was begun as “Literature Compare” in 1860 in Germany. And Comparative literature got recognition as a study in 1897. In 1848, Matthew Arnold had used this term “Comparative Literature “for the first time in English. He defines this term. He says...

“Everywhere there is connection. Everywhere there is illustration. No single event, no single literature is adequately comprehended except in relation to other events, to other literatures.”

          Generally, when we, come across a new text, by reading that text, we always try to relate or to compare with another one. That is human nature. We compare both texts’ ideas with each other. That’s why Arnold has written in the beginning of the definition of Comparative literature that “Everywhere there is connection.” The Comparatists always tries to find that similar connection between two texts, cultures, literatures etc.

          Goethe gave the term “World Literature (Weltliteratur) to Comparative literature because by comparing the, the comparatists compare one literature to another one. In a way, comparative literature removes the all borders and brings nearer to all literatures and spread harmony. What is common in different literature? That is the main function of the comparative literature.

          What is the object of study in comparative literature? How can comparison be the object of anything? If individual literatures have a canon what might a comparative canon be? How does the comparative select what to compare? Is comparative literature a discipline? Or is it simply a field of study? All these questions can be raised. Rene Wellek defined as “the crisis of comparative literature.”

          Benedetto Croce argued that comparative literature was a non- subject, contemptuously dismissing the suggestion that it might be seen as a separate discipline. He discussed the definition of Comparative literature as the exploration of “the vicissitudes, alterations, developments and reciprocal difference” of themes and literary ideas across literatures, and concluded that ‘there is no study more arise than research of this sort. This kind of work, Croce maintained, is to be classified, in the category of erudition purely and simply. Instead of something called comparative literature, he suggested that the proper object of study should be literary history:

“ the comparative history of literature is history understood in its true sense a s  complete explanation of the literary work, encompassed in all its relationships, disposed in the composite whole of universal literary history (where else could it ever be placed ?), seen in those connections and preparations that are its raison d’être.”

           Croce’s argument was that the term “Comparative Literature” was obfuscator, disguising the obvious, that is, the fact that the true object of study was literary history. Here, we can see Croce’s different views regarding comparative literature that he is against towards the concept of comparative literature. This shows various comparative literatures. All cultural differences disappear when readers take up great works; art is seen as an instrument of universal harmony and the comparatists is one who facilitates the spread of that harmony. Moreover, the corporatist must possess special skills; Wellek and Warren in their “Theory of Literature “ a book that was enormously significant in Comparative literature when it first appeared in 1949, suggest that:

“Comparative Literature... will make high demands on type linguistic proficiencies of our scholars. It asks for a widening of perspectives, a suppression of local and provincial sentiments, not easy to achieve.”

           In other words, if we say what qualities the comparatists should have, we can say that first, he should be polyglot. He should have a literary taste. He should also be good reader and critic. He should have the sense of present and past-along with historical background. He should have the knowledge of different cultures. He should have the special skills to grasp the idea about comparison. By doing the comparison, he should spread harmony.

          When Western comparatists had sought to deny: the specificity of national literatures, Swapan Majumdar puts it:

“It is because of this prediction for National Literature- much developed by the Anglo-American critics as a methodology- that comparative Literature has struck roots in the Third World nations and in India in particular.”

           India is a Third World country and also multi-lingual, multi-communal, multi-racial, multi-religion, multi-historical, multi-cultural and multi-literary phenomenon, so in India, comparative literature has large scope. I India, different states have their various languages and literatures so by comparison, comparatists can explore lots of literatures in India. This is all about the views of different critics regarding comparative literature.

Now, “Translation Studies” this prominent has raised the confusion that a translation study is a part of comparative literature or comparative literature is a part of translation studies. This thing still confuses the critics. Comparative literature has traditionally claimed translations as a sub-category, but this assumption is now being questioned. The works of scholars such as Toury, Lefeverre, Hermans, Lambert and many others have shown that translation is especially significant at moments of great cultural change. Evn Zohar argues that extensive translation activity takes place when a culture is in a period of transition: when it is expanding, when it needs renewal, when it is in a pre-revolutionary phase, then translation plays a vital part. In contrast, when a culture is solidly established, when it is in an imperialist stage, when it believes itself to be dominant then translation is less important. Here, we can see that translation in positive and Negative light in the words of Evan Zohar. As English became the little need to translate, hence the relative poverty of twentieth- century translation into English compared with the proliferation of translation in many other languages.

            Translation studies became necessary for linguistics to rethink its relationship with semiotics, so the time is approaching for comparative literature to rethink its relationship with Translation studies semiotics was at first regarded as a sub-category of linguistic, and only later did it become clear that the reverse was the case, and linguistics was in effect a brand of the wider discipline, semiotics. Comparative literature has always claimed translation as a sub-category, but as translation studies established itself firmly as a subject based in inter-cultural study and offering a methodology of some vigor, both in terms of theoretical and descriptive work, so, comparative literature appears less like a branch of something else. This is how the translation studies connect with the comparative literature.

          Now, let us see, how comparative literature came into being. If we talk about its origin, there is general agreement that comparative literature acquired its name from a serious of technique of literature, published in 1816 and entitled “Cours de litterature Comparee”. In an essay discussing the origins of the title was ‘unused and unexplained but he also show how the term seems to have crept into use through the 1820s and 1830s in France. He suggests that the German version of the term, vergleichende Literature geschichte, first appeared in a book by Moriz Carriere in 1854, as we saw abed that the earliest English usage is attributed to Matthew Arnold, who referred to “Comparative literatures” in the plural in a letter of 1848. Byron could see the close relationship between national identity and cultural inheritance. In general terms, it is possible to see the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries as a time of immense literary turmoil throughout Europe, as issues of nationality increasingly appeared linked to cultural developments. Nations engaged in a struggle for independence were also engaged in a struggle for cultural roots, for a national culture and for a past.

          Literary developments in the New World reflected a new order. In complete contrast is the attitude of a colonial power to the literature produced by people under its domination, and probably the most extreme example of this philistine vision is the (in) famous comment by Macaulay, who, in 1835, stated that:

“I have never found one among them (orientalists) who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native late of India and Arabia. I have certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanskrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations.”

          Before being as a study, comparative literature had to pass through many debates and controversy. But as we saw ahead comparative literature got recognition as a study in 1897.

“Comparative Study of two Victorian Novels: “Oliver Twist” and “Middlemarch”

Siddharth G. Desai

Roll no. - 07

SEM - II

Paper no. – 09 E-C-204

Year – 2010-11

Topic: “Comparative Study of two Victorian Novels: “Oliver Twist” and “Middlemarch”

Submitted to Miss Ruchira Dudhrejiya

Department of English,

Bhavnagar University.

         




           Before comparing these two texts-“Oliver Twist” and “Middlemarch”, let us see what is Comparative Literature? First of all Compare, it means to examine people or things to see how they are similar and how they are different. Now, if we talk about “Comparative Literature”, we can say that this is extremely confused word because different critics have their various views regarding this term.

          According to Susan Bassnett,

“Comparative Literature involves the study of two texts across culture that it is interdisciplinary study of and that it is concerned with patterns of connection in literature across both time and space.”

          Comparative Literature began as “Literature Compare” in 1860. Matthew Arnold had used this term first in English in 1848. But Comparative Literature got recognition as a study in 1897. Goethe gave the term “Worldliterature”, where as Lane Cooper told “Bogus Term” to Comparative Literature. Matthew Arnold also gave the definition of Comparative Literature. He defines…

“Everywhere there is connection, everywhere there is illustration. No single event, no single literature is adequately comprehended except in relation to other events to other literatures.”

          Many Critics said that Comparative Literature is a study of different literatures. But Sisirkumar Das said that Comparative World Literature is the study of different national literatures, while Comparative Indian Literature is the study of literatures of one nation. He said this thing in the context of Indian Literature but I have tried to apply this concept in the English Culture.

          While comparing these two texts-“Oliver Twist” and “Middlemarch”, Charles Dickens and George Eliot have presented the Victorian society by one or another way, because both novels were written in the Victorian age. The setting of “Oliver Twist” is of 1834, when the Poor Law was introduced in England; where as the setting of “Middlemarch” is of 1830. In “Oliver Twist”, major themes like Poverty, Orphanhood, Starvation, Oppression, Child-laboring whereas in “Middlemarch” major themes like Marriage, Vocation, Desire for own identity, Severity of the society. These are the themes of both texts, which govern the narrative of both novels. Now, let us see the similarities and dissimilarities between both texts.

1.   Autobiographical element:

          Both novels have autobiographical elements. In “Oliver Twist” Charles Dickens has described the wretched condition of children who work in the workhouse. It is Dickens’s own experience of working in the Shoe-polish factory. He had depicted that condition through the character of Oliver Twist. The character of Fagin is an autobiographical character, because he was the senior of Dickens in the Shoe-polish factory. In “Middlemarch” George Eliot has presented her novel in a new way rather than stereotypical fantasies of the conventional romance fiction. She has also desire for the upliftment of society. The same kinds of characteristics, we can observe in Dorothea’s character. She also wants to reform the society. She is presented unlike from the other women characters in the novel.

2.   Title and Subtitle:

          First of all, if we look at the title “Oliver Twist”, it’s a name of the protagonist of the novel. He is a titular character and the sub-title of this novel is “A Parish boy’s Progress”, which shows the growth of Oliver’s character in the novel. Then, if we observe the title “Middlemarch, it’s a name of a province. The title of this novel shows that the Middle-class of the society is marching towards the urbanity. The sub-title of this novel is “A study of Provincial Life”, which represents the lives of ordinary (middle-class) people.

            If we look at the sub-title of “Oliver Twist”-“A Parish boy’s Progress” and the title “Middlemarch”, we can say to some extent both have similarities. The progress of a Parish boy shows his marching towards survival and here in “Middlemarch”, the Middle class of the society marches towards the urbanity. Both are trying to show their progress by their marching.

3.   Character and Society:

           Both novelists have depicted the Victorian society in their novels. In “Oliver Twist”, Dickens has presented the cruel identity of society of that time by portraying such characters like Mr. Bumble, Fagin, Bill Sikes etc., where as in “Middlemarch”, Eliot has described the internal identity of the society through such characters like Mr. Bulstrode, Mr. Arthur Brooke, Rosamond etc.

          In “Oliver Twist”, Dickens has portrayed the simple characters. I mean to say that we can understand them by their actions. In a sense, they perform as they are in their life. But in “Middlemarch”, the characters pretend to be an ideal person. But Eliot has shown here their real identities.

          What we get from “Oliver Twist” is not a precision of sensitiveness about day to day problems of human behavior but a sharpen sense of the large movement of life within which particular problems arise. We participate in the world rather than in the particular of individual, where as in “Middlemarch”, we involve in the world of individuals and their problems. In “Oliver Twist”, Dickens remains objective; he has described the wretched condition of the poor people through the particular character Oliver Twist. In “Middlemarch”, George Eliot remains subjective. She presents the character’s life and his or her problems individually.

4.   Treatment of Profession:

          In “Oliver Twist”, there is a portion of a surgeon in one of the chapters. In that chapter, Dickens has made sarcastic remark on the profession of this doctor. Situation is that there is a woman whose daughter dies. Before she dies, that surgeon is examining her, but unfortunately, she dies. At that time, that surgeon says…

“It’s all over.”

These above words show that the person who dies is only a dead body for the surgeon. He is totally irresponsible. Someone’s death is just a day to day activity for that surgeon. In a way, it’s a depiction of the Victorian people. In “Middlemarch”, there is a character named Mr. Wrench who misdiagnoses Fred and because of his mistake, Fred catches typhoid fever. Then Lydgate treats Fred’s illness. This portion shows doctor’s (Mr. Wrench) carelessness towards his job. Also when Lydgate comes new methods of treatment. But he finds this medical profession with some defects. Both novelists have presented the image of doctor one or another way.

5.   The image of Death:

              In “Oliver Twist”, death is considered as a day to day activity. The characters have nothing to do with other’s death. They just find their purpose. Dickens has show fatal identity of death through Fagin’s words. His words show the Victorian people’s identity. He says…

“What a fine thing capital Punishment is! Dead men never repent; Dead men never bring awkward stories to light.”

  

 In “Middlemarch”, Eliot has also shown the cruel identity of people. Same thing happens here, that people have nothing to do with other’s death. On the death of peter Featherstone, people just come to see what is written in the will? Both novelists have depicted the Victorian people’s views regarding death.

6.   Panorama of Picture:

             Both novels present the different panorama. In Oliver Twist” the picture is visible. The actions of all characters are easily understood. They perform as they are in their life. And if we look at the picture of character’s world in “Middlemarch”, it is quite complex. The characters presented to be an ideal, completely unlike from the characters in “Oliver Twist”. If you want to know to know the reason of the character’s such action, you have to examine his or her internal identity then and then you can know the reason. This complexity involves us in the characters’ lives and their problems. Dickens has depicted the external identity of the Victorian society through his characters in “Oliver Twist”, where as Eliot has presented the internal identity of the Victorian people through her characters in “Middlemarch”.

7.   Commonality and Individuality:

          In “Oliver Twist”, Dickens has presented the common reality though poverty, orphan hood, starvation, oppression, exploitation. Dickens, here, talk about universality. The characters do not bother for their identities, which are given or gained through society, characters fight for their profession and identity because they have desire for making their own particular identity. Eliot has discussed each characters individual life and problem.

          Both novels present the Victorian society. Dickens has depicted the Victorian people directly through his characters, where as Eliot has portrayed their psyche of that time.

“I. A. Richard’s Figurative Language”

Siddharth G. Desai

Roll no. - 07

SEM - II

Paper no. – 08 E-C-203

Year – 2010-11

Topic: “I. A. Richard’s Figurative Language”

Submitted to Dr.Dilip Barad

Department of English,

Bhavnagar University.

         Ivor Armstrong Richards was one of the first teachers of English at the University of Cambridge, where the English school was founded in 1917. His first book was “The Foundation of Aesthetics (1922) written in collaboration with C.G. Ogden and James Wood, and his second book “ The Meaning of Meaning “ written in collaboration with C.G.Ogden in 1923. “ The Principles of Literary criticism” in 1924 was attempted to provide literary criticism with a firm and logical base in theory.

          I.A. Richards has been a constant source of inspiration to the new critics- more particularly to John Crowe Ranson and William Empson- many of whom have used his tools and techniques on an extensive scale. I.A.Richards differs from the New Critics in one important respect, while the New Critics limit themselves rigorously to the poem under consideration, I.A.Richards also take into account its effect on the readers.  For him, the real value of a poem lies in the reaction and attitudes it creates weather or not it is conductive to greater emotional balance equilibrium, peace and rest in the mind of the readers. For him the value of a work of art lies in its power to harmonies and organizes complex and warring human impulses into patterns that are lasting and pleasurable.

“Sources of misunderstanding in poetry”:

          In practical criticism a study of literary judgment, I.A.Richards has given the theory of Figurative language. He starts discussion first on sources of misunderstanding in poetry. He says that it is very difficult to find the source which creates misunderstanding. Further, he says that there are four sources of misunderstanding as far as are poetry is concerned. As one source of misunderstanding is connected with the other in different way it becomes very hard to diagnoses, with certainty, the source of some particular mistake or misunderstanding. This kind of source of misunderstanding can be possible but rarely.

          Such misunderstanding may arise, if the reader does not pay attention or his or her sheer carelessness. But carelessness and   inattention results from distraction. And the meter and verse form of poetry itself may be powerful source of distraction. If the reader is not aware of meter and verse form which are in poetry defiantly distraction may arise. To some readers meter and verse form of poetry are as powerful as distraction as a barrel organ or a brass-bend is to one trying to solve difficult mathematical. But as we know, meter and rhymes are essential part of poetry and cannot be differentiated. Therefore, the reader should a poem several times. Because the constant reading of poem can solve the problem regarding the meter and verse. Reader should read a poem for grasping the concept of it. Perhaps the constant readings can solve the various doubts about the poem.  These misunderstanding of sense of the poetry must be solved by the reader. So that he can grasp the idea of the poem.

          If we talk about another misunderstanding of the sense of poetry, we can say that some poets often themselves like to play all manners of tricks with their sense. Sometimes a poet dissolves the coherence of his sense altogether, and may seem chaotic and incoherent. The ordinary laws of syntax and grammar may be thrown to the window. These chaotic and in incoherent structure arise the complex situation in the poetry. Reader feels uncertainty to solve it. As a result, a reader fails to understand the concept of the poetry and feel complicated situation.

          This complicated situation gives rise to misunderstanding or wrong notion that syntax is of less significant in poetry then in prose and that the proper way of understanding poetry is through a kind of guess-work, which may even be called intuition. Such notions are hard solve. Because they are true to some extent. This aspect of truth in poetry makes reader most deceptive and misleading. I.A. Richard warns his readers against this danger. He writes,

“In most poetry the sense is as important as anything else;

It is quite as a subtle, and as dependent of the syntax as in

Prose; it is the poet’s chief instrument to other aims when it is not

Itself his aim. His control of our thoughts is ordinarily his chief means to the

Control of our feeling, and in the immense majority of instances we miss nearly everything

Of value if we misread his sense.

          So, according to I.A.Richards, the sense that should be read in its context. Then, reader does not misunderstand the meaning. However, this does not mean that the sense of a poem can be fully understand apart from the context, that a prose paraphrase, however accurate can fully express its sense. So, reader should take the meaning of sense into the context. The sense as expressed in prose paraphrase is never the full burden of poem; it can never express its full significance. Besides, the literal meaning, a poem also conveys feeling and emotions, and these can never be conveyed through a rendering of its sense. This literal meaning can also propel the reader towards the original meaning. Because if reader reads the poem several times, he will get various meaning and at last perhaps, this constant reading would reach him at right meaning at the sense in the poetry.

            An over literal reading is as great a source of misunderstanding in poetry as careless, intuitive reading. Reader should avoid these both dangerous things. To quote Richards’ own words, “These twin dangers-careless, intuitive reading and prosaic, over literal’ reading- are the simple-grades, the justing rocks, between which too many ventures into poetry are worked.”

          Defective scholarship is a third source of misunderstanding in poetry. The reader may fail to grasp the idea regarding the sense of many a word used by the poet. The words which are used in the poetry may be new, difficult and not familiar to the necessary intellectual context or he may lack of the primary knowledge the meaning. Words used by a poet, besides having a literal meaning, may also have acquired additional richness and value from their having been used by other poets and writers in different contexts, and this associative value and significance would be lost upon  a reader unfamiliar with this literary context of words. So, in a way, reader should have the knowledge of language. He, then, should be capable to poet. The enriched language of the reader can solve the misunderstanding in poetry.

“The importance of visual memory”:

          For a proper appreciation and evaluation of the imagery of a poem, visual memory is also an essential, and its lake misleads the critic and distorts his judgment. The use of the word pencil ... meaning, produce the effect of penciling – is highly suggestive in the poem. its suggestion, “both of the hard, clear outline of the clouds edge and of the shadowy variation in the lighting of its inner recess , is not in the least cancelled by climbed or by the sky scraper hoist of miraculous stocked .  ”

           Miraculous stocked seems at least to have clear advantage over ‘the tremendous triumph of tall towers’ in point of economy and vividness. ‘Puzzle’, has accuracy also on its side against these cavilers. Anyone who watches the rest less shifted of cattle as the shadow suddenly darkness their, would for them will endowers the poet’s observations. But if the cows never noticed any change of light the word would still be justified through its evocative effect upon men. Similarly with paint and ghost; they work as a rapid and fresh notation of not vary unfamiliar effect.

          In short, a proper understanding of figurative language required close study of the poem. Reader should read the poem into the context of close reading. its literal since must be carefully followed, but such literal reading  must not come in the way of imagination appreciation of it judicious balance must be struck between literalism and imaginative freedom . The aim of the poem must be clearly understood for without such and understanding any judgment of the means the poet has used would be fallacious. New critics give importance to means first then the end of the poem. Because by doing this, they can learn the language – metaphor, figure of speech etc... At art, the end of the poetry can be achieved then the liberty can be given to analysis poem from anyway.

          By, the aim of the poem, Richard means the whole state of mind, the mental l condition, in which in another sense is the poem. Roughly he means by it the collection of impulses which shaped the poem originally, two which it gave expression, and to which, in an ideally the susceptible reader, it would again give rise. He does not mean by its ‘aim’ any sociological, aesthetic, and commercial or propagandize intension or hopes of the poet.

Socio-Psychological Analysis of Gender in “Tara”

Siddharth G. Desai

Roll no. - 07

SEM - II

Paper no. – 07 E-C-202

Year – 2010-11

Topic: Socio-Psychological Analysis of Gender in “Tara”

Submitted to Mr.Devarshi Mehta

Department of English,

Bhavnagar University.

          “Tara”, is a play by Mahesh Dattani. This play is a family tragedy in which the members of the family are torn apart in pieces. Mr. Patel, Bharati, Chandan (Dan) and Tara, these four people involves us in their life and realize us what kind of intolerable pain they are enduring. “Tara”, this is a stage play in two acts. Mahesh Dattani is one of the original writers in Indian English in Writing. He is a writer as well as a director also. In this play, he has talked about common people.

          In his plays, Dattani takes on what he calls the ‘invisible issues of Indian society’. “Tara” centers on the emotional separates that grows between two conjoined twins following the discovery that their mother and grandfather to favor the boy (Chandan) over the girl (Tara). Tara, a feisty girl who isn’t given the opportunities given to her brother (although she may be smarter) eventually wastes away and dies. Chandan escapes to London, changes his name as Dan and attempts to repress the guilt he feels over his sister’s death by living without a personal history. Dattani’s plays are to be not to be read but to be performed as “Twinkle Tara” at the Chowdiah Memorial Hall, Banglore, on 23rd October 1990, by playpen performing Arts Group.

                                                               (-From A Note on The Play)

          There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex is related to biological term, where as gender, it is given to you by society. Dattani has depicted the perspectives of the gender of the character in this play. Right from the beginner we can see the difference between male and female. Like, in one of the scenes, where Bharati has finished her puja and Patel is getting ready to go to work. These are stereotypical gender roles in own Indian society and Dattani makes full use of them.

    

           Now, here, we can observe Dattani’s use of those stereotypical roles of man and woman. This thing also shows the gender perspective of the Indian society. Another example, in which we can see this Indian Gender perspective. When Tara explains to Roopa about the conversation between father and son, she says that,

“The men in the house were deciding on whether they were going to hunting while the women looked after the caves.”

           Now, here, we can see explicitly the Indian Gender Perspective that man’s work for taking care of his family, where as women have to work only in the house. Her work is to look after her house, husband and children. This is her world. She can’t break this rule.

      

          This is how the gender perspective is described by Mahesh Dattani in the above quotation. The above mentioned words are the proof of our Indian society that this is the situation of male and female in Indian society and both have to work in their boundaries. Both have to follow this situation. There is another example in which we can see this gender perspective of male-dominance. When Mr. Patel says to Chandan,

Mr. Patel:  “I was just thinking… It may be a good idea for you to come to the office with me.”

           So, here, we can see that these above words of Mr. Patel represent the male-dominance of Indian society. Mr. Patel says to join the office to Chandan, not to Tara. Mr. Patel very well knows that what is good or bad for Chandan and Tara. “it may be good for you…” this shows that coming office is good thing for Chandan and when Chandan says that he and Tara, both will come to the office. At that time, Mr. Patel completely denies for he completely denies for that. For Chandan, it is a good thing to come to office, not for Tara. For Tara, the good thing is to work at home or help her mother. This is how, here, this gender image reflects male-dominance.

          And another thing that Mr. Patel always thinks about future plans for Chandan. He never thinks Tara’s future. Also, we can see the difference between the two genders. In our Indian family, people always think about boy’s future, first, because people give more significance to boy than girl. A girl has to learn how to cook/ how to look after house? How to behave with other? All these things a girl must learn otherwise people criticize her and her family.

          If we talk about a boy, he has to follow his father. He should become a support of his father. He has to learn, how to make his business progressive.  How to deal in such situations in the case of business? All these things, a boy must learn. This is how our Indian society believes in case of boy and girl. These are the parameters in which a boy and a girl have to believe according to their parameters. And this thing, we can see clearly in the case of Chandan and Tara. 

          Another example in which we can see the disappeared female gender identity. Dan talks with himself, he utters…

“What is Tara?”

           These words question where is Tara’s identity? Her disappeared identity shows her helplessness. The responsible thing for this is male-dominant society. She is the victim of the patriarchal society. In a way, Chandan is responsible for that.

          Because during the operation Bharati and her father favored boy and told the doctor to save the boy. This shows the cruel identity of the Indian society. At that time, Bharati and her father think about a boy, because, perhaps, they thought that boy can bold the heritage of his father and can be helpful to his father in his business. So, a boy is better than a girl. Like Tara, Bharati is also victimized by the male-dominant society. Because she did as her father said while operation.

         After operation, when she knows the condition of Tara, at that time she realizes her mistake but it is tool late to repent on it. She can’t apologize for her mistake to Mr. Patel because she does not consult in critical situation. So, Mr. Patel never forgives Bharati.

          Now, she shows her strong feelings towards Tara but all in vain. She dotes Tara but she is prevented by Mr. Patel. In the beginning of the play, Bharati convinces to drink milk to Tara. At that time, we can understand that it is her love for Tara but when we come to know the secret, we can’t believe that she had told to save the boy. In both cases, at the time of operation and when she loves Tara, Bharati is forced or pressured to do the thing. In a way, she is victimized by the patriarchal society.

          In this family drama, Mr. Patel, Bharati, Chandan and Tara, all these four characters try to live in their world and that is why they are talking about future plans. This mechanism requires to revive, which is worse than death. Bharati bribes Roopa because Tara would not feel that she has no friends. By doing this, Bharati tries to correct her mistake. Moreover, she has stopped socializing, because she can not endure when people ask about Tara. In a way, she is running away from reality.

          When Chandan come across the reality that he is responsible for Tara’s death (tragedy). He cannot tolerate more and then he goes to London. He changes his name as “Dan”. In a way, he also, like Bharati, escapes from reality They both are escapists. On the other side, Mr. Patel has to face the society because of Bharati’s mistake. He endures the society’s harshness silently. At a moment, Mr.Patel erupts on Bharati. He says…

“When have you allowed me to consult for Tara?”

          This sows her love for Tara and Mr. Patel takes Bharati’s love to Tara as Bharati is pretending. She spoils his children’s future; this kind of accusation is accused on Bharati by Mr. Patel. This is how Dattani has the psychological conflict between characters. Roopa represents society. She has a habit of discussing about people and spreading rumors. She is very bad at English; she talks in a double way. When Tara says her about criticism on her leg by Roopa, at that time, Roopa says…

Roopa:-“oh that! I’m sorry. I hope you didn’t mind.”

           The above words represent Roopa’s true identity. First, she insults Tara about her leg and then she shows her sympathy towards Tara’s situation. She is like a chameleon. She keeps changing her colors in dialogues according to situations towards people.

          Tara is a very strong girl. She is emotionally strong than Chandan. Life has taught a lot of things to Tara. She often makes witty remarks in the play, like when Roopa is warning her to stay away from Prema and Nalini, at that time she says…

Tara: “That’s okay. I can handle them.”

          The above words of Tara show us her courage. She is more mature than those girls. She has seen all the colors of life. In a way, Dattani has shown Tara physically challenged, but mentally strong.

In a nut-shell, Mahesh Dattani has presented an analysis of gender identity in an unbelievable way in “Tara”. Tara and Chandan are separated physically, not emotionally. Dattani has depicted the views of Indian society regarding boy and girl (male and female) in “Tara”.