Significance of the title '' The Purpose ''

Name: Vora Hirva p

Roll No: 12

Sem:1

Submitted to Department of English

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji

Bhavnagar University.

                                    

'Significance of the title 'The Purpose'

- T.P. Kailasam

          The purpose of the this thesis has been to propose an assessment or interpretation of T.P. Kaisam's "Private mythology" of its genesis, its readers. This mythology war of course largely influenced by the circumstances of his time. Indeed, we have noted earlier in this thesis that Northrop Frye, looked on myth, as a means of recanting "a society's history, religion of social stricture.

          This observation is as true of traditional transmissions of myth as it is of such recent and counselors efforts of kailasm's. The 'tailing' of myth in this English plays performs its own part in the nationalist project of rewriting India.

          Kailasam's uniqueness lies not merely in evoking our sympathies for Eklavya, Karna, Bharata or Keechka but also in elevating then to the level of tragic heroes who were masculine, skillful and capable of achievement. In addition, kailasam attempted to features that the colonizes believed they possessed an which accounted for their superiority over Indians.

          The purpose highlights Eklavya's ambition to become the greatest archer in the world in order to project his fawns from the wolves just as it highlights, the questionable motivation of other 'heroic' characters in their shabby treatment of the 'low'  born hero. These "Purpose" of kailasam can be linked to the broader purpose of the nationalist movement of India to rewrite India's past as a foundation of the nationalistic feeling, movement and sense of self. For this purpose, like others, kailasam was willing to subsample to emerging concepts of modernity implicit in the redefinitions of qualities such as masculinity and adulthood and to 'search' for exempla of them in India's own 'past'.

          Kailasam seems to specifically emphasize the "Purpose" the predicament and motivation of the fringe characters of mythology to highlight something of the tradition and of what was required for modernization of that tradition. Significance of title is very important. He investigates their characters beyond the roles assigned to them by the authorized versions of the great epics and he transforms them from passive victims to active participants thus fitting them into western definitions of 'Masculinity' kailasam simultaneously questioned the 'authority of unfair projections operative for millennia which leveled to our divided and unjust society.  

          Krilasam's purpose to reinter the past in the light of his contemporary reality. Yet in this process kailasam employs a language of the past that too a language reasonable unfamiliar even to English – educated Indians.

          While analyzing kailasam's preoccupation with marginalized characters as Modern alternatives or exemplars for reshaping society, this dissertation has discovered more topics for study one of them is the construction of women especially as mothers in the lives of these heroes. The concept of motherhood for most nationalist writers was associated with the crucial role of procreating and rearing special breed of men. This role extended to energizing the menfolk to reconstruct the "Motherland".

          In Kailasam's play 'The purpose it is Eklavya's mother. A study of neglected literary documents like Kailasam's plays will have some serious impact on the image and definition, the historical perception of wider disciplines or domains like Indian writing in English, To take just one instance. Such document will help clarity once again why in a certain period of this century Indian writing in English was self conscious of history.

          Special attention is given to identity movements with modernity kailasam has emphasized on it. This type of movements were increased in the days of freedom struggle. The concept of purpose is completely charged from the original mythical story. The struggle for one's identity is established through a 'Nishada' for example Eklavya in 'The Purpose'. Nationalistic feelings were aroused through these type of historical plays of Kailasam.

          It is very important to know the difference between Eklavya and Arjuna. Their purposes were different. Arjuna's purpose was self-centered.  He wanted to become the greatest archer of the world whereas. Eklavya wanted to save others's lives. In the purpose 'Eklavya's portrayal has been described well- as, a modern person than Mahabharata. Being a son of 'Nishada' he suffers a lot. He belongs to Bhal community. He lives in a forest with his mother.He is son of Vyatraj Harinyadhary. His father was a soldier in the army of king of Magadha. So Eklavya wants to save poor animals from cruel animals and he has desire to learn arehary. His purpose is not self-centered but to help others. Arjuna was a selfish areher. His purpose was to become the greatest areher of world. Kailasam has given more significance to Eklavaya's character and has given him priority. According to Kailasam Eklavaya is considered an important character than Arjuna. Because without Eklavaya's sacrifice of his Thumb Arjuna would not have become the greatest archar or he could not have been succed. Eklavaya's character is considered important in the purpose. Here Arjuna has been criticized being a selfish person and self-centered. But In Mahabharata Arjuna has been given more importance. In the purpose when Eklavya expresses his desire to learn archery from Guru Dron, Guru Dron becomes impressea Dronacharya also asks Eklavya about his purpose behind learning archery. Eklavya replied that he wants to save poor animal. How Dronacharya is quite impressed to know Eklavya's keen interest to learn archery. Now Dronacharya agrees with Eklavya and he is ready to teach him archery. But after knowing that Guru Dronacharya has been convinced by Eklavya Arjuna reminds Dronacharya about his promise Arjunathat he would be a great archer of work so now Guru Drona denies to Eklavya that he will not teach hip archery. Arjuna was a Brahmin a high caste, archar from a royal family. Dronachaya cannot teach a lower caste boy. It was believed in society during that time. Guru Drona has no right to choose his pupils. Arjun does not want Guru Drona to teach Arjuna archery and Dronacharya couldnot do anything. He had to agree with Arjuna and it is considered one of the important reasons of unfare with Eklavya. It Guru Dron had been agreed than Eklavya could have achieved archery from Guru Dron. Here Arjuna should not have raised questions about Eklavya and his promise because he was a student and Guru Drona was his teacher.

          Eklavya's character has been portrayed excellently by T.P. Kailasam. He has all necessary qualities to learn archery but here power or caste plays vital role. Even though he learns the skill himself. Sacrifices his thumb. Suffering goes on as being the boy of lower caste. He embarked upon a program of self study in the presence of a clay image of Drona. He achieves a level of skill superior to that of Arjuna, Drona's favourite and most accomplished pupal. After the revelation   of Eklavya   that he is from lower caste Drona gets worried and demands that Eklavya turn over his right thumb as gurudakshina. The loyal Eklavya cripples himself, thereby reducing his abilities as in archer. Drona was the Brahmin teacher appointed by the Royal Family of Hasthinapura to teach the young kaurava and pandav princes. The military skills that the princes reeded to learn. One of these skills includes archery. Drona being a Brahmin teacher and more than that being the teacher of princes could not accept Eklavya. Drona was an employee of the kingdom of Hastinapura and was not free to accept students on his will Eklavya was deeply hurt by Drona's refusal. So Eklavya made a statue of Drona accepted the statue of Drona as his guru and practiced in front of the statue every single day. Here we can see Eklavya as subaltern and a marginalized hero. It raises serious questions about caste – system and about its systice. If gives us glimpses that how the marginalized tribes were treated by the dominates Aryan people. He had potential to excel Arjuna. The Aryan hero. But the dominating Aryans conspired and neutralized the challenge by aksing Eklavya to donate thumb  of his right hand. According to rule of morality if, a Nishada boy becomes a better archer than the high born pupil. It goes against the rule of morality on hunting expedition in the forest the dog was barking and his mouth was shut by the arrows shot by Eklavya. We can find excessive reverence to the Brahmins even if they do not deserve it. Out attitude towards Dronacharya was negative. How shameless he was, he has weared the mask of civility. We feel proud of Eklavya in response to his cruel demand the behavior of Eklavya was very submissive. Even though the teacher may refuse to train him and demand his thumb. How Eklavya is expected to behave towards his Brahmin teacher. Eklavya lost his efficiency as a archer. Arjuna becomes thus great archer. Here we find the one generally feels jealousy towards someone who is superior to us. Eklavya was made scapegoat to serve salfish end of the dominated caste hierarchy. Non-Aryan Eklavya as a representative of the opposed tribes. T.P. Kailasam wants the readers to look at Guru Drona again how he pretends and if he had true desire to train Eklavya than he would have trained him and taught him archery but he does not do so. In this play T.P. Kailasam's attitude towards Guru Drona was negative. According to Kailasam at the end of the play Eklavya repents and becomes revolutionary but here one questions is raised if Eklavya was a true archer and true 'Shisya' he should not have repented According to Kailasam Arjuna wants his fame but Eklavya even does not think of his winning by helping others. He does not think like that. Here his dignity and greatness are shown. According to Kalilasam Eklavya has suffered a lot because of caste system, society, Brahmins. He is a subaltern. There is no any reference of Eklavya in Mahabharata after his sacrifice of avoided. He has not been given more importance which he needs. So According to Kailasam Eklavya is superior to Arjuna. He has preferred Eklavya to, Arjuna. Because after Dronacharya's refusal he struggled a lot and achieved the skill on his own. The title of the purpose highlights the purpose of Eklavya's life. In this direction Kailasam makes his own imaginations. He naturally makes his Eklavya observe from a distance the skills in archery and then practice in his place with the image of his Guru in his mind. When Drona is haplessly caught in a Mental conflict on Arjuna's serious charge Eklavya Though, placed in between dual loyalty (towards his teacher on one side and, his fawns on the other realizes Drona's awakward position and voluntarily sacrifices his right thumb as gurudakshina. In handling the theme of the purpose Kailasam lays an emphasis on the power of penance its potentiality of concentration and a single minded efforts on the one hand ant the purpose of doing a thing (here, learning archery) on the other. Among the three kinds of people whose purposes are different, Eklavya belongs to the third' category whose "one aim is in his labour that others might reap the harvest his toils without the least profit to himself. One has to question the probability of Eklavaya's joining the Kaurava in view of the fact that Eklavya's sacrifice of his right thumb has already rendered him almost unfit for archery. Further compared to Eklavya, Lord Krishna of the playlet seems to be debased as highly selfish and partial. One would be jimply stunned and would find it difficult to reconcile oneself to the horrible treacherous act committed by Krishna, though Eklavya is supposed to have transgressed his purpose in life.

          The purpose serves as a goes example in this regard, the play wright goes to the other extaine in keechaka the other plays coming in between. Kailasam adopts the modern concept of democracy and socialism is traced in the ancient benevolent monarchy, which idea is expressed in the statements like "the king is like a common man and the common man like a king and the hero of the play is portray as one who is wedded to truth, jyotice and service to humanity like Eklavya.

          Here we can take the example of karna also. Karna and Eklavya are similar characters. We can find many similarities between both of them. Karna had to suffer a lot in his life. Because Kunti does not accept her child [Karna] She gets pregnant before her marriage. He was the son of surya and Kunti. The child Karna was found by Adhiratha, a charioteer of king Dhritarashtra of Hastinapura. Adhiratha and his wife Radha raised the boy as their own son. He also came to be known as 'Radheya' the son of Radha. Krishna had to speak lie to his teacher. Prarashurama as his training come to completion, Prashurama learned the truth about his star pupil. When parashurama requested Karna to bring a pillow for him to lie his head on in the shade of tree. Karna offered his lap, but while parshurama was asleep, a giant bee stung Karna's thigh. Karna did not move in spite of having pain because he does not want to disturb his guru's sleep. The would began to bleed. Parshurama was worken up by the blood and deduced at once that Karna was a Kshatriya and not a Brahmin because only Kshtriya could endure such a pain. Parshurama who had sworn vengeance against all Kshatriyas laid this curse upon Karnas that he would forget all the mantras required to wield the divine weapon Brahmastra, the most destructive weapon in archery. When Kunti comes to know about his real son she goes to meet him But instead of accepting Karna. The wants to save pandavas and she wants Karna to save their lives. Here we get disgust with Kunti and how Karna is treated. Karna had been killed by Arjuna when Karna had no protection. It was against the rule of war. Because Karna had no arrows as great as Eklavya-according to Kailasam because both suffers a lot karna should have been given the importance as the greatest son and archer but because of Arjun he could not have achieved much importance as an individual. According to Kailasam Eklavaya had all frailties as a great archer. He is considered the, greatest archer from Kailasam's point of view. Arjun is not considered as great as Eklavaya and he is not as great as Eklavya. Dronacharya and Arjuna were both responsible. Because of them Eklavya had to suffer a lot. Here society, beliefs, casteism misery all have been criticized. Adhrence to meaningless and unnecessary suctoms days vital role. If these all things had not affected Eklavya he would have becomes the greatest archer of the world. It is believed by T.P. Kailasam in 'The purpoe'.