130
CHAPTER V
CONFLICTS IN THE ASSAMESE TRAGEDY
Drama a rise s out o f c o n flic t and the movement, o f
the plot o f a drama i s determined by the c o n flic t , with the
beginning o f which the plot r e a l l y begins and with the ending
o f which the drama closes. In a l l dramas modern, and even in the crudest form o f i t ,
ancient and
some sort o f
c o n flic t has been there. In Greek tragedy and in Sanskrit
drama there was only one form o f c o n flic t known as external
c o n flic t and the idea o f in te rn a l c o n flic t which has assumed
more importance in the modern time was introduced with the
development o f romantic tragedy during the Elizabethan period.
The tragic heroes o f Shakespeare have become immortal not
for the outward c o n flic t which i s present in every tragedy
but fo r the c o n flic t within the mind o f the heroes. In
'Ham let', fo r example, there i s the outward c o n flic t between
Hamlet and Claudius or between Hamlet and the Ghost; but i t
i s o f minor importance in re la t io n to the c o n flic t within
the mind o f Hamlet himself.
As we have already said, one o f
the striking c h a ra c te ris tic s o f modern drama i s i t s inward­
ness and with the increase o f inwardness, the inner st r u g g le
in a tragedy has got more and more dominating importance.
The introduction o f inner struggle, on the one hand, makes
131
the suffering more painful and, on the other, by turning
away, for the time being, the mind o f the audience frorr the
painful scenes and events, acts as a r e l i e f . I t agajn enables
the audience to direct their sympathy towards the hero who,
a fte r a l l bad deeds, r e a l i s e s the gravity o f his crime?; and
repents inwardly for a l l that he has done. In recent times
there has been further developments in the concept o f the
inward c o n f l i c t . I t i s no longer confined to the c o n f l i c t s
between two thoughts or emotions within the mind. In the
dramas o f Maeterlinck, for example, the c o n fl ic t i s between
the conscious and the unconsci®us mind, and in s t i l l more
recent developments the c o n f l i c t has taken more compie--'
forms. ^
We have already said that in sp it e o f the mod-rn
trend towards greater inwardness, the Assamese dramatists
seem to pay very l i t t l e attention to i t .
The device of
internal c o n fl ic t which i s a part o f inwardness, therefore,
has not been exploited we ll and except on a few o c c a s i o n s
in a quite limited number of plays, almost a l l the drarr.ati stifrom the beginning to the present day are concerned with
only
external c o n f l i c t . I f we look to the early social tragedies
l i k e Ram-Navaml« Njrmala we find that the struggle i s limited
1, ’’There ( i n the dramas o f Maeterlinck) i s a struggle here,
not between love and honour, not between two thoughts or
emotions, but between the conscious and the subconscious
mind, between human t i e s and the t i e s o f the soul".
A. N i c o l l - The Theory o f Drama, p. 95.
132
to p u rely p h y sica l fo rc e s . The d e s ire s o f the hero o r th e
h ero in e in th e s e p lay s are in c o n flic t w ith the so c ia l code
or convention. In S e u ti-K ir on. th e c la sh i s n o t w ith th e
so c ia l convention b u t w ith th e opposed in d iv id u a ls . I t i s
a c o n flic t betw een two persons reg ard in g one woman. Ther e
was scope fo r c re a tin g strong in te r n a l c o n f lic t in the mind
o f th e hero when he had to m arry somebody e ls e in s p ite o f
h is deep lo v e fo r S e u ti. The c o n flic t th a t has been c re a te d
in h is mind at th e tim e o f le a v in g S euti i s very l i t t l e . Again
tow ards the end some c o n f lic t has been c re a te d in the mind
o f th e h ero , who, a f te r k illin g S eu ti knows from her s p i r i t
th a t her lo v e fo r him was pure. But th a t scope also has not
been u t i l i z e d w ell as th e hero soon escapes by k i l l i n r h im se lf
and th e re fo re , in th e se p lay s th e re i s none who i s ,t o quote
Shakespeare, "w ith h im se lf a t war". Even in K arengar L jg jri
which we have sa id to be a good work of a r t from many points*
no attem pt has been made to wage war in th e mind o f th e hero.
The c o n f lic t h ere a r is e s o u t o f human fo rc e s o r out o f
d iffe re n c e s in th e minds o f persons belonging to d iffe re n t
ages and even in th e moment when th e hero has to s a c r if ic e
h is id e a l o r at a tim e when he b an ish es h is m arried w ife, ^
and l a t e r on knows about her com m itting su ic id e 2 th e re i s no
c o n flic t in h is mind.
1. Act. I I , S c.4
2. Act. V, Sc. 2
133
The mythological dramas are w r i t t e n with an : ' cal
and since the aim in most o f the dramas i s to attract at ention to the powers o f Rama or Krishna, the c o n fl ic t in them
i s limited to the physical powers o f the two parties or two
forces represented by these two parties. But in dramas l i k e
Meghnad-badh. Rakshakumar. in which the dramatists seem to be
more sympathetic towards the hero, there was scope for crea­
ting strong internal c o n f l i c t in their mind. In RakshakumarT
f o r example, Tarani, the hero, has to fight against Rama
i n s p it e o f a l l h is devotion for him out o f patriotism. In
doing so, he, at the same time, has to go against his father
and mother who are in the side o f Rama. In such a situation,
the dramatist could have created some c o n fl ic t within hi s
mind. In plays l i k e Narakasur. K am a, i t i s again merely the
outward c o n f l i c t that has been displayed. In Narakasur, tbe
war the hero rages i s against the Gods and there i s no war
in h is mind. In Ka m a , the hero i s fighting against his
unfavourable f at e and in sp it e of h is defeat in every step we
don't find con flictin g thoughts or emotions within his mind.
The introduction o f inner struggle in these plays would have
made the audience more sympathetic towards the heroes by
giving an indication o f th ei r inner sufferings which are,
however, more intense than the mere physical sufferings.
I n Baide hi- biv og. the main co n fli c t i s between the idea of
Rama and that o f his subjects. But on the occasion when Rama
/
34
i s to choose between the two d i f f i c u l t ch oices - wife on the
one hand and subjects on the oth er, the play-wrieht has
created some mental anxiety in him. ^ In plays lik e Bisnr.i an.
Lakshman.where Lakshmana appears as the hero, the internal
c o n f l i c t in the hero cannot be expected as Lakshmana has eot
no individual stand and accepts without h e sita tion whatever
Rama says.
The lim ita tio n s o f the dramatists are more c le a r ly
revealed in the h is t o r i c a l dramas, in which the dramatists,
in s p it e o f s u ffic ie n t op p ortu n ities f o r creating internal
c o n flic t ,h a v e f a i l e d to display i t . The outward c o n f l i c t in
the Jaymati plays o f Gohain Barua and Bezbarua i s between
Gadadhar and the King and the characters o f Jaymati and
Gadadhar a ffo r d good scope fo r creating strong intern al con­
f l i c t s , p a r tic u la r ly when Jaymati i s punished by the royal
executioners and Gadapani, who comes to know about i t , i s
t e r r i b l y upset. The dramatists have f a i l e d to avail themselves
o f these op p ortu n ities and as a result o f i t the real
essence
o f the traged ies i s l o s t . Similar i s the case with Gohain
Barua1s Sadhani and Bezbarua's Belimar. We d on 't find any
c o n f l i c t within the mind o f Sadhani when, bein^ a p rin cess,
she had to choose an ordinary shepherd as her hu s ba n d or
even at the end when she f l i e s away with her husband and
takes shelter in Chandangiri to a w id the consequences o f
the
Ahom
invasion. In Belimar. as we have already s a i d , not
1. Act. I I , Sc. 3
135
to speak o f in tern al c o n f l i c t , no cen tral external c o n f l ic t
re la tin g to a l l the characters i s seen. The characters have
cone in to clash es with d iffe r e n t persons in d iffe r e n t
lets
o f th e play and neither in Purnananda nor in Badan nor in
Chandrakanta do we fin d any c o n f l ic t o f thoughts and emotions.
The dramatist could have e a s ily given inner struggle in all
these characters and p a r ticu la r ly in the character o f Badan
when he saw that he i n f l i c t e d the inhuman tortu re on the
innocent countrymen by employing the Burmese and even then
h is re a l purpose remained u n fu lfille d because o f the death
o f Purnananda. In Nakul Bhuyan*s Badan Barphukan, though the
main c o n f l ic t i s between in d iv id u a ls , in the la s t scene o f
the play Badan has Passed through some anxiety in h is mind.
1
He r e a lis e s the gravity o f the crimes he has committed but
the main target escaped from th is world untouched. Out o f
mental anxiety he i s haunted by the s p ir it o f Purnananda.
The external c o n f l ic t s in Chandrakantasingha are d iffe r e n t
in the early and the la ter part o f the play. In the early
part Chandrakanta comes in c o n f l ic t with Ruchinath and oth ers
and towards the end the c o n f l i c t i s between Chandrakanta and
the Burmese. Though the last scene o f the play speaks o f
some anxiety in the mind o f Chandrakanta because o f his
in a b ilit y to save h is country, i t mainly revea ls h is p a t r io tic
sentiment and not any c o n f l ic t within him.
1. Act. V, Sc. 10.
2. Act. V, S c.9,
2
We have already
136
said about the reven.ee tragedies in which,except in one, the
in tern al c o n flic t i s not seen at a l l .
I t i s in the character
o f Sachipatra alone in Nilambar that the dramatist has created
strong in te rn a l c o n flic t when Sachipatra i s in stigated to
r i s e against Nilambar and Kamatapur.^ There was scope for
creating such c o n flic t in the mind o f Nilambar also before
he becomes the victim o f Nanda12s plot and again a fte r t h e
revelatio n o f the plot. In others, viz. in Bamunikonvar ,
Nagakonvar. Bj j o y a ,,no character has undergone any such con­
f l i c t before going to take revenge.
Some sort o f inner con­
f l i c t in some character, however, i s to be seen in the three
more h is t o r ic a l plays - Kanau.i Kunvari, P jy a li Phulcan and
Moniram Devin. In Kanau j-K u n v a ri, the central c o n flic t i s
between P rith v ira j and Jaychand, and Jaychand, although
apparently becomes victorious in the attempt to s a tis fy his
grudge against P r i t h v i r a j , actually loses evertkinr and as
a re su lt o f i t he undergoes serious mental su fferin g.
when he co-operates with P rith v ira j
F ir s t ,
against the invaders and
loses h is only son, he b i t t e r l y repents in the graveyard o f
his son for h is join in g hands with P r it h v ir a j, who, a f t e r a l l ,
i s h is enemy.
2
Then again at the end when Jaychand fjnds that
h is only daughter i s also s a c r ific in g h e r s e lf at the pyre of
her husband, P rith v ira j whose defeat and death took place due
to him, struggle rages in the mind o f Jaychand. In P jy a li
1. Act. IV , Sc. 2; Act. IV , Sc. 6.
2. Act. I I , Sc. 5.
137
Phukan. though the external c o n f l ic t between P iyali and the
B ritis h e r s i s the main c o n f l ic t in the play, the dramatist
has given some c o n flic t in g thoughts in the mind of' the hero
who i s determined to drive out the B ritis h but who has to
facfc innumerable d i f f i c u l t i e s in fig h tin g against so vast an
army.1 In Moniram Devan a ls o , the c o n f l ic t i s between the
two fo rc e s and there i s no c o n f l ic t in the mind o f the hero.
There i s , however, one character that has developed serious
in te rn a l c o n f l i c t . I t is th e dethroned king, Kandarpeswar
Singha, who wants to re v iv e the lo s t g lo ry o f Assam but who
cannot take any e ffe c t iv e step because o f weakness.
The recent tra g ed ies, as we have said in connection
with inwardness, do not give a very d iffe r e n t p ictu re. In
Abhiman.th e c o n f l ic t i s between the sentiment o f Renu and
that o f Arup and in plays lik e Mina Bazar, Nimila ink a the
main c o n f l i c t o f the hero is with the economic c r i s i s and
no inner stru ggle in any character i s n o tice d . The clash o f
the hero and the heroine in Pratibad i s with the so cie ty and
there was enough scope fo r creating in tern a l c o n f l ic t in the
mind o f Jerin b efore leaving her husband's
house and in the
mind o f Ajan b e fo re he accepts Jerin and even a fter that when
he fin d s h im self alone in the world being cut o f f from the
s o c ie ty . The dramatist has not been able to u t i l i s e the scope
w ell. The outward c o n f l ic t in Sikha
comes from three sides -
from Pratap Ghaliha who i s against h is daughter's m arriage,
1. Act. I I , Sc. 4
13S
from Devabrata who, wfcth the purpose of winninp Sikha, poisons
the mind of Pradip and then at last, after the disclosure of
the secret by Pratap Chaliha, from the social code* No con­
flict has been created in the mind of the hero. 3ut the con­
flict within Pratap Chaliha in the peculiar position when he
cannot express the real reason for which he opposes his
daughter* s marriage and at the same time cannot tolerv.e the
pathetic condition of his daughter has been revealed, come
conflict has also been given in the mind of Sikha when she
feels neglected by Pradip but cannot find out the reason for
such negligence. In Kjya ? , the conflict of the hero is mainly
with the poverty and the society. Pradip Bhuyan, the artist,
is half-starved and has got no money to call in a doctor for
his son. He approaches the rich man, Ratneswar Barua.for help,
but the unsympathetic altitude of the man conpletely shatters
his ideals. The play-wright, however, has riven inner strurrle
in him after his helpless return from Ratneswar Baruq's house.
Out of mental agony he burns all his writtinrs and paintings
and the conflict in him still increases when he comes to know
that his son is already dead. He then wants to know t ie reason
of his son's death and questions the justice of Bod.1 The
conflict of Nibaran Bhattacharyya, the hero in the play of
the same name is again with the society that is unsympathetic
.
.
to him and indifferent to his dramas and their performance.
1
Act. I I , Sc. 6
J39
But co n flict i n the usual
there as it
sense o f the term is not
is mainly an 'o ne m an's show'
and the sp irit of
a hero i s not in the spirit o f a man who has come into
clashes.
The co n flict w ithin the mind o f Nibaran Bhatta-
charyya at the end i s also not revealed as he behaves lik e
a frustrated man and takes a pessim istic a ttitude.
To sum up, the co n flict in the mythological
tragedies i s mainly th e c o n flic t between two groups o f
characters representing good and evil or virtue
and v ic e,
i n the h is to r ic a l tragedies the co n flict i s between in d i­
viduals and in the social tragedies the co n flict i s mainly
between the in d iv id u a l and the social code or order.