Broken Images
The interior of a television studio. A big plasma screen hangs on one side, big enough for a close-up on it to be seen clearly by the audience. On the other side of the stage, a chair and a typically ‘telly’ table—strong, wide, semi-circular. At the back of the stage are several television sets, with screens of varying sizes. A small red bulb glows above the table, high enough not to appear on the television screen. Manjula Nayak walks in. She is in her mid-thirties/ forties, and has a confident stride. She is wearing a lapel mike. It is immediately evident that she is at home in broadcasting studios. She looks around.
MANJULA: Nice, very nice. Neat!
(She goes and sits on the chair. Adjusts the earpiece.)But where is the camera? (Listens to the reply. Ah! I see. New technology. Isn’t it scary? The rate of obsolescence? (Listens.) Of course I have. In London. And in Toronto. But when you think of Indian television studios, you always imagine them cluttered. Lots of men and women scurrying about, shouting orders. Elephantine lights. Headphones. Cameras. You know what I mean. But here... I mean, it’s all so spartan... I know. But a bit lonely too. Like a sound studio... All right. All right... No camera. I just look ahead and speak to an invisible audience in front of me... Direct. Fine. Fine... I can hear you. Clearly. Voice test?... ‘Testing, Testing, One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Hello, Hello!’ Shall I tap on the mike? (Laughs.) My speech will last exactly ten minutes. I have timed it... No, I won’t read. ‘Look ahead and speak!’ Good... But that may take a little longer. A couple of minutes... if I don’t fumble too much. (Giggles.) The yellow light?... Okay, okay, ready, fine! (She mouths ‘Ten’ to ‘Zero’ silently, emphasising each count with her forefinger. At the stroke of ten, the light turns yellow. The Announcer appears on the big plasma screen. The other screens remain blank till the last few minutes of the play.)
ANNOUNCER: Good evening. This is a proud evening for the Shree-TV channel. For tonight we bring to you Ms Manjula Nayak. Many of you will know her as a renowned Kannada short-story writer. Until a year ago she was a lecturer in English in Bangalore. But she had been writing in Kannada. Not unusual, as you know. It’s amazing how many of our Kannada writers are lecturers in English: from the earliest days. B. M. Shree, Gokak, Adiga.
Even modern ones. Lankesh, Shantinath, Anantha Murthy. And of course there is A. K. Ramanujan, who was equally at home in both languages. But last year Mrs Nayak stunned the world—yes, I mean, the world— by writing a novel. Her first novel. In English! The River Has No Memories. The advance she received from her British publishers made headlines, here and in the West. And then the novel turned out to be a bestseller all over the world. Our heartiest congratulations to Mrs Nayak. This evening we broadcast a Kannada telefilm based on this remarkable novel. The film will begin in exactly ten minutes. And we have with us in the studio Ms Nayak herself, who has graciously agreed to address our viewers about her work. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome the Literary Phenomenon of the Decade, Mrs Manjula Nayak.
MANJULA: Namaskara. I am Manjula Nayak. 1 must mention that officially I am Mrs Manjula Murty, but my creative self continues to be Manjula Nayak. There are some areas in which we must not let marriage intrude too much.The first question—you have probably guessed it already. After having written in Kannada all your life, why did you choose—suddenly—to write in English? Do you see yourself as a Kannada writer or an English writer? What audience do you write for? And variations on that theme.
Actually, let me confess. If I had foreseen how many people I would upset by writing in English—I really would not have committed that folly. Intellectuals whom I respected, writers who were gurus to me, friends who I thought would pat me on my back and share my delight—they are all suddenly breathing fire. How dare I write in English and betray Kannada!
Betray! The answer is simple; if there was betrayal, it was not a matter of conscious choice. I wrote the novel in English because it burst out in English. It surprised even me. I couldn’t understand why it was all coming out in English. But it did. That’s all. There is no other explanation.
What baffles me—actually, let me confess, hurts me— is why our intellectuals can’t grasp this simple fact! I have been accused of writing for foreign readers. Accused! As though I had committed a crime. A writer seeks audiences where she or he can find them! My British publishers said to me: ‘We like your book because it’s so Indian. We receive any number of manuscripts from India but they are all written with the western reader in view. Your novel has the genuine Indian feel!’
But who listens here? A pundit for instance has stated that no Indian writer can express herself—or himself— honestly in English. ‘For Indian writers, English is a medium of dishonesty.’ Of course, one could also ask how many Kannada writers are honest in what they write—in Kannada. But if you did that, you would be immediately condemned as a traitor. You can’t win! Recently the President of the Central SahityaAkademi—the National Academy of the Letters— (who shall remain nameless) declared that Indians who write in English do so in order to make money. That by writing in English they confess their complicity in the global consumer market economy. He of course spoke in English. Speaking in English, as you know, gives KALEIDOSCOPE you the authority to make oracular pronouncements on Indian literatures and languages. But my response to the charge that I write in English for money would be: Why not? Isn’t that a good enough reason? Would you like to see what royalties I earned when I wrote in Kannada?...
Thinking about the Play
1. How genuine is the love that Manjula expresses for her sister?
2. The sister does not appear in the play but is central to it. What picture of her is built in your mind from references in the play?
3. When the image says—‘Her illness was unfortunate. But because of it, she got the best of everything’
(i) What is the nature of Manjula’s reply?
(ii) How can it be related to what follows in the play?
4. What are the issues that the playwright satirises through this TV monologue of a celebrity?
Talking about the Play
1. ‘Broken Images’ takes up a debate that has grown steadily since 1947—the politics of language in Indian literary culture, specifically in relation to modern Indian languages and English. Discuss.
2. The play deals with a Kannada woman writer who unexpectedly produces an international bestseller in English.
(i) Can a writer be a truly bilingual practitioner?
(ii) Does writing in an ‘other tongue’ amount to betrayal of the mother tongue?
Appreciation
1. Why do you think the playwright has used the technique of the image in the play?
2. The play is called a monologue. Why is it made to turn dialogic?
3. What is the posture the celebrity adopts when the camera is on and when it is off?
Please refer to attached file for NCERT Class 12 English Drama Broken images
