What do you think?
Rate this book
কন্যাদান
নাটকটির বঙ্গানুবাদ প্রথম প্রকাশিত হয় ১৩৯৩ সালের "বহুরূপী" শারদীয়া সংখ্যাতে।
68 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
24 people are currently reading
351 people want to read
About the author
Vijay Tendulkar
98 books69 followersVijay Tendulkar (Marathi: विजय तेंडुलकर) (7 January 1928 – 19 May 2008) was a leading Indian playwright, movie and television writer, literary essayist, political journalist, and social commentator primarily in Marāthi. He is best known for his plays, Shantata! Court Chalu Aahe (1967), Ghāshirām Kotwāl (1972), and Sakhārām Binder (1972).Many of Tendulkar’s plays derived inspiration from real-life incidents or social upheavals, which provides clear light on harsh realities. He provided his guidance to students studying “Playwright writing” in US universities. For over five decades, Tendulkar had been a highly influential dramatist and theater personality in Mahārāshtra.
Early life
Vijay Dhondopant Tendulkar was born on 7 January 1928 in a Bhalavalikar Saraswat brahmin family in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, where his father held a clerical job and ran a small publishing business. The literary environment at home prompted young Vijay to take up writing. He wrote his first story at age six.
He grew up watching western plays, and felt inspired to write plays himself. At age eleven, he wrote, directed, and acted in his first play.
At age 14, he participated in the 1942 Indian freedom movement , leaving his studies. The latter alienated him from his family and friends. Writing then became his outlet, though most of his early writings were of a personal nature, and not intended for publication.
Early career
Tendulkar began his career writing for newspapers. He had already written a play, “Āmchyāvar Kon Prem Karnār” (Who will Love us?), and he wrote the play, “Gruhastha” (The Householder), in his early 20s. The latter did not receive much recognition from the audience, and he vowed never to write again . Breaking the vow, in 1956 he wrote “‘Shrimant”, which established him as a good writer. “Shrimant” jolted the conservative audience of the times with its radical storyline, wherein an unmarried young woman decides to keep her unborn child while her rich father tries to “buy” her a husband in an attempt to save his social prestige.
Tendulkar’s early struggle for survival and living for some time in tenements (“chāwls”) in Mumbai provided him first-hand experience about the life of urban lower middle class. He thus brought new authenticity to their depiction in Marathi theater. Tendulkar’s writings rapidly changed the storyline of modern Marathi theater in the 1950s and the 60s, with experimental presentations by theater groups like “Rangāyan”. Actors in these theater groups like Shreerām Lāgoo, Mohan Agāshe, and Sulabhā Deshpānde brought new authenticity and power to Tendulkar’s stories while introducing new sensibilities in Marathi theater.
Tendulkar wrote the play, “Gidhāde” (The Vultures) in 1961, but it was not produced until 1970. The play was set in a morally collapsed family structure and explored the theme of violence. In his following creations, Tendulkar explored violence in its various forms: domestic, sexual, communal, and political. Thus, “Gidhāde” proved to be a turning point in Tendulkar’s writings with regard to establishment of his own unique writing style.
Based on a 1956 short story, “Die Panne” (“Traps”) by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Tendulkar wrote the play, “Shāntatā! Court Chālu Aahe” (“Silence! The Court Is In Session”). It was presented on the stage for the first time in 1967, and proved as one of his finest works. Satyadev Dubey presented it in movie form in 1971 with Tendulkar’s collaboration as the screenplay writer.
1970s and ’80s
In his 1972 play, Sakhārām Binder (Sakhārām, the Binder), Tendulkar dealt with the topic of domination of the male gender over the female gender. The main character, Sakhārām, is a man devoid of ethics and morality, and professes not to believe in “outdated” social codes and conventional marriage. He accordingly uses the society for his own pleasure. He regularly gives “shelter” to abandoned wives, and uses them f
Early life
Vijay Dhondopant Tendulkar was born on 7 January 1928 in a Bhalavalikar Saraswat brahmin family in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, where his father held a clerical job and ran a small publishing business. The literary environment at home prompted young Vijay to take up writing. He wrote his first story at age six.
He grew up watching western plays, and felt inspired to write plays himself. At age eleven, he wrote, directed, and acted in his first play.
At age 14, he participated in the 1942 Indian freedom movement , leaving his studies. The latter alienated him from his family and friends. Writing then became his outlet, though most of his early writings were of a personal nature, and not intended for publication.
Early career
Tendulkar began his career writing for newspapers. He had already written a play, “Āmchyāvar Kon Prem Karnār” (Who will Love us?), and he wrote the play, “Gruhastha” (The Householder), in his early 20s. The latter did not receive much recognition from the audience, and he vowed never to write again . Breaking the vow, in 1956 he wrote “‘Shrimant”, which established him as a good writer. “Shrimant” jolted the conservative audience of the times with its radical storyline, wherein an unmarried young woman decides to keep her unborn child while her rich father tries to “buy” her a husband in an attempt to save his social prestige.
Tendulkar’s early struggle for survival and living for some time in tenements (“chāwls”) in Mumbai provided him first-hand experience about the life of urban lower middle class. He thus brought new authenticity to their depiction in Marathi theater. Tendulkar’s writings rapidly changed the storyline of modern Marathi theater in the 1950s and the 60s, with experimental presentations by theater groups like “Rangāyan”. Actors in these theater groups like Shreerām Lāgoo, Mohan Agāshe, and Sulabhā Deshpānde brought new authenticity and power to Tendulkar’s stories while introducing new sensibilities in Marathi theater.
Tendulkar wrote the play, “Gidhāde” (The Vultures) in 1961, but it was not produced until 1970. The play was set in a morally collapsed family structure and explored the theme of violence. In his following creations, Tendulkar explored violence in its various forms: domestic, sexual, communal, and political. Thus, “Gidhāde” proved to be a turning point in Tendulkar’s writings with regard to establishment of his own unique writing style.
Based on a 1956 short story, “Die Panne” (“Traps”) by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Tendulkar wrote the play, “Shāntatā! Court Chālu Aahe” (“Silence! The Court Is In Session”). It was presented on the stage for the first time in 1967, and proved as one of his finest works. Satyadev Dubey presented it in movie form in 1971 with Tendulkar’s collaboration as the screenplay writer.
1970s and ’80s
In his 1972 play, Sakhārām Binder (Sakhārām, the Binder), Tendulkar dealt with the topic of domination of the male gender over the female gender. The main character, Sakhārām, is a man devoid of ethics and morality, and professes not to believe in “outdated” social codes and conventional marriage. He accordingly uses the society for his own pleasure. He regularly gives “shelter” to abandoned wives, and uses them f
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
May 8, 2022
Carefully plotted, many intended meanings, a play to analyse and ponder over.
March 17, 2020
Sometimes a very short read turns out to be so hard-hitting , chilling and deeply influential. A social drama, 'Kanyadaan' by Vijay Tendular written in Marathi translated by Gowri Ramnarayan also won the Saraswati Samman. In the author's excerpt at the end he mentions how this surprised him as this was a play for which he was hurled with a slipped. Written based on the experiences Tendulkar saw around him, this is a brilliant potrayal of a daughter- father relationship and a man's ideologies going kaput for the children.
Nath, an MLA is a champion of social causes in particular the upliftment of downtrodden. Along with his wife Seva, they are involved actively in eradicating untouchability. Believing and following the policy of democracy at home as well as in politics, Nath is pleased when his daughter Jyoti wishes to marry a Dalit man, Arun. Jyoti's impulsive decision frightens Seva for she had only known Arun for 2 months. Nonetheless, the family along with their son Jayaprakash decide to meet Arun. The meeting doesn't go well but Nath approves of Arun. Seva and Prakash try to dissuade Jyoti from marrying Arun but she proceeds with her father's approval.
Arun, a poet and writer far from being idealist abuses Jyoti for her caste, her parents and general stature. His autobiography talking of his values is a sham while he continues to torment Jyoti. Seva wishes to bring Jyoti back but the latter is now reluctant.
It ends with Nath and Jyoti's conversation where she mentions how her idealistic father is the reason she won't give up on the relation. It is he who taught her that only cowards give up . In his outwardly show of equality his daughter's life gets butchered
The play paints a brutal picture of turning a blind eye in face of a challenging situation leads to devastating outcomes. Tendulkar poses all the right questions with his female characters. The women though empowered do not have the courage to uphold their decision or fight back in this one. This could be deeply disturbing to read but highly recommended. I feel this is a brilliant example that you should look at a person's character before arriving at life altering decisions.
This was high on my list to read because of the title and I decided to indulge myself and get this last week. A book I will definitely return to in future!
Considering the title and its relevance in our culture, the title played out well with the dynamics of the father and daughter.
Nath, an MLA is a champion of social causes in particular the upliftment of downtrodden. Along with his wife Seva, they are involved actively in eradicating untouchability. Believing and following the policy of democracy at home as well as in politics, Nath is pleased when his daughter Jyoti wishes to marry a Dalit man, Arun. Jyoti's impulsive decision frightens Seva for she had only known Arun for 2 months. Nonetheless, the family along with their son Jayaprakash decide to meet Arun. The meeting doesn't go well but Nath approves of Arun. Seva and Prakash try to dissuade Jyoti from marrying Arun but she proceeds with her father's approval.
Arun, a poet and writer far from being idealist abuses Jyoti for her caste, her parents and general stature. His autobiography talking of his values is a sham while he continues to torment Jyoti. Seva wishes to bring Jyoti back but the latter is now reluctant.
It ends with Nath and Jyoti's conversation where she mentions how her idealistic father is the reason she won't give up on the relation. It is he who taught her that only cowards give up . In his outwardly show of equality his daughter's life gets butchered
The play paints a brutal picture of turning a blind eye in face of a challenging situation leads to devastating outcomes. Tendulkar poses all the right questions with his female characters. The women though empowered do not have the courage to uphold their decision or fight back in this one. This could be deeply disturbing to read but highly recommended. I feel this is a brilliant example that you should look at a person's character before arriving at life altering decisions.
This was high on my list to read because of the title and I decided to indulge myself and get this last week. A book I will definitely return to in future!
Considering the title and its relevance in our culture, the title played out well with the dynamics of the father and daughter.
January 8, 2023
Kanyadaan by Vijay Tendulkar, translated from Marathi by Gowri Ramnarayan
Kanyadaan literally translates to giving of your daughter’s hand in marriage.
What constitutes a healthy marriage ?
According to the participants ..
And according to the society ..
And to the rest of the players in the family .
Is it an end to means or the blossoming of a companionship?
This novella is an onion itself. Pungent to the senses and smarting to the eyes , but multilayered and savoury to the soul.
Each layer complex and changing hues..
A person outside the sphere of the underprivileged castes will always remain an observer/ outsider.
Their woes will be carried on with or without reservations..
There can be a political statement , a certain secularism with getting married to a Dalit .
The girl is abused .
Battered both physically and mentally ..she can’t go back on this marriage agreement.
It boggles the mind.
Dad and mom , both activists , spokesperson for the downtrodden stand aghast .
Which ideals are true ?
The abused becoming the abuser . The stench of power and the rancid odour . The scavenger..
After all, power make anyone delusional .
The power to abuse a higher caste woman ..
A perverse rein..
To back away ,
Would be to spit on democracy
To tread on the delicate strings of privilege
To finally delineate the caste .
The worst kind of segregation.
The reason for feuds .
A play written before it’s time. True to this day.
Kanyadaan literally translates to giving of your daughter’s hand in marriage.
What constitutes a healthy marriage ?
According to the participants ..
And according to the society ..
And to the rest of the players in the family .
Is it an end to means or the blossoming of a companionship?
This novella is an onion itself. Pungent to the senses and smarting to the eyes , but multilayered and savoury to the soul.
Each layer complex and changing hues..
A person outside the sphere of the underprivileged castes will always remain an observer/ outsider.
Their woes will be carried on with or without reservations..
There can be a political statement , a certain secularism with getting married to a Dalit .
The girl is abused .
Battered both physically and mentally ..she can’t go back on this marriage agreement.
It boggles the mind.
Dad and mom , both activists , spokesperson for the downtrodden stand aghast .
Which ideals are true ?
The abused becoming the abuser . The stench of power and the rancid odour . The scavenger..
After all, power make anyone delusional .
The power to abuse a higher caste woman ..
A perverse rein..
To back away ,
Would be to spit on democracy
To tread on the delicate strings of privilege
To finally delineate the caste .
The worst kind of segregation.
The reason for feuds .
A play written before it’s time. True to this day.
December 21, 2020
Tendulkar was known to be a critic of the upper class and as a Gandhian. He is one of the most celebrated writers in Marathi.
That being said, this particular play left me feeling troubled. What I assume Tendulkar sets out to do is mock/expose the savior complex, the over ambitious of the upper class to "save" the lower class. But what unfolds is the reiteration of the stereotypes attached to the lower class.
Nath and his family, upper class brahmins are the embodiment of the liberal, progressive struggle. Raised on Gandhian principles, the parents are the anchors for socialist movements in Pune and other parts of Maharashtra. Daughter, Jyothi one days confesses that she wishes to marry.
Arun, the groom happens to be Dalit. Nath over joyed with possibility of having an inter caste marriage in his house and setting a real life example for his ideals, encourages his daughter to marry the man.
The mother, Seva and brother, Jayaprakash are troubled by Arun's abusive behaviour and discourage Jyothi from marrying him. What unfolds is a troubled marriage and crumbling of ideals held dear by Nath.
The biggest concern for me with the book is the linkage of abusive behaviour with the lower caste. An extremely problematic narrative to set in motion. Nath's need to boost his political stance by having such a marriage echoes his failure as a father, human being even.
Tendulkar recieved a lot of criticism for this play, even had a slipper thrown at him. But in an acceptance speech for an award for this play, he says he has only written what he witnessed around him and he is willing to accept the slipper and the award for the same.
" Nothing is real in the book. Neither the man or the values. At best it is good fiction and therefore, most dangerous" are lines from the book that echo my sentiment after reading this one.
That being said, this particular play left me feeling troubled. What I assume Tendulkar sets out to do is mock/expose the savior complex, the over ambitious of the upper class to "save" the lower class. But what unfolds is the reiteration of the stereotypes attached to the lower class.
Nath and his family, upper class brahmins are the embodiment of the liberal, progressive struggle. Raised on Gandhian principles, the parents are the anchors for socialist movements in Pune and other parts of Maharashtra. Daughter, Jyothi one days confesses that she wishes to marry.
Arun, the groom happens to be Dalit. Nath over joyed with possibility of having an inter caste marriage in his house and setting a real life example for his ideals, encourages his daughter to marry the man.
The mother, Seva and brother, Jayaprakash are troubled by Arun's abusive behaviour and discourage Jyothi from marrying him. What unfolds is a troubled marriage and crumbling of ideals held dear by Nath.
The biggest concern for me with the book is the linkage of abusive behaviour with the lower caste. An extremely problematic narrative to set in motion. Nath's need to boost his political stance by having such a marriage echoes his failure as a father, human being even.
Tendulkar recieved a lot of criticism for this play, even had a slipper thrown at him. But in an acceptance speech for an award for this play, he says he has only written what he witnessed around him and he is willing to accept the slipper and the award for the same.
" Nothing is real in the book. Neither the man or the values. At best it is good fiction and therefore, most dangerous" are lines from the book that echo my sentiment after reading this one.
March 26, 2020
Kanyadaan; literally the giving of a daughter's hand in marriage.
The premise of this play by Vijay Tendulkar takes the Gandhian-sanctioned idea of pratiloma(which is the marriage between upper-caste woman and Dalit man) and turns it on its head , exposing in turn the schism between ideology and reality, in an India where centuries of suppression of the lower castes fails to be made right by gestures, however heavy the brunt of burden borne by the gesture (Kanyadaan).
In doing so, all negative stereotypes of the Dalit are perpetuated through the character of Arun Athavale as the self-fulfilling image that society has projected on his "type". In the conclusion, speeches of an equal and ideal society are left hollowed out and the rift in the Nath family between father and daughter made tragically irreconcilable.
The premise of this play by Vijay Tendulkar takes the Gandhian-sanctioned idea of pratiloma(which is the marriage between upper-caste woman and Dalit man) and turns it on its head , exposing in turn the schism between ideology and reality, in an India where centuries of suppression of the lower castes fails to be made right by gestures, however heavy the brunt of burden borne by the gesture (Kanyadaan).
In doing so, all negative stereotypes of the Dalit are perpetuated through the character of Arun Athavale as the self-fulfilling image that society has projected on his "type". In the conclusion, speeches of an equal and ideal society are left hollowed out and the rift in the Nath family between father and daughter made tragically irreconcilable.
March 4, 2013
the play is impeccably written...... but i dnt lyk d way it ends... but neway came across sme vry good lines..... which teaches a lot.... n the play itself can be vry inspiring on a whole....
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 2, 2024
Tendulkar's plays mark a convinced exodus from the previous Marathi theatre. He presents the characters and lives as found in real life situations. Life is projected in all its ugliness and crudity. He is interested in showing disharmony rather than harmony. The hostile circumstances in life leave some of them bellicose and vicious. But the condition of many is destitute and pitiable. Most of them are animals camouflaged in human form. Hence his plays have come to be called ‘Tendulkar's human zoo’.
Subsequently, violence plays a very noteworthy place in the plays of Tendulkar in presenting the encounter between the individuals and the society which are both defective. Tendulkar feels that violence is part of the human psyche and it cannot be eschewed. For without violence, he feels, that man will be nothing but mere vegetable.
Like all his other plays, violence plays a significant part of this play as well. There is physical violence as well as psychological besides verbal violence in the play.
When Arun pays his first visit to Jyoti's house even as he is talking with Jyoti, be twists the hands of Jyoti without any understandable motive, indicating the instinctive mannerism of violence in him.
Violence is the part and parcel of the commonplace life in the section of the society Arun belongs to. It is a routine matter with Dalit men as well as women. Whether it is defensible or not, it is at least see-through for he tells Seva, his mother-in-law:
What am I but the son of Scavengers. We don't know the non-violent ways of Brahmins like you. We drink and beat our wives... We make love to them... but the beating is what gets publicized... (Act II, Sc. 1, P. 44)
Arun is so irritated with the world that he wants to set it on fire, to strangle people, to rape, to kill them, and drink their blood. It is his restiveness that renders him violent. He considers the high caste people beasts for treating the Dalits cold-heartedly. So, his cruel conduct to Jyoti may also be seen as a reprisal sought by a Dalit on the upper caste people for the depression and misery, they have imposed on the browbeaten for centuries in the caste-ridden Indian society.
The violence projected in the play has three dimensions, a way of overcoming his inferiority complex. Kanyadaan is not about domestic violence. It is about profounder, manifold, and sometimes imperceptible layers of violence that is an integral part of civilised society.
It is the peg to hang all the other violence from the parents' emotional and psychological violence inflicted on their unsuspecting children; the history of violence of the upper castes against the Dalits; the violence structured into the psyche of an educated young Dalit who thinks that casteism is the sole cause of his life without self-esteem; and the violence that sustains within a Dalit family, seen in Arun's livid outbursts to his parents about his childhood.
The play, though based on actual life, appears to be Tendulkar's comment on Indian society, particularly on the conflict between the upper-and lover-class people.
Therefore, irrespective of whether he is right or wrong, Arun Athavale may be seen as the spokesperson of the angry young generation among the Dalits of post-1970 India.
A must-read.
Subsequently, violence plays a very noteworthy place in the plays of Tendulkar in presenting the encounter between the individuals and the society which are both defective. Tendulkar feels that violence is part of the human psyche and it cannot be eschewed. For without violence, he feels, that man will be nothing but mere vegetable.
Like all his other plays, violence plays a significant part of this play as well. There is physical violence as well as psychological besides verbal violence in the play.
When Arun pays his first visit to Jyoti's house even as he is talking with Jyoti, be twists the hands of Jyoti without any understandable motive, indicating the instinctive mannerism of violence in him.
Violence is the part and parcel of the commonplace life in the section of the society Arun belongs to. It is a routine matter with Dalit men as well as women. Whether it is defensible or not, it is at least see-through for he tells Seva, his mother-in-law:
What am I but the son of Scavengers. We don't know the non-violent ways of Brahmins like you. We drink and beat our wives... We make love to them... but the beating is what gets publicized... (Act II, Sc. 1, P. 44)
Arun is so irritated with the world that he wants to set it on fire, to strangle people, to rape, to kill them, and drink their blood. It is his restiveness that renders him violent. He considers the high caste people beasts for treating the Dalits cold-heartedly. So, his cruel conduct to Jyoti may also be seen as a reprisal sought by a Dalit on the upper caste people for the depression and misery, they have imposed on the browbeaten for centuries in the caste-ridden Indian society.
The violence projected in the play has three dimensions, a way of overcoming his inferiority complex. Kanyadaan is not about domestic violence. It is about profounder, manifold, and sometimes imperceptible layers of violence that is an integral part of civilised society.
It is the peg to hang all the other violence from the parents' emotional and psychological violence inflicted on their unsuspecting children; the history of violence of the upper castes against the Dalits; the violence structured into the psyche of an educated young Dalit who thinks that casteism is the sole cause of his life without self-esteem; and the violence that sustains within a Dalit family, seen in Arun's livid outbursts to his parents about his childhood.
The play, though based on actual life, appears to be Tendulkar's comment on Indian society, particularly on the conflict between the upper-and lover-class people.
Therefore, irrespective of whether he is right or wrong, Arun Athavale may be seen as the spokesperson of the angry young generation among the Dalits of post-1970 India.
A must-read.
July 14, 2020
The content of the story is not that relevant today. No one behaves like the male lead of the story these days. Only thing I've like in the book is plot where the daughter says "There's no two sides to a person, it's all within oneself. One has to live with the beastside and angel side of a person." That seems to be one true sense making thing in the story. No one can change a grown adult.
September 18, 2023
Very disappointed with Tendulkar! He seems to have an axe to grind with the idealist Gandhians. In that pursuit, he used the cast angle for his theme. This does so much disservice to the anti-cast struggles by labeling the so called lower castes as being drunks, wife beaters and essentially reinforcing the societal stereotypes about them. What a shame! Didn’t expect this from Tendulkar.
January 5, 2019
It's a satire on the so called socialists, and hard-hitting at that.
January 29, 2021
5
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 22, 2025
it's hard hitting ! how the theory is different from the reality. life's not always about experiment!!
February 1, 2019
This book is amazing
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 21, 2024
Sem 6 Course Work
September 6, 2016
a gripping play that provides a powerful and intense insight to the much discussed subject of racism in indian society.. Reveals the different dimensions of the same and its effect upon different people , in different ways; brief and raw.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews