An Outgoing and An Incoming Prime Minister’ https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11103718

An Outgoing and An Incoming Prime Minister’

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11103718

Author(s): An Outgoing and An Incoming Prime Minister’

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11103718

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11103718

PDF: Download Full Text

Volume 15 | Issue 2 | April 2024

Pages: An Outgoing and An Incoming Prime Minister’

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11103718

AboutUs: https://www.the-criterion.com/about/

Archive: https://www.the-criterion.com/archive/

ContactUs: https://www.the-criterion.com/contact/

EditorialBoard: https://www.the-criterion.com/editorial-board/

Submission: https://www.the-criterion.com/submission/

FAQ: https://www.the-criterion.com/fa/

ISSN 2278-9529
Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal
www.galaxyimrj.com

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-II, April 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
Exploring Masculinity of Sakharam in Sakharam Binder
Reshmabee H
Research Scholar,
Department of English,
Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University,
Ballari, India.
&
Robert Jose
Professor,
Department of English,
Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University,
Ballari, India.
Article History: Submitted-03/04/2024, Revised-14/04/2024, Accepted-18/04/2024, Published-30/04/2024.
Abstract:
This paper attempts to critically evaluate masculinity in the play Sakharam Binder,
focusing on the character of Sakharam and his treatment of women. Sakharam’s practice of
providing shelter to discarded women for his benefit is central to understanding masculinity
within the play. Through a detailed analysis of Sakharam’s interactions with female characters,
this article aims to understand the complexities in his character and articulate how masculinity
is associated with power and dominance. Themes such as patriarchy, male entitlement, and the
objectification of women are explored within the narrative. Furthermore, the examination of
emotional repression, selective display of emotions, and the theme of impotence in the play
sheds light on male vulnerability and anxiety. These refrains thus emphasize the necessity for
men to express emotions. Through depicting the characters grappling with these issues, the
article prompts a deeper understanding of societal pressures on men’s emotional expression.
By showcasing the consequences of suppressing vulnerability and anxiety, the paper thus
attempts on the importance of creating space for men to express their emotions.
Keywords: Masculinity, Gender Roles, Emotional Repression, Impotence and Patriarchy.
Introduction
Although many regard the 1960s and 1970s as the golden era of Marathi theatre,
previous generations contend that the actual golden period occurred in the early twentieth
171
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11103685

Exploring Masculinity of Sakharam in Sakharam Binder
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
century. With that being said, it is essential to acknowledge, as noted by Shanta Gokhale: “the
1960s and 1970s were decades of extremely significant work not only in Marathi theatre but
across the country – in Kannada, Bengali and Hindi theatre too.” (83) In this context, the plays
of Vijay Tendulkar, Badal Sircar, Mohan Rakesh, and Girish Karnad are highly regarded in
Indian literature; for their distinctive contributions, as Arundhati Banerjee makes a similar
observation:
In the 1960s four dramatists from different regions of India writing in their regional
languages were said to have ushered modernity into the sphere of Indian drama and
theatre. They were Mohan Rakesh in Hindi, Badal Sircar in Bengali, Vijay Tendulkar
in Marathi and Girish Karnad in Kannada. Rakesh’s untimely death left his life’s work
incomplete, and Karnad has written only intermittently. Sircar, of course, has been
almost as active as Tendulkar, though his plays can be divided into three distinct
periods. Tendulkar, however, has not only been the most productive but has also
introduced the greatest variations in his dramatic creations. (7)
However, the emergence of playwrights and directors was not sudden; rather, their
artistic endeavours were influenced by sociopolitical factors. To quote Vishwas R Kanadey:
“The year was marked by considerable excitement among the writers and alert readers over
two major issues: the ‘Dalit Sahitya’ the literature of/for/by the down-trodden) and obscenity
in literature and the writer’s freedom.” (74) Tendulkar thus finds inspiration in the society
around him, particularly as a keen observer of human relationships, especially within the lower-
and middle-class communities. In one of his interviews, he articulates:
“I have not written about hypothetical pain or created an imaginary world of sorrow. I
am from a middle-class family, and I have seen the brutal ways of life by keeping my
eyes open. My work has come from within me as an outcome of my observation of the
world in which I live. If they want to entertain and make merry, fine go ahead, but I
cannot do it, I have to speak the truth.” (Saxena 2006)
In works such as Silence! The Court is in Session (1967), Vultures (1970), Sakharam
Binder (1972), Ghasiram Kotwal (1972), Kamala (1981), and Kanyadaan (1983), Tendulkar
raise inquiries into societal norms surrounding love, sex, marriage, and moral values. They
highlight the normalization of violence within middle-class societies. During a discussion with
Shukla Chatterjee about the element of violence in his works, Tendulkar expressed his views,
172

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-II, April 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165

www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
stating: “An element of violence is there in the human mind. And their different expressions
come through my plays. It has been happening even before I was born and it is happening
now”. (16) Often being restaged, his work from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s was influential
and remains relevant today. Each of his works addressed themes like violence against women,
aggressive masculinity, power dynamics, and societal struggles. Most of Tendulkar’s plays
were controversial, earning him both national awards and criticism, including death threats and
even objects thrown at him by the audience. To put it in his words: “I as its creator respect both
the verdicts.” (Tendulkar 37) Thus analysing Sakharam Binder in today’s context allows for a
contemporary exploration of its themes, providing new perspectives on ongoing dialogues
concerning masculinity, gender dynamics, and power structures. Reassessing of the play
further leads to understanding of how its portrayal of masculinity aligns with contemporary
viewpoints on gender identity and societal expectations.
Context, Controversy and Censorship
India’s independence brought a mix of hope, despair, and political anxiety. To nurture
the young Indian democracy, key initiatives like education, printing press, healthcare, railways,
and exposure to Western ideas were crucial, but achieving them required patience. During this
period, Maharashtra saw changes that had an impact on Marathi theatre:
The violence that followed the partition in Punjab and other regions, including
Maharashtra, spread fear and anxiety. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by a
Brahmin from Maharashtra intensified anti-Brahmin sentiments, leading to revenge
against Brahmins, especially in rural areas and small towns. Organizations like the
Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS, which were mainly Maharashtrian and Brahmin, faced
backlash. This tension persisted in Maharashtra for decades, influencing its social and
political dynamics. (Nalini Natarajan and Emmanuel S Nelson)
The political anxiety mentioned above gave way for ‘protest theatre’ in Maharashtra to
emerge as a powerful medium for expressing opposition and critiquing societal norms. Thus,
post-independent India, as a new liberal democratic space, provided writers with the freedom
to express themselves in the public sphere. Consequently, the intellectual sphere became an
integral part of this public sphere, where the critique of texts, informed by societal realities,
was a continuous process. However, in the late 1970s “the modern women’s movement
emerged, and particularly in metropolitan cities, it began to use the street theatre in public
173

Exploring Masculinity of Sakharam in Sakharam Binder
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
places to bring women’s issues to the fore.” (Sundar 135) This is how Tendulkar became a part
of protest theatre within Marathi theatre, which has always been at the forefront of social
protest, particularly against middle-class morality and conventional outlooks.
Censorship of plays thus began, targeting specific performances “deemed scandalous,
defamatory, seditious, obscene, or otherwise detrimental to the public interest.” (Gokhale
Shanta) Staged in 1972 and later banned in 1974 continuously controversial thereafter,
Sakharam Binder is regarded Tendulkar’s “most intensely naturalistic play.” (Banerjee xiii)
which deeply upset the conservative Maratha community. It shook the audience with its
perceived obscenity, as it confronted the institution of marriage and shattered conventional
ideals of wedded devotion. “The villain of the piece, according to the defenders of Sakharam
Binder, is the Stage Performance Scrutiny Board, which banned the play on the ground that
parts of it were obscene and that it desecrates the sanctity of the institution of marriage.”
(Kanadey 74)
To quote Ashok H Desai: “There was also some adverse reaction by critics who
proclaimed that the play dealt with baser human instincts. (One peculiar objection was that a
Hindu wife as shown assaulting her husband in spite of his divine rights).” (14) However, “the
Board decided to grant a suitability certificate with thirty-two conditions. Later, it was found
in the writ petition that many board members had imposed these conditions without seeing the
play.” (ibid) Some cuts directed by the censor board included:
For instance, a common word for impotent in Marathi is ‘pauneath’1 (literally “seven
and three fourth’, metaphorically incomplete). The Board deleted the word and
suggested that ‘namard’2 (unmanly) should be used instead. The word ‘pauneath’ has
no obscene overtones and it would be absurd for Sakharam who is a book binder to use
the heavier word ‘namard’ unless, of course, he had been reading the book he was
binding. Another statement by Sakharam that ‘my appetite is not simple’ was also
eliminated, presumably because ‘appetite’ did not refer only to food. (Desai 15-16)

1 In Marathi, ‘pauneath’ is colloquially used to describe impotence, translating literally to
‘seven and three fourth.’ Metaphorically, it implies incompleteness or inadequacy, suggesting
a nuanced cultural understanding of impotence within the language.
2 In Marathi, ‘namard’ is a word often used to refer to ‘impotence’. It directly translates to
‘lacking virility,’ reflecting societal views on masculinity and potency.
174

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-II, April 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165

www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
This quote thus shows how censorship decisions can create misunderstandings and
overlook cultural nuances. It examines the board’s choice to replace a word with stronger
connotations, prompting reflection on the impact of censorship on artistic expression and
language. Sakharam thus is a remarkable creation, inspired by someone Tendulkar once heard
about:
I never met a man like him (Sakharam). But I was once told about a man who worked
as a binder in a printing press in a small town and lived a strange kind of life. He did
not marry but was on the lookout for a woman who was thrown out by her husband
whom he brought home and stayed with her till one of the two got fed up of the other.
The contract ended by mutual consent. This was all I was told. (11)
Sakharam’s character thus acts as a catalyst for dismantling the conventional norms
surrounding marriage. Through the central character of Sakharam, Tendulkar delves into the
expression of lust and violence within the human psyche. Additionally, he exposes the
emotions of characters like Laxmi, Champa, and Dawood without passing judgment,
showcasing the complex shades of human nature, which are neither entirely good nor bad but
exist in shades of grey. In Sakharam Binder, the central issue revolves around sexual power.
When this power is challenged, the protagonist becomes disoriented and reacts cruelly,
resorting to taking a life.
Sakharam, lives in a “old red-tiled home, the kind of one sees in the alleyways of small
district towns.” (Tendulkar 125) He asserts: “I carry two things in my mouth-either a beedi or
an expletive.” (Tendulkar 137) He also warns: “You think us dancing naked round here? Move
on; get the hell out of here! I’ll shine your bottoms for you. I am warning you, the whole lot of
you! Now, get out!” (Tendulkar 125) That is what he is. His language cannot be cleaned and
such language defines him. Thus, its posited that, the moment his language is cleaned then he
stops being Sakharam. Dressed simply, he has a salt and pepper beard on his chin, “a dhoti, a
granny shirt, a jacket… and chappals.” (Tendulkar 125) All these characteristics regarding his
upbringing, appearance, and temperament suggest that he cannot possibly belong to the highest
caste. This conflict over his caste is further intensified by his outspoken declaration: “I’ve been
like this right from birth. Born naked, I was. My mother used to say, the brat’s shameless. He
is a Mahar born in Brahmin home. And if I was, who is blame? It was not my doing . . .”
(Tendulkar 127) To put it in the words of Shailaja Wadikar: “Through Sakharam’s character,
Tendulkar exposes the masochism of the lower middle-class male. Due to the ill-treatment
175

Exploring Masculinity of Sakharam in Sakharam Binder
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
meted out to him by his father, he flees away from home. The bitter experiences he had in his
life leave him rough and tough and foul-mouthed.” (2)
Sakharam thus stands out as a distinct character, challenging norms through his
friendship with Dawood, a Muslim, by rejecting the traditional role of a husband and exposing
the flaws embedded within the institution of marriage. In recounting the demise of the sixth
woman under his care, he highlights the societal pressure on Indian women to idealize their
husbands, even in the face of cruelty that results in abandonment. Of her, Sakharam remarks:
“She used to worship her husband’s shirt. The man was out to kill her, but as far as she was
concerned, he was God! The fellow who’s out to kill them— he’s a God! The man who saves
them—he’s just a man!” (Tendulkar 127-128) Nevertheless, paradoxically, the same man who
criticizes all husbands treats the women he shelters even worse, appearing unconscious to his
behavior. He deems providing food, clothing, and shelter suffices for women abandoned by
society. “Outwardly, Sakharam pretends that he is a saviour of women, but inwardly he is a
dumping ground of all that is bad in society, so far as man-woman relationship is concerned.
Although he criticizes married life, he develops such a relationship, which is worse for the
woman who suffers more with Sakharam than with her husband before.” (Wadikar 5)
Although he opposes the marriage system but replicates its norms. Instead of
conforming to traditional roles, he shelters women rejected by others, assigning them
household duties and serving his needs. His system operates strictly, with women constantly
coming and going. Those who disobey face consequences, often being kicked out. In a
patriarchal society, men dominate women and can harm them. This is how, Sakharam asserts
his masculine authority, positioning himself as the master of his household and expecting
women to obey him.
Come in. Have a good look around. You’re going to live here now. This house is like
me. I won’t have you complaining later on. Yes, look carefully around the place. If you
think it’s all right. Put down your bundle get two square meals. Two saries to start with
and then one every year. And not a fancy one at that. I won’t hear any complains later.
I like everything in order here. Won’t put up with slipshod ways. If you’re careless, I’ll
show you the door. Don’t ask for any pity then. And don’t blame me either. I’m the
master here. (Tendulkar 125-126)
176

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-II, April 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165

www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
Even if Sakharam appears strict in his interactions with the women he shelters, each
woman is informed that she is free to leave whenever she desires, and he assures them of any
assistance they may need in the future. He tells them they can take anything- “clothes, chappals,
bangles etc.” (Tendulkar 135) – that he has provided them in his house. Sakharam expects
everything to be proper and decent, as he emphasizes that he is not a husband who would forget
common decency. He disregards societal norms and does not anticipate the moral and
emotional complexities of this arrangement. He says:
It’s good thing I’m not a husband. Things are fine the way they are. You get everything
you want and yet you’re not tied down. If you’ve had enough, if she’s had enough, you
can always part. The game is over. Nothing to bother you after that. While it lasts, she
has a roof over her head, and you get home-cooked food. That’s a cheap way of fixing
all your appetites. No need for you to go begging to another’s house! (Tendulkar 129)
Sakharam embodies the patriarchal social construct, where power dynamics are
supreme. “You’ll have to make food yourself. That’s a woman’s job, and women must do their
own jobs. That is the rule around here.” (Tendulkar 161) Through this portrayal, Tendulkar
discloses the male ideology and hegemony prevalent in society. While Laxmi and other women
in his care experience these conditions, their lives are not solely defined by such constraints.
Sakharam persists: “Maybe I’m a rascal, a womanizer, a pauper. Why maybe? I am all that.
And I drink. But I must be respected in my own house. … In this house what I say goes.
Understand? The others must obey, that’s all.” (Tendulkar 126) And he ends with one final
requirement: “You’ll have to be a wife to me, and anyone with a little sense will know what to
make of that.” (Tendulkar 126)
Thus, he adheres to his own philosophy of life, as noted by Ashok Desai, who observes,
“He tries to work out independent philosophy of life, with no sense of false obligation.” (7) His
philosophy however serves for his pleasure and fulfilment; anything beyond that holds no
significance, as his existence revolves around pleasure-seeking. Sakharam embodies
stereotypical hegemonic masculinity, demanding respect and submission from others,
displaying commitment to his principles. The decision to bring Laxmi into home after the
departure of six other women is driven by the desire for physical pleasure, as he seeks a
compliant and submissive maid who will cater to his impulse. Thus, E. Renuka observes the
complexities of Sakharam’s character and highlights his impact on those around him. She
emphasizes:
177

Exploring Masculinity of Sakharam in Sakharam Binder
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
Sakharam’s temperament is as misleading as that of a crocodile. Although he
comprehends and bolsters a defiant lady, he needs his woman to slave for him day and
night, to regard his wishes, and to fulfil his desire. He professes to be the rescuer of
ladies by offering them an actual existence superior to the prior one, however he is
neither a friend in need, nor a radical, but a licentious, a conceited pleasure seeker. (33)
Gendered Anxieties

Surprisingly, despite being aware of Sakharam’s reputation as a womanizer, Laxmi
never opposes the lustful advances made towards her. Sakharam is enslaved by desires, desires
that Laxmi cannot fully satisfy due to her meek and submissive nature, which has prevented
her from engaging in sexual activities. With the arrival of Champa, Sakharam’s sexual thirst
can finally be gratified. Champa, having left behind her immoral yet futile husband, emerges
as a sexual challenge for Sakharam. While discussing household rules, he finds himself drawn
to her physique;
Sakharam: In this house, the woman must behave properly. She must treat me due respect.
Champa: Yes. Go and see if there’s anything to eat. There’s been nothing in this belly since
yesterday. … Sakharam: While you’re staying with me, you don’t need to be scared of
anybody. … Champa: Scared? Who, me? And scared of whom? My husband? What can
he do to me? (Tendulkar 157)
With each conversation initiated by Champa, it becomes clear that Sakharam is
increasingly preoccupied by her. Unlike the previous women he has encountered, Champa
exerts an influence over him from the moment she speaks. As a result, Sakharam’s stature as a
tough man diminishes, and he finds himself surrendering to Champa’s authority.
Initially, Sakharam becomes entirely absorbed by Champa’s seductive attraction,
finding himself unable to focus on his tasks and often arriving home ahead of time. He offers
her drinks, which weaken her and lead her to surrender to Sakharam. He even neglects his
duties at the press, but Dawood convinces him to fulfil his responsibilities regularly.
Nevertheless, Sakharam maintains: “I grew up like a cactus – out in the open. I don’t scare easy.
From now on it is going to be Champa, Champa nothing more…. nobody can match her little
finger. you don’t know what fun Champa is.” (Tendulkar 172-173)
178

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-II, April 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165

www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
On the contrary, Champa, however, serves as a constant reminder to Sakharam of his
impotence because of Laxmi’s presence, often insulting him: “Stop that Champa -Champa’-
you’re not a man – not since she came. She’s made an impotent ninny of you. Don’t have the
guts to take me before her. You turn into a corpse- a worm.” (Tendulkar 193) Upon this
realization, he bursts out of his room with a scream, addressing Laxmi directly, saying- “leave
this house. This very minute. She says you have made a ninny out of me. You beggar.”
(Tendulkar 194) Sakharam’s harsh attitude instils terror in Laxmi, prompting her to resort to
desperation as she plays her card, revealing Champa’s recent encounter with Dawood. “It’s
true- it’s the truth- these lips have never spoken a lie yet- she’s unfaithful to you -yes- with
Dawood. She goes to him -every afternoon – when you’re at the press. I’ve seen them -with
my own eyes.” (Tendulkar 196) Champa’s involvement with Dawood and the impotence
remark have significantly weakened Sakharam’s masculinity, leaving him unable to confront
the situation. His male self refuses to forgive her, leading to murdering her in a fit of rage.
Thus, the persistent focus on masculinity and sexual competence among men, alongside
underlying anxieties about impotence or sexual neurosis, continues to be a prominent issue,
impacting both mental health and societal norms surrounding masculinity.
As Berke, Reidy, & Zeichner point out: “In our society males are often under pressure
to adhere to masculinity norms.” (106-116) and often, when males diverge from conventional
masculinity norms, “they experience negative social consequences.” (Schwab et al. 289-311)
The anxiety associated with male gender roles implies that masculinity may be compromised
when facing threats, potentially portraying men as inadequately masculine. In our culture, there
is a persistent belief that men are generally less verbally and emotionally expressive than
women. Men’s emotional conduct “is not a stable property but a multidimension construct.”
(Wong and Rochlen 62) Thus, Men’s emotional behavior is shaped by various external factors.
Therefore, it is suggested that emotions are viewed as ‘less masculine’ with Connell’s
notion of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ being a central focus in masculinity studies. This concept
has had a substantial impact on research and theoretical advancements in the field since the
1980s. While Connell stresses that “a vast majority of men will never live up to hegemonic
masculinity in their own lives, their complicity in sustaining it as an ideal provides them with
a ‘patriarchal dividend’ bringing honour, prestige and the right to command.” (Connell 82)
Thus, men’s tendency to exhibit fewer emotions than women are attributed to the association
between emotional expression and hierarchy. Within this framework, maintaining emotional
179

Exploring Masculinity of Sakharam in Sakharam Binder
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
control is regarded as a marker of superiority, essential for embodying masculinity
convincingly and affirming involvement in the privileged gender group.
All the characters in the play, including Sakharam, his friend Dawood, Laxmi, Champa
and the woman preceding Laxmi in Sakharam’s house, exhibit contradictions within their
characters. This internal conflict serves as a central theme in the play, revealing the
complexities of human nature and societal dynamics. For instance, Laxmi, initially portrayed
as meek and submissive, emerges as a strong character by the play’s conclusion. Conversely,
Sakharam, who initially exerts dominance and control, finds himself surrendering power to
Laxmi, as the narrative explains, highlighting the fluidity of power dynamics. Furthermore,
Champa’s involvement with Dawood, driven by her perception of Sakharam’s impotence,
raises questions about traditional notions of masculinity and challenges societal expectations
placed upon men.
Conclusion
Sakharam Binder examines sexual neurosis and emotional repression, disrupting
conventional gender roles and power dynamics. Champa’s accusation triggers Sakharam’s
violent reaction, exposing the fragility of male identity within patriarchal structures and
emphasizing the toxic nature of patriarchy. Despite his predominant aggression, Sakharam also
reveals moments of vulnerability. Thus, the play prompts readers to ponder the consequences
of rigid gender norms and contemplate alternative endings.
Works Cited:
Banerjee, Arundhati. “Introduction.” Vijay Tendulkar: Five Plays, Oxford University Press,
1992, pp. vii–xix.
Berke, Danielle S., et al. “Masculinity, Emotion Regulation, and Psychopathology: A Critical
Review and Integrated Model.” Clinical Psychology Review, vol. 66, Dec. 2018, pp.
106–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.01.004.
Chatterjee, Shukla, and Vijay Tendulkar. “Shukla Chatterjee in Conversation with Vijay
Tendulkar.” Indian Literature, vol. 52, no. 3 (245), 2008, pp. 15–22,
www.jstor.org/stable/23340482.
Connell, R W. Masculinities. Cambridge, Polity, 2005.
Desai, Ashok H. “Censorship and Sakharam Binder.” National Centre for the Performing Arts,
vol. 1, no. 2, Jan. 1972, pp. 11–19.
180

The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-II, April 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165

www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
E, Renuka. “Casanova as the Saviour: A Study of Vijay Tendulkar’s Sakharam Binder.” New
Directions in Indian Drama. New Delhi: Prestige, 1994.
Gokhale, Shanta. “Restaging Marathi Theatre.” Www.epw.in, vol. 48, no. 36, 30 Aug. 2013,
www.epw.in/journal/2013/36/postscript/restaging-marathi-theatre.html. Accessed 17
Oct. 2023.
Kanadey, Vishwas R. “The Literary Scene in Marathi in 1971.” Indian Literature, vol. 15, no.
4, 1972, pp. 74–83, www.jstor.org/stable/24157185. Accessed 22 Mar. 2024.
Nalini Natarajan, and Emmanuel S Nelson. Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of
India. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1996.
Saxena, Sumit. “A Conversation with Sir Vijay Tendulkar’, Passion for Cinema.”
Accounts.google.com, 20 Dec. 2006, passionforcinema.com/a-conversation-with-sir-Vijay.
Accessed 22 Mar. 2024.
Schwab, Joseph R., et al. “Silence and (In)Visibility in Men’s Accounts of Coping with
Stressful Life Events.” Gender & Society, vol. 30, no. 2, 16 Sept. 2015, pp. 289–311,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215602923.
Sundar, Pushpa. “Protest through Theatre —the Indian Experience.” India International
Centre Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, 1989, pp. 123–138, www.jstor.org/stable/23002148.
Tendulkar, Vijay. The Play Is the Thing. Sangeet Natak Akademi, 1997, p. 11.
—. Collected Plays in Translation. Translated by Priya Adarkar, Oxford University Press,
2004.
—. Vijay Tendulkar. New Delhi, Katha, 2001.
Wadikar, Shailaja B. “Sakharam Binder: Tendulkar’s Human Zoo.” The Criterion: An
International Journal in English, vol. 2, no. 1, Apr. 2011.
Wong, Y. Joel, and Aaron B. Rochlen. “Demystifying Men’s Emotional Behavior: New
Directions and Implications for Counselling and Research.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 62–72, https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.62.

181