CHAPTER II

The Power operations and the ‘Political’ Margin:

Mahasweta Devi’s Mother Of 1084

60
INTRODUCTION

As we have seen in the previous chapter, Datta Bhagat has problematised

the issue of caste at social, economic and political domains both at the regional
level in Maharashtra as well as at the level of the Nation. This chapter focuses on a
play by Mahasweta Devi which deals with the Naxalite movement that began in a
small village in the West Bengal during 1970s, and extended its influence to nearby
states and raised the questions on the Constitution of India. The echo of such event
can be heard in the play, Mother of 1084. “Set in the urban Bengal, the play
realistically portrays the climatic phase of the annihilation of the Naxalites of the
1970s” (Sarkar, 255). The play is set in a turbulent period in Bengal as Sarkar
points out:

The 1970s remains an unforgotten decade in Bengal‟s memory because

there was total break that happened in the communication between the
people and a popularly elected government of a democratic nation, a
situation that bred mutual suspicion and distrust. It took a decade, many
lives and a change in political dispensation before a semblance of order
could return to the state (255).

Mahasweta Devi states the nature of Naxalite movement during 1970s, “… in the
Naxalite movement, I saw exemplary integrity, selflessness, and the guts to die for
a cause. I thought I saw history in the making and decided that as a writer it would
be my mission to document it” (qtd. in Lahiri 6). G. P. Deshpande notes the
contribution of Mahasweta Devi just as,

Mahasweta Devi, very eminent writer of fiction, has been active with tribals
of the West Bengal and Bihar. In this play she looks at the urban Bhadrolok
Bengal in the context of the rising people‟s movement and offers us a view
of politics which is both moving and disturbing (579).

Further, we also need to note the views expressed by Mahasweta Devi to Samik
Bandopadhyay in April 1983 about her contribution.

61
 Once I became a professional writer, I felt increasingly that writer should
document his own time and history… But some of the greatest political
happening of my times, like the Tebhaga revolt of the Bengal peasants or
the partition and its aftermath, had passed me by… The Naxalite movement
between the late 1960s and early 1970s, with its urban phase climaxing in
1970-1971, was the first major event after I had become a writer that I felt
an urge and an obligation to document (qtd. in Sengupta 251).

Therefore to understand the political scenario in the play, one needs to look at the
historical sources.

Mahasweta Devi (B. 1926- ) is a Bengali playwright, novelist and an Indian

social activist. As a writer, her contribution can be evaluate by her major works like
Hajar Churashir Maa, Aranyer Adhikar (The Occupation of the Forest, 1977),
Agnigarbha (Womb of Fire, 1978), Rudali, Breast Stories, Outcaste and so on.
Mother of 1084 is a play based on Mahasweta Devi‟s Bangla novel Hajar
Chaurashir Ma and it is translated into English by Samik Bandopadhyay.

This play is about the Naxal movement which aspires to make social and
political transformation during 1970s. The people of the movement raise their voice
against established order and fight for the poor against the landlords, industrialists
and bureaucrats. There is revolt against the capitalist system. The protest of the
poor people was handled ruthlessly and dictatorially by the government. Therefore
the idea of socialism as portrayed by the Movement in the 1970s attracted the
attention of middle and upper middle class youth of India.

Sujata is the mother of Jyoti, Brati, Neepa, and Tuli and wife of Dibyanath
Chattterjee. At the beginning of the play, when the telephone rings and Sujata picks
up the receiver, she is unable to understand the instruction provided on telephone,
„Come to Kantapukur‟. Though it creates uproar in the house, Dibyanath and Jyoti
understand the implications and guess what has happened there. By reaching the
police station, Sujata identifies the dead body of her son but she is unable to
understand the nature of activity that has taken the life of her son. She searches for

62
clues to what has happened with her son that discloses the name of his friends and
their activity. Somu‟s mother identifies the body of Somu. Sujata‟s inquiry about
her son discloses nature of her son that was not known to her before. To save his
companions he fights but is unable to save either himself or his companions against
the police attack on suspected Naxals.

Two years later, the same day when Brati gets killed, his father arranges
Tuli‟s engagement ceremony. So there is an undercurrent of forgetfulness in the
nature of the father towards his son whereas the mother is deeply haunted by her
son‟s memory. When she comes to know that Nadini was the beloved of her son,
she meets her and she uncovers the physical pain undergone when she had been
kept in prison. It shows the brutal treatment of those who want to question the idea
of a nation that was not acceptable to them.

Through the play, Mahasweta Devi not only focuses on middle and upper-
middle class family and their personal relationships but the undercurrent of Naxal
movement that shakes the moral and social foundation of these families. In order to
understand the play, we need to understand the nature of the peasant upheavals
historically. In the next section, we will locate the play within a historical
framework.

THE TREATMENT OF MUGHAL RULERS AND BRITISH

GOVERNMENT TOWARDS PEASANTS

To understand the root of the Naxal movement, first we need to consider the
condition of the agrarian section from centuries in India. During the Mughal period,
the rulers reorganized the agrarian section and the peasants were marginalized and
exploited (Bendfeldt 6). Moreover, during the rule of the British Government,
restructuring of the agrarian section continued. In the words of Joshi, The British
rule made alliance with traditional local Elites and the land of the peasants was
handed over to the landlords and revenue collectors. Therefore landlords become
mediators between the British rulers and working rural population. So landlords
received authoritative status (qtd. in Bendfeldt 6). On the other hand, in the words

63
of Mehra, the peasants were forced to bonded labour on their formerly self owned
land. Therefore tribal population was badly affected (qtd. in Bendfeldt 6). Such
scenario leads one has to think that there was not considerable improvement in the
condition of peasants from the Mughal period to the British period. Both rulers
maintained oppressive treatment of the agricultural workers intact. The reason for
this injustice perhaps is the authority handed over by the ruler without
understanding the condition of peasants and political system of the time that kept
peasant alienated. Consequently, the ideology of the rulers played a major role. It
was the condition of the peasants in our nation. However, the condition of the
peasants during post-independence period did not improve significantly.

THE ROLE OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY

OF INDIA (CPI) TOWARDS PEASANTS

If we look at the Independence period, the ruling Congress Government

gave landlords powerful position and maintained unequal structure intact that was
prevalent for centuries as we have seen above. Though, the Congress Government
during pre-Independence demanded land reforms and redistribution, these issues
were taken up hesitantly after 1947s (Bendfeldt 7).

On the other hand, the Communist Party of India (CPI) founded in 1920s,
expanded its support in the most backward areas of Hyderabad and the Telengana
in 1944s (Bendfeldt 7). Finally the support of the CPI led to the peasant uprising
that turned violent in 1946s. They touched the lowest strata of society. The CPI
expelled the landlords, redistributed the land, abolished bonded labour, introduced
minimum wages and built up a militia. The work that the Congress Government
needed to do for the peasants was done by the CPI. So basically the role of CPI is
important in the direction to bring transformation in the condition of peasants. If we
need to observe the significant contribution of the left parties‟ and the seed of
revolution, we need to look the Naxal movement.

THE BIRTH OF THE NAXAL MOVEMENT

To understand the Naxal Movement of the 1970s, we need to search the

64
historical evidence that leads to the root of the movement. Basically, the 1948s
„farmers movement‟ in Telangana could be called the precursor of Naxalite
militancy. The manifesto “Andhra Pradesh Model” proves that the leftist
ideological document that the Communist Party of India issued in June 1948 was
based on what is called “Mao Zedong‟s New Democracy” (qtd. in Shad 17) This
ideological position leads to the fragmentation of CPI to CPI(M) in 1964 (Shad 17).
Further, CPI(M) entered into electoral politics and formed the coalition government
of the United Front in West Bengal in 1967. This development generated anguish
and frustration among the young cadre of the Communist Party. It was one such
group of young rebels under the leadership of Charu Majumdar that launched an
armed rebellion against the powerful local landlord, thus laying the foundation of
Naxalbari Movement (Shad 17).

The term Naxal derived from a small village which is known as Naxalbari,
situated in West Bengal (Shad 4). The term was used for the first time on 25th May
1967 when Charu Majumdar and Kanu Sanyal began their armed struggle against
the landlords of the village (4). A tribal youth named Bimal Kissan obtained a
judicial order to plough his land. The local landlords got support of goons and
muscleman and attacked him. Majumdar stated, following the foot step of Mao
Zedong, the leader of the Chinese revolution, he would launch an active struggle to
end the highhandedness of the upper classes and ultimately make this movement
victorious like the Chinese revolution (qtd. in Shad 4). This event infuriated the
local tribal population and led to violent retaliation by the tribal community to
capture their lands. This event took giant shape. Therefore we can think that the
active participation of the tribal shows the failure of the state government to take
decisive measure.

THE REASONS FOR THE NAXAL UPRISING

A number of factors led to the naxal uprising. The social injustice,

economic inequality and the failure of the system to redress the grievance of the
large section of people who suffered are reasons for the uprising of the Naxal
movement (Singh). Further, the former RAW chief, B. Raman said that India which

65
apparently glitters and shines shows its real face-backward and doomed – when
you lift the carpet and find that the people have no facilities that is why Naxalism
prevails and prospers (qtd in Shad 30). The report of the expert committee which
was formed by Indian Planning Commission to look at economic fall out of the
Naxal movement and its expansion and exacerbation found that excluding local
populations from governance and the general feeling of deprivation is prevailing
among the mass that were behind the growth of the Naxalite movement (Shad 29).
Here the important point is that the government policies that have not been
implemented effectively. Further, as discussed, the government also neglected the
large section of people. To solve such conditions, the Naxalite movement was
formed and fought for the marginalized people. But before that one need to
understand who the marginalized people are in the eyes of Naxalites?

THE IDENTITY OF MARGINALIZED PEOPLE/COMMUNITIES

Diwanji attempts to explain the identity of marginalized people in the

following words.

The Naxalites claim to represent the most oppressed people in India, those
who are often left untouched by India‟s development and bypassed by the
electoral process. Invariably, they are the Adivasis, Dalits, and poorest of
the poor, who work as landless labourers for a pittance, often below India‟s
mandated minimum wages.

Naxalite represents these marginalised people with the voice of their pain. The
question is the status of marginalized people and the game of power is played by
the so called political elite and rich towards marginalized people. As we have seen
above the root of the Naxalite movement lies in the marginalized, and they often
act as their voice is against the government as government is unable to bring
transformation in the condition of poor and towards the exploitation of farmers in
villages. Naxalism, thus, often assumes itself, as an alternative to democracy to
bring transformations.

66
NAXALISM PORTRAYED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DEMOCRACY

As, we have seen above along with the status of marginalized people, there
is also the basic needs of such people which are unfulfilled. According to Diwanji,

Indians are still to acquire freedom from hunger and deprivation and that
the rich classes-landlords, industrialists, traders, etc-control the means of
production. Their final aim is the overthrow of the present system, hence
the targeting of politicians, police officers and men, forest contractors, etc.

Therefore, Naxalites focus on basic needs of the people to survive and their
struggle is against those who disturb and prevent to get these basic needs. So they
felt there was a need to eradication such system which generates imbalance in
society and Naxal movement is a step towards it. The failure of the Government to
pay attention to the basic requirement of citizens often leads people to find out
ways in which the authority can be challenged. There is a contradiction in views
between the government and those who want to bring transformation in nation.
“The peaceful political process, it was felt, would not be able to bring about the
necessary change because vested interests controlled the levers of power, regulated
the wheels of industry and had a feudal stranglehold over the predominantly
agrarian economy. An armed struggle was the only way out, they thought” (Singh).

In Bengal, the CPM coalitions is describe in Liberation, Vol. II, No. 3 (1969) as,

… the „United Front‟ governments are pledged to maintain the old relations
of production. Faithful to the Indian Constitutions, they are neither able nor
willing to solve the basic problem, the problem of land. The experience of
the „United Front‟ governments has once again demonstrated that without
smashing the state machinery of the big land-lords and the big bourgeoisie
and without destroying feudalism in the countryside, no benefit can be
rendered to the masses and the talk of „relief‟ or reform is pure deception
(qtd. in Franda 810).

67
The Communist led United Front pledged to recognize the rights of workers and
peasants to voice their demands and grievances and not to suppress the democratic
and legitimate struggles of the people. The CPM therefore attempted to mediate
between the United Front and its own protesters, in an attempt to stop the sectarian
and adventurist activities of the Naxalites.

THE LEGACY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (CPI) AND

THEIR CONTRIBUTION

The intellectuals in the Indian communist movement were recruited in

Indian and European colleges and Universities (798). When they joined Communist
Party of India during late 1930s and early 1940s, it represented new generation in
Indian politics (798). By the early 1960s, a number of younger leaders had become
severely critical of older generation of Indian politicians (communist and non-
communist alike) who had been unable to revolutionalize India‟s basic political,
economic and social alignments (799-800). Out of many, one special concern was
the failure of the party to escape from its bourgeois moorings. “The history of the
Naxalite Movement shows that it was China‟s Communist revolution which
inspired it and gave it its ideological moorings” (Shad 17).

A small group of protester in the CPM chose the Naxalbari area as an

appropriate place to test the resolve of the West Bengal United Front government in
1967, in an attempt to embarrass the leadership of the CPM (Franda 801). Armed
with tribal weapons and communist flags, the protesters led bands of followers to
occupy lands and attempted to take „direct action‟ on the side of tribals and peasant
cultivators who had felt themselves wronged in land disputes (801). During 1967,
the protesters become accused of innumerable political assassinations, arsonist
attacks, and robberies, and a number of Indian newspapers and political groups
began to demand police action against the “Naxalites” (801).

THE FRAGMENTATION AND THE FORMATION OF LEFT PARTIES

The Communist Party of India divided and formed Communist Party of

India (Marxist) in 1964 (797). Further from CPM again there was fragmentation

68
because of the unrest among local farmers and laborers of West Bengal and formed
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) in 1967 (qtd. in Shad 2) (797).
Moreover, during the time, the United Front government led by the CPI (M) came
down on the rebellion using all kinds of repressive measures therefore the
participants of the revolution needed to form the All India Coordination Committee
of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCR) in May 1968 (Verma 4). Over the time,
AICCR fragmented for the ideological differences with Kanhai Chatterjee who
believed that “annihilation of class enemy should only be undertaken after building
up a mass agitation”. It leads to the formation of the Communist Party of India
(Marxist-Leninist) or CPI (ML) in 1969 (Verma 4). During the formation of
CPIML on 1969 at Calcutta, Kanu Sanyal, the leader of the Communist Party of
India (Franda 797) said,

With great pride and boundless joy I wish to announce today at this meeting
that we have formed a genuine Communist Party- the Communist Party of
India (Marxist-Leninist)… Our Party was formed on a memorable day of
the international Communist movement-the 100th birthday of the great
Lenin. When our party was born, the historic Ninth National Congress of
the great Communist Party of China was in session under the personal
guidance of Chairman Mao Tse-tung…I firmly believe that the great Indian
people will warmly welcome this event, will realise the formation of this
Party as an historic step forward for the Indian revolution, and will come
forward to raise the struggle to a higher stage under the leadership of the
party (qtd. in Franda 797).

It is the formation of the CPI(ML) that finally led to the events that have been
described in the play.

THE ROLE OF NAXALITES AND GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES

Over the period of time, Naxalite made Calcutta and its neighbouring towns
their main centre of activity. They targeted educational institutions, disfiguring the
statues of national leaders, and organizing boycotts of examinations. Further

69
annihilation policies were also implemented and targeted the personnel of CPI (M),
police constables and businessmen. These actions brought publicity through the
press and radio. This shift from rural to urban brought differences in ideology
within the party (Dasgupta 173). During July-August 1971, after election in West
Bengal, the Government decided to destroy the Naxalite movement. The ruffian
made their task easier and teenage dropouts replacing the college students as the
main activists in the movement through the police and the informers penetrated the
organization. The decentralized and loose nature of the organizations worked
against the Naxalites (Dasgupta 173).

According to Kondapalli Seetharamaiah, a influential leader of CPI (ML)

(People‟s War) and a Member of the Central Organising Committee of CPI (ML),

One of the official documents of the PWG states: The Programme of our
party has declared that India is a vast „semi-colonial and semi-feudal
country‟, with about 80 per cent of our population residing in our villages. It
is ruled by the big-bourgeois big landlord classes, subservient to
imperialism. The contradiction between the alliance of imperialism,
feudalism and comprador bureaucrat-capitalism on the one hand and the
broad masses of the people the other is the principal contradiction in our
country. Only a successful People‟s Democratic Revolution i.e. New
Democratic Revolution and the establishment of People‟s Democratic
Dictatorship of the workers, peasants, the middle classes and national
bourgeoisie under the leadership of the working class can lead to the
liberation of our people from all exploitation and the dictatorship of the
reactionary ruling classes and pave the way for building Socialism and
Communism in our country, the ultimate aim of our Party. People‟s War
based on Armed Agrarian Revolution is the only path for achieving
people‟s democracy i.e. new democracy, in our country (qtd. in Verma 6).

There was inherent contradiction in ideology which led to a further split and
formation of CPI (ML) Liberation and the PWG. The CPI (ML) Liberation was
more focused on the cause of the peasants, and the PWG sought to mobilize

70
peasants, workers, Tribals and weaker sections of society to create a mass
organization (Verma 6). In this historical scenario, Mahasweta Devi‟s Mother of
1084 can be evaluated in the next section.

71
Thematic Study of Mahasweta Devi’s Mother of 1084

This section is thematic analyses of Mahasweta Devi‟s Mother of 1084. It

employs the framework that has been discussed in the previous section to redefine
the concept of „political‟. The thematic analyses of the play deal with themes like
„power structure of Institutions‟, „contrast between Capitalist and Middle class
society‟, „disintegrating relationships and „marginalized status‟ to label the play,
Mother of 1084, „political‟.

We begin thematic analyses with the theme „Power Structure of

Institutions‟ to observe how power structure works against those who raise
questions on democratic system under the context of the Constitution of India.

THE POWER STRUCTURE OF INSTITUTIONS

Mahasweta Devi‟s Mother of 1084 deals with a theme of „Power Structure

of Institutions‟ concerning government authorities and political parties focusing on
the operations of power in dealing with marginalized sections of society and
capitalist landlords.

While Brati, Sujata‟s son, receives a call from one of his friends Nandini, he
receives news of his friend, Somu and his group that have returned to their locality.
Therefore he gets ready to move to meet them. Observing unusual behaviour of his
son, Sujata, his mother asks him what has happened. He simply says he has to go
for some important work. He says he will be late therefore he may stay at Somu‟s
home. In fact, the reference by Brati to danger underlines the unseen power that
operates within the play. Under the context of danger, his mother shares the
prevailing alarming situation in Calcutta.

BRATI (on guard): What do you mean by danger?

SUJATA: How would you know? You never had time to read the papers.
All that‟s going on in Calcutta! Young men from one locality aren‟t
allowed these days to visit a different locality. They get killed if they
do so. Somu‟s is a safe neighbourhood (Devi 694).

72
Here, it seems that upper middle class society thinks that what is happening in the
form of violence is happening elsewhere. It cannot affect their routine lives. But
such violence enters into upper-middle class society. They are not aware that it can
equally affect them like middle class or the peasant society. So violence in the play
does not only haunt the „other‟ class but upper middle class society too.

Here, Mahasweta Devi uses irony to highlight the activities of youngsters,

Naxalite as they target educational institutions, disfiguring the statues of national
leaders, and organizing boycotts of examinations. Moreover, they also target police
constable and business men. Such activities are highlighted through the media.
However, to Sujata, this violence occurs in a remote location. She is not aware of
the fact that her own son is a part of that structure that seems remote to her. The
reference in the play to government that is killing even unknown youngsters
(including Brati) without any substantial evidence indicates that the working of
power structure itself becomes a problem for youngsters who believe that they are
working for the marginalized section of the society.

Further, we need to observe how the power structure is working to

manipulate the ideology of the neighbourhood. While Sujata inquires about her
son‟s untimely death, she reaches her son‟s friend, Somu‟s home. Somu‟s mother
has witnessed the murder of her son as well as Brati and his friends by the mob that
consists of neighbourhood people. After the murder of the youngsters, the
conditions of middle class family as well as youngsters who ran away to save their
lives is shared to Sujata by Somu‟s mother in the following words.

SOMU‟S MOTHER: My daughter tells me, don‟t cry. Will he ever come
back? She tells me, you‟re fine. Think of Partha‟s mother, sister, she
handed her son over to Death. Partha‟s younger brother can‟t come
back home. They‟d kill him too if he came back.
SUJATA: Even now?
SOMU‟S MOTHER: Even now. There‟re thousands of them, young men,
all homeless. All those families banished from the colony. It leaves

73
 one sick at heart even to think of them. I can‟t think any more (689-
690).

As we have discussed previously, the government is in the favour of landlords and

capitalists from centuries and they want to destroy each Naxalite for their active
involvement into Naxal activity as Naxalites fight for the marginalized section of
society. The government wants to suppress the activities of Naxalites and they
think each youngster who is staying in the locality is a Naxalite. The message
passer to Government organization may manipulate things for the purpose of
personal gain. Therefore innocent youngsters have to suffer and to save themselves,
the youngsters left their residence. The absence of youngsters also creates an
impression that a particular family indulges in Naxalite activities and so the family
members also have to suffer. Therefore the power, as a repressive force, works
equally against the middle class society.

Another instance of power structure occurs in the play when a mob

consisting of neighbourhood people who are goaded by the political parties and
government authorities for the sake of financial assistance become an instrument to
provide information of Naxalites to police in disguise.

Further, while Sujata comes to visit Somu‟s mother to know the activities in
which her son, Brati was involved, Somu‟s mother shares details of the conspiracy
to kill youngsters including her son. Even the police did not come to save the
youngsters. They sent their vans to collect the dead bodies. After the mass murder,
the same mob that killed youngsters threatens the family members:

SOMU‟S MOTHER (diffident): They threaten my daughter because you

come here.
SUJATA: Somu‟s elder sister? Who threatens her?
SOMU‟S MOTHER: Those who killed Somu and his friends. Who else?
SUJATA: The same crowd?
SOMU‟S MOTHER: They tell her, why does she come to your house?
Forbid her. It‟ll be dangerous otherwise (697).

74
Here, we can find how power structure is working against a middle class society as
well as those who look after the marginalized section of society. The mob consists
of those people who are instigated by political parties as well as police to fulfill
their needs like financial assistance, and unemployment. Therefore the mob follows
blindly the instructions that are given to them. Consequently, the middle class
society cannot complain against such mob who gives threats. Therefore the burning
question is who is going to look after the middle class and marginalized section of
society? And how can they fulfill the routine requirement for their family? These
questions raise our attention at the defective system of government after political
independence of the nation. Further, how college dropouts act as an instrument to
destroy the network of Naxalite movement needs to be looked at. The search for
her son‟s activities and his involvement into Naxalite activities lead Sujata at
Somu‟s house. Her next visit to Nandini, who is also involved with Brati into
Naxalite activities, reveals the crucial mode of betrayal in their Party.

NANDINI: It was Anindya who betrayed us.

SUJATA (humble): I don‟t know everything, Nandini.
NANDINI: Your not knowing doesn‟t change a thing.
SUJATA: That I know.
NANDINI: And yet Brati, like a fool, trusted Anindya. Do you know why
trusted him?
SUJATA: No.
NANDINI: Because it was Nitu who had introduced Anindya. Nitu had
been in many actions. And Nitu had been killed. It was simple
arithmetic. Nitu had introduced Anindya plus Nitu was dead plus
Nitu‟s death itself was proof of his integrity. Therefore, Anindya,
who was Nitu‟s recruit, must be dependable. That‟s how we argued
(698).

As we have discussed, the police department makes college students an instrument

to infiltrate into Naxalite groups to acquire information and spy on their activities.
These ways the whole network of Naxalite can be destroyed. The deviousness of

75
power that can corrupt neighbourhoods and friends‟ raises questions on the power
structure of the government. In fact, the play constantly questions the insider-
outsider opposition so that the problems of power are seen as manifest everywhere
right from personal relationships to large scale cleansing operations of the
government.

While Sujata comes to visit Nandini to get details of the activities in which
her son, Brati was involved, Nandini informs her that betrayal in their Party
becomes a reason for the death of youngsters. Further, she shares just as these
youngsters have programs likewise the information givers also have programmes:

NANDINI: …We never judged, never made enquiries, and yet we

should‟ve known.
SUJATA: What should you have known?
NANDINI: We should‟ve known that they too had programme, just as we
had ours. We had a cause. They too had one.
SUJATA: Cause, Nandini? Programme?
NANDINI: Of cause. A programme of betrayal. That programme was their
cause.
SUJATA (in comprehension): But how?
NANDINI: Money, jobs and power didn‟t mean a thing to us. But these
were the temptations that seduced those who had joined us only to
temptations…(698-699)

Here, it seems that as Naxalite network spreads for the marginalized section of
society, similarly Police also makes different strategies to control Naxalite
activities. As we have discussed Police gets college dropouts to enter into Naxalite
network for the sake of personal gain and these youngsters were tempted by offers
as they were tired of their middle class life. Thus, the play is a thorough critique of
middle class life and the power that pervades this life. The play seems to suggest
that escaping these operations of power is impossible on both the sides of the fence.

76
 Moreover, while Nandini is discussing with Sujata about how Brati was
thinking about the people, she shares he noted he had not observed any honest
person like his mother. It leads Nandini to think that Brati was close to his mother.
Further, she shares the condition of youngsters in prison to highlight different
forms of betrayal with them.

NANDINI: … The betrayal continues still.

SUJATA: Still?
NANDINI: Still. (Pause.) It‟s frightening.
SUJATA: Betrayal?
NANDINI: Betrayal. The prison walls rise higher, new watch towers shoot
up, there are so many young men still in the prisons, and yet a
political party will not take a stand until it has been able to
determine how it‟ll serve its own interest and affect its standing with
the Centre. Betrayal. The worst reactionaries make avowals of their
sympathy for us, and in the process they spoil our image in the
public eye. Betrayal. We are not allowed the use of the Press, paper,
type-lead to explain our views. And yet there are all those journals
that claim to be sympathetic to our cause. Betrayal. Every
supposedly sympathetic piece tries shrewdly and skillfully to prove
us adventurist-romantics. Betrayal. Even when we were being killed,
all the writers and all the periodicals were crying over Bangladesh,
they had nothing to say about West Bengal. And the same ones now
write lamentations about us. Betrayal. And … within the prisons…
SUJATA: Sill?
NANDINI: Of course. Do you think they‟ve stopped only because the
newspapers don‟t report them? Arrests? Tourture? Murders in the
name of encounters? A whole generation between sixteen and forty
is being wiped out (700-1).

The deceitful stand of political parties towards young men in prison is something
that the play explores here. As political parties claim to engage for the betterment

77
of society, they simultaneously neglect revolutionaries except for when they are
helpful in winning the elections. The dual game that they play involves on the one
side their sympathy to the revolutionaries while on the other they create an image
of the revolutionaries as dangerous to the welfare of and for the development of
Nation.

Moreover, While Tuli, Sujata‟s daughter asks Sujata for her presence for
her engagement in evening, Sujata reminds her it is the day of Brati‟s birthday.
Therefore she has to be present at home. Tuli provides an excuse that the day was
chosen by Swami for her engagement. The conversation between Sujata and Tuli
shares the names of people invited for her engagement. One of the invited guests is
Saroj Pal, a police officer.

SUJATA (gets the hint, and asks quietly): Have you invited Saroj Pal?
TULI: Yes, We don‟t know whether he will come.
SUJATA: Saroj Pal!
Sujata shuts her eyes. Inscriptions in shadows pass across the
screen at the back of the stage: ‘Saroj Pal, bloody cur of the police,
no forgiveness for you!’ ‘Quick promotion for Saroj Pal, in
recognition of his heroic role in the suppression of the Naxalite
revolt’ …Saroj Pal’s voice on the tape:
SAROJ PAL (off): No, Mrs Chatterjee, your son didn‟t go to Digha.
I know, I too have a mother.
No, Mr Chatterjee, it would not get into the papers.
No, we‟ll search the house.
A Cancerous growth on the body of democracy! (688)

Here, it seems upper middle class society thinks that what is happening in the form
of violence is happening elsewhere. It cannot affect their routine lives. But such
violence enters into upper-middle class society that they may not be aware of. The
violence can equally affect them like middle class society. Therefore, violence is
not only haunted middle class but upper middle class society too.

78
 Mahasweta Devi with irony highlights the view of the government that
Naxalism is a threat to the democracy of the Nation while at the same time being
extremely dictatorial themselves. It is also ironical that the same people in power
that has destroyed Sujata‟s life is invited over to her daughter‟s engagement party –
all to keep a semblance of „normality‟ in the middle class. As we have seen
Government is in the favour of rich people. Therefore government takes care of the
prestige of the landlord and capitalist class of society. We need to observe how the
middle class and Upper class or capitalist society have differences that somehow
questions the Constitution of India.

The CONTRAST BETWEEN MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER CLASS

SOCIETY

The contrast between middle class and upper middle class society highlights
the reasons of youngsters to question the Constitution of India. While Sujata
searches for her son, Brati‟s activities and reasons of his untimely death, she comes
at one of his friends, Somu‟s home and she meets his mother. His mother shares the
youngsters of the locality are homeless and families have disintegrated. Further she
shares after the attack on their sons‟, the middle class society is further degraded.

SUJATA: Aren‟t things all quite now?

SOMU‟S MOTHER: Quiet, sister? How can there be quite with the
mother‟s heart burning like bodies on fire? My daughter too burns.
It‟s not easy to give tuition and earn enough to feed two souls,
mother and daughter. What can I tell her? With all the attention we
paid to Somu, we never had time to look to her schooling. And
Somu had to leave us behind, all at sea! To think of that … (690)

As the corruption, poverty, unemployment put the life of middle class society into
lower grade, it is almost impossible for them to have a better life. The expectation
of the middle class society is to bring socio-economic and political transformation
in their conditions. As an aftermath of the state repression of Naxalites, the
condition of middle class society further degrades. Even they are unable to get

79
basic requirements for livelihood. Somu‟s family expects their son to bring
transformation in their present pitiable conditions but their expectations remain
unfulfilled. They have not only loss of a family member but the expectation also to
bring transformation in their condition. Therefore the middle class society
questions the larger system that is working for them. Likewise, we also come to
know the condition of Sujata‟s family which is disclosed by Somu‟s mother herself
through conversation with Sujata. While Somu‟s mother informs Sujata about
Brati‟s frequent visit to Somu‟s home and how youngsters belonging to different
localities were involved in the Naxalite activities, she wonders about Brati‟s
involvement in Naxalite activities:

SOMU‟S MOTHER (draws a breath): You‟re a working woman, you‟ve a

rich home, I wonder why Brati chose such a course! Didn‟t you ever
realize what your son was up to?
SUJATA: No. (A disturbing memory.) I didn‟t know. He was home the
whole of that day. I realized later that he had been waiting the whole
day for a call… (691)

Here we can find contrast in socio-economic and political conditions of middle

class and upper middle class society. As we discussed middle class society has to
face much struggle in every sphere. Even after the murder of their son, Somu‟s
family finds it is difficult for them to fulfill the basic requirements. So basically the
condition of middle class society forces youngsters to question that the larger
democratic system working for the middle class society. But the upper middle class
society lives in luxury. They are a part of the corrupt system as political parties and
government authorities are in the favour of capitalist that we discussed. So the
question in the play is why did young people of this elite class go against and
question larger power structures of a democratic set up that was in league with
them?

If we compare the condition of both the families, we come to know that the
younger generation of both the families never thought about family matters or
conditions. They began their struggle for the betterment of marginalized people as

80
they believed that the government had failed to look after them. They never thought
about either themselves or their family. So the comparison of both the families
brings out the common point of revolutionary nature of young generation of society
to bring transformation in society at any cost. But we also need to understand the
responses of the government authorities towards such young revolutionaries.

While Somu‟s mother discusses the attack on youngsters by the mob, she
shares after the murder of youngsters the pitiable condition of her family to Sujata
to show how the event affects the middle class society whereas it does not make
any difference to the upper class.

SOMU‟S MOTHER: It hurts, sister. But we can‟t annoy them and stay here.
Somu‟s sister never got a job in a school. She‟s always in a temper.
She rages at me, all this for that one son of yours! They won‟t let me
work to earn food for my stomach!
SUJATA: I have gone on with my job.
SOMU‟S MOTHER: That‟s because you are rich. There‟s no comparison
between you and us (697).

Here, we can find that as a middle class society has to struggle for livelihood as
there is widespread unemployment, poverty and government looks after capitalist
society. After the attack on youngsters, the family receives different forms of
tortures and it is even difficult for them to feed their stomach. While government
looks after capitalist class as we have discussed therefore such contrast can be
found between both classes of society. Further, in the next section, we also need to
look at how relationships, which play a crucial role in forming the upper class
values, disintegrate in the play.

DISINTEGRATING RELATIONSHIPS

Mahasweta Devi‟s Mother of 1084 shows multiple ways in which

relationships disintegrate. While Sujata receives a call early morning, the unknown
person inquires about the head of the family member. She cannot understand the

81
context in which the person has called. Even she is unable to understand what is
Kantapukur?

SUJATA: I don‟t understand.

DIBYANATH: What don‟t you understand?
SUJATA: Who was it on the phone? He only said –Come to Kantapukur.
DIBYANATH: What?
JYOTI: What did you say?
SUJATA: He said, Come to Kantapukur. He said …you have to identify?
Brati?
Dibyanath and Jyoti look at each other, with a clear understanding
of what has happened (683).
…
DIBYANATH: (oblivious of Sujata’s presence). Jyoti, there may still be
time. Isn‟t there a relation of your mother-in-law‟s in the police?
JYOTI: A maternal cousin.
DIBYANATH: Ring him up. Chaudhuri must help hush it up. He had
warned us (684).

The conversation leads to the understanding that Sujata is entirely unaware of what
is happening nearby. Here Dibyanath and Jyoti both understand the answer
provided to Sujata. They were aware of the murder of youngsters and it gets
repeated. As, they were aware of attack on the youngsters and they know about the
warning is given to them, they did not share their views regarding the horrible
incident that occurred. It seems Dibyanath and Jyoti deliberately did not share
information that leads to disintegration in the family relationship. They did not
even include Sujata-mother of Brati regarding their deliberations on the incidents.
Further, Sujata is worried about Brati after getting the news from Kantapukur but
she does not know who and when family members are going to meet him. Instead
family members are eager to meet Chaudhari to „hush-up‟ the event and this
generates several questions in the minds of Sujata.

SUJATA: (as she comprehends) So that‟s why your father has to rush to

82
 Chaudhari? But Brati? Who‟ll go to Brati?
JYOTI: We‟ll go there, mother, a little later.
SUJATA: Later? (684).

Here, the answer provided to Sujata shows there is no attachment among family
members. In fact, the public face of this upper middle class family seems to be
more important than the loss of the family member that the phone call indicates.
The personal loss is overtaken by the public image of the family, something that
Devi critiques heavily. In fact, the play problematizes the relationship between the
personal and the political repeatedly.

Further, while Sujata and Brati play ludo, Sujata inquires about the personal
life of Brati. Here she questions about Nandini and she is eager to meet her. Further
she says if Brati likes Nandini, she also has to like Nandini. During the
conversation, Brati discloses the private life of his father to his mother.

BRATI (a different voice altogether, suddenly): Mother do you know where

the Boss goes every evening after office?
Sujata, startled, turns towards Brati. Sujata wonders, on the tape.
SUJATA (off, taped): Does Brati know of the typist? (692).

Though perhaps Brati knows that his mother knows about the extra-marital affair of
his father, he wants to make his mother conscious towards her relationship.
Therefore it seems he wants to provide stimulus to his mother to fight for her right
as a wife. Therefore father and mother relationship are to a certain extent
disintegrated and Brati‟s attempt is to locate the problems of this so-called
bhadralok class.

Brati wants to highlight the pain that she has to suffer in a conjugal
relationship of the wife-husband. Further he also draws her attention to members of
the family that tortures her for her son-Brati.

BRATI (lowers his eyes): Mother you have to bear with a lot for me, don‟t
you?

83
 SUJATA: No, Brati. Bear with a lot for you? Oh, no.
BRATI: Don‟t they bully you a lot over me?
SUJATA: Let them.
BRATI (with tenderness and concern): Why do you bear it, mother?
SUJATA: It hurts once, doesn‟t hurt any longer. It hasn‟t hurt from the time
you came, because you‟re there (692).

Here, it seems that the rest of the family members except Sujata, perhaps the entire
Chatterjee family is aware of Brati‟s involvement in the Naxalite activities. Brati
knows the secret of the family like extra marital affair of his father, and he may
disturb their routine socio-economic and political life as they belong to upper class
society and engage in exploitation of marginalized section of society. Therefore
they show displeasure while she utters his name. It leads to a disintegration of a
family relationship.

During her discussion with Somu‟s mother, Sujata realizes her son is
involved in Naxalite activity and finally when she meets one of the members of
their Party- Nandini who questions the importance of relationship, that she realizes
that she did not really „know‟ her son:

SUJATA: …Brati was soul of my life, yet I knew him so little.

NANDINI: Did you ever try?
SUJATA: Is it a relationship where you have to try?
NANDINI: It‟s a deadly time when people do not belong to one another by
virtue of kinship or ties of blood. Everyone remains a stranger these
days to everyone. Its crime to allow this to persist.
SUJATA: Is it an obligation for parents alone?
NANDINI (smiling.): It‟s for you to take the step. Isn‟t it your obligation to
set a model for the younger generation to follow? Why do you
demand loyalty by virtue of relationships? Why don‟t you try to earn
it by virtue of your integrity? You won‟t be honest, won‟t forge
relationships, and then you put the whole blame on us.
SUJATA: I didn‟t say that.

84
 NANDINI: So where do we reach? Brati came from a household of a
certain kind, he hated his father. Sanchayan, Dipu, and Smaran came
from a smug high middle class. Somu, Laltu and Bijit belonged to
apolitical, poor refugee homes. Mani and Kushal had parents
involved in leftwing politics. But they all shared one common
feature: the children and the parents were strangers to one another
(701).

The alienation of the younger generation from the older generation is highlighted
constantly in the play. While the youngsters show revolutionary attitude towards
government and towards their family, the older generation seems to be lost within
the facades of keeping their class-integrity intact. These attitudes generate
difference between the generations. The parents remain engaged in their routine
activities and therefore they are unable to pay attention towards the activities of
their children. Thus, the family is supposed to be the basic unit of the bourgeois
state, itself disintegrates.

While people gather at Tuli‟s engagement, Mr. Kapadia inquires about the
untimely death of Brati and how he moved towards Naxalite activities. Dibyanath,
the father of Brati discloses the responsible factor for his involvement in Naxalite
activities in a typical hypocritical manner. The conversation between Mr. Kapadia
and Dibyanath shows the final disintegration:

MR KAPADIA: Mrs Chatterjee hasn‟t been able to recover from the shock
of your youngest son‟s death, it seems…
DIBYANATH: No, no …
MR KAPADIA: How could your son …?
DIBYANATH: Bad company, bad friends, the mothers influence.
MR KAPADIA: The mother‟s influence?
DIBYANATH: You don‟t know how close we were, the two of us!
MR KAPADIA: I know. Tuli told us.
DIBYANATH: Like babies.
MR KAPADIA: With a father like you, that‟d be natural.

85
 DIBYANATH: It broke my heart when I heard the news (708).
Here, Mahasweta Devi through the use of irony highlights the distance between the
father and son relationship. The father is unable to accept the involvement of his
son in Naxalite activity that questions the democratic set up, the very setup that he
is a part of it. As his father belongs to capitalist system whereas Brati looks after
marginalized section of society, there is contrast between father and son in their
respective mode of functioning. Perhaps such contrast in their function becomes a
source of his distance for his father at family level too.

In the next and final section, we will look at how individual status is
marginalized in different domains.

MARGINALIZED STATUS

Mahasweta Devi‟s Mother of 1084 deals with different layers of

marginalization. One of the ways is the marginalization under the context of social
construction of patriarchy. While in the early morning the telephone rings, Sujata,
mother of Brati Chatterjee comes out of the bed to receive the call. Talking on the
phone with an unknown person, finally she realizes that he is an officer. The
conversation between Sujata and the officer discloses marginalized status of
woman under the context of social and cultural construction.

VOICE (off): 460001?

SUJATA: Yes.
VOICE: Dibyanath Chatterjee‟s house?
SUJATA: Yes.
VOICE: Who are you?
SUJATA (Surprised): Mrs. Chatterjee.
VOICE: Mrs Dibyanath Chatterjee?
SUJATA: Yes. Who are you?
VOICE: Is there no male member around?
SUJATA: Still Sleeping. Who are you?
VOICE: What‟s Brati Chatterjee‟s relationship with you?

86
 SUJATA: Son.
VOICE: Son? Come to Kantapukur (683).

Here, the officer does not provide his identity himself to Sujata. Moreover, there is
also an attempt by Sujata to know the identity of the stranger. But she fails to get
the identity of the unknown person. The identity of the unknown person remains a
mystery for Sujata. Here it seems that the identity of the stranger is deliberately not
disclosed to Sujata thereby constructing an authoritative structure in which she is
unable to enter. In this mode of patriarchy that locates Sujata constantly as the
„outsider‟. The „male‟ world of violence seems to be alien to Sujata and the play is
an attempt on her part to recover her memories of her son from this violent world
of patriarchy. On the other hand, the officer attempts to search for an authority in
the house to attribute responsibility of the death of Brati. However, the authority of
the physical property-house concerns only the individual male identity of the house
instead of the collective identity of the family members. Here Dibyanath Chatterjee
is the owner of the house and rest of the family members are not in any way
connected or known by the ownership of the physical property. The name of
physical property-house generates an authoritative structure. Basically, Sujata by
getting married to Dibyanath Chatterjee should have equal status at social and
economic set-up but the cultural and social construction of society towards physical
property keeps her status marginalized. Therefore, she can be identified by certain
roles as mother and wife that are assigned to her by society. There is no individual
or independent identity of her at larger social, economic and political contexts. It
generates a space for her that cannot be filled. In the addition, one more instance of
marginalization of woman can be found at the family level. After receiving a call
from an officer, Sujata realizes that she needs to visit Kantapukur. She orders Jyoti,
her son to get the car out to go to Kantapukur but Dibyanath Chatterjee, denies her
demand to take the car out, as both, Jyoti and Dibyanath realize Brati has been
killed by Police excess at Kantapukur. The word, Kantapukur itself generates
suspicion in their minds as the conversation among the family members leads
towards the place, Kantapukur.

87
 DIBYANATH: Kantapukur?
SUJATA: Haven‟t told you? Jyoti, get the car out.
DIBYANATH: No. Not our car.
SUJATA: Why?
DIBYANATH: My car, at Kantapukur? No. Listen, Jyoti…
JYOTI: Yes?
SUJATA: But why? Why can‟t the car be there?
DIBYANATH: I need the car… (683-4).

Here, it seems that Dibyanath knows what has happened to Brati and he is also
worried about his social status. Therefore, Dibyanath refuses the demand which is
put forward by Sujata to drive the car at Kantapukur though she is his wife. Further,
he has also not provided any information about the place to Sujata. There is a
contradiction between two equal status authorities in the family. The denial of one
authority-husband towards another one-wife shows unhealthy relationship prevails
in family. Therefore such unhealthy relationship keeps the status of Sujata
marginalized under the context of family related issues.

While knowing Brati has been killed and police called the head of the
family at Kantapukur, the social and cultural construction of the authoritative
father- Dibyanath and his son, Jyoti instead decide to suppress the matter.

DIBYANATH (oblivious of Sujata’s presence): Jyoti, there may still be

time. Isn‟t there a relation of your mother-in-law‟s in the police?
JYOTI: A maternal cousin.
DIBYANATH: Ring him up. Chaudhari must help hush it up. He had
warned us.
SUJATA (uncomprehending, in a panic). What will you hush up? What are
you talking about?
DIBYANATH: Jyoti, there is no time to waste (684).

Here, it seems an attempt was made by Dibyanath and Jyoti to hide information
from Sujata. Perhaps they thought that information about the murder of Brati would

88
be shared and put them into trouble, especially their social status, as they may not
trust Sujata. On the other hand, Dibyanath prefers Jyoti, his son to share
information. It seems Dibyanath and Jyoti have come to know long back that such
horrible happening may occur with Brati but they did not share it with Sujata. They
do not want to take the blame of hiding information from Sujata. It finally
generates marginalized status of Sujata. There is an attempt by Sujata to break
Dibyanath‟s authoritative structure by asking questions to her son but the attitude
that is shown by Dibyanath forces Jyoti to negate the reply to Sujata. Her attempt to
enter into an authoritative structure fails and she remains marginalized.

At domestic level, marginalized status of Sujata can be observed. After two

years of Brati‟s untimely death, the telephone rings again on seventeenth of January
and Nandini is the caller. It is also the time of Brati‟s birthday.

SUJATA: Nandini? … Yes, this is Brati‟s mother…OK, I‟ll come… Right,

at four o‟clock then … No, I‟m not going to bank today. It‟s Tuli‟s
engagement today … No, they didn‟t ask me when they fixed the
day (686).

Family members do not even consult her to fix Tuli-her daughter‟s engagement
date. It seems a gap between husband and wife is generated and that gap itself
generates a gap among mother and children. As we have seen above Dibyanath
does not consult or even share information with his wife similarly children also do
not seem to share information or event with their mother. So in this social context,
Sujata is marginalized by family members. Marginalization thus, occurs in many
forms. On the one hand, there is the „political‟ marginalization of the Naxalites. On
the other, we have a certain patriarchy-driven marginalization. Mahasweta Devi
seems to suggest that they seem to go hand in hand. This is man‟s world that Sujata
is trying to make sense of it. Moreover, Sujata realizes she has been marginalized
like her son. While Tuli supports her father and Jyoti‟s attempt is to hush up Brati‟s
killing. Sujata does not approve it and raises questions about the role that is played
by family as well as relatives. It keeps her as well her son-Brati‟s status
marginalized.

89
 SUJATA (off): With Brati, they‟ve cast me too in the opposite camp. If
Brati had been like Jyoti, or a drunkard like Neepa‟s husband, Amit,
or a hardened fraud like Tony, or had run after the typists like his
father, he‟d have belonged to their camp (689).

As we have seen above Sujata realizes that her status is not valuable to Chatterjee
family. She also makes comparison of Brati to all male members of her family as
well as relatives to highlight his characteristics. It leads us to think that there is no
difference between her status in family and Brati‟s status in capitalist society. It
brings us to the common point that is the marginalized status of Brati and Sujata.

CONCLUSION

The themes of the play such as power structure of Institution focuses on

how political parties and government authorities utilize power for personal gain and
the power is always in the favour of capitalist that generate imbalance in the
society. The second theme, the contrast between middle class and upper class
society highlights the frustration of middle class society as corruption,
unemployment and poverty prevail in the Nation and that there is no one to look
after the middle class society whereas upper class society possess power as political
parties and government authorities are in their favour. The third theme,
disintegrating relationship highlights how a break down in the social fabric of the
family is replicated within the breakdown of the social fabric of the Nation at large.
Further individual who looks after marginalized sections of society becomes an
obstacle for the capitalist society. Therefore those who look after and those who
generate problem are disintegrated. Finally, I discussed the marginalized status of
individuals in gender discourse in particularly patriarchy and family issues. All
themes are connected by the thread that is power – either at the individual, social or
political level. We can thus, call the play Mother of 1084, political at all these
levels.

90
 Works Cited

Bendfeldt, Lennart. “The History of Naxal Movement: From Naxalbari to

Dantewada. Naxalism: The Moist Challenge to the Indian State.” N.p. n.d.
pp. 6, 7. Web. 9 April. 2015.<http://in.boell.org/sites/default/files/
gownloads/Naxalism_The_Maoist_Challenge_to_the_Indian_State_by_Len
nart_Bendfeldt.pdf.>.
Dasgupta, Biplab. “Naxalite Armed Struggles and the Annihilation Campaign in
Rural Areas.” EPW 8.4/6, Annual Number (Feb., 1973): 173. JSTOR. Web.
15 March 2015.
Deshpande, G P. Modern Indian Drama: An Anthology. Ed. G P Deshpande. New
Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2010. pp. 579. Print.
Devi, Mahasweta. Mother of 1084. Trans. Samik Bandopadhyay. Modern Indian
Drama. Ed. G. P. Deshpande. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2010. pp. 681-
711. Print.
Diwanji, A.K. “Who are the Naxalites?” Octo. 02, 2003. Web. 12 Feb, 2015.
<http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/02spec.htm>.
Franda, Marcus F. “India‟s Third Communist Party.” Asian Survey 9.11 (Nov.
1969): pp. 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 810. JSTOR. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
Lahiri, Sharmila Maitra. “Bridging Angst: Interpreting Mahasweta Devi‟s Mother
of 1084.” Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal. 1.1.
(January 2012). pp. 6. Web. 3 March, 2015.
Sarkar, Jaydip. “The Personal is Political: Re-reading Mahasweta Devi‟s Mother of
1084.” Indian Drama in English. Ed. Kaustav Chakraborty. PHI Learning
Private Ltd.: New Delhi, 2011. pp 255. Print.
Sengupta, Gautam. “The Mother of 1084: Political Drama Redefined” Indian
Drama in English. Ed. Kaustav Chakraborty. PHI Learning Private Ltd.:
New Delhi, 2011. pp 251. Print.
Shad, Asghar Ali. Genesis and Growth of Naxalite Movement in India. Trans.
Mushir Anwar. IPRI Paper, 2011. pp. 4, 17, 29, 30. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.ipripak.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/paper-15.pdf.>
Singh, Prakash. Preface. The Naxalite Movement in India. New Delhi: Rupa
91
 Publications: 2006. Google Book Search. Web. 10 March 2015.
Verma, Shrey. “History of the Naxalite Movement and Events leading up to the
Formation of the CPI (Maoist).” Far Reaching Consequences of the
Naxalite Problem in India: Understanding the Maoist Problem. Rakshak
Foundation, July 2011. 4, 6. Web. 12 Feb, 2015. <http://www.rakshakfoun
dation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/White-Paper-on-NaxaliteMovement
-in-India.pdf>.

92