Class 12 NCERT English Kaleidoscope Drama Lesson 2 Broken Images Solutions

Class 12 NCERT English Kaleidoscope Drama Lesson 2 Broken Images Question and Answers.

Thinking about the Play

1. How genuine is the love that Manjula expresses for her sister?

2. The sister does not appear in the play but is central to it. What picture of her is built in your mind from references in the play?

3. When the image says- ‘Her illness was unfortunate. But because of it. she got the best of everything’

(i) What is the nature of Manjula’s reply?

(ii) How can it be related to what follows in the play?

4. What are the issues that the playwright satirises through this TV monologue of a celebrity?

Answer:

1. How genuine is the love that Manjula expresses for her sister?

The genuineness of Manjula’s love for her sister is complex and open to interpretation, but there are indications that it is indeed genuine, albeit perhaps tinged with other emotions:

• Direct Statements of Love: Manjula explicitly states, “I wasn’t pretending. I loved her. I love her. Still. I don’t think I have ever been as close to anyone else.” These are direct expressions of deep affection.
• Admiration and Respect: She speaks of Malini as being more attractive and intelligent than herself, acknowledging and accepting this without apparent resentment. She admired Malini’s vivacity and her ability to radiate life despite her confinement.
• Gratitude for Malini’s Consideration: Manjula recounts how Malini insisted on selling the Koramangala house to avoid disrupting Manjula’s life, highlighting Malini’s sensitivity and care for her sister. This suggests a reciprocal affection.
• The Novel’s Inspiration: Manjula explicitly states that she owes her ability to recreate the inner life of a disabled person to Malini, implying a deep empathy and understanding born from their relationship.

However, the conversation with the Image also reveals potential undercurrents of other emotions:

• Feeling Second Best: Manjula admits to being “reconciled to being the second best,” suggesting that Malini’s illness and the attention she received might have subtly positioned Manjula in a secondary role within the family.
• Questioning Her Own Potential: Manjula wonders if she would have been as bright had she received the same level of attention as Malini, hinting at a possible feeling of being somewhat overlooked.
• The “Unattractive Cousin” in the Novel: The fact that Manjula identifies with the unattractive cousin in her novel could suggest some level of subconscious resentment or a feeling of being less favored.

Overall, while Manjula expresses genuine love and admiration for her sister, the dialogue hints at a complex emotional landscape where feelings of being second best and perhaps a touch of unspoken envy might also exist. The love is likely real, but not without its nuances shaped by their unique family dynamics.

2. The sister does not appear in the play but is central to it. What picture of her is built in your mind from references in the play?

From the references in the play, a picture of Malini as a remarkable and impactful individual emerges:

• Physically Challenged but Spiritually Vibrant: Confined to a wheelchair due to meningomyelocele, Malini’s physical limitations contrasted sharply with her inner vitality. She “radiated life” despite her confinement.
• Intelligent and Hungry for Knowledge: She was taught English and Mathematics at home but was self-taught in other subjects like History, Philosophy, and Anatomy, indicating a sharp intellect and a strong thirst for learning.
• Attractive and Vivacious: Manjula describes her as more attractive and vivacious than herself, suggesting a captivating personality.
• Sensitive and Considerate: Malini was aware of and concerned about Manjula’s well-being, insisting on selling the Koramangala house to avoid disrupting her sister’s life.
• Independent and Resilient: She adjusted beautifully to the smaller house, showing resilience and a lack of self-pity or demanding behavior (“She never asked for anything”).
• Spoke and Dreamed in English: English was the primary language of her inner world and her interactions with friends, highlighting her integration into a more globalized social circle.
• A Central Figure in the Family: She was “the apple of their eye,” receiving a significant amount of her parents’ attention and financial resources for her care.
• Close to Pramod: She had a close relationship with Manjula’s husband, Pramod, which was a source of comfort and support for her.

In essence, Malini is portrayed as a bright, vivacious, and considerate individual who, despite significant physical challenges, lived a rich intellectual and emotional life and had a profound impact on those around her, particularly Manjula.

3. When the image says- ‘Her illness was unfortunate. But because of it. she got the best of everything’ (i) What is the nature of Manjula’s reply? (ii) How can it be related to what follows in the play?

(i) What is the nature of Manjula’s reply?

Manjula’s reply is defensive and seeks to correct the Image’s potentially insensitive statement. She immediately asserts, “She never asked for anything.” She then proceeds to provide specific examples of the care and attention Malini received, emphasizing that this was a consequence of her needs due to her condition, not a deliberate act of seeking preferential treatment. Her tone suggests a need to protect Malini’s memory and counter any implication that Malini unfairly benefited from her illness.

(ii) How can it be related to what follows in the play?

Manjula’s defensive reply and the subsequent details she provides about Malini’s upbringing and their family dynamics set the stage for the exploration of several key themes in the rest of the play:

• The Complexities of Sibling Relationships: It hints at the potential for subtle feelings of being overshadowed or less favored, even within a loving family, when one sibling has significant needs. This undercurrent is further explored in Manjula’s later admissions about feeling like the “second best” and her reflections on whether she would have been as bright with the same level of attention.
• The Burden of Caregiving (Implied): While Manjula doesn’t explicitly complain, the focus on Malini’s needs and the family’s adjustments to accommodate her implicitly touches upon the different experiences of the siblings. Manjula’s life was also shaped by Malini’s condition, even if she was not the direct recipient of the intensive care.
• The Nature of Empathy and Inspiration: Manjula’s ability to write about a disabled character stems from her deep connection with Malini. This exchange highlights the profound influence Malini had on Manjula’s life and creative work.
• The Contrast Between Public Persona and Private Feelings: Manjula’s public success as a writer contrasts with the more nuanced and perhaps less openly acknowledged aspects of her personal history and her relationship with her sister. The Image’s comment and Manjula’s reaction begin to peel back the layers of her carefully constructed public image.

In essence, this exchange about Malini receiving “the best of everything” acts as a catalyst, prompting Manjula to reveal more about her past and the intricate dynamics of her family, which are central to understanding her motivations and the underlying tensions that the Image continues to probe.

4. What are the issues that the playwright satirises through this TV monologue of a celebrity?

Through Manjula Nayak’s TV monologue and her subsequent interactions with the Image, the playwright satirises several contemporary issues surrounding celebrity, literature, and cultural identity:

• The Obsession with Financial Success: The initial focus on Manjula’s advance and the public’s preoccupation with the money earned by Indian writers in English satirises the often-superficial way literary success is measured and the envy it can generate. The Kannada proverb about “Artha” meaning both “meaning” and “money” underscores this materialistic focus.
• The Language Debate and Intellectual Hypocrisy: The vehement criticism Manjula faces for writing in English, even from those who themselves use English, satirises the often-rigid and hypocritical stances taken in the language debate in India. The President of the Sahitya Akademi’s English pronouncement about English writers being motivated by money is a prime example of this hypocrisy.
• The Commodification of Identity and “Indianness”: The British publishers praising Manjula’s novel for its “genuine Indian feel” while often rejecting manuscripts written for a Western audience satirises the Western market’s demand for a certain kind of “authentic” Indian narrative, potentially reducing complex realities to marketable tropes.
• The Performance of Empathy and the Exploitation of Personal Tragedy: The Image questioning the sincerity of Manjula’s tears for her sister hints at the way celebrities might perform emotions for public consumption and potentially exploit personal tragedies for narrative impact. Manjula’s defensiveness further complicates this issue.
• The Disconnect Between Public Image and Private Reality: The entire premise of the Image confronting Manjula reveals the gap between the carefully constructed public persona of a celebrity and their often more complex and less flattering inner thoughts and motivations.
• The Nature of Literary Inspiration and Creativity: Manjula’s explanation that the novel “burst out in English” challenges the notion that a writer’s choice of language is always a conscious and politically motivated decision, suggesting a more organic and perhaps inexplicable creative process.
• The Celebrity Interview Format: The play itself, framed as a TV appearance, satirises the often-superficial and carefully managed nature of celebrity interviews, where the subject controls the narrative until an unexpected element (the sentient Image) disrupts it.

By using the familiar format of a celebrity TV appearance and then subverting it with the 등장 of the Image, the playwright cleverly satirises various aspects of the contemporary literary and media landscape, prompting the audience to question the authenticity of public personas and the underlying motivations and complexities of celebrated figures.

Talking about the Play

1. ‘Broken Images’ takes up a debate that has grown steadily since 1947-the polities of language in Indian literary culture, specifically in relation to modern Indian language and English. Discuss.

2. The play deals with a Kannada women writer who unexpectedly produces an international bestseller in English.

(i) Can a writer be a truly bilingual practitioner?

(ii) Does writing in an ‘other tongue’ amount to betrayal of the mother tongue?

Answer:

1. ‘Broken Images’ takes up a debate that has grown steadily since 1947—the politics of language in Indian literary culture, specifically in relation to modern Indian languages and English. Discuss.  

“Broken Images” directly engages with the complex and often contentious politics of language that have been a significant aspect of Indian literary culture since independence in 1947. The play highlights several key facets of this debate:  

• The Dominance and Appeal of English: Manjula’s unexpected success with an English novel underscores the global reach and financial rewards often associated with writing in English. This reflects a post-colonial reality where English continues to hold a position of power and prestige, attracting both writers seeking wider audiences and publishers looking for international sales. The announcer’s emphasis on the global sensation and the British advance highlights this allure.  
• The Anxiety and Accusations of Betrayal: The strong negative reactions Manjula faces from Kannada intellectuals and writers (“breathing fire,” accusing her of “betrayal”) represent a common sentiment within regional language literary circles. There’s often a concern that writing in English dilutes the richness and authenticity of Indian experiences rooted in indigenous languages and caters to a Western gaze. This anxiety stems from a fear of cultural erosion and the marginalization of modern Indian languages.  
• The Question of Authenticity and “Indianness”: The pundit’s assertion that no Indian writer can express themselves honestly in English and the British publishers’ compliment about the “genuine Indian feel” of Manjula’s English novel reveal the complexities of defining and marketing “Indianness” in literature written in a non-Indian language. It raises questions about whether cultural authenticity can truly be conveyed in a language not organically tied to the lived experiences of the majority.
• The Economic Realities for Writers: Manjula’s pragmatic response about financial incentives (“Why not? Isn’t that a good enough reason?”) brings to the forefront the economic disparities often faced by writers in regional languages compared to those writing in English. The Kannada proverb linking “Artha” (meaning) with “money” subtly underscores this economic dimension.
• The Fluidity of Identity and Creative Impulse: Manjula’s insistence that the novel “burst out in English” challenges the notion of a rigid linguistic identity for writers. It suggests that creative expression can sometimes transcend conscious choice and emerge in the language that feels most natural for a particular story or moment. This complicates the idea of a writer solely belonging to one linguistic tradition.
• The Role of Translation (Implicit): While not explicitly discussed, the existence of a Kannada telefilm based on Manjula’s English novel implicitly touches upon the role of translation in bridging linguistic divides and making literature accessible to wider audiences within India.

In essence, “Broken Images” uses Manjula’s personal experience to dissect the complex politics of language in India. It highlights the tensions between global aspirations and regional loyalties, economic realities and artistic integrity, and the evolving definitions of Indian literary culture in a multilingual and increasingly interconnected world. The play doesn’t offer easy answers but instead lays bare the anxieties, contradictions, and ongoing debates surrounding the choice of language for Indian writers.  

2. The play deals with a Kannada woman writer who unexpectedly produces an international bestseller in English.  

(i) Can a writer be a truly bilingual practitioner?

The play suggests that being a truly bilingual practitioner is possible, although it can be complex and potentially lead to questions of identity and authenticity.

• Manjula’s Background: Manjula was a “renowned Kannada short-story writer” and a lecturer in English. This establishes her proficiency and prior engagement with both languages.
• A.K. Ramanujan as an Example: The announcer mentions A.K. Ramanujan as someone “equally at home in both languages,” providing a real-world example of a successful bilingual writer.  
• The Creative Impulse: Manjula’s experience of her novel “bursting out in English” suggests that the language of creation can sometimes be independent of a writer’s primary linguistic identity or past practice. This could indicate a genuine capacity to think and create effectively in more than one language.
• Potential for Different Audiences and Themes: A bilingual writer might choose to write in different languages for different audiences or to explore different themes that resonate more strongly in one language over the other.
• Challenges to Acceptance: Despite the possibility, the play also highlights the challenges a bilingual writer might face in terms of acceptance and categorization within their original linguistic community. Manjula’s experience of being accused of “betrayal” demonstrates this difficulty.

Ultimately, the play doesn’t offer a definitive answer but presents a scenario where a writer with a strong foundation in one language unexpectedly finds success in another. It suggests that while true bilingualism in creative practice is possible, it can be fraught with cultural and critical complexities.

(ii) Does writing in an ‘other tongue’ amount to betrayal of the mother tongue?

The play directly confronts this sensitive question, primarily through the reactions Manjula faces and her own defense:

• The Accusation: The strong negative reactions from Kannada intellectuals and friends clearly frame her choice as a “betrayal” of Kannada. This perspective often stems from a sense of linguistic loyalty, a concern for the vitality of regional languages in the face of English dominance, and a feeling that writers have a responsibility to contribute to their mother tongue’s literary tradition.
• Manjula’s Defense: Manjula vehemently rejects the idea of conscious betrayal. She argues that the language of her novel was not a deliberate choice but an organic outpouring. She also points out the hypocrisy of those criticizing her while benefiting from the global reach of English.
• The Pragmatic Argument: Her mention of financial incentives and the wider audience available in English offers a pragmatic counterpoint to the emotional argument of betrayal.
• The Question of Honesty and Authenticity: The pundit’s view that English is a “medium of dishonesty” for Indian writers represents a deeper concern about whether genuine Indian experiences and sensibilities can be truly expressed in a language with a different cultural and historical context. Manjula counters this by stating she couldn’t have written about her English-speaking sister in Kannada.

The play, through this conflict, suggests that the question of “betrayal” is not a simple one. It involves complex issues of linguistic identity, creative freedom, economic realities, the desire for wider readership, and the ever-evolving landscape of Indian literary culture in a globalized world. Manjula’s experience highlights the pain and complexity faced by writers who navigate these linguistic boundaries. The play leans towards understanding the individual creative impulse while acknowledging the strong emotional and cultural attachments to the mother tongue.

Appreciation

1. Why do you think the playwright has used the technique of the image in the play?

2. The play is called a monologue. Why is it made to turn dialogic?

3. What is the posture the celebrity adopts when the camera is on and when it is off?

Answer:

1. Why do you think the playwright has used the technique of the image in the play?

The playwright’s use of the Image as a distinct entity serves several crucial dramatic and thematic purposes:

• Externalization of Inner Conflict: The Image acts as a tangible manifestation of Manjula’s subconscious, her hidden anxieties, insecurities, and perhaps even her suppressed ego. It voices the doubts and criticisms she might be aware of but tries to ignore or rationalize. This allows the audience direct access to her internal struggles, making the psychological drama visible and engaging.
• Unveiling the Truth: The Image relentlessly probes Manjula, forcing her to confront uncomfortable truths about her motivations, her relationships (especially with Malini), and her self-perception. It acts as a mirror reflecting her “broken images” of herself and her past.
• Creating Dramatic Tension and Conflict: The dialogue between Manjula and the Image generates significant dramatic tension. Manjula’s initial denial, confusion, and eventual anger create a compelling conflict that drives the play forward and keeps the audience intrigued.
• Satirical Tool: The Image often voices cynical or critical perspectives on Manjula’s celebrity persona and her justifications. This allows the playwright to subtly satirize the world of celebrity, the politics of language, and the complexities of self-perception.
• Exploring the Nature of Identity: The interplay between Manjula and her Image raises questions about the nature of identity – is it singular and unified, or a collection of different facets, some more hidden than others? The Image represents a part of Manjula that she has perhaps tried to suppress or present differently to the world.
• Breaking the Monologue Form: The introduction of the Image transforms what begins as a monologue into a dialogue, making the play more dynamic and engaging for the audience. It prevents the potential static nature of a pure monologue.
• The Power of Media and Self-Representation: Given the setting of a television studio, the Image can also be seen as a distorted reflection created by the media and Manjula’s attempts to control her public image. It’s the “broken image” projected onto the screen and into her own consciousness.

In essence, the Image is a brilliant dramatic device that allows the playwright to delve into the protagonist’s psyche, expose hidden truths, create conflict, offer social commentary, and explore complex themes of identity and self-representation in a compelling and theatrical way.

2. The play is called a monologue. Why is it made to turn dialogic?

The play is titled “Broken Images,” which hints at the fractured nature of Manjula’s self-perception. The initial monologue establishes the public persona Manjula wishes to project – the successful writer confidently addressing her audience. However, the introduction of the Image and the subsequent dialogue serve several critical functions that justify the shift from a pure monologue:

• To Reveal the “Broken Images”: The dialogue with the Image is the primary mechanism through which the playwright exposes the contradictions, insecurities, and hidden truths beneath Manjula’s confident facade. The Image forces her to confront the “broken images” she holds of herself and her past. A pure monologue might allow her to maintain her carefully constructed self-representation.
• To Create Dramatic Conflict: A sustained monologue can become static. The dialogue injects immediate conflict and tension, making the play more engaging and theatrical. The audience witnesses Manjula’s struggle to maintain her composure and her justifications in the face of the Image’s relentless probing.
• To Explore the Subjectivity of Truth: The dialogue highlights the subjective nature of truth and memory. Manjula’s version of events is constantly challenged and reinterpreted by the Image, suggesting that there are multiple perspectives and perhaps a more complex reality she is unwilling to fully acknowledge.
• To Engage the Audience More Actively: A dialogue is inherently more dynamic and invites the audience to take sides or form their own interpretations of the unfolding conflict. It prevents the audience from passively receiving information and instead encourages them to actively engage with Manjula’s internal struggle.
• To Break the Expected Form: The subversion of the monologue form itself can be seen as a deliberate artistic choice, mirroring the “broken” nature of the protagonist’s self-image and the fractured reality she inhabits.

Therefore, the play is made to turn dialogic to create dramatic conflict, to delve deeper into the protagonist’s psyche and reveal her hidden truths (“broken images”), to explore the subjectivity of reality, and to engage the audience more actively in the unfolding drama. The title “Broken Images” foreshadows this fracturing of the singular voice into a dialogue between the conscious self and its repressed or unacknowledged aspects.

3. What is the posture the celebrity adopts when the camera is on and when it is off?

• When the camera is on (during the initial monologue): Manjula adopts a confident and poised posture. The stage directions describe her as having a “confident stride” when she enters. She sits on the chair, adjusts her earpiece, and speaks directly to the “invisible audience” with assurance. Her tone is often lighthearted and even slightly defiant, as seen in her responses to the anticipated questions about writing in English. She is in control of her presentation, projecting the image of a successful and self-assured celebrity writer.
• When the camera is off (during the dialogue with the Image): Manjula’s posture shifts to one of discomfort, defensiveness, and eventual agitation. She is initially startled and confused by the Image’s voice. She looks around baffled, touches her earpiece, and rushes back to her chair in confusion. As the dialogue progresses and the Image probes her more deeply, her composure breaks down. She becomes defensive when questioned about Malini and Pramod, and finally explodes in anger at the perceived interrogation. Her physical movements and vocal tone reflect her increasing unease and the crumbling of her carefully constructed public image. She is no longer in control of the narrative, and her posture reveals her vulnerability and the internal conflict she is experiencing.