We the commoners and the stage of the absurd

Henrik Ibsen was the unconventional dramatist of the nineteenth century who rebelled against the outdated traditions of his society. His dramas became a craze because they had a universal appeal which even influenced dramatists like George Bernard Shaw and Anton Chekhov. His drama A Doll’s House rocked the world of traditional drama when it was staged. However, in contrast to this, it was criticised at the time of its first-time publication. But, upon the awareness of the importance of the subject, it became part of the syllabi of the schools and colleges. Subsequently, it was heralded as the ‘first feminist play’ by the critics, who affirmed that with this drama, the ‘Natural Movement’ began. The film-making world was not behind in appreciation of the drama and put it on celluloid umpteenth times successfully.

A Doll’s House is the story of Nora Helmer – a married woman. Her husband Torvald treats her as a passive puppet who is supposed to dance and move at her husband’s command because she has no discretion of her own in life. The great Henrik Ibsen in his drama has not only challenged the so-called authority of the man in society but also encouraged the woman to break-open the binds of hypocrisy and adjustment prevailing in the Norwegian society then. If we look at our society precisely, it would appear like a big doll’s house where, in every person, we will find a hidden Torvald, who would be making people, of his kind, dance with a hint of his hand, and who, except for himself, is given to taking the rest as a bunch of idlers and grooves. Honestly speaking, our society, from day one, has been hatching horrible germs in the minds of its influentials, which is: that the common men are idlers, incompetent and senseless, therefore, owing to these shortcomings, they should be kept powerless and without rights. In addition, they should be reminded constantly that they have no right to govern. It is we who could carry the burden of running the state affairs, as we are the state. So never think of sharing the power with us because your primary task is to work and work for us.

The people, having such germs of machismo in their psyche, have gradually taken over the top positions in the parliament, the institutions, and the offices, while the common people have been given the commonplace jobs. As a result of this dispensation, an aristocratic class has come into existence. Thus, from day one, another Pakistan has come as well, a Pakistan that belonged to the commoners who, instead of prosperity, were given poverty, ignorance and troubles. Despite being the countrymen, their entry to it was impossible unless they belong to it. The outcome of this blatant discrimination is before us: the real inheritors of the country are suffering the injustices from the ruling elite which, like the boa constrictor, keeps growing on the blood of other species. At times, the politics, and its actors in Pakistan, seem like the characters of Ibsen and Shakespeare’s tragedies who, according to the Bard, come into the world to play their roles. However, with the emergence of the absurd dramas of Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco, the drama being staged on the stage of the world every day has been given the connotation of absurd; therefore, to give an opinion about it is difficult. Because it is not a realistic one, moving towards its climax. While the story of absurd may start and end from anywhere or may end never. Unlike the Shakespearean comedies and tragedies, the characters neither have a lasting face nor fate, and their fortune keeps fluctuating as such: in one moment the master transforms himself into a slave and in the other, the scene is portraying both in different roles. This is not all, after some moment it feels that the one who is powerful is not powerful and the powerless is not powerless. Moreover, these characters can also morph into rhinoceros and monkeys or a demon in a moment; and they can wrap up the common truths in hundreds of veils so that the people may lose their trust in its existence.

The central character of Ayn Rand’s great novel Anthem lives in the darkness of the future, where love is non-existent and where it is a sin to see others with affection. The story of the novel is the precursor of the horrible time in which the man is lost in the darkness of ignorance once again; and knowledge, wisdom, civilisation and art have become part of the past; and the past is the time that cannot be mentioned. In a society where loyalty to the system of governance is the essential condition and where, except for the authorised education, no other means of education is permissible, while the hero of the novellet was born with a thinking and questioning mind that challenged the norms of society and as a reward retrieved his lost individuality, to regain it was his destination. But his crime was that he stood tall amid the multitude of faceless and brainless people, and having shrugged off the opposition, kept moving towards his destination to recover his individuality. Though he was alone, he got back everything from fate and the system eventually.

This story is a call of protest against collectivism which forces every individual to be like others and helps build a society, in which, to be different is a crime.

Let us move forward. We are silent so we listen to the speech of the central character of Anthem who is asking us to challenge the stinking values of the filthy society. We can do it because we are not made of wood and stone. We have hearts and minds which yearn for success and prosperity like the privileged class. If we stay put and do not wrestle equal rights from the usurpers, our role will be disgusting and far inferior to that of the characters on the stage of the absurd.