I don’t know what it is that connects Pakistani plays with Kashmiri masses, initially it was the ‘Star-Plus’ and other some channels which were being watched in Indian-occupied Kashmir, but now it totally topsy-turvy, since’ Zindagi’ has been added to in the dish-network as a paid- channel in India which plays the beautify and heart touching dramas of Pakistan, since then it is being preferred in Kashmir than some other channels. I once got the opportunity to talk to an elder- person who was watching ‘Humsafar’, said ‘The play of Pakistan are very polite and see there is this coyness in it, unlike Indian plays which lack such quality.’ The person seemed to me as if he had met his dream.
‘Pakistani plays would always show their quality best, they would reveal the fountain of philosophy, morality, ethics, discipline, and what not?’ My mom would tell my sister when she would watch Indian soap-opera. Pakistani plays have impressed me to a large extent, whenever I watch them I feel as if I am brought to the world which is my own, and I feel the oneness with the Pakistani-plays.
The language of Pakistani-plays have always been my gravitational focus, it seems as if there is some magnet in it, which attracts you, catches you and then drags you to that circle which we have seen in the radio, where from it is difficult to set yourself free.
I have always been the love-loran of Pakistani-plays; I use word love-loran, because of my busy schedule. I have always given Pakistani-plays priority, and it has always been my desire to spend some time before TV and watch the plays of Pakistan.
Not only this but also the plot-construction of Pakistani plays have impressed me a lot. The connectivity, structure, pathos, catharsis, farce etc have always been the centre of gravity. Whenever I get a chance to watch Pakistani-plays; I have always felt that they suffice the principles set by Aristotle for plays.
Recently I got a chance of watching a play namely ‘Badi- Aapa’ which impressed me at its best. The play revolves round some characters, who have acted as a sort of cartelistic agent in the play; on watching this play I was reminded of ‘T.S Eliot’s’ essay ‘Tradition and individual Talent’, in which Eliot focuses upon the role of an artist and a poet. The play seems meeting the ends with the essay of Eliot.
The character of Badi-Aapa has been brought as the lime-light in the play. Badi-Aapa, who showers her dominant role in the family, ruins herself by becoming the victim of darkness that Gazanfar, has always been in love with her. The most revives I read on internet have shown Gazanfar as a good person, which I categorically decline, had Gazanfar been a good person, then he would have not put Badi-Aapa in darkness by sharing most of the time with her than his wife and other members of his family . It is Gazanfar who sows the love seed in the mind of Badi-Aapa that she still is his prime attention than her sister and his wife Firdousa.
In whole play Gazanfar has been projected very informal with Badi-Aapa after his break-up with her, and he is seen using the word ‘Zubi’ for her off and on by which Zubaida gets the impression that he (Gazanfar) is still deeply drowned in her love. Had Gazanfar having loyalty and fidelity, he would then have never been informal to zubaida after their breakup and she becoming the wife of someone else.
Zubaida, in the play is the victim of Gazanfar, and it’s Gazanfar who is the real culprit of Zubaida. Gazanfar’s portrayal in the play is as treacherous because he always cares about his family son and wife, and flirts with Zubaida by sharing flattery talks and candle light dinner. However, at the end of the play he does say to her that she is his family which looks startling strange, had he considered Zubaida as family he would have then made her understand about her steps and their consequential. In my eyes the only culprit is Ganzafar.
Firdousa, the wife of Gazanfar has been projected as the idiotic character, which she isn’t. She unlike Zubaida cares about her family and demands fidelity from her husband, which is not wrong in any sense. She doesn’t like Gazanfar spending hours with her sister who was Gazanfar’s ex-fiancée, which is expected by every moral-wife and ethical-wife, who loves and cares her husband.
Farmaan, the husband of Zubaida, seems weak and feeble person in the play, although he loves his first wife much more than second one, but his integrity lacks the standards, he has been quite acquainted with her walk-talk style, still then he does not tell her about his tastes and other ethical obligations as a wife and as a mother out of fear that she might leave her, if he does; although marries clandestinely. He is a scrawny from every nook and corner as he still pleads before her of accepting after seeing him openly with Gazanfar, and after declaring divorce in front of him.
However, he says Adeel that he does not fear her but loves her very much, but for a man of integrity respect and honour is more worthy than someone’s love. After analysing Farmaan’s character I came to the conclusion that man should have integrity than thinking too much about love and other things, which results in the ignominy and disgrace of Farmaan.
The play is a sort admonition for those who still after marriage and making good families tatter in the ways of those who have left them long ago forever, and don’t think to start afresh life after their marriage and leave the past which is lost forever as each day is brand new day.