IGNOU BEGE-107 Solved Question Paper PDF Download

IGNOU BEGE-107 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in Hindi

IGNOU BEGE-107 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in English

Q1. Write notes on any two of the following: 2×10=20 (a) Medieval plays (b) Apron stage (c) Tragedy (d) Tragi-comedy (e) Plot

Ans. (a) Medieval plays Medieval plays, which flourished in Europe roughly between the 10th and 16th centuries, were primarily religious in their subject matter. They emerged as part of church services, known as Liturgical Drama , intended to educate the illiterate masses about biblical stories. Over time, they moved out of the church and into marketplaces and public squares, becoming more elaborate and secular in tone. There are three main types of medieval plays:

• Mystery Plays: These were based on stories from the Bible, dramatizing events from Creation to the Last Judgment. They were often sponsored by guilds (trade associations) and presented in elaborate cycles, such as the York or Wakefield cycles.
• Miracle Plays: These focused on the lives of saints, the miracles they performed, and their martyrdom. The purpose of these plays was to inspire faith and veneration.
• Morality Plays: These differed from Mystery and Miracle plays as they taught moral lessons through allegorical characters who personified abstract concepts like Virtue, Vice, Death, and Mercy. The most famous example is Everyman , which depicts the journey of a typical human being towards salvation.

These plays laid the foundation for the development of secular theatre and significantly influenced the dramatists of the Elizabethan era.

(c) Tragedy Tragedy is a genre of drama that focuses on human suffering and calamitous events. It has its roots in ancient Greece, with Aristotle providing its most famous analysis in his work, Poetics . According to Aristotle, tragedy is “an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude,” and it aims to arouse the emotions of pity and fear in the audience, leading to a catharsis , or a purging of these emotions. The key elements of a tragedy are:

• The Tragic Hero: A character, typically of high social standing and noble qualities, who is not wholly evil but suffers a downfall due to a tragic flaw or error of judgment ( hamartia ).
• The Downfall: The hero’s fall from grace is caused by fate, his own mistakes, or a combination of both. It often involves a reversal of fortune ( peripeteia ) and a shift from ignorance to knowledge ( anagnorisis ).
• Serious Tone and Theme: Tragedy deals with universal human questions of love, loss, death, fate, and destiny. The language is often elevated and poetic.

From Greek tragedy (e.g., Sophocles’

Oedipus Rex

) to Shakespearean tragedy (e.g.,

Hamlet

or

Julius Caesar

) and modern tragedy (e.g., Arthur Miller’s

All My Sons

), the genre has evolved to explore the complexities of the human condition. Miller argued for the “Tragedy of the Common Man,” in which the tragic hero could be an ordinary person struggling to maintain his dignity.

Q2. Critically examine with reference to the context any two of the following: 2×10=20 (a) “For me! I was dying everyday and you were killing my boys and you did it for me? What the hell do you think I was thinking of, the god damn business? …. ‘Don’t you live in the world? ….’” (b) “Thy honourable mettle may be wrought / From that it is dispos’d: therefore ’tis meet / That noble minds keep even with their likes.” (c) “To sabotage our cause / It is treason to the people / It is like having homeguards in our midst! / These traitors must die!” (d) “For how many years have I been bearing the burden of life? And for how many years have I been looking after this family? And despite that, what have I come to… .”

Ans. (a) “For me! I was dying everyday…” Context: These lines are from Arthur Miller’s celebrated play, All My Sons . They are spoken by Chris Keller to his father, Joe Keller. This is a pivotal moment in the play’s climax when Chris finally realizes the full horror of his father’s crime—that Joe knowingly shipped defective airplane parts, causing the deaths of twenty-one pilots, all to save his business. Critical Examination: This dialogue encapsulates the central conflict of the play: personal gain and family responsibility versus social and moral responsibility. Joe Keller attempts to justify his actions by claiming he did it all “for the family,” specifically for Chris, to hand him a prosperous business. Chris’s reaction is a total repudiation of this logic. For him, Joe’s crime was not just a business decision; it was a profound personal betrayal. When Chris says, “I was dying everyday and you were killing my boys,” he is expressing his solidarity with the pilots who were his comrades-in-arms. He has lived with the trauma of losing his men in the war, and the discovery that his own father is responsible for such deaths shatters him. The line, “Don’t you live in the world?” articulates Miller’s key theme. Chris is forcing his father to understand that no man is an island. One’s actions, particularly those of a businessman, have far-reaching consequences in society. Joe’s narrow, familial world is in direct collision with the broader world to which Chris feels a responsibility. This moment marks the breakdown of Chris’s idealism and his confrontation with the ugly truth his family has been denying for years. It sets the stage for the play’s tragic conclusion.

(b) “Thy honourable mettle may be wrought…” Context: These lines are from Act I, Scene II of William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar . They are spoken by Cassius in a soliloquy, after Brutus has left the stage. Cassius is reflecting on his intention to secure Brutus’s participation in the conspiracy against Caesar. Critical Examination: This soliloquy provides a crucial insight into Cassius’s character and his manipulative strategies. He acknowledges Brutus’s “honourable mettle,” or noble and honest nature. However, he also believes this very nobility can be manipulated or “wrought.” Cassius recognizes that Brutus, in his idealism, is susceptible to the influence of clever and ambitious individuals. The statement “noble minds keep ever with their likes” can be interpreted in two ways. On the surface, it suggests that a noble person like Brutus should associate with other noble Romans, like Cassius, rather than a potential tyrant like Caesar. This is the argument Cassius uses to entice Brutus. However, there is a deeper, more ironic meaning. Cassius is essentially saying that if Brutus were left to his own devices, he would remain loyal to Caesar. It takes an external influence—namely, Cassius’s own—to change Brutus’s disposition. This portrays Cassius as a master manipulator who plans to exploit Brutus’s integrity for his own ends. He goes on to reveal his plan to throw forged letters into Brutus’s window, designed to make him believe the people of Rome want him to act against Caesar. This speech establishes one of the play’s central themes: the manipulation of idealism for political ends, and how noble intentions can be twisted towards destructive ends.

Q3. Discuss the dramatic techniques used by the writer in Ghashiram Kotwal.

Ans. Vijay Tendulkar’s Ghashiram Kotwal is a landmark in Indian theatre, largely due to its innovative dramatic techniques. Tendulkar masterfully blends elements of traditional Marathi folk theatre with modern political satire. 1. Use of Folk Theatre Forms: The play draws heavily from traditional Marathi folk forms, especially Tamasha and Kirtan .

• Tamasha: The use of music, dance, and humour is reminiscent of the Tamasha style. The group of Brahmins, who act as a chorus, frequently sing and dance, both narrating and commenting on the story. This makes the play a vibrant and energetic experience.
• Kirtan: The presence of a narrator or Sutradhar , who directly addresses the audience and relates the story, is derived from the tradition of Kirtan, a devotional performance.

2. Sutradhar and Chorus:

The play uses a traditional Sutradhar or narrator who introduces and moves the story forward. The chorus of Brahmins is a multi-functional device. They are narrators, commentators, and sometimes characters in the story. Their hypocrisy and duplicity symbolize the decadent society of Pune. They comment on the events, giving the play an epic dimension and encouraging the audience to maintain an emotional distance, a technique reminiscent of Brechtian theatre.

3. Music and Dance:

Music plays a central role in the play. The use of folk tunes and rhythms not only entertains but also underscores the satirical and tragic aspects of the story. For example, the Ganapati Vandana, traditionally an auspicious beginning, is used ironically to introduce a corrupt society. Dance and choreographed movements give the scenes a stylized and non-realistic quality.

4. Non-Realistic Presentation:

Tendulkar avoids a realistic plot. The structure of the play is episodic, highlighting key moments in Ghashiram’s rise and fall. The characters are often symbolic—Ghashiram represents the oppressed who turns into an oppressor, and Nana Phadnavis represents the cruel and cunning game of power.

5. Political Allegory:

Using these techniques, Tendulkar creates a powerful political allegory. The story of 18th-century Pune becomes a commentary on contemporary Indian politics, showing how power corrupts and how leaders create and destroy individuals to maintain their position.

In summary, the dramatic techniques of

Ghashiram Kotwal

are crucial to its effectiveness. They create a theatre that is traditional, entertaining, and deeply political, forcing the audience to reflect on power, morality, and social responsibility.

Q5. Discuss mother-son relationship in All My Sons.

Ans. In Arthur Miller’s play All My Sons , the mother-son relationship is a central and destructive force. The relationships that Kate Keller has with her two sons, Larry and Chris, drive the psychological tension and tragic culmination of the drama. Kate and Larry: Kate’s relationship with Larry is founded on her obsessive denial of his death. Larry, who went missing in the war, is kept alive in his mother’s mind as an idealized son. She maintains his room as a shrine, polishes his shoes, and clings to the belief that he will one day return. This denial is not just a mother’s grief; it is a deep psychological defence mechanism. Kate knows, subconsciously, that if Larry is dead, it means he was likely flying on the day the planes with faulty cylinder heads crashed. To accept this would be to accept the guilt of her husband, Joe Keller. Therefore, keeping Larry “alive” is her way of maintaining Joe’s innocence. This self-imposed delusion keeps the entire family emotionally paralyzed. Kate and Chris: Kate’s relationship with her surviving son, Chris, is fraught and complex. She loves Chris, but her love is often manipulative. She vehemently opposes Chris’s desire to marry Ann Deever, Larry’s former fiancée, because for her, it would be the final admission of Larry’s death. She uses emotional blackmail and guilt to control Chris, reminding him of his “responsibility” to the family. Chris, for his part, feels crushed by the weight of his mother’s denial and the giant shadow of his dead brother. He loves his mother and doesn’t want to hurt her, but he is also desperate to move on with his life and to face the truth. This conflict between mother and son reaches its zenith when Kate accidentally blurts out the truth: “Your brother’s alive, darling, because if he’s dead, your father killed him.” This horrifying statement exposes the central lie of the play and leads to the tragic, unavoidable confrontation. Ultimately, the mother-son relationship in All My Sons is a toxic mix of love, denial, and deeply buried guilt. Kate’s twisted love for her sons, her desperate need to keep one alive and to control the other, becomes a significant factor in the downfall of the Keller family.

Q6. Discuss the consequences of conspiracy against Caesar in the play Julius Caesar.

Ans. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar , the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar has far-reaching and disastrous consequences, precisely the opposite of what the conspirators intended. They hope to save the Republic, but instead, they destroy it, plunging Rome into chaos and civil war. Immediate Consequences: The most immediate consequence of the conspiracy is the brutal assassination of Caesar. However, the belief of Brutus and the other conspirators that this act will bring liberty to Rome is quickly proven wrong. A fatal mistake is their decision to spare Mark Antony, a shrewd and eloquent politician. Through his masterly oration at Caesar’s funeral, Antony skillfully turns the opinion of the grieving mob against the conspirators. He paints them as greedy, treacherous murderers, inciting a riot that forces Brutus and Cassius to flee Rome. Political Consequences: A power vacuum is created in Rome, which is soon filled by the Second Triumvirate—Antony, Octavius Caesar (Caesar’s adopted son), and Lepidus. Instead of preserving the Republic, the conspiracy has paved the way for an even more ruthless and tyrannical regime. The Triumvirate draws up a proscription list of their enemies, executing hundreds of senators and citizens, including Cicero, to consolidate their power. A bloody civil war ensues, fought between the forces of the conspirators and the armies of the Triumvirate. Personal Consequences for the Conspirators: The personal consequences are just as severe. Brutus, the “noblest Roman of them all,” is wracked with guilt and remorse. He is haunted by the ghost of Caesar at Sardis, which foretells his defeat at Philippi. The relationship between Brutus and Cassius becomes strained, as shown in their famous quarrel in the tent scene. Ultimately, facing defeat at the Battle of Philippi, both Brutus and Cassius commit suicide to avoid the humiliation of being taken captive. Ironic Conclusion: The greatest irony of the play is that in trying to prevent the tyranny of one man, the conspirators set in motion a chain of events that leads to civil war, thousands of deaths, and the eventual end of the Roman Republic. Octavius emerges victorious and later becomes Augustus Caesar, the first emperor of Rome. Thus, they unwittingly bring about the very thing they feared most, demonstrating how noble intentions can lead to unforeseen and catastrophic results.