I quote first the definition for a frame narrative by Bernard Duyfhuizen in an authoritative handbook of narratology. “Framed narratives occur in narrative situations when events are narrated by a character other than the primary narrator or when a character tells a tale that,

although unrelated to the main story, contains a moral message for the listener of the text.”

A frame narrative ,to put in is a a literary technique that serves as a companion piece to a story within a story, where an introductory or main narrative sets the stage either for a more emphasized second narrative or for a set of shorter stories. The frame story leads readers/audience from one story into one or more shorter stories within it. It may be also used to inform readers about aspects of the secondary narratives that may otherwise be hard to understand. This should not be confused with narrative structure or character personality change. A frame narrative or a frame story is also called a “sandwich narrative”or an” intercalated narrative”.

One narrative is embedded or nested with a second story and acts as a commentary on the frame narrative or vice versa.

Thus on the primary level a narrator tells a story, in which there can be a second-level narrator, who then tells his own narrative which takes place on a tertiary level. The appearance of the secondary level, traditionally called an embedding or an intercalation, changes the story of the primary level into a” Frame Narrative”.

BACKGROUND AND ORIGIN OF FRAME STORY /FRAME NARRATIVE STRUCTURE:

The frame structure has been noted both in the Indian literature and in the Western literature from early on, but it took time for anybody to give it proper scholarly attention as a structural device and place it firmly into the landscape of literary history and theory.

This particular structural device has dominated narrative texts in old Indian literature: the frame story. If one wanted to collect several narratives within one work, the solution has always been the frame. It is present everywhere and in many forms in the Mahābhārata,  the two-thousand-year-old national epic of India, and repeated in its smaller cousin, equally influential Rāmāyaṇa. It is used in the Pañcatantra, a somewhat later, immensely popular collection of stories, to such a measure that there are many embeddings on the fourth and fifth level in this text. And as the device was exported to the medieval Middle East by translations of Pañcatantra as early as in the 6th to 8th centuries CE and started a vogue there, Syntipas's The Seven Wise Masters, and the fable collections Hitopadesha and Vikram and The Vampire and later in medieval Europe, it may well be that the Indian frame eventually provided the model for the well-known story-within-a-story structure of the  One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights), The Decameron and Canterbury Tales.

 But where did the frame come from to those early texts of India? This question has not attracted much attention, and in my opinion it has not yet been adequately answered.

The development of Indian frame narrative has its roots up to the Classical age, i.e. the period when classical Sanskrit language as it was codified by the grammar of” Pāṇini”became the predominant medium of the secular “court literature” (kāvya). It concentrates on the first appearances of framing technique in the Vedic age (ca. 1000 - 500 BCE) in the Ṛgvedic hymns and later exegetical texts called Brāhmaṇas and follows the history of the frame to the age of the great epics Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa (ca. 400 BCE - 200 CE).

HOW TO WRITE A FRAME NARRATIVE ?

There are a few different versions of a frame narrative or frame story. First, it could involve a narrator or main character of a story relaying various smaller stories over the course of a book like in the novel The Book of the One Thousand and One Nights. On the other hand, it could be a specific character from a story selected to relay the events of the novel as opposed to simply telling the story objectively. In this second option, it may be a specific character that has a connection to another character or characters. An example of this would be Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, where the story is told from the perspective of Robert Walton as the information was relayed to him by Doctor Frankenstein. On the other hand, the framing could simply be that the story is told from the protagonist’s perspective, but after the events of the story have already taken place. Using this perspective allows the protagonist to relay information with insight as (s)he is an older and wiser version of him/herself.

Following are some points which have to be kept in mind while forming a frame narrative-

 DETERMINE THE PURPOSE:

When used well, a frame narrative creates an incredibly fascinating and multifaceted tale with many perspectives to delve into. If used incorrectly, however, this can create a confusing and continuity-impaired story. Therefore, a writer should employ this technique only if it will truly benefit the story to do so. Before you go any further, ask yourself honestly, how will a frame narrative better my story? The main benefit of a frame narrative is to tell a story (whether it be the entirety of the book or individual stories throughout) using the voice of a specific character who exists outside the confines of the story. Whether that’s a future version of your own protagonist or a side character who would give good insight to the story’s events, ask yourself, how would this structure strengthen the events or themes of my story?

 CHOOSE A NARRATOR:

As stated previously, the main purpose of the frame narrative is to use a specific character’s voice to convey the events of the story as opposed to using an impartial narrator or first person present perspective. Once you’ve decided to use the frame narrative structure, you must first choose who will be telling your story (or stories). Think about what your goal of using the technique is and who will be the best voice to accomplish that goal. Possibly the most popular version of this structure is using a future version of the protagonist to tell the story of what they’ve gone through. One of the major setbacks of employing this technique, however, is that it completely does away with a lot of the suspense created in a story. When your reader is hearing a story from someone years in the future, it lets them know right away that your protagonist survived the events of the story. However, remaining aloof about the protagonist’s present circumstances can allow a certain amount of suspense to remain.

 GET ORGANIZED:

As we’re sure you can imagine, creating a story employing this technique can be extremely confusing. Since the story will be told using one person’s perspective as opposed to an omniscient narrator who can jump perspectives, you have to make sure each character’s arc is thoroughly plotted before you even begin the writing process. If done correctly, the stories will likely intercept with one another, so make sure you know where in each person’s timeline each interaction takes place.

ALLOW YOUR NARRATOR TO INTERJECT AND HAVE OPINIONS:

One of the most important and advantageous aspects of writing from a frame narrative is the character’s voice. When using this technique, allow your narrator to interject on the events as they occur. Allow them to reflect on them, have opinions, and be angry or happy or annoyed. Use them to foreshadow the climax of the story or have them give their opinions on the nature of certain characters.Another aspect that you may want to consider playing around with is the reliability of your narrator. Perhaps the narrator of your story clearly hates a certain character (maybe even the protagonist), but as the story unfolds, you start to see that the character is actually really kind and harmless. Or maybe the narrator is really down on him or herself, but as the story continues, the audience can see that they’re actually just being too hard on themselves. Or perhaps the narrator doesn’t remember how a certain event took place, and instead just gives the audience the gist of it. This creates another added layer to the story and allows the audience to form opinions and judgments of the narrator and their role in the story as a whole.

ORAL TRADITION AND INDIAN LITERATURE:

Human beings have always told stories. It is one of the most important things which makes us who were and distinguishes us from other creatures on this planet. Before the invention of any modern electronic equipment like television or computer, listening and telling stories was the most favorite time pass. Stories were used to pass on real events, history, family connections and also as an entertainment. They were used to teach children and to hand down values and customs from generation to generation. In India, since the Vedic age there has been  a tradition of oral education. Oral education means transferring the knowledge from one person to another through narration. This was the birth story of Panchatantra. That is why it is interesting to view education from the narrative perspective. This narrative about Panchatantra given above takes us into the deep education history of India.

Panchatantra which was originally constructed or narrated by Pandit Vishnusharma, is a group of seventy two short stories divided in the above mentioned five chapters. Each chapter has a basic frame story containing other short stories within. All these short stories in a basic frame story have a purpose. That purpose can be understood with respect to the purpose of the basic frame story. We can compare it to the rings we see after dropping a stone into a still lake. They arise from a common center yet different from each other. So these stories can be told as individual different stories but still if looked into the context they have some other meaning to tell.

The unique feature of Panchatantra is the structure of the frame story. This structure keeps the reader or the listener involved in the story.

The stories are mostly in the form of dialogues. Two main characters in the basic frame story start talking to each other about certain incidents and in the flow of the discourse they tell some principles of practical wisdom to each other. The other character asks to explain that principle in detail so the

The first character starts telling a story which explains the principle told earlier.This interesting element of storytelling was used in Panchatantra to educate the students as storytelling is nothing but participation, participation by the narrator and participation by the listener. Here ,we can see that the creator and the narrator of the story is one and the same. But this is not prevalent in most of the oral Indian tradition where the stories are transmitted orally , we don’t have a direct narrative,the narratorial voice is always visible through another person I.e the pseudo narrator through whom we have the narration of the stories. In the typical Indian tradition the creator of the story is not so important ,what is more important is the person who is narrating the story.

The narrator appears frequently in this structure.. She/he can be found by answering the question: “Who is speaking?”.

The main aspects of the narrator are the scope of the knowledge of what they tell, their reliability, their articulateness, their relation to the narrative act (the degree of status, authority and formality), the attitude to the narrated (distance and tone)  and their projected role (an eye-witness, a chronicler, a storyteller etc.). The concept of

focalization (“Who sees?”),  combines some of these aspects by

defining different points-of-view that the narrator may have.

Frame story usually is found in fiction such as novels,short stories, television, films, musicals, and opera. However, this technique has also taken its place in the field of PLAYS and DRAMA. Dramatic techniques or devices are used by playwrights. A dramatist has an advantage in being able to use most of the literary devices that are available to novelists,as well as as using dramatic devices or techniques suitable to the stage.

Thus this paper shall depict a close reading of ‘Frame Story ‘or ‘A play within a Play’ as a dramatic device in INDIAN PLAYS.

‘A play-within-a-play’ is a literary device in which an additional play is performed during the performance of the main play. Experts agree that the device is generally used to highlight important themes or ideas of the main play.A play within a play is when the characters whom the actors are portraying on stage, are themselves actors and perform a play within the context of the main story.

By allowing the playwright to present a play within a play, a frame narrative leads the reader from the first story into another one, which is within the overall play. This guidance allows the frame narrative to establish the context for the embedded narrative, and, more specifically, call attention to the situation of how the story is told. The resulting effect of the guidance is that the frame narrative allows the playwright to create the context for how the narrative should be interpreted.

Here are some of the characteristics of a’ play within play’:-

Multiple Perspectives:

One thing a frame narrative does is change the point of view from which the play is presented. In other words, a frame narrative offers the reader /audience multiple points of view within the same story. The effect is that the reader/audience is presented with multiple perspectives of the story within one text, and these multiple perspectives provide the reader /audience with more information about the characters including their motivations, thoughts and feelings.

Multiple Stories:.

A frame narrative also allows the playwright to incorporate a set of smaller narratives into one overall story. In general, a play within a main play is used to sum up some aspect of the framing story. The overall effect of this type of frame narrative is to tie all of the stories together to present the reader with one collection of related tales.

Multiple Levels of Meaning:

Overall, frame narratives are used to provide the reader/playwright with multiple levels of meaning. Whether a narrative contains one embedded narrative or a series of related stories, the framing of a narrative creates opportunities for multiple levels of interpretation. For instance, a frame may expand or shrink the distance between the reader/audience and the story, change the reader/audience’s sense of what is and what is not important, or imply certain sociological, political or ethical consequences that reach beyond the text into the outside world. All of these effects of frame narratives give stories different levels of meaning.

The essence of life is revealed in genres of literature, including poetry ,fiction and drama. Drama being essentially a social art is perhaps the most important form of literature that leads to a comprehensive understanding of the society and the individual.

A play within a play is a dramatic plot device or extended metaphor where characters narrate one story while still part of another. Playwrights use such juxtaposition of nested plays to give a performance of self-reflection and to reiterate the play's main themes. A play that is being performed in the confines of another play. The characters of the play watch a play being performed for them. You are not the intended audience for the play within a play ,the characters in the play are the audience.

William Shakespeare cleverly deployed the play within a play device in many works such as the play "The Mouse-trap" is staged by Prince Hamlet in order to put pressure on the King and to reveal his guilty conscience.  However, it was Thomas Kyd's revenge drama "The Spanish Tragedy," written between 1587 and 1590, that first used this element and set new standards for plot construction.

The same dramatic device was known to the playwrights of India. This is not a device that naturally belongs to the infancy of drama, it occurs usually in more advanced use of art.

I shall be talking about  two highly intellectual and prominent Indian Contemporary Playwrights who with their advanced skills of art and literature have employed this technique in their respective works. These playwrights are GIRISH KARNAD and BADAL SIRCAR. The plays which are going to be analysed are ‘HAYAVADANA’ by ‘Girish Karnad’ and ‘EVAM INDRAJIT’ by’ Badal Sircar’. Hayavadana draws inspiration from a 1940 novella by Thomas Mann called The Transposed Heads. The Devadatta-Kapila-Padmini storyline is drawn from this work, but Karnad puts much more focus on the psychological struggles of the three characters than Mann did. Mann, for his part, drew inspiration for The Transposed Heads from an eleventh century Sanskrit text called the Kathasaritsagara.

Metatheatre describes aspects of a play that draw attention to its nature as a play. Though the “play within a play” is a common conceit, Hayavadana is unusual in that it has several layers: first, the play opens with a ritual to Ganesha, as the Bhagavata (a narrator-like character) asks Ganesha to bless the play that the company is about to perform. In the middle of this ritual, Hayavadana is introduced and he explains his origin as a half-horse, half-man. As he goes off to attempt to change his head into a human head, the Bhagavata begins the real play,which concerns the love triangle of Devadatta, Kapila, and Padmini. Eventually, the storylines begin to interrupt and weave in and out of one another, and the Bhagavata appears not to know what happens as the story continues. Although this unique use of three separate storylines may seem at first to distract from the main storyline, the play’s metatheatrical elements and the eventual surprise return of Padmini’s child ultimately invite the audience to believe in the power of stories, and in the power of the joy that can be found in stories.

Throughout the play, various characters wear masks. Thus, rather than attempting realism, Karnad draws attention to the fact that the audience is watching a play and plays many dramatic moments for comedic effect. First, the puja to Ganesha introduces the symbol of the masks. The mask of Ganesha is the mask of an elephant, establishing masks as a theatrical device. Hayavadana’s mask is that of a horse’s head, and draws attention to the theatrical conceit of an actor playing a man with a horse’s head, and this incongruity elicits a lot of comedy as he tries to hide his head and as the Bhagavata attempts to pull it off. Devadatta and Kapila also are played by actors wearing masks because their heads eventually must be “cut off” and switched. This allows Karnad to use what might in another play be a serious moment to comic effect, as the two struggle to cut off their “heads.”

As the story continues into the second act, it seems to spin more and more out of the Bhagavata’s control, and the storylines begin to intersect with one another. The Bhagavata starts to interact with the characters directly, speaking to Kapila when he discovers him in the woods and startled by finding Devadatta there as well. He also speaks to Padmini before she performs sati, and she tells him to take care of her infant son. At these moments, the line between the world of the storyteller and the world of the story is blurred, thereby also disrupting the distinction between fiction and reality, or the stage and the world at large. This is also true of Hayavadana’s storyline; because he “interrupts” the play, it is as if he exists on the same level of reality as the audience rather than remaining inside the play with the other characters. In this way, the play repeatedly calls attention to the fact that it is a” play within a play” and makes use of such moments to create humor, as well as to comment on the importance of telling stories more generally.

The joy found in this kind of storytelling becomes most thematically resonant at the end of the play, when a young child appears onstage. The Bhagavata quickly realizes that it is Padmini’s child by the mole on his shoulder and the  he carries, which Padmini had given to him. An  explains that the child has never laughed, cried, or spoken in his life, but he begins to laugh at Hayavadana because of his human voice and horse body. The child’s joy causes Hayavadana to laugh as well, and as his laughter turns into a horse’s neigh, he loses his human voice and becomes a complete horse. This gives closure to the two main storylines of the play (Padmini’s story and Hayavadana’s). The fact that Padmini’s child returns at the end as an older boy within the Hayavadana storyline pulls the two stories—which were previously presented as separate—into the same reality. When the boy and Hayavadana find happiness with each other, each storyline finds its end. The metatheatrical elements of the play are repeatedly played for comedic effect, but the end of the play goes further, reinforcing the power of storytelling to bring people together.

SECOND PLAY- EVAM INDRAJIT

Evam Indrajit  is the most celebrated work of Indian dramatist and theater director Badal Sarkar. It was originally written in Bengali in the year 1963 and performed by the theatre group 'Shatabdi' formed by the writer. Evam Indrajit became a landmark in the Indian theaters and was translated into many languages over the years. Dr Pratibha Agarwal translated it into Hindi during the period of 1970. Later in the year 1974 it was translated into English by Girish Karnad and published by Oxford University Press.

The play Evam Indrajit is a milestone in the history of modern Indian drama. Indrajit, the central character in the play, becomes the spokesman of the young generation of the 1960s since, in him, the contemporary youths discover all their aspirations, compromises as well as the sense of hopelessness and futility which ultimately result in the feeling of anguish and depression. Rustom Bharucha has linked this play to Beckett‟s Waiting for Godot.

The first act of the play begins with a writer, who is seen to be frustrated without any content to write his story. His mother comes onto the stage, asking him to eat dinner, unable to understand the depth of his struggle. He is inspired by Manasi and decides to write about four people among the audience. They are Amal Kumar Bose, Vimal Kumar Ghosh, Kamal Kumar Sen, and Nirmal Kumar. The name of the fourth person is not acceptable to the writer who asks him to reveal his real name. After a little persuasion he states his name to be Indrajit and when inquired about him, hiding his identity, he states he is afraid. He says he is scared to bring unrest by breaking the norm.(the name of the mythical rebel Meghnad who defeated INDRA,the INDIAN ZEUS.) From this point in the play The Writer takes over like an ubiquitous and omniscient presence ,probing the lives of AMAL, VIMAL,KAMAL AND INDRAJIT. (The the very indulgence of the writer in the lives of these people marks our attention to the dramatic technique of a “play within a play.”). As the narration goes he is revealed to be a common man, born, schooling, work, every aspect of his life reoccurs in the same place. A scene is depicted where the same conversation is repeated, but only Indrajit realizes. Indrajit talks to the writer and reveals his anguish towards the norms of the society and his desperate dreams to go away from this world. But the thought of his mother binds him, relationships and emotions stops him. The narration then moves to the writer, who is a constant part of his plot and he wishes to write about the lives of these characters with a heroine Manasi. Then he asks Indrajit about his love interest in Manasi. He tries to correct the name in the beginning, but then accepts it to be Manasi. Indrajit starts to talk about his relation with Manasi, with whom he could talk and find meaning in those talks. Their relation is like every other relation. The next scene shows the original four characters waiting to go for an interview. They were asked to be there at eleven, while the interviewer came one hour late. A few minutes later they are joined by the writer, who had two interviews that clashed. He tells them his problems, after his marriage and his urgency to get a job because he married against his father's wishes and has also bought a flat.

Every scene breaks off with Indrajit's mother asking him to eat,and Manasi asking whether he has written anything yet which shows the connection of the writer to his character.( this breaks the link of the present story and the audience is made to think forth and back ). Next there is a scene where Amal,Kamal, Vimal and Indrajit are talking about an exam. A table and a stool.papers and answer books.the writer acts as the invigilator .The bell rings.The writer says,”Time up,stop writing please.” They continue to write hurriedly. The writer snatches away the papers.

After this scene the audience are made to be presented with the second act where the actor and Indrajit come across after about seven years. It's an office setting where the writer,Amal, Kamal,Vimal and Indrajit  all of them have a life where they perform the same task in the office, filing papers, stamping files and organizing files. In this act, the writer keeps switching his personality as the boss and someone named  Hareesh who is assumed as the peon. Mansi also changes her role to a secretary.

(the writer becomes the boss again.the phone rings.)Writer-hello-hello-yes-yes-bye! Miss Malhotra……

Mansi:( enters with a steno pad ) yes ,sir.(pg 33 act2)

(This creates a tone of suspense and confusion in the minds of the audience/reader as they are made to think how is this possible ,what happened to the original Mansi and so on. ) They do not have a break from this routine. Here again this steady and futile lifestyle suffocates Indrajit who wants something outside all these customs. He is searching for something outside the real world. Also he has not married yet because Manasi wants more time and later he decides to go abroad. Realizing his search is in vain, exhausted him and he decides to accept his fate and walks away from his dreams once again.

(ACT 3)- AMAL ,VIMAL AND KAMAL are playing cards. Each line is followed by the throw of a card. After every card,the cards are mixed and the game begins anew.

The third act of the play clearly reveals Indrajit's vision through a letter the writer receives. Indrajit writes about the life that goes in circles wherever he is and the worst part is that he knows about the world that goes round and round. At a certain point in his life he pulls at the rope of hope to find a meaning to life but ends with a rope that is bitten off. He is then presented on stage with an idealistic approach to life. He cannot make any sense of things he has achieved in life and have thoughts of dying unable to find faith in life. When Manasi asks the writer about his story, he says he is at a point where the writer cannot continue, neither can he kill him nor can he put Indrajit into a plot that matters. The writer is again stuck, like he was at the beginning without a story. Indrajit comes to the stage and tells the writer that he married Manasi, but the writer does not agree. But it is true in his concept of life, because life has taught him, that there is not just one Manasi but many. It has made Indrajit one among Amal, Vimal and Kamal, just an ordinary man. He does meet his old friend Manasi, and tells her how there is no escape from this life of sorrow. Finally he accepts the shackles of the society and names himself 'Nirmal Kumar Ray' - an ordinary man with ordinary ambitions and an ordinary life. Recall that this is the exact name the writer does not accept at the beginning of the play.

Towards the end, we see Indrajit and Manasi (his childhood friend and cousin) at their designated spot - near a tree in an empty plot of land. Indrajit is now mature, but the nagging question of "why" still bothers him. He wants to know why we do the things we do, the way we do them. He wonders aloud at the pointlessness of walking a path with no beginning, no end, and most importantly no meaning. It is then the Myth of Sisyphus is invoked in the storyline, with the writer explaining to Indrajit the pointlessness of Sisyphus's condition. It is here that both - Indrajit and the reader - finally have a solution to the problem of life. The solution is to accept the pointlessness and the absurdity of life, and yet carry on with it. When there is a path, you have to tread on it. That itself is the meaning of life as per the writer. The play is open-ended. The audience leaves the theatre not with a calm, pacified mind but

with a disturbed mind. So, towards the end of the play is the beginning of the audience's consciousness.

CONCLUSION

 To conclude, I would like to say that these types of plays leave the audience/reader with multiple perspectives, different points of view and uter suspense. They in fact ask the question of whether to trust the narrator or the characters of the play. Whether to go with the protagonist or with the narrator as they have been presented with different stories within the same play. This is the most unique feature of ‘a play within a play’ as it gives the liberty to have multiple perspectives and opinions about a single play with more than one story in it like a chinese box,one inside another.

A play within a play (or a story within a story) has mostly philosophical reasons to be there. Of course, in a plot the play that is inside the other, even though it could seem as completely different from the outer play, there should be an inner connection between the two plays, maybe a hidden message or usually the same "theme".

I would suggest viewing it as a kind of a frame. You put a play inside another play so in this way the outer play is a kind of a frame to the inner play. Why do we use frames in pictures? To better focus on the picture, to highlight it and to say "hey, everyone, take a look at this picture". So in a way the inner play has (or should have) a lot of significance, and by having it inside another play it's like we underline its message.