Judging a Character's Choice in Abhijnanasakuntalam
A 20-mark essay question on Abhijnanasakuntalam asks: 'Dushyanta's rejection of Sakuntala is either a failure of dharma or the effect of Durvasa's curse. Argue which interpretation the play supports.' A candidate writes 380 words calling Dushyanta 'a villain' and applying Aristotle's hamartia; she mentions the curse only once as an excuse and never discusses the ring or the public/private conflict. The rubric awards 6 marks for textual evidence, 6 for dramatic convention, 4 for dharma/nyaya, and 4 for structure. She has 35 minutes and 200 words left. She asks whether to defend her original thesis or rewrite the opening. Her notes include a paraphrase of a line in which Dushyanta says his mind is confused, but she cannot recall the exact Sanskrit wording.
1. Should she defend or rewrite the thesis? Give the strongest revised thesis and the reasoning.
Read the worked answer
She should rewrite the thesis. 'Villain' is a moral verdict, not a literary argument, and it ignores the play's own mechanism: the curse causes forgetting, and the ring restores recognition. But the curse does not simply excuse Dushyanta; it externalises a conflict between royal dharma, which demands public proof, and personal love, which Sakuntala embodies. A stronger thesis is: 'The play does not acquit or convict Dushyanta; it dramatises the cost of dharma when public duty and private fidelity collide, using the curse and the ring to make memory the test of justice.' This thesis answers the question, uses dramatic convention, and leaves room for textual evidence. The original opening would force her to defend a claim the play does not support.
2. Which textual evidence should she prioritise in 200 words, and why?
Read the worked answer
She should prioritise three moments rather than retell the plot. First, the curse scene, because it establishes the dramatic convention that governs Dushyanta's memory. Second, the rejection scene, because it shows his public role and Sakuntala's demand for recognition. Third, the ring scene, because it converts private memory into public proof and enables the final reconciliation. One paraphrased line about his confused mind can support the rejection scene if she marks it as paraphrase rather than pretending to quote exactly. She should avoid long plot summary because the rubric rewards evidence and argument. Two well-analysed scenes and one brief reference are enough for 200 words; a list of five incidents without analysis would waste space.
3. How should she handle Aristotle's hamartia without misapplying it?
Read the worked answer
She may use hamartia as a comparative term in one sentence, but she should not make it the main frame. Sanskrit dramaturgy has its own categories: rasa, dharma, natya and recognition. If she writes 'if compared with Aristotle's hamartia, Dushyanta's error is not a character flaw but a condition imposed by the curse', she shows awareness without importing a foreign judgement. The sentence must be tied back to the Sanskrit play's terms. Otherwise the exam answer becomes an essay about Greek tragedy rather than Abhijnanasakuntalam. Comparative remarks earn credit only when they clarify the Sanskrit text, not when they replace its vocabulary.