The paper intends to focus on the questions: Why do the protagonists seem to be following the same pattern, in the selected plays and why don’t the protagonists attain their dreamt aim? How and why the protagonists were or were not ‘legitimate’, when they imposed their ‘assured ways on the ‘people’? These questions have been explored in the light of different defining factors and kinds of definitions, generally come across about reality. In in a wider sense, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. In simple words reality embraces everything that has existed, exists, or will exist. It can be inferred that reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. The authour has formulated his view on the postmodern observation that society exists for the good of its members; that society is divided into two opposing classes; that knowledge is worth seeking for its own sake. Some meta-narratives are described as ‘grand narratives’. These are general accounts of human society and its history, as provided by Christianity, Hegalianism or Marxism. The view that history is a process of human emancipation is another ‘grand narrative’. However in the plays of Karnd the protagonist come across situations, which compel and force them to act and respond either in accordance to traditions or to take decisions, as they deem fit. The grounds in the characters’ temperament, desires, and moral nature of their speech and actions prove to be of ‘anti-foundationalist. The one group of the protagonist exercises its ‘authority’ to create the ‘ideal’ world, (for example Tuglaq) and the other ‘group’ (people who protest) resists against the change.