cultural bosses are promoting a notion of Indianness which is nothing
but narrow Hinduism
few years ago, there was a derailment of the critical discourse in Indian
theatre. What it did, was to quietly disengage with contemporaneity and
engage with Indianness as a benchmark for critical judgment. Incidentally,
this was also the time of a similar derailment in Indian politics —
there was a disengagement with secularism, with Hindutva replacing it
as a benchmark for patriotism. In politics, a rightwing Hindu party did
the derailment. But in theatre, it was we, the insiders who did the damage.
Since the late 70s,
there has been an insidious attempt by official cultural bodies —
through patronage, awards, membership of official cultural bodies, foreign
trips, production grants — to make Indian theatre look Indian (Indian
actually meaning Hindu). The Sangeet Natak Akademi went to the extent
of issuing a fatwa, enlisting a series of traditional forms to be used
as production styles in contemporary theatre productions, if they were
to be funded by the Akademi.
An Indian artist
had to ‘prove’ his Indianness. Some of us joined the Indianness
bandwagon. A lot of us resisted and had to fend for ourselves. It was
an attempt by the cultural bosses to selectively privilege certain productions
and plays on the basis of a perceived notion of Indianness.
So what is wrong with
Indian theatre looking more Indian? Nothing, except that Indian theatre
has always looked Indian. Think of productions like Jasma Odan directed
by Shanta Gandhi, Agra Bazaar by Habib Tanvir, Ashadh Ka Ek Din by Ebrahim
Alkazi, and Rakta Karabi by Shambhu Mitra. We already had the Indian People’s
Theatre Association, Hindustani theatre, Parsi theatre, Surabhi theatre,
company theatre, etc. It was not looks, but perception, which was dividing
Indian theatre in a dangerous way.
A pattern emerges
if we look at the background of those who were favoured and those who
were not. Among those who were favoured were Brahmins or high caste Hindus.
Those who were excluded were non-Hindus, dalits, women directors and Left
radicals. Had this privileging happened purely on merit then there could
have been some justification. But that is not so. The upshot was that
vernacular languages were marginalised. The development of character,
portrayal of the psychological self and detailing were shelved. To put
it crudely, this era of Indianness meant a removal of the trouser and
shirt from the theatre and the re-establishment of the dhoti, and Brahminical
ethos in its place. Women, dalits, minorities — all became stereotypes
or were relegated to the sidelines.
A specific example
of the people excluded: one of the senior-most theatre persons —
Badal Sircar. Till the mid-seventies he was considered a leading modern
Indian playwright along with Mohan Rakesh, Vijay Tendulkar and Girish
Karnad. Rakesh died early. Karnad and Tendulkar made suitable adjustments
in their style and flourished. Sircar refused to budge and was sidelined.
He rejected his own early plays as bourgeois and moved closer to agit-prop
theatre. He continues to perform street plays at his advanced age. He
is a sad and bitter man. He is a Christian and a Left radical. His Left
radicalism shows in his works but he did not construct a Christian India
either in his early works or in his later, agit-prop phase. He has built
a contemporary India. We have treated him very badly.
am not talking about individual talent here but about history. BV Karanth,
who was the director of National School of Drama (nsd) from 1977 to 1981,
went on to become the harbinger of the Indianness era. Theatre commentators
like the late Suresh Awasthi and critic Nemichandra Jain ably assisted
Karanthji, to construct an ideological base for Indianness. They tried
to show younger theatre practitioners “how to circumvent realism
and reach the Natya Shastra or theatrical nirvana if you prefer!”
Ratan Thiyam, Kavalam Narayana Panicker, BV Karanth and a host of others
became role models for the new perception. The next three decades in Indian
theatre were filled with a series of zonal festivals, national festivals
and seminars celebrating the notion of Indianness.
But what these (mostly
Delhi-based) cultural bosses were actually doing was to construct a Hindu
way of performing theatre and side step the production style of Ebrahim
Alkazi, who is considered the father of modern Indian theatre by many
and whose stint as a teacher at the National School Drama earned him the
status of a cult figure among an entire generation of theatre aspirants.
But he was declared a western mind and kept aside.
Take the example of
Habib Tanvir. A Muslim by birth, a Communist by conviction and an Indian
performer to boot. He has always worked with folk forms and even lived
with folk performers. He should have been the presiding deity of the Indianness
brigade. There was a short-lived honeymoon. But they soon realised the
double disadvantage of his birth and his conviction. They dumped him.
But Habib saab is a survivor. He refuses to be defeated, and keeps travelling
with his group. Habib saab as we all know, did not construct a Muslim
India. He constructed a rural India.
The list of the talented
and excluded is endless. Fritz Bennewitz, MS Sathyu, Mohan Upreti, Gursharan
Singh, Bhishma Sahni, GP Deshpande, Barry John, Amal Allana, Devendra
Raj Ankur, Robin Das, Naseeruddin Shah, Arun Mukherjee, Satyadev Dubey,
Nadira Babbar and G. Shankara Pillai, among others.
We have neglected
the source of Indian theatre by fooling ourselves with half-backed aesthetic
theories. Theatre has to spring from schools, factory sites, the urban
ghetto and the semi-rural small town. It cannot happen if we don’t
encourage those who are doing theatre in the field. If Barry John, VK
Sharma and KG Krishna Murthy want to do children’s plays, critically
acclaim it. If Sircar, Basavalingaiah, Gursharan Singh and others want
to do agit-prop theatre, it is because there are millions of people agitating
on the streets. They should be accorded the same status as KN Panicker
and Ratan Thiyam. Ranjit Kapoor does urban popular theatre, BM Shah did
comedies, Mahan Upreti did musicals, Ankur does story-telling theatre.
They should all be recognised as pioneers in those genres. If Kirti Jain,
Maya Rao, Anuradha Kapur, Anamika Haksar and Lakshmi want to do gender
sensitive theatre, they are responding to society. They should be provided
a proper space to operate.
There is no such thing
as ‘The Theatre’. Indian theatre is a federation of many theatre
styles. Even to become a true Indian, we shall have to move forward, rather
than backward. So let us all move forward towards a contemporary Indian
Excerpted from the
veteran theatre director’s recent convocation keynote address at
I am reading Rick Warren’s
The Purpose-Driven Life at the moment. He’s
a motivational speaker. The basic premise of the
book is about finding meaning and direction in
your life. I am really enjoying it
The last movie I saw was Alexander.
It was too much like Troy and so I didn’t
really enjoy it. On
television, my favourite shows are Kumars at No
42 and Just Shoot Me. I watch the Travel &
Living channel because I love travelling.
I’ve been totally engrossed
in Rabbi Shergill’s soulful and eclectic
music. A friend of mine recently told me that
she listened to Rabbi at a club in Italy! That
says a lot about how the world is embracing Indian