STUDY MATERIAL on Generic Elective (ENGLISH) Paper TEXT AND PERFORMANCE
Rakesh H. Solomon classifies modern theatre into three phases : the Orientalist phase that begins in the late 18th century with the birth of Indology; the high nationalist phase at the turn of the 20th century and the postcolonial phase from 1947 to the present (Solomon, 2009, p.4). The British brought theatre to India as a form of entertainment that catered to their people stationed in India. The Playhouse(Calcutta, 1753), Calcutta Theatre(1775) and Bombay Theatre(1776), the earliest theatres established in India, introduced innovations like the proscenium arch and drop curtain to the Indian stage. This exclusive form of entertainment for the British soon opened itself up to the Indian middle class elite. This was also a part of the British agenda of disseminating knowledge of ‘superior’ cultures that would ‘humanize’ the natives. Thus, a class of English-educated elites would be produced that would help them in effective governance and control over the colonized societies.
After the war of independence in 1857 and the Indigo revolt of 1859-60, theatre became a mode of communication for anti-colonial sentiment and a powerful means of mobilization. Availability of printed copies contributed to the wide reach of theatre. The publication of the English translation of Nil Darpan(1860), a play written by Dinabandhu Mitra on the colonial oppression of indigo farm workers in Bengal, marked a decisive turn in the history of anti-colonial theatre in India.
The open critique of oppressive British policies generated a tremendous response and led to a whole tradition of subversive, anti-colonial writing. Playwrights such as Sisir Ghose, Manmohan Bose and Girish Chandra Ghosh wrote plays that radically questioned British policies. Nil Darpan was followed by anticolonial plays like Gaekwar Durpan and Chakar Darpan, written by Dakshina Charan Chattopadhyay, based on the conditions of workers in tea plantations. The efforts led to the building up of the Great National Theatre in Calcutta in 1875, that also started touring northern India (Bhatia, 2004, p.35). The anxieties and fears of the colonial authorities and their desire to curb the effectiveness of theatre led to the passage of the Dramatic Performances Censorship Act in 1876, whereby the government could “prohibit dramatic performances which are scandalous, defamatory, seditious, obscene or otherwise prejudicial to the public interest” (Bhatia, 2009, p.427). The following statement made by a government official in 1876 on the need for governmental control over theatre is an indication of the subversive power of performative practices.
As censorship became more severe, dramatists at the turn of the century began to camouflage contemporary concern through mythological stories. Thus, mythological drama emerged as an important genre that sought to challenge colonialism and built a national identity. However, its celebration of a Hindu national identity was deeply problematic.
Aimed at challenging colonial structures, such Hinduistic revivals consequently fostered the simultaneous growth of a Hindu nationalism. In this context, besides a story of repression and resistance, dramatic censorship and anti colonial nationalist drama are also part of the story of the consolidation of an elite Hindu nationalism.
The Indologists
While the colonial government sought to exercise control over the contents of dramatic productions through censorship, scholars associated with the school of Indology implicitly hierarchized Indian theatrical traditions and pushed some traditional forms into disrepute and oblivion. The curiosity and eagerness to systematically understand native culture led to the development of ‘Indology’ as a discipline. Scholars interested in the culture and philosophy of India such as William Jones, H.H.Wilson and Goethe responded excitedly to the ‘discovery’ of ancient Indian culture by western scholars. William Jones translated Kalidasa’s Abhijanasakuntala into English in 1789 and this was followed by a spate of translations into Danish, French, Italian and German. With this translation Jones announced his discovery of the great Sanskrit culture and theatre which he equated with “ the national theatre of the Hindus” (Dharwadker, 2005, p.7). Similarly, Sylvain Levi, in his history of Indian Theatre, Le Theatre Indien (1890) describes Sanskrit theatre as “ Indian Theatre par excellence”. At the same time, he dismisses non-Sanskrit popular theatre as “ unsophisticated”, “indifferent to literary qualities” and as having “no history” (Bhatia, 2009, p.11-12).
Clearly, the Indologists’ recuperation of Indian theatre traditions was not an objective collection of facts. Their version authoritatively equated Sanskrit tradition/Hindu tradition with Indian tradition and constructed an exoticized view of India as changeless and fixed. Moreover, their inability to cope with a variety of languages and forms of folk theatre bred insecurities and anxieties, thus leading them to brand folk theatres as licentious and low.
The western-educated middle class internalized this idea of English theatre as high culture and
indigenous forms as immoral. In their desire to construct a national identity which was both modern and rooted, they reinforced this idea of Sanskrit theatre as a glorious tradition that had to be merged with European modernity. This devalued folk traditions further and invisibilized them.
Parsi Theatre
A significant popular trend that flourished in India between the 1850s and the 1930s was that of
Parsi Theatre. This was the first major pan-Indian commercial and professional theatre seen in 19th century India. Beginning as an amateur student dramatic society at Elphinstone College, Bombay in 1850, it developed into a highly successful commercial venture that had an all-India presence. Initially funded by Parsi businessmen, it soon developed into a multi-troupe venture with salaried actors and dramatists drawn across regional and linguistic boundaries.
The productions that the troupes in Parsi theatre mounted were usually extravagant, melodramatic and grand spectacles. These plays drew their stories from Hindu mythology and epics, the Persian Shahnama, Arabian Nights, Victorian melodramas and even Shakespeare. Elaborate music and dance sequences enhanced their mass popular appeal. In appropriating the western stage and techniques and combining it with indigenous forms such as the nautanki and tamasha, it emerged as a truly hybrid theatre.
Shakespearean adaptations include Ahsan’s Khun-e-nahaq (1898 from Hamlet), Shahid-e-wafa (1898 from Othello), Hashr’s Safed Khun (1906 from King Lear) and Betab’s Gorakhdhanda (1909 from Comedy of Errors) (Lal, 2004, p.340). Javed Malick, in his essay, “Foreign Origins/Native Destinations: Shakespeare and the Logic of Vernacular Public Stage” identifies at least 75 texts used by Parsi Theatre that are either direct translations or adaptations of Shakespeare and terms it ‘nativising’ of Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s plays, in fact, formed an important part of English Studies in Indian universities. He was a venerated cultural icon and a symbol of the cultural superiority of the British. Malick suggests that the appropriation of this
grand icon into the vernacular may be seen as an act of cultural resistance.
However, most middle and upper class dramatists of the time dismissed Parsi theatre as cheap,
tittilating and catering to ‘low’ tastes for mere commercial interests.
Contributions of Bharatendu Harishchandra
Bharatendu Harishchandra (1850-85), considered the father of modern Hindi drama, was one of the earliest literary figures to articulate the need for the establishment of a national theatre. Known for his political plays, such as Bharat Durdasha (1876), Andher Nagari (1881) and Nildevi (1881) and many Shakespearean adaptations, he was also instrumental in setting up theatres in Banaras, Allahabad, Kanpur and Bareilly. Bharatendu distanced himself from commercial theatre, which he considered to be ‘low’ and ‘vulgar’ and conceptualized theatre as a national institution for the moral, ethical and political reform of the nation. This theatre would be, significantly, rooted in the Sanskrit tradition but would also adopt the new techniques. He attempted to construct a canon of Hindi drama that would serve nationalistic needs. However, in this age of emerging print culture his plays remained confined to ‘literary drama’ rather than ‘performative theatre’. His staying away from commercial theatre may also have contributed to his plays being literary texts and not stageable plays.
Tagore’s Theatre
Tagore is considered a pioneer in the field of modern Indian theatre because of the range of his
social and political critique and his experiments with a hybrid theatre. He wrote more than 60 plays, most of which were performed either in his house or at Santiniketan, the school that he established. His subjects range from a critique of institutionalized religions (Bisarjan, 1890; Malini,1896) to political and social satires (Achalayatan,1911; Dakghar 1912; Chandalika 1933), notions of sexuality (Chitrangada, 1892) and exploitation of natural resources (Muktadhara,1922 ; Rakt-Karabi, 1924). In an age when respectable women were still not accepted on stage, he encouraged women of his own household to act in his plays. In fact, one of his plays Natir Puja did not have male characters at all. His plays were translated into many Indian and foreign languages as well and acquired international repute after he won the Nobel Prize in 1913. He also experimented with Sanskrit and indigenous theatre forms and European techniques, thus bringing a “performative hybridity” to his theatre ( Bhatia, 2009, p.39).
Indian People’s Theatre Association
By the end of the 19th century, theatre had become a powerful arena of contestation and resistance against the colonial rule. The Progressive Writers Association (formed in 1936), committed to social reform and reaching out to the grassroots, recognized the power of popular theatre as a potent weapon against colonialism and fascism. Thus, the Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA) was established as the theatrical/cultural chapter of the PWA in 1942 with the aim of reaching out to the lowest of the low and making theatre into an effective ‘People’s
Theatre’. The main aim of the IPTA as contained in its Draft Resolution was to mobilize “a people’s theatre movement throughout the whole of India as the means of revitalizing the stage and the traditional arts and making them at once the expression and organizer of our people’s struggle for freedom, cultural progress and economic justice” (Bhatia, 2004, p.76).
The IPTA theatre was characterized by realism and a direct political engagement with issues and a desire to bring about transformation in the lives of disadvantaged groups. It made use of diverse local popular dramatic traditions, such as the Jatra of Bengal, Burrakatha of Andhra Pradesh and the Tamasha of Maharashtra and sometimes assimilated these with western traditions, used outdoor locations and constantly improvised to reach out to people across linguistic regions.
By the 1960s, IPTA plays had successfully addressed a number of issues ranging from the world war and fascism and their connection with economic oppression in India, the Bengal famine of 1943, droughts, epidemics, workers’ exploitation in mills and the communal divide after the partition of India. Some prominent IPTA members were Ali Sardar Jafri, Balraj Sahni, Balwant Gargi, Prithvi Raj Kapoor, Mulk Raj Anand, K.A. Abbas, Shombhu Mitra, Habib Tanvir, Anil de Silva, Utpal Dutt, Shiela Bhatia, Uma Chakravarty, Shanta Gandhi, Zohra Sehgal and Rasheed Jahan.
Theatre after Independence
Post independence theatres were confronted with anew cultural context where an inclusive nation
hood had to be defined and a new confident nation had to emerge after centuries of denigration of its culture. As a new nation emerged in 1947 into a separate political unit with marked geographical boundaries, it became imperative to prove its cultural oneness as well. The state took upon itself to construct this ‘unity in diversity’and thus were formed central institutions which were to promote theatre and performing arts.
The Sangeet Natak Akademy was established in 1953 in Delhi and the National School of Drama in 1959 also in Delhi. As patronage and funding was made available in Delhi and other metropolitan cities, they became centres for new experimentation and search for an ‘Indian’ idiom. There was a surge not only in theatrical activity but also in the availability of translations across India. Thus, Karnad’s plays in Kannada and Badal Sircar’s works in Bengali were available to Hindi and English speaking audiences elsewhere as soon as they were written. In this way, translations had a major role to play in giving to urban theatre a pan-Indian character. Soon, the big four-Mohan Rakesh, Girish Karnad, Vijay Tendulkar and Badal Sircar emerged as theatre personalities with a national stature (Dalmia, 2006, p.5).