Movements and Institutions in Indian Theatre DILJ P KUMAR BASU

n this paper, J propose to deal mainly with the relations between movements and I institutions in Indian theatre, and 1shall begin wi th certain clari fications, First, I would like to testthe elasticity of terms like 'movement' and 'institution'. Secondly, this willnotbe a historical survey of movementsand institutions, for I believe digging upnames anddates does not normally encourage debate, and is o f Iittle use for the present purpose. The emphasis of this paper, on me other hand. will be on theatre-hi stories of a kind wbich, lamentably. we do nor havein this country. The term 'movemen t". when used in discussions on culture. is deeply embedded in its origin in a kind of politics which flowered in the nineteenth century. This being so, even when a movement does notforeground its politics and emphasizesits formal andtechnical aspects alone. as part of a social and artistic reality it has still to be perceived with all its political implications. Thus. for example. an absurdist theatre in a specific time and place bas to be understood with its political significations. There are sometimes movements which contend against each other, like the Naban atya and Gananatya movements in Bengal during the late 1950s and 1960s. A clear understanding of the intricacies of these relations would help us understand the nature of each movement better, Institutions, when seen in relation to movements, are often taken to be the latter's adversaries. though they are not necessarily so. An almost inevitable corollary ofthis tendency is to distance one's movement as far as possible from institutions. This position, where a movementis notwillingto discriminate between instituti ons andadoptappropriateattitudes towards different institutions, seems to me to be unhelpful for any movement. There are countries like the United Kingdom where theatre movem ents are fighting for more democratic space forthemselves. and where part of their energy is spent in wresting morefunds from Institutions associatedwiththe government.Thus. one has to considertherelations between movements and institutions in theirvarious ramifications _ andIsay this from the vant3ge point of one involved in move ments, and not as an apologist for institutions oran emissary of any institution. A movement's effortto distance itself from one institution oranother ina particular set of circumstances could bequ ite the right thing to do. But this sho uld follow a careful consideration ofall the complexities ofthe situation; blind, unthinking rejection must be avoided. Take for example the relation between a socialist government in a State and theatre movements in that State. The situation here creates its own pulls andpressures. but ~~vem ents, inthis context,seldomdistance themselves fromgovernment Insuturions, unless It IS a movement ofthe extremeright.

•

AI this stage, we need 10 define a few terms even at the risk ofsounding banal , so mat lilY argumentsand positionsareclearto all.First.adramaoratheatre movement is tobe understood

Sa:ngt'f' NaUlt No!>. 131-13 8. 2000 MOVEMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS IN INDIAN THEATRE lJ

as 3 movementaway from the existing trends in drama/theatre. sometimes seeking refonn, sometimes radicalchange, andatothertimes simplyregisteringprotest.There mayalsobe'theatre movements' wherethe cultural intention remains unclear andtheatre is treated asa means to some otherend. We would hesitate to call these theatre movements. A lot of NGO activity, passive. tendentious left theatre. money-making street-theatre groups lending their services tothehighest bidder among political partiesduringelections- allthesefall into thiscategory. Secondly, 'movement'. inourgivencontext.implies notonlymotion, but also the motion ofa motivated group of people, however small that group maybe.Wefind fromexperience that generally such a group is quite smallattheoutset - consisting maybe of four or the people. Soon the strength is at least doubled. As and when the movement gains visibility and wins recognition, similar efforts are mndeby others. (Onemay recallwhat happenedin the field of street theatre in our country.) Eventually, a pointis reachedwhenthe movement is at its most vigorous. creative. and (notwithstanding the participation of more than one group) focused. Beyond this point the movement may shrink and gradually die; it mayalso becomemoreextensive. andyet thevigourmay wane and the focus getblurred. What was initially a movement may become a common field wheredifferent theatre groups work. A group or two among these may proceed in different directions, constituting different movements.Theyarenow movingawayfrom therestof the field and are sometimes atodds with the mainstream activity. We have only to think of Janarn, Samudaya, Chennai Kalai Kuzhu, etc., and their positions in the field of street theatretodayto see whatI mean. This brings us to a further consideration of the term 'movement'. Is,for example, street theatre a movement? Or is Samudaya a movement? Or. is it moreproper toseeSamudaya. lanamandChennai Kalai Kuzhu togetherforminga movement?(Thegroupsmentioned here arechosen for the purpose of theoretical inquiry,and not to emphasize thespecial qualities of any group.) Or, is it that at somepoint of timestreet theatre was amovement but IS now a field? We have to define the term clearly in order to get therightperspectiveon a movement and to understand its relation with othermovements. Moreover. the relation between a group'swork. intheprosceniumtheatreandonlhe streets.done simullaneouslyoratdifferent points of time. also needs to be taken into account. Writing plays witha certain philosophy of art andtheatreinmindcantrigger offa movement. Even withoutassemblingat a placeanddrafting a manifesto,dramatistsmaycreatemovements of sons, as happened during the 1960sand early 1970s whenabsurd drama wastakenupby SO manyof our playwrights. And effortsto improvise playscollectively, which began during the same period should also beconsidered amovementorasetof simultaneou s moveme~ ts. un, . ' . I ging through collective "uen there IS an ov erlap-s-as III the case of street p ays emer scriPling-the importance of each element in a particular group's work has to be C~ fUllY assessed; this can best be done by investigating into the political meaning of co .ectlve . . . . . ' f this kind has been done m our Wntmg In each group's endeavour. No investigatIOn 0 1 f'thi COuntryto the best ofmy knowledge. Yet, between1969and 1979, a wholelotofwork0 IS kind Was started--Safdar Hashmi led one such effort. . ' Th " . . . alenci Farsi it suggests institutes. en nsunrtion' is a word which has different v encies. • th ., di ment,thatsuch·and-, uch person ere are statements. madeeitherinadnurauon or sparage . . , th d not ha be . I become Insntuuons, yet ey 0 5 come an institution. Certainly some peope 24 D1L1P KUMAR BASU

disable movements as institutes sometimes do. These personified institutions are people around whom or against whose practices movements spring up. Ebrahim Alkazi, K.N. Panikkar, Sombhu Mitra. Badal Sircar-allthesenamescometo mind. Even whenaperson's practices are oppos ed, the real objec t of challenge, frequently, is not th e person but institutions of the establishment which build up a person as a figure to be admi red and copied. In a hard-hitting article in the December 1999 issue of Eminence, M. Prabha wrote about how one single luminary of Indian theatre might be able to get huge financial and other benefits from various institutions.Thisis somethingto thinkabout;Isuggestthatone shouldexaminethe workings of institutions which provide funds and other facilities rather than persons who receive favoursfrominstitutions. Inany case,apersonof this kindnonnally does not havesufficient financialresources to influence theatre movements, though he or she may bea keyto such resources. This brings us back to aconsiderationof the firs t meaning oflhe word 'institution'.Group theatres oftenname themselves 'institutions'. 'Natyasangstha', 'Natyapratishthan', orsimilar words are freque nlly a part of their names. They have some kind of space 10 work and rehearse. somefunds. and some basic rules governing theiractivities. \Vearenotdiscussing institutions ofthis kind;on the contrary. weactually expect them to be relatedtomovements. Forourpurpose. then. we shall consider those institutions as institutions which are housed in buildings of some size and have well-equipped offices - not with thick files any longer but computers. Plus, importantly. considerable financial resources and an accounts department, Wehave to considerthe relation of theatremovements withthese institutions. and nOI merely with the theatre wing of any of these insti tutions. I would also like 10 include organ izations which do no t d irectly deal with theatre. ID today's world, some of these have a lotto do with how movements originate. take shape,find or change direction, and earn recognition and fame. Though these organizations are not drama institutes or Akademis, they modulate significantly the realiti es of the theatre world. They are of two kinds: firstly, organizations like the Ford Found ation, which may or may not finance a theatre project; and. secondly, the Fourth Estate, i.e.• newspapers, journals and lbe audio-visual media, which may or may not offer space to a particul ar theatre group or movement in their columns, talk shows, cultural round-ups and interviews. and thus may make ormarits repu tation.

• All theseangles need to be considered to understand the relations between institutions and movemen ts in Indian theatre. The funding capacity and inc linatio ns of Sangeet Natak Akademi in Delhi or Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi, and thei r policy changes from time \0 time, may help Us understand to a degree the rise and fall ofcertain theatre movements. The National School of Drama influences movements not so much by funding theatre groups (though inviting select groups to its festivals is an indirect way of funding), but hy imparting theatr~ education ofa specific kind and thus shaping attitudes in its pupils. and the audience watchJ~g lisproduc lions. Movements of all kinds find il increasingly difficult 10 present alternative viewpoints and perspectives as NS D strengthens its hold on Indian theatre. The prestige of the School makes it a heavyweight, controll ing the country 's idea of theatre· MOV EM ENTS AND INSTITUTIONS IN 1"D1 AN TIIEATRE

There is, further, the fact that it can fund its productions in a mannerwhich is difficult to match, Compared to the expensive productions of NSD, withtheirelaborate sets anddazzling costumes, most other theatres areperceived as poor shows(particularlyin Delhi)by the vast majori tyofthe audience. The university drama departments. where they exist. alsowork on similar lines, butona verysmall scale. We haveto considerhow a change of policy orcrucialpersonnel inthe large institutions can influence rules and trends of distribution of funds. It would not be correct to see institutions only as causes and movements as effects. Because, firstly, movements of the people in the ultimate analysisarefarstronger than institutions; and. secondly, movements at some historical juncture force the entry of personnel and adoption of policies in these instinnions, Major political upheavals make institutionslinstitules react to them. Theatre movements, when successful, throw up important theatrepersons whom eventhe grandest institutions cannot ignore, and whom they are sometimesforced to invite as functionaries. This results in some kind of policy change in these institutions. At thisstage, I would like to refer to a fewthings fromSafdar's book The Rightto Perform. On 13October 1985, he writes:

Thewave of traditionalism appears tohave reachedallfour comers of the country. This is not very surprising, what with the Sangeet Natak Akademi's scheme of promoting traditional theatre going strong. and funding agencies like the FordFoundat ion giving grams 10 •. . encourage interaction between traditional andcontemporary theatre.

On 10 November the same year, Safdar laments the lackofqualityinNSDproductions,On 19Januarythe next year, Safdar again criticizes Sangeet NatakAkademi's scheme (started in 1984) for assistance to theatre workers, He also criticizes NSD's pilot project (1982-83) to "study folk/traditional forms in depth and discern various elements of Indianness in Indian theatre". The pointin making these references is to show thai there have.~ways.be~n o.ther VQices andotheropinions regardingtheobjectives of theatre and the acti~ ltJ e~ of ~n s t~ tu u ons limnare10beheard in the corri dors of power. A close watchonwhat various msuluu.ons are doing has 10 be the duty of movements, for therein lies the possibility of asserung m: democratic rights of the people, The institutions to watch include Sangeet Natak Akaderni, NSD, Bhopal's Bharat Bhavan, foreign funding agencies, State Akaderrus, l ~s t l t u t lO ns like Sri Ram Centre and Natya Shodh Sansthan. and various business houses which have lately shOwn an mt' eresr "10 funding theatre, II may even be w'orthwhile. to keep an eye. on what educational institutions and publishing houses. Indian and foreign. are promotmg. ~e ' 0 has b ht t bookslike The Politics Cambndge University Press during the last decade mug ou , of Alternative Theatre in Britain andAn Introduction to Post~ colon ia/ Theatre - a project with interesting contradictions inscribedin it ) . th try their . . .' vements m e coun . I Large institutions like NSD not only Ignore vanous mo sh Id be' till date pedagogues and office-bearers have rued notions about w""t theatre ou iety of their th ' , d' the adequacy or plOpne ere IS no instance of a public debate regar 109 h ' , , ," ne ha kind of plays were c osen ror Predllecllons. Thus it may be mteresung I~ ex:mu \\0 t . li dof lays were chosen production when Ebrahim Alkazi was NSD s director, and "hat n P 26 PILIP KUMAR BASU

after B.V. Karanth took over. Never in its history. however, have contemporary theatre movements in thecountry interested the School. NSD has always assumed that its alumni were the peop le who would start theatre movements - they alone were trai ned for the task. Some of these people did try and experiment, and made a name for themselves. It is quite anothermatterthat these experiments didnot start any real movement, though the directors didattract followers andimitators.The trouble with theirfine, 'successful' productions was that they were stunning. but not inspiring. A stunned mental state does not conduce to creativity, Large, expensively designed theatri cals are not part ofany movement- they are too large and fat to move. They also do not move anyone;the audience is served grandeur andnot offered a disturbing new experience orvisionof life. It isnot only living movementsthat arealmost completely ignored in the curriculum or festivals of NSD. The arbitrariness of 'he choice of plays by NSD's repertory company is evident from 'he NSD publication Rang farra ( 1992) , which reveals that NSD does not bother even about the classics of Indian theatre. There is no production of Tagore's Raktakarabi. ofNabanna and other plays by Ilijon Bhattacharya, orofthe plays of Kalidasa. Thetrouble is, when onenames aplaywrightoratheatre group oradirector notyet canonized by institutions likeNSD,one's choice is attributed to personal bias; andwhenone criticizes someone sanctified by suchinstitutions. one's opinion becomes personal prejudice. On the other hand these institutions, working together, establish some 'public' opinions which originate inthehighpriests' personal biases butaremadeto appear as thecountry's opinion. Aninstitution naturally takes other institutions seriously - one amusingillustrationof this is the identities ofpeople like AmalAllana, B.V. Karanth, Bansi Kaul, Bhanu Bharati, Ebrahim Alkazi, etc., constructed in Rang Yarra.Theyarcnot identified hereas directorsordesigners of their major productions, but as directors ofX, Y, Z institutions, oras recipients of fellowships. or as people who have handled proj ects for one or other institution . • Thus movements do not gain visibility in this large country. For example, I do not know directly ofany work by. say, Spandana ofBangalore, Chemanani of Tirunelveli , Creative Uni' or Third Experience ofTrich ur, And there are bou nd to beothe r groups about which I have noteven heard - which is not to say they are not doi ng useful work. This lack of visibility. which should have been removed by institutions like Sangeet Natak Akademi andthe NatlonaJ School of Drama, hampers the development of theatre all over the country. I have a strong feeling that the Chenn ai-based Kalai Kuzhu (founded in September 1984) could have benefited ~rom knowledge ofthe kind ofwork Natyakal ofDelhi(founded in November 1% 9) was doing in the 1971Js and the early 1980.. Considering that most movements have limited life-spans and resources, there are big losses to beco unted off here Thu s there are erasures in our theatre hi story. and these'take many forms. Safdar' s tragic death was not allowed to beerased , luckily for Indian theatre. But Safdar was not theonly pe,,?n to pay with his life for the cause of theatre. Theatre Unit's (U narpara, West Bengal) Ashis Chaneljee died in police firing in 1972 whil e performing a play, Probir Dutta, a thea'" actlVl" : died sllnilarly in July 197 8 while watching a performance. What were Silhouene, Path ikrit, Runner, and Shongshaptak collectively doing during this period? Towards theend ~O VEM ENTS AND INSTITUTIONS IN INDIAN THEATRE 27

of 1970, four people marched across West Bengal. Bihar and Orissa and reached Madhya Pradesh. performmg a oumber of plays 00 theway.Theykeptchanging the language oftheir plays as they moved from one region to another. TheywerearrestedinBhilai, andoneof the performers, Shrilekha Roy. was crippled as a result. Who will write the histories of these groups, and finally ofthe movements in our theatre? There are also theatre movements which are firmly embedded in the cultural politics connectedwith the language of a particularregion.the prime impulseherebeing thedesire to redress the marginalized condition of the language and the region. An instance of (his phenomenon is to be found in the Manipuri theatre . One problem here is tha.t in search of both recognition and funds. there is what Lokendra Arambam calls an "over-exuding of culture" - of ethnic peculiarities - which is artistically disharmonious with the themes. This happens mainly because of encouragement from all kinds of institutions to dojust this kind of work. The problem is further compounded when. in the absence of government funding, people tum to foreign funding. Public funding is beingwithdrawn fromallspheres of life today and private funding by institutions. very often foreign. is taking its place. This needs to becountered,and the way to counterit is 10engage wilh institutionslike Sangeet Natak Akademi, the National School of Drama. and the cultural departments of State goveroments. Very determioed efforts are requiredto ensurethatavailable public funds are dislributed more democratically than at present. Onecannot escape an essentiallysad paradoxof oursituation. A fewpeoplestan a theatre group with clearintentions and an implicit orexplicit manifesto. Theaudience accepts the work produced by the group. and supports it for a fairly long period. Other groups along similar lines are formed, anda powerful, visible. movementis set in motion. (Think of the streettheatre movement after Janam and Sarnudaya.) Andthenopponunistsenterthe stage. Smugness. funds, deadwood blunt the creative edge of themovement, bynow wellknown. On the other hand, movements which donotattain the same degree ofsuccessremain invisible inthe pan-Indian theatre scene. Yet there are many such unknownmovements.They flower forafewyears and then disappear, only theirmemorylingering insome minds.Afewpeop~e may remember their work and carry their heritage forward. Baidyanath Mukhopadhyay s Bengali theatre dictionary, published early this year. gives us someinformation about such little-known movements in Bengali theatre. (This is a bookwhich deserves t? betranslated; itcan serve as a model for prospective theatre historians in all language regions.)

BeforeI end, I shall briefly touch upon one more issuefacingtheatre movements in this . . . . s Many reputed theatre persons Country. Movements send out personnel mtc Instltutlon . . . , . today began their careers with various movements. Being now in po slt1 ~n s of po",.er In d'f' ' . _ _L hoi eswhichare somenmesalvanance I rerent institutions they areoften forced to l1141Ae c OIC with theirOwn stated precepts. The choices theyeventually make- they canbevery, very different _ canbe significant inone way orthe otherforcontemporary movements. d Allthese complexities have 10 be kept in mindwhilewriting a historyof movements,an . . . . . taking research spread over a ong InstItutIons in Indian theatre The work reqwres pams h k . . I h an nolonger do cavy wor on penodof time. It can probably be taken up by peop e woe Or behind the stage.