Alternative stages: anti-realism, gender, and contemporary Indian “folk” theatre

2005·7.6 MB·English

by  Dharwadker, Aparna

Alternative Stages: Anti-Realism, Gender,
and Contemporary Indian "Folk" Theatre*
APARNA DHARWADKER
I. ~'TRADlTIONAL"I~DlANTHEATREANDTIlE STATUSOFFOLK FORl\1S
In the theoretical and polemical discourses that have elaborated contemporary Indian
theatre's "encounter with tradition" since the 1960s, the notion of"tradition" usually
encapsulatesthe fullrangeofindigenousmodes ofdrama,theatre, and performance which
emergeddiachronically over two millennia, buthave assumed asynchronous existencein
thepresent.Hencetheterm"traditionalIndiantheatre"signifies,inthesingularorasamass
noun, the secular and classical Sanskrit drama of Kalidasa, Bhasa, and Shudraka; post
classical North Indian religiousforms likeRamlila and Raslila; classically-derivedballetic
formsliketheKathakaliandKutiyattamofKerala;regionalfolkformsliketheYakshaganaof
KamatakaandtheBhavai ofGujarat; andintermediary-popularforms liketheNautanki of
Uttar Pradesh, the TarnashaofMaharashtra,and the JatraofBengal. Such promiscuity of
signification is essential for maintaining the near-Manichaean and resolutely ahistorical
opposition between "Indian tradition" and "Western modernity." In nativist, revivalist, or
cultural-nationalistperspectives,allindigenousformsthatpredatecolonialismorlieoutside
thesphere ofEuropean norms arevalorizedasnatural, organic, and transcendent,whereas
theproducts ofWesterninfluencearedismissedasartificial, derivative,andtrivial. Moreo
ver,suchmonolithicconstructionsofanalways-redemptiveIndian tradition arejustifiedin
these perspectives by reference to the cultural continuity, formal interconnectedness, and
aesthetic unity ofso-called traditional forms-all qualities that supposedly manifestthem
selvesunproblematicallyinthepresent.Writing"indefenseofthe'theatreofroots'"in1985,
aftertwodecades ofintenseexperimentationbyIndian playwrights,directors, andperform
ers in the contemporary use oftraditional forms, Suresh Awasthi thus asserts that "never
before during thelastone century andmore wastheatre practisedinsuch diversifiedform,
andatthesame time withsuchunityinessential theatricalvalues" ("Defence"85).
In practice, however, the repository of"tradition" has been neitheras inclusive nor as
eclectic as such arguments suggest. Most ofthe critical and creative engagement with
indigenousforms inthepost-independenceperiodhas come tocentreonthefolk perform-
,.ThisessayisanexcerptfromChapter9ofApamaDharwadker'sstudy,Tbeatrescflndependence:Drama,Tbeory,
andUrbanPerformanceinIndiaSince1947,co-publishedbytheUniversityofIowaPress,IowaCity,andOxford
UniversityPress,NewDelhi,in2005.Forpermissiontoreprintthismaterial, theauthorwouldliketothank
the UniversityofIowa Press.
Sangeet Natal Vol.XXXIX, No.3. 2005
to APARNA DHARWADKER
ance genrespopularinvariousrural regions throughoutthecountry,becausethecategory
of"folk"bringsintoplaythemostcomplexrangeofideological,political,sociocultural,and
aestheticpolarities incontemporary India. Inone major scheme of polarization.theterm
"folk"complements andopposesthe term "classical"onacontinuumthatdefinesthetwo
dominantIndianmodes ofcultural transmission andpreservation, whethertheobject in
questionislanguage,literaryform, dance,music,theplasticandvisualarts,ritual,perform
ance,oreverydaylife.Theclassical-folkdualityintumcorrespondstoaseriesofbinariesin
whichthe firstterm isimplicitly privilegedinrelationtothe second- metropolitan/provin
cial, elitefpopular, sophisticated/crude,urban/rural,and written/oral.Inasecondschemeof
polarization,folk forms embody the cultureofthe village ratherthan thatof thecity,atan
ideologicalmomentwhenthesocioculturaldisjunctionsandeconomicinequalitiesbetween
thesetwodomainshavebecomepersistent"national"problems.Commentingonthe"unfor
tunate dichotomy between urban and rural life . . . [which] is expressed in disparities in
economicstandards,services,educational levelsandculturaldevelopments,"BadalSircar
links the historicaldevelopment oftheIndiancity with"colonialinterests,"andthat ofthe
village witha"traditional indigenousculture"whichevencolonialismcouldnotdestroy
(ThirdTheatre I).Thecity.villagerelationinIndiathusbecomes(perhapsunintentionally)
aversionofRaymondWilliams'analysisofunequalcity-countryrelationsinthefeudaland
industrial West, conferring the same priority on the village as a materially exploited but
culturallyresilientspace(seeWilliams46-54).
With specific reference to theatre, this ideologicalconception of the villagecreates its
ownoppositions.Theenergy and vitality offolk performance genres appear allthe more
remarkableinviewofthesubservientsocioeconomicpositionofthevillageinthemodem
period,whilethesophisticatedcultural formsofthecityseemself-indulgentandlifeless.In
termsofaestheticform,theessentiallystylized,anti-modem,anti-realistic,open-air.environ
mentalqualitiesof folk performanceconstitute a formof "totaltheatre" antitheticaltothe
seemingly regimentedproductsofthe enclosed prosceniumstage.Similarly.asthe partici
pant in a compensatory collective ritual that fulfils the needs ofthe community, the rural
spectator standsinsignalcontrast totheisolatedurban theatregoerinadarkenedaudito
rium. Thepolitical conception of folk theatreasapeople'stheatre evokes inpartthe Euro
pean Enlightenmentdefinition of "folk" as..thepeople." But in India italso points tothe
popular appeal of village forms, their potential for subversive.social meaning, and their
connectionwithvarious forms ofpopuliststreettheatre.Thefolkrepertoirethusappearsas
ahistorical legacyaswellasapowerfulresource inthepresent.
Thecontemporaryculturalandpoliticalpotentialoffolkformsfirstcameintoviewduring
the 19405, when the Indian People'sTheatreAssociation based itsprogram for a"cultural
awakeningofthemassesofIndia"onarevitalizationofthecountry's"traditionalarts"and
"richculturalheritage."TheIPTA'straditionalismwasthefirstmajormodem reactionagainst
two deeply entrenched colonial practices: a century-long denigration of"corrupt" indig
enousforms bythecolonialandIndian urbanelite, andthethoroughcommercializationof
ALTERNATIVE STAGES II
urbanprosceniumtheatrebybourgeois Parsi entrepreneurs. Folk theatrethus answeredthe
need for non-commercialforms that were already familiar andappealing to "the people,"
andcould becomethebasisofmeaningfulsociopoliticalfictions abouttheirlives. Byspeak
ingtobothkindsofoppressed"folk't-c-urbanindustrialworkersand peasantscaughtin pre
industrial agrarianeconomies-folkforms could also attempttobridge theproblematicur
ban-ruraldivide. and sustainamass theatre movementofthe kind envisionedbythe IPTA
Malini Bhattacharyaclarifiesthat "thecall toresuscitatefolkculturewasnotapurelyreviv
alistslogan,butembodiesthe strategyofpromotingavigorousexchangebetweendifferent
existingforms ofentertainment,and ofbeingthecultural forum where urban and rural sec
tions ofthestrugglingpeoplemightcommunicate"("Bengal"7).Intheory, the"pre-moder
nity"offolkformscouldmaketheIPTA'spoliticalmessageofoppositiontofascism,imperi
alism,and capitalismaccessibletomassaudiences,in both citiesand villages.
Inactuality,sincemostIPTA functionaries were politicizedurbantheatreworkers,inter
mediaryforms liketheTamashaand Powada inMaharashtraandtheJatrainBengalbecame
the most important "folk" genres in the Association's radical repertoire. The IPTA also
achieved itsgreatest successes with plays in the naturalisticand propagandistmodes, such
as Nabanna, Zubeida, Pathan, Yeskis ka khoon hai?, Roar China, and You Made Me a
Communist. The political playwright Govind Deshpande dismisses the IPTA's "fetish of
folk"asasignofmiddle-classsentimentalismmasqueradingassocialistrealism("Fetish"49).
Butthe movement'shistoricalroleindefiningthecultureofthepeopleasthebasisoftheatre
in the new nation remains incontestable. As Sudhi Pradhan argues, all the majorpolitical
parties in the 19405 were interested in populistcultural forms, "butmereanti-communism
couldnotleadthemfurther. ItwaslefttotheMarxiststodisclosethepotencyoftheartforms
that are close to the people, theirimmense possibilities, theiruntapped source ofstrength
and thereby 'theopeningofthe magicdoortomassmobilisation'" (1:xiv).
In the half-century since the decline of the IPTA as a nationwide theatre movement,
numerousotherdevelopmentshavesecuredarole for folk cultureand performanceincon
temporary theatre that goes far beyond the specific political objectives of the 194Os.To
beginwith, the incremental engagement with folk materialson the part oftheatreworkers
overthecourseof thesedecadesisquantitativelyremarkableforitsscale,andqualitatively
significantfor havingshapedseveralmajorpost-independencecareers.Inthefirstcategory
aretheplaywright-directorsHabibTanvir, ChandrashekharKambar,K.N.Panikkar,andRa
tanThiyam, whosetheatrehas beendevotedeitherlargelyor exclusivelytothe practiceof
folk andtraditionalforms,andrepresents,inaggregate,themostthoroughexplorationofthe
resourcesoftradition.Populatedbyearthyruralcharactersandimprintedwiththepressures
anddivisionsofvillagelife. the playsofTanvirand Kambarrepresentthe"low"endofthis
spectrumofexperimentation(in tenusofthemeandeffect,notartisticquality);more orless
comparabletotheMahabharataplaysdiscussedearlier,thenumerousproductionsofPanikkar
and Thiyamrepresentthe "high"end. In keepingwiththe localizednatureoffolk culture,
each of these practitioners has also become strongly associated with the forms and lan-
12 APARNA DllARWADKER
guageofaspecificregion:Tanvirwiththetribals oftheChhanisgarhareaincentralIndia,
Kambar with the Bayalata form of north Karnataka, Panikkar with the folk and classical
traditionsofcoastal Kerala, andThiyamwiththeMeiteitribalcultureofManipur.
The second important category consists of playwrights like Girish Karnad and Vijay
TendulkaranddirectorslikeB.V.KaranthandVijayaMehta,whodonotlimitthemselvesto
folk materialsbut practiceawide range oftheatrical modes.However,theyhaveproduced
pathbreaking workduringthelastthreedecadeshyemploying folk narrativesandconven
lionsinspecificplays.Thus,amongtheclassicsofpost-independenceanti-realistpractice.
Karnad'sHayavadanadrawsonatwelfth-centuryfolktale, andreflexivelyemploysthecon
venlionsofthe Yakshagana folk form of Karnataka,which both B.V. Karanthand Vijaya
Mehta incorporated into their respective productions of 1972 and 1973. Kamad'sNaga
Mandala incorporates two separate Kannada folktales hut does not follow any particular
folkform;instead,itgivesinanimateobjects(liketheflamesinvillagelamps)humanrepre
sentation,includesdanceandmusic,andmakesextensiveuseofmimetodispeltheillusion
of realist action. Tendulkar's Ghashiram kotwal relies extensively on the Tamasha and
DashavatarformsofMaharashtraforitscorrosivefictionalizationoflate-eighteenthcentury
Marathahistory. Inadditiontothe production of Hayavadanamentionedabove, Karanth's
productions of Chandrashekhar Kamhar's lokumaraswami (in the Bayalata form), and
Bamamavana(aYakshaganaversionofMacbeth)areamonghismostcelebrated.Mehta's
well-known productionsof Brecht'sCal/casian Chalk Circle (asAjabnyaya vartulacha),
and TheGoodWomanofSettuan(asDevajinekanma keli)also employthe conventionsof
Tamasha.
Inadditiontotheseexamplesofnewandexperimentalworkbyestablishedpractitioners,
thereareatleasttwoothermeansbywhichfolkformshaveproliferatedonthecontemporary
stage.Convincedofthevalueofthetheatricalexperiencetheyprovide.somedirectorshave
re-developed and re-presented well-known older folk plays, such as the Gujarati lasma
odan,directedbyShantaGandhifortheNationalSchoolofDramain 1968;RasiklalParekh's
Menagurjari,directed intheMalvilanguageby BharatDavefortheNSD RepertoryCom
panyin 198(HI;andtheRajasthaniAmarSinghRathore.Pursuingaperformance-centered
formofintertextuality,otherdirectorshavepresentedalargenumberofSanskritandEUI'O-"
pean playsin what NemichandraJain calls the "new [folk] idiom" in theatre. Shudraka'e
MrichchakatikainHabibTanvir'svernacularChhattisgarhiversion(asMittikigadi),Nikolai
Gogel's The Inspector General in the Nautanki style ofUttar Pradesh (as Ala afsar),and
Brecht's The Threepenny Opera in the Tarnasha style of Maharashtra (as Teenpaishacha
tamasha) exemplify this trend.As a result of increasedinterestin indigenous stylesof
performance,thecategoryof"folk"itselfhasexpandedintwoways;inonedirection,itnow
includes virtuallyall indigenousforms exceptclassicalSanskrittheatre, andin theother,it
has brought lesser-known folk forms such as the bhand-pather of Kashmir, the naqal of
Punjab,theswangofRajasthan,thenachofMadhyaPradesh,andthekathakathaofBengal
activelyintotherepertoireoftheatricalexperiments.
ALTERNATIVE STAGES 13
Thisexplosiveincreaseinformalexperimentationatthelevelofpracticeco-existswitha
determined bureaucraticefforttogenerateandsustaininterestinfolkformsthroughvarious
formsofparronageandconservation.DuringtheSangeetNatakAkademi'sDramaSeminar
of 1956,theonlyfolkgenrediscussedat length(byShantaGandhiandotherparticipants)
wastheBhavaiformofGujarat,althoughtheindividualpresentationsontheatreinKarnataka,
Kerala, Manipur, Maharashtra, Orissa. Punjab. and Tamilnadu contained short asides on
existingfolktraditions.InanironicechooftheIPTA'splatform.theSeminar'sformalrecom
mendationstotheSangeetNatakAkademi(recordedintheAcademy'sReportfor 1953-58)
included the "opinion" that
theregenerationofthe Indiantheatrecan onlybepossiblebyrevitalisingthetraditional
folkformssoas10narrowthegulfbetweenthedramaticformsthaihavedevelopedduring
the last hundred years and the survivals from the past.The Seminar recommends that
adequatestepsbetakennotonlyforthecarefulandscientificstudyofthefolkdramain
different parts of India but also for preventing their decayand disappearance and for
givingthemrecognitionandnewlife.(31)
Overthenextfifteenyears,thescholar-criticSureshAwasthitooktheinitiativeinorganizing
institutionalevents wherethe resourcesoffolk culture becamethesubject offocused de
bate.AsSecretaryoftheBharatiya NatyaSangh,heorganizedanationalseminaran "Con
temporaryPlaywritingandPlayProduction"in1961wherehisownpresentationdealtwith
"thequestionoftraditionaltheatre anditsrelevanceforcontemporarytheatrework"(t'De
fence" 86).Tohisdismay,inthe modernistclimateofthatdecade,Awasthiwas"dubbeda
revivalist and reactionary bypractitioners of the colonial theatre andreporters of theatre
events.Theymaintainedthattraditionaltheatrehadnorelevanceforcontemporarywork...
[and)spokeasprophetsofthedoomoftraditionaltheatre"("Defence"86).In1971(exactly
tenyearslater).asSecretaryoftheSangeetNatakAkaderni,Awasthiorganizeda"National
Roundtable on the Contemporary Relevance ofTraditional Theatre:' whose participants
included the most important playwrights, directors, and theatre critics of the time.I The
proceedings of this seminar were published in a special issue of the Akademi's journal,
SangeetNatak(no.21.July-September1971). From1965to1975.Awasthialsomanageda
programofvsponsoredtraditionalperformances,festivalsandexhibitionsinDelhiandother
centres,"whichinhisovalwordsmetinitiallywithdisapprovalandindifference,butgradu
allyacquiredthecharacterofa"movement"(86).TheAkademi's"SchemeofAssistanceto
YoungTheatreWorkers"whowereinterestedinexperimentingwithtraditionalforms(1984
94)was very much inthe same line ofstate patronage,sponsoringfour regionalandone
national festival everyyear for a decade. In 1985, thejoumal Sangeet Narak published a
specialdoubleissueonthesubjectofthe"TraditionalIdiominContemporaryTheatre"(nos.
77.78),guest-editedbyNemichandraJain.withAwasthiasaprincipalcontributor.Withthe
exceptionofShantaGandhi,G_ShankaraPillai,andAwasthihimself.thisdiscussionshifted
thedebateovertraditiontoa newgenerationofplaywrightsanddirectors,once morewith
14 APARNA DHARWADKER
theoverallconclusionthat"aftermorethanacenturyofalmostbarrenattemptsatplaywriting
and staging after Western models, our theatre seems at last ready to reject this imitative
pursuitandtoventureinto itsowndistinctive,indigenousterritory"(Jain"SomeNotes"9).2
This forty-year programmatic effort is marked by circular reasoning---eritics of Indian
theatre must pay serious attention to traditional fOnDS because theyconstitute the basisof
extensive andincreasinglysignificantpractice, but theextent and significanceofthe prac
tice are in large measure determined by state patronage and bureaucratically-sponsored
debate. Notwithstandingthefaultylogic, theextensiveengagementwith anti-realistic 000
urbanforms hasunquestionablyreorientedcontemporarythinking abouttheatre, producing
revised conceptions ofthe dramatic text. the text-performance and author-audience rela
tions,thefigure oftheperformer, performancespaces, staging conventions, andthe varied
locations of theatre. The mythic. ritualistic, and primal narratives of folk culture offera
refreshing counterbalance to the textures of urban existence, and a succession of major
playsthat transcend exoticismand mystificationhave introduced aunique energy intothe
fieldofrepresentation.Atthesametime,folkformshaverefocused attentionontheproblem
aticrelationofruralandurbaninIndia.asculturalandpoliticalspaces,subjects oftheatrical
representation, and sites for the creation and consumption of theatre. Some playwrights
deliberating seriouslyonthe useoffolkconventionshavealsoanivedattheir ownradical
conclusions abouttherelationship betweenfolkandclassicaltraditions inIndian culture.In
theatre. the binary of "great" and "little" traditions has dissolved into a recognition of
complementarity, leading aplaywrightlikeKarnad toarguethat"thereisnodifference be
tweenthetheatreconventionsofclassicaldramaandthoseoffolkdrama.Theprinciplesthat
govern their dramatic aesthetics are the same" (Contemporary Indian Theatre 80; cited
hereafterasCIT). HabibTanvirgivesthesameargument ahistorical dimensionbyasserting
that"theclassical structureinartisnothingbutatersecrystallizationofthefolkstructurein
art"("IndianExperiment"9).
ThetheoryandpracticeoffolkformsincontemporaryIndiantheatreisthereforeasubject
thatdemandscriticalproceduresadequate toitscomplexity. Ihavediscussedelsewherethe
ideological effect of traditionalist positions in erasing the historicity and particularity of
post-independencetheatreasadiverse bodyofwork.Inthis essayIapproachtheatre based
onfolk:formsasafieldofcontemporarypractice-notthemostsignificant, andcertainlynot
theonlysignificantformoftheatreinthepresent, assomeproponentsclaim, butonethatis
importantenough tobe rescued from spurious claims about authenticity on the one hand.
andchargesofmerefetishism andrevivalismontheother.Twoclarificationsarenecessary,
however,ifwearetoseethiscriticalobject"asinitselfitreallyis,"First.contemporaryplays
thatemploy folk narratives andperformanceconventions aretexts andperformanceevents
ofaqualitativelydifferentkindfromfolktheatreinitsownagrariansetting,however"primi
tive" and "folksy" they may appear. In fact, the relation between these two forms under
scores the problems of a continuing disjunction between rural and urban culture. and a
consequent separation of fonn from content-problems that should be confronted, not
ALTERNATIVE STAGES 15
avoided. Second, the"encounterwithtradition"amongplaywrights,directors,andperform
ers is not a uniform phenomenon, but takes on varied forms according to the individual
practitioner'sbackground,location, training, andobjectives.Likethenationitself,folkcul
tureinIndiaisdiverse: those whodraw onitfortheatrical purposes arenotrecuperatingan
undifferentiatedcultural essence,but using pre-modern cultural matter of various kindsto
create avariety ofdistinctive stage vehicles inthepresent.
The most viable approach tocontemporary folk theatre, therefore, appears to liein the
particularsofpractice.Numerous commentatorshaveemphasized,indeedover-emphasized,
the ideological function of the folk aesthetic inananticolonial, anti-Western, anti-realistic
theatrical program. But as Govind Deshpande notes, few have asked why serious urban
playwrights have turned to folk materials, and what effects and meanings the indigenous
forms communicate("Fetish"50).Inthenext threesections, Itakeuptherelation between
folk theatre and itsurban reconfigurations, theproblems inherent inthisexchange, andthe
distinctive interventions folk plays have made inthe contemporary politics of gender and
culture.InthefinalsectionIusethisthematicframeworkforthediscussionofChandrashekhar
Kamber'sJokumaraswami(1972).
n,FOLKTIIEATRE AND''uRBANFOLK"THEATRE
Theintertextualandinterdependentnatureoffolkgenreshasbeenamajormethodologi
calconcernamong anthropologistsofSouthAsiasincethe1980s,andasanexpressiveform
integral tovillageculture,"theatre"occupiesaprominentplaceontheperceivedcontinuum
ofgenres.A.K.Ramanujansuggeststhatweshouldview"folktaleandmyth,grandmother's
taleandbardic narratives, ritual andtheatre, nonliterate traditions andliterateonesascom
plementary,context-sensitivepartsofonesystem"(''TwoRealms" 42).Inthissystem,thea
trerelatestotheothercomponentsintwodistinctiveways.Ifthegenresofculturalperform
ancearerangedaccordingtotheirakarn(interior,private)andpuram(exterior,public)quali
ties,folktheatre appears asthemostelaboratepublicgenre, andhencethe"end-pointofthe
continuum...As wemove toward thepuramend, theprops which givethebard apublic
presenceincrease....These accompanimentsattaintheirfullestdevelopmentinthevillage
theatre: a preparedstage, lighting, makeup, costume, many actors, and a stage manager,
often ascript" (46-47). Amongthepublicgenresoffolkperformance,moreover, theatreis
mostcloselyrelatedtoritual,whichisreligious ratherthanaestheticinintent,butstillserves
asthemodelfortheatricalperformance.
These anthropological perspectives encapsulate many ofthe arguments theatre practi
tioners have made about thecommunal,ecological,andritualqualities offolktheatre. The
views of two commentators who focus respectively on the archetypal and psychosexual
qualities ofthis theatre areespeciallyinteresting. Takinguptherelation ofritual todrama,
16 APARNA DHARWADKER
G.ShankaraPillaiobservesthat
ritualistic formsareintendedto createthe consciousnessoflatentcosmic powerand
hencearebasedonmythswhichhavedeeprootsinthereligioussensibilityofacommu
nity.Theatreplotsaresuperimposedonthesestrongritualstructurestoattract,holdand
enchantthecommunitytheyareraisedfor.Thismixofmythandritualandtheatremight
varyindifferentforms butthetotalstructure isquite differentfromthestructure ofa
pieceintendedtoentertainthemasses.(Pillai 43)
The form. moreover,is inseparable fromitsfunctions.Pillaiinsiststhataritualistic form
cannot be taken apart, because "each fonn is incharactera composite whole, andhas
unbreakabletieswiththelocality.itsecology.itsmyths.theirsocialimplications.The'thea
tre'intheseformscannotbeisolated:andifisolateditwillloseitslifeforceimmediately,like
aflowerpluckedoffatree" (43).Folkperformance,tberefore,hastobegraspedsimultane
ously atallthreeinstrumentallevels-thoseofmyth,ritual,andtheatre.
ChandrashekharKambar,oneofthemostimportantcontemporarypractitionersoffolk
based theatre,also emphasizes the participatoryand liberatory qualities ofthe form.Ifthe
aspectofritualparticipationseparatesfolktheatrefrom"mere"entertainment.italsoserves
as a source of gratification and release, although differently from popular urban forms.
Kambarexplainsthatinasocietywhere"thequalityoflivingisoneofsanctionedinhibition,
ofsuppresseddrives.emotionalorsexual."therealmofentertainmentitself"assumesatotal
andmicrocosmiccharacter-microcosmicinthesensethatentertainmentthenreflectsallthe
creative urgesand needs in the worldoutside" ("FolkTheatre" xii). Giving priority to the
religiouselementsinfolktheatre.Kambarcontraststhefragmentationofculturalfonnsina
secularized society with the holistic nature of theatrical performance in folk culture:"A
Londonerfmdshisdance,song,drarnaandreligionatdifferentplaces.Amanfrommyvillage
looksforallthesethingstogether"(xiii).Thecollectiveoccasionsforthisperiodicreleaseare
also determined by the natural cycle of events in an agrarian community. As a form that
embodies"theshared mythofthecommunity,nottheexperienceofindividuals" (Kaul23),
folktheatredoesitsworknotbysurprisingitsaudiencebutbyretreadingpredictableground
oncertainpredetcnninedoccasions.
PillaiandKambar'sdescriptionsoffolktheatredonot,however,extendinanunmodified
formeithertotheirownplaysinthefolkstyleortothoseofHabibTanvir,GirishKarnad,K.
N.Panikkar,andRatanThiyarn.Althoughtheseauthorsoccupyvaryingpositionsofproxim
ityanddistancefromthefolkcultures they represent,theirplaysare uniformlynotinthem
selves theproducts offolk culture.Asa"counter-critique" oftraditionalismwouldunder
score,theplaysrepresent,rather,thecomplexanddecidedly "modem"theatrical meansby
whichthemailerofvillagelifeistransportedto,andperformedin,thecity.Thedifferencelies
notmerelyinthe"mediation"ofpre-modem formsbya"contemporarysensibility:'butin
thequalitativelydifferentconditionsofproduction,circulation, andreception.Inprinciple,a
playmodelledonfolkperformancemayseem10employconventionsantitheticaltothoseof
ALTERNATIVE STAGES 17
amodemprosceniumplay- eplotrootedinmyth,folklore,orritual; non-prosceniumstag
ing:an anti-realistic structure accommodating music, dance,and styJized movement; and
dramatized characters who "present" the action and address the audiencedirectly. But in
practice,mostsuchplaysemployurban performers.usethesametheatrical spaces asdoes
realist theatre. and cater to the same audience that patronizesall theotherformsofurban
performance, including film and television.Thetheatrical experience theseplaysoffer is
unquestionably different; the sociocultural contexts of that experience are not. Only in
exce-ptionalcases.suchasTanvir'sNayaTheatreandtheworkoftheHeggodu-basedgroup
Ninasarn,doesthe performanceoffolk materialsactuallyinvolve folk performersandrural
locations.
Thefull-lengthstagevehiclesthathaveemergedfromexperimentalworkwithfolkforms
in India should therefore bedefined as "urban folk" drama,and distinguished in multiple
ways from folk theatre per se,First. the serious urban folk plays are mainly products of
individual authorship in aculture where the recognition ofthe playwright as"author" in
vestsevenquintessentially"theatrical"workwith"literary"qualities.Kamad'sHavavadana
andNaga-mandalaandTendulkar'sGhashiram kotwolaresignalexamplesofthisprocess.
Critics haveapproachedthese worksasliteraryartifacts;"placed"them withintheauthors'
respective careers as signalling important new phases in artistic development; analyzed
themwith referencetogenre.authorialintention,andaudienceresponse;andinvestedthem
withconsiderable culturalcapital. The same is largely trueofthe "performance texts" of
Kambar;Panikkar,andThiyam,DuetothepremiumIndiantheatricalculturehasplacedon
tradition and authenticity, plays such as Jokumaraswaml, Charandas chor, Thiyam's
Chakravyuha, and Panikkar's Mahabharata sequence are performances of high culrural
value,andurban practitionersoffolkgenres areamongthe mostwidely honoredfiguresin
contemporary Indian theatre. Although inthe Indiancontextsuchprestige translates more
intosymbolicthanrealcapital,it doesplacetheauthorsand theirworkattheotherextreme
fromtheanonymitiesoffolkperformance.
Second,theurbanfolkplaysbelongasmuchtothecultureoftextualityandprintastothe
cultureofperformance.A.K.RamanujanandStuartH.Blackburnnotethat"evenwhenthey
are written, narratives in premodern traditions are still .. . usually orallydelivered (told,
recited. sung.orintoned)andaurallyreceived.Itisnotthean ofwritingbutthetechnology
ofprintingthateffectively transforms folkorclassicaltraditions.The realcontrast,then,is
notoral/written but oral-written/printed" ("Introduction" 26).This "real contrast" defines
the relation of rural to urban folk theatre despite efforts by some critics to enhance the
pcrformarive dimensionof melatter by contrasting it with the texruality ofurban realist
drama. Suresh Awasthi arguesthat
[i]n realistic theatrethe numberofstagingsigns iskept aslowaspossible,andtheir
impact minimizedinordertopresen·etheintegrityoftheverbalsigns.Inthestylizednew
theatre.theimpactofstagingsignsismaximizedandtheirnumbermultiplied.Itisbecause
18 APARNA DHARWADKER
ofthis thatwhilethereading time ofplayslike Urubhangam,Madhyama lyayoga.and
Kama-Bhar [allplays byBhasa,revived by K.N. Panikkar] is thirty toforty minutes,
theirperformingtime isnearlytwohours.Thedifferenceinthereading-performing-time
ratios of the stylized and realistic theatre is the mostobvious feature of the former.
("'Defence"89)
However,thecrucialdifferencebetweenessential oralityand printtextualiryliesnotinthe
measureby which aperformancetextexceedsawrittentext.butinthefactthatthe written
textunderlying the performance exists inprint, independent of performance.Although its
primaryvisibilityisatthelevelofperformance,urban folkdramaentersthedomainofprintas
a necessary effect oftheconditionsofcontemporaryauthorship.and thereafteracquiresall
the important attributes of printed drama as an autonomous. discussable, often"literary"
form, Itcirculates inthe original languageofcompositionaswellas in multiple languages
through translation, as a text and on the stage.Moreover, in radical distinction from folk
theatreitself,urbanfolk dramaisatransportableentity:whilethe formeralwaysbelongsto
aspecificregion, language,ecologicalcycle,and participating community,thelattercanbe
detachedfrom allthese particularitiesandperformed(inthe originallanguageorintransla
tion)anywhereanaudienceisavailable.Ofcourse,urbanfolk playsarenot textsofthesame
kindasrealist social and politicalplays,nor docstheirtextualitycancel the improvisatory,
mixed, and unscriptedqualities ofperfonnancc. However, they are withoutquestion texts,
increasinglyembeddedinthecultureofprintratherthanthatoforal-auralcommunication.In
fact,theiravailabilityas textsbecomesameasure oftheirincreasedvisibility,significance,
and value,because itturnsthem intoobjectsofreading,pedagogy,andcriticism.
Finally,themediationsofauthorship,intentionality,andtextuality implythaturban folk
theatreis not areplication offolkperformance.but anautonomous form with itsown aes
thetic,cultural, andpoliticalobjectivesin relationto a predominantly urbanaudience.The
idea that aplaywright ordirectormustbring a "contemporary sensibility" to bearonfolk
forms has been central to the discourse of tradition since the 1940s-in order to be
transformative,folkformsmustspeakpowerfullyto.and haverelevancefor.theirimmediate
audience. Theincompatibilitybetweenruralsubject matter and the urban sites ofperform
ance therefore placesagreatdealofresponsibility onthe playwrightordirector,whomust
renegotiate every featureoffolk theatre-form,content, style,language,and stagingcon
ventions-to ensure its success in non-folk locations.
m, THEPROBLE" SOFURBANFOLKTHEATRE
These"paradoxical"qualities ofurban folk theatre collectively denoteasyncretic prac
tice thatisinherentlyproblematicbecauseofthefusionoftraditionalmaterialswithmodem
expectationsand contexts.Two issues haveproved to beparticularly intractable forpracti-