Table Of Content

Imagining a National Theatre: Thc First Drama Seminar Reporr" ANITACHERlAN ...wehavetorememberwhiletryingtoreorganiseourprofessionaltheatre...thaiournew theatremustbethoroughlynationalandpopularincharacter.Inourattempts{at]buildingupthis nationaltheatrewemustmakemaximumuseofindigenousmaterialfromournationalheritage anditsfoundationsmustbefinnlylaidinournanonaljradinons. NarainKale I Todayourdramaticanstandsonthethresholdofanewbirth. Ball:1j Salmi; Whichistosay,withthecreationofaninstitution,aninstitutionwherewewere,inonesense. themasters.Itwasamatterofknowingwbatweweregoing10dowithit.howweweregoing tomanagethisinstitutionalmastery,ifweweregoingtoidentifyitwiththetransmissionof scienceornot. Introducing the Drams Seminar TheSangeet Natak Akademi organizedtheDram.SeminarinApril 1956.Itwasthesecond ofaseries organized by the Akademifollowingits inception. The first wastheFilm Semi nar of 1955, and the last, the Dance Seminar of 1958. Perceived as criticalactivities, the Seminars were conceptualized as a central partofthe Akademi's long-term development planning. The Drama Seminar's principal concern was with thedelineation ofthe fiuun: Indian drama, This is evident from the first chapter of the First Drama Seminar Report (henceforth FDSR). In its opening address, the Seminar's Director Sachin Sengupta refer enced the Akademi Chairman, Dr P.V.Rajamannar's query regarding what the "future In dian drama shouldbelike."The Seminar, Sengupta suggests, represented the Akademi's efforts to "findit[Indian drama) torhim.'" Sengupta's 'address'reveals the'characteristic' discomfort of the 'artist' encountering the 'institution.' The Akaderni's response to Rajamannar's directive was therefore neither that ofa 'bureaucratic body' norofone so 'foolish'as to "issue any directiveonthe subject."In lieuofthese,adecisionwas madeto "gatherthe opinions ofexperts whohave devotedthebest part oftheirlivestomakeIndian •Thisistheeditedversionofachapterfromtheauthors' PhDthesis,titled'Fashioning3NationalTheatre:Thework oflnstitutionsandCulturn.1PolicyinPost-IndependenceIndia',Thedissertationwassubmitted10theDepartmentof PerformingStudies,NewYorkUniversity,NewYork.U.S.A. SallgldNalaJ: Vol.XLI.No.2, 2001 16 ANITACIlERIAN dramawhatit istoday." The Seminarsfortheperformingarts organized by theAkademi had in Sengupta's opin ion, a function quitedistinct from that of the 'academic' variant. Their significance, lay in the fact that any relevant analysis demanded the interpellation oftheir institutional condi lions ofpossibility. Sengupta argues that the arts required "for their fulfillment inunediate response from their patrons, as well as their sustained support. Seminars relating to these artsshould therefore, seek the contact of their connoisseurs as far as practicable." This statement alludes to both the transitions in structures ofpatronage for the performing arts, and the dynamics of connoisseurship, suggesting the historically contingent relationship between the socialstanding ofpatrons, performers and the arts themselves. Sengupta'sinvocationofthe'connoisseur' references neitherthe feudalpatron (a symbol ofpolitical and economic structures rapidly being rendered redundant) nor the corporate sponsor.' Hehailsinstead the'amateur' loverofthe theatre.affirming the 'rationality'and reformismofmiddleclass tastes,and representing them asnonnative.Such a sensibility is reflected in the Seminar's participants,all ofwhom werecharacterized as the "vel)'bestin the field"who wouldoffer the gathering the "full benefit of... [their] wisdom and experi ence." The vast majority ofthe participants worked in the amateur theatre and shared a bracing contempt for the commercial stage. The opportunity to participate in the Seminar was an honor conferred on the nation's theatre enthusiasts by the Akademi. Participationsignaled notonly theAkaderni's recogni tionofthe participants' prior contributions; it also placed on them the onus ofdelineating thecontoursofthe national theatre to come.A majority ofthe Seminar's participants were soon key figures (as directors. playwrights, actors, heads of national institutions, cultural administrators. ideologues and critics, national award winners. Fellows ofthe SNA) deter mining significant trends in Indian theatre's post·1950s development. The Seminar lasted six days and brought together forty "eminent theatre experts from allover the country".' The report, however, remained unpublished for nearly five decades till 2004 when the Akadernipublished it in itsjournal.' A striking aspectofthe FDSR's organization is itsdesire to both replicate the linguistic restructuring ofthenation-state,andtopresent arangeofthematicquestions relevanttothe imminent theatre. Since national representation was a key concern, a concerted effort was made to bring together participants representing the nation's linguistic and cultural diver sity. The fifty-two papers submitted to the Steering Committee examined the "various facets and problems of Indian Drama." They addressed questions of"[T]he growth and development oflanguagedramas and regional theatre inallthe 14 recognized languages." Besides,therewerepaperson 'Folk Dramas', 'Operaand Ballet','Professional,Amateurand Children'sTheatre.' 'Tagore's Drama: 'Theatre Architecture andStage Settings: 'Production of Drama Suitable in Indian conditions,' 'Indian Drama in contrast of[skj World Tradi tionalDramas and Plays ofToday,'andTraining in the ArtofDramatics." Though the language presentations followed one after the other in alphabetical order, IMAGININGANATIONALTHEATRE 17 beginningwithAssamese.andconcludingwiththeTamilandTelugutheatresofthe(former) Madras Presidency, we see one noteworthy exception: that of the Sanskrit theatre. In a gestureindicatingan originforthe authenticIndiantheatre,ahistoryofthe Sanskrittheatre was the first ofthepresentationsto follow the IntroductorySpeeches. Alsoofsignificance were the theatrical forms that did not find mention.The Parsi theatre and the IPTA were significantly not seen as subjects meriting consideration through individual papers. Both these areas, particularly the former, figure largely in the papers and the discussions that followed.The latterdespite its vel)'recenthistory (1943-48)remaineda subjectintroduced perforce into discussions, where bare mention was made ofitscontribution. Thisessayattempts toexaminethemodes throughwhichtheFDSRconstructs (recovers. re-visions) the history ofpre-independence theater inIndia?and thereafter to evaluate the termsthrough which itimagines andinstitutesa nationaltheatreforthenation'spostcoloniaJ future. These. needless 10 say. are related exercises signaling the post-colonial nation state's arrivalinto modernity)" My analysis ofthe FDSRelaborates on this claim,arguingthatthe postcolonialnation statein its momentofarrival,claimsdominionovertwo keysites-theorganizationorthe institution ofinstitutions, and relatedly the [re] organization ofthe temporal, that is the past(history),and the future [development)." The controlofthepastisengineeredthrough the rubrics oftradition and history, and the management of the present and the future through a complex of institutions. The nation-state's assumption of the 'privilege' of institutional reorganizationas evident fromtheFDSRtakes shape acrossvaried spaces:thatofthe formation ofinstitutionsinter estedinthe production ofanational theatre,theinstatingofa'new'networkofpatrons and performers and finally the rationalizing of'new' forms ofpolitical and cultural affiliation through the validation ofthe region as a constituent part ofthe integratednation. A critical impulse motivating the Seminar's discussions isthe discovery ofa legitimate 'Indian' theatrical tradition.The Seminar's understanding of 'tradition' reiterates nationalist narratives about India's 'spiritual unity'which transcended in Sachin Sengupta's words the "apparentdifferences inlanguages,customs,manners.socialordersandpoliticalset-ups."" Such nostalgia asserts that India's 'soul' had remained constant, notwithstanding the determinations ofthe governmental and institutional structures ofcolonialism. The papers presented at the Seminar reveal pervasive "doubts" about the "qualityof (existing] Indian drama.?" It would appearthattheseconcernsabout'quality'wereinfactconcernsaboutthe Indianor nationalcharacter of recent theatre in India. The FDSR importantly was perhapsthe firstdocument,produced under theaegisofthe sovereign state,to articulate concerns relating 10 the ideaofthe nationaltheatre.Its reiter ateddesire for a theatre history consistentwith the realized national present transforms its presentations and their proposals for the future into documents akin to policy. The FDSR claims that the theatre was still awaiting its transformation into a national form. And the task ofnationalizing this theatre,thaI is,of reconstructing Indisntheatrical 18 ANITA CHERIAN traditions fell uponthestate, inassociation with itsprincipalallies.the elite and the upper middle classes. Pre-histories ofaNational Theatre: BengaliandPars!Theatres The FDSR devotes three chapters to the Bengali Theatre. These include Dr. Amar Mukherjee's essay on the "Bengali Drama and Theatre,"(FDSR,64-74), Lila Ray's discus sion ofthe "Plays ofTagore,' (FDSR,80-87) and the actor, Ahindra Chowdhuri's (1895 1974) presentationon the "Professional Theatre in Bengal" (FDSR, 376-385). In striking contrast.the Parsitheatre, which had sincethe J8505constituted vibrantforums for public entertainmentsacross thesubcontinent, didnotwarrantasinglepaper.Instead, we find that the Parsitheatre makes its appearance either as the stigmatized, commercial 'otherto vari ous vernaculartheatres seeking thestampofauthenticity,oralternately,as appropriated by the vernacular. thereby constituting the (heritage of) theatre in that language. Often, as in the presentations on Gujarati, Hindi. Marathi. Kannada, Andhra, Tamil. Bengali and even the Manipuri theatres we see both these processes working together." Here clearly the appropriation of this form that characteristically exceeded its linguistic connections to Gujarati or Hindustani or Urdu. was achieved so seamlessly that it became the singular patrimony ofseveral other languages. Anotherpointtobekeptinmindwhilereading the FDSR'srepresentationsoftheBengali and Persitheatres isthatofitsalignmentofthe former withthe projects ofnationalism and religious reform. and of the latter with its inauthentic, hybrid, colonial antecedents. The FDSR's history ofthe Bengali theatre erases the necessary trace of its institution at the intersections ofthe encounter between the forms of Bengali culture and British colonial ism.As Homibhabhapointsout,this is the"marginofhybridity,whereculturaldifferences 'contingently' and conflictually touch."!' Projects attempting to institute a national theater have been an integral part ofthe histories of several nation-states. Such aspirations signal a landmark moment in their desire for self-representation: with the theater representing a nation's integrity to itself. Loren Kruger suggests that this "notion of staging the nation, of representing as well as reflecting thepeopt«inthe theatre.ofconstitutingorevenstanding inforan absentoreven imperfect national identity" first emerged during the European Enlightenment and took "concrete shape with the Revolutionary fetes." However the "institution" ofwhat Kruger calls "theatricalnationhood manifestsitselffullyonly inthe ...nineteenthcenturywith the rise ofmass national politics. universal "male" suffrage. and the demand ofthe people for legitimate representation as protagonist on the political stage.:" Kruger's assertion while compelling canbemisleading if not considered within the individualnational and histori cal contexts she is concerned with. that is, England, France and the United States. Seen thus. it becomes clear that each ofthese nations desired different models of the national theatre in keeping with their individual political trajectories; engagement with the ideals ofthe Enlightenment; the concept of bourgeois revolution; notions of popular citizenship, IMAGINING ANATIONAL THEATRE 19 democracy and empire. Applied to thecontext ofcolonialIndia.however. Kruger's criteriafor'theatricalnation hood' of'mass national politics' and 'universal suffrage' appear deeply problematic. The rule of 'colonial difference' ensured that the colonized were not allowed the emancipatory space ofnationalism as mass movement, bourgeois revolution. or universal suffrage." Instead as Ranajit Guha and Partha Chatterjee have shown Indian nationalism articulated itselfas a mediatory project wherein the elite and middle-classurge to hegemony in rela lionto other subaltern colonial classestookthe fo~ofa'universalism'expressed"inevita bly as a nationalism.?" Across India. distinct political and economic configurations impacted upon the diverse institutional formsof 'modem'.urban theatre.This is clearly thecasewhenweconsiderthe preeminent forms ofthe public theatre in colonial India's major metropolitan centres Calcutta the "capital of the empire," and Bombay which was emerging as thecolonized world's leading commercial centre. In Calcutta, the first Bengali play was staged in 1795 at a theatre established by the Russianadventurer, Gerassim Lebedeff" This wasashort-livedendeavor,withthetheatre closing after Lebedeff'sdeparture from thecity.Thenextsignificant momentwasthe 1831 openingof the 'Hindoo Theatre' by the rich landlord Prassana Kumar Tagore athis garden house near Calcutta.?"The practiceofconstructing European style theatres in the resi dences of rich landlords and moneylenders continued till the 1860's.As a consequence of this, the theatre became the chosen form of 'private' entertainment for the "respectable gentry"who carefully vetted their invited audiences." Duringthis period, theplays most favored for performance were commissioned Bengali translationsof 'ancient Sanskritclas sics,' Shakespeare, and newer plays written in the heroic mode.The first original Bengali play was written in 1852 and performed soon after. Performances by amateur troupes be camecustomary after the 1850's withthewidespread formationofdramaticclubsrepresent ing every community, town and locality. By the 1870's alongside the emergent nationalist movement,changeswerebecomingapparentinthe"socialbaseofpatronage"oftheBengali theatre." These transitions indicated aninclination towards nationalism and political or ganizing among the bhsdrztok; a significant shift from its earlier collaborationist relation ship with the colonial rujers." Also signaled were shiftsin theclassbaseforthe theatre with increasing numbers of the professional middle classes forming their own troupes. Among the most significant of these were the 'Bengal Theatre' and the 'Great National Theatre'." Bengali theatre came into its own as a public institution onlyafter theestablishmentof theGreatNational Theatre in1872,bytheacclaimedplaywrightanddirector,GirishChandra Ghosh (1844-1912)." The National Theatre was the earliest Indian attempttoconstitutea theatrical organization claiming the name ofthe 'national.' The inception of the public theatre radically transformed perceptions about stagecraft. viewership, publicness. and mass access to the modem economies ofentertainment and media. 20 ANITA CHERIAN Ghosh began his career as an amateur possessed with-the desire to create a theatre for commonpeople.For five years he directed and acted inamateur productions, all the while trainingagroupofyoung artistes,whowould form thecoreofthe NationalTheatre.Among the group's earliest professional productions was,their 1872 staging ofDlinabandhu Mitra's NilDarpsn(The Indigo Planter's Mirror, 1860).'" This play's production history between 1872 and 1875is acritical part of the nation's cultural history. Historically allied with the Bengali middle classes. the professional theatre provided an unprecedented forum wherethe pressingpoliticaland socialquestionsofthetime could be addressed." Ahindra Chowdhuri in his essay. 'The ProfessionalTheatre' claims that the theatre was notonlya "centre ofattraction for amusements and entertainments but exerted a tremendous influence as an educational agency.':" The new accessibility ofthe theatre made it a significant factor in urban sociality. through the possibilities of interaction it offered to vast cross-sections of the populace. Among the crowds flocking to the theatre were lawyers,judges, intellectuals, artists, students, shopkeepers, and after the late 1880's the Viceroy, the Governor ofBengal and even visiting English royalty. Theatre going, Chowdhuritellsus wascentral tothe experienceofthe city.with visitors fromthemofussil areascombining trips to the theatre with customary activities such as those ofpilgrimage. After theimpositionofthe Df3/113ticPerofnnancesActin 1876.the theatre becameasitefor a Hindu revivalism that masked a burgeoning cultural nationalism. This religious fervor turned the theatreinChowduri'swordsintoa "veritable.. .pulpit"drawing the attentionof spiritualleaderslikeRamakrishna Pannahansa,Swami Vivekanandaandthe Bhramo Samaj leader Keshabehandra Sen. The FDSR conveys the impression that there was never amidst the Bengali middle classes.a movement opposing the professional theatre or its commercial inclinations.Such a structure ofrepresentation contrasts withthe intensifying opposition to the commercial theatre elsewhere in India." from thework ofSudipto Chatterjee and Rimli Bhattacharya, however.we discern a somewhatdifferent picture.The Bengali theatre. though inunensely popular with middleclass audiences, was hardly devoid ofconflict. Debates on the moral correctness ofthe practice ofthe theatre, particularly with regard to the employment of women from the prostitute class as actresses. portraying the virtuous bhadramahila pro voked discussion, ambivalence. and on occasion. tore apart professional relationships." Bhattacharya points out that, the Public theatre, notwithstanding its bhadralok identity depended on the labor ofLieprostitute actresses, who were first recruited in August 1873, barely a year after the formation of Girish Ghosh's National Theatre in December 1872. I willsuggestthat thisinfonnation isrelevant for the light itshedson the narrative strategies employedatthe Drama Seminar. The fDSR quite clearlyacts upon adesire to homogenize histories ofthe Bengali theatre. creating as a result the 'ideal' institutional model forboth the vernacular and national theatres in the post-independence period. further evidence ofthe Akademi'sattempt toconstitutea usable past for the theatre, by way ofthe Bengali theatre, is available inits celebrationofthe latter's attentiveness to the IMAGINIKGANATIONAL THEATRE 21 politicalandsocialconcernsofthe middleclass,andrelatedlyinitsfunctioningafter1870 asaforum fornationalistpolitics. Thisperceptionofthetheatre's roleamongitsprimarily middleclassconstituencydistinguishesresponsestoitfromthoseevokedbytheParsiand othercommercialtheatres.Aquicksurveyofthepublictheatre'searlyhistoryiscalledfor. Fromitsinceptionin 1872,theNationalTheatre haddemonstrateditsaffiliationwith an emergingnationalist consciousness. Its productionof NIlDarpenintroducedanti-colonial concerns to Calcutta audiences." Though thisproduction didnot drawthe attention of either the bhadralokorthe colonialadministration, itwasrecognizedasaprotest play.n The production's successful runin Calcuttalead 10 its being taken on tourin 1875. with performancesinnorthIndiantownslikeAgra,Delhi. MathuraandLucknow." Everywhere it went, the play's portrayal of the plantation owners angered audiences. In Lucknow, European audiences attacked the players compelling the District Magistrate to ban the playandaskthe troupe toleave town.Alsoin 1875,the stagingoftwo politicalplays Cha ta Dsrpsn (The Tea Planter's Mirror) and Gsekwed Dtupen(The Gaekwad's Mirror) in Calcutta,provoked the administrators leading to the imposition of the Dramatic Petform sncesAc~ in 1876.34 Imposed in time across the subcontinent,the Actsoughtto prohibit the production of plays "likely to excite feelings ofdisaffection to the Government estab lished by law in British India, or likely to deprave and corrupt persons present at such performance."35 Giventhecolonial state'santipathytothe'realist'modeofthe Darpan(Mirror)plays,the publictheatretook to staging politicalandsocialfarces.The mostsignificantofthese was the 1876staging atthe Grand National of Gajad~nandJJand thePrince; whichsatirizedthe hospitalityshowntothevisitingPrinceofWalesbyalocallawyerJagadanandaMukherjee." The administration recognized this infringementby expanding thepunitive powers of the 1876 Actthrough an ordinance that prohibited performances thatwere "scandalous, de famatory, seditious, obscene orotherwise prejudicialto thepublic interest."Respondingto the ordinance,theNational Theatre stagedyet anotherfarce, The Police ofPig andSheep, lampooning the police commissioner, Sir StuartHogg and the police superintendent, Mr.Lamb. This time the playwright and the director were arrested and sentenced to a monthin prison. Following these events the Great National began to eschew overtly na tionalist themes and turned instead to the production of social farces that reflected the growing conservatism ofuppercaste Hinduculturalnationalism, caricaturedthekey fig ures ofthereformist impulse." The events following the National Theatre's staging of NiJDarpanconferred a mythic stature to the Bengali public theatre.Acclaimed forits nationalistpast,the Indiangovern ment (prompted by the Seminar participants) signaled its approval of the public theatre's role bywaiving thehatedentertainmenttax forthemostprominentprofessionaltheatres." Interestingly the Bengali public theatre, despite its commercial infrastructure, was not perceivedas 'mass entertainment'.Through itsintimatelinkswiththe bhsdrslok;the public theatreconveyed the impression thatits themes,reformist inclinationsandaestheticsensi- 22 ANITACHERIAN bility reflected middle class tastes. Additionally the public theatre made the medium a significant forum where a complex, often contradictory anti-feudal, anti-colonial politics came to be articulated. However,thecommercialand'critical'successoftheBengali publictheatre,needs tobe recognized as a distinctive phenomenon whose conditions of possibility derived from Bengal's colonial history and consequently Calcutta's development as a metropolitan cen tre; the restructuring of castes and classes as a corollary ofcolonial intervention; the col laboration ofthe middle and upper-classes with the colonial governmental projects; expo sureto colonialeducation; the emergence of English as the language of bureaucracy and "intellectual influencefor[on]anewBengalielite";therefurbishingofBengaliasa "mod em"language "adequate"tothetaskofrepresentinga "modem culture";the state's relative linguistic homogeneity}'); and finally the reform and nationalist movements that deline ated the sovereign construct ofan Indian nation. Ananalysisofthe Parsitheatre (in relationto the demands of the national) will remain incomplete withouta contextualizationofthe geographic. social and economic conditions foritsemergence andconsolidation. While Calcutta wasthe administrative seatofBritish IndiauntilitscapitalwasshiftedtoNewDelhi.Bombay,British India'smost vitalport, was the commercial hubofempire and attracted to its shores a multiethnic and multilingual population. The Parsi theatre developed alongside the decline ofcourt culture and its patronage system, and the correspondinggrowth ofBombay's wealth and poweras a me tropolis. Kathryn Hansenpointsoutthat fromthe outsetthe citynurtured aheterogeneous popu· lationcomprisingParsis,Banias,a minorityofEnglishcitizens.Marathis,Gujararis,Arme nians, Arabs. Jews, Malays and Indian Christians." Unsurprisinglythe city's cultural het erogeneity was manifest inthe heterogeneous practices of the Parsi theatre. I will suggest thatthisqualitywas inmany waysatoddswith nationalism's homogenizing and centraliz ing impulses. Ifinrelationto the Bengalitheatre myeffort wasto revealthe contexts withinwhich it came to exemplifya national theatre, my intentionvis-a-vis the Parsi theatre is to reflect upon why despite its overwhelming popularity, linguistic flexibility, and pan-Indian (in factpan-Asian)circulation,itwasnotthoughttobe atheatrical styleworthyofthenameof the national. One possible reason for this could be the hybrid modes of its articulation visible in its "deformationsand displacements" oflanguage," performance strategies,and narrative content; refusal ofthe 'classical' unities; use ofall available stage technologies, territorial and linguistic mobility; and the ethnic and religious identities ofthe directors. actors,writersand financiers. Yet.it is important to acknowledgebefore I continue, that the Bengali theatre, quite as muchastheParsivariant.was'infected'withthesignsofcolonialrule.Thehybridityofthe Bengali theatre is in fact a key aspect of Sudipto Chatterje's persuasive history of the Bengali theatre." Given this, we can conclude that the FDSR's bypassing ofthe implica- IMAGINING A NATIONAL THEATRE 23 lions ofthe Bengali theatre's uncertain antecedents. signals itsdesire to confer it with a 'positive' ideological valence, distinct from its attitude (0 the Parsi theatre,ofwhich itwas often incontrovertibly critical. The rDSRpresents thehistoryoftheParsitheatrethroughtheworkoftheatre historians and practitioners asserting regional. vernacular identities. Ignored as a subject meriting an individual paper. it is only through presentationsdealing with the Marathi,Gujarati, Hindi and other professional theatres ofthe Western region that we have access to the Parsi theatre. Visible here is the establishment's refusal to acknowledge the Parsitheatre as an entity that transcended the linguistic. religious and cultural divides being consolidated alongside the nationalist movement in the latter half ofthe nineteenth century." Addition ally,I would argue that theParsitheatre'shybrid vision ofthe pan-Indian'popular'was not a mode (aesthetic or governmental) that the national imaginary was willing to accept as part of its schema.More conducive perhaps were claimsto the nationalmade via regional forms. emerging alongside strengthening vernacular identities. In keeping with its metropolitan contexts the Parsi theatre's antecedents were incom merce, and in the efforts of a commercial class to seek legitimacy in the acquisition and circulation ofcultural capital. In 1840, a 455 strong group ofBombay's wealthiest busi nessmen. petitioned the Governor asking for the institution ofa public theatre. Popular sentiment,they argued, favored the "erection of a Theatre for the purpose of Dramatic entertainment."This they claimed was a "measure" that "wouldpromotegoodhumour and tend to induce a desirable tone offeeling in Society at large."?' The Grant Road or the Badshahi (Royal) Theatre was inaugurated in February 1846.It was builton land donated by Jagannath Shanker Seth. one ofBombay's richest businessmen. Funds for the project were split between contributions from the government and from the Parsi businessman, Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy." Built in the 'English' fashion with London's DruryLane theatres as a model,the Grant Road Theatre had dress boxes, sealing arrangements in the pit. a gallery with 200seats, perfect acoustics, gas lighting. green rooms and magnificent drop curtains. Leased to an English professional actress Mrs. Deacle, in itsearly years, the theatre staged a variety of English plays,completewith elaborate costumes and scenery." Fairlysoonthetheatre was beingused tostageproductionsbyvarious amateurIndiangroups.ItwasherethatVishnudas BhaveofSangli,thefounderofthe Marathitheatre,stagedhismythological plays whileon tour in 1853.41 Also in October 1853, the Parsi Dramatie Corps staged Rustsm, Z:1buJi andSohrab. Somnath Gupt informsusthat 1854 saw such a series ofGujarati playsbyvariousgroups. all with the title Parsi appended to their names, with Parsi themes, characters and actors staged at theGrant RoadTheatre, that it ledonetobelieve thattheParsitheatrehad in fact arrived." . The Parsis, who had in the 18· century through their collaboration with the British acquired great wealth. became by the middleofthe 19111 century the new patronsofculture, 24 AN[TACHERIAN buyingandconstructing theatres. establishing dramacompanies, creating the conditions fortheemergenceofanewformofpopularentertainment.Intheinitialstages,thenomen clarure 'Pa·rsi'establishedthe theatre'sintimate ties with the community:referring to the ownershipof the companies, the identityof theplaywrights, actorsandaudience, andthe language ofplaywriting andperformance, Gujarati. Withthe form's growing popularity, and withtheintroduction in 1870 ofplays in Urdu, neweraudiences, including Iranis, Muslims. Hindus andevenhigh-rankingBritishofficials, beganto frequent the theatre.A liberal pricing structureforticketsensuredadiverseaudience including large numbers of the working classes." Amongthemorepressingproblemsfacedbythe Parsi theatre inBombaywastheshort ageofplayhouses.Theatricalcompaniesweretherefore allowedonlyshortruns before the workofothercompaniesweremounted Tocontendwiththis,the companiesdevisedby the J870's, the strategyof takingproductionsontouracrossthesubcontinent.These were elaborate procedures thatinvolvedthe transportation of entire casts,props and sceneryto differentlocations. Fromitsinceptionin1853,tothepost 1870'sdecisiontotourthesubcontinentandAsia asatravelingtheatre,the Parsitheatre'sdefiningcharacteristic wasitsdynamicembraceof an institutionalandaestheticheterogeneity. Following its corporate and dispersed emer gence asa recognizable producerof popular entertainments, we see theestablishing of 'Parsi'theatrecompaniesacrossthecountry.andaswitchinthelanguageusedfrom Gujarati to the more widelyunderstood UrduandHindustani.SomnathGupt pointsoutthattheatre companies used Gujarati between 1850 and 1870, making the transition [0 Urdu in 1870, withthe intentionofattracting new audiences," Hereagain,wesee the Parsicompanies' attentivenessto thechanging demographics ofthe city, andto the demands ofaudiences outsideBombay.While Urdu andHindustaniwereunderstood asthelanguages withthe greatestreachinalinguistically diverseterritory,thistransitionalsosignals theinflux into Bombay ofartists, writers and performers made redundantfollowing the dissolution of Princely States. Relentlesslyinventive initspursuitofthepopular,theParsi theatredidnothesitatetoborrow fromamyriadperformative,linguisticandliterarysources.Itcaredlittlefortheartificialbounda riessetupbetweenthepermeablerealms ofthe folk,thepopular and the classical. We see the evidence ofa relentless sifting,andjuggling ofpcrfonnativeidioms inthe attemptto produce popularentertainment.Thisexpansivelexiconderiveditscomponentsfromavarietyofsources: classical musicand dance transitingfromacourt supportedpatronage economytomore'scien tific'middleclassspaces;folkpetfonnanceformssuchasNautanki,Tamasha, Bhavai,thatwere beingsqueezedoutofurbancentreswiththeadventofthe'modem'theatre,leavingtheircharac teristicimprintonperformers andperformingstyles;the 'realis!'and revue modesdisplayed by traveling Europeantheatre groups;and reworkings in performanceof theiconicarticulation characteristicof'traditional' Indianart,"