 |
| Peer Gynt 2010 Deepan Sivaraman |
Tradition versos modernity
The last six decade’s following
independence Indian theatre makers, cultural theorists and critics have debated
and discussed the concept of ‘indigenous’ and ‘’alien’’ practices in
performance making and play writing in India. The theatre of roots movement has
critiqued urban realist theatre which stands for the modernity and
cosmopolitism as a remnant of colonialism while the adherents of urban movement
have critiqued the theatre of roots movement which stands for the
‘authenticity’ as a form of revivalism.
As an aftermath of this cultural and
creative cold war the traditionalist Indian critique of westernized modernity
has called for a rejection of alien theatrical forms planted in the urban
locations by the colonisers and urged to restart the identity search from the
indigenous theatre of rural India. This argument was initially developed and
led by theatre scholars as Suresh Awasthi, Nemichandra Jain and Kapila
Vatsyayanan which later practised by the directors as Kavalam Narayana
Panikkar, B V Karnath, Habib Tanvir and Rathan Thiyam. Theatre historian Aparna
Dharvadkar identifies, the proponents of theatre of roots
movement ‘’dismissed the complex body of European influenced new
social-realist, existentialist, absurdist, Brechtian contemporary urban theatre
as ‘‘un-Indian’’ and argued that the only possibility of an authentic
alternative modernity in Indian theatre is to going back to the aesthetics and
representational principles of indigenous performance genres[1]’’.
 |
| Kathakali |
It’s not my intention to bring back this
mammoth old debate, ‘‘the authenticity of Indian theatre’’ to the podium when
Indian theatre have already dropped it in the midway and moved much forward
from it. But in recent years Kerala theatre is also witnessing a similar
debate on the authenticity of contemporary theatre and a number of new
generation theatre makers including myself have been criticised for making
‘‘European influenced theatre’’ in Kerala. The argument put forward is that the
kind of theatre language explored by younger theatre generation is
‘’rootless’’, ‘’too modern’’ and ‘’too technological’’. In this context I think
it’s valid to discuss this subject a little further.
 |
| Death dream 2004 Deepan sivaraman |
My position
As an Indian theatre practitioner who
grew up in post independent India exposed to predominantly western theatre
training, it’s true that my theatre perspective has been highly influenced by
western theatre tradition or western influenced modern Indian theatre. Though I
was born and brought up in a small Kerala village I wasn’t exposed to the so
called traditional rural based theatre forms such as Koodiyattom or Kathakali
as I neither belong to an upper caste Hindu family system nor has
any family theatre back ground . So my theatre perspective started to form when
I began amateur theatre activities in early 90s which further developed when I
joined the School of Drama at Thrissur. However I must admit that as I grew up
in a village I had the opportunity to engage with rituals and folk theatre
forms which were always part of my social life. I think this mix of culture and
knowledge is a very typical case for many of post independent Indian artists
regardless of their region or field of work.
My theatre language has often been
criticised for not being “Indian enough” though my work is based on a research
which explores the scenography of popular Indian theatre and deals with the
very question of Indian identity challenging the supremacy of proscenium. The
argument is that my theatre is too modern and too technological which implies
that contemporary India has nothing to do with either modernity or technology.
Another criticism is that my recent works ‘Spinal Cord’ and ‘Peer Gynt’ lack
the Kerala culture’’ as it is informed by the symbolism of ‘’foreign Christian
culture’’. Yes, it’s true that both the plays are set in the back ground of
Christian culture but the perception of considering Christian or Islam as alien
to Indian culture is dangerous and it shouldn’t be entertained. For me the
Hindu festival Thrissur pooram[2] and the Christian festival Pavaratti
Perunnal[3] are equally Keralite. There is no equal to Viakkom Muhammad
Bhasheer’s literature in Kerala which is partially because of his Islamic
textured Malabarian Malayalam slang.
The argument, MT Vasudevan Nair’s
Valluvanadan upper Caste Hindu slang is more Keralan than Bhasheer’s Islamic
slang should be defeated. The great beauty of Keralite and Indian society is
its vibrancy of multiculturalism. Hence the idea of being authentic Indian or
Kerala is certainly problematic and questionable.
Historically the hostility towards
modernity and technology is a feudal nature as the former offers equal
opportunity based on one’s ability rather than the privilege gained by birth.
Opposing ‘’edginess’’ in art by the conventionalists has always been a regular
feature in the history of art and the present debate on ’cultural Identity’ in
Indian/Kerala theatre should be read in this context.
My position is simple. For me
contemporary India is modern, secular, rational and technological and as a
contemporary theatre maker I believe it’s my responsibility to respond to the
socio political environment of present India which I think is the duty of any
contemporary artist. Therefore I am not searching for
the authenticity of Indian theatre but engaging in an ongoing debate on the
language of Indian theatre through the perspective of a scenographer and
director producing work that challenges the society which I inhabit.
 |
| Costume Design Sakunthalam-2006 Deepan Sivaraman |
The Issue of Indian Identity.
The concept of ‘’authenticity’’ as
the issue of Indian identity is still a heated topic in India especially as it
has always been the favourite subject of India’s right wing nationalist
political parties.
I support the position of Anuradha
Kapur the present director of National School of Drama who raised the question
in her study of Ramlila: “Is there any authentic Indian
tradition”?[4]“Authenticity,” is a complex term to define, especially in the
context of India’s diverse cultural history. The question is that,
“If we start to do layer our cultural palimpsest then how far we can go?”
For Kapur ‘‘Authenticity is a
category of thought intrinsically linked to post colonial preoccupations with
‘identity’ and roots, which are themselves constrained within the polarities of
East and West. By setting up our tradition as ‘true’ against the encroachments
of a ‘foreign’ culture, we manufacture a history of tradition that is basically
moulded by the West insofar as it is posited as its exact alterity’’[5].
In Aparna Bhargava Dharwadker’s
opinion ‘’In order to reject modernity in theatre as an unacceptable Western
legacy, one would logically also have to reject modernity in other forms of
social and cultural organization’’. In this context Badal Sarkar the Bengali
playwright-director who used theatre as a tool for social change regarded folk
theatre not ‘’modern theatre’’, as alien to his urban and middle
class-sensibility[6]’’.
 |
| Tughlaq Ebrahim Alkazi |
Problems behind the idea of being authentic.
Going back to history, it was
‘’Theatre of roots movement’’ in late 1950s first alarmed the danger of
cultural corruption of Indian theatre by the influence of
colonialism. Rustom Bharucha (1993) gives a broader explanation of the
ideology behind the movement of theatre of roots. ‘’Theatre of roots
movement was primarily an ideological set up against ‘Western realistic
Theatre’, in order to turn modern Indian theatre back into its own ‘roots’. By
doing this, they assumed that Indian artists can reverse the colonial course of
contemporary theatre and put it back on the track of India’s great
Natyashasthra tradition’’[7]. In other words, what mattered was, to
establish a direct line with the Natyashsthara itself in order to construct an
authentic Indian theatre lacks the overall understanding of the complex
cultural history of India.
 |
| When We Dead Awaken. Ratan Thiyam. |
In order to understand the above
mentioned cultural complexity let us take the example of the works of Rattan
Thiyam the most vibrant ‘theatre of roots’ director in the country. Although
Thiyam explored the alternative theatre spaces in the early stage of his career
he mostly used the ‘colonial proscenium’ in order to make the true ‘authentic
Indian theatre’ which is exactly what happened to both Panikkar and Karanth who
were also the leaders of this movement. The validity of this kind of
‘authenticity’ is what many of others have questioned. The complex reality is
that Rathan Thiyam was a student of Ebrahim Alkazi who was a graduate of Royal
Academy of Dramatic Art, London and doubtlessly is one of the first
sophisticated urban Indian theatre makers in modern India. It was the intention
of Alkazi to develop a modern theatre school in India which National School of
Drama, New Delhi, established in 1960s with the tradition of RADA aiming to professionalise
Indian theatre. It’s true that Rathan Thiyam’s theatre has been strongly influenced
by his exposure to the proscenium theatre, as represented to him by his mentor,
Alkazi at the National School of Drama in Delhi. As a result Rathan Thiyam
started to make theatre inspired by the visual language of Manipuri popular
theatre forms as a front runner of theatre of roots movement but at the same
time he simply used the possibilities of existing proscenium stage, a craft he
probably learned from National School of Drama as an early student of Ibrahim
Alkazi.
The pardox
To conclude this note I would like to
bring a piece of history which may shed more light to the complexity of Indian
culture.
At the midnight of August 15th, 1947
India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru addressed the nation. All India
Radio broadcasted his historical speech live across the country. Millions of
sleepless Indians gathered in every street corner, waited to hear about their
destiny through the voice of their beloved leader. Paradoxically he chose to
deliver his speech in ‘English’ the language of his colonisers which only a few
percentages of urban middle class Indians could follow. The large majority of
ordinary Indians who waited all night to hear the destiny of their new nation
had to walk home without understanding a single word of what their beloved
leader was speaking! Why did Nehru the man who fought all his life against the
rule of English choose to speak in the language of his colonisers on that
momentous night?
Answering this question would provide
the key to an understanding of the nature of the impact of British colonialism
on India. ‘‘The creation of a native elite in its own image was the most
spectacular and enduring achievement of British colonialism in India’’. So, was
Nehru one of them? May be he was and maybe not. What else could he have been as
a man born and brought up in the British cross cultured India? It’s not my
intention to prove Nehru’s passion towards English culture over Indian part
which caused him to use English to deliver his historic speech. What important
is the fact that Nehru’s speech sheds light on the complex nature of Indian
culture and it explains why I call it a ‘’cultural palimpsest’’.
 |
| Vangoghs version of japanese Squall |
Hybridity of art.
Coming back to the subject, the
pertinent question is for whom we make theatre and how we do it? Shouldn’t
it be focused on the present social realities of Kerala and shouldn’t
it be speak the language of today. Otherwise what is
the point of calling today's theatre contemporary? I don’t understand
the logic of considering a piece of theatre based on our epics Ramayanam or
Mahabhartham more Indian or Kerala rather than the theatre that
speak the language of today form wise and content wise which tells the
story of our current society. How can we deny the relevance
of present time where we are all live in? If we do deny the relevance of
it, we are simply questioning the relevance of our own existence! How can we
shoot our own feet?
The so called perception about
“Indianness” surfaced from the concept that the past is truer than the
present. Whilst acknowledging that colonialism re-enforced the class
divisions in India especially in theatre I argue that the search for an
‘’authentic Indian theatre’’ has no validity in the context of India’s complex
cultural history.
 |
| The Constant Prince Jerzy Grotowski |
When we are always ready to engage
with present modern India taking advantage of the technologies that developed
from other part of the world to keep up our daily life I wonder why we are so
hostile towards the usage of technologies in theatre because it may have
originated some other part of the world? Both art and technology are knowledge
not just discourse. If there was no invention of wheel the present world where
we are all live in wouldn’t be in its current position. That tells us something
which we can’t ignore. If we look into the history of art many artists have
been influenced by other cultures and in fact these influences among various
cultures are the fundamentals of the present world art. For example one of the
most celebrated 19th century impressionist painters Vincent Vangogh was
highly influenced by Japanese art. In theatre 20th century Polish director
Grotowski’s works were greatly influenced by Indian theatre which he always
openly admits and proud of talking about it. Needless to bring the list of
Indian artists who have been influenced by foreign art as it might be a long
list. No one can close the doors and windows towards the world of
art as it is knowledge and it should be accable to everyone. We can’t burn
Shakespeare from libraries or Picasso’s paintings from our galleries because of
the paranoia that ‘’our art may get corrupted by foreignness’’ of it.
To conclude this essay, I would like
to bring back the point I made earlier that as a contemporary Indian theatre
maker my position is, India is modern, secular, rational and technological
therefore I believe it’s my responsibility to respond, provoke, challenge
insinuate to the socio political environment of present India. ''Those who want
to make art and theatre with the smell of Kerala / Indian soil, they can
certainly do it, but for me I don’t eat soil I rather step on it''.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Dharwadker, A B. (2005)
Theatre of Independence- Drama, Theory and Urban Performance in India since
1947, Iowa City: University of Iowa Press
[2] Thrissur Pooram is a well
known elephant festival celebrated in the city centre of Thrissur with the
association of many temples around the town ship.The richly decorated elephant,
as seen during the Thrissur pooram, is now globally recognized, and its
association with Kerala.
[3] The Pavaratti Perunnal is
the feast of St. Joseph held every year on April 24 and 25 at the church in
Pavaratti. The feast attracts thousands of devotees to the village from all
over the state.
[4] Kapur, A. (2006) Actors,
Pilgrims, Kings and Gods: The Ramlila of Ramnagar, London: Seagull Books.
[5] Kapur, A. (2006) Actors,
Pilgrims, Kings and Gods: The Ramlila of Ramnagar, London: Seagull Books.
[6] Dharwadker, A B. (2005)
Theatre of Independence- Drama, Theory and Urban Performance in India since
1947, Iowa City: University of Iowa Press
[7] Bharucha, R. (1993) Theatre
and the World: Performance and Politics of the Culture, London: Routledge
Deepan is a scenographer and theatre
director presently researches and teaches at Wimbledon college of art london. You
can connect with deepan on csdeepan@yahoo.com.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें