Theatre keeps alive dissent and democracy

A Kannada adaptation of Kichak Vadh, which critiqued the colonial regime. 

A poster of Jotegiruvanu Chandira, Jayanth Kaikini's adaptation of Fiddler on the Roof.

The extraordinary beginning of Bharatha’s Natyashastra conceptualises drama as a means of addressing tumult. In the text, the very first performance ends abruptly when the daityas and vighnas (evil spirits) forcibly stop the performance. They are angered by the representation of their defeat by the gods on the stage.

The daityas and vighnas make the sutradhara and the actors inert, to stop the play. Brahma later explains to them that drama is only a representation of all things and should be experienced as such.

What happened in Natyashastra has repeated over time when a group in the audience finds the representation on stage unpalatable.

During the nationalist phase of Indian theatre, drama was, at first, a direct critique of colonial politics. Plays such as Nil Darpan and Chakar Darpan used stark realism to unmask the oppression of peasants, estate workers and the poor, as well as the partisan judiciary.

The British colonial government took theatre seriously and used an iron fist to stop, censor and penalise dramatic performances. The publisher of Nil Darpan in English, Reverend James Long, was sentenced to jail.

Such events led to the draconian Dramatic Performances Act (1876), which gave the government near absolute power to censor and stop performances.

Resisting colonialism

However, in the second phase, popular commercial theatre used Indian mythology to indirectly attack the colonial regime. The Marathi play Kichak Vadh is a celebrated example. In the theatre, the knowing audience responded to the critique, often with nationalist slogans.

In Vijayapura, Karnataka — in his play based on the disrobing of Draupadi — Kandagal Hanumantha Rao made Krishna protect Draupadi by giving her khadi robes. He also lectured the audience on the sacredness of khadi through the play. He is said to have been harassed by the police for his nationalist plays.

The nationalist phase of Indian drama, especially popular commercial theatre, saw a battle between theatre and the colonial regime. However, the social reformist theatre, both urban and rural, sometimes caused conflict between traditionalists and reformers. This theatre addressed traditional practices relating to caste, women and feudalism, drawing scorching criticism.

The amateur theatre of Sriranga with plays like Harijanwara, and the plays of Kailasam too, created ripples and debates.

In the post-independence period, Indian theatre continued to perform its function of critique and resistance in several ways. The attacks on performances and their banning or closure was on grounds of obscenity and an open representation of sexuality. Vijay Tendulkar’s Sakharam Binder is a well-known example.

Intolerance

The cultural nationalism and the valorisation of Indian religions and traditions, which began in the colonial period, later led to intolerance towards any form of critique in the theatre. With the rise of the right wing and the consolidation of caste groups and organisations, the theatre became a favoured target for ‘mob censorship.

The most contentious issue has been history and its reconstruction. In the last few decades, innumerable dramatic performances have been stopped with the threat of violence. The pattern goes as follows: objections are made by a small group who may not even have seen the play, on the grounds that it hurts religious sentiments. Following this, the police and the administration warn the producers of the play that there might be a ‘law and order situation’ and refuse to provide protection. Inevitably, the performance is cancelled.

It is no longer the government — colonial or post-colonial — but fringe groups and organisations who have turned into the cultural police. India, with its great and diverse theatrical traditions, faces the risk of an endangered theatre. This would also mean the tragic loss of theatre in the public sphere, despite its illustrious history as a participant and interlocutor in national and social debates.

Recently, the performance of the play Jotegiruvanu Chandira, Jayanth Kaikini’s adaptation of Fiddler on the Roof, was forcibly stopped by a small right-wing group on the grounds that it was a play with Muslim characters.

The director and the main actor of the play recounted to me how a handful of people went to the stage and stopped the performance during the most emotional part of the play. After widespread criticism and protest, it has been decided that the play will be performed again at the same venue in Anavatti.

The theatre is a major pillar of a democracy, providing space for collective experience and public participation. Censorship and violent disruptions of performances are a threat to democratic culture.

In the great Natyashastra, it is Brahma who creates the theatre as the fifth veda, open to all varnas. He attributes the highest value to it as a path for human beings to transcend the vicissitudes of real life. One can only hope that this ancient wisdom will prevail over bigotry and cultural policing.