Article - Bengali Theatre: Art or Movement

Published in: "Vabna Theatre" (ISSN 2321-5909)
Vol.: 9; Issue: 3, (Special Issue)
Publication Year: November-December 2019
Edited by: Avik Bhattacharya

Abstract

This paper is an ethnographic study which addresses the issue of identities of those students and scholars who have completed their education in theatre arts or allied subjects from an educational institution in India. In Particular, this paper examines the difference between the mainstream theatre practitioner on the one hand, and the academic theatre practitioner on other.  In West Bengal, as well as in India, the mainstream theatre practitioners are known as ‘theatre workers’ in general. This article attempts to analysis the question of identity of the academic theatre practitioners through a comparative analysis of both the streams in post-independence (1947) Bengali theatre.

Bengali Theatre: Art or Movement

Bivash Bishnu Chowdhury

  

This article intends to analyze the question of identity of the students and scholars of theatre studies who live and breathe inside the theatre world. Although it sounds like a basic and straightforward issue, when one starts pondering over it, it turns into a colossal and entangling web, the origin and structure of which would then seem to be hard to decipher. Generally, students, artists, experts and practitioners of theatre are labeled under the widely and seemingly convenient as well as acceptable term, ‘theatre-workers’. The problem actually germinates from here. A child, whose parental identity is not legally sanctified in the society, is referred to as ‘illegitimate’. Although it is not exactly like this word ‘illegitimate’, the word ‘theatre workers’ still sounds disrespectful and demeaning. While talking about theatre as mentioned in the topic, I specially place my arguments here in the context of Bengali Theatre which turns out to be quite similar in terms of the theatre practices in and around India.

No word or term gains its currency for no reason. Likewise, there are strong historical reasons which propelled the term ‘theatre workers’ into the mainstream vocabulary. In order to shed light on that process, we need to look back to the time of the ‘Quit India Movement’ (1942). It is at this juncture when the function and practices of the theatre surpasses the periphery of the professional circle and culminates into the Gananatya (Indian People’s Theatre Association) movement. It is chiefly with this Gananatya movement that the tradition of our theatre practices stepped into the Independent era from the colonial regime. With the growing influence of this guild, “stalwarts like Monoranjan Bhattacharya, Sombhu Mitra on the one hand, and Utpal Dutta on the other came to the fore”  (Roy Chowdhury and Majumdar 76).

As several branches were established in Bengal and in the rest of India, both the newcomers as well as the veteran artists were coalesced into it. Movements against the British thus did not remain confined within the urban elites; rather it was embodied within the general spirit and feelings of the common masses in the rural sectors too. We know that

‘Indian People’s Theatre Association’ has provided our theatre-movement with the political awareness…and contemporaneity…while choosing the plays too, they were primarily influenced by the plays which were soaked in political consciousness. (Roy Chowdhury and Majumdar 76-7)

In the history of Bengali theatre, this is the period when theatre penetrated into the arena of national politics. As theatre subsumed within the anti-British movements, theatrical art culminates into theatre movement. Certainly, the country had to be liberated. To achieve freedom from the British rule, not just theatre, but no stone should not have remain unturned. Although the cumulative protest and activism of plays, songs, dance, and paintings succeeded in driving the colonizers away, it is only theatre which found its shelter in the cradle of politics.

After the partition of the 1947, when other art mediums were gradually starting to find their own unique course, theatre was still being exploited as part of political propaganda, not as an art. Generally we can say, after this, theatre did not remain just within the ambit of theatricalities and related expertise, rather it attained a new package of political ideals. However, in the subsequent years theatre experts like Sombhu Mitra and others have attempted to liberalize and dissociate theatre from the national politics and thereby tried to lend it a distinguished, unique and pure art form by discarding the Gananatya and embracing other forms of movements like Nabanatya and Satnatya. But the scholar’s point of view, we came to know that

Gananatya did not prioritize the artistic element of the theatre as much as it embraced political subject matters. Whereas, Nabanatya favoured the artistic component of a theatrical performance a lot more in comparison to political agendas. On the other hand, this has to be admitted that both these issues were granted equal space in Utpal Dutta’s theatre [although political messages remained his primary agenda]. (Chowdhury 206)

In this way, theatre became an artistic tool for the political parties for the propagation of their political manifesto. It is not sure how much artistry was there, but there was no dearth of showiness. Within twenty years of the 1947 partition, India witnessed war with China and Pakistan in 1962 and 1965 respectively and famine in 1966 which once again imbibed the general public with a political fervor. Under government’s repressive measures,

Nabanatya movement acquired a new dimension in the middle half of the 1960’s. Nabanatya movement turned into the Group Theatre movement. It is at this juncture when those theatre groups which were outside the ambit of the Gananatya Sangha, began to be known as Group Theatre. Several people or group wanted to perform their duties for the society. Subsequently, this Group Theatre emerged as the mainstream theatre movement of West Bengal. (Chowdhury 208)

Utpal Dutta raised question about the nature of this Group Theatre movement.  

He questioned, is Group Theatre a counter movement of the Gananatya? Or, is it a ploy by the clever bourgeois of bypassing the social and political responsibilities by hiding under the elusive tag of Group Theatre. He also writes, those who do not want to get involved in the Gananatya, want to stay behind the name of Group Theatre. In this way, they keep intact a bit of revolutionary identity and also kept their way open in the face of fascist attack. (Chowdhury 216)

Class struggle was never the ideal of the Group Theatre. Nonetheless, they utilized it in their plays according to their convenience. However, it has to be admitted that in the beginning, “the major thrust of the ‘Group Theatre’ was towards the political propaganda [and it is discernible even today]” (Chowdhury 217).

After the historical analysis, in brief, this discussion would try to delve into the artistic comparison between the theatrical movement propagated by the Group Theatre and the ‘Theatre Art’. This discussion started with the question of the professional identity of the students and scholars who are studying in the conventional educational institutions. A student of engineering studies or medical sciences is formally known as an engineer or doctor respectively after the successful completion of their formal studies. There are also further distinctions like surgeon, neurosurgeon, civil engineer, architect and so on which are not only smoothing to the ear but also carry a mark of their relative field of expertise. The question now arises as to what the students and scholars of theatre studies would be called – “theatre workers!”

 A short analyses of both the words – ‘theatre’ and ‘workers’ – could provide a better insight. ‘Theatre’ implies the whole process of the theatrical production (from choosing a play, till its first night’s performance), and ‘workers’, to put it simply, means those who work. For example, people of the political parties are called political workers, those who work in the garments factories are ‘garments workers’, those who serve society are ‘social workers’, those who are involved in the profession related to sex are ‘sex workers’. This means, we can say, ‘workers’ refers to those who work for a particular group or ideology and he or she is the worker who is specialized in that particular work. If that is the case, then the question arises if ‘theatre workers’ are called ‘workers’ because they work for a particular group or ideology. This could very well be the fact as it has already been discussed how the concept of the Group Theatre emerges as a movement dedicated to political interests. Thus, it may be asserted that as long as the word ‘theatre’ would be tagged with the word ‘movement’ instead of ‘art’, theatre would continue to be evolved by the workers only, not by the artists.

In this reference, we can talk about a round table discussion which was organized by ‘Theatre School’ (‘Abdulla-Al-Mamun Theatre School’ at present), an institution for theatre studies by one of the famous groups of Bangladesh named ‘Theatre’. There, Ali Zaker, a veteran stage actor and director of Bangladesh said,

I also think that the time has come when so called Group Theatre movement or practice has to be think of a bit differently…We operate a group like a political party, there is a head of the group, there is a structure, a committee and a presidium. That is why we completely surrender ourselves to the group. I don’t think any art form can survive like this. (17)

In this context, perhaps a few lines by Selim Al Deen, one of the famous playwrights of Bangladesh, would substantiate my argument. He said,

The major problem of Bengali drama in last hundred years is that, no attempt has been made to develop its artistry as much as social and political problems were dealt upon. The success of Madhusudan remained confined within the two satirical compositions. Rabindranath was the only exception who succeeded in taking the Bengali drama at the same level as contemporary poetry. Along with Tagore, perhaps Girish [Chandra Ghosh] and Dwijendralal [Roy] also worth mention in this regard. But, social analysis remained the preoccupation of the Bengali drama. Society and politics will certainly be present in plays. But it is intolerable that drama will remain only as a bearer of those problems and for this purpose plays will continue to be written by the weaker hands. ...The function of the theatre is in the roots. The function of politics is in the leaves, branches and in fruits. Having acknowledged this inalienable relationship, I would still maintain that the appearance and function of the two are vastly different. National consciousness germinates through theatre which is not dissociated from political and social context. Having said that, Group Theatre needs to follow the belief that only social and political concerns not necessarily have to be themes of theatre. (370-71; my emphasis).

At one moment of the above mentioned round table conference Syad Jamil Ahmed, Professor of the Department of Theatre and Performance Studies, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, opined that, “For me Group Theatre practice has become a thing of the past, it is now extinct.” (16)

In the course of the history of Bengali theatre, there has been no instances of disregarding the theatre artists by labeling them as ‘workers’; not even in the colonial era. Indeed, this tag gained its currency in the 1950s, and continues to be prevalent even today. In the case of films the actors, directors, producers have together made a separate world for the sake of their livelihood, which is formally called the ‘film industry’. On the other hand, be it in the state or in the national level, anything like ‘theatre industry’ did not ever exist in the post-Independence India. As the days have gone by, the stage has gradually emerged as a birth and grooming field for the aspirant actors of the ‘film industry’. Some people may object calling theatre as industry; but here, the word ‘industry’, for the want of a better term, has been used as a substitute for the Bengali word ‘shilpa’ (art).

In this context, the scenario in Europe is a bit different from ours. They do not have theatre groups coming up here and there. In those countries, theatre association implies a complete production house, from where several plays directed by different directors are produced simultaneously. Those production houses are not machineries made for particular individuals for fulfilling their aspirations of becoming directors. All the theatre associations are distinct production houses where several directors, actors, designers and workers are engaged in several productions. Everyone gets their definite salaries which are by no means less respectful. However the fact is that the production houses not only get decent support from the government but also earn handsomely themselves.

This does not in any way imply that the theatre practices of our country become a replica of that of Europe. In this reference, few lines by Rabindranath Tagore worth mentioning which he said about the European theatre in ‘Rangamancha’, his lone piece on theatre arts. He said,

The form of theatre that we are trying to develop in imitation of the English stage is a burdened, bloated thing. It is difficult to move it, to take to all sections of the society. The goddess of wealth, instead of the goddess of knowledge, casts her long shadow over it. For such a kind of stage the necessity for investment by the wealthy is greater than the genius of the poet and the creative mind. If the spectator is not initiated into the English childishness and the actor has faith in his own ability and that of the poetry his job of bringing back freedom and glory to the world of theatre and to his motherland as an Indian will be much easier by sweeping aside all the precious unnecessary garbage. (trans. Dipankar Roy; as cited in Thespian Magazine)

We can then say along these insightful lines of Tagore that our thousand year long descriptive theatre tradition observes more dissimilarities than similarities with the ‘character-acting’ theatre tradition of Europe. British could not impinge upon our classical song and dance because of their stringent structure and stronghold. But, they could sweep away the basic structure that had survived from thousand years in our theatrical tradition and thus made a new theatre culture where the story remains ‘Indian’, yet the presentation becomes European. Strangely enough, this was appropriated by the Babu culture of Kolkata as ‘Bengali Theatre’. It has been seventy years since the Independence; still Bengali theatre in West Bengal has not been able to liberate itself from these constraints, rather it has strengthened its stronghold.

Keeping the dialogues in the right and characters’ name in the left, this European theatrical tradition has become a little subdued today, particularly in Bangladesh, thanks to Natyacharya Selim Al Deen and the rich diversity of our centuries old theatrical tradition of Bengal. Thus, this professional yet spontaneous tradition of Bengali theatre, coupled with the European institutionalized expertise, could nourish a new tradition of theatre practices. In respect to professional practices in Bengal (both Bangladesh and West Bengal), “‘Jatra’ is still memorable. Although ‘Jatra’ is suffering from acute derogatory conditions, still its survival remains relied on professionalism. Without professional practices, it is impossible for any artistic work to sustain the commitment completely” (Saroar 46).

Nevertheless, this should not be the concern as to what has happened and what has not. One should be concerned about what should now be done in order to sustain the theatre arts as ‘arts’. In this regard, along with government’s support, individual effort is also indispensible. Only then theatre would be counted not just as medium of revolt and revolution of the masses, but also as a powerful art medium. At present, there is no specialized kind of employment on offer for the thousands of university graduates. Government’s task does not end with only inaugurating the courses in the universities. Rather, it is also among government’s ethical responsibilities to ensure respectable career in the field of theatre for them.

Another factor worth considering is that those who are in charge of government’s policy making process regarding theatrical arts, either hails from accounting, management or any other background, or they are the so called ‘theatre-specialist’, loyal to the ideologies of respective political parties. They are groomed along the ideals of the Group Theatre and their chief concern is unabashed exploitation of the theatre arts for the individual or political interest. To channelize theater as an independent art medium, it is of paramount importance to employ only the persons with professional expertise in the policy making committee.

In this context, one can not just simply evade responsibilities by blaming others. The syllabi of our educational institutions do not provide ample opportunities to groom experts who are individually specialized in designing, acting or direction. Here, there is no separate curriculum in proper for lights, sets, costumes, acting, direction and others. In the span of five years, everything has been accommodated in bits and pieces that lead to a degree which does not have any professional basis. This is also one of the biggest road blocks in the path of development of theatre as an independent art. In the developed countries, there are professional courses for each of the components which not only make specialists on different aspects of production but also ensure employment.

This does not suggest that we would deny the contribution of those stalwarts who have contributed to the arena of theatre in the pre-Independent era or even after. They are our forefathers and torchbearers. But this also does not readily signify that the posterity would continue in the same vein. Science would never deny Newton for the need of specialized expertise. But, at the same time, this is also true that it is not the amateurs who are contributing to the comprehensive development of science.

Now question may arise if science and arts are the same in nature; they are of course not. But for art to survive as art, only artists are needed, not workers. Moreover, only an artist can sustain the existence of art with a professional outlook. Again, this does not in any way claim that anyone outside the ambit of institutionalized education should not produce theatrical performances. They certainly can, but at the same time they need to possess the similar level of professional intensity. Along with this, the number of the whole timers should increase in the theatre groups; they also need to change their approaches. These groups also must have financial ease. Be it today or tomorrow, we need to arrive at this stage. Only the time will tell how and in what appearance will it come, but it will come, that much is certain.

^* Unless otherwise specified, all the quoted translations are mine.

Works Cited

Ahmed, Jamil. Hemiloner Banshi : Manchoyodhar Daibadhhota. ed., Ramendu Majumdar.

Dhaka : Society for education in Theatre, 2004.

Chowdhury, Rahman. “Bangladesher Manchonatok : Utsha o Karmodharar Bepokata.”

Rajnoitik Natyacionta o Swadhinata Proborti Bangladesher Monchonatok. Dhaka:

Bangla Academy, June 2007.

Roy Chowdhury, Subir, and Swapan Majumdar, ed. Bilati JatraTheke Swadeshi Theatre. 2^nd

ed. Kolkata : Dey’s Publishing, Jan.1999.

Al Deen, Selim. “Samokalin Natyacharcha Bishoie.” Selim Al Deen Rachona Samogro 1. ed.,

Simon Zakaria. Dhaka: Maola Brother’s, Feb. 2011.

Saroar, Golam. Hemiloner Banshi : Manchoyodhar Daibadhhota. ed., Ramendu Majumdar.

Dhaka : Society for education in Theatre, 2004. 16.

Tagore, Rabindranath. “Rangamancha.” Trans. by Dipankar Roy. Thespian Magazine. 1^st ed.

Daul: A Theatre Group. 15 Apr. 2013.

http://www.thespianmagazine.com/uploads/1476774095Thespian_1st_Yr_1st_Issue_in_PDF.pdf

Zaker, Ali. Hemiloner Banshi : Manchoyodhar Daibadhhota, ed., Ramendu Majumdar.

Dhaka : Society for education in Theatre, 2004. 16.