Political posturing

What political role does theatre still play in our society? I use the word still because most people do not regularly see plays and my guess is that the majority of urban youngsters have never seen one. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt I am. And it is the case that theatre and public performances is the space where resistance to authority and authoritarian ideas has traditionally displayed itself. This idea has a rich and long history, going back at least to 500 BC.

Ancient Athenian society had about 50,000 citizens. These were only adult males and they were "free" men, meaning those who had not been enslaved and were not visitors. All of them were familiar with the festival of Dionysus, where playwrights would display their material. Held in March, the festival space could hold over 15,000 spectators. This is the space in which the playwrights Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides performed their works, which are read even today. 

It was a political space, and the material was contemporary. For example, in the brutal Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta, one hated figure was that of Cleon, who goaded Athenians towards violence. The comic writer Aristophanes wrote a nasty satire on Cleon, a play called Knights. Aristophanes also wrote on contemporary things that were controversial but not necessarily violent, such as the street school of Socrates (this play is called Clouds). Remember that this was 2,500 years ago. The material was engaged with by the general public, which is why it has survived the millennia. 

I saw a couple of plays this week, by the same director, which were very good in the sense that they were fulfilling to watch and did not seem like escapism. One of them, Muktidham is set in a time when Buddhism was dominant in the North and Hinduism was at the fringe. The story is about a priest heading a Hindu math, who is about to retire. As his successor, he must choose between two of his disciples. One is a reformer who wants the faith to open up to the lower castes. The other is more rigid and wants to respond to Buddhism with violence. Who takes over and what happens is ultimately not important in this play, so much as the interplay between themes and characters.

A scene from Girish Karnad’s play, Tughlaq

The interesting thing is that the writer brings in the crisis of the present in several ways. The Buddhist priesthood is, of course, the Sangh, and the repeated use of that word alone connects the audience to their lives. 

The other play was by the same man who has written and directed Muktidham, Abhishek Majumdar. I was intrigued by him, because he is a fellow Bangalorean. On looking him up, I learned without surprise that he had run into trouble with our friends in authority before. The second play is called Kaumudi. This was ostensibly about a 1970s stage theatre in Allahabad, where an ageing thespian is going blind and is forced to work with his replacement. The play is about Eklavya and Abhimanyu, and one of its themes is whether personal ethic is more important than public persona. 

I found it to be very relevant. It had an excellent cast that kept viewers engrossed while it unfolded. However, the more I think about the play and some scenes from it, the more I want to see it again. Both plays were packed, and they were packed with PLUs, by which I mean open-minded and pluralist Indians who do not get joy out of the triumph of majoritarianism.

To return to our question, I think that theatre is important as a political space, at least potentially. And this is because of the depth of the material and the quality of the audience. It is smaller than cinema but it is willing to engage with material that is not simplistic and mere entertainment. 

Indian cinema is conservative culturally and this is understandable. It is our primary form of popular entertainment and must reflect what is accepted is the social mores. On issues of family, love, honour and such things, it has been mostly regressive in its portrayals. I would be unkind if I do not recognise its liberal aspects. The fact is that Bollywood has pushed the boundaries of romance and sex. What I mean is that it has stayed away from the difficult themes that are not linked to the family, but to society at large. We have had no movies on the Ayodhya movement, for example. And I can remember no movie from my youth that looked at caste, though that was the period of the OBC reservations movement.

A movie that is banned or a shooting that is banned results usually in the movie going away. A play can only be banned for a particular performance. It will return, and usually does. I cannot think of any play that has been permanently put away because of violence.

I wanted to end by writing about something connected to this theme. Girish Karnad passed away a few days ago. He was a prodigy, having written plays in his 20s that have not only been performed over 50 years but are part of the curriculum today. I saw Tughlaq some time ago and was amazed by how relevant its material remains.

He was a Renaissance Man, an actor, a writer, head of the Nehru Centre, and so on. But in recent times his most important contribution was that of a public intellectual, a part he played with great courage. In a period when our complex realities are reduced to simplistic truths, it was this playwright who created the nuance and empathy that brought succour to many of us in our noisy times.