The Indian theatre has a tradition going back to at least 5000 years. The earliest book on dramaturgy anywhere in the world was written in India. It was called Natya Shastra, i.e., the grammar or the holy book of theatre by Bharat Muni. Its time has been placed between 2000 B.C. to 4th Century A.D. A long span of time and practice is needed for any art or activity to form its rules and notifications. Therefore, it can be said with assurance that to have a book like Natya Shastra, the Indian theatre must have begun long, long before that if we go back to historical records, excavations and references available in the two great epics The Ramayana and The Mahabharata .
Theatre in India started as a narrative form, i.e., reciting, singing and dancing becoming integral elements of the theatre. This emphasis on narrative elements made our theatre essentially theatrical right from the beginning. That is why the theatre in India has encompassed all the other forms of literature and fine arts into its physical presentation: Literature, Mime, Music, Dance, Movement, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture - all mixed into one and being called ‘Natya’ or Theatre in English.
Here it can be said that all the ancient traditions in the world - whether Eastern or Western - present almost the same picture of the theatre. On a superficial overview of both the traditions, they may sound similar in their exterior or physical manifestations but if we go deeper into the philosophy and outlook of both the worlds, it will be easier to understand that both of them are poles apart in their basic nature. The western philosophy of life is deep-rooted in the belief that there is no life after death whereas the Indian philosophy, especially the Hindu doctrine, sees life in a continuity, i.e., there is no end even after death.
Life keeps on moving as a circular activity. Theatre in the West presents life as it is whereas in India it presents life as it should be. In other words, this can be explained like this : Life in the West has been portrayed nearer to realism whether in theatre or other arts but in India it has been illustrated more in idealistic terms. This has been so right from the beginnings of the theatre in both the hemispheres.
Phases
After understanding this basic nature of Indian theatre, we can elaborate further on its development in India. Roughly it can be divided into three distinctive phases: the classical period; the traditional period and the modern period.
Phase I includes the writing and practice of theatre up to about 1000 A.D., almost based on rules, regulations and modifications handed by Natya Shastra. They apply to the writing of plays, performance spaces and conventions of staging plays. Playwrights such as Bhasa, Kalidasa, Shudraka, Vishakhadatta and Bhavabhuti contributed in a great measure through their dramatic pieces in Sanskrit. They based their plots on sources like the epics, history, folk tales and legends. The audience was already familiar with the story. Therefore, a theatre language required a visual presentation through gestures, mime and movement. The actor was supposed to be well-versed in all the fine arts. In a way, it was a picture of total theatre. The noted German playwright and director, Brecht, evolved his theory of ‘Epic Theatre’ and concept of ‘Aliegnation’ precisely from these sources.
Phase II involves that practice of theatre which was based on oral traditions. It was being performed from about 1000 A.D. onwards upto 1700 A.D. Even today it continues almost in every part of India. Emergence of this kind of theatre is linked with the change of political set up in India as well as the coming into existence of different regional languages in all parts of the country. As the languages themselves were taking their birth around 1000 A.D. it was too early to expect any writing in those languages. That is why this whole period is known as folk or traditional, i.e., theatre being handed over from generation to generation through an oral tradition. Another major change also took place with this kind of traditional theatre.
The classical theatre which is based on Natya Shastra was much more sophisticated in its form and nature and totally urban-oriented whereas this traditional theatre evolved out of rural roots. Though other elements of theatre remained almost the same, i.e., use of music, mime, movement, dance and narrative elements. This later theatre was more simple, immediate and improvisational even to the extent of being contemporary. Morever, whereas the classical theatre was almost similar in its presentation in all parts of India at a particular time, the traditional theatre took to two different kinds of presentational methods - all the folk and traditional forms in northern India are mainly vocal, i.e., singing and recitation-based like Ramlila, Rasleela, Bhand Nautanki and Wang without any complicated gestures or movements and elements of dance.
Phase III is again linked with a change in the political set up in India —— this time an outside force coming from the West. The time span of about 200 years under the British rule brings the Indian theatre into direct contact with the western theatre. For the first time in India, the writing and practice of theatre is geared fully towards realistic or naturalistic presentation. It is not as if realism or naturalism was totally absent in our tradition. It was always present as also envisaged in Natya Shastra through concepts of Lokdharmi, i.e., a style of presentation connected with day-to-day gestures and behaviour and Natyadharami, - i.e., a style more and more presentational and theatrical in nature. But the stories used were invariably from the same sources. In the modern theatre the story also changed its nature. Now it is no more woven around big heroes and gods, but has become a picture of common man.
In a way this is the complete picture of the Indian theatre from the ancient time up to the present. As we have already seen, the theatre in contemporary India is a combination of the three different phases of its evolution illustrated in its historical perspective. But it has never been professional in the true sense of the world, i.e., people have not been entirely dependant on the theatre for their livelihood right from the beginning. Though it seems that the theatre in India has been a continuous activity,yet in reality it has not been so. It has always been a part of festivals or such other occasions which are related to entertainment. At the most, theatre used to be performed between October and March - only for six months even by the so-called commercial or professional companies.
In the rest of the year, the people remained engaged either in agriculture or other vocations. This kind of set up creates a big problem for the Indian theatre. It has not yet become a part and practice of our life as in the West. Even in States like West Bengal and Maharashtra, where theatre is very prolific, none of the performers is totally devoted to the theatre. They are involved in some job or the other during daytime and only in the evenings they come to rehearse or perform. The concept of professional repertory companies in India is a recent one. How can theatre become a profession for an Indian actor and theatre worker? This is the biggest question. How can it provide him his bread and butter as well as opportunities to practise his art?
Identity
Another question relates to the identity of Indian theatre today. When the theatre was being performed in one single language like Sanskrit, it had a national identity of its own. But today the picture is completely changed. India is a vast country with 22 languages and as many different cultures. It is not like any Western country where the language are culture are one and, therefore, the theatre can be identified immediately with these elements.
In India, the concept of National Theatre has to be seen purely in regional terms. All the regions have their own language,history and culture and their theatre is also deeply rooted in those circumstances. Therefore, sometimes it becomes a problem of choosing any particular form or region. Does it give a complete picture of Indian character, culture and civilization? That is why over the last 30 to 40 years, there has been a search for its true and authentic form which may represent the aspirations of Modern India as well as a continuity of its traditions.
Changes
The exodus from the theatre to films is not a new phenomenon. But of late, television, video, film and the satellite channels have attracted the maximum number of people from the theatre to these options because of more money, glamour and market opportunities. As a result, theatre activities have suffered a severe setback in the last 15 years or so. The situation, however, has started changing slowly again. The audience appears to be fed up with the small screen. Theatre being a live and direct medium and always operating on human level with its audience, can never die. Even after innumerable obstacles and upheavals in history, it has always emerged a winner in the end.
Theatre in India started as a narrative form, i.e., reciting, singing and dancing becoming integral elements of the theatre. This emphasis on narrative elements made our theatre essentially theatrical right from the beginning. That is why the theatre in India has encompassed all the other forms of literature and fine arts into its physical presentation: Literature, Mime, Music, Dance, Movement, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture - all mixed into one and being called ‘Natya’ or Theatre in English.
Here it can be said that all the ancient traditions in the world - whether Eastern or Western - present almost the same picture of the theatre. On a superficial overview of both the traditions, they may sound similar in their exterior or physical manifestations but if we go deeper into the philosophy and outlook of both the worlds, it will be easier to understand that both of them are poles apart in their basic nature. The western philosophy of life is deep-rooted in the belief that there is no life after death whereas the Indian philosophy, especially the Hindu doctrine, sees life in a continuity, i.e., there is no end even after death.
Life keeps on moving as a circular activity. Theatre in the West presents life as it is whereas in India it presents life as it should be. In other words, this can be explained like this : Life in the West has been portrayed nearer to realism whether in theatre or other arts but in India it has been illustrated more in idealistic terms. This has been so right from the beginnings of the theatre in both the hemispheres.
Phases
After understanding this basic nature of Indian theatre, we can elaborate further on its development in India. Roughly it can be divided into three distinctive phases: the classical period; the traditional period and the modern period.
Phase I includes the writing and practice of theatre up to about 1000 A.D., almost based on rules, regulations and modifications handed by Natya Shastra. They apply to the writing of plays, performance spaces and conventions of staging plays. Playwrights such as Bhasa, Kalidasa, Shudraka, Vishakhadatta and Bhavabhuti contributed in a great measure through their dramatic pieces in Sanskrit. They based their plots on sources like the epics, history, folk tales and legends. The audience was already familiar with the story. Therefore, a theatre language required a visual presentation through gestures, mime and movement. The actor was supposed to be well-versed in all the fine arts. In a way, it was a picture of total theatre. The noted German playwright and director, Brecht, evolved his theory of ‘Epic Theatre’ and concept of ‘Aliegnation’ precisely from these sources.
Phase II involves that practice of theatre which was based on oral traditions. It was being performed from about 1000 A.D. onwards upto 1700 A.D. Even today it continues almost in every part of India. Emergence of this kind of theatre is linked with the change of political set up in India as well as the coming into existence of different regional languages in all parts of the country. As the languages themselves were taking their birth around 1000 A.D. it was too early to expect any writing in those languages. That is why this whole period is known as folk or traditional, i.e., theatre being handed over from generation to generation through an oral tradition. Another major change also took place with this kind of traditional theatre.
The classical theatre which is based on Natya Shastra was much more sophisticated in its form and nature and totally urban-oriented whereas this traditional theatre evolved out of rural roots. Though other elements of theatre remained almost the same, i.e., use of music, mime, movement, dance and narrative elements. This later theatre was more simple, immediate and improvisational even to the extent of being contemporary. Morever, whereas the classical theatre was almost similar in its presentation in all parts of India at a particular time, the traditional theatre took to two different kinds of presentational methods - all the folk and traditional forms in northern India are mainly vocal, i.e., singing and recitation-based like Ramlila, Rasleela, Bhand Nautanki and Wang without any complicated gestures or movements and elements of dance.
Phase III is again linked with a change in the political set up in India —— this time an outside force coming from the West. The time span of about 200 years under the British rule brings the Indian theatre into direct contact with the western theatre. For the first time in India, the writing and practice of theatre is geared fully towards realistic or naturalistic presentation. It is not as if realism or naturalism was totally absent in our tradition. It was always present as also envisaged in Natya Shastra through concepts of Lokdharmi, i.e., a style of presentation connected with day-to-day gestures and behaviour and Natyadharami, - i.e., a style more and more presentational and theatrical in nature. But the stories used were invariably from the same sources. In the modern theatre the story also changed its nature. Now it is no more woven around big heroes and gods, but has become a picture of common man.
In a way this is the complete picture of the Indian theatre from the ancient time up to the present. As we have already seen, the theatre in contemporary India is a combination of the three different phases of its evolution illustrated in its historical perspective. But it has never been professional in the true sense of the world, i.e., people have not been entirely dependant on the theatre for their livelihood right from the beginning. Though it seems that the theatre in India has been a continuous activity,yet in reality it has not been so. It has always been a part of festivals or such other occasions which are related to entertainment. At the most, theatre used to be performed between October and March - only for six months even by the so-called commercial or professional companies.
In the rest of the year, the people remained engaged either in agriculture or other vocations. This kind of set up creates a big problem for the Indian theatre. It has not yet become a part and practice of our life as in the West. Even in States like West Bengal and Maharashtra, where theatre is very prolific, none of the performers is totally devoted to the theatre. They are involved in some job or the other during daytime and only in the evenings they come to rehearse or perform. The concept of professional repertory companies in India is a recent one. How can theatre become a profession for an Indian actor and theatre worker? This is the biggest question. How can it provide him his bread and butter as well as opportunities to practise his art?
Identity
Another question relates to the identity of Indian theatre today. When the theatre was being performed in one single language like Sanskrit, it had a national identity of its own. But today the picture is completely changed. India is a vast country with 22 languages and as many different cultures. It is not like any Western country where the language are culture are one and, therefore, the theatre can be identified immediately with these elements.
In India, the concept of National Theatre has to be seen purely in regional terms. All the regions have their own language,history and culture and their theatre is also deeply rooted in those circumstances. Therefore, sometimes it becomes a problem of choosing any particular form or region. Does it give a complete picture of Indian character, culture and civilization? That is why over the last 30 to 40 years, there has been a search for its true and authentic form which may represent the aspirations of Modern India as well as a continuity of its traditions.
Changes
The exodus from the theatre to films is not a new phenomenon. But of late, television, video, film and the satellite channels have attracted the maximum number of people from the theatre to these options because of more money, glamour and market opportunities. As a result, theatre activities have suffered a severe setback in the last 15 years or so. The situation, however, has started changing slowly again. The audience appears to be fed up with the small screen. Theatre being a live and direct medium and always operating on human level with its audience, can never die. Even after innumerable obstacles and upheavals in history, it has always emerged a winner in the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment