Reflection Note

Before I leave and face one of the most stressful exam weeks in a long time, I just wanted to leave you guys with this (hopefully) short response note that explains my reasons for writing a blog for this course, why I chose the blog as my final submission format, the challenges I faced, learning experiences and my take home message. It might be a little boring, but in case you’ve been wondering what I’ve learnt and why I did what I’ve done, this will clear things up for you!

Also I did receive some recommendations for plays I should review! Thanks guys, keep them coming!

Response Note:

The final assignment involved a few big decisions to ensure a successful outcome. Deciding on the format wasn’t much of a tough decision for me; I love writing blogs, and have had some experience with writing and editing blogs in the past, as well as I enjoy posting my own opinions and reflections about a topic and seeing how others react to them. I’ve created blogs for previous literary studies courses and found it to be a great learning experience, so I thought that a blog would be an ideal format. Then it came to deciding what exactly I wanted to blog about; this took a few weeks for me to figure out; at first I wanted to review plays we did in class or I went to see but then I realized that that might not be enough to show for an entire semester and besides, reviews for plays happen all the time, what sets my work apart?

After much thought I realized, I could document the entire course in terms of how it’s proceeded, what we’ve been doing, the play’s we’ve read, discussions we’ve had, assignments, my reflections and further research into topics I’ve found interesting and so on. This sounded like a great idea because it would ensure I was actively working on the final submission throughout the course, and constantly thinking about what we were doing in class-essentially the blog would give me a podium to express my opinions and thoughts on what was being done, be it different plays, theories or just what I felt about the progression of the classes. Most of all though, it would be interesting to look back at where I started and how far the learning and knowledge acquired through the course has taken me. The blog was a good way to document the course as it also allowed a coherent and structured format for organization of the posts.

It was around the second week of the course that I created my blog and began writing. I had laid out a concrete plan that I intended to stick to; I had to write a post for almost every class, unless what we’d done in class hadn’t interested me at all, which was unlikely. Additionally, I had to post twice a week, and include at least one ‘reflections’ post-it summed up how the course was progressing, my likes and dislikes and so on. The general posts would comprise of extra research conducted on topics I’d found especially fascinating, my thoughts, notes taken in class, videos and pictures and any assignments written during the duration of the course.

However, as I continued writing I realized writing a blog wasn’t as smooth a process as I’d expected it to be, and I encountered a few challenges along the way. The main challenge was to make the blog appealing and entertaining while at the same time making sure it retained some academic semblance and content. Although I enjoyed writing posts on the theory we did and discussions we had in class, it was difficult to write a post that was entertaining and absorbing. Another big challenge I faced was making the posts interactive, so that they’d have elements that involved the person reading the post. I tried including pictures and videos wherever I could to make posts interactive and appealing, and made an effort to ensure the posts were ‘reader-friendly’ (I did this through use of points instead of long essays for most of posts, and simplified language). In one of the posts (Ghashiram Kotwal) I changed the structure in a way that I hoped motivated people to go back and do some additional research for themselves and come up with their own viewpoints. It became hard to consistently write posts and stick to my plan due to cancelation of classes, holiday’s scheduled on class days, and because of this I sometimes went at least a week without blogging at all. Furthermore, sometimes for a few of the discussions we’d have in class it would be difficult to find reliable sources to back them up (for example-Brecht’s relation to the Indian context) and I’d have to rely entirely on my class notes. Conversely, a lot of the materials we had examined in class had many papers and articles written about them so it was also a tough task to make my posts sound original and one of a kind rather than a repetition of the sources online.

Blogging was easy, convenient and provided a good structure for my views; looking back from now to the beginning of the course I understand that having a well-organized piece is important if you want to be able to trace the trajectory that the course has taken. I have tried to be consistent with my writing, but due to missed classes, assignments and other work, occasionally I haven’t been as consistent with my writing as I could have been, however, I have done my best to ensure that each class was documented despite shortcomings. Much of the information on the blog has been derived from my class notes, online research or educational videos.

I feel like writing a blog allowed me to reflect and react constantly throughout the journey of the course. It encouraged me to conduct more research on topics that sparked my interest and gave me a chance to voice my beliefs to others. In a sense it allowed an active dialogue between me and the readers and because I knew other people would be reading my work on some level it motivated me to make sure my writing was up to certain standard.

I received a few emails concerning a few posts on the blog, people wanted more information on certain topics as well as wrote in to inform me of their take on my writing which was great since my blog was doing exactly what I wanted it to; not only was I documenting the course and people were actually reading my writing, but I was also driving other individuals to explore new areas of interest and receiving feedback on my posts. All in all, the course itself exposed me to many new works of writing, theater and clearly illustrated the strong relationship drama and drama performance has with society. It was an amazing learning experience, a glimpse into the wide, never-ending world of drama and taught me to observe and reflect on what I read more closely as ultimately behind many plays are messages being passed onto us and others within society.


The End… or is it?

And so, the course comes to a close. It’s been a long journey, but an interesting one, and I can’t deny I’ve learnt a lot, much more than I had expected. Looking back, I’m glad the blog has done exactly what I wanted it to: act as a place to document the classes, and theory, share my thoughts, feelings and reflections and share my assignments. The blog traces a trajectory, from the very beginning, to the very end.

My reflections remain the same from the last time I wrote them (which wasn’t really so long ago). I still enjoy the lively classroom discussions, active debates, new readings and reading plays together in class, giggling at all the double-meaning/undertone parts. There is a sort of bittersweet ending to this course; while I’m glad my semester is coming to an end and I’m FINALLYY going home for summer, not only am I going to miss the small class and the people, but also the excitement of opening up a new play and knowing that it held something great in store. Sure, I could read plays on my own but….its never the same.

I’m going to miss the videos and the films and the screenings in the preview theatre and the random tangents in conversation. I’m going to miss the opinions of everyone else and the chatter about different plays going in in different cities. I think we can all deduce that I’m really going to miss this course.

So, this post is all about the highlights of the classes! Lets beginn!

FAVORITE PLAY: Mister Behram

BEST MOMENT(S): A one-to-one class with the teacher where he told me all about a play he’s written. Also, since I can’t pick one, the second reading of Mister Behram where everyone read it exactly according to stage directions and pointed out some questionable parts.


BEST FILM: Bertolt Brecht, screened in the preview theatre…If I’d had popcorn it would have been perfect


TAKING NOTES—> 😦 not so exciting but necessary

Doing research and writing posts on the blog- FUN


This blog has been great, a big shout out and thank you to everyone who emailed me/commented/liked/ followed! I’m not entirely sure if I want to end this blog so soon 😥 so I think I’m going to probably keep it going, posting my reflections on whatever plays I watch in the future, or happen to stumble across. I hope you guys learnt something too!

Feel free to email me if you want me to check out some plays….I’d really appreciate it!

Mister Behram by Gieve Patel- A super quick review

Gieve Patel’s plays explore electrifying themes drawn from the dark side of life.

“The tragic vision of life is often misunderstood as dark and gloomy.”

To enter the world of Gieve Patel’s plays is to ready oneself for an emotionally shattering experience. There is nothing pretty-pretty or sentimental about women fighting to the death for custody of a child (“Princes”), or when a man with a dreadful eczema woos a much younger, penniless girl (“Savaksa”) or when a successful barrister gets obsessed with his son-in-law (“Mister Behram”).

Dysfunctional families are a staple with playwrights, Arnold Wesker’s “Roots” or many of John Osborne’s works come to mind. But Gieve’s plays go beyond mere realism. Written and performed memorably in the 1970s and 1980s when Bombay theatre was looking for indigenous writing, routine Broadway adaptations having run their course, the plays, which are now available in a new compilation, launched by Seagull Books in early October in Mumbai, are major works, crying out to be staged again.

Rooted in the Parsi context

Gieve’s plays are unique, says eminent theatre critic Shanta Gokhale, because he is perhaps the only Parsi playwright writing about the community in a rural milieu, particularly the middle-class, impoverished Parsi city-dweller coming to a village. But his locales — village and district town in late 19th century Gujarat, with evocations of the city too — constitute “three microcosms of India”, as the playwright points out. So while being rooted in the searing specificity of the Parsi context, he is able to address quite electrifying themes, such as the obsessive nature of love; power, with its numerous perversions; self-delusion and how it cleaves relationships; the way women are mistreated. Further, what makes these plays definitely not soothing is the way Gieve uses language, Gokhale points out. He is a poet, who deploys image and metaphor and ellipses to compose a tragic denouement. “The tragic vision of life is often misunderstood as dark and gloomy,” Gieve says. “But it’s because great plays — from the Greeks to Shakespeare and the moderns, Ibsen, Strindberg and Eugene O’Neill — face up to the tragic stature of life itself that they, in a way, free us from darkness.”

Gieve Patel was born in 1940 in Bombay. His parents were from Nargol, a village in Bulsar district, southern Gujarat. His father was from a land-owning family, which gave Gieve access to Warli life, a theme that gains in cadence and centrality by the time he was writing “Mister Behram”.

“The Warli labourers worked on our estate, and that was magical, another kind of life from the Parsi life that I was used to,” he remarks, seated in his studio on Nepean Sea Road, which offers a view of Hanging Gardens’ verdure. He is wary though of looking at any art from the point of view of ‘current issues’. “I address life first — because issues’ will change. What is unchanging is how human beings get involved in these issues and how they interact under circumstances of great strain.”

Language (in Mister Behram)

The language of the play, an intended artifice, is a lapidary mix of Gujarati English, interspersed with literal translation that has been further chiselled to pierce like shards of glass. Emotions run high here and what is spoken mirrors the almost animal violence within. “How can you be taken in! How can you! If we were not around he would take the child in his teeth and carry him off.”

Amid such conflict, which is never black-and-white, “There is also a tremendous amount of love and caring (in families),” the playwright points out. Like the insistence on food? “Yes, yes, absolutely. So then that becomes a backdrop against which the darker forces are seen in stark relief. Perhaps the ultimate heartbreak is this: there is this battle between these two forces happening in the same individual.”

Mister Behram, the self-righteous, reformist lawyer, is quite the guilt-inducing, exploitative ‘parent’ at home, and Nahnu, a Warli youth, who has been taken into his fold, cannot see it. Nothing could say this more dramatically than the opening scene where Nahnu, rechristened ‘Naval’, sees a goat giving birth, as the sun beats down, blinding him and bringing on a seizure: it’s a heraldic image of doom.

There is detailed, moving description in “Savaksa” of a poor man drinking tea with a slice of bread at a railway station. “Focusing on details is very important to me,” Gieve says, “because it is through this that the whole milieu and the life around it are illuminated. You touch universal things not by making large, broad statements but by looking more closely at details. And not trivial details, either,” he qualifies, “but specific details that are telling.”

The ability to observe closely may have originated from his career as a doctor, he laughs, but that’s only the beginning, he adds cryptically, of the long gestation period his work involves. “Things that are important to you remain with you. Then you fashion and refashion.”

Mister Behram: What is the play all about? 

Gieve Patel’s Mister Behram, an Indian-English play that has been performed widely across India and has been translated into Marathi by Shanta Gokhale. First staged in English in 1987 under the direction of Gieve’s wife, Toni, this avatar of Mister Behram brings in a “fresh ethos”.

The play is set in the days of the Raj. Mister Behram  is an unusual but successful and rich lawyer who had not only adopted and educated Nanhu, an orphaned Waarli boy, but also gave consent to his daughter Dolly (Neelima Deshpande) to marry him.

It turns out that the father has an almost pathological obsession for the boy; love that is reciprocated by Nanhu himself. However, Behrams love is sexual, one with homoerotic undertones, while Nanhu’s is not. In one instance Behram says

“At sowing, planting, reaping, resting, have I not studied these bodies convinced of a mystical knowledge immured within each of them, each piece of flesh derived from the clods of earth on which they tread season after season! Our bodies are dull dough before this vision. And the colouring…generations of sunlight on that naked frame have burnished each turn of skin from wheat to bronze to a dark clotting in the folds.”

Family dynamics play out against this strange backdrop – Dolly and her father competing for Nanhu’s affections, with Rati, Behram’s devoted wife, struggling to assuage emotions and gain his love. Only when Dolly becomes pregnant, does Behram break.

A parallel trajectory to the central storyline has political overtones. The British district collector, Mr Watts  wants the British to take over the neighboring grasslands to set up an army cantonment, a move resisted by tribals. When Nanhu, a London-educated barrister thanks to his godfather, excels in court, Mister Behram, himself a celebrated barrister of the district, feels upstaged. He has no compunction humiliating Nanhu in Mr Watts’ presence by asking him to strip to his native tribal loincloth, ostensibly to show off his splendid body. Nanhu complies, breaks down, and a shocked Dolly leads him away.

Love, ego, desire to humiliate, possess, subjugate are interwoven into the dark-headed tapestry of this drama. Homoeroticism is a prevalent theme in the play, especially seen in Mister Behram’s dialogues, and the play seems ahead of it’s times, exploring homosexuality in a way never been done before. Yet, there is a subdued quality to the authors writing, as if he knew that the audience of that time would vehemently oppose not to the relationship between Behram and Nanhu, a sexually tinged one, but the nature of their relationship-almost an incestuous attraction between father and son, one where Mister Behram aims to reap “unspeakable pleasures”. The ending of the play is a shocking one, where we see Rati constantly treating and portraying Behram as a martyr despite his mistreatment of her, and the play causes you to reflect on the various issues in India during that time.


I’ve kept this review short and sweet because the play is so complex I could write pages and pages on it! If you get a chance, definitely read it. It might be a little voyeuristic and creepy, with hints of pedophilia but it’s a good read. Make sure to pay attention to the important and bizarre stage directions! This review summed up the highlights of the play but in no way was it intended to go in depth-or else it would never end! Visit these links for more information: –> you should be able to download the play here

Bertolt Brecht and Aristotle: Epic vs Dramatic

My last post was all about Arturo Ui, and my review of the play. Looking back I realized I still had a ton of notes on a discussion we had in class about Bertolt Brecht and Aristotle and how they are really quite different, so I figured this would be a good time to put it all up!

If you read my review then you’d have a brief introduction as to who Bertolt Brecht was (if you haven’t read the review, read it!)

Bertolt Brect and Aristotle had two very different views on theater, and after a ton of research and notes I’ve written a (not so small) piece on what I understand these two views to be:

Epic Theatre is a theatre movement in mid-20th century that is greatly linked to German playwright Bertolt Brecht who called it his modern theatre; it’s also known as Brechtian acting.

Bertolt Brecht

The goals of Epic Theatre are what make it so different. The main purpose of the play is to only present ideas and not to imitate reality. It encourages the audience to think and then make judgments and act. It clearly shows the audience an argument with its different viewpoints. Due to the fact that the audience is only an observer, he remains at an emotional distance from the action thus always aware that it is watching a play. It’s an enacting of reality and not reality itself. It should be able to change the human being because if the audience can be critical about what’s happening, it’ll be able to know its causes and effects and will be able to change it in their own real lives. Brecht deliberately used unrealistic techniques in set design, light and visuals to always remind the audience that this is not even close to reality and that they are watching a play. Brecht wanted actors to make a balance between “being” their characters and showing the audience that the character is “being played”. The actor must always remember that he is an actor and that he is only portraying the feelings and emotions of his character. Epic actors are only narrators and tools of representation. They narrate the events and do its actions only to make the audience understand the situation.  Brecht wanted to create productions that are entertaining and that provokes people to think and learn. An epic play consists of scenes that exist by its own and doesn’t connect to the scene before or after it.



Dramatic (Aristotelian) Theatre on the other hand is not the opposite of epic theatre but has different goals and techniques. Dramatic theater treats its audience as passive and can not be reached except through their emotions. The dramatic stage fully embodies the plot/event. It fully involves the audience by putting them into the action thus endangering emotion in him. For example in The Skin of our Teeth, the audience are asked to get chairs from the auditorium to ‘save the human race’ by burning them to keep themselves warm. It makes the audience very involved in the play and what’s happening to the extent that it doesn’t give them a chance to look at the play from a distance and reflect. Scenes are linked to each other; in The Skin of our Teeth, scenes lead to each other. It presents you with the world as it is so the audience leaves the theatre believing that life is unchangeable and inevitable. Dramatic theatre allows the audience to see a representation of reality encouraging us to accept it without thinking so that’s why it gives you a sense of inevitability and fate. The audience identifies with the characters through terror and pity. Dramatic theatre’s illusion of representing the present event doesn’t encourage the audience’s reflection on what’s happening and on the themes presented.
According to Aristotle, to achieve unity of action and maintain its illusion, the dramatic play must consist of scenes that are linked to each other and that lead to each other leading to a climax of catharsis (evocation of intense fear and pity).

Brecht believed that theatre should not play with the audience’s feelings but should appeal and influence his reason/mind. It should encourage the audience to have a more critical attitude to what’s happening on stage. He wanted to reach ultimate objectivity from the audience’s side instead of identifying with the characters. This way the audience will learn the real truth about their society and world.

Brecht refuses to assume that the audience could only be reached through their emotion but through their minds so he doesn’t want the audience to relate to the characters and become emotionally involved with them (breaking empathy for characters) at all but make them think about their own life and this is where change will come. He did present feelings but he did that from a standpoint critical to the feeling.

Feelings and identifying with the characters affect the audience’s objectivity and reasoning. Brecht believes that the Aristotelian thought on feelings (The audience feels exactly what the character on stage feels) wears out the audience. Feelings alone are not enough for transformation and change; thought and reason are the keys.

Some extra notes and my reflections:

-For Aristotle–> drama=representational–> what ‘Poetics’ aimed to target

-Impact of drama has to be ‘cathartic’–> you go to watch performances in order to “purgate” your emotions

-Greek theater–> wanted to invoke Gods, and these Gods would enter on stage–> demons would enter from other places (related to Indian folk theater)

-Brecht–> politically charged, known for his plays, poetry and fiction

-Brecht-> big believer in art being closely linked to society and his work has given a new direction into art and society

-Brecht countered much much of what Aristotle said, and Brecht believed in the Marxist idea of changing society (base, structure and superstructure) and especially focused on superstructure

-Brecht counters Aristotle’s idea of theater and questions the idea of the “natural”–> Brecht see’s life as never being natural, and believes ideas to be constructed by society (beginning, middle and end given by society, not God)–> drama considered to come from social constructs

-Brecht believed there was no set beginning, middle and end because life is EPISODIC

Exposition–> Brecht said it was Episodic, as life occurred in Episodes—> Aristotle believed in an ‘Act’ structure

-Brecht strengthened Marxist ideas and weakened Aristotle’s ideas

-According to Brecht- what is important is not to imitate life but what are the forces that create life? who created that human pattern? what has made human patterns the way they are? Doesn’t want to imitate feelings and characters but imitation of thinking processes is needed=called empathy–> Aristotle believed the opposite

-Stanislavsky- Russian director who proposed the idea of sympathy and was very important in character building

-There is a need to look at life through empathy rather than sympathy= Brecht

-Brecht didn’t want the audience to feel cathartic effects–> doesn’t want the audience to only focus on emotion

-Brecht wants to create characters and scenes that cause “defamiliarization” and estrangement in the audience–> he wants to separate the audience and the play

-During Brecht’s plays–> the audience at some point acts as a 3rd person

-During Aristotle’s plays–> plays engaged the audience as if audience were characters

-Brecht was the audience to detach and think and then feel, not only feel, therefore Brecht creates thoughtful, analytical and creative engagement with the audience

Want to know more? Visit the links below!

Reflections, Reflections, Reflections

So I’ve realized that it’s about time I wrote my first reflections post. Now I had planned to write a reflections post sooner but I guess I never really got around to it…which is why now is a perfect time to start!

You’re probably wondering what is a reflections post..well in this context I’ll be talking about generally how the course is going, what were the highlights, the drawbacks, the fun times, etc etc.. I’m sure you get the point, its reflections just like I said. Simple right? Since I do have a tendency to ramble I’m going to organize my thoughts into points, starting with…

*drum roll*


Honestly, the course has been going pretty good. We’ve been following a set pattern with classes well planned out and full of discussion, and the great part is the teacher encourages us to voice our opinions and he actively inculcates dialogue in class; I never realized how much other people’s takes on the same text could be such a learning experience. Usually the class consists of either reading a text/discussing theory or a text/powerpoints/ videos or movies./random tangents (unavoidable). Now I’m not a huge class participator, and I don’t see why we’re graded on participating in class, but during the course I’ve actually contributed in ongoing class discussions..semi-actively (yay me). I also like how the course has progressed slowly, not going too fast or rushing through plays but spending quality time on each text, reading it in class and then voicing our own opinions. I’ve been exposed to Indian playwrights that I didn’t know anything about, and overall the flexibility in class structuring has been’s pretty awesome not to have your hand spasming after class because of all the notes you’ve taken (as a psych major, it happens to me all too often). The grading components (2 Assignments, 1 final assignments) have been well spaced out, and proportional to the work load, and all in all I think I’ve really enjoyed whats been happening.


Well where to start! We hit the ground running, starting with readings from the very first class (Seymour Chatman), readings on folk theater and performance, plays (Ghashiram Kotwal, The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui, Kichakvadh) along with presentations, videos and short films on playwrights/plays/folk drama and theater. There hasn’t been too much additional reading material and the readings we’ve read have really helped understand discussions we have in class (especially the folk performance readings). I’ve quite enjoyed the plays too, maybe not so much Kichakvadh, but the other two have been really great and introduced me to different drama forms. The videos we’ve watched mainly consisting of short clips of the plays we’re reading have helped visualize the stage as we’re reading, and I also liked the BBC documentary we watched on Bertolt Brecht, it was quite good. –> you’ll find the documentary here!


Definitely the plays, especially Arturo Ui, I think it really put out a message to all of us and Brecht did an amazing job with the setting and use of dialogue. If you’ve read some of my other posts theres a ton of stuff on folk theater too which I found really interesting, I mean living in India of course you hear about it from time to time but actually reading plays and researching for my assignment I came across a ton of new information and the whole topic is fascinating in how much there is to it. I thought the videos were informative too, the ones on tamasha were pretty good, and it breaks up the monotony of constantly talking. I think talking about plays people have watched, in class, has also been fun because we get to hear about their experiences and get to know of plays that sound really interesting.


Honestly, not much, I think the course has gone quite well.  I mean I didn’t enjoy Kichakvadh as much as the other plays, but I suppose that can’t be helped.I do wish we watch some more videos in class, and documentaries, about the playwright and his life. It really helped understand Arturo Ui when we watched the documentary about Brecht because I got to understand him as a playwright and a director and how he developed his own form of theater as well the times he lived in, which just served to enhance my reading and understanding of the play itself.I think that maybe spending a little more time on the Dramatic Performance Act and seeing how it relates to society now, is it still as relevant and necessary in today’s times, how has it affected plays or the message certain plays are trying to put across and so on might have been good. Its too bad that there hasn’t been a sort of field trip thing where we all go together to watch a play as a class, I think that would be a really memorable experience but maybe a bit tough to fit in what with different schedules and lack of class time. Oh well.


So far things are going pretty well, we’re progressing at a good speed, I like the readings and plays and there isn’t a very heavy workload so it sure makes things a little easier. Stick around for more reflections posts!

Folk Performances in India

A while ago, I’d written a post on Folk theater in India; a few weeks after I found myself in class discussing folk performances; you’ll be glad to know that folk performance and folk theater are pretty much the same, so before you read this post it might be good to brush up on what Folk theater is.

Anyway, getting back; folk performance is really the ‘act’ of carrying out folk theater, and what I’d particularly like to touch upon here are primarily in a sense, the ‘drawbacks’ of folk performances. What this does is that it exposes another side to folk performance that I’ve never explored, nor written about. For a quick read, I’ll put everything in points…not sure how quick of a read it’ll end up being, but I tried 😛

Folk Performances: 

-can get repetitive (characters tend to be similar)

-no nuances seen–> characters seem stereotypical and stereotypes are as a result, often connected to folk performances

-there is melodrama seen and characters created are likely to be clearly “good” or “bad”

These tend to be applicable to most folk performances, however, what are the problems with a certain folk performance? In this case, let us take ‘Tamasha’.


-metaphysical, philosophical, connected to god and spirituality–> these are the central themes of Tamasha, and the “essence” of this folk performance

-In contemporary times, Tamasha has just become ‘entertainment’;people want women dancing, vulgar language and movement and seem more interested in the woman than anything else

-this supports and continues the objectification of women in India, as well as provokes and supports the creation of a social heirarchy where women rank low

-people performing lack training–> training centers for Tamasha actors are being set up but to reinforce the “rusticness” people want to avoid training which isn’t good–> due to this they don’t undergo memory and performance training which leaves them unprepared when it comes to actually performing on stage

Many times the question is asked, how are folk performances and traditions understood in an urban context? 

-folk performance and traditions tend to be understood in a very “elitist” fashion and isolated from the urban context itself; often people who talk of folk performance, or watch them, do so not with the intention of appreciating the form for what it is, but rather to “uphold tradition”.

Where has the “Indianness” associated with folk performance gone?-this “Indianness” is not seen in reading English, but actually appreciating folk theater and performances and reading regional languages, which were lost during colonial times

-the idea of ‘nation’ has always been vague for us, because we’re unsure of our traditions…but who is “our”? who is “we”?

The plight of the lower castes: 

-Folk performances are usually done by the lower castes, however do we really support the lower castes? If we don’t then why/ how do we support folk performance?

Under the name of folk performance traditions, are we really supporting them? is there gender/women exploitation seen? What are the roles of women in folk performance troupes apart from cooking and dancing? who are the real leaders?…these are all questions we don’t have answers to, and they question how we view folk performances in a very different light; yes, folk performances are rich in culture and heritage, but deep down do folk performances also harbor issues that need to be addressed?

One of the important questions that needs to be looked at is also:

HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF PERFORMANCE TRADITIONS IN POST INDEPENDENCE INDIA? In other words, how are we appropriating folk traditions for ourselves and what is the role of the state here? 

The state, without addressing any of the above issues dealing with folk performance, thinks of folk theater and performance as something that represents the nation, but is this correct?

No one seems conscious about what we’re inheriting, are we inheriting form, content, or the entire history that is associated with folk performance?

Now, we see folk performance traditions looked at as part of ‘developmental discourse’, and social developmental discourse, as well as heritage discourse in order to empower people in rural communities.

Badal Sircar 

-In post 1960’s there was a prominent movement to return back to original folk theater with original roots rather than continue with folk performance influenced by Western theater–> those who propagated this movement wanted to claim linguistic traditions through artistic practice and this movement flourished

Badal Sircar was an influential Indian dramatist and he is especially well known for his “third theater” in revival of folk performances. The different kinds of theater were:

1st theater: folk traditions (characterized by their liveliness and immediate connect with people)

2nd theater: urban theater (western theater, lacked what folk traditions had, but were more refined, polished and performed)

3rd theater: combination of both

Badal Sircar spread this “third theater” all over India; he traveled with his mobile theater group and didn’t charge for his performances-he wanted to move away from the ‘transaction’ aspect that money brought to theater. However, his theater was also economic—> there would be collection of money after performances and he accepted whatever amount the audience deemed fit for the performance.

Badal Sircar created lots of political discourse through his plays-wanted them to change society and address societal issues. => he proposed theater as aesthetic but also manageable. His performances also forge a connection with Brechtian theater as he performed some of Brecht’s plays which easily connected with folk traditions and performance.

Folk theater in Colonial India: My First Assignment!

Hey guys! So it’s been a while since I last posted, far too long I know, but I cannot convey the pile of work I’ve been buried under. Blame the hectic class scheduling of college plus all those pesky assignments!

Anyway, I thought I’d start off by posting an assignment I wrote for the course; it pretty much focuses on folk theater during the colonial times, and what exactly happened to folk theater once the British came. It was a topic I was quite interested in, ever since we covered it in class, so it was great to be able to do some additional research for myself!

It is rather long, as most Literary and Cultural studies based papers are, but I’ve included my bibliography page so feel free to skip to that part if you just want some general information and don’t really feel like reading the entire paper.

Folk Theatre and Colonial India

India is known for its long and rich tradition in theatre, dating back at least 5000 years (Dharwadker 35). Over the years, scholars have established that the origin of Indian theatre is closely connected to the ancient rituals and seasonal festivities of the country (Dharwadker, 35).The Natya Shastra, believed to have written by Bharata (2000 BC to 4th Century AD) is perhaps the earliest and most elaborate text on dramaturgy written in the world, and gives a “divine origin” to Indian theatre, attributing it to the ‘Natyaveda’ or the holy book of dramaturgy constructed by Lord Brahma (Dharwadker, 36).

Theatre in India started as a narrative form, with recitation, singing and dancing becoming key elements of theatre (Mukherjee, 10).This focus on “narrative aspects” made Indian theatre, “theatrical” from the very beginning; this is why the theatre in India has included all the other forms of literature and fine arts into its “physical presentation”: literature, mime, music, dance, movement, painting, sculpture and architecture- all are combined into one and called ‘Natya’ or Theatre in English (Mukherjee, 11). Over time, Indian theatre became divided into three unique kinds; the Classical, or Sanskrit theatre, the Traditional or folk theatre and the Modern theatre seen during colonial times (Dharwadker, 36). It was during these colonial times that folk theatre, so popular with the masses, began dying out, forgotten and replaced by modern theatre practices (Dharwadker, 36). While Sanskrit theatre continued to receive some recognition, folk theatre was shunted and many playwrights began drawing from modern theatre to write their plays (Mukherjee, 11).

Before exploring how this occurred, and the various changes that proceeded as a result, it is important to understand what folk theatre is.

Following Sanskrit theatre was folk theatre which was primarily based on oral traditions. This form of theatre was first seen around 1000AD and its emergence was primarily linked with the change of political set up in India, along with the formation of different regional languages in all parts of the country (Mukherjee, 13).While the classical theatre, based on the ‘Natya Shastra’ was much more sophisticated in its form and nature, and entirely “urban-oriented”, traditional theatre evolved out of rural roots and was more “simple, immediate and closer” to the rural population (Mukherjee, 13). Indian folk theatre was further divided into two broad categories; religious and secular; these two categories then gave rise to the ‘Ritual Theatre’ and ‘Theatre of Entertainment’ (Mukherjee, 14). These two forms thrived together, and tend to be narrative or vocal-this means they are singing or recitation based, like Rasleela, Bhand, Nautanki and Wang (Mukherjee, 15). India is also rich in ‘ballad singing traditions’ like Pabuki-ki-phar of Rajastan and the Nuipaalaa of Manipur (Mukherjee, 15). These forms share differences in style, staging, and execution, amongst other aspects, and reflect the individuality of the state they belong to (Mukherjee, 16). There are south Indian forms like Kathakali and Krishnattam, as well as North Indian forms, for example, Nautanki of Uttar Pradesh, Tamasha of Maharashtra and the Jatra of Bengal (Dharwadker, 37).

Modern theatre was very different to folk theatre, even though it did draw partly from folk and classical influences.

During the mid-nineteenth century, the Europeans were discovering ancient Indian culture, while Indian elites were discovering modern European culture (Richmond, 319).This encounter gave rise to the new theatrical genre called the modern Indian theatre (Richmond, 319).The “designation”, modern Indian theatre, refers to a new genre that developed between the late-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries (Richmond, 319).

Shaped by the imperatives of empire, nationalism, and nativism, this was a “metropolitan genre” created by a bilingual high-caste bourgeoisie, who strategically adapted elements from a gallery of models that included the Sanskrit theatre, traditional theatre, and European theatre (Richmond 321). Ironically, it was only after the Orientalists had first “championed” Sanskrit literature and translated it into European languages that these Westernized Indian elites had turned to Sanskrit drama and revalued it as classical, as a part of their “nationalist aspirations” (Richmond, 321).

The modern Indian theatre began as renewed “cultural consumption” for the upper crust but developed into broad-based entertainment for large audiences in cities across the country and thus manifested itself in several different languages (Richmond, 321). Irrespective of its language, however, this theatre sought to project both modernity and “Indianness” in its style and subject matter (Richmond, 322).

It constituted a fundamental component of the Indian audience’s “grand nationalist enterprise to invent an identity that was modern but with roots in an ancient past” (Banerji, 559). Like the authors of the ancient Hindu epics noted earlier, “they were also trying to imagine, narrate and perform a nation into existence” (Banerji, 560). As a result of this origin the modern Indian theatre enjoyed great prestige among the cultural elites (Banerji, 562).Europeans keen to investigate India’s ancient past inevitably relied on Brahman priests and scholars who were by tradition the “sole preservers, transmitters, and guardians” of Sanskrit texts, whether religious or secular (Banerji, 563). The Brahmans’ pride in Sanskrit culture and belief in its superiority over all other Indian traditions coloured the early Indologists interpretations (Richmond, 322).

Many of the Indian Theatre historians have treated Sanskrit drama as synonymous with Indian Theatre, and ended up devaluing the existence and influence of traditional folk theatre which had been a hallmark of Indian theatre (Richmond, 323). Much of the Western research and criticism privileged Sanskrit literature over the “post classical vernacular traditions” and “gave drama a preeminent position among Sanskrit genres, making Indian theatre virtually synonymous with the poetically exquisite national theatre of the Hindus”- there was almost no emphasis on drama’s written in regional languages or the folk performances of different states (Richmond, 325). It was only in the later twentieth century that Sanskrit drama ceased to be the primary focus of Indian theatre studies in the West, and the interest among anthropologists, dramatists, historians and scholars shifted to genres of “pre modern” and “non modern performance” like Raslila, Ramlila, and other folk styles (Banerji, 564).

Modern theatre led to many changes in the theatre of that time. Theatre in India under British rule gained a “global contour” (Richmond, 325). Gone were the days of eposes, epics and “Loknatya” – theatre in India under British rule for the very first time geared up fully towards a systematic and natural presentation (Dharwadker,42). India, as a colony of the European empire used theatre to illustrate the likings and disliking’s of the “British raj” (Dharwadker, 44). The stylistic approach of theatre in India under British rule changed quite drastically and the presentation started focusing mainly on the day to day life and common people (Richmond, 327).

Theatre in India under British rule therefore became a structured way of manifesting the daily life (Richmond, 337).It was no more laced with the heroic deeds of the celestial figures; it was no more woven around powerful gods and mythological heroes-rather it became the portrayal of the life and style of common man; “an illustration of sufferings of the poor and the graphic presentation of the unedited realities of life” (Mukherjee, 17).

Theatre in India under British rule thus slowly became a logical expression of democratic ideas, beliefs and mores (Banerjee, 198). Theatre groups were formed during this time and theatre was then clearly divided into two distinct categories like the urban theatre and the rural theatre (Banerjee, 199).Although folk theatre was also there yet the colossal demand of altering the social, economic as well as the political set up of India was so prominent that the brilliance of the folk theatre was lost and somewhat faded away (Banerjee, 200).

The two most important changes in theatre involved the separation of the audience from the stage by the proscenium, underscoring the fact that what was being presented was a spectacle free of any ritualistic associations and which expected no direct participation by the audience in it (Mee, 4).  The other was the idea of pure entertainment in terms of immediate financial returns from the play through the ticket system (Mee, 6).

While theatre became much more realistic and perhaps even more relatable during British times, many criticized it for departing from folk theatre practices (Nag, 7). Some of the major criticism is directed to towards three major “formations” or developments of the 1850-1950 modern theatre period: the establishment of commercial “proscenium theatres”, especially in the colonial metropolises of Calcutta and Bombay; the emergence of Parsi theatre as a popular national institution, through both resident urban and touring companies; and the radical politicization of theatre in the decade of Independence by the Indian People’s Theatre Association (Nag, 8). The novelist Mulk Raj Anand, along with the actor Balraj Sahni and the writer-critic Prabhakar Machwe, argue that “the colonial and late colonial theatre institutions are no longer usable” and anticipate a future of theatre radically unrelated to the culturally rich theatre in its pre-colonial past (Nag, 10).

The heavy attack on colonial theatre forms stem mainly from the perception that they were “imperialist impositions”, destructive of the indigenous aesthetic and performance traditions that had prevailed for more than a millennium (Mee, 6). Nothing portrays this process of displacement more powerfully than the conventions of “Western naturalism” and their “spatial embodiment” the urban proscenium stage (Nag, 12). “The most important problem of the modern era in theatre” Anand comments, “is the basic contradiction between the symbolism of the Indian heritage in drama, with its poetic realism, and the naturalism of the Western theatre, which percolated into India devoid of its own organic sensibility, poetry and mechanical perfection” (Nag, 12).

The arguments for the rejection of naturalism therefore become multiple and interrelated (Nag, 13). From the mid-nineteenth century onward, urban proscenium theatres created fixed and enclosed theatre spaces, which was quite different to the mobile, open air performance venues of Indian traditional and folk theatre (Nag, 13). The system of commercial ticket sales made theatre “subservient” to popular taste and destroyed older systems of patronage involving religious or landed elites and their institutions (Mee, 5). The naturalistic conventions of the prosceniums stage were fundamentally opposed “to the pervasive antirealism of indigenous forms” (classical, traditional, folk and popular) and imposed an “alien aesthetic” on the urban audience (Mee, 5). Anand goes onto dismiss naturalism as “thoughtless” borrowing from the West, while H.V Gupte argues interestingly that modern Indian drama developed haphazardly because of its distance from traditional Indian aesthetics (Nag, 13).Further, the strict separation of performers from spectators destroyed the actor-audience unity that precolonial theatre had emphasized through the figure of the sutradhar a character who manages the various “strands” of a performance, mediates actively between play, actor and spectator and addresses the audience directly (Nag, 15). Locating the theatres in the cities also created a division between urban and rural audiences that contradicted the social connections within a predominantly agrarian culture (Nag, 17). In discussing the relation between traditional and new drama, Balaraj Sahni describes the wedge between town and country as an “imperialist move on the part of the colonial government, calculated to disempower rural populations and devalue their aesthetic forms” (Nag, 17).

Tracing the development of modern Urdu drama, M. Mujeeb sums up the view of modernity and modernization as “extrinsic processes forced on a passive culture”- “Europeanisation had the support of political authority, of economic power, of scientific achievement. The result of its conflict with Indian tradition was not a synthesis of ideas and beliefs, not an organic change, but forced compromise, tacit acceptance of facts” (Hollander, 189).

The attack on Parsi theatre arose from the belief, widely held in the 1950’s, that commercialism and the profit motive are fundamentally incompatible with the art of theatre (Hollander, 189). The Parsi stage was an elaborate, highly profitable private enterprise “based on historically new relations between theatre, popular culture and the sociology and demographics of the colonial city” (Hollander, 190).Kathryn Hansen notes that between 1853 and 1931 “Bombay developed a lively theatrical culture grounded in the overlapping practices of the Parsi, Gujarati and Marathi theatres”; these theatres “participated in a commercial entertainment economy characterized by corporate ownership of theatrical companies, which arose in tandem with the city’s rapid population, growth and prosperity” (Hollander, 192). At the same time, many believe that Parsi theatre impeded the association between literary drama and the popular stage in two ways; firstly, the association of drama with the “performance of theatrical companies” was a deterrent to serious playwriting and production, even when the value of the drama “had been realised by the educator and the reformer” (Hollander, 193).Secondly, serious colonial era dramatists such as Bharatendu Harishchandra, Rabindranath Tagore and Jaishankar Prasad became largely ‘closet playwrights’ because of their distaste for commercial theatre (Hollander, 193).

Many dramatists and writers including Shombhu Mitra, Dina Gandhi and Mulk Raj Anand believe that organizations like the IPTA brought playwrights out of the “ivory tower” and gave drama a “populist base” by reviving some forms of folk drama during the colonial times, but he argues, like Kamaladevi that the quality of their productions remained “amateurish” and the pressures of party loyalty and propaganda “reduced Art to a handmaid of politics” (Dharwadker, 67). Anand describes the Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA) as an organization incapable of dealing seriously with traditional Indian theatre and folk theatre and further goes onto say that the organization might have actually diminished the already dwindling audience for folk theatre (Dharwadker, 68).

Modern theatre swept through the nation, and even after India had moved on from the colonial period, this form of theatre continued to dominate over classical and folk theatre (Dharwadker, 69). However, there were some playwrights who decided to incorporate the folk forms actively into their own plays, as they believed that the rural folk theatre was still extremely important; three well known figures who experimented with folk forms at that time are Vijay Tendulkar, Girish Karnad and Badal Sircar (Dharwadker, 71).

These playwrights along with a number of playwrights such as Kavalam Narayana Panikkar and Habib Tanvir, felt the need to develop a theatre that did not follow British models, but was in some way Indian (Mukherjee, 23).They were members of what is often referred to as the “Theatre of Roots” movement, and began to study Kathakali, Yakshagana, Chhau, and other traditional Indian performance forms to see what could be used in the creation of a modern Indian drama (Mukherjee, 24). As Karnad very clearly states, however, the attempt “was not to find and reuse forms that had worked successfully in some other cultural context” (Mukherjee, 27).The hope, rather, was “to discover whether there was a structure of expectations and conventions about entertainment underlying these forms from which one could learn” (Mukherjee, 28).

Tendulkar’s Marathi play ‘Sari Ga Sari’ was first produced in Bombay in 1964 (Hollander, 201).In writing the play, Tendulkar utilized the Tamasha form and its characteristic language patterns (Hollander, 205).The play contained the conventional gan, gaulan and povadd but characters such as Mukunda were given satirical treatment and references to contemporary urban life filled the dialogues (Hollander, 207).Tendulkar was particularly interested in capturing the feeling of spontaneity of Tamasha, and he discovered that the urban actors he used lacked the informality and improvisational skills of traditional actors (Hollander, 208). This problem highlighted for him one of the major differences between urban and rural theatre: the urban play depends upon the playwright, while in folk theatre, the actor is all-important (Hollander, 209).

Girish Karnad’s play ‘Hayavadana’, written originally in Kannada in the early 1970’s; based on the tale of transposed heads from the Kathdsaritsagarai, Hayavadana is a symbolic drama employing several conventions of Yakshagana, such as the half-curtain which is carried onstage to introduce new characters, and the Bhagavata or narrator, who introduces the story and comments on the action throughout the play (Mee, 17). The structure of the play as a whole, however, is not derived from any particular regional tradition, and its “philosophical exploration” of the “problems of wholeness and identity” has a decidedly “modern orientation” (Mee, 18).

Badal Sircar’s movement toward a “Third Theatre,” which he conceived as a theatre of rural-urban synthesis was another approach to explore folk practices within modern Indian drama. Sircar’s goals were to abolish the proscenium arch stage, to emphasize physical movement of the actors over words, and to rely upon only the simplest techniques of lighting, costuming and staging, emulating Grotowski’s Poor Theatre—all to build up the immediacy of communication between actors and audience. His 1973 Calcutta production of ‘Spartacus’ based on the story of a Roman slave revolt, incorporated these elements.

The Marxist theatre veteran Utpal Dutt also showed an abiding interest in the folk form of Jatra to reach out to the masses. In his forceful defence of jatra ‘In Search of Form’, Dutt praises jatra (yatra) for having the potentials for a “revolutionary theatre” (Nag, 19).  Forms such as yatra, “evolved over centuries and continued to adapt from and adapt to contemporary reality” says Dutt..Jatra, which Dutt argues persuasively, “has refused to die with the incursions of Capitalism into countryside” unlike “many other folk forms have been wiped out” is “theatre at its primitive best” (Nag, 20). Dutt himself experimented with the form in ‘yatra-plays’ as he calls them, like Sanyasir Tarabari (The Crusade), Tutu Meer and the critically acclaimed Tiner Toloar (The Tin Sword) (Nag, 22).

In the last twenty years or so, a new interest in regional cultural expressions and folklore has developed in India, leading to the rediscovery and “re-evaluation” of indigenous forms of literature and the performing arts (Dharwadker, 72). Nowhere is this more apparent than in theatre. The traditional theatres such as Yakshagana, Tamasha, Raslila, Nautanki and Bhavai, have gone through an amazing revival since Independence (Dharwadker, 79). Considered decadent and largely forgotten during colonial days, these regional theatres have recently received attention and a certain amount of governmental support from the national and state Sangeet Natak Akademis (Hollander, 208). Their status has been enhanced by an “intellectual reappraisal” which views them as the surviving fragments of the ancient Sanskrit dramatic tradition, on the basis of common features such as “preliminary rituals, stylized acting and gestures, stock characters like the stage director (sutradhdra) and clown (vidushaka), and abundant song and dance” (Hollander, 210). Through annual festivals held in the capital, folk theatre groups from all over India have performed for urban audiences, and Western scholars have also been attracted to study the traditions (Hollander, 211).As a result, greater familiarity with folk theatre forms has developed in the cities, and the urban attitude has shifted from scorn to curiosity and respect (Hollander, 211).

The rediscovery of folk theatre has in fact heightened the sense of a “rural-urban cultural dichotomy” among the educated elite (Richmond, 351). Urban theatre is perceived more and more as imitative of the West and “non Indian” while the term rural is acquiring the prestigious connotation of “indigenous” (Richmond, 352). Badal Sircar, the noted Bengali playwright, expressed this clearly; “Theatre is one of the fields where this [rural-urban] dichotomy is manifested most. The city theatre today is not a natural development of the traditional or folk theatre in the urban setting as it should have been. It is rather a new theatre having its base on Western theatre….whereas the traditional village theatre has retained most of its indigenous characteristics” (Richmond, 353). As a result, some dramatists are now beginning to reject Western influence and urge a return to village culture and traditions (Richmond, 354). The Urdu playwright Habib Tanvir stated “It is in its villages that the dramatic tradition of India in all its pristine glory and vitality remains preserved even to this day (Richmond, 356). It is these rural drama groups that require real encouragement… it is not until the city youth is fully exposed to the influence of folk traditions in theatre that a truly Indian theatre, modern and universal in appeal and indigenous in form, can really be evolved” (Richmond, 356).

Theatre in India has been vibrant and diverse, ranging from Sanskrit and folk theatre to Modern Theatre and Contemporary Theatre. Modern Theatre developed during the colonial times was a big departure from the classical and folk theatres seen in the precolonial times, and although Modern theatre introduced India to different experiences, many have criticized the pillars of this kind of theatre; these individuals include acclaimed writers and playwrights Dina Gandhi and Mulk Raj Anand amongst others. Yet, there are certain playwrights, who continued to prevail-after Independence when Modern Theatre still dominated the Indian stages, dramatists like Vijay Tendulkar, Girish Karnad, Badal Sircar and Utpal Dutt continued to incorporate folk elements into their plays. The recent years have seen a revival of folk traditions and scholars are now displaying a renewed interest into understanding these important forms of theatre; this interest is further encouraged by many Indian playwrights, some of who are Badal Sircar and Habib Tanvir. Slowly, folk theatre is gaining momentum and the audiences are once again beginning to appreciate the brilliance and culturally rich heritage of folk theatres all across India


Work Cited

Banerjee, Utpal K. “Folk Theatre: Pageantry and Performance.” India International Centre Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 4, 1991, pp. 198–200. <>

Banerji, Arnab. “Asian Theatre Journal.” Asian Theatre Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, 2011, pp. 588–592. <>

Dharwadker, Aparna Bhargava. Theatres of independence: drama, theory, and urban performance in India since 1947. Iowa City: U of Iowa Press, 2005. <>

Hollander,Julia. Indian Folk Theatres . London: Routledge, 2007.<–60VHi9Rc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDnZz-mNDRAhXGOo8KHZ9mDp8Q6AEIUDAI#v=onepage&q=indian%20folk%20theatre%20during%20colonialism&f=false>

Mee, Erin B. “Contemporary Indian Theatre: Three Voices.” Performing Arts Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, 1997, pp 1-50. <>

Mukherjee, Anuparna. “Acrobating between Tradition and Modern”: The Roots Movement and Theatre’s Negotiation with Modernity in India.” The Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities (2009): 1-18. Web. 11th Jan. 2017. <>

Nag, Baishakhi. “ROLE OF THEATRE AND FOLK MEDIA IN PROMOTING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT.” Global Media Journal-Indian Edition 2nd ser. 4 (2013): 1-23. Web. 15th Jan. 2016.< DEC%202013/Commentary_6_Baishakhi_Nag.pdf>

Richmond, Farley. “The Political Role of Theatre in India.” Educational Theatre Journal 25.3 (1973): 318. Web. 13th Jan. 2017. <>



Folk Traditions and the Dramatic Performance Act

Folk traditions are an integral part of drama in India, as modern Indian drama and society has evolved through traditions, primarily oral traditions—> we see that folk traditions and drama are closely interconnected and can’t be separated.

British education was very important for traditions in colonial times-it provided a base to differentiate between folk theater (tamasha, nautanki etc) and classic drama (sanskrit plays). Unfortunately, while classic plays were respected, folk theater wasn’t, which is a real shame because it truly personifies Indian culture.

To the British, folk represented “going back to the roots” of Indian culture and society. Folk traditions and plays were used by dramatists to talk about nationalism and was considered a way to address the ‘Dramatic Performance Act’–> it acted as a way of circumventing this act. No one could really object to folk traditions, and the realism within folk centric plays broach much deeper, socially relevant topics.

Folk theater and plays couldn’t be considered “real”-they explored the world beyond, a fantasy world or space, that wasn’t really tangible and certainly not “realistic”. Through this fantasy space, playwrights addressed their concerns directly to a person on most occasions–> satire was especially crucial in putting points across to the audience.

Although folk could bypass the Dramatic Performance Act, it was still affected by this new “law” imposed by the British. How?

A cleansing of folk traditions took place, and people started questioning the sophistication of plays–> suddenly they wanted properly structured, refined and sophisticated plays of the Europeans–> thus, the new tradition of “sangeeth natak” emerged.


Stay tuned for more posts on folk traditions and the dramatic performance act!

Background of Colonial Theater

So this post is going to be a bit of a mash-up of my thoughts/understanding of colonial theater in India and the important events that have contributed to the formation, or shift from traditional Indian folk theater to colonial theater. I’m going to try and make it brief….but I’m probably not going to succeed.

The “logic of the outsiders” in colonial society in India was quite prevalent, and modern theater in colonial times followed such logic; for that reason much of the theater was performed in closed spaces. However, even though the English society and the Englishmen came in with a completely different culture, there was still a continuous flow of tradition in Indian society.—–> English was especially prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries.

India retained its status of a multi-lingual society and a flow of language and culture became particularly prominent during colonial times. Certain languages like Sanskrit and Persian became more important than other regional languages like Tamil or Marathi.


-most prestigious language—> rediscovered during colonialism by the Englishmen

“The Sanskrit language whatever be it’s antiquity is of wonderful structure, more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin and more exquisitely refined than either”-  William Jones (spoken at Asiatic society of Bengal, 1786)

-Sanskrit was spoken by the upper caste (Brahmin) and used by aristocrats

-William James went onto translate the very important Indian play ‘Shakuntala’


-Alas, Sanskrit theater wasn’t as popular as it seemed-when different languages gained popularity in India, people started moving away from Sanskrit, and towards languages like English and so on. Similar to the Renaissance in Europe, where English replaced Greek, Roman and Latin, this phenomenon of Sanskrit not being the “people’s language” anymore was inevitable.

-People’s theater stopped being performed from the 11th century onwards till ‘Shakuntala’ was translated in 1789—-> during colonialism was when the British started retracing Indian history, and they didn’t start with folk traditions, but with Sanskrit.

-Translations of Indian texts was done to better understand Indian society, to help the British with their governance of India. It seems unfortunate that they only focused on Sanskrit texts (primarily scriptures)-Sanskrit texts seemed the’ be all and end all ‘ of Indian theater and drama-the British missed out on a treasure trove of dramas and plays written in Marathi, Tamil, Gujarati; essentially the plays written in regional languages.

-German translation of ‘Shakuntala’ was seen in 1791–> this translation was based on the previous English one done by James. The British, in their translation, interpreted the play as a Hindu play when in reality it was much more; it was also the people’s and was rooted in folk tradition.



-Consisted of the Arabic language of the Quran and the Islamic Law.

-Persian: was the court language of the Mughal Empire

-the British didn’t appropriate Persian or Arabic: shows you how history+theater was reconstructed by the British


Then there arises the question:


-partially because its the root of the Dravidian languages…but then what about the Aaryan languages?

-mainly because the Brahmins were the leaders of education and the informers of the British government

Food for thought: How much has been lost because of only relying on Sanskrit texts?

-translation became very important in colonial times: Indian playwrights like Bhasa and Kalidas were translated, but side by side, even Shakespeare was translated.


So…where did languages place in Indian society at that time? 

-There was a “3 language” position that Indians were in; those who had access to Sanskrit had access to English+whatever texts were being printed at that time

-those who had access to vernacular languages had no access to Sanskrit or English texts; the vernacular language was considered the “language of slaves”–> vernacular texts were only orally transmitted, while Sanskrit transmitted via oral+written means

Food for thought: What made Sanskrit more important than vernacular languages? Was it only because the British deemed it so?


After getting a rough understanding into colonial society, what are certain events that shaped colonial society in India? 

1800—> Joshua Marshman, William Ward and William Carey-these three missionaries start a printing press in Serampore. It’s important to remember that this isn’t the first printing press to be set up in India.

-how has the printing press impacted theater?-due to the printing press people started writing down the vernacular languages

-The Dakshina Prize Committee was replaced by the British government who said they’d give prizes to scholars who translated texts rich in political/scientific meaning into English; slowly there emerged an Urban Elite class due to the surge in English language and education

-later different universities and colleges emerged and there was a conflict between Sanskrit, English and the vernacular languages seen

1835–> Macaulay’s Minute on Education

-proposed that Indian language be replaced by English

-Introduced tertiary play for education=big shift in way of looking at education

-Urban elite class: would receive English education

-We see: Vernacular vs. Sanskrit vs. English

1880–> The College of Fort William for British civilians was set up by the British


The background surrounding colonial theater in India raises many questions and makes us reflect on the fate of all those works not written in Sanskrit; what happened to them? It seems unfair that in a place like India, which thrives on diversity, the British relied on only one language to supply them with an understanding of India culturally, socially and politically. What happened to unity in diversity?

Visit the following links for more information:

Do you have any thoughts you’d like to share? If so, do comment!

Seymour Chatman- All About the Narrative

Seymour Chatman was an American film and literary critic, as well as a professor, and was particularly well known for his book ‘Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film’. However, when it comes to understanding drama and the narrative, his essay ‘Story and Narrative’ is most enlightening.

So what makes the narrative so special? What does it even comprise of? Well lets take a look!


Structuralist theory believes that each narrative holds two parts; a story, the content, or “chain of events” (actions, happenings), and the “existents” (characters, items of settings;  and the discourse, or the “expression, the means by which the content is communicated”. The story then becomes the ‘what’ in a narrative that is portrayed, while the discourse becomes the ‘how’. Chatman notes that such a distinction has existed since the time of Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’; “For Aristotle, the imitation of actions in the real world, praxis, was seen as forming an argument, logos, from which were selected (and possibly rearranged) the units that formed the plot, mythos”

The Russian formalists had such a distinction as well, but used only two concepts; fable (fabula)- the “basic story stuff, the sum total of events to be related in the narrative” and the plot (sjuzet) the story as actually told by linking the events together. Formalists see the fable as the series of events tired together, which are communicated to us in the course of the work, whereas plot is how the reader is made aware of what has transpired.

The narrative embodies a “communication”, therefore it has two parties; a sender and a receiver. Each party has three different “personages”- the sender contains the real author, implied author and the narrator (if present). The receiver contains the real audience, the implied audience and the narratee. Furthermore, the audience is compelled to respond with an interpretation; they can’t avoid participating in the “transaction”. Likewise, the audience makes interpretations about the character as well.

The events of a story are usually thought to form the plot. Aristotle stated that the plot (mythos) was “an arrangements of incidents”. Structuralists believe that narrative theory proposes that the arrangement “is precisely the operation performed by discourse”-then the events in a story are turned into a plot by its discourse, the “modus of presentation”. Like Chatman says, its function is to “emphasize” and “de-emphasize” certain story events, to interpret some and to leave others to inference, to show or to tell, to comment or to remain silent, and to focus on any aspect of an event or character.

In terms of the narrative, what is an event? Events are either “actions (acts)” or “happenings”. Both are “changes of state”. If the action leads to being significant to the plot, then the “agent” or “patient” is called a character. So, the character is the narrative subject of the “narrative predicate”. In classic narratives, events take place in “distributions”; they are linked to one another as a cause to effect-these effects cause other effects which in turn cause effects.

Perhaps the most important part of his narrative theory are the concepts of ‘kernels’ and ‘satellites’-here, Chatman draws on Roland Barthes works. Major events and minor events have different structures, and major events, which Chatman calls ‘kernels’ takes forward the plot by raising and satisfying questions. Kernels are essentially “narrative moments that give rise to cruxes in the direction taken by events”. The minor plot events, or “satellite” are not really as crucial as the kernels, and their deletion can occur without disturbing the plot, even though it may cause an aesthetic imbalance of the narration. Satillites are based on the kernels and they primarily “flesh out” the skeleton of the kernel.

Chatman’s theory provides an interesting, and detailed way to understand narratives, and his construction of the plot and events are applicable to many texts we see today. By understanding his point of view, it opens a door into understanding structuralist and formalist schools of thought and also can be applied to drama’s to uncover deeper meanings within the plot.