The Sunday Times of India,
11.10.1992
It won’t be
‘free’ theatre
…. If it survives on grant,
instead of voluntary public contributions, Badal Sircar tells Shamsul Islam, in
a rare interview
A wrecker of tradition. That
perhaps describes Badal Sircar better than the expression path finder in the
realm of theatre in the Indian subcontinent.
With a bang the trained town
planner had appeared on the Bengali theatre scene in the early 1950’s and
marked instant success as a playwright and director. Even a socially committed
plays like Badi Buwaji, Pagla Ghoda, Evam
Indrajeet and Baki Itihas became
very popular and were performed in several other Indian languages. But, thought
his proscenium productions were nationally acclaimed, at the height of its
popularity he abandoned it altogether. Decrying it as moribund, in 1972-73 he
switched over to ‘third theatre’ which he later named free theatre. With vigour
and zeal Shatabdi, his 25 year old group, gave street performances of Sagina Mahato, Spartacus, Juloos, Ghera,
Bhuma and Sheerhi. And they
became all the rage with political theatre activists.
That however is only half the
story of the phenomenon that is Badal Sircar. Theatre workshops conducted by
him in Bangladesh and Pakistan
heralded popular political theatre movements in these countries. His immense
contribution to the ideological front of theatre does not stop with
thought-provoking writings like Third
Theatre, Changing language of Theatre and Voyages of Theatre. At 67, he yet has no dearth of ideas nor of
energy. Always on the move, he is busy these days holding theatre workshops for
tribals, social activists, women’s organizations, working class activists and amateur
theatre activists.
In Delhi for a such workshop, he agreed after
much resistance to be interviewed for the press which he has shunned for the
last 10 years. Excerpts:
You propounded the theory of third theatre in early ’70s, and kept on
changing your notion. How do you visualize free theatre, now?
It is true, once I thought of
third theatre as a synthesis of urban and rural theatres. But even as I was
working on it I corrected my opinion. For third theatre could not be a
synthesis of anything if it had to be an alternative theatre. Earlier I had
fallen prey to a mechanical approach. I came to the conclusion that third
theatre, to be a free theatre, should not be costly, immobile or infested with
commercialism. It should attempt a dialogue with the audience.
Once you decide to get rid of the
paraphernalia of conventional proscenium theatre you have to depend supremely
on the human body. Its potentials should be developed through intense training.
Free theatre cannot be treated as pastime. For us, theatrical experience rather
than narration of story is more relevant. In any case physical acting and the
improvisation are far more effective than an abject dependence on language.
Critics feel your kind of theatre is merely physical theatre, at the
cost of language or spoken words. They also say that too much dependence on
physical formations reduces your theatre to an acrobatical experience
communicable only to a middle class audience. How do you react to these
comments?
This will be said only by those
people who have not seen our performances, or do not want to know anything
about our theatre. Even if they were to praise us, it would be for the wrong
reason. But that’s the way it is in this country: without knowing anything one
can go on passing judgments.
In fact we do the reverse of what
has been alleged. We start with the theme script and go on to explore the form.
For us content is the most important aspect of theatre. There are many who
start with a form and tailor a theme or script, to fit it. We never do that.
There’s another problem with
these critics. They like to believe that common people cannot respond to the
finer nuances of a performance, that this is a prerogative of the elite. Our
experience is that common people understand the symbols, gestures and the
spirit of the play more than the so-called urban intelligentsia.
How do you explain the popularity of your theatre workshops?
In my workshops I never work on a
script or play. That will be sheer wastage. Frankly, my workshops have no
outcome as such. There is no end product. Because I believe a theatre workshop
should simply help the participants to be creative, to live theatre and not to
copy or simply follow dictats. Theatre should not be the reserve of the
director alone.
What has been the feedback in this process?
Not much in north India.
In Delhi I’ve
conducted workshops for NSD, Sambhav, SRC Repertory. But none of these does
free theatre. It’s quite the opposite in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and West
Bengal. In these states free theatre is taking the shape of a movement. These
workshops helped theatre activists in Pakistan too, to initiate free
theatre movement.
What are your views on the issue of state patronage for culture?
We are dead against it. We never
apply for grants or favour from the state or its agencies. If we start asking
for patronage free theatre will become meaningless. It is our experience of 20
years that you can do theatre without state grants, through voluntary public
contributions.
How correct are those who believe that you want to destroy proscenium
theatre?
Even if I had tried I’m sure I
would not have succeeded. It is a myth propagated. True, I don’t believe in
proscenium theatre, and I don’t practise it. Why should I, when I don’t find it
relevant? But that does not mean that those doing proscenium theatre are my
enemies.
Why is it that suicide as a theme recurs in your plays?
It occurs in only three–Pagla Ghoda, Evem Inderajeet and Baki
Itihas–out of my 50 plays. It is a wrong generalization. And please note,
even though they have suicide these are not pessimistic plays. They are full of
life. They do not propagate suicide. It occurs simply because it fits into the
framework of the play.
[The printed interview carried a
photograph of Badal Sircar which is not reproduced here.]
