Indo-Anglian Drama: A Critical Study

The Classical Theatre of India

India has a dramatic tradition of its own. Though it is difficult to fix up the exact date of its commencement in this ancient country, there were pageants, rituals, mimes and other folk forms. As the Greek drama had its origins in fertility rites and frenzied worship of Dionysus, the classical Indian drama also originated from the folk theatre of the country. In course of centuries both went on borrowing from each other and developed. The process of evolution of the dramatic art can be traced right from the ancient period of Rigvedawhich contains some dramatic dialogues. Also there are references to drama in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and in Panini’s works; and traces of its development in Krishna legends. The theory of Greek influence on the ancient Indian theatre is refuted, and it is generally accepted that the Indian theatre was entirely independent in its origins, in the ideas which governed it and in its development.

The Natyasastra

A treatise on dramaturgy which is said to belong to third century A. D., is a clear proof of the existence of drama in developed form in at least five or six centuries preceding it. Starting from Asvaghosha who is believed to come near the beginn­ing of the Christian era, the classical Sanskrit drama has a few noteworthy playwrights like Bhasa, Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti, Sudraka, Visakhadatta and Harsha. Thus there was a continuous flow of Sanskrit drama for centuries; and all along it received royal patronage.

But after Murari in the ninth century, a marked decline in the quality can be observed (excepting a few attempts of its revival made till this century by the playwrights up to V. Raghavan). Though the causes of the decline are many, the prominence given to Persian in the Mughal regime had its own negative effect on Sanskrit literature in general and drama in particular.

The Sanskrit stage meant for the class thus declining, the popular theatre of the mass with well-known themes and in local languages, went on growing in quality and quantity. It even inherited many of the classical conventions like the Sutradharaand the Vidushaka, who appear under different names in different regional forms. Thus the classical Sanskrit drama survived in some crystallised folk-theatre forms like Ramlila. Raslila and Nautankiof North, Bhavaiof Gujarat, Tamashaof Maharashtra, Jatraof Bengal, Ankia-natof Assam, Yakshagana of Karnataka, Veedhinatakamuof Andhra and Teerukoothuof Tamilnadu.

The Modern Theatre Movement

Since the nineteenth century, there has been a demand for plays in modern Indian languages (including translations). Side by side the educated class was fascinated by plays in English. The Bombay Amateur Theatre (the first theatre in Bombay built in 1776) presented mostly the later Georgian comedies; this was followed by the opening of the Grant Road Theatre. But the original plays in English written by Indians were not encouraged by these early theatres. Yet there was a faint desire here and there to have new dramatic pieces in English based on Indian themes. In addition to the staging of Western plays in the major cities of India by some European touring companies, many amateur groups and clubs flourished; but they concentrated more on modern drama in Indian languages.

Amidst these various challenges, the Indian drama in English had to take its birth and grow in its own pace. The First Parsi Baronet, perhaps the earliest Indo-Anglian verse-play, was written by C. S. Nazir in 1866; but he was thereafter attracted towards Gujarati and Hindustani plays. Next we find a phase wherein plays in English like The Bombay Palkheewala and Bengali Baboo entertained some Hindu weddings and similar ceremonies of other religions. But in all such phases, the Indian drama in English could not face the challenge put forth by plays in verna­culars such as Marathi, Bengali, etc. The theatre movement in Bengal had started with the presentation of Bengali plays adapted first from English and then from Sanskrit; but in this early period they could boast of only one play in English, i.e., Michael Madhusudan Dutt’s Is This Civilization? (1871). In Madras, amateur Europeans could stage phys in English in the Madras Dramatic Society which was established in 1875. It was followed by the Oriental Drama Club and the Sarasa Vinodini Sabha, the first Indian amateur dramatic society in South India. But they were not exclusively meant for performances in English.

Ever since the beginning of this century, the drama in English had no chance to develop, whereas the theatre movement in the Indian languages gained momentum (Of course, under the influence of English drama); and the period (from 1940 onwards) presents the birth of several dramatic organisations like the Indian People’s Theatre, the Indian National Theatre (established by Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya), Ebrahim Alkazi’s Theatre Unit, the Bharatiya Natya Sangha (affiliated to the World Theatre Centre of UNESCO) and several regional amateur theatres. In the Post-Independence period, the performing arts were given further impetus by the establishment of the Sangita-Natak Akadami, the National School of Drama, training centres like Adyar Kalakshetra in Madras and Darpana in Ahmedabad and Drama Departments in some universities in the country. But, as these opportunities have been mostly intended to encourage plays in Indian languages, the sad tale in respect of Indo-Anglian drama continues (though a few local organisations like Bangalore Little Theatre have come up exclusively for it).

Indo-Anglian Plays and Problems

In spite of many handicaps, writing plays in English by Indians continued for about a century (till now) and we have nearly 400 such plays and playlets as shown in the Bibliography compiled by the present writer and published in Perspectives (OUP, 1977). (The number includes both the plays and playlets originally written in English by Indians and a few translations of their works by the authors themselves.) While Sri Aurobindo, T. P. Kailasam, Harindranath Chattopadhyaya; Bharati Sarabhai and Asif Currimbhoy are some noteworthy playwrights, we come across a few like V. V. Srinivasa Aiyangar who appear to have written dramatic pieces just for occasional entertainment. It is difficult to keep track of all the plays and playlets published either in periodicals or in book-form. For lack of proper encouragement or due to inadequate modes of preservation, a good number of plays must have been either lost or remained unpublished.

Why is the total achievement in the field of drama much less than that in other forms of Indo-Anglian writing? What were the problems and difficulties faced by the Ingo-Anglian play­wrights?

The success of a play is to be tested only on the stage as “drama is a composite art in which the written word of the playwright attains complete artistic realisation only when itbecomes the spoken word of the actor on the stage, and through that medium reacts on the mind of the audience”.¹ For a successful communication the playwright will have to take great care in the selection of themes and settings, in employing techniques and dialogues as well as the language suited to the purpose.

The Themes

India being a very ancient land of civilization, the Indo-­Anglian dramatists could profusely draw incidents from the Upanishads, mythologies, epics, history, society of the country, in addition to some foreign sources (as we find in Sri Aurobindo). While depending upon the ancient lore of the country for their themes, they had to think of either dramatising the incidents as they were or idealising one character (like, for example, Kailasam’s Keechaka) at the cost of others to suit their purpose. Particularly in the case of historical themes, the absence of full authentic details in Indian history appears to have given free play for the playwright’s imagination. Further it is a point for discussion whether the playwrights did fully tap our rich sources for their themes. (It is unfortunate that many failed in this regd.)

Next, as the social plays and playlets outbeat other types in number, their themes presented some problems. India being a vast and an ancient country and having a variety in all aspects of life, there had been room for various types of complications in society all these centuries; and the people had to suffer a lot on account of some corrupt customs like the dowry system practised in the name of religion. Though the playwrights could not be blind to these social evils, the mode of employing them as their themes was a problem. While some tried to project them as they were, others aimed at their solution though melodramatically. Some like Girish Karnad even thought of giving a modern treat­ment to mythological incidents. The playwrights like Kailasam tried to remodel the ancient stories of the country in order to bring out the Greek tragic concept; but did not get full success in their attempts. Further, during the foreign rule, the selection of the contemporary political themes was a problem to play­wrights. That is why we rarely come across plays directly dealing with people’s fight for independence of the country; or the playwrights had to resort to allegorical form in such cases. Some playwrights desiring to have a predominant idea in the collection of their plays had to face the problem of shaping them to suit their purpose and strewing them in one thread. If, for example, Sri Aurobindo tries to highlight the romantic impulse in his plays, Kailasam attempts at a quest for greatness in his epic characters. Some authors have used the drama form merely as a vehicle to carry their ideas and cared little for dramatic art.­

The Playwright’s Model and Techniques

Apart from the lack of opportunities to test his plays on a living theatre, the Indo-Anglian playwright had to think of models and techniques to be followed in their works. Though there was an ancient dramatic tradition in the country, playwrights like Sri Aurobindo were attracted towards the Western models particularly the Elizabethan with its features like the five-act structure, more plots, long speeches particularly in verse-form, clowns, the prologue and the epilogue, and the element of horror. Here the point is whether they have made any attempt to examine the relevance of the new genre of aping the West (a “hot-house plant” as Murli Das Melwani calls it)² to the Indian situation. This is very important as some seem to have been unnecessarily carried away by the fashionable West in spite of the rich dramatic tradition existing in the country. Worth-examining in this context is M. K. Naik’s remark: “It is a shocking fact that he (the Indo-­Anglian playwright) has mostly written as if he belonged to a race which has never had any dramatic traditions worth the name, and must therefore solely ape the West”. ³ Further, in the case of those who tried to follow the Samskrit drama tradition either fully or partially, the problem is how best they could employ its features like lengthy descriptions and dialogues, the nayakaand pratinayakaand techniques like the Sutradhara, Pravesaka and others. Regarding others who followed neither the Indian tradition nor the West, the presentation of a social theme was aimed just at entertaining an audience on some occasions.

The Language

The biggest problem faced by Indo-Anglian playwrights is that of the language. During all these decades, English (that too, spoken English) had been used only by a minority of the people in the country. Many playwrights (except a few like Currimbhoy, Ezekiel and others) were not well-acquainted with the spoken word which could check the artificiality in dialogues. It has been really a task for them to adjust the foreign tongue to Indian characters and culture in their plays. In social plays, even if the characters were carefully chosen, could it solve the problem? For it means that only those characters who are supposed to know English, should have a place in Indo-Anglian drama. In that case, there would be too much of limitations; much more so in the case of characters from epics, mythology and history. There are innumerable works on these themes in various Indian languages and it is absurd to expect that such characters should know these languages. For instance, to demand a certificate of qualification in Kannada from Tughlak would be as foolish as to expect a knowledge of English from Julius Caesar. So what one could expect is the use of a language in keeping with the dignity and decorum of classical characters. Further, in a play in any language, a character would be expected to use the spoken word of his or her level. A servant, for example, in King Duryodhana’s court cannot be expected to speak the high-flown language of Drona or even of Duryodhana. How were these problems solved by the Indo-Anglian playwrights?

Even the English vocabulary was problematic as some English words were found incomprehensive to convey certain concepts of Indian culture, such as dharma, sanyasa, etc. Some playwrights like Kailasam tried to overcome this difficulty by using Samskrit (or other Indian) words themselves in their original form. (In this connection, it may not be out of place to think of the methods used by some writers like Raja Rao who would rather have translations of local idioms to convey the Indian shades of thought and thereby impart a natural colour to speech.) Thus the language problem in Indo-Anglian drama deserves a special analysis.

Stageworthiness

The success of a play is to be judged mainly on the stage. In the classical Samskrit drama itself, we come across Bhasa who was well in advance of his times in this aspect (compared even to later playwrights like Kalidasa). In modern times, mere imitation of the West (unless warranted) could not make our modern plays stageworthy. In fact, some playwrights used the living folk forms (thereby the classical Indian drama indirectly) with success; for example, the use of Yakshagana in Girish Karnad’s Kannadaplay, Hayavadana; Dashavatar; and Kheletechniques in Vijay Tendulkar’s Marathi play. Ghashiram Kotwal, Jatra in Utpal Dutt’s Jokumareswaraand Badal Sarcar’s Evam Indrajit.

But, so far as the Indo-Anglian playwrights are concerned, the rich Indian tradition of stage-plays appears to have been almost neglected. What “Sriranga” (Adya Rangacharya), a well-known Kannada playwright, remarks about the modern Indian theatre in general, may be particularly applied to Indo-Anglian drama: “Unthinkingly we opened our theatre and bewitched by the (Western) breeze we forgot it and just walked over to the Western theatre... Like parentage it (the classical Indian drama) lives in us even in these days. We may denounce our father, but we cannot empty ourselves of his blood in us”. ⁴­

In this connection we can consider how playwrights like Eliot and Fry could write stageworthy verse-plays even without resorting to Shakespeare. Some playwrights like Sri Aurobindo rather unwarrantedly put the Elizebethan garb for their native themes; and the extent of artificiality on the stage is to be examined in respect to such plays. In the case of many social plays, authors like V. V. Srinivasa Aiyangar have not followed any model; but they appear to have written plays and playlets only to give a light entertainment to the audience, may be even with an interesting dialogue. Thus their success on the stage is to be doubted.

Yet, even in the early phase of Indo-Anglian drama we come across a few like Kailasam who had stage-sense. Of late, Asif Currimbhoy has shown some promise in writing the stageable plays like Doldrummers. The Dumb Dancer and Goa (which were a success on the stage both in this country and abroad), but in some cases, there seems to be too much of stage-sense and cinematographic techniques at the cost of the development of plot. Further, with the help of modern stage-techniques, plays like Gurcharan Das’s Larins Sahib, Dilip Hiro’s To Anchor a Cloud and Shiv Kumar Joshi’s He Never Slept so Long could be staged with success.

The Limited Output

In the words of K. R. Srinivasa Iyengar, “Modern Indian dramatic writing is neither rich in quantity, nor, on the whole, of high quality”. ⁵ Unlike other literary forms, drama faces the fundamental problems of its relationship with the theatre. If the theatre aspect is absent, the art cannot be completely realised. With proper settings and action on the stage only, the written word of a play attains its full meaning. Notwithstanding the Indo-Anglian playwright’s problems (limited success in experimentation and in treatment of themes, the use of models and techniques and the language) explained so far, the want of a “living theatre” solely meant for Indo-Anglian plays is a major factor responsible for the limited output and quality in the field, compared to other literary forms like fiction.

Thus the field with its peculiarities and problems has lent itself to a critical study of the playwrights and their achievement.

References

¹ M. K. Naik, “The Achievement of Indian Drama in English”, Perspectives on Indian Drama in English, ed. M. K: Naik and S. Mokashi Punekar.          P. 180-181.
² Murali Das Melwani, “Paucity of Indo-Anglian Drama”, Quest (Jan.-March 1970)
³ M. K. Naik, “The Achievement of Indian Drama in English,” Perspectives on Indian Drama in English.P. 187.
⁴ Adya Rangacharya “Classical Indian Drama and Modern Indian Theatre”, Indian Drama, ed. H. H. Annaiah Gowda. P. 41.
⁵ K. R. Srinivasa Iyengar, Indian Writing in English. P. 126.