logo

Nagpur. 23rd and 24th September. Three shows of the Hindi play COTTON 56, POLYESTER 84 were cancelled. The cancellation of the shows were on a technicality: improper licensing.

1.

The Rangachariar Committee Report of 1927 which was drafted for censorship in cinema maintains that “censorship is necessary in India, and is the only effective method of preventing the import, production and public exhibition of films which might demoralise morals, hurt religious susceptibilities or excite communal or racial animosities.”

Innumerable Committees have come and gone, but the Maharashtra censor board follows the above to a tee. In fact they bend backwards to uphold the law of the land.

Why?

Perhaps one can turn to Erich Fromm for an understanding. Fromm had concluded from his study of the rise of the Nazi government in Germany that one of an authoritarian regime’s major aims is to perpetuate itself in power. For such regimes, criticism and opposition are inimical, and free discussion and choice by the citizenry is anathema. Here you will query (and you must) that the Maharashtra Government is not authoritarian. Sure. Like other parts of the country, we’ve CMs, Opposition Leaders, Defectors. We’ve politicians whose 2-column photographs, the local newspapers love to publish. Especially when these politicians are addressing a Natya Samelan or inaugurating an auditorium (in which no play can ever be staged), or declaring their admiration for “the rich and glorious tradition of theatre in Maharashtra” which they want to sustain by controlling the content of plays.

The first thrust of control is usually directed towards the performing art. Since they are easy, soft targets. Recent history indicates that authoritarian powers are now aiming first at control of the performance arts media rather than the print media since the latter are more vulnerable to manipulation.

This is the main reason, Maharashtra has witnessed a longish saga of “banned” plays: Keechak Wadh by K P Khadilkar, Sakharam Binder, Gidhade by Vijay Tendulkar, Mee Nathuram Boltoy by Pradeep Dalvi, Bedtime Story by Kiran Nagarkar, Yada Kadachit by Santosh Pawar, Avadhya by C T Khanolkar, Golpeetha by Suresh Chikhale. The list is endless.
I’ve seen Khalsa College’s production of Elkunchwar’s Holi being banned because of the obscenity. Iqbal Khwaja being roughed up by goons from the saffron brigade outside Prithvi Theatre after his satirical take on Hindu gods in Shakespeare Ki Ramlila.

Years later, the same bunch blackened the face of Sriranga Godbole in Pune for staging Ram Bharose. Interestingly enough, a few weeks later, Sriranga hosted Pan Amhala Khelaichya (a youth play that makes a passionate plea for communal harmony) for Shiv Sainiks at RangaSharda auditorium.

Mumbai is replete with such instances of real politiks. The Congress Party disrupts a show of Mee Nathuram Bolto Ahe because it depicts the Mahatma in poor light. But among other things, everyone knows, this play is produced by Vinay Apte, who is close to the Shiv Sena Supremo. Later, Machindra Kambli’s popular Vastraharan is targetted by the saffron gang. Kambli was a NCP candidate (he lost) and the badshah of Konkan. Kambli deflects the aggression from the protestors. He sends chai and nashta for them before a show.

The point is, authoritarian governments, the political parties and their workers, all strive to bring the populace to the point where it will unquestioningly accept their claim to perpetual power. This is accomplished by trying to convince the citizenry that the government has a special “semi-divine” status based on some sort of natural or sacred law.

One of the weapons in the state’s armoury is the censor certificate. Today, Maharashtra is the only state which demands a censor certificate.

Chetan Datar, playwright & director & co-sufferer, once, told me: “in Mumbai, we need a censor clearance for plays, for one acts, for tamasha, for lavani, for public meetings, for condolence meetings, for a dance in a bar.”

2.

In the past, too, it has been a losing battle. Narayan Surve, one of the major poets in Marathi says, “Annabhau Sathe, Amar Sheikh and Gavankar came together and the Lal Bawta Kalapathak was started. They wrote povadas, lavanis and songs. Annabhau Sathe wrote and performed about 18-20 tamashas, 7-8 povadas. Soon peoples’ theatre became closely linked with people’ movements. In the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, Annabhau’s tamasha Majhi Mumbai became so popular that Morarjee Desai, the Chief Minister banned the play.”

The reasons for the ban were multifold. Of course there was party politics, not to mention the battle over Bombay which was prevalent in those days. And so, it would be a folly to believe that censorship is straightforward and recognisable and emanates from one single powerful source such as the totalitarian state. Subtle forms of censorship may be more dangerous than obvious attempts at control because they are harder to identify and oppose.

Prime examples are: Santosh Pawar having to stage a special show of Yada Kadachit for Shiv Sena big wigs and get their approval. But along with approval, he got an outpouring of public support. The play became a box office hit. This sort of thing has become common in Mumbai. Theatre groups aspire for the blessings of Saheb. Be it: Bandra or Baramati. In the process, mainstream politics has co-opted the theatre world into its maze.

Here, it must be remembered that censorship more often arises from a diversity of sources than from the single monolithic authoritarian state. There are many groups with their particular beliefs that are constantly trying to coerce the communications media into accepting and promoting their agendas. Denunciation, boycotts, and economic pressures are their least offensive censorship weapons. Closure, blackening of face, garlanding with chappals, destruction of property, are most extreme forms of “persuasion”.
The famous example of preventing a performance of a play is Vijay Tendulkar’s Ghashiram Kotwal. This play production was never banned officially by any government. However, the performances were stopped in 1972 because RSS applied pressure on the theatre group PDA. The group was established in 1952 by Bhalba Kelkar, Dr Lagoo, etc. Innumerable seniors from PDA had RSS linkage. This group within PDA decided to abandon the production of Ghashiram. On cue, the young artists revolted and established Theatre Academy, Pune on March 27, 1973. Theatre Academy could not perform play for one year till the political ruckus against the play, settled. Some of the socialists like the late N G Gore opposed the play. The play was considered an anti Brahmin play by Punekar Brahmins. It was directed by a Muslim. Although most of the actors were Brahmins (that too thorough-bred Chittpavans) like: Agashe, Gadre, Kale, Pendse, Ranade and so on.

The second round of threat came in 1980 when the play was invited for the Berlin International Theatre Festival. This time, the Shiv Sena was in the forefront along with Vasant Sathe who was a Minister in the Central Cabinet in Delhi. Shiv Sena activists went in to court to get stay on the international tour planed by Theatre Academy, Pune. Sharad Pawar intervened. He arranged a formal meeting with Bal Thackeray at his residence. Theatre Academy artists attended. Theatrewallahs like Sudhir Damle led the opposition.

Here I must intervene and issue an aside. Today, his brother, Ravindra Damle runs Pune’s Maharashtra Cultural Centre and manages Su-darshan Hall (a Chabbildas type performing space in Pune). This Institute has denied permission to the youth play Cigarettes by Mansawini to be performed.

Cigarettes (like all plays) has its own history. Satish Alekar received threatening letters as Head of the Lalit Kala Akademi stating that the play should not be allowed to perform on the Pune University campus. The well-drafted letters stated, if the ex-students of Lalit Kala Kendra penned obscene plays, then the University should re-examine its training of students. In spite of the letters written to the Vice Chancellor and Alekar, they went ahead with the performance on the campus.
I was present for the show. There was police presence. Satish Alekar and a few students were standing guard at the entrance. Every time, a bunch of boys appeared, there would be tremendous tension. But the boys were local students. It was dinner time. And they were using the corridor of the Namdeo Sabagruh as a short-cut to the Hostel Mess. It was daily routine. We relaxed. Again, the sub-text for the production of Cigarettes was, a Brahmin Playwright and a Dalit Director who were colluding, to corrupt the young Brahmins of Pune.
Speaking about the Brahmins of Pune, lets return to the persons opposing Ghashiram during the famous meeting. They were Daji Panshikar (brother of Prabhakar Panshikar). Interestingly, Vinay Apte supported the play. Atal Bihari Vajpeyi supported the play. Jabbar Patel and Mohan Agashe made a presentation, but the meeting was non conclusive. Bal Thackeray was steadfast. He said the play should not go abroad. Artists had to resort to police protection. The then, Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi intervened. Her PM note, drafted by her advisor Sharada Prasad in consultation with V N Gadgil (who supported the play and was also a Minister in Central Cabinet) and Kumud Mehta of NCPA. Satyajit Ray, Shombhu Mitra, Utpal Dutt, Mrinal Sen despatched telegrams to the PM office in support of the play. Of course (as all of us know), the play had a wonderful tour to West Europe with 25 performances. It got rave reviews in London Times, Guardian, Der Spigel, NTQ. The Court issued an order that before each performance, a statement which was approved by the Court should be read-out. This statement publicly praised the achievements of Nana Phadanvis, over and above, stating that the play was not based on the true history. Theatre Academy followed the court order.

There is an interesting post script. Since 1996, the University of Pune has included Ghashiram Kotwal in its BA/MA (Theatre) syllabus in its prescribed textbook. In 2000, one of the MA students staged Sakharam Binder as a production for MA (Theatre) practical exam. In the past, the student was a RSS activist. His parents have been full-time RSS activists for 20 years.
Strange, but true.

In all this, there’s a lesson in it for us. Censorship (in India) is applied by subtle manipulation of the content of a performance. Usually, this means a targetting of any one of the four elements in a performance. They are (a) actors, (b) scripts, (c) auditorium, and (d) the audience. Negating one of them means, the existence of the performance is negated, there is nothing for the audience to see, hear, or be effected by.

Theatre workers know from scene work, rehearsal, and from minimal or no scenery productions that it is dispensable and can be “filled” in or augmented by the audience’s imagination. So, the theatrical event can go on without scenery. What has been said about scenery is also true about lighting, sound, costumes, and props. A performance can still occur without them. What about the auditorium itself and its attendant support corp? The playhouse may be the most vulnerable point for censorship attack among all aspects of the theatrical enterprise.

Some of the major auditoriums in Mumbai have refused permission to stage Vagina Monologues. Of course, most of it is due to the publicity overdrive by the producers of Vagina Monologues. That being so, theatre management have denied permission on grounds of morality. They are “revolted’ by the title of the play.

But is the theatre building absolutely necessary for a theatrical performance to occur? Theatre can and has been done on street corners, in fields, in living rooms, storefronts, etc. Tom Stoppard reported an occasion in which Vaclav Havel did a five-person living room performance of Macbeth using only a small props suitcase because the Czechoslovakian authorities had forbidden him and his company from performing Shakespeare in public. Its amazing how Sunil Shanbag and his actor team did the same in a community hall. They staged an impromptu, guerilla styled show for an audience of over hundred. It was a hair raising experience.

To quote Sunil Shanbag:

The members of the Vidrohi Sanskriti Movement were keen to do a performance at another venue. We agreed on the condition that they guaranteed our safety, and that none of the troupe be arrested. We eventually agreed to an informal interactive session at the Rashtrabhasha Parivar hall.

For the actors, musicians, and me, the impromptu performance was a great morale booster. The day had been long and hard, but everyone had been very patient and trusting. Performing for an audience that wanted to watch and was with us in spirit was a like a balm. I think for the first time we sensed a one-ness with the spirit of the worker characters in the play.

Conclusion

The point is, lack of a theatre building and its facilities and support personnel does not kill the performance.

Slimmed down to its essentials, the theatrical event needs only actors, a playscript, and an audience. The “Essential Theatre” (actor, script and audience) is the least governable of the performing arts media, by the state, because of its simple structure. Because the theatre is least encumbered by technology, it is the most mobile of performance arts media. The theatre can perform, move on, and perform again, concealing its whereabouts and activities from the police and government spies.

I’ve witnessed the functioning of such a theatre when Gaddar was supposed to perform in a crowded chowk in Nagpur. There was a siege situation. The police had deployed their full force to arrest a man they perceived to be a threat to national Security. When he appeared, he made a statement – hollering from the top of a police van - and comprised what could be called Guerilla Theatre, a form of theatre that actively opposed the Government’s war on impoverished farmers and farm-hands. It was such a theatre that first sounded the clarion call of opposition long before the other media found it prudent to do so. Gaddar’s theatre made it much more mobile, less controllable than the other performing arts.

And that’s the point, the theatre has the greatest chance of doing so because its low level of reliance on technology makes it less vulnerable to the controlling and withholding of technology by censoring authorities. This possible whenever there is a massive and open assault at censorship control by the authorities in which the aim is to shut down performance.

I (and innumerable theatre colleagues) have learnt that frequently censorship is subtle and seeks only to control aspects of the content and presentation of the performing arts media rather than prohibit their existence.

Such attempts at censorship usually start out slowly, asking for “minor” adjustments and concessions. It is tempting to give in to these small demands, hoping by such concessions to stave off worst demands. Unfortunately once the minor adjustments are made, the policy of concessions is established. The theatre seems to be a historic object of censorship of all kinds. One has only to remember the attacks of the early Church Fathers, the Puritans, and the Restoration clerics to see how common were the attacks on the theatre. It may be that the vigour of the attacks is related to the fact that, in the final analysis, the theatre is the most resistant to censorship medium.

“Safe” theatre is usually supported by the authorities with grants, foreign funding, subsidies, and special favours. “Safe” theatre is safe as long as it remains a supporter of the government. In order to remain safe it must become an active arm of authoritarian propaganda as is (or was) or, at best, be a producer of the innocuous and bland and the popular. It may be true that the theatre may attempt to subvert the authorities by only appearing to be “safe”. This can be done by presenting “metaphors” which a receptive audience will understand but will be opaque to the censors.

A prime example of this kind of theatre was the 1943 Paris production of Jean Anouilh’s Antigone that was presented during the Nazi occupation. There’s a documentary on the same. Its chilling. The play was on the surface a re-working of the classical Greek play by Sophocles. But on the metaphorical level, the play was a denunciation of totalitarianism. Opposition to the occupying powers could only be safely stated indirectly through metaphorical disguise. Innumerable plays did it during the Emergency. Julius Caesar became a symbol for Madame Gandhi - and everyone in the audience knew it.

But when and if the theatre openly resists the totalitarian state, or challenges the cherished beliefs of a particular group, it is attacked. The general opening of the attack usually focuses on “morality”. The focus of the charges are directed towards the trivialities which exist on the periphery of theatre (e.g., dirty language, nudity, the personal lives of the actors, etc.) and not at the centre of the theatre (the morality of the message). False issues and “straw men” are raised and then attacked. The attack is directed at the periphery, and then it is argued that these side issues are the centre of the theatre.

What is the future? India needs a Dario Fo. Or alternatively, a playwright like Acharya Atre, a popular mass leader, a native of Saswad in Pune, a romantic intellectual. Atre had a robust sense of humour and his jokes are part of Maharashtra’s folklore. He was seen as a scamp, fond of liquor and women (not necessarily in that order). He believed leaders should set high standards but never did he follow those standards, himself. He was a one-man army. He had written a play called Mee Ubha Ahe (I am standing) in which he had made fun of the communists, although he was associated with the progressive movement. Everytime he made a public speech, the audience would burst out laughing. And he would caution them, I’m still sober.

I wonder how Atre would react to the singing of the national anthem prior to a film in the auditorium? What if such an act percolates to the theatre? And I wonder how would Atre react to the cancellation of girni kamgar play in a Vidarbha which has witnessed the maximum number of suicide deaths by cotton framers. I wonder!
After penning this essay I sent it to a few friends to whet it. There was a response from Mahesh Elkunchwar. His comment: “The strength of theatre is ultimately its minimalism. It renders it mobile and makes it easy to perform anywhere, anytime without catching the eye of the establishment. I remember a Pakistani delegation that was invited to a get-together in Lahore. Once there, they were shown Party, the film, with blinds drawn and sound at the lowest. … the thing is, a concentrated effort should come from the artist’s lobby.”

True.

Today, what is happening is, one individual from time to time raises his voice. Others support him. Then the whole thing is forgotten till the next victim opens his mouth.

Today it is me. Tomorrow it will be you!

Ramu Ramanathan

(An Edited version of this essay has been published in Thespo 8 Magazine, 2006 + INDIAN PRINTER PUBLISHER).

5 readers recommend this post  Loading ...	Email This Post To Friends
Related Posts Theatre Interpretations to Pop Theories Happy Birthday Theatre PROJEKT iVIEW : Film and TV Censorship Must See: Pina Bausch in India IBSEN IN INDIA My Prithvi Story … i love to be a performing Artist Shakespeare in India The Importance of Being Vijay Tendulkar Girish Karnad and Mahesh Dattani