At the beginning of dusk, atop a hillock, two protagonists from the literary world meet for an unlikely conversation: the playwright and the clown. The playwright, embroiled in an existential conundrum, asks the clown for help. Occupied with questions of what his role in society should be, he urges the clown to guide him. In a style that is characteristic of the joker, steeped in irreverence and wisdom, the clown attempts to locate and place the playwright in time and society. For this, he begins the narration of the history of theatre itself.
As the conversation progresses, people gather around this duo and suddenly the playwright looks around to see that the clown is no longer around. Where is the clown? Was he there at all or was he talking to himself all along? It is with such a contemplative conversation that Makarand Sathe’s book, ‘A Socio-political history of Marathi theatre,’ begins. “In the initial phases of any writer, enthusiasm guides one’s writing and it is spontaneous and free flowing. But as years go by, you start thinking about why you write, what is good literature, for whom are you exactly writing. In other words, you try to situate yourself in the pages of history. This is task that every serious writer undertakes,” says Sathe. “The clown is actually trying to locate me, the playwright, in history by telling me the story of Marathi theatre,” he explains.
Sathe’s book, comprising 1300 pages, documents the journey of Marathi theatre from 1843 all the way up till the 21st century. Captured in conversations between the clown and the playwright, Sathe’s version of the history of Marathi theatre attempts to integrate theatre and its evolution with the socio-political currents of each period. Excerpts:
How did such a project take shape in your mind?
Since I am a playwright and a novelist myself, I wanted to understand the evolution of world views in Marathi theatre. I realised then that there was no book that documented an interpretative history. There are books which just jot down names of playwrights, plays, dates and events, the number of shows etc but nothing that spoke of how theatre was making meaning of the socio-political reality of the time. So, it began as a personal exercise. But, then I realised that this was a project that required funding. That is how I approached the Indian Foundation for the Arts who agreed to support the project.
What kind of material did you come across during research?
Unfortunately in India, we are very bad at documentation. I discovered that play scripts are not available. If they are, they are available in some libraries in some tattered form that even photocopying them is not possible. Some books/scripts are available with private collectors and normally, these collectors are pretty whimsical. It was difficult to convince them to lend me the books. Even newspaper libraries are in a pathetic condition. Just for the sake of it, I tried to find a copy of Kesari, the paper founded by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, for the date 15th August, 1947. It is not available.
Anyway, I asked raddiwalas for books too. I was helped immensely by many people who volunteered when they found out about my project. I think all of us in Maharashtra were feeling the need for such a book. Fortunately, since I have been writing for the last 30 years, I knew everybody in the theatre circle which made it easier to collect material.
Which would you say is the first Marathi play?
Like many, even I think that Mahatma Phule’s Tritiya Ratna written in 1855 is the first play. Before that, there was no written script. But chronologically speaking, Sita Swayamvar is considered the first play. There are many contentions when it comes to discerning the beginnings. The arguments are all political. You do not consider those plays as plays at all which do not suit your political ideology. For instance, Phule’s play did not get published. It did not get the grant from the Dakshina Prize Committee and was not performed for nearly 100 years after it was written. Therefore, the first 100 years of Marathi Theatre were totally dominated by Brahmins and the middle classes. They are never going to accept Phule’s play as the first play. They even take the Sangeeth Natak plays as the first plays and they happened 25 years after Phule’s play.
Where would you locate the beginnings of Dalit or the non-mainstream theatre in Maharashtra?
Actually, it would begin with Phule's play. After that, there was nothing till about 1890. In 1890, there was a movement called ‘Satya Shodhaki Jalsa’ which brought Mahatma Phule's ideology on stage. This was followed by Ambedkari Jalsa in 1930 followed by Workers theatre between 1940 and 1960. Dalit theatre began around 1970s and was pretty strong at that time.
How did cinema change Marathi theatre?
In 1930, Cinema became a talkie and many theatre halls were broken down and turned into cinema halls. But, that was not the only problem. In1920, Tilak died and Maharashtra lost its political leadership at the national level. Gandhi and Ambedkar took centre stage. There was rise of modernism in the West. By the 2nd World War, there was Absurdism. Britain’s power faded and America rose. There were multiple ideologies of Fascism and Communism and the like. This was a huge period of churning. And, Marathi theatre, like other theatres, could not cope with it intellectually.
In my opinion, theatre always finds it difficult to deal with complex realities. This is partly because theatre is a group activity. It is here and now and you cannot go back to it like you can in a novel. An audience of 500 to 1000 has to understand what you’re saying immediately there and then. Theatre came to terms with the changes in 1960s when experimental theatre came in with Vijay Tendulkar.
How would you assess Tendulkar’s contribution to Marathi theatre?
In the 1960s, post independence, the upper and middle classes who thought that the British were their only problem, were relieved. But, there was immense corruption and most ideologies were going through a crisis. This led to a kind of modernist theatre that Tendulkar was part of. He removed falsehoods in theatre. In his plays, he revealed that the society is violent, corrupt and women are treated badly. He was totally irreverent to Brahminical values. The theatre audience was awakened, especially the middle classes. That is his great contribution to theatre.
His limitation was that he always said that it is not the job of the creative writer to either understand socio-political undercurrents theoretically or to say what should happen. So, he never took a position in his plays.
The latter part of your book deals with theatre post 1985 until the present. How do you see the current scenario?
Since 1985, there is a huge sense of nostalgia for the theatre of the past. There is hardly any re-evaluation or criticism of the theatre of the past. There is hardly any play which can be reinterpreted now. The plays that were claimed to be classics by a section of the society are being blindly perpetuated. They were wonderful, new plays, of course. After all, we faced modernism for the first time. But, now, this newness is never going to come to us. In that sense then, the theatre of the present day is not new, but it is trying to grapple with the complex reality which is multi-linear. Ideology is not clear anymore and it is fragmented both in terms of the individual and society. Art, as a social practice, needs a superimposition between a writer and his audience.
Secondly, consider this. Begum Barve, Satish Alekar’s play for instance, even after 30-35 years, has not gone beyond 30-35 shows. When we say that it was a great play, we have to accept that only 7000 people saw it. Now even that has become impossible. Most of the writers even now inherit the legacy of Tendulkar, of not wanting to intellectually or theoretically understand the currents. This hampers you most when the conditions are complex.
Is the problem relating to writing? Or is there not enough impetus for theatre to grow?
Both. There is no impetus. And theatre across the world is facing this. At least in Maharashtra, theatre has to compete with Hindi films and Hindi television. Whenever I stage a new play, after the fifth show, half of my cast would have left. TV producers come to my shows and see good actors and offer them Rs. 5,000 a day.
Globalisation, fragmentation of identity and capitalism are all simultaneously responsible. Everything is judged on the basis of the market. We are not living in an age where capitalism is ruled by democracy. Democracy is being ruled by capitalism.
