Perhaps, if Badal Sircar had had a choice, he'd have chosen another time in history for his death rather than hours after the decimation of the Left in West Bengal after 34 long years. This seems like the sort of staged irony Sircar would have been revolted by in theatre, and perhaps even in life; for journalists and commentators would dwell on this timing endlessly.
It is only respectful to recognise Sircar's passing as the passing of an era. He was perhaps the last of his ilk: a true radical; a theatre practitioner who questioned everything to do with his practice in his own unfathomable quest for meaning and justice within his art.
Deeply political
Sudhanva Deshpande, actor and director with Jana Natya Manch, in a touching tribute calls Sircar “The Outsider”, and fittingly so. Despite trawling the innermost labyrinths of his practice of theatre, and collaborating with his contemporaries in the effort to find an honest idiom for their collective work, he teetered on the fringes, finally abandoning the proscenium for a kind of theatre that was deeply political and most unsuited to commercial purpose.
The “Third Theatre”, emerged from the profound dissatisfaction with the proscenium and what it represented to Sircar; a bourgeois, dreadfully verbose, physically and thematically disconnected theatre. This struggle for artistic integrity, which continues to trouble theatre practitioners today, took Sircar into slums, villages and fields. It became angrier and acquired anarchist edginess, but never lost the thing that it became and transformed, the thing that once Sircar discovered made him fiercer and propelled him towards the people he meant to bring his work to in the first place. “Third Theatre” — later “Free Theatre”, a term Sircar was himself more comfortable with — took over in the face of success.
New ways to communicate
By this time Sircar had written and directed some of his most remembered work: “Ebong Indrajeet”, “Baaki Itaash”, “Pagla Ghoda”, “Pralaap”, “Michchil” and “Shesh Nahi”. He had been awarded the Sangeet Natak Akademi award and the Padma Shri. But in a few years time, along with his repertory Satabdi formed in 1967, he would denounce each of his achievements and travel tirelessly across West Bengal and the rest of the country, finding new ways to communicate to his audiences. The group had evolved the angan manch, and performed in small spaces, with barely any set up. They had also adopted techniques from the Jatra form. Yet Sircar didn't have illusions about his class and sensibilities.
As Deshpande points out in his tribute, Sircar was aware of his limitations as an urban-bred playwright, so he didn't attempt to inhabit a world he didn't fully know. He still spoke from his location, sometimes frustrated by the voice that appeared feeble, that wasn't “rooted enough”. But what Sircar was certain of was his conviction in the work he did, almost always affecting his audiences and contemporaries.
Much of the political street theatre that Karnataka-based group Samudaya did in the late 1970s and 1980s was influenced by the artistic collaboration they had with Satabdi. Manipuri theatre legend Kanhailal's initial work stemmed from the intense personal and artistic interactions with Sircar. And perhaps one of the most definite markers of Sircar's influence was the fact that his plays found a strong resonance with young people many generations after him. “Ebong Indrajeet” — translated into Hindi as “Evam Indrajeet” and English as “And Indrajeet” among several other languages — found its way onto college stages performed by amateur groups interpreted in astonishingly different ways. In the same way, “Pagla Ghoda” has been performed widely, and mostly by young people, signifying Sircar's ability to translate a simple idea intro dramatic text. Plays like “Beyond the Land of Hattamala” and “Scandal in Fairyland” continue to be performed for children in different languages.
Criticism
However, it's not as though Sircar's life was devoid of criticism. For one, he was removed from the Communist Party of India in the late 1950s. From the time he began to imagine a theatre outside the proscenium, he was criticised by his contemporaries including Utpal Dutt. Other Leftist and Socialist friends spoke of Sircar like an errant, stubborn child, or as someone who had betrayed the revolution. But until the end, Sircar remained true to what he felt: he refused the Padma Bhushan in 2010, because he had received the Sangeet Natak Akademi Fellowship.
Perhaps one of the things to take away from his lifetime for anyone in artistic pursuit is to value meaning in every way that Sircar did: the meaning of his work, his achievements, the movements he was part of, and the time he lived in. Even as he changed course, he followed meaning it to its rightful place at the time, and stayed with it till its bitter end.
What they said
Naseeruddin Shah: I never had the pleasure of meeting him. He had tremendous commitment to the cause of experimental theatre. It is sad that not enough people are following his example. I can’t say that he did not strongly influence theatre. He got to the essence of theatre by ridding it of its superficialities and excesses and concentrated on the text and acting. He started what is called “Poor Theatre”. The poverty of resources was more a strength than weakness. I feel I have missed out by not having an association with him.
Austerity is the word I would use for him as a person and theatre practitioner. I come from a different theatre tradition, the (Ebrahim) Alkazi tradition, which is grand. But my theatre is also moving towards Sircar’s theatre. Badal babu’s experimentation was not so much in the writing as in the actual staging. It’s kind of sad that he withdrew towards his last days. The same happened with Shambhu Mitra. I guess they feel a sense of defeat.
Alyque Padamsee: Badal was a natural genius. He was working on wonderful experimental theatre, which not many playwrights do. He understood the psyche of actors and writers. Vijay Tendulkar, Girish Karnad, Badal Sircar and Mohan Rakesh are the four pillars of modern Indian theatre. Of these Badal was the most experimental. He set a trend in the practice of theatre: don’t stick to the old; move to new directions.
Badal inspired the actors, writers, stage technicians. I never got a chance to work with him. I met him on few occasions. His was a pragmatic theatre. He moved theatre in new directions while others wrote well made, well crafted plays.
He was a man who enjoyed the whole theatre and not just the writing part. Theatre is as good as the performance: the actors, directors, the music, all combined. Theatre is a performing art and Badal understood it the most of all.
Mahesh Elkunchwar: Courage is one virtue that has been the theme of Badalda’s life and theatre. I belong to a generation that has already begun to lose its faith in any ideology and, perhaps, did not even have enough stamina to hold on to some. What strikes you most about his work is the ability to confront the ever degrading reality, look it in the eye without losing faith in humanity. It is, perhaps, this courage that led him to disown his own gems like “Ebong Indrajit”, “Saari raat” and “Baaki Itihas” and take up Third Theatre. It reflects his need for an immediate and urgent rapport with the common man.
As told to Rahi Gaikwad and Amruta Byatnal
