The definition of Folk Theatre

[Please note-This is the very first draft, with no footnoting and diacritical marks. This is to encourage others to upload their rough cut works. Thanks]    

The term “Lok Natya” is modern but “Natya" is ancient. However, in any folk culture, these are words are not prevalent. What we (cultural anthropologists) specify as Lok Natya or Folk Theatre, that folk culture recognises as Gaan or song. In the language of North Bengal’s Dinajpur, it’s called “Gaaoon.” The performers are called “Gaoondars”, “Patial”. Musical dialogues dominate in these performances, so they are called “Gaan” or “Gaoon”. Needless to say, the folk culture is primarily composed of the audience.

      

    Sukumar Sen has proposed a meaning of the word, Natya. In his words, “Nat’er kormo” or “The activities of a Nat”. In this light, folk theater might be considered the activity of folk Nats. But when we think of Nat, we are reminded of a skilled class of people. The Nattya title is particularly reminiscent of that.

      In North Bengal, there is no one class of people trained in the art of performance. Those who indulge in performances, they are called by different names-“Angiya” (Rangiya), “Osiya” (Rasiya), Gayin. They are primarily peasants and more than half are below the poverty line. From their own experiences, they compose the “Gaoon” or “Gan” or song-dance performances. All of these people belong to the same socio-cultural-geographical stratum and are strongly tied together by their creed/faith. The producers of their performance are their audiences, who belong to the socio-cultural-geographical spectrum.

      Throughout the year, according to auspicious days of the Bengali lunar calendar, the episodic rituals that circumscribe their day to day life, form the content of their performances. I will take up the issue of content, as I go on.

    

     In these communities of North Bengal, there are some folk philosophies which exist predominantly at the level of beliefs. From this philosophy, the community performances which are born, are sometimes labelled as being religious-although, the folk culture is hardly aware of this word Dharmiya or religious. For example, in the times of drought, to usher in the rains, the anxious community performs a ceremony, replete with theatrical idioms. Progressive societies will describe these as cult practices, rituals, magic. The community believes that performing these rituals will resolve the drought and bring rain.

    But the very occurrence of theatrical idioms in ritual performances doesn’t classify them as Natya or theater. Vivaha or marriage is the name of such a performance laden with ritual acts, such acts which borrow from theatrical idioms but we don’t call it a Vivaha Natya or Theatre of Marriage. On the other hand, in theatre, we imitate a wedding taking place, and this happens, because theatre is widely understood as a mimetic activity.

        The dance element in folk theatre can’t be separated from the form of folk theatre. Dance is also a mimetic form. But natya and nritya are not the same, because natya manifests the rasa and nritya manifests the bhava. Even though this argument pertains to classical theatre and dances, it’s pertinent in the context of folk theatre. A majority might argue that the dance element of folk dance is largely quotidian. Which means, it is composed of improvised gestures which are rhythmic and not conveying emotions, distinct from the orthodox vocabulary of a dance. No rasa or bhava is born out of it. But sometimes, this improvised movement does crystallize into a fixed vocabulary of dance, although that can’t be expected to approximate the classical forms. For example, when the folk are knit shoulder to shoulder to the tunes of a song or even without a musical accompaniment, just to the beats of a drum, the adivasi maidens are dancing shoulder to shoulder, that is the manifestation of their togetherness. Lok natya or nritya is never self-reflexive, its foundational characteristic is spontaneity. That is why it’s non-unified, unstructured, simple, unmediated. It’s not tied up in formulaic rules.  But classical theatre is rigid, complex, sophisticated and demands mathematical exactness, which is impossible achieve in the life of these folk communities.

     In Lok Natya’s composition and execution, the individual’s presence goes unacknowledged. There the village society or the folk community envelops and manifests itself beyond all individual tribes or collectives, in all aspects, be it content, performance or spectatorship. Let me give me an example from the context of North Bengal.

     In earlier times, in case of Khan(a type of folk theatre), was brought into being by the local or pally populace; however in the non-partitioned Dinajpur, in the cohabited village space, diverse communities, including Muslims comprise the performers, producers and audience of Khan. Again, the Songs of Jang, performed during Muharram is performed by the entire, undivided community of the pally or desh. The audience of such a forum is not just the desi, pally or Muslim community, but several others who compose the body of the village society. For this reason, folk theatre is not limited in its scope, its egalitarian. Possibly, while noting these features of Folk Theatre, Balwant Gargi had said “Folk Art crosses the borders of class, religion and country. The classical often imposes these barriers because of its esoteric nature.”