Third Draft

A Brief History of this text’s composition

Academic and research work of Sisir Majumdar.

Trained in the Discipline of Bengali Literature(uptil his PhD.)

1966-university college, Raiganj, North Bengal, first witnesses Folk Theatre.

1972-Being part of folk theatres across North Bengal

1984-PhD on Folk Theatre, from Calcutta University.

1984/85-Brings out a little magazine called Lok Natya. Claims he is possibly the first one to be awarded a Phd for this.

1989-Kalyani University establishes a department of Folk Culture, invited to teach Folk Theatre.

Later Rabindrabharati University, makes a special paper on Folk Culture or Lok Sanskriti.

1986-First Time his anthology of folk theatres of North Bengal is published.

This text is an abridged version of his larger anthology.

Sisir Majumdar. Loknātya-Nātaka-Katha. (Kolkata: Mom, date not mentioned)

First published by Paschim Banga Nātya Academy, on 9^th December

2005.

Section I

Chapter 1

The definition of Folk Theatre

The word “Lok Nātya” is modern but “Nātya" is ancient. However, in any folk culture, these words are not prevalent. What we specify as“Lok Nātya” (Folk Theatre), is predominantly known as “Gān” (song) to the folk culture. In the language of North Bengal’s Dinājpur, its called “Gāun.” The performers are called “Gāundars”, “Pātyal”. Musical dialogues dominate in these performances, so they are called “Gān” or “Gāun”. Needless to say, the folk culture is primarily composed of the audience.

Sukumar Sen has proposed a meaning of the word, “Nātya”. In his words, “Nat’er kormo” or “The activities of a Nat”[1]. In this light, folk theatre 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-“Angiyā(Rangiyā)“, “Osiyā(Rasiyā) “, “Gāin”. They are primarily peasants and more than half are below the poverty line. From their own experiences, they orally compose[2] the “Gān” or “Gāun” 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 circumscribe their day to day life, and 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 “Dharmiyā” 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.[3]

But the very occurrence of theatrical idioms in ritual performances doesn’t classify them as “Nātya” or theater. “Bibāha” (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 “Bibāha Nātya” (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.[4]

The dance element in folk theatre can’t be separated from the form of folk theatre. Dance is also a mimetic form. But “nātya” and “nrtya” are not the same, because “nātya” manifests the rasa and nrtya manifests the bhāva.[5] Even though this argument pertains to classical theatre and dances, its 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 “ādivāsi” maidens are dancing shoulder to shoulder, that is the manifestation of their togetherness. “Lok nātya” or “nrtya” is never pre-meditated, its foundational characteristic is spontaneity. That is why its non-unified, unstructured, simple, unmediated. I’ts 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 the composition and execution of folk theatres, 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), it was brought into being by the indigenous or pastoral populace; however in the non-partitioned Dinājpur, in the settler colonies, 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 indigenous and pastoral communities. The audience of such a forum is not just the indigenous, pastoral 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.”(To be continued)

Chapter 2

The Classification of Folk Theatre

Folk theatres, folk life and the society are not mutually exclusive of each other. It can’t be seen separately from the life of the community or the society. Which is why, classifying folk theatres on the basis of hardly a few common features is a difficult task.

Folk theatre derives its inspiration from the day-to-day existence of the folk community. But all lived moments of this communitarian lifestyle doesn’t contribute to the making of a folk theatre. There are specific times of the year, allotted for the performance of folk theatres. In the incessant flow of free play and order, one accidentally stumbles upon something which elicits their wonder. In the rhythm of life, such aesthetic responses are registered as moments of transition. And in aesthetic terms, this is known as folk theatre.

Hence, the folk theatre is in essence, a source of amazement. This wonder, amazement, allows the art form to identify itself in contrast to its environment. But this independent identity helps it comment and maintain a balance in the social order. Let’s posit an example.

When the sun rises, the farmer heads out to the field for work. He returns home, after the day’swork is done. In this short span of time, a lot of incidents take place, which leave him in a state of awe. These events are not discrete and separate from each other, rather they follow an episodic pattern. In this context, the reader might note the “Halua-haluani” plot that I have anthologized.

This is just one facet of the life of the folk community, intimately tied with their day-to-day existence. For instance, when the farmer goes to market for trading in his crops, we didn’t identify that act as folk theatre. Even the performers, producers of folk theatre are aware of this. If you observer very closely the folk theatres of North Bengal that I have anthologized, when an event at the market has not proceeded in a theatrical manner, the composers of the plot have just said, “This is a market scene.” It can also be, “Returning from the market” or “He heard this news, on going to the market.” Then again, in those market scenes laden with theatrical potential, the betel-leaf seller roams around the entire space, singing songs and pawning his goods. Through the performance of the betel leaf seller, we can perceive a market scene coming into being(note the “Dhakoshori” plot).

Thus it’s proved, that not every daily event of the folk life is a source of theatre, some events are theatrical in nature.

In this regard, I perceive two forms of folk theatre,

1)     Unperceived i.e.-When the folk theatre comes into being, without any conscious effort towards doing it.

2)     Perceived i.e. - When the folk theatre is brought into being, consciously, for the sake of mining out theatrical pleasure.

The first form is intimately tied with the lived experience and social feelings of the folk. For example, the election of the headman in the indigenous, pally, princely circles. This category may also include, the search for suitable brides or grooms, an exercise to foster fellow-feeling, rituals to overcome droughts or excessive rainfall or the numerous oath taking ceremonies. The structure of all these ceremonies has been crystallized, left undisturbed and are similar to one another. Needless to say, the folk theatre doesn’t have a perceivable form.

In the second form, the folk theatres are distinctly perceivable. For instance, the songs sung or the “Gāun” performed, requires a specific performance space, at specific times of the year. In the centre of the performance space, the singers, musicians and actors, sit together in a circle. Keeping them as the centre, at a radial distance of 3 or 4 hands, the play is performed in a disc shaped area. Circumscribing them, in the outermost circle the audience or spectator is seated. This performing arena is neither artificially constructed nor at a height above the audience. In anybody’s courtyard or in the religious portico or in some fallow land, this space can be marked out at any point of time. If it’s not possible to construct a tent above the entire space, then atleast, above the acting area, a “kona chador” or “chadoya” is spread out. If a ceiling is created out straw and bamboo, below that a false ceiling is made of the “chadoya” or a special sheet of cloth. (To be continued)

---

[1]Sukumar Sen, Nat Nātya Nātak (Chaitra 1372) 11.

[2] Of late, they have started writing down their compositions. Initially, the performance is composed orally by a group of people, and this forms the basic plot structure. In Bardhaman, Birbhum, “Neto” or “Leto” dance sequences are prevalent. Sukumar Sen informs us that sequences of “Neto” are all orally composed. Songs are their only performance capital. Ibid 120.

[3] Its notable that in these rituals, the female folk take the lead. On certain occasions, the male members are completely excluded. Towards the beginning of civilization, the right to cultivate crops was with women and alongwith agriculture, an entire cottage industry was owned and controlled by women. Even now, after losing the right to cultivate, in some rituals associated with agriculture, the presiding power of women still goes unchallenged and their immense presence bears a testimony to a different past.

[4] I have expressed this opinion keeping in mind, certain comical and ritual plays. This observation doesn’t apply generally to all folk theatres.

[5] Pabitra Sarkar, “Nātoker byakaron o dhananjayer dashrupak”(The Grammar of Theatre and The Ten Rupaks of Dhananjaya). Nātyamancha Nātyarupa (A Collection of articles on dramaturgy and Bengali theatre). (Kolkata: Dey’s Publishing, 2008) p 3.