Final Submission

An Introduction to the translation-

I have chosen a portion of Loknātya-Nātaka-Katha as part of my translation workshop exercise, to elaborate how translation can be used as a critical tool for revealing the problems of a documentation of folk theatres, the theoretical biases which constrict the scope of the research in performing arts and how it manifests in the contradictions prevalent in the language, employed to document the performances. A summary of the author’s oeuvre would be of importance in this regard. Sisir Majumdar trained in the Discipline of Bengali Literature (uptil his PhD.). In 1966, while teaching at University College, Raigānj, North Bengal, he first witnesses Folk Theatre. From 1972 onwards, he claims he is being part of folk theatres across North Bengal. In 1984, he is awarded the PhD degree for his work on Folk Theatre, from Calcutta University. He claims he is possibly the first one to be awarded a Phd for researching this area. Between 1984 and 1985, he edits and publishes a little magazine called Lok Nātya. In 1986, he publishes his PhD dissertation on the folk theatres of North Bengal, with assistance from Ashok Motayed. In 1989, Kalyani University establishes a department of Folk Culture, and he is invited to teach Folk Theatre. Later in Rabindrabharati University, a special course is structured on Folk Culture or Lok Sanskriti, where Sisir Majumdar teaches the folk theatre component. An abridged version of the PhD dissertation is published by Paschim Banga Nātya Academy, on 9^th December 2005.

This text is an abridged version of his larger anthology.

As is partially evident from the aforementioned brief bio-note, Sisir Majumdar had theorised and documented a performance spectrum, which had not been extensively studied prior to his intervention. Sisir Majumdar has in front of him certain folklorists to emulate like Milton Singer, Balwant Gargi and Sukumar Sen and the critical categories which they delineate in their works. As we proceed into the book, beyond the first chapter, we notice that certain key concepts dominate his analysis of folk theatres across North Bengal, like binary depth, motifeme, antithesis, diffusion. As I have translated in the following chapter, Sisir Majumdar consciously separated folk theatre from the folk dramatic texts and yet, his surverys of folk theatres of North Bengal(as anthologized in this book) remains an exercise in folk lore studies largely. Irrespective of the folk form he studies, he will first look at the plot of the performance and from this plot, evolve a social diagram of the community which gives birth to that folk theatre.

Initially, I had undertaken this translation project to know more about the folk theatres of West Bengal from which Alternative Living Theatre, Abdalpur/Madhyamgram derives acting training methodologies. Looking at this text and two recent productions of Alternative Living Theatre, I am forced to conclude that Sisir Majumdar doesn’t analyse any gestures or movement patterns when he claims to study the folk theatres. On the side of Alternative Living Theatre, it’s more apparent that they derive some body training ideas from performance traditions of South Bengal and other parts of India, not the North Bengal forms which Sisir Majumdar studies under the general heading of folk theatres.

On the face of it, because of the English medium, in which Sisir Majumdar has received instruction in folkloristics would have made my task of translating from Bengali to English easier. However, it has not been so because, to capture the peculiarities of the folk community of different parts of North Bengal, Sisir Majumdar invents a set of complex terms for which he doesn’t provide a glossary or footnoting. One such word is Prāk-Naiyāyik which he cursorily explains as meaning tied by belief in a common thing. However, when one traces the roots of the word, one encounters the etymological root of nyāya, and thus opens up the discourse of one of the schools of āstikā Hindu philosophy, crudely summarised as the school of logic. As a translator, I am at a loss as to how Sisir Majumdar coined these words to fit into his contexts, whether they are results of forcing down Anglo-American theoretical paradigms on Bengali contexts.

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

Section I

Chapter 1

The definition of Folk Theatre

The word “Lok Nātya” is modern but “Nātya" is ancient. However, in any folk community, these words are not prevalent. What we specify as “Lok Nātya” (Folk Theatre), is predominantly known as “Gān” (song) to the folk community. 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 professional class of people. The Nattya title is particularly reminiscent of that.

In North Bengal, there is no one class of professional performer. 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 a life philosophy. 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 ecological events 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 life 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. 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 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 village populace; however in the pre-division 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, village 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.” [6]

Despite being suffused with emotions and theatrical elements, outside the context in which they have evolved, the songs of folk theatres sound stereotyped, monotonous.[7]

One can piece together a definition of folk theatre from these preliminary discussions but it’s not a comprehensive one. Although, a lot of people have tried posing their definitions of folk theatre. Dr. Ashutosh Bhattacharya has written in an essay, “In the village societies, based on the life of the folk community, the theatre form that’s orally composed and orally transmitted, that is called folk theatre.”[8]

Some other researchers have tried to pose defintions of folk theatres. Some have also discussed the common features, evolution and transmission of these art forms. But sadly enough, no one has been able to theorize an adequate definition of folk theatres. Our belief is that folk theatre is so dynamic, diverse and dispersed in it nature that arriving at a definition on the basis of a handful of examples is a futile exercise. The problem is compounded by the fact that the experience of the folk community gets transformed with the material transformation of the conditions of their existence.

There is a difference between the meanings subsumed in the words, Lok Nātya  and Lok Nātak, which a lot of us don’t pay heed to. Lok Nātya is a performance or performative art, Lok Nātak is its dramtatic text, its literary component. Sukumar Sen alerts us to this distinction.

Although its not our objective to posit an absolute definition of folk theatre, or discussing its salient features and evolution, its unavoidable in our present context of discussions. On the basis of my experience, I can say that folk theatre emerges from a spontaneous lived experience of the folk community and could be collectively composed, textualised or orally composed and transmitted. It may or may not have a song and dance component. The duration of the performances can be very short or going on for hours. The plot might have a beginning, middle and end but that’s not compulsory. But it’ll always be non-individualistic and impersonal. There will be some specific motifs and bits of lived experience, which arises out of the life of the community, the regional culture deciding the art form. If somebody from the village composes something individually and orally, it doesn’t get recognised as folk theatre. Even if it incorporates the structural elements of folk theatres and its life philosophy, it doesn’t get labelled as folk theatre unless the community takes part in it, spectates it, approves of it. In reality, the folk community is structured in such a way, that at every level of it, a folk drama comes into existence. In some stages, it is ephemeral or stymied, in others its manifested and consolidated. All these are based on the transformation of the objective conditions of folk existence.

A lot of people think that folk theatre evolves and manifests in the context of the village populace. But truth be told, that is not the case. In the city and on the margins of the city, the urban populace also gives birth to folk theatres (a separate research should be conducted in this area).  Maybe a lot of different communities live there by side by side. At present, a similar arrangement is seen in the villages. If folk theatres are born there, why will there not be a similar process in cities? All the tribes, communities contribute to the body of the “folk”. The communities around or in the city are tied by similar social ties at the substantial level of material, economic and objective conditions and like the village communities, they also have a folk philosophy grounding them. [9]

At present, in the zila of North Dinājpur, on the outskirts of the city of Rāiganj, close to the banks of the Kulik river, there is a place called Bandar. In this Bandar region, people of different communities, river-centric economies have assimilated and are coexisting. Gradually, there languages-cultures-social thought-social practices acquire such a syncretic form, that their culture and community gets recognised as Bandariya. In this Bandar, “Ramrasayan” and “Gambhira” performances take place. That “Gambhira” has a unique Bandariya characteristic. Another noticeable fact is that on the western frontier of Māldah-North Dinājpur zilas, along the banks of the rivers Mahanandā, Kulik and Sudhānā, the folk form of “Bolbāi” is almost extinct. Only some fragmentary memories of it persist.

But what is its reason? Why isn’t “Bolbāi” practised anymore? The reason is as clear as daylight. Post-partition, several foreign cultural practices swept through to give rise to an urban performance tradition, against which “Bolbāi” couldn’t retain its native identity. In contrast, the robust form of “Alkāp” contributes to the new performance idiom of “Pancharasa”. Which elucidates how, with the transformation of objective conditions of the folk community, a certain folk theatre can get transformed and even marginalized and extinct.

But sometimes, when I see that a community or tribe is isolated from urban influences, the folk theatre there evolves and manifests itself comfortably. Although, there are substantial changes which happen temporally. That is because, the objective conditions of their existence are continuously getting altered and transformed. But in those places, a range of folk theatres are observable. For example, Palatiya of Jalpāiguri zila; “Khan”, “Natuā” and “Leto” of North Dinājpur; Leto of Birbhum zilā, all these can be discussed. In these societies, on one hand you have the decadent primitive communitarian tribal culture; on the other hand, on a minor scale, you have a cross between serf and feudal culture and contemporarily, an emergent semi-capitalist culture is noticeable. Just the urban culture, which is largely dominated by semi-capitalist culture, has not been able to affect these folk theatres. If that had happened, khan, palatiya, leto would have been completely extinct.

In folk theatre research, it’s necessary for us to gather anthropological and sociological data about the folk artists, spectators and producers. How a tribe comes in contact with another tribe, in what context the process of assimilation takes pace, how people of different religious faiths become one in the cultural spectrum, these are important questions which need to be asked. These are not appropriated cultures, it’s not separated from the life of the folk community. Researchers of folk cultures suggest that a holistic and cross-cultural framework is necessary for studying any folk form.

---

[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.

[6] Milton Singer: A Great Tradition Modernizes. (I retain the actual footnoting by the author, Sisir Majumdar)

[7] I have hinted towards this earlier, that a specific ecological setting, a geographical terrain which feeds the lifestyle of the populace. The conditions for existence, that is the ecological perspective gives birth to the specific form of folk theatre. People derive pleasure from it, out of feeling of familiarity of contexts. (Indian Theatres/ Adya Rangacharya pg. 110)

[8] Bhattacharya, Ashutosh. “Uttorbanglar grameen lok natya”.(The Village/Folk Theatres of North Bengal).  Chatuskon Special Theatre Edition Issue no. 1, 16^th year.

[9] In the city of Kolkata, the case of Shongs (Clowns) of Jelepara is contextually relevant.