EB+Assignment+1

Inspired by the adaptability of popular political theatre, Arjun Ghosh attempts to explain the mutability and persistence of the genre through the study of one play as performed in 2002 and 2005. Although this scope may seem somewhat limited, considering the immensely complex blend of politics, aesthetics, and philosophy that marks this genre, the evolution of // Yeh Dil Maange More, Guruji // provides the backdrop for a great deal of insight and analysis. Written and first performed by the theatre group Janam (the People’s Theatre Forum) in 2002 in the wake of shocking anti-Muslim violence, // Guruji // is a masterful blend of biting political analysis, poetic memorialization of the dead, and warm and humorous accessibility. In February-March 2002, the dominant Hindu fundamentalist party Bharatiya Jenata sanctioned widespread violence against Muslim Indians, in an effort to create a Hindu nation from a secular state. In the aftermath, Janam created // Yeh Dil Maange More, Guruji // in an attempt to depict the way in which “religion had been hijacked to suit political ends” (page 76). The greatest challenge they faced was not how to avoid criticism, but rather how to present the issue in a way that was both incisive and aesthetically appealing. A well-received street play with no real commentary is useless if the artist aims to change something, but a harshly critical play with no audience is equally ineffective. In every play, Janam democratize production and distribution, creating what educational theorist Paulo Friere calls “a horizontal model in which the tutor and the taught participate as partners in the process of learning” (page 79). Perhaps one of Ghosh’s most insightful analyses is his explanation of this concept of aesthetics- Janam must create something aesthetically appealing, in order to gain audience interest and get their message across. However, they must also actively challenge the dominant concept of aesthetics, which is traditionally aligned with the tastes of the rich. As Ghosh says, it seems to be natural human instinct to attribute good taste to a man wearing fine clothes, and ignore the taste of the man who made them. As political activists, Janam are trying to reach the people themselves, the poor and the democratically powerful. Therefore, popular street theatre allows them the specific reach and influence they desire, significantly more powerful than any classical performance style. This concept may be seen in a variety of revolutionary practices; Ghosh specifically references Communist Party tactics, but the reader may be more likely to see parallels in politically-focused graffiti by artists such as Banksy and Shephard Fairey. In order to convey the dangers of Hinduizing politics, rewriting history, and sanctioning religious violence, // Guruji // tells the story of a guru and his two students. One student, Budhhibali (the “moderate face”) writes down every word the guru says with little challenge. The other student, Bahubali (the “extremist face”) writes down nothing, but swings a mace signifying brute force and violence. Throughout the performance, the audience is sometimes amused by the comic aspects of the characters (laughter is seen by Janam as a destabilizing force to oppressors, such as the police and the BJP), sometimes shocked by the sharpness of the criticism, and constantly reminded of the aftermath of the riots. Silent characters display placards with images of the destruction, never showing human bodies yet still putting a domestic face on the political killings. As a play, // Guruji // served its purpose admirably; performances in Delhi’s busiest neighborhoods were occasionally in danger of being crushed by the enthusiastic crowd. Regardless of its success, however, Janam is governed by the “mix of activism and creativity… that must adapt to changing times and translate political arguments into aesthetically appealing theatre” (page 76). By 2004, the BJP had been voted out of power and largely disappeared from public consciousness. When documentary filmmaker Lalit Vachani approached Janam and asked for a reprisal of // Guruji //, the artists refused. They would not perform a play that was not relevant. As Ghosh notes, this absolute commitment to remaining contemporary and crucially relevant to audiences is the perfect representation of his thesis: that “political theatre cannot afford to lose its audience’s enthusiasm, both toward the play and toward the change it proposes, for the task of political theatre and, indeed all forms of political art, is not only to shape a consciousness for change, but also to create space for a robust and democratic cultural alternative” (page 96). As a professor of English Literature at Shivaji College, University of Delhi, Arjun Ghosh may not seem imminently qualified to discuss the politics and aesthetics complicit in the ideology of revolutionary art, but he manages to cover this single play in such great detail with a wealth of source references as diverse as Tolstoy and Freire, that it is difficult to view him as anything less than an authority. His political motivations for publicizing this performance seem fairly clear but journalistically entirely excusable, as his dedication is clearly to exposing the effectiveness of the Indian people in rousing themselves to challenge dominant politics when necessary, while maintaining integrity and a dedication to their art form.
 * Performing Change/ Changing Performance: An Exploration of the Life of a Street Play by the Jana Natya Manch. **By Arjun Ghosh. __Asian Theatre Journal__, Spring 2010. 27.1. pp 76-99.