Monday, April 26, 2010

SERAJUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY:A committed intellectual

SERAJUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY
A committed intellectual


HOW would he like to be remembered? Pausing for moments, in his measured enunciation typical of his classroom lectures, Serajul Islam Choudhury, on a definitive note, said, ‘a committed intellectual.’

A man of commitment, or rather public commitment, Serajul Islam went on to define intellectuals as people who could rise up vertically in knowledge and achievement, but could also spread horizontally towards society, but for which they are reduced to mere scholars or professionals, or even mere social beings when they are inclined more towards society. This responsibility, shouldered out of volition, is to understand society and to strive after social transformation.

And this commitment has been with him as the guiding spirit and the driving force in all he has done, contributed or achieved in his vocation, teaching, and avocation, writing, all his life.

In his early life, he wished to become a novelist, but failed. His father wanted him to join the civil service after a degree in economics, but he wanted to study the Bangla literature. On a note of compromise, he enrolled with the English department at the University of Dhaka after an intermediate of arts degree in 1952, obtained from Notre Dame College, preceded by matriculation from St Gregory’s High School in 1950.

He joined the department as a teacher in 1957, setting out also to be a writer. He decided not to become a bureaucrat which many around him were doing then. He counted two reasons for his becoming a writer: his work at the university, which ensured that he would not be transferred and which made scope for him to read a lot, and his temperament. He liked the library too. He received his master’s degree in 1956 and worked briefly with Haraganga College in Munshiganj and Jagannath College in Dhaka.

In more than four decades that followed, he taught students, wrote essays, headed the department, became dean, spawned off several academic and research processes, initiated doctoral dissertation guidance at the department, started periodicals, founded study centres and remained involved in university politics.

He went to England twice by the time – for a post-graduate diploma in English studies at Leeds University and for doctoral studies at Leicester University.

After his retirement, now he edits a quarterly, Natun Diganta (new horizon), which started coming out in 2002, writes, gives lectures and leads or joins social movements. All what he has so far done or all he still does are a manifestation of his commitment – to understand society better and to bring about social transformation.

He had failed to become a novelist: for two reasons; he has never been familiar with the bigger life out there, one that is beyond the bounds of the middle class, and his academic job in the university which has hampered his creativity and showed him that his literary attempts did not reach any heights compared with what he read and taught.

The life out there may still be unknown to him, but he knows middle-class sentiments, or meanness, very well, always trying to rise above such issues which he thinks is necessary to make progress.

He failed to become a novelist; but he has emerged as a writer – an essayist – with a style very individual of him, larded with punctuations which he thinks are necessary to give readers space to breathe and think. He has achieved to write in a style that is moulded into the syntax of the English language, free-flowing and fitting for the subjects he deals with. Yet, there are some who think the style is too populist to go with philosophical contents; he differs.

His style, which he prizes less than the content, has been unknowingly influenced by four writers — Francis Bacon, Buddhadeb Bose, Sudhindranath Dutta and Shibram Chakrabarty. He liked the style of Buddhadeb, although the contents failed to attract him, the deliberateness of Sudhindranath and the humour of Shibram, which have probably moulded into the reasoning of Bacon in his writing. He started prose-writing with Anveshan, a volume of his essays published in 1964, and now he admits drifting from what he started with. He had deliberateness in his writing which has now been replaced with spontaneity.

Serajul Islam has more than 73 titles, mostly volumes of essays on literary criticism and social analysis, to his credit and about a dozen of them have run to the second or third reprint, from 1962 till now. He has half a dozen compilations of his writings and has edited a three-volume set of the works of Anwar Pasha, and six journals.

Serajul Islam first initiated to offer PhD degrees in English at the university. He guided eight students in doctoral dissertations beginning in 1980, as he had thought it had been time the university should have started doing such things. He edited journals, the university journals of arts and letters in Bangla and English — Dhaka Visvavidyalay Patrika for 15 years and Dhaka University Studies for nine years. He founded the Visvavidyalay Patrika.

It was for him that the journals came to be published regularly, at least for the period he edited them. During his student days, he decided not to be a bureaucrat, but feels he has a bureaucratic temperament, which he enjoys when he edits magazines.

His commitment to striving for changes in society led him to stand for the position of member on the executive committee of the Salimullah Hall union soon after he had become student of the university. He worked as treasurer of the Dhaka University Central Students’ Union and during the period he pushed for debates, cultural functions and other such events involving students and teachers, which he said had disappeared after the rule of Ershad.

He founded the University Book Centre in 1978 and the Centre for Advanced Research in Humanities in 1986. In keeping with the spirit, he now runs a centre called Samaj Rupantar Adhyayan Kendra (centre for studies on social transformation), which works towards waking people up to a democracy which would mean ‘equality of rights and opportunities. Rights being equal would not mean anything unless the opportunities remain equal.’ He also set up the seminar in the department and introduced seminars every week with teachers and students.

He took part in the drafting of the Dhaka University Order, which laid the ground for the much-required autonomy. And he had been with university politics, the panels, till 1991 to ensure that the university, in addition to being autonomous legally, should also be autonomous institutionally. He was nominated by the senate to the three-member panel for vice-chancellor’s appointment on three occasions, heading the poll for two times. He was elected to the executive committee of the Dhaka University Teachers’ Association for several times, which, too, was out of his commitment to the university, students and fellows.

Diligent and dutiful he is, Serajul Islam said. He loves being social, too. This is how he evaluates himself. The day his wife, Najma Jesmin, whom he married in 1962, died of cancer in 1989, his students said, he went to take the class scheduled for that morning and the students sent him back home. ‘Duty has always been important to me,’ said Serajul Islam, at the reminder long after the event. ‘I knew my wife was being treated and there were people around her to look after. I also needed to discharge my duty.’

Born on June 23, 1936 at Bikrampur in Dhaka and having lived in Rajshahi and Kolkata, till 1947, and in Dhaka thereafter, Serajul Islam, like most others around him, had colonial influence dominant as he grew up. He became leftist when he went to England for a diploma at Leeds University. He stayed there for 10 months.

When he reached England, he found many of his friends had become Marxist by then. He followed suit, studied Marx and became interested in the politics, economics and social order underlying the literature, which led to his doctoral dissertation on the evil in the novels of Joseph Conrad, EM Forster and DH Lawrence, and similar criticisms of the classics in Bangla.

He believes he is not an orthodox Marxist, but Marxism has taught him to analyse society in the light of class differences. He started believing that capitalism could not cure capitalism and nationalism would also fail to change society. And since then, he has had no regression, no aberration, in his belief.

Serajul Islam, who has written so many books, inspired so many people, contributed significantly to academics, won so many awards including the Bangla Academy Award in 1976, Ekushey Padak in education in 1996, Abdur Rab Chowdhury Gold Medal (Dhaka University) in 1988, and came to be loved and admired by so many people, says life has given him fulfilment, although there is discontent, or dissatisfaction rather, as to making proper use of his time. He does not feel he could do more, but feels he could do what he has done in a better way. There is nothing for him to regret.

Now focused on writing a book on nationalism, communalism and people’s emancipation, being serialised in Natun Diganta expected to be finished in a year, he feels he will look forward to progressing in what has done and is doing and look back to his past to learn from, the never-ending process that keeps life rolling further, for better, for him and for society.

Abu Jar M Akkas

FUTURE OF POETRY


April 9, 2010

Mini-Symposium on Poetry Today

English Department
UppsalaUniversity

Future of poetry

Anisur Rahman

I do not believe as one should say or can say much on the future of poetry, however I would like to make my observations as well. I am simply love to see myself as a miner in the mine of poetry and thus survive. One can say something about the future of a poet, but not poetry truly. Poetry is really un-catchable goddess or beloved. One can only feel, but to understand her is almost impossible.

On the other hand, echoing the voice of one of our Bengali great poets Syed Shamsul Haq (1935--), I would like to say poetry is love-letter to time…. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to say in advance about the mind in a lover so in poetry and its future.

I had an exclusive conversation over social commitment in writing with Swedish writer Ola Larsmo at CafĂ© Vetekatten in Stockholm sometime last year. He asked me to whom a writer should be committed. I said, ‘none but life’.

I also believe in the saying by Norwegian talent Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906), ‘To be poet is to see’. The future of poetry will be as how the future poets see life and how the life would actually be then. Life is must be for truth and beauty and so is poetry in past, today and in future. This is the subjects in poetry I am pointing out in the question of futurity.

There are some more universal and essential considerations in poetry. Poetry is a matter of ‘words’ ‘spontaneity’ ‘sensitivity’ ‘visibility’ and ‘musicality’. In this consequence I would like to remember Wordsworth (1770-1850) as saying …poetry is spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings; and so will be in future. Poetry is also paintings at the same time. I hope future poets will not dismiss this.

Domination of technology is increasing day by day. It does not mean, humans will lose their interest in poetry. In that case use of poetry or presence of poetry or promotion of poetry may be different, but there is no way to find basic variance in futurity of poetry.

There is a saying scientists usually do not ignore the ways …on the other hand the poets do not think of ways but never ignore life. The same will be in future. Commercial use of poetry will be increased …like slogans, ads, t-shirts, city’s beautification and so…

Poetry is a concern of language and mind. Poetry from different languages and lands does have its common language. That language is to tell the mind. Poetry must tell mind either today or tomorrow…always.

In life there is something that can no how be expressed but in poetry…what is difference between photography and painting…that is something camera cannot give the language of mind, imagination and dream, thinking in photography, but a painter’s brush can present those in paintings…so does a poet in poetry…. The same will be in future…

In future, the humans will have mind, (as they have today) power, will of thinking, imagining, dreaming, biasness towards truth, beauties in life so to poetry. The toughest job is to write poetry…I myself do not believe as I have been able to write my successful poem yet…

Patronisation to poetry is somehow necessary. For this it is a must to have value based socialist welfare state functionality. In the history of Bengali poetry some longs years in between 1000-1200 AD and some one hundred years after 1757 during the British colony in Indian sub continent are considered to be the dark ages in Bengali literary tradition. No recognisable poetic tradition was made that time. The causes in this regard were absence of sovereign national governance in Bengal land. Futurity of history as well as life will be reflected in futurity of poetry.

I am not frustrated at all as the appeal of poetry will any how be demeaned in life in future. Moreover, for peace, progress, spirits in mind and biasness towards beauties in life, humans must come back to poetry again and again. Poetry is a shelter in life.


Anisur Rahman, a poet from Bangladesh, is ICORN guest author in Uppsala.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Jana Sanskriti – Centre for Theatre of the Oppressed



MUKTADHARA IV

The Forum Theatre Festival

By

Jana Sanskriti – Centre for Theatre of the Oppressed




BACKGROUND


The idea of Theatre of the Oppressed was born in South America in the early seventies from the work and practice of Brazilian theatre theoretician and director Augusto Boal. Jana Sanskriti was the first group to bring Theatre of the Oppressed and Forum Theatre to India.

In Forum Theatre members of the theatre team select, construct, and narrate a social problem from their daily life. With artistic direction this play is taken to an audience who must now find a solution to the problem. Passive spectators then become engaged spect-actors. Spect-actors come on stage to enact the solutions they have thought of, debating with trained activists about the feasibility of the solutions suggested.

Since 1991, Jana Sanskriti has removed itself far from conventional theatre and spread the practice of Forum Theatre to remote villages of the Sunderban in Bengal. With 20 theatre teams active in rural Bengal, Jana Sanskriti is today perhaps the state’s largest theatre group. Jana Sanskriti has also taken this theatre pedagogy beyond the boundaries of the state to different parts of the country - to Tripura, Orissa, Jharkhand, Delhi, Utranchal, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat.

Jana Sanskriti believes that every individual is essentially intellectual. Not only great men thinks but also all men think, philosophy exists in the thought of so called illiterate human beings. But they are not aware of it all the time. The political culture never takes care of this intellectual faculty of the people. They are made blind followers. Jana Sanskriti on the other hand wants to develop rationality within the people. Through out in last two decades this is where Jana Sanskriti has focused her artistic activities. They have always tried to make the qualities of human being visible which is normally invisible to the people. Creating rational people is the main focus of Jana Sanskriti's work. This is how they want to bring change in the society.

Jana Sanskriti believes the biggest form of violation of human rights is not to create democratic space for the people to think. They should not be seen as the implementers only they can contribute in the making of the policies. That is the reason Jana Sanskriti left propaganda theatre and started Theatre of the Oppressed devised by Augusto Boal. They are the first exponent of Boal here in India and the largest and long-lasting Theatre of the Oppressed movement in the world according to Augusto Boal.

Today Jana Sanskriti has created the Federation of Theatre of the Oppressed, India where a number of large activist movements are present. They have handed over theatrical means (means of making theatre) to the poorest of the poor, to the tribal communities, lower caste, to the rural people.

Jana Sanskriti is a work of art and the name of a space where total transformation is constructed. It is an organization founded in 1985 which practices Theatre of the Oppressed among the most disadvantaged sections of Indian society. From its inception in one remote village, Jana Sanskriti now has constructed theatre teams consisting of men and women agricultural labourers. These actors come together transcending divisive social and political affiliations to plan constructive action and provide dynamic leadership for social justice and community development. Their plays onstage and their political activism offstage feeds one another to mobilize around issues as wide-ranging as domestic violence to political violence, from reconstruction of public institutions to resistance against aggressive forms of development. Rather than use theatre to deliver development messages and services, Jana Sanskriti has used theatre to establish dialogue in society. They believe that dialogue allows for informed critical thinking and prevents a human being from following blindly – whether in pursuit of material things, an ideology, or a person. This form of dialogue is an aesthetic experience of life, an internal transformation which inspires action for external transformation. This is what we mean by total transformation.

WHY A FORUM THEATRE FESTIVAL



In our work on Forum Theatre we have dealt with a range of issues which are relevant to different groups in different regions – Displacement, malpractices in the public distribution system, communalism, exploitation by contractors, undemocratic culture of political parties, and corruption in the Panchayat, blind superstitions, domestic violence, insurgency and terrorism etc.

The important reason for holding this Festival is that it becomes a meeting ground for the Forum Theatre teams trained by Jana Sanskriti all over India. Each of these teams is active in their own regions; most of them are also heading organizations engaged in struggles to assert the rights of the marginalized. Though all these teams are linked to each other through their commitment to the Forum Theatre movement, they have had very little opportunity to interact with each other and see each other’s work. At this Festival we were able to provide this valuable opportunity. This interaction has, as seen from the last three festivals, no doubt, imbued each individual and team with the feeling that they are not alone in this challenging task of establishing dialogue in society.

Usually Forum Theatre is performed before audiences who are also facing the problem portrayed in the play. Since problem solving and understanding the problem sociologically through collective action is the primary intention so the spectators and actors form a homogenous group. But in this Festival like the previous three that we had we will again try to have all kinds of interest groups involved and interested in theatre of the oppressed in the audience, from all over the world! And since Forum Theatre allows room for debate and discussion, the audience emerges from the experience with a more human outlook.

Finally, the name ‘Muktadhara’! ‘Mukta’ means free and ‘Dhara’ is a flowing steam. A flow that is free from dogma and all those structural constructs that prevent a dialogue between people, is what is implied by the term Muktadhara – celebrating movement in peace and togetherness! This is when the glory of development is said to have taken place – participation in togetherness.

Where


The festival will be held at an open air venue in the centre of Kolkata.
Workshops will be held either in a Mango Garden or by the side of a river.
There will be one more workshop on Rainbow of Desire, we will place it in the festival schedule and will let you know.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Ratan Thiyam: The Metamorphosis


Ratan Thiyam: The Metamorphosis
By A Spectator

In his earlier incarnation he was known as Thiyam Nemai. He was lanky, mild mannered and would be seen in what used to be called "classical song sessions". Then nothing much was heard about him till he graduated from the National School of Drama, the Mecca of Indian theater and tried his hand with a theater group in Delhi, but a critic had found his Hindi wanting. This was in the early 1970s.

That must have been the time when he started searching for his roots in Manipur and soon became one of the finest exponents of the theatre of roots. The path from his makeshift "Shangoi" cum studio in his ancestral house to the magnificent "Shrine" at the Chorus Complex at Shamushang has been a long and arduous coping along with personal tragedy and an indifferent bureaucracy.

Actually the "people in power in Manipur" heard about him first when he was offered the Directorship of the National School of Drama. The then chief secretary was said to have quipped "how is that the Prime Minister knows him and we don't."

His plays have traveled, from Aryan Theater, GM Hall, Jawaharlal Nehru Dance Academy (JNMDA) to the Shriram Center for Arts, New Delhi with the group's first overseas break coming in with their trip to Greece. Yes, we all know that Yanni had performed at the Acropolis or the Herrod Atticus. But actually Ratan had been there much before, staging an Indian play in Manipuri attire before a record audience of 10,000 Greeks.

After watching his "Urubhangam"- a drama critic in Calcutta wrote that standards of Indian theater would one day be measured along the lines of "Urubhangam". His "Chakravyu" was to follow soon engulfing audiences worldwide into that ancient Indian battle formation from which there is no escape.

This man's other talents came to light in the opening ceremony of the India Festival at Moscow. TV watchers in India and the then USSR watched with amazement when the Manipuri Moibung's (Conch) "Dhani" reverberated across the Red Square prompting Raisa Gorbachev to ask for an encore. Yes, that was Ratan Thiyam's imagination at work and what might have been just another blowing session for the "Moibung Khongba" or the Conch-player, it was a giant leap for Manipuri culture.

Having traversed the globe from Moscow to New York, he recently returned home with the New York Times describing him as a "Genius". The
honor from the city of Paris and New Delhi in the form of the Padmashri was all there before, but this is different.

The question that now comes into the minds of ordinary spectators like this writer for instance is the question of whethere this Master of the Theater of Roots has lost touch with the roots from which he draws his materials that makes him a Genius. Does his leikais (neighborhoods) get to see his plays or for that matter the students?

Habin Tanvir came to stage his Chandradas Choir at the Manipur University. During his stint as Director of the National School of Drama he had come in for sharp criticism from a person none other than its founder Director Ebrahim Alkaji, for not spending enough time with the students. Incidentally the NSD students had gone on a strike then, launching an oust-Ratan campaign. Yes, he is a Guru today and the manner how he chooses his disciples is his discretion.

However one incident may serve as his Achilles heel. It was on the 12th of April. Gathered at the Shrine were the Governor of Manipur and the Who's Who of the Indian Theater and Cultural world. That was when Ojah Ratan Thiyam's Majordomo in the form of Shri Samarendra Chongtham, retired director of Arts and Culture, Govt of Manipur stepped in as the Master of Ceremony. He began by laying emphasis portfolio-wise while introducing the right Hon'ble Minister who was present. And in that order, veterinary and animal husbandry took precedence over his cultural responsibilities!

Then came the coup de grace. The Master of Ceremony soon announced that time was being given for local artistes. The first "local artiste" whom he called out was Aribam Shyam Sharma. Shyam Sharma as some us half literates know is he other Genius of Manipur whose films have captured worldwide attention from Nantes to New York. A man compared by some to the great Kurusowa himself, Shyam Sharma's film debut "Imagi Ningthem" has been placed alongside with Satyajit Ray's Panther Panchali as one of the 15 Indian films of the millennium by TG Vaidyananthan (Outlook 15 November). Luckily "Eigya Shyam"as he is affectionately known was not present in the audience and that was his saving grace.

The other local artiste was not so lucky. He is none other than Manipur
"Theater man of the Masses"- the rebel from the National School of Drama and whose epic production "Pebet" is still a landmark production and whose work has been described to be at the forefront of contemporary Indian Theater, by Rustom Bharucha in his book "The theater of Kanhailal".

Yes we are talking about H Kanhailal, whose group Kalakshetra has been contributing their humble mite. He was not so lucky as he was present in the audience. Yes, if not for the parochial connotation, there is nothing wrong with the term "local", but the fact is the patronizing tone and implications of the term cannot be swept aside. The retired director perhaps overlooked this, but in the world of art he ought to have realized that it is sensitive. The perfectionist that he is, Ratan had flown in Sadhana Shrivastava from Delhi to compere the 1st Bhagyachandra National Festival of Classical Dances- his MC was the then Director. The question is will the genius of the roots return to his roots and make amends in the best of Manipuri traditions.

(Courtesy: The Imphal Free Press)

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Then and now, enter ‘The Dictator’



Well-known maverick of the Sinhala cinema and theatre, Dharmasiri Bandaranayake shares his views on his politically charged play “Ekadhipathi” and the future of serious art in Sri LankaBy Chandani Kirinde

Dharmasiri Bandaranayake is not a man to mince his words. And his outspokenness is not confined to the fiery, controversial dialogues he delivers on stage. Seated at a table at the Cultural Foundation he set up five years ago in a quiet neighbourhood in Nugegoda, it takes little prompting to draw him into a conversation about his work as a dramatist and filmmaker and the wider role he feels his tribe has to play in Sri Lankan society if it’s to come out of the ‘cultureless’ pit it has got itself into.

36 years in the same role: Dharmasiri Bandaranayake Bandaranayake ha
“My medium is cinema /drama and I have a responsibility as an artist to express my views on what I feel is happening in our society and awaken the public to the dangers they face,” Bandaranayake says.

And what he has to say he says with passion and intensity be it in a stage play such as “Ekadipathi ”(The Dictator) that touches at the very political nerve of the country or via cinema through films such as “Hansa Vilak” (Swan Lake), which explores relationships that exceed the boundaries set by social traditions or norms.
To an outsider it would almost seem that he courts controversy by taking on subjects that others in his field would shun but again Dharmasiri Bandaranayake is not known to be a man who plays it safe by being politically correct. “It is true I intentionally choose to do plays with political themes and portray unconventional characters via cinema but the purpose is not to create a controversy but awaken the intellect of the public,” he says.

Bandaranayake first began to dabble in acting while a schoolboy at Vidyaratnaya, Horana taking roles in school plays but his entry into the world of cinema came when he was picked for a role in Dayananda Gunawardana’s ‘Bak Maha Deegaya’ in 1969.
Bandaranayake grew up in a volatile society and found himself in the middle of the first youth uprising in the country in 1971 soon after he completed his Advanced Level examination.

“The hopes of an entire generation of youth were dashed with the crushing of the youth uprising. Had I joined the JVP then, I may have been one of their senior members today, but instead, I joined the government clerical service and started working as a clerk at the Rubber Control Department,” he recollects.

It was while he was engaged in mundane clerical work that Henry Jayasena selected him for the lead role in the stage play Makara (The Dragon). “It was a great privilege to be selected by a person like Henry Jayasena and also to get the opportunity to act with prominent theatre personalities of that era. These experiences helped shape my career in theatre,” Bandaranayake adds.

But 1976 was the year that Bandaranayaka came in to his own, directing and acting in the politically explosive play “Ekadhipthi”. “The play ran to packed audiences for two full days in November 1976 at the Lumbini Hall in Colombo. Its staging coincided with the imminent collapse of the United Front government of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike and struck a chord with the audiences,” he recalls.

Bandaranayake has played the lead role of military dictator Sir Malcolm since the inception of the play now running in its 36th year, a remarkable feat for any actor. The play began its latest rerun in June last year and this time coincided with the emergence of a military strongman into the political arena of the country in the form of General (retd.) Sarath Fonseka, which caused some hiccups for the play.

“When I decided to have a re-run of “Ekadipathi,” the developments with regards to the early presidential election were nowhere on the horizon. But the staging of the play led to inevitable comparisons between my role and some in the real political arena and made people question if I had made changes to it to fit into today’s context. But I haven’t changed a comma or a full stop from the original play till today,” he says.

With more than 1400 shows to its credit and at least 20 more scheduled to be staged across the country over the next few months, the remarkable feature of “Ekadipathi” is its relevance to contemporary Sri Lanka as much as it was to the society that existed more than three decades ago. Does he share anything in common with the ruthless dictator who goes to the extent of ordering that the thumbs of the entire citizenry be decapitated to prevent them from writing as a collective punishment when some literature critical of his regime is uncovered.

“I loathe the character I play in ‘Ekadipathi’ but I have to become that person and play it for the pleasure of the audience,” he explains. With the growing nexus between politicians and artists and the line differentiating the two beginning to blur, Bandaranayake prefers to stay out of the pack but that is after the experiences he gathered after dabbling briefly in politics in support of (President) Chandrika Kumaratunga. “Getting involved in politics was the biggest mistake I have made in my life,” Bandaranayake says.

He sees the lack of appreciation for culture and arts as a result of the conditioning of society in the past three decades to a war mentality but says the end of the war has led to an even more militarised attitude among the people. “I feel that in the past three years, people’s way of thinking has become more militant than has happened in the 27 or 28 years before that,” he adds.

It is these same attitudes that have seeped into the sphere of arts as well. “When I produced ‘Ekadipathi’ in the 70s, there was more camaraderie and team work which is lacking among today’s crowds. They too have been corrupted by society around them,” he says.

“We have to break free from that conditioning and as artists our role is to open the eyes of society to these threats,” he adds. Lack of appreciation of the arts by politicians too is another notable change he sees between then and now.

“In the 1970s politicians also had a cultural life. I remember Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike coming and watching our plays along with her children. Prominent politicians such as N.M. Perera, Colvin R.De Silva, Peter Keuneman, Gamini Dissanayake and Lalith Athulathmudali were some of the others who bought tickets to watch the plays but now we have to invite them to come and even when they do, they bring a horde of security guards which disturbs the others.”

He laments the absence of official patronage for the arts in the country. “I visited Lester James Peries recently and he spoke of the necessity to have a film archives.
“This is what he has been saying for several decades now but nothing has been done,” he said. So is it all gloom and doom or is there a light at the end of the tunnel for a more enlightened society to emerge? “We only need one good man to make this country. But that good man has to be the President,” he says in his characteristic candid manner.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

THAMIL FOLK THEATRE COMES ALIVE AGAIN





Thamil folk theatre comes alive again

An enthralled audience of mainly Sinhala and Thamil theatre people sat spellbound in silence for nearly 90 minutes witnessing a Thamil folk play peculiar to the people in the Maddakkalappu region in the Vadamodi mode.

The title of the play is, Ravanesan - written, choreographed and directed by Emeritus Professor S. Maunaguru. The enraptured silence and the standing ovation by everybody in the audience was for the overall presentation neat and professional and accentuated by the final scene of a vigorous rhythm arising from percussion instruments, singing with a blend of folk tunes characteristic of Naaddu Koothu with light carnatic ragas and quick movements of the action concerned by the protagonist sand the antagonist Ravana Versus Rama.

Regular thetregoers would have remembered Ediriweera Sarahchandra’s Maname and Sinhabahu which were greatly inspired by the Naaddu Koothu of the Lankan Thamilians. Also who are accustomed to the Greek plays would have seen the similarity in the Greek and Thamil Folk theatre as far as the role of the Chorus in the play.

Prof. S.Vithiyananthan

Prof.S.Mounaguru



The content of the play in the Koothu tradition is adapted from Kamban’s Ramayana in Thamil and its shows specifically the encounter between Ravana and Rama each justifying their Dharma in their own terms. Ravana’s wife Mandothai tries her best to dissuade her husband not to release the imprisoned Seetha, wife of Rama and avoid the war, but the hero in Ravana wouldn’t listen as he has a genuine hubris especially when Rama would not kill Ravana when the latter was fatigued in the tussle fighting and asking him to come the following day to fight again. Mandothari says at several time it is the women and children who suffer in war when men goes for war.

I particularly liked the performance of Suyananthi as Another in her voce modulation, clarity in enunciation, nice voice, delicate movements and expressions that connect with the audience. Thavarasa as Andradite, son of Ravana was electrifying with his movements and dance.

Thayaparan and Vivekanada Raja as Rama and Lakshmanan were also doing their parts well. Almost all the players did a splendid job in presenting their parts. Dilakshana as the charioteer of Ravana was splendid I thought in her expression and movements to suit the scene. Jeyashankar played his role very well in way to show that Ravana as a person was also a man of total personality despite his lust for Seetha. But he never touched her and only to her in captivity as a revenge to take for Laksmnan cutting the nose of his sister Soorpanakai and disfiguring her face.


A scene from Ravanesan

It was a restrained d performance without any over playing. He too danced well and his voice production could have been a little better. The singers were marvelous and refrains helped the audience to understand what the players were saying and singing. The costume and properties of the play were handsomely executed by Vasuki Jeyashankar. Vimalraj was the assistant director to Maunaguru.

The pamphlets issued to the audience in all three languages explained enough information of the stagecraft of the play and the significance of this play in Lankan Thamil theatre veteran artiste Dharmasiri Banadaranaike and Prof. S. Maunaguru have written little notes in the pamphlet. The play was produced or rather revived as a respect in memory of a Lankan intellectual, the late Neelan Tiruchelvam.



Musings on Ravanesan

In the 1960’s the late Prof Vithiyananthan inspired by the creative work of the late Prof E. R. Sarachandra in the Sinhala theatre took Vadamody and Then mody kooththu styles of Batticaloa for his kooththu revival and modified it to fit in to the picture frame stage for modern audience. Students of Peradeniya University took part in this modification process of the late Prof Vithiyananthan in the 1960s and Prof S. Maunaguru who was at that time an undergraduate of the same university, not only play the Ravanan role but also composed the script with the guidance of the late Prof Vithiyananthan and K. Sivathamy.

After 40 years Maunaguru has been producing Ravanesan in a different style.

Prof Maunaguru’s Ravanesan is totally an innovation in every aspect of the theatre. It is an excellent artistic creation.

It’s acting, stage props, costumes and music are excellent. The original use of screens used without a break throughout the play should be regarded as a very creative development in modern stage craft.

Dharmasiri Bandaranaike, Director, Tricome Cultural Foundation, Colombo

Vadamody Kooththu is an old traditional theatre among the theatrical forms of Eastern Sri Lanka. This narrative theatre composed with music and dance has been traditionally performed in the villages all throughout the night in the vaddakkalari (round stage).

In this production of Ravanesan the potential theatrical element of the rich kooththu tradition have been exploited to create a new influential theatre.

No longer relegated to simple revival of a traditional form, but also the extension and innovation from within that tradition, evolving into new forms.

We are the buds of a long rich dramatical tradition of Sri Lankan Tamils.

The great artists who protect this tradition and Prof Vithiyananthan have been remembered here with lot of respects.

Maunaguru,
Director, Ravanesan.

By: K.S.Sivakumaran
Courtesy: Imprint, Artsscope, Daily News(24.02.2010)








Friday, March 12, 2010

Mourning Conflict: Embodied Performance in Ravanesan

Cat’s Eye

Mourning Conflict: Embodied Performance in Ravanesan




Ravanesan, written and directed by Professor Maunaguru, was staged in Colombo on February 11th and 12th at the Lionel Wendt Theater as one of three events commemorating Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam’s birthday. Most of the performers were trained by the Drama Department at the Eastern University in Batticaloa,where they are faculty and students. My limited Tamil made me wonder how I would appreciate a classical performance in the Vadamodi Kuththu style. A plot synopsis was given to us in all three languages to facilitate this. The following observations are thus from the perspective of a non-Tamil speaker who thoroughly enjoyed the visual and performative aspects of the play, and was finally able to witness Maunaguru’s brilliance.

War and Mourning

The play inverts the dominant narrative of the Ramayana to make Ravana the protagonist. This shift, however, does not mean that Ravana is the hero of the play. We witness six rounds of battle between the forces of Ravana and Rama. Despite pleas against war by his wife Mandothari and their son Indrajith, Ravana refuses their advice and insists on battle. As we witness the cycles of fighting, injury, and loss, the tediousness of war impacts us. "Do people really continue to fight on and on, and kill each other in this way? Is it possible that humans can be this destructive?" we are forced to ask ourselves. As the play propels itself toward its tragic end, we are finally given a space to mourn and bear witness to loss.

In Sri Lanka’s postwar context, victorious, national, anti-terrorist discourses have given little space for communities to mourn our years of murders, disappearances, rapes and torture. Post-war elections and our political leaders’ rapacious desire for power have further provided little space for grief. This play forces us to come to terms with loss and suffering, using a form and medium that seems to transcend the linguistic barriers that normally divide communities. Perhaps a traditional stylized form of theater based on dance and song enables a certain mode of translation that prose cannot. We can also see that while normally dominant mythic narratives are used to prop up nationalist rhetoric and produce a continuum between mythic wars and present wars, mythic history can also critique the present.

Screening the Public Sphere

The place of the chorus in relation to mourning is also interesting. The members of the chorus carried screens in front of their bodies that were green on one side and white on the other. The colors switched when the mood and the intensity of the play shifted. This chorus was emblematic of an embattled public that voiced its opinion, but was also subservient to the whims and fancies of Ravana and the aristocracy. The final battle for me resonated strongly with the recently-concluded war in Sri Lanka. Ravana, having lost his brother Kumbakarna and son Indrajith to Rama’s forces, faced them for the final battle. Throughout the battle he seemed aware that he was likely to lose, and so fear and cunning motivate him to hide behind the public and the screens they hold up. Rama and his forces kill these human shields to win the war. We are reminded sharply of the mass killings of civilian populations by two armies in Eelam War IV. Both Rama’s forces and Ravana are shown for what they are. They are more interested in power and winning the war than protecting humans.


Embodied Violence: Gender and Performance

In the normally masculine theater of war, women are left out of debates and decision making. Often they are used as the excuses for warfare. Sita, the abducted woman, is used by Rama as his reason for war. Sita’s absence on stage marks her complete silence.

Interestingly, Mandothari, Ravana’s wife, is given a fair amount of stage time. She is the dominant voice of dissent, urging Ravana to avoid the bloodshed and the loss that will ensue in warfare. The play ends with her mourning over the body of Ravana, aggrieved but not destroyed in spirit. Mandothari is the only heroic figure in the play. She is left at the end of the play to imagine a possible future. She marks the gendered space of mourning and reminds us of women in movements like the Mothers Fronts, who have attempted to negotiate public space.

Her performance was so powerful and magnificent that it reminded me of the power of embodied practice as a system of learning, storing, and transmitting knowledge. At the end of the play Mandothari carries within her body the pain of loss and suffering, but also of hope because she is the one figure who remained critical of violence and war throughout the play.