“Deglamorization of the historical incident incidentally happened because of the form and I liked it. I meant it.”
Vijay Tendulkar (Intro. Ghashiram Kotwal)

For a land as culturally diverse as India with a long and rich tradition of dramatic performances accompanying varied regional specificities or the folk tradition has always been undeniably the primary indispensable source of adding Indian essence to theatre.^[i] Focusing primarily on the 1970s, one may observe that the major Indian playwrights broke the barriers of regional language consciously and produced several noteworthy plays, thereby rendering their works experimental, and centered on incorporating the elements of folk theatre into the popular Indian theatre fold. Prominent playwrights like Girish Karnad and Badal Sircar deploying the theatrical device of Yakshagana creatively^[ii], and experimenting with folk elements to incorporate them into the proscenium theatre^[iii]’ respectively, bear testimony to the emergence of a radical shift in Indian theatre, one that did not shy away from adapting itself to the modernist/avant garde forms brought into the world of modern theatre. Much like his contemporaries, Vijay Tendulkar experimented with various forms of folk theatre in Ghashiram Kotwal (1972) which has been successful as a significant and unique play in balancing the traditional and modern elements to carve a niche for itself in the history of Indian theatre. It is pertinent to revisit Tendulkar’s eminent work and discern its critical value in the world of contemporary Indian theatre along with an acknowledgement of the playwright’s adept use of a traditional idiom in contemporary theatre. A scholar should therefore attempt to comprehend how Tendulkar adopted the various theatre folk devices and forms as well as employed them effectively to represent power politics and the effects of oppression through a presentation of subliminal violence on stage that has the readers of the play grapple with very contemporary modernist debates.

While tradition in late twentieth century Indian theatre has often been viewed as the counterpoint of modernity, Tendulkar’s acclaimed play, Ghashiram Kotwal, which is a political satire written as historical and musical drama set during the Peshwa rule in eighteenth century Pune combined traditional Marathi folk music and drama with contemporary avant garde theatre techniques, thereby creating a novel paradigm for Marathi theatre. First performed on 16 December 1972, by the Progressive Drama Association in Pune, the play is distinct for its use of "Tamasha" genre that deploys songs and dance forms effectively, wherein the "abhangas" or the devotional songs and the "lavanis" or the love songs come together. Despite the inevitable controversy surrounding the play for its alleged depiction of Nana Phadnavis in a bad light, thus rousing the ire of the Brahmins, the emergence of Ghashiram Kotwal as the most performed post-independence Indian play owes a lot to its unique theme and form. The play’s exploration of the paradoxical relationship between Tendulkar’s quite personal self-reflective authorial self and a social and impersonal art form; and also between modernist theatre techniques and their ostensible opposite traditional folk elements is noteworthy. Quite akin to T.S. Eliot’s theorization in his 1919 essay Tradition and Individual Talent^[iv], Tendulkar’s authorial self is reconciled with the principles of depersonalization in his self -reflections and craft. In Tendulkar's works, tradition shapes the play and its performance both formally and thematically, but primarily to subvert, undermine and de-idealize the past with the playwright’s creative self-remaining detached and objective in its social vision. Ghashiram Kotwal deftly employs precolonial Maratha history and an eclectic synthesis of folk elements, religious, and Maharashtrian musical forms to create a kind of unique theatre that has often been described as a primary experiment in the traditional idiom of Indian theatre.

One might be tempted to say that Ghashiram Kotwal is a modernist deconstruction of the religious and historical regional traditions, however as Tendulkar has asserted, the play in itself is not historical per se. "Ghashiram Kotwal is not a historical play," he wrote in the foreword to the published text. "It is a play, just a play. ... To say with reference to a literary work of art that it is historical, or mythic, or social, is meaningless. Time very quickly turns the social into the historical, and the historical into the mythic.”^[v] He added that the play’s "... raw material has been taken from history exactly as it is taken also from contemporary life-situations."^[vi] Unlike some of his contemporary playwrights, Tendulkar did not indulge in polemical writing attempting to critique westernized modernity or recommending a complete return to indigenous theatrical practices. His theatre is rather a dexterous amalgamation of the traditional and the modernist theatrical elements. In the foreword to the text, he asserted that in his view, "Ghashiram Kotwal points towards a distinctive social condition. That condition is neither old nor new. It is bound neither by some geographical boundary nor by time. It transcends place and time, and therefore 'Ghashiram' and 'Nana Phadnavis' also transcend place and time."^[vii] Hence, in exploring the reasons for the making of Ghashirams, and regardless of the license the playwright may have taken with official history, the play’s theme is not just historical but also very contemporary, universal and timeless.

As an incidental exposé of Brahman corruption and pretensions depicting the decadence of the class in power, the narrative content and action of Ghashiram Kotwal follows a deliberate tragic trajectory. The relationship of the individual with the state and its machinations are brought out very significantly through his play. When Ghashiram Savaldas, a Brahman from the northern city of Kannauj arrives in the Brahman-dominated city of Poona with great hopes, his initial endeavour to gain favour with the powerful Machiavellian Peshwa Chancellor, Nana Phadnavis fails which leaves him frustrated. He is falsely accused of theft, slighted and banished by the Poona Brahmans which turns him vengeful, longing to combine himself with the corrupt power structures of Pune. Hence, using his patriarchal power, he offers his daughter Lalita Gauri to Nana in exchange for the position of a Kotwal. He puts his own daughter at stake and sacrifices her virtue at the altar of worship of power but is not able to come to terms with it. As a chief constable in charge of law and order, Ghashiram then unleashes a reign of terror on the city of Chitpavan Brahmans to avenge his earlier humiliation, but his obsession with inflicting punishments and torture eventually leads to the death of a group of Brahman travellers from southern India for which he is deposed and stoned to death. He is killed as a part of the larger plan orchestrated by Nana’s cunning political tactic of killing two birds with one stone. Nana is successful in gratifying his desire to possess Ghashiram’s young daughter and make his Kotwal unleash terror on Poona, and also gets rid of him easily to restore his own popularity. Nana outmaneuvers Ghashiram which testifies to his mental agility and cunningness. The brutalization that accompanies the complacency of power is quite evident in the play.

Vijay Tendulkar’s association with experimental theatre is quite pronounced in Ghashiram Kotwal that was part of the advent of modernism in Marathi theatre as a result of the influence of the works of playwrights like Ionesco, Brecht, Strindberg, Ibsen, Pirandello^[viii]. Tendulkar uses the proscenium in a sharp and precise manner, and does not retract from critiquing the social reality as was unfolding in the post-independence period. He infuses a sense of deliberate unease that points to the subliminal violence inherent in the then society which is also reflected through the presentation of the decadent age of eighteenth century Pune. As a social realist, Tendulkar tries to grapple with the contemporary Indian power politics by highlighting the hypocrisy, adultery, debauchery and snobbishness of the hegemonic class in power through the prism of theatre by employing a postmodernist and unconventional theatrical approach. The play highlights the making and breaking of Ghashirams by means of intrigues, counter intrigues, and other evil strategies, where characters are reduced to mere pawns, effectively woven around the paradigms of political tactics with power being wielded horizontally. Tendulkar presents the stark reality as it is and the way in which power permeates through the different layers in society, in which women particularly are taken within the system and are thoroughly exploited.

There is a perfect balance of form and content in the play. The musical historical genre of the play recounts a power game being played with regard to the caste ascendancy in politics, thereby acerbically commenting on the political situations of contemporary India as well. While presenting the complex reality of the powerful people who destroy the state and the ordinary citizen caught amidst, the stage instructions create the mood of the play. The play draws on and makes extensive use of various Maharashtra folk styles. The performance style of the play is hugely influenced by the conventions of folk theatrical devices and they are used ingeniously to attack the negative societal elements by integrating various musical forms. The play juxtaposes two very popular and powerful forms, that of the devotional and the lascivious. We witness Brahmans breaking class codes and indulging themselves in sensual pleasures in the play. The religious piousness displayed through popular devotional songs is undercut by the debauchery of the court and Nana’s actions and participation in the revels in Bavannakhani. The Tamasha form^[ix] as used in the play is known to incorporate three significant elements - the entertainment tradition expressed through lavani (love songs)^[x], the more serious propagandist tradition involving masculine ballads and the devotional tradition emphasizing on moral truths. The juxtaposition of the ‘kirtan’^[xi] along with the immoral mannerisms of the authority in Ghashiram Kotwal is done deliberately to highlight the corruption and sexual decadence of the court. Similarly, ‘abhanga’ is rendered as a metaphor for the oppressor, one who merely uses piety as a facade.

The dramaturgy of the play is deliberately constructed with a perfect blend and around ironic shifts between the various folk tradition elements that succeeds in preventing the privileging of one performance form over another. These folk art forms include lavani, tamasha, abhanga, dasha-avatar khel, yakshagana and kirtan. Tendulkar has deftly used and juxtaposed these forms in significant scenes of the play to give us a satirical message and highlight the various contradictions. For instance, when Nana enters the Bavannakhani, he moves lustfully towards Gulabi and the singers chant the kirtan – “Radhakrishna Hari Mukunda Murari”. (Tendulkar 13) Here, the music and melodies are used from the devotional forms of abhanga and kirtan. Nana's concupiscence and shrewdness can be seen as a grotesque obverse of his authority and status as the pious god-like chancellor of the powerful Chitpavan Brahmans in Pune. Nana is projected as a lecherous administrator involving himself in sexual expeditions. The very second line of the play introduces us to the “Brahmans of Pune" who dance, sing and sway as the "human curtain". Though Tendulkar usually preferred to employ naturalism^[xii] as a technique for his plays, yet he uses folk elements in Ghasiram Kotwal which is rather surprising. The musical form of the play and experimental use of the traditional elements maximizes the irony. Through the playwright’s deft balancing of the traditional and modern elements, Ghasiram Kotwal established itself at par with the other experimental plays of the 1970s. Tendulkar’s obvious interest in the musical form is evident in the play. When enquired about his choice to produce a musical play with a serious and tragic content, Tendulkar revealed -

…not that I was not interested in a musical but I cannot think of a form first and then look for a subject that will suit the form. … Ghashiram started with a theme, then came the specific ‘story’ or incident which was historical and then the search for the form began. I knew that the usual naturalistic treatment was out of the question. By a series of accidents I discovered the present form which is a combination of a variety of ingredients from different folk forms of Maharashtra. (Intro. Ghasiram Kotwal)

The play begins with an invocation to Lord Ganesha, Goddess Saraswati and Lakshmi with places and rituals of Hindu worship and devotional musical interludes dominating the first half. The overtly religious framing of the play along with the stylized movements are derived from the regional dashavatar form. The chants of the gods sung at regular intervals reverberate throughout the play and it is replete with sacrilegious juxtapositions. The dancer Gulabi interrupts the hegemonic brahmanical codes by bringing in the popular and secular style of Tamasha. The streets of Bavannakhani turn into the gardens of Mathura aptly projected through the song, in the lines “Bavnnakhani…Mathura avatarli…” (Tendulkar 11). The abhanga changes to a lavani, that is, from a devotional song to a love ballad. Songs about gods and deities are laden with sexual connotations. Phadnavis’s hedonistic personality is brought out well in a scene where we see him making advances towards Gauri and putting his hand around her shoulder in front of Lord Ganesha placed in his temple.

Through this ritual, the playwright very skillfully represents the lustful psychology of Nana Phadnavis and also the sheer degeneration of religious and social values. The performance of the play emphasizes on the representation of history and tradition along with a powerful semiotics of sight and sound brought out through modernist patterns of constant repetition, irony and incongruity.^[xiii] According to Julia Hollander, Ghashiram Kotwal marks the real watershed in the assimilation of traditional Marathi folk elements into a modern urban play. She adds that, “The form that evolved in the original production process was suitable for Tendulkar’s satirical and subversive needs. It was a fluid one, using the quick-fire energy of a strong ensemble, and it harked on a theatrical model associated with strong community traditions-folk theatre. The playwright takes elements of Tamasha along with other Maharashtrian folk idioms and integrates them into a fun, rumbustious script about a serious historical subject.” (Hollander 114)

Vijay Tendulkar's works do not simply represent the marginalized voices but deal with figures from the mainstream, the authority or upholders of norms, who were invested with the task of creating a modern society. In exposing the nexus between violence and power in Indian institutions and commenting critically on the reality of the social conditions around himself, Tendulkar deftly employed the Brechtian alienation effect.^[xiv] The aim of Brecht’s Epic theatre was to create a critical distance and attitude in the audience, so as to arouse them to think critically and take action against the state of society rather than accept it passively. To achieve that change, he used the ‘estrangement effect’ which broke away the conventions of naturalistic mainstream theater of that time and which enabled the spectators to be detached emotionally from the play, and think more rationally. Likewise happens in Ghasiram Kotwal, a play that takes cognizance of the real violence permeated in the society and makes the audience extremely uncomfortable by employing the alienating devices that keep them informed. Tendulkar also uses the well crafted techniques of Artaud and Pirandello from the theatre of the Absurd. The play deals with the mechanics of power wherein the system has deteriorated to such an extent that there cannot be an easy solution to it. Tendulkar does not detest violence as he accepts it as reality, and hence the play can be viewed as a political satire because it compels the audience to think and critique. Ghashiram Kotwal is a perfect amalgamation of tradition and modernity; and the plot and characterization of the play demonstrates this intertwining in an artistic method. Tendulkar’s thrust is on exposing the reality, and it is for the audience to figure out the solution. He makes a minor character from history stay relevant to the India of the 1970s and even today.

The indigenous folk tradition forms become quite appropriate for the representation of power politics. The human curtain or the group of twelve men whom Tendulkar refers to as ‘all’ can be equated to the idea of ‘chorus’ as employed in the Western theatre. Tendulkar utilizes the concept of chorus, at times, portraying the men as Pune Brahmans while at other times they represent the human wall. This reveals that Tendulkar was aware of the modern form of Western theatre and was capable of using them skillfully. Also, the human curtain used in the play is in accordance with the curtain from the Yakshagana tradition^[xv]. However, Tendulkar moulds these traditional devices ingeniously to create an environment of hypocrisy, intrigue, greed and debauchery. The Brahmans as the human curtain sing, dance and chant with their backs towards the audience, even as a fellow Brahman is tortured. This human wall also serves as an excellent symbol of the mechanism of secrecy and revelation by the use of human devices. It acts as a screen of complacence cast over the corruption and tyranny of the Brahman rule. For instance, the curtain drowns the screams of the tortured Brahmans, and when it dissolves we see the Brahman individuals conversing with the Sutradhar. It is the curtain that transforms into a group sitting in Gulabi’s hall in Bavannakhani. What is most interesting in the use of the human wall is the perfect harmony of its movement, inspired by the traditional folk dance, along with the music that sets the tempo and mood of the bawdy period.

The figure of the Sutradhar is taken from Indian traditional theatre. The Sutradhar first appears in the beginning to introduce the Brahmans of Pune. Tendulkar employs the concept of the Sutradhar in a modified way wherein it functions at several levels. The most crucial function is to link the various parts of the plot together. The Sutradhar also assumes various characters like the Kirtan-chanting Haridasa, or more importantly, as a coordinator between the audience and the actors and the various comments on the action of the play. Sutradhar’s interaction with the audience is also handled quite well by the dramatist. Sutradhar’s songs are rendered in Kirtan mode. While a ‘kirtan’ is meant to impart moral and spiritual instructions, the use of the word ‘kirtan’ in the play hints at the lascivious songs sung by women and ‘darshan’ indicates the glimpse of those dancing women. While the sheer thrill of music tends to weaken the seriousness of the satire, Tendulkar’s belief in the inevitability of the musical form and its brilliant use must be appreciated. In a scene, where Ghasiram is accused of being a thief and thrown into the audience wherein he rises up again to confirm his resolve to seek revenge on the Brahmans of Pune, Tendulkar has used a great blend of classical music, dance, abhanga and lavani. The directions of the playwright bear testimony to it.

A Hindi devotional song with the Mridanga-drum begins. The Brahman line, with no turbans, hands to ears, do accompaniments. End of Kawali, all turn backs. Soldier enters. Throws Ghashiram out in audience with force. On stage: Brahmans, Brahman women, Gulabi, the Marathi lovers, etc., all stand and look down on Ghasiram. (Tendulkar 20-21)

When Ghashiram confronts Nana about his daughter Gauri’s death, he gets hysterical, but Nana though fearful, very cunningly tames him with the use of philosophical allusions and reminds him of his subordinate status. The barbaric reign of the Kotwal ends with his gruesome death at the hands of an angry mob while utilizing the dance form as a theatrical means, “The mob shouts. The drums beat loud and fast. Ghashiram begins to move in a sort of dance as if dying to the beat of the drum. Falls, gets up, falls, growls like an animal. Crawls. Tosses his body around. jerks in spasms. Fall and falls again while trying to rise. Death dance.” (Tendulkar 61-62) At the very end of the play, the chanting is exactly like it was at the beginning, the interlude of Ghashiram's life and death is erased from singers’ collective consciousness. The characters are dressed impeccably and their movements are precise. The joy of the Pune Brahmans after Ghashiram’s death is also depicted through dance, “The crowd shouts. Cheers. The line forms. Cymbals. Red powder. Festivity. Now Gulabi comes in dancing. Nana’s wives come dancing. Nana joins, dancing. The crowd dances.” (Tendulkar 62). Thus, Tendulkar uses the dance as an effective mode to present to us a discourse on power, and the accompanying violence. Tendulkar’s conscious effort to utilize the kinesics and gestures of the Indian folk traditions has enabled him to critique the corrupt societal hegemonic structures. The ironic commentary in the play through the use of traditional performances has enabled the play to garner much popularity worldwide.

Through the fall of a Ghashiram that may be regarded by people as a political respite, Tendulkar effectively shows us that it is the powers-that-be who take advantage of that very delusion to establish a firmer grip on their rule and unquestionable power. By showcasing the oppression and brutality of rulers, a theme that is universal and timeless, Ghasiram Kotwal has managed to retain its immense popularity. The decadent rule of the Chitpavan Brahmans of Pune can be taken as a metaphor for the anarchy and oppression of the marginalized in the present times, or any time in history. Both in its thematic and technical strategies, Ghasiram Kotwal is an outstanding and innovative experimental play that shows a novel direction to modern Indian theatre and stays relevant in today’s scenario. Vijay Tendulkar succeeds in adapting the traditional forms to the modern times and theatrical requirements. He does not treat these forms as precious artifacts but uses them to explore the various thought-provoking modern themes suitable for the urban audience. Tendulkar does deviate from sanctioned versions of history, refusing to grant us a faithful dramatic rendering of recorded history, but that is precisely why the play and its meaning transcends its specific temporal setting. The realism that Tendulkar presents is the one that emerges from his deep understanding of modern theatre, while also holding on to the rich Indian traditional elements. Ghashiram Kotwal is no short of a spectacle to behold, and is undeniably representative of a path breaking experimentation in the field of Indian drama.

WORKS CITED

Abrams, Tevia. Tamasha. Indian Theatre: Traditions of Performance. Richmond, Farley, Darius L Swann and Philip B Zarrilli, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2007.

Bandyopadhyay, Samik. "Introduction." Ghashiram Kotwal, by Vijay Tendulkar, translated by

Jayant Karve and Eleanor Zelliot, Seagull Books, 1986.

Dharan, N.S. The Plays of Vijay Tendulkar. New Delhi: Creative Books, 1999. Print.

Dharwadker, Aparna. Modernism, "Tradition," and History in the Postcolony: Vijay Tendulkar's Ghashiram Kotwal (1972). Theatre Journal. (2013) 65. 467-487.

Ghokale, Shanta. “Playwright at the centre.” In Marathi Drama from 1843 to the Present,

Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2000.

Hollander, Julia. Indian Folk Theatres, London : Routledge, 2007. Print.

Lal, Ananda., ed., Oxford Companion to Indian Theatre, Delhi. OUP, 2004.

Spear, Percival. The Oxford History of Modern India. Delhi: OUP, 1978.

Tendulkar, Vijay. Ghashiram Kotwal. Trans. Jayant Karve and Eleanor Zelliot. Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2009. Print.

Wadikar, Shailja. "Ghashiram Kotwal: An Indian Classic." The Plays of Vijay Tendulkar. edited by Amarnath Prasad and Satish Barbuddhe Sarup & Sons, 2008.

Notes

[i] In the contemporary world, theatre is generally defined through the proscenium theatre as borrowed from the western world. However, Indian theatre has always been majorly identified through the paradigms of its rich folk traditions, and has managed to survive the ravages of time.

[ii] It is a traditional form of folk theatre that is widespread in Karnataka, used by Girish Karnad in Hayavadana (1972). The term ‘yaksha’ refers to supernatural beings or a demigod, while ‘gana’ refers to song or music.

[iii] This led to the evolution of a new kind of theatre which Badal Sircar termed as the ‘street theatre’.

[iv] Eliot claimed that in the artistic process there is a huge difference between the man who suffers and the mind which creates by positing a distinction between the author’s ‘social being’ and his ‘creative self”. He also cautions his readers against the reduction of tradition to a blind adherence to the past.

[v] Vijay Tendulkar, "Foreword" to Ghashiram Kotwal, in Gokhale, Vijay Tendulkar, 132.

[vi] Ibid., 132.

[vii] Ibid., 133.

[viii] Tendulkar is in sync with the major happenings in the world of theatre for instance the advent of absurdist movement in the 1950s. He is familiar with the techniques being followed in the world of drama.

[ix] Tamasha is a Maharashtrian folk theatre form. The word ‘Tamasha’ is derived from Persian language meaning fun, play or entertainment. Tamasha is believed to have originated in the latter part of the sixteenth century for the entertainment of Mughals, but acquired a distinct form in the late Peshwa period of the Maratha empire in the eighteenth century. The form thus kept evolving with time, addressing the needs of the masses, sometimes accompanying certain social, political or reformist themes. Thus, tamasha effectively demonstrates the dynamics of folk theatre.

[x] The lavani is usually sung to the accompaniment of dance and musical instruments like dholki, tuntuna etc.

[xi] Kirtan implies Hindu devotional singing, but is specifically an ancient Marathi performing art that is popular even today.

[xii] In the early 20^th century, experimentation and innovation led to the naturalistic movement in theatre. Stanislavsky, Strindberg and Emile Zola wrote several naturalistic plays. Their main focus was on presenting realism and naturalism in theater.

[xiii] The technique of repetition derives its significance from the children’s tales and partly from the tradition of Tamasha.

[xiv] Bertolt Brecht was a 20^th century German poet, playwright, poet and theater director who was deeply influenced by the Marxist ideology, and was a proponent of the epic theatre that employed defamiliarizing techniques aimed at encouraging critical thinking in the audience.

[xv] A traditional form of theatre, widespread in Karnataka.