See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236750080

Theatre of Roots: Redirecting the Modern Indian Stage (review)

Article  in  Asian Theatre Journal · January 2010

DOI: 10.1353/atj.2010.0018

CITATIONS READS
0 1,653

1 author:

Brahma Prakash
Jawaharlal Nehru University
9 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

JNU-UPE-Performing the Counter-narratives of Neoliberal Globalization in India View project

Between Projected and Practiced Identity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brahma Prakash on 22 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review
Reviewed Work(s): THEATRE OF ROOTS: REDIRECTING THE MODERN INDIAN STAGE by
Erin B. Mee
Review by: Brahma Prakash
Source: Asian Theatre Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1 (SPRING 2010), pp. 175-179
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40982911
Accessed: 22-02-2019 11:21 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Asian Theatre Journal

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.64 on Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:21:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews 175

pie, while discussing L

that "Lin was not assi
sive modes in the em
ing two reformed jin
nascent Western-style
was a popular form o
often used for propag
cultural practices to t
Hamlet, Huang notes t
as many early-twenti
thus giving the impre
in fact huaju production
of improvisation was lim
term huaju (literally
to xiqu (song or music
ing, "[H]uaju activists
emphasize verbal elem
mise-en-scene" (p. 104
directors of the 1920s
nonverbal elements, h
watched or even parti
as well as avant-garde
Western plays were p
ism was in vogue).
By pointing out thes
cant contribution Chin
studies, Shakespeare st
accounting of Chinese
significant new insigh
disciplines will benefit
Siyuan Liu

University of British Columbia

THEATRE OF ROOTS: REDIRECTING THE MODERN INDIAN STAGE.

By Erin B. Mee. Calcutta: Seagull, 2008. 412 pp. Paper, Rs 495; hardcover
Rs547.

In Theatre of Roots: Redirecting the Modern Indian Stage, Erin B. Mee discusses a
theatre movement that seeks to create a new Indian theatre by deriving inspi-
ration from traditional roots. Suresh Awasthi (1918-2004), the general sec-
retary of the Sangeet Natak Akademi l and former chair of National School
of Drama, Delhi, coined the term "theatre of roots" and advocated it against
Western-inspired modern theatre in India (Awasthi 1989). In her book Mee
has not only challenged critics like Aparna Dharwadker,2 who in Theatre of
Independence (2005) attacked this movement as "anti-modern" (pp. 5, 198), but
also criticizes such writers for being (literally) pro-Western. Mee's book offers

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.64 on Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:21:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
176 Book Reviews

a detailed and at times

ment which began in
modern theatre in India
step toward decolonizat
falls short in articulati
niaization and neocolon
Mee has largely divi
ries: modern theatre in
and an exclusion of dan
the Sanskritic tradition
these two categories, a
text. Nonetheless Mee's
root movement and ex
sion of the work of K
may prove limited to s
nial Indian theatre anal
ries, does not address
in forms of caste, clas
manifested in their int
part of an ongoing deb
Mee herself acknowl
discussion of Sangeet N
same time she maintai
most significant attem
praising tone, Mee accl
by reclaiming the aest
of aesthetics" (p. 5). W
movement, which eme
in India. In this contex
was "developed as part
commercial character
modity rather than a
priate if she had pointed
of the neocolonial ente
Mee emphasizes the
by Western theatre an
thetic tradition of the N
process of decolonizatio
style of production th
Refuting the "anti-mo
argues that, in fact, th
nity that define moder
Mee uses three signi
Kavalam Narayana Pani
and Kathakali forms of
mythology to present

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.64 on Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:21:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Book Reviews 177

well known for the us

of one major state in
introduction shows t
tion in post-indepen
the roots movement
perspectives and also
priation. In chapter 2
Panikkar," the autho
based on the Natyash
(p. 97) of Westernize
Acknowledging the
elaborates on the conc
playwright Girish Ka
dana (Horse-Headed M
addresses the institu
ter 5 discusses Manip
ence responses chang
final chapter sees ong
While Mee's work i
colonialism only in r
the issues pertaining
Issues not addressed m
forms by artists not
concerned. Mee right
Western naturalistic
Western views and a
by the Sangeet Natak
high caste and urban
nor a way toward de
Many times it can be
every kind of theatre
define his work unde
he does not reject mus
we cannot simply put
the neocolonial state
promoted by the sta
a matter of form alo
intention, of percep
Although the cha
research and illumina
canonical reading bas
Mee interestingly obse
of behaviour rather
trains and active and
and valorises modes
succinct remarks on

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.64 on Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:21:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 178 Book Reviews

"The actor and character are not one and the same - one is a vehicle for the
other" (p. 116), is a well-articulated observation. Nonetheless I would argue
that the spirit K. N. Panikkar's theatre of roots also becomes the offshoot of a
canonical version of the Natyashastra.
Mee considers the roots movement as "a creative synthesis of colonial
and indigenous theatre" (p. 29). Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that what the
theatre of roots has actually resulted in is just the opposite, what G. P. Desh-
pande calls "ethno-theatre" (p. 204), or in the words of Safdar Hashmi it is "a
hollow spectacle of songs, dances, and physical movements" (p. 204). These
important theatre activists feel that the theatre of roots serves a neocolonial
aesthetics, which changed theatre into spectacle. This point is clearly noted by
Bandyopadhyay in case of the Chakravyuha (Chariot Wheel Formation), the
production of celebrated "theatre of roots" director Ratan Thiyam: "While
mainland viewers of Chakravyuha admire the grandeur of the martial arts skills
in evidence in the production, Ratan is actively engraved in exposing the bar-
renness and facile exhibitionism of the tradition, which is fast degenerating
into a commodity available for export in neat packages to acting schools in the
West for a mere pittance" (p. 234).
It is true that during the colonial period folk theatre was marginalized
by colonial culture and "the roots movement was defined by its rejection of
the colonial" (p. 41). However, while it was trying to reject the colonial at the
same it appropriated the folk through intercolonization, functioning under
neocolonialism.
Acknowledging that, in Mee's work, some of these problems are criti-
cally discussed. For instance, she acknowledges that SNA (Sangeet Natak Aka-
demi) has reduced traditional performance to a decorative art and by 1989
had turned it into a style (p. 180). She also notes how younger directors and
playwrights began to copy artists such as Panikkar and Karnad, creating deriva-
tive rather than innovative work (p. 264). However, she does not locate these
problems in the fundamental conception of the theatre of roots itself, under
the SNA scheme of 1956 in which Indian theatre is defined as traditional per-
formance, traditional performance as indigenous, and indigenous perfor-
mance as an "authentic" marker of Indian culture (p. 197). What Samik Ban-
dyopadhyay says about Manipuri theatre fits here well, that there was obviously
a politics involved in turning the Manipuri "voices" into spectacle (p. 234).
People like Mahesh Dattani may say that without such artists as Kar-
nad, Panikkar, Karanth, and Thiyam, "We wouldn't have a real modern Indian
theatre" (p. 264). This myth may continue among the upper caste, elite urban
practitioners, letting them see the theatre of roots representing the Indian
theatre, but it is limited.
This book will not be the last word on this movement, yet, for the time
being, this book provides the best available account of the Indian theatre of
roots, and Mee must be thanked for this detailed research.
Brahma Prakash

Royal University of London Holloway

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.64 on Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:21:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews 179

NOTES

1. Founded in 1953, the Sangeet Natak Akademi is the India's natio

academy for music, dance, and drama and claims to promote and preserv
vast intangible heritage of India's diverse culture in forms of performing art
2. Dharwadker criticizes theatre of roots advocates for dismissing
contemporary urban Indian theatre with Western influence as decadent
inconsequential. She sees roots theatre as revivalist, and hence "anti-mod
Such binaries practiced by Dhrawadker lead to essentialization. In fact re
ism can be equally carried out through contemporary urban theatre - te
sion soap opera can be a good example.

REFERENCES

Awasthi, Suresh. 1989.

"Theatre of Roots': Encounter with Tradition." TDR 33 (4): 48-69.
Dharwadker, Aparna. 2005.
Theatre of Independence: Drama, Theory, and Urban Performance in In
since 1947. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

READING AGAINST THE ORIENTALIST GRAIN: PERFORMANCE

AND POLITICS ENTWINED WITH A BUDDHIST STRAIN. By S
Ahmed. Calcutta: Anderson House Publishing, 2008. 351 pp., 126 i

This is an ambitious book that looks at selected Buddhist perform

from Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Nepal, Sikkim, and Sri Lanka.
has the scope found in relatively few works of the contemporary
that was more the norm when Fabion Bowers ( Theatre in the East
Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1956]), James Brandon {Theatre in Sout
[Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967]), and others were e
Asian theatre studies, introducing multiple theatre genres to an En
ership in the post-World War II era. In that research, authors visi
countries and did not normally undertake language or performan
ing in the genre they discussed. By contrast, research in which th
more narrowly focused and linguistically, culturally, or theatricall
is more the norm in the last decades. Yet Ahmed's culture-crossing tex
introduces forms barely mentioned in theatre literature, reminds
joy with which I read those earlier works, which made me realize
knew of the diversity of theatre. Broad sweeps have virtues of their o
This text exposes the reader to underreported forms (in Eng
describes clearly and specifically what is happening with them tod
the author, a noted director, looks with the eyes of a theatre prac
sees things that are often missing in reports that come from area stud
ars who often miss movement, spatial, or visual details as they focus o

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.64 on Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:21:43 UTC
View publication stats
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms