A recent television commercial has titled two friends of mine as “theatre personalities”. What does that really mean?
Does it mean as theatre people we don’t really have any roles, we just turn up and project our personality?
Or is it an all encompassing term, like if you act, direct and produce then you are a “personality”, otherwise just an “actor”, “director” or “producer”.
M

aybe it is this “Jack-of-all-trades” that makes theatre in India as exciting and vibrant as it is. But then maybe it’s also the reason why we’ve never quite got to organising a representative group. Not that there haven’t been many attempts.
In the ’50s, the theatre stalwarts of the time sat down at the Drama Seminar and tried to put together a set of guidelines and definitions of what theatre should be in Independent India. An extremely noble enterprise; albeit a little naïve. Still it did bring the best theatre minds of the generation together to think about theatre in a way that it never had been thought of.
In the 60 odd years hence, theatre practitioners (not personalities) have struggled to come together to find some kind of unifying body. There have been some strong attempts.
But none have really borne fruit. The closest is probably the India Theatre Forum. A body designed to do just that — be a forum for India theatre. Annual seminars, with over a hundred theatrewallahs in attendance, are held and some very interesting papers have even been published. They have also created an excellent e-newsletter called E-Rang. But this is more a forum to discuss ideas rather than plans of action.
The Bombay-centric attempts have been vast and varied. Prithvi Theatre regularly tries to galvanise groups to work together. But by and large it is designed at dealing with the issues the groups have working at the venue and the issues Prithvi has working with the groups.
There have been a few groups who have tried to gather others around. Sometimes with a cause and sometimes without. One short lived experiment was Rangasthal, where a collection of groups came together to develop and popularise the new Sathaye College Auditorium. Unfortunately what was to be a large rallying point, ended a year later, once the college changed its focus from promoting art to making money off the space.
Recently Ekjute, as part of their 30 year anniversary held a Theatre-Gupshup — an unstructured morning where groups could come and chat about what it is like working in the city. Of the 100+ groups that work regularly only about half a dozen turned up.
Theatre Group Bombay the most senior theatre group in the city, decided to keep the relationships informal. They organise a large party each year which is open to all theatre people at their Colaba headquarters.
Informal relationships seem to have met with better results, particularly among the newer groups. Perhaps it is because they share the same pool of actors so allegiances are less strict, and perhaps because there is an economic necessity. The “I have a door frame, you need a door frame”, principle has worked very well. Because one day I’m going to need a table and you have a table. Rehearsal spaces, costumes, props, set pieces are all shared.
However, theatre in India lacks a single voice; a unifying lobby that promotes the medium itself. In New York, there is the “Broadway League” which promotes theatre as a whole, making sure that it is always in the public’s consciousness.
In London, the West End theatres have a similar body. These bodies ensure that nobody forgets that this is a city with an active and vibrant theatre scene.
Perhaps that’s the next step for Bombay theatre — giving theatre itself a personality. Maybe that’s something worth forming a proper organisation for.