Performer versus Actor: Naya Theatre's future after Habib Tanvir

This is something you won't get to read in the print. We have paid, deservedly, glowing tributes to the doyen of Indian theatre Habib Tanvir. He was, as the cliché goes, an institution in himself. But this raises a pertinent question: doesn't an individual becoming an institution militate against the very spirit of democracy? Doesn't institutionalizing an individual at the expense of the institution ultimately lead to its extinction?

Now that the institution Habib Tanvir built 50 years ago with his late wife Moneeka (she died in May 2005) is orphaned, what will be its future? Can Naya Theatre survive the late couple? I am doubtful.

So long Habibji was alive, the Naya Theatre basked in his reflected glory. Even when, of late, the illness and old age severely restricted the thespian's movements, Naya Theatre's some of the plays remained alive. Only last month his arguably the most famous play “Charan Das Chor” was staged in Bharat Bhavan (Bhopal) to a huge audience.

Now what? Two possibilities. One, some urbanite theatre persons who have been associated with Habib Tanvir lead the group; two, the core team of folk artistes whose histrionics made the Naya Theatre a world famous group carry on the tradition on its own. Both the possibilities are fraught with the danger of Naya Theatre losing its sheen beyond recognition.

The third possibility is death of the institution. And that will be a tragic chapter in the Indian theatre history. I have not seen Habib Tanvir's group from very close quarters. But whatever little I got to see as a theatre-enthusiast, I have doubt that the first two possibilities will come true.

Now, I come to the fundamental question. Should folk artistes perforce remain mere performers lest their imbibing modern education should 'pollute' their innate traditional energy potential to emote on stage? Should they be just puppets in the hands of a genius puppeteer who knows only too well how to make them regale the audience?

The world knows about Habib Tanvir. But how many even in theatre world know about Govind Ram , Bhulua, Fida Bai, Mala or many more of the Naya Theatre's artistes. Habib Tanvir was decorated with a legion of awards but how many of his artistes have been even one-hundredth as privileged? Yes, they have traveled half of the world many times over. But did the globetrotting help them understand, much less imbibe, fine nuances of the modern contemporary theatre?

Two of Habib Tanvir's artistes Amar and Dwarka broke away from Naya Theatre to join the long wound- up Bharat Bhavan repertory in late eighties. They did exceptionally well in the repertory when they got 'their kind' of roles—such as Vladimir and Estragon in the Alakhnandan-directed play 'Gonda La Dekhant Han' (Waiting for Godot) in Chhattisgarhi. Dwarka essayed his lead role with great panache in the 'Caucasian Chalk Circle' ( Bertold Brecht) directed by German director Fritz Benetiwz.

But, outside the repertory their traditional acting potential hardly helped them survive in the big world of theatre. At times we get to see Dwarka in odd TV serials in small roles but I don't know where is Amar?

I used to often debate with friends, particularly with Alok Chaterjee, Naveen Choubey and Arun Pandey, the desirability of an actor transcending the barrier of an instinctive performer. We by and large agree that the actor must read a lot to acquire modern sensibilities to essay any kind of roles.
We have shining examples in Naseeruddin Shah, Pankaj Kapur and, of course, Om Puri. Lately, exceptionally gifted actor Irrfan Khan has also proved his mettle as an extraordinarily versatile actor. All these actors are very well read. Nasir's reading habit is famous. Their acting prowess is enlightened by understanding of complexities of human nature in the given situation. They are not just intuitive performers.

I have put forth my point. I wish more people join me in this debate.