The Director’s  Note

​

March, 1974

The first thing which interested me deeply about Ghasiram Kotwal was the use of the human curtain and that was at a time when I had not read the play. But everyone who had, talked about it in such terms that it fascinated me. It was in March, 1973 that the excellent translation by Vasant dev reached me. I had a curious reaction after the first reading. I was very excited because I was sure that the play could lead to a tremendous production.

​

The old dictum that a play becomes fully alive only on the stage was never more true than in the case of Ghasiram Kotwal. It is possible that a reading of the play may not reveal all its implications. For it is likely that one's attention may be distracted by the characters of Nana and Ghasiram and one may miss the most important aspects of the play. It needs to be emphasized that in some plays-or perhaps in all major plays-the plots are the least significant. In this play too it is not the rise and fall or a tyrant or the lecherous history of another tyrant, which should be given too much emphasis. In fact they should be seen only as parts of a larger whole. One should remember that in some plays the plots are just pegs on which some other issues are hung. So is the case with Ghasiram Kotwal. I am sounding the note of caution because I myself did not fully realize the full significance of the play till I had discussed it at length with Tendulkar and had gone through it a number of times. The emphasis is on the wholly decadent and pleasure loving society, the sort of society which can give rise to Ghasiram and kill them too but at the same time willing to tolerate tyranny in another garb as long as their topsy-turvy values are not disturbed. It is this which one may not get after reading the play and it is this which has to be got across if the play is to be meaningful in the contemporary context.

​

This was the basis on which the whole production was designed in all its details-music, dance, movements and speech patterns. It is a period play in the sense that it is located in the late 18th century Peshwa period of the history. But in another sense, as suggested earlier, it is beyond those times. To evoke an atmosphere of the period was essential but I did no consider it absolutely essential to attempt strict authenticity.

While I am on the subject of authenticity let me also mention that the total design of the production did not conform to any particular traditional theater form. Though the play itself has used elements of more than one folk form, particularly of little known Konkan folk form and of Dashavatara. But I did not consciously stick to any particular folk form. Instead I let myself go and went on creating and designing in the process itself. And in retrospect it seems that given my background and temperament that was a right decision. In this process there has been at least one major departure in form from the script and that brings me back to the use of the human curtain.

Whereas in the script the people who form this human curtain become at many places in the play either a stationary 'curtain' or a moving one. But in the production it came to be used primarily not as a 'curtain' (in fact it was only at three ou four places where it was used as a 'curtain'), but as a collective human presence which I believe ultimately helped in putting the emphasis on the decadent society as a whole rather than on the individual character. At some place where the script demanded a use of the 'curtain' I tried simultaneous action at two levels with freezes. This helped in accentuating the juxtaposition of the profane and the sacred and bringing into sharp focus the topsy-turvy value system which governed that society then and which does govern  our  society  now.

It needs to be stated that whatever changes in form were ultimately incorporated in the production would not have been possible without the jumping board-I mean the rich theat-rical form  created  by  Tendulkar.

​

(Excerpts from a note written for the 25th show of the play staged  by  ABHIYAN  on  March  24,  1974).

May 1993

Revivals are risky. For a play like Ghasiram Kotwal the risk is immense but worth taking. The first Hindi production of the play was staged by ABHIYAN in October, 1973. This production had more or less the same design except that instead of one Sutradhar this production has two. All the actors are new except one, Ram Gopal Bajaj, who played Ghasiram in the earlier production but in this he plays a different role.

The production team also is more or less the same except Santwana whose assistance in the earlier production was invaluable but imperceptibly, without being involved in the production,  that  contribution  to  a  large  extent remains.

After 20 years I find the play increasingly more relevant for our times. And this is the reason which makes me call  it  a  Modern  Indian  Classic.

May 2015

A brief history of my production of Ghasiram Kotwal. First Hindi production this of play was done by Abhiyan in October 1973. This production had 26 shows. Last show was in October 1974 in which Om Puri acted as Nana only after seven rehearsals (Because the original Nana became unavailable). According to Vijay Tendulkar this Nana was the best he has seen. In 1993 a new production was mounted by NSD repertory company. It opened on 10/05/1993 and closed on 22/5/1994 after 24 shows. In a note which I wrote for this production I had started that revivals are risky but in case of Ghasiram Kotwal risk is worth taking. Revived again with many new actors in 2000. It opened on 29-4-2000 and closed on 9-8-2009 after 98 shows. Third revival was on 22-10-2009 which closed on 13-10-2010 after 13 shows. This is the fourth revival in which almost the entire cast is new and we had to start from the scratch. But we did because I firmly believe that this play is a modern classic and has passed the test of time for the last 42 years and I hope this time too this will pass the litmus times test. Of course with your affectionate indulgence.

Rajinder Nath