The present thesis centers on the major works of three of these playwrights namely, Badal sircar, Utpal Dutt

and G P
Dehpande and seeks to analyze the innovative dramatic techniques of these avant-grade playwrights. They have
established new directions in contemporary Indian drama with their bold innovations and fruitful experiments which
go in the history of Indian drama as a significant mark of achievement.

INTRODUCTION:

Utpal Dutt was an Indian actor, director, and writer-playwright. He was primarily an actor in Bengali theatre, where
he became a pioneering figure in Modern Indian theatre, when he founded the "Little Theatre Group" in 1949. In
1950, Utpal Dutt joined the Communist Party’s official cultural organization Indian People’s Theatre Association
(IPTA) but very soon he was disenchanted with the IPTA. According to Utpal Dutt, revolutionary theatre must preach
revolution and overthrow the political power of radical bourgeois-feudal forces. One of his best plays during this
period was Angar (Coal) (1959) which depicted the coal miners and the mine disaster. And then the play Kallol (The
Sound of Waves) (1963) is on the naval mutiny of Mumbai in 1946. Utpal Dutt played a pioneering role in the
politicization of jatra. Jatra is the distinctive and traditional form of theatre in rural Bengal. It has a great popularity
among large illiterate village audiences even today.

Badal Sircar is a famous Bengali dramatist and is known as the innovator of contemporary Indian street theatre or
the Third Theatre. He started writing plays in the 1950s. He wrote his first serious play, Evam Indrajit, in 1963. The
play was based on the monotony of a mechanical existence. It explores the writing process and the search for
inspiration and something exciting to motivate creation. Sircar wrote plays like Baki Itihas (Remaining History) in
1965, Pralap (Derilum) in 1966, Tringsha Shatabdi (Thirteenth Century) in 1966, Pagla Ghoda (Mad Horse) in 1967
and Shesh Nei (There’s No End) in 1969. His concern was the pointlessness of existence, compounded by a sense of
associative guilt and responsibility in disturbed persons. These persons belong to the urban middle class in a world of
increasing violence and inhumanity. He formed his group Satabdi in 1967, which later became Anganmanch or Third
Theatre. He brought changes in style and new technique germinating his new ideas. He wrote Micchil (Procession)
1974, Bhoma in 1976, Basi Khabar (Stale News) in 1979 and many other plays. They were enacted not only in hired
rooms but in public theatres and in open-air arenas.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Utpal Dutt played a pioneering role in the politicization of jatra. Jatra is the distinctive and traditional form of theatre
in rural Bengal. It has a great popularity among large illiterate village audiences even today. “While he was making
waves with his political theater in urban Kolkata, Dutt increasingly felt that he needed to reach an even bigger
audience and began to consider other forms of theater. Disgruntled with what he called his private revolutionary
theater and alienated from India’s other leftist political groups because of his initial support for the Naxal movement,
which he had hoped would generate a mass audience for his political theatre, Dutt turned to the traditional
performance form of Jatra for new structural devices and modes of communication.” (Banerjee 226)

his plays were often performed in the public arena and challenged conventions of Indian theater. His plays were
heavily inspired by traditions of folk theater, while developing an identity of its own rooted in contemporary politics.
OBJECTIVE

To understand the different kinds of subalterns in the Plays of Badal sircar, Utpal Dutt and G P Deshpande. Focus is
also on their effort to raise a voice of protest against the oppression they are subjected to.

METHODOLOGY

The data for the proposed study has been collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data has
been collected from the original as well as the translated texts of the selected plays, and the secondary data has
been collected from different books, theses, critical books on authors, magazines, articles published in journals by
different scholars, e-articles and literary theories. The post-colonial is polyphonic in nature. From theoretical
perspective a combination of approaches like Comparative, New Critical and Psychological have been used in the
proposed work for organizing research method. Moreover, different readers have been interviewed for
accumulating attitude and responses on the proposed plays and their responses are analyzed.

The thesis is divided into six chapters. Apart from the Introduction and the Conclusion, the remaining four chapters
explore three plays each of Badal sircar, Utpal Dutt and G P Dehpande, in the light of their experimental theatrical
devices used in the course of the development of the predominant themes of their works. For the sake of clarity
these four chapters are further sub-divided into two sections.

The present research work undertakes a study of the plays of the above-mentioned playwrights in order to explore
the emergence of a composite conception of contemporary Indian ethos. These three dramatists contributed largely
to the development of Indian English drama. Their works are notable for their poetical excellence, thematic variety,
technical versatility, symbolism and moral commitment. They have made use of remarkable innovations and
experiments in theme and narratives.

Chapter I seeks to explain the history and evolution of the concept of Subaltern in the context of Indian theatre and
its implications which have been evolved through the years by different playwrights.

Chapters II is focused on the three major plays of Badal sircar. These chapters look at the different dramatic
techniques which sircar has used in these plays. We find an extensive use of song, dance, and dialogue in his plays
for spectacular effect. There is also magic transformation.
Chapters III attempts to throw light on the different perspectives used by Utpal dutt in his three plays in translation.
By making effective use of Jatra form- e.g. - juxtaposition, satire, irony, and play-within-the play style, Dutt is able to
highlight the conflicts of human relations and double standards of middle-class society in his play.

Chapter IV is a summing-up of the foregoing discussion of the preceding chapters. It seeks to make a brief
comparative study of the various new dramatic techniques employed by these three playwrights.

Politics of Power and Revolution for Change Analysis of Select Plays by Badal sircar, Utpal Dutt and G P Dehpande.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
PRIMARY SOURCES

SECONDARY SOURCES

Louai, El Habib. “Retracing the concept of the subaltern from Gramsci to Spivak: Historical Developments and New
Applications”. African Journal of History and Culture (AJHC). 4.1(2012): (4-8). Web. Date
28/01/2018http://www.academicjournal.org/AJHC

Francese J (2009). Routledge: Park Square. Perspectives on Gramsci: Politics, Culture and Social Theory (2009).
Gramsci A (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks, edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey
Nowell Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Guha R (1982) ed. Subaltern Studies: Writings on South Asian Society and History Vol. VII, Oxford.

Guha R (1982). "On Some Apects of the Historiography of Colonial India". Subaltern Studies. Oxford.

Pandey G (2006). “The Subaltern as Subaltern Citizen”, Economic and Political Weekly.

Spivak GC (1992). “Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: New Nation Writers Conference in South Africa”
(Interviewer Leon de Kock). Ariel: A Review of International English Literature.

Spivak GS (1988). “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Cary Nelson and
Lawrence Grossberg (eds.). Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Spivak GS (1991). “Theory in the Margin: Coetzee‟s Foe ReadingDefoe‟s Crusoe/Roxana”, in Jonathan Arac and
Barbara Johnson (eds) Consequences of Theory: Selected Papers of the English Institute, 1987-1988. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.

One of the most famous productions of PLT was Tiner Talowar (Tin Sword) (1971), which was a kind of comeback
event for Utpal Dutt. Here Utpal Dutt glanced back and analyzed Bengali theatre during the Bengal Renaissance and
glorified a theatre producer‟s struggle against imperialism, spearheaded by the rise of a market-vendor to a fine
actress, only to be claimed by a member of the rich elite to be his mistress (echoes from Shaw‟s Pygmalion are
palpably present)

In 1971, PLT came up with Suryashikar, a revamped version of Dutt‟s jatra – Samudra Sashan. Again, influences of
Brecht‟s Galileo are discernable, in the depiction of the Buddhist monk and scientist Kalhan‟s revolt against the
suppressive dictat of King Samudra Gupta. In 1973, Dutt returned to the history of Indian colonial struggle, to the
first anti-colonial resistance put up by British Indian sepoys during the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, with the play Tota or
Mahavidroh.

The turbulent 1970s decade found powerful representation in three of Dutt‟s plays, which can be taken as a trilogy,
reflecting various aspects of political emergency (Darshan Choudhury 194). These were Barricade (1972),
Dushwapner Nagari (1974) and Ebar Rajar Pala (1977). Duswapner Nagari (Nightmare City) which was produced in
1974 was a documentary play reflecting the turbulent 1970s decade. PLT‟s anti-establishment voice was attacked by
hooligans at the Star Theatre on 26th August, 1974. During the troubled times of the 1970s came the declaration of
national Emergency on 26th June, 197
Theatre in independent India is a rich tapestry of practices, personalities and influences, with one name common to
them all – Badal Sircar.1 Whether as a playwright whose oeuvre includes the most-performed works in the country;
a thinker whose theories, like the Third Theatre, are still practised; or a pedagogue whose workshops have shaped
many theatre practitioners, it is hard to think of any other figure who has had such a far-reaching and lasting
influence.

Badal Sircar shot to prominence with his pathbreaking play Ebong Indrajit (And Indrajit, 1963) expressing a very
contemporary existential angst and quest for meaning. Theatre stalwarts all over the country praised it. B. V. Karanth
felt a strong bond with the play, claiming that it brought him recognition in Karnataka. Avant-garde Mumbai director
Satyadev Dubey said that for him the play was an “obsession”, a lasting influence on his subsequent work. For
Shyamanand Jalan the play’s philosophy and content became “very personal”; while Girish Karnad stated that Ebong
Indrajit taught him about fluidity of structure.

However, although his subsequent plays like Baki Itihas (1965) and Pagla Ghora (1967) established him firmly as a
leading playwright, Badal Sircar himself was rethinking proscenium theatre and the economy on which it was based
— such as hired auditoriums and ticketed shows — and moving towards a different philosophy of theatre, based on
direct communication between the actor and the audience: a theatre of intimacy and equality he felt was missing
from the urban stage.

His concept of a “Third Theatre” was different from both the traditional folk forms (“First Theatre”), and the urban,
westernized model (“Second Theatre”). Third Theatre was centred on the actor, and on the human connection:
between actors themselves and between them and the audience; an honest, face-to-face communication without
any distancing devices like the “fourth wall” of the proscenium stage, fixed seating with the audience in darkness,
tickets, lights, sets, or scripted dialogue. Third Theatre was a collective process, its text developed through
workshops. It was inexpensive, mobile and flexible, needing only the actor. It could be performed in places like
community halls with a small audience sitting around – the anganmancha; or in outdoor public spaces such as parks
for large audiences – the muktamancha. Any space could be claimed as a performance space by this theatre.

In terms of content, this was theatre as counter-culture, an exercise in awareness-raising, protest and political
comment. “It drew on the daily reality of the common man, the violence, corruption, discrimination, power politics,
struggle, disillusionment, persistent hope, battered idealism, confusion and questioning that all of us go through as
we grapple with the everyday.”2

Third Theatre also focused on training the actor through intensive workshops. Communication was not about
learning lines, but feeling and conveying the truth of the text which had been developed collectively. The actor’s
body was her chief instrument – through movement, uttered sound, group choreography. The individual fused with
the ensemble.

This was free theatre taken directly to the people; it was political in intent and effect, but it was also theatrically and
aesthetically evolved, complex and layered. It lifted “street theatre” onto a higher plane. Young theatre workers
struggling against financial scarcity found it wonderfully liberating and empowering – here was meaningful theatre
that they could engage in anywhere, using just their minds and bodies. This became the real contribution of Third
Theatre, and for this Badal Sircar is considered the father of street theatre in India.

Michhil (Juloos in Hindi), widely seen as Badal Sircar’s most iconic production, is an excellent example of Third
Theatre. First produced in 1974, it is still performed in several languages, within India, across the subcontinent and
even by the Indian diaspora abroad. Many typical features of Third Theatre are found in Michhil, such as intimacy
and direct communication with the audience, satirically critical commentary on the status quo, the vision of a just
and equitable society, a collage-like juxtaposition of sequences, the actors’ bodies forming a range of sculptural
images, and humour.
From the very start there is no separation of performance and audience space. Actors perform from amidst the
audience; it is hard to tell an actor from a spectator. The play begins with Khoka (“boy” in Bengali) entering the
acting area and dropping dead with a scream, followed immediately by the Chorus bursting in and spreading out all
over. Khoka dies over and over in the play. He tries in vain to get the Police officer to notice him. He speaks to the
audience, “I was killed. I. Me…I was killed today. I was killed yesterday. I was killed the day before yesterday…Last
week. Last month. Last year. I am killed every day.”3 He remains invisible as scenes from daily life materialise all
around him, some drily tongue-in-cheek, some brutally violent, some broadly farcical. The actors constantly
transform the performance space with their bodies to convey a street, a funeral procession, a train or bus full of
vendors and passengers, a factory with machines, and so on. From communal clashes to profiteering to military
transgressions, all kinds of corruption and injustice are portrayed for an audience that, just as it would on the
streets, lines both sides of the path of the michhil as actors pass before them, urgently searching for the missing
Khoka, or offering items for sale.

At the end, the Chorus winds its way through the audience, singing: “A song of hope. A song for the future… A song
of dreams… The people in the procession are holding hands… The audience is invited to join.”4

Rustom Bharucha describes this as “one of Sircar”s most intricately structured plays, with innumerable transitions
and juxtapositions. The relentless flow of events in the text is most skillfully concretized in the swirling movement of
the mise en scene. The actors are constantly on the move – walking, running, dancing, and jogging . . . the effect is
startling: one can almost see a procession winding its way around the streets of Calcutta.5 At the end, “The
spectators and actors intermingle and the entire space of the room becomes a swirling mass of humanity. It is one of
those moments in the theatre when one becomes acutely aware of the possibilities of life and the essential
brotherhood of man. Transcending the immediate issues of the play, it lingers long after the play ceases, compelling
the spectators to reexamine their affinities and responsibilities as members of a society.”6

Michhil and Badal Sircar are not just a part of theatre history. They remain extremely relevant today, a living
influence. And Michhil, a favourite with youth and college groups, is an example of Third Theatre at its best.