Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:38:31.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sultānā the dacoit and Harishchandra: Two Popular Dramas of the Nauṭankī Tradition of North India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Kathryn Hansen
Kathryn Hansen
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If it is true that under the mantle of respectability accorded to the Indian epics and Purāāas one finds all manner of ribaldry and indecorous behavior, then perhaps when one delves into the ill-famed world of nauṭankī one will find a much more straightlaced and conservative view of reality than one might expect. Nauṭankī is the popular theatre tradition of the Hindi and Urdu speaking regions of North India, and in particular of Uttar Pradesh. For anyone beginning research on nauṭankī, the issue of its reputation is unavoidable. Hiraman, the innocent cartdriver in Phanishwarnath Renu's Hindi short story The Third Vow, knew from hearsay that nauṭankī shows were not a proper pastime, though he didn't quite know why, and the knowledge didn't prevent him from falling in love with a nauṭankī actress. Similarly, the Hindi drama critics, if they mention nauṭankī at all, repeat vague warnings; the form is crude and debased, not much can be expected from it. Rām Nārāyaā Agravāl, author of Sāngīt, the leading Hindi monograph on the subject, describes its current state as one of commercial ruin, artistic bankruptcy, and sexual display. Female Indian friends simply comment, ‘We were never allowed to see those plays,’ or ‘Why don't you study something nice?’

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1983 , pp. 313 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The term nauṭankī may refer either to the performance tradition as a whole or to a particular performed play. The printed text of a play is ordinarily labelled sāngīt. Related terms are svāng, which also means a musical play, and sāng, which refers more specifically to the local tradition of Haryana. Khyāl is the related folk theatre of Rajasthan. Contrasted with all these is nāṭak, the ‘modern play,’ written largely in prose and divided into acts and scenes.

2 Renu, Phanishwarnath, ‘The Third Vow,’ in A Death in Delhi: Modern Hindi Short Stones, trans. Roadarmel, Gordon C. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), pp. 38–71.Google Scholar

3 Agravāl, Rām Nārāyaā, Sāngīt: Ek Loknāīya Paramparā (Delhi: Rājpāl and Sons, 1976), pp. 294–7.Google Scholar

4 Swann, Darius Leander, ‘Three Forms of Traditional Theater of Uttar Pradesh, North India’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, 1974), pp. 63–4.Google Scholar

5 See Swann, , ‘Three Forms of Traditional Theatre,’ p. 257Google Scholar, on the caste background of svāng drummers. Ustād Indraman, Chiranjīlāl, Ganeshīlāl, and Gobindarām, who established the leading akhāṛā of svāng in Hathras were of the Chhīpī caste (tailors) (see Agravāl, , Sāngīt, p. 108)Google Scholar. Ron Hess notes that nauṭankī troupe members in Banaras were Dafālā Muslims and Chamārs (personal communication).

6 See Keith, A. Berriedale, The Sanskrit Drama in its Origin, Development, Theory and Practice (London: Oxford University Press, 1924), p. 363Google Scholar for references to the low status of actors in Sanskrit texts.

7 Saksena, Ram Babu, A History of Urdu Literature (second edition, Allahabad: Ram Narain Lal, 1940), p. 364.Google Scholar

8 Ānand, Mahesh, ‘Bhāratenduyugīn Rangmanch,’ in Jain, Nemichandra (ed.), Ādhunik Hindī Nāṭak aur Rangmanch (Delhi: The Macmillan Company of India, 1978), pp. 51–2.Google Scholar

9 Swan, Robert O., Munshi Premchand of Lamhi Village (Durham: Duke University Press, 1969), pp. 56–61.Google Scholar

10 Temple, R. C., Legends of the Punjab (Bombay: Education Society's Press, 1884), Vol. IGoogle Scholar, No. vi, ‘The Legend of Guru Gugga,’ a svāng.

11 McGregor, Ronald Stuart, Hindi Literature of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974), p. 74.Google Scholar

12 Blumhardt, J. F., Catalogues of the Hindi, Panjabi, Sindhi, and Pushtu Printed Books in the Library of the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1893), p. 90.Google Scholar

13 Ali, A. Yusuf, ‘The Modern Hindustani Drama,’ Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature of the United Kingdom, Second Series, Vol. XXXV (London: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 91.Google Scholar

14 Barnett, L. D., Blumhardt, J. F., and Wilkinson, J. V. S., A Second Supplementary Catalogue of Printed Books in Hindi, Bihari, and Bhojpuri in the Library of the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1957).Google Scholar

15 Pritchett, Frances W., ‘Marvelous Encounters: Qissa Literature in Urdu and Hindi’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1981).Google Scholar

16 For a few examples of the widespread use of the term ‘opera,’ see Saksena, , A History of Urdu Literature, p. 351Google Scholar; Gargi, Balwant, Folk Theater of India (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966), p. 351Google Scholar, and his article ‘Opera in India,’ Times of India Annual (Bombay, 1963), pp. 77–82Google ScholarPubMed; Vatuk, Ved Prakash and Vatuk, Sylvia, ‘The Ethnography of Sāng, A North Indian Folk Opera,’ Asian Folklore Studies, XXVI:1 (1967), pp. 29–51.Google Scholar

17 Sadiq, Muhammad, A History of Urdu Literature (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 394.Google Scholar

18 Saksena, , A History of Urdu Literature, p. 351.Google Scholar

19 Sadiq, , A History of Urdu Literature, p. 393.Google Scholar

20 Rizvī, Syed Masūd Hasan, Urdū Ḍrāmā aur Isṭej (Lucknow: Kitābghar, 1957)Google Scholar; see also Rizvī, Syed Masū Hasan, ‘On Urdu Drama aur Stage,’ Indian Literature, III: 1–2, pp. 138–40.Google Scholar

21 Pemble, John, The Raj, The Indian Mutiny, and the Kingdom of Oudh, 1801–1859 (Sussex: Harvester Press, 1977), p. 265.Google Scholar

22 Pemble, , The Raj, The Indian Mutiny, and the Kingdom of Oudh, pp. 265–6.Google Scholar

23 A number of recent Hindi publications attest to the reevaluation of popular drama. In addition to Agravāl, see Jain, Nemichandra (ed.), Ādhunik Hindī Nāṭak aur Rangmanch (Delhi: Macmillan Company of India, Ltd, 1978)Google Scholar; Māthur, Jagdīsh Chandra, Paramparāshīl Nāṭya (Patna: Bihār Rāsḥṭrabhāsḥā Parisḥad, 1969)Google Scholar, and Nārāyaā Lāl, Laksḥmī, Parsī Hindī Rangmanch (Delhi: Rājpāl and Sons, 1973).Google Scholar

24 Note Balwant Gargī's 1966 and Habīb Tanvīr's 1954 productions of The Little Clay Carl in nauṭankī style, Shāntā Gāndhī's production of Amar Singh Rāthoṛ, a nauṭankī for the urban audience, and plays such as Habīb Tanvīr's Āgrā Bāzār, Sarveshvar Dayāl Saksenā's Bakrī, and Mudrārākshas’ Ālā Afsar.

25 The South Asia popular literature collection at the University of Chicago Regenstein Library, collected primarily by Frances Pritchett, contains four versions of the Harishchandra story and six of Sultānā Ḍākū. Two of the Harishchandra versions are sāngīts of the Haryana school of Chandralāl Bhāā, one is an Urdu masnavī version published from Ludhiana, and one is in popular story (kahānī) form from Calcutta. Of the versions of Sultānā Ḍākū, three are sāngīts: one by Shrīkṛisḥṇa Khatrī Pahalvān, noted writer of the Kanpur akhāṛā, one by Murlīdhar, another author of the Hathras school, and the third is the 1976 printing identical to the Rūparām text used here. The other three versions are in nāṭak (modern drama) form, and are published in Delhi, Patna, and Hathras.

26 I am indebted to Ron Hess for allowing me to photocopy these plays from his collection.

27 Agravāl, , Sāngīt, p. 116.Google Scholar

28 Agravāl, , Sāngīt, p. 108.Google Scholar

29 ‘Nathārām says, stop your pen now, Rūpa.’ Sultānā Ḍākū (Hāthras: Shyām Press, 1977), p. 60.Google Scholar

30 Agravāl, , Sāngīt, p. 272 for information on Rūparām. The dates of Nathārām's death are given on p. 116 as 1947 and on p. 273 as 1943.Google Scholar

31 Agravāl, , Sāngīt, p. 273.Google Scholar

32 See also Agravāl, , Sāngīt, p. 109.Google Scholar

33 ‘The twice-born Nathārām prepared the sāngīt of Harishchandra.’ Harishchandra (Hāthras: Shyām Press, 1977), p. 48.Google Scholar

34 Agravāl, , Sāngīt, p. 116, p. 272.Google Scholar

35 See Sultānā, p. 60Google Scholar: rāj kāngres kā kāyam hameshā rahai; Harishchandra, p. 22: bajai kāngres kau jagjīt nagārau nagārau nagārau prabhu.

36 The popularity of the story in the Bengali and Parsi theatres is noted by Yajnik, R. K., The Indian Theatre (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1933), pp. 89, 97, 106.Google Scholar Sāngīt versions by Trimohanlāl and Murlīdhar are cited by Agravāl, pp. 274 and 276.Google Scholar Bhāratendu Harishchandra wrote his literary adaptation of the play in 1875. A contemporary treatment is Lasksḥmīnārāyaṇ Lāl's Ek Satya Harishchandra (Delhi: Rājpāl and Sons, 1976).Google Scholar

37 As given in Dimmitt, Cornelia and van Buitenen, J. A. B. (eds and trans), Classical Hindu Mythology: A Reader in the Puranas (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978), pp. 274–86.Google Scholar See also Dowson, John, A Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology (twelfth edition, Ludhiana: Lyall Book Depot, n.d.), pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

38 Gargi, Balwant, Theatre in India (New York: Theater Arts Books, 1962), pp. 83–4.Google Scholar

39 Blackburn, Stuart H., ‘The Folk Hero and Class Interests in Tamil Heroic Ballads,’ Asian Folklore Studies, XXXVII: 1 (1978), pp. 131–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Gaḍḍar Siṃha's Sāngīt Dayārām Gūjar. ‘A ballad on the robberies of Dayā-rāma, a Robin Hood of the western districts of the United Provinces. Metrically adapted by Natthī-mal Agarvāl of Hasanpur.’ (Published in Mathura by Shyāmlāl Agravāl, 1916.) Barnett, , Blumhardt, et al. , 1957 Catalogue, p. 248.Google Scholar