Part II
The Editors Respond to Some Observations and Reflections
NATAK Budreti
Special Issue: World Theatre Day, *
March 27, 2007
Introspecting: 150 years of Gujarati Theatre
Editor: Hasmukh Baradi,
Guest Editor: S. D. Desai
Published by Budreti Theatre and Media Center,
New Ranip, GST-Chenpur Road, P.O. Digvijay Nagar,
Ahmedabad – 382470
*Published with a support grant from
Sangeet Natak Academy, New Delhi, India
By Harish Trivedi © 2008
(Reproduction or storage in any form of all or part of this article or translation in any language without a written permission from the writer is strictly prohibited)
Natak Budreti Quarterly is also called ‘An on-going dialogue on theatre’…
But now the Editors have abruptly discontinued that dialogue as they have moved on…
In the April-June 2008 issue of Natak Budreti (Quarterly) the Guest Editor and Editor has responded to my observations and reflections on the Special Issue - Introspecting 150 Years of the Gujarati Theatre.
I am dismayed and surprised by their response.
Instead of admitting their fault or pleading Mea culpa –the Editors maintain that apart from the odd slip-up or two, they (the Editors) performed their duties brilliantly.
None of the arguments put forward by the editors stands up to even casual scrutiny. Unwittingly, they show us an astonishing degree of hubris or naivet. Their defense or rationalization amounts to nothing but a lie concocted to camouflage their flawed editorial policy…
So let me review the Editors’ response.
(Note: I have underlined words or sentences where they have appeared in bold face in the original response of the Editors. Rest of what follows is an exact copy of the original that appears on page 38 and 39 of the above issue. The editors’ response is printed in italics to make it easy for the readers to comprehend and separate the same from this writer’s response. Editors response appears below as Editors: and H.T. or Harish Trivedi precedes my observation on the same).
In their own words –
Here is the response from the Guest Editor Dr. S. D. Desai and Editor Shri Hasmukh Baradi.
Response to Harish Trivedi (US) from Guest Editor/Editor
Editors: We have received 20 pages (around 6,000 words) of ‘Observations and Reflections’ on our Special Issue from Shri Harish Trivedi (US). Their length does not permit us to reproduce them here. A short response was sent to him. However, since he keeps writing to us with uncommon assertions we briefly respond to him below:
H. T. (Harish Trivedi): First the word count in that article was a little over 9,500.
The readers of Natak Budreti would have been better served if the Editors had taken time to provide pertinent quote from my criticism before commenting on the same. The Editors have not quoted even one of my assertions that they have called uncommon.
Editors: 1 (a) Passing out, in the sense it is used in Hiren Gandhi’s article, is acceptable in British/American English.
H.T.: The Editors fail to give us any information as to which British/American English dictionaries or other source books they are referring to substantiate their claim. As has been previously noted the Editors seem to be averse to provide sources for their assertions.
Here is the relevant portion from my article ‘In an article by Hiren Gandhi titled Theatre as a Means (page 146, second paragraph) what Mr. Gandhi intended to say was what he did after he passed or got through his final exams etc. This has been translated as After passing out some more time…etc.
Pass out or passed out or passing out means to lose consciousness due to a sudden trauma. I do not think that’s what Hiren Gandhi intended to say.
Here is, for the benefit of the Editors as well as for the readers, what the term passing out really means –
Passed: means to undergo an examination or a trial with favorable results…
To be approved or adopted: The motion to adjourn passed.
The Verb: pass out
Pass out from weakness, physical or emotional distress due to a loss of blood supply to the brain- faint, conk, swoon
Lose consciousness due to a sudden trauma, for example
- zonk out, black out, …
Pass out: To lose consciousness. Keel over (informal), pass out (Informal) FAINT, drop, black out (informal) swoon (literary) lose consciousness, flake out (informal) become unconscious
Derived forms: passes out, passing out, passed out
5. Pass out (= faint)
Source: Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006
I hope this settles the issue of passing out.
Editors: 1 (b) There is uniform method in the notes on stage productions in Intrinsically Lively Theatre. ‘Madeera (1980. Greek Euripides, Adapt C. C. Mehta, Dir. Bharat Dave)’ means the play originally written in Greek by Euripides, was adapted by C. C. Mehta and directed by Bharat Dave.
H.T.: What is uniform in that article is absence of punctuation marks plain and simple. I have no idea as to why the Editors are even trying to defend Mr. S. D. Desai’s obvious error. Perhaps the Editors did not want the readers to know that they have erred. Here is my original statement:
Under the category Modern Theatre (Page 93), in an article by S. D. Desai (Intrisically Lively Theatre) punctuation marks are missing and hence reads like Madeera (1980), Greek Euripides…, Bakri (1978) Hindi Sarweshawar Dayal…Saari Raat (1987. Bengali Badal Sirkar…Galileo (1988). German Bertolt Brecht… All the plays enumerated in this article lack proper punctuation marks.
Editors: 1 (c) We accept there are a couple of ‘typographical’/’proofting’ errors like Kalia instead of Kalidas.
H. T.: The editors have conceded at least one error.
Editors: 1 (d) The title of an article in Hindi suggests the playwright ‘orchestrates action’. That’s not unacceptable. It means he ‘carefully organizes’ action.
H.T.: In music, the composer composes or writes the music (like a playwright writing a play) and the conductor of an orchestra (like the director of a play) orchestrates the music composed by the composer.
When writing a play the playwright imagines or conceives the plot, visualizes the action, imagines the characters, situation, locale, time of action etc.
The director then has the responsibility to give life to or to bring to life what the playwright has visualized or imagined. That is done in collaboration with the actor and actresses, scenic designers and so forth.
Over the centuries thousands of directors have presented and or have interpreted and an equal number of actors have acted in the plays written by Shakespeare. All brought in their own sensibility and insight in to what the writer –Shakespeare - had intended to convey in a particular play. The director with the help of actors and scenic designers, musicians etc does the orchestration of the action in any play including Shakespearean plays or Hasmukh Baradi’s plays.
Let’s take a look at Kanti Madia’s version of Rashomon and Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon. Or Kanti Madia’s version of Death of a Salesman and the various productions of the same in America and world over and see who does the orchestration of action in the above two versions of the same play. In all such productions the play essentially remains the same while the productions and interpretations differ… and that is because the DIRECTOR in each case orchestrated the production of the play as seen by the audiences and that too according to his own – director’s - vision.
The writers - Arthur Miller or Shakespeare - wrote the plays and created the characters. The directors did all the interpretation or orchestration and with the help of the actors and actresses they brought the vision of the writer to life – regardless of what Mr. Hasmukh Baradi claims or thinks.
But if Mr. Baradi wants to compare himself with a conductor of an orchestra who am I to question him? But the music analogy is wrong regardless of the fact that Mr. Baradi and Mr. Desai – the two Editors find it acceptable. But then they are the Editors and they are not answerable to any one.
Editors: 1. (e) Propriety prevent us from claiming that S. D. Desai is known outside Ahmedabad/Gujarat, but aren’t Adi Marzban and Pravin Joshi?
H.T.: I had suggested for the editors to consider providing brief information about the writer of a particular article and the subject of the article at the beginning of each article.
This is a prevailing tradition in magazine and newspaper editing; it is not a question of propriety.
Of course the question of propriety does come in picture when the editors say that It is not an author’s fault if he happens to have published more than one book in either or both of the two languages! (This statement has been made by the Editors when commenting about inclusion of all their books in the list of reference books). See (e) below.
Mr. Baradi, for the sake of propriety should leave out statements such as the one quoted above and also the use of over the top adjective orchestrates when describing his own writings. He should allow his critics or readers to comment on his work.
Editors: 2 (a) We are aware of ‘omissions’ of personalities like Damu Jhaveri, Upendra Trivedi, Jayanti Patel as also forms like Nritya Natika besides a few other aspects Mr. Trivedi has not noticed. The two preambles reflect this awareness.
H. T.: The Editors claim, ‘…besides a few other aspects Mr. Trivedi has not noticed…’ is very presumptuous.
What I may or may not have noticed is not some thing that the editors should be chortling about. Here the subject is their Editorial policy or lack of it and not how much I know or do not know about theatre.
(The personalities – Damu Jhaveri, Upendra Trivedi, Jayanti Patel and many more as well as Nritya Natika - Dance Dramas – are also ignored by Mr. Baradi in his History of Gujarati Theatre, English translation by Mr. Vinod Meghani, National Book Trust, 2003 and the Oxford Companion to Indian Theatre, published in 2004.
The abovementioned works of Mr. Baradi are also full of similar errors and omissions. But more about it later)
The simple fact is - The Special Issue has not covered all aspects of Gujarati theatre in the last 150 years as it claims to have done, it has only covered the last seventy years of Gujarati theatre and that too barely...
The term – introspecting in the title or sub-heading of the special issue is misleading. There is no introspection of any kind in that Special Issue - only reminiscences!
Editors: 2. (b) There is no separate article on ‘one character plays’, but aren’t Shekhar Suman’s Kabir and other plays in Hindi?
H. T.: Since the magazine is published in English and Hindi languages, it would have been more than appropriate if the editors had provided a reference to the critically acclaimed one-character Hindi plays of Shekhar Sen (not Shekhar Suman as the Editors have claimed. This too is must be what the editors have called one of those nasty slip-ups). What this illustrates is the fact that even in a simple rebuttal of my criticism, the Editors have not cared about accuracy of their statements!
The editors have also over looked other more important Gujarati one-character plays that have been staged since the staging of Narmad: Maari Hakikat over a decade back. One-character play based on Mahadevbhai’s (Mahadevbhai Desai) diary or Kavi Kant’s autobiography and few other plays deserved at least a mention in this introspecting.
Editors: 2 (c) The suggestion regarding what Mr. Trivedi calls ‘citations or sourcing’ is welcome, but we would like to point out that leading journals do not necessarily carry them and they aren’t any the less dependable.
H. T.: This is very true in case of what the editors have called the leading journals, but after looking at the last two issues of Natak Budreti, in my humble opinion the Editors’ claim to call the magazine a leading journal is hollow. This is because of its flawed and at times questionable editorial policy, frequent factual and typographical errors, it’s reprinting of articles without the writers’ permission etc. would make it difficult for any one to call this magazine a leading journal. Even a simple rebuttal by the editors that is under discussion has wrong names of the people mentioned. So much about the credibility or dependability!
Credibility is not a label that these editors (Mr. S. D. Desai and Mr. Hasmukh Baradi) can slap on their backs when they feel like doing so. Credibility has to be earned!
A leading journal or a magazine should be a marvel of style and wit, it should arouse curiosity of its readers regarding its contents and coverage with each succeeding issue, it should offer its readers opportunities to find small or large discoveries in the area of research and scholarship and finally it should stress importance of scholarship and relevance in its editorial policy.
My concern about the lack of sourcing or citation is related to the issue of scholarship, particularly for the benefit of present and future students of the history of Gujarati drama and scholars who may want to conduct further research on the subject.
Citations and source notes are necessary in order to avoid any charges of plagiarism. But more importantly, citations and source notes are necessary for nothing else but for the sheer regard for intellectual honesty and preserving copyrights of the publishers and the writers.
Various guide lines on the subject of research, writing and writing styles suggest that citations and sourcing are essential in order to 1) provide useful information and to avoid the claims of plagiarism, 2) to show that a particular portion or whole writing is not original research, 3) to ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor, 4) to help the readers find additional reliable information on the topic, and 5) to improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of the work. – a magazine article or a book of history or for that matter a book on any subject.
And finally citations and sourcing is necessary to reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes or to resolve any that arise. (Dear Editors, please note).
As the sourcing or citation for the information presented in articles is considered unimportant by our Editor duo - Mr. S. D. Desai and Mr. Hasmukh Baradi -there is no way for a reader to verify any statement in the magazine for its accuracy. In other words there is no way to know what is fact, opinion or mere conjecture presented as fact by a particular writer in Natak Budreti and particularly articles written by Mr. Baradi, who is one of the editors.
Editors: 2 (d) A writer makes his choice to omit details he considers less important in a context within the space available. A reader can draw his conclusions but need not question the choice.
H.T.: In case of Natak Budreti issue under review, at least one writer was not offered such a choice and his article was arbitrarily shortened. Further more, one articles that appears in the Special Issue of Natak Budreti has not even been written by the writer whose name appears as a writer of that article.
There is an article supposed to be written by Narendra Shrimali on the subject of theatre music and recordings. Mr. Shrimali has, very clearly and in no uncertain terms informed me that he did not write that article. Mr. Baradi chose not to respond to this questionable editorial policy when I inquired about it. So much about credibility!
Mr. Shrimali’s article was excerpted (in that special issue of NATAK Budreti) from his copyrighted book – (Narendra Shrimali’s) Music of Theatre and Hindi Cinema (1900-1950), A Discographical Study with
, according to Mr. Narendra Shrimali was excerpted from his book without his permission or knowledge and seems to have been written by some one working at Natak Budreti or perhaps even by Mr. Baradi himself. The Editors, Mr. S. D. Desai and Mr. Hasmukh Baradi owe an explanation to their readers regarding Mr. Narendra Shrimali’s claim.
There another article in the magazine that too has been published without the knowledge of its original writer. I am sure the editors are aware of the source from which they have appropriated that article…
But according to the editors’ dicta (see above 2 d) - A reader can draw his conclusions but need not question the choice. (One has to assume that the editors are talking about their own - the Editors’ choices)
Interestingly, the editorial policy about the length of a particular article according to available space does not seem to apply to the articles written by the editors! (Readers can take a look at numerous articles written by the Editors and the length of the same in that Special Issue of Natak Budreti)
Editors: 2 (e) Books on Gujarati Theatre, needless to say, includes books in English and Hindi only. It is not an author’s fault if he happens to have published more than one book in either or both of the two languages!
H. T.: Nowhere in the magazine the editors have indicated that only books published in Hindi and English are included in the reference list of the books. So why the editors think it was needless to say…?
More importantly one of the books included in the list, the History of Gujarati Theatre by Hasmumkh Baradi, is also full of similar errors (and many more, as mentioned earlier).
More to the point, if the author of multiple books on the history of Gujarati theatre has committed errors of facts, incomplete facts and blatant omissions of events and people, than it is more than a mere fault of the author, it is reprehensible and scandalous!
Even the selection of Hindi and English language reference books on Gujarati theatre, two very important books (in Hindi and English) on Parsi theatre by Somnath Gupt and Kathryn Hanson are missing.
The learned editors of NATAK Budreti seem to be either unaware of these books or were probably too busy enumerating and including their own books about Gujarati theatre.
Editors: 3. There seem to be a few factual errors concerning persons and dates (Anil Mehta, Upendra Trivedi, Ashraf Khan…) They have been referred to writers concerned. (Underlined by H.T. for emphasize)
H.T.: Without responding to the point I had made in my criticism, the editors say that they have referred the question to writers concerned.
What the editors fail to say is the fact that the writer of the articles (whom they have referred the errors) is no one other than Mr. Hamsukh Baradi himself! The errors have appeared in the article written by Mr. Hasmukh Baradi himself - page 84, Natak Budreti special issue.
What the Editors’ response amounts to is nothing but a simple and absurd evasion.
The readers should ask Mr. Baradi as to how he questioned himself about his own errors! Let’s hope he illuminates us with an answer in the next issue of Natak Budreti.
Here is some context:
In an article One-act Plays – Origin and Growth Mr. Hasmukh Baradi has claimed that Anil Mehta and Arvind Trivedi were products of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s inter-collegiate competitions (page 84). In their response Mr. Baradi erroneously mentions Upendra Trivedi (see 3 above).
How can one verify Mr. Baradi’s statement when Mr. Baradi does not provide his readers with the source of his information?
I had stated that Anil Mehta and Arvind Trivedi had not appeared in any inter- collegiate competitions that Mr. Baradi talks about in his article.
My earlier statement, as far as Mr. Arvind Trivedi is concerned was WRONG and I apologize for that erroneous statement.
Arvind Trivedi did participate in the inter-collegiate one-act play competitions that were sponsored by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. While this is true, a little clarification is needed.
It should be noted that Arvind Trivedi did not participate in the above competitions during its first decade when Pravin Joshi, Krishnakant Shah, Upendra Trivedi, Kanti Madia and others were participating – the one that Mr. Baradi has alluded to in that article. But my unqualified observation was wrong and I have said so above.
Anil Mehta and I were friends; schoolmates and we were also in the same college (though during different years and studied different subjects).
I was actively involved in the inter-collegiate drama competitions during the decade of 1950s when Upendra Trivedi, Kanti Madia, Pravin Joshi et al were participating in the competitions. Anil Mehta did not participate or even auditioned for any of the plays that were presented at those competitions during the 50s.
Anil Mehta’s contribution to the Gujarati theatre is restricted or limited to his translations of Marathi plays from early 1970s till the time of his death at a young age.
Anil Mehta and his wife Indira did act in many successful one-act plays of that era. Those plays were staged for the benefit of community organizations –Gujarati Samaj or Gnati Mandals and Navratri festivals … to tell you the truth, I had acted in few of those productions with Anil Mehta too.
Now about Mr. Ashraf Khan:
Ashraf Khan was born in 1893 and not 1853 as stated in Natak Budreti Special Issue (page 215). If Mr. Ashraf Khan was indeed born in 1853 he would have been 109 at the time of his death in 1962. Why are the editors so hesitant to admit what is obviously a typographical error?
Editors: 4. Preety Sengupta has not criticized Gujarati theatre activity in Canada and the US. She is critical of ‘The same stupid, slapstick plays making their way abroad’.
H.T.: The issue here is not Preety Sengupta commenting on the visiting Gujarati theatre groups. The editors have labeled the section where Miss Sengupta’s article appears in NATAK Budreti as ‘Theatre Activity Abroad’. Miss Sengupta’s article cannot be honestly described as theatre activity abroad. Her article is about the touring Gujarati theatre companies, companies that have been invited to perform in the U.S. by the fans of such plays. There is much more to theatre activity abroad (at least in the U.S) then the touring slapstick plays. And when we consider the fact that this is the only article under the category Theatre Activity Abroad, the absurdity of the editorial policy becomes more glaring!
Such slapstick comedies full of sexual innuendos and double entendres, and cheap knock-offs of British and American comedies do not even get a mention in the purported Introspecting of 150-years of Gujarati Theatre or Mr. Baradi’s History of Gujarati Theatre. But then the editors consider it worthy of being called Theatre Activity Abroad.
Editors: 5. With reference to Sorabjee Dhondi’s recordings in Narendra Shrimali’s article in Hindi, Mr. Trivedi adds what ‘is unstated’ and goes on to mention other recordings. A lot more can be added. Our objective, as in other areas, here was giving a glimpse of the work done.
H.T.: Here the editors presume that their readers know what exactly I had written in my comments. Here is what I said, “What is unstated is the fact that Sorabjee had recorded some of the most memorable songs of the Parsi Gujarati plays including Bammanji Kabraji’s Gamre Nee Gori and many of the popular plays of that time. Sorab Rustamji Dhondi has cut over 100 songs on 78-rpm discs and on number of labels”.
A detail such as this probably would have lengthened the size of the article that the editors claim to have been written by Narendra Shrimali but the readers would have been better informed. The Editors have not commented as to why they published that article that was excerpted from Mr. Shrimali’s book and without Mr. Shrimali’s knowledge or permission.
My comments were only meant to indicate the fact that the article was sketchy and did not provide sufficient information about the theatre music. Perhaps if it were really written by Narendra Shrimali such lapse could have been avoided.
If the Editors wanted to provide only glimpse then they should have labeled the special issue Glimpses of 150 years of Gujarati Theatre!
Editors: 6. The graphic design, we believe, is good enough. The pictures have not come out very clearly. We would not have afforded a better alternative.
H.T.: This was only meant as a suggestion If the editors have consciously decided to accept mediocrity and bad reproduction of the photos then the reader has no choice but to accept it.
It would have been nice to see the editors setting the bar of quality printing and graphic design a little higher…but it is their choice and the readers should respect that, I do.
Editors: 7. There are comments on our editorial policy/practice concerning ‘multiple articles’ by a writer, articles previously published, grouping of the articles, (‘sadly’) failing to dedicate the issue to Amrit Keshav Nayak, etc. We need not be defensive of our policy/practice.
H.T.: …need not be defensive?
Really?
So the arguments put forward by the editors (Numbers 1 to 6 above) were a mere can’t, only insincere or hypocritical statements?
Editors: 8. Many of the (highly judgmental) observations are prompted by vastly different perceptions and perspective. There are hasty assumptions, digressions and conclusions. In a response purported to be studied and research-based, it is interesting to find comments like ‘Not surprisingly (the section lists four books by HB and three books by SDD); ‘ By this omission … the issue seems to have shortchanged its readers’; and ‘… deserved a place in ‘this sweeping introspection’. The Indian tradition associates humility with learnedness.
H.T.: I merely pointed out what was missing in the list of the reference books and my sentiments about such omissions. If the Editors find my comments judgmental, so be it.
Further more, my comments about factual and typographical errors, the need for a better graphic design, more clear reproductions of photographs, sourcing or citations etc. is not matter of perceptions or hasty conclusions… as the Editors have characterized. They are statements of FACT.
I have never claimed (or in the Editors’ words purported) that my observations were studied and research-based. Research-based or research-oriented and other such pabulums seem to be favorite terms of Mr. Baradi as they frequently appear in his writings. By its very nature and as the title of my article very clearly says – Some observations and reflections by Harish Trivedi. Yes, they are my personal observations because I care and am concerned about presentation of facts in any book or a magazine that claims to be devoted to the history of Gujarati theatre.
The Editors say, ‘The Indian tradition associates humility with learnedness’ but that does not seem to bother them when they write about their own books on theatre proclaiming ‘It is not an author’s fault if he happens to have published more than one book in either or both of the two languages… or when Mr. Baradi describes his playwriting process as I orchestrate the action… Some humility indeed!
The Editors are hardly in a position to preach about propriety (see 1 e above), …or the Indian tradition… of humility (and) learnedness....
Editors: 9. The Special Issue by any standard a modest effort. Neither the editors nor the contributors have an illusion of being infallible and of having the Issue encyclopedic.
H.T.: Then that’s what it is…and that’s what I have tried to point out to the Editors.
The above eight-point response as well as the sub-title of the special issue –Introspecting 150-years of Gujarati Theatre amply speak about the illusions of the editors. My comments pertain to the Editors and the editorial process, not to the writers. As a matter of fact I have pointed out a number of articles and writers who did a commendable job in writing those pieces. I wish the editors had shared my positive comments with the readers.
Editors: 9 (last part)
Guest Editor, Editor
(There is no need to continue the so-called ‘dialogue’ now. We have moved on.
H.T.: Does this mean the motto on the cover of the Natak Budreti…An on-going dialogue on theatre is no more relevant?
Reviewing and re-viewing the editors’ response, their claim We have moved on seems to be hollow. The Editors have moved on in the same sense as a horse or a bull goes around a stone mill (Ghani in Gujarati) with blinders and thinks all the time that it is going some where…The Editors have not moved any where from where they were prior to my comments.
Here are some other errors in that issue of Natak Budreti that has escaped the Editors’ attention in their nine-point response.
a) Mr. Hasmukh Baradi has described Mr. Jagannath Shankarsheth as a Gujarati entrepreneur (An Entertainment Industry, page 21, Natak Budreti Special Issue). Mr. Shanker Sheth was a Maharastrian businessman, a social activist and a great patron of poet Narmad.
The error has been repeated and there by perpetuated as fact in Mr. Baradi’s History of Gujarati Theatre as well as in his note about the Gujarati theatre in the Oxford Companion to Indian Theatre.
b) On the same page there is a reference to Elphantine Natak Mandali that should have been Elphinston Natak Mandali. The group was known as the Elphinston Dramatic Club.
c) The editors are entitled to their opinions but they have no right to concoct their own facts. We, the readers of the Natak Budreti deserve better!
I would like to suggest that the editors should consider publishing corrections and clarifications when they are done with questioning themselves about the errors in the Natak Budreti. That would be considered moving ahead in the right direction!
And finally, unanswered in Editors’ response is the question I had raised about the causes of the demise or waning of popular interest in Bhavai.
Mr. Baradi has maintained in his article in Natak Budreti under review and in his other writings that the popular interest in Bhavai was caused by advent of Muslim rule in Gujarat. Mr. Baradi also scoffs at Ranchodrai Udairam for having provided another perspective on the causes of the downfall of Bhavai.
The advent of Islam or the Muslim rule in Gujarat may be instrumental or may have contributed to the lack of popular interest in Bhavai, but the major cause of the demise of Bhavai was the use of graphic, objectionable and obscene language in Bhavai.
Sudha Desai has gently referred to this fact in her dissertation on Bhavai. (Bhavai: A medieval form of ancient Indian dramatic art (natya) as prevalent in Gujarat (Thesis publication series - Gujarat University).
Sahajanda Swami or Swaminarayan (1781 –1830) in his injunctions on the practical life of a devotee found in the Shikshapatri, and his teachings in the Vachanamritam has specifically proscribed visiting or attending or patronizing performances of Bhavai. Swaminarayan’s views on Bhavai seem to be based on the prevalence of obscene gestures in acting and graphic language in the dialogues.
Considering the above it is fair to conclude that the editors’ response is nothing but an exercise in self-exculpation and obfuscation. While they pretend to explain, their actual purpose seems to be to deflect any responsibility. The disingenuous way in which they have tried to distance themselves from their errors is pathetic, sad and laughable.
Their response is nothing but a careful fusion of convenient and inconvenient facts that could enable them to craft their ‘acceptable’ version and justification of their flawed editorial policies.
None of the arguments put forward by the editors stand up to even casual scrutiny. Unwittingly, they have shown us an astonishing degree of hubris or naivet …
When the editors of NATAK Budreti compare the magazine with other learned journals they need to be reminded of a few guiding principles that help make a journal a leading journal:
1) Quality in-depth articles are essential for informing present and future readers and scholars.
2) Citations and sources are necessary in order to enhance the credibility of the writer, the editor as well as the publication itself,
3) A good graphic design should be the norm of publications in 21st century and all the publications should at least strive for excellence in printing rather than to sit back and say ‘it is acceptable’,
4) The editors should refrain from reproducing photos in their magazine if they are unable control the quality of printing and reproduction of the same,
5) The editors should make sure that the chapter titles and sub sections truly reflect the contents of those chapters or sections.
6) It is the responsibility of the editors and publishers to make sure that the articles in the publication are checked and rechecked for the accuracy of facts, spellings and grammar.
To err is human, but to print, reprint, and re-reprint error-mad speculations (see Shankar Sheth was a Gujarati businessman) and previously printed articles (on Bhavai by late Goverdhan Panchal) provokes people like me to a screaming frenzy, but more importantly it is a criminally moronic editorial policy that has to be stopped.
Unfortunately the editors of NATAK Budreti seem to have decided to ignore these accepted journalistic policies and instead chosen to be content by saying ‘it is acceptable’.
No comments:
Post a Comment