Part II - The Editors Respond - NATAK Budreti Special Issue: World Theatre Day, Some Observations and Reflections

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’.

Part I - NATAK Budreti Special Issue: World Theatre Day, 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

Some Observations and Reflections

Part I

By Harish Trivedi

© 2007


Reproduction, storage, copying or distribution - in any form - of Harish Trivedi’s articles on this blog and elsewhere or translation of the same without a written permission of the writer is prohibited.


This is a bilingual magazine published in English and Hindi languages. Perhaps this is a rare phenomenon in magazine publication industry in India. This particular issue has a special significance as it is devoted to what is described as Introspecting: 150 years of Gujarati Theatre.

Mr. S. D. Desai is the Guest Editor while Dr. Hasmukh Baradi the editor of the publication. In addition the quarterly lists nine scholars as Editorial Consultants and it has an Editorial Board that includes Suresh Rajda, Utpal Bhayani, Janak Dave, Janak Raval and Manvita Baradi.

The magazine is divided in eight special categories, starting with the Roots of Gujarati theatre in the folk theatre called Bhavai to the eighth section titled Noises Off with one article by the Guest Editor S. D. Desai on the subject of Aakhyan and Manbhatt Traditions as one of the forms of Gujarati theatre.

The breath and scope of the analysis and reflection that the editors have planned to tackle is impressive. It must have been a great challenge and a brave attempt has been made to cover various aspects of the Gujarati theatre during the last 150 years.

The desire of the Guest Editor and the Editor for feed back from the readers is very refreshing.

Since this writer has not seen the previous issues of NATAK Budreti some of the observations or suggestions here may seem redundant. What follows, should be accepted in the spirit in which it has been offered as this is not meant to be a personal criticism or value judgment on the members of the editorial board or the contributors.

This review of NATAK Budreti and some personal observations are offered here in the hope that they may prove useful for any such undertaking in future.

So here it goes…

The articles by Manvita Baradi’s article (Street Theatre, page135, and other articles by Utpal Bhayani, Honey Chhaya, Kshemu Divetia, Mukta Vijay Dutt, Gautam Joshi, Taru Kajaria, Vanlata Mehta, Chinu Modi, Madhu Rye (What Makes Me Write a Play, page 280), Diana Rawal, Pratap Oza, Mrinalini Sarabhai, Labhshankar Thakar, Dhirubhai Thakar, Sitanshu Yashashchandra, quite fascinating, insightful, interesting and informative. The writers have done justice to their chosen and or assigned subjects.


The magazine seems to be edited with the presumption that every reader would have sufficient background information about the people described, profiled or written about as well as the contributors to this NATAK issue.

Introductory notes about the personalities described and the writers of various articles would have been very helpful to the readers, particularly non-Gujarati readers. It is very likely that not many people out side Gujarat, no, out side Ahmedabad would be familiar with Mr. S. D. Desai, Adi Marzban, Pravin Joshi and other theatre personalities that are mentioned in this magazine. In this context the loving tribute to Shri Rasiklal Parikh by his grand daughter seems out of place in this magazine (Ishira Parikh’s article on page 250). A brief introductory note about Adi Marzban preceding Dinyar Contractor’s reminiscences about him - Adi Marzban - (page 210 in the section This I Remember) and on Rasiklal Parikh (page 250) would have been much helpful to the readers. As a matter of fact a brief introduction of Dinyar Contractor and Ishira Parikh would have been very helpful to the readers.

Bi-lingual magazine:

At a first glance it the magazine gives an impression as if the articles in English and Hindi are translations from either of the languages, but it is not so. The contents in English and Hindu sections are different. Articles about Ashraf Khan, Kanti Madia, Pragji Dosa, Prabodh Joshi that appear in Hindi are missing from the English section.

Editorial policy for NATAK Budreti:
Without sounding disrespectful or harsh, it must be stated that the editorial policy leaves much to be desired.
A) One could question the inclusion of articles that have been previously published (For example see Bhavai: Its Historical Origins by Mr. Goverdhan Panchal, page 4). The Editors could have at least included a brief note at the end of the article to inform the readers of the fact that the article by Mr. Panchal was excerpted from his original monograph and that Mr. Panchal has passed away.

B) 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…SaariRaat (1987. Bengali Badal Sirkar…Galileo (1988. German Bertolt Brecht… All the plays enumerated in this essay lack proper punctuation marks.
C) Appropriateness of multiple articles by a writer in this issue of NATAK Budrei is a phenomena that is not often witnessed in many other such publications. This no reflection on the writers or their writings in this magazine. They all are very respectable and distinguished writers but this is a debatable editorial practice.
The overlapping articles on Jayashankar Sundari, Jashwant Thakar, Adi Marzban… et al could have been grouped together even though each of the articles discusses various aspects of the artists’ contribution to the Gujrati theatre.
d) Typographical errors such as Kalia instead of Kalidas (page 22) frequently appear in the magazine. Over all the English translations are uneven and when in one instance a Gujarati phrase is literary translated in to English, it has turned in to an unintentionally humorous sentence. 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.
e) Gujrati theatre activities in Bombay, particularly during the post-independence years -1950 through 1970s is brilliantly provided by an article by Honey Chhaya (in Hindi, page 43) and Utpal Bhayani (in English, page 48). There is an overlap of some subjects discussed in these two articles. In a situation such as this the editors could have considered combining these two articles in to one composite (with due credit to the two writers). That would have proved more helpful to the readers. As such the above-mentioned articles have been translated from Gujrati any way.

Omission:
Introspecting: 150 years of Gujrati Theatre?
While this special issue is supposed to be celebrating or more accurately Introspecting 150 years of Gujrati Theatre, over eighty per cent of the magazine is devoted to the theatre activities during some past seventy-years. Except articles about Prabhulal Dwivedi, Ashraf Khan and Jayshankar Sundari no personalities or institutions from the Jooni Rangbhoomi (old Gujrati theatre) or any mention of a significant numbers of leading female actors from the old or the modern era has found a place in this magazine.
One of the most glaring omissions in this review of 150 years of Gujrati theatre is the glorious tradition of Nritya Natika or the dance-dramas, particularly those developed and staged by Yogendra Desai and Avinash Vyas. Pratap Oza provided narration to many of these Nritya Natikas from 1950s to 1960. For a time it seemed like there was no other activity that demanded the attention of Gujrati theatre going audiences than attending the dance dramas at the unholy hour or 10 a.m. on Sunday mornings at Bombay’s famous Birla Matushri Sabha Griha. What costumes, what music, what lyrics and what glorious production values! It makes one nostalgic and creates an intense desire to revisit those days! Movie star Asha Parekh had her debut performance in one of the Yogendra Desai/Avinash Vyas team produced dance dramas. Gujrat has not seen any thing comparable to those dance dramas since those days some five-decades ago.

Dance-dramas continue to be staged but these days it does not get the glamour value and place of importance that the straight dramas are accorded. For some reason dance-dramas are not considered to be a part of legitimate theatre activity and seem to be shoveled in to the care of community groups, social groups, school and college theatre groups…and that’s the pity!

Other omissions:

1) Lack of citations or sourcing for the historic information presented in the articles, particularly articles by Mr. Hasmukh Baradi, Mr. S. D. Desai and Mr. Yazdi Karanjia.

The main section is called Old Theatre – 1842 – 1945 (page 12) but this seems to be an error, it should have been the year 1840 when over four hundred leading citizens of Bombay submitted a petition to the Governor Sir James Carnac requesting approval for the construction of a new theatre. The statement of Mr. Karanjia is historically accurate (see Parsi Natak Takhta Ni Tawarikh by Dhanjibhai Patel, Mumbai 1931 or article by C. C. Mehta in the Gujarati Natya Shatabdi Mahotsav Smarak Granth, Bombay 1952 or Parsi Theatre And The City- Locations, patrons, audiences by Kathryn Hansen, Sarai Reader 2002, page 40 or other books on the History of Gujarati Theatre)

It would have been nice if Mr. Karanjia’s had included more information about contributions of Adi Marzban to the Parsi Theatre in post-independent India. The Marzban clan was pioneer not only in theatre but also in journalism. Adi Marzban continued to edit the newspaper that his ancestor had started till his death.

And lastly, a brief appreciation of plays written, produced and directed by Adi Marzban would have provided valuable context to his achievements. For example his production of Gunghatpat - the Gujarati adaptation (By C. C. Mehta) of J. B. Pristley’s An Inspector Calls. That play had a memorable cast that included the late Champshibhai Nagada, Chandrika Shah, Lalu Shah, and in the memorable role of the Inspector was Amir Merchant. Since that production in late 1950s there have been numerous Gujarati versions of An Inspector Calls but in this writer’s opinion none could hold candle to that production.



2) Giant of Indian theatre in general and the Gujarati theatre in particualr Mr. Damubhai Jhaveri and the founding of the India National Theatre deserved a place in this sweeping introspection.

In the interest of accuracy it should be noted that the Indian National Theatre did not produce Narbanka, Allabeli and Mrichhakatika (Hasmukh Baradi, The Newness of New Theatre, page 30 creates such an impression). Rangbhoomi of Bombay had produced those plays. Pratap Oza indeed played memorable roles in those plays. Narbanka is based on Ibsen’s Enemy of the People and Allabeli dealt with the 1857 Revolution and involvement of Mulu Manek - perhaps one of the rare plays in Gujarati that has dealt with this theme.

3) Missing from the NATAK Budreti is any detailed information (Honey Chhaya’s article – page 43 - in Hindi not withstanding) about the above-mentioned theatre group Rangbhoomi and Rangboomi Theatre Institute that was active from 1950s thru late 1960s.

4) Rangmanch, a vital theatre group from Ghatkopar in Bombay. Sadly except a superficial mention of this group in an article by Honey Chhaya (Page 43) its substantial contribution of is missing from this introspecting. Among its many patrons and founders were the late Gunvantrai Acharya and Prof. Vishnukumar Vyas. The moving spirit of this organization for many a years was Ranjeet Atha. These institutions and individuals are more than worthy of inclusion in any review of the past 150-years of the Gujarati Theatre.

5) Also missing from this NATAK Budreti issue is any reference to the major research on folk theatre traditions that was undertaken by the Indian National Theatre with a support grant from the Ford Foundation. Sure there is a loving tribute to Mansukh Joshi by Utpal Bhayani that appears in an article in Hindi on page239. But there is much more to Mansukh Joshi than a page full of summary of only one aspect of his life.

The late Mansukh Joshi of the INT has collected rare manuscripts and hundreds of photographs and some hundreds of hours of audiotapes on the folk theatre of Gujarat and Maharashtra. What is the status of that work? What is going to happen to those years of research and archiving of valuable material on Bhavai, Tamasha and other folk forms such as Dairo etc.?

Mansukh Joshi deserved to be remembered for his production of Jesal Toral for the Indian National Theatre. He directed that production with Pratap Oza and Urmila Bhat as lead artists. This was one of the most successful and most lavish stage productions that the Gujrati stage has ever seen. It was presented on two revolving stages at the open-air theatre Rang Bhavan near Dhobi Talav in Mumbai.

Mansukh Joshi’s and the Gujrati theatre’s magnum opus Jesal Toral has to be considered one of the landmark productions on Gujarati stage and needs to be included in any history of Gujarati theatre. Mary Cogyne of the World Theatre Institute, U.S.A was in Mumbai when Jesal Toral was playing at Rang Bhavan. This production probably led to Mansukh Joshi’s trip abroad under the auspices of the World Theatre Institute.

6) Similarly absent from this magazine is any reference to the monumental work done by Mr. Dhirendra Somani on the subject of Jooni Rangbhoomi - the old Gujarati theatre groups - from 1843 through 2003 is troublesome too. His book titled Gujrati Rangbhoomi – Riddhi ane Siddhi (Gujarati theatre – its value or worth and achievements). It is reported that Mr. Somani spent over six-decades collecting and researching on this project and in the process he has collected information about one thousand actors, over 300 actresses, nearly 300 musicians, some 250 dramatists, collected rare photographs and manuscripts. Again Mr. Dhirendra Somani’s work may have been covered in previous issues.


7) Dr. Jayanti Patel, Upendra Trivedi and many other talented actors of Gujarti theatre from Mumbai, and contributions of great comic talent of Gujarati stage such as late Jayant Vyas, (late) Kishore Bhatt and (late) Amrut Patel also deserved some coverage in this introspection.

A reference note or a tribute to many actors and actresses from the bygone era of the Jooni Rangbhoomi (Old Gujrati Theatre) is lamentable. Take a look at the partial roster of actor and actresses of bygone and modern era of the Gujrati theatre that included such stalwarts as - Master Mohan (Mohanlal Sakalchand Nayak) who made a name for himself in Mahabharat with his singing voice and note worthy acting skills. He had established Shakespeare Natak Mandli with Vallabh Keshav Nayak and Gauhar, Vallabh Keshav Nayak (Valo), Mulchand Mama (Amrit Keshav Nayak’s maternal uncle), Mohan Lala, Master Gordhan, Master Vasant, Chimanlal Marwadi, Himmat Ram Meer, Kasambhai Meer and Lalubhai Meer, Vadilal Shivram Nayak, Master Mohan Marwadi, Rani Premlata; and leading female stars of the Navi Rangbhoomi (modern Gujrati stage) such as Urmila Bhat, Varsha Adalja (formerly Varsha Acharya) and winner of numerous acting awards for her acting skills, Leela Jariwala (Mrs. Pratap Oza), Chandrika Shah, Vanlata Mehta, Veena Prabhu and skilled acting craftsmen like Pratap Popat, Krishnakant Vasavda, Surendra Shah, Chandrakant Thakkar – all acclaimed actors and actresses in their own rights deserved a place of their own or at least a mention in this issue that celebrates 150 years of Gujrati theatre. By this omission the NATAK Budreti issue under review seems to have shortchanged its readers.


Dr. Jayanti Patel, in my mind is worthy of a PhD dessertation considering his valuable contribution to the Gujrati theatre in India and theatre in the United States. His 25-years’ theatre activities in India and some three-decades of theatre activity in the United States deserves a look by theatre enthusiasts and future generations of Gujarati theatre rasikas. He contribution too is missing from this magazine.
If not for any thing else, Jayanti Patel needs to be recognized for his performances in plays such as Neta Abhineta – a modern Gujarati play written in a Bhavai form and presented in Bombay in late 1950 is if produced now would still be relevant. What a pleasure it was for this writer to have seen him and Deena Gandhi (later Pathak). A more biting political satire has yet to appear on Gujarati stage. India’s then ambassador to the United States was one of the distinguished guests at the premier performance of that play and I remember seeing him rush to the stage as soon as the final curtain came down to congratulate Jayanti Patel and Deena Gandhi. This probably resulted in an invitation for Jayanti Patel for a tour of theatres in the United States under the auspicious of the United States Information Services.
Jayanti Patel’s memorable performances in plays like Mastram –Gujarati version of Marcy Chase’s Harvey. Chandravadan Bhatt directed the play. Jayanti Patel got award at the state drama competition for his acting in this play. Another memorable performance was in Sapana Sathi – a marvelous Gujarati version of Nobel laureate John Steinbeck’s short novel Of Mice and Men. The novel published in 1937, tells the tragic story of two displaced migrant ranch workers in California during the Great Depression. The Gujarati stage adaptation was first done by Jayanti Patel who then requested Pannalal Patel to transform the language in to vocabulary and slang of north Gujarat farmer. Jayanti Patel also won prize for acting in that play at the Maharashtra State drama competetion.
During 1950s till about late 1960s Jayanti Patel presented modern Bhavai (wih Veena Prabhu playing Rangli) on All India Radio’s Bombay station. For those readers of younger generation, Veena Prabhu is daughter of the theatre scholar and historian late Dr. D. G. Vyas. She later acted in many productions of Rangbhoomi theatre group in Bombay. She also wrote a column for Mumbai Samachar.
The memorable acting of late Chandravadan Bhatt (page 46) – Bhatsaheb as he was known to many - in Bahut Natchyo Gopal is described as a Gujarati version of the Marathi play which is true but the Marathi play in turn was based on John Osborn’s The Entertainer (wherein the late Sir Laurence Olivier created the role of Archie Rice for stage and also on screen). While appreciating Mr. Bhatt’s performance in Bahut Nachyo Gopal one should also remember is performance in Gunegar – a Gujarati adaptation of Agatha Christie’s Witness for the Prosecution by Babubhai Bhukhanwala. In view of this spectator this was the most spellbinding courtroom drama on Gujarati stage till that date (1957-‘58).
8) One of the major reasons or causes of the unpopularity of Bhavai and one of the major causes of its demise was the introduction of obscenities and foul language in the Bhavai. This is one of the glaring omissions in Mr. Hasmukh Baradi’s article An Entertainment Industry (Hasmukh Baradi, Page 20)

9) Under the category Modern Theatre (Page 66), Mr. S. D. Desai has rightfully described Gandhi Viruddha Gandhi (Page 70) as the most outstanding play of the last quarter century.

It would have been more than appropriate if Mr. Desai had also included the name of the writer of the play. The play was first adapted in Marathi from a Gujrati novel Prakash No Padchhayo by Dinkar Joshi. The Marathi translation of that novel in turn begot Chandrakant Kulkarni written Gandhi Viruddha Gandhi. That begot Hindi and English productions that Feroz Khan directed and finally that led to the movie (supposed to be based on the above mentioned plays) by Feroz Khan titled Gandhi: My Father. Absent from all that fame and fortune or notoriety is our poor Gujrati novelist Dinkar Joshi!

The U.S. film industry’s reputed magazine Variety (Oct. 31, 2004, web edition) has claimed that A Bollywood film director Joy Augustine claims he controls film rights to the book -- including the book's name.

This writer’s efforts to contact Dinkar Joshi were not successful. No one knows where Dinkar Joshi stands in this saga of translation and transplantation and different incarnations all based on his novel Praksh No Padchayo! And no one among the Gujrati literati or established literary institutions, academies or theatre institutes seems to care about this episode – this deprivation of rightful credit for the Gujrati writer. Oh the apathy!

11) In yet another article in the same section and by the same writer – Developments in Recent Years (Page 70) under the sub-heading The Biographicals mentions only two plays, Narmad : Maari Hakikat and Rajendra Bhagat’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
After Narmad – Maari Hakikat (produced by the India Foundation in Dayton, Ohio U.S.A. and written and directed by this writer – Harish Trivedi) some memorable one-character and biographical plays have been staged in Gujarati and Hindi on the Mumbai, national and international stage. Mention must be made of Shekhar Sen’s musical one-character plays Kabeer, Tulsidas and Vivekanand. Other one-character and/or biographical plays that followed Narmad – Maari Hakikat include a play based on the diary of Mahadev Desai - Mahadevbhai Ni Diary, Akho and under poet and professor Vinodbhai Joshi’s supervision a play based on Kavi Kant’s autobiography that was staged in early 2006.

Set Design:

In addition to the memorable work done by Goverdhan Panchal, Vijay Kapadia and Naran Mistry, a new team by the name of Chhel Vaida and Paresh Daru emerged in early 1960s. They started their theatrical career with Rangbhoomi in Mumbai. Their first major work was the set of Parneeta that won them recognition and prize for set-design in the Maharshtra State Drama Competition. Honey Chhaya had directed that play with an all-student cast from the Rangbhoomi Theatre Institute. Now Chhel-Paresh has become a major team in Mumbai for the set designs for stage, films and television. Absence of any article about Chhel- Paresh (Chhel Vaida and Paresh Daru) is inexcusable.


Factual errors:
a) Jagannath Shankarsheth was not a Gujarati businessman as Mr. Baradi states in his article An Entertainment Industry (page 21). On the same page there is a reference to Elphantine Natak Mandali that seems to be a typographical error and instead it should have been Elphinston and Mr. Baradi probably meant to refer to the Elphinston Dramatic Club.

b) Honey Chhaya when writing about Chandavadan Bhatt in his article in Hindi titled Bahut Nachyo Gopal (page 218) has referred to the play Mastram. Since Chandravadan Bhatt also acted and directed plays it must be clarified that Chandravadan Bhatt had only directed the play Mastram. It was adapted in Gujarati by Jayanti Patel from the well-known American play Harvey by Mary Chase (which was later made in to a movie with James Stuart who got Academy Award for his role in that movie). For his acting in Mastram Jayanti Patel was awarded first prize for acting at the Maharashtra State Drama Competition.

c) In an article One-act Plays – Origin and Growth Hasmukh Baradi states that Anil Mehta was a product of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s inter-collegiate competitions (page 84). That is an error or smriti dosh. Anil Mehta had not appeared in any inter- collegiate competitions even though he was a capable actor and had performed in several one-act plays.

d) 1853 is stated to be the year in which Master Ashraf Khan was born (page 215). This is erroneous. If this were true, Master Asraf Khan would have been 109 at the time of his death in 1962. Master Ashraf Khan was born in 1893.

Gujrati Theatre, Songs and Music:
Narendra Shrimali’s very brief article in Hindi (Rangabhoomi Ke Geetonka Dhwani Mudran, page 270) refers to early recordings of songs from Gujarati/Parsi plays. He has rightfully referred to Sorabjee Dhondi’s recordings. 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. He has sung songs, skits, birds and animals sound imitations. His most famous record was ‘Dhuveki Gaadi’ and ‘Rang Bhangka Lota’. This record issued on ‘The Twin’ label describes the train with coal engine and was the best seller for many years. Several music lovers have listened to this record between 1930-50.
Similarly over two hundred songs were recorded by Gauhar Jan who was romantically linked with Amrit Keshav Nayak. Her recording includes some of the thumaries written and composed by Amrit Keshav Nayak including Aan baan jiyamen lagi, which is supposed to be written by Amrit Keshav Nayak.
Alfred Theater company artists made several recordings with the ‘Ramagraph’ company of Bombay and they were the best sellers for several years.
Beka Records, Sun Disc, Gramophone Company, Ramagraph, James Opera cut over 300 songs of renowned artists: Master Mohan, Master Bhagoo, Dayashankar Vasanji, Sorabji Katrak, Phiroz Shah Misrty and many others recorded songs with these companies.
Around 1905, many record companies approached the Parsi theatre companies and cut discs of songs and dialogues. Parsi theater music consists of light music with songs using English words and verses.
Over fifty songs of Ashraf Khan’s from his early recordings are available on 78 rpm records, earliest being three songs from ‘Chitra Bakavali’, (C.1904), a Gujrati drama staged when he was with Parsi theater Company. He is believed to be the originator of the Gujrati gazal gayaki recorded on gramophone discs. His Bhairvi record ‘Chali ja Mori’ (HMV N 4123) was most popular. His Jogia bhajan is popular even today and the words are- "Utha jaga musafir bhor bhai, aab rain kahan jo sovat hain and Jo sovat hain woh khovat hai, jo jagat hain woh pavat hain " (Suresh Chandvankar, the Record News ISSN 0971-7942, Volume - Annual: TRN 2006).
Other miscellaneous recordings of Garbas, bhajans, comedy routines (for example the famous routine - Tara bhajiya Man Bhadko Mele ne Gadi upadi, Dakor Gam man bhajan dhun thai thai thai thai – on the famous Twin Records lable) from the bygone era, are available with collectors of old gramophone records. The General Secretary of the Gramophone Record Collectors’ Society of India Mr. Suresh Chandvankar has access to some of these rare records. Universities in Gujarat, the Department of Culture and Education, some research oriented theatre institute or some philanthropic organization needs to invest some funds and get these rare recordings of Gujarati theatre music converted in to a digital form and preserve these heritage for future generations of theatre lovers.
A footnote for the history of theatre music: The harmonium was introduced in the Gujarati theatre during the early 20th century. Till that time Sarangi and Tabla were the main musical instruments used in musical concerts and theatrical events. Gauhar Jan learned to play harmonium after she arrived in Mumbai from Calcutta. (Source: The great actor, musician and writer Govindrav Tembe’s reminisces Maza Sangeet Vyasang. Govindrav had composed music for over a dozen films during the 1930s including some half a dozen films that were produced and directed by V. Shantaram, he had also acted in Debaki Bose’s movie Seeta).
Reference Books:
In the section Books on Gujrati Theatre (A selection) - page 277 - is by its very title a very subjective selection of books on Gujrati theatre. Not surprisingly it lists four books by Hasmukh Baradi and three books by S. D. Desai (Editor and the Guest Editor of NATAK Budreti respectively). One wishes the list had included the work on the history of the Gujrati Theatre by Prof. Madhukar Randeria and Jayantilal Trivedi. Dhirendra Somani’s book on the old Gujrati theatre that has been published by the Gujrati Sarvakosh publications also deserved inclusion in this brief list.
Last but not the least mention must be made of C.C. Mehta’s pioneering Bibliography of Stageable Plays in India that was published with the support of UNESCO. Yes the collection does include a list of stageable plays from Gujarati language. This is the first ever book that includes plays written in practically most of the languages of India Granted that the special issue of NATAK Budreti is devoted to introspecting about the Gujarati Theatre, but C. C. was a modern maverick of Gujarati theatre, he was also a member of Sangeet Natak Academy, a Padma Shree honoree and much more…. How can we forget or ignore his stupendous work on Indian theatre?
Photographs:
On the production side, a more imaginative layout and graphic design would have made the magazine more attractive. The reproduction of photographs in the issue under review is at times messy and reproduction uneven. There is no consistency in the way in which the photos are identified. Some times those appearing in the photos are identified and some times the identification is missing. There is no indication as to where the photographs came from or were obtained by the editors. Similarly the name of the group that produced the plays depicted in various photos is also missing. The photograph of Chandravadan Bhatt from the play Gunegar appears without any reference to the play. It seems to be used just because Chandravadan Bhatt appears in that photo. A portrait of Chandravadan Bhatt would have been more appropriate or some details about the play Gunegar would have justified the reproduction.

Ideally each photo should have carried the name of the photographer, the source of the photo (as to who supplied the photo) and the name of the production and people appearing in the photos. In the NATAK issue under review some photographs have no titles at all. The date the photograph was taken is also important when photographs of historic personalities are involved. This is a matter of editing ‘style’. There seem to be no in-house editorial ‘style’ - guidelines for this magazine. Unfortunately this is not the fault of this magazine only; barring a few exceptions (few popular magazines and newspapers) very little attention is paid in Gujarat to the layout and graphic design of publications and the editorial style is absolutely absence from all the publications.
Photographs and negatives of Gujarati plays, particularly those staged in Mumbai, are with one of the great theatre photographers Raj Datt. He had shot photos of practically all the theatre events in Mumbai – Parsi, Gujarati, Marathi, Hindi, Mela Tamasha and other stage events. Again his valuable collection of photograph- negatives of those photos should be collected by some theatre or research institute, digitized and preserved for posterity.
Gujarati Theatre Abroad:
In Love’s Lament (page 261) Preeti Sengupta has poured her heart out with her perceptions on Gujarati theatre activities in Canada and United States and her article needs to be considered in that context only. These are her perceptions only. Theatre activity in the United States is nominal but strong. The India Foundation in Dayton, Ohio, the Gujarati group in Houston, the South Asian Theatre Festival, the theatre groups on the west coast of the U.S. have been very active and continue to present good theatre under constraints. Madhu Rye in New York and New Jersey areas, Mohan Dali and Chandrakant Shah in Boston, Dilip Chitre in Baltimore and Philadelphia have presented some memorable Gujrati, Marathi and Hindi plays. In Dayton, Ohio one amateur group has presented some of the most memorable Hindi plays with talented group of young actors that included Alok Khare and Dr. Raghav Gowda, Shankar, Rashmi, Shilpa Kamdar, Milind Ratnaparki and others. The India Foundation has given to Gujarati theatre audiences in London, Boston, Philadelphia, Orlando and Dayton many performances of Narmad – Maari Hakikat and Narmad – My Life (the English language version of the original Gujarati play).
A foot note to one-character plays in Gujrati:
1) One could say that Jayanti Patel introudiced Gujarati audiences to the one-character plays with his memorable but badly received Bhadram Bhadra at the Gujarati Sahitya Parishad convention in Mumbai. It was held during the early 60s. The exact year escapes me at this time. There after Jayanti Patel did a number of one-man shows. His one-character plays and all were very well received by the audiences in Mumbai.
2) Thereafter Prof. Madhukar Randeria mounted his autobiographical one-character play Tun Alya Kon? This play was probably inspired by then successful one-character and autobiographical play by P. L. Deshpande. Sad to say that Prof. Randeria’s play was still born – it died at the very first performance.
Risking to be accused of making a sefl serving comment (since this writer’s article on Amrit Keshav Nayak appears in this issue, page 213) Amrit was the first actor from Gujarat who was recognized as one of the leading actor/director and writer of Hindustani and Gujarati stage from the last decade of 19th century till the early part of the 20th century. Amrit introduced Shakespeare to Indian audiences through his performances in the Hindustani plays all over India. Since his death a century ago no one from Gujarat has captured the imagination, hearts and minds of theatre-going public as much as Amrit Keshav Nayak. NATAK Budreti failed in paying an appropriate tribute in a more fitting way to this gifted and worthy son of Gujarat. The editors could have considered dedicating the issue to Amrit Keshav Nayak since 2007 happened to be the centennial year of his death. Sadly indeed a lost opportunity!
Theatre Criticism:
Finally a word or two needs to be written about theatre criticism or writings about Gujarati theatre in Gujarati and English publications during the post-independent India. Shantibhai Dani wrote about theatre for Janmabhoomi, , Shakunt Raval who wrote for Janshakti, K. K. Lala and Barjor Pawri covered Gujarati theatre for Mumbai Samachar. The early coverage in the Gujarati dailies consisted mainly of press-release-type announcements. From time to time Venibhai Purohit also reviewed Gujarati plays for Janmabhoomi. (The newspapers mentioned above are all prominent Gujarati language dailies published from Mumbai).
When some one decideds to write at length about Gujarati theatre criticism for the English language dailies mention must be made of Madhukar Jhaveri of the Times of India in Bombay. He reviewed Gujarati plays for about decade and a half, starting from around mid-50s and continued till early 70s. He was a much feared critic of Gujarati plays. One needs to read his reviews for the power and brevity of his language and his perceptive analysis of plays. Nothing or no one was sacred as far as his reviwing was concerned. The collection of his reviews need to be published in an anthology form by some enterprising publisher or a research institute. Today’s young writers and wannabe writers on Gujarti theatre need to read and learn from those reviews and see how much could be covered in a brief - a six to eight inch column-review by Madhukar Jhaveri and that too under the deadline pressures of a daily newspaper. His reviews geneally appeared within a day or two of the staging of the play.
Mr. Madhu Rye (Thaker) and Sitanshu Yashashchandra have expressed their critical views on Gujrati theatre in various publications and those deserve to be published in a form of an anthology. Such an anthology would prove to be a powerful tool for study and research on Gujrati theatre.
We are fortunate to have Utpal Bhayani’s weekly columns in Janmabhoomi-Pravasi - a Gujrati newspaper published from Mumbai - that we have more or less a chronological history of theatre activities, particularly the goings on in the Gujrati theatre world for the last thee decades. A tip of my proverbial hat to Utpal Bhayani!
After going through this smorgasbord of writings on the Gujrati theatre or introspecting as the editors have called it, the reader is left hungry for desserts in the form of a fala shruti or a word about the future of the Gujrati theatre or some discussion on the problems and issues that confront the Gujrati theatre. After a heavy dose of introspection the thing that is missing most is reflection. Editors blew that opportunity too!
___________
Editor Hasmukh Baradi writes –
Harishbhai,
We are impressed by your passionate involvement in theatre and appreciate devoting time on preparing a long, studied response to the special issue of ‘Natak’.
We accept there are a few slips. We are also aware that the articles do not give an overview of ALL that has happened in the past and do not include all possible names. The two preambles have taken note of the limitations. Many of your observations are prompted by vastly different perceptions and perspective. As for possible discrepancies, we would like to check and, if necessary, would not hesitate to remove them. Digressions and confusion apart, there are hasty assumptions and conclusions in your observations, which we can discuss when we hopefully meet. We are glad our endeavour received your attention. We value your observations and look forward to occasional contributions from you to the Quarterly.
Hasmukh Baradi
Harish Trivedi’s response -
Dear Hasumukhbhai:

Thanks for your note about my observations on NATAK Budreti issue that celebrated 150 years of the Gujrati theatre. I very much appreciate you investing your time to go through my long review. This proves if such a proof was needed that you are open for a dialogue and discussion on the subject. I am sure your willingness for an open discussion would prove productive and make the future issues of NATAK Budreti more enjoyable to read and more authoritative as a research tool for the future students and scholars studying Gujrati theatre.

I beg to differ about your assessment that I have made some hasty assumptions and conclusions. I received the magazine under review some time in early July of 2007 and I forwarded my observations in late January of this year! I have spent a major part of six months - off and on reading, re-reading and writing about NATAK Budreti.

You further state that we are also aware that the articles do not give an overview of ALL that has happened in the past and do not include all possible name. Missing from your introspection is not just the names – what is missing from your introspecting are the personalities associated with those names - people who deserve to be and are worthy of inclusion in any history of theatre in Gujarat. How can one call this special issue Introspecting: 150 years of Gujarati Theatre and at the same time say that all that should be included in this historic survey has not been included or contributions of some major theatre personalities has been ignored?

Errors of fact and omissions that I have enumerated in my observations has nothing to do with my or any one else’s perceptions or perspectives.

Let me restate few thoughts about the questions you have raised in your email message:

1) One of the major reasons for the downfall and unpopularity of Bhavai was the frequent use of obscenity in the performances. Mahipatram Rupram Nilakanth’s collection of Bhavai Veshas is a sanitized or censored version of the original Veshas. Mahipatram had similarly sanitized Narmad's prose from his Narma Gadya when it was re-edited and reprinted for the education board where Mahipatram was an official.

I have had access to an old hand written copies of some ten or so Bhavai Veshas that were full of obscenities (that even now would cause a shudder when read aloud... I had translated five of these Veshas in to English for the Michigan State University (U.S.A.) where I was a doctoral student.

2) Nana Shankarshett or Sheth (Jaggannath Shankarshett) was a Maharashtrian businessman and a great philanthropist and one of the makers of Bombay in the 19th century. He was also a great patron of Narmad. He was not a Gujrati businessman as you have asserted. This is plain and simple error of fact in your article.

3) Anil Mehta did not emerge from the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's Inter-collegiate competition as it has been asserted in the NATAK Budreti under discussion.

(There is no need to investigate the veracity of my statements since I am too familiar with the history of the Shankershett clan. In the early 1960s I had the privilege of reviewing a biography of Nana Shankershett and later wrote an article for the Times of India when Shankershett’s mansion was demolished to make room for an ownership flat at that location. Anil Mehta was a friend and co-student at the Ruia College when Varsha Acharya (Adalja), Navin Parekh, Meghnad Desai and others were participating in the Inter Collegiate One-Act drama competitions. Anil Mehta did not participate in any of the theatre activity in the college or the competition during those years. He did act in many a successful plays of that era when such plays were staged for the benefit of community organizations such as Navratri Mandal or a Gujrati Samaj - I know this, because I had acted in many of those productions. Anil Mehta and I lived in the same Bombay suburb and went to the same high school and college. My reference to Arvind Trivedi's debut performance in Retina Ratan speaks for itself and I stand by it.

Anil Mehta did take a course in Play-writing at the Rangbhoomi Institute of Dramatic Arts. I have a photograph of the poster of the Rangbhoomi Institute that has Anil Mehta's name as one of the graduates, specializing in Play-writing. Anil Mehta’s contribution to the Gujrati theatre is translations of Marathi plays from early 1970s till the time of his death at a young age).

4) You would agree that proofing errors in the magazine couldn’t be attributed on perception or perspective either.

5) Absence of attribution and sourcing in a research-oriented magazine too cannot be attributed to perspective or perception,

6) Erroneous translation, publication of previously published articles or articles published without the original writer's permission - all are evident in the magazine. There could be no question of my perception on such matters either.

7) The metaphor of music in the title of an article about why one writes a play though cute and eye-catching is technically or in literal sense wrong. What a playwright does could be compared - if one wants to use a metaphor of music - with composing a symphony or writing a concerto... A playwright creates a character and once that task is completed to the playwrights' satisfaction, the flesh and blood is provided by a perceptive director with the help of an actor. It is the director and the actor who interprets and brings life to the characters created by the playwright. So the Director and not the playwright do the orchestration. Once the play is written it is out of the playwrights' hands and he/she does not have any control over the interpretation of the playwrights’ words and language.

8) Creative layout and design is the responsibility of a graphic designer and editorial vision and oversight. A creative lay out, imaginative art work (including use of photos) and other graphic tricks of the trade enhances the readability of the publication - this too is not a matter of perception or perspective,

9) Use of a major portion of available space for the copy (printed matter) by a few selected writers, particularly the Editor and Guest Editor is indeed troubling if not out right wrong...

10) A list of reference books on Gujrati theatre - no matter how subjective - should include the most prominent and seminal works on Gujrati theatre...and listing books by the Editor or the Guest Editor no matter how important creates a perception of editorial nepotism.

All of the above would show to any objective reader that my observations and review is not based on my unique perspective or perception.

In my humble opinion no amount of rationalization or caveats could justify the errors of fact and omission that I have brought to your attention. Any introspection without reflection, I am afraid, is likely to become an idle exercise. It would be like a body with flesh and blood devoid of a soul!

So let’s continue the dialogue …

With best regards and warm wishes, yours very sincerely,

Harish *

*Readers please stay tuned….


________________


Dear Hamukhbhai:

I have just received email messages from Shri Narendra Shrimali from Vadodara. He is an avid collector of old gramophone records and a member of the Society of Indian Record Collectors. I have not met him but I know about him. I have commented about his article on Gujarati Theatre and Music in my observations about the NATAK Budreti special issue...

I hope you carry some sort of correction about the factual errors in the above-mentioned issue in the next issue of NATAK Budreti.

What is the annual subscription of NATAK Budreti? Do let me know. Many thanks.

With warm wishes -

Harish Trivedi

P.S. I am forwarding following excerpts from Narendra Shrimali's four email messages that I have received. This is just for your information.

Dear Harishbhai

Hope this letter finds you in best of health and
spirit.

First of all thank you very much for your elaborated
and in depth review of "NATAK Budreti Special Issue:
World Theatre Day, March 27 2007".

I also thank you for sending me a copy of your this
article.

I was delighted to read studious comments on my
article in above mentioned special issue of Natak.

In fact that article was not written by me. It was
complied and adapted from my book "MUSIC OF THEATRE
AND HINDI CINEMA (1900-1950) - A discographical Study
with particular reference to the theatre of Western
India".

I was delighted to find reference of some records in
your review article.

It was a moment of joy to read your studious article
which inspired me to write this. I hope you will keep
continued this dialogue.

Regards

Narendra

Dear Harishbhai,

....In fact the article of Natak BUDRETI was not written
by me. It was complied and adapted from my book
without asking me. ....
However on reading article I certainly had a feeling
that alot still could have been included....
Regards

Narendra
I have learned that Madhu Rye’s article too has been published without his knowledge or permission. (Harish Trivedi)


****

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 under discussion.
(Note: I have underlined the words or sentences below where they have appeared in bold face in the original. Rest of what follows is an exact copy of the original that appears on page 38 and 39 of the above issue. Here it is in blue color to make it easy for the readers to comprehend and separate the same from this writer’s response).

Here is the response from the Guest Editor Dr. S. D. Desai and Editor Shri Hasmukh(bhai) Baradi.
In their own words:
Response to Harish Trivedi (US) from Guest Editor/Editor

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:

1 (a) Passing out, in the sense it is used in Hiren Gandhi’s article, is acceptable in British/American English.
(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 directred by Bharat Dave.
( c ) We accept there are a couple of ‘typographical’/’proofting’ errors like Kalia instead of Kalidas.
(d) The title of an article in Hindi suggests the playwright ‘orchestrates action’. That’s not unacceptable. It means he ‘carefully organizes’ action.
(e) Propriety prevent us from claiming that S. D. Desai is known outside Ahmedabad/Gujarat, but aren’t Adi Marzban and Pravin Joshi?
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.
(b) There is no separate article on ‘one character plays’, but aren’t Shekhar Suman’s Kabir and other plays in Hindi?
(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.
(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.
(e) Books on Gujarati Theatre, needless to say, includes books in English and Hindi only. It is not an authour’s fault if he happens to have published more than one book in either or both of the two languages!
3. There seem tobe a few factual errors concerning persons and dates (Anil Mehta, Upendra Trivedi, Ashraf Khan…) They have been referred to writers concerned.
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’.
5. With reference to Sorabjee Dhondi’s recordings in Narendra Shrimali’s article in Hindi, Mr. Trivedi adds what ‘is unstated’ and voes on to mention other recordings. A lot more can be added. Our objective, as in other areas, here was tiging a glimpse of the work done.
6. The graphic design, we believe, is good enough. The pictures have not come out very clearly. We wold nothave afforded a better alternative.
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.
8. Many of the (highly judgemental) observations ae 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.
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.
- Guest Editor, Editor
(There is no need to continue the so-called ‘dialogue’ now. We have moved on.

They are exercises in self-exculpation. Pretending to explain, their actual purpose is to deflect responsibility. I call this a masterpiece of obfuscation.
The esteemed Editors pose only those questions that advances their thesis. This careful fusion of convenient and inconvenient facts enables the Editors to craft an ‘acceptable’ version of their flawed editorial policies.
None of their arguments stands up to even casual scrutiny. Unwittingly, they show us an astonishing degree of hubris or naivet …
About Harish Trivedi:
Harish Trivedi, - a naturlazed U.S. Citizen - immigrated to the United States in mid 1960s to work on his doctorate in Theatre and Communication with minors in Public Broadcasting, Television and Films. Harish holds master’s degree in Economics and Political Science. He has academic qualifications, degrees and diplomas in Law, Library Science, Management, Information Science and Technology.
Harish has written, directed and acted in many Gujarati, Hindi and English plays. His translations of five Bhavai veshas have been published by Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. The Five Indian Folk Plays - Bhavai Veshas have been staged and aired on television in the United States.
Harish started his careere in journalism and worked at Janmbabhoomi publications and later at the Times of India in Bombay prior to his departure to the United States.
In Dayton, Ohio, for over twenty-years Harish worked first at the Journal Herald and later at the Dayton Daily News.
He has written about theatre, films and humor articles for Sandesh and other Gujrati publications. His most controversial effort was a parody of the much reveared and iconic magazine KUMAR in the annual publication AAVAZ that was Edited by Jayanti Patel. The parody was called KUMBHAR (meaning - a potter). His articles and book reviews have appeared in the Times of India and Dayton Daily News. His writings in Gujrati have also appeared in magazines and newspapers in India and in the United States.
While in India Harish wrote plays that were produced by Rangbhoomi in Bombay. Two of the most memorable, note worthy and successful plays were Kanchan Bhayo Katheer (with Prof. Vishnukumar Vyas, Upendra Trivedi, Jayanti Patel and Tarla Mehta and directed by Prof. Vyas) and Darpan(with Krishnakant Vasavda, Surendra Shah, Veena Prabhu and Leelaben Jariwala. It was directed by Honey Chhaya) –both the plays were free adaptations from an Amercan and a British play respectively.
Harish Trivedi’s throughly revised and re-written version of Vajubhai Tank’s literal translation of Pirandello’s Six Characters In Search of An Author titled Takhto Bolechhe (in Gujrati) won prizes for production, acting and set-design at the Maharashtra State Drama competition. The play was directed by Honey Chhaya and the set design was by Chhel Vaida and Paresh Daru.
During early 1960s he wrote a monthly feature for the All India Radio, Bombay.
In the United States -
In 1988 in collaboration with Middfest International and the India Foundation Harish published the very first anthology of poems by expat Indians from the U.S.A and Canada titled Poetry:India. It was the very first anthology that included poems in multiple languages of India. The poems in this anthology were printed in the original Indian language with an English translation of the same along side of it. Poetry:India included Gujrati poems by Adil Mansuri, Indra Shah, Preeti Sen Gupta, Chandrakant Shah and many others as well as poems in Marathi, Bengali, Telugu and other languages.
His recent theatre work includes the memorable Narmad – Maari Hakikat and its English version Narmad – My Life, Hindi version of Pirandelo’s Six Characters In Search of An Author with Dr. Shail Gowda, Mark Twain In India, An Evening with Mary Carpenter, Echoes, Exit-stance, An Evening with Dorothy Parker and Bharati. Echoes, Bharati and the Dorothy Parker are awaiting production. His Amrit Keshav Nayak – a long one-act play in Gujarti was published early in 2007 by the Asait Sahitya Sabha, Mehsana, (Gujrat) India. Narmad – Maari Hakikat (the production script) has been published by Kala Gurjari, Mumbai. Harish also published (with the permission of Mr. Gulabdas Broker) a re-edited and expanded version of Narmad’s biography in English that was originally written by Gulabdas Broker and was published by Sahitya Academi, India in the early 1960s and now out of print. The publication was made possible by the India Foundation in Dayton, Ohio with a grant from the local arts funding agency.
Exit-stance has been selected for performances during the Cincinnati Fringe Festival between May 28th and June 8th 2008.
Harish is a founder Trustee and Chairman of the India Foundation in Ohio for over two-decades.
Harish is a member of the Dramatists Guild of America. The Dramatists Guild is the professional association of American playwrights.
He is a naturalized citizen of United States and has been resident of the United States for over four- decades. He lives with his wife Sharonjee and two cats in Dayton, Ohio.
Contact: The India Foundation, 895 Kentshire Dr. Dayton, Ohio 45459-2327 U.S.A. email: indiafound@earthlink.net).

"Ekoham bahusyam"

Playwright thinks he is God!

Delusional or just a ego trip?

Shankaracharya realized that Oneness (Ekatvam) is the essence of all knowledge. This is the doctrine of "ADVAITA"."Ekameva Adviteeyam Brahma" (The absolute is one alone, not two) There is no second, but there is the appearance of an enormous multiplicity. How, then, can oneness be claimed? Here is an example. You have the number 1 and the number 9. Of the two numbers which is the bigger? The natural answer will be: 9. But this is not so. One is really the bigger number 1+1+1+1+... up to nine, makeup nine. Hence, the vedas declare: "Ekoham bahusyam". "I am one; I willed to be many, only the one exists". But it has assumed numerous forms. Shankara declared that the many(Anekatvam) is subsumed by the one (This is the unity in diversity). There may be many stalks of sugarcane, but the juice from all of them has the same sweetness. Beings are many, but the breath is the same. Nations are many, but the earth is one.

Satya Sai Baba talking about the Primal Cause says

The universe is itself the manifestation of the Divine Mind, which willed, Ekoham Bahusyam; "I am One, let Me become many!"

Living implies the operation in the individual of the life principle that activates all beings. The attributeless Divine assumes certain qualities as Its nature and become form. The individual thus formed seeks to know and experience the variety names and forms that are exposed to its senses of perception and its mind. This in short, is the process of living, the project of "knowing", of expanding one's awareness. The process has a beginning and an end; it involves success and failure, good and evil.

In ‘Bliss Divine’ by Sri Swami Sivananda talking about Creation and expanding his views on Ekoham Bahusyam says,

‘Earth, food, fire and sun are forms of Brahman. East, west, north and south are parts of the Lord. The sky, heaven, ocean are portions of Brahman.

‘Breath is a part of Brahman. Sight is a part of Brahman. Hearing is a part of Brahman. Mind is a part of Brahman. This life is Brahman. Brahman or Truth is the essence in which the universe has its being, from which it is born, and in which it dissolves at the end of each world-cycle.

‘An effect does not exist apart from its cause. A pot does not exist apart from clay. This universe does not exist apart from Brahman. It has no independent existence. It is one with Brahman.

‘If you have candlelight, and from it you light a thousand other candles, is not the first light in all the other candles? So it is with God. Creating all things, He is in all by spirit, breath and being.

‘The world is charged with the splendor, glory and grandeur of God. Just as sugar-cane juice pervades the sugar cane, just as salt pervades the water when a lump of salt is dissolved in it, just as butter pervades milk, so also, Brahman pervades all the objects, animate or inanimate.

‘Brahman is one. Manifestation is many. One has become many.

‘As from a blazing fire, sparks all similar to one another, come forth in thousands, so also, from the one imperishable Brahman proceed all breathing animals, all worlds, all the gods, and all beings’.

In Essentials of Hinduism Sri Abhinav Dwivedi explaining Ekoham Bahusyam says, ‘Divine, the ultimate reality, Brahman, God has become many for its own reasons, presumably for its Lila, enjoyment. And in becoming many — from the smallest atoms to the mightiest galaxies — it has hidden itself…. This is going on in endless cycles…’

This very profound Hindu philosophical concept from the Vedas is appropriated by Hamukh Baradi to elevate his status as a playwright and a ‘man of theatre’.

Writing on his web page as a self-introduction he in essence compares himself with this Vedic philosophical dictum that describes divine reality.One prominent playwright from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India reduces it to self-serving dictum. Here is what he says, ‘Theatre gives me freedom, freedom from the limits of space and time. I become someone else, even as a playwright, Ekoham Bahusyam, one trying to become many.
I am tempted to call this delusional.