Vijay Tendulkar - India loses its Shakespeare

Vijay Tendulkar: 1928-2008

Many years ago, watching a performance of Sakharam Binder in Calcutta, I heard someone in the audience say, “What kind of play is this? The language is so plain, the characters are so vulgar — where is the upliftment?”

“Where is the upliftment”: indeed, that was often how the Indian establishment greeted a new work from Vijay Tendulkar, the great Marathi writer who died yesterday after many years of fighting myasthenia gravis. His plays were often heralded by clashes with the censor, or greeted with horror by the more conservative.

http://www.business-standard.com/common/news_article.php?autono=323494&leftnm=5&subLeft=0&chkFlg=

But Sakharam Binder is still watched; Tendulkar’s portrayal of a man who could be benefactor and abuser, who makes his bargains openly with the women he simultaneously rescues and uses, remains one of the most intricate and compelling character studies in Indian theatre. And it was that “plain” language, those ordinary, “vulgar” characters who struck a chord with audiences across five decades; we recognised something of ourselves in all of Tendulkar’s plays, even if we didn’t always like that recognition.

His play, Gidhade (The Vultures), featured a woman character wearing a sari that had a large red dot in front. The symbolism of the dot was considered shocking, even vulgar; in one production of the play, Satyadev Dubey switched the colour of the dot to black — and then urged the audience to imagine that it was red, in accordance with Tendulkar’s wishes.

One of his most searing and best-known plays, Ghashiram Kotwal, was written by Tendulkar as he witnessed the rise of the Shiv Sena in Mumbai. His portrayal of Nana Phadnavis was considered scandalous in more conservative quarters, and for a while, every performance of the play had to be preceded by the ludicrous announcement that “Nana Phadnavis was a great Peshwa leader”. He couldn’t have written better black farce himself — and he was one of our best mordant writers.

There are few Indians who don’t know at least some of Tendulkar’s plays — Ghashiram Kotwal, Sakharam Binder and Silence! The Court is in Session (Shantata Court Chalu Aahe)— have been staples of the theatre circuit for years. What made him such a great writer was that he couldn’t be easily slotted. He dealt in ambiguity and ambivalence, he bore witness to his times, but he understood the complexity of human beings, and he had no tolerance for hypocrisy.

He spoke once of the environment he had grown up in — a Mumbai chawl, the father who ran a small publishing business, books and literature threading through what outsiders might assume was only middle-class poverty. He loved this environment. His father often took him to see plays, and he liked going backstage, watching the transformation as the men who played women’s roles sat back in their costumes and smoked beedis. He was precocious, writing his first play at the age of 11 — he also produced, directed and acted in it.

Many years later, when he worked on screenplays for films such as Manthan, Ardh Satya and Aakrosh, he sought out the directors who shared a certain sensibility, a way of looking at the world without flinching and with honesty — Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani, Saeed Mirza. (He didn’t do a screenplay for Mirza, but he wrote the dialogue for Arvind Desai ki Ajeeb Dastan.)

The best of his work has a timeless quality about it; plays that he wrote in response to a particular event, a moment caught in time, remain just as relevant and arresting today. His plays, screenplays and short stories have a clarity about them — his directions in his screenplays are crisp and vivid, he preferred short, pithy sentences, and he listened, really listened to the way ordinary people spoke, catching the rhythms of their language perfectly.

This made him an easy writer to read in translation — the Marathi of the original writing slides fluidly into English, or indeed into most other languages. The plays he translated, in turn, demonstrate the range of theatre he loved, from the historical to the deeply personal — Girish Karnad’s epic Tughlaq on one hand and Tennessee William’s gripping, haunting A Streetcar Named Desire on the other.

“My writing has always been honest,” he often said. “I don’t know any other way to write except to look at life, to really look, without prejudices or blinkers, and then to write what I see as honestly as I can.” His friends, and they were many, in the literary world will miss him; the rest of us have the consolation of knowing that we will always have Vijay Tendulkar’s work with us.

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080602&fname=AVijay+Tendulkar+(F)&sid=1

The Tumultuous Prophet
His own judges were the first to be baffled. A revolution was born on stage.

Girish Karnad on Vijay Tendulkar

Marathi is the only Indian language today which has a viable urban theatre, managed by and for the educated middle classes. Right from the early 1930s, alongside the commercial natak mandalis which specialised in song-and-spectacle melodramas, playwrights like Mama Varerkar, M.G. Rangnekar and Acharya Atre devoted themselves to creating a ‘parallel theatre’, with tasteful and socially engaged plays, aimed at the elite.

Vijay Tendulkar, who died on May 19 at the age of 80, was a product of this tradition, but managed to lead it in a wholly different direction. He created a new language for the stage, rejected the sentimental and self-regarding complacence of his predecessors, and explored middle-class problems with an honesty and depth that often scared the audiences away. He wrote over 30 plays, some inevitably indifferent, but a few—like Shantata! Court Chaloo Aahe (Silence! The Court is in Session), which brought him national recognition in 1969—so powerful and original that they have ensured his place as the greatest Indian playwright of the 20th century.

When Ghashiram Kotwal first competed for the Maharashtra state awards, its innovative combination of music, choreography and analytical design so baffled the judges that they couldn’t decide whether it was legitimate theatre. Half a century later, it stands unexcelled for the sheer brilliance of its artistry. Anyone who has ever been involved in such an enterprise knows the amount of preliminary discussion, rewriting and revision that such a complex work demands. But amazingly, Ghashiram Kotwal arrived readymade and complete. The production followed the text exactly, playing every detail as Tendulkar wrote it—a tribute to the precision of Tendulkar’s conceptualising.

What makes the play so unique is also its prophetic quality. The plot concerns Nana Phadnavis, the 18th-century ruler of Pune, who tries to create a puppet for his own little games, only to realise that he has given birth to a monster who may swallow him up. The play predicted, with terrifying accuracy, the Indira Gandhi-Sant Bhindranwale dance of death, 11 years in advance of the events. The Shiv Sena, claiming the play vilified a Maratha hero, tried to stop it from being sent abroad. But it was smuggled out with the help of the CM, Sharad Pawar, and went on to win global acclaim.

Then came Sakharam Binder. It’s not only Tendulkar’s best play, but one of the masterpieces of Indian drama. When first performed, several political parties united to demand a ban on the play, and it had to be rescued by the courts. Its critics claimed to be scandalised by its overt sexuality. But one suspects that Tendulkar had once again hit a raw nerve, the basic middle-class hunger for property as a guarantee of security, and the ruthlessness this hunger could unleash. Lakshmi, a perfect embodiment of Hindu womanly virtues, manoeuvres a murder to keep the roof intact over her head, invulnerable in her sense of moral rectitude.

Tendulkar was a journalist by profession and was also known for his scripts for films like Nishant, Manthan, Ardha Satya and Aakrosh. In his last 20 years, he authored two novels, which were received in embarrassed silence, but wrote no new plays. He was buffeted by a series of domestic tragedies—his son died, then there was the traumatising loss of his daughter, Priya, whom he regarded as his creative heir, and finally the lingering death of his wife.

During his tumultuous life in the theatre, Tendulkar was always associated with the adventurous young. Vijaya Mehta at the very beginning of her career, Arvind and Sulabha Deshpande when they started their own group, the Progressive Dramatic Association, Shreeram Lagoo, Satyadev Dubey, Jabbar Patel, Kamalakar Sarang—one can go on.Even during his last few months in the hospital, the volunteers who attended on him would have made the who’s who of today’s young Marathi theatre. They had all drawn upon his hospitality and warmth, his almost legendary ability to ‘listen’ to people for hours and give counsel.

When he discovered that there was no hope of his recovering from his final illness, he decided he would rather die. As actor Mohan Agashe emphasises, “It was not a sign of depression. As always with him, it was a rational decision.” Satish Alekar notes Tendulkar wasn’t a popular playwright. “But,” notes the protege and director of the Lalit Kala Kendra, “his plays have been widely translated and staged. They have influenced the theatre in all Indian languages. He was the backbone of the movement that has shaped the sensibility of Indian drama during the last couple of generations.”

The man who wanted to ‘shoot Narendra Modi’

May 19, 2008 21:26 IST
Last Updated: May 19, 2008 21:27 IST

The man who wanted to ‘shoot Narendra Modi’

Vijay Tendulkar, who towered over the Marathi literary field for over four decades, was no stranger to controversies.

‘We never understood Vijay Tendulkar’

His remarks in the aftermath the post-Godhra communal carnage in Gujarat that ‘if he had a pistol, he would shoot Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’ [Images], evoked mixed reactions with Modi supporters burning his effigies while others lauded him for the anti-Modi tirade.

Later, when asked if it was not strange that someone known as a strong voice against death penalty had a death wish for Modi, Tendulkar said ‘it was a genuine and spontaneous anger, which I never see as a solution for anything. Anger doesn’t solve problems.’
Ghashiram Kotwal, a Marathi play written by Tendulkar in 1972, was considered by many as his response to the rise of the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra.

The play, a political satire, was based on the life of Nana Phadnavis (1741-1800), the prime minister in the court of the Peshwas. It portrayed how men in power give rise to ideologies to serve their purposes, and later destroy them when they become useless.