Trends in Contemporary Assamese Theatre

By Namrata Pathak

It is the very nature of representation to be theatrical and self-referential. This book undercuts the fact that all representational knowledge is autonomous and sovereign. At times, theatrical representations can misguide and mislead. Representation can also ineluctably project ones own preferences and preoccupations. Thus, representation and subjective interpretation divulge into myriad domains. This book is concerned with the effects and consequences of representation and its politics. This book examines not only how language as well as representation produce meaning, but also how discursive knowledge connected to power regulates, conducts, and constructs identities and defines the way certain things are thought about practices and are studied. The book takes note of the fact that within the framework of performance, a performative subject does not wear a coherent identity as it is fragmented, decentered, simulated and is unstable, while being both virtual as well as actual. In the field of semiotics, theatre is historically and reciprocally affected by practice, especially within contingent conditions of time. In theatre semiotics, the new image of knowledge is that of turbulence. Here, knowledge is not so much a system as it is a confluence. Carrying this stance further we can say that contemporary Assamese theatre is characterised by shifting counter-voices and sub-textual underpinnings. This act forces reading into two directions: dialogic openness and variability of meaning that question the theatre directors as the only ones who know.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Partridge Publishing India
• Release date: Mar 27, 2015
• ISBN: 9781482846546

Namrata Pathak

Dr.Namrata Pathak is an assistant professor in the Department of English, North-Eastern Hill University, Tura Campus, Meghalaya. Her areas of expertise are performance studies, gender studies, and Indian Writing in English. Her research papers are published in national and internationl journals of repute.

Book preview

Copyright © 2015 by Namrata Pathak.

ISBN:      Hardcover      978-1-4828-4656-0

                Softcover         978-1-4828-4655-3

                eBook              978-1-4828-4654-6

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Partridge India

000 800 10062 62

www.partridgepublishing.com/india

Contents

Acknowledgement

Chapter 1 Contextualizing Assamese Theatre

Mapping the Terrain

Chapter 2 Theatre in Assam

Tradition and Transition

Chapter 3 Representation in Contemporary Assamese Theatre

A Semiotic Analysis

Chapter 4 Assamese Theatre

The Present Scenario

Select Bibliography

Acknowledgement

W ithout the unmatched support and critical perspective of my supervisor Prof. K.C Baral, the idea of writing this book would not have turned into reality. Prof. Baral equipped me with new insights and visions. Therefore, with him, every moment is an intellectual awakening. I am also indebted to Prof. Prafulla Kar and the entire team of Forum of Contemporary Theory and General Semantics, Baroda, for constantly updating me with new trends in world literature. I thank Asha Kuthari Chaudhury, Gauhati University, for instilling in me the need to embrace the vibrant and polyphonic world of theatre and performance. I extend my gratefulness to Bibhash Chaudhury, Gauhati University, for being there like a pillar of strength for me. I am thankful to Prof. A.K. Mishra, Director, CIIL, Mysore, for showing me directions in my academic pursuits; believing in my writing; and providing me with ample opportunities to publish research papers and articles.

I am ever grateful to all the four theatre directors, Mrinal Jyoti Goswami, Rabijita Gogoi, Gunakar Deva Goswami, and Baharul Islam for giving a patient hearing to my queries; meeting me personally to answer my questions; and fulfilling all the demands of my research irrespective of time and place. It is true that without the scripts and audio-visuals of their performances, it would have been a Herculean endeavour to write this book.

I always thank God for blessing me with such a loving family- my Ma, my Father, Babu and Munna. Prasu and Aahan…you two enfold and encrypt my creative world!

Namrata Pathak

Dedicated To

Deuta, My Inner Voice!

Contextualizing Assamese Theatre

Mapping the Terrain

T heatre and performance depend on mutually exclusive schemes of space and time. Filling the so-called empty space with a pre-determined framework, the theatrical performance organizes and orders the experiences of the actors and spectators in a series of verbal exchanges, rhythms, relays between images and words and so on. From the traditions of naturalism and symbolism to Brechtian critical realism, space has been considered the site within which the mise en scene and meaning lie. On the other hand, the time code does not fill up an expanse, except a duration and rhythm to maintain. The interconnection between space and time, therefore, is the unique aspect of theatre. Theatre and performance are temporal events, and after all, theatre is always the presence of a living reality in front of a spectator or the manifestation of spatial and temporal aspects of the performance as against the time and space that the spectator occupies. It is quite interesting to note that a performance, through the auspices of time and space, never presents a carbon copy of an external reality or a stable referent but something that is constructed either to give a particular version of reality or to go beyond it. Performance, therefore, is all about re-presenting where the performer becomes a fugitive or an elusive being, willing to go a little way, not necessarily all the way with the spectator (Pavis, 1982: 188). In this context, the idea of a referential space exists not as a visible and foreseeable function of the spectacle/theatre only, but it can also be an abstract entity. Similarly, there is not any viable concept of linear time that can be calculated merely at the face value, instead in a performance time can be cyclical and non linear.

Performance is primarily concerned with anything that is framed, presented, highlighted and displayed. Performance, according to Richard Schechner, promotes tension and practicalities as it is sympathetic to the avant-garde, the marginalized, the offbeat, the subversive, the twisted, the queer, the coloured, and the formerly colonized (1996:11). As a polyphonic genre, performance exposes multiple voices that not only hold a play to coherence but also represents plurality of identities. Performance as a process of reformation and redefinition of the hitherto notions of gender, race and culture deals with myriad vectors like the body, language, identity, selfhood and so on. Performance, being an intensely self- reflexive mode of presentation, is basically based on two concerns. Firstly, it exposes the constructedness of human activities and its implication in social and cultural encodings. Secondly, it relies on liminal territory, on boundaries and borders. As Mikhail Bakhtin observed, the most intense and productive life of culture takes place on the boundaries or the peripheries. Likewise, performance seeks the seams and margins where structures are negotiated and mediated. As such, the field of performance studies exposes the inherent provisionalities of interdisciplinary work and traces the emergence of praxis – the active mediation between theory and practice. However, the issue of representation acquires a new signification in the light of the transient artistic processes of performance. In the context of performance, representation is not only a textual concept but also a negotiable site that explores the expressive possibilities of combining diverse elements to produce new hybrids. Within the framework of performance, the subjects can never be labelled only as commodified art objects, especially when concepts like self and identity are constantly recreated and reformulated in exploring the myriad alternatives of presentation and re-presentation. With an emphasized shift from the object to the event, performance as a fluid phenomenon places the representation in the matrix of certain relationships and networks. It refocuses on the audience as the creator, reorients the association of art to everyday life and stresses on the difficulty of documenting the ephemeral event of artistic practice. As such, within a performance space, the signs vary in form and representation because it carries a series of specific and problematic implications and insinuations.

In The Routledge Companion to Theatre and Performance (2006), Paul Allain and Jen Harvie show how performance encompasses a multitude of events and processes to give rise to semantic instability and dynamism. It has five relevant meanings in this context. Firstly, it is a live event of presenting something usually prepared before an audience. This can be the presentation of any performing art like theatre, music, dance, circus, martial art skills and so on. Secondly, the repetitive and restorative behaviour of performance has important ramifications in the field of philosophy, ethnography, anthropology and sociology. It helps to pioneer a theory of behaviour as performative and constitutive of identity. Theorists such as Clifford Geertz, Erving Goffman, Judith Butler, Victor Turner, Dwight Conquergood, Richard Schechner, Lyotard, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari have expanded our understanding of performance by linking performance to political concerns and to oppression. Performance puts forward the argument that interruptions and variations in repeated behaviour help to transform oppression. A third use of the term is associated with capitalism. It gives importance to the outcome or the product of an ideology. Fourthly, the fine art practices of the 1980s, like performance art, live art or body art question the apparent truths shown by representational forms. They either challenge naturalistic characterization and narration or advocate for the rights of particular identity groups, such as women or lesbians and gay men. Performance art displaces a conventional emphasis on the commodified art object, explores the more direct possibilities of presentation and concentrates on the transient artistic processes. Fifthly, there is a form of deconstructive performance which is primarily distinguished from acting in theatre. Not akin to mimetic representation, these performance forms employ deconstructionist and metatheatrical strategies. This mode of performance has affinity with avant-garde practices (Allain and Harvie, 2006: 181).

The question posed here is whether performance is an interdisciplinary field or a new discipline. According to the responses of two leading theorists, Joseph Roach at New York University and Dwight Conquergood at North Western, it is neither. It is of course an antidiscipline. In the world’s first antidisciplinary conference held in May 1994 at the United States, the opening address of this conference installed the trickster as the guru of this antidiscipline (Carlson, [1994], 2006: 206). This contradictory and fluid praxis creates new patterns of global communication by borrowing and lending across porous national and cultural boundaries. The new social world is characterized by an inevitable saturation with power, inequality and domination. Globalization, multinational corporations and the continual movement and displacement of people have rendered the classic norms of social analysis inadequate and obsolete. All of us live in a twenty-first-century world which no longer seeks out harmony and consensus to the exclusion of difference and inconsistency. Whether one is speaking of theatrical performance, social performance, ethnographic or anthropological performance, linguistic performance or as in the present case, the performance of writing a scholarly study, in all the cases performance slips back and forth between a firm declaration of identity and a parody of the social clichés. Performance portrays the flux, relational and constructed nature of identity and culture, with the porous or contested borders replacing centers as the focus of interest.

With the rise of newly specialized performance artists, installation artists and makers of site-specific performance and the developments in semiotic, anthropological, phenomenological and other materialist approaches for analyzing performance, there have been extensive critical analyses of space and time in performance. Theatre directors refer to space and time as being entangled in a web of relationships with a particular social, geographical and architectural environment. Recent theatre practices intend to re-discover the concept of space/time by concentrating on abstract, dedicated theatre spaces or sites where physical and social specificities can be engaged more productively. Theatre, being a spatial and temporal activity, should not be limited only to a phenomenological or semiotic analysis; but its analysis should consider how it affects/effects interaction between performers and audience alike and how it facilitates or limits movement of on-stage performance and objects. These effects and meanings are often ideological.

The Indian tradition of performance is rich and variegated. It is said that as a primary law giver in the realm of theatre and performance, Bharata rules supreme in the Eastern hemisphere. Bharata’s Natyasastra (5th C. B.C) is the most voluminous text on theatre and dramaturgy. Bharata regards drama (natya) as the fifth Veda which not only contains good counsels and traditional knowledge, but is also a repertoire of duty (dharma), wealth (artha) as well as fame (yasa). Representation, for him, has an affinity with the word imitation, an imaginative reconstruction of life. Bharata links up imitation with different emotional states (bhava). Bharata’s pronouncements on representation, mimicking or imaging has a eulogy with trailokyavastha-the heavens, the domain of death (our world), and the nether world. He maintains that this kind of representation can hardly be constrained by the reality quotient of our existence. The common statement that runs across Natyasastra, that is, drama is a representation of the state of the three worlds, glosses over the phrase bhavanukirtanam or avasthanukirtanam. Mentioning the comprehensive scope of his art, Bharata himself writes:

There is no knowledge, no craft, no science, no art, no combination thereof that cannot become a part of the natya….one can never find an end to this natya…. It is so because so many sastras (sciences), techniques and arts become part of it (Kushwaha, 2000: 46).

However, the act of theatrical representation is described in chapter six and seven of Natyasastra where ananda or aesthetic delight is projected as the ultimate end of representation. In the similar vein, Bharata, attempts to streamline the way in which eight major types of aesthetic experience identified as flavour or rasa are produced. The metaphorical register of rasa and the meanings attached to it has a relation to the palate. In the modus operandi of the elicitation of rasa, the verbs frequently used in conventional explications are drinking chewing, masticating, and soon. As propounded by R. Viswanathan, a connection needs to be forged between rasana or taste and the rasa prakriya or chemical process. As a point, the evolution of the rasa theory of the Sanskrit theatrical tradition can be attributed to wine brewing and the popularity of soma-rasa. Soma is at once a god, a creeper, an intoxicant essence created from that plant and the moon. In some Vedic utterances, all these implications are blended into one, just as there is an admixture of allied synonyms and concepts. Similarly, bhava or emotion is brewed into rasa, and irrespective of whether the bhava is shoka, jugupsa or rati, the rasa experience is always one of aesthetic joy (Viswanathan, 2000: 78). Again, this principle of transformation also exhibits the importance of dhvani theory or vakrokthi theory.

Dramatic representation, in Bharata’s words, is intricately tied down to the concept of rasa. An emphasis on amusement (vinoda), not as an ordinary kind of recreation, but an aesthetic pleasure, dwells on the predominant character of rasa is Sanskrit drama. Moreover, going by the precepts of rasasutra, "rasa is produced from a combination (samyoga) of Determinants (vibhava), Consequents (anubhava) and Transitory states (vyabhicari bhava) (Gnoli, 1956: 31). This abstruse and rather cryptic sentence is subjected to various interpretations by Lollata, Sankula, Bhattanayaka and Abhinavagupta. In Natyasastra, the act of partaking food hinges on the importance of the gout–the role played by the fingers and hands in consuming food has direct connections with the mudras or dance gestures. The mundane example of relishing well-prepared food is described as such:

…as taste (rasa) results from a combination of various spices, vegetables, and other articles, and as six tastes (rasa) are produced by articles such as raw sugar or spices or vegetables, so the dominant states (sthayi bhava), when they come together with various other states (bhava), attain the quality of rasa (Gnoli, 1956: 31).

Bharata’s mode aims at rasotpatti, the evocation of rasa and the intricate machinery and logistics of its production. The term itself has bewildering wealth of connotations, from the plain alcoholic soma-juice to the metaphysical absolute Brahman. Bharata’s rasa theory is strongly spectator-oriented with a special emphasis on the distancing of aesthetic experience from life-emotions, especially with their practical pressures. Most of these arguments, however, cluster around certain poles: with all its human concomitants and proliferations, rasa means sentiment or emotional state. Next, it also highlights the essence of a thing, the being (the word bhu-bhavati is integral here). The rasa, aroused and tasted by an appreciator is eulogized in myriad terms, like, rasana, charvana, asvadana

The analogical and exemplary connotation of the word representation is discerned in the story of the first performance in Natyasastra, the theme being the victory of the gods over the daityas. Performed at Indra’s Banner Festival, the play becomes a fiasco as the first shot at imitation seems to have caused the mayhem. Going by Bharata’s witty accounts, the gods were very pleased (they showered gifts on the performers), whereas the daityas could not swallow the affront when it came to killings and mangling of bodies. Says V.Y Kantak is this regard:

Was it that the daityas took the ‘imitation’ too literally? Or that the inexperienced performers grossly overdid it? In any case, it did seem to be an object lesson how not to take ‘imitation’! And, was not Bharata deliberately prefacing his parable to the discussion to guard against a possible misunderstanding of ‘imitation’ upon the stage (Kantak, 2000:23).

It can be said that the anukarana being in the form of dance, abhinaya, poetry, and music creates a distance from actuality. In the performance, actuality is already interposed and is asking for a corresponding response. The daitya’s reaction, unappreciative of the artistic distance, is spurred by a partiality they envisaged on the stage. However, the progenitor (Prajapati), Brahma was sought to solve the riddle of portraying the daityas in an unfavorable light, much to his awe and resentment. Lastly, in Natyasastra, the evocation of Indian dramaturgy rejects realism in its conventional state as the careful distinction of lokadharmi and natyadharmi styles of representation assumes immense significance. The lokadharmi drama imitates natural modes of speech, behavior, flow of action, while the natyadharmi drama weaves an artistic design using tacitly accepted devices and conventions. Another interpretation of the natural lokadharmi and artificial natyadharmi drama is the distinction between the popular and the elite, between the loose, variegated, folk drama and strictly designed, precept-oriented classical drama.

The theories of divine provenance and the deva’s patronage and sustenance of drama are well postulated by Bharata, the integrator of the Sanskrit tradition of dramatic art. Laying greater stress on drama in its mimetic function performing what he calls bhava-anukirtana, Bharata, like Aristotle, retorts that drama is not a copy of life and world. After years, the subsequent codifier and theoretician of dramatic practice, Lollata interpreted rasa as based on dramatic illusion. However, without taking into account the spectator’s and author’s role, Lollata highlights the characters’ act of reproduction and communication through their action and dialogue, the whole of which creates a joyful illusion. His view borders on the concept of regeneration (utpatti vada) as he believes in the creation of rasa through the actors’ theatrical action and speech. To bring home the force of theatrical illusion, he uses the traditional analogy of the serpent and the rope. This classical analogy was adduced by Sankara to reinforce his mayavada. In a way, Sankara also aimed to suggest that the phenomena of the world are the illusorily real manifestations of the noumena ultimate reality, the Brahman. However, Lollata’s reworking on this analogy is a bit unique. He does not enforce the contrast between appearance and reality, rather he alerts us about the existential validity of the impact of the impressions evoked in and through illusion in drama. As put by Lollata, mistaking the rope for the serpent in half light, in a mere Platonic vein, would not resolve the complex knot of representation. Thus, we can say that Lollata’s is a signal acknowledgement of dramatic illusion as a principal, a process, and a tacit characteristic of performance. Moreover, this ninth century scholar gave a totally new orientation to Bharata’s treatise.

A Nyaya philosopher, Sankuka, explores the role of reason and also of a certain kind of volition, a play of human will on the spectator’s part. To account for the communication and reception of theatrical illusion, he advanced the theory of inference. His view, described as anumiti vada, cognate with the philosophical method of anumana, brings forward the instance of the painted horse or citra-turaga. In order to grasp the mode of apprehension of theatrical illusion, the viewer or spectator should register or observe the illusion of the action-and-character-based stage world in a process of spontaneous inference. Sankuka brings forth the idea of the painted horse to capture the mode of operation in the viewer’s mind. It can be said that in his mind’s eye, there is a projection of a horse, an impression that a horse is in motion. This, quite strikingly, is akin to the principle of cinematographic assimilation based on the human retinal power of spontaneous inference of motion from a succession of stills. Also, we can visualize Sankuka’s inference-making mechanism to be a half-way house, if not exactly an approximation.

In theatrical transaction, the remarks of Bhattanayaka and Abhinavagupta are of utmost importance. In a commentary on Bharata’s Natyasastra (5th c. B.C.), termed Abhinavabharati (10th C.), Abhinavagupta’s key vindication and confirmation of the power of stage-illusion find an apt manifestation in a vivid manner. Bhattanayaka’s commentary on the invocatory verse of Natyasastra was quoted by Abhinavagupta in a passage in Abhinavabharati. It is to the effect that the make-believe world of drama exhibits the imagined reality of the universe, which comes home to men’s bosoms and men’s hearts (Viswanathan, 2000:37). In the mentioned passage, Bhattanayaka pays tribute to the art of the actor. For him, like the divine creator, Brahma Kalpa, the actor is instrumental for the perpetration of illusion, but somehow there is a distinct difference between the dramatic exposition and the dream analogy. Bhattanayaka contends that the dramatic illusion and experience is more enlightening than the dream analogy. Moreover, he characterizes dramatic experience into abhidha, bhavakatva and bhojakatva—a categorization which is disputed by Abhinavagupta. On the other hand, the latter also fiercely counters Bhattanayaka’s anti-dhvani stance. Bhattanayaka’s delineation of the process of bhavana or bhavakatva as a final relishing (bhojana) definitely contains insights of dramatic illusion. It serves as an elucidation of the bhava-anukirtana, the imitation-communication of emotion and feeling, stressed by Bharata as more important than anukarana in drama (Viswanathan, 2000:37). However, Bhattanayaka’s introduction of the concept of sadharanikarana in this context can be regarded as a universal or a general process of sharing in common the experiences of the characters. Similarly, the formulation also lays bare the imaginative sympathy more or less shared by the spectators.

The cogitations and disquisitions on the issue of representation and illusion are condensed in Bhattanayaka’s concept of avabhasa. He further on distinguishes the terms avabhasa and abhasa, the latter being used in his philosophical works to designate the quotidian, worldly, or earthly reality. However, it should be borne in mind that the reality of the ordinary type needs to be differentiated form Ultimate Reality. By following K.C Pandey’s words we can say that abhasavada indicates a qualified idealism or Realistic Idealism. The concept also embraces the issues of existentialism or substantiveness (satta) in this phenomenal world. The existential force of reality can not only be connected to a dream, but somehow it also brings forth the idea of a dream within a dream (Pandey, 1963: 339-41). Moreover, what Abhinavagupta would seem to focus in this expression is the luminousness of the impression of reality thus conveyed in its illuminating and illuminated quality. In other worlds, the shining reality perceived thus has bright luminescence (avabhasa), which lends the former its authenticity. Moreover, to quote the expression of Bhattanayaka, cited by Abhinavagupta, we can say that the golden world reflected in drama is better than the world in the forcefulness of its imprints.

The critical moorings of Abhinavagupta rope in the overall aesthetic of the spectator in enjoying the blissful rasa-aswada, the relishing of rasa. The normative or ideal spectator is the sahrdya, one who possesses a kindred soul. Such a spectator is endowed with the vasana, an inborn capacity to perceive (abhivyakti or pratiti) rasa. This is an act dependent on the noumenal phenomenon of aesthetic reality constituted in and through the play of illusion. In Abhinavagupta’s scheme of things, the inner and outer quality of perception should be brought to bear on drama by the sahrdya spectator. The unique enjoyment of rasa experience also hinges on a community sensibility or a community culture that is internalized as an inter-subjective common possession of the audience. This certain unity or homogeneity of culture throws masterful insight into the concept of sadharanikarana. This concept borders on a commonly sheared aspect in savoring the dramatic experience, as the spectator is not envisaged alone, but is seen as a communal entity. To put it in a simple manner, the spectator is at once potently characterized by his individual attributes and endowments, but he also occupies a position in an audience community. However, it is to be noted that the bliss of rasa, acquired thus, is but a close second to the enjoyment of communion with Brahman or ultimate reality.

Dhananjaya, the Sanskrit theorist of the tenth century, in his Dasarupaka (10th C.), highlights an incidental comparison between theatre and the game that children play. This linkage between theater and the institutions of popular culture, like festival games and other indulgences issues forth valences of another kind. In a different context, Dhananjaya mentions eight qualities which a protagonist of a play should possess. These are beauty of character (sobha), vivacity (vilasa), equanimity (madhurya), poise (gambhirya), firmness (sthairya), sense of honour (tejas), light-heartedness (lalita) and magnanimity (audarya). Moreover, as of most Sanskrit plays are sagas of love, Dhananjaya goes to the length of categorizing four kinds of lovers: clever (daksina), deceitful (satha), Shameless (dhrsta) and faithful (anukula).

The origin of Sanskrit drama dates back to 1000 B.C. There are references to drama in Patanjali’s Vyakarna Mahabhashya, Jain’s Aagam of Raypaseni Sutta, Vatsayayana’s Kamasutra, Kautilya’s Arthasastra and Panini’s Astabhyan. The most renowned dramatists of the ancient era are Ashwaghosla, Bhasa, Shudraka, Kalidasa, Harsha, Bhavabhuti, Vishakhadatta, Bhattanarayana, Murari and Rajashekhara. These dramatists enriched the world of performances with works like Madhyamavyaayoda, Urubhangam, Karnabharan, Mrichkatikam, Abhigyana Shakuntalam, Mudraraksasha and so on. Most of these plays connect the practice of theatre representation with hieropraxis. In hieropraxis, there is no primacy of the aural, especially the speech content, over the visual content. Therefore, evolving as a sign language, the visual is never intended to be realistically representational. In these plays, the highly established and codified body moments are mimetic of the cultural semiones and habitual gestures of the people they represented. As a whole, dancing forms a major part of hieropraxis. Being a dramatic representation, dance is also included as an act of worship. However, theatrical reality is produced by combing the aural and visual into a unified whole. Furthermore, this reality is not meant to reflect directly upon the world beyond theatre, but is designed to be all-absorbing in itself. Nevertheless, one of the affects of theatrical reality is to produce an elevated state of feelings in the audience.

The tenth century marks the end of Sanskrit drama as an active force in Indian art. Moreover, the tradition survived in places like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat till the end of the fifteenth century. Very soon, theatrical activity almost ceased due to foreign invasion in India. In a way, the beginning of Loknatya (People’s Theatre) was noticed in every state of India from the seventeenth century onwards. Theatre representation in Loknatya caters to the skilled use of masks and costumes, supplemented by the right tempo of music. Some of these plays were performed in open air