In Hope of the Hammer: Representation of Muslims in Indian Theatre

A lot has been written about the absence of Muslims from the mainstream cinema and the stereotypical roles in which they are portrayed, the good Muslim vs the bad, the one who dies for the nation, a comic pan chewing sidekick, a poet churning out couplets at the rate of twenty per hour. What hasn't been written much the strange phenomenon that happens in Indian Theatre. Broadly speaking I see the contemporary Indian theater divided into certain kind of narratives, some of which being the light hearted comedies-which could be about corporate lives, romantic stories, the message oriented theatre-which probably derives from some contemporary situation and tries to give out a message, the mythology based-could be about one of the epics or putting them in the contemporary context, the historical fiction- taking from some incident/time in history and playing out fictional stories, the classics- these could be English, Indian language classic plays modified, contemporized or played as it is. Like everything else these are not the only genres, nor are they strictly compartmental. Now given this landscape, where do we see Muslims? They are never a part of the urban comedies, set in a cafe or an office; somehow one doesn't often see an Islamic name here. Somehow they seem to be excluded from the urban. Then comes the message oriented, here one definitely finds Muslims, many a time being taught the importance of harmony, or with a patronizing narrative of those who need to be uplifted. One might argue, that it is true that Muslims are a marginalized community in India and they are represented so, but the problem arises from the patronizing and outsider point of view with which they are portrayed. The narrative is from the point of view of an outsider who is feeling sorry for someone's poverty and also looks down upon the backwardness. Here the “I/Us” who is the modern, upper class, upper caste Hindu vs. they who are backward, poor and need reform. We then come to mythology; somehow the word mythology in India has been strongly associated only with "Hindu" stories, almost to the tune that no other religions have any mythology. No surprise, there are no Muslims in these plays. Similarly in the case of classics, we hardly see any Muslims. We then come to the Historical fiction, one of the favorites of the theater practitioners, we see Muslims here, a Tippu Sultan, a Jinnah or in the context of partition. Delving deeper in Historic Fiction, stories on partition, communal riots are a hit with the playwrights and the audience. It is not rare to see a playwright, with a feeling that he/she has done a service to the society by writing about these events. And the audiences come in with a feeling of being a part of the community who are participating in the dialog of inclusion, secularism. This audience usually considers itself to be a serious theater viewer unlike the one who goes for those silly comedies; they come in with a feeling of engaging in a sociological dialog. I would focus specifically on partition based plays here. Many of these plays were written by wonderful writers about a half century back. These writers were then critiquing the society (irrespective of religion) they lived in, showing a mirror to its flaws. Many of them were Muslims who were talking about the ills of nationalism. While their intention was humanism and self critique, what happens today is a very interesting phenomenon. Whenever there is a play on partition, we see a huge influx of audience. The theater which otherwise would go half empty gets houseful audience. The act now extends off the stage from on stage. It so happens that a majority Hindu audience views these stories with Muslim characters, and rejoices the flaws of the Islamic society. The stories which originally were a critique of any form of nationalism, now in the current setting get played as a critique on the neighboring nation. While the writer was criticizing the society (and himself) on the horror that happened in the nationhood, it now serves the purpose of blaming the neighbor for the horror. Somehow these stories always have the bad Muslims as the villain, and an innocent Hindu victim. I fail to have seen a Hindu villain in the recent times, also while there always is an Islamic cleric explaining what the right Islam is and how it is wrongly interpreted, there never is any justification for the Hindus or Hinduism. I wonder how Hinduism never gets misinterpreted. While Islam always needs to justify itself, somehow Hinduism always is right, nobody dares to question it. I also wonder why there are no plays critiquing the Hindu society (yes no we distinctly have a Hindu society, a Muslim society and so on), hasn’t anybody criticized it or has it been filtered or it doesn’t get enough takers. Describing the entire act, it has Muslim characters identified by beard, Urdu poetry, Sherwani, who are critiquing the formation of the Islamic nation and are mourning the loss of an inclusive society and an audience of upper class, upper caste, educated Hindus clapping at the poetry, playing along in the feeling of loss and discussing how partition was a mistake and it was the “Muslims” who were responsible for it and the audience also feels happy for their current misfortunes almost to the tune of saying “See now you repent for what you did”. Not once does the question arise, when India itself was formed in 1947, what was partitioned, when there was no nation in the first place, where does the question of partition arise. Wasn’t it just the case of a few provinces refusing to join one idea and opting for another? Coming back to the theater acts, not one act is a critique on the Indian nation, not one points out to the problem of the Hindu society (yet again, we now are definitely divided into religious societies). I will wait for the day when there would be theater and of kinds, with no holy cows.
For a day when
'Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it.'
-Bertolt Brecht