My interview published in Little Thespian’s journal, Rang Rasa, vol. 3 issue 4 (October 2025-March 2026):
- How would you define theatre criticism in today’s context?
What distresses me the most about today’s theatre criticism (I confine myself here to reviews in the press, not academic criticism/scholarship) is, first, its increasing absence, as if newspapers and periodicals have decided that theatre is not important to society anymore; and, second, its randomness in the few places that still print reviews—productions are chosen without any logic or method whatsoever, and most of the people who “review” have absolutely no qualifications to do the job credibly. The situation actually smacks of favouritism: if you are lucky enough to know someone, they will give you a positive review.
- Do you see yourself more as an observer, interpreter, or evaluator?
As a reviewer I am all three. I am an observer because I must record stage history objectively for later generations, otherwise it gets lost. I am an interpreter by default because any viewer consciously or unconsciously interprets what they see; my interpretations are just more informed than others because of my training and knowledge. And I evaluate because that is a critic’s job, to separate excellent from average and mediocre art, thereby letting readers know what to must-see and what to maybe-avoid.
- What do you believe is the true role of a theatre critic — archivist, analyst, provocateur, or mediator?
Partly addressed in my last answer: I archive, analyse and also judge, and an important function of any art critic, educate. This role is particularly significant in a culture like ours where laypersons have no understanding of theatre because they are not exposed to it in their youth, and even theatre artists have not received formal theatre education. So the critic must lay out the context or background of a play or production to help the reader understand. As for provocateur, a critic should not provoke, but they definitely should make the reader think, and they should also engage if not entertain. Therefore, humour is part of a critic’s skill set; a review must not bore a reader to switch off. Further, a critic must by definition criticize, and call out anything they find objectionable for public viewing, whether political or social or artistic. I do not mediate, but by writing often on little-known groups, I do see myself as a voice for theatre artists who are unfairly ignored just because they have not become famous.
- In your opinion, what makes a theatre production truly powerful?
So many things can make a production unforgettable: above all, originality, invention, innovation. A director must not repeat stale formulae, but create a new form, strive to present things that the audience has not seen and heard before. Peter Brook said, “Theatre lives by surprise.” And in terms of content, powerful theatre speaks to us with urgency and immediacy. Therefore, political and social themes that say something of great relevance, that has not already been better stated in other plays, carry the seed of great art. But remember that a powerful production is a combined artwork involving all the departments of theatre. One actor’s excellent performance does not by itself make good theatre. A hugely relevant subject may fail because the direction or scenography or music is clichéd. The beauty of theatre is that it is a collective effort, so everything must click at a superior level.
- You have observed Indian theatre across several decades. What, in your view, has been its most significant transformation?
Simplistic question—it isn’t possible to identify any one major change, because every phase brings its unique challenges that theatre manages to tackle every time. I could prove this to you through stage history, but that would take a one-hour lecture! Besides, there is no such thing as Indian theatre, because every language has its own theatre that has changed differently. The conditions have been totally different among, for instance, Telugu theatre and Assamese theatre and Kashmiri theatre.
- How do you evaluate adaptations of classics versus original scripts?
The first part is a very important question. By definition, a classic has lasted the test of time by speaking to us through the ages. Therefore, a director must exercise utmost care and caution in touching it, although they have the artistic right to interpret it their way if it has gone out of copyright. Unfortunately, most Indian directors think they can do what they please with it and frequently alter the plot or (especially) the ending without any justification, thus doing injustice to the author’s intentions. Our directors tend to disrespect the text which, however, as I said, has already proved itself. Obviously we can’t have 200-minute adaptations of Shakespeare anymore, but while editing, we must ask ourselves again and again: why must we omit this scene or speech? Finally, most Indian directors have no idea of dramaturgy, which means the study of a classic text and its multiple interpretations to, first, understand it and its multiple interpretations fully and, second, to avoid what other directors have already done with it. Abroad, the best directors consult a dramaturg for these inputs. I am a dramaturg, but very few Indian directors have asked me for help. Most think they know everything about the classics, when actually they don’t. Regarding original scripts, they are supposedly brand-new, but I compare them with similar plays and find out that, more often than not, they repeat older ideas and techniques.
- How has digital media affected live theatre and criticism?
Theatre has always suffered audience dropout since the arrival of new technology: first from cinema, then from television, now from smartphone (all of which have screens that lure our viewers away). But there is something human in live performance that the screen cannot replicate, just like we feel better talking face-to-face rather than via Zoom or video calls. We are genetically wired for in-person interaction. So theatre has survived all these interventions and house-full shows still happen. As for criticism, after people moved away from print media, they denied themselves the chance to read stimulating articles on theatre. The digital media do not allow space for extended commentary by one person (unless you are famous or a spiritual guru or a Ted Talks speaker), so they stay clear of criticism. Instead, I find myself after a show confronted by a crew for a “byte”, and I hate it because what I have to say cannot be compressed into 15 or 20 seconds. However, I accept that print media audiences have declined, so I decided to write reviews online on my own KolkataTheatre website. In fact, that allows me more space than the newspapers used to give me!
- What, in your view, will define the next decade of Indian theatre?
Difficult to predict since the world is transforming so rapidly and unexpectedly, but I foresee a shift towards smaller, studio venues that are cost-effective and can attract the local neighbourhood to support them with pride, while also permitting more experimental and intimate theatre by the nature of these flexible spaces.
- Can criticism help artists grow, or does it sometimes discourage them?
Both. Ideally, criticism should be constructive, so that an artist who takes it in the proper spirit can incorporate reviewers’ suggestions and thereby improve themselves or the production. But all artists are human, and many are extra-sensitive, so they may not take critical comments kindly, brood negatively about them, and sometimes even cut off existing relationships with reviewers (this has happened in my experience). As I’ve said, a critic’s job is to criticize. They must express their opinions honestly, even if diplomatically, but some humans cannot accept such honesty.
- As a scholar associated with Jadavpur University, how do you see the relationship between academia and live performance?
In my latest book titled Centrestage, I have written an essay on the need to link the study of drama in literature departments with practical theatre. Every college and university teaches literature, which includes plays, but hardly twenty in all of India have theatre departments—a massive drawback in our educational system, compared to the hundreds of theatre departments in the US and Europe. In an ideal situation, India should introduce many more theatre courses in academia, but in the prevailing scenario that seems most unlikely. So I have presented a blueprint to our professors of literature on how to sensitize students to theatre as a different art form, otherwise they just continue to perpetuate the appropriation of drama as only a literary text, ultimately making theatre suffer. Young people come out of college without any opportunity to learn what constitutes theatre. At JU’s English department, I ran a compulsory course for freshers named “Literature and the Other Arts” that instructed them on the fundamentals of theatre (among other arts) and also a semester course every year in which I taught practical theatre that ended in several public performances in the city of one play that we studied in detail.
- Is Indian theatre adequately documented for future generations?
Not at all. The neglect is caused mainly by the fact that the researchers who would do such documentation don’t exist in large enough numbers, because of the afore-mentioned lack of higher education in theatre in our country—the severe shortage of academic departments that would train and supervise these scholars in how to write books or direct documentaries on theatre.
- Is theatre in crisis, or is it reinventing itself?
Theatre has been in various crises all over the world for about a hundred years, and still is, but artists constantly overcome these challenges and reinvent it. For instance, I expect to see holograms and virtual reality on Indian stages fairly soon.
- Should critics be part of the theatre community or remain outsiders?
A very interesting point. Obviously a critic must be objective and detached in order to comment honestly and critically. If you grow close personally to a group, then it influences your opinion of their production—a perfectly human trait. Yet we are very much part of the theatre community, whether in New York or London or Paris or Kolkata. We are insiders who have to walk a fine line to speak the truth as we see it (unlike friends of the group, who will say bahut badiyā huyā even though they know they are lying!), so we must practise an outsider’s neutral perspective and stop ourselves from becoming too attached to individual groups, a difficult task indeed!
- If you were advising a young theatre practitioner who comes from a theatre family, what would you tell her to guard carefully — and what would you tell her to discard?
Such a descendant has a wonderful inner track that they must protect, for they have grown up watching plays and already know what makes theatre. They must also preserve for posterity their parents’ notes, papers and theatre documents, perhaps donating them to a theatre archive like Natya Shodh Sansthan, since India doesn’t have enough records of the careers of theatre artists. At the same time, they must be self-critical, and not regard their family group’s productions as the best. I know several young people who have inherited and run legacy groups, but consider those to be infallible, remain content to work within those cocoons, and rarely even see others’ productions.
- What advice would you give to aspiring theatre critics?
There is no short cut. Read thoroughly all the texts prescribed in a syllabus on world theatre available online from the best (not second-best or third-best) international departments of theatre. Supplement that with a comprehensive reading list on Indian theatre, from classical Sanskrit to folk/traditional to modern regional. As a start, you could consult my Theatres of India (Oxford). Go out of your way to see as much diverse theatre in as many languages as possible, even those you don’t follow. And practise writing concisely, because the editors who commission you have strict word limits that you must try not to exceed. I don’t want to talk about myself all the time, but read my reviews in KolkataTheatre.com.
Thank you for asking such intelligent and probing questions!