Editor,
This is in response to the recent letter defending the International Theatre Festival.
It is encouraging to see a dialogue emerging about art and theatre in Arunachal Pradesh. However, several points raised in the response require further clarification, because the core concern is not about opposing the festival; it is about ensuring transparency, inclusivity, and genuine cultural development.
- “Theatre barely exists in the state because we are in the early stage.”
No one denies that Arunachal is still in the early phase of its theatre journey.
But if the ecosystem is this new and fragile, then the foremost priority should be strengthening local roots, not marketing an ‘international-scale’ festival with crores of public money. What it actually can offer is year-long workshops, making training and learning of theatre accessible in schools and colleges. This is where the actual breed of next artists and audience is nurtured.
A single grand event cannot replace these foundations.
- “Only few local productions because the ecosystem is new.”
The question was never why the numbers are low. The question is why funds meant to develop local artists are spent mostly on external groups instead of nurturing homegrown productions.
If the festival is truly for Arunachali artists, then why not make at least 50% of entries mandatory from local groups?
Why not create scholarships, mentorships, and grants for local productions throughout the year?
Exposure from outside groups is valuable, but only when local artists have equal opportunity to grow, perform, and be supported.
- “Audiences do not attend enough local shows.”
This statement is only a partial truth. Arunachal does have a theatre-enthusiast audience; it has shown itself. Other theatre societies have conducted ticketed shows in Arunachal without any support from the state, and they have proven to be successful.
The fact that audiences do not show up to most of the ARM productions is because many of the productions showcased are not in alignment with the region’s audience appetite. Like the organisers themselves mentioned, theatre is in its budding stage, so why invest heavily in productions that the general audience would obviously choose not to witness? It is essential to understand and satiate the appetite of the regional audience to procure traction in this culture. How will it move forward when there is no momentum to begin with?
One cannot expect audiences to manifest out of the blue. It has to be nurtured. What better way than a festival that actually focuses on that; focuses on the region and its audience, rather than blowing the nature of the festival to tenfold of itself.
- “Organisers act as facilitators, not producers.”
Exactly. Facilitate us, the theatre enthusiasts, the audience, the artists, the dreamers. The state is producing; what do the organisers have to lose? And if they are facilitating with this massive capital behind them, why not actually make it worthwhile?
And to put this into clearer perspective:
Take the example of Ziro Festival of Music, which runs for just three days, even though music is such a big phenomenon in the state. This conscious conciseness makes it have widespread and deep impact on the regional audience and even abroad. Meanwhile, theatre, which they themselves claim is still in a budding stage, is run for 14 long days. This, in effect, spreads the audience’s interest and enthusiasm too thin, like a blanket that suffocates the very one it is meant to protect.
- “Decentralisation will happen later.”
Decentralisation is not just participation in plays; it also means inclusion of the region’s own theatre practitioners in the core committee, and bringing in pioneers and experts of our own state into the picture.
The state is not devoid of qualified theatre practitioners. There are a few names that are genuinely trained in this art form; graduates of NSD and other nationally recognised theatre institutes.
It is jarring that these talents are not included in committee roles or decision-making processes. How can we expect saturation in impact and participation when the decision-making body is always unilateral?
Decentralisation comes from inclusivity and diversity, which, in all respects, is currently lacking.
- “The festival is not a hoax because it inspires youths.”
In all honesty, a massive show masquerading as an ‘international festival’ that excludes its own region and has minimal impact would be nothing less than a hoax.
- “We are trying.”
Three years into the festival and with crores of taxpayers’ money at stake, most respectfully, trying is not enough. Crores cannot be spent for just a try. You have to deliver.
Expenditure and output should be at least equivalent if not positively profitable. And in this case it is visible to even mere audience like us that it is not. For instance, last year I sat in an international production and found only 6-7 others sitting there.
In conclusion
These observations and questions are not raised to undermine anyone’s effort or the existence of the festival. These are raised because taxpayers’ money, artists’ futures, and cultural identity deserve honest discussion.
Building a culture begins with truth, not showmanship. We must broaden our perspective and focus on what actually matters if we truly want theatre in Arunachal to flourish beyond seasonal celebration.
An audience who hopes for better