theatre traditions a wider range of Sanskrit drama and the non-relegious theatre was brought into focus and more recently, anthropological research joined hands with theatre research. Despite these major shifts in research, if we look at the responses of this century, the doubt still remains whether there has been any qualitative change in the basic nature of these responses. For example—the good old association of Indian theatre with religion, mysticism and magic doesn't it still prevail ? Isn't there still a fascination for particular techniques in particular forms rather than a total view of the traditions in their context ? Aren't these responses partial as their exposure to these traditions is extremely limited both in quality and quantity ? And so, aren't these responses a result of their own contexts and commitments rather than an objective view? And finally, how do these responses affect the modem Indian theatre worker in shaping his views to his own tradition ? These are some of the questions which this article tries to examine. The Post-Stanislavskian Experiments and the Oriental Theatre Almost all the post-Stanislavskian experiments in the West have considered oriental theatre as an important source of inspiration. Since then much has been written about oriental theatre, theatre activists have visited the oriental countries and oriental theatre/dance companies have travelled in the West. Apart from the obvious interest in oriental theatre as something new and unique, these experimental directors and theoreticians had more intrinsic reasons to look into the nature .of oriental theatre. Th? major concern'they shared was a denial of realistic theatre tradition which according to them, limited the possibilities of the medium. So, for them, oriental theatre gave an ideal example of a non-realistic theatre form and supplied them with ideas about creating a new non-realistic theatre of their own. But, as their social context and purpose were different, so was their concept of the ideal theatre. That is why their appreciation or criticism of the oriental theatre differed and was based on its different potentialities. If the symbolism in the oriental theatre appealed to one, the simplicity and the straightforwardness appealed to the other. For some, it was an attraction in terms of pure technique . and for others, the spiritual nature of the communication mattered. To look at a cross section of these responses starting from early 1900 till late 1960's, let us now consider some of the important opinions expressed by these experimentalists : Meyerhold, Craig, Artaud, Grotowski and Brecht. Even with a brief look at these five directors, one immediately notices that their exposure to oriental theatre was uneven, limited and often secondhand. Meyerhold had seen the visiting Japanese companies performing in Russia and in late 1920 he saw a performance by the Chinese actor Mei-lan-fang in Moscow. Brecht had also seen the same actor performing in Moscow, and perhaps another show of the Chinese opera. Artaud had witnessed a Cambodian dance group in 1922 and a Balinese dance performance in 1931. Craig had seen a No performance in London as early as 1900. Grotowski studied in China for sometime and his exposure to India came mainly through his disciple—Euginio Barba. 44 July-September 1984