relationship between all these considerations themselves and of each with what is happening on stage.12 This other half of what we customarily know as performance (McGrath terms the whole 'a social event), is dealt with partly by Bharucha. Except in his street plays, and possibly in his Jatras, how much have Dutt's political plays, changed this 'language' ? Wouldn't a new approach and a new thrust inevitably change the 'language' ? To that extent does Sircafs work reflect a new language ? Despite Sircars "intense distrust of money which makes him question seemingly innocuous procedures like publicity and the sale of tickets" (p. 127) a buyer-seller relationship still persists in his work. How do we view this, as changing or not changing language ? What is missing then in Bharucha's analysis is the audience. Bharucha says that Utpal Dutt is proud to play to thousands and Badal Sircar to a few. It is not just a question of numbers. What has to be seen in either theatre is whether there is 'effective access'13 both in terms ofphysicality and ifi terms ofaffordability on the one hand, and in terms of theme, form, textual language, and approach on the other. Dutt and Sircar are effectively urban. It is a choice they have made. After all Sircar from an unfixed and changing playing space moved to a more or less fixed one, thereby limiting his audience further. "Perhaps the theatre is not revolutionary in itself; but have no doubts, it is a rehearsal of revolution !"14 Then, in a country in which more than eighty per cent live in the rural areas, political theatre, to have efficacy, has certainly to take that section into consideration. Another large question which needs to be addressed is this : how far has group theatre, since most of the '... theatre groups in Calcutta aie politically conscious, and at least some of them are politically engaged', (p. xiii) succeeded in weaning away audiences from the commercial theatres or the Jatra industry ? The last section of this second part is on Varieties of Political Theatre in Bengal. In one sub-section, Brecht in Bengal, through critical description of performances, quotations from critics, controversial statements from the groups— Bharucha makes a finely-honed critical assessment that goes to the heart of the problem of the 'distortions' of Brecht seen on stage. His telling comments not only apply here but to the language of political theatre as a whole : The imagery of any production of a political play has to emerge from the lives of the people. It has to incorporate familiar gestures, expressions, and attitudes which illuminate their conditions of life and their relation to the political situation in the country. An image in a political play should reflect a class attitude or a political position in relation to a particular situation. If the image is to have any effect on an audience, it has to be rooted in the world of the audience with its particular problems, resistances, and modes of survival. (p. 199) Journal of Arts and Ideas 41