It was with the usual fanfare that Prithvi Theatre organized a meeting with Alan Brody, Professor of Theatre at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Professor Brody was visiting India on account of the Prithvi-MIT partnership that began in February 2006. The ICICI Bank and the PEN All-India Centre extended their support to Prithvi and a discussion took place in its theatre on 23rd July 2007. The discussion was titled 'The Arts As A Necessary Source Of Consciousness' with the by-line that the topic was 'A Timely Discussion Amongst Proactive Citizens'. Despite the ink spent on the programme, which outlined the aim of such a discussion, the end result was not only pointless but also disheartening.

No one expected a white paper to come out at the end of the meeting; it was never meant to be so foolishly ambitious. But to all appearances, given the eminent speakers, who were invited from different fields (not restricted to the Arts alone), the discussion could have been contemplative of the Arts collaborating with the other domains of knowledge. Now that very crucial point was completely missed. A list of reasons ranging from the broad agenda of such a discussion to the manner in which it was conducted can be enumerated for its failure. Indeed it was limited in its scope, had too many disparate voices and the end result was woolly headed. The discussion could seriously not have been meant to only argue the validity of the Arts and their importance in any society at any given point of time.

If we are still caught up with that perversely epistemological question of the Arts being relevant or not then I am afraid that we are still living in some Pleistocene era of consciousness. But the point is that we are not. The very idea of it is ridiculous. It is granted that such a point is useful for opening a discussion and for reinforcing the body of knowledge that no sane society can afford to ignore. It is further helpful to get the conscience of funding agencies moving (no doubt very useful) but it cannot conceivably be the end product of any worthwhile discussion on the Arts and the Theatre in particular. Professor Brody in his talk spoke of the Arts being useless. His irony, which he had to pitifully emphasize later, was no doubt a missed point. The discussion ended with most of the speakers merely recounting their individual experiences, which proved that the Arts are important. Interesting experiences but hardly useful to take the topic any further than the obvious.

It was only natural and sensible for Professor Brody to reflect on his experiences of setting up a theatre program at an Institute, world-renowned for Science and Technology. What Professor Brody was essentially trying to communicate was that the Theatre has a place and a meaningful point to make, even in the realms of Science and Technology. That the two fields, which may on the face of it appear very different and unalike, are in reality capable of nourishing each other. This point, albeit in a much studied and an in-depth manner has also been compellingly made by Edward O. Wilson in his book 'Consilience'.

Eclectic educationists, Nobel Prize Winners (of which one happens to be a friend of Professor Brody's and of whom he talked about), legendary artists like Leonardo Da Vinci- you just name them. They have all beautifully captured the vitality of the inter-mingling of different fields in their lives and in their work. Mathematicians for long have displayed a proclivity for music that has scientifically being proved. Moreover some of the cutting-edge practitioners of Science are today exploring the connections between the brain and the philosophical question of Consciousness. And believe you me, these Scientists write beautifully, in a language accessible to the common man. Closer home we have the famous TIFR (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research), which is conducting on a regular basis, programmes that are dedicated to the interface between Science and other subjects. These programmes, which invite some of the most distinguished speakers are free and open to all. The point is that interdisciplinary knowledge is vital and one can only ignore it to one's own peril. We cannot afford to live within safely demarcated compartments. It is neither good for Science, nor is it good for Art.

One of the important questions that could therefore have been raised in the discussion is how this knowledge impinges on the way in which the Arts and the Humanities are treated in India. The answer is that 'Have we even begun on this line of questioning?' I don't think so. Take the case of our understanding of Science. Our day to day lives are a product of what Science has made possible and yet we are ready to instantly discredit it. Perhaps we are discrediting its practical counterpart technology but are we fully justified in doing that either? Why do we possess such an ingrained distrust of all things scientific? What was the point of Shiv Vishwanathan's (he was one of the invited speakers) unwarranted rude response (academically high sounding as it was) to Professor Brody's reflections? What did he mean by saying that nothing is going to happen till Science will change its textbook?

To come back to the moot question. Do we as a society respect knowledge? Knowledge can take any form. It can be theatre or it can be pure science. Science is all about asking questions. So is all meaningful Art. And like everything else, we need to put things in a context. Given that 'The Arts Are A Necessary Source of Consciousness', what is then that we need to do in order for them to create meaning in our society? Asking the question, whether they are relevant or not is like getting into a quagmire of sorts. It is well past time to change the question. The question that needs to be asked and which Sudhanva Deshpande (another invited speaker) did bring to the fore is how can we create and sustain that theatre, which is thought-provoking and not mind numbing.

The other important and very serious question is how can we garner support for the theatre and encourage the people involved with it? I fully understand that the latter question has no straight-forward or easy answers. Nevertheless we sorely need to build a suitable infrastructure and have the requisite policy papers in place that are able to separate the chaff from the grain. Having said this, I cannot but emphasize to greater effect that these things are primarily a question of attitude than a question of resources. We need to introspect ourselves. We need to question the paradoxes that we comfortably live with.

Dr. Ram Bapat, who was also in the discussion, had something very relevant to say. Once again there was an unmistaken irony when he said that Science, The Ethics and the Arts need to quarrel with each other, instead of co-existing happily. And that's really what it is, isn't it? We have become so complacent that we don't feel the need to question. We don't feel the need to go beyond; to push the envelope. We are happy when we should be quarreling.