The granary has been all the rage in the last two weeks. The choice between an art space and a shopping mall, though quite obvious to some, was not that obvious to others. In the current political climate of endless recriminations, the debate fractured along the usual fault lines between the government and the previous occupants of Clarisse House.

Hardly surprising for a country where culture weaves into ethnicity too easily. Our lack of maturity on cultural issues belies the fragility of the serene multicultural utopia that we flog to tourists in the travel brochures. Why, after over 37 years as an independent nation, do we still lack a national theatre?

This year, the Abbey, Ireland’s national theatre, announced that it made losses of €18.5 million, twice the amount initially estimated by the board of directors. Heads had to roll and both the artistic director and the director resigned. Now, the minister for Arts has just called for a radical restructuring of the management of the theatre, the first time such a task would be undertaken since its creation in 1903. This is hardly a situation to be envious of. But, since we do not have a national theatre to begin with, envy is exactly the sentiment we should foster.

The Abbey was co-founded by W. B. Yeats, turning his artistic sensitivity towards nationalism, at a time when the fight for Ireland’s independence was gathering pace. It was initially created to function as a private company. However, when part of the country finally freed itself from Britain’s influence and, after the subsequent civil war, the theatre was handed over to the newly established Free State (Ireland’s previous name before it became a Republic) in 1925. The Abbey thus became the first ever state-subsidised theatre in the English speaking world. The government keeps up this engagement today with an annual grant through the Arts Council.

<B>Foster new writing</B>

However, in Mauritius, the politicians seem to have a misunderstanding (or rather no understanding at all) of exactly what a national theatre means. There seems a consensus among them that subsidising the Plaza or the Port-Louis Theatre is enough. They provide the space (rented at a hefty price), the content is not their problem. But, in a national theatre, both platform and content are important. They are tied to each other. Take the Abbey’s constitution for example. It states: “The artistic policy of the theatre incorporates four aspirations: to promote and develop new Irish plays and thereby create a repertoire of Irish dramatic, literature; the guardianship of the Irish repertoire through the reanimation of the wide canon of Irish writing already in existence; the enrichment of that repertoire through the presentation of masterworks of world theatre; to be the guarantor of continuity and vitality in the Irish theatre through the employment, promotion, training and development of Irish theatre artists and practitioners.”

It would be preposterous to even suggest that Mauritius could sustain a professional theatre company in the short term. To begin with, we lack an audience (one usually infatuated with two-cent comedies). But this same audience cannot be blamed when we see the number of sub-standard productions, hacking into the same stale Shakespeare tragedy. For this, we can blame our education system, which continues to work with the same curriculum that it inherited from the colonial masters.

A national theatre would encourage new writing, as the Abbey clearly defines itself to be. It should be headed by an artistic director, independent of influence from politicians and who will not suffer the whims of the rulers of the day. A group of performers could be employed on a part-time basis, then move into a full-time salary (non-taxable) basis around the time of production. With time, this could develop into a truly national theatre company.

However, the problem does not lie with the audience or the theatre groups. There is a clear lack of political will for such an enterprise. Also, the ministry of Arts and Culture has always been the poor man of the government, where they cast the incompetent of the day to ponder on the next regressive policy. The previous government should be awarded a prize on this count. Somehow, they managed to pay people to come up with such an imbecilic and abhorrent idea as that of cultural centres, and imbeciles are not rare species. Motee Ramdass will enter the history books as the government minister who hammered the first nail in the coffin where our cultural aspirations rest. And the new princes have nowhere mentioned their intention to dismantle these edifices of division.

Quest for identity</B>