Rustom Bharucha:Well, first and foremost, thank you for being so upfront and direct. As the director of this Centre, you are throwing open for discussion what I would call the problematic of nomenclature, the problematic of naming: what goes into the naming of any institution? I think all of us face problems when we try to find titles for whatever we’re writing, titles for books and essays. We know how complicated this process can be. Sometimes the title “happens,” but, at other times, it doesn’t. I think it’s a very good thing to bring in an element of unease in terms of whatever one is dealing with as a writer.

The problem arises when we get used to working with stable categories – like “theatre studies” or “performance studies,” whatever – and we get complacent. At some point, we are compelled to ask: what does this mean? What are we doing here? So I feel it’s a good sign that there is a certain tension in the naming of the institution to which one is affiliated. Obviously, there is a tension at work here, which may not be that easily resolved; it has to be worked through. But the fact that you’re trying to articulate an unease with the term “intercultural” and the baggage of “interculturalism” is, I think, a useful intervention.

Now, to what extent are “interweaving” and “intercultural” mutually exclusive categories? This is one question that comes to mind. And can we really say – if we follow your raison d’être for the naming of the institution – that all the problems associated with “interculturalism” will somehow disappear with the introduction of “interweaving”? When you “interweave” one culture with another, do the problems disappear? Problems relating to the distribution of power, stereotyping, etc. Obviously, they don’t. In a sense, the problems could be deflected, or circumscribed—that’s one possibility. But they could also engender new problems, which are as yet unanticipated.

The question that interests me is somewhat different: Why do we feel the need to reinvent our categories? How and in what circumstances do these new categories manifest themselves?

Let me turn to the word “intracultural.” I didn’t invent this word, but let’s say that I’ve invested in it, because it is a deeply resonant term for me. There was a certain point in my theatre writing when I said, I can’t go on using the word “intercultural” for what I’m addressing. At that time I was dealing with the internal cultural differences that exist within the boundaries of a particular country. Significantly, this use of the “intracultural” came about through an “intercultural” theatre project conceptualized around different Asian adaptations of Franz Xaver Kroetz’s Wunschkonzert. When I was working on this project in India through different adaptations of the play in Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai, I realized that it was no longer a question of adapting a “German” text into an “Indian” context. The national context was far less important than the different regional and local contexts. So I found myself searching for another word that could account for these internal cultural differences, and the “intracultural” seemed appropriate. The need, therefore, to create a new category often emerges out of such moments of crisis in one’s own research. Naming an institution, however, opens up different kinds of questions and modalities.

In this context, I think the problem of translation plays a crucial role. For example, we are all part of a “Kolleg,” which, as I have come to understand, is not a “college.” To be honest, I don’t really know what “Kolleg” means, and yet, I am part of such an institutional structure. These are the kinds of terms that come with institutional discourses and histories, which are unavoidably culture-specific. The problems of translating these terms from one institutional context to another are huge.

In the academic context with which I am familiar, we take words like “department” or “school” for granted, and yet the naming of schools can be challenging. I remember attending a meeting in New Delhi where I was part of a committee linked to “The School of Arts and Aesthetics” at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. In this meeting, we discussed whether we should hold on to the word “aesthetics” which, in the Indian context, is more often than not linked to the “fine arts,” and not to disciplines like cinema or contemporary theatre. At some level, the word has an old lineage linked specifically to “traditional Indian aesthetics.” Would it make more sense to substitute “Cultural Studies” for “Aesthetics”? I found myself arguing for the retention of the word “aesthetics” which is making a come-back through all kinds of new manifestations in new modes of thinking, as, for instance, in the “politics of aesthetics.” While the word may seem odd, it is actually on the cutting-edge of new critical thinking.