Why do we regard the folk toy as a desirable entity? For what reason does one feel a sense of loss at its diminished reach ? The plastic alternatives are after all very efficient, if not more, and also very glamorous. What lack is felt in a plastic toy that is fulfilled by a folk toy? What constitutes this so called ‘folk toy’?

Some nebulous ideas!

The fact that a toy is born from a specific cultural environment and social circumstances makes it relevant to its own context first and it is found to have universal appeal only after that. That specificity and relatedness to its place of origin makes it precious, but not consciously so. It is usually the observer outside this circumstance who attributes the quality of preciousness to it. So why do we want that toy, presuming that there is a demand for it still, even though a small one ? Why do I want it ?

As a child, my father brought me toys from wherever he travelled - something that belonged to that place. I managed to get a free ride on the wings of that toy to that place - met those people, saw the landscapes, becoming almost one with the users of that toy. Another world opened up to me and slowly my horizon increased. From various parts of India, to the different countries - western and eastern Europe, Russia, England, America, Japan, China, Thailand, Indonesia..

The fascinating ceramic water whistles of Rumania, the famous nest of dolls from Russia, the flapping owl, a wooden Pinocchio with moving legs and arms contrasted well with the dancing doll from Benaras or the flipping jester from Orissa, the Rajasthani terracotta whistles, the flying black snake. The bareness of the wooden Madurai dolls suggested the ornateness of the Batubai paper dolls, etc. Both sat well with the variety of kitchen sets from the ceramic tea sets of Agra and around, to plain terracotta chulha-bartans of Rajasthan, to colourful wooden lacquered ones from Tamilnadu and Andhra.

The fact is - I played a lot with all of these, while my daughter does so rarely! For me they conjured far off places. For her, I don’t know! - a little bit maybe!?

I recollect the fascination of a folded and wrapped up magically ornate paper being opened layer by layer to reveal a small mirror inside. The objective was never very clear to me. But the fascination survived. One tends to wrap and opened the contents of the paper like a secret! We bought it from the neighbourhood street toy seller. It would get torn and we’d buy one more, selecting carefully from his ‘bamboo frame mobile-toys holder’ that also had bright coloured cellophane goggles, masks, bamboo flutes, plastic whistles, multi-coloured wind fans, balloons, sound boxes and much else, including lacquered gitties (seven stones) and a variety of colour powders.

The first intrinsic quality distinguishing a folk toy is the content of the toy that gives it significance. And that content links the playfulness with its social indications that in turn drew from narratives and linguistic references - such as - natkhat, fatafat, jadooi, ha ha-na na, chamchamati.

The characters were the cultural stereotypes (alongside characters from the epics) Like, for instance, the bobbing pundit or the foolish jester or the dancing girl, row of musicians, professionals like weaver/trader/dhobi etc.

An array of animal and bird figures associated with festivals such as Diwali were seasonal and in accordance with the festival. Bows and arrows, maces, Hanuman and other masks and crowns, etc., came at Dussehra. All this allowed for a flow of expectations along with unbridled opportunity for role play. The fragility of the toy contributed to its magical properties. Also, it was not a major question of economics to replace the fragile toy. The storymaking activity was fed with a multiplicity of elements that combined and re-combined in as many multiple ways to feed the imagination.

The ritualistic use of toys was a parallel road along which the child travelled and sourced plots for further stories. The stories narrated during rituals formed the landmarks for acknowledging the passage of time. The Lakshmi-Ganesh at Diwali was given a bisarjan but the mandir or the dual /quadruple container for the sweets along with the animals and birds became a part of the treasure trove. These toys were as much in demand as the kinetic toys made with locally available materials and each region had its own collection of toys.

This brings me to the second quality of a ‘Folk -Toy’. No toy, however simple, would be without stylisation - reflecting local artistic tradition. The stylistic vocabulary might range from very simple to highly ornate, but to decorate a toy was to give it a place in the social space - thereby linking it to community activity and inter-relationships. Decoration would also cover the fact of making it well, like the woven miniature baskets of Assam or of Bastar. It was to accord it respect and have it acknowledged as an act of love, even when done for a commercial purpose. The individual hand of the maker could also be recognized. The importance of this element is at times overlooked in the case of us looking at kinetic folk toys.

The third quality peculiar very largely to the ‘folk toy’ is the indigenousness of it. Low cost using local materials - highly innovative and most importantly very easily replicable which made it quite dispensible and therefore approachable. Not an alien wonder - but a very makeable wonder. This factor is very different to the industrial product that has overtaken the scene today not only in urban centres, but also in rural markets.

However negatively one might react to the industrially produced toy - it too has enriched the child’s world with its strange images from far off lands. The same as mine was enriched by images of folk toys from far off lands. The only difference in this case was the personal touch a toy received in its manufacture, where the smile was not exactly as the one on my friend’s toys face.

The case for folk toys, I would like to seek therefore is :
Considering the contemporary situation, can one relocate with a sense of relatedness to the contemporary experiences of the modern child, the traditional toy with its aesthetic qualities - its cultural identity - and its region specific quality of mind/material/and intent? Can one work on the line of continuities in evolving traditions, without losing the energy of its core idea?

The hidden educational aspect would be imbibed unknowingly and knowledge is always like a revelation of the already known, by a conscious acknowledgement. That will happen in its own good time !

Arts in Education should not be seen as a co-curricular activity alone but as a process of education where folk toys can take on another ‘avataar’ of relatedness and become mainstream. Interaction with the larger society would be a reflection of contemporary realities. It would lead to re-interpretations and greater innovation. It would also suffer from the current malaise of hodgpodge or khichidi culture - I don’t have an answer to prevent that - however much I would like to.

Marketing is another aspect that is essential to the economic life of any product - but in this case to the cultural life of this product as well. The local Haat or the Mela was the location for marketing earlier. This ensured its cultural context and therefore its demand. Some strategy to duplicate this mechanism needs to be sought. It is when its local demand is established, the toy as a product gets meaning and sustains itself - not as an oddity from somewhere. The link with educational institutions as part of curriculum would also give it an alternate image to build upon, and needs to be linked to the craftspersons and their inputs into innovations. That a dialogue is necessary - of that I have no doubt.