I liked the drama and its overall presentation. I had told Sambit right after 
the show was over that the way the several conflicts have been brought in 
the drama is commendable. I have identified thre basic conflicts. 

1) Those who reside outside the country of their own, at the deepest 
core of their mind they miss it very much.  They seem to barter real 
joy of life with creature comforts and financial security. This conflict 
looms large in their mind allthrogh their existence.
Nikhil is the victim of such conflicts. It is real and genuine for those with
serious mental make-up. But other light hearted ones, who claim to be
practical, try to brush aside such silly sentiments in favour of creature

2)The conflict of various perceptions of a particular situation
always surface when there is a crisis. Nikhil's father's disappearance
brought in surface the mundane personal interests of the various characters
overshadowing the tragedy and sufferance of Nikhil. The so called friends did
not come forward to extend genuine support to Nikhil. He becomes a loner in
his exclusive grief. Even the conflict between the perceptions of Nikhil and
his brother surface and they try to blame each other. 

3) The third conflict is between the perceptins of men and women of 
India. Even in the background of Western liberal society - the male 
chauvenism and its dominance and imposition to prevail upon their wives 
are almost the same in US as it is in India- aptly portayed thru the 
families of the two brothers.  The difference here lies in that 
Nandini being somewhat economically liberated could protest and afford 
to choose a course as per liking, while her sister-in-law is destined 
to adjust.

So in my opinion as a drama it has been successful. The
overall presentation is good. There are some weak spots-viz. at the
beginning it appeared to be very slow and some artists are weak. But
these can be condoned considering that many actors may have acted on stage
for the first time.

The weakness in general that occurs in case of new artists is not in the
action of throwing dialogues- but rather in the duration when he has no
dialogue but simply response. An artist on stage even when he listens to
others, does not remain blank and idle- he/she is bound to have response
commensurate with the character he is portraying himself. This response vary
from man to man in real life depending upon his economic and social
status, age,upbringing etc.etc. These things I learnt during discussion
with one of my dramatist cum director friend and also from the writings of
Utpal Dutta and others. In the words of Tagore "Jekhane jati(Pause in music),
sekhanei soorer bistar"-therfore the mime acting (reflecting response) between
dialogues of each individual artist can bring in variety and hence speed
to the presentation.

The weakness of bi-acting is not meant specifically for
someone. It has occured in general which had made the presentation a bit slow
in the beginning. In your case, I liked your acting. Particularly I
appreciated the sober still firm assertion of woman emancipation which was
properly blended with the Indian commitment towards family.

Nandini's role and acting reminded me of "Nora" in Ibsen's Doll's
house who wanted to learn the ways of life in her own way-not as a doll
of her father or her husband. Good. By the by I also very much liked the
acting of Ram Jetha of Calcutta. How old is the actor? if he is of a
relatively younger age, his postures, delivery and walk truly reflected the old
age and his typical lower middle class background. If he is young I would give
him highest credit but if he is a relatively old person like me, I won't
rate him that high. 

So my good wishes for your excellent efforts. Best wishes
to all of you,
                Mohan L. Chatterjee