Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bharat natya
Bharat natya
bharathanatya. All these spellings are correct. But do they all refer to the same thing?
Vowel quantity plays a role in determining the meaning of the first half of this
compound. Bharat (long ‘a’ or Bhaarat) is the Hindi for ‘India’ whereas bharata (short a)
in Sanskrit is, among others, the sage Bharata Muni, author of the Natyasastra or, more
simply, an actor. However, differences are not so clearcut. First of all, vowel quantity is
not indicated in the English spellings – I have not yet come across a bhaarata naatyam
spelling, though of course it is possible. Also, whereas bharat is India in Hindi, India was
(short ‘a’). So the bharat or bharata or bharat natya retains its elusiveness: what does
‘bharat’ mean on its own? What does it mean in conjunction with natya (natyam)?
Natya (natyam), does not seem to present immediate problems as far as its meaning
goes. It is the Sanskrit for ‘drama’. But bharat natya refers to dance, not drama. Thus here
we have another ambiguity: though Indian dancing is loosely referred to as dance, Indian
dance forms involve acting, usually denoted by the word abhinaya, which together with
nrtta, nritya and of course, natya makes up the Indian dance modes, therefore the word
‘dance’ is ill-suited.
The term bharat natya, in its current usage, seems to have three primary meanings: the
first one is that of ‘Indian dance’ – natya here means dance-drama or dance with a
dramatic component; the second one is that of dance based on bhava, raga, and tala (and
thus applicable to all the classical genres); the third one refers to a Tamil/South Indian
dance genre, more commonly known as bharata natyam or, more recently,
bharatanatyam, whose very name posits it as the archetypal Indian classical dance. From
In this article Iwill discuss bharat natya (with a small ‘b’ and a small ‘n’) as a term which
refers to Indian classical dance, playing on the ambiguities that the word bharat has when
the vowel quantity is not specified. I take bharatanatyam (one word, with no split and no
capitals, short’ a’) as the dance derived from the Tamil sadir. As dancer and scholar
Scholars and dancers joined both words to clarify that Bharatanatyam indicates
a very specific dance form, and not any dance form that subscribes to Bharata’s
canon.1
It is important to note here that Coorlawala uses the capital ‘B’, whereas other dancers
feel that it should be written as one word and, most importantly, with a small ‘b’, in the
same way as western classical ballet is. Indeed, the editor of the British South Asian
dance magazine pulse (also with a small ‘p’) insists that all the names of the different
Indian classical dance genres should not be in capitals. She regards this as a form of
I will readily admit that bharat natya (or bharat natyam) is not a term commonly used to
denote Indian classical dance, as it is more likely to refer to the southern bharatanatyam,
natya as meaning Indian classical dance because the southern bharatanatyam has been
take place
background, as the Sanskrit term for 'Indian Dance' (Bharat + Natyam) and by
Thus to suggest that bharat natya means Indian (classical) dance is not wide off the mark.
Indian classical dance, better still, Indian classical dance genres – bharatanatyam, kathak,
odissi, mohiniattam, manipuri – are now well established dance genres on the global
scene. Another classical genre perhaps better identifiable as theatre rather than dance –
performed as a solo dance and by women – thus it has become, in other words,a classical
dance genre. Other classical dance genres keep on being added to this list – chhau for
‘semi-classical’ and ‘folk’ dates to the twentieth century. Indian classical dance is a
twentieth century construct and it is, in a sense, open-ended. There is a process which we
can identify as ‘classicisation’. One can virtually take any dance form from any Indian
region and turn it into classical dance – by following certain principles, culled from the
Sanskrit texts on music and drama, which have now become guidelines for classicisation,
and by following the blue print of the southern, ex-sadir, bharatanatyam. An interesting
story was related to me by an Indian friend who is also an accomplished dancer. Not too
long ago she was invited together with another dancer from the Dancers’ Guild – the
institution where they both trained in Calcutta - to visit the new state of Jharkhand, which
lies between Bihar and West Bengal. They watched a performance of a new classical
chhau. The State Government of Jharkand is keen to have its own classical dance and it
has rediscovered a form of chhau, distinct from the all others (Mayurbhanj, Purulia and
Seraikella), which is now being polished and replenished with dance compositions
inspired by the Radha /Krishna theme. Normally, these chhau dances have very little to
do with such Hindu themes, rather, they are linked with the non-Hindu tribal culture of
the region.
process of which even the dance form kathak, usually described as a harmonious blend of
Muslim and Hindu elements, has been part of4. It has been suggested that the ‘classical’
styles should be called ‘neo-classical’– one should note here that in India one talks of
‘styles’ rather than ‘genres’, to emphasise the fact that they all share an ancestry traceable
to the tradition of the Sanskrit texts, as to say that these dances are mere stylistic
variations of each other. The term neo-classical has occasionally been used by Indian
dance scholar Kapila Vatsyayan and dance critic Sunil Kothari, but it has not gained wide
currency because it does not go well with the construct of Indian dance as ‘3000 years
Creating ‘classical dance’ was part of the movement to reinscribe Indian dance forms in
modern artistic practice and give them a status, equivalent to that of classical ballet in the
West. This recodification and reclassification involved an act of cultural translation. The
term ‘classical’ was a conscious borrowing from western art discourses to refer to the
canon that was being put together from an investigation of the sastras, the Sanskrit
manuals on dramaturgy and from the prayoga sampradaya, the teachings of the masters.
Prior to this classical dance there were highly formalised traditions of dance, described
and prescribed in the Sanskrit texts and referred to as margi. Margi is not a term found in
the Natyasastra itself, it is what later commentators called the tradition. There were also
other formalised traditions, but more localised, known as desi. Between sastra (available
for both margi and desi) and prayoga, between canonical literature and praxis, there was
By the early twentieth century the relationship between sastra and prayoga had lost its
momentum and the practice of ‘high-class’ (margi/desi) dance, in the hands of hereditary
complexity of causes for this decline, such as the disappearance of courts and temples as
sources of patronage, colonial rule, new educational paradigms and so on.6 Through the
engagement with modernity, the project of recreation of dance as art began, marking the
birth of classical dance. This is, admittedly, a simplified account of a complex history.
The devadasis, for example, were only a group of practitioners of high class dance, not an
exclusive one, as sometimes understood. Dance was part of theatre and was thus also
performed by male actors – kudiyattam, kathakali, bhagavata mela are cases in point.
This theatrical dance was as highly formalised as the dance of the devadasis and rajadasis
‘court dancers’, known as sadir in the south - in Orissa it was practised by maharis and
Thus the adoption of the term ‘classical’ in the Indian context was a political act. It was
not about importing ideals of harmony, alignment, symmetry and proportion, the
hallmark of Graeco–Roman art which remain the basis of western notions of classicism.
The adoption of the term in India resulted in an indigenisation of the idea of classicism,
motivated by the desire to give recognisable national and international status to the dance
that was being reconstituted. Rukmini Devi Arundale , founder of the Kalakshetra school
in Madras (Chennai) can be credited with the vision which led to the creation of a modern
Indian ‘classical’ dance aesthetics. Kalakshetra had a strong impact not just on
bharatanatyam but also on all other forms of ‘classical’ dance, through the training it
remaking and reshaping of Indian culture, which coincided with the establishing of the
post –Independence Indian nation and new ideas of Indianness.8 It has been a negotiation
between the local and the supra-local, the local and the national. This is instantiated by
the specific engagement with the Natyasastra as a pan-Indian text and the reclamation of
the concept of margi, increasingly identified with the southern bharatanatyam. In turning
a genre such as bharatanatyam into a template for Indian classical dance, in invoking a
modern pan-Indian margi, there is a conscious attempt to reduce the differences between
genres and to keep those differences in check. In reclaiming the Natyasastra as a pan-
Indian dance sastra, the diversity of each genre’s abhinaya, for example, is in danger of
being sacrificed, with abhinaya increasingly being described as being ‘common’ to all
This is a re-articulation of the overall project of classicisation. The purpose, for example,
dancer Padma Subrahmanyam, who wrote the script, was to provide a common reference
point. The documentary acknowledged the different styles of classical dance but in
discussing the modalities of abhinaya as following the Natyasastra and presenting these
as general rules for all Indian classical dance genres a crucial point was made: that
abhinaya is one and all stylistic differences seem to disappear when we are dealing with
the technique of bhava manipulation. The blueprint for this abhinaya was bharatanatyam
itself, as all the examples given in the documentary to illustrate the technique of abhinaya
were drawn from bharatanatyam, albeit in the specific version of it which characterises
kuchipudi – all these dance genres have a strong regional identity, which is reflected in
their structure and repertoire and language of the poetry they use, the way metaphors are
linked together in the exposition of abhinaya, the style of exposition, evidencing, in other
words, specific local aesthetics. There is, in this ongoing process of negotiation, a replay
in contemporary terms of the sastra/prayoga and margi /desi relationship. On one hand,
intersects with local concerns, creating a tension. This tension between national and
inscribed in what dancer and scholar Ananya Chatterjee refers to as “the power plays
In conclusion, it is clear that bharat natya, even when used with reference to the ex-sadir
dance form, has the meaning of pan-Indian theatre dance, as a close translation of the two
terms of this compound would suggest. It would stand to reason to drop its usage
altogether, leaving only bharatanatyam (one word, no caps) to stand, unambiguously, for
the ex-sadir genre, accepting the name on historical grounds, but removing from it any
association with pan-Indianness through the use of the small b and by joining the two
words bharata and natyam. But, as shown by the exchange of e-mails in the growing
number of lists on the web of bharatanatyam aficionados, at present this is only wishful
thinking – the whole array of spellings such as bharat natyam, bharatha natyam etc. will
always returning, like a musical sam, to the idea of pan-Indianness. What’s in a name or,
1
Uttara Asha Coorlawala e-mail to bharatanatyamdancers@yahoo.com, 30 November 2003.
2
Chitra Sundaram, Editorial, pulse, Autumn 2003, p.1.
3
Chitra Sundaram e-mail to bharatanatyamdancers@yahoo.com, 26 November 2003.
4
Pallabi Chakraborty ‘Kathak in Calcutta: A story of Tradition and Change” . Proceedings of the 25th
Annual Conference. Society of Dance History Scholars, Temple University , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
pp 15-20
5
Mandakranta Bose Speaking of dance: the Indian critique, New Delhi, 2001, p. 101.
6
Bose, Speaking of dance, pp. 1-7.
7
Avanthi Meduri,. ,‘Introduction; a critical overview’ in A. Meduri Ed. Rukmini Devi Arundale (1904-
1986). A visionary architect of Indian culture and the performing arts. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2005,
pp3-30.
8
Alessandra Lopez y Royo, ‘Classicism, post-classicism and Ranjabati Sircar’s work: re-defining the terms
of Indian contemporary dance discourses’, South Asia Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2003, p.157.
9
Ananya Chatterjee, ‘Contestations: constructing a historical narrative for odissi’ in Alexandra Carter, ed.,