The Indian Theory of Drama

International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology

This Paper highlights a few generalizations about the Western dramatic theory represented by Aristotle and Indian dramatic theory represented by Bharata Muni. The purpose of this paper is not to suggest that Indian theory of drama is superior to the western but is to point out their differences. Obviously there is a fundamental difference between the Western and the Indian modes of thinking. Aristotle’s Western dramatic theory is based on tragedy. On the other hand Bharata Muni’s dramatic theory is based on the Indian theory of Karma. In Bharata’s theory “Rasa” is the sole object of dramatic representation. But there is one interesting point. Whereas western dramatic theory cannot be applied to Sanskrit drama, Bharata’s theory of rasa, as S.C. Sen Gupta. has shown, can be employed with profit in appreciating the western drama. The Paper concluded by suggesting that both the Indian and the Western theories of drama as represented by Bharata and Aristotle respectively have broken down...

India has the longest and the richest tradition in drama. The origin of Indian drama can be traced back to the Vedic Period. As a manifestation of our national sensibility Indian drama came into existence as a means of exploring and communicating the truth of things and was popularly known as the "Fifth Veda." During the age of the Vedic Aryans, drama was performed in a simple way. Different episodes from the Ramayana, the Mahabharta, and the Bhagavad-Gita were enacted out in front of people. Such type of performance is still very popular in India during the time of 'dussehra.' Bharata's Natyashastra in Sanskrit is the most pioneering work on Indian dance and drama. It discusses deftly all major aspects of drama, namely stage-setting, music, plot construction, characterization, dialogue and acting. Sanskrit drama flourished in its glory till the fifteenth century but thereafter Indian drama activity almost came to an end due to certain invasion on India. When Britishers came in India, the crippled Indian drama regained its strength. Thus, the western impact awakened Indian drama. However, K.R.Srinivasa Iyengar writes: Western education was as yet carrying all before it. It was the 'open sesame' to knowledge, freedom, power; it cut the old bonds of convention and tradition; it let in light into the old dark rooms of an obscurantist faith; and it made a new world and a new life possible for its beneficiaries.

Comparative criticism of texts irrespective of their socio-cultural, linguistic, idealistic, stylistic and artistic divergence has become a productive form of literature as it allows national literatures to gain worldwide recognition. The researcher in Comparative Literature could be restrained solely by the texts in translation. Because, claiming originality to the texts in translation is impossible as they bear the dominance of the translator and the limitations of both the Source Language (SL) and Translated Language (TL) to some extent. But the translation done in accordance with translatology assures that the adopted script bears all the key concepts of original text. Moreover, the classics of all literatures have come down to the readers only through translation. Hence, depending on the translated texts becomes a prudent choice. In this article, the researcher comparatively discusses the Indian and Western views or theories on Dramatics – Bharata's Natyasastra (Sanskrit) and Aristotle's Poetics (Greek) – in English translation; and proposes the comparative scrutiny of the plays of some notable dramatists to justify their unique way of propagating humane values and how they are reformative in nature. The medieval critics presume from the revaluation of the ancient literature that both classics share common elements – visual, aural and spatial, and features: techniques – multi-channeled discourses, dance and music. Their sole aim had been the transformation of reality not the depiction of it, arousal of deep emotional impact and consequently giving psychological relief to the spectators. They propose teaching of humanistic philosophy and values. Thus, they together have been the inspiration for the modern theatrics and dramatics. Hence, the researcher evaluates and suggests the importance of these two manuscripts and select plays that are composed in accordance with these two treatises in humanizing mankind from a modern critical perspective; and emphasizes on the need to look upon ancient theories for the composition of drama script at present in the modern world where the humaneness is missing. These classical manuals of India and West are semiotic in structure, heiropraxis (religious or ritual) in practice, and uphold a few metaphysical and epistemological concepts in common. The overall examination of classical Indian and Greek drama reveals that the personas, costumes, masks, settings, music, dance, chorus, monologue, dialogue, soliloquy and action etc are of primary significance. It may also be noted that in their magnitude and content Peri Poietikes and Natyasastra are different structurally, thematically and aesthetically. To be precise, Indians popularised comedy and the Greeks, tragedy. The difference between these two traditions has been so great that the two artistic expressions could not but be different. In the west 'evil' has been a positive force whereas in India 'evil' is evil itself or just absence of good. As Sri Aurobindo argues, " In Hindu drama, it would have seemed a savage and inhuman spirit that could take any aesthetic pleasure in the sufferings of an Oedipus or a Duchess of Malfi in the tragedy of Macbeth

TDR, 1997

Although it is rare to find a comparative treatment of Greek and Sanskrit drama as thoughtful and passionate as this one, students of classical Indian theater will recognize a familiar topic in the title. It is natural to want to see how two great ancient cultures that produced both a body of dramatic theory and a limited number of extant plays can shed light on each other. When the comparative study comes from the Indian side, or from a cultural fellow-traveler (such as myself), there is often an additional motivation. When colonial administrators introduced the

Life is a long journey of our emotions, sentiments, happiness and grief. Our life hangs between love and joy on one hand and sorrow and pathos on the other. Modern Indian theatre is the real voice of mankind. It comprises not only art, literature, music and dance but also reflects our day to day life. If has a rich treatise since 2000 BC to the 4 th century A.D. the great playwright Bharat Muni pioneered the concept in his writing " Natyashastra ". India has the rich honour to give this treatise to the world. According to the historians Oscar Brockett and Franklin Hildy – " In a theatre rituals typically include elements that entertain or give pleasures, such as costumes and masks as well as skilled performers. As societies grew more complex, these spectacular elements began to be acted out under non-ritualistic conditions. As this occured the first step towards theatre as an autonomous activity were being taken. " (1) All the above said elements are keys to modern Indian theatre. It can easily be traced back to the religions and ritualism of the Aryans. From epic theatre (stories of the Ramayan and the Mahabharat) to the theatre of modern era it is a rich saga of a journey of modern Indian drama and theatre. The earliest form of Indian theatre was the Sanskrit theatre. (2) It gave a divine origin to the Indian theatre contributing it to the Natyaveda created by Lord Brahma. It emerged sometimes between 2 nd century BC and the I century AD and flourished between the I century and the 10 th , which was a period of relative peace in the history of India during with hundreds of plays were written. (03) According to the legends after defeating demons the gods performed their victory in dramatic art. Our rich ancient culture with multi-religions and rituals along with

Kalākalpa IGNCA Journal of Arts, 2021

Historical scholarship all over the world is witnessing what has been termed as an 'emotional turn' (Lewis, 2020, p. 121) in the last few decades, wherein instead of inaccurately classifying emotions as 'irrational and unscientific', scholars are trying to engage with feelings and emotions to make better sense of how past societies experienced and communicated these, and the tools and strategies employed by them for the same. In the context of early India, the rasa theory, on which the entire edifice of Indian dramatic and performance art is based, is a preeminent theoretical construct to understand emotional experience and expression. The present paper investigates the historical and cultural matrix in which emotions in the form of rasa laid the foundation of Classical Indian dramatic art 1 , with particular reference to the earliest extant treatise on the subject, i.e., Bharata's Nāṭyaśātra. The representation and experience of emotions enjoyed a prominent place in Indian drama right from the very beginning. Exploring the shift from production to reception aesthetics and accounting for the centrality of emotions in drama and poetry, this article also comments on the manner in which emotions further went on to enrich early Indian dramatic tradition. Focused reading of a single but the most authoritative text offers some fresh insights on the understanding and expression of emotions at a particular juncture in India's past.

Ancient Sanskrit literature is perhaps the oldest literature in the world. Sanskrit poetics is Indian poetics; it is an epitome of theories and laws related to poetry and drama. Like Aristotle‟s Poetics, Sanskrit poetics also focuses on the drama. Bharata‟s Natyashastra is a milestone in ancient Sanskrit poetics. Mahakavi Kalidasa occupies a unique place not only in Sanskrit but also on World drama. Bhasa, Bhavbhuti, Harsha, Shudrak and Ashvaghosha are some of the noted dramatist.

2006

Although it is rare to find a comparative treatment of Greek and Sanskrit drama as thoughtful and passionate as this one, students of classical Indian theater will recognize a familiar topic in the title. It is natural to want to see how two great ancient cultures that produced both a body of dramatic theory and a limited number of extant plays can shed light on each other. When the comparative study comes from the Indian side, or from a cultural fellow-traveler (such as myself), there is often an additional motivation. When colonial administrators introduced the

2015

Natya or theatre is an ancient practice of entertainment in India. Surviving texts and treatises suggest that theatre existed in the Indian subcontinent prior to the vedic age. Both Gods and human beings were said to be connoisseurs of art. The golden period of Indian theatre, mostly in Sanskrit, is said to have lasted until the 5th centuryAD, soon after which the flow of Sanskrit drama waned 1. In spite of dramatic literature receding, performance traditions thrived through dancers, musicians, singers, and storytellers. The basic aesthetics of dramaturgy survived, morphed into various variants, through the traditional folk and classical forms. Paul Kurtz 2 suggests that the Rig Veda gives evidence that dramatic theatre in India came into being around the eighth century B.C. According to Kurtz, the Jataka stories illustrating Indian life between 600 B.C. and 300 B.C. contain evidences of theatre. Like its Greek counterpart Indian drama and theatre owes its origin to religion. The two great Indian epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata have contributed vastly to performing arts in ancient times. Kurtz observes that, like the cult of Dionysus, Vedic religion also held the seeds of dramatic theatre in India. In the fourth century B.C, actors were employed to perform at temples in the honour of Gods. Also, some villages exhibited public performances in the form of Stree Preksha (women's drama) and Purusha Preksha (men's drama) (66). The Natyshastra of Bharata Muni brings out the evidence of theatre arts at festivals and public celebrations during the Maurya Dynasty, founded by King Chandragupta (reigned 321 B.C-297 B.C). The Maurya Dynasty ruled India for a long period. During this period, kings sent Buddhist missionaries to various places like Ceylon,