Natyasastra allows for discussion on all sensitive issues — religion, politics, women, obscenity and regionalism. It is worth learning a lesson from our ancient artists and writers, says the spian Jalabala Vaidya
Recently there has been a great deal of discussion in the press, on TV news channels, social media like Facebook and Twitter, as to who we are, or ought to be. Are we nationalists or are we seditiousIJ
Seemingly these are questions that beg subjective answers. Which authority decidesIJ
Teaching my theatre class about the Natyasastra yesterday, I came across an ancient Indian answer. I have intentionally italicised it, because ancient means pre-Muslim and pre-British, and of course, pre-Portuguese, Dutch etc. Also, although I had read the Natyasastra with earlier classes, people were not as hot and bothered about sedition and nationalism as they are today.
This ancient treatise is sometimes referred to as the fifth Veda, and, unlike the others, it could be read by anyone who was literate, with no sanction against caste or gender, making it the most democratic Veda too. The Natyasastra categorised and described the performing arts-theatre which uses words, dance and music. To give you some idea as to the antiquity of the organised performing arts in India: there is a passage in Valmiki’s Ramayana describing Bharata racing back to Ayodhya from Kaikeya (modern Afghanistan) on the news of his father Dasharatha’s death – which describes the busy shopping streets of Ayodhya and the theatres where people flocked for entertainment. Panini, the grammarian of the third century BC, mentions the Natyasastra. It is supposedly written by the sage Bharata (not Rama’s brother) and he received it from Brahma in heaven. The point is that people in our geographical part of the world went to the theatre for entertainment some thousands of years before us.
Now the Natyasastra makes several important observations. It describes how a theatre should be built, with a proscenium and a raised stage, tiered seating, audience entrance from the back, with dimensions that allow the audience to see the actors’ expressions, or abhinaya and hand movements, mudras and also hear the words clearly. large cast productions were performed by drama companies in which both men and women performed. Remember, this was not the case in classical Greek theatre, where boys took the female roles, a tradition that was carried down the ages in Europe until the 19th century.
Costumes, jewellery and stage properties were used lavishly with guidelines as to how to get them on and off the stage, very much like london or Broadway musical plays. Such plays were done in the rural areas too, after harvest time, when large spaces were available, like for Ramlilas and Jatras of today, with precautions against the weather (storms for instance), built into the staging. live musical accompaniment; dance, with choreography created for battle scenes and tender love scenes alike; movement implying distance, indoors or outdoors, how to walk short and long distances, exiting and entering; introducing emotion into well-articulated speech, with facial movements to introduce trembling lips or such like physical movements — the detailing is extreme and implies a strong entertainment industry.
But the really revealing answer to our original questions lies in the ten different types of plays that were performed. First, there were large cast productions based in actual history or mythology with a lot of action, and second, similar plays but with original stories, both introduced by their producers or authors and followed by some attractive feminine dance and singing. The first two types of plays were called nataka and prakarana which might have as many as five to ten acts. Whether they were taken from original authors or existing well- known stories from the epics or Puranas, they often had a political point as can be seen in plays by Bhartrhari, Bhasa, Bhavabhuti and so on, applicable to contemporary situations. Third, there were three-act plays dealing with three types of deceits, three types of calamities with subjects like cities under siege, or devastating floods or fires.
The fourth type of play described was very illuminating called Ihaamrga in relation to the importance of women in ancient India. The principal character was a divine woman. No physical violence took place on stage but quarrels, kidnappings and jockeying for power constituted the plot with a number of women actors, as well as males.
This fifth sort of play, described as Dima, had a well-known story with 16 dignified heroes and heroines in four acts engaging in intellectual discussion about the usual disagreements between, for instance, the gods and the asuras, but actually reflecting contemporary issues.
The sixth was a similar sort of play in one act with the action taking place in one day between royal sages and thinkers.
The seventh type of play also dealt with women. It had a human hero who had to redress the wrongs suffered by women after a siege or battle. There was a great deal of music and the emotion was karuna or compassion. This was obviously a hazard of life in ancient India and plays which assuaged people’s hurt were in demand. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were subsidised by the State.
The eighth sort of play was satire. It could contain obscenity, was often centred round an actual scandal, the characters were of both sexes and costumes were everyday, the language Prakrit and colloquial. God men were often the targets.
The ninth was a single person performance, often autobiographical, or about a known hero or rogue. One act and much movement was enjoined.
The tenth type of play was called vithi. It had two persons in one act. It was funny, full of repartee and double meaning. It could be placed in any section of society. It contained puns, riddles and words which, when explained between the two actors, were hilarious. Somewhat like stand-up comedy I suppose but between the actors rather than directly to the audience.
Now if you survey these ten types of plays frequently performed in these formats, and keeping in mind they all used words as well as music, dance and poetry, one must assume that the State was capable of allowing a lot of free speech and free expression from its performing artists. Also consider that these plays must have been commercially viable, proof that the audience liked them and so they were well-attended.
Elsewhere in the Natyasastra it is explained that plays from different parts of the country, or about, or set, in different parts of the country had different styles and characteristics. There was no uniformity apparently imposed.
Doesn’t this all imply that a State or government could welcome or at least find it useful for free discussion to take place in public, and not attempt to bundle artists and their audiences into black and white, packets, nationalists or seditionists, governed by censor boardsIJ
If ancient India could be so politically assured why not modern India and those of its proponents who claim to be speaking on behalf of the “nationIJ” All the sensitive issues are discussed in the Natyasastra — religion, politics, women, obscenity and regionalism. It is worth learning a lesson from our ancient artists and writers, don’t you thinkIJ
(Jalabala Vaidya, Founder & Director of Akshara Theatre)