Global Journal of Human-Social Science, A: Arts and Humanities, Volume 21 Issue 12

Volume XXI Issue XII Version I 46 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 A © 2021 Global Journals The Indian Theory of Drama (engaged in singing songs) and newly created Apsaras by Brahma, the occasion of the celebration of the Banner Festival 2 (which consists of the victory of Indra on Daitya and D ā nvas) was chosen for the first show. This first performance was foiled by the Asuras because the story showed the defeat of Asuras by the gods. Uninvited Daitya and D ā nvas instigated the Vighnas (malevolent spirits) with Vir ū p ā k ṣ a as their leader, who said, “Come forward, we shall not tolerate this dramatic performance” (Ghosh 1951 10). Though they were routed, still the play could not be performed— the Daitya and D ā nvas decided to repeat the obstruction. To protect the performance Vishwakarma constructed a theatre structure but the conflict was resolved only when Brahma called a meeting of both the parties and explained the characteristics of drama. Assuring them that drama was not propaganda and no one should feel hurt because, Brahma said, “The drama will thus be instructive to all, through actions and states depicted in it, and through sentiments, arising out of it.” (Ghosh 15) The Great Grand Father further explained that drama is not meant to represent one individual exclusively. “It will [also] give relief to unlucky persons who are afflicted with sorrow and grief or [over] work, and will be conducive to the observance of duty as well as fame, long life, intellect, and general good, and will educate people. There is no wise maxim, no learning, no art or craft, no device, no action that is not found in drama.” (Ghosh 15) Thus Brahma pacified Daitya and D ā nvas: “You should not have any anger towards the gods; for a mimicry of the world with seven Divisions ( sapta dv ī pa ) has been made a rule of, in the drama.” (Ghosh 16) This traditional legend of the origin of drama and theatre gives us a wealth of practical information. Yet at the very outset, the purpose of the fifth Veda, a discourse of knowledge, is the promotion of the commonly accepted ends of life; “a knowledge text as it mediates between philosophy and ordinary people who need the ideas of philosophy but cannot access them” (Kapoor 13). Unlike the four Vedas, it is not confined to the realm of wisdom alone; it provides entertainment too. Further, its form and structure are bound to be sacred as it is composed out of sanctified materials. Finally, it is to be performed by specialists, who belong to upper-class people, trained in various arts, especially of theatre (drama, music, recitation, and rituals). As it claims to take all the knowledge to be its province, it is also an encyclopedia of the language of gestures, steps, poses, movements of all the Indian classical dances. Entertainment is given priority as the aim of drama is to attract ordinary people. Just as Panini standardized the classical form of Sanskrit, so Bharata standardized classical form of Drama. There is no indication of the existence of fully established theatrical tradition and its theory prior to Bharata, however there were stage-shows, called r ū paka and Bharata acknowledges hundreds of them. Most of these dealt with ś ringara or low humor. (Rangacharya 1966 6) In Indus valley civilization there are hints of the existence of dance, which might be part of rituals and festivals of the people of that civilization. There had been a long tradition of Nat-S ū tr ā s (dialogues) from ancient times and the earliest evidence is Shailalak in Ṛ gveda. (Mishra 41) In Ṛ gveda we find several forms of dialogues ( Samv ā ds ū kt ), for example the dialogue of Pururava and Urvashi, Vishvamitra and Nadi, Yam and Yami etc. and rituals 3 , but they do not appear to have developed into theatre. The earliest hint of a dramatic performance can be ascribed to Lava and Ku ś a (hence called Ku ś ilavah , means actors) who performed the story of R ā m ā ya ṇ a in the court of Rama. A further hint of the development of the N ā tya tradition can be traced in Mahabharata where the words Nat 4 and Shaileshu for actors are used. F rom the e arliest Sanskrit dram as of Ś udraka, Bh ā sa, A ś vaghosa follow most of the dictates of the N ā tya śā stra . Early Buddhist literature provides the earliest evidence for the existence of Indian theatre. My submission is that before N ā tya śā stra we don’t find an accepted Indian theory of Drama which is fully established. Sharadatanaya in his Bhav Prakash mentions the old Bharata who composed N ā tyaved āġ am (which had twelve thousand shlokas). Later Bharata abbreviated it in six thousand shlokas and composed the N ā tya śā stra . It is worth mentioning here that Bharata was not a single person. Most probably the Natas , who were dancers and actors, started telling themselves Bharata and thus they established the tradition of Bharatas. We cannot be sure how many experts, in how many centuries, of the Bharata tradition would have composed the N ā tya śā stra ? That is why N ā tya śā stra is also known as Bharata- śā stra . a) Subject Matter and Style of representation N ā tya śā stra proposes that N ā tya is a representation of not any particular individual but of the entire three worlds, whether of gods or asuras, and their ways. No motive should be attributed to the dramatist because he intends to give good advice through entertainment (I.107). With a clear perception of theatre- world relationships, N ā tya śā stra emphasizes pleasure as the primary aim of drama. What is to be noted here is that the subject of representation is not action but the recreation of bh ā va or emotional states ( Bh ā vanukirtanm ) because actions are individual, emotions are universal, and the emphasis is to represent every universal bh ā va of human life. Brahma says that “ N ā tya is the representation ( anukarana ) of the ways of the world involving these various emotions and differing circumstances” (Rangacharya 1996 4). This theory of mimesis receives its authority from Aristotle as well. Bharat enumerates two modes of representation: Lokadharm ī and N ā tyadharm ī , variously translated as realistic and stylized or dramatic, mimetic and conventional, worldly and theatrical modes. Under