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

© 2021 Global Journals Volume XXI Issue XII Version I 53 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 A The Indian Theory of Drama philosopher and guide. It is the type of entertainment that would capture the people’s hearts of different tastes, and the spectator must appreciate the artistic point of the dramatists show. Hence Bharata has also evolved a well-defined and well-categorized theory of Rasa (eight in numbers, Śṛṅ g ā ra , H ā sya , Karu ṇ a , Raudra , V ī ra , Bhay ā naka , B ī bhatsa , and Adbhuta ) and makes it explicit that there is no N ā tya without rasa. He explains that rasa is the cumulative result of vibh ā va (stimulus), anubh ā va (involuntary reaction), and Vyabhic ā r ī bh ā va (voluntary action) (Rangacharya 1996 55). The aim is to provide instruction through entertainment and the emphasis is on recreation of bh ā vas ( भावानुकीत�नं ). The theory includes various forms of the show, necessitates music with instructions for actors to perfect subtle nuances of acting with the minutest of details. Bharata also gives clear-cut directions to build the structure of theatre. Radhaballabh Tripathi makes a very significant comment that “Bharatamuni stands as a Vy ā sa in the Indian theatrical universe and like Vy ā sa his N ā tya śā stra has remained with us as a Sa ṁ hita (compendium) with a systematic presentation of the conceptual framework as well as the theories of practices of theatre…” (2014 1) N ā tya ś astra is theatre oriented rather than text- oriented, and Bharata not only differentiates Lokdharm ī and N ā tyadharm ī but also asserts that drama should be presented in the N ā tyadharm ī style. Bharata seems to be a step ahead of Aristotle by defining the subtle difference between two modes. The concept of N ā tyadharmi anticipates subtle nuances of the present- day theatre. Narayanan makes a valuable observation Bharata’s exposition on N ā tyadharm ī implies the fundamental principle that every object, action, and area of the stage—what more, the stage itself—is a sign. The theatrical communication works less through a world reproducing mimesis than through a process of differential semiosis, established through practice and convention. Inscribed in Bharata’s postulation of the possibilities of N ā tyadharm ī , are such principles which, in the terminology of modern day theatre semiotics, may be phrased as the constitutiveness of all the sensory possibilities of performance, the arbitrary relationship between the theatrical signifiers and signifieds, the transferability of the signs, etc. (137) The classical theory of drama remained a source of inspiration for later ā c ā ryas for thousands of years. Western thought, the groundwork of which began with the rise of Renaissance and the Poetics , with other Greek and roman texts, was revived after thousands of years. The continuity of tradition which N ā tya śā stra enjoyed and was enriched is missing in the West. Bharata’s treatise has received numerous commentaries and is still relevant. We may call it an integral multidisciplinary approach, an ocean, and assuredly a confluence (Vatsyayan 45). It was no accident that Artaud, the Absurdists, and several other dramatists abandoned the lexis-centered (word/dialogue centered) theatre and adopted the semiotic, gestured and music based Eastern models that relied upon none other than the tradition of N ā tya śā stra . (Gupt ix)The evident fact is that like today’s cinema N ā tya is a composite art in Indian tradition with principle of Karma at its center. Therefore we have a tradition of tragic-comedy and the idea of tragedy was never a part of the Indian Drama. But alas the English departments of Indian universities (except a few) do not include any aspect of N ā tya śā stra except the rasa theory and that too under Indian poetics. There are talks on decolonizing the syllabus, but when it comes to preparing it, nobody cares about any Indian Śā stra, forget about N ā tya śā stra My humble submission here is that instead of exclusive and persistent devotion to the Western theories, we need to turn from Anglomania to metanoia . India’s deep-rooted wisdom, a long intellectual and cultural tradition, is still capable of illuminating the world. As for as the Indian scenario is concerned, the western theories partially help us, while the most important western theories (since Eliot), like formalism, structuralism and deconstruction owe a great deal to the Indian intellectual tradition. As for as N ā tya śā stra is concerned, it is par excellence. I have exposed and analyzed some of the important aspects to let the readers be acquainted with the stature of the text. The Western insights and speculation can further enrich the text. Bharata Gupt rightly observes that N ā tya śā stra becomes a cardinal text for all kinds of communication skills and art forms and has to be revisited with deep regards for its value, more so by us in India to where it belongs but whose elite classes are overburdened with Euro-American paradigms. (x) Notes: 1. The tradition believes that the text had 12000 verses, but only 6000 survived. In some versions there are 37 or 38 chapters. Most of the verses are in Anushtup metre (4x8, or exactly 32 syllables in every Ś loka ), some verses are in Arya metre, and some are in prose (especially chapter 6, 7, and 28). 2. Banner Festival: This festival occurred on the twelfth day of the bright half of the moon in the month of Bh ā dra . It was a very popular festival in India. (Ghosh 9) 3. The complex Vedic rituals and ceremonies with elaborate rites and symbolic gestures, and physical actions could have served as the foundation for the emergence of theatre. 4. In later history, the word Nata was used to describe dancers and pantomimists, as well as actors. 5. The importance of the play lies in its representation and critical appreciation, as the plays are to be essentially ‘spectacle’ ( prek ṡ a ) or ‘things’ to be visualized; hence persons attending the performance of a play were referred to (XXVII. 48- 57) as ‘spectators’ or ‘Observers’ ( prek ṣ aka ) and