Q. Few scholars have explored Indo-European or Eurasian theatre. What triggered your interest in this area of study?
A. While studying classical theatre traditions, I discovered that there are primarily two dramatic theories practised the world over — Aristotelian and Indian. I wanted to compare the similarities and differences between these and to explore the possibilities of the Indian and European theatre traditions having a common origin. But I found it difficult to understand Greek drama by studying literary criticisms of British and American scholars, who were deficient in their understanding of Greek theatre. So I decided to study Poeticsand Natyashastra on my own. This is how my book Dramatic Concepts — Greek and Indian was born.
Q. What is the central argument of this book?
A. I firmly believe that Natyashastra and Poetics should not be seen as Eastern and Western productions alone. We need to understand them within the framework of Indo-European culture and the art of sacred drama or hieropraxis. During my research, I felt that ancient Greek drama and culture were given an unduly empirical colour by Western scholars. In order to understand the true essence of these seminal works, especially Natyashastra, one needs have a first-hand working knowledge of all performing art forms .
Q. What are the most striking similarities between classical Greek and Indian theatre?
A. Both classical Greek and Indian theatre traditions strove for sacred action (hieropraxis) — they both promulgated worship, philosophical understanding and theatrical representation at the same time. They pleased both gods and men and used semiotised gestures, music, dance and dialogue to create a highly ornate theatrical reality. Both promoted certain values among people. In Greek theatre, they achieved this by acquainting people with the Olympian gods and in Indian theatre, they promoted Vedic values with the idea of making life better. So, in a sense, both were theatres ofavatar or incarnation (avataran). Also, neither had puritanical views on art — all arts were instruments for higher ecstatic experiences.
Q. How is that different from the Western theatre tradition?
A. We need to understand that Western theatre is very different from Greek theatre. Greek theatre came to an end roughly in the 2nd Century A.D., when with the advent of Christianity, worship of the Olympian gods was abandoned. Post-Renaissance European drama, which is what Western theatre essentially is, was secular in content and realistic in presentation. The primary goal of this European drama was social reformation, culminating in the works of writers with a clearly Leftist leaning, such as Dryden, Ibsen and Shaw.
{ | Neither had puritanical views on art — all arts were instruments for higher ecstatic experiences. |
Q. Did classical Indian theatre witness similar changes?
A. Around the 11th Century A.D., with the coming of Islam, classical Indian drama ceased to be urban theatre. It was banished to the countryside, where the worship of deities was not permitted, and remained there until the arrival of the British, who brought back theatre to the cities. But their tradition was Victorian in spirit and in technique. This, coupled with the national struggle for independence, gave birth to a socio-political theatre tradition, very little concern for the metaphysical. Rural theatre meanwhile was still following the ancient traditions of performance — music, dance, costume, poetry, myths, incarnation, devotion and was about the deep questions of life.
Q. How does classical Indian theatre differ from Greek drama?
A. Unlike Greek drama, classical Indian theatre used performance as a close encounter with the audience. Indian theatre was secular, whereas Greeks were entirely subsumed by metaphysical and contemporary political concerns. Greek theatre was an entirely ritual affair, done two or three times a year on special occasions, Indian theatre pervaded everyday life. Another very interesting distinction was language — while Indian theatre was multi-lingual, using Sanskrit and non-Sanskrit dialects, Greek theatre was only in literary Greek and was not known to use prose at all.
Q. Western scholars have often asked why Indians did not write any tragedies. Is that a fair question?
A. Neither did the Greeks! There is a misplaced notion among Western scholars that tragedy is a play with an unhappy ending. Greek plays were typically written as trilogies and only the first of these plays ended unhappily, in death or decline. The second and the third parts often progressed towards reconciliation. However, European dramatists like Marlowe, Shakespeare and Dryden modelled their plays only after the first part of the trilogy and that is how the tradition of tragedy grew in Europe. But this was not how ancient Greek theatre was practiced.
Q. In your book you have argued that rasa is comparable to catharsis. Are they not two completely distinct constructs?
A. I have said rasa and catharsis are not contradictory. There have been different expositions by classical commentators, who have tried to show us that a certain kind of purification is necessary forrasa to emerge. The idea of catharsis is also purification. Aristotle did not think of catharsis as the primary aim of drama. This is another big mistake of Western literary criticism. Aristotle talks about a special pleasure that tragedy is capable of giving us. The aim of tragedy then is to give pleasure.