At a dance seminar that I attended recently, leading Odissi dancers were discussing something called ‘pure dance.’ Those who are well-versed in Indian classical dance or have some knowledge about it, know the term ‘pure dance’ which does not go with lyrical representation or theatrical action. This is a very general statement and it does not define the spirit of ‘pure dance.” Somehow, a significant question on ‘pure dance’ came from a prominent young dancer and scholar who asked: “Is there really something called pure dance? If a particular dance number is pure, then do we suppose all other dance forms are impure?” There is a critical undertone in his submission which deserves the attention of dancers and dance scholars.
According to ancient Indian dance forms, which follow the rigidly set rules of Natya Shastra, there are two kinds of dance: Nritya and Nritta. In a generalised interpretation, it is said that dance which follows literary texts and expresses various feelings is called Nritya, whereas the other dance, which doesn’t follow the text and is completely based on rhythmic patterns is Nritta. Now, one may ask, what is Nritta in Odissi dance? At Odissi concerts, we are used to hearing that “Pallavi is a pure dance”. Pallavi is always Raaga based and technically, it can never be a pure dance.
In July 1975, there was a seminar on Odissi dance where all the legendary Gurus and scholars of that time had a serious debate on pure dance in Odissi. Batu which is a rhythm-based dance is treated as pure dance because it goes with rhythmic patterns and without textual references. In that seminar, legendary Odissi Guru Pankaj Charan Das said that the Mahari or Devadasi tradition of Puri’s Shri Jagannath Temple in Puri had the “Nirgita” or unlyrical tradition as the dominating dance style. The tradition of dance following lyrics came into existence only after the arrival of Vaishnavism. Historically, there is no evidence of such a dance tradition which goes without text and expression in Odissi. Guru Pankaj Charan Das and Guru Deba Prasad Das were of the firm opinion that expression was never an integral part of the Odissi dance inside the temple.
From the days of Natya Shastra, there is a debate on the language of the dance. Should dance should be based on Sahitya (literature) or it should have its own language expressed through body movements, signs and structures? Many of our contemporary maestros believe that pure dance gives absolute liberty to the dancer to innovate her language. Dance cannot solely depend upon literature and follow the dictation to express herself. In that context, pure dance is the absolute liberty of the dancer. It is in pure dance that the dancer and choreographer use his/her own body, space and movement to make a statement of creative liberty.
To make the issue simpler, let me quote Frederick Ashton, the greatest British ballet dancer and choreographer- “I personally am not fond of the literary ballet, because it seems to me that there comes a hiatus always in which one longs for the spoken word to clarify the subject. And these ballets always seem to lead to miming than dancing, thereby invading the functions of the drama or the cinema. In my balletic ideology, it is the dancing which must be the foremost factor, for ballet is an expression of emotions and ideas through dancing and not through words.”
Dance without spoken words can be more liberating and that only contains the power of expressing the inexpressible.
Comments are closed.