A Step Ahead...

A Step Ahead...

The dawn of the new millennium finds Indian dance at an interesting historical juncture. The Janus-faced post-colonial predicament of reconstructing the past retrieving and reassembling classical dance styles in order to face the challenges of the future seems to have been replaced by a new spirit. A growing wave of dancers appears to feel the need to historicise the self to relate inherited idioms with a contemporary reality. Given the multiple realities that constitute India today, a bewildering number of creative negotiations are obviously possible. Uday Shankar’s pioneering efforts at reaching a new audience through a rich amalgam of styles have been followed by journeys in varied directions. From Kumudini Lakhia to Mrinalini Sarabhai to Narendra Sharma. From Astad Deboo’s attempts at exploring interdisciplinary and trans-stylistic synergies to Chandralekha’s project of stripping away accretions from the nascent vitality of Bharata Natyam. From Daksha Sheth’s integration of Kathak, Chhau andKalaripayattu to Aditi Mangaldas’ infusions of contemporary content into Kathak.

There are others too Bharat Sharma, Ileana Citaristi, Veenapani Chawla, Maya Krishna Rao, Tripura Kashyap, Navtej Singh Johar, Maulik and Ishira Parikh, Padmini Chettur, to name a few whose work has challenged monolithic interpretations of our dance tradition in creative ways. The artistic success of these choreographers’ interventions can certainly be debated. However, they clearly add up to a scene of flux, self-enquiry, uncertainty. And that’s never a bad thing.

A recent symposium, organised by the Max Mueller Bhavan and the Sangeet Natak Akademi (as a follow-up to the much-chronicled East-West Dance Encounter of 1984) at the NCPA, sought to contextualise the emerging trajectories of dance in India and Europe. However, the six odd sessions confirmed that things this time were markedly different from the previous ‘New Directions in Indian Dance’ symposium of 1993. The intimate exploratory spirit was replaced by a fraught and acrimonious ethos, and the tone of the proceedings seemed disturbingly magisterial.

First, there was the question of representation. Some of the important above-mentioned choreographers either by design, unavailability or problems of limited resources weren’t present. Additionally, Mumbai dancers were conspicuous by their absence in the audience.

Structurally too, one missed the presence of a sensitive facilitating presence. Consequently, ‘cutting edge’ dancers seemed to be retreating into defensive ghettos customarily associated with classical dance divas. Likewise, there was little safeguard against the legislative tone of the viewer-response, which was disturbing, particularly given the sensitivities called for in a cross-cultural context.

There were also certain issues that the symposium failed to grapple with adequately. For instance, the danger of creating specious dichotomies between ‘tradition’ and ‘change’. Of replacing a unitary construction of history with another unitary paradigm for the future. Of allowing terms like ‘innovation’ to harden intoneo-canonical dogma. Of turning counter-cultural figures into a new establishment of divas.And of unleashing a nouveau-brahminical lingo of ‘purity’ juxtaposing a fictitious realm of ‘untainted artistic experiment’ with ‘market-contaminated pop-culture’. Daksha Sheth’s performance, ‘BhuKham’, for instance, generated much debate on the grounds that it was more ‘circus’ than ‘dance’ and that its self-definition of pure spectacle signified the potential debasement of the human body. It’s true that a vital choreographic element was absent from this production, and it didn’t quite add up to more than the sum of its parts. And yet, given Sheth’s long exploratory tryst with movement, the risk of reifying the body seems a trifle far-fetched. Can we overlook the strongly celebratory element, the kinetic exuberance and rigour of Sheth’s work? And what of the artiste’s right to be playful? Must ‘high seriousness’ of intent pervade everything she undertakes? Is ‘spectacle’ necessarily a pejorative term? Perhaps weought to arrive at a more complex understanding of the ‘market’?

"Slowness," said Chandralekha (whose work continues to represent an important artistic choice), "is the only luxury we can allow ourselves today". Her new work, ‘Sharira’, demonstrated the truth of that personal credo in a series of strong, sensuous images by two virtuoso performers, supported by the rivetting music of the Gundecha brothers. Despite repetitious moments, the work does mark an intensification of her quest since ‘Raga’ (where the romantic essentialised notion of femininity seemed more problematic). While a slow-paced, minimalist aesthetic is also beginning to characterise Astad Deboo’s work, it would be unfortunate to turn these senior choreographers’ personal journeys into a standard for all. One missed the more ‘messy’ explorations of Roger Sinha, the young Montreal-based dancer who stunned audiences in 1993 with his skillful welding of elements of classicism and kitsch into a movement pastiche entitled ‘The Burning Skin’, ascathing comment on racism.

The symposium also offered other varied vignettes: the uncluttered geometry of Reinhild Hoffman’s with Suzanne Linke; the intensely physical, more violent movement explorations of younger German choreographer, Sasha Waltz; the restless dynamism and technical panache of the British-Asian Imlata Dance Company; and the unfortunately vapid choreographic display by French dancer Shakuntala.

Finally, what makes such encounters worthwhile are the serendipitous insights that still manage to emerge. Such as Narendra Sharma’s moving recollection of the time he wondered how someone as devoid of looks and charisma as himself could ever ‘make it’ as a dancer. His mentor, Uday Shankar, assured him, however, that he would make a name for himself in ‘satire’ words that clearly proved prophetic. Or Deboo’s wry account of the time he was informed by a government official that he ought to take patronage problems in his stride, since ‘pioneers’ were, after all, ‘meant to receive recognition only posthumously’! Or Navtej’s astute observation that the contemporary Indian cultural scene suffered from an impulse to ‘over-articulate’ and ‘polarise’. (Even that salvo didn’t quite subdue participants into a reflective silence!)

What the symposium eventually did establish perhaps inadvertently is that new directions in dance can never be programmatically plotted. Given the essential anarchy of the creative process, they’re likely to arise from unexpected quarters in unpredictable avatars inevitably proving the cultural taliban wrong!