Bhārata and her Kāśmīra {National Seminar on Jammu and Kashmir organized by The National Museum of India (Jan 5 - 6 2022)} (original) (raw)
Related papers
Landscape in the Nāṭyaśāstra and clues to its spatial origin: A study in 2019
Samīkṣikā-19, 2022
What does the landscape described in the Nāṭyaśāstra look like? How does it compare with the landscape described in, for instance, the Mahābhārata? Can a reading of Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra in 2019 still yield clues about its spatial origin? Answers to these questions form the crux of this paper which also looks to a) address one of the many questions listed by scholar Kapila Vatsyayan (in her foreword to the 2016 book NĀṬYAŚĀSTRA—Revisited which contains her essay ‘NĀṬYAŚĀSTRA—A history of criticism’) and b) to take one small step in a research area identified by another scholar Bharat Gupt (in his essay in NĀṬYAŚĀSTRA—Revisited). In answering the questions specified above, this paper looks to contribute to ‘the critical analysis on the journey of the text of Nāṭyaśāstra’ (sub-theme 2 of the conference) and to foreground insights, from studying what seems like lesser-researched aspects of the text, insights, that would be relevant in the pursuit of the framework for a new critical edition of the Nāṭyaśāstra.
2020
Is Bhārata a discourse on space that does not allow a visual representation of that space? Is it the case that on the basis of such a discourse, it is not possible to draw a map in the modern sense of the word? Is it methodologically inappropriate to identify Bhāratavarṣa with a concrete territorial unit and to take it to represent a geographical reality? What seem like nearly-unambiguous answers, in near-affirmative no less, to all the above questions appear in at least two recent essays "'India, that is Bharat…': One Country, Two Names' by Catherine Clémentin-Ojha and 'The Concept of Bhāratavarṣa and Its Historiographical implications' by B.D. Chattopadhyaya. Clearly, answers that are in the near-affirmative to the above questions are of consequence not just to any discussion on an idea of India but also to at least one important facet of being Indian: India's territory (and the past of that territory). In this paper, amongst other things, the statements that appear to be near-affirmative answers to the questions above are foregrounded and are engaged with critically, an engagement that looks to analyze and then present evidence that may render those near-affirmative answers as at least seriously contestable, if not as invalidated. In doing so, this paper will draw from some parts of an actual system of knowledge indigenous to the Indian subcontinent (and hence an Indic knowledge system) the Aṣṭādaśavidyā.
Rasa: Natyashastra to Bollywood
Western Indology on Rasa: A Purvapaksha, 2018
Rasa, meaning gist, is the essence that one feels when experience an art piece, be it performance or static art. Rasa, in Indian context, applied to both the performer and the audience is considered an alaukika (other worldly) experience. An integral part of aesthetics both Indian and Greek (although European performing arts moved away from the original concept of Greek aesthetics) is improvisation on the rules that are suggested for a clear structure, which by definition is fluid and allows room for ‘newness. Using Bharat Gupt’s study of the poetics and Natyashastra, this paper will focus on similarities in both Indian and Greek aesthetics, also highlighting when and why contemporary notion of aesthetics in European theatre moved away from the Greek, which was more similar to the Indian sensibility. There will also be a focus on the concept of hieropraxis (art as worship, pleasing both people and Gods), which was common, both to Indian and Greek art forms. Finally, the paper will illustrate through examples of Bollywood and interviews with BharatNatyam teachers (in Sweden) how improvisation, and newness is brought into various aspects of performance arts, thereby challenging Sheldon Pollock’s reading of the Natyashastra, as being rigid and frozen in time and devoid of bringing novelty, making them irrelevant to our times.
The A of ABC of Indian chronology*: Dimensions of the Aryan problem revisited in 2017
Land of Dharma - Proceedings from Swadeshi Indology Conference Series, 2019
Whether posited as an invasion by or migration of Aryans, these variant forms—of an into-India hypothesis (supposed movement into India around the second millennium BCE)—are underpinned by one constant: the consequence that the earliest forms of Vedic culture and Sanskrit are not indigenous to India. Written in 2017, this paper examines, in three dimensions, whether such a hypothesis, given its startling consequence to Indic history, can remain a preserve of only one domain (linguistics) before demonstrating not only an absence of proof for such a consequence, amongst other related questions, in key Indic texts through a study of the terms ārya and drāviḍa but also specific problematics in the development of this hypothesis in historical linguistics.