Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Concepts of Indian Dramatic Traditio
The Concepts of Indian Dramatic Traditio
Rupaka has three main constituents as the life blood of every dramatic
piece- vastu(plot), neta (hero) and rasa (sentiment). Vastu has been
classified in two kinds, adhikarik (principal) and prasangik (accessory).
Adhikarik is related to the chief protagonist or characters of the main plot
of rupaka. The prasangik is related to what happens other than the main
topic and it encompasses the characters other than the hero and the
heroine. Vastu has five essential arthaprakaris (requisites) for its
development. These are bija ( the seed), bindu (the drop), pataka (the
banner), prakari (the episode) and karya (the final issue). Bija is the
circumstance leading to the ultimate result briefly stated which as the plot
takes its shape, gives multifarious results as the seed of the plot. Bindu
joins any break of sequence in the plot if caused by the addition of an
incident. Pataka is an episode which either illustrated, advances or stops
the progress of plot in order to add interest in it. Prakari is an episode of
limited duration having minor importance. The principal characters do
not have any part in it. Karya is the main object of the plot after whose
attainment the drama ends. These arthaprakaris in perfect combination
with awasthas (stages of development) result in samdhis (junctures).
Awasthas (stages) are five in number- aarambha (beginning), yatna
(effort), praptyasha (prospect of success), niyatapti (attainment after
crossing obstacles) and falagam (the result of getting the desired aim).
Here it is observed that the concept of neta (hero) is at total variance with
the Aristotelian concept of hero because of the fact that there are no
tragedies in Sanskrit literature. In the Indian concept the hero should be
modest, decorous, comely, munificent, civil, of sweet address and
eloquent in his character. Above all he must belong to a noble family. Ne
ta is of four kinds- dhirodatta, dhiralalita, dhirashanta and dhirodhhatta.
Dhiralalita is the hero who is graceful and firm as described:
devotion that the poet feels for Him pervades the whole Geetanjali and
causes the dominant bhakti rasa. Similarly other works explicate other
rasas.
The Neta (hero) should be of Dhirodatta class who should cause the
sentiment of Shringara, Veera or Karuna. The acts must not be tiresome
because of their length and must be full of Rasa. The incidents like
journeys, murders or wars must not be shown on stage, rather they should
be indicated. The death of the hero is never to be exhibited on stage in
Sanskrit Poetics and this states the reason for the total absence of
tragedies in ancient India. The play ends as it begins with a Bharatvakya
(a benediction or prayer) which is repeated by the chief protagonist not as
a dramatic character but as a member of the dramatic party and contains
their wishes for general prosperity and happiness. The language is
classical Sanskrit for the main characters whereas the minor characters
may speak in different Prakrit dialects.
Compared to the Indian dramas the Greek dramas stand poles apart.
Indian plays never reach a calamitous conclusion that can be sufficient to
result in tragedy. They never leave any painful impression upon the
audience whereas the structure of Greek drama has an essential feature of
conflict in it. The theme of tragedy is dark and serious whereas the
comedies are light and happy and they mostly end in marriages. Similar
to the five arthaprakaris of Vastu for its development in Indian drama,
Greek tragedy has five stages- exposition, complication, climax,
denouement (falling action) and a catastrophe (solution) which decides
the fate of its characters. The exposition explains the precondition from
which the action springs out. Complication progresses the action to its
climax. Climax denotes the stage when it takes a better or worse turn,
denouement is the falling action which unfolds the complication resulting
in either a solution (in comedy) or catastrophe (in tragedy). Taking a cue
form Seneca, the Greek playwright, the Elizabethan drama was divided
6
into five acts each related to the five stages working through different
scenes. The aim of both the genres is to give pleasure like the Sanskrit
drama resulting by its rasas as tragedy inspires us with pity and fear
resulting in purgation whereas comedy aims at evoking laughter in the
audience. The hero of a tragedy is of noble society or a man of high birth,
the interest of comedy being people of much less importance.
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines tragedy as “drama of a serious and
dignified character that typically describes the development of a conflict
between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny,
circumstance, or society) and reaches a sorrowful or disastrous
conclusion”. (2006.10. P.7). Comedy on the other hand is a “genre of
dramatic literature that deals with the light and amusing or with the
serious and produced in a light or satirical manner” (2006. 3, p.16).
Aristotle mentions six elements in a tragedy-plot, character, diction,
thought, spectacle and song. Out of these, he stresses the importance of
plot by saying, “…that the plot then, is the first principle, and, as it were,
the soul of tragedy; character holds the second place” (Aristotle: 9).
During the Renaissance the strong position of plot was suppressed by the
emergence of strong individualistic characters of the Elizabethan age.
The Shakespearean tragedies are all tragedies of character.
The plot must be a complete whole. It must show a beginning, middle
and an end. Whatever is irrelevant must be eliminated and subordinated
to the structure of the plot. All the incidents in it should be liked together
in a probable or necessary sequence. Aristotle divides plot into two types-
simple and complex. A simple plot is one without peripeteia and
anagnorisis. Peripeteia is reversal of intention whereas anagnorisis
means recognition or revelation of truth. A complex one has both, a
fitting example being Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex. Both the genres of Greek
drama aim at giving pleasure. The Sanskrit drama aims at giving pleasure
through the creation of different rasas, the Greek drama gives pleasure
through the spectacle of human suffering and unhappy fate (in tragedy)
and by showing “the common errors of life…in the most ridiculous and
scornful sort that may be, so as it is impossible that any beholder can be
content to be such a one” (Sidney, 1595: 1). Tragedy affects a catharsis
or purgation of emotions whereas comedy corrects the manners of the
people.
The other two features of classical drama are the three unities and the use
of chorus. The theory of three unities has no parallel in Indian drama
though there are suggestions for the organic unity of the plot. The
element of chorus is replaced by the commentary of the sutradhara or the
nandipath. The chorus consists of a body of actors who report what
happened off the stage and make moral comments from time to time. The
Classical tradition did not favor the representation of violent physical
7
actions on the stage and it was reported by the chorus. The three unities-
unity of time, unity of action and unity of place- were maintained though
they limited the scope for the dramatists. Unity of time circumscribed the
time of plot by limiting it to its time on stage. Unity of action sanctioned
that the plot must not be a mixture of tragic and comic elements. This
means that there must not be any comic relief as in the Elizabethan
tragedies. Unity of place suggested that if the play limits itself to few
hours, it need to be stationed at one place. The romantic tragedies of
Shakespeare do not comply to these unities or supreme importance to
plot due to the reason that they represent the “new adventurous spirit of
Elizabethan England, with its voyages of discovery and fascination”
(E.B.U.R.S., 2009:1). They take an important but imperfect person as
their protagonist- Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, Othello, Dr. Faustus,
Tamburlaine- all awe inspiring and over ambitious in their make.
References:
Ascroft, Griffiths & Tiffin. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice
in Post Colonial Literatures. London: Routledge, 1989.