Bharata's Origin Myth

An old myth attributed to Bharata, the great sage of India's performing arts, relates the origin of the theatre. Bharata takes as his starting point the Vedas, the almost obligatory entry into any discussion of Indian cultural phenomena, but he immediately departs from protocol by suggesting the limits of their scope. For—as Bharata tells it—whereas the Vedas were accessible to the highest classes in society, they were not even to be overheard by Shudras (the lowest of the four orders or varnas ), women, or non-Aryans (outsiders, mlecchas ).^[1] For this reason the gods, under the leadership of their king, Indra, approached the creator god, Brahma, and asked him to produce something that all manner of people could enjoy, something that would be a source of diversion and entertainment, a plaything (kridaniyaka ).^[2] Accepting the validity of this appeal, Brahma assembled a new art by taking the best from each of the four Vedas. From the Rg Veda he took the recitation of words (pathya ), from the Sama Veda music and song (gita ), from the Yajur Veda gestures and acting techniques (abhinaya ), and from the Atharva Veda sentiments or emotions (rasa ). Thus was created the Fifth Veda, the Natya Veda, or Theatre.

This myth comes at the beginning of a great treatise describing the practice and theory of the performing arts, the Natyasastra , probably composed between the second century B.C. and the second century A.D. ^[3]

It serves as a defense of the theatre, insofar as it is addressed to the educated classes who associated theatre with actors of low social standing. To this end, the story employs several time-honored strategies for legitimizing its subject. First, it ascribes a divine origin to the theatre, tracing the rationale for its existence to a request of the gods and naming its inventor as the creator god himself. Second, it constitutes the theatre out of older esteemed entities, the four sacred Vedas, from which its various elements are borrowed. Third, it names the theatre in relation to them, adding it as a sequel to their number: the fifth Veda.

At the same time that it proposes theatre as a new Veda, the myth sets out its very different purpose, nature, and social context. The functions of theatre are defined in this passage as pleasure, amusement, recreation—not ritual efficacy, religious instruction, or mystical realization.^[4] From the beginning, theatre is designed as a composite art, a multimedia spectacle employing language, movement, musical sound, and feeling, in contrast to the predominantly verbal character of the Veda with its emphasis on the supremely potent Word (vak ). Further, in its relation to society, theatre is to belong to the people, cutting across hierarchies and including all ranks and classes within its embrace.

Buried within this story are enduring oppositions between the sacred and the profane, the pure and the impure, the high and the low, which are often viewed as essential to the structure of Indian society. One reading of the myth suggests that theatre belongs to the lower extreme in these hierarchies, especially in the implied contrast to the first four Vedas. Theatre is profane in relation to the scriptures' sacred authority, it is a mixture of forms aimed not at purifying but at entertaining, and it is associated with debased social groups. Indeed the maligning of theatre—and its adherents—has a lengthy history in India, predating Bharata in its origin and continuing to the most recent period. The Natyasastra myth may be an early recorded apology for an art form that had long been considered lowly, corrupting, and impure.

The myth at the same time seems to say that theatre abrogates categories. Theatre is the great leveler. It holds all spectators in its compass by its universal appeal. The all-embracing character of theatre as described in the Natyasastra is not intended simply as praise. Though it may be hyperbole to declare the Natya Veda the summation of the Vedas, no doubt the theatre that Bharata knew did include almost all the arts of his time. As the Natyasastra says, "There is no wise maxim, no learning, no art or craft, no device, no action that is not found in the

theatre."^[5] The detail of Bharata's text amply illustrates the statement. With its six thousand verses, it is the most elaborate treatise on theatre and its production ever written.^[6] Moreover, the theatre, as mediating agency in a complex society, brings together an assortment of castes in the performance spaces created in temples, exhibition halls, and other public venues. In both senses then, theatre moves beyond classes and categories. It fuses, socially and artistically; it merges and transcends.

Bharata's origin myth not only outlines the ancient concept of theatre and social attitudes toward it, it demonstrates the persistent tension between the utility of categories and the limits of compartmentalization. A rhetorically astute scholar, Bharata introduces his topic in terms familiar to his audience. He begins by situating theatre in relation to the schemes of knowledge developed in the past. He identifies theatre as the fifth Veda, an apt procedure given the meaning of veda (from the Sanskrit root vid ), "that which is known." And yet theatre is so obviously not a Veda; it is distinct from the four Vedas in ways that are suggested by the mere mention of them, and this too Bharata knew and intended his audience to know. The Vedas provide the reference point for establishing theatre as a respectable entity, and they also mark the point at which theatre diverges and takes its own trajectory.

The same dilemma confronts us in trying to situate the Nautanki theatre within the systems of knowledge available to contemporary scholarship. Multiple approaches suggest themselves, each with its own conceptual framework. This chapter will explore some of the categories that have been utilized in the past, within two systems of reference. First, it describes Nautanki in relation to the immensely varied field of theatre in South Asia and compares the genre to a number of other theatrical genres past and present. Second, it explores Nautanki's connections within the rich realm of South Asian folklore, including its relations to nontheatrical genres such as folktale, folk song, legend, and epic. Insofar as the primary referent is the cultural environment of the Indian subcontinent, the discussion is grounded in the excellent body of research published by South Asianists in recent years. From the outset, however, it may be noted that some conceptual distinctions current in this scholarship are inappropriate to a complex cultural phenomenon such as Nautanki. As this chapter explores how Nautanki may best be described, it attempts to clarify the social and cultural situation of the theatre and to outline its broad dimensions in a manner of interest to both the specialist and the general reader.