Demolishing Dichotomy: The Battle between Classical and Contemporary dance in India

Simmering to the surface slowly but surely within the world of Indian dance, is a full-fledged battle between classical dance and contemporary dance. With eyes and ears open, wherever I go, I observe walls being erected, not demolished. This dichotomy strives only to destroy the future of dance and dancers in India because it further divides an already fragmented community, and creates unnecessary disunity and distrust, making any hope for a supportive and generous community of dancers, less of a reality.

Time and again, classical dancers in Delhi have questioned the need for Indian contemporary dance. The argument is poor – We have so much in our traditions, why do we need contemporary dance? It is akin to saying – we have such wonderful black-and-white films, why do we need film in colour? But surprisingly, I find many contemporary dancers being equally closed-minded about classical dance, turning their noses up at the many years of training and hard work that classical dancers go through.

And thus, the dichotomy becomes normalized - it is not uncommon to hear a narrow-minded classical dancer say – ‘Contemporary dance is just too experimental and arbitrary. There are no rules, dancers just go up there without any formal training, perform anything, and call it dance.’ Equally common is the complaint of an arrogant contemporary dancer – ‘Classical dance is so boring. It’s so technical and rigid. There is no room for creativity and improvisation. It’s pretty and all, but it’s hollow.’

I find both viewpoints equally ignorant, ill-informed and prejudiced. I also find the rate at which the dichotomy is getting consolidated highly alarming. I am trained primarily in Bharatanatyam. But having trained in other forms, and having researched a little on dance, as I came to question several things about dance and the systems in place within dance, I found myself more grounded because I was more aware. But I also felt lost, especially as I became increasingly aware that people believed in this dichotomy between classical and contemporary – Where did I fit in? Was I classical? Was I contemporary? Why couldn’t I be both, or neither? A lonely place to be, I found myself perhaps too classical for contemporary dance and too contemporary for classical dance in India.

Upon realizing that I possibly lived and danced in this limbo-like space, it became imperative for me to examine and understand how important, necessary and justified this dichotomy between classical and contemporary really is. What I found was that this dichotomy is easily demolished, and should be.

I attempted to answer two questions I set for myself in the quest to demolish dichotomy – One, what makes something classical or contemporary? And two, if they are indeed not quite so dichotomous (a hypothesis I attempt to prove in the course of this article), then why does this binary exist so rigidly? 

Leela Samson

Classical implies several things – when we speak of the classics, we often refer to the ‘ancient’, and traditional. We also associate it with religion in India. Classical art is also often seen as quite literal. Ballet is often prefixed with the term ‘classical’, and Bharatanatyam is considered a classical Indian dance form.

Astad Deboo

Then, what about contemporary dance? As was pointed out to me by a well-known choreographer recently, contemporary dance does not have a permanent code. Arguably, it has several definitions and forms, but the possible common threads that run through it include going beyond the classical and traditional, and creating something modern and not ancient. It can also be defined as abstract and not literal. In India, there has been a move away from the ‘classical’ for many years now, as dancers through the years have explored different methods, intentions and directions for Indian dance.

Having examined the possible explanations of classical and contemporary, the dichotomy between the classical and contemporary may seem obvious at first, and even justified – the former is ancient, the latter is not. One is literal, the other abstract. One is a reaffirmation of traditional values, the other is a breaking away from them. The former has religious affiliations, the latter occupies a more ‘secular’ space. But upon deeper analysis, it becomes clear that the lines separating the two are not clear and sharp, but really quite blurry.

Bharatanatyam has a complex and contested history, but is arguably classical and contemporary at once. The myth that Bharatanatyam is an ancient traditional dance form has been shattered by many scholars before I did so in my master’s thesis earlier this year. It is not an uncontested claim. But going by the rough definition of ‘classical’ in the above paragraph, Bharatanatyam does of course have elements of the classical in it. It does involve spirituality and devotion – and in some senses – that is partly the religious aspect of Bharatanatyam. It also draws its roots from an ancient dance form, performed by Devadasis in temples. I would argue that that itself makes Bharatanatyam a contemporary form too. It drew from – but in many ways also departed from the ancient and traditional dance form that was called ‘Sadir’. It broke away from it spatially in its move from the temple to the proscenium stage, in terms of content from ‘sensual’ (sringara) to ‘spiritual’ (bhakti), and also in terms of class and gender – traditionally performed by lower caste women taught by lower caste men (nattuvanars), now it is performed primarily by upper caste/class men and women.

Leela Samson's troupe - 'Spanda'

As far as the abstract and literal is concerned, Bharatanatyam is capable of both. Some dancers perform it very literally, word for word according to what the poetry says, while others have found abstractions by reading between the lines in the ancient poetry. In my own modest way, I attempted to portray social evils like untouchability and the prohibition on Dalits to enter temples through 14^th century texts in a padam. My last performance was also a shift in focus from the divine aspect to the human aspect of Bharatanatyam, a contemporary departure from the comparatively traditional emphasis on god. So how could I label Bharatanatyam as classical and only classical, when I found so many elements of the contemporary in it?

Chandralekha's 'Sharira'

I find the dichotomy between classical and contemporary demolishing even upon examining Indian contemporary dance. Chandralekha’s work is an obvious example. Her choreography utilized Indian traditional art forms, yet the content of the work was very contemporary. She moved away from the religious narrative, while simultaneously going back to tradition. Other Indian contemporary dancers, whose work I was able to see at the Gati Ignite! Festival of Contemporary dance, also seemed to constantly indicate that this dichotomy is unnecessary. The Indian contemporary dancers showcasing their work either launched into contemporary dance from a classical dance background, or were rooted in modern and contemporary dance but were moving towards exploring classical dance forms. Either way, the blend between classical Indian dance and Indian contemporary dance was utterly obvious.

Anusha Lall's 'Tilt'

I found the above inferences and observations so obvious upon analysis, that it is possible to say that the dichotomy dissolves, at least in theory. However, my argument that the two are fluid should not be mistaken with a claim that there is no difference between classical Indian dance and Indian contemporary dance. While I do insist that they should co-exist, and even derive content from each other, I admit that the difference must be recognized. My next question then is this – should difference necessarily symbolize incompatibility? The logical answer to that question is – No. The difference between classical and contemporary dance certainly should not symbolize their incompatibility with one another. It must not signify a corrosive co-existence. Unfortunately in India, I find that despite the fact that this dichotomy between classical and contemporary is clearly ‘demolishable’, it not only exists but breeds incompatibility and constructs borders of caustic barbed wire between the two forms. It is for that reason that I set myself the second question – why is this binary so rigid?

Perhaps for some dancers, the dichotomy, it’s potential to be demolished, and simultaneously, its pervasive rigidity is a non-issue. I have experienced dancers reacting to my questions about this unnecessarily rigid dichotomy with utmost impatience and dismissal. But that this dichotomy is made to exist so strongly is undeniable. To my mind, there are several reasons for this and they are all inter-connected. 

The first is obvious – there is simply a lack of awareness about the other’s dance. A classical dancer who says contemporary dance has no technique or discipline, or a contemporary dancer who says that classical dance has only technique and discipline are simply blissfully ignorant about the other form. Any dancer who opens his or her mind to another dance form would realize that there is much to learn from it that perhaps their own dance form could not transmit in the same way. And by learning, I don’t mean that a contemporary dancer should attend a few weeks of beginner’s Bharatanatyam or that a classical dancer stumbles into an improvisation class. What is needed is not a premature hasty judgment, but a deep understanding of the dance form that you don’t call your own before you start to judge it and its dancers. I think that the acceptance that this binary is a reality we can do nothing about becomes an excuse to not do this hard work. It is easier to criticize than to attempt to understand. Thus, my first point is that despite the blurred boundaries, it is ignorance that makes the dichotomy rigid.

Secondly, I think the existence of the binary veils closed-mindedness amongst dancers in India. Particularly in a system where the Guru-shishya relationship becomes more than just a teacher-student relationship, the closed-mindedness of a dance teacher can be easily transmitted and even imposed on the students of dance. It is not uncommon to hear that teachers discourage students from learning other dance forms. Some Gurus imply dire consequences for a shishya who shows interest in contemporary dance while some contemporary dance teachers want students to ‘shed’ the classical background before entering their classrooms. This is not to say that all gurus and teachers are like that. Of course not. But one does catch wind of these occurrences rather frequently. So, closed-mindedness is the second factor that turns this fluid relationship between classical and contemporary dance into a rigid dichotomy.

Moreover, the lack of platforms to perform in India contributes to the rigidity of this dichotomy. Dancers and patrons of dance have several different viewpoints on this. I illustrate this point by relating a discussion between myself, a senior dancer, a dance critic and a cultural organizer a few months ago.

The senior dancer claimed that there are more platforms to perform now, than there were when she was a young struggling dancer and argued that young dancers today are just not patient or disciplined enough to wait fifteen or twenty years for the platforms to be available to them.

The dance critic argued that while it may be true that there are more platforms than before, there are also many more dancers today than there were in the previous generation, so the competition for space is that much more - the situation is not necessarily better and could be worse.

The cultural organizer, in turn, stated that it is not true that more platforms exist for young dancers today, and argued that senior dancers and young dancers are vying for the same few platforms to perform, and that young dancers suffer as a result.

My interjection came in the form of disagreement with the statement that all young dancers are impatient and lack discipline.

Whatever the reality, it was obvious that talking about platforms for dancers did not make for smooth and comfortable discussion. Here, all the players in the debate belonged to the classical world of dance. Bring contemporary dancers into the debate and the competition for space arguably becomes even tighter. Where classical dancers had fought amongst themselves for platforms to perform, with the prominence of contemporary dance in India, now the two could turn on each other and not just fight amongst themselves. Thus, the lack of platforms becomes another reason for the consolidation of this dichotomy between the classical and contemporary in India.

To sum up – I argue that the acceptance of this dichotomy promotes the idea of competition and opposition amongst the two forms. In turn, the closed-mindedness and lack of awareness and understanding justifies the existence of this dichotomy. The dichotomy and the dancers are caught up in a vicious circle. Having established that this dichotomy is unnecessary because the classical and contemporary in India flow into one another and draw content from each other, this article attempts to demolish, and certainly questions the idea of a pre-existing classical-contemporary dichotomy that invades the minds of many dancers, teachers, critics and spectators and highlights some of the real possible reasons – in other words, the problems of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and sharing space – for why the dichotomy appears to persist despite its obvious irrelevance in the Indian world of dance.