What confuses most today is, dance definitions. What is classical, folk, tribal,classical contemporary or modern Indian dance? European and American enthusiasts also, often, dovetail their own timelines in history — modern or postmodern — with ours. What Uday Shankar did 50 years ago was not only contemporary but modern for that period. Let us examine how and why.
When he came on the scene, he was not creating another work in a known language (classical or folk) but by his understanding of India and its artistic palette, he created a new language of Indian dance. It was Indian but not rooted in any one form of classical. Thus, for that period, it was very contemporary. Also it was modern, because he actually created a language that stood the test of time and won accolades. A language is one that has grammar, syntax, alphabets. It has to be understood. Many in his generation not only understood but followed it. Thus it became an established ‘style’.
It was akin to American pioneers Ted Shawn-Ruth St.Denis eschewing classical ballet, and Martha Graham, their follower, creating a new ‘modern’ dance. Modern dance is a language . Not a signature step or body movement alone. Not a standalone word but an entire vocabulary.
Fifty years after Uday Shankar, few others are creating a new language that’s independent of formats or templates done before. Uttara Coorlawala and Astad Deboo in the 1970s; Daksha Sheth and Mallika Sarabhai in the Eighties; Ranjabati Sircar in the Nineties; Madhu Natraj, Jay Palazzy and Mayuri Madhuri Upadhyaya in the 2000s. They learnt a smattering of classical styles or martial forms and have evolved a new language or movement art.
No wonder those working with classical forms, like Aditi Mangaldas, did not accept an Sangeet Natak Akademi award in ‘creative and experimental dance’. SNA had to relent and give Aditi an award for Kathak (choreography) which she, as a professional, accepted. Aditi taught an important lesson to all in this age of total acceptance and mediocrity: Stick to your principles, even if you lose an award. She won many more in public esteem.
Roots in classical grammar
So where would one put works of Chandralekha and Kumudini Lakhia? Or many other classically trained dancers in the next generation doing ensemble works? Contemporary response to classical forms they had learnt and danced. They danced many years as soloists in Kathak, Bharatanatyam and Odissi. Even Kalari, a martial form or Chhau. Then they often created exceptional works for small groups in the same medium. They maybe ‘modern’ in thought but cannot be strictly called ‘modern dancers’. Their work is based on classical grammar, structure, even often the music has instrumentation that’s based on classical idiom. Birju Maharaj is another very good example of classical-based contemporary now because he uses Kathak bols to create new sounds.
India has now progressed to the digital age. Ache din aaye hain. Mallika Sarabhai pioneered this age long ago with works such as Devi Mahatmya and Unfixed. It’s not mere projection of a slide on screen (that makes it merely multi-media at best and tokenism at worst) but an interface. A total involvement with several aspects of dance arts and technology. Mallika preceded many avante garde dancer-choreographers by a full decade and half. In that, she is far ahead of her times.
When one takes up a thematic piece, say ‘Sari’, done by Daksha Sheth, some years ago, with inputs from textile expert Rita Kapur Chisti or ‘Thari’ now, by Malavika Sarrukai, it is using and repositioning given material intelligently. Anita Ratnam’s various works are good examples of contemporary. Many others abound to list here for want of space.
Contemporary will always change and evolve with every generation. In any field: Design, textiles, architecture, film. It is a given. Modern will remain as a new language, new approach and a new tool to express. We cannot blindly apply western theories, prisms, timelines or definitions. Some universities and a few journalism schools are churning out this borrowed drivel of late and people with no background in Indian dance or its history are pontificating in voices of doom and gloom. Dance is about centering. Not left or right!
The writer, a critic and historian, is the author of several books and edits attenDance, a yearbook
