One of the distinct features of Indian civilisation is the openness to debate. Original thinkers have always been held in high regard and so one appreciates Madhuvanthi Arun’s ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking in her dissertation on ‘Navarasas in Ramayana,’ which she staged for Bharat Kalachar.
The Indian Theory of Aesthetics declares rasa to be a mood that is experienced through bhava or feeling. Out of the nine rasas that Madhuvanti presented, some were ‘usual’ choices such as humour in the suitors’ arrogance during the Sita Swayamvara, sringara that grows between Rama and Sita during this episode, the odious mood evoked by the disgust in Soorpanakha’s form, the terrible mood born out of Rama’s anger when he sees Jatayu’s helpless state and the wonder of the monkeys and squirrels building the causeway to Lanka so quickly and so efficiently.
The choices reflected Madhuvanti’s engagement with the epic, such as the fearful mood evoked in the fearless Ravana when he remembers the old prophesy of annihilation of his clan the day a monkey steps into Lanka, and the mood evoked by Rama’s heroism on the battlefield when he tells an unarmed and tired Ravana to return the next morning to resume the fight.
The eloquent dancer qualified her choices at the beginning declaring that “this is a personal take or a personal perspective of the epic.” While there is always room for debate and different points of view, for me, there were two rasas that did not seemed to fit the bill.
One was the karuna rasa or the pathetic mood - Rama allowing Guha to wash his feet was an act born out of love for his devotee, not pity. Compassion can be construed as an act of kindness or sympathy with awareness of a person’s suffering and a wish to alleviate it; it is the latter that is applicable in Natya Sastra’s rasa classification since the karuna rasa is expressed through the feelings of sorrow.
Another debatable point would be the shanta rasa that was presented as Rama’s mood during Sita’s Agni Pariksha. Maybe she has a point about ‘Rama invoking the god in him,’ but even her delineation showed a sorrowful Rama steeling himself after uttering harsh words to Sita and subsequently, an overjoyed Rama controlling his emotions when Sita comes out unscathed. May the debate continue.
Madhuvanti's portrayals were expressive on a scale bordering on over-acting; they were representative of uninhibited histrionics more than stylised abhinaya. A more tempered and a less casual treatment will win over more hearts.
The accompanying artists were Roshni Ganesh (vocal), L. Narendra Kumar (nattuvangam), Sri Ganeshan (mridangam), Devraj (flute), Srinivasan (violin) and Krishnan (special effects).
As a footnote, Anil Srinivasan (piano) and Madhuvanthi presented a 10-minute storytelling session on the Hanuman Ramayana (Devdutt Pattanaik) and an anecdote from the Uttara Ramayana regarding Vashishta and Rama’s sons, Luva and Kusha. While Anil finds new avenues as a good storyteller, one wanted to see him as a musician that evening. This segment would have been suitable for children, not Margazhi Mahotsav in a sabha.
