The spectacle and the spectator

- Sree Veena Mani
e-mail: dancingveenamani@gmail.com

February 19, 2026

Walking down a street, you may suddenly find yourself watching an argument or confrontation unfold - an everyday occurrence. In such moments, we often remark that those involved are "creating a spectacle." This idea of spectacle lies at the heart of how Indian drama has been understood. In his commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra, Manmohan Ghosh explains that Indian drama is conceived as prekṣā - a spectacle to be seen - while the audience is the prekṣaka [1], the spectator who beholds and interprets the performance.

Spectators were never called Srota or the audience, Ghosh's interpretation of the Nāṭyaśāstra says. He goes on to state that the use of the word Prekshaka is because Indian drama focuses on aspects like Aharyam (the costume and make up), Angikam (postures), Vachikam (spoken word) and Sattva (temperament). This is against Greek drama where if the proclamation of a scene is done properly, there was little emphasis on creating a spectacle [2].

Indian stage tradition also emphasized the reproduction of natural human behaviour, presenting life in stylized yet recognizable forms. Drama was intended for entertainment and was meant to be enjoyed by people of all kinds. Yet, while theatre addressed the masses, classical texts codified the qualities of the ideal spectator. While we all desire the ideal spectator, texts on dance have set out the bar.

Given its nature of appealing to the masses, the spectator has a major role to play; The Nāṭyaśāstra, Abhinaya Darpanam and the Saṅgīta Ratnākara have detailed the role of the spectator.

A constant factor in major texts dealing with dance is that clever people are to be present in the audience. This gives us a sense that Indian dramaturgy was for the learned or cultured.

In fact, Bharata, in the Nāṭyaśāstra has said that anyone who has 'unruffled senses, is honest, expert in the discussion of pros and cons, detector of faults and appreciator of merit is considered fit to be a spectator in drama' [3].

The book goes on to state that those with good behaviour, acquainted with costumes and make-up, understand histrionic representation and an expert in playing the four kinds of musical instruments should be made a spectator. A similar definition is given to the audience in the Saṅgīta Ratnākara of Śārṅgadeva [4].

He does caution that not all qualities can be expected from one person as their likes, dislikes and preferences from a presentation would differ from one another. Bharata generalises that the young like presentations on love while the elderly look for religious and philosophical subjects. Women and children and 'uncultured men' or mūrkha are drawn to comedy and make-up [5].

Not every person gets to be a critic or in the words of Manmohan Ghosh, an assessor. They are not different from the audience, but these people step in when there is a controversy about the presentation. All of them are what one would call in the modern day, a subject matter expert in their own respective fields.

Bharata explains in the same chapter on the success in dramatic production that an expert in sacrifice would talk about representation of sacrifice while an actor in general will assess histrionic representation. A prosodist who is an expert in poetic meter and rhythm would critique the use of meters. Interestingly, an archer got to assess the sausthava of the pose. A painter in the audience gets to talk about the Aharyam. In this manner, the Nāṭyaśāstra calls out ten types of assessors.

Have you ever noticed seats reserved for critics? This modern concept has found a mention in the Nāṭyaśāstra. Bharata has said that critics should not be too far or too close to the stage. The ideal distance from the stage, for a critic to be seated, is six yards. And just as expected from a modern day critic, Bharata believes the merits of the production ought to be highlighted before the demerits.

Categories have been mentioned. There are critics, there is a president of the audience which is similar to the chief guest of today and other categories mentioned in all three books. Across texts, emphasis is laid on the top people in the assembly to be well-versed in the triple symphony of dance, song and instrumental music.

All that the Nāṭyaśāstra says about the ideal spectator is penned down as the qualities of the Sabhā-nāyaka in Nandikesvara's Abhinaya Darpanam [6].

The Abhinaya Darpanam classifies the audience as the Sabhā, Ananda Coomarswamy and Gopala Kristnayya Duggirala say in their interpretation of the text. This Sabhā shines like a Kalpa Vriksha (wishing tree), the Vedas are the branches and scriptures of art and science its flowers, learned men are the bees etc. In the Sanskrit version, the Shloka is what many dancers know as the Sabhā Lakṣaṇam.

Manmohan Ghosh's interpretation of Nandikesvara's treatise on drama says that there was also a president of the audience, referred to as the Sabhāpati [7]. His job is to make pronouncement of the merit of the performance, distribute rewards to the Sutradhara which Ghosh suggests is the leader of the troupe. Similarly, the Nāṭyaśāstra instructs the assessors to keep the king informed as to who is to get the plaque as a reward for a more or less flawless performance. Among the rules laid down in case of a competition, the assessors are to give away the reward to the one with fewer flaws and if two contestants have performed equally, both should be given the banner or reward [8].

According to the Saṅgīta Ratnākara, the king is considered the president of the assembly. He is surrounded by young girls with false hair or chowries and bangles. To his left, composers, story tellers, bards, scholars and flatters are seated. A similar arrangement is suggested in the Abhinaya Darpanam. Attendants are also seated around him. It also emphasizes that the audience needs to be attentive and eloquent speakers.

Thus, Indian dramaturgical tradition does not treat the spectator as a passive onlooker. The prekṣaka is integral to the very conception of theatre - as witness, evaluator, and participant in aesthetic experience. The spectacle is incomplete without the spectator.

References and citation
1. The Nāṭyaśāstra Ascribed to Bharata-Muni, trans. Manomohan Ghosh (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1951), XLV.
2. The Nāṭyaśāstra Ascribed to Bharata-Muni, trans. Manomohan Ghosh (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1951),
3. Saṅgīta Ratnākara of Śārṅgadeva, vol. 4, trans. Kunjunni Raja and Radha Burnier (Adyar: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, n.d.), chap. on dancing.
4. The Nāṭyaśāstra Ascribed to Bharata-Muni, trans. Manomohan Ghosh (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1951), chap. 27, vv. 48-54, pg 519.
5. The Nāṭyaśāstra Ascribed to Bharata-Muni, trans. Manomohan Ghosh (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1951), chap. 27, vv. 59-61, pg 520.
6. The Mirror of Gesture: Being the Abhinaya Darpaṇa of Nandikeśvara, trans. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy and Gopala Kristnayya Duggirala (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1917), 15.
7. Nandikeśvara's Abhinayadarpaṇam: A Manual of Gestures and Posture Used in Hindu Dance and Drama, trans. Manomohan Ghosh, 2nd ed. (41-42).
8. The Nāṭyaśāstra Ascribed to Bharata-Muni, trans. Manomohan Ghosh (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1951), chap. 27, vv. 77-80, 523

Sree Veena Mani is a Kuchipudi dancer training under gurus Seetha Nagajothy and P Nagajothy. She has been a professional solo performer for 15 years. Her research papers have been published by Nartanam - a quarterly dance journal on dance. Veena is also a journalist currently working with the Times of India. Her pieces on art and culture have appeared in the New Indian Express and Business Standard, where she worked previously.

Post your comments
Pl provide your name along with your comment. All appropriate comments posted with name in the blog will be featured in the site.