 |
    |
|
|
PRISMOdra-Magadhi as Odissi: Myth or Fact?- Rahul Acharyae-mail: rahulacharyaodissi@gmail.com June 12, 2026 Introduction Among the many claims surrounding the antiquity of Indian classical dance traditions, one of the most repeated assertions in modern Odissi discourse is that the dance form finds direct mention in the Nāṭyaśāstra under the term Odra-Māgadhī. This proposition, widely circulated particularly in post-independence scholarship, seeks to establish an uninterrupted continuity between contemporary Odissi and Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra. However, such a claim requires careful historical and textual scrutiny. Modern scholarship has often attempted to connect living performance traditions directly to the Nāṭyaśāstra in order to legitimize them through antiquity, sometimes overlooking the complex evolution of Indian dance through centuries of regional practice, transformation, and codification. A close examination of the Nāṭyaśāstra reveals that the text neither discusses present-day "classical" dance forms as we know them nor conceptualizes dance in the same manner as later traditions. In order to evaluate whether Odra-Māgadhī may genuinely be equated with modern Odissi, it becomes essential to examine: 1. The historical context and chronology of the Nāṭyaśāstra, 2. The status of dance within the treatise, 3. The concepts of Vṛtti and Pravṛtti, 4. The geographical implications of Odra-Māgadhī Pravṛtti, and 5. The historical evolution of Odissi as a distinct regional dance tradition. Timeline of the Nāṭyaśāstra The Nāṭyaśāstra may well be regarded as the most ancient extant treatise on dramaturgy and aesthetics, written sometime between the 4th century BCE and the 4th century CE. Bharata himself states that the Nāṭyaveda was compiled in the beginning of the Tretā Yuga of the Vaivasvata Manvantara: पर्वं पूर्वंकृतयुगेविप्रा वत्तेस्वायंभुवेऽन्तरे। त्रेतायेगुगेऽथ सम्प्राप्तेमनोर्वैवस्वतस्य वै तु॥ (NS 1.8) "Oh Brahmins, after the passing of the age of Svayambhuvamanvantara and the lapse of Krita Yuga of Vaivasvatamanvantara, the Tretayuga arrived." According to N.P. Unni, the various scholarly opinions regarding the dating of the Nāṭyaśāstra may be summarized as follows: 1. Manmohan Ghosh, on the basis of linguistic, ethnological, mythological, and geographical evidence, places the text as early as 500 BCE, considering this the upper limit. 2. Regnaud argues that if the Nāṭasūtras referred to by Pāṇini are indeed those of Bharata, the text must belong approximately to the 4th century BCE. 3. Haraprasad Sastri fixes the date around the 2nd century BCE. 4. Prof. Lévi, based on terms such as Svāmi, Bhadramukha, and Sugṛhitanāman, proposes that the work was composed during the period of the Scythian Kṣatrapas, before 300 CE. 5. P.V. Kane concludes that before 300 CE there certainly existed a work on dramaturgy ascribed to Bharata dealing with Rasa theory and dramaturgy in general. 6. A.B. Keith states that the text cannot confidently be placed before the 3rd century CE. (Nāṭyaśāstra, N.P. Unni, Vol. I, Chapter 2, p. 26) Based on the above opinions, it would be safe to provide an upper limit to the date of compilation as the 4th century BCE and a lower limit as the 4th century CE. Authors such as Kalidasa, Damodaragupta, Anandavardhana, Mammata, Bhavabhuti and Abhinavagupta have all referred to Bharata with reverence and authority. The status of dance in the Nāṭyaśāstra At the time of the compilation of the Nāṭyaśāstra, dance, music, and theatre were taught collectively under the broad category of Nāṭya. While the treatise elaborately discusses all these disciplines, it specifically identifies Nṛtta or Tāṇḍava as a component of Pūrvaraṅga. Bharata considers Nṛtta as the soul of Nāṭya. In the Tāṇḍava Lakṣaṇam chapter (Chapter 4), Bharata states that Śiva instructed him in dance and explained the relevance of Nṛtta in Nāṭya: मयापीदं स्मृतं नृत्तं सन्ध्याकालेषु नृत्यता । नानाकरणसंयुक्तं रङ्गहारैर्विभूषितम् ॥ पूर्वरङ्गविधावस्मिंस्त्वया सम्यक्प्रयोज्यताम् । वर्धमानकयोगेषु गीतष्वासारितेषु च ॥ महागीतषु चैवार्थान्सम्यगेवाभिनेष्यसि । यश्चायंपूर्वरङ्गस्तु त्वया शुद्धः प्रयोजितः ॥ एभिर्विमिश्रितश्चायं चित्रो नाम भविष्यति । श्रुत्वा महेश्वरवचः प्रत्युक्तस्तु स्वयंभुवा ॥ (NS 4.13–16) I too have conceived a dance since I am fond of dancing every evening. It is embellished with different Karanas and Angaharas. This you can make use of in the rites of Purvaranga (Prologue) since with its help the meaning of even great songs can be well represented. The Purvaranga which you have introduced now is Suddha (pure) whereas with the admixture (of dance) it could be termed as Chitra (mixed). However Bharata's most significant statements on dance is that dance, we are told, was created for beauty's sake. Bharata further states: किंतु शोभां प्रजनयेदिति नृत्तं प्रवर्तितम् ॥ (NS 4.264) "Dance was created for the sake of beauty." Since Śiva instructed Taṇḍu to teach dance to Bharata, Bharata equates Nṛtta with Tāṇḍava: सृष्ट्वा भगवता दत्तास्तण्डवे मुनये तदा । तेनापि हि ततः सम्यग्गानभाण्डसमन्वितः ॥ नृत्तप्रयोगः सृष्टो यः स ताण्डव इति स्मृतः ॥ (NS 4.259–261) From this it may be inferred that dance was considered a component of Pūrvaraṅga and, though highly complex, was not separate from Nāṭya. Dance as practised today has become an independent and highly specialized subject in itself. It is likely that due to the versatility of Abhinaya, an entirely new art form gradually emerged after Bharata's period. This was Nṛtya, which evolved through the synthesis of Nṛtta and Nāṭya. Interestingly, this mimetic dance form is neither mentioned by Bharata nor by the author of the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa. The changing concept of dance is evident from the fact that although the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa does not use the term Nṛtya, it uses the term Lāsya as one category of Nṛtta. The absence of the term Nṛtya indicates that mimetic dance evolved much later. In earlier periods, Nṛtya and Nāṭya may have been used interchangeably, as is evident in the Amarakośa. Thus, the category known today as Nṛtya evolved gradually from the concepts of Nṛtta and Nāṭya in the Nāṭyaśāstra. Mandakranta Bose observes: "The category known as Nritya or mimetic dance thus evolved from the concepts of both Nritta and Natya in the Nāṭyaśāstra." (Movement and Mimesis, Chapter 2, pp. 129–130) Jayasenapati's Nṛttaratnāvalī (a 13th century treatise) defines Nṛtta as follows: गीतवाद्यादि निलितं लयमात्रसमाश्रयम्। अङ्गाविक्षेपणं नृत्यं भवेदभिनयोज्झितम्॥ नाट्येह्यभिनयेछिद्र-प्रच्छादनफलं हि तत्। एतदेव तु विज्ञातं तत्तद्रसजनच्छया॥ (Nṛttaratnāvalī 1.53–54) According to the text, Nṛtta consists of bodily movements based solely on rhythm and accompanied by music, devoid of Abhinaya. Its function is primarily to conceal lapses in Nāṭya and Abhinaya. It may therefore be safely concluded that the "classical" dance styles practised today, although deeply deriving from the major principles of the Nāṭyaśāstra, are not explicitly mentioned in the treatise itself. Each tradition possesses its own regional history, evolution, and codification, supported by later treatises such as the Saṅgītaratnākara, Abhinaya Darpaṇa, Saṅgītadāmodara and others. Pravṛtti in the Nāṭyaśāstra The Nāṭyaśāstra defines Pravṛtti as the regional usages relating to costume, language, and social custom: चतुर्विधा प्रवृत्तिश्च प्रोक्ता नाट्यप्रयोगतः । आवन्ती दाक्षिणात्या च पाञ्चाली चोड्रमागधी ॥ (NS 13.37) The four Pravṛttis are: 1. Āvantī 2. Dākṣiṇātyā 3. Pāńcālī 4. Oḍramāgadhī Bharata explains: पृथिव्यां नानादेशवेषभाषाचारवार्ताः प्रख्यापयतीति वृत्तिः । Pravṛtti therefore refers not to a dance style but to regional modes of presentation reflecting local customs, attire, speech, and behaviour. अत्राह प्रवृत्तिरिति कस्मात् ? उच्यते पृथिव्यां नानादेशवेषभाषाचारवार्ताः प्रख्यापयतीति वृत्तिः । प्रवृत्तिश्च निवेदने । अत्राह - यथा पृथिव्यां बहवो देशाः सन्ति , कथमासां चतुर्विधत्वम् उपपन्नं, समानलक्षणश्चासां प्रयोग उच्यते , सत्यमेतत् । समानलक्षण आसां प्रयोगः । किन्तु नानादेशवेषभाषाचारो लोक इति कृत्वा लोकानुमतेन वृत्तिसंश्रितस्य नाट्यस्य वृत्तीनां मया चतुर्विधत्वमभिहितं भारती सात्त्वती कैशिक्यारभटी चेति । वृत्तिसंश्रितैश्च प्रयोगैरभिहिता देशाः । यतः प्रवृत्तिचतुष्टयमभिनिर्वृत्तं प्रयोगश्चोत्पादितः । (NS 13. 38-39) Here is a question: Why is it called Pravritti? The answer is, it is called Pravritti because it gives information on the dress, languages and customs of the various regions of the earth. The words Vritti and Pravritti are used in the sense of Nivedana-making it known. There it is asked- Since there are numerous regions on this earth, how is it possible to enumerate that there are only four? In use also they are almost similar. The answer may be given as: "It is true. In the usages they are almost similar. But in this world there are various regions, dresses, languages and customs. This being so I have formulated Natya based on four Vrittis viz. 1. Bharati 2. Arabhati 3. Sattavati 4. Kaishiki With the acquiescence of the general public. These Vrittis were assigned to certain regions also. Odra-Māgadhī Pravṛtti The Nāṭyaśāstra describes the geographical extent of Odra-Māgadhī Pravṛtti: अङ्गा वङ्गाः कलिङ्गाश्च वत्साश्चैवोड्रमागधाः । पौण्ड्रा नेपालकाश्चैव अन्तर्गिरिर्बहिर्गिरिः ॥ तथा प्लवङ्गमा ज्ञेया मलदा मल्लवर्तकाः । ब्रह्मोत्तरप्रभृतयो भार्गवर्गा मार्गवर्गास्तथा ॥ प्राज्योतिषाः पुलिन्दाश्च वैदेहास्ताम्रलिप्तकाः । प्राङ्गाः प्रावृतयश्चैव युञ्जन्तीहोड्रमागधीम् ॥ (NS 13.47–50) The regions mentioned include: ● Anga ● Vanga ● Kalinga ● Vatsa ● Odra-Magadha ● Paundra ● Nepal ● Pragjyotisha ● Videha ● Tamralipta and several others. A careful examination of the regions gives the following information: 1. Anga: Anga proper was located between the Champa river to the west and the Rajmahal hills to the east. However, at times, its territories did extend to the sea in the south, or included Magadha in the west. 2. Vanga: Modern day southern part of Bengal and south-western Bangladesh 3. Kalinga: Includes all of present day Odisha and parts of Andhra Pradesh till the Godavari. 4. Vatsa: Modern day Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh. 5. Odra-Magadha: Present day northern Odisha and Magadha is present day Bihar. 6. Paundra: This region spans modern day Bangladesh and West Bengal. 7. Nepala: Nepal 8. Antargiri and Bahirgiri: Sub-Himalayan Terai regions usually called the inner and outer mountains. Bahirgiri refers to the region beyond the Hazaribagh range, such as the Damodar river basin. 9. Pravanga: The region beyond Vanga 10. Mahendra: Possibly referring to the Mahendragiri mountain in the Gajapati district of Odisha. 11. Malada: There is a varied opinion about this region. One suggests that it could be the Malada district of West Bengal and the other suggests the modern Shahbad district of Bihar. 12. Mallavarta: There are various theories regarding the same. According to Dr Manomohan Ghosh it may be modern day Mallabhum (Bankura in West Bengal) (Natyasastram, Manomohan Ghosh, Volume 1, Page 342) and other scholars suggest the Malaya mountains of the western ghats or Malabar mountains. 13. Brahmottara: While its exact boundaries remain debated, it was a region in the lower Gangetic delta located near the historical Tamralipta (modern-day Tamluk, West Bengal). 14. Bhargava: Primarily refers to the historical and Vedic state of Brahmavarta, located between the Saraswati and Drishadwati rivers. Centered around the Dhosi Hill area (bordering the Jhunjhunu district in Rajasthan and Mahendragarh in Haryana), or possibly the region where the Bhargavas lived, more logically the kingdom of Mahishmatipura or Maheswar on the banks of river Narmada in Madhya Pradesh. 15. Margava: Remains unidentified 16. Pragjyotisha: Assam 17. Pulinda: Modern day Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh. 18. Videha: Mithila, modern day Janakpur in Nepal. 19. Tamralipta: Today, this historic site is identified as the modern-day town of Tamluk in the Purba Medinipur district of West Bengal. 20. Pranga: The kingdom covered parts of western Tibet. Geographically, this extends from the Himalayan belt through Bengal and Odisha into parts of central India and possibly beyond. Such an enormous cultural region cannot plausibly indicate a singular codified dance style identical to present-day Odissi. Rather, it suggests a broad theatrical-cultural zone. Importantly, Bharata himself states that Odra-magadhi Pravṛtti depended on Bhāratī and Kaiśikī Vṛtti, reinforcing its dramaturgical rather than dance-specific character. Odissi as we know it today The large body of Sanskrit treatises on dance we have been fortunate enough to inherit from the past can be placed into two distinct groups. One consists of Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra and the texts that follow in essence Bharata's account of what he evidently regarded as the core tradition of the art. The other group consists of texts dating from about the 13th century, that is, the medieval period, which record a different tradition made up of regional styles, styles that became more popular with time and eventually displaced the other tradition. The two stylistic traditions are perhaps best differentiated by using the well-known division of dance into mārga and deśī, which reflects the common categorization of India's cultural evolution into the Great Tradition and the Little Tradition. It is within the group of texts dealing with the deśī style that the sources of dances from Orissa must be sought. One has to remember, though, that the vocabulary of all dances, mārga and deśī, heavily depended on the Nāṭyaśāstra and later on Saṅgītaratnākara. One of the distinctive features of the accounts of the deśī tradition is that they include a variety of dance dramas and minor dramatic art forms. The connection between dance and drama of course goes back to the earliest times; Bharata himself talks of dance as the decorative element subsidiary to drama. His term for drama is rūpaka. He does not record marginal dramatic forms. But the texts on deśī dances show that even as regional and popular dance forms developed on their own independently of drama, they employed more and more abhinaya, while a certain merging of dance, drama and music led to the growth of such minor forms as short one-act plays, musical dramas, dance-dramas or dramatic dances. These were the forms that eventually came to be included under the term uparūpaka, first used in the 14th century by Viśvanātha Kavirāja in his Sāhityadarpaṇa. (Sangita Narayana, IGNCA, Page xli) The dance form now called Odissi evolved through a long historical process involving temple traditions, regional performance idioms, Mahari traditions, Gotipua traditions, and later modern reconstruction. Epigraphic evidence from sites such as attests to rich performative traditions in Odisha, but does not establish continuity with Bharata's Odra-Māgadhī. Apart from the epigraphical evidences of the Udaygiri caves in Bhubaneswar, the inscriptions of Brahmeswara (Bhubaneswar), Shobaneswara (Niali), Megheswara (Bhubaneswar), Ananta-Vasudeva (Bhubaneswar), Jagannath Temple (Puri), Madhukeswara (Mukhalingam) and the copper plate grants made to three generations of Maharis during the reign of the Karnamakesari, associated with the Mahavihara at Solanapura and various other locations in ancient Kalinga, the dance form we refer to as Odissi today is a form constructed from various dance styles existing in Odisha then, predominantly the Maharis and Gotipuas. Treatises like the Sangita Narayana and Abhinaya Chandrika mention various Desi styles being practised in temples and proscenium stages and much of Odissi was constructed from them, like various other schools of Indian classical dancing. Epigraphic and textual evidence attest to rich performative traditions in Odisha, but does not establish continuity with Bharata's Odra-Māgadhī. Texts such as Saṅgīta Nārāyaṇa and Abhinaya Chandrikā discuss regional deśī styles practised in Odisha. Abhinaya Chandrika, a 17th century text as discussed by Kedarnath Mahapatra, mentions seven varieties of dance: मागधं शौरसेनं च कर्णाटं केरलं तथा। गौडं पञ्चनदं चैव उड्ड्रनृत्यं च सप्तधा॥ (AC 194) 1. Māgadhī 2. Śaurasenī 3. Karṇāṭa 4. Kerala 5. Gauḍa 6. Pańcanada 7. Uḍḍra Nṛtya The text specifically characterizes Uḍra Nṛtya as rich in Bhāva, suggesting a regional dance tradition associated with Odisha. It says Udra/Odra Nritya is rich in the portrayal of Bhava and goes on to elaborate on the uniqueness of the Udra style of dance. Apart from Odra Nrutya which can be safely suggested an a sanskritized name for Odissi since Odra-Desha was the ancient name of Odisha, none of the other six styles of dance seem to be existing, or if at all, have been absorbed into the major schools of "classical" dancing. Dr D.N Patnaik states that "Late Kalicharan Patnaik, the noted poet, playwright and musicologist of Orissa named it Odissi, which means that which is peculiar to Orissa." (Odissi Dance, D.N Patnaik, Page i). During its nascent stage i.e before the systematization of Odissi was conducted by Jayantika, an organization formed in 1958 to standardize Odissi's grammar and repertoire, an entire repertoire would last not more than fifteen minutes and unlike today, lacked the elaborate use of Angikabhinaya. It has been claimed by scholars that the Odissi we see today has been constructed from the Mahari and the Gotipua predominantly, however there seem to be no codified grammar of either the former or latter following any shastric injunctions and could be broadly classified as "paramparika" or traditional. The Devadasis certainly did not follow the injunctions of the Nāṭyaśāstra as the Nāṭyaśāstra was written for a proscenium stage and not for a temple performance. The 2nd chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra (Mandapa Vidhanam) deals with the auditorium that includes various shapes and sizes of stages that confirm the claim that Nāṭyaśāstra did not adhere to the temple performance, where usually the Devadasis performed solo recitals and a lot of emphasis was given to Ekanta or complete privacy where the only audience was ideally the deity in the temple, on the contrary Nāṭyaśāstra spoke about full length productions of various genres (Dasha rupakas) that included multiple actors. Treatises like the Vishnudharmottara Purana, Bhavaprakshana etc seem to be differing from Bharata's views and quite align with the mood of the temple stage. Besides, in the Rasadhyaya (6th Chapter) of the Nāṭyaśāstra, Bharata discusses only eight Rasas divided into two categories: Mukhya or Primary and Gauna or Secondary. On the contrary, Bhakti as a Rasa plays a pivotal role in the Devadasi tradition that was added much later. (Bhakti as a Rasa was added by Rupa Goswami in his Bhaktirasamrita Sindhu). Besides Odissi dancers today refer primarily to the Abhinaya Darpanam and not the Nāṭyaśāstra as the major theoretical resource and very rarely to the Abhinaya Chandrika. On careful examination of the treatises, there are a lot of discrepancies found, while comparing them with the Nāṭyaśāstra. For example, Nāṭyaśāstra has a far more complicated and intricate description of Upangavidhanam, Angabhinaya, Chari Vidhanam, Mandala Vidhanam, Gati Prachara etc compared to the Abhinaya Darpanam. Bhramaris are an extra to the Abhinaya Darpanam, not found in the Nāṭyaśāstra. Conclusion The attempt to identify modern Odissi directly with the Odra-Māgadhī Pravṛtti of the Nāṭyaśāstra appears, upon closer examination, to be more ideological than historical. Bharata's use of the term Odra-Māgadhī refers not to a codified solo dance tradition but to a broad regional mode of theatrical presentation encompassing costume, language, custom, and performative temperament across a vast geographical expanse. The "classical" dance forms practised in India today are not fossilized survivals from Bharata's age, but highly evolved regional traditions shaped by centuries of social, religious, aesthetic, and political transformation. While they undoubtedly inherit foundational principles from pan-Indian treatises such as the Nāṭyaśāstra, Saṅgīta Ratnākara, Abhinaya Darpaṇa, and others, each tradition possesses its own distinct genealogy, performance ecology, and historical process of codification. Odissi, in particular, emerges from the ritual, devotional, and performative cultures of Odisha - especially the Mahari and Gotipua traditions - rather than as a direct continuation of Bharata's Odra-Māgadhī. Its modern structure is largely a twentieth-century reconstruction and synthesis, informed by textual scholarship, regional memory, temple traditions, sculpture, music, and nationalist cultural revivalism. This does not diminish the antiquity or profundity of Odissi. On the contrary, recognizing its layered evolution allows us to appreciate the form more honestly and more meaningfully. To force contemporary identities onto ancient textual categories risks oversimplifying both the Nāṭyaśāstra and the rich historical development of Indian dance traditions. The Nāṭyaśāstra must therefore be understood not as a manual prescribing present-day classical dance systems, but as an encyclopedic and foundational work on aesthetics, dramaturgy, music, movement, and performance theory. The relationship between Odissi and the Nāṭyaśāstra is thus one of deep aesthetic inheritance rather than literal historical identity. Odissi may be rooted in Bharata's vision, but it is ultimately a regional and historically evolved deśī tradition with its own autonomous artistic personality. References:
 Rahul Acharya is an internationally acclaimed Odissi soloist, celebrated for his exceptional command over technique, expressive artistry, and spiritually charged performances. Trained from the age of four under Guru Durga Charan Ranbir, he has performed extensively across India and around the world. A recipient of the Ustad Bismillah Khan Yuva Puraskar and the Guru Kelucharan Mohapatra Yuva Puraskar, he is widely recognized as one of the leading exponents of Odissi of his generation. He is also a Top Grade artist of Doordarshan and has been honoured nationally and internationally for his contributions to Indian classical dance. 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. |
