Guru or Teacher? Shishya or Student? Pedagogic Shifts in South Asian Dance Training in India and Britain

Abstract

The guru-shishya parampara (teacher-disciple tradition) has underpinned training in South Asian dance for generations. This article examines aspects of the tradition which make it problematic in today's society and global diasporic context, particularly the gurukula system, in which the disciple spends extensive time with the guru. Fundamental aspects of the parampara continue to be perpetuated, however, in diverse teaching contexts in India, particularly in the significance of lineage and the aims for a holistic dance education. Drawing on fieldwork in India, at Kathak Kendra and Kalakshetra, state-supported Kathak and Bharatanatyam academies, and among independent gurus, the article examines the extent to which aspects of the parampara are being perpetuated and/or transformed today. In Britain, at the same time, grappling with local, national and transnational multicultural environments, the South Asian dance community has begun to shape new dance pedagogies as it works to integrate Kathak and Bharatanatyam into the mainstream. Research highlights how teaching methodologies and conceptualisations of the body in South Asian dance are being influenced by western dance pedagogies, now spread through the UK-based dance journal Pulse and international exchanges.

A study of perceived workplace spirituality of school teachers

“…Consequently, the roots of Indian philosophy are deeply embedded in the Vedas and Upanishads. Although, the Guru-Shishya parampara is limited to few traditional arts and disciplines of music, dance and other traditional art forms in India (Chatterjea, 1996;Prickett, 2007). In other disciplines where modern education with latest technological advancements is posing problems and challenges to teachers not only at student level but also at personal level.…”

Bharatanatyam and Art activism in the Networked Digital Space

“…Contemporary Indian Dance as a new multi-layered dance genre unfolds at the intersection of Indian classical dance and other movement vocabularies such as modern dance, yoga and meditation, various Indian martial arts and theatre techniques (Katrak, 2013: 47; Prickett, 2007: 30; Suresh, 2013). Prominently pioneered by Uday Shankar in the 1920s (Khokar, 1983), and much-displayed in films (David, 2007), these hybrid art forms (Subramaniam, 2003: 136) have a high profile in South Asia, throughout the South Asian diaspora as well as globally.…”

“…It is well recognised that ‘[t]he classical arts have always been challenged by the dialectics of tradition versus modernity’ (Venkataraman & Pasricha, 2002: 7). Yet ongoing debates on the modernisation and development of classical Indian dance forms remain convoluted, highly contested in various contexts (David, 2007; Grau, 2007; Prickett, 2007; Venkataraman & Pasricha, 2002: 36), and sort of ‘unfinished’ (Soneji, 2012).…”

“…The body of the dancer can be used to achieve and express many different emotions (Sharma, 2013), impacts and nuances (McCann, 2019). While choreographic styles have significantly evolved, traditional knowledge of this art form is still passed on from teacher ( guru ) to student ( shishya ) through the chain of the guru–shishya parampara (Prickett, 2007).…”

Role of Guru in the Sustenance of Passion Towards Classical Dance: A Qualitative Enquiry

“…The difference between a teacher and a guru is that a teacher instructs us in the things and procedures of the outside world, while a guru instructs us in the methods for discovering the truth of our inner reality, or self, through which our lives are changed. Levels of aesthetic and contextual knowledge are communicated in part through intuitive processes within the guru-shishya parampara, absorbed through the gurukula system in which the disciple spends substantial time with the guru and his or her family Prickett (2007).…”