The Politics of the Stage

Being a dancer for almost 15 years now, I have learnt that the stage an artist gets to perform at, is more than just a platform, it is more of a mirror that reflects the complicated power dynamics of our society. We often speak of dance being a universal language of expression but here is the truth; the system that governs who gets to perform, where and what, is deeply shaped by invisible forces like caste, gender, economic differences and access. It is high time that we pull back the curtain and see the reality. 

Dance is an art form that demands time, space and gradual training over the years. For many forms, especially classical forms, training includes years of expensive classes, costumes and consistent rentals to studios for practice. These factors immediately brings in a class barrier. Putting it simply, if an artist's family cannot afford those years of investment and the high cost of living in a big city where most dance training institutions are situated, their path to professional training and performance automatically becomes comparatively difficult.  

Fundamentally, this is about access. Access to the necessary infrastructure, expert mentorship and network of patrons and organisers who control the performance circuit. This system mostly favours those with a higher standard of living, starting a dance career. 

In forms like Bharatanatyam or Odissi, the history is inseparable from questions of caste. These forms were originally maintained by marginalised communities like the Devadasis, who faced immense social stigma due to the colonial influence. When educated upper caste elites had full authority to perform the art form, they made it unaccessible to the people from other lower castes. Because of this, people altered the form and removed Sringara and other sensual themes so it would look more respectable. This shift changed who held the authority over the art form. 

Even today, while the stage has become more diverse, the influential bodies like the critics and  the festival organisers are still rooted in these hierarchies. The definition of who is an authentic dancer can still be subtly, or overtly, decided by background, often sidelining talented artists. 

While many Indian classical dance forms are female-dominated, the power structures surrounding them are not. Who runs the major institutions? Who choreographs the most prestigious productions? Who controls the government funding and the non-profit boards? Often, it’s men.

Gender shapes the narrative. On one hand, female dancers, especially those performing devotional themes, are often held to a strict moral and aesthetic standard. They are expected to embody purity and grace. Female dancers professionally pursuing western styles like hiphop or house are also expected to dress in a certain way, select songs with lesser explicit words and show lesser skin or else they either get tagged as vulgar or simply 'dancing like a boy'. 

Male dancers, on the other hand, have more freedom in exploring contemporary styles, experimenting with their costumes and song choices as well. This subtle difference in expectation influences the kind of work that is considered acceptable. 

Ultimately, the vibrance of dance depends not on reinforcing existing power structures, but on celebrating the talent that emerges from every corner of society. Recognising these forces that makes the stage biased to a selected few dancers, is the first step to preserve the art. 

But, the reality is, dance as an art form stays alive when talent from every corner of the society is equally celebrated. Recognising these forces that makes the stage biased to a selected few dancers, becomes the first step to preserve the art and give equal respect to all artists. 

Shreya Roy Choudhury