Natyashastra, the Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC) and Methodology of Theory Building

This entry is taken from the dissertation "Theory and Practice of Communication: Explorations from Natyashastra of Bharata" (A study conducted under the Bharata Muni Chair Research Fellowship of Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India) by Dr. Nirmala Mani Adhikary.

Natyashastra, the Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC) and Methodology of Theory Building
By: Dr. Nirmala Mani Adhikary
Kathmandu University, Nepal

The exploration of Natyashastra from communication perspective has been done due to its enduring cultural importance in Bharatavarshiya society as well as its intrinsic qualification to contribute to contemporary and future communication scholarship. Bharata's Natyashastra has been approached by various scholars from different viewpoints thereby giving rise to different theories and concepts, which are pertinent to different disciplines of knowledge. The modern discipline of communication also has got many insights from the great treatise.

Bharata delineates the fundamentals of communication practices, both verbal and non-verbal. His description of non-verbal communication is perhaps the most insightful account in the subject matter even for today. His perception seems "broad as well as minute and analytical" (Jain & Daljeet, 2005). Bharata theorizes communication uniquely. His Rasa-sutra is the foundation for the theory of Rasa. His theory of Rasa is the foundation of Bhattanayaka's theory of Sadharanikaran. The much discoursed concept of Sahridayata also owes to Natyashastra itself.

For the Sadharanikaran model of communication (SMC), Bharata's Natyashastra and Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya are the principal sources. By presenting the SMC to larger audience, I have sought for mainstreaming indigenous Bharatavarshiya/Hindu scholarship in the communication discipline.

The field of communication theory has been witnessing a paradigm shift thereby promoting multicultural and multidisciplinary theorization of communication. Seeking indigenous theories of communication does not mean mere rejection of something Western, but it must be an independent and creative addition in the discipline. By virtue of Sahridayata envisioned, the sadharanikaran theory and the Sadharanikaran Model of Communication (SMC) have scope to be generalized as a "grand theory" (see: Chen & Miike, 2006, p. 5). From a panhuman vantage point, the utility of such a model of communication is enormous.

The SMC's root being in Hindu culture does not limit its scope for universalization of the model. "Communication theorizing in the local community and the global society ought to move beyond the dualistic thinking of provincial specificity versus universal applicability. Any theory has local resonance and may have global significance" (Miike, 2007b, p. 277). "Cultural particularity leads to human universality. We do not need to walk away from cultural particularity to reach human universality" (Chen & Miike, 2006, p. 4). What is to be avoided is the ethnocentricity and supremacist fundamentalism.  Ranganathananda (1971) rightly says, "Without proper understanding of our own culture, we shall never be able to enter the soul of another culture, nor profit from it" (p. 56).

There is scope for generalizing the concept and the construct of sahridayata in the broader study of Hindu philosophy. Furthermore, by virtue of sahridayata envisioned, the sadharanikaran theory and the SMC have scope to be generalized in global context. The SMC's root being in Hindu culture does not limit its scope for universalization of the model. In fact, the scope of a Hindu model of communication, such as the SMC, in promoting peace and conflict resolution should be appropriately understood and employed (Adhikary, 2012b).

It to note that the communication discipline is also witnessing “the Race for Theory,” what was observed as a trend in the field of literary theory and criticism (Christian, 2001). Even there have been claims of emergence and growth of an Asiacentric School of Communication Theories. Since theory is "the currency of scholarly research" (Corely & Gioia, 2011, p. 12) more "theories" such race is natural with the growth of academia.

However, unless and until well developed indigenous research procedures and methodologies are explored/rediscovered/developed, any race for theorizing communication would not be free from exogenous paradigms. Theory building is dependent on methodological considerations. Since theory is "a multiple-level component of research process" (Glazier & Grover, 2002, p. 319) and "theory and research share a symbiotic relationship; each is part of the process as also the result of the other" (Reddi, 1996, p. 248) there is need for the indigenous study of both theory and methodology of theory building.

Theory building "consists of two broad components, namely, theorizing to practice and practice to theorizing" (Lynham, 2002, p. 229). By virtue of the practice of theorizing practices and seeking unity of theory and practice in day-to-day life, theory building seems something natural to the Bharatavarshiya/Hindu scholarship. The recent exposition also shows that there is well developed indigenous tradition of theory and theorization in Bharatavarshiya tradition (Adhikary, 2013b). This indicates toward the vast scope of classical Sanskrit texts for developing methodology of theory building.

Now, various fundamental research and studies on various aspects of research methodology itself should be conducted. Emphasis should be not only on application of Western research paradigm but also to enrich the discourse on indigenous research methodologies. Communication/media scholars from Bharatavarsha should move further, and explore and employ indigenous research methodology in order to theorize the practice and to practice the theories.