5 January 2026– 9:30 am Divya Hoskere | 11:00 am – Avijit Das | 12:30 pm – Vidhya Subramanian | 6:00 PM – P Praveen Kumar | 7:45 PM – Dr. Sheela Unnikrishnan -Sridevi Nrithyalaya

Divya Hoskere

Divya Hoskere, dressed in a blue pant-style costume, opened her recital with an Abhogi jatiswaram, followed by a sloka on Nandikeshwara, Bho dikpatayaha. These pieces highlighted her physical agility and neat adavus.

The central item was the Ananda Bhairavi varnam Intha pantham ela raa. The jatis, choreographed by her teacher Praveen Kumar, were aligned to her strengths. The tana varnam brought out her abhinaya, though her presence appeared tentative for the occasion. A greater sense of confidence and stage experience would have strengthened the presentation.

The fourth item, Pashyati disi disi, the twelfth prabandha from Jayadeva’s Gita Govinda, used lighting effectively to delineate the spaces occupied by Krishna, the Sakhi, and Radha. Rendering an ashtapadi requires a deep internalisation of text and context, which was only partially achieved. While there were lapses in maintaining tala, Divya demonstrated bodily awareness.

Vocal support was provided by Eashwar Iyer, who, like several vocalists this season, was affected by a sore throat and breath control issues, although the rendition was soulful. Vidya Shankar on mridangam and Vivek Krishna on flute offered excellent accompaniment. The recital concluded with a concise thillana in Thilang raga.

*****************************************************************************

Avijit Das

Avijit Das, also attired in blue, began with Vani Paraku, a traditional Kuchipudi purvaranga item, followed by a Siva stuti choreographed by guru Vempati Chinna Satyam. A tarangam by Narayana Theertha, set to music by Rajkumar Bharathi, followed. Stage space was not effectively negotiated, with repeated movement towards the front. Rhythmic alignment during the Chanoora mardhanam Sanchari was inconsistent.

Avijit demonstrated strength in nritta; however, across the first forty-five minutes of the recital, only two jatis were presented. Greater emphasis on nritta could have better showcased his capabilities. The tarangam, traditionally marked by dancing on a brass plate, did not fully explore the rhythmic potential offered by footwork on the plate. While episodes such as Navaneeta Chora and Kalinga Nartana were clearly depicted, the overall presentation did not fully meet the stylistic demands of the form.

The third item, the padam Etu vanti vaade veedu, was choreographically conveyed with clarity, although spatial placement of characters caused some visual ambiguity. Vocalist Srivatsa, affected by weather-related constraints, struggled with sruti alignment and higher pitch phrases.

Avijit was accompanied by Prasanna Kumar on the nattuvangam, Nagaraj on mridangam, Raghu Simha on flute, and Nivedhitha on veena. While the ensemble was competent, the musical approach leaned closer to Bharatanatyam aesthetics; a more idiomatic Kuchipudi accompaniment would have been preferable. The recital concluded with a tillana in Hamsanandi raga, featuring sahitya by Arjun Bharadwaj, notably the reflective line Kim aham iti jigyasa, which was intriguing.

*****************************************************************************

Vidhya Subramanian

Vidhya Subramanian opened with the varnam Swamiyai alaithu” dressed in a red monochrome costume. Though a familiar composition, it was approached with distinct metaphors translated into movement. The depiction of the pancha bhootas employed altitudinal lighting to differentiate each element. While her height gave her a clear visual advantage, there were moments when the araimandi lacked steadiness, with the knee tending to move forward. The nattuvangam was prominent to the point of distraction, affecting auditory balance.

The Mohanam and Vasantha ragas were rendered with ease, supporting imagery such as the moon and seasonal transition. However, stage space could have been utilised more effectively. The tisra nadai passages using tattu mettu were executed with control and clarity.

The padam Ninnu joochi in Punnagavarali, portrayed a proshita bhartruka nayika. While Vidya conveyed the emotional framework, the abhinaya remained minimalist. Vocal accompaniment lacked sufficient briga and sangathi development, essential for Bharatanatyam interpretation. The recital concluded with a technically sound and traditional thillana in Shuddha Saranga.

******************************************************************************

Praveen Kumar

Praveen Kumar commenced with Kaa va vaa Kanda Vaa” set in Varali raga. The opening jatis were concise and appropriate in establishing momentum. The Papanasam Sivan composition on Muruga was presented with structural clarity.

The Dhanyasi varnam by Krishna Raja Wodeyar, depicted the nayika praising the king’s valour. The trikala jatis were thoughtfully structured, all the jatis through the varnam employed bhedas, charis, brahmaris, and utplavanas impactfully across sequences. The abhinaya reflected visible maturity. The Chamaraja boopala tanaya sahitya was visualised through the imagery of an elephant procession. Some sanchari segments required greater closure, and the arudi—the rhythmic dialogue between percussion, footwork, and nattuvangam—could have been sharper. Instrumental rendering of charanam swaras instead of vocalisation was an effective choice. Vivek V. Krishna on flute and Rudrapatnam Prashanth on veena provided strong musical support.

The ashtapadi Kshanam aduna from Jayadeva’s Gita Govinda portrayed Krishna’s longing for Radha. The abhinaya was restrained, though the Dwijavanti raga leaned towards heightened pathos. The concluding piece, a Siva composition by Papavinasa Mudaliar in Bhairavi, combined sollukattu with Siva’s koothu. While the attempt to internalise the movement into seated abhinaya was interesting, fuller bodily articulation might have enhanced the finale following a vilamba ashtapadi.

Jagadeesh Sukumar on nattuvangam, Vidya Shankar on mridangam and Keerthi kumar on lights were able support for a complete treat. Praveen’s recital was marked by a clear balance of technique, expression, and structure

******************************************************************************

Sheela Unnikrishnan – Sridevi Nrithyalaya

Sridevi Nrithyalaya presented Ekadasha Vishnum, a thematically dense production. The work focused on eleven Divya Desams around Sirkazhi, where Thirumangai Alwar composed verses describing the sthala puranas.

The narrative began with Thirumangai Mannan’s desire to marry Kumudhavalli and his transformation into a saint following Vishnu’s appearance and the imparting of the ashtakshara mantra. The production then moved to the episode of Daksha Yagna, portraying the eleven Rudras. While a few dancers showed limited stage experience, the scene achieved its intended impact. Strong musical support compensated for occasional visual gaps.

Each segment was contextualised through a PowerPoint narration, which functioned as a soootradhara. Without this, the layered narrative may have been difficult to follow. In the Varaha avatara segment, the choreography effectively utilised the ensemble to depict Vishnu’s multiple forms. The episode of Thiruparthanpalli, culminating in Arjuna’s Vishwaroopa darshan, was clearly outlined, though an interlude featuring the song from Krishna leela tarangam felt disconnected from the main narrative.

Overall, Ekadasha Vishnum emerged as an informative and carefully structured production with a clear pedagogical intent.