Reflections from a Teacher-Performer: Ms Nainika

RTN017:Lineage Beyond Authority: Reflections from a Teacher-Performer- Ms Nainika

As part of the Relearning the Nautch project, we spoke with Nainika, a dancer, teacher, and performer, about memory, lineage, authenticity, pedagogy, and the responsibilities that accompany artistic practice. The conversation unfolded gradually over a series of exchanges rather than a single interview session. What emerged was less a discussion of technique and more a reflection on what it means to inherit, preserve, and reinterpret dance in the present.

One of the most striking aspects of Nainika's responses was her understanding of memory. When asked what kinds of memories she carries through her practice and teaching, she immediately located them in lived experience rather than abstract cultural inheritance. The memories that surface most often in the classroom, she explained, are personal ones. While teaching, she frequently finds herself remembering her own experiences as a younger student.

This observation offers an important reminder that dance traditions are not transmitted solely through repertoire or lineage charts. They are also carried through everyday acts of remembering. Corrections once received from teachers, moments of uncertainty, discoveries made in training, and the emotional experiences of learning all become part of how knowledge is passed forward.

At the same time, Nainika acknowledged that many gestures and movements feel older than her own training. Yet she resisted the temptation to assign fixed meanings to individual patterns or movements. Rather than relating to specific gestures as isolated historical objects, she described her relationship as one directed toward dance as a whole. The significance of inherited movement, in her view, lies less in tracing every gesture to a singular origin and more in participating within a larger continuum of practice.

Her reflections on lineage followed a similar trajectory. Although she does not occupy the position of a traditional guru, lineage remains meaningful to her. Understanding lineage, she suggested, comes through listening to stories, learning compositions associated with earlier generations, and engaging with the histories of those who carried artistic traditions forward. Lineage, therefore, is not simply a matter of authority or hierarchy. It is also a process of listening, learning, and remembering.

When discussing what is openly acknowledged within dance communities and what remains difficult to discuss, Nainika offered a particularly nuanced response. She noted that stories, performances, and artistic achievements are generally spoken about openly. Less visible, however, are the structures that make participation possible for some and difficult for others.

Issues of privilege, access to training, educational opportunities, and emotional well being often remain underexamined. More troublingly, topics such as abuse and exploitation continue to be avoided despite their significance within artistic communities. Her comments point toward the uneven nature of cultural memory, where certain narratives are celebrated while others remain marginalized or silenced.

Questions of the body emerged repeatedly throughout the conversation. Nainika reflected on the ways her own physical limitations shape her teaching practice. There are moments when she feels cautious about demonstrating movement or uncertain while motivating students. Yet these experiences have also made her more attentive as a teacher.

Rather than reproducing training methods uncritically, she described being conscious of individual physical abilities and limitations. This awareness informs her pedagogical approach and shapes how she engages with students in the classroom.

The broader question of inclusion led to a discussion about privilege within contemporary training spaces. According to Nainika, access to dance education is deeply influenced by social and economic conditions. Exposure to training, educational opportunities, nutrition, exercise, and time for artistic development are not equally distributed. Many expectations surrounding bodily discipline and technical excellence are dependent upon resources that large sections of society cannot easily access.

Her reflections suggest that conversations about merit and achievement within dance cannot be separated from questions of access.

When asked about authenticity, Nainika offered a definition rooted in honesty. For her, authenticity involves being truthful and unfiltered about one's artistic process. Yet she was equally careful to acknowledge that authenticity is not a fixed category. Different generations, institutions, and practitioners may define it differently. What appears authentic today may not resemble what authenticity meant to earlier generations, just as contemporary perspectives may be difficult for traditional authorities to fully recognize.

Perhaps the strongest statement in the conversation concerned the relationship between art and difficult histories. Nainika argued that dancers have always carried a responsibility to engage with uncomfortable or marginalized histories because art itself has the capacity to open conversations that society often avoids. In her view, artistic practice should not merely preserve beauty or tradition. It should also create space for critical reflection.

This understanding informed her response to the idea of dance as a living archive. If dance functions as an archive, she believes her own practice preserves both the lineage from which she comes and the thoughts, interpretations, and questions she brings to that inheritance. Preservation, in this sense, is not passive repetition. It is an active process of carrying traditions forward while continually reflecting upon them.

Looking toward the future, Nainika expressed a hope that dancers of her generation will become more willing to question perfectionism and performative expectations. Her response suggests a desire for dance cultures that value inquiry alongside excellence, and reflection alongside achievement.

Taken together, these reflections offer a portrait of dance not merely as performance but as an ongoing negotiation between memory, inheritance, responsibility, and change. Through teaching, performing, and reflecting on her own experiences, Nainika participates in a process that is simultaneously personal and collective. Her observations remind us that artistic traditions survive not simply through preservation, but through the questions each generation asks of them.

Note: A transcript of this interview was added to the Relearning the Nautch archive at a later date. The interview itself was conducted earlier through text messages and voice notes, and was subsequently transcribed for archival purposes.