CHENNAI: Clips from Ananya Panday, Lakshya’s Chand Mera Dil have snowballed into one of the internet’s most heated cultural conversations. What began as a Bharatanatyam-inspired fusion dance performed by actor Ananya has now evolved into a larger debate about artistic experimentation, classical traditions, and the responsibilities of mainstream cinema when engaging with heritage art forms.
Adavus are not optional suggestions. This choreography is a huge disservice to Bharathanatyam and portraying an artform in such a superficial manner hasn’t gone wellAnita Ratnam
The sequence, which blends Bharatanatyam elements with contemporary dance and cinematic choreography, quickly went viral after clips from the film surfaced online and has made the dance form a laughing stock. While one section of mouse potatoes spoke in defense and called it a modern interpretation, many classical dancers and cultural commentators argued that the performance failed to capture the discipline, grammar, and essence of Bharatanatyam.
At the centre of the debate is Bharathnatyam dancer and cultural commentator Anita R Ratnam, whose comments quickly went viral and became one of the most discussed responses to the sequence. Reacting to the clip, Ratnam wrote in X “Watching this clip felt like Bharatanatyam being held hostage by a catastrophic misunderstanding of the form.” Her criticism resonated with many within the classical arts community who felt the choreography failed to reflect the discipline and technical rigour that define Bharatanatyam. Speaking to DT Next, Anita remarked, “Adavus are not optional suggestions.” For the unversed, in Bharatanatyam, “Adavus” are the fundamental movement vocabulary that forms the backbone of the classical dance tradition.
"Adavus are not optional suggestions. This choreography is a huge disservice to Bharathanatyam and portraying an artform in such a superficial manner hasn’t gone well", said Anita Ratnam.
"Much like grammar in a language, they provide the precision, discipline and structure and novation and fusion cannot come at the cost of the art form’s basic principles. “This choreography is a huge disservice to Bharathanatyam and portraying an artform in such a superficial manner hasn’t gone well,” she added.
Bharatanatyam exponent Vidya Venkataraman was among those who strongly disagreed with the portrayal.
“The performance is very, bad, and it cannot be called describing the presentation as inconsistent with the aesthetics of the classical form. She also added , “Bharatanatyam is known for its subtlety, discipline and expressive beauty, qualities that she felt were absent in the sequence”.
Bharatanatyam dancer and Chartered Accountant Mahitha Suresh questioned the research and cultural understanding behind the sequence. “When I first saw the video, I wasn’t sure if it was some kind of AI-generated mock-up,” she remarked. What stood out to her most was what she described as a lack of groundwork in representing the art form.
While acknowledging that the performance may have been intended as a fusion piece rather than a traditional recital, Mahitha pointed to details that she felt reflected a broader misunderstanding of Bharatanatyam conventions. “The Nataraja idol is traditionally placed to the right of the stage during Bharatanatyam performances as a mark of reverence. In the video, it appeared behind the dancer as though it were simply part of the set,” she noted. adding to that mahita said, “Cinema is such a popular medium, and it would be nice if our traditional arts could be represented more authentically in showcases at that scale.”
Yet not everyone agreed with the criticism. One widely shared post praised Las Vegas dancer Harini Nilakanthan’s fusion performance in a dance battle as an example of how Bharatanatyam can successfully coexist with contemporary styles without compromising its identity.
Another viral reaction claimed that while experimentation is welcome, technique cannot be treated as optional Supporters in the X platform argued that the sequence was never intended to be a pure Bharatanatyam recital. Instead, they viewed it as a cinematic fusion performance designed for a mainstream audience and reflective of contemporary storytelling.
Some users also felt the backlash had become disproportionately personal towards Ananya Panday, shifting focus away from a discussion on choreography and artistic choices. At the same time, many users felt the criticism directed at Ananya Panday had become excessive. They argued that the sequence was never presented as a pure Bharatanatyam recital and should instead be viewed as a cinematic fusion piece designed for a mainstream audience.