Humans in the Loop (2024): Cinema, AI, and the Humans Hidden Inside Technology

This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's Research Article for background reading: Click here    

Humans in the Loop (2024): Cinema, AI, and the Humans Hidden Inside Technology

 

Here is the complete film information:

🎬 Director: Aranya Sahay

✍️ Writer: Aranya Sahay

🎥 Producers:

• Mathivanan Rajendran

• Shilpa Kumar

• Sarabhi Ravichandran

🌟 Starring: Sonal Madhushankar

📷 Cinematography:

• Harshit Saini

• Monica Tiwari

✂️ Editing:

• Swaroop Reghu

• Aranya Sahay

🏢 Production Companies:

• Storiculture

• Museum of Imagined Futures

• SAUV Films

📺 Distributor: Netflix

🎞 Premiere: 2024 — Mumbai Academy of the Moving Image (MAMI Film Festival)

📅 Streaming Release: 5 September 2025

⏱ Running Time: 72 Minutes

🇮🇳 Country: India

🗣 Languages: Hindi & Kurukh

🎭 Genre: Social Realist / Techno-Documentary Fiction

🌐 Central Theme: Artificial Intelligence, Human Labour & Cultural Knowledge

📍 Primary Setting: Jharkhand  (Rural Adivasi landscapes alongside digital workspaces)

Introduction : 

In today’s world, Artificial Intelligence quietly shapes our daily lives from the videos recommended on our phones to navigation apps that decide the fastest routes and algorithms that filter what we see online. We often experience these systems as intelligent, automatic, and almost magical, rarely pausing to ask who teaches these machines to think. Humans in the Loop, directed by Aranya Sahay, disrupts this illusion by bringing us face to face with the human realities hidden behind artificial intelligence.

Screened as part of our Film Studies engagement, the film transforms what seems like a distant technological subject into something deeply personal and real. Just as every social media algorithm learns from our clicks, choices, and behaviours, the film reveals that AI systems depend on countless unseen workers whose cultural knowledge and lived experiences shape machine learning itself. Through the story of Nehma, an Adivasi data labeler, the documentary exposes the invisible human labour that powers digital innovation labour that remains unrecognized even as technology becomes central to modern life.

Rather than celebrating AI as a technological marvel alone, Humans in the Loop redirects our attention toward the people embedded within these systems. It invites viewers to rethink technology not as independent intelligence but as a reflection of human decisions, cultures, and inequalities, ultimately asking a powerful question:

When machines learn to see the world, whose reality are they learning to recognize and whose do they overlook?

Final Reflection: Watching the Human Inside the Machine

Watching Humans in the Loop is not merely an encounter with a film about Artificial Intelligence; it is an encounter with the hidden human condition embedded within technological progress. The screening gradually transforms the viewer’s perception of AI from a futuristic abstraction into a deeply social and emotional reality shaped by ordinary lives.

What makes the film particularly powerful is its refusal to dramatize technology as either utopian or dystopian. Instead, it reveals AI as mundane, repetitive, and human-dependent. The machine does not replace humanity; it quietly absorbs human labour, perception, and even cultural bias. Through Nehma’s journey, we begin to recognize that every “smart” system carries invisible fingerprints of workers whose stories remain untold.

The film also invites personal reflection. In our everyday lives, we interact constantly with recommendation algorithms, automated translations, facial recognition, and digital assistants. Yet we rarely acknowledge the countless individuals who train these systems through repetitive tasks similar to Nehma’s work. The film therefore transforms spectators into participants, compelling us to reconsider our own position within digital culture not merely as users of technology but as contributors to its learning processes.

From a broader perspective, Humans in the Loop challenges the dominant narrative of technological neutrality. It suggests that artificial intelligence is not simply engineered; it is culturally produced. Algorithms inherit human assumptions, social hierarchies, and historical inequalities. In this sense, the film becomes less about machines and more about responsibility: ethical responsibility, representational responsibility, and collective responsibility toward the futures we are building through technology.

Ultimately, the film leaves viewers with a quiet but unsettling realization:

Technology does not merely shape society society shapes technology first.

And perhaps that is the film’s most enduring insight:

The intelligence of machines is only as humane, inclusive, and ethical as the humans who remain within their loop.

WORKSHEET FILM SCREENING ARANYA SAHAY'S HUMANS IN THE LOOP 

TASK 1 : AI, BIAS, & EPISTEMIC REPRESENTATION

---

1. How does the narrative expose algorithmic bias as culturally situated rather than purely technical?

The narrative of Humans in the Loop (2024) reveals algorithmic bias not as a simple technological malfunction but as a culturally embedded phenomenon shaped by human perception and social context. The film demonstrates that artificial intelligence systems depend fundamentally on human-generated datasets for training and classification. Through Nehma’s work as a data-labeller, viewers witness how AI platforms require her to categorize images and contextual information according to predefined computational labels designed elsewhere.

However, these standardized classifications frequently fail to capture indigenous ecological knowledge grounded in lived experience, cultural memory, and local practices. As a result, Nehma is compelled to translate complex environmental understanding into simplified algorithmic categories that strip away nuance and cultural specificity. This tension exposes the limits of computational logic when confronted with experiential knowledge systems.

The film thereby illustrates that algorithmic bias emerges not from faulty code alone but from dominant socio-cultural assumptions embedded within technological design. Machine learning systems inherit the perspectives, priorities, and limitations of the societies that create and train them. Consequently, the narrative positions AI as an ideological construct shaped by cultural interpretation rather than an objective or neutral technological authority.

2. In what ways does the film highlight epistemic hierarchies that is, whose knowledge counts in technological systems?

The film foregrounds epistemic hierarchies by portraying the unequal valuation of knowledge systems within AI training environments. Nehma’s indigenous knowledge, developed through intimate interaction with local landscapes and ecological rhythms, is presented as contextual, relational, and experiential. Yet the AI interface privileges standardized, data-driven knowledge aligned with scientific rationality and corporate technological frameworks.

This contrast establishes a hierarchy in which indigenous ways of knowing become marginalized or rendered invisible within digital infrastructures. The system demands that Nehma reshape her cultural understanding into rigid algorithmic categories, effectively translating living knowledge into abstract data points. In doing so, technological systems validate only those forms of knowledge that conform to dominant epistemologies.

The film thus exposes how digital technologies reproduce existing global power relations by determining whose knowledge is considered legitimate and whose is excluded. AI training becomes not merely a technical process but a site where cultural authority and intellectual legitimacy are negotiated and contested.

3. Support your answer with film studies concepts such as representation, ideology, and power relations.

From a film studies perspective, the representation of AI systems in Humans in the Loop operates as an ideological construct reflecting broader socio-political power dynamics. The film challenges the widespread belief in technological neutrality by portraying AI as embedded within structures of economic and cultural dominance that shape knowledge production.

Through Nehma’s participation in digital labour, the narrative reveals a paradox: marginalized communities actively contribute to the development of advanced technologies while remaining excluded from decision-making processes regarding how their knowledge is represented or utilized. This dynamic aligns with ideological critiques in film theory, which argue that media texts often reproduce social hierarchies by privileging dominant cultural perspectives.

The film’s cinematic representation therefore becomes a critical tool for exposing power relations within technological systems. By visualizing invisible labour and epistemic exclusion, Humans in the Loop questions the legitimacy of technological objectivity and encourages viewers to reconsider AI as a socially constructed medium shaped by ideology, representation, and unequal distributions of power.

TASK 2: LABOUR & THE POLITICS OF CINEMATIC VISIBILITY

---

1. How does the film’s visual language represent labelling work and the emotional experience of labour?

In Humans in the Loop, invisible labour is rendered visible through a carefully constructed visual language that emphasizes repetition, stillness, and emotional restraint. The film repeatedly shows Nehma engaged in data-labelling tasks within digitally mediated workspaces, where static camera framing and prolonged shots of computer interfaces highlight the mechanical rhythm of her work. Close-up visuals of screens, cursors, and annotation tools reduce human movement, visually aligning the worker’s body with the machine’s repetitive logic.

The editing structure reinforces this monotony through recurring sequences that mimic the cyclical nature of labelling work itself. Unlike the fluid and organic cinematography of village life, the AI workspace is portrayed as spatially confined and technologically sterile. This contrast creates a strong visual dichotomy between lived experience and algorithmic routine.

Furthermore, subdued sound design marked by silence, faint keyboard clicks, and the absence of natural ambience intensifies the emotional atmosphere of isolation and cognitive fatigue. Through these cinematic choices, the film communicates not only the physical repetition of digital labour but also its psychological impact, portraying labour as emotionally draining despite its seemingly immaterial nature.

2. What does this suggest about cultural valuation of marginalised work?

The film’s representation of data-labelling labour suggests that work performed by marginalized communities remains culturally invisible and undervalued, even when it is fundamental to advanced technological systems. While artificial intelligence is often celebrated as autonomous innovation, the narrative exposes its dependence on the manual cognitive efforts of workers like Nehma.

From a Marxist theoretical perspective, this dynamic reflects the commodification of human labour within digital capitalism, where intellectual attention and emotional endurance are converted into economic value without proportional recognition or social visibility. The labour that enables AI development is outsourced, fragmented, and detached from authorship, leaving workers excluded from the prestige associated with technological progress.

By foregrounding this hidden workforce, the film critiques dominant technological narratives that glorify machines while erasing the humans who sustain them. The invisibility of such labour reveals broader global inequalities in which marginalized populations contribute significantly to digital infrastructures yet remain absent from cultural and economic acknowledgment.

3. Does the film invite empathy, critique, or transformation in how labour is perceived?

The film invites both emotional empathy and critical reflection by centering the lived experiences of individuals engaged in AI-related labour. Through its intimate portrayal of Nehma’s daily routines, family responsibilities, and emotional struggles, the narrative humanizes digital work that is typically perceived as abstract or automated.

At the same time, the cinematic representation functions as a critique of dominant technological ideologies that portray AI systems as self-sufficient entities. By exposing the human presence behind automation, the film challenges viewers to reconsider assumptions about technological agency and progress.

Importantly, the film also gestures toward transformation. By depicting marginalized workers as active participants within global digital economies rather than passive subjects, it reshapes audience perception of labour itself. The narrative encourages viewers to recognize ethical questions surrounding worker rights, fair compensation, and accountability in technological production, thereby fostering a more socially conscious understanding of digital labour in contemporary society.

TASK 3: FILM FORM, STRUCTURE & DIGITAL CULTURE

---

1. How does the interplay of natural imagery versus digital spaces communicate broader thematic concerns?

In Humans in the Loop, the visual contrast between natural environments and digitally mediated workspaces functions as a central cinematic strategy for expressing the film’s philosophical concerns. Scenes situated within forests, domestic spaces, and community rituals are captured through fluid camera movement, warm natural lighting, and expansive spatial compositions. These visual qualities evoke a sense of continuity, relationality, and ecological harmony, reflecting indigenous knowledge systems grounded in lived experience and collective memory.

By contrast, digital workspaces are presented through static framing, artificial illumination, and spatial confinement. The rigid geometry of computer screens and enclosed interiors visually communicates technological control and algorithmic order. This aesthetic opposition operates within a semiotic framework, where natural spaces signify organic, experiential knowledge while digital environments symbolize abstraction, categorization, and computational logic.

The interplay between these visual worlds highlights a broader thematic tension: digital culture’s attempt to standardize and quantify human realities that are inherently complex, contextual, and culturally embedded. Through this juxtaposition, the film raises philosophical questions about whether technological systems can truly comprehend forms of knowledge rooted in human experience and environment.

2. How do aesthetic choices shape the viewer’s experience of labour, identity, and technology?

The film’s aesthetic design particularly its editing patterns, soundscape, and camera techniques actively shapes how viewers perceive labour, identity, and technological mediation. Sequential editing structures mirror the repetitive rhythm of data-labelling work, producing a sensory experience of monotony that allows audiences to feel the temporal weight of digital labour rather than merely observe it. The recurrence of nearly identical visual sequences simulates cognitive fatigue, aligning spectators emotionally with Nehma’s daily routine.

Sound design further reinforces this experience. AI workspace scenes are marked by subdued audio textures faint mechanical sounds, keyboard clicks, and extended silences which generate an atmosphere of emotional detachment and isolation. In contrast, scenes set within village life incorporate layered natural soundscapes, emphasizing social connection and environmental presence.

From a Formalist perspective, these cinematic devices construct meaning through sensory engagement rather than explicit exposition. The viewer experiences technological labour as embodied and affective rather than abstract. Simultaneously, identity is visually negotiated through contrasts between cultural practices and digital interfaces, suggesting how technological environments reshape notions of belonging, agency, and selfhood.

Thus, the film’s formal structure becomes a mediating force that connects labour, identity, and technology, revealing how digital culture reorganizes human experience at both emotional and philosophical levels.

Reference:

Barad, Dilip. Worksheet Film Screening: Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop. 2026. ResearchGate, https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.11775.06568.

Indian Poetics and Aesthetics

 

This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's blog for background reading: Click here.

This blog explores various concepts of Indian poetics and aesthetics, drawing from the expert lectures of Prof. (Dr.) Vinod Joshi Sir, a renowned Gujarati writer, poet, and critic.

Click here to watch the full playlist of video recording of online expert lectures on Indian Poetics on YouTube/DoE-MKBU

Here is the Infographic of this whole blog :

Here is the Videography of this whole blog : 

Here is the Slide deck of this whole blog : 

 

Introduction: Understanding the Indian Tradition of Literary Thought

Indian literary criticism, known traditionally as Kāvyaśāstra, represents one of the oldest and most sophisticated aesthetic traditions in the world. Unlike modern criticism that often separates literature from philosophy, psychology, and spirituality, Indian thinkers developed a unified system where art, emotion, ethics, and metaphysics work together.

The expert lecture series conducted by Prof. (Dr.) Vinod Joshi, an eminent poet and critic, offered students an opportunity to enter this profound intellectual tradition. Across multiple sessions, the lectures explored how ancient Indian scholars attempted to answer a central question:

What makes poetry truly poetic?

Indian critics did not merely analyze language or grammar; instead, they investigated how literature produces emotional experience and aesthetic pleasure. Their discussions led to the development of several theoretical schools such as:

• Rasa (Aesthetic Emotion)

• Dhvani (Suggestion)

• Vakrokti (Oblique Expression)

• Alamkara (Ornamentation)

• Riti (Style)

• Auchitya (Propriety)

• Anumiti (Inference)

Each theory attempted to identify the Ātma (soul) of poetry.

The Soul of Poetry: A Structural Overview of the Major Schools of Indian Poetics:

Indian Poetics (Kāvyaśāstra) represents one of the most sophisticated literary traditions in world criticism. Ancient Indian aestheticians were not merely concerned with poetic beauty; they sought to identify the essential principle (ātman) that gives life to poetry. Each school of thought emerged as a philosophical response to a single enduring question:

What is the true essence the living soul of a literary work?

Over centuries, different masters proposed distinct yet complementary answers, creating a systematic taxonomy of poetic theory. The following structure presents these schools in a refined and authentic scholarly form.

Structural Overview of Major Schools of Indian Poetics:

School of Thought	Proponent	Core Concept (Soul of Poetry)	Key Text	Explanation
Rasa School	Bharata Muni	Aesthetic Emotion (Rasa)	Natyashastra	Poetry achieves fulfillment when it transforms personal emotions into universal aesthetic experience, allowing the reader or spectator to “relish” emotion beyond individuality.
Alamkara School	Bhamaha	Ornamentation (Alamkara)	Kavyalamkara	Literary beauty arises from artistic embellishment figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, and hyperbole that decorate poetic language and heighten aesthetic pleasure.
Riti School	Vamana	Style (Riti)	Kavyalamkarsutra	The arrangement and texture of language constitute poetry’s essence; stylistic organization rather than ornament alone determines poetic excellence.
Dhvani School	Anandavardhana	Suggestion (Dhvani)	Dhvanyaloka	The deepest meaning of poetry lies not in literal expression but in suggestion subtle resonances that evoke emotions and ideas indirectly.
Vakrokti School	Kuntaka	Oblique Expression (Vakrokti)	Vakrokti-jivitam	Poetry becomes artistic through deviation from ordinary speech; creative and indirect expression generates aesthetic charm and originality.
Auchitya School	Kshemendra	Propriety (Auchitya)	Auchitya-vichara-charcha	Aesthetic success depends on appropriateness harmony between theme, emotion, character, language, and context.
Anumiti School	Shankuka	Inference (Anumiti)	Commentary on Natyashastra	The audience understands dramatic reality through inference; aesthetic meaning emerges from intellectual participation and interpretive reasoning.

Seen together, these schools trace the intellectual evolution of Indian literary theory:

Emotion → Ornament → Style → Suggestion → Expression → Harmony → Inference

This progression reveals that Indian thinkers viewed poetry not as a single phenomenon but as a multi-layered aesthetic experience, combining emotional response, linguistic artistry, philosophical depth, and reader participation.

Indian Poetics ultimately teaches that poetry lives where meaning is felt, suggested, shaped, and harmonized into aesthetic experience.

Rasa Theory: The Foundation of Aesthetic Experience

Rasa Theory, formulated by Bharata Muni in the Natyashastra, is the earliest and most fundamental concept of Indian aesthetics, explaining how art creates emotional experience in the audience. Bharata states the famous formula:

“विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः”

(Rasa arises from the combination of Vibhava, Anubhava, and Vyabhichari Bhavas.)

According to this theory, aesthetic emotion (Rasa) is not the same as real-life emotion. In everyday life, emotions like sorrow or joy are personal and tied to practical consequences, but in literature or drama these emotions become universalized and aesthetically enjoyable. Vibhava refers to the causes or situations that generate emotion (characters, setting, circumstances), Anubhava denotes the outward expressions of feeling such as gestures, tears, or speech, and Vyabhichari Bhavas are the temporary emotional states that support and intensify the dominant mood. When these elements combine artistically, the audience experiences a refined emotional essence called Rasa, producing aesthetic pleasure (Ānanda). Thus, even tragic scenes do not cause real suffering; instead, they create Karuna Rasa, a pleasurable experience of pathos. Rasa Theory therefore establishes that the true purpose of literature and drama is not mere storytelling but the creation of aesthetic relish, making emotional experience the very soul of artistic expression.

Dhvani Theory: The Resonance of Suggestion

Anandavardhana (9th Century) transformed Indian poetics by moving literary criticism beyond the surface meaning of words and emphasizing the power of suggestion in poetry. He argued that great poetry does not reveal everything directly; instead, it communicates its deepest meaning indirectly, allowing the reader to feel rather than merely understand. His famous declaration states:

काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिः ।

(Kavyasyatma Dhvanih)

“Dhvani (Suggestion) is the soul of poetry.”

To understand Dhvani linguistically, consider how the vowel અ (a) completes the consonant ક્ (k) to form ક (ka). Without the underlying sound, the consonant remains incomplete. Similarly, poetic words remain incomplete without their suggested meaning. The real beauty of literature lies not only in what is spoken but in what is implied beneath the words.

Anandavardhana explains that meaning in poetry operates on three levels. Abhidha is the literal or dictionary meaning, such as “The sun has set.” Lakshana is the indicative or secondary meaning, as in “He is a lion,” where lion suggests bravery. The highest level is Vyanjana, the suggestive meaning, where words create an emotional or contextual implication for example, when a woman tells her lover “The sun has set,” the deeper suggestion may be an invitation for a secret meeting. Thus, poetry communicates through resonance rather than direct statement.

This idea is beautifully expressed in the shloka:

विभाजित लावण्यम् इव अंगनाशु ॥

Just as beauty exists beyond the physical limbs of a woman, Dhvani exists beyond the literal words of poetry.

According to Anandavardhana, poetry “whispers” meaning in three ways: Vastu Dhvani, where a hidden idea or fact is suggested; Alankara Dhvani, where a poetic figure or ornament is implied; and Rasa Dhvani, where deep emotion is suggested. Among these, Rasa Dhvani is the highest form because emotion cannot be forced through direct statement. Simply saying “I am sad” may not move the reader, but describing a broken toy lying in the rain evokes sadness naturally. The emotion arises through suggestion, not declaration.

For example, the line:

“તુ જ્યાં જશે ત્યાં મારો બીજો જન્મ થશે”

(Wherever you go, I will have a second birth.)

does not literally speak about rebirth; instead, it suggests profound love, emotional dependence, and spiritual union. This implied emotional depth is Dhvani. Therefore, Dhvani Theory establishes that the greatness of poetry lies in its ability to suggest meaning softly allowing readers to discover emotion within themselves rather than receiving it directly.

Vakrokti Theory: The Art of Beautiful Deviation

Among the major theories of Indian Poetics, Acharya Kuntaka’s Vakrokti Theory stands out for its bold and artistic vision. Kuntaka argued that poetry is not created by ordinary expression but by creative deviation from common speech (Loka-varta). When language moves away from direct, everyday communication and adopts a unique, imaginative turn, it becomes poetry. This distinctive mode of expression is called Vakrokti literally meaning oblique or artistically twisted speech. He summarizes his idea in the celebrated aphorism:

वक्रोक्तिः काव्यजीवितम् ॥

(Vakroktih Kavyajivitam)

“Vakrokti is the life-breath of poetry.”

Kuntaka explains that poetry delights readers when word and meaning unite through stylistic originality, not plain narration. As expressed in the verse:

“शब्दार्थौ सहितौ वक्रकाव्यव्यापारशालिनी

बन्धे व्यवस्थितौ काव्यं तद्विदः आलादकारिणी।”

(Poetry, shaped by the oblique beauty of word and meaning together, gives aesthetic joy to the sensitive reader.)

For Kuntaka, poetic beauty lies in saying the familiar in an unfamiliar way. Vakrokti transforms simple expression into artistic experience through six systematic levels of deviation:

• Varna-Vinyasa Vakrata – Beauty at the level of sound; musical charm created through alliteration and phonetic arrangement.
  Example: “नव कंज लोचन कंज मुखकर कंज पद कन्जारुणम”  (repetition produces rhythmic elegance.)

• Pada-Purvardha Vakrata – Creativity in the choice and root meaning of words, giving freshness to vocabulary.

• Pada-Parardha Vakrata – Artistic effect produced through grammatical endings, tense, and linguistic form.

• Vakya Vakrata – The sentence itself becomes aesthetically powerful through metaphor, irony, or dramatic intensity.
  Example: “You too, Brutus!” (simple words charged with emotional shock.)

• Prakarana Vakrata – Creative brilliance in shaping a particular episode, such as the emotionally powerful ring episode in Shakuntala.

• Prabandha Vakrata – Artistic originality at the level of the whole narrative, seen in varied retellings of the Ramayana, where the same story reveals new ethical and emotional dimensions.

Thus, Kuntaka presents poetry as an art of transformation: ordinary language informs, but Vakrokti enchants. Poetry lives not in plain meaning but in the poet’s unique way of expression where deviation becomes beauty and creativity becomes aesthetic pleasure. 

Alamkara Theory: The Radiance of Poetic Ornament

After exploring emotion (Rasa) and suggestion (Dhvani), Indian aestheticians turned toward the visible beauty of poetic expression. Bhamaha and later Dandin proposed that poetry achieves brilliance through Alamkara the artistic ornaments that elevate language from ordinary communication to aesthetic art.

They compared poetry to human beauty, expressing the idea through a memorable maxim:

न कान्तमपि निर्भूषं विभाति वनितामुखम् ॥

“Even a beautiful face does not shine without ornaments; likewise, poetry does not shine without figures of speech.”

Alamkara gives poetry vividness, memorability, and emotional sparkle. Yet classical critics warn that ornament must remain subordinate to meaning; excessive decoration weakens artistic impact. Among the most celebrated figures are Upama (Simile), which creates beauty through comparison; Rupaka (Metaphor), which fuses identity between objects; and Atishayokti (Hyperbole), which intensifies emotional experience through imaginative exaggeration. Thus, Alamkara reveals that poetry first captivates the reader through aesthetic elegance of expression.

Riti Theory: Style as the Soulful Structure of Poetry

While Alamkara beautifies poetry externally, Acharya Vamana sought its inner organizing principle. He asked: What gives poetry its distinctive personality? His answer was Riti, or style.

रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य ॥

“Style is the soul of poetry.”

According to Vamana, poetic excellence lies in the arrangement, rhythm, and texture of language. Two poets may express the same idea, yet style transforms one into art and leaves the other ordinary. He identified three major stylistic modes:

• Vaidarbhi – graceful, lucid, and melodious; associated with the refined elegance of Kalidasa.

• Gaudi – grand, energetic, and elaborate, rich with powerful compounds.

• Panchali – a harmonious blend of sweetness and strength.

Riti theory therefore shifts attention from ornament to structural artistry, presenting poetry as a carefully designed aesthetic architecture.

Auchitya Theory: The Harmony of Appropriateness

As poetic theories multiplied, Kshemendra introduced a unifying principle Auchitya (Propriety) to maintain artistic balance and coherence.

औचित्यस्य च यो भावस्तदौचित्यं प्रचक्षते ॥

“That which is appropriate to its context is called Auchitya.”

Kshemendra argued that poetry succeeds only when every element aligns perfectly with its situation. Emotion must suit character, language must suit mood, and style must suit theme. A delicate romantic tone in a battlefield scene or comic language in tragedy disrupts aesthetic unity. Auchitya thus becomes the governing law of poetic harmony, ensuring that beauty, emotion, and meaning coexist naturally.

Anumiti Theory: The Logic of Aesthetic Experience

The final stage of this intellectual journey appears in Shankuka’s Anumiti Theory, which connects literary aesthetics with Indian logic (Nyaya philosophy). According to this view, aesthetic experience arises through inference (Anumana).

When audiences watch an actor performing Rama, they neither believe the actor literally is Rama nor see only a performer. Instead, they infer Rama’s emotions through artistic representation. This act of inference generates genuine emotional enjoyment. Art therefore operates through a fusion of imagination and reasoning, proving that aesthetic pleasure is both emotional and intellectual.

Conclusion: Indian Poetics as a Living Aesthetic Philosophy

Indian Poetics is not a collection of isolated doctrines but a progressive philosophical system explaining how art works:

• Alamkara → Poetry becomes beautiful

• Riti → Poetry gains stylistic identity

• Auchitya → Poetry achieves harmony

• Anumiti → Meaning is experienced through inference

• Dhvani & Rasa → Poetry culminates in emotional bliss

Together, these theories describe the journey of poetry:

Word → Style → Suggestion → Emotion → Aesthetic Realization

As Kalidasa beautifully expresses:

वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तये ।

“Word and meaning exist in inseparable union.”

The ultimate aim of Indian Poetics is this perfect unity where poet, poem, and reader dissolve into a single aesthetic experience, and language transcends communication to become lived emotion.

References : 

Barad, Dilip. “Indian Aesthetics and Indian Poetics.” Dilip Barad | Teacher Blog, 17 Feb. 2026, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2026/02/indian-aesthetics-and-indian-poetics.html. Accessed 18 Feb. 2026.

Chaudhury, Pravas Jivan. “Indian Poetics.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 24, no. 1, 1965, pp. 197–204. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/428209. Accessed 18 Feb. 2026.