Though “Comparative” rhetoricians Oliver and Kennedy placed Indian rhetoric on the rhetorical map, much remains undiscovered concerning their specific indigenous communicative practices. This essay introduces two such Indian traditions-- Nyāya, a philosophically based approach to persuasion codified by Hindus, and Sadharanikaran, interpreted by many as a Hindu model of communication. Nyāya, gradually developed a five-part “method”(Matilal) that defines arguments in terms of claims, reasons, and analogies. In a parallel dramatic tradition from Bharat Muni called Sadharanikaran, the receiver “not only accepts the message willingly but in the process derives genuine satisfaction and pleasure or Ananda”. This essay contrasts the two approaches with Aristotle’s more familiar ideas, and then offers some historical and current Indian arguments to illustrate rhetorical delivery shaped by Nyāya and Sadharanikaran, a glimpse into rhetorical performance within a rich non-Western tradition. Although “Comparative ” rhetoricians Oliver and Kennedy placed Indian rhetoric on the rhetorical map, much remains undiscovered concerning their specific indigenous communicative practices. This essay introduces two such Indian traditions - Nyāya, a philosophically based approach to persuasion codified by Hindus, and Sadharanikaran, interpreted by many as a Hindu model of communication. Nyāya, developed developed five-part “method ” (Matilal) that defines arguments in terms of claims, reasons, and analogies. In a parallel dramatic tradition from Bharat Muni called Sadharanikaran, the receiver “not only accepts the message willingly but in the process derives legitimate and pleasure or Ananda ”. This essay contrasts the two approaches with Aristotle’s more familiar ideas, and then offers some historical and current Indian arguments to illustrate rhetorical delivery shaped by Nyāya and Sadharanikaran, a glimpse into rhetorical performance within a rich non-Western traditio n.