Sruti E - Issue Sruti E - Issue Contents
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Sruti E - Issue 1 2 Sruti E - Issue Contents The Transfiguration Of . 4 A Traditional Dance The Academy and The Dance . 5 Events of The First Decade The Controversy . 17 Dancers of The First Decade . 21 The Renaming of An Old Dance: A Whodunit Tale of Mystery . 34 E. Krishna Iyer (1897 – 1968): . 37 Saviour of A Dance In Distress Sruti E - Issue 3 1 The Transfiguration Of A Traditional Dance Sadir, as the traditional classical dance of the Tamil country came to be known, had been brought to glory by its hereditary custodians—its preceptors and practitioners belonging to the devadasi community. In the late 1920s, a campaign to abolish the ill-reputed devadasi system had reached fever pitch. Proposed legislation for abolishing the system and redeeming its victims threatened to snuff the lights out of the sacred—and the profane—Sadir. At this stage, the newly established Music Academy of Madras and E. Krishna Iyer, its knight in shining armour, stepped into the battle to help save the dance in distress and assist the transfiguration of sullied Sadir into blessed Bharatanatyam. Significantly, the Academy presented dances by outstanding devadasi performers themselves to establish the beauty of the art in the public’s mind. Contributing Editor Arudra dipped into the dusty records of the Academy and other documentary evidence to prepare the revealing report that follows and to write the three articles that complement it. 4 Sruti E - Issue 2 The Academy and The Dance Events of The First Decade Year after year the souvenirs of the Music Academy, Madras, published on the occasion of its annual conferences, contain a continually updated brief history of the institution. The historical account includes the institution’s aims and objects, attempts and achievements, and projects and performances. In regard to Bharatanatyam, the following has been a recurring text which, in the Golden Jubilee Conference Souvenir (1976), read as follows: “Very early the Academy set its hand to the task of dispelling the cloud of prejudice that hung over the ancient art of Bharata Natya. By refining the performance and issuing an enlightening programme it has brought the classic Indian dance within intelligent appreciation and thus rescued it from the danger of extinction. It [the dance] now holds a place as an important branch of Sangita. It was largely due to those intimately connected with the executive and academic work of the Academy that Sruti E - Issue 5 the art attained its present wide vogue all over the country. Under the patronage and in the premises of the Academy, Srimati T. Balasaraswati has been conducting a school for classical Bharata Natya. The school has been receiving support from the S.N. Akademi and from its friends in U.S., Mr. Jon Higgins, Mrs. L. Scripps and others.” This brief extract speaks volumes; it also raises many doubts and questions in the minds of present-day readers, since prominent individuals and institutions have, during the last four or five decades, staked real or illusory claims for reviving, reforming and renaming the dance form previously known as Sadir, Dasiattam, etc. If each and every word of the above statement by the Academy is subjected to careful scrutiny with available and reliable evidence, we can accept that the Academy has been speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth insofar as its claims to have rescued the classical dance of Tamilnadu from near extinction are concerned. The claim of the Academy starts with the words ‘very early’. What do these words mean? How early? In which year of Lord Nataraja’s grace? The statement contains the phrase ‘with the executive and academic work of the Academy’ and one would like to know who the executives were and what academic work was carried out in this regard. By going through successive volumes of the Journal of the Music Academy (JMAM) and assembling evidence and a chronological chronicle of the events, we can gain a correct picture of the recent history of Bharatanatyam. The Indian National Congress decided to hold its 1927 annual session in Madras during the last week of December. It was customary in the north to hold an all India music conference along with the annual Congress session. Music enthusiasts in Madras, who had already met in 1926 and resolved to establish an institution to foster classical music, wanted to avail themselves of the opportunity to hold an all India music conference, the first of its kind in the south. A reception committee with Dr. U. Rama Rao as Chairman and E. Krishna Iyer and P. Sambamoorthi as Secretaries, was formed on 12 October 1927 and entrusted with the work of organizing the conference. The conference started at about noon on 24 December and continued for eight days. At the conclusion of the 6 Sruti E - Issue conference, a significant resolution was passed urging the formation of a permanent institution to promote the cause of music. On 22 January 1928, the Reception Committee consisting of a President, eight Vice- Presidents, three Secretaries and other members met and resolved among other things that “an Academy of Music be started at Madras.” On 5 March of the same year, a provisional executive with U. Rama Rao as President, E. Krishna Iyer and S. Rajagopalachari as Secretaries and T.V. Subba Rao as Treasurer was constituted and entrusted with the task of organising the Academy and starting its work. The Music Academy of Madras was inaugurated by Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer in August 1928 and it was registered formally under the Societies Registration Act in the following year. Initially the annual conferences used to be held during the Easter week, before they were switched to coincide with the Christmas holidays in December. The Academy started to publish its own quarterly Journal from 1930. In the very first number of the Journal, there was an elaborate article entitled Bharata Natyam written by V. Venkatarama Sharma of the University of Madras. By publishing this scholarly explanation of the Natya Sastra, the Academy demonstrated its faith that the classical dances constituted an integral part of Sangita. E. Krishna Iyer, one of the Secretaries of the Academy and its driving force in thes eventful first decade of its life, was himself a trained musician and dancer. He was most eager to introduce Sadir dance in the Academy’s programme of recitals but had to bide his time. 1927 was considered a memorable year for Carnatic music but it was a distressing year for dance. In the autumn of 1927, the Council of State in Delhi discussed the motion of a member from Madras for the prevention of dedication of girls as devadasis. The motion was opposed by the Law Member who held that the existing provisions of the Indian Penal Code were sufficient to deal with the alleged consequences of immoral practices. In November 1927, the Madras Legislative Council unanimously passed a resolution recommending that the Madras Government prepare preventive legislation; subsequently, in 1929, the Council legislated an amendment to the H.R. & C.E. Act that empowered temple authorities to disenfranchise devadasis from their temple connections and revoke by Sruti E - Issue 7 civil proceedings the manyams (land settlement and privileges) granted to them. In 1930, S. Muthulakshmi Reddy, a doctor and social leader who belonged to a devadasi family, brought a bill in the Council seeking to prohibit the performance of the devadasi dedicatory ceremonies in any Hindu temple. This was the last straw for pro-art progressives. The executives of the Academy were closely watching the developments and, realising the seriousness of the situation, felt that something ought to be done urgently to safeguard the continuity of the classical traditions in dance before the hereditary custodians of Sadir—who belonged to the devadasi community—were forced to give up the role. Then the Academy took a bold step. On 15 March 1931, it presented on its own platform two dancers known as the Kalyani Daughters. The performance drew only a small crowd and a meagre gate collection, but it was a significant event. It was reported in the Academy’s Journal thus: “An entirely new line was struck this year by the Academy commencing its season with a Bharata Natyam performance by Kalyani Daughters of Tanjore. It has almost become a fashion nowadays to condemn the Indian Nautch and look askance at it. In our view this condemnation is least deserved. Such of those as have feasted their eyes on the performance of Krishna Bhagavatar of Tanjore of Harikatha fame, will testify to the grandeur of this art [of dance] and expose the utter unworthiness of the criticism that is levelled against it. We are glad that the performance served as an eye-opener to those who came to witness it. We hope that in the days to come, public opinion will veer round and give unto Abhinayam its proper place.” [JMAM, Vol. II, p. 78]. The executive functionaries of the Academy continued to encourage the art of dance under its new name of Bharatanatyam. The Academy invited Srimati Gowri (Mylapore) to dance on 3 January 1932 at its annual conference held in a pandal. Musical accompaniment was provided by Balaraman of the Nadamuni Band. In the same year, which turned out to be a year of joy for the dance enthusiasts, two significant things happened. The first was a crucial controversy over the pros and cons of the art of dance and the second a decisive discussion on the preservation of the art. 8 Sruti E - Issue The controversy over the nature of classical dance and the advisability of its revival were led by Anti-Nautch leader Dr.