PAPER: 3

Detail Study Of Bharatanatyam, Devadasis-Natuvnar, Nritya And Nritta, Different Bani-s, Present Status, Institutions, Artists

Module 7 Abolition Of The Devadasi System And Transition To The Art Dance

The rise and fall in the status of devadasis can be seen to be running parallel to the rise and fall of Hindu temples. As the temples became poorer and lost their patron kings (and in some cases temples were completely destroyed), the devadasis were forced into a life of poverty, misery and in many cases, prostitution. The problem of the devadasi system is that it continued in spite of centuries of decline of temples, absence of patron kings and without the related social support systems.1

Coupled with the active support of colonial rulers, the antagonism felt by the men of the community (of performers and dancers) for the more successful women contributed towards the success of the reform movement. “The extraordinary success of the reforms was not unconnected with the fact that the community men folk stood to gain by the legislation. The reform campaign forced the devadasis to acknowledge the moral supremacy of grhasta / ग्रंथ values. Even more importantly, it obliged them to relinquish all rights to temple service and its privileges. The men on the other hand continued to perform both in the temples and in people’s homes. The immense patronage they received from the DK/DMK (regional party in Tamil Nadu) organizations favored them financially. The Nagaswaram today is even performed as a concert art. With respect to land rights as well, the abolition of the devadasi system benefited the men of the community over the women – in direct contrast to the historical situation.2

With the anti Devadasi act of 1947, a system which took centuries of perfecting was abolished. The provisions of this Act also stipulated that dance not be performed in temples and dancers not be kept in temple service. While this sanitized the system at surface level, no one thought of the fate of dancers or their future. In such a scenario, it was but natural that all kinds of issues were faced by the dancers and musicians and their families.

The irony was that the devadasi, who was a non-Brahmin, became a victim of the politics of anti-Brahmanism of Dravidian parties on one hand and of the Christian missionaries and colonial rulers on the other hand. The support to devadasis came from two unexpected quarters – Brahmins and Theosophists.

The espousal of the dance by Brahmin dominated Theosophical (and Congress) was used by the British Government officials to play up suspicion in non-Brahmin circles against not only the dance but also against the movement of Indian nationalism. The political lines were now drawn very clearly. On one side were British officials, Christian missionaries and ‘backward’ non-Brahmins. On the other side were the European (unofficial) Theosophists, Congress and Brahmins. The former used everything in their power to kill the dance and its community of performers (devadasis). The latter tried to preserve and promote the dance as a national art. The efforts of the latter helped the emergence of an elite class of amateur performers. But the efforts of both sides led to the demise of the centuries old professional performers known as devadasis. (Based on Amrit Srinivasan, 1985 and Jogan Shankar, 1990)3

Dance had been a vital element of temple worship in South India until the Devadasi Bill was passed in 1947. This law made it illegal to dance on temple grounds, in effect destroying all support for the devadasis to continue learning and sharing their art. During the British occupation of India, confusion and fear had taken hold, and a group of influential elite pushed the law into effect the same year that India gained independence from Britain. A small number of dedicated artists continued to carve a place for the dance to survive amidst the extremely charged political landscape. During that time, , an extraordinarily brilliant dancer and musician, brought public attention to the importance of maintaining dance as a sacred communion with god. Others, such as Rukmini Devi, founded schools that promoted a revised version of the dance that was more suited for the stage as its venue rather than the temple.4

With the abolition of the devadasi system and dance services in the temple, the parampara / परंपरा practitioners were seriously affected. Suddenly, an ancient art form was displaced and usurped by a class of practitioners who knew nothing about its intricacies and etiquettes. The new practitioners wanted to learn the art and had to from the same devadasis and nattuvanars.

The revivalists wanted to preserve the traditional form of Sadir dance by purifying it. The new name was given as ‘Bharatanatyam.’ As a consequence of purification some modifications were introduced into the content of the dance style. The revivalists basically belonged to Brahmin dominated Theosophical circles. Many Brahmin girls started to learn the dance from devadasis. Hence the dance technique remained unchanged. The only change was change in the class of clientele. The themes were picked up from Sanskrit texts, higher caste girls learned the dances and put them in new settings which excluded devadasi traditions, and the dance form became individual-oriented from the community-oriented. (Jogan Shankar / 5 जोगन शंकर).

The traditional dancers and nattuvanars had to move where new patronage could be found. Thus, there was a procession from Thanjavur to Madras city, but only a few artistes and gurus could make the relocation. Very few dancers survived it. But for the fact that parampara dancers were featured in the historic series at Music Academy during 1931- 40, the nattuvanars would likely not have come to Madras. It is frightening to imagine what would have happened to the art if the (Music) Academy series had not been conducted.6

If the sixth conference of the Music Academy in 1932 was epoch making, the seventh in 1933 was a conference of consolidation. It was presided over by vidwan / विध्िान K Ponniah Pillai, Professor of Music at Annamalai University and the descendant of Sivanandam of the Thanjavur Quartet. This conference had the unique distinction of having many doyens of the dance world as its expert participants. On its third day, Pandanallur Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai presented a paper in which he explained the nature and future of south Indian dance. On the last day, another famous exponent of dance held the floor. Bharatam Nallur Narayanaswamy Iyer gave a lecture on the ‘Art of Bharata: The Indian dance.’ He explained at length with numerous examples, the three branches of art, namely bhava / भाि, raga / राग and tala / ताऱ. Scholar Dr. V. Raghavan seems to have taken an active part for the first time in this conference. He moved as many as six resolutions which were passed without discussion. The following is the text of one of them: Resolved that the Academy do represent to Hindu Religious Endowments Board that steps should immediately be taken to see that Tevaram, Vaishnava Prabhandhams. Bharatanatyam, Nagaswaram and other temple musicals are again made a part of the daily offering to the god in all temples.7

On the whole, the 1933 conference was noteworthy for the recommendations for reviving and refining the dance which were mooted and accepted. In the years that followed, dance recitals rather than discussions about the art and its future held centre stage. Artistes from families which considered dance as a hereditary profession dominated the stage until 1936. The first non-professional dancer at the Academy was a Brahmin girl Balachandra in Dec 1938. In the following year, two other girls Lakshmi Sastri and Kalanidhi of similar background danced. Since the prestigious platform at the Music Academy could not be made available except to a few outstanding artistes, many who had taken up Bharatanatyam in right earnest and wished to perform in the public had to stage their recitals under the auspices of various sabhas and associations. Among those who danced were disciples of the many nattuvanars who had gone into hibernation, in a manner of speaking, during the time the dance was under a cloud.8

According to E. Iyer, who was closely associated with the revival of Bharatanatyam, the date 1 January 1933 (the date of the second dance recital of the Kalyani daughters) was to be taken as the date of the renaissance of Bharatanatyam. In one of the most unique cultural restorations of dance encountered anywhere in the world, everything about the dance changed. From being a fragment of history shriveling in the margins of impoverishment, Bharatanatyam empowered itself to become the ubiquitous . From a surreptitious caste bound practice, it became a wondrous art form that tore its caste and regional definitions to capture the entire nation's popular and critical imagination. From being a fragile ritualistic dance that had originated in the temples of South India, it became a vehicle for flagrant performance. From a secluded and sacred art, it became public. From temple lintel to proscenium stage it became an object of celebration, and some abuse.9

Those who did not belong to the traditional community drew inspiration from the beauty of the dance as performed by the members of that community. Even Rukmini Devi was inspired to learn Bharatanatyam only when she saw some of the traditional dancers perform at Music Academy and she learnt the dance from traditional nattuvanars, not from text books. In this respect, the series at Music Academy organized by E. Krishna Iyer with the active collaboration of dancers of the traditional community played a critical role indeed. Four individuals played a crucial role in the renaissance of Bharatanatyam: E. Krishna Iyer, T. Balasaraswati, Kamala and Rukmini Devi.10

Regression analysis shows that if E. Krishna Iyer had not campaigned for saving the dance from extinction, and if he had not arranged the historic series at the Music Academy, the dance would have failed to gain respectability and hence would not have survived, or survived long enough for anyone else to try and play the role of savior. It also shows that without the cooperation of the dancers of the traditional community, Krishna Iyer would not have been able to convey the beauty of the art to the wider public. Rukmini Devi clothed the dance with her exquisite taste and added new dimensions to it. Kamala inspired hundreds of others to learn and perform Bharatanatyam because as a talented dancer who was also young, she became a role model others could not be.11

Bharatanatayam’s best specimens Ram Gopal, Bala, Rukmini Devi did not question tradition when they came center-stage as early as in the 1930s. Why? Because they were “reviving and resurrecting” an almost dead art. Or, they were proud to continue the art of their masters as taught to them. This was the basis of much tom-tommed Guru-Shishya parampara / गु셁-शश�य परंपरा , or the technique of transmission of art, orally, from a master to a pupil and so the chain continued.

Remember, most masters were men. Why? Because belonging to the caste of devadasis who were by inference “women of loose morals” (from a prudish Victorian point of view), their offspring, born outside wedlock were illegitimate, simply put. To change their status and standing in society, they were trained and equipped in the art of their families, i.e. teach and conduct dance recitals. Hence, most such men became venerated masters, nattuvanars or conductors of such stars of the form as make legends today. 12

Instead of going to villages and temples to learn the art of the devadasis, slowly the art was patronized in the city. Several gurus and nattuvunars had to leave their villages and come to try their fortune in the city. Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai, Muthukumara Pillai were first teachers at newly established school started by a Brahmin from Madurai in Madras, under the enlightened aegis of world Theosophical Society (called Temple of Arts in 1936, then renamed Kalakshetra). Many next generation gurus were born from within the devadasi families. Thus Kittappa Pillai, Ellappa Pillai and Ramaiah Pillai, Dandayudhapani Pillai all flocked to biggest city in south – Madras – in the 1940s and established base there.

The coming of several institutions in the decade after the visit by foreigners of note led to creation of many major institutions like the Kerala Kalamandalam, Kalakshetra, and Santiniketan, to specifically teach and nurture traditional Indian dances that happened after this decade, i.e., the 1920s. The offshoot of this was an engagement of traditional teachers who left their rural moorings and came to teach in big cities like Madras and much later, Delhi. Chief amongst these were Muthukumara Pillai (who travelled maximum and helped propagate Bharatanatyam in two cities: Madras for twelve years; Ahmedabad for two), Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai (six months at Kalakshetra) and Ramaiah Pillai (thirty years in Madras). Gurus Ellappa, Kittappa and Subbaraya Pillai, all based themselves in Madras and taught many. It is through these early and pioneering figures that Bharatanatyam got its style and structure, form and content, as we mostly see today. In modern times, few gurus who have distinguished themselves are the Dhananjayans in Bharatanatyam, Kalamandalam Ramankutty and in and Pt. in . While alive, Guru did a lot for Orissi, Vempatti Chinna Satyam and in Kuchipudi, Guru Amobi Singh and later Bipin Singh in Manipuri. All males! These are our national icons, who have furthered parampara of abhyaas / अ땍यास mode of teaching and learning and acquiring natya.13

Most taught at Kalakshetra but some also taught dance for films as Madras was also centre for films before Bombay came up. Many productions needed and used classical dances, especially Bharatanatyam and thus many nattuvanars like Ramaiah Pillai got foothold in the film industry and they discovered talents like Kamala Lakshman (originally a disciple of Muthukumara Pillai), Bhanumati and Vyjayanthimala. Film directors like Subrahmanyam (Padma’s father) also made dance films and gave many dancers an opportunity to show their talents. was based in Madras in 1940s to make iconic film ‘Kalpana / क쥍पना’ (which discovered the Travancore Sisters - Lalitha, Padmini and Ragini - and Guru Gopinath).

Dance was now popular thanks to sudden opportunities in films and on stage. Within a decade, the baby had been thrown and bathwater used! The last devadasis like Mylapore Gowri Ammal attached to Kapaleeswara temple, Madras, taught expressional dance to some first generation dancers like Rukmini Devi, Kalanidhi and others.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the merchant community of Chettiars and Mudaliars support the arts when many displaced artistes moved to Madras. Slowly, sabhas were set up and shows of dance and music (Chinna / छिन्न and Periamelam / पेरीअमेऱम) were held in these thatched roofed sit out sabhas. Around 1899-1900, the first sabha / सभा came into existence in Madras. The hundred-year- old Triplicane Parthasarthy Sabha is one of the oldest. These sabhas were not involved in presenting dance. Founded in 1927, the Music Academy was the only sabha which took up the fight for saving Sadirattam, thanks to enlightened members like E. Krishna Iyer and others. However, it was not till the late 70s and early 80s that sabhas started dominating the dance scene. Stages were built and dance moved from temple to proscenium stage. The influence of dancers who had travelled to west or come from west also aided this process.

From 1920s, many foreigners like Anna Pavlova, Ted Shawn, La Meri, Louise Lightfoot and travel writers like Beryl de Zoette and others came and saw and wrote about Hindu or Oriental dances. Artistes like Ram Gopal and Uday Shankar, having travelled west before 1940s also brought in western stage sense, costumes, lights and colours. Indian arts met western aesthetics of stage.

When the dance performances left the precincts of the temple to that of the court, a change in content was observed. The songs used were now in praise of the kings or the patrons of the day. The kings and the patrons, the present nayakas / नायक of the lyrical content, were eulogized as devotees of Lord Shiva and Lord Rama in their varied forms and some bhakti / भक्तत content was sustained. Till the end of the nineteenth century both temple and court performances prevailed. In the twentieth century, when dance entered the proscenium stage, margam / मागग was continued by the revivers of this art form.14

The transition seemed seamless as Indian artists were very adroit and adaptable, while maintaining traditions, they could infuse new directions society and times demanded. The dancers and musicians who were unexposed to world outside village temple were now in mainstream city life. Important devadasi families like Bala and M.S. Subbulakshmi moved to Madras. Swarna Saraswati moved to Delhi. Thus dance moved from temple to the global stage.

While Indian dances have reached out to most corners of the world now, thanks also to Indian diaspora, the original catalysts were a few pioneering foreigners and traditional gurus who inspired many Indians to re-look at their own dance traditions. They played a significant role in shaping the fortunes of Indian dances. Male dancers and gurus and teachers helped shape Indian classical dance in first phase of revival (1920s-1950s). Some forms were also all-male like Kuchipudi, Sattriya, Kathakali and Yakshagana. Today, we see many changes and fewer males. Most teachers and gurus are females and most forms have more female dancers, than male. In last fifty years, this is the main transition. What next?15