Nautch Blow Was Struck in 1893

PAPER: 3

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

Module 6 Legal Battle Of The Devadasis

Devadasi / देवदासी women were charming, intelligent, cultured with an ethnic style and an attractive personality. They were accomplished artistes who were dedicated to sing and dance in the temples. Devadasis believed the ultimate manifestation of Bhakti is to serve God as a slave and performed certain functions as part of their worship that fulfilled both artistic and social needs. Their talent and flair for music and dance were natural. They were proud of their artistic legacy. They were allowed to lead the God’s procession in the temples they were associated with because they were considered as auspicious omens. The kings, priests and the noblemen enjoyed their performances and gave them a respectable position in the society.

The Nayaks / नायक and Marathas in South India supported the best of the devadasi artistes. The decline of the court dancer began as early as 18th century when British presence became strong in the South. Royalty declined in power and prestige. All artistes, craftsmen, scholars and poets were affected by this political change. They were deprived of their very emotional, social and economic sustenance. Only a few of them managed to survive because of their courage and extraordinary talent.

As the years passed the position of the devadasis saw a slow decline in the society. With the fall of the royal patronage their arts suffered an eclipse. When they were forced to satisfy the vulgar passions of their patrons, their arts also acquired a disreputable character and became synonymous with prostitution. The community was abused and there was a clamor to abolish the system. Over the years, dance and devadasis became synonymous to such an extent that reformers targeted to abolish all kinds of dance along with the devadasis. Most of the devadasi families moved to Madras Presidency and some to the other parts of Tamil Nadu. The men from the community became dance teachers and the ladies married and settled as housewives.

The Battle

The first anti-nautch blow was struck in 1893. The newspaper ‘Hindu’ condemned the practice of nautch / नाच performances held for visiting dignitaries to the Madras Presidency. The paper appealed to the dignitaries to boycott such nautch parties. The anti-nautch movement started was on the way to achieving its goal through the complete abolishing of the practice of dedicating girls to temple service and performance of dance in temples and other public places. An organization known as the Hindu Social Reform Movement handed a memorandum to this effect to the Governor. This move was highly condemned as nautch was flourishing as the only colorful entertainment available.

In 1927, the Council of State in Delhi debated the motion of a Madras member that sought a ban on this practice of dedicating girls in temples to serve as devadasis. In spite of the opposition from some members, The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act

(HR & CE) was amended in 1929 to allow temples to do away with the duties of devadasis in temples.

The temples were forced to take back the lands (maanyam / माꅍयं) that were given to devadasis. As a chain reaction, wealthy patrons also disowned all association with devadasis. This put the women into a great crisis. Bangalore Nagaratnamma / नगर配न륍मा, a devadasi was then an eminent personality with high level contacts. The devadasis came together and put up a fight under her leadership and formed the Madras Devadasi Association. This move eventually failed due to Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy’s strong opposition. Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy was the first woman from this community to enter medical profession. She strongly felt that girls of her community should be relieved from slavery and get educated. She demanded a ban on dancing in the temples. This was opposed by E. Krishna Iyer, a lawyer who pleaded for the preservation of the artistic tradition of music and dance. E.Krishna Iyer took the bold step of organizing a dance performance of young dancers from Thanjavur to prove his point that dance needed public support to survive as an art form. Gradually many dancers got opportunity and recognition from the sabhas / सभा. Thus dance moved out of the temples and away from ceremonial processions. The new wave and bold step gained popularity against the rapid reformative zeal led by Dr. Reddy.

Viscount Goschen, the Governor of Madras, and Baron Irwin, the Governor General, gave their assent to the Bill on 13th May 1929. The Provincial Government was entrusted with the responsibility to have control over the management of the temples for the good of public. With the help of the Bill, the devadasi community developed

3 a sense of self-respect and dignity and the community itself understood the evils of the system.

The abolishing of the system

Public opinion was in favour of the abolition of the devadasi system. Muthulakshmi Reddy introduced the Prevention of Dedication of Hindu Temples Bill in the Madras Legislative Council on 24th January 1930. After making certain modifications by the Select Committee, the Bill was circulated for the purpose of eliciting public opinion. At this juncture, the press in Tamil Nadu got involved in the propaganda, for creating awareness and generating public opinion in favour of the Bill. Newspapers published and circulated leaflets, which contained the articles of Muthulakshmi Reddy. Tamil newspapers published the supporting stands of various organizations and associations for the Bill regularly to seek their support and boost the passing of the Bill. The Tamil Dravidian political parties endorsed their full-fledged support to the Bill. The Dravidian parties published an article based on spiritual research. In the article, it revealed that Sundaramurthy Nayanar, a Sivaite leader of the past, himself recognized the abolition of women’s dedication to the temples, and it raised a question why modern Sivaites were not ready to accept the reform. This article created an overwhelming response among the public.

At the same time Margret Cousins, Secretary of Women’s India Association felt that there was no need for the circulation of the Bill. In support of this Bill, the Indian Ladies Magazine made public the resolution passed in the fifth All India Women’s

Conference held at Madras in November 1930. It pleaded for the boycott of those temples where the devadasi service was still practiced and to prevent the dedication of girls to temples by punishing the culprits. The announcement for boycotting the temples was a revolutionary move.

The efforts of the press created support among the public for the passing of the Bill. The government was thus prompted to take an urgent and effective step. In the mid-half of 1930, the Government of Madras issued an order to the effect that the dedication of women to the temples was abolished by law. The dedication of minor girls to the temples was considered as a crime. In the same year, Travancore State also abolished the evil system. Even after the orders it was not completely uprooted. With the support of the temple trustees it was surviving in some areas. All India women’s Conference appealed to the Hindu Religious Endowment Board of Madras to call upon all trustees of the temple under its jurisdiction totally to eradicate the devadasi service and the ceremony of dedication of girls in such temples by issuing an order. The newspapers wrote that the devadasi system was a bad omen for the Hinduism. The existence of the evil would result in moral degeneration of the youth and this evil would bring shame to our country in the international arena. Before the issue of the order Muthulakshmi Reddy resigned from the Council due to the arrest of Mahatma Gandhi. But she continued her work of the Council for the above purpose. She wrote a letter to C. Rajagopalachari, the leader of Tamil Nadu Congress Committee. In the letter, she expressed that “the dedication of girls to the temple was a social sin exactly as growing palm trees for the production of toddy.” The Anandha Bodhini newspaper published this letter. Rajagopalachari wrote that

5 he was burdened with the Independence movement and was unable to help in this effort.

In the meantime, Maharaja of Bobbli, the Premier of the Madras Presidency attended a public meeting, in which the devadasi women performed dance feast. Muthulakshmi Reddy criticized this occurrence. E. Krishna Iyer, targeted her for her efforts through reports. He said that the system should be allowed to exist until other girls would be trained to perform the dances. Hearing this, she criticized his view and questioned if he was willing to transform other girls to devadasis. The Anandha Bodhini paper supported her efforts and requested the public to support her. The paper appealed to parents not to force their girls into the evil. On the other hand, the temple trustees did not care for the law; they continued with pottukattuthal / ऩोट्टूकट्टुथऱ ceremonies in rural and far-flung areas. The paper advised the public to leave the evil, which was hated by Gandhi and eminent leaders of the country. It further added that to restrict many venereal diseases, strict measures should be taken against the evil.

Movaloor Ramamirtham Ammal / मोवऱूर रामाम्रिथम अ륍मऱ, born in a devadasi family, came out from the evil and bravely fought for the abolition of the system. She worked for the well-being of those devadasis who were exploited by the system and had managed to escape. She wrote a book ‘Dasikalmosavalaiallathu Mathi Petra Minor / दाम्रसक쥍मोसवाम्रऱया쥍ऱाथू माथथ ऩत्रा म्रमनोर ’ (The Treacherous Net of Devadasis or the Minor Grown Wise). In this book, she dealt with the lives and struggles of devadasis. This book was a novel, based on self-experience. It explained how and why the escaped devadasis came forward to establish a social organization for the

6 benefits of other devadasis. The book brought mass awareness among the public. In an article in the newspapers, she asked a question, why were dances and songs would be necessary for Gods in the Temples while the orthodox Brahmins and priests argued that such ancestral arts should continue in the temples. With the constant awareness created by the papers, public support increased for the abolition of the evil.

In the Princely State of Pudukottai / ऩुद啍ु कोटट्टइ the devadasi system was abolished by amending the Hindu Laws of Inheritance so as to benefit the female heirs in the family. The public in general wholeheartedly welcomed the abolition. Soon a similar Act was passed in the Madras Legislative Council as an amendment to the Hindu Religious Endowment Act. In spite of the law it was very regrettable that even in some city temples, the devadasi system continued. This was partly due to the non-interference policy of the government, and partly due to the ignorance of the masses and the apathy of the so-called educated class. Thus the papers asked its readers to be aware of the existing laws regarding female emancipation.

The press reproduced the presidential address of Muthulakshmi Reddy in the Andhradesa Kalvanthula Conference held in Tenali on 13th August 1932. Her address elaborately discussed the evils and the devadasi system, the Legislative efforts taken to abolish the evil and the role of the public to be played in this issue. She strongly suggested that without the public support a reform could not be made. She appealed to the mothers not to dedicate their female children to the Hindu temples.

On 7th of August 1939 a new Bill related to the abolition of devadasi system was introduced in the Madras Legislative Council by Mrs. Ammanna Raja. She requested to send the Bill for the consideration of the Select Committee. But C. Rajagopalachri, the Premier of Madras Presidency announced that the Bill should be circulated for gathering public opinion. This opinion was widely criticized by the press. The Bill had the provisions for the abolition of dedication of women, reorganization for the marriage of devadasis, the property rights of the children on the devadasis, and the arrangements for receiving their due share from the temple revenue even though they left their service. After public circulation, the Bill was sent to the Select Committee consisting of three women and five men.

Muthulakshmi Reddy pointed out that the dedication of girls over the age of eighteen years was performed secretly; it exposed the failure of reform acts. She sought the support from the parents of girls until the evil was thoroughly abolished. She noted that the legislations would create the external changes only, whereas the internal change could be created only by awareness.

Several newspapers brought out stories with photographs about the pathetic situations of young girls forced into pottukatuthal /

ऩोट्टूकटुथऱ ceremony and then to prostitution and later becoming victims of several diseases. This created a strong opinion against the evil. Most of the people expected that the bill would be passed earlier but the Second World War put a hurdle on the way. All the efforts ended in vain. During the Ministry of O.P. Ramasamy Reddiyar, another Bill was introduced by Dr. Subbarayan on 9th October 1947 in the Madras Legislative Assembly to abolish the

8 devadasi system. The Bill was sent to Select Committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Ammanna Raja. After the committee stage, the Bill became Law on 17 January 1948 and called Act No. XXXI of 1947. It was also known as Madras Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act, 1947. According to the Act, all forms of devadasi system were henceforth abolished in the Madras Presidency.

This Act, popularly known as the Devadasi Abolition Act, is an important social legislation in the history of emancipation of Indian women. The reformers found a lot of difficulties to enact this legislation and implement it with success. Even though the conservative press made negative efforts against the Legislations; the majority of the papers defended them with social conscience. Thus, the press justified the right things, persuaded the government for them and stimulated the public for the noble cause regarding the emancipation of women.

The situation was very difficult for existing devadasi families. Many of them had no choice but to leave the temple town where they had lived for generations. Some families migrated to other temple towns in search of patronage. Several small towns quietly employed them for temple service. For example, Muthukani Ammal / मुथकनीू अ륍माऱ of Viralimalai / ववराम्रऱमऱाई performed duties in that temple as well as danced during the festivals even after the Bill was passed. Most devadasis, however, moved to Madras in the late 19th century. Madras was the center of commerce and trading where prospects of new temples being built were high. They were allowed to live near the temple to become professional dancers and musicians, continuing their traditional lifestyle and seeking patronage from the rich and famous. The dance and music programs of the devadasis

9 became an integral part of the official and social gatherings of the British officials. The resourceful composers came up with lyrics combining Telugu and English or Tamil and English. Composer Sivarammayya / म्रिवरा륍륍या composed a javali / जावऱी in Telugu and English in Karaharapriya raga / करहरविया राग. The last of the devadasis were left only with their dance art. The court dance was stopped with Indian royal territories attached to the British rule. Ritual dances in the temples were banned. The only alternate was to perform on the stage as kutcheries like the music kutcheries.

Many of the business aristocrats from George Town, Madras, rebuilt the temples and established traditional rituals in them. Many devadasi families with long cultural lineage survived the 20th century at George Town, Madras. Veena Dhanammal / ववणा धꅍन륍मऱ with eight generations behind her, Kanchipuram Dhanakoti Ammal / धनाकोटी अ륍मऱ with five generations to boast about, were some example families who made the best of the new patronage.

The revivalists tried to present the idealistic view of the institution of devadasi. According to this, it was the model of the ancient temple dancer as pure, sacred and chaste woman, devoted only to the lord of the temple. They stressed that the dance of devadasi was a form of natya yoga that enhanced an individual's spiritual plane. The revivalists wanted to preserve the traditional form of sadir dance by purifying it. As a consequence of purification, some modifications were introduced into the content of the dance, since the revivalists mostly belonged to Brahmin dominated Theosophical circles. Many Brahmin girls started to learn the dance from devadasis and nattuvanars / नट्टूवनार.

Pioneers like Madam H.P. Blavatsky and Colonel H.S. Olcott, the founders of the Theosophical movement, had undertaken an extensive tour of South India and propagated the revival of devadasi institutions and the associated art of sadir. They gained support from some sections of the native elite. In 1882, the Theosophical Society of India had set up its headquarters in Adayar, Chennai, with the set goal of working towards the restoration of India's ancient glory in art, science, and philosophy.

The Theosophical Society, Adayar provided necessary funds and support to Rukmani Devi Arundale to revive the spirituality of the dance art. She re-appropriated the devadasi dance traditions to a respectable position. For this she brought in changes in the dance repertoire by excluding items perceived as erotic in their description of a deity. She also systematized the dance in a way that incorporated the extension and use of space associated with dance traditions such as ballet. The product of this transformation was Bharatanatyam, which she taught professionally at a school established by her in Madras called Kalakshetra.

E. Krishna Iyer, the votary of dance, learnt the art and performed on stage in a female costume. He defended the dancer in an article published in a Tamil daily called Dinamani on 28th February 1948. He used every avenue to support the dance of the devadasis. E. Krishna Iyer had his training in Bharatanatyam under Natyacharya Melattur Natesa Iyer. He founded and nurtured two leading institutions in Madras. He has to his credit the resuscitation of folk dances and music which due to long neglect were in danger of extinction. He conducted two folkdance festivals in Delhi and took the Tamil tradition to the capital. S.P.S. Sarangapani Iyengar with the help of

Chockalingam, founded the institution of fine arts to give training to youngsters in dance. P. Sambamoorthy / ऩी. सा륍भामु셍त ि and V. Raghavan / वी. राघवन, occupants of the chairs in music and Sanskrit respectively at the University of Madras carried on an untiring propaganda through books and monographs, to elevate the taste of the audience. In this task they received considerable support from several organizations. The pressure of the social changes made the devadasis withdraw from the stage. They could not make careers as teachers or performers. Many of the business aristocrats from George Town, Madras, rebuilt the temples and quietly re-established traditional rituals in them.

The devadasi community was never a caste. The ladies were the mistresses of men from different castes. Their offspring, later called themselves as Isai vellalars / इसाई वे쥍ऱाऱर, meaning those who nurture music. Some women of the devadasi community married musicians, dance teachers, politicians and businessmen and led a peaceful life. They never wanted to be reminded of their art nor did they teach dance to their children. Very few of them retained their art and passed it on to younger generations in their families.

Balasarswathi / बाऱासरवती, Mylapore Doraikannu Ammal / मायऱाऩोर

दोरेकꅍनू अ륍मऱ, Mylapore Gowri Ammal / मायऱाऩोर गोवरी अ륍मऱ, Kumbakonam Banumathi / कु 륍भकोणम भानुमाथथ, Pandanallur Jayalakshmi / ऩंडन쥍ऱुर जयऱक्ष्मी, Thanjavur Rajalaksmi / तंजावुर राजऱक्ष्मी, Tiruvarur Tilagam / 셍त셁वा셁र 셍तऱगम, Tiruvarur Gnanam / 셍त셁वा셁र 嵍नानम , Ammani Ammal / अ륍मनी अ륍माऱ , and Veena Dhanammal / वीणा धꅍन륍मऱ were some of the courageous and

12 talented dancers who passed on their art to many students for posterity.

Any art, especially music and dance, depends heavily on its patrons. In the yester years, it was the royal families, and now it is the public.