Rukmini Devi – a personality with several layers
Biographies usually tend to be uninteresting as they are endlessly filled with facts and events. However, VR Devika's books are unconventional maybe because she is a person who loves telling stories! One can perceive her child-like enthusiasm in gathering and putting together various details in a manner that never tires the reader. In her biography of the great Bharatanatyam revivalist Rukmini Devi Arundale, Devika has attempted to present certain unique points that one may not find in other books. Structuring the contents in simple chapters named after the compositional forms used in dance, Devika delights readers with many startling details about this great institution builder.
Most of us know Rukmini Devi as only the founder of Kalakshetra. However, there are many layers to this formidable personality that also need to be examined and celebrated. Devika has exactly attempted this - she has focused on Rukmini Devi's contributions to animal welfare, education, handloom weaving, photography and many more allied disciplines. Today, we are used to looking at a personality only with a certain lens. Attempts are rarely made to holistically perceive and understand historical figures.
Rukmini Devi - A forward thinker in the truest sense
How many of us know the origins of the Theosophical Society? I don't think many in the younger generation are even aware of Annie Besant. They will be pleasantly surprised if they know that Tamil nationalist poet Subramania Bharati was a contributor the The Commonweal, a journal started by Besant dealing with issues of national reform! It is important to know these details to critically understand Rukmini Devi's perspective. Even the chapters related to Rukmini's early years and her marriage to George Arundale were valuable to completely grasp her vision for Kalakshetra. It would be inappropriate to label Rukmini Devi's grand vision for the art merely as a 'supremacist view of culture' shaped by 'casteist revisionism' as some writers deem it. As the author mentions, theosophists championed Indian religions and aided India's growing self-assertion against the values and beliefs of the British Empire. It is with this background that Rukmini's actions must be analysed. Today, some critics of Rukmini Devi are quick to attach some meaningless labels to her without revealing the context with which she established Kalakshetra and shaped modern-day Bharatanatyam.
Rukmini Devi was first and foremost a forward thinker. It is no wonder that she believed that the way to joyous education for any child was through art. Devika mentions that the foundation for an arts-based pedagogy was laid by Rukmini a hundred years ago, something that the National Education Plan 2020 promotes today. It is noteworthy that Rukmini Devi was the one who brought Montessori education to India. From then on, Montessori education continues, transforming the lives of children across the country. It is of course known that Rukmini Devi started the U Ve Swaminatha Iyer Library at the Kalakshetra campus to house priceless Tamil manuscripts collected by the great scholar U Ve Sa.
The U Ve Sa Library at Kalakshetra with an image of U Ve Sa
The Devadasi Abolition Act & Dr Reddy’s fight against the system
Anna Pavlova, a Russian ballet dancer
Inspired by ballet legend Anna Pavlova, Rukmini decides to explore the beauty that is inherent in the traditional performing arts of India. Sadir, as Bharathanatyam was known back then was practiced by the women of hereditary dancing communities (known as devadasis or deveradiyars) who performed them primarily in temples and courts but also in social gatherings. Due to the prevailing social and political conditions at that time, women belonging to the hereditary communities could not continue their occupation. The disenfranchisement of hereditary dancers happened due to many diverse factors coming into play at the same time. Their way of life was deemed immoral due to the patriarchal mindset that prevailed at that time and they were forced to let go of the art that they had been carefully preserving for centuries. At this point of time, one must take into account the fact that a national cultural identity was being forged for Indians to fight British occupation. The pre-independence milieu was shaped by the thinking of several personalities and different schools of thought.
When it comes to the women who belonged to the hereditary dancing community, it is undeniable that the Devadasi system was exploitative and against the independence and empowerment of the women in the system. It was because the system was flawed that Muthulakshmi Reddy, a woman from the community fought hard to uproot the system and give the women the choice to make their own decisions and live their life with dignity and respect. Those who argue that there was opposition from some quarters to the Devadasi Abolition Bill need to understand that women from the community who were at the top of the ladder of privilege obviously needed to safeguard their economic interests. It was not them but the economically and socially underprivileged women of the community who ultimately suffered the consequences of non-consensual child marriage, concubinage and subsequent discarding of them and their children by upper caste men who used them for their own needs. Some argue quite problematically that Devadasi women had a right to choose their partners as a caste-dictated practice. This is a point of view that purely considers the exceptions rather than the norms. Arguments are made that robbing the dancers of their livelihood is more heinous than their marginalization and fetishisation by privileged patrons. One must read the life history of Dr Muthulakshmi Reddy and the factors that motivated her to end the practice of dedication before making statements such as these. VR Devika’s biography on Reddy gives a clear picture of why arguments such as these are moot.
Dr Muthulakshmi Reddy
Did Devadasis not help in the propagation of Hindu religion?
One must also remember that the British were instrumental in wanting to get rid of the Devadasi system because the concept of a woman dedicating herself to a deity and thinking of herself as the wife of the deity was alien to their cultural practices rooted in patriarchy. Christian missionaries were actively involved in ‘reforming’ and ‘redeeming’ these women as their way of life as individuals who were only next to the priestly class threatened the European social order and challenged the prevailing patriarchal norms that always placed women one step lower than men. After all, oral as well as written histories inform us that only the devadasis had a right to use the flame belonging to the main lamp that lit the sanctum sanctorum of the principal deity for their funeral ceremonies. These kinds of honours were sometimes not even accorded to the members of the priestly class. The Srirangam Koil Olugu, an account of the temple’s history talks about Mohammedan invasions occurring in the 14th century. The role of Devadasis such as Vellaiyammal in safeguarding the temple and assassinating the main commander of Ulugh Khan’s forces have never been forgotten even today, as an entire gopuram is painted white in the memory of Vellaiyammal and other devadasis who sacrificed their lives for the cause of Hindu religion. Will today’s scholars and dancers brand Vellaiyammal and devadasis such as her ‘Brahminical’ and vilify her actions as contributing to the propagation of the Hindutva cause? Only time will tell.
A Vaishnavite temple procession with a Devadasi dancing before the deity - British company painting from the Victoria & Albert Museum
The Vellai Gopuram or White Gopuram at Srirangam painted white in the memory of Vellaiyammal, a Devadasi who defended the temple against invaders
Did the revivalists not contribute to the art form in any way?
Today, a branch of thought in the name of critical dance history seeks to brand arts revivalists like Rukmini Devi and E Krishna Iyer as ‘oppressor caste men and women who positioned themselves as saviours and reformers’. When a bill to ban the dedication of women was brought about by Dr Reddy along with other strong women from the community like Moovalur Ramamirthammal, why did E Krishna Iyer vehemently protest Reddy’s attitude towards the system and their art through a series of letters published in the Madras Mail as VR Devika mentions in her book? Why did Reddy ask Rukmini Devi’s mother Seshammal to not let her daughter learn dance? Didn’t Rukmini and Krishna Iyer continue to learn the art from members of the hereditary communities despite strong opposition even from women within the community? They only sought to preserve whatever could not be carried forward by the hereditary communities at that point of time due to the stigma attached to their occupation. Neither of them forced their teachers to part with the art form. Nor did they step in as saviours to necessarily purify and sanitise the art form. Whatever sanitization or ‘cleaning’ with respect to shringara that took place was part of the overall social and cultural changes that shaped that era. Even Jayammal, the mother of the great T Balasaraswati is supposed to have altered the wordings of certain padams (like Thiruvottriyur Thyagarajan). It is recollected by old rasikas that the word ‘stanam’ (meaning breasts) was changed to ‘manam’ (mind) in the charanam section and that they have witnessed the padam being performed with gestures depicting breasts in the past. Hence, even though one may argue that certain shringara padams were discarded by the revivalists, many other padams have survived and are even a part of the standard Kalakshetra repertoire. Details of such shringara pieces can be accessed from elders who studied at Kalakshetra directly under Rukmini Devi. Some are even mentioned by Devika in her book.
E Krishna Iyer, one of the main revivalists of Bharatanatyam
Did the formation of Kalakshetra prevent the dissemination of dance by other Gurus?
The statement that Rukmini Devi revivified history so that Bharatanatyam ‘accrues respectability’ needs to be made after taking into account the reality that prevailed at that time – the complete stoppage and destruction of a centuries-old tradition due to a necessary legislation brought about by some members of hereditary community themselves. Since the families were not in a position to produce performers at that time, they taught the dance form to outsiders to preserve their traditions. While the unceremonious discarding of hereditary dancers from performing spaces did take place, Rukmini Devi’s institution did not primarily aid the disenfranchisement which happened due to complex political reasons. Instead, it gave the art form a hospitable place for its continuity. Rukmini Devi never prevented any parallel dance institution from functioning. After all, several hereditary gurus simultaneously taught dance to students and continue to do so. The exact reasons as to why the male members started asserting themselves at the cost of women in the families despite hailing from a matrilineal tradition needs to be examined by hereditary dance scholars. It is to be noted that male members of hereditary families like Thanjavur Kittappa Pillai, Vazhuvoor Ramiah Pillai and Kancheepuram Ellappa Mudaliar ran successful institutions and produced fine students even as Kalakshetra functioned. Thus, Kalakshetra was only a parallel system that gained prominence gradually due to reasons best known to elders of that era.
Were changes in dance made only by Rukmini Devi?
Cosmetic changes to suit the tastes of audiences as well as the prevailing social and political norms have been made since the beginning of time by both hereditary practitioners and others. It may also be recalled that members of hereditary communities replaced the word ‘Salaam’ in certain shabdams (like Sarasijaakshudu) to Sanskrit words like ‘Namostute’. These changes may be perceived as ‘sanitization’ and ‘robbing of Islamic aesthetic influences’ by some but the blame squarely falls on the revivalists, thereby portraying an incomplete picture of historical incidents.
VR Devika writes in detail about how Rukmini Devi started the International Academy of Arts later known as Kalakshetra. It was the first institution that taught the Tamil region’s traditional dance form to members outside the hereditary dancing communities, thereby opening up the art to seekers around the world. Although hereditary practitioners later taught the art form to one and all, it was on Rukmini Devi’s insistence that the form was institutionalised and given a pedagogical structure that made it conducive for first generation students belonging to diverse sections of society master the difficult dance form. Did the institution only admit members of upper castes? The answer is a resounding no.
Today, Bharatanatyam as a form is beyond recognition and has spread itself much beyond the confines of Kalakshetra’s banyan tree classroom. Interpretational freedom and creativity have only aided its popularity. Members of diverse religious and caste backgrounds have made the art form their own and have worked painstakingly to expand the aesthetics of the form within the boundaries of tradition. This was the fundamental principle with which Meenakshisundaram Pillai himself taught the art form to Rukmini. “Though he taught the art in the traditional way, he encouraged Rukmini to make changes to suit the time and place (kala and desha)” mentions Devika in her book. Aesthetic changes to the art form have been made across the centuries by even the hereditary families themselves. The dance that T.Balasaraswati performed was certainly not the same dance that her grandmother’s sister Rupavati Ammal performed. Neither did Rupavati perform the dance that her grandmother Thanjavur Kamakshi presented!
Were Devadasis against Sanskrit? Did the dance form ‘become brahminic’?
If the hereditary communities possessed ‘Dravida tongues’ (as some scholars today write) and were against the usage of Sanskrit texts, why did Meenakshisundaram Pillai help Rukmini Devi design the curriculum and pedagogy at Kalakshetra based on the Abhinaya Darpanam as Devika mentions? Why did hereditary artistes like Balasaraswati take great efforts to propagate Sanskrit poems rooted in spirituality like Subrahmanya Bhujangam? If the art was not inherently spiritual, why did hereditary dancers perform in temples? Wasn’t the temple one of their main workspaces? It is insensible to separate Sadir or Bharatanatyam from its religious roots. While many non-religious compositions may have existed in the repertoire of certain hereditary dancers, they were lost due to the lack of enthusiasm among the public to learn such pieces. If Rukmini Devi sought to only promote Sanskrit texts, why did she take such great efforts to research and present the Kuttrala Kuravanji? Kuravanjis which were earlier performed by hereditary dancers in temples are necessarily spiritual in nature and tell stories of deities in the Tamil language.
Kuttrala Kuravanji being performed by dancers
T Balasaraswati, a hereditary dancer singing Subrahmanya Bhujangam, a Sanskrit poem by Adi Sankara
Did Rukmini Devi discard indigenous musical traditions?
Other arguments made against the institutionalisation of dance are that English band music and indigenous musical traditions have been discarded in the reconstituted Bharatanatyam. Studying the repertoire of hereditary dancers like Viralimalai Muthukannammal, one does find compositions rooted in such cultural sensibilities. However, it is meaningless to assume that such pieces were in the repertoire of every Sadir dancer. Sadir by itself was not a monolithic art form. Hereditary dancing families possessed diverse compositions and performed at courts, temples and social gatherings. Not all devadasis who performed in the temples gave court or salon performances. Not all devadasis gave emphasis to compositions based on band music or genres such as ‘Modi’. Much filtering and reformatting happened even within the devadasi community based on artistic sensibilities, social hierarchies within the practitioners and the extent of adherence to traditions. A devadasi like Tiruvarur Kamalam learnt varnams such as Rupamu Joochi from Muthuswamy Dikshitar. It is not necessary that Tiruvarur Kamalam herself needed to learn and propagate nottuswarams which were a creation of Dikshitar himself who composed them influenced by British bands. Different practitioners possessed different pieces. Rukmini Devi’s guru Meenakshisundaram Pillai may have very well known such pieces and not taught them to students, he may have not known such pieces – one cannot speculate these things and make assumptions as to which items were learnt and discarded by revivalists.
Muthuswamy Dikshitar - an important Carnatic composer who adapted Western band music to create nottuswarams
Dance History – Singular narrative and polarization
Dance history as a subject is very vast and today’s dancers possess a keen interest to learn the origins of the art form that is dear to them. All attempts at re-examining, re-writing and deconstructing narratives are definitely welcome in the interest of intellectual engagement. However, dance history is sailing along a path that is largely becoming one-sided with narratives that only seek to polarize art lovers. Today, a sense of intellectual block prevails as those who ask questions about the relevance of certain arguments put forth by critical dance history scholars are silenced in the name of social justice. This form of social justice is rooted in Western sensibilities and a very Western system of justice is applied to the Indian scenario without considering indigenous cultural realities. Even those who are allowed to make statements and engage with dance history critically are decided by members belonging to the Instagram generation who simply listen to singular sources that claim to represent the community instead of reading thoroughly and researching historical events from various original sources. While it is undeniable that representation to hereditary dancers is important and necessary today, attempts to do the same are ignored and even condemned by the same group. In this inhospitable and intellectually narrow-minded environment, it is appreciable that scholars like VR Devika are attempting to educate art lovers on the complete picture using diverse sources and references. Through her book on Muthulakshmi Reddy and Rukmini Devi Arundale, Devika has certainly changed several minds (including mine) and brought some sanity to the extremely polarized world of dance history. Her service to the art world in highlighting the contributions of personalities such as Rukmini Devi should definitely be celebrated and honoured.
Author of the book VR Devika
Comentários