Ponniyin Selvan Varalaatru Peravai

Dear Venkatesh,

One has to look at history of dance to understand the devadasi system
without prejudice.

When cavemen wanted to communicate they shouted and moved their limbs
in ways to depict the happening - like a forest fire or catching of a
wild animal or celebrating birth or death...

This action was region, geography specific - like men near a sea would
not know killing of tiger and tribes living on mountain tops would not
know existance of sea and fish.

As the group became little more civilised, they started to use these
same actions to entertain themselves - in the evenings. Everyone used
to participate and slowly, they started developing a pattern, a rhythm
for their actions.

A time came when the ones who could do better and more vibrant actions
used to get centre-stage and those who could not used to sit around
and just clap, but, participating at the same time.

Now when groups used to move from place to place for various reasons,
each group wanted to show-off that they could do better. Hence, the
best of the lot used to be assigned this job of developing the
actions, motions, rhythm etc.

Classical dance would have movements based on the region from where
they originated - you would not have actions that are in Manipuri in
Bharatnatyam. The banging of the leg on floor and Araimandi is
supposed to be influenced by the land and its cultivation - women
banging their feet on the ripe paddy. Once it is stylised, it became
basis for the dance of the region.

Amongst the people, who could do a particular task in a more effective
way became the ones who would do that for generations - as teaching
was through Guru - Sishya tradition, and who would be a better student
than his / her own daughter / son? Hence families got earmarked for
each task. We will get into arguments on Varnashram from here!!!

As civilisation progressed, the tendency to outsmart others and to
show that their group is better than others also grew. The communities
decided on places to meet during village meets and perform - which
became a complete entertainment. What other place is better suited for
such activities than a temple where worship is done and many village
matters get discussed. Then dance became part of the worship and like
Punditjis, Poojaris maintain cleanliness ( madi in Tamil) these
dancers also had to keep themselves clean - meaning, not to mingle
with common man.

Royalty was equated to God everywhere, just out of (fear) respect.
Hence, the dancers used to be given away to God / Goddess and they
cannot have relationship with mortal men. One out of every 10 women
dedicated to God used to have relationship with the royal court that
patronised the group either out of desire or out of compulsion.

Naturally, royalty exploited them ( like they exploited anyother
worker under them ). Again there had been many benevolent dictators in
the course of the history and also that of the other type. You can
never have 100% white or 100% black !

With coming of Zamindars and Zahirdars, they took the place of
royalty, but the monetary support did not happen. Then the group
turned into a lot of immoral activities for sake of money and largely
for their survival.

Mrs.Arundale's contribution came in time to retrieve the art which was
becoming extinct. Art had undergone deterioration over a period of 70
years and hence the songs on God had become songs on men who supported
them.

Rukmini Devi refined the poses, body movements, got many compositions
corrected to include only God's name and changed the way jewellery was
used by them - during the decline, they were used only to show, how
much patronage each one got - and not to beautify oneself.

Hence, she reduced the number of jewellery worn, changed the style of
costume from saree to pyjama type costume and made Nattuvanars sit in
one side of the stage (earlier they used to move alongwith the dancer
on the stage ) so that the attention is on the dance and not on so
many people moving along.

That was a great revolution she brought in the mind-set of people,
that the purpose of dance is not immoral - but it is divine.

Even today we have Bhatjis like the one we met in Thiruvalanchuzhi
Swethavinayakar temple and also those whom we see in Srirangam temple.
Does that mean the vocation they are in and the tradition of them
becoming Bhatjis in temple is bad or the persons or bad / good?

My point is, had there been no Britishers, the artists would not have
become so commercial and 5 out of 10 of them would have upheld the
pure art for art's sake.