(BHA)va ,(RA)ga, (THA)la,NATYAm : Socio-Cultural Overview of Bharathanatyam

Winojith Sanjeewa

In both the factual & the fictitious worlds of the Indian community, a Gender
imbalance has been noted in the creation, and transmittance of Bharathanatyam.
Identifying Bharathanatyam as one of the eight Classical dance forms of India, Kothari
(2009) notes how they are based on a foundation in religion, and have devotional and
mythological stories as their content. Therefore, Hindu mythology attributes the genesis
of Bharathanatyam to the God Shiva, who assigns the Saint ‘Bharatha Muni’ the task of
teaching the dance form to humans (Puri 2001). Bharatha Muni compiles the Classical
treatise the ‘Natya Shasthra’ documenting the teaching of Bharathanatyam which is
then passed onto male dance teachers by the name of ‘Nattuvanars.’ The Nattuvanars
teach the art of Bharathanatyam to female dancers known as the ‘Devadasis’ who were
offered to the Hindu temples at a young age to serve the invincible dynasty of Gods.
Traditionally, the Devadasis or the ‘servants of God’ were ritually married to the Hindu
Gods, and had to perform devotional dances within the precincts of Hindu temples
(Gaston 2005).

The description so far although arising from Hindu mythology, brings to the fore
the notions of ‘Ownership’ and Gender within the art form of Bharathanatyam. The
prevalence of a patriarchal stronghold within the practice of Bharathanatyam has
therefore played a significant role in the Status of the practitioners of the dance form.

The Institutionalisation of Bharathanatyam in India

During the colonial period in India from 1857-1947, the performing arts, and
artists saw a sudden decline in their prestige and status: thus, in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, the Bharathanatyam dancers moved from the safe haven of
the Hindu temples to the courts of the nobility who were also their patrons. As a
consequence, the religious and spiritual functions associated with Bharathanatyam
were overtaken by a more commercial and entertainment value. The Devadasis without
patrons were forced to take up prostitution, and were consequently looked down upon
and regarded as a threat to social morality (Gaston 2005; Munsi 2008).
 …In an unfortunate country where life’s vigour has waned, dancing vitiates
into catering for a diseased mind that has lost its normal appetites, even as
we find in the dance of our professional dancing girls. It is for you to give it
health and strength and richness… (Munsi 2008, p.81)

The above excerpt is from a letter written by the Poet Tagore to the Father of
Modern Indian dance Uday Shankar regarding the declining prestige of the
Bharathanatyam dancers. Owing to increased awareness and interest in reinstating
Bharathanatyam to its original glory, the latter half of the nineteenth century saw the
establishment of Dance and Music centres by a group of individuals such as Tagore
(1861-1941), Rukmani Devi (1904-1986), and Uday Shankar (1900-1977) that led to
the subsequent institutionalisation of the performing arts in India (Kothari 2009). It is
therefore noteworthy, that Uday Shankar who is also regarded as India’s Cultural
ambassador is a male dancer (Kothari 2009; Munsi 2008).
With the institutionalisation of Bharathanatyam in India, it began to be
increasingly studied and performed by individuals who did not necessarily hail from
hereditary classes: for, the newly educated middle classes showed more and more
interest towards the art form (Puri 2011). Consequently, in the years that followed,
Classical Bharathanatyam did not change merely in terms of its class of dancers, but also
in relation to its themes, content, space, and technique (Kothari 2009).
Having presented an overview of the establishment of Bharathanatyam in India
as a dance that is representative of the country’s cultural heritage and pride, the
following section aims to explore the status of Bharathanatyam in the context of the U.K.

Bharathanatyam in the U.K.

There is widespread agreement that when cultural elements of a particular

nation are transported across geographical boundaries, and are introduced to foreign
contexts, they undergo change and mutation. In the West, an endeavor to break away
from the traditional practice of Ballet, and move towards Modern dance began to be
seen in the last decade in the nineteenth century. Whilst the practitioners of Classical
Ballet began to seek novel ideas from the East, traditional dance artists in the East
started to search for innovative concepts in the West. Rukmani Devi, Uday Shankar,
Madam Maneka, and Ram Gopal were the pioneers of this new movement (Munsi 2008).
 It is worth mentioning at this point that such performing artists who have
attempted to deviate from the Classical frameworks of Indian dance, and to creatively
unite them with other art forms have primarily hailed from traditional dance
backgrounds (Munsi 2008). For instance, Chandralekha a Classical Bharathanatyam
dancer explored the possible link between martial arts and the dance in place of using
conventional narratives of Gods and Goddesses (Kathari 2009). Chandralekha was by
no means alone in her efforts, as artists with traditional training in the other Indian
dance forms like Kumuduni Lakhia, and R.K. Singhjit Singh represented contemporary
themes such as drug trading, and starvation using their classical dance forms as the
media of communication (Kothari 2009).

Furthermore, Bharathanatyam practitioners based outside of India, its ancestral

home have received notable attention due to their work which is experimental and
variable in nature (Jeyasinghe 2003). During the Post-colonial period, new immigration
rules for Commonwealth citizens saw a sudden influx of Indians immigrating to the U.K.,
the U.S.A, and Singapore. With choreographers such as Rukmani Devi Arundale who
came from traditional Bharathanatyam backgrounds entering contexts that were home
to Contemporary and Modern dance, change was inevitable (Meduri 2004). Arundale
whilst establishing a dance centre by the name of Kala Shestra in India, opened up
avenues for artists from the said institution to come to the U.K. in order to promote
South Asian dance forms (Meduri 2005).

Bharathanatyam which prevailed in the U.K. since the 1930s was soon to be
institutionalised under the umbrella term ‘South Asian dance.’ This new appellation was
swiftly followed by South Asian practitioners such as Shobana Jeyasinghe, Nilima Devi,
Mallika Sarabhai, Richard Alston, and Valli Subhiah’s ventures to merge Classical
Bharathanatyam with Western dance styles such as Contemporary dance (Iyer 1997).
Thus, ‘Contemporary Bharathanatyam’ entered the performing arts arena, illustrating
the potential for adaptability that was ingrained within Classical Bharathanatyam.

The above-named practitioners became the pioneers for South Asian artists from
the Diaspora to explore new possibilities outside of the conventional practice of
Bharathanatyam. The said artists, and their followers introduced modern-day,
contemporary themes of love, war, and separation into Bharathanatyam that was
traditionally choreographed to complement verses and songs sung in praise of the
Hindu deities.

Secondly, as mentioned beforehand, the traditional venues for Bharathanatyam

were the Hindu temples, or dance institutions. However, Contemporary
Bharathanatyam performances were staged outdoors, in public places such as Stations
and shopping complexes bringing the art form closer to the general public.
Consequently, although Classical Bharathanatyam was staged for the aristocracy and
the nobility, Contemporary Bharathanatyam catered to all including the general masses
who perhaps did not have a sound knowledge or deep appreciation for the dance style.

Another feature of traditional Bharathanatyam that was subject to change in this

transformative phase was the costume: the traditional Bharathanatyam costume is
intricate in the manner which it is sewn, and can only be worn once a dancer has
completed their debut performance or ‘Arangethram.’ Deviating from this practice,
Contemporary Bharathanatyam artists have chosen more flexible dance pants, and even
leotards for performances (Jeyasinghe 2003).

Having highlighted how professional Bharathanatyam dancers in the U.K. and

elsewhere in the world have adopted and/or are attempting to introduce
Contemporary/experimental forms of Bharathanatyam to their individual practices, it
must also be mentioned that Classical Bharathanatyam is in no way in danger of
extinction. Also both the Classical and the Contemporary forms of Bharathanatyam
remain to date in contexts such as the U.K. in a non-threatening and mutually
complementary manner.

Bibliography

Gaston, A. (2005) Bharata Natyam: From Temple to Theatre. NewDelhi, Manohar.

Iyer, A. (1997) ed. Choreography and dance an international journal. South Asian
dance: The British experience. Amsterdam, Overseas publishers association.
Jeyasinghe, S. (2003) “Imagining Homelands: Creating a New Dance Language.” In:
Carter, A. ed. The Routledge Dance Studies Reader. London, Routledge, pp. 47-52.

Kothari, S. (2009) New Directions in Indian Dance. An overview 1980-2006

Dance Dialogues: Conversations across cultures, art forms and practices.
[Internet] Available from:
http://www.ausdance.org.au/resources/publications/dancedialogues/papers/new-
directions-in-indian-dance.pdf [Accessed 05 June 2015]

Meduri, A. (2005) Rukmani Devi Arundale, 1904-1986: a visionary architect of

Indian culture and the performing arts. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Munsi, U. S. (2008) Boundaries and Beyond. Problems of nomenclature in Indian

Dance History. Dance: Transcending Borders. Accessed from [Internet] Available from:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/research/jnu/resources/boundaries_a
nd_beyond.pdf [Accessed 05 June, 2015]

Puri, S. (2011) Divine women: on young female middle class Bharathanatyam

dancers in Delhi. In: Kirin, R. & Prlenda, S. eds. Spiritual Practices & Economic
Realities: feminist challenges. [Internet] Available from:
http://zaklada.civilnodrustvo.hr [Accessed 24 June 2015]