The relationship between
tradition and modernity in the context of Indian dance is an intricate and
interesting one. On one hand, I believe that modern dance in India has borrowed
a great deal from India’s traditions. On the other hand, the example of
Bharatanatyam also seems to suggest that the ‘revival’ of Bharatanatyam was
perhaps an ‘invention of tradition’, or indeed the creation of a modern dance. Could Bharatanatyam then
be modern?
According to historian Eric
Hobsbawm, traditions which appear or claim to be old are, upon historical
analysis, discovered to be inventions of recent origin. In short, tradition is
fashioned by interpreting the past to suit current needs. It is re-appropriated
to mould the present. Another scholar, Terada suggests that “in order to
account for the present, justify it, understand it and criticise it, the past
is selectively appropriated, remembered, forgotten or investigated”. It is
possible that this is what happened to Bharatanatyam. The traditional past was
selectively appropriated by post-colonial nationalists by reinventing the
history of the Devadasis in order to justify a ‘revival’ of the dance form.
The noted anthropologist, Chris Fuller
adds another dimension to this discourse in defining traditionalism as
‘forcefully and articulately expressing an ideological commitment to the
authority and legitimacy of tradition’. Yet it accompanies the adoption of
increasingly modernist values and attitudes, he notes. Thus, traditionalism
constitutes and promotes modernity while simultaneously emphasising the divine
authority of tradition. By emphasising tradition, changes introduced do not seem
alien and unfamiliar. Thus, they are more easily accepted by society. The
boundaries between tradition and modernity become seamless. Other scholars have
echoed these thoughts. According to Milton Singer, the flexibility of Indian
conceptions of tradition enables Indians to accept many innovations and changes
by ‘traditionalising’ them.
The ‘revival’ movement in
Bharatanatyam did just this. While a part of the ‘revival’ meant the invention
of a tradition, the simultaneous
adherence to tradition in terms of learning from the traditional masters,
keeping the traditional
repertoire, while simultaneously reinterpreting it, and making monumental
modernist changes is consistent with the concept of traditionalism, and therefore
with modernity.
In addition to the removal of
traditional nattuvanars, and the focal shift from Krishna’s sensuality to Nataraja’s
purity, other major changes include the spatial shift from temple to proscenium
stage, and a change in pedagogy. Indeed, dance underwent a profound metamorphosis
from Sadir to Bharatanatyam, from “untouchable to national art form and
finishing school for young women of marriageable age”, says Matthew Harp Allen.
The revival of South Indian dance
“involved a revivification or bringing back to life, it was equally a
re-population, a re-construction, a renaming, a re-situation, a re-storation”,
according to Allen. Given all the ‘re’s that Allen attributes to this revival,
it could be argued that the art form was essentially stripped of most of what
was traditionally ancient. According to Avanti Meduri, it was “re-interpreted in
a respectable manner for the modern masses”. What emerged after the churning
was a modern dance form called Bharatanatyam. In that sense, Amrit Srinivasan’s
claim that “in a real and practical sense, it is the Devadasi dance that
contemporary Bharatanatyam dancers perpetuate” can be questioned. It can be
argued that what contemporary Bharatanatyam dancers perform is a modern Indian
dance.
In fact, Bharatanatyam was
modernized in several ways. Rajeev Bhargava states that “the generation of new
types of collective identities such as the nation” is an important feature of
modernity. By linking the ‘revived’ dance with the nation, a modern
collectivity, ‘revivalists’ modernised Bharatanatyam. Educational institutions
of dance modernized the guru-shishya relationship as well. The incorporation of
Ballet into the reconstruction of Bharatanatyam (as suggested by Janet O’Shea)
is yet another chraracteristic of modernity. Finally the presentation of
Bharatanatyam was also modernized – the costumes were changed, and the
musicians were placed on the side of the stage, rather than behind the dancer
as was traditionally done.
Despite all this, the
self-perception of post colonial nationalists is that of being revivalists, not
as creators of something modern. But could it be that perhaps without even
realising it, they did indeed create something much more modern than merely
reinvigorating or purifying a dying tradition?
