Leela Samson: “There is no prejudice that you cannot overcome”

The dance exponent and author of Dance of Freedom; A Short History of Bharata Natyam on the spirit of the dance art, pioneers of the form like her guru Rukmini Devi Arundale, and why suspicion between scholarship and practice is healthy

History is always a contested area and there are various versions of the past. What were your sources for writing this history of Bharata Natyam and any reasons for such a selection?

I have mentioned my sources in the text – the writings of Jeetendra Hirschfeld and Nandini Ramani. All of us align to a viewpoint that we believe to be true. I have put out that which I to believe to be honest and thoroughly investigated.

There are younger and younger proponents of theories that they themselves neither investigated, nor verified. I have read some of these theories. It seems to me that they all conform to a proposition put forth more often than not, by a single original source that is biased and misinformed. Sadly, the arguments are largely caste based.

Is the book written with the primary intention to educate or are you also trying to address how Bharata Natyam is perceived in the popular imagination especially in the current times?

I neither wish to educate nor change existing points of view. ‘Live and let live’ is my preferred philosophy. Some enjoy living in ignorance if it conforms to a larger, bullish point of view. It’s a safe haven. And it is arrogantly and stylishly leftist.

Early on in the book you share your reservation about university programmes in the performing arts. What should they have done differently in teaching/disseminating the performing arts?

To pontificate from a pedestal that is neither performative, nor engages with tradition as it changes every day as we speak only serves to keep chairs in universities warm. It also creates a divisive dance body.

We often hear about the hegemonic presence of the Natyashastra in the performing arts. There are those who are critical of this position and some who embrace it openly. Where do you stand in this debate vis a vis its relevance for Bharata Natyam dancers?

Both these points of view are relevant. However, the truth lies somewhere in between. Any shastra is important. They hold in themselves an obsession with details far beyond what the practitioner requires perhaps. A practitioner arrives upon the truth of the form through the five senses, through daily practice and changing social norms and circumstances.

The greatest practitioners of the previous century of any form lived the life of a practitioner of the form with little or no reference to the Natyashastra. They respectfully listened to references to it but did not let it move their attention away from learnt practice and the spirit of the dance art itself. There were also regional texts like the Abhinaya Darpana, the Abhinaya Chandrika and others that were more practical for ready reference and addressed a particular style. These were not generic texts that covered all music, dance, props, stage, and theatre practice like the Natyashastra does.

You also mention two individuals responsible for creating and recreating the form of Bharata Natyam as we know it now – Gangaimuthu Nattuvanar and the other is your guru, Rukmini Devi Arundale. It is often said that Rukmini Devi sanitised the dance form to make it more acceptable. How do you respond to such a claim?

You can arrive at your own conclusions. When you as a writer, repeat words like ‘sanitised’ in a question, you only support and propagate the claim of those who use such a word loosely and insult a sacred memory. It is a ridiculous proposition. But very popular with those who never knew Rukmini Devi. Thank God they didn’t. They will never know what they missed.

You say that disdain and even suspicion between scholarship and practice is healthy. Please elaborate.

The practitioner practises the art form and deals with it on an everyday basis, sorting out the problems and conflicts with the differing times they live in. They form the crucial link between generations of practitioners -- their struggles, joys, and challenges. The scholar sits on the outside of this world and comments on this intimate world like an anthropologist does. Both have their roles. It is not all conflict.

I have always believed that there ought to be more writing about the performing arts by the artist themselves. What do you think stops artists from writing?

Artists can perform. Only some can teach. They cannot necessarily express themselves well -- in an informed manner and sensitively, in words. They feel it. Writers on the other hand, do not ‘get it’ in the way an artist does. Some writers write to suit academia. The heart and pulse of the dance evades their writing. In music, an amazing scholar like Mukund Lath captured Hindustani music in a way few can.

Why should artists write? It’s not their business to do so. Why should they even teach? Arguably, even that is not their business. But they are amazing performers! They would be fearful of writing then as that is not their medium. Similarly, someone who writes on the arts is not a performer and will probably never know what that feels like.

You end by saying that Bharata Natyam has evolved and stood the test of time because it is inclusive and not anti-experimentation. The caste of the performer may not be relevant. This is directly in contrast with the experiences of many who have faced caste-based discrimination in the classical performing arts. How would you address these concerns?

Which age are we talking about? A century ago? If you are talking about that time or before that time, then what about the prejudice expressed against the upper caste or any other caste from learning these arts? There is no prejudice that you cannot overcome. I am an example of it.

Author: Prof. Kunal Ray, Faculty of Literary and Cultural Studies, FLAME University.