On the Devadasi, Mujra, Islamic and British rules and "proud randi" -discourse
I will start this post by first clarifying that this is not an attack against any content creator. These are just some thoughts that have been spinning in my head. Now, here's my opinion on the "proud randi" debate. The word 'randi' is a Hindi language word for prostitute or a whore. It is today derogatory. Originally, the word came from the word randa (रण्ड), which meant a widow pilgrim (note, this word exists in Odia and Bengali languages too). A semantic shift happened to the word. One can ponder why. Maybe, widows had to rely on prostitution to make a living? Here's an interesting video on the subject. Another word that I'd like to bring up is the word 'magi' in Bengali, which had a neutral meaning, and it was even used in devotional poems by Ramprasad Sen to describe goddess Kali. Originally the word 'magi' came from the word mrga, which means wild animal. A semantic shift happened probably after Ramprasad's time and now the word exclusively means 'whore'. Ganika is another word that underwent a semantic shift. Originally, a ganika was a female gana, attendant or retinue of Shiva. Temple dancers (devadasis) in Shiva temples were called as Rudraganika. These days, gana means population and ganika means prostitute. You can ponder and make an educated guess on when and why this semantic shift happened (a hint: maybe the Rudraganika devadasis/temple dancers were dehumanised). Words can change meaning. It's not unheard of that oppressed groups reclaim a word, that was used as a slur against them, as a form of empowerment, which is seen as positive only when the word is used by only the members of the marginalised group. And the out-group person isn't generally allowed to use the word. It's hard to gauge how much of the outrage was due to moral panicking (especially by some men), or how much of it was just due to the overall opinions the content creator @/awkwardgoat3. Personally, I am against normalising words like randi, behenchod, madarchod and other vulgar words in common parlance. Language does matter, and children especially are susceptible to the influences around them.
Now, let's look at something I found unsettling. A popular dance content creator @/amritarupalaha on Instagram posted about mujra. Someone had apparently posted a comment about mujra with a disapproving tone, and amritarupalaha decided to post a response to that. She claims that "male performers went on to be called as ustaads and gurus" and juxtaposed it with the fact that "female courtly performers don't get the same respect". She further continues that "mujra performing women were experts at their craft (which, I'm sure, they were) and had much more social power and influence than domestic women at the time". Well, it makes sense that women who rose up in the ranks and got favoured by an influential man would obviously have more freedom than a woman who was married off for an alliance. However, do you, too, sense a degree of hypocrisy and whitewashing in these statements? Especially, if you consider that all of the comments below this reel are overwhelmingly positive, praising the content creator for the feminist perspective on mujra. Would this be the case if amritarupalaha decided to dispel some myths about Devadasi the similar way? Let me elaborate further.
Devadasi (or Devidasi) means the female servant of god/goddess. There were also male temple dancers, such as jogappas. In temples in Odisha, when Devadasi had her period, Gotipua (the predecessor of Odissi, and the word gotipua means 'single-boy') was performed by males instead. Temple dance culture started developing once big temple complexes became more widespread and the temple culture Agama got more elaborate, around the Gupta empire times. Nritya is a form of devotion, along with sangita (music, note, the word 'music' comes from ancient Greek word 'mousike' which meant the arts of the Greek goddesses Muses). Hence, natyashastra is called a shastra for a reason. Indian classical dances are always danced barefoot, and the dance is commenced with a prayer to the deity, usually also a kshamaprarthana (apology prayer) to Bhu Devi (goddess of earth) for stepping on the ground.
Just like any other profession in Hindu society, one was dedicated to Devadasi since childhood. This profession often required rigorous discipline and training in not just classical dances but also other art forms, rituals and other skills. Because Devadasis were sort of married to the deity, they had a sacred position. Obviously, human nature is flawed, it is possible that some patrons may have tried to get their hands on devadasis. Or in today's view, this would be seen as child labour and harmful to a child's normal development. Psychological effects of even Kumari Puja tradition is being hotly debated, such as in Satyajit Ray's film Debi.
After Islamic invasions, destruction of temples, loss of wealth and patrons, and the near extinction of temple dancers' culture in many parts of India, it was hard to find Devadasis for rituals anymore. Yes, many grand Pujas are incomplete without Devadasis. For example, in traditional Durga Puja, Devidasis were required for the rituals during mahasnana of Durga, where ashtamangalavadya are used to perform ashta ragas. During each and every raga, the Devidasi has to pick a kalasha filled with sacred waters. Due to the loss of temple culture in Bengal for example, the local kings or landowners of Bengal brought tawaifs from Benaras to perform instead. But the thing is, although the tawaifs were talented, mujra had lost its divine 'essence'. Look at the wording of the AI overview. I searched the same keywords (mujra and kathak + appropriation) twice. I read through the sources too and it was a grim read.
Can you see what's wrong with mujra? Kathak is a dance rooted to natyashastra and dedicated to Radha and Krishna. It used to be a temple dance. The sentence "Kathak dancers, originally temple performers, transitioned to royal courts, leading to a shift from devotional theme to sophisticated entertainment.." is upsetting. How did "originally temple dancers" "transition" to royal courts? How did dancing in temples with devotion to the deities turn "more sophisticated, aesthetic, expressive and sensual" when the audience became the Islamic rulers? Not only was this the appropriation of temple dance rooted to natyashastra but also desecration of Kathak. You remove the worship of deity aspect from the dance and replace it by dancing to some old pervert. This is plain appropriation and desecration. Basically, I found it disappointing that this amritarupalaha focused only on the feminism part and completely disregarded the fact that mujra was an extreme form of appropriation.
By the way, this is what real Kathak looks like, here a performance by Pandit Anuj Mishra.
That said, my observation was not against mujra or the tawaifs because they just did what they were forced to. If the British rule's barbaric anti-Nautch laws rooted to Victorian moral policing and robbing Hindu temples and rendering patrons penniless and driving temple dancers into British chaklas for prostitution was wrong, so is the mujrafication of Kathak. Take a look at this image below, it's an excerpt from the book The Queen's Daughters in India by Elizabeth W. Andrew and Katharine C. Bushnell.
The British banned Devadasis (probably because they hated how devoted temple dancers were) and prostituted these girls who were left without their craft. They, just like the Islamic rulers, treated Devadasis as commodities, something to be exploited and stolen from. Yet, their stories are not seen or heard. Their craft is still being stolen, exploited, demonised and given the Mughal wash for the "secular acceptability". The barbarity of the British invaders is excused by accusations (aka missionary tales) that "temple prostitution was exploitation of low caste by high caste" (remember, every accusation is a confession ;) ), and the barbarity of Islamic invaders is excused by the typical "they adopted and adapted and turned India more sophisticated" - arguments. Basically, legitimizing rape and plunder of India through sophistry. Here's a missionary website on an Irish missionary Amy Carmichael who apparently got Devadasi abolished.
This missionary couldn't stop Catholic church from committing crimes against children in her own land but she came to act all virtuous in a "savage hindoo heathen" land. Does your blood boil yet? Tell me I'm not the only one whose blood has turned into lava.
Anyway, to string these miscellaneous thoughts together, the point of this post was that Indian feminists or contrarians criticise Devadasi without any nuance, yet find it an acceptable thought that tawaifs were empowered women, although they were more oppressed than the classical Devadasi was. The same people also hate jauhar because they feel like it's a symbol of patriarchy to attach virtue to women's bodies and sexuality, so much that dying is better than getting raped, which these people view as problematic. It is completely possible to criticise the "Madonna vs. whore" juxtaposition of women without trashing the Satis' great sacrifice for their Dharma. It is absolutely possible to call out the society for using the word randi to shame women without either normalising the word or creating a moral panic over female sexuality.
