Dance and Music in Different Religious Contexts

Praise to Vishnu in Odissi by Sharmila Mukherjee

A cultural system can have absolutely opposite connotations in different social and religious context. When we look at Hinduism and Islam, dance and music have exactly opposite connotations in these two religions, but there have also been efforts in history to bridge this chasm and merge the two traditions through dance and music.

In Hinduism, all forms of artistic activity - whether it is painting, sculpture-making, architeture, dance, music, singing or any other artistic activity - all of it is essentially a sacred act. The theme of the artistic activity need not be religious; just the activity of indulging in any art form is a sacred act. Indeed, there is Saraswati the patron deity of arts, learning and knowledge, there is Shiva, the master of dance - who creates, destroys and sustains the universe through his dance, there is Krishna, who is an expert dancer, and when the Goddess dances, the whole universe dances with her. There are many other deities who take the role of a dancer, musician or a singer from time to time. Add to this the multitude of sages who are forever singing the praise of the divine. 

Because of this view of arts, Hinduism in general is flooded with artistic activity, art forms were patronised by the rulers and artists were attached to the temples, granted with money and land and performed their artistic activity in the temple precincts on festival days. It has always been considered an accomplishment in Hinduism to be an exponent of any art form.

Because of its sacred associations, art activity in pre-modern India was almost exclusively religious in nature. Even today, the folk arts and the classical music and dance traditions are predominantly religious in character, even though they have been brought out of the sacred space and are performed in a secular environment for a secular audience for commercial purpose, but the theme is almost always religious. It is impossible to understand the traditional art forms of India without understanding the Indian religions.

Here, I'll only talk about Odissi, a classical dance form from Orissa the Eastern state of India in brief.

Odissi, like all other classical dance form of India, was a temple dance, with dancers attached to the huge temples of Orissa such as those at Puri, Bhubaneshwar and Konark. These temples patronised dance and music traditions and received large grants from the kings for this purpose. However, this centuries old dance form by early 19th century had begun to get degraded into a kind of prostitution as with the growth of the colonial powers in India, royal patronage to the temples were cut off, the British were not patronising this system and the temples lost a lot of their revenue. This was coupled by the excessive priestly orthodoxy and the control of the elites over the society. As a result, dancers began to be exploited by the priests and the traditional royal families - much diminished in political power, but still holding a ritual validity (even today, before the chariot festival of the Jagannath Puri, it's the earlier royal family's descendant who comes to perform the "royal rituals," not the chief minister who really holds the political power). Hence, by the late 19th century the system of temple dancers (called Devadasis) attached to the temples began to diminish and they were now working as dancers as well as temple prostitutes. With this, the classical dance tradition of Odissi began to die, as was also the case with other classical dances of India.

After Independence, the Indian government decided to promote the various art forms of India which were on the verge of extinction by this time. In every region, some exponents of art forms came to recover the knowledge from the ancient texts, from the few surviving artists and connoisseurs. In Orissa, Kelucharan Mahapatra collected the dance postures as described in the ancient dance treatises, as practised by the folk dance form called Gotipua in which young boys dress up as girls and dance on the song and music related to Krishna's stories, from the few exponents of Odissi left in the temples and from the iconography of dance sculptures from various temples of Orissa. In 12th century, there was a great Sanskrit poet called Jaydev in Orissa who composed a work of poems on Krishna in simple Sanskrit, called Gita Govinda (see the multimedia project here). This text was made the primary basis for enacting the classical Odissi. he pieced together all this information and evolved an elaborate system of classical Odissi which could be performed on stage in a secular environment for a secular audience. He began to perform this Odissi and also taught the women who wished to learn it from him. Thus, the credit for the Odissi as it exists today goes to Kelucharan Mahapatra.

The first Odissi video given above is an enactment of a Sanskrit poetry in praise of Vishnu, one of the three major Gods in Hinduism. The dancer is Sharmila Mukherji, a disciple of Kelucharan Mahapatra. The second video is an enactment of the ten incarnations of Vishnu (see the first comment below for more descriptions). The dancer is Saumya at Bangalore. The third video is about Gotipua, a folk form from Orissa from which modern Odissi has borrowed some postures.

Praise to the Ten Incarnations of Vishnu in Odissi by Saumya




Gotipua Dance

In contrast to this, in orthodox Islam, all forms of artistic activity are prohibited as "anti-religious." Especially, dance and music are forbidden except the drum-music. However, there is a controversy about it, since there is a Hadith in which Prophet Muhammad said to Aisha who prepared a bride for marriage and took her to the venue of marriage, that she should have arranged for (dance and?) music because the Ansars, the community in which marriage was being held loved dance and music. Because of this, many Muslims enjoy dance and music, while the militant Wahhabis and their successors forbid it and also don't allow others from engaging in it. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, dance and music performances are forbidden, with strict punishments for those found indulging in it.

In South Asia, the Muslim community always took a liberal view towards this issue. Especially the Sufis have contributed greatly for melodious music, singing and dance which employs fast whirls. These performances were - and are - held in the Dargahs of Sufi saints and later in the 20th century were brought out of the Dargahs and began to be performed on stage in a secular environment. People from all communities enjoy Sufi music in the Indian sub-continent. In recent decades, pop music singers began to use the rhythms and the beats of Sufi music for their compositions. Runa Laila, a pop music singer from Bangladesh was amongst the earliest to do this. Her composition "Damadum Mast Kalandar" which actually uses a Sufi song, became an all time favourite. The last video below shows a performance of this song by Runa Laila.

The Mughals, as in all other cultural and political fields, take a prominent place in this field as well. During the Mughal rule, all the classical dance and music forms of India were greatly patronised by the Mughal Emperors, under whose patronage some of the musical instruments and musical modes were also invented. Kathak, the classical dance of North India, received extensive patronage during this period and hence, it spread over half of India. To its already existing repertoire from the Hindu tradition, it added the Persian dance elements, since Persian dancers were always coming to the Mughal court. Especially in the later Mughal period, when they had become politically weak and the British were really ruling India, the Mughal princes contributed greatly towards the development of Kathak. Wajid Ali Shah, the ruler of Oudh (approximately Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal of today in North India) was a Kathak dancer himself and used to hold Kathak performances in his court. he had received training in classical singing and composed poetry for his Kathak performances. Eventhough he was not successful politically and was eventually captured by the British and sent into exile, he contributed greatly to the dance and music of India.

Runa Laila (Bangladesh) singing the famous Sufi Qawwali Dama Dum Mast Kalandar

What Happened to the Women's Hajj Theatre at Makka?

Long line of pilgrims entering the sanctuary, extending for miles into the surrounding area (19th Century drawing)

Makka and the Hajj were not always as they appear today - multitudes of crowds in a modern city with technologically monitored Hajj, removed of all the creativity that the people expressed and buildings pushing each other out of the limited space. Till the 1950s, visitors were much less in number. In early 20th century, artisans from other countries like Egypt participated in crafting the Kiswa and the sanctuary held a much smaller area than it holds today. In the 19th century, the town of Makka surrounding the sanctuary in its centre was a much smaller place, having only twelve residential areas, narrow lanes and no dazzling electric lights. Click here for the history of the Kaaba.

This was the time when the rulers were more tolerant of the people's activities, rather than enforcing on them their own version of militant religion in a police-state like environment. This was before the Al-Saud captured Makka in 1925 and attempted to first become its "servant" and then its "custodian" (click on this link). 

This was the time when the people had the freedom to decide how they wanted to interpret Islam for themselves, without any fear from the ruling powers.

One very interesting custom during Hajj, with a long history, was the women's theatre called Al-Ges, performed by the women of Makka in the streets of the town when the menfolk went to the Kaaba to help the pilgrims to perform Hajj. Begun in the 11th century, it continued right till 1925, when the Al-Saud captured Makka and banned this custom.

The women were left to themselves when the menfolk went to the Kaaba. Hence, dressed up as men, women went from street to street, drawing out the women from their homes and went around the town, impersonating the character of various prominent men of the town in a satirical manner. Thus, a woman was dressed up as the chief guardian of the town of Makka, another would dress up as the chief cleric of the Kaaba, yet another as the Mayor of Makka etc. and others would dress up in colourful clothes as the common menfolk of the town and would satirise their roles through performance of actions and songs composed in Arabic! 

Going from street to street, they would enact these satirical performances, singing songs, as more and more women joined them. This performance would continue till the morning hours, when the men would be returning from the Kaaba. At this time, the women would go back home, to return again the next day for their satirical theatre in the streets. 

If any man was seen loitering in the street at this time, women would pull him and beat him up, calling him Al-Ges or the one who abstained from going to the Kaaba to help the pilgrims. He was looked down upon and was called names in the songs sung by the women.

In this sense, women acted as sort of custodians of the Hajj management, as they ensured through their theatre that all men went to the sanctuary and helped the pilgrims.

Dressed as important men who were satirised by the women in songs and actions, it also showed a temporary inversion of the power equations in the society by the women - they were not following the orders of these important men, but they rather liked to point out the flaws in their actions, though in an all-women's gathering.

This custom also shows that religion was not necessarily a serious, tight-upper lipped, high-browed kind of affair in those times. People related to it in a natural manner and were not necessarily offended when satirised - something like the way the people of other religions accept a satire on their religion in the democratic world. While they were devoted in their religious duty, they were not necessarily pretentious about it.

In this sense, Saudi Wahhabism has taken a retrograde step in pushing the attitude towards religion back to more than a thousand years. The ease that had developed with the maturing of Islam has been destroyed by the regimes like the ones ruled by Wahhabism, Iranian revolution, Taliban etc. 

This is not revolution, it is retrogressive thought process in a world which is increasing becoming relaxed about religion, even foresaking it.

It is highly unfortunate that this interesting theatre of the women during Hajj came to an end in 1925 under the orders of the Al-Saud.

Till about 1950s, it continued to be performed inside the houses behind closed doors, but was completely discontinued thereafter as the Al-Saud dynasty grew in power.

Even more unfortunate is the fact that no traces of this custom have been allowed to survive in the archives and the writings in Saudi Arabia. Militant Islam is notorious for wiping out history, because it is afraid of history.

For more on this theatre of the Makka women, read Ahmad A. Nasr and Abu Bakr A. Bagader, "Al-Ges: Women's festival and Drama in Makka," in Journal of Folklore Research, September-December 2001, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 243-262.

My Name is Khan - A Critical Review

 

This film created waves before it was released and on its first screening in India - not so much because of its aesthetic value, but more because of the cultural politics associated with it (read my other post on this theme). In essence, this is an attempt by the popular culture of India to initiate a dialogue with the terrorised West, especially America, in the post-9/11 world. However, because of several other issues that got involved with Shah Rukh Khan the actor who plays the leading role in the film, the reviews of this film have got tainted by those issues - the major one being the communalisation attempted by the extremist Hindutva party Shiv Sena on the day of its first screening.  Those who sympathise with the portrayal of a "victimised majority" in India have criticised the film and Shah Rukh Khan and Shiv Sena's opponents have given an excessively undue credit to the film as well as to Shah Rukh Khan. In this post I attempt to distance myself from this politics and look at the film from the aesthetic angle, as a member of audience interested in the art of cinematic narration. I do so after I have watched the film and have allowed the first impressions to sink in for some time.

This is not the first attempt to make an aesthetic assessment of this film. Rama Lakshmi has reviewed this film in the Washington Post. However, it appears as if either she has not watched the film entirely or she has failed to understand the message of the film. Her account of the film is far removed from what the film actually shows. She presents this film as if it is an attempt of the terrorism-afflicted India to talk about terrorism, but for convenience's sake films such as this one are set in the distant USA - another democracy afflicted with terrorism. However, that's not what this film's object is. In fact, this film directly approaches the issue of how Muslims are being perceived by the local people in the West, especially in the US, in the aftermath of 9/11.  Moreover, it attempts to convey a message to the Western audience that all Muslims are not terrorists - quite literally in the film, as this message keeps on getting repeated throughout the narrative as a refrain. Closely intertwined with this message is another message that this film attempts to convey i.e., Islam has many aspects of peaceful living which are getting drowned in the excessive focus on terrorism.

Seen from this perspective, it is significant why this film is set in the US and the way in which the US has been portrayed - a land of prosperity, where hard work is truly acknowledged, where Indian diaspora has truly realised the American Dream and a majestic global power picturised gloriously through the technique of aerial photography. 

This land where every Indian dreams to at least visit if not settle in, is terrorised by the violence of 9/11, which has made the Americans suspect every Muslim who goes there. This has created other kinds of conflicts and violence in the society. Hence, this film tries to convey this message that every Muslim is not a terrorist and Islam also has teachings about peaceful co-existence in it. Hence, they should not look askance at every Muslim. 

And it was only expected that this message had to be conveyed by an Indian Muslim.

This is brought most effectively by including a personal experience of Shah Rukh Khan, who was pulled out for a second-degree interrogation last year at the Newark Airport, when he went there to participate in the Indian Independence Day Parade. This scene has been included in the film in the very beginning and becomes the inspiration for the character of Shah Rukh Khan to spread his message in the US and to convey it to the President of America. In this sense, this film is somewhat autobiographical. 

This film conveys this quite figuratively - till he had this experience, Shah Rukh Khan had been a world-famous popular Bollywood icon. On that eve of India's Independence Day at the Newark Airport, he was suddenly turned into a Muslim. Perhaps he had never given much thought to his religious identity all these years! And he suddenly also realised that all these years he has had a Hindu wife - could he have been a terrorist?

To complete the autobiographical sketch, Shah Rukh Khan's character in the film marries a Hindu woman - enacted by Kajol (see picture above). She continues to worship in the Hindu style even after marriage and there is no evidence that she or her son from her previous marriage convert to Islam. Although there is a strong narrative flaw in the film - his wife and her son are portrayed as having remained Hindus even after this marriage, perhaps to show the tolerant image of Islam. However, this son is killed in the film because "he was a Muslim's son and a Muslim," as is explained in the film. 

Both mother and son acquire the surname Khan after marriage, which gives rise to this "Muslim" identity.  However, there was no need for them to change their surname and in any case they never converted. Hence, this boy's death because he "was a Muslim" is really a product of this narrative flaw in the film. Yet, without this narrative flaw, the film couldn't have taken a critical turn. The makers of the films should have handled this aspect more dexterously.

There is some pretentious symbolism also employed in the film - visually and schematically. The incident showing the flood in a Black-majority village of Georgia is one such symbolic usage. The entire scene has been portrayed to show how Islam saves Christianity while Christianity tries to destroy Islam. There are prolonged shots of the Cross over the village church falling in storm and Shah Rukh Khan helping the villagers to save it. These shots can also be interpreted in a different manner - the falling Cross may be symbolic of a fallen Christianity, while Islam is portrayed as the "rescuing religion."  

About the acting performances in the film - Shah Rukh Khan has the best of intentions to convey a noble message to America. However, he is the one who has done the worst acting in the film. In fact, he has not acted at all! He seems to have taken cover under the fact that his character suffers from Asperger's Syndrome. Hence, there is no need for him to act - his character doesn't understand the nuances of the world's conversations and he doesn't have any emotions and expressions like others around him. This means Shah Rukh Khan doesn't have to act - he doesn't have to work on his facial expressions or his body language or dialogue delivery. He just repeats most of the dialogues twice. I suspect if Shah Rukh Khan is a great actor at all.

In fact, this is another narrative flaw in this film. There is absolutely no need for this character to have the Asperger's Syndrome as far as the film's story goes. If he had been a normal person who showed emotions, expressions and body language, this would have been an extremely challenging role, which only an exceptionally intelligent actor like Aamir Khan - another Bollywood celebrity - could have carried out with his natural flair. I have doubt that Shah Rukh Khan has the capacity to carry out that kind of challenging role. Perhaps that's why his character has Asperger's Syndrome.

Despite his non-existent acting, the film is worth watching - because of the excellent acting of Kajol. She has the natural flair to carry her difficult character with dexterity. The child actors in the film have also done well. In fact, almost everyone in the film has acted well -  except Shah Rukh Khan! Hence, the audience doesn't feel cheated. 

As for the films on terrorism go, the Washington Post review doesn't mention the most complex film on the theme - Khuda Ke Liye, which shows the complexities of the situations in which terrorists are made, how they interact with the society and how they are treated by the State. My Name Is Khan is not in the same class as Khuda Ke Liye, but I would still recommend this film as worth watching.

The Lost Gospel of the Judas...

 See Original Image Here

This finding is an important one for the history of religions. It throws light on many forgotten aspects of the early history of Christianity and revises many long-held notions of the life of Christ. The figure of Judas emerges as a noble character in this.

See full report below -

The National Geographic Society has been part of an international effort, in collaboration with the Maecenas Foundation for Ancient Art and the Waitt Institute for Historical Discovery, to authenticate, conserve, and translate a 66-page codex, which contains a text called James (also known as First Apocalypse of James), the Letter of Peter to Philip, a fragment of a text that scholars are provisionally calling Book of Allogenes, and the only known surviving copy of the Gospel of Judas.

The Lost Gospel of the Judas