S.Anandhi argues in her article, Representing Devadasis ‘Dasigal Mosavalai’ as a Radical Text, that a novel written by Moovalur Ramamirthan — a former devadasi — contains a radical stance regarding the devadasi system in comparison to the debate between the conservatives and progressive politicians. The article states that politicians discuss the devadasis to represent political ideas rather than representing the devadasis’ true thoughts and feelings:
Reddy believed that their voice in the whole matter of deciding their future was irrelevant. When some devadasi associations protested against the bill, it was not a dialogue that Muthulakshmi Reddy preferred, but a suppression of their voice. She wrote, "As far as the local devadasis' protest, they are all set of prostitutes, who have been set up by their keepers. How can the government take cognizance of such a protest? ... So I would request you not to pay any heed to such protests from a most objectionable class of people. (Anandhi 741)
The article argues that Moovalur Ramamirthan represents authentic thoughts and feelings of the devadasis. However, the stories in her novel all have a political leaning that resemble her own life experience — the young women experience immense societal and family pressure to pursue the devadasi profession and consequently advocate against it as a system of oppression. As a writer, Ramamirthan appears to represent her own experience rather than the various experiences of multiple women (aforementioned example in the essay: devadasi’s protested against the bill that would prevent their performance). Nietzche describes a comparable problem among philosophers in Beyond Good and Evil:
It might be possible that what constitutes the value of those good and honoured things resides precisely in their being artfully related, knotted and crocheted to these wicked, apparently antithetical things, perhaps even in their being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! — But who is willing to concern himself with such dangerous perhapses! (Nietzche 34)
Therefore, it is important to investigate whether Ramamirthan’s stories contain characters that made truly admirable decisions that support the devadasis.
The novel represents a narrow perspective where the devadasi’s lifestyle is degenerative and marriage is superior. The following perspective is indicative of the “radical” stories that the novel represents and the political debate ignores:
[Devadasis who felt they were exploited economically] claimed that the men of their community used to exploit them by living on the earnings of dasi mothers and sisters and now they had woken up from such shameful life and were demanding a respectable place for the devadasis. They also pointed out that the time had come for ‘dasis’ to uphold their chastity and honour by leading the life of a housewife. (Anandhi 745)
The stories Ramamirthan’s novel assume that marriage is a healthy alternative for devadasis instead of discussing the drawbacks of marriage in addition to its benefits. The stories do not represent a more complicated reality of married women’s lives. For example, Oldenburg describes domestic violence — courtesans were vital aids to women in violent marriages:
To make ends meet they have to sleep with their employers and the dalal, or middlemen who found them their jobs, and get beaten up by their husbands when they find out: Gulbadan explained that "a woman compromises her dignity twenty-four hours of the day when she has no control over her body or her money." This response was unanimously endorsed by the other courtesans. (Oldenburg)
Many married women were exploited, disrespected, and lived “shameful” lives; their quality of life was not necessarily better than that of the devadasis. Furthermore, Muddupalani depicts the gaslighting the married women experience in her poetry:
Wasn’t it woman who bore them,
Wasn’t it woman who raised them,
Then why do they always blame woman,
These boors, these blind ones (Muddupalani 116)
Men were disrespecting married women just as much as they were disrespecting the devadasis. Neither lifestyle was truly better than the other. Therefore Ramamirthan’s stories where marriage is celebrated and devadasi culture is a form of oppression limit Indian women’s complex experiences. Furthermore, Ramamirthan limits devadasis to prostitution and dehumanizes the men who associate with them.
Ramamirthan’s novel depicts the devadasi’s sexual relationships as immature, tactless, and hopeless. Her emphasis on shameful, banal desires exemplifies her biased negative viewpoint in Gunapoosani’s story:
Except in India, in no other country, prostitution has been legitimized as 'God blessed holy art'. Preparing a set of women for prostitution only exemplifies our men's animal desires... It is shameful to note that our national leaders defend the devadasi system in the name of preserving the tradition and art. (Anandhi 745)
Claiming that the devadasis were simply prostitutes would mean that their sexual relationships were purely transactional (Are the experiences of people that have been sex-trafficked transactional experiences?). This is not true. Also, are men’s desires animal-like in quality, or is her statement dehumanizing? Courtesan poetry depicts the opposite of Ramamirthan’s stories:
Why are you so taken ?
Does she dance with pleasure,
pluck the strings and sing
seductive songs?
Invent new ways of making love
and plead with you then
not to stop,
even as she celebrates your skill? (Ksetrayya 80)
The courtesan in the above poem is full of emotions and concern about her lover. Therefore, their sexual interaction is not transactional and it is not a form of prostitution. Furthermore, men’s sexual desires do not have an animal-like quality. Firstly, within their sexual relationship, they are “making love”. Secondly, she claims that her lover has skills — which animals definitely do not have. Gunapoosani’s story may represent some devadasis’ experiences, but not all of them. In many cases, Ramamirthan seriously errs in her depiction of the devadasis’ feelings and the men who have sex with them. Her personal life and politics prevent her from writing stories that counter-argue the policies of the self-respect movement.
A novel that is helpful for the devadasis’ well-being requires multifaceted stories from women with different values and politics. Otherwise, the novel does not support all women. Instead, Ramamirthan includes stories that align with her political career and resemble her personal life. As Nietzche argues, many writers can only depict characters that resemble their personal thoughts and feelings and this prevents them from depicting reality. It appears that Ramamirthan’s novel is similarly biased.
Works Cited
Anandhi, S. “Representing Devadasis: 'Dasigal Mosavalai' as a Radical Text.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 26, no. 11, ser. 12, Mar. 1991, pp. 739–746. 12.
Ksetrayya. “A Courtesan to Her Lover.” UC Press E-Books Collection, University of California Press, publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docID=ft1k4003tz&ch unk.id=d02715&toc.depth=100&toc.id=d0e2007&brand=upress.
Muddupalani, and Mahlaga Chanda Bai. Women Writing in India. Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 1991.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. Penguin Classics , 1990.
Oldenburg, Veena Talwar. Lifestyle as Resistance: The Case of the Courtesans of Lucknow. Columbia.edu, 1990, www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urdu/umraojan/txt_veena_oldenburg.html.
Kommentare