Why Bharatanatyam Owes Its Survival to One Defiant Woman

Bharatanatyam has become so synonymous with cultural prestige that it is easy to forget it once carried stigma, suspicion, and open hostility. In the early twentieth century Madras, the dance we now celebrate as “classical” was widely associated with the devadasi tradition and dismissed by many elites as socially improper. A powerful reform movement sought to end the exploitation bound up with the devadasi system, yet the cultural backlash often swept the art itself into the fire. Into this contested moment stepped Rukmini Devi Arundale, a woman whose choices were radical for her time. She learnt the form, performed it publicly, built institutions around it, and helped reframe it as a respectable classical practice.Calling her the only saviour

would be inaccurate. Bharatanatyam survived because communities of dancers, musicians, nattuvanars, and patrons carried it through generations. Revivalists such as E. Krishna Iyer played major roles in legitimising the form in public cultural spaces. Yet it is also true that Rukmini Devi’s defiance gave the dance a new social life, one that made its survival far more likely in a rapidly changing India.

The Moment Bharatanatyam Could Have Vanished

The early twentieth century in South India saw intense scrutiny of the devadasi system. Reformers pushed for abolition, and the campaign became intertwined with the anti-nautch movement, which targeted public performance by devadasis. The legal culmination in the Madras Presidency came with legislation in 1947 that made dedication illegal and gave devadasis the legal right to marry.This social shift mattered for women’s rights, yet it also created a cultural danger. When an art form is treated as inseparable from the community that carried it, reform can slip into cultural erasure. Bharatanatyam’s transformation into a middle-class, stage-centred “classical” form involved rebranding, institutionalisation, and changes in aesthetics and repertoire.

Rukmini Devi’s Defiance Was Social, Not Just Artistic

Rukmini Devi Arundale was not born into the hereditary dance community that had preserved sadir, the earlier name associated with Bharatanatyam. Her involvement with the Theosophical Society placed her within reformist cultural circles that were both modernising and deeply invested in reviving Indian arts.Accounts of her entry into the form point to a pivotal experience at the Madras Music Academy in 1933, where she witnessed a sadir performance. What followed was serious training under masters such as Pandanallur Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai, supported by E. Krishna Iyer. Her first major public performance in 1935 marked a decisive break from convention. At a time when a “respectable” woman performing on stage invited social criticism, the act itself carried risk.

Kalakshetra Made the Revival Permanent

A cultural revival survives when it becomes institutional. In 1936, Rukmini Devi founded Kalakshetra in Adyar, Chennai, drawing inspiration from the gurukul model of education. Over time, Kalakshetra emerged as one of the most influential centres of Bharatanatyam training and performance.The institution standardised pedagogy, created a clear path for students, and built a repertoire that could travel nationally and internationally. More importantly, it anchored Bharatanatyam within a framework of legitimacy that allowed it to be taught, curated, and defended as a classical form.

What Changed When Bharatanatyam Became “Classical”

The revival was never neutral. Choices were made about aesthetics, costume, repertoire, and tone. Rukmini Devi’s vision emphasised restraint and refinement, aligning the dance with middle-class ideals of respectability.Supporters argue these changes were necessary for survival in a conservative public sphere. Critics point out that this process marginalised hereditary practitioners and narrowed expressive possibilities. Artists such as T. Balasaraswati later demonstrated that technical mastery and emotional depth from devadasi lineages remained central to the form’s vitality.A truthful account holds both realities together. Rukmini Devi’s reforms opened doors to acceptance and preservation, while also reshaping power structures within the dance world.

Defiance as Cultural Strategy

Rukmini Devi’s defiance was not a single dramatic moment. It was sustained and strategic. She insisted on the legitimacy of the art at a time when society sought to discard it. She built institutions rather than relying on patronage. She carried Bharatanatyam into public spaces where it could be judged as art rather than scandal.Her wider public stature, including her role as the first woman nominated to the Rajya Sabha, further strengthened her ability to advocate for culture within national institutions. Survival, in such cases, often depends on who is able to protect an art form publicly.Bharatanatyam did not survive because beauty alone guarantees protection. It survived because individuals and communities chose persistence over retreat. Rukmini Devi Arundale’s role was not to erase the devadasi legacy but to reshape the conditions under which the dance could be publicly practised and honoured.Her contribution lies in making Bharatanatyam visible, defensible, and institutionalised at a critical historical moment. The survival story belongs to many, but the turning point in public memory and cultural record still carries her name.