Commentaries on and criticisms of Kerala’s traditional performing arts had been the forte of language teachers and Sanskrit scholars till the late 20th century. Most of the writings on the classical art forms invariably laid emphasis on the plays/lyrics and there was only inconsequential appraisals of the texture of visualisation and individual artistry based on a close reading of onstage performances. Several aesthetes silently rebelled against such literary exercises in the 1960s. One among them was Killimangalam Vasudevan Namboodiripad who passed away recently at the age of 90.
Namboodiripad was the last link of a grand lineage of scholars. He naturally inherited an unerring taste for language and scholarship from his ancestors. In his younger days, Namboodiripad, like the educated youngsters of his age, was attracted to the leftist ideology and, for a short while, he was part of the political activism of the undivided Communist Party. Simultaneously Namboodiripad had nurtured a profound fascination for Kathakali, Koodiyattam, Mohiniyattam and Thullal. In the late 1950s Vallathol was looking for someone who could act as a bridge between the administration and art faculties of Kerala Kalamandalam. Namboodiripad happened to be the perfect choice of Vallathol to become a part of the first public institution in Kerala for traditional arts.
Deep familiarisation with the text, training and performance of Kathakali, Koodiyattam and the like prompted Namboodiripad to re-examine the undue importance art connoisseurs so far attached to Satwikabhinaya (emotive acting). He zeroed in onto the multiple dimensions of Angikabhinaya (movements of the angopangapratyanga) and even went to the extent of considering Satwikabhinaya as just one component of the former. The argument he put forth was simple yet provocative. “The expression of Satwikabhinaya is impossible without it falling back upon Angikabhinaya”. Hence when it came to the core of classicism in the performance culture of the stalwarts of yore, Namboodiripad preferred those with substance and minimalism to the flamboyant ones revelling in dramatic overtones. He was unequivocally influenced in his vision by Pattikkamthodi Ravunni Menon, the doyen of the Kalluvazhi chitta in Kathakali.
He watched Kathakali and Koodiyattam from a holistic angle which is essentially the gist of Thauryathrika (amalgam of dance, theatre and music). Not surprisingly, theatrics in Kathakali, Mohiniyattam and Thullal often disenchanted him.
When Painkulam Rama Chakyar boldly took Koothu and Koodiyattam outside the temples, Namboodiripad stood by him. Since adding Koodiyattam and Nangiarkoothu to the curriculum of Kalamandalam in 1965, Namboodiripad spared no effort to foster those within and outside India. He participated in scholarly deliberations abroad and dealt with the unique characteristics of Koodiyattam backed by sound reasoning. He was often found to be feverishly argumentative while deciphering the ‘identity’ of each art form. Improvement and beautification, in his considered view, are not hostile to retaining the ‘identity’ of a classical art, be it theatre or dance. And ‘identity’, he observed, is a dynamic phenomenon rather than a stagnant pool.
The Chapter titled ‘Demystification of Kathakali’ in Philip Zarrilli’s magnum opus, Kathakali Complex, brought out in the 1970s is a direct inspiration the author had from his personal interactions with Namboodiripad. On his part, Namboodiripad had reservations about the doctrinal tone of some of the Western theatre scholars like Richard Schechner and Eugenio Barba who had commented on Kathakali from an outsider’s perspective.
Namboodiripad co-authored a book Kathakaliyude Rangapatacharitram with Kalamandalam M.P.S. Namboodiri. It contributes, among others, to the concept of spectator’s text viz a viz the widely known Aattaprakarams (acting manuals). Kerala Kalamandalam selected the book for its award a couple of years ago. Manakkulam Mukundaraja Memorial Award instituted by Kalamandalam was bestowed on Namboodiripad for his overall contributions to art and culture.
Namboodiripad was keen till his last breath to listen to the pulse of contemporary society. Mercilessly self-critical, he often re-examined even his own standpoints on various aspects of dance, theatre and indigenous music, vocal and instrumental. Although obstinate in expounding his aesthetic and cultural perceptions, Namboodiripad was magnanimous too in lending an ear to dissenting notes. When someone with a diverse sensibility and logic agreed to disagree with him on certain terrains of his thoughts, Namboodiripad smiled, signalling a democratic space. He hated being called an Acharya or a scholar. The demise of the nonagenarian art aficionado has left a lasting void in the minds of all those who knew him closely for decades.
