Unfaithful Devadasi’s: Questioning the “Prostitute” Implications of Devadasi’s

I really enjoyed this weeks readings they were very interesting. Leslie Orr provides a convincing argument in her book towards what it meant to be “temple women”, and the functions she had as such. By defining “temple women”, Orr brings up a very interesting and convincing point. Why were these women classified as prostitutes or dancers with sexual connotations? If this were the case then why would they be associated with a holy, pure and sacred institution? Clearly, the main function of the devadasi had nothing to do with prostitution, and Orr outlines this. The term devadasi is a colonial term that has colonial meaning attached to it. The role of prostitution was attached to the devadasi when colonial powers came in, because it was another way for them to obtain and maintain power. Indian reformers gave them this title because it kept them oppressed with no place in society. I think the whole devadasi institution threatened male authority. As these women started to play larger roles in the temple this lead to recognition in the public sphere, which is something that was never granted to them before. What better way to get rid of this threat than to declare that the women were prostitutes? If these women claimed that they were married to God, how could they be prostitutes? Doesn’t cheating lower their morality?

Clearly the role of the devadasi was reinterpreted by colonial powers as they came into India and applied their perspectives on this art of women. The South Indian interpretation of these women was divorced from this interpretation completely. I refer to this as the “secularization” of the devadasi. Where we have the South Indian devadasi as opposed to the secular one (prostitute).

Soneji’s Article, “Living History, Performing Memory: Devadasi Women in Telugu-Speaking South India”, is narrow in its scope because it fails to include a proper definition of “temple women”, he clearly explores one sort of temple women and fails to offer other functions that they performed. His presentation of temple women would be related to what Orr defines as palace women. What Soneji clarifies is the changing roles of these women. He discusses the performances of devadasi’s in temples to raise monetary funds, and their performances in the courts as a form of entertainment, but for gifts, and lastly the move of the devadasi from these institutions into the home where she performs strictly for monetary funds. In this scenario we see the devadasi moving away from her temple identity to something other then a temple women or servant. When she is removed from the temple, can we still call her a devadasi, or does she become something else? I believe that the devadasi is tied to the temple and thus, cannot be seen outside of it. I believe what started out as a service strictly for the temple and God turned into a service that was performed solely for economic gain.

What is very interesting about this is that these women were accorded the status of temple women through their donations to the temple in the earlier periods, but as time goes on these women give themselves this status separate from the temple. Soneji illustrates that women continued to identify themselves as temple women separate from the temple and perform services for others outside of the temple. Can they give themselves this status? Is this just another way to make money? The only reason I can come up with as to why these women continue to identify themselves as devadasi’s after its out ruling, is that these women still have a sense that this title in some way or the other classifies their union with God and allows them to participate in the realm of the religious, something that was never really accorded to them in the past.