1

Master’s Thesis

Beyond Dichotomies: Tholpavakoothu, a Resilient

Shadow Puppetry Art Form

by

PILLAI Pallavi Jayakumar

51119004

March 2021

Master’s Thesis Presented to

Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Asia Pacific Studies- Society and Culture

2

Table of Contents

Contents

Certification Page ................................................................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 4

Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7

Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 25

History of Tholpavakoothu: The Traditional ...................................................................................... 28

Tholpavakoothu in the modern era ..................................................................................................... 65

Tholpavakoothu Today: The Koonathara troupe of puppeteers and observations of the present-day

scenario of the art form ....................................................................................................................... 92

Problematizing the Dichotomy of Traditional and Modern: Tholpavakoothu, a developing art form

.......................................................................................................................................................... 133

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 143

References ........................................................................................................................................ 148

Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 155

3

Certification Page

I, Pillai Pallavi Jayakumar (Student ID 51119004) hereby declare that the contents of this

Master’s Thesis are original and true and have not been submitted at any other university

or educational institution for the award of degree or diploma.

All the information derived from other published or unpublished sources has been cited

and acknowledged appropriately.

Pillai Pallavi Jayakumar

2020/12/04

4

Acknowledgements

I am thankful to many individuals who have helped me during the whole time I conducted

my research. First and foremost, I would like to thank the Koonathara troupe of

Tholpavakoothu artists from Shoranur, Kerala for letting me interview them, watch their

performances, visit their home and workshop. I am immensely grateful and in awe of

Master Puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar who shared the oceans of knowledge he holds

so patiently with me. I would like to thank the younger generation puppeteers Mr. Rajeev

Pulavar and Mr. Rahul Pulavar for supporting me through my entire field research and

answering all the queries I had. I also want to thank them for still being in touch with me

as I was writing this project virtually as COVID-19 abruptly cancelled some parts of the

field research. Secondly, and very importantly I want to thank my supervisor Mr. Hideo

Sasagawa for being a patient and supportive guide and correcting all my mistakes. I am

thankful for all the lessons I learned from these individuals.

Next, I want to thank Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University for supporting my

research and the turns it has taken since the first semester. The University and the

Research office at APU helped me greatly with the many stages of the research.

I want to thank my whole family and friends who have patiently supported me as I

completed this project.

5

Summary

Tholpavakoothu is a unique tradition of shadow puppet theatre from central Kerala in

present day India. It is originally a ritualistic temple-based art form performed in unique

permanent temple theatres called koothumadam by specific groups of puppeteers as a

votive offering to the popular goddess Bhadrakali who is considered the main audience

of the play in the temples. The extremely learned puppeteers would narrate the Tamil

version of the Hindu epic Ramayana, manipulate the puppets, offer advice to the public

and pass down the knowledge to the next generations to continue the practice. It was

traditionally situated in the cultural milieu of Hindu religious beliefs and social functions

of their respective eras. In the modern era, with the advent and spread of globalizing

capitalistic economics and technological advancement, the traditional art form also

started developing a commercialized performative side. This study charts the history of

Tholpavakoothu and the ways the art form navigated around the changing trends in the

society of Kerala and India in pre-modern and modern eras and still does so. It looks at

the shift in the lives of the artists, the style and logistics of the performances, the artistry,

traditions and innovations, the beliefs, the social functions and the evolving nature of the

art form and relates it to the changing socio-culturally constructed realities of the Indian

society.

This study identifies the issue with looking at changes in the art form as purely

6

transitional from traditional to modern, from spiritual to economic or from ritualistic to

performative. The use of the dichotomous traditional-modern polarity to understand the

changes in the art doesn’t do justice to the various complex, socio-historical processes

involved in the change and continued practice of the art form. Thus, the study

chronologically delineated all the phases of the art form from ancient to today’s current

scenario and problematized the dichotomies associated with functioning of the art form.

A field research was undertaken in March 2020 in Shoranur, Kerala to interview the

artists of the most active Tholpavakoothu troupe today- the Koonathara troupe, to

observe performances inside traditional temple theatres and outside the temple context,

and observe of the interaction of locals with the art form. In turn, the study has found

the various strategies the Tholpavakoothu artists have used over the years of its existence

to continue the practice of the art form even as the socio-cultural environment around it

keeps changing. In modern times, the artists had found a way to compartmentalize their

ritualistic duties towards the art form along with the modern innovations that they needed

to make so that the art form evolves with the changing needs of the society. But with the

outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic the wheels of the art form are found changing again

to find new strategies to keep continuing. This study thus, evaluates in detail how a 1000-

year-old art form like Tholpavakoothu is still developing after all these years.

7

Introduction

Tholpavakoothu is not a dying art form. The artists of the Koonathara troupe have been

pioneers in continuing the practice of the art form over its 14-generation long genealogy.

This study evaluates the strategies used by the artists of the Koonathara troupe, one of

the most active troupes of Tholpavakoothu artists to continually practice this art form in

an ever-changing social environment of India.

Tholpavakoothu (leather puppet play) is a shadow puppet theatre art form from

the central part of Kerala in southern India believed to have begun in the 9th century BCE.

In today’s scenario, the description of the art form can be done in more than one way.

The art form’s origins are from Tamil itinerant groups from Shaivist communities usually

belonging to Vellalachetti and Nair castes who travelled and performed popular Tamil

folk tales through the medium of shadow puppetry along the river Bharatappuzha. The

art form saw change first when it picked up the Tamil text of Kamba Ramayana to enact

through shadow puppets. The puppeteers settled in Kerala and transitioned to agriculture-

based, non-nomadic ways of life and performed in special permanent theatres called

koothumadams attached to Devi Kshetrams (Goddess temples). The performances began

to be practiced as a ritual votive offering to goddess Bhadrakali and would be conducted

for 7 to 21 nights depending on the occasion, sponsorship or temple culture. They

received patronage from royal sponsors and local audiences who had strong religious

8

beliefs connected to the art form which helped to fund the art form’s needs. The

puppeteers’ beliefs are also very important in the conduction of the art form. The art form

was traditionally passed down to the male members of the family and was only performed

by the male members of the families. The puppeteers called Pulavars were scholars with

knowledge of many subjects. The puppeteers shared their knowledge and played the role

of advisors to royals and local people. The art form itself as a communicative medium

was one of the only portals of entertainment and knowledge for the people before the

advent of other mediums of communication. The ritualistic side of the art form is

continued to this day with close to 85 temples being performed at by the Koonathara

troupe and other troupes of the art form. The art form became more multi-faceted in late

20th century when the revolutionary artist, the late master puppeteer Krishnan Kutty

Pulavar (K Pulavar) led the troupe into performing outside the temple for the first time,

and eventually even enacting tales other than Ramayana through the shadow puppets.

The artists brought several innovations to the art form in order to grow the art form so

that it evolves in a way that it is relevant to larger audiences and also to depend on it as

a source of livelihood. The art form now regularly performs on stages outside the temple

contexts. It enacts various stories and social themes across languages and religions. As

easy it is to enlist the various ways in which the art form changes, it is tricky to evaluate

the many socio-historical factors and processes involved in the changes.

9

This study does not view the various changes in the art form as purely

transitional from one to another, from traditional to modern, from local to Western, etc.

The study explores the various definitions and dimensions of the historical and traditional

elements of the art form, of the processes it goes through, of the innovations introduced

to the art form, of the strategies used by the artists and their continued efforts that enables

its continuation. The study relates the changes in the art form to larger changes that occur

in the society. In the first chapter, the history of the art form from its origin to the

beginning of the modern Indian era is documented and analyzed. In the second chapter,

the evolution of the art form in the modern era is charted. In the third chapter, A section

on the strategies and response of the Tholpavakoothu artists of the Koonathara troupe

during the COVID-19 crisis puts a light on the strategies operationalized by the artists in

the face of unexpected challenges. In the fourth chapter, the dichotomy of traditional-

modern polarity in the context of change in the art form is problematized to explore the

processual strategies undertaken by the artists that lead to the continued practice of the

art form.

The objective of this study is to understand and analyze the various strategies

(and the socio-historical processes involved in them), used by the artists to change and

adapt in order to keep continuing the practice of Tholpavakoothu in a changing society.

Following this background on the main topic of the research, that is Tholpavakoothu¸ this

10

introductory chapter will also entail the review of key literature, a look at the methods

used to conduct this study and the significance of this study.

Review of Key Literature

Traditional Shadow puppetry in India

Researcher Salil Singh (1998) has suggested that Indian shadow puppet play traditions

had remained largely unrecognized outside of its local contexts for most of the 20th

century. The Indian sub-continent lacked a unified political identity before it achieved

independence from British colonization in 1947. He states that because of the multiple

number of languages and performance traditions in each region of India ruled by

changing dynastic powers, resulted in limited inter-penetration of the traditions across

the boundaries. Due to this, it had been hard for the multiple localized shadow puppet

performance traditions to receive national or international exposure. There are currently

5 forms of shadow puppetry across 5 Indian states, which are Ravanachhaya from the

eastern state of Odisha, TholuBommalata of Andhra Pradesh, TogaluGombeyaata of

Karnataka, Tolpavaikoothu of Tamil Nadu and Tholpavakoothu from Kerala.

Recognizable work done on the shadow puppetry traditions of India can be traced from

the 1940s onwards by Asian and Western scholars. The literature consists of

comprehensive works that identify and describe all the shadow puppet traditions together,

11

and of works that have studied specific individual state traditions.

Amongst ancient Indian literature, references to shadow puppetry traditions can

be found in Sanskrit and Dravidian languages but are mostly short descriptive passages

about the existence of the art forms. Some of these references are the mention of ‘puppets

played in shadow’ in the Bhagavadgita section in the ancient Hindu epic of Mahabharata

(2nd century BCE) and a letter from an Italian traveler in Vijayanagar empire describing

a play using ‘transparent figures’ (1627 CE). Most of these references have contributed

to placing the beginning of the practice of the art forms temporally. The detailedness of

the references of shadow puppet traditions in Indian literature was sparse in older texts

but become clearer with time with more and more work done on it. The researcher

Seltmann (1987) suggests that a comparative lack in research and literature on the

shadow puppet play traditions in India until the 1960s is maybe because it is not a

historically Brahmanical, high-caste classical art form, and thus didn’t receive the

attention that other classical art forms received. The perception that began to circulate

due to this lack of documentation was that maybe these shadow puppet traditions were

‘lost’. This changed in 1935 when a German scholar witnessed a shadow play

performance in Karnataka and an American journalist caught a shadow puppet play in

Kerala and wrote about it confirming that the shadow puppeteers were active. After this,

the first foundation for a comprehensive compendium of Indian shadow puppetry

12

practices was laid with Western, Indian scholars and Indologists like R. Pischel, Meher

Rustom Contractor and Friedrich Seltmann publishing their findings and observations of

the performances across India. In early works like the book, Various Types of Traditional

Puppets of India (1968) by Meher Contractor, consisted of important documents of the

various puppetry traditions including shadow puppetry in. Meher Contractor’s 1984

monograph ‘The Shadow Puppets of India’ was one of India’s first comprehensive works

on traditional shadow puppetry in which information about the history, puppet history

and preparation techniques, performance techniques of all 6 state traditions of shadow

puppetry were described (Meher, 1984).

The significance of such compilation works is that it creates trajectories of the

artistic forms, and techniques of the art form and records the performances. Although in

such comprehensive literature, the details regarding the puppeteers themselves and the

effects of other social factors on the art form are not discussed. This trend was observed

in most literature of the shadow puppet traditions of that period of time. The studies done

by Indian scholars during these times were descriptive and recorded the artistic elements

and techniques and logistics of the art form. They were mostly studies done by Indian

scholars published under the Government of India’s cultural bodies. The main intent of

such studies was to ‘preserve’ and document the art forms because their practices were

declining. Salil Singh (1998) suggested that the recording and documenting factual

13

descriptions of traditional art forms is actually important as it depicts the multitudes of

techniques and artistic elements present within Indian shadow puppetry traditions. The

documentation and descriptive recording of the traditional practices of these art forms

serve as an important source of historical information for future researches. The

government recognized documentation of these shadow puppetry meant national and

even international recognition of the art forms. This gave way to more specific studies

undertaken of each state’s shadow puppet traditions like Tholpavakoothu from Kerala

which is the main focus of this study.

Tholpavakoothu

Comprehensive information on Tholpavakoothu has been compiled in various works in

the 20th century studies of the art form. The 1943 work ‘The Shadow play in Malabar’

was one of the first comprehensive articles exclusively about Tholpavakoothu (Iyer,

1943). The study describes the socio-geographical location of the art form, history of the

puppeteers, preparation of the puppets, the stage and the details regarding the

performances like the narration, the Kamba Ramayana text and the ritualistic side of the

performances. The contributions of Ramasubramaniam 's (1980) article ‘Kamban's epic

as shadow play’ analyzed the ancient palm leaf manuscripts passed down among the

14

Tholpavakoothu artist troupes. The article also consisted a glossary of terms and their

meanings used by the Tholpavakoothu artists in the narrations. The late master puppeteer

Krishnan Kutty Pulavar of the Koonathara troupe himself published two studies one in

the English and one in the Malayalam language. In his 1983 work The Ayodhyakandam

of Tolpava Koothu, the originally Tamil chapters of the Ayodhyakandam episode of

Kamba Ramayana found in old manuscripts is translated into English and published. The

Malayalam language work Tolpavakoothu - The Traditional Shadow puppet play of

Kerala, vol-1, Balakandam published in 1987 was based on the story of the birth of Rama

from palm leaf manuscripts. Tholpavakoothu is also comprehensively referred to in

academic works featured in journals like Asian Folklore Studies, Asian Theatre Journal

and Theatre Journal. Orr’s (1974) work ‘Puppet Theatre in Asia’ and Chen’s (2003) work

‘Shadow theaters of the world’ from the journal Asian Folklore Studies give

comprehensive information about shadow puppetry and of Tholpavakoothu. Just as

documentation of the art form was important in terms of the developing scholarship of

Tholpavakoothu, detailed accounts of shadow puppetry along with a study on the various

social factors connected to the art form is a very important point in understanding the art

form. From the late 60s, the socio-economic factors of the art form began to be discussed

in the literature on the shadow puppet traditions. In 1968, a special issue was released by

‘MARG’ an Indian arts magazine which consisted of information on shadow puppetry

15

along with other forms. But this work also highlighted the connection of rural Indian folk

culture to the puppetry traditions and stated the impact of Western colonization and

culture on folk culture like shadow puppet play. In Choondal’s (1978) work, the Studies

in Folklore of Kerala the hypothesis regarding the caste dynamics present in the art form

with relation to the puppeteer community performing in koothumadams1 and barred

from temples is one of the important social factors recognized in the study of the art form.

Further information about these dynamics is gained through the work of researcher

Bhanumathi and interviews with the Koonathara troupe.

Friedrich Seltmann’s 1986 book Schattenspiel in Kerala in the German language

was the first book written about Tholpavakoothu internationally, an exhaustive study on

the history of the Tholpavakoothu puppets, their history, their performance, rituals and

artistry. The study was carried out by conducting interview with puppeteers and

collecting information from the Indian census. It delineated up to 15 generation

genealogy of senior puppeteer Annamalai Pulavar and included appendices of 151

episodes of the Kamba Ramayana text used for the oral narration in the performance. The

researcher along with this put light on the social, ritualistic and religious significance of

the art form by describing caste compositions, etc. Researcher Salil Singh suggested that

the work even though extensive, paid minimal attention to the puppeteer’s role in the art

1 Koothumadam- also called playhouse or drama-house are permanent structures for performances, unique

to Tholpavakoothu

16

form.

In 1990 the artist and the researcher G. Venu’s books Tolpavakoothu: The

Shadow puppets of Kerala (1990) and Puppetry and lesser-known dance traditions of

Kerala (2004) were published which serve as short but comprehensive guides to the art

form of Tholpavakoothu. In Tolpavakoothu: The Shadow puppets of Kerala along with

the details of the artistry of the art form, the researcher charts the effects of the changing

socio-economic environments on the art form and lives of the artists. In the second book,

Venu (2004) remarks some major changes taking place in the lives of the artists and the

art form. He states that the artists did not traditionally depend on the art form for

livelihood, but that begins to change with the modern economic culture. He also charts

the decline in the participation of younger generations in the traditional art form and in

turn, decline in the number of temples where performances take place, due to the

popularity of other mass media like television and cinema.

The lack in participation of the younger puppeteers in the art form causing

degradation in the quality of the performances was a view shared by the researcher Stuart

Blackburn. Stuart Blackburn’s work Inside the Drama House: Rama stories and shadow

puppets in South India published in year 1996 was majorly built on Friedrich Seltmann’s

work. The aim of the research was to observe how the art form has ‘recontextualized’ and

adapted the Kamba Ramayana text for narration. The book contains compilations of the

17

oral narrations made during the performances and their meanings. Blackburn’s

methodology largely consisted of sitting in the koothumadam and observing the

performance and behavior of the artists themselves. This allowed him to observe the art

form from the artists’ point of view towards the audience leading to the conception of the

term the ‘absent audience’. Being a Western scholar, the surprise in his text about the

artists importantly performing only for the goddess instead of people is very evident. The

researcher views Tholpavakoothu as a verbal art form more than visual unlike other

puppetry art forms he has observed.

Researcher Salil Singh (1998) criticizes this conclusion and through his work

attempts to identify and depict the ‘visual aesthetic’ of the art form. The researcher

highlights the need to include the viewpoint of the artists as well as the audience in the

study of the art form. The work on Tholpavakoothu so far had documented the art form

from the point of view of an audience, an onlooker, a researcher. Researcher Salil Singh’s

work on Tholpavakoothu in 1998 attempted to fill in this discrepancy by writing about

the shadow puppetry tradition of Tholpavakoothu based on the artist, i.e. the puppeteer’s

understanding of the art form which he felt was missing in the scholarship on the art form.

He uses the term the ‘puppeteer’s art form’ to study the art form with the main focus

being the work of the later master puppeteer Krishnan Kutty Pulavar and his troupe and

the journey of their performances, the changes in their artistry and their motivations as

18

artists. Singh (1998) rightly hypothesized in the thesis that the artists will likely have to

compress the long narratives part of their performances in order to adjust to the changing

audiences and artists and in order to ‘revitalize’ Tholpavakoothu. According to Salil

Singh (1998), the study on Tholpavakoothu has been done in generally two ways. The

first group is of researchers like Seltmann, Blackburn, etc. whose work has basically

brought the existence of the art form to the forefront by documenting and cataloging the

trajectory of the art form and translating the narratives. The second group is of researchers

like Bhanumathi, Venu, etc. who have built on the recorded works of the first group and

provided limited perspectives on the other social factors of the art form. Thus, Salil Singh

suggested that both these approaches can be problematic in that they use linear

approaches to understand the art form. He remarks that they delved too much into the

complexities of the art form and tend to minimalize the fact that each aspect of the art

form is in the making by the artists as they perform. Thus, for Singh it is most important

to keep the artist, the puppeteer as the locus point while studying the art form.

The 2004 work A study on the status of traditional shadow puppetry and

puppeteers of South India by researcher Bhanumathi attempted to continue to fill this gap

by documenting the art form and by interviewing and collecting case studies of 3

puppeteers from different troupes. The researcher enquired into the family history, their

history with Tholpavakoothu as performers and scholars, their skills and techniques, their

19

occupation and income, their social and economic problems as well as the struggles of

the art form and their future plans regarding the practice of the art form. This study indeed

made references to various social, artistic factors of the art form from its beginning to the

modern. Post this, the art form went through a period of sabbatical during the period of

2000-2010 as stated by the puppeteer Rahul Pulavar. No new processed works of

Tholpavakoothu came out during this period which also reflected in the scholarly

literature on the art form. Although after 2010, as the art form picked up again under the

leadership of master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar, the literature on the art form

diversified into news articles, video documentaries, and online documentation along with

scholarly articles.

The most recent scholarly literature on Tholpavakoothu have been researcher

Claudia Orenstein’s article ‘Forging New Paths for Kerala’s Tolpavakoothu Leather

Shadow Puppetry Tradition’ in the book The Routledge Companion to Puppetry and

Material Performance (2014) and ‘Women in Indian puppetry: Negotiating traditional

roles and new possibilities’ (2015) which was published in the Asian Theatre Journal.

The existence of the Tholpavakoothu has been centralized by the researcher in her work.

She charted the traditional aspects of the art form, the changes that threatened the

existence of the art form and then charts the eclectic strategies used by the artists to

‘renew’ the art form. She suggests that balancing the traditional arts with new

20

performances and opportunities would be an advantageous move for the Tholpavakoothu

artists. Salil Singh in the work, ‘If Gandhi could fly’ (2001) presents a dichotomous take

on which way the shadow puppet play traditions would develop in modern India. It hints

either towards a complete loss in authenticity in an attempt to modernize it, or that it

would cling onto its traditions, stay stagnant and be abandoned by the audiences and

artists. The researcher leaves the analysis of the probable fate of the art form’s place in

modern India entirely up to the artists’ will.

The modern literature on Tholpavakoothu attempts to look at the strategies that

the artists undertake to continue the practice of art form. Although in such literature, a

demarcation is made between traditional and modern and depicts the changes in the art

form’s practices as transitional. Also, in these studies, the practices are termed ‘traditional’

or ‘modern’ without taking into account of how both terms have multiple definitions and

are complex social processes. It assumes that changes take place in the art form only in

the current times. In my study, the traditional and new practices of the art form are charted

chronologically and elaborately. The study delineates the current scenario of the art form

and the strategies of the artists in terms of the functioning of the art form. It also takes

the recent COVID-19 into consideration to analyze how these strategies change due to

the influence of the pandemic on the current social reality. The dichotomy of ‘traditional’

and ‘modern’ is problematized so as to understand the processes behind the strategies

21

that have been historically used by the artists. The study also identifies the role of the

audience and patrons/sponsors in the changing and continuance of the art form.

Beyond the dichotomy of tradition and modernity: Theoretical concepts

Traditional art forms in India have been changing with the changing society as suggested

by many scholars and their work on art forms. Tholpavakoothu has also gone through

many changes. When a society goes through changes, there are changes in the symbols,

mechanisms, and value systems. The polarized understanding of ‘tradition’ and

‘modernity’ in the context of social change assumes a linear transition of society from

traditional past to modernized future. The usage of binaries is structuralist and comes

from the assumption that the meanings of the two concepts are fixed and thus cannot

interact with one another. But a post-structuralist perspective suggests that the meanings

of traditional and modern each can differ a lot based on the socio-historical processes it

underwent. The interaction between the processes of traditional and modernization does

not always create conflicts or lead to one negating the other and can have different results.

According to Gusfield’s (1967) paper ‘Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in

the Study of Social Change’, modernity does not displace traditions completely and

weaken and replace it. Joseph R. Gusfield enlisted 7 fallacies in the assumption of

22

traditional-modernity dichotomy to view culture. The researcher does so in the context

of changes in Indian culture. Tradition and modern have been and can be defined in

various ways depending on its culture. Thus, this study attempts to problematize a

dichotomous way of looking at culture as traditional or modern in the specific context of

Tholpavakoothu. The changes occurred in Tholpavakoothu have not always been

structural and linear. The traditional aspects of the art form as we know it today have not

always been homogenous and have gone through processes to develop into what it is

today. The traditional ritualistic, Hindu temple shadow puppetry art form is a product of

many processes and adaptations. In the same way, the modern innovations of the art form

are a result of many historical processes and factors.

In the context of Indian traditional art, Parker (2013) picks up from Milton

Singer’s study of the dichotomy of tradition and modernization in Madras (present-day

Chennai, Tamil Nadu), and agrees with Singer in that one of the Indian culture’s strategies

is one of pragmatically ‘compartmentalizing’ the apparently contradictory Indian

spiritual traditional practices and modern economic practices.

According to Milton Singer (1972), cultural performances ‘encapsulated’ the

cultural heritage and beliefs of the people implying that these performances had a

‘meaning’ of their own depending on their own unique settings. This influenced a trend

of looking at art forms more closely rather than just the documentation of it. Singer’s

23

work in the area of socio-cultural change in the traditional culture of India attempts to

problematize the dichotomy of traditional and modern. Milton Singer’s concept of

compartmentalization grows from the understanding of Indians co-existing in a social

environment where the traditional and modern are contradictory and conflicting. Singer

calls ‘compartmentalization’ a modus vivendi undertaken by Indians to categorize and

manage the traditional and modern practices. According to him the interaction of

traditional and modernity can create conflicts and so Indian culture compartmentalizes

the two. This kind of notion is challenged by post-structuralists studying social change

as they say that the interaction of tradition and modern does not always result in conflict.

Subsequent literature from Indian scholar Ramanujan (1990) added to this notion of

compartmentalization with the theme of a certain context-sensitivity practiced by Indians

while compartmentalizing practices. He also recognizes the fact that modernization is not

so neatly contained and that frequent interactions take place between the both. In this

study, I use the ideas of an Indian way of context-sensitivity (Ramanujan, 1990), tradition

as a process (Waterson, 2014), multiple modernities (Eisenstadt, 2000) and the fallacies

of the polarity of traditional and modernity in social change (Gusfield, 1967) to look at

how traditional communities of artists like Tholpavakoothu actually balance the

processes of traditional and modern practices.

There are fewer in-depth studies on the role of changing social environments in

24

the transformational cultural change in shadow puppet theatre forms of Kerala. This study

problematizes unilinear ways of looking at the way Tholpavakoothu develops. A

transitional approach does not adequately explain how a group of artists have managed

to keep an art form and its practices alive for centuries. Thus, this thesis bridges the gaps

between the history and the contemporary practices of the art form by looking at both

tradition and modern as heterogenous processes. This study places the locus on the artists,

the audience and the patrons and the changing social environments around the artists in

order to understand the development of the art form. The next section discusses how the

study has been approached.

25

Methods

The research for this study was done over a year from 2019 to 2020. In March 2020 I

visited the town of Shoranur in the Palakkad district of the state of Kerala in southern

India. Over the course of 10 days I visited the house of the Koonathara troupe of

Tholpavakoothu artists, interviewed the puppeteers and watched their temple and stage

performances. On the 1st of March, I visited the home of the Pulavar family of the

Koonathara troupe and conducted an interview session with the young generation

puppeteers Rajeev and Rahul Pulavar. I asked them with open-ended questions about the

historical and contemporary state of the art form and their experience as new generation

puppeteers. They showed me the puppets usually used by the troupe and the stage that

they set up at home to perform for tourists and visitors. I got a look at their workshop and

the puppets kept up for sale. On the same night, I attended a ritualistic performance at the

Kozhimamparambu temple at Cheruthuruthi and made notes about the performance and

audience. the performance was one night amongst 14 nights. It is difficult to understand

the narratives during the ritualistic performances as they are basically done in Sanskrit

and Tamil and I am not proficient in either. This study doesn’t delve into the specifics of

narrations and only notes the changes in themes and styles. On 2nd March, I interviewed

master puppeteer KK Ramachandra Pulavar and once again conducted an open-ended

26

interview about the state and the changes in the art form. I audio-recorded these

interviews and later transcribed it to use as data for the research. The translation process

from Malayalam to English was done by me, I also got to see his performance on the 4th

of March at the Kadapparambathu Kav Temple in Ongallur. It was a traditional ritualistic

performance. On 3rd and 7th March, I watched ritualistic temple performances at the

Kavussery Temple and observed more local participation and asked some locals about

their experience with the art form. On 6th March, I watched a shortened version of the

Ramayana being played at the Balabadradevi temple in Shoranur and on 10th watched a

20-minute version stage performance of the art form. In my study, I have noted my

observations of the different versions of the art form based on the changing social

environment.

Unfortunately, the events on 8th and 9th of March March were cancelled due to

the ongoing Corona virus scare. I observed the activities of the Koonathara troupe during

the COVID-19 induced lockdown by attending their online performances, tracking their

social media updates and conducting a virtual phone interview with puppeteer Rahul

Pulavar about the artists’ struggles during the pandemic.

Through my field research I explored the question of how and why the art form

has been changing with the changing social environment around it. This is a qualitative

study that attempted to use a bottom-up approach. Information from the interviews and

27

performances were collected and observed through field research and was built upon by

comparing it with theoretical concepts of traditional and modernity to understand the life

of the artists and the culture that influences their engagement with the art form. A

synchronic perspective looks at the subject and studies considering it only in the moment,

and not considering the history of it. For an art form with a history as lengthy as

Tholpavakoothu, a diachronic perspective helps to look at its evolution and the

adjustments and adaptive strategies it uses in contemporary times. This helps to

understand the periodic processes of cultural changes an art form like Tholpavakoothu

goes through for its continued practice.

Hence, the study first introduces and analyzes the history of the art form. It then

charts the growth of the art form in the modern times followed by the observations from

the field research and interviews. It then problematizes the dichotomous model of

tradition-modern to view Indian culture and attempts to apply this to understand the

various forms of adaptive strategies the art form has been undertaking to continue as an

art form. Thus, this study attempts to understand how the art form continues its practice

with the changing times. It attempts to look beyond the dichotomous views of looking at

the art form’s growth and attempts to understand the actual processes involved in the

evolution of the art forms in modern times and during COVID-19.

28

History of Tholpavakoothu: The Traditional

“Our history, shadow puppetry is believed to be the first art form in the world. It comes

from holiness, nature, sunlight, shadow, and human movement itself.” said the thirteenth-

generation puppeteer KK Ramachandra Pulavar (R. Pulavar, personal communication,

March 2, 2020). He says, “As the first man danced, his shadows danced along with him.

This was the precursor for shadow puppetry and so also for drama and movies” (Theodore,

2019).

Tholpavakoothu as described earlier is a form of shadow puppetry from the

Palakkad, Thrissur and Malappuram districts of the south-western state of Kerala in

modern India and was part of the Malabar region before the formation of independent

India. The word Tholpavakoothu is a combination of the 3 Tamil terms that is, thol which

means leather, pava which means doll and koothu which means play. Traditionally

Tamilian and of the Tamil language, the art form now is situated in the state of Kerala

where Malayalam is the majorly used language. It has been classified as a folk-art form,

ritualistic temple art form, verbal ritual performance, and traditional shadow puppet

theatre art form. The art form is mainly described as a performance ritually conducted

using leather puppets for goddess Bhadrakali in permanent theatres called koothumadams

and started using Kamba Ramayana by the poet Kambar as its basic text after its

29

adaptation by puppeteer Chinnathampi Vadhyar. The history of the origin of the shadow

puppetry art form of Tholpavakoothu is charted, debated, questioned and some parts left

remaining unknown. To understand the history of Tholpavakoothu, it is important to

investigate the history of how traditional shadow puppetry came to be in Kerala in the

first place.

1.1.Shadow Puppetry in India

References to shadow theatre and shadow puppets in ancient India seem to have been

made through words like rupani dasayitu janesa in the 4th rock edict of Ashoka and

rupparupnkam of Therigatha (Buddhist tenet) and the Sitabenga caves seem to be used

for the purpose of shadow puppet theatre shows (Varadapande, 1987 and Keith, 1992 as

cited in Bhanumathi, 2004, p.13). Shadow puppetry can be found in the western state of

Maharashtra known as Charma bahuli natya and known as Ravanachhaya in the eastern

state of Odisha. The other southern Indian counterparts of Tholpavakoothu are Tholu

Bommalata of Andhra Pradesh, the Togalu Gombeyaata of Karnataka and Tolpavaikoothu

of Tamil Nadu. Shadow play in India is extremely diverse.

In the Dravidian languages of south India, Pava, Bonirna, and Gombe mean toy

or a doll. These flat shadow puppets or dolls are artistically operated with meaning laden

in its each movement behind a cloth screen with light on it strategically placed to

30

showcase the shadows of the puppets to the viewers. Such shadow puppet theatre

performances are considered to be the oldest form of puppetry by scholars and, debates

about its origin being from India or from China, exist (Bhanumathi, 2004, p.10). The

beginning of Tholpavakoothu can be traced back by looking at the development of the

shadow puppetry traditions in South India and also by focusing on the development of

shadow puppetry in the areas that are now under independent India’s Kerala. Earliest

references to shadow puppetry in south India can be found in the literary work called

Thiruvasagam, a system of philosophy and religion composed by the saint poet

Manikavachagar before A.D. 898 and then other references after 10th century A.D

(Bhanumathi, 2004, p.13). In the 10th century A.D., ancient descriptions and the nature of

small cave-theatre like Sitabenga caves refer to saubhika, that is the one who is a picture

showman or storyteller and in Mair’s work is interpreted as someone who “through a

screen made of sticks and cloth shows various individual characters at nighttime and

performs in caves using artificial illumination” (Mair, 2019, p.2). A 12th century reference

from a Buddhist chronicle from Ceylon (present day Sri Lanka) called Mahavamsa speaks

of showmen who performed with song, dance and presented leather figures and that they

were Tamil and other people who were also employed as spies (Coomaraswamy, 1927, p.

627 cited in Stache-Rosen, 1976). This adds to the references that suggest that shadow

puppet traditions were found in south of India as well as other Tamil regions now not part

31

of modern Indian territory.

1.2.Shadow puppetry in South India

Southern India’s history is of over four thousand years and is one full of many dynasties

and empires ruling and falling. There are prehistoric, ancient, and medieval traces of

culture, inscriptions, and evidences of various dynasties that rose to power, and influenced

the region right until the Independence of India from Western colonization. The entire

southern Indian region that was previously divided based on the ruling powers into

various empires, princely states, kingdoms, presidencies and provinces, after the Indian

Independence in 1947, was organized into states. Owing to the increasing demands of a

state reorganization in the country, the Parliament of India put in effect, the States

Reorganization Act of 1956 which reorganized the boundaries of India’s territories and

states based on language used. In this way, the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil

Nadu, Kerala and the most recent in 2014, Telangana was born (under separate lines). In

modern India, each state can be explained as being of different cultures. In that way, each

state tradition of shadow puppetry has its own, individual history and development,

similarities and differences and influences on each other pertaining to the regions it

belongs to. Before the reorganization, one of the two major princely states in Kerala- the

Malabar region (where Tholpavakoothu is performed) had been part of the Tamil region,

32

Madras province and eventually Madras state. Thus, for the purpose of understanding the

history of Tholpavakoothu, it is most important to focus on the exchange of culture of

shadow puppets between the neighboring states of present-day Tamil Nadu and Kerala

specifically.

Fig.1: Map of Southern India

Source: South India Map Black and White. http://www.mapsopensource.com/south-

india-map-black-and-white.html

Table 1: Shadow Puppetry Traditions in South India

Andhra Pradesh- Tholubommalatta

Karnataka- Togalubombeatta

Tamil Nadu- Tholubommalattam

Kerala- Tholpavakoothu

33

1.3. Shadow puppetry in Kerala: Tholpavakoothu

Fig 2: Map of Kerala and three districts where Tholpavakoothu is mainly practiced

Source: Kerala Map. http://www.mapsopensource.com/kerala-map.html

In a very important text on the shadow puppetry play of Kerala, ‘Inside the Drama House’,

the author Stuart Blackburn (1996) traces Tholpavakoothu’s origin in Kerala as late as the

17th century remarking it as a variation of a tradition brought to the older Tamil regions

by Maratha settlers. But the researcher Salil Singh who also wrote extensively about

Tholpavakoothu questions this by presenting the various references of a much earlier

tradition of shadow puppetry in the entire south Indian region. There have been references

of the intermingling of the styles of shadow puppetry across south India and influences

Malappuram

Palakkad

Thrissur

34

of the Maratha pictorial style due to the Maratha empire’s rule in southern India of the

17th century, especially on the puppets of the Tamil, Andhra and Karnataka regions (Singh,

1998, p.60).

Singh then also places the modern Malayalam-speaking state of Kerala’s shadow

puppet tradition ‘Tholpavakoothu’ itself as a tradition that can be traced back to before

the 17th century. The exact origins of Tholpavakoothu are not precisely found amongst

the trajectory of temple shadow puppet traditions in India. Although, the development of

the art form can be traced through the cultural, historical and linguistic processes that it

went through to be the unique traditional shadow puppetry art form that it is today.

In the 2013 blog page of master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar, it is stated that

it is believed that Tholpavakoothu goes back 1200 years and began in the 9th or 10th

century, a belief also iterated by his father master puppeteer Krishnan Kutty Pulavar. So,

it can be said that the tradition’s practices and rituals have developed over a long time. In

my interview with the puppeteers of the Kavalappara troupe, puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar

stated that they can trace about 8 of their ancestors performing Tholpavakoothu but added

that researchers traced 13 generations of their traditional family who have been

performing this ritualistic art form. This makes Rajeev Pulavar and his brother Rahul

Pulavar, part of the 14th generation as their father, the master puppeteer Ramachandra

Pulavar is part of the 13th generation of traditional performers. The art form traditionally

35

places importance to the ancestry of the performers as there are palm leaf texts with verses

that pay homage to old teachers as suggested by one of the oldest living puppeteers

Annamalai Pulavar, and pays tribute to these old teachers in invocations sung at the

beginning of the performances. Researcher G. Venu (1990, p.26) who has worked

extensively with traditional arts of Kerala, indicates that these invocations name two

generations of puppeteers Kuzhiyathu Kandappezhuthachan, Venmaya Pulavar and then

Chinnathampi Vadhyar who was the first performer to adapt the Kamba Ramayana text

by poet Kambar for shadow puppetry performance. This opens a vista into the narrative

of the history of Tholpavakoothu because this proves that the tradition of using Kambar’s

text was introduced at a later time. G. Venu (1990, p.26) states that even before Kamba

Ramayanam, Tholpavakoothu was definitely being performed in the Bhadrakali temples

of Kerala. Master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar in our interview said that before

Kambar’s text gained popularity, it was Tamil folk stories like Nallathangal,

Harishchandran nadagam and others that were famous and used in the shadow puppet

performances. This suggests that mythology entered and assimilated into the traditional

trajectory of Tholpavakoothu at some point after the 12th Century because Kambar lived,

worked and wrote the 11,000 stanzas of Kamba Ramayanam in the 12th century C.E. This

could be seen as one of the most prominent changes that occurred in the ‘tradition’ of

Tholpavakoothu as Kamba Ramayanam changed the course of the art form for the next

36

generations that followed.

1.4. The Traditional

Tradition is a term that can be difficult to define because of the extensive work done

related with the term, and also because it is seen as a term that everyone is aware of

because of the commonality of its usage. Indeed, Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre

sees this nature of tradition being extremely debatable as a strength. The definition and

function of defining something as ‘traditional’ can differ with different cultural artifacts

such as traditional arts, traditional narratives, traditional rituals, traditional beliefs,

traditional modes of transmission, etc. (MacIntyre, 2020). Generally, traditions are

culturally identified, practiced patters of social enactments passed down through

generations. According to MacIntyre, tradition is a set of inherited practices, an implicit

knowledge of the ways to perform even in the absence of formulated rules and regulations.

Nineteenth century thought looked at traditions as unchanging, and immemorial. But 20th

century folklorists delve into more complexities of tradition, i.e. looking into a more

complex relationship between the past and the present in terms of past preceding the

present and present reflecting the past. Traditions can die out if they are no longer able to

accommodate any new ideas and don’t fulfill their particular social purposes. Traditions

can also go through changes or transformations or adapt when other traditions appear as

37

better fitted alternatives for the specific social and temporal requirements (Cohen, 2007).

In the Indian case, anthropologist Milton Singer (1971, p.6) argues and is seconded by

Indian Sociologist M.N. Srinivas (1956) that traditional Indian society was not resistant

to change and adapted and continued with strategies that have evolved over time. Singer

departs from the ‘traditional’ as something that is stagnant

Thus, a tradition of Tholpavakoothu performance existed in Kerala even before

the entrance of Kamba Ramayana, and the eventual introduction of the epic, mythological

text serves as an excellent example of changes in tradition. The Kamba Ramayana text

made its way from the Tamil region to the Palghat/Palakkad region (present central-

Kerala), the region through which River Bharatappuzha flows and shadow puppet play is

performed. A trade route has been identified along the Bharatappuzha River and the text

was supposedly brought to Kerala by Tamil weavers, traders and merchants (Mannadiyar,

Chettiyar and Mudaliyar) owing to their involvement in the Rama cult and with Kambar’s

literature generally.

38

Fig 3: Map of River Bharatappuzha flowing through areas in Kerala where

Tholpavakoothu is performed

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bharathapuzha_map.PNG

1.5. Caste Dynamics in Tholpavakoothu

A composer of the Chettiyar community, Chinnathampi Pulavar, an aficionado of the

Ramayana was the first person to have adapted the verses from Kamba Ramayana for

shadow puppetry in Kerala apparently in the late 1700s (Blackburn, 1996, p.46).

According to local stories, he supposedly did so to present the Kamba Ramayana to

ordinary people irrespective of their caste through the medium of shadow puppetry. It is

said that the motivation behind this was an incident when Chinnathampi Pulavar went to

a Brahmin’s (priest- higher caste (avarna)) house to attend a recitation of Valmiki

Ramayana (the original Sanskrit text) but was refrained from doing so because of his

lower caste (savarna) status being a non-Brahmin. Such exclusion based on the caste

39

system in many public spaces, applied to religion, ritual, art, literature, civil service and

political leadership (Perinbanayagam, 1971, p.207). Thus, it can be said that by adopting

the Tamil Kamba Ramayana in shadow play, Chinnathampi Pulavar’s innovation

revolutionized the art form to transmit a popular Bramanical, Hindu, Sanskrit epic in its

Tamil format instead to the ordinary, non-Brahmins who spoke the indigenous languages.

This can be seen as a resistance to the Brahmanical hegemony through art, and

democratization of presentation of a Brahmanical text. Master puppeteer Ramachandra

Pulavar deems it as a very important point to see that the art form was revolutionary even

at its inception, as the audience could constitute people from any and all communities.

The general disassociation of Tholpavakoothu from the higher caste Brahmins

(priests) in the context of its creation can be perhaps traced back to the caste, lifestyles,

beliefs and scholarship of communities that were involved in shadow puppet play, and

Kambar’s literature. Firstly, Kambar himself was born of a caste of temple servants and

musicians, and the editors and commentators of Kambar’s text were non-Brahmins

communities like Mutaliyars. In fact, the Brahmins in south India had always associated

themselves and followed rituals according to the original Sanskrit Valmiki Ramayana.

Secondly, it was non-Brahmin itinerant groups that led nomadic lives from present day

Tamil regions who brought the art of shadow puppetry storytelling with them to Kerala

40

along the river Bharatappuzha (River Nila). Other communities like the Nayar families

in Kerala were also performers of shadow puppetry.

1.6.The Puppeteer Community

According to master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar (R. Pulavar, personal

communication, March 2, 2020), the earlier Tamil performers of shadow puppetry

travelled along the Bharatappuzha river with bullock carts and would perform various

folk stories place to place in their bullock carts. They would talk about the stories of

Nallathangal, Kourankatha, Harishchandra and would perform with puppets late into the

night. As stated above, the mythological Hindu epic Kamba Ramayana only made an

entrance at a later point of time into the art form along with various other beliefs. He

explained that the Vaishnava caste businessmen communities (worshippers of deity

Vishnu) who travelled for business would be accompanied by the Shaiva community

(worshipers of deity Shiva) who were speakers and orators and would travel and observe

the villages especially in December after the temple ulsavam (festivals). Adding that the

styles of performances differed with different gramam (villages), the puppeteer said that

the community of performers he belongs to were not travelling performers and instead

performed in permanent theatres called koothumadam. Belonging to the Shaiva faith,

41

being speakers and orators, the origin of their community-the Kavalappara sangam

(assemblies of Tamil scholars and poets) being from Thanjavur (present day Tamil Nadu)

is debated. The Kavalappara sangam was the latest group that was formed. The main 5

puppet troupes or Sangams of Kerala were Mathoor sangam, Puthoor sangam,

Palappuram sangam, Karippodu sangam and Kollengode sangam groups. The

Kavalappara Sangam belonged to the Puthoor sangam at first and was the only troupe to

perform the entire Ramayana from start to end (Balakandam to Yudhakandam). The

Kavalappara kingdom’s King bought this troupe in the 1740s for a specific price and

relocated them from Puthoor to the Kavalappara kingdom (ancient Nedunganad, present

day Palghat/Palakkad, Kerala) to perform at the Aryankaavu temple for 21 days regularly.

The story goes such that the Kavalappara king did not have the luck of an offspring which

worried him. An oracle then said that conducting Tholpavakoothu rituals would solve this

problem and so this troupe of performers with highly learned puppeteers were brought to

perform. This shift gave the troupe a naadu (country, village- home base), a

nagaram (city- hometown) to settle in and land for farming. The group relocated there

and, in those days, the ritual performances, the pava (puppetry) work and the

koothumadam (theatre) work were done after the farming work and after the harvest

season. In the 18th, it was the Kavalappara King who helped and funded new innovations

in the art form by supporting the making of new puppets, adding new colors, and

42

supporting modern changes. A difference in the Kavalappara puppets in comparison to

the Chalissery puppets can be seen due to this. The Kavalppara kingdom welcomed in

new ‘artists’ for the puppet making, and for the kotthu work (the carvings in the puppets);

provided resources for new color making, which introduced much more innovations

in coloring the puppets. The Kavalappara kingdom in that way, helped to characterize a

distinct Kavalappara style of shadow puppets, and provided the sangam with a lot of

creative support. Due to this the Kavalappara sangam could properly establish itself in

present day Shoranur, Kerala and they continue to perform to this day. They think of it as

a lucky event because on the other hand, other artists from the group of Mathoor sangam,

as well as the entire Kollengode sangam itself doesn’t exist anymore due to inactivity (R.

Pulavar, personal communication, March 2, 2020). Thus, communities such as the artists

of the Kavalappara sangam, that travelled or were bought and relocated, established

themselves, brought with them the ancient Tamil shadow puppet traditions and along with

it the various cultural factors like their language, beliefs, art styles, and teachings that

were further influenced by their new surroundings and also influenced the culture of the

new places they settled in.

Basically, because the Palghat/Palakkad region (where the shadow puppets

flourished and are performed) has been a borderland between the Tamil and Kerala

regions, culture has always intermingled and the same is true for the intermingling of

43

languages, beliefs, myths, and shadow puppet traditions in this area. Tamil language had

been the dominant literary language until the development of Malayalam due to Sanskrit’s

influence in the 13th or 14th century. Thus, because the Tamil shadow puppet communities

travelled and settled in these borderlands, the Malayalam language began to seep into the

speech of the puppeteers to be able to satisfy their Malayalam speaking patrons. The

Malayalam language then naturally also made its way into narrations of Tamil texts by

the puppeteers including the Kamba Ramayana, bringing changes to the Tamil text and

traditions. The local dialects were also intentionally used by the puppeteers to connect

better with audiences who might find it difficult to understand Sanskrit.

1.7.Beliefs and Myths

Along with communities that brought Tholpavakoothu to the Palghat/Palakkad region in

Kerala and Tholpavakoothu’s strong literary connection to the Kamba Ramayana text, the

religious beliefs and myths that connect the art form and artist to Kerala’s folk culture are

important to understand the performance, logistics, function and further development of

the art form. Shadow puppet theatre developed and formed its own distinct characteristics

cased on the indigenous culture whichever civilization it was introduced and settled into

(Chen, 2003, p.49).

44

Traditionally, Tholpavakoothu in Kerala was performed in koothumadams

(drama houses) i.e. permanent theatres situated outside but within the premises of

Bhagavathi (meaning- goddess), Bhadrakali, 2 and Mariamman temples specifically

spread across the Palghat/Palakkad, Malappuram and Thrissur districts in central Kerala.

Although the art form narrated the story of Rama, the hero through Kamba Ramaya, the

art form was also based on myths of Lord Shiva and Goddess Bhadrakali due to the Shaiva

and Vaishnava background of the puppets and the popularity of Goddess Bhadrakali in

Kerala respectively. The stories of Rama appeared in Tamil literature before Kambar’s

interpretation but Rama Bhakti, i.e. devotion to a hero, or God Rama was not part of the

folk religion of south India (Blackburn, 1996, p.41). It is suggested that in pre-modern

times, Rama was not being worshipped and was seen as a model, a King. Kamba

Ramayana in that case was a cult classic, because this text set off a popularity of the ‘Hero

Rama’ in folk religions of south India and also influenced stories of Rama in Southeast

Asia. In the case of Tholpavakoothu, Rama did eventually integrate with the local legends,

but was still not situated at the center of the art form, but amongst the base legends of

Goddess Bhadrakali and God Shiva.

In a study on the culture of myth and legends on the banks of river Bharatappuzha,

the researcher Hashik (2012, p.225) suggests that in the context of folklores, myths have

2 Bhagavathi and Bhadrakali are used interchangeably by puppeteers.

45

the ability to migrate and proliferate across larger geographical spheres (like Ramayana),

while local legends (like Bhadrakali’s legends) that are deep rooted in their localized

spaces shape local aspirations, ideologies and worldviews. Although the goddess is a pan-

India myth, Bhadrakali as the local people’s goddess had a systematic effect on shadow

puppetry and the puppeteer communities that settled in Kerala, brought their strong

beliefs in Shiva and Rama and were further ingrained by Bhagavathi.

Tholpavakoothu is said to be performed in the first place for the Goddess

Bhadrakali, and according to an interview of a puppeteer, the puppet play is known

amongst locals as “a drama for Bhagavathi” (Blackburn, 1996, p.51). In Kerala,

Bhagavathi is a predominant deity which is evident in the high number of Bhagavathy-

Bhadrakali temples it houses, and the case in point would be the whopping number of

more than 200 Bhagavathi shrines/ kavu (sacred groves) just along the Bharatappuzha

River (Caldwell, 1996, pp. 195-226 in Hawley and Wulff, 1996). There are several,

differing myths regarding the origin/birth of the goddess among various non-Brahmin,

non-Sanskritic communities but is generally a feared and respected goddess of protection

and destruction. Bhadrakali/Kali is intrinsically tied with the Lord Shiva because the word

‘kali’ comes from poison ‘kaalakoota’ stuck in Shiva’s neck. Worshipped in the form of

Bhadrakali, the most common myth in Kerala is Dharikavadham, and in many of its

versions she kills the powerful demon Dharika and was in return blessed by her creator

46

Shiva to become the people’s goddess in Kerala. Especially among the banks of the river

Bharatappuzha where shadow puppets thrived, many ritual performances of worship are

seen offered to Bhadrakali. Worshipping and performances traditionally took place in the

kavu (sacred groves) along the Bharatappuzha river, and each kavu had a different legend

attached to it. Tholpavakoothu is one of the important ancient ritualistic performances

that took place in the premises of these Bhadrakali temples and performed as a ritual

votive offering to the goddess herself. The performance is supported by various legends

and myths, but the one that seems to be the most common is a certain sankalpam

(Malayalam word meaning concept or idea, and in Sanskrit meaning the

reason/motivation to perform to achieve a goal). According to the puppeteer of

Kavalappara sangam- Rajeev Pulavar, the performers build an image (sankalpam) of the

Goddess watching them perform the Ramayana story and conduct the rituals for her. The

most common myth behind is that when Goddess Bhadrakali who was created by Shiva

was busy fighting the demon Dharika, Lord Rama in the north of India was busy battling

the Lankan King Ravana. Having missed this epic battle and having heard all the locals

and Gods talking about the battle, Bhadrakali expressed to her father Shiva her wish of

witnessing the great Rama-Ravana battle. This led to Shiva sending her to the Earth and

see the Ramayana story be enacted for her to view through shadow puppetry/

Tholpavakoothu by the Nayar community. In another myth, a victorious Bhadrakali is

47

told that Rama’s victory over Ravana was superior to hers, and to compare the two battles,

Shiva performs the whole story of Rama from birth, battle to his coronation through

Tholpavakoothu. The ritualistic art form and artists heavily relies on beliefs constructed

of these local legends, and incorporated myths in many ways and for many purposes.

These ambivalent beliefs are transmitted and reproduced in every aspect, action and

tradition of Tholpavakoothu and are the base behind the sankalpam, logistics and carrying

out of the ritualistic performances.

1.8.The Puppets

Starting with the basics, the puppets of the Tholpavakoothu are of the opaque, silhouette

type and were traditionally made of deerskin of the Spotted deer (Axis axis), Sambar deer

(Cervus unicolor) and Antelope hide because it is considered sacred and also the skin is

thick which makes it a better material in terms of presentation through shadow and

durability of this material (R. Pulavar, personal communication, March 1, 2020). This is

also because a mystical deer is an important character in the Rama story considered

‘divine’ by the puppeteers. The traditional preparation process of puppets included

48

treating the skin with water and ash, sun-drying the hide, salt treatment, hair removal with

bamboo tools, drawing and carving out the desired shape, using chisels to make holes

called kotthu work and coloring the puppets for differentiating and identifying them

(Bhanumathi, 2004, p.117). Traditionally, items that were available in the natural vicinity

were made use of. For example, the colors used to paint the puppets were vegetable dyes

procured from trees like Champpanga, Kasav and Neeli, and the regularly used black

color was a mixture of gum from leaves of the veppa tree and black soot that are found in

lit and used coconut lamps. The puppets were thus, ritually created and can be traced into

how every step of the kotthu work has some ritualistic relevance, for example, cutting out

the head and facial feature like eyes and mouths of the puppets was the last step because

opening its eye and mouth meant giving life to the puppet (R. Pulavar, personal

communication, March 1, 2020). Venu (1990) who has worked extensively on the shadow

puppets of Kerala organized these puppets into 4 categories based on their postures, i.e.

Nirthu (standing), Iruthu (sitting), Nadathu (walking), and Yuddha (fighting). 130 or

more puppets are used for the entire Ramayana story, because the representation of all

the main characters in all these postures, and with movable hands and limbs made by

creating joints on the puppets, are seen carrying out many actions as per the story and for

the visual effect in the play. Puppets of main characters, animals, narrators, mythical

creatures, rituals, of brahmins are all part of the narration and are all prepared in specific

49

sizes, for specific reasons and depictions that fit the narratives. The storage and

maintenance of the puppets by storing them in bamboo and palm leaf baskets, varnishing

the puppets, protecting them from insects, storing it away in exclusive rooms or hanging

up it in roofs are all practices followed from pre-modern times until today. Traditional

knowledge of the art of creation and preservation of puppets, along with myths and beliefs

and performance traditions were passed down amongst the generation of puppeteers.

1.9.The Performance

The ritualistic performances were traditionally conducted only for 5-6 months of the year

from Makaram to Medam (Malayalam months) which is from about January to May

following the Hindu calendar and each troupe practiced the rituals before, during and after

the puppet play in their own style, in designated or family owned temples. For the rest of

the months there would be no performances or rituals and that time would be spent in

agricultural work by the puppeteers. They would annually perform the Kamba Ramayana

in 21 parts over 21 days or durations ranging between 7 to 70 days as per each temple and

50

the patrons’ requests to appease the Goddess (with respect to the local legends) so that

she would be happy and bless the artists, audience devotees and the whole village. The

performances always took place from night time till dawn, generally from 10 pm to 5 am,

because according to the Hindu time system, the night time is Deva yama (Deva: God,

yama: time) and they performed only at night because that time is dedicated to the Gods,

and the performance is wholly dedicated to the Goddess Bhadrakali (R. Pulavar, personal

communication, March 1, 2020).

As explained earlier, the performance traditions can differ from temple to temple

and troupe to troupe and each tradition belies purpose, and beliefs inculcated rituals.

Traditionally, Tholpavakoothu is the only shadow puppet theatre tradition that is

performed in permanent stages/ drama houses/ theatres called the koothumadam which is

one of the most unique aspects of the art form. The koothumadam is not recognized as

part of the formal confines of the temple and Tholpavakoothu is not considered as part of

the temple’s formal rituals. Until the 1937 Temple Entry Act was passed in the princely

state of Travancore (in present-day Kerala), people of lower castes were banned entry

into Hindu temples making the temples and rituals and performances inside the temples

exclusive to the higher-caste population. Situated outside the prime sanctum of the

temples, the koothumadam was a democratic space where people irrespective of the caste

could watch and participate in the ritualistic performances in some ways. The

51

koothumadam is still a holy establishment in the way that it is built facing the temple or

the flagstaff of the temple, with the belief that the goddess will be watching the

performance, and so the preparation of the koothumadam is done with consideration of

rituals to get ready for the performance.

At first, a little after sunset the goddess is prayed to (pooja) and offerings are

made to her and oil lamps are lit and kept in front of the goddess. Then, a Tookuvilakku

(a hanging oil lamp typically made of bronze) is lit with the flame from the oil lamp

earlier offered to the goddess and brought to the koothumadam and hung in the front of it

so as to ceremonially bring the lamp that illuminated the Goddess to the theatre. The

puppeteers believed that as they did this, the Devi (goddess) was present in the form of

the flame, as light watching over them (R. Pulavar, personal communication, March 1,

2020). When the lamp is hung, kelikottu i.e. instrumental music is played as an

accompaniment mainly with instruments like two drums, the Ezupara, and Chenda;

Ilathalam (Cymbals), Shankha (Conch) and Chalanga (ankle bells). Traditionally, the

puppeteers themselves would be trained in playing the chenda and would play it for the

whole night. Then, the screen of the koothumadam is prepared by carrying out the ritual

called koora iduka (koora- curain, iduka: placing) by hanging and stretching a white

cotton cloth called ayapudava representing earth and heaven, and then covering the lower

part of the screen with a black cloth representing hell or netherworld. Then the puppets

52

would be pinned onto the screen for worshipping. As time passes, close to 9pm people

begin to gather to watch the performance and the poojas (ritualistic prayers). People

would gather and watch the performances even at night because they believed that

watching a ritualistic performance meant for the goddess’ eyes would be a holy blessing

for them. The people believed that watching certain episodes through the night would

even relieve them of contracting eye diseases. This would also lead to local participation

in the performance for instance, a special event called Garudappathu in which a puppet

made of wood of the character Garuda (a Brahminy kite) who was a helper of Rama’s

side in the Rama-Ravana battle is of importance. In the event, the Garuda puppet is

attached to a string tied connecting a pillar far from the koothumadam to the theatre’s roof

and the puppet is moved at a specific point in the story by the local crowd of devotees

accompanied by loud fireworks, music and dancing. A fear and respect for the goddess

and wanting to seek blessings of the goddess and witnessing Rama’s holy story were

some of the reasons why locals would flock to watch the performances at night.

Before the rest of the ceremony continued, the Velichappadu i.e. oracle or

mediator of the goddess clad in red silk scarves and anklets, holding a sword would walk

around the temple thrice, bless the crowd by relaying the Goddess’ message and would

also bless the Tholpavakoothu artists at the koothumadam granting them the permission

to perform. The Velichappadu is of importance to Goddess Bhadrakali temples and the

53

ritual would differ each temple, for instance, the Velichappadu would arrive with a huge

procession covering the distance from the temple to the koothumadam. Following the

oracle’s blessings, there would be preliminary music, followed by the Kalarichindu ritual

in which the puppeteers sung ritualistic praises for Gods and Goddesses like Ganapathy,

Saraswathy, Mahavishnu, etc. This is followed by the important ritual of lighting the

lamps inside the drama house. 21 half-cut and de-husked coconuts were placed one after

another on a lamp stand called vilakki-rnadam behind the screen filled with coconut oil

and wicks and covered by wet clay at the bottom to sustain the burning without

overheating. The puppeteers lit the traditional lamps one by one from right to left with

the holy flame from the Tookuvilakku and would be followed by throwing white telli or

dried sap powder into the flames igniting the lamps, creating visual effect then and at later

exciting points in the play and slowly illuminating the koothumadam and revealing the

puppets hidden in the dark. The puppeteers believed that lighting the lamp one by one

meant killing the evil in the village and thus were responsible to perform these rituals that

would bring prosperity to the village.

The puppeteers in this way played an important role in the society as they were

considered as scholars ‘Pulavar’ by the locals and respected for their beliefs, their

knowledge in religious texts, everyday affairs, and traditional knowledge of the rituals

and the art form. After the lighting, the Madapulavar (stage manager) would conduct the

54

Ranga pooja and purify the stage for the success of the performance, followed by the

presentation and worshipping of the God Ganpati puppet through hymns for his blessings.

In Hindu traditions, many rituals and events are started by giving ode to the Lord Ganpati,

which is a tradition followed in Tholpavakoothu as well. Next, the puppets of Brahmins

called patta pavakal are shown who act as the Sutradhars i.e. narrators during the

performance. Although majorly dissociated from the Brahmans, in this way, the

Brahmans feature in the play and the puppeteers converse with them. The Brahmans are

important in the sense that on the screen they next sing and worship Mahavishnu and

other Gods, praise the sacrifices made for humankind. These kinds of holy praises and

pooja are specifically performed by the higher caste Brahmins and so they appear on the

screen for this purpose and quickly are taken off the screen before homage is paid to the

teachers of the puppeteers. In this a certain caste dynamic is visible as the higher caste

Brahmins wouldn’t share the same space as the lower caste teachers of the puppeteer

Pulavars. Practice of caste can be seen even in non-Brahmin spaces and the hierarchy of

high and low castes is woven into narratives by lower caste community members as well.

The ritual of praising and paying homage to senior puppeteers and teachers is called

Guruvandanam and indicates the respect given to traditional knowledge within the art

form. This is followed by the Brahmin puppets returning and summarizing the story for

the day and an important thanksgiving ceremony before the play starts. The puppeteers

55

thank the family that provided them with meals the day of the performance, then thank

the patrons and temple authorities and bless them with good health. Traditionally,

patronage would come from Kings like the Kavalappara King who supported the art form

because of his belief in the rituals of Tholpavakoothu in yielding the kingdom a son who

would save the land from being bequeathed by the British colonialists. Patronage would

also come from the temple authorities, and local people who would sponsor the

performances owing to their strong beliefs in the importance of conducting the rituals of

the art form. Patronage would also come from individual families who paid the puppeteers

to pray for their good health, good luck, profits and happiness. The puppeteers would

receive patronage in terms of supporting the art, money and also in the form of paddy to

be distributed among the troupe members. The puppeteers would pay thanks to all these

people and institutions for their contribution. The patronage is directly correlated to the

beliefs among people and the sacred function that the ritualistic art form fulfills in their

everyday life and is sustained to a great degree because of people’s beliefs and

contributions.

After the thanksgiving, the play would begin for the night and puppets would be

the main characters of the play. Along with the narration, there would be manipulation of

the puppets in accordance with the plot and use of music and sound effects. The puppets

are pinned on the screen and when in use, they are manipulated by a puppeteer with a

56

wooden stick (kol). The puppets that are good characters are manipulated on the right side

of the screen and the evil characters are manipulated on the left side. During narration

along with music, the artists create special sound effects and rhythmic syllables like

‘sopai sopai’, ‘Dhin Dhi Dhi Dhikita Tai', and ‘Titha Dinta Tai’ to complement and make

battle scenes more exciting for the views. Traditionally, more number of puppeteers are

required for Tholpavakoothu as the tasks are divided in the way that the main narration is

the responsibility of the senior most Pulavar (scholar), experienced puppeteers also

participate in narration and intellectual, philosophical debates with the senior member,

the junior members manipulate the puppets and others members act as musical

accompaniments.

For the performance, the story of the text containing more than 12,000 verses

would be divided into 6 episodes and performed over 7-49 nights. The episodes were

Balakandam (birth of Rama), Ayodhyakanda (life in Ayodhya), Aranyakanda (life in the

forest), Kishkindakanda (meeting Hanuman and search for Sita), Sundarakanda

(Hanuman’s journey) and Yuddhakanda (the great Rama-Ravana battle). This would be

followed by Pattabhishekam i.e. Rama’s coronation as King. The puppeteers would first

recite the ‘kavi´or verses and then explain their meanings while deriving information from

older texts like puranas, Upanishads, etc. The puppeteers’ life experience, education and

traditional knowledge greatly influenced the worldview, the artistic vision and adal pattu

57

(adal- acting, pattu – relating to) of the puppeteers’ oral narration of the Ramayana text.

The puppeteers shaped the Kamba Ramayana text specifically for Tholpavakoothu into a

work that is constructed of verse and partial prose called Adal pattu by using 3126 out of

12,026 of Kamban’s verses and appropriating it for shadow play. They would sometimes

diverge from the text and added their own verses, comments, dialogues, debates, opinions,

advice and each puppeteer could practice creativity while they performed and charted

these modified scripts on palm leaves which were preserved and passed down for the

coming generations. The Tamil text then was filled with Sanskrit and Malayalam words,

comments and anecdotes. Generally, when tradition is defined in a linear method, it is

seen as orthodox, conservative and something so rigid that there is no space for freedom

of expression, growth of personality and potential (Bharathi, 2014, p.113). Thomas Green

(1997, pp. 799-810) also identifies the relatively fixed form that tradition carries at its

core to be recognized and transmitted in its unique form to upcoming generations but also

highlights that traditional performances are subject to variations within the group’s

standards and become part of the tradition itself. Although being a traditional art form,

Tholpavakoothu is a result of many creative variations by the puppeteers which eventually

with time assimilates into the making of the ‘tradition’ itself.

The beliefs which connected the art form to the locals, also connects the artists

to the art form. The artists did not require large audiences to attend the performances and

58

would perform the rituals in front of ‘absent’ audiences, i.e. without any viewers as put

by Stuart Blackburn because they were mainly performing and conducting these rituals

for the Goddess to see. Just as the viewers felt blessed watching the performances, the

puppeteers saw the opportunity to be playing and embodying Rama through the play as a

purifying ritual that brought them blessings from the goddess. The beliefs, local legends,

myths and artistic traditions played an important role in the functioning of the art form

and was one of the significant ways in which Tholpavakoothu fulfilled many of its

traditional social functions in the society.

1.10. Social Functions and the Knowledge of the Puppeteers

Puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar (R. Pulavar, personal communication, March 1, 2020) narrated

that in the older times, puppetry was one of the only modes of entertainment for the public

and even more so for people of the lower castes who were barred from entering temples

or public spaces where only classical art forms like Kathakali and such were performed

for the viewing of higher caste people. According to him, puppetry was the only medium

of entertainment, communication and participation and this is seen in shadow puppets in

all over Asia, as they have fulfilled social functions such as the magico-religious,

59

educational functions, the function of reaffirming cultural and social institutions and the

reinforcement of traditional ethics and moral standards in the past (Orr, 1974, pp.79-81).

The older generation of puppeteers, or the learned, master puppeteers were called

‘Pulavar’ i.e. a scholar with knowledge of many things including language and literature.

According to master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar, in 800 CE, the Pulavars were

advisors to the kings of the Tamil Chola dynasty of South India (reign: 300s BCE – 1279

CE) and would be present for and asked for their opinions and advices regarding royal

matters. This allowed them to gain such a status in the society that they were invited by

the locals to participate in sacred ritualistic ceremonies like Namakaranam sanskaram

(naming ceremony of infants). As explained before, the conduction of the ceremonies was

seen as a ritual that will bring health and happiness to life, but the Pulavar also played a

key role in it. The locals would often consult the puppeteers on personal matters of their

family life, their work, and their problems. Not only that, the puppeteers during the

performance itself would present their knowledge on an array of subjects ranging from

philosophy, medicine, astronomy, astrology, social and moral responsibilities and issues.

Master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar said that a Pulavar was expected to have

knowledge about everything and should be ready to answer any questions posed by the

villagers because they were a major source of knowledge for the villagers. They would

impart advice about childbirth, about what should be done each day after a baby is born.

60

The Pulavars were required to have sufficient knowledge of Ayurveda, a medical system

originating from the Indian subcontinent. They were knowledgeable in mathematics and

would explain it with the help of instances from the Ramayana text (like size of rope used,

etc.), and in other sciences. They would advise the locals about the religion of Sanatana

dharma (now Hinduism), and about meditation. They also imparted advice on manhood

and womanhood and the roles and responsibilities of a good man and woman in the

society. He said that the Pulavars were so knowledgeable that they could narrate, discuss,

debate and touch on so many topics that they had the ability to keep reciting and

explaining just one part of a song for 4 days straight without a break.

This level of knowledge was achieved from the extensive nature of traditional

training and learning that the puppeteers had to go through to be Tholpavakoothu artists.

They were trained to learn the oral narrations of Kamba Ramayana verses and related

subjects, other ancient texts like Puranas, Upanishads, Tharkas, Vedas, Sanskrit Shlokas

and Ithihasa, use Sanskrit, Malayalam and Tamil languages and study the various

disciplines mentioned above. They were trained in the traditional knowledge of the art of

puppet making, preparation and storage, puppet manipulation, koothumadam preparation,

traditional lighting traditions, musical accompaniments, pre-performance rituals and

performance traditions. They were required to learn and continue the traditional beliefs

and so believed and worshipped the goddess Bhadrakali, God Shiva, Rama and other

61

Hindu gods. They were also required to learn and continue to carry out traditional

practices like dressing modestly in public and in the temple while performing, practicing

vegetarianism and teetotalism, maintaining a vridam (fasting) days before the

performance, practices of apprenticeship, and of practicing agricultural work. A scholar

an in-depth knowledge of all this and experience is given the high status of a Pulavar.

The Pulavars are the masters or teachers in charge of passing the traditional art,

traditional knowledge, beliefs, practices and training to young puppeteers. A very

important feature of the ‘traditional’ is that its production or reproduction is not easy,

because large trajectories of traditional knowledge compiled over generations, the passing

down of it and extensive learning of it would be required to create traditional works of

art. Thus, how it is passed down is very important. Although styles can differ by troupe

and by sangam (group of artists), all the Tholpavakoothu groups were trained within the

Gurukula (guru- teacher, kula- family, home; a spiritual education system of ancient

India) system. In the case of Tholpavakoothu the traditional knowledge was traditionally

passed down among the male members of the family. Echoing the Brahmanical and

patriarchal tenets present in the society of that time, the art form was not passed on to the

women of the family or to lower caste men. Although the ritualistic performances were

open to view for all people regardless of caste or gender, the same dynamics could not be

recognized amongst the puppeteers i.e. the performers. The apprenticeship was limited to

62

the males of the family, and if there were no males in the family, many rituals would be

conducted to be blessed with a male child. Rajeev Pulavar suggested that women weren’t

allowed in pre-modern times to work outside of the domestic sphere and that this must

have reflected in the Tholpavakoothu practice as well. Hindu religious custom perceived

menstruating women as impure, due to which women were kept away from performing

rituals in the temple for maintaining the temple’s sanctity. It has been suggested that the

same logic was used to keep women from entering the Koothumadam (Bhanumathi, 2004,

p.137).

It can be seen that in the traditional village setting of the ‘gramam’ where

Tholpavakoothu was performed, the people’s beliefs in the Gods and Goddesses’

blessings were in fact, the cornerstone that enabled patronage, continuity of local

participation and fulfillment of several social functions by the art form and the artist,

thereby leading the continual and traditional practice of the art form. The traditional

knowledge and artistry itself were majorly based on these beliefs, local legends and Hindu

myths too. The site of symbolic production that generated these sets of practices evident

in Tholpavakoothu consisted of the prevalent religious beliefs of that time that originate

from Sanatana dharma, Shaivism, Rama Bhakti and very importantly the Bhadrakali faith,

myths and local legends. The ‘communal sense’ shared amongst the villagers, patrons,

artists were dominated by religious ideas.

63

The myth or patterns of idea and thought that influence the practice of them, a

traditional art form like Tholpavakoothu seemed to be created, grown, and continued

majorly owing to a shared culture of religious beliefs, myths and local legends in the pre-

modern part of its history. Much of the cultural life seems to be of a traditional nature

where religious beliefs dominated everyday practices which also reflected in the

ritualistic performance of Tholpavakoothu. Master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar

highlights a symbiotic relationship between the practice of the art form and the people

when he said that, ‘the rituals of Tholpavakoothu are the beliefs of the people’ (R. Pulavar,

personal communication, March 2, 2020).

Although, the ritualistic theme in the Sanatana/Hindu life is of significance to

Indian culture and cultural artefacts like Tholpavakoothu, the influence of secular trends

could not be overlooked. Tholpavakoothu was a creation of integration of practiced rituals,

beliefs, social functions, the socio-political system, patronage, local environment and

local participation of people across caste boundaries as it reflected tenets of all these

social factors in its existence, and functioning. Although changes and modifications are

not normally considered part of that which is ‘traditional’, we could clearly see that a

traditional art form like Tholpavakoothu, even in its pre-modern era was open to

innovations, modifications, improvisations and was changing in its own way. The

influence of the majorly Hindu religious culture on the practices was seen in that the art

64

form had specifically assigned social functions, appointed status to the puppeteers, barred

women from performing, was open to lower caste audience but not lower caste

apprenticeship. Importantly, Tholpavakoothu was a ritualistic performance that did not

even require an audience as it was performed for the goddess, and the purpose and value

of the art form were not based on an economic sense which is a complete opposite from

the modern definitions of what art is. Thus, Tholpavkoothu in its pre-modern form was a

traditional, ritualistic, temple shadow puppet votive offering performed for the blessing

of the goddess and performed the function of a social center of knowledge, prayer and

well-being for the locals. The next chapter will look at the way the meanings of art,

audience, tradition changes and how Tholpavakoothu goes through significant changes in

Modern Indian era.

65

Tholpavakoothu in the modern era

According to Puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar (R. Pulavar, personal communication, March 1,

2020) the support of the Kavalappara King in bringing artistic innovations to the

Tholpavakoothu practices in the late 18th century was one of the first trends of

modernization the art form had seen. The Pulavar family described Tholpavakoothu as

the foundation of modern puppetry. They stated that modern cinema was also developed

from Tholpavakoothu as they related the modern film theatre to the koothumadam. In this

case, modernity can be understood as completely new and advanced and

characteristically opposite setting it apart from the traditional but also something that

stems from and is a continuation from the traditional.

2.1. Indian Modernity

The concept of ‘aadhunik’ i.e. modern had already appeared in Indian thought as early

as the 10th century BCE and by the 18th century the performing art of theatre and the

visual arts of the Indian subcontinent became ‘aadhunik’ (Khurana, 2020). In the text on

Modern Indian history, Metcalf and Metcalf (2012, pp.92-93) suggest that various

modern practices and institutions like municipal cemeteries, state-sponsored scientific

66

and survey institutions originated in India. But what does aadhunik or modernity mean

in the context of an art form and how and when did a performative ritualistic shadow

puppet theatre art form change, modernize? It can be difficult to allot a date as to when a

process of modernization begins clearly. The historical periodization of places and

assigning cultural trends to these periods like traditional, modern, post-modern can differ

based on disciplines, writers and analyses which makes it difficult to place Indian

modernity. The ideas of modernity that formed the modern era starting from the 17th

century in the West spread to many other civilizations through movement of thought and

people leading to explorations, colonization and development of ideas like

industrialization, globalization, capitalism, urbanization, rationalization, democratization,

individualism, scientific, political and technological processes. Although modernity is

impulsively related to Westernization, each culture has been influenced by a modernity

that is unique to itself. One by one, the changes that took place in Tholpavakoothu can

be observed to understand the modernization process that took place in India.

The British colonization was the most prominent colonial rule over India lasting

from 1858 to 1947 and was an administration which influenced the nature of the process

of modernization in India. The British ‘introduction’ of modern systems like railways,

telegraph systems, postal service, citizen education, conduction of census into India are

recognized as the British contribution in the formation of modern India. In fact, the

67

formation of the nation of modern India is considered a result of British colonialism,

divide and rule and nationalistic ideology. Many of these social reforms and changes

were seen as making positive changes to India but also were criticized by scholars as

having negative effects like racism, militarism and economic exploitation. Thus, in terms

of India, the beginning of modernity is generally associated with the European,

particularly the British colonial rule and legacy and so the mid-19th century is considered

the beginning of the modern period in India.

2.2. Tholpavakoothu and Modernity

According to master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar, the Tholpavakoothu traditions

continued and were even promoted by the British rulers. He said, “During the British rule

when King Ravarman was the ruler of Kavalappara who supported Tholpavakoothu and

the artists, the British did not meddle and actually helped a bit. There was no strong

influence causing obstacles, in fact they did promote (the art form). They were scared

that if they disrespect the myth and traditions it would be troublesome. This proves that

they were strong but careful. The locals thought of us puppeteers as people of God and

they saw that. The artists were talented to praise the people in any given situation and

would back then even include names of British colonels in the narrations, giving thanks

or blessing them, so the British officers respected the art and the artists.” There is a

68

general lack in references of shadow puppetry during the colonial period from the 16th to

early 20th century as it remained largely localized and attached to its older ritualistic

temple settings. There is reference of Thoolpavakoothu traditions being practiced, new

koothumadam (drama-houses) being used for performances, and more puppeteers being

employed for the ritualistic performances in the early 20th century (Kurup, 1988, pp.49-

50). It was in the 20th century that Tholpavakoothu saw some of its most significant

documented changes.

According to Trivedi (1999), performing arts change with the changing social

environments and patronage patterns. Tholpavakoothu has modernized very uniquely in

comparison to the other shadow puppet play performance traditions in southern India.

Even with the development of electrical technology, Tholpavakoothu traditions made use

of the traditional lamps unlike the other state traditions which switched over to electric

lights for their performances. On the other hand, many temples began the use of

microphones and speakers to support the narrating puppeteers even though traditionally

it obviously wasn’t the case. Puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar remarked that his ancestors

who had been performers during the British colonial period would perform right from

8pm to 6 am in the mornings and would do so without using microphones, and had been

trained in endurance, being loud, commanding and assertive. But the usage of

microphones was done to reduce the strain on puppeteers who have to perform overnight

69

without breaks for series of nights and also to make sure they were audible in order to

maintain the interest of the audience. Although, according to Bhanumathi (2004, p.150),

the audience did not require usage of microphones to keep their interests vested in the

ritualistic performance because shadow play was one of the main sources of

entertainment and communication, and instead the audience would just sit close to the

Koothumadam for listening to the narrations. The researcher points out that this was the

case before the development of modern mass media, which implies a change in the

dynamics of the art form, the artists and the audience as modern mass media developed

in Kerala and India.

2.3. Changes in Tholpavakoothu

Technological advancement affects art due to the influence it has on its materials,

techniques, the social environment it is situated in and in turn, the lives of the audiences

and importantly, the artists. Puppetry has always been an important mode of

communication and entertainment due to the important social functions it fulfilled.

Puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar (R. Pulavar, personal communication, March 1, 2020) relates

puppetry to modern mediums of communication and entertainment like cinema because

of the commonality of both to seek to entertain and spread social messages to the public.

70

Modern mass media with its development began to take over many spheres of social life.

With increasing popularization of video, cinema, other modes of media, the definitions

of what is entertaining began to change. Temple festivals began to introduce other

classical forms like Kathakali, Ottanthulal, and Bharathantyam, classical music and

other events pertaining to the people’s interests which would precede the traditional

puppet theatre rituals. Puppeteers were knowledge bearers for the locals regarding arrays

of subjects as mentioned before, but new sources of information and communication

developed with technology and people branched out to them. For instance, people started

acquiring information from print media, radio, video at their disposal and did not just rely

on traditional modes of communication and entertainment.

The duration of the performance of Tholpavakoothu is also important to take

into account. Due to industrialized structure of work and introduction of a 9-5 job

structure, it became tougher for locals to maintain their attentions at nights for witnessing

and attending the ritualistic performances when they had to commute and work the next

mornings. As a result, the duration of the performance was reduced to one week in many

temples. Although Tholpavakoothu is mainly performed for the goddess, the younger

generations were getting interested in performing for an audience full of people. This

signifies a change in the meanings of performing arts in society.

Modern era brought along with it a culture that assigns value in the economic

71

nature of objects. In such an industrial culture, where art is the object and is the

commodity, fame adds value to the art and artist. Due to increase in demands for other

mediums even within the temple premises, Tholpavakoothu began to see a reduction or

stagnation in patronage from the temples itself. It was observed in the book by

Bhanumathi (2004, p.128) that the temple authorities began to spend more money on

other forms of entertainment and the temple festivals included dance and music

performances and fireworks which were more well-attended than Tholpavakoothu.

Investigator Bhanumathi observed that the ‘traditional’ culture of the temple festivals

shifted from being based on the religious and spiritual beliefs of the locals to being

sources of fun and entertainment instead.

The ‘popularity’ of the art form was affected by the increasing popularity of

mass media, but Tholpavakoothu is a unique localized performance ritual within the

central parts of Kerala which was not much known amongst other parts of Kerala in its

particular form according to Salil Singh. Although it is important to intersect at this point

and add that maybe Tholpavakoothu in its particular form was unknown but shadow

puppetry and Tholpavakoothu-esque style similarities can be seen in Orissa and even

shadow puppetry in Southeast Asian cultures like Wayang Kulit from Indonesia, neither

being as traditionally rooted as Tholpavakoothu in modern times. If the fame of the

ritualistic art form is based on a national, or global ‘recognition’ of it, it was in 1935 that

72

Western scholars from Germany and USA first reported Tholpavakoothu as a ‘lost’ art

form, as little known to the outside world. According to Samuel Parker (2013, p.152),

modernity is intrinsic of a certain universality which leads to the formation of

homogenous definitions and yardsticks. With this in consideration, it is necessary to see

if the art form was facing loss or in fact only changing with time.

2.4. Loss and Innovations

Loss was definitely one part of the modernization process of the art form, but this also

paved a way for the artists to retain as well as make innovations with the art form to adapt

to the changes in the society. After India gained Independence from British Rule in 1947,

and with the formation of the state of Kerala in 1956, the traditionally Tamil puppeteers

who were settled in Kerala largely integrated into the society with next generations being

Malayalam speaking. This affected the narration made by the puppeteers during the

performances having strong Malayalam accents and usage of the language due to

Malayalam’s increasing influence. In the early twentieth century, non-Brahmin Tamil

people began to seek an identity which was still Hindu, but non-Brahmanical which led

to an increase in the promotion of Kamba Ramayana, and advocacy for a link between

land and language which reflected in Tholpavakoothu’s artists continuing to use the

73

Dravidian Ramayana, and the Dravidian language for the narrations (Blackburn, 1996,

p.29). But the Kamba Ramayana still used some Sanskrit, along with Tamil and

Malayalam. An overall decrease in the common understanding of Sanskrit language led

to upcoming generations of artists as well as audiences finding it difficult to understand

the text and oral narrations during the performance attracting lesser audience members

and thus, lesser patrons. In the modern era, many logistical, technological parts of the art

form went through changes because of natural and social factors. The traditional

knowledge that was passed down by the puppeteers like narrations, puppet preparation

and maintenance, and traditions begin to decline in number and quality as performances,

artists and audiences declined. For example, with time, deerskin became unavailable as

it became difficult to procure, it was expensive and was deemed bad for the environment

due to which modern puppets were made of other materials like ox or goat skin. The

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 in India made it tougher to keep using deer,

cattle skin, etc. Due to changes like that, there was a loss in the traditional ways of

preparation and of puppets and the art was only passed on and retained by a few

puppeteers like Krishnan Kutty Pulavar and his sons, i.e. the Koonathara (Kavalappara)

troupe.

Unlike other state ritualistic puppet theatre traditions, the Tholpavakoothu artists

did not deviate from traditional practices for a large share of the 20th century. For example,

74

the exclusive narration of the Kamba Ramayana continued until the beginning of the 21st

century, although changes began to occur after the 1970s. According to Orenstein (2014,

p.210), a significant change that can be seen in the oral narration of Kamba Ramayana in

the modern times is departure of the puppeteers from knowing the text by heart and thus

creating improvisations while explaining the text and verses. She suggested that young

puppeteers in the modern society instead began to rely on the palm leaf texts passed down

by their ancestors to read from which brought certain changes in the puppeteer’s

understanding and relationship to the text, thus affecting the performance. The problem

would have been that if the puppeteers didn’t improvise and add in their insights and

knowledge relevant to the changing social environments into the narrations, the artists

and the art would not have been fulfilling one of the major social functions of

Tholpavakoothu, which was to spread information and advice the locals. In terms of

social functions, the shadow puppets also did not play much of a role in the Indian

Independence struggle because of the British colonialists who were relatively flexible in

the freedom of expression that was allowed during their colonial rule (R. Pulavar,

personal communication, March 2, 2020) This was unlike the situation in Indonesia,

where along with other functions, wayang kulit played a role in spreading propagandic

messages during the Indonesian freedom struggle for Independence but was met with

strong censorship by the Dutch colonial powers. It is suggested by Richard Schechner

75

(1990, p.27) that Dutch colonists would push for nonmodernity in wayang to retain its

‘purity’, to fulfill its ritualistic and mystical functions but not showcase the changes

taking place in Indonesia due to the Dutch rule and so would neutralize the art form off

politics and history. It is perhaps possible that a similar situation occurred with the British

rule in India as the British Government had implemented the Dramatic Performances Act

in 1876 to censor Indian theatre forms which began protesting against the colonial powers

through plays. Tholpavakoothu was a localized, ritualistic temple practice which made it

difficult to relate it to the Indian freedom struggle for Independence. It can also be said

that with the development of modern mass media, at that point of time the Indian

government was not able to identify the various functions of a folk-art form like

Tholpavakoothu.

In the years after the Indian Independence when India’s identity as a nation

began to consolidate further, the Government of India set up institutions to work for the

continued functioning and practice of Indian traditional performing arts as well as other

arts. This was done by the Government as a part of retaining India’s cultural identity

across the country with its multiple art forms (Lopes, 2016, pp.163-164). But the

Government also began these restoration projects with an objective to promote economic

self-sufficiency among the various rural communities engaged with traditional art forms.

They wanted to tackle issues of starvation and developing poverty that the artists would

76

find themselves within the new modern economic models that affected their traditional

patronage models.

2.5. Problems

In the modern era, loss of royal patronage in India severely affected the puppeteers along

with the thinning audience and decline in numbers of artists continuing to perform the

art form. In 1971, the Indian Constitution passed the Twenty Sixth Amendment which

put an end to financial privileges like the privy purse based on royal status. In the state

of Kerala under the Communist Party’s term, the historical Kerala Land Reforms Act was

passed in 1970 ending the feudal system of land aristocrats called Jenmis and

redistributing lands held by landowners and temple estates among tenants and farmers.

According to Blackburn (1996, pp.17-18) this policy caused a decline in donations in the

form of paddy given to artists by previously rich landowners causing further decline in

the number of performances. These were moves made by the Indian government to

achieve economic development and modernization. But with this, they stripped off the

elite aristocrats and royals from their huge lands, and economic privileges which had

previously until then made them one of the major patrons of arts like Tholpavakoothu.

Troupes like the Kavalappara troupe relied on a patronage model where they performed,

77

received appreciation, and fed during the performance months. With decline and loss of

the royal patronage, the puppeteers had to shift from that traditional model to an

entrepreneurial model where they had to be self-sufficient to find funds to sustain the art

form, and importantly to sustain themselves and their incomes (Orenstein, 2014, p.209).

By 1972, researcher Dr. Chammar Choondal documented 63 temples where

Tholpavakoothu was being actively performed which shows a possible decline in venues

for the ritualistic art form from the 100+ temples originally identified across the

Tholpavakoothu belt along the Bharatappuzha river. As patronage dropped in some

temples, the number of days of the rituals dropped and so did the number of artists that

participated in the art form. As the number of artists dropped, so did the quality of the

performance and the traditional knowledge being passed down and used. The older

puppeteers would be engaged mostly in their ancestral occupations as Tholpavakoothu

was performed according to seasons. In the pre-modern era, the artists sustained

themselves on the patronage from temples and agriculture or their ancestral occupations

and that was enough as Bhanumathi (2004, p.141) suggested that they led simple lives.

The researcher compared it to younger generations of puppeteers who have different

aspirations, acquire education outside of the art form, want permanent sources of income

to maintain modern lifestyles. According to Salil Singh (1998, pp.264-267), at this point

of time for the art form, the instability in income discouraged younger generations from

78

engaging in the art form.

Modernity was generally considered as the opposite of tradition and noted a

process of departure from pre-existent, traditional systems and institutions to new,

modern systems and institutions and innovations. This process of modernization of non-

Western cultures came to mean transition from traditional to modern to be the diffusion

of Western ideas of modernization, and came to be associated with the modern

‘development’ or ‘progress’ of non-Western cultures like India into a universal standard

character of European modernity (Rostow, 1990). Modern changes were considered

favorable and whatever that preceded was less favorable. The assumed universality of

modernity, homogenous development and the British colonialism’s ‘illusion of

permanence’ was rooted in the Enlightenment movement’s ideas of universal human

destiny and Western standards and definitions of development. The yardstick for

development was mainly seen as economic and the historical process of industrialization

inculcated an economic sense in many spheres of the social life for a developed society.

Modernity assumed a growing, globalizing presence where the ultimate reality in the

society that appears to affect all practices is of an economic nature and is constructed of

monetary symbols of value and has only one goal, that is economic progress. This kind

of economic influence on society, built of monetary symbols socializes and naturalizes

an economic way of assessing the value of culture. A ritualistic art form traditionally

79

passed down and performed for sacro-religious ritualistic functions began to change in a

way where the value of the art form began to be measured by audience, popularity,

entertainment value and seemed to be going through cultural loss.

2.6. Stepping Outside the Temple: Innovations in the art form

At this cusp of major change, it was late master puppeteer Krishnan Kutty Pulavar (KK

Pulavar) and G. Venu who identified the declining audience, loss of patronage, and a

level of ambiguity in the future of artists who would participate in continuing the tradition

of the ritualistic art form. As a move considered revolutionary, the troupe under the

leadership of master puppeteer KK Pulavar shortened the long Kamba Ramayana epic

into one hour and showcased only the main storyline with major plot points for dramatic

effect. This was done for the first time in the year 1969 on the request of an American

scholar and filmmaker Clifford Jones who was filming for a project about the traditional

performing arts of Kerala (Salil Singh, 1998, p.268). This standardized and shortened

version of the usual week-long running ritualistic performance began to be performed at

the request of visiting audiences, scholars and student researchers who were mainly from

outside Kerala at the koothumadam of the goddess Mariamman’s temple at Koonathara

near their family home itself. This permanent theatre proved to be a ready venue for

80

occasional performances requested by visiting audiences even after the main temple

season passed. Although this was unorthodox for the time, the artists still observed all

the rituals important to the performance when it is practiced in the temples. For example,

the koothumadam was built in a way where it still faced a small temple of the goddess,

the fire used to light the lamps for performing was brough to the koothumadam from the

temple and permission and blessings to perform would be granted prior to the temple

through velicchapad (the oracle) just like at the koothumadam near the temple.

A show was performed for the Kerala Government’s ‘Loka Malayalam

Sammelanam’ (World Malayayalam Convention) in Trivandrum where this shortened

and standardized version of the performance was showcased where KK Pulavar first met

the researcher and artist G. Venu. It received positive reviews, was documented by

newspapers and the artists were from then on able to even go on tours and perform this

short version of the play at much more venues to new audiences. Master puppeteer KK

Pulavar with the help of G. Venu created a shortened version together with appropriate

changes and the art form was first performed outside Kerala in 1978 at the National

Shadow Theatre festival in the city of Bangalore in one of the other southern Indian state,

Karnataka. This made it the art form’s first national recognition in modern India. This

convention was held due to researcher Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay’s contribution, who

worked immensely for Indian traditional art forms. Master puppeteer Ramachandra

81

Pulavar (R. Pulavar, personal communication, March 2, 2020) narrates about when in

1978 Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay visited him to get him on board for the research on

traditional puppetry and puppet making in India. Just a year after that, the art form

achieved its first international recognition in 1979 when the troupe went on to perform

in Soviet Union (in present-day Russia) at a UNIMA (Union Internationale de la

Marionette) puppetry festival represented in India by Meher Contractor (an important

figure in the development of Indian puppetry). This made Tholpavakoothu the first folk

art form from Kerala to have ever performed on Russian land. The troupe then went ahead

and performed in countries like Sweden, Germany, Japan, Ireland, Thailand, etc. Master

puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar cited this kind of international touring, exposure and

appreciation to have motivated him as an artist to recommit to the art form. This kind of

exposure helped in the beginning of a diversification in the kind of stages where the

troupe could perform and diversify the sources of sponsors that could help support the

future continuation of the art form. When it was off-temple festival season, the

Tholpavakoothu artists originally had to depend on their ancestral occupations such as

farming as mentioned before. But in its modern era, the artists receive sponsorships and

different stages to perform and showcase the art form even outside of the temple season.

This began to diversify the sources of livelihoods for the artists all year-round. In modern

India, the most significant change that took place in the history of Tholpavakoothu was

82

that it turned into an economic profession for the puppeteers. In the 20th century,

youngsters belonging to many troupes had to take up permanent professional jobs for

income as they couldn’t depend on Tholpavakoothu for the same. Researcher Sam Parker

(2013, p.154) equates modernity with a fundamentally economic culture, within which a

traditional art form like Tholpavakoothu slowly developed into a profession on which the

artists began to depend economically. With this, the trend of commodification of art forms

began so that it could make its own place in the marketplace as a product that can be sold

to viewers. To be able to adapt into the modern marketplace Tholpavakoothu had to go

through changes so as to appeal to a wider set of audiences.

Ramachandra Pulavar and the entire Kavalappara-Koonathara troupe have

immense respect and gratitude for master puppeteer KK Pulavar. They commend him as

at that time he was courageous enough to take the art form out of its religious context

and onto a stage and appropriate the art form in various ways to fit into this new format

and context. Master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar said (R. Pulavar, personal

communication, March 2, 2020) that his father KK Pulavar believed that changes can and

should be brought to the art form to continue it, a belief puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar

shares himself. He stated that his father struggled a lot as he received backlash from most

other troupes practicing Tholpavakoothu in temples and also the locals in some cases for

bringing changes. The backlash was based on some of the rules, traditions and

83

particularities of the art form that had been passed on from earlier generations that other

troupes felt the Koonathara troupe led by master puppeteer KK Pulavar was deviating

from. They criticized this move because they felt that taking the art form from inside the

kshetram (temple premise) to outside stages would destroy the sanctity of the ritualistic

nature of the art form. Master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar remarked that an innate

culture among the Tholpavakoothu artists is that they perform in their own land and that

they have been taught that they shouldn’t go seeking things outside their land to perform

because everything they would need is right there in their land. The ancestors have said

that the performance is something between the worshippers (artists) and the mother

goddess which makes the koothumadam a ritually bounded place and so performing

outside and making the necessary changes to the art form would destroy the purity of the

art form. Milton Singer (1971, pp.193-195) suggests that an assumption usually made is

that tradition is maintained by clinging onto the old, traditional culture and that modern

culture displaces the traditional upon change. The temple and the koothumadam as

suggested by Singer fall under the ‘ritually traditional’ sphere because of its history,

religious context where the rituals of the performance are conducted for worship and for

being witnessed by the Goddess. Due to the certain fixity that has come to be associated

with tradition, the ritually traditional sphere also called the ‘ritually restricted’ sphere

doesn’t seem to accommodate change in its traditional practices and ideologies although

84

this may differ based on different cultures. In the case of Tholpavakoothu, the ancestors’

word, importance of land and importance of following the traditional rules inspired a

backlash against bringing unorthodox changes to the art form. Thus, it has been

challenging for artists to bring changes to an art form in its traditional sphere.

But when the art form is taken out of its traditional sphere and brought into a

space that is ritually neutral, there is more potential and freedom to ‘innovate’. A ritually

neutral area or sphere is described by Singer as a neutral area where scriptural and

customary norms are not applicable in the same intensity as it is in traditional spheres.

According to Singer’s research, in modern society, the traditional population’s social and

economic dependence on innovations in these ritually neutral areas increases. He

suggested that the process of neutralization had influenced modern industrial technology,

enterprises, employments and modern professions of law, medicine, teaching, and

government for hundreds of years. And that this process had led to the creation of spheres

where any particular caste or religious group did not hold monopoly and was a public

area open to all. The unique aspect of Tholpavakoothu is that it has historically seen

innovations and changes even amongst such long-established and practiced structures of

cultural tradition. The Koothumadam near the temple was laden with rituals but also

defied Brahmanic rules as it was placed outside the temple and the viewership has always

been diverse and open to all. The art form kept changing based on the artists’ needs to

85

adapt to the changing society. The motivation of the artists underwent changes with need

as it became important to manage their finances along with their ritualistic and artistic

responsibilities towards the art forms.

The preferences of the patrons, sponsors and audience began to influence the art

form. They wanted entertainment quotient which led to reducing the scholarly debates

that would usually entail in a Tholpavakoothu performance. Traditional musical

accompaniments began to be replaced by popular music. The Tholpavakoothu artists for

their economic interests and continuation of the art form innovated and brought changes

by observing and emulating new products and styles. Thus, many factors were shaping

the artistry of the art form in modern era in order to cater to a wide range of audience.

The art form saw a shift from not depending on audience inside the temple to depending

on different kinds of viewers for its sustenance outside of it. They brought these changes

with the risk of criticism or ostracism. The new developing motivations behind the

actions of the modern artists of the Koonathara troupe were criticized by senior

puppeteers. According to Salil Singh’s records, many senior puppeteers were not pleased

with the appropriated forms of the art form. They criticized the condensation of the long

narrative to a 1-2-hour version as that appropriated the art form and leads to a reduction

in the quality of the art form and the loss of important stories. They criticized that these

innovations that were carried out to cater to foreigners and tourists focused too much on

86

the financial aspect due to which the ‘bhakti’ (religious) aspect of the art form got

overshadowed.

Salil Singh (1998, p.265) points out the events taking place in reaction to the

changes in the art form as ironic. The backlash against the revolutionary steps taken by

the Koonathara troupe was based on the idea that because Tholpavakoothu is a hereditary

art form, it should be preserved and not be tried to change. They criticized the art form

being taken out of its local ritualistic context and shifted to a modern, performative

context. The new generation of puppeteers of the Koonathara troupe like puppeteers

Ramachandra, Viswanathan and Lakshman Pulavar at that point of time also were

hesitant to make any bold changes to the art form. Singh then points out the irony that

although other puppeteers criticized their move outside their ancestral lands to perform,

it was also in these ancestral lands that Tholpavakoothu belonged to that there were more

challenges for the art form. In places like Edapal, the performances happened in the

temple without any audience at all. According to Seltmann’s work dated 1986, the

number of troupes performing were 40 in 1982 and according to Blackburn’s work dated

1997, the number of performing troupes had dropped to 25 by the year 1989. This was

due to the intensive training required, less income and less popularity and appreciation

among the younger generations. As the troupes became smaller, the quality of the

performances degraded. By the 1980s, many troupes didn’t have the knowledge to

87

maintain damaged puppets and did not make new ones because the knowledge was not

being passed on like older times (Blackburn, 1996, pp.238-239). It was the case not only

in Kerala, but also in shadow puppet traditions of other states like Maharashtra and south

Indian states. In this situation, master puppeteer KK Pulavar and his troupe were one of

the only ones who were capable in the art of puppet making. He was a nationally

recognized puppeteer and was awarded the National Award for his craftsmanship by the

All India Handicrafts Board, New Delhi. The art was passed on in the Koonathara troupe

and they shared this knowledge with others, as by 1980s, Ramachandra Pulavar and other

members began participating in activities to teach the art of puppet making. In 1982,

Ramachandra Pulavar was called on to make puppets for 2-3 years, under a scheme by

the Handicrafts of India in Sawantawadi, Maharashtra (online livestream, 2020

November). The troupe was involved in puppetry making training activities through the

1980s and 1990s on behalf of CCRT (The Centre for Cultural Resources and Training)3

and Delhi Handicrafts in schools. These activities began to be another source of income

for the artists as well as played an important role in promoting the art form and gave the

artists a chance to hone their own skills (Orenstein, 2014, p.211). Thus, puppet making

as a separate source of livelihood began to be established by the Koonathara troupe.

The researcher Salil Singh (1998, pp. 267-277) agreed in his thesis that changes

3 CCRT is an autonomous organization under Ministry of Culture of Government of India.

88

like modern compressed narratives and beginning to perform the art form outside the

temple fulfilled both the artistic-dramatic, economic as well as the ritualistic functions,

enabled Tholpavakoothu artists to present the art form to new, appreciative audiences in

India and also internationally. He deemed it as an important development in the art form

but also highlights the importance of depending on local audiences in the original vicinity

of the art form for long term sustenance. But one of the biggest challenges posed to

Tholpavakoothu at this period of time was the dwindling engagement of the local

communities with the art form. The artists of the modern generation in the late 20th

century began to be engaged in Western education and other kinds of employment. The

existing troupes were divided on performance styles and traditions and took different

paths. Due to this and the reducing number of puppeteers, the main troupes fragmented

into smaller groups who then included a greater number of temples to perform in. In

Stuart Blackburn’s work on Tholpavakoothu in 1997 shows 79 temples where

performances happened in comparison to 63 in 1972. According to Salil Singh (1998,

p.271), due to spreading it too thin, the quality of the performances went down. Master

puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar (R. Pulavar, personal communication, March 2, 2020)

suggested that in Kerala itself the culture was changing as people began to migrate and

not return or return with different ideologies. According to him, a distance began to widen

between people and traditions because of modern lifestyles due to which they don’t

89

understand the importance of an art form like Tholpavakoothu. He highlighted the

Tholpavakoothu practices being discontinued in some temples. A specific case was of the

Panthakal Kaavu Pattambi temple in Palakkad where the art form had not been

performed since the year 1995 but was rebooted 6 years later as the villagers suffered

with many problems and hoped to solve them by restarting the performance of the

Tholpavakoothu rituals once again. The beliefs and in turn, the Tholpavakoothu traditions

were seeing fluctuations in this period.

2.7. Neo-liberalization and globalization

The 90s and leading up to the early 2000s was a period of confusion for traditional art

forms in India. The whole world was connecting and changing, and it did not carve out a

niche for traditional art forms. Puppeteer Rahul Pulavar of the Koonathara troupe in the

interview connected the globalizing world of the 90s and its after-effects to a state of

confusion for traditional art forms in India. In modern India, with the influx of new media

and new values, the localized context which was the backbone of traditional art forms

like Tholpavakoothu began to go through changes. It could be suggested that even the

traditional art forms faced the challenge of an identity crisis in the way that innovations

were being made, it was gaining recognition nationally and internationally, but losing

engagement locally. The theme of the play, that is Ramayana was close to second nature

90

to the people as everyone knew the story and had been listening to it their whole life.

People began to be attracted to new ideas, themes, stories and sources of entertainment

and information. But at the same time, the influence of modern mass media did not have

an even geographical development across the wide population of India. In India, in the

1980s an acute economic crisis was triggered by increase in world oil prices, political

situation was unstable, and India was defaulting on international payment obligations.

India’s inward-oriented and state-run strategies were criticized at this point of time by

outward-oriented laissez-faire capitalists (Toye, 1987). Capitalism in India has developed

through trade, industrialization, technology and markets since the East Indian Company

during the British colonization and began to economically liberalize in the 1980s and

notably developed after the neoliberal reforms of 1991. India then opened up to global

markets, underwent the beginning of an economic boom, witnessed the production of a

consumer culture and joined the global trends of a free, liberalized market-economy

(Morcom, 2015). At this point of time after opening up to the world, India witnessed a

rise in foreign investments, followed by rise in literacy, food security mostly in the urban

pockets of the country. India’s GDP and growth rate increased in this period and changes

took place rapidly due to this having various influences on Indian culture.

Morcom (2015, p.289) suggests that capitalism affects the economy, society, life, culture

through the rise of global consumer products and trends. She highlights the prominence

91

of globalization i.e. a global flow of ideas, money, culture, people in the neoliberal world.

Researcher Sam Parker (2013, pp.152-154) explains how a capitalistic culture had begun

to influence Indian culture and values and uses the term ‘economic imperialism’ coined

by Barry Schwartz to explain the way economic values began to seep into many domains

of life turning them into economic spheres. But just like mass media, economic values,

capitalism, economic development and employment did not enjoy an even development

all across the country either (Harvey, 2006 cited in Morcom, 2015). Sam Parker

suggested that the spread of economic values into other domains of culture has to be

observed at the grassroots level in all kinds of agents, and that it takes time to make such

observations. It would be premature to assume that a globalized economic system led by

a neoliberal mythology of free-market and economic value has completely hegemonized

all parts of cultural life. Studies show that the spread of globalized, capitalistic neoliberal

reforms does not mean the wiping out of the existence of non-capitalistic economic

activities. But in this study, its influence can be observed in the context of how traditional

Indian performing arts like Tholpavakoothu metabolize the changing times with their

own adaptive strategies. The after-effects of neoliberal economic globalization of India

on traditional Indian cultural products like Tholpavakoothu and on the social factors that

guide their practices in today’s time can be traced in the late 90s, the beginning of the

21st century and in its current state.

92

Tholpavakoothu Today: The Koonathara troupe of

puppeteers and observations of the present-day scenario of

the art form

The modern Indian Government recognized the struggles that traditional performers had

to face in the changing social environment of India. In the wake of globalization, a

localized, ritualistic art form like Tholpavakoothu found itself receiving international

recognition but was struggling to reorient itself in the younger, modern India and its

changing local setting. The government made initiatives to bridge the developing gap

between traditional art forms and modern India. Shadow puppet traditions from 5 states

of India were chosen to be brought together for this purpose. Funded by the Indian

Government cultural agencies Sangeet Natak Akademi and the Indira Gandhi National

Centre for the Arts, a convention called the National Shadow Puppetry Festival was held

at Dharmasthala, Karnataka in 1996 where some traditional shadow puppet theatre

troupes were brought to support traditional ancient art forms that were struggling to fit

into modern India’s cultural fabric. To bridge the gap between the ancient themed art

forms and contemporary themes, the troupes were asked to present the story of Mahatma

Gandhi (important figure in freedom struggle and Indian Independence) along with the

traditionally presented mythological tales of Ramayana. Salil Singh (1999, pp. 154-155)

93

described these performances as awkward and anticlimactic and criticized this

experiment doubting traditional puppet theatre’s place in modern India. Under-

researched and under-executed government projects for revival of traditional arts like

puppetry may run the risk of not fully understanding the folk traditional elements. The

Koonathara troupe led by master puppeteer KK Pulavar performing Tholpavakoothu

participated in this convention but stood out as they performed with their own

compressed version of Kamba Ramayana narratives and unlike others used traditional oil

lamps for the performance. According to Singh, the performances were awkward as the

suggested theme of these commissioned shows was not culturally connected to the

traditions of these art forms and puppeteers. The researcher Salil Singh suggests that the

puppeteers during that period would either have to modernize the art form without

looking back, in the search of an aesthetic that fits in the modern context or could keep

practicing the traditions as they were and not change with the changing socio-cultural

realities. If we apply this dichotomous plan of action to Tholpavakoothu, the paths taken

by the Tholpavakoothu artists can be understood.

Even when Tholpavakoothu witnessed cultural loss, except the Koonathara

troupe, no other artist troupes wanted to deviate from the traditional practices. This only

led to further stagnancy or loss and failed to adapt according to the changing times.

Following this, the Koonathara troupe focused on innovating and themselves

94

appropriating the art form for changing times. The new millennium, year 2000 was

characterized by a significant innovation made by the Tholpavakoothu artists. The

Koonathara puppeteers made their first shadow play show based on a narrative other

than the Ramayana. The story they used was Panchatantra, a collection of stories

consisting animal characters giving moral values lessons from ancient India. For this

narrative, the puppeteers made use of their traditional animal puppets.4 The troupe

continued on with this until the demise of the late puppeteer KK Pulavar. Puppeteer Rahul

Pulavar (R. Pulavar, personal communication, November 20, 2020) narrated how KK

Pulavar’s frequent and important collaborator G. Venu thought that this period was the

peak of the art form, but after this they found themselves being lost and scared of how

the art form could be successfully expanded with the ever-changing modern society.

Puppeteer and late master puppeteer KK Pulavar’s grandson, Rahul Pulavar confirms of

the absence of substantial matter or performances being recorded in the early 2000s and

remarked that the art form was static at that point. In the year 2007, the Koonathara

troupe further experimented by finally using the theme of Mahatma Gandhi’s life and

appropriated it for a Tholpavakoothu play. This was their first project in which they dealt

with a text that was not mythical but was historical. The puppeteers experimented with

4 Technically, before the Kamba Ramayana, the Tholpavakoothu/shadow puppet artists

were performing old folk stories of that time but in this instance, they had diverted from

the Ramayana story after centuries.

95

creation of appropriate puppets like automobiles, weapons, modern clothing, etc. for this

narration. This managed to give the troupe more chances to perform in schools and other

venues. Rahul Pulavar remarks that in the process of innovation and expanding the art

form, there were both successes and failures. He added that this period of time until 2010

was filled with experimentation and attempts for the artists and art forms to adapt to the

ever-changing society and thus seems like a static period for Tholpavakoothu artists.

Puppeteer Rahul Pulavar in our interview mentioned 2010 as the year when the troupe

once again began to create and release processed works.

Being part of the new generation of Tholpavakoothu artists, puppeteer Rahul

Pulavar says he understands his ancestors like late master puppeteer KK Pulavar and his

father Ramachandra Pulavar who decided to reform the art form structurally. He remarks

how this process of reforming a 210-hour performance into a 1 hour-version must have

been full of challenges and must have faced so much backlash but says that it is these

actions that keep them connected to the art form today. The troupe follows the belief that

every art form diminishes at some point and that adapting to the changing society is what

keeps the art form going. The troupe in today’s scenario have learned from history that it

is important to perform the art form in the kshetram (temple) as it always has and also to

perform on contemporary stages with the help of modern themes that are pertinent to

today’s society. The modern puppeteers recognized the need in today’s socio-economic

96

environment to create and represent many stories in many languages to connect with

varied audiences and create opportunities in many new avenues for the art form to expand,

as well as rebuild a strong base in the art form’s original locale. The Tholpavakoothu

artists did this by compartmentalizing the beliefs, motivations and cultures that influence

the traditional and modern versions of the art form in their own spheres, by letting them

interact with another and by not letting one dislodge the other. The field research

conducted in Shoranur, Kerala of the Koonathara troupe quickly observed the troupe’s

practice of balancing the different facets of the art form for its long-term sustenance.

3.1. The Koonathara troupe in March 2020: Field research observations

I commenced my field research in the town of Shoranur in the south-Indian state of

Kerala from 1st of March until the 10th of March 2020. On the 1st of March, I visited the

home of the artists of the Koonathara troupe, i.e. the home of the Pulavar family who

have generationally been Tholpavakoothu artists. On the first day, I was able to have a

recorded interview session with the artists Rajeev and Rahul Pulavar. Through the free-

flowing, open ended interviews I was able to at first grasp, the essence of the rituals of

the art form and its current practice. They explained to me about the art form, its

performative details and contemporary state of the art form. One thing we were able to

focus on was the artist’s position in the growth of the art form. Speaking with them, I

97

enquired into the details of the relation of Tholpavakoothu to the artists, the local

audience, the new audiences it’s reaching and the identity of the art form. When I visited

their home, I got a chance to look at the usual leather puppets that the artists traditionally

use and they explained to me the materials, the usage and the symbolism behind the

puppets. The puppeteers keenly explained how the myths have been passed down along

with the artistic knowledge. As the knowledge and skills of the art form is passed down

among the younger generations of puppeteers, so are the beliefs. The myth/ sankalpam

that the ritualistic performances are carried out for the goddess Bhadrakali to see still

holds as much importance as it did before in pre-modern era. The puppeteers confirm the

existence of many myths that were used to showcase the stories in different ways, but the

myth in which goddess Bhadrakali wants to witness the Ramayana battle is still the most

popular as the modern puppeteers base their temple ritualistic performances upon it. The

puppeteers commented that the beliefs of the audience, the sponsors and the artists and

their interactions with one another and with the art form play a very important role in the

functioning of the art form in today’s time. Puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar says that the art

form is still being performed in the temples by them most importantly for the mother

goddess’ enjoyment. The audiences have their own belief systems and specific roles of

participation in the ritualistic performances that is ingrained into the culture.

The locals join in on the festivities of the temple festivals. The temple festivals

98

have shifted from mainly religious to entertaining events in the present scenario. During

the field research, the locality of Shoranur was bustling because of the festivities causing

intense traffic, crowds, loud music, street dancing, and fireworks shows. In today’s

festivities, puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar states that the modern solution to attract people and

collect money to fund the temple activities is to conduct singing and dance programs. On

the night of March 1st, at the Kozhimamparambu temple, I was able to attend such a

music-dance program conducted on a makeshift stage in the temple premises, opposite

to the koothumadam. This entertainment program was well-attended with more than 50

families participating in the performances. The event was followed by the

Tholpavakoothu rituals but what I observed was that most of the people left the temple

premises after the entertainment program. Puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar states that this has

been the state of temple performances in the modern age where the audience’s

preferences are changing. This pattern was repeated in all the temple performances I

attended. The only viewers left behind wait until a certain point in the prayer rituals of

the Tholpavakoothu performance to receive the blessings for the goddess. Some common

beliefs among many locals are that watching certain episodes of the performance are

lucky, and that conduction of the performances itself brings the village good luck. I

observed some villagers bowing their hands and holding their hands in the Hindu prayer

position looking at the koothumadam but did not wait to watch the performance. The

99

audience only consisted of 2-5 locals, photographers, videographers possibly there for

research or documentation purposes. But the audience is not completely cut off from the

ritualistic performance. On the 3rd of March, I watched another night temple

performance at the Kavussery Temple. As it was the first day of the 14-day long

performance there, I was able to witness the rituals before the start of the ritualistic art

form and got a chance to see the local people’s involvement in the performance. Different

families that live near the koothumadams are responsible for sponsoring meals and

refreshments for the puppeteers who have to perform all night. In conversation with the

locals, they narrated old experiences of rushing to the temples after schools and sleeping

on their parents’ laps while the performances went on at night. They explained that even

listening or being in the vicinity of a Tholpavakoothu performance was considered lucky.

The locals also still participate in the Garudapatthu in Puttur Kaavu (Palghat), Aryan

Kaavu (Shornur), Payilur Kaavu (Kollengode) and other temples as before. I observed

this event on 7th of March when I revisited the Kavussery Temple as the 14-day

performance happening at that temple was having its Garudapatthu ritual on that day.

The audience participation in this event in terms of sponsoring, fulfilling the

ritual and dancing and singing on chenda music and popular film music displays a

modern involvement of locals. For the locals, the Tholpavakoothu rituals are mostly

sources of religious beliefs and not for entertainment but such events that also include

100

fun attract more people to attend the performances. The villagers and artists have

established a system wherein the locals pay some money to the puppeteers to pray for

them and their families during the rituals of the performance. On the night of 1st March,

I visited Kozhimamparambu Temple at Cheruthuruthi at 9 pm as the performance

ritualistically takes place at night owing to the myth it follows of the story of Bhadrakali

goddess and the demon Darika. The performance overnight is staged for the goddess to

watch herself. Here, I observed this system of micro-sponsorship and participated in it.

As the puppeteers were prepping for the rituals and the performance, one of the

puppeteers sat on the stairs of the Koothumadam and a line was formed in front of him

of people waiting to pay for their family names to be read and blessed during the course

of the performance. The people had to enlist the name, birth date and year and Hindu

birth nakshatra (birth star) of the persons seeking blessings and had to pay 10 Indian

Rupees (INR) for each family member to receive blessings. The puppeteer Rajeev

Pulavar suggests that the people need the art form which is why it continues to exist.

Unlike other classical art forms in India that receive huge patronages from the higher

class and caste section of the society, Tholpavakoothu is an art form anyone can watch,

anyone can contribute to, can participate in, enjoy and seek blessings from. The puppeteer

stresses the importance of even the smallest contributions of 5-10 INR as important as

these sponsors are necessary for the koothumadam maintenance, and the traditional

101

materials like coconuts, oil, telli, etc. The puppeteers are also able to generate income

from the money these devotees offer. The art form has always received patronage from

temple managers, or temple administrators called ‘deshakar’. In today’s patronage

system they pay the troupes 350-500 INR per day which is divided amongst the

puppeteers based on seniority. Although, puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar does add that the

number of ‘deshakaar’ involved in temple activities has decreased in comparison to older

times due to which temple administration has faced certain functional problems.

Still, the puppeteers remark that situation with local performances and

traditional rituals are continuing efficiently due to the strong beliefs of the people in the

art form. They say that awareness of the art form is not large yet, but people spread the

benefits of these rituals which attracts more and more people to fund private ritualistic

performances. There is a waitlist running up to 5 years long with people waiting to

sponsor ritualistic one-day or several days of performances for their good luck and

fulfillment of wishes. The troupe conducts these performances all year around even in

off-seasons in the koothumadam that they have built in their own home. I got the

opportunity to observe this home-made stage theatre. The puppeteers point out that all

the ritualistic performances conducted at this stage theatre are done with all the proper

rituals just like the ones done at the temple. They showed me the frame of this stage they

set up at home themselves and explained to me that they perform there for tourists, and

102

for people who visit their homes and are unable to watch their temple and stage

performances. This space for them is also a workshop as I was shown their collection of

Tholpavakoothu puppets, other puppets, the materials and tools used to prepare the

puppets and other materials required for the performances. In this personal workspace,

the balanced and compartmentalized methodology behind the Koonathara troupe’s art is

evident. They carry out traditional ritualistic performances here, make their own puppets,

and care for their traditional puppets. At the same time, they have a specific section where

they put many puppets up for sale to clients who use it for decorative purposes. The space

as mentioned before is also used to perform for tourists, visitors, scholars, researchers

and photographers or videographers who have previously made documentaries on the art

form.

On 2nd March, I had the chance to interview the esteemed artist K.K.

Ramachandra Pulavar, son of the late master puppeteer KK Pulavar who was able to

delineate nuanced details about the traditional art form and its history and current growth

due to his experience. According to him, people have money but don’t have peace of

mind which is why they still consult the Pulavars for sharing their troubles, for advice

and solutions and strongly believe that the holy ritualistic performances are good for them.

103

The master puppeteer narrated from experience;

“3 years ago (2017) in Trivandrum a family was on the verge of divorce and at the same

time were also struggling financially. They tried marriage counselling, family

intervention and pooja (holy praying) but it didn’t work. Then they were suggested to

sponsor the conduction of a Tholpavakoothu performance. By then, the performance and

temple festivals season were already over. But as they were struggling, I agreed for

performing the archana (worship). I performed in our own theatre (as the temple festival

season is over and this is a personal sponsored ritual), pooja, prasadam (food that is

religious offering) was given to them. I prayed for a solution for them along with the

prasadam. They ate it, and in a week they were happy. I am happy too if they are happy.”

(R. Pulavar, personal communication, March 2, 2020)

3.2. Balancing Traditional and Modern

Thus, as fulfilling it is for the believers who sponsor, and attend the ritualistic

performance, the master puppeteer said that a normal job like what he used to do before

is not at all satisfying as this one is for an artist like him who carries out his duties and

also gets to help people. It has generationally become their family’s duty as scholars to

perform the goddess, pray for the whole village’s good luck and also to help the people

104

when they need advice. The puppeteers’ needs, motivations and beliefs are also important

to evaluate to understand how the art form continues its balanced existence in today’s

scenario. The Tholpavakoothu performers, with their revered status as knowledgeable

scholars ‘Pulavars’ generally lived disciplined lives. They had to be modestly dressed,

had to follow several rules of the temple, and were expected to be immensely

knowledgeable. This still applies to a certain degree to the puppeteers of today. For

instance, the puppeteers to date follow the ritualistic pre-requisites before beginning the

ritualistic performances in the temples like observing a ‘noyembu’ or fast. The puppeteers

of today are also trained in the traditional narratives of Kamba Ramayana. Although,

puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar says the amount of knowledge that the current

puppeteers have has reduced in comparison to their ancestors. He put it simply by saying

that his father late puppeteer KK Pulavar told him that he himself only had 40% of the

knowledge which his ancestors had, which reduced to a 20% in the case of puppeteer

Ramachandra Pulavar and according to him only seems to be reducing. He suggests that

the puppeteers now do not have the patience to learn everything.

Young puppeteers Rajeev and Rahul Pulavar (R. Pulavar, personal

communication, March 1, 2020) say that this is happening also because that kind of

traditional knowledge is not what is needed in today’s society anymore. It is suggested

that the level of traditional training has degraded, or is reduced, but the new puppeteers

105

learn many modern skills that are of use to them in the current scenario. The new

generation puppeteers are among the first ones in the troupe to have pursued higher

education. They learn languages like Hindi for viewers of other Indian states, and English

for urban populations of India and for the various international audiences. They learn

modern ways of script writing and incorporating modern music into the puppet play. An

important skill they have had to learn is to shrink the 100+ hours of performative oral

narration and puppet play performed in the temple to shorter 1-hour versions for modern

audiences outside the temples or even 3-minute versions for online video portals like

Youtube. They learn technological skills such as how to use computers, usage of internet,

operating projectors, video-making skills, and learn to use social media. They also offer

the art form in different ways to the public, by learning how to conduct puppetry

workshops for children and adults, by making sales of art pieces inspired by the

traditional Tholpavakoothu puppets and by offering the art form to tourists through in-

house performances, homestays and offering cultural experiences of the puppeteers’

everyday life and artistry. The puppeteers now also have to learn to take care of funding,

government documentation and the various government applications. Thus, the

puppeteers are trained to be artists but in the modern scenario, also learn to be

entrepreneurs and learn the skill of administering the logistics of the continuity of a now

government recognized art form (R. Pulavar, personal communication, November 20,

106

2020). The multi-faceted skill sets of the Tholpavakoothu artists looks different in

different phases of time.

Puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar suggests that the establishment and

representation of the traditions of Tholpavakoothu is very important to them even though

there is so little audience in the temple. The Koonathara artists unanimously believe that

it is because of the temple cultural traditions of the art form that the art form is established

as an art form. The identity of the art form as a ritual traditional art form is important to

its growth. Thus, it is important for them to keep performing at the 85 temples that they

currently perform at. In addition to this, they want to reclaim the rest 10 to 15 temples

that are mentioned in the older calendars of their ancestors but were lost out on with time

due to economic difficulties. Puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar reassured that the troupe

will now only add and not subtract to the number of temples where the rituals will be

conducted, even if the number of days allotted for the performance decreases or other

struggles appear.

The puppeteers think of the innovations of the art form in the modern as a change

that had to be made to keep the art form expanding and growing. Puppeteer Ramachandra

Pulavar admits that if they only do temple performances, there is a lack of audience and

if that was the case for 10 more years back in the seventies, nobody would have come to

watch it and nobody would be interested in performing it either. That is one of the major

107

reasons why they had to introduce many different stories, styles and artists to the art form.

They in no way deny the importance of innovations in the growth of the art form. In the

process of expanding the art forms in new avenues to new audiences the artists

participated and experimented in many ways.

In the way that the traditional rituals of the art form are based on the beliefs,

motivations and functions of the local society, the modern innovations are also based on

the changing needs, motivations, beliefs and functions of the current social environment.

In modern times, the Indian government recognized the potential in puppetry based on

its social productivity or use to spread messages to localized communities, by using

puppets to explain government policies and development schemes. Multiple languages,

illiteracy, comparative lack of electronic technology made it difficult to have only one

medium of communication over a large area like India and so localized creative traditions

like puppetry that can encourage communication amongst people proves to be efficient.

The Koonathara troupe picked up on these discrepancies and came up with ways to reach

many audiences through their art. Puppetry has always been a communicative form of

mass media that has presented ideas to people of all types all over the world. In the

interview, puppeteer Rahul Pulavar states that puppetry is communicative and is an art

form that has the potential to deal with large. So, in the modern era they made the decision

to identify and make use of the non-ritualistic side of puppetry to expand the art form (R.

108

Pulavar, personal communication, November 20, 2020).

3.3. Tholpavakoothu: New themes, new formats

In the year 2012, the troupe created a play based on the story of Jesus Christ for the first

time. Recognizing the high population of Christian people in Kerala, the artists created

this narrative for the play to connect to that section of the population and even performed

these plays in up to 25 churches and now more than 200 stages. Not just this, the troupe

has also occasionally appropriated the typically Muslim Arabic stories and has reached

many people. The troupe’s diversification of the art form across languages, cultures and

religions through the traditional Tholpavakoothu representation forged a new multi-

cultural identity for the art form. The puppeteers have opened up the at form to the various

offers that they receive from event managers, sponsors, and other artists. They began

holding puppetry demonstrations and workshops for students in school. The artists often

began to dabble and feature in artistic projects like Shakespearean narratives that have

no cultural significance to the artists. The artists were featured on various TV channels

to present the traditional art form of Tholpavakoothu. They even experimented by

agreeing to feature in music videos for Malayalam movies, for instance the 2002 film

Meesa Madhavan was one of the first movies where Tholpavakoothu puppets were

109

featured and since then have been featured occasionally. The representation of

Tholpavakoothu as an art form of Kerala was further promoted when a picture of a

Tholpavakoothu puppet was made the main logo of the International Film Festival of

Kerala (IFFK), a film festival held every year in the capital city of Kerala by the ‘Kerala

State Chalachitra (Film) Academy’ under the Department of Cultural Affairs,

Government of Kerala. The promotion of the art form resulted in increased state and

national recognition of the art form as the ‘traditional shadow puppetry art form’ of

Kerala. In 2013, the artists got to performed for Kerala State Tourism Department’s

festival. The master puppeteer K.K. Ramachandra Pulavar and his son puppeteer K.

Rajeev Pulavar are receivers of many awards and accolades for their innovative work and

the preservation of Tholpavakoothu. Master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar received

the Sangeet Natak Akademi’s National Award from the President of India in 2015 and in

2016 received the Indian National Award for excellent work in the preservation of the

traditional art form of Tholpavakoothu. In these years, the troupe worked on maximizing

the exposure the art form received by participating in puppetry festivals all over the world

like the Dhaatu International Puppetry Festival. In 2018, the troupe represented

Tholpavakoothu in a one of a kind mobile theatre where for the first time, shadow, string

and glove puppets were all performed together.

110

3.4. Tholpavakoothu on the Internet

By the year 2013, the Koonathara troupe had started building their profile and brand

image on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. They proceeded to share

information, links, videos, pictures and documentations, news articles and achievements

about the art form officially on their social media accounts. The troupe also built their

own blog website called <tholpavakoothu.in> where they provide information about the

art form and the troupe in the form of the performances, researched articles and books,

pictures, etc. The blog also carries information about their upcoming performance

schedules, the stories they have presented and enlists the puppets that are for sale. The

troupe made its own Youtube channel called ‘Tholpavakoothu Kalakendram’ in the year

2015 where they regularly upload and share videos of the different kinds of performances

based on different themes and stories that the troupe experiments with and presents. The

puppeteers often took part in online livestreams where they performed and held

demonstrations for viewers.

The artists of the Koonathara troupe experimented and were able to translate the

art form into many mediums without losing the traditional identity of the art form. In fact,

many sponsors and event planners expected the artists to represent and showcase the

traditional characteristics of the art form in a way that fit the format and purpose of their

events and programs. During the course of my field research, on 6th of March, I watched

111

a stage performance outside the temple premises at the Balabadradevi Temple at

Shoranur. It was interesting to watch this one as it was a more modern, crystallized,

shortened version of the otherwise traditionally 7, 14 or 21-day long show. This

performance was just one and a half hour long and had shortened the long narrative story

of Ramayana into a one-and-a-half-hour-long show. This temple did not have a

koothumadam attached to it, that is it was not one of the temples where the troupe ritually

performs Tholpavakoothu. Amidst the poozham (temple festival) season, the temple

administrators of the Balabadradevi temple had invited the Koonathara troupe for a

special Tholpavakoothu performance. Technically this was still a temple performance,

but not one culturally related to the Tholpavakoothu traditions. This was evident in the

arrangements made in the temple. After a session of pooja (praying) and distribution of

prasadam (religious food offering), the devotees noticed that a tent and stage had been

put up near the shrine where banners of a Tholpavakoothu performance were hung,

microphone speakers, artificial lights and chairs had been arranged indicating that the

event was happening soon. This wasn’t a traditional Tholpavakoothu ritualistic setting

which further indicated that at this event Tholpavakoothu the shadow puppetry art form

was going to be performed and not the rituals. Before the performance, the puppeteers

introduced the art form, its history and its changes.

112

This kind of promotion of the art form and introducing it meant that it was being

performed to an audience assumed to be not aware of the art form’s existence. The artists

used and played a fast-paced narration of the Ramayana story, instrumental music and

sound-effects pre-recorded by the troupe for the performance. Puppeteer Ramachandra

Pulavar remarks that performances are using more fast-paced, rapid narratives in modern

performances outside its ritualistic contexts in comparison to the slow-paced live verbal

narration in koothumadams. The artists used comedy and introduced comic characters

like the ‘Vidhushak’ who narrates the stories with a comedic twist to it. It was observed

that during the ritualistic performances that last for hours in the night, the puppets are

barely moved or manipulated by the puppeteers except to change the scene or for some

ritualistic reasons. In those performances, each scene and the narration of it take time as

the puppeteers sing the verse, explain it, debate it and add their own inputs into it. In

modern performances where the sound and narrations are pre-recorded and the narration

is shorter, the puppet manipulation is fast and crisp and full of movements to keep the

screen engaging for the audience. When the Ramayana story is expressed in such an

innovative fashion the puppeteers say that the familiarity of the story adds to the appeal

as they feel a religious connection as well as derive entertainment from it. This was

evident as there were more than 50 members of the local community watching and

enjoying the performance.

113

One more stage performance was staged during the tenure of my field research

on 10th of March. This Tholpavakoothu performance took place completely outside of

the temple premises. This was a 20-minute performance that was performed at an

auditorium as part of the Kerala State Food Department’s Clean Food Awareness

Program. The performance was completely based on the message of relaying the

importance of eating clean food, which was a step away from its ritualistic tradition of

portraying the Ramayana narrative. Tholpavakoothu is recognized as an important form

of traditional folk theatre of India which has historically been a form of information and

education in its locality like other puppetry traditions. The Government of India and state

governments made efforts to support the preservation and continuation of puppet theatre

by following the usage of puppet theatre of communist states to proliferate village

development projects through plays (Awasthi, 2001). In fact, Tholpavakoothu has

diversified its potential in the modern times and as a form of traditional communication

and is approached by Government departments and voluntary organizations for

development communication, adult education, awareness programs about health and

sanitation, and for election campaigns encouraging rural people to participate in voting

processes (Das, 2013, p.9). In this 20-minute performance, the artists set up a play in

which the characters were family members in Kerala discussing about the importance of

healthy and clean food. The performance was crisp, included quick changes in sceneries

114

and quick manipulations of puppets. The puppets were of different ages and so the bodies

of the puppets were made accordingly. They wore modern clothing, used modern

Malayalam and even used the occasional English words in their vocabulary. But the

artists make it a point to retain some traditional touches even in these scripted

performances. They do that by still using oil lamps and fire to make the shadow puppets

come to life.

As the art form expands to other mediums and formats of performances, the

artistry of the artists and art form naturally changes. In various perspectives of tradition

and modern, the traditional sphere has been seen as orthodox and stringent while the

modern spheres have been seen as one that encourages innovation. In this study, through

the example of Tholpavakoothu it can be seen that the two spheres are not always

polarizing sites of symbol production. The puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar stated in the

interview that he feels like he could channel his creativity in terms of narrations much

more freely and gets to improvise and share opinions, thoughts and feelings when

performing in temples in comparison to sponsored stage performances. Although

innovative themes, technology, music and puppets can be used in modern stage

performances, sponsor-certified scripts, music and time limitations can leave no space

for improvisation. The artist felt freer to perform in the temple with the goddess, a handful

of locals and other puppeteers as the audience. This proves that innovations breed in both

115

spheres but are context sensitive in the way that how the artists play with the aesthetic of

the art form. The puppeteers are approached to cover all kinds of stories by religious and

non-religious organizations. Because the audiences have changed, puppeteer

Ramachandra Pulvar remarked that they had to learn the skill of appropriating any kind

of narrative into a Tholpavakoothu play. The puppeteers add that in the current times,

there are no artistic limits to innovating the art form in the modern times as long as it is

outside the temple. He remarks that the artists have to learn to take the initiatives in

today’s time to step outside the temple and work hard on acquiring new opportunities.

3.5. Compartmentalization with Context-sensitivity

The study has been using the concept of compartmentalization to try and explain how the

Tholpavakoothu artists have been pragmatically allotting traditions and modern

innovations into different spheres so as to function a system where they co-exist in

practice. Researcher Milton Singer (1971) suggests that India has always been

compartmentalizing contradictory concepts of pleasure, economics and spirituality in

society and continues to do so. According to Sam Parker (2013, p. 155), India has

successfully compartmentalized the neoliberal free market economic imperialism from

the spiritual. Researcher A.K. Ramanujan (1990 cited in Parker, 2013, p.153) further adds

116

to this concept of compartmentalization by saying that the India hasn’t been completely

successful in containing the process of modernization in one sphere. He instead suggests

that the Indian way of thinking, now is to compartmentalize based on a ‘context-sensitive’

approach. In today’s globalizing modernity, it is difficult to keep tradition away from the

modern and so he suggests that Indian culture compartmentalizes based on the context.

The traditional practice and modern innovation cannot be completely tucked

away into separate spheres. In the case of Tholpavakoothu, the artists today are balancing

their religious duties, their artistry, the art form’s growth and their economic needs based

on a culture that compartmentalizes changes in a context-sensitive way. The interaction

between traditions and the modern innovations aren’t always synergic and have often

caused backlash in the history of the art form.

3.6. Gender, Caste and Apprenticeship

As mentioned before, traditionally, women had been excluded from participating as

puppeteers in Tholpavakoothu. According to researcher Friedrich Seltmann (1986), only

the male members of the family were educated in shadow play traditions and women

were not even allowed to come in contact with the puppets yet expected to be part of the

audience. The performances are social events not separated from the community activity,

117

as they reflect the social relations existing in the society itself. Master puppeteer

Ramachandra Pulavar opined that in the pre-modern era, women did not step outside the

house and were not allowed to have professions. Women are still not allowed to be priests

in Hindu temples and as the Koothumadam was a holy place, it might have been the same

logic applied there that kept women out of the art form. Scholar of Kerala performance

traditions Kaladharan Viswanath suggested that the traditional role assigned to women

of being domestic workers at home and serving their husbands must have been one of the

reasons. The scholar also enlists the possibility of the society’s caste dynamics as one of

the reasons. Being lower caste women made them more vulnerable to higher caste patrons

of the temple. It could also be the case that women were discouraged from being outside

their houses at night-time as all Tholpavakoothu performances took place at night. Other

reasons were that women’s menstruation was considered impure barring their entrance

from the theatre. But in today’s scenario, as the art form has gone through so many

changes, another significant change that took place was that master puppeteer

Ramachandra Pulavar was one of the first to open the art form to women. Motivated by

wanting to pass on the art form to next generation, the puppeteer believed that passing it

on to all his children including his 2 sons and a daughter was important. The master

puppeteer narrated an instance in which a puppeteer he knew had only daughters as

children and because they were women, the puppeteer did not pass down the knowledge

118

of the art form. The master puppeteer is generous about change because he believes that

passing down the art form is of most importance. Not just that, the puppeteer encouraged

his wife and daughter to both be involved in the puppet-making performance. When the

troupe is away performing at other locations, the women have also conducted

performances at the theatre built at their family home. As Milton Singer (1971, pp.168-

172) said, in line with the concept of innovations in ritually neutral areas, we can observe

that the current and ongoing innovations continue to benefit more people economically

and socially. As the art form opens up to women, the women of the family receive

opportunities to express themselves, as well as be productively employed. The

puppeteers have even staged plays with women empowerment as the theme. The Kerala

government as well has identified the importance of women’s representation in

traditional puppetry and has funded schemes for women puppeteers to form their own

plays. Although, puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar states that such innovations are

possible only outside the temple. Other puppeteers have apparently challenged the

participation of women in puppetry outside the temple but are strictly against it inside the

temple. The artists narrated an instance during our interview in which the troupe were

not invited back and lost out on performing in one temple altogether because they offered

a female audience member protection from cold and rain by inviting her to sit inside the

koothumadam. The puppeteers say that some temples are stricter than the others and they

119

cannot afford to lose performances and so have to follow the rule of not allowing women

inside the koothumadam to avoid losses. This is one case where the traditional and the

modern ideologies interacted and led to the creation of a practice where the artists have

to behave according to context in order to continue performing the art form. In the same

way, people of lower caste than the Tholpavakoothu artists could watch the performance

but could not enter the koothumadam or learn the traditional knowledge to be a puppeteer

himself. But as participation of younger generations in the art form decreased, troupes

like Koonathara troupe decided to open up the strict apprenticeship rules of the art form

and conduct classes and workshops and pass on the knowledge and skills to people no

matter what their caste or class. The inclusion of lower caste individuals in the troupe as

performers gives people opportunities for employment and artistic expression which

benefits the community.

3.7. Efforts of the Artists

Puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar confirms that the art form definitely had to be

commercialized for the sake of survival. He said that just the 4 months of traditional

performances in temples would reap them very less income. Thus, the Koonathara troupe

has tapped into the tourism industry by putting up lots of stage performances in the home

120

stage theatre they have built. To build connections with the tourists, the troupe has had to

make use of English subtitles or English language narrations for the puppet plays. They

also offer entertaining the guests by letting them observe the everyday lives of the

puppeteers in their home. The puppeteers have also invested in puppet-making and sales

for tourists and other interested buyers. In areas where tourism is developing, producers

impulsively commercialize their crafts, art, creations for sale directly. Tourists expect to

experience all the authentic culture in a short amount of time which naturally produces

standardized versions of the performances for the tourists to easily consume. Puppeteer

Ramachandra Pulavar reiterates that the solutions other state traditions of puppetry came

up with was to give up on temple performances and divert all their attention towards

performing on stages. But the artists of the Koonathara troupe truly believe that

Tholpavakoothu is a special art form and that it needs to be represented and shared in its

authentic form as well as should change as every art form needs to grow with the

changing society to be continued. Puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar narrated that he and

traditional puppetry in general began receiving national and international recognition, but

he realizes that these awards need to help with the actual promotion of the art form. He

says that for his troupe, the land, the locale is very important but due to modern trends

like migration, people have abandoned the art form. He said many people in Kerala do

not understand the importance of puppetry and dismiss it as child’s play. Although his

121

efforts with the growth of puppetry with other puppeteers have resulted in a traditional

puppeteer of the ‘nokku vidya pava kali’ to win a Padma Shri Award from the

Government of India. The puppeteers say that the representation of the art form is very

important. According to them modern associations of puppets are made with children or

it is given a low status among arts. But they say, shadow puppet theatre is a complex

amalgamation of artistic skills and visual, oral, acoustic elements having the ability to

relay messages through stories in many languages. They stress on the traditional

ritualistic core of the art form as well as the potential of the art form to be flexible,

innovate and expand infinitely and reach diverse audiences.

In the neoliberal economic mythology, the position, meaning and function of the

arts are often questioned. According to Morcom (2015, p.299) the social if not the

economic productivity of the arts has to be justified in the capitalizing world. She links

capitalism with productivity while pointing out that in the capitalist world it is important

for an activity or object to be ‘useful’ or ‘productive’, an idea which she picks up from

E.P. Thompson who explains that in every capitalist society, everything must be

consumed, marketed and used. The artists recognize this in today’s context and so are

trying to promote Tholpavakoothu to flourish on to contemporary spaces by

incorporating more and more diverse and modern themes. They recognize the ability of

portals like the internet to enable the performing arts to spread beyond a local audience

122

to varied larger audiences to promote the art form, to spread social messages, to build

their identity as a traditional and modern art form. They constantly work on new themes

for social media but also give as much importance to their traditional ritualistic duties as

Pulavars. The master puppeteer says that the troupe wants to keep traditional and

contemporary practices both (R. Pulavar, personal communication, March 2, 2020).

Thus, the main strategy of the Koonathara troupe is a context-sensitive

compartmentalization of traditional religious duties and modern innovations. The artists

wish to economically sustain off the art form and the motivation to artistically share their

art and knowledge to the world. The puppeteers stress on wanting to keep performing in

the ritualistic performances for the goddess but want to transform the ritualistic art form

into a specific style of modern puppetry. The puppeteers want to be the artist-scholars of

Tholpavakoothu, the traditional ritualistic shadow puppet tradition that has historically

been inside the temple and want to be new-age artists of Tholpavakoothu, innovative

puppeteers outside the temple.

3.8. TPK in the time of COVID-19

Natural disasters and crises can catch human lives by surprise with or without preparation

and can cause serious damage to the fabric of the society. The economy, culture, and the

everyday lives of people are affected due to this. The state of Kerala where

123

Tholpavakoothu is based, faced two outbreaks of intense rain and floods twice in a row

in two years. The 2018 and 2019 floods of Kerala devastated the state affecting thousands

of people leaving them homeless, lost or dead. The floods also affected and caused

damage cultural heritage in terms of artifacts like manuscripts, craft forms, etc. across

Kerala. The Shoranur area where the Koonathara troupe resides and performs was also

affected by the floods as basic amenities like transport came to a standstill. One of the

significant effects of the floods were that it heavily affected the state government funds

due to which the state support for traditional art forms like Tholpavakoothu was reduced.

The COVID-19 global pandemic of the SARC-CoV-2 virus entered India and was

reported first in the state of Kerala on 30th January 2020. The fear of the increasing cases

globally and domestically began to affect people’s everyday lives. To deal with the

increasing cases, India was put under a nation-wide lockdown on 24th March 2020 which

meant that all establishments except basic necessities like groceries and medicines and

emergency public services would be closed. The global pandemic affected and put a

standstill on the economy, education, commercial establishments like malls and

restaurants, entertainment, religious institutions, public transport and public events and

gatherings. The pandemic induced one of the biggest migrant exoduses in Indian history,

caused employment for millions of workers, triggered a food crisis, and created lots of

misinformation among the people. The Kerala state Government announced immediate

124

relief in the form of a ₹20,000 crore (US$2.8 billion) package for the state to tackle the

issues caused by the pandemic. The sponsorships and employment of the performing

artists were greatly affected as the arts were given very less priority by the State and other

sponsors during the pandemic induced struggles. According to puppeteer Rahul Pulavar,

the troupe did not receive any help from the State and financial aids to the arts had

reduced amidst the pandemic (R. Pulavar, personal communication, November 20, 2020)

The state made it compulsory to follow physical social distancing and closure of many

public spaces as basic protocol to flatten the curve of the virus. This has strongly

impacted the traditional art forms all over India.

As mentioned before, as per the Hindu calendar, the first few months of the year,

that is January to May is an extremely important period for Tholpavakoothu. The major

temple festivals take place in this period of time and the performances during this holy

time are extremely important for the Tholpavakoothu artists, ritually and economically.

My field research that was conducted in March of 2020 was before the national lockdown

was announced but still suffered as some events, performances and projects that were

supposed to be observed for the study were cancelled by the event managers themselves

due to the COVID-19 scare. To get an in-depth insight into the Koonathara troupe’s

experience during the COVID-19 times, the young generation puppeteer and researcher

Rahul Pulavar obliged my request for a virtual phone interview. When asked about how

125

the Tholpavakoothu practicing troupe has navigated around the global pandemic and its

restrictions, the puppeteer remarked that all artists dependent on art forms for their

livelihoods became victims of the pandemic. A great issue faced by them was that they

lost out on the months of March, April and May which is usually peak time for them to

perform in the temple poozham (festivals). The artists usually focus of temple sponsored

performances in the first half of the year, and as that was disrupted by the pandemic, they

lost out on much performances and income they earn form it. Puppeteer Rahul Pulavar

said that this directly affected their living conditions as it did with other artists. He added

that as this was the only skill the artists have been practicing and mastering for years, it

becomes difficult for them to participate in other jobs.

In a regular year of performances, the latter half of the year is usually reserved

by the artists to focus on stage performances outside the temple, sponsored by various

sources. COVID-19 immensely affected this as well. I bore witness to some events that

got cancelled due to the pandemic scare and the puppeteer said that everything began to

get cancelled one by one after this due to the state and national lockdown rules. The

World Puppetry Day celebrated on March 21st is an important event in the world of

puppetry that coincided with the lockdown due to which this year there was no other

option than to celebrate online. With the global pandemic, everything from school to

work to meetings to events had to adapt in different ways. Performing art events and

126

festivals all over the world had to find new ways to adapt to the changing social

environment created by the global pandemic. Artists began to hold performances by

practicing social distancing or presented their performances through the videotelephony

system of Zoom Video Communications. They also used other social networking sites

like Facebook, Instagram and video broadcast platforms like Youtube to release their

content, connect with audiences and continue growing their art forms. Many industries

even outside of the arts had to adapt to the changing social environments.

3.9. Tholpavakoothu’s adaptive strategies

The Tholapavakoothu artists of the Koonathara troupe were prompt in creating processed

works even after the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were announced. The troupe shot

and released a 3-minute COVID-19 Awareness Campaign video for World Puppetry Day.

The puppeteers original project for the World Puppetry Day was to perform and

demonstrate the art form in the schools in their district which got cancelled as all public

places were closed. The puppeteers described feeling a social responsibility and wanted

to spread messages of the importance of following rules like social distancing, staying

home and wearing masks put forth by health departments to stay safe in a simple way

through puppetry. They made this video available on social media platforms like Youtube,

127

Whatsapp, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for everyone to watch and easily share. This

video was also covered by the Indian Express Newspaper and shared over social media

platforms by UNIMA, the France-based international puppetry association. This play was

directed by master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar who has been credited for promptly

picking up topics relevant in the current times and using it for the art form. The

puppeteers believe that this move of the artists to incorporate modern social themes and

evolving with social relevance is what will keep the art form afloat even in the future.

The troupe also created a 3-minute video called ‘Modikuuthu’ in which COVID

awareness, safety measures, lockdown measures as declared by the prime minister of

India Narendra Modi were displayed.

The Koonathara troupe also conducted online paid performances over the Zoom

App in English and Malayalam languages for many people to tune in and watch. The

puppeteers began to take requests for special private ritualistic performances for

interested viewers. On July 4th 2020, the troupe performed a shortened version of

Ramayana in English. They conducted the worship of God Ganesha, followed by a

regular appropriated performance of Ramayana and finished the session by explaining

the preparation, manipulation processes of the puppets. The puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar

explained how they make the puppets and encouraged the viewers to make their own

puppets and act out stories. They perform in their own shadow theatre at home and so

128

they still perform the rituals. Audience interaction completely changes when art forms

are not performed in front of the people but online. Through the Zoom Application,

people typed and sent their comments and questions in the chat box. The puppeteer Rahul

Pulavar compares this inability to look at the audience to the koothumadam through

which the artists cannot see the audience members as well.

Amidst the national lockdown, the troupe made it a point to share their

traditional ritualistic work with the audiences as well. Reading the Ramayana text during

the Karkidakam maasam (month), also called the Ramayana month is a Hindu ritual

followed by the elder members of a family at home and by priests at temples. The troupe

livestreamed master puppeteer Ramachandra Pulavar’s reading of the Ramayana text for

the whole month at 7pm every day on the Facebook website from 16th of July to 15th of

August 2020. The woman puppeteer Rajitha Pulavar also held a Facebook livestream

sharing her experiences with the art form and offered a unique perspective being one of

the few woman puppeteers. In September, the troupe also experimented by agreeing to

being shot for a music video called the ‘Lets Meet Again’ project which displays a hope

for life to resume normalcy once the COVID-19 crisis passed. In November, the group

continued with online performances.

Government support came in for the art form during the lockdown period when

the Koonathara troupe held a one-hour long livestream on November 20th at 5pm via the

129

social networking site of Facebook as part of a Facebook live series called “Antarang’

streamed on the official Facebook page of the Sangeet Natak Akademi (National

Academy of Music, Dance and Drama) which is an Autonomous body under the Ministry

of Culture of the Government of India. The session was conducted by master puppeteer

Ramachandra Pulavar who narrated and used visual aids in the online presentations. He

started the session by proudly introducing the heritage and diversity of Indian culture and

expressing gratitude for being a part of India’s magnanimous culture. He was quick to

point out the prominence of puppetry in Indian culture as an idea with high artistic

aesthetic potential. He introduced the various types of traditional and new forms of

puppetry and introduced Tholpavakoothu, the traditional puppetry of Kerala as the first

art form of the world and as the foundation of modern cinema and animation. He

suggested that the creation of first Indian made film ‘Raja Harishchandra’ (1913) by

Dadasaheb Phalke was inspired by the shadow puppets in Maharashtra. He delineated

the historical, religious, mythological and ritualistic aspects of the art form. He also spoke

of the current conditions of the art form and the future prospects.

The online presentation of the art form through new media like social

networking sites and global video portals like Youtube diversifies and expands the

audience by manifolds. In Saptarshi Kolay’s (2015, pp.311-312) study on the

preservation of traditional Indian art through virtual new media, there is work done on

130

how traditional art forms can translate into new media. The study quotes Yehuda Kalay’s

(2008) study to suggest the features of new media that makes sharing traditional art forms

easy. Digital storage of data is more cost-effective making digital documentation of art

forms easier. There are many ways in which representation of the art form can be done

through virtual new media which leads to easier dissemination of knowledge and

awareness to the generation among audiences. Although there are criticisms that suggest

that new media can lead to dilution of the representation of traditional culture. Kolay

(2015, pp. 314-316) uses the parameters described in the book Smart Innovation, Systems

and Technologies, volume 34 (Kolay and Roy, 2015) that indicates the possible potential

a traditional art form might have that helps its adaptation into the virtual new media.

Applying these parameters, it can be observed that Tholpavakoothu’s visual aesthetic has

the potentiality to depict modern, contemporary themes without losing its traditional

aesthetic. The characters are recognizable as they are all distinct and memorable as each

puppet has a specific shape, voice and movement ability in the way the puppet is made

which can leave impressions on the viewer’s minds. The same character can have puppets

in different positions like sitting, standing, fighting, etc. which makes the visual

representation varied and vivid. Thus, the art form displayed its potential to artistically

be expressed in many ways through the use of new media even during the COVID-19

crisis.

131

Through a virtual interview with the puppeteer Rahul Pulavar, this study was

able to delve deeply into the Koonathara troupe’s experience with the COVID-19 crisis

as a traditional shadow puppetry artist group. The puppeteer suggested that as everything

was closed down, they had a lot of time to study the traditional texts, narrations, meanings

and philosophy and hone their knowledge. He said that usually because of year-round

performances they did not get the chance to invest time in the studies that they are

required to do for the traditional art form. The troupe also finished a project of teaching

younger generation puppets of boys and men from ages 12-28, 700 traditional songs and

meanings that usually makes up 7 days of temple ritualistic performances. The puppeteer

said that due to schools and work schedules, these puppeteers hadn’t been able to give in

so much time in studying, narrating and writing these songs.

Although these are some positives, the puppeteer discussed the struggles that the

traditional artists had to go through. The puppeteers faced economic challenges as their

usual performances got cancelled. Their fees for a 1-hour performance at a temple had

been 15,000-20,000 INR whereas for online performances, they don’t receive more than

3000 INR. During the COVID-19 crisis, the market value of art reduced and in addition

to that the cancellation in bulks of projects affected the living conditions of the artists.

But the artists say that they follow the policy of doing whatever was offered to them even

though the pay was less, because as artists it is important for them to keep practicing,

132

performing and sharing their art or they fall out of practice. The artists identify that

audiences derive entertainment and peace of mind from their performances which is

reciprocated as the artists say sharing, performing and audience interaction gives them

joy. The puppeteer Rahul Pulavar admits to having anxieties but hopes for normalcy in

the temple festival season of the year 2021, as their livelihoods depend on it and cannot

afford to lose out on many more performances. In master puppeteer Ramachandra

Pulavar’s opinion, an artist is accomplished when they gather four basic aspects of

knowledge; visual knowledge (kandu aravu), knowledge by sharing (koduthu aruvu),

knowledge gathered by listening (kettu aravu) and knowledge gathered through

experiences (kondu aravu). The master puppeteer says that sharing knowledge has been

the major driving force during corona times, through as many channels as possible and

that as long as they can share, they can continue performing.

133

Problematizing the Dichotomy of Traditional and Modern:

Tholpavakoothu, a developing art form

Until this point, the study has delineated the adaptive strategies that the Tholpavakoothu

artists have had to operationalize in order to keep up with the changes in the social

environment around it. By describing the art form’s growth using temporal distinctions,

the study has charted the history, progressions and changes the art form has gone through

in depth, majorly from the artists’ point of view. In its long life, the art form has faced

many challenges and social factors threatening the continuance and further existence of

the art form with the COVID-19 crisis just being one the most recent troubles that the

artists have had to face. The social and economic productivity of this art form has been

discussed in the literature about the art form and it has been established that

Tholpavakoothu traditionally fulfilled various social functions and still continues to do

so. According to the artists of the Koonathara troupe various artists of other troupes were

against the various innovations introduced to the art form by them and at the same time

many artists decided to pursue other employment opportunities because they could not

economically sustain off just the traditional performances. They believe that only

clinging onto the traditional practices and not expanding would have led to the demise of

the practice of the art form. At the same time, they believe that the traditional ritualistic

134

side of the art form is the backbone of the art form and losing out on traditions would

dilute what makes Tholpavakoothu special. Thus, the Koonathara troupe of artists’

strategy has been to compartmentalize the traditional and the innovations based on

context and balance both in order to continue performing. This study will look if the

perceived changes of the art form from traditional to modern to a balanced approach is

transitional, or if the process has been more complicated. This chapter problematizes the

dichotomous way of looking at an art form’s growth through the varying definitions of

tradition and modern. In turn, this chapter also will evaluate the position of

Tholpavakoothu in today’s post-modern society and unpack the heavily loaded question

of whether it can be said that Tholpavakoothu, the traditional art form is ‘dying’?

4.1. Problematizing the dichotomy of Traditional and Modern

The terms ‘tradition’ or ‘traditional’ means the handing down or passing on of culture to

upcoming generations. It is assumed that the traditional is static, is devoid of deliberate

change and innovation and gives importance to the past and the continuity of past

practices of culture. But what is often overshadowed in the discourse of traditional

societies and practices is that traditions itself have undergone changes and in many cases

are products of changes themselves. In the case of Tholpavakoothu, the Koonathara

135

troupe’s steps towards taking the art form outside the temple and deviating from

exclusive Ramayana narration received a lot of backlash from traditionalist artists. Firstly,

it is important to consider that Tholpavakoothu had developed from the shadow puppet

practices of originally itinerant Tamil artists who eventually settled in modern day Kerala.

This means that the performers were not always historically connected to temples.

Secondly, as noted before, the Kamba Ramayana text was introduced and integrated into

the shadow puppet traditions at a later point of time and was preceded by puppeteers

performing popular Tamil folk stories like Nallathangal and Harishchandra nadagam.

The introduction of the Kamba Ramayana text to the art form is often credited to the

puppeteer Chinnathami Pulavar. His aim was to bring the Tamil version of the originally

Sanskritic text of Valmiki Ramayana to lower caste individuals like his community who

were barred from entering temples and listening to readings of the epic and was

exclusively for the higher caste Brahmins (priests) only. This process of adoption of

Sanskritic Brahmanical cultural rituals and practices by the lower caste non-Brahmins

was termed as Sanskritization by Indian sociologist M.N. Srinivas (1956). This suggests

that the traditional practices of temple performances and Kamba Ramayana that form

important part of the ritualistic side of Tholpavakoothu are also a result of different

influences and hasn’t been part of Tholpavakoothu traditions since always. The

traditional isn’t just a homogenous, linear section of the past but is the result of several

136

social processes itself. According to researcher Roxana Waterson, tradition is a dynamic

and historical process just like any other social processes and is continuously reorganized

and recreated in the present even if it is represented as fixed and unchangeable (Waterson,

1990). In the case of Tholpavakoothu, the artists, the audience as well as the sponsors

reproduce the traditional symbols pertaining to the art form in their own specific ways.

The artists pray, hold the ritualistic performances and use traditional skills and knowledge

passed on to them in the temple performances, but also in the modern stage performances.

The traditional knowledge of puppet-making is applied into puppet-making and sales

which is a modern source of livelihood for the puppeteers. The puppeteers use all the

traditional tools and knowledge to present modern tales and social themes. Similarly, the

audiences and sponsors even in current times pray, sponsor performances and seek advice

from artists which are dependent on the traditional beliefs attached to the conduction of

the ritualistic performances.

In the same way, modernity and the modern society is complex and cannot be

defined in a unilinear way. Modernity is considered as the opposite or the absence of

tradition, as a form that hegemonizes spheres of human life and dislodges the traditional.

The modern implied a certain universality of ideas based on the European absolutism and

enlightenment era, which does not hold true today. Modernization has affected Indian

culture in many forms like industrialization, capitalism, etc. but it does not mean that the

137

influence of them wipes away the culture developed in India itself. Classical theories of

modernization assume a globalizing culture wherein the modern Western world is seen

as the pinnacle of development and that other societies have to develop in order to

emulate the modern Western society. Researcher S.N. Eisenstadt (2000, p.24) instead put

forth the notion of ‘multiple modernities’ that refutes the ideas of a homogenous,

hegemonic Western modernity and highlights that modernities are structurally different

based on varied social locations and cultures. In the case of Tholpavakoothu, according

to puppeteer Rajeev Pulavar the process of modernization began in the 18th century itself

as the King of the Kavalappara kingdom funded and supported innovations for the art

form hinting a local culture of innovations and patronage. In the case of modern

innovations as well, the artists, the patrons and the audiences renew their interactions

with the art form by participating in innovative practices. We also see that even as many

innovations were introduced to the art form after the artists decided to step out of the

temple, many factors of the art form like usage of oil lamps, traditional-style puppets,

and limited participation of women as performers. At the same time, the puppeteers of

the koonathara troupe freely innovate as need be and identify the importance of

innovating along with retaining traditions.

The interactions between the ‘traditional’ and the ‘modern’ are inevitable. It is

important to look at both as complex processes. The usage of polarizing language like

138

traditional and modern to grasp the ‘essence’ of art forms in India that are changing with

time can paint a stagnant picture of the identity of the art form in relation with the society

it is situated in. The society as a whole- its structures, social mores, hierarchies, all echo

in the art form as the art form is not separate from the society and is a representative part

and expression of it. According to researcher Cohen (2016, p.14) there will always be

important ‘guardians’ who hold access to traditional, ancient knowledge and it will be

continually passed on forward on one way or another. He says that equally important are

the ‘experts’ who will find a balance between old ideas and new ideas, will reformulate

practices and rearticulate them in the present-day context in innovative public spheres.

Indian scholar Mukund Lath (Khurana, 2020) saw tradition and modernity as in a

continuum rather than as binaries. Tradition is looked at as static and their continuance is

credited to this perceived static state, but their existence continues to be important due to

the fact that it is always changing. Singer (1971, p.161) generally suggests that a general

modernization theory would do a better job at studying culture than relying on

supposedly polar classical theories of traditional and modern societies. According to

researcher Celine Germond-Duret (2016 p.1540) there shouldn’t be a traditional-modern

dichotomy as both concepts are not fixed and have characteristics that are free-flowing.

The researcher suggests that both ‘old and ‘new’ can co-exist side by side. In the case of

India, modernization has come to mean a change of society transitioning from non-

139

economic to economic. It is important to understand that although Western economic

culture entered India and influenced the culture, India’s pre-existent economic systems

also still stay and don’t get completely dislodged or replaced by Western capitalism.

Researcher Yang (Yang, 2000 cited in Morcom, 2015, p. 289) puts forth the idea of a

hybridity formed in global capitalism, where ritualistic practices reemerged after China

transitioned into a market economy. He suggested that the globalizing capitalism

influences the pre-existing indigenous economies and may renew and create hybrid forms

of economies but cannot completely dislodge pre-existing systems. Researcher Joseph

Gusfield (1967, pp. 352-358) listed the fallacious elements about assuming a polarized

traditional-modern model in viewing Indian culture and summarizes the points made thus

far. He suggests that it cannot be assumed that traditional societies have been static and

haven’t gone through changes to form into its current state as we know it. In a polarized

model of tradition and modern, the traditional Indian culture is often assumed as a

consistent body of spiritual norms and values which is not the case, as diversity has

always existed in India. The generalizations about the non-economic culture of Hindu

traditions are criticized as the polarized model considers the structure of traditional Indian

culture as homogenous. Due to this, this model assumes that new modern innovations

simply replace the old traditions and that the social change from traditional to modern

occurs through simple transition. This model assumes that the modernization process is

140

hegemonic in the way that it weakens traditions and displaces it for change to occur.

4.2. Tholpavakoothu, a developing art form

In my opinion, the growth of Tholpavakoothu has not been purely dependent on a

transition from traditional to modern. In fact, the art form has been historically using

strategies like bringing innovations to the performances to continue the practice of the

art form according to the changing social environments. The changes in the art form have

not been linear in the way that the modernization of the art form weakened the traditions,

or the tradition curbed from innovating the art form. By compartmentalizing, I do not

mean that the artists pack away the traditions into one sphere and the innovations into

another for them to never interact with one another again. According to Singer (1971,

p.178), in India, cultural continuity with the past leads to a sort of ‘traditionalization’ of

apparently modern innovations and that modernizing influences are absorbed into the

traditional life without losing any ‘Indianness’. On the other hand, this kind of

dichotomous understanding of traditional or modern, Indian or Western can be criticized

by considering the multiplicity of the complex, hierarchal traditions of India. The artists

of the Koonathara troupe instead compartmentalize their practices with a context-

sensitivity unique to their way of thinking and the culture of the audiences and sponsors

that they deal with. They manage their ritualistic practices and understand the importance

141

of maintaining and passing down the customs they need to perform as Pulavars. They

also now pass down the knowledge to lower caste men, non-family members and women

as participants in the art form decreased over time even though they were not originally

allowed to perform. At the same time, they look for opportunities to expand the art form’s

scope by performing on diverse stages, innovate artistically in any way possible and

create a version of the art form that has transitioned into its own style of puppetry. They

also want to be economically dependent on the art form. But they keep it a point to

represent the traditional aesthetic of the art form even in performances with modern

themes. Thus, the traditional elements do not become obsolete but continue to evolve

organically alongside the newly emerging innovations (Parker, 2013, p.151).

This study has evaluated the various ways the Koonathara troupe has performed

the art form with the changing society and brought necessary changes. Indian news

houses like The Hindu had used language like "Shadow of death over Tholpavakoothu"

(June 23, 2003), "Shadow leather puppet play facing near death" (May 12, 2010), "Fading

away into the shadows" (June 14, 2012), to portray a sort of perception that the art form

is dying. Yampolsky (2001) suggested that no one essentially can preserve or sustain an

art form except the performers and their audience. And that the only thing the outsiders

can do is to attempt to understand the reasons behind the way the art form grows or

declines. In today’s scenario, even amidst the COVID-19 crisis, the puppeteers of the

142

Koonathara troupe say that the art form is indeed ‘developing’ and ‘growing’ as their

efforts are ongoing. They say that they have not given up on the practice, be it in the

temple or on stage, because the people and the artists not only still need it but also because

they still strongly believe in the essence of the art form and what it stands for to just let

it die.

The artists of the Koonathara troupe believe that the art form is the result of years of flow

of emotions, beliefs, art and that the flow is not limited to the boundaries of heredity or

old rituals. They believe in the journey of the art form as sailing forward in the present

adapting to changes and newness with new aspirations and hopes for the further growth

of the art form. They still believe in the potential, power and important function of the

art form to guide the people who watch it as they always have (Ramachandra Pulavar, 20

November 2020).

143

Conclusion

The practice of Tholpavakoothu has resiliently been continued by the artists by adapting,

evolving, and bringing in changes in many ways. This study has delineated most factors

to analyze the art form as a whole and not just look at the art form through one of its

elements to understand its journey. Changes are part of all cultural objects in our society.

In Tholpavakoothu, even a slight change in the speed at which the narration of the art

form is done has been a product of many other processes and changes. In the pre-modern

era, it can be said that Tholpavakoothu was exclusively ritualistic and communicative in

that it was a social center of knowledge and beliefs for the people involved engaging with

the practice of the art form. But at the same time, the traditions were also a result of

changes and processes. Traditions don’t simply imply a homogenous history. The

continuation of the practice of the cultural ritualistic traditions does not indicate

stagnancy but instead a process because the practice of it still fulfills several social

functions, several ideals and needs in the lives of the artists, sponsors and audience

members. Usually modernization has been looked at like a hegemonic process and the

traditional like a stagnant burden of the past unwillingly carried over. This thesis thus

problematizes the traditional-modern dichotomy to understand that the changes, the

evolution and the adaptive strategies responsible for the growth of the art form have not

144

followed a linear path of social change.

The traditional-modern dichotomy has come to be criticized in the 20th century

and the limitations of it have been pointed out by scholars like Joseph Gusfield, Milton

Singer, S.N. Eisenstadt, Celine Germond-Duret as established in this thesis. This study

problematized this kind of dichotomy used to analyze and describe traditional art forms

like shadow puppet theatre of India and particularly, Tholpavakoothu. Research on

Tholpavakoothu evolved from descriptive and comprehensive to more detailed works. In

the more recent works of researchers Stuart Blackburn, Salil Singh and Claudia Orenstein,

the studies began to understand the importance of focusing on the artists and the society’s

influence on the art form. But certain discrepancies were present in its previous studies

that didn’t explain the heterogenous processes that led to the changes in the art form since

the beginning of its practice. This study elaborated on all the factors of the art form, artists,

and various social factors. This study looked at the history and present state of

Tholpavakoothu as dynamic processes that were affected by social factors.

In the case of Tholpavakoothu, I have highlighted throughout the research how

some known long-running traditions like the usage of the Kamba Ramayana itself was a

result of change in the art form’s history. It is possible that there were more changes than

the ones mentioned in this study but preceding the available documented history of

Tholpavakoothu. In the modern era, the innovations in the art form have expanded the

145

horizons for the art form. Modern work on Tholpavakoothu has well-documented these

innovations that have put the Tholpavakoothu artists on the path of fulfilling their goal

of wanting to transfer Tholpavakoothu outside the temple into a modern puppetry art

form and make it an economically lucrative art form. The field research conducted for

this thesis led to observations of the intricacies behind the processes of changes in the art

form. It was seen that the artists identify the significance of the traditional and ritualistic

side of the art form even today, proving that one of their major strategies has been

‘compartmentalization’ of traditional rituals and contemporary stage performances.

In the criticism of the dichotomous way of looking at traditions and modernity,

it has also been pointed out that modernity can actually strengthen traditions. In the case

of Tholpavakoothu, we see that in two clear cases. Several organizations that sponsor

stage performances for Tholpavakoothu insist on the representation of the traditional

practices in the performance. The artists also use their traditional skills and techniques as

a strength as they integrate the traditional knowledge into modern formats. Secondly, the

demarcation of traditional practices as purely ritualistic in today’s scenario can be

debated. Modern innovations like internet and social media has broadened the horizons

for Tholpavakoothu. People from many parts of the world are now interested in

sponsoring Tholpavakoothu performances to fulfill their spiritual beliefs that sponsoring

a performance will bring them good luck, peace and good health. Thus, spiritual and

146

economic are not two concepts that never cross paths.

One of the major points of focus of this study had been to chart the effect of the

COVID-19 pandemic on Tholpavakoothu. Based on the online interview with the

Koonathara troupe of artists and observation of their activities during COVID-19 induced

lockdown, innovations and contemporary changes in the art form has been documented

through this study. In the COVID-19 era, the Koonathara troupe of artists suddenly found

themselves not being able to perform in temples or on stages. A major chunk of the year

when they can perform was lost due to the nationwide lockdown. The artists had to take

up the opportunities they were offered in the way of online performances, workshops,

etc. They also took this time to further hone their artistic and narrative skills by focusing

on studying and revising the Kamba Ramayana verses. Thus, although the artists only

look forward to when they can perform as usual again, it is interesting to see how the

artists continue to build their and the art form’s presence online in several ways as I

mentioned earlier. They not only shared the new projects they have worked on but also

shared content about the ritualistic practices that they still carried on during the lockdown.

The Koonathara troupe had been active on their online activities even before the COVID-

19 pandemic, but they further nurtured their presence in the online space and accepted

offers for new and various kinds of online workshops, events and performances to keep

continuing to practice their art form. During the COVID-19 period, the creation of the

147

online presence and identity of the art form in a way that promotes both their ritualistic

and non-ritualistic sides shows that even when it seems like they are going through a

stagnant phase, the art form is evolving in new ways, in new spaces.

Thus, it is safe to make the conclusion that the artists of Tholpavakoothu

resiliently managed to reconfigure their approach to the art form based on the changing

social environment enabling its near 1000 years of continued practice. The evolution of

Tholpavakoothu hasn’t been linearly transitional from traditional to modern but has

instead been an example of adaptation, compartmentalization, innovation, and effortful

continuation. That is why it is indeed a living, breathing art form.

148

References

Awasthi, S. (2001). Performance Tradition in India. New Delhi: National Book Trust.

Bhanumathi, R. (2004). A study on the status of traditional shadow puppetry and

puppeteers of South India. Tamil Nadu: The Gandhigram Rural Institute.

Bharathi, C. (2014). From Subjugation to Emancipation in Select Works of Chitra

Banerjee Divakaruni. Tamil Nadu: Avinashilingam University, Coimbatore.

Blackburn, S. (1996). Inside the Drama-House: Rama Stories and Shadow Puppets in

South India (First ed.). California: University of California Press.

Caldwell, S. (1996). Bhagavati: ball of fire. In John Stratton Hawley and Donna Marie

Wulff (Eds.). Devi: goddesses of India, 195-226. California: University of California

Press.

Chen, F. P. (2003). Shadow theaters of the world. Asian Folklore Studies, 25-64.

Choondal, C. (1972). Pavakoothu. Keli, Special Issue.

Choondal, C. (1978). Studies in Folklore of Kerala. Trivandrum: College Book House.

Cohen, M. I. (2007). Contemporary Wayang in Global Contexts. Asian Theatre

Journal, 24(2), 338–369. https://doi.org/10.1353/atj.2007.0032.

Cohen, M. I. (2016). Inventing the Performing Arts: Modernity and Tradition in

Colonial Indonesia (Illustrated ed.). Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

Contractor, M. R. (1984). The Shadow Puppets of India (Vol. 2). Gujarat: Darpana

Academy of the Performing Arts.

Coomaraswamy, A. K. (1927). History of Indonesian and Indian Art. London: Godsten.

149

Das, S. (2013). Folk Theatre-Its Relevance In Development Communication In India.

Global Media Journal-Indian Edition, 4(2), 1-10.

Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple Modernities. Daedalus. Journal of the American

Academy of Arts and Sciences, 129(1), 1-29.

Germond-Duret, C. (2016). Tradition and modernity: an obsolete dichotomy? Binary

thinking, indigenous peoples and normalisation. Third World Quarterly, 37(9), 1537-

1558.

Green, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Folklore: an encyclopedia of beliefs, customs, tales, music,

and art (Vol. 1). Abc-clio.

Gusfield, J. R. (1967). Tradition and modernity: Misplaced polarities in the study of

social change. American journal of sociology, 72(4), 351-362.

Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven

Geographical Development. New York and London: Verso.

Hashik, N. K. (2012). River as a cultural construct myth and ritual on the Banks of

Bharathappuzha. Hyderabad: University of Hyderabad.

Hawley, J. S., & Wulff, D. M. (1996). Devi: Goddesses of India (Comparative Studies

in Religion and Society Book 7) (1st ed.). California: University of California Press.

Iyer, K.B. (1943). The Shadow Play in Malabar. Bulletin of the Ramaverma Research

Institute, II, 1, 3-12.

Kalay, Y. E. (2007). Introduction: Preserving cultural heritage through digital media.

New heritage (pp. 17-26). London: Routledge.

150

Keith, A. B. (1992). The Sanskrit drama in its origin, development, theory & practice.

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ.

Khurana, S. (2020, August 7). Mukund Lath (1937-2020): ‘Thought of tradition,

modernity in a continuum.’ The Indian Express.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/mukund-lath-dead-6543208/

Kolay, S. (2016). Cultural Heritage Preservation of Traditional Indian Art through

Virtual New-media. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 225, 309–320.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.030.

Kolay, S., & Roy, S. T. (2015). Designing Alternative Paradigm for Traditional Visual

Storytelling. In ICoRD’15–Research into Design Across Boundaries Volume 1 (pp. 145-

157). New Delhi: Springer.

Krishnan Kutty Pulavar, K.L. (1983). Ayodhyakandam - The Atal Pattu for Tolpavakuttu,

New Delhi: Sangeet Natak Akademi.

Krishnan Kutty Pulavar, K.L. (1987). Tolpavakoothu - The Traditional Shadow Puppet

Play of Kerala, Vol I - Balakandam, Trichur: Lumiere Press.

Kurup, K. K. N. (1988). Modern Kerala: Studies in Social and Agrarian Relations.

Delhi: Muttal.

Lopes, R.O. (2016). A New Light on the Shadows of Heavenly Bodies. Religion and

the Arts, 20(1–2), 160–196. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685292-02001008.

MacIntyre, A. (2020). Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (1988-12-31). Indiana,

United States: University of Notre Dame Press.

Mair, V. H. (2019). Painting and performance: Chinese picture recitation and its Indian

genesis. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

151

Metcalf, B. D., & Metcalf, T. R. (2012). A Concise History of Modern India, (3rd ed.).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morcom, A. (2015). Terrains of Bollywood Dance: (Neoliberal) Capitalism and the

Transformation of Cultural Economies. Ethnomusicology, 59(2), 288-314.

https://doi.org/10.5406/ethnomusicology.59.2.0288.

Nair, S. K. (2009). When goddess turns spectator: on multiple audiences in

Tholpavakoothu performance in Kerala. Studies in Theatre and Performance, 29(2),

173–186. https://doi.org/10.1386/stap.29.2.173_3.

Orenstein, C. (2014). Forging New Paths for Kerala’s Tholpavakoothu Leather Shadow

Puppetry Tradition. In D. Posner, C. Orenstein and J. Bell (Eds.). Routledge Companion

to Puppetry and Material Performance (pp. 205-217). New York: Routledge.

Orenstein, C. (2015). Women in Indian puppetry: Negotiating traditional roles and new

possibilities. Asian Theatre Journal, 32(2), 493-517.

Orr, I. C. (1974). Puppet Theatre in Asia. Asian Folklore Studies, 33(1), 69-84.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1177504.

Parker, S. K. (2013). Lived Cosmologies and Objectified Commodities: Reinventing

the Traditional Art of India in a World of Cultural Tourism. The Copenhagen Journal of

Asian Studies, 29(1), 120–158. https://doi.org/10.22439/cjas.v29i1.4023.

Perinbanayagam, R. S. (1971). Caste, Politics, and Art. The Drama Review: TDR,

15(2), 206-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/1144640.

Pulavar, R. (2020, March 1). Personal Interview.

Pulavar, R. (2020, March 2). Personal Interview.

Pulavar, R. (2020, November 20). Personal Interview.

152

Ramanujan, A. K. (1990). ‘Is There an Indian Way of Thinking? An Informal Essay’, in

McKim Marriott (ed.), India through Hindu Categories, pp. 41-58. New Delhi: Sage

Publications

Ramasubramanian, V. (1980). Kamban's Epic as Shadow Play. Kalakshetra Quarterly,

3(4), 25-34.

Rostow, W. W. (1990). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto.

Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Schechner, R. (1990). Wayang Kulit in the Colonial Margin. TDR (1988-), 34(2), 25-61.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1146026.

Seltmann, F. (1986). Schattenspiel in Kerala: sakrales Theater in Süd-Indien; mit

Summary und einem Anhang: Sequence of scenes of the Kamba-Rāmāyaṇak-Kūttu. F.

Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden.

Singer, M. (1971). Beyond Tradition and Modernity in Madras. Comparative Studies in

Society and History, 13(2), 160–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0010417500006198.

Singer, M. (1972). When a Great Tradition Modernizes. New York: Praeger.

Singh, S. (1998). Emerging from shadows: The puppeteer's art in Tolpava Koothu,

shadow puppetry of southern India. Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.

Singh, S. (1999). If Gandhi Could Fly…: Dilemmas and Directions in Shadow

Puppetry of India. TDR/The Drama Review, 43(3), 154–168.

https://doi.org/10.1162/105420499760347388.

Srinivas, M. N. (1956). A note on Sanskritization and Westernization. The Far Eastern

Quarterly, 15(4), 481-496.

153

Stache-Rosen, V. (1976). On the shadow theatre in India. German Scholars on India, 2,

276-285.

Theodore, R. (2019, December 14). 1200-year-old puppet art emerges from shadows.

Matters India. https://mattersindia.com/2019/12/1200-year-old-puppet-art-emerges-

from-shadows/

Toye, J. F. J. (1987). Dilemmas of development: Reflections on the counter-revolution

in development theory and policy. Oxford: Blackwell.

Trivedi, M. (1999). Tradition and Transition: The Performing Arts in Medieval North

India. The Medieval History Journal, 2(1), 73–110.

https://doi.org/10.1177/097194589900200105.

Varadpande, M.L., (1987), History of Indian Theatre, New Delhi: Abhinar.

Venu, G. (1990). Tolpava Koothu - Shadow Puppets of Kerala. Delhi: Sangeet Natak

Akademi.

Venu, G. (2004). Puppetry and Lesser Known Dance Traditions of Kerala. Kerala:

Natana Kairali.

Waterson, R. (2014). The Living House: An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East

Asia (Illustrated ed.). Vermont: Tuttle Publishing.

Yampolsky, P. (2001). Can the Traditional Arts Survive, and Should They? Indonesia,

71, 175. https://doi.org/10.2307/3351460.

Yang, M. (2000). Putting Global Capitalism in Its Place: Economic Hybridity, Bataille,

and Ritual Expenditure. Current Anthropology, 41(4), 477-509. doi:10.1086/317380.

154

Images of Maps

Bharathapuzha map. (2005, December 20). [Photograph of map]. Bharathapuzha Map.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bharathapuzha_map.PNG

Kerala Map. (n.d.). [Photograph of Map]. Kerala Map.

http://www.mapsopensource.com/kerala-map.html

South India Map Black and White. (n.d). [Photograph of Map]. South India Map Black

and White. http://www.mapsopensource.com/south-india-map-black-and-

white.html

155

Appendix

Consent Form for Interviews of the Koonathara troupe artists for Research on

Tholpavakoothu.

156

157

158

159