KALARIVIDYA Vs KALARIPPAYATT

‘Kalarividya’ Vs. ‘Kalarippayatt’: Towards a Welfare Perspective for Reconstructing the Logic of Kalari Praxis in Kerala   *
(DRAFT)

P.K. Sasidharan

"Consumption is one of the basic ways in which society structured and organised, usually unequally, sometimes incredibly so.  Differential powers, resources and life chances are routinely produced and reproduced by and through consumption patterns. Consumption not duly takes place within culture and thus within specific cultures; it also produces culture and cultures…. Thus consumption is in culture but equally culture derives at least in part from consumption and consuming furthermore, consumption also constructs, even consumes, the consumer… Consumption is structure, process and agency"(Hearn and Roseneil 1999:1)

            The study conducted, under the KRPLLD scheme, on the topic ‘Welfare in Kalarividya: A search for Contemporary Adaptations', on the whole, presents a picture that the recent history of Kalari praxis (socially  structured activity of conducting, practising and representing kalari practice, ie. the social practice of kalari practice.) in Kerala, especially since independence, has more or less been structured by the forces of a sort of cultural consumerist market, rather than by the genuine interest of the people and society. Therefore, as it has been tried to spell out in the title of this paper as well as that of the foresaid study, through  the use of terminologies 'Kalarividya',  'welfare' (possibly contrary to the usual ones such as 'Kalarippayatt' and 'war-dance') the perspective that would be developed here might be the one which puts it at odds with the usual ways.  Because, the perspective that holds  sway over numerous activities related to the tradition of Kalari is still that  of the 'martial art'.

       The whole exercise in perpetuation of the image of martial art is found  to be not for the sake of martial art, but to capitalise its symbolic value of being  a folk art performance.  Thus, the attempt to develop a welfare perspective which could guide us to  look into the latent potentialities  of Kalari practice for the well being of society, is, naturally, bound to take up a critique of the performance paradigm of Kalari practice which a now goes  by the popular name 'Kalarippayatt'.

            The critique  of Kalarippayatt aims, on the one hand, to understand the logic by which Kalarippayyatt itself had become a performing art, and on the other  hand, to show  how  does this paradigm of  Kalari praxis has accentuated the vulgarisation of Kalari practice by keeping itself away from its knowledge base.  Such an attempt doe not deny freedom to appreciate the aesthetic   significance of Kalarippayatt.  Rather  it would be argue that such unilateral promotional gestures would not be serving the purpose of promoting it in a self-sustainable way, and that would only be leading to the strengthening of an ever going process of de-contextualisation of  traditional sources of knowledge and practices.

            In the  present scenario, one cannot find any earnest effort, let apart  the question of regaining the  already dried up sources, to integrate Kalarippayatt  to the other practices, which is apparently possible, but only a vigorous  pursuit of performance oriented  strategies of tapping the tradition for the creation of  'sustainable' markets. Therefore  the attempt to develop a welfare perspective, countering the performance mode, becomes an imperative even  for extending the outwardly welfare features of all that goes in the name of Kalarippayyatt.

            With the influx of globalised tourism (cultural tourism, to be precise) market, there had witnessed a disproportionate growth in the entry of  hawkers and dilettantes who were eager to marketise this 'cultural  exotic' through whatever the propagandist means possible for. The immediate victims were  none  other than poise 'masters' who found themselves incredibly lost in  the wilderness. Thus in the case of the Kalari, most of the  promotional measures extended by the government and the public have, in actuality, turned out to be  detrimental  to the very survival of the tradition in its long run.  (Unless the concerned are informed  about the dangers involved in their own patronage, there is all possibility of the very well intended gestures themselves become  self-defeating. This  is the situation in which a socio-historical study  of the Kalari practice becomes paramount. 

            Therefore, the focus of the first part will be to reveal the ideological  (political) and consumerist  (aesthetic) interests embedded  in the transformation of Kalarividya, a whole body of knowledge, into an art of performance in the recent  part. 3  It will also illuminate  our  understanding about the  conditions in which the Kalari tradition came to be identified  in its entirety  as a martial practice, and also the process of historical construction of the term 'Kalarippayatt'. Whereas in the  second part, the attempt will be to develop a welfare perspective, for the reconstruction of Kalari praxis in Kerala, as an alternative to the prevailing warfare perspective  in which kalarividya is decontextualised to be a traditional  art form.

Estrangement of practice and ‘conceptual overarching’

The ideological or political forces which are operating within a society might be distorting or de-contextualising the existing cultural forms and knowledge practices suitably for the services of the dominant discourses which justify the status quo.  A strategy of conceptual appropriation or ‘conceptual overarching’ is often found to be adopted for such an estrangement of practices in the domain of cultural praxis. Since an outsider perspective is lying underneath such conceptual overarching, a counter strategy of insider perspective has to be developed in order to ward off the estrangement. Thus the attempt to develop an insider perspective for understanding issues related to the development of a sustainable form of kalari practice forms the wider context of the present study. The insider perspective, a ‘view- from within’ as opposed to a ‘view-from outside’ aims to place the internal requirements of the discipline and the larger interest of the society in which the practice is rooted, at the fore front of the considerations. Therefore, kalarippayatt as performance paradigm of kalari practice, is critiqued for the reason that it has reshaped the very practice making it detrimental to its survival.  An insider view is more on demand to account the welfare potentialities of kalari practice in the age of high-tech intensive strategies adopted by the forces of capitalistic globalization and consumerism.

A ‘view from within’ also seems to be pertinent to the question of evaluating any cultural and knowledge practice. The usual argument for the insider perspective is found to be raised from within the narrow frames of cultural and national identities, for example, ‘Indian’, ‘Dravidian’, ‘spiritualistic’, etc.  Consequently, many of the characterizations of practices in India as ‘superstitious’, ‘non-secular’, ‘non-rational’, ‘barbaric’, ‘casteist’ etc., are questioned on the ground that they have been made according to the parameters of the Western or alien categories, and so are superfluous and not in agreement with the actual complexities of the situation.4   Such a narrow insider critique hardly considers the issues emanating from those conceptual estrangements, i.e., when the practice is understood and being projected from the perception of an alien rationale it will lead to the loosening of inner strength of the institution referred to.5    

A major version of rendering kalarippayatt for the contemporary world has been in the line of retaining it in the form of a cultural performance or as a folk-art form. Most of the promotional gestures, which have been extended towards it in the recent years, are have resulted from such an attitude.  A question to be raised here is whether those promotions really promoted kalari practice, or whether they led to the emergence of a kind of kalari practice which has accentuated the erosion of its actual knowledge base. Therefore, what is to be examined here is the conditions in which kalarippayatt as a performance mode of kalari practice has emerged and the ways in which it has got reshaped in the later course of kalari praxis vis-à-vis the question of its survival.

It seems that a process of making sense or finding meaning is involved in every representation and theorisation.  If so, the characterization that kalarippayatt is a performing art might have been resulted from the process of making it meaningful for contemporary society. This becomes a strategy of conceptual appropriation, since it brings about a fundamental conceptual change in the ways of perceiving kalari practices. However, this conceptual appropriation need not necessarily be a strategy of making sense from the Western standards for understanding a non-Western system. It may also come up while making an estrangement in the usual practice through a presentation along the standards of an alien discipline prevailing within the culture or nationality itself.  A broad outline of this conceptual change can be illustrated below.

In historical accounts kalari was portrayed as a military institution that originated in the 12th century. But, later in the 16th century it started to decline with the introduction of modern warfare techniques by colonialists. During the period of nationalism, it was revived as the traditional martial art system meant for self-defence and individual combating.  Thereafter it began to be portrayed as ‘kalarippayatt’ with an anchoring on its usefulness as a discipline of physical culture, besides the self-defence technique. This is how the conceptual transformation of kalarippayatt as a cultural performance or folk-art form has come about.  The grave consequences of this kind of conceptual appropriation will become clear only when we are able to perceive the kalari tradition over and above the prevailing historical, sociological and ideological pasteurisations. Following are some of the variegated ways in which kalarippayatt has been represented in contemporary discussions: ‘system of warfare’, ‘military institution’, ‘ means of spiritual awareness’, ‘means of mental purification’, ‘science of combat’, ‘discipline of physical culture’, ‘fighting sport’, ‘war dance’, ‘amazing game’, ‘deadly art of locks and throws’, ‘art of violence’, ‘form of cultural performance’, ‘folk-art’, ‘means of non-spiritual bodily pursuit’, ‘device of might’, ‘symbol of macho’ and so on.

Most of these representations have been built around the image that kalari tradition is essentially a martial art. Thus, the conceptual appropriation of kalari practice as ‘kalarippayatt’ can be seen closely connected to its appropriation as martial art and consequently as performing art.  To see the full length of its estrangement through this conceptual appropriation and consequent loss of knowledge basis, an alternative historical reconstruction so as to bring forth the composite character of kalari based knowledge sources, is very much in need.

In this context, the attempt to develop an insider perspective is to see how the conceptual overarching has occurred in the discipline of kalari and consequently estranged its practice thereby eroding many of its vital potentialities for human welfare. As a counter strategy of making-sense from within, this critique of conceptual overarching may be finding many parallels to the strategies against the ‘imposed notions of development’, especially of tribal communities and of the so-called third world countries. The apparent results of those development notions are nothing less than the tribals’ dispossession of their natural habitat and culture. Similarly, the third world people were deprived of their time-tested agricultural practices and other sustainable means of livelihood.  Therefore a consideration of the insider perspective comes from the need of emphasizing the internal requirement of a given society and the sustainable use of the natural as well as the cultural sources available to respective communities. 

As happened in the case of imposed notions of development, that is, the tribal dispossession from their natural habitat and culture, and loss of sustainable means of livelihood that were based on possibilities provided by the geographical and cultural specificity, the projected measures for the promotion and conservation of cultural forms, through a ‘performance-gaze’, is found to have backfired, at least in the case of kalari practice. The historically adopted notion of kalari practice designated by ‘kalarippayatt’ (as martial art as well as cultural performance) has given rise to a different sort of kalari  praxis bereft of its own knowledge basis of its own. This historical form might have retained some aspects of its potentialities but the way it has been received and popularized in a different milieu has neglected those aspects which made it possible as such.  The kind of estrangement took place in the case of kalari practice might be something tantamount to the loss of the natural basis of community’s existence. It becomes plausible once we see those traditional knowledge sources as no less a material device evolved by a community, as existential technology for its survival and growth.  Similarly the ‘paradox of development’, paradox of promotion of the ‘conceptual overarching’ becomes evident from the given community’s deprivation of its means for being self-reliant or ‘free-of-dependence.’ There may be a lot of factors, other than the conceptual appropriation, which contributed to the estrangement of kalari practice. However in the context of an intensified quest for capitalist globalization and consumerism, the promotion (rather the projection and commercialisation of kalarippayatt as folk-art) assumes a strategic importance for neo-colonialism.

Invisibility of kalarippayatt or kalarividya?

It may appear to be somewhat odd these days to talk about invisibility of kalarippayatt especially when the unique culture of Kerala is represented by its performance. For example, when discussing the sustainability and replicability of the Kerala model development in a recently published work, kalarippayatt alone is invoked to represent the uniqueness and contribution of the state in the pre-colonial period, while introducing Keralam to its experts and foreign readership. (Govindan Parayil 2000: vii )Along with kathakali, koodiyattam and boat race, kalarippayatt is also represented as a symbol of the cultural/national identity of Kerala for the purpose of promoting tourism.  With the popularity of electronic media, programmes on kalarippayatt, kalarippayatt demonstration, training courses and interviews with practitioners have become a part of everyday life. Many scholars, dancers and theatre practitioners from outside Kerala and abroad are attracted to the centres here to get training in kalarippayatt and they began to incorporate its techniques into their training programmes and other activities. Thus, in this scenario of growing attention to kalarippayatt in the national and international forums the talk of invisibility may looks very strange, especially when Kerala is being advertised as the land where kalarippayatt - the forerunner of all eastern martial arts- is still vibrantly practiced as living tradition. (Cannon and Davis 2000:279)It is here the present paper wants to introduce the notion of a dialectic of visibility so as to show that while kalarippayatt becomes more and more visible, kalarividya, i.e., the kalari system of knowledge, becomes more and more invisible. A conceptual clarification is needed to make the above distinction between kalarividya and kalarippayatt apparent.

Kalari practice is more popularly known by the term kalarippayatt whose significance is often confined to the martial art aspects or fighting techniques of kalarividya.4  The term kalarividya, however, can encompass a whole range of activities other than payatt which falls within the kalari-tradition, such as health care, education, rituals, lifestyle, philosophy, meditation, art of life and art of performance. But as it has been popularly taken now, kalarippayatt is a martial art practice of a bygone society and that has no relevance in the present day civil society, other than of being a performing art. The conceptual difficulties and deficiencies of the term kalarippayatt are to be cleared off in order to get into the above said dialectic.  The term kalarippayatt, besides being a generic term for the kalari practice, designates one of the three styles that are prevailing in the state of Kerala.  Among these three, the northern style (the other two are southern and central Kerala styles) is considered to be the only proper candidate for the label of kalarippayatt. In order to capture these differences a brief survey of the history of stylistic differences and the emergence of the usage of the term ‘kalarippayatt’ seems to be unavoidable.

            For the practitioners of northern style, kalarippayatt is the martial practice popular in north Kerala, and the Southern and Central style never form part of it.   The southern style has got its distinctive names such as atithada, varma ati or atimura, etc. whereas in the case of the Central style there is nothing of that sort specifically to characterize it.   At the time of the formation of the Kerala Kalarippayatt Association in 1958, the Southerners wanted to retain their distinct identity in the name of ‘Atithada Association’ within the Kerala Kalarippayatt Association.  Since the provisions of Kerala Sports Council to which it was affiliated to do not allow its constituents to function with two names for the same purpose, the southerners had to comply.  Later it was found, when the kalarippayatt began to get wider acceptance and popularity, that the southerners were identifying themselves with the kalarippayatt and incorporating many of its practices and principles into their own and talking as if the practice of both were one and the same.  However, the claim for supremacy and excellence continued to be debated within the forums of the association, especially since the association began to conduct annual kalarippayatt championships in three styles separately.  Such cleavages within the association had led others, for a while, to float a parallel organization in the name of Kerala kaikabhyasa kalari sangham, comprising practitioners mainly from central Kerala (1975-80).  Apart from this, another organization called dakshina Kerala marma thirummu kalarippayatt association was established in 1983. These instances of constituting separate bodies by both central and southern practitioners compels us to argue that the term kalarippayatt till recently designated the northern style only.

            Further, what emerges from the above organizational cleavages is that the term or the concept kalarippayatt has only a limited range of significance, because this highly nuanced term carries along with it, only a set of techniques specifically meant for physical conditioning, and defensive and offensive techniques with and without weapons, within the northern style of Kerala’s traditional martial art systems.  Apart from the question whether kalarippayatt signifies other styles of martial practices in Kerala, there are questions still to ask like whether kalarippayatt includes various items other than physical exercises normally found in the northern kalari style itself.  They are rather relegated to the status of ‘allied practices’ of kalarippayatt. Therefore it cannot be considered that the translation of the Malayalam compound word ‘kalarippayatt’ as ‘art of fencing’ in English was mere incidental (C.V. Narayanan Nair (1933), M.G.S. Narayanan (1996).  It requires an extensive study to get into the context in which kalarippayatt has been characterized as the art of fencing, but what seems to be warranted at the present juncture is that in the twentieth century, kalari practice began to be identified to the European art of fencing.  In other words, it is to say that, kalari practices had come to be construed as ‘kalarippayatt’ only in the second quarter of the  20th century.  Also, it is possible to suppose that the kalari practice had not been conceived in the way it came to be taken as by  ‘kalarippayatt’, in the earlier days. 

            Although the roots of kalari and payatt can be traced to the Tamil anthologies belonging to c.300 B.C. to 300 A.D., as Philip Zarrilli argued, the compound Malayalam word kalari-payatt began to appear with regularity in usage only in the twentieth century.  Such a characterization was necessitated by the context of revival of the traditional martial art practices, which had been practiced in the kalaris in pre-colonial period. It is a fact that ‘kalarippayatt’ as a compound word does not appear either in the northern ballads, which seem to belong to 16th century or in the European accounts on martial arts of Kerala or historical or scholarly accounts on Kerala of the early 20th century. As a surprise, the earliest occurrence of it as a compound word appears only in the drama, Amba, written by Ulloor S. Parameswara Iyyer. Belying the assumption that ‘the compound itself might have an equally antique use as the singular kalari and payattu’, Zarrilli argues that, the purpose of the usage of compound expression ‘kalarippayatt’ in the twentieth century was to represent the “martial art for public consumption either in stage demonstration and/or popular literary and journalistic accounts in order to represent the art, popularize it or draw audiences for public programmes” (1998: 25.)

               

This discursive practice engendered kalarippayatt as a concept signifying its performance attributes only, excluding many other aspects that are integral to knowledge practices related to the institution of kalari.  Thus, the kalari practice began to be present in social set-ups where its purpose was different from that of the earlier. Here the term kalarippayatt is found deficient to represent the wholesome activities of kalarividya.

The visibility of kalarippayatt

As it has been widely advertised, kalarippayatt is the ‘traditional martial art of Kerala’. ‘Indigenous form’, ‘ancient form’, ‘mother of all martial art forms’ etc., are other qualifications which are being attributed to it nowadays. Although there are a number of mythico-religious stories about its origin and growth, two major historical arguments have been put forth to explain the evolution of this institution. While the one traces its origin in the early Sangham period c 400 B.C. to 600 A.D., the other one finds it in the12th century A.D.  It is said that in both periods there had been warlike situations wherein kalarippayatt took shape to train warriors. As the story goes, the institution of kalari declined when the traditional methods of warfare became ineffective to tackle the large-scale military attack from the Mysorian rulers and with the advent of the firearms and other modern war techniques introduced by colonial rulers from 16th to 18th Centuries. With the Arms Act introduced by the British on April 22, 1804, Kalari practice was totally destroyed and only during the period of nationalist movement it was revived as a discipline of physical culture.7

During the medieval period, the institution of kalari was under the control of local chieftains and landlords.  The training in kalari was the privilege of certain communities which professed the service of providing protection to rulers. The communities which were the custodians of martial art differed from region to region, and due to the hereditary method of imparting training there existed a monopoly of certain upper class communities over the kalari practice in Kerala. Against this background of caste based praxis of kalari training, Kottakkal Kanaran Gurrukkal (1850- 1940)8 , the sole architect of modern kalari, devoted his life to the rediscovery and compilation of the techniques which were going to oblivion for ever, and initiated kalari training for the general public.

Kanaran gurukkal’s life history, especially of the earlier period, has not yet been properly known even to his relatives.  Being a low class thiyya he had to do everything secretly in the initial stage and perhaps it might be the reason for the mystery attached to his life. As per the known bits of his story, in childhood itself, Kanaran gurukkal was denied permission to learn payatt, since he belonged to thiyya caste and got an opportunity only in his 30s’. Thereafter he devoted his entire life mastering the art to the possible extent. In search of its secret sources he wandered throughout the state and outside for many years. That way he is said to have acquired mastery in the six styles of the kalari feats.   The places he visited and the masters he was acquainted with to internalize the knowledge remain a mystery. Also, he was denied permission to start a kalari in Kadathanadu, the heartland of kalarividya and the place to which he belonged. That in turn forced him either to travel from place to place to impart what he learned or to do the same secretly, without being able to establish a kalari of his own. Fortunately, by the second decade of the 20th century, the nationalist movement was gathering momentum and this created some liberal dents outside the region of Kadathanadu, ie. in Thalassery to carry out Kanaran gurukkal’s mission of reviving kalari with a secular zeal. 

Kanaran gurukkal had a galaxy of brilliant disciples and through their enthusiastic efforts, a number of pothujana kalaris (kalari for general public) as institutions of physical culture were established in north Malabar.  He introduced different styles of kalari practice in different places in order to retain the distinctiveness of each style. It is noteworthy to see that, he intentionally excluded training in weapon fighting at certain kalaris run by his disciples.  Besides his mastery in martial techniques he also was an authority in healing techniques.  He was more a practitioner of spiritual and tantric meditation.  Most of his direct disciples also were pursuing the career opened up by the master.  In the beginning, Kanaran gurukkal was not in favour of taking kalari practice outside the premises of the kalari.  Earlier demonstrations were conducted only at the time of inauguration and the conclusion of seasonal kalari training.  It was mainly due to the persistent importune of C.V.Narayanan Nair, a known disciple, that Kanaran gurukkal had to suggest modifications to the way certain items to be performed before the public by the former.

Through the efforts of Kanaran Gurukkal and his disciples Kerala was witnessing a resurgence of its age-old martial tradition in the 1920s and 30s. And it was around this period that the northern ballads depicting heroic deeds of kalari- trained men and women, were made available in print form to the Malayalee readership.  Through the popular movies, dramas, and other performing art forms made on the basis of the heroic stories of northern ballads, kalarippayatt was getting wider and wider exposure. All these have provided an enthusiastic audience for kalarippayatt throughout the state and outside.  In order to popularize kalarippayatt, demonstrations were widely conducted on the stages mainly under the leadership of C.V. Narayanan Nair. Thus, people were able to see before their eyes and even to experience through getting trained, whatever they have known only through hearsay, stories, films, dramas, songs, etc. An account of kalarippayatt exhibitions conducted by a prominent kalari Sangham of that period is narrated below:

‘The first organized attempt for re-establishment of kalari was made in 1933 [1926] under the initiative of C.V. Narayanan Nair, the famous disciple of Kanaran gurukkal from Chombala. This new kalari unit started at Thiruvangad in Thalassery, was run by kerala kalari sangham…  The Kerala kalari sangham organized a number of exhibitions for popularizing kalarippayattu. Starting from south Karnataka, the sangham conducted exhibitions at Pazhani, Madurai, Thanjavur, and Madras. In 1937 they arranged successful performances in Sri Lanka…The leader of the troop C.V. Naryanan Nair, was awarded the title ‘Veera Sri’, by H.H. the Maharaja of Cochin.  He carried his mission until his death in 1944.  The spirit imparted by Nair was carried on by his brother, sons and disciples… The Sangham, within a short span, had established 120 units in different parts of Kerala.  The members of the Sanghm conducted exhibitions in almost all-important centers in India.  They also conducted exhibition tours in Germany, USA, Russia and other European countries.  These exhibitions brought forth an international interest in the field of Kalarippayattu and attracted enthusiasts and researchers to Kerala.  The inspiration given by C.V. N. Kalari Sangham was taken up by a number of other masters of Northern and Southern styles of Kalarippayattu…In 1958 the State Kalarippayattu Association was formed under the [aegis of] Kerala State Sports Council. Under the auspices of the Association yearly competitions at district and state levels are conducted.’ (Kurup and Vijayakumar 1997:41)

The performance mode

“Is Kalarippayatt an art or sport?” an irritated young practitioner asked once, because sometimes he was told that it is an art, and some other time, that it is a sport. His embarrassment might have been due to the fact that Kalarippayatt Association is an official body working under the Sports Council. If it is a sport it should be recognized as a sports discipline.  But nothing happens except the conducting of annual competitions. At the same time the popular media, official propaganda machinery, and cultural ideologues often make high-pitched claims on the beauty and greatness of the ‘traditional art of kalarippayatt’. If kalarippayatt is a traditional martial art form, why should there be the question whether it an art or sport? That is why this study wants to raise the questions of ‘conceptual overarching’, ‘outsider perspective’, ‘insider perspective’ etc.  For the present purpose, we shall try to see the consequences of projecting, transforming or appropriating it as a performance form. That is, to see how the performance mode of kalari practice has reshaped its praxis in the recent history.  Here, it needs certain clarity of the sense in which the term performance is broached.

In its broad sense, every action is a performance, including the speaking of a language.  Speech act philosophers go on to say that while speaking language we are performing different kinds of actions, because every utterance has a performative force to do certain things.  The generative grammarians say that empirical or natural languages are only performative manifestations of the innate human structure of linguistic competence.  Some of the usual ways of representing performance are as ritual performance, religious performance, artistic/aesthetic performance, theatrical performance, gymnastic performance, circus performance etc. However, the meaning of the performance used here has rather a restricted range.  It may represent those artificial human actions which are performed to create or present before audience an aesthetic beauty, height of skills, feeling of wonder, spectacular scene etc. which have some aspects of entertainment, educative and spiritual values, etc. to share.

In the popular perceptions of the contemporary social milieu of Kerala, as well as the practitioners themselves, the kalarippayatt practice, on the one hand, is being presented as if it were having a monolithic structure, history, meaning, social basis etc., and on the other hand, it is also being represented in fabulous varieties of ways.  For instance, they are: kalarippayatt is the traditional martial art, ancient system of warfare, indigenous system of military training, science of combat, divine art, integrated system of physical culture, ancient system of mind-body purification, a traditional art of living, part of Hindu religious practice and life style, warfare invented by Gods and Saints, mother of all martial art forms in the world, deadly art of violence, an amazing game, a folk dance, a war dance, a martial dance, product of medieval social set up, an instrument of feudal power structure, an institution of a bygone society, a village art, a perfect system of physical exercise, a traditional art, etc. and as the kalari as a gymnasium or military academy of nayar warriors, a temple of learning, a temple of religious worship etc..

Very few of these characterizations can represent the performance mode.  They are a fighting sport, a folk dance, a war dance, a traditional art, a martial dance, an amazing game, whereas the others represent different ways of making sense of kalari practice and thus they become attributes to the term ‘kalarippayatt’.

            A representative argument for the performance mode of Kalari praxis may be summarized as follows: as a military institution, the kalari system might have been systematized as in the form available to us today, during the period of the military exigencies of persistent wars that prevailed in a feudal society.  In the age of sophisticated microchip technology of warfare, and in a world of democracy where the rule of law should prevail instead of the rule of might, kalarippayatt does not have any practical use either as a technique of warfare or as a self-defence system.  Even its traditional methods of physical conditioning are not suitable to the modern life-styles.  Therefore, if at all it does have any value and relevance for today, it may be from the point of entertainment and sporting event. And it is ideal to be preserved and practiced as cultural performance, folk art form, or as fighting sport and war dance, etc.

Aesthetics of visibility

            An early look at kalari practice as artistic performance can be seen in M.D. Raghavan’s Folk Plays and Dances of Kerala (1945).  In this book, the author classifies folk plays and dances of Kerala into three, viz., 1) the social and recreational group 2) the religious group and 3) the martial group. Kalari and its practices are included in the third one.  The Velakali, Kondodi, Kanniarkali, Ochirakali are the other folk-plays that belonged to that category.  Distinguishing from Natya (dance used in drama) and Nrtya (dance that expounds a theme) he defines folk dances (Nrtta) in general as dancing to music without a definite theme.  He finds, however, that this definition has got its limitation when it is applied to folk dances of Kerala which do expound a theme, and employ the language of the gestures. Thus he wants to broaden the concept of folk dance to include even the body movements of martial practice.  As the body movements in martial practice have a motive of rousing the fighting spirit, they are not aimless gestures.  Thus any body movement becomes a dance form once it seems to have some motive behind it. This motive may be in the form of propitiation of gods, the prayer for warding off diseases, for the promotion of bodily health or for rousing the fighting spirit as in plays of martial class. Thus ‘folk dancing is also more natural and spontaneous, dancing with a joy that baffles description’, as seen in the Thiruvathirakali. (Raghavan 1947: pp.1-2; 44-45)

            The definition that a purposive and rhythmic movement of body can be considered as dance justifies the inclusion of kalari practice too under the category of folk dance play.  The empirical legitimacy for such an argument is rooted in understanding kalari practice as one which ‘aims at suppleness of the body and agility of limbs, qualities which are essential in trails of strength and in single combat, (that) are used with great efficacy to stab or strike or to ward off blows, the opponents winding and turning their bodies and throwing themselves backwards and forward, astonishing and entertaining the beholders.’

            The above said is a clear statement to show how the process of kalari practice came to be looked at from the angle of folkdances.  Beyond a simple  ‘aesthetic gaze’,  M.D.Raghavan has identified some sort of emotional content or ‘motive’ behind the movement of kalari practice which qualifies him to call it a folkdance.  Despite being an anthropologist he does not feel apologetic about stating that an understanding of the recreational side of human societies is as important from the point of view of the social welfare of the people concerned as of the wider interests of ethnology. However, the inspiration that he derived for undertaking a survey of folk plays and dances of Kerala is stated to be due to his exposure to Europe’s concern over the need of conserving the traditional culture of past and consequent revival of rural cultural studies in early 20th century. Raghavan’s narration of his European experience is as follows:

The succession of International Folk Dance Festivals held in Vienna in 1934, in London in 1935 under the auspices of the English Folk Dance and Song Society, and of the British National Committee on Folk Arts, followed by the Third International Festival in August 1939 in Stockholm, testify to the wide spread awakening and enthusiasm in the field of European folk studies.  The magnificent display of folk plays and dances held in the picturesque grounds of Blenheim palace in the suburbs of Oxford during the summer of 1931, was an eye-opener to the writer who was the only Indian among the sightseers, impressing him with the great need for an all-round revival of folk arts and of folk plays and dances here in India, where the advancement or rural studies is so vital to the welfare of her people (1947: i).

This provides enough clue for us to see the kind of sociological and intellectual milieu in which a Malayali scholar was inspired for venturing a study on Kerala’s cultural forms and to characterize them as ‘folk plays and dance’, along with the parameters set up by the Europeans. Another important factor which is to be noted here, as far as the inclusion of kalari practice under the category of folk dance is concerned, is that, M.D. Raghavan was the academician to give a scholarly account on kalari practice for the first time. That way his interpretation might have become pivotal in shaping the later perceptions on kalari by the Malayalees as well as outsiders. Here we can compare the accounts of kalari given by the medieval foreign travellers and colonialists who were taken aback and felt threatened by the fighting skills of kalari trained warriors, with the account given by a Malayali academic, who himself belonged to the Tellicherry, the nerve centre of kalarividya. Besides the differences in their estimation, both are in par with each other in accounting kalari practice from the angle of a viewer or perceiver.  That is, the descriptions have been given in terms of its visual experiences and effectiveness and not from the point of view of its constitutive components and the wealth of knowledge which made it possible as it is.

           

Now we may examine the nature of the perceptive angle held by Phillip Zarrilli on kalari, a performance ethnologist from United States. To begin with, we shall bring here his accounts on some personal experiences of kalari practice he has had during his ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Kerala in recent decades.  A comparative account of two instances of kalarippayatt demonstration where he provides an eyewitness account from two different locations in the year 1976 in his text is self-explanatory of many things that the present paper contests with. The first description is on his experience from a village near Badagara. He writes:

 After being introduced to the master of the kalari and officially welcomed, students demonstrated items in the traditional repertoire including body exercise sequences intended to render the body flexible, balanced and controlled, performing to the cadences of a masters commands (vaytari); the use of otta, a curved wooden elephant-tusk-shaped weapon meant to attack the body’s vital spots, three-span stick, long staff dagger, sword and shield, and finally the use of the flexible double-edged sword (urumi) were demonstrated.  Having spent my first several months observing the virtuosity of many of the trained [kathakali] performers of the Kalamandalam, and given my own cosmopolitan preference for clear focus, concentration and skill in performance, I was disappointed by what I saw- many of the students were out of shape as they gasped for breath while performing the exercises. What followed made me even more uncomfortable, when the students began to demonstrate with weapons, they were not fully focused- the blows often missed and lacked any degree of power or force (1998:13).

The second narration of his experience with a kalarippayattu master at Thiruvananthapuram, makes him reflect comparatively on the performance by kalari students which he observed at Badagara.

At some point during the week Gurukkal Govindankutty  Nayar began to practice sword and shield, one of the most deadly weapons in the repertory, with one of his most advanced students an incredibly flexible and well trained student of about eighteen years.  After ‘saluting’ each other by performing a series of prostrations with the entire body, they began an exchange of jumps, turns and slashing cuts both in set forms and free style, moving back and forth across the kalari floor.  The master’s eyes opened wide, sparks literally flew from the student’s shield from the tremendous force of the torrent of blows to the head, ribs and ankles he delivered as he backed the student into a corner of the kalari.

 The exchange momentarily took my breath away.  At the time I could not explain why.  I did not have an appropriate language with which to express what I had witnessed.   In retrospect, my breath was taken away, not out of a sense of danger for either myself or the student practicing, but for the fluidity and virtuosity of the exchange, the single-point focus, as well as the manifest power and ‘danger’ in the master’s attack.  But it was a ‘danger’ different from what I had experienced at Badagara where I had been afraid for students, not of the manifest (but controlled) power that was being unleashed, and that could and would do harm if unleashed.  In the context of these routine daily classes, these practitioners embodied an extraordinary intuitive sense of control, and the master a sense of actualized power that was palpable. (Ibid: 17)

No doubt, we have here an aesthetic gaze on kalari par excellence and it is symptomatic of crisis of a such a gaze which is manifested in Zarrilli’s openly stated preferences and applauding of kalaripayatt demonstration given by a master and  ‘most advanced students’ of a well placed, professionally managed kalari which is located in the capital city of Kerala, over the demonstration by ‘out of shape students’ in a village bound kalari (where the show would have been ‘somehow arranged’, perhaps, during the usual lengthy vacation time specifically for the visitors). Of course, it is entirely a different sort of question to ask whether a pure aesthetic appreciation was warranted with out considering sociological conditions of kalari practices in Kerala.  Ironically it is only in the region of Badagara, otherwise called Kadathanad; the original home of kalari practice, that some rudiments of kalarividya instead of performative kalarippayatt is still found to be surviving intact.

Dialectic of visibility

As stated at the beginning, the dialectic of visibility of kalarippayatt is seen to be manifested in the ways kalarividya becomes invisible. Though the process of kalari practices were construed as the matters concerning kalarippayatt performance, it was not so apparent till 1970s, the groundings for it were present from 1930s on-wards. It was rather a process of getting kalari practice ‘re-shaped’ on the lines other than retaining and enriching on those sources which were ‘partially regained’, at the time of revival. Then the primary concern was found to be with the question of popularizing the revived tradition, and thereby to make this maximum appealing to the public viewers in and outside of the state. This has slowly motivated practitioners to give way for only those items that enabled stage performance.

As Govindankutty Nayar narrated to Zarrilli, his father C.V. Narayanan Nayar had made many innovations in kalarippayatt to enhance its public appeal. He improved on the techniques of the jumping kick and introduced use of the volleyball or a bunch of bananas for greater stage effect. He is said to have been experimenting on the changes in weapon items and others for each audience presentation he did (Ibid:51). Of course, this was the trend which became the characteristic of the later course of kalari praxis throughout Kerala. As cited elsewhere in the paper, the spirit of conducting kalarippayatt exhibitions (tours) set by C.V. Narayanan Nair, was carried on initially by his brother, son and disciples, and the branch units of kalari sangahm were established throughout the state and later by other kalari sanghams in Kerala.

In the post independence era, the image of kalarippayatt assumed the status of ‘a traditional art and carrier of Kerala heritage more than its practical use in fighting’. Thereafter, the image with which kalari practitioners began to identify themselves became that of an artist. Thus the aim of becoming a kalari practitioner has come to the modest one of becoming a performing artist. As the audience response to the demonstration of physical exercise items on the stage were very discouraging and invited pooh-poohing, the performers had to withdraw such items from performance repertoire.  Eventually, the importance which once used to be accorded to the physical conditioning method was lessened and the training in weapon items got undue importance, and thereby kalarippayatt has almost come to be identified with training in weapon fighting, as an enactment of the older form of duel, making it into a museum piece.

The kind of transformation delineated earlier in the kalari practice was motivated mainly by considerations and attractions of public/stage performance (money, fame, exhibition, foreign tours, status, etc.). This has led to the loss of the seriousness with which kalarividya had been practiced in the early days.  This loss on the one hand is the loss of rigour and beauty of kalarippayatt as a cultural performance itself and on the other hand, a neglect (non-practising) of those serious kinds of techniques, especially of the meyppayatt (body-art), which are not much attractive from the point of performance angle. This has accentuated the process of drying up of the actual knowledge base of kalari practice.

Those alterations and modifications which had been effected to make public performance attractive have undermined many rigorous but unattractive techniques which are vitally important from the point of welfare practice, as well as from the point of physical conditioning methods which provide rigour and beauty even to those performance events.  This kind of simplifications is apparent from the importance that has not been accorded to the training in body- art aspect.   Those modifications and new additions only aimed at making a performance of the ‘cultural relic’ a spectacular and astonishing event for audience through the means of weapons and gimmicks apart from creating finesse of the body of mind (an accomplished body becomes equivalent to mind). 

A worse case of the neglect towards the ‘unattractive’ techniques can be seen from the kalari community’s attitude towards the style of kalari practice which is in the possession of one of the most committed living practitioners of our age named Kadathanad K.N. Balalakrishnan gurukkal (1922-) of Thottilpalam, Badagara. Balakrishnan gurukkal’s style is unique in the northern tradition, whose attractiveness is much lesser from others, though it is more arduous to practice. As gurukkal says, he had inherited this style from his master who belonged to a traditional warrior family that once served under the Kadathanad princely state. Thus, those techniques remain archaic because he did not want to mix it up with other styles and make any modifications, preferring to enhance performance quality and not willing to do away with ‘scientific’ practice of kalarividya.  Due to his commitment to the traditional standards he could not find himself a place in the race for fame and prosperity but remained simply allowing himself to be a forlorn caretaker of a divine carrier to which he had devoted his entire life, and continues to be active even in his   eighties, even when not finding any serious disciple to inherit his unique knowledge source. A major chunk of isolated but rare and unattractive techniques, as that Balakrishnan gurukkal possesses, had already become extinct with the demise of traditional practitioners, whose style had not been properly inherited by their successors who rather went on for the performance aspect leaving all unique techniques known only in namesake or hearsay.

The pathetic situation of this sort would have been unavoidable under the ‘pressure-some’ conditions set by larger forces working within the community.  Therefore, the undesirable ways in which kalari practice has been transformed, and the consequent loss of sources of knowledge or the estrangement of practice are to be taken in the context of pressures exerted by the dominant ideological, political and economic forces through their nexus of power relations.

As Zarrilli is able to capture, some of the empirical details which underline the aspects of above said dialectic of visibility of Kalarippayatt has been delineated in the following passage:

           

In 1980 kalarippayattu (along with Manipuri than ta) traveled abroad for the first time since 1937, under the auspices of the Indian Council for Cultural Relations as part of its ‘Martial Dances of India’ programme for the 5th Asian Arts Festival in Hong Kong, thus gaining for Kalarippayattu a secure place in the national government’s catalogue of cultural performance encapsulating India’s antique heritage and suitable for export abroad. Kalrippayattu has subsequently been included as a regular item in India’s national cultural diplomacy’ strategy which has taken the form of a series of international Festivals of India.  Since 1982, when the policy was first forged and a festival of India was held in England, Festivals have also been held in France, the United States, Sweden (‘Indian Manifestation’), concluding with the massive 1988 Festival of India in the USSR. Approximately Rs. 22.68 crore were spent on the five festivals.  Kalarippayattu was included as part of the official programme at three of the festivals (England, France and the USSR). Competition to participate in tours has further politicized masters into factions and interest groups. (Ibid: 262-263)

However, there is difficulty in buying Zarrilli’s findings that, the competitive dispositions among practitioners to cash opportunities opened up by global exposure of kalarippayatt alone has ‘repositioned’ it for consumerist use value in the contemporary world. Any attempt to undermine the process of conceptual appropriation brought out historically and the failure to capture the politics of estrangement of kalari practice will be tantamount to fetishization of kalari practice as kalarippayatt, a performing art.

            As underlined in the above sections, an attempt to develop a critique of performance paradigm of kalari practice (that is kalarippayatt) is not left ‘un-appealing’ to any alternative perspective of understanding.  It has also been pointed out that a counter paradigm can be provided with the notion of kalarividya, which could take care of the composite character of kalari practice instead of identifying it in its entirety with any one of its component aspects or historical adaptation. Such a liberal perspective will help us to take cognition of the heterogeneity of kalari practice and its sources of knowledge vis-à-vis the possibilities of that wealth to be adapted for the welfare of contemporary world.

Part II

Towards the welfare perspective

           

As underlined in the above, the attempt to develop a critique of performance paradigm of Kalari practice (i.e. Kalarippayatt) is not left 'un-appealing' to any alternative perspective of understanding of this traditional system of knowledge.  It has also been pointed out that a counter perspective can be constructed by invoking the notion of Kalarividya, which could take care the composite nature of kalari system, instead of identifying it in its entirety with any one of its components or any of its historical form of adaptation.  Such a liberal perspective will help us to  cognize the heterogeneity of the practice and its sources of knowledge, vis-à-vis the question of findinng possibilities of those wealth to be adapted for the well-beig of the present-day society.

            Since a strong case against the prevailing modes of understanding kalari practice as it to be, has already been made, now the question is to show how do we go about to establish the possibility of other ways of looking at kalari system. The purpose of this reconstruction is to provide enough ground for the development of a welfare paradigm of kalari praxis contrast to the existing performances modes which circumscribe the utilities  (welfare potentialities) of the Kalari's source  of knowledge for isolated, but superficial practices, to become self defeating in the long run. Therefore, the proposed reconstruction would involve the reinterpretation of many of the practices and beliefs related to the Kalari tradition, as well as of their historical accounts.  But for the present purpose, what is intended here is to explain how do we make sense of the notion of Kalarividya, (as an alternative to 'Kalarippayatt') from the conceptual frame of 'welfare' distinguishing  it from the notion of Kalarippayyat which operates within the explanatory framework of warfare, and in turn that of the martial art.

Welfare Vs Warfare

            The question of non-performance (non- martial art) aspects of  Kalari  practice emerges from the fact that it is a blend of variegated forms of knowledge practices which are intertwined  each other, and whose significance cannot be adequately accounted from the ambit of a warfare or fighting  technique. The  fact that Kalari system is found to be an amalgamation of different  sources of practice, the tendency to essentialise or reduce it to any signle source would be an isolationsim .  What are the sources of  knowledge which constitute Kalari practice is a matter that is yet to be discerned , but  at the rock bottom, some principles are found to be at work which inform the contribution or influence of many factors such as  tantrism, shamansim, various forms  of magico- religious and spirituals or psycho-physiological practices for the existential caring of life and its world of powers, healing techniques  of various sorts, body consciousness based on neuro -physiological  principle and so on.  Let apart the aspects which are seen now outwardly, it  is this composite nature of kalari practice which makes it difficult to distinguish the uniqueness of any of its individual components.  While  this system is taken to be entirely a martial art, whose significance for  civil society is relatively or rather negatively understood, much of what is undermined are the potentialities of its components,which would otherwise be beneficial for many  thing but continued to be neglected because of their irrelevance to  fighting  or  performance standards.

            Despite the high pitched claims about the "physical culture" qualifications of kalarippayat (including that of the oil messaging and marma therapeutic practices) that are  widely advertised through the glossy pamphlets printed in 'English', and nowadays found abundantly in the  portals of internet websites, the practitioners as well as the seekers are found to be  inescapably entrenched in the logic of performance. It is the showmanship of fighting but not the capability of practical fighting that seems to be what is most cared for.

What we see in the presently available form of kalari practice as   exercise, postures, sequence of body movements, combating techniques using variety of weapons, unarmed fighting etc, constitute  the 'payatt'  (training in fighting techniques which are otherwise designated by kalarippayatt in the northern style) aspect of  Kalarividya.  This system  of combat might have been uniquely codified and designed exclusively for the conduct of war (duel) in a particular period of history, drawing on some system of knowledge already existing about the human body and  its capabilities.  The preexistence of such a system of knowledge on human body which supplied information about its neuro-physiological structure, mental capacities etc. is that which is informed by the systematically codified techniques of combating and the accompanying healing practice. Both the fighting and healing techniques inform the accuracy of knowledge with which the inner injury (on marma, ie, vital point or joint of nerves) has to be inflicted and the same is retrieved. And the same source of knowledge of the body capabilities could have been codified for different requirements that came up at different times in different localities. (This might be one of the reasons for the stylistic differences exist in Kalari practice). And it could be those knowledge on neuro-physiological or psycho-physiological potentialities of the human body that has been  put into practice, and  the power required for the combating is harnessed  through  the regular training. 

It seems that there had a period, especially during the spread of Budhism in South India, where those kind of rigorous training in combating techniques and physical exercises was  included in the meditational practice.  There the bodily endowments aimed by the rigorous training seems to be availed by the purpose other than fighting.  The achivement of a properly balanced state of mind required for a dispassionate  (overcoming 'thrishna'; the desirious existence  in the case of  Budhism) spiritual pursuit, could be the objective of including the fighting techniques as part of the rigorous method of meditation. And  on the other way, the fine-tuning of the body to accomplish the fighting  skill is believed to be the outcome not simply of  the training in combating techniques  but of a life style of its own to gain  the extra-ordinary human capacities to control the powers.  That means, a thorough going and continuous adherence to the methods of magico- spiritual pursuits was considered  to be all the more important, in addition to the physical training.

            Reasons are yet to be found out  why such sources of knowledge were not subjected to a proper explanation.  But it seems the negligence is largely due to certain biased approaches to the body oriented knowledge practices and the  superficial interpretations of martial arts followed.  Owing to this attitude, a stigma of violence has been attached to it, and continues to be the guiding vision of all those who are  related to the system directly or distantly. The image warfare and the consequent impressions of violence that have been created among the general public has assumed a sort of ideological status of anachronism, i.e. the Kalari practice as such is  unsuitable for today.  It is not simply the case of the general public but with most of the present generation practitioners of Kalarippayatt. They compete with each other to make it suitable for the aesthetic attraction  in public performance.

            The attempt to present the case against the projected image of Kalari practice entirely as Kalarippayatt or martial art system is not  to undermine the importance of the combating techniques as such. Its difficulty is  with the following: Kalarippayatt is conceptually deficient to accommodate the composite character of the discipline; Kalarippayatt  excludes the wider contents of the practice; and more crucially, it carries the  image whose  effects are  detrimental  to its  own source basis.  These are some of the disturbing factors which make us  militate Kalarividya against  'Kalarippayat'. The de-contextualised praxis entailed by the concept Kalarippayatt was feeding on its own projection as warfare.  This, in turn, has worked in the present-day society, in the manner to generate a contemptuous attitude towards it, and thereby to a crass negligence to understand it and make use, let apart those aspects other than martial art, even the combating techniques for the welfare of society in general.

            A factor that contributed decisively for the prevalence of a  "look-down upon" attitude which  is  expressed through the words such as  'unsuitable',  'outdated', 'unwanted', 'harmful', 'violent', 'criminal', etc is the practice of  'historicizing kalari, whose narratives have traced origin and development of kalarippayyat as a warfare or military practice of the societies, where might determined the rules. It is gainst this background of the essentialising historicization of kalarippayat that the present study wants to be an interpretative one, so as to present kalari system from a welfare perspective, in order to recover and broaden its sources of application, on the basis of principles latent in it, instead of confining its activities to the sphere of combating techniques alone.

            As the conceptual framework of warfare is found to have created major impediments in the way of lending credibility for the said ‘neuro-psycho-physiological’ principles, the burden of the exegetical task of the study is to clear off the conceptual blockade erected by the warfare perspective and its carrier notion  'Kalarippayat'.  To this effect, we shall try firstly to provide some content towards the welfare aspects related to the combating techniques alone, which are otherwise left unattended in the usual discourses on Kalarippayatt. This may also be providing a picture is to how  an institutional practice is getting negotiated by its own society, in a  different period of time where preceeding  vocabularies and its meanings are radically revised. Especially when the negotiation is done from the point of view of larger  interest of the society, there may be found certain richer aspects which  were latent until then, coming into prominence  and wide application there on.  Therefore, the presentation of the welfare content may appear to be capturing some of the phases of the historical adaptation of  kalari system of  knowledge.

            Though the kalari practice, during the period of the nationalism, was revived as the traditional martial art system meant for self-defense much emphasis was given to those aspects other than 'abhyasa' (training in combating techniques and postures). It is a fact that before the introduction of the term kalarippayatt, kalari system in north Kerala was referred either as   'abhyasa' or 'kalariabhyasa'. And it seemed that the prime intent of the  'pothujana kalari' (kalari for general public)that emerged then was to imbibe the age-old knowledge pracices of physical culture, life style, healing practice, psycho - spiritual practice, etc relating to the institution of  Kalari, for the benefit of society in  general. But, the emphasis was more on  inheriting kalari for the psycho-somatic development of children in their grooming period.

This was found  to be entrely a new way of socially experiencing of Kalari, at the regions of its revival.  Through this, what may be called as a "social appropriation of the martial techniques, a radical transformation of kalari praxis was taking place in  Kerala.  The change was  from  the praxis of training in  combating techniques(training inn practical fighting, to an extent) ti the praxis of imparting the techniques of psycho-physiological conditionionng and spiritual pursuits.

        Unfortunately, this movement was  soo found eclipsed by kalari’s christening as folk arts.It was cast in a performannce paradigm with the emergence  of a competetive market centering around the public demonstration  of Kalarippayatt.  In the beginning even the goodminded masters could not recognise the ill effects of its being popularised through wide performances.  Because , initially the public performance were meant to popularise the re-discovered cultural antiquity. Eventually the praxis of public performances was assuming undue  importance over, sometime even replacing,  the praxis of the child-care oriented pothujana kalari at the level of life in the village.

            Besides being a means for physical fitness, 'abhyasam' was also found to be effective as a method of psycho-physiological therapy for many of the infantile imbalances. This   is said to be resulting from a systematic training and repeated practising of those bodily combating postures (Meyyppayatt) which were codified in a purposive  manner to bring about  psycho-physiological attunement required for an accomplished  fighter. Every movement and posture in the abhyasa repertoire are directed towards the achievement of certain definite results in the bodily as well as the mental structures of a trainee. These techniques are thus meant to achieve a total conditioning of the body and mind. As said, their original purpose was to provide special capabilities (an alternative state of existence, to be precise) needed for a warrior, especially in individual combating  (the duel) to make effective offensive and defensive manoeurs.

            The earlier fight oriented (not in the sense of battle) form of training was aimed at achieving a high degree of  precision in combating. For this a perfect  control over the body and the capacity to employ the force to the targeted vital spots (marma positions) are to be achieved. Balance, flexibility, stamina, speed, concentration, strength, resourcefulness, endurance, persevarance etc, are some of the capabilities  which ensure successful movements in a combating. The capacity to synchronise or co-ordinate the mind and body is said  to be that which  happens in the case  of  an accomplished warrior.

            A perfect neuro- muscular co-ordination attained through the rigorous training is the special power or capacity that enables one's body to respond almost instinctively to any situation, is considered to be the accomplishment of Kalari practice. The metaphorical description that 'Meyykannakuka' (the body becomes  equivalent to eyes) often highlights this level of sensitizing of the body. At that stage a person is also said to be capable of having extra-sensory perceptions and other skills including magical way of disguising  oneself.  The strengthening of mental and physical powers, enables one to hone qualities as courage, fearlessness, reflexivity and confidence. Through the disciplined  and rigorous training in physical feats, and by the adherence to the life style  suggested, Kalari practice is also believed to be capable of inculcating  certain mental qualities towards building a sound personality.

            The above  briefing about the welfare oriented praxis of combating techniques shows that, the way the kalari practice was regained and appropriated by its own society in the beginning of 20^th century, had been in the way society was finding it most benefifical for its well-being.

           

   When   the very combating techniques themselves were presented in its broader context, their 'utilities'  (welfare potentialities) were accessible to a wider public than it had been part of warfare or self defense system.  Thus, the martial practice has been adapted to be a discipline  (as a system of knowledge) that take care not only the physical health but also the mental well-being of its practitioner. Therefore, one of the ways that Kalarividya is to be adapted for today is to look into how best the very fighting system itself could be profitably understood from the point of the discipline of a psyho-physical  culture.

Besides the combating techniques, there is another aspect which falls very much within the kalari praxis and whose welfare properties are apparent; i.e., the healing practice called as 'kalarichikitsa or 'marmachikitsa'.  Now it is taken as an allied practice of kalarippayatt, which was  developed for curing the injuries inflicted  during the course of training in kalari or on the fighting  ground.  As it has been widely advertised nowadays, that kalarichikktsa is a unique  curatory practice developed on the basis of Ayurvedic principles meant for the ailments such as bone-fractures, dislocations, sprains,  muscular pains etc,    And ofcourse, there is the practice called Uzhichil,  the whole - body oil massage, which was considered to be compulsory for a Kalarippayatt trainee to make the body flexible for the proper movements of combating .  Now it is taken to be an effective treatment for many chronic disease  and for the general physical well-being of a person who is not necessarily  a practitioner of kalarippayatt.

            However, the propaganda  that the curatory practice adopted in Kalari  is essentially that of the Ayurveda is found to be superfluous and something that  vote for certain ideological as well as the culture consumeristic marketing .  Because though the ‘kalarichikitsa’ or ‘marmachikitsa’  often appears to be an independent  practice, its theoretical and methodological  pre-occupations are seen to be within the neuro -physiological principles under laid  in the  Tamil Marma sasthra treatises, that are now more closer to the sidha system of medicine.  Unfortunately, however, most of the present day practitioners

are found ill-informed about these basic factors and often  engaged in the unscientific practice of Ayurveda in the name  of traditional kalarichikitsa.

            Secondly, the burden of the explanatory task is to show why the above stated wider context of combating techniques cannot be accounted as they fall very much within the frame of warfare or martial art? This requires, on the other hand, to draw a conceptual context for a welfare   perspective.  Then only it becomes possible to argue that  kalarividya cannot be construed  as essentially a warfare practice. To bring home the subtleties of the interpretation involved here, we invoke the distinctions of  'warfare', martial art', fighting art' as made in the philosophical explanations of martial skills, especially from the point of bushido ethics practised by the Japan’s samurai warriors. Following are the excerpts from some of the literature concerned:

           

“any martial skill which is not beneficial to both the exponent and society is not a martial art.  A thing may use a martial technique in a fight but this does not make him a martial artist :  had been taught true martial arts he would not be a thing.  Martial arts training is not just the learning of skilled fighting techniques, there must be disciplined training, a moral philosophy, dedication, a sense of duty and respect.  This concept is best expressed by the Japanese character for martial, which is ‘bu’….   A martial art is a classical fighting system in which the emphasis is on victory in combat, but which has the secondary motivation of self-perfection through training and includes a moral duty to society.  A martial way describes a martial skill that has the main motivation of self-development through training with a possible secondary consideration of practical use.  A martial sport describes a martial activity in which exponents compete within a set of rules and in so doing develop a healthy mind, body and spirit.  The highest ideal in fighting is winning the encounter without resorting, to violence, that is by pure strategy”(Finn,1988)

            “Warfare vs. martial arts…. The skills of war are generally cruder than the fighting arts, and the weapons used are heavier…  By the eighteenth century BC the way of warfare was already the way of strength, of the use of heavy weapons to beat down the enemy, and so it has continued ever since.  Since the earliest times there have been records of individual fighting.  The story of David killing Goliath with a stone hurled from a sling is one of the more detailed descriptions of a martial art event that took place in ancient times.  With his simple shepherd’s weapon, David could command an accuracy comparable with that achieved in a single stroke by a samurai swordsman.  Repeated practice alone brings the poise and concentration necessary for such economy of effort and precision of aim.  Armies use different techniques.   They achieve results by means of firepower…..   Martial arts vs. fighting sports.  The martial arts were not developed for the defense of soldiers fighting on battlefields.  Neither are they sports.  The combat that martial artists practice is free of restraints unless it is practiced as a fighting sport.  Boxing and wrestling have always been fought within the constraints of rules, ….   Martial arts have one objective only: to neutralize an attack by any means and as rapidly as possible.  Some traditional masters object to the martial arts being converted into sports…. There is …. an obvious and close relationship between the movements of acrobats and of practitioners of the martial arts, and a long tradition of relations between many of the fighting and performing arts… One ingredient that is fundamental to the techniques of fighting has a religious and medical background.  This is the deliberate use of breathing to gain strength, poise and power.  Systems of breathing are still used in the religions of the Middle East and are fundamental in Yoga and in Chinese longevity exercises.” (Reid and Croncher 1983:3).

            In the above, the martial art has been characterized as lying over and above mere fighting or aggressive warfare methods.  It is a means of self-perfection through bodily training, or means for the development of a healthy body mind and spirit, through which victory in combat is achieved without resorting to violence, through the intelligent strategical movements.  Thus the martial art is distinguished from the warfare which resorts to the cruder means for fighting where as the former is characterized by the economy of effort and precision of aim to achieve the objective of neutralizing any attack.  It is mainly an individualistic combat system not meant for the battle field defense purposes.  And it is nor fighting sports which is purely a rule based combat.  The un-trainable skill that is to be employed at the moment of actual fighting would be the one that is to be accomplished by the constant practices which are free from rules.  The breathing exertions and other physiological conditioning are the processes at work in achieving such extra-ordinary capabilities for the economy of effort and precision of aim.  If these are the philosophical or conceptual aspects of the martial practice, it would be possible to draw a further distinction like martial arts vs. existential fighting.  The later can be seen as the fighting spirit of human being and that could be related to the preparedness (both bodily and mentally) for the fighting as the means for existential caring.  At the face of perpetual threats from the surroundings, fighting methods could have developed as a means for possessing special capabilities, as the technologies of existential defensing.  From this perspective, not only other welfare aspects of kalarividya, but also the payatt or martial aspect can be made sense as the means for existential fighting.  As the existential skill is a matter of embodied accomplishment, a body-oriented spirituality might be a means for achieving victory or perfection.  To what extent kalairividya can be a resource provider as the means of body oriented spirituality for the realization of welfare of individuals and society would be a question of finding its sustainable adaptations.

Towards Contemporary Adaptations

            The critique of Kalarippayatt as performance paradigm built upon warfare perspective, has been undertaken here with the task of drawing a welfare perspective along  which the kalari praxis could be restructured.  To an extent, it is an attempt to find possibilities for integrating it with other fields of human activities, as a matter of applying the principle and techniques of kalarividya to the possible domains of developmental programmes.  By way of making use of 'kalarippayatt' techniques for the better performance of some other activities, it may not be a candidate qualified for the concept of ‘adaptation’ proper.  It may be rather a form of ‘adopting’.  As stated elsewhere, it is not a question of finding new application for an old technology, but something more to do with drawing new meaning and creating new forms which may be stemming from the earlier insights or traditional ways of practices. Thus ‘adaptation’ is a matter of finding, evolving, creating or inventing certain practices and concepts which are having a new form and content, but based on the principles or insights provided by the body oriented knowledge practices related to the tradition of kalari. As the kalarippayatt (as performance) itself has been a historically adapted form of such knowledge practices, the search  for contemporary adaptations cannot be confined to the ambit of ‘kalarippayatt’.

Therefore, the integration or incorporation of kalarippayatt training to some other physical training programme may not  bring much difference in changing the attitude towards it, and may be helpful only to opening up limited areas of application.  Such simplistic form of tapping, rather  the "exploitation” of martial resources, would be yet another form of perpetuating the prevailing images of ‘kalarippayatt’.  It is not  an un-attempted venture as there are already a few on the run in that line.But even they simply  remain within the same limits working with the same consumeristic manoeuvers, neither making a conceptual breakthrough nor being  able to make it  appealing  for the general public. And quite evidently, they too are found working  with the ideas of consumeristic manoeuvers.  Therefore the notion of adaptation cannot have conceptual common ground with the ‘adoption’.  Instead, it calls for an epistemic break with the prevailing notions.  It is only in the context of such a shift that the preference to the term kalarividya would  make sense.  Thus the aim of interpretative intent of the work is to present the concept ‘kalarividya’ itself as one of the new or  contemporary adaptations, indeed as the 'conceptual adaptation', while treating the emergence of podujanakalari  and kalarippayatt practice  in the beginning of 20th century as the form of  historical  adaptations  of the fighting traditions that existed in Kerala.  Regressively, the very combating system itself could taken to be an adaptation of the body knowledge practices exist before it get systematised. Similarly there have been many other historical adaptations which have taken place in earlier periods. Contrasting to those historical  or evolutionary adaptive forms, the present search  for adaptations might be considered as something, like that  of ‘conceptual’  or ‘inventive’

Though the term ‘kalarividya’ (kalari + vidya-knowledge or skill) is found used as equivalent to ‘kalarippayatt’, in the title of a manuscript publication  of the oral-commands in the Dronamvally style of kalari practice,(9) it is hardly referred in any of other writings on kalarippayatt. And if at all any practitioner is found refering to ‘kalarividya’ in parlance, it is strictly in the sense of ‘kalarippayatt’.Whereas the conceptual content that is to be supplimented or supplied to the term ‘kalarividya’ here, is meant to provide a wider significance to kalari practice as a system of knowledge, rather than circumscribing it as martial art that goes with the term ‘kalarippayatt’(art of fencing). Thereby, this interpretation of ‘kalarividya’ wants to exorcise the image of kalari practice as an art of violence..

However, a tendency that is found in the historical writings as well as  in the popular expressions, is to portray the ‘kalarippayatt’ as if it were in the same form  from the time of its origin; as if its original purpose were only the waging of war. It is to specifically to challenge this essentialising historicisation, that the notion of adaptation, is invoked as a theoretical device to account for the changing forms of finding applications of some ‘primitive’ notions of the ‘body- knowledge’ whose sophistications are available in the various practices, including fighting techniques. Consequently, the notions of ‘origin’ ‘development’ (growth),’decline’ etc., are set aside, and what is thereby argued is  that in the evolutionary history of the fighting practice and its knowledge forms, there  had only been discontinuous forms of practices instead of a punctuated movement of  origin, growth and decline. From this perspective, the attempt to trace the historical  trajectory of kalarippayatt can be nothing more than a strategy of holding ideological supremacy  and hierarchy of power in society.

 

            We have already drawn the direction to which we have to look for the ways in which ‘kalari practice’ could be made sense of,  for the larger interests of the present-day society. However, much confusions and reductionistic approaches are found in many accounts on how ‘kalarippayatt’ could find relevance for today. In what follows, we shall try to capture some of those ambivalences and confusions exist among the practitioners and others, regarding the ways it make sense today.

    Philiph Zarrilli has enumerated some of the cultural forms whose practice and demonstration, the kalarippayatt was utilized in the earlier periods, apart from its use as warfare or duel conducted for the petty principalities in the feudal society. The training of kathakali performers, theyyam performance training, and the training of circus performers etc., were those other purposes to which  kalarippayatt was used in the past. Whereas in the modern period its usage is found for the stage performances as part of government sponsored festivals of India throughout the world, the dance choreography of internationally known Madras based choreographer Chandralekha, and Zarrill’s own use of kalarippayatt (along with tai chi ch’ uan) in training American performers(Zarrilli, 1998.)

     It is to be noted that the earlier and contemporary usage of kalarippayatt identified by Zarrilli belong to the genre of performing art, as it goes in tune with his own finding that the usage of the compound term ‘ kalarippayatt’ appeared in the twentieth centurey century for the purpose of popularizing the public performance of kalarippayatt techniques.   Again Zarrilli could not trace any other ways the kalarippayatt was made use than for the art forms. It might be a natural consequence  of the performance point of view  which tends to overlook  the broader context of the practice.

            As Zarrilli finds, while capturing the ethnographic present of kalarippayatt, the practice of  traditional kalarippayatt in the  contemporary  Kerala Soceity which has become a 'consumer capitalist economy', has been altered to various forms owing to the socio-economic pressures of the new world order, especially in the context  of the transnational flow of culture.  He identifies four important paradigms in which kalarippayatt has been negotiated  to make  it fit to a ‘transnational  cosmopolitan image’. The first one attempts to understand and interpret kalarippayatt practice as affecting not just the gross, phycial body of humours and saps, but behaviour' as well ( Ibid. 216)

            The second paradigm which understands kalarippayatt as 'traditional art' and as the carrier of 'kerala heritage as an heroic Malayali identity'. (p.216). Within this there is another paradigm of using kalarippayatt for the training of artistic discipline.  In this  paradigm kalarippayatt is understood to provide a set of pre-expressive psycho-physiological techniques to develop full-body awareness to then be  used in dance or theatre performance. (Ibid. .222)

            The other  two paradigms are in  the nature of  ' incorporating harder self-defence techniques into the repertory of the 'tradition'.  Attempts to this effect, made by two Malayali practitioners (one in Thiruvananthapruam and one in Malasia), as Zarrilli finds, are the ones which creatively negotiated 'traditional' and 'practical' discourses and paradigms of practice.

            The third paradigm is developed by Ustaz Haji Hamzah Haji Abu's International Kalaripayyatt Dynamic self-defence institute  in Kuala Lumpur, Malasia, has repositioned the body of the Kalarippayatt practitioner to fit a street-wise  self- defence paradigms( Ibid. 224)

            The fourth one is  the hard and composit style of martial art developed by the Indian School of Martial Art (ISMA) of Balachandran Master who has creatively  negotiated ' the relationship between the self- defence paradigm of martial art practice, 'traditional' Kalarippayattu, and the important discursive  formations of kinship, sacrifice, and heroic honour implicit  in Kerala history and its heritage" ( Ibid.239).

       .

We shall conclude  this paper by presenting some of the  representative views on the way in which 'kalarippayatt'  could find relevance for to day's world held by the different sections of  practioners in Kerala.  .

     

1.     We should recover the rigor of Kalaripayatt as technique for individual combat and protect and preserve it paying due attention to its uniqueness. It is not simply an ayodhanakala, martial sport or performing art as very many perceived, rather it should be considered as an ayodhanamura, practical fighting skill.The main reason for the decline of the importance of kalarippayatt Even though, apparently kalaripayatt may seem as a combat technique, basically it is a way to achieve moksha and spiritual well being through controlling body which has been emerged out of certain historical necessities.

2.            Since the kalaripayatt as a warfare strategy has no relevance in contemporary situations we should be ready to give up the things that are not required by the contemporary cultural milieu.  Accordingly we must probe into the possibilities of converting it as a ritual related to temple or any other centers of worship by anchoring at its physical culture and meditation.

3.                 Kalaripayatt has no relevance in the contemporary age as warfare/fighting technique or as individual self-defense technique. Its relevance in contemporary age lays in its utility as a physical culture and as curatory practice. By giving due importance to physical exercise aspect kalaripayatt should be regenerated and reformed as a health science.

4.                 Since Kalaripayatt is considered as a most useful thing for bringing up a healthy mind and physic in children, it should be developed as children’s health care programme and incorporated into the existing school curriculum.

5.                     Even though kalaripayatt has many positive qualities, the complexity of the contemporary age prevents us from accepting it as an essential requirement for the well being of everyday life. As it requires many years (12years) of continuous  practice to master it properly, the people of the day find to it unpractical  to go with its traditional fashions.   Therefore the traditional training style has to be completely restructured  in the way make it suit  for modernised (urbanised) life style.

Hence, it is suggested that, anchoring on the specific character of martial arts, kalaripayatt should be developed as a performing art or entertainment program for the public.

6.                 Presentation of the kalaripayatt in all its traditional aspects before the public would not fetch attraction.  The stage demonstration  must reveal before the public the fact that learning kalaripayatt in the traditional way has umpteen possibilities and potential in defensive and offensive purposes.

7.              Kalaripayatt is to be restructured as a physical training or actor training program to make useful as a base for theatrical arts and for all performing arts.

8.      Kalaripayatt is to be structured as an athletic events an included in the sports competitions

In the  above very selectively captured viws on, apparently seen are the ambivalencee exist among the practitioners with regard to the understanding of their own discipline. It appears that fore said composit nature of kalari system of knowledge  that which causes ambivalence and comfusous  here.  And of course, what is evidently, the difficulty that the practitioners find is the problem if negotiating the complexities of the practice with the socio-economic pressures, as well as the  ideological which movem them to . Another hard fact is that in all most all the practioners of the day. We could hardly find a healthy inheritance of a long and continuting  tradition of kalari practice.  If at all some of them claim to hae so though very distantly related  but discontinued and undergoes inheritance  of the skills, it does not seen to be authentic and 'anthoritative", other than the purpose of "marketing" or "consuming" the " tradition".

9.            While converting it as an item of competition,  there is a possibility of considering only the individual’s skills for deciding prizes. Adequate attention is not given to reckon the excellence in defensive and offensive techniques in a combat.

10.           It should be developed as a strategy to up-bring human resource potential in the employment fields wherever physical and mental concentration is an essential requirement.

11.           The essential components of kalaripayatt like, uzhical, setting bone and physical-exercises should be developed as an auxiliary of ayurvedic and siddha type of medical practice.

12.            If at all kalaripayatt has any importance as offensive and defensive art that lies in the potential of what is called fourth stage or nalammura, in the Northern style, which is otherwise called verumkaiprayogam-bare hand technique. Meanwhile in the Southern style which is known as adithada, the hit and block is the first step. Hence the supporters of the Southern style argue that only their style has relevance as a combat system.

13.                  Kung fu and Karate, the two popular martial arts, considered as the refined and improved versions of the verumkaiprayogam of Northern style.  Therefore  Kalaripayatt as adithada of Southern style, have relevance and utility in the contemporary age. They also believe that, a Buddhist saint from North India in 5th A.D. brought the Southern style of kalaripayatt to China, from it they developed the earlier said two forms, hence they too should be considered as derivative of kalari.

14.                  The essence and scientificity of the kalari lays in the southern style, where body itself is converted as weapon and through marmaprayoga, is meant to create internal hurts.

15.                  Northern style is not a scientific one, since they apply oil to the body, which will result in the slipping of body when trying to catch as well as when exchanging kicks.

16.                  Northern style has no practical use. It does not have either the potential to defend attack or to sufficient strategies to make attack on others. Also it is more akin to a kind of folk dance.

17.                  The rich south Indian traditions like the Marmasasta, marmachikitsa and siddha vaidya provided the base for the emergence of southern style of kalarividhya, hence it is scientific.

18.                  The indigenous form of kalarividhya of Kerala might have been the less ritualistic, less refined, southern style of kalarividhya. Extrapolation of some alien tradition over it might have been happened some time later. Sometimes also argue that the secret Kalari practice exists in Northern Kearla, which is similar to southern, might have been provided a popular basis for the practices prevailed there.

19.                   The order and regularity in practice which one could perceive in Northern style also indicate that they are much more refined and mild. Perhaps the change from individual combat system to warfare techniques to necessitated by the emergence of states in medieval social formation might have been provided the milieu for such a formulation, of a system to create a very disciplined warrior.

20.                    If the indigenous abhyasamura had limited interest of protecting individuals, the emergence of the petty states in medieval society made the reformed kalarividhya an integral part of its defensive arrangements.

21.                     The abhyasamura, which has its base on bare-hand method were preserved for a little longer by local lords as well as by petty chieftains, because it served there purpose of imposing pressure on their subjects so that their power will remain intact. Majority of the Kalari trained persons employed as personal as well as security guards of such local power holders. Illegal land absorption was conducted on the strength of such militia. It is a fact that, even the sustenance of such local lords was depended upon such militia. Hence logically it can be argued that, they had an interest to protect and promote kalari as the institution related to it.

22.                      Due to undue importance given to marmaprayoga, physiology (sareera thathwa sastram) and balance of mental and spiritual being of individuals, that may emerge out of kalari training, gets neglected in southern style. Their emphasize on exerting physical assault on enemies, rather than giving importance to overall development of mind and body, gives only a superficial approach to self defense. The result of such a perception will be generating  destructive power instead of constructive, and healthier personality in individuals.

23.                       In certain sense, the martial arts emerged out the adithada and verumkai prayogam of kalarividhya like karate and kung fu are seen as better to its parent forms (of course, some would argue that, that is not because of the limitation of the kalaryvidhya, but due to the absence of adequately trained kalari gurrukkal).  But that too have the limitation of the one-dimensional attitude to human body.

24.                       Kalari was an instrument in the age and in the society where the rule of  “might is right” was acceptable. Later it developed as institution for assisting local lords and petty chieftains to preserve their power and also in their attempt to extent power through absorption illegally. When a society based on judiciary appeared instead of one which admitted might as right, institution like Kalari began to face initial threat for its existence. Also Kalari had a bad history of exterminating human being. In the age of consensus and ahimsa such institutions has little space, hence that should be left to face its natural death.

Notes
* Major portion of this paper was formed as an article published under the title ‘Kalaripayatt: Performance Paradigm as Aesthetics and Politics of Invisibility’ in Simon Charsley and Laxmi Narayan Kadeker (eds), Performers and their Arts: Folk, Popular and Classical Genres in Changing India, Routledge, New Delhi, London, 2006.

Acknowledgements: This paper is  a  product of a major research  project undertaken by the author , under the KRPLLD scheme executed by Centre For Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, during the period 1999-2001.I would like to express my sincere thanks to the  executive committee , and to Dr. K.N.Nair, programme  coordinator of the project, for all guidance and encouragements. I am also indebted to the project assistants, Sri.P.P. Rajan, Sri. Binu M. John, Sri. P.N.Unnikrishnan, and particularly to Sri.V.Dinesan , a researcher on Kerala history and culture, who rendered his valuable service as  the research consultant of the project work.

1.         Hearn, Jeff and Sasha Rosencil, Consuming Cultures : Power and Resistence, Britian, Mac, Mitan, Press, 1999.

2.         Praxis refers here to the common pattern of activities in which  people related to kalari practices(kalari system of knowledge) are engaged with. It is  distinguished  from ‘practice’ which refers  to the  specific kind  of knowledge that is practised in Kalari (sometimes it refers to vidya( knowledge ), techniques(skills), abyasa (feats), beliefs etc.) ‘Praxis’ is thus ideologically, or theoretically structured  social(common) practice of doing, including discursively engaging with, kalari ‘practice’. Practice, per se, is technical skill or knowledge that is put into action.

3.         A version of the first part of this paper was presented (with the title, Kalarippayatt: performance paradigm as Aesthetics and Politics of invisibility) in the National seminar  on performers and their arts: changing lives , changing forms, held  at Hyderabad and  organised  jointly by the department of university sociology, university of Hyderabad, and the department of  Sociology and Antropology, University of Glasgow, in March 2002.

2.  The application of post-structuralist theoretical empiricism could be seen as a best example for such arguments and this is a new fashion in the analysis of social processes in Kerala too. A theoretical example for such thinking is rooted in Edward Said’s Orientalism, which in turn takes insights from Michel Foucault.

3.  The invocation of ‘insider perspective’ or a ‘view-from-within’ might appear to be implied here a fundamentalism about culture which in turn vouch for essentialism and purity. The attempt to challenge the transformations of this cultural form in terms of conceptual appropriation would shown to be the parochial as anything. Such orthodoxy might be objected as unwarranted by saying that no form cannot keep itself pure under the pressure for ‘the need to adapt to the changing socio-economic order’. In the case of kalarippayatt it could be argued that, those outdated and ‘unwanted’ warfare techniques are bound to become ‘unattractive’ and to be replaced, when the martial art is transformed into a performing art. Therefore the perceived invisibility would only be a matter of ‘partial invisibility’. However, the thought of invisibility here does not follow from a nostalgia for the ‘original’ but contrariwise, from the consideration that when the present kalari practitioners and other interpreters tend to emphasise on any of its aspects and essentialise it in terms of any of the historical form related to it, would be at the cost of its composite nature. A compositional view may bound to defy any attempt to locate particular moment of history as its ‘birth’ or a specific aspect as its pure and the original form. A critical insider perspective (liberal) is necessitated from the realisation that the changes are often found closely linked to the decontextualising manoeuvres of the external socio-economic forces which are under active operation in the form of ‘current globalisation processes’.

4.  Most of the observations made here are derived out of the field experiences of the research work conducted for the KRPLLD. Details of the field experiences are available in the report, titled, “Welfare in Kalarividya: A Search for Contemporary Adaptations”, submitted to the KRPLLD, CDS, Thiruvananthapuram, 2001.

5.  For more details see K.K.N. Kurup and K. Vijayakumar, Kalarippayatt: the Martial art of Kerala, Dept. of Public Relation, Govt.of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, 1997,p. 39.

6.      There is controversy over the date of the death of Kanaran Gurukkal. Since no documentary evidence is available on his biographical details, we have to relay on hearsay while stating on the date his birth and death. However, the predominantly accepted year of his death is 1940, even though there is strong argument for the year 1935 also.

Bibliography

1. Cannon, Teresa and Peter Davis, (2000), Kerala, Lonely Planet Publications, Melbourne.

2. Kurup K.K.N. and Vijayakumar K (1997), Kalarippayatt: the martial art of Kerala, Dept. Of public relations, Govt. Of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Naryanan M.G.S (1996), Perumals of Kerala, Kozhikode.

4. Narayanan Nair, C.V.N, (1933),“Fencing in Ancient Kerala”, Kerala Society Paper, 2:11.

5. Parayil, Govindan (2000) Kerala: The development Experience, Reflections on Sustainability and Replicability, Zed books, London and New York.

6. Raghavan M.D. (1947), Folk Plays and Dances of Kerala, Thrissur.

7. Zarrilli, Phillip B (1998), When the Body Becomes All Eyes: Paradigms, Discourses and Practices of Power in Kalarippayattu, a South Indian Martial Art, Oxford University Press, Delhi.