Oscar-winning composer A R Rahman’s music has been called numerous things by numerous people — but “plagiarised” has never been one of them. Inspired, yes. ‘Sasuraal genda phool’ in Delhi 6 came from Bundelkhandi folk. That immaculate bass drop in the middle of it was a masterstroke. But allegations of absolute duplicity? Never, really.
So, when earlier this week, dhrupad vocalist Ustad Wasifuddin Dagar alleged that the Mozart of Madras had “lifted” the melody of the Shiva stuti composed by his uncle — the famed Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar, who for years sang it in a duo with his brother and Wasifuddin’s father, Ustad Faiyazuddin Dagar — for ‘Veera raja veera’ in Mani Ratnam’s Ponniyin Selvan 2, one hoped that it wasn’t a case of musical theft and probably something to do with similar melodic frameworks. Mainly because in classical music circles, this Ut Zahiruddin composition is a prominent one and performed often by a number of other practitioners of dhrupad — including Uday Bhawalkar, Ritwik Sanyal and Nirmalya Dey — all of whom learned it from the Dagar family.
Composed in the late-night raga — Adana — the piece, which comes with very basic lyrics and was written down in a diary that Wasifuddin owns and recorded in 1978 in Amsterdam, has often been sung as a finale piece at dhrupad concerts because the crescendo builds with an accelerated tempo in a tune that has a wrathful mood — a sharp contrast to the contemplative mood of the art form. In fact, it was often sung on demand by the Gundecha Brothers, who pared down the tempo considerably. Wasifuddin alleges that Rahman has even “copied the taandav style” in which his father and uncle sang and recorded it.
Upon listening, it isn’t too difficult to spot the similarity. If a song is defined as melody, lyrics, and orchestration, then a good chunk of ‘Veera veera’ feels plagiarised. The melody is not uncannily similar — it is the same. The only difference is that ‘Veera veera’ is slickly arranged and has crores riding on it. Recently the production house added ‘Traditional Dagarvani Dhrupad’ in the composer credit alongside Rahman. Therefore, it’s interesting when the Madras Talkies lawyers claimed that the composition was created by Narayana Panditacharyain in the 13th century. If it was, then why add Dagarvani to the credit? When Wasifuddin claimed that it was not a generic Dagarvani composition but created by his uncle, the lawyers called the whole thing a “fishing expedition” for “publicity and monetary gains”. The piece in Hindi has been sung by Arman Dehlvi with additional vocals by Shivam Bhardwaj. Both have been Wasifuddin’s students. One wonders if the tune travelled from their side.
Wasifuddin is raising the morality issue besides asking for monetary compensation. But what one really needs to consider in the larger scheme of things is that there is a caboodle of wealthy guys getting wealthier by trawling on the work of lesser-known artists with modest means.
Plagiarism and the concept of ethics in the music industry come with blurred lines all over the world. But one isn’t speaking of inspired music here — using the same genre, similar sounding structure, similar instrumentation, or a copied melodic phrase. If everything was taken into account, then on Thursday, British pop phenomenon Ed Sheeran wouldn’t have won the civil lawsuit filed in 2016 by heirs of Ed Townsend — iconic soul musician Marvin Gaye’s co-writer on the song in question, ‘Let’s get it on’. The allegations dealt with harmonic progressions and the rhythmic component of Sheeran’s ‘Thinking out loud’, which were claimed to be similar to Gaye’s emotionally intimate 1973 classic Motown single. A share in Sheeran’s profits was also sought.
But again, if a song is music, lyrics, and orchestration, Gaye and Sheeran’s pieces are different in terms of the basic melody. The vibe and some of the rhythm style is similar but it’s definitely not the same. In a trial, the jury decided that the piece was not plagiarised. Sheeran, who had vouched to leave music if he lost this one, won another plagiarism case recently: Sam Chhokri had sued him about a phrase in the singer’s popular piece, ‘Shape of you’. That said, it’s interesting to note that Sheeran has been involved in multiple infringement claims, many of which have been settled outside court, even royalties shared with a bunch of musicians.
In India, many folk and classical compositions are appropriated because of ambiguous provenance, lack of copyright or sometimes, because composers are just blatant and belligerent. Even if a previous, obscure recording exists, the problem lies at the most basic level — it is just outright wrong to call someone else’s work one’s own just because you edited it or wrote a new music arrangement for it.
Remember ‘Nimbooda’ in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam (1999)? The song was originally composed and recorded by Ghazni Khan Manganiyar, a little-known folk singer from Rajasthan. The composer credit in the film went to Ismail Darbar, while Bhansali held the copyright. Archivist and ethnomusicologist Kamal Kothari, had raised his hand then, concerned and angry that Ghazni now needed permission and licence to perform his own composition just because someone with more money stole it. Next time Bhansali took a folk song (‘Holi’ in Padmaavat) from the folk artistes, he did credit Manganiyars and Langas, while calling himself the composer. If a filmmaker wants to use a traditional composition that seems to suit a film situation, how hard can it be to take permission, and pay and credit the original artistes properly?
But in this bid to find quick attention, with the high-pressure environment of cinema today, which wants things to be fast and furious, plagiarism seems to be the easy way out. Look at ‘Rangi saari gulabi chunariya’, a traditional dadra made popular by noted vocalist Shobha Gurtu, which in 2022 came out under composer names Kanishk Seth and Kavita Seth. Even Gurtu, who became synonymous with the composition, never called herself the composer. She’d always refer to it as a “traditional piece”. In 2008, composer Ram Sampath sued the powerful Roshans (Rakesh and Rajesh) for plagiarism, alleging that a song in Krazzy 4 was a copy of a jingle he had created for a television commercial. The Bombay High Court held the producers prima facie guilty and awarded Sampath Rs 2 crore.
The issues of plagiarism in the world of music are slightly more complicated than those in literature and journalism where the turn of phrase and semantics can be questioned. In the case of music, especially in Indian classical music, it gets more complicated — there is melodic and lyrical phraseology, chord progression, rhythm structure, melody, and arrangements among others to consider. To find answers, the Western world is already calling upon forensic musicologists to give expert testimonies in the courts. This does not look farsighted in India either.
Wasifuddin has claimed that in his case, the piece has a clear composer. He also said that a composer of Rahman’s stature has a moral responsibility towards classical music and musicians. “Why not take prior consent,” he asked.
It remains to be seen if Wasifuddin will sue Rahman and Madras Talkies. But the fact of the matter is that the more capitalistic the music becomes and the more money it wraps itself up in, the more hits are required by production houses. It is going to result in plagiarism and more ownership issues in the coming days. The more transactional music gets, the more it will shrivel up, becoming a shadow of what we knew great music to be, killing the entire purpose of it all — to find oneself.
suanshu.khurana@expressindia.com
