One does not have to agree with Carnatic classical vocalist T M Krishna’s political views to find soul in his music. Even if one disagrees with his ideology that rejects circumscribed concepts of power and privilege, supports Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra and often includes Jesus and Allah along with Tyagaraja, Dikshitar, Subramania Bharati, Iqbal Bano and Tagore in his Carnatic classical concerts, there has never been a question mark on the quality of his performance in the age-old art form he’s imbibed. A child prodigy, his brilliance compels even his harshest critics to accept and appreciate the 48-year-old’s artistry and skill.
Similarly, one does not have to be at daggers with Ranjani-Gayatri’s right-wing stance or their idea that Brahmins “are the least casteist of all communities” and “soft targets”, or tweets equating the word “secular” with “Islamist”, to find depth in their brilliant and polished work. Their high-octane singing and vocal prowess have almost always held the audience in a thrall. One has to be at Ranjani-Gayatri concerts to believe the attention and affection they have amassed, mainly over the last decade.
In fact when both – Krishna and Ranjani-Gayatri – sing and venerate Tyagaraja’s Ram in the kirtanas that the 19th-century saint left behind, it’s easy to surrender to the trance and an intangible emotional experience that they offer.
The commonality doesn’t end here. About nine years apart, both have withdrawn from the prestigious December Music Season – Chennai’s revered music and dance celebration in the Marghazi month. Krishna’s decision came in 2015 after grappling with uncomfortable questions about the cultural and social mores of the system he was entrenched in. This system, he felt, came with a lack of plurality, an idea of exclusivity and socio-political-cultural barriers. The decision from Ranjani-Gayatri and some others earlier this month came after The Music Academy awarded the Sangita Kalanidhi award to Krishna.
What has driven a wedge – at least at the face of it – is that a certain faction of Carnatic classical musicians, all Brahmin, believe that Krishna, also a Brahmin, has insulted Tyagaraja and M S Subbulakshmi besides glorifying political activist Periyar, a founding figure of the Dravidian movement, in his discourse.
Let’s try and find these insults.
Krishna withdrew from the Sabhas and the Academy despite performing there as part of the December Music Season since his debut at 12 at the Academy, and despite his granduncle (T T Krishnamachari, also finance minister in Jawaharlal Nehru’s government) being one of the founders of the Academy. In 2015, when he made the decision, he was struggling with questions of society, politics, culture, music and aesthetics. It was interesting because he came from every privilege possible – caste, class, gender – an insider who was questioning his artistic roots and Brahminical hegemony that went deeper everytime he dug things up. Here was an artiste examining his art beyond the craft, and not conforming to set standards.
If one looks carefully at Krishna’s writings, lectures and interviews, his reverence for Subbulakshmi’s stirring music falls in the emotional realm. He has touched upon her Devadasi roots and asked whether she would have been so widely accepted if she hadn’t “Brahminised” herself or was dark-skinned. He also examined changes in her music – from her days in Madurai to later marrying a Brahmin and tailoring some of the music according to what was required. He feels that “her music was what it was because of the sorrow in her”.
These are fair questions and observations. But none of the artistes who withdrew or Chitraveena Ravikiran, who returned his Sangeeta Kalanidhi, engaged with the narrative or had a conversation about it. Alll one heard was that “Subbulakshmi amma” was insulted.
While singing Tyagaraja kritis for several years, Krishna has attempted to scrutinise the complexity of the Telugu saint while questioning some of his aesthetic choices, politics and social commentaries. As for Periyar, Krishna had collaborated with Perumal Murugan to commemorate Vaikom Satyagraha, the anti-caste agitation in the 1920s to enter the prohibited premises of Vaikom Temple in Kerala, that was led by the “father of the Dravidian movement”. The lines of the songs are: “Question caste discriminations/ Question scriptural regulations/ Question oppressive actions and Question injustice and untouchability.”
Periyar has always divided people. While some call him an iconoclast and egalitarian, others take issue with his anti-Brahmin statements. But how is any of that related to the Sangita Kalanidhi? Fault the music and you have a case. The fact that those opposed to Krishna are withdrawing because they think that the award shouldn’t be given to someone whose views they are uncomfortable with is distasteful. If they think that the award shouldn’t be given because Krishna has included the music of other communities in Carnatic music, then they are myopic and prejudiced.
The Music Academy’s decision itself is quite interesting because finally, there seems to be an acknowledgement of some very significant issues that Krishna had raised. Krishna collaborated with a Sabha to organise a Nagaswaram and Thavil concert last year. There are very few concerts of this kind as part of the season – most musicians who play these instruments are non-Brahmins. There is some change and it’s more than necessaary.
The difference between the two factions lies in nuance, self-reflection, and the awareness of their own art form’s strengths and follies. While Krishna questioned the Bhumi puja in Ayodhya asking people to “seek the Rama within” and propounding that the Ram that he sings of, one that Tyagaraja venerated, would have been uncomfortable with “the bloodshed and deaths that preceded the securing of this one specific place in Ayodhya”. Ranjani and Gayatri called it a “blessed day” and performed in Ayodhya as part of the concerts.
Ranjani-Gayatri say that “(We) Brahmins stand out because of our appearance”, are “not prone to violence” and are “the most accepting and the least casteist of all communities”. Even in an era of absurd, ahistorical statements, these stand out. Those who say and believe this must be sheltered in quite the bubble to not realise the historical oppression, exclusion and violence that marginalised castes have undergone – and continue to do so, in Tamil Nadu and beyond, even today. It of note how in the wake of Brahmins’ dissipation from Tamil Nadu’s political discourse, the Carnatic classical space — a result of interactive knowledge sharing over the years between devadasis, Isai Vellalars and Brahmins — has come to be dominated by Brahmins.
While representing a rich musical tradition, Krishna has also questioned it, exploring the margins and shaking the status quo and this ruffled feathers. The opposition to his receiving the Sangeet Kalanidhi is not only misplaced, it is steeped in the same issues Krishna has questioned.
The beauty of one’s craft is not just in its sensitivity. It also lies in how it’s created. The Sangita Kalanidhi is not only well-deserved, it’s also a message to the divided world of Carnatic classical music to look within.
suanshu.khurana@expressindia.com
