The allegation that one community has villainously conspired to keep others out of Carnatic music is brazenly incorrect, irrational and immoral.
Though the aesthetics and strong theoretical foundations of Carnatic music have given joy and solace to millions of music lovers and drawn numerous international scholars across the world to it, the last few years have seen an unprecedented surge in macro level misperceptions with regard to both its spirit and track record, because of concerted campaigns against it through the abuse of terms like “appropriation” and “disenfranchisement”. The vicious charges against it are light years removed from reality, and will be factually proved in this 3-minute read.
IMAGINARY MELTDOWN
There is also a pervasive but incorrect feeling that a particular community is rattled because a person championing inclusivity and threatening their empire was recently chosen for an award by some private organisation. This very same community:
Rejoiced when top practitioners from other communities like Dwaram Venkataswamy Naidu, Kumbakonam Rajamanickam Pillai and T. Chowdiah, a record setting 3 members of the same (Veena Dhanammal) family—Balasaraswathi, Brinda and Vishwanathan, T.M. Thiagarajan, Sheik Chinna Moulana, Valayapatti Subramaniam and others were honoured similarly.
Regretted when those like T.N. Rajaratnam Pillai, Madurai Somu and U. Shrinivas tragically missed out
Criticised nominees from their own lot if they felt that it was unjustified. Clearly, the voices raised have far more tangible, justifiable concerns.
INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY
Centuries before these two trending terms were coined, Carnatic music organically grew to be the most inclusive and diverse art form in the world. It is the only system to blend Dravidian, Aryan and folk concepts and aesthetics and also absorb interesting Islamic and Western aspects. In fact, Carnatic music composers Arunagirinathar (1370-1450) and Oottukkadu Venkata Kavi have used the word “Salaam” in their composition, while Tyagaraja (1767-1847) and Muttuswami Dikshitar (1775-1835) were the pioneers of East-West fusion, amalgamating Western tunes and Indian lyrics.
Anti-Carnatic music tirades have also studiously pushed unimpeachable facts regarding phenomenal contributors from diverse communities under the carpet and misstated other realities. For instance:
(a) Purandara Dasa—worshipped as the Father of Carnatic music—Kanakadasa, Tamil Trinity, several Aazhwars and Nayanmars, Tiruvarur Ramaswami Pillai, Tanjore Quartet, Jayachamaraja Wodayar, Dandapani Desigar, Periyasami Thooran and many others hailed from various communities and are revered widely (though the concert presence of some may be less since their original tunes are irretrievable).
(b) Gopalakrishna Bharati, though belonging to the forward community, created the popular opera “Nandanar Charitram”, which glorifies a devotee from another caste while vilifying his own.
(c) Several songs of Subramanya Bharati, which call for social justice, are part of the Carnatic repertoire—also proving that such pieces are no innovations in the Carnatic sphere, as is being projected.
(d) In recent times, one of the most influential educators in Carnatic music was Veena Dhanammal. Though hailing from the devadasi tradition, she was sought out by members of every community because of her pristine approach and authentic repertoire of over 2,000 compositions. Other significant contributors include Kanchipuram Naina Pillai, Manicka Mudaliar, Jalatarangam Ramanaiya Chettiyar, Manmoondiah Pillai, Dakshinamurthi Pillai, Pazhani Subramaniam Pillai, Namagiripettai Krishnan, Ramanathapuram Sankarasivan, and Murugabhoopathy, T.P. Namasivayam and Haridwaramangalam Palanivel, to name a few.
INTER COMMUNAL INTERACTIONS
Strident voices have alleged that there has been dissonance between diverse communities in the Carnatic music world. Even Tyagaraja has been accused of creating “moral discomforts” to progressives because he has criticised members of other communities in some passages. The reality that Tyagaraja severely hit out at Brahmin ritualism in “Yagnadulu”, “Manasunilpa” and “Teliyaleru Rama” has been left out, creating a false narrative. It is ironic that Tyagaraja also critiqued hypocrites who fooled the public in songs like “Kanugonu sowkhyamu”.
Artists of diverse backgrounds have performed harmoniously for most part and have received patronage from almost every community. Those like Ramnad Krishnan, Trichy Sankaran and T.N. Seshagopalan were treated like their own children by gurus and most instrument makers enjoyed family-like familiarity with artists. Any exceptions would only prove the rule, not negate it.
UNVIABLE THEORIES
The allegation that one community has villainously conspired to keep others out of Carnatic music is brazenly incorrect, irrational and immoral. It does not take more than 30 seconds of intellectualization to realise that it is economically and socially suicidal for any system to adopt such “strategies”! Would any teacher willingly turn down opportunities to earn extra income because a student is from a different community? Would performers thrive if they cannot attract audiences from every part of society? Their loss of income in wedding concerts alone would be substantial.
If one were to extend such “theories” and accuse any other art form similarly, say Tamil Folk Villuppattu, Bhangra dance and African folk arts (which are way less diverse than Carnatic music), one would see the ludicrousness of it all. Would it even be enraging if the practitioners of these wonderful art forms are outraged if this were to—God forbid—happen?
TALK VS TRACK RECORD
Until recently, the pedigree of social reformers was assessed by deeds—at least 15-20 years of hardcore action to empower the underprivileged. Anyone pontificating about societal inequality in the music industry would naturally have been asked, “Please let us know the number of performers you have produced or number of artists from underprivileged communities you have shared the stage with”. Astonishingly, this fundamental question was not put forth right at the beginning by the 21st century’s brightest.
Instead, the new normal of glorifying merely the sound bites of persons from positions of privilege, who have set minimal personal examples, has led to inverted social values guaranteed to only beget more armchair heroes. Surface level exercises like rendering some songs in underprivileged settings are nice optics from a distance. In reality, they are neither unique—as numerous artists have been performing concerts for diverse as well as underprivileged audiences for decades—nor have they produced a single performer from marginalised communities all these years. It takes 10 seconds to talk but over 10 years of planning and perseverance to produce even one quality performer irrespective of race, region, religion or caste.
TAKEAWAYS
In any society, it would be deeply problematic when the CID (content, intent and delivery) of any person adds up to a number well below 100 and far more so when provocative statements from such persons foster increased derisiveness regarding any set of people or divisiveness within a community. Tagging it as caste-based insecurity or intolerance could be tempting, but factually super incorrect.
Chitravina N. Ravikiran is a prodigy from age two, a globally renowned musician, composer and pioneer of Melharmony and rural empowerment through music and arts initiatives since the early 1990s.