Central to the recent campaign against
Carnatic musicians who have allegedly betrayed their religion (which their critics
claim is the essence of their art) have been aggressive, sometimes abusive
language berating the artists and threats issued to their wellbeing. Some of
the artists so abused have panicked and apologised while at the same time
pleading their innocence of any intent to participate in Christian
proselytisation attempts, or any substitution of the lyrics of Tyagaraja.
Some leading artists have condemned the
social media attacks on the musicians launched by fringe groups. Natyacharya
V.P. Dhananjayan, a strong upholder of tradition in our arts besides being a
bold innovator for decades, states that our “art forms have been the essence of
our culture and ethos practised by our ancestors...part of (the) Vedas
and dharma, not a religious endeavour.”
“So,” Dhananjayan continues, portraying
the arts as “Hindu religious arts” cannot be accepted.” According to him,
“religions are man-made” and “arts have been a tool to establish
closeness to each and everyone around. We must see them in the light of this spirit
of one human entity, eschew religious attributes to our performing art
forms.” In a typically forthright response to the attacks, star vocalist
T.M. Krishna has promised to sing a song on Allah or Jesus every month, and he
has been at the receiving end of some choice abuse and dire threats from the
lunatic fringe.
While Dhananjayan condemns such acts of
“plagiarism” as the alleged substitution of Tyagaraja’s lyrics, he has no
objection to whole new songs being composed “on saints of other religions” in
Carnatic or Hindustani ragas. He dismisses apprehensions of any threat from
other religions to our deep rooted, unshakable Vedic foundation.”
While “unequivocally opposing
forced religious conversions” (for which Carnatic music was being misutilised according
to those raising the recent alarm), Sangita Kalanidhi N. Ravikiran, has
described the social media attacks “as vitriol hurled at certain artists for
singing songs on Jesus Christ, without a shred of evidence that even a single
artist was guilty of malicious intent towards any individual or
community.”
Sruti has for many years chosen to
describe Carnatic music as art music rather than classical music. It has also
stressed the distinction between concert music and devotional music. A sizable
percentage of its audiences may see the very art as an expression of bhakti to
Hindu gods and Sruti has always acknowledged their right to believe so, though
not subscribing to such a view as a magazine. (Both Carnatic music and
Hindustani music, especially the latter, have many wonderful practitioners from
other faiths whose rendering of songs soaked in bhakti can be moving).
At the same time, Sruti supports the right
of other listeners and practitioners who see Carnatic music as a stylised art
form based on a sophisticated grammar but with melody and rhythm at its heart,
and bhakti as expressed in the lyrics an incidental adjunct to them. Our
successive editors and the Sruti team like to believe that we are deeply moved
by the sheer beauty of raga music while not immune to the grandeur and poetry
of the great compositions of the celebrated Trinity and other outstanding
vaggeyakaras of Carnatic music, much of which is an expression of
surrender to God. We like to tell devout rasikas who don’t care for music
without explicit bhakti towards Hindu gods: “Please don’t listen to it if you
don’t like it, but do not place obstacles in the path of those who want to
perform or appreciate songs of other types; on the other hand, some of
them may give the miss to bhakti-soaked music which lacks in musical
value. We cannot question the right of the musician to purvey this or that kind
of music. To call for official boycotts and bans, and to threaten artists with
dire consequences if they don’t fall in line with your so-called philosophy of
music is fascist, ugly, totally irreligious.”
We extend our support to artists in their
attempts to practise their art without fear. Some of them may sometimes commit
errors of judgement, may even be tempted into less than ethically upright
actions for “commercial reasons”, but no one has the right to impinge on their
freedom and try them in kangaroo courts. Indian culture does not need these
self-appointed guardians to protect it.
No comments:
Post a Comment