TM Krishna has emerged as a prominent, even ‘eminent’, public intellectual of the Leftist persuasion. He writes on a variety of topics, but his fame derives from where he started—accusations that the Carnatic music community is a casteist hellhole of sorts and his withdrawal from performing at the annual Margazhi festival in 2015. Why he accepted the Sangita Kalanidhi, a lifetime achievement award, from that very same den he repudiated as casteist is something only he can answer. But the brouhaha finally gives others an opportunity to be heard and not be drowned out by Krishna’s bullhorn. Harsh as it may sound, I view his claims of pervasive casteism among Carnatic musicians as unfair, self-serving slander that lets him stand apart in a market crowded with talented musicians.
A caveat. My intention here is not to focus on caste as a broader societal phenomenon, but on whether Carnatic musicians practice caste discrimination designed to ensure their dominance and control over the art form. A notable fact is that there have been numerous non-Brahmin giants in Carnatic music, such as Veena Dhanammal, TN Rajaratnam Pillai, MK Thiagaraja Bhagavatar, Palani Subramanya Pillai, Karakurichi Arunachalam, Madurai Somu, Kumbakonam Naina Pillai, Annavarapu Ramaswamy, Mandolin U Shrinivas, KJ Yesudas etc. Music academy’s own roster of Sangita Kalanidhis is studded with them – Ponniah Pillai (1933), Dwaram Venkataswamy Naidu (1941), Kumbakonam Rajamanickam Pillai (1948), Mysore Chowdiah (1957), somewhat less famous musicians in 1953, 1954, 1956 and 1961, Balasaraswathi (1973), TM Thiagarajan (1981), T Viswanathan (1988), Sheik Chinna Moulana (1998), Valayapatti Subramaniam (2009) and Tiruvarur Bhaktavatsalam (2021). Mentioning names like this feels like a disservice to these greats, for their caste has never mattered to me or any Rasika. But it shows there isn’t any imagined golden past here for Brahmins.
Krishna’s claim, effectively, is that in the last several decades, Brahmins have successfully appropriated an art that was earlier more inclusive. With public concert performances themselves only being a 20th-century phenomenon, it is fair to say that the share of non-Brahmin musicians has declined since about the 1960s, anecdotally evidenced by fewer non-Brahmin names belonging to the 1980s and later in the two lists above. But it is no coincidence that this transition happened alongside the systematic campaign of vilification against Brahmins and Hinduism, including art forms involving the two, by Periyar, DK and DMK. The political reality of Tamil Nadu is that only the Brahmin community, reportedly only 2-3% of the state’s population, are branded as “upper caste”. It stretches credibility to imagine them appropriating an art form from non-Brahmins at a time when most Tamil Brahmins feared for their safety and many simply moved to other parts of India or abroad.
Also Read: Brahmin meltdown over Madras Music Academy award to TM Krishna shows fear of change
Carnatic music welcomes all
So why did non-Brahmins exit Carnatic music to a greater degree than Brahmins? One factor, besides Dravidian politics, was the steep decline in patronage from kings and zamindars after Independence which hollowed out the economic viability of Carnatic music as a profession. Another was film music moving away from a classical base and rapidly gaining mass popularity. The 1970s and 1980s constituted a nadir for Carnatic music. Brahmins continued to learn Carnatic at home due to deep-rooted Bhakti traditions inherent to the art, and, of course, a certain cache associated with it in the community. There isn’t, and has never been, any intent or practice of excluding anyone. The viability of Carnatic music has improved in the last 20-30 years in line with greater prosperity in India and the emergence of NRI communities that organise concerts.
Every Carnatic musician fervently welcomes all sections of society to this art, and many have been making efforts to popularise Carnatic music across diverse demographics. One example is Sangita Kalanidhi Bombay Jayashree and her Hitham Trust, which takes music to rural schools and autistic children. Several musicians, including Sangita Kalanidhi S Sowmya at present, have served as the Vice Chancellor of the Tamil Nadu Government Music College and other universities. Artists like Dushyanth Sridhar even teach harikatha, a more religious art that presumably is even more caste conscious in the Leftist imagination, without regard for birth.
These artists haven’t used their work as a platform to belittle fellow musicians and further themselves. Granted that their efforts haven’t exactly been a huge success, but TM Krishna hasn’t achieved much through two decades of activism either. Some signs are visible in the many who learn Carnatic today preparing for reality TV competitions leading to the film industry (good for them). Popularising classical music is a hard task as it is, and one can do without spurious accusations of casteism.
Also Read: How TM Krishna got under the skin of the Carnatic music fraternity
Krishna’s accusations
Bharatanatyam is another art Krishna accuses Brahmins of dominating through casteism. To begin with, Brahmins never danced. This was the domain of the devadasis. The art form was at risk of disappearing after the profession was banned (Bombay in 1934 and Madras in 1947) against the opposition of many devadasis that such legislation would put them out of work and stigmatise their profession. Rukmini Devi, founder of Kalakshetra, played a big role in bringing respectability back. One can study why and how the devadasi participation in bharatanatyam declined, but to blame caste discrimination is absurd. If anything, the Brahmin women of those days who volunteered to learn the art need to be eulogised because they did so at the risk of being branded prostitutes. They did it due to the art’s connection with spirituality, and when there was no economic reward. Once again, everyone is welcome to learn it today.
Krishna also brings in other caste tropes to buttress his position. Take for instance his sensational claim that the great MS Subbulakshmi, born into a devadasi family, was famous only because she lived a Brahmin lifestyle and that she carried with her a sorrow that was actually the source of her music’s attraction. Basic standards of decency and rigour would require either that Krishna speak up while MS was alive, or grant her agency to speak for herself and point to something she said or did to substantiate his claims. We find neither, only a polemic intended to further an ideological agenda.
Another instance was the subject of one of his books where he finds casteism in the fact that artisans who make the mridangam using animal hide (cows, goats and buffaloes) remain in obscurity. Actually, this is also true of artisans making other musical instruments (with no animal skin in them), the bats of our cricketers, our wonderful sarees/fabrics or other leather products. This is a legitimate issue but there is no honesty in pretending that Carnatic musicians are uniquely culpable.
For long, far too long, the Carnatic fraternity has been indulgent of Krishna. We have permitted him to carry on with his campaign of slandering an entire community in the name of freedom of speech when the causes of Brahmin musicians numerically dominating today are a complex mix of socio-economic factors, not caste discrimination. But we shouldn’t remain mute spectators when the music academy not only bestows its highest honour on him but actually endorses his accusations of casteism by praising his use of music to promote “social reforms”. I have focused on Krishna’s ideological positions and refrained from venturing into the family linkages between Krishna, the music academy management and The Hindu newspaper. These linkages also gave him a super quick rise to fame as a musician.
Artists like Ranjani-Gayatri, Dushyanth Sridhar, Vishaka Hari and the Trichur brothers should be commended for speaking out, despite having much to lose at this stage of their careers as young artists. It is time for a broader section of the community to speak up and be heard and not give in to the Abhimanyu syndrome—sending one hero to the battlefield and watching from the sidelines as the unscrupulous enemy tears him to bits.
The author, a board member of the Hindu American Foundation, was born and raised in Chennai. He has extensive, personal connections within the Carnatic music community. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)