Social and other media have been agog with news of the diatribe against TM Krishna by musicians who have found it offensive that he should be conferred the “prestigious” Sangeetha Kalanidhi award by The Music Academy, Chennai. These critics have grandly announced that they will not perform on the Academy stage in the forthcoming music season. While the matter of the award itself is not of significance to anyone except those who follow Carnatic music, and who view The Music Academy with awe and respect, the issue needs to be unpacked for what it tells us about the enduring bigotry of the entitled Tamil Brahmin community — and how, for well over a century and more, it has continued to read any and every criticism of its mores and ways as an attack on Hindu cultural and religious values.

A few individuals and institutions created by them might consider themselves progressive, being supporters of liberal-Left politics, and, at times, the Dravidian movement. But Tamil Brahmins, as a community, have been remarkably un-reflexive besides being prone to projecting themselves as wronged and misunderstood. To affirm their “victim” status, they have created a narrative whose details comprise the following: Their caste is attacked because they are successful and meritorious, and so criticisms are nothing but jealousy; their caste has been vilified and tormented for decades, thanks to the anti-Brahmin movement led by Periyar EV Ramasamy, who had called for their annihilation; those who seek to criticise them are unwilling to take note of reformers and change-makers in the community, be it about music or social customs; and finally, it is not so much the Brahmins who practise discrimination against Dalits, but the non-Brahmin castes.

The letters written by musicians Ranjani and Gayatri, Chitravina N Ravikiran, and the Trichur Brothers, protesting the award given to Krishna, feature one or more of these themes. Periyar is vilified, Krishna is seen as a divisive influence, with no regard for the diversity of talents in any culture (in this view, Brahmins stand in for diversity), and as being careless and dismissive of all things that constitute “our” spiritual and cultural traditions. But there are other questions we need to ask here. The caste bigotry on display in this instance appears to be locked in battle with a certain unmarked liberalism, which has become associated with the award as such. But what is this award, granted by a resolutely patrician institution, one viewed as a bastion of the twice-born? Admittedly, for a musician, even one like Krishna who has looked to break many boundaries which Carnatic musicians have drawn around their universe, the world of music sabhas, their patrons and the constituency that supports this music cannot be put away entirely. The music he practises is situated within this universe and besides, there are likely affective and pedagogic relationships that he has experienced here, and which matter to him. On the other hand, this is a closely guarded class-caste world and, expectedly, it has been pointed out that if he was not of the Brahmin caste, his transgressions would not have been overlooked by the award committee.

This manner of accommodating what could potentially be subversive makes it difficult to view the situation with equanimity. Consider how the president of the Academy has defended the latter’s choice of Krishna as an awardee. He has noted that awards are based on the “sole criterion” of “musical excellence demonstrated over a significant and sustained career”, and are made with no “extraneous factors influencing” the Academy’s choice. This is intriguing, for it is clear from Krishna’s various musical experiments that he views music as a means to address caste-based inequality and discrimination and has been vocal both about his art and its shaping contexts. What is this liberalism that can be adopted by critics of the award with aplomb, but yet not engage with the extraneous social contexts that produce “excellence” and its many measures in any cultural field? In other words, why did the president of the Academy remain content with characterising the protesters as giving into personal dislike and malingering, and not take note of their founded social hatred, so evident in the language used by all protesters?

It is as if bigotry might be spoken of, but not the caste universe that sustains it. As far as Carnatic music is concerned, this would require a critical soiling of its spiritual sources, a profaning of its aesthetics in and through the invocation of its gendered and caste contexts. Equally, it would require engaging with anti-caste traditions and their thought worlds. Krishna has done both, but to award him for his music and not engage with the issues the musician has raised is somewhat disingenuous, and an instance of what Periyar characterised as the self-validating universe of Brahmanism. In order to explain this, Periyar noted: “Rajaji will eat at a ‘panchama’s’ house; Shankaracharya will bathe on seeing a ‘panchama’; some will bathe if a ‘panchama’s’ shadow falls on them, others if a ‘panchama’ touches them. Yet others will marry a ‘panchama’ man or woman — but all of them will still remain brahmanas” (Viduthalai, March 4, 1969).

Periyar would go on to observe that this winning flexibility enabled the Brahmin to rework the terms of any debate to his advantage while foregoing an engagement with what cannot be accommodated. The problem then is not only the bigotry of the Hindu Right group in the Carnatic music universe, but also the limits set to critique and debate through these modalities of accommodation and recognition.

V Geetha is a Chennai-based social historian and activist. The views expressed are personal

QOSHE - TM Krishna award debate: Missing caste for music - V Geetha
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

TM Krishna award debate: Missing caste for music

3 1
27.03.2024

Social and other media have been agog with news of the diatribe against TM Krishna by musicians who have found it offensive that he should be conferred the “prestigious” Sangeetha Kalanidhi award by The Music Academy, Chennai. These critics have grandly announced that they will not perform on the Academy stage in the forthcoming music season. While the matter of the award itself is not of significance to anyone except those who follow Carnatic music, and who view The Music Academy with awe and respect, the issue needs to be unpacked for what it tells us about the enduring bigotry of the entitled Tamil Brahmin community — and how, for well over a century and more, it has continued to read any and every criticism of its mores and ways as an attack on Hindu cultural and religious values.

A few individuals and institutions created by them might consider themselves progressive, being supporters of liberal-Left politics, and, at times, the Dravidian movement. But Tamil Brahmins, as a community, have been remarkably un-reflexive besides being prone to projecting themselves as wronged and misunderstood. To affirm their “victim” status, they have created a narrative whose details comprise the following: Their caste is attacked because they are successful and meritorious, and so criticisms are nothing but jealousy; their caste has been vilified and tormented for decades, thanks to the anti-Brahmin movement led by Periyar EV Ramasamy, who had called........

© hindustantimes


Get it on Google Play