This is an unedited version of a piece that appeared in the DNA, Mumbai, February 18, 2006
Come January and arts’ circles are abuzz with rumours about possible Padma awardees. Not before long, hopes and anxieties are met or put to rest, when the headlines carry the final list of awardees. And the government makes its ‘commitment’ to the arts evident to the people of this country by way of yet another of these token gestures.
Looking back though, one finds that national leaders in the past had shown a greater concern for the arts. Classical or art music was supported during colonial rule by sections of the Indian intellectual elite. This patronage was inspired by a larger agenda of bolstering symbols of national cultural identity that had stood the test of time and that could portray a rich heritage to counter the colonial racial antagonism. Classical music became a symbol of the nascent national consciousness that rose against colonial rule. Not surprisingly then, Dadabhai Naoroji, the ‘Grand Old Man of India’, frequently advised the Parsi Gayan Uttejak Mandali, perhaps the first formal music club in Mumbai. He was later made President of this club and held this office between the years 1885 and 1890. While it is not certain from available writings, whether Naoroji was an ardent admirer of Indian music, it is clear that his acceptance of this position was a tacit approval of the Mandali’s musical activities. The Mandali promoted music performance and education among families among amateurs, at a time when these activities were the sole preserve of hereditary musicians and courtesans. That these families of musicians and courtesans had to bear the brunt of social stigma from some sections of society, is another issue and one that would demand a separate discussion.
But going further, enlightened intellectuals like the eminent jurist K.T. Telang and the scholar R.G. Bhandarkar took to learning music from the reputed vocalist Balkrishnabuwa Ichalkaranjikar, who had trained in the Gwalior gayaki and resided in Mumbai at the time.
Moving on to the twentieth century, leaders like Lala Lajpatrai were admirers of vocalist and educationist Vishnu Digambar Paluskar, who set up the Gandharva Mahavidyalaya in Lahore to promote music education and popularize the art. Later, Paluskar moved the headquarters of the school to Mumbai and Madan Mohan Malaviya, Sarojini Naidu, Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi visited the vidyalaya premises on various occasions.
The importance given by national leaders to music in their personal lives will remain a mystery, but one can get faint glimpses from scattered references, naturally at the cost of these being biased. M.R. Jayakar, a noted barrister and music lover, notes in his autobiography that he did not find many keen music lovers among the Congress leaders, other than Chittaranjan Das and Rangaswami Iyengar, though Mahatma Gandhi on occasions had shared with him his desire to enjoy music at Jayakar’s hometown.
Though the latter did not happen, it is equally true that Gandhi spoke in favour of music education and the need to make music a part of one’s life. Gandhi’s insistence on making music a part of everyday life was influenced greatly by his urge to spiritually awaken the masses, and to that extent therefore, did not directly concern the promotion of music per se. Consequently, he stated, “It is sad that the study of music is generally neglected in our country today. Without it, the entire educational system seems to me to be incomplete . . . Music pacifies anger and its judicious use is highly helpful in leading a man to the vision of God”. (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.37, p.2). In pursuance of his ideal, he requested Paluskar to send a good musician to Ahmedabad for setting the Sabarmati ashram bhajans to music. Paluskar sent his disciple Narayan Moreshwar Khare, who set several bhajans to tune and these were published without notation in a compilation entitled Ashram Bhajanavali. Khare became an inseparable part of the ashram and was one of the prominent figures who accompanied Gandhi during the Dandi March.
Even later, the correspondence between some Congress leaders shows at times, a concern for the quality of music and its dissemination. In a letter to Sardar Vallabhai Patel, the Minister for Information and Broadcasting in the Interim Government, Maulana Azad sent his comments on music broadcasts on the All India Radio. He stated, “You perhaps do not know that I have always taken a keen interest in Indian music and at one time practiced it myself. It has, therefore, been a shock to me to find that the standard of music of All India Radio broadcast is extremely poor. I have always felt that All India Radio should set the standard in Indian music and lead to its continual improvement. Instead, the present programmes have an opposite effect and lead one to suspect that the artistes are sometimes chosen not on grounds of merit.” (The Selected Works of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: Vol.III–1947-48, p.28). Coming from a senior leader, this would seem quite out of place in the current scheme of things, where leaders at the highest level are far removed from the ground reality or then choose to simply neglect it. The present state of music on the government broadcasting networks is abysmally low, what with the sharp decline in recordings and a constant need felt to raise TRP ratings in the face of competition from private networks. That innovative programming can possibly raise TRP ratings is something that has perhaps not occurred to the bureaucracy and to those in power. Meanwhile, artistes are left high and dry to locate potential sponsors for their broadcasts.
Jawaharlal Nehru also noted the importance that the arts needed to receive and it was during the Nehruvian era that the country saw the birth of cultural institutions like the Sangeet Natak Akademi. The Indian Council for Cultural Relations sent delegations consisting of top-ranking artistes overseas to encourage cultural exchange between countries.
But what has become of these noble ideals? Are we to stop where we began, or do we go forward from here? I am not for a moment suggesting that nothing of value has been done in the past decades. However, we seem to lack a holistic view. Government policy cannot rest on the enlightened outlook shared by a few individuals. Also, recognition of personal talent and contribution to the arts is welcome, but cannot replace the need for a wider perspective. The governments at the Centre and the State need to look at culture policy afresh, if indeed such a policy exists. They need to come up with a policy that would be relevant to the rapidly changing situation in the country and across the world. The examples from the past indicate the role that subjects like music education and performance had to play in public discourse at the time. Naturally, reasons for laying a greater emphasis on the promotion of classical music need to be examined separately. But for now, we could take cognizance of the lessons from history that direct us to the course that we need to take.
