No point in empty pontification

We all love to pontificate at some or the other level. Some of us are lucky that we have platforms to share our thoughts like seminars and symposiums that have a captive audience to listen to our intellectual wit or pontifications. The ones who are not so lucky have to take recourse to drawing room banter to tea stall addas to social media. Social media threatens to be the larger platform where intellectual wars will be fought. In a way, it is like a democratisation of the media.

I recall an editorial duty that I spent a few months doing which entailed handling the edit page where many an intellectual battle was fought. While I used to feel pride in handling the edits and lead pieces, it was the letters column that used to get my goat. First was sifting through the masses of letters that came, to some modicum of sense before selecting them and editing them. There were many regular writers who would send their opinion on policies, events and comments on other stories in the newspaper with detailed analysis. Most of the regulars usually made sense and there would be feedback on feedback and invariably an interesting dialogue ensued.

The point I am trying to make is dialogue. Dialogue is an important aspect of the growth of any field. Stakeholders of the arts — both visual and performing — need to take forward various aspects that affect and ail the arts via meaningful discussions. This is not to undermine the intellect of those who run the business of art, the ones who create the arts and the intellects like curators and critics who spearhead the overall thought behind the whole gamut. But opportunities that offer a place for all these minds to come together to propel the arts in directions of positive growth is the need at this juncture. The need of the hour is to have a free flow of ideas to help position Indian art better on the global platform.

At a recent symposium organised by ArtTree in Delhi, the concern of all the exciting galaxy of speakers, including Muzaffar Ali and Georgina Maddox, was the way forward for the arts. Economics is a huge factor for the arts and in a situation when the government continues to be the biggest patron of the arts — thank god for that, otherwise so many of our not-so-marketable arts would have been lost — this should be like a wakeup call. I feel even smaller discussions amongst the right people can set off thought processes that have the power to change.

Talking of dialogues, the one dialogue that for a good kansen or a good listener of music like me that is indelible is that of a jugalbandi between the two doyens of Indian classical music — the great stalwart Pandit Bhimsen Joshi and the fantabulous Balamuralikrishna. I still get goosebumps thinking about it. Almost all of us have heard them on “Mile sur mera tumhara” and the way their voices flowed like water even while singing those few lines. So you can imagine what an experience it must have been to hear them on the same platform.

Around the same time in the mid 90s, I had interviewed them both and with Balamurali’s demise, it all came flooding back. A short, almost diminutive, man, he towered with his flawless understanding of music and musical genius. It is a well-known fact that it took Balamurali, a Telugu, a long time to get accepted by the “purists” in Tamil Nadu. However, he chooses to gloss over it. “Newspapers created my so-called unacceptance. You journalists improvise like musicians and create misunderstandings! This is not correct. I was liked by all the people. Name the purists. Besides, what is the Madras Academy — just another organisation,” he had shrugged.

On a more thoughtful note, he had said: “When you innovate, they will raise an eyebrow not only in music, but in everything. When they understand, they too follow. When people don’t accept, I am the happiest. This is an indication that they are jealous, for everyone wants to do path-breaking work.” Wasn’t this lack of understanding painful? “No, it is more pitiable than painful. If they are able to pain us, it means that we are weak. Music is not responsible for such misunderstanding, but the performer. What is wrong in creation? After all, how did ‘bannis’ or “gharanas” come about? When someone established his or her own style,” said Balamurali.

He certainly made his presence felt. Apart from M.S. Subbulakshmi, arguably, it was he who found acceptance on both sides of the Vindhyas. “Mile sur mera tumhara” and “Desh” added to a nation-wide acceptance. Attempts to bridge the gap between Carnatic and Hindustani music have been made by many musicians, but the fact is that 700-year-old chasms are not easily cemented. The very composition of the Carnatic style is “bhakti” oriented, what with the tradition of devotional compositions or “krithis”. Yet, Balamurali established a rapport with the northern audiences, which can best be described as amazing.

“Music is the same — film, light, folk, Hindustani, Carnatic — but if it is not able to reach the listener, then the fault lies more with the performer than the music,” he used to say. It was evident that no such fault lay with this performer. He held his audiences spellbound with the sheer quality of his voice. Barriers of language fell away as if they didn’t exist.

To think the mellifluous voice will never sing again…
 
Dr Alka Raghuvanshi is an art writer, curator and artist and can be contacted on alkaraghuvanshi@yahoo.com