Why Is Music Academy Bent On Going Against M S Subbulakshmi's Wish?

One would have thought that last week's single-judge Madras High Court verdict in the controversial conferment of the Sangita Kalanidhi award to T M Krishna had things to please both sides.

On the one hand, the court accepted the plea of M S Subbulakshmi's grandson, Dr V Shrinivasan, who did not want the accompanying cash award to the Sangita Kalanidhi honour to carry the late singer's name.

The 'mirror award', as it is termed, was instituted by The Hindu in 2005 to be given along with the Music Academy's prestigious Sangita Kalanidhi title.

Shrinivasan, however, had invoked MS' will, made out 3 October 1997, in which she said: "It is my earnest desire and mandate that, after my demise, no trust, foundation, memorial, statue, or bust be created in my name or memory, nor any funds, donations, or contributions be collected for these purposes using my name. The only exception pertains to mementos, souvenirs, or awards given to me, as I believe such initiatives are not in line with our culture".

The court accepted the will and also Shrinivasan's locus as her grandson and a legatee in the will to invoke it.

On the other hand, the court also clearly said that there was nothing to stop the Music Academy from conferring the Sangita Kalanidhi award on Krishna. It also allowed that the mirror award be continued but just that it cannot attach MS' name to it.

Baffling Approach

So one thought that the metaphorical final word in the matter had been spoken for all practical purposes.

But apparently not. Both The Hindu and the Music Academy filed an appeal in the case, and the hearing is on.

This is baffling but also kind of exposes the current thinking among the powers that be in the Music Academy.

The conferment of the Sangita Kalanidhi, which it had argued was central to the season's events, was not in jeopardy. If anything, it was never in doubt, as Shrinivasan's plea was not against the Sangita Kalandhi award per se. His prayer in court was merely against the use of MS' name in the 'mirror award'.

With Sangita Kalanidhi not at stake, the decision of the Music Academy to go in appeal does not look nice, as it essentially means to go against the wishes of MS as stated in her will.

The court laid it down clearly in its verdict last week: "The best way to honour a departed soul is to honour and respect her wish and not to disrespect her. If any person is really having reverence and regard to MS Subbulakshmi, after knowing her desire and mandate, should not continue to give award in her name."

The Academy and The Hindu may claim that some other awards and memorials have been instituted in her name. Indeed, there are a few. But it is for the court to deal with them, and it is a story for another day.

To challenge this verdict seems an extremely desperate act, and it also slights the memory of the revered singer who helped the Academy in countless ways when she was alive.

The Academy, The Hindu Seem Petty

The Music Academy and The Hindu had also challenged the locus of Shrinivasan, who is the grandson of MS, to invoke her will and act accordingly. The court also dismissed this plea.

Of course, both the Academy and the publishing house can challenge this. But to what avail? Shrinivasan is, of course, the son of Radha Vishwanathan, who is the well-known stepdaughter of MS.

Both the Academy and The Hindu did not cover themselves in any glory when they insinuated that it was for Shrinivasan to prove he was indeed the grandson. In the context of the case they were fighting, it was understandable, even if it looked petty. But once the verdict was out, one thought wiser counsel would prevail.

Alas, that does not seem to be the case as, in the appeal, Shrinivasan's locus would again be questioned. Why continue with a mean and cheap plan? Once the will and its spirit have been accepted, it doesn't matter who invokes it.

But the Academy and The Hindu — now helmed by N Murali, brother of N Ram, who runs The Hindu — feel slighted and are in no mood to show grace. So they are going hammer and tongs, much to the consternation of Carnatic music rasikas.

Krishna’s Double Standard

And what of the man who is at the centre of the whole controversy? Well, since the verdict had nothing binding on him, Krishna naturally had nothing to say in the matter.

But behind the scenes, it is clear that many things are afoot. The pages of The Hindu have been awash in the last few days with puff pieces on Krishna. The PR spiel is to project him as a legendary activist and singer and deserving of the award.

The point to note is, at the end of the day, the Music Academy is a private organisation and is at liberty to honour with its own award whoever it deems fit. So there can be no real case to question the Sangita Kalanidhi to Krishna.

But there can be plenty of queries about the moral appropriateness of Krishna to accept the same. His activist-mode operations have been particularly against the ethos that a snooty sabha like the Music Academy engenders in the Carnatic music world.

Krishna, infamously, had stayed away from performing at the Academy a few years ago, citing the overall atmosphere prevailing in this ecosystem.

For Krishna to accept the Academy's award is, well, a full-fledged kutcheri in hypocrisy. We can poke fun at it, mock at his convenient, self-serving intellectual approach. But we cannot go in appeal against it. It would be silly. But not any more than the Academy going in appeal against the court wanting to implement MS' wish as laid down in her will.