What is it about the chirping of some birds that makes it a song? What is the purpose of music? Does it matter whether you are a man or a woman in the world of Karnatik music? TM Krishna, in his book ‘A Southern Music’, lays down the history, evolution and grammar of his art and also grapples with questions about it.
An earlier interview with TM Krishna can be found here.
What made you want to write a book like this? Why now?
Over the past few years, there have been a lot of thoughts in my head about the philosophy of music. Why am I singing? What am I singing? I don’t believe in divine intervention of any sort, but it was funny that during this time my publishers wrote to me and said they wanted me to do a book on Karnatik music. So I thought it was a great opportunity to gather my thoughts, and read more and study more and see if there is a thread, a way to look at this whole thing. In many ways, this book, as much as it’s about music, is about myself as an individual, where I belong in my own sphere and in the larger sphere of society.
You espouse the concept of “art music,” i.e. giving the idea of emotion a representation in music. Isn’t all music art?
“Art music” is not a phrase I’ve created. It’s been around a long time. “Art music” is used in a specific aesthetic context here. It refers to music that has itself as its engine and itself as its end – not something that is satisfying another social or religious need or anything else. All music is art, but all art is not the same. It has a certain sociological, philosophical, aesthetic context, and of course the aesthetics is built around why it exists. Look at the qawwali. It is art. But it has a specific context. It is about the religion. It is about the emotion involved in the religiosity. But “art music” does not have an external goal per se. Its goal is to abstract the idea of emotion that you and I feel beyond you and I. For instance, love is an emotion. If you can look at love and if you can abstract it beyond its relationship with just me or the self, I think that’s what art music does. If you look at a painting, there’s emotion in it. You feel it. But it’s not your emotion. It is in that paradigm that the term “art music” needs to be understood here.
The book is a mix of experiential (perhaps even existential) thoughts, philosophy, musical history and musical theory. That’s very unusual.
For three months, I didn’t write a word. I just kept thinking how I was going to deal with it. I don’t think philosophy has any sense if it does not have a concrete existence. I can’t write about some whimsical idea that’s lying in my head. If you take the philosophy of music, its concrete existence happens in different ways. It’s in the aesthetic, structure, construction, and its sociological and historical context. So unless I tie all this together, there is no point in dealing with one aspect.
There are some technical chapters that people may not read. I would request even those who know Karnatik music to read these chapters, for there are things they might not know or might find interesting. You need to know what the construction is like before you start looking beyond the construction. I needed to link all of this together to get a complete picture for myself as I wrote it. If I spoke about time, I had to speak about laya. If I spoke about laya I had to look at what laya has to do with the experience of art. And when I speak about the experience of art, I’m talking about the abstraction of art. And you come to the realm of philosophy. So you can’t disconnect any one of these aspects in a book like this.
The most interesting parts of the book, to me, are your essays on music – your musings, rather, on the Tamil Isai movement and North American tours by artists and E-gurus and Ilayaraja’s (in your opinion, wrongful) transposition of Mari mari nine from the raga Kamboji to Saramati. But to get to that, we have to go through chapters filled with what you call the “construction,” the building blocks of svara, gamaka, raga, and so forth. How much of this do you think can be read and understood? Did you think about a companion CD?
We thought about it. I have written a very detailed piece on the raga. I have dealt with it in a very non-academic sense. But I can’t deal with it in a non-serious sense. Ultimately, music has to be experienced. Words are the worst way to describe art. But I think it is important to conceptually try and imagine it. A reader not very familiar with Karnatik music will probably jump to the essays in the second section, because they deal with societal issues, caste, religion, language, women, technology… But I think the preceding chapters can still give them a feel, if they are interested in art in any sense – they can get a grasp of the music, get an idea of its texture. The best thing that could happen is that the reader goes through these early chapters and decides to go to a concert.
Yes, these chapters are useful. For instance, most of us know where the anupallavi comes in by listening to the song, but you explain what exactly one should look out for, a kind of alliteration called “dvitiyakshara prasa.” While writing, did you have in mind a target reader?
This is not a book written for journals or research scholars. I think the target reader is anybody who is interested in serious art reading of any kind, even aesthetics or philosophy. There are a lot of questions in this book. The last section – the history – is the heaviest part of the book. I can’t comment on what’s happening today if I don’t give a perspective on why it is what it is. I think this book has a lot for a lot of different kinds of readers.
As a practising musician, did you worry about offering a “critique” of the Karnatik concert today? There are parts – as when you refer to some kirtanas as “fillers,” or when you question the need for the violinist to follow the vocalist’s alapana – that could rile a certain kind of purist.
I have been raising many of these issues without talking about them, through my music. This is the first time there is written material by me on why I am doing what I am doing. I seriously feel that, as much as a lot of great things are happening to Karnatik music, serious introspection on the music is an urgent need. We need to look at why we are singing what we are singing. We’re so used to looking at things a certain way that we are not able to see how much we are contributing to the idea of the music itself and ask whether some things need to be altered – not for the sake of change, but for finding more integrity in what we are doing. We need to contemplate on the aesthetic intent of the music as a whole and also the aesthetic intent of every facet within the whole.
For example, if we were to look at the alapana, we can very casually say that an ‘alapana is sung to explore the raga’ or ‘paint a picture of the raga’. But what does this really mean? We cannot stop our exploration at this superficial level. We need look at the raga, its flow, structure, history, evolution and its relationship with the methods of alapana presentation and whether there is integrity in the way we bring this together. This level of serious engagement is necessary for us to understand what we intend to do with the music we have received. The concert is a way of presentation and must seek to present the music in its completeness.
The important question here is whether the way we present Karnatik music today really focusses on the music or is it just a form of entertainment that includes religious and devotional content. I know it’s going to bother a lot of people. I hope it bothers them. I hope they disagree with me, because then we’ll at least talk about it. Let them tell me I’m wrong, but let them tell me what they are thinking. As long as this book makes people think, I’m fine with it.
And then there are other parts where you don the role of the purist yourself, when you say that gamakas sound contrived on a piano/keyboard, or when you say that the minute a scale shows up in a film song it is no longer a Karnatik raga.
We have an issue about what we consider the music, and what we consider the performance. The music – its form, its history, is integrity – is what I treasure. But what we are stuck with is this kutcheri. As far as the kutcheri is concerned, I am willing to give it up. Because, after a point, I think the kutcheri has not looked at the music but got stuck in its own success story. And it is a success story. I will not deny that. But there is a problem. A lot of people have said that I am changing the format in my concerts, but they need to look at it a little differently. It is not a question of format; it is a question of form. It is not a question of whether I sing the varnam first or last; it is a question of what is happening to the form of the art if you are choosing to present it a certain way.
My idea is this: if I can retain the integrity of the form – of the raga, of the tala, of the composer – that is, to me, an aesthetic experience of the art form. I am not willing to sacrifice that for the sake of this success story, which is why I come off as a purist in certain things. And the kutcheri is a success story that overshadows everything else. I can sing the worst gamakas, I can destroy a raga, but if I can package it interestingly into this success story, everything else is forgotten. This is where we are today, and it is, I think, a dangerous position to be in. After my studies – I have studied raga history, tala history for about eight years – I think there are certain things that we need to revisit. I think there are things that need to be treasured. Develop the music – but hold on to what we had and then do it.
Let’s talk about the prescriptive parts, where you put forth your thoughts on what you think a concert should be like. You say, for instance, that “an art music presentation” has no room for light miscellanies like tukkadas, and that “a kutcheri is not a variety entertainment show or a circus presentation where you need to experience the frown of the lion and the snigger of a clown.”
The prescription is conceptual, and it comes back to the idea of art music and Karnatik music. Let’s take a Western classical concert. Every item is an intense piece of composition and music. Every item is presented with the same intensity, and the experience is as intense with a Schubert as with a Beethoven. You don’t have Beethoven being given as a filler, and you don’t have pieces towards the end that are there just to tingle you before you head back home. Then can you please tell me why, in Karnatik music, these tinglers are so necessary?
If you want to call Karnatik music “devotional music,” then I can’t have this discussion with you. We’re looking at it from different angles. But if you want to treat Karnatik music as a conceptual and aesthetic art music form, then there’s no room for these fillers. I do not go to a concert for titillation. I go with the expectation that every piece is going to be an intense experience that’s respected as much by the artist as the audience. Instead, we talk of fillers, as if they’re some fly-by-night operators. “All you guys can relax for a few minutes and then I’ll get back to serious business.” This is ridiculous. I still perform tukkadas. I’m fine with it, though one day I hope I can throw them away – but I don’t get it when people say “After all the heavy stuff, people need to go home with lighter ragas.” I don’t get this idea of one raga being heavy and serious and another one being light and frivolous.
There are also some aspects to the book that have an IMO feel, like when you say “synthetic ragas like Dharmavati have been accepted though they do not contain aesthetic features of a raga.” Are these TM Krishna’s opinions?
No. These are backed by research and study. There are other scholars holding these opinions too. The raga is a complex concept. Looking at the older ragas and how they have evolved, and what their aesthetic presentations are (technically and musicologically), I stand by that position when it comes to Dharmavati.
You don’t drop too many names – except, say, when you discuss MS Subbulakshmi and DK Pattammal in the context of women singers and what they brought to the Karnatik tradition. When you discuss the concept of “intellectual music,” for instance, didn’t you feel like naming a singer or two who, in your opinion, achieved this?
I really didn’t think of it that way, now that you ask me. I have this habit of not including names in most pieces I write. Another reason is probably that if the reader does not know Karnatik music I did not want too many names dropping off the page.
One of the most interesting discussions in the book is when you take up the question of whether an atheist or a non-Hindu can be a Karnatik musician. Are these questions that have been haunting you for a while?
One of the reasons behind them is my own idea of religion and religiosity and philosophy, and my KFI/Krishnamurti background probably has a role to play in this. These questions have been in my head for a long time, and for a long time I couldn’t articulate my thoughts. I remember a time in the late 1990s when I knew I wasn’t religious. When I sang a kirtana, I used to constantly grapple with the idea of people telling me I needed to know the meaning if I had to bring out the bhavam. This used to bother me a lot because I may not really feel that way or believe in that sentiment. Does it make me disrespectful if I don’t understand it? Do I need to understand it? And gradually, these questions became louder. What happens when an atheist sings this music? How does an atheist look at it? I had a lot of friends from different religions and they did not understand one word of what I was singing. How do they deal with this music? That’s why I feel that the relationship between melody and text is far deeper than the linguistic meaning it has.
You divide the book into three sections. The Experience. The Context. The History. It appears that you want the reader to read each chapter in a specific order, but there are going to be those who casually flip back and forth. Can they still get something from this book?
This is not a book that you can read at one shot. It’s a book you’re probably going to read slowly, probably reading some chapters again and again. I think the first three chapters are important. Though they are not specifically about Karnatik music, they lay a basic aesthetic and philosophical foundation for the whole book. I would ideally ask the reader to read the first three chapters, and then take a call. The second section can be read by itself. But in the first section, there’s a building up of ideas and concepts, and I think those chapters need to be read together. But with the second section, you can go back and forth. The third section is completely optional. Everybody need not understand everything. It doesn’t matter. You could read a chapter, go and listen to a concert or watch a song on YouTube, and then come back to the book. I want people to just think and ask questions, and I don’t believe I have the answers – or at least, I hope I haven’t given any answers.
With the way you’ve been structuring your concerts these past few years, and now with this book, it appears that you’re interested in leaving behind a legacy – that TM Krishna didn’t just sing Karnatik music but actively shaped it. It is this something conscious?
Honestly speaking, this book as well as my music of late are very much part of the changes that have happened to be as a human being. It happened over many years, but some things come together at a certain time. I think my whole perspective of life itself is very closely knit to what music means to me. And I think whatever has changed in my music, my concerts, the way I sing is very closely wedded to the idea of what I really believe life should be. I really don’t know whether I’ll leave a legacy or not. That’s not something I’m consciously going for. The greatest thing to me is the marvel of music, the fact that I can marvel at music. When I sing, I sometimes say aha – and many people ask if I am saying it to myself. That’s not it. I’m just marvelling at the sheer beauty that’s there at that moment. That marvelling is, in many ways, a catalyst for this book.
An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2013 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Udhay Sankar
December 14, 2013
Good interview…Can anyone please explain me What is a charanam and pallavi in Carnatic music…i tend to break my head whenever i watch a reality show(super singer)……..
LikeLike
lowlylaureate
December 14, 2013
Ok so whenever people use the word art to describe something anywhere in this world, the thing that they are describing moves one step away from people it is intended for.
From what little i know( which gives me no right to speak on carnatic) I do not think that Thyagaraja(for that matter any of the primary composers) would have written these kirtanas for performance unlike Mozart/Bach etc who wrote to perform.
The songs of thyagaraja are cries to help him, to whisk him away from this wretched world, to say the name of his beloved Rama. “Devotional” itself is a kindoff commercial term to use, but Carnatic Music has kept the compositions alive, but nevertheless for reasons different than what the composer would have intended.
Like for example thyagraja composed the Thera Theeyaga Raadha kirtana and it is said that the curtains at thirumala parted and the saint was able to pray to the diety, but now a Thera Theeyaga Raadha is a staple for someone to impress a secretary to gain a place to sing during the season(easily comparable to any commercial establishment) Kutcheri/raaga/format/art are all excuses sir, what keeps this music going no one knows.
While one side there are troubles from unwanted intellect, other side is a goshti which is holding on to formats as traditions.
“So much obfuscation in the name of art O rama. I do not care for the raaga or for the format, take me away from here to somewhere quiet where i can sing your name, as ever your faithful Thyagaraja”
LikeLike
piperpunton
December 15, 2013
I liked the part about an atheist or non hindu’s attempt to understand devotional music. Often North Indians like me would be asked weird questions.. about how much you understand music to be actually present in the hallowed corridors of Music Academy…
LikeLike
KayKay
December 15, 2013
Great interview! I attended one of TM Krishna’s lecture demonstrations when I was in Chennai a few years ago for the music season and found him to be articulate and outspoken (also a tad abrasive and in-your-face but it just added to the passion of his arguments) on certain topics. Who better to write a book on Carnatic Music then it’s current Reigning Rebel?
Will definitely pick up a copy!
LikeLike
gopikrishk
December 15, 2013
Excellent interview. Very matured and intense conversations. Inspires to get the book right away. Good luck!!
LikeLike
GOPAL
December 15, 2013
In Carnatic music a song is broken into 3 parts. First is the pallavi which is the song opening, keeps getting repeated after the anu pallavi and charanam. The Anu Pallavi is the second part of the song. The charanam is the longest and the anu pallavi is repeated in the charanam. Muthuswamy Dikshitar’s compositions have only a pallavi and a charanam called the samashti charanam.
In film music we generally have a pallavi and 2 charanams where the pallavi keeps getting repeated after the charanam, called the thundu pallavi. AR Rehman has broken away from this format inmnay of his songs.
LikeLike
venky
December 15, 2013
If the goal of “art music” is ‘to abstract the idea of emotion that you and I feel beyond you and I”, how could it be not open to the idea that its up to the prerogative of the listener to personalize it with “religion” as they feel it?? I think it’s similar to personalization of cinematic experience which you’ve been espousing in your writings.
TM Krishna’s questioning the rules and conventions in carnatic music reminds me of Kumar Gandharva who attempted to demolish the “gharana” concept in Hindustani music. While Kumar Gandharva sought inspiration out of his love for the rebellious Kabir, TMK Krishna is following the same route, seeking inspiration from Jiddu.
LikeLike
Niranjan
December 15, 2013
Great Interview, BR. I have (ever since I first heard TMK) been very much fascinated by the man’s strong sense (in more than one sense – his music, his views and other stuff) of aesthetic, and if writes half as well as he sings, this book should be a fascinating one for my shelf!
Btw, when you are asked to do these interviews do you read the entire book (end to end), because sometimes that can be a bit of an arduous task, or do you (to borrow your words) flip back and forth to get an idea of the essentials of the book in its entirety? Seeing some of the questions, this doesn’t seem likely though.
Or do you have a group of minions who are given assignments and have to report to you? 😉
And lastly, I guess it was during this interview, that Krishna remarked to you that you should/could do more than write about cinema. Does he think cinema is low brow art, for instance?
LikeLike
brangan
December 15, 2013
lowlylaureate: What is “unwanted intellect”? Why is any of what Krishna is saying “unwanted”? I can see why one may not agree with him, but how can one say it’s not wanted?
piperpunton: It’s not just North Indians. It’s also the Frenchman or the Russian who comes to Chennai and loses himself in the music without understanding a word. And it comes back to what I usually say about movies. What the filmmaker/singer presents may not be what the viewer/listener takes away — that whole question of “authorial intent” — but that doesn’t mean that what the viewer/listener takes away, what he gets is any less valid.
KayKay: …current Reigning Rebel
Oh, he’s so going to love this epithet 🙂
venky: how could it be not open to the idea that its up to the prerogative of the listener to personalize it with “religion” as they feel it??
Good point.
Niranjan: Yes, you have to read the book, otherwise you cannot really dig deep, no? And no minions, boss. First, a lot would get lost in the translation, unless they are equally tuned into the book (not to mention the music). Second, I don’t think my OCD would allow for it 😀
LikeLike
lowlylaureate
December 15, 2013
because unwanted intellectualisation takes away some of the fun, at least for me. hence.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
December 16, 2013
I do not know anything about music leave alone Karnatic music ( i would prefer TMK’s spelling) apart from the film music which you do not have much control of not listening (do you?) and occasional rock and R&B. Maybe i may understand a tad better when i know something about music a little later in life! But the larger point is TMK raising the issue of how women singers were not given the same audience as that of a male singer or how there is a stronghold of mama-mamis in knowing/learning Karnatic music and not allowing other points of view from other religions/castes is hugely refreshing one…
when there are calls from the privileged ones feeling threatened by affirmative action, how is that Karnatic music has an affirmative action of a different kind?
Like how gays use the symbol of rainbow to convey beauty lying in diversity with varied hues/shades, i guess even if little introspection is started by TMK’s question of inclusiveness in music should be welcome…
i am finding it difficult to get a good teacher/guru to teach my kid karnatic music, perhaps due to my accidental birth of not being born in a particular community…i hope for the day when music is not confined to certain section of people and philosophical moorings in the keerthanas are not restricted to metaphysical or religious ones…
LikeLike
Pranesh
December 17, 2013
Is the book already out? Can’t find it on flipkart.
LikeLike
Shvetha
December 17, 2013
Carnatic or Karnatik? (Is Carnatic just Karnatik anglicised?)
LikeLike
Rahini David
December 19, 2013
Sanjay: I have often heard this complaint of Barathanatyam and K(c)arnatic music/instruments getting confined to brahmins. But do they really refuse to teach somebody these things based on their caste? These things take a lot of time and paitence and these all dance and music teachers are usually strict on their students and expect a lot of dedication.
I’d rather send my daughter to a keyboard class than a veenai class. That is because her talent will have better use inside a church or prayer meeting. But if I did try to send her to a veenai class, would they try to not teach her just because her surname is David?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sanjay Kumar
December 20, 2013
I think this aspect is what TMK raises in his book (although i did not read it, this is what he said in another interview) that if the brahmin households or the gharanas were so open how many christian/muslim or dalit singers/artistes are there in Karnatic music? Even Yesudas who commands full house kutcheri is considered among the upper castes Mallus to possess brahmniyam for his golden voice (which is a strange justification (or bigotry) considering that, they cannot concede someone to possess knowledge or talent, if not for some brahminism inherent in him/her)!
It is like asking why there are no blacks in important positions of power in US, when the society in US is far more inclusive than earlier? Perhaps you can hear this wonderful talk by Dr Michael Sandel’s lectures on morality and ethics and how he defends affirmative action in US based on the institutional discrimination that persists for the uplift of blacks or hispanics in US…http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-09/
in India such an institution existed for thousands of years compared to Blacks discrimination against dalits…
coming back to my predicament, i think lack of people in my household or extended family knowledgeable in music will be a handicap for her to succeed unlike students from Brahmin household and i think to break this invisible shackle my daughter and me have to struggle a lot more to bring in the same level of expertise…
LikeLike
Subha
December 20, 2013
I really really loved this interview Mr Baradwaj. Oh, fabulous. I mean…his points and your questions are so in depth and passionate, I was in some other state after reading. This is probably one of the first interviews by south Indian carnatic musicians that was so impressive to someone who doesn’t understand the ABCDs. Kudos to both of you and thank you for bringing us this interview.
LikeLike
Madan
December 20, 2013
One of my friends, a Keralite, was sent to Carnatic classes and ended up feeling discriminated by the Tambram teacher. The unfortunate result was he developed a strong dislike for all things Tamil, including Tamil music (a lot of which is not made by Brahmins but there you go). Although I am a Brahmin by birth, such attitudes make me very reluctant to mention this. It is depressing if education does not teach a community to treat all people equal; in that case, such education has been mere pedantry without moulding attitudes for the better at all. And it possibly fuels the unnecessary snobbery even more.
LikeLike
Ravi K.
December 21, 2013
My family is not Brahmin, but my dad studied Bharatanatyam in Delhi in the 70s, and he did his arangetram. He’s no longer alive, so I can’t ask him if there was any discrimination against non-Brahmins, but it is something I’m curious about.
The only famous non-Hindu Carnatic musicians I know of are Yesudas and Sheik Chinna Moulana. Do Christians and Muslims generally see studying Carnatic music and Bharatanatyam as against their own religion or are those arts simply seen as part of Indian culture? My sister took Bharatanatyam lessons and there were one or two Christians in her class.
LikeLike
Rahini David
December 22, 2013
Ravi: Barathanatyam begins by worshiping the floor before you stamp on it. This is often considered Pagan culture. Mostly Christians and Muslims who go by the letter go against it for this reason and the heavy usage of Krishna songs. But such staunchness is getting rarer these days.
LikeLike
hari
December 22, 2013
@Madan, one tam brahm insults your mallu friend and he goes on to dislike anything tamil. And you are reluctant to call yourself whatever you are just because one of yourself is a bad egg. Would you have to be in penance to cleanse the mistakes?
Can we be more generalistic and prejudiced than this?
LikeLike
Arjun
December 23, 2013
@Madan: While attitudes such as these are deplorable, one may also feel rightfully proud that the same community which has harboured such horrible prejudices and collectively indulged in discriminatory practices has from time to time, also produced some of the greatest social reformers, free thinkers and revolutionaries this country has seen: right from the time of Ramanuja ~1000 years ago down to Bharathiyar and Rajaji in the 20th century. I also think these attitudes are slowly, but surely fading amidst the present generation. At least, no Tam Brahm my age (mid twenties) I know of (and that is plenty) would behave in the way your friend’s music teacher did.
P.S: I think I know who you are and you know who I am. 😛
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar K
December 23, 2013
Hari: Are you sure that bad instances from a community different from that of yours will not lead you to build stereotypes? Maybe you are not like that, but the world inhabited by real humans will carry that scar throughout their life…if everyone was large hearted as yours…we would have been in utopia by this time…
the prejudice is not limited to individuals, but instituitionalised if there is lesser diversity in karnatic music it is the fault of the practitioners and not about those who are not there like dalits/muslims/christians…i am not even bringing in gays/transsexuals or physically challenged
LikeLike
Ceaser
December 23, 2013
@Ravi K.
There is Kalamandalam Hyderali, the famous exponent of Kathakali music who was a muslim. He with his partner Kalamandalam Sankaran Embranthiri has been successful in fusing carnatic music and kathakali music into an individual music form which can be performed and enjoyed without the performance.
Kerala kalamandalam is an institution that provides a training ground for performing arts particularly south indian irrespective of their religion.
LikeLike
rothrocks
December 23, 2013
Hari, you did not read my comment carefully enough before choosing to pontificate. I said “such attitudes”, so I assure you I have met many more such bad eggs. It is even more annoying when they impose their orthodoxy in a cosmopolitan place like Mumbai. They still cannot allow maidservants to sit on their furniture, talk in hush hush tones about non veggies as if they were criminals and never address security guards by name. Would you like to hear more? What I am is a function of my values and principles and discrimination is not one of them. I therefore cannot feel proud of being part of a community that cannot denounce such archaic beliefs and practices in spite of their education. My caste is to me only a baggage thrust on me but in all unofficial correspondence I religiously avoid mentioning it. I would like to help the people that I meet relate to me as an equal rather than proclaim a misplaced sense of superiority by declaring my caste.
LikeLike
Madan
December 23, 2013
Arjun: Yes, I know who you are. 😀 I don’t think the new generation at present uphold the orthodoxy but I would wait until they/we get to middle age and then see what their stance is. There is a strong anti-Muslim rhetoric in many Hindu middle class households for instance. So, given the extent to which political parties in TN milk the caste issue, discrimination ‘staying alive’ in the future cannot be ruled out. I know that I will not under any circumstance tolerate it because those are my values. But I am not so sure that everybody who doesn’t actively indulge in it necessarily take a stand or are they simply indifferent presently to social mores, like youth tend to be.
NOTE: rothrocks is my wordpress id. I don’t know why the above comment got pasted in that name but whatever.
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
December 24, 2013
There are those who consider divinity as intrinsic to Carnatic music. Given its origins, if someone with a name John Higgins knocks on the door of a Carnatic musician for lessons and is rejected because the name ipso facto sounds non-Hindu, what is abhorrent about it? There are cultural/religious concepts that are embedded in this music and there are many who don’t subscribe to the abstract (or meta-abstract) school of music education. For these people, Carnatic music without Bhava and Bhakti is music with no soul. That they think a student of a particular religious background does not have the credentials prima facie to learn Carnatic music does not make these teachers malcontents.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
December 24, 2013
i never knew Ramanuja, Rajaji were social reformers….the true among that ilk was Bharatiyar who had hardly few people attending his funeral! Both the R’s were hell bent upon preserving the caste identities (one brought in a new caste, whose followers boycott marriage if either bride or groom are iyer leave alone from other castes, the other gentleman thought vocational courses aligned with family trade (read caste related occupation) would enhance education system)…
LikeLike
Rahini David
December 24, 2013
PoliBhagavathar: Would the same apply to Hindu-Non-Brahmins?
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
December 25, 2013
Rahini: No, it would not. And sadly, there exists anecdotal evidence of manifest mean-spiritedness here. In general, building a Berlin wall around knowledge, so that it remains the preserve of a certain group or clan, deserves condemnation.
LikeLike
Madan
December 25, 2013
Given its origins, if someone with a name John Higgins knocks on the door of a Carnatic musician for lessons and is rejected because the name ipso facto sounds non-Hindu, what is abhorrent about it?
– It is abhorrent because such a person would be imposing his beliefs on his (would-be) student. If somebody wants to regard Carnatic music as divine, fine. There is room for another view and if there isn’t, let the audience make that choice. Let even a person who subscribes to the abstract school of art learn Carnatic music and let the audience decide whether his music indeed lacks soul. There is no need for the elders to get together and impose a norm that in the name of tradition discriminates on religion or caste. Rejecting a person simply because his name sounds non Hindu and for no other reason is either religious or racial discrimination, no matter what logic you propose to attempt to justify it.
LikeLike
Arjun
December 25, 2013
Sanjay Kumar: I agree there are some conflicting statements to be found in the writings of both R’s. I do not wish to derail BR’s comment space, so will restrict myself to just a couple of points. Ramanuja and other teachers who followed him wrote quite strongly against the caste system, At a time when Vedic literature and their interpretations dominated religious discourse, R and his followers popularized (which included several people from the so-called lower castes) the Tamil (regarded as an inferior language by the Brahmns) Prabandham and proclaimed them to be >= Vedas.
You are also wrong about R bringing in a new caste – if you are really interested, please read up on the history of the two I’s and the bifurcation point – it is fuzzy at best. In any case, I find it profoundly uninteresting and think it detracts from the larger issue at hand.The second R among other things, passed the Temple entry act allowing entry of Dalits into temples. I concede that both R’s were never able to significantly influence the thinking and practices of the community they hailed from (neither was Bharathiyar), but that tells you more about the deep-rooted sense of bigotry and entitlement in the minds of the Brahms than anything else. However to “our” credit, many intellectuals hailing from the community – the men of science such as the Nobel winners and Tamil writers have always been quite liberal and forward thinking.
LikeLike
Arjun
December 25, 2013
@Madan: Thought you will 🙂 That is a valid point about waiting till middle age to figure out what “our” stance is. I HAVE observed erstwhile “danger youths” turning into staunch Bram -supremacists in middle age.
BR: Is there anything in the book about the pure instrumental tradition (if any) in Carnatic music, either pre or post trinity? I am thinking mainly about the Veena, Venu and Gottuvadhyam (pre arrival of the violin),I have been reading reviews of Veena and flute concerts this season and the reviewers almost always point out the poor attendance and patronage of these concerts. I am curious if TM Krishna has any thoughts on this. I personally think that it is very difficult to achieve and sustain a broader following for a purely vocal tradition, especially given that the lyrics are mostly religious or philosophical in nature.
LikeLike
KayKay
December 25, 2013
Mr. Poli B, it becomes abhorrent if these so-called Carnatic “purists” presume (erroneously or arrogantly) that the concept of Bhava and Bhakti cannot be embraced by a John Higgins Or Abdul Kader on account of their names or religious affiliation.
Cultural/religious concepts ARE embedded and intrinsic to Carnatic music, the mistake is in the assumption that being of a certain Religion or Caste embeds you with an Auto-Receptive “appreciation” Gene to grasp them.
There are 3 Christians in my Music Class, 2 of whom can render a Vathapi or Nagumo with far more Bhava and Bhakti than us card-carrying Hindus.
And for my teacher who couldn’t give a toss whether you recite the Pater Noster or the Suprabatham at home, no amount of respect I can give her will suffice.
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
December 26, 2013
“It is abhorrent because such a person would be imposing his beliefs on his (would-be) student”
Where is the question of imposition of views here? The student is free to find someone else who is willing to teach something rich in religious context without any preconditions or reservations. It is not like the person is being proselytized by the teacher for having made a request.
“If somebody wants to regard Carnatic music as divine, fine. There is room for another view and if there isn’t,”
That there is room for another view is exactly my point. Go read up my comment about the abstract school. Don’t scream bigotry/racism anytime someone disagrees with your point of view, is my point.
“let the audience make that choice. Let even a person who subscribes to the abstract school of art learn Carnatic music and let the audience decide whether his music indeed lacks soul”
What audience are you referring to when we are merely talking of a hypothetical twosome here – the potential student and the teacher. *You* may find the teacher arrogant and loathsome for his/her views. My point is that (s) he is not necessarily so ( Simplistic? Maybe. Loathsome? No.) and I’ve already laid out why I think that way. I personally was not advocating against Carnatic music for non-Hindus, merely pointing out that the blind attribution of malice in this instance is ill-founded.
“Rejecting a person simply because his name sounds non Hindu and for no other reason is either religious or racial discrimination, no matter what logic you propose to attempt to justify it.”
Why did race enter the picture here (or are you the kind of person who screams fire when you see a light bulb in a theatre)? Sure, it *is* religious discrimination, if you are itching to use that word (but in the sense of what the word means when you are differentiating), but the kind that *I* do not find vile in context (If a flip side of the argument would illustrate any better, should an atheist or a Hindu visit a Christian priest for lessons on Christian hymns and is rejected based simply on their religious background (or lack of it), I wouldn’t flay the priest for bigotry either).
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
December 26, 2013
“It becomes abhorrent if these so-called Carnatic “purists” presume (erroneously or arrogantly) that the concept of Bhava and Bhakti cannot be embraced by a John Higgins Or Abdul Kader on account of their names or religious affiliation”
Mr. KayKay, what is erroneous about the *fact* that affiliation to a single religion or one faith is the norm (be it atheism or something else)? Not that there aren’t those who are capable of transcending their deeply held beliefs or that there aren’t those who are ecumenical in outlook. But, generally speaking, devotion to a faith is not dispensed with easily. And if a purist works from the standpoint of what is considered the norm while making a decision, why should that make him/her arrogant? That there is a Jon Higgins or a Yesudas proves the commitment of these singers for what they were in pursuit of and/or the patience of their gurus (who imparted them music) willing to look beyond the obvious. However, if a Carnatic purist believes in his/her heart that unswerving loyalty to Hindu religious symbols are prerequisites to learning Carnatic music, and will have no part in secularizing a song like “Yenna thavam seidhanai yasodha…”, I don’t see that as offensive or abhorrent. If that puts them and those sympathizing with them in the bracket of fuddy-duddies or worse, then so be it.
“the mistake is in the assumption that being of a certain Religion or Caste embeds you with an Auto-Receptive “appreciation” Gene to grasp them.”
Why put down presumptuousness on one hand and then elevate it on another?
LikeLike
Madan
December 26, 2013
The student is free to find someone else who is willing to teach something rich in religious context without any preconditions or reservations. – My dear, that is exactly the argument some right-libertarians in the US like to give to justify racism: let blacks find somebody who is prepared to hire them, it is my personal preference not to hire blacks in my firm. No, that’s not personal choice, that is discrimination. The student has not come to the teacher to have his worldview judged sanctimoniously by the latter, he has come to learn the fundamentals of Carnatic music. Why should the student not be taught the same,what is the relevance of his religious orientation there? if a teacher wants to hold Carnatic music divine, that is his personal choice but it is not fair to impose his choice on his students. By stipulating religion as a gate pass, the teacher would be imposing his personal choice on the students. Oh yes, he would be, you may deny it as much as you’d like but it is a discriminatory approach.
That there is room for another view is exactly my point. – Validating a teacher who denies the right of his student to hold another view suggests that that is not your point at all. The ‘room for another view’ is restricted to the four walls of the teacher and his own art, it does not extend to his disciples.
What audience are you referring to when we are merely talking of a hypothetical twosome here – the potential student and the teacher. – Er, I thought I made that clear enough but I will try again. I am saying, let the student learn Carnatic music and let him interpret it in his own light. And let the audience then decide whether they would like to hear it or not. It is not for the teacher to impose a restriction at the point of entry based on religion. There is no difference between this and gujju/maadus insisting that they will not allow any members of the society to let out their property to a Muslim or non veg eating household. Yes, they can seek other property owners for a transaction and we know what that has led to. You may insist it is not malicious and is only an endeavour by the community to be true to their beliefs but it is exactly such restrictions that create further segregation and disunity between communities.
Why did race enter the picture here – Er, because Jon Higgins was American? It would follow from your logic that a non Indian is most likely to get rejected so a white person may well interpret it as racial discrimination even if it is not.
Sure, it *is* religious discrimination, if you are itching to use that word but the kind that *I* do not find vile in context: All religious discrimination is vile, not to mention against the Constitution. Now don’t get me into a discussion on who does or does not indulge in practices that are discriminatory. As an educated, ‘priestly’ community Brahmins should have provided greater leadership in upholding equality. I would paraphrase what somebody else put to Hari: perhaps if you had to bear the brunt of said discrimination, you would have an entirely different take on it. Discrimination often appears to be a non issue to the person who is not a victim or not from the victim’s community; it is harder but more important for us to be able to empathise with them instead of decrying any suggestions of discrimination as shrill rhetoric.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
December 26, 2013
Poli B: probably you have not heard about Rajaji’s Kula thozhil kalvi thittam? Some gyaan here:http://www.tamiltribune.com/07/1102.html
The larger point is points of view are sanctimonious and they are to be questioned and in a common platform like this support of bigoted ideas should not be termed as freedom of expression…
LikeLike
Ranga
December 27, 2013
Madan – really enjoyed your response to Poli B. One of the key issues concerning discrimination of any kind is the recourse to personal preference, with a tenuous link to freedom of choice. If a carnatic music exponent chooses to be a teacher, should he be allowed to pick and choose his students based on religion? However the issue gets murky when someone decides not to be a teacher, but a mentor, ie, one who imparts knowledge but does not make any money out of it. In such a case, is he allowed to choose basis religion (or any other discriminatory practice)? Besides, I find the idea that organized religion being the inspiration for great art quite disturbing. In India, we are trained to deflect attention away from ourselves when praise is given. Thus we have great artists simply attributing their success to God (Ella pugazhum…) instead of accepting their own ambition.
LikeLike
Rahini David
December 27, 2013
PoliB: One more question. Let us say a Hindu was taught Carnatic and even performed in the December Utsavams for years. He later converts to Christianity. He wants to sing secular or Christian songs alone and writes them on his own. Technically everything is fine with his singing and composing. Would this be considered bastardisation of the said Art?
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
December 27, 2013
*typo //The larger point is points of view are sanctimonious// should be read as
//The larger point is points of view are not sanctimonious// Regrets
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
December 27, 2013
“My dear, that is exactly the argument some right-libertarians in the US like to give to justify racism: let blacks find somebody who is prepared to hire them, it is my personal preference not to hire blacks in my firm. No, that’s not personal choice, that is discrimination”
The particular example you’ve cited about hiring would be discrimination in India as well. Except, that you commit the fallacy of False Analogy here. The specific issue under discussion involves religion and the rules are different where religious learning is involved. I even laid out an example of a Hindu and an atheist wanting to learn Christian hymns and you conveniently ignored that in your response. Let me try again with a similar example: Say a professed atheist approaches an Imam to learn the Quran (because this atheist believes he is an expert on abstractions). Let us say, the Imam also knows the views of this atheist. Is the Imam duty-bound to acquiesce in this scenario? I say no, but you say the Imam is “imposing his views” if he rejects this student.
“The student has not come to the teacher to have his worldview judged sanctimoniously by the latter,”
That is a bit rich coming from you.
“he has come to learn the fundamentals of Carnatic music. Why should the student not be taught the same,what is the relevance of his religious orientation there?”
This in essence is the bone of contention. The purist response: How is a person’s religious orientation *not* relevant? Carnatic music is tightly bound to Hindu religious symbols and culture. It did not drop out of the sky absent any context. If you are unfamiliar with its origins or how it is generally taught, go read up before accusing people of being racists. A Carnatic musician has learnt his / her music singing paeans to Hindu gods like Rama or Krishna. While these two icons of Hinduism may mean nothing to you, they and the assorted stories involving them mean a whole lot to a purist. And there are non-Hindus (if not all) who equate Hinduism with paganism and find the Rama/Krishna/Govinda references downright funny (to put it mildly). Get the relevance of religion now?
“if a teacher wants to hold Carnatic music divine, that is his personal choice but it is not fair to impose his choice on his students.”
First, you are not a student yet unless you’ve been accepted as a student. How hard a concept is that to grasp? When you make a proposal as a suitor (in an arranged situation or otherwise), do you already consider the person you woo as “yours” before she/he has had the chance to accept or reject you? Funny (& scary), the way you think.
“By stipulating religion as a gate pass, the teacher would be imposing his personal choice on the students. Oh yes, he would be, you may deny it as much as you’d like but it is a discriminatory approach.”
Have you heard the term parochial school? Faith school? Church school? Madrasas? Such schools discriminate based on religion. Heck, there is a Hindu school in London (out in the open and not in some undisclosed location) which makes vegetarianism a precondition for entry. While you chew on that, try suing them for their discriminatory approach.
“Validating a teacher who denies the right of his student to hold another view suggests that that is not your point at all. The ‘room for another view’ is restricted to the four walls of the teacher and his own art, it does not extend to his disciples”
What are the four walls of a teacher? Anterior, Posterior, Interior and Exterior? Seriously, your thoughts are so incoherent, I am having a tough time deciding whether to respond seriously or respond in jest. I’ve settled for something in between.
“I am saying, let the student learn Carnatic music and let him interpret it in his own light. And let the audience then decide whether they would like to hear it or not. It is not for the teacher to impose a restriction at the point of entry based on religion”
And I am saying, you are more deluded in your thinking than I thought at first. I also say let them learn Carnatic music if they desire and maybe even become the next Yesudas. Except, I am also saying don’t beat up on the purist teacher who may not be able to accede to the request and instead find a teacher who may be able to transcend the religious associations of Carnatic music (btw, let us leave the audience participation to “super singer” shows).
“There is no difference between this and gujju/maadus insisting that they will not allow any members of..”
What is all this flagrant group name-calling (not to mention negative stereotyping)? I think with the first you refer to the good people from Gujarat (see, how that sounds). But, who are these “maadus” (cows)? Is there also an Indian group that you refer to as “kazhudhais” (asses)? 🙂 It’s no wonder then that you seem to constantly carry around the heavy burden of guilt and project your attitudes onto others.
“Er, because Jon Higgins was American? It would follow from your logic that a non Indian is most likely to get rejected so a white person may well interpret it as racial discrimination even if it is not”
I said “John” Higgins in my first post and not *the* Jon Higgins (Carnatic musician) you have in mind. Even otherwise, why should Jon Higgins that I used for a Christian name be an American? Why not from Africa or Albania? Or India? That presumption appears racist to me (sorry, I’m well-versed in your logic now and two can play this blame game). And why should only a white person interpret it as racial discrimination? Why not an African American or Hispanic American? Do they not have powers of interpretation? Why did you exclude them? I’m sure there is a rule about *these* somewhere in the Constitution.
“All religious discrimination is vile, not to mention against the Constitution.”
If the Constitution was a teacher and you were its student, it would repeatedly slap itself on the forehead for having to deal with someone this dense. I thought I had clarified (just maybe I half-botched it), but nuance does not seem to be your forte and so let me try harder. There is a literal sense conveyed by the word and there is also a connotation the word carries (the one in which you wallow all the time). Given that religion itself is the crux of the issue (no, Carnatic music as is understood is not irreligious), that religion is used to discriminate makes this an instance of the former. Why do I make this distinction? If you refer back to your hiring example, were a non-religious position to be filled based solely on the religion of the person, it “would” be religious discrimination. But, a Hindu (say an expert on abstractions) who is rejected for the post of Archbishop of the Delhi Archdiocese or a Christian who is rejected for the post of a head-priest at Tirupathi (given your inability to comprehend the straightforward, I’m trying far-fetched and contrived scenarios) are not grounds for pressing religious discrimination charges. Try litigating against these and you’ll learn.
“…it is harder but more important for us …”
Quit including me in the group or subgroup *you* belong to. For all you know, I just might be a Russian Hare Krishna with an active interest in Indian culture (btw, do you use a pejorative for this group?) 🙂
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
December 28, 2013
Rahini: “One more question. Let us say a Hindu was taught Carnatic and even performed in the December Utsavams for years. He later converts to Christianity”
Reads like a plot from a M Night Shyamalan movie 🙂
“He wants to sing secular or Christian songs alone and writes them on his own. Technically everything is fine with his singing and composing. Would this be considered bastardisation of the said Art?”
No.
LikeLike
Rahini David
December 28, 2013
PoliB: I asked a question about hindu converts writing christian carnatic songs. Has it been answered already? I couldn’t find it.
LikeLike
Madan
December 28, 2013
Mister Polli whatever, you may have disagreements with me on our points of view but I have not personally insulted you in any of my statements (unless you consider urging our community, in which I did not include you specifically FYI, to be more open minded an insult!). I expect reciprocity from you, otherwise I am not interested in this diss-cussion if that’s all you’ve got. And kindly respond to the logic and principles put forth, however disagreeable they may be to you, instead of resorting to nitpicking. Two can play that game as well, but it only reflects poorly on you to take recourse to that.
In summation, there is no difference in PRINCIPLE between a teacher putting up a religious gatepass to the learning of an art that may arguably be religious in nature, and denying jobs to a person based on his religion or race. There is a difference in point of detail but that does not merit applying a different logic to justify the former. The point is, presuming somebody to be incapable of performing an art only because of his religion is discriminatory in the negative sense of the word. My saying so does not imply that I condone the other forms of religious discrimination that you have taken pains to enumerate here. They all add to the problems, to the number of lives lost needlessly in religious riots or even wars, as applicable. A presumption that somebody is superior or inferior to the other for a specific or general purpose on the ground of his religious identity is problematic, especially so in a society that strives to be egalitarian and even otherwise. All you have been able to argue so far is it may be ‘NATURAL TENDENCY’ for a practitioner of an art he takes to be religious to indulge in discrimination. Which is essentially the same thing as saying it is natural for a white to believe a person darker skinned than him is not worthy of his company. All natural tendencies however are not desirable or even justifiable.
That is the crux of my position and you may choose to agree or disagree with it. But if you want to respond with something insulting again to it, then kindly keep it to yourself. I am not interested in your personal opinion of how superior your intellect is to mine. If I stereotyped some communities, that was only to show their derogatory implications. It is very amusing that stereotyping Brahmins or Gujaratis or Marwaris (which by the way is what I meant by maadus) gets you so riled, in the same breath that you justify stereotyping all non Hindus as being unsuitable for performing Carnatic music. I don’t mind that such stereotypes may get the respective communities up in arms. So be it, maybe that will spur some of them to strive to change the image of said communities, starting with themselves rather than seeking to justify a discriminatory norm, which only serves to solidify the stereotype even more.
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
December 29, 2013
Rahini: “I asked a question about hindu converts writing christian carnatic songs. Has it been answered already? I couldn’t find it”
I believe it is answered right above this recent comment of yours. If that is not it, I will.
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
December 29, 2013
First this..
“Mister Polli whatever”
And then this ..
“I have not personally insulted you in any of my statements”
Thanks for the small mercies. Now you know why I think you are deluded.
“In summation, there is no difference in PRINCIPLE between a teacher putting up a religious gatepass to the learning of an art that may arguably be religious in nature, and denying jobs to a person based on his religion or race.”
In PRINCIPLE, there is no difference between a Donkey and a Horse.
“There is a difference in point of detail but that does not merit applying a different logic to justify the former”
There is a difference in point of detail between a Donkey and a Horse, but that does not merit discriminating between the two?!
“The point is, presuming somebody to be incapable of performing an art only because of his religion is discriminatory in the negative sense of the word.”
If you keep repeating Carnatic music as is known is all art and no religion, there is nothing much to argue. My argument rests on the premise that it is a mix of Hindu religion and art and if you have not grasped this by now why argue further. Your time might be better spent coining pejoratives. At last count, there were 28 Indian states 🙂
“A presumption that somebody is superior or inferior to the other for a specific or general purpose on the ground of his religious identity is problematic”
Yes, create a strawman and then knock it.
“All you have been able to argue so far is it may be ‘NATURAL TENDENCY’ for a practitioner of an art he takes to be religious to indulge in discrimination”
All *you* have done so far (instead of sticking to the point) is mischaracterize the position of others, wrap yourself in a big Kumbaya blanket and then rail against phantom thoughts.
“But if you want to respond with something insulting again to it, then kindly keep it to yourself. I am not interested in your personal opinion of how superior your intellect is to mine.”
Why are you using intellect as a “gatepass” and shutting me out? 🙂 Would that be because of some “NATURAL TENDENCY” to discriminate against those with different levels of intellect? Are you sure such tendencies won’t lead to riots and wars?
Listen Mr. Kumbaya, on a serious note, let me summarize a few things for you, since your thoughts seem all muddled up:
Discrimination in the *public space* whether it is religion-based or race-based is against the law. By public space, I mean there is “state” involvement or there is involvement of tax-payer money. Say, if the purist were a music teacher in a hypothetical Tamizh Sangeetha Kalloori run by the state government and is approached there, my argument would hold no water. Obviously that is not what we are talking about (my example was of knocking on the doors of a purist paatu vaadhiyaar’s / paattu teacher’s house).
In the *private space*, freedoms such as speech, expression, religion etc. allow for formation of religious associations or parties or clubs. In the U.S context, which you revert to frequently, this freedom to associate for the sake of religious expression etc. is referred to as Freedom of Expressive Association (a Fundamental Right) and allows for both association and *exclusion*. There can be a Ladies Club that excludes men and there can be a Men’s club that excludes ladies, there can be a Ilayaraja fans club that excludes all A R Rahman fans, there can be a Catholic club (or school) that excludes Protestants and vice versa. Of course, this is all in the private space. This is generally the case in India as well. In the U.S, there is one special limit to the exclusion test. Even in the private space, except in the case of marriage or affirmative action, you *cannot* (since the civil rights era and a notable court ruling) use race as a criteria for exclusion and that is because of past history.
As for religious exclusions, the basis is generally your *different* beliefs versus my *different* beliefs, not *personal* superiority. Even if you want to inject superiority / inferiority into religion, it would be about the beliefs and not about the people who hold these. That however is the basis for race based exclusions (or caste based exclusions) which is illegal, not to mention dehumanizing and deplorable. Get it now?
Back to our argument, I say Carnatic music (as this local Paattu teacher knows) is Hindu religious art and you insist Carnatic music is merely of the “Omaha Zeeya Vaahiyaaha” persuasion. So, end of discussion. Oh btw, if you still want to confuse a donkey for a horse based on principle, that is also a fundamental right 🙂
LikeLike
Madan
December 30, 2013
The problem with your position is there is indeed nothing that expressly states Carnatic music to be Hindu religious music ONLY and from the above interview it would appear that T M Krishna is also arguing for Carnatic as abstract music. So how do you reconcile your position with his accomplishments and stature as a Carnatic musician?
Whether a person is a Christian or as a Muslim is pretty much a black and white issue but whether Carnatic music is only a Hindu religious music or not is not black and white at all. You have already conceded as much. Hence a teacher cannot impose his own beliefs of what Carnatic music is on his students. Your private club example doesn’t apply here. It probably would if it was so clear cut that Carnatic music was nothing more than a music meant as an offering for Hindu Gods. You have only said it may be held to be divine but who is to say prayers offered to Allah or Jesus are not divine either.
“I say Carnatic music (as this local Paattu teacher knows) is Hindu religious art and you insist Carnatic music is merely of the “Omaha Zeeya Vaahiyaaha” persuasion.”
– No, that is your misinterpretation of my position and you repeatedly build your arguments on this misinterpretation and further choose to be extremely disrespectful to me. I have said the other persuasion should also be recognised. And it cannot be recognised unless a teacher welcomes a student who wishes to learn the art in spite of not being religious. If the student is an atheist and still wishes to learn music that is considered divine, it is a tribute to the power of Carnatic music and it is pretty narrow minded to believe that said student would be incapable of embracing the art because he is not a religious Hindu (somebody could be born Hindu and not be particularly religious without renouncing it too). I am not against the teacher believing Carnatic music to be Hindu religious music if he so wishes and let him preach the same to his students and introduce them to Hindu religious concepts in order to enhance their appreciation of the art. That is a much healthier way to hold on to the said position than to restrict access based on religious identity.
“Even if you want to inject superiority / inferiority into religion, it would be about the beliefs and not about the people who hold these.”
– Which is exactly what is happening here. There is a presumption in your line of thinking that a person who is not a religious Hindu cannot embrace music that is intended to be divine. That IS discrimination against his beliefs. Even if I accept, for the sake of argument, the premise that Carnatic music is only divine, why should not the Christian John Higgins get Carnatic lessons if either (a) there is only one God or (b) God is everywhere. It implies that Lord Vishnu or Shiva is somehow superior to Jesus. As I said earlier, perhaps you are not part of the community that could potentially be subjected to such discrimination and hence you are unable to empathise with how it could be discriminatory. Which brings me to my last point.
If you are indeed a local paatu teacher and indulge in self same discrimination, please give me the benefit of disclosure instead of railing at me as if I personally abused you. I did not and nor did I abuse the teachers in general either but I did express my viewpoints on their practices vehemently and that I will.
LikeLike
Rahini David
December 30, 2013
PoliB: It was probably because of moderation delay. Thanks.
Also I feel that a particular Brahmin Teacher may avoid teaching christians because of past annoyances from other Christian students who insisted that they will have to keep it secular or whatever. Christians are notorious in this respect. Even Yoga classes have christian students objecting to “Om”. But it would be really better if the teacher just explains that Carnatic Music/ Baratanatyam / Yoga have inherently hindu elements in them and that they can join the class if the student is ok with it.
LikeLike
Arjun
December 30, 2013
Poli B: Let me ask you this:
Does all that you have argued about apply equally to instrumental music? Let’s say a Christian African American jazz guitarist approaches Prasanna to learn the nuances of playing Carnatic on the guitar. This person is not in the least interested in the lyrics of “Endharo mahanubhavulu” or “Mokshamu”, but has heard these compositions on the guitar and is enchanted by the melody and would like to learn Raga exposition and improvisation on the guitar to add a new dimension to his playing. Would it be right to reject this person on the basis of religion? If so, what would be the precise justification? Assume that this person is already proficient in playing blues/jazz style guitar.
Note: I have no idea about Prasanna’s religious or artistic convictions. Feel free to substitute Prasanna and guitar for any other artist (perhaps, one who is verifiably from the divinity intrinsic to Carnatic school) and instrument.
LikeLike
Madan
December 30, 2013
Arjun: Excellent example. To build further on this point, is it not possible that given his musical aptitude and sincerity, said Afro American guitarist may actually be a better student than say a poor and disinterested Hindu student who is only there at the behest of pushy parents and has no inclination to learn Carnatic music.
Rahini David: I am certainly in agreement with that point, specifically the last line. If the student wants the lessons at his own terms, the teacher is free to refuse. Let the teacher make clear that his approach is based on Hinduism at the outset. But it is important to thereafter give the chance to the student to adapt and accept the learnings. I can understand the practical reasons for such ‘tendencies’ if they arise, but they remain discriminatory tendencies.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
December 31, 2013
Poli B: No amount of verbal acrobatics will make your bigotry sound decent atleast in this time…the very notion that non-hindu religious/non religious students are incapable of learning Karnatic sounds so discriminatory ( as far as i know many became atheists after reading the scriptures sincerely be it quran,bible or gita, all of it is nothing short of being terror manuals) …Max Mueller was the first person to make the veda in written form which was an oral tradition till that time…none of the hindu (so called ) saints thought so before him…does it make his contribution less valuable?
Even in Rahini’s example, i do not think there is any problem in students trying to make it secular (not the indian variety but as per text book definition) it should be seen as an useful input to change the course of tradition, which up till now has been deprived of outside influences…it is like having a full meals which is tasteful because it has so many varieties of dishes served…i just wonder how meals had only thayir sadam !
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
December 31, 2013
Arjun:
Even in instrumental carnatic, isn’t the way lessons are generally taught, by exposing a student to the notes and the sahityam in tandem? But, I see the underlying point of draining a song of its “semantics” to resolve a potential conflict that someone might have from that angle. For a conflicted soul, maybe teaching with plain notes is a compromise solution that honors a potential student’s commitment, but that would still come down to an individual teacher’s comfort level. I keep coming back to this because a music teacher is not like a vending machine which you feed coins and press a button and in turn you get a lesson-for-the-day. Given the long term emotional investment required, even from the standpoint of a student, if what you want goes beyond rote attitude, would you rather have someone who unreservedly accepts you or someone who is dithering because they have to work through issues and may end up having only half a heart in the enterprise.
LikeLike
Arjun
January 1, 2014
Poli B,
I get your point. I am no expert and in full disclosure have never taken formal classes in Carnatic music, so I wouldn’t know how it is generally taught. However, I do know a bit about western instrumental music and its instruction. There are several nuances (similar to Carnatic) and one who is already proficient in jazz (as in the hypothetical situation I described) would IMO be able to grasp the technical and emotional details of playing without necessarily going into the details of the Sahityam. Ok,granted he *might* not be able to play with the same Bhava as someone who is a guitar virtuoso and a devout Rama Bhakta, but he would still be a much better student than the disinterested Brahmin student of Madan’s example. Essentially what I saying is that I believe it should be possible to teach a *good* student how to play a composition with the correct “feel” even if he is not interested in the religious aspect of the music.
I fully agree that a Carnatic music teacher is under no obligation to teach a Christian o Muslim student who has utter disdain and contempt for Hinduism and its deities. But, like Rahini, I believe there is a compromise possible between the extreme case of rejecting someone just because his name sounds non-Hindu and the other extreme of agreeing to teach anyone and everyone in spite of their religious beliefs and possibly ulterior motives.
LikeLike
Arjun
January 1, 2014
Sanjay Kumar,
“Even in Rahini’s example, i do not think there is any problem in students trying to make it secular (not the indian variety but as per text book definition) it should be seen as an useful input to change the course of tradition, which up till now has been deprived of outside influences” </em
This, I agree with.
As for this,
“as far as i know many became atheists after reading the scriptures sincerely be it quran,bible or gita, all of it is nothing short of being terror manuals”
Generalize much?
LikeLike
Rahini David
January 1, 2014
Sanjay: I didnot mean secularising in that manner. If the teacher has a particular syllabus(for want of a better word) in mind, the student should not breathe down the teachers neck to change it. For Example: “I will learn Sa-Re-Ga-Ma and then some Barathiyar Patriotic Songs, I will never learn Krishna Songs as it is against my religion” is not something the teacher needs to put up with. Let the student learn the Krishna songs until he gets proficient and then write his own lyrics. That way the student learns something and Carnatic music gets new flavours.
LikeLike
Ceaser
January 1, 2014
Anuj vs rest of the world on dhoom3
PoliB vs rest of the world here.
Either all the battles are becoming one sided or trolls has increased on this blog.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
January 2, 2014
Rahini: I agree to that…it is like a muslim or a hindu refusing to learn carols
Arjun; Many of my friends in freethinking circles had their brush with non belief after trying to connect the historical facts with the scriptures be it a hindu ( going to kanchipuram was the epiphany for one, for another it was reading the OT and many ex muslims would vouch that their scriptures are violent in intent)…maybe not a good sample but at the same time did not make it is a fact statement but as an opinion…
LikeLike
sara
January 2, 2014
@Ceaser: you’re making a false equivalence. PoliB’s opinion is (i) not politically correct and (ii) he/she’s giving cogent, logical, well thought out replies, so others don’t need to pitch in. Anuj on the other thread is comparing amir khan with hrithik roshan which is such an uninteresting and objective argument that nobody wants to join.
Now I’m not sure if your false equivalence is disengunous or just lazy thinking 🙂
LikeLike
KayKay
January 2, 2014
Ceaser,
Big difference between the 2. While I disagree with Poli B’s views, he is anything but a troll. He puts forth his arguments in a clear, rational manner, in a forum where such discussions are pertinent. I may not see eye to eye with him, but I respect the hell outta his opinions.
Anuj, on the other hand is a troll of the highest order, bringing his half-cocked facts and mawkish love for HR to smear this blog willy nilly, whether a post is relevant to such discussions or not. He’s the noisy brat at parties you just want to smack upside the head to get him to shut up 🙂
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
January 2, 2014
Arjun:
I’ve dabbled a bit on the instrumental side, but I profess no expertise in this matter either. And, I proffer my views like anyone here who simply enjoys this music. I also sympathize with a certain stripe of purist.
Also, I’ve already granted that rejecting someone based on a name is a simplistic act of a purist teacher (and a lazy one to boot). It lends itself to erroneous calls as you said. The difference is, given the context, I don’t reflexively brand (not that you do) such a person a racist or religious bigot. But, yes, a discerning purist teacher who makes the effort to understand background and motivations of a potential student before making such a call is less prone to erroneous calls. Going down this path allows the teacher to assess degree of commitment and allegiance to the symbols of faith involved in the music. And even when a person is from a different faith, the teacher may gauge if the student holds syncretic views on religion or is at least not given to disparagement of religious symbols enmeshed with this music. I *do* concur that an uncommitted student from within the faith is far worse than a committed student from outside the faith especially one with an abiding respect for all faiths.
If you are not a purist teacher, all this is moot, because you most likely have an all-comers policy devoid of litmus tests.
LikeLike
hari
January 2, 2014
Sanjay B, not sure which Utopian world you are living in. Keep your gross generalizations to a check. Not sure if Poli B checked your bigotry comment, but I found it offensive.
If I have to generalize i can plug you into the category “who is ashamed of his community, who feels he has to apologize for any mistake that one of his community member does, who is an ignoramus and what not”.
As a maths tution teacher I can pick and choose the students I want to teach based on various criteria I keep, in similar veins a carnatic teacher can do the same.
Don’t force your ideals on the teacher.
LikeLike
Ceaser
January 3, 2014
Well, one sided warrior was for PoliB and troll was for Anuj 🙂 . oh it wasn’t disingenuous /lazy thinking, you could call that suiting my twisted agenda 🙂 Sara ,hw dare u say that anuj snt giving cogent, logical, well thought out replies 🙂 . Have you seen the kind of figures and percentages he keeps throwing out there, it seems the dude’s got some spreadsheet or tally installed in his brain :-). Kay kay , you truly love him don’t you 🙂 , Pls invite him to one of our parties and take nsrry action 🙂
ps: gotta say one thing,Its bcom impossible for me to intervene at either places, the talk here is veering into dangerous communal territory while there its hopeless and boring .
LikeLike
Arjun
January 3, 2014
PoliB,
“Also, I’ve already granted that rejecting someone based on a name is a simplistic act of a purist teacher (and a lazy one to boot). It lends itself to erroneous calls as you said. The difference is, given the context, I don’t reflexively brand (not that you do) such a person a racist or religious bigot.”
If, as I understand it, this is the central them of your argument, I somewhat agree with you – racist and bigoted, NO. But *I* would label such a teacher a tad bit prejudiced and insecure (in addition to lazy).
“But, yes, a discerning purist teacher who makes the effort to understand background and motivations of a potential student before making such a call is less prone to erroneous calls. Going down this path allows the teacher to assess degree of commitment and allegiance to the symbols of faith involved in the music. And even when a person is from a different faith, the teacher may gauge if the student holds syncretic views on religion or is at least not given to disparagement of religious symbols enmeshed with this music. I *do* concur that an uncommitted student from within the faith is far worse than a committed student from outside the faith especially one with an abiding respect for all faiths.”
I completely agree with this. If all purists followed this approach, it can only be good for the art.
LikeLike
Arjun
January 3, 2014
Sanjay Kumar,
My generalization comment was specifically addressed to your “Nothing short of terror manuals” statement. That is a sweeping, careless statement to make,
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
January 3, 2014
Once i make an opinion on a public forum such as this, it is bound to be crticised and dissected threadbare…
i never asked for respect, least of all…but the opinions which are bordering or downright bigoted/racist is not an opinion at all and cannot be granted the same respect as other dissimilar topics not bordering on racist/bigoted views…
it violates the harm principle criteria set forth by Mills on what constitutes civilised behaviour or public talk…
nowhere have i seen the nuanced view from Poli B about imposition of certain (hypothetical students) ideas by the students,who do not want to learn the rich hindu mythology entwined in Karnatic music but want to impose their views like what Rahini said…
if i understood clearly what he said all along, he has been trying to drum the same beat that karnatic music will lose identity/character/charm whatever if it is removed from the hindu mythology surrounding it…which is a disservice to that art…if a vocalist wants to sing the love between gays in his music drawing from hindu mythology itself will it be considered at par with Thiagarajar’s hymns with the lord? does karnatic music offer such cosmopolitan views without feeling threatened by such hitherto unspoken ideas?
to maintain silence one has to shout silence…so calling out someone who is insensitive to his discrimination is not uncivilised or bigoted but some sort of resistance against such views
if the religion/caste or nationality in which i was born does not respect humanity and equality then it certainly does not deserve my sympathies and i am proud by rejecting such ideas which i have inherited by the mere accident of birth…
LikeLike
Arjun
January 3, 2014
“if i understood clearly what he said all along, he has been trying to drum the same beat that karnatic music will lose identity/character/charm whatever if it is removed from the hindu mythology surrounding it…which is a disservice to that art…if a vocalist wants to sing the love between gays in his music drawing from hindu mythology itself will it be considered at par with Thiagarajar’s hymns with the lord? does karnatic music offer such cosmopolitan views without feeling threatened by such hitherto unspoken ideas?”
I think you have completely missed the point of this whole discussion. Hint 1: PoliB has hinted often enough that he is arguing from the POV of a certain stripe of purist.. Hint 2: See his reply to Rahini on the question of secular, Christian hymns.
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
January 4, 2014
Arjun: “If, as I understand it, this is the central them of your argument, I somewhat agree with you – racist and bigoted, NO. But *I* would label such a teacher a tad bit prejudiced and insecure (in addition to lazy).”
Not quite. The central theme would be the statement below.
IMO, Carnatic music (as understood) straddles 2 realms – art and religion – and so for a student who wants to learn this music, their religious beliefs may be an exclusionary litmus test (if a purist chooses to make it).
Then, a couple of crazies, not knowing the difference between *may* and *should* (or *religion* and *race*) hurled that epithet at this hypothetical purist and also me. Quite obviously, for this academic exercise, I was leaving out the person who might use religion as a ruse for something sinister. Hence, I pointed this distinction to you, but that in itself is not the thrust of my argument. Also, in retrospect, my example could have fleshed out the what-ifs and the exception cases brought up later.
LikeLike
Madan
January 4, 2014
IMO, Carnatic music (as understood) straddles 2 realms – art and religion – and so for a student who wants to learn this music, their religious beliefs may be an exclusionary litmus test (if a purist chooses to make it).
– That is not necessarily something that I disagree with and I have said that the teacher has no obligation to teach the art only in a manner that would be less Hindu-oriented for a non Hindu student. If the student can’t bridge the gap, it’s his loss. But this is very different, at least reads differently to me, from the statement of yours that caused the argument:
.” Given its origins, if someone with a name John Higgins knocks on the door of a Carnatic musician for lessons and is rejected because the name ipso facto sounds non-Hindu, what is abhorrent about it?”
In the above statement, the teacher would have rejected the student on the assumption that his name indicates that he is a Christian and therefore he would not be able to appreciate an art linked inextricably to religion (in the eyes of hypothetical purist, not necessarily the only way to look at Carnatic music). Such an approach is based on an invalid conclusion because the fact that the student may be Christian does not necessarily mean he would be too close minded to appreciate a Hindu art. That is why I consider it discrimination. To assume intellectual incapability (albeit for the specific task and not in a general sense) of the other person to imbibe the learnings because of his likely religious faith appears prima facie to discriminate against said person on the grounds of religion. Because what other reason is suggested for rejection? Without even a conversation with the student, how is it possible to ascertain that he is not fit to learn Carnatic music?
You have traced the roots of the discrimination to puritanical tendencies but it is still discrimination. You may not agree, you may not like such a description of the act but that can’t be helped. If you feel entitled to call me crazy just because I hold a different position from yours in the argument, then I am just as entitled to call said act discrimination if that is what it appears to be prima facie to me. If you try to nuance the situation, then that’s a different discussion altogether. But you started with “ipso facto” and the facts by themselves only suggest religious discrimination to me and nothing more. That Carnatic music is a Hindu art does not necessarily imply that a non Hindu is incapable of performing it to the standards demanded by the purists. To jump to such a conclusion based only on the name of the person is discrimination whereas to meet him, judge him over conversations and decide it will not work out may not be discrimination. I am absolutely ok with a teacher feeling that he is not comfortable coaching A specific Christian or Muslim student because that may have to do also with the individual he is and not necessarily his religion. But that is entirely different from believing that people with Christian or Muslim names are incapable of learning Carnatic music, by just the fact of their names.
LikeLike
Ravi K
January 5, 2014
Who is the teacher to judge whether or not a student would be proficient at learning Carnatic music before even hearing him sing or play? While it’s true that Carnatic music is religious, ultimately the ragas and talas on which they are based have no religion and can be learned (and have been learned) by non-Hindus. The fact that a student wants to learn in and of itself means he should be given a chance.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
January 5, 2014
Arjun: i do not want to derail this discussion with religion and philosophy…but let me clarify this…if to some people religion is all holy/divine when trying to conveniently overlook the violent expressions (Geeta through Lord Labukkudas tries to convince and justify violence against Arjuna’s brothers, when the apprehensions of Arjun comes through at the end when what he achieved was nothing short of pyhirric victory through that war…reading OT gives the impression that the authors of that text can be anything but humane such is the homophobia, misogyny racism all rolled through one in that text)…i would like to state that much of the wars in history has been for resources and religion was a convenient tool at the hands of the rulers…if you still want to argue please feel free to do so through my mailID (as i have deactivated FB account): aquasanju@gmail.com but not here…please!
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
January 5, 2014
Coming back to the topic, i think Madan has made the point abundantly clear that the premise itself is based on prejudiced based discrimination…the notion that people from non hindu affiliation are incapable of learning the nuances because of their religious birth is definitely bigoted and no amount of hair splitting will make it sound lighter and respectable
LikeLike
PoliBhagavathar
January 6, 2014
BlahBlahBlah:
It is a bit presumptuous of you to think *you* were the crazy one referenced 🙂 But, I don’t blame you. Listen, I don’t have to give another point-by-point rebuttal (it was painful last time) to your prolix arguments and vacuous verbosity all over again. If you still need the attention, instead of attempting to argue with me, be your own sparring partner.
LikeLike
rothrocks
January 6, 2014
There were two people in this discussion – myself and Sanjay – who vehemently argued with you, so it was abundantly clear for whom your “couple of crazies” was intended. If you do not want to have a discussion with me, then stop making direct or indirect references to me in your replies to others. Oh, do go learn some discussion etiquette before you preach to me about my verbosity.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
January 6, 2014
Perhaps you can attack my ideas with all the adjectives than to attack me personally with those adjectives…i mean ad Hominem is the first sign of desperation in a debate. peace
LikeLike
Jai
January 6, 2014
@ Sanjay–While I do agree with some of your points regarding discrimination on account of religion, I have to say your approach seems to be even more ‘bigoted’ than the arguments you were countering.
Sample this from your comments above: “”Geeta through Lord Labukkudas tries to convince and justify violence against Arjuna’s brothers”” and “”as far as i know many became atheists after reading the scriptures sincerely be it quran,bible or gita, all of it is nothing short of being terror manuals”””
You may want to consider, that sweeping generalizations and prejudices are as bad on the ‘liberal’ side as they are on the ‘conservative’ side.
Unfortunately, I have not read the Bible or Quran in their entirety (have you done so?) but from what I know of them, it seems to me highly unfair, repugnant even, to term them ‘terror manuals’. Any religious/ spiritual text, could be twisted and corrupted by a band of ‘believers’ into something entirely different from what was written. Is this the fault of the epic? If you indeed believe so, then why restrict this only to religion? Scientific discoveries can and have been misused too, you know. Please put Einstein in the dock for ‘causing’ the atomic bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki….And while you are at it, please condemn pre historic humans for discovering fire and thereby ‘causing’ all the fire related accidents and deaths today!
Coming back to the epics– the Mahabaratha and the Gita, I have read, several times. It seems odd to me, that an epic which raises such valid points about the ultimate futility of war, violence, anger and hatred (it is no accident that the epic shows the Pandavas as losing all their children, despite winning the war), should be deemed by you as promoting violent ideals. You may want to re read the epic all over again. Please also ponder over why the epic shows the Pandavas winning the war but going to hell, while the Kauravas go to heaven.
I do not dispute your right to have your views. But your opinion is just that–one of many interpretations of a great epic. Please show some restraint, rather than making sweeping motherhood statements.
Cheers.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
January 6, 2014
Jai: there is something called fact proposition and value proposition…science is a fact proposition meaning if tomorrow we go the dinosaurs way, probably we can expect the same laws of physics to be discovered by post human race assuming they evolve to our intelligence in 4.5 billion years…on the other hand religion like beauty is value proposition which may cease to exist if the observer vanishes…
now coming to violent nature of gita..i am not alone you can read the same commentary made by Amartya Sen in The Aargumentative Indian or this wonderful article by Namit Arora who has dissected the utter violent intent of Gita…
“Among them was the historian DD Kosambi (1907-66), who wasn’t too impressed by the Gita. In Myth and Reality (1962), he observed that a ‘slippery opportunism characterizes the whole book’. BR Ambedkar (1891-1956) saw it as Brahmanism’s response to the rising fortunes of Buddhism. In his essay, Krishna and His Gita, Ambedkar wrote, ‘The philosophic defense offered by the Bhagavad Gita of the Kshatriya’s duty to kill is, to say the least, peurile.’ The journalist and secular humanist VR Narla (1908-85) called its moral perspective ‘retrograde’. In The Truth About the Gita, Narla argued that the book condones violence and wholesale slaughter; Krishna was Machiavellian, who employed trickery, deceit, falsehood, intimidation, and blackmail to get Arjuna to overcome his moral qualms.” further he states
“…My engagement with the Gita has persuaded me that it is an overrated text with a deplorable morality at its core, which should be confronted—not explained away or swept under the holy mat (admittedly, this is not as bad as sincerely trying to follow the morality of the Gita). Notably, its reflexive admirers even abound among the modern, educated Hindu upper crust, including those who live in the West.”
http://www.shunya.net/Text/Blog/BhagavadGita.htm
if you are interested to know the alternative narratives of Gita there are series of articles which deconstruct gita for what it is: a war manual which justifies killing your own brothers and grandparents/grandnephews but still feel morally upright by invoking the caste based profession as ones calling aka karma
http://nirmukta.com/the-truth-about-the-bhagavad-gita-by-dr-prabhakar-kamath/
Among the philosophy which truly abhors violence in its intent was Buddhism but the moment it got converted into religion the philosophy got corrupted (see what is happening in Burma/SL)
Also do not make ignorant comments about science being some ideology, it is value neutral unlike religion which puts forth certain value proposition from facts leading to naturalistic fallacies (much of the religious peoples hatred to women’s empowerment or homophobia is the result of this religious misconception)
Also India was also a land of material philosophers like carvakas or Ajita Keshakambili or shuklacharyas or Nalanda who rejected the fifth element of vedantis (ether and accepted only 4 elements)…also this schools ideas came close to modern scientific empiricism that it is a pity India could not have a renaissance and thus lost the race in advancement
LikeLike
Jai
January 8, 2014
@ Sanjay Kumar
Dude, as I have already mentioned in my previous post, you are perfectly entitled to your views. I do feel, that your opinion has been formed by a superficial & prejudiced reading of the Gita/ Mahabharata, but then frankly, it is your choice and not mine. Thanks for the links you quoted, I will read through them with great interest. I am sure I would disagree with them, but I have no issues going through others’ point of view.
My beef with your earlier comments was simple–there is a difference in the way you have critiqued the Gita in your comment above, and in the flippant/ dismissive/ contemptuous way you used terms like ‘terror manuals’ and ‘Lord Labakkudas’ in your comments previously. There is a way to conduct an informed debate, those terms were unnecessary and uncalled for, IMHO.
And since you have been good enough to share some links with me, its only fair that I reciprocate so that you could also go through the ‘opposite’ point of view?
http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/jai-ho.html
http://devdutt.com/articles/mahabharata/the-snake-sacrifice.html
The bottom line as I see it is, the relevance of the Mahabharata (or any other religious/ spiritual text) to us today, is what we *choose* to make
of it. The interpretations say something not just about the work itself, but also the
person interpreting it, wouldn’t you say? After all, all of us approach a work of art–be it
a novel, a movie, a play or a painting, with our own in built beliefs/ biases and what have you.
You may want to consider, why *you* feel the Gita/ Mahabharata is violent in intent.
You seem to have glossed over the entire post war part of the epic, which specifically
deals with themes of reconciliation, forgiveness, peace and tolerance. Should there not be attention to the transformation and epiphany the characters go through after the war?
You also said above ” Also do not make ignorant comments about science being some ideology, it is value neutral…..””
But I never said that science is an ideology? I agree with you completely that science is value neutral–which is exactly my point. There could be (and have been) numerous scientific discoveries that can lead to much good, and huge harm, too, depending on how they are *used*. My contention is simply this–religion (which I agree, is not value neutral in the same sense science is), is *also* capable of being used for much good. You choose to look at only the misuse of one, and extol the value neutral-ness of another….why is that?
Why should there be an either–or between science and religion? I am perfectly willing to respect both!
But like you said, to each, his/ her own. All I have to say is, your dogma that all religious scriptures are nothing but a bunch of ‘terror manuals’, is as extreme, as someone who chooses to stick to the most bigoted, unthinking, discriminatory version of those epics. IMHO, both approaches are two sides of the same coin.
Cheers…
LikeLike
Rahini David
January 8, 2014
I now know exactly how Pandora felt after she opened the damned box 😀
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
January 8, 2014
Jai: My friend i am glad that your comments were more civilised and welcome than from some of the other members…now coming to the basic premise of your whole argument that morality is relative is bunkum, in the sense that morality can be *reasoned* and we can *definitely* draw a line between what is good and bad…the notion that somehow truth is on the golden middle path to put it mildly is naive…
the reason i said why you took a false equivalence of science and religion are being misused is this statement of yours “can we blame Einstein for atomic bomb”…there lies the major difference Einstein is not revered like the way Lord K is…his theories were accepted after lot of peer review and empirical evidence (perhaps Karl Popper’s rules on what qualifies a valid scientific thought/theory would make you appreciate this distinction further)…he is routinely criticised by the present crop of scientists including stephen hawking for assuming incorrectly earlier that universe is not expanding but static…i mean the kind of criticism he received among intellectual circles is far more acerbic that what we may find comfortable…
but the mere mention of Labbakkudas makes you feel my comment is flippant is surprising when the person whom i am mocking is still unproven in history…it is like taking offence by the mockery of batman or harry potter
if at all you are looking at pacifistic morals why not take inspiration from Asoka’s existential crisis when he felt terrible at the loss of lives and even dissociated with his ksathriya denomination and embraced bhuddhism…my point is the whole mahabharata or even rama vanquishing ravana sounds hollow when we are talking about benevolent god’s avatars…i mean if we have gods who take violence as a means for justice,instead of reasoning and reforming the evil, i am happy without them…and this loss of lives in mahabharata due to wars was clearly anticipated by arjuna before the war which was negated by sohpistry of krishna who felt it is against his kshatriya caste to think like that!
regarding the moral relatvism (to each one his own is ok if we are talking about preference of coffee over tea, but not on morality) that you seem to take i have one more article which elaborately discusses why it is not so and using reason and science to inform things (much like how the defense of pro life is much more harmful than allowing for abortion, or the crticism of gays is not based on any sound facts) one can say without much margin of error that religion was a useful tool to control the masses particularly the ignorant ones and the good it has done is overwhelmed by the evils it has produced or inspired (that way i think the terrorists are the true followers of their religion as they have fully understood the meaning of their sacred texts, unlike moderates who are confused)…
http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Morality-Neither-objective-nor-arbitrary-but-intersubjective
PS; anyways i have read your links and seems to lack intellectual honesty
LikeLike
Jai
January 8, 2014
Sanjay Kumar
Just a brief note of thanks for the links. I have read through Namit Arora’s article with great interest. While I vehemently disagree with his conclusions, I completely agree he has written a very well analyzed piece. I admired his honesty, please note he says “”I’m aware that my reading of the Gita—like every other reading of it—is subjective and selective; I know that there are other ways of reading it.””
That’s what I have been saying all along–all our opinions are interpretations at the end of the day. Making sweeping generalizations on either side, is unnecessary and unwarranted.
I am still reading Dr Prabhakar Kamath’s articles…but here I think, from what I’ve read so far, we will have to agree to disagree about the quality of his analysis. As far as I could see, his piece seems to fit more with your sentence “”puts forth certain value proposition from facts leading to naturalistic fallacies””. Its not only religious tradition which can be warped to suit a particular agenda, you know…
Cheers..
LikeLike
Jai
January 10, 2014
@ Sanjay:
When you say “”now coming to the basic premise of your whole argument that morality is relative is bunkum, in the sense that morality can be *reasoned* and we can *definitely* draw a line between what is good and bad””–
Really? Do you *truly* think that what is moral is an eternal, unchangeable truth? Come on, dude. Why is it, then, that standards of moral and immoral have undergone so many changes through time? Why is it, that what is moral in one culture, is frowned upon in another?
I differ with your analysis. Yes, there are certain fundamental concepts of equality, justice etc which are (imho) absolute, or at least, ought to be. Even here, standards have changed over time, and a good thing for that change, too.
A lot else is a flexible, impermanent truth at best.
Not so long ago for example, it would have been terribly immoral to criticize your monarch…punishable by death in most cultures isn’t it? Also, Have you by chance read the enraged reactions to the first anti child marriage regulations introduced during British rule? As I recall, there was a furious outburst against the raising of minimum age for brides to 15!!
Can any sane person now argue in favor of lowering the marriageable age? Multiple marriages were not really proscribed earlier, were they? Now aren’t they illegal?
What of examples from history where people have been executed for adultery? King Henry VI, as I recall, put at least 2 wives to death for the crime–while all the while being merrily adulterous himself. No one thought this was a moral skulduggery then. Could a person ever escape censure for such an abomination now?
With all due respect, your reading of morality as a static monolith is disingenuous…
Cheers…
LikeLike
Jai
January 10, 2014
Please note the reference to Henry VI in my previous comment should have been Henry VIII…(Who had 6 wives and was serially unfaithful, but had the gall to have 2 wives executed for adultery)..
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar K
January 12, 2014
i am bit confused at so many levels about your retort (that is if it even qualifies for it)…being intellectually lazy to not even read the links to support my claim about morality was shocking…did you read the link on intersubjectiveness, before you ended up writing a strawman and felt good at it too while punching it! Gee this has to be something…
btw all your examples make it sound that morality then allowed sati as correct or casteism as practiced…it was ironical that these examples served indeed my point that religion is corrupt and has such a bad influence on our collective selves to make decisions on morality…morality is a such a nuanced view and to reduce it as a static ideology like religion is indeed dishonest because it sounded as if morality can be arbitrary when it is not and neither is it objective when both these stances created havoc to humanity remember holocaust? [for your reference i am attaching a video links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rv-4aUbZxQ if reading voluminous material is a strain to you]
when gay relationships was decriminalised in US, the judge then rightly said that criminalising it earlier was bad and time has not changed now o accept it, rather it is the right thing to do to uphold the civil rights of sexual minorities under 4th amendment like any person! None of the reforms in religion come from within, but from secular values being imbibed in public space post renaissance…
so coming back to the point of discussion that morality is each one his/her own cannot be more disingenuous in the light of above…this is from my good friend Arvind who summarised it well
//for a system of morals to be taken seriously, it need not be ‘objectively present in the Universe’ or absolute in any sense. In other words, that a system of morals is not ‘objective’ does not mean that it cannot be taken seriously. Therefore, acknowledging the lack of objective grounding does not amount to a concession that ‘anything goes’. In the excellent resource linked to in this post [1], the relevance of both Utilitarian (where some aspects of well-being can be ‘objectively’ evaluated) and Deontological (where principles derived by collective consensus are axiomatized for purposes of moral reasoning) modes of moral reasoning is made clear.
In sum, the fact that a system of morality is provisional in a technical sense, does not mean that we adopt a casual attitude towards it or that we should not defend it with the vigour with which we would defend an empirical truth.//
and further he adds
//The ‘utilitarian’ concern is collective well-being alone, whereas the ‘libertarian’ extension of this is a concern for collective well-being subject to the constraint that individual rights are not violated.//
http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Morality-liberty-and-happiness
hope this time your defense of religion is based on sound reasoning…
LikeLike
Jai
January 12, 2014
@ Sanjay
Not agreeing with your view, does not mean one has not read the links you provided!
It odd you tar me as intellectually lazy, since I replied with my views on your previous set of links after reading them. Should I now claim you display ‘intellectual hubris’ since you expected me to immediately concede to your point of view? I propose we refrain from unnecessary personal allusions, what say?
As to your link on intersubjectiveness, I am frankly confused as to what you are referring, and what you are seeking to conclude. The article says as much :””Judgments are explicitly involved in virtue theory where we must judge whether an action conforms enough to a virtue, …..However these judgments are collective and require agreement and in this sense they are ‘intersubjective’ i.e. they involve the concord of subjective judgments of several persons but are NOT objective in that they are not independent of any person””
Now, to me, this sounds much more fine tuned, than your previous take: “””we can *definitely* draw a line between what is good and bad”””. Sanjay, lets be frank. Your earlier comments were an absolute ‘black or white’ in tone–of the ‘all religions are terror manuals’ variety. Now you seem to have softened it a bit, saying “morality is a such a nuanced view…””
I join you in heartily condemning the practice of sati, casteism, discrimination on account of gender, sexual orientation etc. Nowhere have I said that these practices were acceptable. I have remarked several comments back, that religion (like science) is capable of being misused.
What I AM doing, is calling you out on an absolute stand you took earlier, with sweeping generalizations. If you were to truly apply the intersubjective approach to morality, you would be able to work at a ‘concord of subjective judgements’ with people who embrace progressive ideals heartily, while at the same time maintaining their faith. What is wrong in that?
Allow me to make one more point. The very fact that your quoted links talk about a consensus of reasoned judgements, itself proves that morality is an evolving, contextual truth. Reasoning changes over time. Definitions of right and wrong change over time. Frames of reference change over time. As I remarked before, a good thing for that change too. This *does not* mean I am saying ‘anything goes’. It just means, that I am willing to allow for different interpretations and thoughts to a particular matter, than to be self complacent that my view is the *only* correct one.
With all due respect, your stand seems a lot more ‘absolute’ than say, Namit Arora or Arvind Iyer, whose articles you have cited.
Cheers…
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar K
January 12, 2014
coming back to Namit Arora’s article…the reference to his humility as his ignorance is a reflection of your confirmation bias…it is like saying that parthasarathy after giving his discourse of Gita will say that his understanding is limited about gita and it takes a lifetime to to understand the full import…does that mean i can attack him by saying he does not know about gita? will it that be remotely tenable argument and valid? i doubt so…moral relativism causes problem when we have situations like holocaust or Rwanda’s genocide or gujarat riots where trying to argue that each had its reason for the riot/genocide
LikeLike
Jai
January 12, 2014
@ Sanjay
Dude, did you read what I wrote about my views on Namit Arora’s article? From where did you get the feeling I described his humility as his ignorance? I was actually very appreciative of his honesty and his openness–and said so as much! While I disagreed with his conclusions, I admired his analysis and appreciated his frankness, that there *are* other ways of reading the Gita, apart from his way of reading it.
Now in what way, does this above appreciation qualify as referring to his ignorance?
You might find it worthwhile, to consider that many of the articles you have asked me to refer, explicitly talk of accommodating different views and judgments. It is this openness that IMHO, is lacking in your arguments.
Citing an absolutely indefensible atrocity like the holocaust or a genocide is hardly an ace up your sleeve, to prove that morality is absolute. This is like you saying ”Let’s debate on the fact that the sun rises in the east. I choose east, you defend that it rises in the west!!” Thanks, but no thanks.
My point is very simple: by your own definition, (or rather, that of Arvind Iyer’s article you quoted), an inter subjective approach to morality, calls for a consensus of subjective judgments on a particular act. This very definition, refers to collective judgments requiring agreement. Do you really not see, that this allows for morality as an evolving, contextual truth?
The intersubjective morality article also referred to Prof Amartya Sen’s take as follows: “”Democracy is defined by Prof. Amartya Sen as a process of ‘public reasoning’ on morality, ethical conduct and justice. There are competing designs of how public reasoning maybe undertaken in order to achieve what can be considered a fair and representative intersubjective consensus””
Can you not see, that if such a public reasoning to evolve consensus was undertaken in 1950, for example, the result would be quite different from 2014? People today think and reason quite differently from what they did, even say, 2–3 generations ago! Similarly, an intersubjective consensus on several matters arrived at in India, could be very different from that arrived at in USA or Saudi Arabia or Peru!
I find it odd, that you choose to defend your rather rigid and absolute views, by quoting articles allowing for a lot of understanding and consensus.
I come back again to the fact, that there are a lot of messages in religious/ spiritual texts calling for acceptance, understanding and tolerance…you just need to be aware of them. I suggest you read the tale of Arjuna and the Navagunjara, from the Odiya Mahabharata by Shri Sarala Das. The message clearly comes through, that just because something seems bizarre to one person, does not mean it is condemnable.
Cheers…
LikeLike
S
January 13, 2014
intersubjectiveness does not allow for morality to be relative and it does not take a middle path to arrive at a conclusion…i have nowhere said that morality is absolute all i said is this: sati or caste discrimination when practiced did not mean it was right at that time or there were reasons to accept that it was right (intersibjectiveness does not allow such ambiguity is all i am reiterating)…morality is neither objective/absolute nor is it relative, it can only be argued and arrived at a consensus based on the scientific knowledge at that point of time….and this does not allow for cosmopolitan ideas or views as being compatible with morality if it is then it would be travesty
LikeLike
Jai
January 13, 2014
@ Sanjay
If I may make a suggestion–please also read up on the tales of Yuvanashava, Bangashvana, Budh and Ila, contained in the Mahabharata and the puranas. You would be able to see, that there was acceptance and understanding of homosexuals, transsexuals and persons of indeterminate gender. The intolerance towards people of different sexual orientation, is really not something you could blame on religion per se. It is a more recent, deplorable phenomenon, where religion is just misused to confer a fig leaf of morality on such discrimination.
As I have already commented before, religion has wonderful messages of inclusiveness and tolerance–you just need to be keep your mind open to this.
Bottom line: I am *not* trying to proselytize to you. You are free to feel whatever you like about religion. I disagree thoroughly with your opinion, but then it is your right to hold the view you do. But with all due respect, it is incogruous that you take an extreme stand and then use accomodative reasoning of the intersubjective morality kind, to justify it. There is absolutely no ‘concord of subjective judgements’ involved in your branding religion as a ‘terror manual’.
Cheers…
LikeLike
Jai
January 13, 2014
@ Sanjay
I am afraid, with all due respect, your position on morality is now changing from what you yourself delineated earlier.
Sample this from your own earlier comment “”the notion that somehow truth is on the golden middle path to put it mildly is naive…””
But now you state “morality is neither objective/absolute nor is it relative,””
How can this be? By your own logic, there is no middle path. So if something is not relative, it has to be absolute–or vice versa!!
Before you jump in to say, “intersubjective means neither relative nor absolute/objective”– please pause and think this over carefully:: The very definition you gave of an intersubjective morality, is a consensus between reasoned, subjective judgements.
The very fact that something is being debated and a consensus is being arrived at, means that some kind of middle path (or at least, a forsaking of extreme viewpoints) is being envisaged. Unless you feel that all others should just agree with one viewpoint in this debate?? In that case, what is the meaning of the debate and where is the consensus??
I noted you also now say “” it can only be argued and arrived at a consensus based on the scientific knowledge at that point of time…””
Seems to me, you are now implicitly agreeing what I have been saying for quite some time–morality is an evolving, contextual truth, and therefore would change with time and would also differ between different cultures.
You have invoked the practice of sati again, please again note I have always maintained this was an abhorrent practice and never attempted to convey any ambiguity about this. Religious dogma, I have explicitly stated before, can and has been misused. But religion also contains many messages of tolerance, amity, understanding and acceptance. Therefore, IMHO, a stand that equates religion to a terror manual, is as extreme and prejudiced as any discriminatory/bigoted version of a scripture.
Cheers…
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar K
January 13, 2014
it is simple Jai…religion had imposed the morality based on the religious texts…intersubjectiveness is similar to peer review of scientific review….they do make a conclusion but do not conclude that each has his own…coming back to holocaust, can we ever take a middle path stating that hitler has his reasons to do so (although i know some persons taking this view oblivious of the history, btw accommodating such views is not part of intersubjectiveness)…or in the case of racism/bigotry what humanistic value will you adopt to jsutify that act…much of mahabharata went through so many revisions that one is not certain about its authenticity…take the instance shambuka being beheaded by rama since being a dalit doing penance was against order of nature as defined by vedas (a case of absolute morality derived from a text or verse) in uttara khand in Ramayana…some say this is not part of Ramayana at all! when buddhism was at its ascent and weaning away much of the populace from the vedantic ideas, many concessions were allowed post Sankara’s revivalism (including vegetarianism which is unknown in vedas since there are recipes in Veda for begetting male child and none of the feasts was complete without veal/tallow being served)…including Gita which was an inversion of Ashoka’s existential crisis post kalinga war!
see by showing tolerance to non-humanistic values one is not showing any broad mindness…it will result in a skewed society if one is not cautious similar to how hijab was vehemently disallowed in France and upholding secular values…to each his own has to be debunked thoroughly where issues of liberty/freedom is often confused with allowing all types of views some of which are anathema to the survival of the society.
LikeLike
Jai
January 15, 2014
@ Sanjay
Peace, brother 😉 Seems to me we have reached an impasse, and any further discussion is merely going to repeat a lot of the same points. So lets call it quits, as it is, 15 of the 16 last comments have come between us!
I appreciate what you are saying about the intersubjective approach, and it seems a fair enough way of evolving a consensus on morality. My point is, that such a consensus is in some way an acceptable resolution, supported by most, if not all, isn’t it? Very possibly, the consensus ‘solution’ may not be the preferred/ default ‘solution’ any single one of the debating parties might have chosen. Yes, the approach does call for reasoning and debate between subjective judgements, but at the end of the day, it does envisage (implicitly at least) that such a debate would enable extreme positions to be discarded.
Seems to me, the consensus aimed at in the intersubjective approach, and the ‘middle path’ you are so against, are not so vastly different, after all…
I agree with you that there is no ‘middle path’ to an atrocity like the holocaust or a riot. But again, hypothetically if you and I were around in the 1930’s and attempted to follow the intersubjective approach with one of the Nazis, we could never really achieve a consensus with them. (For the simple reason that their extreme ideology would not hear of a consensus with any other point of view).
My take is, whether in following the ‘intersubjective approach’ or in striving for a ‘middle path’, there are some viewpoints which are so extreme and indefensible, as to not warrant consideration. Again, this is implicitly envisaged in the reference to a ‘fair and representative’ consensus.
Lastly, (I couldn’t resist this bit) ;-), the intersubjective approach to morality you want to follow, would not really approve of a blanket condemnation of religious texts, would it? IMHO, all the messages of inclusion, tolerance and understanding contained in these texts, should also be considered in arriving at a consensus judgement about religion!
Cheers…
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar
January 17, 2014
ok this response is only to your last para…you are conflating some good versus many bad in religious texts (which incidentally do not require a prophet/messiah or avatar to make that grandstanding), i would call it confirmation bias…i know it takes time to get over it and i am not asking you to change immediately…all the religious texts were written as absolute code of morality derived mostly from their socio economic conditions…it fails miserably to accept and accommodate humanistic positions and that is the reason so many take offence at women’s freedom and conflating it with loose morals or discriminating gays based on their sexual orientation…to conclude i will always say morality is derived from reasons and not from religion in light of the above and is not static…the best we can do is to derive morality based on our understanding of the world around us at that point of time…and such society already exists to some degree as in Scandinavian countries
LikeLike
Jai
January 20, 2014
Hi Sanjay
Lets agree to disagree here 😉 Else we will just keep going around in circles. The only point I would like to state in response to your last comment is, when you say “conflating some good versus many bad in religious texts”—that’s part of the whole debate, isn’t it? I agree that religion has been misused by vested interests to cause harm, it is deplorable that this happened and ideally ought not to happen in the future.
But where I differ is, I do not feel it is just “some good” in religious texts. My opinion is that there is a lot of good, many messages of tolerance, amity and understanding–if only we could all be aware of these tales.
Anyway, it was a pleasure debating with you. Am sure we might bump into each other on another thread here in the future 😉
Cheers…
LikeLike
hari
January 21, 2014
Jai – “if only we could all be aware of these tales”
– touche
Sanjay – “i am not asking you to change immediately”, you are asking Jai to change according to your ideals, if not now, interesting. And you call yourself different from all the fanatics.
LikeLike
Sanjay Kumar K
January 21, 2014
i did not adopt psychological blackmail or point a gun on Jai’s head to change/review his ideas or with any of the persons in the above thread…all i said is this: reasoning makes you to relook one’s ideas or leanings and in India our cultural upbringing is such that alternative viewpoints are never allowed to coexist with the conventional…however we need to draw a line as to what sort of views should coexist…in our country sexist,blatantly racist,bigoted views are so common that we mistake as one of the cosmopolitan views which is what i was repeatedly pointing out…why is it so difficult to comprehend that you accuse me of a fanatic when all i am saying in so many words till this point of time is: freedom of expression does not mean hate speech…allowing it does not mean we are allowing democracy to flourish rather it undermines the very basis of it…
also i am not aware of any atheist bringing down a temple/mosque claiming her ideas to be superior over others
LikeLike
blurb
August 4, 2016
In light of TMK winning the Magsaysay award:
http://scroll.in/article/813133/media-got-it-wrong-in-its-coverage-of-tm-krishnas-magsaysay-award-say-fishing-village-residents
LikeLike