Subbulakshmi's Will Has Spoken

Bharat Ratna M.S. Subbulakshmi was one of the greatest icons of the 20th century. For the uninitiated, she’s the first woman to receive the coveted Sangita Kalanidhi from the Music Academy in Madras (now Chennai), the first musician to receive the Bharat Ratna and the first Indian to sing at the United Nations General Assembly. She’s also a Ramon Magsaysay awardee. The song she sang at the United Nations, Maithreem Bhajatha, continues to be an iconic composition that promotes world peace. Touted as one of the greatest Indian Carnatic music singers, M.S. Subbulakshmi’s songs continue to wake up most of the country at dawn and are played at temples and even weddings. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru himself bowed down to her, saying on multiple occasions, “Who am I, a mere Prime Minister before the Queen of Song?”

If you have never heard a song of M. S. Subbulakshmi’s, then I suggest you look up one of her most famous songs–Vishnu Sahasranamam (a Sanskrit shloka of Lord Vishnu). It has 162 million views on YouTube–a number singers today would die to see on their analytics screen. Subbulakshmi truly is, in all senses, an icon. Which is why it’s understandable that a lot of people are sentimental about her. Subbulakshmi means the world to those who understand and appreciate Indian classical music. Which is why when the renowned Carnatic singer T.M Krishna wrote an article in 2015 referring to Subbulakshmi as the ‘‘greatest hoax of the 20th century”, it was shocking for many. Krishna criticised Subbulakshmi for adhering to the image of the ideal Brahmin woman and shying away from experimenting with her music after marrying freedom fighter, advertising specialist and managing director of Kalki magazine, T. Sadasivam.

Krishna’s criticisms upset Subbulakshmi’s family, eventually leading her grandson V. Shrinivasan (son of Subbulakshmi’s daughter, Radha Viswanathan), to file a case to not confer the Sangita Kalanidhi M.S. Subbulakshmi Award to Krishna. The latter was supposed to get this award during the Marghazhi (December) music season in Chennai. The Madras High Court honoured Subbulakshmi’s will and directed The Hindu and the Music Academy to not give the award in Subbulakshmi’s name. However, Krishna, the Academy, and others in the matter have appealed.

Breaking Down the Basics

The Sangita Kalanidhi, arguably the highest honour in Carnatic music, is given annually by the Madras Music Academy. If you pass by the Music Academy in Chennai, the grandeur of the white building gives you a sense of how royal this title is for any Carnatic singer. In fact, Subbulakshmi played a big role in raising money for the Academy building through benefit concerts, but her contributions have been downplayed by the Academy. In 2005, after Subbulakshmi’s death, The Hindu newspaper started a mirror award, the Sangita Kalanidhi M.S. Subbulakshmi Award, which is automatically conferred on the person who wins the Sangita Kalanidhi. The winner of the Sangita Kalanidhi automatically qualifies for the Sangita Kalanidhi M.S. Subbulakshmi Award. The latter is given on the opening day of the Academy’s conference, while the former is awarded at the end. The Hindu is also closely connected with the Academy—the current President of the Academy, N. Murali—is also the director of the publishing group that publishes The Hindu. His brother, N. Ram, was the paper’s former editor-in-chief.

In early 2024, the Academy announced that vocalist T.M. Krishna, who is also a Magsaysay awardee, would be conferred the Sangita Kalanidhi Award in December 2024 during the music season in Chennai. Krishna has an old connection to the Academy—he is the grand-nephew of former Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari, one of the founding members of the Academy.

After the announcement of Krishna as the Sangita Kalanidhi winner, several Carnatic singers boycotted the Music Academy’s conference. Popular names include singers like Ranjani and Gayatri. Krishna is unpopular among many for being vocal about several issues in Carnatic music. He himself boycotted the music season and the Academy back in 2015 citing favouritism for Brahmins in the Carnatic music world. Not much has changed since then, as the Academy is still dominated by Brahmins. But it is surprising that Krishna has decided to accept the Sangita Kalanidhi and perform at the Academy after almost a decade of calling them out for favouring upper castes.

Things have got murky over the past few years, since Krishna dragged the name of M.S. Subbulakshmi, an iconic figure, into his arguments, to prove his points. Krishna has called Subbulakshmi a “saintly Barbie doll” and has even raised the point about whether people would have listened to her music had she been a dark-skinned Dalit woman. It’s important to note here that Subbulakshmi was married to a Brahmin, but she was herself not a Brahmin. Born in a Devadasi household, she was the daughter of the famous veena player Madurai Shanmukhavadivu. According to Subbulakshmi, her father—a lawyer named Subramania Iyer—was a Brahmin. The Devadasi community, while incredibly talented, was an exploited group. M.S. Subbulakshmi escaped the poverty and exploitation by seeking refuge in T. Sadasivam’s home.

For a man of his time, Sadasivam, despite his misgivings, was progressive. He saw in Subbulakshmi the potential to grow into a massive star and he made his entire life revolve around her. However, since Krishna’s critique of Subbulakshmi, questions have been raised about her legitimacy in the Carnatic music world. This pains a lover of classical music like me because for me and many others, a singer is not a singer because of their background. Music doesn’t differentiate, even if people do. It’s true that Subbulakshmi eventually took on the role of the ideal Brahmin woman, but those who know her well say that she did so because of her undying love for Sadasivam. But it’s also true that she was a victim of patriarchy and at a time when women were not even allowed to step outside the house, she pursued a career because of her husband’s support. And nothing is truer than the fact that she was a woman with an incredible voice who made a mark for herself and other women in the Carnatic music world. Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan was so moved by her voice that he called her, “Suswaralakshmi Subbulakshmi”.

Her incredible talent forced the Music Academy to award her the Sangita Kalanidhi in 1968—becoming the first woman to win this prestigious award. She was also progressive in her own way—she never had children of her own and brought up Sadasivam’s biological daughters, Vijaya and Radha, as her own. Radha sang with her mother on stage for almost 50 years. Subbulakshmi and Radha’s voices blended together beautifully, like a mother and daughter’s love.

“T.M. Krishna’s verbal assault on M.S. has shocked the family. Krishna has submitted before the court that he has only defended M.S. from being called Barbie doll and the greatest musical hoax of the last century. The truth is no musician or music lover (past or present) has ever spoken so disparagingly about M.S. or her divine music. It is clear that Krishna is firing from the shoulder of an imaginary person because M.S. is a woman and also a soft posthumous target,” Subbulakshmi’s grand nephew Dr R. Parthasarathy says.

The Complicated World of Music and Patriarchy

The discussion about egalitarianism in Carnatic music isn’t new. Back in 1967, Tamil writer Thi Janakiraman wrote a story called ‘Isai Payirchi’ about a Tamil Brahmin music teacher who is boycotted by his village for deciding to teach Carnatic music to a Dalit Christian. If M.S. Subbulakshmi was alive today, I am sure someone would have asked her stance on caste. But she left the world two decades ago and is no longer around to defend herself or her work. There’s a reason iconic women singers like Lata Mangeshkar and M.S. Subbulakshmi were so guarded about their personal life. It’s because they knew that one wrong move would put their years of hard work into question. Men are never held to such high standards. Many successful men have affairs, misbehave with women, treat their wives poorly, but are still revered by people. But when it comes to women, suddenly our lines about keeping the professional separate from the personal become blurry. We Indians are smart about keeping the art separate from the artist when it comes to a male film star or singer, but when it comes to M.S. Subbulakshmi, a single photo or letter makes us start questioning her character, her background and her legitimacy in the classical music world. We forget to applaud her for the good things she did, especially for her country.

The Will Has Spoken

Subbulakshmi drafted a will in October 1997, seven years before her demise. Shrinivasan recently learned of the contents of the will. Why the family decided to read the will after nearly twenty years is their personal matter. But the fact is, Subbulakshmi was always clear about what she wanted. Her will clearly states, “It is my earnest desire and mandate that after my demise, no Trust, Foundation or Memorial of any kind including erecting of any statue or bust shall be formed or created or made in my name and memory or any fund or donations or contributions collected for any of the aforementioned purposes using my name, except to the extent of what I have stated above regarding the mementos, souvenirs, etc., awarded to me since I consider these are not conducive to our culture.” From 1997 to 2004, she stuck to this stance. In 2002, she was steadfast in her refusal to not let Kotturpuram in Chennai be named after her. Subbulakshmi was popular for donating much of the money she earned from her performances to charity. She also gave away her royalties to charity. Her humility extended to awards as well. When the Madhya Pradesh government wanted to give her the Kalidas Samman, she refused to accept it till her guru, Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer, was given the award before her.

Since her demise, Subbulakshmi’s wishes have not been honoured by several organisations, individuals and even her family, and there are many awards in her name. But for the past 20 years, no one knew about this important clause in her will. Now that we do, we need to act on it.

The case that has gone to the court revolves around a single award: the one The Hindu created in ‘memory’ of M.S. Subbulakshmi. Krishna will still get one Sangita Kalanidhi Award but the other award can’t be conferred in Subbulakshmi’s name. Whether or not the judges will eventually send directives to everyone who has used Subbulakshmi’s name is for the court to decide, and currently, just pure speculation. Whether Shrinivasan has a locus standi to represent Subbulakshmi in court is also a baseless argument, given that he’s a beneficiary of Subbulakshmi’s will and her legal heir.

The point here is that there is no battle left to fight as Subbulakshmi’s will has spoken.

“Subbulakshmi’s will is now in the public domain. Having been so close to her, I can surely vouch that not only was she a musical legend but a most humble and self-effacing personality. The contents of the will make complete sense to me as Subbulakshmi would have never wanted any memorial or awards in her name. The best way to honour Subbulakshmi is as Justice Dr G. Jayachandran said, ‘respect the last will and mandate of Subbulakshmi and eschew using her name in any awards,’” added Parthasarathy.

It’s time we let Subbulakshmi rest in peace and not drag her into conversations of the present time. She chose who she wanted to be and we respected her for it as long as she was alive. The same respect should be accorded to her after she’s gone. In his counter affidavit, Krishna has said that he has the greatest esteem for Subbulakshmi. It will be graceful of him and other artists to respect her wishes and not accept awards in her name. We, as a society, have failed to respectfully honour Subbulakshmi’s memory. The least we can do is honour her last wish.

(Views expressed are personal)

Ankita M. Kumar is a journalist and a documentary filmmaker based in San Francisco, California