Tarangini is a fairly old raga of the Carnatic Music system. It was the 26^th mela both in the earlier as well as the later Kanakambari list (circa 1750), sporting chatushruti rishabham, antara gandharam, suddha madhyama, pancamam, suddha dhaivatam and kaisiki nishadam, with the mela being asampurna or vakra sampurna ( in modern day terminology). In the Kanakangi-Ratnangi scheme, the 26^th slot was taken over by the heptatonic, krama sampurna Charukesi. Tarangini is one of the ragas which got mutilated during the 20^th century. The suddha dhaivatha it sported was replaced by chatushruthi dhaivatha & the sole krithi composed in it by Dikshitar, “Maye tvam yahi” came to be rendered in a melody which resembles Jhanjuti.

In the popular press/reviews, in some standard music books/works and even amongst musicians, the raga of ‘Maye” is referred to as Sud(d)ha Tarangini ( which sports the chatushruti dhaivatha). Fact is that there is no raga called Sud(d)ha Tarangini. Suffice it to say that the raga with a textual tradition and which sports D1, is Tarangini only. Apart from the dhaivata being flipped to D2, the mathu of the kriti “Maye” has also been changed in few places. The result is the modern, popular and prevalent version of Tarangini which is nothing but a pale anemic copy of the original.

Be that as it may, fortunately for us we have authentic renditions by a few masters who have endeavored to protect  and preserve the pristine heritage left behind by Dikshitar. In this post, let us get a peek into this melody through this kriti of Dikshitar and also look at the musicological treatment of this raga.

TEXTUAL HISTORY OF TARANGINI:

The combination of R2G3M1PD1N2 is not to be seen in earlier works such as that of Somanatha or others. The earliest reference available to us is in the Kanakambari list as codified in the raga lakshana anubandha to the Caturdandi Prakashika dateable to 1700-1750 CE. The Sangraha Cudamani too makes a mention of this raga. The Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini of Subbarama Dikshitar is the next authority and in it we have the following compositions made available to us:

1. The lakshana gitam of Muddu Venkatamakhi
2. The 2 tanams given by Subbarama Dikshitar again most probably composed by Muddu Venkatamakhi
3. Maye Tvam yahi – Kriti of Muthusvami Dikshitar
4. The sancari of Subbarama Dikshitar
5. The portion of the ragamalika ” E Kanakambari”, starting with “Peru Jenthina”, composed by Subbarama Dikshitar and given in the Anubandha to the SSP.

Apart from the above compositions we have the following two other compositions outside the SSP:

1. “Palayamam” attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar, not found in the SSP, brought out by Veenai Sundaram Iyer in his publications.
2. The portion of the catur-raga shlokamalika “Saanandam Kamalamanohari”, starting with ‘Devam ksheeratarangini”, which is rendered in Tarangini, composed by Maharaja Svati Tirunal, notated and published in the Tanjai Pervudiayan Perisai and Ponnayya Manimalai with the footnote that Vadivelu of the Tanjore Quartet set the lyric to music.

Tyagaraja, a supposedly avowed votary of the Sangraha Cudamani, has apparently composed only in Charukesi as exemplified by his kriti ‘Adamodi Galade’. As we will see later we have an account of a Tyagaraja composition being originally in Tarangini.

RAGA LAKSHANA OF TARANGINI:

As mentioned earlier none of the older musicological texts (pre 1700 AD) including the Caturdandi Prakashika talk of Tarangini or its melodic equivalents. The first mention of this raga is in the Raga Lakshana anubandha of the Caturdandi Prakashika with a date of around 1700-1750 (See Foot Note 1). The lakshana shloka found therein provides a very illuminating lakshana for Tarangini.

pUrNastarangini ragArohe riga varjitah

avarohe padhanidha rigamagari samyutah

gIyate sarvakaleshu sagrahacaucyate budhaih

According to the above anubandha shloka:

• The raga is sampurna- meaning it takes all the 7 notes in the arohana and avarohana murccana, taken together
• The raga drops the svaras ri and ga in ascent and
• Includes the phrases PDND and RGMGR in descent – that is in the descent, the nishada and madhyama are vakra
• It has sadja as graham and can be sung at all times
• It is the raganga raga of the 26^th mela.

This raga lakshana shloka is a rare instance from the Raga Lakshana anubandha, wherein entire phrases are given as a part the raga description. As we will see next, this lakshana is contrary to what one sees in the SSP.

SANGITA SAMPRADAYA PRADARSHINI:

Moving on to the SSP, a lakshana shloka attributed to Venkatamakhi is quoted as under:²

ragastarangini purnah aarohe mani varjitah

avarohe padhanidha rigamagari samyutah

gIyate sarvakaleshu sagrahacaucyate budhaih

Generally the lakshana shloka found in the anubandha is almost always verbatim reproduced by Subbarama Dikshitar in the SSP. However in the case of Tarangini the shloka as quoted is at variance (similar to the case of Kambhoji which was discussed in a previous article), especially the first line ( emphasis is mine) which states, which svaras are varja or excluded in the ascent.

The implication is not difficult to understand. The Anubandha lakshana shloka talks of the svaras R and G as being absent in the ascent, whereas the shloka quoted by Subbarama Dikshitar says that the svaras M and N are dropped in the ascent. Indeed this is source of confusion for we do not know from where Subbarama Dikshitar sourced this shloka. However based on the murccanas found in the Dikshitar composition ‘Maye’, we can convincingly conclude that M and N are the svaras which are dropped in the ascent and probably the shloka quoted by Subbarama Dikshitar is the authentic one or the one relying on which Dikshitar composed ‘Maye’. (See Footnote 2)

The SSP is today our only source to ascertain the raga lakshana of this raga which perhaps came into vogue with the dawn of the 18^th century. Subbarama Dikshitar paints the melodic canvas of Tarangini with the following attributes in his commentary:

1. A sampurna raga, shadja as graham
2. Both M1 and N2 are vakra, appearing only as SR2G3M1G3R2 or PD1N2D1S. In other words the M1 note is always flanked by the gandhara and the dhaivatha is sandwiched between 2 nishadas.
3. The murccana arohana is SR2G3PD1N2D1PD1S
4. Avarohana is SD1PG3R2SR2G3M1G3R2S
5. R2 is a favoured amsa svara apparently & being used as graha as well as nyasa.
6. G3 is another favoured note, used in janta prayogas such G3M1G3G3R2S

Subbarama Dikshitar gives a tanam and a lakshana gitam as well for Tarangini ascribing authorship to Venkatamakhi. Needless to add, these compositions must be creations of Muddu Venkatamakhin. In the gitam and tanam, the Tarangini that is conceived is fairly the same as found in the lakshana shloka (SSP version) save for one point. The tanam seem to have the prayoga DPNDP which is not found even in his lakshana gitam. As we can see this murccana/prayoga is latter on completely deprecated. In Subbarama Dikshitar’s creations too, namely the sancari and the Tarangini raga portion of the ragamalika “E Kanakambari” found noted in the SSP and its anubandha respectively, the raga lakshana is aligned to the Dikshitar composition.

The Sangraha Cudamani provides the ragalakshana of Tarangini as SRMGRMPDs / sNDPMGRS under mela Carukesi. As one can see the svaras R and G are vakra in this version. In passing one may hypothesize that if the Muddu Venkatamakhin shloka in the anubandha is recast as “pUrnastarangini ragaarohe riga vakritah” (replacing varjitah with vakritah) then the Tarangini definition as between the anubandha and that of Sangraha Cudamani would be completely aligned!

SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE:

As of today, the Tarangini that prevails is the one as codified by Subbarama Dikshitar in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini with the operative murccana arohana/avarohana of SRGPDNDPDs/sDPGRSRGMGRS on the authority of the kriti of Muthusvami Dikshitar and the not the one as postulated in the Anubandha or the Sangraha Cudamani. This Tarangini one can say belongs to SSP and SSP alone.

THE EVIDENCE OF MUSICOLOGISTS/AUTHORITIES:

The raga lakshana of this raga does not seem to have been discussed by the Experts Committee of the Music Academy. However a perusal of the Journals of the Music Academy indicates that the raga has been discussed/referenced in two instances:

1. By the renowned critic Sri K V Ramachandran as a part of his lecture in the year 1938.
2. By Dr T S Ramakrishnan, Experts Committee member and an acknowledged authority on the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini, in the year 1977.

SRI K V RAMACHANDRAN’S REFERENCE TO THE RAGA TARANGINI³:

Noted critic Sri K V Ramachandran (KVR) in his seminal paper presented before the Experts Committee of the Music Academy³, with authority says that many of the ragas of Tyagaraja’s compositions were wrongly identified using the Sangraha Cudamani as a reference. He says that the raga of the composition “Nenendhu Vedakudura”  was  not Karnataka Behag but  Tarangini or rather the Tarangini of Dikshitar as exemplified by “Maye”. During this lecture demonstration Sri KVR also argues that the ragas of quite a few kritis of Tyagaraja had been changed.

The point to be highlighted here is that Tarangini was also utilized by Tyagaraja for the composition “Nenendhu Vedakudhura”, but this melodic setting is now all but extinct/dead.

DR T S RAMAKRISHNAN ON TARANGINI ⁴:

For Dr T S Ramakrishnan (TSR), Subbarama Dikshitar was a parama guru of sorts as his father had worked with Subbarama Dikshitar and Chinnasvami Mudaliar during the publication of the SSP. He was a member of the Experts Committee of the Music Academy and a recipient of the Academy’s Certificate of Merit. Above all he was an acknowledged authority on the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini and had been called upon to present many lecture demonstrations in connection with SSP and the music of the so called Dikshitar/Venkatamakhi sampradaya.

Dr TSR in the 1977 Academy session⁴ (on 22 Dec 1977) demonstrated the raga lakshana of Tarangini by singing (Muddu) Venkatamakhi’s gitam and the kriti “Maye”. He underlined the change that has been made to the raga and the kriti by changing it over to the 28^th mela and calling it as ‘Sudha Tarangini’. Dr TSR emphasized that there was no raga by name ‘Sudha Tarangini’ and that the raga’s lakshana and the kriti has been tampered with through ignorance or sheer disregard for authentic tradition. In his concluding remarks for that lecture demonstration, Dr V Raghavan also pointed out that Tarangini was the correct name of the raga and the word ‘sudha’ had been appended by Dikshitar to the raga mudra to provide the meaning “as a flowing stream of ambrosial bliss”.

In this context it needs to be re-asserted that there is no raga called Sudha Tarangini at all and versions of the raga and of ‘Maye’ sung in this so called melody are spurious. Sadly even a few works on music authored by musicologists & authorities such as Prof Sambamoorthi have codified this raga⁵ which has no textual tradition.

MUTHUSVAMI DIKSHITAR’S COMPOSITION:

Dikshitar’s conception of Tarangini as found in the SSP is a masterpiece in itself. He builds on the edifice that Muddu Venkatamakhin left behind. The composition in its lyrical and musical structure is unique in more than one aspect. There are a few kritis that authorities say reflects incidents in Dikshitar’s life such as “Mangaladevataya” (Dhanyasi) or “Tyagarajam Bhajare” (Yadukulakambhoji). I strongly feel that the pathos that the kriti evokes reflects some personal pain or incident in his life. The salient features of this composition are as follows:

1. The kriti is structured oddly with an anupallavi and 3 caranas (though the SSP rather “counts” it only as 2 each with a different dhatu. No other krithi of Dikshitar is so structured with the refrain/pallavi  seamlessly segueing with the anupallavi and caranas.
2. Dikshitar’s development of the raga can be gauged by the way in which he progressively expands the raga in each of the composition’s anga. The svaras S, G and P are used as the starting notes for these segments.
3. Every time (barring the final carana) Dikshitar forays into the mandhara stayi to reach the pancama before traversing back to the madhya stayi.
4. Sancara is seen from mandhara pancama to tara gandhara in the kriti. Tara madhyama is touched in the cittasvara.
5. GMGGR or GMGR is a recurring motif throughout this kriti along with the PDND prayoga.
6. The M1 is very deergha in its intonation
7. The essence of Tarangini is captured by the cittasvara which encompasses the entire gamut of the raga.

SVATI TIRUNAL’S SHLOKAMALIKA:

Before we look at the renderings of Dikshitar’s composition “Maye”, an analysis of the treatment of this raga in another composition “Saanandam Kamala manohari’ is required here. This composition is a shloka which is set to music in a raga malika format and is referred to as a catur raga shloka malika with the four ragas Kamalamanohari, Revagupti, Hamsadhvani and finally Tarangini. Kamalamanohari is the raga for the pallavi refrain (‘Saanandam Kamalamanohari’). A few interesting aspects in relation to this composition needs to be mentioned.

1. This shloka malika has the raga names as well the composer’s colophon appearing in the sahitya. The Tarangini raga portion features last, with the sahitya line “Devam ksheerataranginisa shayanam sri padmanabham bhajeham”.
2. The composition is found notated in the Tanjai Pervudiayan Perisai⁶ & Ponnayya Manimalai⁷ as edited & published by Sangita Kalanidhi Ponnaya Pillai and latter by Sangita Kalanidhi K P Sivanandam. The footnote very clearly states that the sahitya was done by Maharaja Svati Tirunal and the music was set by Vadivelu of the Tanjore Quartet.
3. Au contraire, according to Sangita Kalanidhi Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer’s disciple Sri K Subramaniam, the sahitya was set to music by Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer ¹⁰. Interestingly Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer has himself written the foreword to the edition⁷ which carried the notation of this shloka malika, which had the footnote to the effect that the music for this composition was set by Vadivelu of the Quartet. So given that, one can rule out the possibility of Sri Srinivasa Iyer having set the music to this composition.

From a raga lakshana perspective the Tarangini raga presented in ‘Saanandam’ is slightly different. To recapitulate, according to Subbarama Dikshitar and as evidenced by “Maye”, the operative arohana/avarohana murccana is SRGPDS/SDPGRS with GMGGRS and PDNDs occurring in profusion, In other words both N and M are vakra.

The notation given for the sahitya of the Tarangini portion of ‘Sanandam Kamalamanohari” namely “Devam ksheeratarangineesa shayanam sri padmanabham bhajeham” as well as the cittasvara section sports a lineal descent- sNDPMGRS which is not in accordance with the raga lakshana of this raga as found in the SSP. The raga thus seems to have been modified with the arohana/avarohana as SRGPDNDs/sNDPMGRS with both nishada and madhyama not being vakra at all. Given that the Quartet were the disciples of Muthusvami Dikshitar, it is indeed quite surprising and perplexing to observe such a deviation ( a krama sampurna avarohana) in the conception itself or the notation as published.

Was it the printer’s devil at work? One does not know. But for a student/connoisseur of music there it is: Three versions(melodic/structural) of Tarangini found documented, first in the Raga Lakshana anubandha of Venkatamakhin, second in the SSP and lastly in the composition ‘Saanandam Kamalamanohari’.

DISCOGRAPHY:

Fortunately we have some authentic renditions of this beautiful Dikshitar composition “Maye Tvam Yahi”, in the original melody with the suddha dhaivatha.

Sangita Kalanidhi B Rajam Iyer who passed away in 2009, was a repository of many rare Dikshitar compositions having learnt it first hand from Justice T L Venkatarama Iyer. Here is a clip of his rendering of Maye.

Clip 1: Dr B Rajam Iyer sings “Maye”

Prof S R Janakiraman another scion of the Dikshitar sishya parampara, first elaborates raga Tarangini in this clip. And then he sings the composition along with the elegant & pithy cittasvara.

Clip 2: Prof SRJ sings “Maye”

Next Vidushi Sowmya, a disciple of Dr S Ramanathan sings Maye in this commercially available rendition of the kriti. Her patham is slightly different in texture especially the pallavi sangatis with emphasis on rishaba.

Clip 3: Vidushi Sowmya sings “Maye” – Excerpt

Sangita Kalanidhi Vedavalli a disciple of Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer is always known for rendering kritis in their authentic/original form. Here she teaches (her students at Cleveland under the auspices of the Cleveland Tyagaraja Aradhana Committee) the version as found in the SSP.

Clip 4: Sangita Kalanidhi Vedavalli teaches ‘Maye’ – Excerpt

The raga Tarangini and the kriti Maye with chatushruti dhaivatha(D2) enjoyed considerable airtime in the last century, sung by Sangita Kalanidhi Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer, Sangita Kalanidhi Madurai Mani Iyer, Sangita Kalanidhi M S Subbulakshmi amongst others, with the result that the D2 version is now recorded for posterity as apparently authentic & original. In these versions apart from the replacement of D1 with D2 changes too have been made to dhatu/musical setting of the kriti. For example the 1^st and 2^nd caranas are sung in the same fashion with the gandhara svara as the eduppu/take off. Curiously the version of this composition by Vidushi Kalpakam Svaminathan is also with D2 as evidenced by the rendering of this kriti with the catushruthi dhaivatha in a Music Academy Lecture demonstration on Gamakas in the year 2005.  Given that she had learnt it so from Ananthakrishna Iyer, it is indeed a matter of speculation & controversy as to who could have changed the patham of this composition with D2 instead of D1. We also have discs cut by N C Vasanthakokilam(1919-1951) of this composition in the D2 version!

Two other known instances of Maye having been sung as per the SSP raga lakshana in the last century and recorded are:

1. Dr S Ramanathan’s rendition at the residence of former UN Chef-de-Cabinet, music aficionado, vocalist and disciple of Musiri Subramanya Iyer, Sri C V Narasimhan in the United States in the year 1967, both on veena and vocal!⁸
2. Sri C V Narasimhan himself has rendered “Maye” as per the SSP raga lakshana at a home concert.⁹

Both the above versions have been recorded by the late James Rubin and is a part of this Oriental Music Collection which has been archived in the Harvard University Library.

I conclude this section with the rendering of Svati Tirunal composition, ‘sAnandam kamalA manOharI”. Presented below is the rendering of the shloka malika, a joint production of Maharaja Svati Tirunal and Vadivelu of the Tanjore Quartet, from a 1966 Concert of Sangita Kalanidhi Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer who presents it with absolute fidelity to the notation as found in the “Tanjai Peruvudaiyan Perisai”. Accompanying him is V V Subramanyam on the violin and Ramnad Raghavan on the mridangam.

Clip 5: Dr Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer renders “Saanandam kamala manohari”

One can surmise that Vadivelu having learnt the raga and the composition during his tutelage under Muthusvami Dikshitar must have sung it before Svati Tirunal who got enamored about it and went on to compose the lyric incorporating the raga and the mudra (in the composition the word “tarangini’ has been used to imply the Ocean of Milk which is the abode of Lord Vishnu/Padmanabha) for which Vadivelu set the music.

CONCLUSION:

Given the beautiful conception of Tarangini by Dikshitar in this kriti one is forced to consider the possibility of he himself  having changed the raga’s contour ( assuming that the raga lakshana anubandha shloka of (Muddu) Venkatamakhin being the right/original one) . As a trail blazer and innovator Dikshitar could indeed have done so but we have no direct evidence in this case. Which ever way it is, one cannot deny the fact that this 26th raaganga was a mere theoretical derivation of Muddu Venkatamakhin. And it was left to to the ‘composer non pareil’ Muthusvami Dikshitar to provide flesh & blood and bring life to this beauty of a raga with its jumps, twists and bends. Tarangini’s structuring  & the composition ‘Maye’ again stand as shining examples to the long forgotten fundamentals of our ancient music namely non lineal progression, aesthetics and harmonics.

REFERENCES:

1. Hema Ramanathan(2004) – Raga Lakshana Sangraha – Published by Dr N Ramanathan, ISBN 81 7525 536 6; pages 1455-57
2. Subbarama Dikshitar (1904) – Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini
3. Ramachandran K.V. (1938) – “The Melakarta – A Critique” – The Journal of the Music Academy IX, pp. 31-33, Madras, India.
4. Dr T S Ramakrishnan (1977) – ‘Tarangini & Navaroz’ – Lecture Demonstration conducted on 22 Dec 1977, Journal of the Music Academy Vol XLIX- Pages 33-34
5. Prof P Sambamoorthi(1966) – South Indian Music Volume 6 – Pages 221-222
6. Sivanandam K P (2001) – Tanjai Peruvudaiyan Perisai, III Edition
7. Sivanandam K P (2001)- Tanjai Nalvar Manimalai III Edition
8. James Rubin(1967) – Recording of the home concert of Dr S Ramanathan dated Aug 13,1967 – reference AWMRL 15731- Harvard University Library Collection
9. James Rubin(1975) – Recording of the home concert of Sri C V Narasimhan dated Oct 26, 1975 – reference AWMRL 15758- Harvard University Library Collection
10. V Subrahmaniam & V Sriram (2008)- ‘Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer : Life & Times”, Published by East West

FOOT NOTE 1: Note on Muddu Venkatamakhin

The Caturdandi Prakashika is dated to the reign of King Vijayaraghava Nayak (1614-1672) & is said to have been written sometime around 1620. It’s the consensus opinion of all modern musicologists that though the Raga Lakshana listing (asampurna mela scheme) is treated as an appendix or anubandha to the Caturdandi Prakashika, it was in all probability created close to a 100 years later. For all practical purposes the anubandha is attributed to Muddu Venkatamakhin a grandson or great grandson of Venkatamakhin, who lived during the reign of King Shahaji of Tanjore. While Govinda Dikshitar & his son Venkatamakhi ornamented the Nayak Court, this descendant Muddu Venkatamakhin was probably part of the Mahratta Court of King Shahaji.

We do not have any direct evidence to this effect. However in the SSP, Subbarama Dikshitar has given gitams & tanams for certain ragas attributing it to Muddu Venkatamakhi himself. One such is the gitam given for the raga Nattakurinji which bears the ankita/raja mudra of Sahaji with the composer name given by Subbarama Dikshitar as ‘Muddu Venkatamakhin” . King Shahaji ruled Tanjore during 1684-1710. He crowned his successor Serfoji I and retired to live in the Royal Estate at Tiruvarur very near the Tyagaraja temple, till the end of his life. For all practical purposes we may approximate the date of Muddu Venkatamakhin and the Anubandha to the CDP to the time period of 1700-1750. Venkata Vaidyanatha Dikshitar, who finds mention in the SSP and the Vaggeyakaracaritamu of Subbarama Dikshitar, was probably a son/grandson/ descendant of this Muddu Venkatamakhin. The 65^th Acharya of the Kanci Kamakoti Peetam Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvathi (1857-1890) in his purvashrama was a descendant of Venkatamakhin/Muddu Venkatamakhin. And not surprisingly, Subbarama Dikshitar sought this Acharya’s good offices to procure a copy of the Caturdandi Prakashika.

FOOT NOTE 2: Subbarama Dikshitar’s version of the Caturdandi Prakashika

Dr.R.Sathyanarayana in his critical commentary to the Caturdandi Prakasika says that Subbarama Dikshitar’s  source was a Telugu version of the Caturdandi . He also lists the differences and patha bedhas between what Subbarama Dikshitar had and what was made available to Pt. Bhatkande. Perhaps these differences are due to scribal errors or version differences between copies of manuscripts as we know for sure that Pt Bhatkande copied it from Subbarama Dikshitar only.

FOOT NOTE 2: Raga of Nenendhu Vedakudhura

The raga for Nenendhu Vedakudhura, according to Sri K V Ramachandran was arbitrarily assigned by Taccur Singarachar to Karnataka Behag when he passed on the details of Tyagaraja’s compositions to Chinnasvami Mudaliar who was collating them for his work the Oriental Music in Western Notation. The raga of this composition is given as Harikambhoji in Chinnasvami Mudaliar’s work, Kannada Behag by K V Srinivasa Iyengar and Karnataka Behag by Rangaramanuja Iyengar.

On the assumption that the svaras were flipped one can analyze the mathu or the musical construct of the composition to see if indeed if the composition’s available mathu matches the melodic hue of Tarangini with an operative arohana/avarohana of SRGPDNDs/sDPGRMGRS. One other aspect that one can consider is the lyric itself. One can do an analysis if the lyric is melodically aligned to the raga in which it is set. In this composition Tyagaraja appears to be in a very sad and remorseful state of mind. Tradition has it that this song was composed after he lost the idol of Lord Rama that he was worshipping and his continuous but unavailing search till then. Given the melancholical mood that Tyagaraja would have been in, the tune for this composition as it exists seems inappropriate. Given the melodic mood that Tarangini with the suddha dhaivatha and prayogas such as SD1P, PD1ND1s etc would impart, one can surmise that it would be most appropriate and fitting for this composition.

OTHER INTERPRETATIONS OF YAMUNA KALYANI:

Apart from the famous compositions “Krishna Nee Begane”, “Pibare ramarasam” and “Bhavayami Gopalabalam”, Yamuna Kalyani is elaborated by musicians during concerts only in viruttams/shlokas usually under the pretext of lending a “Hindustani” touch to the musical proceedings. I present two of them.

First, Sangita Kalanidhi Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer interprets Yamuna Kalyani in this shloka rendered as a ragamalika, to the violin accompaniment of Vidvan Lalgudi Jayaraman on the violin, in this very good recording from a live concert, circa 1960. Incidentally in this concert, Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer sandwiches this raga between two solid “carnatic” ragas, Dhanyasi and Saveri in this ragamalika rendering of the shloka, ‘kOdanda dIksha gurum’. ( See Foot note 4).

Clip 7 – Sri Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer – Shloka

In this exposition it may be noted that Sri Srinivasa Iyer does not render the raga in madhyama sruti. He starts of on the gandhara note, the jeeva svara of Yamuna and ornaments it with a prolonged kampita gamaka. Note that when he finally concludes his essay he ends it on gandhara only . He reaches out to the tara sadja via jaaru from the pancama and travels on to the taara gandhara as well and does uses the suddha madhyama sparingly.  The prati madhayama as one notices is also muted and he uses only nRGP.  Also he focuses only on the purvanga svaras and never pauses on /uses the nishada or dhaivata as a nyasa-start or ending svara even as he conjures up his vision of Yamuna Kalyani. The  version that the veteran paints has predominantly shades of the older archaic Yamuna with suddha madhyama thrown in as well. Attention is invited to the gamaka laden murccanas/akaaras that Sri Semmangudi weaves with his well warmed up voice, imparting  the so called ‘Carnatic’ charge to this apparently northern raga!

We next move on to the rendering of a viruttam by Sangita Kalanidhi T V Sankaranarayanan (TVS), as a prelude to the kriti “Krishna Nee”. He uses Yamuna Kalyani to present the pAsuram (verses) of Tirumangai Azhwar on the Lord at Tiru Allikkeni (Triplicane, Chennai).

Clip 8 – Vid T.V.Sankaranarayanan – pasuram

Sri Sankaranarayanan’s presentation is reminiscent of Prof TRS’s style, marked by fidelity to sruti, open throated and unrestrained felicity in the execution of sancaras in the top octave.

Another old composition that is rendered in Yamuna Kalyani is the javali ‘Adhi Neepai’ of Dharmapuri Subbarayar, which again is rendered in madhyama sruti, in the modern version of the raga. The version as rendered by the doyenne of the Dhanammal family, Smt T Brindha may be referred to.

CONCLUSION:

To summarize, since its origination there has been at least 3 forms of Yamuna Kalyani as under:

• The archaic Yamuna Kalyani melodically equivalent to Suddha Kalyan of Hindustani Music as evidenced by the gavai prabandha (Foot Note 1) and Subbarama Dikshitar’s jatisvaram.
• The Yamuna Kalyani of Dikshitar as embodied in the composition “Jambupate” with alpa suddha madhyama prayoga (restricted to GM1R or GM1GR) and nishada being vakra in arohana, melodically equivalent to Yaman (purists may prefer the nomenclature Jaimini Kalyan for this) of Hindustani Music.
• The much more modern and lighter sampurna version of Yamuna with more/denser suddha madhyama usage (even used in quick succession following the prati madhyama note) and ornamented with more jaarus and less of kampita gamaka. Many of the modern day expositions of even older compositions such as Tyagaraja’s beautiful piece “haridAsulu vEdalE” or “Vidhi chakra” fall within this ambit.

Today,though the raga has been relegated to a minor niche on our music canvas, the composer non-pareil Muthusvami Dikshitar has in his infinite wisdom chosen to ornament it with a truly great magnum opus, “Jambupate”. In fact I suspect that Dikshitar may have had a special affinity to the kshetra of Trichirapalli or Trisirapuram or Thiruccevvandipuram as it had been called in older texts (See Foot Note 2 and 3) .His family accounts have it that his daughter was married off into a family based in Trichirapalli. Be that as it may,  Dikshitar’s compositions for this kshetra are gems in themselves, a veritable roll call of the very best compositions from him. Here is the list:

1. Jambupate – Yamuna Kalyani – On Lord Jambukeshvara
2. Sri Matah – Begada – On his consort Godesses Akhilandesvari
3. Sri Matrubutam – Kannada – On Lord Matrubuteshvara
4. Sri Suganti kuntalambike – Kuntalam – On his consort Godesses Sugantha Kuntalambika
5. Ranganayakam – Nayaki – On Lord Ranganatha
6. Sri Bharghavi – Mangalakaishiki – On his consort Goddesses Ranganacciar

And as a first among equals in this listing, the composition and the conception of the raga Yamuna Kalyani therein, by themselves exemplify the greatness of Dikshitar and his monumental contribution to our music.

FOOTNOTE 1 – Prabandha Type of the Gavai Prabandha:

From a grammatical standpoint, a prabandha is supposed to have the following 5 components namely tala, tenaka etc.  For a more detailed practical exposition on the components of a prabandha  readers may refer to the book of Prof S R Janakiraman’s , “Essentials of Musicology in South Indian Music”. As we can see this prabandha has all the requisite components so mandated:

1. Tala – Is given as Adi
2. Tenaka – an optional attribute for a prabandha .This is not seen in this prabandha instance.
3. Patha – Is seen, which is the sollkattus – thathom, thaiyaa etc
4. Svara- The dhatu is available as required.
5. Pada – The lyric is secular in character and in praise of a mortal and hence is of the category of “biruda”

Since the prabandha (with tattaittaiyaa -GGGR, as the refrain or udgraha) has 4 components including the mandatory svara part, it is a Anandini Jati prabandha. One can surmise that since this prabandha had been composed in a desya raga of northern origins, it was probably treated as a slightly inferior composition.

FOOT NOTE – 2: WHY YAMUNA FOR THE COMPOSITION “JAMBUPATE” – AN INTERESTING THOUGHT:

While one can always speculate on Dikshitar’s choice of ragas for some of his great compositions, his choice of Yamuna for “Jambupate” is very intriguing. “Jambupate Maam Pahi” is a krithi which forms part of the set of 5 compositions covering the pancabhuta kshetras namely Kancipuram (prithvI), Kalahasti,(vAyu), Tiruvannamalai (agnI) , Jambukeshvaram (jala/appU) and Cidambaram (AkAsa), wherein Lord Siva is said to embodied in the form of one of these primordial elements. Each of these kritis in unique and has been custom structured lyrically having a solid nexus to the kshetra. Jambukeshvaram or  tiruvAnaikkA, the kshetra on which this kriti has been composed, represents Shiva of the form of Water. Hence this composition features a number of water related references such as Ambu, Ambudhi, Ganga, Kaveri, Yamuna, Kambu, appU etc. The lyrics also features the standard dviteeyakshara prasa, the usage of which Dikshitar is justly famous for such as, Jambu-ambu, tumbu, ambu, kambu etc).

On the choice of ragas for the panca bhuta kritis, Dikshitar chose older and traditional Carnatic ragas such as Huseni, Bhairavi, Saranga and Kedaram for the other pieces. But the fact that he chose Yamuna for this composition/kshetra , seems to be a sort of a teaser.Given the facts we have , I speculate that he had chosen Yamuna for the following 2 reasons, perhaps:

• To showcase his musical virtuosity by taking up a desya raga and providing a make-over to it and in the process bring it into the musical mainstream in Carnatic Music. Suddha Kalyan as a raga is considered a challenge to musicians in Hindustani Music. This is what Deepak Raja says on this point.

“A survey of available recordings of this raga (Suddha Kalyan) reveals some interesting patterns. To begin with, Suddha Kalyan appears to have been performed only by musicians of considerable stature. Even these musicians appear to have performed them primarily at concerts, and rarely on commercial recordings. These facts suggest that the raga is regarded as a considerable aesthetic challenge, and those who do perform it do so after they have ascertained the receptivity potential of their audiences to the raga’s melodic subtleties.”

• Dikshitar associated Yamuna with Trichy/ Jambukesvaram. Given that the prabandham (the oldest available composition) is on a ruler of Trichirapalli, Dikshitar associated it with the Tiruvaanaikka temple and proceeded to compose in it.  In fact King Vijayaranga Cokkanatha was a great benefactor of the Tiruvanaikka temple as well.  Additionally one can surmise as well that Dikshitar might have heard the prabandham being rendered when he was in Trichirapalli , had it notated, which latter came into the hands of Subbarama Dikshitar, who proceeded to publish it in the SSP.

"Jambukeshvara Temple andTrichirappalli - A Photo Montage, Circa 1850 (Courtesy: The Collection from the Victoria and Albert Museum, London

The famous British Photographer Linnaeus Tripe took these photographs of Trichirappalli and the Jambukesvara Temple , perhaps just a few decades after Dikshitar visited the temple. Dikshitar must have walked through the temple courtyard and the approach street as one sees in the photograph above. The photo on the bottom right is the ramp parts of the Trichy Palace/Fort as it was then. This Palace was probably the Court of King Vijayaranga Cokkanatha, where perhaps the Yamuna Kalyani gavai prabandha was composed and rendered, with him as the nAyakA.

FOOTNOTE 3: A BRIEF NOTE ON THE COMPOSITIONAL STYLE OF “JAMBUPATE”

Time and again one can notice that whenever there is a conversation about Dikshitar’s composition “Jambupate”, the lyrical and melodic structuring of the composition on the lines of the Northern/Hindustani Dhrupad is invariably referred to. Dhrupad in short it is an old and now virtually extinct compositional form and vehicle for musical exposition of Hindustani Music. For an in depth coverage of dhrupad I would refer the readers to the book by Deepak Raja ,titled ‘Hindustani Music – A Tradition in Transition’ . There are apparently 2 types of Dhrupad’s in the northern classical music – the so called devotional dhrupad, which is typically sung in Vaishnavite temples of the North and the second one being classical dhrupad. This is what author Selina Theilemann says of the 2 types of dhrupad ( or dhruva pada) in her work “Singing the Praises Divine: Music in the Hindu Tradition”, which I think summarizes it perfectly.

“While the classical dhrupada performance represents a musical rendition in its own right, the dhrupada of the Vaishnavite temples is characterized by its strict functionality within the devotional sevice. In the devotional drupada, the composition and sacred content of its text form the central element of the performance, whereas the purely musical aspects such as alapa and improvisation are reduced to a minimum. Devotional drupadas are always composed in cau tala and are sung in slow tempo. The rendition of the complete composition is compulsory and no part of the devotional text is indispensable. The alapa is either omitted or reduced to a few characteristic phrases of the raga. Rhythmic and melodic improvisation too is given little space and in some temples and traditions, improvisation is altogether prohibited. What is shared by both the classical and devotional drupada is the slow and heavy movement, along with the emphasis on the textual component and on the effective delivery of the devotional message.”

In all probability Dikshitar structured his ‘Jambupate’ on the lines of the northern ‘devotional drupad’. Did he hear it in a northern Vaishnava shrine, probably during his Kashi sojourn? Or did he perhaps hear it being rendered by some visiting ‘durbari gavai’ in Tanjore or Trichirapalli? No one can be sure. Be that as it may, Dikshitar invokes the deeply meditative and contemplative structure of the devotional dhrupad in this composition. The similarities ‘Jambupate’ has with the devotional dhrupad also give us a clue as to how the composition has to be rendered and there can be no doubt about it. Selina Theilemann’s summary of the style/tempo of rendering the devotional dhrupad says it all.

FOOTNOTE 4:

As an aside, attention is invited to the remarks that Sri Srinivasa Iyer makes at the start of Sri Lalgudi’s vinyasa response. Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer known for his humorous and witty on/off-stage remarks and repartee, given that the raga being rendered is of  Hindustani origins, in this clipping, expresses his appreciation for Sri Lalgudi Jayaraman’s raga response with the Hindi words ‘acchA acchA’ and then follows up with a comment to the effect that (given that the “Anti Hindi’ agitation was running high in Tamil Nadu then i. e during the early 1960′s) the usage of “that” Hindi word is best avoided! The entire concert has been commercially released by Carnatica through a CD album titled “Classical Everest”.

REFERENCES:

1. Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (1904) of Subbarama Dikshitar – Tamil translation published the Music Academy, Madras
2. “Muthuswami Dikshitar’s Compositions in Desiya Ragas” ( 1975) by B V K Sastry- Collection of Essays, published as “The Musical Heritage of Sri Muthuswami Dikshitar”, by the Indian Indological Society, Baroda
3. Ramachandran K.V. (1950) – “Carnatic ragas from a new angle – Sankarabharana” – The Journal of the Music Academy XXI, pp. 88-99, Madras, India.
4. “Desi ragas of Post-Ratnakara Period” ( 1996) – Ph.D Dissertation of  R Hemalatha, Department of Indian Music, University of Madras, Chennai, India.
5. Deepak Raja’s blog featuring his notes on Raga Shudda Kalyan -URL: http://swaratala.blogspot.com/2007/04/raga-shuddha-kalyan-how-and-why-it-is.html
6. “Raganidhi” (1984) by B. Subba Rao, published by Music Academy, Madras
7. “Kalyani”(Jan 2002) – An article by M V Ramana and V N Muthukumar available at http://www.sawf.org/newedit/edit01142002/musicarts1.asp
8. “South Indian Shrines” by Shri P V Jagadisa Iyer  and published by Asian Educational Services, 1993;  ISBN 8120601513, 9788120601512 ;638 pages
9. “History Of The Nayaks Of Madura”  (1924) by R Sathyanatha Aiyar ; Published by Oxford University Press

Credits/Acknowledgements:

1. The clippings in this article have been used for purely educational purpose as illustration only and all copyrights therein lies with the music distributors or the artistes or their descendants as the case may be.
2. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Abhiramasundari for providing me with with her interpretation and permission to use the rendering of the jatisvaram of Subbarama Dikshitar.
3. I thank Vidvan Suryaprakash for providing me with the permission to post his rendering of the Yamuna Kalyani kriti ‘Paramashivatmajam’, from his CD release titled “Shanmatha Sunadham” distributed by Poornima Records, Chennai.

Subbarama Dikshitar’s Compositions:

The jatisvaram found notated under this raga in the SSP can be considered as Subbarama Dikshitar’s second composition composed in the year 1856, the first one being the varna in Durbar “Intamodi”. The reference to his is found in his autobiography that he wrote as a part of the “Vaggeyakara Caritamu”. When he sang the Durbar varna before the Rajah of Ettayapuram, the Rajah to ensure that the Courtiers and other musicians too acknowledge and realize that the seventeen year old Subbarama Dikshitar was truly an original musician, made him compose this jatisvaram in the raga Yamuna as a test. The composition was structured by the young Subbarama Dikshitar as specified by the Rajah such that the pallavi and anupallavi had svaras as sahitya, the next set of svaras started with dhaivata, the final svara set had all the three speeds, and finally ending with the muktayi svaram.

As one can notice from the notation of this composition, Subbarama Dikshitar’s Yamuna is featured with older prayogas like GPDs, sDP etc. The ragamalika too bears out Subbarama Dikshitar’s penchant for the older version/archaic Yamuna rather than the newer Yamuna as embodied in ‘Jambupate’. It is only in the sancari that Subbarama Dikshitar uses the melodic material of the newer Yamuna of Dikshitar with usage of M1 and also prolific usage of nishada. His sancari too contains phrases from the older Yamuna as well as the newer Yamuna. One can surmise that the sancaris were probably composed during the run up to the creation of the SSP by Subbarama Dikshitar and not earlier.

At this juncture, attention is invited to the other notated composition found in the SSP, which is Krishnasvami Ayya’s kriti ‘Cintaye Janakiramanam’. Incidentally the kriti is not encountered in the concert circuit, but the notation in the SSP, features a slightly different Yamuna Kalyani. In this composition, suddha madhyama usage is denser and is not just restricted to the GM1R usage. We do see a GM1P usage as well as a GM2M1 usage in the kriti ! Also the M1 shows up in tara stayi sancaras as  gm1r which is extremely rare in Yamuna Kalyani. Given that Subbarama Dikshitar must have in all probability had a role to play in setting the tune for this composition, the treatment of Yamuna Kalyani in this composition is indeed very odd and unusual!

MODERN YAMUNA:

As highlighted elsewhere in this article, modern/present day Yamuna is clearly a further narrowing down of the Yamuna Kalyani of Dikshitar with two important changes:

1. The raga is rendered in madhyama sruti
2. Usage of suddha madhyama is much more prolific and one can also see that it is used in succession with the prati madhyama note.

On the usage of M2M1 notes in succession, it needs to be pointed that classical versions of the Hindustani raga Yaman do not feature the same. According to Rajan Parrikkar, the suddha madhyama using versions of Yaman should be called Jaimini Kalyan rather than Yaman Kalyan.  Fact is  that the Hindustani raga Yaman which is an implementation of the ‘thAt’ or raaganga Kalyan, does not sport suddha madhyama at all. The versions of Kalyan sporting suddha madhyama (Yaman Kalyan or Jaimini Kalyan as may be called), use M1 only via GM1G . The phrase M2M1G usage with the glide is considered a “lighter” version. I would invite readers to the two seminal articles on Kalyan and Kalyani by Rajan Parrikkar and Muthukumar and Ramana, respectively on sawf.org.

DISCOGRAPHY:

In this section we will take a look at the recordings of compositions as encountered in the  three evolutionary forms of Yamuna Kalyani.

Archaic Yamuna:

First is the older form, equivalent to the Suddha Kalyan of the Hindustani Music. As pointed out earlier, the Jatisvaram of Subbarama Dikshitar as notated in the SSP is a prime example. Dr Abhiramasundari, a disciple of Sangita Kalanidhi Vedavalli renders the jatisvaram as per the notation found in the SSP.

Clip 1 – Jatisvaram-yamunakalyani – SubbaramaDikshitar (Dr.Abhiramasundari)

Attention is invited to the total absence of the suddha madhyama svara and the nishada in this composition. The tonal color of the raga as delineated in this composition is vastly different.

Dikshitar’s Yamuna Kalyani -  Jambupate:

Next is the Yamuna of Dikshitar which is best defined by the pancabhuta kshetra kriti “Jambupate Mam pahi” and exemplified by the notation found in the SSP. The most popular renditions of this composition are that of Sangita Kalanidhi D K Jayaraman and Sangita Kalanidhi B Rajam Iyer, both of whom trace their pAtham to Justice T L Venkatarama Iyer and on to Ambi Dikshitar. For the purposes of this article, I present two interpretations/renderings which  appear in my opinion to be closer to the notation as found in the SSP.

But before that, I present an excerpt from a 1993 Lecture Demonstration on select Dikshitar Kritis by Prof S R Janakiraman @ Seattle, USA. He is accompanied by Srividya Chandramouli of the Karaikudi veena school . Here he dwells on the Yamuna Kalyani of Dikshitar.

Clip 2 – Prof SRJ – Yamuna Kalyani Demonstration

Prof S R J first outlines the salient features of Dikshitar’s Yamuna Kalyani and shows how different it is from Kalyani, even without usage of suddha madhyama. Watch out for the Professor tellingly use the nRGMP or nRGP (lower case signifying mandhara stayi and uppercase madhya stayi) and again PNDs (italics signify upper or tara stayi) to proceed to the upper octave, reminding us of the Hindustani Yaman. He renders portions of the composition as illustration and shows how by the mere intonation of the gandhara and purvanga svaras, Kalyani can be distinguished very clearly from Yamuna Kalyani.

Clip 3 – Prof SRJ – Jambupate

Next, Prof S R J presents Jambupate in full, to the accompaniment of tanpura sruti, preceding it with a crisp raga outline. Attention is invited to the total exclusion of suddha madhyama svara in the alapana and the sparing use of it in the kriti, in line with the notation as found in the SSP.To reiterate, in Dikshitar’s version of Yamuna Kalyani the suddha madhyama svara usage is supposed to be sparing in usage and is seen only via the murccana GM1RS only. An example, is the negotiation of the sahitya line of the anupallavi, “tumburu nuta hrudaya tapopasamana”.  Also note that fact that the rendering is “not” in madhyama sruti, driven by the fact that the kriti has sancaras spanning upto the tara gandhara. Attention is again invited to the way in which Prof S R J explicitly intones prati madhyama at the anupallavi line “AmbujAsanAdi sakala deva namana”.Within the framework of the original notation, the Prof melodically  extends , interprets and develops the sahitya line revealing the myriad melodic hues of Yamuna. The entire anupallavi presents in a nutshell, Dikshitar’s conception of the modern Yamuna in its so called bhashanga form with M1, a veritable lesson indeed for us.

A note on kampita gamaka and its usage in Yamuna Kalyani is warranted at this juncture. It is not that kampita gamaka is not to be used in Yamuna. Modern interpretations of this raga near totally eschew kampita gamaka usage, driven perhaps by the logic that since it is a raga with northern origins, its notes should be plainer and not oscillated with this gamaka. The notation of “Jambupate” in the SSP and its interpretation by the Professor clearly shows how misconceived this view can be. In his rendering, attention is invited to the portion where the Professor tellingly uses the gamaka on the gandhara as he interprets the caranam line “sarva jeeva dayakara sambho”, for example, in line with the SSP notation. Gandhara, dhaivatha and the pancama svaras , especially in the caranam are ornamented with the kampita gamaka notation, debunking this common misconception that this raga needs to be rendered “only” in a plainer/lighter fashion, lest it may probably be mistaken for Kalyani.

I present next, Sangita Kala Acharya Seetha Rajan interpreting the composition, again with fidelity to the notation of Subbarama Dikshitar, in this August 2009 recording from a chamber music recital.

Clip 4 – Vidushi Seetha Rajan – Jambupate

As I understand, she has re-learnt it on the basis of the notation found in the SSP. Her grounding in Hindustani Music as well comes to the fore as she interprets the Pallavi line ‘amruta bodham dehi” executing the GMPD/rs svara sequence via jaaru gamaka, jumping from the madhya stayi dhaivatha to the tara rishabha. One can appreciate and savor Dikshitar’s extraordinary depth of imagination as it comes to the fore when he flips the GPDs of the older Yamuna as GMPDrs imparting a different hue in this composition. The fundamental axiom of raga lakshana and its interpretation which was practiced by Dikshitar is best embodied by the assertion of noted music critique, the Late K V Ramachandran, in one of his lecture demonstrations where he avers that jumps, bends, twists were the rule for svaras in ragas and that rarely do they proceed in a linear succession. Attention is invited to the grand finale of this composition, which is the concluding carana sahitya in madhyamakala, begining “nirvikalpa samAdhi nishta…”. Students and learners of this composition should listen to the Vidushi Seetha Rajan’s interpretation with the SSP notation by the side, to appreciate how Dikshitar provides us with an unalloyed summary of his Yamuna in this final section, devoid of even the suddha madhyama.

Dikshitar’s other compositions:

Apart from “Jambupate” which is the sole composition in Yamuna Kalyani of Muthusvami Dikshitar as documented in the SSP, we have two other compositions “Nandagopala” and “Paramashivatmajam”, which have been documented by Veenai Sundaram Iyer and attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar. Recordings of “Nandagopala” by both Dr B Rajam Iyer and by Sri Maharajapuram Santhanam are available to us. For sake of analysis, I take up “Paramashivatmajam”, which is hardly encountered in the concert circuit. Vidvan R Suryaprakash interprets this composition as he learnt it from Dr V V Srivatsa.

Clip 5: Vidvan Suryaprakash – Paramashivatmajam-Yamunakalyani

Attention is invited to the usage of the svarakshara “sDP” in the Pallavi line “sadA bhajeham”, which is a signature prayoga or motif of the older Yamuna. Attention is invited to the treatment of the raga in the composition (not found in SSP) in contradistinction to ‘Jambupate’ (found in SSP). In fact this divergence of raga lakshana and its treatment is encountered in few other ragas , such as for example Vegavauhini and Chaturangini, exemplified by the SSP kritis on one hand and the non SSP kritis on the other, as composed by /attributed to Dikshitar.

Moving away from Dikshitar, in the absence of authentic versions or notations of the available Tyagaraja kritis in this raga, I am unable to divine if indeed the Bard of Thiruvayyaru’s, interpretation of this beautiful raga was on the lines of the archaic Yamuna or of Dikshitar’s Yamuna. The analysis of the notation of the kriti “Haridasulu vedale” as documented in detail by Rangaramanuja Iyengar presents us with some data as to the form it was at least during the first half of the 20^th century.

MODERN YAMUNA KALYANI:

I next take up the interpretation of Tyagaraja’s composition “Haridasulu Vedale” by the veteran vocalist Prof T R Subramaniam (Prof TRS). He along with Prof SRJ, Sangita Kalanidhi T K Govinda Rao and the well known music guru Bombay Sri Ramachandran were batch mates, learning music at the Madras Music College during the 1950′s from the likes of Musiri Subramanya Iyer, T Brinda and others.

Prof SRJ and Prof TRS @ Cleveland 2004

Clip 6 – Prof TRS – Haridasulu

In this old recording, we can find how pristine and felicitous, Prof T R S’s voice was. The fast brighas he executes with razor sharp precision remind us of the style of the late Sangita Kalanidhi G N Balasubramaniam, whom he  idolized. First, Prof T R S embarks on an alapana of Yamuna Kalyani. He lets his imagination run riot literally as he takes us far into upper reaches of Yamuna Kalyani and fleetingly uses the prayoga incorporating the two madhyamas in succession, which is well within the province of modern Yamuna Kalyani, which permits a much denser and unrestrained use of suddha madhyama. He concludes by outlining the eduppu/take-off of the famous Yamuna Kalyani kriti “Krishna Nee” probably for the benefit of the audience and moves on to render the kriti.

In in his rendering of the final sangati of the Pallavi line “Ananda mAye dayalo”, Prof TRS uses the two madhyamas in succession as a svarakshara. Clearly this edition of the Tyagaraja composition is classifiable under the modern version of Yamuna Kalyani.

It is indeed a pity that we are unable to divine the true/original conception of Yamuna by the bard, beyond doubt. The different patantharams and the lack of a reliable oral or textual notation as authority prevents us from understanding many of Tyagaraja’s original melodies. In fact the Experts Commitee of the Music Academy debated it without a conclusion being reached, in the year 1958, the year in which Sri G N Balasubramanian became the Sangita Kalanidhi. During those deliberations, the Experts Committee member C S Iyer ( father of  Vidushi Vidya Shankar and disciple of Sangita Kalanidhi Sabhesa Iyer) raised the question as to the original raga of the famous Tyagaraja composition “Etavunara”, which is presently rendered in Kalyani. According to him the raga of the composition was not Kalyani but Yamuna ( vide JMA Vol XXX, Page 30, Proceedings dated 23-Dec-1958 ).

We now move over to Vyasaraya’s ‘Krishna Nee’ which is a shining example of modern Yamuna Kalyani.

Krishna Nee Begane Baro:

In the context of the ‘Krishna Nee Begane” , the composition or atleast the text/lyrics dates back to the 15th/16th century.  I am unable to speculate on the antiquity of the tune. It might be very old or may not be, but needless to say that this song as immortalized by Sangita Kalanidhi T Balasarasvati (1918-1984) is the extant version of the popular Yamuna Kalyani.  For connoisseurs of fine arts, Tanjore Balasarasvathi was the very embodiment of  the music and dance of Tanjore. She was the star student of Kandappa Nattuvanar (1899-1941) who was the great grandson of Cinnayya of the  illustrious Tanjore Quartet. For the benefit of those of us who may not be aware as to why this legendary scion of the Veena Dhanammal family is justly identified with this composition, Dr B M Sundaram’s in his work “Marabu Thanda Manikkangal” (Tamil) has captured that moment in history ! The following paragraph is a rough translation of his account.

The year was 1934 and the venue was the Rasika Ranjani Sabha at Mylapore , Madras the Mecca of Carnatic Music. The cognoscenti of the City had assembled to watch ‘their’ Bala ( as she was adoringly referred to by her avid rasikas) performing to the singing of her mother, the incomparable Jayammal. During the course of the recital Jayammal, extempore launched into “Krishna Nee Begane”, the devaranama which was one  of the several, she had learnt from the great Dasa pada exponent and guru, Dharwad Hayagrivachar. Bala was caught unawares as she had not danced to the piece before that day and her hesitation if any was perhaps momentary as she instantly and naturally drew on her consummate artistic genius and innate skill of abhinaya. For the next thirty minutes  or more, she held the audience spell-bound with her remarkable interpretation of the lyrics, conjuring up the very image of Krishna of Udipi before them.  As they say, the rest is history. It went on to become the talk of the town for the next several years, setting a new benchmark for  this composition and its interpretation.

Hear the meltingly rendered composition with the abhinaya. Luckily for us, it has been captured by the doyen Satyajit Ray on film and has thus been preserved for posterity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuq7ncvjYE

Click for Final Part here.

Patrons have played a very great part in our past in fostering Carnatic Music. Composers and musicians have been sustained, patronized & honored by both the Royals as well as the aristocratic/business magnates of the last few centuries. They were one of the essential components of the musical ecosystem of India. Given the social milieu it would be uncharitable to just say that they did this as a quid pro quo/in return for the singers/composers creating compositions in their praise. Some of these patrons themselves were musicians/composers themselves, such as King Shahaji or Maharaja Svati Tirunal. Then there were those who were lovers of music and so sustained the art and the artistes themselves such as the Rajas/Zamindars and nobles who also came to be recorded as the nayakas in the compositions such as the padas, cauka varnas etc. Well-known amongst them are the Raja of Karvetinagar, the Zamindars of Udayarpalayam and the Rulers of Ettayapuram. The Rajas, nobles and chieftains who have been sung upon include the known & the unknown. And the list of such patrons is quite a lengthy one.

And one amongst them is Rajah Bhaskara Sethupati of Ramanathapuram(1868-1903) of the Royal House of Ramnad. The contribution of the Sethupathis to art & culture and to Tamil has now been almost forgotten. As Bhaskara Sethupathi’s brief life time would show us, he was a sort of a confluence of the orient and the occident. Given his education and background, he should have risen to be one of the “model” Zamindars of the British era, but it was never to be as he indulged in philanthropy so much that the coffers of his Zamin ran dry. And finally the pressure telling on him perhaps, Bhaskara Sethupathi died prematurely when he was just 35 years old.

In this post, I intend to cover this great patron and analyse two compositions – a varna and a ragamalika composed in his honor by Subbarama Dikshitar. And this post is being made this month, which marks the death anniversary of this patron who died in December 1903, when he was just 35 years young. 

Stamp released by the Government of India in Dec 2004 on his death centenary

PROFILE OF BHASKARA SETUPATI:¹

The erstwhile Southern coastal Indian Kingdom of Ramanathapuram or Ramnad had been ruled by the Sethupathis – translated to mean the ‘Overlords of the Causeway’. Tradition has it when Lord Rama, crossed over to Ceylon over the bridge built by his vAnara army, he built the temple for Lord Ramanatha as a thanksgiving upon his victory. He also appointed the first Sethupathi to protect the piligrims who would be using the causeway. Since then, they were traditionally been referred so and ruled over the “marava” country, which is the land mass between Madurai and the sea, in Southern India. They have always been till date the administrators of the Ramanathasvami temple with all hereditary rights. Famous kings of this lineage include Raghunatha Tevar or Kilavan Sethupathi (1673-1708) and Muthuramalinga Sethupathi I (1760-1794) and during the latter’s reign the Sethupatis lost their sovereignty completely to the British and ended up being a mere Zamindari, paying rent(kist/peshcush) to the British as their vassal.

Bhaskara Sethupati was born on 3^rd November 1868 as the first son of Raja Muthuramalinga Sethupathi II (regnal years 1862-1872) and his wife Muthathaal Nacciyar. In 1830, when Raja Ramasvami Sethupathi died without leaving behind a heir, his wife Rani Parvathavardhini Nacciar ruled the Zamindari. She was assisted by her brother Kottasami Thevar. At the end her life time, Rani Parvathavardhini Nacciar took in adoption the second son of her sister, by name Muthuramalingam who was then a minor to succeed as the Zamindar. Till his majority, his elder brother Ponnusvami Thevar ruled as his Regent. There were several legal wrangles which were witnessed during this period, challenging the adoption.  Ponnusvami Tevar acting as Manager played a major political role in ensuing that his younger sibling duly became the Sethupati. And even after Muthuramalinga had attained majority, Ponnusvami Thevar (who died in 1870) continued to guide the young Muthuramalinga Sethupathy II in running the affairs of Ramanathapuram. Both the brothers were great lovers of Tamil and Music. Ponnusvami Thevar’s son was the famous Panditurai Thevar (Zamindar of Pazhavanattam, 1867-1911) who founded the 4^th Tamil Sangam at Madurai. Muthuramalinga Sethupathy II was adept in the arts & in Tamil. Muthuramalinga Sethupathy II passed away suddenly in 1872 when his son Bhaskara Sethupathy was barely 4 years old. As per the then existing British administered system, the minor heir was placed under the custody of the Court of Wards till such time he attained majority.

Bhaskara Sethupathy in the traditional regalia as a Maharaja (Photo Courtesy: Pamela G Price)

The “Court of Wards” was an instrument of control used by the British government purportedly to ensure that minor Zamindars, who were “deemed” incapable of running the Zamindari were ‘tutored’ and trained up to become model Zamindars to subserve their interest . By the late 19^th century, as a policy and as a practice, the British resorted to this instrument of control very frequently when a minor became a Zamindar. The Court of Wards as an institution which functioned under the control of the Board of Revenue in Calcutta operated in every district and was headed by the district collector, an Englishman. The classic situation of when the Court of Wards would step in to administer a Zamindari was when the proprietor of the estate namely the Zamindar died leaving behind minor sons. Even in cases where a Zamindar was found unfit to run the affairs of the estate, upon the report of the District Collector, the Board of Revenue was empowered to step in to manage the estate. The Court of Wards apart from taking the responsibility of managing the estate also took charge of educating the heir apparent, the minor Zamindar. While the district collector was the nominal head, the tasks were run by a motley group of Englishmen and local learned Indians or the “natives” to put in the then English parlance.

Bhaskara Sethupathi was taken to Madras to be educated both in English and in Western manners and etiquette. He had an English tutor who put him through the learning of the English classics and music as well and apparently Sir Walter Scott’s “Ivan Hoe” was one of his favorites. Bhaskara Sethupathi learned to play piano as well. To make him worldly wise, the Court of Wards made him travel to different parts of India and Ceylon as well, accompanied by his tutor. Well trained in the Western ways, Bhaskara Sethupathi did make his tutor proud as is obvious from his certification to the Court of Wards upon attainment of majority. Bhaskara Sethupathi was formally anointed by the then British Government as “Maharaja” & took over the Zamindari on 3^rd April 1889. Earlier in 1888 he married Sivabhagyam Nacciar, daughter of one of his kinsmen.

Bhaskara Sethupathi though western educated had his moorings in Indian culture and arts. There is a kriti in the raga Suratti which this Raja has apparently composed on Goddess Padmasini Thayar at the temple at neighboring Tiruppullani kshetra. He was devoted as a true Sethupathi, to Lord Ramanatha of Ramesvaram and to Goddess Rajarajesvari, the tutelary deity of the Sethupathis. He was so greatly enamored of Svami Vivekananda & his teachings. He funded the Svami’s historic trip to the Parliament of Religions at Chicago. Though Sethupathi was the original invitee to the Conference, he chose  instead to send Svami Vivekananda and the rest is history. Svami Vivekananda too held Sethupathi in high esteem and called him a ‘Rajarishi’. And when the Svami returned back from Chicago and set foot at Pamban in Ramesvaram on Jan 26^th, 1897, he was given a tumultuous welcome and to commomerate the same Bhaskara Sethupati constructed a 40ft high monument inscribed with the words ‘Satyameva Jayate’, which went on to become the motif of the Indian State some 50 years later!

Bhaskara Sethupathy funded many charitable/philanthropic activities and events. S Tiruvenkatachari in his book, “Setupatis of Ramnad”, wrote that Bhaskara Setupati became a “byword for benevolence, charity and phenomenal generosity”. His giveaways were truly phenomenal in the literal sense of the word. Rs 10,000 to the Indian National Congress,  Rs 40,000 to the Madras Christian College, an endowment for educating less privileged students in his alma mater etc. A thorough and meticulous person, he maintained a personal dairy, the contents of which, provides a great insight into his character. Even during his minority he maintained this habit and in 1890, publishers G W Taylor of Madras brought it out as a book, “My Trip to India’s Utmost Isle”. ¹

His unbridled philanthropy together with the practice of supporting/employing individuals with dubious credentials as a part of the paraphernalia of the Zamindari, which he failed to dispense with, put an enormous drain on the Zamin’s finances. He also inherited a debt of more than Rs 350,000, a legacy of his stepmother, the Senior Rani who had borrowed heavily. Expenses to fund the cost of litigation that was launched against him by his younger brother too had to be covered. The inevitable result was that the finances of the Zamindari fell into complete disarray. He had started borrowing from the wealthy Nattukottai Chettiars and the temple endowments to fund his spree of philanthropy, by mortgaging the property and other assets³. And ironically so, the great man who was well learned otherwise but had failed in the maths subject in high school, didn’t get his numbers right and so went literally bankrupt. Barely 26 years old and with creditors knocking at his doors, Sethupathy was forced to put the Zamin Estate under trust for his minor son. ¹

Neither did the people who were beneficiaries of his munificence help him in any way. In fact a few of them petitioned to the Collector at Madurai about the impudent extravagance of the Sethupathy, which finally spelt the death knell, literally so. He is said to have remarked during his last days thus, “I have within the last four years spent forty lakhs and though I have thus been foolishly extravagant, the leeches that drunk my blood are not a whit more grateful to me.” ¹

The congratulatory letter that Bhaskara Sethupathi wired to his illustrious contemporary Sri Jagadveera Rama Venkateshvara Ettappa ( see his profile as captured by Subbarama Dikshitar in his Vaggeyakara Caritamu) on his coronation as the Maharaja of Ettayapuram Zamindari at the end of his minority, in December 1899, is eye opening on more than one count. This Rajah of Ettayapuram too was a product of the Court of Wards and is well known in musical history as the benefactor who funded the printing & publication of Subbarama Dikshitar’s “Sangeeta Sampradaya Pradarshini” on the earnest appeal of Chinnasvami Mudaliar. And that appeal was made to the Ettayapuram King during that coronation in December 1899, which Subbarama Dikshitar refers to in his Introduction to the SSP.

Below is the text, verbatim of the congratulatory letter that Bhaskara Sethupathi wrote⁴:

“My heartfelt congratulations to you, on your assumption of charge of your ancient and historical estate. My fervent prayers to Sree Ramanatha and to Kalugachala Shanmuga Moorthi to grant you long life and continued prosperity and to make you and your truth flourish. I have little in the way of advice except to beg you most earnestly as the son of one who was most devoted to me as a brother, to take my complete failure as a Zamindar as sufficient warning to you in your future career and to remind you of the words of Lord Ripon to the Nizam, “Look to your finances”, an advice which I disregarded but which I must beg you bear in mind to avoid the consequences. I suffer by disregarding it. You know what great affection and regard I have for you personally and it is that that prompts me, even presses me to wire to you thus opening my heart to you. Your manager, Mr.Sivarama Iyer is in a way my guardian and I have fatherly regard for him. I regret his leaving you. I am performing Abhishekam and Archanai in your name this day grandly to my Lord Sri Ramanatha and to our Divine Mother and will send you prasadam. Be ever loyal to our Sovereign and Her Government and use your wealth, power, and influence to benefit others, and to injure none and above all, be devoted to the feet of Him who from Kalugachalam protects you all, and thus you will be happy now and ever.”

Some clarifications/additional information here would not be out of place.

• While Lord Ramanathasvami at Ramesvaram is the family deity of the Ramnad Sethupatis, Lord Subramanya at Kazhugumalai or Kazhugachalam or Kankagiri (about 22 kms from Kovilpatti in Southern Tamilnadu) is the presiding deity of the Ettayapuram Royals. The Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini records a number of compositions created by the Ettayapuram Rajas as well by Balusvami Dikshitar and Subbarama Dikshitar on this Lord Kartikeya. We do have one kriti ‘Subramanyena Rakshitoham’ published by Kallidaikurici Sundaram Iyer, in the raga Suddha Dhanyasi attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar, composed on this deity.
• An examination of Bhaskara Sethupathi and his persona would show that he in fact played two parts & with finesse – one as a loyal vassal of His Majesty’s Government and secondly as a nationalist who sympathized with the Indian National Congress. Two contradictory roles/approaches ,yet apolitical and it probably reflected his desire to remain relevant in the politics of the then Provincial Madras.

The text of the letter above gives a wholesome perspective of Bhaskara Sethupati. His erudite knowledge and use of English language, his moorings in Hindu beliefs and above all his open admission as to his misjudgment in running the affairs of the Ramnad Estate & his goodwill toward Venkatesvara Ettappa stand out in his letter.

Early in the year 1900, when the estate was in dire financial straits, the Pontiff of  the Sringeri Mutt is said to have played a key role in ensuring that the Estate was bailed out and Bhaskara’s son Rajesvara Sethupathi was safely put in charge of whatever was remaining. All these events perhaps took its toll on Bhaskara Sethupati’s health and quickly led to his untimely death on 27^th December 1903. When he died, the great Tamil scholar the revered Mahavidvan R Raghava Iyengar (1878-1960) wrote a eulogy in Tamil thus:

SengaiyyAl vAri aLitthAyE SetupatI !

EngayyA engatkku inimEl idam?

Translation: Oh Setupati, the one who gave away all, with your noble hands! Where do we now go?

And the other great titan U Ve Svaminatha Iyer during his visit to the Ramnad Court composed this couplet on this benevolent patron, in Tamil:

vinniR siranthidu pARkkarar pOl virumbum indha

manniR sirundUyar pARkkara bUpathi vAzhiyavE !

MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS HAVING A NEXUS TO RAMNAD:

A number of musicians/composers have been patronized by the Ramnad Royal House. Kundrakkudi Krishna Iyer (1816-1889), Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer (1844-1893), Patnam Subramanya Iyer (1845-1902), Poochi Srinivasa Iyengar(1860-1919) and Subbarama Dikshitar are the notable ones.  In fact for Bhaskara Sethupati’s ascension to the Ramnad throne, the triumvirate of Krishna Iyer, Patnam and Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer performed together.

We have quite a few compositions composed on some of the Ramnad Royals as below:

1. “sAmi nI vEga”, a tana varna in Ata tala in the raga Nattakurinji with the ankita “kottasAmi bhUpala”, composed by Patnam Subramanya Iyer in praise of Kottaisami Thevar the brother of Rani Parvathavardhini Nacciar who ruled Ramanathapuram.⁶
2. “sAmi nInnE” in Atana with the ankita “ugrapAndia bhUpAla” on Panditurai Tevar(1867-1911), the Zamindar of Pazhavanattham and the paternal cousin of Bhaskara Setupati, also composed by Patnam Subramanya Iyer.⁶
3. “Nadhru dhru deem”, tillana in Sindhubhairavi composed by Pooci Srinivasa Iyengar again on Panditurai Thevar.
4. ‘kamalAkshi ninnE koriyunnadi’ , a tana varna in Kambhoji set to jhampa tala composed by Kundrakudi Krishna Iyer on Bhaskara Sethupati’s father Muthuramalinga Sethupathi. This apart he has composed a few pada varnas as well on both Muthuramalinga Sethupati and Bhaskara Sethupati.
5. “srI rAjadhirAja” -Ata tala tana varna composed by Subbarama Dikshitar in the raga Balahamsa, in praise of Bhaskara Sethupati himself.( See Foot Note 1)
6. “gAravamu ganna dUraiyani” – Ragamalika in 9 ragas set in rupaka tala, composed by Subbarama Dikshitar again on Bhaskara Sethupati
7. ‘edO pArAmukam’ a Tamil svarajati in the raga Khamas composed on Bhaskara Setupati and ascribed to the Tanjore quartet descendant Sangita Kalanidhi Ponnayya Pillai.

Some interesting points need attention here:

• Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer, Patnam Subramanya Iyer and Kundrakkudi Krishna Iyer were a trio belonging to the same (performing) generation roughly who indulged in ‘vyavahara’ laden music, in other words indulging in complex svara and rhythmic pyrotechnics as a part of their pallavi renditions.  All the three of them were recipients of honours from the Ramanathapuram Court. We do have accounts that they constantly competed actively on & off the concert stage. Interestingly we have a a unique varna from each of them in raga Kambhoji. Krishna Iyer’s aforesaid varna is in jhampa tala, a rare one. Similarly Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer’s Kambhoji creation “Pankajakshi Neepai” is littered profusely with beautiful svaraksharas. One can indeed wonder if they produced them in (friendly ?) rivalry!
• All the above three performed together, setting aside their professional rivalry at the request of Bhaskara Sethupathi on the occasion of his ascension as King. The three of them sang together the famous Todi pallavi ‘Ganalola Karunalavala’, which incidentally was derived from the pallavi line of the kriti in the same raga, composed by Chinnasvami Dikshitar, brother of Muthusvami Dikshitar and is found notated in the SSP. Sulamangalam Bagavathar in his memoirs recalls that the rendition of the pallavi by the three titans in unison was a veritable treat, fit for celestials ! (See Foot Note 2)
• The reference of both Patnam Subramanya Iyer & Pooci Srinivasa Iyengar to the great Panditurai Tevar as “UgrapAndya” is hardly surprising. King Ugrapandya was the last of the Madurai/Pandyan sovereigns who had presided over the last (Third) Tamil Sangam (College of Poets). Panditurai Tevar was the key force behind the 4^th Tamil Sangam which set helped set up with the participation of U Ve Svaminatha Iyer, R Raghava Iyengar, Paridhimarkalignar, Shanmugham Pillai & others. Also Panditurai Tevar’s father was a close associate of Tamil Mahavidvan Meenakshisundaram Pillai, the preceptor of U Ve Svaminatha Iyer.
• It was Panditurai Tevar/Ponnusvami Tevar who had apparently recommended and also sponsored Pooci Srinivasa Iyengar to learn under Patnam Subramanya Iyer. Apart from Patnam and Pooci Iyengar, Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer and his brother Ramasvami Sivan were closely associated with the Ramanathapuram Royals.
• We have a varna in Mohana by Harikesanallur Muthiah Bagavathar “Manamohana” in ata tala with the raja mudra of “Mudduramalinga” which Dr B M Sundaram, says as alluding to Muthuramalinga Sethupati, Bhaskara’s father. Muthuramalinga Sethupathi passed away in 1872 while Muthiah Bagavathar was born only in 1877.  I am unsure how this varna can be ascribed as having been composed so.
• The Royal House of Ramnad also patronized a descendant of the Tanjore Quartet,  Vadivelu Pillai-  a grandson of the Quartet Sivanandam. by making him an AstAna vidvan. We have a beautiful Svarajati in the raga Khamas ‘ edO pArAmukam’ composed probably by this Vadivelu Pillai or by his brother’s (Kannusvami Pillai) son Sangita Kalanidhi Ponnayya Pillai (1889-1945) . This composition in which Bhaskara Setupati is portrayed as a nAyakA is again a  very rare one. The svarajathi made its way out of oblivion from the private manuscripts of  the famous dance guru K P Kittappa Pillai and was subsequently published by the Music Academy.

The Balahamsa varna and the navaratna ragamalika are the ones that Subbarama Dikshitar composed on Bhaskara Setupati, which find place respectively in the SSP and its Anubandha. Interestingly both have an oral tradition as well and for the present blog post I will take up these two compositions of Subbarama Dikshitar, both of them being beautiful in themselves.

BALAHAMSA VARNA:

The Balahamsa varna of Subbarama Dikshitar is a veritable encyclopedia of the raga Balahamsa. Its sahitya runs as under:

Pallavi

srI rAjadhiraja sannuta mahAraja sevita

srI rAmanAtha padAmbhoja

Anupallavi

srI rAjarAjeshvari krUpa pAtra sudhIndra

srI bhAskara setUpatI sArvabhauma bOgha dEvEndra

Carana:

kAmini nInnE koriyunnadirA

Anubandha:

kAmUni kEli dhani nElu kOra

This apart the, composition has sahitya for the muktayisvara and the ettugada svaras apart from having an anubandha.  In the text of the varna, Subbarama Dikshitar invokes the name of Lord Ramanatha of Ramesvaram, given that the Sethupathis are the considered the guardians of the mythological bridge Ramasethu that was built and are also the traditional patrons of the Ramanathasvami Temple. Subbarama Dikshitar also refers to Bhaskara Sethupathi as a recipient of the benign Grace of Goddess Rajarajesvari . One may think that its a casual mention of a Goddess from the Hindu pantheon & nothing more. A little more study of the history of the Ramnad Royals would show that She is the tutelary diety of the Sethupatis. And so it would be appropriate to digress here a bit to know more about this Goddess worshipped by the Sethupathis.

SRI RAJARAJESHVARI AT ‘RAMALINGA VILASAM’ :

Goddess Rajarajeshvari, was the tutelary deity of the Royals of Ramanathapuram. She had a temple within the precincts of ‘Ramalinga Vilasam’ the royal residence of the Sethupathis, which can be visited even today. In fact the Goddess with similar names/form has been the family deity of the Royals of the neighboring Sivaganga and also of the Tanjore Kings, reminding us of Goddess Camundesvari and how she is the family deity of the Wodeyar Kings of Mysore. Goddess Rajarajeshvari of the Ramanathapuram Palace used to be worshipped daily by the ruling Sethupathy and also grand pujas for her were held on occasions such as the Navaratri celebrations. The Sri Rajarajeshvari icon that was worshipped by the Setupathis of Ramnad is in the form of Mahishasuramardhini or Durga with eight hands and is mounted on an emerald/maragatha peetam. Legend has it that the golden figurine was gifted to the Sethupatis by the Nayaks of Madura. The green emerald base was got from the Kings of Mysore, during a conquest and it itself was originally supposed to have been sourced by the Sankaracharya from Himalayas. The worship of this Rajarajeshvari icon during the Navaratri celebrations of the year 1892 is recorded in detail in Chapter V of the book “Kingship and Colonial Practice in Colonial India” by Pamela Price, published by Cambridge University Press. This Royal icon never leaves the precincts of the Palace, ‘Ramalinga Vilasam” and was only worshipped by the Sethupathy & members of his royal family and on rare occasions a few esteemed guests of the Royals were invited to witness the puja. The Goddess & King Sethupathis shared a common external identity, that as together, they preserved dharma and ensured peace and prosperity in the Kingdom. Even today akin to the Dussehra Festival done royally in Mysore, the Navaratri celebrations in Ramnad are celebrated grandly, see news report here.²

U Ve Svaminatha Iyer in his chronicles records his participation in one such Navaratri celebrations on the invitation of Raja Bhaskara Sethupati. He records the gala event during which a special 1008 shankhabhisheka was performed to the Godesses.

Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Sethupathi (1710-1725) offering obeisance to Goddess Rajarajesvari – A Mural Painting in “Ramalinga Vilasam” the Royal Palace of the Ramanathapuram Rulers (Photo Courtesy: “The Courts of Pre-Colonial South India” – by Jennifer Howes)

Bhaskara Sethupathy was deeply devoted to Goddess Rajarajeshvari. In his personal dairy, in an entry dating to January 1893, Bhaskara Sethupathy recorded that one of his life ambition was to completely renovate her temple. And in that year he offered a bejeweled cup and a sari weaved in gold, which he had purchased in Madras ! ¹ Apparently till then animal sacrifices were made to this deity, which was stopped by Bhaskara Sethupathi with the guidance and benign blessings of the Sankaracharya of Sringeri.

As referred earlier, Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer (1844-1893) was patronized by the Rajas of Ramanathapuram, particularly by Bhaskara Sethupathi’s father Muthuramalinga Sethupathi II (1862-1873). It is worth noting here that Vaidyanatha Iyer is never known to have a sung on a mortal. One can surmise that probably one evening, during a visit to the ‘Ramalinga Vilasam’, Vaidyanatha Iyer must have been probably invited to witness the puja of this Rajarajeshvari and he went on to compose his Janaranjani composition “pAhimAm srI rAjarAjeshvarI” in praise of the deity!

Pahimam Shrirajarajeshwari-janaranjani-Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer

Though this kriti does not have any reference in its sahitya to Ramanathapuram or its Royals, still the nexus seems worth imagining at least! And another interesting reference in this connection is the pallavi rendered by Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer during the coronation celebrations of Bhaskara Sethupati. As before mentioned, after Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer along with Patnam Subramanya Iyer and Kundrakudi Krishna Iyer finished rendering the Todi pallavi, ‘Ganalola karunalavala’, Bhaskara Sethupati requested Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer to render one more pallavi in the Simhananda tala, egged on by the assembled vidvans. The veteran composer/singer composed one in praise of  Goddess Rajarajesvari, in a trice , in the 108 akshara tala and rendered it splendidly.

This also leads one to another interesting trail of thought as to the circumstance in which Subbarama Dikshitar might have composed the varna on Bhaskara Sethupati. As a matter of fact apart from these compositions given in text/notation in the SSP we do not have any record of the time and place in which Subbarama Dikshitar must have met Bhaskara Sethupati. The piece could have been composed by Subbarama Dikshitar in April 1889 to commemorate the coronation of Bhaskara Sethupati when he formally became the Raja of Ramnad at the end of his minority.

Also there is one other piece of information with which we can surmise/imagine another probable scenario! Bhaskara Sethupati as is obvious from his personal dairies ,was a Devi upAsakA. In the entry made in January 1893 he had indicated that he wanted to learn and practice Sakti Tantra. Indeed so in that same year the Sethupathi conducted the kumbhabishekam of the Rajarajesvari temple. And Subbarama Dikshitar perhaps met Bhaskara Sethupati on the occasion of that consecration. We well know that Subbarama Dikshitar was a practitioner of Sri Vidya cult and was initiated into it very early in life. This could have made the young & hardly 25 year old Sethupathi to look upon the sage-like looking Subbarama Dikshitar as his guru/preceptor to guide him in the worship of Devi.

Let us first hear the rendering of this very rare varna by Prof S R Janakiraman and his disciple Sriram Kannan in this video clipping below recorded a few weeks ago.

The Professor’s enviable repertoire traces back to two illustrious lineages as exemplified by Sangita Kalanidhi Flute Svaminatha Pillai and Tiger Varadacariar. While SSP additionally gives the sahitya for the muktayisvara and for the ettugada svaras, the same is not rendered by Prof SRJ. Attention is invited to the rendering of the concluding portions of the varna, i.e the sequential rendering of the last avarta of ettugada svara followed by the anubandha sahitya, the anupallavi, the muktayi svara and finally ending with the pallavi sahitya, which marks the logical conclusion to the rendering. This varna is a classic example of the older form of which the Bhairavi ata tala varna ‘Viribhoni’ is a prime example. Though the extant renderings of the Bhairavi varna is a truncated one, the SSP has the text & notation of the complete varna together with the anubandha.

ANALYSIS OF BALAHAMSA⁷

The varna contains older/archaic phrases not in vogue and presents a picture of what Balahamsa was, once upon a time. In the SSP itself, we have the following compositions given from this raga.⁴

• (Muddu)Venkatamakhi’s gitam in matya tAla
• Muthusvami Dikshitar’s Guruguha Vibakthi kriti, “guruguhAd anyam na janEham” set in jhampa tAla
• Subbarama Dikshitar’s aforesaid Tana varna in ata tAla
• His sancari in matya tAla

While we do have good number compositions of Tyagaraja and that of the post trinity composer Mysore Sadasiva Rao, Subbarama Dikshitar’s creation is the lexicon for this raga & contains a number of phrases which have since gone out of vogue. From a historical perspective Balahamsa finds first mention in King Shahaji’s ‘Ragalakshanamu’ followed by Tulaja’s ‘Sangita Saramruta’. Subbarama Dikshitar’s interpretation is completely aligned to the older version as given by Shahaji, with vakra murccanas. Barring a sequential SRGM and PDNs, other prayogas abound, to put it simply.

In the SSP, Balahamsa is defined by Subbarama Dikshitar thus:

1. Upanga and sampurna with nishada being varjya in the arohana, under the Kedaragaula raaganga.
2. Rishabha is the jiva and nyasa svara and sadja is graha svara.
3. Salient murccanas include SRPMR,  SRGMPMR, dSRMGR, SRMGRGS, RSndpdSR and GMPMR (tara sadja svara is denoted in lower case, madhya stayi in upper case and mandhara stayi svaras in lower case italics. Those in bold font are svaras to be emphasized)

It needs to be noted that the contemporaneous version of Balahamsa as evidenced by the kritis of Tyagaraja and Sadasiva Rao has its roots in Govindacarya’s definition of Balahamsa with the arohana/avarohana being S R M P D s/s N D P M R M G S as an upanga janya under Harikambhoji mela. And also instead of rishabha, madhyama and dhaivatha are seen in profusion. The melodic difference between the Balahamsa  as documented by Subbarama Dikshitar on one hand and that found in the version propounded by Govindacarya is best exemplified by the Mysuru Sadasiva Rao’s kriti.

Sangita Kala Acharya Smt Seetha Rajan renders Sadasiva Rao’s “Evarunnaru” in this concert excerpt here: Evarunnaru – Balahamsa

Attention is invited to the marked difference in the treatment of the raga in this composition. And it does make us wonder when this change to raga lakshana of this raga took place. Suffice to state that this raga is another member of that list which represent a difference in treatment as evidenced by the compositions of Tyagaraja on one hand & Dikshitar on the other.

Prof.S.R.Janakiraman follows up & touches upon some of the musical aspects and an anecdote around this raga :

Balahamsa-Raga-An Introduction By Prof.S.R.Janakiraman

SOME POINTS ON BALAHAMSA:

• It’s interesting to note that the final avarta of the not-sung citta svara of the Guruguha vibhakti krithi ‘Guruguhad anyam’,starting with the phrase SRMPDPs is reproduced almost verbatim by Subbarama Dikshitar in his varna in the muktayi svara section. The conception of  Subbarama Dikshitar of this raga is closely aligned to Muthusvami Dikshitar’s.
• The ragas Natanarayani and Mahuri have melodic overlap with Balahamsa.  While Natanarayani goes as SRGSRMPDs/sDPMGRS and Mahuri goes as SRMGRMPDs/sNDPMGRS, despite the presence/absence of nishada, they would sound identical as they are all purvanga pradhana raga. They differ on the jiva svara – Rishabha is the jiva svara for Balahamsa and Madhyama for Mahuri.
• Muthusvami Dikshitar also employs additional motifs in Balahamsa such as the the drop from the madhya sadja to the mandhara pancama and a similar jump from the madhya pancama to the tara sadja. Similar such approach is seen in Natanarayani as well, such as dropping from madhya rishabha to mandhara dhaivatha, vide the Dikshitar composition ‘mahAganapate pAlayasumAm’ as notated in the SSP.

NAVARAGAMALIKA -’gAravamuganna doraiyani’⁸

We move over next to the ragamalika composed by Subbarama Dikshitar. This navaragamalika or a garland of 9 ragas is set in Kalyani, Todi, Saveri , Atana , Neelambari , Manirangu, Kambhoji, Mukhari and Mohana. The setting of this composition is similar, in that it is conceived as an expression of the unifocal love of a damsel named Kalyani, whose longing for the nAyaka (Bhaskara Sethupathi) is conveyed to him through her friend. Subbarama Dikshitar has skillfully woven in the raga names in the telugu sahitya appropriately. In this composition Kalyani’s friend while addressing the nAyaka, first invokes the benign grace of Lord Subrahmanya, then proceeds to describe Kalyani and her yearning for him and finally ends by appealing to him to accept her. Similar to the Balahamsa varna, here too Dikshitar refers to the Sethupathi as the recipient of Goddess Rajarajesvari’s grace, thus:

vIra dAsa mukhari sEtu vibhU bhAskara mahipAla

sakala sUrAsura sEvita shrI rajarajEsvari karunA katAksha labdha

nikhila bhAgya dhurandharudagu srI bhAskara

The translation of the telugu lyrics of this rAgamAlikA can be read here.

Vidushi Rama Ravi who traces her repertoire to her mother as well as to the scion of the Dhanammal family, Prof T Vishvanathan has also rendered this composition. This is part of a commercial release by Carnatica.

And finally we have Prof S R Janakiraman rendering the rAgamalikA.

Garavamu-Ragamalika – Prof.S.R.Janakiraman accompanied by Ashwin & Rohin Iyer

In the sahitya of this composition Subbarama Dikshitar gives the lyric as  ”tirunElu srI kArtikEya divya mOhana shikivAhana”. It’s a puzzle as to which town/temple does ‘tirunElu’ imply! Does it refer to Tirunelveli? And if so which temple there, does it refer to and what is the nexus between that temple/kArtikEya and Bhaskara Setupati, to be so mentioned in this composition? Wish one knew the answers!

CONCLUSION:

Today Bhaskara Sethupathi is all but a distant & fading memory. The memorial he constructed to commemorate Svami Vivekanda’s return from America and his philanthropy may soon be completely forgotten. But Subbarama Dikshitar has immortalized him by these two compositions  thus etching his memory forever on the fabric of our music.

Subbarama Dikshitar’s Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini contains many of his compositions in praise of royal patrons. Some of them are listed below:

1. ‘sAmi entanI’ – Surati – Rupaka – Cauka Varna in praise of King/Prince Muddusvami Ettendra of Ettayapuram one of the several pieces that have been composed by Subbarama Dikshitar, quite naturally so as he was the Asthana Vidvan of the Ettayapuram Samasthanam.
2. ‘enduku rA rA’ – Ragamalika – Rupaka -In praise of King/Prince Muddusvami Ettendra of Ettayapuram
3. ‘nI sarilErani’ – Ragamalika – Tisra Eka – In praise of King Rama Varma of Travancore
4. ‘kAmincina kalAvati’ – Ragamalika -Tisra Eka – In praise of Sri Ananda Gajapati Raju, the Maharaja of Vijayanagaram
5. ‘sArasAgrE sarasa’ – Daru – Natanarayani – Tisra eka – In praise of Zamindar Nagayasvami Pandiyan of Periyur

Foot Note 2:

According to Prof Sambamoorthy ( ‘Kundrakkudi Krishna Iyer’ – An article in “The Hindu” dated 25-10-1970), the trio of musicians rendered the pallavi “Setupati Jaya Jaya Ravikula Raja Vijaya Raghunatha Sri Bhaskara Sami” in raga Bhairavi, Jhampa tala with atitagraha, at ¾ count with Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer as the senior performer.

REFERENCES:

1. Pamela G Price(2002) – “Kingship and Colonial Practice in Colonial India” published by Cambridge University Press
2. Soolamangalam Vaidyanatha Bagavathar (2005)-”Cameos – Memoirs of Sulamangalam Vaidyanatha Bagavathar” – Published by  Sunadham, Chennai
3. David West Rudner (1994) – ‘Caste & Capitalism in Colonial India -The Nattukottai Chettiars’ -University of California Press
4. A Vadivelu (1903) -”Aristocracy Of Southern India” Vol I -Published by Vest & Co, Madras
5. Subbarama Dikshitar (1904) – Sangeetha Sampradaya Pradarshini – Reprinted in Tamil by the Madras Music Academy, India
6. Dr B M Sundaram (2002) – “Varna Svarajathi” – Published by Sarasvathi Mahal Library, Tanjore
7. T V Subba Rao & S R Janakiraman(1993) – ‘Ragas of the Sangita Saramruta of King Tulaja’ – Published by the Madras Music Academy
8. K C Kamaliah(1977) -’Subbarama Dikshitar’s Navaragamalika’ – Journal of Music Academy Vol XLVIII, pages 186-191
9. Dr B M Sundaram (1984/85 ) – Mudras in Tana Varnas – Lecture demonstration at the Krishna Gana Sabha
10. Jennifer Howes (2002) -”The Courts of Pre-Colonial South India”-Royal Asiatic Society Books Series, published by Routledge, ISBN 978-0-7007-1585-5

Raga Yamuna Kalyani, also called as Yamuna, is a supposedly lighter melody and a minor raga today, under the Kalyani raaganga/melakartha. A look at the musical history as available to us and also given the fact that we have major compositions from both Tyagaraja and Muthusvami Dikshitar, would show that this raga wasn’t a minor one. In fact there is even an authoritative reference that one of the kritis of Syama Shastri (“Birana Varalichi”) was composed in Yamuna Kalyani, implying that this raga should have been a member of that exalted list of 28 ragas (making it 29) that were utilized by the Trinity in common for their compositions. Many of the 20^th century authorities such as Justice T L Venkatarama Iyer have been of the firm opinion that Yamuna Kalyani was an import from Hindustani Music and that the melodic equivalent of our Yamuna Kalyani was Yaman or Iman as it is referred to. In fact the “import” is ascribed to Muthusvami Dikshitar himself with the storyline that he learnt it during his Kashi sojourn.

When one traces our musical history, it can be deduced that Yamuna Kalyani had its roots in the old mela of Venkatamakhi called as Kalyana or Suddha Kalyan. This Suddha Kalyana spawned modern Kalyani even while it metamorphosed into Yamuna Kalyani as evidenced by the Dikshitar’s “Jambupate Mam Pahi”, the Panchabhuta kshetra kriti on the Lord at Tiruvanaika (Trichy) in this raga. Thus it would be erroneous to state that Yamuna Kalyani is a janya or offshoot of Kalyani. Rather Yamuna Kalyani was Kalyani’s precursor or at least Kalyani’s sibling, having been spun off from Suddha Kalyan. To suit the convenience of modern day classification it came be bundled under the Kalyani Ragaanga, in other words as a member of the Kalyani clan.

Coming back to the main thread, this Yamuna Kalyani as envisioned by Dikshitar underwent a further modification in the 20^th century as evidenced by the melodic setting of the two current day famous compositions, “Krishna Nee Begane” and Annamacharya’s “Bhavayami Gopalabalam”. This modern Yamuna Kalyani can also be seen in modern interpretations of Tyagaraja’s better known compositions namely “Haridasulu vedale” and “Vidhi Chakradulaku”.

This blog post is an attempt to outline this history or metamorphosis as understood from the study of the musical history of Yamuna Kalyani through the ages from the time of our music’s great patriarch Venkatamakhi to Muddu Venkatamakhi to Muthusvami Dikshitar to Subbarama Dikshitar & to our times.

MODERN RAGA LAKSHANA OF YAMUNA KALYANI:

This raga’s current or modern day attributes/lakshana can be summarized as :

A sampurna bashanga janya of the 69^th mela/raaganga Kalyani with usage of suddha madhyama in descent or avarohana phrases.

Given the current treatment of Yamuna Kalyani on concert platforms, one can additionally ascribe the following attributes:

• Yamuna Kalyani almost as a rule, is today sung in madhyama sruti & thus having its sancara restricted in the upper octave.
• Apart from the usage of suddha madhyama, Yamuna differs from Kalyani on two additional grounds:
  • Kalyani is rendered with more intense usage of kampita gamakas in the so called “sampurna varika style” by which every note is invested with kampita gamakas. On the other hand Yamuna Kalyani is rendered with more jarus and with vakra sancaras rather than sequential progression of svaras.
  • In terms of performance Yamuna Kalyani is relegated to lighter compositions, shlokas or javalis but is never taken up for a detailed exposition or for tillanas.

The modern form of Yamuna Kalyani is best illustrated by the following 3 compositions:

• The Dasar pada “Krishna nee begane” as immortalized by Smt T Balasarasvathi,
• Annamacarya’s composition “Bhavayami Gopalabalam” as popularized by Smt M S Subbulakshmi
• Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer’s music setting of Sadasiva Brahmendra’s composition”Pibare Ramarasam”

TEXTUAL REFERENCES TO YAMUNA:

There are two references to the raga lakshana of this raga, which one can refer to:

1. First is the raga lakshana as outlined by Subbarama Dikshitar in his monumental work, the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (1904), SSP for short.
2. The raga lakshana as documented by Subba Rao in his work Raga Nidhi (1996), which is a comparative study/documentation of ragas featured in the Carnatic and Hindustani idiom.

There are no references to this raga ( that is Yamuna)in older texts including Caturdandi Prakashika or Sangita Sudha or the works of King Shahji or King Tulaja. The raga name figures as a desya raga in the listing found in the Anubandha to the Caturdandi Prakashika.

YAMUNA KALYANI AS OUTLINED IN THE SSP:

The SSP offers the first glimpse into this scale, wherein Subbarama Dikshitar refers to this raga as Yamuna. Let’s review first the information presented by SSP in connection with this raga.

• In the (Shantha) Kalyani Raganga lakshya gitam it is given that Imma Kalyani and Mohanam are the bashanga janyas of Kalyani. As a side note, we do not see Hamir Kalyani and Saranga mentioned as Kalyani’s janyas in this raaganga raga lakshana gitam. However Subbarama Dikshitar lists out Hamir Kalyani and Saranga as Kalyani’s janyas subsequently in SSP.
• Subbarama Dikshitar does not provide any lakshana shloka for Yamuna as he usually does. It’s indeed a puzzle for us that (Muddu)Venkatamakhi gives a reference to Imma Kalyani in the Kalyani raagaanga gitam, but no lakshana shloka or prabandha or tana or gita of (Muddu)Venkatamakhi is provided for this raga!
• Subbarama Dikshitar gives the murccana arohana/avarohana as SRGMPDNS/SNDPMGRS under the Kalyani raagaaga. However he defines the lakshana with the following caveats.
  • Arohana is usually SRGPDs or SRGPMPDs
  • Avarohana is usually sNDPGRS or sDPMGRS
  • Sa is grahasvara and Ga, Ri and Dha are jeeva svaras
  • Suddha madhyama occurs in the prayogas GmRS or GmGRS

• The oldest lakshana providing composition given by Subbarama Dikshitar is the “Khabay Prabandha” attributed to pUrvikAs or old timers. This composition has the ‘udgraha’ or refrain as “tha thai thaiyya”.
• Subbarama Dikshitar provides 4 other compositions to illustrate the raga:
  • ‘Jambupate Mampahi’ of Muthusvami Dikshitar
  • ‘Chintaye Janakiramanam’ of Krishnasvami Ayya
  • Jatisvaram beginning with ‘SDPM’
  • His own sancari set in matya tala
  • The anubandha to the SSP lists out a ragamalika with 10 ragas starting with the words “Priyamuna” which has the raga mudra itself in its pallavi refrain, composed by Subbarama Dikshitar in the ragas Yamuna Kalyani, Todi, Sri, Hamir Kalyani, Durbar, Padi, Huseni, Sahana , Mohanam & Bhupalam.

YAMUNA IN THE SSP – Analysis of the Compositions:

The ‘Khabay’ or Gavai Prabandha:

To understand the origins and evolution of Yamuna, one has to look at the notation of the Prabandha which Subbarama Dikshitar credits as being composed by pUrvAcaryAs. When one looks at this prabandha, many points show up:

1. Though Subbarama Dikshitar uses the term “Khabay”, it should rightly be “Gavai” for reasons we can see shortly.
2. Unusually for a prabandha this one is well ornamented/notated. The only other “khabay’ type of prabhanda in SSP is under Pharaz which also is notated well. The ankita/raja mudra of the Pharaz khabay clearly indicates that it is on Tulaja II (1763-1787) & son of Pratapasimha).
3. The lyrics in the Yamuna prabandha indicate that it has been composed on one Vijayaranga Cokkanatha , son of one Rangakrishna Muthuveera. A quick look at the Nayak Rulers of Madurai reveals that this Vijayaranga Cokkanatha was the great grandson of Thirumalai Nayak of the Madurai Nayaka clan. He shifted his Court from Madurai to Trichy & ruled between 1704 -1731.  This Chieftain has a statue in the Srirangam temple. Given the epi-graphical details, we can conveniently place the composition as having been composed circa 1720 or thereabouts. See Footnote 1 below.
4. In the prabandha, the nishada is virtually not seen, except in one place as a podisvara & it can ignored.  The contours of Yamuna as outlined in this composition are SRGPDS, SDPMGRS without any suddha madhyama or nishada. From a musical structure perspective the following emerge.
5. It’s very clear that G is the jeeva/nyasa svara for Yamuna. The Prabandha opens with the classic ‘GGG’ prayoga.
6. M1 is not present & is not notated at all in the prabandha.
7. Ga is janta with kampita gamaka thrown in liberally.
8. Jarus are another embellishment  usages spanning G\R, P\G,R/G, G/P & P/s
9. S, G, R and P are the nyasa svaras. Ga comes in as first among equals as the jeeva svara & is accompanied by the kampita gamaka as the default adornment.

Based on the internal evidence from this prabandha, some observations/conclusions follow:

• The word “khabay” or “gabay” or “kapay” apparently had its roots in the term “Gavai”. Interestingly, the northern origins of the word become obvious, as Dr Sita in her “Tanjore as a Seat of Music” gives one musician of the name of “Gavai Khamas” Madhava Rao who had been in the Court of King Sivaji of Tanjore. Gottuvadhyam Sakha Rama Rao is named as his descendant. The word “gavai” stands for “musician” or “vidvan”. In the samasthanas of Deccan/Maharashtra, the Royal Courts had the so called AstAna vidvan who was called as a ‘Durbari Gavai” or in other words the Court Musician. The composition was probably composed by such a visiting singer or perhaps a musician from the North of the Naik Court itself. Incidentally, the composer of the famous Kuranji padam “Sivadikshaparulanu”, Ghanam Sinnaya was the Chief Minister of King Vijayaranga Cokkanatha.
• The other “khabay’ prabandha found in the SSP is under Pharaz, which also is another raga imported into Carnatic Music. Persian/Arabian/Moslem origin thereof of both Pharaz and Yamuna is thus something which is very plausible.
• The Kalyani raganga gitam refers to this Kalyani janya as “Imma Kalyana”, perhaps indicating its roots to the Persian melody Iman. While we may attach importance to the Kalyani raganaga gitam a number of questions remain to be answered such as :
  • The authorship, timelines and the lack of a lakshana shloka for Yamuna Kalyani makes one look at the Kalyani lakshana shloka suspiciously. It must have been the work of Muddu Venkatamakhi dateable to circa 1750 or thereabouts.
  • The other janyas of Kalyani such as Hamir/Hamvira or Saranga find no mention in this raganga gitam.  Also is the question whether this “imma kalyana” is Yamuna at all.

ARCHAIC YAMUNA:

Thus the contours of the older version of Yamuna emerge from out of the prabandha with SRGPDS/SDPMGRS as its murccana arohana & avarohana. It was devoid of Ni & suddha madhyama as well and had gained currency in our music system by the late 1600/early 1700 close to a hundred years before the trinity. For the purposes of this  post I am labeling this Yamuna as the archaic Yamuna as we will see that this metamorphosed with few variations into the modern Yamuna Kalyani as we know today.

Before we proceed further, we need to take a look at the nexus between the archaic Yamuna and the Kalyani or Suddha Kalyana of Venkatamakhi, which is considered as the forerunner of our modern day Kalyani.

ARCHAIC YAMUNA & THE KALYANA OF VENKATAMAKHIN:

Kalyana or (Suddha) Kalyana is an old raga referred to even by Somanatha in his Raga Vibodha (circa 1600). In his work he refers to Kalyana as one of his primary 23 mElas. The next reference to Kalyana is by Venkatamakhi in his CDP. This is what he has to say of Kalyana, in summary:

A desya raga, not fit for gita, thaya & prabandha, with Ma and Ni varjya in the arohana, sampurna and liked by Turuskas, having pancashruti rishabam,antara gandharam,varali madhyamam, pancamam, pancashruthi dhaivatham and kakali nishada.

The description of the Kalyana of Venkatamakhin bears an uncanny resemblance to the archaic Yamuna as found in the prabandha. The Kalyana scale of Venkatamakhin is next echoed by King Shahaji (1684-1712) in “Ragalakshanamu” where he mentions this scale as Suddha Kalyani. King Shahaji illustrates the Suddha Kalyani with prayogas such as GPDs,  sNDPMGR and GDPMGR etc. While the CDP talks of (Suddha) Kalyani being a desya raga, the Anubandha elevates Kalyani to that of a ‘rakti’ raga !

Be that as it may, the (Suddha)Kalyana of Venkatamakhi which can be resolved as SRGPDS/SNDPMGRS, probably spawned the older Yamuna as a variant while at the same time it became the nucleus of the sampurna/heptatonic modern Kalyani ( mEca kalyAnI/shAntha kalyAnI). Modern Kalyani as referred to in this post is the sampurna Kalyani sporting only the prati madhyama and rendered in the sampurna varika style as evidenced by the classic ata tala varna of Pallavi Gopala Iyer, “Vanajakshi”. This qualification to Kalyani is warranted and would be appreciated in the light of the fact that the origins of Kalyani are tied to Yamuna as well through Suddha Kalyani. This Suddha Kalyani ruled the roost for a century or two before it died leaving in its wake two off-springs namely Yamuna Kalyani or Yamuna and our modern Kalyani. The archaic Suddha Kalyan(i) was revived/resurrected as a ‘scalar structure’ by Gayakashikamani Harikesanallur Muthiah Bagavathar during mid 20^th century, when he set to music Svati Tirunal’s kriti “Seve Srikantham” and composed his two own kritis “Siddhi Vinayakam Seveham” and “Bhuvaneshvarya” in the raga now known as Mohanakalyani.

DIKSHITAR’s Composition “Jambupate”:

Since the gavai prabandha was composed (circa 1720), for the next approx 100 years, till circa 1810 or thereabouts Yamuna must have perhaps remained so as dealt with therein. It must have been then that Dikshitar composed ‘Jambupate mam pahi”. This composition is found notated in several publications old & new and forms part of the oral tradition as well. The analysis of the notation given by Subbarama Dikshitar reveals quite clearly that Dikshitar interpreted the raga very differently in contrast to the prabandha version. It is obvious that Dikshitar proceeded to provide a makeover to the older Yamuna. The changes he brought forth can be summarized as :

1. He gave the Ni svara a formal position in the avarohana passages.
2. He brought in “sparing” usage of M1 via GM1R & as a fleeting podisvara/anusvara to G ( only in the madhya stayi) while M2 shows up in profusion as always. In essence from a Hindustani Music equivalence perspective, Dikshitar flipped Yamuna to be closer to Yaman & thus moving it away from Shuddha Kalyan.
3. He moved the pivot of the raga slightly away from G towards P. One can see a lot of pancama pradhana sancaras in Jambupate, vide the caranam portion of the composition. From a purvanga centric raga, Dikshitar moved it to make it uttaranga centric.
4. He continued to mark the gandhara with janta and kampita gamakas. He also invested Ri, Dha and Pa with the kampita gamaka.
5. In contrast to the more Mohanam based legacy treatment, Dikshitar moved it to a more Kalyani based treatment. The prayoga PDS was deprecated and PNDs or DNDs PDPS or PDrS were brought in by him to impart a different hue to Yamuna.

Thus the end result as conceptualized by Dikshitar was a fairly gamaka laden raga, in contrast to what we think of Yamuna Kalyani today as a plainer & lighter raga.

Comparison between the Archaic Yamuna and Dikshitar’s Yamuna:

Before we proceed further with some more analysis of the Dikshitar composition a quick comparison between the older Yamuna and that of Dikshitar’s interpretation is required.

• Arohana/Avarohana :

Archaic Yamuna : SRGPDS/SNDPGMRS

Dikshitar’s Yamuna : SRGPDNDS/SNDPMPGmRS

• Key murccanaas:

Archaic Yamuna: GGRGP, GPDPD,PDS, SDP, SDPPGRS. M2 appears more as a podi svara with pancama and gandhara & thus gives the raga the hue of Mohanam. The raga is melodically equivalent to Bhup based version of Suddha Kalyan of Hindustani Music.

Dikshitar’s Yamuna: NsNDNDP, PDr, PNDPM, GM1RS. M2 appears distinctly and thus brings the raga closer to Yaman.

• Melodic movement:

Archaic Yamuna: Purvanga centric with emphasis on arohana murccanas. Gandhara is the key jeeva/nyasa svara.

Dikshitar’s Yamuna: Uttaranga centric with emphasis on avarohana phrases. Gandhara and pancama become the key jeeva/nyasa svaras.

• Gamakas:

Archaic Yamuna: Kampita on gandhara.

Dikshitar’s Yamuna : Kampita on gandhara, rishabha, pancama and dhaivatha

ARCHAIC YAMUNA & SUDDHA KALYAN OF HINDUSTANI MUSIC:

In relation to Suddha Kalyan as is dealt with in the world of Hindustani music, I invite readers to read Deepak Raja’s blog post on the different flavors of Suddha Kalyan as is handled in Hindustani Music. To put it simply the raga in northern music is SRGPDS/SNDPMGR with only M2. For our ongoing , I quote the relevant portion from his blog post to understand the nuances/flavors of  the Hindustani Suddha Kalyan.

“According to Manikbuwa Thakurdas (Raga Darshan), this raga can be performed in either of its two distinct variants — a Bhoop-biased treatment, and a Kalyan-biased treatment. In a Bhoop-biased treatment, the use of the Ni/Ma swaras in the descent should be subtle enough to be “apratyaksha” (subliminal/ implicit/ imperceptible). This is normally achieved by using the two swaras only in a meend (glissando) as grace swaras in the transition from Sa to (Ni) Dha and Pa to (Ma) Ga. When presented in the Kalyan-biased treatment, the Ni/Ma swaras can be “pratyaksha” (explicit) or “apratyaksha” (implicit), and therefore not limited to being treated as grace swaras.Subba Rao (Raga Nidhi, Vol.IV) points out a third interpretation of the raga which omits the Ma/Ni swaras altogether. In such a treatment, distinguishing the resulting music from Bhoop/Bhupali requires great skill. This version was heard occasionally until the 1960s, and is virtually extinct now.”

Needless to say here that the Bhup based version of Suddha Kalyani and the archaic Yamuna are similar and it must have been the one which was used by the anonymous Court musician when he composed the Gavai prabandha on King Vijayaranga Cokkanatha. The words that Deepak uses- “subtle or imperceptible use of Ni and Ma” would strike us when we view the notation of the prabandha as found in the SSP.

K V Ramachandran the noted critic of the last century advances the very same argument with authority, that our (archaic) Yamuna and Suddha Kalyan are one & the same:

“I agree with the conclusion of the Academy that Yamuna Kalyani employs both the Ma, but the raga is not the equivalent of Yaman as as stated by Hulugur Krishnachar. Suddha Kalyan is its Northern prototype, which omits Ma and Ni in the ascent and employs Ma1 occasionally. Ga is vadi, Dha is samvadi, meend between PaGa, PaRi, SaNiDha, PaMaGa, Mandhara sanchara is characteristic. Sa Ri Ga Pa Dha Sa – Sa Ni Dha Pa Ma Ga Ri Sa – Ri Ga Dha Pa Ma Ga Ri- Pa Ma2 Ga Ri- Ri Ga Ga Ma1 Ga Ri- Sa Ni Dha – Ri Ga Pa Dha sa Ni Dha Pa – Pa Sa Dha Pa Ma2 Ga. The Kalyani of Venkatamakhi, Ahobala, Pundarikavittala and Locana is just this – a blende of Kalyani & Mohanam. The marriage song when the bride and the bride groom play the ball, the kolattam song “Lokasakshi”, the mettu known as “Indra Sabha” ( see Footnote 2), the Tamil padam “Maruva Oru” are all in this raga. Sri K V S Iyengar remarks that the Syama Shastri’s “Birana Brova”, though now sung in Kalyani was sung in a different way by others. That different way is Yamuna Kalyani.”

K V Ramachandran’s reference is to the older or the archaic Yamuna and not to the Yamuna as redefined by Dikshitar in his “Jambupate”. The melodic contours of Dikshitar’s conception of Yamuna are much different in comparison with the 2 flavors of Suddha Kalyan that Deepak Raja mentions. To analyse a little more, Hindustani Suddha Kalyan is an avaroha pradhana raga with Sa, Ri, Ga and Pa as nyasa svaras, Ni and M2 being used “imperceptibly as a passing note, with PDPs and Prs as the chief uttaranga prayogas. Also the sancaras range from mandhara pancama till Madhya stayi panchama and Ri is the jeeva svara and the raga does not use suddha madhyama at all. On a side note, it is indeed puzzling for me why Sri KVR did not refer to the Dikshitar magnum opus in this lec-dem.

Dikshitar’s Yamuna Kalyani as found in “Jambupate” has Sa, Ga and Pa as the chief nyasa svaras, Ni and Ma figuring prominently with M1 as an alpa prayoga figuring in avarohana passages through the murccana GM1R & Ni is  vakra in aroha passages. Ga and Pa seem to be the amsa svaras with Ri being very weak. The sancaras range from mandhara Pa/Dha to tara sthayi Ga. In fact there is no tradition of singing Dikshitar’s Jambupate in madhyama sruti, while all others including the modern tuned up compositions such as  “Krishna nee begane” and “Bhavayami Gopalabalam” are all sung in madhyama sruti.

It’s indeed important to underline this aspect before we move on to Subbarama Dikshitar’s conception of Yamuna Kalyani as evidenced by him compositions namely the Jatisvaram, sancari and the ragamalika.

( To be Continued)

FOOTNOTE 1:

For those who are interested in the historical angle, Vijayaranga Cokkanatha was the grandson as well of the famous Rani (Queen) Mangammal, who valiantly threw tradition out of the window, by refusing to perform ‘sati’ upon the death of her husband. She instead chose to ascend the throne upon the death of her husband to bring up the minor son (Rangakrishna Muthuveera)  , who also died suddenly leaving behind his pregnant wife. Mangammal bore these losses with great fortitude and continued to reign as the sovereign regeant for her grandson Vijayaranga Cokkanatha. Sadly she couldnt prevent her daughter-in law ( wife of Rangakrishna Muthuveera & mother of the new born Vijayaranga Cokkanatha ( the patron king eulogized in this gavai prabandha) from performing Sati after she gave birth to her son. And Mangammal went on to make history, probably on the model of the legendary Rani of Jhansi. The end of the reign of Mangammal circa 1703-04, is shrouded in mystery as she reportedly became a victim of palace intrigues. Prof R Sathianatha Iyer’s ‘History of the Nayaks of Madura” is an original account of this history and readers may well refer to the same.

FOOTNOTE 2:

I am unsure which composition Sri K V Ramachandran refers to starting with the words ‘Indrasabha’. Mahamahopadhyaya U Ve Svaminatha Iyer in his work “Urainadai Noolgal” refers to a padam of Ghanam Krishna Iyer on his patron, the Tanjore King Amarasimha of Madhyarjunam ( Tiruvidaimarudur), which starts with the words “indra sabhai mAdiyil’. Probably the reference may be to this composition.

SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS :

To summarize the understanding from the 3 works from the post 1750 era :

1. Ma or Ga and Ni were vakra/varja in the arohana, according to (Muddu) Venkatamakhi.  In arohana/avarohana terms the archaic Kambhoji as one should call it, would be defined as SRGPDS/SNDPMGRS. Or to restate, that since Ma was vakra, the aroha can be given as SRMGPDS as well.
2. The ever changing dynamics of our system possibly “linearized”/standardized the older Kambhoji to its modern standard form SRGMPDS/SNDPMGRS.
3. Only Kaishiki nishada was used throughout in the archaic Kambhoji. The usage of kakali nishada in avaroha phrases such as SNPD had not been in currency at least till 1750 as is obvious from the lack of its mention in Tulaja’s Saramruta for example. It’s worth noting that Tulaja mentions about SNP phrase but doesn’t state that its kaishiki. Prof S R Janakiraman² opines that even during that time kaisiki nishada must have been used in that phrase.

SOME QUESTIONS:

The analysis of Kambhoji’s musical history shows us again how dynamic and ever changing our music is. But two questions would still remain with us:

1. Is it Ga or Ma, which is vakra/varja in the arohana of the old Kambhoji?
2. Can we safely say that the Kakali nishada usage in Kambhoji was a much latter day introduction? If it’s indeed to be used, how strong/weak is its intonation/usage?

For question 1 above, the only answer that seems to strike us as plausible is that in the archaic Kambhoji both Ma and Ga were vakra ! To look at the options before us, the 4 possible purvanga combinations for Kambhoji can be:

1. SRGMP – Lineal- which is found in profusion in the Kambhoji of today
2. SRGMGP – Ma is vakra, but Ga is not. This murrcana is slightly tricky and can be dispensed with in favor of SRGP.
3. SRMGMP – Ga is vakra but Ma is not
4. SRMGP – Ma and Ga are both vakra, in the sense the arohana kramas would be SRMG, GPDS and MGPDS

Let me hasten to add here that what matters is not the svara and its location per se in the sequence but the tonal color that is imparted to Kambhoji if one were to use the Ga and Ma as vakra in the sancaras. It also proves a point that linearization is not a binding factor for some of the purva prasiddha ragas. Thus for example in Sankarabharana SRGPM can also be a legitimate murcchana & need not signify Bilahari alone , so long it’s sung in such a way (in terms of intonation and sequencing of the succeeding murcchanas) that the flavor of Sankarabharana is not lost. Similarly the SRMG usage need not bring Yadukulakambhoji here, for the madhyama intonation and the way the purvanga gets structured finally is different for both the ragas. I will revert back to this point in the end of this post.

So now the question in corollary would be that if SRMGPDs was indeed the melodic contour of the archaic Kambhoji, is there a way to have of a glimpse of that old form which was not lineal in its purvanga? Today, much of the Trinity’s compositions are being rendered in the modern flavor of Kambhoji and hence it “may” not provide us a complete view of the older Kambhoji. Based on available data, one can conjecture that by even 1800′s Kambhoji’s metamorphosis into its modern lineal form was complete. But luckily for us, Subbarama  Dikshitar in his magnum opus SSP has documented the notation of an Ata tala tana varna in Kambhoji “Intacalamu” of Pallavi Gopala Iyer (circa 1800). Coming as it does from the post 1750′s, this varna offers us a splendid ringside view of the old Kambhoji. It is indeed fortuitous that the original varna  had also been part of our oral tradition. Also varnas have always been traditionally considered by us as repositories/examples of raga lakshana. And thus our analysis of Kambhoji’s musical history/lakshna would be complete & our 2 questions as above could be answered, if we were to examine and analyze the varna.

THE VARNA:

The Kambhoji varna of Pallavi Gopala Iyer in Ata tala is found notated in the following publications /manuscripts.

1. Sangeetha Sampradaya Pradarshini of Subbarama Dikshitar¹
2. Manuscript B 11618 & B 11605C  of the Sarasvathi Mahal Library, transcribed in Telugu/Sanskrit in the year 1842 & published by Dr B M Sundaram⁵
3. Manuscript of Nagasvara Vidvan Rakti Veerasvami Pillai written in circa 1870 as published by Dr B M Sundaram⁵
4. Notebook (Part II) of MazhavarayanEndal Subbarama Iyer ( Sangita Kalanidhi 1942) which has in notation about 30 varnas of which 19 were rare.⁹

It’s quite interesting to note that the sahitya of the varna or in other words, the Royal patron on whom the varna has been composed is divergent if we view the oral as well as the documented texts as available to us:

1. In the SSP the sahitya reads as “syAmarAjendra vara tanaya appuraya chamdra” ¹. Apparently syAma and chAma seem to be treated as equivalents!
2. In the older manuscripts cited by Dr B M Sundaram, the sahitya reads “chamarAjendra vara tanaya abhraraya chamdra”⁵
3. As per Prof S R J’s version the sahitya goes as “chamarAjendra vara tanaya pUraya chamdra”
4. Interestingly there is yet another version/patham of this varna where the sahitya is “tulajendra ghanUni tanaya sarabhOjendra”, on the lines of the sahitya of the Todi varna “Kanakangi” with the composition being attributed to the Quartet! Its worth noting here that the composition is not listed in the publication ‘Tanjai PeruvudaiyAn Perisai”. Reference is to Sarabhoji II (1798-1832), son of King Tulaja II (1763-1787) who ruled Tanjore.
5. In the aforesaid notebook of Subbarama Iyer the varna bears the sahitya ‘Sri Kadarajendra kandu Srivara tanaya pura chamdra”⁹, which doubtless gets confusing.

Dr B M Sundaram forcefully argues that the correct sahitya of this Kambhoji varna, (as given by the older manuscripts) is -”Chamarajendra vara tanaya abhraraya chamdra”. According to him the word “abhra” means cloud, implying dark/black , i.e Krishna and hence alludes to Krishnaraja Wodeyar III who was the son of Chamaraja Wodeyar(1776-1796).⁵ Also Prof Sambamoorthy in his brief biography of Pallavi Gopala Iyer states that this is a varna indeed composed on Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar. ( See Foot Note I & II on my notes on the mudra ‘krishnarajendra’ on King Krishnarajendra Wodeyar, respectively)

The analysis of the musical material of this varna of  Gopala Iyer reveal following points which underscore the conclusion reached earlier in this post about the archaic Kambhoji:

1. The purvanga murcchanas of Kambhoji having G and M appear only as vakra/non linear as MGPDS, GPDS and SRMGPDS. It needs to be reiterated here that the lineal murccana SRGMPDS is melodically much different to SRMGPDS.  To be even more clear, it’s the melodic movement encompassing the jumps from Ri to Ma first and then to Ga and then to Pa before moving on to the uttaranga region which was thought to give the unique melodic hue to Kambhoji, in olden times- not the lineal movement from Ri to Ga to Ma and then to Pa. The vakra prayoga of Ma and Ni in Kambhoji, is even highlighted by Ahobala² when he says that “Kambhoji tivragandhara gandharadhika murcchana |Arohe maniheenasyan  madhamsasvarabhushitah||”
2. Gopala Iyer’s conception of Kambhoji in this smallest Ata tala tana varna is thus defined by the following murcchanas: MGPDS, GPDS, SRMGPDS, RMGMP, GRGS and RPMGS. Rightly so Subbarama Dikshitar highlights these sancaras on the authority of this varna when he gives his commentary on Kambhoji’s raga lakshana in the SSP. The other composition of Gopala Iyer, a kriti in Kambhoji (“Harisarva”) found in the Anubandha to the SSP is also similarly structured without the lineal prayoga SRGMPDS. To the best of my knowledge there is no oral version of this composition. I would be grateful to have a copy of a rendition if available.
3. Also one can see from the rendering in the section below,that the SRMG & other purvanga phrases as seen in the varna do not suggest Yadukulakambhoji at all.
4. Kakali nishada usage is virtually nil or is very alpa occurring in the phrase sNPDs. Prof SRJ opines that  even there the kakali nishada is only a shade, occurring as one descends from the tara sadja directly to the pancama without going via the kaishiki nishada -chatushruthi dhaivatha route. The frequency of the note drops in the SP descent to give a shade of kakali nishada, nothing more.

DISCOGRAPHY:

First is Prof S R Janakiraman rendering “Intachalamu”. In the first clipping below he first explains the nuances of Kambhoji. He also outlines the confusion around the svaras Ga and Ni being vakra/varja in the shloka as published in the SSP.

Kambhoji-Old Ragalakshana-Prof SRJ

He delineates in brief the older Kambhoji with alpa N3 and also the uniqueness of this Ata tala varna.

Kambhoji- Alapana-Prof SRJ

He follows up by rendering the varna peppering his rendition with his insightful remarks.

Intachalamu-Kambhoji-Atatala-profsrj

Here is the text of the sahitya of the varna as per his patham.

Pallavi:                Inthachalamu sEya idi mEra gAdurA sAmi

Anupallavi:      kAnthudaina ShrI chAmarAjendrA gHanunI varatanayA pUraya chamdra

Charanam:       chiNNa nAti mOdalu kOrina

(For the svara sahitya and for the  muktayi & ettugada svaras, readers may refer to the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini, ¹edition published by the Music Academy and also available online here. The notation is also available in full with the multiple versions in the book published by Dr B M Sundaram⁵).

During the course of his demonstration, Prof SRJ reminisces how the legendary Alathur Srinivasa Iyer would elaborate Kambhoji.

Kambhoji- Prof SRJ – Alathur

KAMBHOJI’s OLDER STRUCTURE – SOME THOUGHTS:

Purva prasiddha ragas like Kambhoji or Sankarabharanam should not be viewed in the context of the modern linearized krama arohana/avarohana regime  which is the legacy of the Sangraha Cudamani or the Melakarta system designed sometime during the 18^th /19^th century. It’s indeed sad that today ragas are viewed as a mere aggregation of notes strictly defined by an arohana/avarohana. The concept of murcchanas and how they need to be sequenced to define a raga has now been lost in our music. Hindustani Music still has as its pivots those very concepts, with terminologies such as calans, pakads etc. The concepts underlying the structuring of these older ragas & the way of understanding them are best illustrated by Dr S Sita ³and by Sri K V Ramachandran⁶. I will quote them verbatim to substantiate my understanding.

“…….The chaya or complexion of a raga is a sum total value of many aesthetic factors including the raga form. What is of real significance is not the actual number or quantity of svaras present either in the aroha or avaroha but how the respective svaras progress in their characteristic movement ( calana) gAnakriya in the raga involving arohana, avarohana and combination of both kramas. In this larger sense, the concept of arohana and avarohana is of very little significance. Essentially the nature of the tonal movement or behavior in the raga taken as a whole is the crucial factor.

For instance the arohana/avarohana of Bilahari is SRGPDS/SNDPMGRS. It is definitely not to be understood as a misra of Mohanam and Sankarabharanam. After all the form of a raga cannot be understood either from the arohana or avarohana, but only from the whole or entire progression of svaras…….”³ (Emphasis is mine)

While Dr Sita in her Music Academy lecture demonstration pitches her argument against delineating ragas merely based on the arohana/avarohana as above, noted critic Sri K V Ramachandran takes it one step further in his lecture demonstration, in the same portals of the Academy, some 40 years before her.

“…Svara is one of the materials out of which ragas are fashioned, even as out of bricks, the architect makes the dome. The end product dome is entirely different from the bricks of which it was made. And each raga has its own idiom and vocabulary; Bends and twists and omissions are the rule and very rarely do Ragas progress regularly. By the mere omission or addition of a note a Raga cannot be altered….”⁶ (Emphasis is mine)

And both Sri KVR & Dr Sita, in my very humble understanding are spot on! And for Kambhoji and the discussion above as to its raga lakshana as it was once upon a time, their words apply like a glove!

Extending the rationale to Kambhoji and to conclude :

1. The vakra tAnas/sancAras of Kambhoji mandate SRMGPDS. The linearization as SRGMPDS must have been a change effected much latter, probably when we designed the melakarta scheme with its inbuilt rules as to progression of svaras and structuring of a raga via a plain arohana avarohana.
2. The Kamboji tone poem can be delineated as MGPDS, GPDS & SRMGPDS in the aroha phrases. Also as Subbarama Dikshitar mentions & on the authority of Pallavi Gopala Iyer’s varna, other (vakra) sancaras include RMGMP, GPDS, GRGS, RPMGS which constitute the melodic hue of Kambhoji of yore.
3. The Kakali nishada was a much latter addition but alpa in usage. It may not be out of place to mention that the Kambhoji gitam “Mandhara dhara re” composed by Paidala Gurumurti Sastrigal starts off with the phrase sN3P.
4. On a related note, it needs to be mentioned that it would be an exercise in futility to talk about some sancaras belonging to Kambhoji and not to Harikambhoji etc for the simple reason that Kambhoji is much older and much of Harikambhoji must have been carved out latter, from out of Kambhoji’s scalar material. In fact now, one can also convincingly argue that SRGMP being linear/sequential, should belong to Harikambhoji while the vakra sancara SRMGP can be Kambhoji’s & rightly so as it would also help differentiate the 2 ragas much better in the modern context!

REFERENCES:

1. Subbarama Dikshitar (1904) – Sangeetha Sampradaya Pradarshini – Reprinted in Tamil by the Madras Music Academy, India
2. Sangita Kalanidhi T V Subba Rao & Prof S R Janakiraman (1993)-”Ragas of the Sangita Saramrutha” – Published by the Music Academy, Madras India
3. Dr S Sita (1993) – “The Raga Lakshana Manuscript of Sahaji Maharaja” -Journal of the Madras Music Academy Vol LIV, pp 140-181, Madras India
4. Dr S Sita (2001)- “Tanjore as a Seat of Music “- Published by the University of Madras, India
5. DR B M Sundaram (2002) – “Varna Svarajathi” – Published by Sarasvathi Mahal Library, Tanjore, India
6. Ramachandran K.V. (1950) – “Apurva ragas of Tyagaraja’s Songs” – The Journal of the Music Academy, Vol XXI, pp. 107-109, Madras, India.
7. Kamat & Jyothsna Kamat (2006) – “Wodeyars of Mysore” – Available online at http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/deccan/wodeyars.htm
8. Dr B M Sundaram (1984)- “Mudras in Tana Varnas” -Lecture Demonstration in the Krishnagana Sabha, Chennai – available online here.
9. Dr P C Seetharaman(1972) -”Musical contents from Mazhavai Subbarama Iyer’s Notebook” (Tamil)- Journal of the Madras Music Academy Vol XLIII, Pages 32-33,100-107, Madras, India
10. Chennakesavaiah. N (1964) -” Four Rare Compositions” – Edited and published in the Journal of the Madras Music Academy Vol XXXV, Pages 175-179 Madras, India

Foot Note  – I

Determining the authorship of varnas is another arcane area of our musicology. Experts typically look at the internal evidences within the composition such as ankitas ,mudras or colophons ( svanama mudra, raja mudra etc) not only to ascertain authorship and also the period in which they were composed, apart from other attributes. Interestingly , in connection with the use of the raja mudra “krishnarajendra”, it must be noted that we have several varnas with this raja mudra referring both to Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar and his descendant Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar ( those of Veena Seshanna, Muthiah Bagavathar & K V Srinivasa Iyengar).

• For example the Kamalamanohari varna “Neevanti” was composed by Chinniah of the Tanjore Quartet on Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar. Also varnas with this raja mudra seem to have some controversy/confusion associated with them pertaining to authorship. Specific instances include the varna in Nattai “Marulaiyunnadi”, the Mandhari varna “Vanajaksha” and the pada varna “E Maguva BodincerA” in Dhanyasi !⁸
• Subbarama Iyer’s aforesaid notebook has a beautiful Huseni Ata tala varna ( composer not given) starting with the words “ninnu jUci”. The sahitya runs as “….bakthudaina srI rAmarAjendra vara tanaya karnAvatAra srI krishnArajendra gAna rasika shikAmanE…”⁹. Again it can be speculated that this varna should have run as syAma or chama rAjEndra, instead of rAmarAjendra.
• There is an anonymous varna sporting the ankita ‘krishnaraja’ begining with the word ‘Viribhoni’ in the rare raga Suddha Velavali.
• Another anonymous rare varna is the one in the raga Kedaram ( Khanda Ata) with the following lyrics. Given that it was found in manuscript dating to circa 1870, could it be another composition of Pallavi Gopala Iyer or perhaps Tanjore Chinniah on Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar ? One doesnt know ! But here is the text of it :

Pallavi :           vanajalOcana nIpai cAla vanajAkshi valaci yunnadirA

Anupallavi:    ghanudaina cAmarajEndruni vara tanaya srI krishnarAjemdra dIra

Caranam:        camdrakula sirOmani

In passing, one cannot but help lamenting the fact that such beautiful varnas are no longer in circulation and instead a handful of varnas are reeled off ad nauseum in modern concerts depriving rasikas of the oppurtunity to hear these long forgotten masterpieces, which are also invaluable repositories of raga lakshana. Researchers and performing musicians should actively collaborate to bring these compositions back from oblivion, including the Kambhoji varna under discussion !

Foot Note 2: King Krishnaraja Wodeyar III

Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar(1794-1868)
(Photo courtesy : © K.L. Kamat/Kamat’s Potpourri )⁷

Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar was one of the great patrons of arts and music. One of the modern day Abhinava Bhoja’s, as he is addressed to in some works ! The title of ‘Abhinava bhoja” is found conferred on many Southern Indian rulers and chieftains including King Shahaji and King Pratapsimha of Tanjore, Yuvaranga Bhupati of Udayapalayam, for example. Many musicians were patronized by Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar including Tanjore Chinniah of the Quartet, Mysore Sadasiva Rao & others ⁵.Apart from Pallavi Gopala Iyer, Veena Kuppier has also been honoured by this Mysore King. The rare Begada kriti ‘ Inta parakelanamma’ of Kuppier with its bewitching cittasvara was composed by him on Goddess Camundeshvari during his Mysore sojourn. Again this Ruler and the compositions on him deserve a seperate blog post.

Kambhoji is a purva prasiddha raga of yore which has ornamented  Carnatic music for ages. There are many  beautiful compositions adorning this raga. Sometime ago I happened to study some of musicological books to understand Kambhoji’s raga lakshana and its evolution, in the context of the earlier blog post on Pallavi Gopala Iyer.,which is when I was struck by a mention in the Subbarama Dikshitar’s Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini ¹, under Kambhoji (Pages 671 & 672 – Vol III of the 2006 Tamil edition as published by the Music Academy) that according to Venkatamakhi, madhyama & nishada are varjya in the arohana ! Confounded, I did a deep dive and so one thing led to another.  Thus this blog post is about 2 points:

1. Kambhoji’s is not a linear scale to be given just as SRGMPDS/SNDPMGRS. Rather it is/was SRMGPDS/SNDPMGRS. The madhyama and gandhara svaras are vakra and the lineal progression SRGMP is very very rare or was even totally eschewed in olden times.
2. The kakali nishada(N3) is very alpa/rare in usage and is probably a post 1800 development. N3 appears more as an anusvara of the tara sadja during a direct descent to the pancama. In other words, in modern parlance, Kambhoji was upanga & not bashanga. Even today a complete Kambhoji can be presented without using N3.

Another related aspect is the way purva prasiddha ragas like Kambhoji, must be understood and sung. It is my understanding that these ragas ( other examples are Sankarabharanam, Bhairavi, Samantha etc) are not bound by the conventions and strictures that abound in today’s modern musicology. For example they cannot be delineated and understood by just an arohana/avarohana or by mere linear progressions of notes as demanded by the Melakarta scheme.

Read On!

Kambhoji – A Quick Primer:

As on date, there is a complete consensus on the melodic structure of Kambhoji amongst all musicologists and musicians. Its attributes in the conventional current day parlance can be summarized as:

• It is a shadava sampurna raga. S R G M P D S/ S N D P M G R S is the arohana and avarohana under the Kedaragaula/Harikambodhi raganga/mela, with kakali nishada (N3) as anya/bashanga svara which appears in sancaras such as SN3\PDS, N3PDS where ‘\’ is the downward glide or jaaru gamaka.
• A rakthi raga par excellence, Kambhoji has been found in the Tamil pann system as well, known as  ”Takkesi”.
• Kambhoji is famous in musicology for an altogether different reason. Venkatamakhi went hammer and tongs at Ramamatya for his having said in the Svaramelakalanidhi that Kambhoji sported only the kakali nishada.

An analysis of the raga & its compositions can be found in the following link:

http://www.carnatica.net/special/kambhoji-ppn.htm

Vidushi Seetha Narayanan provides a performer’s perspective of this magnificent raga:

http://seetha-narayanan.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/02/great-ragas-kambhoji.htm

A historical perspective of Kambhoji can be glimpsed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambhoji

For this blog post let’s first look at what Kambhoji was till circa 1750 the notional cut-off year by which perhaps the asampurna mela scheme must have been formulated by Muddu Venkatamakhi/Venkata Vaidyanatha Dikshitar.

LAKSHANA OF KAMBHOJI – PRE 1750:

The following musical texts can be examined in this regard:

1. Govinda Dikshitar’s Sangita Sudha (SS) – Circa 1600
2. Venkatamakhi’s Caturdandi Prakashika (CDP)- Circa 1650
3. Shahaji’s Ragalakshanamu (RL)- Circa 1700
4. Tulaja’s Saramrutha (SM)- Circa 1735

The analysis of the above musical texts in relation to Kambhoji can be summarized as :

Circa 1600:

Govinda Dikshitar in the SS says Kambhoji sports the Kaishiki nishada.²

Circa 1650:

In his seminal work CDP, Venkatamakhi the son of Govinda Dikshitar has this to say as Kambhoji’s raga lakshana:²

“Kambhoji ragah sampurnopyarohe ma ni vakritah”

(Vide Shloka 70 & 71, Raga Chapter, Caturdandi Prakashika (Sanskrit) – Edited by Pandit Subramanya Shastri and published by Music Academy)

The key operative words thus are ‘ma ni vakritah’, meaning madhyama and nishada are vakra in the arohana.

Circa 1700:

Shahaji in his “Ragalakshanamu” has this to say about Kambhoji:

Ma and Ni are varja in the arohana. It is a basha (raga) of Kakubha with shadja as graha/amsa/nyasa and to be rendered in the evenings. For the sake of rakti however Ma appears in some arohana phrases.³

Circa 1735:

King Tulaja mentions Kambhoji as one of his 21 melas and says that Kambhoji is described as “Ma Ni varjarohaniyam”- i.e Ma and Ni are varja in the aroha phrases and his illustrative murcchanas for Kambhoji are devoid of a linear RGMP, echoing Venkatamakhi’s stated position in the CDP. Also he does not mention usage of kakali nishada- alpa or otherwise.²

In the context of the above discussion, a few points need to be clarified:

1. The Anubandha to the CDP as well as the lakshana shloka that Subbarama Dikshitar gives as Venkatamakhi’s in his SSP are considered as post 1750 works attributable to Venkatamakhi’s great grandson Muddu Venkatamakhi/Venkata Vaidyanatha Dikshitar. What has been considered above is the shloka found in the CDP as edited by Pandit Subramanya Sastrigal & published in Sanskrit. As we will see latter, the CDP’s Anubandha as well the shloka found in the SSP varies from what was actually said by Venkatamakhi in the original CDP.
2. The usage of the term “Sampurna” in older texts signifies a meaning slightly different from what it connotes today. In older times, a raga was considered sampurna if the seven svaras occurred in the raga’s murcchanas or in other words either in the arohana or avarohana. ³
3. Similar to the usage and connotation of the term ‘sampurna’ as above, terminologies like raganga, bashanga, kriyanga & upanga meant something else in older days. Thus if Shahaji says Kambhoji was a bhasha of Kakubha, it meant that Kambhoji resembled or had the cchaya of that bhasha. In turn the bhasha raga is a melodic extension or elaboration of a grama raga.³

Now the pre 1750 position of Kambhoji can be summarized as:

1. Madhyama was vakra or varja in aroha phrases and Ni was varja. Or in other words the purvanga portions of the raga’s murcchanas didn’t have the lineal SRGMPDS at all.
2. The nishada of Kambhoji was undoubtedly kaishiki only and kakali nishada was not used at all.

As pointed out earlier, Venkatamakhi in his CDP had castigated Ramamatya in severe terms for his having documented in the Svaramelakalanidhi that Kambhoji sported the kakali nishada.² We have no means of going into that controversy as it may truly have been so & in that period between Ramamatya and Venkatamakhi ( ~100 years), Kambhoji’s nishada might have morphed. Or it could also be the case of printer’s devil or rather copyist devil.

Govinda Dikshitar and his wife Nagamambal (parents of Venkatamakhi) Photo Courtesy : THE HINDU

LAKSHANA OF KAMBHOJI – POST 1750:

For this time period namely 1750-1900 the following music texts can be considered:

1. The Anubandha to the CDP as edited & published by the Music Academy
2. Sangraha Cudamani of Govindacarya again as edited & published by the Music Academy
3. Subbarama Dikshitar’s Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini

ANUBANDHA TO CDP (CIRCA 1750):

The lakshana shloka for Kambhoji found in the Anubandha to the CDP (attributable to Muddu Venkatamakhi) defines Kambhoji thus: ²

“Kambhoji ragascharohe gani varjitah”

While the recital in the original CDP goes as “Ma Ni Vakritah”, the anubandha shloka talks of Kambhoji being “Ga Ni varjitah”! Was it by chance “Ma Ni varjitah” & probably some copyist erred in reproducing it? Again we will never know for sure. And so this confusion is there, etched in history for ever! Also there is no mention of usage of kakali nishada in this shloka.

We need to consider this shloka in the light of the lakshana gitam for Kambhoji composed by Muddu Venkatamakhi which is given by Subbarama Dikshitar in his SSP. In this gitam we can notice that in line with the lakshana shloka found, the gitam does not have SRGM phrase at all. It is SRMG only. In fact the gitam starts off with the murcchana ndSRMGR.¹

SSP 1904:

Interestingly Subbarama Dikshitar provides us a shloka in SSP attributing it to Venkatamakhi which is aligned to the Anubandha, but gives an extra line of verse to the effect that kakali nishada can be “appropriately” used in Kambhoji.¹

Kambhoji ragah sampurnah carohe gani vakritah |

Nishadah kakaliyuktah kvacit sthane prayujyathe ||

So according to Muddu Venkatamakhi (the author of the CDP Anubandha ) Ga and Ni are vakra in aroha phrases. And now per the SSP version of the shloka kakali nishada also appears appropriately in Kambhoji !

Subbarama Dikshitar in his SSP commentary skirts the issue. He says that the murcchana arohana/avarohana is SRGMPDNDS/SNDPMGRS. His representation gives the workaround for the nishada varja definition but none for M1 which appear as a straightforward sequential svara in the arohana as SRGMP. Also in all fairness, Subbarama Dikshitar to keep the record straight makes the reference to Venkatamakhi’s definition (in the CDP) of madhyama being varja in the arohana, but he does not develop/dwell on it further much to our disappointment.

So for us the other interesting aspect is the second added line (not found in the CDP Anubandha) which talks of Kambhoji also sporting kakali nishada and thus becoming bhashanga in modern day terms. We have no clue as to Subbarama Dikshitar’s source for this ‘modified’ shloka with the extra line pertaining to usage of kakali nishada. But nevertheless, it provides documented authority for us, for the first time in Kambhoji’s musical history, that kakali nishada is used in its sancaras, laying the foundation for modern day Kambhoji.

SANGRAHA CUDAMANI- CIRCA -18^th/19^th CE :

Moving over to Govinda’s Sangraha Cudamani , this is what he has to say of Kambhoji’s raga lakshana:²

Catushruti rishaba antara gandhara catushruthi dhaivatha svara kaishiki nishada |

Itara suddha aroha ni varjitha avaroha sampurna sa grahanyasamsa truputa yukta |

Harikambhoji mela janita Kambhoji ragah ||

Govinda’s enunciation of Kambhoji’s raga lakshana is clear as to nishada alone being vakra and again there is no mention of kakali nishada being used. Given the facts we have today, it wouldn’t be far from truth if we were to state that the modern day Kambhoji has its roots in the lakshana as propounded by Subbarama Dikshitar.

(To be continued)

WHO WAS PALLAVI GOPALA IYER?

Per Prof Sambamoorthy and Dr B M Sundaram as well, Gopala Iyer was the son of Tsallagali Veeraraghava Iyer as mentioned in my previous post. I should confess that I had not looked to into Dr Sita’s magnum opus, “Tanjore as a Seat of Music” to see what she had to say. Dr Sita provides a brief profile of Pallavi Gopala Iyer under pages 179-180 of her work and therein there is no mention of his forefathers or descendants. Further in pages 256-262, of her thesis/publication, she profiles the famous Minister of the Tanjore Court, Varahappa Dikshita Pandit (1795-1869) along with his descendants and therein she makes a mention of another/different Gopala Iyer who was called Tsallagali Gopala Iyer and he was the son of Tsallagali Veeraraghava Iyer. They were a famous line of vaineekas attached to the Tanjore Court. In sum, there seem to have been two different Gopala Iyers in question, in the Tanjore Court. Also according to Dr Sita, Tsallagali Gopala Iyer belonged to the period of King Sivaji and thus he belonged to a time much latter than Pallavi Gopala Iyer.

The point I want to place on record is that as per Dr Sita, Pallavi Gopala Iyer had nothing to do with Tsallagali Veeraraghava Iyer whose son Tsallagali Gopala Iyer is a different musician from a different time period altogether. My original post refers to Pallavi Gopala Iyer as the son of Tsallagali Veeraghava Iyer, which is based on the account of Prof Sambamoorthy and Dr B M Sundaram. It also needs to be mentioned here that historians/researchers typically refer to the Modi records found in the Saravathi Mahal Library in Tanjore to verify or reconstruct history. Dr Sita provides a facsimile reproduction of a Modi record in her work as an example.  Interpreting those records/scripts has a great bearing on the final conclusion/deduction and this may probably account for the divergences that one notices in the two sets of accounts about Pallavi Gopala Iyer.

DISCOGRAPHY:

Secondly, since my original post I came across the rendition of the kriti , “shrI ramA ramani” in the raga Mohanam which is found in Rangaramanuja Iyengar’s Kritimanimalai, attributed to Pallavi Gopala Iyer. Vidvan Sanjay Subramaniam, accompanied by Vidvan S D Sridhar on the violin and Vidvan Trivandrum Vaidyanathan on the mrudangam, opens his All India Radio Concert, broadcast by Chennai A Station on 26^th June 2009@ 8:45 AM, with this kriti of Pallavi Gopala Iyer.

http://www.sangeethamshare.org/tvg/UPLOADS-1201—1400/1225-Sanjay_Subramanian/

Apparently this composition was fairly well encountered in concerts decades ago and musicians including G N Balasubramaniam (GNB) used to render it elaborately. As one can see this kriti is structured in the old kriti template, akin to Needumurtini in Nattakurinji  which is as under:

Pallavi – 1 avarta of adi tala

Anupallavi  – 1 avarta of adi tala

Caranam – 2 avarta of adi tala

Additionally we can see that the kriti template has multiple caranas (at least two) and a cittasvara section spanning 2 avartas of adi tala. This seems to have been the classic structure from the pre-trinity days. Another example from that period is ‘Sphuratute’ in Devagandhari of Paidala Gurumurti Sastrigal notated in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini(SSP). Many of kritis of Melattur Veerabadrayya are in this template as well, barring the cittasvara section. These proto-kriti form comes to us from an age when compositions such as varnas, svarajatis and padas dominated. The trinity perhaps went on to impart a slightly more expansive kriti template, investing sahitya for atleast an additional avarta of tala in the anupallavi and couple of more for the caranams. Muthusvami Dikshitar contributed an additional segment called the madhyama kala sahitya portion as an appendage to the carana. It would’nt be out of place to mention a very odd form for a kriti as utilized by Dikshitar for the kriti ‘Sri Meenakshi Gauri’ in the rare raga Gauri. This kriti as documented in the SSP has a number of oddities bunched together:

• The pallavi itself has a madhayama kala sahitya portion
• The pallavi is immediately followed by a portion of svaras called muktayisvara
• The anupallavi(samashti carana) has four rupaka tala avartas of madhyamakala sahitya followed by 4 avartas of cittasvaras.

Pallavi Gopala Iyer is one of the composers from the pre-trinity period who adorned the Tanjore Court and was a vaggeyakara par excellence, in his own right. We do have accounts of him from Subbarama Dikshitar and also from manuscripts and references in the Sarasvathi Mahal Library of Tanjore and from Prof Sambamoorthy. Subbarama Dikshitar has also recorded for posterity, the notation for a number of his compositions which offers us an invaluable glimpse of the music of those days bygone and which help us understand raga lakshana as it existed in the run up to the times of the Trinity.

HIS LIFE & TIMES:

In his “Vaggeyakara Caritamu”, Subbarama Dikshitar states that Gopala Iyer adorned the Tanjore Court during the times of King Amarasimha(1787-1802) and King Serfoji(1802-1832)¹. Prof Sambamoorthy places the timeline of Pallavi Gopala Iyer as the latter part of 18^th century and first quarter of 19^th century. Given this and other collateral evidences, he should have lived circa 1750-1820. And thus he was in all probability slightly elder to the Trinitarians.

Here is his biography in brief as dealt with in the records and accounts available to us:

Gopala Iyer hailed from “northern regions” according to Subbarama Dikshitar. He was the son of one Callagalli Veeraraghava Iyer. Gopala Iyer also had a brother by name Sanjeeva Iyer. The honorific title “Callagalli” (telugu) came to be conferred, probably because the music that Veeraraghava Iyer sang was like pleasant cool breeze, as the term implied in Telugu! Both the sons of Veeraraghava Iyer were enrolled under no less a teacher as Patchimiriam Adiyappayya, the legendary composer of the classic Bhairavi Ata tala varnam, “Viribhoni”. From amongst the all time greats of Carnatic Music, the honorific title “mArgadarshi” or “Trail Blazer” has been conferred on 4 icons :

1. Karvetinagar Govindasamayya – for his magnum opus adi tala tana varna in Navaroz and probably for the ‘pedda varnamu’, “SarigadAni pai” in raga Mohana as well.
2. Melattur Veerabhadrayya (for his now lost classic, the Huseni Svarajathi “Sami Ninne” in Adi tala)
3. Sesha Iyengar (for his immortal set of 60 krithis, selected no less by the Lord at Srirangam) and
4. Patchimiriam Adiyappayya ( for his Bhairavi ata tala tana varna)

Adiyappayya’s other illustrious disciples include Syama Shastri, Ghanam Krishna Iyer and “bhUlOka gAndharva” Narayana Svami Iyer (of the Udayarpalayam Samasthanam). Needless to say each one of Adiyappayya’s disciples went on to make a mark in the world of music with their contribution!

Prof Sambamurthy with authority credits Adiyappayya as the first to systematize the art of rendering raga, tana and pallavi as an organized mechanism of exposition. And he went on to teach that to his worthy disciples. Gopala Iyer became so adept in it that he became the first to be conferred the title “Pallavi” in recognition of his mastery over this  (then) new art form. This title also adorns the name of many other latter musicians/composers including Pallavi Duraisvami Iyer, Pallavi Sesha Iyer etc. And Pallavi Gopala Iyer was one of the prominent gems of the Tanjore Court, which at that point in time had more than 360 vidvans ornamenting it!

Pallavi Gopala Iyer also seems to have had a son by name  Krishnayyar who too was a musician of merit. This apart we have no other personal details available about Gopala Iyer or about his descendants.

GOPALA IYER – THE VAGGEYAKARA:

Gopala Iyer’s colophon was “Venkata”. Apart from having been part of the Tanjore Court, he also visited the Mysore Court during the reign of Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar (1799-1868). His compositions sport the raja mudra as an ankita as well.The following are the compositions that are available to us through the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (SSP), its anubandha and manuscripts found in the Sarasvati Mahal Library.

Varnas:

1. Vanajakshi – Kalyani – Ata tala (Mudra : Kasturiranga)
2. Kanakangi – Todi – Ata tala
3. Intacalamu – Kambhoji – Ata tala

Kritis:

1. Amba Nadu – Todi – Adi tala (Mudra : Venkatapati Sahodari)
2. Hari sarva paripurna -Misra Eka (Mudra : Varada Venkata Sriramana)
3. Mahishasura mardhini – Kalyani – Tisra Eka (Mudra : Varada Venkata Sriramana)
4. Needu carana pankaja – Kalyani – Adi (Mudra : Varada Venkata )
5. Needu Murtini – Nattakurinji – Adi (Mudra : Venkatesa)

Apart from the above ,we have the following compositions ascribed to Gopala Iyer available to us from Sri Rangaramanuja Iyengar’s Kritimani Malai Vol IV.

1. Mahatripura Sundari – Bhairavi – Rupaka
2. Sri Rama ramani manohara – Mohanam – Adi
3. Shripura nivasini – Mohanam – Rupaka

Amongst these compositions, the tana varnas in Kalyani and Todi are heard in the concert circuit along with the Todi, Kalyani (‘Needu carana’) and Nattakurinji krithis.

Also there are 2 other daru’s found in the Tanjore Sarasvati Mahal collection -”Sringara Na Mohana” in the raga Begada and “Vintadanara” in Madhyamavathi, both of which sport “kasturiranga” as an ankita/mudra. One cannot but wonder if they could also be Pallavi Gopala Iyer’s. Again we do not know for sure.

AN ANALYSIS OF GOPALA IYER’S CREATIONS:

According to Prof Sambamoorthy, as a composer Pallavi Gopala Iyer was the first or perhaps one of the earliest to adopt the so called “sampurna varika” style of approach. Under this approach in a composition every note is invested with kampita gamaka, totally eschewing flat notes. Indeed this is a very interesting point of discussion. Gopala Iyer purposefully applied it on the then “auttara ragas”, namely Todi & Kalyani . In that era long bygone, these 2 ragas along with Pantuvarali were treated as auttara/turuska/northern/videsi ragas. The transformation of Todi and Kalyani is one of the remarkable examples of the dynamics of our music system during the run-up the period of the Trinity.

Clip 1: Musiri Subrahmanya Iyer’s Rendering of Ambanadu – Todi

Perhaps one can surmise that in the hands of Pallavi Gopala Iyer, Todi and Kalyani got a royal treatment with the result they became mainstream ragas along with the Sankarabharanams, Bhairavis and Kambhojis and the Trinitarians subsequently went on to compose some of their greatest gems adopting the approach Gopala Iyer took.

Prof Sambamoorthy also credits Gopala Iyer of reformatting the then existing structure of a tana varna, to its current modern form. And this view is also advanced by Prof S R Janakiraman in one of his lecture demonstrations.

Older structure of a tana varna ( circa 1750):

The varna was structured with a pallavi, followed by anupallavi & muktayisvara, followed by ettugadda Pallavi/carana & its sets of ettuagada svaras, followed by a small sahitya portion called anubandha. The ettugada svaras were composed in increasing avartas of the tala in which the tana varna was composed.

The pallavi line was first rendered, followed by anupallavi with a round of muktayi svara as its appendage. This was then followed by the ettugada pallavi or carana which was used as a refrain to render the 4 or 5 sets of ettugada svaras. After the last ettugada svara was sung, the ettugada pallavi/carana/refrain was sung followed by a portion of sahitya called anubandha. After singing the anubandha, the anupallavi was to be sung followed by the muktayi svara and finally the pallavi line had to sung once to conclude the rendering.

Examples:

• “Viribhoni” – Bhairavi – Ata tala – The notation as provided by Subbarama Dikshitar in the SSP for the ettugada section and for the anubandha can be referred. As one can notice , modern day renditions are a truncated version of the original template.
• Many of the varnas found in the SSP including those composed by Subbarama Dikshitar himself (“Intamodi”- Durbar- Ata, “Varijakshi” -Sahana – Ata et al ) follow this conventional but lengthy format.
• Another older varna dating to the early half of the 18^th century, which can be cited as an example is “Nenarunchi” – Bilahari – Ata of Sonti Venkatasubbayya as also the tana varnas of Ramasvami Dikshitar.

Current/Modern Form:

A tana varna today is structured with just the pallavi, followed by anupallavi & muktayi svaras and end with the ettugada pallavi/refrain with 3 to 5 ettugada svaras with upto a maximum of 3 tala cycles in the last ettugada svara sequence. The anubandha portion no longer exists. In terms of rendering, a tana varna is concluded with the singing of the last ettugada svara sequence with the ettugada pallavi refrain.

Pallavi Gopala Iyer’s varnas are the earliest examples of this modern form, which is bereft of the anubandha portion. In fact his ata tala tana varna in Kambhoji “Intachalamu” is one of the smallest of its breed with the following structure:

• Pallavi, Anupallavi, muktayi svara section each with 2 cyles/avarthas of ata tala
• Ettugada pallavi – 1 cycle/avartha of ata tala
• Ettugada svara 1 – 1 cycle/avartha of ata tala
• Ettugada svara 2 – 1 cycle/avartha of ata tala
• Ettugada svara 3 – 2 cycles/avarthas of ata tala

Prof Sambamoorthy, also goes on to add that much latter Veena Kuppier, also applied Pallavi Gopala Iyer’s modified form for all his varnas by dispensing with the anubandha portion. However it needs to go on record that this is not entirely true. Quite a few varnas of Veena Kuppier do have the anubandha and this is recorded for posterity by the notation and text of the varnas as published in the invaluable ‘Pallavi Svarakalpavalli’ by his equally illustrious son Tiruvottriyur Tyagier. In fact the famous Sankarabharana Adi tala varna “Sami Ninne” taught to all beginners, has a short and beautiful anubandha with the following sahitya:

“nEnarUnci nE nI mAruni kelI kUdi maninca rA kUmArA”

Vidushi Seetha Rajan, true to tradition renders the varna completely with the anubandha  in this clipping below in a “varnas only” concert !

Clip 2: Sami Ninne – Sankarabharanam

DISCOGRAPHY:

The ata tala tana varna in Kalyani has been a staple concert starter for many vidvans. Prof Sambamoorthy rates the varna as one of the best vocalizers to kick start a concert. Gopala Iyer’s conceptualization of Kalyani in his gem-of-a composition is a veritable lesson in Kalyani for any listener or learner. The varna sports the mudra “mA kasturi ranga”. Prof Sambamoorthy opines that it refers only to Vishnu, the father of manmatha & not on any mortal or King. Interestingly there is another varna “(Y)Enthani vedinaga” in the raga Navaroz which also sports the mudra “kasturiranga” as well and in some of the publications it is attributed  (perhaps without authority) to Maharaja Svati Tirunal.

According to Prof Sambamoorthy, it seems Gopala Iyer composed this Kalyani varna even when he was under the tutelage of Adiyappayya. The disciple took the courage to sing this in front of his revered guru, who heard it with rapt attention. And then Adiyappayya apparently remarked that it was a ‘schoolboy’s composition’, probably out of goodwill, lest his illustrious disciple were to become proud should he praise him profusely ! The master must have undoubtedly been secretly happy with his ward’s attainment, no doubt!

Clip 3: Architect of modern day recital format (which starts with a varna), Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar begins his concert  with the Kalyani varna

In the Todi varna “Kanakangi” which is attributed by Subbarama Dikshitar to Pallavi Gopala Iyer, the ankita/raja mudra that one finds therein is “Tulajendruni tanayudaina Sarabhoji maharajendra..”, composed on Sarabhoji II who ruled between 1802-1832. Interestingly Dr B M Sundaram on the strength of the manuscripts of the Tanjore Quartet & the publication “Tanjai Peruvudaiyan Perisai” ascribes it to Ponniah .

Clip 4: Sangita Kalanidhi K V Narayanasvami renders the Todi varna “Kanakangi“

Gopala Iyer’s another magnum opus is his Nattakurinji composition “Nidu Murtini”. This composition along with the Kambhoji varna “Intachalamu” and the Kalyani varna “Vanajakshi” is found in the SSP and Subbarama Dikshitar upholds them as authority/examples of raga lakshana for those ragas. Nattakurinji is one of the old ragas of our system with a documented textual tradition. One of the oldest compositions in Nattakurinji is the varna “Inta aluka” in Ata tala composed by Kuvanasamayya, one of the Karvetnagar brothers, dating to circa 1700! The varna is found documented in the SSP (1904) and the much older printed publication Sangita Sarvaarta Saara Sangrahamu (1852). Gopala Iyer interprets Nattakurinji in his own inimitable way. Attention is invited to Gopala Iyer’s version of Nattakurinji especially the repeated emphasis on the vakra sancara MNDNs and its exquisite citta svara.

Clip 5: Prof S R Janakiraman renders the kriti “Needumurti ni” here :Needumurtini – Nattakurinji

The Prof opines that Gopala Iyer was the first to add cittasvara as a section/appendage to krithis. However Dr Sita in her article says that Kavi Matrubhutayya (circa 1850, slightly earlier to Gopala Iyer) was possibly the first to add the cittasvara feature to krithis as exemplified by the beautiful cittasvara of his classic ‘Neemadi callaga’ in Anandabhairavi.

Moving over next to Gopala Iyer’s other Kalyani piece “nIdu carana”, according to Prof Sambamoorthy it is a composition on Goddess Anandavalli, enshrined in the temple on the Vennar river banks at Tanjore. Muthusvami Dikshitar has composed on this diety, refer his kriti “Chayavatim Anandavallim” in the raga Chayavati, the asampurna mela equivalent of Suryakantham. We also have another krithi of Dikshitar (“Agasteesvaram”)in the raga Lalitha on the Lord Shiva at this temple.

Clip 6: Sangita Kalanidhi M S Subbulakshmi renders Needu carana

Prof Sambamoorthy opines that the dhatu/musical setting of  the pallavi “Needu carana” is very unique/beautiful and has been thrust on Tyagaraja’s compositions “Sundari nee divya rupa” and “Vasudevayani”. According to him the present dhatu of the pallavi of these two songs is spurious, being derived from Needu carana. The original dhatu of the pallavi of “Vasudevayani” starts off as  GMPDNs only and not as one hears today! And Svati Tirunal’s “sArasa suvadhana” too is a similar victim!

I have not heard the renditions of the other krithis of Gopala Iyer namely  ‘Harisarva paripurna’ in Kambhoji and ‘Mahishasura mardhini’ in Kalyani. I would be grateful if somebody were to share any recordings of these 2 compositions. The tana varna in Kambhoji is again a rare one and luckily we do have authentic renditions and I intend covering that in the next post!

PS: I have drawn much of the content of this blog post from the references cited below and for the sake of brevity I have not indicated them in the body itself. Also thanks are due to Sri Lakshman Ragde for providing the listing of Pallavi Gopala Iyer’s compositions.

References:

1. Subbarama Dikshitar (1904) – Sangeetha Sampradaya Pradarshini – Reprinted in Tamil by the Madras Music Academy, India
2. Prof.P. Sambamoorthy (1970) – “Pallavi Gopala Iyer” – Published in the “The Hindu” dated 12^th April 1970
3. Dr B M Sundaram (2002) – “Varna Svarajathi” – Published by Sarasvathi Mahal Library, Tanjore
4. Dr S Sita (1970)- “Kavi Matrubhutayya” – Published in the “The Hindu” dated 6^th December 1970

Vedanta Bhagavatar was born in 1878 in Kallidaikurichi. He came of a family of Sanskrit scholars who were attached as teachers of Sanskrit and shastras to the Tiruvadudurai math.His father was Muthu Shastrigal who was holding this respected position in the math.Observing the talent of the young Vedantam the head of the Tiruvadudurai adinam consulted Muthu Shastrigal and placed vedantam and the celebrated nagaswaram artiste Tirumarugal Natesa pillai under Vidwan Melattur Ramaswami Iyer for being brought up as a musician.  Vedantam qualified himself not only as a vocalist but also as an early performer of Harikatha.This, he learnt from Tanjavur Krishna Bhagavatar and Tiruppayanam Pancapakesa shastrigal.He gave his first performance at the age of 17 in the Melatheru bhajanai matam in Kallidaikurichi.His family were also traditional shrividya upasakas.

He learnt Dikshitar kritis from Subbarama Dikshitar and also Ambi Dikshitar.With Ambi Dikshitar he had come and stayed for some years in Madras to propagate Dikshitar’s kritis by both teaching and publication.He published an edition of the Kamalamba navavarana kritis in the year 1936 with texts,translation and notation. He did the kathakalakshepam the Lalitopakhayna in Tiruvarur.He also came into contact with other famous figures of that time in the musical field, Konerirajapuram Vaidyanatha Iyer and Sarabha Sastrigal with the latter accompanying him on the flute in several Harikatha performances.

He specialised in Ragam,Tanam and Pallavi and it is worth noting that at that he prepared and published a book entitled ‘Sangeetha Tatva Pradarshini’ otherwise called ‘Pallavi Parijatam’.His brother Kallidaikurichi Ramalinga Bhagavatar accompanied him in the concerts.

He was also a composer and has composed one hundred compositions including a varna in poorvikalyani. It is interesting to see the title ‘sangIta sahitya vidvan’ as printed in his letter head.The media of the songs are sanskrit,telugu and Tamil and the deities are mostly Devi,Subrahamanya and Shiva.

Vedanta Bhagavatar (1940)

He was given the Sangita kalanidhi by the Music Academy in the year 1940.When he presided over the Academy’s conference in 1940, the lakshanas of ragas like saurashtra,arabhi,sama and varali and ahiri were discussed and defined.In his presidential address he emphasised the importance of sahitya and the need for singing the texts of the songs correctly and with the knowledge of the meaning.  He took sanyasa in the same year and passed away.

Part II – Kallidaikurichi Ramalinga Bhagavatar
Part III – Students of Kallidaikurichi Vedanta Bhagvatar – Ramalinga Bhagavatar & Mahadeva Bhagavatar

Acknowledgements:

Commemorative Booklet on Vedanta Bhagavatar released by Kallidaikurichi Mahadeva Bhagavatar

Pictures courtesy of Suresh Ramasubramanian and family, Chennai.