Nishumbasudani……. Mystery from the medieval Chola times!

Prologue:

Nishumbasudani Bas Relief ( Courtesy the Philadelphia Museum)

More than 14,000 Kms away from Tanjore in Southern India, half way across on the other side of earth is the American city of Philadelphia. A discerning lover of Indian art, residing in or near this city should definitely make that visit to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. As a visitor goes to the Museum’s second floor which houses its South Asian collection of art, the most eye catching would be the Hall reassembled on site from remnants of the Madana Gopala Swamy Temple, Madurai which was shipped out of India circa 1912 AD, by a wealthy Philadelphian Ms Adeline Pepper Gibson.  While the antiquity of this Hall is just around 500-600 or so years only , in the room adjacent to this Hall, away from the spotlight would be the still older Chola artworks on display dating a further 500 years prior. And amongst the works of arts there, a discerning visitor can spot an icon of Goddess Durga or more specifically one should say, ‘nisumbhasUdanI’ or the Slayer of the demon Nishumbha, on display. A look at the card tagged to this bas relief would state its antecedents briefly as “Goddess Durga As the Slayer of the Demon Nishumbha (Nishumbhasudani), 900 to 925 CE, Tamil Nadu, India”.

A closer analysis of this sculpture would reveal that it is a 10th Century granite bas relief, albeit a little damaged, but nevertheless a masterpiece from the times of the medieval Cholas. We do not know from whom and where this icon was sourced from, but the Museum has this item in its Collection having purchased it from out of the funds of the Joseph E Temple Trust in the year 1965. This Devi, the slayer of Shumbha, Nishumbha and Mahishasura is the subject matter of this blog post.

Actually, the blog is about two mysteries, dating back to centuries prior which continue to hold us in thrall. And this Devi, ‘nishumbhasUdanI’ is the link with which we will look at these two mysteries. We have very few facts or solid information from those times, long bygone and this blog is to place them in proper perspective as always to provide a context for a raga and a composition.  This blog has been written, alternating between the two mysteries while at the same time providing some background then & there for which foot notes have been written so as to provide continuity.

Read On!

 Introduction:

The Cholas were the great Kings of southern Tamilnadu ruling from Tanjore. The subject matter for us are the Medieval Cholas who ruled first from Uraiyur and later from Tanjore between 848 AD and 1070 AD. The Chola Kings who ruled prior are called the Early Cholas and those who ruled after 1070 AD are called the Later Cholas by historians. Very well known in this lineage of medieval Chola Kings are Emperor Raja Raja I (whose actual name was Arulmozhi Varman) and his son Rajendra I who respectively constructed the Brihadeesvara Temple at Tanjore and its look like, the Great temple at Gangaikondacholapuram.

The first King of this medieval Chola lineage was Vijayalaya Chola (regnal years 848 AD-891 AD) who is also credited to have founded the modern city of Tanjore, making it the Capital of the Imperial Cholas. When he laid the foundation of this great Chola lineage and that of the City of Tanjore as his capital, legend has it that he made the icon of Goddess Durga or ‘nishumbasUdanI’ as the tutelary deity of the Cholas. She was revered as a war Goddess and legend has it that Vijayalaya built a temple for Her in Tanjore. Historians are unanimous in their opinion that this Temple no longer exists today. The only reference to this act of Vijayalaya Chola and vouching for the existence of Nishumbasudani is this following verse found in the Tiruvalangadu Copper plate (see Note 1) which in a set of verses, in the nature of hagiography, detailing the entirely lineage of Cholas as a brief history.

The Tiruvalangadu Copper Plates ( photo courtesy “The Hindu”)

தஞ்சாபுரீம் ஸௌத ஸுதாங்காராகாம்
ஜக்ராஹ ரந்தும் ரவிவம்ச தீப:
தத:பிரதிஷ்டாப்ய நிசும்ப சூதனீம்
ஸுராஸுரை:அர்ச்சித-பாதபங்கஜாம்
சது : ஸமுத்ராம்பர மேகலாம் புவம்
ரஹாஜ தேவோ தத்பராசதந”

तञ्जापुरीं सौध सुधाङ्गरागां
जग्राह रन्तुं रविवंश दीपः
ततः प्रतिष्ठाप्य निशुम्भसूदनीं
सुरासुरैः अर्चितपादपङ्कजां
चतुः समुद्राम्भर मेखलां भुवं
रहाज देवो तत्परासदन

(Verse 46 of the Tiruvalangadu Copper Plate – History of the Cholas- See Note 2)

 Meaning: Having next consecrated (there at Tanjore) (the image of) Nisumbhasudani whose lotus-feet are worshipped by gods and demons, (he, Vijayalaya Chola) by the grace of that (goddess) bore just (as easily) as a garland (the weight of) the (whole) earth resplendent with (her) garment of the four oceans.

And this Goddess Nishumbasudani as the tutelary deity of the Cholas becomes our object of attention. And consecrated in that Temple at Tanjore around 850 AD she must have overseen the rise and the fall of the medieval and later Cholas, spanning about 400 years thereafter before she herself probably disappeared from our view. Let us fast forward time by about 100 years to the reign of Vijayalaya’s grandson’s grandson Parantaka Sundara Chola or Parantaka II of the historians for a peek at a mystery which has for a very long time held the attention of Tamil historians, researchers and literary readers.

Circa 957 AD

Lineage of the Medieval Cholas from Vijayalaya till Rajendra I

Parantaka Sundara Chola, a descendant of Vijayalaya, ascended the Chola throne in 957 AD. His father Arinjaya Cola had earlier ruled for a brief period succeeding his own elder brother Gandaraditya. Since Gandaraditya died leaving a very young son (Madurantaka Uttama), Arinjaya ascended the throne and he also having died shortly thereafter, it became inevitable that Parantaka Sundara the son of Arinjaya ascended the throne as Madurantaka Uttama was still a minor. Nevertheless, given the patriarchal line of succession as was prevalent, Parantaka Sundara thus became King even while his father’s elder brother’s son Madurantaka Uttama, being the rightful claimant to the throne was there. We do not know the intrigues that went on in relation to this succession but nevertheless the same becomes a key pivot for the proceedings.

Parantaka Sundara’s eldest son was Prince Aditya Karikala (See Note 3) who records say was anointed as Crown Prince. And it was not Madurantaka Uttama the older claimant. We do not know, as between Aditya Karikala and Madurantaka Uttama who was elder by age but it was Aditya Karikala who became the heir apparent. Parantaka Sundara’s two other children were Prince Arulmozhi Varman and Princess Kundavai who would have been yet another set of siblings to the anointed Crown Prince Aditya Karikala, without any right to inherit the throne, but for the chain of events that were about to engulf Tanjore shortly thereafter, a veritable Game of Thrones, a medieval version at that, which brought these two younger royals to the forefront.

Even while Parantaka Sundara Chola ruled over from Tanjore, by 965 AD it was left to the young & mighty Crown Prince Aditya Karikala to expand the frontiers of the Chola Kingdom. Records say that he decimated the Pandyan army at the Battle of Sevur (near Pudukottai) and killed King Veerapandya earning for himself the title ‘The Vanquisher who took the Head of Veerapandya’ (‘vIrapAndiyan thalai konda parakesari’). Even the Thiruvalangadu copper plate verse No 68 too makes a mention to that effect, Dr Nilakanta Sastri opines that Aditya would have not literally done so and the said epithet was just to signify his victory over Veerapandya. The true import of this epithet would prove important later when we come to interpret the happening that would shake the very foundation of the medieval Chola rule.

Given the perpetual rivalry between the Cholas and Pandyas, a victory of that proportion must have been a truly momentous occasion. But that victory was to turn a pyrrhic one.  It is well likely that Madurantaka Uttama, the cousin of Parantaka Sundara, the reigning King upon attaining majority must have nursed ambitions to be the next King given the precedence of his claim to the throne. However, given the legendary & heroic exploits of the Crown Prince Aditya Karikala, Madurantaka Uttama’s claim would have likely been eclipsed by Aditya’s. Whether Madurantaka Uttama resented it and whether directly or indirectly he advanced his claims or wishes to ascend the throne, we do not know. In the same breath it has to be said that we do see inscriptions wherein Madurantaka Uttama is recorded as a Prince (if not as a Crown Prince) performing his royal duties in his own right during the reign of Parantaka Sundara Chola, such as the one at Tiruvottriyur, (Udayar is the tamil word which is used as a prefix to the Prince in the said inscription).

While all was well this far in Tanjore in the early months of 969 AD with Parantaka Sundara as King and Aditya Karikala as the Crown Prince & successor designate, let us leave the dramatis personae for a while and fast forward quickly to the present.

21st Century:

The Nishumbhasudani Goddess Durga icon which we one can see in the Philadelphia Museum, dateable to 900 AD, being the reign of Vijayalaya Chola or his successor Aditya I sets us thinking if it is perhaps from that very Temple which was constructed at Tanjore for Her by Vijayalaya and which today is just a legend. May be or maybe not, nevertheless the reference to the Nishumbhasudani Goddess Durga and that mythical temple would certainly encourage one to search for a reference to Her and the temple in our musical or literary heritage left behind by the poets, composers and savants of the past. However, a diligent search for Her seems to show no trace of any verse or reference or composition or any epigraphical record pointing us to this Devi. In sum, save for the solitary reference in the above referred Thiruvalangadu Copper plate to this Nishumbhasudani of Tanjore. Also the existing structures and temples in Tanjore for Goddess Durga too seem to have been much later constructed temples. See Note 4. Where was this Goddess who had as her abode the temple constructed by Vijayalaya Chola ?

In passing, it is worth mentioning that readers of Kalki’s classic ‘Ponniyin Selvan’ would doubtlessly recall the references to Goddess Durga Parameswari and also the allusion to this Devi’s Temple in the proceedings in the said work.

While this is so let’s move the clock back this time by just around 200 plus years to first two decades of the 19th century, when Muthusvami Dikshitar the itinerant composer spent some time at Tanjore.

Circa 1800 AD:

Biographers of Muthusvami Dikshitar (1775-1832 AD) refer to an extended period of time when he visited and stayed in Tanjore. His prime disciples namely the Tanjore Quartet being Ponnayya, Chinnayya, Sivanandam & Vadivelu when they were in the Court of Serfoji II, are said to have invited him to be with them and he reportedly obliged them by doing so sometime during this period. It was during this sojourn that Dikshitar at the request of the Quartet, commenced the project of investing a composition in every one of the 72 mela ragas of the compendium of Muddu Venkatamakhin. Even while as Dikshitar embarked on creating a number of them on the deities of the very many temples and around Tanjore, could he have created one on Nishumbasudani Goddess Durga? None of the biographers of Muthusvami Dikshitar attribute any kriti to Her and therefore one in left with their own devices to investigate if any kriti can be ascribed to this long-lost tutelary deity of the Imperial Cholas.

It does make one surmise whether Dikshitar would have craved to have a darshan of this great & hoary deity. He must perhaps got himself satisfied by visiting and paying obeisance to Her at the smaller shrine in the then ramparts of the Tanjore fort. Could he have perhaps having heard of this mythical yet fearsome war Goddess wondered where on earth she was and then hearing about the futility of discovering Her or the legendary temple, perhaps went on to eulogize her, invoking her imagery with his inner vision and thus creating a composition? If indeed there was one kriti at the very least we can surmise that it could be the one he might have composed on this Nishumbhasudani. And that composition could surely be a pen picture of that great Devi, which we can perhaps use as a proxy to that long-lost icon.

In other words, could Dikshitar have created a composition on that mythical Goddess just as how he had done for the mythical Goddess Sarasvati of Kashmir or the One who resided on the banks of the mythical Sharavati river, without having visited Her? And if he had composed one, which is the raga of choice Dikshitar would have employed? Before we progress further we must note one caveat here. In the first place we have attempted to search for this supposed composition on Nishumbhasudani, as there were no already attributed compositions to start with, with the embedded ksetra/stala or any other internal/external evidence. We have embarked on this only to surmise on the possible composition which could have been created by Dikshitar on this mythical Goddess of Tanjore and therefore for sure the composition will be bereft of any evidence to that effect.

In so far as the raga of the composition, it is entirely in the realm of possibility that Dikshitar must have applied great thought to the choice of the raga. And perhaps given his predilection for the rare and the archaic, he must have proceeded to compose the same in a long-forgotten raga, but which would have ruled the roost centuries ago and had been forgotten by 1800’s.

Thus, a composition in a long forgotten archaic raga for a mythical and again completely forgotten tutelary deity of the great Cholas of Tanjore would have been his complete and appropriate homage to that Nishumbhasudani. And could he have done it?

Having surmised a case for a probable composition of Muthusvami Dikshitar, on the Nishumbhasudani of Tanjore, it is time for us to go back to the times of Sundara Parantaka Chola once more.

Circa 969 AD

The year AD 969 would have been King Parantaka Sundara Chola’s 12th year of reign and his Crown Prince & anointed successor Prince Aditya Karikala must have been around 22 years old. And then sometime September that year, tragedy strikes the Royal Cholas.

The Tiruvalangadu Copper plates mourn the death of the young Crown Prince Aditya Karikala with the verse no 68 running thus:

Having deposited in his (capital) town the lofty pillar of victory (viz.,) the head of the Pandya king, Aditya disappeared (from this world) with a desire to see heaven.

In essence the copper plate records, bemoaned the setting of the sun (“Aditya”) probably plunging the entire Chola kingdom in grief & darkness.  It must be noted that Tiruvalangadu plates (which by themselves were created during the reign of Rajendra Cola, circa 1030 AD or more than 50 years or so later from this event) as above merely mention this untimely demise and it does not raise the sceptre of assassination or foul play in his death. Neither was there any war or battle on record in which the valiant Prince could have lost his life, at that point in time. And if so the epigraphs would have eulogized his death much like how his paternal uncle Rajaditya was. It is only the inscription at Udayarkudi (created later during the reign of King Raja Raja Chola, circa AD 1010) which throws further light on this mysterious tragedy. The said inscription attests to the assassination of Crown Prince Aditya Karikala, implying that three brothers Soman Sambhavan, Ravidasan alias Panchavan Brahmadhirajan and Parameswaran alias Irumudichola Brahmadirajan being traitors, had been instrumental in the death of the Crown Prince. Modern historians opine that one or more of these three personalities were high ranking Chola Officials who were insiders to the regime and most probably they took revenge on the Crown Prince for the death of the Pandyan King and after doing the foul deed they probably fled for life, for we have no record of them having been caught, tried and sentenced. The Udayarkudi inscription unambiguously makes it know that the assassins and their relatives were banished and their assets confiscated by the State. Nothing is known further than this.

From inscriptions or the Chola era copper plates, nothing further is known as to how and where Crown Prince Aditya Karikala was killed even while different theories have been floated about both by historians and fiction writers in the 20th century. Be that as it may, the Royal House of the Cholas must have plunged into grief with the death of its Crown Prince. Tongues must have wagged and the loyalties of the members of the Royal Family and Courtiers must have been called into question. (See Note 5)

And thus, ended the life of Crown Prince Aditya Karikala some 1050 years ago in 969 AD. In his death perhaps unwittingly lay the glory of the Imperial Cholas. His brother Raja Raja I and thereafter his successor Rajendra I went on to become the great Emperors of Southern India expanding their influence even into modern day Malaysian peninsula and the Indonesian archipelago. And for these Chola Kings their tutelary deity Nishumbhasudani was always the greatest benefactor and guardian angel in whom they reposed undiminished faith, so much so that even the Mahratta Kings who came to rule from Tanjore much later, in a bid to capitalise on the same faith and authority as the Imperial Cholas, too made Her as their family deity. The medieval Chola history thus leaves amongst many others, chiefly two unsolved mysteries or questions for us today. First being the unsolved death of the young and chivalrous Crown Prince Aditya Karikala in AD 969 and secondly the whereabouts of the Nishumbhasudani icon and the temple venerated by them which was once upon a time in Tanjore.

And with these questions open, we will take leave of the Chola Royals and move on quickly some 800 years hence immersing ourselves now in matters musical.

Circa 1800 AD

As we surmised earlier if indeed Muthuswami Dikshitar had composed a kriti on this Nishumbasudani of Tanjore, it ought to be documented in the magnum opus Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (SSP) of Subbarama Dikshitar for sure. A perusal of Dikshitar’s compositions therein quickly reveals one which satisfies our query, the composition starting ‘mahishAsuramardhini’ in the raga Narayani under mela 29 Sankarabharanam.

We had further surmised earlier that the raga of the composition, if one exists is likely to be an archaic one. And Narayani is truly one. Before we deep dive to examine this statement, one omnibus declaration needs to be flagged right away. The raga tagged as Narayani by the Sangraha Cudamani with two Tyagaraja compositions as exemplars are certainly not Narayani. Again, as pointed out earlier the scale as exemplified by these two Tyagaraja composition has been wrongly assigned the name Narayani. It is a different raga altogether.

Narayani’s History:

The Narayani of Muthusvami Dikshitar as illustrated in the SSP (1904 AD) on the authority of the Anubandha to the Caturdandi Prakashika (circa 1750 AD) claims a hoary lineage all the way tracing back centuries prior, as a raga taking only the notes of Sankarabharana/29th mela of our present day Mela system. Ramamatya’s Svaramelakalanidhi ( 1550 AD) Poluri Govindakavi’s Ragatalachintamani ( circa 1650), Ragamanjari of Pundarikavittala ( circa 1575), Govinda Dikshitar’s Sangita Sudha ( AD 1614), Venkatamakhin’s Caturdandi Prakashika ( 1620 AD), Sangita Parijata of Ahobala ( 17th century), Srinivasa’s Ragatattva Vibhoda ( 1650AD), Sahaji’s Ragalakshanamu ( 1710 AD), Tulaja’s Sangita Saramruta ( 1732 AD) and finally ending with Muddu Venkamakhin’s Anubandha, all these musical texts unequivocally & in unison assert that the Raga Narayani takes the notes of Mela 29 /Sankarabharanam. It is indeed incomprehensible how this hoary raga which has been so for centuries under Sankarabharana mela can be classified under Harikambhoji mela (as in Sangraha Cudamani).

Without much ado one simply needs to cast aside/discard the aberrant definition laid down for raga Narayani by the Sangraha Cudamani and proceed to evaluate the history and the lakshana of the raga as laid down unanimously by all previous musicological treatises or more precisely by the Triad – being the works of Sahaji (AD 1710), Tulaja (AD 1732) and Muddu Venkatamakhin (AD 1750) and proceed to draw the conclusions therefrom. We have seen time and again that the lakshana of a raga as given by this Triad together with the exemplar kriti of Muthusvami Dikshitar as documented in the SSP would enable us to understand the true and correct picture of the raga. In the current context, we also need to evaluate why Narayani is archaic and went extinct. It is a fact that neither this Dikshitar kriti ‘mahishAsuramadhini’ nor any other kriti conforming to the Narayani of the 29th mela is even encountered on the concert circuit today.

But firstly, lets evaluate the lakshana of Narayani according to Sahaji, Tulaja and offcourse Muddu Venkatamakhin.

Lakshana of raga Narayani & likely why it went extinct:

The Triad of musicological texts and the kriti of Muthusvami Dikshitar provides us the following lakshana of the raga:

  1. The raga is sampurna, i.e all seven notes of mela 29 occurs in this raga.
  2. It is upanga in the modern as well, i.e it takes only the notes of mela 29 being R2, G3, M1, P, D2 and N3
  3. SRGM, PDNS, SNDP – these lineal combinations do not occur. Though MGRS is permitted by the definition the Dikshitar kriti sports only MG\S only, with the rishabha occurring more as an anusvara.
  4. It is a raga with vakra/ devious progression sporting RMGP, SMGP, GPD, GPDr, PMGS, SNDS, SNPD, DNP, SNP and MGPD as evidenced in the kriti of Dikshitar. Its perplexing that Subbarama Dikshitar provides two murcchanas SRMPNDS and GRSndS, which are not seen in the kriti and which would give a different melodic complexion to the raga, though GRSndS seems acceptable.
  5. In modern parlance SRMGPNDS or better still SMGPDNPDS /SNPNPDMPMGS can be notional arohana/avarohana krama.
  6. Needless to add that it is a quintessential raga aligning perfectly to the classic 18th century raga architecture with jumps, bends, turns and twists on one hands & multiple arohana/avarohana progressions as well. MGPD, MG\S seem to be the recurring leitmotifs.

The evaluation of the raga’s contours would show that it has considerable melodic overlap with modern day Bilahari. Bilahari is a much newer raga in comparison to Narayani for it is documented for the first time only by Sahaji in his work, circa 1710 AD. No prior musical work documents Bilahari. Given the subsequent popularity that Bilahari had gone on to acquire, Narayani must have ceded ground, giving up much of its musical material and thus became archaic.

In this context it has to be pointed out that modern musicological books wrongly provide Bilahari’s arohana plaintively as SRGPDS while it is actually SRMGPDS. And the raga Bilahari is bhashanga and takes the kaishiki nishada too in its melodic body which is attested for by Subbarama Dikshitar in the SSP. However, we see popular presentations of Bilahari shorn of these two features making us wonder if what is being sung today is only Narayani, of yore! This apart again, we do have some long lost prayogas of Bilahari which would impart a hue very different from what we hear today as Bilahari. The complete analysis of Bilahari rightfully belongs to another separate blog post which will done shortly.

In so far as the Narayani and Bilahari as delineated in the SSP, without doubt it can be stated that on the basis of the lakshanas as laid out in the Triad with the Dikshitar kriti as exemplars, one can sing the two ragas with their respective individual identities intact. However, to understand the correct melodic identity of these two ragas we have to necessarily set aside the incorrect text book lakshana of Bilahari as being presented today popularly and also ignore the aberrant ‘modern’ lakshana of Narayani which has been advanced on the strength of the Sangraha Cudamani, giving the two Tyagaraja kritis ‘rAma nIvEgani’ and ‘bhajanasEyu mArgamunu’ as exemplars. As pointed out earlier, the raga found in these two compositions is a different melody under Harikambhoji mela for which a new name should be identified and given so that no confusion is made between these melodies. Again, it is reiterated that Tyagaraja never assigned names to his ragas and it was only much after his life time, his lineage of disciples, publishers of his compositions and authors who compiled ragas, assigned raga names post 1850 AD, to his kritis. This misnaming of the melodies of Tyagaraja’s compositions using the older raga names and established identities such as Sarasvati Manohari, Narayani etc has resulted in this confusion where we have a single raga name for two melodies with different musical identities. It is regrettable that this state of affairs has been perpetuated this far.

Be that as it may, for this blogpost the record is set straight once more here by reiterating that the Narayani of yore was only a melody under Mela 29/Sankarabharanam taking only its notes (upanga in modern parlance) and the kriti of Dikshitar ‘mahishasura mardhini’ set in this raga is the sole exemplar.

Text and meaning of the lyrics of ‘mahishAsuramardhini’ in Narayani:

The kriti is in the classic Dikshitar format sporting both the raga mudra as well as his colophon. It is to be pointed out here that the section of the caranam commencing ‘shankarAdra sarIrinIm’ is in a pseudo-madhyama kala and is not at double the akshara count of the rest of the composition.

pallavi

namāmi                        – I salute

mahiṣa-asura-mardinIm         – the destroyer of the demon Mahisha!

mahanIya-kapardinIm            – the venerable wife of Shiva (who wears matted locks),

anupallavi

mahiṣa-mastaka-naTana-bheda-vinodinIM – the one who revels in performing different dances on the head of the buffalo-demon Mahisha

mOdinIM                        – the blissful one,

mālinIM                        – the one wearing garlands,

māninIM                        – the honourable one,

praNata-jana-saubhAgya-dāyinIm – the giver of good fortune to the people who salute reverentially,

caraNam

shankha-cakra-shUla-ankusha-pANIM – the one holding a conch, discus, trident and goad in her hands,

shakti-senāM                    – the one leading an army of Shaktis (goddesses),

madhuravāNIM                  – the one whose voice and speech are sweet,

pankajanayanāM                – the lotus-eyed one,

pannagaveNIM                  – the one whose braid is (long and dark) as a cobra snake.

pālita-guruguhāM              – the one who protects Guruguha!

purāNIm                        – the ancient, primordial one,

shankara-ardha -sharIriNIM        – the one who has taken half the body of Shiva,

samasta-devatā-rUpiNIM         – the one who is the embodiment of all the gods,

kankaNa-alankRta-abja-karāM – the one whose lotus-like hands are adorned with bangles,

kātyāyanIM                     – the daughter of Sage Katyayana,

nārāyaNIm                      – the one related to Narayana (being his sister).

In the context of the lyrics, specific attention is invited to the line sankarArdha-sarIrinIm samasta-devatA-rUpiniM, by which Dikshitar alludes briefly to how the conception of Goddess Durga is said to happened as recorded in religious texts.

Here is the link to the rendering of the kriti which has been rendered very close to the notation found in the SSP, by Sangita Kala Acharya Dr.Seetha Rajan. ( see Foot Note 6)

 

A Brief Note on one other composition attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar:

While the SSP records only this Narayani composition ‘mahishAsura mardhini’, on Goddess Durga or her synonymous forms, Veena Sundaram Iyer during the 1960’s brought to light another composition (not found in the SSP), attributing the same to Muthuswami Dikshitar. The text of the same together with the meaning of the lyrics is as under:

mahishāsuramardini – rAgam gauLa – tāLam khaṇDa cApu

Pallavi

mahiṣāsura-mardhini māṃ pāhi madhya-deśa-vāsini

Anupallavi (samaṣṭi caraṇam)

mahādeva-mānasollāsini mā-vāṇI guruguhādi-vedini mārajanaka-pālini sahasra-dala-sarasija-madhya-prakāśini suruciranalini śumbha-niśumbhādi-bhanjani

(madhyamakāla-sāhityam) iha-para-bhoga-mokṣa-pradāyini itihāsa-purāNādi-viśvāsini gaurahāsini

Meaning:

mahiṣa-asura-mardini        – O destroyer of the demon Mahisha!

māṃ pāhi                     – Protect me!

madhya-deśa-vāsini           – O resident of Madhya Desha!

anupallavi (samaṣṭi caraṇam)

mahā-deva-mānasa-ullāsini   – O one who delights the heart of Shiva  (the great god)!

mā-vāṇi-guruguha-ādi-vedini – O one understood by Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Guruguha and others!

māra-janaka-pālini           – O protector of Vishnu (father of Manmatha)!

sahasradaLa-sarasija-madhya-prakāśini – O one resplendent at the centre of the thousand-petal lotus!

suruciranaLini              – O charming one, lovely as a lotus-creeper!

śumbha-niśumbha-ādi-bhanjani – O destroyer of the demons Shumbha and Nishumbha and others!

iha-para-bhoga-mokṣa-pradāyini – O giver of enjoyment and liberation for this world (iha) and the other (para), (respectively)!

itihāsa-purāṇa-ādi-viśvāsini – O repository of the faith of the epics and Puranas!

gaurahāsini                 – O one who has a shining white smile!

Keeping aside the question whether this composition truly is of Dikshitar based on its provenance, prasa, tala, meaning of some of the lyrics occurring in the composition, the mettu/musical setting of the composition etc two points arise for our consideration in the specific context of this blog post.

  1. The reference to the probable sthala of this composition – ‘madhya-desha-vasini’ occurring in the pallavi
  2. The reference ‘shumbha nishumbhAdi bhanjanI’ occurring in the so called samashti caranam or strictly in SSP parlance, anupallavi of the composition.

It has to be confessed that these points take us nowhere, as ‘madhya desa’ is certainly not Tanjore. The other reference as to Her as vanquisher of Nishumbha though relevant may not necessarily advance our case. The controversy as to the authorship of the composition coupled with the above factors, takes us no further forward and given that our objective is to merely speculate on the probable composition of Dikshitar on the mythical Nishumbhasudani of Tanjore, it is left to the reader to draw his own conclusions thereof. ( See Foot Note 7)

CONCLUSION:

With passage of every day, month, year and decade or century, the probability of finding any further evidence or epigraph or inscription which could potentially tell us of what truly happened to that mythical temple and icon of ‘nishumbhasUdani’ at Tanjore or what really happened that fateful day of 969 AD when Crown Prince Aditya Karikala was assassinated and who was behind that, keeps receding. Even Kalki Krishnamurthi in his classic read ‘Ponniyin Selvan’, keeps the mystery tantalizingly open, leaving it for the imagination of the reader for he felt that it would kill the suspense. (See Epilogue)

And for that event of 969 AD, that legendary Chola titular deity Nishumbhasudani had been a mute witness! And it was as if She too disappeared from the face of earth along with her Temple at Tanjore, constructed by Vijayalaya & thus leaving us with just the riddle which is wrapped in that single line verse in the Tiruvalangadu Copper plates.

And all that we have today, is that probable pen picture of the Goddess as etched by Muthusvami Dikshitar (in his kriti ‘mahishAsuramardanI’ in the archaic raga Narayani) which we have so surmised. And not to forget that granite bas relief of that Nishumbhasudani in that corner room in the second floor of the Philadelphia Museum’s South Asian Art section. And so, if one gets to see her at the Museum or were to get the opportunity to hear the composition ‘mahishAsuramadhini’ in Narayani of Dikshitar , they should pause for a moment to offer obeisance to that legendary Nishumbasudani of Tanjore and admire at the Narayani resurrected by Muthusvami Dikshitar for us. And perhaps one would also hark back and wonder what could have happened that fateful day in the year 969 AD when the young and valiant Chola Crown Prince died unnaturally.

Bibliography:

  1. K A Nilakanta Sastri (1955) – The Colas (English)– University of Madras
  2. Kudavoyil Balasubramanian ( NA) – Udayarkudi Inscriptions – A Relook/Review- ‘udayArkudi kalvettu – Oru mIL pArvai’ (Tamil) – Varalaaru.com article in 3 parts in Issue Nos 24, 25 and 27
  3. Subbarama Dikshitar(1904) – Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini – Republished in Tamil by Madras Music Academy ( 1977) Part IV pp 843-846
  4. Dr Hema Ramanathan (2004) – ‘Ragalakshana Sangraha’- Collection of Raga Descriptions pp 275-278 and 963-974

Foot Notes:

  1. Much of the material for this blog is sourced from the references from Prof Nilakanta Sastri’s seminal work, ‘The Cholas”. The works of Prof Nilakanta Sastri and that of Sadasiva Pandarathar, together with the monographs and works of latter day archeologists, historians and epigraphists such as Dr Nagaswami, N S Sethuraman, Kudavoyil Balasubramanian and Dr G Sankaranarayanan can be profitably read to draw useful inferences as to the timelines of the medieval Chola Kings, events during their reign and their accomplishments. It has to be said that the epigraphical records are prone to different interpretations by different epigraphists. In so far as the subject matter of this blog post is concerned all these historical personalities, dates and events pertaining to the medieval Cholas are grounded in the following set of sources:

Epigraphy – Specifically the Udayarkudi inscriptions together with inscriptions cited by the experts/historians cited above whose works I have read and relied upon.

Copper plates (‘cheppu aedugal’ in Tamil) – The records of the Chola Kings which were found later in the 20th century known to us today as Tiruvalangadu Copper plates pertaining to this specific period. The other two sources being the Anaimangalam copper plates (Leiden copper plates) and the Anbil copper plates have nothing to contribute directly to the subject matter of this blog post.

Off course reliance is primarily placed on Prof Nilakanta Sastri’s work and he in turn uses third party sources as well in his reconstruction of the history of the medieval Cholas.

  1. The first section of the Thiruvalangadu Copper plates contains a set of 137 verses in Sanskrit, written by one Narayana during the reign of Rajendra Cola and narrates the lineage and history in brief of the Imperial Cholas. Without just relying on one set of records, I personally find that the logic employed by modern epigraphists/historians like Kudavayil Balasubramanian and Dr G Sankaranarayanan by which they triangulate the dates and events with other evidences including those of rock and temple inscriptions, very persuasive. It must be remembered that the copper plate records serve as epigraphs recording history casting the reigning King in the most favourable light. The Tiruvalangadu Copper plates were created during the reign of Rajendra Cola, the Anaimangalam copper plates (known as Leyden plates as they are presently housed in Leyden Museum in Netherlands) were created during the reign of Raja Raja Chola (985 -1014 AD) and the Anbil Copper plates date back to the reign of Parantaka Sundara Chola.
  2. Author Kalki Krishnamurthi cogently and convincingly opines through his work that Crown Prince Aditya Karikala was probably named after in memory of the legendary King Karikala of the Old Chola lineage and Prince Rajaditya the short lived yet legendary grand uncle of his and a grandson of Vijayalaya, who was felled by deceit in battle at Takkolam when he was fighting atop his elephant and therefore eulogised in epigraphs as ‘Anai mEl thunjiya tEvar’.
  3. Though this medieval Nishumbhasudani Temple no longer exists, a number of other Durga/Kali temples in Tanjore exists today probably attesting to the popularity of this cult worship in this area. Currently the well-known ones are the Vadabadra Kali Amman Temple and the other being the Ugra Kaliamman Temple, which perhaps proclaim themselves to be the original one constructed by Vijayalaya in 10th Century AD
  4. For us only verses 68 & 69 of the Thiruvalangadu plates and the said Udayarkudi inscriptions tell us this unsaid & long forgotten mysterious death of the Chola Prince. The assassination of Prince Aditya Karikala and the unsolved mystery of who actually did or could have done the deed, spawned not just various theories of conspiracy by subsequent historians but also a number of literary works which went on to capture the imagination of 20th century readers. These were part true-part fiction works, the foremost amongst them being Kalki Krishnamurthi’s ‘Ponniyin Selvan’, Balakumaran’s “Kadigai’ and ‘Udayar’, Kovi Manisekaran’s ‘Aditya karikAlan kOlai” & ‘T A Narasimhan’s Sangadhara’. While Kalki Krishnamurti in his ‘Ponniyin Selvan’ created a host of real & imaginary characters in his plot and left the identity of the real killer open in suspense, Sri Balakumaran in his Kadigai, made Madurantaka Uttama Chola as the instigator-in-chief, even while in one other novel, Raja Raja Chola and Princess Kundavai, the siblings of Crown Prince Aditya Karikala were made as the mastermind for the royal assassination. Amongst the historians, the earliest being Prof T A Nilakanta Sastri based on epigraphical evidence argued that given the verses 68 & 69 of the Tiruvalangadu Copper plates, Madurantaka Uttama must have had a hand in the death of Crown Prince Aditya Karikala, given that post Aditya’s assassination he had evinced interest to become the King & he was made one by Arulmozhi Verman who gave up his claim. In other words, Prof Nilakanta Sastri did not assign importance to the Pandyan conspiracy angle and the possibility of the three assassinators, named in the Udayarkudi inscription acting on their own to murder Aditya Karikala.  Archeologist Kudavoyil Balasubramanian in his analysis of the Udayarkudi Inscription, gives an excellent summary of the take of different historians and proceeds to argue that Prof Nilakanta Sastri was mistaken in his assessment. Sri Balasubramanian basing his case on multiple sources including the much later unearthed Chola copper plates from Rajendra’s reign from near Esalam near Villupuram during the 1980’s and reading the Udayarkudi inscriptions in context, concludes that Aditya Karikala’s assassination was only the handiwork of the three perpetrators named in the said Udyarkudi inscription namely Soman, Ravidasan and Parameswaran in revenge for the killing of their Pandyan master King Veerpandya by Aditya Karikala earlier and Uttama Chola had no role to play in the said tragedy, based on the reading of the available evidence. See Epilogue.
  5. Mysore Vasudevachar’s grandson in his publication ‘Sangita Samaya’ recounts a humorous incident that happened in the context of this Dikshitar composition ‘mahishAsura mardhini’ in Narayani.

…………………….After the Navaratri festival, the float festival would begin on the Chamundi hills and the Maharaja had directed that vidwans, Bidaram Krishnappa and Vasudevachar, should jointly sing Dikshitar’s “Mahishasura Mardhini” in Narayani raga. Neither of them knew this song; in no time they learnt the Pallavi and violinist Venkataramanayya the tune of the Pallavi. They managed to render it when the float carrying the royal party was there and stopped when the float moved away. Venkataramanayya was happy that they had successfully hoodwinked the royalty. Imagine their predicament when they were asked to render the Anupallavi and the Charanam also.”  https://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/2001/04/17/stories/1317017d.htm 

7. The composition in the raga Gaula attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar can be heard rendered in the following URL’s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02aBFW62wjM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMgl-hjeuLU

 

EPILOGUE:

Much as one would like to write an epilogue regarding some archaeological find regarding the discovery of that original icon of  ‘nishumbhasUdani’ of that Tanjore temple. Alas there isn’t one as yet.  That apart one other inspiration for this blog post, for me has been the enduring mystery of the death of Aditya Karikala, the Chola Crown Prince in 969 AD, fuelled by several re-readings of Ponniyin Selvan and the other fictions and also the historical works of Prof Nilakanta Sastri and Sri Sadasiva Pandarathar. Kalki Krishnamurthi in his part real/part fiction novel had created a number of characters in his narrative such as Nandhini, the cunning and seductive Junior Rani of Pazhuvoor, her consort the Periya Pazhuvettarayar (a Chola feudatory and the Chancellor of the Chola Exchequer in the story) alongside the real life ones being Vandhiya Tevar ( later Royal Consort of Princess Kundavai), Ravidasan and Soman and made them all come together with Aditya Karikala in that dark underground chamber in the Kadamboor Palace that fateful night in 969 AD even as he left the identity of the killer whose fateful act took Aditya’s life open. However he ensured that the needle of suspicion did not point to Uttama Chola ( there being two individuals one, an original and the other a pretender, again fictional). Sri Balakumaran on the contrary in Kadigai makes the Brahmin identity of the perpetrators as a key and spins his tale making Uttama Chola as well as the Queen Mother Sembian Madevi a party to the conspiracy and packing the proceedings with considerable action in Pandya and Kerala country. I should confess that I have not had the appetite to read the other novels based on this plot, but nevertheless got inquisitive to know the epigraphical basis for the storyline/actual event and also the true state of affairs that the historical evidence was pointing to. Finally, I got to read the unequivocal and expert assessment of available evidence by the respected Archaeologist/Historian Kudavoyil Balasubramanian together with the monograph on the Chola Era finds in Esalam in Villupuram, made by Dr Nagaswami in 1987, which proved to be the icing on the cake for me as these two monographs clinically summarizes the position based on available hard facts and likely clears the air as to the mystery who likely killed Aditya Karikala, a vexed question which has been lacking a formal closure all these years. The Tamil original version of Mr Balasubramanian’s monograph on the subject is here. I have taken the liberty of translating it in English which can be read here. A consolidated view of all these, deserves a separate blog post.

Udayarkudi Inscription – An In-depth Assessment ( Translated article)

Udayarkudi Inscription – An In-depth Assessment

(By Kudavoiyal Balasubramanian- Original in Tamil)

(online at the link below in 3 parts)

http://www.varalaaru.com/design/category.aspx?Category=Sections&CategoryID=9

(English translation by Ravi Rajagopalan)

In understanding medieval Tamil history or more specifically the royal Chola history, the Udayarkudi inscription is an important milestone of singular importance. This epigraph recorded as a granite inscription can be found today on the western wall of the inner sanctum of the Anantheesvaram temple complex of Lord Shiva in Udayarkudi Village near Kaattumannarkudi in Villupuram District of Tamilnadu. Marked as having been made in the second regnal year of King Rajakesari Varman (Raja Raja I) this epigraph was published by Prof Nilakanta Sastri in Epigraphia Indica cataloguing it in Volume XXI serial No 27 of the series. On the basis of this epigraph, in his book “History of Cholas” Dr Sastri has detailed the background to the murder of Aditya Karikala 𝟭. And therein he has advanced the view that in the assassination of Aditya Karikala, who was the eldest son of Sundara Chola (Parantaka II) and the elder brother of Raja Raja Chola I, Madurantaka Uttama Chola was guilty of treason as he conspired from behind. This assertion has since then become the blot besmirching the fair name of Madurantaka Uttama Chola.

The Evidence of the other Scholars:

Sri T V Sadasiva Pandarathar the author of the work ‘Later Cholas’ has argued emphatically against the above view advanced by Prof Nilakanta Sastri & emphasized that it was not possible for Madurantaka Uttama Chola to have had a hand in the royal assassination 𝟮. Nevertheless, he did not place convincing evidence to back up his claim. Sri R V Srinivasan writing about the said assassination much later in 1971 in his essay on Raja Raja Chola published in the Magazine of the Vivekananda College 𝟯 went on to advance his theory that it was Raja Raja and his sister Kundavai who were instrumental in liquidating their elder brother Aditya Karikala and vociferously invited rebuttals to this conclusion even as he raised a number of counter questions challenging the traditional view. Dr K T Tirunavukkarasu in his detailed rebuttal of Sri Srinivasan’s view, writing a piece for a collection of historical essays titled “Arunmozhi Aiyvu Thogudi”𝟰, comprehensively ruled out Madurantaka Uttama’s role in Aditya Karikala’s murder. In the said article, basing his view on a number of historical data points, Dr Tirunavukkarasu has gone on to explain that there was a delay in apprehending the perpetrators immediately thereafter and it was only during Raja Raja I’s second regnal year that the culprits were brought to book and given that the assassins were Brahmins, in accordance with the then prevailing Manu dharma sastra they could not be sentenced to death and were therefore sentenced otherwise. Apart from these above referred scholars many other professional historians and observers too have also cogently argued that Madurantaka Uttama could not be guilty of the said murder but none have cited any credible and irrefutable evidence to substantiate this view point beyond doubt.

The Evidence of the Novelists:

Late Kalki K Krishnamuthi who through his literary fiction ‘Ponniyin Selvan’ created an insatiable thirst for history in the minds of Tamil readers, kept this murder of Aditya karikala as the plot & center stage for this work. Therein he wove a story line enmeshing both real and imagined historical characters as the probable perpetrators of the murder but at the end he left the question as to the identity of the actual culprit tantalizingly open leaving it to the imagination of the Tamil reader. Writer/Wordsmith Balakumaran in his novel ‘Kadigai’ again belonging to the genre of literary fiction, ends his work with the murder of Aditya Karikala as its climax. And he too with his acumen and adept story telling convincingly portrays that even though the culprits were Brahmins the brain behind the assassination actually was Madurantaka Uttama. Even though works of fiction can be of no assistance or substitute for sound historical research, in so far as the murder of Aditya Karikala is concerned it has to be said that the assertion made by Prof Nilakanta Sastri as aforesaid has formed a solid foundation and fodder for the fiction authors. And this has resulted in the prevailing popular perception today that Madurantaka Uttama was the culprit.

The Udayarkudi Stone Inscription:

Let us now turn to the text of the actual inscription 𝟱 recorded on granite which makes a reference to the assassination of Aditya Karikala.

It runs thus:

‘svasti srI kO rAjakesari varmarukku yAndu rEndAvadu vadakarai Brhmadeyam vIranArAyana catuvEdimangalatu perunguri perumakkalukku cakkaravarthi srImukham

pAndiyanai talaikonda karikAla chozhanai kondru drOgigalAna sOman ……..<< illegible>>… thambi ravidAsanAna panchavan BrahmAdirAjanum ivandrambi paramEsvaranAna irumudichozha BrahmAdirAjanum ivargal udanpirandha malayanUrAnum ivargal thambimArum ivargal makkalidum ivar brahmanimAr petrAlum E ….<illegible>>…rAmathham pErappanmAridum ivargal makkalidam ivargalukku pillaikodutha mAmanmAridum thAyodu piranda mAmanmAridum ivargal udanpirandha pengalai vEttArinavum Aga ivvanaivar udamaiyum ANaikkuriyavAru kottaiyUr BrahmasrI rAjanum pullamangalathu chandrasEkara bhattanaiyum  pErathandOm.thAngalum ivargal kankAniyOdum ivargal sOnnavAru nam ANaikkurivAru kudiyOdu kudipperum vilaikku vittruthalathiduka ivai kurukAdikkizhAn ezhuthu enru ipparisuvara

E srImukhathin mErpatta malayanUrAnAna pApanacEri rEvadAsavittanum ivan maganum, ivan thAi pEriya nangai chANiyum immUvaridhum Ana nilam srI vIranArAyana chaturvEdimangalathu sabhaiyAr pakkal vennaiyUr nAttu vennaiyUr UdaiyAn nakkan aravanaiyAn Ana pallava mutharaiya magan bharathanAna viyazha gajamalla pallavarAyanEn innilam pazhampadi irandE mukkAlE oru mAvum ahamanai Arum Aha innilamum immanaiyum nUtrorupatthi iru kazhanju pOn kudutthu vilaikondivvUr tiruvanandIsvarathu bhattArakar koyililE ivvAtai mEsha nAyatru jnAyitrukkizhamai petra pUrattAdi jnAnru chandrAdittavar Alvar koil munbu mUvAyiratharu nUtruvanAna nilaiambalathu  thannEr atrum brAhmanan Oruvanukku nisa dambadi nAzhi nEllum Attaivattam Oru kAgam nisadham padhinaivar brAhmanar uNbadarkku Aga padinAru ivaRul Aivar sivayOgigal uNNavum vaithEn

Araiyan bharathanAna vyAzha gajamallapallavarayanEn I dharmam rakshikkindra mahAsabhaiyAr srI pAdangal En thalaimEl Ena.

The identity of ‘kO rAjakesari varmar’ referred in the Udayarkudi inscription:

The Chola Kings in lineal succession have alternatively prefixed their names with the title ‘rAjakEsari’ and ‘parakEsari’ and in this inscription the Royal appellation used is ‘kO rAjakEsari’ for the reigning King in whose name the authority to make this inscription is made out. In the absence of the specific reference to the reigning King’s first name or his Royal name conferred upon Coronation, we are forced to consider the possibility that this record must have been made in the name of any of the Chola Kings post the assassination of Aditya Karikala who had assumed the title of rAjakEsarI. Nevertheless, based on the reference to one ‘kurugAdi kizhAn’ an imperial Officer of the Chola Administration whose name is found mentioned in this record, it can be deduced that this inscription/record pertains only to the reign of Emperor Raja Raja Chola, for we find this Officer’s name mentioned in other inscriptions as well pertaining to Raja Raja’s period. Further based on this inference and the astral sign signified in line no 7 of the inscription being ‘mEsha gnAyitrukkizhamai petra pUrattAdi nAL’, it can be doubtlessly inferred that this grant was made during the reign of Raja Raja I.

The reference to Two dates/years in the inscription:

The inscription in its body refers to two dates/years signifying the events narrated in the inscription. The first being the one right at the outset (‘svasti SrI kO rAjakesari varmarukku yAndu rEndAvadu vadakarai’) which is the second regnal year of the reigning suzerain during which time the Royal Order/permission to perform the proposed action was dispatched. The second mention is of the time which is referred to in the 7th line ( ‘ivvaatai mEsha jnAyittrukkizhamai….’) of the said inscription which refers to the event/date on which the conveyance of the subject land was given effect to by the Mahasabha by conveying the land to Vyazhan Gajamallan. These two dates are different dates. However, Prof Nilakanta Sastri starts on the erroneous assumption that both the events are coterminous and proceeds to derive his conclusions.

Given the astral confluence signifying the date of the second event above being mEsha nAyattru (which is the tamil month of Chaitra) pUrattAdi vinmIn kUdiya jnAyitrukkizhamai (the Sunday coinciding with the star pUrattAdhi), the date/year in question in accordance with Indian Astronomical Ephemeris is 23 April CE 988. Assuming Raja Raja’s second year since ascension to be CE 986 or 987 (the first event), the same would be the year in which the Royal Order was dispatched to the Elders of the Udayarkudi granting Assent to the conveyance while the actual conveyance by this inscription pursuant to the said Assent was made ( an year perhaps later) only in CE 988.

Is this epigraph a Royal Proclamation/Order of Raja Raja?

Starting with Dr Sastri all historians and scholars who had provided their commentary on the inscription have represented that this inscription by itself is the original Royal Proclamation made by Raja Raja Chola by which the properties of the assassins of Aditya Karikala, who were labelled as traitors, were confiscated by the State and proceeded to build their case thereon. This is not true. A careful perusal of the inscription’s narrative would show that the first four lines are only the Royal Assent that was conferred by the reigning King Raja Raja Chola during his second regnal year (CE 986 or CE 987 latest) to the Elders of the village of Veeranarayana Chaturvedimangalam (Udayarkudi as it was known then). This Royal Assent granted for the conveyance of the property was a preamble to the actual conveyance done then by the Mahasabha/Elders in favour of Vyazhan Gajamalla (a mere land record). And therefore, this inscription should not be treated as a Royal Proclamation or Edict issued by Raja Raja directly.

The Identity of the Individual by/for whom the inscription was made:

According to the narrative in the inscription, an individual Bharathan also known as Vyazha Gajamalla Pallavarayan, son of ‘aravanaiyAn’ Pallava Muttharayan of Tiruvennainallur created an endowment in perpetuity for providing potable water supply source and for feeding 15 sivayogis inclusive of saivaite brahmanas, by purchasing from the Elders/Mahasabha of the Village consisting of lands measuring 2 ¾  velis & 1 mA and six house sites ( agamanai) for a sum of 112 gold coins. This purchase of land from the State and the consequential creation of this charitable endowment is what is evidenced by this inscription. It has to noted here that the creator /originator of this inscription is this individual Vyazha Gajamallan and is not Raja Raja.

The Details of the Land found in the Epigraph:

The inscription purports to document the purchase of 2 ¾ veli and 1 ma of land together with six house sites. Vyazha Gajamalla purchases this from the Sri Parantaka Veeranarayana Chaturvedimangalam village Mahasabha/Elders and the same is obvious from the phrase ‘sabhaiyaar pakkal’ occurring in the 6th line. Reviewing the language and the grammatical construct of the sentence and the usage of the word ‘pakkal’ ( EzhAm vEtrumai uruppu in tamil grammar) in conjunction with a similar usage seen in another Chola inscription ( SII VI 356) it is crystal clear that the Elders/Mahasabha of the Village, being a Chaturvedimangalam, were the sellers in the said conveyance and they sold it as Trustees. That the village was earlier a Royal tax-free gift of land to Brahmins (brahmadEyam) and was a resident settlement or enclave of Brahmins (Chaturvedimangalam) is obvious from the first line of the inscription.

And while so selling the land to an endowment being set up by an individual, as is practice, they as sellers disclosed the antecedents to their title to the property. The properties belonging to the killers of Aditya Karikala being traitors together with that of their immediate and close relatives ( dAyAdis) were confiscated by Royal Proclamation ( earlier) and pursuant to the same it stood vested with the Sri Parantaka Veeranarayana Chaturvedimangalam Village represented by its Mahasabha or Elders. The epigraph does not disclose when and under whose reign the confiscation and attachment of the properties of the perpetrators and their relatives took place (earlier) nor does it detail the total quantum of such lands which were confiscated earlier enmasse perhaps through a Royal Proclamation. Such details would be subject matter of the specific and separate Royal Order or Proclamation that would have been issued then, in that behalf.

From out of the said lands so confiscated belonging originally to the assassins, their immediate families and relatives and which were in the custody of the grama sabha/village elders, a portion of which, included the lands of the 3 individuals namely rEvadAsa grAmavitthan of Malayanoor, his son and & his mother by name Nangai chAnI, land aggregating to 2 ¾ velis & 1 mA along with the house sites were sold off by the Elders to Vyazha Gajamalla for this endowment for a sum of 112 gold coins ( ‘kazhanju pOn is the Chola coinage). The details of the previous owners of this property was provided as a narrative to the title of the sellers, in this case being the Elders/Mahasabha of the Village.

The inscription if read in context, would also show that Raja Raja during his second regnal year had appointed two administrators namely Kottaiyur BrahmaSri Rajan and Pullamangalam Chandrasekara Bhattar for this confiscated property  and by this srimukham (missive/Order) the King was granting the power to the Mahasabha/Elders to dispose of the confiscated property which had till date been held by them for and on behalf of the State and remit the consideration received, into the local treasury ( thalathiduga). And that was the context the initial line of the epigraph was providing as the preamble.

The reference in the preamble made to the Royal Order/permission/missive (Srimukham) has been misinterpreted by Dr Sastri to the effect that the perpetrators were arraigned only during the second year of Raja Raja’s reign and the said inscription by itself was the Royal Order of Confiscation of the property of the traitors. The same is not acceptable in the light of the foregoing. It has to be noted that nowhere does this epigraph mentions the apprehending of the culprits or the confiscation of their property and details of their lands so confiscated and attached. It can be stated that all that the preamble or the opening lines of the inscription conveys is that the sale was being executed pursuant to Raja Raja’s Royal Order according permission to the Village Mahasabha/Elders to sell the confiscated lands under supervision by the two named individuals and the lands having earlier been confiscated and attached by Royal Proclamation/Orders issued either during Sundara Chola’s reign or a little thereafter during Madurantaka Uttama’s reign. The Village’s Mahasabha after receiving the Royal permission ( srimukham) or assent to convey the land after an year or two, proceeded to give effect to the same by executing the sale of a portion of the original lot of lands which had been confiscated. The mistaken belief that this inscription (of Udayarkudi) by itself was the original Royal Order of Confiscation of property issued by Raja Raja has resulted in confusions beg faced by researchers down the line.

The Perpetrators & their Relatives:

The Udayarkudi inscription (found in the Thiruvanandeesvaram Temple of the Sri Parantaka Caturvedi Mangalam) has the following narrative about the identities of the perpetrators and their relatives as below.

“……..pAndiyanai talaikonda karikAla chozhanai kondru drOgigalAna sOman ……..<< illegible>>… thambi ravidAsanAna panchavan BrahmAdirAjanum ivandrambi paramEsvaranAna irumudichozha BrahmAdirAjanum ivargal udanpirandha malayanUrAnum ivargal thambimArum ivargal makkalidum ivar brahmanimAr petrAlum E ….<illegible>>…rAmathham pErappanmAridum ivargal makkalidam ivargalukku pillaikodutha mAmanmAridum thAyodu piranda mAmanmAridum ivargal udanpirandha pengalai vEttArinavum Aga ivvanaivar udamaiyum……”

The narrative of the above inscription upon examination makes it very clear that that only other three brothers namely Soman ( his alias is not decipherable in the inscription), Ravidasan alias Panchavan Brahmadirajan and Paramesvaran alias Irumudi Chola Brahmadirajan were the culprits/traitors who assassinated Aditya Karikala and since the other referred individuals are dealt with as ‘others’ (‘evagal’) it becomes obvious that these ‘others’ were only relatives of the 3 brothers and were not complicit otherwise to the said murder.

According to the narrative of this epigraph the original owner of the land and the house site (ahamanaigal) forming subject matter of this conveyance, is one pApanacEri rEvadAsa grAmavitthan hailing from Malayanoor (along with his son and mother) and he was a brother to the conspirators & obviously he did not participate in the said treacherous act. These individuals being related (dAyadIs) (though innocent) were therefore deemed culpable as well for the said murder and consequently their properties too were confiscated by the State, attached and was now being sold. It is pertinent to note that nowhere does this epigraph deals with the land & house site which stood in the name of the perpetrators themselves namely Soman, Ravidasan and Paramesvaran connected to the murder.

‘Brahmadirajan’ is a title bestowed by the Tamil sovereigns on high ranking Brahmin Officials in the Royal Service ( peruntharathu aluvalar). The portion of the inscription giving the titular appellation of the first of the perpetrators, mentioned in the inscription namely Soman has been damaged and is therefore not decipherable. The other two perpetrators bear the title of Panchavan Brahmadirajan, which is granted by Pandyan Sovereigns and that of Irumudichola Brahmadirajan, which is conferred by Chola Kings, to Brahmins who are senior ranking members of their Imperial Service. If we view the narrative of this inscription in totality, it can be logically deduced that the first of them being Soman, whose titular appellation is illegible must have been bearing an appellation (which is not decipherable) conferred most probably by the Pandyan sovereign.

The conspectus of these facts would show that it is definitive that the plot to kill Aditya Karikala was hatched only in the Pandya country. Dr Nilakanta Sastri while opining on inscriptions were Aditya Karikala proclaimed himself as ‘vIrapAndiyan talaikOnda kOperukEsari’ ( ‘the Royal who took the head of  Veerapandya’) advances his view that he (Aditya Karikala) used the epithet as a mere figure of speech as to mean that he vanquished him and he did not literally behead him ( Veerapandya)𝟲 . While this view has prevailed till date, much after Dr Sastri’s times, very recently a copper plate inscription as a part of a collection dating back to times of Rajendra Chola has been unearthed at esAlam village, Villupuram Taluk in Tamilnadu, wherein it is unequivocally recorded therein that Aditya Karikala beheaded King Veerapandya’s head, hoisted it on a post and had it displayed at the entrance of the Tanjore Palace for all to see 𝟳. It was thus in revenge for this macabre act done wantonly in blatant disregard for wartime conventions, that Aditya Karikala came to be assassinated.

Born in Sri Parantaka Veeranarayana Caturvedimangalam (Udayarkudi) and having occupied high Offices under both Pandyan and Chola sovereigns, the siblings after being successful in their conspiracy must have in all probability left the Chola dominions. They must have fled either to the Pandya country or to the Chera Kingdom being their allies and must have lived in exile there for a considerable period of time. Their immediate families and relatives too must have migrated out of the Chola land. And it was therefore that the Chola regime must have confiscated and attached their lands and house dwellings. There is no doubt that the above said Imperial action to confiscate, must have taken place either during Sundara Chola’s reign itself or immediately after Madurantaka Uttama Chola’s ascension to the throne.

Madurantaka Uttama Chola’s benign rule, the great respect that Raja Raja Chola had for him and the affinity he enjoyed as evidenced by Raja Raja naming his own son as Madurantaka, the love and affection the Dowager Queen Mother Sembian Maadevi ( Madurantaka Uttama’s mother) had for Raja Raja even while as she was the matriarch of the Royal Household even after the tragic episode are all documented for posterity and they would all go to demonstrate that there is no basis whatsoever to foist the blame of murder on Madurantaka Uttama and thus castigating him so is unfounded.

The other allegation made against Raja Raja in this matter is that since the perpetrators of this murder were Brahmins he deigned not to punish them. This too is unfounded and unsubstantiated. It is well known that one of Raja Raja’s Commanders was Krishnan Raman alias Mummudi Chola Brahmadirajan, a Chola General and a Brahmin to boot. Again, in the Chalukya inscriptions which details the military campaign Raja Raja Chola undertook against the Western Chalukyan King Satyasraya, it is recorded that Raja Raja remorselessly killed brahmin soldiers, during the said expedition. Thus, it was quite normal during those times that Brahmins took to weapons and fought battles and were also killed in them. Viewed in this context it would be unacceptable to blame Raja Raja in this regard in the absence of any historical evidence whatsoever.

The Udayarkudi inscription is just an epigraph which in a line therein as a part of the background narrative provides information as to the assassins of Aditya Karikala. And it is not a Royal Edict disclosing the other details in connection with the assassination or the punishment that was meted to the perpetrators Thus, in sum the Udayarkudi inscription is only a record of an individual Bharathan alias Vyazha Gajamallan having purchased property to create a charitable endowment.

Bibliography:
  1. The Colas, K A Nilakanta Sastri, University of Madras 1984, pp157-158
  2. Pirkaala Chozar Varalaaru, T V Sadasiva Pandaarathar, Annamalai University, 1974, pp 76-78
  3. A Note on the Accession of Raja Raja, R V Srinivasan, Vivekananda College Magazine, Madras 1971 p 13
  4. Aditya Karikala’s Murder – A Review by K T Tirunavukkarasu, Arunmozhi Research Collection, Tamilnadu Archaeological Department, Chennai 600028, 1988 pp143-153
  5. No 27, The Udayarkudi Inscription of Rajakesarivarman, K A Nilakanta Sastri, Epigraphia India Vol XXI pp 165-170
  6. The Colas, K A Nilakanta Sastri, University of Madras 1984, p 154
  7. Archeological Finds in South India, Esalam Bronzes and Copper Plates by Dr R Nagaswamy, Bulletin DE 1’ Ecole Francaise D’Extreme Orient Tome LXXVII, Paris, 1987 p14

 

Melody of the Serpents – Nagadhvani

Prologue:

We have always seen that the musicological texts, ‘Ragalakshanamu’ of Sahaji (circa 1710 CE), the ‘Saramrutha’ of Tulaja(circa 1732 CE) and the ‘Ragalakshanam’ known to us as the Anubandha to the Caturdandi Prakashika of Muddu Venkatamakhin ( circa 1750 CE) if read in conjunction, aided by the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (SSP) of Subbarama Dikshitar we can make two observations:

  1. The ragas of the 18th century as it prevailed in the run up to the Trinity can be found catalogued and recorded in these three treatises (which I prefer to call as the Triad). The Anubandha, being a listed compendium of ragas is a superset and almost as a rule the ragas found therein almost exactly mirror the lakshana found in Sahaji’s and Tulaja’s works (if documented by them)
  2. And the kritis of Muthusvami Dikshitar as notated in the SSP given that it provides commentary for every one of the ragas found in the Anubandha, serves as an exemplar or illustration for such raga lakshana.

But we do find certain ragas being exceptions to these two observations and specifically in those cases we are forced to develop a hypothesis to explain the said deviation. This blog post deals with one such raga named Nagadhvani, which forms an exception to both the above observations.

Over to this raga!

nagadhvani – Subbarama Dikshitar’s Commentary:

As we take up the analysis of this raga, we need to take a look at the contents of the SSP for, it is the most modern account (1904 CE) or laid down definition of the raga as technically the raga is practically extinct today. In the SSP amongst the ragas under Mela 29 Sankarabharanam is this raga Nagadhvani. In the SSP we do see that Subbarama Dikshitar for this raga provides just the following:

  1. The raga lakshana sloka attributable to Muddu Venkatamakhin followed by his commentary to the same.
  2. A gitam
  3. A sancari

If we take a minute and look at the rAgAnga lakshya gita for Sankarabharanam, the parent, at the very start of this cakra, we would find that the raga Nagadhvani is listed thereunder as an upanga janya of the mela raga Sankarabharanam. The ragas enumerated therein as upanga & bashanga deserves our attention & will revert to that again in a little while. Again, as always, what is meant as upanga and bhashanga in the slokas quoted in the SSP is different from what we mean by those terms today. Suffice to say that in the instant case of Nagadhvani, it is indeed a upanga raga as per modern definition sporting only the notes of mela 29.

Under the raga Nagadhvani we can see that Subbarama Dikshitar has not provided any composition of Muthusvami Dikshitar as illustration. Would that mean he had composed none for this raga and hence Subbarama Dikshitar had not given the same? Drawing such an omnibus conclusion wouldn’t be appropriate without considering every such case in the SSP. We will reserve our attention to this pesky question a little later in this blog post. But this does indeed pose problems for us for it is only a kriti which instantiates for us the structure of the raga and demonstrate its melodic contours which we can absorb & appreciate.

In so far as Subbarama Dikshitar is concerned if we view the lakshana sloka that he cites and also his commentary the following would emerge as the salient features of this raga:

  1. The arohana/avarohana krama that Subbarama Dikshitar states on the authority of (Muddu) Venkatamakhin is SRGSSMGMPDNS and SNDNPMGRGS. In fact, this raga is found in the original Caturdandi Prakashika (though not in the Sangita Sudha of Govinda Dikshitar a little prior) and even there the raga is classified under Sankarabharana mela.
  2. Subbarama Dikshitar very clearly states in his commentary, which follows, that notwithstanding the stated arohana and avarohana kramas the nominal arohana/avarohana movement for the raga as observed in practice is:

S R G S M G M P N D N S

S N D N P M G R G S SNNS

Attention is invited to the PDNS in the arohana being deprecated and PNDNS being made the uttaranga.

  1. The raga is sampurna. In other words, all the notes of Sankarabharana occurs in this raga taking both the arohana and avarohana together.
  2. Rishabha, gandhara and dhaivatha are vakra in the arohana while dhaivata is vakra and rishabha is varjya in the avarohana.
  3. Viewed as murrcanaas, the following holds true:
  4. SRGM, PDNS and SNDP does not occur due to the vakra prayogas and MGRS cannot occur as rishabha is dropped/varjya in the descent.
  5. Leitmotifs that occur in this raga are SRS, SMGS, SMGM, PNDN, and SNDN along with SRGS.
  6. His sancari very clearly validates the operative progressions highlighted above.
  7. It can also be seen that it nowhere does the illustrations sport phrases such as MGRGP, PDNS, GRSRS, SNDPM or PS and we will turn back shortly to why these specific phrases are being alluded to as non-existing.

Though the main SSP does not bear any exemplar kriti of Dikshitar in this raga, fortunately we do have a composition, ‘pUrnachandra bimba’ a ragamalika featuring this raga for a tAla Avarta, a composition bereft of the guruguha mudra but nevertheless attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar himself in the Anubandha to the SSP. The notation of the Nagadhvani raga portion is as under:

Sahitya parnE kundalininA gadhvanisahite dhvanisahite sahitehite te
Notation P, N, DNsrsNr g,sNsrs sNDNP sND,nP,,PMM

 

The notation albeit brief, conforms or validates the progression laid down in the SSP for Nagadhvani. Unfortunately, the few renderings of this unique composition (see Foot Note 1), leaves much to be desired as the artistes have rendered it as their own manodharma dictated, throwing to the winds the actual notation as found in the SSP and the lakshana for the respective ragas found therein namely Purnacandrika, Narayani, Sarasvati Manohari Suddha Vasanta, Nagadhvani and Hamsadvani.

Lyrics & Notation- as published by Veenai Sundaram Iyer

While we do have an idea of this raga and its theoretical structure from the foregoing, we encounter our first problem with a kriti attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar published later by Veena Sundaram Iyer subsequently, in this raga. The notation of the composition is given here. A careful perusal of the same would throw up the following observations:

  1. Leaving out aspects such as prAsA concordance, quality of lyrics, grammatical constructs etc, we can see that the kriti carries the colophon of Dikshitar as well as the raga mudra in its body.
  2. The contours of the raga as notated herein shows a number of prayogas which are clearly not in accordance with Subbarama Dikshitar’s commentary. PDNS, MGRGP, GRSRS and SNDPM occur in this kriti. Even assuming the Muddu Venkatamakhin definition which casts PDNS in the arohana and SNDNP in the avarohana, has been followed, the occurrence of SNDP explicitly along with phrases such MGRGP, makes it clear that the melodic structure/musical setting/mettu of the composition is inaccurate and cannot be sustained as genuine and making us suspect the provenance of the composition as well as the attribution. It is indeed sad that such attributions have been allowed to stand on record till date unscrutinised.

We are thus left with no option but to cast aside this composition for the stated reason and proceed. One other composition which has been assigned this raga and has been atleast rendered in the past which merits our attention is the composition ‘srI lalitAM’ in khanda triputa tala composed by Mysore Maharaja Jayachamaraja Wodeyar. In the absence of a published notation of the composition, (see Foot Note 2) presented now is a rendering by Sangita Kalanidhi K V Narayanasvami, to enable us understand the raga.

Here is the text of the kriti along with the meaning:

Pallavi

SrI lalitAm mahAtripurasundarIm bhajEham

I pray to the great divine force called Lalita who is the most beautiful in the three worlds.

SrI rAjarAjESvarIm SrI vidyAtmaka bhuvanESvarIm

She is the consort of Shiva , she is the power of knowledge and ruler of the world

Anupallavi

SrIcakrAntargata navAvaraNAvrtAm SankarIm |

She is the dweller of nine Shri Chakras and giver of good

SrI kESavAdi catvArImSat tattvanyAsa mAtRkESvarIm |

She is the force behind all the forty philosophies associated with Vishnu’s names

SrI bIjAkShara samupAsita mahESvarIm

She is worshipped with the power of bijaaksharaas

SrI karIm EkAnta manOlayakarIm

She is the giver of all good things and enchants the meditating mind

Carana

dUrvAsAdyarcita guptayOginIm|

She is the secret force worshipped by sages like Durvaasa

dUrvAdi patra puSpArcana toShiNIm |

She is pleased when worshipped with “durva” leaves and flowers

pUrvArjita puNya phala pradAyinIm |

She presents all the good things deserved by the punya of good deeds

pUrvAdi caturAmnAya madhyavartinIm |

She is the presiding deity of the four mathas

SarvANIm SuMbha niSuMbha mahiShAsurAdi bhanjanIm nAgadhvani rAgiNIm

She is omnipresent and the destroyer of asuras like Shumbha, Nishumbha and Mahishaasura , enjoys the raga Nagadhwani.

The rendering very clearly indicates the following for us:

  1. SRS SMGMPNDNS/SNDNPMGS has been adopted.
  2. SRGS or SGS or MRGS has not been used and instead SRSMGS and PMGS has been utilized in this composition. We do see an occasional PNS being intoned in the composition
  3. Gandhara is seen prolonged along with the dhaivatha svara.

In other words, the Nagadhvani seen in this composition does not encompass all the prayogas that Subbarama Dikshitar has highlighted in the SSP. It employs only a subset of murccanas, to the particular exclusion of SRGS and MRGS. It is not a requirement that the set of all murrcanas of a raga must find place in a composition in that raga. It is sufficient if a subset of majority pryogas/murccanas are utilized and the instant composition satisfies the said requirement. The composition also demonstrates that a vignette of the raga too can be provided by way of alapana and/or svaraprastara by vidvans without in any way encroaching upon allied ragas. The melodically closest allied raga would be Neelambari and we will reserve a brief discussion on this a little later.

We do not have any extant kritis of Tyagaraja available to us in this raga, which brings up the question if the raga is still documented in the Sangraha Cudamani. Indeed, we find that the Sangraha Cudamani of Govinda too defines the raga Nagadhvani under Sankarabharanam in its listing. And it closely tracks to the lakshana of Nagadhvani as given by Subbarama Dikshitar, under mela 29 Sankarabharanam as SRSMGMPNS/SNDNPMGS. As we can see dhaivatha is completely dropped in the ascent and rishabha in the descent while dhaivatha is vakra in the descent. In fact in the lakshana gita the last line of the phrasing goes as SRSMGMP,,NDMPNDNS,SNDNPPMGSRSMG….

If we compare the murrcanas found in the kriti ‘srI lalitAM’ as seen rendered by Sri Narayanaswami above, and compare it with the Nagadhvani enumerated by Sangraha Cudamani we find that it is identical to the melodic contours of the raga outlined in Sangraha Cudamani as above. And as highlighted before, the Nagadhavani of Sangraha Cudamani adopts a subset of the murrcanas of the Nagadhvani of SSP, excluding just a couple of them.

Whether ‘srIlalitAM’ was tuned by the Maharaja himself or whether his Guru, Mysore Vasudevacar had a hand in it we do not know. (See Foot note 3). All we can conclude is that given the Maharaja’s penchant for Muthusvami Dikshitar and his style, we can say that the setting of this composition while conforming to the SSP’s definition, adopts the version found in the Sangraha Cudamani.

Summary:

Thus, three flavours of Nagadhvani is posited post 1750 CE by Muddu Venkatamakhin, Subbarama Dikshitar and finally by Govinda in their works. The Nagadhvani of Subbarama Dikshitar and Govinda are more proximate and the kriti that we hear today being ‘srI lalitAM’ of Mysore Maharaja Jayachamaraja Wodeyar is an exemplar more of the Sangraha Cudamani version but nevertheless in conformance with the SSP definition as well. The available musical setting of ‘brihadIsvaraM bhajarE’, the kriti attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar employs phrases which are not found in any of these three flavours, thus forcing us to question the very authenticity of the kriti and/or its tune. The brief Nagadhvani portion appearing in madhyamakala in the ragamalika ‘pUrnacandra bimbA’ from the anubandha to the SSP is the only available composition of Dikshitar incorporating this raga.

 

Nagadhvani of Sahaji and Tulaja:

While we see that the definition of a raga according to Muddu Venkatamakhin normally matches with that of Sahaji and Tulaja. Surprisingly in the case of Nagadhvani, we see that there is a dichotomy. Both Sahaji and Tulaja aver in their respective works that:

  1. The raga belongs to the Kambhoji mela
  2. It is devious/vakra with prayogas such as SRGS, SMGMRGS, PNDNs, NDMP, MRGS
  3. There are no tanas for rishabha and dhaivatha and the rest of the notes do not occur in straight movement. In fact, according to Sahaji in this raga there is no straight succession of four or five svaras.

One should pause here and absorb the import of the statement made by these two Royal musicologists in their works which is italicized as above. The statement is an evidence of one of the guiding principles of 18th century raga architecture.

What it means is that

  1. the rishabha and dhaivatha are not starting notes and are devious and that
  2. the prayogas such as GMPD or GMPDN, MPDN or MPDNS, PDNS, SNDP or SNDPM, NDPM or NDPMG, PMGR or MGRS does not occur. Thus implicitly, instead of them the prayogas GMPN or GMPND, MPNS or MPNDNS, PNDNP or PNDNS, SNDN or SNDNP, NDMP, PMRG or MGSRS can occur in the alternative, respectively. And this is to the exclusion of rishabha and dhaivatha which cannot be starting notes of the blocks. Attention is invited to the fact that the (melodic) building block ( or unit) according to Sahaji is a 3, 4 or a 5 note block and every such block which goes to make up Nagadhvani should conform to the rule that lineal progression is permitted only up to the 3rd svara and the 4th /5th svara cannot be a lineal svara and shall be skipped/vakra/varjya in accordance with the definition given the fact that the raga is sampurna. It is as if the definition is the consequence of the raga’s structure and not the other way around as in their times ragas were never derived theoretically but they evolved based on aesthetics and harmonics. And that is why we see that these two texts are not raga listing but a record of ragas that was in circulation during their times.

Thus, the foregoing commentary on the raga demonstrates how ragas were architected and their lakshana expressed in the 18th century. The advent of the 72 mela raga scheme, the obsession with the arohana/avarohana progression together with linearization and emphasis on the individual notes (and not on the motifs being a svara aggregation such as GMR or NMD etc), together with compendiums which gave listing of ragas based on permutation/combinations of the different varieties of notes with their own esoteric names,  spelt the death knell of many older ragas including Nagadhvani as they could not be easily incorporated into this new schemata.

While from a prayogas perspective, the definitions of Sahaji & Tulaja go along more or less with the Muddu Venkatamakhin’s definition, what is most problematic now is that the raga according to Sahaji and Tulaja sported kaisiki nishadha ( Kambhoji mela) while according to Muddu Venkatamakhin the raga belonged to Sankarabharana mela and sported kakali nishadha.

A possible explanation for this apparent dichotomy:

It must be reiterated here that:

  1. Venkatamakhin (1620 CE) and Muddu Venkatamakhin (circa 1750 CE) classified the raga under mela 29 with N3
  2. In between the above two, Sahaji (circa 1710 CE) and Tulaja (circa 1732 CE) who documented the ragas as was prevalent in their times placed the raga under Kambhoji with N2.

Did Muddu Venkatamakhin follow the footsteps of Venkatamakhin and therefore theoretically placed Nagadhvani under Sankarabharanam to maintain continuity, while the raga perhaps even by 1700’s had shed N3 and gained N2 which was taken note of by both Sahaji and Tulaja and therefore they classified the raga under Kamboji mela? We do not know. But what is known is that since 1750 CE, both these so called flavors (sporting respectively N2 and N3) of Nagadhvani had completely died out for, as on date save for the above referred kriti of Mysore Maharaja Jayachamaraja Wodeyar we have none on record.

A perusal of our ragas today reveals that Neelambari is the only raga which is a reasonably close and has melodic affinity to Nagadhvani. If we quickly delve into the history of Neelambari, the following findings emerge:

  1. The raga Neelambari is not found listed by Venkatamakhin, Sahaji or Tulaja. Neither does the Sankarabharana raganga raga gitam found in the SSP in its bashanga khanda disclose Neelambari as a janya raga thereunder.
  2. It is only the Anubandha of Muddu Venkatamakhin which first lists out the raga Neelambari
  3. And it on this authority and that of the kritis of Muthusvami Dikshitar that Subbarama Dikshitar provides his commentary of Neelambari with two distinct prayogas MGS and the usage of the two nishadhas, N2 and N3.

Given this lakshana of Neelambari, let us turn to the evidence and explanation provided by Prof S R Janakiraman. The revered Professor advances his view that usage of the two nishadhas in Neelambari evidences its root in another raga of yore, Samantha, the 30th mela which goes with the notes S R2 G3 M1 P D3 N3 in its contours. We did see this in an earlier blog post. Though such a theory as advanced by Prof SRJ does indeed sound interesting given that the svara N2 when occurring along with N3 can be treated as D3 (a combination native to mela No 30), alternatively the raga Neelambari can also be thought of as a remnant of the Nagadhvani of Sahaji and Tulaja.

We do know that Neelambari had not made headway into our musical system before 1750 CE and was not recorded by Sahaji or Tulaja in their works as having been extant during their times. This gives us a very interesting hypothesis as to the evolution of Neelambari. The Nagadhvani of Sahaji & Tulaja which only had N2, perhaps also reacquired the N3 back and thereafter was rendered with both N2 & N3 (its original note as documented by Venkatamakhin in his CDP) together with some modifications such as PNs, SNP and MGS. This version of Nagadhvani survived into 1750 CE whence Muddu Venkatamakhin formally acknowledged it gave it a place under mela 29 Sankarabharanam with the name Neelambari, to uniquely differentiate it from the original Nagadhvani (of CDP) with N3 only. Thus, Mudduvenkatamakhin perhaps provided musicological continuity by

  1. Acknowledging tradition retaining the original Nagadhvani in his listing as a upanga janya with its N3 and
  2. incorporating the Nagadhvani of Sahaji and Tulaja which by taking both N2 and perhaps N3 as well and had so morphed, as Neelambari into his compendium.

It is doubtful if indeed he had notice of the ‘upanga’ Nagadhvani of Tulaja and Sahaji sporting just the N2. The absence of Neelambari in the Sankarabharana raganga lakshana gitam is yet another evidence as this gitam is perhaps older while the raga listing by Muddu Venkatamakhin dateable to 1750 CE was much later wherein we will find both Nagadhvani as well as Neelambari listed.

And that leaves us finally to answer some questions:

  1. Whether given the foregoing, the kriti ‘brihadIsvaram bhajarE’ ( see foot note 4) with its melodic contour not conforming to the laid down lakshana of Nagadhvani (in the SSP) a spurious composition?

The point can be reconciled thus. Either Subbarama Dikshitar inherited the composition with a defective mettu and upon perusal he decided not to publish the same. Or it must have been a creation of somebody else subsequent to Muthuswami Dikshitar or even Subbarama Dikshitar which was passed off as a Muthusvami Dikshitar composition to us. Either ways the final answer to this vexed question can perhaps be determined by asking oneself whether Muthusvami Dikshitar being an avowed votary of sampradaya and being in the know of this raga and its laid down lakshana would have created a nonconforming composition without any basis whatsoever. It is indeed sad that many such compositions not found in the SSP which were brought to light subsequently, tracing back to Subbarama Dikshitar’s son Ambi Dikshitar’s corpus of compositions, have been published as-is, without properly editing or reconciling the same and attributed to Dikshitar without any basis whatsoever which has contributed to much confusion.

  1. As a corollary, if a raga in the SSP does not carry a composition of Muthusvami Dikshitar would it mean that he did not compose in that raga?

The answer to this question is again subjective and no such conclusion can be drawn. We have a number of such ragas in the SSP such as Binna Sadjam, Camara, Nagadhvani, Suddha Vasanta, Purvagaula, Nagavarali etc and surprisingly for each case we have a kriti which has come to us from the publications of the disciples of Ambi Dikshitar. Leaving aside the question as to whether these ‘later’ kritis are truly that of Dikshitar (based on lyrical quality, prasa concordance, raga lakshana etc) two possibilities exists:

Perforce these kritis are misattributions for whatever reasons.

(or)

Subbarama Dikshitar edited the compositions as was inherited by him, by scrupulously assessing them against the touch stone of proper lakshana, quality lyrics etc and proceeded to publish only those which passed his test/scrutiny,  in the SSP. Also where he felt that there was a deviation from laid down lakshana by Dikshitar but yet the authenticity of the composition was beyond reproach he perhaps proceeded to publish them, as in the case of Gopikavasanta which we saw in an earlier blogpost. In this process, he filtered a number of kritis which he felt did not meet his acceptance criteria and therefore kept them out of the SSP. It must be pointed out that his objective was to make the SSP as a treatise of the ancient music of Venkatamakhi and not as collection of Muthusvami Dikshitar’s compositions. If he had felt so he would have simply published the Dikshitar compositions along with notations as was available with him much like how the ‘Dikshitar Keertanai Prakashikai’ was published much later by Vid Natarajasundaram Pillai.

In the instant case of ‘brihadIsvaram bhajarE’ given the melodic content not to comment on the lyrical aspect, one could most logically conclude that the kriti would likely fall in bucket (a) above rather than bucket (b).

  1. What ever happened to the Nagadhvani of Sahaji & Tulaja which perhaps went by the progression SR2S M1G2M1PN2D2N2S /SN2D2M1PM1G3M1R2G3S?

One doesn’t see such a raga catalogued or with compositions in our midst today. Or as hypothesised earlier it morphed into Neelambari, reacquiring the N3 again.

Conclusion:

The only other raga in our midst, which by its name evokes the imagery of serpents, is the well-known raga Punnagavarali under the mela Todi due to the fact that the raga is the basis of the tune of the ‘magudi’ which is played by snake charmers. The allusion to serpents in the context of ragas is probably more a myth and the same is referred to in very many texts or in hagiographies to imply something mystical. Subbarama Dikshitar in his narrative on Chinnasvami Dikshitar records one such instance when this younger brother of Muthusvami Dikshitar was playing the raga Nagavarali, a snake made its appearance. In so far as this raga Nagadhvani is concerned it is practically extinct today and neither has it been by name associated as the raga of the Nagas (an ancient race) or of any particular region or as a melody which can charm serpents. The raga name has been used as an allusion to the Kundalini, a coil of physical energy running around the human spine, in the lyrics of the composition ‘pUrnachandra bimba’ set to Nagadhvani. While so, the composition ‘srI lalitAm’ of the Mysore Maharaja serves as an excellent example of this rare raga as it stands today. And the raga delineated therein does demonstrate the fact that an exposition of the raga as an alapana or svaraprastara can be done. One does hope that performing musicians take up this raga & this composition and embellish it with their imagination on the concert stage in the days to come.

Bibliography:

  1. Subbarama Dikshitar(1904) – Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini – Republished in Tamil by Madras Music Academy ( 1977) Part IV Sankarabharanam Mela and its janyas & the Anubandha to SSP – Ragamalikas
  2. Dr Hema Ramanathan (2004) – ‘Ragalakshana Sangraha’- Collection of Raga Descriptions pp 275-278 and 930-943
  3. Prof S R Janakiraman(1993)- Ragas of the Saramrutha- published by the Madras Music Academy

Foot Notes:

  1. The ragamalika ‘pUrnachandra bimba’ as found notated in the Anubandha to the SSP stands out for more than one reason, which are listed hereunder:
  2. The composition as found in the SSP in 6 ragas is bereft of the Dikshitar colophon ‘guruguha’
  3. The attribution to Dikshitar is only on the strength of Subbarama Dikshitar’s assertion made to that effect.
  4. Popularly referred to as the shat-rAgamAlika, the lyrics of the composition are set to 6 ragas whose names occur in the body the composition and all of them are upanga janya ragas of Sankarabharanam, being Purnacandrika, Narayani, Sarasvati Manohari, Suddha Vasanta, Hamsadvani and Nagadhvani.
  5. Apart from the fact that the raga names have been woven into the fabric of the kriti, a stylistic adornment being gOpuccAyati is found featured in the Nagadhvani section. As we know these two are compositional constructs, for which Dikshitar was justly known for.
  6. Curiously much later in time post 1950’s, another version ( second) of the same composition came to be published by Kallidaikurici Veena Sundaram Iyer. This second version apart from the original, also had a further set of lyrics set in ragas Kedaram and Bilahari inserted in between and which sported the guruguha mudra. And each of the khandikas were appended with a cittasvara section in the respective ragas which was not again not found in the original text being the one in the Anubandha to the SSP

The entire text of this composition as available is given below with its meaning:

Pallavi

(Raga – pUrNa candrikA)
pUrNa candra bimba vijaya vadanE – O one whose face excels the disk of the full moon!
kamalAmbikE              – O Goddess Kamalambika!
pAhi mAM                 – Protect me!
varadE                   – O giver of boons!
guru guha janani         – O mother of Guruguha!

Anupallavi

(Raga nArAyaNI )
puNya jana pUjitE        – O one worshipped by good, meritorious people!
nArAyaNI                 – O one related to Narayana (as his sister)!
jagat-ambikE             – O mother of the universe!

(Raga sarasvatI manOhari)
pUrNa phala prada caraNE – O one whose feet bestow complete fruition!
sarasvatI manOharE       – O one captivating the heart of Sarasvati!

(Raga Suddha vasanta)
pushpita Suddha vasantE  – O one like the flowering, unequalled, spring season!
puNDarIka sadRSa karE    – O one whose hands resemble lotuses!

(Raga kEdAraM)
kEdAra-ISa sahAyE        – O companion of Shiva (lord of Kedara)!
guru guha vEdita hRdayE  – O one whose heart is understood by Guruguha!

(Raga bilahari )
bhaNDa prANa bila hari   – O one who destroyed the (hiding) hole of the life-breath of the demon Bhanda!
bhakta jana-Ananda-kari  – O giver of bliss to devout people!

(Raga haMsa dhvani)
haMsa dhvani virAjitE    – O one who is glorious with the sound of the Hamsa Mantra,
prakASamAna              – that shines forth,
ahar-niSaM               – day and night!

(Raga nAga dhvani)
aparNE                   – O Aparna, the one who performed penance without consuming even leaves!
kuNDalini nAga dhvani sahitE – O one associated with the sound of the snake of Kundalini!
dhvani sahitE            – O one associated with sounds (of music and dance etc.)!
sahitE                   – O one accompanied by the  well-disposed (companions, attendants)!
hitE                     – O beneficial, favourable one!
tE                       – O one taking the form of Lakshmi!

Suffice to state that a number of controversies crop up in the context of the multiple versions of this composition including the inclusion of 2 more ragas ( Kedaram and Bilahari)  in the second version, the appearance of cittasvaras of questionable lakshanas in a few cases as seen in the second version, the lack of the mudra of Dikshitar and its appearance in the subsequent version etc.

 

  1. An excellent introduction to the composer, his kritis and their text can be found on this link here: http://www.carnatica.net/special/navaratri2009-jayachamaraja-ppn.htm . Another web link providing details as to a published work can be found here : https://www.thehindu.com/society/history-and-culture/Royal-salutations/article15415100.ece . Vidusi Seethalakshmi Venkatesan’s renderings of some of the kritis can be found here: http://radioweb.in/content/kritis-jayachamaraja-wodeyar

 

  1. The well-known novelist Late R K Narayan is on record making this point as under:

Question: Did you learn the kritis of the Mysore composers like Vasudevachar and Maharaja Jayachamaraja Wodeyar?

Answer: The so-called compositions of the Mysore Maharaja were actually composed by Vasudevachar. The Maharaja would call Vasudevachar and say I want these phrases from the Devi Ashtottram and the composer would do his bidding.

Vide the ‘Frontline’ Vol. 14 :: No. 23 :: Nov. 15 – 28, 1997 available online : https://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1423/14231000.htm

 

  1. Thanks are due to Mr Lakshman Ragde as always for sharing a copy of the lyrics of ‘brihadIsvaraM bhajarE’ as published by Veena Sundaram Iyer.