History

History, Raga

Kapi – A Raga of Myriad Hues

November 24, 2019February 4, 2021 by ravi rajagopalan

[simple-author-box]

INTRODUCTION:

Kapi or Karnataka Kapi is an old raga. Sahaji’s Raga Lakshanamu, Tulaja’s Saramrutha,the Anubandha to the Caturdandi Prakashika and the Sangraha Cudamani have documented this raga. We have compositions in it from the pre-trinity times which are available to us through the Sangeeta Sampradaya Pradarshini (SSP). We have grounds to believe that Trinitarians have composed in this raga perhaps with different musical flavors. The northern raga Kafi is spoken of, more as an equivalent of Karaharapriya while Kapi is truly different and in terms of the Hindustani music scheme, it belongs to the Kanhra/Kanada family of ragas.

Kapi is a raga which has become extinct in its original form but survives today in a much metamorphosed version or versions. Apart from its evolutionary history, one additional aspect of this raga merits attention. It probably spawned or was at the epicenter of a family of ragas which shared a common melodic motif G2M1R2S. Each of the ragas in this family went on to transform itself in an evolutionary process and are today in our midst, each with their own distinct melodic identity and remarkably distinguishable from one another.

In this blog post , we would take a deep dive into this raga and also cover the aspects highlighted above. In a later blog post we will cover the comparison of this raga with a few other ragas with which it shares common melodic material.

KAPI – ITS CURRENT FORM:

Before we look at the history of Kapi, it would be appropriate to take stock of the current form of this raga.

Kapi (rather modern Kapi) is grouped as a bhashanga janya under the Kharaharapriya mela/Sriraga raganga with anatara gandhara, suddha dhaivatha and kakali nishada as anya svaras, depending on the version of the composition. There is no strict arohana or avarohana for the raga today².This modern day Kapi is encountered in renderings of Tyagaraja’s kritis such as “Meevalla Gunadosha”, Papanasam Sivan’s “Enna Tavam seidhanai”, the javali ‘Parulannamata’ and the tune melody of “Jagadodharana” of Purandaradasa.

With this brief introduction let us look at the antiquity of this raga and the transformation it had undergone to reach its present stage.

Sahaji’s Ragalakshanamu (Circa 1700):

Kapi is not encountered in older texts including that of Govinda Dikshitar and Venkatamakhi. The first person to record this raga in the post 1700 period was King Sahaji who had captured the ragas in currency during his lifetime in this work “Ragalakshanamu’. According to him, the raga is sampurna, desya and is under the Sriraga mela and in the avarohana sancaras sometimes madhyama and dhaivatha are eliminated.⁴

As regards the usage of the terminology ‘sampurna’, it is to be noted that in all old musicological texts a raga is treated as sampurna if the seven svaras occurred in the arohana and avarohana taken together.

Tulaja’s Saramrutha (circa 1736 AD) ⁶:

Next is the text “Saramrutha” which records the raga. According to Tulaja, this raga is under the Sriraga mela , sampurna with sadja as graham, amsa and nyasa with the svaragati of the raga being niraghata or unlimited. The murccanas that Tulaja gives for alapa and gita indicate a sequential progression of svaras, much like modern day Kharaharapriya! Also according to Tulaja this raga is auspicious and is to be rendered in the evenings.⁶

Raga Lakshana anubandha of Muddu Venkatamakhin³:

Venkatamakhin in his CDP does not deal with Kapi or any other raga which shares a similar melodic structure or with a different name. The Anubandha to the CDP which is most probably a work of his great grandson Muddu Venkatamakhin or his son Venkata Vaidyanatha Dikshitar who was the preceptor of Ramasvami Dikshitar, provides reference with a lakshana shloka for Kapi under mela 22 (Sriraga) as under:

Kapi ragascha sampurnah sagrahah sarvakalika

The shloka does not denote any anya svaras occurring or whether any svaras are vakra or varja in the arohana or avarohana.

Summary of the above:

The raga Kapi as documented by the three authors as above has one common theme. It was more or less modern Kharaharapriya in terms of its scalar structure. Additionally according to Sahaji, the dhaivatha and madhayama were sometimes skipped in the avarohana. Based on this observation one can postulate that Kapi probably featured prayogas like sNPMGRS or sNDNPMGRS (which are found in Karnataka Kapi of today) and madhyama varja prayogas such as NPG…R (which also do occur in Karnataka Kapi). With that we move on the Subbarama Dikshitar and his work the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini to take stock of what Kapi was.

KAPI OF THE SSP ¹:

Subbarama Dikshitar provides us with three sets of inputs in the Sampradaya Pradarsini:

Muddu Venkatamakhin’s raga lakshana shloka and his lakshana gitam
His own commentary on the raga lakshana and his sancari
Compositions of Muthusvami Dikshitar and that of three pre-trinity composers namely Margadarshi Sesha Iyengar, Srinivasayya and Bhadracala Ramadas

The Muddu Venkatamakhi gitam too offers us no further light in terms of raga lakshana. It is Subbarama Dikshitar’s commentary that provides us with some practical insight as to the Kapi of yore.

SUBBARAMA DIKSHITAR’S COMMENTARY:

According to Subbarama Dikshitar, the arohana and avarohana murccanas of Kapi under mela 22 ( Sriraga) are SRGMPDNs/NDPMGGRS. Attention is invited to the usage of the nishada without touching the tara sadja and the janta gandhara and the dirgha rishabha. Further according to him the gandhara and rishabha are the jiva & nyasa svaras. Subbarama Dikshitar also gives us a few choice phrases which he says are native to the raga:

NSGMGmRS , NNSDPMGmRS, RGMPDNPMGMRS, SNPMGMRS, PMGGMRS, NPMPDRS, NSDNSRGMRS etc

Subbarama Dikshitar also observes that kakali nishada (N3) and antara gandhara (G3) occur in the phrases sNPMP DsNPMP, PMGMR and MPGMRS, though the same is not found notated in the compositions that he gives subsequently including his own sancari. So his observation is really a conundrum as we do not have a record of the said compositions or renderings incorporating the said prayogas.

For us the Kapi that Subbarama Dikshitar paints has one major feature which is the occurance of the anga/leitmotif “GMR” which is the hallmark of modern day Kanada. The melodic tinge of GMRS is so pronounced for example in the notation of the kriti “Rangapate Pahi” of Sesha Iyyengar that it sounds more as modern day Kanada for us and it should be remembered that the composition dates back to the pre-trinity era which did not have a raga called Kanada. In that sense, Karnataka Kapi can surely be called the precursor of modern Kanada.

ANGAS – A NOTE ON MUSICAL LEITMOTIFS

The murcchana or leitmotif ‘GMRS’ which occurs in profusion as a melodic signature is not just a property of Karnataka Kapi but also a host of other ragas and the notation in SSP is evidence of it. Beyond the raaganga-janya or Melakarta-janya relationship, in olden times in our music, ragas had a common melodic bond through a shared murrcana or anga. Even ancient texts like Anupa Sangeeta Ratnakara of Bhavabhatta give ragas which have been grouped / classified on such a premise. For example the Kanhra group consists of 14 ragas such as Suddha Karnat, Nayaki,Bageshri, Adana, Shahana, Mudrik, Gara, Huseini, Kafi Kanhra etc. The architect of modern Hindustani paddhati, Pandit Bhatkande, formalized the anga based classification of ragas and he codified a few types of angas in the process¹°:

Kafi ang – RRGGMMP is the motif and the ragas sharing it include Sindhura & Pilu
Kanhara ang – GMRS, NDNP and NPGM are the key motifs and ragas sharing it include Shahana, Adana, Durbari etc
Malhar ang – MRPm MPDs and DPM are the motifs with the ragas being Shuddha Malhar, Mian ki Malhar, Gaud Malhar etc
Sarang ang – NSR, MR, PR are the motifs and the ragas being Gaud Sarang, Madhmadh Sarang and Vrindavani sarang

Some of the other types include Dhanashree ang, Shree ang, Lalit ang and Gaud ang. Attention is invited to the motifs of the Kanhara/Kanada ang namely GMRS, MNDNP and NPGM which are seen in Kapi. Additionally the janta gandharas of the Kafi anga too merit attention in the context of our Kapi as it is seen as well.

Based on the raga lakshanas and notations that Subbarama Dikshitar gives in the SSP, one can see that this GMRS motif is shared by a host of ragas under the Sriraga mela namely Kapi, Durbar, Nayaki and Sahana. The raga Andhali though grouped under the Kedaragaula mela, shares a similar feature with the gandhara having morphed. The modern day Kanada and Phalamanjari ragas (though not featured in the SSP) sport the GMRS motif as well.

The anga as a musical aspect or a raga attribute has lost its relevance in modern Carnatic musicology. Emphasis on individual notes rather than murcchanas, sequential progression and alignment of the raga’s contour to its melakartha etc have taken roots at the expense of aesthetics and harmonics which were the only yardstick, one upon a time. The anga aspect though a deprecated concept at this point in time, is a useful tool for us to assess the musical contours of Kapi and also to understand the evolutionary path it went through with its sibling ragas such Kanada, Sahana, Durbar etc.

One other music text (older than the SSP) that features the raga Kapi is the Sangeetha Sarvatha Sara Sangrahamu of Vina Ramanujayya published in the years 1859 and 1885 . There is a ragamala gitam given in the work( 1885) starting with the words ‘Karnata konkana’ which is set to 36 ragas each having a line of sahitya in one tala avartha of 10 beats (misra jhampa or catushra matya). Here the Kapi raga portion ( svara and sahitya ) is as under:

P D N P M G , G , R

Ka………………………….pi

Two unique motifs are featured here namely the usage of PDNPM and janta gandhara which would give a Durbar effect to the Kapi.

SUMMARY of SSP’S RAGA LAKSHANA :

The melodic features of raga Kapi as featured in the SSP notation can be summarized as:

The sequential descent such as sNDP is rare and instead sNPM can be used. So avarohana phrases can be sNPMGMRS, NPGMRS, NDNPMGRS or NDPGMRS
Again PDNs is also rare and is dispensed with in favor of aroha phrases such as PDNPNs or PNDNs.
Thus a straight SRGM and PDNs can be avoided and GMRS used in profusion along with DNP (as in PDNP or MPDNP or MNDNP) to establish a unique melodic identity much in line with the northern Kanhra/Kanada ang
The dhirga gandhara, the janta gandhara or gandhara shaken with kampita gamaka and the nishada which is intoned uniquely as in NPG are hallmarks of this Kapi which again are the key components of the Kanhra/Kanada anga.

For Subbarama Dikshitar, the raga name is only Kapi. Given the evolution that it underwent and to identify its old form, the term Karnataka Kapi was probably coined during the early/mid 20^th century to commonly denote all upanga versions.

The above summary provides us with some practical insights about this raga and also gives us clues as to why this form of Kapi has virtually become extinct. Before we look at that, let us look at what some experts/authorities had to say on the raga lakshana of Kapi.

THE COMMENTARY ON KAPI BY MUSICOLOGISTS/AUTHORITIES:

Four documented authorities pertaining to raga Kapi’s lakshana, one of Prof Sambamoorthi, on of Dr T S Ramakrishnan and two instances from the proceedings of the Music Academy discussions are available to us.

THE ACCOUNT OF PROF SAMBAMOORTHI⁷:

According to him, in the lakshya of Karnatic music, we have three varieties of Kapi.

First is the pure/old Kapi or Karnataka Kapi, immortalized by Kshetrayya in his padas, by Tyagaraja in his piece ‘Cuta murare (Nowka Caritram) and other songs and by Syama Sastri in ‘Akhilandesvari’. This Kapi, in modern day parlance is upanga, meaning it inherits only the svaras of its parent mela Kharaharapriya/Sriraga.
Apart from this upanga Kapi, there is another upanga Kapi which is evidenced by the tillana ‘udharana dhim’, which is a composition of Pallavi Sesha Iyer (1842-1909). This type of Kapi has srmpns-sndnpmgrs as its arohana/avarohana with Mmp as a visesha prayoga. The kriti ‘Manamohana syamala rama’ is another example of this upanga Kapi. These two type of Kapi’s do not take anya svaras namely antara gandhara, kakali nishada or suddha dhaivatha.
The third/last type is the bhashanga type made familiar to us by javalis like ‘Vaddani ne’. This bhashanga Kapi is also known today as Hindustani Kapi, Desya Kapi or Misra Kapi. Prof Sambamoorthi further adds that the current tunes (incorporating these anya svaras) of the compositions “Meevalla gunadosha” and ‘Intasoukya” are 20^th century innovations.

Prof Sambamoorthi’s observations are exceedingly in line with the forms of Kapi that one encounters in practice. But he seems to have overlooked the version as documented in the SSP including the kriti of Muthusvami Dikshitar.

THE ACCOUNT OF DR T S RAMAKRISHNAN

Dr T S Ramakrishnan, a past member of the Experts Commitee of the Music Academy and acknowledged authority of the Venkatamakhi sampradaya and the SSP, in a lecture demonstration in the Music Academy had this to say when he discussed the position of Sriraga as the 22nd Mela in the Asampurna mela scheme.

The raga Kapi, a rakti raga, would have been perhaps more apt as the ragaanga raga for this 22nd mela, but it had the bashanga tinge and hence could not represent the mela. Even before Venkatamakhin’s days, this raga Kapi , being really the same as our present day popular and major raga Kharaharapriya, had migrated to the North, where it was considered as a ‘thaat’, in their system of music. Later it came back to us with its Northern hue as our modern day Kapi ( with an intermediate stage as our Rudrapriya- It may be noted that Rudrapriya is Harapriya) with pronounced bhashanga features. Venkatamakhin has a lakshya gita for this raga Kapi , which when rendered , sounds entirely like our present day mela raga Kharaharapriya, with no difference whatsoever in its raga picture. Venkatamakhin considered this Kapi as a bhashanga janya under the 22nd mela and has given its name accordingly in the bhashanga khanda of the lakshana gita for the ragaanga raga Sriraga.

THE ACCOUNT OF THE EXPERTS COMMITTEE OF THE MUSIC ACADEMY:

The Experts Committee of the Music Academy does not seem to have discussed individually the lakshana of this raga and its evolution in detail. We have two instances however where in relation to proceedings of related ragas or presentation of rare kritis, the ragas has been discussed.

First is the one when during the 1967 Music Academy session on 24^th December of that year, Vidvan Salem D Chellam Iyengar presented 3 rare kritis of Tyagaraja as learnt by his father, the late Salem Doraisvami Iyengar from the legendary Pooci Srinivasa Iyengar. Vidvan Chellam Iyengar presented ‘Anyayamu Seyakura’ in Karnataka Kapi devoid of anya svara kakali nishada. Justice T L Venkatarama Iyer referred to the controversial nature of the raga of this composition and his own patham according to the Umayalpuram school which featured kakali nishada.

One can take note of the fact that the compositions of Tyagaraja in the raga Karnataka Kapi are today either rendered in Durbar or in the modern form of Kapi with anya svaras. The commentary of Subbarama Dikshitar and the assertion of Prof Sambamoorthi also substantiate this point.

EXPERTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON THE RAGA KAPI⁵:

During the Expert Committee Meeting held during the Music Academy Session in the year 2008, the raga lakshanas of a set of allied ragas including that of Kapi had been discussed and the same has been collated & presented by Expert Committee member Dr N Ramanathan. The raga lakshana of four allied ragas Rudrapriya, Karnataka Kapi, Darbar and Kanada were discussed by the Experts panel consisting of Vidvan Chinglepet Ranganathan, Vidushi Suguna Purushothaman, Dr Ritha Rajan, Dr R S Jayalakshmi apart from Dr N Ramanathan. The Academy’s Expert Committee had in the past discussed the raga lakshana of all the other ragas in this set namely Rudrapriya, Durbar and Kanada and had also prescribed the arohana/avarohana of these ragas, but not of Kapi.

The following facts are available to us from the discussions as documented in the Academy’s Journal of the year 2009.

According to Dr Ramanathan, K V Srinivasa Iyengar has documented Kapi with the use of kakali nishada but use of antara gandhara has not been mentioned by him. According to him the song ‘Anyayamu seyakura’ is in this form of Kapi and he also observes that some render this composition in Durbar.
According to the Umayalpuram sishya parampara of Tyagaraja, the compositions ‘Anyayamu seyakura’, “edi ni bahubala’ and ‘cutamu rare’ have shades of both Kanada and Durbar without any resemblance of Hindustani Kapi.
According to Dr Ritha Rajan, the Tyagaraja composition ‘Nitya rupa’ was rendered by Vidvan Ramnad Krishnan in Durbar. Additionally Rangaramanuja Iyengar has documented two versions of the composition, one in raga Kapi and the other in Durbar. Further the compositions ‘Naradagurusvami’ and ‘Edi ni bahubala’ exists both in Kapi and Durbar.
The Nauka caritra composition “cutamu rare” when sung as notated, has shades of Durbar.
In general, the Dikshitar school version of Kapi had shades of Kanada with the usage of the phrase ‘sNPMGMRS’, while the compositions of Tyagaraja has shades of Durbar with usage of phrases such as ‘sNsD,PMP,G,MRS’
From a raga chaya perspective, the raga Rudrapriya is closer to Hindustani Kapi than Karnataka Kapi.

While Prof Sambamoorthi’s account ignored the Dikshitar treatment of the raga, the Academy Experts Committee in its deliberations do not seem to have considered the version of Kapi as envisaged in the Svati Tirunal composition ‘Sumasayaka’ and in the compositions of the Tanjore Quartet.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE THIS FAR:

Using these data sets to crystallize our understanding, one can divine at least four forms of Kapi, rather than the three forms that Prof Sambamoorthi documents in his account. The four such flavors of Kapi are:

1: This old version or Karnataka Kapi as it is now called profusely uses GMRS along with kampita gamaka ornamented gandhara.The Dikshitar manipravala classic “Venkatachalapate” found documented in the SSP is an example of this flavor. This form is more aligned to modern day Kanada which as a scale goes as SRGMDNs or SRPGMDNs/sNPMGMRS. This flavor of Kapi is completely extinct and the sole surviving example to us is the Dikshitar composition. Any other older kritis in this form of Kapi has been normalized to Kanada. In the context of this statement we need to evaluate the raga lakshana as found in the kritis attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar, not found in the SSP but published subsequently by Vidvan Sundaram Iyer. See foot note 2.

One other kriti with this flavor which survives today may probably be Svati Tirunal’s composition ‘Sambho Satatam’. As we will see later the melodic fabric of this kriti is different from that of his other composition, the cauka varna ‘Sumasayaka’. The notation of ‘Sambo Satatam’ reveals a profusion of GMRS and a near sequential svara progression. It may be noted that we have Svati Tirunal’s compositions in 3 flavors of Kapi.

2: This flavor of Kapi has lot of janta gandhara with GGRS as leitmotif and features a near sequential svara progression. Flavor 2 Kapi shares nearly the same melodic structure as that of modern day Durbar. In fact, many modern musicologists believe that many of Tyagaraja’s Kapi compositions were normalized to be rendered in Durbar. An example is the composition ‘Nityarupa’. One can also surmise that the GMRS prayoga of flavor 1 Kapi morphed as GGRS to produce this flavor. The GMRS connection between Durbar and Kapi is also seen in the notation of the Dikshitar’s Durbar composition “Tyagarajad anyam najaneham” as found in the SSP. A version of the Syama Sastri composition ‘Akhilandesvari durusuga’ is rendered in this flavor . Tyagaraja’s Nauka Caritra composition is an other example of this flavor.

There is also a hybrid of flavor 1 and 2 as well, having both the GMRS and the GGRS giving both the Kanada and the Durbar effect. Versions of the Tyagaraja kriti ‘Anyayamu Seyakura’ is an example.

3: This flavor of Kapi is bereft of the prayogas GGRS or GMRS. Instead, it has a profusion of gandhara with an elongated kampita gamaka and characterized by the arohana/avarohana of SRMPNs/sNDNPMGRS. This Kapi is not much in currency and is rarely encountered in concert circuits. The pada varna “Sumasayaka”, the Quartet kriti ‘Sri Mahadevuni” and the Chinnayya tillana in this raga are excellent examples of this type of Kapi. The Music Academy Experts Committee Discussion of the year 2008, presented above had discussed flavor 1 and 2 in detail but not this flavor. This is the type of upanga Kapi that Prof Sambamoorthi has referred to in his commentary given above, with the Pallavi Sesha Iyer tillana as an example. It is indeed our loss that we hardly look upon the compositions of the Quartet as authority for raga lakshana. The Kapi in this flavor is found in the following Quartet compositions:

Kriti ‘Sri Mahadevuni’ – On Goddesses Brihannayaki of Tanjore
Javali ‘Elara Naapai’
Tillana ‘Dheem nadru dheem’ on King Camaraja Wodeyar of Mysore
Cauka varna ‘Sarasala ninnu’ on Lord Brihadeesvara ( the varna is almost similar to the Svati Tirunal pada varna ‘Sumasayaka’)

4: The Kapi which sports additionally the anya svaras namely antara gandhara and/or kakali nishada with or without suddha dhaivatha, which is the modern day Kapi. Examples are the javali Parulannamata and the the Purandara dasa composition Jagadhodharana.

Curiously we have compositions of Svati Tirunal notated⁸ in 3 of the above flavors and rendered so as well. They are:

Flavor 1 : The kriti ‘Sambo Satatam’

Flavor 3 : The pada varna ‘Sumasayaka’

Flavor 4 : The kriti ‘Vihara Manasa rame’

Though one cannot say with certainty if they were indeed composed so, but the fact we have compositions so rendered is relevant to further our understanding of this raga and the flavors in which it existed. Vihara Manasa sports N3, G3 and D1 as well with N3 occurring in the prayogas such as sN3s while G3 occurs in prayogas like MG3M, MG3S and suddha dhaivatha is found in prayogas like PMD1P⁸.

Subbarama Dikshitar’s commentary in the SSP as to usage of kakali nishada and antara gandhara merits a mention here. According to him sN3PMP and DsN3PMP features kakali nishada while PMG3MR and MPG3MRS feature antara gandhara. Its at variance with what one sees in modern usage. Usage of sN3P or MPG3MRS would cast a different melodic color to Kapi¹.

Amongst the four flavors above, only flavor 4 is the bashanga form and the one which is the most popular today. Flavor 2 does not exist today in practice as it has lost itself to the melodic structure of Durbar in essence. Again save for the Dikshitar composition ‘Venkatachalapate’, flavor 1 type compositions do not exist for they are grouped off under Kanada. From a naming convention perspective, flavors 1, 2 & 3 are called as Karnataka Kapi and flavor 4 alone is either referred to as Kapi or more specifically as Hindustani Kapi.

The cause of Karnataka Kapi’s demise in its old form, the melodic overlap it has with allied ragas or rather its siblings and the evolution of this group of ragas can all be seen in the above categorization ( see Foot Note 1). We next move over to review renderings of the different flavors of Kapi.

DISCOGRAPHY:

Kapi – Flavor 1 or Karnataka Kapi:

On the authority of Subbarama Dikshitar, one can state that this flavor should have been/was the Kapi of yore, the Kapi handled by Sesha Iyyengar, Virabadrayya and others. We do not have authentic oral patantharam of these pre-trinity compositions save for those who might have learnt it from the SSP notation. We can with the evidence of Dikshitar’s composition take it for granted that this version of Kapi was the oldest of the lot and was conforming to the then sampradaya. Presented first is the the kriti as rendered by Vidushi Kalpakam Svaminathan who learnt it first hand from Justice T L Venkatarama Iyer.

Clip 1: Smt Kalpagam Svaminathan renders Dikshitar’s Venkatacalapate

The version presented by the veteran faithfully follows the notation in the SSP. The profusion of GMRS and the kampita gamaka on the gandhara in this old version of Kapi needs to be highlighted here. Also this composition stands out in several counts.

This is probably Dikshitar’s only kriti with its sahitya being an admixture of Sanskrit, Telugu and Tamil as documented in the SSP. We have two other kritis (one in Sriraga and the other again in Karnataka Kapi ) ‘Sri abhayambha’ brought out by Vidvan Sundaram Iyer and ‘Sri Maharajni’ brought out from the Tanjore Quartet manuscripts, being attributed to Muthusvami Dikshitar.
The raga name has been adroitly woven into the sahitya of the madhayama kala portion of the kriti as “dIna rakshakA pItAmbaraDhara deva deva guruguhan mAmanAna”, along with his own mudra.
This composition is on the Lord Venkatachalapathi at the kshetra of Pulivalam, a few miles from Tiruvarur.

The kriti ‘Rangapate Pahi’ as notated in the SSP has been rendered after being normalized to Kanada and as well as to Durbar. The clipping below is an excerpt, being a Kanada version:

Clip 2: Vidushi Prema Rangarajan renders Rangapate

As pointed out earlier Svati Tirunal’s composition ‘Sambho Satatam’ is documented with a profusion of GMRS prayoga⁸. Let’s look at a rendering of this composition. Sangita Kalanidhi Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer in this Navaratri Mantapam Concert from the 1970’s renders this composition

Clip 3: Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer renders ‘Sambho satatam’

One can notice that the GMRS is intoned with a muted madhyama in the prayoga and does not give the complete kAnadA effect that one will get with a strong intonation of the madhyama. Listeners may well compare this with the strong madhyama intonation in the GMRS prayoga of the Dikshitar composition particularly the sahitya line in the carana ‘seegramai vandhu’ which combines a kampita gamaka on the gandhara as well. Apart from the GMRS, another motif which is found in both the compositions is the phrase RP as in RPMP.

In this Music Academy concert of 1970, Sri Srinivasa Iyer renders this composition between 1:36: 40 and 1:41:06 I invite attention he makes at the fag end of his rendition at 1:41:07 – “This raga is called Karnataka Kapi and it is neither Durbar nor Kanada” in Tamil.

Here is another edition of the veteran, presenting the same composition, this time at the hallowed precincts of the Temple of Lord Padmanabha at Trivandrum from one of his innumerable Navaratri Mantapam Concerts

The entire concert can be heard here:

http://www.sangeethamshare.org/gvr/SSI_Concerts/SSI_Navarathri/

( Requires Google or Yahoo ID)

Kapi Flavor 2:

The Syama Sastri kriti ‘Akhilandesvari durusuga’ is rendered in both flavor 2 and flavor 4. The hybrid flavor having both Kanada and Durbar in Kapi is best exemplified by Vidvan Ramnad Krishnan’s presentation of the Tyagaraja kriti ‘Anyayamu Seyakura’. In this clipping below, the raga outline that he provides us ahead of the kriti conveys the melodic contours of the kriti to follow with the shades of both Kanada and Durbar.

Clip 4: Vidvan Ramnad Krishnan renders Anyayamu Seyakura

The contrast is provided by Vidvan Nedunuri Krishnamurthi, whose presentation of the same kriti is in modern Kapi.

Clip 5: Sangita Kalanidhi Nedunuri Krishnamurthi renders Anyayamu-seyakura-Kapi

As evidence of the morphing of flavor 2 Kapi to Durbar, the kriti ‘Nitya roopa’ of Tyagaraja is presented next, rendered by Smt Mythili Nagesvaran a votary of the Dhanammal school ( Jayammal ).

Clip 6 : Vidushi Mythili Nagesvaran renders Nityaroopa-Durbar

The presentation is very neatly done in modern Durbar, bereft of any trace whatsoever of Kapi.

Kapi Flavor 3:

The pada varna of Svati Tirunal’s ‘Sumasayaka’ is one of the best versions of this type of Kapi, characterized by SRMPNs/sNDNPMGRS and a dirgha gandhara. We do have some oral versions of this composition where tints of modern Kapi (flavor 4) are thrown in. There is also an equivalent composition that is with the same melodic setting but with telugu lyrics which is a creation of the Quartet being ‘sArasAlanu’. This pada varna starting with the sahitya ‘Sarasalanu’ has a few differences with ‘Sumasayaka’:

The varna has sahitya for the muktayi svaras and for the ettugada svaras barring the last one , which like Sumasayaka is in a raga malika format. Sumasayaka does not have sahitya for the muktayi svaras and ettugada svaras.
In terms of ordering of the carana ettugada svaras there seems to be a small change. The 2nd & 3rd ettugada sequences of ‘sumasayaka’ are reversed in ‘Sarasalanu’.
While ‘Sumasayaka’ has Kalyani, Khamas, Vasanta and Mohanam as the ragamalika svaras for the last ettugada, the Quartet creation has Hamirkalyani, Chakravakam, Vasantha and Mohanam instead.
The varna mettu of the varna is exactly the same as that ‘Sumasayaka’.
While the ankita for Sumasayaka is ‘sarasijanabha’ in ‘Sarasala ninnu’ it is ‘brihadeesvara’

The essence of this type of Kapi is best encapsulated by the muktayi svara of Sumasayaka/Sarasalanu, which begins with the well oscillated gandhara.

Clip 6: Vocalists C Saroja & C Lalitha render the Sumasayaka-Muktayi svara

Presented below is the complete pada varna ‘sumasayaka’ by the scion of the Dhanammal family, Sangita Kalanidhi T Brinda.

Clip 7: Smt T Brinda renders Sumasayaka-Karnatakakapi

Attention is invited to the oscillated gandhara which is the hallmark of this version and punctuated with prayogas such as PNDN, GRnS, PNsr and sNDNP. Attention is also invited to the intonation of the nishada as in the carana refrain where it appears as a svarakshara, “mAnInI hAtE hrt tApam”. As one can observe that the nishada is different from the one we find in Sriraga for example, to which clan, Kapi belongs to.

We next move over to the two other compositions of the Quartet namely the kriti ‘Sri Mahadevuni” composed on Goddess Brihannayaki of Tanjore and the tillana ‘Dheem Nadru dhim dhim” composed on King Chamarajendra of Mysore by Cinnayya of the Tanjore Quartet. Though we do not have renderings of these two compositions, the notations from the manuscripts have been published in the “Tanjai Peruvudaiyan Perisai”⁹. The notations clearly bear out the fact that the Kapi is of flavor 3 with an operative arohana/avarohana SRMPNs/sNPMGRS with dhaivatha being vakra as in PNDNP, MNDNP and sNDNP. Gandhara is obviously kampita and is encountered in its dirgha variety. GMRS is not to be seen in this version. Sangita Kalanidhi Ponnayya Pillai while publishing the compositions has added the footnote that the composition has been structured skillfully avoiding the use of anya svara⁹.

In so far as flavor 4 of Kapi is concerned, the kritis pointed out elsewhere in this post features this form such as “Meevalla Guna dosha” or “Enna Tavam saidhanai” of Papanasam Sivan.

ALLIED RAGAS OF KAPI:

The ragas Sahana, Durbar, Nayaki and Kanada along with Phalamanjari share a close melodic relationship to Karnataka Kapi. But from the standpoint of modern Kapi, the ragas Saindhavi and perhaps Salaga Bhairavi share a close affinity. In a followup post we will look at the comparison of these ragas.

CONCLUSION:

The raga Kapi and its evolution is an interesting study. The modern Kapi is most probably the final product of this long cycle of evolution. There does not seem to be any other raga with such different shades and implementations spanning centuries in our musical firmament. Interestingly in Hindustani Music, this raga/scale was considered the scale of suddha svaras and hence was given a pride of place and Rajan Parikkar’s take on the raga is a must read. One will find that his observation as to Kafi of Hindustani music would apply like a glove to Karnataka Kapi or pehaps to the fourth/modern Kapi and I quote him verbatim, to conclude this blog post:

“Kafi is accorded a great deal of latitude in the interest of ranjakatva. In all kshudra ragas, ‘contamination’ on account of swaras not part of their intrinsic makeup is par for the course. A ‘pure’ version of Kafi is seldom heard in performance; almost all instances fall to the Mishra Kafi lot. With this understanding, here and in the ragas to follow, the explicit Mishra qualifier shall be dispensed with altogether. Bear in mind that strict conformity to etiquette is not expected of kshudra ragas.”

REFERENCES:

Subbarama Dikshitar (1904)- Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini – Published by the Madras Music Academy
Prof S R Janakiraman(2002)-‘Ragas at a Glance’- Published by Srishiti’s Carnatica P Ltd, Chennai
Hema Ramanathan(2004)- ‘Raga Lakshana Sangraha’- Published by Dr N Ramanathan, Chennai, pages 662-665
Dr S Sita (1993) – “The Raga Lakshana Manuscript of Sahaji Maharaja” -Journal of the Madras Music Academy Vol LIV, pp 140-181, Madras India
Dr N Ramanathan (2009)- “Ragas Rudrapriya, Karnataka Kapi, Kanada and Durbar- A Comparative Analysis”- Pages 103-114 Journal of the Madras Music Academy Vol 80, 2009
Subba Rao & S R Janakiraman(1993) – “Ragas of the Sangita Saramruta” published by the Music Academy, Chennai
Prof S Sambamoorthi(1970)- ‘Pallavi Sesha Iyer” – Article in ‘The Hindu’ dated 27^th Jul 1970
Govinda Rao T K (2002)- ‘Compositions of Maharaja Svati Tirunal’ published by Ganamandir Publications, Chennai
K P Sivanandam(1964) – ‘Tanjai Peruvudaiyan Perisai’ – Compositions of the Tanjore Quartet, compiled by Sangita Kalanidhi T Ponnayya Pillai
Sobhana Nayar (1989)- ‘Bhatkande’s Contribution to Music’ – Published by Popular Prakashan P Ltd, India ISBN 0 86132 238X
Dr T S Ramakrishnan(1972) – ‘Venkatamakhin’s 72 Mela Scheme’ – Journal of the Music Academy Vol XLIV Pages 24-26, 61-83

FOOT NOTE 1: How did Kapi go extinct – A Hypothesis

During the period of 1600’s to late 1700’s, flavor 1 of Kapi held sway as evidenced by the kritis of Sesha Iyyengar, Virabadrayya and Srinivasayya. Flavor 2 perhaps coexisted into the late 1700’s. Despite being a famous sampurna raga then, it could not qualify as a raganga given the presence of Sriraga and it had to stay put under that clan.

Circa 1800- However with the onset of the 19^th century, this Karnataka Kapi stood imperiled. Two new ragas were appearing on the horizon which proved life threatening. Probably by early 1800 – Kanada had started gaining ground. One can consider the evidence of the 2 Tyagaraja compositions namely Sukhi Evvaro and Sri Narada in Kanada. The period of 1800-1830 was perhaps marked by both the old Kapi and Kanada co-existing as evidenced by the kritis of Tyagaraja and of Dikshitar. Given Kanada’s dominance, flavor 1 Kapi probably cast off GMRS and morphed off into flavor 3 Kapi. The flavor 2 Kapi too went into oblivion as it could not sustain its melodic identity against the might of the Durbar. Durbar too sported GMRS and over the 1800’s, its GMRS morphed into GGRS, spelling the death knell for the flavor 2 Kapi.

In so far as the more traditional flavor 1 Kapi, Muthusvami Dikshitar or Svati Tirunal were perhaps the last to compose in this form of Kapi. One can even surmise that by that time (early 1800’s) it was on the verge of extinction and Dikshitar had attempted to resurrect it.

Flavor 3 Kapi derived out of the remnants of flavor 1 managed to survive between the 1800-1850 as evidenced by compositions of Svati Tirunal and the Quartet. The 1800’s also marked the rise of Kharaharapriya the full blown heptatonic melakartha, driven by the emergence of the Sangraha Cudamani and Tyagaraja’s prolific treatment of this raga through his kritis. And to Kharaharapriya, Kapi had to cede its scalar structure which resulted in Kapi losing almost all its melodic identity. Tyagaraja having composed in Kanada and Kharaharapriya might have composed in the old Kapi as well. We do have versions of kritis like Anyayamu Seyakura which is rendered both in Karnataka Kapi (flavor 1 or 3) and in modern Kapi or flavor 4.

The emergence of Kanada and Kharaharapriya meant that even the surviving flavor 3 Kapi had to go as it had little by way of melodic individuality to survive on its own. And so it went on to acquire 3 anya svaras namely kakali nishada followed by antara gandhara and suddha dhaivatha. The modern Kapi had now emerged ( by the latter half of the 19th century) from the skeletal remains of flavor 3 Kapi and today it exists ain a form much different to what it was once upon a time.

The life cycle that Karnataka Kapi underwent was probably also tied with the parallel evolution of the modern forms of the ragas Sahana, Durbar, Nayaki and Andhali. All of these ragas were at one point in time siblings along with Kapi under the Sriraga mela, sharing the motif GMRS and unique gandhara with kampita gamaka. They underwent a skeleton wracking transformation:

Sahana gave up its sadharana gandhara, acquired a full blown antara gandhara with the result that it moved from the Sriraga clan into the Harikambodi/Kedaragaula melakartha/clan. As evidenced by the SSP, one can see that Sahana as captured by Subbarama Dikshitar sported both the gandharas and given the dominance of sadharana gandhara it was placed under the Sriraga mela. The notation of the kritis “vasi vasi” of Ramasvami Dikshitar, ‘Sri Kamalabikayam” of Muthusvami Dikshitar and the tana varna “Varijakshi” of Subbarama Dikshitar can be cited as concrete examples of the older Sahana.
Durbar gave up its GMRS, acquired full ownership of the GGRS. The notation of the Dikshitar composition ‘Tyagarajad anyam najaneham” and that of Kuppusvami Ayya’s kriti ‘Sri venkatesvaruni’ found in the SSP and anubandha respectively can be cited as evidence for the older form of Durbar sporting GMRS.
Nayaki too gave up GMRS and in lieu acquired an exclusive RGRS. The notation of the Dikshitar composition “Ranganayakam” and that of Tyagaraja’s ‘Dayaleni’ as found in SSP are evidences to this effect.
Andhali which was during the times of Venkatamakhi under Sriraga mela, gave up its sadharana gandhara and moved to Kedaragaula mela. The notation of the Dikshitar kriti “Brihannayaki varadayaki” and the rendering of the kriti with sadharana gandhara by Smt T Brinda can be cited as authority for this. This has been discussed in an earlier blog post.

FOOT NOTE 2: Dikshitar’s 3 other kritis published by Sundaram Iyer

We have three more kritis in Kanada attributed to Dikshitar and published by Sundaram Iyer subsequently. They are ‘Veera Hanumate’, ‘Vishveshvaro’ and ‘Balambikaya param nahire’. This apart we have a kriti again in an admixture of Sanskrit, Telugu and Tamil starting as ‘Sri Maharajni’ which was discovered in the manuscripts of the Tanjore Quartet and published subsequently. The notations of the three compositions as published by Sundaram Iyer and their popular renderings seem to be aligned to modern Kanada rather than the Kapi documented in the SSP. It is indeed debatable whether Dikshitar composed in Kanada given that the raga is not found indexed in the Anubandha to the CDP and Subbarama Dikshitar too hasn’t given the raga in his SSP (though he mentions of a raga called Kanhra, which had gone out of vogue). Also in one of Sundaram Iyer’s publication it’s given that the raga name Kapi is synonymous with Kanada itself without any authority. A similar such reference is found in the Kritimanimalai of Rangaramanuja Iyengar.

In this section we take up just two of the kritis namely ‘Vishveshvaro Rakshatumam’ and ‘Balambikaya’.

The kriti “Vishveshvaro Rakshatumam” has most of its sahitya/lyric mirroring the Samavarali kriti of Dikshitar, “Brihadeesvaro’ documented in the SSP, making us look at this attribution with suspicion. Parking this issue aside ,we take a look at the presentation of this composition by Sangita Kalanidhi Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer. In this undated concert he prefaces this so called samashti carana composition with an alapana and follows up with a few rounds of svaras. The interpretation in full has Kanada all over it.

Clip 8 : Sangita Kalanidhi Semmangudi Srivasa Iyer renders Vishveshvaro-Kanada

Vidushi Raji Gopalakrishnan renders the composition, “bAlAmbikAyA param nahIrE” in an AIR Navaratri Concert broadcast from the year 2007, accompanied by Vid Usha Rajagopalan on the violin, Vid Tanjavur Kumar on the mridangam and Vid Raman on the morsing

Clip 9 : Vidushi Raji Gopalakrishnan renders Balambikaayah-Kanada

Again the melodic material of this composition is all but modern Kanada. Both these compositions do not feature the raga mudra but sport the ankita ‘guruguha’.

Credits/Acknowledgements:

The clippings in this blog post have been used for purely educational purpose as illustration only and all copyrights therein lies with the performers or the music distributors.

CompositionAppreciation, History, Raga

‘tyAgarAjEna samrakshitOhaM’ in Salagabhairavi – A Critical Appreciation

November 8, 2019June 28, 2023 by ravi rajagopalan

[simple-author-box]

Prologue:

prAthasmArami girijAnkitha vAmabhAgham

bakthAnusaktha hrudayam hrutha-daksa yAgam |

vAthAshanArchita padAmbuja mUrdhnibhAgam

vandhArupOshamanisham sahajAnurAgam ||

(Meaning: I, SahajA offer my morning salutations to the Lord who took the (daughter of Mountain) Parvati as the left part of His body; who lives in the heart of his devotees, who destroyed Daksha’s sacrifice, who is worshipped by the sages and the one who protects those devoted to Him)

So did the great musicologist King Sahaji of Tanjore belonging to the Royal House of the Marathas pay obeisance to Lord Tyagaraja of Tiruvarur or Arur, in the first of his set of 5 slokas titled ‘Tyagaraja Stotram”. King Sahaji ruled Tanjore between circa 1690-1720 AD and without a child to succeed him, he abdicated the throne in favour of his younger brother Tulaja I and retired to live in Tiruvarur near his ishta-devata, Lord Tyagaraja. Sahaji left us the ‘Ragalakshanamu’ (circa 1710 AD) while Tulaja I gave us the ‘Saramrutha’ (circa 1736AD) both being compendia of ragas along with their lakshanas, as were in vogue at that point in time when they were respectively written. These two treatises together with the Anubandha to the Caturdandi Prakashika (CDP) dateable to circa 1750 AD, form the triad of musicological sources with which we can evaluate the music of the 18^th century and particularly that of Muthusvami Dikshitar.

Three quarters of a century after King Sahaji, towards the end of the 18^th century the Trinitarian Muthusvami Dikshitar a votary of his music paddhathi of Venkatamakhin propitiated the Lord of Aroor with a series of 8 compositions each of one being in a vibakthi/declension as his offering. Out of them, 7 are found documented in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (SSP) of Subbarama Dikshitar. This blog post is about one of those compositions which is, ‘Tyagarajena samrakshitoham’ in the raga Salaga Bhairavi set in adi tala.

As always at the outset I begin by exploring the raga’s history and how it was dealt with by Muthusvami Dikshitar.

Overview of the lakshana of Salagabhairavi:

At the outset readers are forewarned that the raga of “Tyagarajena Samrakshitoham” of Muthusvami Dikshitar and the raga of ‘Padavini sadbaktiyu’ of Tyagaraja, as heard today though called commonly as Salagabhairavi,, are melodically not the same. We will deal with the difference at the end of the blog in the context of the raga as defined in Sangraha Cudamani which is the lexicon of the ragas found utilized by Tyagaraja.

We will evaluate the lakshana of the raga as found documented in the Triad and evaluate

where the lakshana of the Salagabhairavi as found in ‘Tyagarajena Samrakshitoham’ sits in the context of the Triad and the
difference between the melodies of Tyagarajena Samrakshitoham’ and ‘Padavini sadbaktiyu’ though both of them are called Salagabhairavi in the context of Sangraha Cudamani.

The Overview of the definitions of the raga Salagabhairavi as dealt with the Triad:

The table below summarizes the lakshana of the raga as dealt with in the treatises which are dateable to different points in time during the 18^th Century in the run up to the times of the Trinity.

Attribute/ Lakshana	Sahaji’s Ragalakshanamu (Circa 1710 AD)	Tulaja’s Saramruta (Circa 1736 AD)	Anubandha to the CDP (Circa 1750) – as provided in the SSP
Mela	22 (Sriraga)	22 (Sriraga)	22 (Sriraga)
Svaras varjya or vakra in arohana	Dha is vakra and ni is varjya; PDPS occurs along with SNS and SRGR; complete sex or five note sequences do not occur	Dha is vakra and ni is varjya; PDPS occurs along with SNS and SRGR;complete sex or five note sequences do not occur	Pancama and dhaivatha are varjya in arohana
Svaras varjya or vakra in avarohana	Sampurna in the avarohana	Sampurna in the avarohana	Sampurna in the avarohana
Time of the day it has to sung	Fourth watch of the day (tUri yAmE)	Fourth watch of the day (tUri yAmE)	Last watch of the day (caramE yAmE)

While this is so, if one were to compare the above definitions with the lakshana as found in the Dikshitar kriti “Tyagarajena Samrakshitoham” the chart below would emerge.

SSP/Muddu Venkatamakhin (circa 1750)	Muthusvami Dikshitar as evidenced by his kriti ‘tyAgarAjEna samrakshitOham’	Remarks provided by way of commentary by Subbarama Dikshitar
Pancama and dhaivatha are varjya in arohana	Dhaivatha is vakra and nishadha is varjya in the arohana and thus the uttaranga becomes PDPS	SRGM PDPS/SNDPMGRS The alternated arohana krama is SRGRPMPDPS. Murccanas such as SRMGRPPDPS; NSDPGGRS and SGRMPDPMGRS also occur
Sampurna in the avarohana	Sampurna in the avarohana	Sampurna in the avarohana

The following conclusions would flow forth from the SSP Commentary:

The raga lakshana as found in the kriti and so notated in the SSP completely deviates from the Anubandha definition as well as from the Subbarama Dikshitar commentary.
- The Lakshana sloka and the arohana-avarohana murchanas are contradicting
- The prayogas found notated in the three compositions thereunder are also in contradiction to the stated lakshana sloka
This contradiction within the SSP is reminiscent of the case of Gopikavasanta which we saw in an earlier blog post.
Further the lakshya gita provided in the SSP (“Sri Nanda tanu’) attributed by Subbarama Dikshitar to Venkatamakhin himself has the following prayogas:
SNSDP, SNDPS, PMGR, GGRS, SRMMGRPPDPS
SGR, SMGR, SRGS, PPNPM
Subbarama Dikshitar’s sancara sports the same prayogas found in the above said lakshya gita.
The lakshana shloka found in the SSP beginning ‘sampUrnO sagrahOpeta’ is obviously of AD 1750 vintage probably of Muddu Venkatamakhin and cannot be of Venkatamakhin. For, the original lakshana sloka found in the CDP for Salagabhairavi runs as under (and not as what the SSP says)

‘shrIrAga mEla sambhUthO ragaH sAlagabhairavI |

sampUrna-svara-samyuktA yAmE-gEya-tUrIyakE ||

It is well possible that the raga definition had perhaps changed again between AD 1736 (post Saramrutha) and AD 1750 (the time Anubandha was probably compiled) resulting in the change in the lakshana shloka.
It is important to note that even the modern-day contour of for Salagabhairavi – SR2M1PD1S/SN2D2PM1G2R2S is even different, to which we will turn to once we analyse the kriti of Tyagaraja in this scale.
To state simply, Muthusvami Dikshitar’s Salagabhairavi is
- aligned more to Sahaji and Tulaja’s version.
- Aligned also to a fair extent to the lakshya gita ‘Sri Nanda tanu’

And it sports only a sub-set of prayogas from those and eschews the rest. But the conception does not conform to the lakshana shoka provided by Subbarama Dikshitar in the SSP.

It is Subbarama Dikshitar in the SSP who attempts to bridge the Dikshitar version of Salagabhairavi with the one of Muddu Venkatamakhin by providing an alternate arohana/avarohana, as a part of his commentary.

Analysis of ‘Tyagarajena Samrakshitoham”:

With this high-level overview of the theoretical definition of the raga let us move to the kriti. While that may be so what may be of importance for us is to understand Sahaji’s definition and look at the Dikshitar kriti for comparison. The following points would emerge:

Sahaji in his commentary says about complete or 7 note, six note or five note sequences or phrases do not occur. The implication here is that the phrase should not have sequentially svaras beyond 4 notes. Thus, SRGMGR would be how the phrase would flow to stay in conformance to this constraint. One can logically conclude that taking sadja as the starting note, SRGMPDN or SRGMPD or SRGMP phrases would not occur. Similarly taking rishabha next, RGMPDNS or RGMPDN or RGMPD would not occur. Quite oddly Dikshitar kriti lacks SRGM or RGMPD usage whereas we do find RGM usage via RGMGRS for example. As pointed out , the upshot of this would be that Dikshitar’s conception of Salagabhairavi would be closer to the Salagabhairavi of Sahaji rather than the one laid out in the Anubandha to the CDP, which version of the raga drops pancama and dhaivatha in its ascent. And this is a very curious way of raga construction and delineation, probably native to the 18^th century or prior.
And both the pallavi as well as the carana of ‘Tyagarajena Samrakshitoham’ begins on the rishabha note. It has to be pointed out that for the ragas under Mela 22 under Sriraga, rishabha is a pivotal note and this raga is perhaps no exception. Thus Dikshitar, perhaps for this raga deemed that rishabha was the jiva svara and so he began the pallavi and the carana on the said note. And for good measure the kriti has the note pancama as svara akshara in a number of places.
In sum Dikshitar in this composition uses the following phrases:
- Mandhara stayi – Sndp, dpS, Sdp
- Madhya stayi – SRGM, RGMP, DPS, SNDP, MGRS, RGS, PGRS
- Tara stayi – SRMGRS
Phrases such as SNSDP or SMGR found profusely in the lakshya gitam is not found in the kriti.
In the carana for the first two avartas /lines of sahitya he spans mandhara pancama to madhya pancama. And for the next two avartas/lines he spans madhya dhaivatha to tara gandhara and back to madhya sadja. The final madhyamakala sahitya of the carana, as always, he encompasses the entire melodic body of the raga.
Leaving out the 18^th century construct of the raga – vide point 1 above- purely from a modern perspective, the perusal of the notation of the composition would show that the murccana arohana/avarohana krama of this raga as per Dikshitar’s conception under Mela 22 would be as under:

S R2 G2 M1 P D2 P S

S N2 D2 P M1 G2 R2 S

The above would go with the caveat that nishadha or madhyama or gandhara varjya prayogas such as SDPMGRS, RPMP, PGR and RGS can also occur in profusion.

The lyrics of the kriti together with the meaning can be had from here. And with that we move on to hear the renderings of the composition.

Discography:

The version of a violinist:

Oddly in this blog post, I seek to first present a version of this beautiful Dikshitar composition as rendered on the violin by an unknown perhaps amateur artiste, and uploaded on the Youtube, for I found it to be concise, complete, beautiful and a high-fidelity rendering/ interpretation of the notation of this composition found in the SSP. It has been rendered to the accompaniment of the tanpura sruti only. Here are the Youtube and audio links to rendering.

Audio of the above rendering

Let us now turn our attention to the notation of the composition as found in the SSP and do a compare with the above rendering.

I invite attention first to the way in which the kAlapramAnam of the composition has been pegged from start to end. Typically, in recitals, the rendering of a given composition for varied reasons gets accelerated and it will be noticeable towards the end of the composition’s rendering. In this case one can notice that the pace in which the pallavi for example is rendered at the beginning is the same when the song concludes at the end of the 6^th minute. The violinist was perhaps helped by the fact that there was no percussion accompaniment. It is generally true that for many vocalists, more so in the case of Dikshitar compositions, after singing the madhyamakala sahitya rarely do they exactly land back to the original tempo/kalapramanam of the sama kala pallavi segment of the composition. More so, this composition is likely to get more than accelerated as it has sparser sahitya conforming to the ati citra tama marga, that we saw in a previous blog post in the context of the Kannada Bangala kriti ‘Renuka Devi Samrakshitoham’.
There are no blemishes, sruti/svara lapses or staccato notes, anywhere in this rendering.
In the pallavi rendering while keeping to the notation a few melodic extensions are done, for example for the sahitya ‘sAgarEna srI’ the violinist employs janta prayogas NNDDP MMGGRRS.
In the anupallavi, attention is invited to the rendering of ‘yativarAdyupA-sitEna-bhavEna’ which goes as ndpSdp-GR.G-MP.P which vocalists do not properly render (see editions below). The phrase “upA” should land on the mandhara pancama and not on the madhya pancama. Moreover, vocalists tend to take a breather/pause just after yativarAdyupA-. The jump from the mandhara pancama(‘upA’) to the madhya gandhara(‘sitEna’) is the beauty here which needs to be listened to. This motif pG repeats elsewhere as Pg, from the madhya pancama to the tara gandhara, in the composition and needs to be highlighted. The violinist does complete justice to the two samakAla lines of the anupallavi, rendering it seamlessly providing us complete satisfaction.
I again invite attention to the continuous playing/phrasing by the artiste of the carana lines each seamlessly segueing into one other resulting in a continuous fluid flow of melody right through the carana.
One would also find that the melodic extensions with which the artiste ends the pallavi, anupallavi or the carana are very aesthetic and in conformance with the lakshana delineated in the kriti proper.

Students of music aspiring to learn this composition ought to do so by hearing this version with the SSP notation in hand. It is complete, for I find it to be a very purposive and aesthetic interpretation of the notation. And thus one is indebted to him/her, for such a splendid rendering, sans any blemish whatsoever.

Other interpretations:

We next present other renderings of Dikshitar’s ‘tyAgarAjEna rakshitOham’. Below are the presentations by a couple of Sangita Kala Acharyas.

Vidushi Suguna Varadacari renders the composition next and is from an AIR Concert of hers.

http://www.sangeethamshare.org/tvg/UPLOADS-1601—1800/1617-Suguna_Varadachari-Thyagaraja_Vibarthi_Krithis/

(Would require Yahoo/Google ID for Log In)

And, the venerable Prof S R Janakiraman renders the composition.

Vidushi Kalpakam Svaminathan a scion of the Dikshitar sishya parampara, recorded the Tyagaraja Vibakti kritis which includes this composition as well, as a commercial album, details of which are here.

Dikshitar’s Salagabhairavi and the popular modern version of the raga as found in Tyagaraja’s ‘padavini sadbaktiyu’:

The modern version of the raga Salaga Bhairavi as available us through ‘padavini sadbakti’ is documented in the Sangraha Cudamani as SRMPDS/SNDPMGRS under Mela 22.

The legendary vidvans, the Alathur Brothers render the composition in this link, prefaced by a raga vinyasa.

Attention is invited to the opening phrase of the pallavi which begins as SRMP itself. A quick comparison between the raga as found in the composition of Dikshitar and Tyagaraja would thus yield the following table for us:

Muthusvami Dikshitar as evidenced by his kriti ‘tyAgarAjEna samrakshitOham’	Tyagaraja as evidenced by the modern day mettu of ‘padavini sadbakthi’
Dhaivatha is vakra and nishadha is varjya in the arohana	Gandhara and nishadha are varjya in the arohana
Sampurna in the avarohana	Sampurna in the avarohana
The conception is characterized by jumps and turns as well and more avarohana pradhana/centricity of the raga.	Fairly straightforward progression of the raga.

The question whether the scale found in ‘padavini’ being SRMPNS/SNDPMGRS was the original one adopted by Saint Tyagaraja when he composed the same is questionable & not beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons:

When the raga of the composition ‘padavini’ was discussed in the Music Academy on 26-Dec-1942 (documented in pages 17-18 of JMA XIV, see reference section below) a personage no less than the great Vidvan Tiger Varadacariar, placed on record that he had heard the kriti being rendered with RGMP.
Another musical authority, Sri M S Ramasvami Iyer went on to sing a cittasvaram composed by Patnam Subramanya Iyer for ‘padavini sadbakti’ which incorporated RGM phrase as support /proof for the prayoga having been in vogue.
Prof Sambamoorthi & Dr T V Subba Rao too agreed with the proposition that SRGMP was in vogue and textual authorities too had recorded it.
Justice T L Venkatarama Iyer a votary of the so called Dikshitar school, put forth the case for SRGMPDPS on the authority of the Dikshitar kriti and the documentation in the SSP.

In fact, Sri Tiger Varadacariar even suggested perhaps as a compromise that SRMRGMPDPS can be the recommended arohana krama accommodating the RGMP prayoga. The records of the JMA show that in that discussion that day, Tiger Varadacariar, M S Ramasvami Iyer, Justice T L Venkatarama Iyer & T V Subba Rao were arrayed on one side. However, the acolytes of the Sangraha Cudamani led by the President of the Conference that year, Sangita Kalanidhi Mazhavarayanendal Subbarama Bhagavathar had their way making SRMPDS/SNDPMGRS as the nominal arohana/avarohana krama of the raga, based on the then contemporaneous version of ‘padavini’.

The question thus we are left with is whether RGM and PDPS exists for Salagabhairavi. For, Dikshitar uses RGM and PDPS while the same is not so in the case of Tyagaraja based on the evidence of modern-day version of ‘padavini’ available to us & the lakshana as documented in the Sangraha Cudamani. Also, Dikshitar has utilized prayogas documented by all musicologists of yore right up to Tulaja.

Be that as it may, the discussion in the Academy clearly shows that ‘padavini’ was rendered in the past with SRGMP and not SRMP, indicating the possibility that the modern version/musical fabric of ‘padavini sadbakti’ is probably a “normalized” or “truncated” version. It’s likely that perhaps the original version of the composition was in line with the Salagabhairavi of Sahaji or Tulaja or of Muthusvami Dikshitar which was perhaps the defacto standard during the1800’s. Meaning, Salagabhairavi had vakra dhaivatha & nishadha varjya in the arohana and complete/sampurna in the avarohana and perhaps admitting gandhara varjya phrases as well.

Similar perhaps has the been the fate of ‘manavini vinuma’ a Tyagaraja composition, which is assigned a raga name of ‘Jayanarayani’ not found in any musical record save for Sangraha Cudamani which goes with the arohana/avarohana krama as SRGMPDS/SNDPMGRS under mela 22. It may sound like a ‘conspiracy’ theory but nevertheless it is a matter of great concern that the musical material of very many Tyagaraja kritis especially in eka kriti ragas has been subject to controversy and the available melody as on date/assigned, has not been beyond the pale of controversy. If one were to consider the logic and arguments advanced by the noted critic of the previous century Sri K V Ramachandran, one can conclude or at the least suspect that the ragas of ‘padavini sadbaktiyu’ and ‘manavini vinuma’ were perhaps only Salagabhairavi as documented in Muthusvami Dikshitar’s ‘tyAgarAjEna samrakshitOham’.

One is disconcerted by the fact that disciples or certain lineages have not properly transmitted the composition over the centuries, with the result today, we a corrupted version of what was originally composed. And we need not look far for one more proof, paart from what was placed on record by Tiger Varadachariar as in the case of ‘padavini’. It can be immediately demonstrated with this very Dikshitar composition, ’tyagarajena Samrakshitoham, how tradition can be turned on its head by musicians ignorant of both lakshya and lakshana.

Here is a modern-day performing musician, Vidushi Shyamala Venkateshwaran who casts the Dikshitar composition ‘Tyagarajena Samrakshitoham’ completely in the garb of the Salaga Bhairavi, not the one expounded by Dikshitar but with SRMPDS/SNDPMGRS as found in the Tyagaraja kriti ‘padavini’) with total impunity and contempt of the authentic notation of the composition found in the SSP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJtlEv-xSSo

( The photo used in the video upload is not of the artiste concerned but of Vidushi Rama Kausalya and readers ought to take note of the same)

Not just the kriti rendering, but we have a full suite of alapana and a svaraprastara to boot for this close to 20 min long presentation, providing ripe evidence for us as to how performers/sishyas/sishya paramparas could have and can misinterpret compositions/raga lakshana down the line, doing the greatest of disservice to a composer and his intent. Nothing can be farther from injustice when such musicians are called upon to adjudicate competitions on Dikshitar compositions !

It is indeed sad that this spurious version will most likely be taught to unknowing students of music and will be perpetuated as an authentic edition of the kriti.

Epilogue:

Vigilance they say is the price of liberty and the foregoing is a warning to the discerning listener of our music. Beware of peddlers of spurious music- would be an understatement. However, it is comforting to note that as against these transgressions a non-descript amateur musician is able to hold fort with an authentic interpretation of this rare kriti of Dikshitar, Tyagarajena Samrakshitoham, which was presented first in the discography. And one does wish & pray that known and popular musicians & teachers emulate this worthy example in the days to come and they in turn bequeath an authentic tradition true to the intent of the great composers of the past.

References:

Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (Telugu Original 1906) – Tamil edition published by the Madras Music Academy (1961) along with the Anubandha – Pages 462-466 of the 2006 Edition of Vol II: Link
Ragalakshana Sangraha –Dr Hema Ramanathan (2004) – Published by Dr Ramanathan – pp 1173-1180
Ragas of the Sangita Saramruta (1993) – Edited by Sangita Kalanidhi T V Subba Rao & Dr S R Janakiraman-Published by the Madras Music Academy – pp 26-27
The Raga Lakshana Manuscript of Sahaji Maharaja of Tanjavur (1983) -JMA Volume LVI Published by the Madras Music Academy-pp 140-182
Salagabhairavi Raga lakshana Discussion – Proceedings of the Experts Committee of the Madras Music Academy on 26-Dec-1942 – 16^th Music Conference – Published in JMA Volume XIV (1943) -pp17-38

Safe Harbour Statement

The recording of the renderings provided through YouTube or audio links as exemplars are the exclusive intellectual property of the artistes concerned. The same has been utilized here strictly on a non-commercial basis, under fair use for study & research, fully acknowledging their rights and no part of it may be copied, reproduced or otherwise dealt without the consent of the artistes or the concerned IP right holders.

History, Manuscripts, Raga

Colorful Bhasanga-s – Rudrapriya – Part I

October 28, 2019February 4, 2021 by Aravindh Ranganathan

[simple-author-box]

The colourful nature of the bhāṣāṅga rāga-s, their ability to be used flexibly according to the intent of a composer were explained in an introductory article on these rāga-s. In this article, we will be venturing into Rudrapriyā, a representative of the bhāṣāṅga clan.

Rudrapriyā is not a very popular rāga though few can reconcile this rāga and relate it with the kṛti ‘amba paradēvatē’. But Rudrapriyā was very popular once and we do have a significant number of compositions to analyse this rāga.

Rudrapriyā – A bhāṣāṅga

The first treatise to elaborate this rāga is Saṅgita Saṃpradāya Pradarśini of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar and Rudrapiyā is introduced as a dēśīya, bhāṣāṅga janya of the rāgāṅga rāga Śrī and takes the svara-s therein. Though the given mūrcana is SRGMPDNS – SNPMGRS, this is really a grand rāga and use various phrases outside the given mūrcana. In fact, Rudrapiyā cannot be conceived with this scale alone and can be considered akin to Kharaharapriyā. Subbarāma Dīkṣitar also says antara gāndhāra is employed in some places where the phrase MGM occurs and this Rudrapriyā is called as Hindustani Kāpi. We can infer two points from this valuable statement:

Antara gāndhāra do not or need not necessarily feature in all the places wherein the phrase MGM occurs. MGM with antara gāndhāra is used only by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar, that too only once in his sañcāri. This was the hypothesis proposed in our previous article; use of a svara not seen in the parent scale in a bhāṣāṅga is an option!!
A rāga is given two different names based on the presence or absence of a svara. The necessity to employ two names for a single rāga is not known. Does Subbarāma Dīkṣitar mean to say Rudrapriyā (Rudrapriyā is a dēśīya rāga is to be remembered) was used in some other regions with antara gāndhāra, wherein it was called as Hindustani Kāpi ? Anyways this is a very clear indication that this rāga was called by more than one name. This point will be elaborated later.

Compositions in Rudrapriyā

The mystical nature of this rāga does not end only with its bhāsāṅga nature. The way it was handed by various composers is equally intriguing. Before proceeding to analyse the lakṣaṇa of this rāga, let us acquaint with the available compositions.

Subbarāma Dīkṣitar gives the following compositions notated in his treatise in addition to his own sañcāri.

Rudra kōpa – Rūpakam – Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar

Vaḷḷī dēvasēnāpati – Rūpakam – Bālasvāmy Dīkṣitar

Nīvē raśika śhikāmaṇi – Ādhi – Bālasvāmy Dīkṣitar

Amba paradēvatē – Maṭya cāpu – Kṛṣṇasvāmy Ayya – Subbarāma Dīkṣitar

Murugāvunai nambinēn – Rūpakam – Vēṅkaṭēśvara Eṭṭapa Mahārāja

Enduku rā rā – Rūpakam – Subbarāma Dīkṣitar (occurs as a small segment in this rāgamālika)

For the kṛti ambā paradēvatē, both Śrī Kṛṣṇasvāmy Ayya and Śrī Subbarāma Dīkṣitar are to be given the credit. Whereas the former has written the lyrics, the latter tuned it. Since we are concerned with music, only Subbarāma Dīkṣitar will be associated with this kṛti henceforth.

In the anubandham of the same treatise, Subbarāma Dīkṣitar gives two more kṛti-s, named as Rudrapriyā but with a different rāga lakṣaṇa:

Gaṇanāyakam – Catusra Ēkam – Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar

Tyāgeśam bhajarē – Ādhi – Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar

Since the last two compositions differ considerably from the rest, they will be covered separately in two subsequent articles. We will be analysing only the main Rudrapriyā here.

Apart from those mentioned, three other compositions are attributed to Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar:

Śivakāyārohanēśaya – Rūpakam

Śri tyāgarājasya bhakto bhavāmi – Misra capu / Triputa

Parāśakthim bhajarē – Ādhi

These Non – Pradarśini kṛti-s require special attention and they too will not be covered here.

Antiquity of Rudrapriyā

Only the Dīkṣitar tribe has handled this rāga is clearly fathomable from the above discussion (Eṭṭappa Mahārāja, the composer of Tamiz kṛti was also a disciple of Bālasvāmy Dīkṣitar). Apart from the kṛti-s, we do not find any gīta in this rāga (gīta–s are usually given by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar to demonstrate old phrases in a rāga). Also, there is a conspicuous absence of a kṛti by Rāmasvāmy Dīkṣitar. This rāga was not even included by Rāmasvāmy Dīkṣitar in any of his rāgamālika-s. These, along with the fact of not seeing this rāga in any of the earlier lakṣana grantha-s might make us to surmise this is a relatively a new rāga which must have come into circulation around 18th century. But, what is the reality?

It is to be remembered, absence of a rāga in the lakṣana grantha-s do not demote antiquity of a rāga. These treatises are not comprehensive in cataloging the rāga-s prevalent when they were written (also see the related discussion here). The information given in these treatises are to be conjunctively analysed with the available compositions to date a rāga. The following evidence show the perspicuous presence of this rāga even before the arrival of the mentioned kṛti-s.

Dakśiṇāśāsyam gurum vandē

This is a composition of Śrī Bhadrācalam Rāmadāsu (1620-1680) in the rāga Rudrapriyā. It is very surprising to see a composition on Dakśiṇāmūrti by Rāmadāsu. But worshiping Dakśiṇāmūrti is an integral part of Bhajana saṃpradāya and this kṛti could have been used to invoke Him in his daily bhajana. This kṛti, to the best knowledge of this author is not in circulation and this is the only version available.

This is more like a divyanama kīrtanam with a pallavi and multiple caraṇā-s. All the caraṇā-s have the same melodic structure. The melodic structure is much simple and devoid of any decorative saṅgati-s, characteristic of any old version. Rudrapriyā portrayed here highly confirms with the mūrcana mentioned earlier excluding two significant signature phrases, SDNP and SNDNP which transgress the mūrcana mentioned proving it a non-scalar rāga.

Interestingly, Māṅcāla Jagannatha Rao, who gave us this version make a note that this is also called as Śuddha Kāpi. We request to reiterate the point mentioned earlier; this rāga had multiple names !!

The following two evidences additionally prove the existence of this rāga during 18^th century.

Ambā kṛupai tandu

This is a composition of Śrī Mazavai Cidambara Bhārathi who lived in early part of the19^th century. He is said to be a contemporary of Kavikuñjara Bhārathi, whose period is said to be between 1810 and 1896.

This kṛti can be seen in the book published by The Music Academy, but labelled as a different raga – Karnāṭaka Kāpi !! Perhaps, this name could have been in common use and a variant of this rāga with antara gāndharam was called as Hindustani Kāpi. Subbarāma Dikṣitar having been aware of this polyonymy (especially Karnāṭaka Kāpi) gives us the variant name alone. This is extremely possible, as Subbarāma Dīkṣitar was proud of his heritage and he must have felt this rāga is to be named as Rudrapriyā as Vēṅkaṭamakhī followed this nomenclature (in the treatise that was available to Subbarāma Dīkṣitar). Our doubt gets more validated if we observe the fact that the kṛti ‘rudra kōpa’ by Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar lacks the rāga mudra Rudrapriyā!!

The rāga portrayed here is exactly like Rudrapriyā sans two phrases – SNDNM and SDP. The phrase SNDNM occur in the beginning of this kṛti as seen below:

sa n da n m m ga r ri s r g I m ; ; r g I s ri m pa ni ri II

am…….baa….. krupai.. tan..dhu..rak.shi yiyam yo…ga ga na..yi..ke..jaga

Svara-s in bold denote tāra sthāyi

SNDNM is replaced by SNDPM in the second saṅgati. This phrase was an original construction or a printing error is not to be identified. Though SNDNM appears odd, a similar phrase PDNM is there in the Rudrapriyā segment, seen in the rāgamālika of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. The phrase SDP is found nowhere in the compositions notated by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar; rather, it is seen in the kṛti by Rāmadāsu. This is an allowed phrase and not used by Dīkṣitar Quartette or is a corrupt phrase that occurred due to the passage of time or a printing error cannot be ascertained.

Sāmaja gamana

This is a hitherto unknown svarajati composed in the rāgam Karnāṭaka Kāpi. It is seen in a manuscript whose authorship too is not traceable. This is composed in the style of Svarajati-s composed by Śrī Śyāma Śāstri. This has a pallavi and four caraṇā-s. Predominant phrases seen include ṠNDNP, ṠNPM, NGR and ṠNPṠNPM. It very well corresponds with the rāga lakṣaṇa described above excluding a single phrase MNDPM.

From the above discussion it is unquestionable that Rudrapriyā was indeed a very old rāga. More importantly, it must have been called by various names at different part of this country.

The structure of Rudrapriyā and its possible relationship with Karnāṭaka Kāpi

Though the lineage is same for all the Dīkṣitar members, each one has carved their own style in approaching a rāga. This is explicitly seen in the rāga-s which are bestowed with a composition from more than one Dīkṣitar. Rudrapriyā is one such and this heterogeneity is seen its full glory here. The main feature of Rudrapriyā will be described in brief, which will be followed by a discussion on their individual style.

Striking features of Rudrapriyā

As mentioned earlier, a broad picture about this rāga is given only by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar and the compositions therein are lexicons to understand this rāga in its full grandeur. This rāga has many unique features to distinguish it from its saṃpūrṇa allies like Kharaharapriya and Kāpi (the old one) which can be grasped by learning and analysing these compositions.

Subbarāma Dīkṣitar says niṣādha, gāndhāra, madhyamaṃ and riṣabha are the pivotal svara-s. Compositions start or end only with one of these svara-s. There is a profuse use of janṭa niṣādha and gāndhāra. With this idea let us analyse the individual compositions. When the compositions are analysed, there are some important prayōga-s which traduce the mūrcana given, like SDNP, SNDNP, DNDNP, SRM and SMGM. Apart from this, plenty of dhāṭṭu prayōga-s like MGNPGR, GDGN can be seen. All these prayōga-s, are unanimously used in all the sthāyi-s, unlike Rītigaula wherein the phrase NPNNS is used only in the mandra sthāyi.

Rudra kōpa of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar

This kṛti-s follows the lakṣana mentioned above. The āvarta-s start only with the above mentioned four pivotal svara-s apart from sadja and pañcama. Janṭa ṛṣabha as GRR is more commonly used other janta niṣādha and gāndhāra. We see dhāṭṭu prayōga-s like MGNPGR. In all these aspects, we see similar handling of this rāga among the Dīkṣitar Trio.

The differences seen are as below:

The use of janṭa svara is much less than that used by Bālasvāmy Dīkṣitar. Also, the gamakam used for these janṭa svara-s are different. Apart from spuritam, we also find kampitam and nokku for these janṭa svara-s.
The predominant avarōhaṇa phrase in this kṛti is SDNP and SNP. We never get to see the phrase SNDNP. Though a composer is not expected to use all the phrases to visualise his rāga, certain phrases become important as either they define a rāga or has been by all the composers whomsoever has handled that rāga. SNDNP, being such an important phrase can be in the kṛti-s of Rāmadāsu, Cidambara Bharati, Bālasvāmy and Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. It is surprising that this was not used in this kṛti.
To compensate for the phrase SNDNP, we find a new phrase seen in this kṛti – MN(N)G. This occur twice, first in bhadrakāli and second in mālikā, both in anupallavi. This phrase is not seen in any of the compositions mentioned above, inclusive of the kṛti-s of Rāmadāsu and Cidambara Bharati. This phrase reminisce the composition ‘suma sāyaka’ of Svāti Tirunāḷ. The first text to publish this Kṛti with notation is Bālāmṛtam by S Raṅganātha Ayyar. He mention the rāga of this varṇam as Kāpi. The present version has plenty of ṠNP, ṠNDNP, NRG which all feature in Rudrapriyā. On the other hand, these are not found in the old Kāpi. The old Kāpi is now living through the compositions of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar and other Pre-Trinity composers notated in Pradarśini. We too have Vālājapeṭṭai manuscripts giving the compositions of Tyāgarāja Svāmigaḷ in this rāgaṃ (the kṛti-s of Svāmigaḷ that we commonly hear in the rāga Kāpi were all mutated and mutilated in the last century). Interestingly this phrase MNG is not seen in any of the old Kāpi compositions. All these might make us to surmise Rudrapriyā could have been alternatively called as Karṇāṭaka Kāpi in the past (along with its other known and unknown names). We are now left with another question – the reason for not seeing this phrase in the composition of other composers. We can exclude the compositions of Rāmadāsu and Cidambara Bharati, as they are small kṛti-s. But, not seeing even in magnificent edifices of Bālasvāmy and Subbarāma Dīkṣitar is absorbing.

A vocal interpretation of the textual representation of this kṛti given in the treatise Saṅgīta Sampradāya Pradarśinī is attempted to the best abilities of this author. The readers are invited to observe unique phrases like MNGG, GRR, ṠNP and ṠDNP (see Footnote 1).

Vaḷḷī dēvasēnāpati and Nīvē raśikhāmaṇi of Bālasvāmy Dīkṣitar

The kṛti ‘nīvē raśikhāmaṇi’ could have been one of the initial compositions of Bālasvāmy Dīkṣitar on Vēṅkaṭēśvara Eṭṭapa Maharāja. The kṛti ‘vaḷḷī dēvasēnāpati’ is unique in that it is one of the three compositions composed by Bālasvāmy on Kazugumalai Subraḥmaṇya Svāmi. Rest of his compositions were all on various Maharāja-s of Eṭṭayapuram.

These two kṛti-s are better exemplars, even more than the ‘rudra kōpa’ of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar. Plenty of janṭa gāndhāra and niṣadha can be seen in these kṛti-s. Here the janṭa svara-s are handled predominantly with the spurita gamakam. The predominant avarōhaṇa phrases are PDNDP, PDNDNDP, ṠDNP, ṠNDNP and ṠNDNṠ (the last two phrases are absent in ‘rudra kōpa’). We also find phrases SMGM, GRR, NG and NR, PDNS (in mandra sthāyi). All these phrases give a wholesome structure covering an entire gamut of this rāga. Rudrapriyā flows through the dhāṭṭu prayōga-s and the ciṭṭa svaram affixed to the kṛti ‘nīvē raśikhāmaṇi’ is captivating. The third āvarta goes as NṠṘN GNDN MGNP GR with plenty of three-s. Also, ṠṘĠṀ can be noted.

The kṛti nīvē raśikhāmaṇi interpreted from the treatise of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar can be heard here.

Murugāvunai nambinēn of Vēṅkaṭēśvara Eṭṭapa Mahārāja

This is much in line with the other kṛti-s and uses some special phrases used like ṘDD. Also, extreme importance is given to riṣabham as a jīva svaram. This was composed by Jagadvīra Rāma Vēṅkaṭēśvara Eṭṭappa Mahārāja who ruled between 1853 and 1858.

Ambā paradēvatē and Enduku rā rā of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar

The rāga approach by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar can be considered as a combination of both Muddusvāmy and Bālasvāmy Dīkṣitar. Whereas we find almost all the prayōga-s used by Bālasvāmy in these two compositions, we also find some phrases like PDP, PNṠ, ṘDD and PDNM which are not seen in the compositions of Bālasvāmy. Though the janṭa svara prayōga-s are more seen in this kṛti when compared to that of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar, it is certainly lesser than what is seen in the works of Bālasvāmy Dīkṣitar.

The ciṭṭa svara segment attached to this kṛti is very unique and displays the craftsmanship of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. It runs for 32 āvarta-s and every āvarta starts with ṛṣabham. This 32 āvarta svara segment composed by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar is much different from the abridged version that we hear today and it is a question to ponder on the composer of this abridged version. Also, the manōdharma that we hear frequently only display the scalar Rudrapriyā. Though we enjoy the modern versions and are equally pleasant to hear, these old tunes conceived by the composer are to be at least archived as they not only serve as an example to understand the rāga conceived by the composer, they also teach us the svarūpa of the rāga extant during their times. Here, the various ways in which the jīva svara ṛṣabham can be employed in various ways is demonstrated. These can be adopted by us to resurrect the rāga Rudrapriya, rather than following the scale.

The presence of the phrase ṘDD along with an importance given to ṛṣabham makes us to understand the influence of Vēṅkaṭēśvara Eṭṭapa Mahārāja on Subbarāma Dīkṣitar.

Conclusion

Rudrapriyā, a grand rāga of the past is mainly characterised by janṭa and dhāṭṭu prayōga-s. This rāga has very many phrases outside the prescribed mūrcana and only an untainted version of the kṛti-s preserved by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar and from other older/original versions help us to understand this rāga. The kṛti-s of Bālasvāmy and Subbarāma Dīkṣitar epitomize this rāga more than even the mentioned kṛti of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar. Sadly, the rāga portrayed in majority of the versions that we hear today is mainly scalar and fail to project the beauty of this rāga in its full capacity.

Unlike Rītigaula, the phrases in this rāga are not sthāyi specific – all the phrases occur in all the octaves.The name Rudrapriyā could have been in circulation only with the family of Dīkṣitar and this rāga could have been called by multiple names in the past. Perhaps, Subbarāma Dīkṣitar could have been the single person endorsing this name. The rāga Kārnāṭaka Kāpi mentioned in various texts could be this Rudrapriyā and we need to search for original versions to get a clear picture.

This also highlight the importance of collecting the manuscripts preserved at various places to understand rāga-s of the past.

References

Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. Saṅgīta Sampradāya Pradarśinī, Vidyavilasini Press, 1904.

Saṅgīta Sampradāya Pradarśinī – Tamiz edition published by The Music Academy.

Mazavai Cidambara Bhārati Pādalgal. Edited by PC Sitarama Ayyar. Published by The Music Acedemy. This can be accessed in http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/2713

Footnotes

Footnote 1 – Whereas the Tamiz edition of Saṅgīta Sampradāya Pradarśinī read as ‘anuvadana’ in anupallavi, the original Telugu version read as ‘ajavadana’. This difference was overlooked by this author in his rendition. This is a mistake and is deeply regretted.

History, Manuscripts, Notation, Personalities

Manuscripts in the possession of Sivakumar, a descendant of Tanjavur Quartette

January 15, 2019February 4, 2021 by Aravindh Ranganathan

[simple-author-box]

Our music was propagated by two routes – oral and textual. Though we have a textual history of approximately 150 years recording the compositions of prominent composers, the corpus of compositions recorded by this way cannot said to be complete. Also, many compositions exist only in paper as they are not extant in the oral tradition. The converse is also true. Despite this extensive recording, many compositions have not seen the light and remain only in manuscripts and are yet to be published.

Tanjōre Quartette or Tanjai Nālvar as they are fondly called, hail from a family of rich musical heritage with their father and grandfather adorning the court of Maraṭṭa Kings. Cinnaiah (1802), Ponniah (1804), Śivānandam (1808) and Vațivēlu (1810) were born to Subbarāya Naṭṭuvanār, who was delegated to perform musical rites in Tanjāvūr Bŗhadīsvara temple. They were prodigious even at their young age and learnt the basics from their father and grandfather Gaṅgaimuttu Naṭṭuvanār. Later they had their advanced training from Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar for a period of 7.5 years under ‘gurukulavāsam’.

We do not have exact details regarding the period of their stay with Dīkṣitar. But it can be presumed, these events could have happened during 1810-1820. Nālvar being exceptional musicians and related to a family having a hoary tradition related to classical dance, turned their focus towards Sadir (as it was called) and created a mārgaṃ, which is still followed. They have authored innumerable kṛti-s, padam-s, varņam-s, jāvaỊi-s, rāgamālikā and tillanā-s. Their compositional style for kṛti-s considerably differs from their dance compositions. It is said Nālvar has recorded their compositions and uruppaḍi-s they have learnt from Dīkṣitar in palm-leaf and paper manuscripts.

This family has given us illustrious musician-composers like Sri K Ponniah Pillai, Veena Vidvan Sri KP Śivanandam, who belong to the sixth and seventh descendant respectively from Gaṅgaimuttu Naṭṭuvanār, through the lineage of Śivanandam (of Tanjai Nālvar). These members are not only involved in the transmission and propagation of the compositions of Nālvar, but also involved in the preservation of these manuscripts.

These manuscripts are now, in the possession of Sri Śivakumār, an eight generation descendant and a proficient Veena and Violin vidvān. It is due to the persevering effort of this family, some of the unpublished compositions of Nālvar saw the light.

Paper manuscripts

Śivakumar has, in his possession several bundles of paper and palm leaf manuscripts. Though the palm-leaf manuscripts are under good condition, paper manuscripts require immediate attention.

Of the paper manuscripts available, a segment of a manuscript replete with the kṛti-s of Tanjai Nālvar and Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar are considered now. Though, the report cannot be considered as complete, this can definitely give us an idea about the repertoire of Nālvar.

As with any other manuscripts written before the advent of standardized notations, notational style is primitive; lacks a mark to identify sthāyi, anya svaram and ending of an individual āvartanam. Also, these notations do not indicate about second and third speed. Rāga names too was not mentioned for many kṛti-s. Savingly, svarasthāna and the parent mēla of the rāga are given clearly alongside the notations.

The available material can be divided into three segments based on the composer:

Kṛti-s of Nālvar
Kṛti-s of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar
Others

Kṛti-s of Nālvar

In the section analyzed, Guru-navaratnamālika kṛti-s are seen with notation. This set of 9 compositions was composed by Nālvar as a Guru stuti. This cannot be considered as a regular Guru stuti. Nālvar invoke their Lord Bŗhadīsvara and they are not paeans composed on their Guru. Very few direct references to their Guru or his personality can be seen. These are to be compared and contrasted against the Guru kṛti-s composed by Vālājāpeṭṭai Vēṅkataramaṇa Bhāgavatar and/or other disciples of Tyāgarāja Svāmigaḷ.

Navaratnamālika of Nālvar

The following kṛti-s are held at high esteem due to the reasons mentioned above:

Māyātīta svarūpiņi – MāyāmālavagauỊa

Śrī guruguha mūrti – Bhinnaṣaḍjam

Jewel box made of Ivory gifted by Mahārājā Svāti Tirunāḷ to Vaṭivēlu Naṭṭuvanār

Sāṭilēni guruguha mūrtini – Nāța

Śrī karambu – Kanakāmbari

Sārekuni – Cāmaram

Śrī rājarājēsvari – Ramāmanōhari

Paramapāvani – VarāỊi

Sārasākși – Śailadēsākși

Nīdu pādamē – PantuvarāỊi

Two interesting observations can be made from this list. First, the rāga of the kṛti-s sāṭilēni and śrīkarambu is different from the present renditions. Now they are sung in the rāgam PūrvikaỊyāņi and Kāmbhojī respectively. Second, all the kŗtis-s are set in the “Rāgāṅga rāgā-s” (a term equivalent to the term mēḷakarta, usually referred to the scales in the asaṃpūrṇa mēḷa system). Pantuvarāli is specifically mentioned as a rāgam with sādhāraņa gāndhāra. This is in line with the old practice of calling the present day Śubhapantuvarāli as Pantuvarāli. This was remarked by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar too in his Prathamābhyāsa Pustakamu.

We also can see other kṛti-s of Nālvar in other rāgāṅga raga-s namely bṛhadīśvara in Gānasāmavarāli and bhakta pālana in Phēnadyuti. This totals to 11 kṛti-s belonging to this category. This makes us to surmise that Nālvar could have composed in all the 72 rāgāṅga rāga-s following the footsteps of their Guru. It is emphasized again that the manuscript referred here represents only a portion of their collection and the entire corpus is to be analyzed to get a definitive conclusion.

Though, an in depth analysis of the version given in this manuscript and the other printed versions is to be done, namely “Tanjai Peruvudaiyān Perisai” and “Saṅgīta Saṃpradāya Pradarśini”, the two authentic texts which give these kṛti-s (either all or a few) in notation, preliminary analysis revealed a significant finding which is worth discussing here. The version given here for the Māyātīta svarūpiṇi is exactly the same as given in Saṃpradāya Pradarśini !! There might be subtle differences which are trivial and some allowances need to be given considering the fact we are dealing with a manuscript.

Another interesting finding is related to the kṛti, “śrī rājarājeśvari” in the rāgam Ramāmanōhari. The version given in this manuscript has phrases like PRRSNN, PNS which are not seen in both the books mentioned though the version given by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar closely follows the manuscript excluding the presence of the mentioned phrases. Though, these phrases appear to be outlandish in Ramāmanōhari, they feature in a gītam notated in Saṅgīta Saṃpradāya Pradarśini. This shows Saṅgīta Saṃpradāya Pradarśini is a veritable source to know the rāga structure of the by-gone centuries. One more noticeable feature seen in these manuscripts is the total absence of ciṭṭa svāra segment for all the kṛti-s, irrespective of the composer involved.

Three other kṛti-s found in this manuscript deserve a special mention – Sarasvati manōhari gauri, Śrī jagadīṣamanōhari and Śrī mahādēvamanohari. Rāgā-s are not marked for these compositions. The kṛti śrī mahādēvamanohari was published in the book “Tanjai Peruvudaiyān Perisai” by the descendants of Tanjai Nālvar with a slight variations in the sāhityam. Whereas their version starts as mahādēvamanohari, the manuscript adds a prefix ‘śrī’ to mahādevamanōhari. Adding ‘śrī’ satisfy the rules of prosody as anupallavi reads as ‘sōmaśekhari’. Dhātu of this composition, as given in this manuscript too give us an interesting finding. Dēvamanōhari described in the treatises belonging to 17-19 CE whose authorship is known always stress the phrase PNNS and a straight forward DNS was never accepted by them. PNNS can be seen only in the version given in these manuscripts.

Rāga of the other two kṛti-s is to be determined. Rāgam of the first kṛti can be presumed to be Gauri as Nālvar had the practice of incorporating the raga mudra in many of their sāhityam. The notation will be analyzed and updated.

Beside these kṛti-s, varṇam-s like viriboṇi and mā mohalāhiri are seen.

2. Kṛti-s of Muddusvāmy Dīkṣitar

Around 90 compositions can be identified to be that of Dīkṣitar and all are available with notations. Out of these 90, 5 are unpublished. The remaining 85 can all be seen in Saṅgīta Saṃpradāya Pradarśini of Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. As mentioned earlier, the kṛti-s seen in this small portion of the corpus cannot be considered as the complete repertoire of Nālvar. Nevertheless, 85 denotes a significant number and it is to be borne in mind that not even a single composition seen here is outside Saṃpradāya Pradarśini. This shows any kṛti not mentioned in this text is always to be taken with a grain of salt.

A. Majority of the kṛti-s in the majority 85 belong to the clan of ”Rāgāṅga rāga-s”. Kṛti-s of Dīkṣitar can be seen in all the rāgāṅga rāgā-s except for ten. They include Toḍi (8), Bhinnaṣaḍjam (9), Māyamālavagaula (15), Varāli (39), Śivapantuvarāli (45), Ramāmanōhari (52), Cāmaram (56), Niṣada (60), Gītapriyā (63), Caturaṅgiṇi (66), Kōsalam (71). It is to be remembered here that Saṅgīta Saṃpradāya Pradarśini too didn’t furnish the kṛti-s of Dīkṣitar in the rāga-s 9, 45, 52 and 56. Of these four, a kṛti of Ponniah (of Nālvar) was given for three rāga-s – 9, 52 and 56. Śivapantuvarāli was not awarded with any kṛti. Same pattern was followed in this manuscript too. Kṛti-s were given in order of the rāgāṅga raga. After the rāgāṅga rāga 7, we find the kṛti of Nālvar in the rāgam Bhinnașaḍjam (śrī guruguha mūrti) followed by a kṛti of Dīkṣitar viśvanātham bhajēhaṃ in the rāgāṅga rāgam Naṭābharaṇam (10). This pattern is being followed for the rest too [after Bhavānī (44), Kāśirāmakriyā (51) and Śyāmaḷā (55) we find a kṛti of Ponniah in 45, 52 and 56 followed by a kṛti of Dīkṣitar]. Blessed is Śivapantuvarāli to have a kṛti of Nālvar in this manuscript. This raises a doubt on the authenticity of the Dīkṣitar kṛti-s presently prevalent in the rāga-s 9, 45, 52 and 56.

It is to be accepted that we don’t find a kṛti of Dīkṣitar in others rāgāṅga rāga-s namely 15, 60, 63, 66, 70 and 71. Excluding 15 and 39, the rāga-s preceding and succeeding these left–outs do not occur in sequence. They occur haphazardly; perhaps they might have been written separately and those pages are lost. 15 is an exception here as it is seen in sequence succeeding Vasantabhairavī (14) and preceding Vegavāhini (16). Reason for māyātīta svarūpiṇi replacing śrīnāthādi is not clear. But, it could have been separately written and lost. We have another example to support this view – the kṛti bhajarē citta in Kaḷyāṇi (65) is found separately and not after Bhūṣāvati (64). We find only one kṛti in Kamalāmbā navāvaraṇam (śri kamalāmbikayā in Śaṅkarābharaṇam) and three in Navagraḥa series, namely divākaratanujam, bṛhaspate and sūryamūrte. Reason for not seeing any entry in 39 is an enigma.

B. It can be noticed, after the rāgāṅga raga 7, we see a kṛti of Ponniah in the rāga 9. Rāga 8, Tōḍi does not have any entry. Can we presume Kamalāmbike was the only kṛti composed by Dīkyṣitar in Tōḍi before and/or during his stay in Tanjōre and due to some reasons that was not notated ? Either that was not known to Nālvar or that was composed by Dīkṣitar after his stay in Tanjōre ? Alternatively, was that notated separately and yet to be identified ? But not seeing a composition in such a major rāga is strange.

C. Regarding grouping a rāga under a mēla, this manuscript conforms with the grouping system followed by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar. Āndāḷi is given under mēḷa 28 and Sāma under 29. The only exception to this is Saurāṣtram; considered as a janya of Vēgavāhini in this manuscript. This is understandable due the presence of anya svaram in this this rāgam.

D. Four kṛti-s belonging to Guruguha vibhakti kṛti-s are seen – śri guruguha mūrtē in Udayaravicandrikā, śri guruguhasya dasōham in Pūrvi, guruguhādanyam in Balahaṃsa and guruguhāya in Sama. Bhānumati, though a rāgāṅga rāgam is represented only by the kṛti ‘bṛhadambā madambā’ and not ‘guruguha svāmini’.

E. None of the kṛti-s belonging to Tyāgarāja vibhakti group can be seen. Does it mean these kṛti-s were composed after his stay in Tanjōre ?

F. Almost all the kṛti-s addressing Bṛhannayaki or Bṛhadīśvarar, notated in Saṅgīta Saṃpradāya Pradarśini are seen here.

G. Mīnākṣi mēmudham dēhi is seen in this manuscript suggesting this kṛti must have been composed when he visited Madurai before his stay in Tanjōre.

H. Minority 5 is much more interesting. We see these compositions for the first time. They appear to be a part of Nirūpaṇam than kṛti-s. They include:

Jaya jaya gauri manōhari – 22 janyam (to be identified)

Kāmakṣi namōstute – Pāḍi

Śaranu kāmākṣi – Mēgarañjani

Manōnmaṇi bhavatutē maṅgaḷam – Mēcabauli

Śaranu śaranu mahēśa śaṅkari – Ārabhī

Of these, the first three has been mentioned by Dr Rīta Rājan in her thesis.

A reconstructed version of the Śaraṇu daru – ‘śaraṇu śaraṇu’ in the rāgam Ārabhī can heard here

I. Though, an in-depth comparison is to be done with the version given by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar, at the outset, can be confidently said not much difference exist between the two.

3. Others

Other than the works of Dīkṣitar and Nālvar, we also find padam-s of Kṣetrayya and some other kṛti-s of unknown authorship. Sri Śivakumar also possess another paper manuscript having around 300 gītam in notation. Examination of a sample showed that they are the replica of the gītam-s notated in Saṅgraha Chūḍāmaṇi. This could been written by some other member in the family.

Conclusion

This inventory is not complete and highlights only some important findings seen in a section of a major collection. It is believed these findings will be more helpful to the researchers and musicians alike to get an idea about the Dīkṣitar kṛti-s learnt by Nālvar. When these kṛti-s are compared with the versions given by Subbarāma Dīkṣitar, we can get an overall image about the melodic structure of Dīkṣitar kṛti-s in general. This might be of some help In clearing the controversies revolving around these kṛti-s. Some other points in identifying the ‘real’ Dīkṣitar kṛti too is highlighted so that these findings can be applied or recollected when we progress further and get some additional material.

Acknowledgement

I profusely thank Sri KPS Śivakumar, an eighth generation descendant belonging to the family of Nālvar and the son of Sangīta Kaḷānidhi Sri KP Śivānandam for sharing these valuable manuscripts.

History, Raga

Nishumbasudani……. Mystery from the medieval Chola times!

November 11, 2018June 28, 2023 by ravi rajagopalan

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 10^th 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.

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

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.

21^st 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 19^th 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 12^th 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 20^th 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/29^th 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 ( 17^th 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 29^th 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:

The raga is sampurna, i.e all seven notes of mela 29 occurs in this raga.
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
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.
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.
In modern parlance SRMGPNDS or better still SMGPDNPDS /SNPNPDMPMGS can be notional arohana/avarohana krama.
Needless to add that it is a quintessential raga aligning perfectly to the classic 18^th 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.

The reference to the probable sthala of this composition – ‘madhya-desha-vasini’ occurring in the pallavi
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:

K A Nilakanta Sastri (1955) – The Colas (English)– University of Madras
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
Subbarama Dikshitar(1904) – Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini – Republished in Tamil by Madras Music Academy ( 1977) Part IV pp 843-846
Dr Hema Ramanathan (2004) – ‘Ragalakshana Sangraha’- Collection of Raga Descriptions pp 275-278 and 963-974

Foot Notes:

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 20^th 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.

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.
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’.
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 10^th Century AD
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 20^th 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.
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.

History, Translated Articles

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

November 11, 2018February 4, 2021 by ravi rajagopalan

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 7^th 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 6^th 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:

The Colas, K A Nilakanta Sastri, University of Madras 1984, pp157-158
Pirkaala Chozar Varalaaru, T V Sadasiva Pandaarathar, Annamalai University, 1974, pp 76-78
A Note on the Accession of Raja Raja, R V Srinivasan, Vivekananda College Magazine, Madras 1971 p 13
Aditya Karikala’s Murder – A Review by K T Tirunavukkarasu, Arunmozhi Research Collection, Tamilnadu Archaeological Department, Chennai 600028, 1988 pp143-153
No 27, The Udayarkudi Inscription of Rajakesarivarman, K A Nilakanta Sastri, Epigraphia India Vol XXI pp 165-170
The Colas, K A Nilakanta Sastri, University of Madras 1984, p 154
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

History, Repertoire

The Quest for the true melodic contours of Tyagaraja’s “varadarAja ninnEkOri”

February 23, 2018July 27, 2018 by Aravindh Ranganathan

[simple-author-box]

PROLOGUE:

The raga names and their associated melodic contour for Tyagaraja’s compositions, from a theoretical framework can be assessed by referring to the Sangraha Cudamani attributed to Govinda and to the Andhra edition of a manuscript called Ragalakshanam. The date of Sangraha Cudamani is not without controversy though. Votaries of the Sangraha Cudamani advance the argument that the work is antecedent to Tyagaraja and he composed and assigned ragas only using this treatise. There are those who cogently put forth reasoned arguments that the Sangraha Cudamani is neither authoritative nor is it dateable atleast to the times of Tyagaraja. There are others who advocate the theory that Tyagaraja had a set of inherited ‘scale dictionaries’ through Vina Kalahasti Ayya and others (‘Katakamus’) which he then breathed life into as ragas. We have seen much of these in previous blog posts in this series. Leaving aside the question as to the authenticity and whether Sangraha Cudamani is ex post or ex ante to Tyagaraja’s life time, for us at the least it serves a useful reference or a lexicon for us to determine the true melody of Tyagaraja’s compositions.

While assessing the correct melody of a Tyagaraja composition, though we can rely on the oral traditions – such as the primary sishya paramparas- we still have two important problems.

It is very much discernible from history that Tyagaraja did not assign or disclose the name of the raga of a composition, when he taught it to his students. Therefore, in quite a few instances the different sishya paramparas held different raga names and/or different melodic contour for the same composition.
The second issue is that outside of the sishya paramparas, early publishers of Tyagaraja’s compositions (1870-1920) gave the raga name/description simply as ‘apuroopam’ meaning rare for melodies which were uncommon or not discernible with certainty by them/at that point in time for quite a few of his compositions.

Doubts have been expressed about the correct raga and or /raga lakshana of many Tyagaraja compositions which have remained unresolved and unsettled for many different reasons till date. Examples include the popular as well the rare ones such as ‘nAdatanumanisam’, ‘sItamma mAyamma’& ‘nEnendhu vEdakudhurA’ on one hand and ‘nannu kanna talli’ and ‘prAnanAtha’ on the other to name a few. Our quest to identify the correct raga /melodic contour of compositions becomes severe in the case of compositions which are:

Not much in currency
In uncommon ragas
In ragas not found described in the Sangraha Cudamani and also if many of the late 19^th century and early 20^th century publications do not offer much clue.

Paucity of systematic musicological research, proper tabulation/classification and scientific analysis of data/information have ensured that we have never gotten to certainty or truth on these questions. In this series of blog posts, we have looked at some of these compositions and with available data attempted to piece together a credible case for a particular raga as being the one in which Tyagaraja might have possibly composed a particular piece.

The composition ‘varadarAja ninnukOri’ set apparently to a raga called SvarabhUshani is a case in point and we will look at it in this blog post.

BACKGROUND TO THE COMPOSITION:

Let’s first look at the history and other aspects of the composition ‘varadarAja ninnukOrI’. Though Tyagaraja was apparently not an itinerant composer in the mould of Muthusvami Dikshitar, he reportedly did undertake a few journeys/pilgrimages to places away from Tiruvaiyyaru during his life time. His biographers including Prof Sambamoorthi and others based on his compositions/internal evidence, accounts of his disciples and such other collateral information, aver that he visited places like Srirangam, Nagapattinam, Tiruvottiyur, Kovur, Tirupati & Kancipuram. In fact, musical historians based on the kritis also advance the view that the following four deities, have been sung upon by every member of our Trinity

Lord Varadaraja at Kancipuram
Goddess Kamakshi at Kancipuram
Goddess Nilayathaksi at Nagapattinam
Goddess Dharmasamvardhini at Tiruvaiyyaru

Taking the case of Lord Varadaraja at Kancipuram, while Dikshitar composed ‘varadarAja avAva’ in Gangatarangini and Syama Sastri is said to have composed the Anandabhairavi varnam ‘sami nI rammanavE’ on Lord Vardaraja, Tyagaraja is said to have composed two compositions on Him:

‘varadarAja nine kOri’ in raga SvarabhUshani – rupaka tAlA
‘varada navanItAsha’ in raga rAgapanjaram- misra cApu tAlA

Standard texts of Tyagaraja’s compositions such as T S Parthasarathy’s give the text of ‘varadaraja ninnukori’, our subject matter composition as under:

pallavi

varadarAja ninnu kOri vacciti mrokkErA

anupallavi

surulu munulu bhUsurulu cuTTi cuTTi sEvince

caraNam

varagiri vaikuNTha maTa varNimpa daramugAdaTa nirjarulanu
tArakamulalO candruDai merayaduvaTa vara tyAgarAjanuta garuDasEva jUDa

THE EVIDENCE OF THEORY:

Dr. V Raghavan’s Index of Tyagaraja’s compositions has an entry for this piece based on its availability in the records of Chinnasvami Mudaliar/Walajapet manuscripts and that of Rangaramanuja Ayyangar. The raga name is given as Svarabhushanl. As pointed out earlier none of the lexicons of Tyagaraja’s songs namely Sangraha Cudamani or the Andhra text of the Ragalakshanam or the Tamil text Mahabharata Cudamani makes a mention of a raga by this name or the scale under the 22 mela. Again only 20^th century listings of ragas make a mention of Svarabhushani with the varying arohana/avarohana kramas under mela 22. They do not have any prior authority whatsoever other than their very own which makes the raga a suspect for being tagged to a composition of Tyagaraja. This name is first documented in Nadamuni Panditar’s Svaraprastara Sagaram, circa 1914. And modern publications assign this raga name to the composition as Svarabhushani/Svarabhushini under mela 22 with SGMPDNS/SNDPMRS as the nominal arohana/avarohana.

It needs to be pointed out that mere mention of raga names in older manuscripts by itself does not confer legitimacy for ascribing a particular melody in the case of assigning that to Tyagaraja’s compositions. The learned critic of the last century Sri K V Ramachandran, records that Walajapet Ramasvami Bhagavathar Bhagavathar the scion of the authentic Walajapet line of sishyas confided to him that the raga names assigned in manuscripts were sourced from questionable sources without scrutiny ( “Apurva Ragas of Tyagaraja’s Songs”. – 1950 JMA XXI pp109)

With not much inputs available to us from a textual history standpoint beyond this, we move over to the oral tradition to determine the true melodic svarupa/contours of this raga and that of the composition.

THE EVIDENCE FROM PRACTICE- DISCOGRAPHY:

Vidvan S Rajam's depiction of the garudaseva which Tyagaraja refers in this composition — Vidvan S Rajam’s depiction of the garudaseva which Tyagaraja refers in this composition

Unfortunately, even here we do not have renderings of this composition from stalwarts of the previous century and hence the composition falls into the rare category. We have an account of Dr S Rajam narrating that Kancipuram Naina Pillai used to beautifully render this composition. But we do not have a recording of Sangita Kalanidhi T Brinda, who learnt from him, rendering this composition. Similarly though it is known that Sangita Kalanidhi T K Govinda Rao had been heard singing this composition, the composition has not been known to be sung popularly.

However, we do have a record of Vidvan Madurai Somasundaram who had his tutelage under Chittoor Subramanya Pillai, rendering this composition. Let’s first hear out his version of ‘varadarAja ninnukOri’.

Watch the video of the garuda seva of Lord Varadaraja with Vidvan Somu’s rendering as the sound track.

Vidvan Somu’s rendering ( Video with footage of Lord Varadaraja’s Garuda seva)

Its fortuitous that he renders svaras for this composition @ vara tyAgarAja, providing additional insights for us. But first if we were look at the opening bars of the composition that he renders and then the reminder of the composition, it’s very obvious that:

The raga is sampurna having all svaras of the mela 22 having SNDP, PMGRS and SRS, SGRS and SGMPDNS
He does not render the carana line “nirjarulanu tArakamulalO candruDai merayaduvaTa”.
His articulation of the mettu/music of the sahitya ‘vacciti’ of the Pallavi line or the ‘daramugAdata’ is not clear at all, which could have thrown light on the purvanga prayoga, whether it is SRGMP or SGMP.
While he rounds up the pallavi rendering between 0.47 to 0.52, he lends a touch of Anandabhairavi suggesting SGRGM.
Similarly, in the tAra stayi uttaranga sancharas at ‘cutti cutti’ or ‘garuda sEva’ is clearly suggestive only of SRS or SGRS. And in the svarakalpana he renders SGMP (an oscillated gandhara much like in Anandabhairavi) in the madhya sthayi and again SGRS in the tAra sthayi.

Leaving aside other factors, his rendering enables us to place the contours of this raga as per his pAtham as under:

Arohana krama: S G R G M P D N S

Avarohana krama: S N D P M G R S

In other words, the melody he paints is a raga of mela 22 with a vakra gandhara in the arohana and a krama sampurna avarohana, without any anya svaras.

Now with this first version of the composition let us move to the next one presented by Sangita Kalanidhi M S Gopalakrishnan. The source of his pAtham of the composition is unknown.

The following points emerge from his presentation.

His version stands out for the use of the oscillated sadharana gandhara through the “GMR” prayoga, a staple of the Kapi/Kanada family. SGMP also occurs which impart the Devagandharam flavour to the alapana.
In the kriti rendering as well he uses the GMRS. Attention is invited to the pallavi closing ahead of the anupallavi commencement and the tAra sthAyi at the anupallavi sahitya section ‘cutti cutti’.
SNDP is the way the pallavi begins. GMPDNS and such other prayogas native to the 22 mela occur otherwise. MRS or GMRS is the way the avarohana krama progresses as is obvious from the svara kalpana as well.

In sum, this version of the raga and the kriti as painted by the violin virtuoso, provides us the melodic contours as:

Arohana krama : S G M P D N S

Avarohana krama : S N D P M G M R S

The gandhara intoned in this version is of two types – one which occurs as GMPDNS and the other which occurs in the GMRS reminiscent of the kAnadA ang/motif native to the Kapi family. In contrast to Vidvan Madurai Somasundaram’s version, Sri MSG’s version though adopting apparently the same svara sets, imparts a different hue and color, due to the GMRS that occurs in his conception. Again, to reiterate we have no clue as to the source of Sri MSG’s pAtam and whether it has nexus to any of the main schools of Tyagaraja’s sishya parampara namely Walajapet, Umayalpuram or Tillaistanam.

We now move to the version of this composition by vocalist Vidushi Dr Vijayalakshmi Subramanian.

Video recording from her Kshetra series concert is here.

She begins with SNDP and uses SGMP for ‘vacciti’ in the pallavi. The gandhara occurring in the madhya stayi sounds like the one in Karnataka devagandharam and the tara stayi usage of GMRS at cutti cutti is the kAnada motif.
Her rendering is more disjointed making the purvanga, uttaranga on one hand and the mandhara, Madhya and tara stayis on the other hand sound like different raga sets giving the impression of a misra raga rather than a cohesive/singular melody
In the kalpana svara section the MRS sounds more like MGS. Her version is proximate to Sri MSG’s edition using the same svara sets. However, Sri MSG’s conception is apparently more homogenous for the ears.

ANALYSIS OF THESE RENDERINGS:

In the first cut of the analysis, one can clearly say that Vidvan Somasundaram’s edition is one bucket while the editions of Sri MSG and Dr Vijayalakshmi Subramanian is clearly of the second bucket. The versions of Sri MSG as well as Smt Vijayalakshmi Subramanian suggests that present day available editions that we hear are most possibly interpretations of available notations by the individual musicians. In other words, they learnt it from text and their reproduction is constrained by the initial conditions – the fidelity and correctness of the raga, it lakshana and the notation, from the book they learnt.

There are a few initial conditions/caveats that hold true for our discussion:

The raga name Svarabhushani or its melodic contours suggested by prevailing musical texts beginning with Nadamuni Panditar are of recent 20^th century vintage only.
This raga name does not figure in the Sangraha Cudamani. Given that Tyagaraja did not assign raga names to his compositions, the absence of the lakshana of ‘svarabUshani’ in Sangraha Cudamani makes it clear that in this case the assignment of the raga name was clearly a very late 19^th century or early 20^th century development at best.
Using the rendering available in the public domain of a composition, it is likely that the notional mela and arohana/avarohana krama that was implicit in the melodic fabric of this Tyagaraja composition under question was perhaps determined at that point in time.
A perusal of historical records particularly musical books published during late 19^th century and early 20^th century validates the fact that ragas which were not as popular/well known/common as Sankarabharanam, Todi, Bhairavi, Sriranjani etc couldn’t be identified by them. The publishers of these printed musical books simply left it unspecified by giving the raga name ‘apurUpam’ or ‘rare’. Such was the state of our knowledge and capability from a musical publishing standpoint. Critics of the past century like Sri K V Ramachandran in their presentations before the Music Academy highlighted the need to research and catalogue the compositions and the correct ragas thereof of Tyagaraja. (See foot note 1)
Given the situation the true melodic contours of a raga of Tyagaraja’s composition can be gauged only by triangulating/reconciling the three inputs namely:
1. available notations from authentic sources & lakshana commentary of any from Sangraha Cudamani/Andhra edition of a document called Ragalakshanam
2. renderings of vidvans/vidushis who learnt it through the oral tradition route
3. the internal evidence if any within the composition with minimum but plausible assumptions.
There seem to be no dependable research material or proper research done on this subject, for us to rely upon. See foot note 2.

SOME PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS:

This section and the next completely reflects my view point of this entire problem. Additional facts or authentic versions if any unknown till date, if made available can potentially help in resetting our findings/conclusions. With the available data so far, the following conclusions could be drawn based on the musical material on hand.

The point that the raga name ‘Svarabhushani’ is missing from the listing in Sangara Cudamani makes it clear that the raga of the composition is suspect at the very outset. Most possibly the melody of this composition is already one which is found in the Sangraha Cudamani and is not Svarabhushani.
The analysis of the available recordings as that of Vidvan Somu, Sri M S Gopalakrishnan (MSG) or Smt Vijayalakshmi Subramanian(VS) do not reconcile against each other for many different reasons:
The contours of the raga itself differ considerably as between Vidvan Somu and the rest.
The versions of Sri MSG and Smt VS employ SGMP and PMRS which do not provide a homogenous color to the raga nor does it appear facile. The artistes seem to have learnt it from notation intoning the notes as is and thus constrained by the nature of the source and its fidelity. The contours that they paint also lack musical authority from any known musicological text.
Available notations too seem to have reconciled the composition to the prescribed scale. Who assigned this composition to this scale and/or who prescribed the arohana avarohana of SGMPDNS/SNDPMRS remains cloaked in mystery. We do have texts which give SNPMGMRS as avarohana krama.
Even notations appear suspect and seem to have been written down from oral tradition without having clarity of the source. For example, the available notations do not seem to prescribe gandhara in the Madhya sthayi sancaras whereas the gandhara makes it appearance in the tAra sthAyi through the GMRS phrase (e.g the sahitya. “cutti cutti” in the anupallavi). The notation seems to have been written from a source who perhaps did not properly render the tAra stayi phrases. The kriti even with the GMRS does not seem to belong to Kapi clan ragas as well such as Karnataka Kapi or Kanada, Durbar and their ilk. The aural effect, one can feel is that the gandhara appears to have been “thrust” into this composition. Vidvan Somu’ version sadly seems to be no better on this count as well. For the moment, we may treat this point as a hypothesis and we will revisit this point in a little while, as it will prove a clincher for us in determining the “possible true raga” of ‘varadarAja ninnEkOri’.

SVARABUSHANI IS NOT THE RAGA OF THE COMPOSITION

Armed with this provisional finding I embarked on getting hold of an older rendering possibly of the composition which could provide a clue as to the true raga of this composition. And help came from not from our world of classical music but from unexpected quarters. The composition was part of the Telugu musical cinema ‘tyAgayya’ starring V Nagayya of 1945 vintage. This movie being a bio-pic of Saint Tyagaraja, featured more than 20 of the his compositions.

The entire movie can be viewed here: Movie

The musical tracks featuring Tyagaraja’s compositions are marked in the progress bar of the movie.

While serious researchers can embark on determining the pAtham of the compositions in detail along with the sahitya and attempt it match it to a specific school of Tyagaraja’s, but for the purposes of the analysis on hand, a quick & dirty summary/high level assessment tells us a number of facts:

All the compositions featured in the movie are of impeccable authenticity. None can be doubted as not being of Tyagaraja’s/spurious.
One can reasonably surmise that given the attention the movie could have garnered, the choices of the compositions and their version must have been of the highest order. If not, they can potentially attract adverse criticism and or reviews.
The melodic constructs of the commonly heard compositions, tracks to the classical versions and no dilution could potentially be imputed to the renderings.
As a caveat, it must be acknowledged that the renderings in the movie do have, what I prefer to call as ‘desi’ quality. They are not pure concert-editions and are more ‘bhajana-sampradaya’ version. And thus, here and there they sport melodic extensions or a few sangathis which may not be completely aligned to the classical lakshana of the raga. In other words, given the source (cinema), one could & should anticipate a few phrases here and there which may not be kosher from the point of view of the classical definition of the raga.

Subject to these disclaimer(s) the musical idea, skeleton or musical construct of a composition sung in this film/available in the musical track of this movie, can (in my opinion) be used as evidence/input to determine the raga contour of that composition.

Here is the Youtube track of the video of the particular song: varadarAja

The audio track of the song is given below:

The analysis of the rendering of ‘varadarAja ninnEkOri’ from the film Tyagayya reveals the following:

The core melody is unquestionably the raga Devamanohari as one can hear. The elements of the raga are all there.
It conforms to the 22 mela, without any gandhara. The usage of the leitmotif DNP which for example appears at “ninnEkOri’ and other places makes it obvious. We do not see any SGM or GMRS anywhere in the melodic body.
The gamut of the raga in the Madhya sthayi captured by the initial sangatis of the pallavi line and the anupallavi line ‘varnimpa taramu gAdhada’ is plain unadulterated Devamanohari.
The suspect tAra sancara movements at ‘chUti chUti’ does not paint an outright R..MRS which is what I referred to as ‘dEsI’ in its presentation/intonation. I suspect that these so called prayogas could have found its way to popular/mass version of the song and thus becoming a “corrupted” version of the composition.
These suspect musical expressions together with certain prayogas such as SNDP in certain sangathis can be safely isolated as ‘’subsequently injected aberrations”, for Tyagaraja could not have created his composition with questionable phrases (SNDNP and SNDP in the same breath) that too in a raga of hoary antiquity.
One can safely conclude that the core musical material of the song is Devamanohari and that must have been original raga of the song.
The raga of the version presented by Sri MSG and Smt VS seems very contrived and artificial and no wonder the theoretical progression of that melody SGMPDNS/SNDPMRS did not at all gain traction as the resulting melody was not homogenous. Neither do we have any other compositions in this scale today. This is an aesthetic/harmonic aspect which can only be sensed & concluded aurally.
Moreover, the foregoing makes one to logically conclude that the available notation too may have been derived from a corrupted version of the composition. The film version that we saw perhaps represents a least corrupted version of the composition as available to us.
Devamanohari is an old raga recorded by Tulaja and Sahaji during the early 18^th century. However it is sad, but true that during the late 19^th and early 20^th century, the raga Devamanohari was not known to a good proportion of the public. So much so many of the publications during that period simply labelled compositions in Devamanohari as ‘apuroopam’ or rare. The available copies of these publications are mute witness today to this blissful ignorance. The famous music critic Sr K V Ramachandran laments on the very same point in his seminal lecture/research paper titled ‘Apurva Ragas of Tyagaraja’ & “Carnatic angles from a new angle’- presented in the portals of the Music Academy decades ago. He mourns that the Bard’s compositions were normalized/mutilated by teachers of music and publishers as well, to standard versions based on their own knowledge with scant respect for textual tradition.

And in this instant case, based on the available evidence and the logic that we have employed, we can conclude the possible sequence of events that came about as under:

The melodic construct of this composition got corrupted due to abuse or disuse making the composition rare.
It came to be assigned a brand-new raga name ‘Svarabushani’ by editors/teachers who perhaps were impervious of Devamanohari and/or were they never knew the true & original melody of the composition, sometime during the latter half of the 19^th century/early 20^th century.
While the mainstream 20^th century musicians totally forgot the raga & the composition, it possibly survived in a corrupted form in the oral tradition such as the one captured in the movie made in 1946.
Later day publishers probably got only these corrupted versions to notate which meant that they retrofitted a raga name for the corrupted version, for example accommodate only the tara gandhara phrases and hence normalized the body of the melody to create a brand-new raga SGMPDNS and SNDPMRS, without rhyme or reason. This line of reasoning is not novel and has been documented/seen in compositions such as ‘nagumOmU ganalEnI”, “sOgasu jUda taramA”, “nannu kanna talli’ et al.
The original score of the composition being lost, the composition today appears in a famished melody which lacks textual tradition, did not gain traction or public appeal.

On the left is the cover and on the right is the relevant page of the publication ‘sangIta nunmanimAlai’ featuring the compositions of TyAgaraja, published in 1908.The right page features the text of the composition ‘evarikai avatAramEtithivO’ for which the rAga name is given as ‘apurUpam’ or rare in Tamil)

In the light of the reasoning as above and unless we have further credible facts to rebut, the raga of the composition can only be presumed to be in Devamanohari. And the lyrics of the composition below as available from the music track seem to be most appropriate.

వరదరాజనిన్నేకోరి వచ్చితిరామ్రొక్కేరా
varadarAja ninnE kOri vaccitira mrokkErA (varadarAja)

సురులుమునులుభూసురులు చుట్టిచుట్టిసేవించే
surulu munulu bhUsurulU chUti chUti sEvincE (varadarAja)

వరగిరివైకుంటమటవర్ణింపతరముగాదట
varagiri vaikunta matA varnimpa taramuga dhadA

నిర్జరులనుతారకములలోచంద్రుడైమెరయుదువట
nirjarulanu tArakalalO candrudai nErayulu vata

వరత్యాగరాజసుతగరుడసేవజూడ
vara tyAgarAja nuta garuda sEva jUda srI (varadarAja)

And much after I done this deduction I stumbled upon this presentation of the Tyagaraja composition by the scion of the Lalgudi sishya parampara of Tyagaraja, Sri G J R Krishnan.

Sri Krishnan renders the composition here in the company of Vidushi Vijayalakshmi which I have split into two parts.

Apparently in deference to tradition which assigns the raga name of Svarabhushani, at the outset the Vidvan announces the raga name as is, perhaps. But in his raga outline, the composition proper and the ensuing svarakalpana there is no doubt that the raga is Devamanohari. There is no gandhara “heard”at all, not even a trace of it anywhere in his rendering. SNDP occurs prominently both at the start of the pallavi and the anupallavi. Contrastingly the V Nagayya film edition started with PDNS. According to the pAtham of Sri G J R Krishnan, the raga’s kramA is SGMPDNS/SNDPMRS. If one were to reconcile the intonation of the gandhara and account for it, the explanation is perhaps it is so oscillated & close to rishabha.

It can also be argued that for all practical purposes the Swarabhushani in this edition is practically SRMPDNS/SNDPMRS, a gandhara varjya janya under Mela 22 with SNDNP occurring here and there. But that would beg the question ‘Does that make this raga any different from Devamanohari?’ Is there any textual authority for such a scale in our history so far?

One other version that can be considered is by Vidvan Nookala Chinna Satyanarayana given below.

The kriti rendering as well as the svaras can be dissected on the above lines and conclusions can be drawn. Again the authority for the SGMPDNS/SNDPMRS, the raga lakshana, the presence or absence of the gandhara, its intonation etc lack authority, textual or otherwise.

‘vAradarAja ninnEkOri’ is thus a classic case where in the absence of a supposed authority like Sangraha Cudamani or an authentic pAtham with considerable authority, we have struggled & are struggling to determine the contours of the raga. The presence or absence of the gandhara is the real clue but eludes a determination.

Actually, the solution to this question/struggle is rather straightforward . The raga is Devamanohari and we have to edit the available closest version of the song to the lakshana of this hoary raga, eschewing all ‘non-Devamanohari’ phrases/sangatis (particularly SNDP) and attempt to recreate a close to possibly original version.

This is the complication we have had with our tradition/past and I think we would continue with that without any resolution. In so far as this composition goes, it is my humble opinion that it was once a upon a time Devamanohari. An improperly sung Devamanohari down the line much later from the times of Tyagaraja has been legitimized over time by providing a name to it (as Svarabhushani) without any authority whatsoever with poor manuscript copying and careless publication and/or propagation causing all these dissimilar copies/versions. Some versions/pAthams included the gandhara. Some excluded it. And thus, today it speaks of the poor fidelity with which the compositions of the Saint have been transmitted over the centuries.

We also saw the similar cases of Natanarayani/Pratapavarali (how the p/S and S\p of Natanarayani morphed to PDS and SDP) and Sindhu Kannada/ Kesari/Sharavathi (how the D1/N1 morphed) in our previous blogs. The pattern keeps repeating and now these confusions are part and parcel of our tradition. We also touched upon this in the context of the previous blog on 18^th century raga architecture when we dealt with Devamanohari itself.

I am atleast fortified in this aspect that this modern-day version of Vidvan G J R Krishnan stands as a solid proof that the melodic fabric of this raga is Devamanohari and not a scalar melody theoretically derived by Nadamuni Panditar decades after Tyagaraja had passed away.

I now leave this for the rumination of a discerning rasika of our music.

EPILOGUE:

The story for me did not end here. Whence investigating this there were at least a couple of more problems which were potential loose ends which had to be ironed out.

The prAsA concordance of the carana lyric – line starting “nIrjarulanu” was an irritant. Potentially the ‘nIr’ had to figure as the ending sahitya for the previous line/previous rupaka tala avarta. But it cannot be accommodated within the tala akshara as the previous line sahitya itself was dense enough.
Coincidentally the Walajapet manuscripts had an extra line added in its running notation as “marudu siggu cE mandarara Athadu”which did not make meaningful sense. See foot note 3.

What these two points meant was potentially, the original composition had 4 rupaka tAla avartas worth of sahitya which were probably left out when the manuscript was copied. And the melodic flow of the composition had to be reorganized to accommodate these lines which can be done using the running notation found in the manuscripts themselves. This sahitya as available from the Walajapet manuscripts had to be edited to mean correctly in the context of the composition as well. See foot note 4.

The revised (edited) sahitya/lyrics for the entire composition and the meaning are given below: (See foot note 5)

Pallavi:

వరదరాజనిన్నేకోరి వచ్చితిరామ్రొక్కేరా
varadarAja ninnE kOri vaccitira mrokkErA (varadarAja)

Meaning: O Varadaraja! I have come seeking you. I salute you!

Anupallavi:

సురులుమునులుభూసురులు చుట్టిచుట్టిసేవించే
surulu munulu bhUsurulU chUti chUti sEvincE (varadarAja)

Meaning: O the one whom the Devas, rishis & denizens of the earth surround and worship.

Caranam:

వరగిరివైకుంటమటవర్ణింపతరముగాదట
varagiri vaikunta matA varnimpa taramuga dhadA

Hasthigiri (Kanchipuram, referred to here as the sacred giri) is considered equal to Vaikuntham and beyond all description.

మరుడుసిగ్గుచే ముందురాడట

marudu siggucE mundhu rAdata (nir)

Manmatha abashed by your beauty hesitates to come forward.

నిర్జరులనుతారకములలోచంద్రుడైమెరయుదువట

-jarulanu tArakalalO candrudai nErayulu vata

Amidst the stellar assemblage of the Devas you shine like the moon.

వరత్యాగరాజసుతగరుడసేవజూడ
vara tyAgarAja nuta garuda sEva jUda srI (varadarAja)

O the one worshipped by Tyagaraja,I have come to have darshan of the Garuda Seva.

CONCLUSION:

As we saw both the textual tradition as evidenced by the notations on one hand and the oral traditions on the other provided discordant views to us as to the correct raga and mettu/musical contours of ‘varadarAja ninnEkOri’. The analysis based on available evidence indicates a balance of convenience in favour of Devamanohari.

What has been attempted is an amateur/armchair effort to uncover the truth from diverging musical material and history. It is fervently hoped that issues like these are taken up by professional/qualified researchers and the same goes to add to our body of knowledge so that students and serious listeners of music get the correct perspectives as to the versions of the compositions of the Trinity.

FOOTNOTES:

There are very many articles and also lecture-demonstrations done on the subject of ragas of the compositions of Tyagaraja as given in pre-1930 publications and the dichotomy it has with the ragas that are actually sung in practice. Many of the items listed, would leave us agitated. While it is true that quite a few compositions suffered a change in the raga, ragas of well know compositions are printed differently in these texts. During the Dec 2016 Music Season Festival of the Madras Music academy atleast a couple of lecture demonstrations were done on this subject including one by Dr Hemalatha. The to be released JMA of 2017 would have that recorded. From the past one such example of a tabulation of the list of compositions whose actual currently rendered ragas is different from what appears in pre-1930 publications is by Smt.Radha Sarangapani in the Shanmukha (Vol XXXIII No 3& 4, July-Sep & Oct-Dec 2007). Suffice to say that the ragas of compositions listed in the publications and the actual ragas as per the authentic sishya paramparas in practice, manuscripts of the Walajapet Sishya parampara or of Chinnasvami Mudaliar or Subbarama Dikshitar as available should be compared before drawing a conclusion as to the actual raga of those compositions.
The current state of musicological research more so in the context of this raga and composition can be rated by the Ph.D thesis ‘Rare and New ragas handled by Tyagaraja- A critical Study’, submitted at the Department of Music, Kannur University available here. In Chapter 3 of this thesis on pages 117-118, this raga ‘Swarabhushani’ and the composition ‘varadaraja ninnukori’ is dealt with by the Researcher.

At the outset, the Researcher provides the arohana/avarohana of the raga as under, on the authority of Nadamuni Panditar.

Arohana – s g m p d n s

Avarohana – s n p m g m r s

Attention is invited to the lack of dhaivatha in the avarohana krama as provided. Providing the narrative of the exemplar kriti, the Researcher goes on to say that Tyagaraja brings in the phrase ‘s n d p, m’ even at the beginning. Mark the dhaivatha that makes its appearance now. What is the researcher trying to convey? Is there a dhaivatha in the descent or not. So much for the Researcher, the Guide and the Thesis. Such is the pitiable state of our research, academia and institutions. Not that I am nit-picking selectively from this so-called thesis. One can also find innumerable such faux pas. The raga Vegavauhini dealt with in page 141-142 suffers a similar fate. A reading of the passage thereunder will convey that Muthusvami Dikshitar composed in Vegavauhini with an arohana krama of SRGMPDNDS!

I am thankful to Sri Aravindh Ranganathan for providing me with his copy of the extract of the notation of this composition as seen in the Walajapet manuscripts.
A perusal of the Walajapet notation taking into account the defective sahitya, perhaps makes one surmise that the kriti was perhaps not part of the core set of compositions which was learnt/notated originally by Venkataraman Bagavathar. It is most likely that somebody subsequent to Walajapet Venkataraman Bagavathar in his sisya parampara must have heard this being sung from some others and must have then notated it as a part of their digest/record of Tyagaraja compositions. Walajapet Venkataramana Bagavathar himself was proficient in Telugu and also a composer of merit. And it would be rather unfair to tag the kriti with a defective sahitya line to his repository. If he had learnt it originally from the Bard himself, he for sure would have notated it correctly to make a proper meaning of the sahitya.
I am indebted to Spencer Sri R Venugopal for helping me to understand the lyrical aspect of the composition and editing the Telugu lyrics suitably to make it meaningful, particularly the missing carana line of the composition.

History, Personalities

Obeisance to a Holy Benefactor

December 3, 2016June 28, 2023 by ravi rajagopalan

INTRODUCTION:

For us in the 21^st century world of music the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (SSP) of Subbarama Dikshitar published in 1904 is a true and invaluable magnum opus. The SSP offers a peek into the music of yore, the music of the 18^th century, capturing in its pages the very essence of it. And we are in great debt to Subbarama Dikshitar, the scion of the Dikshitar family for having bequeathed to us the tome. Apart from Subbarama Dikshitar, we have seen in past blog posts that there are a number of benefactors who have directly and indirectly assisted Subbarama Dikshitar when he compiled the SSP. The Royals of Ettayapuram who funded the publication, Cinnasvami Mudaliar the man who assiduously followed up to seek the intervention of the Raja of Ettayapuram to issue a Royal edict commanding Subbarama Dikshitar to publish all that he knew, the personages whom Subbarama Dikshitar mentions in his preface to the SSP as having been of great assistance to him, to them all we owe a great debt of gratitude as they were our benefactors in every conceivable way.

But there is one benefactor who stands out, but not mentioned formally anywhere and not connected at all directly in the entire exercise of the compilation of the SSP, which was started sometime 1899 and finished in 1904. In fact this personage had passed way close to a decade earlier in 1891 itself. He is none other than His Holiness Sudarsana Mahadevendra Sarasvati, the 65^thAcharya of the Kanci Kamakoti Peeta who adorned the same during 1850-1891 AD.

Subbarama Dikshitar records in his two works, SSP -Vaggeyakara Caritamu and in his Prathamabhyasa Pustakamu that he is in gratitude to this 65^th Acharya of the Kanci Kamakoti Peeta Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati as he had provided the original manuscripts pertaining to the Caturdandi Prakashika to him at Kumbakonam. His narration both in his own biographic note as well as in the foot note to the Gamakakriya raga gitam in the Prathamabhyasa Pustakamu bears this out.

His Holiness Sri Sudarsana Mahadevendra Sarasvati was anointed as Peetadhipati/Pontiff on November 27, 1850 (tamil/lunar month of karthigai, 14^th). This week marks the 166^th Anniversary of the Acharya’s ascension/peetArohana as a Pontiff of the Kanci Kamakoti Peetam. In this blog post we will look at this great Acharya with emphasis from a musical standpoint and Subbarama Dikshitar’s paeans on this Acharya who was an acknowledged rasika & patron of our music.

He is/will be referred to interchangeably in this blog and also in all books and in the compositions on him as Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati or Sri Mahadeva Sarasvati or Sri Sudarsana Mahadevendra Sarasvati Samyameendra.

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF HIS HOLINESS MAHADEVENDRA SARASVATI:

The Acharya in his pUrvAsrama was named Mahalingam. He was born in Tiruvidaimarudur, which is very near Kumbakonam, in the year 1831 where he grew up. His father Sesha(dri) Sastrigal, a rigvEdin being his tutor, taught him all that he knew. Mahalingam’s paternal grandfather Subramanya Sastri, a Hoysala/Kannada Brahmin was the Mudradhikari – the person in charge of the treasury/finances of the Kanci Kamakoti Mutt, which was then quartered at Kumbhakonam. This family hailed from Kannada region and they were descendants of Govinda Dikshitar. See foot note 1.

Mahalingam was extremely precocious and his knowledge, personality and spiritual profile drew the admiration of many. Not surprisingly the young boy’s capabilities reached the ears of the then Acharya His Holiness Chandrasekharendra Sarasvathi VI (pontificate 1813-1850). This reigning 64^th Acharya was in his purvasrama named Venkatasubramanya Dikshita and was himself a direct descendant of Venkatamakhin, the third son of Govinda Dikshitar. Given his/common background and credentials, the 64^th Acharya bade Mahalingam to be part of his entourage. So impressed was the Acharya that shortly thereafter the he must have decided that he should succeed him next. Subsequently the hardly 15 year old Mahalingam was ordained into sanyAsA as Sudarsana Mahadevendra Sarasvati sometime circa 1843.

Between the years 1845 and 1850, the young disciple/Junior Pontiff/successor designate, His Holiness Sri Sudarsana Mahadevendra Sarasvati performed great service to the cause of religion and the Kamakoti Peeta much to the delight of his Guru. The Royals of those time as well as the ordinary public, the followers of the Matha and also learned scholars, musicologists and musicians were drawn to him. We do have records of the communication in the form of epistles written by Maharaja Svati Tirunal Rama Varma of Travancore (1813-1846), a musician/musicologist himself, to Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati, even while he was still a successor designate. Svati Tirunal presented an elephant to His Holiness as an offering to Lord Chandramouleesvara.

svatiletter — Maharaja Svati Tirunal’s epistle to His Holiness Mahadevendra Sarasvati sent circa 1844

It is apparent from the letter that His Holiness desired to visit the holy shrine of Lord Padmanabha and the Maharaja earnestly wishes in his communication that it will be fulfilled in the very near future. His Highness remarks in the first epistle that once the ongoing monsoon/rainy season concludes he would dispatch a young elephant as an offering to Lord Chandramouleesvara the presiding deity of the Acharyas of Kanchi. And he does that soon after as evidenced by his second epistle. See foot note 2.

It must have been a source of great joy for venerated seer, the 64^th Pontiff Sri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati VI to see his ward/disciple playing a great role and vindicating the choice that was made to anoint him successor. The Acharyas of Kanci had been discharging the sacred duty of replacing the tATankAs of Goddess Akhilandesvari at TiruAnaikAval, replacing it once every 60 years. In the year 1848 when the incumbent Pontiff Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati VI embarked on performing the same, many an obstacle arose. His disciple perhaps rose to the occasion by meticulously planning and conducting the event. See foot note 3 & 4.

When his Guru attained samadhi on Nov 21, 1850 at Kumbakonam, His Holiness Sri Sudarsana Mahadevendra Sarasvati became the 65^th Pontiff in the hoary lineage of the SankarAcharyas of Kanci. Maharaja Sivaji of the Tanjore Kingdom held him in high reverence and performed kanakAbhisheka to this seer. Years later the Raja of Pudukottai also performed kanakabhisheka as well. The Royals of Travancore, Zamorin of Calicut, Satara, Pudukkottai and Ettayapuram were devout followers of this Acharya and they all contributed to the sustenance of the Kanci matha/monastery.

His Holiness during his lifetime performed Vijaya Yatras and visited many places in modern Tamil Nadu and also Vijayanagaram in Andhra Pradesh and Puri in Orissa. He was feted by the Maharaja of Vijayanagaram Ananda Gajapati Raju in July 1885 (Subbarama Dikshitar in his Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini – Anubandha gives a ragamalika that he had composed on this ruler).

Accounts have it that this Acharya was a great Siva bhakta and his puja to Sri Chandramouleesvara during the Pradosha days, was a sight to behold. Dr U Ve Svaminatha Iyer in his chronicles has mentioned about this Acharya and his awe inspiring presence.

Apart from agamas, sastras and puranas, this Acharya was very knowledgeable in music apparently and he patronized a number of musicians with whom he enjoyed great rapport. A galaxy of musicians including some of the greatest of that era were patronized by His Holiness and were part of his sangita vidvat sadas/gathering. In the next section we will look at the key contributions of the Acharya to the cause of Music.

ilayathangudi-epitaph-found-on-the-tombstone — Epitaph at the samadhi of His Holiness Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati at Ilayathangudi, Ramanathapuram Dt

During the Acharya’s southern sojourn, circa 1889 after visiting Ramesvaram he visited Ettayapuram where he was again ceremoniously welcomed by the then Raja Rama Venkatesvara Ettappa, who was then a minor. Records have it that a tamil poet attached to the Court of Ettayapuram composed verses in His honor. Needless to add, Subbarama Dikshitar too must have been in attendance during the Acharya’s visit. This Rajah of Ettayapuram was the one who ascended the throne later in 1899 upon attaining majority and he was the one who funded the publication of the SSP.

In early 1890 when the Acharya was in Ilayaatangudi, a village about 20 kms near Karaikudi, Sivaganga District in southern Tamilnadu, he had a premonition of his approaching end. He attained beatitude on 20^th March 1890 (tamil/lunar month of panguni the 8^th). His mortal remains interned in the Samadhi there, is today an adhishtAnam with a sivalinga installed atop. The premises has been taken care by the Nattukkotai Nagarathar clan who had revered him and one can visit the shrine even today. See foot note 5 10, 11.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE 65^th ACHARYA HIS HOLINESS SUDARSANA MAHADEVENDRA SARASVATI:

A study of the Acharya’s divyacarita, makes us realize a number of his contributions to the cause of music which are listed below.

PATRON OF MUSIC:

Much like a patron Royal, this great Acharya was also a great connoisseur of music. He must have been well versed in musicology as well. Never in the history of the monastic orders of Southern India in recent history has an Acharya of such eminence been sung about much and known for hosting the great musicians of his era in his vidvat sadas. Available records indicate that the musicians who flocked to him included Veena Subbukutty Ayya (vaineeka and grandson of Patchimiriyam Adiyappayya and the asthana vidvan of Pudukkottai) Tirumalairayan pattinam Ramudu Bhagavathar, Tirukkadaiyur Bharati (disciple of Muthusvami Dikshitar), Subbarama Dikshitar, Mysore Sadasiva Rao, Kavi Kunjara Bharati and others.

A number of musicians during that age apparently vied with one another in performing before the Acharya. Old timers of those days apparently recalled time and again in awe one such recital with a spellbinding rendering of a pallavi complete with neraval, svarakalpana etc by the legendary Vidvan Talaignyayar Somu Iyer ( refer the book ‘Cameos – The Memoirs of Sulamangalam Vaidyanatha Bagavathar, pp 96-97, for a profile of this vidvan) one evening during the evening/sAyaraksha puja performed by the Acharya to Lord Chandramouleesvara. Vidvans including Padakam Gopala Iyer, Fiddle Tirukkodikaval Krishna Iyer, Svaragat Krishna Iyer, Dholak Nannumiya regularly performed for the Acharya.

It is also said that the Acharya was greatly enamoured of the compositions of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra and he used to immerse himself in the renderings by vidvans. He also used to emphasise the importance of maintaining the fidelity of the compositions and frequently provide a commentary on the sahitya & its meaning.

SETTING THE TUNES FOR ASTAPADIS:

Acharya was instrumental in re-popularizing the singing of the Gitagovinda Ashtapadis of Jayadeva which had nearly gone extinct during those times, circa 1860. The older tunes of the Ashtapadis had been long forgotten and the practice of reciting the same particularly in the bhajana sampradaya had virtually ceased. The Acharya got Tirumalairajanpattinam Ramudu Bhagavathar to set the Ashtapadis to an appropriate raga and tala.

PROVIDING THE COPY OF THE CATUDANDI PRAKASHIKA OF VENKATAMAKHIN TO SUBBARAMA DIKSHITAR:

Subbarama Dikshitar the scion of the Dikshitar family and a votary of the Venkatamakhin tradition circa 1860’s was on the mission to acquire the original manuscripts of the Caturdandi Prakshika. From his own family he had inherited a number of musicological texts and also the exemplar compositions of Muthusvami Dikshitar which practically illustrated the schemata of ragas, of what we call today as the later Kanakambari nomenclature or the so-called Asampurna mela scheme. Subbarama Dikshitar perhaps did not possess the complete framework for the scheme and he perhaps only had only portions or parts of the Caturdandi Prakashika and the document/text which today we call as the Anubandha to the Caturdandi Prakashika. It is likely that when Subbarama Dikshitar evaluated all the texts he had and the practical exemplars of the scheme of ragas through the compositions of Muthusvami Dikshitar, he found gaps between the theory and practice. He perceived therefore that he did not have the complete theoretical basis or the complete manuscript of the Caturdandi Prakashika which he knew was the holy grail of the Venkatamakhin Sampradaya to which his ancestors as well as himself, were followers. See foot note 6.

To this end to secure the original manuscripts, circa 1864 he set about scouring the town of Kumbhakonam and Tiruvaidaimarudur /Madhyarjunam where most of the Hoysala/Kannada Brahmins had settled down, particularly those who were descendants of Govinda Dikshitar/Venkatamakhin. The 64^th Acharya, Chandrasekarendra Sarasvati VI whom we saw earlier, in His purvasrama was born and he lived in a house very adjacent to the Sankara Matam premises in Kumbakonam and was a direct descendent of Venkatamakhin himself.

Subbarama Dikshitar’s objective must have been to tap the heirlooms of these families/descendants and get a copy of the elusive original text of the Caturdandi Prakasika and related manuscripts if any. His search proved futile and needless to add he must have been dejected and crestfallen. At Kumbakonam, with all earnestness and sincerity at his command he placed his wish and quest to access the manuscripts to His Holiness Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati, whom he knew to be a descendant of the Govinda Dikshitar family in his purvasrama.

When Subbarama Dikshitar expressed his ask after seeking the permission of the Acharya, the Pontiff in his boundless Grace let him know that he had those manuscripts in his custody. Given both the Acharyas, the 64^th and the 65^th Pontiffs were from the Govinda Dikshitar/Venkatamakhin clan, we do not know for sure who had procured it and kept it in custody. Be that as it may, it must have been a moment of great joy and happiness that day at Kumbakonam circa 1865 for Subbarama Dikshitar when he was given the manuscripts by His Holiness.

The copy of the original manuscripts provided by His Holiness Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati is acknowledged by Subbarama Dikshitar both in the Vaggeyakara Caritamu and his Prathamabhyasa Pustakamu. Needless to add the manuscripts provided, must have given him the complete basis/foundation when he later created the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini, which is today the only lexicon of authentic 18^th century music for us capturing both the theory and practice of the music of Venkatamakhin Sampradaya.

One can imagine the shining countenance of the Acharya as he summoned the attendants in his entourage to fetch the manuscripts and Subbarama Dikshitar with all humility and respect, bowed reverentially in front of the Acharya all agog and excited beyond words to receive the manuscripts. Later in the day as he retired to his quarters provided by the Acharya for his stay in the premises of the Matha, it must have been sleepless night for Subbarama Dikshitar must have been too excited and filled with joy and contentment for he had achieved what he had set about to do.

And he must have spent the sleepless night, poring over the texts atleast as a cursory glance. And the next day when Subbarama Dikshitar must have gone to the Cauvery banks for his morning bath at the adjacent Bhagavath bathing ghat (paditturai in tamil) he must have started wondering how on earth he can ever repay the debt to this great mahatma who had granted his life’s wish. What is that he, Subbaraman can give to the Pontiff of a hoary monastic order, who had given up everything in life and donned the ochre? And then it must dawned on Subbarama Dikshitar that the best way would be etch this great personage forever in the fabric of our music by creating a couple of compositions as a paean on the Acharya Shresta. And the Acharya being the greatest of connoisseurs meant that he would cherish the same without doubt.

The more Subbarama Dikshitar thought about it the more convinced he was that no greater homage can ever be possible as the Acharya’s Grace and memory will stand reinforced and sung every time the composition is rendered for ages down the line.

And Subbarama Dikshitar must have given considerable thought to the raga and the composition type. A tana varna and a conventional kriti must has easily struck him as obvious ones. And as he decided to choose the ragas, he was in no doubt perhaps. They shall be old and hoary ragas, the greatest amongst melodies-Sankarabharanam and Ramakriya. And so he must have gone about fashioning them that early afternoon in Kumbakonam. As he composed the sahitya and notated it, he must have had his disciple perhaps by his side as a scribe who would have also been made to practice the pieces countless times to meet with the final approval of Subbarama Dikshitar who in turn must have also corrected it then and there to burnish the compositions to a perfect finish. In sum two brilliant compositions formed Subbarama Dikshitar’s offering to his benefactor.

kriti – ‘sankarAcAryaM’ in Sankarabharanam and Adi tAlA
tAna varnA – ‘srI kanci kAmakOti’ in Ramakriya and ata tAlA

Shortly thereafter, once Subbarama Dikshitar had gained the confidence that the pieces would secure expert approval he must have approached the Acharya perhaps with great trepidation after the evening puja, one of the following days in the Matha premises at Kumbakonam. With humility he must have submitted to him that he would like to debut the compositions he had newly created and must have sought the Acharya’s blessings, permission and direction.

Subbarama Dikshitar says in his own biography that he presented the two compositions to his Holiness in the presence of several other musical giants of that age, including Veena Subbukutty Ayya (vaineeka and grandson of Patchimiriyam Adiyappayya) Tirumalairayanpattinam Ramudu Bhagavathar and Tirukkadaiyur Bharati (disciple of Muthusvami Dikshitar), who were in the vidvat sadas. We do not know if he played it on the veena or he sang or did both or perhaps had one of his illustrious disciples to render it, we do not know. Nevertheless it must have been a defining moment in time for Subbarama Dikshitar for the occasion was truly momentous. Here he was in the possession of the long sought after manuscripts. He had the blessings of a great savant of those times. The compositions he had created in great debt and gratitude to this great benefactor had met with the approval of not only the Holiness but also of the musical greats of that era. Subbukutty Ayya or Thirukkadaiyur Bharathy must have been no ordinary personages. They were representing the old and hoary musical lineages of the past. It must have been truly euphoric for Subbarama Dikshitar and the effort in terms of both sahitya and melody he has invested in the two songs was monumental. Let’s partake the sweetness of that moment in time for Subbarama Dikshitar by celebrating it by hearing & relishing the renderings of these two classics.

ANALYSIS OF THE KRITIS & DISCOGRAPHY:

‘sankarAcAryam’ – Sankarabharanam – Adi tala

mahadevendrasarasvati — A photograph of “srImat paramahamsa parivrAjakAcArya srImat sankara bhagavatpAda pratishTita srI kAmakOti pItAdhIsvara srImat sudarshana mahadEvEndra sarasvatI samyamIndra”

The Sankarabharanam kriti was well known and was part of the repertoire of the Veena Dhanammal family. We do have a record of the 68^th Pontiff, the Paramacharya himself saying so as a part of his commentary on Muthusvami Dikshitar’s classic Kambhoji kriti ‘ Sri Subramanyaya namaste’. The web documents an instance of the Paramacharya, having given his commentary for three long hours on this kriti ‘sankarAcAryam’ which is recorded here. But sadly no details are available.

The meaning of the sahitya of the kriti is given in the footnote 7. A number of compositional features or alankaras/ornamentation which are signatures of Subbarama Dikshitar are found in this composition.

The kriti is constructed like a magnificent edifice. For example the pallavi section has three subsections to be rendered as if it were a refrain with ‘sankarAcAryam’. A similar construct can be seen in the Ahiri navAvaraNa kriti of Muthusvami Dikshitar which has 4 individual segments in the pallavi itself.
Both the anupallavi and the caranam are invested with distinct madhyama kAla sahityas.
The cittasvara section is uniquely constructed in two aspects:
- It is set in two avartas of adi tala. Assuming that the main composition is set to vilamba kAla, the the first avarta is set to the madhyamakAla just as the preceding madhyamakAla section of the carana beginning ‘karakalita danda’ while the second avarta is set to the druta kala, twice the speed of the previous avarta.
- The svaras forming part of the cittasvara section are arranged uniquely with the entire sequence of the first avarta, repeated in the first 4 aksharas of the second avarta at twice the speed and ending with a crowning makuta svara sequence.
In the pallavi,anupallavi and caranam he uses the words ‘pankajAta, ‘sankara’ and ‘parama’, repeatedly, a form of sabdalankara or ornamentation with words. One can find a similar device used by Subbarama Dikshitar for example in ‘pArthasArathini’ in Yadukulakambhoji.
The pallavi and anupallavi have a profusion of words ending with ‘ra’ while in the caranam they end with ‘lam’
The kriti has many P/s, S/s which has to be sung very inimitably.

We do have renderings of very many Vidvans and Vidushis of the composition including Sangita Kalanidhis Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer and Smt M S Subbulakshmi. Considering the authentic rendering which can be truly expected of the Veena Dhanammal lineage, presented below is the rendering by the doyenne Sangita Kalanidhi Smt T Brinda. In this excerpt from the National Program of Music for AIR, she is assisted by her daughter Smt Vegavahini Vijayaraghavan and by Kandadevi Alagiriswami on the Violin and Coimbatore Ramaswami on the mrudangam. She first prefaces the kriti with a succinct vinyasa of the raga and later at the caranam portion begining ‘parama jnAna’ in the rendering she performs neraval and svaraprastara as well.

In the SSP, Subbarama Dikshitar provides a cittasvara section as well for this composition, which is not rendered at all in the concert circuit. Presented below is a rendering of the same by me presented for the purposes of understanding the construction of the same.

‘Sri Kanci Kamakoti’ – Ramakriya – Ata tala:

Let us first look at the construction of the varNa. See foot note 8.

The varNa is found to be in the older format with a pallavi, anupallavi, muktAyi svara section with sahitya, carana, 5 ettugada svara section and an anubandha which has to be sung following the final ettugada svara section. After singing the anubandha, the anupallavi and the muktayi svara has to be sung before ending with the pallavi refrain.
As is his self-imposed norm, Subbarama Dikshitar makes the fourth carana ettugada svara section as sarva laghu.
Along with his other varnas in Balahamsa, Sahana, Durbar and Purnacandrika, Subbarama Dikshitar’s Ramakriya varna is the perfect example of an ideal varna replete with all the features and complete with all the melodic contours of the raga as aforesaid.
The anupallavi muktAyi svara section and its lilting sahitya captures all the salient features of Ramakriya.
The anubandha section features the sahitya ‘ srI cakrOdhAraka’ – an apparent reference to the Acharya being a Sri Vidya upasaka as well. We have records that on more than one occasion he had performed Sri Cakra puja. Given that Sir Subbarama Dikshitar was a Sri Vidya upasaka too, it is no surprise that the reference is made in the composition.

The text of the varNa and its meaning is provided in foot note 9.

Let us next look at the musical construct of the varna. The raga of this composition is Ramakriya or Kasiramakriya the raganga raga of the 51^st mela and it sports sadja, suddha rishabha, antara gandhara, prati madhyama, pancama, suddha dhaivatha and kakali nishadha. A very old and hoary raga of great antiquity, it was once known as Suddha Ramakriya. The name Ramakriya or Ramakriti was used for a scale known as Ramkali, a raga which is different in its scalar structure and also sported both the madhyamas. However Suddha Ramakriya and Kasiramakriya are today used synonymously with Ramakriya to refer to the raganga raga of the 51^st mela. Suffice to say that this raga is melodically very different from the heptatonic scale of mela 51 Kamavardhani which is also synonymously called as Pantuvarali today. Unfortunately today Ramakriya is all but forgotten and the melodic implementation of mela 51 as available today is the raga Pantuvarali, which is called so rightly or wrongly.

Ramakriya was not a linear svara implementation of the 51^st mela. Its melodic svarupa can never be explained with the modern arohana/avarohana constructs, a legacy of the Sangraha Cudamani. We can understand Ramakriya by evaluating the contours/melodic svarupa that Subbarama Dikshitar presents to us in the varna. One sees the following features in the varna.

Ramakriya’s salient murcchanas/motifs are SGRGMP, SRGMGR, GPD, dSR,Dgrs,SNDP, PMGR, DMGR, SDS.
If the arohana were to lead to the pancama then the route would be SGRGMP. If the movement from the sadja were to end with the gandhara or rishabha or back to sadja itself then SRGMGR appears. In other words SRGMP is never seen.
Nishadha is a very weak svara, langhana/skipped if not varjya. On a similar note PDNS is never seen. PDs is prolific in its usage. Neither does one see DNsrg as well. Nishada is significantly underplayed and it is never a graha, amsa or nyasa.
Also SNDP is not copious. Nishada varjya prayogas abound. dGRs leading from the madhya stayi dhaivata to tara gandhara is an oft repeated leitmotif.
GPD or GMD, DMGR , PGRS making the pancama or the madhyama langhana/skipping over is the norm in the raga.

Though in the SSP, the Muthusvami Dikshitar kriti ‘Uccishta ganapatou’ and the Purandara Dasa composed suladi are also given for this raga as exemplars, it is the varna of Subbarama Dikshitar which is the encyclopedia for us in understanding this old raga in its entirety.

A detailed analysis of the raga and the kriti exemplars will be dealt with in an upcoming blog post.

DISCOGRAPHY:

The varna to the best of knowledge is not part of the modern day repertoire. Very strangely it has never been known to be rendered at all, despite its beautiful structure. This observation would go for almost all of Subbarama Dikshitar’s varnas and sadly the loss is certainly ours. Given the lack of a recording, I have endeavored to learn and sing the same to the best of abilities, interpreting the notation found in the SSP.

OTHER COMPOSITIONS:

We do have compositions of Mysore Sadasiva Rao and couple of other anonymous compositions. Records from the early 20^th century reveal that there has been a number of compositions on this savant. Here is the listing.

Sl No	Kriti	Raga & tala	Composer	Remarks
1	Sri Sanmukha Janaka	Sankarabharanam – catusra Dhruva tala	Mysore Sadasiva Rao	The kriti is on Lord Chandramouleesvara the icon which is the puja vigraha of of the Kanci Acharyas. The said kriti has a line eulogizing the AchAryA- “pAsandamata kandana sanmatastApana sriman mahAdEvEndra sarasvatI sri bhagavat pAdAcArya pUjita pAda nandanadanahita namAmi lOkakAnta parama shAnta”
2	nAmAmi sriman mahadEvEndra sarasvati	Chandrachooda Raga Misra jhampa tala	Mysore Sadasiva Rao	See note below in discography section
3	Guruvaram AsrayE	Mohanam, capu	Anonymous	Notation is unavailable
4	sankaracarya SadguruvArya	Sriragam, misra capu	Anonymous	Notation is unavailable
6	GurucaranAravindamE (telugu)	Kambhoji	Anonymous	Notation is unavailable
7	lOka guruvE sankara nAma taruvE( tamil)	NA	Mazhavai Cidambara Bharati	Notation is unavailable

DISCOGRAPHY:

Mysore Sadasiva Rao (circa 1804-1880) a disciple of Walahahpet Venkataraman Bhagavathar in the sishya parampara of Tyagaraja, seems to have been closely associated with Acharya Sudarsana Mahadevendra Sarasvati. None of his available biographies talk about this association with the Acharya. We are left to deduce the same only from the compositions themselves. It is likely that Sadasiva Rao a senior contemporary of the Acharya made frequent visits to Kumbakonam to have his darshan. The visits must be been musical interactions of the highest order. And it is no surprise that Sadasiva Rao has composed one kriti exclusively as his obeisance. He has utilized a new raga melodically akin to Kamalamanohari under mela 15. Chandrachooda raga is the name that Vidvan Chennakesavayya assigns during his presentation of this composition for the first time in Music Academy in the year 1957. Incidentally this composition does not find place in the publication of Mysore Sadasiva Rao Kritis by Sangeeta Kalabhivardhini Sabha, Mysore in 1954. Vidvan Chennakesavayya indicates in his demonstration that these compositions were discovered after much effort – vide JMA XXX1 pages 161-164.

sadasivarao-kriti — Notation of Mysuru Sadasiva Rao kriti in Chandrachooda raga as published in JMA

Chandrachooda raga is a melody, a janya under mela 15 malava gaula with an operative arohana/avarohana as under, resembling Kamalamanohari, very much.

Arohana : S M1 G3 M1 P D1 N3 S

Avarohana: S N3 D1 P M G3 S

Much like the Ramakriya varna of Subbarama Dikshitar, this kriti too has remained unsung and unseen from the point of view of modern Carnatic repertoire. Again given its novelty value, I have ventured to interpret the notation of the song provided by Vidvan Chennakesavayya, the rendering of which is presented next.

The raga as implemented by Sadasiva Rao spans from mandhara nishadha to tAra madhyama. To keep it distinct from Kamalamanohari he has emphasised both the SMGM as well as PDNS in the kriti. Though the kriti is in jhampa I have rendered it in khanda eka, without in anyway impacting the rhythmic gait of the composition. The notation of the composition in Tamil as published in JMA is given above.

In the Bangalore Univ publication “Kannada Javaligalu”, wherein many javalis are given with lyrics alone, a few are found notated. Therein there is a javali listed as being in Kamalamanohari, but an occasional PDNS and SNDP is seen notated ( information courtesy Sri Keerthi)

See foot note 12 for the text and meaning of the kriti. Also see foot note 13.

Apart from this composition, we find that the Acharya is mentioned in the Sankarabharanam kriti ‘Sri Sanmukha Janaka’. Sadasiva Rao’s Sankarabharanam kriti has been released as a part of the music disc ‘Sankara Stuti’ by Sangita Kalanidhi M S Subbulakshmi. Provided is a brief excerpt of the composition, the rendering of the anupallavi portion which refers to His Holiness Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati- vide table above.

Provided next is a rendering of the full composition – courtesy Sangeethapriya.

CONCLUSION:

The objective of these blog posts including the current one on His Holiness Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati is to understand our music and its artefacts in a historical context and to bolster our understanding and our appreciation of the music with other facets as well. Apart from the musical aspect it’s indeed an opportunity to know and understand the contributions of some of these great personalities to the cause of our music.

One wishes that the Ramakriya varna and the other nearly extinct compositions are learnt and rendered more by vidvans and vidusis. It has to mentioned here that more than 115 year later we still continue to uncover golden nuggets like these compositions buried in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini and as often reiterated in this blog, we will continue to be in eternal debt to the great karmayogi, the great Subbarama Dikshitar.

REFERENCES:

Subbarama Dikshitar (1904)- Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini Vol III– Tamil Edition published by the Madras Music Academy in 1968/2006
Pudukkottai Malladi Dakshinamurti Sastri(1954)- Sankaracarya Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati – A Biography (Tamil)– Published by Sri R Svaminatha Iyer, Sri Kailasanatha Svami Nityakalyani Amman Devasthanam, Ilyathangudi, Ramanathapuram District.
Vidvan V Mahadevan(1988) – Jagadguru Sri Sankaracarya Svamigal Thirumarabu Arul Varalaru (Tamil) published by Sri Kamakoti Aivu Mayyam, Kumbakonam(Tamil)
Vyasa Vidvat Sadas Souvenir (1963)- An account of the proceedings of the Sadas (convened by the 68^th Acharya of the Kanci Kamakoti Peetam at Ilayathangudi in the year 1962)and a collection of valuable articles contributed and the speeches made by eminent men in the fields of agama, silpa, temple-building, bharata-pravachana, temple-arts, etc published by the Sri Kamakoti Kosasthanam( English/Tamil)
Dr R Satyanarayana(2008) – Karnataka Music as a Aesthetic form- Published by PHISPC

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

I am in deeply indebted to Vidvan Sri Ganesa Sarma, Scholar and well versed in the genealogy and life histories of the Acharyas of the Kanci Kamakoti Peetam, for providing me with inputs in collating the biography of His Holiness.

FOOT NOTE 1:

Accounts have it that since Kanci was northernmost from a geographical perspective, it was open to invaders especially from the Muslim Kingdoms of Deccan and from North. King Pratapasimha the powerful King of Tanjore whose regnal years were 1749-1765, requested the then Kanci Acharya, the 62^nd in the lineage, His Holiness Chandrasekarendra Sarasvati V, to move his quarters to Tanjore. The Acharya acceded to his request sometime circa 1750 perhaps and later he moved the quarters to Kumbakonam.

FOOT NOTE 2:

The epistle from the Maharaja of Travancore is subject to a controversy of authorship. The version that I have provided to the effect that they were written sometime circa 1845 by Svati Tirunal to His Holiness Mahadevendra Sarasvati the 65th Acharya is based on the narration provided by “Select Epistles of the sovereigns of Travancore addressed to the Acharyas of the Kamakoti Peetha”, edited by K. G. Natesa Sastri and published by G S Sarma Eliyurkar, Kalyanasrama, Mylapore, Madras, in 1928. The same is the authority cited by the biographers of Svati Tirunal as well. However a contrary view is expressed by Sri N Ramesan in his article ‘Sri Kamakoti Peeta of Sankaracarya’ found in the book ‘Preceptors of Advaita’ published by Sri Kanci Kamakoti Sankara Mandir , Secunderabad (1968) pages 439-440, which was published to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of the Ascension of the 68th Acharya to the Kamakoti Peeta. In his account Sri Ramesan advances the view that the said epistles were written much earlier by Svati’s predecessor King Bala Rama Varma I or Avittam Tirunal ( regnal years 1798-1810) as he was known to then Kanci Acharya who was His Holiness Mahadevendra Sarasvati (1783-1814) who was the 63rd Acharya.

The Kings of Travancore sharing the same name as well as the titular names of the Acharyas of the Kamakoti Peetam too getting repeated is a probable cause of confusion. It would not be appropriate to ascertain the fact using secondary evidences such as those found narrated in books. Only a first hand analysis of the actual epistles together with other collateral evidences by professional historians/paleographers could possibly help us in finding out the truth.

FOOT NOTE 3:

Legend has it that the Devi enshrined at Tiruvanaikaval/Jambukesvaram at Trichy was an embodiment of fury/ugra so much so that Adi Sankara himself in order to mitigate the effulgence of the deity and make her benign, invested the tATankAs or ear rings to Goddess Akhilandesvari with Sricakra encrusted on it. He also proceeded to install the figurine of Lord Mahaganapathy right in front of the sanctum sanctorum in the Temple at Trichy to subdue her anger/radiance and bring about the benign, merciful Grace of the Devi to the devotees visiting the temple. Muthusvami Dikshitar in his kriti ‘Sri Matah SivavAmAnke’ in raga Begada alludes to this as ‘sri cakra rupa tATankE’. More can be read here:

http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html

http://www.sutrajournal.com/akhilandeshwari-the-power-of-brokenness-by-laura-amazzone

FOOT NOTE 4:

The Mahasvamigal of the Kanci Kamakoti Peetam, the 68^th Acharya Sri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati has reportedly narrated a version of the event as told to him by his grandmother ( from his pUrvAsramA) surrounding the litigation about the right to perform the tATanka pratishta to Goddess Akhilandesvari and some subsequent events including the role the Rajah of Tanjore Sivaji, in the matter. http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/4-12.html

From this narrative it emerges that there was one Hoysala brahmin a descendant from the family of Govinda Dikshitar who had settled down in Tiruvidaimarudur by name Subramanya Sastri. He was held in high esteem in the Court of Raja Amarasimha of Tiruvidaimarudur/Madhyarjunam. From Tiruvidaimarudur he used to go over to the Kanci Kamakoti Mutt at Kumbakonam where he was employed as a mudrAdhikari. He had two sons Sesha Sastrigal the elder one and Ganapati Sastri the younger one. Sesha Satrigal’s son was Mahalingam who went on to become His Holiness Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati, the 65^th Acharya. The younger son Ganapati Sastri was the paternal grandfather (in pUrvAsrama) of the Mahasvamigal, the 68^th Acharya Sri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati.

The same narrative is given as a biography of the Mahasvamigal Sri Chandrasekharendra Sarasvati here:

https://mahaperiyavaa.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/sri-mahaswamy-charitram-1.pdf

This narrative is ascribed to the Paramacharya himself with his source of information being his own paternal grandmother Kamakshi Ammal, wife of Ganapati Sastri.

FOOT NOTE 5:

People who interacted very closely with the Paramacharya, the 68^th Pontiff, would recall his performing the Vyasa Puja at Ilayathangudi in the year 1962. On the occasion of the same, during the almost year-long celebrations, the Acharya conducted seminars and exhibitions. The same was published as a souvenir which offers a wealth of information.

The town/village of Ilayathangudi is a Siva stala, having a temple dedicated the Lord Kailasanatha and his consort Goddess Nityakalyani, apart from the Adhistanam of the 65^th Acharya which is in a separate premises. Many of the devout and the followers of the Kanci Kamakoti Acharya, who participated in the said Vyasa Puja festivities, named their daughters or grand-daughters born that year as Nityakalyani, considering its newness and novelty! Close associates to the Paramacharya would recall that he would request the Matha employees to arrange for jackfruit to be included as a part of the offerings on the 65^th Acharya’s Annual Jayanthi day, mentioning nostalgically that the 65^th Acharya Sri Sudarsana Mahadevendra Sarasvati used to like Jackfruit.

FOOTNOTE 6:

It needs to be pointed out that most of the time in the past, Acharyas of the Kanci Kamakoti Peeta were chosen only from a Brahmin sub-sect, particularly those hailing from Kannada country or Hoysala brahmins. Govinda Dikshitar was one such, whose ancestors were residents of the ancient city of Vijayanagar (modern day Hampi) and after the demise of the Vijayanagar empire circa 1550 they sought Royal patronage by migrating to Tanjore which became the hot bed of learning and music. Tanjore was under the Rule of the powerful Nayaks who were then feudatory to the powerful Vijayanagar Kings. With the demise of the suzerain power of the Vijayanagar Empire, these vassals including those of Tanjore, Madurai etc they began to assert themselves as independent Kings. Circa 1580 Govinda Dikshitar became the Chief Minister of the Nayak King Raghunatha who was one of the most powerful Tanjore Rulers of the Nayak dynasty. He composed the Sangita Sudha. His son Venkatamakhin adorned the Court of his son Vijayaraghava and composed the Catudandi Prakashika circa 1636. The demise of the Nayak rule in Tanjore circa 1670, coincided with the installation of Ekoji of the Mahratta Royal House of Bhonsales as the Ruler of Tanjore. His successor Sahaji (1680-1712) composed Ragalakshanamu and he is seen as the patron of Venkamakhin’s grandson Muddu Venkatamakhin as recorded by Subbarama Dikshitar. The records of the period of 1700-1750 provides us with reference to two personages as descendants of Venkatamakhin as having lived then namely Muddu Venkamakhin, the paternal grandson and Venkata Vaidyanatha Dikshita a maternal grand/great rand son who was the preceptor of Ramasvami Dikshitar. As we saw earlier, the 64^th Acharya Chandrasekarendra Saravati VI in his purvasrama was called as Venkatasubramanya DIkshita and is recorded as a direct descendant of Venkatamakhin himself. The 65^th Acharya Mahadevendra Sarasvati and the later 68^th Acharya Chandrasekarendra Sarasvati are in their purvasrama, descendants from an other line from Govinda Dikshitar . The connection between the Govinda Dikshitar/Venkatamakhin family and the lineage of the Kanci Kamakoti Acharyas is unmistakable.

FOOT NOTE 7:

Pallavi:

sankarAcAryaM SrImacchhankarAcAryaM bhaktamanovasankarAcAryaM smarAmyaham Sri (sankarAcAryaM)

शङ्कराचार्यं श्रीमच्छङ्कराचार्यं भक्तमनोवशंकराचार्यं स्मराम्यहम्

I remember the revered Sankaracharya who captivates the mind of devotees.

pankajAta-bhava-vedyam hRdyam pankajAta-bhavarOga-vaidyam Aadyam (sankarAcAryaM)
पङ्कजातभववेद्यं ह्रदयं पङ्कजातभवरोगवैद्यम् आद्यम् (शङ्कराचार्यं)

(I remember Him) who has realized (the likes of ) Brahma – the lotus-born, who looks inward / is pleasant,
who cures the diseases of the world – made of dust.

sadguNasAndraM srImahAdEvasarasvatIsamyamIndra-candram (sankarAcAryaM)

सद्गुणसान्द्रं श्रीमहादेवसरस्वतीसम्यमीन्द्रचन्द्रम्

(I remember Him) who is full of virtues, (who bears the name) MahadevaSarasvati, The one shining like a moon amidst the kings of ascetics (who have controlled their senses).

Anupallavi

sankarabhagavaccaranAparavaryaM sankarakRpayAvardhitavIryaM
sankarAgasita-yasho-dhuryam ani- saM karAbjamavArya-tapashshauryam

शङ्करभगवच्छरणापरवर्यं शङ्करकृपयावर्धितवीर्यं
शङ्करागसित-यशो-धुर्यम् अनिशं कराब्जमवार्य-तपश्शौर्यम्

(I remember Him) who is extremely revered as dedicated to the sacred feet of Sankara(charya) and whose prowess grows due to the grace of Sankara. Whose lotus hands are known for forever warding off doubts and desires.
Who possess unparalleled penance and valor.

Charanam

paramajnAna-latAlavAlaM bhavyatarasUmanOjAlaM
paramatakhaNDana-chaNDimashIlaM paramAdvaita-sthApanalIlam

परमज्ञान-लतालवालं भव्यतरसूमनोजालं
परमतखण्डन-चन्डिमशीलं परमाद्वैत-स्थापनलीलम्

(I remember Him) Who is the sustaining base that irrigates the creeper of supreme knowledge,
Who captivates the minds that are good and extremely humble,
who is unsurpassable in refuting the other paths,
who as if by mere sport, established the great Advaita philosophy.

karakalita-daNDa-kamaNDalaM kAshAyadharaM vinata-munimaNDalaM
varamativijitahara-kuNDalaM shubhavaradaM natadharAkhaNDalam (shrI)

करकलित-दण्ड-कमण्डलं काशायधरं विनत-मुनिमण्डलं
वरमतिविजितहर-कुण्डलं शुभवरदं नतधराखण्डलम् श्री

Whose hands bear the staff and a kamaNDala, Who wears the ochre robes, One who is worshipped by sages
Whose wisdom outshines Siva’s earrings (Sesha), Who bestows auspicious boons, Who is worshipped as Siva
(the bearer of the regions)

FOOT NOTE 8:

Subbarama Dikshitar apart from kritis has created a good number of varnas in ragas like Khamas, Surati, Sahana, Durbar, Purnacandrika, Yadukulakambhoji,Atana and Balahamsa apart from Ramakriya. We get to hear very few of these on the concert stage. That apart from a musicological perspective, his varnas are a compendium of the respective raga’s lakshana and sadly that factor has never been appreciated in any quarters. As the late music critic Sri K V Ramachandran lamented in 1950, in his lecture titled ‘ Carnatic ragas from a new angle- Sankarabharana’ (vide JMA XXI pages 88-89) – Subbarama Dikshitar was respected but not followed while Taccur Singaracariar was not respected but was followed.

FOOT NOTE 9:

Pallavi:

shrI-kanci-kAmakOtI-pIThAbhishikta shrI-sankarAcArya-vArya nannu brovumu

O revered Sankaracharya anointed as the head of the KanchikamakotipITa – Protect me!

Anupallavi:

shrIkaNTharupa lOkAnugrahakAra shrImahAdEvEndrasarasvatIyatIndra anantakalyAnaguNagaNA

SrimahAdevendrasarasvati -the king of ascetics, The form of Siva Himself, and the one graces the world, the one whose is the repository of all the auspicious virtues

muktayi svara sahitya

sAdhujanavinuta natamahipAlala mAnitagunA sAntarasarUpa yOgasastramArganubhava

bhavajaladhidharana subhamulOsagumu deva sArasanayana sankarAvatAra nIdu sumahita

padamulanu santatambu chinta jEsedanu

caranam

srIkAmaksI-katAksapAtra

anubandha

srIcakrodhArakA

Who is worshipped by sage and kings, Whose qualities are admired, who is of serene countenance, who is a torchbearer in the path of yogasastra. Who is a support in this ocean of samsara – Bestow auspiciousness on me, O Lord, I Lotus-eyed one, The incarnation of Sankara, your petal-like benevolent feet, I forever meditate. One who is blessed with the grace of Kamakshi, the one who worships the Sri chakra.

FOOT NOTE 10 :

The full titular appellation of this Acharya can be given as under:

‘srImat-paramahamsa-parivrAjakAcArya srImat-sankarabhagavatpAdapratishTita srIkAmakOtipItAdhIsvara srImat sudarshanamahadEvEndrasarasvatI samyamIndra’

FOOT NOTE 11 :

The records of the Kanchi Mutt indicate that the seat moved from Kanci to Tanjore and on to Kumbakonam circa 1745. Between 1750 and 1850 Kumbakonam became the seat of the monastery. During the fag end of the Pontiffship of the 64^th Acharya His Holiness Sri Chandrasekarandra Saravati VI, moves were initiated to move back the Matham/monastery back to its old seat, that of Kanci. By 1850, most of India was already under British Rule and all principalities had more or less been subsumed or played a very nominal political role. The political and military issues faced earlier due to Muslim rulers of Deccan, Mysore and Wallajah which had necessitated the move to be under a protective Hindu ruler at Tanjore had by now completely dissipated. Thus on 22 Jan 1840 the 64^th Acharya arranged for the Kumbabishekam of the Kanci Kamakshi Amman temple. In fact this 64^th Acharya is the last of the Pontiffs to be interned in the Matham premises at Kumbakonam. The 65^th Acharya attaned samadhi while travelling in Southern Tamilnadu in Ilayathankudi. His successors the 66^th and 67^th Acharyas were interned at Kalavai a village near Kancipuram. By 1891 soon after the attainment of beatitude by the 65^th Acharya, the Matham had for all practical purposes moved back to Kancipuram. And thus after a gap of nearly 150 years, circa 1900 it once again became the permanent abode, to the lineage of the Acharyas of Kanci.

FOOT NOTE 12 :

Pallavi

namAmi srimanmahAdevendrasarasvatIM srI bhagavatpAdAcArya guro

नमामि श्रीमन्महादेवेन्द्रसरस्वतीं श्रीभगवत्पादाचार्य गुरो

I prostrate the revered mahAdevendrasarasvati. O preceptor in the line of Sankarabhagavatpada.

Anupallavi

ramApativinuta srIcandramoulIsvara-pAdAbja-makaranda-pAna-dhurINa
kamalAsana-mukha-jAta-sakalvEda-vEdAntatattvapArINa-dhurINa-caNa

रमापतिविनुत-श्रीचन्द्रमौलीस्वर-पादाब्ज-मकरन्द-पान-धुरीण

कमलासन-मुख-जात-सकलवेद-वेदान्ततत्त्वपारीण-धुरीणचण

Foremost in drinking the nectar of the feet of Candramaulisvara – worshipped by Vishnu – the Lord of Rama.
Foremost in realizing the essence of vedas – born of Brahma’s mouth and vedanta .

carana

sakala-sishyajana-hRt-tApa-hara subhakara sadAsivavinuta sujnAnAlamkAra
sakala-hrudaya-panditOttama-samudAya-mahA-tapah-kAya bhava-jaya mAmpAlaya

सकल-शिष्यजन-हृत्तापहर शुभकर सदाशिवविनुत सुज्ञानालङ्कार
सकल-हृदय-पण्डितोत्तम-समुदाय महा-तपः-काय भवजय मां पालय

Remover of the afflictions of every disciple’s heart, Worshipped by Sadasiva (the composer) and decorated with the ornament of knowledge;
Surrounded by the learned assembly of scholars, Personage sanctified by penance.
One who is victorious over samsara. Protect me!

cittasvara sahitya

gurucaraNa-sarOruha-madhu-pAna kritisurasana sphaTika-maNimayahAra-gala mrudulacarana

गुरुचरण-सरोरुह-मधुपान कृतिसुरसन स्फटिक-मणिमयहार-गल मृदुलचरण

One who relishes the drinking of honey from the lotus feet of the guru
One who wears a sphaTika garland and one whose feet are soft.

FOOT NOTE 13:

Mysuru Sadasiva Rao seems to have created compositions similarly on another seer. There are two compositions of his, worth recording here:

‘krupAlaya srI gurumadvarAya’ in Todi and adi tala
‘namAmi satyavijaya svAmi gurO’ in Dhanyasi and adi tala

The examination of these two kritis reveal that they are composed on Sri Satya Vijaya Teertha, a Madhva monk of the Uttaradhi Mutt who lived during the first half of the 18^th century and who lived in a village in Tiruvannamalai District, near Aarani, presently called Satyavijayanagaram. The Ruler/Raja/Jaghirdar of Aarani one Venkatanatha Rao Sahib patronized the seer. During the 19^th century the monastery was led by Swami Satyaveera Teertha who was patronized by the then Raja of Arani Srinivasa Rao Saheb and later his son Tirumala Rao Sahib. The name of the patron of this Acharya is found embedded in the composition. The details of this seer and also that of place are available here.

http://srisatyavijaya.org/index.php

According to the biography published by Vidvan Chennakesavayya in the compilation of the Composer’s kritis as aforesaid, Sadasiva Rao’s wife Sundara Bayee was the aunt of the aforesaid Tirumala Rao Saheb.

On an entirely unrelated note, Subbarama Dikshitar’s profile of musicians who lived during his times also included Sadasiva Rao. Amongst so many others it appears that Subbarama Dikshitar has singled out this composer from the sprawling sisya parampara of Tyagaraja, and documented him perhaps driven by the common bond they shared, the devotion to Acharya Sri Mahadevendra Sarasvati. They could have perhaps met in Kumbakonam during the sojourns they would have undertaken to pay their obeisance to the Acharya Sreshta.

Safe Harbor Statement: The clipping and media material used in this blog post have been exclusively utilized for educational / understanding /research purpose and cannot be commercially exploited or dealt with. The intellectual property rights of the performers and copyright owners are fully acknowledged and recognized.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Update History:

The rendering of the Sadasiva Rao kriti ‘ namAmi sriman’ in Chandrachooda raga has been added along with the commentary and the picture of the notation. 10 Dec 2016
The narration as to the authorship of the epistle of the Maharaja of Travancore has been added as foot note 2. 10-Dec-2016
The raga being found notated in the Kannada Javali publication, courtesy information provided by Sri Keerthi.

History, Raga

Natanarayani – A melody lost in the forest of time

November 25, 2016June 28, 2023 by ravi rajagopalan

[simple-author-box]

Introduction

Very many ragas which predate the formal classification schemes, that of Venkatamakhin, Muddu Venkatamakhin, Sahaji, Tulaja & Govindacharya have been sacrificed or mutilated in the process of retro-fitting them to the schemes in question. These so called purva prasiddha ragas defy the formal grammar of today- which demand a lineal ascent and descent & also need a formal parent in the so called raganga or melakartha scheme. Ancient music was guided only by two melodic principles- that of harmonics and aesthetics. Individual svaras were never the building block of ragas. Only murccanas or svara aggregations were the building blocks of ragas and they determined the melodic contour of a raga. Within a murccana or a motif, svaras assumed melodic relationship to one another and created a stable melodic unit. Bends, turns, twists and jumps were the rule. There were no foreign notes or need for a raga to be a parent or be a child raga under a parent to justify melodic existence. Ragas were even given a persona, color, sex, time of the day, season etc for rendering so that the aural effect they create could be part of the overall artistic or aesthetic experience.

Today much of the ragas exist for the sake of grammar & on the basis of individual svaras rather than murrcanas/motifs. Older ragas have been force fitted to the new models/schemes and in that process few have survived , quite many have become practically extinct (Samantha, Velavali & Desakshi) and quite some have been mutilated. Music today is subservient to grammar rather than to aesthetics or harmonics. Ragas derived today, evolve as mere scalar structures and do not have a melodic existence beyond the single kriti that hosts them. As a silver lining, few of the ancient ragas which survived this onslaught, were given life to by Muthusvami Dikshitar. Those compositions and the related documentation of the same by Subbarama Dikshitar in his priceless and invaluable work the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini (SSP, hereafter) offers us a peek into those times when melody and aesthetics ruled supreme.

One such raga which has survived and reached us today is Natanarayani, which is the subject matter of this blog post. His solitaire in this raga serves as the only beacon light for us in understanding this melody.

Read on!

A Brief History – textual

Natanarayani or Natanarayana/Nattanarayana, as it has been referred to in older musical texts, always took the notes which today form part of Mela # 28 (Kedaragaula/Harikambhoji) or Mela 29(Sankarabharanam). It has been documented by both Northern as well as Southern musicological texts. The earliest text which refers to Natanaraya(ni)/(na) is Narada’s ‘Sangita Makaranda’. Many compositions of Talapakka Annamacharya seem to have been set in Natanarayani, according to copper plates. It is seen documented in works such as Sadraga Chandrodaya, Rasa Kaumudi etc well into the 16^th CE.- see Footnote 2.

And then the raga seem to have gone extinct/out of vogue during the times of Govinda Dikshitar (1614 AD) & Venkatamakhi (circa 1620 AD), for it is not recorded in their treatises namely Sangita Sudha & Caturdandi Prakashika. There is also no other raga which closely resembles it in terms of melody, except for the raga Sama which can be considered as an allied melody from a scalar perspective.

Natanarayani makes an appearance again in the treatises of the Mahratta Kings Sahaji’s Ragalakshanamu (end of 17^th CE & early 18^th CE) and King Tulaja I’s Saramruta (circa 1730). From the textual evidence the raga thus seems to have gained currency but in a truncated form. While prior to 1700’s it was sampurna with kakali nishada, in its post 1700’s form it dropped the nishada totally & moved fully under the then Kambhoji mela (which is akin to the modern day raganga/mela # 28). In line with this Muddu Venkatamakhin too documented this raga under Kedaragaula as an upanga, in his Raga Lakshanam compendium (first quarter of the 18^th century) available to us as Anubandha to the original Caturdandi Prakashika. See Foot note 1 & 7

Subbarama Dikshitar faithfully follows the footsteps of Muddu Venkatamakhin & documents the raga under raganga # 28 in his SSP with a set of illustrative compositions.

Melodic structure of Natanarayani

Before we embark on assessing the contours of this raga, a couple of caveats are in order:

There is a divergence between the musicological texts/treatises & the compositions. In other words the raga form as per theory & the structure one seen is practice or the implementation in the exemplar compositions, are different. See foot note 4.
The scalar structure which is the modern assessment of a raga’s body through the lens of the melakartha scheme doesn’t fully help us appreciate the melodic worth of this purva prasiddha raga.

The structure of this raga post 1700 as illustrated by Sahaji, Tulaja and Muddu Venkatamakhin in their works is what is relevant for us today, because the exemplar compositions, available to us today, pertain to that Natanarayani only.

Sahaji & Tulaja’s Textual Evidence

Sahaji and Tulaja’s version of this raga are virtually one and the same. The salient features of Natanarayani according to them,are:

The raga is grouped under Kambhoji and is shadava as nishada is varja
It is a ghana raga
Gandhara never occurs in the aroha
Melodic phrases are Ppmgr, mgrgrr/pddrrsr/mmpdssdsS/pdssrr/mgr/grr/mmppddss/ dsdd pm /pmmgrgrr

We need to partake the definition as above in the context of what the terms meant during Sahaji’s or Tulaja’s times. The term ‘ghana’ has not been defined and we do not know what it meant (see foot note 5). And Sahaji makes no mention of the Caturdandi Prakashika of Venkatamakhin as well. However from the the foregoing the arohana murccana karma seems to be SRGSRMPDS. Since gandhara is varja in arohana, RGM and GMG phrases are forbidden by implication. However we do have RGRR occurring in the outlined melodic phrases.

Muddu Venkatamakhin’s raga definition

As we move over to Muddu Venkatamakhin’s assessment of this raga, we are faced with a confusing situation- we have two versions of Muddu Venkatamakhin’s lakshana shloka – one in Raga Lakshanam (Appendix to the Caturdandi Prakashika as published by the Music Academy) and one published by Subbarama Dikshitar in the SSP. The key difference to be reconciled being, if the gandhara in the ascent is varjita(devoid) or vakrita(deviant). Thus according to Muddu Venkatamakhin as quoted by Subbarama Dikshitar as in the shloka below, gandhara is said to be vakritah.

natanArayanI ragastvArOhE tu gavakritAh |

nivarjyashAdavastu syAt gIyatE satatam budhaih ||

Subbarama Dikshitar interprets Muddu Venkatamakhin’s lakshana shloka and provides his commentary of the raga as under:

Natanarayani’s arohana/avarohana murccanas/movements are SRGSRMPDS/SDPMGRS under Harikedaragaula mela #28. Also point to note is that the lakshana shloka does not talk of a vakra dhaivata in the arohana and it is Subbarama Dikshitar’s interpretation probably on the basis of what was practiced. See footnote 5.
It is shadava (having 6 notes in whole- considering both arohana and avarohana); Nishada is varja or totally absent in the scale.
Sadja is the graha svara
Gandhara is vakra in the arohana
Jumps in the raga’s movements such as: RdSR\pdSR- Madhya rishabha to mandhara dhaivata and pancama ; S\pdpmgr and SSmpdpmgr – tara sadja to Madhya pancama or madhyama- make the raga beautiful.
‘giyate satatam budhaih’ seems to indicate that despite the proposed scalar structure, rendering is not for novices, seemingly to indicate the amount of experience & expertise one has to have to render the raga.

Exemplar Compositions & the musical contour of the raga therein

The SSP & its Anubandha are the sole repository of this raga’s compositions & it lists about 5 of them which are in different genres:

‘nandanamdana’- Muddu Venkatamakhin’s lakshana gitam – eka tAla
‘mahA ganapatE pAlayasUmAm’ – kriti of Muthusvami Dikshitar – Adi tAla
‘sarasAgre sarasa’ – a daru of Subbarama Dikshitar – tisra eka tAla( see footnote 2)
Sancari of Subbarama Dikshitar – matya tAla
Portion of the rAga tAla mAlikA “nAtakAdi vidyAlaya” of Ramasvami Dikshitar-(section # 30) commencing “ nagu natanarAyani yanu nAmamu” set to raga Natanarayani & caturmukhi tAla
Portion of the ragamalika of Ramasvami Dikshitar – ‘sivamOhana sakti’ where the raga is found in the 5th caranam in the company of Brindavana Saranga, Ritigaula, Purnacandrika, Devakriya, Megharanji, Hamvira and Bhupalam and set in adi tala. The composition is on Goddess Meenakshi at Madurai.

Leaving aside Muddu Venkatamakhin’s gitam, we see that all the other compositions broadly conform to the melodic contours outlined by the shloka definition of Muddu Venkatamakhin as quoted by Subbarama Dikshitar but with some additional features.

Almost apparently as a rule none of the compositions have PDS or SDP usage in the Madhya sthayi, though not forbidden by the definition. See foot note 4.
There is no sancara beyond tara sadja at all, which again is not forbidden by the lakshana shloka.
Though Subbarama Dikshitar gives the arohana murccana as SRGSRMP- we see no evidence of SRGS at all. The GS prayoga is seen in the daru though but with rishabha marked as an anusvara GrS. It would have been clarifying had he given it as SRGRS instead.
We also see RGMG and RGRG prayogas which would be forbidden if we were to go by the Subbarama Dikshitar murccana definition. Even Subbarama Dikshitar’s own sancari and daru have those prayogas.
Rishabha svara seems to be a jiva and nyasa (ending note) as it occurs in profusion, while madhyama seems to be the preferred take off note. Janta svaras have been used in profusion in all the compositions.
The Muthusvami Dikshitar kriti, the daru as well as the rAgatAla mAlikA have been invested with the cittasvara/muktayi svara section which clearly encapsulates the melodic identity of Natanarayani in a nutshell.
The raga & the Muthusvami Dikshitar kriti seem much amenable to a madhyamakala exposition. Was it on this strength that Shahaji categorize this as a ghana raga?
The raga spans effectively only between mandhara pancama to the madhya daivatha with occasional touches of tara sadja, thus resembling more a dhaivatantya raga which can be comfortably rendered in madhyama sruti. We will address this question in a while.
Given the usage of gandhara in phrases such RGMG and RGR, the shloka of Muddu Venkatamakhin as quoted by Subbarama Dikshitar seems to be the original one.

Discography

In the public domain we only have recordings of the Muthusvami Dikshitar kriti in Natanarayani which is ‘mahA ganapatE pAlayAsumAm’. This composition is a generic kriti on Mahaganapathi and does not have any reference to a particular kshetra. The raga mudra is given very clearly in the lyric as ‘natanArAyani nandana’ & the kriti also bears the standard Dikshitar colophon. We have commercial recordings of Sangita Kalanidhi D K Jayaraman & his disciple Vidvan Vijay Siva, rendering this composition along with the cittasvaras as per SSP.

Interestingly this composition used to be frequently rendered by Chittoor Subramanya Pillai a rendering of which is already in the public domain. The version can probably be traced back to Kancipuram Naina Pillai and perhaps on to Ettayapuram Ramachandra Bagavathar who was one of Subbarama Dikshitar’s prime disciples. These artistes have not sung the cittasvara portion of the kriti.

As an example of rendering from this school, featured here first is a rendering by a protégé of this school, Vidvan Sri. Tadeppalligudem Lokanadha Sarma from this AIR concert ( courtesy Sangeethapriya)

tadepalli-inconcert — Vidvan Lokanadha Sarma in Concert at Musiri Chambers in 2016 where he commenced his recital with ‘mahAganapatE pAlayAsumam’

Attention is specifically invited to the svara kalpana on the opening pallavi line. One can notice that the MGS phrase along with PDSDP (“…mAyAmaya…” in the Pallavi) though not found in the composition, but in conformance with the SSP text book definition, are rendered in profusion. The first kAla svaras are almost Sama like.

Presented next is a rendering by the venerable Prof S R Janakiraman who concludes his rendering with his pungently humorous remark on the raga’s melodic association with Sama.

Presented next is the rendering of Vidvan T M Krishna from a concert recording in the public domain. He sticks to the SSP. One can see the ‘middukku’ or tautness with which he renders the composition and also the kalpana svaras on the pallavi line. He pointedly does not use a mrudhu madhyama which could potentially reflect Sama.

The composition begins on a svarakshara with Ma(‘ma’) and then the the sahitya syllable’hA’ is at Gandhara which as one can see is strong and pronounced/prolonged, not the weak gandhara of Sankarabharanam. It is a strong gandhara native to (Hari)Kedaragaula, very pronounced and part of the MGGR which appears in this composition as a leitmotif. Along with the madhyama, this gandhara operates to distinguish Natanarayani with Sama, as we will see later. The midukku/tautness as alluded earlier, the intonation of the gandhara and its dense and janta usage in Sri T M Krishna’s svarakalpana provide us illustration of the so called ‘ghana’ feature as a marker for this raga.

A few more points merit our attention though. In the madhyama kala sahitya section he sings as “…..manikka vadanendrathi vandana” or something to that effect whereas the SSP text is ‘mAtamga vadanEndrAdi vandana”. Also to note is that he doesn’t render the cittavara section given in the SSP. In the svara kalpana section he sticks to the script of the raga as found in the SSP for most except in the two rounds of svaras where he brings on PDs, sDP and tara sancaras. To his credit he does highlight DPs, sPDPM etc to bring jump from pancama to tara sadja jump and back in his svara kalpana.

Presented now is the clip of Sangita Kalanidhi D K Jayaraman rendering the cittasvara section of the composition ‘mahAganapatE’ for our understanding, from this concert available in the public domain.

Presented next is the Natanarayani portion of the raga-tala-malika composition of Ramasvami Dikshitar, rendered by Sangita Kala Acharya Vidusi Dr.R S Jayalakshmi, who gave a lecture demonstration of the magnum opus composition in 2014 at Chennai under the auspices of Nada Inbam. Dr Jayalakshmi’s interpretation is strictly in line with the notation found in the Anubandha to the SSP. One can note as well how identical it is from a scale/melodic point of view with the Dikshitar composition.

Presented finally is the blog author’s personal rendering/interpretation of the Subbarama Dikshitar daru. According to the explanatory note provided to this composition in the SSP, Subbarama Dikshitar composed this as an ode on Sri Nagayasvami Pandiyan, the Zamindar of Periyur. There are a couple of historical references to this Zamindar which points to the probably date of this piece being composed around 1889 CE. Please see footnote 2 & 3 below.

Did Tyagaraja compose in Natanarayani ?

Today none of the compilations of Tyagaraja’s kritis show Natanarayani as one of the ragas in which the Bard of Tiruvaiyaru composed. Even the earliest listing, such as the one by Chinnasvami Mudaliar does not show any kriti in Natanarayani. In fact it is known with certainty that Tyagaraja never communicated the ragas names for his creations. Experts such as K V Ramachandran have always with forceful authority proposed that raga names available today for Tyagaraja’s compositions were assigned by the authors/printers who started publishing the text of Tyagaraja’s compositions during the late 19^th CE and early 20^th CE, the first of them being the Taccur Brothers. And this is attested by the Walajapet manuscripts and also the accounts of Tyagaraja’s lineage by his disciples. Thus given this set of facts, we may have to find out the piece available to us today, which could have been set by Tyagaraja to Natanarayani.

We do not have to search afar. The kriti is right there – “vinanAsa koniyunnAnurA” in desAdhi tala masquerading under the raga name of Pratapavarali, a raga which has no textual history at all prior to the Sangraha Cudamani and grouped under Harikambodhi mela. Unsurprisingly this raga is an ekakriti raga & there exists no other composition. It goes with the same scale of Natanarayani with a little twist – SRMPDPS/SDPMGRS. This is the flavor of Natanarayani that Tyagaraja implemented with sancaras up to tAra madhyama, a liberty he perhaps took which Dikshitar didn’t deign to take. In fact both of them use PDPS in the aroha krama phrasings. In the absence of nishada both ways, PDPS or PDS are not significantly different from a melodic stand point. But that doesn’t make the melody of ‘vinanAsakoni’ any different from that of Natanarayani. In fact one can even speculate if the tara sthayi phrases and additions of SDP were latter day additions by musicians when they added sangatis, but that would be stretching the argument too far, in the absence of a shred of evidence.

Now to the renderings. Presented below is the rendering of this composition by the legendary, Sangita Kalanidhi Smt T Brinda, the doyenne of the Dhanammal musical lineage, who must have most probably learnt it from Kancipuram Naina Pillai, under whom she learnt music initially.

Presented also is the rendering of the same composition by her disciple Vidushi Aruna Sairam from the year 1984. Attention is drawn to the kalpana svaras she sings on the pallavi line, well in line with the melodic contours of the composition itself.

Question for us is, do we require this plethora of unnecessary multiple raga names for the same melodic material/scale & shouldn’t we dispense the newer ones in favor of those which have a long textual documented history, more so for those one which have one such as Natanarayani? This is definitely a point of view worth ruminating.

Thus we do have strong evidence that both Dikshitar and Tyagaraja composed using the same melodic material of what we have been calling as Natanarayani for centuries. Renaming it as Pratapavarali with no melodic or historical basis, needs to be set aside without much ado. But is that it? The point remains whether Natanarayani can be safely and securely be ring fenced from its popular sibling Sama, so that its independent melodic existence can be secured.

Natanarayani & Sama – a study in contrast

If we have to understand the melodic structure of Natanarayani deeply, we may need to reset and revisit some of the assumptions we make as a part of modern musicology. Modernists may say that this raga is a minor one and is incapable of being sung elaborately. But so is the case with very many ragas including those created by Tyagaraja. Natanarayani existed as one amongst the 109 ragas that Tulaja documented as very popular & in currency during the first half of the 18^th CE, in the run up to the times of the Trinity. It existed along with its close melodic sibling Sama with a unique melodic identity with which it shared the same set of svaras. How do we assess & quantify the musical individuality of this raga as distinct from Sama? With the same set of svaras we already have examples of ragas which have evolved and thrived to this date, Arabhi and Devagandhari & Surati and Kedaragaula, for instance. And they have become the crown jewels of our music. So can’t we draw up a matrix to distinguish the melodic contours of Sama and Natanarayani?

Before we embark on that, its worth noting here that the Music Academy at Madras did deliberate on the question of the raga lakshana of all the three ragas – Natanarayani, Sama and Pratapavarali the year 1932, the year when Sangita Kalanidhi Sabesa Iyer was the President. Sadly the Experts Committee was virtually split between the votaries of the so called Tyagaraja & Dikshitar schools and they arrived at no meaningful consensus. They only ended up reiterating the status quo and establishing no connection between them and thus frittered away the opportunity to make a contribution towards clarity.

Let us turn our attention to what some musicologists have to say on this. When discussing this point, the revered Prof S R Janakiraman in his commentary on Tulaja’s Saramruta, forcefully advances the view that since both the ragas – Natanarayani & Sama have the same scale, Natanarayani may safely be made a dhaivatantya madhyama sruti raga, omitting the fleeting touches of the tara sadja found in the Dikshitar kriti. By rendering it so, the learned Professor says, the melodic independent existence of Natanarayani can be justified distinctively from Sama. It is respectfully submitted, that this would provoke more questions than answers. Thus the counterpoint would be, are we to amputate/mutilate the raga, deprive it of its tAra sadja just to bring melodic conformance to the standard? We need to bear in mind that Shahaji & Tulaja merely captured ragas which were popular and in currency during their times, some 109 of them and classified them under melas. And they were not dealing also with technically generated scalar ragas using mathematical permutation/combination (like the raga compendiums of Govindacarya, Nadamuni Panditar et al which fall in this category).

So by logical deduction one can surmise that in so far as the ragas captured in the works of Shahaji and Tulaja are concerned, the musical cognoscenti and composers of the first half of the 18^th century were able to acknowledge the independent & individual musical worth/identity of all of those ragas including Sama and Natanarayani. Also we know that Dikshitar and Tyagaraja (second half of 18^th CE) composed in both Sama and Natanarayani/Pratapavarali and if so they would have definitely found them to be musically distinctive to start with or if not, at the least they would have endeavored to bring about or magnify the point of distinction between these two ragas in their compositions.

And thus it follows that even today we must be able to find what these distinguishing attributes between the two ragas are, a subject worthy of a full research paper in itself. As Muddu Venkatamakhin’s classification scheme was the basis for Muthusvami Dikshitar, the analysis of these two ragas under this scheme is a useful starting point.

In Muddu Venkatamakhin’s scheme, Sama is classified under Sankarabharanam while Natanarayani is under Harikedaragaula, despite both of them lacking nishada (varjya). The melodic reason if any is not formally given. It is quite possible for ragas to be grouped under Sankarabharanam if they have a weak gandharam. For example Mohanam can come under multiple melas. Still it is normally assigned to Kalyani because of the gandhara being strong & so unlike the gandhara of Sankarabharanam. Gandhara will be weaker still if it appears only in the avarohana as well. Au contraire, Prof S R Janakiraman holds the view that given the weaker dhaivata in Sama which is only at trisruti level it should be categorized under Harikambhoji rather than Sankarabharanam. Again he passionately argues that even Mohanam should be under Harikambhoji as well given the usage of both the gandhara and dhaivata at trisruti levels. And so this is the generic problem encountered in assigning preexisting ragas to the janaka/janya system on an unscientific or no standard basis.
For Sama, gandhara is totally absent in the ascent/arohana while in Natanarayani the gandhara is vakrita in the arohana and we see SRGR profusely in Natanarayani. This is a key differentiator.
The gandhara is prolonged and strong in Sama in comparison to Natanarayani where the janta phrasing MGGR and the vakra phrasing SRGR is used profusely. It can quite likely be argued that dhaivata too is slightly stronger in Natanarayani in comparison to Sama.
In Sama the madhyama seems to be a more powerful note occurring in profusion and also being the key to the raga being a shanta rasa pradhana raga. From the kritis, the rishabha seems to be a favored phrase ending note in Natanarayani.
In madhya sthayi, for Sama, PDS and SDP are used phrases while in Natanarayani, PDPS and SP or SM phrases alone are used. PDS and SDP though not forbidden by lakshana, the kritis are devoid of those prayogas. Also in practice Sama has some characteristic vakra phrases such PMD & MDP which is not seen in Natanarayani, while on the other side Natanarayani sports MGMG and RGRG which is not seen in Sama.
In sum, the play of the notes/phrases & the emphasis given to them leading them to be vilambakala/shanta rasa as the color of Sama and the madhyamakala /vira or playfulness as the rasa in the case of Natanarayani, makes for their contrasting nature.
Much like Ritigaula, Natanarayani sports different sets of prayogas for mandhara sthayi and madhya sthayi for the same svaras. We see no such constraint in Sama.
The identical scalar structure but different melodic structure is akin to the phenomenon of Isomerism one encounters in physical Chemistry. Much like how isomers have same molecular formula but different structural formula, Sama and Natanarayani exhibit musical isomerism. Other examples are Kedaragula and Surati, Malahari and Kannadabangala & Kannada and Suddha Vasanta.

A more in-depth research on the lakshanas found documented in the two works, namely Shahaji’s ‘Ragalakshanamu’ and Tulaja’s ‘Saramruta’ along with the constructive interpretation of the kritis of Muthusvami Dikshitar & Tyagaraja should help us get some more clarity on this point. Also see Note 6.

References

Subbarama Dikshitar (1904)- Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini Vol III– Tamil Edition published by the Madras Music Academy in 1968/2006 – pages 666-671
Dr Hema Ramanathan(2004) – ‘Ragalakshana Sangraha’- Collection of Raga Descriptions- pages 1005-1013
Prof R. Satyanarayana(2010) – ‘Ragalakshanam’ – Kalamoola Shastra Series- Published by Indira Gandhi National Center for the Arts, New Delhi
Dr S. Sita (1983) – “The Ragalakshana Manuscript of Sahaji Maharaja’ – Pages 140-182- JMA Vol LIV
Prof S. R. Janakiraman & T V Subba Rao (1993)- ‘Ragas of the Sangita Saramrutha’ – Published by the Music Academy, Chennai, pages 201-205 & 207-210

Footnotes:

NOTE 1.

To understand some of the medieval raga nomenclatures and it’s connect with aesthetics, the musical work ‘Sangita Siromani’ written around 1428 AD offers interesting insights. For instance this text defines the raga Natanarayana as: Having born from raga Kakubha with Dha is its dominant final note,Ga in the upper octave is the predominant note, Pa in the lower octave is its lower limit; it is heptatonic preferably performed during raining season and is capable of evoking pathos.

NOTE 2.

Daru – According tomethe Lakshana Sangraha – the preamble to the SSP, daru as a composition is akin to a padam with sringara as the rasa/theme. A daru has normally one carana and can be sung in a slightly accelerated tempo. Darus with more than one carana is not uncommon though. According to Dr Gowri Kuppuswamy & Dr Hariharan (“Darus in Carnatic Music” – Sanmukha-Vol XII No 4 Oct 1986 Pages 1-10) daru is a musical piece written for a drama – yakshagAna, geyanAtaka or opera. In a drama, a dialogue if not spoken but is sought to be conveyed musically, then it is done through a daru. This article gives a historical perspective of daru and its evolution, types & examples & can be referred to, to know more about this compositional genre. The SSP itself documents a number of darus including Ramasvami Dikshitar’s in Gangatarangini, Muthusvami Dikshitar’s in Sriranjani raga, Balusvami Dikshitar’s in Rudrapriya, a tillana daru of Krishnasvami Ayya in Surati apart from the aforesaid daru in Natanarayani & one in Yadukulakambhoji of Subbarama Dikshitar. Curiously except Muthusvami Dikshitar’s one which is composed on Lord Valmikesvara of Tiruvarur, all other have been composed as an ode on patrons/mortals – Manali Cinnaya Mudaliar, Venkatesvara Ettappa of Ettayapuram, Nagayasvami Pandian of Periyur and Varaguna Rama Pandian the Zamindar of Sivagiri. Probably these darus were retrofitted into the existing panegyric plays depicting the life of the patrons & their clan. They were then staged/performed on occasions by the artistes, in the presence of the patrons, obviously to their delight. The case could have been same in the case of the Dikshitar Sriranjani daru as well. Plays were done in the Tiruvarur Tyagaraja temple eulogizing the deity, recounting the stala purana etc and enacted by the dasis and the musicians attached to the temple. Arguably Muthusvami Dikshitar must have perhaps composed this daru on Lord Valmikesvara, for one such play and not as a standalone music composition and which is why it is bereft of his standard colophon, ‘guruguha’.

NOTE 3.

The Zamindar of Peraiyur (not Periyur as given in the SSP, a village near the town of Tirumangalam) is one of the large zamindaris or pAlayams amongst the 72 ones in Madurai district in Tamilnadu. Periayur was the second largest zamindari the taluk with about 30 villages spread over 21 square miles. According to the “Madura Gazetteer’ of W.Frances (page 329), there was a Zamindar in 1889 who went by the name of Nagayasvami Tumbichi Nayakkan , the last two parts of the name being titular appellations. We know no more than that. Probably this Zamindar was the one on whom Subbarama Dikshitar composed this daru. Curiously there was another Nagayasvami Kamayya Nayakkar II, of the neighboring Saptur Zamindari who is documented in the “Aristocracy of Southern India- Vol II” by A Vadivelu (Page 315- 321). This Zamindar who was the last in his line, lived during 1845-1889. He has been documented as a very intelligent & independent person, a Tamil scholar and a patron of music. Given this information, the fact that the Zamindaris of Saptur and Peraiyur were intertwined in history and relationship and also the fact that Sri Jagannatham Chetty (who was associated with the Ettayapuram Royals & on whose authority the SSP was published) assisted the minor son of the Zamindar Sri Nagayasvami after his death, makes one to speculate whether the daru was on the Zamindar of Saptur instead.

NOTE 4.

In the SSP, Subbarama Dikshitar gives the lakshana of raga Abheri as SMGMPPS as the aroha karma even though the Muddu Venkatamakhin lakshana shloka only says ‘abherI sagrahA pUrna; syAdArohE nivarjitA’. The shloka does not say that rishabha, gandhara and dhaivata are varjya. Yet Subbarama Dikshitar on the authority of the purvacharyas and their tAnams in this raga, says that SMGMPPS is the arohana krama to be used in compositions.

NOTE 5.

According to Subbarama Dikshitar the notes of a ghana raga need to emanate from the nAbhi/navel. The discussion on the nature of raga and its classification under the ghana, naya and desi categories from a historical perspective is done in the work “Ghana, Naya and Desi Ragas” by Smt Premalatha Nagarajan which is available here. Here is what she has to say on ‘ghana’ ragas in the modern context.

From the description of ghana raga as being suitable for t¡na or madhyamakala, it couldbe inferred that such raga-s were based more on svara-s with moderate oscillations and which were devoid of extreme kampitam or vali. It is also possible that the form of a svara in these raga-s, was more or less static or rigid and not fluid. On the other hand, the raktiraga-s must have been characterised by some svaras which had more fluid form than a static one. If we consider the raga-s referred to as ghana today namely, nata, gaula, arabhi and varali (leaving out varali), the forms of the svara-s in these raga-s appear to be centred around their svarasthana-s. None of the svara-s seem to have excessive kampita gamaka. It is these raga-s that seem to be used for singing or playing tanam.

The classification of ragas under ghana, naya and desya by Shahaji is perhaps on the basis of melodic movement, according to performing musician Vidvan T M Krishna (Southern Music – Karnatak Story- Page 405). A raga classified as ghana probably meant (as in Tamil – heavy or dense) its rendering ought to be rigid & dense. In fact Vidvan Sri T M Krishna opines that this classification or the attribute of a raga to be a ghana/naya/desi, was then a component of the aesthetics of that raga. The word ghana has been used not only in the context of ragas as above but also in the context as one of the modes of singing (ghana mArga). And then there is this connection to tanam and madhyamakala rendering as well. In the context of a raga and its melodic personality (as distinct from the way or mArga in which a musician renders ragas in general), we are left only with the meaning that a raga to be ghana has to be phrased in a dense & rigid manner. Did it imply employment of janta svaras for example to give that feel? One doesn’t know for sure if that logic was what was used in Shahaji’s times to classify a raga as ghana.

NOTE 6.

In the Hindustani idiom there doesn’t seem to any raga close to the melodic svarupa of Natanarayani, though there is a name sake, Nata Narayan. It’s said to belong to the Bilaval thaat (Sankarabharanam) with N3 or tivra/sharp nishada. Off course our Natanarayani lacks nishada totally. Pandit Bhimsen Joshi apparently on the strength of the Carnatic Natanarayani seems to have implemented his version of Nata Narayana under the Khamaj thaat with a komal nishad (N2) to boot.

NOTE 7.

For the purpose of this article/blog post, Govindacharya’s Sangraha Cudamani (as well as other works which are allied in their content such as ‘Sangita Sara Sangrahamu’ of Akalanka and also recent raga compendiums such as those of Nadamuni Panditar or K V Srinivasa Iyengar) has not been considered, due to lack of clarity around the date of some of them & given that all these texts were much later to the times of the Trinity & hence are not relevant to assess the music of the compositions of Ramasvami Dikshitar, Muthusvami Dikshitar & Subbarama Dikshitar.

History, Raga

The true identity of the raga of Tyagaraja’s ‘nannu kanna talli’

October 29, 2016June 28, 2023 by ravi rajagopalan

[simple-author-box]

Introduction:

There are two raga names assigned to this composition ‘nannu kanna talli’ of Tyagaraja, by the authors of the different compendia of Tyagaraja kritis. One is a raga called Sindhu Kannada and another is Kesari. The kriti is found documented in almost all of the collections of Tyagaraja’s kritis with the ragas as above and the melody being assigned to the 28^th Mela Harikambhoji.

The idea of this short blog post is to determine what is the true and original contours of this raga or in other words what indeed in the original raga of ‘nannu kanna talli’. The standard text of this composition goes as under. There may be minor variants with some of the words though.

pallavi

nannu kanna talli nA bhAgyamA nArAyaNi dharmAmbikE

anupallavi

kanakAngi ramApati sOdari kAvavE nanu kAtyAyani

caraNam

kAvu kAvumani nE morabeTTagA kamala lOcani karagu cuNDaga nIvu brOvakuNTE nevaru brOturu sadA varambosagu tyAgarAjanutE

Read on!

DISCOGRAPHY:

For a change let us first hear how this kriti of Tyagaraja is rendered in practice, understand the melody with our ear and then proceed to the theory of the raga.

There are very many popular editions of this composition in the public domain. All of them are fairly similar and the melody is only a derivative/Janya of Harikambhoji, the 28^th mela. Exemplar renderings include those by Sangita Kalanidhis M S Subbulakshmi, Dr M Balamuralikrishna, T M Thyagarajan and a whole galaxy of other artistes.

A sample rendering is presented which is by a Vidvan of an age bygone, late Srivanchiyam Ramachandra Iyer, a disciple of Sangita Kalanidhi Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer. ( courtesy Sangeethapriya)

ANALYSIS OF THE MELODY AND THE KRITHI AS PRESENTED:

The raga’s svarupa is fairly obvious for a student of music. It is unambiguously taking the notes of the 28^th Mela Harikambhoji
The operative arohana/avarohana is easily discernible from the rendering as under:

Arohanam: S M1 G3 M1 R2 G3 M1 P D2 P S or S M1 G3 M1 P D2 S

Avarohanam: S N2 D2 N2 P M1 G3 R2 S

The standard notation for this kriti is available here, along with the text, meaning and notation. http://www.shivkumar.org/music/Nannukannathalli.pdf
Almost all musical texts provide the raga name – the melody as embodied in this extant rendering of this composition as Kesari or Sindhukannada under Mela 28.
There may be minor changes to the way in which the composition is rendered by different vidvans but the soul of the melody / raga is always the arohana/avarohana krama as above under mela 28.

EVALUATING THE MUSICAL HISTORY/MATERIAL OF SINDUKANNADA/KESARI:

One of the earliest authentic texts notating this composition is the work of Chinnasvami Mudaliar. Towards the closing quarters of the 19^th century and the first few years of the 20^th century, he went about meticulously collecting the kritis of Tyagaraja in their authentic form, sourcing them particularly from the Walajapet sishya parampara of the bard, which was considered authentic for very many reasons. The manuscripts of the notation and text of many compositions were zealously maintained by this sishya parampara in true fidelity to the original melody of the compositions.

While a few other texts gave the raga of this composition as Sindhukannada a raga name which first appears in a raga compendium ‘ragalakshanam’ (RL hereafter – see foot note 1) under Mela 28, the Chinnasvami Mudaliar’s compilation assigns the raga name of Kesari to this composition. Sindhukannada is not found in the Sangraha Chudamani the musical text which is thought to have been utilized by Tyagaraja or which is also considered a lexicon of all ragas that Tyagaraja is said to have composed in.

In contrast the raga name Kesari appears in the Sangraha Cudamani and hence most likely the raga of ‘Nanu kanna talli’ can only be the melody which goes with the name of Kesari.

AND SO IS THE AVAILABLE SVARUPA OF THE RAGA OF NANNU KANNA TALLI, CORRECT AS PER THEORY:

Now while the raga of the composition as seen in practice is under Mela 28, the raga name now being known with clarity as Kesari, the next step is to evaluate to find whether the mathu is right. The raga Kesari according to the Sangraha Cudamani is under Mela 25, Mararanjani ! And as per the lakshana shloka of Sangraha Cudamani the raga should be having the following arohana avarohana.

Arohanam: S M1 G3 M1 R2 G3 M1 P D1 P S

Avarohanam: S N1 D1 N2 P M1 G3 R2 S

As one can see it is exactly same in structure to the Sindhu Kannada lakshana of RL except that Kesari is under mela 25 with D1 and N1 while Sindhukannada has D2 and N2, that is under Mela 28. Structurally they are akin, while melodically they are different.

Thus one can safely conclude at this juncture that the extant version of the composition ‘nannu kanna talli’ is rendered with D2 (catusruti dhaivata) and N2 ( kaishiki nishadha) while the theory backed up by Sangraha Cudamani ( a perfect lexicon of the ragas of Tyagaraja’s compositions) says that the raga for this composition should instead use only D1 ( suddha dhaivata) and N1 ( suddha nishadha).

So somewhere somebody threw a spanner in the works by which all renderings of ‘ nannu kanna talli” by prominent sishya paramparas of Tyagaraja got normalized to a version with D2 and N2 ( mela 28) with the result that the probably original raga of the composition was simply morphed by shifting the notes especially the dhaivata and nishadha from D1 and N1 to D2 and N2 ! This version with D2 and N2 became prolific and mainstream completely eclipsing the original version.

SO WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE RAGA OF ‘NANNU KANNA TALLI’ ?

As one can see the change that took place was that the raga of the Tyagaraja’s composition ‘nannu kanna talli’ was simply amended by replacing the notes D1 and N1 with D2 and N2 . The notation and lakshana by Cinnasvami Mudaliar and the Sangraha Cudamani, respectively – two unimpeachable witnesses in so far as Tyagaraja’s composition goes are the mute witnesses to this disfigurement done to ‘nannu kanna talli’ . The raga Kesari under mela 25 was done away with by replacing the D1 and N1 notes with D2 and N2 and a new raga Sindhukannada was created to replace it. And this morphing of the raga of this composition was most likely done during the first half of the 20^th century.

And what was the need to deprive the composition of its original tune? The motive is perhaps not too complicated. The raga sported D1 and N1, a vivadi combination. In very many schools, especially at that time it was considered ‘traditional’ not to render vivadhi combinations as it was thought of as a ‘dosha’ so much so in private it was believed that the dosha brought misfortune. Musicians with such a belief system eschewed rendering such ragas/compositions which sported vivadhi combinations. Its quite likely that instead of avoiding rendering ‘nannu kanna talli’ with D1N1, one/ some or many considered that the composition being so beautiful should be brought to ‘mainstream’ by flipping its raga, by replacing the D1N1 combo with D2N2 and thus working around the problem!

So much so, notwithstanding the evidence of the Sangraha Cudamani which the musicians of that era adored, the notes D1 and N1 for the raga of ‘nannu kanna talli ‘were set aside without much ado as they suffered vivadi dosha, perhaps on the strength of the text RL and also perhaps of Nadamuni Panditar. It must have been as well considered that the D1N1 rendering was not harmonically facile , notwithstanding the fact that the sampradaya of Venkatamakhin provided for the workaround – PD1N1D1Ps and SN1D1P respectively for the arohana and avarohana. See foot note 2. Such a change could not have been so easily propagated unless musicians/practitioners of those days had acted ‘in concert’.

Au contraire, the acclaimed music critic of those times, a titan who was feared both for his formidable knowledge and an acerbic tongue, Sri K V Ramachandran argued from the portals of the Music Academy that the new melody of nannu kanna talli was not authentic. And neither was the the raga Sindukannada of mela 28 found in the hoary musical tradition of Dikshitar or Tyagaraja. He records that he had heard the original version of ‘nannu kanna talli’ being rendered with D1. But apart from being recorded in the JMA for posterity, his sole voice of truth and reason was and has long been ignored and forgotten.

And post 1950, for certainty there is no version of Kesari/’nannu kanna talli’ with D1 and N1. Kesari was long dead and all musicians therefter and well now in to the second decade of the 21st century, unaware of this raga change, have proceeded to sing ‘nannu kanna talli’ with D2 and N2.

AND SO IS THIS THE TRUTH ?

Well the answer is yes. The raga of ‘nannu kanna thalli ‘ is not Sindukannada under Mela 28 but it is Kesari under mela 25. The problem is it is still not yet the complete truth! So isn’t Kesari which sport D1 and N1, the raga of ‘nannu kanna talli’ the original tune of the composition?

On the authority of ‘Sangraha Cudamani’, Kesari is indeed the raga of the composition and indeed it sports the vivadhi notes D1 and N1. But Kesari is not its original name. It is the name given by Sangraha Cudamani whose date is debatable. Kesari is a name without a textual history. And this melody masquerading under the name of Kesari is older than many of us think. It is older than the Trinity. It was not discovered by Tyagaraja. The melody of Kesari which goes by the arohana/avarohana murcchana as given by the Sangraha Cudamani, is found documented in the Anubandha to the Caturdandi Prakashika dateable to the first half of the 18^th century, prior to the days of the Trinity.

On the authority of the Anubandha to the CDP, this raga sporting D1/N1can be found documented in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini as a raganga, head of the clan of Mela 25. Subbarama Dikshitar provides the arohana/avarohana krama as under:

Arohana : S M1 G3 M1 P D1 N1 D1 P S

Avarohana: S N1 D1 P M1 G3 R2 S

The raga is Sharavati, a pre trinity raga which was derived by Muddu Venkatamakhin to be the head of the clan 25. Subbarama Dikshitar provides the Muthusvami Dikshitar kriti ‘ Sharavati tata vasini’ as the exemplar. As we can see the implementation of Sharavati both by Tyagaraja and Dikshitar goes by the text book definition afforded by Muddu Venkatamakhin as documented and commented upon by Subbarama Dikshitar. While the heptatonic Mararanjani is the melakartha and Kesari a janya thereunder ( in sangraha Cudamani), Sharavati which shares the same structure as that of Kesari, is the raganga under Muddu Venkatamakhin’s scheme.

The comparison of the raga lakshana given for Kesari in Sangraha Cudamani under Mela 25 and that of Sharavathi as a raganga for mela 25 by Muddu Venkatamkhin will completely tally. Sharavati and Kesari are one and the same !

So if we were to know the original setting of the Tyagaraja composition, we can see the exemplar provided by the Dikshitar composition for Sharavati and use that to reconstruct the original melody/mathu of ‘nannu kanna talli’. Here is the rendering of ‘sharavati tata vasini’ by Vidushi Gayathri Girish learnt by her from the Late V V Srivatsa and rendered by her for one of his Guruguhanjali Programs.

DIVINING THE ORIGINAL TUNE OF ‘NANNU KANNA TALLI’

From the notation of the Tyagaraja composition it is very clear that the same device used by Dikshitar for dealing with D1 and N1 svaras has been used as the arohana/avarohana murcchana given by Subbarama Dikshitar would show.

PD1PS or PDN1DPS is the arohana krama
SN1D1P is the avarohana krama.

In the existing patham of ‘nannu kanna talli’ by simply intoning D1 instead of D2 and N1 instead of N2 and by respecting the arohana and avarohana krama as above the possible original melodic svarupa of ‘nannu kanna talli’ can be obtained. Also the feature to note is both Tyagaraja and Dikshitar invoke the same arohana purvanga krama SM1G3M1P though SRGM suffers no dosha/dis-harmony. Yet the motif of the older Sharavati is only SM1G3M1 which both of them faithfully enshrine in their compositions, which is additional proof that Sharavati is the raga of ‘nannu kanna talli’.

Muthusvami Dikshitar has also appended a cittasvara section to pithily provide the raga lakshana of Sharavati. Here is the rendering of the kriti together with the cittasvara section by the disciples of Vidushi Ambujam Vedantham. Though the kriti rendering has been augmented with embellishments for some of the lines, the spirit of the sharavati of Dikshitar is kept overall. Attention is invited to the ragas motifs in the cittasvara section. See foot note 4.

Based on the above here is my reconstruction of the beautiful Tyagaraja composition with D1 and N1, in Kesari, originally known as Sharavati.

NOTE: A note has to be placed here, which is the point which was reiterated in the earlier post on the raga Kalavati which too sported the PD1N1S in its uttaranga. The svara N1 can never be a nyasa, meaning one should not park on that note, when delineating the raga or singing the composition. The suddha nishadha has to be shown while executing a glide PD1/N1\D1, as a shade when intoning the suddha dhaivatha. While in the descent it should fleetingly appear when moving from the tAra sadja to the suddha dhaivata svara as S\N1\D1P. In all the renditions above presented, one would find that this mode of rendering is not strictly adhered to. While rendering, vidvans and students alike should take care to stick to the true spirit of this mode of rendering and not violate the same. In the same breath it is to be noted that in a few places the suddha nishadha appears as dheergha as well which has to be treated accordingly – For example mOdhinI in the madhyamakala sahitya which is a svarakshara is a dhirgha nishadha. Also we see Dikshitar using P/N1D1P as well in the composition.

CONCLUSION:

The likes of Sri K V Ramachandran and Vidvan Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer have always voiced their opinion that the original ragas of very many compositions of Tyagaraja’s has been lost or mutilated. The raga of ‘nannu kanna talli’ is one such instance. Much water has flown under the bridge. Much of the evidence if any for such statements are now no longer available due to efflux of time. But with the texts and the so called internal evidence of the compositions themselves, we can attempt to divine the true melodic contours of some of these classics so that an attempt can be made to restore the pristine original beauty of these works of art.

While Tyagaraja apparently kept the ragas of his compositions secret, Muthusvami Dikshitar made it obvious, embedding them in the very sahitya/text itself. And with his composition “sharavati tata vasini’ as an exemplar, this blog post has been an attempt to re-examine and determine the melody of his illustrious contemporary, Tyagaraja. The raga Sharavati, a raganga enthroned by Muddu Venkatamakhin as the head of the clan/mela 25 has been the vehicle for both DIkshitar and Tyagaraja and on this day one can celebrate their memory and their shared/common heritage with ‘nannu kanna talli’!

REFERENCES:

Subbarama Dikshitar (1904)- Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini Vol III– Tamil Edition published by the Madras Music Academy in 1968/2006
Dr Hema Ramanathan(2004) – ‘Ragalakshana Sangraha’- Collection of Raga Descriptions
Ramachandran K.V. (1950) – “Carnatic Ragas and the Textual Tradition” – The Journal of the Music Academy XXI, pp. 99-106, Madras, India.
Ramachandran K.V. (1950) – “Apurva ragas of Tyagaraja’s Songs” – The Journal of the Music Academy XXI, pp. 107-109, Madras, India.
C Ramanujachari (2008) -The Spiritual Heritage of Tyagaraja – Reprint- Published by Sri Ramakrishna Mission – page 67- Text & Translation of song

FOOTNOTES:

A suspicious entry or rather an insertion is found in a musicological text confusingly named ‘Ragalakshanam’ ( Andhra text) of unknown authenticity, provenance and date. Dr Hema Ramanathan in her work ( page 1312) states that without any preamble, the raga name Sindukannada with the aroha/avaroha krama is inserted as just a line with no other information under another raga Isamanohari under mela 28. It is certainly grist for the mill and fodder for conspiracy theorists. The raga listing of Nadamuni Panditar (1906) gives Sindhukannada under mela 28. Similarly Ragakosam of RR Kesavamuthi too lists this raga Sindukannada under mela 28.
In humor it also makes one wonder, if the entire episode of the raga of ‘Nannu Kanna talli’ getting flipped was a freak incident. Perhaps it was a work of a musician with a poor sense of svara gnana who ignorant of the actual raga and its svarupa began to mistakenly render or went on to teach the raga/composition with the facile notes D2/N2 so much so a mistake became the standard !
We do have similar such changes that were introduced during the first half of the 20th century. Example is the raga of another Tyagaraja’s well known composition ‘nagumOmU ganalEnI’. The account of old timers as well historical/musical records would show that the raga sported only D1/suddha dhaivatha. But for some reason a particular school of Tyagaraja or a particular musician started rendering the raga with D2/catusruti dhaivata with the result that the spurious edition became popular/mainstream. It has lead to a comedy of errors, with the result today one treats the original tune of ‘nagumOmU’ with suspicion. The same has been the case with quite a few other vivadhi raga compositions of Tyagaraja.
The permission granted by Smt Gayathri Girish to use the recording of her rendering of ‘sharavati tata vAsini’ in this blog post is gratefully acknowledged. The recording of the kriti by the disciples of Smt Ambujam Vedantham is already available in the public domain.

Recent Posts

Most Used Categories

Prologue:

Introduction:

Circa 957 AD

21st Century:

Circa 1800 AD:

Circa 969 AD

Circa 1800 AD

Narayani’s History:

Lakshana of raga Narayani & likely why it went extinct:

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

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

CONCLUSION:

Bibliography:

Foot Notes:

EPILOGUE:

Udayarkudi Inscription – An In-depth Assessment

The Evidence of the other Scholars:

The Evidence of the Novelists:

The Udayarkudi Stone Inscription:

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

The reference to Two dates/years in the inscription:

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

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

The Details of the Land found in the Epigraph:

The Perpetrators & their Relatives:

Bibliography:

PROLOGUE:

BACKGROUND TO THE COMPOSITION:

THE EVIDENCE OF THEORY:

THE EVIDENCE FROM PRACTICE- DISCOGRAPHY:

ANALYSIS OF THESE RENDERINGS:

SOME PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS:

SVARABUSHANI IS NOT THE RAGA OF THE COMPOSITION

EPILOGUE:

CONCLUSION:

FOOTNOTES:

INTRODUCTION:

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF HIS HOLINESS MAHADEVENDRA SARASVATI:

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE 65th ACHARYA HIS HOLINESS SUDARSANA MAHADEVENDRA SARASVATI:

PATRON OF MUSIC:

SETTING THE TUNES FOR ASTAPADIS:

PROVIDING THE COPY OF THE CATUDANDI PRAKASHIKA OF VENKATAMAKHIN TO SUBBARAMA DIKSHITAR:

ANALYSIS OF THE KRITIS & DISCOGRAPHY:

‘sankarAcAryam’ – Sankarabharanam – Adi tala

‘Sri Kanci Kamakoti’ – Ramakriya – Ata tala:

DISCOGRAPHY:

OTHER COMPOSITIONS:

DISCOGRAPHY:

CONCLUSION:

REFERENCES:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

FOOT NOTE 1:

FOOT NOTE 2:

FOOT NOTE 3:

FOOT NOTE 4:

FOOT NOTE 5:

FOOTNOTE 6:

FOOT NOTE 7:

FOOT NOTE 8:

FOOT NOTE 9:

FOOT NOTE 10 :

FOOT NOTE 11 :

FOOT NOTE 12 :

Pallavi

cittasvara sahitya

FOOT NOTE 13:

Update History:

Introduction

A Brief History – textual

Melodic structure of Natanarayani

Sahaji & Tulaja’s Textual Evidence

Muddu Venkatamakhin’s raga definition

Exemplar Compositions & the musical contour of the raga therein

Discography

Did Tyagaraja compose in Natanarayani ?

Natanarayani & Sama – a study in contrast

References

21^st Century:

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE 65^th ACHARYA HIS HOLINESS SUDARSANA MAHADEVENDRA SARASVATI: