There is a strange silence in the public sphere on the death of Hindustani classical singer Veena Sahasrabuddhe at the age of 67 in Pune on Wednesday. It is not the silence of mourning. It would have been touching if it were so. Unfortunately, it is the silence of ignorance and even indifference. It is not just a sorry state of affairs, but it verges on the pathetic. There is loud talk about culture and cultural nationalism, but as a nation we are not able to honour and celebrate the icons of high culture in the way they ought to be. High culture need not necessarily mean that it is exclusive, and that ordinary people cannot connect with it. In many ways, it is the ordinary people who quietly enjoy the renditions of Kabir, Tulsi Das, Mira by top notch Hindustani classical singers like Sahasrabuddhe. A ready example is Sahasrabuddhe’s rendition, “Kahaan ke pathik? Kahaan kinho hai gamanwa? (Where are you from? Where are you going?)” from Tulsi Das’ Ramcharitmanas. It is melodious without slipping into cloying mellifluousness. She conveys the simple lyricism of Tulsi’s simple and endearing language. 

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

There is no doubt that the class of connoisseurs and Hindustani classical aficionados in the country, which runs into tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands, which should have been indeed the case in a country like India with its big numbers, must have plunged into deep mourning at the death of Sahasrabuddhe. Among the cognoscenti, she shone bright, and, to an extent, as a distant star. There was the unmistakable sublimity in her voice with its rich timbre, captivating the senses without tumbling into sensuousness. It is not the case that there is anything objectionable in sensuousness, but she soared above sensuality, skimming over it as a bird would above the water. It is the purity of her notes which evokes awe and admiration.

Sahasrabuddhe will remain important for other reasons as well. She belongs to the post-Independence generation, who preserves the discipline of tradition and brings its riches and joys to new audiences. She could have but she does not tamper with the traditional notes in the name of creative freedom and romantic exuberance. She holds on to the tradition with a touch of lightness turning tradition into an accessible and invaluable inheritance, which should be preserved and passed on. She does not make it into a gesture of self-righteous loftiness.

Is there need for mediating culture critics to bring home to the general listener that virtues of an artist like Sahasrabuddhe, and culture criticism in this sense does not exist in this country? It should be a matter of concern, and it appears that the intelligentsia in this country is not equipped, and it is not even inclined, to create the cultural ambience which would facilitate more people to appreciate the musical treasure like that of Sahasrabuddhe and many more of her ilk. 

It has to be recognised that there is a need to speak and write about artists like Sahasrabuddhe who give a different and sophisticated meaning to tradition, which is always seen as retrogressive and rigid. It is the case that those who believe they are traditionalists do not understand the true value of tradition, and this is why a person who embodies tradition in the manner that Sahasrabuddhe does is not valued. And the people who adore her music despite their aversion for tradition are not equipped to speak about her in an authentic language.