Controversy continues to pursue TM Krishna, a proponent of Carnatic music and often referred to as an experimental classicist, with unbridled rigour. In the most recent bout, he was scheduled to perform on November 17 at an event sponsored by Society for Promotion of Indian Classical Music and Culture Amongst Youth (SPIC-MACAY) and Airports Authority of India (AAI), which was suddenly postponed on November 14 due to “some exigencies at work.”
The postponement came after a troll campaign on the internet accused the AAI of using public funds to invite an ‘anti-India’ musician, a ‘converted bigot’ and an ‘urban Naxal,’ who sang about Jesus and Allah.
As per a report on The Scroll, when this happened, the Magsaysay award winner announced that he would be willing to perform anywhere in Delhi on the same date. On November 16, the Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi government announced that Krishna would perform in the city as part of ‘Awam Ki Awaz,’ a series of concerts launched by the Arts and Culture Department in October 2017.
And on November 17, Krishna played for a huge audience in the Garden of Five Senses.
TM Krishna pointed out that “the troll army has the underlying patronage of people in power.” In such a situation, to be critical of the Modi-regime and its politics is bound to invite hate and censorship. But do we buy into this hate-mongering? By offering to host Krishna, the Delhi Government has answered in the negative and emerged as a preserver of artistic autonomy, cultural diversity and freedom of expression.
The Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) president, N Sai Balaji, offered to host TM Krishna; and a group of students and teachers from universities across Delhi also wrote a statement in solidarity with Krishna, condemning the AAI’s decision to cancel the Nehru Park concert.
Curiously, an institution like JNU is often censured for espousing radical, untempered ideas and politicising and problematising simple, avoidable realities. A musician like TM Krishna, seeking to expand the Carnatic classical tradition, that has remained exclusively male and upper caste dominated through critique, speech and even melody is similarly branded too frivolous to be taken seriously.
In the words of Avijit Pathak, “art that heals, makes us receptive and reflexive, and activates our creative potential, would find it difficult to flourish in an age that negates critically constructive thinking, arouses mob mentality and promotes narcissism. The likes of Krishna are needed precisely for this reason.”