The Supreme Court’s decision to put on hold the recognition of Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna as the recipient of the Sangita Kalanidhi M S Subbulakshmi award until the appeal by M S’s grandson V Shrinivasan is decided raises questions about the role of art, free expression, and institutional boundaries. Shrinivasan’s contention has been two-fold: That Krishna has besmirched M S’s legacy in his writings and that the conferment is violative of her will which forbade the institution of any award, grant or statue in her name. The first is up for debate, the latter only honoured selectively. What the court’s interim order has done in the meantime is to needlessly draw the highest court into an arena that is not theirs, undermine civil society’s decision to honour an individual and chip away at artistic freedom.
A prestigious honour in Carnatic music, the annual award is a tribute to a singer who transcends boundaries, social and musical, to become a cultural icon. Whether Krishna deserves the award can be debated endlessly — let the naysayers and the cheerleaders argue their case but that’s not the point. To argue against his selection on the basis that his views detract from the sanctity of the art form and that his writing has done a disservice to M S’s legacy is narrow-spirited and sets a precedent that can undermine any award. In a democracy where contestations in art are de rigueur, Krishna’s advocacy for progressive ideals is a daring attempt to break down walls. It defies simplification in much the same way as M S’s music did — building bridges, in Krishna’s words, between the everyday and the exalted by “reorienting the aesthetics of her art” through a form of calibrated Brahminisation.
