The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, November 19, restrained The Hindu from using the name of the late Carnatic singer MS Subbulakshmi in the annual ‘Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award’. The ruling came after the singer’s grandson V Shrinivasan moved the court over the decision to confer the award to Carnatic vocalist and activist TM Krishna this year. 

Shrinivasan argued that the award cannot be given to someone who has constantly criticised the late singer. In fact, he even argued that no award can be ever given to anyone under Subbulakshmi’s name, stating that she had expressly said so in her last will and testament. 

The court said that The HIndu may grant the award to Krishna but should not use Subbulakshmi’s name. “Any person who really has reverence and regard for MS Subbulakshmi should not continue to give the award in her name after knowing her desire and mandate,” the court said.

The controversy over the award has raised several questions, including the difference between the award instituted by The Hindu and the title of Sangita Kalanidhi conferred by the Music Academy Madras. To understand the issue, one also needs to know the various contentions raised by Shrinivasan against Krishna, and the latter’s response to it.

TNM explains all you need to know.

The two Sangita Kalanithis

Sangita Kalanidhi is the title conferred to the musician invited to preside over the annual December Music Festival organised by the Music Academy Madras. Established in 1929, the Academy aims to promote and encourage studying, research and development of the art and science of music and other fine arts. The institution has been hosting annual music conferences from the same year, which later became the December Music Festival. The Sangita Kalanidhi title was instituted in 1942. 

The title is considered the highest accolade in the field of Carnatic music, and comprises a gold medal and a citation. The announcement is usually made in the first half of the year by the Music Academy and is given to the recipient by December, when the annual music conference is held. Bombay Jayashri was the recipient of the award in 2023. Other recipients include singer Balamurali Krishna (1978) and MS Subbulakshmi (1968).

Following her demise in 2004, The Hindu group instituted a cash prize of Rs 1 lakh called the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award, in memory of the late singer, who was called the Nightingale of Music by Sarojini Naidu. Even though The Hindu confers this award to the recipient of Sangita Kalanidhi during the annual music conference, the Music Academy has asserted that they don’t have any role in the selection of the recipient of the media group’s cash award. 

What is the case about?

In March this year, the Music Academy announced TM Krishna as the recipient of Sangita Kalanidhi for the year 2024. The Academy said that he “used music as a tool for social reform” and that the recognition was for his “powerful voice”. Krishna has written analytical books on music and is a social activist.

In August, Subbulakshmi’s grandson Shrinivasan moved the Madras High Court seeking to issue a permanent restriction on conferring the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award, and issue an order restraining the organisers of the annual music conference from giving the same award, named after Subbulakshmi, to TM Krishna.

He said that the conferring of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award on Krishna came as a “surprise” to Subbulakshmi’s family. He also recalled how several artists had critiqued the award being given to Krishna.

Shrinivasan, in his petition said that Krishna has “unjustifiably resorted to vile, vituperative, and scandalous attacks” on Subbulakshmi. He also alleged that Krishna “mischievously introduced the Devadasi-Brahmin narrative to intentionally inform the present generation of a long-forgotten and irrelevant facet of the past life of MS Subbulakshmi.”

He also added that the family of Subbulakshmi had a “tough time grappling with such comments and innuendos” but they “let it pass”. However, he claimed that “the conferment of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award on a person who has done nothing except trivialise her achievements by making it seem as though it was a reward for embracing ‘Brahmanism’ is unacceptable to him and the family of the late singer.”

Stating that he read Subbulakshmi’s will recently, Shrinivasan stated that her last wish was that after her demise, “No trust, foundation, or memorial of any kind including erecting of any statue or bust shall be formed or created or made in my name and memory or any fund or donations or contributions collected for any of the aforementioned purposes”.

Pointing to her will, he contended that the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award was specifically against the mandate of Subbulakshmi, in whose honour the memorial award is being annually presented. Stating that the conferment of the award in her name by The Hindu is “contrary to the express wishes” of the late singer, he sought to discontinue the award. He also added that the said award, named after his grandmother, should not be given to TM Krishna. “Awards and recognitions instituted in the name of a person ought to be conferred on persons who share common values. It is a mockery that the conferment of a prize in the name of Dr Subbulakshmi is being made on [TM Krishna] who has publicly termed her as a ‘saintly Barbie doll’ and one of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century in the world of Carnatic music.”

The Music Academy, however, said that the conferment of Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award has been in full public gaze from 2005 and pointed out that there have been no  objections or reservations by Shrinivasan or other family members for almost two decades. Shrinivasan responded saying, “The primary contention is that the conferment of the Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award has not been questioned thus far. It does not however follow that merely because it remained unquestioned in the past it must remain unquestioned in the future as well.”

What triggered the row?

Shrinivasan, in his petition, has pointed out two of Krishna’s articles published in Caravan and The Wire and a speech he made in Hyderabad.  

Krishna’s Caravan piece is a longform profile of MS Subbulakshmi that explores how her artistry and persona were shaped by societal norms, gender expectations, and her relationships, particularly with her husband and manager, T Sadasivam. While celebrated as a musical icon and a symbol of cultural nationalism, the story critically examines how her identity and career were moulded by patriarchal frameworks, often overshadowing her agency. It also looks at the contradictions between her public image as a saintly figure and the personal sacrifices she endured to embody that image.

Shrinivasan highlighted a conversation quoted by Krishna in the article, in which a young anonymous musician said that Subbulakshmi was the “greatest hoax of the twentieth century”.

In the said story, Krishna also wrote, “The Carnatic hinterland would not employ the word ‘hoax’ to describe her, but would consider, with varying levels of empathy, the hypothesis that she was stage-managed. The marketing of MS—orchestrated, as is well-known—by her mentor, husband and business strategist, T Sadasivam, was undoubtedly astounding, and far ahead of its time. But to claim that what he sold to the world was intrinsically empty is unacceptable.”

The second one was published in The Wire, which argues for a more nuanced understanding of MS Subbulakshmi’s life and legacy, beyond the idealised narrative often associated with her. Shrinivasan alleged that Krishna said that Subbulakshmi “Brahmanised” herself to gain acceptance, fame, and reputation in the world of Carnatic music. “According to him, had MS Subbulakshmi not embraced ‘Brahmanism’, she may have never become who she was,” he said.

Krishna’s The Wire article read, “What does MS's metamorphosis into the perfect Brahmin housewife say? I, myself, have criticised this make over, but was there any other way for her? She sought respect and dignity and that she got only because she erased her past from her life and mind.”

The third reference by Shrinivasan was made to a 2017 talk show addressed by Krishna in Hyderabad, where he reiterated his earlier points that MS Subbulakshmi gained acceptance in broader society by distancing herself from her Devadasi roots and identity, and by becoming “an ideal Brahmin woman”. 

“This was a tragedy. If MS's voice came from a dark [skinned], non-upper-caste beauty-ish lady, would all of us celebrate her like we do today?” he asked.

TM Krishna’s response in court

In his counter affidavit, Krishna denied all allegations levelled against him and said that his remarks were taken out of context by Shrinivasan. He said that Shrinivasan’s allegations were “utterly false, baseless, and defamatory, and constitute a complete fabrication” of his writing and alleged that it was made with an intention to mislead the court.

Stating that Shrinivasan had not sought any relief from him, Krishna contended that he was filing the counter affidavit to disprove “the wholly false and imaginary picture of the facts” depicted in the petition. He contended that he did not resort to attacks of any sort on Subbulakshmi. “Quite contrary to what has been alleged in the affidavit … I have repeatedly expressed my admiration for the late great MS Subbulakshmi and I have also pointed out that I have looked to her for inspiration,” he said.

He also added that Shrinivasan has not only taken his articles out of context and selectively

interpreted his opinions, but also has “presented a wholly distorted and false picture of what is in fact contained in those writings.” Krishna termed the allegations against him “defamatory, scandalous, and vituperative”.

Quoting other articles he has written and interviews he has given, Krishna said, “A reading of my articles would only reveal that I have the greatest admiration for the late MS Subbulakshmi and her music.”