On the 18th of December Vijay Siva presented a demonstration on four allied ragas – dEvakriya, manjari, dEvAmrtavarShiNi and kharaharapriya.
Vijay began with dEvakriya and traced its origins. It was first mentioned by Ramamatya in his Svaramelakalanidhi in 1550. The author had classified it under the kannaDa gauLa group of ragas which corresponds to the 34th mela of Venkatamakhi. It is also referred to as an inferior raga. The raga then finds mention in the Sadragachandrodaya of Pundarika Vittala. Shahaji, the Maratha ruler of Tanjavur emphasises that it is devoid of G and N classifies it as a janya of kAmbOji. He also gives it the structure of
S R M P D S
S D P M R S
Tulaja repeats the same. The raga was elaborated upon by Muddu Venkatamakhin who classified it as an auDava and upAnga raga. Today this dEvakriya is known as shuddha sAvEri is classified as the 2nd janya raga of kanakAmbari in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarsini.
That completed the part of the earlier dEvakriya which later changed its name. Vijay then dealt with dEvakriya as we know of it today and as handled by Tyagaraja. This appears in the Sangrahachudamani where it is classified as a niShAdAntya raga and a naTabhairavi janya with the scale of
S R G M N D N
N D P M G R S R S
Later works such as the Sangita Sarvartha Sara Sangrahamu repeat the same information. The Raga Lakshanamu of the late 19th century has the scale as
S R G M N D N S
S N D M G R S
There is one song by Tyagaraja in this raga (nATimATi maracittivO) and based on the movement of notes given in this song, the Music Academy in its early years, worked on a scale for it which it gave out as
S R M P N S
S N D N P M G R S
The D is chatusruti dhaivatam. This is the form today. Vijay played DKJ’s rendering of this song. He pointed out that P N S N D P appears as a variant in actual usage, as shown in the recording.
He then took up manjari. The raga first appears in the Sangrahachudamani and has the scale of
S G R G M P N D N S
S N D P M G R S
There is a raga of the same name in Hindustani music but it is different. Tyagaraja has one song in this – paTTiviDuvarAdu. Vijay played a recording of DKJ singing this and showed that in the anupallavi puTTinanADE, there is a variant prayoga that goes – M D D N N R S N.
The next raga was dEvAmrtavarShiNi. This raga was essentially a tune of Tyagaraja’s and there is his song Evarani in it. It is also known as nAdacintAmaNi and has the scale
S R G M N D N S
S N D P M G R S
He played a recording of DK Pattammal to show that in actual usage, the P appears on the ascent and there are phrases that go P D N S R G and also N D P D. Early versions of this song were sung with shades of kharaharapriya dominating and Vijay played a recording of SG Kittappa’s to show this.
He then went on to kharaharapriya and said that though the Sangrahachudamani classifies this as the 22nd mELa, it was thanks to Tyagaraja that the raga actually took shape. He created 12 songs in it. Several songs of his begin on different notes such as
S – samAnam EvarU
R – cakkani rAjamArgamu
P- pakkala nilabaDi
Later kharaharapriya was adopted by drama and nAmasankIrtanam. The disciples of Tyagaraja strangely enough did not use this raga, except for Veenai Kuppayyar. In the next generation, there is a kriti of Patnam and 4 to 5 kritis by Muthiah Bhagavatar. It was left to Papanasam Sivan to enlarge on Tyagaraja’s canvas and leave his original imprint. He showed that it was possible to have M as a nyAsa svara and he also introduced light versions of the raga into films.
Vijay ended his presentation with the speculation that Tyagaraja perhaps chose to compose only one song in the three janyas and so many in the mELakarta because he wanted the latter to gain a definite shape.
There was a lively interaction at the end.
Suguna Purushottaman pointed out that in the Musiri and the Mudicondan traditions, dEvAmrtavarShiNi did not use P at all, even in sangatis.
TM Krishna felt it was wrong of Vijay to state that kharaharapriya did exist from the times of the tEvAram. He felt that the raga equivalent at that time was quite different in form and shape. This argument threatened to get out hand and Dr Pappu had to use the gavel figuratively.
Yours truly spoke mainly in the context of a comment that arose that Kittappa’s version was drama music. It must be remembered that an anecdote has it that Muthiah Bhagavatar withdrew his recorded version of Evarani after hearing Kittappa’s. Was it out of respect for the authenticity of the latter version or else…?
There was a question as to why Kittappa used the harmonium as an accompaniment as against the violin. The reason was that a violin in the absence of amplification was completely drowned out by the human voice. The harmonium used in the record is of the pedal variety which gave a larger volume and was a standard drama accompaniment those days.
In my view, this presentation was rather brief on content. Perhaps the topic did not allow for much elaboration.
Dharma’Sankatam’
I attended a Lec-Demo of Shri Vijay Siva on raga lakshanas of Devakriya, Manjari, Devakriya. Devamruthavarshani and Karaharapriya at the Music Academy on 18th December, 2010.
Vijay Siva played some of the doyens and legends recordings – Kittappa, Semmengudi Srinivasa Iyer and Pattammal- singing the kriti ‘Everani Ne’ of Thyagaraja in Devamruthavarshini and rightly pointed out that all the doyens had liberally used varjya swaras of Devamruthavarshini or the swaras of karaharapriya in their renditions. He took the stand that he would also render the kriti in the same patanthara, learnt from his guru, to continue the tradition, unquestioningly. There was no conclusion at the end of the question and answers session, at the end of the Lec-Demo.
This is a typical case of “Dharma Sankatam”. Keeping the ideal of patanthara discipline and the tradition of Bani of illustrious Guru can create dharma sankatam, such as the one discussed here.
During the raga lakshnas lec-demos at the Music Academy in the late 50’ or early 60’, similar issue did come up. It was concluded that even though primacy is for lakshya over lakshana, the artist(s) should strictly stick to lakshana, once lakshana is formed, accepted and fixed. Occasional and unintentional lapses by the usage of varjya swara(s) for the sake of rasashrishti/rasanubhavam by the veterans should not be subjected to undue criticism (Subbudu’s effects). Just like poets are given poetic license for any transgressions of the grammar, the veteran performer also to be given similar license. If every artist takes the license for granted, the lakhana suffers and the unique identity of the raga (rare one) is lost, for ever. The tradition demands that such heritage should not be lost. All those artists, including Shri Vijay Siva, with ideals of strictly adhering to the Sampradaya or Tradition, need to make the necessary corrections in their patanthara and renditions. By doing their duty as required by the sampradaya/tradition, they are not doing any disservice to their Guru(s).