Classification of Carnatic ragas Abheri and Ahari, a historical perspective

The 2024 Academic Conference of the Sangeet Academy featured a percussion perspective with a lek-dem and a raga on ragas Aberi and Ahari.

On the seventh day of the annual academic conference of the Music Academy. Lecture was delivered by Srilatha on the topic ‘Mysterious Medieval Changes – Ragas Abheri and Ahari’.

He began the lecture with the history of the classification of these ragas starting from the 16th century Swarmel KalanidhiThis text lists both Abheri and Ahari in Ahari Mela (with notes for present-day Keeravani). Later works starting with Thanjavur Maharaja Sahaji in the 17th and 18th centuries raga lakshanamu, Place both the ragas in Bhairavi Mela (present Natbhairavi).

raga lakshanamu It records details of 20 different melas and 115 ragas classified in those melas along with their notes and common phrases. Sahaji also gives details about the nature of various phrases. It was previously unknown from where Sahaji acquired his knowledge of Raga Lakshana – oral tradition or written.

Here, Srilatha presented the Gita manuscripts from the Saraswati Mahal Library of Thanjavur Maharaja Serfoji. The manuscripts contain references to older compositions as well as commentaries that provide information about raga lakshana. These notes describe the mela of the raga using a base famous mela (for example varali, gaula, bhairavi) and modifications (use high ‘ni’). Ahari is kept in Ahari Mela which is described as Bhairavi Mela with ‘Ni’ of Gaula (i.e. present day Kiravani).

He then shared his rendition of a Gita in Abheri, which he had reconstructed from Gita manuscripts. It has the typical phrases of the (then) Abheri-like jump from ‘Pa’ to ‘Sa’ and the descent to ‘Sa ni Pa’. This Geeta is also present in the same form in Subbaram Dixit’s book. Sangeeta Sampradaya Exhibition (1904) although it has been placed in the same fair as Bhairavi.

Srilatha gave examples of interpretations for several other ragas in the Gita manuscripts, noting that this was a more practical and efficient method than using mysterious swarasthan names. He showed it for most of the ragas raga lakshanamuThey exactly matched the comments in the Gita manuscripts. Sahaji’s descriptions used the exact phrases from those manuscripts. This makes it very possible that those manuscripts were the source of Sahaji’s Raga Lakshana. He also gave examples of Gita commentaries lacking the requisite modifiers in the base mela due to discrepancies between manuscripts or the fragility of the palm leaf medium.

In the case of Abheri and Ahari, Sahaji placed both the ragas in Bhairavi Mela. All subsequent texts seem to follow raga lakshanamuExample of, including Sangeeta Sampradaya ExhibitionHe concluded that this suggests that these ragas probably changed due to inconsistencies in the Gita manuscripts used by Sahaji or an error in transmission by Sahaji.

The expert committee pointed out similarities between raga lakshanamu and Tulja’s Sangeeta SaramritaThe latter is a larger text and broader in scope, but has largely similar descriptions with some differences in overlapping ragas, indicating that they are both probably derived from the same Gita sources. It was also noted that several versions of Bhairavi may have been in circulation simultaneously, for example a 17th century text Sangeeta Sudha Mention of Chatushruti (middle) Dhaivatam in Bhairavi (then Bhairavi was listed only with Shuddha Dhaivatam (lower).

Sangeeta Kalanidhi-nominee TM Krishna presented a summary of the session and highlighted the different ways of constructing a lakshana (written tradition), either based on a previous lakshana or on a lakshana (oral tradition). Judging by the practical comments in the Gita text, Sahaji seems to have followed the latter procedure. He put forward the view that Anya, as conceived today, is a restrictive concept that does not limit the scope of variability of raga presentation.

The second morning session ‘With a Raga – A Rhythmic Perspective’ was led by Mridangam exponent K. Arun Prakash did it. Brinda Manikavasakan and N. on vocals and violin respectively. Madan Mohan supported him.

Arun Prakash (seated in the middle) started speaking briefly about raga being the essence of Carnatic music. Lake-Dame was composed entirely of kirtan presentations, presented live by the musicians, along with Arun Prakash’s insights during and after each presentation.

The first two kirtan ragas were in Kannada – ‘Ninnada Nela’ (Aadi tala) and ‘Sri Matribhootam’ (Mishra Chapu tala). Arun Prakash’s different approaches with both songs became immediately apparent. He mentioned how the movement and spread of letters in ‘Sri Matribhootam’ is very different from that in ‘Ninnada Mela’. He also immediately notices that the difference between the two approaches was not only due to tala and kalpapramana differences, but also to the sound of the raga.

It was the Lech-Dame that was filled with vocal, emotional applause from the audience. One such moment that inspired it was Arun Prakash beautifully playing the last word of the charanam, ‘Paramasivam’, from Sri Mathrubhootam. There was such sensitivity in how the literature was assimilated by the composer that one could almost hear the pa ra ma si vam being played on the mridangam.

The next raga was Muthuswami Dikshitar’s ‘Chetasree Balakrishnam’ in Dwijavanti. This was another example of Arun Prakash’s “less is more” approach with this type of song. He even decided not to play in the entire front row! Instead he chose to let the voice, violin and tambourine resonate before entering into the composition himself.

A common feature of Lake-Dame was to highlight the beautiful landing notes of certain lines in compositions by Arun Prakash (Vandita Charanam in ‘Sri Matribhootam’, Vaatapatra Shayanam in ‘Chetasree’). This was sometimes highlighted by silence in mridangam playing.

After this, a brilliant rendition of ‘Thaye Tripura Sundari’ was given in Raga Sudha Saveri. It was almost the polar opposite sound of ‘Chetashree’ and showed that all types of notes are beautiful and can be played appropriately. The accompaniment was bright and strong (words). Vittu Vasikaradhu were used), with a focus on arithmetic in the structure of the composition, especially during Chittasvara.

Lake-Dame’s boldest choice was to present Shyama Shastri’s Bhairavi Swarajathi in its entirety. This section of Lake-Dame made clear many of the ideas of Arun Prakash’s Sangat. He talked about compositional structure and raga-driven accompaniment as opposed to rhythm. A beautiful idea was the notion of “musical accompaniment” to a song, which requires a deep internalization of structure, melody, literature, rhythm and how it all comes together. Later Krishna enthusiastically supported it. A notable aspect of the sangat (volume, tempo, etc.) was how it mirrored the tone of the swarajathi as it progressed from lower shadja to higher shadja.

TM Krishna appreciated his pithy comments and raised questions about what is expected from Mridangam artistes on the performance stage. Expectations like speed and mathematical skills can outweigh sensitivity porutham (suitability). Lech-Dame ended with the sentiment that we all – musicians and connoisseurs – have a shared responsibility for creating the illusion of art.