The question posed in the title may indeed sound strange given the large number of concerts and other activities related to Carnatic music that take place not only in India but also internationally in many foreign nations. But, it is indeed prompted by some important considerations.
Take any article or public scholarly discussion related to the art form, compositions, composers etc. The focus is nearly 100% on persona and work that seem to be on the dead and gone, and even among them the most focus is on the far too distant. Certainly, many of them like the Trinity Saint Thyagaraja, Sri Muthuswami Dikishitar, and Sri Shyama Sastri as also those like Sri Purandaradasa and Sri Annamacharya and many others need to be venerated, and their work do provide more scope for exploration than what has already been done. Similar comments hold for performing musicians too; rarely does a scholarly discussion of great musicians or banis or whatever involve a living person. Under these circumstances, the question in the title does indeed assume a level of legitimacy that cannot be ignored. Is such absolute focus on the distant past an impediment to the sustenance of the art form through inadequate encouragement of new players and their contributions of significance?
One can see three important reasons for this. One is that scholarly discussions and anlyses are best done after the work attains reasonable exposure and informal recognition. The second reason is that the society has become litigious, and in a nation like India even unintended libel, an inherently civil offense that should engender only civil penalties except in the cases involving serious malice, is treated as though it were a crime and may engender even arrest. The third is certainly an inability of most segments in this art community to acknowledge fellow contributors and the inherent but not explicit camps and divisions based on
guru parampara, bani, and the like. One of the sad consequences of it is that reviews of concerts have become more sycophantic praises and rarely analytic and critical as they used to be in the past. Certainly, no one wants the acerbic vitriol of some of the old reviewers, but without critical reviews, can the art form maintain its quality? [See my blog
https://veeraam.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-critique-of-critics-and-criticisms.htmlthat was also published as an article long ago in the magazine Sruti].
As a rasika deeply interested in learning more about the art form and its present status and modern creators and contributors, and in the continuance of its excellence, I think there is indeed a need to remedy the situation. For a starter, critics should be given reasonable license to critique. As a scientist, I was always aware that any scientific work I put out is open to comments, criticism, refutation, etc. We don't sue each other as long as such things are conducted in a scholarly way, and most often even when they are not; we also have camps of our own based on methodology and foundational bias. Yet, the good scientists celebrate new developments and are even willing to use and follow them. Why is it not so in this art? Also, there needs to be a greater sense of camaraderie and mutual cheering among participants to keep the art form even more alive, and for new and fresh contributions of all kinds to occur continuously. A simple way of showing it is by making time to attend others' programs. Without that, this may end up as Sanskrit that at one time flourished and was the Lingua Franca of Bharat and is in need of frequent and constant resuscitation now.
Certainly, in putting this out I may be inviting comments, criticisms, etc., which are most welcome. But kindly bear in mind to keep them constructive and displaying a spirit moving the art form forward. Thank you.
