Ramachandra Guha: India’s classical music unites faiths. Its syncretic heritage must be preserved

The article presents classical music as a shared space where Hindu and Muslim musicians used the same repertoire. This mattered because music crossed religious boundaries even when political identities were becoming more divided. Omkarnath Thakur called Indian classical music a “synthesiser” of cultural tendencies.

Roshanara Begum continued singing Shankara and Durga after moving to Pakistan, although their names refer to Hindu deities. Salamat Ali Khan performed “Nadiya Kinare Mora Gaon,” explaining its basis in Radha’s love for Krishna. Sundaram Iyer also noted that Muslim and Hindu musicians sang compositions associated with Sadarang, Kabir, Tulsi, and Mira without controversy.

These examples show exchange working through performance, teaching, and shared appreciation rather than formal agreement. The article also describes Parur Sundaram Iyer learning and performing both Carnatic and Hindustani styles. His proposed music university aimed to preserve this openness and strengthen Hindu-Muslim unity.

A syncretic musical heritage is a shared tradition formed from multiple cultural or religious influences. It matters because it shows that artistic practices can connect communities even when their beliefs, languages, or political identities differ. The article presents Indian classical music as such a meeting place.

Its examples include Muslim and Hindu musicians singing compositions linked with Sadarang, Kabir, Tulsi, and Mira. Roshanara Begum performed Shankara and Durga in Pakistan, while Salamat Ali Khan sang a thumri centered on Radha and Krishna. Parur Sundaram Iyer crossed regional boundaries by studying Carnatic music and performing in the Hindustani style.

The key mechanism is shared practice. Musicians learn from teachers, perform the same repertoire, and value musical form without treating religious references as exclusive property. Omkarnath Thakur called music a “synthesiser” of Indian cultural tendencies. Sundaram Iyer described it as a powerful force for Hindu-Muslim unity.

The article directly discusses two major Indian classical traditions: Hindustani and Carnatic music. It does not provide a full comparison, but it shows them as distinct styles within a larger musical culture. Their connection mattered because musicians could cross regional and stylistic boundaries.

Hindustani music is associated mainly with North India and includes forms such as raga performance and thumri. Carnatic music is associated mainly with South India. The article identifies Parur Sundaram Iyer as a Kerala-born musician trained in Carnatic music who moved to Bombay and began playing violin in the Hindustani style. It calls this an unprecedented experiment.

In established musical usage, the traditions differ in repertoire, organization, ornamentation, and performance conventions, although both use structured melodic frameworks and improvisation. The article’s larger point is not that they are identical. It is that systematic study can bring different Indian styles together without racial or regional exclusion.

Before Partition, the article describes musical exchange between religious communities as a seamless part of undivided India’s culture. Hindu and Muslim performers could share ragas, songs, teachers, and themes without treating them as belonging exclusively to one faith. This background makes the later division especially significant.

Partition created India and Pakistan and separated musicians and audiences across a new national boundary. Roshanara Begum moved to Pakistan but continued singing Shankara and Durga. Salamat Ali Khan, also living in Pakistan, performed a thumri about Radha and Krishna. These examples show that political separation did not erase inherited musical connections.

The article also suggests that divisions could enter musical thinking. In Lahore, a teacher dismissed one raga as belonging to Hindus, a distinction the writer had not encountered among Indian classical musicians. In response, proposals for music education emphasized non-discriminatory study and music’s power to support Hindu-Muslim unity.

Several musicians helped preserve or promote exchange. Omkarnath Thakur proposed a Faculty of Music at Banaras Hindu University, where different Indian classical styles could be studied without racial distinction. Parur Sundaram Iyer supported the plan and urged Gandhi to help establish a music university.

Their work operated through teaching, performance, and institutions. Iyer was trained in Carnatic music, taught at Vishnu Digambar Paluskar’s Bombay music school, and then played violin in the Hindustani style. His colleagues included Thakur and Narayan Rao Khare. Khare later joined Gandhi’s Sabarmati Ashram as an informal director of music. Iyer also admired Kirana gharana ustad Abdul Karim Khan.

Gandhi answered Thakur and advised following the Santiniketan model, allowing music to flourish organically rather than relying on political or corporate patronage. In 1950, the proposed Faculty of Music was established at Banaras Hindu University, headed by Thakur.

If shared Hindu-Muslim traditions disappear, Indian classical music could become more divided by religion and region. The likely loss would not be only symbolic. Musicians might inherit fewer common songs, fewer cross-community teachers, and less familiarity with repertoire connected to another faith. This consequence follows from the article’s contrast between earlier exchange and later exclusion.

The Lahore conversation provides a warning. A teacher described a raga as belonging to Hindus, while the article’s examples show Muslim performers singing ragas and songs with Hindu references. Sundaram Iyer’s letter offered the opposite model: musicians of both faiths performing works by Sadarang, Kabir, Tulsi, and Mira without controversy.

Preservation therefore requires teaching, performance, and institutions that welcome different styles. The proposed BHU faculty embodied that approach. The article does not document a complete decline, but it clearly presents cross-regional education and shared practice as safeguards for musical unity.

A raga is a melodic framework in Indian classical music. It organizes characteristic notes, movements, and expressive possibilities for performance. The article assumes this musical meaning but does not define the term directly; this explanation uses established musical knowledge. Ragas matter because they can carry history, mood, and cultural associations.

A raga may be named after or associated with a deity without belonging exclusively to that deity’s religion. The article gives Roshanara Begum as a clear example: she continued singing Shankara and Durga in Pakistan, although their names refer to Hindu deities. Salamat Ali Khan also performed a thumri about Radha and Krishna.

These performances show the difference between reference and ownership. A religious image can remain part of a musical work while musicians from another faith perform it respectfully. The article’s broader evidence supports this shared model, especially its examples of Hindus and Muslims singing repertoire linked to Sadarang, Kabir, Tulsi, and Mira.