Sruthijith has a good piece about state interference patronage to the Arts. More specifically, he says it is time to write an obituary to the Sangeet Natak Academy. Aside, Sruthijith also maintains a blog which I used to visit often earlier.

Recently, drama took precedence over dance and music at the Sangeet Natak Academy. A spate of resignations by high profile office bearers revealed that all isn’t song and dance at the state-ordained vanguard of our cultural heritage. The imbroglio, it appears, is over the chairman and her alleged high-handedness in running the academy’s affairs.

Sonal Mansingh’s fulminations notwithstanding, the Sangeet Natak Academy’s existence has no raison d’etre apart, perhaps as Sruthijith says, from:

Any and all justification for state patronage for the arts is nothing but an attempt to protect what is an inexhaustible mine of much sought after doles to comrades in crimes, political pimps and party foot soldiers. Personal agendas of politicians and not some fancy abstraction called the organised will of the people find gratification in these institutions…

The saying that the state has no business to be in business, equally applies in the field of the Arts. Artistes are a bunch of highly talented but conceited people. It is best to keep one as far away from the other as possible. However, because Chacha Nehru and his fellow travellers decided that the Benevolent State is Mata, Pita and Guru, things have come to this pass. I mean, point me to at least one event/performance/show this Academy has produced, which you can call “lingering” or “memorable.” Public attendance to these shows in theatres, etc is meagre. To some shows, you require special credentials–dogs and common men not allowed–. Note that this is not a comment on the quality or calibre of the artistes performing in such shows. On the other hand, Ramanavami concerts in Bangalore for example, still draw sizeable crowds. The contrast is glaring: a performance by the same artiste under the aegis of the SNA rarely gets noticed whereas in the “private domain” he/she is a big hit.

To those who think that my sneak Nehru-bashing above is unjustified, I’ll give another point: historically, Kings/emperors were great patrons of the Arts and in some cases, themselves were artistes of high merit. However, with the advent of democracy, the men/women in power somehow felt their roles were sort of “kingish.” They were deluded into thinking that their names, like those of the patronizing kings, would be taken by posterity with honour, respect, and reverence along with the artistes they patronized. Thus for every Kalidasa we have a Bhojaraja, for every Spenser we have a(n) Earl of Leicester, for every U.R. Ananthamurthy we have a J.H. Patel, and for every Arundhati Roy we have (?) I’ll leave that question mark as a placeholder. It seems to me that politicians of today derive some kind of a kick–maybe a feeling of importance–by associating themselves with the Men of Letters. Is it, similar, to guilt-by-association, perception-of-intelligence-by-association? Whatever.

The SNA should be killed as quickly as possible. We’ll at least get to see Sonal or Balamurali perform instead of having bitter spats in areas where they shouldn’t be in the first place.