My grandaunt, M S Subbulakshmi, would want her dignity defended against offensive remarks

I can vouch for the fact that there are many of us in India and overseas who have supported Srinivasan. The fact that we are too preoccupied with our personal and professional lives has meant that many of us have not been able to openly come out in his support. Shankar Ramachandran claims that he has consulted “several family members” and that these persons have expressed a “general view” that the case is misguided. Speaking for myself, I can’t count myself as a part of this unknown clique of consultees whom Ramachandran claims to have solicited opinions from. But what I do know is that a large, if not absolute majority, of those here in India and abroad hold a different view. I am a part of those who congratulated Srinivasan for the efforts he has taken to protect the legacy of M S Amma.

The other sweeping claim is that the will was known to the beneficiaries and that its contents were known to Shankar Ramachandran since 2006. As a legatee under that will, I can state without fear of contradiction that a copy was shown only to the two daughters of M S Subbulakshmi, Radha and Vijaya, and her adopted son Thyagarajan on the 13th-day ceremony after her demise. The claim that “a letter outlining her wishes” was given to the beneficiaries is wholly false. I did not receive any such letter. I have personally verified it from many other similar legatees who affirm that they too have not received any such letters.

It is also claimed that the directive under the will of M S Subbulakshmi does not, or rather cannot, bind the world at large. That is a matter for the Court to decide. What I find surprising is that most of Shankar Ramachandran’s legal points are centred around the issues raised by the contesting respondents. We are not surprised that like poles attract.

One is also surprised at the timing of the article. While the case has been in the public domain since August 2024, Ramachandran claims that all this is “a waste of Court time” in December 2024, and that too after the Supreme Court has passed an interim order restraining Krishna, keeping in mind that the matter raised a “very sensitive issue” amongst music lovers. Where was Ramachandran’s “supposed” concern for the family when the case was being fought before the Madras High Court for nearly four months? Surely, if the highest court in the land has found the matter worthy of investigation, it beats common sense as to how this can be termed as wasteful.

Turning to the articles of T M Krishna, Shankar Ramachandran claims that “some of his statements may be combustive”. He then adds, “I do not find them disrespectful”. At this point, it is necessary to recapitulate what exactly Krishna had said which triggered the ire of Srinivasan and other members of the family. In the article in The Wire, Krishna referred to M S’s physicality and said: “Let me make it very clear, I am not referring to any inner beauty. She was, what my daughter’s generation would call, sexy. Let any honest man besotted with her beauty deny that his fascination with her had as much to do with her looks as with her music and that Cupid played with his darts wherever she went.”

In the same article, he also accused the world of treating M S like a “saintly Barbie doll”. The articles in The Wire and Caravan are veiled with sexist and racist overtones which finally come out in the open in his Manthan lecture in 2017, where he exclaimed “If MS’s voice came from a dark, non-upper-caste beauty-ish lady, would all of us celebrate her like we do today?”

I only venture to ask if any self-respecting person would tolerate this kind of insult against a loved one. I know that M S’s daughter and Srinivasan’s mother Radha Viswanathan was deeply hurt by these comments. As a person who served as her personal physician every single day for over 25 years, I am sure that M S Amma would not have relished these remarks. Yet, according to Shankar Ramachandran, a reading of the above words is, in his view, only a method of Krishna “accusing society at large of minimising her personality, courage, and strength by focusing on the merely cosmetic.”

Lastly, it is unfortunate that my relative Shankar has allowed himself to be used as a tool in an agenda-driven discourse. My personal inquiries have revealed that his remarks have surprised many in the family who firmly believe that his article is a deliberate attempt to project discord and disharmony in the family. His attempt to belittle the issue by using the name of the family to air his opinions is regrettable.

There can be no two opinions about the fact that public figures and their work can be the subject of objective criticism. But have we, as a society, stooped to such a level that even openly sexist and racist remarks must suffer tolerance in the name of criticism? Is dignity the sole repository of the living? This case raises serious questions of constitutional importance, which are worthy of investigation by the top court.

While signing off, Shankar Ramachandran expresses his deep concern for the actions of Srinivasan in pursuing this case before the Supreme Court. Far from tarnishing the image of the family, he can be rest assured that the family of M S Amma is firmly behind Srinivasan.

MS Amma was blessed by Mahaperiaval that her name would last as long as the sun and moon exist. She kept singing for benefit concerts and gave away everything she earned for noble causes and yet, at the end of every concert, she would smilingly render “Kurai onrum illai” (I have no regrets).

The writer is a grandnephew of M S Subbulakshmi