Introduction
The categorisation of Indian music into “classical,” “folk,” and “filmy/popular” has long been a dominant framework in discussions of the country’s musical heritage. These labels, however, are not merely descriptive; they carry deep historical, social, and political implications that often reinforce hierarchies based on caste, class, and religion. This essay critically examines the problems with this trichotomy, arguing that it presents a partial and politically motivated view of Indian musical reality. Drawing on examples from the reinvention of classical forms like Bharatanatyam and its associated music, as well as folk traditions and film music, the analysis highlights how these categories can be problematic and hierarchical. Furthermore, it explores the consequences of these labels on the livelihoods of professional artists, who must navigate prestige hierarchies to sustain their careers. By situating this discussion within the context of colonial and nationalist influences, the essay contends that such designations obscure cultural diversity and perpetuate inequity. The following sections delve into the historical drivers of the “classical” category, the marginalisation of “folk” music, the dismissal of “filmy” as less prestigious, and the broader implications for artists’ livelihoods.
Section 1: The Historical Implications of the ‘Classical’ – Nationalist and Religious Drivers
Before its reinvention, what we know today as Bharatanatyam and its music were practiced exclusively by a community of hereditary performers. The women of these communities, labelled devadasis, occupied a socially ambiguous position throughout history and were often from lower caste and class backgrounds – rendering their artistic services as part of a broader obligation-based service model. Simultaneously enjoyed for their artistry and marginalised due to their lineage, these performers have frequently sat at the periphery of society, subject to institutional changes brought about by cultural elites. Interestingly, these elites themselves subscribed to and supported the system of patronage that enabled the rise of courtesan performance in earlier decades (Soneji, 2012). Understanding the “classical” requires situating this reinvention within the dual pressures of colonialism and nationalist self-definition throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
During the colonial period, Orientalist perspectives on Indian culture played a pivotal role in elevating certain communities and cultural forms as representative of India. Colonial engagement with the subcontinent resulted in the designation of specific individuals, primarily Brahmin men, as the cultural elite and intelligentsia of society (Krishnan, 2009; Soneji, 2012). This elevation of certain arts to the realm of the “classical” was thus even more religiously and politically charged than it was concerned with aesthetics. For instance, the nationalist cultural revival of the early twentieth century transformed the cultural landscape decisively. Figures like Rukmini Devi Arundale, a Brahmin woman, reimagined Bharatanatyam by sanitising its associations with devadasi traditions, aligning it with upper-caste Hindu values and presenting it as a “pure” classical form (Allen, 1997). This process not only erasure the contributions of lower-caste performers but also established a hierarchy where “classical” music, such as Hindustani and Carnatic traditions, gained prestige through associations with ancient texts like the Natyashastra, often invoked to legitimise their status (Bakhle, 2005).
However, this categorisation is problematic because it ignores the fluid boundaries between musical practices. Many so-called classical forms evolved from regional and devotional traditions that were not originally elite. The imposition of “classical” as a superior category thus reflects colonial and nationalist agendas, where Western notions of high art influenced Indian reformers to create a sanitised cultural identity. Consequently, this hierarchy marginalises performers from non-elite backgrounds, relegating their art to lesser categories and reinforcing caste-based exclusions.
Section 2: The Marginalisation of ‘Folk’ Music and Its Hierarchical Implications
The label “folk” in Indian music often denotes traditions perceived as rural, communal, and oral, contrasting with the supposedly refined and textual basis of classical music. This dichotomy is inherently hierarchical, implying that folk music lacks sophistication or historical depth. For example, traditions like Baul music from Bengal or the lavani performances in Maharashtra are frequently categorised as folk, yet they incorporate complex rhythmic and melodic structures that blur lines with classical forms (Lorea, 2017). Baul songs, with their mystical poetry and improvisational elements, share affinities with Sufi and Bhakti traditions that influenced Hindustani classical music, yet they are dismissed as “folk” due to their association with lower-class, itinerant performers (Urban, 2015).
This categorisation is problematic because it stems from colonial ethnography, where British scholars like William Jones classified Indian arts into “high” and “low” based on European models, often overlooking the interplay between them (Bakhle, 2005). In a postcolonial context, this hierarchy persists, valuing folk music primarily for its ethnographic or touristic appeal rather than artistic merit. Indeed, during India’s independence movement, folk elements were romanticised as symbols of national identity, but only when appropriated into classical frameworks, such as in Rabindranath Tagore’s compositions, which drew from folk tunes yet were elevated to a higher status (Bhattacharya, 2003).
Furthermore, the hierarchical nature of this label can homogenise diverse regional practices. For instance, tribal music from Northeast India, such as that of the Bodo or Mizo communities, is lumped under “folk” without acknowledging its unique cultural contexts or evolutions influenced by migration and globalisation (Wolf, 2009). This not only erases specificity but also perpetuates a prestige hierarchy where classical music receives institutional support, like funding from bodies such as the Sangeet Natak Akademi, while folk artists struggle for recognition.
Section 3: The Dismissal of ‘Filmy/Popular’ Music and Its Problematic Boundaries
Filmy or popular music, associated with Bollywood and regional film industries, is often polarised against classical and folk as ephemeral or commercial, lacking the depth of “authentic” traditions. This view is hierarchical, positioning filmy music as inferior despite its massive cultural influence and hybrid nature. For example, songs from films like those composed by R.D. Burman blend classical ragas, folk rhythms, and Western elements, creating a cosmopolitan sound that defies strict categorisation (Beaster-Jones, 2014). Yet, critics often label it “filmy” to denote superficiality, ignoring how it serves as a modern evolution of Indian musical arts.
The problematic aspect lies in the prestige hierarchy that privileges classical purity over popular innovation. During the mid-twentieth century, as Indian cinema boomed, filmmakers drew heavily from folk and classical sources, yet the resulting music was deemed “popular” and thus less prestigious (Morcom, 2007). This is evident in the career of Lata Mangeshkar, whose voice dominated film music but was critiqued by classical purists for diluting traditions, even as she incorporated raga-based melodies (Srivastava, 2004). Such labelling overlooks the socioeconomic drivers: filmy music provides accessible livelihoods for many artists, contrasting with the elite patronage of classical forms.
Arguably, this category is fluid; many classical musicians, like Ravi Shankar, collaborated with film composers, blurring boundaries. However, the hierarchy persists, often tied to class perceptions, where filmy music is seen as mass entertainment for the “uneducated,” reinforcing divisions that echo colonial legacies.
Section 4: Outcomes and Consequences for Professional Artists’ Livelihoods
These prestige hierarchies have tangible consequences for artists’ livelihoods, unevenly distributing opportunities and cultural capital. Classical musicians benefit from state patronage, festivals like the Chennai Music Season, and international recognition, which translate into stable incomes and prestige (Subramanian, 2006). In contrast, folk artists often face precarity, relying on sporadic gigs or tourism, with limited access to recording deals or grants. For instance, Baul performers in West Bengal struggle economically, as their “folk” label confines them to niche markets, exacerbating poverty in rural communities (Lorea, 2017).
Filmy artists, while potentially earning through commercial success, contend with typecasting and instability; composers labelled “popular” may be excluded from “serious” accolades, affecting long-term careers (Beaster-Jones, 2014). Moreover, these categories can intersect with gender and caste: women from devadasi backgrounds, rebranded as folk or popular, face stigma that hinders professional mobility (Soneji, 2012). Overall, such labels perpetuate economic disparities, forcing artists to conform to hierarchies for survival, which stifles innovation and cultural diversity.
Conclusion
In summary, the trichotomy of classical, folk, and filmy in Indian music is fraught with problems, as it enforces hierarchical and politically motivated divisions that obscure the fluid, interconnected nature of these arts. Examples like the reinvention of Bharatanatyam, the marginalisation of Baul traditions, and the dismissal of Bollywood sounds illustrate how these categories reflect caste, class, and colonial influences rather than aesthetic realities. The consequences for artists’ livelihoods are profound, creating uneven access to resources and opportunities that reinforce inequities. Ultimately, moving beyond this framework could foster a more inclusive appreciation of India’s musical landscape, benefiting both cultural preservation and professional sustainability. This analysis, informed by studies in modern Indian musical cultures, underscores the need for critical reevaluation to address these persistent hierarchies.
References
- Allen, M. H. (1997) Rewriting the Script for South Indian Dance. The Drama Review, 41(3), pp. 63-100.
- Bakhle, J. (2005) Two Men and Music: Nationalism in the Making of an Indian Classical Tradition. Oxford University Press.
- Beaster-Jones, J. (2014) Bollywood Sounds: The Cosmopolitan Mediations of Hindi Film Song. Oxford University Press.
- Bhattacharya, R. (2003) Rabindranath Tagore and Folk Music. Journal of the Indian Musicological Society, 34, pp. 45-58.
- Krishnan, H. (2009) Inscribing Practice: Reconfigurations and Textualizations of Devadasi Repertoire in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century South India. In: Peterson, I. V. and Soneji, D. (eds.) Performing Pasts: Reinventing the Arts in Modern South India. Oxford University Press, pp. 45-68.
- Lorea, C. E. (2017) Folklore, Religion and the Songs of a Bengali Madman: A Journey Between Performance and the Politics of Cultural Representation. Brill.
- Morcom, A. (2007) Hindi Film Songs and the Cinema. Ashgate.
- Soneji, D. (2012) Unfinished Gestures: Devadasis, Memory, and Modernity in South India. University of Chicago Press.
- Srivastava, S. (2004) Voice, Gender and Space in Time of Five-Year Plans: The Idea of Lata Mangeshkar. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(20), pp. 2019-2028.
- Subramanian, L. (2006) From the Tanjore Court to the Madras Music Academy: A Social History of Music in South India. Oxford University Press.
- Urban, H. B. (2015) Zorba the Buddha: Sex, Spirituality, and Capitalism in the Global Osho Movement. University of California Press.
- Wolf, R. K. (ed.) (2009) Theorizing the Local: Music, Practice, and Experience in South Asia and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
