RUDRA VEENA: A LIVING LEGACY

Scion of the esteemed Dagar family, Ustad Mohi Baha’uddin Dagar is a descendant of the legendary Ustad Zakriuddin Khan, and son of the late Rudra Veena maestro Ustad Zia Mohiuddin Dagar. A torchbearer of the Sadharani Dhrupad tradition, he is the finest exponent of the Rudra Veena today, an exceptional performer and inspiring Guru. I had this conversation with Ustad in 2017 as part of some research, and it was subsequently published in the Dhrupad Journal

You are an exponent of the Rudra Veena, which is arguably the oldest surviving stringed instrument in India. When we talk of Indian stringed instruments, the general public think of the Sitar, and take that as the reference point. How would you differentiate between the two?

There is a lot of difference; the two instruments have totally different characteristics. In terms of sound, timing, detailing- style of play, there is a lot of difference. Both these instruments were created for different purposes. The Sitar was not meant to play the Alap, though it has come to play the Alap. It was a 7 string Gandhar — Pancham tuning system that Ustad Vilayat Khan played, where they played the Alap, Jod, and Jhala on the Surbahar and the faster Gatkari on the Sitar. It was meant for a faster musical process. The Veena was created to study the voice and to show the exactness of the voice. The two instruments are fundamentally very different from each other. You cannot expect one from the other.

When you say the Veena was made to study the voice, is that different from what people talk of as “Gayaki Ang”? Was it an attempt to imitate the voice?

Well, the entire Indian classical music tradition if you follow is based upon — the Gayaki Ang. Voice has been the first to emerge. And then we have imitated the voice. Though, the instrument has its own unique features, and it would inculcate whatever it knows in a certain manner. Certain things it would do that the voice cannot do. Similarly, many techniques of the voice, the instruments will not be able to produce. They complement each other. Nonetheless, the instrument would follow the voice. It draws inspiration from the voice.

What would you say is the philosophy of the music itself that the Rudra Veena strives to be an instrument of? That differentiates it from other stringed instruments; or even in itself.

Rudra Veena is an instrument of measure. A compass. It gives pramaan(validation) to the musical elements. That’s what the Veena does. In a way, it is used to study the music itself. For a musician, it is a valuable instrument for studying the sound, and how the voice can be enhanced and applied, to study the structure of the Raga, to study the Swar Bhed (minute and microtonal detailing and exploration of individual notes).

However, music needs to be studied practically before referring to the Veena. One can not refer to this instrument casually, superficially, in a light, romantic approach, just to “try out”, saying- “Ah I’ll take up the Veena.. I’ll do this… I’ll do that”. That’s not going to work. One aspect of the music has to be understood properly, and then the other will support it.

So what is the difference in what the Veena is trying to do and what the Sitar is trying to do, independent of the voice?

Well, what the Sitar does & what the Veena does; and what people do with it are two different things. A human being tries to do a lot of nonsense with it also at times.

Ultimately, the nature of the instruments dictates what one can do with it. We would have Alaap on the Sitar, but it would not be as refined and accurate as on the Veena. Similarly, the fast Gatkari on the Sitar, would have much more technical -hand work scope and refinement than what you can have on the Veena. I think each instrument dictates its own unique norm and feature in understanding the same work. For instance, if you play the Sarod, it will state different terms than what the Sitar would dictate.

If we look at Dhrupad as it exists today, there are many different lineages that are practicing; in a sense even within the Dagar family there are distinct lineages. In your particular lineage, we could say that the presence of the Rudra Veena has been a distinctive factor in shaping the musical models that have evolved. So what would you say is the major contribution of the Rudra Veena?

I think it is in correcting/evolving the Alap. I think the refinement and importance of the Alap in our lineage is because Ziauddin Khan Saheb, Zakiruddin Khan Saheb, Bande Ali Khan Saheb were all Beenkars. And what we do has in a way been brought about by Ziauddin Khan Saheb.

The Vyakaran- grammer- how we use the words, how to cut the phrase — the prosody, how to time the phrase. By words — I especially mean the syllables of Alap — which syllable can follow which, the norms of the grammar etc. These are the things that Zakiruddin Khan had envisioned, and Ziauddin Khan put it together; and then they placed it upon the Veena and they corrected the timing of the phrases, the proportions in timing, the accuracy in hearing it and producing it. That’s what the Veena has done to our music. Without that, it would have been incomplete. We believe that if an instrument is not guiding the voice, or if the voice is not being understood by an instrument, it’s going to be incomplete. It cannot grow beyond a certain point, and will have its limitations. Study with an instrument will lead to more possibilities. One can get into greater depth of sound and understand the smallest nuances, and you do require a Veena for this. It’s like a compass, within that it will indicate all the subtle points.

In the Dhrupad Alap as practiced by our lineage, could we say the elements of rhythmic continuity in Madhya & Dhrut Alap (Jod & Jhalla) come from the Veena as well?

Yes. What we sing as Jod and Jhala is from the Veena style. This is not commonly seen as elaborately practiced in the other Dhrupad lineages. In our lineage, the vocalists used to practice the instrument extensively. Ziauddin Khan Saheb was a Veena player. My uncle Chote Ustad — Fariduddin Dagar Saheb — too played the Veena. I’ve heard him playing at home. I’ve heard him playing the Sitar as well. Zakirudidn Khan Saheb had been playing the Veena. The Jod ang has come from the Veena. One sees a clear influence of the chikari techniques used on the veena into the Jod Ang of singing in our lineage.Without the use of the chikari, there is no Jod Ang.

So the chikari acts as the aaghaat for the cutting of the phrase?

Yes. It is creating a sense of rhythm, right? It brings in the Laya, but there is no Tala. This gives birth to the Chhand.

There have been descriptions in various early texts, but is the current extended multi-phase Alap format followed by our lineage a recent development?

Well this structure of the Alap with this kind of words (syllables) used is 4 generations old.

From Zakiruddin Khan Saheb & Allabande Khan Saheb?

Not Allabande Khan Saheb. Zakiruddin Khan Saheb who initiated it, and Ziauddin Khan Saheb who completed its format perfectly. He understood how to put it together, what to use, what not to use, how to time it, and he structured it in a manner where it became ipso facto; and it also got a different shape altogether. So what we talk of as the Sadharani Geeti, was finally interpreted and formulated in our music here. What should be the composition and structuring of the various Geetis in this, what subtleties come into the picture here, all these things were studied in detail.

So what is the continuity from the previous forms?

There has definitely been a distinct change from Zakiruddin Khan Saheb’s time, in the way how the work has been perceived or interpreted. I wouldn’t know of what precisely the previous form must have been. There has undoubtedly been a lot of great work, but from the time of Zakiruddin Khan, to Ziauddin Khan , to Zia Mohiuddin Saheb- it manifested in a unique and refined manner. The age old knowledge and style of practice were probably put in a better way of understanding during these three generations. Over generations, some things you lose; and some things get renewed. To my mind, it is progress. In front of my eyes, things have moved out and spanned out in a much more sophisticated manner. The way Ustad Zia Mohiuddin Saheb envisioned things in this music in 1960–70, in 1990; the same Raga was very different. And to my mind, it moved ahead on the map. This is not necessarily true of all the musicians. It requires a musician to stay true to the roots and to expand it. It happens over the years. It does not happen overnight. I think our musical work as we have it today has progressed. It talks much more clearly in a manner. Whether we or our generation is capable of doing it is a different thing, and that is a question to be seen.

When we talk of the Veena in our tradition, we are almost exclusively referring to the Rudra Veena in its current form. How much would this relate to the historical idea of the Veena?

There was an instance where Smt. Hirabai Badodekar listened to Bade Ustad, and she said that he is playing like what Bande Ali Khan Saheb used to play. The Alap ang, and the understanding/ detailing of the Alap is like that. This is not surprising as, Ziauddin Saheb( Bade Ustad’s father)’s mother was Bande Ali Khan Saheb’s daughter/disciple.

Talking about Ustad Zia Mohiuddin Dagar and his work, which I have been fortunate to have seen very closely — I think he took the old and the new in one breath, and stitched it together very well. He was someone who believed strongly in tradition, but he didn’t believe in stagnant ideas. Ideas had to be refurbished and reinvented again. Keeping in mind not to destroy the soul — originality of the form — without destroying the roots of a tree, you have to grow new fruits every year. In one generation I did see it happening very strongly. What we call as nit-naveen — That which every time sounds new and fresh; yet it can trace its roots very far behind. It connects you to your past.

Bade Ustad also brought about some significant changes in the instrument itself. What were the objectives and focal points for these changes?

He envisioned a kind of Gayaki. As they say, necessity is the mother of all inventions — way before he modified the Veena; he already had a specific form of sound and language of the Veena in his mind. To manifest this sound, he redesigned the instrument. There’s nothing on the Veena just because he liked it to be there. Everything had a reason- the way the chikaris were placed, the strings, the frets, the position of placing the veena and the posture of the player and so on.

The position was changed primarily because the Tumbas became too big?

Well, the Veena became very heavy. The position had to change, and it was impractical to put it on the shoulder and play. You would end up with spondylitis having 10 kgs on your shoulder. Music is not about gymnastics right? You don’t have to prove that you’re very strong in holding the Veena in that particular way only. So he changed it. Nevertheless, the shastras were indeed referred to while making this change.

Was there a particular reason for the previous position? Being accustomed to seeing Bade Ustad’s position, the previous position doesn’t seem very intuitive.

There was nothing wrong with the previous position. It was perfectly alright, I have initially learnt in that position as a child- with the small veena. In the Vajrasana position, it is a very beautiful position to sit and play the Veena in. The earlier bamboo Veena (Been) weighs 2.5–3 kgs. So when I would play with a bamboo Veena, I used to sit and play in that position. There’s nothing wrong with that position.

So the main reason for the change was the size and weight of the instrument. Was ease of playing also a factor?

There is nothing like ease of playing in life! You’ve heard of the word “occupational hazard”. It exists in every medium. You go to race a car, you will have blisters on your seat. It’s like that. You have to adapt to what is given in front of you. You have to do it. If you keep trying to find an

easy way of doing things, nothing is going to happen. And everything is difficult in its own

manner. If you see the position between the Tumbas; there is a measurement to that. Just

because you want to fit comfortably in between the Tumbas if you take it too far apart, there’s

going to be an error. So ease and comfort is not a criterion for doing good work in life. You do it; and it seems easy. The effortlessness can be called ease here. That’s what music is all about. The Sahajata should be there. See, even for the Sitar, you’re going to cut your fingers. If you had the opportunity to meet Vilayat Khan Saheb and see his fingers, he had 6–7 really deep

cuts that had gone through his skin and gone inside to cut his nerves. Bleeding throughout.

You mention Sahajata. I remember when I was doing my engineering and just getting introduced to Indian music, I used to enjoy listening to Khayal because it’s no doubt a beautiful form. But the first time I heard Dhrupad, it was a SPICMACAY concert by you at IIT, and then when I heard my Gurus and Uday Dada, I felt drawn to this music in a manner that nothing else had ever drawn me.

Somehow people who are associated with science, physics, mathematics relate better to this music. And also people who are deeply into arts. Like painting or so. They somehow relate more to this kind of work. I think it is because research is something that a scientific mind is drawn towards. The idea of constantly going deeper into something. It becomes their nature. However, subtlety and beauty doesn’t come that easy. People think that someone who is unable to sing Khayal can be taught Dhrupad. It is a very wrong notion that people have about music. If you actually get down to it, both of them are equally difficult.

There is talk of Dhrupad being a Vedic form of music, with people like Dr. Rajshekhar Vyas doing good research in the area. What were Ustads’ views on this linkage and the role of the Rudra Veena here?

The Vedas definitely used to be played on a Veena.

But not the Rudra Veena?

Could have been on the Rudra Veena as well. Or the Sitar as well. It’s an instrument. Looking at the Sam Gaan tradition that Dr. Vyas talks of, it had to undergo a lot of interpretation to arrive at

classicism. What we have taken from the Sam Veda has to be researched in detail. What exactly we have taken from there. However, what I am sure of is that Sam Veda was indeed an

inspiration. By listening to it, it feels like the Vedas might have been recited in some such manner. However, one has no proof for it; but there is certainly some truth in it. And it takes generations of work before it arrives at something.

Coming to the question of whether the Rudra Veena existed during the time of Sama Veda, I don’t think so. Because before this, there was the Mahatti Veena, the Kinneri Veena. But the important question is if the Veena is really meant for that? Or it is meant for this? Or has it come from that to this? That I am not very clear about. Bade Ustad had great regard for the Vedas.

Veena nonetheless does have a relation to Sam Gaana. Sometimes when I play, I distinctly feel the presence within it. It cannot come if I forcefully try to bring that out. If I explicitly try to imitate the Vedas, it would not happen. It should happen within the Alap itself. Sometimes it reveals itself. Most of the time it doesn’t. I cannot prove it, but I know it exists within this music.

When you say it reveals itself, is it a personal experience or does it also match with the response of the listeners?

It depends on who the listener is. And I cannot say when it will reveal itself. Because I am not making a conscious effort to do so. My conscious effort is to produce the music. The revelation is momentary. You cannot pick it out, because then it becomes totally out of context and ugly. You have to let it be where it is. And move ahead.

So is that something we constantly strive for?

I’m sure you can constantly strive for it. But will that help your music or not, what it will do to your work is a very big question. Because, you are singing- the genre of Dhrupad. And you are following the Sadharani Geeti. How true the form will remain is your moral responsibility. So while expounding on such topics, if it deviates you from the purpose of making good music, to my mind it is useless. It becomes more of a showmanship and nothing else. But if it enhances the entire experience, then it is fine. Human beings have an active brain that likes to feed knowledge all the time. And they get a sense of excitement or boost of a kind from doing that or trying to interpret things all the time. If you examine the entire aesthetic process, I don’t think such analysis is necessary. I’m very clear about that. If you want to focus on that, you can become a musicologist and you talk about that. Nothing wrong in that. But being a practitioner, I choose to simply practice and play.

So you’re in a way emphasizing on the honesty of the pursuit and its objectives?

Yes. In a way, it becomes a very delicate situation when you try to handle these things. If you’re

not capable of handling it, if its composition and impact of its presence is not right at that instant,

and it doesn’t work in an applicable manner to enhance or beautify that work, it is just a gimmick

I would say. I am not saying it doesn’t exist. It definitely exists. Because my father too used to

always say this. Ziauddin Khan Saheb had read hundreds of books about music. But he strongly

said that while singing, all this bookish knowledge should not show its head. If you are doing a

Gamak and are declaring that you are doing Gamak, it is over. It should be so beautiful that the

enquiry of that beauty should lead in to the exploration of what it is.

So the analysis should follow the experience.

Exactly. If the analysis precedes the experience in the playing of things, it’s over. It’s not even an intellectual exercise. I think it’s a very shallow exercise. At the same time, that analysis is important. I’m not saying that we should do away with the analysis. It is not by chance that people have written so many books on music. They have written everything. But how it has to be perceived finally? Music is a thing to create beauty, and transform human experience. It is to be felt. It is a medium to access joy, and is something one should enjoy. It can be individual, and it can be universal at the same time. So there is the Sam Ved and everything, but you can’t point a finger at it and say that this is what it is. It cannot be interpreted. And it is this quality that makes it timeless.

Maybe that is why spending time with a master of a particular field is a joy and honor even out of the context of his/ her domain.

Definitely. A master is a master. He may just be boiling water or doing some such mundane task. But if he has a mastery, it can be seen in his eyes.

So the analysis part has to be in hindsight?

It has to be. Because once you have understood and practiced it, then to explain that work, you require words. That is what Shastra does. It cannot precede the work. It has to have a quality of explaining in totality. In that sense it is very complex to understand the Vedic linkage, because there are not many practitioners of the Sam Veda. So we cannot draw a direct relationship. But it is there, nonetheless. I believe it is there, both the Ustads believed it was there. Ziauddin Khan Saheb believed it was there. My father said, to play the Vedas, and to play music in the ideology of Vedic music are two different things. That’s very important to keep in mind. Just because you are playing the Vedas, you might not be playing in the Vedic ideology. So if you can bridge that gap, you’ve done your work. But everything in India is like that. You cannot point your finger at something, even if it exists. It’s like God. It exists, but you cannot point a finger and say this is God. It’s nowhere, and it’s everywhere. How you’re going to bring that around in your work is the key thing. It’s going to take many numbers of years to manifest in your work, and for people to be able to see it and say “Yes, this is it”. And every generation has to do that from scratch I believe.

Every time I listen to a good Dhrupad concert by people like yourself or my Gurus, I distinctly get a sense of some unique aspect that I connect to; independent of the musical structures itself. When Dr. Vyas put forth this theory of his, that seemed to make sense it this context.

I think his theory is pretty good, and I would not deny it. I understand what he is trying to draw very well. In my mind, I think it is a very strong theory. But we need to see how it will manifest itself. The theory should not remain a theory. That’s where the danger is. With our ego coming in between, it becomes a problem. That’s where things become very complicated. Otherwise it’s very simple.

Yes, many times the simplest of things actually turn out to be the most complex.

Yes, because we try to interpret every single thing, you know. The Sun is there, and through its

rays the Sam Gaan was born. But once we start the ball rolling, and to keep it rolling it becomes

very difficult to keep balance of the rolling ball. As a practicing musician, we put our foot into stuff where we should not be putting, instead of letting things be.

So a confirmation bias comes into the picture? I think that’s a big challenge in every field.

Yes, that is why I say the human brain is what destroys the world. I mean, if you look at the last millions of years, the only contribution of the human mind has been destruction.

If we look at the history of the Rudra Veena, what is the earliest scholarly reference?

I think in 276 BC, there is a coin of Samudragupta Maurya playing the Veena. The Rudra Veena was always called Bin. Maybe the Rudra Veena itself was first seen in the 10th century. There are compositions from the 10th and 12th century which talk about the Bin. There are statues of Saraswati from the 8th century that depicts the Veena.

I found a fascinating reference from Lewis Rowell’s book of the Aitareya Aranyaka (Rig Veda) where they draw a detailed analogy between the various components of the wooden Veena and the human body for sound production. It was amazing to note that even in Rig Vedic times, the Veena was used as an instrument to study sound production.

Yes, that must have been the single string Veena. Ektantri Veena. Without frets. And it must have had gut strings.

Would the gut strings have had shorter resonance then?

No you cannot say that. Gut strings could have really long sustain and resonance. You cannot imagine the kind of resonance they can have. Because in India we had the possibility of Jawari. Jawari will decide all that. But you cannot pull as many notes. Maybe one or at maximum, two. That limits the way you can mimic the voice in that case.

In one sense we can say that the metal string was an important landmark in instrumental music?

Yes, it was an important innovation. The replication of the voice was possible much more clearly.

Before they used to tune the strings low, because they were not of a great quality. So we could

pull more notes — 3 or 4 notes.

So would the early Veena have been more like a harp kind of instrument as opposed to the Veena we see today?

Yes. It think it would’ve begun with a single string, moved on to a harp and then changed shape to take a closer form to what we see today. The earlier instrument was definitely fretless. We can say that the Rudra Veena has great ancestry, but how long it can go behind? I would say not more than the second or third century. We have no proof of that. But it just cannot have come into being in the eighth or ninth century. There must have been a process to it.

The Prabandha is generally accepted as the preceding form to Dhrupad music. While Sangeet Ratnakar does contain descriptions of Alap, people usually describe Prabandha as a textual narrative based form.

You know, descriptions are always problematic. People even describe Dhrupad as 14 beats. What has remained from that form is the compositions. And compositions will always remain. But that will not make it Prabandha or Dhrupad. We have lost a few things, because we didn’t care enough for our arts. There is no way of proving exactly how the Prabandha system was. I have heard it was an eight fold system. There used to be 8 stanzas. Ustad told me this, I have not read about it. One can only speculate how it might have been sung. Even if you sing, you will sing the composition. How its musical development would have been done, we have no idea.

It is also believed by some people that initially music came from the temples.

I don’t think music started from the temples. It went to the temples. See, temples have a kind of community singing. Where people are singing to the deity. Classicalism of the music cannot come from a temple. It requires very strong patronage, exclusive introspection of that work.There, it is in a devotional form. It will be in the simplest of manners, like a bhajan. Where a hundred people can do the same thing.The musicians would go to the dargahs and temples to get blessings for their work. But classicalism was not born out of a temple. It is impossible. The temple premises would’ve inspired a musician to increase his capabilities to understand the art form. But it cannot be born out of there. Words and poetry played big role in temple music, in Bhakti. On the other side, the Alap is abstract. To arrive at the abstractness, it requires a certain refinement and understanding of norms which set themselves up as classical music. In a Gurukul system this work was happening, or through the patronage of the kings. Where the musician would be free of any religious/social ideology- where the focus was not whether the musician is playing for a person or for God or anything else.

In that sense, we cannot conclusively say that the earlier musical forms were primarily lyric based?

Probably it was lyrical. It was more text based. The abstraction must have evolved much later. First they used to say there were only 4 notes — Sa Re Ga Ma, leading to the term “Sargam”. Then taking the Ma as the Sa, they found Pa, Dha and Ni. Likewise, first there was no shuddha ni. Only the komal ni. They discovered the shuddha ni. Things changed and they added new Ragas, and they classified them. It must have been thousands of years before they arrived at what we see now.

So in our Dhrupad form today, we have almost 70 percent of it as a non-lyrical part. Would it have been this way 400–500 years back?

I think 400–500 years back, it would have been this way. Maybe even 900 years ago. It is not a sudden shift. It is a very gradual thing. It used to be sung in Sanskrit before the 8th century. But because Sanskrit was limiting the abstraction, they perceived in some way, they changed to Braj language, where you can take liberty with the syllables and words.

In Dhrupad, the concept of Moorchana has been considered central. Could you speak about this?

I think it would be a central aspect for Carnatic music as well. And even for Khayal Gayaki. It’s

just that the ideology has changed. We may see bad versions of Khayal, or even the other genres but that doesn’t mean that Khayal is bad. Of course we have had musicians like Mogubai Kurdikar, D V Paluskar and others like that. The form depends on the people who are carrying it.

So what exactly is the Moorchana? We have some exercises that we practice, but is it something beyond the exercises?

I have really no answer to that. Only thing is that I believe in it, and I do it. Because I know it works. Moorchana works. I would not question it. Even if it is just the practice of those exercises, it does a lot more than what the human mind can perceive. You can say it is the coordination of the mind and the hand, just to begin with. And as the practice enhances, it will take deeper manifestations of what it can do. It depends on how sincere the musician is. All I know is, it is something that needs to be done. You just have to do it, and you will not survive without doing it. It is the key. I have only heard Bade Ustad saying that this is an important practice and it must be done. Many things within the work gets clarified by doing this. So I never asked anything more beyond that.

So I don’t know if there is a particular definition to that, even if there is, I’m sure it would be undermined in comparison to the practical command of what the Moorchana would actually do to the human mind.

Yes, I too have experienced the benefits of this practice in my voice range, and clarity of what I am singing in my mind.

Yes, and it helps fix the note positions in the mind. Brings in the tunefulness and a whole lot of other things.

But when I do the Moorchana, even when I change the reference note, I still continue to perceive the same initial Raga. Should the perception of the transposed Raga come in?

It will not come now. Subconsciously it is there. But it will not come through and through. Trying to find a Raga in it etc while practicing is simple trying to be very clever. That should not happen. One should sometimes just give into one’s own ignorance and be with it. It will manifest eventually. My only riyaz is the riyaz of Moorchana. It’s not about sitting down with the Ragas and playing the Ragas. Moorchana encompasses everything from Alap, Jod, Jhalla. You don’t have to do separate Riyaz for Alap or Jod or Jhalla in a particular manner. You do the Moorchana at different tempos. And here, I am very unpopular, because people have this idea that this person doesn’t teach anything else. But if if you see people who have done that Moorchana riaz, you would see what happens to their work. If you don’t believe in this method, in my opinion, you are not going to go very far as a Veena player. It applies to vocalists and every other instrumentalist as well. Every day you just have to do the Moorchana for one hour. It clarifies a lot of things.

Coming back to the Rudra Veena, there are many associations of purity on the one hand; but also superstitions on the other hand. That it spoils your life. Could you talk about this?

The purity part of it is not a superstition at all. Of course, your life can become miserable if you do not follow certain rules. Cleanliness, purity at various levels and certain ethics are strictly adhered to in this practice.

Why is the Rudra Veena in particular associated with such superstitions? Because the Pakhawaj for example doesn’t have such associations.

The Rudra Veena is an austere instrument. That’s all I know. It’s considered an instrument of Goddess Saraswati and conceived by Lord Shiva. And if we show a kind of disrespect to that instrument, I’ve seen people’s lives getting totally wasted away in front of my eyes. Veena is like that. You have to do what requires to be done. Bath before touching the veena, wear clean clothes, not to open or keep the Veena in any kind of unsuitable space, not to disrespect it, not to use it to show somebody down, or compete someone, many things. If you falter in any one of these things, it’s not going to come through. I remember Asad Ali Khan sahab say that Veena is something that plays you. You do not play it. You have to be a transparent human being. Being something inside and something else outside will not work. You cannot use this instrument to gain something. A lot of respect and love has to be given to this instrument. A lot more than what can be imagined.

For example, if the Veena is kept on the floor, I cannot imagine myself sitting on a chair next to it. My father would never do that as well. It just doesn’t come to mind. If any instrument is kept on the floor, even a Mohrsing, I cannot imagine sitting on a chair. I also cannot listen to the Veena when I am having food. I am not giving it due respect then. I would stop the music, have the food and then listen to it. Things have been brought into practice because of the experience of the masters before us, and they are not without reason. So I would not doubt them. The sounds of the Veena have the potential to impact your chakras and mind. One has to be very careful when one is handling the Veena. For me, the Veena is the predominant component of my life, even prior to my parents and ancestors. This is what my father also used to believe in, and I follow it.