The only time music here is taken seriously or not condemned for having induced immortality is when it is put to some crass functional use. The recent example in Pakistan has been the large number of songs that have been reproduced, made anew or created for national occasions like the September 6 -- the Defence Day of Pakistan. The other use that music is put to and admired for (or at least not denigrated) is when it is put in the service of religion. Then also the ready castigation is withheld, a limited appreciation extended or at least not put on the block for an outright condemnation of the medium and the form itself.

It’s not only with music but with other art forms as well that validity is only judged by functionality, the use that the art form can be put to or the end that it is supposed to serve. The validity or the integrity of an art form rests outside of itself -- the end that it is being put to rather than its intrinsic value. It becomes rather extreme in the case of music because without a functional purpose assigned, it becomes the hardest quibble to understand. Other than words or lyrics, the sound itself -- whether in vocal or instrumental form -- does not fit into the ready sets or types of concepts that we have happily designed for ourselves. The experience of music, through the note or the essential particularity, that the sur carries no connotation has made music akin to being hung on a pendulum that swings from the very divine to the absolute devilish.

There has been plenty of controversy about music in our part of the world and the common understanding or the perception that is a very sinful act (if the entire spectrum of life and existence is to be understood within the absolute parameters of good and evil). The halal and haram have been the ruling principles or modes under which this debate about music or the sur has been carried out without referring to any other criterion that many be just as valid,  if not more so.

There is also a view that the issue of arts carrying a didactic intent became more pronounced with art becoming part of pedagogy; and its terms of reference came into effect with the rise of the idea of education for all. Similarly in music, visual arts and poetry there was less of a problem when it was being passed on to the most deserving and passionate students instead of those who only take it to be a part of their general education. The latter may have the right degree for a job but this degree does not necessarily make them poets, musicians or artistes. Neither had this been their intention or the intention of their elders to make them artistes by their familiarisation with poetry, drawing or music.

Similarly, this debate or issue has also been exacerbated with the rise of the mass media that reaches a broad section of the population, largely uneven on most counts like background, education, class, ethnicity and religion.

But the use of the sur for religious purpose or for the purposes of patriotism and its sanction, albeit conditional, resolves the issue for music (mausiqi, sangeet, ghina or lehan) for it cannot be ruled out rightly or per se as not being good for mankind. It is the use that it is being put to that assumes critical importance and so serves only as the medium or the means. It is just like condemning the invention of a new technology or technological device as being contrary to the good of mankind, rather than the use that it is being put to. From the loudspeaker to the film, television and now the internet, mobile gadgetry, social media etc. have been the targets of such condemnations.

But, with every new breakthrough, the debate shifts to the new invention or discovery while the rest is accepted as fait accompli. The debate or the issue then in the arts narrows down to the quality of what has been created. In criticism of the arts, in the end, it is the art product that one is talking about, its quality or how good the product is rather than any other criterion that may rest outside the product or the form itself.

It can be said without any degree of hesitation that the taranas that were created in the 1965 wars or round that time have been the most moving. The ones created later have been of varying quality. With the recent tsunami of reworking, reusing and remixing the mediums, especially the aural and visual, does not alter the music merit, though it may add to its extra musical value. One simple reason that can be ascribed is that in the 1965 war, the artistes themselves were involved and created their songs. That included the entire team (the lyricist and the composer as well as the vocalist). It appears that the later taranas have been command performances, and obviously do not exude the same quality.

The simple criteria is also applied to the arts for it is well-known that the made-to-order cannot be of the same quality as it lacks the sincerity of involvement and cannot match something that comes from the heart. Most pay lip service to the cause or the form and it lacks the depth and the intensity that is the hallmark of a good work. An art product can only be determined by its own critical canons and not through a principle that rests outside of it, no matter how significant or valued.