Yaman or Yaman Kalyan in a Handwritten Swaralipi
A Class 12 student submits a handwritten swaralipi for an internal assessment. The title says “Raag Yaman, drut Teentaal.” The aroha is notated S Re Ga M(tivra) Pa Dha Ni Sa. In the sthai, the phrase Pa–Ma–Ga–Re–Sa appears with an unmarked Ma. In the antara, Ma–Ga–Re–Sa also appears unmarked. In two other places the student writes M with a small upward stroke for tivra Ma. The student says the unmarked Ma is “just a shorthand” and that the piece is Yaman because the aroha has tivra Ma. The department’s marking rubric says: full marks for a correct bandish in the prescribed raga; half marks if the raga is internally consistent but not the prescribed one; zero if the notation is internally contradictory. The teacher must assign a mark and return the notation with feedback.
1. Decide whether the notation should be graded as Yaman, Yaman Kalyan, or internally contradictory. What evidence in the notation would change your decision?
Read the worked answer
I would not grade it as Yaman with a small slip. The unmarked Ma appears in two structural descending phrases, Pa–Ma–Ga–Re–Sa and Ma–Ga–Re–Sa, while tivra Ma appears in the aroha and two other places. That is an internally consistent use of both Ma, which is the lakshana of Yaman Kalyan, not Yaman. The student’s verbal claim that the unmarked Ma is “shorthand” is not enough, because the notation gives no natural sign and no explanatory key. Under the rubric, the piece is internally consistent but not the prescribed raga, so it earns half marks. If the student sings the two phrases with shuddha Ma and cannot correct them when asked, the half-mark decision stands. The evidence that would change my decision: if the unmarked Ma occurred only once, immediately next to a tivra sign, or if the student’s sung version used tivra Ma throughout, I would treat it as a notational omission within Yaman and allow full marks after correction. If shuddha and tivra Ma were mixed randomly, with no consistent avaroha pattern, I would call it internally contradictory and award zero until rewritten.
2. Rewrite the two ambiguous phrases in standard notation for (a) Yaman and (b) Yaman Kalyan, and explain how you would phrase the feedback so the student understands the difference.
Read the worked answer
For Yaman, both phrases must be Pa–M(tivra)–Ga–Re–Sa and M(tivra)–Ga–Re–Sa; every Ma carries the raised mark. For Yaman Kalyan, the descending phrase can be Pa–Ma(shuddha)–Ga–Re–Sa, while the aroha and the second phrase use M(tivra); the two Ma must be deliberately contrasted, not mixed at random. I would write the sharp/natural marks above the notes and add a one-line key. Feedback: “Your aroha is Yaman, and your tivra Ma is correct. Your avaroha introduces shuddha Ma twice, in a fixed phrase; that makes the piece Yaman Kalyan. Yaman Kalyan is a real raga, so this is not nonsense notation, but it is not the prescribed raga for this task. Choose one: rewrite every Ma as tivra and keep the title Yaman, or keep the shuddha Ma and retitle it Yaman Kalyan, accepting the half-mark rubric.” This separates the musical fact from the mark and gives the student a clear decision.