In Anoushka Shankar vs Rishab Rikhiram Sharma, a question: Who gets to inherit the guru?

In Kundgol in Maharashtra, where Bhimsen Joshi lived for over four years to learn from his guru Sawai Gandharva, he only got to learn for three. For the first year Joshi did sewa, washed his guru’s clothes, cleaned the house. It was only after a year of testing his resolve that Gandharva began to teach Joshi. The recent public dispute between sitar players Anoushka Shankar and Rishab Rikhiram Sharma has reignited conversations around mentorship and artistic authenticity. Anoushka has pointed out that Rishab was the son of her family’s instrument-maker Sanjay Rikhiram Sharma and had learned under the tutelage of Parimal Sadaphal, her father Pandit Ravi Shankar’s disciple and not under Shankar as claimed by Rishab. The Capital-based Ravi Shankar Institute also issued a statement refuting Rishab’s claims: The relationship between a guru and disciple evolves over many years of guidance and commitment.

Today, students are not expected to go through hardships like older times, but acknowledgement of one’s guru remains sacrosanct. In Rishab’s case, the projection of being Shankar’s last and youngest disciple has been central to his brand.

But the debate raises the question: Who gets to inherit a guru? There is a difference between a few masterclasses and sustained learning. A mentor is not just someone from whom technical skill comes. One learns humility and a better understanding of the world. If Shankar was alive, he would have perhaps taken both sides, and turned the conversation into art itself.