In modern devotional and popular discourse, especially within contemporary North Indian Vaishnava communities, especially within ISKCON and Gaudiya Mathas, the terms mridanga (mṛdaṅga), mridangam, and khol are often used as if they referred to the same musical instrument under different regional names. One frequently encounters the claim that these are merely local variants of a single ancient drum that has supposedly survived unchanged from early Indian antiquity to the present day. From a historical and organological perspective, this claim is incorrect.

Although these instruments are historically related at the level of long-term cultural development, they are not the same object, they do not share identical construction principles, and they do not belong to the same musical traditions. The widespread confusion results from loose terminology, symbolic thinking, and retrospective myth-making rather than from evidence grounded in historical sources or material culture.

The Sanskrit word mṛdaṅga is traditionally analysed as a compound of mṛd, meaning “earth” or “clay,” and aṅga, meaning “body”, “limb of the body”. In early Sanskrit literature and in theoretical works on performance such as the Natyashastra, the term mridanga does not denote a single standardized instrument. Instead, it functions as a generic category referring to double-headed, barrel-shaped drums that were usually understood to be clay-bodied.

In these sources, mridanga designates a type rather than a fixed design. The term describes material and general form but does not specify dimensions, tuning systems, membrane treatment, or performance technique. In this sense, mridanga is best understood as a conceptual label comparable to pre-modern European terms such as “drum” or “lute,” which covered a wide range of concrete instruments. Treating the Sanskrit mridanga as the name of one timeless and unchanging object is therefore an anachronism.

The mridangam is the principal percussion instrument of South Indian Carnatic music. While its name is historically derived from the Sanskrit mṛdaṅga, the instrument itself represents a significant structural transformation rather than a direct preservation of an ancient form.

Unlike the clay-bodied drums implied by early Sanskrit usage, the mridangam is made of wood, most commonly jackfruit wood. This material choice has decisive consequences. A wooden body allows higher membrane tension, greater durability, and more precise control of pitch and timbre. These properties made it possible for the mridangam to become integrated into complex rhythmic systems and extended solo performance practices characteristic of Carnatic music.

From a linguistic point of view, the final -am reflects Dravidian phonological adaptation rather than a separate Sanskrit derivation. From an organological point of view, however, the mridangam is no longer the same type of instrument implied by the Sanskrit category mṛdaṅga. It belongs to a classical concert tradition with its own performance conventions, pedagogical lineages, and aesthetic priorities.

In eastern regions such as Odisha and Bengal, the term mridanga continued to be used in a way closer to its Sanskrit sense. In these contexts, it often refers to clay-bodied drums associated with ritual, temple performance, and older local traditions. Odisha in particular historically functioned as a cultural intermediary between pan-Indian Sanskritic models and regional vernacular practices, and the persistence of the term mridanga reflects this intermediary position.

Even here, however, mridanga does not denote a single standardized instrument. It remains a category name applied to different local variants rather than to one fixed design. The continued use of the Sanskrit-derived term should not be mistaken for evidence of organological uniformity.

The khol is a double-headed clay drum primarily associated with Bengali Vaishnava devotional practices, especially kirtan. Unlike mridanga and mridangam, the word khol is not Sanskrit. It derives from Bengali vernacular usage and is descriptive in nature, referring to the instrument’s bulging, shell-like form.

There is no credible Sanskrit etymology for the term khol. Its linguistic origin already marks a clear distinction. Whereas mridanga and mridangam preserve Sanskrit naming conventions, khol represents a regional vernacular classification. This linguistic difference corresponds to organological differences as well. The khol typically has a clay body, a pronounced asymmetrical shape, relatively light weight, and an acoustic profile optimized for outdoor congregational singing rather than for refined concert performance.

Describing the khol as “the Bengali mridanga” obscures both its vernacular naming logic and its distinct structural identity. It also masks the specific social and devotional contexts in which the instrument developed.

Much of the contemporary confusion surrounding these instruments originates in modern devotional movements, particularly from the twentieth century onward. In these contexts, symbolic continuity is often prioritised over historical accuracy. The term mridanga is treated as inherently sacred or “Vedic,” while khol is reduced to a colloquial synonym, and the material and historical differences between instruments are ignored.

This produces a simplified narrative according to which the same ancient mridanga has supposedly been played unchanged until the present day. From a historical perspective, such a narrative is untenable. What actually survives are divergent descendant traditions shaped by regional materials, musical functions, and social settings.

Insisting that mridanga, mridangam, and khol are not the same instrument is not a matter of pedantic correction. The distinction matters because it respects regional histories and acknowledges that Bengal, Odisha, and South India developed different musical solutions rather than merely renaming a single object. It also prevents the creation of invented antiquity, in which symbolic continuity is mistaken for factual continuity. Finally, it clarifies musical function, since instruments are shaped by the performance contexts in which they operate, and conflating them obscures why they sound and function differently.

The Sanskrit mṛdaṅga is a generic ancient category rather than a fixed instrument. The mridangam is a South Indian classical development, wood-bodied and structurally transformed. The khol is a Bengali vernacular instrument, linguistically and organologically distinct. These instruments are historically related, but they are not the same instrument. Recognising this does not diminish devotional traditions; it replaces mythologised continuity with historically grounded understanding, which is essential for any responsible discussion of Indian musical culture.