With the demise of Kannada writer UR Ananthamurthy, the
literary world has lost a gifted story-teller. URA was a colorful and
controversial personality who clearly divided the Kannada readers into URA
admirers and URA bashers. Though URA was a scholar in Western literature, he
believed that the quality of regional writing is in no way inferior to those of
the nobel laureates of the world. He wrote one of the true classics in Indian
literature-Sanskara and followed it up with a few more gems like Bharathipura,
Bhava and Avasthe. Unfortunately, during the twilight of his celebrated life,
he was engaged in a bitter war of words with the admirers of another wonderful
writer, the supporters of BJP and people who opposed his worldview. It is sad
that even after his death, the muck has not stopped flying from either side of
the debate. When emotions run high and reasons take a backseat, it is time to
tread with caution.
URA’s caliber as a master story teller was never in
doubt. Though not as prolific as Shivaram Karantha or SL Bhyrappa-two doyens of
Kannada literature- URA’s oeuvre is rich and enviable. Unlike in the case of Girish
Karnad who many believe did not deserve the Jnanapeetha award, nobody questions
URA’s merit. He donned several hats in his illustrious career as a writer,
academician, administrator and even a politician. Given his socialist leaning
and background, he was close to several political leaders. There was a controversy
in the 1990s regarding the allotment of a government plot to URA in a posh
locality in Bangalore. In the later years, URA became more vocal and strident
in his open criticism of the BJP which culminated in an unsavory comment
against the incumbent prime minister during the last general elections. Even
though he later regretted it and confessed that his remarks were made in the ‘heat
of the moment’, the damage was already done. URA was seen to be close to certain
political parties and he made no bones about it. He got involved in a public
spat with SL Bhyrappa (whose writing is ‘infuriatingly good’ as Aravind Adiga
puts it) over the latter’s ideological orientations. Difference of opinions
among the literati is good for democracy and also for the common readers. URA was
highly critical of Bhyrappa’s controversial book ‘Avarana’ (translated to
English as ‘The Veil’) terming him as a debater and not a novelist while
Bhyrappa disapproved the very theme and presentation of ‘Sanskara’. So, the
dislike was mutual.
But when people start celebrating the passing away of a man,
who was definitely not a criminal-either in thought or deed-but only had an
opinion different from those of the revelers of death, it is a sad pointer that
basic human decency has gone for a toss.
The news of a few people rejoicing the death of URA was
shocking enough but what was much more saddening for me is the subtle and
sometimes overt justification of this repugnance by the educated, well-read
people in social and print media. ‘He once said that he used to urinate on the
idols and now god has taught him a lesson’ (URA died of kidney failure), is a
common excuse for pillorying URA. I have read his autobiography wherein he
describes this incident. He was in high school then and there were niggling
questions in his mind on the existence of god. As he explains, his intention
was to test whether he would suffer any misfortune because of his act of
sacrilege. He concludes by saying that even now, he is unable to accept or
debunk the reality of god. Before condemning URA, we need to revisit the
Nasadiya Sukta of Rigveda:
“But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
So who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
He, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
He, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
He knows - or maybe even he does not know”
This was written more than 3000 years ago. We are a land of Charvakas and
in the recent past, home to the Dravidian movement. Since when we became
intolerant towards the turmoil of an inquisitive teenage mind?
We can always question URA, call him pseudo secular, anti-Bhyrappa or
anti-Modi but let us not question his or anybody else’s right to question. While
probing URA, let us also use the same yardstick towards Bhyrappa or somebody
else whose affiliations or tendencies are of different hue. Unless we guarantee
this right to ourselves, unless we encourage healthy debate, we may tread towards
the dangerous path of hatred which is becoming increasingly common in our
neighbourhood.
PS: My sincere apologies to those who
are not familiar with the works of SL Bhyrappa and UR Ananthamurthy. I suggest
Parva, Vamsha Vriksha, Daatu and Mandra books of Bhyrappa and Samskara and
Bharathipura of URA to the interested. English translations are available. Parva
is an all-time classic and considered to be one of the great literary works of
the twentieth century.
