Spaces between togetherness

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.