Silence is not stagnation
SHIVA SUNDAR
|
Rahmat Tarikere, one of the foremost thinker-writers of the State, feels that while literature and culture were the beneficiaries of the unification of Karnataka, socio-economic development has been lop-sided and urban centric
|
Photo: G.R.N. Somashekar
CHURNINGSilence can also be read as the internal preparation of a literary tradition for a new challenge
Rahamat Tarikere, a well-known culture critic of the Kannada literary world, is a senior faculty member of the Kannada University in Hampi, and is one of the few who has been associated with the university since its inception. His scholarly works on cultures of the marginalised people has evoked considerable churning in the entrenched beliefs and value systems of the Kannada world. Consequently, Dr. Rahamat Tarikere's work has lead to the re-evaluation of many perceived literary and cultural notions. In a true Gramscian sense, Rahamat dwells into the operation of hegemony as it is mirrored in the Kannada literary tradition in many of his well-known works such as Maradolagina Kicchu, Prathi Samskrithi etc. His emphasis on a counter culture and scholarly exposition into Sufi tradition has given him a singular distinction of the rarest originality. Apart from all these, he has edited many volumes on several aspects of Kannada literature and has recently completed a book Illi Yaroo Mukhyaralla, a book that sums up his attitude towards life.
Excerpts of an interview:
Do you think the aspirations behind the Karnataka Ekikarana (unification of Kannada speaking regions into one entity called Karnataka) are achieved?
The history of unification or Ekikarana is peculiar to Karnataka. In fact, many in the old Mysore area, which was relatively "developed" as compared to other regions, were not for unification. The only person who became a martyr during the Ekikarana in Karnataka was Ramzan Saab of Bellary, of Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Highly influential writers such as Kuvempu and B.M. Srikantaiah were vociferous votaries of unification. In a sense, the unification movement was a movement of writers! Apart from this there was a strong parallel current of linguistic unification along with the freedom movement, happening in most regions. Hence unification of Karnataka was historically bound to happen.
Karnataka has enjoyed the fruits of unification in terms of literature and culture. But unification did not result in equal social and economic development. The development is metro-centric and is currently driven by the IT-BT sector. Even after 50 years, people from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region migrate to metros. Majority of the construction workers in Bangalore hail from these backward regions of the State. That is why even after 50 years voices of separatism is heard from north Karnataka and Hyderabad-Karnataka regions, which cannot be dismissed as mischief played by some unemployed politicians.
Has Ekikarana given Kannada language the status it deserves?
Kannada has certainly gained as an administrative language and as medium of instruction. More than anything else, as a literary language it reached new horizons because of its inherent capacity to reflect the nuances of human sentiments. But unfortunately there is a serious regression in its use as a language of education in the last decade. The onward march of globalisation is not only killing thousands of farmers but also the umbilical link between language and a community. It has successfully convinced the middle class that their salvation lies not in learning Kannada but in learning English. Culturally the interface between Kannada and English is not a new thing. Many of our writers have engaged with English successfully. Namage bekada English (The English that we need) an article written by Kuvempu years ago, is but one example of the negotiation that we had with English. But the challenge we are facing today is totally different.
It is only a matter of time before Kannada disappears from even the grassroots. That is a scary situation, isn't it?
How do you place the Kannada movements in such a context?
If Kannadaness could be understood as a consciousness, a sensibility, the negotiation with English has a big history. It has given fruitful results as can be seen in the works of our writers.
But actually the same cannot be said about the Kannada movements, which often look at Tamil, Urdu, Marathi or Telugu as the enemies whenever existence of Kannada threatened.
Has the unification helped the Kannada literary field anyway?
We cannot see the whole 50 years of the State's unified past as a wasteland. Definitely not in the literary field. Not because Kannada writers have got the highest number of Jnanapith awards. But because in the last 50 years many writers from hitherto silent communities have started writing bringing new sensibilities to Kannada literature. I call this process as the democratic expansion of Kannada literary horizons.
What have the benefits been for the oppressed communities by unification?
I don't think the unification of the region initiated any mobility as far as the status of the oppressed communities is concerned. Since Karnataka is not an island insulated from developments that take place at the national and international level, all the processes that are accentuating economic disparities are influencing the people of Karnataka also. In relative terms, Dalits have become literate, conscious, and some among them could get gainful employment also. But large sections of the community still remain in the same predicament. Unequal and lopsided economic development processes have brought fissures not only region-wise but also class-wise. Never in the history of Karnataka have so many farmers committed suicides and adivasis faced the threat of extinction. This suggests that only geographical unification can provide a solution.
Kannada community is known for its compassion and fraternity. But divisive forces have extended their territory into Karnataka.
It is true that Karnataka has provided a big space for the divisive forces in south India. But communalism alone cannot be blamed for it. It is the casteist and the opportunist political game plans of the so-called non-communal spaces, and communal option of the entrenched castes that paved the way for divisive forces in Karnataka. But again it is the vibrant and vigilant civil society forces such as writers, intellectuals and activists in Karnataka who registered a firm and biggest resistance against such forces, probably first ever in the country. I think, this could happen only because of the great Sufi and non-Vedic and inherently democratic tradition of Karnataka as also the Dalit movement, the farmers' movements. Forces banking on petty and emotional politics can't get any foothold in Karnataka.
Compared to vibrant literary environment of '80s there seems to be a kind of stagnation in Kannada literature. What could be the reasons for that?
What is stagnation? No community that is alive can be stagnant. Many a times, at certain historical moments of crisis, a kind of silence encompasses the community. It can also be read as the internal preparation of a literary tradition for a new challenge.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Entertainment
Bangalore
Chennai and Tamil Nadu
Delhi
Hyderabad
Thiruvananthapuram
