Read the previous parts: 1, 2, 3, 4 (i & ii)

This is the closing post on the Karnad series. I’ll try and jot my general and somewhat, sweeping observations about various facets of Karnad: as a playwright, actor, and “activist.”

Karnad is often described as a Rhodes scholar who quit a lucrative job to pursue his passion for the theatre. He first shot to fame with Yayati, which he claims he wrote on board a ship to England. He was only 26 years old when he wrote it. He didn’t look back ever since.

I admire Karnad’s courage to stick to his passion–he openly says that he acted in films just to make money. We all know how difficult it is to make a living being a full time writer/playwright. For Karnad, I suspect, the difficulty was much more considering that he wrote all his plays in Kannada. When I bought them–about 8-10 years ago–his books costed anywhere between 20 and 50 rupees. The money he earned from book royalty was probably a pittance. Small wonder that he opted to act in movies.

The other side of the coin however, isn’t too bright. It is one thing to pursue your passion and another to do it well. On which count Karnad fails.

The Playwright

My strong suspicion is that Karnad has little or no knowledge and/or understanding of Indian mythology/epics. Of course, I’m merely speculating about the depth of his knowledge or understanding for I haven’t spoken to him about this. So there’s really no way I can say this with certainty. Giving him the benefit of doubt, I then have to ponder on this question: why has he portrayed the originals in perverse ways?

Why did he have to base his plays on Indian lore? Why couldn’t (or didn’t) he pick some Greek/Roman myth and hammer it out of shape? You could defend him on the grounds of creative freedom. However, creative freedom doesn’t mean licence to debase something millions hold sacred. In fact, this phrase has gained tremendous currency, especially to counter genuine protests of desecration: from Miyaan Hussain to Mira Nair, anybody who defiles anything sacred to Hinduism garners vociferous support from the defenders of “artistic freedom and expression.” There are surely millions of other (respectful/sensitive) ways to express art. Why do you need to burn your neighbour’s house to light a lamp in your own?

As I’ve repeated ad nauseam, Karnad’s most acclaimed plays are based on Indian lore. What many people perhaps are unaware about is a play entitled, Anju Mallige. This is purely from his own imagination, his “original” if you will. And his talent shows in this play, whose theme is an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister. Even if you allow the “exploration of complex psychological aspects” thing, there’s absolutely nothing this play conveys. In fact, it is downright disgusting–I seriously can’t understand what appeal incest has to people. Anju Mallige holds the perfect mirror to reflect the truth of the statement (or criticism) that Karnad lacks originality; rather, he’d rather borrow than create something on his own. I can’t bear reading another Anju Mallige. On a related note, I’m also curious why Karnad didn’t draw from the more popular story/myth of Oedipus to explore the psychology of incest, thereby remaining consistent with his style of basing plays on popular myth/lore.

That said, Karnad scores in his historical plays. I rate Tughlaq as his finest and deservedly, the most popular play–purely from a dramatic perspective: arrangement of plot, scenes, suspense, and the unfolding of action. However, Karnad has unncessarily glorified the historical Tughalq in the play: he is portrayed as a misguided genius. But this is a minor fissure, which doesn’t come in the way of enjoying it.

Tale Danda (literally, Head Tax) is another such play. Based on the life of Basavanna, a saint and social reformer of the 12th Century Karnataka, the play moves at a fast pace and chronicles his life in a few acts. Even better, it exposes the political climate of that period. Karnad manages to retain the electric charge of the subjacent tension–the violence is pervasive throughout but explodes only in the climax. Simply outstanding.

The Actor

There’s nothing much I have to say here: I like his performances. They’re pretty off-the-cuff, natural and effortless. One of his performances that lingers in memory is in a Kannada movie, Amritavarshini Ananda Bhairavi (thanks to reader Nilagriva for pointing out the error). He plays a dance Guru, who grooms and transforms a girl into a splendid danseuse. The plot isn’t really outstanding but his characterization and performance is. He has also acted in several Telugu and Tamil (masala) movies (remember the villanous father in Kadhalan?).

The Activist

Ever since pen is mightier than the sword became popular, writers and artistes have by gradual degrees of increase, turned activists. Today you have an atmosphere where writers have overtly taken to political pamphleteering: the Verbal Terrorist for one. It is fine and dandy that the sensitive souls they are, they have a concern for the downtrodden. As such they need to restrict their sphere of activity to writing about the plight of these poor people. The trouble starts when they begin to take sides.

Back to the Verbal Terrorist, I’m as confused as she probably is: is a Leftist? For one, her Booker prize was made possible only by a capitalist system that ensured that a figure as influential as David Godwin helped to create the hype–and consequently the market–for her book. That the sales of Goddess of Empty Words God of Small Things soared after it won the Booker is another bouquet at the anvil of the Capitalist altar. The same author today struts around damning everything from “fanatical Hindutva” right up to mobile phones (gasp!).

Karnad is no better.

As far as I recollect, Karnad’s foray into activism/politics began around the time of Advani’s Rath Yatra. The consequence: he immediately endeared himself to the secular bogie. Ever since, there was no stopping him. So, why wasn’t I wasn’t surprised when I read his words on the issue of the bloody Portuguese Goan Inquisition?

‘Goa: A Daughter’s Story’ is open to controversial readings in the polarised climate of today and Couto is anxious that some of her chapters are not misinterpreted. She admits that conversions were violent but argues that violent birth certainly does not preclude 400 years of nurturing. And as for misinterpretation, any grist is suitable for mills that seem to grind against communal harmony and the sustenance of the Indian-ness of pluralism. Her doubts were dispelled by Girish Karnad: “You should go by what you know or feel in your bones to be right — that even if conversions were forced or violent, the faith that people gained from them could prove to be culturally and spiritually enriching.”

Yeah, “convert or die” is a good way to spread the Lord’s message: you don’t need to bother about the pain inflicted on you because it is (sic) culturally and spiritually enriching. This attitude is the stuff intellectual activism of today is made of. Speaking of the secular brigade, the Chinese Communist Party Paper Frontline, sang mellifluously when he got the Jnanapith. In a piece devoted to Karnad’s literary attainments, the author has cleverly managed to sneak some words about secularism and Babri Masjid:

Karnad has been a bitter critic in recent years of the rise of religious fundamentalism in India. He publicly condemned the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992; he uses all public platforms to warn of the threat Hindutva poses to secularism, multi-culturalism and the freedom of expression. When religious fundamentalists tried to whip up communal tensions over the controversy about the Idgah Maidan in Hubli, Karnad (who hails from Dharwad) strongly opposed them. More recently, he has publicly opposed the threats made by the Sangh Parivar of stopping the Tipu Bicentennial celebrations.

Interestingly, Karnad wrote a play that “showcased Tipu’s dreams.” This play unlike his previous Tughlaq, openly shows the brand of secularism Karnad adheres to. Tipu is often (wrongly) hailed as a “freedom fighter.” (more on this notion in a separate entry) The play was featured as one of the programmes of the Karnataka government’s bicentennial celebrations to commemmorate Tipu’s martyrdom. Recorded history has plenty of evidence to show that Tipu was an aggressive proselytiser who burnt thousands of Hindus alive during his Malabar expedition. However, the advantages of having a secular press are many. For one, dissenting views are not published. If a Karnad hails Tipu as a hero, and another counters this with evidence, the secular media takes up Karnad’s case. So there.

I have no objection to Karnad for espousing the causes he does (or claims he does). Normally an activist is passionate about his/her cause. He’ll fight it “to death.” He’ll court arrest, he’ll holler in public, etc. To do this requires some streetfighting skills, which the gentlemanly Karnad sorely lacks, and which was exposed unfortunately in an incident about 1-2 years ago.

Karnad launched a protest against Pravin Togadia visiting Bababudangiri/Dattapeetha and roundly denounced “Hindu fundamentalists.” Accompanied by several likeminded “intellectuals,” he rushed off to Chickmagalur (which houses Bababudangiri). However, the tight security there forced him to return. En route at Hassan, his band of protesters–called Progressive Forum–made a human chain to mark the protest.

However, when the cops came calling, he abandoned the group and fled to Bangalore, a fact that was reported by all local newspapers. Apparently, Karnad shuddered at the idea of being imprisoned, even for what in his view, was a just cause. This even when Karnad had the full blessings of S.M. Krishna, then the Chief Minister of Karnataka. You see, he couldn’t let his spotless gentlemanly image be sullied by the rowdy bunch of cops. And so he fled, leaving his mates to suffer the fate of jail. Ladies and gentlemen that is a brief portrait of Karnad, the Activist.

To round up, I can only affirm what I said in the first part of this series: Karnad is a fine actor, a decent director, and a mediocre playwright. He however, is a mere opportunist, not an activist.