Bengaluru or the Tyranny of the Intellectual
Thursday, 22. December 2005 - 1:11 PM
I’ve stepped late into the controversy with good reason, which will be clear after you finish reading this post. Nitin, I’ve kept my promise.
Bangalore or Bengaluru, doesn’t matter really. And no, I will not make the same (excellent) points that Jagadish has made. This is the latest political stunt to shift the focus away from the real issue: Bangalore Crumbling, a boon bestowed by the Mighty Deve Gowda whose narcosis is unparalleled.
Those who don’t know Kannada also perhaps are unaware that Bangalore is written and pronounced as Bengaluru. When I speak in Kannada, I don’t even by an infinite chance prounounce it as “Bangalore.” Are the powers-that-be ignorant of this simple fact? Don’t bet on it. A mere spelling change won’t transform Bangalore overnight. It didn’t happen with Calcutta Kolkata, Bombay Mumbai, and Madras Chennai. And a majority of people care a damn about the name change.
This blogger seeks to delve behind the motivations of the people that prompted this sinister–yes, sinister–project. It is the brainchild of a literateur’s perversity. His name is UR Ananthamurthy (URA), a distinguished writer and by a now-accepted corollary, an intellectual. The name change was his recommendation as this news item says.
National award-winning author U R Ananthamurthy has been quoted as saying that other smaller cities in Karnataka, such as Mysore, should also change their names. “It should happen in phases. But these cities are already being called by their Kannada names, so why should they not be officially called so? We don’t need to call them what the British did.”
This decision was announced after deliberations at a literateurs’ conference. Which means there were opposing voices. Why the government chose URA’s recommendation overruling all opposition is baffling. Actually it is crystal clear to those who know URA’s record over the last three or so decades.
Ananthamurthy first shot to fame with his highly-accalimed novel, Samskara. He has proverbially never looked back after it, going all the way till he received the Jnanapith. Most of his novels have political undertones to varying degrees; his Bharatipura is an out-and-out political novel that while pretending to examine the caste problem, is sprinkled with liberal doses of Existentialism. It is an almost-open attack on the Brahmin community as well as on one of the marked traits of Hinduism: the temple culture and Saguna worship (crudely, idol worship). One evaluation of Bharatipura is interesting: the setting of the novel is in the Malnad/rural Karnataka region and the characters are all Indian. All you need to do is change the geography, social equations and merely, the character names–it’ll read the same, convey the same meaning and message in any language. It is in fact, a template for Existentialist Writing.
I mentioned this novel because this, more than any of his other books illustrates URA the man.
URA has always pandered to the ruling class and has moulded his ideology based on the prevailing fashion. The Bharatipura days were exciting times for Socialists/Communists. And a novel like this pleased the people who needed to be pleased. URA and his fellow-travellers established a cult in Kannda literature that for more than a decade throttled any work which didn’t toe the line dictated by this cult. One victim of his vitriol was the noted novelist, SL Bhyrappa whose novels he dismissed as regressive, retrograde and outdated. URA could manage this largely due to the political patronage he had garnered by then. The same political patronage that later proved handy when he lobbied for the Jnanapith. His close circle of friends included most notably, J.H. Patel, Ramakrishna Hegde and the Socialist leader Gopala Gowda.
URA’s political “achievements” far outnumber his literary ones: his tenure as Vice Chancellor of the Mahatama Gandhi University in Kottayam was marked by an allegation of embezzlement, he was also appointed the chairman of National Book Trust, president of the Sahitya Academy, and the Indian Literature Academy. All these are governmental institutions. I don’t need to elaborate on the kind of lobbying that goes on for such appointments. That URA managed to get himself these coveted positions is not a mean (political) “achievement.”
Another of URA’s favourite ideological postures is his “battle against communalism.” Like his other mutual-admiration-club member Girish Karnad, URA has spoken strongly against the “communal forces” that threaten to rip the country’s “secular fabric” apart. Case in point: Ayodhya and the Bababudangiri controversies. Unlike Karnad, URA’s methods are indirect, subtle, and sophisticated. The rewards apart from the coveted appointments are numerous: the JH Patel government allotted a plot in the prestigious Dollars’ Colony in Bangalore, which led to an overwhelming number of literateurs condemning URA.
To his credit, URA has been keen to sense the direction of the wind. He was a Socialist/Communist par excellence in the days it flourished–in fact, he visited Beijing during the Tiannmen massacre at taxpayers’ expense and wrote an essay on the incident in Kannada–he was secularer than the secularists in condemning the Babri masjid demolition and now, he is more Dalit than the real Dalits what with his regular public photo-sessions with Dalit/backward caste ministers.
This exhaustive background is necessary to understand what follows. URA was perceived as close to SM Krishna whom the present government, especially Deve Gowda condemns as pro-IT, therefore evil. Case in point: his open support to Krishna’s sham pada-yatra to resolve the Cauvery crisis about two years ago. Today, URA takes digs at the IT industry to whose growth SMK has contributed immensely while he remains mum about Bangalore’s infrastructure and prefers to barter it for a senseless name-change proposal. I’ll requote URA’s justification for the name-change:
National award-winning author U R Ananthamurthy has been quoted as saying that other smaller cities in Karnataka, such as Mysore, should also change their names. “It should happen in phases. But these cities are already being called by their Kannada names, so why should they not be officially called so? We don’t need to call them what the British did.”
This is a fine point to make: restoring cultural symbols and all. In this context, what merits closer examination is the person’s own record of serving the language before his recommendation can be taken seriously. Merely writing books in one’s mother tongue maketh not a linguistic crusader. URA’s record alas, doesn’t show traces of a particularly stellar service. URA studied English literature at Birmingham and then served as a professor of English in Mysore University. One son had a typical “English medium” education before going abroad for higher education in Engineering. And I’m not sure I’ve heard URA’s name being in the limelight during the famous Gokak Movement of the ’70s. To my knowledge, URA’s name has never figured prominently–if at all–in any language-related activism. His “causes” as I outlined at some length, have always been in the direction of “maintaining social harmony.” If his concern was Kannada was genuine, he’d have gone the way of Aa Na Kru (AN Krishna Rao) who lived and died in poverty because he refused to be obliged to the government by accepting awards, and charimanships. URA however, seems to want the best of both worlds.
The most crucial question that we need to ask is: why did URA choose to make this point now? Why didn’t it strike him earlier, in all these 30 years of his “service” to Kannada and Karnataka? Wasn’t he reminded of the “Colonial association” of these names for more than three decades, for God’s sake?
And given his record, can we be forced to conclude that his role is to lend intellectual respectability to a Gowdaesque diversionary tactic aimed to derail the infrastructure discourse, and that he is an active partner in this political fraud?
22. December 2005 - 7:45 PM
I am surprised and also not surprised that URA who advises families not to send their children to an “English” medium school has done exactly that. I enjoyed his Samskara in translation. But I would much rather read someone like Jayakantan (I can speak a little Kannada and read signboards; but am vastly better at my mother tongue Tamizh; Hindi and English) who hasn’t fallen prey to some fashionable ‘ism’. Writers like URA abound in Indian language writing and Indian-English writing; where stories are written to cloak some fashionable ‘ism’ rather than articulate the writer’s own experiences. However on the matter of Bengaluru it is a good cause and URA’s supporting it does not matter to me. In the case of “Chennai” the “Dravidian” sloganeers fabricated a Tamizh heritage and foisted a faux-Tamizh name on a city that grew out out of a Nellore chieftain’s hamlet and was built by the British. Madras lies far beyond the boundaries of the historic Tamizh states and Mahabalipuram under the Pallavas is as far as it stretched. Neither Madras not Chennai is Tamizh. The case for renaming Kolkata and Mumbai is more persuasive. In the case of Bangalore (lots of cases here!) it was founded by Kempe Gowda so why should it not be Bengaluru as it is said in Kannada. Incidentally Madras in Tamizh is rarely referred to as Chennai. It is either Madras or simply ‘pattinam’. Of course the current administration (if you can call it that) in Karnataka is a disgrace and it is entirely in keeping with their smoke and mirrors act to fool the public that they should choose to rename the city.
23. December 2005 - 9:44 AM
Sandeep,
I’m glad you posted on this. Most Bangaloreans I know have demonstrated apathy, after initial horror, on the name-changing issue. But it is only when you realise the motivations of the renaming that you get the whole picture.
23. December 2005 - 9:48 AM
Shiva,
That was very informative.
>>In the case of Bangalore (lots of cases here!) it was founded by Kempe Gowda so why should it not be Bengaluru as it is said in Kannada.
As I said in my entry, I have nothing against renaming the city. The brand value reduction clamour that’s going up is really alarmist. However, my issue is with the timing. Why now? Why not when Krishna was the CM? If you’re in Bangalore for some years, you’ll know that people aren’t particularly keen on renaming the city. Renaming or no isn’t the point: obfuscating issues is.
23. December 2005 - 9:54 AM
Nitin,
Thanks. And which is why we need to ignore these worthies: the moment we try and put up a defence, it’ll mean they have won. A mere name change won’t make the IT companies evaporate overnight. After all, Bangalore was, well, Bangalore before the IT boom. Investors don’t come to a place based on how it is spelt/pronounced.
24. December 2005 - 2:06 PM
HI,
1) URA’s son studied Physics at IIT K . He teaches in Mysore Univ. He is not an Engineer.
2) URA was opposed to some of the Ideas in “Gokak” agitation. He did address several public meetings hosted by the Left.
24. December 2005 - 10:33 PM
“…When I speak in Kannada, I don’t even by an infinite chance prounounce it as “Bangalore.†”
infinite or infinitesimal? A world of difference it makes.
25. December 2005 - 12:38 AM
Frankly, I havent understood whats the big deal about changing the name anyways – its all a big show off political mela. The common man couldnt care less.
What will be interesting will be how will software companies implement those changes LOL
Suyog
26. December 2005 - 12:04 AM
Well, I think people are disillusioned enough to not care about the “intellectual respectability” or whatever. This is just a political stunt that is consistent with the ‘reforms with a human face’ crowd that dictates the rules now in India.
26. December 2005 - 10:49 AM
I completely agree with Sandeep’s article. Why this renaming gimmick NOW? Our present government(?) is exceptionally astute at diverting the public attention from the burning issues of the crumbling basic infrastructure and not to mention the extreme corruption to an almost non-value added gimmick.
I am Kannadiga to the core, but I don’t see the point in indulging in name changing gimmick. I always refer my beloved Bangalore as bengaLooru when I speak in Kannada.
As one of our noted literary giants ‘ChamPa’ has rightly stated that people like URA are ‘masalae dosae sahithi’. URA has done nothing for the cause of Kannada or the people of Karnataka. Winning a gnaanapeetha award is fine, but not enough.
It’s high time all these jokers stopped these gimmicks and turned their attention to the real issues at hand – crumbling infrastructure, rising crime rate & pollution, neglect of rural areas and lack of primary healthcare.
29. December 2005 - 8:35 AM
“Masalae Dosae Sahiti” and URA. The best one I have heard of this pompous character in some time.
12. June 2006 - 4:01 PM
You i*** why link name change with infrasturucture,IT anything..It should have happened on time or the other.. then why did rename bombay,madras,calculatta after decades ?
Then all indians are zealots..
Don’t link un related topics..what ever it will open eyes of non kannadigas to little lingo aspects of kannada and history..
I fully support it
5. November 2006 - 7:11 PM
Hmmm….A gimmik for the cayse of kannada is always welcome as long as it doen’t harm anyone. I support the name change.
Regarding URA’s delayed realization of changing the name to “Bengaluru”!!!!
Wats the big deal????
29. December 2006 - 11:10 AM
“Bangalore or Bengaluru, doesn’t really matter”. If that statement is really true, then why on earth are they bent upon changing the name.
Bangalore is a brand that has been created. It has made its way to Oxford dictionary too. Changing it’s name at this juncture is not a good idea.
Both Bangalore and Bengalooru co-exist today. Let it be that way. Because for a lot of people it’s Bangalore not Bengalooru.
Amith,
BANGALORE
29. December 2006 - 11:12 AM
Adding to it, there are more serious issues we need to look at instead of wasting our time and money on this comsetic move.
10. January 2007 - 12:38 AM
English Mahajanagaley!
Swalpa Englishnallu Bengalooru antha heli. Adharinda akasha yenu keligey beelodhilla.
Just think, who says Peking today? Its Beijing right? Just reflect on this…QED. Even then Peking was in Oxford Dictionary:)
15. January 2008 - 6:43 AM
“Masalae Dosae Sahiti†?
I was thinking “Benne Dose Sahiti”.
Benne – Kannada
Maska – Hindi
Butter – English
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. May 2008 - 6:16 PM
Madras is always Madras, no matter whoever changes it or calls it otherwise.
Changes are so much irritating and make life more difficult . I always say Madras as I’m used to from childhood but people around me frown as I’ve uttered some obscene word.
Well, If you don’t like british names or anything done by british then, why do you still celebrate Jan 1st as New year? We have seperate Tamil New Year right? Why don’t you destroy the high courts, railway tracks constructed by british & reconstruct from the start? Sounds stupid right… Same way, It sounds stupid to change from Madras to Chennai when both co-existed without any problem. Now , only Chennai exists . where’s my magnificent Madras? My DOB Certificate lists it as Madras. A’m I born in a city which does not exist? These changes promote regionalism & not nationalism… which will ultimately result in a separate Country ThamizlNadu(Once known as the State of Madras).
Don’t know where will it End?