The Charioteer is Krishna (Devaraya) Himself
Sunday, 14. February 2010 - 4:08 AM
Writing about the recently-concluded Hampi festival, the SpIndian Express boldly asks:
The Hampi festival is an annual cultural extravaganza that began 15 years ago with the Hampi Ustav in 1995. This year’s festival holds a special significance because it marks the 500th year of Sri Krishnadevaraya’s coronation in 1509-10. But the festival per se is not what prompted this Indian Express piece. Among others, the real reason is that it is the BJP government that organized, oversaw, and ensured that it was a huge success. And it was a huge success no matter what the media wants you to believe. Thankfully, we’ve not yet reached a stage where we’re completely ashamed to even take pride in local traditions, heroes, and accomplishments to the extent that we disown them. Every tiny hamlet, village, boulder, hill, and cave in the remotest corner of India has what you call a sthala purana or local legend/tale/story. If you are the scholarly type, you typically dig into the authenticity, truth, historicity or otherwise of that sthala purana. But to the inhabitants of that hamlet, it is a living truth–it provides them the heroes they need, and gives them the values and ideals that guide their lives. To that extent, these legends, heroes, and artifacts are worship-worthy. You might with the might of your scholarship, prove that it is legend/tale/fiction but you can’t negate the real experience that’s wedded to the lives of these inhabitants. On the negative side, if your scholarship has ideological/political backing coupled with lung power, you’ll succeed not just in showing how amazing your scholarship is but, tragically, in destroying a generations-old value system that made people better people. It’s a different matter that your scholarship doesn’t provide an equivalent alternative.
Which is exactly what the Indian Express article sets out to do.
The Indian Express spin begins with
There is a Pancha Pandava feel to the legend-invoking festival, going by the number of sites that host a plethora of cultural programmes. Of the five venues at the Hampi Festival that host music shows, dance recitals, literary soirees and rural sports, four are relatively smaller compared to the main one. The major locale close to the famed Viru paksha temple of this historic north Karnataka city is a rather sprawling expanse — with its open-air feature further lit up by replicas of tastefully moulded exhibits that typify the aesthetics of the good old Vijayanagara Empire.
While it gives due credit to the arrangements, etc, we fail to understand what exactly is a Pancha Pandava feel. Nor does the writer of the piece care to explain. At the most basics, Pancha Pandavas means the five Pandavas or the five sons of Pandu. We fail to understand how this is anyway connected to either Hampi or the festival. But obviously, if you’re spinning, you typically massacre facts. After some hurried words about Krishnadevaraya’s coronation, he says,
And, to be fair to the organisers, the pomp and pageantry at the three-day fete that ended on January 29 did lend colour to the significance of the occasion. Top performing artistes — both classical and popular, and some of them from abroad — did add vivacity to the proceedings.Only that they could regale the evening audience after the political leaders and senior bureaucrats vacated the stage, ending a long series of speeches. [.] this happened on all the three days. The confluence of politicians at this place in Bellary district not only came as a suffocating surprise for the common visitors at the prestigious fest, but even the passerby on the road struggled, what with traffic snarls that any VVIP’s presence would painfully entail.
He glosses over the fact that it is no mean achievement to draw such top artistes to a festival held in a location where the dry heat throughout the year is quite unbearable. Also the fact that “festivals” like Kala Ghoda and other secular pomp shows routinely get far wider and slobbering coverage and accolades escapes his attention.
After this, the article pretty much disses the entire event. A reader looking for a factual reportage of the Hampi festival gets everything but that: from traffic jams caused by VVIPs and politicians, from foreigners treated shabbily, from rampant drug usage in Hampi, from the presence of corporate magnates to how the Hampi festival resembled a political show instead of a cultural event. Here’s the thing: a World Heritage site that is today the site for all forms of perversity imaginable should have fired up this reporter’s passions. Instead, his focus is on how it turned into a political circus. We wonder where Hampi was on his map before this festival happened. If anything, Hampi has become the haven for drug addicts, paedophiles, orgies, rampant prostitution, and wholesale land encroachment. Dargahs and mosques appear overnight in and around the premises of this UNESCO World Heritage site.
But then, we know the reason why the media reports on such events the way it does. In this case specifically, the government explicitly mentioned that the festival–usually held in November every year–was postponed to January 2010 because it wanted to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the coronation of Sri Krishnadevaraya, unarguably the greatest ruler of the Vijayanagar empire. And this sounded off alarm bells in the usual quarters. There was little opposition all these years to celebrate the Hampi Utsav. But when the BJP government announced the special significance of this year’s Ustav, these alarm bells shrieked deafeningly. Elsewhere, the same Indian Express quoted it as the “fest of the Sangh Parivar. (ha!)”
And why?
So far, the Hampi Utsav was…well, just another cultural festival held in a World Heritage site. The “significance” was explained away with the usual epithets of “great sculptural beauty,” “exquisite carvings,” “rare architecture,” etc. This fell neatly in line with the Congress party’s dictum of not taking pride in our own achievements. And the government-sponsored history of the Vijayanagar Empire is the best proof of this. To most of us who learnt history in school, Krishnadevaraya was just another powerful king who occupied other kingdoms, planted trees, strengthened the economy, patronized arts, etc. Equally, the Vijayanagar Empire was just another powerful empire that was founded as a “rebellion” against Islamic invasion. And thus, lest the people think otherwise, Hampi Utsav was just another cultural event where the chic circles generally had a good time: ooh! the Veeroopaksha temple is sooo beautiful! And those nudes!? And so when Krishnadevaraya’s name suddenly came into focus, the Indian Express found it prudent to find the “other side” of the story. And who does it call upon? An old suspect, an ex-Vice Chancellor of the Hampi University, a gentleman named M M Kalburgi who’s famous for being on the buttered side of the bread. A known Hindu baiter, he says,
Krishna Deva Raya did “nothing” to promote Kannada language. “I would not hesitate to call him anti-Kannadiga. He suppressed our language by patronising Telugu poets in his court.” And, then a rejoinder: “Plus, he encouraged Tamils too. Today if you find large pockets of Tamilians living in Bangalore, it is because of Krishna Deva Raya.
Another way of looking at people with hundreds of academic acronyms and important-sounding titles affixed to their names is that the greater your qualification, the greater your chances of being guilty until proven innocent. M M Kalburgi epitomizes this phenomenon. But let’s give the devil its due.
The learned ex-Vice Chancellor forgets that there was no one state of Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh or Tamil Nadu in Krishnadevarya’s time. Besides, a host of inscriptions and praises by contemporary poets describe Krishnadevaraya variously as Kannada Rajya Ramaa Ramana (Lord Vishnu–Ramaa’s husband–of Kannada Kingdom) and Kannadaraya (The King of Kannada). Almost every other inscription of the time refers to the Vijayanagar Empire as Karnata Samrajya (Karnataka Empire). Krishnadevaraya patronized several well-known Kannada poets including Chaatuvittalanatha, and Gubbi Mallanna who in turn praised his generosity and his spirit of inclusiveness. Krishnadevaraya is one of the very rare kings who became the ideal hero and role model for two states simultaneously–people of both Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh till date remember him with fondness and respect. More importantly, he held Vyasaraya, one of the greatest exponents of Madhvacharya’s Dvaita philosophy, in great esteem, and made him the Raja Guru (official guru of the King). It was Vyasaraya who propagated the Haridasa movement in a far-reaching manner. Vyasaraya was the Guru of the celebrated Purandaradasa, the father of Carnatic classical music, and Kanakadasa, another Haridasa poet, singer, and saint. (Aside, casteist politicians spearheaded by the Congress party’s Siddaramaiah have tried to appropriate Kanakadasa because he hailed from the same Kuruba caste). All these saints are still widely revered in Karnataka–their songs are still sung in concerts and recited as poems in daily life. And all these men flourished under Krishnadevaraya’s rule. And all these were thoroughbred Kannadigas. Besides, in Krishnadevaraya’s time, Telugu literature had reached its peak compared to its Kannada counterpart. Now if the learned ex-Vice Chancellor wants to blame even this on Krishnadevaraya, we have no option but to recommend that he’s in dire need of lobotomy.
In light of this–sample, but significant–evidence, the eminent ex-Vice Chancellor should tell us how he can reconcile these historical facts with his narcotic-induced statement that Krishnadevaraya was “anti-Kannadiga.” In addition, M M Kalburgi’s statement that Krishnadevaraya was responsible for “large pockets of Tamilians living in Bangalore” is so sodden that he’ll slip and hurt the region of his anatomy where the sun doesn’t shine. In Krishnadevaraya’s time, Tamilians were largely concentrated in the Thanjavur and adjoining belts. However, being the true connossieur of fine arts and tolerant of all faiths and philosophies and languages, Krishnadevarya had a number of Tamil poets in his court. During the Vijayanagar times, Bangalore was but a very very small hamlet kind of place with little population of Tamils. Tamilians migrated to Bangalore chiefly during the British rule, who force-employed poor Tamils as labourers in the Bangalore cantonment–these Tamilians were drawn predominantly from areas adjoining Kolar. The second wave of migration of significant numbers of Tamils happened when Seshadri Iyer was the Diwan of Mysore (under the British). M M Kalburgi stretches the limits of logic in the realm of both time and space–from the 16th Century to today and from Hampi to Bangalore.
And then the Indian Express spin consults similar “experts” who amazingly claim that
Krishna Deva Raya…was partially responsible for the influx of “migrants” into the territory that is now part of Karnataka.
This is unbelievably mind-numbing and leads us to ask this question: given the sickening Kannada chauvinism of Kalburgi & Sons, was Krishnadevaraya required to predict that his kingdom would someday in future be split up on linguistic basis to form Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh & Tamil Nadu and thus, it was his responsibility to prove his Kannada-lover credentials by preventing non-Kannada people from encroaching on the future Karnataka? And does Indian Express recruit its journalists based on how many negative points they score in logic? Also, for all his chest-thumping about Kannada, Kalburgi & Sons need to yet demonstrate their service to Kannada.
Elsewhere, Kalburgi & sons cry hoarse about secularism, multiculturalism, and tolerance. But here is Krishnadevaraya, a devout Vaishnavite, who welcomed, encouraged and patronized people of all sects, beliefs, faiths, and opinions, and he’s the made the villain of the piece. And then we have Paramashiva Murthy, another “expert” who, under substance-abuse says,
“Why does the government single out Krishna Deva Raya as the ideal ruler of Vijayanagara? Is he the only person responsible for what the mighty Vijayanagara was once?” He observes many other kings contributed to Vijayana gara’s prosperity between the 13th and 15th century. “In fact, Prouda Deva Raya did more to encourage Kannada.”
Simply because Krishnadevaraya was the greatest/ideal ruler of that empire. His military success was unmatched either by his predecessors or successors. None of the hostile Islamic kingdoms surrounding Vijayanagar dared raise its voice against him. Under him, the Vijayanagar empire held sway over the largest swathe of geography than his predecessors or successors. He maintained law and order, delivered justice & security to his subjects, and took prosperity to the highest levels. The West hankered to do trade with him and wrote glowing accounts of the economic prosperity of Vijayanagar under his rule. He instilled a sense of cultural refinement and encouraged the arts. He was well-versed in music, could play musical instruments, wrote poetry–Amuktamalyada–and other forms of literature. At best, Proudha Devaraya had one stellar poet, Kumara Vyasa (Gadugina Narayanappa) who wrote the amazing Karnata Bharata Katha Manjari. However, that doesn’t automatically make him a Kannada lover or absolve him of shortcomings, whatever his other merits. Paramashiva Murthy’s soporific yardstick to measure the greatness of a king of the Vijayanagar empire seems to rest on how much they loved/patronized Kannada. I suppose these stoned experts would’ve been mightily thrilled if the stone-pelting warriors of the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike had ruled the Vijayanagar Empire.
And then the spin suddenly takes a mysterious turn by mentioning the powerful Bellary mining barons and the government’s lack of rehabilitation efforts in the wake of last year’s floods in the region. Not to mention a certain Joshi guy who cribs about not being able to gorge on a “grand Deccani feast.” Deccan (or Dakkan), by the way, is a term Muslim rulers used to refer to South India. We wonder what place such “issues” have in a report about a cultural festival.
In the end, the actual reason for the Indian Express’ angst and anxiety is not Krishnadevaraya per se but what he symbolizes: a powerful testimony to what heights a fully-awakened Hindu society is capable of attaining in a short span of time. A government that explicitly honours such a king will get people asking uncomfortable questions starting with: who is/was Krishnadevaraya? Really bad for secularism, no?
Tags: 500th Anniversary of Krishnadevaraya, Communal Historians, Eminent Historians, Hampi Festival, History, India, Indian Civilization, Indian Express, Indian History, Indian Philosophy, Indian Politics, Indian Value System, Kannada, Karnataka, Krishnadevaraya, M M Kalburgi, Media Watch, Politics, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Sanatana Dharma, Secularism, Society & Culture, Spindian Express, Vijayanagar Empire
14. February 2010 - 7:04 AM
Sandeep, I like your posts and equally dislike incompetent and biased coverages but I think we should exercise some restraint as well.
The report is only printing what opposition leader is saying.
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=%E2%80%98Hampi+Utsav%E2%80%99+was+a+fest+of+the+Sangh+Parivar&artid=To7BdUL66Cs=
We can not blame them for that. Otherwise it is very hard to report anything satisfying everyone. Rest of the thins are rightly said. We can dis on castist Siddaramya but not quoting him although, their choice of the quote is arguable and shows subtle bias because it does not show other views.
14. February 2010 - 10:27 AM
Sandeep,
There are two Indian Expresses. The one HQ’ed in Delhi does put out a lot of pro-government spin. Its editor earned a Padma Bhushan last year for his vast contributions. But The New Indian Express, based out of the South, has a different ownership, though it seems to have a content sharing agreement with the former.
The author of the piece you critiqued doesn’t have a clue about the nature of organization of kingdoms and empires in classical India. They weren’t divided on linguistic lines, and there are no recorded instances of language divides. The rulers took pride in promoting multiple languages. Linguistic chauvinism, like most all prejudices plaguing “modern” Indians, is a gift of the post-Independence secularists. I find it scary that we actually have “scholars” like Kalburgi, projecting their biases on to people who lived in the 16th century.
14. February 2010 - 10:43 AM
Wonderful article. The most unfortunate result of the Kannada related chauvinism shown by the “experts” has been that the lone engineering college has been named after Proudadevaraya, the “defender of Kannada”,instead of Krishnadevaraya.One would think Krishnadevaraya would have been an automatic choice for naming an institution in Hospet.
14. February 2010 - 12:19 PM
Cool. A Valentine’s Day gift for dirty infidels. Secular India shining again. Jai Ho!
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/feb/13/five-feared-killed-in-pune-bakery-blast.htm
14. February 2010 - 4:35 PM
Dear sandeep,
as usual a well-researched article. If only these half-baked, spineless journalists learn to be objective, we would have a press worth calling the fourth pillar of democracy.
14. February 2010 - 10:46 PM
Excellent work Sandeep!
I am glad that your articles articulate our thoughts so eloquently. It is a relief to know that there are people like you who are connecting the dots and taking time to share it with others.
What we need is an impartial public discourse on various issues and events. I am new to your blog and I think it sets a high standard for the mainstream media to follow.
15. February 2010 - 3:00 AM
Sandeep
Thanks once again for a great article.. as a telugu, I can vouch that there is no other King dearly held by telugu people, than the great krishnadevaraya when it comes to patronizing arts and as a great ruler. His famous ashtadiggaja (8 poets) including names like peddanna,timmanna,tenali ramakrishna and their discourse is celebrated in the form of the magnificent “Bhuvanavijayam”.
15. February 2010 - 7:56 PM
I am an unabashed Hindu ideologue.But there is truth in the allegation about Krishnadevaraya’s bias for telugu and vaishnavism.The great karnataka simhasana became more a telugu kingdom.
Under the earlier kings,a balance was maintained between telugu and kannada.For all we know,Harihara and Bukka might have been telugus.The rulers were strictly neutral,more followers of Smartha thought.KD Raya,though not a fanatic,was not strictly unbiased.
The empire had been inspired by austere vedantins,but given away to ostentatious sectarian bhakthi.I might be wrong,the Lingayats lost out in state patronage.As an aside,it is great to great to see Yeddi organising the festival.May Iswara herald a new dawn in the ancient history of Karnata.My view might be unpopular.May be it is in the very nature of things for powerful men to become swollen with pride.The Bhagavatha,the archetypal Hindu view of history,refers to this universal phenomenon in its very first shlokas(I think shloka no 10 in the First Skandha-the Poweful oppress the weak and then they become disunited and fight among themselves.Albert Einstein said something similar about the vain.)
15. February 2010 - 8:23 PM
I want to add that it is quite possible that patronage to telugu was a natural evolution as the language was flowering and telugu population is proportionately larger.Also KD Raya patronised Mallana as well.It is quite possible that vachana literature had reached its zenith already.The Hindu Universe can be thought of as many currents ebbing and flowing in time.Possible there was a natural flowering of some while others were dormant or static.
16. February 2010 - 12:42 AM
@anony
Is there any instance that you can give us of Krishnadevaraya’s (or any other Vijayanagara ruler) supposed anti-kannada stand? Has he dismissed any poet/official in his court because he used kannada? Did he make telugu the official language at the cost of kannada? The likes of Kalburgi are ready to accept a person who made Persian the official state language of mysore as the greatest(or the only as per Girish Karnad) icon of karnataka in last 500 years, but don’t hesitate to call Krishnadevaraya as anti-kannada
Liking Telugu(which could just be a personal preference) doesn’t mean he is anti-kannada. Ex. I love Indian Music, but prefer Carnatic to Hindustani. Do I automatically become anti-hindustani? In effect, Patronisation for kannada and telugu are not mutually exclusive.
As Sandeep has mentioned the Vijayanagara Samrajya was not based on linguistic division. Vijayanagara empire spread into what today forms 4-5 linguistic states, so it catered to Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Marathi and Malayalam in some areas, other spoken languages like TuLu etc., and most importantly Samskrutha(unlike administrations of the last 5-6 decades). Bangalore’s tamil connection is very obvious in the sense that it always formed the boundary of kannada speaking region, hence we have Tamilian/Telugu speakers in Bangalore. Don’t we find Kannada speaking ppl in Sholapur, Ananthpur, Kasargod, parts of Dharmapuri?
Let us take pride in the fact that a ruler as brave and learned as Krishandevaraya ruled the area that we today live in 500 years ago. The cheap tactics of branding him anti-kannada only exemplifies the knowledge(rather lack of it) of the one who has made such comments.
16. February 2010 - 5:35 PM
Vishwa,
Karnataka was given a raw deal by non-inclusion of Talavadi,Hogenakal(called OgenaKKal),Udagamandalam(Called Uthakai by tamils),Hosur,Dhenkanikota(Thenkanikottai by tamils),Gudalur,Kotagiri(called Kothagiri by tamils).It is sad that Hindu nationalists do not give a damn to the injustice meted out to these kannadigas.I always find == of Tamizh and kannada irritating.
I firmly believe that Tamizh people have a rightful claim to a distinctive linguistic tradition.But turning a blind eye to the travails of kannadigas in border regions within TN and comparing it to the far superior status of Tamils in Bangalore is insulting to Karnataka.There can be no comparison to Kasargod either.
In India,muslims make a lot of noise.I would hate to compare TN-Karnataka relations with Indo-Pak relations.That is not a fair comparison at all.Yet Tamizh people have a distinctive place in Bengaluru.The Kannadigas in their native villages have no voice in TN,like Hindus in Pakistan.They have been trampled over and have to give up kannada for survival.
In the Ramayana,Sri Rama supported Sugriva and killed Ravana.Vibhishana surrendered to Sri Rama.I am not a sectarian vaishnava.The discerning can draw the right conclusion.The Kannada-malayalam-Marathi languages do not carry the chauvinist/EXCLUSIVIST anti-Sanskrit,anti-Hindu virus.Nor does Telugu.Though the Telugu people have a domineering streak.The Andhras have been consistently described as asuras in Mahabharatha/puranas.
16. February 2010 - 5:43 PM
Karnataka has a BJP Govt.It has never voted for a regional party.There has never been a separatist movement in karnataka.Rajiv Gandhi was not killed in Bangalore,but Sivarasan who took refuge with ….
There are no nakkeran Gopals,pazha nedumaarans,tirumalvalavans,PMK,pro-mandal hysteria in karnataka.
16. February 2010 - 6:09 PM
Anony,
Why are you turning this into a discussion about the raw deal of whatever meted out to Karnataka, which is completely unrelated to the subject of this post? It’s also bad practice to add insinuations about a particular state/linguistic people–Andhras described as asuras, etc. India is united by cultural unity. Stop whining about Karnataka’s loss/trampling over by other states, etc.
Please refrain.
16. February 2010 - 6:16 PM
Sandeep,
I will respect your prerogative.Why has Andhra not shown the same zeal for Hindu ideology?Is it not worth pondering for the sake of all our future?
16. February 2010 - 7:02 PM
“Why has Andhra not shown the same zeal for Hindu ideology?”
Interesting question. Very, interesting indeed
16. February 2010 - 7:46 PM
anony,
Dude, you seriously need a backgrounder in the basics. You’re confusing the past, present & future. Sorry for sounding Harsh: “Hindu ideology” eh? What does it mean? Which Andhra are you talking about?
17. February 2010 - 6:43 AM
Prof.Kalburgi is a muttaaL what I would say for a dumkopf in Tamizh. He seems to forget about the two v.popular litterateurs of Kannada Masti and Bendre neither of whom would be called a Kannadiga in his lexicon. And then what about SLB? The most widely read author in Indian languages? SLB speaks 7 languages (4 Southern, English, Hindi and Sanskrit) fluently and can write and think in every one of them like a scholar.
A few years ago I met a Jewish friend of mine (I live in the US) who visited India with a group of scholars from Israel. I tried to test his knowledge and asked him if he had seen India’s finest regal monument – without blinking he said, “Yes, I have been to Hampi.” I thanked him for keeping clear of that soul-less monstrosity out there in Agra.
17. February 2010 - 2:02 PM
Anony,
Take some well deserved rest.. calm yourself and then try expressing… You are probably confusing yourself let alone others… Then we can come to Rama, Rajiv Gandhi, Kar-TN => Ind-Pak etc.,
I’ll ask the question again if you missed it last time…
You said “there is truth in the allegation about Krishnadevaraya’s bias for telugu and vaishnavism.The great karnataka simhasana became more a telugu kingdom.”
I ask you to cite events(proofs) where you can see proof to the allegation?
17. February 2010 - 5:51 PM
Vishva,
Please read both my posts on KD raya.I have not taken a one-sided view.Regarding karnataka-TN,I will not comment further.But it is you who brought the totally irrelevant issue of tamils in bangalore.FWIW,i firmly believe in fraternal relationship between all Indian people based on Dharma(‘Aram’ if you prefer that) and the right of Indians to live with dignity anywhere in India.
18. February 2010 - 3:56 PM
I met a person when I was visiting Agra-Gwalior-Jhansi tourist spots. He was the son of a Sardar of Scindias (Sardars were the generals of the Maratha Army) and he said to me that the Marathas were looters who under the leadership of Shivaji came from Maharashtra to Madhya Pradesh in order to loot. He was completely ignorant of the history of his own people. When I told him that Mahadji was a general of Shivaji and he and Holkar (king of Indore) are responsible for cleaning up central India, he was astonished. Most Sikhs I know are unaware of their own history. These two people are responsible for taking back North India from the barbarian Muslims and the ones over-hyped are the Rajputs of Rajasthan. I am not being disrespectful towards the Rajputs, but they fought defensive campaigns, whereas the Marathas and the Sikhs claimed back North India from the barbarians.
This post is not off topic. I just wanted to point out that any anti-Islam people will be demonized by the MSM.
18. February 2010 - 9:49 PM
Signing in after a long break from your blog Sandeep and I know I left some discussions incomplete – hope to pick up those threads too.
As far as your post is concerned, the detractors have no case against wrt Emperor Krishnadevaraya. That much is clear.
On the other hand I remain very uncomfortable about accusations of chauvinism bandied against people speaking for Kannada and Karnataka.
For what its worth we are living in linguistic states. For what its worth these states were Hindu innovations and did not have a foreign origin. If I’m not wrong it was Gandhi’s idea to organize the Congress Party across the country along language based geographies. I don’t recall anybody, Hindu nationalist or otherwise, protesting such organization.
Given the nature of our Universally Franchised democracy, one may yet find it very difficult to find a better way to organize our country – than one afforded by language based states. Of course one may have multiple states based on the same language. It need not be one.
To rest my comment quickly, I find kannadigas most accomodative and if one finds some of them fighting today, its because they are fearful of losing what they have. One may call them chauvinists or anything else and certainly the KRV is crude – but I don’t see what choice has been given them by our sophists.
Btw, my origin is from Andhra Pradesh and my wife, who is a fairly recent immigrant to Karnataka once insisted that our children’s mother tongue be listed as telugu. I put my chauvinistic foot down. They will speak Kannada as long as they live in Karnataka. Of course they may learn telugu etc and speak with mom
Just my thoughts..
18. February 2010 - 10:08 PM
“He seems to forget about the two v.popular litterateurs of Kannada Masti and Bendre” – The issue is misunderstood. Masti and Bendre would be placed on Kannadiga shoulders and paraded across cities and towns like heroes.
Kannadiga “chauvinists” are mostly concerned about folks born and brought up in Karnataka towns and unable to speak a word of kannada in their 30th year in the same town/state.
Yes, we can still blame the kannadigas for this situation. They have after all spoken with these folks in their own language(s); but then how can they be called chauvinists?
19. February 2010 - 9:40 AM
>>I find kannadigas most accommodative and if one finds some of them fighting today, its because they are fearful of losing what they have…
Yes Paahalli…agree with you about this completely…btw I am also not a Kannadiga. Kannadigas are among the most easy going and peaceful people I have come across – and I am happy to say that I have quite a few friends who are Kannadigas. Yes, Kannadigas have every right to preserve their language as well as their culture! Tommorow if I settle in Karnataka or say Mahrastra or any other part of India, it would do me a lot of good that I learn the local language and customs so as to get along well with the natives. Whats the harm…after all they are my people too…their language, customs are mine too.
19. February 2010 - 5:57 PM
@ sandeep “the stone-pelting warriors of the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike”
there is a saying in kannada ella banna masi nungitu -roughly translated all vibrant colors were swallowed by black ink. your blog on KDR was smooth till this sentance stopped me. I do not agree with your comment and it is in very bad taste.
19. February 2010 - 11:39 PM
FWIW,
I am touched by the responses of Pallahalli and Sootradhar.BTW,I am not a kannadiga either.I am a tamil from TN.I have nothing against my mother tongue.I enjoy its great literature-past and present.How I wish tamils can be proud of their language without spitting venom on Sanskrit or other dravidian sister languages.
I have always been intrigued by the fact that colloquial spoken tamizh is not very different from spoken kannada.We have no idea how the standardisation of chen tamizh took place in the distant past.A distinct literary tradition also grew up.But that is no reason to look down on sister languages.This is all I want to say.My grouse is with that strain of chauvinists(most of whom are anti-Hindu thugs) who are weakening our UNITY.
Though Off-topic,I hope I have clarified to fellow indians.
22. February 2010 - 9:10 PM
Here is another jem!!
http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?262348
23. February 2010 - 11:13 AM
“For what its worth these states were Hindu innovations and did not have a foreign origin”
I find it difficult to agree with this statement. Here is why :-
Before 18th century linguistic nations did not exist as we know them now – most empires around the globe were multilingual. Nationhood got associated with languages around the time of the pan-germanic movements. The linking of concepts of nationhood, identity language etc were the product of German romanticism. Herder, Humboldt and Ficht were instrumental in articulating a notion that each language represented, unique intellectual and cultural processes and innovations, and that languages were also instrumental continuity of national narrative hence nations formed around languages.
This was later a facctor in our colonial overlords terming India a collection of nations. But does the case really apply to India. In ancient times Sanskrit served variously as a link language, liturgical language and as a universal language for India as we know it now and beyond. Furthermore evidence points to harmony between languages and absence of linguistic differentiation in pre-british India. Rulers ruled over multi-lingual states – with no evidence of language based seclusion, persecution etc – barring the examples of persian, arabic, turkish relevant with regard to muslim rulers etc. It is entirely possible that rulers may have been partial to a language or promoted one more – however these can be understood in terms of political necessities rather than language-pride or linguistic bias. Independent India through the creation of language based states overwhelmingly rejected the traditional idea of state, identity – and embraced the ones created by german romanticists.
The first language based movements was arguably people’s movement against the Viceroys 1894 notification against the use of local language in press. I wonder if Lokmanya Tilak’s 1891 statement considering the then existing dispensation of provinces as a historical accident and his articulation of provinces re-organized on a linguistic basis to provide homogenity and encouragement to local languages was inspired by the then fresh german example (1871) which was an issue that elicited considerable discussion in those times. One wonders how this approach would look like if we consider the formation of Germany on a linguistic basis itself as a accident brought about by historical processes. Anyway subsequent congress policy on linguistic states seems to have followed the same line ever since .
Subsequently the movement for language based states followed Bengal partition, and was bolstered by demands for a seperate Telugu state at Lucknow session of congress. Finally through Calcutta and Nagpur sessions these ideas solidified into a vision for organizing India’s many provinces on a linguistic basis. Historical dynamics all but ensured the inevitability of language based states in independent India. However this was not without opposition. The Dhar comittee responsible for the formation of most of the southern states was categorical in stating that exclusively (or even mainly) linguistic states was not in the interests of the Indian nation – and should not be effectuated, instead offering a vision of states based on geographical continuity, financial and administrative self-suffeciency and convenience etc. It also warned that such states would be to the detriment of bilinguals, linguistic minorities, special groups etc. Patel himself is on record for saying with regard to language based state movements that the federalist tendencies would come in way of growth of India as a nation.
The question therefore is if the idea of linguistic states is well thought out or rather is it based on notions borrowed from the europeans. Do language based states have historical continuity with traditional ideas of indian identity, state etc. The answer like that for many other post-idependence institutions and ideas is a resounding no. The new problems we face – language disenfranchisement etc can be laid directly at the door of post independence ideas and policies concerning language.
We need to understand why people are disenfranchised, lack agency, opportunities and avenues. High sounding polemics of how speakers of one language exploit the other do not help with the diagnosis – they only vitiate the issue.
It is not untrue that speakers of “vernacular” languages – most of them having more native speakers than any european language cannot – find themselves sidelined commercial and social prospects. They lose out to outsiders who happen to have facility in the language fits the bill. The language that fits the bill is one that has relevance for commerce, has abundant literature in all disciplines, trades etc, is perception wise a sign of social ascendancy, etc. However none of the nations languages fit the bill in this regard – rather it is a foreign language. Also we find that higher qualifications in technical disciplines, non linguistic sciences etc are not available in any of the nations languages. Independent India’s policy prescriptions have decimated its premier classical language to such an extent that there are more native arabic and persian speakers in India than native speakers of Sanskrit. We do not even adequately recognize the purpose of a national language. The typical dilemma that faces us is articulated by a comment by a lady in a discussion in the daily pioneer – ‘ Does Hindi being a national language mean that Kannada speakers should converse with Tamil speakers in Hindi ?”. Bureaucracy and an opportunistic political establishment has ensured that ad-hoc and impractical solutions like 3-language policy are touted as desirable policy initiatives. Meanwhile most vernacular languages are slowly decaying and dying out, classical languages are dying out – or retreating to into insularity, one native language is set up against the other as bogeyman while opportunists make hay. Meanwhile all the indian languages are inadequately prepared or geared to be relevant to people’s real needs – post independence there has been very effort work to provide education, refine categories, do research, to make relevant to the workplace etc our local languages. Our politicians and bureaucracy apart our so called intellectuals have not only failed miserably provide direction – instead they have involved themselves in demagoguery – carrying forward the long-departed britisher’s agenda of divide and rule.
We never spare much thought on these issues – but of course we are gleeful prepared to argue if Krishna Deva Raya was partial to Telugu and if he really deserves to be called a Kannada hero ? Kannada language speakers (and also – more visibly – many other people) have reasons to feel disenfranchised, missing out on opportunities etc in their own piece of land. Almost all parties without exception – claiming to work for upliftment and empowerment of language groups – from Shiv Sena to KRV have done little substantial – on the language question – except whip up passions and set one group against the other for political benefits. Metaphorically they have been stone pelters nothing better. What Sandeep is referring to is not out of order. There is a context to it which needs to be adequately understood and appreciated.
25. February 2010 - 10:31 PM
Rajiv Chandran – Not sure I’m following you.
Are you per chance equating a Nation to an Empire?
27. February 2010 - 3:32 PM
Palahalli
No I not equating nations and empires – I make no such assertion. However nations, empires, kingdoms, republics etc constitute forms statehood and sovereignty although based on different ideas and conceptions. In that sense they share a close familial relationship – and therefore may have a number of overlapping formative considerations.
Furthermore please note that nation-states as we know then today are only about a couple of hundred years old. Ideas of nationhood may differ – for example for most Indians it would be representative of the continuity of a cultural complex that has existed since very ancient times ; for Pakistanis thier idea of nationhood – despite possessing substantially the same inheritance – is a rejection of that continuity. Also empires are also such complex entities – most European empires were exogenous to the people they lorded over ; most Indian empires constituted of rulers who were endogenous – even if some, as in the case of muslim rulers they followed non-indegenous traditions. Other issues are one man’s nation may be to another man an empire. In some cases latent nationalism may based on ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religious reasons – case of point being indigenous Americans, kurds, islamic ummah, basque movement etc. Point being neat categorization, demarcation, separation or equation of these entities is not feasible.
27. February 2010 - 4:03 PM
Rajiv Chandran – I was on your point of linking language to nation(lism) and to the further point of(positively stated) multiple languages within the same empire.
Your point was that linguistic states are a non-indegenous idea because we had empires that were multi-linguistic.
My argument would be to say that the manner empires were constituted did not allow much option than to be multi-lingual with a select few (maybe one) language acting as the “official” state language.
I agree that Hindu empires were endogenous – emperors were not aliens to our culture/civilization and so in that sense there was no imposition of victorious alien mores.Therefore my lack of anxiety in the case of linguistic states.
That’s one point. The other being how will multi lingual states function in Universally Franchised democracies? Let us remember that political participation wrt common man in Hindu empires was from very localized, fairly homogenous levels.(Their unique local language would have been an asset instead of a gaggle of languages at that level)
27. February 2010 - 9:31 PM
I agree to “Why does the government single out Krishna Deva Raya as the ideal ruler of Vijayanagara? Is he the only person responsible for what the mighty Vijayanagara was once?”
Even before K.D. rAya, Vijayanagara sAmrAjya had achieved great heights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madura_Vijayam
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/vijayanagaran-activities-in-shri-lanka/
No doubt, k.D. rAya should be remembered today. But unfortunately we have forgotten great men like vidyAraNya mahAswAmina:, Hakka, Bukka, Kampana and other illustrious rAyas.
As an aside, we probably have to start from chAnakya, Chandragupta Mourya, shAlivAhana, rAshtrakooTa kings (there is a mention of rAshtrakooTa navy vanquishing the turaShkAs in west coast), veera ballALa etc.
1. March 2010 - 10:37 AM
Palahalli
There is no denying that universal franchise has introduced unparalleled political participation. What is in doubt is that if this participation is delivering as well as it should. In this context one should ascertain how traditional grounds-up democracy in Indian society (which functioned even during times of extreme civilizational stress) – at the gram-sabhas, panchayats, maha-panchayats, jati-panchayats levels – holds up against our current model. It would be useful to understand if making traditional administrative and social institutions socially and administratively relevant to modern times would have served our needs better than an imported models.
That brings us to my main point about historical discontinuity in socio-political arrangements between historical india and modern India. Our current political system, civil and administrative apparatus, legal and constitutional framework, academic institutions etc, being parodies of the british model are all distinctly disconnected from our own civlizational experience. It has been debated how even well meaning people who were responsible for creation of this nation-state’s formative ethos have erred in assuming several western categories as universal. We have seen how the idea of religion has attained a certain judeo-christian interpretation even for discourse pertaining to even the various Dharmic faiths of India. We have seen how imported ideas of history have tampered with our civlizational memory and imparted a civlizational inferiority complex to us. We notice how an imported political-administrative system and skewed ideas social justice and religious harmony have caused havoc in society it is supposed to protect. I am trying to examine our understanding of language-identity from the same point of view.
My point is that our treatment of language too is part of the same dynamic. It is a credible claim that linguistic states comes with the same package as many of the other ideas originating in the west – and consequently introduces many similar problems as the other alien ideas. Mere adoption of these ideas is not a sufficient condition for them being indigenous. Indigenity apart, one needs to evaluate the effect of the present discourse on language on issues like statecraft and language policy.
Alarmingly, here it is evident that our language policy has been largely unsuccessful in a number of ways. It’s success in achieving language integration & harmony is patchy, it has not been able to protect or propagate local and minority languages, it has not been able to prevent entire linguistic sub-identities from disappearing, it has failed to generate scientific, academic and socially relevant literature, higher studies etc in vernacular languages – leaving people exclusively using these languages at a distinct disadvantage. Now slowly we see rising anger and language-identity based tensions coming to the fore – where historically none existed before. However, rather than the prevailing political ethos (which is also to blame) – I would place a major portion of the blame on how language-identity and statehood have been related and constructed – which I claim are based on external ideas.
Of course the remedy is not outright abolishment of linguistic states. Rather language-identity, and it’s relationships to other identities needs greater examination, and informed discourse. Creation and administration of states needs a more sophisticated structure built on real understanding of India’s complex socio-political realities. Such approaches also need to respect and accept many of India’s other social and political categorizations. Also there is a need to avoid setting up confrontational identities and positions. This will require the emergence of a less shrill and more contemplative approach – which unfortunately we don’t see emerging in the present political climate.
1. March 2010 - 10:06 PM
Rajiv Chandran – You have not convinced me that Linguistic States was an imported idea, divorced from Hindu reality.
However there are couple things you said that interest me.
1. Hindusthan’s polity had multiple layers ground up.
2. The need to liquidate Linguistic States might have to be considered.
Taken together, we will have a Unitary State with provinces instead of States.
If correct, given our diversity, this project will not succeed and we might have Civil War on our hands in no time.
4. March 2010 - 4:36 PM
My take on Krishna Devaraya’s interest in Telugu:
There is one theory that Harihara and Bukka once worked in Kakatiya’s court in Warangal as commanders. They might have picked up interest in Telugu there. e.g. Nachana Soma (Nachanagari Somanna??), a Telugu poet, was in Bukka’s court. This interest might have been passed to the next generations (in fact the difference is just 50-70 years).
4. March 2010 - 6:38 PM
Palahalli
At this stage suggesting any dynamic would be a little premature. Therefore instead of any outright solutions – the available course for us all is probably to encourage greater debate on how our multilayered identities can be accommodated socially, administratively and politically – without undermining, or sidelining one of them. So yes I do recognize that language has a place – and that too must be taken into consideration.
27. April 2010 - 4:16 AM
I saw one of the dimwits post this and had to reply
“anony
16. February 2010 – 6:16 PM
I will respect your prerogative.Why has Andhra not shown the same zeal for Hindu ideology?Is it not worth pondering for the sake of all our future?”
Have you heard about the “Kakatiyas”? they ruled over parts of present day Andhra pradesh. They were kings and rulers in their own right until the muslim invaders came calling. Eventually when they were defeated they moved further south, several kingdoms and regional dynasties that came after the Kakatiyas can trace their lineage to them(i am using lineage very loosely here, i am saying they are blood relatives but it is widely believed that certain cheiftans and thier subjects moved south), in particular the Vijayanagara dynasty. That should at least help to explain at least in a small way why Telugu was favored a little bit more to other languages.
Don’t want to sound too glib about my history about Kakatiyas, but i had to correct this guy. he was acting like a royal pain in the neck.
18. May 2010 - 8:11 AM
Whether Kannadigas agree or not the reason why Krishnadevaraya loved Telugu language was because he was a Telugu man.He penned Amuktha malyada in Telugu and praised his mother tongue in glorious terms stating that Telugu was the best of all Indian languages.He encouraged the great poets of Telugu and had given the utmost respect to Telugu Poet Allasani Peddana among the “Ashtadiggajams”. Many sources like Castes and Tribes of Southern India by Thurston mentioned that Vijayanagar kings,Madurai and Thanjavur Kings belonged to Telugu speaking Balija Naidu caste and these dynasties were interrelated by matrimonial alliances.All these Telugu dynasties encouraged Telugu literature,art,sculpture and music not only in Karnataka but also in Tamilnadu. Introduction of Yakshaganam,Tholubommalata and Temple dancing(Devadasi dancing that metamorphosized into Bhatathanatyam) etc into these areas was by the blessings of these dynasties. It is interesting to note that some of the kings of these Telugu Balija dynasties were great telugu scholars and musicians.No wonder Telugu people are greatly indebted to these dynasties for their encouragement of Telugu literature,music,art and sculpture and are very proud of them.