Land of Lime

Tomorrow is ugadi, [literally yuga (era) adi (beginning)] the traditional new year’s festival. Ugadi falls on Chaitra Sudhdha Paadyami or the first day Chaitra. All the family members, young and old, are woken up early. Then immediately, a tonne of oil is poured on their head, followed by an elaborate massaging of each strand of hair, often separately. In boiling, scalding water, each body is accorded the privilege of bathing, until the black skin shines red, only to be enveloped by new clothes immediately.

An elaborate meal, whose main highlight is holige or Obattu (for the uninitiated this is a kind of roti, filled with sweet filling) follows. Well, it’s almost time for an afternoon nap, but not on this day. Hell, no. There are more festivities, particulary the ritual of eating neem leaves and jaggery, symbolic of life itself, a mixture of bitterness and sweet.

Towards early evening, it is time for the village priest to open the world famous vontikoppal panchanga (almanac) and advise supplicants, practically all the villagers, to plan their year ahead. Can one build a house or marry off his daugther? What are the educational and employment prospects for some other fellow? One can not be unsure of allignment of stars and Vontikoppal Panchanga has all the answers.

Newspapers were all full of Ugadi related stories today. Deccan Herald was probably the best with three nice features, starting with the festival itself, then on the onset of Spring and the celebration of Ugadi in Kannada poetry. Also see Sepoy’s recent posting on new years festivals in the Asian world.

Speakng of spring, I am reminded of ancient Indian spring festivals, which were liminal moments, when for three days men and women could freely choose partners outside of their marital relationship. Apparently, Chanakya was scared of the freedom inherent in the festival and banned vasantotsava, as soon as Chandragupta Maurya came to power. Poets and playwrights, though, continued to write about it.
In southern Karnataka, we grew up celebrating ugadi (unfortunately no vasantotsava for us) and my favorite Kannada novel on rurual southern Karnataka culture, Doddamane (Big House), begins with a description of ugadi. This afternoon, I picked up the book from Regenstein library and re-read parts of it, after about fifteen years. The novelist, H L Nage Gowda, a major Kannada writer and folklorist, was my mother’s uncle and her only book too is on this novel.

I was thinking about ugadi, especially about the symbolism of bevu-bella (neem and jaggery) today. But the novel also reminded me of the next day’s festivities. Since the big meal on ugadi is a vegetarian meal, the next day ‘varshatodaku’ is celebrated. Many sheep, goat and chicken meet their maker on that day, to the utter satisfaction of the tongue which has already grown sick of sweet holige. To my mother’s lamentation for not being to send me holiges all the way to Chicago, I can only say in response, I don’t have time to either make or enjoy holige but will surely celebrate ‘varshatodaku’.

Happy Ugadi, folks. This is the most authentic of Land of Lime festivals. This morning, I got the best ugadi gift ever, when Krishna Prasad wrote to me about his new blog, Churumuri. Seriously, folks, I don’t know of anyone else who is more suited to blog. Krishna Prasad is witty, acerbic, and has a fresh take on all things interesting. Mysoreans and cricket lovers, you are on notice.

KP, you made my day this morning and look forward to reading you, first thing every day.

ADDENDUM: Look at these gorgeous photos of Holige that Desiknitter has. Land of Lime is coconut land and my folks made a living growing coconuts, which is what in a deferred utopian future I too shall do. Well, I have always been partial towards cocunut filling as opposed to bele (dal) filling, but jaggery, that be a must. No sugar, please. Thanks Desiknitter, that’s a lovely post.

Rajyasabha elections in Karnataka are over and the industrialist has won over the writer.

Yes, Rajeev Chandrashekhar managed to ‘buy’ the most number of votes in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and has been elected to the Rajyasabha. What he will do in the next six years remains to be seen, but if we go by our own past experience with other politicians and industrialists who are sent to Delhi to represent the people of Karnataka, we have no reason to expect much. There is no question in my mind that Prof. Ananthamurthy would have been an ideal representative.

As Ananthamurthy himself said many times even before the elections, he had already achieved his purpose just by contesting. People have begun to talk about who should represent them in the Parliament and what should we expect from them. Participating in the electoral process isn’t always about winning and Prof. Ananthamurthy is absolutely right: just getting a conversation started is a good thing.

I must say I was deeply disappointed at the quality of this conversation. Except for two decent OPED pieces by conservative commentators Ravi Belagere and Vishesvar Bhat (both are in Kannada), comments by politicians and especially, Kannada writers were deplorable. I don’t know what ails Kannada writers but the pettiness and personal animosity that comes out on such occasions is tragic to watch. What is gained by characterizing Ananthamurthy as a plagiarist or questioning his character, except displaying their ignorance and narrow mind? Let our obejctions not be merely trivial and procedural, as was the case with some politicians, who wanted Ananthamurthy to have approached them well in advance.Let our criticisms be substantial and broadbased. This was an occasion to discuss substantively both the role of our elected representatives as well as our own concpetions of Kannada subjectivity. Instead, this conversation turned into a series of third rate comments on Ananthamurthy’s writing and activism and a narrow conception of what it means to a Kannadiga. So we had the worst of both worlds - bad literary criticism and scary identity politics. Perhaps, to expect anything else is too much to ask for.

Aside:

1. Read this nice essay by Gideon Haigh on the Age of Batting, a new discussion series on Cricinfo. It’s pretty good and Haigh raises some very valid issues. I will write a short entry later in the week, after other contributors have written their entries.

2. Among events of the strange variety, a Botany lecturer from Mangalore A Ramesh lectured on the ‘molecular logic of life’ for 98 hours and 33 minutes to set a new record for the longest ever lecture. Apparently, there are rules and verification procedures at events such as this. What’s up with Indians and the Guinness book of world records? When I was growing up, Guinness show was one of the most popular shows on Doordarshan. Read Vinay Lal’s very nice essay in his book Of Cricket, Guinness and Gandhi on the obsession of Indians with Guinness records.

The plot of the film, Satya Hariscandra follows Raghavanka’s Hariscandra Kavya closely in its broad outline, but the primary objective here is to depict Hariscandra as a flawless character, truthful, unfailingly polite and dharmic.

Hence the film sets out to establish Hariscandra’s character as a truthful and generous king, who never refuses anything to any seeker and keeps the welfare of his subjects as his foremost goal. All his actions are geared towards achieving that objective. Hariscandra performs Rajasuya sacrifice and gives away all the wealth he had accumulated until then, including a precious stone that protects him and his subjects from all calamities. It was god Siva himself, who comes in the form of a Brahmin seeker and demands that precious stone along with the fruits of the sacrifice. Against the objections of his ministers, Hariscandra fulfills Siva’s demand, saying:

those who do not desire the welfare of the entire world do not ask for the fruits of sacrifice and even if given, they will not have the capacity to accept.

Vasista, however, realizes that the Brahmin seeker is actually Siva but is comforted in the knowledge that Siva would favor Hariscandra in any test the latter may have to face, even if the protection offered by the stone itself is lost.

Now the scene shifts to Indra’s assembly, where all the gods and more importantly, wise sages have been invited to ‘legislate good practices for the residents of all worlds’ and hence Indra asks:

Is there a sacred ritual (punyavrata), which can be practiced by all men and women to achieve contentment, even without possessing wealth or ascetic prowess, by Kings and ordinary men, scholars or ignorant fools?

Among the sages present, Visvamitra is the most vocal. In the film, (and in Hariscandra Kavya too) and he is presented more like an orthodox Vasista, who is a conservative Brahmin ascetic upholding the varna order; whereas, the puranic Visvamitra is a Ksatriaya king, who willed himself to transcend his varna status and earned renown as a Brahmarshi; he is constantly in conflict with other Brahmarsis, particuarly with Vasista and is known for his unconventional actions. Visvamitra of Hariscandra narratives, however, doesn’t have that radical persona; rather here, he doesn’t believe in human potential but in a hierarchical conception of human nature and society. Snickering at Indra’s question, he asserts that rituals and practices have to be prescribed to each individual, considering their class (varna) and caste status; there is no single ritual that can be practiced by all.

On the contrary, the Brahmin sage Vasista, asserts that there is one ritual that can be practiced by one and all, the practice of telling truth. Vasista further extols the virtues of truth by claiming:

Truth alone accomplishes all the four ends of human life. Truth alone is permanent and there is no dharma beyond Truth. For the creation of all the beings, truth alone is the basis.

Questioning Visvamitra’s skepticism, Vasista pointed out that Hariscandra practices Satya under all circumstances. Visvamitra’s diatribe sets the stage for a wager between the two sages:

Let it be anybody. I am not a bard who praises one and all. This Vasista is the teacher of Iksvaku lineage. Therefore, being loyal to them, he is praising a lowly man and presenting him as a great human being, to win this argument. I do not accept it. Do I not know the nature and politics of humans? Thieving, evil, bad habits, … (kings do) not possess lasting happiness, are intoxicated by wealth, and consumed by desire… if one among such kings is asserted as a truthful person, that is impossible….. (moreover), all will be truthful as long as they possess emperor’s position. They shall all be slaves to truth. …. But when all power is taken away, when they are caught in the hold of poverty and other eight difficulties, then their commitment to truth will become evident.

Vasista then asserts that Hariscandra will remain committed to truth not only in difficult circumstances but also in dreams and even to a commitment made as a joke. This is a significant statement since in Hindi narratives (especially in the play by Bharatendu Hariscandra and in Hindi films), Hariscandra actually gives away his kingdom in his dream. Seeking to remove Indra’s anxieties, Vasista says:

Even if Brahma’s statements are untrue, even if sun and moon fall from their orbit into dirt and disappear, even if sky trembles and stars fall like fire-rain onto earth, even if millions of such jealous Visvamitras create trouble for him everywhere and by all means, even then Hariscandra wouldn’t break his word. If he were to lie, then I will give up Vedic studies, abandon prayer and ascetic practices, remove the tuft and sacred thread, giving up everything and sitting on a donkey and drinking alcohol, I will go southwards, while being abused by other ascetics.

Visvamitra then proclaims his own powers to set his wager with Vasista:

Who are these Brahmarsis and Maharsis? This Visvamitra will shake up the entire universe and turn into powder the five elements and cause total destruction. This Visvamitra is actually Parabrahma himself, who can create an alternative universe (which he had ironically done to accommodate Hariscandra’s own father Trisanku). If I can not break his commitment to truth, then I will grant half the ascetic powers I possess and then establish him as emperor for one thousand years and then subsequently, for 14 manvantaras (divine unit of time) on Indra’s throne.

Hariscandra and Candramati experience ill omens at this time, intimations of travails they are about to experience. As in the Hariscandra Kavya, here too Visvamitra seeks a gift from Hariscandra: a pile of gold as high as a cowry shell when that shell is tossed into the sky by a strong warrior standing on a tall elephant. He leaves that wealth behind but creates wild animals and then traps Hariscandra, who has come to the forest to save his subjects from these animals, through his untouchable daughters. Visvamitra’s obsession elicits the following comment from his disciple Naksatrika:

It is not clear to me whether you have captured Hariscandra or he has captured you. You demanded so much wealth, thinking he wouldn’t grant it, yet he did. Instead of bringing that wealth, you left it with him and then created wild animals. He hunted those animnals but then you separated him from his entourage through trickery and now you seek to seduce him through your daughters.

While his ironic comment has no impact on Visvamitra’s determination, Hariscandra refuses to marry despite Visvamitra’s order; since the latter is a Brahmarsi, his orders are in fact dharmic and the sage asserts that the duty of the king is to follow the orders of ascetics. Hariscandra, however, is committed to his wife and refuses to take a second wife; rather, Hariscandra rhetorically states, he is prepared to give up his kingdom. Visvamitra immediately seeks to take over the kingdom and once the kingdom is given to him in Ayodhya, Visvamitra makes one final effort to dissuade Hariscandra from his path. He offers to return the kingdom, if Hariscandra were to marry his daughters. When Hariscandra is unmoved, finally Visvamitra demands the gift he had left behind in the king’s safekeep; Hariscandra seeks thirty days grace period and goes to Kashi with his wife and son to earn enough wealth to repay the sage.

The next part of the narrative too follows broadly the Hariscandra Kavya, with the exception of two major qualifications to the story that Hunsur Krishnamurthy makes to his script. Nakshatrika is more sympathetic character and I will explain in a later posting how casting a comedian, Narasimharaju, changes our own perception of Naksatrika as a character. Secondly, Virabahu too is a much more colorful character in the movie, who sings a memorable song. More on these specific changes as well as on the question of untouchability itself in a later post.

As we already saw, Hariscandra sells himself, his wife and son, in order to clear all his debts. He refuses to deviate from his path even when his son has to be buried and has to kill his own wife, following the orders of the king. What the film does best is to incorporate popular wisdom and some great dialogue to bring out the nuances of Hariscandra’s commitment to truth. We will look at the dialogues and songs in specific episodes tomorrow. My focus will be primarily on the changes necessitated by a nationalist context, particularly to deal with the theme of untouchability. I would also suggest that Hariscandra himself is turned into a flawless character in the film, precisely addressing what we might consider to be flaws of the character in Hariscandra Kavya. More on all this, tomorrow.

Cast: Rajkumar, Uday Kumar, Narasimharaju, Ashwath, M P Shankar, Pandaribai, Ramadevi
Story: K V Reddi
Music: Pendyala Nagesvararao
Background singers: Ghantasala, P Sushila
Songs, Dialogue and Direction: Hunsur Krishnamurthi

This week let me return to Hariscandra and post what I wrote in mid-February. Here are the links to earlier stories: Raghavanka -1, Raghavanka - 2, From Cavundaraya to Hariscandra and Hariscandra.

In these earlier posts, I had written on the Sanskritic, puranic versions of the Hariscandra narrative, as well as on the two well known Sanskrit plays by Ksemesvara (Candkausika) and Ramachandra Suri (Satya Hariscandra). Let us turn our attention to Raghavanka’s Hariscandra Kavya and in later postings to the Kannada film Satya Hariscandra. While a new Hariscandra is already being brought into existence by the Puranic narratives, (a Hariscandra whose renown is due to his commitment to truth and not because of other narratives associated with him), and the Sanskrit plays build different aspects of his personality, Raghavanka is perhaps the first author from whom Hariscandra receives ‘epic’ treatment. The film builds on Raghavanka’s story. What we need to focus on here is how Kannada narratives differ from Vedic and Puranic accounts and the values these narratives articulate. My two primary texts were produced in different eras and belong to different genres: first, a 13th century Kannada Kavya, Hariscandra Kavya by Raghavanka and second, a modern Kannada film, Satya Hariscandra. I suggest that Raghavanka provides the framework for future retellings of the story by focusing primarily on the persecution of Harischandra by Visvamitra, ignoring other elements elaborated in vedic, epic and puranic narratives. This focus on Hariscandra’s truthfulness and character make him a paradigmatic figure for the Kannada cultural imagination, to represent a steadfast commitment to values such as truth (satya) and duty (dharma) in the face of suffering. The film Satya Hariscandra, in which Raj Kumar plays the protagonist, recuperates this vision for modern times. I conclude by arguing Harischandra is the prototypical character even in social films, especially (not exclusively) in films acted by Raj Kumar.

I have suggested earlier that Harihara and Raghavanka inaugurate a Saiva narrative tradition. What they create is a narrative (epic) imagination that offers a fascinating engagement with the (human) past, in desi (native) narrative forms. It is quite likely that Tamil Saiva narratives, such as the Periyapurana, offered models for Kannada poets to write on human heroes, particularly devotees from all classes. Harihara wrote hagiographies on more than hundred Saiva devotees, making no distinction on their ideological preferences or their class/caste/linguistic background. Hence, a mystic Allama, a Brahmin minister and patron of Jangamas, Basavanna, Tamil prince Nambi, Tamil devotee Siriyala, who offered the flesh of his own son to Siva, Tamil hunter Kannappa, who plucked his own eye and offered it to Siva – they are all treated in the same way.

If devotion to Siva is at the core of Harihara’s literary imagination, Raghavanka too accepted that vision but he had written his most celebrated work Hariscandra Kavya prior to his radical transformation. Kannada critic G. S. Shivarudrappa suggests that the core thesis here is also a Saiva sensibility and devotion. Raghavanka’s Hariscandra, according to Shivarudrappa, considers Truth as Hara and Hara as Truth. Is Shivarudrappa right? What is truth according to Raghavanka and what is the nature of Hariscandra’s commitment to that truth? What are the consequences of being committed to such a truth?

From an examination of Hariscandra’s commitment to truth flows a second fascinating theme: Hariscandra’s traivails, which can be understood only as a consequence of holding on to ‘his’ truth. Here if we understand his suffering as unfair and unjustified, then a comparison with Job would be appropriate. In a future posting, I would like to focus on an insight that Latin Ameican theologian Gustavo Esteva provides on how Job himself perceived his suffering: Esteva suggests that Job’s relationship with God changed when he realized he wasn’t alone in being subjected to unfair suffering. What is Hariscandra’s attitude towards suffering and how does he respond?

As I raise these questions, I am acutely conscious of the fact that my discussion is primarily in the context of two very specific literary and cinematic representations of an epic character. So let me first offer an outline of Raghavanka’s text today and a summary of the film tomorrow, before analyzing both these narratives at some length.

The story begins, at least the parts salient for our purposes, in the assembly of the king of gods, Indra, who asks: who among the Iksvaku kings is most truthful? Vasista, the guru of Iksvakus (the dynasty which ruled Ayodhya and to which Rama too belongs), names his disciple Hariscandra as being absolutely committed to truth, a claim his bitter rival Visvamitra contests. Recall, that both Vasista and Visvamitra have been traditionally rivals (a theme best explored some other time) and they quarrel in front of all the gods, before entering into a wager.

Determined to prove that Hariscandra would lie and not keep his word, Visvamitra devises various strategies. He tricks Hariscandra into performing Bahusuvarna sacrifice and asks as daksina (gift), a pile of gold as high as a cowry shell when that shell is tossed into the sky by a strong warrior standing on a tall elephant. However, after collecting the gift, he leaves it with Hariscandra for safekeeping and returns to his hermitage, where he embarks on the next phase of his plan. He creates wild animals, which cause immense fear among the subjects, forcing Hariscandra to hunt these animals. Note, unlike in Sanskrit narratives, Hariscandra does not involuntarily go to the forest but is compelled to go. In other words, Visvamitra is the sutradhara, one who devises strategies, creates situations and circumstances, which would make it difficult for Hariscandra to hold on to his truth.

Vasista, who is aware of Visvamitra’s designs, warns Hariscandra not to go near Visvamitra’s hermitage and also insists on Hariscandra visit Virupaksa’s temple in Hampe before leaving. Here is a moment of ‘local’ vision entering into a pan-Indian narrative; otherwise, how would Hariscandra, the king of Ayodhya visit a temple in Hampi? Despite Vasista’s warnings, Hariscandra chases a wild boar, which being Visvamitra’s creation naturally lures Hariscandra towards the herimatge, where the king kills the boar. An angry Visvamitra then creates two matanga (Candala / untouchable girls) who approach Hariscandra, entertain him and ask him to marry them. He flatly refuses by claiming it is beneath his kuladharma (duty to family) to marry them. When they insist, an angry Hariscandra beats them and throws them away, at which point they complain to Visvamitra; in a rage, the sage approaches Hariscandra, kicks him and demands that he marry his daughters. Hariscandra’s refusal is based on his perception of his birth and lineage: having been born into Surya vamsa and Iksvaku kula, he will not marry Candala (untouchable) maidens and go to hell. He rhetorically says that he would rather give up his kingdom instead of marrying them.

Immediately, Visvamitra seizes the moment and asks for the throne; once he receives it, he also demands the earlier gift of gold. When a surprised Hariscandra points out that he has already given away all his possessions to Visvamitra, the sage gets angry and accuses Hariscandra of going back on his promise. The king seeks forty-eight days to repay the loan and prepares to leave for Kashi from the hermitage itself. A surprised Visvamitra attempts to shake Hariscandra’s determination and asks him to return to Ayodhya with him, so that he could convince his subjects to accept Visvamitra as their new ruler. The sage, in fact, hoped that returning to Ayodhya might make Hariscandra change his mind. A determined Harsicandra accompanies Visvamitra to Ayodhya, where he convinces his subjects to be loyal to the sage but then leaves for Kashi along with Chandramati, Lohitasva and minister, Satyakirti.

At this stage, Raghavanka creates a new character Nakshatrika, who has left an indelible mark in the popular imagination and culture due to his capacity to create trouble and make unfair demands. Nakshatrika is a disciple of Visvamitra and is sent by the latter to collect the loan from the king. He is instructed to place obstacles and ensure Hariscandra doesn’t keep his promise. More on Raghavanka’s innovations later.

By the time, they all reach Kashi there is has just one day left to repay the pile of gold Hariscandra owes to Visvamitra. Following Candramati’s suggestion, he sells her to a Brahmin, who is, in fact, Agni acting on Visvamitra’s instructions. Although Visvamitra’s loan is repaid, Naksitrika demands his allowance for the period days he had to spend in Hariscandra’s company, experiencing many hardships. This new demand compels Hariscandra to sell himself to Virabahuka, an untouchable who owns the burial grounds and employs Hariscandra to be the gatekeeper; his charge is to patrol the ground and collect toll from its users. In reality, Virabahuka is Yamadharma, who too is acting according to Visvamitra’s instructions. We will return to this irony that Raghavanka introduces: for Hariscandra a consequence of refusing to marry untouchable maidens is to be the slave of an untouchable.

If Hariscandra has to guard the burial ground, then both Candramati and Lohitasva undergo much humiliation and suffering in the Brahmin household. Soon thereafter, young Lohitasva then dies due to snakebite in the forest, where he was collecting firewood along with his friends. Describing Candramati’s grief, Raghavanka writes some of the most moving verses in all of Kannada literature. A grief stricken Candramati brings the body of her young son to the burial ground in the night, since her masters wouldn’t’ allow her to leave before finishing her housework; but Hariscandra wouldn’t let her cremate the body, if she is unable to give the cloth and rent due to Hariscandra and his master. At that moment, he also realizes the identity of the dead boy and collapses, yet he refuses to change his stance.

When a reluctant Candramati returns to get the rent, Visvamitra creates a new wrinkle; he has the prince of Kashi killed and placed on her path. When she is attracted by the cry of the young prince and walks over to the source of the sound, thinking delusionally her own son was calling her. She is captured by the soldiers, and brought to the king of Kashi, who finds her guilty and sentences her to death. Hariscandra, being Virabahuka’s slave, is asked to cut her head and he is determined to do just the same, refusing Visvamitra’s seductive offers. Hariscandra says: ‘it is enough if it is said Hariscandra did not abandon truth’ and weilds the axe. Gods, led by Siva, appear and restore order. Visvamitra praises Hariscandra’s commitment to truth, returns the kingdom to Hariscandra, apart from giving him half the merit he had acquired from ascetic practices.

Tomorrow, I will look at the film, Satya Hariscandra and provide a summary of the plot. We could then discuss the two narratives and their differing contexts.

Now that India has managed a magnificent grand total of 100 runs in the fourth inning of a home test match, that too on a firm batsmen friendly wicket, let the post-mortem begin. There will be much analysis. Our Desi ex-stars will ask that the foreign coaches and fitness experts be held accountable. They will question all the new fangled theories and assert the time honored traditions of their ustads. The entire world will ask: how could the best batting line up in the world bat so pathetically, wouldn’t even last fifty overs and then lose seven wickets for twenty five runs in fifteen overs? Indeed, how could a thirty seven year old, balding off spinner (with a test bowling average of 92) named Shaun Udal (and called ‘Shaggy’ by friends and foes) get four wickets (including Tendulkar’s) for 14 runs in 9.2 overs?

Here is the irony. I suspect this same Indian batting line up would have chased 313 if this were a One day international, on the same wicket against the same bowlers. Heck, Dhoni and Yuvraj would have probably finished the game by the 45th over. But why is chasing 300 still difficult in the fourth inning of a test match whereas in ODIs, teams do it routinely? In our response, friends, might lie an answer as to why Test cricket still remains a great test of cricketing skills.

Ultimately, it is just that. Test cricket gives an opportunity for a journey man like Udal to have his moment under the sun just as it makes a monkey out of a Dhoni. Sure, our man showed commendable temperament in the first inning to score 64 but in the second inning, he just charged Udal until someone decided to catch a skier and put him out of misery. Test cricket still tests both skill and temperament in a way ODI doesn’t. It creates doubt more often in Dhoni’s mind. Udal gets a second chance to bowl. Doubt and second chances. It’s just that.

Finally, we saw something remarkable and unpleasant at Wankhede. Tendulkar was actually booed when he got out in the first inning. Is this the beginning of the end of a great career? Who knows! Read Nirmal Shekhar’s reflections on this question. But Tendulkar deserves better than that, especially from his home crowd.

Let us begin with a word on the Hopeful One’s press conference this morning. There have been a spate of OPEDs (tired of linking them/commenting on them) in recent times, blasting Bush for being out of touch and for living in his fantasyland. But here is what struck me this morning, again: read his responses and you will realize he is never responding to the reporter who asked the question. Rather, he speaks to the guy sitting in his living room in Iowa or Arkansas. The Washington Press corps may ask all the questions it wants or badger him as much as it wants, but he will never change his script. He has no interest in engaging the media. How do you explain the following otherwise:

“Iraqi people took a good look and decided not to go to civil war.”

But today I want to write about someone who could teach even Bush (and his team) a trick or two, both in handling the press and politicians: former Prime Minister and JD (S) President H D Deve Gowda, who finally ended his double game and endorsed his son’s rebellion. Kumaraswamy is now officially the leader of the legislative party. Deve Gowda’s hypocrisy now makes it difficult for us to give him benefit of doubt, as we have done in the past, especially when he also refuses to answer any questions. To the uninitiated, Deve Gowda pretended to oppose his son, when the latter joined hands with BJP to form a coalition goevernment in Karnataka but he was only biding time, as we now see. I have always been wary of his Dhritarastra syndrome and now his conduct in the past two months makes it impossible for us not to be cynical.

My biggest complaint historically with Deve Gowda’s politics has been his inability to groom a second rung leadership; rather, for such a shrewd political operator with fantastic instincts and a tireless political work ethic, he has always been insecure about promising young leaders. True, he has been fortunate in commanding the loyalty of many political activists, who took pride in his ascendance to high political offices and supported him. But in the past thirty years, he has rarely allowed even a vokkaliga leader to emerge from his shadows.

Granted, his has been a critically important voice since the 1970s in keeping the focus on rural development and irrigation. We have all admired him for being single minded on that front. But now, Deve Gowda and Kumaraswamy may have signaled the end of Janata Dal, thus ending an experiment that JP had launched in the mid-70s. At least two generations of politicians, activists and progressive thinkers allover the country, especially in Karnataka, had played a key role in the emergence of a left-liberal political force, which offered some space for us to intervene effectively. Now I am afraid that space may have disappeared, due to Deve Gowda’s myopic politics. By next elections, I expect a polarization to occur among political forces, resulting in the emergence of two political alliances led by Congress and BJP.

Gowdre, congratulations!

The other major political story of this week is Dr. U R Ananthamurthy’s foray into electoral politics. Briefly, there are four seats for which members of Legislative assembly vote and the three parties, - Congress, BJP and JD (S) – have enough votes to win a seat each, whereas no party has the numbers to win the fourth seat on its own. So BJP and JD (S) chose Rajeev Chandrashekhar of the BPL industrial group as their candidate. I will not comment on this trend to nominate rich industrialists in Karnataka or elsewhere nor does his outsider label (Rajeev is a Malayali) bother me. In fact, when we consider the record of other candidates (and indeed Kannadiga politicians in Delhi, with the honorable exception of Deve Gowda), he is more likely to understand the needs of Bangalore and be an effective spokesman. He may also just use his access to corridors of power to further his own interests but that’s the risk we take.

But Rajeev’s qualifications aren’t what we need to consider here; rather, Prof. Ananthamurthy’s qualifications are what concern me. Let me make an honest disclosure: I don’t agree with him most of the time but I admire him and I write the following even at the cost of alienating many of my close friends. I believe Prof. Ananthamurthy is the most significant and creative (Kannadiga) thinker of our times. He is also perhaps the most widely traveled Kannadiga, who has met and interacted with the most important thinkers, writers, politicians and activists allover the world in the last five decades. He is wise, insightful and most importantly, always keeps an open mind. He has something to say on all issues that affect Karnataka and Kannada; whether we agree with him or not, I am always certain that his insights will be worthy of our consideration and also that of all the elders in Rajyasabha. And to top it all, he actually possesses that rare quality of disagreeing with you without being disagreeable.

One shouldn’t even dignify his critics with a response, even when that list includes Kumaraswamy. If Prof. Ananthamurthy wants to represent Karnataka in the Rajyasabha, here is what all the three political parties ought to do: issue whip to eighteen of their MLAs to vote for him. He should be adopted by all three parties and allowed to be the spokesman for all Kannadigas. I know Prof. Ananthamurthy is a controversial person but I can not also think of any other Kannadiga who is more worthy of being in the Rajyasabha. That ought to be the bottomline.

Gowdre, here is one way you can begin to undo the damage. Support Prof. Ananthamurthy.

Finally, lamenting always is no fun. Here is hoping we will have a great final day’s cricket at the Wankhede’s tonight and tomorrow, we can talk about how much fun Test cricket is.