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.
One Comment
In defence of democratic processes:
This debate is quite old as I write this comment. I still intend to complete writing this simply for the reason of countering a certain noetic and utopian blindboldedness not grounded in the here and now realities of democratic processes. Let me qualify myself by saying that I have known both the contenders for coveted fourth berth to Rajyasabha from Karnataka. UR has been a thinking kannadiga’s ideal and an intellectual stimulant. I have read him, heard him and talked to him. Rajeev, on the other hand, is a personal friend. I have watched him grow his business; have shared his pains of doing business in India. Rajeev cannot make a decent conversation in kannada, which I would have expected him to do. But for that grave inadequacy, I find him as competent as any other aspiring politician of Karnataka. I also believe he has made his millions in as honest a way as expected and on account of his sheer doggedness, business leadership and a fair share of ladyluck.
Another important question is who would have done what as a member of RS. I suppose till he resigned his RS membership, not many knew Rajashekharamurthy was a sitting member of RS! Infact we have had an illustrious list of RS members from Karnataka who were never heard and never recognized for any Parliamentary excellence. I am not being apathetic. I am only highlighting the historicity of noble and exalted nothingness of being an RS member from Karnataka. I am sure UR would have been different; as different, if not more, as the illustrious list of nominated RS members. I am also sure that UR would have contributed more than what the other three would contribute collectively as RS members. That is also not the point that I want to make.
A political party candidacy to RS is a political spoil. It is a reward that elected members of state legislatures bestow upon their own, for being a loyal slave of the party. It is also a tool by which the legislators secure for themselves a certain representative legitimacy by elevating someone who belongs to a certain class-caste with the hope of reaping an electoral reward. How else would you understand the candidature of Shanappa, a Dalit, from a Party known to profess upper-caste sensibilities and that of Rajashekharamurthy, a Lingayat, from Deve Gowda’s Party. To ignore this reality would be to turn one’s back on the basic tenets of representative democracy.
My objection to UR’s candidature comes from his inability to seek a Party nomination as the first candidate of choice from any party and from his petty desire to be a fourth candidate. When you cannot wish to be a first on merit, why wish to be a fourth by default. If all that UR could offer as an alibi is Rajeev’s inability to speak fluent Kannada and willingness to share his righteous wealth, I would rather support someone who at least did not offer an excuse. I am sure Rajeev must have paid for his ticket to Delhi. That, unfortunately, has been the meeting ground of commonality between political parties with a few extra votes and a secular desire. But does it not reflect the changed realities of electoral politics across the length and breadth of the nation? The token fight of UR should not get reduced to being ridiculed as the opportunism of a habitual attention seeker wanting to raise a storm in a ‘well’. Did UR oppose S M Krishna when he facilitated the election of Vijay Mallya? Did UR support Devanur and Puttannaiah when they were launching their Party ‘Sarvodaya Karnataka’? Why hasn’t UR fought a ‘symbolic’ fight in a popular election?
Rajyasabha, as a legislative house, is a platform to raise issues and express concerns. That platform has long been usurped by asylum seekers and power brokers. The quality of debate is reduced to planting paid questions and seeking embarrassing details of personal enemies. Does UR need a stamp of approval of RS membership to raise people’s issues? Is it a higher platform than being a Jnanpeeth award winner? Should all issues be raised in Parliament to be taken notice of? Should not some one like UR strengthen institutions of civil society and lend it the credibility and weightage needed? Do we not seek someone who can mobilize a nation by the sheer force of his morality and courage of conviction?
UR should get his priorities right and stop seeking easy avenues for sainthood. Not taking a position, at times, can save one from the embarrassment of hollow believes and nowhere journeys.
Post a Comment