Land of Lime

So the question of the day is simply: do we need a minister for history? Looks like it. If ever that job opens up in Karnataka, I will apply. Or run for that office. ‘Bhuta mantri‘ has a fantastic ring to it. I love it. Who wouldn’t want to be addressed as ‘manya bhuta mantrigale‘! For the non-Kannadigas, bhuta not only means past but also ghost. So with one oath of office, one could get ministership over two vast territories: ghosts and past. Hey, wait a minute! Isn’t past also a ghost? Whatever.

Why am I obsessed with the ‘ghost’ of ministership, when I should be getting ready for a long friday evening-partying? Read on.

So Da Vinci Code wasn’t banned. But the I&B minister, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi did want to review the film himself before clearing it. What’s up with ministers pronouncing judgments on cinema and such matters? I don’t mean to suggest that this is a matter for specialists and if you have read any academic works on films, then you would run away from film studies people as quickly as you can. Perhaps, our democratically elected minister has a duty to protect public order and may be even a better understanding of the damage an irresponsible film might cause. But most of these ‘this offends our religious sensibility’ cases could just be treated as amusing events but for the violence and public disturbance that leads to loss of life and property every once in a while.

I am no big fan of experts running the show in most matters. But a minister or even a King pronouncing verdict on all matters scares me even more. How about this gentle suggestion by the Saudi king that Saudi newspapers not publish any photos of women, since that would incite the young men?

Do any of us want to comment? Feel free to pick the ridiculous Bose saga too. Poor guy died some place long time ago and why not let him go peacefully? Why use Bose to beat up Nehru and Congress? We could surely come up with some better stuff!

Anyway, let me offer another Minister story, this time from Mysore, where the district minister in charge, D T Jayakumar, wants to comment on the history of Mysore. Former Sub Inspector of Police and professional politician, he is. But a thinker on matters of the past, he is not.

Here is the background. Karnataka state government has been making efforts to build on the tourism potential of Mysore. As a result, the state has been trying to promote Mysore as a heritage city, by creating a heritage fund and offering new, imaginative programs like ‘heritage walk‘ on tongas (horse carriages) and taste of native cuisine. All these projects usually gain more momentum at the end of summer, when the Dasara season is about to begin. Now though with the software boom, there is more disposable income itself in Mysore. Add visitors from Bangalore, for whom this would be a nice weekend getaway. So, all this is nice and dandy, given Mysore has been traditionally the second biggest attraction for domestic tourists too. Agra tops this list and that’s no surprise.

I digress. In addition to these ‘heritage’ measures, the Government also wanted to start a more traditional ’sound and music show’ following the Red Fort (Delhi) model. The show was to be be another appealing feature at the Mysore palace, city’s biggest landmark and tourist attraction. Presumably, the show would reflect the history and culture of Mysore kingdom. What else could it be when the show itself is set in the palace and in any case, according to an anemic and pathetic conception of history we subscribe to, history is the chronicle of kings and their good/bad deeds. Right?

So the government commissioned Lingadevaru Halemane, a Marxist playwright and well-known linguist, to write the script. Last year, during the Dasara festivities, the show ran into some difficulties and was held after the festival; I should hasten to add I can not dig out any reports or eye witnesses, except for the report cited above. But last month, Churumuri and local newspapers reported that Halemane’s narrative is being questioned, since it stops at 1947 and hence, doesn’t mention the current prince, Srikantha Datta Narasimharaja Wodeyar. Several Mysoreans objected and Wodeyar himself expressed his displeasure, behind the scenes and through his spokesmen.

In the past, I have quite clearly expressed how disappointed I am in our esteemed prince and former MP from Mysore. He is mostly harmless but also completely and utterly incapable of doing anything, constructive or otherwise. In this case, I was amused to notice some stirring in the royal household. Wodeyar demanded that he too be recognized as the ruler/Mysore palace dweller/prince of Mysore and be included in the script. Others, including many Mysoreans, acquiesced. Jayakumar, the district-in-charge minister offered his considered opinion and pronounced recently changes shall be made, whether Halemane accepts them or not.

I don’t know of anyone who has actually read the script but the entire debate as it is being staged right now is frivolous and not worthy of our attention. Churumuri’s initial efforts to to foster a discussion fizzled since nobody wanted to think through the questions. Instead, demands were made with a completely erroneous conception of history. How the hell does one respond to a demand such as this: Tell us the full, fair and undistorted story. Does the inclusion of Wodeyar’s name make it full and fair? Would someone stand up and say that no such animal exists! Where are the historians of Mysore, when we need them in action?

In the next few days, I will write a few more entries on Mysore’s history and I want to start this off by asking a few questions today.

For me, this debate should be framed in terms of self representation. A broader question a historian will pose to Mysoreans will focus on exactly that: what do you want an outsider/ tourist to know about your city and culture? And speaking of tourism, another pertinent question, if I could frame it true Kannadiga fashion, ought to be: how do you want to invite someone to your home? Here is where it gets tricky since such simple questions also disturb the consensus we have built over the years on what constitutes our history, culture and hertiage.

Isn’t it easier to just proclaim Navladi Krishnaraja Wodeyar as a progressive ruler and Mysore as the model state? Then we could celebrate them at the spectacular, brightly lit Mysore palace with a sound and music show. Why bother asking what do we mean by progressive or investigate the development strategies of model Mysore state or write on the bureaucratic and caste (to a limited extent class and communal) rivalries in Mysore? When we can just claim Mysore had representative assemblies (and hence democracy from 1890s itself), why ask questions about the nature of political representation itself?
History should chronicle our glories and achievements, right?
What then shall we re-present? Should we present only dynastic history, as some have claimed? Sure, we have a few pretty buildings all over Mysore, including our palace, but do these buildings exhaust our heritage? Even about these buildings, what is it that we want to say about their engineering or materials used? While I recognize and even appreciate (hey, I am not blind) the aeshtetic appeal, tourism potential of the Mysore palace, is that our most spectacular achievement? How about Nanjanagud Rasabale (banana) or Mysore Jasamine and the people who preserved them for centuries? I ask these questions to make us think of the purpose and symbolism of monumental architecture. A historian’s job isn’t to just to write an empirical narrative of the great buildings of Mysore and their builders. I must draw your attention to what it took to build them and yes, I mean the economic cost and a repressive kingship necessary to mobilize the surplus required to to build such structures. I must also draw your attention to the symbolic purpose of the palace as the imposing, perhaps even intimidating place where the king resided.

Well then, is dynastic history all that exists in Mysore’s past or is this all we choose to narrate in our sound and music show?

Hundred years ago, we would have had court poets singing panegyrics of kings.

Are we asking Halemane to perform the same task now?

The debate in mysore is leaning towards celebrating the aesthetic grandeur of monumental architecture or pride in the achievement of the progressive rulers of Mysore. Mysore kings were progressive compared to other many licentious sloths who masqueraded as rulers in other kingdoms. Yet, as a historian, I must raise questions about what kingship itself meant, especially from the perspective of a democratic (even as an ideal we aspire for) present?

Ask Halemane about these issues. I know he has good answers because he has thought and written on such questions. Don’t express outrage over the exclusion of Srikantha Datta. I wouldn’t also ask the minister to defer this to experts or turn this into a process question. We are all tired of ‘let the expert committee review the issue’ routine or ‘under the terms of reference given to Halemane, we find him guilty/not guilty’ acts.
Do I want to be part (hopefully an influential part) of offering a self representation of Mysore? You bet, both as a historian and Mysorean. Should this be decided by the Minister? Nope. What role does the Prince have? None as a prince but as a citizen and resident of Mysore, he can always join us for a spirited, healthy debate. Suit up, buddy.