Politics Of Indian History -2

[Guest]

Sandeep Blog about Ananthamurthy
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->URA has always pandered to the ruling class and has moulded his ideology based on the prevailing fashion. The Bharatipura days were exciting times for Socialists/Communists. And a novel like this pleased the people who needed to be pleased. URA and his fellow-travellers established a cult in Kannda literature that for more than a decade throttled any work which didn’t toe the line dictated by this cult. One victim of his vitriol was the noted novelist, SL Bhyrappa whose novels he dismissed as regressive, retrograde and outdated. URA could manage this largely due to the political patronage he had garnered by then. The same political patronage that later proved handy when he lobbied for the Jnanapith. His close circle of friends included most notably, J.H. Patel, Ramakrishna Hegde and the Socialist leader Gopala Gowda.

URA’s political “achievements” far outnumber his literary ones: his tenure as Vice Chancellor of the Mahatama Gandhi University in Kottayam was marked by an allegation of embezzlement, he was also appointed the chairman of National Book Trust, president of the Sahitya Academy, and the Indian Literature Academy. All these are governmental institutions. I don’t need to elaborate on the kind of lobbying that goes on for such appointments. That URA managed to get himself these coveted positions is not a mean (political) “achievement.”

Another of URA’s favourite ideological postures is his “battle against communalism.” Like his other mutual-admiration-club member Girish Karnad, URA has spoken strongly against the “communal forces” that threaten to rip the country’s “secular fabric” apart. Case in point: Ayodhya and the Bababudangiri controversies. Unlike Karnad, URA’s methods are indirect, subtle, and sophisticated. The rewards apart from the coveted appointments are numerous: the JH Patel government allotted a plot in the prestigious Dollars’ Colony in Bangalore, which led to an overwhelming number of literateurs condemning URA.

To his credit, URA has been keen to sense the direction of the wind. He was a Socialist/Communist par excellence in the days it flourished–in fact, he visited Beijing during the Tiannmen massacre at taxpayers’ expense and wrote an essay on the incident in Kannada–he was secularer than the secularists in condemning the Babri masjid demolition and now, he is more Dalit than the real Dalits what with his regular public photo-sessions with Dalit/backward caste ministers.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->



Sunday Slug Fest: Anantha Murthy and Bhyrappa

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Because Aavarana uncovers the gory extent of Aurangzeb's--and Islamic--brutality, it has delivered a blow where it hurts the most: to Aurangzeb, the darling of the secularists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->At best, Anantha Murthy's attacks are cheap efforts to dissuade the public from reading Bhyrappa's books. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vijaya Karnataka reports (free subscription to access the link; the report is in Kannada) that it received more than 2000 responses condemning Anantha Murthy's "insolence."

This grand drama ended predictably. Anantha Murthy claimed
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
...he was "misquoted" and in the wake of strong criticism of his comments, decided not to take part in any literary functions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->