Fighting Nobody's Cause

Kannada litterateur and Jnanpith laureate U R Ananthamurthy’s decision tocontest the Rajya Sabha polls from Karnataka has not come as a surprise. Hisname was doing the rounds during the 2004 general elections and earlier too. In2004 he had apparently expressed interest to contest the Bangalore South LokSabha seat against BJP’s H N Ananth Kumar, but the JD(S), with which party heis at loggerheads now, had offered him the Shimoga seat. For more than a decadenow, there have been rumours on and off in the media that he has been "lobbying"to enter the upper house of Parliament. Having been a friend of many prominentLohia-Socialists and claiming to be a fellow traveller of their ideology,political ambition was always dormant in Ananthamurthy. Even the literature hehas produced has a readily identifiable political overtone. So, his decision tocontest the polls has not surprised people, but what has indeed caused a flutterin many who subscribed to his liberal public voice, is the shrill chauvinisticreasoning he has offered to enter the electoral fray.

Ananthamurthy has declared that he is part of the "Kannada lobby"and in the 50th year of the state's formation he is trying to save "Kannadapride", which is being undermined by the BJP and the JD(S) who have fieldedindustrialist Rajeev Chandrashekar, a Telugu for the fourth Rajya Sabha seatfrom the state. Ananthamurthy’s chief complaint against his rival has beenthat he is an "outsider" to Kannada culture and that is a serious "disqualification".Among the people who have been instrumental in getting him to contest the pollsis an MLA, Vatal Nagaraj, who has the reputation of painting non-Kannada boardsblack in Bangalore. Rebel JD(S) MLAs, headed by Siddaramaiah, are also on hisside and he has the tacit support of the Congress too, but still the numbers arenot adding up for a victory. He will need 45 first preferential votes to win inthe March 28 elections. When reports last came in, the Congress camp too washaving second thoughts about supporting the writer.

Only a few months ago, when Kannada activists painted the Belgaum mayor'sface black for passing a resolution in the municipal corporation to secede fromKarnataka and join Maharastra, Ananthamurthy had spoken loud, quiet rightly,about the "inclusiveness" of Kannada culture. Even when the classicallanguage status was granted to Tamil by the Union government and local activistsdemanded a similar status for Kannada, Ananthamurthy presented a nuanced view ofTamil literature. He did not grudge Tamil’s classical language status, butpointed to its remarkable and ancient literary tradition. Even as early as 1982,when arguably the first and biggest "save Kannada" movement (Gokak movement) washeld, Ananthmurthy said all those participating in it and forwarding a "narrow"Kannada cause were afflicted by "collective madness." 

But now, to use the Shiva Sena-style logic of cultural "exclusion"is a complete turnaround. The streak of fundamentalism is, to say the least,shocking. Does this not sound similar to the communal splitting of the Indiansociety into Hindu "insider" and Muslim "outsider" by the BJP and RSS? It isdifficult to believe that a writer and thinker of Ananthamurthy’s standing isunaware as to how complex an issue it is to determine who an absolute "insider"is to a culture? After all, has it not been the modernity project ofpost-Independent and democratic India to integrate the "insider" and "outsider"in our thoroughly caste-ridden and divisive society. 

And more so in a globalised world, where migration is the order of the day,how can one comprehend the shallow logic of an "insider" and "outsider"?For that matter one of URA’s pet cultural theories has been about the "digestive"capabilities of Kannada culture. He has argued for years that Kannada cultureover the centuries has always been open to influences and it displays such highdegree of maturity and tolerance because it has had the discretion to accept andblend what would enrich it. So, what is it that has caused such a disturbingfailure of reason and memory in Ananthamurty? Is it age or the pure seduction ofpower?

To take the argument further, what would have been Ananthamurthy’s fate ifKeralites had protested against him as an "outsider" when he was appointedvice-chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam? What ifMaharastrian’s had perceived him as an "outsider" when he was made chairman tothe film and television institute in Pune? And what if Delhites grudged hisappointment into one important cultural position after another in the 90s? Afterall how does Rajeev Chandrashekar who has lived in Karnataka for close to threedecades; who has built a business empire that employed thousands of Kannadigasand even married a Kannada girl become an outsider? Will the bending andcrawling Congressmen who have promised to spare their extra 19 votes toAnanthamurhty continue to support him if the logic of the "outsider" isembarrassingly extended to their supreme leader Sonia Gandhi?

Here’s a curious piece of information: To comply with the recommendationsof the Sarojini Mahishi Commission, set up to study employment opportunities forKannadigas in central government and public sector establishments, thegovernment of Karnataka passed an order (No. SWL 70 ETX 77 Bangalore, dated 23July 1981), which said that anybody who had resided in Karnataka for more than15 years and were acquainted with the language were Kannadigas. If RajeevChandrashekar was put through this stringent test of domicile, he would still beconsidered an "insider".

The only point on which there is some intellectual agreement is Ananthamurthy’sstatement that Karnataka has become a point of entry to the upper house for bigbusinessmen. But this does not seem to be the point that Ananthamurthy isforegrounding in his election campaign. There is only a cursory mention of it.Only last year Deve Gowda fielded Chennai businessman and racing giant MAMRamaswamy from the state. Vijay Mallya won earlier and now Rajeev Chandrashekaris poised for victory. Nobody is willing to ask as to what endears these bigbusinessmen to professional politicians. A businessman making use of hisproximity to the political system and leveraging business interests by holdingpublic office is a larger question that one wished that a writer likeAnanthamurthy would raise in public interest. But alas, that’s the domain of apublic intellectual and that is something waiting to be reclaimed.

Ananthamurthy’s current position is rather piquant and unenviable. He isneither being supported by a winnable political combination nor is he beingbacked by his own community of writers. The fringe elements supporting him aresimply scoring a political point at his expense. It must be a sad moment for thewriter when nobody believes that he actually represents a cause.