Girish Karnad | 28 September 06
My literary works got several forms of reactions right from the day I started writing plays. Some have criticized me and some others haveappreciated me. But I never wished that after reading these works aprominent Kannada novelist would become an'instant historian'. I am really worried about the kind of influence my plays had on S.L.Bhyrappa. (Vijaya Karnataka, September 24).
One must appreciate the list of books that Bhyrappa has read to knowabout not only Tippu Sultan but about Tughlak also, just to write hisarticle. He has worked very hard. But instead of struggling so much if he would have asked me I would have told him: "I am least interested inthe historic character Tughlak. I am not at all interested to knowwhether he is good or bad, whether he loved Hindus or hated them. I wanted to write an entertaining Play. I had an yearning to create themost complex character possible. I was able to get the required materialin Tughlak to achieve this. I used as much material as I needed to adopt them in my own way. My Tughlak is not Tughlak of history. That is animaginary character. If I wanted to write history I would have done itand would not have bothered to write a drama.
It may be surprising to note that a person like Bhyrappa who is alwaysin the midst of discussions-lectures-articles about art-literatre-lifecould not understand this aspect. But whosoever has read his books doesnot find this as anything new. Let me discuss about it later.
One has to remember that history is a branch of knowledge. It has gotits own analyzing methods and systems like any other branch. A studentof history should be trained first, to know what type of evidences should be accepted, which records could be interpreted in the context oftheir special historical events, how to discriminate the arguments andother methodologies of history. Once a strong foundation is laid, one should attempt to understand the subtleties of the period that they havechosen for study. Only then one can have a scholarly discussion.
For the same reasons, it is difficult to accept the arguments put forth by Bhyrappa, who thinks that he is qualified to talk about any period ofany region authoritatively. It is certainly not 'history' to read 3books in two or three days and to use them suitably in his arguments bychoosing the facts convenient to his prejudices.
Bhyrappa is not a historian. Even I am not. Therefore it is better that we do not indulge in a clash with each other in a fields in which bothof us are not qualified.
The invitation for a public debate about history is not extended by me,Shankar Murthy did it. I accepted the invitation not to discuss history but to discuss about the responsibilities of an education minister.
For the same reason, it would be more meaningful if we read his novelsthan his 'history' to know about the thinking methodology of Bhyrappa, and also to know about the objectivity of his theoretical views.
Many of Bhyrappa's novels would have their own 'thesis'. The characterswould be developed around this thesis either for it or against it. Then the novelist Bhyrappa would thrash the characters mercilessly which areagainst the thesis that he has presented.
The thesis of 'Vamshavriksha' is 'vamsha prajne' (the consciousness ofthe lineage). Therefore Bhyrappa aborts frequently Kathyayini's pregnancies who being a young widow deserted her first husband's lineageon her remarriage. He would not leave her till her death.
The thesis of 'Tabbaliyu neenade magane' is cow slaughter. The centralcharacter of this novel is an American girl Hilda who settled down in a village of Karnataka after her marriage to Kalegowda.
There are plenty of women who have settled here after their marriage toIndians. All these women came here with a purpose to lead a harmoniousIndian life. The wife of Hiremallur Eswaran a well known Anthropologist converted herself to Veerashaivism. When I asked her what is the reasonfor this conversion she said, "if I do not wear Linga, I will not beallowed to enter kitchen. I cannot enter poojaroom. I will be anoutsider in my own house." The American wife of S.R. Hiremath who worksfor I.D.S has settled with her children in a village of Karnataka.
But while creating Hilda's character Bhyrappa does not think of these living models. Instead, 'madams' who loved IPS officers during Britishperiod, who came to India to live here always with a conscious thoughtthat they are from 'ruling class' were the models for the character of Hilda. She loathes to step on the ground scrubbed with cow dung! Thenovelist does not have any compassion for a girl who came alone to avillage leaving her motherland and does not know anybody there exceptingher husband. The village is divided because of her. She kills a cow. Herbreasts would be dry because of this sin that she committed. Her childwould be saved with the milk of Punyakoti breed cow though she killed a cow of this breed. Nature does justice on behalf of Bhyrappa.
Bhyrappa has a violent attitude towards his own characters which arecreated in his imaginary world but went against his central thesis inhis novels. The very purpose of the novel would be to punish such characters. In this context can we expect an objective view of a Muslimlike Tippusultan from Bhyrappa who is in forefront of a group of Hinduprotagonists who flare up whenever 'Muslim, Christian, avaidika' are uttered?
His baseless accusation that the folk singers wrote ballads in praise ofTippusultan with an eye on the cash gifted by nawabs is the proof forhis mental makeup.
When Babri Masjid surrounded by the blood of hundreds of innocent people was demolished for the political benefit, under a pretext that a sort ofinjustice had been meted out some 300 years ago, Bhyrappa supported thebarbaric act with the words, "lakhs of people want this, therefore, it is right". Last year when his statements on Buddhism created commotionhe blurted out some lies, "Hindu traditions always protected the avaidik(non-conformists to Vedas) people like charvakas." Does Bhyrappa with apersonality like this have any moral authority to talk about Tippusultan's fanaticism or to lecture on entire historical truths and untruths?
I owe some explanation because I directed 2 films based on the novelscited above jointly with B.V. Karanth. When Karanth encouragingly said, "producers have come forward to support the filming of these popularnovels" I retorted, "I detest the philosophical attitude of Bhyrappa",instead of accepting the offer. Then Karanth consoled me with the words "Bhyrappa has agreed to make the required changes in the story."Afterwards we directed the films changing the story as we liked.
But when I think of this now, I realize that I have made a mistake. There is no doubt that we did injustice to Bhyrappa. Whatever may be hisphilosophical attitude he is a proficient novelist. I should not haveagreed to the foolish act of segregating his philosophical motives fromthe material churned out of his experience. There is no doubt that both of my films Tabbiliyu ninade magane' and 'Vamshavriksha' are my ineptworks as I had no faith in the original thesis of these works..
