(mostly deleted)
>The classics certainly weren't meant for the common folks and needless to
>>say, they were not meant for women. It is only after reading the feminist
>>writers of the 70s, 80s and 90s, I began to have a feeling for what women
>>might feel when they read these classics, particularly the ones which are
>>supposed to be epics in Sringaram,
>So, what do women readers, who are forced to read this poetry in the name
>of classical poetry, feel about it?
I did understand the concern for the 'sense of embarrassment for women'.
However, I am afraid certainly your reasons do not cover the entire
spectrum of the 70s, 80s and 90s. Regarding the present day reality of
'Sringaara (sex) and the situation of the women', I feel it is not just
confined to 'past literature' alone and in fact it may be the least. I
truly keep wondering about quite a few things in this matter. Quite
honestly, I am yet to digest this aspect. (Indeed, I am expressing my
thoughts more than answering you.)
In the past, the means of artistic communications happened to be mostly,
literature, dance, painting, music in a localized fashion. Though we do not
know what the situation in those days, by present day standards, the
description of woman in our past literature was quite objectionable today.
Looking at those conditions, when there was no 'electricity', no TVs, no
paper, no printing and copying machines for circulating literature, no
telecommunications, no computers, no networks, no publicity etc., it is
tough to assess how much of an impact 'literature' might have had on the
public in the past under those conditions. Was it very confined as
literally there would have been only one 'manuscript' of the 'kaavya'? But
present day,it is a different story. Getting the message across is much
easy, fast and wide. Today movies (both on screen and TV) especially having
clubbed the aspects of art such as 'literature, music and dance' capture
the attention of a common man than any of those forms of art in isolation.
Quite truly, this can deliver the intended message in a much more
collective and powerfully 'impact creating fashion' on a common man just
because of its 'audio visual' facility, with all the technical support in
the world. So, today literally they drag the attention of a 'common
man'(also immatured young people) just because of their attractive power. A
common man, being a 'common man' easily succumbs to them and allows
himself/herself to be influenced by them. So, I think sadly but truly, most
of the time, the artistic exposure of literature and music for a majority
of the present day generation is confined only to the TVs and movies, while
most of the education is dealing only with the technical and professional
aspects. Coming to movies, though there are exceptionally great movies with
good messages shown in a 'good fashion', we are often watching good movies
shown in a 'provocative fashion' and provocative ones in a very 'explosive
fashion' too. In the name of 'art and variety', people are going to any
extent especially regarding sex and violence. While it is needless to say
about the Western movies, Indian movies are no less. I really do not know,
whether a Telugu (Indian) woman should feel more embarrassed for a
Sreenaadha describing female breasts in 15th century in a Sanscritized
Telugu, or should be more embarrassed for certain 'film actresses' exposing
breasts on the Indian screen in 1980s in the name of 'art'. (Rajkapoor's
'satyam, Sivam, sundaram', 'raam tEri ganga maili' were the examples of
female breast exposure on the Indian screen all over the country.) People
of the present day did approve it. There can always be a debate of who is
responsible for this? Rajkapoor or the female artists? Or the censor board
or the public? The movie 'ustav'(1980s), praised as a classic, has
provocative scenes.The recent song 'ChOli ke peechE kyaa hai' (what is
there behind the blouse) of 'khalnayak'(1990s) got approved after an uproar
and was a smash hit. If the 'censor board' approves it, aren't there lady
memebers in it? (There are). A malayaalee friend of mine literally laments
how their movies were branded as 'seductive' in the recent past inspite of
some very good ones. The extent of exposure of the females, and the
willingness of the females to do so, keeps anyone wondering 'are women
helpless to help others to exploit them'. One might wonder, after all, a
'vaastaayana' may have just given a lingual description of what he wants to
say, but the present day 'artists' might be ready to bring a visual
perspective of it on the celluloid but for the 'censor board'. Getting
inspired by these movies, some youth are indulging in raising social
atrocities of both sex and violence, where once again some innocent people,
specifically some women are at the receiving end. Some of these aspects
were picturized in a Telugu movie called 'suDigunDaalu' in 60s itself,
which warns against the circulation of sex and detective novels in the
youth. This is the reason I am wondering 'today, is there a contemporary
welfare perspective among the 'contemporary artists' themselves (of which
women are also the part)?' Do they really know what is good for them and
for the society? Do they want to keep finding faults with 'past literature'
ignoring their own misdeeds? I think these are much more serious questions
than yours. Can we do something to set the present situation right?
(Indeed, these thoughts only spurred me to write recently posted
'naagarikata' vacana kavita.)
On the other hand, part of the 'Nirmal paintings' of Andhra Pradesh is
another great example of creating a visual perspective of female breats,
which are now becoming World famous for their artistic beauty. (I do not
know its history of when it started etc. For sure in the modern era.)
Should this practice be discouraged? Among the contemporaries of painting,
'vaDDaadi paapayya' and for sure 'baapu'(I did see a few of his) drawings
are said to be most artistic, but did draw the female parts in a very
attractive way. What title can we give them? Artists or woman embarrassors?
I am sure 'ravivarma' would have drawn a few too. As I said, I am truly
confused. But perhaps, for all the displeasure of the women, expressed by
70s, 80s, and 90s, pointing a finger at 'old classical literature' as the
sole reason by all means can not be right.
> Well, some of them are saying that where there are......, there are other
>>things to talk about: like abortions, like periods, like child births, >etc,
>And the lakshanikas are shocked! These subjects are not meant for >poetry or
>literature! No way, they are saying.
On one side, it is the pity and on the other, it is irrational to think so.
One got to have both contemporary and broader perspective to develop it. I
do not think it is just for fun or with mere emotion Sree Sree said that
'aggipulla, kukka pilla, sabbu biLla, kaavEvee kavitaku anarhaalu.'
I believe it happens that some people get attracted to somethings more than
the other. But the strange thing about human nature and behaviour is 'the
stronger liking for one does not stop there and it extends towards the
disliking of its 'counterpart'. ANR/NTR; andhra/telangaaNa; classical
music/light music; hindutsani/carnatic; BJP/Congress (I); old/new;
males/females; sree sree/viswanatha; democrates/republicans. There is no
end for this list, not only just today, on any day!
With regards,
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala