Why is there so much outcry against chando poetry and chando poetry
alone when there is so much mediocre poetry out there in non-chando
style? Why there is such an unconditional support for one form of poetry?
Is that not an argument about structure and not content?
Why do people identify chando poetry with filler words? There is so much
of chando poetry without filler words and the fraction of filler words in
our vast literature is not large enough to outweigh its merits. Why ridicule
an entire school of art for a little thing that we are uncomfortable with?
Actually I do not like the word filler word but am using it to identify what
most of us are referring to. They are used and enjoyed in their own right.
It is not difficult at all to write a chando poem without these filler words
and in fact there are so many without them. These are not used to fit the
meter but because they are not viewed differently. In the hands of
inefficient writers, any word anywhere in the poem may be a filler word
making it a patch work. That is true in any mediocre poetry, not just chando
poetry. For one who is well versed in writing, chandas is not at all a hurdle.
All forms of poetry have some kind of structure, either difficult or easy
depending upon the writer. And one can choose any form depending upon the
context. Poetry in any form has its demands on the writer and the one who
doesn't like those demands will not be writing any poetry. For him, poetry
itself is a filler word in our easy daily communication. Reading and enjoying
is a different story. You have a choice and you take your pick. But why should
any one dictate what one should write or what one should not write? What
poetry is taboo here and what is not? Who has the right to lay down the rules
in the natural evolution of our poetry? If a particular form does or does not
stand the test of time, or does not need to stand the test of time, so be it.
Sincerely,
Bachoti Sridhara Rao