Since the following is somewhat close to my heart, I did consider responding
to it in detail. Although you may find this not related to telusa in the first
paragraphs, you will realize soon why it is related to telusa (there is vemana
and there is potana in it... so after all it is telusarelated).
> From owner-telusa@cs.wisc.edu Fri Mar 22 11:08:12 1996
> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 10:19:17 EST
> Reply-To: telusa@cs.wisc.edu
> Sender: owner-telusa@cs.wisc.edu
> From: juvvadi@allegra.att.com (Ramana Juvvadi)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <telusa@cs.wisc.edu>
> Subject: Communists, iconoclasts, and traditionalists in Telugu lit
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.1 -- ListProcessor by CREN
> Content-Length: 695
>
>
>
> If there is a tragedy in 20th century telugu lit, it is the sharp polarization
> of writers into communists and traditionalists. How is it that there were no
> non-communist iconoclasts? Or should I say, how did all the iconoclasts get
> attracted to communism? As Parigi Madan Mohan can attest (we were close
> friends in school), I was a great admirer of communism when I was 14 yrs old.
> By the time I was 18 yrs, I was a believer of free markets and minimal
> govt. To this day my beliefs are not shaken. However I find that even
> today my favourite writers, kAleepaTnam rAmA rAvu and ko.ku. were communists.
> Somehow the demise of communism doesn't seem to make their writings
> irrelevant.
>
> Ramana
>
>
I think this is how it goes: for many iconclasts, they do not have an
over-arching umberralla
that they can hold on to other than communism. Most of the time, iconoclasts
start out to be iconoclasts because they see something wrong in the traditional
way things are going: seeing the oppressed and the havenots, the
caste-oppression, etc. Since communism is one that provides some room for
such thinking, they tend to be taking up that route. Also, I think you
are mixing up many things under communism: socialism, anarchy, etc.
I think there are different types or kinds or varieties of iconoclasts
or non-traditionalists, and you are one kind and the others other kinds. Different
reasons motivate people to take up different kinds of iconoclastisms(?).
You perhaps became iconoclast (I believe, say, athiest) not motivated by the
same reasons as those others are (namely, the oppression of havenots, and such)
and hence perhaps you don't see so much of value in communism. In otherwords,
is the motivation for iconoclastism of yours financial or social or moral?
I know these are not disjoint, but, where is your strong motivation coming from?
If it is the current financial oppression that motivated you to be an iconoclast,
then definitely, you will have to be against
capitalism (at least in this country, and to a large extent in India) because
that is the ruling financial model (or, is becoming the ruling financial model),
and you *don't* like the current financial model; for, iconoclasts by definition
do not like the current model. Of course, you may question if there is a
financial oppression at all in this country of God's kingdom -- that discussion
is for a different day!
Thus, one can be a financial iconoclast, or a social iconoclast, or a relegious
iconoclast,
or some of all. Iconoclast is not a monolith concept. There are plenty
of people that qualify to be iconoclasts of one kind but not the other
and some who are iconoclasts of more than one kind. And, AHEM! some
no-iconoclasts at all!
I will give examples from literary persons, becuase otherwise I guess I will
be linched.
On to literature:
vemana, I will consider as both financial and religious
iconoclast. For he wrote poems (which I believe represent his true self)
that are against religious orthodoxy and social-feudal hierarchy and addressed
the needs of especially
the poor and the oppresed! So, vemana would definitely be
sympathetic to communism.
Potana, I would consider him definitely NOT a religious iconoclast, but definitely
a class (or social) iconoclast!! He did not take up the option of funded research
for the simple reason of freedom of expression. Now, if I see some grad student
or faculty member or so-called researcher not jumping at the latest RFP of
NSF or ARPA (RFP means request for proposal), and instead follow one's own
research path by making a living by working at say a community college, I
will definitely bow! But fortunatly, not
a chance, for there are probably not any!!
Under the name of "research" or "hitech system building" all (or
most) of us work for the rich, not -- for the poor nor the idels we like/have.
Take, Gautama, whose literary contribution is often forgotten unless you
read Dharmapadham. He was a social, religious and financial iconoclast.
Giving up a kingdom, a beautiful wife and son, for the suffering and for the
poor and oppressed? No sir. That's just too communistic. BTW he was agnostic
too in his dharmapadham. There was no direct or indirect reference to a
creator in Budhha's Dharmapadham. And finally, he was dead against caste
system, and to the best of my knowledge, defined "BRAHMIN" as a collection
of concepts and thoughts rather than through birth. Buddha was thus a
political, religious, and financial iconoclast! Unlike many iconoclasts
we are currently stuck with, who are iconoclasts for the opportunity --
examples abound if you look around in the political arena.
Thus, in short, the answer is this: there are multiple kinds of iconoclasts,
and you are one kind and the others are of other kinds!!
An example of a non-communist iconoclast in the current days is Jandhyala
(well, not so current but contemporary to the poets you named). He wrote
poems that put us to shame for the caste-system that Hindus followed over
centuries. But, no communism. It was motivated by love for the oppressed
and the poor. He actually wrote an entire khandika on "paaki pilla".
Another example of a non-communist iconoclastic poet is Gidugu. He did NOT
even whisper(sp?) communism in his writings (to the best of my knowledge)
but boy, was he an iconoclast? Even according to the so-called Mahakavi
Sri Sri: "gidugu pidugu ki bhayapadi laakshinakandhra ragni grandhalayalaloki
poyi dakkundi" (approx. quote). He actually spent years with the so-called
un-touchables (tribals) to learn their language and write a dictionary and
other litarary tools for their language (savar bhasha, I believe). Gidugu
again was motivated by the poor, the oppressed, the havenots. And did not
have the urge to pickup the fashion word communism. HE was a political
iconoclast (see below).
Another example is Sree veeresa lingam, Kandukuri! He was contemporary of
Carl Marx, I think; or, perhaps a little later than Marx. But, he did not
use communism nor did fall for him. He was most definitely a religious iconoclast,
and depending on which book you are looking at, also a literary iconoclast!
As if to prove that he is no inferior to Chinnaya, he translated Sandhi
and vigraham in exactly the same tone (praudha kavitwam) as Chinnaya's although
I personally like Chinnay much better. However, unlike Chinnaya (who, btw
is not a brahmin, but a jangama) he did sangha-samskarana including a number
of things that the then orthodoxy were pissed off by. Like widow remarriage
and all that stuff. I don't know if he counts as modern poet in your definition,
but he is only a couple decades earlier to some of the others you mentioned.
Another example is the author of Saakshi, Paanuganti. Although Chilakamarti
tried to do create characters similar to janghala sastry (his own ganapaty),
I put sakshi definitely above kanthabaharanam. And, these two guys were
definitely iconoclasts in so far as caste system and literature are considered.
In fact, Janghaludu of Panuganti goes beyond that into being a religious
iconoclast (and hopefully its author) I know Chilakamarthy participated
in independence struggle to some extent!
One more: of course, being from Vizianagarm/Vizag, can't forget the
boss-man: Gurajada.
the creator of gireesam! He definitely was a religious iconoclast
as anyone can read from his respect for caste system and caste rituals.
(He made brahmin rituals a laughing stock: sexual relationships between
widows and widowers, cheating, bribing, all among brahmins, -- orthodox
brahmins). He definitely was a social/caste iconoclast! BUT, HE Was not
a political iconoclast. His kanya sulkam was dedicated to the vizianagaram
king. Unlike Potana. Or, for that matter unlike Gidugu who refused to
work with the raaja because the raaja was a wee bit too hidonistic for
Gidugu's peace of mind.
So, there are many many iconoclasts, and by no means would i consider one
iconoclast better/worse than the other. I want to impress upon the important
facts that (i) you do not have to be a communist to iconoclast and there are
plenty of examples (which is what Ramana was trying to ask examples of, I think)
(ii) NOT LIKING CAPITALIST society can go in hand in with iconoclasts
and yet, not required to be a communist. i.e., there is a lot of room for
those of us who are not communists, nor are the worshippers of capitalism.
Personal note:
(1) in the above, if I sounded harsh on brahmins, I meant it. I mean
it on all the "agravarnams" of yester years/decades that promoted caste system.
And, No-I am not motivated by my caste! I am an "yagnavalkya niyoga brahmin"
who does not believe in god, castes or such other nonsense.
(2) in the above, if I sounded a bit harsh on capitalist society, I mean it.
I do not like it. But, I am not a communist, but merely share some sympathy
for the poor and the oppressed and the laborers and the elderly and the
unhealthy and the havenots! But, I am helpless to do
anything about it, and cofess that also I don't like it that I don't do anything
about it (simply put, I am not as gutsy as many of the great
people I quoted above).
Sincerely,
Kumar Vadaparty