satIsh cander's 'vRttAntam' - my opinions
Ramabhadra Dokka (sdokka@st6000.sct.edu)
Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:56:55 -0500 (EST)
SrI vElUri vEnkaTESwara rAo gAru wrote --
> From: "Rao Veluri" <rveluri@smtpgate.anl.gov>
> Subject: More of Satish Chander... for the continuing debate...
>
> In subjecting the 'paMcama vEdaM' to intensive post-mortem,
> I understood that one of the incisive literary surgeons made
> a very valid remark, viz., that some more of his poems need
> to be read and analyzed to accept him as a 'poet,' of some
> consequence. (I am not quoting; I am trying to paraphrase!)
As I said earlier, it is NOT you OR I, who should ACCEPT him as a POET
he should be convinced for himself that what he writes makes some sense
and at least make sure that it has some attribution to the facts if he
cares to be a responsible POET.
> I have posted some time ago one of satish Chander's poem:
> 'vRttaaMtaM.' In this poem, he was not abusive of the
> the upper castes of the hindu-four caste system.
I do not want to comment on what you think he is/is not doing in this poem
but, I want to put forward what I think of this poem from my side.
His BIGGEST flop in this POEM is in the first line (infact the very first
word) itself, when he opined that POEM is haindavam - Too bad that he is
talking about literature and religion ( at least I do not see any correlation
with the subject chosen )
> Even now, I understand it in the same way. I may be proved wrong!
Please do not mistake me for attempting to prove or disprove your beliefs
but please be advised that when something is posted for public opinion, the
nature of the poem and the way it is expressed there in may attract some
objections, may hurt some sentiments, may be found wrong factfully and may
be found invalid but -- if one takes the criticism for improving oneself,
there is no problem on either side. But as one of my other friends said,
throwing in a piece of explosive which may hurt others and applauding it
as a thought provoking piece for whatever it did, IMHO is not correct.
Anyway, thanks for posting the poem and here is what I think of this piece.
> vRttaaMtaM
>
> haindava padyaaniki atikina aidava paadanni
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
> nEnu.
This is what I am objecting about. The very first line is a BLUNDER in my
opinion when the poet branded a section of literature as "haindavam". What
the h˙eck does he mean by that ?? Does he mean to say that ONLY hindus write
poems which have four lines or what ??? Does he mean to say that a section
of traditional poetry --the poem--, is limited to one religion of the society
ONLY ?? I don't understand why time and again this POET is getting
confused so much ??? IMHO, there is no symbolic representation here except
that it exposes the poet's attitude towards traditional literature and he
again seems to be confused between religion-literature-society(not bringing
in epics in this piece is a noteworthy point though) and social problems..
I like the rest of the piece for its beautiful rendition and the way he
could hold himself while talking about the subject. No more swaying or
straying. And my sincere suggestion is that if the explosive and the totally
unrelated word "haindavam" is removed from the poem, it makes it a good
piece. The poet's thinking that the caste system is followed in "haindavam"
does not have any correlation with HIS mis-belief of traditional literature
namely, padya racana is limited to this religion or section of the society.
Come on, Be real, Now, don't say that the traditional literature is something
that is and has been the property of upper sections or something preserved in
one religion. WRONG WRONG WRONG - this is totally illogical. What is this
POET's resentment - over traditional literature ?? Over hindu matam ?? or
the anti social practises like caste system ??? Come on Mr. satIsh cander,
I like this piece, for you did not lose the focus later, even though you
faltered terribly in the beginning.
> vRttaM velupalE uttavacanaMlaa
> pariBramincina naaku -
> maranameppudoo punaraavRtamE.
>
> nooneku nOcukOni gAnugeddunu nEnu.
> vRttalEkhinilOni pensil mukkalaa
> arigipOyina naaku -
> vartamaanameppudoo
> ceripEsina gatamE.
Wonderful !! daLitula bAdha ikkaDa kaLLaku kaTTinaTlu ceppabaDindi... As long
as this POET doesn't talk about who made that gAnugeddu make rounds, I think,
he is doing just fine.
> ankelaku viluvaniccina gundusunnaani nEnu.
> mottaala kudipakkalO
> sankhyaa maanaBangaaniki guraina naaku -
> eDameppudoo kadupulO ragilE khaaleetanamE
Can't agree more... This portrays the way these sections were exploited
but doesn't talk about who exploited them, I think that's when Mr. satIsh
candra is faltering, by doing symbolic mis-representation. Didn't he get
confused between the right and the left thumbs also (gOru muddalu are
performed with right THUMB and vEli mudralu are performed with LEFT THUMB)
apart from NOT thinking that for Ekalavya, there is always another thumb
available for ONLY one of them is sacrificed. All of this is SYMBOLICALLY
WRONG even though one doesn't care for FACTS.. Anyway NOT deviating much
from this piece, it is better for this POET at this stage, NOT to attempt
something like "symbolic representation or transformation", without knowing
how to do it properly (in POETRY) and without verifying the facts properly..
> candramandalammeeda maanavuDu paadaM
> mOpinaTlu
> nEnippuDu kottagaa
> vRttaMlOpala aDugulu naatutunnaanu.
> kaakateesina Dappumeeda SabdatarangaM
> vikasiMcinaTlu
> kattulaku saanapaTTE
> cakraM meeda nippu puvvulni pooistunnAnu.
Good. Nice work here... for the resentment is portrayed in a very effective
way. One thing to observe these analogies are O.K. and here, he is not
stepping out on epics and religion, hence is doing good IMHO...
> ceruvukunna guMdrati gaaju mukhammeeda
> nEnoka raayi vEsi
> vRttaalanu mingE vRttaalanu kalaganTunnaanu.
Some how, I don't think that this fits with the analogy of what was
expressed earlier. Earlier, he was resenting about what I thought are those
'vRttAlanu mingE vRttAlu' and now he wants create the same things... Naaah.
IMHO, you do not want to do that. Practically, if people keep repeating the
same mistakes for generations, the wars and aftermath remain the biggest
recurring loss to the society. ONLY the sides change and the sufferers change
but the overall situation never changes/improves and the suffering is NEVER
eradicated. Let's get to the root of the problem and find a cure that is not
self-destructive and that does re-generate more problems of same nature in
other sections. Don't you think so ??
Anyway, I was expecting to see something like this towards the end but he
disappointed me. Even though the POEM is suggesting something in the
poet's "kala ganaDam", which I don't totally agree with, I like the rest
of this piece and the imagery but the title is indicating in my opinion a
pessimist's view of saying that there is no end to the problem. Well, I know
that is the POET's choice in this piece, but the word play 'vRttAntamu' and
'vRtta-antamu' are good. My point here is that the second meaning has a
pessimistic outlook in it suggesting something like -- THE THINGS CAN NEVER
CHANGE AND THE DAMAGE IS IRRECOVERABLE --, which I think is NOT TRUE.
Thanks SrI vElUri for posting the song of america. That was a good one as
the POET did not falter on these lines in that piece, in my opinion.
regards...
- Ram (Ramabhadra Dokka from sdokka@st6000.sct.edu)