Transformation ?? OR mis-representation -- Re : satIsh cander's pancama vEdam...
Ramabhadra Dokka (sdokka@st6000.sct.edu)
Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:48:28 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Rao Veluri" <rveluri@smtpgate.anl.gov>
> Subject: Transformation of Symbols in today's poetry!
>
> Here is a poem, titled paMcama vEdaM, actually the anchor poem
> of the collection "paMcama vEdaM" by Satish Chander.The collection
> was published in February 1995. Satish Chander, before becoming
> the mouth piece of dalit movement through his poetry, wrote
> quite a bit of 'ordinary' poetry. He is one of the leaders of
> prajaa raciyatala samaakhya.
What I see different in this poem is that the poet seems to be convinced
upon what he is saying and that gave it a committed look from the poet's
point of view. Not basing the discussion on the biased views of caste,
religion and epics, I have the following comments on this poem and I welcome
any discussion at an academic level.
> His poem, paMcama vEdaM must be read in juxataposition to nannya's
> piece from the mahaa bhaarata about Ekalavya.
When I read this poem with that attitude in my mind, literally, not only
did I find this quite an ordinary piece, but at times it is rather
conflicting with the LOGIC and makes the reader think whether the author
was in a confused state when he intermixed religion, society and epics
to give his thoughts the shape of a kavitvam. I am not questioning the
idea or the Arti behind the poem, I'd love to see such inner voices
coming up with committed poetry in the name of daLit poetry but my
observations here are based only on evaluating this piece at an academic
level.
For the reasons cited above, I feel that this is quite an ordinary piece
with many inconsistencies to be answered and there could be other
pieces (either from the same author or somebody else) which are more
powerful, more coherent in meaning and more valued than this one, to be
included in the class of poetry.
> paMcama vEdaM
> by
>
> satish chander
>
>
> noorELLakee padihEDu maarkulE vEsi
> jeevitaM lO tappiMcina gurudEvulaku
> cEtulu jODiMci vraayunadi.
>
> 'neeku caccinaa arthaM kaaduraa' - ani
> meeru tiTTukoMToo ceppina vELLa meeda lekka,
> naaku caccaakanE artha mayyiMdi.
nATi drONuDinI, ahankAra pUritulai guru pITAniki anarhulaina mari kondarinI
uddESistU I kavita modaliana vidhAnam bAgundi..
> nEnennisaarlu lekka peTTukunnaa
> naacEtiki naalugu vELLE vuMDEvi.
Here the AkrOSam was portrayed in an effective way.
> naannaki kooDaa ayidOvElu lEkanE
> meeru guMDu sunnalu cuTTina prOgresu reporTu
> meeda
> yeppuDoo vEli mudra veyya lEdu.
>
> pucca puvvu laaMTi vennela rOjuna kooDaa
> aa vElu lEkanE -
> amma gOru muddalu tinipiMca lEdu.
>
> nEnu tella mukhaM vEsinappuDellaa
> meeradEdO amruta bhaasha lO tiTTEvaaru.
> naakannaM tappa amrutaM sayiMcadu.
>
> nijaM ceppaMDi
> paMcamu DaMTE ayidO vElu lEnivaaDanEnaa
> arthaM?
>
> maa muttata EkalavyuDu ceppaDu.
>
Here, Here, he defies the logic...
1. The poet was ONLY partially successful in portraying the responses from
the oppressed sections of the society because, the right way to change
such kind of attitude is by 'NOT SHOWING THE DISABILITY AGAIN and AGAIN'
esp. when in reality there is no PHYSICAL disability as such.
i.e. As long as one keeps calling this section as 'pancamam' or some thing
like that and as long as people do not stop branding a section of the
society, things can never change. Unfortunately this poem falls in the
same category by symbolizing the 'loss of a finger' for generations as if
there is something MISSING in this section in reality and as though they
are not equal to the other sections of the society, some how. Anyone who
thinks rationally knows that it is not true and for that reason I do not
like this symbolic mis-representation.
2. It defies the logic when the poet says that 'loss of finger' has been
heriditary. "muttAta EkalavyuDi' daggari nunDi, buvva peTTina talli
daggari nunDi, kavi (aBivyakti in the poem) varakU andarU yI "boTana
vElu lEni vamSam lOni vALLanaDam" defies the basic logic.
3. The poet failed to portray the real attitude of the daLit section. We all
know that they are not less than anybody and it should be clearly imbibed
in all sections of the society and ONLY then can the situation change.
> naa janma rahasyaM mee SaastraallO raayanaMduku
> nEneppuDoo krutaj~nuNNE.
By this time, the poet seems to be totally confused between the SAstramulu,
literature and the sentiments there in and he portrays his (biased) view
of same old "what ever old is bad", "nammakAlannI mUDhamainavE" type opinion
which is as absurd as a strong ILLOGICAL BELIEF/SUPERSTITION itself...
> nannEvagiMcu kOvadaaniki mee nighaMTuvullO
> saapa naarthaalu doraka nappudellaa
> naa talli maaTE mee nOTlO naanu tuMDEdi
> pOneeleMDi, dooshaNa lOnainaa naa tallikE
> nEnu puTTaanani kharaaru cESaaru.
>
> mummaTikee meM talliki puTTina biddalamE.
> ammE maaku daivaM
> goppiLLu veli vEsina kuMtemma nayinaa
> maa iLLakostE goMtemmanu cEsi kolcu kuMTaaM
> EkalavyuDu dEvuLLaku kaakuMDaa
> tallikE puTTaaDu.
I rALLu visirinappuDu I poet, akkaDa vyAsuNNi nindincADO (katha alA naDipi
ncinandulaku - intaku mundu jaya praBa lAgA), A epic nE nindicADO, mari tana
BAvAnnE bayaTa peTTukonnADO artham kAvaDam lEdu. It all started with
drONA and now it is going as far as castigating the epics and what else ??
> I am sure you get what I meant by the transformation
> of the old symbols!
No, Not for sure. I could not even figure out where did the poet start and
where did he end the poem ??
I appreciate your explanation on what you MEANT by it.
I feel that transformation of epic symbols is DEFINITELY NOT belittling them
and playing with the sentiments of the society in a POET's efforts of giving
his/her piece, a different look. That forces one to question the author if
this piece was written in a state of thouroughly confused mind. Yesterday's
Salman Rushdie and today's M.F.Husain are living examples of this.
regards..
- Ram (Ramabhadra Dokka from sdokka@st6000.sct.edu)