It is always a big challenge to write about the colossal genius of P. Lankesh (1935-2000). It is even a bigger challenge to capture the elusive spirit of his two plays, Sankranthi (1973) and Gunamukha (1993), as they defy easy interpretations. It is often said that the collective psyche of Kannada time and again relapses into the Vachana period to resolve its present predicaments. Though the vital frames of the play, Sankranthi are largely drawn from the 12th century, it alludes to the broader disillusionment of the post independent Indian politics. During this period, Girish Karnad and Badal Sircar had successfully experimented with political satires such as Tughlak (1964) and EvamIndrajit (1963). Written during the turbulent period of powerful social movements of the 1970s that argued for the radical restructuring of state and polity, the play is not interested in the ensuing socio-political transformation but probing the ‘crisis’ of individuals caught under the corrosive influence of revolution, reformation and flux. Pointing at any epochal moment of history, Lankesh seems to ‘in’quire, do they have the power to modify one’s essential character?
The cast of the play is drawn from the total cross-section of the society representing different class and caste, who are caught in ceaseless conflicts of all kinds. While the now sharana Rudra, the lower caste convert, has developed strong disgust for drinking and eating meat, the Brahmin Usha is enamored by the cattle house, cow dung and the scent of perspiring holeyas . There are convert Sharanas who are vying for social prominence and the Brahmins/Jains trying to subdue their ascendance, despite the benign presence of reformist Basavanna; amidst all Bijjala, the head of the state. Among such, the persisting question of the play is whether revolutions, reforms are capable of effecting a radical restructuring of an individual’s essential character?
Interestingly, in the very beginning, Rudra’s father Ujja and Kencha have declared that abstaining from wine, women and meat is impossible. The exalted aspirations of the revolution have not dissuaded people from worrying about their wives, calf and corn. Lankesh seems to ask can revolutions, reformist movements, ideologies and the State, accomplish absolute restructuring of identity, culture and language? The grandiloquent social revolution is such that it has failed to change Ujja, Kecha and ‘correct’ Rudra calling his beloved as ‘Ussa’ instead of Usha. Thus Usha does not like Rudra’s belching and burping of shlokas . ‘What people require is food, not sermons’ she points. Teasing and sneering at Rudra, Usha begins bifurcating her lover holeya Rudra from sharana Rudra who disowns his own life and living, which ultimately makes her feel that his love is an act of rape. If Ujja, Kencha cannot abstain from wining and wiving, and Usha desires Rudra to remain as a holeya , does it mean Lankesh is a status quoist who believes in hierarchy and hegemony? The extraordinary power of the play lies in teasing out such questions in every reading. It debunks the Marxian notion of hegemony which argues that the consciousness/‘being’ of an individual is forged by the hegemonic powers, ideologies of the State and the economic relationships of society. But Lankesh seems to suggest that the sum total of one’s being is not always conditioned by the dominant groups/hegemonic ideologies, but flourishes in an autonomous space beyond the firm grip of ruling class. Bijjala finds out from Basavanna: “My system, your revolution -- there must be something beyond these two-isn’t it?” Since Lankesh believes in the free spirit of the individual, he is not interested in the instantaneous gains and the interim benefit of social revolution. The spirit of the individual is so sublime, so evolving that it is forever crystallizing with or without revolutions. Lankesh seems to be more hopeful of the eternal summer solstice ( NityaSankranthi ) than the occasional furore of revolution ( Kranthi ). Eventually, Basavanna’s revolution may end up in replacing the hegemony of Sanskrit speakers by Kannada speakers. The characters of Ujja and Kecha suggest that revolutions may affect the thin exteriors of the caste, not the deep interiors of the character.
One may wonder how far Lankesh is justified in pitting characters like Ujja, Kencha and Rudra against the momentous events of 12th century Vachana movement. According to Lankesh, all the eventful epochs of history have to pass through the quandaries of human nature. In this sense, Lankesh is close to Gandhi who tries to examine travails of the time through the grind of body and being. One of the enduring characters of the play is Usha, undoubtedly the strongest woman character sketched in Kannada literature. She is like any other free spirit created by Lankesh, be it Avva in his exceptional poem Avva (1967) or Neelu of his short, sensuous, series of poems written throughout his literary career. Unfortunately, very less is written elaborately about the enormous grit of Usha, despite hoards of feminist interpretations on women characters.
Usha is so confident that she can take on Basavanna’s revolution and Bijjala’s state simultaneously. Also Rudra’s male egotism. Perhaps, Usha is an embodiment of the free spirit that Lankesh incessantly searched for.
When Rudra forces Ujja and Kencha to give up drinking and meat eating she terms it as ‘violence’. Again when Rudra coerces her to yield to his male ego she protests with her uninhibited spirit. She believes in such an ideal of elemental freedom that defiantly rejects any form of coercion be it through love or revolution. She is not lured by the momentary temptations of romantic love or social transformation, but in the gradual evolution of man, society and culture. The coercive action of Rudra assaults her strong urge for freedom and makes her eventually feel that his love is nothing but an act of rape. Therefore she declares in the court that Rudra’s love is no less than rape. She does not care that her statement against Rudra may take him to the gallows. Such an uncompromising stance of Usha results in creating a climactic situation in the play. By and large, feminist criticism appreciates only such characters who are exponents of female liberty and equality. The enormous feminine power of Usha is such that she can collide with the larger historical questions of social transformation, revolutionary movements and political upheavals without being overburdened by issues related to equality, liberty and sexual choice. This makes her one of the outstanding creations of Kannada literature.
S. Siraj Ahmed
