Street play "Humortal" in progress before Sangeetha Nataka Akademi, Thrissur. 4 Feb 2012

Mixed spectators at ITFoK

ITFoK 2012 is on at Sangeetha Nataka Akademi complex in Thrissur from 2012 February 1 to 8.  This fourth edition of the festival focuses on classics rather than contemporary world theatre.  It is marked for the overwhelming presence of cultural activists and theatre persons from all over Kerala and all across the world.

Gayatri singing the opening lines before Manganiar musicians 1 Feb 2012

The focus on classics may also imply a strategic avoidance and erasure of the vibrancy and dynamism of contemporary theatre.  But some of the plays in the fest like Molagapodybased on Bama’s short fiction expressed the political and polemical dramatic articulations that could speak to its time.

Ramankutty Nair Asan, Thripekulam Achutha Marar, M V Devan and Parasala Ponnammal lighting the lamps together. 1 Feb 2012

Whatever be the thematic content and its political signification the audiences in Thrissur are making it a true and live festival of cultural interaction and carnival.  The auditoriums are burgeoning with the enthusiasm of the spectators.  But the artistic directors and conceptual designers must rethink about the political implications and contemporary relevance in the selection.

Malavikagnimitram by Kavalam. 1-2-12

Chinese Dragon from U K

Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea from Italy

Molagapody by Srijith Sundaram (Tamil)

Water Station by Sankar Venkiteswaran

Related posts:

1. Birds of Kol Wetland and Birder’s Meet 2012
2. Aquilas of Vembanad
3. New Malayalam Cinema and Theatre:IFFK and ITFoK 2010

Western gateway of Kilirur temple, Kottayam

Kilirur temple stands on a laterite hill surrounded by waterways and canals.  It is so close to the backwaters of lake Vembanad that forms the heart of Kuttanad.  It is locally called Kilirur Kunnummel Bhagavathy temple (hilltop temple of the goddess).  It is just 8 km west of Kottayam town.

central temple enshrining the goddess. Oiginally Mahamaya, Karthyayani after 16th century.

The uniqueness of the temple is the relief of the Buddha inside a shrine now dedicated to Krishna. The idol of Krishna also looks like a Yogic Avalokitesvara in Padmasana. The shrine is in Gaja Prishta architectural style (resembling the butt of a standing elephant) that is associated with temples of Buddhist antiquity.  It is facing east and the northern door is marked for Sri Buddha, but remains closed.  There is also an ancient sacred grove and Naga deities towards the east of the temple compound on the hillock.  Some of the former lords who were in charge of the temple are still known as Pallymenavans and all of them are non-Brahmans.

Ancient Naga deities in the Sarpa Kavu on the east of the Kilirur temple. A relic of nature worship and conservation related to Buddhism

According to historians and researchers this was one of the last surviving Buddhist temples in central Kerala along with Nilamperur Pally Bhagavathy temple (Ilankulam, Ravivarma, Valath, Ajunarayanan,  Sugathan, Sadasivan).  Both these Buddhist temples were patronized by Pallyvana Perumal, a Chera prince of the 15th century, whose image is still worshiped in Nilamperur.

Sapta Kanya or seven virgins. Originally nuns or Bhikshunis who pioneered Buddhist missionary work in Kilirur under the leadership of Pallyvana Perumal. Yellow robes and turmeric powder still used to worship them.

Sadasivan says that the Bhagavathy of the central shrine was originally the idol of queen Mahamaya the mother of the enlightened one.  Pallyvana Perumal was a devotee of the mother of the affectionate one and thus he placed her at the centre of the temple.  It is also remarkable that there is no Namputhiri Illams in Kilirur and even the Brahman priests who do their service in the temple never stayed in the place though they do daily worshiping rituals in the temple through out the year.  The Brahmanical aversion to a Mlecha (Buddhist) holy place could be the reason for this, say researchers (Ravivarma) and local people.

southern temple dedicated to Krishna, enshrining the Buddha relief in meditative posture beneath Bodhi tree. Built in simple Gaja Prishta style. Facing east and its northern door is marked "Sri Buddha"

Local people still believe that the temple was originally a Buddhist shrine.  Mr Rajappan Nair of Chandanaparambil narrated his memories and local lore about the temple.  It is interesting that local people still cherish the legends of Pallyvana Perumal and the Buddhist connection between Kilirur and Nilamperur.

Idol of Krishna closely resmbling a Boddhisatva in Ardha Padmasana. Buddha relief is on the other side of the backwall.

This last surviving Buddha image in a Kerala temple must be preserved for posterity and the temple and its rich and composite history must be conserved for the whole humanity who value the life and teachings of the compassionate one.  Further studies and excavations in the premises may recover precious details regarding the Sramana past of Kerala and its democratic and egalitarian culture.

Remembering local history: Rajappan Nair near Kilirur temple. 28 Dec 2011

Reference

Ajunarayanan.  Keralathile Buddhamatha Paramparyam.

Jayaprakas.  Padmanabhaswamy Kshetram Arku Swantham?

Ilamkulam.  Keralacharithrathinte Irulatanja Edukal.

Panikasery.  Keralam Pathinanjum Pathinarum Noottandukalil.

Puthusery.  Kerala Charithrathinte Atisthana Rekhakal.

Ravivarma.  Pandathe Malayalakara.

Sadasivan.  A Social History of India.  Google Book available online:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Be3PCvzf-BYC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=Kilirur+temple+and+buddhism&source=bl&ots=9j3sOcnoAp&sig=Xwx0TxObZeQ25p3WftN1YHOWuMU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vvj7TvngB8bprQeJjKkH&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Kilirur%20temple%20and%20buddhism&f=false

Related posts:

1. Buddhism in Kerala
2. Kallil: The Last Surviving Relic of Jainism in Central Kerala
3. Dharmadam: A Place of Dharma or Ethics

2011 edition of International Film Festival of Kerala (9-16 Dec. 2011) witnessed an overwhelming presence of people from all over the world.  This annual cultural fest is so crucial for the Kerala intelligentsia, students and the youth as it becomes their vital democratic and creative space for cultural communication and democratic cultural politics.

Unfortunately some of the major movies from Europe this year, including that of Almodover were omitted in the selection.  The blind spots in power and the academy also tried to exclude innovative new Malayalam movies like Adimadhyandam by Sherrey.  But such corruptions of power were adequately identified and corrected by the literate delegates and film makers of Kerala with an ethical and collective consciousness of cultural resistance.

Alexander Sokurov’s Faust and Andrey Zyagintsev’s Elena were significant works from Russia.  Sokurov has established himself as the leading director from Europe and Russia after Tarkovsky.  Semih Kaplanoglu’s Turkish films were a delight to the serious film buffs, so was the French master Robert Bresson.  The football films and Arab Spring package scintillated the youth and radicals.  Thai and Philippine movies captivated mixed audiences.

The shadow policing and the police aggression in the venues were a new and nasty practice this year. Market orientation and moral policing in the festival marred its cultural and democratic spirit  this year due to the ignorance and degraded nature of power that crossed all limits of modesty.

Related posts:

1. First Malayalam Book on Cultural Politics in Kerala
2. New Malayalam Cinema and Theatre:IFFK and ITFoK 2010
3. Dreams Deferred: A Solo

(by, of and for a nil)

Related posts:

1. GOVERNOR OF THE SHIT- HOUSE A Poem by Benoy.P.J
2. Rivers Achankovil, Pampa and Manimalayar: Eco-cultrual Diversity of Pathanamthitta
3. Cultural and Ecological Legacy of Periyar Valley

Artist T K Padmini 1940 - 1969

While getting out and gazing alone

The half-naked earth before, becomes her self

The interior of her home is arranged accordingly

Outwardly she is always that Malabar lass

Temple bells and shades of the sacred grove

Provincial river and primal trees formed the garden of childhood

Internalizing the lone boat revealed by the river

To stay still in solitude on the bank

And crossing so many whirlpools to sit alone

In her room that is rowing nearby

Moonlight and the toads of darker love

Black cobras crawling on the body

Shady blue clouds and charred hilltop

Songs from the shrine and the walkways of the specter

If an isolated wench on the other side of the river

She would engulf the male to her bosom on this side

She has drawn and painted each of these restless resonances

In uncountable hues and textures

Intense yearnings are rendered into carnivals

Never adorned the breeze-damped hair tip with petals

In a suppressed sob she spread the lilacs

To moonlight with the touch of cosmic essence

As the feeling of the self dispossessed her

The enlightening who deluged her

Even when the kids, the lone kite and the moonlit path

And the trees search for her in distance.

A painting by T K Padmini

(A sojourn through the paintings of T K Padmini (1940-1969))

Translated from Malayalam by Ajay Sekher

Related posts:

1. “Wet” A Poem by N Prabhakaran
2. Paradise Flycatcher of Thommankuthu
3. Revisiting Beypore Sulthan

The Invisible Matter between the Particular and the Universal:

Dalit Identity and Indian Parliamentary Marxism

                                                     Anilkumar Payyappilly Vijayan

 Primo Levi’s writing is a sad and remarkable testimony to the ineluctable epistemological crisis one finds oneself when writing becomes an act of confronting the nuances of the particular and the universal.  His writing looks directly at the unfathomable terror of modernity encapsulated in the Nazi gas chambers.  The relentless skeptic that he is, his look refuses the indictment of a judge and the innocence of a helpless victim.  Rather, he is seen torn between his particular Jewish identity and the universal human identity.  No wonder, he was often asked whether he considered himself a Jew or a human[i]!

Every struggle and existence based on particular identification runs the risk of having to answer the same question, which delimits one’s existential choice to this or that.  Dalit discourse is no exception to this metaphysical trap.  One way to answer the question is to resort to the philosophical notion of freedom developed by the most significant philosopher of the critical theory, Theodore W. Adorno.  In the 85^th aphorism of his Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life, he writes: “Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices.”[ii]  But here if we ask the question concerning the nature of the space that is created after abjuring all the prescribed choices, we encounter all the difficulties that the negative dialecticians posit before us as they have no name for such a place.  By refusing to give ‘substance to its utopian vision’[iii], which is a fuzzy reproduction in philosophy of the traditional Jewish prohibition on naming and describing God and paradise, the Frankfurt School has always demanded a negative relationship with the mediated forms of our existence.  In our exercise of freedom, we must step out of all proscriptive choices like black, white, homosexual, Muslim, Christian, Dalit, woman, aboriginal, etc., but the formidable intellectual of the Frankfurt School will not tell us what our form will be after such stepping out!  Isn’t stepping out of all proscriptive choices one more proscriptive choice?

That will be engaging in solipsism.  At the moment, we will look for a different line of flight than the ‘melancholy science’ of Adorno offers. Marx’s On the Jewish Question[iv], where he is at his dialectical best, is a supreme example of such a flight.  The Jewish question had already been asked by Bruno Bauer, for which Marx’s essay was a rejoinder.  How could the German Jews be emancipated from the Christian state that “knows only privileges”?  Bauer locates two problems here. One, how could the Jews demand that the state should get rid of its Christian prejudice when the Jews themselves are not ready to get rid of their Jewish prejudice?  Two, if the Jews demand recognition from the Christian state, it simply means that they recognize the state in its current form, with its oppression of the general public.  If the Jews have nothing to say about the general oppression by the state, why should they clamor about the particular form of oppression that the state has in store for the Jewish people?  Again, these two questions are relevant for the current Dalit politics just as they are for other identity political strategies like queer, woman, minority politics, etc.  In fact, in Kerala Hameed Chennamangaloor has been for quite some time now Bruno Bauer’s ventriloquists’ dummy.

Bauer’s answer to the problem is formulated in the best of the enlightenment tradition. He sees this as a religious problem and finds an antidote to the problem in critical thinking.  As long as the opposition posited by Bauer is between a religious state (the Christian state that Germany was) and a religious people (the Jews), the problem too remains a religious one.  And the best way to avoid a religious problem, in Bauer’s scheme of things, is to abolish religion altogether. Once, with a critical mind, both Christians and Jews could see that their religions are “different stages in the development of the human mind” both of them could abolish their religiosity and establish human or scientific relations between one another.  In other words, both the Jewish people and the state have to be secular if political emancipation is to be achieved.  Up to then, neither the Jews nor the Christians in Germany are free.

Marx, at this point, finds Bauer’s analysis one-sided because he has failed to ask the right question: “What kind of emancipation is in question?” (emphasis in the original).  The trouble with Bauer lies in the fact that he criticizes only the “Christian state” and not the “state as such”.  And to substantiate his point Marx points out that even in a political state like the United States people are predominantly religious, a fact Bauer too agrees with.  Hence, says Marx, “existence of religion is not in contradiction to the perfection of the state.”  Marx is quite categorical about what he does and what is amiss in Bauer:

Since, however, the existence of religion is the existence of defect, the source of this defect can only be sought in the nature of the state itself.  We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness.  Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations.  We do not assert that they must overcome their religious narrowness in order to get rid of their secular restrictions, we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions.  We do not turn secular questions into religious ones.  History has long enough been merged in superstition, we now merge superstition in history.  The question of the relation of political emancipation to religion becomes for us the question of the relation of political emancipation to human emancipation.  We criticize the religious weakness of the political state by criticizing the political state in its secular form, apart from its weaknesses as regards religion.

Bauer’s cause becomes Marx’s effect and vice versa!  The political analysis of Marx that follows the above passage, which is precise, dense and beautifully polemic in a schizoid way, is one of the remarkable feasts of intellectual vigor humanity has ever seen.  It is clear from the above passage that Marx does not see Jewish question as a religious problem.  In fact, he locates the problem in the very nature of the secular state, that is, bourgeoisie nation state.  In its formal mode, a secular state is constituted in and through elements the existence of which the state denies formally.  In other words, the secular state defines “that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty” (emphasis in the original).  At one stroke the state abolishes the distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, etc.  Now comes the crucial point.  Abolishing these distinctions formally, the state allows these distinctions to “act in their way…and exert the influence of their special nature.” To sum up: “Far from abolishing these real distinctions, the state only exists on the presupposition of their existence; it feels itself to be a political state and asserts its universality only in opposition to these elements of its being” (emphasis mine).  This thoroughly Hegelian formulation could be rephrased in this way: only by OPPOSING, and NOT by REMOVING, the distinctions based on caste, religion, region, gender, education, occupation, sexual orientation, etc (the elements of state’s being) that the STATE COMES INTO BEING as a political state.  If these distinctions are not there, the state too will cease to exist, the state will wither away.  That is, as long as the state remains “as such”, these distinctions are there to stay.

Marx’s point is that in its formal structure the state creates simultaneously a political man with public life and a civic man with private life because only in this force-field between the particular (civic) and the universal (political) that universal (state) is produced.  In the political life, it seems, everyone is free and equal because there one, when it is a question of exercising one’s political right, is not constrained by one’s locality, caste, religion, region, gender, etc.  In the civic life, in contrast to the political life, one is constrained by all these elements, that is, there are innumerable restrictions based on gender, sexual orientation, locality, caste, religion, etc, which the state has practically no control over.  For example, one should not marry from within one’s gender or without one’s linguistic, caste or religious group, one should wear particular dress, or one should eat only particular food, etc.

If we look closely, it is discernable that one’s political life, in contrast to one’s civic life, is free from many constraints.  As a political being of the state, one cannot be forced to perform what one is forced to perform in his or her civic life.  At this point, Marx’s metaphor, like many of them in the Eighteenth Brumaire, is charged with poetic vigor: “The state is the intermediary between man and man’s freedom.  Just as Christ is the intermediary to whom man transfers the burden of all his divinity, all his religious constraint, so the state is the intermediary to whom man transfers all his non-divinity and all his human unconstraint” (emphasis in the original).  That is, both Christ (in the realm of spirituality) and the state (in the realm of materiality) are man’s projections. Both are the results of man’s projection of qualities onto an external body, which, if there was no projection, could be realized by man himself or herself.  This projection ensures that we can be different from what is projected.

God, to redeem humanity of its sin, has taken the form of man and sacrificed his life on the cross.  Such a conception of Jesus Christ always already makes it impossible that I could be Christ-like.  The cross, the religious constraint, the ethical-moral constraint, which every individual has to carry is already transferred onto the shoulder of Christ.  Now that he has carried it and redeemed humanity of its sin, I, as a Christian, can make all those hypocritical compromises which Christ would never have done.  I, rather than showing my other cheek to the aggressor, would engage in Crusade.  I would throw stones at people whom I deem unworthy. Now if someone questions me about my hypocritical life as a follower of Christ, I can easily tell her or him: “Well, I am just human. Such divine things as Christ has done could only be performed by divine beings.  Don’t expect that stuff from me.”

The same happens when man transfers his or her human freedom (human unconstraint) to the intermediary known as the state.  Man has the potential to break all the shackles that restrain him or her in the civic life and thus be completely free.  Instead, what he or she does is to transform this potential onto the state.  As a corollary, the state becomes free from the limits set by religion, gender, sexual orientation caste, region, etc.  And as a political being in the political state, that is, as a citizen, man becomes free from the civic restrictions.  It is precisely here man confronts a big problem.  The problem precisely is that as a political being, as a citizen of the state, I feel that my life is inauthentic.  And what I take to be my authentic life is lived out as an individual in the civil society.  In other words, when I carry the burdens imposed upon me by the civil society that I think I am an authentic being.  While the state is free, I am happy to be authentic and unfree.

Within this problematic, the question raised against Levi becomes crucial.  The question that Levi faced is not whether he considered himself a political citizen or a civic individual but rather whether he considered himself a Jew or human.  The choice is between his civic identity and a form of identity known as human, which we have no idea of.  What do we mean by human within the duality of political citizen and civic individual created by the bourgeois nation state?  Here we locate the central problem of the Marxian thought, the problem of antagonism or contradiction.  It is the same human that becomes a civic individual and a political citizen.  S/he is at the same time the particular and the universal.  Within the constellation of the nation-state, human simultaneously is and is not.  If you are a Dalit or Jew, you are an imperfect, and sometimes monstrous, human, because you have given expression to a particular (imperfect) form of humanity, that is, the Dalit or Jewish form.  If you transcend your Dalit or Jewish identity and become a political citizen, you are still an imperfect human because as a political citizen you have given up your religious or spiritual essence, the vital life experience that, we think, makes us human.

Human is produced as a perfect ideal, albeit impossible, in this force-field between the particular and the universal. I think it is appropriate to bring in here an observation made by Konrad Lorenz: we ourselves are the missing linking between man and animal[v].  That is, within the formal closure ensured by the symbolic structure we can never be truly human.  One is human only insofar as he or she is in not constrained by any symbolic closure, which is tantamount to saying that one is human only when one is not conscious that one is human.  In that sense, if we were to believe our projection of animal life as instinctual, we must admit that animals are truly human than humans!

So our principle answer to the Indian liberal parliamentary Marxists’ intolerance toward identity politics is that their intolerance is grounded on a very poor understanding of the Marxian theoretical corpus.  If you think that you can overcome people’s religious narrowness within the liberal parliamentary set up by criticizing their religious narrowness, you are repeating Bruno Bauer in contemporary times.  Who are you trying to kid?    The clamors for particular demands are here to stay as long as Indian state is there and as long as the Marxists are caught up in the rituals of flexing their muscles against American imperialism and blah blah in true Hedgewar patriotic style.  The politics of present demands a more visionary approach than the narrow-mindedness of Indian parliamentary Marxists can offer.

So far the so-called and self-styled Indian Marxists have been teaching us Dalits the Brahminic Vedas in the language and jargon of Marxism, now want to teach them Marxism in a reverse-paternalistic fashion: read a little bit of Marx and Hegel before dishing out advice.

Notes

Related posts:

1. Affirming Life in Colours: Art as Struggle
2. Royalists Disguised as Civil Society: Padmanabha Temple Disclosure — Exclusive Essay by J Reghu
3. Egalitarianism – A Poem by Sahodaran Ayyappan

With the young artists of Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha. Sept. 23, 2011

‘Varnasala’ is forum for art at Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha.  It is a rare platform for art and culture that is exclusively committed to the creative development of the young students.  They conduct art workshops and exhibitions on a regular basis.  My friend Dr P B Sanish, Assistant Professor of Sanskrit; who is currently leading the forum, invited me to inaugurate the activities for the academic year 2011-12.

On contemporary art and culture. Seated from left: Dr Sanish, Res. Principal, Prof. Krishnan Namputhiri

They organized a day long workshop cum exhibition for the young creative minds of the college.  Students displayed their works.  There were interesting drawings and Portraits on show.  I was given the honor of inaugurating the event in the presence of the principal and other dignitaries on the morning of 23rd September 2011.

On the ethics and politics of art and the importance of art education

I talked about the importance of art in the contemporary society and opened the event by drawing a picture entitled “Christ-buddha” which is a combination of the images of these two historical personalities who signify ethics and change in a radical and liberating way.

Inaugurating Varnasala by drawing a picture "Christ-buddha"

In the after noon we had an engaging and active session of interaction regarding art, art education and the politics and ethics of art in a complex and changing world with the illuminating young minds.  I found the students incredibly creative and active and capable of producing works of meaningful art in the future.  I am grateful to them as I learn a lot from them.I also got a chance to briefly meet my old and new friends in the college like Fr Vincent, Dr Beena, Dr Rani, Artist Chris…  Let me thank the college and the organizers for inviting me to this significant creative event. I am sure that the interest and investment in culture would produce fruits in the future.

Related posts:

1. Affirming Life in Colours: Art as Struggle
2. Portraits of the Artist as a Model
3. New Malayalam Cinema and Theatre:IFFK and ITFoK 2010

Spectral Speech from Below: 

The Subversive Short Fiction of C Ayyappan

C Ayyappan (1949–2011) is an outstanding voice in the contemporary short fiction in Malayalam.  He is a critical insider who radically sabotaged the aesthetic equilibrium and the nostalgic narratives in Malayalam that reiterated the elitist worldview  with a few dexterous strokes of his pen.  He has literally split the genre into fragments through his radical intervention in the story telling tradition of his language and culture.  His short fiction is marked by a keen sense of cultural reality, social inequality and caste.  The history and present of dalit life struggles for survival and human dignity are sensitively represented by his fiction in subtle and strategically political ways.  The subversive and critical power of his fictional narration is ingenious and unprecedented in Malayalam.  Social criticism, sarcasm, satire, irony, pathos and black humor make his texts complex, polyphonic and intricately nuanced in terms of plural signification.

"C Ayyappan" Oil Pastel on Paper, 20*25cm, 2011 by ajay sekher

His short stories are imaginative retelling of the lived experiences in the margins of Kerala society.  Through a range of narrative techniques and imaginative tropes he has illuminated the readers about the invisible realities and often ignored vital issues at the bottom of things in Kerala.  His works have prompted us to revisit and rethink the omissions, silences and lacunae of Kerala modernity and the lasting legacy of Kerala renaissance.  He has enlightened us about our sanctioned ignorance and critical myopias regarding the fundamental issues of human rights and survival within Kerala. C Ayyappan was a Professor of Malayalam in Govt Colleges in Kerala.  Prof. C Ayyappan’s major anthologies of short fiction include; Uchayurakathile Swapnangal (1986), Jnandukal (2003) and C Ayyappante Kathakal (2008).

His stories like “Spectral Speech,” “Madness” (translated into English by Prof. V C Harris) and “Niravathukayyani” are precarious fictional articulations of subaltern speech in an increasingly hegemonic world.  Works  like”Smarakam” has allegorically represented the crisis of Gandhian Nationalism and the emergence of new radical alternatives from below.  His short fiction is also noted for its remarkable visual and cinematic potentials that conjure up specters, demons and invisible spirits that speak about the violence of the past and becomes ethical agents in the present.  In stories like “Elumpan Kochathan” resembling phenomenal fiction authors like Toni Morrison he has revitalized the memories of slavery and provided critical perspectives on hegemonic elite culture in the limited canvas of  his short fiction.  In this respect he could be situated in the resistance legacy of grass root level dalit critique in Kerala initiated by early reformers and authors like Poykayil Appachan in the early 20^th century.

According to mainstream critics he has narrativized the schisms and fissures in the modernist tradition of narration that evaded questions of caste and gender in Malayalam and reinvigorated the genre through a serious and engaging exchange that refocused the ethical consciousness of creative writing on the key and burning issues of the social milieu, its culture and history. He is also seen as the most vibrant and creative voice within the dalit literary tradition of Malayalam.  His short fiction offers unlimited possibilities for critical, contextual and textual interpretations and inter semiotic translations in various languages, media and contexts.  His body of work though slight in volume is a real challenge to translation with its specific cultural complexities and minor sub cultural differences.  His demise amidst obliteration and erasure that are often used against authors who raise the caste issue in a hegemonic society is an irretrievable loss to the literary culture and the cultural politics of dissent and difference in Kerala today.  Let me pay my homage to this doyen of Malayalam letters and politics through my translation of his shortest short story “Smarakam.”

The Memorial

Short Story by C Ayyappan titled “Smarakam” translated from Malayalam by Ajay Sekher

We could not control our laughter and ire on remembering that incident even today.  It was one of those political frauds that are often staged in our country.  The Gandhi statue at our junction where the three roads met was the central cause of that fraud.   In reality it was not the statue but a group of crows that actually caused the problem.  The crows without any sense of nationalism ‘bombarded’ the bald head of Gandhiji, that is, they defecated on his very head!   This is the problem proper. 

We split into two opposing factions on this issue.  The first faction said; a new agitation must be launched immediately to appoint one to protect the head of the Father of the Nation from crow shit.  According to the second faction the Gandhi statue must be pulled down, crushed to fine powder and must be scattered in the holy rivers.  The idol must be in our minds.  The crows will not shit in the mind, will they?

While we were debating over this a few youth who came from the east carrying the sun confronted us.  We laughed aloud at their talk.    Some of us said: “Here come the real politicians!”  Do you know what absurdity they said to woo both factions?  I will tell you.  They delivered it like this:

The Gandhi statue must be allowed to stand like this for one more century.  The dropping crows must not be chased away as well.  The past too must be allowed to have its revenge.  As we know the crows are the souls of the dead.

(Translated by Ajay Sekher from C Ayyappante Kathakal.  Kotttayam: Penguin & Manorama, 2008. 116)

Related posts:

1. GOVERNOR OF THE SHIT- HOUSE A Poem by Benoy.P.J
2. The Writing Of The Excluded: Dalit Writing And Malayalam
3. Spinal Cord: Malayalam Theater is Live and Kicking Abroad!

It is an artistic homage to M F Husain the legendary creative genius of India and the world.  This immortal artist has been one of my greatest inspirations since childhood.  It is a public shame on every Indian that Husain died abroad under the threat of cultural nationalism in his homeland.  It is my desperate way of getting out of that collective shame and cunning amnesia through presenting my own visual imagery that critiques hegemonic forms of representation and representational violence in the contexts of India and Kerala.

Hon. Justice K Sukumaran inaugurating the solo: To Husain by Ajay Sekher, Kalarickal Art Gallery, Panampally Nagar, Kochi. 20 Aug. 2011, 10pm. Photo: Shanil Antony

My first solo exhibition of painting at Durbar Hall Art Center, Kochi from May 9 to 15, 2010 was titled “Dreams Deferred” after Langston Hughes’ illuminating poem that exploded the American Dream into a nightmare as Malcolm X would say. I focused on key political questions of marginality, exclusion and representational violence in Kerala.  Continuing the themes of the politics of visual representation and countering the hegemony of the dominant visual idiom through visual subversion and allegory of images “To Husain” also presents some old and some new works that probe the realities of the visible and the less visible in a mediated world of illusions, simulations and repressions.

Justifying culture: Justice K Sukumaran in the solo: To Husain

A scathing critique of cultural nationalism and elitism in the contexts of India and Kerala are prominent in the works on show.  The elitist and traditionalist signs and icons associated with the high culture in our socio cultural and historical contexts are under severe visual critique and revaluation in the current works.  The works also explore allegorical and surreal ways of engaging with the visual cultures and contexts. The meta narratives and hegemonic semiotics of high Brahmanical culture  are under specific critical visual explication.

The works in general fall back to the heterodox and radical traditions in India as epitomized in contemporary times by the works of Husain himself as they threatened the pro fascist brigades who mutilated works of art in public and humilated the people of this great country that has a history of art dating back to Indus valley, Ajanta and Sravanabelgola. The simple visual statement is that art in India is less Hindu and  more Mlecha or Heena in Brahmanical terms.  The Sramana and Sufi traditions of art and culture are also hinted in the visual exposition.

From left: Job Kalarickal Art Gallery, Mr K G K Pillai, Ajay Sekher, Justice Sukumaran...

The cultural nationalist propaganda against freedom of speech and creative expression are also addressed and refuted by the defiant and daring bold imagery of some works in the solo. Some of the works also elaborately use imagery drawn from the flora and fauna of Kerala.  A series of portraits focus on radical social reformers who led the people’s resistance movements against hegemony and cultural subordination in India and Kerala.Most of the works are in Acrylic on canvas.  The possibilities of hybrid or mixed media are also explored in some small works.  At least 15 paintings and drawings are on display in the small ground floor at Kalarickal Art Gallery, Panampally Nagar, Kochi from August 20 to 27, 2011.  The solo is inaugurated by Justice K Sukumaran, Former Judge of Kerala High Court on the 20th at 10am.  The gallery would be open from 9am to 7pm throughout.  All who are interested in art and the politics of culture are welcome…

Jus. Sukumaran addressing the gathering

 Media Responses

Article in Deccan Chronicle by Ram Ramaswamy

Report in Manorama

in Mathrubhumi

Related posts:

1. Dreams Deferred: A Solo
2. Profanations: Art Show with a Difference
3. Varnasala: Youth for Art and Culture

Prof Yogendra Yadav, Senior Fellow, CSDS, New Delhi, delivering the Ayyankali Memmorial Lecture 2011 at S S University, Kalady. 29 July 2011

While speaking on social inequality in India in an international conference at Kochi, Prof Gopal Guru of JNU recently said that “if you speak about social justice you are marked in Delhi.”  The influential elite sections talk about mere ‘equality’ on a day to day basis in the capital according to him.  The whole debate of equality of opportunity that formed one of the ethical foundations of social inclusive programs like reservation in our country has been hijacked and rendered meaningless by the historically privileged sections in the capital who monopolize the power centers and high offices throughout the country.  From the anti Mandal riots to AIIMS anti reservation agitations by ‘Youth for Equality’ the people of India have witnessed this caste Hindu conspiracy and sabotage of representation and democracy for a few decades now.  Strong opposition and hidden conspiracies are growing in all sectors of state power, education and public service against the inclusive policies of the state ensured by the constitution.

The School of Renaissance Studies at S S University, Kalady invited Prof Yogendra Yadav of CSDS, New Delhi for the Ayyankali Memmorial Lecture 2011 on the 29th of July and the topic was “Reorienting Reservation.”  Prof T M Yesudasan who chaired the event contextualized Ayyankali in the greater struggles of the people for equal human rights and dignity in a society marred by caste for thousands of years.  He defended the use of force and violence by Ayyankali as “creative use of violence” for the emancipation of the people.  He also linked the debate to the current land struggles in Chengara and similar places in Kerala.  It is well perceived that the strategic political interventions of this immortal dalit leader from Kerala are self defensive rather than counter violence or creative violence as such.  The purpose of self defense and the fundamental human right for life render it even morally correct and politically imperative.

For making reservations more inclusive in terms of gender and class

Prof Yogendra Yadav began by explaining the ethics and rationale of affirmative action and expressed his solidarity with the basic humane rationale of inclusion and representation in a constitutional democracy like India.  He also explained the paradigms of equal opportunity and the metaphysics of merit.  But he emphasized the importance of making the whole system more inclusive in terms of gender and class along with caste.  As an expert in North Indian society and polity he appealed for reorienting the measures and procedures of the implementation of reservation in order to distribute social justice in a more egalitarian way.  His comparison of Indian model with the U S model and the issue of black people proved effective.  The U S has managed to give some kind of nominal representation to the African Americans only after the civil rights struggles and almost 200 years of affirmative action.  Just 50 years of reservations in India is grossly insufficient in ensuring the just and sustainable inclusion of the people at the social bottom.

Critiquing the "National Media" for gross exclusion

There are contested points in his arguments for the omission of creamy layers and certain sections of OBCs from reservations.  His argument against proportionate inclusion also seems to be insufficient.  It is a well recognized reality in India that the dalit bahujans who are the beneficiaries of inclusion gain voice and agency for speaking for the rights of their respective social sections and communities in and through the affirmative process.  If these educated and vocal sections are severed just after a generation there would not be any assertion and articulation for the just defense and sustenance of the inclusive policies that are being sabotaged day in and out by the monopoly groups in high bureaucracy.  It would become a prerogative and charity of the elite caste Hindu sections in high office who consider affirmative action as their munificence and sacrifice of ‘merit’.  More than this it is also a cunning injection of the economic criterion in the social justice policy.

On the ethics and politics of representation

Constitutionally reservation is for social and educational backwardness and not for economic depravity.  The simple logic is that reservation is not an economic uplift program in India where inequality was based on caste and gender rather than class for thousands of years.  There are plenty of other economic uplift programs run by the state on public funds.  The SC/STs and OBCs together called the dalit bahujans were considered as untouchables irrespective of their class and gender positions.  Marginalization and social exclusion in India was fundamentally based on caste for centuries.   Even if you make a faithful survey in the 21^st century the reality would be evident that the caste Hindus hold larger proportion of land and other capitals in comparison to the larger chunk of the population comprising of dalit bahujans and minorities.

Prof Yogendra’s rejection of proportionate reservation is also inadequate in closer view.  According to him inclusion as per population percentage of the social group would fix your identity to birth; and human agency, will, labor and desire are discarded in such a perspective.  It is considerably true that the autonomy and free will of the individual are less accommodated in this method but it is again empirically evident that the individual citizen in our country experience full freedom in choosing reservation or to reject it as her personal choice.  The argument of fixity of identity does not stand valid on this basic premise of personal choice in opting quota.  It is also important to note at this juncture that these arguments of economic reservation and the argument against proportionate inclusion are traditionally raised by the elite advantaged caste Hindu or Savarna sections of the society against the very policy and practice of affirmative action in India and some of them have moved the supreme court with these anti people and anti democratic arguments.

Any way it is highly significant that some sections of the academic community in Kerala are discussing important issues related to social policy, equity and justice that are directly related to the lives of the people and democracy in our society.  As Prof Yogendra himself observed such a memorial lecture in the name of a dalit social leader is still an impossibility in the North Indian Sanskrit universities. His acknowledgement of the cultural critical tradition in India epitomized by Phule, Narayana Guru and Ambedkar also seems significant. His critique of the so called self fashioned National Media is timely and apt.  The imitators of American capitalist models must ensure social diversity and publicize their social profile, especially the private owned media.  His collaborative works with Satish Deshpande and other scholars during the anti Mandal riots on the representative inclusion of the National Media are still valid and futuristic.  Dalits were literally absent in the so called National Media during the early 1990s according to their empirical survey and OBCs were less than five percent.  These are some of the key issues of social exclusion and inequality that civil society and the state have to address today and tomorrow.

Prof Yogendra Yadav’s Response:

Dear Ajay Sekher,
Thanks for such a careful and meticulous comment on my lecture. I am grateful to you for appreciating some of the nuances of the lecture. I can see that you and I may have a difference of opinion on two matters: the treatment of creamy layer and the principle of creamy layer. But I would like you to fully appreciate what I propose in these two respects: I am not proposing an exclusion of the ‘creamy layer’ but only putting them as last beneficiaries in their respective categories. On proportionate representation, I do not oppose the fact of SC, ST reservations in proportion to their share in population. I am opposed to the idea (proposed by some reservation enthusiasts) that the entire pool of edcuation and jobs should be divided for each caste/community in proportion to their share in population.
May I request you to please take a look at my article Rethinking Social Justice (am requesting Ashish to send this to you)  for a detailed understanding of my position. Hope this would sharpen your critique even further.
Gratefully yours,
Yogendra Yadav,
Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054 India
Office Phone: 23981012 (telefax Lokniti, CSDS), 23942199 (PBX, CSDS)

Related posts:

1. Caste, Religion and Culture: International Colloquium in Kochi
2. “The Memorial” Short Story by C Ayyappan – Homage to the master of Malayalam short fiction
3. A Song of Poykayil Appachan