Renowned sociologist and political psychologist, Ashis Nandy has had a very long relationship with Karnataka and Kannada. As he recalls, his earliest connection with Karnataka was through the Indian English writer, the late Raja Rao. His close friendships with many eminent minds of the State has not only made him an integral part of the Kannada landscape, but the influential and original thinker that he is, many of his works have been translated into Kannada as well. In fact, after Ram Manohar Lohia, Ashis Nandy is perhaps the most significant influence on the intellectual climate of the state. In Bangalore for a memorial lecture on architect R.L. Kumar, Ashis Nandy spoke of his connection with Karnataka, and the recent political developments.
Can you remember your earliest connection with Karnataka?
Intellectually, my first connection with Karnataka probably began in the 1970s. I went to attend the screening of a film by Girish Kasaravalli. In it, members of Corianne Kumar’s CIEDS played some role, particularly George Kutty, later the editor of Deep Focus and R.L. Kumar, now remembered as a vernacular architect. It was a lovely experience, and the discussions were good. I found a very live, intellectual culture and a healthy intellectual community. This was not the Bangalore I had encountered in the past, it had then looked a sleepy town, a pensioner’s paradise, though possibly also the science capital of India. This was a different Bangalore, throbbing with new artistic ideas and cultural impulses and this was exactly what was happening in other parts of the country as well. Karnataka was responding to all that was happening in other parts of the country.
The other part of the story is that in the post-Emergency period, there was a massive change in media, especially print media. There was a flood of news magazines, newspapers and journals. This explosion gave me exposure to Karnataka. I was introduced to a whole lot of writers, filmmakers, musicians….
Around this time I met U.R. Ananthamurthy in Delhi. He had come to the India International Centre for a conference. My friends who knew him earlier had told me about him and I had also read him. I was very impressed by the man. We gradually became friends, and I still think that has been one of the most fortunate encounters in life. I enjoyed his company and interacting with a writer and thinker like him was itself life enhancing.
You interacted with some of the best minds of Karnataka – Ananthamurthy, K.V. Subbanna, P. Lankesh, D.R. Nagaraj. How did they impact you?
My intellectual life has been deeply enriched by Ananthamurthy and D.R. Nagaraj. As for Subbanna, I had read about Ninasam and Heggodu, but going there was an eye opener. I met some of the most exciting people at Heggodu, and some of them went on to become good friends. But I cannot talk of my encounter with Karnataka without mentioning Girish Karnad, Murari Ballal who made Udupi a favourite annual destination for me for a while. And that remarkable community called Bangalore Tamils. They have pluralised the intellectual culture in Karnataka and given it a more plural base. Continued from Page 1
I want to recall my meeting with M.N. Srinivas at Ninasam. I knew him in Delhi, as a world famous sociologist at Delhi University; we also had many common friends and sometimes ran into each other. But in Ninasam he was a different person altogether. That year the theme of the culture course was “Gods and Goddesses of India”. M.N. Srinivas made his presentation and Subbanna asked me to speak next. Srinivas spoke at length about his experiences. During my response, I commented that of all his numerous books, I found Remembered Village the most exciting, even sociologically. He was very disturbed, he didn’t think much of that work because he had written it from memory. He certainly valued his other books more. I said that in this book everything was on a human scale – the characters, the narrative and the author. In his other books people represented impersonal categories, like social roles and status hierarchies. This book invoked a different form of empiricism and I place that empiricism higher than in other forms. The intuitive and imaginative abilities of Srinivas were much evident in this work, and his sociology was filtered through his own self and his memories, and simultaneously became a personal statement. I was not underestimating his work, but recognising that he was confronting his own self, and not merely approaching his questions through his data. Ananthamurthy, who was present there supported me, adding to Srinivas’ dismay.
The next day, we went to see Jog Falls – Srinivas and me. All through the way and back, we had an animated conversation. My relationship with him changed dramatically after that. Later, Srinivas and I even decided to do a project together. We wanted to ask the government to allow us to use the main Jewish Synagogue in Cochin for artistic and literary dialogues. Our plan was near ready, but he passed away suddenly. By that time, he had become my other entry point to the Kannada world.
What about Subbanna?
I have enormous respect for Subbanna. I used to enjoy his company and his unique initiatives in theatre, but I was handicapped by my illiteracy in Kannada. The English translation of some of his works came much later. The Culture Course was associated with a whole range of activities that cut across communities, cultures, and languages. I was astounded that many young participants in the culture course could confidently talk about Akiro Kurosawa, Satyajit Ray and Ritwik Ghatak confidently and so could many local residents of Heggodu. I have never come across something like that in any other part of the world. My liking for D.R. Nagaraj was immediate. I heard of him when he was at Shimla in the Indian Institute of Advanced Study from D.L. Sheth and Yogendra Yadav. His intellectual daring and self confidence was stunning. I was then the reluctant director of CSDS and we immediately tried to bring him to the centre. The Centre was going through a bad time with hardly any funding, but, despite that, we offered him a fellowship right away. Our fondness was mutual, till his death we remained in very close touch. Because of him my relationship with Heggodu became even stronger. I also met Lankesh through D.R. Nagaraj.
What did you think of Lankesh?
Lankesh was quick-witted and had a wry sense of humour. He had very spicy and sometimes nasty comments to make about Ananthamurthy. Yet, despite all their differences with each other, I had the feeling that Lankesh and Ananthamurthy were not complete without each other. To understand Ananthamurthy we had to understand Lankesh and vice-versa. This phenomenon is not uncommon in the Indian puranas . Take for instance, Karna and Arjuna, and Rama and Ravana… there is certain complementarity in all these relationships. And both sides recognise it even when they are opposed to each other. This idea first came to me when I was doing a study in Kochi. I found that many communities were hostile to the others in Kochi, but they could not define themselves without the other. That’s what made their cosmopolitanism different; according to me it is an epic culture. I myself had seen such relationships. They can celebrate the radical differences between them and do not expect others to be compatible. That is, they celebrate the otherness of the other. I now call it silk route cosmopolitanism.
(Ashis Nandy had narrated a story he had heard from a Kannada friend, a Yakshagana version of the Ramayana at the RL Kumar memorial lecture he delivered at Bangalore, the previous day of our meeting. In that story, being the only Brahmana in the region, Ravana comes to perform the puja of the sethu which has actually been built to wage a war against him. I remind him of that story…)
That’s the kind of enmity I believe in! That story is also Karnataka’s contribution to my intellectual life.
What makes the Ninasam model work?
There is an organic collectivity in Ninasam. Maybe that has something to it; I do not want to theorise about it. Also, the self-confidence and scholarship of Subbanna and the intellectual width of Ananthamurthy has perfected it. Even after both of them have passed away, Akshara remains fully alive to the situation. He is trying to expand and deepen the intellectual circle around Ninasam. I was worried that it would take another form; it has not.
The electorate of this country have given two very different kind of verdicts in Modi and Kejriwal. How do we read it?
As far as the policies go nothing fundamental has changed. Earlier we would do something like China, follow neo-liberal policies but talk socialism. The BJP has a constituency and a fanatic following but to expect the fury of the 19th century European nationalism in India is an impossible dream. Our nationality in practice is a confederation of communities. The BJP is talking the language of inclusive ideology at the top but its lower echelons, people like Sakshi Maharaj and Yogi Adityanath are speaking a different language. When an election victory comes as a cyclonic wave, in India, it usually involves voting against something. That is what has happened in the case of BJP and AAP. The BJP vote share is actually 31 per cent and the negative votes have given AAP its landslide. I have my sympathies for them, but Kejriwal and his sidekicks don’t allow it to go too far. Like BJP, AAP is also becoming a one-man party. Of course, he is very different from Narendra Modi and they have very different constituencies. That is also something I like about Kejriwal.
What about these categories of Right and Left? How watertight are they and are they useful at all?
They are increasingly useless. Within the BJP itself, there are so many groups. There is the BJP trade unions, there is the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch and the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh. They cannot be called a party of the conventional Right. Within the Congress too you can see such divisions. National parties in all large democracies are plural entities. They have to learn to host diverse ideological strains. The days of purity and ideological untouchability are past.
In the past you had said that the most venomous attacks by Hindu groups are on the Hindus. Do you feel the same even now?
It is still the same. I made the comment not in the context of physical attacks of women or Dalits or suicide of farmers, but in the context of Hindu nationalist attacks on Hindus as an undisciplined, demasculinized, disorganised, non-martial community that must be engineered and radically changed to meet the demands of our time. Read Vinayak Savarkar on this subject. I differ from this view radically. I consider it a colonial view and a dangerous form of self hatred.
Gandhi and Gandhianism seem to be the stuff of films. Gandhi has become a punching bag.
Gandhi, many now think, is not as valuable as he was 40 years ago. But whether we like it or not, Gandhi has become a morality tale, a purana . People are still attracted to him. In the heart of their hearts, they wish there was an ethical exemplar like Gandhi amidst us. He may not have rockstar popularity like some politicians sometimes seem to have, but his presence in our public life is enormous. When a news magazine a few years ago conducted a survey on the most popular Indian of our time, about 70 per cent of the people voted for Gandhi. Others were far behind.
