Appropriation of cultural heroes or icons in Karnataka has neither been methodic nor large-hearted. They have been mere symbolic gestures, not serving any purpose.
Eswarappa’s efforts to raise a political brigade in the name of a great fighter and leader from North Karnataka — Sangolli Rayanna — seems to be one such example.
True, Rayanna deserves to be that. But extend the list to include people from other fields also like musicians Kumar Gandharva, Savai Gandharva, Bhimsen Joshi, Mallikarjun Mansoor, soldiers like Gen. Sannamallappa Mallappa, Gen. S M Shrinagesh, Gen. G G Bewoor and jurist P B Gajendragadkar. These names and fields are taken at random.
Although appropriation of cultural icons is both a good and a bad idea, in ethical terms it means taking over and treating them as your own. This is better called misappropriation.
In a few regions of India, cultural appropriation has acted as a double-edged instrument. On one hand, it has strengthened the large ethnic group to follow the British rulers in education, bureaucracy and political concepts. On the other hand, the spirit of resistance to domination (stoking the flame of national freedom), literature and even the local habits of food and clothing emerged. In Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Maharashtra, one could easily identify these forces and counter forces.
In Karnataka, developments have been slightly different. First of all, it was not just one state or one system politically or economically. It became an integrated, enlarged single state on linguistic basis in 1956. Culturally, it was plural. Religion and community identities were strong and diverse. Territorial subdivisions were, and even now are, remarkably strong and significant. On the whole, the ‘Kannadiga’ was an embryonic concept not yet delivered.
Even after 60 years of existence, Karnataka, either as a cultural identity or a political unit, has not attained the measure of Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra. Sub-ethnic groups are still conscious of being neglected, and now and then voice their grievances. Their main grouse is the dominance of the Bengaluru-Mysuru belt.
The integrated parts of the state like Hyderabad-Karnataka, Mumbai-Karnataka and Mangaluru have produced excellent achievers in the fields of literature, business, arts, banking and military. But after integration, their political and cultural stalwarts have all but receded from public memory. Actor Rajkumar, poet Kuvempu and ruler Kempegowda are the most significant names which are treated as synonymous with Karnataka.
It appears as though people with great talent are to be found only in the Bengaluru-Mysuru belt. This often creates a feeling in the integrated parts of the state that they are a subsidiary and not taken seriously. The Nanjundappa Committee Report validates to an extent the complaint that development has eluded these regions. Their famines and river-water disputes, education, health and transport inadequacies are not heard or met with full and proper care in the Vidhana Soudha.
As a reaction, perhaps, efforts are made to assuage the feelings of the people of North Karnataka, Hampi Utsav, Kittur Utsav, a legislative session in Belagavi, one or two new universities in that region are the visible symbols of its importance.
However, if there is to be a proper effort towards appropriation, several leaders and institutions can be identified and their achievements and contributions showcased for the benefit of the people of both Karnataka and the nation. Their names may be appropriated by Karnataka even as Bengal has appropriated Tagore, Satyajit Ray, Ravi Shankar, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, J C Bose and others. Not a narrow-minded but a broad-minded selection of icons for appropriation for the entire state entity is called for.
(The writer is a member of the Karnataka State Higher Education Council and a former professor and Chair, Political Science Department, Bangalore University)