Re: Transformation ?? OR mis-representation -- Re : satIsh cander's pancama vEdam...

Chandrasekhararao Kanneganti (chandra@flash.net)
Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:34:31 -0800


Ramabhadra Dokka wrote:
----- x ----- cut ----- x -----
> 
> 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.

As I see it, I don't think the poet is saying that something is MISSING in 
the 'pancama ' section, but they are ROBBED / DEPRIVED of the essential 
things like education by the upper classes. He took the symbol of Ekalavya to 
not only show that they are capable of beating the upper class guys but also 
to show how they were CHEATED. 
Why doesn't he gloss it over, forget that he is a panchama and say that they 
are equal to others? Being born in that section should have taught him 
something which we can't understand.
> 
> 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.
> Why? Doesn't it make sense when they are like this because of the way they 
have been treated since ages?
 
> 
> >        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 ??

What did he try to convey here? aanaaTi EkalavyuDi baadhaa, eenaaTi 
ammabootulu tinE vaaLLa baadhaa, dEvuDi koDukulamani cheppukuni aadhipatyam 
chelaayinchaalanukunE vaaLLa meeda O visuroo...
> 
> >     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.
> Somehow it seems to be clear to me. Ekalavya, though deceived for 
political gains, was made a symbol of a perfect sishya in mahaabhaaratam. The 
poet tried to show what Ekalavya really symbolizes. The play with word 
panchama, unaccounted fifth finger and equating the Ekalavyaa's finger with 
their deprivation makes this poem a good one, if not a great one.

Actually, you are right. This isn't a transformation but misrepresentation. 
In bhaaratam, that is.
  
> regards..
> 
> - Ram (Ramabhadra Dokka from sdokka@st6000.sct.edu)

regards,
Chandrasekhararao Kanneganti