On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Ramabhadra Dokka wrote: > > naannaki kooDaa ayidOvElu lEkanE > > meeru guMDu sunnalu cuTTina prOgresu reporTu > > meeda > > yeppuDoo vEli mudra veyya lEdu. > > > > pucca puvvu laaMTi vennela rOjuna kooDaa > > aa vElu lEkanE - > > amma gOru muddalu tinipiMca lEdu. > > > > nEnu tella mukhaM vEsinappuDellaa > > meeradEdO amruta bhaasha lO tiTTEvaaru. > > naakannaM tappa amrutaM sayiMcadu. > > > > nijaM ceppaMDi > > paMcamu DaMTE ayidO vElu lEnivaaDanEnaa > > arthaM? > > > > maa muttata EkalavyuDu ceppaDu. > > 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. This kind of argument is heard again and again in our society these days. When a group of people were disadvantaged for centuries, just when they find words to express their resentment we say that that is not the right way to change the society! I personally find the above lines of Satish Cander very poetic: specially the expressions that his father could not put down his vEli mudra and that his mother could not feed him the gOru muddalu. > > 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. > Wasn't it hereditary? Isn't the Varna Vyavastha hereditary? Weren't the discriminations hereditary? Haven't they been practiced and passed down from generation to generation? To me the author is not saying that the loss of the finger is hereditary; What he is saying is that generations of privileged people have oppressed generations of his people. > 3. The poet failed to portray the real attitude of the daLit section. We all > know that they are not less than anybody and it should be clearly imbibed > in all sections of the society and ONLY then can the situation change. > You are absolutely right in that they are not less able than others. The point of Ekalavya's story is that even when they were as good or better, they were suppressed by devious practices of the privileged class. Regards, Sitaramayya Ari.