Brahminical symbols in lit fest unacceptable
A celebratory fair of Kannada has begun in Dharwad. That quaint city itself is home to many writers. Legend has it that if you throw a stone in Dharwad, it will go and land in some writer's house for sure. This goes to indicate every household in Dharwad has some writer or a poet or a lover of literature who would have dabbled with some other form of literature. Hence, this year's Akhila Bharathi Kannada Sahitya Sammelana has gained significance for many reasons.
Unfortunately though, the Sammelana is in news in the recent times for wrong reasons. Women folk and literary enthusiasts have questioned some of the primary events that lead to the Sammelana such as auspicious water pots being carried by married women to the venue of the event in a procession to welcome the guests, referred to as 'Poorna Kumbha Svagata’. Literature aims at upliftment and empowerment of every person through knowledge. Sumangali, a word referred to only married women, itself is laden with some sort of humiliation tone since it associates her right to be part of something with her husband's existence. Those who have lost their husband, are often blamed for the status that they have had no control over. Kannada literature has always been raising voice and concerns against such exploitation of women through traditions.
Known to be the first novel of Kannada, ‘Indirabai’ was about the widow issue. No other language literature has ever spoken against such ill practices surrounding widows as much as Kannada has done. Organisers of Kannada Sahitya Sammelan should have known what message Poorna Kumbha procession would send to the people of the state. After this issue stirred a huge controversy, the organisers gave a rather fleeting reply that anybody could participate in the poorna kumbha procession, and didn’t assure to remove this from the list. The very act of Poorna Kumbha itself is adhering to the celebration of patriarchy, by upholding this. This has no literary, traditional or cultural background instead of the fact that this is a deeply brahmincal practice, kept alive by the priestly class. Many objections have been raised in the past against maintaining and incorporating brahminical symbols into literary festivals.
Kannada Sahitya Parishat belongs to all Kannadigas. Anybody with any cultural background, whether agnostic or believers, can come and participate. Their single goal would be to work for the strengthening and upholding of Kannada language and its heritage to create better work for the future. The core of this is Kannada identity, and Kannada symbols. Kannada Sahitya Parishat owes it to people of celebrating Kannada through various people, since the government also generously contributes to this cause as this is tied to language. But since the last few decades, brahminical customs are slowly making way into the celebrations. A rational like Kuvempu, who criticized priestly superstitions etc had made scathing observations about keeping them out of a secular space. He had said brahminical tyranny and dictatorship had to end, if the world has to move further. His soul must be writhing in pain having seen where the Kannada cause stands now.
Literary festivals took a plunge after Harikrishna Punaruru became the chairperson. Under his leadership, the excellent organizer in him would curate wonderful events, but the soul of a literary festival lost the sheen in its ideals. The fests which would take place in the grounds adjacent to schools, started occupying massive grounds. Though Sammelanas have been held at hobli level, priests and Brahmins would occupy the core areas of these celebrations. Through this, literature was made subservient to priestly class. This Poorna Kumbha welcome by ‘Sumangalis’ is part of this subservient tradition that defeats the cause of Kannada and rationalism. In the past, to get the good attention of Kings and spiritual gurus, young women would be lined up with Kumbhas to welcome them. The intention was that by looking at the face of married women, the royal guests would be pleased. This is not a pro-human celebration.
Now when the chairperson of the Sammelana says anybody can participate in the procession of Poorna Kumbha, how does it even make the damage good when the act itself is laden with religious innuendos? Would widows join this procession just because the Sahitya Parishat Chairperson said so? If they are humiliated, will the chairperson take responsibility for this? Including the Dasara, vedic and brahminical practices are increasingly taking the centre stage defeating the norms of democracy, and celebrating monarchy. At least Kannada Sahitya should be independent of that. The car procession of the chairperson of the festival, prompting women to usher the guests, all such age old meaningless celebrations should end. The chair persons of Sammenala have to speak against these. How can a writer do better for a society if he cannot go beyond the self-glorification and think rationally? Why should the government spend crores on something that would get lost as a celebration without having to do much for the progress of Kannada?
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
