 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Understanding Adya
A Critical Look at the man and his work.
G.S.Amur in his “Essays on Modern Kannada Literature” ( Karnataka Sahitya Academy, 2001) has this to say on “The Permanence of Adya Rangacharya”:
T.S.Eliot explained W.B.Yeats greatness in terms of what he called the “character of the artist” by which he meant “the integrity of his passion for his art”, and a capacity for extraordinary development. One cannot think of better terms to characterize the greatness of Adya Rangacharya (1904-1984) whose heroic commitment to his art lasted for more than half a century and who led two major revolutions in the Kannada theatre in his lifetime.
He continues:
In his autobiography, Sahitiya Atmajignase (1973), Adya uses the analogy of the river to explain how life is made up of many streams of experience which are indistinguishable from each other, but which somehow retain their identity. The analogy is useful for an understanding of Adya’s rich and unique literary personality, which was shaped by many forces. The most striking of these is the classical influence, which manifests itself in all his mature work. This is a remarkable phenomenon because Adya started writing at a time when Romantic transcendentalism held sway over the creative minds in Kannada. To be a classicist then was a revolutionary act. The parallel movement, which Adya initiated isolated him from the mainstream and made him an outsider. Adya firmly believed that human nature had remained unchanged through the ages. This is essentially the message of plays like Kelu Janemejaya (1960) and Rangabharata (1965).
Another force, equally striking, was his faith in reason, inspired both by his study of the Upanishads and the rational philosophy associated with the Advaita school of Vedanta, and his exposure to the West at a formative stage of his life. The term “intellectuality” has been used in relation to Adya’s work both as a term of praise and a definition of limitation. Explaining his own position, Adya said, “If what is meant by intellectuality is deep thought, it is true. Without thought and without examining the validity from all possible angles, I do not write a play”.
Adya’s commitment to social issues.
Amur writes in his elaborate essay and quote Adya who has this to say. “My interest in society is greater than my interest in literature. The man who narrow mindedly seeks individual happiness and the man who withdraws from life because of pain, misery and frustration are both antisocial. As opposed to this if men can develop a disinterested detachment from individual life and are activated by life’s sorrows to seek the good of others, they can create a heaven on earth”.
His influences.
G.S.Amur while analyzing the influences writes thus:
What makes Adya so valuable as a writer for future generations is his thorough Indianness, a quality hard to define but manifest in all his work. Adya’s ideas and concepts, the myths he borrowed and recreated, his technical innovations in drama, all spring from his deep awareness of the past, which was for him as living as the present. Krishna and Kalidasa were an abiding presence with him and Bharata’s Natyasastra was a constant source of inspiration. Just a year before he died, he published his own translation of the Natyasastra with notes and commentaries. (This was in Kannada; atranslation in English is also available). His critics have been quick to notice the influence of Western writers like Shaw, Ibsen and Pirandello on his dramatic style but they have often overlooked the fact that his world view and concept of art were rooted in the native tradition. Adya was distressed by this attitude and said, “The fault is not mine. I am sure these critics would change their attitude if they acquire an adequate knowledge of the Sanskrit dramatic tradition and my own work”.
