କାଶ୍ମୀରର ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନର ଇତିହାସ

ଶୈଲେନ ରାଉତରାୟ

ଟିତ୍ର - 'କାଶ୍ମୀରର ସାଲ୍ ବୁଣାଳି' (୧୮୬୭)
ଚିତ୍ରକାର - ୱିଲିଅମ୍ ସିମ୍ପସନ୍ (୧୮୨୩-୧୮୯୯)
ଫଟୋ କ୍ରେଡ଼ିଟ୍ - ବ୍ରିଟିଶ୍ ଲାଇବ୍ରେରି

"ଭେଟିବା ପୁନଶ୍ଚ ଆମ୍ଭେ ଶିରିନଗରରେ,
ସୁକ୍ଷେମର ପ୍ରାସାଦର ଦରଜା ପାଖରେ ।

ପୁଷ୍ପିତ ହୋଇବ ହସ୍ତ ମୁଷ୍ଟିବଦ୍ଧ ହୋଇ;
ଯେପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ସଇନିକେ କୁଞ୍ଚିକା ଫେରାଇ,
ଦୃଷ୍ଟିପଥ ଉହାଡ଼ୁ ନ ଯାଆନ୍ତି ଉଭେଇ ।
ପ୍ରବେଶିବା ଶେଷ ବିଶ୍ୱେ ପୁନଶ୍ଚ ଆମ୍ଭର,
ହୋଇଥିଲା ଯାହା ଅଦୃଶ୍ୟ ପ୍ରଥମଥର
ଅନୁପସ୍ଥିତିରେ ଖଣ୍ଡିତ ନଗରୁ ଆମ୍ଭର ।”
- କାଶ୍ମିରୀ-ଆମେରିକୀୟ କବି ଆଗା ଶାହିଦ୍ ଅଲି ।

୮ ଜୁଲାଇ,୨୦୧୬ ତାରିଖରେ ସୁରକ୍ଷାକର୍ମୀ ମାନଙ୍କର ଗୁଳିମାଡ଼ରେ (ଅନେକ ଏହାକୁ ମିଛ ଏନକାଉଣ୍ଟର ବୋଲି ମଧ୍ୟ କୁହନ୍ତି) ହିଜବୁଲ ମୁଜାହିଦ୍ଦିନର ଏକୋଇଶି ବର୍ଷୀୟ ଅଧିନାୟକ ବୁରହାନ୍ ୱାନି ମୃତ୍ୟୁବରଣ କଲେ । ତାଙ୍କୁ କବର ଦେଲାବେଳେ ଦେଢ଼ଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଊର୍ଦ୍ଧ୍ୱ ସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାରେ ଲୋକେ ଶବ ଶୋଭଯାତ୍ରାରେ ଯୋଗଦେଲେ । ଏହା ପରେ କାଶ୍ମୀର ଉପତ୍ୟକାରେ ଏକ ଗଣ–ଆନ୍ଦୋଦାଳନ ମୁଣ୍ଡଟେକିଛି ଯାହା ଥମିବାର କୌଣସି ଲକ୍ଷଣ ଏହି ଲେଖାଟି ଲେଖିଲାବେଳକୁ (ପ୍ରଥମ ଅଗଷ୍ଟ, ୨୦୧୬) ଦେଖାଯାଉନାହିଁ । 

ଏହି ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନରେ ସ୍ୱତଃପ୍ରବୃତ ଭାବରେ ଆବାଳ-ବୃଦ୍ଧବନିତା, ଲକ୍ଷଲକ୍ଷ ଲୋକେ ଯୋଗ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି । ଏମାନଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ଅଧିକାଂଶ ତିରିଶି ବର୍ଷରୁ କମ ବୟସର ପିଲା । ପରିସ୍ଥିତିକୁ ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱ ନଦେଇ କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ସରକାର ଓ ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ପିଡ଼ିପି-ଭାଜପାର ମେଣ୍ଟ ସରକାର ଚିରାଚରିତ ପଦ୍ଧତିରେ ଜନବିରୋଧି ପଦକ୍ଷେପ ନେଇ, ଏହି ମୂଳତଃ ଶାନ୍ତିପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନକୁ ବଳପ୍ରୟୋଗ କରି, ଚପାଇଦେବା ପାଇଁ ଉଦ୍ୟମ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିଛନ୍ତି ।

କାଶ୍ମୀରରେ ଉଭୟ ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନର ଓ ଗତ କେଇ ଦଶନ୍ଧିର ସମସ୍ୟା ଏକ ରାଜନୈତିକ ସମସ୍ୟା । ଉଗ୍ରବାଦ ସେହି ଅସମାହିତ ରାଜନୈତିକ ସମସ୍ୟାର ଏକ ଲକ୍ଷଣ ମାତ୍ର । ଗୋଟିଏ ପ୍ରଶାସନିକ ଏକକ ଭାବରେ ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନର ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ଇତିହାସ ଏତେ ପୁରୁଣା ନୁହେଁ । ଊନବିଂଶ ଶତାବ୍ଦୀରେ ଉତ୍ତର ଭାରତରେ ପ୍ରଭୁତ୍ୱ ବିସ୍ତାର ପାଇଁ ନାନା ଦେଶୀ ଓ ବିଦେଶୀ ଶକ୍ତିମାନେ ସଘଂର୍ଷରତ ଥିଲେ । ସବୁଠାରୁ କଡ଼ା ଲଢ଼େଇ ବୋଧେହୁଏ ଇଷ୍ଟ୍ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ କମ୍ପାନୀ ଓ ଶିଖ୍ ସାମ୍ରାଜ୍ୟ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଥିଲା । 

୧୮୪୬ ମସିହାରେ ଶିଖ୍‌ମାନେ ଇଂରେଜମାନଙ୍କ ପାଖରୁ ହାରିଗଲା ପରେ, ତାଙ୍କର ସାମ୍ରାଜ୍ୟରୁ ଅନେକ ଅଂଶର ନିୟନ୍ତ୍ରଣ ହରାଇଲେ । ତନ୍ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ଜାମ୍ମୁ, କାଶ୍ମୀର, ଗିଲଗିଟ୍-ବାଲଟିସ୍ଥାନ୍ ଓ ଲଦାଖ୍ ଅଞ୍ଚଳ ଅନ୍ୟତମ ଥିଲା । ଏହି ଚାରୋଟି ଅଞ୍ଚଳକୁ ଡୋ‌ଗ୍ରା ବଂଶର ଜଣେ ରାଜପୁତ ଗୁଲାବ ସିଂହ ପଞ୍ଚସ୍ତରୀ ଲକ୍ଷ ନାନକଶାହୀ ଟଙ୍କା ଇଂରେଜମାନଙ୍କୁ ଦେଇ କିଣିଲେ ଓ ଏକ ରାଜ୍ୟ ସ୍ଥାପିତ କଲେ ।

ଏହି ରାଜ୍ୟ ଭାରତର ଅନ୍ୟ କରଦ ରାଜ୍ୟମାନଙ୍କ ପରି ନାମକୁ ମାତ୍ର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ ଥିଲା । ଏହା ବ୍ରିଟିଶ୍‌ସାମ୍ରାଜ୍ୟର କରଦ ରାଜ୍ୟମାନଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ଆୟତନରେ ସର୍ବବୃହତ୍ ତଥା ଜନସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାରେ ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟ ବୃହତ୍ତମ ଥିଲା । ଏହି ରାଜ୍ୟଟି ଚାରୋଟିଯାକ ଅଞ୍ଚଳ ନିଜ ନିଜର ଇତିହାସ ତଥା ସମାଜ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥା ଦୃଷ୍ଟିରୁ ଭିନ୍ନ ଭିନ୍ନ । 

ଜାମ୍ମୁରେ ହିନ୍ଦୁମାନେ ସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାଗରିଷ୍ଠ ହୋଇଥିଲା ବେଳେ କାଶ୍ମୀରରେ ମୁସଲମାନମାନେ ସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାଗରିଷ୍ଠ । ଲଦାଖରେ ବୌଦ୍ଧ ଧର୍ମାବଲମ୍ବୀ ମାନଙ୍କ ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱ ବେଶୀ । ମାତ୍ର ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ଅଞ୍ଚଳରେ ଅନ୍ୟ ଧର୍ମାବଲମ୍ବୀମାନେ ସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାଲଘୁ ହେଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ ବହୁଳ ଭାବରେ ବସବାସ କରୁଥିଲେ । ଅର୍ଥାତ୍ ଅନେକ ଦୃଷ୍ଟିରୁ ଏହି ରାଜ୍ୟଟି ଗୋଟିଏ ମିନି ଭାରତ ଥିଲା । 

ଏଠାରେ ଏହା ମଧ୍ୟ କହି ରଖିବା ଉଚିତ ହେବ ଯେ, ଭାରତର ପ୍ରଥମ ପ୍ରଧାନମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ଶ୍ରୀ ଜବାହାରଲାଲ ନେହରୁଙ୍କର ପରିବାର ମୂଳତଃ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ବାସିନ୍ଦା ଥିଲେ । ତାଙ୍କର ପୂର୍ବପୁରୁଷମାନେ ଜୀବିକା ନିର୍ବାହ ପାଇଁ ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନର ଉତ୍ତରପ୍ରଦେଶକୁ ସ୍ଥାନାନ୍ତରିତ ହୋଇଥିଲେ ।

ବ୍ରିଟିଶ୍ ଭାରତୀୟ ସାମ୍ରାଜ୍ୟ ଯେ ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ ହେବ, ଏହା ଘୋଷଣା ହେବାପରେ, ଅନେକ ରାଜାମାନଙ୍କ ପରି ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ତତ୍‌କାଳୀନ ରାଜା ହରି ସିଂହ, ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତାର ସ୍ୱପ୍ନ ଦେଖିବାକୁ ଆରମ୍ଭକଲେ । ଏହା ପୂର୍ବରୁ ରାଜ୍ୟରେ ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ରର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠା ନିମନ୍ତେ ଶେଖ୍ ମୁହମ୍ମଦ୍ ଅବ୍‌ଦୁଲ୍ଲାଙ୍କର ନେତୃତ୍ୱରେ ଏକ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ମଧ୍ୟ ମୁଣ୍ଡ ଟେକି ସାରିଥିଲା । ଶେଖ୍ ଅବ୍‌ଦୁଲ୍ଲା ମୂଳତଃ ଏକ ଗଣତାନ୍ତ୍ରିକ, ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ସ୍ୱପ୍ନ ଦେଖୁଥିଲେ । ହେଲେ ପାକିସ୍ଥାନ ସ୍ଥାପିତ ହେବ ବୋଲି ସମ୍ଭାବନା ବଢ଼ିଚାଲିଛି ଜଣା ପଡ଼ିବାପରେ, ଯଦି କାଶ୍ମୀର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ ହୋଇ ନପାରିଲା, ତାହା ହେଲେ, ସେ ପାକିସ୍ଥାନ ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ଭାରତରେ ରାଜ୍ୟର ସମ୍ମିଶ୍ରଣ ସପକ୍ଷରେ ଥିଲେ ।

ଭାରତ ଓ ପାକିସ୍ଥାନ ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ ହେବାପରେ, ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀର ରାଜ୍ୟ ପାକିସ୍ଥାନରୁ ପାକିସ୍ଥାନୀ ସେନା ଦ୍ୱାରା ସମର୍ଥିତ ଏକ ଆଦିବାସୀ ଦଳ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଆକ୍ରମଣର ଶିକାର ହୋଇଥିଲା । ଏହି ଆକ୍ରମଣକୁ ନିଜେ ସମ୍ଭାଳି ନପାରି, ଅକ୍ଟୋବର ୨୬, ୧୯୪୭ ମସିହାରେ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ମହାରାଜା ହରି ସିଂହ ଭାରତ ସହିତ ମିଶି ଯିବା ପାଇଁ ଚୁକ୍ତିପତ୍ର ସ୍ୱାକ୍ଷର କଲେ । ଭାରତ ସହ ମିଶ୍ରଣ ପରେ ଭାରତୀୟ ସେନା ଏହି ଆଦିବାସୀ ଦଳ ଓ ପାକିସ୍ଥାନୀ ସେନା ସହିତ ୧୯୪୮ ମସିହାର ଶେଷ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଏକ ଯୁଦ୍ଧ ଲଢ଼ିଲେ । 

୧୯୪୮ ମସିହାରେ ଭାରତ ସରକାର ମିଳିତ ଜାତିସଙ୍ଘକୁ ଏହି ସମସ୍ୟା ନେଇ ଫେରାଦ ହେବାକୁ ଗଲେ । ଅଗଷ୍ଟ ୧୯୪୮ ମସିହାରେ ମିଳିତ ଜାତିସଙ୍ଘରେ ପାରିତ ଏକ ପ୍ରସ୍ତାବ ଅନୁସାରେ ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ରାଜନୈତିକ ସ୍ଥିତିକୁ ନେଇ ସେଠାରେ ଏକ ଗଣଭୋଟ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠିତ ହେବାକୁ ଥିଲା । ମାତ୍ର ଏହି ଗଣଭୋଟର ପ୍ରଥମ ସର୍ତ୍ତ ଥିଲା ଯେ ପ୍ରଥମେ ପାକିସ୍ତାନ କାଶ୍ମୀରରୁ ସେନା ଓହରାଇବ । ତାହାପରେ ଯାଇଁ ଭାରତ ସେଠାରୁ ସେନା ହଟାଇବ । ତାହାପରେ ମିଳିତ ଜାତିସଙ୍ଘର ତତ୍ତ୍ୱାବଧାନରେ ଗଣଭୋଟ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠିତ ହେବ । 

ପ୍ରଥମ ଭାରତ-ପାକିସ୍ଥାନ ଯୁଦ୍ଧ, ଯାହା କାଶ୍ମୀର ଯୋଗୁଁ ହିଁ ଘଟିଥିଲା, ଜାନୁଆରୀ ୧୯୪୯ ମସିହାରେ ମିଳିତ ଜାତିସଙ୍ଘର ହସ୍ତକ୍ଷେପ ଯୋଗୁଁ ବନ୍ଦ ହେଲା । ଯୁଦ୍ଧବିରତି ସମୟରେ ଉଭୟ ଦେଶର ସେନାମାନଙ୍କର ଅବସ୍ଥିତିକୁ ନେଇ ଯେଉଁ ଗାର କଟାଗଲା (ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ବିଭାଜନ ହେଲା) ତାହାକୁ ଆମେ ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନ ଏଲ୍.ଓ.ସି. ବା ଲାଇନ୍ ଅଫ୍ କଣ୍ଟ୍ରୋଲ୍ ଭାବରେ ଜାଣୁ । 

୧୯୪୮ ମସିହା ପରେ ଭାରତ ଓ ପାକିସ୍ଥାନ କାଶ୍ମୀରକୁ ନେଇ ଆହୁରି ଅନେକ ଥର ଲଢ଼ି ସାରିଛନ୍ତି । ଏଥି ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ୧୯୬୫ର ଯୁଦ୍ଧ ତଥା ୧୯୯୯ ମସିହାର କାର୍ଗିଲ୍ ଯୁଦ୍ଧ ଅନ୍ୟତମ । ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନ ଭାରତର ଅଧିକାରରେ କାଶ୍ମୀର୍ ଉପତ୍ୟକା, ଲଦାଖ୍ ଓ ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଥିଲା ବେଳେ, ପାକିସ୍ଥାନ ଓ ଚୀନ୍ ଅଧୀନରେ ପ୍ରାକ୍ତନ ଜାମ୍ମୁ କାଶ୍ମୀର ରାଜ୍ୟର ବାକିତକ ଅଞ୍ଚଳ ଅଛି ।

ଭାରତରେ ସରକାରମାନଙ୍କର କାଶ୍ମୀର ସମସ୍ୟାର ରାଜନୈତିକ ଦିଗ ପ୍ରତି ଅବହେଳା ଆଜି ନୂଆ ନୁହେଁ । କାଶ୍ମୀର ଭାରତରେ ମିଶିଲା ବେଳେ ଯେଉଁ ଚୁକ୍ତି ସ୍ୱାକ୍ଷର କରାଯାଇଥିଲା, ତାହା ଅନୁସାରେ ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀରକୁ ଅନେକ ସ୍ୱାୟତ୍ତଶାସନ ମିଳିଥିଲା । ଭାରତର କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ସରକାରଙ୍କର ଅଧିନରେ କେବଳ ପ୍ରତିରକ୍ଷା, ଦୂରସଂଚାର ତଥା ବିଦେଶନୀତି ରହିଥିଲା । ବାକିସବୁ ବିଷୟ ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ରାଜ୍ୟ ସରକାରଙ୍କର ଅଧିନରେ ରହିଥିଲା । 

ମାତ୍ର ୧୯୫୩ ମସିହାରେ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ବିଷୟରେ ଶେଖ୍ ଅବଦୁଲ୍ଲା କଥାବାର୍ତ୍ତା କରିବାରୁ ତଥା ନିଜ ରାଜ୍ୟରେ ମୌଳିକ ଭୂସଂସ୍କାର ଲାଗୁ କରିବାରୁ ଭାରତର କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ସରକାର ତାଙ୍କୁ ଜେଲ୍‌ରେ ଭର୍ତ୍ତି କରିଦେଲେ । ଏହାପରେ କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ସରକାରଙ୍କର ଅଦୂରଦର୍ଶୀ ଦଖଲଅନ୍ଦାଜି ଯୋଗୁଁ କାଶ୍ମୀର ନିଜର ସ୍ୱାୟତ୍ତତା ଧୀରେଧୀରେ ହରାଇ ବସିଲା । 

କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ସରକାରଙ୍କର କାନ୍ଧରେ ଚଢ଼ି ନାନା କୁଜିନେତା ସରକାର ଗଢ଼ିଲେ । ଶେଖ ଅବଦୁଲ୍ଲା କୋଡ଼ିଏ ବର୍ଷରୁ ଊର୍ଦ୍ଧ୍ୱ ସମୟ ଜେଲ୍‌ରେ କଟାଇଲେ । ନିଜ ଜୀବନର ଶେଷ ଭାଗରେ ସେ ଭାରତ ସରକାରଙ୍କର ସହ ରାଜିନାମା କରି କାଶ୍ମିରୀ ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତାର ଦାବୀ ଛାଡ଼ିଦେଲେ । ଏହା ପରେ ସେ ପୁଣି ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀର ରାଜ୍ୟର ମୁଖ୍ୟମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ଭାବରେ ୧୯୮୨ ମସିହାରେ ନିଜର ମୃତ୍ୟୁ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଶାସନ କଲେ । 

କାଶ୍ମୀର ଭାରତର ଅଂଶ ବନିସାରିଲା ପରେ ୧୯୮୭ ମସିହା ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ପ୍ରାୟତଃ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ରାଜ୍ୟସ୍ତରୀୟ ନିର୍ବାଚନରେ ହେରଫେର ହୋଇଥିବାର ଅଭିଯୋଗ ହୋଇଆସିଛି । ଅନେକ ନିରପେକ୍ଷ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟବେକ୍ଷକଙ୍କ ମତାନୁସାରେ ଏହି ଅଭିଯୋଗ ଗୁଡ଼ିକରେ ଅନେକ ସତ୍ୟତା ରହିଛି । ମାତ୍ର ୧୯୯୬ ମସିହା ପରଠାରୁ ସାଧାରଣ ଭାବରେ ନିର୍ବାଚନ ନିରପେକ୍ଷ ଭାବରେ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠିତ ହୋଇଛି ବୋଲି ଅଧିକାଂଶ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟବେକ୍ଷକଙ୍କର ମତ ।

କେନ୍ଦ୍ରୀୟ ସ୍ତରରେ କଂଗ୍ରେସ ସରକାର, ୧୯୮୭ ମସିହାର ଜାମ୍ମୁ ଓ କାଶ୍ମୀରର ରାଜ୍ୟ ନିର୍ବାଚନରେ ବଡ଼ ଧରଣର ହେରଫେର କରାଇ ନ୍ୟାସନାଲ୍ କନ୍‌ଫରେନ୍ସ୍‌କୁ ଜିତାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଚକ୍ରାନ୍ତ କରିଥିଲା ବୋଲି ଅଭିଯୋଗ ହୁଏ । ଏହାର କୌଣସି ମୀମାଂସା କରାଗଲା ନାହିଁ । ଅନେକ ଲୋକଙ୍କର ମତରେ ଏହାହିଁ କାଶ୍ମୀରରେ ୧୯୮୯-୯୦ଠାରୁ ଉଗ୍ରବାଦ ତଥା ବିଚ୍ଛିନ୍ନତାବାଦ ମୁଣ୍ଡ ଟେକିବାର ମୂଳ କାରଣ । ଏହି ରାଜନୈତିକ ସମସ୍ୟାର ସମାଧାନ ସରକାର କରିପାରିଲେ ନାହିଁ । ଏଣୁ କରି ଜନଅସନ୍ତୋଷ ବଢ଼ି ଚାଲିଲା । ସରକାରଙ୍କର ମାତ୍ରାଧିକ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟ ଯୋଗୁଁ ଅନେକ ନୀରିହ ଲୋକ ପ୍ରାଣ ହରାଇଲେ ।

ହଜାର ହଜାର ସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାରେ ସାଧାରଣ ଜନତାଙ୍କୁ ସରକାର ଉଗ୍ରବାଦୀ ନାଁରେ ଗିରଫ କରିବାକୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କଲା । ଏହା ବିରୁଦ୍ଧରେ ୨୦ ଜାନୁଆରୀ ୧୯୯୦ରେ, ଶାନ୍ତିପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବରେ ପ୍ରତିବାଦ କରୁଥିବା ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଉପରେ ଗାୱାକଡ଼ାଲ୍ ଠାରେ ଏକ ଗଣହତ୍ୟା ଅନୁଷ୍ଠିତ ହେଲା । ଏଥିରେ ପଚାଶରୁ ଅଧିକ ନୀରିହ ଲୋକ ସରକାରୀ ଗୁଳିମାଡ଼ରେ ମୃତ୍ୟୁବରଣ କଲେ । 

ଗଣଭୋଟ ଦାବି କରି ପ୍ରଦର୍ଶନ କରୁଥିବା ଶାନ୍ତିପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଜନତା ଉପରେ ଗୁଳିଚାଳନା ଫଳରେ ୧ ମାର୍ଚ୍ଚ ୧୯୯୦ରେ ଜକୁରା ଓ ଟେଙ୍ଗପୁରା ଗଣହତ୍ୟାରେ ୩୩ଜଣ ସାଧାରଣ ଜନତା ପ୍ରାଣ ହରାଇଲେ ତଥା ୪୭ ଜଣ ଆଘାତପ୍ରାପ୍ତ ହେଲେ । ମାନବ ଅଧିକାର ସଂସ୍ଥା ଆମ୍ନେଷ୍ଟି ଇଣ୍ଟର୍ନ୍ୟାସନାଲ୍ ଅନୁସାରେ ୨୨ ଅକ୍ଟୋବର ୧୯୯୩ରେ ବିଜବେହାରା ଓ ଶ୍ରୀନଗରଠାରେ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠିତ ଗଣହତ୍ୟାରେ ୫୧ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ମଲେ ତଥା ଦୁଇ ଶହରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ଖଣ୍ଡିଆଖାବରା ହୋଇଥିଲେ ।

ଏହିପରି ଗଣହତ୍ୟାଗୁଡ଼ିକ ଛଡ଼ା, ୧୯୯୦ରେ କାଶ୍ମୀରରେ ଲାଗୁହୋଇଥିବା ଆଫ୍ସା (ଆର୍ମଡ଼୍ ଫୋର୍ସେସ୍ ସ୍ପେସାଲ୍ ପାୱାର୍ସ ଆକ୍ଟ୍) ଯୋଗୁଁ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କର ମାନବାଧିକାରର ଘୋର ହନନ ହୋଇଛି । କାଶ୍ମୀରରେ ମାନବ ଅଧିକାରର ହନନରେ ଉଗ୍ରବାଦୀମାନଙ୍କର ମଧ୍ୟ ଏକ ବଡ଼ ଭୂମିକା ରହିଛି । 

ଉଗ୍ରପନ୍ଥୀମାନଙ୍କର ଧମକ ଓ ହତ୍ୟା ଯୋଗୁଁ ଲକ୍ଷାଧିକ କାଶ୍ମୀର ପଣ୍ଡିତମାନଙ୍କୁ ସ୍ଥାନାନ୍ତରିତ ହୋଇ ବାସ୍ତୁହରା ହେବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିଛି । ଏହାଛଡ଼ା କାଶ୍ମୀରରେ ଶହଶହ ସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାରେ ସାଧାରଣ ମୁସଲମାନଙ୍କ ହତ୍ୟାରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଉଗ୍ରବାଦୀମାନଙ୍କ ହାତ ରହିଛି । ମାତ୍ର ଅନେକ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟବେକ୍ଷକମାନଙ୍କ ମତରେ, ରାଜ୍ୟରେ ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ର ପ୍ରାୟୋଜିତ ସନ୍ତ୍ରାସ ଅନ୍ୟ ସବୁକିଛିକୁ ବଳିଯାଇଛି ।

କାଶ୍ମୀରର ସାଧାରଣ ଜନତା ଯେ ଏ ସବୁକୁ ନୀରବରେ ସହି ଯାଇଛନ୍ତି, ତାହା ନୁହେଁ । ୨୦୦୮ ମସିହାରେ ଅମରନାଥ ମନ୍ଦିରର ପରିଚାଳନା ବୋର୍ଡ଼୍‌ରୁ ଶହେ ଏକର ଜମି ହସ୍ତାନ୍ତରକୁ ନେଇ ଯେଉଁ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ଦେଖାଦେଲା, ସେଥିରେ ପାଞ୍ଚ ଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିଲେ ବୋଲି ଅନେକ ରିପୋର୍ଟରୁ ଜଣାଯାଏ । ଏହି ନୀରିହ ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କ ଉପରେ ପୋଲିସ ଓ ସୁରକ୍ଷାବଳର ମାତ୍ରାଧିକ ପ୍ରତିକ୍ରିୟା ଯୋଗୁଁ ଚାଳିଶିରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ପ୍ରାଣ ହରାଇଲେ । 

୨୦୦୯ ମସିହାରେ ସୋପିଆଁ ଜିଲ୍ଲାରେ ଦୁଇଜଣ ମହିଳାଙ୍କର ଧର୍ଷଣ ଓ ହତ୍ୟାପରେ ଏହା ଅଭିଯୋଗ ଉଠିଲା ଯେ ଏହା ପଛରେ ସୁରକ୍ଷାବଳଙ୍କର ହାତ ଅଛି । ସରକାର ନ୍ୟାୟ ଯୋଗାଇବାରେ ବିଫଳ ହେବାରୁ ତଥା ପରିସ୍ଥିତିକୁ ସମ୍ଭାଳି ନପାରିବାରୁ ଅନେକ ଅଞ୍ଚଳରେ ସପ୍ତାହ ସପ୍ତାହ ବ୍ୟାପି କର୍ଫୁ୍ୟ ଜାରି କରାଗଲା ଓ ଅନେକ ଲୋକ ମୃତ୍ୟୁବରଣ କଲେ ଓ ଖଣ୍ଡିଆଖାବରା ହେଲେ । 

୨୦୧୦ ମସିହାରେ ମାନବ ଅଧିକାର ହନନ, ପ୍ରକୃତ ଗଣତନ୍ତ୍ରର ଅଭାବ ତଥା ସାଧାରଣ ଜନଅସନ୍ତୋଷ ଯୋଗୁଁ ପୁଣି ଥରେ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ମୁଣ୍ଡ ଟେକିଲା । ସରକାରୀ ଗୁଳିମାଡ଼ରେ ପୁଣି ଶତାଧିକ ନୀରିହ ଜନତା ପ୍ରାଣ ହରାଇଲେ । ଏହି ବର୍ଷର ଜୁଲାଇ ମାସରେ ଯାହାସବୁ ଘଟିଗଲା ତଥା ଏ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଯାହା ଚାଲିଛି, ତାହା ଏହି ଶୃଙ୍ଖଳର ଏକ ଅଂଶ ମାତ୍ର ।

କାଶ୍ମୀରର ରାଜନୈତିକ ସମସ୍ୟାକୁ ସରକାର ମୂଳତଃ ଏକ ସାମରିକ ବା ଆଇନଶୃଙ୍ଖଳା ସମସ୍ୟା ଭାବରେ ଦେଖୁଛନ୍ତି ।  ଯେ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଏହି ମନୋଭାବରେ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନ ଆସିନାହିଁ, ସେ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଏହି ସମସ୍ୟାର ସମାଧାନ ସମ୍ଭବ ନୁହେଁ । ଭାରତ ସରକାର କାଶ୍ମୀର ବିଷୟରେ ପାକିସ୍ଥାନ ସହିତ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିବାପାଇଁ ଅନେକ ଥର ରାଜି ହୋଇଛନ୍ତି । ମାତ୍ର କାଶ୍ମିରୀମାନଙ୍କ ସହିତ ଆଲୋଚନା ପାଇଁ କେବେ କୌଣସି ନିଷ୍ଠାବାନ ଉଦ୍ୟମ କରିନାହାନ୍ତି । ଭାରତର ରାଜନୈତିକ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥା ଓ ଏହାର କଳାକାରମାନଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ବୋଧେହୁଏ ପାକିସ୍ଥାନୀମାନେ ମଣିଷ, ମାତ୍ର କାଶ୍ମିରୀମାନେ ମଣିଷ ପଦବାଚ୍ୟ ନୁହନ୍ତି । 

କାଶ୍ମୀର ସମସ୍ୟାର ସମାଧାନ ପାଇଁ ସରକାର ସବୁ ବର୍ଗର କାଶ୍ମିରୀମାନଙ୍କ ସହ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିବା ଦରକାର । ଆଲୋଚନାର ବିଷୟବସ୍ତୁ ସରକାର ନୁହେଁ, ଲୋକେ ସ୍ଥିର କରିବା ଉଚିତ । ନିଷ୍ଠାର ସହ ଆଲୋଚନା ହେଲେ, ଲୋକମାନଙ୍କର ଅଧିକାରକୁ ସମ୍ମାନ କରାଗଲେ, ଅତ୍ୟଧିକ ପରିମାଣର ସୁରକ୍ଷାବଳକୁ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟାହାର କରାଗଲେ ତଥା ଦୋଷୀମାନଙ୍କୁ (ସେ ସୁରକ୍ଷାଦଳର ଅଧିକାରୀ ହୁଅନ୍ତୁ ବା ନେତା) ଦଣ୍ଡ ଦିଆଗଲେ ସମସ୍ୟା ସମାଧାନର ବାଟ ମନକୁ ମନ ଫିଟିବ । ଅନେକ ସମୟରେ ନିଆଁ ଲିଭାଇବା ପାଇଁ ପାଣି ଢାଳିବା ଦରକାର ହୁଏନି । ଖାଲି ଚୁଲିରୁ ଜାଳ କାଢ଼ିଦେଲେ ଯାଏ ।

ବି.ଦ୍ର.: ଏହି ଲେଖାଟି ପ୍ରଥମେ ପାକ୍ଷିକ ପତ୍ରିକା ‘ସମଦୃଷ୍ଟି’ର ୧-୧୫ ଅଗଷ୍ଟ ୨୦୧୬ ସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ହୋଇଥିଲା ।

Communal Violence in Bhadrak, Odisha

Pramodini Pradhan and Sailen Routray

Bhadrak railway station
Photo credit: commons.wikimedia.org/Shanti.lataa1

Bhadrak town in the district of the same name in Odisha has a sizeable Muslim population constituting 39.56% of the total population of 1,21,338. Centuries of living together have led to the development of a shared culture and its expressions in many ways and forms in the day-to-day life of the people. 

However, this harmony has been disturbed periodically. The town experienced two major communal clashes—one in 1946 and the other in 1991—with a more recent one taking place in April. What is common is that all three clashes occurred against the backdrop of communal tension in the larger political scenario in the country and were triggered by petty local events.

The 1946 violence took place against the backdrop of the Muslim League’s demand for a separate state. In 1991, the political atmosphere of the country was communally charged, centred as it was on the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid issue. In that charged atmosphere, Ram Navami was celebrated for the first time in Bhadrak town, organised primarily by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

On the very day of the celebration, the town plunged into a major clash between the Hindus and the Muslims which led to the loss of many lives. It also spread to the nearby town of Soro and other rural areas.

This time too, the communal clash took place two days after the Ram Navami celebrations. The following is a brief account of how it all started and the role played by communal forces.

Unprecedented celebrations 

From the time it was first introduced, the observance of Ram Navami in Bhadrak has always been organised and monitored by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its affiliate organisations. This year, the scale and grandeur of celebrations was unprecedented and continued for seven days, whereas earlier they lasted for three days. About one lakh people, nearly 10 times compared to the previous years, participated in the processions. Given that the population of the town is a little over a lakh, the participation of such huge numbers points to efforts to mobilise people from outside. Saffron flags were seen all over the town, including atop government office buildings throughout the week.

On the final day of the celebrations, about a hundred medhas (floats) participated, accompanied by about 80 music bands playing high decibel music. Processions which had earlier wound up by 12 pm, continued till 3 am. During the processions, religious chants such as Jai Sriram and politically-loaded slogans like Hindustan mein rehna hai to Ram naam kehna hai were also raised. 

In the words of the president of the Hindu Suraksha Samiti (HSS), “After the UP election results, our youth were very excited. Their enthusiasm was very high. And here in Odisha, we did well in the recently held panchayat elections. So this year’s celebration was a special one.”

No untoward incident took place on the day of the festival. The Muslim community even felicitated the leaders/medhas in the processions when these passed through their localities. But beneath the veneer of this normalcy, there was apprehension in the Muslim community that something untoward might happen. Volunteers engaged by the Chauda Mohalla Committee (an apex body of Muslim mohalla committees of Bhadrak) were carefully chosen—people who would not get provoked easily. Most shops owned by Muslims were closed on the day.

Added to the effects of aggressive celebrations during Ram Navami, tension was also simmering among a section of the Muslim youth for another reason. The Urs (death anniversary of a saint) celebrations of Nasim Sarkar, a spiritual leader revered by certain sections of the Muslim community, were planned for 16 April, and posters announcing this were put up in the town. 

During the period of the Ram Navami celebrations, some of these posters were found to be torn and defiled, allegedly by Hindu youth. Besides, around the same time, there were offensive postings on the social media about Islam, again, allegedly by some Hindu youth. But the matter was not brought to the notice of the police.

Trigger point

In such a tense atmosphere, on the day after Ram Navami, that is, on 5 April, certain remarks apparently insulting the Hindu deities Ram and Sita appeared on social media. It was alleged that a Hindu student had posted on his Facebook wall a picture of the Ram Navami celebrations with the accompanying text, “Jai Sriram” and some Muslims had posted derogatory comments on it. On 6 April, members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), Bajrang Dal and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) brought it to the notice of the police and demanded immediate arrest of the accused. 

Reportedly, two written complaints were lodged on the basis of which the police registered a first information report (FIR). One complainant, a Class 10 student, declared himself as an active member of the Bajrang Dal.

It was reported that the police took time to act upon the complaint since the matter involved a cybercrime but the complainants insisted on the immediate arrest of the accused. Moreover, an impression was created that the police were reluctant to take any action at the behest of the local member of legislative assembly (MLA) and his son, as one of the accused was the son of a ruling Biju Janata Dal (BJD) leader. 

By the time the FIR was registered, alongwith the students, the activists of the Bajrang Dal, VHP and HSS were also agitating outside the police station demanding action. Soon after the FIR was registered, a section of the agitating crowd went on to block the National Highway 45. This was followed by attacks on Muslim-owned shops near Bant Chhak. After this, the police declared Section 144 (the Code of Criminal Procedure) in the town and detained some of the rioters.

The next day, the district administration convened a meeting of the peace committee at the collectorate where the local MLA, chairperson of the Bhadrak municipality, the inspector general of police (IGP) and superintendent of police (SP) Bhadrak, additional district magistrate (ADM) and some community leaders were present. It was officially announced that 23 shops had been burnt down, and that the municipality would be arranging a vending zone for the affected shop owners.

By some accounts, many persons who were not members of the peace committee had entered the meeting hall and occupied the seats as a result of which, there was no room for some genuine members. While the “chaotic” peace committee meeting was held inside the meeting hall, many young men had gathered outside despite the prohibitory order. Some were onlookers while nearly 150 Muslim youth had also gathered to know whether their grievance regarding the defiling of the posters of Sarkar Baba was being addressed by their community leaders. When they came to know that this matter was not raised in the meeting, the young men got agitated and proceeded towards the Madina Maidan, located in the Puruna Bazaar (the place where community decisions are often taken) on their motorbikes, shouting slogans like “Bulu Pattnaik zindabad” (Pattnaik is a BJD youth leader and son of Jugal Kishore Pattnaik, the sitting MLA (BJD) of Bhadrak) and “Islam zindabad” and, by some accounts, “Pakistan zindabad, Hindustan murdabad.” 

It is important to note that all this happened when the local political leaders as well as the top brass of the police and district administration were present in the town. While the administration was conducting the peace meeting, leaders of the BJP and its affiliates were mobilising Hindu youth, through social media and mobile phones and to which the police failed to pay attention. Hindu youth began gathering on the streets shouting “jor se bolo Jay Shri Ram.” As on the previous day, the activists of the Bajrang Dal and VHP were also part of the demonstration.

Most of the shops owned by Muslims were already shut due to the Friday afternoon prayers. Around 5 pm, the crowd began attacking Muslim shops in the Kacheri Bazaar area. As this message reached the Muslim majority areas, groups of young men, many of whom were already on the streets, began attacking Hindu shops in Chandan Bazaar and nearby areas.

Thus, began a chain of looting and arson. The main affected areas were Kacheri Bazaar, Bant Chhak area, Chandan Bazaar, Laha Pati and Charampa/Station Bazaar where mostly roadside shops were attacked. The looting and arson did not spread to the residential areas. One mosque was attacked and partially damaged in Station Bazaar, and a temple was affected in Laha Pati though no human life was lost.

Response of the government

The local police and the district administration did not respond with the required seriousness, until the evening of 7 April. However, the state government swung into action once it became clear that the situation was going out of control. The same evening, the home secretary and the director general of police (DGP) rushed to Bhadrak and mobilised additional forces for the town. Curfew was imposed the same night. Order was issued for the immediate posting of a new district collector to take charge of the situation. 

It must be noted that the district administration was headless during the riot, since the collector had retired from service since 31 March, and no replacement had been posted. The SP and the inspector in charge of the Town Police Station and the ADM, who were on duty when the riot took place, were transferred.

Daytime curfew was in force for a few days, but nighttime curfew was in place for over a month following the violence and during this period, about 275 people were arrested including the state secretary of the Bajrang Dal, the district unit secretary of the BJP Yuva Morcha and a BJD councillor. There were allegations that many innocent people were also arrested. Apart from the anger felt by the concerned communities and family members of these innocents, the economic hardships faced by the families, particularly those of the poor, are a matter of serious concern.

Five days after the violence, on 12 April, Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik visited the town and declared that the damage due to the riots would be assessed and adequate compensation would be provided. The compensation amount, it was announced, would range between a minimum of Rs. 20,000 and a maximum of Rs. 2,00,000 and was greeted with discontentment among all sections of the victims.

Dynamics of the riot

A noticeable feature of the riot this time was the active participation of the youth, including students, in the looting and arson. The general perception among both the communities is that the hold of traditional leadership has been breaking down and there is no alternative in place for the youth. There is also increasing unemployment. As a result, vote-seeking political parties are luring them with money to work as their foot soldiers.

The recent communal clash was also partly due to the local dynamics of electoral politics—intra- and inter-party rivalries. There are reportedly two factions in the local BJD, one led by Prafulla Samal and the other by Jugal Kishore Pattnaik. It is said that Samal is trying to contest the next election from Bhadrak while Pattnaik is trying to consolidate his Muslim vote bank. Each is trying to outsmart the other. 

Similarly, within the BJP, there are a number of aspirants for the Bhadrak assembly seat who are trying to get the voters on their side by whatever means that are available. Rumour-mongering played a part too. In Charampa area, a rumour that Muslims had destroyed three temples in the Puruna Bazaar area was deliberately fl oated by Hindu youth, while attacking a mosque and Muslim shops. It must be noted that no Hindus had been attacked in this area. In the Kacheri Bazaar vicinity, when Hindus began destroying Muslim shops, people talked about Pakistani bombs being deposited in the Puruna Bazaar area!

However, many ordinary citizens from both communities came forward to prevent the violence in their areas. The role of the residents of Puruna Bazaar, a Muslim-dominated area, in preventing violence was appreciated even by the president of the HSS. 

In his own words, “It is an admitted fact that the Muslim dominated Puruna Bazaar remained peaceful because Muslims took the lead and protected the area from unruly youth. Some Muslims actually threatened to beat up their own youth if they indulged in damaging the Hindu houses and shops of their locality. That is the bhaichara (brotherhood) of Bhadrak town.”

Conclusions

Unlike the riot of 1991, this time the violence did not spread throughout the town and could thus be curbed soon. This underlines the fact that the common people did not participate in it. Nevertheless, there are worrying trends as well. One is the use of students and unemployed youth as cannon fodder to further gains in electoral politics by cynically creating and manipulating communal sentiments. This will have dangerous consequences.

There are also signs that households living in areas dominated by the other community no longer feel safe and some families are thinking of shifting out. This will lead to ghettoisation that will damage the town’s social fabric. Moreover, as Hindutva and majoritarian politics deepen and expand nationally, one cannot rule out the danger to the locally rooted syncretic culture of the town.

Note: This essay was first published on July 15, 2017 in Economic and Political Weekly 52(28)  as a 'Comment' piece. It is is based on a report by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Odisha, titled Weeping Salandi (June 2017).

ଚିତ୍ତ ବର୍ଗ ୯-୧୧

ପାଲି 'ଧର୍ମପଦ'ର ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦ

ଅନୁବାଦକ - ଶୈଲେନ ରାଉତରାୟ

ଫଟୋ କ୍ରେଡ଼ିଟ୍ - ୱିକିମିଡିଆ କମନ୍ସ୍

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦ

ଚେତାଶୂନ୍ୟ, କ୍ଷୁବ୍ଧ ହୋଇ ଧରାରେ ଏ ପିଣ୍ଡ 
ପଡ଼ିବ ଯେହ୍ନେ ନିରର୍ଥକ ସେ କାଷ୍ଟଖଣ୍ଡ ।୯।

ବଇରୀ ଶତୃର କରେ ଯେପରି ଅନିଷ୍ଟ 

ମିଥ୍ୟା ପ୍ରଣିହିତ ହୋଇ ସେହିପରି ଚିତ୍ତ ।।

ମନୁଷ୍ୟମାନଙ୍କୁ ତାହା ପିଡ଼ଇ ସେପରି

ଅଧିକୁଁ ଅଧିକ ତାଙ୍କୁ ପାପୀୟାନ କରି ।୧୦। 

ମାତା ପିତା ତଥା ଛନ୍ତି ଆଉ ଯେତେ ଜ୍ଞାତି ।

ଯେତେ ଭାବେ ସେମାନେ ମଙ୍ଗଳ ନ କରନ୍ତି ।। 

ସମ୍ୟକ ପ୍ରଣିହିତ ଅଟଇ ଯେହୁ ଚିତ୍ତ ।

ତାହା ଦ୍ୱାରା ହୁଏ ବେଶି ମଙ୍ଗଳ ସାଧିତ ।୧୧।

ମୂଳ ପାଲି ପଦ

ଅଚିରଂ ବତ'ୟଂ କାୟୋ ପଠବିଂ ଅଧିସେସ୍ସତି ।
ଛୁଦ୍ଧୋ ଅପେତବିଞ୍ଣାଣୋ ନିରତ୍ଥଂ ବ କଳିଙ୍ଗରଂ ।୯।

ଦିସୋ ଦିସଂ ଯଂ ତଂ କୟିରା ବେରୀ ବା ପନ ବେରିନଂ ।
ମିଚ୍ଛାପଣିହିତଂ ଚିତ୍ତଂ ପାପିୟୋ ନଂ ତତୋ କରେ ।୧୦।

ନ ତଂ ମାତା ପିତା କାୟିରୋ ଅଞ୍ଣେ ବାପି ଚ ଜ୍ଞାତକା ।

ସମ୍ମାପଣିହିତଂ ଚିତ୍ତଂ ସେୟ୍ୟସୋ'ନଂ ତତୋ କରେ ।୧୧।

ଅନୁବାଦକୀୟ ଟୀକା: ଏହି ଅଧମ ଅନୁବାଦକକୁ ପାଲି ଜଣା ନାହିଁ । ଏଣୁ ଏହି ପଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦଟି ପାଇଁ ତାହାର ମୂଳ ସହାୟ ହେଲା  ପ୍ରଫେସର ପ୍ରହ୍ଲାଦ ପ୍ରଧାନଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସମ୍ପାଦିତ 'ପାଲି ଧର୍ମପଦ' ଗ୍ରନ୍ଥଟି, ଯେଉଁଥିରେ ସେ ସଂସ୍କୃତ ରୂପାନ୍ତର ସହ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଗଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦ କରିଯାଇଛନ୍ତି । ଗ୍ରନ୍ଥଟିର ପ୍ରଥମ ସଂସ୍କରଣ ୧୯୭୮ ମସିହାରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ । କିନ୍ତୁ ଏହି ଅନୁବାଦକ ୧୯୯୪ ମସିହାରେ କଟକସ୍ଥ ପ୍ରକାଶନ ସଂସ୍ଥା ଫ୍ରେଣ୍ଡ୍‌ସ୍‌ ପବ୍ଲିଶର୍ସ ଛାପିଥିବା ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟ ସଂସ୍କରଣଟି ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିଛି । ଏହା ଛଡ଼ା ଏହି ପଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦ କରିବା ପାଇଁ 'ଦି ସେକ୍ରେଡ଼୍ ବୁକ୍ସ୍ ଅଫ୍ ଦି ଇଷ୍ଟ୍' ସିରିଜ୍‌ରେ ମାକ୍ସ୍ ମ୍ୟୁଲର୍‌ଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସମ୍ପାଦିତ 'ଦି ଧମ୍ମପଦ' ଇଂରାଜି ଗ୍ରନ୍ଥଟିର ୨୦୧୩ ମସିହାରେ ରୁଟ୍‌ଲେଜ୍ ଛାପିଥିବା ସଂସ୍କରଣଟିର ମଧ୍ୟ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରାଯାଇଛି ।

A writer and a public intellectual

A review of "The Essential U. R. Ananthamurthy"

Sailen Routray

In Ananthamurthy’s ancestral village in Karnataka, where he spent a significant part of his childhood and adolescence, the house had a front yard. It was essentially a raised platform under a roof made up of the kind of country tiles that were known locally as Mangalore tiles. It was a space occupied by his father and other men. The conversations here dealt with affairs of the world. It was a place suffused with his father’s authority, which drew from his self-taught competence in Kannada, Sanskrit and English. 

The backyard, in contrast, was the preserve of the women of the house, where high languages like English and Sanskrit were absent. It was a space of a promiscuous intermingling of women from all castes, reciprocal exchanges of food, and of gossip and stories, sometimes of a sexual nature. 

In an essay titled ‘Towards the concept of a new nationhood: languages and literatures in India,’ Ananthamurthy extends and generalises this experience to say that ‘Indian literatures in the bhashas have a front yard and a backyard…” The front yard interfaces with other languages, mainly lingua francas, that work as windows and conduits to the larger world, and engages with power and authority. The backyard is the space where the dialects and the local, marginalized tongues flourish, opening up channels to intermingle with the local environment and the realm of the affects. 

Ananthamurthy saw the literature produced in languages like Kannada as a creative tightrope walk between these two spaces of the backyard and the front yard. This is quite evident in his own creative practice as well. His writings work out a renewal of the older structures, of both literary forms and modes of feeling, through a process of dialogic labour in which even the epics work as ‘languages.’ For example, the novel ‘Samskara’ can be read both as an existential novel, and as the critique by a critical insider, of the dehumanizing effects of oppressor castes’ traditions.

However, Ananthamurthy is no naïve social realist. In stories such as ‘Stallion of the sun’ and ‘Akkayaa,’ which come across as autobiographical, the modern self is contrasted with simple, childlike figures, who effortlessly work themselves out of the contradictions in their social context through a radical affirmations of their own vulnerabilities as embodied beings. 

In ‘Ghatashraddha,’ written in the voice (and showing the point of view) of a child who inhabits much the same social milieu that Ananthamurthy himself would have occupied in his early years, the narrator till the end preserves his innocence in the face of much that happens to disabuse him of it. The child lives and studies in a Brahmin household with a young widowed woman and her father, who has taken charge of his education. He sees the brutality that is unleashed on her when it is learnt that she might be pregnant. The child, till the end, identifies with the victim. The overall tone of the narrative, as described by him, is that of disbelief at the unfairness of it all.

In fact, this is perhaps the defining tone of most of his work. It is the stance of a critical insider, who refuses to accept existing social mores of inequality, yet does not accept the trite, standard, borrowed recipes for doing so. This calls for acts of continuous negotiation and struggle. This was true not only of Ananthamurthy’s work, but of his life as well. He got married to a Christian girl, Esther, several years his junior, because they were apparently in love. 

However, the dissimilarities between them became apparent after sometime. These ranged from dietary habits (Ananthamurthy continued to remain a vegetarian, even after marriage) to attitudes towards the extended family. In his autobiography ‘Suragi,’ (ably translated from Kannada into English by S. R. Ramakrishna, and published by Oxford University Press in 2017/18) though, he lovingly describes how his marital relationship evolved over time, to create the space in which both he and Esther could imagine the lives they wanted to lead.   

In both his life and work, U. R. Ananthamurthy contributed to the creation of post-independence literary modernity in India. The ways in which we talk about our experiences of literature in the country, both about its production and consumption, has been indelibly framed by his creative work and critical commentary. One of these relates to the idea of the bhashas. 

When we talk about Indian languages, the colonial trend that continued for some time even after independence, was to refer to them as the vernaculars. This obviously ran into a political problem, as one meaning of ‘vernacular’ is that of the language of home-born slaves. 

Some people also referred to the many languages of India as ‘Indian’ languages. This is of course logical, but it does not work. Is English not an Indian language, or for that matter Persian? Both of these were languages of the ruling, imperial elites, later adopted by significant sections of the local population. But their origins lie outside the geographical boundaries of what we consider as India. The coinage of ‘bhasha literature’ (to refer to literatures produced in languages of Indian origins) that Ananthamurthy used, and was instrumental in popularizing, was one way of addressing this dilemma. 

Ananthamurthy’s work has also been critical in our country in reimagining the role of the writer as a public intellectual. This is despite the fact that he never saw his life’s work as that of a straightforward modernizer. In essays like ‘Why not worship in the nude,’ he argues for the rights of people to worship the mother goddess in the nude, in Chandragutti, a village in Karnataka. At the same time, he has also been a vocal and consistent critique of Hindutva. Between these two positions, he never saw any contradiction.

He saw himself as a Gandhian socialist and sought to rework Gandhian ideas in the idiom of Ram Manohar Lohia’s strand of Indian socialism. This has become an increasingly unpopular position to occupy in the India of the twenty first century. Till the end of his life in 2014, he continued to oppose Hindutva, not from the position of a Nehruvian modernizer, but that of a creative genius heeding the call of his conscience.

His creativity is something that he brought to all his work as a public intellectual. In his review of ‘Suragi,’ published on May 12, 2018, in Scroll.in Souradeep Roy describes how when Ananthamurthy was the president of the Kendriya Sahitya Akademi, he was instrumental in publishing an anthology of Pakistani literature in Urdu. The occasion was the fiftieth anniversary of independence. This volume carried selections of original works in Urdu and of translated works from Pakistan’s other languages such as Sindhi and Punjabi. Soon, it came to be seen as a seminal intervention in Pakistan, as there existed no other comparable volume in Urdu in the country at that point of time, which provided a national view of Pakistan’s literary field carrying representation from all its bhasha literatures. This book went on to become a textbook. 

Today such an intervention by the Kendriya Sahitya Akademi seems almost unthinkable. Therefore, it is all the more reason why the editors N. Manu Chakravarthy and Chandan Gowda are to be congratulated for producing this much required reader. It comprises of extracts from four of his novels, Samskara, Bharathipura, Avasthe and Bhava. Additionally, it carries five of his poems, six short stories, nine essays and speeches, and two fragments from his memoirs. Some of the speeches and essays seem to have been delivered and written first in English, although this has not been clearly specified by the editors. Overall, this is a meticulously edited and well-produced reader and deserves to be widely read and discussed. 

However, I wish some additional representation of his other types of work, for example, more of his original writings in English could have been included by the editors. This would have provided readers with a window into the ways in which Ananthamurthy’s mind worked in English. It would have also made the volume more comprehensive, if a few more of his critical works and essays in Kannada would have been included. 

Although the larger Indian reading public knows Ananthamurthy primarily as a novelist, short story writer, public intellectual and critic, the editors have included some of his poems in the volume. Poems such as ‘Love and duty’ and ‘Gandhi and Henry VIII’ alert us to the frank openness of his poetic universe that can make history and myth inhabit the same photographic frame. I wish the editors could have shared more of his poems with us. I leave you with the full text of his poem titled ‘Gandhi’s chappals’ (1992) which is all of two stanzas, eight lines – 

          As the chappals that
          Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
          a spinner by occupation, had made and walked in
          began to wear off, 
          the mighty British empire also wore off.

          The chappals that the miser wore on his last day,
          yet to wear out,
          are still there. 

Bibliographic details: N. Manu Chakravarthy and Chandan Gowda (Editors). 2023. The essential U. R. Ananthamurthy. New Delhi: Aleph Book Company. 298 +xiv Pages. Rs. 899. [Cover photograph by Sreedhara Murthy]. 

Note: A slightly different version of this review was first published in "The Book Review" [47 (9); pp 26-27] in 2023. 

ଗରିବୀର ମୂଳମଞ୍ଜି

ଶୈଲେନ ରାଉତରାୟ

ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଦକ୍ଷିଣ-ପଶ୍ଚିମାଞ୍ଚଳ, ଯାହାକି ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନ କେବିକେ କ୍ଷେତ୍ର ଭାବରେ ପ୍ରସିଦ୍ଧ, ଅଧୁନା ବିକାଶର ତୀର୍ଥକ୍ଷେତ୍ର ଭାବରେ ଲୋକପ୍ରିୟତା ହାସଲ କରିଛି । ସମାଜଶାସ୍ତ୍ରର ଗବେଷକ ଭାବରେ ହାତ ସଳଖ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ହେଉ କିମ୍ବା ଡେଭେଲପ୍‌ମେଣ୍ଟ୍ ଜର୍ନାଲିଜିମ୍ କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ନିଜର ପତାକା ପୋତିବା ପାଇଁ ହେଉ, ଏସବୁ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଦକ୍ଷିଣ-ପଶ୍ଚିମାଞ୍ଚଳ, ବିଶେଷତଃ ଅବିଭକ୍ତ କଳାହାଣ୍ଡି ଜିଲ୍ଲା, ଏକ ପ୍ରଶସ୍ତ ଭୂମି । 

ବିଶେଷତଃ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଭାଷାରେ ହେଉଥିବା ସାମ୍ବାଦିକତା ଓ ଗବେଷଣାତ୍ମକ ଲେଖାରେ କଳାହାଣ୍ଡିର ପରିଚିତି ହେଲା ଭୋକ ଓ ଅନାହାରର ଭୂମି ଭାବରେ । ଏହି ପ୍ରକାରର ଅଧିକାଂଶ ଲେଖାଲେଖି କଳାହାଣ୍ଡି ଓ କେବିକେ କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ଜନଜୀବନ ଓ ଜନସଂସ୍କୃତିର ବିବିଧତା ଓ ବୈଚିତ୍ର୍ୟକୁ ଏଡେ଼ଇ ଯାଆନ୍ତି । ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନର ଅଣ-ବିକାଶର ଚେର ଖୋଜିଯାଇ ଏହି ଆଲୋଚନାମାନ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ସରକାରୀ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟକ୍ରମ ତଥା ଭାରତୀୟ ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ର ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାର ବିଫଳତା ପାଖରେ ହିଁ ଅଟକି ଯାଆନ୍ତି ।

ଏହି ପରିପ୍ରେକ୍ଷୀରେ ଶ୍ରୀଯୁକ୍ତ ଫଣିନ୍ଦମ୍ ଦେଓଙ୍କର ବହି ‘ରୁଟସ୍ ଅଫ୍ ପଭର୍ଟି’ ଏକ ଉପାଦେୟ ଅବଦାନ । ଲେଖକ କଳାହାଣ୍ଡି ଓ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଦକ୍ଷିଣ-ପଶ୍ଚିମାଞ୍ଚଳର ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନର ସାମାଜିକ ଅବସ୍ଥା ଓ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାକୁ ଏକ ସାମାଜିକ ପରିପ୍ରେକ୍ଷୀରେ ଦେଖିବାକୁ ଚେଷ୍ଟା କରନ୍ତି । ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଏହି ଅଞ୍ଚଳର ଜିଲ୍ଲାଗୁଡ଼ିକ ଆଦିବାସୀ ବହୁଳ । ତେଣୁକରି ସେ ଏହି ଅଞ୍ଚଳର ସାମାଜିକ ସୂତ୍ରରେ ଆଦିବାସୀ ସମାଜର ବାହ୍ୟ ସମାଜ ସହିତ ସମ୍ପର୍କ, ବାହ୍ୟ ସମାଜ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାର ଆଦିବାସୀ ସମାଜ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଅନୁପ୍ରବେଶ ତଥା ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଆଦିବାସୀ ଗୋଷ୍ଠୀର ଏହି ଅନୁପ୍ରବେଶ ପ୍ରତି ଭିନ୍ନ ଭିନ୍ନ ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟାର ପ୍ରତିକ୍ରିୟାରେ ଦେଖନ୍ତି ଏବଂ ଏହି ଜଟିଳ ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟାର ଏକ ମାନଚିତ୍ର ଆମ ପାଇଁ ଆଙ୍କନ୍ତି ।

ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ମତ ଅନୁସାରେ ଏହି ଅଞ୍ଚଳ, ବ୍ରିଟିଶ ଔପନିବେଶବାଦର ଅନୁପ୍ରବେଶ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଆଦିବାସୀ ବହୁଳ ଥିଲା । ଏହି ଆଦିବାସୀ ସମାଜମାନଙ୍କର ସମାଜବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥା ସାଧାରଣଭାବରେ ଦେଖିବାକୁ ଗଲେ ଲୋକଧର୍ମୀ ଥିଲା । ମାତ୍ର ଖ୍ରୀଷ୍ଟାବ୍ଦ ଏକାଦଶ ଶତାବ୍ଦୀ ବେଳକୁ ଏହି ଅଞ୍ଚଳରେ ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ର ନିର୍ମାଣର ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଯାଇଥିଲା । ଆଞ୍ଚଳିକ ସ୍ତରରେ ଭଞ୍ଜ, ନାଗ, ଚୋଡ଼, କାଳଚୁରୀ, ସୋମବଂଶୀ ଇତ୍ୟାଦି ବଂଶର ରାଜାମାନେ ଶାସନ କରୁଥିଲେ ହେଁ ସ୍ଥାନୀୟ ସ୍ତରରେ ଆଦିବାସୀ ବର୍ଚ୍ଚସ୍ୱ ଅକ୍ଷୁର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଥିଲା । ଉପକୂଳବର୍ତ୍ତୀ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ଆଫଗାନ୍ ଶାସନାଧିନ ହେବାଠାରୁ ଦକ୍ଷିଣ-ପଶ୍ଚିମ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ସ୍ଥାନୀୟ ଶାସକମାନେ ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ ହେବାର ଚେଷ୍ଟା କରିବାକୁ ଲାଗିଲେ ଏବଂ କେତେକାଂଶରେ ସଫଳ ମଧ୍ୟ ହେଲେ । 

ନାନା ପ୍ରକାରର ବଂଶାବଳୀ ତଥା ଅନ୍ୟ ପ୍ରକାରର ପୋଥିମାନଙ୍କରୁ ଆହୂତ ତଥ୍ୟର ଭିତ୍ତିରେ ଶ୍ରୀ ଦେଓ ଯୁକ୍ତି କରନ୍ତି ଯେ ଏହି ରାଜବଂଶମାନେ ନିଜକୁ ଚୌହାନ ଓ ନାଗବଂଶଜ ଇତ୍ୟାଦି ଦାବୀ କରୁଥିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଏମାନଙ୍କର ଉତ୍ପତ୍ତି ମୂଳତଃ ସ୍ଥାନୀୟ । ମାତ୍ର ସପ୍ତଦଶ ଶତାବ୍ଦୀରେ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଏହି ରାଜ ପରିବାରମାନେ ନିଜର କ୍ଷମତାବୃଦ୍ଧି ପାଇଁ ଯୋଡ଼ତୋଡ଼ ଆରମ୍ଭ କଲେ, ସେତେବେଳେ ସେମାନେ ନିଜର ଶାସନକୁ ତତ୍କାଳୀନ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥା ଅନୁସାରେ ନ୍ୟାୟସଙ୍ଗତ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ବ୍ରାହ୍ମଣ ଆବାହନ ଓ ବ୍ରାହ୍ମଣ ପୋଷଣର କାର୍ଯ୍ୟକ୍ରମ ଆରମ୍ଭ କଲେ । ଏହା ସହିତ ଶାସନ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟରେ ସହଯୋଗ କରିବାପାଇଁ କରଣ ଜାତିର ଲୋକେ, ପୁଲିସ ପ୍ରଶାସନର ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ମୁସଲମାନ, ଉନ୍ନତ ଚାଷ କରିବାପାଇଁ କୁଲଥା ଇତ୍ୟାଦି ଜାତିର ଲୋକମାନଙ୍କର ଆମଦାନୀ ମଧ୍ୟ ରାଜାମାନେ କରିବାକୁ ଲାଗିଲେ । 

ଊନବିଂଶ ଶତାବ୍ଦୀରେ ଏହି ରାଜାମାନେ ବ୍ରିଟିଶସାମ୍ରାଜ୍ୟର ସାର୍ବଭୌମତା ଅଧିନରେ ଆସିବା ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଏହି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ବିଶେଷ ଜୋର ଧରିନଥିଲା । ମାତ୍ର ଏହି ରାଜାମାନଙ୍କ ଉପରେ ଥରେ ବ୍ରିଟିଶ ସାର୍ବଭୌମତ୍ୱ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠା ହେଲା ପରେ ପରିସ୍ଥିତି ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ବଦଳିଗଲା । ଏହି ସମୟ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ରାଜାମାନଙ୍କର ରାଜନୈତିକ କ୍ଷମତା ବହୁଳାଂଶରେ ସ୍ଥାନୀୟ ଆଦିବାସୀସମାଜର ରାଜନୈତିକ ଓ ସାମାଜିକ ଢାଞ୍ଚା ଉପରେ ଆଧାରିତ ଥିଲା । ତେଣୁ ଆଦିବାସୀମାନଙ୍କର ଅଧିକାର ଓ ଦାବୀ ପ୍ରତି ବୋଧହୁଏ ସ୍ଥାନୀୟ ରାଜାମାନଙ୍କୁ ଧ୍ୟାନ ଦେବାକୁ ପଡ଼ୁଥିଲା । 

ମାତ୍ର ଭାରତରେ ବ୍ରିଟିଶ ସାର୍ବଭୌମତ୍ୱ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠିତ ହେଲା ପରେ ରାଜାମାନଙ୍କୁ କ୍ଷମତାର ଆଉ ଏକ ଅସରନ୍ତି ଉତ୍ସ ମିଳିଗଲା, ତାହା ହେଲେ ବ୍ରିଟିଶ ବନ୍ଧୁକ ଓ ତୋପ । ତେଣୁକରି ରାଜାମାନଙ୍କର ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାଚାର ଓ ଅଞ୍ଚଳ ବାହାରର ଜାତିମାନଙ୍କର ବହୁସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାରେ ଆଗମନ ଓ ଆଦିବାସୀ ସମାଜ ଉପରେ ତାହାର ଚାପ ବଢ଼ିବାରେ ଲାଗିଲା । ୧୮୮୨ ମସିହାର କନ୍ଧ ମେଳିକୁ ଆମେ ଏହି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ବିରୁଦ୍ଧରେ ଏକ ପ୍ରତିକ୍ରିୟା ଭାବରେ ନେଇପାରିବା । କନ୍ଧମାନଙ୍କ ଛଡ଼ା ଗଣ୍ଡ ଓ ବିନ୍‌ଝାର ମାନେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଠାଆକୁ ଠାଆ ଏହି ସମୟରେ ମେଳି ବାନ୍ଧିଲେ । ମାତ୍ର ସଙ୍ଖ୍ୟାରେ କମ୍ ହୋଇଥିବାରୁ ଭୁଞ୍ଜିଆ ଓ ପହରିଆମାନେ ଧିରେ ଧିରେ ବାହ୍ୟ ସମାଜଠାରୁ ଦୂରେଇ ଯାଇ ନିଜର ସମାଜ ଓ ଜୀବନଶୈଳୀକୁ ରକ୍ଷା କରିବା ପାଇଁ ଚେଷ୍ଟା କଲେ । 

ତେଣୁକରି ଶ୍ରୀ ଦେଓ ଏହି ଅଞ୍ଚଳର ଦାରିଦ୍ର୍ୟକୁ ଆଦିବାସୀ ସମାଜ, ସଂସ୍କୃତି ତଥା ରାଜନୈତିକ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥାର ବଞ୍ଚିତକରଣକୁ ହିଁ ଦାରିଦ୍ର୍ୟର ଚେର ବୋଲି ଦେଖନ୍ତି । ଶିକ୍ଷା, ଜଳସେଚନ ଇତ୍ୟାଦି କିଛି ମାତ୍ରାରେ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିପାରେ, ମାତ୍ର ଏହି ବହିର ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ମତରେ ଏସବୁ ବ୍ୟାଣ୍ଡ୍ଏଡ଼୍ ମାତ୍ର । ସମସ୍ୟାର ଅସଲ ଓ ଢାଞ୍ଚାଗତ ଚେର ଯାଇ ଇତିହାସର ସାମାଜିକ ଓ ରାଜନୈତିକ ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟାଗୁଡ଼ିକରେ ।  ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଦକ୍ଷିଣ-ପଶ୍ଚିମାଞ୍ଚଳରେ ଦାରିଦ୍ର୍ୟ ଓ କ୍ଷୁଧାକୁ ନେଇ ହେଉଥିବା ଆଲୋଚନାରେ ଏହି ବହିଟି ଏକ ଆବଶ୍ୟକୀୟ ଐତିହାସିକ ଆଙ୍ଗିକ ଯୋଡ଼ିଦିଏ । ଏଥିଲାଗି ଶ୍ରୀଯୁକ୍ତ ଦେଓ ଆମର ଧନ୍ୟବାଦର ପାତ୍ର । 

ବହି ବିଷୟରେ ସୂଚନା: ଫଣିନ୍ଦମ ଦେଓ । ୨୦୦୯ । ରୁଟ୍ସ୍ ଅଫ୍ ପଭର୍ଟି: ଏ ସୋସିଆଲ୍ ହିଷ୍ଟ୍ରି । ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର: ଆମାଦିଉସ୍ ପ୍ରେସ୍ ।

ଟୀକା: ଏହି ସମୀକ୍ଷାଟି ପ୍ରଥମେ ଏକ ସାମାନ୍ୟ ଭ‌ିନ୍ନ ରୂପରେ ପାକ୍ଷିକ ପତ୍ରିକା 'ସମଦୃଷ୍ଟି'ରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ହୋଇଥିଲା ।

Jayanta Mahapatra 

A master litterateur who created a language uniquely his own

Sailen Routray

Jayanta Mahapatra (1928-2023)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/Suman Pokhrel

Poet Jayanta Mahapatra was cremated at the Khannagar crematorium of Cuttack, Odisha, on August 28. This in spite of him being a third-generation Christian, his grandfather having converted during the Orissa famine of 1866. The cremation was according to his own wishes, as recorded in his will, which also bequeathed a part of the ancestral property that he had inhabited for most of his adult life, to the family of Sarojini, his long-time caretaker.

Both these gestures are perhaps typical of the man who always occupied a tenuous space between the mainstream and the margins of literary circles in India and Odisha. Although a much-awarded poet, widespread recognition of his work came pretty late in his life. He was awarded the Padma Shri in 2009, when he was already 81 years old. Perhaps the most significant honour he received was in 2019 when he became a Fellow of the Sahitya Akademi. He was 91 then.

In his autobiography, Pahini Rati (The Night is Not Yet Over), Mahapatra mentions his studied marginalisation by the Odia literary establishment, where bureaucrats and professors of Odia and English literature have always found it easy to construct identities. Here he also discusses his experience of being a “mere teacher of physics” who starts writing poetry when posted in B.J.B. College in Bhubaneswar, apparently late, at the age of 38. 

He writes consistently from then on in terms of quality and quantity, managing to publish his poems in reputed literary periodicals across the world, such as The Times Literary Supplement, Critical Quarterly, Poetry—Chicago, and The Sewanee Review. He also publishes four volumes of poems within a decade of starting his writing practice.

Fleeting shadows

This was a late budding, but what an efflorescence it was. However, his poetic diction, which waywardly combines maps of his affective territories, personal snapshots of regional history, fleeting shadows of Odia language, and philosophical musings, was at odds with the canon of Indian English poetry that was being fashioned in Bombay in the first two decades after Independence.

The “Bombay School” (comprising the reigning tastemakers of Indian English literature at that time) was not a great fan of Mahapatra’s work. Nissim Ezekiel, in particular, was not excited by the first two of his poetry volumes when they came out in 1971. Ezekiel had published one of Mahapatra’s early poems, “Girl by the window”, in The Illustrated Weekly of India, which Ezekiel edited along with others. However, he wrote a review in the Weekly of Mahapatra’s collections, Close the Sky, Ten by Ten (Dialogue Publications, Kolkata), and Svayamvara and Other Poems (Writers Workshop, Kolkata), that was critical and expressed bafflement.

However, the acceptance of Mahapatra’s work across the globe by established journals meant that he had no reason to look back. He continued to write and publish regularly, not only poems but also translations of poetical works from Odia. His careers as a poet and as a translator fed into each other. 

The number of his poetry collections in English (apart from selections and edited/collected volumes) is more or less the same as that of his translations of Odia poetry into English. He also translated the Bengali poems of Sakti Chattopadhyay (his original award-winning collection, Jete Pari, Kintu Keno Jabo) into English in a volume published by Sahitya Akademi titled I Can, But Why Should I Go.

Translation is indeed a key trope through which we can engage with Jayanta Mahapatra’s poetry. If there is one poet who always reminds me of Mahapatra, it is Agha Shahid Ali. When you read Shahid Ali and are stuck at a line or a stanza, you just have to translate it into Urdu/Hindustani in your mind for it to bloom into light. Similar is the case with Jayanta Mahapatra. When you are troubled by the movement of his lines or by some peculiar image, you render the lines into Odia and they make perfect sense.

Standing with the marginalised

So, for some time I used to think that Jayanta Mahapatra is that cliché, an Odia poet writing in English. But then I started engaging with his Odia poetry four years ago, before doing a longish interview with him, and my idea of Jayanta Mahapatra changed.

Although he is not a part of the Odia poetry canon and his contribution to Odia literature is yet to be seriously assessed (his autobiography Pahini Rati creates the texture of affective interiority in first-person narration in Odia for the first time, and reads more like a long prose poem), his Odia poems are remarkable. 

The forms of the lines are almost premodern, terse, and short. And yet the sensibility is high-modernist—socially engaged, politically conscious, resolutely standing with common people, the oppressed, the marginalised, long before it became fashionable in Odia poetry to do so. Here he is an English poet writing in Odia, English in tone, pitch, and the affective register, yet very Odia in the cadence and flow of the lines.

Perhaps this is the sign of a great poet, as opposed to a merely competent one? Jayanta Mahapatra wrote in English, he wrote in Odia, he also wrote from Odia into English through his translations. However, like all great poets, what he actually wrote in was perhaps a language completely of his own making (which sometimes sounded like Odia and sometimes like English), made up of the perceived absence of love from his mother, the ghosts of the trees that have disappeared from his beloved city of Cuttack, fragments of texts as diverse as Walden (by Henry David Thoreau), Rubaiyat (by Omar Khayyam) and Rudra Sudhanidhi (by Narayanananda Abadhuta Swami), and the play between darkness and light through which all of us who dabble with words, try to make sense.

That language, Jayanta Mahapatra’s language, will not die. 

Note: A slightly different version of this article was published in The Frontline magazine in 2023 as a tribute to the poet. 

ଚିତ୍ତ ବର୍ଗ ୭-୮

ପାଲି 'ଧର୍ମପଦ'ର ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦ

ଅନୁବାଦକ - ଶୈଲେନ ରାଉତରାୟ

ଫଟୋ କ୍ରେଡ଼ିଟ୍ - ୱିକିମିଡିଆ କମନ୍ସ୍

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦ

ବିବିରବିହୀନ ଅଟଇ ଯାହାର ଚିତ୍ତ

ହୁଅଇ ପୁଣି ତା' ଯଦି ଆସ୍ରବ ରହିତ ।।

ପାପ-ପୂଣ୍ୟ ତ୍ୟାଗ କରି ଜାଗରଣଶୀଳ

ତେବେ ନାହିଁ କଉଣସି ଆତଙ୍କ ତାହାର  ।୭।

କୁମ୍ଭ ସମ କାୟକୁ ନଶ୍ୱର କରି ଜ୍ଞାନ 

ଚିତ୍ତକୁ ନଗର ପରି କରିଣ ସ୍ଥାପନ ।।

ପ୍ରଜ୍ଞାର ଆୟୁଧେ କରି ମାର ସଙ୍ଗେ ଯୁଦ୍ଧ

ଜିତିବ, ରକ୍ଷା କରିବ, ହୋଇ ଅନାସକ୍ତ  ।୮।

ମୂଳ ପାଲି ପଦ

ଅନବସ୍ସୂୂତଚିତ୍ତସ ଅନନ୍ୱାହତଚେତସୋ

ପୁଞ୍ଣପାପପହୀନସ୍ୱ ନତ୍-ଥି ଜାଗରତୋ ଭୟଂ ।୭।

କୁମ୍ଭୂପମଂ କାୟମିମଂ ବିଦିତ୍ୱା ନଗରୂପମଂ ଚିତ୍ତମିଦଂ ଠପେତ୍ୱା ।

ଯୋଧେଥ ମାରଂ ପଞ୍ଣାବୁଧେନ ଜିତଂ ଚ ରକ୍ଖେ ଅନିବେସନୋ ସିୟା ।୮।

ଅନୁବାଦକୀୟ ଟୀକା: ଏହି ଅଧମ ଅନୁବାଦକକୁ ପାଲି ଜଣା ନାହିଁ । ଏଣୁ ଏହି ପଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦଟି ପାଇଁ ତାହାର ମୂଳ ସହାୟ ହେଲା  ପ୍ରଫେସର ପ୍ରହ୍ଲାଦ ପ୍ରଧାନଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସମ୍ପାଦିତ 'ପାଲି ଧର୍ମପଦ' ଗ୍ରନ୍ଥଟି, ଯେଉଁଥିରେ ସେ ସଂସ୍କୃତ ରୂପାନ୍ତର ସହ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଗଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦ କରିଯାଇଛନ୍ତି । ଗ୍ରନ୍ଥଟିର ପ୍ରଥମ ସଂସ୍କରଣ ୧୯୭୮ ମସିହାରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ । କିନ୍ତୁ ଏହି ଅନୁବାଦକ ୧୯୯୪ ମସିହାରେ କଟକସ୍ଥ ପ୍ରକାଶନ ସଂସ୍ଥା ଫ୍ରେଣ୍ଡ୍‌ସ୍‌ ପବ୍ଲିଶର୍ସ ଛାପିଥିବା ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟ ସଂସ୍କରଣଟି ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିଛି । ଏହା ଛଡ଼ା ଏହି ପଦ୍ୟାନୁବାଦ କରିବା ପାଇଁ 'ଦି ସେକ୍ରେଡ଼୍ ବୁକ୍ସ୍ ଅଫ୍ ଦି ଇଷ୍ଟ୍' ସିରିଜ୍‌ରେ ମାକ୍ସ୍ ମ୍ୟୁଲର୍‌ଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସମ୍ପାଦିତ 'ଦି ଧମ୍ମପଦ' ଇଂରାଜି ଗ୍ରନ୍ଥଟିର ୨୦୧୩ ମସିହାରେ ରୁଟ୍‌ଲେଜ୍ ଛାପିଥିବା ସଂସ୍କରଣଟିର ମଧ୍ୟ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରାଯାଇଛି ।