Musings on the Life & Times of Chinnaswamy Subramania Bharathi Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan
Musings on the Life & Times of Chinnaswamy Subramania Bharathi
Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan
44
Bharathidasan was all of 17 years in 1908 when Bharathi took exiledom in Pondicherry. He stood first in Pulavar course. He was an ‘aspiring poet with an inspirational
streak’ commended his professors. Come 1909 and the marriage function of B Dasan’s Physical Instruction teacher Venu Naicker. There was a stage performance of a music troupe. Several singers took the stage. B Dasan was a good singer with a tuneful tone. He was persuaded to get on stage and he could not say no to his teacher.
Kanaka Subba Rathinnam, he was not yet B Dasan, was commanded by his teacher to sing. Dasan chose a Bharathiyar classic with independence touch.
“தில்லை எவளியிலே கலந்துவிட் டாலவர்
திரும்பியும் வருவாரோ?”என்னும் வர்ணமெட்டு
- வீர சுதந்திரம் வேண்டி நின்றார் பின்னர்
வேறொன்று கொள்வாரோ?-என்றும்
ஆரமு துண்ணுதற் காசை கொண்டார் கள்ளில்
அறிவைச் செலுத்துவாரோ? (வீர)
- புகழுநல் லறமுமே யன்றியெல் லாம்எவறும்
கொய்யென்று கண்டா ரேல்-அவர்
இகழுறும் ஈனத்தொண் டியற்றியும் வாழ்வதற்கு
இச்சையுற் றிருப்பாரோ? (வீர)
- பிறந்தவர் யாவரும் இறப்ப துறுதியெனும்
பெற்றியை அறிந்தா ரேல்-மானம்
துறந்தறம் மறந்தும்பின் உயிர்கொண்டு வாழ்வது
சுகமென்று மதிப்பாரோ? (வீர)
- மானுட ஜன்மம் பெறுவதற் கரிதெனும்
வாய்மையை உயர்ந்தா ரேல்-அவர்
ஊனுடல் தீயினும் உண்மை நிலைதவற
உடன்படு மாறுள தோ? (வீர)
- விண்ணி லிரவிதனை விற்றுவிட் டெவரும்போய்
மின்மினி கொள்வா ரோ?
கண்ணினும் இனிய சுதந்திரம் போனபின்
கைகட்டிப் பிழைப்பா ரோ? (வீர)
- மண்ணிலின் பங்களை விரும்பிச் சுதந்திரத்தின்
மாண்பினை யிழப்பாரோ?
கண்ணிரண்டும் விற்றுச் சித்திரம் வாங்கினால்
கைகொட்டிச் சிரியாரோ! (வீர)
- வந்தே மாதரம் என்று வணங்கியபின்
மாயத்தை வணங்குவ ரோ?
வந்தே மாதரம் ஒன்றே தாரகம்
என்பதை மறப்பாரோ
followed by another one. While the audience appreciatively responded, they were all to a man or a woman focused on some one in the audience. Dasan was listened to. And not being looked on at all. It was very curious to Dasan, who too looked out for that entity. Dasan recounted “ Who was that individual. Looked like a Raviverma sketch of Sivan. Someone, he vaguely recalled may have crossed paths with at least a couple of times”, even as he was winding down his singing.
Venu Naicker, “Subbu, have you met the author of the verse you sung”. “No, I have not met that Kavi Bharathiyar”. “Well, the person we were looking at fixated, as you sung is the man of the moment- Kavi Chinnaswamy Subramania Bharathi”. B Dasan was astounded at his looks and size. The Kavi had a PRESENCE. Which only the likes of such poets had. And it was Kanaka Subbu Rathinam’s first meeting with Bharathi.
B Dasan was nine years younger to Bharathi. He was fitter, stronger than the frail Bharathi. Beginning the very next day, K S Rathinam became the shadow man of Bharathi and assisted any which way the master of Guru ordained. The relationship began in right earnest, flowered, established, and morphed umbilical when E V Ramasamy Naicker named K S Rathinam as Bharathidasan. Dasan as in a Slave not disciple as B Dasan called himself.
B Dasan conceded, “I was writing nationalistic, devotional verses till then. I had no streak of reform. Until I met my mentor. He inspired me. He got into me. He touched my very being. My soul. I breathed him. I pivoted to what I became. Quite naturally, I was overjoyed when I was called as a Dasan of Bharathi. It could not get any better”.
Bharathi himself was effusive in praise and acknowledged the ‘ better grammatical and literary skills of B Dasan’. As evidence, Bharathi shared this authentic and impeccable anecdote. “ I was engrossed in debate and discussion with A Ghosh and Srinivasachariar. Topics of mutual interest of manifold variants occupied our time and focus. We forgot food and drink and time.Our topic strayed into comparative study of French and Tamil on the literary and grammatical plane. It was felt that French trumped Tamil and I felt hurt. Not that it was true or factual. But that I was not learned enough to disabuse the construct. I knew my Tamil was ill equipped. It was. So, the day after when I met K S Rathinam I bemoaned my inadequacy. And hey presto, typical of the solidity and sweep of his learning, Subbu quoted syllable, verse and poems from Sangam literature et al and convinced me that Tamil was not orphaned. My heart swelled with pride for my sweet Tamil. I wanted the day to close. So that I can take K S Rathinam along and mark him as Material Object to prove my side. Take him, I did the next day. K S Rathinam. I introduced him to Ghosh and Srinivasachariar. And as an adoring parent would let his child recite from memory or a teacher let his favourite student to display his wares, I asked K S Rathinam to argue my case. Oh boy, K S Rathinam put up a sterling display. Knowing the occasion and the men he would be meeting, Rathinam had prepared a cast iron case. He quoted verse after verse to show that the heritage, historicity of Tamil language was unparalleled and the fundamental grammatical base it boasted of, was unmatched. The assembly was astounded and concluded that we did not have to yield to French. And dear Tamil was ‘ far superior and worthy of reverence’”.
It maybe apt to recall that just as there was a Bharathi Dasan to Bharathi, there was a Surada- a.k.a. Subburathinadasan to Bharathidasan. If Bharathi had his Kuyil Paattu, B Dasan had his Sanjeevi Parvatham: Bharathi’s Panchali Savatham was matched by B Dasan’s Purstchikavi or Veerathai: and Kannan Paattu was answered with Kadhal Paattu.
It may be time to get back to Bharathi. But, we have not snapped the connectivity at any moment. We have strayed into the lives of VO Chidamabaranar, Subramania Siva, Vanchinathan, Va. Ve. Su Iyer, always holding the hands of Bharathi. So be it with B Dasan too. This one lovely touch provided by a writer Suren compels a borrow contextually. Why not? It adds to these musings not detracts. And belongs here, of course too.
Bharathidasan was a popular and acclaimed poet whose writings drew many a young man and woman into the Dravidian movement. His birth name was Kanakasabai Subburathinam, but he used the pen name Bharathidasan out of respect for the Tamil poet Subramania Bharathi. Among the men who were impressed by him was C N Annadurai, or ‘Anna’, the leader of the DMK and the first Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from the Dravidian movement.
Bharathidasan had already been conferred the title ‘Pavendhar’ or ‘King of Lays’. Annadurai went further ahead and conferred on him the title ‘Puratchi Kavingnyar’ or ‘Revolutionary Poet’. Annadurai was himself later given the title ‘Perarignar’ or ‘Great Scholar
When Bharathidasan was in his 50s, the younger leaders of the Dravidar Kazhagam, led by Annadurai, wished to gift him with a purse, as a token of honour for the service he had rendered to the cause of Tamil literature and to the Dravidian cause.
Accordingly, a collection was taken out and in a grand function organized at Pondicherry in 1946, a purse was presented to Bharathidasan. The popular legend also has it that Anna did not want to give the purse, but instead kept the purse in his palms and asked Bharathidasan to pick it up, since a poet’s hands should never be held below, in a gesture of receiving and always above, to show his benediction. This story is repeated as an instance of the extraordinary grace of Annadurai.
Where was Periyar in this equation? In 1946, Annadurai had not yet started the DMK and was very much in the DK, led by EV Ramasamy. It was Bharathidasan’s stand that since EV Ramasamy was not an ethnic Tamil, a separate political led by Tamils was required. He had apparently refused Ramasamy’s proposal to publish some of his poetry. There was, thus, some ill-feeling between the two.
It is reported that Ramasamy was against any such collection for the personal use of Bharathidasan. His reasoning was that Bharathidasan had never left his employment as a Government teacher, continued to draw his salary and was entitled for a pension and hence did not really need this money. He also published his works commercially and was thus entitled to an income from his writing also. Additionally, Bharathidasan’s personal lifestyle did not guarantee that he would manage a large sum well. Periyar Ramasamy was also annoyed that he had not been consulted and is reported to have said – ‘Someone writes a couple of songs and becomes a Revolutionary Poet. Does this warrant so much expenditure and effort?’
It may be noted that Bharathidasan was never against British rule, had never participated in the Indian freedom struggle, nor in the anti-Hindi agitations of 1937 and as a consequence had never been imprisoned. His only imprisonment was on account of an accusation of personal misdemeanour on Bharathidasan’s part.
Having made his opinion felt, Ramasamy did pledge a sum of Rs 150 for this purpose. It is not known whether he really did pay this amount.
In Bharathidasan’s own account, the total sum announced was Rs 25,000, but he claimed to have received only Rs 20,000. He also claimed that 4 different people had announced that the expensive shawl he was honoured with at the function was their contribution. Further, he claimed that he never got to see the receipts for funds collected in his name, even though ‘Murasoli’, Annadurai’s daily publication, in its coverage of the event announced that all receipts had been handed over to Bharathidasan.
In 1958, K S Rathinam a.k.a. B Dasan writes – ‘People tell me that Annadurai gave me a stage, a grand shawl and handsome purse. Was it Annadurai who spent this money? What was his situation at that time?’. He then proceeded to unleash a flowery, metaphorical torrent of abuse directed at Annadurai’s female relatives. The accusation was that Annadurai was dependent upon their earnings in a very unflattering manner. Let us not go there beyond.
He also implied that Annadurai curried favour with T N Raman and had himself included in the committee to conduct the purse-gifting function. He implied that Annadurai and T N Raman had some caste connection. It may be noted that C N Annadurai was a Kaikolar, a Sengunthar sub-caste with the title Mudaliar. Bharathidasan also belonged to the same Senguntha Mudaliar caste. One wonders what was the implication behind Bharathidasan’ characterization of the friendship between ‘two melams’ (drums).
Going beyond these limited references may take us into Dravidian politics sphere, and sans scholarship, they surely do not belong here.
(Author is practising advocate in the Madras High Court)
