Samudrapu Dibba

Article by: Halley
*********
I first read this novel about an year ago. From then on, if somebody asks me what my favourite novel is i can’t help but think of this one.

If you are asked to list out a few dystopian novels, you would perhaps talk about Orwell’s twin gems – “1984” and “Animal Farm” or Ayn Rand’s “Anthem” or “Lord of the flies” or “Brave new world”. What if i were to tell you that there was a novel in telugu literature from the mid-20th century that not only gives each one of these novels a run for their money and also does more? The novel in question is “సముద్రపు దిబ్బ” / “Samudrapu Dibba” (“Sea mound” works best?)

To give a helicopter view, this book is about the transition of a land from a varna-dharma based kingship rule to bad kings to democracy (turned plutarchy) to dictatorial socialism. It has some scathing criticism on the ideas of universal equality, democracy (today’s version), socialism (primarily the ones which end up with totalitarian dictatorships) etc.

I will try to summarise some of my favourite lines from the book in this post.I might have made some mistakes in translation and interpretation. So pardon me for that. I am also hoping i have not violated any copyright in this process. This is afterall, “fair use”, i suppose!

Read on!

Once the traditional heriditary professions are done away with, the now regular routine of “study for a while-get a degree-hunt for a job-keep running the race” starts in that particular kingdom/country in the novel. It is in this context, that the author Viswanatha Satyanarayana says,

తొలుతటి నాళ్ళలో అలుపపు చదువులకే యధికపుటుద్యోగములు వచ్చేడివి. అది క్రమక్రమముగా మారి, యధికపు చదువులకు గూడ నలుపపు టుద్యోగములు వచ్చెడి స్థితి వచ్చెను. అందరును చదివిన వారైనచో అందరికిని నుద్యొగము లెట్లు వచ్చును? అందరును పల్లకి నెక్కినచో మోయువారెవ్వరు.

Initially, people used to get the most-coveted jobs for lesser qualifications. Slowly, people started getting entry level jobs for higher qualifications. If everyone is a degree holder then how can it be possible that everyone gets a job? If everyone wants to sit on the palanquin who will be its bearers?

Now there are two ways in which this can be read. The first is to say that he has a conservative brahminical outlook and burn his effigy for that last one line saying he is a perpetrator of inequality etc and close the case. The second is to closely examine what he says, look around (Ref) and understand the merit of it. For a labour heavy country like ours, it is very important to ponder this question, can everyone have a (higher?) education and can everyone find a white collar job? If not, then that means someone will still have to end up as a hamali/coolie, barber, tailor, sweeper, rag picker, rickshaw puller what not! (Note: this is not to denigrate those professions. it is just to bust some popular myths, so i go by popular perceptions of professions). That being the case, the writer makes you wonder what is so great about today’s education system? Is everyone really flourishing with super awesome jobs? Even in cases where they do, an analysis of the sustainability of that growth engine, its supply chain and the ecological costs of the industry involved will make the farce pretty clear. You can also look at this (Ref) and cheer the system, but think through it and you will realise that the world will need only so many engineers from those institutes and most other professions will still need to be filled by other ‘professionals’

Elsewhere, talking about “equality” Viswanatha Satyanarayana says the following:

కాని ఈ సమానత – దేశమునందు నగరములందు పట్టణములందు పల్లెలయందు మానిషులొకరితోనొకరు మాటాడునపుడు భాషింపజేసికొనెడిదే కానీ జీవన మార్గములందు , సంపాదన యందు, బతుకు సుఖముల యందు కలుగలేదు.

That notion of equality was only found when people discussed it amongst themselves in the towns, cities and villages. But equality was never to be seen in the livelihoods, income levels and happiness levels of its people.

Very true! We talk a lot about equality to this day. But it is nowhere to be seen!

Continuing on equality he says this,

పలుమంది ఇది సిద్ధించినట్లే భావింతురు. కొందరు సిద్ధింపబోవుచున్న దందురు. పండితులైన వారు దాని సిద్ధి యొక్క అసంభవతను గూర్చి ఆలోచింతురు. దాని రహస్యమును గూర్చి వివాదమును పడుచుందురు. చర్చలు చేయుచుందురు. పలు విధములుగా భాషింతురు. అది సాధ్యము కాదేమో యన్న సందేహము చాలా కొలది మంది కున్నది. తక్కిన వారందరు సాధ్యమనియే విశ్వసింతురు. కొందరు సాధింపబడినదనుకొందురు. ఆ దేశమున సర్వ సమానతా సిద్ధాంతము ప్రధనమైనది కాదు. ప్రజస్వామికము ప్రధానమైనది. కాని ఈ ప్రజాస్వామిక సిద్ధాంతమునకు ఆయువు పట్టు సర్వ సమానతా సిద్ధాంతము.

Many believe that we have achieved equality already. Some believe that it would be achieved very soon. Some experts ponder over the impossibility of having an equal society. They discuss and debate about its intricacies. Very few express the doubt that perhaps equality is not possible at all. The rest believe that it is possible to achieve the goal of universal equality. Some believe that universal equality has been established already. In that country, it is not the goal of universal equality that is important. It is democracy that is the key. But democracy has this ideal of universal equality as its lifeline.

These are very difficult lines to understand and appreciate for a generation that has been brainwashed on the values of democracy and equality. Even the so called liberals cannot tolerate criticisms on the ideals of democracy and equality. They are sacrosanct for them.

The writer rips apart the hypocrisy of the elite in the society in the following manner.

నాకేమియూ కోపము లేదు. విషయమును చెప్పుచున్నాను. ‘సర్వ జనులు కలిసి యుండ వలెను. అందరునూ సమానమే. భేదములుండరాదు. వర్ణ భేదములూ కుల భేదములూ దేశ భేదములూ జాతి భేదములు లేకుండా పెళ్ళి చెసికొనవలయును ‘ మొదలైన మాటలు ప్రతి రాజకీయ వేత్తయు ధారాళముగా చెప్పుచుండును. తన కొడుకులకు కూతులకు మాత్రము తన కులము వారిని మాత్రమే చూచి జాగ్రత్తగా పెండ్లి చేయును. అందరును సమానమందురు. అందరి యాదాయము సమానముగ ఉండవలెను అందురు. తన కూతురునిచ్చి పెండ్లిచేసెడి నపుడు మాత్రము వాడు పరగణాధిపతియో, నగరాధిపతియో, పర రాజ్యమునకు రాయబారియో యై యుండవలెయును. తన కూతురును సామాన్యున కిచ్చి పెండ్లి చేయడు
I am not angry over anything. I am stating things as they are.All the politicians stand by words like “We should all live together happily. We are all equal. There should not be any differences. All sorts of inequalities due to varna, caste, region, race shouldn’t obstruct inter-marriages” etc. However, they would ensure that their own sons and daughters get married within their caste. They would say that all are equal and that everyone need to get equal income. But when it comes to finding a suitable match for their daughters, they would ensure that it is a zamindar or a big ruler or an ambassador to another country. They would never get their daughter married to a commoner.

This is still true by and large. I feel that even the exceptions in many cases have ulterior objectives (and i might be wrong here!)

The line that follows next, i thought was a very brave line. Particularly so in the context of a post-liberalisation India that is supposedly cruising to become a developed country.

విమానములు .. ధనము గలవారికి మేలే. గొప్ప వర్తకులకు మేలే. వారి సంఖ్య తక్కువ. సర్వ జనోపయోగ మనదని నేను అనను.

Aeroplanes might be good for the rich, good for the business men. They are always few in number. I wouldn’t say that they are useful for the entire populace.

I am reminded of a famous interaction between Jawaharlal nehru and J C Kumarappa. It takes guts to state something like this. A typical urbanite reaction to this line today would be, “But in america and europe even common people use Aeroplanes”. You ask “What about the ecology costs mister?” and the in return you would either get a “you-are-not-supposed-to-ask-such-questions” look or that dreaded phrase “technology will evolve and we will solve this problem too”. Incidentally, J C Kumarappa said the same about aeroplanes, but Gandhian economics has no place in today’s development discourse anyway.

The next paragraph is a very sharp criticism on the hypocrisy of the anti-caste discourse today. We can relate to this in a lot of caste politics that happens today across the country. Even reservations for that matter! These are very controversial topics ofcourse, and there barely is a sane mind today to sit,read and contemplate on these topics. We only know how to agitate, burn effigies, do rasta roko, shutdown a street or two, demolish a bus or two and sadly, to commit suicide as well!

ఈ నీలకంఠుని యొక్క వర్ణములో పూర్వము జన్మించినవారు ద్రోహమే చెసిరి. ఇప్పటి వారేమి చేసిరి? వీని మీద పగ తీర్చుకొనుట ఎందులకు? వీరు చేయలేదు కదా. అనగా – పూర్వము నుండియు నిన్నటి వరకు వచ్చుచున్న ఈ వర్ణమునకు యేకత్వ మంగీకరించిరని యర్థము. అనగా వర్ణమున్నదని యర్థము. వర్ణములు లేవని నేడనుచున్నరు. ఆ యనుటకు ఈ చేతకును సంబంధం లేదు. ఇతడా వర్ణములో పుట్టలేదు. వర్ణమే లేనప్పుడు ఇతడెట్లా పుట్టును? ఇతని పూర్వుల యందున్న లక్షణము వీని యందెట్లు పుట్టును? వారు పుట్టిరి. వారేదొ చేసిరి. వారి దారిని వారు పొయిరి. నీ వంగీకరించని ఒక వర్ణముకు వారి పూర్వులు చెందినారు. మొదటిది నీ వా వర్ణ సిద్దాంతమును అంగీకరించవు .కాని వీనిని హింసించుట కంగీకరింతువు.

I agree that in the past, people born in the varna of neelakantha (a character in the novel) have betrayed you. What did the present ones do then? Why take revenge on these people for something their ancestors committed? They themselves haven’t done any harm to you. That means – you are agreeing that a sense of continuity exists between the people in this varna from the past and present .That means this thing called a varna is a reality?Today they say that the system of varna doesn’t exist. There is no connection between that saying and this doing. This person you are targetting today wasn’t born in that varna. If according to you, varna system itself doesn’t have any merit then how can someone be born in that varna? How can he carry forward attitudes from his ancestor? Their ancestors were born. They did something and passed away. Their ancestors belonged to a varna that you so hate today. Firstly, you don’t even believe in that varna system, however, you are very eager to commit atrocities on the present generation in the name of that very varna system.

Very very tricky lines these!

The next paragraph compares varnashrama dharma and democracy! I haven’t read any author to date who has been so brutal on democracy, the holy cow of our times!

ఈ రీతిగా మానవులలో భిన్న తరగతుల యందు భిన్న భిన్నముగా నున్న భేదములు నిత్యములుగా సహజములుగా సర్వకాలీకముగా రాజు రాజ్యము చేయునపుడు మన్నింపబడుచుండెను. ప్రజాస్వామీకము వచ్చి ఈ భేదములను కంటగించుకొనెను. ఆ భేదములను తీసి వేయనెంచెను. ప్రజాస్వామీకమునకు నీ భేదములు సహజము అని తెలియదు. సామాన్యులు బాధ పడుచున్నారు. ఆ బాధను తొలగించుటకు ఇది మార్గమని ప్రజాస్వామీకము భావించెను. ఈ దోషములన్నియు మానవ సమాజము నందు సహజము లన్న విషయములు మరచి దీనికి కారణము రాజనుకొనిరి. ఆ రాజు బదులు నీవు మరొక్కన్ని పెట్టెదవు. వాని యందు నీ దోషములు కలవు. కానీ వానిని నీ వేర్పాటు చేయుట చేత వాని యందీ దోషములు లేవని నీ వనుకొందువు. వాడునూ తన యందీ దోషములు లేనట్లు నటించును.

In this manner, the different distinctions that existed amongst different classes in the society were retained with a sense of continuity under the rule of the king. Democracy couldn’t bear these differences. It decided to remove these differences. Democracy never really understood that these differences are but natural in the human society. Democracy felt that removing these differences is the only way to alleviate the commoner from his suffering. Forgetting that these differences and defects are but natural in the human society, democrats felt that the king is the reason for this mess. You (i.e., democracy) then replace the king by a elected leader. Even that leader will have some of these defects. But because he was elected by you, you tend to assume that he is defect free. Once elected, even he would act like he is free of any blemish.

I am still not fully convinced by this line of thought, but i do get a sense of what the author is trying to say. I can however, say the famed democracies of the world haven’t shown me the right rebuttal to this yet. Also, as one tends to trace the evolution of nation state democracy it would appear that its proponents aren’t as free of vested interests as they claim to be. I agree more with aurobindo when he says the following on this topic

The old Indian system grew out of life, it had room for everything and every interest. There were monarchy, aristocracy, democracy; every interest was represented in the government. While in Europe the Western system grew out of the mind: they are led by reason and want to make everything cut and dried without any chance of freedom or variation. If it is democracy, then democracy only, no room for anything else.

Vishwanatha then says this on the beauty of village democracy. They all said it before at various points of time in their life, Gandhi, Tagore, Aurobindo, Vivekananda! Did Nehru ever say something like this? I don’t know.

యే గ్రామమున కా గ్రామము వ్యవస్థితమైన ప్రదేశముగా చేసినచో, సర్వదేశము వ్యవస్థితమైనట్లే. అన్ని గ్రామముల మీద కలిపి మరికొన్ని విశాలమైన విషయములు వ్యవస్థితములు కావలసినవి యుండును. గ్రామమునకు గ్రామములో, దేశమునకు దేశములో సర్వ విషయములు వ్యవస్థితమైనపుడు దేశము చక్కగా పాలింపబడుచున్నదని యర్థము.
If every village is a self-sustaining institution in itself, then that means the state also has established and stabilised itself. There might be a need to institutionalise some all pervading principles over all the villages. If all things pertaining to a village are institutionalised within the village and if the same goes for the country as a whole, then we can say that the country is being ruled properly.

The next line is again very true in the Indian context. Superiority of one culture over the other continues to be established by the power of the sword! In the case of India, it would be colonisation.

పొరుగు రాజ్యమూ వారి సిద్దాంతాలే పరమ సిద్దాంతములు అని నిరూపించుట యెట్లు? ఆయుధ సామాగ్రి గగనము నుంచి నిప్పులు… ఆ బలము ననుసరించి వారి సిద్దాంతములూ బలమైనవి అయ్యెను.

How do you establish that the principles of the other country are superior to our own? It is with the power of armoury and throwing fire from the skies. It is only with that sort of an evil might the principles of the ‘other’ became the norm in one’s own country.

This one is a beautiful paragraph on varnashrama dharma and all the brouhaha on the emancipation of labour, breaking the shackles of caste etc. It is very difficult to rebut if someone is in touch with the realities of life today. Anyway, this is fiction, one is always free to imagine.Any resemblance to the world of today is coincidental.

సంఘము దృష్థ్యా వాడా పని చేయనిచో సంఘము సాగదు. వాడు చేయకపోయినచో మరియింకొకడా పని చేయుచూనే ఉండును కదా. చెప్పులు కుట్టెడు వాడొకడుండనే యుండవలెను. పరంపరగా ఆ కులమునందు పుట్టినవాడే చేయవలయునన్న నిర్ణయమును వ్యతిరేకించుట లో యర్థమేమి? ఆ కులములోని వారెప్పుడును పైకి వచ్చుటకు వీలులేకుండ చేయుట అనుటలో అర్థమేమి? ఆ కులములోని వాడు మంత్రి అయ్యెను. ఇది వరకు మంత్రిగా నుండెడి వాని కులములోని వాడు నేడు చెప్పులు కుట్టెను. రెండు నొకటియా రెండా? అందరు జీవులూ సమానమైనచో నొక డిట్లగును, ఒక డట్లగును. సమానత కేమి భంగమున్నది? కాని యధికటల్పతలు కులమును బట్టి నిర్ణయింపబడుచున్నది. పొరుగు దేశములలో ఈ భేదములు లేవు. వారి పరలోక విశ్వాసములను బట్టి మానవుడు మరల జన్మింపడు. జీవులున్నారు. ఆ జీవుడొక్కసారే పుట్టును. ఒక్కసారియే చచ్చును. కనుక ఆ జీవుడు మరల జన్మ యెత్తి ఉత్తమ భోగము లనుభవించుటకు వీలు లేదు. అందుకని యచట పుట్టిన సర్వ జీవులూ మహాభోగములు అనుభవించియే చచ్చుచున్నారా అన్న ప్రశ్న యున్నది. కాగా వారు తమ సిద్ధాంతములోని యాధిక్యత నెట్లు నిరూపింతురనగా ,ముఖ్యమంత్రి అవటానికి నందరికినీ సమానావకశములు ఉన్నవి అని చెప్పుదురు. అదియూ విచారనీయాంశమే. కాని జనులకది నచ్చినది. అనగా జీవుడు కర్మ మొదలైనవాని యందు తూర్పు దేశస్తులకు విశ్వాసము తగ్గిపోయెను.

From the perspective of a stable social order, if he doesn’t do that job then the society cannot run. If he doesn’t do it, someone else would. There needs to be a cobbler who will stitch shoes for the society. What is the meaning in opposing the rule of heridity in taking up the profession of cobbling? What is the meaning in saying that the caste system is prohibiting mobility for that cobbler? A person from the cobbler caste today became a minister. A person who would otherwise become a minister owing to his heriditary caste now becomes a cobbler. Is it two different things or one and the same thing? (i.e., from a macro perspective there still is one cobbler and one minister in the society). If all beings are the same, one is a cobbler and one is a minister, how does that affect the sameness? It is just that the notions of high and low are being established by caste. The other countries do not have these differences. Based on their beliefs on the other world, there is nothing called an after life or rebirth. There are beings. You live once and die once. So there is no concept of an inter-generational justice or justice by rebirth in a different caste. But just because they don’t have this concept of a rebirth, is everyone in that society living a life full of pleasure, happiness? that remains a question to be answered. But they establish the superiority of their system by saying that, in our system everyone has an oppurtunity to become a minister. Even that claim is debatable. But people embraced that idea. Hence, the belief on soul, karma etc slowly started vanishing in the people of the eastern countries.

My goodness! whatever that was! I read a bit of sociology before and some societies seem to take pride in the idea of social mobility. But that macro perspective sort of shook me from my slumber. I cannot refute this argument easily, not that i am fully sold either. But without rejecting the idea of karma, the idea of rebirth and by corollary the hindu/dharmic notion of a soul, it is impossible to refute this argument. Once that is done, i feel it amounts to rejecting a major part of dharmic thought as a whole. Afterall, what is left of it once we reject the relation between cause-effect, karma, samskara etc? So i remain silent now. I am just more dazed now as some of the more celebrated ideas like social mobility now seem more like mere marketing propositions!

(continued in next page)