I largely agree with him. Yet, I think this is an important issue and needs to be debated. Hence, I give my detailed response (albeit a little late) with the hope that Dr Bilimale, being an expert on Yakshagna, will have more to say about it. I would also look forward to what others might have to say about it.
Dear Dr Bilimale:
Thanks for your response. I certainly agree with you that modern interpretation of mythology is good for Talamaddale and Yakshagana dialogues. Yet, I am afraid we are talking here about two different issues.
My point about the artiste in the role of Karna using Malthusian theory is different. If he were to say only that the nature would find its own solution when the burden of population on earth was too much, one would take it as a reflection of some modern thinking and yet relevant to the wars during the ancient times. Wars used to destroy millions of lives in ancient India after all.
However, this artiste said 'one economist had said it.' The moment he attributed it to one economist, the reference was obviously to Malthus because no other economist had said anything like that before the Mahabharata times. Now his reference was not to a line of thought but to a historical figure. Because Malthus is a 19/20th century economist. Moreover, the artiste said 'population doubles in every 25 years.' This is a Malthusian idea and Malthus arrived at this figure based on the realities during the industrial revolution. Thus, Karna making this obvious reference to Malthus and quoting verbatim from his theory in the context of the Mahabharata seem a little odd to me.
As long as the reference to the contemporary thoughts and philosophical strands is subtle and reflective, it is fine. The moment things are made obvious, it breaches the mythological framework within which a talamaddale artiste is supposed to operate.
I agree that artistes like Sheni, Kumble and Joshi do bring elements of contemporary issues and modern thoughts when they speak as mythological characters. But I have never heard these artistes making the reference to modern issues too obvious in their interpretation of mythology. If they did, I would say, it should never be a benchmark for others. Kumble as Karna in Ranaveelya Karnabedhana says this:
Eee samajakke jaatiya bhoota hididide; Hasivege ondu mushti anna kelidare jaati keltaare; Baayaarikege ondishtu neeru kelidare jaati yaavudu anta prashne maadthaare...
This reflects to an extent a contemporary social reality as much as the state of affairs at the time in which Karna is believed to have lived. That is the beauty of it.
When actor Rajakumar was in the captivity of Veerappan, Sheni played Hamsadhwaja in 'Sudhanwaarjuna' at a koota in Puttur. While taking exception to Sudhanwa's delay in going to the battle field, Sheni as Hamsadhwaja said:
Avamaana, avamaana, obba rajakumaarana prakaranadinda idee arasottigege avamaana (Sheni narrated this to me in an interview for Deccan Herald).
The dialogue suited perfectly as that of Hamsadwaja. Sudhanwa was a Rajakumara (prince) and the pun had reflected something contemporary. Sheni's reference to Indira Gandhi and Sanjaya Gandhi during the emergency times when he described Kaikeyi and Bharata was as much subtle (I have only read about this)
Recently while in Bangalore I attended a talamaddale 'Jambavati Kalyana' at Ramashrama in Girinagara. Ramashrama as everyone knows has been built by B Krishna Bhat. A young artiste, Shashanka Arnady, had played Jambavantha. While speaking after realising that Krishna with whom he had fought was none other than Rama, Arnady as Jambavantha said like this:
Krishna ninna aagamanadinda giriyallidda ee guhe Ramaashramavaayitu...
I thought it was an intelligent choice of words without compromising the subtlety or without straying out of the mythological framework. Anything more to relate Krishna to Krishna Bhat would have made it sound more obvious and thus awkward.
I have heard some artistes crudely pushing contemporary news into their mythological dialogues. That is really awful. In giving modern interpretation to mythology, I think, the sense of time should never be lost. The dialogues should remain in the context of mythology. This is what I was worried about when I heard Karna making obvious reference to Malthusian theory.
I think issues like this should be debated and the outcomes should be conveyed to the artistes concerned. As you yourself had observed in some other context, Yakshagana has lost a great deal for want of a tradition of healthy criticism.
My point about the artiste in the role of Karna using Malthusian theory is different. If he were to say only that the nature would find its own solution when the burden of population on earth was too much, one would take it as a reflection of some modern thinking and yet relevant to the wars during the ancient times. Wars used to destroy millions of lives in ancient India after all.However, this artiste said 'one economist had said it.' The moment he attributed it to one economist, the reference was obviously to Malthus because no other economist had said anything like that before the Mahabharata times. Now his reference was not to a line of thought but to a historical figure. Because Malthus is a 19/20th century economist. Moreover, the artiste said 'population doubles in every 25 years.' This is a Malthusian idea and Malthus arrived at this figure based on the realities during the industrial revolution. Thus, Karna making this obvious reference to Malthus and quoting verbatim from his theory in the context of the Mahabharata seem a little odd to me.
As long as the reference to the contemporary thoughts and philosophical strands is subtle and reflective, it is fine. The moment things are made obvious, it breaches the mythological framework within which a talamaddale artiste is supposed to operate.
I agree that artistes like Sheni, Kumble and Joshi do bring elements of contemporary issues and modern thoughts when they speak as mythological characters. But I have never heard these artistes making the reference to modern issues too obvious in their interpretation of mythology. If they did, I would say, it should never be a benchmark for others. Kumble as Karna in Ranaveelya Karnabedhana says this:
Eee samajakke jaatiya bhoota hididide; Hasivege ondu mushti anna kelidare jaati keltaare; Baayaarikege ondishtu neeru kelidare jaati yaavudu anta prashne maadthaare...
This reflects to an extent a contemporary social reality as much as the state of affairs at the time in which Karna is believed to have lived. That is the beauty of it.
When actor Rajakumar was in the captivity of Veerappan, Sheni played Hamsadhwaja in 'Sudhanwaarjuna' at a koota in Puttur. While taking exception to Sudhanwa's delay in going to the battle field, Sheni as Hamsadhwaja said:
Avamaana, avamaana, obba rajakumaarana prakaranadinda idee arasottigege avamaana (Sheni narrated this to me in an interview for Deccan Herald).
The dialogue suited perfectly as that of Hamsadwaja. Sudhanwa was a Rajakumara (prince) and the pun had reflected something contemporary. Sheni's reference to Indira Gandhi and Sanjaya Gandhi during the emergency times when he described Kaikeyi and Bharata was as much subtle (I have only read about this)
Recently while in Bangalore I attended a talamaddale 'Jambavati Kalyana' at Ramashrama in Girinagara. Ramashrama as everyone knows has been built by B Krishna Bhat. A young artiste, Shashanka Arnady, had played Jambavantha. While speaking after realising that Krishna with whom he had fought was none other than Rama, Arnady as Jambavantha said like this:
Krishna ninna aagamanadinda giriyallidda ee guhe Ramaashramavaayitu...
I thought it was an intelligent choice of words without compromising the subtlety or without straying out of the mythological framework. Anything more to relate Krishna to Krishna Bhat would have made it sound more obvious and thus awkward.
I have heard some artistes crudely pushing contemporary news into their mythological dialogues. That is really awful. In giving modern interpretation to mythology, I think, the sense of time should never be lost. The dialogues should remain in the context of mythology. This is what I was worried about when I heard Karna making obvious reference to Malthusian theory.
I think issues like this should be debated and the outcomes should be conveyed to the artistes concerned. As you yourself had observed in some other context, Yakshagana has lost a great deal for want of a tradition of healthy criticism.
Regards
