mittava, hAlAhalaM, aa illu mootavaDDadi, chalivEndraM ...all of these are stark depictions of the horror in the lives of those engaged in traditional means of production - small farmers, farm workers and artisans - and the utter disregard of the state of its duty to take good care of the weakest of its constituents. Although mittava is probably the best crafted of the four, my attention has really been captured by the arguments presented in halAhalaM and aa illu mootavaDDadi. calivEndraM's ending is however the one that most brutally conveyed the terror perpetrated by the state, even though it does not involve deaths that haunt mittava and hAlAhalaM.
Amartya Sen won a noble prize for pointing out that the devastation caused by famines is really a sign of the absence of democratic governance. How true! The so-called democratically elected governments everywhere are holding the poorest of the poor fiscally responsible and are denying them the pennies that they desperately need to grow food and buy medicines. Can't the state use the same reasoning that's employed when doling out corporate subsidies? Yes, we do need to look forward but should we do that over the dead bodies of those that are not yet equipped to take part in the rat race? Globalization does sound a death knell to traditional artisans who cannot compete with mechanised producers and well-oiled distributors. The responsibility of taking care of the affected communities automatically becomes that of democratic governments. The state should provide for a welfare blanket in the short run and education to compete in the new global market place in the long run.
"Gandhi was once asked what he thought about Western civilization. And his answer was he thought maybe it would be a good idea. And you can say the same about capitalism. Maybe it would be a good idea -- we've never had anything remotely resembling it. And the reason we haven't is, you know, the owning class would never permit it. Because they know perfectly well that if capitalist institutions were established, it would destroy the economy in no time. So therefore they insist on a powerful state that intervenes to protect them from the ravages of the market. Everybody seems to know this except the economists." - Noam Chomsky
If the governments everwhere are eager to intervene to protect corporate interests, why can't they intervene to protect the weakest of their subjects, esp. if the cost is a pittance compared to what they spend on feeding their corrupt administrative machines.
The judges found fault with this story in their analysis saying that the story seems to implicate the farmer rather than the businessman's wilyness. I totally differ. It seemed obvious to me that the author brilliantly brought forth the no-win situation that small farmers find themselves in. The rules of the market place only allow players with bigger capital buffers and distribution mechanisms to win. It's useless to see this as the poor hero and the rich villain stereotype. The story clearly went beyond that. Do u remember the food chain portrayed on the cover-page of khaakI bratukulu? The beauty of this story is in its selection of a microcosm to expose the current world order - "cina cEpanu pada cEpa, china maayanu penu maaya"! Third world finds itself under a mountain of debt and it just can't win against the developed world. For, the developed world will always play their own laws - market laws, international laws and if all else fails, by laws imposed by war. "oka vyaktini marokka vyaktee,oka jaatini vEroka jaatee, peeDiMcE saaMGika dharmaM ..." inkaa saagutUnE undi.
One of the complaints on mittava seems to be that its ending is cynical. I would say that the ending was carefully choosen by the author to convey the lack of options that the character had. Any other ending would have been totally artificial.
In summary, I find that all the prize winning stories are not only eminently readable but also bring forth important current issues to the fore that have otherwise been neglected by the mainstream media. I find most of the criticisms found on racchabanda and eemaata to be mostly from a literary point of view. Some are even downright condescending and overreaching.
Posted by prasad at August 3, 2003 02:58 PM