Bharathi's penury is because of his time. In an earlier era it was the norm for artists to be supported by Kings. At the turn of the centuries with printing, publishing and slow ground-gaining of the European model there was a distant dreamy possibility of being financially your own man. Bharathi was caught in the cusp. His temperament was unsuited to work as a court poet composing lurid (yes lurid!) songs for the ettaiyapuram zamindar for financial sustenance. He hints at his regret for having to do that (Bharathi Krishnakumar's recent book arundhavappanRi is about this dark phase in Bharathi's life). He mentions it in his long poem suyasaridhai.
Then in fits and starts he tries to be his own man. He has ambitious plans for publishing and collecting money from people. Doesn't work. He has infrequent sundry patrons but wallows without support. The only time he had a steady stream of revenue when he was working in magazines like swadesamithran.
The same ettayapuram zamin whom he thought poorly of he praises to the sky for money. He writes many a- what is knowns as - seettukkavi, pleading, literally begging for financial support and singing disproportionate songs of praise about the 'King'.
Someone whom he paints even a slightly dirty caricature (thinly disguised), in his short story chinna-sankaran kadhai.
Even his Panchali sabatham is dedicated to 'poets and the patrons who will support them' (i.e. he hasn't got faith that a publication business will take off yet)
He wrote senthamizh naadennum pOdhinilE not on his own accord - it was for a contest on that theme organized by the madurai tamil sanham - which had a good cash prize (his detractors use that to claim, the lines were thus insincere. We need not necessarily conclude so. But it is useful to acknowledge the context anyway).
To be allowed to reenter kadayanallur, he had to write a clemency plea to the local British administrator stating he would be on good behaviour. He did. It was around the same time when he wrote achchamillai achchamillai. Is the former going to colour your opinion about the latter? Doesn't the poem just scintillate anyway?
Contemporaries have ripped apart Bharathi's lack of சொல், பொருள், காலம், யாப்பு mix-ups. He may claim he did it intentionally as a rule-breaking. But he is fair game if someone uses that for lack of control. On what basis do we evaluate 'prowess'?
If we are to take the influence on people/masses...really we'd be overstating the possible reach - I say this with no disrespect. It is fact of the possible reach and technology.
If we are talking about content. Sure, phenomenal. Even in content and outlook he has written many lines that could be unsavoury.
So, if I were to play devil's advocate, I could make many such points.
And lastly: just to be clear I am NOT myself comparing the two artists. It is as apples-oranges as it can get! I was invoking that simply as a way of framing, looking at kalai-cherukku. How I cringe when Raja says something but then I smile when I hear such things about Bharathi!
And even here, I don't even recommend that as a universal framework. Merely stating my personal musing. That's all.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by genesis
Bookmarks