By VS Shyam
In the field of art, the more local you dive into, the more international your art will be. Kantara has become yet another testament to this assertion. One more similar biggie which made it to the international stage, was Karnan. The idea of stories based on folklore and the strong oppressing the weak resonated with both the movies, though Kantara’s story was completely woven around the Bootha Kola. Both can be categorised in one way into the ‘lifestyle’ movie genre. That is, the conflict and real villain is not established right from the word go. We get a peek into what could essentially develop into a conflict, and then the movies jump into the lives of people. We become part of that community, by observing their daily lives. True, there are problems that people face, but still the conflict that the movie aims to resolve does not show up. By becoming one in the community, their happiness and their fears are transferred to us. And in the end, when the final showdown happens, even though it is short, it leaves a magnanimous impact on us.
It will be interesting to treat the story of Kantara as an ethical case study, since the central dispute involves multiple stakeholders, and some moral questions. Let’s look at the stakeholders first. As known, the struggle over ownership of the forest land becomes the plotline. There are three stakeholders(actually four, will reveal that one later): the tribals, the landlord, and the government officials. The tribals have resided on the land for generations, and put in their labor towards developing and protecting it. So it is reasonable that they claim ownership to the land. They are also devotionally attached to the forest. The landlord, as any other rich person would normally do, thinks from the perspective of the well-being of his family and his future generations. According to him, the tribals have illegally encroached his rightful land several years ago. So the claiming of land, for him, is not be seen as jealousy, but as a legally sound way of wealth creation. On the other hand, take the government officials. They have no personal interest in owning the land. Their primary objective, is to protect the land from encroachment, either from the tribals or from other individuals. And yes, they also have an additional responsibility of protecting the wildlife inside the forest, the one which unfortunately ignites a spark of conflict between the tribals and officials, and fogging the real villain in picture. Each of them has valid reasons to be right from their own perspective. So who is to get the land?
Let’s for one instance suppose that the government and the law didn’t exist. A society, which is governed by laws of nature, tends to favour the more powerful, the landlord in our case. There is no question of morality, since there’s nobody to ask about what’s right and what’s wrong. But that’s how nature works. The predator triumphs over the prey. Now let government be let in. Initially the forest officials are received with hate and skepticism by the tribals, since the officials try to limit their rights over the forest. But when the real villain is revealed, both of them realize that they have the same objective: protect the land. This is an example of a conventional case which has been seen to take multiple forms over time: a common enemy is necessary in order for a formation of a common goaled society.
Now let me reveal the fourth mysterious stakeholder: true to the adjective, it’s Panjurli. The God was actually right in stating initially that who is to get the land was to be decided later. And the conflict is finally resolved only when Panjurli intervenes. Panjurli has been the protector of that land all these years, and we feel like the final verdict being: this land neither belongs to the landlord, nor the government or even the tribals, but to Panjurli, and hence Nature. This is in a way the central theme of Kantara, the needless fighting over material property by humans, which originally belongs to the nature.
Kantara also makes us question about the modern day materialistic lifestyle. The tribals today are categorised as underdeveloped, and lacking in status and education. But if one knows that nothing in this world belongs to humans in permanence, that nature and God are not different, and that creating a society based on sharing is peaceful, then who is the one that’s truly educated? We have a lot more to learn from the adivasis than to teach them.
VS Shyam
December 12, 2022
Reblogged this on Old Skool Thoughts.
LikeLike
Pk rao
December 13, 2022
The message that the land belongs to Nature, is not just “tribal”. It is firmly the message of the Upanishads, whose spiritual current has been driving force of all Indian philosophical traditions.
Take for instance the very first verse of the Ishavaasya Upanishad.
“Ishavaasyam idam sarvam yat kincha jagatyaam jagat”
Which translates into
“The world belongs not to you but the Lord who encompasses all (who is spread out everywhere)”
The immediate next line
“Tena tyaktena bhunjitaa maa grudhah kasyasvit dhanam”
Which translates into
“Having known this, give up your attachment to all things, for these don’t belong to any individual(like yourself)”.
The whole movie can be said to be a narrative commentary on the above two verses.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Macaulay Perapulla
December 13, 2022
Recently, a friend made a very interesting comment on the movie. For all the talk of rituals in the movie, why does the movie not speak the language of the tribes? Since I dont speak Kannada, I dont know, whether his observation was right or not. Was there a significant change in the dialect spoken by the village folk shown in the movie?
LikeLike
shaviswa
December 13, 2022
@Macaulay Perapulla
The movie does use lot of local flavour Kannada plus Tulu. But they have limited that for obvious reasons.
A movie like Ponniyin Selvan made use of almost contemporary Tamizh. Did we question that? If we make a movie on the Ramayana, are we expected to use language like Kamban’s?
LikeLike
Satya
December 13, 2022
“Was there a significant change in the dialect spoken by the village folk shown in the movie?”
Yes. A mix of both Dakshina Kannada and Tulu-accented Kannada (though the mantras in the rituals and Vaa Porluya song are Tulu), according to my colleague, whose grandparents hailed from Kundapura. The writer ‘managed’ pretty well, she says.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hari
December 13, 2022
Nice writeup VS Shyam. You missed Kulika angle I suppose. Here is an fascinating thread in Tamizh about the movie – https://twitter.com/_Adithya___/status/1598134792251650048
Ideally the left liberal folks should have praised the movie to the hilt, since this is a movie about the have nots winning over the haves. The Vanavaasis winning over the rich. The forest not getting sold to the corporates. But I wonder why they are not though
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rajesh A
December 13, 2022
Journalist Samas has written in Kumudam and Arunchol.com on the dirty politics hidden in Kantara. Do read.
https://www.arunchol.com/samas-on-kaantara
LikeLike
Macaulay Perapulla
December 14, 2022
@shaviswa “If we make a movie on the Ramayana, are we expected to use language like Kamban’s?” Aren’t we speaking apples and oranges, my friend? When we are depicting subaltern lives, in a context of the unconscious and conscious appropriating the cultural commons of the subaltern, the question is this: How do we depict the lives of indigenous people? I am not making either for or against the politics of Kantara .I loved the movie and had commented earlier in BR’s review.
LikeLike
Madan
December 14, 2022
“Ideally the left liberal folks should have praised the movie to the hilt, since this is a movie about the have nots winning over the haves.” – And left liberals have NOT praised the movie? This is news to me because last I checked, Sucharita Tyagi, Jammypants (Tried and Refused Prodns), Anupama Chopra all rated the movie very highly.
LikeLike
shaviswa
December 14, 2022
@Macaulay Perapulla
If you make the entire movie with the local dialect that the indigenous people speak, then movie’s reach would be almost nil. The write would have to take creative liberties to ensure that a majority of at least Kannadigas understand what is being spoken. However, to bring in the Dakshina Kannada flavour, he has sprinkled the film with Tulu laced dialogues and songs. Plus the usage of local and tribal customs like Bhoot Kola created that rootedness in the film.
And no….I am not trying to address any of the political aspects here.
LikeLike
Anand Raghavan
December 14, 2022
In TN, LW+D-Stocks were initially giving positive feedback but after Rishad Shetty claimed that he is a Hindu and all the deiva and folk culture is part of Hindu culture (surely not intended in an RW way), they started denouncing it saying it is regressive, superstitious, backed by BJP etc.
LikeLike
Macaulay Perapulla
December 14, 2022
@shaviswa Completely with you on the creative liberties he has taken.
I think he has taken a good balanced approach. I was only curious about the language par. From whatever little I understand about Hinduism, there is a thread of continuity connecting bhutakolas with the open-source religious traditions we have had in this country. So, I kinda agree with Rishab when he says that this is part of Hindu tradition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hari
December 14, 2022
Madan, if they have well and good. Will read up. Thanks.
LikeLike
RK
December 14, 2022
Just like India is a collection of land mass traditionally considered as one region, by both people within & without, Hindu religion is a collection of all the religious practices of this ancient land. The exception to this are the practices/ religions that are specifically brought into being in opposition to Hinduism like Buddhism or with many separate/ divergence like Jainism or Sikhism.
I think the problem for most intellectuals & thinking liberal educated elite of our country is that they associate Hinduism with its most regressive practices ignoring the rich philosophical, mythical & ritual aspects. It is like judging Christianity ONLY on the basis of Inquisition or Islam on the basis of its fundamentalists.
Also, what they forget is that it is the rituals that root a person to his society and without them, he/ she becomes alienated from his own land. The only way for an atheist to live is by creating a new set of rituals like Periyarists wearing black shirts.
LikeLiked by 5 people
VS Shyam
December 14, 2022
@hari thanks for the twitter thread. The fact that the hero is compared to Kuliga is quite astonishing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don Corleone
December 14, 2022
This is an incredible insight into traditional/tribal forms of worship. This is very true of many tribal forms of worship and lifestyle, as also the various village temples or ‘Oor-Kaval Deivam’ culture. This culture is highly prevalent in the south more than in the North.
How this becomes relevant here is because in essence, all ancient forms of worship in India have involved the elements and nature in some form/name or the other. And religion, in essence, is a human construct and structure created by and for the understanding of humans. Hence, the religious practices, rituals, and structure evolves over time along with the society or community that practices it. If we look at the gods in the Hindu pantheon, for all the discussion about the number of gods, it becomes evident that all the gods are basically forms or derivatives of various natural elements, nature, human characteristics/’Guna’, or emotions.
This makes a case for the theory that the Hindu religion, for a long time, has been a constantly evolving one, and started evolving from some form of Pagan worship. As civilisation expanded and settlements became cities with functioning economies, forms of worship became more elaborate, and ‘religion’ became a cell that will multiply and evolve.
Various scriptures (even those that have archaeological evidence) explicitly mention that land and nature belongs to the gods, which have been bestowed to the public to be taken care of. Consequently, those communities that are in tune this core aspect of spiritual belief, try to maintain a lifestyle and livelihood that is most compatible with these beliefs.
This argument makes itself an easy target for various interest groups to call out cultural appropriation, but the strong thread that runs through across centuries makes it an undeniable consideration towards understanding modern Hinduism as a religion, and its socio-political role.
This also makes one better understand Indian conservatism with regards to their economic outlook, where the inherent tendency to limit themselves in terms of material gain in various forms probably draws from this age old thought that everything belongs to the god, and hence acquisition of material wealth has lesser significance than being content.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Soumya
December 15, 2022
A beautifully well written analytic article.
LikeLiked by 1 person