[Reader-list] Rama as a kudikaran
Tapas Ray
tapasrayx at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 17:59:16 IST 2007
Pawan,
I am not in VASP, but hope it's still ok for me to offer my two bits.
I am not sure who you think should be condemned - Karunanidhi or Valmiki?
The story at the link you have forwarded says Karunanidhi says Valmiki
called Ram "a kudikaran (drunkard)". If Valmiki did *not* call Ram
"kudikaran", Karunanidhi needs to be condemned right away, no questions
asked.
On the other hand, if Valmiki did, there can be no question of
condemning Karunanidhi, even if you hate his dark glasses or his shawl -
or, as in my case, his determination to destroy the strait's marine
ecology.
The issue of condemnation then shifts to poor old Valmiki who, I'm sure,
would have loved the spectacle of his trial by the censors.
Questions then arise:
What exactly did "kudikaran" mean in Valmiki's time? Did it really mean
"drunkard" as the story suggests?
If it did mean "drunkard", in what context was the term used? (I hope
you will agree that there can be no interpretation of a text without
reference to context.)
If it did, did "drunkard" mean quite the same thing in Valmiki's time as
it does now?
But what does it mean now? For some people, taking a single drink is
enough to label one a drunkard. For others, a drunkard is someone who
is, or is tending to become, an alcoholic.
So, where do we stand?
Tapas
Pawan Durani wrote:
> No words from the elite intellectuals [ VASP ] ....not even a condemnation
> !
>
> http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE920070920132940&Headline=Valmiki+said+Ram+was+a+drunkard:+Karunanidhi&Title=Chennai&Topic=0
More information about the reader-list
mailing list