Seetha Josyam, Telugu play of Narla

SEETHAI JOSIYAM: by Narla Venkateswara Rao, Sahitya Akademi, Rabindra Bhavan, 35, Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi-110001. Rs. 30.
WHY DID I DECLINE THE SAHITYA ACADEMI AWARD?

THOUGH THE person in charge of publication at the Sahitya Akademi has goofed up the sub-title as "the Telugu novel that won the Sahitya Akademi prize", the book under review is actually a drama. The translator has chosen only parts of Narla's foreword that speaks of the questions that troubled him when reading Valmiki and the answers he had sought to make up on the basis of the original epic itself, which is a pity.
Of course, the drama was written in those days when many Indians still followed the Western version of an Aryan subjugation of what was termed as the Dravidian South. Naturally, Narla was engaged in battling the faith of the learned as well as the common people in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedas that were supposed to have been written by Aryans. Those were the days when the Dravidian movement was at the apex of its fighting spirit.
Narla has chosen Sita as his mouthpiece. She is hardly 17 but speaks caustically throughout the drama and is, of course, the very anti-thesis of the princess in the epic. We do see Sita's sharp (but brief) words in the Ayodhya and Yuddha Kandas, and these few words of Valmiki may have given Narla the clue to create his Sita.
Her pert verbal clashes with Lakshmana, her insulting words to Brahmins and her scathing remarks on spiritual powers exemplify the well-worn maxim that nothing fails like excess. Epic heroines like Sita lend themselves to transformatory creations, but if someone goes totally against their basic character, the result becomes an aesthetic and moral failure.
All the same, Narla's Sita remains an unforgettable entrant to Telugu literature. She exemplifies the helplessness of feminist criticism in a largely patriarchal world.
We carry for long Sita's prophecy ringing in our ears: "For the sake of your dynastic pride, in some future time you might leave me helpless and alone in the deep forest." That is what happened in the Ramayana and that is what has been happening all these millennia.
PREMA NANDAKUMAR
Narla V R conducted reading sessions in Madras, Vijayawada and Hyderabad as pre publication survey. Several literary critics attended those meetins .Some of them are Palagummi Padmaraju, B S R Krishna, Puranam Subrahmanya Sarma,Nanduri Rama mohan Rao, Kappagantula Satyanarayana.
Seetha Josyam was translated into several languages in India.

It is really very reprehensible that a person like me who for nearly half century fought for the cause of freedom of opinion and expression should now be called an enemy of this very cause. Though I have repeatedly clarified that I have absolutely no opposition to adverse criticism of my literary works, in the context of withdrawal of my earlier consent to receive the award for my Telugu play “Seetha Josyam”, those who have been hurling abuses at me have conveniently overlooked this fact. I hope, I would forgiven if I place all material before the public so as to enable them to judge the correctness or otherwise of my stand.
Subsequent to the selection of my play for the Telugu award of 1981, a sub editor of the very academy, wrote a criticism of four pages wherein myself and my play have been denigrated, and what was worse, the official periodical of the Academy in May-June issue published this criticism. “One who is living under the façade of twentieth century Indian Culture”, “one who is under the illusion of living under attacks,” “one who takes a view first, and then looks for reasons,” “one who wants to establish the image of revolt” “a much protesting woman” “an immature college debator” “a fanatic” are some of the epithets hurled at directly or impliedly at me in this analysis, which is described as critical but not harsh.
When I questioned the propriety of this act, the editor of the periodical conceded it was a tarnishing act. He even went a step further and said that there was unrestrained zeal in upholding freedom of opinion. The Academi Secretary, of his own accord clarified further: To exhibit bad taste while criticizing a work selected for Academi’s Award. Certainly brings down the prestige of the Academi, and when such a criticism appears in the periodical of the Academi, it adds insult to injury, he said.
After examining the statements of these two responsible office-bearers, I decided to close all further correspondence on this issue. So I laid down two conditions namely that they must make amends by publishing of all correspondence on this subject in the periodical should forthwith be stopped. I wish to empasise that the second condition is confined only to the official periodical of the Acadmi. Since both the editor and the secretary have wholeheartedly conceded that publishing of a criticism denigrating my play after the announcement of academy’s award to my play was first of all a mistake, I think, this condition was appropriate. The demand that there should be no repetition was appropriate. The demand that there should be no repetition of what has been admitted to be a mistake does not come into conflict with either freedom of opinion or freedom of expression.
Since the Secretary of the Academi assured me “decisively” (to put it in his own words) That both these conditions would be fully implemented, I thought the issue had been resolved satisfactorily; but soon I realized that it was wrong to have felt so. A well engineered smear campaign was started in newspapers undoubtedly by a small group of the Academi. A prominent English daily hurled a question at me though its additional editorial: “Can an author become a censor also?” It was surprising that the same writer had a little earlier mentioned that “He (Narla) says that he would not have objected to it (that criticism) it if had appeared elsewhere. “When he was aware of my stand that I am ready to be subjected to criticism anywhere outside the periodical of the Academy, where is the question of the author himself playing the role of a censor also?
Of late this issue engaging the attention of the President of the Academi, and he has written a confidential letter to its Secretary. In his letter, he had alternative to accepting that a
“great impropriety” has taken place. To put it in his own words, “A great impropriety has occurred on account of publication of a condemnatory criticism of the book in the periodical of the Academi at a time when the Academi has honoured the book with its award and this has resulted in injustice to its author, but …….”. However, this “but” strongly gives scope to the continuation of the already occurred “great impropriety”, by keeping the pages of the periodical open to the debate on the issue. The President has tried to draw justification for his views from the poor old Voltaire’s grave. I do know as much as the Academi President knows, that Voltaire did say, “I do not agree with what you say, but I shall fight till the end, for your right to say it.” However, Voltaire certainly did not intend to fight till the end for any one’s right to repeat “great impropriety.”
Without going into further details, I only wish to state this much. From beginning to end this has been a sorry episode. I wonder whether the Academi desired to honour me or condemn me. I was actively associated with the Academi when Jawaharlal Nehru, Radhakrishnan and Suniti Kumar Chaterjee was subjected to calumny by the Academi through its own periodical at any time. I am sure that all self respecting authors will agree with me that in view of the manner in which the Academi has dealt with me. I had no alternative but to refuse the award.