Late literary critic G Rajashekara believed in pluralism

He was Leftist in his thinking, but at the same time G Rajashekara was acutely mindful of the problems of the ideology—that was the legacy of the renowned literary critic who passed away on July 20 at the age of 75 after prolonged illness.

One of the most influential literary critics in Kannada in the past four decades, Rajashekara was a champion of pluralism. He wrote regularly and extensively in magazines. Had he allowed publication of his articles as collections, they would have resulted in several books. He didn’t believe in owning ideas. A strong idea survives on its own, he believed. However, he allowed publication of five of his books by giving into pressure from his friends.

Read | Thinker-activist Rajashekar passes away

His 2015 book ‘Bahuvachana Bharata’ (Plural India) won a Karnataka Sahitya Academy award—an honour which he turned down saying he was concerned about the rising intolerance.

Although his thinking was Left-inclined, he did not blindly accept everything that Marx and Engels said. For instance, he cited Raymond Williams and critiqued the 19th century imperialist idea of dominance over nature, developed after the industrial revolution. Rajashekara believed that being part of nature, it was self-destructive for humans to attempt to dominate it.

He also opposed the political leanings of renowned writers Shivarama Karanth and Gopalakrishna Adiga, even as he passionately analysed their works and explained their significance.

Rajashekara argued that the diversity of narratives about Rama and Krishna was proof that Indian society was opposed to the monolithic stubbornness of Hindutva politics. He explained that Rama and Krishna were simultaneously deities, literary characters, and creations of their devotees’ imagination. In Rajashekara’s view, the Rama in Adiga’s poem ‘Ramanavamiya Divasa’ was a creation of such a tradition, and stood in contrast with the Rama projected in modern-day politics. The metaphor of earth, used extensively in the poem, pointed more towards the anthill that grew around Valmiki to change his consciousness than, towards a geographical location in Ayodhya, Rajashekara said.

Thus, rational thought and cultural analysis blend in his literary criticism, and could not be separated. That was also the reason ‘form’ and ‘intent’ were not treated as independent of each other in his critical writing.

Employed at an LIC office in Udupi, Rajashekara was a creature of habit. His friends and acquaintances recounted that he would head to government libraries at the end of a workday. After browsing through books and magazines, he would walk to Ratha Beedi, sip a cup of strong tea at one of two restaurants—Anuradha or Mitra Samaja—and have a smoke.

He would then meet friends and other literature buffs waiting to chat with him. His literary and cultural discussions would be heated, but they never came in the way of his friendship with anyone. His routine changed only on the days he had to catch a play, a film or a concert.

For the past three years though, Rajashekara battled a rare neurological condition. He died at a hospital last week. He is survived by his wife and two sons.