Ananthanurthy and his critiques

URA says,"If we had a great saint like Narayana Guru of Kerala born into a low caste who took to reforming the decadent Hindu society, there would have been no room for Christians to convert low -born Hindus. Narayana Guru was an advaitin, perhaps the greatest advaitin after Adi Shankaracharya....

Here then was the ultimate insider of Sanatana Dharma, caste-based Hinduism and the Kannada language, of writing and the public intellectual space, so implicitly and intuitively inside that he could say: “Attacking people who are praying to whatever God is the most irreligious act on the part of Hindus. The Sangh Parivar is destroying Hindu civilization.”

"But the inspiration he found in religion and its moral, political purpose, in fact, came from Mahatma Gandhi and Ram Manohar Lohia: “Gandhiji’s Dandi and Navakhali marches are also bold expressions of the latent spiritual aspirations in man. When Lohia said if religion is eternal politics, politics is present day religiosity, one finds in these words the vision of a spiritual desire for equality. It is the responsibility of religions to get an individual accustomed to a system.”

He saw this not only as a “constant process,” but also as one loaded with conflict and contradiction: “In this, there is both good and bad. In this need to acquire adaptability there is also the danger of getting into a groove, and so to shake oneself, from time to time one needs political struggles. It is here that an individual’s true religious desires get expressed.” 

He addressed his ‘own people’ in more direct terms: “For a Brahmin, who lives his life with the belief that all inequalities are the fruits of Karma..., considers unthinking observance of ritual as prayer, and mistakes survival strategies for profound intellectualism, the true lease of life comes when he takes part in movements for equality. Otherwise, religion becomes a mere trade; an occupation for economic gains.”

“Born a Brahmin myself, hurting the feelings of Brahmins has only been inevitable and not something that I have enjoyed doing. My stories Samskara, Ghatashraddha and Bharateepura have caused distress to many Brahmins. Not only has it caused distress, it has also angered them,” he wrote once.

This was more than intellectual humility and personal honesty. This was a call of the insider, to his ‘own people’, Brahmins, to see with a clear mind the danger, not of affection for one’s own caste, but rather the contempt of another’s.

As he put it: “This, however, is not a danger that springs from an innocent individual who completely believes in his caste and lives a life within it; but a danger from an individual who declares that casteism is bad, but views people of all other castes, except his own, with enormous suspicion... The world of naïve believers of caste is limited; their intentions are clear; their cruelty towards the lower castes is clear... The dangerous ones are those who still hold on to caste even after giving up caste-related professions.”

The Brahmin groups that had opposed and ridiculed URA when he was alive, that continue to do so now when he is dead, did not (and are yet to) see the “critical insider” in him, as someone who could continue to be inside, but also seek change – like Mahatma Gandhi.
Ananthamurthy once said, ironically: “The only Indian leader anybody can attack without fear of bodily harm and serious retaliation is Mahatma Gandhi.”