– N Manohar Reddy

When dalit literature emerged with full force in the 1980s and 90s, many upper caste intellectuals, starting from orthodox brahmin pundits to revolutionaries, attacked it for its “obscene” use of language. Jilukara Srinivas’ article in this broadsheet discusses that controversy. However, contempt and disgust for the language of dalits is not new. When Gidugu Ramamurthy led the Vyavaharikodyamam (Spoken Telugu movement) in the early twentieth century, upper caste pundits protested against it as they believed that gramyam—the language of malas, madigas, shepherds, dhobhis, barbers and so on—was trying to infiltrate education and literature in the name of vyavaharikam. Also, serious criticism was leveled against the Telugu spoken in the Telangana region, which was denounced as Taurakyandhramu or Turaka Telugu Bhasha.

Treating the language of dalit bahujans with contempt seems to have existed almost a thousand years ago during Nannaya’s time. Nannaya, who translated Mahabharat into Telugu and known as adikavi or the first poet (of Telugu literature), in his poetical treatise of grammar wrote that words such as Vastadu, Testadu, Potadu—the language of the illiterate—were ungrammatical and thus unsuitable for literary creation (Andhra Sabda Chintamani, p. 20). In the successive centuries, writer after writer such as Appakavi, Ketana, Chinnaya Suri and many more well known upper caste scholars, grammarians and writers endorsed Nannaya’s position on language. Ketana declared that Telugu people would not accept gramyam, and described it as the language of abuse, or the language used to abuse others (Andhra Bhasha Bhushanamu, p.8). Appakavi, who stated that only brahmins were qualified to write poetry and is known for his high brahminical conservatism, ruled that words such as Vastandi, Testandi, Chustandi, Istandi, which were understandably spoken by the subaltern classes, were apabhramasas (abnormal) and were morphologically defective. He further stated that such words were not only unsuitable for literary production, but any Kavyas which employed those words would be treated as uncivilized/uncultured (Appakaviyam, p.41). Both Ketana and Appakavi belonged to the premodern period and we do not know if they were contested on this issue. However, what we do know is that writers such as Palkuriki Somanadhudu, Vemana, Potuluri Veerabrahmam, Molla and others broke the rules set by the orthodox brahmin pundits.

One would be surprised to know that the rules set by Nannaya and others were endorsed by Chinnaya Suri and Kandukuri Veeresalingam, who included them in their grammar books written for school children in the Madras Presidency in the 19th and 20th centuries. Chinnaya Suri was the foremost pundit of his time, and Kandukuri is considered the father of Telugu prose. As late as in the early twentieth century, gramyam was banished from classrooms and the literary domain. One of the leading members of the influential Andhra Sahitya Parishat, Jayanthi Ramayya Pantulu, went so far as to state that “including gramya language in literary works and, worse, prescribing such texts as study material for school children would be a disaster” (Andhra Sahitya Parishadvruttantamu, p.5).

In addition to grammar books, pundits used dictionaries to define the term gramyam in demeaning ways and thereby contain it. For instance, Sankaranarayana’s Telugu-English dictionary defined gramyam as ‘pertaining to the lower nature in man.’ G.N. Reddy went two steps further and described it as a language of ‘asleelamu’ (obscene), ‘asabhyamagu mata’ (vulgar speech), ‘telivilenidi’ (nonsense) and ‘nagarikata lenidi’ (uncultured), (www.andhrabharati.com). Bahujanapalli Sitaramaiah did not even find it worthy of mentioning it in his Andhra Sabda Manjari.

While, prior to 19th century, gramyam was defined as the language of ‘pamarulu’ (illiterate people) or ‘grama janulu’ (village folk), interestingly, in the modern period, specific caste names came to be associated with the term. Jayanthi Ramayya Pantulu, who led the pundit group against Gidugu’s Spoken Telugu movement, stated that “brahmins and other educated people’s spoken language is different from the spoken language of uneducated masses.’ He further added, “while classical Telugu is like a stream of filtered water, gramyam is like the polluted water collected due to repeated rainfall,” and “while the classical language is disciplined and flows steadily between the two ridges, gramyam moves crazily and loses its way,” and if literature is produced in the latter, “language loses its hygiene, sounds get corrupt and thus such literary works should not be used in schools (Adhunikandhra Vangmaya Vikasa Vaikhari, pp.169-199). Similarly, Vedam Venkataraya Sastri argued that producing literary works in the language of saakalollu (washer folk) and mangalollu (barbers) would be like driving away the sacred cow and fetching a drove of donkeys in its place.

There were strong reasons why brahmin pundits prohibited/banished the language of dalit bahujans in education and literature. We know that brahmins had a monopoly over these two fields. Thus the fear of losing their privileged institutional positions seems to one of the reasons for their opposition to gramyam, because gramyam would facilitate the entry of people of other castes into these arenas. One of the pundits called Suri Sastri vehemently opposed Gidugu’s Spoken Telugu movement and argued that “empowering gramyam would mean unseating the pundits from their jobs, and besthalu (fishermen), eedigalu (toddy tappers), drunkards, yaanadis (ST), sabarulu (ST) are conspiring to occupy these positions (Gramyagramya Vivada Peetika, 1913).

The fear that Christianity would annihilate Hinduism seems to be another important reason for the pundits’ vehement opposition to gramyam. It should be noted that in the nineteenth century various Christian missionaries established schools in the Madras presidency, and one of the significant efforts was the establishment of panchama schools for the untouchables. One of the main problems that the missionaries faced was the sanskritized Telugu used in the text books, which the missionaries felt was the main impediment in imparting education to the children coming from the untouchable castes. Thus the missionaries established vernacular societies and printing presses and brought out books in the language spoken by the students at home. Similar efforts were made in case of Bible translation. Thus conversion was very much in the pundits’ mind when they opposed gramyam. Vedam Venkataraya Sastri wrote “many people were under the illusion that Spoken Telugu movement was an attack only on language. It is not true. This is an attack on Hindu religion. It is a movement that is aimed at destroying our religion completely by destroying the languages of our country just the robbers take off brick by brick and make a hole in the wall of the house and rob the entire wealth.” He further argued that if gramyam developed, it would dethrone grandhikam (classical Telugu), which will result in a situation where no one would have the skills to understand puranas. Not just that. The missionaries are forcing students to read Bible by force (Gramyadesa Nirasanamu, pp. 43-45).

Thus it is clear that the people I have mentioned until this point, who were opposed to gramyam were orthodox brahmins. They were determined to save the caste system and the Hindu religion. However, we know that Gidugu and Gurajada were secularists. They dreamt of a modern society where all class and caste differences would disappear. They wanted pundits and common people to live together. They believed in equality. They aimed at raising the status of the oppressed by imparting knowledge and using simple language to achieve that goal. Their integrity cannot be questioned in this matter. However, when it came to the question of the language of modern Telugu literature and education, or the standard language, they proposed sishta vyavaharikam (the spoken language of the upper castes) as the most appropriate. They argued that the pundits mistook their proposal for sishta vyavaharikam for gramyam and tried to persuade the pundits that sishta vyavaharikam and gramyam were different things. For instance, Gurajada argued that it was improper on the part of pundits to say that the language spoken by the shistas day and night was gramyam. “Thus hereafter it would be proper for the pundits not to consider the polite/cultured language of the brahmins as gramyam.” Thus he was disheartened when pundits abused sishta vyavaharikam as gramyam, or ‘the language of the children of whores’ (Gurajadalu, pp.555-562).

Similarly, Gidugu Ramamurthy argued that, “spoken Telugu means…the language spoken in everyday life and used in the written communication such as letters by the cultured Telugu people (vaishyas, telagas, blacksmiths, kapus, kshatriyas, brahmins and others)…this is pure Telugu. Why isn’t this a good language? Is it the language of malas and madigas to be called gramyam? (Telugu Translation of the Savara Reader. Part 1 (P.iii).” In the same vein, in his last speech given in the office of the journal Prajamitra, run by Gudavalli Ramabrahmam, on 15-01-1940, Gidugu made the following plea: “Our elders still hang on to the misconception that vyavaharikam is gramyam…I would like to once again insist that they must not do that. Estheticians of Sanskrit literature consider the language of shepherds and other such illiterate people as gramyam. Judged by whatever parameters, vyavaharika bhasha cannot be labeled as gramyam because the language I have been campaigning for the last three decades is the language of sishtajana vyavaharika bhasha and not the language of shepherds and other illiterate people… Sarvesa Ramesam garu, Andhra University College president Vissa Apparao garu, the well known pundit and poet, Challapilla Venkata Sastri garu, Veturi Prabhakara Sastri garu, Viswanatha Satyanarayana garu, and many other elders have delivered radio speeches. All of them are sishtas. Their language is sishta jana vyavaharika bhasha” (“Tudi Vinnapamu” in Pratibha, pp. 206-207).

In Telanagana, most people remember Suravaram Pratapa Reddy as the father of Telangana language. However, Suravaram remarked that “There are boyilu (people belonging to boya community, a scheduled tribe) in Karimnagar district. Their language is the worst. It is incapable of producing the ‘va’ sound. They say ‘ankaya,’ ‘anta,’ ‘acchinanu’.” Similarly, Suravaram was ashamed that the language of the Telangana people was badly corrupted by Kannada, Marathi and Urdu. He believed that the language of Warangal, which has northern Circars (Andhra) as its border, was a little better (Golkonda Patrika Sampadakiyalu, Vol.2. 1936-1945. pp. 178-180).

It was perhaps to protest against the upper caste attitude towards the language of dalits, that Gurram Joshua, the famous first generation dalit poet, wrote an article titled “Tirlika” in the journal Bharati in its August 1936 issue. In a debate that had happened earlier in Bharati, Sripada Lakshmipada Sastri had argued that the word “tillika” was not a pure Telugu word but it was a corrupt form of the Tamil word ‘Tirvalishu.” However, Joshua protested and argued that the word “Tillika” was known even to the children of his region. Not only this word, but many other words which could not be found in dictionaries and unknown to pundits, were in use, he wrote. He made it clear that just because some words were unknown to great pundits, they would not die. He further argued that “only those who personally observed the life and the cultural practices of people in villages could understand the usage of Telugu language in different parts of Andhra country. But, how can the pundits, who don’t even know the difference between malas and madigas, understand?” (Bharati, August, 1936).