Umakantha Vidyasekhara

BY D. V. KRISHNAIAH, B. Com. (Hons.), Bezwada

To write about persons in preference to their works published or unpublished does not seem to be the traditional method of appraising literary values in ancient India. It is in the manner of modern criticism that accounts appear in which the importance of persons far outweighs that of what they actually did. Potentialities of achievement and limitations of time and place subject to which they worked, are properly pressed into service in estimating the individuals. Their aspirations and failures are stated with sympathy rather than precision. It is evident that our association with Kalidasa or Panini is only through their works and significance attached by us to the persons is directly proportional to that of their works. Though this is the ultimate criterion, as it is bound to even in the case of Shakespeare or Milton, we find among some Western critics a great end often perverse desire to present circumstantial details of personal life which obscure the main objective. It must be conceded however, that in order to estimate achievements at a proper value an account of the ground and environment of the person’s field of action is necessary. It is in this spirit that an estimate of a scholar who lived in the modern epoch-making period of Telugu Literature has been attempted here.

Umakantha Vidyasekhara was born in 1889 at Guttikonda, a village in Palnad Taluk of the Guntur District, on a full-moon day of Aswayuja in the year Virodhi. Starting general English education in August 1904 under most unfavourable circumstances characteristic of those ancient villages, he came out successfully in the Upper Secondary and Matriculation examinations in 1907 and continued his studies at Guntur in the Misson High School. His exceptional merits were soon recognised and he had been taken into the teaching staff of the A. E. L. M. College, where he had been a student. Simultaneously with his English education, he prosecuted Sanskrit studies under Sistla Sitarama Sastri of the same place. According to his own statements in personal diaries, it was at this juncture that conflicting ideologies began to shake him to the very foundations. Whether to continue his higher studies in English or Sanskrit was a problem for him not economic but cultural. His decision taken at that early age to pursue the latter spared him for his great services to the Andhra country.

The scholarship attained by Vidyasekhara was of a rare order. As he himself says he "made a special study of Vyakarana and Alamkara" and had "some knowledge of other branches, Nyaya, Samkhya, Vedanta and Smriti." What this means in terms of our modern specialised and fragmented studies need not be expatiated at length. At the same time, it was his special fortune not to fall into the stagnation of thought of the present day Pandit, as he maintained contact with the powerful dynamic of English education. By August 1910 he was at Bezwada, as a Pandit in the local S. K. P. V. High School where he continued for two years. In 1911, his first publication of Palnati Veeracharitra of Srinadha with a critical introduction, attracted the attention of scholars as the first and for a long time a unique and scientific attempt in the editing of classical Telugu works. In the latter half of 1912, he was invited to be the first Manager of the Telugu Academy of Madras and he showed a liberality of thought and convention which the Academy did not retain in its later life when it became the stronghold of a reactionary movement. But soon he had to vacate this chair in favour of the Editorship of a newly started Telugu monthly which named "Trilinga" under the auspices of the Vavilla Press. "Trilinga" attained a high standard at the very outset, and introduced into the Telugu country several good features of modern journalism, which were forgotten by it soon afterwards. A comparison of a "Trilinga" in 1913-14, as a literary monthly and the present day "Trilinga" as a weekly will at once the difference. It was through this illustrious journal that he made himself known to the country at large. His "Anuswarasiddhanta" startled Telugu literary world and his reviews of Vijayanagara samrajyam and kavitwatathwavicharamu gave proof of his ability. A special feature of "Trilinga" was the consistent technical education which it imparted to its readers in Rasa, Alamkara and some branches of Indian philosophy. To complete the account of the journalistic career of Vidyasekhara it has only to be mentioned that later he started his own paper entitled "Telugu Desa Vangmaya Patrika" through which he gave some of his best articles in Telugu. He then discontinued his Editor’s work and proceeded to Calcutta for higher studies in Sanskrit. At first it appears that he made some unsuccessful attempts to go to foreign countries under the patronage of the Maharaja of Pithapur.

During 1914-16 he was a student of the Government Sanskrit College, Calcutta, under Prof. Surendranatha Chakravarty, where he obtained the Govt. scholarship at the end of the first year. It is to be regretted that his health failed and he had therefore to return in the midst of his studies. Then he was appointed as Telugu Pandit in the Teachers’ College, Saidapet. Finally in 1920, he was offered the post of Sanskrit Pandit in the Presidency College, Madras. He joined the service on 14th August 1920. Since then he made original contributions to Telugu literature and managed efficiently the local "Andhrabhashabhivardhanisamajam" till his retirement. His last administrative attempt to introduce an elementary knowledge of Sanskrit as a compulsory subject for students taking Part II in Telugu, did not prove a success in spite of abundant technical support he received both from the press and the public. Domestic calamities over-took him. He lost two wives, two daughters and a son and spent a lonely life in the end. He dedicated his property to the Varalakshmi Vidyasekhara Vagdevi Bhavanam which he founded in his native place. After retirement both from profession and public activity he returned to Guttikonda, where he contemplated several public utilities. Two years elapsed calmly until his sudden death following an attack of paralysis in April 1942.

The task of estimating the writings of Vidyasekhara is difficult at the time when the literature and language of the Telugu country are in a state of transition between new and old values and forms. The significance of a work or of a body of principles, receives the rude shock of surprise and contempt from the followers of the letter of old or new traditions, when they have forgotten or cannot understand their spirit. Vidyasekhara met this double-sided apathy with the cheerfulness of one engaged in adventure, and calmly worked out his way into a literary ideology, original and yet continuous with the past. Since the early days of the 20th century there have been two well-marked tendencies as a result of our contact with western literature and life. They were firstly a policy of self-surrender to the glamour of the new ideas and secondly the policy of self-emulation based upon a fanatic adherence to broken and wrongly interpreted tradition. The authors of "navyasahitya" belong to the former school and consist of "young enthusiasts" often with little depth either of learning or of experience, barring some rare exceptions like Tallavajjhala. To the second category belonged the bulk of the scholars in the country. The controversy over language forms was conducted by these two groups and even a sober critic like Gidugu Ramamurty found it difficult to deal with either, though the youngsters were nearer to him than the scholars. His time was absorbed in appealing to the literary savants with superior erudition and intellect but he could not construct a body of principles helping formation of a grammar suitable to the growth of language. Vidyasekhara understood the weakness of arguments for literary Telugu when he was the manager of the Telugu Academy and openly condemned them "Trilinga." At the same time he made it clear that the canon about "sishtavyavahara" (orthodox tradition) adopted by Ramamurthy was only symbolic of the new spirit but not a scientific and standardised method. Therefore he began to work out his ideas on the lines of Panini, whom he ably translated with several commentaries in 1914, and completed one of his valuable writings under the title of Vyakaranasiddhanthabhashyamu, embodying the principles of grammar. Illustrating his above work he prepared Bhashavyakaranamu, which was not completed unfortunately, showing how to bring within the bounds of grammar the different local versions of Telugu idiom. Thus "vyavaharika bhasha" has become "loukika bhasha" with deeper foundations, putting an end to the licentious forms of local slang which are also claimed as living forms of expression. Letters have passed between Gidugu Ramamurthy and Vidyasekhara in which they have understood and accepted each other’s stand. Whatever it may it Vidyasekhara adopted and maintained a good prose form in his reviews, introductions and short stories. His translation of Tippu Sultan of Meadows Taylor also proved popular. His prose is original and accurate and crossed the borders of old Telugu grammar wherever it became necessary but avoided certain peculiar modes of old literary style.

It is not possible to describe in detail the literary stand taken up by Vidyasekhara in a short article. But the best known summary is contained in his presidential address delivered at the Andhra Literary Conference on 9th June 1928. He maintains that Telugu literature since Nannaya has not been able to produce anything comparable to the contribution of early Andhras like Mallinatha, Vidyanatha or Jagannadha to Sanskrit Literature. The bulk of the content of Telugu literature had been imperfect translations of Puranas like Mahabharatha, Bhagavata etc. and forms of Sanskrit literature, or it took the shape of love-ridden Prabhandha. No one can deny the fact that as such in Telugu alamkara (poetics) is practically absent. Higher forms of poetry like Drama were never attempted. Peculiarly enough, Telugu verse has been encumbered beyond reasonable limits by the letter and sound affinities of yati and prasa. As sabdalankaras they would have done real service but as compulsory adjuncts to every stanza they produced far-fetched and inappropriate diction in many places. Word-selections have been odd and ridiculous, synonyms gathered merely to save the legal character of the verse. According to Vidyasekhara this defect persisted through all the poets except at some places in Srinatha, Potana, and Vemana, who created good metrical harmony. Thus he believed that a thorough reformation of metrical conventions along the lines of the liberal traditions of the west, achieved in Sanskrit meters long ago, is necessary. It would be an indispensable pre-requisite of any wholesale developments in Telugu Literature. In fact, subsequent events clearly proved that modern poets favoured meters coming very near to his demands. Out of Muthyalasaram of Guruzada he created ‘utkalika’ and in his work Bhashachandassu he gave meters a simplified form of gana and yati (in the sanskritic meaning).

The response to these ideas was one of indifference or opposition based upon the nervousness of going against a tradition ten centuries strong. Honest critics, of course, there were who belonged to the school of Bhamaha regarding the profuse adornment of a musical rhythm as the main characteristic of poetry. There are others bent upon, deliberately and as a matter of fashion, developing anti-Sanskrit elements in Telugu. They do not approve of ‘Padantayati’ because it obtains in Sanskrit. Some of their heretical measures to banish even the relics of Sanskrit from Telugu, are too well-known to deserve a repetition here. Anyhow the total response to the literary ideas of vidyasekhara though less encouraging at the time has been more tacit in more recent years. Such an unconscious drift towards his ideas shows only the soundness of his convictions rather than a genuine appreciation of the right path of progress.

As a critic, he held his banner high and met many an opponent. On the positive side, his prefaces to the second edition of Palnativeeracharita, Naishadhanthatthwajignasa, Premaparinamamu, Rasameemamsa, etc are remarkable contributions by themselves. On the negative side his controversies with Chellapilla Venkatasastry, Sreepada Krishnamurthy Sastry, Vedam Venkataraya Sastri and Malladi Ramakrishna Chayanulu, to mention some, reveal a sense of righteous self-confidence, depth of learning and critical faculty. Even while he was a student, of the V form in 1905 he performed Ashtavadhana and Satavadhana (the pride of those times) with great ease; and realising their low value, except as a form of amusement condemned them without reservation that they do not lead to go poetical composition. He had to disagree with Venkata Sastry in this respect, as Sastri loved this form of poetic talent and spent the bulk of his energy on it. Sreepada Krishnamurthy Sastry conducted a long controversy over the correctness of the form rajavati which he happened to use in his journal. So far as Vedam Venkataraya Sastry was concerned the trouble arose on certain textual principles of editorship of Amuktamalyada and the tika for it. In the same connection his discussion over a remark made by Dr. Sir C. R. Reddy that Manucharitra has lesser poetic value because of rasabhasa contained in the episode of Varudhini, is very interesting. Ramakrishnachayanulu opposed Vidyasekhara through the columns of "Abhinayasaraswati" defending Nala’s character as depicted by Sri Harsha in Naishadha which was adversely criticised in Naishadhatatwajignasa. Though I am personally incompetent to pronounce any judgment upon these controversies, they undoubtedly reveal a fresh approach to some of the commonly accepted traditions.

As an essayist, Vidyasekhara’s work consists of several articles published in "Trilinga" and "Telugudesa Vangmaya Patrika" on a wide range of topics. Inscriptions, poets, politico-linguistic problems, sea-travel were some of the many problems he discussed exhaustively. His short stories in "Trilinga" were realistic. Precision of thought and ethical fervour characterise his writings.

As the publisher of Palnativeeracharita he had to handle historical evidence of various types. But his great contribution to history will be his Vangmaya Darsanam dealing with the history of the literature of the Andhras from the very beginning up to the modern times. His "Interpretation of present day poetry" was only an appendix to this great book. Again Drishtibhedam, another of his unpublished works, deals with the divergence between the Indian and foreign outlook on Indian Literature. Rupakabhashyam is an elaborate classic studying the features of Indian dramatic conceptions comparing them with western theories, those especially of the Greek drama. He wrote a grammar of the Sanskrit language, in Telugu named Sanskritavyakaranapradipam. His Yativichara is a booklet on yati and its place in prosody.

In order to develop technical literature on poetics he wrote a translation of Kavyaprakasa, with commentary, up to 3 cantos. This survey of his works will not be complete if his Kavya Sitalakshmi and an incomplete commentary on it are not mentioned.

Umakantha Vidyasekhara was thus a critic, an essayist, a grammarian and scholar, a historian, a poet, a journalist so far as the outside world could judge him. As a private individual he was known to be a man of stubborn resolution, purity of thought, and an extraordinarily reticent temperament. Conversations with him used to be brief and curt. His dealings with others appeared needlessly over-appropriate and he led the life of a typical vanaprastha. Painful domestic experiences in life, already alluded to made him deeply philosophical in outlook. His personal independence was a matter for open comment wherever he was intimately known.

Vidyasekhara was a true revolutionary. He was neither exclusively modern nor ancient in outlook but only a true aspirant for progress. But he wanted to be proof against, what he termed, "raw imitation" of the west and consequent delusion. A strong critical integrity born out of ones own culture is a pre-requisite for borrowing from other literatures. He was impressed by some of the principles of literary criticism obtaining the west and copied them humbly. But he refused to surrender him-self to the soulless eccentricities of western-literary experiments. His interpretation of present-day poetry was a protest against such delusion. Individual authors are gifted poets, no doubt, but it is not what they felt but what they have expressed that we have to judge. Vidyasekhara’s writings when fully published will give him an everlasting place in the galaxy of men of letters of India, whatever may be the future decisions of the Andhras in developing their language and literature.