THE AUGEAN STABLE OF INDIAN LETTERS

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The Sahitya Akademi , hereinafter called Akademi, was created as India’s National Academy of Letters. But sadly it has become the Augean Stable of Indian letters.

We will examine only one aspect: its annual awards to the “most outstanding” books in Indian languages, which is its principal aspect; and see how in this aspect it has become the Augean Stable.

Primarily addressed to Orissa’s interests as orissamatters.com is, we will begin with and continue to examine the scenario juxtaposed with the latest Sahitya award given to a book in Oriya.

This book is a novel captioned ‘Achinha Basabhumi’.

We have exposed earlier, in these pages, how the book is a despicable one, absolutely ineligible for the award and how the selection of this book was vitiated by malpractice, manipulation, and contravention of Rules.

We are now to look at the response of the Akademi to post-selection protests to see to what extent its awards stink of corruption to make it an Augean Stable.

Corruption in selection of this book as the “most outstanding book” in Oriya language for Sahitya Award 2011 had come to the attention of Sahitya Akademi sufficient ahead of presentation of the same award. But, as the selection was deliberate, it ignored the allegation.

LAB member resigns in protest

When the award was to be given on February 14, 2012, prominent member of the Akademi’s Oriya Language Advisory Board (LAB), Barendra Krushna Dhal tendered his resignation on December 24, 2011 in protest against irregularities in selection of this book. His letter of resignation had exposed the irregularities in two fronts: (1) In selecting this book, six other eminent writers – highly creative and popular – were completely ignored and (2) As if the jury members were to sign on dotted lines, they were not given enough time for a sound selection, as they were given eleven books each to read, compare and evaluate all those books in about a week’s time which was practically impossible.

So, allegation of manipulation in selection of this book was known to the Akademi by December 24, 2011.

Protest of the preeminent
member of the Jury

There were three members in the Jury: Chandra Sekhar Rath, Srinibas Mishra and Debdas Chhotray. The Akademi had made it four membered by adding the Convener Bibhuti Pattanaik to the Jury list, and by imposing him on the Jury as its President free to intervene in works of the Jury and influence its decision by way of obstruction and permission, paving thereby the way for selection of this particular book. This apart, the convener allowed regional secretary of the Akademi to play a part in the decision of the Jury, in view of which the Jury was a de facto body of five members in place of three.

However, amongst these Jury members, only one man – Chandra Sekhar Rath -was the most distinguished and preeminent one, the primacy of whose placement in the Jury stems from the emphasis laid down by the Haksar Committee and hence, whose opinion should have counted the most.

We will come to the Haksar Committee later. This much can be said now that as the activities of the three central Akademis including Sahitya Akademi were generating constant and immense dissatisfaction, the Central Government had appointed a Committee headed by Dr. H. J. Bhabha in 1964 to review their activities. Again in 1970 another Committee was appointed under chairmanship of Justice G. D. Khosla to review their functioning including action taken on the Bhabha Committee report. As both these Committees were more ignored than honored, the Central Government had to appoint a ‘High-powered Review Committee’ (HPRC) headed by Sri P.N. Haksar in 1988 “to review the working of the three Akademis, along with their affiliates and subsidiaries and the NSD with reference to the objectives for which they were set up, and keeping in mind the recommendations of Committees set up in the past in this behalf”.

In reviewing the Awards governed and given by Sahitya Akademi, this high-powered Committee had emphasized on change of criteria in appointment of Jury. Under Para 9.48 of its report, the HPRC had stipulated that, “At least one member of the jury should be a Fellow of the Akademi or an author who had won a Sahitya Akademi Award in the past”, which the Akademi has conveyed to have accepted.

This implemented recommendation of the Haksar Committee makes it unambiguously clear that the member of the Jury who is there because of being a Fellow of the Akademi or a winner of Award of the Akademi, will be of basic and guiding importance in the Jury.

And in the Jury we are concerned with, Prof. Chandra Sekhar Rath was the only member who had won the Akademi Award in 1997 for his short story compilation ‘Sabutharu Dirgharati’. So he was the most distinguished, preeminent member.

Prof. Rath had vehemently opposed the selection of ‘Achihna Basabhumi’ till the last moment in the meeting of the Jury. When with Debdas Chhotray’s secondary support it became clear that the book was bound to be selected with majority support, he had signed on the sheet of recommendation just to save the jury from the embarrassment of being fractured.

However, there, after signing, he had cried out his protests, as admitted by the Convener and in the public, after the award was announced, he had openly divulged that the selection was fixed.

On January 3, 2012, his version came to public attention through an interview published in Sambad wherein he stated that the selection was stage-managed and he had to sign on dotted lines against his conscience. This allegation from the most distinguished member of the Jury was too serious to be ignored.

The LAB Convener Bibhuti Pattanaik who, besides being the official link between the Jury and the Akademi, had arbitrarily presided over the Jury to the extent of driving it into selection of this book, had taken cognizance of Rath’s interview in response to which he had published his comments in the same paper admitting, inter alia, that Rath had put his signature most reluctantly in the selection sheet after Chhotray’s second preference added to Mishra’s adamant preference made the selection sure for ‘Achihna Basabhumi’; after which he had also raised “strong protests” against the selection of that book.

This shows that on January 3, 2012, the Akademi was also notified of the controversy over the selection.

PIL in Orissa High Court

On February 2, 2012, the Orissa High Court, on admitting PIL case No. W.P.(C) 1871/2012, had imposed an interim injunction on presentation of the Award and issued notice to the OPs comprising (1) the Union Ministry of Tourism and Culture represented by its Secretary, (2) National Academy of Letters (Sahitya Akademi), (3) the Akademi Secretary, (4) Language Advisory Board (Odiya), (5) Bibhuti Pattanaik, convener of the Akademi, (6) Chandrasekhar Rath, Jury of the Akademi, (7) Ramkumar Mukhopadhyaya, regional secretary of the Akademi and (8) Smt. Kalpana Kumari Devi, authoress of the disputed book.

So, finally, the Akademi was notified of the irregularities in selection of this book by the High Court of Orissa on February 2, 2012 also.

Corruption all around

On being thus notified of corruption in selection of this book, it was expected of the Akademi to review the selection. But corruption was so much across it, that, instead of reviewing the cultivated recommendations of its jury for Oriya language, it defended its decision to present the award and got the stay vacated by misleading the court with suppression of vital facts as well as by taking recourse to technical grounds rather than relying on reality.

Had the Akademi reviewed the selection, it could have seen from its records that the book was selected through sheer manipulation and shrewd canvassing by its authoress through her integral part in matter of the book: the publisher, Girija Kumar Baliarsingh, who had caused insertion of this book in the list to be placed before the Jury at the last moment. The mischief of manipulation is inherent in the Annual Award Rules of the Akademi.

Rule against Rule

When Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 3 provides for enlistment of eligible books by an expert in the concerned language “strictly” conforming to the “criteria of eligibility” laid down in the Rules, Sub-Rule 3 makes the LAB members eligible not to accept the list prepared by the language expert and to recommend two books each as eligible for the award.

Yet again, under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 4, a committee styled Preliminary Panel is created comprising ten members called ‘Referees’ , who, under Sub-Rule 3 thereof are empowered to change the list of eligible books compiled with recommendations received from the LAB members.

This is the last phase of the eligibility list for the award. Hereafter, the jury is to select the book.

Thus, the Preliminary Panel is the Final Panel for altering the list created on recommendations of the LAB members and the list created on its recommendation becomes the Final List to be placed before the Jury.

The publisher of ‘Achihna Basabhumi’ was in this Final Panel, misleadingly styled Preliminary Panel and was the only one on whose recommendation, this book which neither the language expert nor the Advisory Board members had recommended, was incorporated in the final list by the Akademi.

That the publisher of the book Girija Kumar Baliarsingh had obtained a berth in the final panel and made the book inserted in the final list by misusing his membership in that panel style ‘Preliminary Panel’ is revealed from records of the Akademi.

Asit Mohanty, an Akademi prized author and Editor of Publications (Eastern Media) had made certain queries under RTI on selection of this book. In reply to his query at Para 5 (c-viii), the Akademi has informed that, “the awarded book ‘Achinha Basabhumi’ was incorporated in the process of award at Preliminary Panel Stage” when to query at Para 5 (c-ix), it has said that, “Sri Girija Kumar Baliarsingh, one of the members of the Priliminary Panel, was (the) only (one, who) recommended the book ‘Achihna Basabhumi’ for Award.”

Award arranged through canvassing

The role of the Regional Secretary of the Akademi as well as that of the Convener in ensuring selection of this book for the award is discussed earlier in these pages. When read therewith, the role of the publisher of this book, as exposed now on the basis of records obtained from the Akademi under RTI, makes it clear that there was a meticulously calculated, canny, clever and keen canvassing for the award for ‘Achihna Basabhumi’.

The nakedness of canvassing is manifested in inclusion of the publisher of the book in the final panel.

It is up to the Akademi to reveal as to who of the Advisory Board had recommended publisher Baliarsingh for inclusion in the panel wherefrom he could insert the book in the final list.

And for this, it also should reveal, whose pressure it succumbed to in appointing this publisher as a referee and in ignoring all ethics to accommodate this particular referee’s solo recommendation at the last moment in final compilation of the eligible books for the award.

I am afraid, it will not; because the selection of this book was steered through lobbying, in sharp contravention of the rules and ethics within the knowledge of the Akademi officials and with their cooperation, participation and support.

Withdrawal of the Award is necessary

If the Akademi officials were not been involved with this offense, on receipt of Dhal’s letter of resignation from the Advisory Board on December 24, 2011, which was sent in protest against favoritism in selection, the Akademi, in order to find out if any illegality was really resorted to in selection of this book, could have immediately reviewed the entire gamut of selection, starting from the ground list to its vetting through the Advisory Board to screening thereof by referees in the final panel coined as preliminary panel and insertion of this book for the first time in the final list, beyond knowledge and jurisdiction of the Advisory Board, at the final stage on the solo recommendation of a referee who himself is the publisher of this book.

Had it been done, the clandestine canvassing by the writer could have been noticed as the publisher of a book and the writer thereof form a single unit in appearance of the book and steps could have immediately been taken to declare the book disqualified for the award.

Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 2 stipulates that, “A book shall be disqualified for the award if it is established to the satisfaction of the Executive Board that canvassing has been done by the author.”

Therefore the chief executive of the Akademi was duty bound to bring the allegation of favoritism in this book’s context to the knowledge of the Executive Board for their action against shadow canvassing by the authoress executed through her integral part in appearance of the book, the publisher.

But the chief executive of the Akademi did not do so.

The book, which is a despicable book as shown earlier in these pages and elsewhere could not be disqualified for the award before the award was presented.

After the award was presented, the role of the publisher – the integral part of the author in bringing out the book, was disclosed by the Akademi that connotes canvassing by the writer through the publisher.

Therefore the book deserves post-presentation disqualification for the award and hence the award needs to be withdrawn.

Jury members: timid or tamed?

Award to ‘Achihna Basabhumi’ could have been nullified/withdrawn had Jury member Chandra Sekhar Rath who has kept his post-announcement protests against the selection on records, been a bit honest; and if Debdas Chhotray who, in the Jury meeting, had primarily preferred another book, could have come forward to help people know the shenanigans that had preceded this selection.

There is no doubt that the Akademi officials are aggressive offenders of the very Rules, which provide for the award. But they are so very aggressive that, members of the LAB as well as of the Jury are afraid of disclosing where the shoe pinches lest that irritates the officials.

The High Court had served notices on the advisory board members through the Convener. Had they or any of them come forward to say that ‘Achihna Basabhumi’ was not in the list compiled on their recommendation, the court could not have said that the selection of this book was processed through “different expert Bodies and Committees …… formed by the National Sahitya Akademi to select the works of different authors”. And, might be, the wrong in holding this despicable book as “the most outstanding book” in Oriya language could have been corrected.

Supposing that the Convener suppressed the court notice and did not circulate the copy thereof amongst Board members, what about Chandrasekhar Rath, who had vehemently opposed the selection of this book for the award in the jury meeting itself and had, in his Sambad interview, given the impression that he had to sign on dotted lines for which his conscience was biting him bitterly and he was in deep remorse?

From the High Court verdict it transpires that he was personally notified of the case; but he did not respond.

Had he responded to the court notice and placed the facts he had divulged through the interview, the verdict of the court could certainly have not gone in favor of the Akademi and the stay on presentation of the award could not have been lifted; because the court could not have approved the illegalities resorted to in selection of this book.

Is Rath a timid fellow or was tamed by the Akademi after the Sambad interview to stay away from telling the court the truth? The answer is best known to him.

Tamed Tenacity?

It has been revealed even by the convener that when two of the members were against the awarded book, only one member of the three member jury, Srinibas Mishra, had declared at the start of the Jury meeting that he would never support any book other than ‘Achihna basabhumi’.

He is a retired person, too old for serious perusal and evaluation of so many books of so many diversities and genres in so small a time, such as a week, as LAB member Barendra Dhal has noted in his reported resignation letter.

Had he seriously read even one book, i.e. the book he so tenaciously supported, he could not have supported the book at all.

Because, a retired teacher like him could not have supported a book of filthy, insulting and obnoxious words hurled at people of lower castes, women, widows, and Muslims; a book of contempt against societal unity, against national integration and against progressive virtues.

Why he was so fixed for this particular book? Was it also an instance of tamed tenacity? This agonizing suspicion should be cleared. But, it may be clear if Mishra honestly gives a detailed account of how and why he found this book to be the “most outstanding book” of the period.

Debdas’ surprising silence

But the other member of the jury, Debdas Chhotray, who, at the beginning, had declared that none of the books in the final list was eligible for the award, had subsequently expressed his preference for a book other than ‘Achihna Basabhumi’. What happened that he helped this book with his second preference despite it being a despicable book, is a point of public interest.

Therefore I had sent him a properly explained questionnaire, which, had he answered, could have better helped in location of malpractice, if any, in selection of this book for the national award and in projection of a despicable book as “the most outstanding book” published in Oriya language. The questionnaire is perusable here. Why a man like Chhotray preferred not to cooperate is a conundrum.

Role of the Bar at India International Centre

However, a look into old files brings me into pages of Outlook India wherein well known Hindi writer Krishna Sobti was quoted to have said, “Undoubtedly, there is a literary mafia at work.”

How the mafia works? Says Sobti, “There is always a silent decision to promote someone or the other. It’s a circuit game barred to outsiders. Only a few have access to the India International Centre bar where so many things are decided.” (Outlook India, November 01, 1995)

If Jury members are gained over in bars such as at India International Centre, New Delhi, how can one expect of them any faithful adherence to Rules of the national award?

In the same discussion, Sheelbhadra, who also drew attention to the fact that a jury member had even claimed credit for ‘getting’ a particular writer his award, has said, “Personal factors obviously influence the selection of books by the language committees”.

Should we not know what Khushwant Singh has said in the same story?

In recalling his decision to quit the Sahitya Akademi’s award panel after a writer, whom he had reported for lobbying for her book, not only got the award but even declared her husband would get one the following year, Singh has said, “The kind of lobbying that goes on is shocking. In particular, there is a rampant scandal in Punjabi awards. I can’t think of a single Akademi award-winning book that has been commercially successful: they are simply unreadable.”

And, who can say, the India International Centre bar is barred to Punjabi writers?

Sanctuary of literary mafia

In their well documented write up captioned ‘Literary Mafia’ Amit Prakash and Y.P.Rajesh have exposed how award fixers are ruling the roost in the Sahitya Akademi.

“A talented Indian language writer today would need to be both influential and old, if not dead, before he is read and formally recognized by ……… the Sahitya Akademi.

“Though it is still a gentleman’s game compared to the vicious politicking, scandals and goondaism that plague the art world, the fortune and fame of many Indian writers are determined by a well-entrenched literary mafia in Delhi. A society for mutual admiration, it is a close knit group of ‘established writers’ and writer-bureaucrats who lord over vast networks of patronage. Outsiders stand little chance of breaking into this circuit and stumble in either by default or for sheer want of a favorite in a particular category or language”.(Ibid)

Exposure by Chittaranjan Das

Famous essayist and author, late Chittaranjan Das has described his experience as a member of the jury of the Akademi in Pragativadi dated June 30, 2003.

When, to avoid canvassing, it is a must for the Akademi to keep secret the names of the Jury members and this secrecy is so absolutized that no member of the Jury can know who the other members are, Das has revealed in his write-up, how he was approached by the other two members of the jury one by one and pressurized by both of them to select a particular book to ensure the award for a particular person.

Even a close friend of Das, who was not in the Jury, was used to pressurize him in support the same book, Das has said.

He has even revealed that both the other members of the Jury having decided ahead of the Jury meeting to select that particular book, his signature was formally collected by an officer of the Akademi on the sheet of paper reflecting the pre-session decision.

If Akademi officials were not involved with such award fixing, how could Das be known as a member of the Jury to others and how other two members could be gained over to have selected the book even before the Jury met?

This stripping of the Akademi by the eminent essayist, who was revered not only as a great litterateur but also as a paragon of Gandhian virtues, makes it clear that the Akademi of letters has become a sanctuary of literary mafia.

The allegation that the Convener had made

It reminds me of how in the matter of Sahitya Award-2004, in a public function of the Akademi itself at Balasore on 8 February 2010, its Convener Bibhuti Pattanaik had set the State’s literary environment ablaze by claiming that the climate of corruption prevalent in the country has also affected the nation’s highest awards for literature.

As an instance, in a conniption, he had exposed how Prafulla Mohanty had succeeded in bagging that award by bribing Jury member Manoranjan Das, with dismaying details.

It is an irony that with the same Bibhuti Pattanaik continuing as the Convener, the Award-2011 has gone to a despicable book by manipulation through illicit nexuses!

What else than the wrong practices of entertaining award-fixers in the Akademi could be responsible for this?

Awardee known
four months ahead of selection

As reported on 27 December 2007, an open appeal to the Central Culture Minister was made by eminent writers including Mahasweta Devi, Krishna Sobti, Ashok Vajpeyi, Vishnu Khare, J.P.Das, Pratibha Ray,and Ajit Cour to save the Akademi from the labyrinth of irregularities and from the grip of award fixers.

But amongst these signatories, there is one such writer who had bagged the award by manipulation!

Four months ahead of announcement of the award,former Secretary of Orissa Sahitya Akademi Dr. Hara Prasad Paricha Pattanaik had told me the name of who would get the award. And, when this particular person got the award, to what extent procurement of the award has become easier for the unscrupulous became crystal clear. In a different context, in a 2007 discussion, I have kept this information on records in these pages.

Multiple devices

“Controversies around awards in other Indian languages are not as loud as those in Hindi, which drag in all sorts of isms — cronyism, casteism, political affiliation, ideology”, says Neelabh Mishra in Outlook India of March 08, 2010.

So, not only New Delhi’s India International Centre bar, but also multiple devices like bribe, cronyism, casteism, political affiliation, ideology et cetera are in active use in selection of books for Sahitya Award.

Chronic corruption

Who but the intelligent persons can be writers and, as writers, aspire for national awards? But it also is a fact that whosoever is corrupt, is intelligent.

Like birds of the same feather, intelligent people may flock together without the risk of being easily caught for differences in avocational genre.

So in the Akademi, there is always a generic nexus between the intelligent ones with literary aspirations and the intelligent ones who thrive on corruption. Resultantly, corruption is chronic in the Akademi.

Salvaging attempts screwed up

Attempts were made to salvage the Akademi from this labyrinth in 1964 by reviewing its activities though a Committee headed by Dr. H. J. Bhabha and again in 1970 though another Committee headed by Justice G. D. Khosla. As findings thereof had no impact on the Akademi, a high-powered Committee headed by P. N. Haksar was appointed in 1988 about which we have already mentioned. This being a high-powered Committee, action on its recommendations was supposed to be sure. But mafia ruling the roost in Akademi matters screwed it up.

Parliamentary Standing Committee does a dig

With a Communist Sitaram Yechury at the helm, the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture thought it prudent to look at the functioning of the autonomous cultural bodies including the Akademi and in the process stumbled upon the Haksar Committee report ignored by the Akademi, abandoned by the Government and buried under dusts of time. It had to force the Ministry to retrieve the report, but it failed to find if any action was taken thereon; because, the concerned files were reported to be missing.

In introducing how it stumbled upon the Haksar Committe report, the Standing committee says, “The Committee had received inputs from various quarters, governmental and nongovernmental including Media, about the working of our premier cultural bodies – Sangeet Natak Akademi, Sahitya Akademi, Lalit Kala Akademi and National School of Drama. The issues ranged from their constitution, composition, mandate and mainly their general functioning. It was felt that most of these institutions were not able to live up to the original mandates set out by their founding fathers. Controversies of different kind involving these institutions that keep cropping up from time to time, had caught this Committee’s attention. Questions were also raised about the indifference and helplessness shown by the Ministry of Culture to do anything in the face of autonomy enjoyed by these institutions.(Para 23)

“In view of this, the Committee wanted to find out if these institutions set up during the initial years, were able to make the desired contribution towards enriching, promoting and preserving our arts and culture”. (para 24)

“To begin with, the Committee prepared a questionnaire and sent to the Ministry of Culture for furnishing replies, based on which it could begin its deliberations. During the deliberations, the Committee came to know that similar sentiments about the functioning and activities of these institutions had existed even during the sixties and thereafter, which is why different Committees had to be set up for going into their working”.(Para 25)

Files gone missing

The Standing Committee came to know of three different Committees constituted for the purpose in the past, the last being the Haksar Committee, which was a “High-Powered Review Committee” created for the purpose of salvaging the Akademis.

It “asked for a copy of this High-Powered Committee Report (Haksar Committee) from the Government and it was surprised to know that files relating to action taken to most of its recommendations had gone missing and the Ministry of Culture was trying to locate them. However, a copy of the Haksar Committee Report was furnished to this Committee. The recommendations/observations of this Committee (Haksar Committee), in fact, were an eye-opener to this Committee that were found to be as relevant today as they would have been more than two decades ago when it was submitted to the Govt. of India in the year 1990”, the Parliamentary Standing Committee has noted at Para 26 of in its report tabled in the Parliament on 17 August 2011.

Decision of the Standing Committee

Convinced of the relevance of the Haksar Committee report, which was produced on the basis of in-depth scrutinization of “the records of the institutions including the agenda and proceedings of their policy-making bodies, executive and academic bodies and internal committees” on the one hand; and on the other hand its interaction “across section of people active in the fields of performing and visual arts, language and literature, education and cultural administration over the country”, but was lying abandoned, the Standing Committee “felt that it would be unnecessary duplication of efforts and resources for the Parliamentary Committee to start another exercise of reviewing the working of these institutions as it had initially decided”.

Therefore, the Committee “took a decision to review the implementation of the recommendations of the Haksar Committee and report its observations/recommendations to Parliament which might sensitize the Government, Akademis, NSD and the people at large, about the significance as well as the neglect of these bodies in our nation’s life”. (Para 28-29)

Concerned as we are only with the Sahitya Akademi in this essay, we will look into the affairs only of this Akademi as mentioned in the Standing Committee Report to the extent that is relevant to the topic in our hand: the Annual Sahitya Awards.

At Para 9.46 of its report, the HPRC headed by Haksar had observed, “The Sahitya Akademi needs to take note of the general dissatisfaction regarding the present system of deciding its annual awards.” To query of the Parliamentary Committee on this point, the Akademi refused to agree to this, as there has been no objection over its present system of selection.

The Standing Commiittee has refused to accept the the version of the Akademi. It has noted, “The Committee endorses the recommendation of the HPRC and is of the view that selection process is not without any controversy. It is true about Sahitya Akademi award also. What is needed is to follow a very transparent and comprehensive selection process with least scope for favoritism, etc. The existing selection process may be re-examined accordingly and intimated to the Committee.”

The Haksar Committee had further said that, “The juries must apply the most exacting standards. If no book or author in any given language comes up to the mark, no prize need be awarded. The existing guideline to this effect should be strictly enforced.” (Para 9.51 of its report) To query of the Standing Committee on this count, the Akademi said that the recommendation has been “implemented” and the Standing Committee took note of it. But as shown in this chain of discussions in these pages, it is clear that the recommendation is observed more in violation than implementation. Corruption has engulfed the entire process.

“Our conventional wisdom says that a society bereft of art, music and literature will consist of people as good as animals with no horns and tails. The main challenge before us today is to protect and promote our tangible and intangible cultural assets at a right perspective.” The Parliamentary Standing Committee had introduced its report with this note.

Challenge remains a challenge

But the challenge has remained a challenge. The Akademi has remained the Augean Stable of Indian letters, as is established by award to ‘Achihna Basabhumi’.

It is time, the Standing Committee of the Parliament, in this context, should find time , to review the implementation of its views. And, the sooner it is done, the better.

Orissa’s poetic tradition is oldest in India

In Orissa Sahitya Akademi’s series of Prof. Arta Ballav Mohanty Memorial Lectures this year, India’s eminent poet Ashok Vajpayi lauded Oriya language as the language that bears the country’s oldest poetic tradition.

Not only poetry had blossomed in Oriya matchlessly early, but also it had made an unique pattern of its own. The richness of lucidity, rich also in diversities in style of presentation, makes Orissa’s old poetic tradition unique. The vastness of vocabulary covering cross-referred subjects on every facet of life and society as marked in the works of Adi Kavi Sarala Das is not found even in Hindi literature of those days, said Vajpayee.

He pointed out that a poet’s strength of memory linked to empirical knowledge and societal tradition makes his work utmost relevant and of permanent value. This is seen in Sarala’s works. And, this is also reflected in works of Prof. Mohanty under whose able editorship Sarala Mahabharat could enter from the ranks of palm leave manuscripts into the modern world of print.

The memorial lecture was witnessed by Orissa’s Minister of Culture Prafulla Samal in the auditorium of Utkal Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Bhubaneswar amongst hundreds of persons of letters and intellectuals on Sunday.

Sahitya Award 2011: A Happening That Should Not Have Happened

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Achihna Basabhumi, which should not have got the Central Sahitya Akademi Award, has got it on the strength of a decision of Orissa High Court on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that had challenged the selection of the book for the Award.

But a perusal of the order of the High Court that helped this book receive the Sahitya Award 2011 gives the feeling that had the PIL petitioner conducted the prosecution in right earnest, the result could have been different.

The Court has held that the petitioner’s case was not maintainable as a PIL by accepting the version of the award winner that the petitioner being a writer and publisher himself, had a private interest in challenging the Award.

Had the petitioner properly pleaded his case, he could have pointed out that no book either written by him or published by his firm was contesting for selection. So he had no private interest in challenging the selection and therefore the description of the case as a private interest litigation was not correct.

Fundamental Duty is a Public Interest Duty

He could have pleaded that, as a dutiful citizen, it was his fundamental duty to challenge the wrong selection, which was made in violation of the Annual Sahitya Akademi Awards Rules, hereinafter called the Rules.

He could have cited Article 51A of the Constitution of India that has laid down the fundamental duties, which every citizen should perform as a part of the general public, in public interest.

Under clause (e) thereof it has been stipulated that, it shall be the fundamental duty of every member of the general public – a citizen – “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women”.

The PIL petitioner should have convinced the Court that when these tenets are in jeopardy, it should be the duty of any member of the public to try every method, including judicial, to remove that jeopardy.

The book in question bears ingredients against harmony and goes against the spirit of common brotherhood as contemplated under the constitutional provision cited above. As for example, in page 515, Mrs. Indira Gandhi is castigated for having married to a Pathan in spite of being the daughter of Pt. Nehru, a Brahmin. In page 53, it has declared that it cannot be countenanced if a Brahmin child is made to sit on the same floor to study with a child of Kandara caste.

It uses terms that encourages the practice of using words and epithets absolutely derogatory to the dignity of women. As for example, in page 33, insulting and offensive words like Randi and Jarata are used against a woman. On the basis of meaning spelt out in Purnnachandra Ordia Bhashakosha, when Randi is an abusive Oriya word that equates a widow with a whore, Jarata stands for a woman who till old age remains a harlot. As such, the expression in this page – Randira Jarata Dosa Katigala – Randi is absolved from becoming a Jarata, is pregnant with the suggestion that, if a woman is a widow, she must be thriving on prostitution.

Words in this book are offensively used against people of schedule castes. As for example, in page 55, people of Keuta caste are depicted as harebrained and insultingly called ‘Shala” in the sense of being one, whose sister is fucked. Kandara caste people are called scavengers (Hedakhia) in page 260.

Muslims are also not spared. They are described as untouchables. As for example, in page 256, it is said that an untouchable person shall be doubly untouchable by touching a Muslim. In page 300, it is stated that Muslims are untouchable like all of the untouchable castes, rather baser than the untouchables because of being eaters of beef.

In view of such sample expressions and samples cited in saubhasya.com and placed as above, Achihna Basabhumi is a book that goes against the tenets of Article 51A(e) of the Constitution and carries ingredients that are injurious to promotion of “harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities” and are contributory to “practices derogatory to the dignity of women”.

It also contravenes Article 51A(f) that calls upon the citizens “to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture” by, as shown supra, depicting hatred for scheduled caste people, hatred for dignity of women, hatred for Muslims.

What should be the duty of a dutiful member of the general public -a citizen – in this case? He should expose the mischief, should try to make the general public aware of this mischief, should adopt all methods, including judicial, to defeat this mischief.

So, any step including legal step taken in this respect must be construed as a step in public interest.

Had the PIL petitioner convinced the Court of this, the verdict could have been different. And, the PIL might not have appeared as a private interest litigation.

A fit case for PIL

At Para 10 of the Judgment, the Court has rightly said, “Public Interest Litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation. The purpose of PIL is to promote the public interest which mandates that violence of legal or constitutional rights of a large number of persons, poor, down-trodden, ignorant, socially or economically disadvantaged should not go unredressed. The Court can take cognizance in PIL when there are complaints which shocks the judicial conscience. PIL is pro bono publico and should not smack of any ulterior motive and no person has a right to achieve any ulterior purpose through such litigations”.

The petitioner had every opportunity to convince the Court that neither any book authored by him nor published by his firm being in the fray, the PIL he had filed was “not in the nature of adversary litigation” too.

He could have told the Court that “large number of persons” – the scheduled caste people, who are “poor, down-trodden, ignorant, socially or economically challenged” as well as the women and the Muslims, have the “legal or constitutional rights” not to be depicted in insulting and derogative terms in permanent ink in any book. But they have been so depicted – as samples given supra prove – in Achihna Basabhumi.

He could have pointed out that in honoring this despicable book with the national Sahitya Award 2011, meant for the “most outstanding book”, the “legal or constitutional rights of a large number of persons” – belonging to the scheduled castes as well as women and Muslims – not to be offended by insulting and derogatory depictions, are severely “violated”.

In moving the Court against this “violation”, the petitioner could have said that he had no “ulterior motive” and had no aim “to achieve any ulterior purpose” through the litigation.

Had he pleaded his case in this light, the “violation” of “legal or constitutional rights of large number of persons” – the members of scheduled castes, women and Muslims – not to be depicted in “insulting and derogatory” terms, could have “shocked” the “judicial conscience” of the bench and the case could have been taken cognizance of as a fit case for PIL and the order of the Court could have been different.

Acquiescence under pressure does not make a decision fair

The Court has relied upon a jury member Chandrasekhar Rath’s reported version in The Telegraph that reads, “At times, many factors for the selection of a work for an award remain unknown to the public. But, since the Akademi has entrusted us with the responsibility, we carried out the job to the best of our ability”. And, by accepting this version of Rath as genuine, the Court has held that the selection of the book for the award was genuine.

Had the petitioner sincerely pursued his case, he could have unfold before the Bench what Sri Rath really meant by saying, “many factors for the selection of a work for an award remain unknown to the public”.

The Rules and Procedure are the known factors that govern the selection of a work for an Award. And, they are available and known to the public. So, what really remains unknown?

The contravention of the Rules remains unknown.

The shenanigans in promoting a particular book for the Award in virtual nullification of the “ground list of eligible books” prepared by “the expert(s) appointed by the Akademi for for the specific purpose remains unknown.

The corruption in selection remains unknown.

The tricks of favoritism/nepotism used for selection of a particular book for the Award remains unknown.

The design to select a particular book for the Award by rejecting better books remains unknown.

The tricks of making the juries surrender to pressure for selecting a particular book for the Award remains unknown.

And many such nefarious activities of any office-bearer of the Akademi to obtain by any means the Award for a book of his/her preferred person, notwithstanding how despicable might be that book, remains unknown.

When Rath told the Telegram that “many factors for the selection of a work for the award remain unknown to the public”, he had kept these factors in his mind.

This is clear from Rath’s another interview given to a very well-known editor of literary journals and a national Sahitya Akademi prize winner Asit Mohanty, published in Orissa’s top circulated daily, The Sambad on January 03, 2012.

In this interview he has made the public know that selection of Achihna Basabhumi for the Award was predetermined and was imposed upon the Jury by convener Bibhuti Patnaik on the basis of extra-jurisdictional strength purposefully bestowed upon him for the day by the regional secretary of Sahitya Akademi, Ramkumar Mukhopadhyaya when the meeting of the Jury had commenced.

Rath has stated that, contrary to Rules and Procedures in vogue, before the Jury started its business, Mukhopadhyaya, had imposed Patnaik on the Jury to “preside over its meeting” and to “participate in its business”. As such, the Jury, which is a three member body de jure, became a four member body de facto and, Patnaik not only presided over the Jury without any legal right, but also “dominated” over its deliberations arbitrarily and created situations for selection of this particular book for the Award, Rath has said.

The Annual Sahitya Akademi Award Rules on the ‘Jury and its function’ has made it clear that the “Convener shall act as the link between the Jury and the Akademi”. But instead of acting as a link, he presided over the Jury and dominated over its deliberations, controlled its decision making, blocked other books from being considered and ensured the selection of this particular book – Achihna Basabhumi – for the Award.

So, the same Chandrasekhar Rath, whose version in The Telegraph has been relied upon by the Court in holding that, “selection of book was entirely made by a three member jury committee consisting of eminent Odiya scholars”, has in reality shown in his interview taken by Mohanty how illegal was the selection and how he had acquiesced in to put his signature on dotted lines against his conscience.

But the Court could not know of this. Had the petitioner produced Rath’s interview published in the Sambad before the Court and insisted upon taking cognizance thereof, and argued that acquiescence under pressure does not make a decision fair, perhaps the order could have been different.

Shenanigans expose Hobson’s choice

Rath’s interview to Mohanty has exposed the shenanigans in selection of Achihna Basabhumi.

Even though books from four sectors of literature – novel, poem, short story and critique – were placed before the Jury, convener Bibhuti Patnaik, who illegally presided over it, did not allow the Jury members to select any book other than a novel. Rath had proposed that one book each from the four categories be shortlisted first, and then, out of the four shortlisted books the best one be selected. But Sri Patnaik rejected that proposal and directed the Jury to select a novel only, though the Procedure laid down by the Akademi never gives him any carte blanche to do this.

Freedom of the Jury members to use their wisdom to select the best one from the books placed before them thus being illegally denied and scope of selection thus being arbitrarily restricted by Sri Patnaik, there was no way other than discarding all eligible books except the novels.

Rath has clearly stated, had it been possible to prepare the shortlist with one book each from of the four categories for final selection, he had the doubts if Achihna Basabhumi,brought to the consideration zone of the Jury through manipulation over the list of eligible books prepared by the “Expert”, could have qualified for a place in the said shortlist. But, Patnaik not only rejected the proposal for the shortlist, but also used tricks to ensure selection of this particular book from the novels, the only category available to the Jury.

He has given a picture of this trick. After members of the Jury were browbeaten to discard the eligible books belonging to other categories, only books in the novel category remained for consideration. There were four novels.

One of the Jury members, Srinibas Mishra, had declared from the very beginning that he shall not support any book other than Achihna Basabhumi for the Award. This man was included in the Juri purposefully because, as a caste supremacist he was expected to support Achihna Basabhumi – not nominated by the “expert” that prepared the original list of eligible books, but by tricks brought before the Jury – because sic passim in this book are abusive words hurled at scheduled cast people and Muslims whom the caste supremacists hold as untouchables. The parochial creed of this man is discernible in the fact that only he was chosen by convener-cum-unauthorized President as to why he does not support Satakadi Hota’s novel Mukti Yuddha, to which he had the reply that Naxalites being eulogized by Hota as fighters for emancipation, he does not think it proper to select this novel for the national Sahitya Award. To this man, no other book than Achihna Basabhum merited consideration, even though the book, as shown supra, is interlaced with insulting and derogatory expressions against schedule caste people, women and Muslims in a pattern that sneers at social harmony, spirit of common brotherhood and our composite culture.

When another member the Jury (Debdas Chhotray) said that he prefers another book (Paunshagadare Sunara Dhuli Mo Dhanamali) to Achihna Basabhumi for the purpose of the award, that book was declared a non-novel. A book was rejected on the ground that it was the only novel published in a particular year and the rest one was rejected under the plea that its author being younger in age can wait for the Award, Rath has informed.

Thus by highhandedly eliminating three of the four novels from the list of four, the Convener, who illegally presided over the meeting and interfered in and controlled the deliberations of the Jury from beginning to end, finally projected Achihna Basabhumi as the book of his choice and the only eligible book for the Award and stressed on its acceptance.

The PIL petitioner could have apprised the Court of this illegality in selection of this book as exposed by Rath.

He could have challenged how a first preferred book was declared a non-novel. He could have challenged how an eligible book was wiped out from consideration zone not because of any deficiency in the book, but simply because of the younger age of its author, despite there being no provision in the Akademi’s procedure for consideration of any book on the basis of age of its author. He could have challenged the illegality of rejection of an eligible book under the plea that it was the only book published in a particular year, though the rules are specific that not any single year but “the three years prior to the year, immediately preceding the year of the award”, must be the basis of consideration for selecting a book for the Award.

But the petitioner did not apprise the Court of these illegalities that were enforced upon the Jury to choose Achihna Basabhumi as the only book available.

He could have told the court that Hobson’s choice might have been a matter in selection of a horse, but cannot be and must not be countenanced in selection of a book for the nation’s highest official award in literature. But he did not do it. Had he attracted the Court’s attention to these blatant illegalities, the order could have been different.

The Convener acted ultra vires

That, instead of acting as “the link between the Jury and the Akademi” as stipulated under the Procedure, the convener was interfering with the Jury work and shepherding the jury members into a situation to select Achihna Basabhumi, is corroborated, though unwittingly, by the convener himself.

As for example, he has said that he had raised objection, when jury member Debadas Chhotroy expressed his choice for the novel Paunshagadare Sunara Dhuli Mo Dhanamali.

“I objected to acceptance of this book of Debraj Lenka as a complete novel, because it was a book of only 98 pages”, he has said.

Is there any definition that stipulates that in order to be accepted as a novel a book must be containing more than 98 pages?

Where from the convener got such a definition?

And, who was the convener to intervene in Jury work and raise objection to a jury member’s choice?

The PIL petitioner could have raised these questions to show the Court how the selection procedure was affected by arbitrariness of the convener, who acted ultra vires through and through.

He could have shown to the Court that the convener’s role. under the Rules and Procedure of the Akademi, was limited to acting as “the link between the Jury and the Akademi” and to ensure that the meeting of the Jury was conducted in proper environment and to the satisfaction of the jury members. But, as admitted by him, he intervened in the meeting, interfered with the proceedings, objected to evaluation of books by jury members, blocked the expression of their wisdom in selection of the best book by unauthorizedly vetoing a member’s rightful choice, imposed on the Jury that a novel cannot be accepted as a complete novel because its page numbers were 98 even though no where a novel is defined to be a book of large number of pages and obstructed proper application of mind by the jury members to the business in their hand, over and above restricting the selection for the book for award only to the sector of Novels.

Had the petitioner been able to do this, the order could have been different.

To the Court, the wrong has appeared right

To the Court it has appeared that “not only the eminent Jury Members, but also the Executive Board” has examined “in every respect as to whether the book is worthy to get the Award or not” (Para 11 of the Order). But to have the Court form this view, it has been fed with the wrong data in absence of proper prosecution by the petitioner.

The petitioner could have told the Court that the Executive Boards of the Akademi has not at all examined “in every respect as to whether the Book is worthy to get the award or not”. It has just formally approved the Jury recommendations and announced the Award. The Rules under the heading ‘Declaration of Award’ has limited the scope of the Executive Body in this respect by laying down that, “The recommendation of the Jury shall be placed before the Executive Board for formal approval and announcement of the Award” Rule 6 (1).

On the other hand, from what the convener of Akademi’s Language Advisory Board has said in his written statement that he has published in Sambad in reaction to Rath’s interview published in the same paper, it transpires that the Jury did not function in normal condition and had to acquiesce in machinations to select Achihna Basabhumi.

From what the convener in his statement has said, it is clear that, the Jury decision was severely affected by his personal participation, vetoing and vetting. Thus it was not a fair, proper and legal decision.

Besides, the strength of the Jury was also tampered with behind back of the Akademi in order to cow down dissent voice, if any, against selection of Achihna Basabhumi.

With the convener imposed upon the Jury to preside over it with participation in its decision making, the Jury no more remained a committee of three members as stipulated under the Rules, but became a body of four.

Yet, from a different angle, it was made de facto a body of five, inasmuch as, besides Patnaik, Mukhopadhyaya was the one, who, sans any provision, declared that Achihna Basabhumi was the book that was selected by the Jury, a fact, which Patnaik himself has disclosed in his statement.

Under the Rules, it is the three members (and three members only) of the Jury that should “examine in every respect” (to quote the High Court words as noted supra) the books for selection, and come to the conclusion; and handover their recommendation for the Award to the convener (he being the link between the Jury and the Akademi) after signing thereon in his presence, who then would merely countersign the signatures and submit the same it to the Akademi for formal approval and announcement under Rule 6(1) accordingly.

The Rules provide that, if the Jury finds that there is no book worthy of selection for the Award, it can, under Rule 1 (2) refuse to select any book from the list before it and sign the result sheet accordingly, which the convener is to merely countersign and submit.

So, wherefrom this Mukhopadhyaya got the power to conclude and declare that Achihna Basabhumi was selected by the Jury, if not this selection was stage-managed under his supervision and monitoring?

The petitioner could have raised this question and proved that the decision of the Jury was stage-managed under Mukhopadhyaya’s supervision and monitoring and the Convener’s ultra vires activities and hence was improper and illegal. Had he done so, the order might have been different.

Rath’s objections corroborated

Rath’s claim that he had objected against imposition of Achihna basabhumi is corroborated even by the convener.

He has clearly stated that, after Mukhopadhyaya declared Achihna Basabhumi as the book selected, Rath had vehemently objected thereto and had opposed the selection, already, by then, declared by Mukhopadhyaya.

But ultimately Rath had succumbed to his pressure and signed on the dotted lines, for which, the convener has thanked him, though in his interview published in Sambad, he has condemned himself,

and vowed not to agree to be a Jury member of the Akademi in future.

Relevant objections to illegalities galore

Not only Rath from the Jury, but also eminent persons of letters associated with the Akademi have put on records their objection to illegalities galore in this selection.

As for example, Satakadi Hota, the most known gentle face amongst men of letters in Orissa, who has tremendous experience in matters of Indian Sahitya Award, having had two terms of incumbency in the Akademi’s Language Advisory Board for Oriya, besides being a current member of its General Council, has put it on records that like mines are being looted by mafia, in Sahitya Akademi, the mafias are also looting the Awards. And, he has added force to this statement in an exclusive interview to a highly esteemed literary journal, ‘Chandan’ in its January 2012 issue (Issue-1, Vol.V).

A close friend of Convener Bibhuti Patnaik, literature activist Barendra Krushna Dhal, also a central Sahitya Akademi Prize winner and the founder secretary of Bhubaneswar Book Fair that has revolutionized bibliophilism in Orissa, has resigned, on records, from Oriya Language Advisory Board of the Akademi after selection of Achihna Basabhumi in protest against discernible malpractice in this selection.

The PIL petitioner could have placed all these instances before the Court to counter the opposite party assertions that the selection was fairly done by the entire three member Jury. Had he done so, the order might have been different.

Incompetent members in the Jury

At Para 15 of the order, the Court has taken it that the Jury committee that selected Achihna Basabhumi as “worthy to get the Award for the year 2011” was constituted with “eminent experts”. It looks like a wrong assumption.

Far from being “eminent”, the members of the Jury were incompetent to evaluate the Novels.

None of them was an “expert” on Novels.

When the selection was arbitrarily limited to Novels, “eminent experts” on Novels should have evaluated the books in the list.

But no member of the Jury has any visibility in the field of evaluation of Novels.

None of the Jury has ever noticeably criticized a Novel or brought out any critique on Novels.

None of them has any published work on Novels.

None of them is either a scholar on Novels or has ever been referred to as such by any scholar.

None of them is recognized as an “expert” in the field of Novels.

After so many scathing attacks on the wrong selection in public, in the media, in TV panels and even in editorials in prominent newspapers, none of the so-called scholar members of the Jury has defended the selection, when the only member of the Jury to have opened his lips on the selection, Chandrasekhar Rath, has given enough indication that the selection was stage-managed, improper and unfair. It is worth mention that Rath is the only member in the Jury who, to his credit, has two novels,for which, although he is not any expert in evaluation of novels, he may be taken as an author endowed with a novel-sense. And, to him, Achihna Basabhumi was not worthy of consideration for the national award and he, even admitted by the Convener, had vehemently opposed the selection of this book for the award.

The PIL petitioner should have brought to the attention of the Court these instances of deficiency in the Jury members and argued that none of them was competent for evaluation of Novels and had he done so, the order could have been different.

Maneuvering in enlistment of eligible books

Two prerequisites are essential for Sahitya Award. They are: enlistment of a book as eligible for the Award and recommendation of the book as selected for the Award.

Sub-Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules provide for preparation of the ground list of eligible books by “an expert” or at best “two” appointed by the President of the Akademi from panels of maximum five names sent by each of the members of the Language Advisory Board. On contact, many of these members have told me that they had not submitted any panel, when only one member has informed that he had signed on a pre-prepared panel in the regional office of the Akademi at Kolkata. It indicates that the Expert, if any really appointed, was appointed illegally sans a valid panel in contravention of Rule 3(2).

There is reason to apprehend that no real expert was appointed to prepare the ground list; as otherwise, 11 books out of 16 in the ground list could not have been of a single publisher, from whose stable, another one – the Achihna Basabhumi – could enter later to the list of eligible books.

To get the correct information in this regard, on January 27, 2012 I had sent the following mail to the Akademi, wherein I had written:

“selection of achihna basabhumi for sahitya akademi award, 2011 has generated such resentment amongst oriya authors that it is necessary to find out where from the mischief emerged.

to my query, many members of the advisory board have revealed that they had not recommended any person for appointment as expert for preparing the ground list of books. curiously, 11 out of the 16 books in the ground list are of a single publisher known to every author of orissa worth the name.

on the other hand, the book in question was not in the ground list.

so, we want to know: (1) who was or were the expert or experts that prepared the ground list? and (2) on whose recommendation achihna basabhumi was placed in the shortlist before the jury?

as stink of manipulation is thick in the air in this respect, please favor me with the answer to these two questions.

i am accredited to govt. of orissa and professionally entitled to the information sought for”.

Shockingly, the Akademi did not dare to answer my queries. Therefore, it is suspected that no real expert was appointed as required under Rule 3(2) and the ground list was stage-managed by obtaining somehow the signature(s) of some obliging person(s) on the said list.

However, not accepting but acceding for the purpose of discussion that an expert or two experts were appointed, who prepared the ground list of books eligible for the award, it is worth noting that in this list, Achihna Basabhumi was not included as eligible for the Award.

This means, it was not found eligible for the Award under the criteria fixed under Rule 2(1).

It is also possible that, by the time the ground list of eligible books was to reach the members of Language Advisory Board under Rule 3 (3), the publisher, from whose stable 11 out of 16 books had entered the ground list, had not published this book. We shall look into this aspect at a later stage. Let us first see what the Rules say about preparation of the ground list.

Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 is the provision that says of this.

It stipulates that, “in preparation of the ground list, the Expert or Experts shall strictly conform to the criteria of eligibility laid down in these Rules”.

Criteria of eligibility for the Award is fixed under Rule 2.

Sub-Rule (1) thereof stipulates that, “in order to be eligible for the Award, the book must be an outstanding contribution to the language and literature to which it belongs.”

This makes it clear that Achihna Basabhumi, in order to meet the criteria of eligibility, was to have been found to “be an outstanding contribution to the language and literature” of Orissa.

It has nowhere been found to be so.

It came to the list placed before the Jury only by way of maneuvering in stark contravention of the criteria fixed under Rule 2(1), because contribution of this book to language and literature of Orissa is nil.

No scholar or critique has uttered a single word depicting its contribution to Oriya language and literature till and after it was enlisted for selection, whereas after its selection, the sky of Orissa’s language and literature has been shrouded under objections from eminent authors and language lovers of the State.

We have exposed supra how obnoxious words and derogatory expressions used freely and profusely in this book have made it despicable for whosoever has respect for “harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India” and to “the dignity of women” and to “our rich heritage of composite culture”.

Such a despicable book can have no contribution to language and literature, as contribution is a word that connotes positiveness.

Therefore, instead of being “an outstanding contribution” this book is an outrageous embarrassment to Orissa.

And, hence, placement of this book in the list before the Jury as eligible for the award was an act of annihilation of the criteria of eligibility as laid down under Rule 2(1).

If the Akademi has not acted illegally in promoting this book for the Award, it should have come forward to disclose who annihilated Rule 2(1) and at what stage, specifically as it was originally not found eligible for the Award on the basis of criteria of eligibility.

Silence of the Akademi shows that it has succumbed to manipulation in awarding Achihna Basabhumi.

The PIL petitioner should have raised these points before the Bench to help the Court reach at the mala fide modus operandi behind selection of this book and Orissa could have been saved from being embarrassed over a despicable book getting the highest official national award as the most outstanding book of its language and literature; because, the Court could not have approved the annihilation of Rule 2(1) and other relevant Rules and then the order could have been different.

Time frame shattered

Selection of the book for Award is subjected to a particular time frame.

Under Sub-Rule 1of Rule 1 of the Annual Sahitya Akademi Awards Rules, it has been made specific that, “there shall be an award every year for the most outstanding book by an Indian author, first published in any of the languages recognized by the Sahitya Akademi during the three years prior to the year immediately preceding the year of the award”

By way of illustration, it has been laid down therein thus: For the award of 2004, books published between 2000 and 2002 would be considered.

Thus, for the award, two unavoidable prerequisites are prescribed. One, publication of the book within the stipulated time frame and two, the book becoming the most outstanding book within the period under the time frame.

Therefore, for the Award 2011, Achihna Basabhumi was to have been published between 2007 and 2009 and to must have emerged as “the most outstanding book” in those three years amongst all the other books published in the same period.

But the book was neither published within the time frame nor was established within the time frame as “the most outstanding book”.

First we will look into the time frame.

The publisher claims that it was published in 2009, in the last leg of the time frame, in November.

But it does not match with the version of the authoress.

In an interview to Dr. Binapani Debata in January 2010, the authoress of Achihna Basabhumi had stated that she had just starting to write a novel, although since 1986 she had written only the short stories. (Jugashree Juganaree: February 2010, p.7).

Her version “just started” (Ebe Arambha Karichhi) makes it clear that she had started her first Novel writing since 1986 at the time she had given the interview.

Admittedly, she having not written any Novel before that, and Achihna Basabhumi having not been published before 1986, it is clear that, this is the book she she had started writing in January 2010.

This being the fact from the mouth of the authoress, it is absolutely impossible that it was published by November 2009.

The publisher, obviously has backdated its publication after being assured by the Akademi convener Bibhuti Patnaik that if so backdated, he may help the book bag the Sahitya Award. This is why, it was absent in the ground list of eligible books submitted by the Expert or created in the name of the Expert.

From another interview to Chandan January 2012, the authoress has stated that she was informed by a contemporary friend that this time the Sahitya Award was going to be given to her (Tate Ethara Kendra Sahitya Akademi Puraskara Dia Heuchhi). She refused to divulge the name of her friend; but it was clear that he must be Bibhuti Patnaik as no other friend of her was privy to the decision before its announcement. So, it generates suspicion that Bibhuti Patnaik must have arranged the Award for this book and sure of his prowess to arrange it, he could have asked the publisher to backdate its publication to 2009, which he has done.

After the controversy over the selection of this book rocked the state, the Sambad on January 13 reported how there was reason to suspect that publication of the book was backdated. Extremely irritated over this report, the publisher hurled a statement against the same at the Sambad.

In this statement, he said that the authoress of Achihna Basabhumi had sent the book to him in 2008 for publication. The book was printed and published by November 2009, but was immediately freezed as he was tormented to see that the book was full of mistakes. He was so tormented that he had to reprint the entire book containing so many pages at a huge cost.”

If this is true, the book was not in active life in 2009, because published in November it was freezed immediately for a total correction and reprint.

But this statement of the publisher smacks of falseness when compared with the version of the authoress. In the interview to Chandan cited earlier, the authoress of the book has stated that she had finished the novel in December of 2008 and as the publisher wanted to publish it, she had given him the book in 2009. So the publisher’s claim that she had “sent the book to him in 2008 for publication” is false.

Both the publisher and the authoress seem to have been in worries over the authoress’ interview published in Jugashree Juganari as that was indicating that the book was not published within the fixed time frame.

So both of them were trying to bring in 2008 and 2009 into the publication of the book.

And, as the axiom goes, to suppress the lie that the book was published in 2009, different lies are uttered by both of them.

But, despite that, in this interview, the authoress has inadvertently disclosed that the book was not published till December 2011.

The authoress was asked: When 2009 is mentioned as the year of publication of Achihna Basabhumi in the inner page of the book, why was it that readers could see the book for the first time only in the Rajdhani Book Fair held from 1 to 12 December 2011? She answered, “After i completed the book when bedridden in December 2008, Girija kumar Baliarsingh had expressed interest to publish it through his publishing conern: Kahani. In January 2009 he had taken the manuscript from me. The delay is done by him. So, ask him for the answer to to this question”.

Thus, the authoress of the book has admitted that the book was not published till the Rajdhani Book Fair held in December 2011, because the publisher was responsible for the delay in publication.

Undoubtedly it establishes that the book was not published in 2009 as has been shown.

That the book was not published by November 2009 as claimed by the publisher is also established by another important source.

The Rajdhani Book Fair has brought out a revised edition of its index of Oriya authors and their books published up to 2009.

Books published by Baliarsingh up to November 2009 are placed in this index and to our query, the Book Fair secretary informed that the data published in the index are supplied by the publishers.

In this index there is no trace of Achihna Basabhumi.

Had it been published by November 2009 as claimed by Baliarsingh, it must have been placed in the index as other books published by him by November 2009 have been placed in this volume.

There are more such evidences that prove that the book Achihna Basabhumi was not published in 2009.

Hence, it had no eligibility to be considered for the Sahitya Award 2011.

In selecting this book for the Award, the time frame fixed by the Rules has been shattered.

It is illegal.

The PIL petitioner should have brought these facts to the attention of the Court and had he done this, I believe, the order could have been different.

Not outstanding, but outrageous

It deserves note that in providing “Criteria of eligibility for the Award”, the Rules Stipulate, that, “the book must be AN OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION to the language and literature to which it belongs”, but in specifying which book should be given the Award, it has been laid down that it must be “THE MOST OUTSTANDING BOOK”.

We have discussed supra the first part of the above phenomenon and shown that the instead of being an outstanding contribution, the book is an outrageous embarrassment to people of Orissa who pride on and love the magnificence of their language.

Now, therefore, we should see, if the book is the most outstanding book of the relevant period.

There is no definition of the word ‘outstanding’ in the Rules of the Akademi. So we will have to depend on the Dictionary meaning. The Dictionary relied upon by many, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, defines the word ‘outstanding’ as:
(a) standing out from a group: Conspicuous,
(b) marked by eminence and distinction noticeable.

In view of this meaning, in order to be the most outstanding book published during the period from 2007 to 2009, Achihna Basabhumi was to must have stood out from all books published in the same period as most conspicuous and must have been most noticeable for eminence and distinction.

It had never happened.

Firstly, for not been published in the period from 2007 to 2009 and secondly, for not having earned noticeable eminence and distinction in valid comparison with other novels published in the relevant period and thirdly, for being a despicable book on the ground of use of obnoxious, vulgar, insulting and derogatory words against majority of people belonging to schedule castes, against women and against Muslims in stark disregard to harmony and spirit of common brotherhood of our people and our composite culture.

So, the book is never the most outstanding book of Oriya language and literature.

The PIL petitioner should have placed before the Court this aspect of the book. And, had he done so, the order could have been different.

The real issue was not the issue before the Court

From the Rules discussed heretofore, it is clear that the only basis on which Sahitya Award is given to a book is that the book must have been the most outstanding book of the language and literature to which it belongs, subject to its publication within the prescribed timeframe.

When a dispute arises on selection, whether or not the book is the most outstanding book published within the prescribed timeframe should be the crux of the issue before the Court.

But as we mark, it was not at all the issue before the Orissa High Court.

Under Para 8 of the order we find only three issues framed by the Court for consideration. They are: (i) whether this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is maintainable? (ii) whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for in the writ petition? (iii) what order?

So the question – whether the book was the most outstanding book published within the prescribed timeframe? – which really connotes public interest, was not at all the issue before the High Court.

The case craved for inclusion of this question as the core question for consideration, specifically as the Court, under Para 2 of the order, has noted that, this was briefly the case. Why the judicial conscience could not rise to this question is a conundrum.

Premature Dismissal

But it seems that the Court has not taken up this question under grounds mentioned under Para 13 and Para 14 of the order, wherefrom it has gone to dismiss the case.

Therefore, it would be better to look at these two Paras. They are as hereunder.

13. It is further well settled principle laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that undoubtedly, the Court does not have the expertise in all subjects. Therefore, it has to be slow in disturbing the decision taken by the Committee of experts, working in the field, have day to day experience, and which has acquired special skill and special knowledge in the subject and the field.

14. In this regard a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of The University of Mysore & Anr. Vs. C. D. Govindrao & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 491, held that in academic matters where the decisions under challenge has been taken by the Committee of Experts, “normally the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts”.

When Para 13 projects a “settled principle” according to which the Court “has to be slow in disturbing the decision taken by a committee of experts”, under Para 14, the Court has cited a Supreme Court decision “in this regard” that says, “normally the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts”.

In view of this, if the Court was not able to immediately arrive at a decision on whether or not the book Achihna Basabhumi was the most outstanding book of Oriya language and literature, published during the stipulated period within 2007 and 2009, it should have gone slow in disposal of the case as ordained by the Supreme Court, quoted by it, instead of dismissing the case before arriving at a correct answer to this question through its own process.

Hence, the dismissal of the case is a premature dismissal. And, thereby Oriya language and literature, as discussed supra, are left to be infested with a despicable book, honored with the highest official award of the nation meant for the most outstanding book.

This is a happening, which should not have happened.

People of Orissa Should be Allowed to Know What the High Court has Ordered on Sahitya Award

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Mother tongue and motherland are in Oriya concept equated with the mother. “ମାତୃଭାଷା ମାତୃଭୁମି ଉଭୟ ଜନନୀ”.

Therefore, it is natural on part of every Oriya to know of what exactly the Orissa High Court has said while allowing the presentation of Sahitya Award 2011 by India’s National Academy of Letters to ‘Achihna Basabhumi’ (ଅଚିହ୍ନା ବାସଭୁମି) despite the book being a displayer of nasty words and expression of hatred against lower castes, women and muslims.

On the plea that selection of this book as the best book in Oriya language for the national award was obtained through manipulation, a man of letters – Sricharan Pratap ‘Kaniska’ – had preferred a writ case before the High Court of Orissa, which was registered as W.P.(C) 1871 OF 2012 with a Misc Case numbering 1876/2012 that had resulted in a stay on the award. But subsequently on 14 February 2012, the Court lifted the stay and dismissed the case as not maintainable as a PIL, on the basis of which, the Academy has already presented the award to the writer of this book.

As the people of Orissa – including the NROs – are also anxious to know what the High Court has really said, currently in a foreign tour, I tried to get it for my readers through the judgment site in the internet; but it was not available. I contacted the petitioner and from him I got the information that though he has applied for an urgent copy of the order, he has not yet got it, because the members of the bench – Chief Justice V. Gpal Gowda and Justice B.N.Mohapatra – have not yet signed the verdict.

This position worsens the predicament.

Presentation of the award by the Academy of Letters on 15 February following the rejection of the petition in the High Court, when the petitioner has not even got a copy of the order because the same is not signed by the judges, has given birth to a phenomenon that makes one see how eager was the Academy to give away the award, exposed in public platforms as manufactured through manipulations.

To us, presentation of the national award to this book as the best one amongst Oriya books published in a given period of three years from 2007 to 2009 is an affront to the dignity of our language. We do not know, whether the judges have read this book or not; but we know the book is vitiated with so much obnoxious words and expression against the women, lower caste people and muslims that no sane society can vouch for it.

A few samples of filth from the book are viewable in saubhasya.com. We are not producing the same here as that should be requiring translation thereof into English and if done, that may be very embarrassing to any Oriya who prides over majestic beauty of his mother tongue.

This book in normal circumstances could never have earned national award as the most outstanding book in Oriya. But what for the High Court has cleared the book for the national award is not known to any in details as yet. Therefore the sooner the order is published or made available to the public, is better.

Sahitya Award 2011: Stay lifted and Case Dismissed; But Questions Stay

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Presently in New York City, I have no direct access to the Orissa High Court Verdict on Sahitya Award, 2011. The verdict is not yet placed in its website.

But from what I gather from sources online, the High Court has lifted the stay it had imposed on presentation of the Award and has dismissed the PIL that had challenged the Award, holding that the issue does not fit into a PIL. The issue of PIL and maintainability thereof is dealt with by different courts from different angles at different times and in matters of law interpretations often differ.

So without any prejudice, it can be said that the Sahitya Award 2011 in Oriya chapter has been saved on technical ground.

In my discussions on this award, I had raised various points pertinent to the Award on the basis of the Sahitya Akademi Rules. I had found that the Rules of the Akademi in matter of selection of the book ‘Achihna Basabhumi’ for the Award were blatantly contravened. I do not know, if those points were also raised in the case before the High Court. I cannot say if the Court has gone into the merit aspect of the Award. I can be clear on this aspect only after perusing the verdict of the Court. But on what online information helps me grasp, I am afraid, the Award has not been cleared on the basis of the merit of the Award. So, perhaps, the questions I had raised on the Award in these pages stay despite disposal of the PIL by the Court. We can return to the issue after reading the verdict.

Orissa High Court Steps In: Sahitya Award 2011 Stayed on Allegation of Manipulation

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Orissa High Court has stayed the Sahitya Award, 2011 to Kahani published Achihna Basabhumi in Oriya language, seemingly fixed through corrupt process.

The new dimensions of danger that the book posed to societal unity of Orissa were first discussed in these pages that gave birth to hot debates in print and tele-media, leading to complaints against its authoress before different police stations and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the High Court.

Credit goes to Barendra Krushna Dhal for having resigned from membership of the Akademi’s Language Advisory Board (LAB) in protest against manipulation in selection of the book for the Award; to Asit Mohanty for having tactfully eliciting from Jury member Chandra Sekhar Rath the inner picture of manipulation by the Akademi top brass and the convener; to Mukta Sahitya Manch for organized protests against the manipulation; to Sambad and its editor Soumya Ranjan Patnaik as well as to The Samaja and its editor Gopal Krishna Mohapatra for print media strength given to opposers of the manipulation; to Kanak TV and Kamyab TV for having educated the relevant public through panel discussions on the manipulation; to persons of letters of Orissa, who, personal relationship notwithstanding, came down heavily – individually and collectively – upon the nasty conduct of Jury members and Akademi officials in execution of the manipulation; and to Sricharan Pratap (Kanisk) for having preferred the PIL before the HC.

The book being the corpus delicti of the crime against Oriya language, it surely is a matter of solace for everybody affected by the offense against the mother tongue to see that the High Court has stepped in to stay the Award announced in its favor by the National Academy of Letters through manipulation.

Offense Against Oriya Language: India’s National Academy of Letters Collaborates with Hijackers of Sahitya Award,2011

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Climate of corruption has so severely affected India that even the National Academy of Letters – the Kendra Sahitya Akademi – is being looked at askance as the breeding center of clandestine deals and favoritism in selection of books for annual awards that the nation offers to the best of works in Indian languages .

Selection of Achihna Basabhumi, authored by Kolkata based Kalpana Kumari Devi, with a dubious dateline of 2009 for its annual award in Oriya language for the year 2011 has regenerated this suspicion.

It is seen that the book was not in the ground list prepared for the purpose of selection. Therefore, it is clear that it was inserted into the short list placed before the Juri from beyond the ground list prepared by the expert appointed by the Akademi.

Whosoever had made this book included in the list before the Jury, can certainly be held as the main manipulator of the award. The Akademi is not disclosing the name of whosoever has clamped this book on the Jury beyond the ground list.

The Jury was legally bound to reject this book on two grounds: firstly, for use of derogatory words against lower caste people as shown in these pages earlier and secondly, for absence of materials that should have shown the book as the “most outstanding” one to merit the national award. An attempt to evaluate how far it was the “most outstanding” could have revealed that its claim to have been published in 2009 to qualify for consideration for the award was dubious. But no such attempt was made, because, the Jury was either gained over by whosoever had lobbied for this book or was too pusillanimous to use its wisdom against pressure from the Akademi to recommend this book for the award.

So, surely the Jury has failed to perform its assigned duty in the manner stipulated in the Rules of the Akademi and, as subsequent discussion would show, has done the worst possible damage to the dignity of Oriya language by dancing to the tune of award hijackers.

Unless, its recommendation in favor of Achihna Basabhumi is rejected by the Akademi, its credibility and the dignity of the award would remain impaired, to the chagrin of all who love their language.

Rules of the Akademi raped

At least 50 % of the members of the Akademi’s Oriya Advisory Board (LAB) have told me that they had not suggested any name for appointment as expert to prepare a ground list for the award.

All of them have told me that they do not know the name of the expert who prepared the ground list with books that were not to be considered “most outstanding” on the matrix of the Rules.

Rules stipulate that, from amongst the persons recommended by the Board members, one or at best two would be appointed by the Academy President as expert or experts, to prepare the ground list of books eligible for the award.

When Board members had not recommended any person for appointment as expert, where from the Academy President got a man to prepare the ground list?

It is apprehended that the so-called expert was either a ghost expert or was appointed by manipulation; because, it is discernible that the ground list was prepared by a sophomore, not an expert on Oriya literature inasmuch as 11 books out of the 16 in the ground list belonged to a single publisher, which also included two of his own titles and one of his wife. Had an expert or a team of two experts, as provided for under the Rules, prepared the ground list, then 11 out of 16 books could never have come into that list from a single publisher.

Mafias in Academy loot the awards

The selection of Achihna Basabhumi, also of the same publisher of the afore said 11 books, inserted into the shortlist from beyond the ground list, for the national literature award 2011, as the most outstanding book published in Oriya language during the relevant period has provoked even the superbly polite and gentle face in Oriya literature, Sri Satakadi Hota to say before TV cameras that Sahitya Akademi Awards are being looted like mafias loot the mines. Sri Hota is a member of the General Council of the Akademi with enough experience in its functionalities. In an interview, (Chhota Srustira Samahar Chandan: Vol-V, Issue 1) he has not only corroborated his telecasted version, but also has put it on records that for the last few years he has been consciously watching how the Sahitya Awards are being fixed in contravention of the Rules, willfully carried out.

Another noted activist in the area of Oriya literature, Journalist Barendra Krushna Dhal, has even resigned from the Akademi’s LAB in protest against favoritism resorted to in selection of this book, specifically as, to his observation, the Akademi is incorrigibly corrupt in such selections.

Noted poet Rajendra K. Panda, also a member of the LAB was so shocked by selection of this book that on 22 December 2011, he had to share his feelings on his facebook wall in these words: “I woke up with a surprise. Kalpana Kumari Devi has been selected to receive this year’s award of Sahitya Akademi for Odia. I confess, I have not read any of her books; it shows my ignorance. Of course, I had seen some of her short stories years back; they were lackluster; may be, she grew in her dimensions later, about which I didn’t know”.

Deceitfulness of Chandra Sekhar Rath

These reactions had provoked author-cum-journalist Asit Mohanty, who also leads the Mukta Sahitya Manch, to meet one of the selectors of this book, Jury member Chandra Sekhar Rath to find out how and why this book was selected for the coveted award. The text of the interview is published in Orissa’s top circulated daily, the Sambad, on 3 January 2012. Here, in answering to Mohanty, Rath has vomited that he succumbed to the pressure from the convener of the Advisory Board, Bibhuti Patnaik in selection of this book.

More shocking than the allegation against Bibhuti Patnaik is the dastardly deceitfulness of Rath as revealed in this interview. He has no qualms in saying that, though reluctant to chose this book for the award, he was morally bound to select the book. “I am aware of the dissatisfaction in the public over selection of this book and I have no hesitation in saying that I am also not satisfied. But, by this, I am not trying to disown my responsibility. Coincidentally I had to be a part of this decision and I am dissatisfied with myself for what I had to morally do”, he has said.

Hypocrisy! could there be a different name of thine?

Rath was asked: Have you any objection to reveal the names of the books that were before the Jury for selection? Instead of revealing the names of the books, he has rushed into saying how the award was fixed.

Pointing out that the kingpin in award fixation was the regional secretary of Sahitya Akademi, Ramkumar Mukhopadhyaya, Rath has said, it is this official, who, beyond known provisions of the Rules, imposed upon the Jury Sri Bibhuti Patnaik to preside over and participate in final selection of the book for the award.

“To my knowledge, role of the convener is limited to organize the session of the Jury and to provide the Jury with unrestrained opportunity to take the decision. Participation of the convener in decision making was an unknown proposition. But as the regional secretary of the Akademi himself gave this direction, even though surprised, I did not feel it necessary to seek clarification on the new rule and kept quite. As such, in place of three members in the Juri, we became four. Then voice of the convener remained predominant from start to end of the session”, has said Sri Rath.

Is it expected of Sri Rath, a man of seniority and fame as a writer, to indulge in such acrobatics that clearly is designed to mislead the people?

If the Akademi secretary had wrongfully instructed that the session of the Jury was to be controlled by the convener and the convener was jumping his jurisdiction and imposing himself upon the Jury, why had he not objected to that in the meeting on records?

If it was a foul play against our literature, why did he not try to foil it on the spot?

Is it not an afterthought to divert public attention from the farce, he, as a member of the Jury, has made of the award?

Is it not a design shrewdly contrived to escape exposure by throwing the mud to someone else?

If he has any honesty, he should answer these questions.

However, as Rath has alleged that the decision of the Jury was influenced, we would like to go further into what he has said. Because history of offense against our mother tongue needs be kept on records.

He has said, “From amongst us, a member at the start of the session stated that there was no book in the list that could be considered as outstanding to qualify for the award. I politely differed. Because, to my impression, all most all the authors under consideration were eminent and accordingly, all the books were fit for the award”.

To him, all of the books placed before the Jury were so superb that it was difficult to reject any of them. “The problem with me was not in selecting one of the books; it was in rejecting the rest ten titles”, he has said.

If he is true in his this statement, why has he, as quoted supra, declared, “I have no hesitation in saying that I am also not satisfied” with selection of Achihna Basabhumi for the award?

Let him clarify, if he likes.

But let us proceed to see what further he has said.

He has said, “I had proposed that one book each from the four segments of literature be chosen first and from those four books, in the second stage, the best book be recommended for award. But the convener declared that there was no necessity of a second shortlist and insisted upon selection from the novel segment alone.I cannot say if the book now selected could have come into the list if the second shortlist should have been prepared. Yet, as because the proposal for the second shortlist was harped on, two or three books were discarded in a haste. Difference of opinion also had arisen. When a particular novel was influential to a Jury member, it was discarded because of views that the same was not at all a novel. Another novel was kept out of consideration, because its author was considered young enough to wait for awards. The third one being the only one of that year, besides being a compilation of published materials, was considered unfit for the award. In all such decisions, the tone of the convener was the dominant tone. Then, he placed the (now selected) book with his supportive opinion thereon”.

Thus saying, he has further said, “My personal predicament was that, if I was not supporting him, then difference of opinion was a must. But, adoption of his proposal by majority support was a certainty. The second predicament was, failure to take an unanimous decision in favor of a book would not be worthwhile in national arena. And, works of letters of this area would not be free from controversy. So, without going into any argument, I put my signature of approval thereon. This is for me, a defeat on moral ground. May be, I do not possess the required courage and ability for impartial evaluation needed for a clear, fearless decision”.

If Rath was really addressed to dignity of Oriya language, he should not have bared the Jury proceedings in such a style. And, if what he has divulged is factually correct, why has he not tendered his resignation as yet, specifically as he now confesses that he does not possess the required courage and ability for impartial evaluation of a literary work needed for delivering a clear fearless decision in matter of awards?

Convener’s clarification

Convener Bibhuti Pattanaik issued a clarification in print media, from which it transpires that out of the 11 books placed before the Jury, only six books somewhat had got mention in the discussion. They were, besides Achihna Basabhumi of Kalpanakumari Devi, Aranyare Yetedin of poet Hara Prasad Parcha Patnaik, Kanta O Anyanya Galpa of Gourahari Das, Chitra Turaga of Padmaja Pal, Mukti Yuddha of Satakadi Hota and Paunshagadara Sunara Dhuli, Mo Dhanamali of Debraj Lenka.

Out of these six books, three books – Kanta O Anyanya Galpa, Chitra Turaga and Mukti Yuddha – were from three different publishers and the rest three books were from the same publisher who was favored with 11 of his published titles in the ground list of 16 books.

When, to Jury member Debdas Chhotray, as informed by Sri Pattanaik, none of these books were “outstanding” to merit the national award, Chandra Sekhar Rath had put his preference on Parichha Patnaik’s Aranyare Yetedin and Pal’s Chitra Turaga. The other Jury member Shrinibas Mishra had declared from the beginning that none of the books except Kalpanakumari’s Achihna Basabhumi had any merit for the national award.

As the agenda of selection was shepherded into the limits of novels alone, Parichha Patnaik’s as well as Pal’s works were kept out of purview of the Jury.

In such circumstances, both Chhotray and Rath were prevailed upon to expand their views, whereupon, Chhotray announced his first preference for Debraj Lenka’s Paunshagadara Sunars Dhuli, Mo Dhanamali and second preference for Achihna Basabhumi.

When Rath was reluctant to prefer Lenka’s book on the ground of some indecent expressions depicted therein, Mishra had found Hota’s Mukti Yuddha unfit for the award on the ground of projection of Naxalites therein as freedom fighters.

So, taking into accounts the first preference of Mishra and second preference of Chhotray for Achihna Basabhumi, this book was selected for the award whereto Rath also subscribed his endorsement in the meeting itself, Pattanaik has said.

Wrongs rampant

But this clarification issued by the convener has bared how wrongs are rampant in selection, exposing inter alia his own wrongful participation therein.

Even as he has not countered Rath’s allegation that the Akademi’s regional secretary Ramkumar Mukhopadhyaya had clamped him on the Jury to preside over its session, he has, on his own accord, said that he has intervened in proceedings of the Jury. As for instance, he has said, “I had first stressed upon limiting the selection to novels only as from this segment more numbers of books had come into zone of final consideration” and when consideration was thus shepherded into the arena novels only, “I objected to taking cognizance of Debraj Lenka’s 98 page book as a complete novel”.

Had the convener thus not steered the selection process, Parichha Patnai’s beautiful poems compiled in Aranyare Yetedina (I have read this book so may times, every time feeling its freshness) or Gourahari’s stories in Kanta O Anyanya Galpa or Pal’s Chitra Turaga might have been chosen for the award beyond the segment of novel.

In the segment of novel, the only segment adopted for award, the selection seems to have been fixed.

Hota’s Mukti Yuddha was discarded, as to perception of Mishra, it equated Naxals with freedom fighters. Is quality of literature to be weighed on whether or not the author supports economy of inequality? Nonsense.

Lenka’s Paunshagadara Sunara Dhuli, Mo Dhanamali was rejected as the convener refused to accept it as a complete novel and Rath found in its pages certain expression that did not commensurate with standard language.

It is surprising that this Rath did not find any objectionable expression in Achihna Basabhumi though derogatory words are used against people of lower castes many a times in the book. Is it upper caste class design?

The convener may throw necessary light on this aspect.

Like Hota’s powerful novel Mukti Yuddha was discarded because it eulogized the revolutionaries, Paricha Patnaik’s Aranyare Yetedina was kept out of consideration, because it had also certain poems therein like Mukti Yatra that despite putting premium on patience, eulogized the Naxal activities in an environment of exploitation.

Was it because it was necessary to keep every iota of progressive expression out Sahitya Award to please the government run by right viruses?

The convener may throw necessary light on this aspect.

But who will be responsible for the gang rape on the Akademi’s reigning Procedure that govern the award?

Gang rape of Akademi’s reigning Procedure

Akademi’s reigning Procedure lays down under the head of “The Jury and its Functions” that:

The recommendations of Referees in the Preliminary Panel shall be considered by a three member Jury. The Jury members shall be selected by the President after considering the recommendations in this behalf by the members of the Language Advisory Board concerned.

The Akademi shall purchase the books recommended by the Referees in the Preliminary Panel and send them to the Jury members and to the Convener.

The Convener shall act as the link between the Jury and the Akademi. He/she will ensure that the meeting of the Jury is conducted properly and satisfactorily and will countersign the report of the Jury.

The Jury members shall, either by consensus or by majority, recommend a book for the award. They may also recommend that, in their opinion, no book is eligible for the award during the year. In the event of a member not being able to attend the meeting, he/she may convey his/her view in writing.

In view of these stipulations, there should have been only a three member Jury to examine the Oriya books placed before it and to select one of them for the award. The convener having admittedly participated to the extent of intervention in the proceeding of the Juri had de facto turned it into a four member body in contravention of the Procedure even in the presence of the regional secretary of the Akademi, who according to what Rath has stated, had clamped him on the Jury to chair over it.

According to the procedure noted above, the role of the Convener was limited to acting as the link between the Jury and the Akademi. He was to ensure that the meeting of the Jury was conducted properly and satisfactorily; but not to intervene in proceedings thereof. But as he, on his own accord, has disclosed, he intervened to the extent of capturing the award by his close friend Kalpanakumari for her novel Achihna Basabhumi with all the three members of the Jury accepting his intervention under the very eyes of Mukhopadhyaya, the Akademi official. I do not know if there is any precedence of such a gang rape of Akademi’s Rules and Procedure in process of facilitating award hijacking.

Selection through sharp practice

To which book the award should be given? To the “most outstanding” book of a recognized language.

The procedure for selecting a book laid down under the head of Sahitya Akademi Award says:

Subject to the provision of rule 1(2), there shall be an award every year for the most outstanding book by an Indian author, first published in any of the languages recognized by the Sahitya Akademi during the three years prior to the year, immediately preceding the year of the award.

By way of Illustration, it is said, that, “for the award of 2004, books published between 2000 and 2002 would be considered”.

This means, for the award of 2011, the selected book was to have been published during the period covering 2007 to 2009. But the selection was done through sharp practice and in contravention of this time tag and in contempt against stipulation on “most outstanding” status of the book.

Backdated publication

The final year of the qualifying period fitting into the zone of consideration for Sahitya Award 2011 was 2009.

But the book Achihna Basabhumi was not even written by this year.

This is clear from the interview its authoress had given to Yugashree Yuganaree as is published in its edition of February 2010.

To the query as to why she had no published work since 1986, she had said in the interview, “For intervening 20 year, I had given up writing. All the responsibilities of the household were on my shoulder. Children were in their demanding childhood. Novel writing is taxing and time-consuming. (Therefore) In the intervening period I my writing was limited to short stories only. Now again I have started writing novel” (Yugashree Yuganaree, February 2010, p.7)

So, according to her own statement, she had not written novel during 20 years up to 2010. And, hence, the book Achihna Basabhumi was not written before 2010.

There is reason to apprehend that the book was not published even before 2011. This is because, the book was not found in any of the book fairs either in 2010 or in 2011.

Had it been really published in 2009, its publisher who could flood the ground list of 16 books with as many as 11 from his publications alone as against 5 from other publishers, could not have kept away the book from the book fairs.

There is no review of the book in media worth the name in 2009, the claimed year of its publication.

There was no media review of the book even in 2010 and 2011.

On the other hand, when its publisher (the owner of the publishing brands Kahani and Akshara) Girija Kumar Baliarsingh has claimed that this book was published befor November 2009, there is no trace of this book in the 6th final edition, 2009 of Odia Pustak Prakasahan Suchi (Index of Oriya published works) that has covered all the books published till end of November, 2009. It is noteworthy that this index has, in its body, as many as 28 novels published by this publisher by end of November 2009 on the basis of data supplied by Baliarsingh, the publisher. But Achihna Basabhumi does not find a place in it, because the publisher did not submit its name as it was not published by then.

The ISBN records do not show that this book was published in 2009.

But before the ink of the convener’s signature on the Jury minutes dried up on blind acceptance of 2009 as its publication year, the book has come out with its second edition, 2012. so immensely popular is this book!

If the book is so immensely popular that its first edition is sold away so quickly, how is it that no writer worth the name has seen this book as yet?

How could its first edition got sold so soon sans media review and away from book fairs? It is a conundrum to whosoever has any interest in the history of book-selling in Orissa.

Its selection for 2011 award has generated unprecedented protests in this State. It is hard to believe that there must be any amongst book lovers of Orissa to whose attention the news of its selection and protests on its claimed age has not come as yet. But none of them has given any indication so far that he or she has seen the book in 2009 or even 2010 or even 2011.

On the other hand, in trying to pooh-pooh the questions on its publication dateline, its publisher Girija Baliarsingh has, in a statement asserted that he had published the book by November, 2009, but had not marketed it, as mistakes sic passim, a complete overhaul thereof was essential. The overhauling was certainly not completed before its manipulated insertion into the final list, as otherwise, it could have been placed in the ground list obviously by a paid agent attired as expert. However, by taking refuge in the necessity of overhauling, the publisher has admitted that the book had not reached the market by the relevant year of 2009.

So the book was not really published in 2009 and hence had no qualification for consideration for the Sahitya Award, 2011.

Whosoever had enlisted this book for consideration had certainly placed a backdated publication and the Jury has certainly erred against Oriya language as well as the Akademi by entertaining this backdated edition.

Paid agent(s) in the attire of expert

In the scheme of Sahitya Award given to the “most outstanding” book in every Indian language, the role of the expert is primordial. Rules require that preparation of the ground list of “most outstanding” books must be assigned to an expert or at best two experts as the President of the Akademi would prefer.

Rules further require that members of the LAB would each recommend up to five persons for appointment as “expert” out of which the President of the Akademi will have to chose one expert, or “at his discretion” two experts to prepare the ground list “strictly” conforming “to the criteria of eligibility laid down under these rules”.

The catch word here is “members”. The Akademi must have to collect from each of the LAB member the names for appointment of the “expert(s) and unless there is a vacancy by way of death, no LAB member can be granted the liberty of abstaining from submitting his/her preferred names for appointment of the “expert”.

But the Akademi is now being used by literature “mafia” (as Satakadi Hota, quoted supra, has used the term) to hijack the Sahitya Award. This hijacking would not be possible if the Akademi appoints real “expert(s)” for preparation of the ground list. And, therefore submission of names for appointment as “expert(s) is not being stressed upon. This facilitates preparation of the ground list of “most outstanding” books by paid agents of aspirant authors and/or publishers, attired as “experts”, bagging the appointment.

This is discernible in the matter of Oriya language in 2011 award context.

As 50 % of the LAB members had told me (noted supra) so also Barendra Krushna Dhal, another member of LAB, has revealed in writing that he had not recommended any name for appointment as “expert” (The Samaja: 18 January 2012).

Thus the Akademi had no names from “members” of the LAB and hence, appointment of “expert”, if any, was improper, farcical and arbitrary.

To this so-called “expert” it did not appear prudent to pick up the “most outstanding” books from Orissa’s vast numbers of publishers/authors for the ground list by conforming strictly “to the criteria of eligibility laid down under these rules” .

The “expert” is so expert in Oriya language that the list it prepared was limited to only 16 books out of which as many as 11 books came from the stable of a single publisher!

In the circumstances, therefore, it is suspected that the “expert” was not a real expert, but a paid agent attired as expert, appointed to prepare a ground list of any books under the guise of choosing the “most outstanding” ones.

Rightly, therefore, Chhoray, as noted supra, considered none of those books as “most outstanding”.

It would not be out of context to say that when the final list for placement before the Jury was prepared, as many as 12 books constituting 75 % of the books in the ground list prepared by the so-called “expert” were thrown out as unworthy of consideration.

It shows that from the very start, the most aggressive award hijacker had inserted his tentacles into the selection system.

Labyrinth of manipulation

In the labyrinth of manipulation, selection of the “most outstanding” book did not stay a prerequisite for the Sahitya Award, as, besides the sophomore(s) attired as expert(s), a member of the Jury – Shrinibas Mishra – was, from the beginning, harping on selection of Achihna Basabhumi for the award, despite it being in noway the “most outstanding” book published during the stipulated period.

Chhotray had given his second preference to it, that shows that in his view this book was not the “most outstanding”.

And Rath, the other Jury member, who ultimately had to succumb to pressure, was, till the last moment against choice of this book. So, to him also, this book was not the “most outstanding”.

Besides, none of these three members of the Jury had taken any step to determine that this book was surely the “most outstanding” and published in 2009.

What does “most outstanding” mean?

The plain meaning of the word “outstanding” means, standing out from a group : conspicuous; and marked by eminence and distinction noticeable.

Therefore, to mark a book as “most outstanding” its comparison with other books of the group is essential. This was neither done by the “expert” while preparing the ground list, nor by the person who referred it to Jury and not by the Jury that ultimately recommended it.

A plain reading of the book vis-a-vis others in the group should also not have sufficed to show the book as the “most outstanding” even if in scheme of sequences, structure of language, style of expression, purpose of presentation and other literary properties, it would have looked sounder than its contestants in the perceptions of the Jury members; because, it had to stand the test of marketing with “noticeable distinction” and also “eminence” to come out as the “most outstanding” book of the relevant period. Exceeding others in sale is the second prerequisite on which determination of the book as the “most outstanding” rests.

Spirit of the time tag killed

The Jury members have not understood this, or if they have understood, they have not given importance to the unavoidable prerequisite that, the book chosen for the award must have exceeded other books in sale and acceptability by the readers.

The Rule requires this and therefore it has provided for selecting a book published “during the three years prior to the year, immediately preceding the year of the award”.

The sole purpose of this time tag is addressed to market study to determine as to which of the book is “most sold” to decide which one of the books under zone of consideration is the “most outstanding” book on the basis of its acceptability to the readers.

This market study was never conducted and the books were never compared on the basis of sale either by the “expert” or by the Jury and more shockingly, the Akademi has never studied the sale status of the books in run for the award to assess as to whether in readers’ view the book so selected was the “most outstanding”.

It is sad that the spirit of the time tag is killed and Rules of the Akademi are raped and rendered inconsequential as its functionaries have collaborated with award hijackers.

Shame! Book of Nastiest Caste Hatred Bags the Best Book Award from India’s National Academy of Letters!

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

It is a shame that a book of nastiest caste hatred has obtained the best book in Oriya language award from India’s National Academy of Letters for 2011.

Before proceeding further, we will look at certain words proudly used in the book that has been awarded with the coveted prize.

There are certain words in Oriya language which cannot be expressed in any single word in English. One of such words is SHALA. Generally it means “wife’s brother”. But it has slang use. And, mostly it is used in slang. When in anger one calls another as SHALA, the word becomes abusive and obnoxious. It means, “ one whose sister is fucked”. Use of this word is profuse in this sense only.

HADI is another word that indicates the lowest of the low caste people whom the caste-supremacists have equated with scavengers by forcing them to clean their ordure, carry their family filths away, remove carcasses from their yards or neighborhood. Members of this HADI caste are also called HEDAKHIA, because, forced into the lowest class, debarred by the caste-supremacists from acquiring any property, they use to thrive on carcasses of dead cattle. Hence, HEDAKHIA means carcass-eater.

KANDARA is another untouchable caste used by upper-caste Hindus for catching fish for them from ponds and rivers and guarding their properties from thieves and trespassers as a compulsory duty ensuring thereby absence of the males of this caste from their homes which helps upper-caste masters have pastime. Their wives are known as KANDURUNI.

For keeping these people subdued and submissive for ever, they are branded as “untouchable” publicly.

Time has changed and the practice is no more in vogue. But the words have not lost their meaning.

Shockingly, the Sahitya Akademi, India’s National Akademi of Letters, has given legitimacy to use of these obnoxious words against caste disadvantaged communities by giving its 2011 award for the best literary work in Oriya to a book – unknown to people of Orissa so far – captioned ‘Achihna Basabhumi’ where the above mentioned derogatory words are used sans qualm to abuse the socially exploited untouchable people.

Look at a few instances.

At page 232, there is an expression: “TU BRAHMANA NAA HADI RE SHALA?” (Fucked your sister. What are you – Brahman or Hadi? You, whose sister I fuck?).

In the preceding page i.e. page 231, it is written, “CHUP SHALA. MUN TO SATA JANMARA NANA NUHAN RE SHALARA SHALA. MO BAPA KEBE MANA KARI NATHIBA TO MA KANDURUNI GHARARA KABATA KILIBAKU. SHALA HEDAKHIA”. (Shut up you, whose sister I fuck. Your sister is fucked by one whose sister I fuck, I am never your brother in even seven births. My father would never have wanted to fuck your mother KANDURUNI by bolting her door from within. Fucked-sister scavenger, carcass-eater.)

Such objectionable words and slangs like “Randi, Alakshani” (page 277) are used in this book. Caste hatred sic passim in expressions like “Tu kana Gokhani (woman belonging to untouchable Gokha caste) pari nakare guna lagaibaku janma hoichhu?(page 271)” or “Yogya boil ajati, kujatire jhiaku daba?”(page 532) are distinct features of this book.

I do not say that the book is a completely bad book. But the book is infested with nasty expressions.

It is a shame that this book with nasty expressions has bagged the annual award of India’s National Academy of Letters for 2011 as the best amongst the books in Oriya language.

The award has generated hot controversy in Orissa.

We will discuss how illegally the selection of this book has been carried out. But for now, on the ground of this caste abuse alone, the book needs be banned and Orissa Government – constitutional protector of Oriya language and its magnificence – be asked to proceed to force the Central Sahitya Akademi to cancel its award.

Insult to Orissa: Its Body of Letters Sleeps over Writers’ Demand to Recall the Best Novelist Award Given to a Plagiarist

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Orissa administration has become so very immoral and corrupt that even the official body of letters – Orissa Sahitya Akademi – is sleeping over a just and proper demand to recall the best novel award it has given to a plagiarizer, even after being notified by eminent authors of the State about the mischief.

The alleged plagiarist, Manoj Kumar Mohapatra, whose book ‘Nirvana’ has bagged the best prize in the segment of original novels with retrospective effect from 2007, is a top executive in the mining division of IMFA, an industrial house run by the family of a member of Parliament, marked very close to the Chief Minister of the State as well as to the power wielders at the centre and so close that, despite habitual default in repayment, his firm could organize waiver of bank loans to the tune of Rs.2300/- crores in 2007 with the entire non-communist political class keeping mum and the high judiciary refusing to see through the game, as to the judges, the two PIL cases filed successively against the waiver did not merit judicial consideration; because, the first one was “barred by delay” and the second was “barred by the principles of res-judicata and delay”. The Judiciary also stayed away from ‘judicial activism’ in this matter and hence the country never came to know whether the waiver was genuine or a loot.

Mohapatra is backed by this industrious house of industry.

The moment he bagged the award, IMFA lost no time in putting its “pride” on records and gave him a space to say that he personally was “equally proud that being an employee of corporate sector like IMFA (he) got this award which is a rare phenomena in the literary world”.

But soon it was to come to light that the book ‘Nirvana’ for which he got the “most prestigious Odisha Sahitya Academy Puraskar” (in the words of IMFA), was not an original novel, but a heavily plagiarized Oriya version of Vietnamese Buddhist monk and author Thick Nhat Hanh’s ‘Old Path White Clouds’.

Dr. Bibudharanjan, a mercilessly uncompromising researcher, whom a very oppressive State fails to deter from exposing wrongs of howsoever revered a celebrity is, as is evidenced in his book ‘Michha Mahatma’ which the Government has proscribed but none has dared to rebut, first confronted Mohapatra with plagiarism resorted to in his work and latter, as no response was received, discussed the issue in the October 2011 issue of Saamnaa under the caption Buddhachori that attracted attention of the readers and authors of Orissa, who felt ashamed of Orissa Sahitya Akademi’s best novel award going to a fraudulently produced work of plagiarism.

Citing Dr. Bibudharanjan’s Saamnaa story, eminent authors and literary activists united under the banner of Mukta Sahitya Mancha raised a collective protest against honoring of a plagiarist as the best novelist by the State’s official body of letters and demanded that the honor given to Mohapatra with retrospective effect be immediately recalled, at least, in the interest of Orissa’s literary dignity.

But who in the Akademi bothers for Orissa’s dignity, when the firm of the Chief Minister’s blue-eyed boy expresses “pride” in bagging of the award – howsoever fraudulently it be – by one of its employees?

In fact, many in the Sahitya Akademi, eager to ingratiate themselves with the wielder of power that could hoodwink the entire nation in the matter of loan waiver involving a massive sum of Rs.2300 crores, had neither any qualms in organizing the best novel award for the plagiarist nor have any, in not waking up to the call of the authors of the State to salvage Oriya prestige by recalling the said award so wrongfully given to the plagiarist.

Clumsily created as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, the Orissa Sahitya Akademi is entirely controlled by the State Government and manned by their handpicked men and women. Therefore, by pleasing persons that matter in power, any award aspirant is able to fetch the prize of his/her choice even with retrospective effect and/or felicitation.

This is why, there are persons, with role in or proximity to power, capable of making compromises or whose black purses were able to afford, have, in the past, entered into the galaxy of authors by bagging awards from the Akademi. This is so shamelessly practiced that there are instances where such awards are stayed or struck down by Courts of law. Genuine writers of Orissa are worried over this.

But the Sahitya Akademi has no worry.

Probably, it is the Court again where the Award in question may take a test on issues of probity, legality and tenability.

Even as no fraudulent work can withstand any test on the matrix of probity, the legality of consideration of the alleged work for the award in the Akademi level will not stand the test of law.

In its constitution, elaborating its aims and objectives, provisions are made to restrict its awards only to the “outstanding works”.

It is authorized “to award prizes and distinctions and to give recognition to individual writers for outstanding works” as per clause (b) of its provisions on “organization and functions”. So “outstanding work” is the only criteria on which awards are to be offered. A fraudulent production or a work of plagiarism cannot be an outstanding work. When legality of the award rests with outstanding distinction of the work considered for award, a fraudulently produced work of plagiarism cannot have any legal ground to merit even consideration for the award. Hence, on ground of legality, the award for best novel given to Mohapatra’s Nirvana is not tenable.

The book is a depiction of the life of Buddha in a form of a novel. In its preface, Mohapatra has given hints to his study of several books on Buddha including ‘Old Path White Clouds‘ before finalizing the scheme of his book. So it was imperative for the Akademi or its selection committee constituted for the purpose to compare his work with the source materials to see if the same was not vitiated with plagiarism. If the Akademi or its authorized committee has not done so, then a wrong is done. If the comparison is made, then plagiarism must have been noticed. If the Akademi has ignored it, then it is a blatant wrong. Dr. Bibudharanjan has rendered the best of services to Oriya literature by exposing the black-sheep and the Mukta Sahitya Manch has taken the most appropriate step in demanding immediate correctional steps in the matter to save Orissa from a global embarrassment.

It is not that this matter is a matter that goes on without the knowledge of the State Government.

Let it be known that it is a matter of worst implication for the image of Orissa. Delay in action against the users of fraudulent means in this particular matter is an offense against the State. Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik having given the award was a party – might be unknowingly – to this offense. But by not taking any action against the Akademi despite exposure that has rocked the State, he certainly is knowingly a party now to the continuing offense against Orissa and her literary dignity.

This has to stop at any cost.

Let it be known to the Chief Minister that awarding a book – fraudulently copied down from a foreign language through plagiaristic means – with the best prize for original work in Oriya language by the State’s official body of letters, is an insult to Orissa, which can never be countenanced.

CHOURASHI SIDDHACHARYAS OF ORISSA: NEW LIGHT ON THE AUTHORS OF BAUDDHA GANA O DOHA

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

It is bad for the civilization if history is wronged. Therefore the wrong committed by Mahamahopadyaya Hara Prasad Sastri in the matter of Buddhist mystic songs needs to be corrected.

Editions of these mystic songs are under different titles that include the basically misleading title Hajar Bacharer Purana Bangala Bhasay Bauddha Gaan o Doha contrived by Sastri.

But no edition, as yet, of these songs has depicted its authors correctly or corrected the wrong willfully committed by Sastri.

The authors of these songs are known as Chaurashi Siddhacharyas. Sastri has failed to say as to why they are called like this. Legends have been depended upon to locate their identity through inference; but no attempt has yet been made to rise above legends and locate them in the pages of history. As a result, the ancient revolutionary poets of Orissa have been wrongly projected as Bengali poets.

This wrong may be corrected by analyzing what is meant by Chaurashi Siddhas and why Sastri for Bengal has hijacked their works, written originally in Oriya.

Eminent scholar Dr. Karunakar Kar has made an incomparable study and proved irrefutably that all the Buddhist mystic songs that Sastri had published as Bengali songs are the songs of Oriya language. His work is unique and linguistically most solemn and serious. When Kar’s work would be available in an international language, the world will know the mischief Sastri had played.

For me there is no necessity of proving that these are Oriya songs; because in his masterly analysis Kar has proved it.

Even in ‘History of Bengali Language’, Sri Vijay Chandra Majumdar has shown how these songs are spangled with Oriya words.

I will, in this write up, try only to apprise my readers of the fact that the authors of these songs, the Chaurashi Siddhacharyas were of Orissa and therefore, the mystic songs Sastri has shown as Bengali are in reality Orissa’s contribution to Indian culture.

We should first see as to why did Sastri try to tamper with the reality.

He had claimed to have found a Pothi (palm leaf manuscript) containing these mystic songs of Sahajayan in the Darbar (Royal) Library of Nepal in 1907. We cannot say that it was not possible. It was possible, taking into consideration the special link of Nepal with Orissa and only with Orissa in whole of India. We will come to that in course of discussion. At the moment, we can only say that knowing the Oriya origin of the mystic songs, Sastri suppressed the truth and deliberately made a false propaganda that they were Bengali songs.

The Bangiya Sahitya Parisad, publishing Sastri’s misleading title in 1916, gave birth to a litany that is yet affecting the history of literature.

Bengali language scholars, not only in India but also in Bangladesh, have been projecting these songs as carriers of their literary heritage thereby jeopardizing history in respect of Oriya literature. Therefore, howsoever be the delay, the willful wrong committed by Sastri needs to be corrected.

Sastri had allegedly collected by writing in his hand the mystic songs from a palm-leaf manuscript preserved in the Royal Archive of Nepal.

It is doubtful that he had got it from the Nepal Archive. Per Kvaerne, the Norwegian scholar who translated Caryagiti has written: The original MS utilized by Sastri has not been available for inspection. It fact, I have not been able to discover where, if at all, it is preserved. (“A Thousand Year Old Bengali Mystic Poetry” by Hasna Jasimuddin Moudud, formerly a faculty at University of Dhaka).

We shall come to it later. We shall later see, if at all the MS was there, as to why that was available in the Royal Archive of Nepal.

But let us first see if palm leaves were the medium of writing in Bengal in order to test if Sastri had any ambient reason to claim the songs for Bengal. But it seems, palm leaves were not used for writing in Bengal.

Bengal had no tradition of letters on palm leaves. Bengalis had known that Oriya authors were the authors who were publishing their works on palm-leaves.

A note of Sri M. M. Chakravarti in the Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1897, No.4, at pp.328-30 would show that even till the last decade of 19th Century, to Bengali scholars, Orissa was the only place where the tradition of letters on palm-leaves was in vogue. He had evinced much interest on how they were being inscribed. He had gone to remote parts of Orissa to see how the manuscripts were prepared, preserved and spread in Orissa.

“The Pothis are written either by the owner himself, or if able to pay, by some hired worker. Round about Puri the charge is about eight to twelve annas for a thousand slokas. In Jajpur, the charge is an anna for an adhyaya or Canto. The charge is very moderate. Extra charges are paid for good and neat handwriting, or in the case of Sanskrit works for correct copies”, he has noted.

Giving a detail description of how the palm leaves were being collected and treated for writing, how the stylus was prepared and used in writing and how the written leaves were treated with bio-colors to make them easily readable, he had come to the preservation zone. “Against white ants so common in Orissa, the only precaution taken is to keep them on raised bamboo platforms a man high or on shelved platforms, when the number is large”, he has recorded while suggesting that, as “time also plays great havoc, the old palm leaves crumbling to pieces, after 30 or 40 years the Pothis have to be recopied”. (Ibid).

Had there been in Bengal any practice of writing on palm leaves, Chakravarti would not have traversed Orissa to gather a first hand knowledge on writing and publishing of literary works on palm leaves.

This shows that the Bengali scholars knew that palm leaf publication was not practiced in Bengal. They knew that their literature was not written on palm leaves.

So when Sastri found the palm leaf manuscript of the mystic songs of the Buddhist Siddhacharyas around a decade after Chakravarti’s report was published in the Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, it was natural for him to assume that they were Oriya songs. In fact they were Oriya songs and he knew that. But contrary to character of a scholar, out of sheer regional chauvinism, taking advantage of publicity media available to Bengalis by then under the British Raj, he deliberately stamped them as Bengali songs, the Oriyas having no chance of knowing this mischief.

It was an act of cultural dishonesty. But by then, Bengalis had become so much a laughing stock for their claim that Oriya was not a language by itself, but a branch of Bengali, Sastri perhaps preferred this dishonesty to save the face of his folks.

To understand this phenomenon, we must take a cursory view of the relevant period of history.

Orissa was the last State to have been occupied by the British. But it was the first State to have raised the war of independence against the British.

Admitting this, G. Toynbee wrote in ‘A Sketch of the History of Orissa’, “It was not long, however, before we had to encounter a storm which burst with so sudden fury as to threaten our expulsion”.

The British had tried its utmost to suppress this insurrection but had failed. In a report dated 9 September 1818 to Commissioner Robert Ker, Magistrate W. Forrester had informed, “Since the breaking out of the insurrection very few men of any consequence have ever been apprehended and it is to be feared that the nature of the country and the disposition of the inhabitants will always present formidable obstacle to the suppression of these disturbances either by military or police”.

The British was so much afraid of the Oriyas and their disposition that it was sure of its “expulsion” if Orissa was not completely quashed.

In order to do that it had contrived two methods: first, to amend itself in respect of the leaders of the rebellion including Baxi Jagabandhu Bidyadhara Mohapatra and second, to take advantage of the truce thus available to destroy Oriya solidarity by severing Orissa into parts and merging the severed parts in neighboring provinces in order to reduce the proud people of Orissa to minorities in rival lingua regions, before they get united against the British again. And, this they did.

Misled by the British stance of compromise with Baxi Jagabandhu, before the people of Orissa were able to see through the hidden game plan, their Motherland was divided into four parts. One of these parts that comprised coastal Orissa was annexed to Bengal.

Calcutta being the seat then of British administration in India, a number of Bengalis, working as Clerks, Sirastadars, Sepoys and Chaprashis under British authorities, started grabbing Oriya Zamidaries through the backdoors to the extent of some of them becoming Zamidars! Describing how these low paid Bengali employees were plundering Orissa Collector W.Trower in his report to the Secretary of the Board of Revenue, J.P.Ward on 23 May, 1817, noted, “A regular system of oppression and peculation appears to exist throughout and instead of proving a protection to the country and a preventive against improper conduct, these people are considered the terror and the scourage of the district” (Report of W.Trower, Collector, Cuttack on Revenue Administration in Orissa, MS.Vol.387, Orissa State Archives). Orissa’s Jamidaries were being grabbed by Bengalis of wretched background by organizing “the disposing of Estates in Calcutta” as the British was “permitting native officers of government holding situations in the district to become purchasers of lands sold at Collector’s Office” (Ibid). Holding the act of the Bengalis as “downright rubbery”, Mr. Trower had reported, “Not only does the influence of these people prevent the Oriyas from entering into competition with them in the purchase of lands, but if any of their own Estates are in arrears, the Oriyas are deterred from appearing as purchasers” (Ibid). Ingratiating themselves to British authorities, even pimps of Calcutta prostitutes became Jamidars in Orissa!

Emboldened by this new advantage, as they were grabbing Oriya soil, so they started planning to grab Oriya culture.

Their rudest adventure manifested in form of their demand to promulgate Bengali as official language in Oriya speaking tracts under the plea that 95% of the hands running British Offices there being the Bengalis, it would be advantageous for governance.

This plea failed as John Stuart Mill insisted that governance could reach the governed only through their mother tongue. Then the Bengalis started claiming that Oriya was not a separate language, but a form of their own.

This Bengali pretension could not survive the test of linguistic reality.

The reality was, Bengali as a language, compared with Oriya, was of much recent origin and was not much advanced.

As Sir George Grierson said in Linguistic Survey of India, “The Oriya language can boast of a rich vocabulary in which respect neither Bengali, nor Hindi nor Telugu can vie with it”.

The sharpest rebuttal to the Bengali claim of language superiority over Oriya had come from a Bengali Journalist, Gouri Shankar Roy, addressed with reverence as Karmaveer, who on 1.9.1866 and on 20.10.1866 established in his lead articles in his journal,that, there was no original literary work in Bengal that could be considered to be better than the Oriya works in content and in volume.

He said that translation of educational course books from English to Bengali, though in abundance in Bengal, couldn’t be proof of superiority of Bengali as a language; only the original works of letters can. And, in the sphere of original work of letters, Bengal’s achievement was almost nil whereas Oriya had a sea of original literary works to her credit, he had noted.

Making a mention of ‘Vidyasundara’ that the Bengalis were marshaling as the showpiece of their literature, he had observed that this work was much junior and inferior to original Oriya works available in plenty such as ‘Rasakallola’ of Dinakrushna Das of Orissa.

He had categorically stated that Bengal was much poor in original literary treasure when compared to Orissa. When Orissa was full of original literary works, Bengal was a storehouse of pirated (“APAHRUTA”) works. So, it was a folly to claim superiority over Oriya literature on part of chauvinistic Bengalis, Roy had thundered.

And, on the basis of such realities, the British authorities had to reject the Bengali plea and promulgated Oriya as the Official language in Oriya speaking tracks.

Embarrassed thus in the world of letters, the Bengali chauvinists were in dire need of something that they can use to establish their literary base as ancient. Therefore they were not hesitant to misappropriate Oriya literary works to show them as their own behind back of the Oriyas.

Sastri’s adventure to show the Buddhist mystic songs as Bengali songs was propelled by this motive. His motive was clear from the very caption “Hajar Bacharer Purana Bahgala Bhasay Bauddha Gaan o Doha” that he had coined for his compilation. Embarrassed to the core, as discussed supra, in their nefarious design to impose their language as official language on the peoples of Orissa, the Bengali chauvinists were so eager to show that their literary heritage is not of recent origin in comparison to Oriya, Sastri deliberately coined the caption in a fashion that was meant to mean that the Buddhist songs and couplets he was presenting were in a thousand year old Bengali language!

As already discussed, Bengal had no tradition of palm leaf manuscripts. Manuscripts were being written on palm leaves only in Orissa. He also obviously knew this and knew that the manuscript he had found allegedly in Nepal was an instance of Oriya literature. Therefore, he did not present the manuscript he had allegedly “discovered”. He claimed that he had noted down the contents of the manuscript by hand.

Allegedly having discovered the manuscript in 1907, he took nine years to tell the world through Bangiya Sahitya Parisad in 1916 that he had in possession such songs in proto-Bengali! This inordinate delay makes one feel the possible scholarly qualms he must have experienced during those hibernated years in posing the Oriya works as Bengali.

Intriguingly in the same year, i.e. 1916, the same publisher i.e. Bangiya Sahitya Parisad also brought out another book captioned “Jayadev Charita” purported to be copied from a 1801 manuscript of one Banamali Das wherein Sri Jaya Dev of Orissa was depicted as a Bengali born in Birbhum. The propaganda that Banamali Das had written it in 1801 was a mischief manufactured by fraudulent minds. There was no such book written by any such Banamali Das in any such year. The basic reference sources in Bengal confess that the so-called Banamali Das’ so-called Jayadev Charita was neither seen by any nor available anywhere. No body knows wherefrom the copy of Jayadev Charita purported to be the copy of Banamali Das’ work materialized, said Harekrishna Mukhopadyaya, presenter of the Book, in Birbhum Bibaran. Even Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, who has not hesitated to discard his scholarly objectivity in the flow of chauvinistic fervors to claim Jaya Dev for Bengal, has admitted that “the work is of no historical value”(Jayadeva: Sahitya Academy, New Delhi, 1973).

So, it is clear that a group of Bengali language chauvinists, combined under the banner of Bangiya Sahitya Parisad had fraudulently manufactured Jayadev Charita in order to claim Sri Jaya Dev of Orissa for Bengal and had also played the tricks with Orissa’s Siddha Sahitya in order to misappropriate Orissa’s literary heritage.

Lest their fraud gets exposed, sources of both the books were attributed to unavailable manuscripts!

But howsoever strong be a motive to impose an untruth, the truth remains stronger than that. Therefore the truth prevails.

Scholars like Pt. Kedar Nath Mohapatra have shown the truth that Sri Jaya Dev was a poet of Orissa.

Unable to say that he does not know of this, Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, who has made a farce of his scholarly prudence to anyhow claim Jaya Dev for Bengal, has admitted in his book ‘Jayadeva’ (Sahitya Academy, New Delhi, 1973), “In his well-documented book, ‘A Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit manuscripts of Orissa, in the collection of the Orissa State Museum’, Bhubaneswar, Vol. II by Sri Kedarnath Mohapatra, curator of the Museum (published by the Orissa Sahitya Academy, Bhubaneswar, 1960), there is a long article on Jayadeva and his Gita Govinda considered from various aspects (pp.XXXVI-LVI). In this learned article, some of the contemporaries of Jayadeva as much as Jayadeva himself have been claimed for Orissa on literary and other grounds”(Jayadeva, p.6). In his entire discussion, he has not hesitated to support Bengal’s claim over Jayadev with false arguments, but has never dared to counter the “well documented” argument of Pt. Mohapatra.

Chatterjee’s reluctance to counter the “learned article” of Pt. Mohapatra has every reason to be interpreted as his shying at the truth.

However, we are, in this write up, not after the truth on Sri Jaya Deva. Our concern is to unveil the truth about authors of the Bauddha Gana O Doha, whom Sastri has wrongfully depicted as Bengali.

And, the truth in this case comes out from the fact that these authors are Chaurashi Siddhas, not Bengali Siddhas.

Why they are called Chaurashi Siddhas? Sastri and others who claim the Charyagitis for Bengal and their respective States have not gone beyond holding Chaurashi for the figure of eighty-four. Even Dr.Karunakar Kar who has irrefutably shown that the mystic songs were written in Oriya, has not dedicated his attention to the reason of these authors being called Chaurashi Siddhas. So also Dr. Navin Kumar Sahu, Dr. Khageswar Mohapatra etc. of Orissa.

But the key to understand to which province the authors of the Buddhist Mystic Songs belong lies in the word Chaurashi.

In the belt of Buddhist Tantra on Prachi basin the place Chaurashi has retained its name for Centuries even though its glory has been lost in the labyrinth of cultural confusion created by coercive Brahminism. Authors of the Caryagitis were known as Chaurashi Siddhas because of their habitation in this place.

Religio-historical literature convince us that the word Chaurashi in respect of Bauddha Siddhacharyas is not the figure 84 but is the name of their dwelling. Let us see a description in Chaitanya Bhagavata authored by Ishwara Das. At Chapter 148 thereof he has written:

Satasa Bauna Baudha / Keshari Raja Sange Bada //61//

Satapatena mrutyu hoi / Chha’sha Baudha marai //62//

Apare satasathi puna / Baudha mare nrupa rrna //63//

Baki Baudha Chaurashi / Gopye bhajanti Hrushikeshi //64//

Yemante Chaurashi baudha /Yeka swarupa nahin bheda //65//

Literally these quoted stanzas mean, Kesari King in open variance with 752 numbers of Siddhas of Satapata killed 600 of them in the first phase and later killed further 67. The rest Chaurashi Siddhas went underground and continued worshipping Buddha,the Hrushikesha (the self-controller). The Chaurashi Siddhas are thus that there is no difference amongst them; they are equals as if the same.

This quoted text is perhaps the most important help in solving the conundrum concerning the Chaur’shi Siddhas. It categorically states that there were 752 Siddhacharyas in Satapata area. The Keshari King killed 667 of them in two phases; 600 in the first phase and 67 in the second phase. Logically therefore 85 Siddhas had escaped annihilation by going underground. But Ishwara Das who has used consciously calculated words, has not used the word “Panchashi” that stands for the number 85, but has used the word Chaurashi that stands for the number 84. This means the 85 Siddhas gone underground were known not as Panchashi Siddhas, but as Chaurashi Siddhas. So, in the context of the authors of Bauddha Gana O Doha, Chaurashi is not numerical; but is geographical. Like the Bandha (Ikat) Sadhis made in Nuapatana of Tigiria are known as ‘Nuapateni Sadhi’ or the Gajapati Emperor of Orissa is known as Orissa Gajapati, the Siddhas of Chaurashi were known as Chaur’shi Siddhas.

Archaeological remains indicate that Satapatakapur was spread over the Prachi basin inhabited mostly by peoples of seven Patakas (subcastes) like Chandala, Shabara, Kamara, Keuta, Tanti, Dama, and Shundhi. In Chaitany Bhagavata of Iswara Das this Satapatakapur is noted as Satapata.
Sidhacharyas belonged mostly to these subcastes. Upper caste amongst them, if any, was initiated into Vajrayana/ Sahajayana by having someone from the subcastes as spouse.

Within the geographical limits of this Satapata, Chaurashi was one of the seven principal centers of Vajrayana sect of Buddhism on the Prachi basin, the others being Turintara, Garedi Panchana, Hirapur, Kakatapur, Konarka and Kuruma.

Sri Jaya Dev, inhabitant of the now extinct Kenduvilwa on the Mahodadhi (the sea of Puri) that possibly stood where a Shiva depicted as Vilweshwara is having his temple even today, was known as a subject of Kurmapatakapur, so named after this Kuruma, where remains of a Bauddha stupa has recently been discovered along with the image of Heruka, whom he has addressed as Hari in his Astapadi love lyrics.

Connection of Prachi basin with authors of the Buddhist mystic songs is established from another major scripture called Sunya Samhita authored by Achyutananda Das wherein mention is made of the basin being the habitat of Siddhas including Lohi Das, known also as Lui.

When Heruka has been discovered at Kuruma, His Shakti Barahi is the presiding deity of Chaurashi. Brahminism has tried to drown its Buddhist importance by building up a Laxminarayan temple in this particular place and by highlighting importance of this later deity.

But Chaurashi is the place of a completely extinguished Monastery of Vajrayan where Siddha Shabaripa had possibly made tribal Jaganta a symbolic portrayal of matriarch tenets of Buddhism and eager to save Buddhism from the deficiency of Shunyavada, King Indrabhuti while establishing and fortifying Vajrayana had developed Sabaripa’s concept to the discernible image of Gurudev Buddha as Sri Jagannatha. Thus, this place being the place of metamorphosis of Gurudev Buddha into Sri Jagannatha, when new image of the deity was necessitated, it was decided to make its height eighty-four pavas symbolically using the numerical in honoring the geographical as well as spiritual identity of the source of its manifestation.

Brahminism, the divisive technique of Arya invaders to keep the subjugated people socially subdued, was promulgated with brute force in Orissa by non-Oriya dynasties in order only to eliminate Buddhism from the place of its origin.

And in doing so, it has arbitrarily transformed, in course of time, Sri Jagannatha Buddha of Oriya origin to Sri Jagannath Krushna of non-Oriya origin and has transformed Sabaripa and King Indrabhuti to Sabara Biswabasu and King Indradyumna respectively by overlapping concocted legends on the real evolution of Sri Jagannatha.

But, despite this, Sri Jagannatha is being worshipped in the manners of Buddhist Tantra and his height has been ordained to remain eighty-four pavas in honor of the Chaurashi monastery and its Siddhas, in whose lap and in whose hands it had evolved.

It is known that Buddha was out and out against Brahminism and though the derailed history is yet to be set back on the right track to admit it, he had rushed from his birthplace in Tosala of Orissa to Magadh, the heartland of Vedic Imperialism for organizing the tribal communities there in Orissa’s Ganarajya pattern in order to obstruct Brahminism so that tribal culture would remain in tact.

Orissa’s Ganarajya pattern was based on Chanda, which means management of society on majority approval obtained through ‘vote’ in which every matured member of the society was freely participating and the majority opinion obtained as such was prevailing. This was a unique practice in vogue amongst tribal communities in Tosala region of Orissa comprising Kapilavastu (Modern Kapileswar near Bhubaneswar, admittedly wrongfully misplaced by Fuhrer in Nepal ) for which the place was and is yet famous as Chandaka (fountainhead of the system of Chanda). Gurudev Buddha had developed his unique Samgha system on the basis of this Chanda practice of his birthplace Orissa and had rushed to Magadha to obstruct autocratic Vedism in that very soil of its spread by organizing the Vajjiyans and other tribes in his Samgha pattern that was based on Chanda. Therefore, the horse that had taken him from tribal democratic Orissa to the heartland of autocratic Brahminism, was famous also as Chandaka, corrupted in course of time to Chhandaka.

Bimbisara was the Emperor of Magadha when Buddha had arrived there from Orissa. Introducing himself to the Emperor he had said that straight from Tosala, the land of paddy crops and valiant people where Hema (Dhavala) hill is a landmark, he had come to him. The Emperor had deep discussions with Buddha many a times and was convinced that conflict with autonomous tribal communities and matriarchy would ultimately jeopardize his empire. Therefore he had stopped attacking the tribals.

Vedic imperialism saw in this an affront to its hegemony. Bimbisara was put under arrest and the throne was force-occupied by Ajatasattu who deputed his Brahmin minister Bassakara to dissuade Buddha from supporting the Vajjiyans when attempts to annex their lands to the empire would commence. Buddha’s reply was as sharp as strong was his commitment to human rights. In ‘Dialogues of the Buddha’ (London[1910]Vol.II pp.78-80) T.W.R. Rhys Davids, quoting Maha Parinibbana Sutta, tells us:

“The Exalted One was once dwelling in Rajagaha, on the hill called the Vulture’s Peak. Now at that time Ajatasattu, the son of the queen-concort of the Videha clan, the king of Magadha, had made up his mind to attack the Vajjians; and he said to himself ‘I will strike at these Vajjians, mighty and powerful though they be, I will root out these Vajjians, I will destroy these Vajjians, I will bring these Vajjians to utter ruin.’ So he spoke to the Brahmana Vassakara, Prime Minister of Magadha, and said: ‘Come now Brahmana, do you go to the Exalted One and bow down in adoration at his feet on my behalf, and enquire in my name whether he is free from illness and suffering, and in the enjoyment of ease and comfort and vigorous health. Then tell him that Ajatasattu, son of the Videhi, the king of Magadha, in his eagerness to attack the Vijjians, has resolved,”I will strike at these Vijjians, mighty and powerful though they be, I will root out these Vajjians, I will destroy these Vajjians, I will bring these Vajjians to utter ruin”; and bear carefully in mind whatever the Exalted One may predict and repeat it to me. For the Buddha speaks nothing untrue.’

“Then the Brahmana Bassakara, the rain-maker, harkened to the words of the king, saying, ‘Be it as you say.’ And, ordering a number of state carriages to be made ready, he mounted one of them, left Rajagaha with his train, and went to the Vulture’s Pick, riding as far as the ground was passable for carriages and then alighting and proceeding on foot to the place where the Exalted one was.

“On arriving there he exchanged with the Exalted One the greetings and compliments of politeness and courtesy, sat down respectfully by his side (and then delivered to him the message even as the king had commanded).

“Now at that time the venerable Ananda was standing behind the Exalted One, and fanning him. And the Blessed One said to him: ‘Have you heard, Ananda, that the Vajjians foregather often and frequent the public meetings of their clan?’

‘Lord, so I have heard’, replied he.

‘So long Ananda’, rejoined the Blessed One, ‘as the Vajjians foregather thus often, and frequent the public meetings of their clan; so long may they be expected not to decline, but to prosper.’

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

“So long, Ananda, as the Vajjians meet together in concord and rise in concord, and carry out their undertakings in concord,- so long as they enact nothing not already established, abrogate nothing that has already been enacted and act in accordance with the ancient institution of the Vajjians, as established in the former days – so long as they honour and esteem and revere and support the Vajjian elders, and hold it to a point of duty to hearken to their words,- so long as no women or girls belonging to their clans are detained among them by force or abduction – so long as they honour and esteem and revere and support the Vajjian shrines (cetiyani) in town or country, and allow not the proper offerings and rites, as formormly given and performed, to fall into desuetude – so long as the rightful protection, defence, and support shall be fully provided for the Arahants among them, so that Arahants from a distance may enter the realm, and the Arahants therein may live at ease – so long may the Vajjians be expected not to decline, but to prosper”.

On thus assessing Buddha’s responses, Bassakar is quoted to have said, “We may expect then, the welfare and not the decline of the Vajjians when they are possessed of any one of these conditions of welfare, how much more so when they are possessed of all the seven. So, Gotama, the Vajjians cannot be overcome by the king of Magadha; that is not in battle, without diplomacy or breaking up their alliance. And now, Gotama, we must go; we are busy and have much to do” (ibid, pp. 80-1).

Despite this veiled threat of Bassakara before leaving Buddha, Ajatasattu had not dared to attack the Bajjians during active life of Buddha. When the venerable Gurudev passed away in 483 B.C., Ajatasattu’s first attack on Vajjians had taken place in 485 B.C. in which the Emperor had to be bereft of 10 of his brothers.

It is clear, as such, that Buddha, by restricting spread of Vedic Imperialism within Magadh under occupation of the Aryas, had saved the tribal belt in Northern India and thereby, his land Orissa in the southern east was in total safety.

Grateful tribals of Orissa, speculating on factor of creation in terms of tribal matriarchy, had reduced their concept to concrete shape expressed in a log of wood that they were calling as Jaganta that represented the female factor. In course of time they had painted two breasts (Thana in colloquial Oriya) on this log as to them the breasts were the factors of sustenance of life. With these breasts or Thana abbreviated to Tha, Jaganta became Jaganta-tha gaining philosophical viability under spiritual activism practiced by Bauddha Siddhacharys at Chaurashi in the basin of Prachi. And, therefore it was easier on part of King Indrabhuti to transform this Jaganta-tha to Jagannatha consecrating in it the shape of void that the Gurudev had already been projected to have taken after his death. In his Jnanasiddhi, Buddha was for the first time addressed as Jagannatha and the word Jagannatha was for the first time formed and used in such a revolutionary scripture.

But before Indrabhuti consecrated Buddha as Jagannatha, Orissa being the birthplace of Buddha, and therefore, the greatest hurdle on the way of Vedic imperialism, had been attacked continuously by North Indian Aryas, starting with Asoka’s battle under the very same Hema (Dhaval or Dhauli) hill of which Buddha had so proudly spoken to Bimbisara as noted supra, known to the world as Kalinga war. History has wrongfully credited Asoka with spread of Buddhism across the oceans. In fact he very tactfully destroyed Buddhism. Buddha was against the phenomenon known as God. Vedic imperialism was playing havoc with human life by obliterating social solidarity under the guise of Varnashrama and by subjecting the children of the soil to caste apartheid. Buddha was the strongest opponent of the system of disunity and therefore God, the pivotal force behind the system of disunity, was totally rejected by him. Buddhism was synonymous with atheism. And, therefore, in Buddhism, Vedic imperialism was seeing its arch and the strongest opponent to eliminate which Asoka had attacked Orissa. He had, no doubt, taken many a persons of Orissa to custody in a blitzkrieg, but the area being matriarch, he was so severely attacked by the female warriors that in order to escape alive, he had to acquiesce into being initiated in Buddhism and to declare on the spot that it would be his creed till the last. And, no sooner than escaping with this tactics, he used his initiation into Buddhism to destroy Buddhism in India. Had he, as is the propaganda, been changed from Chandasoka to Dhrmasoka on seeing the devastation wrought to human life by his greed for power, he should have set free the Oriya male soldiers and taken back his grip over Oriya soil. But he never did this. All the Oriya soldiers under his capture succumbed to brutality by being reduced to slaves and Orissa was made to perish under misrule perpetrated by the maurya plunderers. So he had not really changed to Dharmasoka from Chandasoka. He remained Chandasoka till his death under the guise of Dharmasoka. And, under this guise of Dhrmasoka, he destroyed Buddhism by infesting it with theism. He played a cleaver trick. He started projecting himself as the beloved of the Gods as seen in his self-propagated epithet ‘Devanam piya’. By acting as a supporter of Buddhism, he succeeded in gaining popularity amongst the Buddhists and by insinuating himself as beloved of the Gods (Devanam piya) he set Buddhism on reverse gear to God’s revival. Thereafter, as we see, Buddhism declined and Brahminism got new wings to spread all over India. Scholars of our land, belong as most of them to the upper castes and Buddhists, basking as they under the glory of Godhood of their Master, are yet to be free from dormant mindset to examine this aspect and discover the truth.

However, Asoka’s treachery notwithstanding, Orissa being the birthplace of Buddha, Buddhism refused to die in this soil. But being a soil basically of Autonomous Social Units or Village Democracies it had neither specific boundaries nor a common, united, strong and systematic war-force to defend whatever could be its geographical limits. As a result, non-Oriya invaders with avowed motive to obliterate Buddhism by destroying it in its place of origin were trespassing into the Oriya speaking tracks and establishing their dynasties here. One such was the dynasty of the Somavamsis.

Yayati Keshari of this dynasty had imported ten thousand Brahmins from Kanyakubja under the cover of performing a Dasasvamedha Sacrifice at Jajpur. But his real agenda was to use these non-Oriya Vedic chauvinists for suppression of Buddhism, which was – being of Orissa origin – the creed of Oriyas, by imposition of Vedic supremacy in the entire landmass under his occupation. Dr. B.K. Rath writes in Cultural History of Orissa that under his rule, “the Brahmins occupied the highest position in the social hierarchy” and their main function was “the study and teaching of Vedas and performance of religious rites and Vedic sacrifices, as laid down in the Smrtis” (p.120). And had become so powerful that “it was important to get religious sanction and recognition from the Brahmana class before becoming the king of the country. This proves that the Brahmanas occupied a superior position than the ruling class in society during the Somavamshi rule in Orissa”(Ibid. p.121). So through Yayati Keshari the Vedic chauvinists had in fact occupied Orissa. The excavated Buddist heritages in Ratanagiri, Lalitagiri and Langudi near Jajpur silently say how barbarously the Keshari kings and the imported Brahmin goons had destroyed them.

Originally an important center of Mahayana, the Ratnagiri complex had developed into a nerve center of Vajrayana during 8th and 9th century. It had played a significant role in the emergence of Kalachakratantra during the 10th century A.D records Pag Sam Jon Zang.

Similarly Lalitagiri, where Hieun Tsang, while visiting the Puspagiri Mahavihar, had even seen a magnificent Stupa on the hilltop that emitted a brilliant light remitting the bliss of sacredness, had become an important center for study of Vajrayana.

Langudi, under excavation, is marked for being the place where Buddha’s relics were preserved and significantly also, two kneeling Vidyadharas are marked here offering a reverential floral tribute on the occasion of the birth of Buddha.

Apart from these, ancient centers of Buddhist philosophy like the Kaima and Deuli systems are also in this area.

Yayati Keshari had destroyed all the Buddhist shrines and Stupas in this area with the help of the 10,000 Vedic chauvinists that he had imported from outside Orissa, i.e. Kanyakubja. The peace loving Buddhist shramans were brutally killed by these butchers through out the area under his capture, the cruelest ones amongst them boastfully projecting themselves as Pashupata Saivas. They were so powerful that loyalty of kings to Brahmins was tested on the basis of gold coins offered by the king to the Pashupat Saivas on his beheading a Bauddha. Such brutal butchering of Buddhists has never happened anywhere in India or outside except in Orissa. This was because Orissa was the birthplace of Buddha and being his birthplace, Buddhism was the common creed of the people of Orissa.

The effect was so terrifying that Buddhist started giving their sermons in an esoteric style. They started preaching their philosophy by using such words that were having hidden meanings. Therefore, the language they were using, though Oriya in her ancient form, is known as Sandha Bhasa. The word Sandha connotes to stashing of a secret meaning under an outer layer of known meaning of a word or of an expression. Sastri and others have admitted that the Charyagitis are written in Sandha Bhasa; but they have not told of this cause. Had there been no such brutal assault on Buddhists of Orissa by the imported Vedic chauvinists of non-Oriya origin under the umbrage of non-Oriya Rulers whose principal aim was extermination of Buddhism in the soil of its origin, the Charyagitis would not have been written in Sandha language, but could have been written in simple Oriya.

In use of this Sandha technique on language, the lead was taken by the Siddhas of Chaurashi, in the Satapatakapur (Satapata) on the Prachi basin in Tosala part of Orissa where Buddha was born. To match the advantage Brahminism was having by projecting an idol of a God to tackle a human problem, the Chaurashi Siddhacharyas had helped evolution of Jaganta in a wooden log that eventually had metamorphosed to Jaganta-tha before being transformed into Jagannatha by Indrabhuti. And, perhaps under their leadership, the entire landmass from Bhubaneswar to Puri via Kuruma had become a place of active practice of Vajrayana.

This area was the original place where Buddhism proper had originated and flourished. But to face the challenges posed by idol worshipping Brahminic menace, which Shunya concept was unable to meet, this area developed Jaganta – Jagantatha to Jagannatha as the universal idol conceived to represent all past, present and future idols of all possible creed and culture and created Vajrayana as its supportive philosophy on universality of Buddhism.

Vajrayana being the Buddhist reassertion of matriarchy, Vedic chauvinists had aggressively tried to convert this area into an area of phallus worship as a way of imposing patriarchy that the Vedas stood for. Even Dharmachakra pravartana pillars were broken to pieces and misused as Shivalingas like the one in the Bhaskareswara temple of Bhubaneswar.

“Buddhism was probably eclipsed with the rise of Saivism at Bhubaneswar”, informs Dr. B.K.Rath in Cultural History of Orissa at p.157. But this was not without protests. As he quotes D.Mitra (Bronzes from Achyutarajpur), “The imprint of the images of Buddha on the figures of the deified Pasupata teacher Lakulisa on the temples of the seventh and eighth centuries A.D. is unmistakable. But for the staff (lakuta), the images of Lakulisa would easily be confounded with those of Buddha”.

So there was continuous attempt by Vedic chauvinists to destroy Orissa’s Buddhist heritage by converting Buddhist monuments to Saiva and by imposing Lakulisa the leader of the Pasupat saivas whose principal work was annihilation of Buddhists as the deified Guru on the psyche of the Guru-centric people of Orissa to whom Buddha was the Gurudev. And in reaction to that the people of Orissa were trying to imprint Buddha on the image of Lakulisa. This is perhaps the Bada or quarrel that Ishwara Das has hinted to in Chaitanya Bhagavat.

Transformation of Buddhist monuments to Saiva shrines being perpetrated by the king, the people of Orissa, non-violent under Buddhist orientation, were unable to protect them physically. So, the Buddhist teachers, the Siddhas, adopted the technique of preaching in Sandha songs. As said supra, Siddhas of Chaurashi in the Satapatakpur area on the Prachi basin took the lead.

When Yayati Keshari, who had imported ten thousand Vedic chauvinists from Kanyakubja to exterminate Buddhism in the place of its origin, Orissa, could have known of this, he might have certainly been blind in rage and decided to annihilate all the Sidhacharys dwelling in the Chaurashi monastery on the Prachi basin.

And, in the first phase, as Ishwara Das has described in the cited stanzas, he killed 600 Siddhas out of a total of 752 and subsequently, in the second phase, he killed 67. The rest 85 Siddhas went underground and started secretly worshipping the the greatest conqueror of senses, the Gurudev Buddha. And these Siddhas were so famed as Chaurasi Siddhas that he has described them as Chaurasi Siddhas despite they being numerically eighty-five.

Now the question is why Sastri discovered the Charyagitis of these Chaurasi Siddhas of Orissa in the Royal Archives of Nepal. But did he really discover them in Nepal? The doubt persists, specifically as the palm-leaf manuscript from which he has said to have copied the text is not found by any except him. After discovery, he has taken long nine years to say of this. He has not explained as to why he caused this inordinate delay in making the declaration. On the other hand, Bengalis being in habit of visiting Orissa frequently, he might have got a palm-leaf manuscript from Orissa and could have taken much time to make a handwritten copy in a manner to manage it as a sample of proto-Bengali and destroyed the original. The fraudulent manner of claiming Sri Jaya Dev of Orissa for Bengal by concocting a book styled as Jayadev Charita through the same publisher in the same year and ascribing it to a non-existent manuscript of 1801 as discussed above justifies suspicion in the second line.

But it cannot be said that the first line is incorrect. Nepal kingdom had a traditionally secret link with only one place in India, i.e. Orissa.

In the system of Sri Jagannatha, the King of Nepal is the only person in the entire world except the Gajapati Emperor of Orissa who is entitled to enter the Temple on a paliquin. He enjoys special privileges in the Sri Mandira complex of Puri inasmuch as there are specially designated Sevayats to attend him and his family during their visit to the Temple. His paliquin entering the Temple through the southern gate halts only under the Kalpabata from where he goes to Sri Jagannath by foot and performs the Special Puja that only he as the King of Nepal is entitled to perform.

Why this special treatment to the King of Nepal in the temple of Sri Jagannatha? The answer lies with the secret chapter of history in respect of Buddha.

Canonical instructions are clear that Buddha’s birthplace should be the first amongst the four places of pilgrimage for every follower of Buddha. So Buddha’s birthplace was and is the most sacred place for a Buddhist. After Buddha’s demise, specifically after Asoka captured the area of Buddha’s birthplace in Kalinga war and following the war that area became very vulnerable to desecration by the Brahmins, it was perhaps Nepal that came forward to help in keeping the sacredness of the birthplace of Buddha unaffected by floating in its territory a legend of Buddha’s birth in a secluded jungle there by allowing the place to be known as Kapilavastu in imitation of the name of Buddha’s birthplace in Orissa. In ‘The Life of Buddha’ (p.19) E. J. Thomas quotes Fa Hien of 5th century A.D. as he noted of that place as a place where neither any people nor any king was to be found, a wilderness except for priests and some tens of families. According to Cunningham in ‘Ancient Geography of India’ (p.349), there was no trace of Kapila despite intensive search at the foot of the Himalayas.

There is no reason to be surprised over this as the name of the place was mutually concocted by both the kings of Nepal and Orissa in order to keep the real birthplace of Buddha, the real Kapilavastu in Tosala of Orissa safe from being desecrated by the agents and perpetrators of Brahminism.

Describing how the celebrated tooth of Buddha, kept safe in the idol of Sri Jagannatha (as this was the idol of Buddha himself), was “conveyed in A.D.311 by a King’s daughter concealed in her hair to Ceylon, which was then becoming a place of refuge to the Buddhists from the Brahmins’ rage”, Rev. J. Long has given us a clear picture from his personal account of investigation on Buddhism in Nepal, in Ceylon and in China, of how Orissa, the fountainhead of Buddhism, was the only place where people from kings to commons were Buddhists en masse and how the Brahmins, after she was captured by non-Oriya Aryan invaders, had in “rage” ravished the State and converted it into a place of Hinduism by the time of his visit to Orissa in January, 1859.

The most significant aspect of his revelation is that he had made an in-depth investigation in Nepal, Ceylon and China to find out where Buddhism had really flourished. And, his study had pointed his attention only towards Orissa, even though by that time Hinduism had engulfed the land.

He has noted, “Antiquarian enquiries in Nepal, Ceylon and China show that the Buddhism so noted in its regard for enlightening the masses and opposing caste, was for ages predominant all through Orissa both among rulers and people, though Orissa is now the garden of the Hinduism and Jagannath its Jerusalem”.

The Buddhists in those three countries had helped him understand that Orissa’s Sri Jagannath was in reality the idol of Buddha and therefore this idol was containing Buddha’s celebrated tooth relics.

It was quite natural. Buddha being of Orissa by birth, his relics were brought to Orissa after his demise at Kushinagar. In ‘The Life of Buddha’ (p.159), Thomas has relied upon ‘Sariradhatu vibhajanam’ accounts wherein his citation “Kalingaranno vijite punekam” tells us of handing over of the celebrated tooth relics to Orissa, (it being the place of Buddha’s heirs). This celebrated tooth was consecrated in the body of Sri Jagannatha Buddha, in short Jagannatha.

Narrating this from the sources of Buddhists of Nepal, Ceylon and China, Thomas notes, “Even Jagannath itself stands on the site of a Buddhist temple and contained the celebrated tooth of Buddha, which was kept there till the 4th century A.D.” Ibid).

Unveiling how this splendid Buddhist soil succumbed to Hinduism, Rev. Long has hinted at the oppression perpetrated on Buddhists by the Brahmins with the help of their patron kings of non-Oriya origin as noted supra.

The north Indian invaders had once taken away this tooth relic to Patna of Bihar. But people of Orissa had fetched it back after a short while. Not only from the northern part of India, but also from the southern part, Brahmanya forces were determined to destroy it. Pt. Chakradhara Mohapatra, the first in modern times to have unveiled proofs of Orissa being Buddha’s birthplace, tells us, “It is quite evident from ‘Datha Dhatuvamsa’ that the spread of Buddhism mostly depended upon this Buddhist relic. So one of the Brahmanya kings, Kshiradhara of Asmaka (i.e. Travancore, Kerala) tried to destroy this tooth but he failed in his attempt and died. After his death, his relations with the help of the kingdoms of Cheta, Rastrika, Bhoja, Avanti and Kamvoja etc tries to invent Kalinga and destroy the relic of Buddha. So, the then emperor of Kalinga, Guhashiva, who was the great grandson of Brahmadatta sent that sacred relic in the hand of his daughter Hemamali. Princess hemamali took that tooth with her husband Danta Kumara, the prince of Ujjayini, and sailed for Ceylon through the Tamralipta port”. (The Real Birthplace of Buddha, Grantha Mandir, Cuttack, 1977; p.53)

Rev. J. Long reports, “When it (the tooth relic) was carried for a short period to Patna, the ancient Palibothra, then the capital of North India, it was soon after brought back to Puri, but on an invasion of the country, it was conveyed in A.D. 311 by a king’s daughter concealed in her hair to Ceylon, which was then becoming a place of refuge to the Buddhists from the Brahmins’ rage”.(Notes and queries suggested by a visit to Orissa in Jan.1859; Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1859, No.III, Vol.XXVIII, pp.185-87)

So, it is clear that, Orissa, being the birthplace of Buddha, had transformed Buddha from omnipresence after his death to the present form of Jagannatha in whose system Buddha’s emphasis on elimination of the caste system was in full practice. It was the greatest challenge Brahminism was facing and hence the Vedic chauvinists had been making all out attempts to subdue Orissa and destroy her Buddhist heritage and creed. And by 4th Century A.D. they had become so much powerful that the Tooth relic of the greatest son of its soil, Buddha, fetched back from Patna, had to be secretly transported to Ceylon.

This subjugation of Buddhist Orissa by brute forces of Brahminism leads us to the phase of symbolic worship of Buddha in his birthplace, Orissa, by his ardent followers, who had developed a peculiar technique of preaching their philosophy in songs capable of spreading from mouth to mouth in a style where esoteric meaning of an expression was being stashed under an outer layer of misleading words cunningly coined in a pattern that we call ‘Sandha Bhasa’ or ‘Sandhya Bhasa’ so adopted in order only to hoodwink the Vedic chauvinists.

So the composition of the Charyagitis in Sandha pattern or pattern of double meaning is unmistakably a pattern developed only in Orissa by the Buddhists who had developed this pattern in order only to hoodwink the brute forces of Vedic chauvinists.

Nowhere in India except Orissa Buddhism had become the creed of kings and commons en masse and nowhere in India except Orissa, Brahminism had so ruthlessly and for so many centuries concentrated against Buddhism. Therefore, nowhere in India except Orissa the Sandha pattern or the pattern of usage of double meaning words in colloquial Buddhist literature was necessitated and therefore, nowhere in India except Orissa the Charyagitis or the songs marked as Bauddha Gana O Doha by Sastri were composed. It was nothing but cultural dishonesty on part of Sastri to have projected these Oriya songs as Bengali.

In a foreword to ‘Pratna-Oriya’, the book on the grammar of the Charyagitis by Dr. Khageswar Mohapatra, eminent philologist Dr. Devi Prasanna Pattnaik has opined that that those who claim the Charyagitis for Orissa, Bengal, Assam or Mithila may be partially right as these languages having a common root are not supposed to be not without similarity in their proto form. He has further observed that amongst Oriya, Bengali and Assamese, Oriya was the first to have advanced into a distinct form of its own and later the other two i.e. Bengali and Assamese separated from each other due to changes in philological perspectives. Many a proto properties preserved even today in Oriya language speaks of its conservative character, which, no wonder, has components more akin to Charya language in comparison with Bengali and Assamese. (Pratna-Oriya, Dr. Khageswar Mohapatra, 2nd edition, p.IV)

Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee comparing Oriya with Bengali and Assamese had also earlier said, “of these three speeches – Oriya, Bengali and Assamese – Oriya has preserved a great many archaic features in both grammar and pronunciation; and it may be said without travesty to linguistic truth that Oriya is the eldest of these three sisters, when we consider the archaic character of the language”.(I.H.Q.Vol.XXIII, 1947, p.337)

So, scholars, who see similarity in the core of constitution of the three rival languages but do not fully agree with Orissa’s claim over the Charyagitis, have no hesitation in admitting that Oriya had emerged as a separate and distinct language ahead of Bengali and Assamese.
Undisputedly being a language distinctly manifested much ahead of Bengali and Assamese (and Maithili), Oriya is the language, naturally, wherein expression in poetic form had become a reality much ahead of that occurring in Bengali. On this premise it can be safely said that the Charyagitis Sastri has claimed for Bengal were flowers of Oriya language, being the oldest available poetic expression in this region.

Scholars like Dr. Karunakar Kar of Orissa in his famous work ‘Ashcharya Charyachaya’ (Orissa Sahitya Akademi) has proved word by word that the words used in the Charyagitis are Oriya words. Another scholar of Orissa Dr. Khageswar Mohapatra in his book ‘Pratna-Oriya’, which depicts a “tentative grammar” of Proto-Oriya in context of these songs, has also proved how the words of Charyagitis are words of Oriya language. Even scholars of Bengal with scholarly composure like Bijoy Chandra Mazumdar (Calcutta University, 1920, Lecture XIII, as informed in Charyagitika, Prof. K.Mohapatra, Friends’ Publishers, Cuttack, Eighth Edition, 1999, p.43) have shown how sic passim are Oriya words in these songs. In ‘Buddhist Esoterism’ scholar Binoytosh Bhattacharya has held that Krishnacharya (Kahnupa) “wrote Dohas also in his own vernacular, which was probably Udiya”. But thus saying, Bhattacharya has also said that Kanhupa’s writing in his own vernacular Udiya “had a great affinity with the old Bengali language”. This affinity aspect is so misleading that some of the Bengali scholars have been able to satisfy their own chauvinistic urge by declaring, as has done Dr. Suniti Kumar in History of Bengal, Ch.xii, (Dacca University, 1943), that notwithstanding the affinity with Oriya (and over and above that with old Magadhi, old Maithili, or old Bhojapuri), the language of the Charyagitis is Bengali.

But no Bengali scholar has shown as to why the language of the Charyagitis is Sandha in pattern. Groping about in the dark they have made many speculations like Sastri describing it in introducing his compilation as “Sandhya Bhasa” and defining the word Sandhya as “Alon-andhari” meaning an admixture of light and dark even while admitting that under the outer layer there are inner meanings hidden in these songs. Binoytosh Bhattacharya, his son, has furthered the confusion by saying that as the Siddhas have written their songs in Sandhya Bhasa, contents thereof “may be explained either by the light of the day or by the darkness of the night” (An Introduction to Buddhist Esoterism, London, 1932, p.35, relied upon by Mohapatra, Caryagitika, p.10). The same source also cites Panchakadi Banarjee’s definition “Sandhya means borderland” in justifying which Banarjee has gone up to connecting the songs to the language of a country named Sandhya in between Aryavarta and Banga. So, it seems, the Bengali scholars have tried to define the word “Sandhya” after the word “Sandha” was corrupted to this form by Sastri, instead of trying to find out why the Charyagitis were written in duel meaning pattern (Sandha) even though in introducing Bauddha Gana O Doha he has admitted that there are inner meanings hidden under the outer meaning of these songs.

They cannot be blamed entirely; because the circumstances under which the Chaurashi Siddhacharyas had to write their songs in Sandha (hiding the real meaning under a superficial layer) pattern was not known to them.

The Siddhacharyas had composed their songs in different popular meters and with litanies, which makes it clear that they were meant to be sung in public with mass participation. So they were mass purpose songs. Why then they made them complicated by using duel-meaning words stashing the real meaning under the superficial?

Sastri and others have not supplied us the reason. They know that the songs were composed in dual meaning pattern. Therefore they also know the reason of use of this pattern. But they have preferred to keep mum as otherwise it would not have been easy for them to claim these Oriya songs for their regions.

In Orissa, and in Orissa alone, writing these songs in Sandha pattern was necessitated to hoodwink the goons of Brahminism. Nowhere in India except Orissa, as has already been described above, destruction of Buddhist shrines and annihilation of Buddist Monks was being carried out so brutally by Aryan invaders with the help of imported Vedic chauvinists styled as Pasupata Saivas.

After the non-Oriya Yayati Keshari vandalized the Buddhist heritages in Jajpur with the help of the ten thousand Vedic chauvinists he had imported from Kanyakubja in the guise of horse sacrifice to destroy Buddhism in the place of its origin, Orissa, his nasty eyes were cast on the Chaurashi monastery in the Prachi basin where, like in Jajpur, Barahi was the presiding deity of applied matriarchy, providing a perfect cover to practice of Vajrayana and where Sabaripa had transformed the tribal Jaganta to Jagantatha paving the way for Indrabhuti to idolize Gurudev Buddha to Jagannatha.

The monastery of Chaurashi, where Jagannatha was thus given his shape and in honor of which, the height of Sri Jagannath has become 84 pavas, was the citadel of the authors of the Charyagitis whose emphasis was on two aspects of human life: firstly, recognition of female factor as supreme cause of creation, creativity and bliss and secondly, refusal to recognize caste system in human society. Therefore they had given feminine appearance and lifestyle to Jagannatha notwithstanding Buddha being idolized in his shape and they had epitomized castelessness in personal as well as societal life. Brahmins who were against Brahminism were welcomed to their fold and honored as Siddhas, for an example, Krushnacharya alias Kanhupa. Therefore, they were regarded as philosophers and guides of the Satapatakas meaning broadly the seven subcaste habitants of the Prachi basin where including Chaurasi, seven important centers of applied Buddhism had also developed under guidance of the Siddhas of Chaurashi.
This was never to be tolerated by the Vedic Chauvinists. To them, it was impossible to spread and stabilize Brahminism in Orissa unless the Siddhas of Chaurashi, active guides of applied Buddhism in the Satapatakapur on Prachiu basin were exterminated.

Therefore, the Keshari King, as described by Ishwara Das in Chaitanya Bhagavat (cited supra) killed 600 Satapata Siddhas in the first phase and 67 in the second phase out of a total 752 identified Bauddhacharyas. To avoid complete extinction, the rest 85 Siddhacharyas went underground. Despite their number being 85, Ishwara Das had described them as Chaurashi Siddhas, which, as already discussed, makes it absolutely clear that the Siddhacharyas of Orissa’s Prachi basin were known as Chaurashi Siddhas. No other place except Orissa can claim the Chaurashi Siddhas as its own.

So this scriptural description of historical irrefutability has made it clear that the Chaurashi Siddhas belonged to Orissa and in Guru-Sisya Parampara, they were known as Chaurashi Siddhas, who were never to be seen or treated separately (“Yemante Chaurashi Bauddha / Yeka swarupe nahin bheda”) and, who had authored the Charyagitis and Dohas in their own vernacular Oriya as a literature of applied Buddhism; but had done that in Sandha style in order to hoodwink the brutal practitioners of Brahminism by then in power in Orissa.

As Orissa’s princess had transported the celebrated Tooth of Buddha concealed in her hair to Ceylon in 311 A.D., because by then she had emerged as a safe soil for Buddhists to save the Master’s sacred relic from “Brahmins’ rage” (Rev. J. Long, cited supra), so in similar vein, some of the Chaurashi Siddhas of Orissa might have taken refuge in Nepal as by helping Orissa in saving the real birthplace of Buddha from being vandalized by the Vedic chauvinists, the Himalayan State had emerged as the safest place for the Siddhas of Orissa.

Therefore, there is nothing to be surprised if Sastri had really found a palm leaf manuscript of the Charyagitis in the Royal Archives of Nepal. Availability of Charyagitis and Dohas elsewhere does not do away with the reality that they are songs of Oriya language authored by Chaurashi Siddhacharyas of Orissa.