In an interesting exhibition, Bruno Latour, the famous French philosopher used an episode of Bharathipura­ among others, to showcase the concept of Iconoclash. While the contemporary popular culture takes it’s visual images for granted and while every visual icon is devoid of a secondary nature, Bruno Latour’s concept of Iconoclash opens up a new area of sociological inspection into the ills of our world.

Bharathipura is a Kannada novel written by U.R. Ananthamurthy of Samskaara fame. V.S.Naipaul, while reviewing Samskaara, had hailed U.R. Ananthamurthy as one of the very few genuinely great writers to emerge from independent India. The novel Bharathipura deals with a complex theme juxtaposing traditional Indian-ness and the ideologically confounded existentialism of a rich England-returned youth, trying to make sense of his roots. 

The story of Bharathipura starts with Jagannatha, who has returned from England and is   tortured by the languid indifference and staleness of life around him in his native village Bharathipura. With the aim of shattering the existing order (symbolized by the caste relationships, the Manjunatha temple and all its associated traditional and cultural elements), but equally unsure of any consequential alternative order, he sets out to teach the lowliest outcastes of his hilly village to read. Though he is aware of the significant undercurrents of the society’s make-up, which are  not as innocent or simple as they  appear, he formulates the idea of a ‘change’ that could bring about something new,  whatever the consequences, good or as bad.  Jagannatha vows to have his low caste laborers enter the temple on an auspicious day. The author ends the novel in a profound confusion that is open for interpretation.

When the objective of destroying an image is not certain, when the consequences of one's act of iconoclasm is not pre-imagined, and when the act of destruction of images and icons itself leads to more images and icons, we can think that there is an iconoclash.

Images are the intermediaries for expression in various human endeavors like art, religion and science, where the goal is to find “Truth”. However, images engender great passion and generate hatred and violence of extraordinary proportions, as can be seen throughout history. Icons are the representative elements—physical objects, sounds, expressions, ideas, phenomena,  processes and so on—that provide human beings with a sense of collective and secure existence. Now, these icons or images are so powerfully embedded in our psyche that a change in status quo has an extremely violent effect on us.

Throughout history, images and icons have co-existed with image-breakers and iconoclasts. Vandalism, violence, hate, putrid rage have been associated with breaking idols. However, has there been a passage in history when there didn't exist image breakers of a subtler kind? Does not every sort of critic in our own time and from time immemorial think that his/her ultimate duty is to try to demolish a set pattern of an intellectual pursuit?

With this background, Bruno Latour tries to explore the phenomenon of Iconoclash through his exhibits, where he shows seemingly innocuous situations represented by images, pictures, photographs (icons) and provides an explanation to show that simple interpretation of iconoclastic violence is complex and laden. The three categories of exhibits are from Religion, Science and Art.

The best example of an iconoclash is provided at the beginning of Bruno's documentation. A picture taken from a video stream where it appears that men dressed in red and wearing  helmets  are violently smashing the glass case (in an apparent act of vandalism) that protects a Shroud (apparently to loot it) with glass splinters all over the place. The image itself opens up to our understanding to be one of vandalism. However, what it really is, is an image of a couple of brave fire workers trying to protect the holy Shroud from the fire that has broken. Ironically, they cannot protect the shroud without violently smashing the strong glass case. Doubly ironically, the strong glass case is not to protect the Shroud from acts of vandalism, but from worshippers that may try and tear the Shroud into shreds and pieces to take home as mementos! This is a beautiful example of iconoclash.

Bruno Latour used the Saligrama episode in Bharathipura as one of his exhibits. It is interesting to see how this episode in a novel influenced by French existentialism, helped Bruno Latour select his artifacts that depict  iconoclash. Also, is there a danger of Bruno Latour de-contextualizing the episode to fit into the framework of the iconoclash phenomenon? Though a legitimate doubt, I believe the answer is no.

I perceive Bruno's selection at two levels. One at the level of "Religion", where the episode itself is subject to the explanation of iconoclash and the other at the "Art" level, where we are open to interpret Ananthamurthy's treatment of Jagannatha and the underlying artistic messaging of the novel as an example of Iconoclash.

* * *

Jagannatha stands an orphan with the saligrama in his hands. Jagannatha, the England-returned, educated rich man, with a revolutionary repulsion for everything his existence stands for (a reaction akin to a vomiting sensation?), now wants to break images and icons of what he perceives to be the curses of Bharathipura's and, therefore, India's humanity. Observing what he is, in the context of the contexts he has created for himself, in that sleepy little temple town, where nothing seems to move, we see that he is equivalent to the iconoclastic marauder—of a value system that sustains the status quo of a society.

In this episode, the saligrama represents a value system with loaded historical importance and significance. Jagannatha wants to make a powerful jump to create a creative society, to mobilize a morbid humanity—through, yes, the very old idea of breaking an icon that is loaded with value.

Bruno Latour's examination of iconoclash follows a model that is akin to exploring the following in a seemingly iconoclastic situation:

* the roles  icon-smashers give to the destroyed images
* the effects this destruction has on those who cherished these images
* how this reaction is interpreted by the iconoclasts
* and, finally, the effects of destruction on the destroyer's own feelings

In the saligrama episode, we are certain that an act of image breaking is happening. The saligrama is definitely an image, an intermediary, and an icon of religion. The legend surrounding the saligrama (If  you worship it, it brings about good effects; if you defile it, it ruins you. What is worship and what is deemed as defilation is again a paradoxically loaded question) is an image that has many angles. The legend is benign and blessed to the Brahmins in the scene. The same legend embodies horror to the pariahs. The legend is a hypocritical nonsense to Jagannatha himself, who has seemingly become the iconoclast. Hence, the image of the image of saligrama is also under attack. With these, let's now look at the iconoclast himself. To which category might he belong?

Jagannatha's quest in breaking the icon of saligrama would end if the pariahs were emancipated. However, does Jagannatha himself know what would be the consequences of his actions? Is he against all images? No. He is a dreamer who dreams of a creative society with active images. He is against the freeze-frame that has become the stale, stagnant society of Bharathipura.

To use Bruno's description, Jagannatha "fights freeze-framing, that is, extracting an image out of the flow, and becoming fascinated by it, as if it were sufficient, as if all movement had stopped."

In Bharathipura, religion, portended through Lord Manjunatha, Bhootharaya and saligrama, has become frozen, cancerous and venomous to its own followers. Hence, in the saligrama, we see the hand of God totally sterilizing the hand of Man. Jagannatha through the destruction of that image; wants to make the hand of Man prevail over the hand of God.

The iconoclash that we see in this episode is vividly picturised by the author. Jagannatha's sole aim is to destroy the image of the saligrama as an icon of tremendous religious power. However, if he innately believes that the saligrama is a mere stone and nothing else, why would he give so much importance in destroying its significance? In turning the saligrama into a mere stone by an act of pariahs' touching it, isn't he creating a new legend, a new icon out of the saligrama? By urging the pariahs to touch the saligrama in order to turn it into a mere stone, isn't he again ironically creating a new image which suggests that whatever the pariah touches would be nothing but a mere stone of no significance?

Would the Brahmins behind him still see the saligrama as their saligrama, without applying another iconic phenomenon that is consistent with the holy image of the stone? (In the aftermath, Chikki gets the saligrama re-sanctified through Adiga's Pooja).

When he asks the pariahs to touch it and see for themselves that it is a mere stone, he adds that if they don’t touch it, they would remain fools forever. Does he mean that if they touch it, they would not remain fools? This seems very simple, but lets try to answer this question and we will find how difficult the answer is. Does Jagannatha believe that by the mere act of touching it, it would benefit the pariahs in any sense of the word? Is Jagannatha heeding anything about what might be going through the minds of the pariahs? In trying to absolve the pariahs of their foolishness, in asking them to open their eyes, isn’t he blinding them with his irrational, violent, animal and emotive rage? Also, isn’t he terrifying them into forcefully accepting the thought, that they wouldn’t accept the historically forceful myth of the images anymore? Thereby he is creating a non-deterministic and blind image himself.

At the end, when rage leaves Jagannatha, he understands that the pariahs had meant nothing to him, and therefore, he was perpetrating the clash of icons—by trying to destroy one image, in which he does not believe and pitching it against an image that he uncertainly, non-deterministically, involuntarily and, most importantly, carefully, creates.

Where he transcends Bruno Latour's categorization is when he dreams of creating an image—the output image much bigger, more powerful and much significant than the input image.

* * *

Bruno Latour's selection of the saligrama episode is very interesting. However, he himself has mentioned more than once in his dissertation that his main focus of the exhibit was to understand the phenomenon and all its subaltern meanings with a Western perspective. Here, Jagannatha is a quintessential westerner—an existential tormentor of the self. Through the saligrama episode, seen from the narrow yet rich perspective of iconoclasm and iconoclash, we see Jagannatha himself morph into an image totally unforeseen. Bruno provides clinching evidence of this when he notes in a footnote that:

"Not with a little irony, the hero bears the name "Jagannath," or "Lord of the world," that is also the name of the heavy chariot of Krishna under which devotees were said to throw themselves to die. That has given us "juggernaut" in English, to describe a powerfully overwhelming force! Another iconoclash."


Notes

Saligrama – A most sacred “linga”, believed to have infinite powers, to be maintained very strictly in the most orthodox way thorough regular worship

Manjunatha – Lord Siva.

Bhootharaaya – A cult deity worshipped by the lower castes in the Western coast of Karnataka. Said to pay his tributes to Lord Manjunatha.

TOP

Ravishankar Ramnath, 32, resides in Bangalore and works for Accenture India as a Software Project Manager. He writes in Kannada and English, and has a few Kannada poems and a story published in Kannada dailies. The story “Hijack” was well received and critically acclaimed. He has recently contributed an essay on the great Kannada poet, Gopalakrishna Adiga to the collection “Prathimaa Loka”, edited by noted critic S.R. Vijayashankar. Ravishankar’s interests include contemporary literature, cinema, literary movements, philosophy, cricket, and writing both creative and critical pieces.