Dr Rajkumar and The Gokak Movement: Cinema Stars Beyond Silver Screen

 

Karnataka witnessed one of its most defining movements in the 1980s, a landmark in post-independence India’s language-centric struggles. It all began when the then Chief Minister, D. Devaraj Urs, made a bold decision to move Sanskrit from the first-language category to the third-language group. This move elevated Kannada and all languages of the land, including minority languages to the first- and second-language categories. Urs aimed to correct a trend where Kannada, the state’s official language, was being sidelined, especially in English-medium schools, where it often ended up as the least preferred option.

The roots of this issue were traced back to Sanskrit being offered as the first language in Karnataka’s high schools. This arrangement meant many Kannadiga students could complete high school without ever studying their native tongue. Urs's policy was a step towards addressing this imbalance.

However, in 1980, after Urs lost power, the new Chief Minister, R. Gundu Rao, reversed the decision. Sanskrit was reinstated as a first-language option. This sparked outrage among writers, intellectuals, and hundreds of Kannada organizations, culminating in protests. In order to examine this matter, the state government formed a committee led by Jnanapeeta (Jnanpith) awardee Prof. V.K. Gokak.

The Gokak Committee Report, submitted on January 27, 1981, not only rejected Sanskrit’s inclusion as a first language but went on to recommend Kannada as the sole first language at the high school level and compulsory in primary schools starting from Class 3.      

The government's delay and reluctance in implementing the report fueled frustration and ignited the now-famous Gokak Movement, which became one of the biggest linguistic uprisings in India's history.

There are several layers to the agitation; its course, ideas, participants, outcomes, and impact—each offering the potential for myriads of interpretations. However, in my view, the most fascinating aspect of this agitation remains the role of Dr. Rajkumar, an actor who transformed the course of the movement overnight.  

Gokak Movement in its initial stages was ‘tepid’ outside the literary circles, as Rajendra Chenni writes in an article for Deccan Herald. The entry of Dr. Rajkumar, famously referred to as Annavru, paved the way for commoners to agitate.  “On the surface, Rajkumar was just an actor. But in the absence of a dedicated political movement for the cause of Kannada and local culture, Rajkumar came to symbolise the hope and angst of a large section of Kannadigas” wrote K S Dakshina Murthy (Economic and Political Weekly-May 03 2006).  Rajkumar toured several districts from Bengaluru and Kolar to Belagavi, preaching the importance of the Gokak report. Inevitably, a sea of ​​people gathered wherever he went and the protest gained great momentum. Numerous ‘Fans’ Associations’ of his joined the movement, which enabled the inclusion of lower middle class and working-class population to a large extent. This was also said to have served the purpose of attempting to unite Kannada speakers across castes and classes, fostering a new solidarity around language.  Along with Rajkumar, prominent figures of the film industry like Vishnuvardhan, Anantnag, Shankar Nag, and others lent their support to the movement, significantly boosting its momentum and attracting more people (This also created an ideal opportunity to demand protection for Kannada films). The entry of ‘Fans Associations’ in the agitation caused Rajkumar's own role to recede into the background. So much so that Rajkumar’s own voice during the later days of the agitation was noticeably muted.  

At a time when celebrated regional actors dominated electoral politics and held office (NTR and MGR), Rajkumar altered the political landscape without ever endorsing electoral politics. 

This phenomenon, in my view, serves as a powerful testament to the influence film stars/cinema icons have wielded over the people of India. India has a deep-rooted engagement with cinema. It has always had a cherished place in the lives of the folk. Cinematic narratives, characters and icons are celebrated and remembered. In a society where cinema is a dominant cultural force, actors wield the power to persuade broad swaths of population. This power is evident not only in the political arena, where film stars often hold office or run for one, but also in the public's tendency to imitate their daily lives. Their public personas and off-screen lives are closely watched and discussed. Their opinions, endorsements, and actions carry immense weight in public life. They don’t have to run for office or explicitly affiliate themselves with positions of power to be able to influence people, as celebrity life in India is a matter of great intrigue and reverence. This often shapes societal trends that seamlessly weave into everyday life (frequently transcending generations). Moreover, the significant monetary influences surrounding the lives of  celebrities (actors in this context) inevitably create complex power dynamics. The trends shaped by them prove beneficial to certain groups of people. As a result, the power they hold continues to endure.    

From inspiring social reforms to creating and popularizing cultural trends, the impact of cinema and its icons spans across diverse domains of society. These instances remind us of the connection people have with cinema and its larger-than-life figures. Whether it's their public actions, advocacy, or the narratives they bring to life on screen, the reach and resonance remain enormous. What accounts for this power of influence is a question worth delving into.