CP Brown: Biography and Biographer

21. Biography and Biographer

A biographer has an onerous responsibility to speak the truth about his subject and not mislead the posterity by presenting a one sided, false picture. If the person involved, is someone like GANDHI there may be numerous biographers, dealing from various angles and the readers get, different facets of the personality. On the other hand, in case of persons like CPB, who wrote three autobiographies each differing from the other in a period of 20 years without any corroborative evidence for any of his boasts, the biographers have a very responsible job. Further, CPB was selected and trained by the East India Company, a banditry that systematically destroyed India economically, educationally, and culturally, and left the country broken forever. Therefore the biographers have a greater responsibility to sift all statements, cross check… analyse… and go to different sources.

It was the bounden duty of the biographers, to bring truthfully the atmosphere in India during 1800 to 1850 A D to let the reader understand the contribution of their subject. Instead the biographers presented a distorted picture in order to substantiate their false claim of a glorified service by CPB. I have therefore collected relevant information to bring to the readers mind a picture of India in that period; in “Important Extracts” at chapter 30. Readers are advised to read it first.

The Indian intellectual powers and the value systems of our society those of are much higher than the Westerners we do not have anything to learn from these westerners, who, as we have seen form the scum of human society and came to trade and by a quirk of fats gained power. Therefore, one should think twice before writing about a common Westerner. My contention is that CPB does not even deserve a biography. The British came out of greed for money, not for culture. I have mentioned elsewhere that even the BODEN chair for Sanskritic studies was established to assist missionary activities. There is a saying in Telugu – how can a Pig enjoy Scented Water.

The biographers have picked up an undeserving subject, and decided in advance, to project a shadow personality as a solid achiever. The study proceeds and the biographer completes his work with public funds. That is exactly the case of CPB’s biography. After Rao’s biography, a research project was started, which came out with 3 books, then another Government contribution for another biography. Now follow articles in papers, and magazines. Finally some old professor repeats the same material in another short biography. The circus goes on.
Hardly any analyses were done of any of CPB’s exaggerated statements. There is no corroboration any where for his claims. There is NOT ONE supportive evidence for his claims. All information, which surfaced against him, was just ignored. I have therefore analysed
His loans
His purchase of thousands of MSS
His expenditure on mss and pundits
Cases against him
His so called literary Karkhana

Economic conditions at that period etc in short all that the biographers should and could have done. I have used only material contained in the same books, which the biographers have written, as there is nothing else available of this mediocre person.

Whatever CPB got published WERE WITHOUT EXCEPTION THE WORKS OF QUALIFIED PUNDITS, their labours and the credit thereof was appropriated by CPB. It is like a printer getting all the credit for a book rather than the author, a sort of a tail wagging the dog situation. Dr. Salwa Krishnamurti writes, “Your book has pricked the bubble. Whatever may be the averments of CPB-enthusiasts I believe it was the poor pandits who did almost all the work”.
The one and only one activity he did was to amass a lot of manuscripts, the Leydon collection from the corridors of IOL, the McKenzie collection lying in the corridors of the Madras Library and his own from some people. Was it done to preserve them or to deny their access to the people? Or to print and make money as literary labour was cheap? The Nation is still in a mesmerised mood, incapable of seeing through the wily colonial game. We still ascribe to them a credibility they do not deserve and are afraid of taking bold stances. I covered this aspect in the chapter, Palm leaf manuscripts.

There is not one single outside source confirming any statements made by CPB. All the facts about himself which he stated are self-contradictory and do not stand an impartial scrutiny. At vital places he has not even given full data to enable us to verify even 50% of what he was saying. In certain cases he conceals the back up information totally so that no investigation is possible. Such being the case a biographer has a great responsibility.

When I analyse the sentences I find them all full of misinformation. For example where CPB himself says, “I easily obtained every volume however. In sacred or secret” – Rao says’ he made Herculean efforts to collect! Why does Rao say so and exaggerate the effort involved in collection?

CPB wrote that “The library of Sanskrit and Telugu manuscripts which I have collected cost me more than 30,000 Rupees” Bangorey adds ‘This might be a rough estimate, and the cost of preparing paper copies and commentaries perhaps not included in the amount.” He does not see the cruel famine, and CPB buying from the fleeing people. He bought 350 Mss for 642Rs. Pundits are cheap by the dozen. . Bangorey doesn’t think of all this at all! I proved else where what a total lie this figure of 30000Rs. for Mss is. Strange it may seem, he spent NOTHING spectacular. Witness following purchase: _
1830 K. Venkanna Wife sold for (say 350 books) 370Rs.
1834 M. Sarvesa Linga 613 books 150Rs.
Peddapuram Avasarala Venkata Rao(250? 796Rs.
A lawyer from Rajahmundry ???

Let us apply the concept of circumstantial evidence to CPB’s claims for saving the language. He never heard of Telugu till he reached Madras aged 20 after having spent two years in the Hailebury College. He spent 3years in the Madras College with Telugu as a subject of study. Yet he had to use an amanuensis to read, explain and take answers. He was 26 when he took to liking Vemana – who as we all know is the simplest of Telugu poets. Yet he disclaims classical grammar; classical methods of Teaching, and also makes a statement Telugu was dying. How did he arrive at that conclusion? Who said that? If it was his idea how did he arrive at it? Why do we take it in unquestioningly?

The problem that is facing the Andhras is the myth of CPB as a saviour of a dying language. We don’t want to call this bluff off because having erected statue, named libraries and streets to reject it now we look small. But it is better to face it once for all rather than perpetuate it. It is exactly like the Aryan Theory foisted on us. We believed it and taught it and we don’t want to feel ‘foolish’ and stop teaching it even when most of the world is seeing it for what it is – a big colonialist bluff.

In what way did CPB ever think that comparing Latin metres is of any practical use to Telugu poetry? Latin was already a dead language even in the west. Therefore to imagine that such comparative study is of any use is ridiculous, and we feel proud of this nonsense.
Although the book is supposed to be about the local history through Cuddapah half of it is devoted to CPB’s bungalow naming it as a literary factory of Brown thus misleading the reader. This dilapidated building was projected as home for some influential writers and as a great centre of literary activity. There is absolutely no truth in such a view. Here is a typical case as S.S. Sastry wrote, wherein the historian of today injects the present complexities of life and society, into the past ignoring the then existing situation. In the present case it is done deliberately by three groups lifting CPB from the dustbin into which history threw him and present him as a champion of the present day literary field. The three groups are-
The Communist Group, superimposing a feudal exploitative society into that period castigating the poor Brahmin who was half dead by then;
The regional Royalaseema Group who imagine that their contribution to literature is neglected, and

A Castriest Group projecting the Brahmin as the criminal of Telugu literary world, and side with the missionaries who enjoy the ‘Tamasha’ they started in 1800.

Bangorey is an intelligent honest and straightforward historian. His communistic zeal is understandable considering the fact of Telungana struggles against the Nizam. But he distorts the situation in CPB’s times by saying “Solidified Traditions”; blind and religious domination, political forces stifling the creativity of the people.

All these concepts are wrong. There was only one force at work and that was the British weaponry. The poverty was such that both the unskilled labour and the so-called pundit had to struggle to exist. Words like blind faiths becoming political forces are mischievously inserted to mislead and brainwash the present generation towards hatred of some classes of today. Both these ideas of class / caste domination and exclusivity of the pundits were the poisonous seeds shown by the CPB on behalf of the British, as he was trained to do so, and unfortunately
“The prejudices of the HINDUS and their murmurs against the wise government” [Bangorey’s book 1973, on Telugu Journalism]. Is it not sufficient to see the inner psychology and the total blind eye to the devastating Famine or the starving workers around him”.

RM McDonald says that a few months before his death CPB told him that what he received was 1/15th of what he spent. A senile old man, still grieving at efforts h e made of the grapes he could not reach – This is the person whom our writers want to project as a selfless indefatigable lifelong worker?

Compare the exaggeration of the greatness of CPB written by our biographers to what the Royal Asiatic society (May 1855) says about CPB on his death.

QUOTE
After having some instruction in Syriac, Arabic and Persian; and Greek and Latin he came to England”