Mysore/Mysuru: Mysuru-Kodagu MP Pratap Simha has written a letter to Mayor Sunanda Palanetra to name the park after late actor Dr. Vishnuvardhan, which is located near Chamaraja Circle. Also, he has requested the Mayor to install a statue of the late actor inside the park.
Simha has urged the Mayor to take up the issue in the next MCC Council meeting and grant permission of naming the park officially.
Pointing out that Dr. Vishnuvardhan’s birth and death anniversaries are being celebrated in the park since 11 years, he said that many members of Dr. Vishnuvardhan fans association met Pratap Simha and had urged to name the park after the late actor and install his statue as a mark of respect.
Does this Hon’ble member of Parliament knows what he is talking ? The Park in question does not belong to MCC. It is part of the Mysore Palace. After Mysore Palace ( Acquisition & Transfer) Act 1998 , it;s ownership is sub-judice. Irrespective of who eventually who wins the legal battle , question of naming the park after any one unconnected with the history of Mysore Palace does not arise., as the matinee idols have nothing to do with the cultural heritage of the the Palace. Wish better counsel prevails and the Mp desists from playing to the gallery.
I was born and brought up in Mysuru and lived and worked there for 30 years.
Although, I do not live there now, and indeed not in India, the desire by this MP to name this park after a Mysorean-who was born in Mysuru, and whose memory has been celebrated for 11 years as reported, is not an unjustifiable request. He was a talented and distinguished actor, from what I hear. Naming this park after him seems appropriate. Mysuru needs to remember the artists too, who were Mysoreans.
There seems to be no memorial for Ta Ra Su, who was a Mysorean, lived and wrote his brilliant historical and other novels, living in Mysuru. If there is one, my apologies, and drawing its to the SOM readers would be appreciated.
The MCC as part of the government cluster-it is a local government after all, should have the authority to name this park after the actor,. If necessary .they can approach the state government for the purpose.
If those who run the Mysuru palace object to this naming, it would appear as a petty act. My personal opinion, is in the absence of Royalty in India today-it was abolished by Sirdar Patel, and rightly so, I see no reason why Mysuru and Bengaluru palaces, should not be taken over by the state government in their entirety.-all parts of them, and entrust them to the care of an independent authority. India is a democracy and rightly so, and previous Maharajas’s palaces, paid for by their citizens in a number of ways, belong to the citizens.
Mysuru has had enough of memorials of those associated with the Mysuru palace, including the Wadiyars and Dewans who ruled before the country became independent.
i agree. Mysoreans should start calling this park ‘Vishnuvardhan park’, so that name sticks and no one can do anything about it. Not even the courts.
This talented actor needs remembering. Artists are not well recognised in India.
When the ownership issue is itself is in the court, how can a sub-judice decision can be taken?
The one who do these kind of nonsense arguments for establishing a statue or naming after a park that’s in legal questions should refresh their memories once..
It’s a park belongs to Mysore Palace.. where “Phala-Pushpa Pradarshana was held from decades during Dasara.. even before the veteran actor’s death..
So one cannot taken away someone’s property in someone’s name or statues..
The member of the parliament should have common sense of Mysore’s age old culture..
Modernization or development is not mean to rename, reestablish the already existed & well known properties.. monuments etc..
We all will go for a protest if anything further will happens.. fir sure..
The yearly remembrance of this late actor, has been taking place for 11 years. Perhaps other events too. Why were they allowed, if this park is used for a ‘phala-pushpa pradarshana’ during Dasara, as one poster claims emphatically as it belongs to Mysore Palace?
It appears to me, from afar, that the ownership of this park is under dispute, and hence, there is a judicial process under consideration. The disputed ownership is clearly the reason that other above events are allowed to take place in this Park in additional to the ‘pradarshana’ event.
Let me remind those Mysoreans of today (I was one until the early 1970s) who are deluded in thinking that decades of Dasara events, mentioned by a poster, also included Jamboo Savari with the Maharaja on the day on the Howdha. After independence, when the Royalty was abolished in India, the above practice of the ‘Maharaja’ in the Howdha was allowed, not as a Royal right, but as a concession in recognition of JC Wadiyar, who supported the independence movement. As long as he was a Rajapramukh first and governor later for a time, the Durbar and Jumboo Savari with him in the Houdha were allowed as part of the Wadiyar custom. We knew in late 1960s, with the declining health of JC Wadiyar, the above traditional events with him at the centre of focus, came to an end.
The Dasara that is taking place now, is a ‘Nada Hubba’, not the same Dasara that was taking place under JC Wadiyar. Jamboo Savari that is taking place now is with the Goddess in a special ambari on the elephant top. The focus now is on the tourism, not on the Regal aspect, as in JC Wadiyar’s time or before him.
Recollect the Supreme Court judgements of 1998 and 2001 that stipulated guidelines for use of the the Palace and government’s permission requirements for events associated with it. The Wadiyar family claimed that Palace was used for income, hence the ownership, but what about the afore mentioned Park? That explains the ownership dispute and the judicial consideration.
This MP should approach the state government or better the central government, and present the case of naming the Park. I guess the MP’s request would be granted.
It is anachronistic to have palaces, thrones, self-styled Maharajas in a democracy like India with an elected president. Royalty was abolished rightly after independence.