BOOKS AND AUTHORS
Dr. D. ANJANEYULU
“
Turning to literature, we speak of Indian
literature (in the singular) as well as of Indian literatures (in the plural).
Strictly speaking, it has to be recognised that there
are, or could be, as many literatures as there are languages. That is the
literal fact, which we cannot get away from. But most, if not all, of these
literatures have a common source of inspiration, as also a common experience – emotional and
intellectual. This gives rise to a feeling of shared values, along with a
cherished tradition.
As in the wider field of culture, so in the
narrower arena of literature, it is, therefore, possible to think of unity in
diversity, which is why it is observed, in a happy blend of actuality and
idealism, of understanding and aspiration, that Indian literature is one,
though written in many languages. But the trouble with some of us who seem to
mistake parochialism for patriotism and linguistic chauvinism for cultural nationalism,
is that diversity is projected at the expense of unity, the gains from
which could be temporary and in terms of regional politics, while the loss is
more permanent in terms of national history. A greater loss is of our
own perspective today – we miss the wood for the trees.
How could we possibly avoid this
ever-present, but now insistent, danger? By not losing sight
of the national identity, always present, perceptibly or imperceptibly, in our
literature or literatures, and by not deliberately and even perversely, setting
our face against the factors that make for cultural unity. Mountains
could be made of mole hills by prejudice of one kind or another, which is born
of ignorance–of some basic facts of our life and literature, not to speak of
the concepts of philosophy and culture.
A good starting-point could be a study of
comparative Indian literature. While comparative literature, as an academic
discipline, is a new subject in Indian or foreign universities, some kind of
comparative study is implicit in the very process of literary criticism and
artistic appreciation. Only the tools have to be sharpened, and a suitable
methodology has to be evolved for the purpose.
Just now, we do not seem to have many, or
even any, standard books for a professional study of comparative literature in
Even this publication is not strictly an
exercise in the comparative study of Indian literature, as the term is apt to be
understood. It is essentially a history of Indian literature with a generic
approach which could, in view of its consequent design and structure,
facilitate comparative studies of the various constituents of Indian literature. For instance, in
volume I, which was released earlier this year, the whole subject in view is
discussed under six sections – viz., Language, Folk Literature, Traditional Poetry. Modern Poetry,
Drama and Novel.
Volume II, to be released towards the end of
the year, covers the rest of the subject under six, other sections, viz., Short story, General Prose, Biographical Writings, Literary
Criticism, Children’s Literature and Literary Movements. There are useful
appendices, containing glossaries of literary terms and other references.
Apart from the panel of contributors drawn
from writers and critics of experience in the different regions, the chief
editor is ably assisted by an editorial board of seasonal teachers well-versed
in their respective languages as well as in English.
By and large, a creditable performance on the
part of all concerned in this ambitious, pioneering project.
Not only the Kerala Sahitya Akademi, but individual Kerala writers and critics in
English have taken the initiative in projecting writers and aspects of writing,
which had not received adequate attention until recently.
Prof. K. Ayyappa Paniker has done well to
undertake the editing of a new series of monographs, entitled “Kerala Writers
in English,” which reminded me, in content as also in format, of the handy and
handsome series, sponsored by the British Council on English authors, and
brought out by Longmans. The British series comprises about a hundred titles.
The present series has so far covered
half-a-dozen writers–A. S. P. Ayyar by K. P. K. Menon;
Menon Marath and Aubery Menen by Mohammed Elias; K. M. Panikar
and Manjeri S. Isvaran, both by K. Ayyappa Paniker; K. P. S. Menon
and P. Palpu both by N. Viswanathan.
Not all of the writers discussed in the
series so far are creative writers in the true sense of the word, not even
critical or constructive writers who can stand scrutiny without the aid of
regional sentiment. As far as the present reviewer is concerned, the best known
to him are Manjeri S. Isvaran and K. P. S. Menon and
the least familiar is P. Palpu.
Isvaran has a special claim to be remembered
in the pages of this periodical, of which he was once the Associate Editor in
addition to being a regular contributor. That apart, he was one of the most
sensitive of short story writers, a poet in prose as well as in verse. I can
hardly think of any other Indian writer in English, who was conscientious in
his craft or committed to literary and human values, in which he believed. Many
of his short stories are exquisite portraits of Indian, especially South
Indian, life, in miniature. That long short story or novella, Immersion, remains a classic – in emotional substance as well as in style. His poems, not that powerful
perhaps, manage to reflect his flights of fancy and virtuosity as a stylist. Worth
remembering how Isvaran and Marcella Hardy did a good job of editing
Shakespeare’s “Henry IV, Part I” for an Indian publisher. Ayyappa
Paniker does justice to the work of Isvaran – his psyche as well as his style.
Perhaps, when a Paniker
meets a Panikkar, it is not Greek meeting Greek! It
is almost like an admirer meeting his idol. Ayyappa Paniker is more than just to K. M. Panikkar.
He is outright generous. He is hardly able to see any faults (of excess) or
defects (of inadequacy) in his subject. It is true that Sardar
Panikkar was intellectually resourceful, versatile in
his interests, and prolific in his output. But his writing is glaringly
un-literary, with a style that is not only flat and pedestrian, brut downright
clumsy. Even his flaunted originality was not above suspicion, for he had an
admirable flair for making books out of books! He was frankly an overrated
writer. A more balanced and really critical estimate would have been in order.
K.
P. S. Menon was among the luckiest of human beings–a real favourite
of the gods, if there were any. He didn’t die young, of course! He lived a long and full life – enjoying life at home and abroad. As a writer, he was eminently
readable – a delightful raconteur, without a touch of malice or jealousy. I,
for one, didn’t feel like reading him a second time; nor could I decide what he
believed in or what he stood for –
besides success every where and
roses, roses all the way! The monograph is, likewise, readable, without leaving
a lasting impression.
As for A. S. P. Ayyar he was a scholar, deeply attached to the traditional
values. He was more of a scholar than an artist. It is a moot point how far he
deserves the place of precedence in this series.
The forthcoming titles
are – Kamala Das, Pothan
Joseph and, G. Parameswara Pillai.
They are all awaited with interest.
In a multilingual
country, there is no possible way of the classics, ancient or modern, of one
language, reaching the readers of the other languages, without the aid of
translation. The process of translation seems to be quicker, as
also more satisfying in the continent of
Though Hindi may be
the largest spoken language in
Three of the modern
writers of Malayalam fiction chosen by Mr. Abdulla for translation are: Vaikam Muhammad Basheer, S. K. Pottekkatt and M. T. Vasudevan
Nair. The first is represented by two collections–The Love-letter and other
stories and Voices and the Walls. Basheer
is a distinguished short story writer, noted for his insight into human nature
and poetic sensibility. He could be seen at his best in the longish
title-piece, “The Love-letter” tender, whimsical, unpredictable. The
translation is competently done, with all the nuances of colloquial Malayalam
well-captured. Some of the shorter stories are wispy, insubstantial.
Poovan
Banana is another longer
story, depicting Mopiah life, on the merits of which
there could be two or more opinions. A semi-literate trade union leader subdues
the proud and temperamental graduate daughter of a rich family, by methods
which can only be described as crude and brutal. This obviously reflects another
side of Basheer’s character – crude, brutal and primitive, which only an un-regenerate male chauvinist could approve. This has only a superficial resemblance to
Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew and can hardly be
held up for unqualified admiration (as Prof. G. Kumara Pillai
seems to do in the introduction). Anyway, this can’t be held against the
translator, who has done a conscientious job.
From
Indian literature to Indian History – of
the modern period. It is one of the saddest facts of the history Indian
politics, of the pre-independence period that the era of the moderates is
either completely ignored or inadequately covered by the modern Indian
historian. The commonest tendency is either to run down the moderates and
liberals as “loyalists” (and traitors to the cause of independence) or damn
them with faint praise.
In point of actual fact, the so-called moderates
were second to none in their patriotic feeling, personal courage or integrity
of character. Only they believed in constitutional methods of agitation,
because of their faith in the British Government’s respect for the “Rule of Law.”
It would be hard to think of more genuine human material than that represented
by Ranade, Pherozeshah Mehta, Gokhale and Sastri or Sapru and Jayakar later. None of
them was a time-server or a place-seeker. They knew that hard words broke no
bones and it was better to use moderate language to express strong sentiment
and canvass reasonable demands.
Gokhale, the
archetypal Moderate, was not exactly trusted by the British Indian
Administration.
“I mistrust Gokhale,”
wrote Lord Hardinge, the Viceroy, in a confidential
letter, “more almost than any man in India, as he is watching for our mistakes,
and is the only Indian who knows how to play the waiting game.”
Gokhale believed that
the future of
When he delivered his
first budget speech in 1992, in the Imperial Legislative Council, with Lord Curzon in the chair, it fell like a bombshell in that
sedate assembly.
These and many other
revealing facts from the Moderate era are brought out in his recent Dadabhai Naoroji Memorial Lecture
in
The Moderates,
especially Gokhale, were the link between 19th century economic and political
thought and the economic and political thought as it developed in this century.
They had also made the task of Gandhi easier. But for the habit of throwing all
restraint to the winds in the Gandhian era, we continue to suffer the
consequences. He sowed the wind and we reap the whirlwood.
A natural and necessary corrective would be to turn to the wisdom of the
Liberals, for selective absorption.
Mr. Nanda has rendered a true service to the politically-minded
intelligentsia of today by turning the focus on the moderates and presenting
their ideas in the proper perspective.
Students of Indian
History would be happy to learn that Prof. K. A. Nilakanta
Sastri’s magnum opus “The Cholas” has been
reprinted by the