STYLISTICS AND LITERARY CRITICISM
IN
HINDI
DR.
PRABHAKAR MACHWE
“There were innumerable articles written on poetry, in which one would find nothing but ‘Poetry in the flow of nectar falling from Heaven.’ ‘Poetry is the line of flowers in the ‘wilderness of heart’, ‘Poetry is the echo of sweet divine music.’ Is this the way to know the real nature of poetry?...Such a style is entering even in the criticism of poetry. This spreads the danger of terrible looseness of thought and intellectual lethargy spreading in our literature. In such subjects where subtle and systematic analytical thinking is needed, if such aery nothings are propounded, how far would it be proper?”
–Ramachandra Shukla
(History of
Hindi Literature Hindi-Sahitya-ka Itihas;
N. P. Sabha,
Hindi
criticism even today suffers from this kind of prose-poem-like loose style. It
is more of a figurative word-play than real
contribution to sophisticated critical thought. I would supplement my statement
with several illustrations from articles on or about literary criticism in
reference books, critical journals and in Ph. D. theses. The examples given
below are so telling that they hardly need any further comments:
1.
In an article surveying Hindi criticism in Hindi Sahitya
Kosh, edited by several scholars and published by
Gyan Mandal Limited,
“Reflective
criticism started with Ramachandra Shukla….His prefaces of Jayasi
Granthavali (1922), Tulasi
Granthavali are examples of scientific study...In
the second quarter of the twentieth century Western educational system, study
of Hindi in higher classes, growing expressiveness of language and
personalities of Ramachandra Shukla
and Shyamsundardas developed criticism in a new
way...the first form adopts the model of R. Shukla...the
second is found in the theses for D. Phil, Ph. D. and D. Litt.
There is insistence on serious study, objective
viewpoint, original interpretation of facts and intellectual analysis. It is
found on language and linguistics, on history of literature, on form of poetry,
on some poet or author, folk literature, etc.
“Third form, in which a special work of a poet is studied in
detail. Deep observation is done on Dhwani,
Shabda, Pankti (line),
verse, effect and all that. Bhagavatsharan Upadhyaya’s Nurjahan is
of this type.
“The
fourth form is where the characters in the object of criticism throw light on
their defects. Nagendra’s essay on Hindi Upanyas (Hindi novel) and Narottamprasad
Nagar’s Shuturmurg
Puran are of this type.
“The
fifth form is of progressive criticism in which Marxist principles are applied.
The work and author are evaluated on real social life and its welfare. Manmathnath Gupta and Ramendra Varma’s Katheker Premchandra is such a work.
“The
sixth form is of those critiques which are based on Eastern and Western
sciences of literary criticism and their synthesis. Shivanath’s
Acharya Ramachandra
Shukla and Nagendra’s Sumitranandan Pant, etc., are of this type.
“The
seventh is book review published in fortnightly, quarterly or monthly journals
which introduce briefly the exterior and interior of the book.”
This
profound statement is by a learned professor in a reference work for serious
scholars.
2.
Here is another specimen of another reference book Sankshipt
Oxford Hindi Sahitya Paricheyak
(Concise Oxford Campanion to Hindi Literature)
edited by Gangaram Garga,
published by O. U. P. in 1963. On page 297 there is a brief note on Samalochana (criticism). It has the following
statements:
“Previously
judgments on literature were passed by pithy poetic couplets like ‘Sur Sur, Tulasi Sasi, Udugan
Keshavadas’ (Surdas is
Sun, Tulasidas is Moon, Keshavadas
is the stars ‘Nandadas Jadiya,
aur Kavi gadiya’ (Nandadas is a real
ornament maker, rest of the poets are just fake). Criticism meant fault
finding. But real literary criticism according to Gulabrai
is: 1. Judicial 2. Inductive 3. Historical
4. Psychological. (Nagendra,
‘Agyeya’ etc., try to reach the depth of human mind).
5. Comparison 6. Impressionistic….Nowadays Marxist criticism is also in
fashion. Progressive critics attach more importance to
farmers and workers, the material needs of the depressed and oppressed, rather
than care for art. Under such critics Rahul Sankrityayan, Shivadansingh Chauhan, Rambitar Sharma, Prakashchandra Gupta and Bhagavatsharan
Upadhyaya can be classed.” This introduction is
followed by a column of arbitrary catalogue of works.
Here
are some examples of Ph. D. theses.
3.
Jagannadha Prasad Sharma
had written a work Hindi ki Gadya-Shaili
ka Vikas (Development of Hindi Prose style). In
its preface the guide Ramachandra Shukla
wrote in 1929: “In this book no special criteria has been used. Different
entertaining styles of authors have been explained...The critic has tried to
elucidate the special qualities of different writers. Yet I find the same
conventional and traditional terminology being used here and there. In my
opinion the reason is the want of proper words expressing the subtle
nuances and shades of meaning. We hope that this paucity will be remedied with
better use of language.” (Page 4, Introduction. Publisher: Indian Press Ltd., Allahabad)
What
Ramachandra Shukla wrote 39
years ago continues to be the main defect of Hindi critical writing.
4.
A thesis named Adhunik Hindi-sahitya men Samalochana ka vikas (Development of Criticism in modern Hindi
Literature by Dr. Venkat Sharma, with an introduction
by Dr. Nagendra, published in 1962 by Atmaram and Sons, Delhi).
In
the introduction Dr. Nagendra says: “In the beginning
there is a discussion of Indian and Western principles of poetics affedting Hindi criticism, which is not original yet is
clean and not unconnected with the subject.” In this tome of 510 pages 138
pages are devoted as introduction to vague subjects like ‘Life, literature and
criticism’, ‘Modern time spirit and Hindi Literature’, etc., including a
history of Sanskrit poetics and Western criticism from Plato to Caudwell. There are 13 pages devoted to Dr. Nagendra. I have been dismissed in a paragraph giving a
misquotation torn out of context from my statement in Tar-saptak. On page 443-444, giving summary judgment that “Machwe is illogical and talks irrelevently.”
No doubt, this work is full of such contradictions and redundant material.
5.
Another thesis entitled Adhunik Hindi Alochana: Ek Adhyayan by Dr. Makkhanlal
Sharma (Published by Sahitya Prakashan, Delhi; date
nowhere mentioned) has in its body of 401 pages first 100 pages devoted to Chapter
1–Marxism and its main principles. Chapter 2 –Criticism in Soviet
Russia before Revolution–Contemporary Russian criticism, Chinese criticism–10
pages of criticism in other countries (these pages deal with Caudwell and Lukaes only). From
chapter three the political and social history of Indian renaissance is dealt
with and in dealing with Bharatendu Harishchandra, Chou young: The
Path of socialist literature and Art in China is freely quoted. While talking
of Pratapnarayan Mishra,
Mao-tse- Tung is
remembered. Marx and Engels are going hand in hand
with Balakrishna Bhatt.
This work is an ideal example of historical confusion under the name of
historical materialism.
On
page 251 writing about Dr. Nagendra this thesis
writer says–“Humanism is the main principle of progressive viewpoint. Marx’s
philosophy is to protect this humanism. Nagendraji
does not accept the narrow definition of humanist viewpoint, but gives its
importance on a wider level. He has combined social good and social welfare
with this viewpoint. “In the beginning I had a certain aversion to moral
values, because I thought them against the value of pleasure (Anand). But today it is not so. There is no contradiction
in (social) good and pleasure, but there is a close relationship.” (Saptalik Hindustan 26 August 1962, p. 24) Any student
of elementary ethics would understand the illogicality and irreconcilability of
utilitarianism and headonism, or even physical
welfare and spiritual bliss.
In
conclusion this thesis writer proves Dr. Nagendra to
be basically a progressive critic, on the practical level. This work is a very
good example of undigested Marxism and vulgar sociology.
6.
In a work entitled Hindi Kavya ki
Pravrittryan (Published by Rajkamal
Prakashan, date not given) containing articles by me
on Mysticism, by Jagadish Gupta on chayavad (Romanticism), by Vijaya Chauhan on Progressivism
(not mentioning a single poet but talking about Rambilas
Sharma’s vulgar sociological analysis of Bharatendu, Premchand, etc.) and by. Namwarsingh
on Prayogavad
(Experimentalism), a few opinions of the last essay are worth quoting. I
quote from page 49-50. Namwarsingh is talking about Tar-saptak.
“The images of these poets were broken, indistinct, idiom was anarchic, the verse-rhythm sounded echoing distant foreign lands. But all poets were not in mental delirium. Such anguish was in Nirala, Agyeya, Muktibodh and Nemichandra. It was poignant in Shamsher and Raghuvir Sahae....There were poets like Girijakumar Madhur and Prabhakar Machwe who were bohemian and did not have any deep feeling of pain. They were absorbed in the external attractive atmosphere. Such playful poets had ample leisure to experiment –Mathur with sound-pictures, Machwe with word-pictures and reading several books. They experimented for experiments’ sake. Many experimentalists of the earlier days joined the progressive camp. Muktibodh and Girijakumar Mathur’s change is obvious. If anybody remained where he was or even retreated, they were Nemichandra and Bharatbhushan.”
These
lines are written just ten years ago which the editor of Alochana
(compare Editorial April, June 1967) will not like to repeat or even own.
In any case ‘progressives’ criticism is based on constant self-cancellation.
Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and his successors have been doing it continuously.
Dr. Namwarsingh should publish his ‘neo-revisionist’
opinions for the benefit of those who may only read his previous works.
This
much about critics who acclaim scientific and modern outlook about dialectics
and analytical perspectives, etc.
7.
Another example of such a progressively changing opinion-expression in an
impressionistic fashion is seen in Prof. Prakashchandra
Gupta’s article on Jainendra (novelist), published in
Hans, October, 1938. On page 38-39 he writes:
“Jainendra is a revolutionary writer of Hindi. He has
heavily attacked traditional customs. He is busy in the search of simple,
clean, attractive life. But probably he is not able to see his way clearly
through this darkness...Jainendra the artist is today
fully mastering his creative powers. In future Hindi expects much from him.
Reaching the midday, this constellation would brighten our universe.”
8.
Sri Banarasidas Chaturvedi
wrote in one of his editorials of Visal Bharat in
March 1935, commenting on “College teachers and the literary field” (P. 388)
“Who
will do this work of impartial criticism? This work is not of multi-purpose
journalists, nor of cowardly writers without means. To be poor is not bad, and
those who can keep themselves away from such temptations of
wealth are worth our reveration; but
in poverty many people have to compromise. But if our college professors like,
they can easily do this work of criticism. They have ample time and they need
not depend on any one person for their living....But how many professors have
the daring to give their independent Judgment? These people see biggest
literary atrocities and keep dumb. The result is that a majority of these
professors are not able to create their independent personalities. If they like
they can become the custodians of the soul of our literature.”
Poor
Banarasidas’s idealistic dream remained an idle
fancy. Thirty-three years have passed, twenty out of them of our political
independence, but very few Professor-critics have developed that ‘yea-saying’,
as Niekzsche would have called it. The risk of
telling truth is hardly taken by many of them. They prefer goodie-goodie
remarks and safe playing and avoid all scientific methodology involving
sharpness and self analysis. To exemplify this kind of tendency let me take an
M. A. dissertation submitted to Kashi Vidyapeeth on Prayogavad
aur Agyeya by Shailbita Shrivastava, published
in Upalabdhi No. 3, Hindi Department, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi-2 in
December 1967. She comments on page 53 quoting Agyeya
the necessity of ‘experimenting in fields which are untouched and unchartered’. “In fact, this new field of search is nothing
but sex taboos of the individual.” She quotes Ramadherisingh
‘Dinkar’ from an article in Dharmayuga
dated 20, March 1966 that he believes that intellectualism of new poetry is
in reality indulgence in sensualism; and comments –“Truly
speaking rationalism supports bohemeanism or
hedonism.” She concludes on page 61 :
“In
reality experimentalism was born because of psychology. In his experimentalism Agyeya has also expressed ‘Psychoanalysis’. The major
portion of his poetry is the expression of the unconscious. Expression of the
unconscious is surely a new and experimental tendency. Agyeya
had to do experiments with language and the technique because the traditionally
current technique and language is insufficient to express the external reality
in the objects. And then Agyeya had to express the
unconscious internal reality. So he did many experiments with technique and
language along with objects.”
Such
incoherent statements are found everywhere in M.A. these and Ph. D. theses,
which are also published and reveal only the fact that
probably the ‘guides’ of these students do not know much about extra-literary
disciplines like psychology or sociology in which they
indulge. Banarasidas Chaturvedi’s
idealist teachers are now mere exceptions, if not a fiction.
9.
Sri ‘Sahridaya’ writes in Parishad
Patrika, Vol. 4, No. 3, quoted in Gyanpeeth Patrika, December
1964 on page 55:
“Who will not
be delighted by the light of the development of the national language Hindi is
spreading on all sides like the moon in the bright fortnight? Today 40
universities are conducting research in ‘doctorate’ for Hindi. A research
scholar spends at least three years in submitting a thesis. Sometimes a student
takes five years. According to figures we have, till 1962, 539 research theses
in Hindi were completed. Within last two years at least two hundred more have
been added to it. The language which has in such a short time so many research
theses prepared in such a short time, would have hundreds of theses prepared in
next five years. But very few from amongst these see the light of the day. 80
per cent theses are unpublished. On whom would lie the responsibility of their
publication: the researcher or the university? It seems that these universities
are also vying with each other in producing such ‘doctors.’ Further there is an
appeal to U. G. C. to make funds available for such publication.
10.
A recent publication of a thesis is Hindi sahitya ko kurmachal ki
den by Dr. Bhagatsingh, published by National
Publishing House, Jawaharnagar, Delhi-7 (October
1967, price Rs. 30). The dedication of the thesis is
to the late wife of the Guru with a photograph. The thesis of 424 pages and
neatly divided in ‘What is Kurmachal (the hilly area
near Himalayas), and its literary tradition. Further there are sections devoted
to poets of Kurmachal, novelists of Kurmachal, dramatists of Kurmachal,
etc., and then names and works and detailed introductions. Under Critics of Kurmachal, a book Gadya-path
by Sumitranandan Pant is introduced in the
following terms. On page 361, the following two paras
are consecutive:
“The
poet pant studied Freud besides Marx and reached to this conclusion that India
cannot progress if she sticks to the medieval feudal culture. The poet protests
vehemently against the medieval cultural belief that woman is not
a respectable human being but merely a sexual instrument–
“In reality we have to throw away branch and root this so
called banyan tree with its roots in the upper region of medieval culture and
get rid of this darkness.”
“Pantji wrote in the introduction to uttara–“We
are so much influenced by this Western ideology that we do not want to
see the face of our ancient culture with high spiritual values.” In turning
Pant to Indian culture Gandhi and Aurobindo have a
great philosophical contribution. Pant writes–“I think
truth and non-violence are the two basic ingredients of my concept of culture.”
Such
self-contradictory and irreconcilable statements are non-chalantly
repeated in several theses and nobody thinks that there is anything wrong or
unsophisticated in such illogicalities.
11.
Another thesis recently awarded a D. Litt. by Delhi
University is Rasa Siddhant aur
Soundarya Shastra by
Dr. Ninnala Jain (Published
by National Publishing House, Delhi- 7, March, 1967; pages 475). This thesis
has such interesting combinations:
Chapter 1: Comparative
Aesthetics–Beginning and
development–Anand
Kumaraswami –Pravas Jivan
Choudhari–Kanti–chandra
Pandey–R.
Noli–Sudan Langer–Van
Meter Emis –Archy J. Barn–Krishna
Chaitanya–Thomas
Munro–conclusion. (pages 1 to 20)
Chapter 2: History
of Rasa–Bharat...Natya-shastra...Bhoj (beginning
of 11th century)–Modern age–Revival
of Rasa Siddhanta–conclusion. (pages 20 to 44)
Any
student of philosophy and history of aesthetics would easily find out the
fallacy of bundling all kinds of thinkers together without any clear cut
logical categorization. Two quotations selected on random sample basis would
corroborate the unsophistication throughout this
jumble of quotations arranged in a jig saw puzzle fashion; On page 41, she
writes:
“In
re-interpretation the most modern contribution is of Dr. Nagendra
in his Rasa-Siddhant which is logical
re-statement of scientific beliefs and a presentation of a comprehensive
coordination as far as possible of all opinions about Rasa. Though there is no
mention of the creative aspect of poetry and the special concepts of Rasa-Siddhant about the authority and connoisseur (adhikari) of poetry in this work, yet there is complete
discussion of Rasa from the viewpoint of the enjoyment of poetry. Dr. Nagendra’s thought process synthesises
the about Rasa of Ramachandra Shukla
and Prasad. Prasadji had
given a definition of Rasa on the basis of philosophy; Dr. Nagendra
has given it a psychological basis. Thus he has accepted Shuklaji’s
basis and interpretation of Prasadji.”
On
page 265 the same thesis-writer comments;
“Dr.
Nagendra has believed on the basis of experience as
logical though the analysis of feeling in Sanskrit does not quite fit in
properly with modern psychology.”
What
do such statements mean–only the researcher and her guide (who is Dr. Nagendra himself) alone can understand. The work is full of
such sweeping generalizations about foreign and Indian scholars of aesthetics.
No Hindi modern critic or poet has been mentioned, though the latest American
and European scholars are quoted ad naseum. In
any case they won’t contradict as they don’t know Hindi and this work will be
hardly translated in English or would be acceptable to any modern,
sophisticated scholarship in this field in the West. The very impatience to
juxtapose and show similarities in the Western modern thought on aesthetic
psychology and Sanskrit poetics, at least eight centuries old, is denying the
basic assumption that human reason and scientific thinking has advanced in this
historical process. This eclectic attempt of finding something similar in Abhinavagupta and I. A. Richards is not peculiar to this
work or critic; it is to be seen commonly in modern Hindi criticism which
passes under this garb. It shows that the scholars have had no idea whatsoever
of the history of scientific thought in Western logic, philosophy and
psychology. A formidable bibliography at the appendix suggests that the scholar
has read so much, and yet what an end-product! These opinions can be compared
with B. B. Agarwal’s introduction to “Dr. Nagendra Sreshtha Nibandh.”
12.
Another source of such confusion of critical thinking springs from the
so-called Abhinandan Granths
in Hindi. Only this language takes great pride in such tomes full of
meaningless tributes, panygeries and hyperbolic
flattery. I have three works of this type, recently published, before me:
1.
Dr. Ramakumar Varma Visheshank of Kaumudi
(Hindi Parishad, Allahabad;
date not given but was received by me in 1966)
2.
Acharya Kishoridas
Vajpai - Vyaktitva aur Krititva (Edited by Ramdharisingh Dinkar and Hazari Prasad Dwivedi;
published by Vajpai Abhinandan
Samiti; 36, Varanasi Ghosh Street, Calcutta 7, December
1961)
3.
Sri Yashpal Abhinandan Granth (Punjabi Vibhag, Pepsu, Partiala, 1956.)
Added
to these are the two special numbers of the most popular monthly amongst Hindi
examinees–Sahitya-Sandesh: Babu Gulabrai Suruthriti
Ank, (July, August 1963) and Bachchan Special Number(November, December 1967). A
detailed analysis of all such works would require more space, but I resist the
temptation by giving some random quotations from these works, which would prove
how jejune, puerile and unscientific modern Hindi critics are. All these
quotations are from very respectable scholars and critics. I give no comments,
but literal translations.
Dr. Ramkumar Varma on page 185 in his
article on ‘Research’: “In every research thesis conclusion is very essential.
It is the consumation of all the thinking of the
research scholar. In story technique whatever is the importance of climax,
conclusion has same value in research-technique. After analysing
the object, the healthy and conscious process of logic concentrates itself on a
point of achievement–it is conclusion. This conclusion sheds new light on
whatever has been propounded. In short, the relaxation point curiosity is
conclusion. The more scientific the mode of presention,
the more powerful will be the conclusion.
Dr.
Rambilas Sharma writes about Kishoridas
Vajpai’s Shabdanushasan
on page 94: “Books on grammar and philology are generally uninteresting (Nirasa). The more difficult the subject is, the more it is
made so to appear just to impress others by one’s scholarship. But Vajpaiji had made his book very interesting. There are
pieces from folk-songs. The style is decorated by similies.
Humour and satire have dressed his style. He did not
change his style in spite of the insistance of Sabha (Nagari Pracharini
Sabha had commissioned Vajpai
to produce a scientific grammar.) We think it was very good. He had made the
book useful to common people.”
Dr.
Nagendra on Yashpal on page
21–“Sri Yashpal is amongst those thoughtful writers
in Hindi whose genius has been helpul through his
essays and stories in inspiring the reader with social consciousness. Thinking
process of his essays throw light with a special viewpoint on contemporary problems.
He has attacked old beliefs in his vehement satirical essays. Though they are
ruthless yet they do not lack the feeling of social good...Yashpal
is amongst those story-writers of Hindi whose transparent insight exposes
different levels of society, different aspects of life and the secret mental
tendencies of human mind.”
4.
Prof. Prakashchandra Gupta on Babu
Gulabrai on page 75 – “Babuji
was the editor of Sahitya Sandesh in which he wrote editorial notes. In his
criticism there were the qualities of fearlessness and frankness, which aroused
respect in the readers,”
5.
Acharya Vinayamohan Sharma
writes on Bachchen–“Bachchen has completed sixty
years of his life...when he saw his milieu and observed that many of his
companions are playing with word and solving puzzles. He also wanted to justify
his name (Bachchen means child). So he joined them.
Plus
one
Minus
one
Join
and becomes zero
Poem
one
Anti-poem
one
Join
and two poems infants O!
“Friends
asked–what has happened to the popular poet Bachchen,
that he is just playing with words?” I said, “Brother, he has become sixty. But
thinks that he has achieved second childhood. Let his poetry remain eternally
young.”
–Head
of the Department of Hindi, Kurukshetra University.
Here
are a few more gems of such loose thinking and unsophisticated critical writing
on which comments are unnecessary:
1.
In Kavyashastra by Dr. Bhagirath Mishra (Published by Viswavidyalaya Prakashan, Varanasi, third edition, 1966) on p. 11 here is a passage:
“Famous
poet Coleridge has said that ‘Poetry is best words in
their best order.’ Now the question arises which are the best words and what is
the best order? The words which give the best meaning like heaven, gold,
flower, beauty, nectar, etc., are best words. In such case death, slime, hell,
etc., are bad words and they should be banished from poetry. But such words and
their equivalents are freely used in poetry. The first line of Thomas Grey’s
elegy “the curfew tolls the knell of parting day” has ‘knell’, ‘parting’ etc.,
which cannot be said to be best words. Similarly in poet Beni’s
line Michu to bhali
hai pai na
kich Lucknow ki (Death is better not the slime of Lucknow) there are two words ‘Death’ and ‘slime’ which are odius. But these words are the very soul of this line. So
this definition is not useful.”
Dr.
Gobindram Sharma in his Hindi Sahitya
aur uski Pramukh Pravritiyan (1968
edition, p. 380) writing about the inevitability of content and from (Bhavapaksha aur kalapaksha ki Lachari) there is this sentence–“An
experimentalist is busy in the search of new experiments, so
he is not able to beautify and simplify the subject or content of his poetry.”
In
Dr. Gopaldatta Saraswat’s
thesis on Tradition and Experiment in Modern Hindi poetry (Adhunik Hindi Kavyamen Parampara tatha Prayoga; Saraswati prakashan Mandir, Allahabad) in one chapter the sub-headings
are as follows:
“Chapter
VIlI: Experiment in the expression of feelings–Love
about nature, Love for the non-personal, experiment in the field of humour...experiment in the field of the heroic (Vir-Rasa), experiment in the field of the tragic (Karuna-Rasa), experiment in the field of horror (Raudra-Rasa...)” etc.
4.
Another thesis on “the contribution of women in the development of Hindi
short-story” (Hindi Katha Sahitya
ke Vikasa men mahilaonka Yoga-dan by Dr. Urmila Gupta; Radhakrishna Prakashan, Delhi) is in two volumes, in the case of every
short-story writer the sub-headings (plot, characterization, dialogue, time and
locale, purpose, style, conclusion) are mechanically used again and again like
a Procrustes’s Bed. As if the short-story writing
women had nothing to contribute beyond this stale categorization, nor does the researcher
care to know anything more but filling in the boring details.
On page 30 it is said about the first short-story in Hindi Dutaiwali
that “on the modern and contemporary criteria of short stories, this story
can be proved to be the best in its interesting plot, psycho-analytical
characterization and style full of satire.”
5.
Hindi Alochana ke Adhara stambha (Basic pillars
of Hindi criticism) Edited by Dr. Rameshwarlal Khandelwal and Dr. Sureshchandra
Gupta. This book is a compilation of representative critical essays of Ramachandra Shukla, Nandadulare Vajpai, Hazariprasad Dwivedi and Dr. Nagendra, with a longish introduction by the editors trying
to present a study on the contribution of these critics. But in this
introduction from page 9 to page 64 nowhere have the editors shown how many
conceptual words have these critics contributed to Hindi. Their achievement and
speciality can be assessed only on the basis of this
study. This book is prescribed for the post-graduate students in several
universities.
Dr.
Asha Gupta’s thesis Khari
Boli Kavya men Abhiyanjana Expression in Khari
Boli poetry) has seven chapters. In each one of them
poetry has been observed through the usual categories of
Vocabulary, Suggestion ( Dhwani,) Metre,
Figures of speech, etc. And examples have been found out to fit in these
groups. Nowhere does the research scholar even touch the
problems of expression before these poets.
Many
more examples can be added to this kind of fault-finding, for which one need
not do any ‘research.’ Pick up any printed Hindi thesis from any university and
take any random sample survey, all the faults mentioned and suggested
above can be easily found. The tragedy in that is their hurry to get a degree,
neither the students, nor research scholars, nor their so-called guides and
even big well-placed ‘critics’ care to (or shall I say, dare to) point out a
single illogicality or unscientific categorization or exercize
any quality Control. There is a convenient ‘Conspiracy of silence’ reigning in
this field. And any person who cares for any objective assessment or
fact-finding can be easily dubbed as an opponent of the national language and
hence a traitor.
I
have no ready-made solutions to this sad state of affairs. But what the Greek
philosopher long ago said seems to be true here
too; First educate the educators. That anybody and everybody who has an
M. A. degree and teaching M. A. classes should be automatically
authorized to conduct research, is a fallacy. Today many a half-ripe
self-styled research guides are producing a number of immature students. I have
heard cases where lady-candidates are questioned about whether they know the
art of cooking or have been asked to read a passage from their own thesis and
given pass-marks in viva voce. I do not doubt the good intentions
of these chivalrous or Hindi-patronizing gentlemen, examiners and their
kind-heartedness. But critical acumen of any language is hardly enriched in
this fashion. Will university heads of Hindi departments ever do any
heart-searching and self-criticism? It is high time they did, otherwise, after
10 years, all this junk publication will be thrown to winds.