‘THE TRIPLE STREAM’

K. RAMAKOTISWARA RAU

After four centuries

The fourth centenary of the birth of Shakespeare is being celebrated not only in English-speaking lands but wherever great poetry is prized. Shakespeare was nurtured in the post-Renaissance atmosphere of England, when the artistic and literary genius of a rising nation seemed to find its loftiest expression in the drama of the age of Elizabeth. The Virgin Queen had established the primacy of England as a sea-power, and the adventures of daring seamen were admired, in courtly circles, quite as much as the poetry of Spenser or Shakespeare. It was the patronage of the noblemen of the Court which lent prosperity and prestige to the playwrights and the actors. But the drama soon became a national institution by winning the hearts of the ‘groundlings’ too, though these held an inconspicuous place in the earliest phases. They soon gained as much importance as the Athenian populace in the time of Pericles, who thronged the open-air theatres.

The themes which Shakespeare fancied were taken mostly from the medieval Italian romances which were the common possession of Europe and passed on to England with the high-tide of the Renaissance. Barring the series of plays dealing with the history of England for some centuries, the comedies and the tragedies reflect the lives of men in far-flung places in France, Italy, Sicily and Egypt. When we speak of Shakespeare as ‘myriad-minded’ and praise him for the ‘universal’ nature of his appeal to successive generations in different countries, we have in mind this selection of stories, and of characters bearing the distinctive traits of many realms. These divergences do not, however, obscure the essential ‘humanness’ which crowns his dramatic art. His imagination scales the heights and sounds the depths of our inmost being. The fatal indecision of Hamlet, the overweening ambition of Macbeth, and the benignant serenity of Prospero are all facets of this genius of Shakespeare which fuses all experience and transcends the bounds of nationality and language. He is the poet of humanity whom age cannot wither.

The study of Shakespeare made a great impression on the minds of Indian intellectuals gathered at University centres. It brought them into touch with a new world of thought and feeling, and when in addition to the reading of the Poet as literature they actually participated in the staging of the plays in amateur theatricals in school and college, their admiration grew. Several of the plays were translated or adapted into the Indian languages and proved a valuable contribution to the literatures of modern India. Indians had few chances of witnessing the plays as interpreted by the best English actors. But from time to time a company of strolling players from England would tour the bigger cities of India and evoke the enthusiasm of the local actors. But even without such adventitious aid, Indian actors of the stature of late T. Raghava and others set a high standard and attracted admiring audiences. The roles which appealed to most Indian audiences were Hamlet, Othello and Shylock, and Cordelia, Desdemona and Miranda. There is now a lull in this type of dramatic activity, because greater attention is being paid to plays in the Indian languages. But the celebrations now organised in India will give a fresh impetus to the staging of Shakespeare’s plays.

Even more than the staging of the plays, it is the continued and appreciative study of the plays as a necessary part of our cultural equipment that needs to be emphasised. Individual scholars in the solitude of their homes or small groups gathered in study circles may revive the interest in Shakespeare which was very pronounced during the early decades of this century. Shakespeare and Goethe, Valmiki and Kalidasa, Homer and Dante are the poets who linked heaven and earth, and raised the dignity of the human soul as it proceeds in its quest of the Divine. The best means of cultural co-operation between the nations of today is the loving study of the classics of different lands. The fourth centenary is an admirable occasion when men’s hearts may offer adoration to some of the greatest among the brotherhood of poets justly acclaimed as ‘world-poets’, whose vision embraced all humanity and who sought to break down all ‘narrow domestic walls’. Even when they deal with common men who have nothing heroic about them, these great poets emphasise those elements which are of universal import, the sense of pity and wonder which invests even the common man with the halo of a higher type of being.

Chandrasekharan, a ‘Sahridaya’

In the study and appreciation of art and letters, the sympathetic critic plays a notable role. The term ‘Sahridaya’ conveys a world of meaning to all those interested in the finer values of life. It is an indefinable feeling for whatever is good and noble which marks out the ‘Sahridaya’ from the rest of his fellows. Through criticism which is creative, he enables the artists and poets to express the best in themselves, and to pursue their vocation as creators of beauty in line and colour, in speech and song. The critic too is a member of the noble band of creative artists, in the sense that his life is lived in tune with theirs. He too has the urge to create like them. He knows the technique, and in moments of vision he can enter their charmed circle in his own right. But he seeks the wider joy of communion with artists in diverse fields, rather than complete mastery in anyone of them.

Sri K. Chandrasekharan, Advocate, Madras, whose sixty-first birthday was celebrated recently, is a connoisseur of this type. His close association with writers and societies of writers, with artists and schools of art, has enriched the cultural life of South India for many years. Second son of the eminent lawyer and patron of learning, the late V. Krishnaswami Aiyar, Chandrasekharan was brought up in surroundings which shaped his tastes and outlook as a lover of culture. He lost his father while yet a little boy, but the traditions of the household were maintained by his brother, Sri K. Balasubrahmania Aiyar, his talented sisters, and the friends who visited the ‘Ashrama’. Like many young men of those days he studied in the Presidency College and the Law College, Madras. Like them he practised law. But in law, it was the scholarly aspect that appealed to him. He delivered lectures to apprentices-at-law on recondite subjects like ‘Administrative Law in Madras’. He was on the reporting staff of the Madras Law Journal. In recent years, he has been Editor of the Madras Series of the Indian Law Reports.

But he has wider interests. The Mylapore Samskrit College founded by his father, the Samskrita Academy which he himself helped to organise, the Kalakshetra founded by Srimathi Rukmini Devi, the Tamil Writers’ Association, the Nataka Academy and the Academy of Music, are the institutions which claim his allegiance. He can sing, and, in early years, played the role of Agnimitra in Kalidasa’s play.

Writing came to him quite spontaneously. He has volumes of short stories in Tamil and critical essays to his credit. He wrote the full-length biography of his father, which has been acclaimed as first-rate by scholars like Dr. C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar. He has written extensively in English–stories, essays, literary criticism, and a history of Sanskrit Literature for the P. E. N. in collaboration with Sri H. V. Subrahmania Sastri. His latest contribution, ‘Tagore: A Master Spirit’, is a work of immense value.

His association with ‘Triveni’ dates from 1929, when he sent me his first article for the journal,–a study of F. W. Bain, the story-writer. That association has lasted all these years. As a warm-hearted friend, who lavishes affection without being demonstrative, he has guided me through the many crises in the career of the journal. He and the late Justice V. Govindarajaa chari regarded ‘Triveni’ as their pet-child and spared no pains to set it on its feet with the co-operation of the elite of Mylapore. Chandrasekharan’s companionship has been, to me, like a welcome gift of the gods, spreading sunshine where darkness lay around, bringing solace when sadness seemed to envelope me.

Dr. C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar presided over the meeting held in Ranade Hall, Mylapore, to felicitate him, and Srimathi Rukmini Devi unveiled his portrait. A few days later Dr P. V. Rajamannar presided over a meeting in the Sanskrit College. I could not be present at this round of festivities. But I dwelt over again in memory, the many happy moments spent in his company, his delightful conversation, and in his lighter moments his mimicry of the big men of an earlier generation.

Chandrasekharan is only sixty; I am ten years older. I hope fervently that in the coming years he will occupy his rightful place as a savant of the type of Dr. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy.

Whither Kashmir?

Sri M. C. Chagla struck the right note when he emphasised the duty of the Security Council to decide in the first instance the issue originally raised by India, that of Pakistan’s unprovoked aggression. Through all the intervening years, no effort has been made by the U.N.O. to persuade Pakistan to vacate the aggression. To insist on a plebiscite or some other alternative method of ascertaining the wishes of the people of Kashmir at this stage, is to ignore the events that followed the initial aggression, and particularly the decisions of the Kashmir Constituent Assembly which had the enthusiastic support of Sheikh Abdullah. To disturb the status quo and to re-open the question of Kashmir’s accession to India would be to invite endless trouble. Sheikh Abdullah’s new role as mediator between India and Pakistan is confusing. He is a citizen of the Indian Union, and if the Government of India so wishes, he can serve as a member of the Indian delegation in any future negotiations between the two countries.

It is clear that Sheikh Abdullah is addressing himself to the much wider question of establishing friendly relations between the two countries, with a view to enabling them to devote their resources, economic and military, for the achievement of many-sided progress in an atmosphere of peace and mutual friendliness. India, under Nehru’s leadership, is always prepared to co-operate in any such endeavour. But the will to peace is absent in Pakistan. The oft-repeated charges of Ayub Khan and Bhutto against India as the aggressor and as a neo-Imperialist power are symptomatic of the temper of Pakistan.

If fresh elections are held in Kashmir and Azad Kashmir as a single re-United State the only issue that may properly be raised is the comparative claims of Abdullah and of Sadiq to administer the new State as an integral part of the Indian Union. It can only be a change of administration within the limits prescribed by the Indian Constitution. Any internal group may win the election and instal a new Chief Minister commanding a majority in the new Legislature. But will Abdullah agree to this?

May 14.

Back