ENGLISH LITERATURE: DECOLONISING THE INDIAN MIND - NAMVAR SINGH

ENGLISH LITERATURE: DECOLONISING THE INDIAN MIND - NAMVAR SINGH: The greatest event of world history in the 20 th century has been the event of decolonization. The process of decolonization began after ...

DECOLONISING THE INDIAN MIND - NAMVAR SINGH

The greatest event of world history in the 20^th century has been the event of decolonization. The process of decolonization began after the Second World War. This new type of literature by Indian, African and Latin American writers came to be known as “commonwealth Literature” or “New Literature” or “Post colonial Literature” or the latest name “Third World Literature”. If we look at this new literature, it is nothing but neo “Orientalism” of the post colonial age. The creative energy of the Indian/Asian writers, Namvar  feels, is in need of some distinct identity. It may be the identity of tradition or modernity, regional or national identity or the aesthetic (artistic) one of experimentalism. Before independence, the writers of the Latin American countries, had developed an attitude of militant decolonization. But after independence, they have shifted their focus to nationalist sentiments. We may or may not agree with Namvar singh when he says that the Indian literature lags behind the literatures of Africa and Latin America, especially in the genres (writing style) of the novel, the short story and drama. He feels that it is due to lack of nationalist sentiments or sheer indifference to the spirit of nationalism.

Namvar  Singh is of the view that the Indian writers in English should seek ‘identity’ in India’s past. For him, this past is something not to be contemplated, but to be felt, not only in their thinking, but should also reflect in their writings. The past should be dug up with all its roots and then felt in the blood stream. To justify his point, he cites the example of praneshacharya, the hero of ‘samskara’ by Annanthgmurthy who regarded past like the small sprout of Sarsaparilla which he pulled up by its roots in the novel in order to smell it., although he could pull up only half the length of the mother root. What he means to say is that Samskara has a deeper and clearer stamp of ‘Indianness’ as compared with Tagore’s novel ‘Gora’. It is only due to this uniqueness that western scholars and readers find more ‘Indianness’ in Samskara. The fact of matter is that it is not that Tagore  did not wish to be an Indian, but he wished to be so in his own eyes and not in the eyes of the west. Look, how Gora proudly challenges the west :

‘we shall not let our country stand like an accused in an alien court to be tried under alien law. We shall not compare ourselves point by point with some western ideal, in order to feel either shame or pride……. We do not to wish to have to prove to any one whether we are good or bad, civilized or savage (wild)…….. that we are ourselves is all we wish to feel, and feel it for all we are worth’

It is not a perfect swadeshi tone in the utterance of Gora ? where do we find such noble sentiments among the present Indian writers who think it as matter of honour to be tried before some foreign court ? these are the writers who offer proofs of their Indianness before western critics.

There is no doubt that the ultimate responsibility for seeking identity rests on the Indian writers in English and not on regional writers who write in their native tongues, like Punjabi,   Tamil, Bengali or Hindi. So Indian literature means literature written in English with its Indian ‘identity’. The tragedy with most of our Indian writers is that they think that it is by having a journey to the West that one can return to the East. The helplessness of the Indian writers is our colonial phase is understandable, as perhaps of these post colonial writers who have been travelling in the West. These so called westernized English writers wish to assure their western audiences that a journey to the west is essential for attaining an Indian identity. Unless this mentality is there in their minds, the Indian literature cannot hope to recognize its real identity.   

Regards

K.K Singh

KK Sir's Classes

KK Sir's Classes

KK Sir's Classes

ENGLISH LITERATURE: BEING A WRITER IN INDIA—U.R. ANANTHMURTHY

ENGLISH LITERATURE: BEING A WRITER IN INDIA—U.R. ANANTHMURTHY: Ananthmurthy spent his childhood in Brahmin orthodox family. In his childhood he learnt Sanskrit. He learnt Kalidasa from a Brahmachari, a...

ENGLISH LITERATURE: BEING A WRITER IN INDIA—U.R. ANANTHMURTHY

ENGLISH LITERATURE: BEING A WRITER IN INDIA—U.R. ANANTHMURTHY: Ananthmurthy spent his childhood in Brahmin orthodox family. In his childhood he learnt Sanskrit. He learnt Kalidasa from a Brahmachari, a...

BEING A WRITER IN INDIA—U.R. ANANTHMURTHY

Ananthmurthy spent his childhood in Brahmin orthodox family. In his childhood he learnt Sanskrit. He learnt Kalidasa from a Brahmachari, a celibate (An unmarried person). He taught to keep away from temptation and lead a life of mortification (Strong feelings of embarrassment). He used to lie on the sand bed of the river and tried hard to reach the ultimate experience of sin and shame for his unredeemed self. He felt envious of the healthy cowherd (cowboy) boys, who indulged in an unabashed love-life that was denied to him. During those days, he was in love with a girl of the fisherman’s caste who had tattooed her hands and forehead. She appeared to him like the shakuntala of Kalidasa—the book he was reading with his Brahmachari teacher. Annanthmurthy dared not talk to that dark- complexioned girl who adorned her hair with champak flowers and carried fish on her curved waist in a basket. He even had great admiration for her way of walking. The other boys of his age talked unashamedly of their discoveries of the hidden pleasures of their bodies, but Annanthmurthy dared not speak out openly like them. Being a sensitive child, he wrote down his suppressed emotions in a diary. For writing, he was in search of words. The words fascinated him, but paradoxically, they were means of hiding rather than revealing his true self.

Once plague broke out in the town. The city school was closed, as people began to die in hundreds. The Brahmins living in agrahara were duly inoculated, but untouchables living on a hillock began to die and their thatched mud huts were set on fire. The orthodox elders were of the opinion that it was punishment, because their caste people in other parts of India had entered temples, instigated (Provoke or stir up) by Gandhi. But Annanthmurthy thought otherwise. It was clear that they died because the doctor, an upper cast man, had not gone to their huts to inoculate them as that would result in touching them. Incidentally the most beautiful girl among the untouchables suddenly disappeared. Annanthmurthy knew where she had gone. A young man from an orthodox family who had organized a make-belief army and taught the boys to parade every morning was her lover. It was this lover who eloped with this untouchable girl.

These small incidents proved a turning point in the life of the writer. His outlook broadened when he went to England and had a close look at the work of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens and Camus. He also studied Marx,  freud, Sarte when he was writing his thesis for his PHD degree. Annanthmurthy who was deeply rooted in his traditional Kannad and Sanskrit writing skills, later on realized that for a good writer it was not only essential to stick to one’s cultural root, but also to be equally exposed to the western civilization and scientific knowledge.

Annanthmurthy took inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi who on returning from South Africa chose to change his apparel and look like a low caste Indian villager. This kind of choice that Gandhi made amazed Annanthmurthy and he thought that Gandhiji was a truly critical insider. A critical insider is one who is neither sentimental, a revivalist, backward looking oriental who would think everything in the past of India, not a westernized modernizer who likes a rationalist scientist would reject the entire past of India, in an attempt to combine orientalism with modernization which was quite futile and gave rise to inauthentic modes of thought and feeling.

Annanthmurthy has a confirmed conviction that only truly critical insider, like Mahatma Gandhi, is entitled to be a good writer, if he has boundless compassion for the poor and disinherited in India and such a writer should actively and passionately engage himself with the present in ‘all its confusions of value’. He should use the rich past of this country with a passion and only then he should aspire for a creative writer in the present. 

ENGLISH LITERATURE: GHASIRAM KOTWAL

ENGLISH LITERATURE: GHASIRAM KOTWAL: Ghashiram Kotwal   is very famous in history. He was a Kanoja   Brahmin   from Aurangabad and one amongst the many who flocked to   Poona ...

GHASIRAM KOTWAL

Ghashiram Kotwal is very famous in history. He was a Kanoja Brahmin from Aurangabad and one amongst the many who flocked to Poona from all parts of India to make their fortune at service or trade. Possessed of amiable manners, a quick intelligence and an attractive appearance, he easily got an introduction to the Poona Durbar and secured the favour of Nana Phadnavis. It was then rumoured in Poona that he had a beautiful daughter named Lalita Gauri, who was the reason behind his rapid rise.

Ghashiram soon rose to power, and became the Kotwal or head of the Poona Police in 1782. He was no doubt an able and efficient officer and took great pains to improve and enlarge the Police department.

From old records we find that the office of Kotwal was taken from Anandrao Kashi and given to Ghashiram Savaldas in 1777. He was confirmed in office in 1782, at a fixed salary of Rupees 621 a year, including an allowance of Rs 66 for an attendant to hold his umbrella and Rs 55 for the torch bearer.

As the Kotwal of Poona, he was instructed to effect or abide by the following : —

1. Clerks and peons employed at the Kotwal’s office should not be removed without

the consent of Sar-Amin who was appointed by the Government.

2. Two new Police posts should be established in Narayan Peith and Shaniwar Peith,

as owing to want of sufficient Police posts offences in those parts were not detected.

3. The duties of the office should be carried on honestly and in conformity with the established practice.

4. Roads should be kept in good order. New verandahs and sheds, if constructed without permission after the Great Fire in the city, should be pulled down.

5. Information should be regularly collected in each Peith regarding conspirators coming into the city and the Government should be informed about their movements.

6. Proper arrangements should be made to keep watch at night, thefts should be detected carefully, and offenders sent to Government for trial.

7. Seventy-eight peons, at a cost of Ks. 310 per year (11 months), were attached to the office and expenses to be incurred should be as sanctioned by the Government.

8. Married women should not be given permission to become prostitutes.

Ghashiram had three officers under him, each for three different departments entrusted to the care of the Kotwal. The Mujumdar wrote out the writs and deeds, another officer kept the registers, and the third was the head revenue officer. The salary of these three officers amounted to Rs. 640 per year.

In Ghashiram’s time, there were six Police stations in the City known as Chabutras : —

1. The Kotwal Chavdi

2. The Somwar Police Station

3. Vetal Police Station

4. Aditwar Police Station

5. Narayan Peith Police Station

6. Shanwar Police Station

The income from all these Police stations was about 25,000 rupees per year. With the growth of the population in the city, the limited number of Police guards was found to be insufficient, and in 1789, 25 more Police guards were created at a cost of Rs 3,500. It was estimated that Ghashiram had a charge over a force of about 115 Police constables which number was increased in subsequent years as necessity arose.

It is interesting to note the offences for which fines were imposed : —

·         Becoming prostitutes without the permission of Government.

·         Concealing an offence.

·         Possessing intestate property without informing Government.

·         Disobeying Government orders knowingly.

·         Killing goats without permission.

·         Interring an unclaimed body without Kotwal’s permission.

·         False complaint for adultery.

·         Passing counterfeit coin.

·         Drinking ( the number of accused persons was 40 only ).

·         Concealing one’s caste.

·         Dining with caste people though excommunicated.

·         Dining at the hands of a person of a lower caste.

·         Following the profession of a pimp.

·         Abortion.

·         Purchasing girls for prostitution without permission.

·         Indecent assaults on women.

·         Kidnaping women, children and slaves.

·         Theft.

·          Adultery.

·         Remarrying during the lifetime of a husband.

·         Living with one’s own wife after divorcing her.

·         Disputes regarding commercial transactions.

·         Engaging in the service of Kolis, possibly for political reasons.

It can be easily noticed that offences for sexual immorality were the most prevalent, which will partially accounts for the unpopularity of Kotwal Ghashiram. The social corruption that prevailed in Poona at this period must have allowed full scope for the lower propensities of an adventurer like Ghashiram, who became oppressive and high-handed in conduct, largely on account of the support and favour he enjoyed of Nana Phadnavis.

This creation of his own environment exhibited misdeeds that brought about his end in a most pitiable and cruel way.

Captain Moor, on the authority of Sir Charles Malet, narrates the incident in the following terms : —

” In the year 1791, a period when political parties had caused much animosity in the court and city of Poona, a Brahman, named Gahun ca-Rama, commonly pronounced Gaunsaram, a native of Aurungabad, of the tribe of Gour, warmly patronized by Nana Furnavese, the minister, held the office of Kutwal, and executed it with great ability, activity, and zeal.

” Toward the end of the month of August of that year, a large party of convivial Brahmans had separated rather late; and thirty-four of them remaining in the streets beyond the regular time after the firing of Bamboora gun, were taken up by the police, and put in the place allotted for such defaulters ; and in the morning twenty-one of them were found dead, and the rest scarcely alive.

” It did not appear that the Kutwal knew even of their imprisonment until the morning when the catastrophe was unhappily discovered ; his officers had performed their usual duty in their usual way ; still the clamour against Gaunsaram was excessive, and at length rose to such a pitch, that the unfortunate Kutwal is said to have sought refuge in the Peshwa‘s palace. But even here, in a Brahmanical and royal sanctuary, he was not safe ; and the Peshwa, yielding to his fears, gave up the unhappy man into the hands of the frantic mob, headed by a number of Telingae : of which tribe were the unfortunate sufferers.

” In his prosperity, the respectable Gaunsaram had built a handsome temple and dug a fine tank, close to the city, to which they are highly useful and ornamental ; and hither was the victim dragged, with every species of indignity : he was bound, and the cord was held by a man of the tribe of Bungi (the basest of the Hindus, being employed in moving carrion, night-soil, etc.), and thus amid the revilings of infuriate devils, he was dragged, with every species of ignominy, and by the hands of Brahman, of the Telinga sect was stoned to death, hard by his own munificient donation.

” This sad event occurred on the 31st August 1791, and was seen in part by my deceased and lamented friend Dr. Findlay, Surgeon to out legation at Poona ; who also saw the mangled corpse. I was not there at the time, but have often passed the spot so suited to melancholy, although, perhaps, not unprofitable, sensations. Sir Charles Malet, and Mr. Uhthoff, were at Poona and were much affected by so deplorable an event.”

Ghashiram met his end in such a cruel and detestable manner, but it may be said to his credit that with all his defects he well regulated the Poona Police and established a new Peith, known as Nawapura, to the east of Bhawani Peith, and built a tank and a garden on the road to Hadapsar.

Regards

K.K SINGH

ENGLISH LITERATURE: SHADOW LINES

ENGLISH LITERATURE: SHADOW LINES: The Shadow Lines – Significance of the title The novel ‘ The Shadow Lines ’ by Amitav Ghosh centers around a young boy, the narrator, wh...

SHADOW LINES

The Shadow Lines – Significance of the title

The novel ‘The Shadow Lines’ by Amitav Ghosh centers around a young boy, the narrator, whose growth in age and maturity is traced slowly through his understanding of the memories that connect him and his family members. Through the book, we watch him move backwards and forwards in time as bits and pieces of stories, both half-remembered and imagined, come together in his mind until he arrives at an intricate, interconnected picture of the world where borders and boundaries mean nothing, mere shadow lines that we draw dividing people and nations.

The title ‘The Shadow Lines’ is the author’s commentary on the artificial nature of cultural, ideological, geographical and psychological borders, which he asks us to disregard in favour of a broader humanism. The titular ‘shadow lines’ can refer to many different things, but I believe the fundamental allusion he makes is to the borders that separate nations from each other.

Division between Nations -  shadow lines

Amitav Ghosh asserts that the borders that separate nations are nothing more than artificial lines created by men. Thus, the ‘shadow lines’ of the title are the borders that divide people, and one of the main emphases of the novel is on the arbitrariness of such cartographic demarcations.

Why are these lines ‘shadowy’ then? Because like shadows, they lack substance, they lack meaning. Ghosh believes that these ‘shadow lines’, these meaningless borders, can and should be crossed – if not physically, then at least mentally through our imagination and through open-minded acceptance of people, irrespective of nationality, religion or race.

In the novel, the lives of the narrator's family have been irrevocably changed as a consequence of Bengal's Partition between India and Pakistan at the time of Independence and the subsequent experience of the East Pakistan Civil War of 1971, which led to the creation of Bangladesh. Towards the end, when members of the family are about to undertake a journey from Calcutta to their former home in Dhaka, the narrator's grandmother asks whether she will be able to see the border between India and East Pakistan from the plane. She is puzzled when told that there will be no such visible demarcation and says: “But if there aren't any trenches or anything, how are people to know? I mean, where's the difference then? And if there's no difference both sides will be the same; it'll be just like it used to be before, when we used to catch a train in Dhaka and get off in Calcutta the next day . . .”
This ingenuous response on her part highlights the absurdity of the revisionist map-making of the politicians responsible for Partition. Because the truth is that there really is no difference between this side of the border and that. There’s nothing concrete about these borders for they only exist in maps and in our minds.

Things that transcend borders; that determine where the real lines between people actually exist

Hatred and Violence

In proof of the meaninglessness of borders, the author gives us a glimpse of the reactions that shook Dhaka and Bengal on their separation. There was a striking similarity in the pattern of fear, mutual hatred and violence that gripped the two nations – only, the collective crimes were perpetrated on the opposite country’s people. Thus, the division, the lines of demarcation actually brings the people of the two countries closer together through the mirroring of the people’s reactions and through the similar and tragic deaths on both sides. In their mutual but laterally inverted reactions of violence, the two countries proved how much the same they were.

The narrator realizes the futility of this incessant line-drawing by the politicians, for it never actually manages to separate anything or anyone but only provokes mindless acts of violence that in fact highlight the sameness of human emotions and perceptions, no matter which side of the border people are: “They had drawn their borders, believing in that pattern, in the enchantment of lines, hoping perhaps that once they had etched their borders upon the map, the two bits of land would sail away from each other . . . What had they felt, I wondered, when they discovered that they had created not a separation, but a yet-undiscovered irony - the irony that killed Tridib: the simple fact that there had never been a moment in the four-thousand-year-old history of that map, when places like Dhaka and Calcutta were more closely bound to each other than after they had drawn their lines . . .”

Concern about the same issues and expression of concern in the same way (riots in Bengal)

The narrator of the story was taught by Tridib that the borders drawn by politicians don’t really function as anything but shadows. Then what doesbind or divide people? The answer, of course, lies in the riots and the factor that gave rise to them. The narrator (and the author) found that the similarity in the reactions between people of Dhaka and Calcutta, and of Dhaka and Kashmir was proof that their tendency to care about and be concerned about the same issues in India is what binds them with each other.
He tells us: “From the evidence of the newspapers, it is clear that once the riots had started both governments did everything they could to put a stop to them . . . for the madness of a riot is a pathological inversion, but also therefore a reminder, of that indivisible sanity that binds people to each other independently of their governments. And that prior, independent relationship is the natural enemy of government, for it is in the logic of states to exist at all they must claim the monopoly of all relationships between peoples.”
Thus the narrator, through his dialectic of line, in a paradoxical way denies artificial demarcation, exposing the idea of the nation state as an illusion, an arbitrary dissection of people.

Culture and history

The narrator learns to discount the value of artificial lines or distance in the development of human relations when he “discovered that Khulna is about as far from Srinagar as Tokyo is from Beijing, or Moscow from Venice, or Washington from Havana, or Cairo from Naples.”

He goes on to explain that the real ties that bind people are culture and a shared history and not distance or artificial lines of separation. If it was lines or distance that determined how close we were to other people, then we would care as much about China as about Bangladesh, but we don’t. “Chiang Mai in Thailand was much nearer to Calcutta than Delhi is; that Chengdu in China is nearer than Srinagar is. . . Yet did the people of Khulna care at all about the fate of mosques in Vietnam and South China (a mere stone's throw away)? I doubted it. But in this other direction, it took no more than a week 

Shadow lines as basis for identity

While Tridib and the narrator do not believe in the concreteness of borders because they easily cross them with their imagination, bringing together different nations, cultures and ideals in their mind, the grandmother does firmly believe in these borders. In fact, she believes in them so fervently, perhaps defensively, that she disapproves of Ila, because Ila spent her entire life heedless of these borders, crossing them again and again in her travels to different countries.
‘ “Ila has no right to live there”, she said hoarsely. “She doesn't belong there. It took those people a long time to build that country; hundreds of years, years and years of war and bloodshed. Everyone who has lived there has earned his right to be there with blood: with their brother's blood and their father's blood and their son's blood. They know they're a nation because they've drawn their borders with blood.” ’

Sadly, most people have similar ideas about borders. These shadow lines are what they try to base their identity on. For them, shadow lines are more than just lines of demarcation, the frontiers constructed by politicians. They are to them the signifying acts that construct notions of discrete identity.

The grandmother, too, bases her identity as an Indian, as distinct from a Bangladeshi, on the lines that separate India and Bangladesh. So firmly does she believe in them that she is disappointed with the lack of tangible lines that divide the two countries. Because she derives strength in her patriotism from her belief in these lines and the supposition that her identity is bound with them, her sense of identity is also shaken.

On the other hand, Ila's belief is that her internationalism can liberate her. She wants to be free of these lines that stifle her. So she lives in London with people she believes will affect the history of the entire world, irrespective of boundaries and borders, and who, she is convinced, will free her too from these oppressive lines of demarcation. What is ironical is that the political activists with whom Ila shares her house in London “regard her as a kind of guest, a decoration almost” and "talk of her as ‘our own upper-class Marxist’ ”.

Furthermore, the striking disharmony between her intellectuality and nativity is reinforced by the following irony: it is never brought to her knowledge that her future husband “Nick Price was ashamed to be seen by his friends, walking home with an Indian”. She is thus stuck, even in London, as a stranger, those same lines that she ran away from pursuing her and marking her as an outsider. In what she centralizes as ‘here’, she is thus forced to act as an Other. For this reason, she is in no way free from the shadow lines, nor does she gain her personal freedom.

Separation in The Shadow Lines is never a clean-cut affair; it paradoxically turns out to be an extension, a continuation, something that is indivisible.

The author brings forward to us the inhuman consequences of the creation of these shadow lines of demarcation. He reveals through the riots the absurd manner in which your home can suddenly become your enemy, when those people who cannot separate their identity from their belief in these borders develop and nurture a hatred towards each other.

Thus, the novel implicitly suggests the need for coexistence and strong humanitarian ties across cultures overlooking personal, regional and political considerations. It questions the meaning of political freedom and the force of nationalism in the modern world. It asks a very important, a universal question – what is a nation? What is this great entity that nationalism serves? Does it even exist? Should it exist? And in the answers to these questions lies the key to understanding the novel.

NATIONALISM IN INDIA—BY RABINDRANATH TAGORE

Q-1-what is the real problem of India ? is there any similarity between the Indian problem and the problem faced by America ? How is India trying to solve her problems, according to Rabindranath Tagore ?

Ans—Rabindranath Tagore has his own view on the Indian nationalism. He is of the view that the real problem of this country is social and not political, as some thinkers feel. He says that politics has always dominated the western ideals. Politics has always been the cementing force in the western countries. The reason being that the people in the west had no problem of racial unity. They were naturally united due to lack of natural resources. In order to survive they were forced to follow the path of commercial aggressiveness. It was but natural that their civilization took the character of political aggressiveness and domination over peace-loving affluent countries, like India. People in the west had no internal complications and were socially united. They regarded a watchful animosity against their neighbours as the only solution of their problems. If we read the history of Europe and America, we will find that the people there first organized themselves and then started plundering and looting their neighbours. The same mentality still persist; they first organize themselves and then plunder and exploit the whole world.

On the other hand, India has not chosen this rapacious (Living by preying on other animals) path. We, Indians don’t believe in the theory of plunder and exploitation. We feel that politics is not a cementing force. Politics always divides whereas culture unites the people.  Here, in this country, it is the race problem. Even if we try to be political, we will cut a poor figure, the reason being, as per Rabindranath Tagore, we have not been able to accomplish racial unity up to this date. It appears that this was the task set before us by our providence.

Rabindranath Tagore, the great thinker, feels that the problem of racial unity or in other words caste distinctions, exist in America also. America has not been able to get over her attitude towards Red Indians and Negroes. The Americans have a strong racial prejudice against the original natives of that country. They call them as niggers and don’t allow them to share food in their  restaurants.

But India has tried to solve his problem in her own way. She has tried to make an adjustment of different races living in this country. The differences of cast, colour, creed or religion do exist, but they are superficial (not deep). They are not an hindrance to the path of cultural unity. This country has produced great social and religious saints, like Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya and others who succeded in bringing about racial unity by their spiritual teachings.

According to Tagore, India is the only country which on the basis of her past experience, can bring about racial unity to the comity (A state or atmosphere of harmony) of nations. The modern scientific discoveries have reduced the world into one great entity. That moment has now arrived when the world will have to find a basis of unity which is not political. If India can offer to the world her own solution, it will be a great contribution to the humanity at large. There is only one history—the history of man. All national histories are simply chapters of the larger history of mankind. This country will have to come forward and lead the world to the path of unity of all the nations, not on political basis but on the basis of one world culture.

ENGLISH LITERATURE: NATIONALISM IN INDIA—BY RABINDRANATH TAGORE

ENGLISH LITERATURE: NATIONALISM IN INDIA—BY RABINDRANATH TAGORE: W hy does Tagore associate commercialism with barbarity of ugly decorations ?                                                             ...

NATIONALISM IN INDIA—BY RABINDRANATH TAGORE

Why does Tagore associate commercialism with barbarity of ugly decorations ?                                                                         

         

 Tagore associates commercialism with its barbarity of ugly decorations. It is so because modern commercialism has set up the ideal of power rather than of perfection. It is a cult of self seeking naked shamelessness. It has the weapon of exploitation by which it exterminates its rivals. This economic dragon sucks the life blood of the persons who are unable to stand competition. It is a terrible menace to all humanity. Indiscriminate production and beastly consumption are the two deities of commercialism. Its only object is to produce and consume. It has pity neither for the beauty in nature nor for living human beings. It is ruthlessly ready to crush beauty and life without a moment’s hesitation. It is ever ready to mould them into money. It was this vulgarity of commerce which created contempt and detachment from wealth in our ancient history. Our ancestors soon realized that excess of wealth makes a man brute, callous and indifferent towards the poor. But in this scientific age, Mammon, the god of money has usurped the throne and insults the higher instincts of man. He has banished beauty and noble sentiments from his surroundings. It is this Mammon who is ruling the mankind in the present age. We seem to have acquiesced to his mighty power. Our imagination is groveling in the dust and we are licking in his mighty feet. We forget that this dragon doesn’t understand the language of truth and beauty. Beauty is like the signature which our creator has stamped upon His works. Commerce lacks the dignity of grace and perfection. It has reduced man to a machine. It has no value for tender sentiments and human emotions. An individual is simply an economic man, blindly busy in pursuit of wealth. This economic dragon thinks himself as an intellectual giant. The only object of his life is to earn money by foul means. He (economic man) is the easy victim of temptation. This temptation is actually the root cause of his fall. Tagore does not welcome it in our Indian way of our life. The ultimate solution of his menace should be that our life be simple in its outer aspect and rich in its inner gain. Let not our civilization be based on economic exploitation and conflict. On the other hand, our economic system should stand on the solid rock and social cooperation and equitable distribution of wealth. Like our ancestors, we should have faith in the human soul.

 Tagore's literary reputation is disproportionately influenced very much by regard for his poetry; however, he also wrote novels, essays, short stories, travelogues, dramas, and thousands of songs. Of Tagore's prose, his short stories are perhaps most highly regarded; indeed, he is credited with originating the Bengali-language version of the genre. His works are frequently noted for their rhythmic, optimistic, and lyrical nature. However, such stories mostly borrow from deceptively simple subject matter — the lives of ordinary people.

ENGLISH LITERATURE: NATIONALISM IN INDIA—BY RABINDRANATH TAGORE

ENGLISH LITERATURE: NATIONALISM IN INDIA—BY RABINDRANATH TAGORE: Rabindranath Tagore has his own view on the Indian nationalism. He is of the view that the real problem of this country is social and no...

NATIONALISM IN INDIA—BY RABINDRANATH TAGORE

Rabindranath Tagore has his own view on the Indian nationalism. He is of the view that the real problem of this country is social and not political, as some thinkers feel. He says that politics has always dominated the western ideals. Politics has always been the cementing force in the western countries. The reason being that the people in the west had no problem of racial unity. They were naturally united due to lack of natural resources. In order to survive they were forced to follow the path of commercial aggressiveness. It was but natural that their civilization took the character of political aggressiveness and domination over peace-loving affluent countries, like India. People in the west had no internal complications and were socially united. They regarded a watchful animosity against their neighbours as the only solution of their problems. If we read the history of Europe and America, we will find that the people there first organized themselves and then started plundering and looting their neighbours. The same mentality still persist; they first organize themselves and then plunder and exploit the whole world.

On the other hand, India has not chosen this rapacious (Living by preying on other animals) path. We, Indians don’t believe in the theory of plunder and exploitation. We feel that politics is not a cementing force. Politics always divides whereas culture unites the people.  Here, in this country, it is the race problem. Even if we try to be political, we will cut a poor figure, the reason being, as per Rabindranath Tagore, we have not been able to accomplish racial unity up to this date. It appears that this was the task set before us by our providence.

Rabindranath Tagore, the great thinker, feels that the problem of racial unity or in other words caste distinctions, exist in America also. America has not been able to get over her attitude towards Red Indians and Negroes. The Americans have a strong racial prejudice against the original natives of that country. They call them as niggers and don’t allow them to share food in their  restaurants.

But India has tried to solve his problem in her own way. She has tried to make an adjustment of different races living in this country. The differences of cast, colour, creed or religion do exist, but they are superficial (not deep). They are not an hindrance to the path of cultural unity. This country has produced great social and religious saints, like Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya and others who succeded in bringing about racial unity by their spiritual teachings.

According to Tagore, India is the only country which on the basis of her past experience, can bring about racial unity to the comity (A state or atmosphere of harmony) of nations. The modern scientific discoveries have reduced the world into one great entity. That moment has now arrived when the world will have to find a basis of unity which is not political. If India can offer to the world her own solution, it will be a great contribution to the humanity at large. There is only one history—the history of man. All national histories are simply chapters of the larger history of mankind. This country will have to come forward and lead the world to the path of unity of all the nations, not on political basis but on the basis of one world culture.

ENGLISH LITERATURE: The Home and the World By Rabindranath Tagore -P-2...

ENGLISH LITERATURE: The Home and the World By Rabindranath Tagore -P-2...:                                                   Blossoming of Tagore’s geneius Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) was a Bengali poet, ph...

The Home and the World By Rabindranath Tagore -P-2

                                                Blossoming of Tagore’s geneius

Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) was a Bengali poet, philosopher, artist, playwright, composer and novelist. India's first Nobel laureate, Tagore won the 1913 Nobel Prize for Literature. He composed the text of both India's and Bangladesh's respective national anthems. Tagore travelled widely and was friends with many notable 20th century figures such as William Butler Yeats, H.G. Wells, Ezra Pound, and Albert Einstein. While he supported Indian Independence, he often had tactical disagreements with Gandhi (at one point talking him out of a fast to the death). His body of literature is deeply sympathetic for the poor and upholds universal humanistic values. His poetry drew from traditional Vaisnava folk lyrics and was often deeply mystical.

Tagore's literary reputation is disproportionately influenced very much by regard for his poetry; however, he also wrote novels, essays, short stories, travelogues, dramas, and thousands of songs. Of Tagore's prose, his short stories are perhaps most highly regarded; indeed, he is credited with originating the Bengali-language version of the genre. His works are frequently noted for their rhythmic, optimistic, and lyrical nature. However, such stories mostly borrow from deceptively simple subject matter — the lives of ordinary people.

We know that tagore wrote the Home and the World as a broad-based and united protest when the partition of Bengal was conceived in 1905. It was termed as Swadeshi as it aimed at economic and social regeneration of India. Tagore actively supported this movement, as in 1897, he himself had started a Swadeshi Bhandar in Calcutta for the promotion of indigenous (desi) goods. To promote this movement, he wrote a number of national songs took out processions and raised funds for funding National schools. With the passage of time, the movement assumed the form of political agitation producing extreme reactions.

ENGLISH LITERATURE: The Home and the World by Rabindranath Tagore- P1

ENGLISH LITERATURE: The Home and the World by Rabindranath Tagore- P1: Sandip vs. Nikhil Nikhil and Sandip have extremely different views for the growth of the nation. Nikhil demonstrates these beliefs in ...

The Home and the World by Rabindranath Tagore- P1

Sandip vs. Nikhil

Nikhil and Sandip have extremely different views for the growth of the nation. Nikhil demonstrates these beliefs in him marrying Bimala, an "unattractive" woman because of her skin color. In the novel, Nikhil talks about disliking an intense patriotism nation, "Use force? But for what? Can force prevail against Truth?" On the other hand, Sandip has contrasting views for the growth of the nation believing in power and force, "My country does not become mine simply because it is the country of my birth. It becomes mine on the day when I am able to win it by force".  The contradicting views of Nikhil and Sandip set up the story and constructs an interesting dilemma for Bimala. Unfortunately for Nikhil, he has already tried to show Bimala the outside world, and stir some sort of emotion within her since the beginning of the novel, and failed. Sandip possesses great oratory skill, that wins Bimala over simply because of his passion and ferocity, something that her husband may lack.

Illusions

The constant forming of illusions in the novel grows to be a major recurring theme. Sandip tends to create illusions that almost always have negative effects on his followers and on the nation of Bengal. He builds an illusion of his beliefs that sucks the people of Bengal into a sort of cult. His illusion is complete sovereignty, free of all other worlds, and an endless supply of wealth and self enjoyment. This illusion, as many are, is a fake and a lie. It ultimately sells these people a front row ticket to watch their nation fall into complete chaos and civil war among people with different beliefs. He constructs an illusion for Bimala to believe, saying she is the future, women are the future, they are the chosen path to salvation. Bimala builds an illusion that she is to blame for this war, it is solely her doing. That she has done all wrong and no right. She refuses to accept that she too was a victim of Bande Mataram. " I now fear nothing-neither myself, nor anybody else. I have passed through fire. What was inflammable has been burnt to ashes; what is left is deathless. I have dedicated myself to the feet of him, who has received all my sin into the depths of his own pain." The biggest illusion of all of is Sandip's mask of caring and passion, while he hides his own selfishness and desire for the world.

Truth

In more than one way, this novel is a comparison of different views of truth. Which reality is truer is up to the reader's interpretation. Nikhil maintains an idealistic view of the world while Sandip takes a radical, nature-worshiping view. He feels Nikhil's view of the world is inferior to the real, raw world in which he lives as a radical leader. Bimala as well must compare truths. Through her interactions with Sandip, she is introduced to the truth of "sakti" (female power), yet her life with Nikhil is centred on the truth of conjugality. Each of these instances is a comparison of truth as being something simply objective to being something with a more spiritual or moral dimension. While the story ends in tragedy, both views of truth are important players in the story's outcome, and it is left to the reader to ponder with which he or she agrees or disagrees.

Love and union

From page one of the novel, the love and union between Nikhil and Bimala is illustrated as something sacred. Nikhil proved throughout the story that he was undeniably devoted to his wife. He proved this first by marrying a woman who hailed from a poor family, along with accepting her darker skin. He made great effort to not only educate her, but also for her to understand her place in the world and not just her place in the captivity of their house. He shows his love by giving her freedom. Bimala also adores her husband, but in a less material manner. This is demonstrated in Bimala's daily ritual of "taking the dust", an Indian ritual of reverence not usually performed by a wife to her husband.

Due to Bimala's extreme devotion to Nikhil, in the beginning of the novel, the union between the two of them is seen as one that cannot be broken. However as, the story progresses, Bimala is slowly overcome by her feelings for Sandip. She eventually realises that she has found in Sandip what she longed for in Nikhil, fierce ambition and even violent defence of one's ideals. Her deep desire for Sandip led her to completely break her sacred union with Nikhil, going as far as to steal money from her household funds. Sandip shows his love for Bimala through idolisation. This idolisation comes about due to her freedom, though.

The tale clearly presents the theme of love and union time and time again, going from Nikhil and Bimala's marriage, through the love triangle created by Sandip, and once again returning to Bimala's love for Nikhil at the very end. This story tests the boundaries of the union of marriage. It stretches and twists it to the point where a 9-year marriage is nearly destroyed simply because of a raw temptation. In addition to the idea of romantic love, there is a sense of love of one's own country depicted throughout the novel. Questions such as, is it best to love one's country through action, perhaps even violence, or by passive tolerance are posed in the arguments of Nikhil and Sandip. While love and worship seem parallel in marriage, Nikhil believes these feelings cannot apply to one's country. "To worship my country as a god is to bring a curse upon it".

Characters

Nikhil

Nikhil is seen and described as an educated and gentle man. The reader can see that as the story is told from his point of view. His words flow more poetically, as if possessing a higher proficiency of language. He is from kulin aristocratic family of landlords, and his family prides themselves in beautiful women. However, Nikhil is different in that he married not only a poor woman, but also one who was not particularly attractive. Nikhil loves his wife very much as he likes to buy her European style dresses and other modern gifts. He also tries to educate her about the outside world and bring her away from the traditional female life in India. However, due to his gentle and soft nature, he cannot do anything but watch and stand by as he sees a relationship unfolding between his wife and his old friend, Sandip. He is also unpopular in the town because he has not joined them stating, "I am not running amuck crying Bande Mataram. In light of this, the police also suspect him of harbouring some "hidden protest." In reality, Nikhil considers himself to be more aware of his country's role in a broader sense, and refuses to take part in Swadeshi.

Bimala

Bimala is the wife of Nikhil. She is described as not very pretty and from a much more humble background than Nikhil. She loves her husband dearly, and enjoys being completely devoted to him. At the beginning of the novel, she seems to be confined to the traditional female role, and has no thoughts of entering the real world, even with persuasion from her husband. Her feelings make a rapid change with the occurrence of the Swadeshi movement. "My sight and my mind, my hopes and my desires, became red with the passion of this new age. When she meets Sandip, her new ideals are fuelled by his zealous nature and a fiery, shameless side of her emerges. As time goes on she becomes more interested and involved in the Swadeshi movement; it is at this time that she starts to develop romantic feelings for Sandip. Literally translated Bimala means "without mal or blemish". It is often used to mean clean, pure, and immaculate. Oftentimes the name is shortened to Bimal.

Although Bimala is married to Nikhil and their marriage was arranged since she was a little girl, Nikhil believes that Bimala is free to make her own decisions to her life. "I was married into a Rajah's house. When I was a child, I was quite familiar with the description of the Prince of the fairy story"  Therefore, Bimala is very dedicated to her husband, her marriage, and most importantly, her family values. However, Nikhil sometimes questions her view of him, basically that of a traditional woman. She cannot stand her husband's idleness, and unwillingness to participate in more "patriotic" endeavours. "Bimala has no patience with patience. She loves to find in men the turbulent, the angry, the unjust. Her respect must have its element of fear. Bimala was not raised the way her husband was raised: well and educated. However, she understands the social differences between her and her husband. "My husband's grandmother and mother were both renowned for their beauty… only the auspicious marks with which I was endowed gained me an entry into this family – otherwise, I had no claim to be here"

Sandip

Sandip is the third major character in the novel, completing the love triangle. He is a guest in the home of Nikhil and Bimala and his revolutionary ideas and speeches have a significant impact on Bimala. He is very vocal in his anti-imperialistic views and is a skilled orator. Sandip represents characteristics that are directly opposite to those Nikhil possesses, thus drawing Bimala to Sandip. Bimala gets caught up in the ideas that Sandip presents as well as the man himself. Her seemingly increasing patriotism causes her to spend more and more time with Sandip, thereby solidifying the love triangle conflict.

Where her husband is reserved and proper, Sandip is impassioned and stirs the emotions not only of Bimala, but the people of Bengal. He spreads the notion of Swadeshi — using goods made locally and boycotting British ones. He was a very philandering kind of a person trying to use Bimala and her money. However, his character is far from the ideal patriot. His motivations are selfish at times, prompted by the need to better himself socially. He fools people with his mask of goodness, something that Nikhil sees through at the beginnings of Sandip's relationship with his mother. "I have been noticing for some time that there is a gross cupidity about Sandip. His fleshly feelings make him harbor delusions about his religion and impel him into a tyrannical attitude in his patriotism. His nature is coarse, and so he glorifies his selfish lusts under high-sounding names" At one point he convinces Bimala to steal from her house and her husband for the "cause". Sandip's presence in the novel concludes with him fleeing while his speeches and ideas result in communal riots.

Sandip's first name is translated to "with dipa (light fire flame)". According to the notes in the novel this is used to describe him as "inflaming, exciting, arousing". Sandip's last name "Babu" originated as an aristocratic title that has come to describe Bengalis educated in the west or comparable settings. The British used "Babu" as a patronising term; its use as an honorific title survives in India today.

Bara Rani

Bara Rani is Bimala's sister in law. Her relationship with Bimala is strained at best. She causes a lot of tension in the household. She also uses Nikhil to get the material items that she desires. Bimala constantly complains about her to Nikhil. Bara Rani taunts Bimala for her mingling with Sandip Babu.

Amulya

Bimala considers Amulya to be her adoptive son, whom she met from the Swadeshi Movement. When first they meet, Bimala asks him to acquire money for their cause. He lists wild schemes and plans, to which Bimala replies "you must not be childish" After pondering their situation, Amulya resolves to murder the cashier for the money. Tagore uses him to symbolise the raw emotion and passion, yet lack of sympathy for others often emcompassed by group or riot mentality. Tagore also characterises Amulya as the typical idealistic youth when Amaulya rationalises the murder with a phrase from the Bhagavad-Gita stating "Who kills the body kills naught!" Amulya is used as a parallel to Sandip, comparing follower to leader. When Bimala shows such sympathy by calling him "little brother", he is caught off guard, suggesting that the youth is even more impressionable with emotions than Sandip's ideals. Amulya struggles, as any youth, between completing the goals of the movement and developing strong relationships on an individual level, such as with Bimala; this is made extremely difficult by Sandip's powerful influence. Amulya frequently accepts Sandip's motives by rationalising the necessary actions. In a sense, he can be considered a pawn used by Bimala and Sandip in their strategic power struggle, particularly when Bimala requests him to sell her jewels