LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 39. ELITES AND LITERATURE

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

39. ELITES AND LITERATURE

In all cultures all over the world, serious literature has always been fostered and preserved by small groups.Such groups have been called elites, but it is not a happy word. It may convey ideas of power, control, undue advantage or privilege. But it also means a group with the greatest talents or accomplishments, representative of much larger groups. Indeed, only small groups are interested and involved with serious literary activity. They need not be politically powerful.We do have elites everywhere- in politics, literature, media,etc.

If we examine it deeply, we observe that it is the elite which has always been concerned with all fine arts, not just literature. Many obvious reasons could be cited for this: they had the literacy, the resources and the time! But this is not quite valid. Just look at the contemporary scene: how many in all the classes have the literacy, the resources and all the time in the world; yet serious literature is neglected! Today's political elites are the powerful Reserved or OBC category which forms a solid block. But what is their literary interest, in spite of their growing literacy? Literacy, resources and leisure- these alone do not account  or make for the literary elite, though detractors do always point to these factors.

Elitism has to do with values- a certain attitude to life, a certain philosophy, system of beliefs and behaviour. These are then expressed through the arts and literature. Society as a whole never shares in the ultimate or even the higher values of life.Or practises them. But civilised societies learn about the higher values, and facilitate their practice. This is the real purpose of education, and literacy is only one of the tools. Before the coming of the cinema, and the TV monsters, drama and music, song and dance have been the vehicles of education. The audience for Shakespearean dramas consisted of both the elite, right from the royalty and aristocracy, and the common people, 'groundlings' occupying (standing in) the 'pit' in the theatres; and all followed the poetry and the prose! Literacy was not necessary to appreciate Shakespeare. We learn that the instalments of the novels of Dickens were read out in small shops by interested persons to eager listeners who were illiterate! Society as a whole knew these values, though all did not practise them!

It is with the coming of popular democracy that egalitarianism has displaced elitist tastes. There has been a watering down of values and standards in all areas. This we see clearly in India, starting from education. They want more and more people to enter college and get degrees; so the standards are lowered, criteria relaxed selectively. As a result we have graduates who cannot read, write and be employed. The movies started with classical stories and themes, and now they have come to cover just two things-violence and sex; tastes have been so much lowered that plain nudity is celebrated as art; if this is indeed true, the animals should all be the most natural artists for they are always in the nude, without fanfare! Literacy has spread, and printing technology has advanced much; but most of the advancement is tapped only for the advertisements, and it is the magazines catering to the lower tastes which sell; and no magazine or newspaper can run without the support from the advertisers. Just observe: the glossy paper and the finest illustrations are reserved for the advertisements! This is exactly what Jacques Ellul, the French sociologist pointed out over fifty years ago: technology has an inherent tendency to cater to the baser tastes!

The same trend is observed in the fine arts too. The democratic movement criticises all classical arts as catering to the 'class'; the masses need something else. In music, painting, sculpture- everywhere there is a tendency to dilute standards, and market anything in the name of the masses. Naturally, this is reflected in literature also.

The greatest problem is that society has become multi-cultural, and the trends are set by vested interests with an eye on marketing and quick profits.Pilgrimages are marketed as pleasure trips or holidays; every religious  and social occasion is seized for its commercial potential- from selling cards to discount sales. It has become difficult to address the society in general; every group has a target audience and captive market. In the West, there is at least a consensus on a common literary Canon. Such a common standard is almost impossible in Independent India, divided into linguistic states, each claiming its own linguistic supremacy and uniqueness.

Historically, Indianness was based on our common religious heritage; every language expresses the same basic ideas and values, and these are reflected in our literature. And ultimately all values derive from Sanskrit sources. During the freedom movement, prior to Gandhi, our national leaders adopted English as the language to engage the administration, as it had already become the language of administration and the medium of  higher learning. They stressed the national identity on the basis of our historical roots. India was Hindu- every other religion came here from abroad. Gandhi muddied matters by distorting the Hindu-Muslim issue, which ended in the fiasco of partition; he spoiled the national mood by introducing the poison of linguistic states; he further damaged things by promoting Hindustani as the 'national language'. The Nehru camp promoted anti-Hinduism in the name of secularism- just one example: they gave full freedom for other religions in the matter of worship and running their places of worship; only in the case of Hindus, they took over administration of their temples, and interfered with their worship! All other religious communities are united despite their internal divisions; Hindus are hopelessly divided on account of linguistic chauvinism. And all of them together neglect Sanskrit, their real mother tongue, the rich source of all Indian languages,  the language of Indian nationalism!

Traditionally, literary values in India derive from Classical Sanskrit sources. The theory of Rasa is the foundation- alike in literature and the arts, and this is common to all Indian languages. Our music is one across the country, as also sculpture and painting. No doubt there are different schools, but they are only different ways of expressing the same idea, the basic grammar being the same. It is like the different musicians rendering the same Raga according to different gharanas, the swaras being the same in all. But we have become so de-Indianised, we have become so cut-off from our roots through 150 years of Colonial and 60 years of indigenous neglect through a thoroughly alien system of education, even the task of reminding us of our roots looks formidable! And there is just no agency to do it, while there are numberless ones to disrupt our unity and distort truth!

Having forgotten our own traditional values, and failing to develop new ones on our own, we have become a slave to every passing foreign fashion and trend- in literature, as much as in attire and other areas. Even here, we are falling for the fringe movements, and chasing shadows, instead of seeking the substance. Mainstream English literature has fallen prey to many fanciful theories and their modern literature is riven by many sharp divisions; there is no longer any consensus as to what constitutes good literature today. However, they are at least agreed on their old Classics; and most educated people can identify a genuine good story or poem, and identify themselves with it. With all the divisions and theories, there are still critics and authorities to remind them of the enduring values and bases of their literary heritage.About F.R.Leavis, a great modern English critic, scholar M.H.Abrams writes:

He differed  from his American counterparts ( the New Critics)....in his insistence that great literary works are a concrete and life -affirming enactment of moral and cultural values; he stressed also the essential role in education of what he called "the Great Tradition" of English literature in advancing the values of culture and "civilization" against the antagonistic forces in modern life.

( M.H.Abrams: A Glossary of Literary Terms.Entry under New Criticism) 

We have to ask ourselves whether any current , 'modern' self-styled literary figure or award -winning author in India will make such an open statement about literature being the 'enactment of moral and cultural values'! If any one makes such a claim, the pseudo-secular, leftist, modernist outfit and the English media supporting them will immediately pounce on them and label them 'reactionary' Hindutva forces,moral police, etc while they themselves continue to mouth the views of 'the antagonistic forces' of modern life,and advocate the views of some foreign riff-raffs! Just see the ruckus they are making about public kissing! After all, if literature can let them make some money, why should they bother about tradition or values?

The basic problem in India, plaguing the minds of the so-called educated class is that they are brought up in an alien educational system, which has totally uprooted any idea of their own nationality except on the basis of the thin political tissue. They lack any sense of deeper self-identity, and therefore any basis of genuine self-esteem. Imitating the West is their only culture. But they do not know,because they have not studied, that the Western nations, though all secular in the political sphere ( in the genuine sense of the word, of the State being separate from the Church) do not lack a national self-identity. Thus, Samuel Huntington has asserted that the basic identity of the USA is that it is "Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christian". David Cameron, the British PM recently called for asserting their basic national identity as a "Christian" nation. It does not mean that they will drive out all the others. It only means that though others may come and be welcome, they themselves would not lose their identity. Our pseudo-secularists are neither so intelligent, original or intellectually honest. 

The fact is that every country which has encouraged or allowed immigration  or suffered conversion now finds itself as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious hot-bed. There can be no true 'national' consensus on any issue, and sometimes the largest minority group would dictate terms or carry the day. India's national identity as a Hindu nation was obliterated systematically under the Nehru dispensation. The position was so ridiculous that one could freely call one self a Muslim or Christian or anything, but the moment he called himself a Hindu, he was dubbed 'communal'! In the absence of a national identity, how can we have national literature? Our Classical literature is neither recognised as such or taught in our school system. Even among the educated, it s only some senior citizens who have some idea of our national Classics. India today is a political arrangement- not a living national organism.Unless the spirit of a living organism is repossessed at the national level, we cannot revive our literary traditions, or even preserve them.

This is where the elites have a role to play. In every culture, it is only elites who save the day.If all the people who do believe in our national identity, and our national Classics decide to follow that ideal in practice, to the extent of at least learning and letting their children learn Sanskrit classics, the position would improve dramatically. This does not call for any political effort or connection at all.

• This can be done quietly by each family
• This can be done through the school system where there is facility to learn Sanskrit either as a third or optional language. Every Hindu should avail of the facility of learning Sanskrit where the facility is available through the educational system at any level.
• This can be done privately, in small groups- where some of us can take the initiative to teach, organise and /or learn!
• This need not involve mastering the Sanskrit language, or studying its grammar intensely. We can read literature as just literature- just as we enjoy a poem of Wordsworth or a Sonnet of Shakespeare without bothering about learning the rules of English prosody, meter or the grammar of sonnets as a literary form. Leave cooking to the cooks, let us enjoy the meal!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DLIGHT. 38. RETURNING TO OLD FAVOURITES!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

38. RETURNING TO OLD FAVOURITES

How many of us return to an old piece of literature- be it a poem, or novel or drama again, after many years?

I think most of us don't. Almost all of us are introduced to literature through school and college . If the poem or story is interesting ( ie if we like it) or if the teacher is good and makes it interesting, it may leave an impression with  us and we may take it up later. But the universal experience with schooling is otherwise: most teachers are boring and have no interest in the subject; there is the irritation of completing the prescribed portion on schedule; the pressure of having to write the test. Above all, what counts for admission to higher studies, especially professional courses is the marks obtained in the subjects and not the languages where just 'a pass'  is all we aim at. So, there is neither  incentive, nor occasion  to return to literature, unless we take up literature as our subject in graduation and beyond. But now a days, with the emphasis on the professional courses, most youngsters do not opt for literature at all.. The novel we have read at school or college remains just a story we have read. We do not grow to appreciate it as a work of art or literature.

Till about half a century ago, our Universities had the idea or ideal of 'liberal education'. There was a smattering of a large number of subjects. None was covered at great depth even at graduation level, but we were exposed to a fairly wide spectrum of modern thought.  The basic idea was that  students at that stage should get exposure to arts, humanities, maths and science.  It was expected that once introduced to a subject, an 'educated' person would pursue it on his own. Life long interest in learning is considered a mark of true education.Later on, one could specialise in any area of choice. But in India, education is always thought of in the context of school or college, and that as a necessary ticket for a job. Most jobs ( especially in the govt.services) do not call for any advanced skills- except perhaps the ability to be negative and as unhelpful to people as possible! So most people do not pursue any serious reading after leaving school or college, unless their jobs require it. There are however a few who pursue studies vigorously, even while having an active career.

Both at the pre-university and  at graduation levels, one had to study English as a compulsory language, in the same pattern: selection of poetry, selection of prose, two texts for non-detailed study- one usually a classic novel, and the second, biography of some famous figure. And Shakespeare- a comedy and a tragedy I had read Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer, Dickens' 'Great Expectations', Hardy's Trumpet Major, a biography of Schweitzer; and Macbeth, with Much Ado About Nothing! .In poetry, one usually came across most of the great English poets- Milton, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats,Browning, Shelley, Byron, Tennyson, Pope! And a host of others: Goldsmith, Francis Thompson, James Elroy Flecker, Wilfred Wilson Gibson, Walter Savage Landor, Thomas Gray, Matthew Arnold! . All this, while we were not 'majoring ' in language and literature, but merely studying it as one of the two languages, the other being the regional language or mother tongue! Whatever might be our taste or preference, we were likely to find some one or the other interesting.If we had any literary bent at all, we would read them further.

Often, liking for a subject or author develops due to a good teacher or lecturer. Teacher's attitudes can also affect us negatively, when it combines with  authority. In the Catholic colleges, some Jesuits teaching economics had strong antipathy towards Keynes, though he was the most famous economist of the century. He had made the greatest practical contribution in two areas: prescribing a solution for the Depression ( overcoming 'secular stagnation' or ' secular (ie long-term) under- employment equilibrium'- incorporated in the New Deal Policies of President Franklin Roosevelt), and founding a new world economic order by way of the Bretton Woods Institutions. Keynes had died only in 1946, and in the 50s he was still the reigning economic colossus. Practically the entire academic world was his estate, though there were outstanding critics like Sir Dennis Robertson in the UK and Milton Friedman and his Chicago School in the States. But the general wisdom was, if you were not a Keynesian, you were not an economist.. But our Jesuit professor would not discuss Keynes! He would refer us to some books: Keynes' own General Theory was rather tough (at that stage) ; while explanatory books like that of Dudley Dillard was scintillating, others like those of Alvin Hansen needed some elucidation, but we could not discuss it in the class. So for two years , we had to plod on, on our own. It was only after leaving college that we could see such delightful books like 'The Age of Keynes' (Robert Lekachman) and 'Keynes and After' (Michael Stewart). We wasted two precious years in college, unable to study Keynes in detail because of the attitude of our teacher! 

  This idea of  'liberal' education was the typical British attitude which we followed; it was rooted in the British historical experience of a developing civil society with enlightened citizenship. It did emphasise the study of arts, language and literature and humanities. Most people passing through it acquired certain values and attitudes which were basic to a well ordered civic society. But in the 50s thinkers like C.P.Snow, a scientist and novelist, accused the British education system of favouring humanities at the expense of science, and spoke of 'The Two Cultures'. The cliche caught on. But once the Soviets sent up the Sputnik, the West (USA) thought they were behind in the race and had to catch up; the science subjects got a boost. But there was a reaction to this too later on. One is not sure whether a balance has been restored but at no stage was the study of language and literature entirely neglected.

It may seem strange, but it is a fact that the fact of English being their mother tongue does not offer them any special advantage in the study of their own literature! The average Englishman or American can no more understand Shakespeare or Milton, Browning or Shelley unaided, than an Indian! And for that matter, how many Indians can understand their own classic literature unaided? This is the beauty and difficulty of good, serious literature in any language- one has to acquire a taste for it, its study calls for application and time, only parts can be mastered by any one even in a lifetime, and one keeps coming back to it! Truly was it said in the olden days: 'Art is long, life is short!'

 The average graduate of the old times had a fairly good idea of many subjects, though his knowledge was not deep enough in any. Real specialisation was only at the post-graduate level. But every graduate had an idea of the intellectual foundations of modern society. And almost every one had some minimum standard in reading and writing English and mother tongue.Later on this pattern changed. Narrow specialisation and the consequent tunnel vision has started even at the graduation level.Today,the majority of  our graduates, including Engineering graduates, is considered unemployable! Even in the States, we had books  such  as: "Why Johnny Can't Read", "Why Johnny Can't Add", "Why Johnny Still Can't Read", etc. 

People today cannot appreciate the value and role of a liberal scholar. The academic world is split into too many areas of specialisation, even within a discipline. Writings of most scholars are intelligible only to their peers within the discipline. These academics are so arrogant (Why not, they are so well paid, after all) they will not consider the work of a non-academic as worthy of respect. Nor will they accept one speaking on a subject other than his own specialisation. The PhD culture ( or racket?) has ensured that one can earn it only by questioning what some one else has done, subject to the over all prejudice or value embraced by the university, or his guide! There is thus no possibility of a liberal scholar today.But there are some telling examples of  liberal scholars.

Dr. A.Lakshmanaswamy Mudaliar, the famed Vice-Chancellor of Madras University was a medical doctor by basic academic qualification, but with many honorary degrees.He was once presiding over a conference of UNESCO. One representative of a country, in the course of his speech, made the statement "there must really be something rotten in the state of Denmark". The representative of Denmark immediately stood up,protesting how Denmark could be insulted in this way! Dr. Mudaliar knew his Shakespeare, and so pacified him, explaining that this statement was an expression occurring in Shakespeare's play 'Hamlet' , and it was now part of general English usage, and merely meant that something was wrong in the system, and that it had no reference to Denmark at all! His liberal education had saved the day.

During the 1962 General Elections, Rajaji (in his eighties) was on election tour for his Swatantra Party making public speeches. In one speech, he made the remark" Catch the blackest crow!". Immediately, the local Tamil papers, which were mainly anti-Brahmin, jumped into the fray, saying Rajaji had insulted Kamaraj, then Chief Minister in this way! ( It was well known that Kamaraj was of a dark complexion) Nobody who knew Rajaji would accuse him of such low acts, but what did the sensation-seeking local press care? There was a huge controversy and ugly debates. Finally, Rajaji himself gave the explanation: 'To catch the blackest crow' was an English idiom which only meant that one must engage the strongest opponent in a combat, and in the context of the elections, it meant the Congress Party which was both the largest and the ruling party! 

Thus we see that a liberal education helps improve the general level of awareness and quality of public debate and discourse. And study of literature does provide a strong foundation for such liberal education. But with the focus now on increasing specialisation, serious study of literature is confined to formal students of literature. English at least continues to get some attention because it is the language of higher learning; the other Indian languages suffer neglect because they are not useful for higher studies, or even as vehicles for the expression of modern thought in science or any other field.This is a historical development and no one can be blamed. There are people in every state who want the local language to be used everywhere for everything. Even such people quietly educate their children in the English medium, and use local language mania to whip the linguistic minorities! In the process, even the old literature of these languages are increasingly neglected by the younger generations.

In England, in the Victorian era, with the spread of literacy, women emerged as a strong reading force,with a preference for light romantic and domestic novels. Women writers also emerged in large numbers, as men considered it below them to write such stuff. At one stage, women writers outnumbered men. I am inclined to think that a similar situation prevailed in Tamil Nad in the last century, from the 30s to the mid-80s- till the rise of the TV- serial culture. Women , and most men,  of all age groups were avid readers of periodical Tamil magazines - gulping down short stories and serial novels. There were at least 5 such top magazines competing , with 3 emerging with large readership- Ananda Vikatan, Kalki and Kumudam- the last one finally overtaking all others. Kalaimagal was more literary and always a step behind. The serialisation of the novel had started early, but caught on when Kalki and Devan appeared on the scene. Kalki's historical novels were tremendously popular, so were Devan's social novels. But my point is: Kalki's novels were serialised several times: Ponniyin Selvan, perhaps the most popular, first appeared in the late 40s and early 50s. It ran for over 4 years! It had tremendous illustrations by Maniam, a great artist. It ran a second time in the late 60s- again for 4 years, with illustrations by Vinu; a third time in the next decade with illustrations by Maniam Selvan- the son of the original artist! It ran again in the next decade with illustrations by another artist- Padmavasan. It is being serialised once again now , with illustrations by yet another artist! It is one case where people are returning to the same stories repeatedly over 60 years! All over the world, many novels had been serialised, or appeared in instalments, including the works of Dickens and Hardy. But I am not aware whether any work of any other author was  serialised repeatedly- to enthusiastic reception every time! Personally, I am disappointed that Devan's works were not so repeated, with the illustrations of Gopulu! Ananda Vikatan which Devan served till the end with such devotion and skill, did not honour him at all with such a gesture! Now with the rise of the TV culture, reading habit has been killed. Today the diversions and attractions are many, but the younger generation does not read, unless it be in connection with their work which cannot be avoided.

But the state of Sanskrit education is the worst. It is not only the language of  our religion and philosophy;it is also the language of our arts, sciences, culture: all the ideas in all the books in all the Indian languages are originally in Sanskrit. There is no Indian language- including Tamil- which does not contain at least 50% from Sanskrit sources. As a literary language, it exceeds Greek, Latin and every other language in extent, range and volume, as also in antiquity. Every Hindu of every sect and persuasion uses Sanskrit in his rituals, mantras and prayers. Yet, the Hindu is reluctant to acknowledge these openly and to take up its study even as a third language. This is indeed pathetic. Many Hindus read many versions of the Ramayana as a religious book; but few take up the original Valmiki, either as a religious text or as literature! The heart aches when one sees the neglect of the legendary Vyasa and the classical Sanskrit poets like Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti, Bana, Bartruhari, who stand head and shoulders above most English poets, and not less than Shakespeare and Milton. We devote so much time to reading the English poets - it is good, because they are good; but what about the good among us?  But at least some of us who have had some exposure in the past could come back to them! 

Those who are enthusiastically advocating Sanskrit study lack practical vision and plan.Study of language need not involve grammar at once.We may learn  to appreciate music without learning its technicalities, or to enjoy a Tennis match without playing it ourselves! Sanskrit verses could be taken up and explained- after all how many Indians can read and understand a passage even from any English poet-old or new-without explanation? The state of the study of our regional languages is such that most of the old literature in these languages cannot be understood without annotations. Why then should we be reluctant to bring out annotated editions of  Sanskrit works in English? At present, it is difficult to find even a book of Subhashitams in good English translations. Panchatantra and Hitopadesa are not available in good English translations , along with the originals.

The problem is present in all languages in respect of good literature. Even among students majoring in English literature in Western universities, there is reluctance to study poems and sonnets of Shakespeare, in contrast to a major play, even in the class room, unless the book makes reading simpler, by printing the annotations on the same page or side by side with the original! How much more difficult will it be in respect of Shakespeare, if we do not simplify the language, and have the book attractively designed and printed? Yet look at some of the books even from the reputed publishers- how badly produced the Sanskrit books are, in comparison to the English books they publish!

But the greatest problem in India is the absence of the habit of reading serious literature, except as part of some school or college course. A generation ago, at least short stories and serial novels used to be read widely in the periodical magazines. This has almost totally disappeared among the so called 'techie' generation- they are with their gadgets all the waking hours- no reading, no writing. The older generation is with the TV channels. Almost no one returns to any form of literary studies after leaving school or college. Which is so sad!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 37. PROGRESS AND CHANGE-WHAT IS IN IT?

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

37.  PROGRESS  AND  CHANGE- WHAT IS IN IT?

Change- what is so special about it?

Change is supposed to bring in or indicate progress.

It is a general feeling among people, actively promoted by interested groups, that Indian society has been backward, stagnant and resists change and progress.. They cite the example of the 'progressive' West. All these words- progress, backward,stagnant, change- are loaded and cannot be defined objectively. They can be explained only by one's own perspective, standard, assumptions.

The idea of progress originated in the 19th century, triggered by two developments- Darwin's theory of evolution, and the contact of the Europeans with other people, due to colonial expansion.This was in the background of the various discoveries and inventions in material science. Seeing other people in different modes of living than them, they decided they were superior and the others were 'primitive'. At the height of imperialist power, British colonialists propounded the idea of 'White man's burden'- that it was their divine mission to convert the others to their religion, and way of life. At one time, even advertisements for the 'Pears' soap were based on this theme- as  if using that soap would make the people 'progressive'.

 The basic idea was that man was primitive, and progressively became civilised. And such progress is the sign of the survival of the fittest! However, no one has ever proved how primitive nature could become refined or advanced on its own. Could an idiot become a genius? Or an ape write a Hamlet, given a million years? If so why do we still have apes as apes? And why does idiocy still persist ?

Prior to 19th century, no great thinker in any part of the world thought in these terms.  India, Greece and Egypt were the centres of ancient civilisations and no thinker or philosopher there ever thought of their ancestors as primitive or of themselves as more advanced than them. On the contrary, they always referred to the ancients with the greatest respect. Tolkappiam, the oldest extant Tamil work on grammar speaks of still more ancient authorities and works. The Rishis of the Vedas refer to more ancient Rishis and say 'thus have we heard'.

Man lives in two worlds- the world of nature and the world of thought or consciousness. As a creature of nature, he has learned to dominate it through his thought power. But that very domination now is threatening to spell his doom: he has interfered  with nature without knowing the consequences, and now finds nature corners him everywhere. He has nearly exhausted the fossil fuels, and all natural minerals and metals and in the process polluted the earth and atmosphere;new sources of energy are even more dangerous for humanity; he has made agriculture so dependent on chemicals that he has poisoned the soil and water and the people who consume the produce. All the natural gifts essential for life- soil, water, air- stand polluted. No one really knows where the process will end; those who think deeply are alarmed. But the powers that run the show have invented outrageous measures of progress like 'GDP' which do not reckon the actual costs, and the value of things which are lost but irreplaceable or non-renewable.

But in his consciousness modern man is still primitive: all his scientific skill he has fully used to develop weapons of destruction and now he has enough to destroy the world several times over.Unlimited capacity for self destruction is the ultimate result of man's progress so far. 'Primitive' men killed each other in combat with crude weapons; modern man can go up in the plane and drop atomic bombs on thousands of civilians- this is progress!  Oh shit!

The ancient civilisations kept the external life simple, but had a richly varied life of thought. See the incredible variety, range and depth of ancient thought in any field. See their endless debates in speculative philosophy or their creations in creative arts. Just see their literature. Has such sublime poetry been written subsequently? If we take the overall quality of intellectual life, there has only been a progressive deterioration! In India, all philosophers subsequent to Sankara have either agreed with him or differed from him- but he has remained the reference point! All the philosophies of the world of all times and countries can be explained with reference to him! Those who differ from him differ among themselves too! What is progress here?

Because man has a part that is aligned to external nature, he is not able to evolve fully in his conscious part. Real progress for man consists in thus overcoming his lower nature. This has been the real theme of all ancient civilisations. Know thyself, said Socrates. The Egyptians induced that idea through their Mysteries. Indian Rishis asked you to investigate your own mind and psyche and realise your true identity with the Reality that is.

What modern civilisation has done is to obscure the ultimate questions of life, and make man forget the real issues and while away his time in the ordinary pleasures of life, magnified or multiplied a hundred times. But his economic and social arrangements do not guarantee even that to every one. Old age, disease and death  confront everyone. With all his arrogant talk about progress, even the greatest scientist has to bow before these forces which he neither understands, nor controls, but does not have the humility or honesty to admit.. Modern civilisation, in the name of progress, has made life comfortable, but that comfort itself has now turned into mass illness: all modern illnesses like heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety, the various types of psychoses and neuroses- all are attributed to modern lifestyle and there is no so called advanced society which is free from them. Yet, to attain that level of progress with all attending problems is advocated as progress by greedy corporates and their academic mercenaries and media, and ignorantly swallowed by the third world, aided by an educational system designed by the greedy exploiters themselves. We do not even have the sense to see through them. And, while 'science' has not found a remedy or cure for these illnesses , economists  treat the astronomical cost of treatment as contributing to the GDP! Ill health boosts economic welfare! This is our progress! 

Take the man-made religions of the world- Buddhism, Christianity, Islam. Can any follower of these religions claim that he has 'progressed' beyond the Buddha, Christ, or Mohammad? They are trying to follow them, at best "imitate" them! (Judaism was also man-made- made by Moses. But he was superseded by Jesus Christ, though this is not accepted by the Jews.) So, by definition, progress is ruled out in these religions.

Ironically, this is the position with the leftists too, who are bitter critics of religion, and who consider and promote themselves as 'progressive'! Can any of them claim to have progressed beyond  Marx and his 19th century theories? By the very definition, no Marxist can be more progressive than Marx! To claim so will be the communist equivalent of blasphemy! Marxism is the most stagnant of all philosophies!

On the other hand, all the more ancient religions of the world- Hinduism,the old Greek religion, the Celtic and other unnamed ones, and what the Christians contemptuously dismissed as 'Paganism' -which were really nameless till modern times, and which were not the creation of any man, allowed endless progress by way of variety, individual variation and endless refinement. This was achieved because they never developed a rigid theory or doctrine in any matter, but just stated the idea and left it to be developed.Thus the scope for 'progress' is infinite in them. See how the idea of Atman and Brahman is dealt with in the Upanishads! Do they ever make them a fixed dogma? All the thousand strands of Indian philosophy have arisen from them! And yet more thousands may arise in the future! Has it happened anywhere else? Can it happen? Yet the leftists,secularists and self-styled moderns, who have not studied these, criticise our religion as being stagnant!

Poetry in the ancient world was mainly religious-philosophical.In the Western tradition, Homer is the universally acknowledged master. In the last 3000 years, has any one,anywhere, equalled or exceeded him? Or at least made such a claim? Can the moderns make such a claim now? And what about a Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe ? Can the moderns claim to have progressed beyond them in the art? Can they at least imitate them? Again by definition, western poetry is deterioration, not progress.

The same is the case in India too. Has any one in all these thousands of years written anything nearing Valmiki, Vyasa, Kalidasa , and the scores of others? The moderns are only busy stealing and copying their ideas, without even an acknowledgement! Or criticising them!

If you take modern sciences like psychology, the Western scientists are plainly stealing old Hindu ideas and introducing them as new ones, with new names and labels. Our knowledge level is so pathetically low that most cannot even discern their origin, but we applaud the thieves and imitators as originators! Here, progress is just restatement of stolen ideas.

If we take main sciences like physics, astrophysics etc- what is considered progress here is actually continuous negation of previous theories and ideas by newer ones, till we have reached a stage where nothing is certain any more! Physics started with the idea of 'matter', but now there is no matter! They said the universe started with Big Bang,but they do not know what started it, and what was before that! Any answer they give would be equally absurd. The observable universe is constantly exceeding man's capacity to observe! There is just no limit! This is an unsolvable question in both philosophy and science; but the philosophers had the humility to accept that; the scientists are arrogant in their ignorance, and get paid for that by idiotic public! Biologists cannot account for origin of life; evolutionists cannot account for consciousness. So, all our scientific progress has only resulted in  huge uncertainty everywhere, but that itself is hailed as an achievement because so much of plain basic ignorance is couched in specialised jargon which few can understand out side that limited area of specialisation. Jargon is the weapon of mass cheating in the name of science. All these are speculative theories, and none is a proven fact. This is progress in science.

The very notion of progress of humankind from a primitive state is an unproven hypothesis. The isolated communities were first observed by the Christian missionaries  and reported;  the early anthropologists considered  them as primitive,and erected their theories that this was the state of mankind in the beginning and we progressed gradually from this state. But later anthropologists disputed this and held that they were but the remnants- the dropouts who got isolated from the mainline and degenerated! Just as modern psychologists have observed sick minds and animals and propounded their psychological theories  about healthy humans on that basis, the anthropologists had also taken degenerate communities as their models  for the whole of humanity! It is like tasting thousand rotten mangoes and theorising about the taste of mango in general!


The basic problems of life have been the same; human nature has been the same. In the name of progress, modern man has obscured both. In the place of nature, we have virtual reality now! For a large portion of humanity,  fulfilment of even the basic human needs remain beyond reach , and even dream.Those sections of the world which claim progress are shamelessly exploiting them further. The rest of the world is busy senselessly imitating them. Thus, in the name of progress and change, we are embracing collective disaster! But the world GDP is growing! Well done, scientists!;well done, economists!; well done , statesmen! May your tribe increase!


Note:

If we observe carefully, what many conscientious thinkers advocate as the best practices to adopt to save nature are but a return to some'primitive' state from which science took us forward!

eg. Organic farming: nothing but chemical free agriculture, natural seeds etc


Rain water harvesting: rain is the purest source of fresh water, and now the only source, as all the surface water and ground water stand polluted!

Banning plastic: reversal to use of bio-degradable material! 

All these were what we practiced in the time of our grandfather; they were ridiculed as primitive, but they are now coming back, in the name of fashion, or science itself!

But oh sure, it makes money for some, while it makes sense for the  many!

Making money out of misery is modern economics!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 36. LANGUAGE-THINKING AND EXPRESSION.

LITERTATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

36. LANGUAGE-THINKING AND EXPRESSION

We are living in fast changing times- this is a trite phrase now, almost meaningless. The change is so fast and mind-boggling that both the word 'change' and 'fast' have lost meaning. 40 years ago, Alvin Toffler told us of 'future shock'- how we are unable to cope with the pace of change. This was before internet, mobile phone, tablets, pendrives and ipods. I do not know what he would say now.

Those who are 70+  are likely to have seen  and experienced so many changes in their living memory;yet the last few years would have left most of them gasping. We have lived in villages, and small towns without electricity and running water.We have seen our great-grandmothers cook, assisted by great-grandaunts! Water was drawn from the well with bucket and rope, washing was with hand; cooking was with firewood and charcoal.All grinding was on the grind-stone and mortar.Cooking was done sitting on the floor. Lighting the fire for cooking was a ceremony, done with all solemnity; and at night, the fireplace would be washed with cowdung solution or paste and 'kolam' drawn. After every meal, the place would be sprinkled  with cowdung solution and wiped clean. At night, the kitchen would be washed with water.Early in the morning, the front of the house would be sprinked with cow dung solution, swept and the kolam drawn: this would be done by the housewife, not any servant.On ceremonal occasions, the kolam would be elaborate, and the girls would enthusiastically participate, in a spirit of infectious competition with neighbouring girls.So much numbers,dots, geometrical patterns, shapes, sizes and figures would go into them, all from memory or improvised on the spot! The whole street would be sparkling! We were all just middle class, but what joy it was!

We boys would go to get firewood from the firewood depot. We would get a measure called 'gundu'- 56 pounds. We would stretch our hands in front; the depot man would arrange the cut firewood strips on them, and himself would say, 'appa, enough for you' and go on to the other boy.One gundu would cost a rupee or  a rupee and an anna in the near-by depot; a little farther, it would be 15 annas. So we would go there, and the anna or two saved would be given to us for pocket money. But being Brahmin boys, we would not eat anything outside, except some fruit or raw mango or such things depending on the season. I would buy small story books which were sold for an anna.We had a teacher by name Ganesam Pillai. He would tell us stories during the 'morals' period. Once he came to know we had such story books, he would go through them and if he approved, he would make us read it in the class and so encouraged reading. The stories were invariably good. Only once did he not like a story, and called my grandfather and told him so! The magazine 'Kalkandu' was then for youngsters and it cost only two annas. Lifco used to come with small books for 2 or 4 annas.We used to buy them.I still have the Tirukkural I bought then.The girls would not be burdened with any heavy work, but would do some crochet or needle work, learn music, or play some indoor games.

Talking about literature, how relevant are these things? Yes, they are relevant, as we will see.

Some changes are easily seen. Political changes, for instance. Economic changes are also easily felt.But the long term social consequences of these changes are not easily understood. Inability or unwillingness to understand and adjust to these changes breeds problems.What we call generation gap is this lag in adjustment.

Brahmins were very active  in the independence movement but later on , the interest declined mainly due to economic reasons. They were also active in all other fields- not only education and services, but also entertainment, arts, journalism, publishing, small hotels and eateries,etc.After the Dravidian parties came to power, Brahmins were totally excluded from the political arena- not only by the Dravidian parties, but even by the Congress; the anti-Brahmin feeling is deep-rooted and no party wants to be seen as doing anything which could be interpreted as pro-Brahmin in the least. Brahmins were slowly excluded from teaching, law, medicine, and engineering professions, as also from direct govt. service. They were also edged out of all other spheres where the govt has a direct or indirect hand.  

The Brahmin community was generally satwik-tamasik.Almost half of them were in poor circumstances.(But they had no community feeling- would not help each other.)They could quietly practice their religion because it had a steady source of income, though small. And this freedom from the anxiety to earn the daily bread gave them  time and energy to devote to literary, cultural and other activities, besides their religion.Society  as a whole shared these values more or less, and  this was reflected in all fields, especially in the educational and literary spheres.

But with the rise of the Dravidian powers, values have changed.You can observe this in all areas.Those Brahmins who remain active in education, entertainment, literary, journalistic fields have to embrace non-Brahminic and pro-Dravidian values. This is in fact what they do- even their spoken language has changed in the last 50 years.

More than this, even their religious language has changed. Most Brahmins today can only write Dravidian , and not Brahminical Tamil.And their pronunciation of even common Sanskrit words like 'mantram', 'chaturthi', 'Hanuman' , 'Vinayaka', etc is horrible. Just look at their wedding or even 'upanayanam' invitations. I was both sad and amused to see a Tamil magazine devoted to Vaidik subjects being called "Vaitheekasri": 'Vaideekam' has become 'Vaitheekam' in obedience  to Dravidian usage! Most Brahmins of Tamil Nad today do not say 'Subrahmanya'- they only say 'Muruga'! Hindu-they pronounce as 'Indu'. The younger generation may not even notice these changes, how do they care?

What these Brahmins do not realise is that no matter what they do to give up their language and customs, they would still be considered Brahmins. Once they had tufts, and Dravidian elements made fun of them The removal of tufts did not make them non-Brahmins and endear them to those elements. Likewise, giving up the Brahminical speech and writing would not make them more acceptable to them. This way, they will only alienate their younger generations further from their heritage.And they would lose all self-respect.

But the change brought about by the large-scale adoption of English medium in education even from primary standards is tremendous. Our generation studied in Tamil medium up to SSLC with English as one subject. The syllabus was not heavy, but the teaching was good and  the basics were well taught.This was the case in Tamil too- the syllabus was not loaded, but the foundations were well laid. In the college, the position reversed: it was English medium and Tamil as a subject! In the first year, we had to work a bit hard- not that it was difficult to follow the subjects, but it took time to acquire the facility to write. But we coped well and became fluent in time.Studying in Tamil medium (ie mother tongue)in the high school had improved our thinking faculty, imagination and  self-expression.

One feature of education 50 years ago was that most teachers encouraged originality in writing. Apart from the science subjects, where definitons and formulae had to be mugged up, in all other subjects, we were told to absorb the subject, get the meaning and express in our own way. Even in high school we had teachers like D.K Ramanathan Chettiar or K.V.Rajagopalan who would take a sentence and demonstrate in how many other ways we could express the idea! A quotation from an authority or from a Classic would always add value to an essay, but the whole essay could not be plagiarised! With the English medium now, the emphasis is wholly on rote learning: the text books are standardised; the questions too are standard; the teacher asks you to mark the answers in the book and the same has to be reproduced in the exam. If you change a word, you lose a mark. So, they just mug up, reproduce and get 99% in all subjects. The syllabus is heavy, so you have the semester system: forget in the next semester, what you learn in this. The result is paradoxical: though they mug up, they hardly retain anything! The faculty of memory, which is so important, is neither developed nor focussed on material which would be useful life long!

Apart from such deterioration, the social effect of English-medium education is remarkable. It used to be the norm in middle class families for the school-going boys and girls to help with household work (which I mentioned above). But with English medium, this has disappeared. There is  total avoidance of any manual work. In the exclusive preoccupation with percentages and professional courses, and the syllabus being heavy, all the time is taken up in study. In most homes, guests are not welcome when the children are around, because it would disturb their studies! And children hardly ever play in the evenings- as we used to! 

Since English medium is taken as the harbinger of modernity, it has brought in its wake whole lot of changes. A generation ago , we all ate sitting on the floor; in most homes there was just a room or two with doors. All the children would sleep in the hall; they all slept on the floor, with mat for bedding.There was no cot; the bedding would be rolled, the pillows would be taken out, the bedsheets removed, neatly folded and kept in a room. What was bed room in the night would become the living room or study room or recreation room, or simply idling room by day, depending on the time! But with the new kind of education, we now have separate rooms with  bed permanently spread out (as in hospitals); with the drawing room stuffed with sofa, unoccupied most of time, most of the days! Even brothers cannot share a bathroom, or share it with parents- each needs a separate one with duplication of everything-toothpaste, soap, mugs! One may wonder, how all these changes can be linked with English medium education, but if you think deeper, the connections will be clear.

Sri Ramakrishna used to point out humourously how the Bengali youngsters going to college and studying English immediately acquired certain stock expressions, and he used to imitate their sound: That,but, it ,put,tit, tat,etc. ( Our elders also would say: what is all this ..thaat boot?) He would remark how, on wearing the pant and boots, their entire demeanor would change, they would strut about bolt upright - all marks of humility would leave!

 And how English constricts our familial and social circles! In all Indian languages we have distinct words to denote each relationship in the extended joint family. We have separate words for father's younger brother and elder brother, and sister; we have separate words for the mother's brother and sister.In English , all are aunts and uncles. And their children? All cousins! So, immediately you have English, you have the nuclear family-every thing and every one seen through its eyes! As Raja Rao remarks: how can they conceive of  "my wife's elder brother's wife's brother in law"? He too is just an uncle, as any child would call any stranger! But just a generation ago, we all were close to such relatives! We had our own endearing nicknames for all our neighbours- 'kodi aatthu mami' (the 'mami from the corner house'), 'arai-mottai Brahmanan'( the half-head shaved Brahmin), kulla Vasu (Vasu the short) 'Kasi patti' ( the grandma- from Kasi: this did not just refer to her having visited Kasi- more than that, it signified and celebrated her triumphant return, it was such a rare event those days; and she need not be our grandmother at all- just any old lady of the village or area) How odd such expressions would sound in English! Not that the English themselves may not have such words- but Indians speaking English cannot call them ours!

A language conveys a philosophy silently. When a person dies, the English would say: he kicked the bucket., or he 'gave up the ghost'. But who indeed gives up what? The ghost ie the spirit leaves him: he cannot leave it as he likes, unless he is a Yogi like Vivekananda. But what do we say? In Tamil, the standard, deferential expression is: 'aavi pirindadu' ie the spirit or prana left him! Which is accurate? In the Indian tradition, we are not supposed to say certain things openly. In the olden days,in the Tamil grammar they used to teach something like 'mangalam' or 'kuzhuookkuri'- how to express indirectly something which it is not considered pleasant to say plainly. The burning ghat is not called as such in literary writing; it is mentioned as 'nan kaadu' ie the good wood. In the obituary notices, people affectionately mention the elder as 'having attained Sivalokaprapti'; Srivaishnavas say: 'reached Acharyan Tiruvadi'. Someone attached to a particular saint would be said to have reached 'his lotus feet'.I have seen some Indian Christians use expressions like 'slept in the Lord' or 'merged in the Lord'. I do not know whether these expressions are more Indian or Christian! Of course, Shakespeare himself calls sleep "the death of each day's life" in Macbeth.! In Hamlet, he refers to death as "shuffled off this mortal coil" which is more accurate, and which expression many in India use!  Referring to Lord Shiva's throat which has become dark on account of his swallowing poison at the behest of the Devas, we don't refer to the poison at all but say"Neelagriva" ie the blue throated- Neelakantan in Tamil, or still better, 'Sri Kantan' in Kannada! 

A language thus brings its own subtle ways of thinking and expression.. That is one reason why a language changes the way we think unconsiously. Among Indian writers, Tagore wrote Gitanjali in Bengali and then translated it into English; so it has retained its Indian flavour. R.K Narayan has captured in flowing prose how the ordinary middle class Indian of British days conducted himself. Raja Rao is said to have experimented with bringing the Indian way of thinking (based on Kannada and Sanskrit models) into English.All three have written on Indian themes, with Indian spirit, but in entirely diverse ways! This is the creative use of English, and not just imitation. We should all read  these three great authors.

Note:

I am not suggesting for one moment that the past was perfect and we should all go back.All I mean to say is life was less complicated. Most things have changed, and life is marching on. Today , technology controls and dictates everything, and no one can control technology.Just see how this one invention mobile phone has virtually made prisoners of us all! Every authority today needs our mobile number to deal with us.We are nonentities without it. But with it we are all like prisoners with a number- any one can trace us anywhere! Techology has taken away our freedom quietly! It is the same thing with our computer. No one has assessed the long term consequences of such over-dependence on technolgy on our psyche! (eg. What is the effect of long term exposure to magnetic radiation through computer, mobile phone etc on our brain function, say on japa or meditation?)The pace of life is accelerating and every one would find it difficult to keep pace at some point. But what  will  we have  to go back to? Religion was the only permanent feature but today even that is changing- this is all I wish to point out. The Brahmin was the custodian of religion- especially in practice.But even he is changing. The changes he is making to his life style- both under the force of circumstances and on his own understanding and choice- render the practice of his traditional religion nearly impossible!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 35. INDIAN LITERATURE-PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

35.  INDIAN LITERATURE- PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION.

India has the most ancient literature in the world. Though the tradition was mainly oral, everything was preserved in tact and transmitted at least for five thousand years in an unbroken continuous chain.Till our generation, the Veda, Upanishad ,Gita, Mahabharata , Ramayana and Bhagavatam and other Puranas have been transmitted orally. The Vedas especially have been preserved and transmitted without any textual corruption since there are strict rules in the matter.

While all the originals are in Sanskrit, many works especially the itihasas have been adapted in local languages, which contain variations. While Valmiki's Ramayana is the source, variations in local language versions and in other vernacular traditions are common. Even in Sanskrit there are other versions like Adhyatma Ramayana. 

This does not present any problems, since all the adaptations acknowledge the source, and the variations only accommodate local tastes or regional practices or special vision or genius like that of Tulsidas. In the matter of Ramayana, the case is peculiar. Valmiki treats of Rama as the best among men, but others like Kamban treat him as Avatar from the beginning! In the case of Krishna, there is no problem at all: he was treated as Avatar from the beginning! The Greeks have referred to it; our Tamil Sangam literature talks about it.

Our oral tradition helped preserve our religious literature during the Muslim invasions and the long Muslim rule! The  invading Muslim marauders could destroy thousands of temples, as they destroyed Nalanda University and killed thousands of Buddhist monks. (The great ancient library at Alexandria was destroyed in part several times, but mainly by the orders of emperor Theodosius I on the urging of Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria in 391 AD, as he considered it a Pagan relic; finally it was destroyed by the Arabs under Caliph Omar in 639 AD.) But they could not touch our religious books as these were carried in the head and transmitted by memory. The destruction of temples did not destroy our religion, as our religion is not centred on temples, however magnificent they may be! Indeed, even today we do not use any murti in any Vedic ceremony. We invoke the Deity temporarily in a pot of water or lamp or lump of turmeric or clay or even in a drawing on the floor or kusa grass; it lasts only for the duration of the ceremony and is 'released' at the end.Those who perform 'panchayatana'puja do so in purely natural substances like the root of a plant,  or stone which are not carved into images.

 The very age of our literature poses problems of interpretation. Our major problem started only with the coming of the Europeans. In the 16th and 17th centuries, they discovered new geographical areas or new routes to old areas and colonised them. Christianity , like Islam, is a religion believing in conversion, by force. Between them, they destroyed all old religions wherever they went: Muslims destroyed Zoroastrianism in Iran, they conquered Iraq , Kuwait, Turkey, Syria (Mesopotamia) and Egypt, destroying their native religions. Spaniards and Portuguese went to South America, and destroyed their religion, killing millions of native Indians. Anglo-Saxons occupied North America, and converted it into the USA after killing the natives and driving the rest into 'reservations'. Their tradition was also oral, but more archaic and so it did not survive this sustained Christian onslaught.

But India was different. It had a strong tradition of preservation and transmission. The whole Brahmin caste was meant for this! So here the British followed a clever strategy.They knew that so long as the Brahmins learned and transmitted the Veda, nothing could happen to our religion and literature. So, they interfered with our political and economic arrangements  which supported the system, making them vulnerable and economically weak. The Brahmins were not supposed to earn money by any trade or profession; their religious life was supported by societal charity and munificence of the rulers. Both these were cut off. Directly, they introduced English education and linked it with jobs. So the Brahmins who had no other means of survival took to English education and jobs. Those propagandists who criticise Brahmins for having dominated education, professions, services "for centuries" either do not know or deliberately suppress the fact that Brahmins took to jobs because they had no other go! This phenomenon is hardly 150 years old. Even in the last generation, we had families which were still following the old Vaidic way. Now, it is impossible. The arrogant Brahmins who have become wealthy in the last 50 years or so, and especially  because their son or daughter is working and earning abroad, should also realise that they were all descended from pure Vedic families and that their riches are recent. Last generation came from villages to towns and cities in search of jobs; this generation is going abroad; what will they do next- go to Moon or Mars?

Whatever it is, the British left India 65 years ago, but their educational system still continues! Brahmins are getting alienated from the sources of their traditional knowledge and literature. Traditional methods of learning have been given up. Even in the Vedapathasalas, they now read from books. Sheer hypocrisy prevails; look at the Brahmin families, which still talk of preserving Vedic dharma: how many of them send their own children to study the Veda and other traditional sources?

I have to write all this because Indian literature is primarily religious. Everything else has emanated from it.Even the Kavyas, drama etc are based on puranic or itihasic themes or other legends. This is what we see even in modern writers like Tagore. What is his Gitanjali, which got the Nobel prize, if not religious/spiritual in nature? In the Indian tradition, Vak,ie word, written or spoken, is a gift of Saraswati and the very act of reading and writing is holy or sacred enterprise! Language itself is sacred, having originated from the damaru of Lord Shiva. That is why on the day we honour Saraswati, we refrain from reading and writing! Raja Rao, one of the acclaimed modern Indian writers in English writes:

One of the disciplines that has interested me in Indian literature is its sense of sadhana (exercitia spiritualia)- a form of spiritual growth. In that sense, one is alone in the world....I enjoy the magic of the word. That magic is cultivated mainly by inner silence, one that is cultivated not by associating oneself with society , but often by being away from it. I think I try to belong to the great Indian tradition of the past when literature was considered a sadhana.

There is no village in India, however mean, that has not a rich sthala-purana, or legendary history, of its own. Some god or god-like hero has passed by the village....the Mahatma himself, on one of his many pilgrimages through the country,might have slept in this hut ,the low one, by the village gate. In this way the past mingles with the present,and the gods mingle with men to make the repertory of your grandmother always bright.

 This  shows the spirit in which a serious writer approaches literature. Now, when writing is a profession practised for earning money, and the entire publishing activity has become business, such writers may already belong to the vanished species. But those of us still devoted to good literature should ensure that at least such literature continues to be read and patronised.

Our education has an Euro-centric or now increasingly American centric orientation. In writing or evaluating or interpretation, we are simply adopting western standards. But even here we do not follow their spirit, but imitate them superficially. A century ago, they considered that Homer's epics merely contained  imaginary things. We followed suit, calling our itihasa also epics, and considering them fictitious account. But the westerner went and discovered Troy! Now, Iliad and Odyssey are not considered mere fiction. But our imitators- especially the types who call themselves progressive or secular-do not have that courage, even though the submerged Dwaraka has been discovered, even though Saraswati river has been satellite-photographed!

The Englishmen who translated or interpreted our Sanskrit literature  did so without understanding either Sanskrit or our religion fully! They could not even determine its date- so they made guesses and these are accepted by our imitators as gospel truth! Max Muller who translated the Vedas first assigned some arbitrary dates around 1500BC, but later on admitted that no power on earth can determine the date! But our imitators still harp on 1500BC! Among the English translators/commentators, Griffith alone openly admitted almost on every page, that he did not know the correct meaning, though he proceeded to make his guesses. But our imitators still hold on to such guesses and theories as truth! 

In modern times, it is only Sri Aurobindo who studied and interpreted Veda on the principle of internal consistency, and on the understanding that the Veda contains a deeper meaning of which the ritual factors are mere symbols. Yajna, horse, cow, battle- everything has a symbolic meaning which is not apparent. Rightly have our ancient Tamil poets called the Veda "marai" - ie where the meaning is hidden (from the uninitiated.)  See what happens when supreme knowledge falls into the hands of the unfit- because nuclear science is available to every one, even an extremist or Jihadi may make an atom bomb!

There is a vast body of literature on purely technical subjects- as the mere list of entries in an old library like the Saraswati Mahal at Tanjore will reveal. In ancient India, knowledge in every branch was systematised and turned into a sastra. Astronomy, astrology, medicine, mathematics, logic- the list is very long. And we have Buddhist and Jain sources. The ancient dictionary -the oldest in the world- Amarakosa was by a Jain and it is an authority on Hinduism! The philosophical debates among them are practically endless. There are systems which are atheistic.

We should also remember that all the authors were not Brahmins. Valmiki was not a Brahmin, nor was Rama about whom he sang. Visvamitra, the discoverer of Gayatri, though a Rishi was not of Brahmin origin! Vyasa was of mixed origin. Neither the Kurus, nor Krishna is a Brahmin. Of the ten Avatars, only two- Vamana and Parashurama- are Brahmins but they are not worshipped! Among the Trimurtis, Brahma is considered a Brahmin, but he is not worshipped! So, Brahmins should also realise that they are merely custodians and not originators and be able to reply to criticism.

The Christians have been propagating that Hindu scriptures contain lot of obscenities. When I was in high school, one Christian teacher (D.Timotheus- God bless his soul) used to make fun of our religion and scriptures and Puranic characters. Though we took it as a joke, it still hurt. Then there was one follower of EVR- a Tamil Pundit by name Ramachandran (who had adopted a purely Tamil name 'Ezhil nilavanaar') who likewise used to criticise Hinduism. (Years later , he became a devotee of Satya Sai Baba) When I grew up, I wanted to read the Puranas to find out what they contained.But it was not easy to get a good translation, also containing the original. I found out that the so called obscene matter was all symbolic. eg Indra being cursed  to have female genitals all over his body! Since Christians were criticising us, I wanted to study the Bible and find out what it contained. That is how I started reading it. I found that the Old Testament contained lot of plainly obscene matter. The story of man begins with Adam, the first man created by God disobeying him.It continues with the first son of Adam,Cain,killing Abel, his own brother, the second son of Adam! So the story of mankind according to Genesis begins with Adam's disobedience of God, and murder of his son! No wonder, Christians have been fighting throughout history; even the two World Wars were fought mainly by and among Christians! And their God  openly says that he is a jealous God, who will take revenge on children if parents are at fault!

Now, David was the most famous king among them.His poems -the Psalms- are part of the Scripture (73 out of 150). One day he found a beautiful woman Bathsheba bathing, desired after her fully knowing that she was married and got her pregnant. To hide it, he brought her husband from the battlefront to make him sleep with her, so that it would appear that he made her pregnant! But it didn't work, and David got him killed! He then married the woman. Such are the stories you find in the Bible! Sure, the theologians will have their theories or explanations. But then so would the others, too! Pot should not call kettle black! Such stories circulate all over the world, we do not know why they were included! 

I write this only to show that we must also read the scriptures and literature of other faiths and be prepared for intelligent and informed debates. We can silence critics only by valid arguments. In interpreting any one's scripture, we must adopt their own norms and values. But we have a right to expect the same treatment from them; where it is lacking, we must retaliate appropriately. Avoiding a debate in the name of 'secularism' or some such shibboleth is not warranted.

Today, the American and other academics are maligning Hinduism by all fancy interpretations of our religious literature. The books of a woman academic, who interprets our literature in sexual terms are even prescribed for study in American and UK universities, to which our own youngsters are going! Will our govt allow us to include David's story in a text-book we may write? Can it happen in respect of the life of Prophet Mohammad? This is where secularism stands now in our land in respect of Hindus.

Our problems  are compounded because we have lost our traditional methods of study and interpretation, while the texts themselves are preserved in tact! Sayanacharya, who commented on  the Vedas in the 14th century and who is taken as our authority himself did not know the meaning of many things and gave arbitrary, inconsistent explanations. He was followed by Max Muller, who added his own ignorance and prejudices! Formal study of Sanskrit language and literature, religious or secular, has largely disappeared from our universities (so called) and fallen into disfavour with the public. But Sanskrit is still taught and studied seriously in foreign universities! Religious studies are regularly pursued there, but we do not teach Religion as a subject in our universities! So, the danger grows that foreigners will increasingly study our literature and interpret them in their own way!

There are people among us who feel uncomfortable that our ancient literature is mainly religious or dharmic. They also associate it with Brahmins, without knowing the meaning of 'Brahmanical'. They do not know that the ancient literature of the whole world was like this. European learning and literature was dominated by Christian writing for more than a thousand years; it was displaced gradually by the rediscovery of the Greek and Roman Classics (Renaissance- 15th to 17th century) and later by the advance of science.Humanism replaced religion as the dominant theme of thought and action. This spread wherever the Europeans went colonising. Thus it came to India too. But India had been an advanced society, in science and industry too, unlike Europe! Hindus had never discouraged intellectual or philosophical speculation or argument at any time! We have never suppressed dissent or free thinking. (This is a basic feature of India. Look at our political parties- how many groups are there in each! How many times they have split! Only communists have a rigid command structure - like the Catholic Church!))Nor had they taught unscientific thoughts or opposed science in the name of religion, as Christianity did! But because we got these modern ideas from Europe, we have uncritically accepted everything. However, Europe and America still cling to their Classics, while we have neglected our own and taken to studying their ideas and imitating them in the name of modernisation.Thus for us modernisation simply means Westernisation, de-Indianisation in every possible way! Will an imitator ever command genuine respect? (See our new PM- he commands respect in the world-because he is genuine and original!)

Most Indians are not aware of these issues. Nor do our leading public figures think about them. Many of our modern Gurus have  'foreign' followers and who knows how many of them will turn against us, as many have already done? We Hindus must assert our right to interpret our literature our own way and learn to dump the old European and current American interpretations where  they belong- in the dung heap! We should not accept anything as authoritative just because it comes from the West. We should stop being academic or mental slaves.

Note:

When the Europeans came in contact with our literature, they found that it had three sources: Hindu, Buddhist and Jain. All are 'dharmic' ie based on the idea of dharma. But the Hindu literature was devoted to the discovery of Ultimate truth or Brahman. So, they called it Brahmanical ,to distinguish it from the Buddhist and Jain- it had nothing to do with Brahmins!