LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 28. WHY ENGLISH LITERATURE?

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

28. WHY ENGLISH LITERATURE?

A friend has questioned me why I keep harping on English literature. He can understand the importance of the language for practical purposes, but wonders why we should study their literature so much, when we are so different in vital respects. We do have our own, after all.

Once we concede the importance of learning English, we must realise the importance of learning it well. Any language is best learned from the good native speakers and natural writers- from those who "are born and pickled in it", in the words of Aldous Huxley.

I will relate a personal experience. I had learned Hindi in school, and in SSLC it was a compulsory language for me, along with Tamil and English. I had learned it rather well, and could write essays in it; our teacher Velayudham was quite good and he had drilled us hard- we were only three students and so it was almost like a Gurukulam. Yet when I went to Delhi and listened to the native speakers,(not Punjabis speaking Hindi, though Punjabi by itself is a splendid language)) I realised how beautiful the language was as she was spoken there, and how artificial sounded our Hindi taught through the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha!It was not the natural expression of living thoughts! And when I listened to the really learned people from Lucknow ,Allahabad, Varanasi, Bhopal etc, I realised the variety and richness. Though I liked the old Hindi film music, once I started paying attention to the lyrics and the diction , I realised how superb were Talat Mahmood and Mohammad Rafi in the matter! In short, the native speakers have a natural feel for the sound and its nuances; their language is idiomatic; ours may be grammatically correct, but not spontaneous. Later on, I found it in every other place: for real Kannada, you must listen to cultured people from Mysuru; for good Marathi, you should listen to people fromPune-Kolhapur area, not the streets of Bombay, or even Nagpur; the Telugu in Madras or Hyderabad is mixed: go to Karnool, Guntur, Visakhapatnam to know the rich variety of a language which is regarded as naturally sweet like honey (Telugu theta; 'Sundara Telugu', said our own Bharati!) Everywhere, the language of the cultured people is far different from the common tongue. So it is with English.

Historically, English has been our window to the modern world and modern knowledge. English people themselves considered some one a 'gentleman' only if he knew French and had exposure to the Continent ( especially France, Italy, Germany) We find every great English writer travelling the continent almost religiously, and getting acquainted with its rich cultural traditions- literature, arts, music, philosophy! This, in spite of their political differences and rivalries, and even religious discord! Superficially, culture divides, but at a deeper level, all cultured people think and feel alike. Culture is the common language of cultivated souls, the universal bond.

 How else can a Shakespeare become the darling of educated people all over the world without the dictate of any authority?? How else can we account for a Schopenhauer or Emerson getting mad after our Upanishads! Ironically, Gandhiji himself planted a subtle hatred of the English language, while he did not hate the British; unfortunately there are some well meaning people in all parts of the country who still hate English: to what extent they go to keep it out as a medium of instruction,  even while not being able to deny its inevitability! It is like we would admit a guest in our reception or living room, not beyond! But one who is with you for 200 years- is he a mere guest?

But it can go to absurd lengths. Some people plant the poison of language versus language. Private schools in Karnataka had to go to Supreme Court to claim their right to keep English as the medium of instruction, the state govt and influential Kannada writers opposing it all the way. Even uglier was the incident involving R.K Narayan's memory. When his house in Mysore was being demolished, some lovers of literature woke up and objected; surprisingly, the state govt. wanted to preserve it as a memorial; but the same Kannada writers ganged up against the proposal, on the ground that Narayan wrote in English and not in Kannada and therefore the Karnataka govt should not make his memorial! I was surprised to find even U.R.Ananthamurthy, considered enlightened and progressive, in this group, though he gave the specious argument that the other memorials in the charge of the govt were not maintained well and so one more should not be added! Ultimately it is all plain jealousy, and feeling of one's own inadequacy. Which of these local language writers is known world wide, or even outside his state? It is R.K.Narayan writing in English that brought fame to the country.  See how truly international he was in spirit- with Tamil as mother tongue, loving and living in Mysore, writing in English even as few Englishmen could do, drawing universal praise that his writing portrayed the spirit of the young, with which youngsters everywhere could identify! All other writers are only beating their tiny domestic drums, to please the local crowds.

This is the bane of local chauvinism, bred by linguistic division, and communal politics. Is there a national memorial for Tagore or C.V.Raman or Ramanujam? Are they honoured in any state outside their home ones? But they all lived in British India when India was truly one nation;it did not matter where they lived and worked. But now, other states will not honour Tagore because he was a Bengali, and wrote in Bengali. Karnataka will not honour Raman because he was a Tamilian, and wrote in English, though he lived and worked in Bangalore, and though, as a scientist, he was international.Tamil Nad will not honour Ramanujam because, though a Tamilian, he was a Brahmin!

This is the first advantage we have with English: with it, we acquire a universal spirit, and rise above all "narrow domestic walls" (in the words of Gurudev Tagore). Sanskrit is the most excellent language in the world-and the one in which all the original thought and literature of India is embedded- but it has no claimants within India: the north considers it the language of the Brahmins and religion; the south considers it the language of the north and Brahmins.The language is so neglected that today you can access Sanskrit works only through English or other translations!

But our educated people have served Sanskrit ill. After Sri Aurobindo and Dr.Radhakrishnan we have not had a scholar well versed in both Indian and Western thought and traditions to be able to translate Sanskrit treasures to a learned International audience. The foreigners who do it have no deep understanding of the subject, or real love for it; and they have their own hidden agendas. The Indians who do it are not all scholars. When one observes the thousands of volumes written on Shakespeare,Milton and other English gems,and how little is known about Kalidasa, Vyasa, Bartruhari, Bhavabuti, Bana, Harsha and others, one really feels like crying.The poetic excellence of even  Valmiki, the Adikavi has not been brought out.

English has grown with the times. English has moulded the times. All indian languages have been stagnant for a 1000 years. Every thought and work, anywhere in the world, worth preserving or reading finds its way into English. Anything written in English commands an international audience, if it is worthwhile! Nobody looks to the nationality of the writer. V.S.Naipaul,Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Dom Moraes, Nissim Ezekiel , Amartya Sen ,R.K.Narayan-all rose to eminence because they wrote in English. Tagore and Munshi Premchand became well known only when they were translated into English. Poet Bharati sang that excellence, if it is genuine, should be recognised by the world; the world can do so, only when it is in English. Bharati is not recognised outside Tamil Nad because his work is not translated. N.Raghunathan translated Sangam Tamil works into English and made them known all over the world. It was an Englishman, Dr.Hardy who recognised a Ramanujam because his notebooks were in English! It was Graham Greene who recognised R.K.Narayan and promoted him. Some scholars have recently translated Ghalib and Kabir because they fit the secular agenda; who has translated Purandaradasa or Tyagaraja,though they are recognised for their literary excellence, no less than for musical merits?  Poems of the Bengali saint Ramaprasad mentioned in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna were translated into good English  by an American. Romesh Chandra Dutt, that distinguished civil servant, attempted a verse translation of Ramayana but it was Edwin Arnold's work on the Buddha- The Light of Asia- which won acclaim. Tagore's own Gitanjali was rendered in English by W.B.Yeats!

English too was once considered  a mere "vernacular" and incapable or unfit for expressing lofty thoughts, like Greek or Latin. The first attempts of English poets to express epic thoughts in English elicited ridicule and opposition (very much like the effort of Jnandev to write a commentary on the Gita in Marathi!)  English writers first tried to express epic ideas and themes from Greek and Latin in prose, poetry and drama,to gain acceptability and respect;but once knowledge became secular and broke out of the medieval Christian theological mould, English became its pre-eminent voice and vehicle, totally obliterating Greek and Latin. This is a historical fact, and we have to bow before it.

Medieval Europe was dominated by Church doctrines.By the 15th century, scholars had recovered the ancient Greek and Roman texts and generated an interest in the ancient culture, leading to its intellectual revival first in Italy, from where it slowly spread to the whole of Europe.This is known as the Renaissance (which means 'rebirth' in French).They were surprised by the philosophic acumen, literary advance,political debates and cultural practices of the Ancient Greeks. But the philosophical thoughts of the Greeks were not of any church doctrine, though they were spiritual!  Thus was humanism born in Europe which became the foundation of  subsequent European intellectual endeavour. Doubt, disbelief, and unrestrained questioning- these became the main attitude. But over all, there was the recognition of the hand of providence or the power of fate; these dictated a life of moral restraint and virtuous conduct. All these sentiments and attitudes we can notice in the works of  Shakespeare (especially the Tragedies),Ben Jonson and John Milton.Thus, the English language responded splendidly and absorbed eagerly the new impulse.It was during this period (1611-1614)that Chapman first translated Homer into English.(Till then,Englishmen learned it through Latin, Italian or French!) This translation is still in print and read! Shakespeare and Milton have remained unequalled and unexcelled, and been the beacons for all the subsequent generations. Great is the nation that knows its true masters and honours them down the centuries!

In the next century and a half, England experienced great changes in all areas of life. Its literature responded magnificently: in the form of novels, poetry, drama, criticism and the greatest single 

achievement in the English language to date: publication of the dictionary by Dr.Johnson,1755 revolutionising the way people thought and wrote.The great literary figures of the period include:Dryden, Milton, Aphra Behn,Congrave, Defoe,Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, John Gay,Henry Fielding, Dr.Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Thomas Gray, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Horace Walpole.This was the time Industrial Revolution took firm hold and greatly disrupted the old pastoral way of life and the rural civilisation. While Adam Smith , the father of modern economics  celebrated the rise of the industrial economy and the manufacturing system, Goldsmith was to lament the loss of the old harmonies and  "the simple blessings of the lowly train", displacing people out of their rural communities.

The next block of 50 years, roughly from 1780 to 1830 constitutes one of the most significant periods which changed the English way of life for ever: England lost America (1776-84) but conquered India (1757); enchantment with and disillusion brought about by the French Revolution; Napoleonic wars; opening of the railway, discovery of electromagnetism,invention of the telegraph, the Morse code,relentless march of the Industrial Revolution, founding of Royal Societies, abolition of slave trade by England and France,founding of London Times, and University of London.In literary circles this is known as the 'Romantic' period. It marks great enthusiasm generated by new ideas and hopes like the French Revolution, the mental and moral distress caused by its violent aftermath, the social discontent caused by economic changes, loss of  faith in organised Christianity due to the discoveries of science, the growing disbelief in the Bible as the word of God, etc. There was great intellectual ferment and moral distress. Great poets arose and sang with one voice: what if there is no Bible and the church- there is Nature! Look at the stars and the moon, Sun and sea, tree and flower, forest and mountains! Even look at the most common things or people- the pedlar, the beggar, the old cottage. Look at them well- for they intimate to you the message of the Immortal! What if science has made you doubt every old certainty- Nature can save you! Wordsworth and Coleridge, Blake and Byron, Keats and Shelly celebrated a return to nature, discarded belief in a paradise after death but stressed the creation of heaven on earth, here and now. Once man was part of nature, but unconsciously; intellectual advance has made man knowledgeable but destroyed the old unity; but man should not discard intellect- he must use his Mind to connect with Nature. This will create a new, greater unity on a higher level; the distress can therefore be a means for further advance. This is the theme of the Romantic poetry- perhaps the largest body of poetry on a single theme. The other great figures of the period are: William Cowper,Robert Burns, Maria Edgeworth,Anna Seward, Charlotte Smith, Robert Southey, Walter Scott, Mary Robinson, Thomas Moore, Charles and Mary Lamb, Jane Austen, Leigh Hunt, William Hazlitt, Thomas De Quincy, Mary Shelley,  Tennyson. Not  all of them were Romantics, but it was the Romantics who dominated and coloured the scene.

But this achievement was overshadowed , if not fully overthrown in the next 7 decades by the mighty waves of three ideas: progress due to science, expansion due to colonisation, and the movement of the Englishman all over the world! This roughly coincided with the reign of Queen Victoria and is called the Victorian age lasting up to her death in 1901.The literature of the period was full of the  imperialistic spirit, believing in the civilising role of the white man- called the white man's burden; religion was almost totally displaced as the dominant theme of life by science, thanks largely to Darwin; industrialism was riding on the capitalist ideology but philosophers like Marx as well as men of letters like Dickens had started noticing the distress. The period was dominated by Tennyson and Robert and Elizabeth Browning,Swinburne-poets; the Bronte sisters, Charles Dickens, Anthony Trollope, George Eliot, Thackeray, Lewis Carrol, Blackmore,Thomas Hardy, R.L. Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle,-all novelists; the other great literary figures being Mathew Arnold, Carlyle, Ruskin, Rudyard Kipling, Oscar Wilde, John Henry Newman, Charles Kingsley.

The 20th century is clearly divided into two halves: before and after the Second World War. Of course the First World War-called the Great War then- shattered the old world, it was the second war that was more far reaching  in many ways. The greatest scientific advances were made: Quantum Theory, Discovery of the atomic structure and the splitting of the atom; Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity. Many social reforms relating to labour, education, pension, were introduced. Freud revolutionised our idea of the human psyche. (Just reflect: the three most influential people in the modern world have been three Jews: Marx, Einstein, Freud) The literature of the period broke away from all previous limits and constraints. Look at the great figures of the era: Ibsen, Henry James,H.G.Wells, W.B.Yeats,Thomas Hardy (emerging as a poet), G.B.Shaw, Walter de la Mare,Conrad, Samuel Butler,E.M.Forster, John Galsworthy, James Joyce, Ezra Pound, D.H.Lawrence, Katherine Mansfield, Robert Bridges, Thomas Mann,Marcel Proust, Kafka, Somerset Maugham,T.S.Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Agatha Christie, Wilfred Owen, Lytton Strachey, Aldous Huxley, Houseman, Noel Coward, Scot Fitzgerald, Robert Graves, Hemingway, Faulkner, J.B.Priestley,W.H.Auden, Stephen Spender. The literature of the period thoroughly rejected the values of the earlier era, and refused to consider anything sacred. Nothing was certain any more-everything was open to question. This is generally considered as the era of 'modernism' though no one is sure what exactly it means, except that it turns all old ideas and values upside down!

But this also marks the beginning of the decline of the influence of England in world affairs, though not of English. The United States has emerged as the superpower and dominance of the English language now continues and  radiates from the States.English is the language of science and research in all fields; it is the US which shelters and harbours all new thoughts of whatever kind. Their Universities are funded well, and pays their academic faculty so well, any one  any where in the world finds his way there. Even the famed British universities are unable to compete with them. One simply cannot keep count of the new books and papers written- all in English, though American English. With the rise of the WWW culture, this is now the standard in the media and among the younger generation.

I have taken some pain to list the names of so many literary figures just to stress one point to those who object to the study of English literature : can they point out the names of at least a dozen comparable men of letters in India in any language, including English? We may not agree with all that they say, but we first  have to master what they say , in their own language, even to refute them. We cannot behave like the ostrich. All our literary figures are imitators, either from the old epics of India or from the rest of the world. This is so not only in our writings, but even in our media- the cinema and the TV.

After all, what is the theme of our movies and TV serials? Violence and sex; marital discord and infidelity; betrayal of friends, parents, children; depiction of the devious in the name of reality; in short: love of money, running after women, the pleasures of the flesh. Are not these the subjects treated in the Mahabharata? The recent Tamil blockbuster 'Dhalapati' - is it not the story of Karna? Was not Sholay frame to frame copy of foreign films? Is not our film music lifted from western tunes? What is even Harry Potter except these old stories?

Our problem is not with English, but with ourselves.We have lost the ability to think for ourselves. The generation before Independence used English to fight Englishmen; the generation after is using the same English to imitate them! And we are silently adopting their themes and ideas in every sphere of life!

English literature reflects the changing thoughts continuously from the Elizabethan age ie the age of Shakespeare. It has also furthered those thoughts. Can we show a similar trend in any Indian language?Let us be clear on one thing: there are many undesirable developments in modern literature- in English or our own languages. But in the current state of technology and intellectual climate, we cannot immunise ourselves and turn Risyasringas! We have to face them and overcome them. Many things are not desirable; but there are also many good elements and features. Everything in English is not bad, just as everything in our languages is not good,either! We have to discriminate.

Directly and indirectly, we  deal with borrowed ideas.Our Universities and colleges and other institutions are Indian only in name! So it is better to go to the source direct. Indian languages are all good as literary languages, dealing with old themes ,ideas and subjects. English is indispensable for new subjects. If we have to learn English at all, we may as well learn it well. And we can't do that unless we study the writings of those whose language it is. It does not mean we have to acquire their accent : we may study their literature, but speak the language our own way! Americans do not speak  or spell English like Englishmen; why then should we imitate either, while we are here? Those who have had exposure to Englishmen know that even there people from the different regions speak English differently! Variety adds to richness and we can have our own. Surely, Shakespeare will not object, for he cannot understand  the current English, just as present day Englishmen cannot follow Shakespeare without annotations!

Note:

1.All modern movements in the world prior to the rise of the US were from England or we got acquainted with them only through England and English. So they are not just English phenomena. Many of the changes and problems faced in England in the 18th century are occuring today in India: disruption of rural life and economy, displacement of people, migration to cities, urban poverty and squalor, unchecked expansion of cities (esp.London)  bad conditions of the roads and difficulty in transportation,etc.. And we are following the same muddle-headed policies as the British did then! If our people had studied the economic and social history, or atleast its literature , they would know better! 

2.The British, as well as Americans are not narrow-minded when it comes to the question of welcoming or appreciating new ideas.A Hardy identified the genius of Ramanujam and invited him to Cambridge.A Graham Green recognised a writer in Narayan and made him known. A Yeats knew the worth of Tagore and translated Gitanjali. Recently, it was the Prince of Wales who recognised the economic and social value of the Dabbawallas of Mumbai.Our Venkataraman Ramakrishnan could go to England and pursue Chemistry studies and research there, after graduating in Physics in India. Can he do it in India? Will Bangalore or Madras University give such facilities to a graduate from another state?  When I wanted to pursue Phd in Bombay,(in the 80s) they told me that I could do so only if I got my Masters from them! Will Karnataka recognise a Marathi and Tamil writer ? Will they even honour a leading sportsman who plays for India if he is not a Kannadiga? It is the case in all the states. Was Amartya Sen honoured by any other state when he got the Economics Nobel? Excellence in English is our only insurance against such narrow-mindedness and local fanaticism.

3. English literature is unique because it records the big developments or movements of each epoch, their reactions to it and their reflections on it. India too faced many developments: the fall of the Mughals in 1858, imprisonment and banishment of the last Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar; participation of Indian soldiers in the First World War; Jallianwallabagh; the struggle for Independence; the planning era; the war with China and Pakistan. Yet, how many works of literature on these subjects are available in Indian languages? Except some private diaries of Mirza Ghalib, and some poems by Bahadur Shah himself, no one has lamented the passing of an empire which lasted 300 years! There is absolutely no literary record. In Tamil, Bharatiyar sang about the freedom movement before Gandhi; he has just one poem of 5 stanzas (panchakam) on Gandhi. ( He died in 1921) Namakkal Ramalingam Pillai sang about the Gandhian era, including that famous marching song for the Salt Satyagraha: A war is coming, without swords and bloodshed. How big is our literature on the subject? English literature constitutes a valuable record of the social, economic, political and intellectual movements of the respective eras!