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!