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!