LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT
64. BOOKS, LANGUAGE, CIVILISATION
I used to wonder how teachers managed to teach the same subjects, year after year! How did they retain interest? Did they not feel boredom?
In the lower classes at least, the teacher had to handle many subjects. Their academic qualifications were also moderate, indicating a limited range of interests. As they handled different subjects, there was some variety in their academic world.But their role was more fundamental, and the results more permanent or longer lasting: they had to teach and train us in the very basics, which those days were the very foundation not only of literacy,but life itself! They deserve our greatest respect and deepest gratitude.
As we came to higher classes, there was greater specialisation among the teachers: higher qualification, but in a narrower range, not only as among the disciplines such as humanities, social sciences and pure sciences, but within each discipline: Physics meant only that; but within physics, it was dynamics, statics, magnetism, etc. In economics, it was theory, or history of economic thought or economic history, or some other specialisation like monetary theory, fiscal policy, international trade, etc. In every subject it was so. I used to wonder how such qualified teachers could handle the same limited subjects year after year, without loss of interest.
As we came to higher classes, there was greater specialisation among the teachers: higher qualification, but in a narrower range, not only as among the disciplines such as humanities, social sciences and pure sciences, but within each discipline: Physics meant only that; but within physics, it was dynamics, statics, magnetism, etc. In economics, it was theory, or history of economic thought or economic history, or some other specialisation like monetary theory, fiscal policy, international trade, etc. In every subject it was so. I used to wonder how such qualified teachers could handle the same limited subjects year after year, without loss of interest.
I did ask some of them. They told me that like a river, you never stepped into the same subject on two successive days! As they taught, they also reflected and new aspects kept emerging. New books were appearing, tackling the same subject from different angles. Above all, every student was different, and every successive batch was different. They studied differently, approached the subject differently, raised different doubts and questions, their understanding was different! The same approach would not do. So the teachers also changed imperceptibly!
But there was one practical consideration in India: the courses were plainly exam-oriented. And there was a set pattern: the topics in which questions were set in one year would not be the ones to be covered in the next year! So, while the subject was the same over all, the actual focus differed from year to year, providing some variety and variation to the teachers! It also meant that most students would neglect a considerable part of the subject while preparing for the final examination! In the end it meant that no one knew the whole subject thoroughly
The teachers also had their own likes, dislikes and preferences. Our main prof. of economics, the head of the dept, did not like Keynes; so he would not talk about his theories and ideas. In deference to him, the junior lecturers too would not handle them. We had to manage with some books: Dudley Dillard we could follow, but Alvin Hansen was tough, and could not be tackled without guidance, but it was not available.
As students, we could not help it. Degree mattered, marks mattered, not the subject! Mastery of the subject meant nothing, before the need to obtain good marks. So we had to concentrate on the portions expected in the current year; the risk of a question in an unexpected topic had to be taken, but it could be drowned in the choice: we were given 10 questions and asked to answer any 5! So, there was enough cushion. The method worked!
Later, after I got a job and went to Delhi, I came in touch with fellows from the Delhi School of Economics and Delhi University. They would talk all high flowing language: Linear Programming., Harrod-Domar model, the Phillips' Curve; they would talk of Gunnar Myrdal, Paul Sweezy etc. We from the Madras University would be more modest; we would talk of mercantilism and physiocrats; classical and neo classical theories; trade cycles; marginal theory and equilibrium analysis, competition and its state or degree of perfection and imperfection; Marshall and Schumpeter; Frank Knight and Taussig; Adam Smith and the canons of taxation; Ellsworth and the international economy, with Bertil Ohlin and Haberler thrown in. Indeed we were from different parts of the planet. Madras university had concentrated on the basics: with theory, history, international economics. Delhi University had focused on growth, econometrics, comparative economies, etc. Madras dealt with the foundation, Delhi with the superstructure. Madras had been traditional; Delhi, leftist in orientation! They said we were stuck at the base; we replied that they were flying fancy kites!
I was seized with a sense of deficiency. I wanted to read on my own and update. Luckily, just then, the Joint Indo-US textbook programme had been initiated, with PL-480 funds, under which major American university text books were made available in India at incredibly low prices. Indian universities were still heavily under the shadow of UK institutions and the influence of their text books: Marshall, Benham, Pigou, Hicks, Alexander Gray, Southgate, Sayers, Crowther, Stonier and Hague, Gide and Rist, etc. The only American author we followed was P.T. Ellsworth for International Economics, though we knew about Samuelson. But the American textbooks opened our eyes and stimulated our minds. Samuelson's book alone was worth its weight in gold! We had an array of books, variety of approaches, immense amount of material. I really thanked my stars that I did not know about them while in college: had so much material been available, I would have been overwhelmed, unable to digest and master so much and would have flunked the exam! But now I could read them leisurely, with no pressure of any sort. I took leave from my office for two months in two blocks, and read the books non stop! The American books were more verbose and heavier, but they felt lighter; the English books had been dense, in comparison. I would make only two exceptions: Crowther, and Gray. They were delightful reads. Later, I got a number of Penguins -all very interesting, mainly because they were not textbooks! But the British publications were also available in cheaper editions in the ELBS series. Alas, such initiatives are no more present. But today, cheaper Indian editions of popular textbooks are available, but they lack the quality and feel of the original editions. If you had seen the original editions of Samuelson, Mankiw, Peter Drucker and then their Indian reprints, you would know.
The biggest let down was in respect of English literature. The British editions came with minimum or no annotations, no background material. OUP was our main source. In the class room, the lecturers helped. But if you wanted to read and understand on your own, you were helpless. We often could not read much of the poets, except what we got in the anthologies like the Golden Treasury. Later we had the Mentor Book of Major British Poets, and Fifteen Poets in the ELBS series. But these were without notes or annotations. Even in respect of major authors like Dickens or Hardy, it was difficult to get a complete set of uniform editions. And what we could get, came without notes or annotations.This was a serious limitation for the general reader. As students of economic history, we could at least appreciate the themes of Dickens- he was indeed a disguised Marx: Marx sans revolution. He was equally direct, but more persuasive and less alienating! But Hardy was tough: the university prescribed some books like Trumpet Major or Woodlanders. But his major novels raised many vital social and moral questions, and these could not be appreciated without adequate background material. The publishers probably assumed that readers only wanted the stories; they did not perhaps realise that many readers were also students of social history, and wanted to go beyond the story! A good author uses a story to convey something more serious or important. It is like the finger pointing at the moon! Only children catch the finger!
This problem was finally solved when I found the Norton Critical Editions. I discovered a volume in a sale of used books with one seller in Bombay dealing in second-hand books, usually library discards. The first volume I got was a collection of Essays. I had read such collections in British editions; but this was stunning: with introductions, notes and annotations, questions and exercises to stimulate further thought and reflection. It was like doing a full college course! And the essays covered many areas- language and literature; arts and science; social critique and environment, etc. It was a complete introduction to liberal education- something I had always valued. It is the foundation of enlightened, responsible citizenship! It introduced us to so many thinkers and writers! It was indeed a thrilling exposure.
But it was not easy to get other volumes. What we could get was very costly. But in the end, it was worth it. If you got a volume of say Thoreau's essays, you got about 20 critical assessments of his times and ideas, from both contemporary and modern sources! Is this a small thing? Where can you get so much material in India- in which library or university? Over the years, I have acquired many volumes of the poets one by one. After I got introduced to the Net, it has been so easy to find the volumes, read about them and also readers' assessment.
Though the major poets are British, no British publisher covers them like Norton! I have volumes of Wordsworth from Oxford, Penguin, etc. But they are no match to the Norton edition. The same thing is true about Milton, Keats, Shelley, Byron, Coleridge, Blake, Tennyson, Browning! Only, I could not get one on Pope or Longfellow! Read the Penguin or Oxford edition of Tom Sawyer or Mayor of Casterbridge or Oliver Twist and the Norton edition and see the difference! We spend more, but learn so much more!
I have found essential differences between the American and British approaches. They use the same alphabet, but their languages are so markedly different!
In all subjects, the British approach is heavy, which can be taken to be scholarly, but the American is lighter, though no less scholarly! In my main subject, economics, the main British books were the same- wore the same look and bore the same content over the years. But Samuelson was stimulatingly different- each edition had a different major theme- dollar shortage in one, petro or euro dollar or dollar glut in another! So, we had to keep updating ! The British books were strong on theory, but dealt with no practical problems or situations, except to a limited extent by such as Hugh Dalton who talked of his war time experiences at the Exchequer. But Samuelson, and other American authors following him, always took up practical issues for discussion. It is here that the great Keynes proved his greatness: he took up the biggest practical problem faced by the whole capitalist system- secular stagnation- and prescribed the most practical, and eminently workable and immediately effective solution, thus rescuing the whole system from collapse! But he was more acceptable in America than in England! That by itself demonstrates the difference in the attitudes: England is conservative; America is more open to experimentation! (and more prone to error too?)
But there is one area where England is supreme: constitutional history! England after all is the Mother of Parliaments and works without a written Constitution! People talk of the wonders of the world and look at buildings and rocks and gardens, but this living wonder of a stable democracy functioning without a written Constitution, when those with written ones go on rewriting or even dumping them, goes unnoticed!
British political ideas have shaped half the world, and that half is comparatively stable! The French Revolution was dazzling, but fizzled out, disillusioning all the English romantics! The American revolution was sober in comparison, and more civilised in expression or execution. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are but slogans, and so they have remained without concrete shape or expression. But 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' have been more than mere ideals or slogans. Though they have a spiritual flavour, as perceived by thoughtful writers,they have been converted into concrete economic terms! And these sway the whole world today! However, the daily life of civilised nations is governed by the Rule of Law of which the British have been the great exemplars! The writings of the great British theorists and authors of an earlier generation- Jennings and Dicey, Sabine and Laski, K.C.Wheare and Ernest Barker- still sparkle and serve as the beacon light.
At base is a major factor. England has had a longer and more chequered history than America. They therefore have a more balanced view. They are not easily moved by a new idea, nor do they fall easy victims to passing fancies of thought. Swami Vivekananda pointed this out long ago: he felt that it was more difficult to convince the Englishman, but once done, the results lasted longer, than was the case with the American. To me, this reveals a great fact: England is a civilisation; it vibrates. America is only a nation, however great, just 400 years old!. It is not a civilisation- at least, as yet! We admire a country, but a civilisation evokes respect!
I have found essential differences between the American and British approaches. They use the same alphabet, but their languages are so markedly different!
In all subjects, the British approach is heavy, which can be taken to be scholarly, but the American is lighter, though no less scholarly! In my main subject, economics, the main British books were the same- wore the same look and bore the same content over the years. But Samuelson was stimulatingly different- each edition had a different major theme- dollar shortage in one, petro or euro dollar or dollar glut in another! So, we had to keep updating ! The British books were strong on theory, but dealt with no practical problems or situations, except to a limited extent by such as Hugh Dalton who talked of his war time experiences at the Exchequer. But Samuelson, and other American authors following him, always took up practical issues for discussion. It is here that the great Keynes proved his greatness: he took up the biggest practical problem faced by the whole capitalist system- secular stagnation- and prescribed the most practical, and eminently workable and immediately effective solution, thus rescuing the whole system from collapse! But he was more acceptable in America than in England! That by itself demonstrates the difference in the attitudes: England is conservative; America is more open to experimentation! (and more prone to error too?)
But there is one area where England is supreme: constitutional history! England after all is the Mother of Parliaments and works without a written Constitution! People talk of the wonders of the world and look at buildings and rocks and gardens, but this living wonder of a stable democracy functioning without a written Constitution, when those with written ones go on rewriting or even dumping them, goes unnoticed!
British political ideas have shaped half the world, and that half is comparatively stable! The French Revolution was dazzling, but fizzled out, disillusioning all the English romantics! The American revolution was sober in comparison, and more civilised in expression or execution. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are but slogans, and so they have remained without concrete shape or expression. But 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' have been more than mere ideals or slogans. Though they have a spiritual flavour, as perceived by thoughtful writers,they have been converted into concrete economic terms! And these sway the whole world today! However, the daily life of civilised nations is governed by the Rule of Law of which the British have been the great exemplars! The writings of the great British theorists and authors of an earlier generation- Jennings and Dicey, Sabine and Laski, K.C.Wheare and Ernest Barker- still sparkle and serve as the beacon light.
At base is a major factor. England has had a longer and more chequered history than America. They therefore have a more balanced view. They are not easily moved by a new idea, nor do they fall easy victims to passing fancies of thought. Swami Vivekananda pointed this out long ago: he felt that it was more difficult to convince the Englishman, but once done, the results lasted longer, than was the case with the American. To me, this reveals a great fact: England is a civilisation; it vibrates. America is only a nation, however great, just 400 years old!. It is not a civilisation- at least, as yet! We admire a country, but a civilisation evokes respect!
No comments:
Post a Comment