LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 71.LITERARY GREATS: SUNLIGHT AND SHADOW

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

71. LITERARY GREATS: SUNLIGHT AND SHADOW

There is a saying with us that one should not enquire into the origins of rivers and great figures. Perhaps what it conveys is the popular English saying that every saint has a past, every sinner a future.

Saints condemn themselves!

In the Hindu tradition, most poet-saints condemn themselves as great sinners, comparing themselves to dogs which are considered  lowly creatures, often giving a whole list of unworthy things they had done. Superficial commentators take such things literally and conclude that they had indeed been morally bad before they were rescued by God out of his mercy.Arunagirinatha is perhaps the most glaring example in Tamil literature.

Serious students know that this is not the way to take matters. The saints are usually imputing to themselves all the bad things happening in society- the five kinds of deadly sins, the three kinds of dire attachments, womanising, drinking, murder,etc. This is just a literary style,  not to be taken literally.

Lives transformed


Through legend and history, some events are recorded as the turning point: Valmiki's encounter with the rishis before he was imparted the name of Rama, Purandaradasa's excessive attachment to wealth and God opening his eyes through his wife's devotion, Tulsidas being snubbed by his wife about his excessive attachment to her physical form, etc.

But such transformation need not necessarily be after a period of immoral conduct. In  Kalidasa's case, it was a village idiot become a great poet through the grace of the Goddess. In modern days, the great Indian mathematical genius Ramanujam said that the Goddess revealed to him the mathematical formulae in his dreams.As the poet sang, 'God moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform'. Yes, mysterious, but not arbitrary or capricious. There is surely a method- a reason, justification but we do not know.

Old idols and fallen angels

In our younger days, the leaders of the freedom movement were our idols- Sri Aurobindo,Tilak, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose, Rajaji etc. But as we grew up, and read more about them, we saw that the public image, created, magnified and spread by the popular press did not reflect the whole truth.

Take Gandhi, for instance. What I learned about Gandhi did not match the image. I understood him in four main roles: as a political leader, religious experimenter, social reformer and economic thinker. He began as an advocate of the Indian genius as the foundation of his political thinking in the Hind Swaraj, but this idea evaporated or got diluted on the way.As he plunged deeper into practical politics, he became an advocate of parliamentary democracy. He developed ideas of Satyagraha, Non-violence, etc but they did not work. We finally got Independence in spite of Gandhi, not because of him.In the process the country got divided, something I can never forgive the Congress for. They had no mandate from the people to divide the country. This was betrayal, and Gandhi's greatest failure. Gandhi as a political leader failed at crucial times-all crucial times. As a political leader,  he was plain Mr.Gandhi, not the Mahatma he is taken to be.

As a religious experimenter, Gandhi is great, though his ideas were not based on a proper or deep understanding of any formal religion. He interpreted Hinduism in terms of his superficial idea of Christianity, and he had no understanding of Islam as a religious faith or historical force. "Iswar-Allah Tere Naam" is the most idiotic formula I have heard. God is one, no doubt but that One is beyond name and form. The Muslim will never say Iswar and Allah, or its variations Ram and Rahim, Krishna and Karim are the same! It is just a fancy, and only idiotic Hindus chant such nonsense formulae.

But there is another aspect to Gandhi's religion- his spiritual quest. He was a follower of Advaita, and a sincere devotee of Rama though his Rama was not necessarily the Rama of Ayodhya, son of Dasaratha.In the 20s he had stated that Ram had occupied his heart and if any one cut it open, he would find only Ram there! Twenty years later , in the thick of public life, some one put bullets right into his heart, and he died with the name of Rama on his lips!  This one act makes him Gandhiji, the Mahatma! I fall at his feet.

His social reforms were mixed. But he was reacting to too many things, a bit more than he could chew, swallowed more than he could digest.

But as an economic thinker, he was superb! He was far ahead of his times.  At one level, he gave and implemented practical ideas of a parallel economy and showed that things could be done positively, constructively  even without political power. This aspect has not been appreciated in this country. 

But the thoughts he gave against modern civilisation,and its absurd economic base make him one of the foremost economic thinkers of modern times. People like Schumacher understood it, and developed further. Today, it has become the very foundation of alternative economics with fancy names such as: steady-state economy, sustainable economics, economy of permanence, humanistic economics, etc. This again is not understood by Indians yet. Nehru himself is the chief villain here.

The net result is that I admire Gandhi in parts. I feel that on the whole, he has been a failure. This has been a great personal disappoint for me. My mother considered Mahatma an avatar of Rama and formally worshipped him, especially on Fridays, the day of his martyrdom!

Greatness thrust upon
Greatness overlooked

Nehru was an early idol- some one we learned to adore without knowing anything about him! As I studied more, and in detail, I feel he is a thoroughly useless leader- in fact not a leader at all, but one on whom greatness has been thrust. He is totally out of my reckoning. All the ills of Independent India are wholly due to the Gandhi-Nehru duo.

Netaji Bose was good but sadly mistaken in the method he adopted to fight the British.

Sardar Patel was a giant, a man with a strong character, solid leadership qualities, sound judgement. He was always wrong when he supported Gandhi, and right when he thought and acted independently. He was giant. If India is still one nation it is due to Sardar Patel alone. He is the real father of the nation, the architect of free India. It is our misfortune that Gandhi did him injustice and made Nehru PM. It was Patel's misfortune that he had to serve under someone like Nehru, who did not have sound economic or political ideas, suffering great humiliation and insult. A kind Providence released him through death. India will remember him as along as it remains one nation.

Rajaji is a very great leader, but born in the wrong place, wrong community. The idea of the first non-cooperation movement was born in his house in Madras , when he had hosted Gandhi. Gandhi decided to  wear his typical minimum outfit when he travelled with Rajaji between Trichy and Madurai. Rajaji is the only congress leader who proved  his mettle in administration, eliciting admiration even from the British. He was the one to introduce Prohibition in India first. He was the one to introduce sales tax to compensate for the consequential revenue loss. He was the one to introduce land reform in India, favouring the tenants as against the landlords. There are so many things he did silently.  Perhaps his greatest contribution was to understand the totalitarian trends of Nehru,warn the country against the evils of the permit -licence-quota raj, and take up the cudgels against disastrous socialist policies of Nehru,and float the Swatantra Party as the true opposition, when he was at the ripe young age of 80!   Unfortunately, people feared his intellect, and forgot his heart! He was not understood fully or properly in his time, or later. It is his his ideas which are followed in a distorted, deformed, diluted dose, without due acknowledgement!

My estimation of Patel and Rajaji has grown with the years, though I still cannot digest the fact that they too had to support partition- Gandhi had pushed every one to that corner.

The point in writing this is to show that with increasing access to information and knowledge, our childhood idols fall from their pedestals. Heroes turn villains, if we keep our heads steady.

This has happened in the case of our other international leaders also- Churchill, Kennedy, for instance. It has happened in the case of sports persons too.

Golden hearts in tinsel town

I have never been an admirer of any cine-star. I used to like the great film music of the golden 50s, but was not a fan of any star, nor had seen many films: I stopped seeing films 40 years ago! Even so, the world is such that you do get some information and get to like and dislike people. I liked that Kishore Kumar defied Sanjay Gandhi, and refused to meet him in the days of the emergency. I liked that Dev Anand even floated a political outfit to oppose the Emergency! I liked that Bimal Roy ascended the platform in his native dhoti-kurta to accept the Filmfare award, when the audience of fashionable filmi people indulged in derisive laughter! I liked that Talat Mohammad gave up his own chances and asked the music directors to take Mukesh  for playback singing in Madhumati, when Mukesh was struggling! I liked when one song composed by Roshan- Rahen na rahen hum- became a big hit, and S.D.Burman rang up to congratulate him, Roshan said that  he had merely copied an old tune of Dada Burman himself- from the song 'Thandi Hawayen, lehraake aayen'- from Naujawan! And I liked even more that Burmanda replied: Arre bhai, we all copy. After all there are only 7  swaras and we always keep copying! What  examples of personal courage,humility, camaraderie, in a  known  dog-eat-dog world!

I have noticed such instances in Hollywood too. Charlton Heston said that his entire outlook and character changed after he played Moses in The Ten Commandments: he could not play normal hero roles. I liked when the following incident was reported about Clark Gable: He had longed to get a child, but his son was born posthumously. One day it seems that his spirit appeared to his son and warned him: 'My son, my son, let not Hollywood fool thee, let not Hollywood deceive thee!' ( So, Hamlet being advised by the ghost of his father is not pure fiction, after all!) I liked when actors were careful to play positive roles, to send moral messages to the audience: when Gregory Peck chose to play a cowboy to show that violence does not pay in the end, or when he played Atticus Finch, to defend a black when wrongly accused by the white residents of rape. And Peck was married to his wife for 50 years- in that fickle minded Hollywood. I liked when people questioned James Stewart how he agreed to play the role of a person prying into others' residences, in Rear Window, which violated personal privacy! And they also questioned Alfred Hitchcock how he could direct such a movie! I liked when 7 famed stars decided to work together without ego problems in The Magnificent Seven! I liked it when Clint Eastwood the hero of many Spaghetti Westerns portraying violence  decided to make amends, by producing, directing and acting in the Unforgiven to show that violence is not the right way! I liked it when it was reported that Tom Hanks is particular to play positive roles with neat messages. I liked it when Sophia Loren showed that she was not a play thing when she just stared at Marlon Brando when he was up to some mischief and made him back out! So, there are silver lines every where!

Big names- great people?

But alas! The literary world is not always good, and many authors are not men of character. It is said that if we know the detailed life of many philosophers we would not care to read their works! Bertrand Russell was one of them. I did not read Byron for a long time, knowing his life. On the contrary it moved me when I read that  Longfellow rushed to rescue his wife whose dress had caught fire, but himself got disfigured, while his wife died. Thomas Hardy had married out of love but was disappointed later. Yet when he died, he wanted his heart to be buried near the grave of his wife, who had pre-deceased him! What we read of Dickens is not always pleasing.Peter Drucker married his wife in 1934  when he was 25 and they remained married till his death at 95, 70 years later, in 2005, while his wife died at 103 in 2014! It is great when great authors and writers are also great in personal life. It is difficult to stomach when things are otherwise.

I often wonder how writers can describe bad things in such detail, with a clear conscience. They say some gory details are required by the story- but why write such a story at all? Unless your mind is already gory! And it cannot think of anything clean or good!

Sri Ramakrishna used to say that one should not act as bad characters in dramas even for fun.

 When a modern writer like Nevil Shute writes clean novels, and good novels, we feel so happy. One reason why I like the writings of Louis L'Amour is that though they are described as Westerns, they are not pulp fiction. He never advocates or glorifies violence. His heroes never resort to shooting for the fun of it, and they always feel sorry that they had to use their gun at all! And just read his nature descriptions! Show me another author who had written so much on nature over so many years in so many books, almost never repeating  them! L'Amour himself is the greatest hero of his writings. Unless the man was himself great, he could not produce such stuff, so much of such stuff! If you want to open a book and read openly in front of your children and spend an entire evening or even day, choose L'Amour without hesitation. With L'Amour, children will always want to be good, better than they are!

When unsavoury aspects of the life of so called great or famous figures are revealed, we wonder what is the use of education and knowledge, when they do not result or reflect in right conduct. Are money and fame everything? Is any method right to get them? Can good people write bad stories ?