LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 87. THE ACADEMIC TOUCH

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

87. THE ACADEMIC TOUCH

Most of us have read about Midas Touch- the story of legendary Greek king Midas whose touch would turn everything into gold. This gift made him so unhappy , turning even his pretty beloved daughter into gold, he got rid of it.

Illustration of King Midas with his daughter, from a book by Nathaniel Hawthorne for children, 1893. Public Domain.

I often think about the touch of the academics. It turns everything into argument, raising dust. Only, I am not able to decide whether we have to get rid of just the touch, or the academics themselves!

Is Philosophy difficult?

Take philosophy.Should it become so incomprehensible for the common man in the name of academics?

If we read Plato's dialogues, in many of which Socrates is the main character, we are struck by the fact that none of them talk philosophy! They talk about life! And the participants are not academics at all, but men drawn from different walks of life. They are not sitting in splendid isolation from the cares and concerns of life, but very much amidst them. They do not discuss meaning or mind, but the best way to live- what makes us happy. The great minds simplify things; the academics mystify them.

Front cover of the book from the University of Chicago Press,2009.The cover image is that of Plato's head. This is a book of immense scholarship, one of the most original books showing the unity and evolution of Plato's thought.

The same feeling we get when we read the Upanishads. There too we have 'conversations', if not dialogues. The issues raised are a little more serious, because the participants are on a spiritual quest  : What is it by knowing which we know everything? Directed by what does the mind fall on its objects? The teacher does not give a theory or a ready made formula; he directs the student on a quest- of inquiry, discovery- self-discovery! There is absolutely nothing technical or mystical in it. Of course, it is the product of a specific culture  in externals, but its core ,its spirit is universal. The truth will not dodge us, if we give up our attachment to dogma!

Front cover of book published by Jaico, Mumbai.2009

Scholars and academics

Lest I should be mistaken ,  I want to make it clear that I make a distinction between scholars and mere academics. The great scholars enlarge our mental horizons and promote our understanding. The academics promote theories about everything , focus on analysis and render appreciation difficult and almost  impossible and irrelevant in the academic system. The academic system is preoccupied with literary criticism meaning analysis in terms of some academic dictum,and not with appreciation and enjoyment and simple aesthetic satisfaction from contact with a creative mind. Those intent on learning the chemical properties of a flower, what do they care for its beauty?

In his novel  'Hard Times', Charles Dickens tells us about  Thomas Gradgrind, the school owner, who wants "Facts, sir; nothing but Facts" as " the one thing needful" . One day, he asks a little girl, "girl number twenty", who calls herself Sissy Jupe, after her father,[ but who, according to Mr.Gradgrind, has no business to call her Sissy, which is no name, but Cecilia] to define a horse ( which has to do with her

 father's occupation). The girl is unable to 'define'. Then he asks a boy, Bitzer, who defines it:

Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs,too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in the mouth.

 No doubt,this gladdens Mr.Grindstone's heart (or is it mind?) and he asks girl number twenty to learn her definition. Appropriately, Dickens has titled this chapter: "Murdering the Innocents".

Illustration:Thomas  Gradgrind- drawn by Sol Eytinge
from: www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/eytinge/118.html

I have often felt that our academics are all Gradgrinds, his more sophisticated incarnations.

Poetry or prose is now subjected to academic criticism: practical criticism or applied criticism;impressionistic criticism;judicial criticism; mimetic criticism;pragmatic criticism;expressive criticism; objective criticism. Well, how many authors or poets will survive this onslaught? And what do we, general readers, gain from this academic outrage?


Appreciation, different from criticism

Far happier were we with our Bradleys. Sixty years ago, we learned, following A.C.Bradley, to ask ourselves: 'what is the substance of a Shakespearean tragedy' or 'what is the nature of the tragic aspect of life as represented by Shakespeare?' For,how many of us are lucky enough to be spared by Providence of the touch of sorrow or suffering? We expect the great poets to give us a clue. The academics are only interested in finding out  how far the poets fulfil their pet theories! As Bradley said:

the critic never passed from his own mind into Shakespeare's; and it may be traced  even in so fine a critic as Coleridge, as when he dwarfs the sublime struggle of Hamlet into the image of his own unhappy weakness.

From: Oxford Lectures on Poetry, Chapter 1.

Front cover from the book by Atlantic Publishers, 2010

It is true, more information has been gained about the plays since then. But have we gained more insights therefrom? The latest Oxford editions ask us to focus on the play as it was staged, not on the poetry! What a great honour for the greatest literary figure England has produced in its recorded history!

In poetry too, things have become not only complicated, but even inexplicable in the name of critical appreciation. It seems the critics write for each other , and not for the general reader. Bradley offered, for instance, this very straight appreciation of Wordsworth's poetry:

It was not Wordsworth's function to sing, like most great poets, of war,or love, or tragic passions, or the actions of supernatural beings. His peculiar function was 'to open out the soul of little and familiar things,' alike in nature and in human life. His 'poetry is great because of the extraordinary power with which he feels the joy offered to us in nature, the joy offered to us  in the simple primary affections and duties. # ....he tended also to ignore the darker aspects of the world. But in this very optimism lay his strength. The gulf which  for Byron and Shelley yawned between the real and the ideal, had no existence for him.....The spirit of his poetry was also that of his life- a life full of strong but peaceful affections; of a communion with nature in keen but calm and meditative joy; of  perfect devotion to the mission with which he held himself charged; and of a natural piety gradually assuming a more distinctively religious tone.

From: Oxford Lectures on Poetry. First Published: 1909; this is taken from the edition of Atlantic Publishers, 2009; p.83

# We might say, in the words of Oliver Goldsmith: " these simple blessings of the lowly train" ( The Deserted Village )

What an extraordinary passage this is!  In just one paragraph, Bradley makes us appreciate the distinct characteristics of Wordsworth's poetry, in contrast to those of his predecessors and contemporaries, and later poets. He also tells us how his poetry sprang out of his life! Here Bradley has captured the very essence of Wordsworth mind and heart, as stated by the poet himself in: A Poet's Epitaph:

But who is he, with modest looks,
And clad in homely russet brown?
He murmurs near the running brooks
A music sweeter than his own.

The outward shows of sky and earth,
Of hill and valley, he has viewed;
And impulses of deeper birth
Have come to him in solitude.

In common things that round us lie
Some random truths he can impart,

This is what I call scholarship, sir. What is the use of mere academic theories for us? The academics may fly their fancy kites; we want to discourse with the poets. Bradley may be considered old -fashioned. But then, in this age, is not poetry itself considered old-fashioned? 

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 74. LITERATURE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

74. LITERATURE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Literature and Life

Literature has always been concerned with both man and his inner world, and various aspects of social life and practices.  Religious literature is often concerned with human conduct- social and personal ethics. Even ancient philosophy is about relationship- of man in society, with nature, with God or Truth or the Good or Beauty. These may look like mere ideas or concepts- just woolly thinking, but they were important because of their implications for practical life and conduct. How can you be unfair or mean in your relationship with others  if you believe in the Good or Truth? You don't necessarily have to believe in God or follow a formal religion to bear a good conscience and good character. We have surely met many nonbelievers who are just and fair, while many so called believers in God have been crooked, just using the word or name of God to make a fast buck. Most Indian politicians used the name of Gandhi  for the same purpose. Probably you have heard of 'Gandhi account'?

Modern literature in all its forms is intimately and extensively about human and social relationships, though it is overwhemningly about criticism and disapproval. We have the finest example of this in the English literature in Dickens and Hardy. What or where is literature if it is disconnected from life? 

The religious books give you command: do this, don't do that. The Veda says: Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara = speak the truth, follow the Dharma. The Dharma Sastras discuss the nature of dharma, and truth, endlessly,,without ever agreeing on anything. But our itihasas give accounts of people who lived and followed dharma, in various times and situations. They teach us that there are various aspects, they depend on context,following a dharmic life often involves trials and difficulties but in the end confer happiness and a blessed state. They thus make you aware of the nuances and at the same time steel your resolve and strengthen your mind.

 But a good novelist doesn't teach you.He is not didactic. He simply portrays great characters and situations and makes you desire to emulate them, rather instinctively! They make the good appear desirable! They are persuasive like the loving wife or husband, not stern like the teacher. A Marx took the evils of capitalism head on, and got nowhere. But a Dickens portrayed the same situation through his stories and characters. He stirred the social conscience of a nation, and lot of reforms were made. Is not the novelist more effective than the social philosopher or scientist?

I like to think that in the case of Hardy, it worked differently, in the contrary manner. He wrote about many aspects of the social and personal life and relations, which the society would not openly admit or discuss. Hardy was almost ostracised as a novelist, and he took to poetry. But almost every problem that he wrote about or hinted at has been taken up by psychologists, psychiatrists, social scientists. Thus Hardy has proved to be the father of such social science studies!

In India, Munshi Premchand and Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay dealt with social themes in their novels. I cannot say how large an impact they had on the nation.

Social sciences and academic studies

But we have a totally different phenomenon too. With the advancement of academics, and spread of education and specialisation, aspects of life have been segregated for specialised investigation and exploration, resulting in a number of disciplines in divisions called humanities and social sciences, quite apart from the hair-splitting specialised subjects in the so called hard sciences. Each one has an ocean of literature. Every new PhD in a foreign university means one more voice of dissent, difference, division in the name of discovery. How can you get  this degree unless you show the old authority to be a fool or at least at fault, and reveal yourself to be better, or at least cleverer, smarter? There is no end to this process.

This is the bane of these sciences. With so much knowledge around, you do not know what is right or wrong! You simply cannot decide which one to follow. You may hold any opinion, but none seems to work in the end in practice. We see this very clearly in the area of economics and politics, leave alone sociology, anthropology,etc.

Take economics. There is no finality about anything, or even precise information. A famous joke used to be that where there are 6 economists, there will be 7 opinions! Yet, every politician and public figure swears by an economist, consciously or other wise. Lord Keynes, the greatest economist of the last century, put it beautifully:

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood.

          Indeed the world is ruled by little else.

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of  some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back..

Capitalism and Socialism: difference



Ultimately, the only division in economics is between the so called capitalism and socialism- both in several versions and varieties. But how does this express itself in practice? There is only one measure: whether the means of production are owned by private individuals or groups, or by the 'State'. But what is the state? Finally public ownership means that a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats run the show. Public at large is only a participant , not the owner. Even in the so called democracies, their 'democracy' ends with voting. Thereafter, they cannot call the tune.

It is  (was?) believed that capitalism preserves individual freedom, while the socialist state crushes it. Outwardly it may look so. In effect, the individual is only a cog in the machine: unless you fit somewhere, you cannot exist. Only, under capitalism, the process of enslavement is subtle. Socialism is openly oppressive; under capitalism you are made to surrender your freedom and at the same time believe that you are enjoying or exercising it! It is said that in a socialist economy one has no or limited choice, while in a capitalist economy, choice is  wide. But take a practical matter like soap or detergent: when the ingredients are the same, where is real choice, even among 100 brands? Suppose you are convinced, as most ecologists are, that detergents are bad for the environment, what choice do you have? Unless you start your own manufacture, you are bound by the system. Theoretically, you are free, in a capitalist society, to start any venture. But marketing is a problem. You cannot compete with established brands unless you follow their methods. Join the robbers to defeat them? 

There are people in India who say: Look, in the 70s you had just 3 models of cars- the Ambassador, the Premier Padmini, and the Standard, which was discontinued. But see how much variety we have now?  But both in the 70s and now, does the car mean prosperity? How many people can own it? And if every one is given a car, what will happen to the environment? Car is essentially a toy of the rich. If you have a choice here, it only means that the rich have greater fun. Who cares for the common man? Who cares for public transportation? Does the car- owning crowd, causing the pollution, pay for its clearance? And is the economy only about cars and such things?

The idea of freedom in a private capitalist economy is just bunkum. That is why I do not call it free enterprise, but capitalism-its 'true name'! Socialism is bureaucratic-politician capitalism; private enterprise is capitalism by private thugs. As much choice as there is between death by hanging, and death by drowning! Mahatma Gandhi alone gave the formula for real economic freedom: reduce your wants, go by your needs, give up greed, organise production by the masses instead of mass production, treat yourself as trustee of your wealth-not absolute owner, if you take from society more than you need, you are a thief. Any takers?

Economy in any society depends on the enterprise and efforts-labours of the working generation- leaving out the youngsters who are learning, and the seniors-retirees or pensioners. Our old Hindu system recognised this. Valluvar also says that in the Kural: the householder is the basis of all the other orders. (41 and 42)

The only question of practical importance is: how is this sector to be tapped? There are only three ways your income can be dealt with or disposed of:

• spending
• saving
• investing

A capitalist society lets you spend, and runs itself on your spending. Even your investment is tapped by them! A socialist society taxes your income, reduces your ability to spend,and invest, the saving thus forced on you is appropriated by it and spent on social welfare. So, in the end, the question is whether you will part with your income/saving willingly, or it will be forced out of you! Capitalists use persuasion, subterfuge,cunning; socialists use promises and force! Please ponder on this. Economists will only confound you!

In the capitalist order you will spend your money to educate your children, and become broke while your children get a govt certified degree good for nothing. In the socialist system your saving will be taken by govt to educate every one's children, in govt schools, with the same result: a degree or diploma good for nothing! After all, if our education is so good or effective under any system, why is there misery and suffering? In both you are neatly shaved out of our income. In  one, it is smooth, and you are made to enjoy it, with all the fragrance and side show; in the other the process is a little tough- the blade is rough, the surroundings not so clean or pleasant, but we get used to it any way!

In the end, the 'science' of economics has extensive literature, but the economist cannot solve any practical problem. Lord Keynes advised them to be humble, like the dentist!

Politics- what works?

The same situation prevails in the other major social science-politics. We have wonderful theories, fantastic writers. But in the end what works? What is the best, or at least the good form of govt? Is it royalty? aristocracy? oligarchy? democracy? anarchy? return to nature? You have authorities passionately justifying every one of them, and even more vehemently opposing each one.

Popular wisdom believes that democracy is the best form of govt. Ancient Greece is held up as a model of participatory democracy. But it rested on the foundation of slaves. Modern American democracy runs on money- election process is so expensive. People in democracies have become so jaded, disenchanted, they do not even go out to vote. Democracy runs on majority- but in effect majority of those voting. Since many people do not vote, this means ultimately an active minority!

In practical terms, democracy works on the party system. It is only a coterie which controls the party- in any country. In England, R.A.Butler, the conservative party leader was prevented from becoming PM twice! In a war situation, it was the personality cult of one leader-Churchill- which prevailed. It is of course a tribute to the maturity of the electorate that they threw him out in the very next election!. America had to legislate to ensure that  a President can hold office only for two terms! But once he is elected President, he is a virtual monarch! It is again the genius of the people that they invented the system of checks and balances to keep every wing - legislature, executive,judiciary-in check!

Britain is officially a limited constitutional monarchy, though it is the best functioning democracy in the world. The Prime Minister there is powerful, but he is bound by the principle of collective responsibility of the cabinet. He is described merely as 'primus inter pares' ie first among equals! This is the genius of the British people. There simply is no second democracy like that. No donkey ever became a horse by aping.

But in the modern day, it is the economic interest that dictates the ultimate policies, not legislature. In the US, the most powerful democracy, the Federal Reserve is the virtual monarch. For the lesser democracies of the world like India, it is the international institutions like IMF,World Bank and WTO that dictate the terms. In the end political democracy does not involve economic independence.

Every form of govt has worked somewhere! Every form has failed too. There have been benevolent dictators, and monsters in the guise of democratic leaders. The mere form of govt does not matter.That is why the poet Alexander Pope  sang:

For Forms of Government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best.

Unmanageable Economies, Unhelpful Economics 

The real problem is that most factors determining world economy are today invisible, ununderstandable and hence uncontrollable. It is said that the world economy is influenced more by financial rather than real economic factors. Of the more than 3 trillion dollars of  daily foreign exchange transactions  in the markets of the world, 98% are related to speculation, not real or actual transactions. Virtually every commodity is subject to speculation in forms like futures.Every  monetary system and financial market is over run by derivatives. Most people do not care, do not know but they have the blind confidence that 'experts ' know and they are in charge. The plain fact is that there is no expert in such matters. There is no regulatory or control mechanism: how can you control something you do not see, do not understand? The volume of daily foreign exchange transaction in the world markets is several times the volume of the foreign exchange reserves of all the Central Banks of the world. Today no Central Bank or govt can control these transactions. When there is a problem with Yen or Dollar, the solution does not lie with Japan or USA. At least  a dozen countries have to meet and decide- that they cannot do anything! They only decide to issue statements.

There is such a vast technical, academic literature, but in the end they do not help for policy.

The reason is simple. In the hard sciences, there are definite theories which work in practice. Sound, light, heat, electricity , gravitation etc are subject to known laws and patterns of behaviour, which can be studied, understood, measured and controlled. This in fact is the trump card of the so called exact sciences- measurement and control, predictability and repeatability of the experiment: the same cause leading to the same effect under similar circumstances. And this is exactly what does NOT work in the social sciences.Economics may tell you that demand should increase when the price falls, or the demand should fall when the price rises. But this is not always true in real life. If the price of an art item increases, it may lead to a greater demand. Or the demand for the product with a rising price may increase, in anticipation of a further rise in price!  A generation ago, economists knew this and so admitted that the so called economic laws were not exact like the laws of physics, but merely generalisation of tendencies! No one knows or can predict exactly how the market would behave!  But in their anxiety to make things look like the exact sciences, economists resorted to econometrics and mathematical models. They do not deal with real factors any more.

There is a vast range of fine literature in all the social sciences. There is no doubt that much of it is truly scholarly, fascinating. But in the end, they are all speculation. You may get some ideas, but no guides to practical action. You certainly get to know a lot of things say about inflation when you read 5 economists. But did any one of them succeed in controlling it anywhere in the world? Did any one ever cross a river by measuring its average depth?

These theories in the social sciences are fine- as theories. You can admire them- as you can admire snakes in a glass case. Let loose, they have only harmed society. Every theory is retired at the end-just as every working person has to retire some time. Nothing works for ever. Or everywhere. 

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 ?

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 52. HISTORY IN LITERATURE

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

52.HISTORY IN LITERATURE

We have all studied some history- at least in school or college. We have read literature too. But our academic system is such that we have been taught to regard them as two distinct subjects.

We might have read Jawaharlal Nehru's reflections from his cell in the Ahmednagar fort prison in Hindi or his Tryst with Destiny speech. We might have read Sri Aurobindo's Uttarpara Speech ( 30 May, 1909). Keen students of our history might be aware of C.R.Das's defence of Sri Aurobindo in the Alipore Bomb Case. The first one we read because it was in our text-book. The others only interested persons would have read. 

At one level, this illustrates the difference between compulsory reading foisted on young people through the education system, and the free reading of interested persons. The motives differ greatly. The school system forces the hidden govt.agenda on people.Even govts in the so called free countries have a hand in deciding what should or should not be taught. As some formal schooling is now required for most jobs, including that of a sweeper,people have no choice. Outside the school, most reading is voluntary.The level and quality of true education is indicated by what people read on their own, after they leave school. G.K.Chesterton it was who said, 'let not study stand in the way of your education'.

At another level, how do we treat all this material? It may be considered 'academic' stuff if it forms part of our formal study; it may be seen as history if it is included in a history book; it may be considered literature if it forms part of a general anthology- which indeed is quite rare in India. How many of us would regard them as both history and literature?

Each of those pieces arose in a specific historical context. The first two merely recorded or reflected history. Nehru was in prison and he describes there how he rather started liking the place after a few days. (Dilchaspi lene lage- is what he said exactly, if my memory has not failed after 57 years). The other speech he made on the midnight of 14th August,1947 when we became free. But both speeches connected with Sri Aurobindo not only arose out of a historical context, but they made history.

Sri Aurobindo too gave a message on the occasion of Independence, as requested by AIR. It too is historical- 15th August being his 75th birthday! And his message is historical also on account of the content he put into it. But most Indians are not aware of it. Nehru's speech is nothing compared to Sri Aurobindo's message-but Nehru was in power, and so his speech was celebrated, while Sri Aurobindo, who was the first Indian to call for complete Freedom, a quarter century before Gandhi's Congress adopted it in January,1930, was forgotten, since he left active politics in 1910, 9 years before Gandhi came on the scene! (Incidentally, Congress goondas were annoyed that Independence came on Sri Aurobindo's birthday, a decision in which he had no hand,and they descended on Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry and pelted stones, and one ashramite  succumbed to the injuries.)

Sri Aurobindo returned to India after 14 years of stay and study in England, in 1893- the year in which Gandhi left for South Africa, and Vivekananda went to America! He entered Baroda state service, but the national situation slowly drew him into the vortex of politics- first secretly and then openly. His writings were a departure from the Congress culture of prayer and petition;the old guard was disturbed, and the administration woke up. The partition of Bengal in 1905 brought him into prominence, and he gave the programme of Swaraj, Swadeshi,  Boycott, Disobedience of foreign laws( Passive resistance), National education, settlement of disputes outside the British courts, improvement of the condition of the poor etc- all later adopted by Gandhi, without due acknowledgement to Sri Aurobindo! The country reverberated with the cry of Bande Mataram! He and Tilak engineered the split in the Surat Congress in 1907 and made the nationalist elements the foremost voice of complete Indian Independence. The British administration was shaken and demoralised, the Viceroy declared Sri Aurobindo 'the most dangerous man we have to deal with at present'- an honour not earned even by Gandhi: he was at most considered a nuisance! The administration wanted to silence him, implicated him in the Alipore Bomb case in May 1908, and he was put behind bars for a year in Alipore jail, most of the time in solitary confinement. But Mother India was behind him, even the British court could not convict him, and he walked free in May,1909. The Uttarpara speech was delivered after that! Such are the historical associations it evokes in a serious student of history, who does not rely solely on the concocted versions in govt. sponsored text-books.

But it became historical for another reason: it revealed for the first time the spiritual experiences of Sri Aurobindo in jail, his practice of the yoga of the Gita, his vision of everything as Vasudeva- the jail, its officers, its bars and bricks, his fellow prisoners. It also revealed to the world Sri Aurobindo's mission- to work for the mission of India in the world. He declared unequivocally: 'Sanatana dharma-that is nationalism for us'.He said India was rising for the sake of Sanatana Dharma!

The powers were unhappy with his release and some- how wanted to silence him- they feared no one else in the country, no other 'leader'. But he got his Adesh or Command,  and left British India and entered Pondicherry in April 1910 and from then till his Mahasamadhi on 5 December 1950 devoted himself to Yoga, blazing a new path. All that he wrote in the days of his political activity have been collected  and published under the title Bande Mataram. It constitutes commentary on the national situation, ideas on political science and supreme literature. No other Indian has written such English before or after him, on any subject. Few Englishmen have done it either! Compared to this, anything else written by anyone else is mere trash. Read it for yourself and judge.

Chitta Ranjan Das, summing up the defence of Sri  Aurobindo stated in the court :

.......a man like this who is being charged with the offences imputed to him stands not only before the bar in this Court but before the bar of the High Court of History and my appeal to you is this: That long after this controversy is hushed in silence, long after this turmoil, this agitation ceases, long after he is dead and gone, he will be looked upon as the poet of patriotism, as the prophet of nationalism, and the lover of humanity. Long after he is dead and gone his words will be echoed and re-echoed not only in India but across distant seas and lands.

More prophetic words have never been uttered in any court in history! And these words made Das too famous all over the country!

There is something to be said for the Judge, Mr. Beachcroft. He understood the govt. stakes in the case, understood their anxiety to have Sri Aurobindo convicted  above all, he understood the nuances of the defence and pronounced:

"Aurobindo Ghose, the most important accused in the case. He is the accused, whom more than any other the prosecution are anxious to have convicted and but for his presence in the docks there is no doubt that the case would have finished long ago.

"It is the case for the prosecution as well as for the defence  that he is of a very religious nature.

"His counsel argues that he is a Vedantist and that he has applied the doctrines of Vedantism to mould his political views; that as the doctrine of Vedantism applied to the individual is to look for the godhead within oneself and so to realize what is within oneself, so in the case of a nation, it can only grow by realizing what is best within itself, that no foreigner can give it that salvation, which it can only attain by methods indigenous to the country. His doctrines are not those of passive resistance, but of the realization of salvation by suffering. If the law is unjust, don't obey it but take the consequences. Do not be violent, but if the law is unjust, you are not bound morally to obey it; refuse to obey it and suffer. He has been saying to the people, you are not cowards, believe in yourselves and attain salvation, not by assistance from outside, but though yourselves. And this, Mr.Das says, is the key of his case.

"In Aurobindo's speeches....So far as these speeches went, they help the defence more than the prosecution.From them we get an idea of the stress he laid on national education,on lines other than those laid in Government schools, and this is in accordance with.... his policy that India is to find her salvation from within and not from without.

Even after his acquittal, the administration was trying to 'fix' Sri Aurobindo somehow- and even considered deportation. But better sense prevailed in England, and Lord Morley ,Secretary of State was firm and categorical. He wrote to the Viceroy Minto on 5 May 1910:

"As to the famous Arabindo.... the institution of proceedings against him was a foolish blunder.  (His writing) simply paraded passive resistance and abstention from taking part in public life. That may be odious and objectionable as you please, but it is at least doubtful whether any decent court will find it to be sedition.....As for deportation, I will not listen to it."

But the local administration issued a warrant against Sri Aurobindo late in April,1910, not knowing he had already left the country.

Incidentally, we must give credit to a certain trait in the British character, which did have a plain sense of justice. We may also remember that this trait had made an eminent person like Edmund Burke react against the wrong-doing of Warren Hastings and pursue Impeachment proceedings against him over a century earlier!. Gandhi's so called  non-violent methods could succeed only against the British. Hitler or Stalin would have finished him under an hour! This basic Anglo-Saxon string we see even today in the essential American: in spite of all the bullying that Uncle Sam indulges in around the world, it is still the American who is the greatest critic! It is this which makes us like the American still. Surely, such persons may not be many, but they are the  conscience-keepers  of the society! 

We can realise that Sri Aurobindo was not an ordinary politician. He had a spiritual vision of the country as Mother India, Mother Bhavani and therefore seeking her complete Independence was for him a religious quest. It was part of his Vedanta! It is an irony of fate, the twist of destiny that if any Hindu repeats those arguments now in Independent India, he will be dubbed a fundamentalist. The legislature, the judiciary, the fourth estate- they are all guardians of 'secularism'  which means every religion, other than Hinduism, can do anything in its name! But if Hindus talk of Hinduism, it becomes communalism or fundamentalism!

It is also a sad tale- how far our nationalist spirit is down since those days. When Bengal was partitioned on communal lines in 1905, the whole country rose in protest. But the subsequent leaders divided the whole country and justified it as being inevitable! Even now, Hindus have been evicted from their homes in Kashmir, and the whole country is maintaining a sacred silence!

Seen in this light, the whole of Sri Aurobindo's writings are supreme literature on  true Indian nationalism.If we study them carefully,we will understand how much Gandhi owes him! As I had shown elsewhere, wherever he followed the ideas of Sri Aurobindo, Gandhi was successful; wherever he deviated, he failed and created problems for the nation.  They were timely then, timeless now.

In literature proper, we have a specific category called 'historical' fiction. In English, Walter Scott's novels are the prime example, though we have Shakespeare's historical plays. In Tamil, we have the writings of Kalki. They are so called because they deal with some historical characters or events, though more imaginative characters and events are woven around them.

But if we think deeply, we find literature as such is historical- because every form of literature , especially what is considered realistic, arises in and reflects historical times and trends; they are related to specific historical contexts. Man is rooted in his environment, and cannot think beyond the context. But the greatness of great literature is that they raise issues which have permanent value or relevance. The trial and death of Socrates relates to one historical Greek figure- but the issue it raises has relevance for the whole of humanity. Gandhi was thrown out of a train for being coloured; he was instrumental in throwing out an empire.

But even when the novelists or writers do not deal with specific historical events or characters, they can hardly escape the spirit of the times being reflected in their writings. Thus, while Dickens deals with the Gordon riots of 1780 and the mob violence resulting in the sacking of Newgate in Barnaby Rudge, and French Revolution in the Tale of Two Cities, his novels generally deal with the socio-economic conditions of his times, especially around London. Thomas Hardy did not deal with any historical event or character, though there is a minor reference to the Napoleonic Wars in the Trumpet Major. But he dealt with the change that was sweeping over the society consequent on the industrialisation: the disruption of rural life and relationships, landscape and folklore. On a different level, he also dealt with human and class relationships and identities, the state of romantic love, marriage, gender issues, religion, etc.  On yet another level, he dealt with how things went wrong- how man was fated to fail- something like epic tragedy. His most serious works- the last two novels- were subject to hostile criticism, for being pessimistic and immoral. But these  very themes  with which Victorian society was unwilling to deal openly,have become serious subjects of psychological or psychoanalytical study subsequently.Divorce has become legal, and infidelity in marriage,common. In that sense, he hinted at a (future) 'historical' trend. Even his imaginary creation the 'Wessex' landscape is full of the spirit of history!

I have always felt that while Dickens reflected the history of his times,, Hardy reflected upon it. He left his imprint on the future. His pessimism is indeed deeply disturbing at times but we cannot wish away the tragedy and crookedness in much of human life.We cannot also deny that religion has  largely failed either to deal with the tragedy or remove the crookedness. At most, it only justifies 'God's ways among men'- whatever it may mean.

There is a lot of good literature everywhere, in any discipline. And there is history in literature! Let us not believe in artificial, academic distinctions, and enjoy both!

  

..... 

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 41.WHAT IS GOOD LITERATURE?

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

41. WHAT IS GOOD LITERATURE?

Academics are endlessly debating what constitutes good literature. This too is subject to shifts in fashion, and changing concepts. An ideal definition never created an actual thing. Debates are after the event or fact. 'To Kill a Mocking Bird' or 'To Sir With Love' just happens! No critic ever wrote a best seller! So, we can't say what makes for good literature, but we can recognise it when we have it! We see it again and again- as we saw recently in 'The Secret Life of Bees' or 'The Help'. I would only say, great literature is what touches your heart!

O world, thou choosest not the better part!
It is not wisdom to be only wise,
And on the inward vision close the eyes,
But it is wisdom to believe the heart.

Our knowledge is a torch of smoky pine
That lights the pathway but one step ahead
Across a void of mystery and dread.
Bid , then, the tender light of faith to shine
By which alone the mortal heart is led
Unto the thinking of the thought divine.

George Santayana, Sonnet III

Most people swear by science. But does science offer a definitive answer to any basic question of life- right from obesity to longevity, health of the heart to health of the mind? Every fresh MD or PhD floats a new theory. One best-seller replaces another, but people continue to suffer. Benjamin Spock's book on Baby and Childcare advocated different theories on breast feeding through several editions. Research goes on, about the comparative advantages of consuming coffee or tea, but all studies lack credibility because the research is funded by the beverage companies! Books on psychology advocate different ideas on bringing up children, just like economists from different schools offer different solutions to the same problems. All the while, both children and economies continue to suffer! When it comes to solving practical problems of life, science seems to be a wonderful and costly way of wasting our time! But good literature has always offered us practical advice on basic issues.

What is the ideal age for marriage? Politicians and reformers legislate on minimum age, but no one dares an opinion on the ideal age. Civilised societies have always thrived on the basis of settled family life, which is also extolled by all religions. But modernist elements  believe in such absurdities like 'living together' ,'live in relationship' , or monstrosities like 'gay marriage'. One prominent result of widening women's education and their liberation movements has been the weakening of the idea of marriage and family life; the demands of professional education and economic independence have raised the age of marriage, and reduced its attractions for many. This is now clearly seen in India too. But a society like the United States has not been able to solve the problems of rape on campuses (reported in newspapers today,2 Dec, 2014), teen age pregnancy, childbirth out of marriage, single parent dwellings (do we call them homes?), and the ubiquitous divorce. To me it appears all this is traced to only one factor- people do not marry sufficiently young, and are not steady in their marriage, when they do.

Religions have their say in the matter, but no one listens  any more. Poets have their own take.The inimitable Shakespeare touches on this in the very first Sonnet!

From the fairest creatures we desire increase,

That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decrease
His tender heir might bear his memory:
But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel.
Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament,
And only herald to thy gaudy spring,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content,
And, tender churl, mak'st waste in niggarding.
     Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
     To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.

Here, Shakespeare speaks about the obligation on the part of people with some excellence or accomplishment to marry and beget children. Time snatches away everything, but those who beget children achieve a sort of immortality as they continue to live in them! Otherwise, their life is wasted like that of a pig, which only eats and goes to the grave. ('Fairest' here does not mean mere physical beauty- it means, in the Platonic sense, beauty of the soul.) This sonnet is indeed philosophical. In the Indian tradition , the son is called 'atmajan' ie the one who carries and thus continues the atma of the father!

The first 17 sonnets of Shakespeare deal with this theme of the obligation of youngsters to marry and beget children. Shakespeare is candid-that one should marry when young. But how young? By forty, they already show signs of ageing!

When forty winters shall besiege thy brow

And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field,

Thy youth's proud livery, so gazed on now

Will be a tattered weed, of small worth held....

If thou couldst answer, "This fair child of mine

Shall sum my count , and make my old excuse,"

Proving his beauty by succession thine.

     This were to be new made when thou art old,

      And see thy blood warm when thou feel'st it cold.

Sonnet,2.

But if thou live remembered not to be,

Die single and thine image dies with thee.

Sonnet,3.

(If the man chooses to live single and not to have a child to remember him, he will die alone, leaving no memory)

To give away yourself keeps yourself still,

And you must live, drawn by your own sweet skill.

Sonnet,16.

Having a baby would preserve one's image- it amounts to one ensuring that one lives on, by one's own design!

All the first 17 sonnets are on this theme, and seeing his stress on this subject, we wonder whether it it Manu or Tiruvalluvar, speaking in the guise of Shakespeare! Can any modern scientist, from any discipline, come anywhere near, in giving advice on an important aspect of life? No wonder, all so called scientifically advanced societies are facing disruption in family  and discord in marital relations.Sadly this disease is spreading in India too. 

A generation ago, the American psychologist, J.P.Guilford's book on general psychology was widely read. (It was one of the first books made available in India under the joint Indo-US Textbooks program in the mid 60s) He reported an interesting finding or proposition there. He held that people with above-average intelligence are reluctant to have large families and choose to have less children, so that the smaller number of children will have greater access to better facilities. This meant, by implication, that the great increase in the number of children, and consequently in population was on account of the not so intelligent sections of society! At least one part of his theory seems true: most well educated people in India today have small families. Among the educated sections, girls are approaching marriage at 30+. One can draw one's own conclusions as to the long -term impact of this trend.

Great literature has always dealt with the great problems of life, directly, indirectly, obliquely. It could take the form of upholding the tradition, or seeking to uproot it. Much of modern literature is of the latter category, the voice of reform or revolt predominant everywhere. All reforms have ended either in the aims being betrayed, or in creating new orthodoxies, as we saw in the cases of the French and Bolshevik revolutions. All ideals end up as mere slogans. The western nations claim to champion democracy and freedom, but people are sacrificed on the altar of corporate freedom to loot; democracy is selectively marketed abroad- even today, US nurses its global ambitions only on the strength of puppet regimes; all talk of freedom ends when the Chinese enter the scene: no one cares for the Chinese occupation of Tibet. When the so called democratic west hounds a Julian Assange or Edward Snowden for disclosing truth to safeguard civic freedom, we know how hollow are their claims for upholding freedom. (Incidentally, Snowden is a Buddhist.)

Everywhere on earth, in every country we see strife.Every society is divided on some issue or the other. Most individuals are also at loggerheads on some ground or the other. Modern man seems incapable of deep friendship and lasting association, and our modern lifestyle provides little opportunity or time for it. At base, the issues are trivial, and inconsequential in the long run; but people now cannot think long term; societies live from election to election. In the beginning of his poem 'The Rape of the Lock', Alexander Pope wrote:

What dire offence from am'rous causes springs,

What mighty contests rise from trivial things,

Our Itihasas illustrate the truth of the former.Ramayana was due to Ravana's fascination for Sita; the conflict between the two branches of the Kuru clan was on account of the claim to kingdom, but Draupadi was also an important factor. Iliad was on account of Helen; subsequently, Cleopatra had a role in historical upheaval. But the many conflicts in the world today arise from very trivial issues or even non-issues. 

Nearer home, we in India are  only obsessed with trivial things: we seem to have lost our faculty to raise our heads and look up! States are quarrelling on inter-state river, water-sharing, border areas, languages, community identity,etc. Recently in Andhra, we saw people speaking the same language quarrel; they separated, but quarrel has not ended. How can politicians live if there is no conflict? They have to invent one!

Leave alone the politicians. How about our religious people? Sects or groups fight, even within the same division. There have been quarrels as to who has the right to worship first in a temple! Two sects of Madras Srivaishnavas fought on what type of religious sign should be marked on the head of the Kancheepuram temple elephant!- it is called the 'Naamam'; one is "U" shaped, the other is "Y" shaped. This went on for many years. I am not sure how it ended- the matter finally going to the Supreme Court, which decided that both should be used, one on alternate years or days!. Whatever philosophy one may preach, in small practical matters, most people are found to have feet of clay!

A reformer or revolutionary engages in vehement criticism,and evokes equally violent  or strong reaction, while a poet or novelist may poke gentle fun and make the parties realise their folly. Karl Marx predicted that Capitalism would end-for it was in the very nature of the dialectic; when there were no signs of it happening, the philosopher turned into a politician and attempted revolution. But a Dickens quietly wrote novels depicting the evil effects of the rising factory system; this led to serious heart-searching on the part of society, and led to change and improvement. A revolutionary considers the agents of a wrong as villains; the novelist or poet has a greater vision; they see them as victims and prisoners of a system. In the end, the revolutionaries lose both their battle and people's sympathy. (In any successful revolution, it is violence which wins temporarirly, not the cause.) The poet or novelist stands as a lighthouse. This is the greatness of literature.

.