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. 67. LIMITATIONS TO KNOWLEDGE AND ITS APPLICATION.

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

67.LIMITATIONS TO KNOWLEDGE AND ITS APPLICATION

In a Tamil movie song over 55 years ago, a leading lyricist, Pattukottai Kalyanasundaram wrote about how important works were left unattended because people in responsible positions simply 'slept'. I have understood more since. Not only do they sleep, but even while awake, they ensure that others don't solve the problems,either.

When you are part of a hierarchy, you have three barriers or hurdles to face and cross: your superiors, peers and subordinates!

No superior will normally appreciate or tolerate a subordinate, except to the extent necessary for his own survival and advancement. Northcote Parkinson wrote about how the superior will ensure competition among his subordinates so that his own position becomes secure. Where he needs one, he will post two, so that they will keep fighting each other, and he himself will not face any threat from a more talented subordinate.

In the organisation, the superior will steal ideas from juniors and profit from them.( It happens in the University when research guides steal the ideas of their students.) One method is that when the junior records a brilliant note, the senior will not pass it on with his own comments, but replace it with his own note, with ideas taken out of the junior's! Another method is to call a meeting for "a free and frank discussion",later on called in management jargon " brain storming", gather all the good ideas and then approach the top as if they were his own. The juniors would participate enthusiastically, in order to impress the boss and it would be some time before they saw through the game. In many cases the juniors would have no choice, as they depended on the 'confidential report' or in management jargon 'performance appraisal'. In a govt or quasi-govt organisation, where there were often no objective criteria, this meant nothing more than recording one's impressions which were arbitrary! It was pure sham. Through all this game, who ever could think of a problem or its solution?

The peers were another problem. You could not offend your colleagues by being smarter. 

The subordinates were a clear brake on the system. They would resist all improvement- which for the management meant greater productivity, but for them meant job reduction or more work! In the late 60s and early 70s it was so difficult to work, with the leftists enjoying the support of Indira Gandhi, whose support she needed to assert her position after the split in her party, and with the Naxalites rising in influence. I have some bitter personal experiences but I cannot share them. In the 80s we faced serious problems from the Shiv Sena in Bombay, and the Dravidian outfits in Madras. If anybody thought of problem solving in such circumstances, he must surely have escaped from Kilpauk, as we used to say in the olden days.

The bureaucracy was not invented for problem solving! Especially, where we follow the British system of permanent tenure. A bureaucrat is a permanent liability and he cannot be got rid of! He can be given a change of dept, but it doesn't mean a thing. Bureaucrats like the IAS cadre are strongly entrenched, immune to all laws and discipline, and they don't eat each other! Their cadre cohesion is stronger than any trade-union bond! In fact, they are the strongest trade union: just see how they feather their own nest periodically, quietly and efficiently, through the Pay Commission while others like bank employees have to struggle- every time! The IAS cadre gets the largest rise with the least fanfare, for like their own cadre, they have invented a permanent system to butter their bread! Could any trade union achieve that? 

I keep my fingers crossed, when PM Modi tries to tackle them. He may succeed in cleaning the Ganga, perhaps, but he cannot touch the bureaucracy or tame them. This is my understanding from history. If he does, it may replace the Taj Mahal as one of the wonders of the world!

With such a bureaucracy, no improvement is possible in our public sector. This is an old lesson, which the British Labour party understood over 60 years ago, at the time of ideal and idealist Labourites! In the first wave of enthusiasm, the labour govt nationalised British Steel, Coal, Railways, Cable and Wireless, etc hoping that it would benefit the nation. But they found the govt could not run them through the bureaucracy, or through the Parliament. It became like a python swallowing an elephant! 

R.H.S.Crosman, their theoretician and Minister candidly admitted that 'the parliament was not invented to control the public sector'! 



Picture taken from http://cardiffeast.wordpress.com/2010.
Copyright status not stated.  Used here for non-profit educational purposes. That was the era when the politicians were honest, knowledgeable, hardworking. Later, Crosman recorded his experiences in his Diary. The govt tried to block its publication- in the UK! These diaries became the basis for the TV serial, "Yes,Minister".

The expectaton is that the public sector would make   profits for the govt, instead of private shareholders, but the experience is that once govt enters, profits disappear and they have to be sustained by tax money!

In the govt atmosphere, there are problems in acquiring knowledge necessary to solve problems, and also in applying that knowledge.

Every govt is ideologically bound and will not seek knowledge beyond its pale. Application of that knowledge is subject to political expediency, not theoretical correctness. The present form of democracy, with periodical elections severely limits the  time horizon even before a well-meaning govt, which cannot take its continuance beyond the next election for granted. This may not matter where the society has reached a broad consensus on vital issues cutting across party lines, but that has not happened anywhere, except on rare occasions.In India, policies will change with every govt- that is, things will be reversed. Not that it is necessarily bad, but that it makes things unstable and uncertain in the long run. 

The greatest problem before the society is the economic one; the real source of the difficulty is that there is no satisfactory solution to any economic problem. Some problems are simply intractable, no matter which party rules, which ideology is followed. Lord Keynes, the greatest economist of the last century, clearly noted in 1922:

J.M.Keynes. Caricature by Sir David Low, 1934.
Public domain.

The theory of economics does not furnish us  a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to policy. It is a method, rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind,a technique of thinking, which helps its possessor to draw correct conclusions

His own Master, Dr.Alfred Marshall had said in 1885:

Public domain.

Economic doctrine is....not a body of concrete truth but an engine for the discovery of concrete truth.

So. there is no magic in the so called economic solutions. As John Kenneth Galbraith said, economics is useful as a source of employment for economists! Every govt will find and favour its own set of economists, but the problems will remain just the same!



All countries follow economic policies to promote employment, reduce poverty. But the results are just contrary! Just yesterday (20 January 2015) there was a report that just 1% of the people  own more wealth than the rest of the population of the world and that just 80 persons in the world own more than the entire GDP of India! The present economic arrangements of the world are leading to more concentration of wealth in less hands, more unemployment, greater disparities in income and wealth. The very top is not bothered- the system benefits them. The bottom is not bothered, because politics will serve them. It is the middle class which will have to struggle to survive, pay the taxes to let the govt survive and serve the poor, and consume in order to sustain the system and let the millionaires accumulate even more! In the meantime politicians and bureaucrats syphon off  considerable amounts in the name of poverty alleviation schemes.

I will say that economic problems have only philosophical solutions, not economic ones.

This means we will have to understand and restate the nature of the economic problem.

Today, the whole world is looking up to the US as the ideal and wants to attain those standards. What are those standards?  5% of the world's population is consuming 35% of the world's resources, and dumping the consequential waste on the world. What will happen if the whole world tries to adopt this standard, and succeeds in it?

I therefore say that the basis of the economic problem is philosophical lunacy and it cannot be solved by any economic trick or technological fix. At the rate at which oil-just one resource is consumed, how long will the oceans of the world  last, even if all their waters are turned into oil by some modern Moses?

Economists are the merchants of this absurd modern dream.They have replaced need by greed (want) as the basis of economic activity. They have replaced natural limits by money. They have made greed the basis of life, and money its index of fulfilment. The corporate world is feeding on greed, and govts are merry printing money, now supplemented by electronic, invisible money- without any control or limit. How can any one deal with it?

The problem is deeper than our current state of knowledge can understand, or any imaginable technology can solve, or our present state of academic hubris will admit.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 64. BOOKS, LANGUAGE, CIVILISATION.

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. 

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!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DLIGHT. 38. RETURNING TO OLD FAVOURITES!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

38. RETURNING TO OLD FAVOURITES

How many of us return to an old piece of literature- be it a poem, or novel or drama again, after many years?

I think most of us don't. Almost all of us are introduced to literature through school and college . If the poem or story is interesting ( ie if we like it) or if the teacher is good and makes it interesting, it may leave an impression with  us and we may take it up later. But the universal experience with schooling is otherwise: most teachers are boring and have no interest in the subject; there is the irritation of completing the prescribed portion on schedule; the pressure of having to write the test. Above all, what counts for admission to higher studies, especially professional courses is the marks obtained in the subjects and not the languages where just 'a pass'  is all we aim at. So, there is neither  incentive, nor occasion  to return to literature, unless we take up literature as our subject in graduation and beyond. But now a days, with the emphasis on the professional courses, most youngsters do not opt for literature at all.. The novel we have read at school or college remains just a story we have read. We do not grow to appreciate it as a work of art or literature.

Till about half a century ago, our Universities had the idea or ideal of 'liberal education'. There was a smattering of a large number of subjects. None was covered at great depth even at graduation level, but we were exposed to a fairly wide spectrum of modern thought.  The basic idea was that  students at that stage should get exposure to arts, humanities, maths and science.  It was expected that once introduced to a subject, an 'educated' person would pursue it on his own. Life long interest in learning is considered a mark of true education.Later on, one could specialise in any area of choice. But in India, education is always thought of in the context of school or college, and that as a necessary ticket for a job. Most jobs ( especially in the govt.services) do not call for any advanced skills- except perhaps the ability to be negative and as unhelpful to people as possible! So most people do not pursue any serious reading after leaving school or college, unless their jobs require it. There are however a few who pursue studies vigorously, even while having an active career.

Both at the pre-university and  at graduation levels, one had to study English as a compulsory language, in the same pattern: selection of poetry, selection of prose, two texts for non-detailed study- one usually a classic novel, and the second, biography of some famous figure. And Shakespeare- a comedy and a tragedy I had read Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer, Dickens' 'Great Expectations', Hardy's Trumpet Major, a biography of Schweitzer; and Macbeth, with Much Ado About Nothing! .In poetry, one usually came across most of the great English poets- Milton, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats,Browning, Shelley, Byron, Tennyson, Pope! And a host of others: Goldsmith, Francis Thompson, James Elroy Flecker, Wilfred Wilson Gibson, Walter Savage Landor, Thomas Gray, Matthew Arnold! . All this, while we were not 'majoring ' in language and literature, but merely studying it as one of the two languages, the other being the regional language or mother tongue! Whatever might be our taste or preference, we were likely to find some one or the other interesting.If we had any literary bent at all, we would read them further.

Often, liking for a subject or author develops due to a good teacher or lecturer. Teacher's attitudes can also affect us negatively, when it combines with  authority. In the Catholic colleges, some Jesuits teaching economics had strong antipathy towards Keynes, though he was the most famous economist of the century. He had made the greatest practical contribution in two areas: prescribing a solution for the Depression ( overcoming 'secular stagnation' or ' secular (ie long-term) under- employment equilibrium'- incorporated in the New Deal Policies of President Franklin Roosevelt), and founding a new world economic order by way of the Bretton Woods Institutions. Keynes had died only in 1946, and in the 50s he was still the reigning economic colossus. Practically the entire academic world was his estate, though there were outstanding critics like Sir Dennis Robertson in the UK and Milton Friedman and his Chicago School in the States. But the general wisdom was, if you were not a Keynesian, you were not an economist.. But our Jesuit professor would not discuss Keynes! He would refer us to some books: Keynes' own General Theory was rather tough (at that stage) ; while explanatory books like that of Dudley Dillard was scintillating, others like those of Alvin Hansen needed some elucidation, but we could not discuss it in the class. So for two years , we had to plod on, on our own. It was only after leaving college that we could see such delightful books like 'The Age of Keynes' (Robert Lekachman) and 'Keynes and After' (Michael Stewart). We wasted two precious years in college, unable to study Keynes in detail because of the attitude of our teacher! 

  This idea of  'liberal' education was the typical British attitude which we followed; it was rooted in the British historical experience of a developing civil society with enlightened citizenship. It did emphasise the study of arts, language and literature and humanities. Most people passing through it acquired certain values and attitudes which were basic to a well ordered civic society. But in the 50s thinkers like C.P.Snow, a scientist and novelist, accused the British education system of favouring humanities at the expense of science, and spoke of 'The Two Cultures'. The cliche caught on. But once the Soviets sent up the Sputnik, the West (USA) thought they were behind in the race and had to catch up; the science subjects got a boost. But there was a reaction to this too later on. One is not sure whether a balance has been restored but at no stage was the study of language and literature entirely neglected.

It may seem strange, but it is a fact that the fact of English being their mother tongue does not offer them any special advantage in the study of their own literature! The average Englishman or American can no more understand Shakespeare or Milton, Browning or Shelley unaided, than an Indian! And for that matter, how many Indians can understand their own classic literature unaided? This is the beauty and difficulty of good, serious literature in any language- one has to acquire a taste for it, its study calls for application and time, only parts can be mastered by any one even in a lifetime, and one keeps coming back to it! Truly was it said in the olden days: 'Art is long, life is short!'

 The average graduate of the old times had a fairly good idea of many subjects, though his knowledge was not deep enough in any. Real specialisation was only at the post-graduate level. But every graduate had an idea of the intellectual foundations of modern society. And almost every one had some minimum standard in reading and writing English and mother tongue.Later on this pattern changed. Narrow specialisation and the consequent tunnel vision has started even at the graduation level.Today,the majority of  our graduates, including Engineering graduates, is considered unemployable! Even in the States, we had books  such  as: "Why Johnny Can't Read", "Why Johnny Can't Add", "Why Johnny Still Can't Read", etc. 

People today cannot appreciate the value and role of a liberal scholar. The academic world is split into too many areas of specialisation, even within a discipline. Writings of most scholars are intelligible only to their peers within the discipline. These academics are so arrogant (Why not, they are so well paid, after all) they will not consider the work of a non-academic as worthy of respect. Nor will they accept one speaking on a subject other than his own specialisation. The PhD culture ( or racket?) has ensured that one can earn it only by questioning what some one else has done, subject to the over all prejudice or value embraced by the university, or his guide! There is thus no possibility of a liberal scholar today.But there are some telling examples of  liberal scholars.

Dr. A.Lakshmanaswamy Mudaliar, the famed Vice-Chancellor of Madras University was a medical doctor by basic academic qualification, but with many honorary degrees.He was once presiding over a conference of UNESCO. One representative of a country, in the course of his speech, made the statement "there must really be something rotten in the state of Denmark". The representative of Denmark immediately stood up,protesting how Denmark could be insulted in this way! Dr. Mudaliar knew his Shakespeare, and so pacified him, explaining that this statement was an expression occurring in Shakespeare's play 'Hamlet' , and it was now part of general English usage, and merely meant that something was wrong in the system, and that it had no reference to Denmark at all! His liberal education had saved the day.

During the 1962 General Elections, Rajaji (in his eighties) was on election tour for his Swatantra Party making public speeches. In one speech, he made the remark" Catch the blackest crow!". Immediately, the local Tamil papers, which were mainly anti-Brahmin, jumped into the fray, saying Rajaji had insulted Kamaraj, then Chief Minister in this way! ( It was well known that Kamaraj was of a dark complexion) Nobody who knew Rajaji would accuse him of such low acts, but what did the sensation-seeking local press care? There was a huge controversy and ugly debates. Finally, Rajaji himself gave the explanation: 'To catch the blackest crow' was an English idiom which only meant that one must engage the strongest opponent in a combat, and in the context of the elections, it meant the Congress Party which was both the largest and the ruling party! 

Thus we see that a liberal education helps improve the general level of awareness and quality of public debate and discourse. And study of literature does provide a strong foundation for such liberal education. But with the focus now on increasing specialisation, serious study of literature is confined to formal students of literature. English at least continues to get some attention because it is the language of higher learning; the other Indian languages suffer neglect because they are not useful for higher studies, or even as vehicles for the expression of modern thought in science or any other field.This is a historical development and no one can be blamed. There are people in every state who want the local language to be used everywhere for everything. Even such people quietly educate their children in the English medium, and use local language mania to whip the linguistic minorities! In the process, even the old literature of these languages are increasingly neglected by the younger generations.

In England, in the Victorian era, with the spread of literacy, women emerged as a strong reading force,with a preference for light romantic and domestic novels. Women writers also emerged in large numbers, as men considered it below them to write such stuff. At one stage, women writers outnumbered men. I am inclined to think that a similar situation prevailed in Tamil Nad in the last century, from the 30s to the mid-80s- till the rise of the TV- serial culture. Women , and most men,  of all age groups were avid readers of periodical Tamil magazines - gulping down short stories and serial novels. There were at least 5 such top magazines competing , with 3 emerging with large readership- Ananda Vikatan, Kalki and Kumudam- the last one finally overtaking all others. Kalaimagal was more literary and always a step behind. The serialisation of the novel had started early, but caught on when Kalki and Devan appeared on the scene. Kalki's historical novels were tremendously popular, so were Devan's social novels. But my point is: Kalki's novels were serialised several times: Ponniyin Selvan, perhaps the most popular, first appeared in the late 40s and early 50s. It ran for over 4 years! It had tremendous illustrations by Maniam, a great artist. It ran a second time in the late 60s- again for 4 years, with illustrations by Vinu; a third time in the next decade with illustrations by Maniam Selvan- the son of the original artist! It ran again in the next decade with illustrations by another artist- Padmavasan. It is being serialised once again now , with illustrations by yet another artist! It is one case where people are returning to the same stories repeatedly over 60 years! All over the world, many novels had been serialised, or appeared in instalments, including the works of Dickens and Hardy. But I am not aware whether any work of any other author was  serialised repeatedly- to enthusiastic reception every time! Personally, I am disappointed that Devan's works were not so repeated, with the illustrations of Gopulu! Ananda Vikatan which Devan served till the end with such devotion and skill, did not honour him at all with such a gesture! Now with the rise of the TV culture, reading habit has been killed. Today the diversions and attractions are many, but the younger generation does not read, unless it be in connection with their work which cannot be avoided.

But the state of Sanskrit education is the worst. It is not only the language of  our religion and philosophy;it is also the language of our arts, sciences, culture: all the ideas in all the books in all the Indian languages are originally in Sanskrit. There is no Indian language- including Tamil- which does not contain at least 50% from Sanskrit sources. As a literary language, it exceeds Greek, Latin and every other language in extent, range and volume, as also in antiquity. Every Hindu of every sect and persuasion uses Sanskrit in his rituals, mantras and prayers. Yet, the Hindu is reluctant to acknowledge these openly and to take up its study even as a third language. This is indeed pathetic. Many Hindus read many versions of the Ramayana as a religious book; but few take up the original Valmiki, either as a religious text or as literature! The heart aches when one sees the neglect of the legendary Vyasa and the classical Sanskrit poets like Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti, Bana, Bartruhari, who stand head and shoulders above most English poets, and not less than Shakespeare and Milton. We devote so much time to reading the English poets - it is good, because they are good; but what about the good among us?  But at least some of us who have had some exposure in the past could come back to them! 

Those who are enthusiastically advocating Sanskrit study lack practical vision and plan.Study of language need not involve grammar at once.We may learn  to appreciate music without learning its technicalities, or to enjoy a Tennis match without playing it ourselves! Sanskrit verses could be taken up and explained- after all how many Indians can read and understand a passage even from any English poet-old or new-without explanation? The state of the study of our regional languages is such that most of the old literature in these languages cannot be understood without annotations. Why then should we be reluctant to bring out annotated editions of  Sanskrit works in English? At present, it is difficult to find even a book of Subhashitams in good English translations. Panchatantra and Hitopadesa are not available in good English translations , along with the originals.

The problem is present in all languages in respect of good literature. Even among students majoring in English literature in Western universities, there is reluctance to study poems and sonnets of Shakespeare, in contrast to a major play, even in the class room, unless the book makes reading simpler, by printing the annotations on the same page or side by side with the original! How much more difficult will it be in respect of Shakespeare, if we do not simplify the language, and have the book attractively designed and printed? Yet look at some of the books even from the reputed publishers- how badly produced the Sanskrit books are, in comparison to the English books they publish!

But the greatest problem in India is the absence of the habit of reading serious literature, except as part of some school or college course. A generation ago, at least short stories and serial novels used to be read widely in the periodical magazines. This has almost totally disappeared among the so called 'techie' generation- they are with their gadgets all the waking hours- no reading, no writing. The older generation is with the TV channels. Almost no one returns to any form of literary studies after leaving school or college. Which is so sad!