LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT 78. LITERATURE,LANGUAGE AND VIOLENCE.

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

78. LITERATURE, LANGUAGE AND VIOLENCE

War without violence or violence without war?

We like to think that we know what violence is- after all we have read about the two world wars, the Korean War, Vietnam war, numerous other conflicts in all parts of the globe. We know something about the cold war- though the violence there was not so open, physical . It was more about contentious political and economic philosophies, competing for supremacy. But it was a war for people's minds, and control over their lives. The world is witnessing violence by Jihadis- of the most brutal kind. Nearer home, we saw violence in Sri Lanka. At home, though Mahatma Gandhi is credited with having got our Independence without violence, we have witnessed violence of every kind, on every possible ground since then- language, state border, water-sharing,reservation in jobs, etc.

Violence  has become such a part of our consciousness that we speak of "war" routinely- war against poverty, illiteracy, corruption, war even for peace! In the 60s, one scholar- Krishnalal Shridharani-  even wrote a book on Gandhiji's philosophy calling it "War Without Violence". But thoughtful people used to point out the hidden violence involved in Gandhiji's methods: when he undertook a fast for some cause, did it not amount to forcing people opposed to his way of thinking to embrace his position? It should really be called "violence without war"!

Unseen violence to mind and spirit

We associate violence with some physical assault, and bloodshed. But what about the damage to mind, heart, self-esteem? To personality? To self-expression?

Years ago, I copied down the following in my notebook:

"Who is to say that robbing a people of its language is less violent than war?"

    

 -  Ray Gwyn Smith.

Sadly, I did not note the source.

Subsequently, we read many reports from international agencies that many ancient languages and dialects are facing extinction. 

But we have experienced other kinds of violence relating to language. Some are happening right now.

In our generation, we completed our secondary education through our mother tongue, with English being taught as second language from the 6th standard. The syllabus was simple, small and uncomplicated and we had so much time to learn, think, dream, and absorb- not just cram. Most of us could read  a novel or newspaper, and write at least a page without glaring grammatical errors. The stress was on the basics- just learning to read and write.

When we entered the University, the medium switched to English, mother tongue becoming the second language, even optional in the big cities! This led to rote learning in the science subjects, but the humanities and social sciences called for some linguistic ability and originality. When a hundred fellows wrote about what Newton's laws were, they wrote the same thing, in the same words. But when ten people wrote about Ashoka's change of heart or Akbar's Din Elahi, you got as many versions! This was the pain, and also the fun, of mastering the humanities- you had to master the subject and English both! I would go a step further and say, such people mastered the art of life too! Economics, Political science, History, Philosophy, Literature- they do give a perspective on life. One can bet their theories are mostly speculative and wrong, but they make men! Science makes technicians, automatons, morons!


From English to English medium!

But soon, the craze for English medium started, even from the lower standards. In the convents ,and the schools run by their local imitators, speaking in mother tongue was prohibited during school hours and some schools even imposed fine on children speaking in their language! Today, there is something called pre-school, pre-nursery even before the Kindergarten. And everywhere, they teach in English! Is this not a form of violence we are practising on children- our own children, as we are preventing them from expressing themselves in the natural manner and forcing an alien language on them?

The scene is so confused. The state govts want to impose their language on everyone in the state, when parents do not want it. Central govt.imposes Hindi on everyone, and fools everyone with a three-language formula, when the Hindiwallahs just have to learn their mother tongue and English, while non-Hindi speakers have to learn three by the sheer force of circumstances and the Constitution. January 26 is Republic Day, but it is the day of Hindi Imposition on the South and other non-Hindi areas! This is constitutional violence!

This process involves another violence- the murder of Sanskrit- which it the mother of Indian languages and the source of all Indian thought in all languages of India in all subjects! If the three language formula simply means Mother tongue plus English plus Sanskrit, all Indians will be constitutionally equal- as English and Sanskrit are nobody's mother tongue- and do not confer any unearned advantage on any one! For all practical purposes, two language formula would do: mother tongue and English!

There is a type of violence even in learning English.Which is correct English- English English or American English? In writing, the computer has solved the problem: it will choose the form given the command! Most people are indifferent; even our newspapers are increasingly adopting American. We are so slavishly American, that we do not even use the Indian words for large numbers- it is all million, billion, trillion dollars now- not lakhs, crores of Indian rupees. Even our economists talk of our national income in terms of dollars. Is this not a violence to our national spirit ?

But speaking English creates its own problems- problems of diction, accent, etc.

I was fortunate to listen to the  speeches of Nehru and Rajaji and the lectures of Dr.Radhakrishnan- he did not give speeches, he only lectured! Even a simple inauguration would be scholarly,studded with quotations. Nehru was educated in England and spoke like an Englishman. Dr. Radhakrishnan and Rajaji were more Indian, but each had his distinctive style. Rajaji spoke in measured words, would build up the argument and he spoke from a moral and ethical framework. He spoke English naturally, like an Indian. It was idiomatic, correct and telling in its effect.His speech was like finely-chiseled sculpture. But he was not an orator. That Dr.Radhakrishnan was! He combined such erudition from the lore and literature of East and West, and his language flow was a pravaham- unstoppable flow of such force and majesty. One always felt sorry that he had to stop!

Dr.S.Radhakrishnan


 But the point is, each one had his own style, each one spoke English like an Indian and there was no conscious attempt to imitate any one! They were natural, and naturally Indian. But today, which top-ranking leader can talk like that? And we have got schools to teach us to talk like Americans or the English.

I often wonder if these people have listened to native speakers ever! There is no one standard way of speaking any language anywhere in the world! I was taught English in college by 3 Englishmen- two of them from Oxford. But each had a distinct style and even pronunciation. I asked one of them about Fowler's 'King's English'. He asked me how many people got to talk to the king! Rules about writing were rather strict, as there should be no ambiguity in the expression of fine thoughts, but cultured speech permitted more variations, without degenerating into slang. When we force one standard way of speech or even writing, we are indulging in another kind of violence! But this is practised now in the school system in Tamil Nad! And the odd thing is that they say the pronunciation of Sri Lankan Tamils is best!

When children were sent to the convents or Christian schools, a funny thing happened. Most of the nuns were Keralites- and they had their distinct pronunciation, in Malayalee accent! So the children naturally imbibed this! I am not saying it is wrong. I am just saying it happened this way! After all, do we not feel this when  Jesudas, the Master that he is, sings Hindi songs? It is quite natural. We are told that even Lata Mangeshkar could not pronounce Urdu words properly, and Naushad and others had to train her. And see how differently Rafi and Talat Mahmood pronounce Urdu words- both natural speakers of the language! Don't we enjoy both!

Language is such a lively thing! The variations in writing styles and pronunciation add richness, depth and variety. It sure can lead to some odd situations, but we can learn to enjoy. We called ground nut as 'Kadalakkai' in Tamil in Salem. My wife came from a different part, and she called it 'mallakottai'; the more popular version would be 'mallatai'. And a standard newspaper like Dinamani would give the market rates for 'manila kottai'. Now which one is the right one? 'Olakkai' in our part meant the long  thick wooden pole with iron-clad ends used to dehusk paddy or make beaten rice at home; but this word meant the small iron tool, about  18" long, used for digging earth in the part my wife came from! This we used to call 'Kadappaarai'!  In high school, our Tamil teacher, who came from Tanjore dist and  was a Saiva scholar would confer the title 'Olakkai' on any boy who could not answer a question but would stand erect and still! ( But in writing, it is always spelt "Ulakkai"! This is a peculiarity in Tamil in respect of many words!)
  "Panam" generally meant money in Tamil, but 'a panam' would mean 2 annas in Trichy, and 2.5 annas in Tanjore! Incidentally, this was the salary Vidura was supposed to have recieved in Mahabharata times! And his house was reported to be in a dilapidated condition! (Poor soul! No Vastu consultants were probably available to tell him how a minister 's  house should be!)

Vidura (left) with Dhritarashtra
Gita Press, Gorakhpur


Language is naturally plastic. Let us not do it violence by straight-jacketing it and preventing its naturally   growing  expression and variety!  

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 ?