Critical Discourse in Gujarati/Introduction essay: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Critical Discourse in Gujarati/Introduction essay (view source)

Revision as of 19:14, 9 January 2024

45 bytes added ,  9 January
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:
This problem of fractured genealogy is common to literatures in several regional languages of India. The issue here in not merely chronological, it is a problem in genealogy. Unlike chronology, mainly concerned with a temporal sequence, genealogy has far-reaching implications concerning an entity’s identity.  
This problem of fractured genealogy is common to literatures in several regional languages of India. The issue here in not merely chronological, it is a problem in genealogy. Unlike chronology, mainly concerned with a temporal sequence, genealogy has far-reaching implications concerning an entity’s identity.  
Prevalent historiography accepts that critical discourses in Gujarati and other Indian regional literatures began some six or more centuries after the beginning of creative writing in those literatures. Such a genealogy would raise questions of the identity of critical discourses in Indian literatures. What or who  are these much anthologized and historicised ‘Critical Disco'
Prevalent historiography accepts that critical discourses in Gujarati and other Indian regional literatures began some six or more centuries after the beginning of creative writing in those literatures. Such a genealogy would raise questions of the identity of critical discourses in Indian literatures. What or who  are these much anthologized and historicised ‘Critical Disco'
<center> '''(C)''' </center>  
<center> '''(C)''' </center>  
A review of Colonial Practices.
<center> '''A review of Colonial Practices.''' </center>
A review of histories of Gujarati literature, published over a century and more, would show a surprising consensus among historiographers on accepting two genealogies: Genealogy of Gujarati literature and a separate genealogy of Gujarati literary criticism. This consensus in historiography has influenced editors of anthologies. Edited by eminent critics and published by premier literary institutions, all anthologies of Gujarati literary criticism begin with texts from the second half of the 19th century, namely articles by Narmad and Navalaram, ‘the first critic’.  Situation in other regional literatures is not dissimilar. It demonstrates a widespread colonial mindset among Indian literary historiographers and editors.  
A review of histories of Gujarati literature, published over a century and more, would show a surprising consensus among historiographers on accepting two genealogies: Genealogy of Gujarati literature and a separate genealogy of Gujarati literary criticism. This consensus in historiography has influenced editors of anthologies. Edited by eminent critics and published by premier literary institutions, all anthologies of Gujarati literary criticism begin with texts from the second half of the 19th century, namely articles by Narmad and Navalaram, ‘the first critic’.  Situation in other regional literatures is not dissimilar. It demonstrates a widespread colonial mindset among Indian literary historiographers and editors.  
Thus, for instance, History of Gujarati Literature, ed. Mansukhlal Jhaveri, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi, 1978, and Gujaraati Saahityano Itihaas, Vol 1, Gujarati Sahitya Parishad, 1967, hold that while literature originated in Gujarati language in around 12th century C.E., literary criticism began to be practiced much later, in mid-19th century. In an ambitious study, taken up through a generous grant by the UGC, New Delhi, Pramodkumar Patel meekly repeats in his GujaratimaM Vivechan tatvavichara (‘Philosophy of Criticism in Gujarati’, 1985), the same view: ‘We have to make one thing clear here that in our Medieval literary tradition the activity of literary criticism was not furrowed [attempted].’ (p. 5.)  
Thus, for instance, History of Gujarati Literature, ed. Mansukhlal Jhaveri, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi, 1978, and Gujaraati Saahityano Itihaas, Vol 1, Gujarati Sahitya Parishad, 1967, hold that while literature originated in Gujarati language in around 12th century C.E., literary criticism began to be practiced much later, in mid-19th century. In an ambitious study, taken up through a generous grant by the UGC, New Delhi, Pramodkumar Patel meekly repeats in his GujaratimaM Vivechan tatvavichara (‘Philosophy of Criticism in Gujarati’, 1985), the same view: ‘We have to make one thing clear here that in our Medieval literary tradition the activity of literary criticism was not furrowed [attempted].’ (p. 5.)  
To accept unquestioningly the master narrative of the misaligned genealogies is to believe that for six centuries, from the 13th to the 18th, a vibrant literary culture had not found its critical voice even while it used its creative energies abundantly, variedly and skilfully. Gujarati literary criticism then assumes identity of being a biproduct of contact that Gujarat had with English literary culture and simultaneous revival of Sanskrit scholarship in Gujarat in the 19th century.
To accept unquestioningly the master narrative of the misaligned genealogies is to believe that for six centuries, from the 13th to the 18th, a vibrant literary culture had not found its critical voice even while it used its creative energies abundantly, variedly and skilfully. Gujarati literary criticism then assumes identity of being a biproduct of contact that Gujarat had with English literary culture and simultaneous revival of Sanskrit scholarship in Gujarat in the 19th century.
Consequently, it has to be believed, as prompted by colonial mentality of the past and present, that the so-called literatures in Gujarati and other regional languages were, for the first seven centuries of their history, incapable of self-reflexivity. In other word, they were no more than some kind of folklorist, spontaneous and collective expressions without simultaneous critical self-appraisals. Amongst others, The Princeton Encyclopaedia of Indian Poetry and Poetics (1974) implicitly promotes such a view.   
Consequently, it has to be believed, as prompted by colonial mentality of the past and present, that the so-called literatures in Gujarati and other regional languages were, for the first seven centuries of their history, incapable of self-reflexivity. In other word, they were no more than some kind of folklorist, spontaneous and collective expressions without simultaneous critical self-appraisals. Amongst others, The Princeton Encyclopaedia of Indian Poetry and Poetics (1974) implicitly promotes such a view.   
<center>  '''*''' </center>  
<center>  '''*''' </center>  
Line 119: Line 119:
In his book Classical Poets of Gujarat and Their Influence on Society and Morals, (1892/published posthumously in 1916) Tripathi has argued that Gujarati culture is not an ‘eclectic combination’ of ancient Indian and modern British cultures. He says with admirable clarity: ‘He who would understand a classical poet of Gujarat must start upon this ground alone and none else. He must take it as his axiom that his poet is addressing his own surroundings and not the literary and refined world where the European and Sanskrit poets found themselves. Such is the key to poetry of Gujarat, and anyone who is disposed to unlock the treasures of our poets must, in the first instance, learn to understand and appreciate what in Gujarat, the Brahmin, the Banya, the ascetic, and even the woman is used to treasure up deep within his or her heart, and communicates only to those whom he or she loves or regards as one of his or her own fold.’ (Tripathi, 1916, Pp. 5, 6.)
In his book Classical Poets of Gujarat and Their Influence on Society and Morals, (1892/published posthumously in 1916) Tripathi has argued that Gujarati culture is not an ‘eclectic combination’ of ancient Indian and modern British cultures. He says with admirable clarity: ‘He who would understand a classical poet of Gujarat must start upon this ground alone and none else. He must take it as his axiom that his poet is addressing his own surroundings and not the literary and refined world where the European and Sanskrit poets found themselves. Such is the key to poetry of Gujarat, and anyone who is disposed to unlock the treasures of our poets must, in the first instance, learn to understand and appreciate what in Gujarat, the Brahmin, the Banya, the ascetic, and even the woman is used to treasure up deep within his or her heart, and communicates only to those whom he or she loves or regards as one of his or her own fold.’ (Tripathi, 1916, Pp. 5, 6.)
Third Step:  Vamana growing into Virata.
Third Step:  Vamana growing into Virata.
The third step was the one Gandhi enabled Gujarati critical discourse to take. Gandhi’s critical discourse was indeed a much larger discourse: It was a pan-India, pan-human discourse of courage, compassion and accommodation: Courage in face of brutal powers; compassion for all, ‘unto the last’; and accommodation for all kinds of ‘others’. It was shaped through ceaseless conversations and debates with others with very differing views. Gandhi enabled the seemingly puny people of South Africa, India, America and elsewhere to manifest their inner strength. And, as Gandhi insisted on writing his books in Gujarati and speaking publicly in Gujarati or Hindustani, Gandhi shaped Gujarati (and Indian) critical discourse, transforming it radically.
The third step was the one Gandhi enabled Gujarati critical discourse to take. Gandhi’s critical discourse was indeed a much larger discourse: It was a pan-India, pan-human discourse of courage, compassion and accommodation: Courage in face of brutal powers; compassion for all, ‘unto the last’; and accommodation for all kinds of ‘others’. It was shaped through ceaseless conversations and debates with others with very differing views. Gandhi enabled the seemingly puny people of South Africa, India, America and elsewhere to manifest their inner strength. And, as Gandhi insisted on writing his books in Gujarati and speaking publicly in Gujarati or Hindustani, Gandhi shaped Gujarati (and Indian) critical discourse, transforming it radically.


<center>  '''IV''' </center>
<center>  '''IV''' </center>
Line 136: Line 136:
From Narmad’s ‘Satyano Agraha’ (1869) to Gandhi’s ‘Satyagraha’ (1906), Gujarati discourse expanded its cultural ideals and critical vocabulary in many ways.   
From Narmad’s ‘Satyano Agraha’ (1869) to Gandhi’s ‘Satyagraha’ (1906), Gujarati discourse expanded its cultural ideals and critical vocabulary in many ways.   
Narmad’s critical discourse from his essay ‘The Poet and Poetry’ and Navalram’s from his ‘Musing on Poetics’, both included in this anthology, mark a turn and a continuity. Written in 1858, Narmad’s essay refers to Kavi Keshavadas of Vraja bhasha, with whom Akho had a critical dispute. Narmad, however, refers approvingly to Keshavadas’s idea of ‘kavi bani’, i.e. ‘a poet’s speech’. On the other hand, the notion of ‘Josso’, was derived by Narmad from the English critic William Hazlitt’s idea of ‘Passion’. Narmad, Navalram and Dalpatram quote also from Sanskrit poetics, from Dandin (7th century) to Kaviraj Vishvanatha (15th century). A confluence of ancient and medieval Indian critical theories and modern Western critical theories characterizes Gujarati critical discourse of this period.  
Narmad’s critical discourse from his essay ‘The Poet and Poetry’ and Navalram’s from his ‘Musing on Poetics’, both included in this anthology, mark a turn and a continuity. Written in 1858, Narmad’s essay refers to Kavi Keshavadas of Vraja bhasha, with whom Akho had a critical dispute. Narmad, however, refers approvingly to Keshavadas’s idea of ‘kavi bani’, i.e. ‘a poet’s speech’. On the other hand, the notion of ‘Josso’, was derived by Narmad from the English critic William Hazlitt’s idea of ‘Passion’. Narmad, Navalram and Dalpatram quote also from Sanskrit poetics, from Dandin (7th century) to Kaviraj Vishvanatha (15th century). A confluence of ancient and medieval Indian critical theories and modern Western critical theories characterizes Gujarati critical discourse of this period.  
Navalram’s critical discourse takes its position at a mid-point between Dalpatram’s and Narmad’s. Thus, in his essay, ‘Kharo Deshabhiman’ (literally ‘True Pride in [One’s] Country’), he distinguished between ‘Desh Preeti’ and ‘Khoto Abhiman’, i.e., ‘Love for the country’ and ‘Wrong kind of Pride for it’. (See: Navalgranthavali Vol. I, ed. Ramesh Shukla, 2006, p.345.) He points out that through ‘Abhiman’, people of each country think their own country always to be right and other counties to be wrong and this leads to violence. He adds, ‘If a sickness has been produced in our body and we go on claiming that our body is healthy, without any sickness, the result would be death.’ (Ibid, p. 346.) He proposes the word ‘Desh Preeti’, ‘Love for [one’s] country’ (ibid).  
Navalram’s critical discourse takes its position at a mid-point between Dalpatram’s and Narmad’s. Thus, in his essay, ‘Kharo Deshabhiman’ (literally ‘True Pride in [One’s] Country’), he distinguished between ‘Desh Preeti’ and ‘Khoto Abhiman’, i.e., ‘Love for the country’ and ‘Wrong kind of Pride for it’. (See: Navalgranthavali Vol. I, ed. Ramesh Shukla, 2006, p.345.) He points out that through ‘Abhiman’, people of each country think their own country always to be right and other counties to be wrong and this leads to violence. He adds, ‘If a sickness has been produced in our body and we go on claiming that our body is healthy, without any sickness, the result would be death.’ (Ibid, p. 346.) He proposes the word ‘Desh Preeti’, ‘Love for [one’s] country’ (ibid).  
<center>  '''*''' </center>  
<center>  '''*''' </center>  
New Platforms for a new Gujarat to speak anew: Early Literary Journals of Gujarat.
New Platforms for a new Gujarat to speak anew: Early Literary Journals of Gujarat.
Line 148: Line 148:
Dealing with internal Tensions and Contradictions of Gujarati Culture.
Dealing with internal Tensions and Contradictions of Gujarati Culture.
Ramanbhai Nilkanth (1868 – 1928) and Manilal Dvivedi (1858 – 1898) have been described as heirs of Narmad: Nilkanth of the younger ‘Purva Narmad’ (‘Earlier Narmad’) and Dvivedi of the later ‘Uttar Narmad’ (‘Later Narmad’). Nilkanth carried forward the reformist zeal of Narmad; Dvivedi championed the conservative spirit and courageous self-audit of Narmad’s later years. Their views on culture and literature clashed with and enhanced each other.
Ramanbhai Nilkanth (1868 – 1928) and Manilal Dvivedi (1858 – 1898) have been described as heirs of Narmad: Nilkanth of the younger ‘Purva Narmad’ (‘Earlier Narmad’) and Dvivedi of the later ‘Uttar Narmad’ (‘Later Narmad’). Nilkanth carried forward the reformist zeal of Narmad; Dvivedi championed the conservative spirit and courageous self-audit of Narmad’s later years. Their views on culture and literature clashed with and enhanced each other.
Nilkanth’s essay, Svanubhava Rasik and Sarvanubhava Rasik : The Two Worlds of Poetry’, included in this anthology, looks for a literary culture that is capable of  larger and objective reality beyond one’s subjective sensibility (Sarvanubhava Rasik). For him it is a move towards a new, modern world; a step ahead of what he considered as a self-absorbed world of medieval Gujarati literature. Dvivedi’s essay included in this anthology, looks for deeper roots of poetry within the ancient Indian world of Sahitya Mimamsa and the Darshanas, especially the Vedanta. Known as ‘abheda marga pravasi’  i.e. a traveller on the path of non-duality, Dvivedi does not accept the duality and dichotomy of the subjective and the objective. Nilkanth, like the young Narmad, was a votary for total change and a new, future for Gujarati people. Dvivedi, like Narmad in his later years, was a votary for a search of rejuvenating sources of strength for Gujarati culture useful in looking for a future that is a continuum of the best of the Indian past.  
Nilkanth’s essay, Svanubhava Rasik and Sarvanubhava Rasik : The Two Worlds of Poetry’, included in this anthology, looks for a literary culture that is capable of  larger and objective reality beyond one’s subjective sensibility (Sarvanubhava Rasik). For him it is a move towards a new, modern world; a step ahead of what he considered as a self-absorbed world of medieval Gujarati literature. Dvivedi’s essay included in this anthology, looks for deeper roots of poetry within the ancient Indian world of Sahitya Mimamsa and the Darshanas, especially the Vedanta. Known as ‘abheda marga pravasi’  i.e. a traveller on the path of non-duality, Dvivedi does not accept the duality and dichotomy of the subjective and the objective. Nilkanth, like the young Narmad, was a votary for total change and a new, future for Gujarati people. Dvivedi, like Narmad in his later years, was a votary for a search of rejuvenating sources of strength for Gujarati culture useful in looking for a future that is a continuum of the best of the Indian past.  


Anandshankar Dhruv juxtaposes and synthesises these and similar contesting narratives on literature and life. In his essay, titled ‘Saundaryano anubhava: Ek Digdarshan’ ( ‘Experience of Beauty: An Overview’), Dhruv discusses the transient and the permanent aspects of beauty. ‘The spirit of an Age, at some juncture, passes through some deep turbulence. That process of churning brings out the best that the Age has to offer, its cream. The poet who presents that offering in a well-formed composition, comes to be known as the Major Poet, the Mahakavi of that epoch. Whether such a poet, who best represents one Age can become a Major Poet for all the Ages, depends upon the nature of vision of that Age.’ (See: Anandshakar Dhruv Shreni : Vol III. Sahitya Vichar. Ed. Yashavant Shukla et al., 2001. P. 40.) His essay, ‘Poetry: A (Playful) Part of Ātman’, incuded in this anthology, Dhruv’s hermeneutics of harmony, exploring how the permanent and the temporal meet and produce the world of poetry, as understood by Indian  Sahitya Mimamsa.  
Anandshankar Dhruv juxtaposes and synthesises these and similar contesting narratives on literature and life. In his essay, titled ‘Saundaryano anubhava: Ek Digdarshan’ ( ‘Experience of Beauty: An Overview’), Dhruv discusses the transient and the permanent aspects of beauty. ‘The spirit of an Age, at some juncture, passes through some deep turbulence. That process of churning brings out the best that the Age has to offer, its cream. The poet who presents that offering in a well-formed composition, comes to be known as the Major Poet, the Mahakavi of that epoch. Whether such a poet, who best represents one Age can become a Major Poet for all the Ages, depends upon the nature of vision of that Age.’ (See: Anandshakar Dhruv Shreni : Vol III. Sahitya Vichar. Ed. Yashavant Shukla et al., 2001. P. 40.) His essay, ‘Poetry: A (Playful) Part of Ātman’, incuded in this anthology, Dhruv’s hermeneutics of harmony, exploring how the permanent and the temporal meet and produce the world of poetry, as understood by Indian  Sahitya Mimamsa.  
Line 174: Line 174:
<center>  '''Hind Svaraj Kal / Period of India Engendering its Freedom.''' </center>  
<center>  '''Hind Svaraj Kal / Period of India Engendering its Freedom.''' </center>  
Critical discourse of the next phase was stimulated by Gandhi. However, a closer look at the organic fluidity of the literary cultural situations of the period would reveal that Gandhian ethos has proven to be stimulating, rather than stifling, for Gujarati culture, literature and critical discourse of these times. Unlike some Western Ideologies that tend to produce a unicentric space, Gandhian ways led to a multi-centred space for life and letters in Gujarati and other Indian literary cultures. Gandhi came up with sharp critiques and uncomfortable questions, but it was clearly not a Master Narrative, utopian or scientific, that tend to silence all other narratives.  This, in a way, was what distinguished Gujarati literary culture and its critical discourses from those of several other languages, Indian and foreign, that were controlled by one or the other Master Narratives, political, economic or social.
Critical discourse of the next phase was stimulated by Gandhi. However, a closer look at the organic fluidity of the literary cultural situations of the period would reveal that Gandhian ethos has proven to be stimulating, rather than stifling, for Gujarati culture, literature and critical discourse of these times. Unlike some Western Ideologies that tend to produce a unicentric space, Gandhian ways led to a multi-centred space for life and letters in Gujarati and other Indian literary cultures. Gandhi came up with sharp critiques and uncomfortable questions, but it was clearly not a Master Narrative, utopian or scientific, that tend to silence all other narratives.  This, in a way, was what distinguished Gujarati literary culture and its critical discourses from those of several other languages, Indian and foreign, that were controlled by one or the other Master Narratives, political, economic or social.
Gujarati critical discourse of the period was enriched by larger intellectual debates between Gandhi, Tagore, Ambedkar and the proponents, like Savarkar, of violent overthrow of the British Raj.  
Gujarati critical discourse of the period was enriched by larger intellectual debates between Gandhi, Tagore, Ambedkar and the proponents, like Savarkar, of violent overthrow of the British Raj.  


<center>  ''' (a) ''' </center>
<center>  ''' (a) ''' </center>
Line 213: Line 213:
<center>  '''(e)''' </center>  
<center>  '''(e)''' </center>  
<center>  '''Gandhi, Marx, Aurobindo, Tagore.''' </center>  
<center>  '''Gandhi, Marx, Aurobindo, Tagore.''' </center>  
Sundaram, a major poet of the Gandhian period and a representative of Socialist and Marxian trends of the Gandhian period, and later in his life a prominent Sadhaka at Sri Aurobindo Ashram at Pondicherry, warmly endorsed this, candidly saying: ‘An unconscious disgust for the language of the entire society of the people, and partiality for their own culture and style of language prevents them [writers of the time] to understanding the power of language that carries in itself the strength of the wider life of the people.’ (Sahitya Chintan, p. 100.) He, however, cautions against didactic and propagandist use of language in ‘[a] large number of literary texts, that quickly enumerate religious values like love, pity or renunciation, or simply repeating commandments of ethics, or singing of Veera Rasa of Nationalism and Bhayanaka Rasa of sacrifice [on battlefields].’ (tr. S.Y.)  
Sundaram, a major poet of the Gandhian period and a representative of Socialist and Marxian trends of the Gandhian period, and later in his life a prominent Sadhaka at Sri Aurobindo Ashram at Pondicherry, warmly endorsed this, candidly saying: ‘An unconscious disgust for the language of the entire society of the people, and partiality for their own culture and style of language prevents them [writers of the time] to understanding the power of language that carries in itself the strength of the wider life of the people.’ (Sahitya Chintan, p. 100.) He, however, cautions against didactic and propagandist use of language in ‘[a] large number of literary texts, that quickly enumerate religious values like love, pity or renunciation, or simply repeating commandments of ethics, or singing of Veera Rasa of Nationalism and Bhayanaka Rasa of sacrifice [on battlefields].’ (tr. S.Y.)  
<center>  '''*''' </center>  
<center>  '''*''' </center>  
In the article titled ‘Spirituality and Literature’ Ramprasad Bakshi, a profound scholar of Sanskrit literature and Indian philosophy, brings out, unexpectedly (if the title is read conventionally)  a deep  relevance of ancient India to the present times.
In the article titled ‘Spirituality and Literature’ Ramprasad Bakshi, a profound scholar of Sanskrit literature and Indian philosophy, brings out, unexpectedly (if the title is read conventionally)  a deep  relevance of ancient India to the present times.
Line 266: Line 266:
Past four decades, from around 1980, have been a time span of momentous changes globally but also at grass roots. Collapse of so many structures and institutions, of society, polity, economy and language is matched by new construction of equally numerous structures and institutions in each of these fields of human endeavours. Gujarati critical discourse has reflected with vigour and sincerity if with trepidation and tentativeness that enhance its sincerity.  These contemporary critical voices could be grouped into three categories: Some explore the Cosmopolitan character of contemporary life and literature. Some, on the other hand, focus on exploring the indigenous traditions of Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsha and Old Gujarati literature and poetics. Then there is a critical (and creative) exploration into the large marginalized areas of Gujarati life and letters: Those of the Dalits, the Tribal and Women. Space available for this anthology allowed inclusion of only some representatives of this manyfold critical exploration. Thus, contemporary critics whose works have been included here, in addition to Umashankar Joshi and Suresh Joshi, are Niranjan Bhagat, Chandrakant Topiwala, Chandrakant Sheth, Shirish Panchal, Babu Suthar, Bhagvandas Patel, Himanshi Shelat and Kanti Malsatar. But a large number of contemporary critics, mentioned below, have hugely contributed to contemporary Gujarati critical discourse in the different categories mentioned above.
Past four decades, from around 1980, have been a time span of momentous changes globally but also at grass roots. Collapse of so many structures and institutions, of society, polity, economy and language is matched by new construction of equally numerous structures and institutions in each of these fields of human endeavours. Gujarati critical discourse has reflected with vigour and sincerity if with trepidation and tentativeness that enhance its sincerity.  These contemporary critical voices could be grouped into three categories: Some explore the Cosmopolitan character of contemporary life and literature. Some, on the other hand, focus on exploring the indigenous traditions of Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsha and Old Gujarati literature and poetics. Then there is a critical (and creative) exploration into the large marginalized areas of Gujarati life and letters: Those of the Dalits, the Tribal and Women. Space available for this anthology allowed inclusion of only some representatives of this manyfold critical exploration. Thus, contemporary critics whose works have been included here, in addition to Umashankar Joshi and Suresh Joshi, are Niranjan Bhagat, Chandrakant Topiwala, Chandrakant Sheth, Shirish Panchal, Babu Suthar, Bhagvandas Patel, Himanshi Shelat and Kanti Malsatar. But a large number of contemporary critics, mentioned below, have hugely contributed to contemporary Gujarati critical discourse in the different categories mentioned above.
<center>  '''*''' </center>  
<center>  '''*''' </center>  
This would, we trust, encourage readers, researchers and translators of Gujarati literature and critical discourse, towards critical work by many other authors of this period, including  Rasik Shah (1922 - 2016), Varis Alvi (1928-, 2014) Pramodkumar Patel (1933-1996), Labhshankar Thakar (1935 – 2016),  Raghuvir Chaudhuri (1938), Jayant Gadit (1938-2009), Suman Shah (b.1939), Nitin Mehta (1944 - ), Raman Soni (1946), Jayesh Bhogayata (1954) Rajesh Pandya (19 ) Hemant Dave (19 ); critics of theatre and cinema including Amrit Gangar (1949) Mahesh Champaklal (1951), Utpal Bhayani (1953 -); exponents of the metaphysical literature, including Makarand Dave (1922 – 2005), Harindra Dave (1930 - 1995), , Balvant Jani (1951), Niranjan Rajyaguru(1954); researchers into Charani culture and literature, like Ambadan Rohadiya (1959); researchers into tribal literature of Gujarat including Bhagavandas Patel (1943), Shankarbhai (1927) and Revabahen Tadvi (1929); researchers into Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsha and Old Gujarati literature, from this period, including  Bhogilal Sandesara (1917 -11995), Jayant Kothari (1930-2001), Tapasvi Nandi (1933), Gautam Patel (1936), Rajendra Nanavati (1939), Vijay Pandya (1943), Vasant Bhatt (1953); critics exploring Dalit literature, Bhi. Na. Vankar (1942), Mohan Parmar (1948), B. Keshar Shivam, Chandu Maheriya, Harish Mangalam (1952), Dalpat Chauhan (1940), Madhukant Kalpit (1945); critics of Women’s literature, including Dhirubahen Patel (1926) Himanshi Shelat (1947), Bindu Bhatt (1954), Varsha Adalaja (1940), Ila Arab Mehta (1938), Sarup Dhruv (1948) ; critics on other arts, dance, painting, architecture and sculpture and photography, Sunil Kothari (1933 -2020), Gulam Mohammad Sheikh (1937), Madhusudan Dhanki (1927 -2016), Narottam Palan (1935), Jyoti Bhatt (1934) and some other equally eminent writers, practitioners. Had this been a multi-volume anthology it could have included many of these seminal critics in English translation.
This would, we trust, encourage readers, researchers and translators of Gujarati literature and critical discourse, towards critical work by many other authors of this period, including  Rasik Shah (1922 - 2016), Varis Alvi (1928-, 2014) Pramodkumar Patel (1933-1996), Labhshankar Thakar (1935 – 2016),  Raghuvir Chaudhuri (1938), Jayant Gadit (1938-2009), Suman Shah (b.1939), Nitin Mehta (1944 - ), Raman Soni (1946), Jayesh Bhogayata (1954) Rajesh Pandya (19 ) Hemant Dave (19 ); critics of theatre and cinema including Amrit Gangar (1949) Mahesh Champaklal (1951), Utpal Bhayani (1953 -); exponents of the metaphysical literature, including Makarand Dave (1922 – 2005), Harindra Dave (1930 - 1995), , Balvant Jani (1951), Niranjan Rajyaguru(1954); researchers into Charani culture and literature, like Ambadan Rohadiya (1959); researchers into tribal literature of Gujarat including Bhagavandas Patel (1943), Shankarbhai (1927) and Revabahen Tadvi (1929); researchers into Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsha and Old Gujarati literature, from this period, including  Bhogilal Sandesara (1917 -11995), Jayant Kothari (1930-2001), Tapasvi Nandi (1933), Gautam Patel (1936), Rajendra Nanavati (1939), Vijay Pandya (1943), Vasant Bhatt (1953); critics exploring Dalit literature, Bhi. Na. Vankar (1942), Mohan Parmar (1948), B. Keshar Shivam, Chandu Maheriya, Harish Mangalam (1952), Dalpat Chauhan (1940), Madhukant Kalpit (1945); critics of Women’s literature, including Dhirubahen Patel (1926) Himanshi Shelat (1947), Bindu Bhatt (1954), Varsha Adalaja (1940), Ila Arab Mehta (1938), Sarup Dhruv (1948) ; critics on other arts, dance, painting, architecture and sculpture and photography, Sunil Kothari (1933 -2020), Gulam Mohammad Sheikh (1937), Madhusudan Dhanki (1927 -2016), Narottam Palan (1935), Jyoti Bhatt (1934) and some other equally eminent writers, practitioners. Had this been a multi-volume anthology it could have included many of these seminal critics in English translation.
<center>  '''(e)''' </center>
<center>  '''(e)''' </center>
Articles selected for inclusion here trace main contours of Gujarati critical discourse in progress at present: Shirish Panchal’s article, ‘Crisis in Literary Criticism’ introduces comprehensively issues and enigmas of contemporary critical discourse, Gujarati and global. His comprehensive study in Bharatiya Katha Vishva (Vols 1 to 5. 2020) is a landmark in contemporary Gujarati critical discourse, it expand the horizon of Gujarati critical discourse to ancient Vedic, Bauddh, Jain world of Katha, to Kathasaritsagara and the later world of medieval Indian Katha Vishva. Chnadrakant Topiwala’s article explores a vast topography through tools and methods of Comparative Literature. His central concern, presented masterfully in 16 books, is with frontiers of critical theories of Western, East European and Russian thinkers and with worldwide contemporary creative writing. Chnadrakant Sheth’s article gives an insider’s account of how to explore the creative and critical situation in Gujarat. Babu Suthar, a linguist by training, explores, on the other hand, the outer reaches of contemporary global critical theories. Kanti Malsatar’s article presents promises and promises of Gujarat’s contemporary literature of the marginalised in Gujarat, especially of the Dalit and OBC. Bhagvandas Patel’s work on tribal culture of Gujarat, especially the Bhil community that straddles several states including Gujarat, explores the desi dimension of Gujarati culture. Himansh Shelat explores, with courage and deep understanding, both psychological and political-economic dimensions of the world of women in contemporary times.  
Articles selected for inclusion here trace main contours of Gujarati critical discourse in progress at present: Shirish Panchal’s article, ‘Crisis in Literary Criticism’ introduces comprehensively issues and enigmas of contemporary critical discourse, Gujarati and global. His comprehensive study in Bharatiya Katha Vishva (Vols 1 to 5. 2020) is a landmark in contemporary Gujarati critical discourse, it expand the horizon of Gujarati critical discourse to ancient Vedic, Bauddh, Jain world of Katha, to Kathasaritsagara and the later world of medieval Indian Katha Vishva. Chnadrakant Topiwala’s article explores a vast topography through tools and methods of Comparative Literature. His central concern, presented masterfully in 16 books, is with frontiers of critical theories of Western, East European and Russian thinkers and with worldwide contemporary creative writing. Chnadrakant Sheth’s article gives an insider’s account of how to explore the creative and critical situation in Gujarat. Babu Suthar, a linguist by training, explores, on the other hand, the outer reaches of contemporary global critical theories. Kanti Malsatar’s article presents promises and promises of Gujarat’s contemporary literature of the marginalised in Gujarat, especially of the Dalit and OBC. Bhagvandas Patel’s work on tribal culture of Gujarat, especially the Bhil community that straddles several states including Gujarat, explores the desi dimension of Gujarati culture. Himansh Shelat explores, with courage and deep understanding, both psychological and political-economic dimensions of the world of women in contemporary times.  
Line 274: Line 274:
<center>  '''Gujarati-ness of Critical Discourse of over Ten Centuries.''' </center>  
<center>  '''Gujarati-ness of Critical Discourse of over Ten Centuries.''' </center>  
<center>  '''(a)''' </center>                                                                 
<center>  '''(a)''' </center>                                                                 
The Spirit of ‘ApaNe’: The Inclusive Form of First-Person Plural.  
<center>  '''The Spirit of ‘ApaNe’: The Inclusive Form of First-Person Plural.''' </center> 
Umashankar Joshi often pointed out that Gujarati language has a special pronoun, AapaNe, a unique form of the first-person plural, that neither English nor other Indian languages have. ‘We’, ‘Hum’ etc. indicate the plural of ‘I’, but do not quite specify what they include: English ‘We’ has many hues: ‘We’ could either include ‘You’ or exclude ‘You’. (Consider ‘We stand united against You or Them’.) Again, ‘We’ is used as self-identification of the Powerful Individual or Institution.  Gujarati first person plural ‘AapaNe’ is inclusive of both the plurals, of ‘I’ and of ‘Thou’. That plurality and inclusiveness in that Gujarati pronoun represents the best in Gujarati culture. And, indeed, it points out to the best in Indian culture and in culture as such, anywhere. It was this quality that illuminated creative and critical works of Gujarati authors from Narasimha Maheta to Mohandas Gandhi and, hopefully, then on.
Umashankar Joshi often pointed out that Gujarati language has a special pronoun, AapaNe, a unique form of the first-person plural, that neither English nor other Indian languages have. ‘We’, ‘Hum’ etc. indicate the plural of ‘I’, but do not quite specify what they include: English ‘We’ has many hues: ‘We’ could either include ‘You’ or exclude ‘You’. (Consider ‘We stand united against You or Them’.) Again, ‘We’ is used as self-identification of the Powerful Individual or Institution.  Gujarati first person plural ‘AapaNe’ is inclusive of both the plurals, of ‘I’ and of ‘Thou’. That plurality and inclusiveness in that Gujarati pronoun represents the best in Gujarati culture. And, indeed, it points out to the best in Indian culture and in culture as such, anywhere. It was this quality that illuminated creative and critical works of Gujarati authors from Narasimha Maheta to Mohandas Gandhi and, hopefully, then on.
In fact, it goes back a good three centuries before Narasimha, all the way to the Apabhramsha stage of Gujarati language, in Gurjara Apabramsha as described by Hemachandra in the 12th century. In one of his well-known anushasana trilogy, namely in his Kavyanushasana, Hemachadra holds that Mahakavya could be written not only in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhamsha languages (as per the long older convention) but also in what he called ‘Bhuta Bhasha’. Two of younger monks from amongst his or his fellow monk’s pupils, namely Vajrasen and Shalibhadra, began the practice of writing poetry in the local, regional language that was to acquire the name of Gujarati a little later. When Gujarati became a language of literature, it added to the three traditional languages of literature, it did not banish them. ‘Sarva bhasha parinata jaini vak’, ‘language of the Jina, which is capable of resulting into all languages [of humans, animals, plants]’, is how Hemachandra describes language of the Tirthankara.  
In fact, it goes back a good three centuries before Narasimha, all the way to the Apabhramsha stage of Gujarati language, in Gurjara Apabramsha as described by Hemachandra in the 12th century. In one of his well-known anushasana trilogy, namely in his Kavyanushasana, Hemachadra holds that Mahakavya could be written not only in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhamsha languages (as per the long older convention) but also in what he called ‘Bhuta Bhasha’. Two of younger monks from amongst his or his fellow monk’s pupils, namely Vajrasen and Shalibhadra, began the practice of writing poetry in the local, regional language that was to acquire the name of Gujarati a little later. When Gujarati became a language of literature, it added to the three traditional languages of literature, it did not banish them. ‘Sarva bhasha parinata jaini vak’, ‘language of the Jina, which is capable of resulting into all languages [of humans, animals, plants]’, is how Hemachandra describes language of the Tirthankara.  
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ekatrafoundation.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/68394...68396"

Navigation menu