Critical Discourse in Gujarati/Introduction essay: Difference between revisions

The issue: While prevalent scholarly historiography locates origins of Gujarati literature in itself in the 12th century, the origins of Gujarati literary critical discourse have been located in the 19th century. This large gap of seven centuries between production of literature and commencement of critical discourse on it needs urgently to be looked into.   

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.  

<center>  '''(C)''' </center>  

A review of Colonial Practices.

In the next section, I would present a case study from 17th century Gujarati and Hindi literatures that would offer textual evidences of an indigenous model of critical discourse.  

‘Kavipriya’ and ‘Rasikapriya’ vs. ‘Santapriya’ : Indigenous Paradigm of Critical Discourse.

Akho ( c. 1615 – 1674 CE), a major Gujarati poet,, an iconoclast, was, like many of his contemporary writers from all over India, a multilingual poet. He wrote in Gujarati as well as Vraja bhasha, a nearly pan-Indian language of his times. He was a follower of Advaita Vedanta and was familiar with other Indian philosophical systems, as his texts like Panchikarana, Guru Shishy Samvada, Akhe Gita etc, amply demonstrate. Our focus here is on Akho’s text, Santapriya.  

Keshavadas also sings praise for Krishna, and for his patron, the ruler of Orchha. Contesting this, Akho presents an alternate poetics in his Santapriya. The title itself openly presents a critique. His book is also a handbook, Priya, as the title says, but it is for writers and readers of poetry who could best be described as Santa, not Kavi or Rasika.

Akho pointedly clarifies this further: ‘देवता न देवि आराध्य, पिङ्गल न व्याकर्ण साध्य. ( ‘The aim is not to please either gods or goddesses. It is not to teach mere techniques of prosody or grammar.’) And adds: ‘नाहि को रीझवे काव्य, जैसे व्रुथा घन गाज’. (‘Like clouds that rumble in vein [without pouring out any rains] poems [produced through mere techniques of prosody and grammar] please no one.’)  

‘Kavi-Anga’, ‘Bhasha-Anga’ etc. by Akho and Many Others: Indian Critical Discourse in Verse.

This is not a stray instance of pre-19th century Indian critical discourse. Santapriya is not the only location of Akho’s critical discourse. His Gujarati verses in six couplets, called Chhappa, are divided in several Anga-s (sections or chapters), on issues such as ‘who is a poet?’, ‘what is language?’ and so on. At places Akho chides naïve and exhibitionist audiences of poetry and poets and reciters of poetry, the ‘Vyasa’ class,  who are only after money and fame. ‘Kavi Ang’, ‘Section on the Poet’, critiques conventional notion of ‘Kavi’ and discusses true identity of a poet. Other sections like ‘Vichar Anga’, ‘Jnani Anga’, ‘Maaya Anga’ present Akho’s contestations and assertions about other aspects of literary activity, such as the production of a literary text, its circulation among readers/listeners and its use and misuse. These ‘Anga-s’ and ‘Chhapaa-s’ are not a part of his creative work, they clearly are a part of his critical discourse, his critique of culture and literature. Some of these have been included in this anthology.

<center>  '''*''' </center>  

If a discourse is carried on in verse instead of prose, does it become poetic or lyrical? An unambiguous No. In Indian tradition, critical books on not only philosophy and religion but also on architecture, sculpture, medicine, polity, economy, psychology, sexuality and other disciplines have for centuries been composed in verse, in meticulous verse at that. It was the invention of the printing press that brought prose to the Western culture and the import of an innovations in printing in India popularized prose in Indian regional languages. Printing press prompted critical discourse to be more lengthy and, ironically, sometimes less precise and pointed than it was in verse.

It is my submission here that the historical as well as historiographical error of excluding pre-19th century critical discourse in our understanding of Gujarati (or any other Indian) critical discourse needs to be recognized and corrected.  

This crucial correction enables us to see more clearly how a ‘young’ Indian language of literature (like Gujarati), makes its first entry into the space reserved for ‘pan-Indian’ languages, Sanskrit-Prakrit-Apabhramsha, till the turn of the first millennium of the common era. The excitement of these ‘new Indian’ authors has been expressed by the 15th century poet, Narasimha Maheta, when he said: “Jagi uthi mari Adya Vani’, ‘My Primordial Speech woke up’. He, then, began to write in his mother tongue, not yet named Gujarati language. Poet Bhalan (Bhalan) names it for the first time in a literary text, as ’Gujarati Bhakha’. Bhalan and Premanand speak engagingly and confidently of the relationship of Gujarati and Sanskrit as vehicles of ‘the literary’ discourse. They claim forcefully a place of honour for Gujarati language in the new Indian pantheon of ‘Languages of Literature’ in addition to Sanskrit.

Some of our contemporary Indian critic, for example the well-known Marathi critic Dilip Chitre, see a great opposition and hostility between Sanskrit and the Vernaculars. It is claimed by them that vernacular poets of the medieval period sought to dethrone Sanskrit. Even an initial and brief objective, text-based study of literature in Gujarati and other Modern Indian languages (MILs) would reveal how baseless and erroneous is such a claim. A scrutiny of literary texts of the early centuries of the second millennium of CE would show that Gujarati and other MILs are vivarta-s (variations, advancements, ‘growths’), both in terms of linguistics and poetics, marking new stages of growth of the ‘Prakrit-Sanskrit-Apabhramsha’ trio of ancient Indian linguistic and literary culture. The sheer joy of a young language entering into the arena of ‘the literary’, like a new Gopika entering for Gopala Krishna’s Rasa mandala for the first time, is palpable in the texts of Narasimha, Bhalan and other Indian poets of the early centuries of the second millennium of the Common Era. In the later centuries, many other aspects of the organic growth of Indian literature and Indian literary critical discourse could be observed – if our historiography is not distorted by the colonially imposed notions of what is a critical discourse.  

This is not to say that there was no rivalry between the two: Premanand (17th C.A.) and Shamal (18th ), both highly popular Gujarati poets of their times,  have expressed  a strong sense of rivalry against their contemporary story tellers of the Sanskrit tradition. But the Gujarati story tellers were saying that they could do what the traditional Sanskrit story tellers could do – and be better at it. It was an exercise in Vivarta, not Vichchheda, variation not cutting off. The opening section of this anthology gives excerpts from Narasimha Maheta, Bhalan (both 14th - 15th c.), Akho (16th), Premanand (17th) and Shamal (18th), showing how these vivarta-s were produced.  Appendices 1 to 4 explore some roots, going back to the 12th century and beyond, of this early Gujarati critical discourse.       

Gujarati critical discourse has been nourished by multiple sources. These include Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramsha; Persian, English; and other Western and Asian sources. It also has widely interacted with other Indian regional critical discourses. It did so without permitting any of these discourses to dominate it and subsume its identity. The present anthology is shaped by the dynamics of both autonomy and intertextuality of Gujarati critical discourse.  

As pointers to that process, four appendices have been included here:

literature from 1814 till the present time.

Adhunik kal: Re-imagining and Re-naming the Modern Period.  

Vikalpa Vacahana or alternate reading of Gujarati critical discourse comes a felt need, not an arbitrary desire. It come from a need to see, understand and correct epistemological distortions discernible in historiography and allied activities of Gujarati world of letters after 1820. Historiographic erasure of critical activities and situations in Gujarati (and other Indian) literature prior to the 19th century, is one major instance of such epistemological distortion. This ‘Introduction’ has  already documented this erasure as evident in anthologies, monographs and history books produced in the past century and a half.  

It is time now to undo the erasures, uncover the overlaid layers of palimpsest into which the text of Gujarati critical discourse has been transformed. In the first quarter of the 21st century, there should be no delay in the long process of observing cultural, literary and critical situations and structures, in their complexity and mobility, over the centuries of history.

That task would need more space and time than available here. In the context of and space available in this Anthology of Gujarati Critical Discourse, the focus now would be on the time span conventionally called Adhunik Yug or Modern Age of Gujarati literature and its critical discourse. Some of the several issues of the time span of two centuries (1820 to 2022) of Gujarati literary culture that come up  are discussed below.  

The period commonly called ‘Modern Period’ or ‘Adhunik Yug’ of Gujarati literature, beginning from 1850. It is conventionally divided in to four main segments: (1) ‘Sudharak Yug’ /’Age of Reforms’ (1850 to 1885), (2) ‘Pandit/ Sakshar Yug’ / ‘Age of Erudition’ (1885-1915), (3) Gandhi Yug (1915- 1940) and Anu-Gandhi/Post Gandhian period (1940-1955), (4) ‘Aadhunik Yug’ / ‘Age of Modernism’ (1955-1985) and ‘Anu-Adhunik Yug’ ‘Post-Modern Period’ (1985 till now).  

I would like to propose here another way to describe this span and to see the entire historical period in three larger segments. Each segment could be seen as a Vivarta or Variation in a long continuous discourse: (1) The first, 1820 - 1915, could be called, Parabodha/Svabodha Kal. – Period of Alien Cognition / Indigenous Cognition. ushered in by the rise of the British colonial power in Gujarat. (2) The second, from 1915 to 1955, could be named ‘Hind Svaraj Kal’, ‘the Period of India’s’, ushered in by the Gandhian movements for political freedom and pervasive socio-economic non-violence. (3) Third, from 1955 till now, could be called ‘Vyapan Shakti Kal’, ‘Period of Energies for Enlargement’, ushered in by Gujarat’s engagements with global cultural forces as well as, equally significantly, with marginalized hinterlands of its own culture.  

Analytically, the period from 1820 to the present could be divided in the above four or three segments. But perceived synthetically, it has been a single continuous journey. That single journey, with three turns, the three Vivarta-s as above, could be observed as proceeding ceaselessly through various stages.   

Prasthan Bindu / Point of Departure:  1820; not 1850.

The Arvachin Yug of Gujarati literature begins conventionally at 1850. But its first stirrings go back by several decades, to the first half of the 19th century. British colonial rule reached Gujarat, replacing the Maratha domination, after the third Anglo-Maratha War in 1820. New systems of polity, economy, pedagogy, transportation and technology were established by the British in the next few decades, from 1820 to 1860. (See Appendix 4). Initially, this new power appeared to be better than both the unruly and exploitative Maratha hegemony and often-times tyrannical and arbitrary local Muslim and Hindu rulers. Now, with the Colonial Rupe, there was peace for the common men and women in Gujarat. It took a while for Gujarat, as for the rest of India, to understand that it was peace of the graveyard, not of the homestead. But, then, even the graveyard had become ghostly for a few centuries prior to 1820. It was a complex situation, not easy to understand them and describe now.  

As early as 1820, the British government of Bombay Province established the Bombay Education Society. New ‘English’ schools were started in Bombay, Surat, Broach (Bharuch), with Gujarati as medium of instruction. Teachers were trained and text books produced to British specifications. In 1925, ‘Native Education Society’ began production of Gujarati text books under supervision of Col. Jarvis. In 1836, medium of instruction was changed to English. Civilians of different hues, ranging from kindly Alexander Kinloch-Forbes to arrogant K. M. Chatfield worked in Gujarat. Râs Mâlâ: Hindoo Annals of the Province of Goozerat, in Western India by Forbes, published in 1856, chronicles history of Gujarat from 8th century to the 18th, and derives its title from the old Gujarati and Rajasthani genre, historiographical literary genre ‘Raso’. It marks productive collaboration between Gujarati and English literary cultures. On the other hand. Mr Chatfield’s interference with the poet Narmad’s Kavicharit (Lives of Poets, 1865), an early, in all likelihood the first literary history written in any modern Indian language, demonstrates how Victorian values were imposed on Gujarati critical discourse. Narmad’s unyielding response to Chatfield’s pressure to rewrite parts of it demonstrates how Gujarati critical tradition resisted, at some locations, the all-pervading colonial pressures. (For details, see my article in Literary cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia, ed. Sheldon Pollock, 2003.)  

Gujarati authors and critics had to learn slowly and painfully how to decipher the multi-layered palimpsest of the colonial rule. This was done by Gujarati critical discourse step by step, in three phases, by Narmad (1833-1886), Govardhanram Tripathi (1855- 1907) and Mahatma Gandhi (1886- 1948).  It was not unlike the three steps that seemingly puny Vamana took to overpower the mighty King Bali.  

Step One. Narmad. ‘Svadeshabhiman; and ‘Paradeshi Raj-sambandhi’ (‘Regarding Foreign Rule’.

  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.

Over the centuries and millennia of continuity, interventions, self-corrections, distortions and reassertions, a process of ‘continual renewal’ (to employs here a phrase from a Conference organized by Dr Kapila Vatsyayan), India has demonstrated its capacity not only to endure but also to grow through its inner resources. There have been many manifestations of Indian Modernity over the course of its millennia-long cultural history. Gujarati ‘literary culture in history’ calls for ‘a reconstruction’ (to employ here a phrase from Prof. Sheldon Pollock’s 2003 book) from Gujarat. Such a critical and hermeneutic reconstruction leads us to inquire into Gujarat’s variation on Indian Modernity. Several issues have in fact come up in writings of Gujarati thinkers and critics of culture since 1820. In the space available in the process of editing this anthology, some of them could be touched upon.   

<center>  '''*''' </center>  

Native Languages and National Language: Gujarat within India.

The issue of a pan-Indian or ‘universal’ languages versus regional and native languages has occupied an important place in Indian critical discourse from the ancient times, as the story of genesis of Gunadhya’s Brihadkatha points out. With the advent of English language, this long-standing issue assumed a new significance.  

This anthology has juxtaposed three articles: Dalpatram’s critical article in verse on ‘Purpose of the Native Language’ (1894), Navalram’s article in prose on ‘One Language in Hindustan’ (1871) and Narmad’s note on ‘Lavani’. Dalpatram pleads for ‘these vernaculars’ Gujarati, Marathi etc., with these persuasive words: ‘Keep close to your heart your own Bhasha’, says Dalpatram. He then explains why: ‘[t]hese vernaculars are the beautiful branches/ [of the tree of Language].’ He adds: ‘Know Sanskrit to be the root of the tree. / The root takes in the juices (Rasa) / From the soil to the tree.’ Granted. But through an Eliot-like ‘but’ Dalpatram adds: ‘But flowers and fruits are given us, today, / only by these beautiful branches.’ Dalpatram acknowledges importance of Sanskrit, puts English away, but pleads for ‘these branches’, and insists on focusing on ‘your own Bhasha’. With a significant deviation, Navalram pleads for ‘One Language for Hindustan’. In his essay, ‘Svabhashana AbhyasanuM Mahattva’ (“Importance of studying one’s own language’, 1888) Navalram pointed out limitations of using English language as medium of instruction at the University level and pleaded for ‘Svabhasha’, i.e. Gujarati, Marathi etc. Narmad’s ‘Svadesh Abhiman’ and Navalram’s ‘Sabhasha Mahattva’ are pointer to Gujarat’s early response to a crisis of identity that had gripped Indian society of the time. But Navalram imagines Hindi to be the ‘one language for Hindustan’. He, thus, is one of the earliest Indian thinkers to plead for Hindi as India’s national language. Narmad’s essay on ‘Lavani’, rarely seen in anthologies but included here, shows a movement to a larger but multilingual ‘Indian’ space. ‘Lavani’ is a form of Marathi poetry that has crossed boundaries between Maharashtra and Gujarat. Narmad translated his abridged version of Homer’s Iliad (Iliadno Sar) in 1870 along with Ramayanano Sar and Mahabharatano Sar, His translation, in Gujarati prose, of Bhagavad Gita, published in 1882.  

<center>  '''*''' </center>  

Narmad Coins the word ‘Svadeshabhimana’ in 1856 and ‘Satyano Agraha’ in 1869.

The first issue of Narmad’s Dandiyo (September 1, 1864), published merely six years after Queen Victoria’s Proclamation of November 1, 1858, declaring Paramountcy of British power in India. Undaunted, Narmad’s Dandio has the following inquiry into the new political order. He wrote: ‘About keeping an eye over Political issues. In this Province [Bombay], reforms on religion, ethics, household matters and education have been attempted to an extent. But there is nothing to let people know anything about political theory and political administration. ‘Bombay Association’ made some noise at the beginning but now, though internal rivalries and through fear of disfavour of the Government, it neither comes to its death nor does it vacate public platform but goes on declaring that it is still living. ‘Rasta Goftar’, ‘Indu Prakash’ and ‘Native Opinion’ publish a few things but it does not come from their own hard work and thinking resulting from their own experiences. It presents things borrowed from others, pretentious and stupid. . . . So, my brother Dandiya, you keep beating your drum of the night watch to keep people awake so that they may come to understand that this is politics, this is bad administration, this is wakefulness, this is the truth and unethical adjustments are these.’ (See: Dandiyo, 63 issues, ed. Ramesh Shukla, Surat, 1996, p. 14.) (Tr. S.Y.)  

‘Dandiyo’, ‘Budhdhiprakash’, ‘Shalapatra’ ‘Rast Goftar’ and others initiated a polyphonic critical discourse in which critique of culture and literary criticism were inseparable. Gandhi’s ‘Indian Opinion’ (1904 -1914), published from South Africa, used four languages, Gujarati, Hindustani, Tamil and English, to convey facts, ideas and programs to its multilingual readership.  

When a literary culture of a language (and the larger , multi-institutional culture of the people of that language) demonstrate a capacity to grow and endure or endure by growing, the process gives rise to many tensions, some productive, some destructive. To grow is to deal with such tensions and critical discourse of a language bears witness to it.

Gujarati critical discourse of the ‘modern’ period has done so amply.

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.

‘Wilson Philological Lectures’ given by the polymath Narasimhrao Divetia at Bombay University in 1921 and 1932, are a landmark in study of historical phonology of Gujarati and in Comparative Linguistics. Dr Harivallabh C. Bhayani’s works on Aparbharmasha and Prakrit languages have earned high pan-Indian and global recognition in the field of descriptive linguistics. Dr. Prabodh Pandit, a modern linguist esteemed highly internationally, has explored in his ‘Language in a Plural Society’ (1983) functions of language in a plural culture. Pandit has linked Gujarati critical thought to such thinkers as Noam Chomsky and Charles Filmore.  

<center>  '''*''' </center>  

Gujarati critical discourse on poetry and music has a unique significance. It looks critically into the relations of ‘modern’ period of Gujarati literary culture with the ‘medieval’ period and underlines a continuity across imagined and imposed thresholds between the two periods.  

‘Gujarati poetry and Musicality’ by Kavi Nanalal (1877 – 1946) included in this anthology, invites the reader to look at literature as performance. Balvantray Thakor’s insistence on ‘a-geyata’ or ‘non-sing-ability’ of poetry marks the other pole of this discourse. But, as Nanalal points out, the real challenge is to understand how traditional Indian literature fuses poetry and music without subordinating either to the other. In his writings on Lavani songs, popular in south Gujarat and Maharashtra, Narmad had pointed out that ‘musical melody is one way of saying a poem, but musical melody is not poetry.’ Narasimhrao Divetia held that ‘poetry becomes devoid of its lustre without music. Their relationship is an organic relationship, like that of sound and meaning, fragrance and flower, soul and body.’ (Kavitavichar, Narasimharao Divetiya, ed. Bhruguray Anjaria, 1969.) Narasimharao and his father Bholanath were followers of western Indian reformist movement, Prarthana Samaj, with links to Brahmo Samaj of Bengal. Its meetings began with singing of a prayer, as did those of Mahatma Gandhi’s.

Gujarat has a distinguished tradition of studies in prosody, starting from Hemachandra’s 12th century work Chhandonushasana, a comprehensive study of Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramsha prosody. Ramnarayan Pathak’s Brihadpingal , published in 1955, marks a recent landmark in this long journey that includes works by Dalpatram and Narmad in the 19th century.  

Transition From Bombay University to Gujarat Vidyapith: From Haileybury to the Pheonix?

Transition from the Age of Erudition to the Gandhian period could be seen a symbolic locational shift from Bombay University to Gujarat Vidyapith. Founded by the British colonial power at the colonial city of Bombay, in the historic year 1857 (when the Sepoy Mutiny/ First War of Freedom began), Bombay University was alma meter of a large number of Gujarati authors of the 19th and 20th century. Gujarat Vidyapith, a National University, was founded by Mahatma Gandhi in1920, first at his newly begun Kochrab Ashram, in the much older traditional city of Ahmadabad. Its teachers and students included some of the best writers of Gujarati literature and critical thought, from ‘Kaka’ Kalelkar, R V Pathak and Gandhi himself, as teachers to students like ‘Sundaram’ and Umashankar Joshi, to mention just a few of many more. But the transition from ‘Bombay University’ to ‘Gujarat Vidyapith’ (to use the names as cyphers) was a long process. It began well before Gandhi’s return to India in 1915 and continues long after assassination of Gandhi, especially in the present time and its anti-Gandhi propaganda, gross and subtle. It involved many complex factors, many other players and several varied locations.  

From 1820, when the British Power founded its rule in Gujarat to 1920, when Gandhi founded Gujarat Vidyapith in Gujarat, it has been a century whose full significance needs to be grasped by Gujarati critical thought a careful and continuous study. This anthology is but a small step to it. In 2019 and ’22, any changes in Gujarat Vidyapith have a huge significance for Gujarati and Indian cultural critical discourse.

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 discourses of this period is multicentred. It could be said to have formed a kind of Federal Republic of Critical Discourses. Many critical views constantly modified each other and no overwhelming ideology subordinated them. Gandhian period of Gujarati Critical Discourse was prompted on by Gandhi’s life and work, not restricted by it.

Gandhi’s ‘Foreword’ to K. M. Munshi’s book, Gujarat and Its Literature, From Early Times to 1852 (published first in1935), points out to such a critical federalism: In that ‘Foreword’, Gandhi raises questions but refrains from imposing his answers on the readers. If dictatorial impatience of political ideologies, from the left and the right, discernible in some literary cultures in India and abroad, has not marred Gujarati literary culture so far, it is because of this Gandhian and Gujarati ways of conducting Vivada and Samvada.  

<center>  '''*''' </center>  

As already observed, the transition from ‘Bombay University’ to ‘Gujarat Vidyapith’ was a long process and it involved many players.

Through a Gandhian perspective, Gujarati cultural energy of this period could be seen as focused on two issues. They could be summed up in two words: Satyagraha and Sarvodaya. One was a hugely shared concern with achieving political freedom for the country through Gandhian ways. The other was an inherited by actively heightened concern for helping Indian society to grow out of its various limitations and shape itself into a fearless and compassionate society.  

However, when Gujarati Sahitya Parishad met at Rajkot in Gujarat in 1909, there was no reference to either Gandhi or Hind Svaraj, though that book was published in the same year 1909 by Gandhi from Natal in South Africa. The book was banned in 1910 by the British in Bombay. Apparently, Gujarati literature and its critical discourse at Rajkot conference of 1909 did not take Gandhi’s ideas of literature and culture as seriously as the colonial power in Bombay.  

Gandhi’s own views on these issues have been recorded by Mahadev Desai : કલાને જીવનમાં સ્થાન છે . . . પણ આપણે બધાંએ જે મારગ કાપવો છે તેમાં કલા વગેરે સાધનમાત્ર છે. એ જ જ્યારે સાધ્ય થઈ જાય ત્યારે બંધન રૂપ થઈ મનુષ્યને ઉતારે છે. હા. કોઈ ચિત્ર જોઈ મનમાં બિભત્સ વિચારો જ આવે તેને હું કલા નહીં કહું. માણસને નીતિમાં એક પગલું આગળ વધારે, એના આદર્શ ઊંચા કરે, એ કલા. એની નીતિને ઉતારે એ કલા નહીં પણ બિભત્સતા.’ (મહાદેવભાઈની ડાયરી, ભાગ 1.) (‘Art does have a place in life. . . . But in the journey that we have undertaken, art and allied things are only our means. When they turn into objective, they become fetters and demean human beings. Yes, I would not call it an art if a painting brings only obscene thoughts to the mind. That which advances human beings by a step ethically and morally, and uplifts ideals, is art. That which lowers its ethics and morality is not art, it is obscenity. (Diary of Mahadev Desai. Part 1.) (tr. S.Y.).

Gandhi’s insistence on morality and ethics was an organic part of his larger struggle for Independence, national, social and spiritual. In his vocabulary, Mukti of a Soul, Naitikata of a Society and Svatantrata of a Nation were inseparable.

However, the strength of Gujarati critical discourse of the ‘Gandhian’ period has been demonstrated by a lively debate of the relationship of morality and ethics with literature and other arts. There was a space for deviation and dissent within the long tradition of Gujarati Critical Discourse from the times of Narasimha Maheta and Akho..   

The deviant views during the first half of the twentieth century have been formulated by serval critics including Balvantray Thakor (1869 – 1952), K. M. Munshi (1887 – 1971), Ramnarayan Pathak (1887 -1955), Jhaverchand Meghani (1896 -1947), ‘Sundaram’ (1908 -1991) and Umashankar Joshi (1911 -1988).

Differences between Pathak’s and Thakor’s formulations are subtle yet substantial: For Pathak, it is life that permeates every atom of literature. For Thakor, it is literature that nourishes life.   

This would remind us of Anandshankar Dhruv’s comment that ‘Art is an expression of life. It does not come to light until life becomes self-conscious, self-reflective, capable of looking at its own face.’ (Anandshankar Dhruv Shreni, Vol. 3, p. 20).  Dhruv points out the difference between ‘Rasanubhava’ and ‘Rasabhasa’ (Experience of Rasa and Mistaken Cognition or Illation of Rasa) and argues that Dharma, Neeti and Satya increase sublimity of the soul and prevent Rasanubhava, an experience of Rasa, from degenerating into Rasabhaasa, an illusion of Rasa.

Gandhi began by emphasising that he could not find time to prepare that Presidential Address, in the midst of all his other work! He then gave reasons why he did not have time for his Address to this literary Conference. He said: ‘I had hoped that before coming to the Conference I would gather all the literature and read it and prepare my speech after reading it all. . ..  Today, however, I am bankrupt.’ Then Gandhi gives two specific reasons why he went ‘bankrupt’ in his time-economy: ‘At Segaon, I could not leave my patients unattended. ... When I came here ( Rajkot) I learnt that there was a conflagration --- the dispute between mill-owners and the labour was raging.... I was engaged in important matters right up to the time of my arrival here.’ Two commitments held priority: One, ‘my patients’ and two ‘the labour’. Having said this bluntly, he confesses: ‘Hence I have not even made the necessary preparation for an impromptu speech.’ He could not have made clearer where literary activities stood in his list of priorities. He concludes: ‘Has the conference ever made a worse choice?’ Gujarati literary culture had to answer that question then, as now.

He went on to make a strong and emotional plea for simplicity and directness of language of literature and for a more compassionate and committed relationship of literature with the plight of the marginalized majority of contemporary society. He insisted upon communicability of the language of literature. Even a farm-hand, ‘Koshio’, should be able to sing along and understand your songs. Then Gandhi famously admonished the writers and told them that they should not write for the leaders of industry and commerce who were seated on the dais with him. He also insisted upon ethical and moral correctness of content of literary works.  

Gujarati writers and critics adored Gandhi, followed him fearlessly in the Satyagrahas and into the British prisons, but wrote in ways that were more complex at times than the hypothetical farmhand could easily follow. Gujarati Critical Discourse and Creative writing even of this period was not merely ‘Gandhian’, though it was profoundly so.

  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>  

Vishnuprasad Trivedi (1899 – 1991), Vijayray Vaidya (1897 – 1974) and Vishvanath Bhatt (1898 – 1968) form among themselves a diligent trio of the Gandhian period. They are among the stars that shine in the twilight zone of transition from the times of Hind Svaraj to the next.

The next section attempts to see how, from around 1955, Gujarati critical discourse transited from the Gandhian period to the next. It is interesting to observe how Gujarati critical gaze explored Gujarat’s global contexts beyond the Colonial to the Continental Europe and to Africa, America and the rest of Asia. During this period, Gujarati critical discourse was hand in hand with its creative literature in exploring into Gujarat’s own marginalized realities: the boli speeches beyond its standard language and realities of its tribal, Dalit and women’s lives beyond the life of urban Gujarat. Two ‘Preparatory Notes’, below, would be useful at this juncture.  

Naming the Period: Should this period be called ‘Adhunik Yug’/ ‘Modern/ Post Modern Age’? I had argued earlier in this ‘Introduction’ that it was a major genealogical mistake of Indian literary historiography to assert that critical discourses in most of the Indian literatures had begun as late as the mid-19th century. This distortion has resulted from a certain mindlessness, anavadhana, induced mainly by the colonial political power. I would now argue that the same mindlessness, induced by a larger and more complex economic powers of the 21st century, has induced Indian literary historiography to name periods beginning around 1960’s as ‘Modern’ (and then ‘Post Modern’) periods of Indian literatures. This Euro-centric nomenclature, or mis-nomenclature, requires to be examined in view of the concerns, aspirations, anxieties; tools, methods and the spirit of Indian discourses in contemporary Indian languages of the period.  

Naming of the Critics:  The issue of inclusion comes up in each of the time periods of Gujarati critical discourse. The overall space available in this single volume anthology is limited. For the most recent phase, beginning at 1955, this anthology has selected articles by 12 critic. That leaves out a good number of good critics. Eminent critics like Nagindas Parekh, Rasiklal Parikh, Muni Jinavijaya.ji, Muni Punyavijay.ji, Manubhai Pancholi ‘Darshak’, Keshavram Shastri, Gulabdas Broker, Chunilal Madia, Raghuvir Chaudhuri, Bholabhai Patel, Jayant Kothari, Rasik Shah, Jayat Pathak, ‘Ushanas’, Suresh Dalal, Suman Shah, Jayesh Bhogayata, Urmi Desai, Raman Soni, Nitin Mehta (and several more) have not been represented here through their critical works.   

Critical writings of eleven critics, Umashankar Joshi, Suresh Joshi, Harivallabh Bhayani, Niranjan Bhagat, Chandrakant Topiwala, Chandrakant Sheth, Shirish Panchal, Bhagvandas Patel, Himanshi Shelat, Babu Suthar and Kanti Malsatar, have been included in this anthology. These writings serve two purposes: They embody various aspects important critical concern of this period.  Secondly, these eleven articles serve as pointers to critical writings of other important authors of this period.  

Reaching out to both the Cosmopolitan and the Marginal.

Vivarta or variation of the critical discourse in Gujarati, that leads to what we would like to name as Vyapan Kal or Period of Expansion, begins in around 1955. On August 15, 1947, India won its independence and on January 26, 1950, it formed itself as Federal Republic of India. This altered its place in the community of nations and restored, with due modifications, its ancient identity as a unique civilization. By 1955, Indian literature and its critical discourse shaped itself anew in this context. Gujarati Critical discourse of the past nearly seven decades, represented here through writings of some of the thinkers and researchers of this period, embodies that Indian identity.  

This anthology presents critical discourse that embody both these Vyapana movements of Gujarati culture.

<center>  '''*''' </center>  

This period has sometimes been named Modern (till around 1990) and Post-modern (then on). It is, I believe, not a happy choice. In doing so, the two terms, ‘Modern’ and ‘Post-modern’ have often been used, at microlevel, as binary opposites to each other. And at macro level, the two terms jointly produce a binary opposite to the Gandhian period, its cultural ideology and its literary theory. This model is linked to many more divides, including those between Sanskrit and Gujarati, Content-oriented literature and Form-oriented, Urban and Rural realities, Westernised and Desi modes of living and expression, etc. – A close reading of both creative and critical writings of these two periods would show clearly that this Euro-centric model, describing the period from 1955 onwards as ‘Modern-Post Modern’ does not correspond to the actualities or the spirit of Gujarati creative and critical works of that period.

Creative writing and critical discourse in Gujarati from 1955 till now needs to be imagined and theorized not in Euro-centric terms of ‘Modern-Post Modern’ but in the context of the two-fold Vyapana that has been progress in Gujarati culture.

Vyapan as Organic Growth rather than Fashionable Foreign Tours or Ford Foundation Projects on Indigenous India.

A clearer and larger picture of critical discourse and creative works of this time span could emerge if the paradigm of Modern – Post-modern or Urban – Desi, is replaced by a paradigm of Vyapan.   

Suresh Joshi (1921 – 1986), a widely celebrated Gujarati author and thinker, was similarly well grounded in Sanskrit poetics as in modern Western thought, ranging from Existentialism and Phenomenology to the Marxism and Structuralism. He was a voracious reader. Gulam Mahammad Sheikh, renowned painter and Gujarati poet has given an endearing account of this. In a recent article Sheikh has described his interactions, as a young student of Fine Arts, with Suresh Joshi, then a professor of literature, at the M. S. University of Baroda. He says: ‘Even earlier, his [Suresh Joshi’s] reading was extensive. But now [when he settled down at the University in Vadodara] as newer book were available to him, he began to read voraciously European, American and Latin American literatures. He plumbed Chines and Japanese literatures too. Baudelaire, Mallarme, St John Pearce and Albert Camus from French, Kafka and Rilke from German, Lorca and Jiménez from Spanish and Pablo Neruda and Octavio Paz from the Latins, Tao Chi-en, the Chinese and  the famous Haiku poet Basho, fiction writers Kawabata Yasunari, Osamu Dazai and Yukio Mishima, also the world renowned American writers Hemingway and Faulkner, Robert Frost and Walt Whitman, from Tolstoy to Bosir Pasternak and Alexander Solzhenitsyn from Russia, the Italians Alberto Moravia and Luigi Pirandello – all were included.’ (See. The journal ‘Samipe’, ed. Shirish Panchal et al. Jan-March, April-June 2021, p. 20-21.) (tr. S.Y.)  

Suresh Joshi’s contribution to the Vyapan of Gujarati critical discourse is not only huge in terms of newer authors, books and trends that he introduced into Gujarati literary culture, but in terms of a change in understanding what is ‘literary’, Discussing the process of ‘Roop Nirmiti’, i.e., creation of art form, he says: ‘[W]e do get experiences [of life and reality] directly or could imaging them. But that is only the raw material. For it to become a work of literature, it has to undergo certain Sanskar [ceremony of initiation]. I would call it the Sanskar of Samvidhan [ceremony of initiation into a Form]. That which is one and matchless can neither be subjected to variations nor can it provide asvad [aesthetic pleasure]. But as soon as a prapancha [production of aesthetic form] of many results through leela [playfulness] of the One, then without any delay the question of production of Form [Samvidhana] through mutual relationships of parts [ang-s] comes up. If any [literary] value or mystery [mulya, rahasya] of experience [of life and reality], it comes only through the Samskar that the creative writer performs on it.’ (Joshi. 1960. Kimchit. P.132.) (tr. S.Y.)  The article included in this anthology, ‘Our Literary Criticism’, shows how he interrogated Gujarati critical discourse of this period and raised important questions about both its metalanguage and its concerns..  

But it is in the critical writing of Niranjan Bhagat that Gujarati critical discourse came to have an unmediated vision of Cosmopolitan spirit and letters.  He was a truly cosmopolitan thinker and poet, who read, interpreted and translated directly from Baudelaire and Mallarme, Sartre and Camus and Backet and Ionesco from French originals, and was at home in Paris, a city he walked through several times in several years, on foot. He was equally at home with English and Bengali languages and literatures. Niranjan Bhagat taught English literature and knew Bengali language and literature intimately.  He wrote insightfully and comprehensively on Eliot, Auden and John Donne in English and Tagore, Jibananand Das and Buddhadev Bose in Bengali, to mention some. His talks and lectures, put together by others in a multivolume series titled ‘Svadhyay Lok’ (‘World of Self-instruction’) brought in not only a large number of literary texts but also a hermeneutic capable of reading those texts in their political, economic, social and spiritual contexts, not only in any one but in many different cultures. While Niranjan Bhagat helped contemporary Gujarati culture to greatly expand its hermeneutic horizon, he always made sure that in doing so the literary texts were never subordinated to the cultural contexts. Bhagat argued: ‘Poetry is not a replacement for mysticism, ethics, sociology or political thought. Poetry [literature] is autonomous. Poetry is not a means for the poet, it is an object to be achieved. All the sciences mentioned above are means for the poet, but then the poet transforms them into poetry through his particular genius, or Imagination, or creativity, call it by any name you wish. And if the poet cannot transform them [cannot perform their Roopantar ], then mahati vinashti [utter destruction]. ( Bhagat. Svadhayalok: 6, p. 8). (tr. S.Y.)

<center>  '''*''' </center>  

Vyapan that Gujarati critical discourse has achieved through Niranjan Bhagat, Harivallabh Bhayani and Ramprasad Bakshi provides it with a width and a depth that can never be overstated. It only reminds us of many great savants whose works have not been included here: from Muni Jinavijayaji, Muni Punyavijayaji, Pandit Sukhlal.ji,  Dr Hasmukh Sanskaliya, Dr Prabodh Pandit, Dr Madhusudan Dhanki, Prof G C Jhala, Dr Arunoday Jani, to mention some most eminent scholars of Sanskrit who contributed to critical discourse in Gujarati, their mother tongue.

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>  

  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.

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.  

Readers might like to see elsewhere my critical work on the literature of the disabled and on Comparative Literature and contemporary Indian literature not included in this anthology.

The Spirit of ‘ApaNe’: The Inclusive Form of First-Person Plural.  

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.  

‘AapaNe’ was the spirit, as Hemachandra and Gandhi practiced, of Gujarati poetry and poetics. It guided Gujarati literature and critical understanding of literature. The pronoun ‘ApaNe’, the verb ‘Vyap’ and the noun ‘Vyapana’, understood in this dynamic and cohesive sense, are, I submit, good indicators for further exploration into Gujarati culture, literature and critical discourse.  

This inquiry into Gujarati critical discourse, its vivarta leela (to use a term employed by Narasimharao Divetia) could best rested here with words of Pandit Sukhlal Sanghavi (1880-1978), a profound anekantavadi thinker. As he has affirmed: ‘Life is truly unfathomable. . . . One might think about and imagine life at any level, but those thoughts and imaginations would always seem inadequate. Thought and imagination would never be able to get hold of life in its fulness and reality. It would retain as distant and as untouched as it was before the first grasp [by the mind] over it. . . . Even then, man is always at his search for life-stuff (Jivanatattva) and the various camp-sites of that search are the different pathways of religions. . . . It could be said that whatever of Indian Literature or World Literature is available now, is a direct proof of that search.’

(Pandit Sukhlalji: Darshan ane Chintan, Part 1, ed Dalsukh Malvania et l. 1956. P. 20.)