Critical Discourse in Gujarati/Introduction essay: Difference between revisions

<center>  '''*''' </center>

The last two of the four terms mentioned above, namely ‘literature’ and ‘history’, add to a critical and helpful destabilization of any facile and false structures and constructs that often mutilate histories of Gujarati Literature and its critical discourse. Literatures from the margins of Gujarati society, including the literatures of Dalits, Tribals and of Women, have emerged in recent times. These new creative expressions have produced corresponding critical discourses.  This anthology includes such critical discourses from the erstwhile margins.

<center>  '''(b)''' </center>

<center>  '''A Fractured Genealogy.''' </center>

This brings us to two interrelated questions. Some of them could be formulated as follows:  (1) Has the prevalent historiography of Critical Discourse in Gujarati (and other Indian literatures) been based on a restrictive colonial model of literary criticism? (2) Has such a historiography led to an erasure on the older, indigenous practices of literary criticism? (3) Has it also led to an erroneous genealogy of critical discourse in Gujarati and other India languages? (4) Are the actual practices of literary criticism in Gujarati much older than those with which most anthologies of literary criticism in Gujarat begin (c. 1850)?

These and other allied questions help us focus on the long-neglected enigma of fractured genesis of Gujarati literature and of Gujarati literary critical discourse.  

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(

A review of Colonial Practices.

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.  

  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.   

It is not that erudite editors and eminent historiographers were unaware of this, as two books, an anthology in Gujarati and a monograph in English would show.

First, an anthology, Saahitya Charcha, subtitled ‘An Anthology of Critical Writings in Gujarati’. Edited by Prof. Anantarai Raval, an erudite and astute scholar, it was published in 1981 by Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi.  

It begins with two articles, first by Narmad (Narmadashankar Lalshankar Dave, 1833 - 1886 ) and second by Navalram Lakshmiram Pandya (1836 -1888). This choice confirms a prevailing consensus that Gujarati literary criticism begins at mid-19th century. The editor is not unaware of historiographic and genealogical problems of such a consensus. He defends his position in no uncertain terms. Referring to pre-19th century Gujarati literary culture, Raval emphatically states: ‘In those times the very desire/attitude of looking at and evaluating poetry as a verbal art had not been born.’ ‘કવિતાને વાણીની કલા તરીકે જોવા, આસ્વાદવા, મૂલવવાની વૃત્તિ જ એ કાળે જન્મેલી નહિ.’ ) In defence of his opinion, Raval adds: ‘In those times of absence of any widespread education, it was nearly impossible to . . . do the hard work of reading the ‘Shravana-bogya’ [orally presented for enjoyment of the ear] literary works and, through leisurely and thoughtful close reading, to discern their poetic excellence and notice their limitations. That kind of work found expression in our region only after the beginning of English system of pedagogy and founding of a university. Acquaintance with English and Sanskrit literatures and with literary criticism in both was subsequent to it. In this way it could only be said that Literary Criticism began in our region only in the Modern Age [1850 onwards]’. (Raval, 1981, p. 7.)

What is explicit in Raval’s statement, has been implicit in historiography of literature in Gujarati and several other Indian languages.  

This view is shared, among many others, by Prof. Ramesh Shukla in a monograph on Navalram Pandya published by Sahitya Akademi in 1988. He predictably describes Navalram Pandya as ‘pioneer in literary criticism in Gujarati’ (Shukla, 1988, p. 7).  

He, however, brings in an interesting twist to it: ‘Navalram is credited with the reputation of being a pioneer critic of modern Gujarati literature, though poet Narmad preceded him.’ (Shukla, 1988. p.47.) Shukla then makes a curious distinction: ‘Narmad was the first critic to write on the various aspects of poetry and some principles of literary criticism. One of his papers was published as early as 1858. . .  But Narmad never tried his pen on book review.’ On the other hand, ‘Navalram published his first book review on the first Gujarati novel Karan Ghelo in 1867.’ Shukla gleefully concludes: ‘Hence the credit of being the first literary critic is earned by the poet Narmad, while Navalram earned the first place as the book reviewer.’ (Ibid.) This neat division might remind us of the Papel Treaty of Tordesillas, 1494, dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal!  

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.

Akho is not an isolated critical voice in pre-19th century Gujarati literary culture. Self-reflexive critical discourse, imbedded within creative literature and written in verse rather than prose, was a norm rather than an exception in pre-19th century period. This anthology includes excerpts from Bhalan 15th (cent.), Mandan (16th), Premanand (17th) and Shamal (18th), from a much larger body of Gujarati critical discourse in verse from the 12th to 19th century. This paradigm was by no means abandoned after 1850. Literary critical discourse in verse was practiced ably by several major critics of Gujarati such as Dalpatram ((1820 -1898), Balvantrai Thakor (1869 -1952), Niranjan Bhagat (1926 -2018) and Labhshankar Thakar (1935 – 2016) and this writer, to mention some.

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.

(c)

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

Appendix 1 includes a note by Dr Harivallabh Bhayani on literary culture at Valabhi, capital of the Maitraka Kings of Gujarat from the 6th to the 8h centuries C.E., presenting Gujarat’s literary culture in Sanskrit.

Appendix 3 gives a selection from Acharya Hemachandra, eminent Jain savant (1089-1173.). His trilogy titled Kavyaanushasana, Shabdanushasana and Chandonushasana, on poetics, linguistics and prosody respectively, presents a study of literary works in six languages, Sanskrit, Maharashtri Prakrit, Shauraseni, Maghadhi and Paishachi variants of Prakrit and Gurjara Apabhramsha. There are references to Bhutabhasha or Chulikapaishachi also in these texts.   

Appendix 4 gives 15 very short notes on cultural back drop of Gujarati  

(a)

Some Issues of the Post-1820 Critical Discourse in Gujarat.

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.  

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

Coupled with the issue of importance of ‘native language’ was the issue of pride for regional and national identity. A key word in Narmad’s entire critical discourse is ‘Svadeshabhiman’, (‘Pride for One’s own Country’) coined very early on by him in an essay with the same title, published in 1856, a year before the Rising of 1857. He distinguishes ‘Svadeshabhiman’ from ‘Kulamotap’ (‘False pride in family lineage’) in another essay published in 1869. In the essay ‘Kulmotap’ Narmad has discussed ways to ‘Deshano Utkarsh’, ‘Progress of the Country.’ This could be achieved, he points out, through ‘Satyano Agrah’ and ‘Karma’. (See: Narmagadya Part II, ed. Ramesh Shukla, Surat, 1996. P. 204.)

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).  

New Platforms for a new Gujarat to speak anew: Early Literary Journals of Gujarat.

Literary and cultural journals, a product of Gujarat’s contact with the Western world, have been an important site for its critical discourse. Narmad edited the periodical ‘Dandiyo’ (literally ‘Night watchman). Dalpatram edited ‘Budhdhiprakash’ (literally ‘Light of Intelligence’) and Navalram ‘Gujarati Shaalaapatra.’ (‘Journal of Gujarati Schools).  ‘Rasta Goftar’ (literally, ‘The Truth Teller’) was edited by Dadabhai Naoroji, one of the founders of Indian National Congress, and Kharshedji Kama, both from Parsi community of Gujarat. ‘Visami Sadi’ (‘Twentieth Century’ 1914 -1921) was edited by Haji Mohammad Allarakha Shivji, a Gujarati Muslim. Gujarat of Hindu, Parsi, Muslim reformers was looking for an age of reason.

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.  

Understanding Aspects of Language as a Substratum of Culture.

From Narasimhrao Divetia (1859-1937) to Harivallabh Bhayani (1917 – 2000) and Prabodh Pandit (1923 – 1975), Gujarati linguists have explored structure and function of language as such and of Gujarati language.  

‘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.  

Poetry and Music.

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.  

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.

                                                                                       V   

                       Dvitiya Vivarta / Second Variation. 1915 to 1955.

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.  

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

Four Main Critical Concerns.

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.  

Gandhi, Marx, Aurobindo, Tagore.

  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.)  

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.

Folklore and Literature: Meghani’s Discourse.

Jhaverchand Meghani, an excellent folklorist, knew well what Sundaram called ‘the language of the entire society’ and what Gandhi meant by literature ‘that could be understood by the farm-hand.’ Meghani focuses sharply on binaries such as ‘Boli’, against ‘Bhasha’, ‘lokavidya’ as against ‘paravidya’, the urban against the rural and so on. IN 1941-42, on the eve of the Quit India Movement, Meghani, whom Gandhi called a National Bard, ‘Rashtriya Shayar’, was invited by Bombay University to give its prestigious annual lectures, the ‘Thakkar Vasanji Madhavji Vyakhyanamala’. Meghani masterfully presented his exposition of Lokavidya, Lokabhasha and Lokasahitya, before huge audiences flooding the august hall of the British-established University. At times, he climbed up on the table placed in front of the speaker’s chair and sang folk songs to illustrate his critical points, to the delight of most and dismay of many. Meghani pointed out that it is not the language of high literature that could ‘save’ the ‘dying’ language of folklore. Quite the opposite, he argued, and asserted that it was folk culture that could save the high culture from extinction. Under the subtitle ‘Bolati Vani Sanjivani chhe’ (‘Spoken speech is the elixir’), Megani says: ‘Greatness of the spoken language is that it sprinkles the waters of life on the skeletons of dying languages of literature and, age after age, it brings up a renewed language. Folk literature is culmination of the spoken words of the people. By providing a liberal drink of fresh waters of its own monsoon clouds, people’s speech has kept the [river of] literary language flowing,’ (ibid. p. 33.) He adds, ‘Language of oral literature has always been the speech used for daily transactions by the people. It roots were not in Sanskrit, over-structured through restrictions of grammar, it had its roots in the various Prakrit speeches spoken in different regions in the Vidic times.’ (Ibid. p. 34). Eminent critic Balvatray Thakor, an alumnus of Pune’s Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, present in audience and seated in the front row, was reported to leave hall halfway during the lecture, muttering ‘This one was not invited here to sing songs!’  

The Progressive Discourse.  

Poet ‘Sundaram’, novelist Jayanti Dalal and short story writer Jayant Khatri let the Progressive critical discourse in Gujarati literature. Dalal and Khatri were able social activists, Dalal in Ahmedabad area and Khatri in the Kutch region. Radicality of Gandhi’s thought and action influenced the Progressive voice of Gujarati critical discourse and the Gandhian critical discourse had space within it to accommodate the Progressive stream. ‘Sundaram’ and Umashankar Joshi, Dalal and Meghani, Khatri and Kaka Kalelkar, were linked through a relationship of variation rather than opposition. Gandhian critical discourse was large ad polysemic enough to enhance within it the basics of the Progressive critical discourse that was, elsewhere, a distinct, counter-narrative to liberal discourse and ended up developing its own conflicting trends of various types of Progressive discourses.     

The Vedic and the Folk.

Ramprasad Bakshi’s article, titled ‘Spirituality and Literature’, would surprise us if we fail to read the word ‘Spirituality’ in the way in which this unconventional thinker uses it. Ramprasad Bakshi (who once politely declined to accept the title of ‘Mahamahimopadhyaha’, offered by an institution from Varanasi) takes us to those aspects of Vedic poetry that are intimately connected with lived life. As he points out, quoting from a Bengali scholar, ‘Vedic poetry came out of a joyous and radiant spirit, overflowing with love of life and energy for action, and looking up with serene faith to the Divine for support and inspiration. Because the Vedic sages loved life as well as God, every wish of theirs for the good things of the earth took the form of an ardent prayer. And the prayer often took the form of song which tried to reach “the Supreme Lover of Songs”.’ It is this capacity of Gujarati critical discourse to go beyond facile binaries putting ‘the past’ against ‘the Progressive’, that makes it interesting and enlightening.

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.

What kind of understandings and practices of life and literature distinguished this period from the previous one? This question could be answered in many ways. These possible answers could be grouped in two main types: (1) What initiated the Vivarta was a search for modernity and literary modernism, moving away from the Gandhian ideals and ideas on literature associated with them. This modernism was, in turn, was opposed by Nativism and other concerns for the marginalized and othered. This led, according this option, to the Post-modern phase in 1980s. (2) Optionally it could be argued that this Vivarta was initiated by a deep desire for growth experienced by people of Independent India. This desire for Vyapana encompassed both life and literature. The Vyapana was both inward and outward. It harmonized both the tendencies of Gujarati critical discourse: A vast Gujarati diaspora had begun to take shape from the 1960’s and 70’s. Gujarati societies, living in Gujarat and elsewhere around the globe, had begun to come in lively contact with literature, cinema and other arts from all over the world. This helped Gujarati mind to move towards a Cosmopolitan spirit. Simultaneously, new systems, legal and political, had begun to empower the hinterlands of Gujarat and the margins of Gujarati society. Gujarati critical discourse, hence, began to expand organically towards realities and aspirations of those hinterlands and margins.

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

Going Beyond False Binaries.

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.

  To call this time span as ‘Modern – Post-modern Age’ is to theorize an opposition between Content or Anatastattva (seen as remnants of the Gandhian age) and Form or Roop Rachana (seen as a characteristic feature of the Modern age). It also emphasises apposition between the Psychological and the Sociological aspects of reality, assigning the former to the Modern period and that latter to the Gandhian period. In this oversimplified theoretic and  historiographic schema, indigenous concerns for Dalits, Tribals, OBCs, Women and the Poor are reserved for the Post-modernists while the foreign-inspired formal experiments are taken as domain of the Modernists. This appears to be the case in literary historiography not only of Gujarati but also of many Indian languages. Such a theory and such a historiography repeats the grave theoretic and historiographic mistake that insisted upon total absence of critical discourse in Gujarati before the beginning of colonial rule in Gujarat.  

(b)

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.   

This is not to suggest that explorations in Gujarati critical discourse of this period have been uniform and without internal contestations. Far from it. But these contestations, some of which are represented here in the excerpts from several contemporary critics, do not promote binary divides; they reveal interesting dynamics of a polyphonic and polysemic discourse.  

Conversations, if not quite contestations, among Umashankar Joshi, Suresh Joshi, Niranjan Bhagat and Harivallabh Bhayani, especially in the early decades of this period, mark the beginnings of critical discourse of Vyapan.

The term ‘Vyapan’ acquires its multiple significance in writings of  Umashankar Joshi (1911-1988), one among a few most celebrated, creative and erudite Indian writers of the 20th century. As an author and thinker, he was firmly grounded in Gandhian thought, Sanskrit literature, Indian philosophy and contemporary Indian socio-political realities. He was fully at home with Western literature and thought. An Idea of Indian Literature (1988) and Indian Literature: Personal Encounters (1988) (both in English) present his comprehensive theory of Indian literature and his intimate and illuminative exchanges with some of his contemporary Indian writers. His studies in writings of Tagore, Buddhadeb Basu, Bibhutibhushan Banerjee, Phanishvarnath Renu, Maitreyi Devi, Isamu Shida, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Eliot, Auden, Samuel Beckett and many others, indicate the depth and width of his critical discourse. He was equally deep rooted into socio-political realities of his contemporary India. An active Satyagrahi from his early years in India’s freedom struggle, Joshi was imprisoned for his part in the Satyagrahas in 1930 and 1932 at Sabarmati and Yeravda Jails.  As Member of Parliament, appointed to the Rajya Sabha, he courageously opposed imposition of Emergency in 1975, eloquently speaking at the Parliament in session.  

Discourse of the Cosmopolitan Culture.

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.)

This anthology incudes excerpts from critical writings by Harivallabh Bhayani, internationally renowned linguist and researcher into Prakrit and Apabramsha literatures, as well as into modern critical theories. The piece included here ‘Stylistics Approaches - Western and Indian’  forms only a small part of his vast scholarship. Juxtaposed with Umashankar Joshi’s article on ‘Shaili’ and Ramprasad Bakshi’s article on, a great scholar of Sanskrit literature and poetics, who interpreted contemporary Gujarati literary works in the light of Indian poetics, point out to a rich site of Indian hermeneutics, that gives Gujarati critical discourse a historical depth.  

  Varied Voices from the Margins.  

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.

  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.

(e)

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.)  

{{Poem2Close}}