"I"

My photo

The blog is started only for "help." Many articles/posts are quoted/copied from different websites without mentioning the name or source.  Hence,  the problem of PLAGIARISM might occur.

Search This Blog

Be a Member of this BLOG

May 7, 2017

Education in India: Macaulay's Era



How India Made Britain More Literate: The ‘Beautiful Tree’ Beyond Dharampal

It wasn’t India which improved its schooling system by imitating Britain’s. Rather, it was the other way round.

Every Indian learns at some point about how India was educated by the British and how that brought about a cultural renaissance to a degenerated and stagnant India. Linked to this, Indian students also learn how two centuries prior to the colonization of India, Europe had undergone a renaissance and Lutheran reformation. 

This had allowed Europe in general and Britain in particular to assume the role of civilizing the heathen world. How true is this grand narrative of the civilizing mission of the British?

The missing links
Mainstream European historiography has always presented Christianity as a positive influence over Pagan Europe. Thus Constantine is shown relieving the lot of slaves, highlighting his appreciation of allowing Church fathers to free a slave in a Church congregation. 

In reality such a practice of freeing a slave existed not just for clergy but for all slave owners in Pagan Europe and the ceremony happened at Pagan temples. Factually though, religion became an additional chain for slaves and the slaves who escaped to “barbarian” lands resisting conversions had their feet cut off by Constantine. And this is seldom mentioned in such grand narratives.

Latter day praise of the Protestant movement is seen as a continuum of the same humanizing spirit of Christianity. A closer look reveals Protestant movement more as a reaction to the inevitable raise of modernism in Europe. And the modernism which was on the ascent in Europe was principally because of the rediscovery of philosophical traditions long dismissed as ‘pagan’. 

Thus Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, in his infamous tract against the rebellious peasants opposing the crushing taxes of the high-born nobles, stated without mincing words

If the peasant is in open rebellion, then he is outside the law of God...Therefore, let everyone who can, smite, slay and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; (3)
Luther’s advice was religiously followed by the princes and Dukes and Counts who put to sword not less than 5000 peasants at Frankenhausen. And Luther delighted at the massacre of these peasants and declared with pride:

I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants; all their blood is on my head for I commanded them to be slaughtered; all their blood is on my neck. But I pass it on to our Lord God, who commanded me to give this order.
England also fared no better in the treatment of its labour population which was mostly hereditary. Illiteracy of labourers, was intentional and was justified with religious reasons. In 1807, in the House of Commons, a British scientist Davies Gilbert vehemently opposed attempts to school the masses claiming that the education for the labouring classes

…would in effect be prejudicial to their morals and happiness: it would teach them to despise their lot in life, instead of making them good servants to agriculture and other laborious employments to which their rank in society had destined them….it would enable them to read seditious pamphlets, vicious books and publications against Christianity. (5) 
Education – as a tool for social control

Even those who supported education for the peasant-labourer community considered it as a means of social control than any means of social emancipation of the toiling masses. Thus Sir James Phillips Kay-Shuttleworth, the First Baronet (1804 –1877), first secretary of the committee formed by the Privy Council to administer the Government grant for the public education in Britain, repeatedly stressed the point that the aim of the schools for the peasants’ children, “was to raise a new race of working people – respectful, cheerful, hard-working, loyal, pacific and religious.” 

Often, education was taken up by churches and bundled with Sunday Bible classes. As such, the educational standards were abysmally low. For example in the strongly Methodist mining districts of Cornwall where more than 40,000 attended their Sunday schools in 1858, the Child Labour Inquiry found only one school teaching writing. 

Data from Nottingham for the same year reveals that of the 22 children who attended only Sunday schools 17 children could not write . However the Sunday schools were praised by the elite Britons for they inculcated into the children of working class “moral restraint” . The educational missionary activity in London’s silk-weaving district of Spitalfields was prompted by need for social control which was felt after the strike in 1844 by coal miners .

The teachers were chosen not by their expertise in the subjects they taught but how well they had “a thorough knowledge of the saving powers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” . One son of a farmer who attended the village school remembered vividly how the children were taught to be “truthful, honest and obedient” to the authority failing which the children were shown by the teacher “a picture of what was said to be the devil – a dreadful looking person with a pitch fork…would deal with all wicked children and put them in the fire with this fork.” 

The trends continued well into nineteenth century and the malaise also affected the colonies as we will see later. However, by the first quarter of 19th century there was another wave building up from London and its suburbs. And their origins were from the coasts of India.

Re-discovery of the ‘Beautiful Tree’

The remark by Gandhi at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, on 20 October, 1931 about the more literate India is today well-known thanks to the pioneering work done by Dharampal. The metaphor of ‘beautiful tree’ for the Indic educational system has become famous at least among the Indo-philes. Sir Philip Hartog, the vice-chancellor of Dhaka University joined issue with Gandhi. 

He commenced a correspondence with him, spanning almost a decade. Hartog had time and the bureaucratic services of an Empire at his dispense. He meticulously poured through reports and marshaled facts that suited him. Gandhi was at that time in the midst of freedom struggle spending most of his time in British prisons.

Hartog was invited to give a series of lectures in the University of London in order to allay the rising feeling among Indians that the British systematically destroyed the indigenous education. His lectures were promptly published as a book.

It was only after independence that Dharampal, the off-beat historian, set forth on the road less traveled going beyond the handed down wisdom of colonial frameworks and started going through the archives. The discoveries he made amazed him. 

Reports after reports that the East India Company had made in the early nineteenth century in an exhaustive survey of indigenous education system commissioned by Col. T. Munroe revealed a far decentralized, more egalitarian system of education than the one existing in contemporary England. When Dharampal wished to publish his work the only person who was ready to do it was a Hindu nationalist historian and a publisher, Sitaram Goel.

Dharampal’s book ‘The Beautiful Tree’ contains a 1823 report by Ballari district collector. The collector mentions a curious fact:

The economy with which children are taught to write in the native schools, and the system by which the more advanced scholars are caused to teach the less advanced and at the same time to confirm their own knowledge is certainly admirable, and well deserved the imitation it has received in England.
This is the British acknowledgement of Indian system being imitated in Britain. With respect to how the saplings of ‘the beautiful tree’ were transported and transplanted in India Dharampal provides a mention of one Andrew Bell. 

Carrying forward the work of Dharampal

Some decades after Dharampal’s work was published, James Tooley a British educationist was given a copy of “The Beautiful Tree” by an old book vendor in the old city of Hyderabad. That opened up new doors for Tooley who was already working on cost-effective quality education with specific focus on the developing countries. The result is a book titled “The beautiful tree: a personal journey into how the world’s poorest people are educating themselves” (Penguin Books India 2009) 

Tooley started working on how the old educational system in India was financed. He also worked simultaneously on how educational system evolved in Great Britain. He discovered the extent to which the Indian education system was adapted or rather imitated in England. He started with Andrew Bell who was a “reverend”. In the words of Tooley, as he researched on the life of this Rev. Andrew Bell, what he discovered ‘seemed like dynamite’ to him. 

For they vividly showed how the “economical” method of teaching in the private schools for the poor in India became translated into a method that transformed education in Victorian England and beyond.
Rev. Bell was in India to work in the asylum for the progeny of British soldiers through native Indian women, whom of course the soldiers abandoned. The imported teachers for these children were not exactly enthusiastic. One day as he was riding along Madras beach he noticed a native school session. He saw “little children writing with their fingers on sand, which after the fashion of such schools, had been strewn before them for that purpose” and he also saw “peer teaching - children learning from one another.” (

Bell had his Eureka moment. He experimented successfully with this method and in 1797 published the description of his “Madras method” in England. Tooley discovered that the new National Society for the Education for the Poor in 1811 adapted this Madras method and by 1821, 300,000 children were being educated by Bell’s principles . 

Meanwhile Jospeh Lancaster has launched his famous Lancastrian schools for furthering education in England. Bell and Lancaster entered into a bitter controversy as to the intellectual property of the particular system of education. But Tooley points out that “it wasn’t invented by either Bell or Lancaster. It was based precisely on what the Rev.Dr.Andrew Bell had observed in India”. 

Tooley further elaborates:

the cost-effective teaching methods used in the indigenous private schools of 19th century India were in fact a manifest strength; so much so...they were imitated in Britain , then across Europe and then the world and did so much to raise educational standards.
What is even more important is the way the funding of education changed in England. James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill observed in 1813, particularly around London the “rapid progress which the love of education” was making among “the lower orders in England”. 

Funding of these schools, Tooley observes, was done through school fees and private schools for the poor were increasing in Victorian England. By 1851 of the 2,144,278 children put in day schools 85 percent were in private schools funded the same way the private schools of early 19th century India were funded. By 1861, 95 percent of the children were in school for an average of nearly six years. The horses of literacy were galloping in England. 

But in India…

In India in 1854, Thomas Babington Macaulay had established his first school in India. Tooley under the appropriate heading “The men who uprooted the beautiful tree” states:

By 1858 this new system had delivered 452 schools and colleges with a total enrollment of 20,874 in 21 districts of Madras Presidency. But 36 years earlier Munro had found that a total of 11,575 schools and 1094 colleges with 157195 and 5431 students respectively!
The rate of growth of literacy in India under the British controlled Macaulay education system began to fall way back compared to the rate of growth of literacy in Britain under the Indic method of private school enrolment. The Macaulay system itself needed 60 years to improve upon the enrolment figures of Indian educational system. But even to achieve the kind of literary growth that the British society achieved under the Indic education system transplanted in England, the Macaulay system took seventy one years. Tooley observes wryly:

If the dynamics of the India private education system had been anything like those of the parallel system in England we would have seen a much larger growth in enrollment than had the British not intervened at all.
Macaulay system also perpetuated and amplified the social distances among the different occupational groups in India. Tooley states:

...completely against the committee’s explicit intentions, the new schools were excluding everyone apart from the elite, the Brahmins. Why? One source suggested that the government “was uneasy about low-caste people being admitted to the ...Schools. It was feared that, if they were encouraged the upper classes would show resentment and withdraw their support.” So the new public schools became a vehicle to promote caste privilege, rather than a vehicle for improvement of all. Again it would seem that the indigenous system had unnoticed strengths in promoting education of all including the lowest castes.
Though Government spoke of the resentment of upper class Indians the fact is that the British educational system in its very nature was elitist and often prevented people form lower strata of the society into echelons of higher education. It was almost a universal phenomenon of colonialism. Economist Clark Kerr points out:

The British system of higher education until the middle of the nineteenth century was elitist, and largely hereditary elitist. Entry into Oxford and Cambridge was limited by rule to males who were members of the Anglican Church and in fact mostly to sons of the gentry and the upper middle classes. ...Sub-Sahara Africa with its missionary schools and French lycees followed the meritocratic elite system then in effect in Britain and France.

It should also be noted that while British policy of education to masses was as a means of social control, the indigenous education in India was for empowering and liberating the individuals and the society. Nineteenth century South Travancore, one of the first victim states of colonialism, social stagnation and caste oppression reached the levels of social lunacy. 

But here the most successful social revolutionaries were all (Ayya Vaikundar, Sri Narayana Guru and Ayyan Kali - to name a few) those who studied through native educational system. The cost-effective universal education which gave England its advantages over other European nations, also owes its positive features to that beautiful tree that stood in India, which as Gandhi stated was destroyed by the very British who benefited by it. 

References:

1. James Sands Elliott , Outlines of Greek and Roman Medicine, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2008 p.112 (Here the author after depicting Constantine’s appreciation of Christian system in vivid and glowing terms, simply notes, “In pagan times there was a somewhat similar system of a master being able to redeem a slave and register the redemption in one of the temples.” 

2. Entry for “Mutilation of the Body” in Encyclopaedic Dictionary Of Christian Antiquities (Ed. William Smith, Samuel Cheetham), Concept Publishing Company, 2005, p.244

3. Roland Bainton, Here I Stand - A Life of Martin Luther, READ BOOKS, 2007 p.280

4. Martin Luther quoted in Erasmus - The Right to Heresy, (Staffan Z Weig, READ BOOKS, 2008, p.145)

5. Hansard , 13 July 1807, quoted in John Rule, The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England 1750-1850: Chapter 10: Education for the labouring classes, Longman 1986, p 235

6. R. Johnson, ‘Educational policy and social control in early Victorian England’, Past and Present, no.73, 1976: quoted in John Rule, The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England 1750-1850: Chapter 10: Education for the labouring classes, Longman 1986, p.246

7. J.G.Rule, “The Labouring Miner in Cornwall circa. 1740-1870: a study in social history’, PhD Thesis, University of Warwick, 1971, pp.324-6

8. P.Gaskell, Artisans and Machinery, 1836, pp.243-4: quoted in R. Johnson, ‘Educational policy and social control in early Victorian England’, Past and Present, no.73, 1976: quoted in John Rule, The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England 1750-1850: Chapter 10: Education for the labouring classes, Longman 1986 p.248

9. Phillip McCann ,Popular education, socialization and social control : Spitalfields-1812-24, Popular education and socialization in the nineteenth century, Methuen, 1977 pp.1-29

10. John Rule, The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England 1750-1850: Chapter 10: Education for the labouring classes, Longman 1986 p.249

11. C.T.Trevail, 1927: quoted in John Rule, The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England 1750-1850: Chapter 10: Education for the labouring classes, Longman 1986 p.249

12. Collector, Bellary To Board Of Revenue:17.8.1823 (Tnsa: Brp: Vol.958 Pro.25.8.1823 Pp.7167-85 Nos.32-33): Dharampal, The Beautiful Tree, Other India Press, 1983:2000, p.190

13. Dharampal, The Beautiful Tree, Other India Press, 1983:2000, p.10

14. James Tooley, The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into how the World’s Poorest People are Educating Themselves, Cato Institute, 2009, p.229

15. James Tooley, 2009, p.229

16. James Tooley, 2009, p.230

17. James Tooley, 2009, p.230

18. James Tooley, 2009, p.230

19. James Tooley, 2009, p.237

20. James Tooley, 2009, p.235

21. James Tooley, 2009, p.238 22. James Tooley, 2009, p.232

23. Clark Kerr, The Great Transformation in Higher Education, 1960-1980, SUNY Press, 1991,p.8

Apr 18, 2017

LIFE of my life, I shall ever try to keep my body pure from Gitanjali

"LIFE of my life" 
from Gitanjali
By Bijay Kant Dubey

The song number four from Gitanjali, beginning with ‘Life of my life, I shall ever try to keep my body pure’ is similar in thought and idea, reflection and rhyming as the other poems are in this poetical series coming down to us as song offerings. After thanking God for this life, creation and the world, singing the songs himself, making the Divine sing, Tagore swears as for keeping the body pure as because only in a pure body a pure heart can. And if the body is not pure, how to approach the Divine? The poet turns to the philosophy of satya, ahimsa and dharma. Where there is a discussion of satya, the talks of ahimsa and shantih will naturally crop as will come relatedly and where is dharma, karma will naturally get tagged to as dharma and karma are related to each other. It is Nirmal Nridaya, Sacred Heart that he talks about, Niscchal Mona, Guileless Inner Mind, Pavitratama, Pure Soul, Sinless And Chaste. Actually, when we start the worship, we start from the confession, soul-cleansing prayer that we are sinners, sinful are our activities, the sinful soul is that of ours, redeem, Thou, my Lord! How to keep pure?, is the thing of discussion here. How to keep chaste and virtuous and righteous? The Pulley and Virtue by George Herbert too tell of the same thing. To see it in the words of George Herbert, God dwells in the temple of heart and ony sweet and virtuous soul is immortal.

The poem starts on a note of undertaking and self-denials. Praying to Life of life, God the Almighty, the poet says that he will try to keep his body pure knowing it that it is He whose living touch is each and every limb of ours. He will try to keep all the untruths away out of his thoughts as because God is the Ultimate Truth and it is His Light which has ignited the dormant portions by kindling reason, flashing upon darkness to dispel it. The light of reason is the best to endow with.

He will try to drive all the evils away from his heart, nurturing goodwill, fraternity, humanism, liberalism, tolerance, love and sympathy for all, which but one makes humane and noble. As a flower is so will try to keep his heart pure and dew-washed, crystal clear and beautiful from its within. To Thomas Hood, in I Remember, I Remember, flowers appeared to be as those made from light and joy, which he held in his childhood. Flower and love are synonymous in image and idea. If the heart is pure and clean only then God can dwell in.

It will be his endeavour to reveal Him in his actions done knowingly or unknowingly as God is in each and every activity of ours. It is his Power which but gives strength.

The word, the .light of reason has a larger connotation as it refers to the periods slid by on the corridors of medieval history full of upheavals and repercussions. Our belief in superstition, witchcraft and others too wreaked havoc and damaged the basic things of our philosophy and culture and we grew more superstitious, fatalistic, blind and inactive.

LIFE of my life, I shall ever try to 
keep my body pure, knowing that thy 
living touch is upon all my limbs. 
I shall ever try to keep all untruths 

out from my thoughts, knowing that 
thou art that truth which has kindled 
the light of reason in my mind. 

I shall ever try to drive all evils away 
from my heart and keep my love in 
flower, knowing that thou hast thy seat 
in the inmost shrine of my heart. 

And it shall be my endeavour to 
reveal thee in my actions, knowing it 
is thy power gives me strength to act. 

Satyameva jayate, truth only prevails, ahimsa paramo dharamah, non-violence is the greatest religion and others have effected this poem in the making. Had he not stressed or borrowed Indian gnan, karma, dharma, mukti, vidya and viveka, he could not have this poem. Only bhakti not, adherence to bind devotion and religiosity cannot take us far and for it, we need to dispel avidya, ignorance through vidya learning which is but light and viveka, mental power of reasoning the faculty of logical wisdom. As because one should know it that fatalism, soothsaying and strong belief in oracles and prophecies have wreaked havoc in terms of chastity and purity. Say you, who is really pure? The fatalists, pundits, palmists, horoscope-makers and astrologers’ India like we not; that of the fortune-tellers, soothsayers’. The aboriginals too have not lagged behind. If we lay them bare, hair will stand on. Gnan, knowledge and karma, activity must go together with. What is gnan, knowledge? Gnan is viveka, logical faculty of reasoning and buddhi, wisdom whose horizon transcends the barriers. Vidya, learning gives gnana, knowledge and from gnana, we get viveka, the faculty of reasoning and mukti, deliverance.




Apr 10, 2017

Indian Marxist against Marx

Indian Marxist against Marx: 

Two Ways of Revolution i.e. Annihilation of Caste or Advancement of Capitalism


By
Dinesh Kumar Ahirwar
Ph.D. on Thought of Dr Ambedkar and Mao Zedong
Email:  globaldemocracy2014@gmail.com

There are two ways of bringing about changes in the society i.e. idealist and materialist.[1] First Idealist method was very effective before Industrial revolution while second materialist method became significant in post-industrial society. Bringing about changes through idealist method was proactive process of change whereas human agency actively engages with masses and advances the consciousness of the mind argued by Hegel. Buddha was the first example of social revolution in the backward society. The changes through materialist method happen with the advancement of material conditions of the society or mode of the production proposed by Marx.[2] There is no third way of bringing about revolution except following the pragmatism in implementation of theory. Here, I am not going into the debate of which one is most effective and which method should people follow but certainly there are no other means other than two. If one makes a case for critical school as history moves through criticism then it has been rooted in Hegelian tradition.[3] Let discuss the second first i.e. the materialist one then first one later. It was the method that let the material condition be advanced the social condition of the masses and their consciousness improves. This was method claimed to be a scientific method by Marx. Marxist should believe that let the capitalism get advanced and produce enough working class for strong communist base.

Since Indian Communist read Communist Manifesto and found proposition that Marx claimed capitalism is inevitable stage and would be followed by socialist revolution, took sleepless night, declared it primary enemy of the masses.  To protect the Brahmanism from the assault of capital Marxist tried level best to stop capital coming in. Marx not only considers capitalism inevitable for the advancement of the productive forces but also the advancement of the social values or Hegelian consciousness to retain the socialist political structure in post-revolution.[4] The socialism is not only the advanced means for production but also the advanced values system embodied in the mind of the people. If masses with feudal values had been mobilized for a communist revolution, they would have a dictatorship of the feudal forces, not the leadership of the working class. Indian communist neglected the social progress of the revolutionary masses through advancement of capitalism, get through the participation in the labour.  Working class politics is the product of the Capitalism, however, it tries all means to stop the increasing its number by doing anti-capitalist politics. The working class movement suddenly antagonized with capitalism without having sufficient portion of working class from masses. The working class led by Marxist elite could have demanded the labour right than blocking the road of the capital to produce more working class for strengthening base. Marxist opposition to the capitalism was like axing themselves. The space for the working class movement created by the capitalism became the battle ground against imperialism itself having alliance with brutal feudal forces. It was an unholy alliance of the backward land relationship and industrial working class like Mao did in China. Marxists ensure that feudalism should recapture the progressive space created by the advancement of capitalism in urban areas.

The anti-imperialist struggle led by Indian communist never intended the revolution but to protect the traditional mode of the production called caste or Brahmanism. Caste would have been dismantled by the advancement of the capitalist mode of production but the 92% of the labour engage in the unorganized or non-capitalist sector. Stopping 92% unorganized working classes in the organized sector was nothing accept protecting caste system in India. The organized sector having the labour right with strong organization which can be mobilized for the progressive politics but why did Marxist blocked the path of the capitalism which could have produce more revolutionary labour by getting them into the organized sector? Blocking capitalism was blocking revolution by following the Marxist materialist method of progress of the society. Mao followed the pragmatist method did not relied only on the Marxist doctrine but found the way forward to take the masses ahead. Indian Marxists unlike Mao neither campaign against the Caste/Brahmanism nor allowed the capital to mature for successful working class movement.  The purpose of Marxist was not to do revolution but fighting for just securing the interests of the few working classes which was fighting for the labour rights. Had Marxist been real revolutionary would have become pragmatist to accept the caste oppression as primary contradiction mobilize the masses in rage for revolution. It seems purpose of Indian Marxist never been to revolution than opposing the capitalism and imperialism. Mao who understood that scanty labour class would not be able to do revolution, then he focused on the peasantry which consist of ninety percent of the population while Indian Marxist were stick to the problem of the working class. Indian Marxists neither committed to the principle of Marxist orthodoxy or classical understanding of Marxism nor they followed the pragmatist method to implement their theory in Indian reality, except opposition to the imperialism and capitalism to protect the specific Indian mode of production. A simple logic of Marxism would tell you that politics of the working is not possible in a feudal society and feudal society would not allow any possible social change driving conclusion from dialectical materialism.

Indian Marxist did not ally with Ambedkar or Hegelian method of social change, the alternative path.[5] Since Marxists were blocking the maturing capitalism in Indian society naturally would have focused on the Hegelian method of change by allying with the movement of anti-caste lead by Ambedkar. What short of revolution they wanted to have when Indian Marxists neither were in favor of maturing condition for the development of working class movement nor engaging with the masses outside the purview of capitalist mode of production with caste question proved that their purpose was status quo than any change whether through Marxist or Hegelian Path. The areas which were unaffected from the capitalist influence or British Raj were living in the Dark Age without social and political movement was ideal situation for the Indian Marxist and Right Wing. There were no working class movement in the areas which were not ruled by the Company or British even though nature of the exploitation was extreme in comparison to the areas ruled by Company and Raj.  Marxist did not support Ambedkar’s Hegelian version of the social change calling it as not materialist in nature while the blocked the road of capitalism/imperialism was also non materialist. Indian Marxist barricaded the revolution by blocking capitalism through materialism path as well as did not allying with idealist Ambedkarite’s path.

The only two of the social change has been discussed but the third way was about the methodology of doing changes.  The third was shifting from dogma to pragma. Ambedkar tried to move with the purpose of having social and political change or batter place for the masses. If Marxists had been honest to Indian masses not only to the scanty working class would have moved from pure class analysis to link caste and class in the pre-Independence of India. But they did it only after observing that the masses are getting organized under the banner of the Ambedkar. Marxist attempt to include caste in the class was for dilution not for the revolution. It was not their theoretical wish but compulsion to support the reservation for backward classes in 1990s. Indian Marxists were doing working class politics in the selected areas wherever the working class to be found in the pre and post-independence. After the defeat of Imperialist British their first enemy became newly born Indian state. Newly born Indian state captured by the Congress elite with full control over resources. Without differentiating the state and society, communist first target was state not the society. Indian state was much better progressive than Indian society in terms of the recognizing the socially backward classes. An Untouchable has no space in the society while he has safeguards from the state. Leftist believed that ruling class using state machinery against the depressed section of the society without paying attention to that these sections has no space in the caste society. The reflection of Brahmanism in the state apparatus was reflection of the society not of state itself.

Marxist declared their war against Imperialism and ruling states, they searched their ally across the world. State is the imperialist tool to exploit the masses has been the only hypothesis for the twenty first century Marxist. Marxist starts supporting the forces which were not only against the capitalism but against modernity and liberal values to grow their numbers. For this purpose, Adivasi and Muslim were suitable as long as their hostility toward modernity. Intellectuals supported the feudal religious resistance to the capitalist modernity proved to be suicidal for the Muslim and Adivasis. The leftists support to the one conservative group sensitizes the other identities and they reaffirmed even though being liberal. It was the blunder by Marxist intellectuals without understanding that masses would not go for the advance stage resistance rather turn out to be conservative right wing. It is doubtful that whether Marxists were unaware about the backlash of these hurriedness of the revolution in the stage of pre-mature situation where masses supported right wing rather than the legendary of the social and democracy. The rise of the Hindu right wing in India is result of the failure of these ivory tower intellectuals. Marxist would argue that Rise of the Hindu Right wing is the nexus between corporates and Hindutva without paying attention to that RSS opposition to the capitalist modernity in the same way which Muslim fundamentalism opposed to Western modernity in the West Asia. BJP has strong corporate lobby while RSS represents conservative Hindutva. RSS opposition to the liberal values and capitalist modernity is very similar to the ISIS opposition to the Western values. If one further argues that Leftists were indirectly supporting to the RSS as long as it oppose the capitalist modernity and liberal values then leads not in the wrong direction to understand the immaturity of the Marxist intellectuals.  Muslim fundamentalism is not a working class movement like RSS but of course oppose the capitalist modernity. ISIS opposition to the capitalist modernity was not revolutionary any time but Leftist supported that to grow the support against imperialism and capitalism.  Is it possible to support RSS by Left as long as they are opposed to the liberal values like Anti-Romeo-Squad? Left supported the Muslim moral police to enslave the Muslim women indirectly supported the Hindutva Anti-Romeo-Squad to control the Indian women. Hindu Rashtra may soon become the reality with support of the national capitalists. The national capital would tolerate the Hindu tradition values like Patanjali. Patanjali is going to be leading company in the India. Leftist argument in favor of developing the national capitalist against international one by keeping in mind that it would not antagonize Brahmanical values. Communist parties of Muslim countries are against the growing fundamentalism in their masses, however, supported by Indian Maoist manifest their ignorance to the reality of the world. Without believing the conspiracy theory of Brahmanical Marxist that their support to ISIS would help them to bring Hindu right seems quite possible. I would like to ask them what qualify ISIS to be supported by Maoist then what disqualify RSS to be part of your revolution?  

The scholarship from Left to Right declared 1857 revolt the first revolutionary act by the masses; forget that it would turn out to be a caw vigilant group after one hundred and fifty year later, seems that how primitive this resistance was in that point of time. The present cow vigilant groups are nothing but produced by the historiography of the nationalists and Leftists. Had 1857 revolt been as successful venture there would have been Hindus/Muslim monarchies in India with elimination of any progressive movement and politics for forever. Shameless intellectuals declared it as a first revolutionary attempt by masses against the capitalist exploitation without paying any attention to the backward outlook of the masses. Hundred years of the British Raj produced the secular democratic India which is now taking last breath for survival with the rival of the Hindutva.

Yet, Marxist successfully stopped communist revolution by keeping capital in the premature conditions in India as well as world. Now Hegel and Ambedkar remain only option to the revolution. It seems impossible to have even the liberal bourgeois state. Brahmanism Left is successful in its aim of collapse of the US imperialism but it is ended up with the Hindu Rashtra. The project of the Post- Colonial Theory is also accomplished with De-colonization complete with establishment of Ram Rajya. Hindutva is getting rid off colonial legacy and liberal bourgeois state. How can Marxist be so ignorant enough that without readiness of the masses for revolution, attack on the bourgeois state would now end up with Hindu Rashtra? Doing Anti-state politics in a backward feudal society would end up in the Hindu fascist state as long as revolutionary masses did not pay any attention to feudal values of the society. In a backward society, Hegelian social revolution would play revolutionary role while in a capitalist society materialist method would seems feasible.

The present articulation of the intellectuals is that there is a nexus between conservatives and new liberal. Following the basic logic disqualify to retain this position that liberal is not conservative and conservative not liberal. The intellectuals forget about the antagonism between liberals and conservatives in terms of the economy as well as in values. In case of India, BJP is the agent of the new liberal economic policies while RSS represents the conservative voice, the antagonism shrink within a party than going to the opposition Congress. Congress would have been the liberal agent while BJP remain a conservative Hindutva force but unfortunately Congress lost its ground. Now BJP opposition is not congress but RSS and RSS opposition is none other party than BJP itself.   

If Ambedkarite could not defeat the Hindutva in 2019 election then Hegelian would remain with limited numbers while Marxists cease to exist in India. It was quite clear that strong imperialist USA would not have allowed Hindu Rashtra for certain reason, but nationalist Trump would welcome the Modi-Yogi. Collapse of the imperialism did not turn out to be with a revolutionary movement than ending with rise of right wing across the world. This did not happened in ignorance but with full conscious attempt by the intellectuals who had no experience of reality.  The premature masses would not support the revolutionary struggle but would join Mandir-Masjid agitation started by Right Wings. If Marxist would like to say that advanced capitalist world can have a right wing assertion or new liberal world can have a conservative ally then they falsify the scientific claim of theory of Marxism. So now follow the Ambedkarite method of revolution in India as well as world. 

How to Bring Socialism and Democracy through Ambedkar’s method needs separate note. Comments are most welcome.




Notes:
[1] Hegelian Idealism and Marxian materialism.
[2] Historical Materialism is all about proving change through advancement of the mode of production in the particular historical phase.
[3] Buddhist tradition is also Critical tradition but academicians feel shame accepting Buddha before Hegel.
[4] Reshuffle in the feudal forces by the assault of the capital was declared the revolutionary movement by feudal values inclined Marxists, Lenin and Mao are safe from this adjustment.
[5] In Annihilation of Caste, Dr. Ambedkar questioned the Marxist or socialist that it is nothing except caste which crosses your path. Revolution would not happen without Annihilation of Caste. There two thing first one was doing campaign against caste and organizing masses or allowing capital to change traditional mode of production. But Leftist did not do any of two.

Apr 2, 2017

Preface to Lyrical Ballads: Wordsworth

Theory of poetry

“Poetry is the thought and the words in which emotion  spontaneously embodies itself.”         
Thoughts on Poetry and its Variations by Mill.

Wordsworth took the hint and produced the theory of poetry which is contained in Preface to Lyrical Ballads wherein, at least two places; he points out: “All good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feeling,” and “It takes its origin from the emotion recollected in tranquility”. At first glance, these two are quite opposite to each other—the one is coming on a sudden, and the other deliberately called to memory—but Wordsworth makes no difference between two and tries to explain one by the other.

In his famous Preface to the Lyrical Ballads, he enunciated his theories that he was going to use “a selection of language really used by men”, and this chiefly “in humble and rustic life” because such men are in hourly communion “with the best objects from the best part of language is originally derived” and,       “at the same time to throw over a certain colouring of imagination, whereby ordinary things should be presented to  the mind in an unusual manner”. He also adds “there neither is nor can be any essential difference between the language of prose and verse”.

Poetry “a hopeless product of intelligence playing upon the surface of life …made out of the interests of society in its great centers of culture” originates in the heart and not in the intellect; and a poet cannot write under any pressure, as Keats says “Poetry should come as natural as leaves to a tree” and again he says “We hate poetry that has a palpable design upon us”. A poet writes only when he is inspired because only then his ideas spontaneously flow out of his mind and he creates poetry of high order and which is: “nothing less than the most perfect speech of man, that in which he comes nearest to being able to utter the truth”.

Wordsworth’s own typical poems—A Moving Sight, Skylark, A Solitary Reaper— were composed in his own manner. The group of Daffodils was also seen during a walk, stored in the memory and recalled in the moments of calm contemplation to be bodied forth into the poem. This is what Wordsworth actually means when he says in Daffodils:       
                        “For oft, when on my couch I lie       
                        In vacant or in pensive mood,           
                        They flash upon that inward eye       
                        Which is the bliss of solitude;
                        And then my heart with pleasure fills,          
                        And dance with the daffodils.”

So the end of poetry is to impart pleasure, this pleasure is not ideal pleasure, but of a profound kind because poetry “is the breath and finer spirit of all the knowledge, the impassioned expression that is in the countenance of all the science”. Poetry aims at winning “the vacant and the vain to noble raptures” and also aims at evoking a feeling of love for mankind. Wordsworth hoped that with his poetry he should be able to “console the afflicted, to add sunshine to daylight by making the happy happier: to lead the young and gracious of every age to see, to think, and to feel, and, therefore, to become more actively and securely virtuous”. The pleasure imparted by poetry ennobles and edifies the readers.

Thus, “The end of poetry is to produce excitement in co-existence with an overbalance of pleasure; but, by the supposition, excitement is an unusual and irregular state of mind; ideas and feelings do not, in that state, succeed each other in accustomed order”. For Wordsworth, the first stage of the progress of poetry, which is “unforced overflow of powerful feelings”, is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings; the next is that of emotion recollected in tranquility; and the last is of its expression in poetry. He always composed his poems with the greatest care, not trusting his first expression which he found often detestable, in his own words, “it is frequently true of second words as of second thoughts that they are the best.”

F.L. Lucas once said “Wordsworth’s famous theory of style is merely a natural revulsion frozen into a foolish rule; and his style in practice is often the very opposite of his own theory, without being any the better for that”. J.K Stephan said, “There are two wholly different Wordsworths. Suddenly in this rough block of granite the mica flashes out, like diamond, beneath the moon; on this blunt, whale-headed fell the sunset strikers, like a great transfiguration, athwart the grey, crawling rags of mists”, until     
                        “…………………… the sky seems not a sky         
                        Of earth, and with what motion move the clouds”.

Despite all criticism, including Eliot’s, who said “poetry is not the turning loose of emotions but an escape from emotions,” Wordsworth’s theory of poetry can hardly be over-estimated or over-praised, thus, Preface gives Wordsworth concept of nature, function and language of poetry which give direction to the nineteenth century poetry. All in all, through the breathless efforts, Wordsworth gives a new trend to poetry.

Wordsworth says that nature obeys certain rules and poetic diction arbitrary and capricious, however, Walter Raleigh declares that Wordsworth hardly observes rules set by himself—but it is said that he writes well when he breaks his own rules. However, Coleridge’s objection is that when a poet begins to arrange words he no longer remains spontaneous.

When we say that Wordsworth did not always practise his theory of poetic diction, we refer to the poems as Tintern Abbey, The Intimation of Immortality Ode, or Simplon Pass, etc. Here, too, however, there is no bombast; the style is not complicated but there is a sonorous “trumpet tone” which is not quite in keeping with his decision to select the real language of men. Many a time, he uses Latinised vocabulary—“incommunicable sleep”, “diurnal course” “unimaginable touch of time”, etc. There is nothing much ordinary with lines such as: 
                        “And O Fountains, meadows, hills and groves          
                         Forebode not every severing of our loves.” 


Dr. Johnson declared that noble and the graceful action is degraded if expressed in ordinary and simple language; and Gray staled: “the language of the age could never be the language of poetry”. So Wordsworth rebelled against the artificial language used by the poets of the preceding sensation, which was known as the Neo-Classical language.
Wordsworth asserts that there is essentially no difference between the language of prose and metrical composition. He gives an example to prove that the meter should not be confused with poetic diction.  Wordsworth gives a false example which has been applied to poetry in which the language resembles life and nature. Here is bad poetry:     

                        “I put my hat on upon the head,                    
                        And walked into the strand    
                        And there must another man
                        Whose hat was in his hand”. 

And here is an example of good poetry:       

                        “The pretty Babies with hand in hand;          
                        Wandering up and down;      
                        But never more they saw the Man    
                        Approaching from the town”.

In both these examples, the words are in prose order and ideas familiar. Yet one stanza is poor poetry and the other is good poetry: where is the difference? Surely not in the words or metre, but in one, the matter is contemptible and in the other interesting images emerges.

In sum, under the influence of Wordsworth, poetry broke through the iron modules of rules and came to be blessed with a sweet music that rose directly from the poet’s heart and went overflowing direct to the heart of the readers.

All in all, to conclude, it must be admitted that Wordsworth gives a new trend to English poetry by eliminating artificial diction from it. He broke a vicious tradition and evolved a simple, unaffected and natural style which reaches the hearts of men. Thus, Wordsworth in his theories was, as he himself remarks “a man fighting a battle without enemies”; whose principle object was “to choose incidents from the common life….to imitate and, as far as possible to adopt the very language of men.”

Mar 27, 2017

Wanderer: A Tale of One Girl (Story)

Mahima Nanda

[A curious student of mine portrays the rags of misogynistic society wherein women deserves a place in the close walls to do the household chores. The modern and educated students are, in fact, breaking the prejudice and hence the society rejected them, if not directly then indirectly. To put in other words, the society or system, as well as, the leaders are afraid not of any revolution but of women. If you come to know what they stand for, then the rule of man will be a thing of past which could remain recorded in the older books. For the curtailment of their rights, they are bind with the shackles of family, tradition, culture and society. After reading this small piece, one has to conclude, whether it is biographical, autobiographical, social, political, exclusion, anti-prejudice, modern, or post-modern. Whatever be the answer, the readers are free to observe it, some in one sense while other in other.)

The text runs thus:
Wanderer: A Tale of One Girl (Story)

Who are you? I am a wanderer, a free thinker, a lover, a peace-maker, a rebel, a revolutionist, a seeker, a woman, a healer, a forgiver; Sheena's Radha. But I am not going to be this forever, neither ever I was all or any of these before. 

I clearly remember the how's and when's of the change in my persona. The shedding of my old being giving way to what I am today. I am still unsatisfied with my being which is always looking for growth from every aspect to be more humane. 

I was timid, coward, naive and a shy girl, say, five years from now. So, what happened and what brought a tremendous amount of improvement in the way I look at myself and others today? I realise it was the act of "forgiving". 

After years of dealing with the guilt, shame, fear and nightmares I finally took the courage to forgive myself and my father who crowned me with the title of incest. He, along with many other men, most of whom were closely related to me, abused not only my body but also my soul on different occasions. 

I hadn't known the depth of their actions then when I was the victim of their culprit actions and, thus, I stayed quiet for years. Later in life, I started suffering and dealt with intense depression, all alone. " 

When sleeping women wake, mountains may move", a Chinese quote relates to my journey of emancipation. There were times when I tried to commit suicide, become a pothead, look for real love from many unconscious men, look for somebody to answer my questions, look for a father and a family. 

There was also the time when I faced the bitter truth of being alone in this world which everyone of us deals with a lot of courage. That was the phase which brought me closer to myself, I knew then that nobody but I will have to be my own lover, my own father and my own family only if I forgive these men for their actions and myself for taking the blame. 

Slowly and gradually I pulled myself up and started noticing my surroundings, realising the fact that the world is such a beautiful place if we have a compassionate heart to feel it. I started travelling to look for more and more and more AND MORE of it. 

I found it all over India, my country. Today I have a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, a dadi, a mami, a nana, a family in various regions of India and they all have blessed me by making me a small part of them and by sharing their unconditional love over and over again. 

In this awakened journey I also found a lover who fills the space, gives respect plus shares his conscious love which I also now have for myself. He encourages me to keep loving myself over anybody or anything. 

This, friend, is the Radha in me.

Mar 23, 2017

Karl Marx was a Fascist and Capitalist for 21st Century Left: An Ambedkarite’s Intervention



Since, Marx said Religion is the opium of the masses, Marxist presumed to be an atheist while precondition of consuming Opium gets popularity within the circle of the comrades. It seems quite funny, but it implies that a mind cannot live without intoxication whether it is inebriation of the ideas or the Opium. It was not that Marx did not pay any attention to the cultural exploitation but orthodox was stick to the dialectical materialist method with mechanical application. Criticism came with the purpose of considering cultural exploitation with class oppression. The success story of the Lenin is different while Mao has a different story to tell. He was an influential iconoclast who stood for the complete destruction of the culture and religion. It is also true that it was impossible for the rise of the Mao has a revolutionary idea in the society without creating space by destroying part of the culture. He also tried to destroy culture even after the establishment of the communist revolution.     

Marxist were criticized to consider cultural exploitation equally important to economic exploitation but they did reverse, they should have stood for creation of the egalitarian culture rather than defending and championing old feudal and religious culture. Present Marxist appears to be contradictory to the Marx and Mao. It is unfortunate that religion became the only mode of resistance of the International Marxists. A religion which opposes the modernity became the last refuge for Marxist in the 21st century. The feudal religious resistance to the capitalist modernity became the only pretext against the imperialism for International Marxist. Marxist support the religious fundamentalism and terrorism turn out to be a reactionary and it helped them to lose the support in the masses. The one of the primary reason behind the right-wing upsurge in the 21st century is that secular progressive intellectuals have not taken position against the religious orthodoxy while considering the progressive role of the capitalist modernity in the religious backward society. The Marxist position should have against the religion rather than supporting one of the single religious orthodoxy against all the liberals.

The success of the leaders like Mao where he declared “no Han chauvinism, no minorities’ fundamentalism.” It was an actual Marxist line by dealing with the religion. The resistance to the capitalist modernity does not make it progressive as long as it also automatically proved to be against the imperialist value expansion.  The Rise of the right in the present global context is on the single reason emerges which gave food to revival the all religious forces across the world. The primary argument against the classical Marxist was that they did not consider culture as a form of the oppression except economic exploitation but Marxist who tried to understand the cultural oppression ironically became the champion of the oppressive culture itself.

The Marxist who sunk for being mechanical following the dialectics not necessarily materialism was interesting to know the fact that they having no experience of concrete reality. The black movement and Dalit movement were prominent criticism of the Marxist movement. Marxist falls into the trap of the multiculturalism as they tried to understand the movement against cultural practice or they were criticized for being blind to the cultural exploitation. It was a tragedy that they need to be an iconoclast but turn out to be the defender of the cultural and orthodox religious practices in the 21st century. They opposed the capitalist modernity without knowing the fact that the society which is antagonistic to the capitalist modernity would also not entertain the communist egalitarian ideas. The cultural and religious oppression is more barbaric than the working class exploitation under the imperialism need to be explored by the present leftists. 

Marxists’ method to use the backward communities and religious communities against the advanced capitalist modernity inspired by the idea of ultimate truth to oppose imperialism and capitalism without giving even single thought to the qualitative difference between the feudal religious barbaric exploitative system. The capitalist exploitation is limited to only economic exploitation, but feudal exploitation is not just economic but cultural as well.  The culture which is the product of the feudal mode of the production is more oppressive than the consumerist-capitalist culture in the present society. It was not a wise move to have support for the feudal forces who are opposed to the modernity. Traditional identities are suffering more without capitalist modernity than the assault of the Western modernity itself. The methodology of present Marxist to check imperialism and capitalism turned out to be a backlash with the rise of the Christian, Hindu and Buddhist right wing as a counter to the Muslim right wing, loose their own base across the world.  The right-wing upsurge hampers the whole institutional structure of the UN and EU. 

Rise of Christian Right, Hindu Right and Buddhist Right across the World is the backlash of Left- Progressive-Liberals Intellectual's support to Islamic Terrorism/Fundamentalism. These liberal Progressive Intellectuals did not support Liberal Muslims But orthodoxy, is the paradox which masses could not digest. Intellectuals supported Terrorism/Fundamentalism and Masses did vote people who were speaking against this hypocrisy of Intellectuals and appeasement of Muslim by these armchair Intellectuals. These Intellectuals are did not have any test of experience of tyranny of Muslim fundamentalism and Brahmanical Casteism, they took stand against the western-capitalist modernity. Capitalist modernity which is very much secular did not make any sense to these ivory tower intellectuals as detached from the masses and not real experience of the culture and its conflict with other cultural communities.

It is not only limited to the rise of the nationalism in the countries having a history of a long time of global capital but also the backward countries with underdeveloped capital. The capitalist countries turn out to be nationalist and protectionist while the Left position in the third world countries is protecting FDI inflow of capital. How can Trump, the president of the capitalist USA and Marxist leader of third world countries have same interest and a similar strategy of the welfare of the society make furious about the left strategy of opposing Capital expansion in the third world countries? Chinese president asked the US not to go for the protectionist mode and need to follow the Washington consensus. The Washington Consensus overnight turned out to be benefitting for China and India. Nationalist Trump wants to control capital flow from the US to Third world countries while communists want to block the same capital coming in third world countries manifest that both cannot have the same purpose sitting opposite in the game or Trump and Marxists cannot have the same hypothesis for the welfare of the weaker sections of the society.  

Mar 18, 2017

Sea Breeze, Bombay: Adil Jussawalla

By: Bijay Kant Dubey

Partition's people stitched
Shrouds from a flag, gentlemen scissored Sind.
An opened people, fraying across the cut
country reknotted themselves on this island.

Surrogate city of banks,
Brokering and bays, refugees' harbour and port,
Gatherer of ends whose brick beginnings work
Loose like a skin, spotting the coast,

Restore us to fire. New refugees,
Wearing blood-red wool in the worst heat,
come from Tibet, scanning the sea from the north,
Dazed, holes in their cracked feet.

Restore us to fire. Still,
Communities tear and re-form; and still, a breeze,
Cooling our garrulous evenings, investigates nothing,
Ruffles no tempers, uncovers no root,

And settles no one adrift of the mainland's histories.
Sea Breeze, Bombay is one of those poems of Adil Jussawalla, the writer of Land’s End and Missing Person which can really take us by strike and woe as for the island imagery in the backdrop of the sea surging and the Partition scenario and the aftermath of it and can be reckoned together with Approaching Santa Cruz Airport, Bombay. To read the poem is to be remembered of J.M.Synge’s Riders to the Sea, W.H.Auden’s Look, Stranger!, Dylan Thomas’ Poem in October, John Masefield’s Sea Fever, Arnold’s Dover Beach and Wordsworth’s Upon The Westminster Bridge.

'Sea Breeze, Bombay' is a poem of Bombay telling about the Bombayan men and populace by a Bombay man, what was it in the beginning, how does it look together with in the wake of the camps of the refugees put up. A Bombay, metropolitan, cosmopolitan and almost a commercial hub which it has turned into ultimately, giving refuge and shelter to all, is the picture; the tragic partition of the sub-continent and the bloody aftermath of it shook it all what it was good in humanity and we could not think if men could be monsters. There had been refugees Punjab and its frontiers and adjoining areas. Now the refugees from Tibet too have found a shelter in. 
A poem of Bombay and its cosmopolitanism, Sea Breeze, Bombay is a city poem, telling about the capital which has shelter and refuge to all. The torn and separated people have found time to stitch their tales and redress their wounds.

A poem of five parts or call it break-ups, it has the movement of its own, as the narrative takes the stand. A Partition poem, it is about the Partition People seen in the stories of Train to Pakistan by Khushwant Singh, The Refugee by K.A.Abbas and The Peshawar Express by Krishan Chunder.

Sea Breeze, Bombay is a poem of the tragically dislocated and displaced people which is but the blunder of history which the time will never forgive it. For no fault of them, they suffer as for our political errors and misinterpretations. Against the backdrop of the sea breeze refreshing it always, the city of Bombay pulsates in its own way, giving calm and shelter to all, maybe they the Partition people, as wrecked and distraught humanity finds solace it here, stitching and patching the tales anew.

Sea Breeze, Bombay as a partition poem reminds us of K.A. Abbas’ The Refugee, Khushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan, Krishan Chander’s The Peshawar Express seen through the woe and pathos of the people partitioned and barricaded from entries, leaving their all but in the name of religion and nationalism. Just like a whirlwind or a cyclone, tornado or hurricane, they got uprooted and devastated.

On the one hand the talk of flags and nascent nationalism overtook them, the zealots of independence seeking freedom from while on the other hand the shrouds failed to cover up all. The flags served as the shrouds for those in need. Sind was scissored, Punjab was partitioned, Bengal was, resulting in the influx of the refugees, braving the odds, going on the ways, meeting their ends, dying on the paths, the shelterless people, the refugees.

Many of them went to Delhi, many to Calcutta, many found shelter and refuge in Bombay, the island city of commercial hub and navigation, with a history of its own in attracting people from all over the world through the corridor of history. The harbours, posts and ships will tell the unsaid story themselves how is it busy with bristling activity.

Again the same fate met the Tibetans coming as refugees to settle in Bombay and Dharamshala, H.P. In a different clime and situation, found they placed unaware of the seasons and the clothes needed for. 

Fire which is so sacrosanct purges it all. Let the communities re-knot their ties and strike the roots forgetting their past as Bombay has always welcomed the distraught people, the shipwrecked forlorn brothers.

The sea breeze keeps ruffling it all in a fresh way.

In Sea Breeze, Bombay, the poet also sees it himself, trying to locate and re-locate historically, genealogically. What the history of it where he is now. How was it Bombay it the beginning? What has it turned into? The communities may cross swords, but it retains the same accommodative spirit down the ages. The Sindhis, the Parsis, the Jews, the Christians, the Tibetans, the navigators, shipmen, mariners, it is a city of all those who come to live in here. The coasts and harbours of it have always alluded the foreigners; the beaches of it as the tourist spots. Instead of the scars and wounds of the Partition, the people try to stitch their histories and relationships to rebuild it. 


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...