"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

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. 


Mar 14, 2017

Dhauli: Mahapatra

By: Bijay Kant Dubey

Dhauli is one of the poems taken from the poetry-collection named Waiting written by Jayanta Mahapatra, a poet of note from Orissa and of an Oriya background, historicity, art and culture, but of physics as the subject of his study. Without knowing Orissa and Orissan history, one may not understand what the poet means to say herein as it is a poem of some historical background. Asoka, the battle of Kalinga fought and lost here matter it most and the bloody, gruesome aftermath of it which moved and motivated Asoka so much that he admonished the idea of waging wars at the cost of human loss and casualty, bloodshed and violence. The poet just recreates the scene with a flurry of ideas drawing from existential, nothingness and absurd domains. There is nothing as that to tell historically, but to describe from the light and darkness and the creation of the universe points of view.

Dhauli is actually in the mode of Wilfred Owen’s Futility, the horror and terror, futility and bloodshed of war which but Asoka not Jayanta is thinking. On reading the poem, we feel it whether Asoka is the protagonist of it or Jayanta. It is definitely not of Asoka, but of Jayanta as he keeps ruminating and reminiscing privately and personally.

When the Kaling war was over, the fields and fallows of Dhauli took a different outlook as there scenes would have been terrible, the landscape filled with dead and slain bodies blood-smeared and rotten. It would have cumbersome to cover up it all the gory scene and sight of the deadly bloody war whose images hinged on for posterity to reckon with at war and in peace.

The earth too planned for doing away with in its natural way, covering up slowly the remains and skeletons, burying the existent in due course of time. The wind, rains, heat and dust, rains and wind, birds of prey and animals, time and duration would have helped in coming out of the rut.

The place is the same but with a changed scenario. There is nothing like that as those the things of yore, the events and happenings of the past, only the scars survive it in terms of rock edicts telling of the battle as does he Tennyson in The Charge of The Last Brigade.

Jayanta Mahapatra as a poet is not for pleasure-giving, but instead of adds to our woe and misery, instead of lightening taxes our mood. Poetry should be for pleasure too, but rather than that he makes us somber and grim-faced.

The first stanza of the poem deals with the Kalinga war and the instant aftermath of it, what it happened thereafter when the war was over:

Afterwards when the wars of Kalinga were over,
the fallow fields of Dhauli
hid the blood-spilt butchered bodies.
The red-smeared voiceless bodies left attended or unattended would have been the scene to strike with awe and horror.

The second stanza tells of the natural process of the earth to dispense and do away with. Wind, heat, dust, rains, time, soil and grass play their part.

As the earth
burrowed into their dead hunger
with its merciless worms,
guided the foxes to their limp genitals.

The third stanza tells of what it stays and what not. There is nothing that lies written it here. Everything is but in the process of time and this time has a duration to follow in its trail. The evening  different with a mood of own to recreate. The waters of the Daya fresh and fine tickling over the edicts, singing of its murmur and flow rather than the rock edicts.

Years later, the evening wind,
trembling the glazed waters of the River Daya,
keens in the rock edicts the vain word,
like the voiceless cicadas of night:

The fourth and last stanza sums up as thus:

the measure of Asoka's suffering
does not appear enough.
The place of his pain peers lamentably
from among the pains of the dead.

Asoka’s suffering does not appear to be enough. What is more important was the loss and casualty inflicted upon the Odia psyche. What it devastated most is the Kalinga war and its consequences. The pains of the Odias there was none to nurture and heal, balm and bandage and it was only in course of time.






Mar 6, 2017

Summer: Mahapatra

Fourth YouTube Vidoe "Coleridge and Romanticism"

Link to Our channel: 

By Bijay Kant Dubey

Summer is one of those typical poems of Jayanta Mahapatra wherein he clutches along so many ideas and images to present his thesis and anti-thesis as George Bernard Shaw is in his talks and dramas of ideas and Samuel Beckett incorporating in the existential and absudistic things into the plays of his to dip into the absurdities of life and the world. What the purpose of life, who can but say it? Why are we here? A poet who is so private and personal, intricate and complex, linguistic and imagistic frolicking with word-play here in this poem takes to feminism, fatalism and palmistry, bare realism, rural landscape, Indian poverty and the gusts of summer ruffling it all with the scorching heat and dust, the sun falling so strong and the earth parching, people perspiring. Against the backdrop of all this, he portrays the life of the little girl seeing the lousy hair of her mother in the mango orchard, seeking for relief from the scorching summer. 

Poverty, illiteracy, underdevelopment and life under impoverished circumstances form the crux of his poetry and the present poem is no exception to that. Taking summer, he says many a thing, somewhere about the good wife taking a siesta by being unaware of the pyre burning far and the choric voices coming to, his sexuality and also about the passing of heat and humidity under the mango tree. Somewhere he has described the Vedic and Upanishadic chants doing the rounds in the rock-built classical temples seconded by the movement of the crocodiles moving deep into the waters. The pundits and the devotees take midday meal late into the afternoon after the temple worship reciting mantras and doing the holy rituals as for confession of guilt and purification and purging of souls, good days to prevail upon with a note of benediction and foreboding of good, seeking blessings for all, peace for all, shantih, shantih for mind, heart and soul.

Summer by Jayanta is just like A Summer Poem written by him, but is different in some ways. It is the specialty of the poet that he chooses very often the same title to express it differently and similar is the case with this poem. An Indian summer poem, it is more of rural life and the country, the hamlets and thorps burning in scorching heat and summer with mother and daughter sitting in the orchard and that too under the mango tree forms the scene of the poem under our scrutiny and perusal. The secluded country with the hamlets and thorps and the mango groves portrayed against the burning sensation, scorching heat form the scenic background of the poem.

In the midst of scorching heat and dust, ruffle and hot wind, he tells of mother and daughter, their passing of time, destiny and lot seconded with the dropping of the mango somewhere. Here the image refreshes the memory of Blake’s The Little black Boy, how she nurses him under shading against the odds of life. When the poet talks of the uncertain future of the little girl, he hints towards the monstrous dowry system and the resultant state of womanhood in India. R.K.Narayanin astrologer who seems to foretell her future is perhaps a thug, the great Indian thug. 

What it is in her destiny, who can but say it? What will the astrologer guess about? The crisscrosses of her fate only God knows it. Where will she end up becoming Sati, Savitri or Sita, Kunti or Draupadi, Surpanakha or Hididmba or Putana? Who is she? Patita or Punita? In search of purity where did we go to? We made stupendous temples just to house in gods and goddesses, not for ourselves. Even today the foreigners startle at seeing the architectural feat of the masons and architects, but they living in their poor hutments. While on the other hand the Sati system, child marriage, patriarchal hegemony tell the poor plight of ours, how maltreatment was meted out to them. The second question is, what have we done from the developmental point of view? What have we after the independence of India? What have we for the women, widows and children? Poor India’s poor tales, what to say about them? The slaps and beats of the loo, heat wave sizzling and sucking blood R.Parthasarathy has felt it in his poem Delhi against the backdrop of medievalism and foreign invasion of it while walking into tombstones and mausoleums.

The girl unaware of her lot is seeing the hair of her mother, the dandruffy and lousy hair of her mother. The astrologer, palmist and soothsayer cannot see her fate lines, the crisscrosses of her destiny rather than predicting their own. History tells it that they have subjected womankind to inhuman treatment and cruelty, domestic violence and bruise, putting and pushing behind the bars. But here a ten-year old village girl child oblivious of it all, her fate and destiny and good luck, keeps caressing her mother as well as lying in wait for the fall of the mango.

As a poem it brings to our memory so many things said and unsaid and the images conjure upon automatically. Summer is of the snakes and scorpions, jasmines and other fragrant flowers. The cool shades of the banyan, peepul and mango trees delight us giving shelter from heat and perspiration. The Indian rural homes made from mud and thatched add to the woes. The sun burnt earth blazes it during the summer time. It rains fire during the moths of Jyestha and Baisakh. At that time Eliot’s search for water, thunder and rains and the prayers to Indra appear endearing to us. Khushant Singh too starts searching for water melon and lassi, lemon water, salad and pudina chutney. Onion helps us in beating the loo. Cold water from earthen pitchers refresh us.

One should not forget it that summer is the season of cold drinks, sweet mangoes, black berries and dates.

To start the poem with, Not yet appears strange and non-conventional too. Does he mean to say that it is not totally about summer but something more inducted in? Does he want to take to sociologically delving into the rural and country space and landscape? How is life in the country round the years? How the living conditions and life of the people?

The lines are exquisitely beautiful when he says,
Under the mango tree
The cold ash of a deserted fire.

The idea may be archetypal taking back to The Retreat of Vaughan, but here the context is different. The poet means to say that the things keep swapping places and positions. What it is today will not be tomorrow, what it was is it not now and what it is now will be different tomorrow. The mass is the same, but the shapes keep changing.

When the poet talks of, he seems to be suggesting it something different from all these:
A ten-year-old girl
combs her mother's hair,
where crows of rivalries
are quietly nesting.

Here lie in the things of nestling as the crows and cuckoos do it after interplaying it all, here lie in the things of rivalry which the feminine self is unaware of. Where will life take to ultimately? How will it go trending? The things are much of D.H.Lawrence’s The Fox novella where Henry the soldier intrudes upon the solitude of March and Banford and disrupts their life completely as the support system collapses it ultimately.

Under the mango there was a hearth which the ashes tell of that somebody passed it, cooked under the cool shade of, maybe a gipsy or a vagabond or a picnicker sometime back.

Which way the things will spin, it is very difficult to say with regard to Mahapatra as he is very intriguing and coquettish too apart from being intricate, complex and tedious. 

Not yet.
Under the mango tree
The cold ash of a deserted fire.

Who needs the future?

A ten-year-old girl
combs her mother's hair,
where crows of rivalries
are quietly nesting.

The home will never
be hers.

In a corner of her mind
a living green mango
drops softly to earth. 

Feb 24, 2017

Gitanjali: Tagore

YouTube
Literarism's YouTube link for the fourth  video on the Romantic Nature in the Poetry of Romantic Poets





I know not how thou singest, my master! from Gitanjali
by Bijay Kant Dubey

I know not how thou singest, my master! is the number three song included in Gitanjali carrying on the same bhakti stream of thought and delving with utmost devotion and dedication to the Divine who is  not only the Creator, but the Preserver and the Destroyer.  A poem of three line-breaks, we mean stanzas, it carries on the same thought which it marks Gitanjali, the poem is no variation on it. Barring the sing-song quality, looking back in admiration, there is nothing more in it.

The poet says it that he knows it not how to sing. How to appreciate and admire the Divine; accept His Gifts in utter thankfulness? He just listens to in amazement. The songs he has sung are the songs mundane and mortal, but the Lord-God the Singer Divine, the Singer of singers. The melody of his songs will engulf with mellifluousness.

The light of His Music illumines the whole world and it runs from sky to sky. The holy stream with its pearly waters rushes through the fine and fair works of nature and the wild. Who has made them? Whose creation is this? It is but of God. God has made them.

On hearing the song, he too wants to join in, but how to sing it as he has not got proper words and melodies of it to continue. The speech breaks it not into songs and he feels baffled. Ah, it is His Love which but mesmerizes him, it is His Love which is but entangles him with maya and moha! The bonds of maya are boundless.

‘I know not how thou singest, my master!’ actually is in the form of prayer approaching the divine and that too in appreciation and acknowledgement. The poet too sings the songs, but his songs are not as much those by the Almighty.

The words thou singest and listen in silent amazement add to the poem, the light of thy music illumines, the life breath of thy music runs from sky to sky and the holy stream of thy music breaks are prominent in the second stanza.

The line, Ah, thou hast made my heart captive in the endless meshes of thy music, my master! is central to the understanding of the poem and expresses the philosophy of the poem.

To appreciate Tagore in the absence of Surdas, Kabirdas, Mirabai and other poets of the Bhakti Age of Indian poetry will be injustice to them. The work is in the same lineage and tradition of thought and idea, is no exception to them. Tagore has just moulded them; presented afresh if seen from that angle otherwise these are novel. Classical love poetry has held us over the ages with its mellifluousness and sway. Can we negate Rashkhan and Rahim?

Apart from devotional love poetry, Tagore has got benefited from his reading of English classics and the Holy Bible which one can mark in the use of the vocabulary. The Singer, the Divine Singer and Nature are the cardinal points around which the poem revolves.

I KNOW not how thou singest, my 
master ! I ever listen in silent amaze- 
ment. 

The light of thy music illumines the 
world. The life breath of thy music 
runs from sky to sky. The holy stream 
of thy music breaks through all stony 
obstacles and rushes on. 

My heart longs to join in thy song, 
but vainly struggles for a voice. I 
would speak, but speech breaks not into 
song, and I cry out baffled. Ah, thou 
hast made my heart captive in the end- 
less meshes of thy music, my master!





YouTube
Literarism's YouTube link for the fourth  video on the Romantic Nature in the Poetry of Romantic Poets

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...