Be a Member of this BLOG

Midnight’s Children (Movie)


Literarism is now on You Tube only to provide knowledge through the popular media and to make new registered scholar’s understanding better with the help of best literary-lectures, movies, and documentaries. Here is the link for our channel


The requirement is your registration with authentic email and everything is fully free.



Regards
Literarism

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.”
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...