Naipaul’s challenge

The Bengali renaissance came up with definitive approaches to a range of activities that we refer to as “culture”. Literature, history, music, painting, sculpture, religion, moral philosophy, political economy and social studies were all covered and an attempt was made to address the historical predicament of not just the Bengalis, but of the people of India in a manner remarkable for its energy, its honesty and the sheer exuberance of its multi-tonal talent. The individuals behind this movement were certainly influenced by the West. But they did not succumb to lazy imitation and acceptance of ideologies that had no relevance to their own environment. They were equally influenced by ancient and medieval Indian civilisation, by Adivasi traditions and by the plain fact of deprivation of every kind which haunted their countrymen during their own lifetimes. To these influences they applied the test of their own judgments; judgments arrived at after much thought and debate. If Indians exist today as one people under one set of laws with a modicum of shared aspirations, we owe it to the Bengali “torch-bearers” of the 19th century.

To allow our national intellectual debate to be hijacked by post-modernists cocooned in exile as tenured professors in American universities or by adherents of totalitarian political traditions which have been discredited in their own homelands would be a great folly. The debate has to be in India and has to be undertaken by people with meaningful economic, political and cultural stakes in India. The vocabulary that governs this debate needs to be developed in India today. If Michael Madhusudan Dutt could create a “new” language, so must we. By reaching out to both poetry and music Tagore created something new, but he also connected back to the traditions of Jaidev and Vidyapati. Before Bankim, there was no Indian novel. But his novels were not imitation European novels. He wove into them the tradition of the “sutradhar”. Rammohun defended the Upanishads and condemned suttee. Vivekananda advocated activism as opposed to prevalent Hindoo lassitude, but he did it by harking back to Vedantic traditions, not by rejecting them. Daridra-narayana was a new contribution to a heartless caste-ridden society done with such finesse that no one notices its radical nature. Jamini Roy is the epitome of “modernism” in art and his modernism is tied up with the Adivasi aesthetic experience. Notice that none of the Bengali greats regressed into blind veneration of re-interpreted versions of India’s past! Not one embraced narrow-minded chauvinism. Rammohun pleaded for English education. Tagore was even skeptical of the Swadeshi movement as he feared (and rightly so) that it appealed to atavism.

Our intellectual forbears have set us an example. In 2005, it is time we finally say goodbye to one hundred years of obsession with politics, especially the politics of opposition and confrontation. We must completely reject the mindset of discredited totalitarian ideologies (we hope “probasi” Bengalis take the lead and, who knows, Buddha-babu may still surprise us!). The discourse must cover every aspect of our emerging culture and ensure that it is a lively one embracing the outside world while seeking the well-springs of our collective unconscious and dealing with the continued prevalence of wretchedness for so many of our fellow-citizens (“they of the thin legs”). It is not an easy task. One of our finest directors, Shekhar Kapoor, made a film on Elizabeth I. It ends with the statement that in her lifetime, England changed from an unimportant country on the periphery of the continent to become Europe’s richest country. And we all know that England’s riches included poetry and drama in the same measure as her gold and her wool. It is up to us to decide if we wish to create an Elizabethan England or a Florence of the Medicis. Hopefully, we will not settle for a false paradise of the Prussian or Leninist kind.

The writer is chairman & CEO, MphasiS. Write to him at jerryrao@expressindia.com