WRITER'S WORLD

FROM THE NOTE BOOK (5)

In my earlier blog I quoted a two and half page excerpt from The Hungry Tide of Amitav Ghosh. Portrayal of some characters by some authors appear to be very similar (not in every respect, of course) to someone very close to us. In this context Piya reminded me of my daughter for her stubborn idealism, never say die attitude. This may not attract many who are after a soft life of affluence and comfort. In the instant case the author did not compromise with cheap ridicule the yearning of those who opt for such lives. Rather, his admiration was quite prominent. That is what attracted me towards these lines.

Those who are devoted to various art forms they are not concerned with a dissertation on political economy. He or she might have sound or unsound political or philosophical ideas and this may or may not affect his or her creative products, literary or otherwise. We saw Beethoven effusive after Napolean’s take over of Austria. This single fact did not lower his greatness. We found Tagore charmed by Mussolini’s fascistic ideas till Rolland removed the spell over him. We know Knut Hamsun was frankly a fascist politically but his creativity was not burdened by that. Nearer home we saw Sarat Chandra lecturing Hindu communalism and at the same time creating wonderful character of Gafur in Mahesh. While discussing Herzen or Shaw Lenin took this dialectical appraisal of creative world. Most of our confusions stem from an obstinate abs olutism. In such a world, to quote Herzen, “we are not doctors, we are the disease.”

I am not highly conversant with Amitav Ghosh’s works. I have heard a lot about him, read only a couple of his books. These were all inspired by the fact of his being an award winning celebrity. I do not have competence to judge him. In fact I feel so far as lives and happenings of estuarine Bengal are concerned Manik Bandopadhya wrote a better book. I mean his Padma Nadir Majhi (the boatman of Padma). Still, I liked Ghosh’s The Hungry Tide for its own qualities. Manik Bandopadhya could have written in English for he was quite competent in English language and literature, or he could have himself translated the book. In the unfortunate narrow confines of those times this did not happen. One more thing. In literary appreciation the reader looks for synchronization and harmony between content and form. A writer may not be able to achieve this always inspite of his best efforts. Manik Bandopadhya died with this anguish.

RATAN TATA's OPEN LETTER-A FEW THOUGHTS

Ratan Tata’s open letter (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081017/jsp/frontpage/story_9980686.jsp) to the citizens of Bengal, published in most of the dailies of West Bengal on 17th October last has definitely created an interesting situation. After the stun wore off it was found that most of the few reactions that came out were of mute sort. Let us not worry much with the contents of the letter. At different times Ratan Tata made many such statements. What is remarkable this time is Ratan’s frank show of interest in West Bengal’s politics. Very few people in this country who roam around the world of high capital find this activity interesting. Ratan Tata apparently belongs to this minority group. Ratan Tata heads world’s one of the most important capitalist organizations. It can hardly be expected that he would unnecessarily indulge in infantilism of getting pleasure from letter writing. He is one of the most erudite businessmen of India. He spent lots of years at one of the best universities of the USA, entry to which is not governed by donations from paternal inheritance, maternal uncle’s pull or Arjun Singh’s Scheduled caste quota. Entry to which is very strictly on merit. It is to be noted that on the same day Cornell University’s web site came out with the news that Tata Education Trust has donated to Cornell University a grant of 50 million dollars. 25 million for a research in depth on India’s food production problems, nutritional problems and problems related to hunger in India. Other 25 million for enhanced scholarship and assistance to Indian and other deserving students joining the university. Mr. Tata was an outstanding alumnus of Cornell.

Here no paean is intended for Mr. Tata. Let us take a look at the things from a classical angle. By all parameters Ratan Tata is a bourgeois. A bourgeois is the representative of the newest mode of production, capitalism has thrown up .Let us be very clear bourgeois is not an abusive term, as some half baked Marxists with a dismal sense of history wants to suggest. Whatever science and history we are dabbling with are the results of six hundred years of bourgeois development. Abut a decade or two back I suddenly had a feeling that different editions of Communist Manifesto bore the subtle signs of predilections of the individual editors in different editions. Not major occurrence, but very important to take note of. After the words “hitherto existing society” (page 2, paragraph 1) some editions do not care to bear the footnote mentioning Morgan’s reference to primitive communistic society. In some editions in the concluding paragraphs there are lines suggesting that confronted with the insoluble contradictions presented by the existing mode of production some sections of enlightened bourgeoisie may cross over to the cause for a change as demanded by the working class. In some editions we do not find such lines.

There is a possibility that there were some such lines. It does not compromise the contentions of the manifesto. There are myriad sections of capitalists who keenly follow the developments in the workers’ movements. We read in Howard Fast’s Being Red a few American industrialists who were in the same ship while sailing to England asking Howard Fast whether he followed the Wall Street Journal regularly. While Fast confessed that he did not they tell him that they regularly followed the Daily Worker the mouthpiece of the American communist party? Even in this age of bourgeois decadence there are elements of bourgeoisie who could be concerned about the future of mankind. And Mr. Tata could be one of them who are concerned about West Bengal. There is no cause of uproar. The contradiction is that Ratan Tata is not addressing the Bengalis of Bengal renaissance period. He is addressing a people smitten with history’s most touching tragedies. His efforts become pointless in the face of the dialectics of the situation, which he fails to appreciate.