A First Look at Politics In Poetry
by Samartha Vashishtha
Note: The observations in this essay were recorded in 2001. Much has changed since then, and I have seen some leading Hindi magazines like Pahal give due weightage recently to translation of Indian poems written originally in English.
Let's face it as it is - Indian English Poetry is one of the most neglected traditions of modern Indian poetry. To the extent that many of the writers writing in Indian languages are oblivious of the fact that a considerable fraction of Indians use the English language as their medium of poetic expression. And if it is so, it is too serious a humiliation to be ignored by the victims.
Not once in the 4-5 years that I've been a serious reader of poetry in Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu (besides English), have I seen a translated Indian English poem in print. But, on the contrary, every now and then, one can read in prominent literary magazines selections from foreign poets, often re-translated from the English translations of the originals. Pablo Neruda, Nicnor Parra (Spanish), Miroslav Holub (Czech), Boris Pasternack (Russian), Afzal Ahmed Sayyed (Urdu), to name a few. The present article is an attempt to examine the prominent causes of this prejudice against Indian English poets.
A few weeks back, I had the good chance to meet a prominent 'progressive pro-people' (pragatisheel janvadi) Hindi novelist, short-story writer and poet of national standing living in our city. I had gone to his place on prior appointment precisely to recite some of my poems to him, and benefit from his comments and suggestions - the obvious motive that a young poet would have in mind when approaching a senior accomplished poet. The gentleman refused to listen any more after I had recited a couple of short poems on Simla; and passed the verdict that the poems were good as far as my age was concerned, but lacked a certain nucleus. "What nucleus," I wondered. "Pratibaddhata (commitment)," he replied, "poetry that would be of use to the common man."
"That how snow-flakes inspired by sunlight challenged the supreme authority of God in Simla is useless to describe," he added. He further clarified that it was only because I wrote in English that my poems were finding place in a few literary magazines. That if I were a Hindi poet, I would struggle to publish my work, unless I was committed to the pro-people, to be exact, Marxist ideals and the same reflected in my writings. He didn't bother to listen to any more of my poems, and volunteered to answer my queries, if any, regarding creative writing. I raised a very straight question - that if Marxism was the need of the hour, how had Indian English Poetry managed to carve a niche for itself in so short a time-span, and gain worldwide recognition without having to paste a label on its forehead? "Leave English aside," he retorted. "It's the language of the imperialist, and all the important awards that are awarded to English writers are manipulated. The writers themselves are manipulative. Most of them have 'bases' in foreign lands." I thought it wise not to engage in any further confrontation with the gentleman on the issue.
I'd perhaps have accepted the logic put forward by the veteran writer without doubt, had I not spotted earlier a glaring paradox right in his camp. I translate below part of the prefatory note that Paash (1950-1989), one of the leading poets of the Jujharu (rebel) era of Punjabi poetry; and arguably one of the finest poets (pro-people, should I say?) of the 20th Century, wrote for his third book of poems Saade Samiyan Vich (In Our Times), 1978: "Of those whose poetry has influenced me the most, Kamala Das is still alive. Kalidas left for heaven long back. As for now, I would like to thank Kamala Das. Neruda and Nazim belong to our own camp. So no need to thank them at all."
If Indian English Poetry were really that incapable and backward a tradition of poetry, why would a poet, whom the 'progressives' revere so highly, express his gratitude for a poet belonging to it - that too in 1978 - just 26 years after the publication of A Time to Change and Other Poems, arguably the first major publication by a modern Indian English poet! As far as the question of the global capitalist identity of English poetry is concerned, if it is true, how would one classify the poetry of the Nigerian Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka; or explain why most of the contact that Indians can boast of with world poetry is through the English language? And if Communist regimes are really that conducive to free literature, why should writers like Boris Pasternack (Dr. Zhivago), or more recently, Gao Xingjian (Soul Mountain, the 2000 Nobel Prize Winner) have had to publish their Nobel Prize winning works in exile? More important still is the fundamental question - that can poets be expected to write good and relevant poetry sitting in watertight compartments? Or to be exact, how far is the politicalization of poetry justified?
Then even more confusing a situation arises when the poets claiming to be 'pro-people' demonstrate their mutual divisions. One camp refuses to recognize the poets belonging to another as poets even! How amusing it is to note that some fractions of Indian Literati are presumptuous enough to call Gajanan Madhav Muktibodh's poems illegitimate, while some others consider him the finest Indian poet of the last century. The logic put forward - how would the common man benefit from, or even understand, a poem as complex in structure as Chand Ka Munh Terha Hai or Brahmarakshasa? And how easily the people grasp 'pro-people' poetry is common knowledge. They skip it at first glance itself.
It took me two weeks of a dedicated study schedule to understand, to the best of my ability, Afzal Ahmed Sayyed's beautiful, but difficult, 38 poems published in the form of a book-magazine by Pahal, the leading Hindi literary magazine. Some poems needed as many as five readings. The point that I wish to make through stating all this is that in the present literary scenario, isn't it quite obvious that poetry reaches only a select few - a fraction of the intelligentsia, to be precise; and that the common man is too preoccupied with his everyday business to decode the advice embodied in a poem? And that with so many confusing statements to its credit, how can a fraction of literati hope to draw a common consensus on polarizing a writing form as personal in nature as poetry; or literature, on the whole? That shouldn't a poet be allowed even the simple freedom of choosing his themes - to talk about his own suffering; and human suffering, in general - or, above all, to write without having to decide whether he is a Marxist or not?
As far as Indian English Poets are concerned, the question still remains the same. Can us be, on any pretext, be segregated from the a mainstream of Indian poetry just on the basis of our language of expression, despite the fact that we are in direct contact with as many, or even more, poetic traditions as poets writing in Indian languages? And when Indian literary journals in English give adequate representation to poetry translated from Indian languages, why don't the journals of Indian languages reciprocate the gesture? And that why is the Indian English Poet not considered competent enough to be nominated for the Jnanpith Award?
That if poetry is a commodity, have we been wrong all this while?
First published in FreshLimeSoda.