India is a big country. The majority of its people are Hindu. They write in languages influenced by Sanskrit. Yet Gopal focuses entirely on Muslim authors writing in Urdu. These authors had no influence on Muslim politics or the trajectory of Pakistan- the country which adopted Urdu as its national language. They don't represent any sort of 'Radicalism' but rather a historical cul de sac.
Gopal writes-
This passages raises a number of questions-
1) Gopal says she values 'diversity'. Yet in a book on Indian radicalism she only picks Muslim writers.
She considers Zaheer and Chugtai and Manto and Abbas as 'diverse'. They aren't at all. Zaheer was a Communist who emigrated to Pakistan but was thrown out. In India he settled into a comfortable, Soviet funded, gesture political careerism wholly divorced from any sort of 'Radicalism'. Like Zaheer, Rashid Jahan was a Communist who died in Moscow. On the other hand, she was a Doctor and might have had a positive contribution to make to India. Chugtai was a more significant figure than Jahan but that significance lay in giving a small proportion of the old Ashraf elite a way of becoming indistinguishable from an upwardly mobile Khatri Hindu commercial middle class. But, this only occurred in the dream world of Bollywood and the rarefied heights of nepotistic academo-bureaucratic service to the Dynasty. Manto, who had some literary talent, had a different trajectory. He left Bollywood for Pakistan and, not being a programmatic, was left alone there. But his writing turned nihilistic. Abbas was a successful and prolific writer and film-maker. However, unlike Tamil or Telugu Cinema, Bollywood had little political impact. It was a 'dream factory', nothing more. Abbas's 'radicalism' was worthless. It changed nothing.
2) Gopal thinks she is bringing 'wider critical attention' to certain texts. Why can't she understand that those texts had already received the only sort of 'critical attention' that matters for Radical writing? It was the contemporary readers of these authors who judged their work and found them wanting. The great mass of Urdu speakers who had read 'Angaarey' decided to support Jinnah. Is Post Colonial theory something that should be done for its own sake? Why? Physics and Mathematics and Biology may be studied for their own sake because there are spin off benefits for the Economy. PoCo shite is just a careerist Avaliability Cascade for people too stupid to study anything useful.
3) As Edward Said pointed out 50 years ago, people teaching Literature used to have a good reading knowledge of four or five Modern and at least two Classical languages. The over-expansion of the Academy diluted standards. Students became almost unbelievably stupid. Said had to warn his Post Graduate students that Dr. Jonathan Swift was not actually advocating that they stir turds into their coco-pops. The dude wasn't a Medical Doctor. Gulliver's travels was satirical. Also there's this thing called 'irony'. Look it up.
Gopal thinks it is important to 'reconstellate' an essentially worthless activity. Why? What possible good could it do?
India has had a lot of very successful Literary Radicalism. The linguistic reorganization of the States was driven by Literary Radicalism. Regional parties have created a new middle class- sometimes by using strong arm tactics- and this has been cheered on by 'Radical' poets who, like Sri Sri, ended up supporting the local equivalent of NTR and the 'Andhrapreneurs' who backed him.
This passages raises a number of questions-
1) Gopal says she values 'diversity'. Yet in a book on Indian radicalism she only picks Muslim writers.
She considers Zaheer and Chugtai and Manto and Abbas as 'diverse'. They aren't at all. Zaheer was a Communist who emigrated to Pakistan but was thrown out. In India he settled into a comfortable, Soviet funded, gesture political careerism wholly divorced from any sort of 'Radicalism'. Like Zaheer, Rashid Jahan was a Communist who died in Moscow. On the other hand, she was a Doctor and might have had a positive contribution to make to India. Chugtai was a more significant figure than Jahan but that significance lay in giving a small proportion of the old Ashraf elite a way of becoming indistinguishable from an upwardly mobile Khatri Hindu commercial middle class. But, this only occurred in the dream world of Bollywood and the rarefied heights of nepotistic academo-bureaucratic service to the Dynasty. Manto, who had some literary talent, had a different trajectory. He left Bollywood for Pakistan and, not being a programmatic, was left alone there. But his writing turned nihilistic. Abbas was a successful and prolific writer and film-maker. However, unlike Tamil or Telugu Cinema, Bollywood had little political impact. It was a 'dream factory', nothing more. Abbas's 'radicalism' was worthless. It changed nothing.
2) Gopal thinks she is bringing 'wider critical attention' to certain texts. Why can't she understand that those texts had already received the only sort of 'critical attention' that matters for Radical writing? It was the contemporary readers of these authors who judged their work and found them wanting. The great mass of Urdu speakers who had read 'Angaarey' decided to support Jinnah. Is Post Colonial theory something that should be done for its own sake? Why? Physics and Mathematics and Biology may be studied for their own sake because there are spin off benefits for the Economy. PoCo shite is just a careerist Avaliability Cascade for people too stupid to study anything useful.
3) As Edward Said pointed out 50 years ago, people teaching Literature used to have a good reading knowledge of four or five Modern and at least two Classical languages. The over-expansion of the Academy diluted standards. Students became almost unbelievably stupid. Said had to warn his Post Graduate students that Dr. Jonathan Swift was not actually advocating that they stir turds into their coco-pops. The dude wasn't a Medical Doctor. Gulliver's travels was satirical. Also there's this thing called 'irony'. Look it up.
Gopal thinks it is important to 'reconstellate' an essentially worthless activity. Why? What possible good could it do?
India has had a lot of very successful Literary Radicalism. The linguistic reorganization of the States was driven by Literary Radicalism. Regional parties have created a new middle class- sometimes by using strong arm tactics- and this has been cheered on by 'Radical' poets who, like Sri Sri, ended up supporting the local equivalent of NTR and the 'Andhrapreneurs' who backed him.
Since Marxism is just an elitist con, this Radicalism may not be recognisable as such to an obviously stupid careerist like Gopal. This does not mean it should be studied even by stupid people at the College level. Unless, obviously, they are willing to pay the full cost themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment