On Cultural Front by Sri Ritwik Ghatak We are witnessing a curious phenomenon to-day. We are witnessing an unprecedented expansion of progressive influence in the cultural sphere. By their art creation and by professing, many common artistes of professional and other are showing that they are drawing more and more near the people. Artistes are taking up the cause of the people. What is curious in it? It is a matter of rejoicing for us. But it is curious all the same. It is curious because no communist artiste is working among them, no communist influence by example is guiding them to-day. In fact, our artistes in those spheres are miserable figures and are glad, for all practical purposes, to remain so. This is curious. This is not only curious; it seems monstrous when we remember the particular smug complacency we are in. We are hurrying and bustling and talking and running, and all the while we are actually sitting on the movement; we, the communist artistes. Not a single art-work of high value has come from us in the last four years. We are reviving the past works of ourselves, or rehashing it and giving it a new name, or else creating amateurish third-raters. And all the while, we remain "talkers-in-chiefd". This is definitely monstrous. And the few truly creative artistes among us are going away and away from the Party day by day. The facts are telling us so. If and when asked, we have stock answers to these things. The most repeated among them are - "There is lack of any Party line on Culture," "party itself does not care", "Party is glad in the way we are working"," Joshi's Golden Period should descend again for the sake of Culture", etc., etc. Another sort of answer one may hope to get. Cold shoulders. Any uneasy question will immediately draw vague allusions to the condition of the Party, the Country, the Organization and then silence. Some times one may look forward to the pleasure of having presented with statistics and figures of repetitions our works have gone through, sometimes even numbers of cadre engaged and groups of workers functioning, will come to you as answer to the query concerning high artwork. Have they no value? This is the crux of the matter. Everything has value; but when one loses proportion, one substitutes value of one for value of the other. It seems that we are doomed to remain where we are to-day.

But blaming ourselves only is injustice unto us, though to our minds, we have had quite a measure of over-justice and deserve some injustice for a change. Anyway, Party must come in for criticism. It is, in fact, the superficial, coaxing manner of the Party that has allowed these things to grow. Party generally sees cultural front in two ways - one, as a 'money-earning machine' (these are harsh words we know, but it just cannot be helped), and, two, as mobilizes in meetings and conferences, to keep the crowd (and not masses) engaged with whatever we can offer. And when Peace Council or some such body gives a slogan on Culture, Party, through its Committees at different levels, calls us and asks us to execute the routine. This is disheartening. More disheartening it is when even really serious comrades of Party Committees and other fields of activities become reticent, indifferent rather, whenever anything concerning Culture comes up: "That is culture, comrades, and we know nothing of your problems, and we have such and such jobs at hand, we have such and such engagements, and so-and-so is busy with those problems, and we are overworked, and we are fighting to cope with sudden expansion of Party's influence, and with the building of mass organizations, and with the Democratic Front, and all and sundry.......... Some other time, comrades," That other time never comes. At least it has not come in the last few years. Something or other has bobbed up like proverbial Cromwell's head, and attention of the Party becomes focused upon it. This is extremely disheartening. It is sad but truthful to admit that if we are to get the ear of the Party, we must show the benefit accruing to the Party as a whole, and not Culture, party is more interested in getting things from Culture at present. It is very difficult to determine how much Party cares for culture as the peoples' property. It is also sad but truthful to admit that all that is going on among us, all the sayings of us and other comrades, show a singular lack of understanding of what is needed, what we are losing, and what is the way out. Such is the condition to-day. It has to be declared unequivocally that the problem of culture is basically the problem of organization-at all levels-the Party, the Platform, the Art. It has to be declared unequivocally that attitude of diffidence of the comrades, however sincere, is objectively broadening the gulf and cleavage between the Party and the cultural workers.

It has to be declared unequivocally that all that is needed from the Party is legitimate Party attention and no more; special problems of art, comrades, concerned themselves are fit to solve. It has to be declared unequivocally that Party is losing much by this attitude and is allowing a grave chance of danger to develop within the Party. It has to be declared unequivocally that our lack of creation is not the result of lack of party-line on Culture, but lack of organized and serious effort in ourselves. It has to be declared unequivocally that a golden period is not what we are after, but the proper place in the body of the Party and share in Party rights and responsibilities. All these have to be declared unequivocally and in clear-cut language to-day, so that Party can impose discipline on Cultural Front, we can understand our tasks in building the Democratic Front and people can be roused and enthused through our art-work. This task is on the order of the day. This task has to be executed to-day. We propose, in this paper, to show that the problems are of organizational nature and not ideological. Organization is the key to the whole problem. We shall divide our discussions in three parts, all 'evolving round the central point of organization, and hence try to arrive at a conclusion. We shall take up special problems pertaining to our work and we hope to show that they are nothing insurmountable. In our work, we come into contact with the Party, the propel through our Platforms, and with our own Art. They present three sets of problems, though intricately interconnected. We have tried to remember this fact in our discussions. We hope that Party will circulate this among the comrades. We are giving vent to whatever we think needs to be uttered, in the form that we think will best clarify our points. Such plain talking also, we think, is on the order of the day. We know that to give expression to all we hold dear and to take them where they belong to among the masses, to do all this and reach quality, is our task, the approach of the Communist We also know that the moment we start to do these, the other side becomes immediately important, because we may lose balance and defeat our own purpose by becoming isolated, this is a question of two-pronged offensive, How should we proceed to fulfill them? We must proceed by admitting that we are in a very poor way indeed so far as Bourgeois Culture goes, we have to take all that is good in them, which they contain in profusion. Then we have to proceed to reshape them to achieve our goals, harness them to our purpose, and reach our conclusions which are logical conclusions inherent in them and are crying for release. Our comrades should work among these artistes,

work creatively, work to learn "melody and speech" and method of "utterance", that is the form, the mode of handling philosophic content, - mainly, mainly, and mainly. This form is of decisive importance today. It means learning the trade, in its variety of approach and utilization. It means the respectful study of past with scrupulous care and learning the past experiments and achievements recorded. It means learning the whole process of it. from the inception of theme-content, through stages of development to final Art-product. It means learning that other truth, secret of inspiration and intensity and sublimity of feeling. And finally, it means learning that all this process is not so simple as 2 plus 2 = 4; we can not rigidly fix down phases of the process, because it is a creative process. Actually, we have ever so much to learn – indeed. And in such matters "haste and sweeping measures are worst possible things". 'Slogans' will never do here; slow, methodical, tenacious work is what is called for. It is an Adults' business-to start with, and to the end. Dramas by our dramatists, Production services of our Reissues, Songs written and put to tune by our composers and allied creative pieces are to be pushed towards common artistes continually. We must strive to make them accept such primary works so that they may come to know and then to respect our sincerety, honesty of purpose and artistic caliber. We do not mean the non-Party minority (who are mostly close sympathizers), who are with us today and who are a valuable possession; we mean really non-Party people and really artistes - SPECIALISTS of high standing and ability. To push our creative pieces of primary nature towards and among them, and to make them accept these, is no mean job. It can be done only in one way-high artistic value and sincerity of content. There is another place of contact from our point of view, a possible source of reserve forces, a potential sinking fund, so to speak. They are amateurs of localities. We have already said that from overall Party point of view, they are a part of mass organization building problems. Generally, they are treated as such, and we cannot expect any radical change in that approach. But we must understand that we have to look at them from that angle; at the same time, from the standpoint of Culture. They are the breeding ground, the fountain-head, the source of new cadres. We must work among them, educate them, learn life through them, enthuse the worthy among them to be more serious. This last is the point. Among them there are sparks, those Promethean sparks. In all probability there are more sparks in them than are dreamt of by many of us. Those, if developed will last longer, face slower, be brighter than many. But they are rarely to be found in that illumined state. We have to search for them. That is the main reason why they should be drawn into the Federation. If one Sarat Chandra, one Nazrul, one Mukunda Das we find among them through development

extending over years, our job is well done, and not one, but many are sure to be found. We will be well-paid. Because such artistes from among the workers and peasants, if developed and not spoilt by glorifying, will see the whole thing to the last and fight to the last. From our standpoint, this is why we should work among the amateurs, teach them, bring them in Federation. To guide the whole Federation to our channel more and more, we must get a Central Forum from which we can be able to propagate our theories and practices of art. Such a place, such a Forum is AN ACADEMY FOR HISTRIONICS AND CONSERVATOIRE FOR MUSIC. In such an academy, theory and practice of art-forms may be discussed, views may be exchanged, and people may be made to think. This last is what is needed. If we succeed in making common artistes and amateurs think consistently and logically, our job is half done. Logical thinking gives birth to analysis of oneself and one's art. That is bound to reveal the pattern and hence bound to bring out in sharp relief the historic tasks of the artistes. This will help build necessary atmosphere for serious attitude for guiding them on to new pastures and also, making ourselves conscious of the magnitude of our tasks. Such an academy, where most eminent specialists can and must be mobilized for teaching is on the order of the day. This one organizational stroke will help immensely in building Democratic Front. In such academies we can inculcate Marxist thought in much more profound and, from artistic point of view, much more interesting manner than is possible in any other way. And then, and then only, can-we derive the full benefit from the policy of keeping MODELS in practice. Theory we must relentlessly pursue and strive to establish as the most superior outlook in the Academy; practice we must strive to show through our own group-functioning and creative achievements. This is the proper relation. These are vary hard tasks; but these arethe tasks. All these, when coordinated, weighed, checked, complimented by new thoughts, and kept constantly on the proper level by tireless vigilance, Will see the building of Democratic Front in Coactive Arts, the most popular ones in art-forms. We have to come to grips with these problems, tackle them and overcome them. Contradictions will arise, and will be solved. In order to do these, we will have to regroup our forces. We have to think in terms of available human materials, and throw our cadres in the jobs in the most effective manner possible. Our Party-artistes have to organize these tasks and execute them. There is no such things as Art-Organizers, it is a monstrous tautology in terms. No such job exists. Our tasks indicate that only artistes can handle the jobs. No artistic art-Organisers will be able to solve any of these problems exactly to the extent that Eskimo hunting songs will rouse and guide Hottentots to revolutionary action! This is not a mass-organization where problems are of general nature to a degree.

This way of thinking is nothing but shallowness coupled with a dangerously wrong approach to organization. All the tasks here are to be executed by artistes themselves, because communist artiste are the organizers. We must regroup our forces, find slogans corresponding to the stage of development, put stress where it is necessary, and allot tasks, and watch. Watch continually, systematically, thoroughly. Accounting and control on all planes, these are the weapons to be used. This is the most important job in the Federation, from Party point of view. The success of Democratic Front depends upon this work. This is the task of FRACTIONS at all levels. Such is the nature of our tasks concerning Democratic Front and our hegemony in culture, and way of our approach to the people. For, artiste reaches out to the People, his public, through the platform where he is creatively employed, Such is the problem of mass contact in our activities. PART I: COMMUNIST ARTISTE AND THE PARTY What are the basic tasks of Communist artistes? And how should they do it? In other words, in the total activity of the Party, where lies the place of culture? Determination of Party-Line on Political-organizational plane depends upon two aspects, two sets of factors: the objective and subjective. Objective is the historical development of a particular land at a given period including in it Political, Economic and cultural growth. Subjective attitude of the masses themselves at the moment is, from party point of view, a part of objective situation present. Subjective in this case is the mental caliber of the Party itself, level and position of the cadres themselves. Basic subjective attitude, considered in its ideal condition, is the determination of all Communists to establish, through different revolutionary levels, a stage of classless society on the earth where classes and their state machines and their Parties will wither away. (State and Revolution -Lenin: Anti-During - Engels). Towards that we are subjectively moving. And this tendency, this constant striving, this urge, - is the reason and guarantee of the success of the Party and Revolution in the last analysis. Party juxtaposes these two sets of facts, and Party tasks arise. They arise because both these sets are remembered, weighed, sought and found in correct relation to each other. Now, Art and Culture is concerned with soul and mind. Wherever subjective attitude is thought of - in the Party, among the masses or in the ranks of the enemies - culture can and should contribute in bringing the conditions desirable by the Party.

It follows that art and culture should always serve the Party's Work -- through and mainly through in striving to fulfill Party's basic tasks of the period. Now, these basic tasks are specific slogans of mainly ideological--organizational level. Different periods in the development of the Revolution give rise to different tasks. Artistes' mode of work remains the same all through these periods, his organization of creative work does not change. What are these ? How does he proceed to fulfill Party-tasks ? His method is - to rouse, to educate, to elevate the masses, and to negate alien influences in them. This rousing and educating and elevating and negating is in relation to other things. What other things? Party's overall basic tasks primarily. Today it is to rouse, to educate, to elevate the masses and to negate alien influences in them so that they mobilize in mass organizations. To-morrow, may be, it will be to do all these so that they proceed onto revolutionary action; the day after, it may be to do all these so that they settle in the tasks of reconstructing the land and consolidating the revolution. Nature and method remaining the same, tasks differ. This in one hand. But this cannot be all. In fact, this by itself does not solve any of our problems. In the last article of his life, Comrade Lenin opened with a Para dealing with the problems of culture. A quotation will not be out of place here : "...….….In matters of culture, haste and sweeping measures are the worst possible things. Many of our young writers and Communists should get this well into their heads." (Better fewer, but better - pp.844 - Selected Works Vol. II) He was contrasting quality with quantity in matters of organization at the moment, and this is his warning.(*) Why? Because it is his considered and oft-expressed opinion that new culture is nothing but reshaping of accumulated human knowledge acquired under other class societies. For this reason, comrade Lenin, even six years after the Revolution ( March 2, '23 ) has this to say on the score of Bourgeois Culture : “.......... We would be satisfied with real bourgeois culture for a start, and we would be glad, for a start, to be able to dispense with the cruder types of pre-bourgeois culture i.e. bureaucratic or serf culture etc.........”(ibid). That start, in Lenin's opinion, has not arrived in the Soviet Union of 1923. His whole attitude he clearly defines in his speech delivered at the 3rd All-Russian congress of Young Communist League. He first shows that Marx did nothing but reshape human knowledge acquired up to and including the Capitalism, tested it on reality and drew logical conclusions only.

Then he proceeds to say: "..........Unless we clearly understand that only by an Incidentally to-day Flya Ehrenburg expresses the same idea of quality versus quantity in his recently published article - THE WRITER AND HIS CRAFT, exact knowledge of the culture created by the whole development of mankind and that only by reshaping this culture can a Proletarian Culture be built, we shall not be able to solve the problem." "Proletarian Culture (PROLETCULT was raging in the Soviet Union at the time as a Sectarian school, which he attacks here, but that does not make any difference for his general opinions on culture.) is not something which has sprung nobody knows whence, it is not an invention of those who call themselves experts in Proletarian Culture. That is all nonsense. Proletarian culture must be the result of a natural development of the stores of knowledge which mankind has accumulated under the yoke of Capitalist society, landlord society and bureaucratic society" "All these roads and paths have led, are leading, and continue to lead to Proletarian Culture ...." (The tasks of the Youth Leagues). What is the lesson we should draw from Comrade Lenin's clear and unambiguous statements? An obvious one. that is this: CULTURE MOVES IN AN UNENDING LINE. Strict division in periods is too mechanistic, slightest shift in Political-Economic balance of forces does not give rise immediately and palpably to sharp cleavages in cultural spheres. Culture moves in an unending line, is a natural development of previous culture, is reshaped again and again by the class who is historical leader of the epoch. All these are common sense. But times come, when one has to invoke Marx-Lenin or Mao to restore normalcy. It is such a time still in our front. What has been said before does not mean that change in political-economic sphere has no impact on culture. It definitely has. Trouble is, that impact is felt not in the same way as in political sphere and should not be given expression to in the same way. We should remember that it is one of the remote superstructures of economics. Culture reshapes past heritage. Only by reshaping it and carrying it to its logical conclusion can culture come in the service of working class, the broad strata of oppressed masses, can be geared towards fulfilling basic tasks of the Democratic Front. Otherwise it will defeat its own purpose, and, according to the law of operation of dialectics, will turn into its exact opposite with a revolutionary revulsion. Culture reshapes heritage. Heritage presupposes -Study, Knowledge, Learning. We should remember these words. And Heritage, in our case, is NATIONALHERTTAGE.

So, we can conclude : On creative plane, Party artistes' task is two-fold to serve the party's basic slogans of Democratic Front and , at the same time, to carry forward and reshape National heritage. Are these two incompatible? Is there any contradiction between these two? No. This division is completely notional, in reality both reside in one and the same art work. Without one, a work does not remain a Communist's work; without the other, it is horrible to imagine any art at all. Of course, there is the question of stress, question of degrees; but that depends upon so many practical-organizational factors, the caliber and level of cultural cadre, urgency of immediate tasks, condition prevailing in the cultural life of the country etc. And these questions are inseparably bound with the question of artiste's art work and his standard on one hand, and his mode of work on the other. The real problem starts here, not before it. From here we are in troubled waters of controversy. But these waters are not of the ocean of ideology or party-line, we have to admit. These are practical question primarily and should be treated as such. Communist artiste's task is to mobilize and guide the masses through creation and through physical participation, we shall now take up the physical aspect of the task. It is our duty to mobilize and guide. Whom? the artistes and art-minded people in general. But why? In order that Party's task is carried forward more vigorously. We communists are but as drops in the ocean, drops in the ocean of broad strata of people. And in mobilizing and guiding the masses we need allies, who will also be engineers of their souls, these allies are other artistes. We have to bring them under our ideology more and more and help them to be of Peoples' service. Let us have not the notions of a simpleton - in order to do this, we have no duty direct to mobilize doctors, for instance, or clerks, or just youth. Our physical responsibility is primarily unto others of our same trade, same specialized profession, who are never a mass, a thousand times no. Our organizations for mass-contact must be upon this clear and firm basis: We are not out to mobilize the masses Physically, we are for a specialized people, who are bound with us by common love of cultural pursuit, which is an activity of man and who are scattered all over the strata of the masses. We cannot unite with other artistes on Party's platform though that remains our maximum programmed. Our platform here must be a separate, distinct platform. Minimum agreed points and grounds are to be struck, on which will stand this platform. As communists, our tasks in such Platform will naturally be to mobilize artistes and then to guide them onto our maximum programmed. This guiding must be tending them through persistent process, must be with humility, by example of art and personal character, by' persuasion, by establishing our superior logic. Minimum programmed for such platforms is to-day NATIONAL BOURGEOIS HUMANIST CULTURE. As the position of the National Bourgeoisie is perfectly clear to us, and as

we know from oft-quoted saying of comrade Stalin, Humanism is a banner which our bourgeoisie is deserting more and more to-day, and will continue to desert; It is perfectly sure that no other class is historically capable of holding the flag high than organized proletariat. Only this organized and class-conscious section must be persistent enough to take the flag and then proceed. This last question of persistency is key to the whole problem. We must understand that Revolution is an adult's business. Unless this attitude develops, which, alas is so absent in us, nothing of value can be created. The question of artiste's art work and standard: This is the central factor in any assessment. And this has to be dealt with the question of artiste's attitude to work. Attitude is a subjective factor. But it qualifies reality completely. Standard, study, approach,- all arise out of attitude, Even such supposed non-political words as inspiration, intensity of feeling, creative talent, are bound with this attitude. From the standpoint of attitude we would like to divide artistes in three categories; Professionals, Semi-professionals and Amateurs. We discard generally accepted yardstick of money earning because it seems inadequate. If in many cases it is found that men with professional attitude are actually professionals in economic sense, they will add to the strength of our contention, they prove that with such attitude they have fought and won a livelihood for themselves in their loved vocations, which is extremely difficult and hazardous in countries like ours. Semi-professionals are those unfortunates who have a leaning and willingness to accept art-creation as their sole productive activities, but are bound to waste the best times of their lives after other works. They are mentally as serious as professionals. They may not be as regular, but of as high standard as any professional. The Amateurs. Men want, relaxation, entertainment, enlistment from his immediacy, reasons for his existence, for his sufferings, meaning and goal of life, seeks justification and enthusiasm for his quest of happiness and security. These are the inner-lying levers which motivate him towards art. He seeks and finds all these in art. But there are some who are not content by receiving. They want to enjoy the process of creation. But their mode of life, environment and aptitude does not allow in them that amount of seriousness which makes this process of creation a matter of utmost importance in their existence, They seek and find satisfaction in occasional and more or less casual creative activities. They are not common recipients of artistic products -they are that section which takes intelligent interest in enjoying them and re-creating them. We call them the amateurs. Now, all this, being a matter of one's own mind, may seem extremely indeterminate in practical life. Anyone can easily claim, he takes a professional interest in culture and

we can do nothing but to accept them at their words, What is the utility of such divisions then? We will take them at their works, to start with. But immediately questions will arise, the manifestation in reality of such an attitude. We should accept everybody at his declaration, and then, proceed logically. We in this paper are trying to concentrate on the first two categories. Why? Primarily, from creative point of view, the third are followers. Secondly, their problems tangentially touch the problems of culture as they are members of other strata - members and followers of mass organizations where culture is an activity, not the activity. They are also part of the problems of mobilization in the mass organizations. We will discuss them briefly and separately. Among Party members who are professionals, there is arising a sharp contradiction, which sometimes degenerate in scandals and become vehicle of personal backings and back-biting. At such times, lack of Party education and Party contact, convenient use of Party form etc., in one word, SECTARIANISM-IN-DEED which is the bedrock of culture do-day in the Party, comes to the fore sharply. But, any way many an able comrade is going away and away from the party, being unable to solve the big problem, where lies the place of Professionals in the Party. What is the objective nature of their problem? On the one hand, we are witnessing a gulf between certain comrade's professing of Marxist philosophy and practice of downright reactionary art creation. On the other, these comrades find a singular lack of sympathy and understanding of the economic situation in which they have to go on creating, and external forces operating which radically alter sometimes the purpose and intention of their creations. Both sides contain truth. Let both points of view exchange experiences, continually. Because there is a principle involved here. That principle is: An artiste's soul is indivisible; it cannot have compartments for progressive and money-earning activities. That sort of thing is not compromise, but total desertion. And an artiste serves his party and his people through his art; much less important is his task of mobilization physically. However much we glorify the latter, the former is powerful thousand fold, even as mobilizes, If these two points are agreed upon, it follows that an artiste's all art work is his party work. No amount of evading can efface this principle. If Party also accepts it thus, what sort of picture emerges? Party Unit extends its check-up and control wherever and whenever he is creatively employed. Whatever professional job he is working upon at the moment is his Party task. What happens then? Party, in order to help him in his work, must learn the conditions in which he is working, his economic position, the reasons for his taking such and such a job,- reasons for his making such and such a compromise are learnt beforehand, checked, sifted and weighed by the coactive. Unit also must learn to differentiate between primary art. where artiste enjoys supreme authority within the art work; and secondary art, where an artiste does not always know how much of him will be kept and in which way, after shaping what light will be thrown on them, or what the

outcome of resultant art work will be. The economic position, conditions of employment, character and mode of work of persons controlling employment also will have a sob rising effect upon "Revolutionary Zeal" of many enthusiasts. On the other hand, a comrade will be bound to state beforehand all that he has to say and bow to the collective decision. True compromises and vacillations will be differentiated. Comrades will have the Party backing and Party sanction in their work to save them from unnecessary slanders and black-painting that goes on in the interests of serving peoples' Culture. Party gains immensely. Party influence through more and more progressive content in culture, and through mobilization of non-Party artistes from wider circle will be the result. Fear of abuse is there. That fear is in all spheres today, there is no escaping. But one has to stand up for truth and fight for it, even in the party, and if necessary, suffer for it. And the principle mentioned above is the truth. When one runs back, untruth looms large. When one stands and becomes a fighter, that very untruth starts losing proportions and boils down to a thing of amazingly small dimensions. And to fight in the Party means to persuade and hammer reality in the comrades. It has been admitted many a time that art work is a specialized work. But what actually are needed by a Communist artiste to successfully execute his job? What are the necessary components? He who becomes an artiste must have a spark of that Promethean fire in him, that discontent, that urge, that naive creativity. We shall quote Goethe : ......Nature has left us tears, the cry of pain When man can bear no more. And most of all To me, he has left me melody and speech To make the full depth of my anguish known; And when man in his agony is dumb, I have god's gift to utter what I suffer. This is not only the poet's job, it is the function of all artistes. And it will be interesting to note our Sukanta's attitude. He opens his heart in his poem (which has been so ably set to tune and popularized by com. Salil Chowdhury) From Goethe to Sukanta, life has moved on. The major changes which have directed the flow of events are : Oppressed masses have wrenched from History its scientific world outlook through the agency of Karl Marx; and establishment on this very earth on the basis of this body of knowledge, a State of oppressed masses - the Soviet Union. These two events have radically qualified the content of UTTERANCE of the poet and the method of it. How, we shall come later. But here we are in quest of artiste's function, Let us quote another one, this time from Shakespeare :

Hamlet contemplates suicide and utters the lines- .....To be, or not to be : that is the question. Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous future, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles And by opposing end them?.... He thinks better of it in consideration of life beyond death. "That undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveler returns" - this gives him the pause, otherwise who would bear - pangs of despised love, insolence of office, Law's delay, proud man's contumely, and thousand such pricks, - when one can finish off everything with a bare bodkin? Thus he reasoned. Thus his native hue of resolution' was suckled over by the pale cast of thought. Now, what happens here? And how does this man's procrastination come to throw light upon artiste's function? Who is Hamlet? A prince of Jutland in 5th Century, probably not a historical figure. Why does he think of committing suicide? Because, the question arises in his mind whether it is nobler to suffer slings and arrows of an outrageous fortune, or is it better to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them? One must ask then - what are those slings and arrows of said fortune, and what is that sea of troubles? He enumerates them, they are - pangs of despised love, insolence of office, Law's delay, proud man's contumely, etc. We must now enter his life to under-stand them, enter into his personal aspect. But quest in this sphere, his personal aspect, will draw a blank each time in hundred times. If we accept his words for them, we must admit that his reasons for such fatal thoughts are impersonal, He has watched these outrages from after, from his high office, watched them, noted them and hated them. He knows the solution, He mentions it in the second half of the alternative he puts before him in the beginning. He did not do them, even in his future life. Probably he was cut short, probably the rest was silence. He did not take arms against this sea of troubles and did not end them by opposing. Truly, the rest remained silent. Truly, the time was out of joint, and 'oh, cursed spite! that he was ever born to set it right.' He was a man born some centuries earlier. He should have been living at this hour! What bearing has this upon our point of contention? Why, Hamlet was performing the function of the Poet. It was Shakespeare, or it was Hamlet, does not matter. Shakespeare comes down to us and consoles us, ^enthuses us through that pageantry of merry and sorrowful fools created by him, -- most of all through Hamlet. Shakespeare is Hamlet. So, the great artiste spoke. He took up the sufferings and agonies and unbearable pains of fellow men, oppressed men - and nurtured them. They pressed him like a

milling - stone, and his music, his "melody and speech" came forth, his suffering was uttered in the form of great poetry, and came down transcending time and space to us, the suffering became ours. And the rest did not remain silent, it spoke out, - one-third of the globe is speaking it out today. Silence is broken. What Goethe defined, Shakespeare exemplified, the function of artiste, that 'fatal' generalizing tendency, that inductive 'leap in the dark'. All great art, all through the history of mankind, declare again and again this same truth. And we learn : NATURE OF THE ARTISTE'S JOB IS TO BODY FORTH COLLECTIVE FEELING. This gathering of collective feeling and bodying forth, are specialized functions. He looks to life in a special way, gives vent to his thought through special effort. An Engineer, who goes to the waterfront of Calcutta and stands to survey the site of a proposed bridge will have to imagine a huge cantilever bridge suspended over the stretch of water. He will not note the sun going down in the west, nor the glistening on water, nor the lazily busy barges and launches plying, the ships at their moorings. He will not note how the water laps on that particular buoy over there, and how that buoy is pulling at the chain and queer noise arises. He will not note them, though we daresay he will see them. An Economist, standing there, will start immediately thinking about those ships, about the latest New York Stock and Bullion Market reports, about U.S.A's policy of back-door trade with New China through Japan, about the latest Indo-soviets Trade pact and its results, about U.S.'s getting into a slump, its production curves showing a fall of 10% from 1953, about its admission of having 3 1 /2 millions unemployed as opposed to 1 1 / 2 of the previous year, its effect upon its foreign policy, in fact, the whole question of two camps and Moscow Economic Conference for peace. He may think of these or such subjects chosen at random. A Trade Unionist will watch the swarthy bodies bent under the pressure of their burdens trudging up the quay - and think of their conditions of organization, the slogans that will embosom their needs and hence will mobilize most of them, - and such other questions. A Poet or a film-maker may stand there and get food for thought. He may even fall in love with that particular buoy, animating it in his imagination. And finally Just a common man will stand there, watch the panorama, see all and note nothing. He may all the time go on thinking about his problems at home, or other things affecting his own life, or even fly back to his past and reminisce. He will gather nothing from this reality. All of the abovementioned persons, except the last, are specialists in their own crafts. All of them are necessary, but all are different in accepting what nature around them holds forth.

This is not a very apt way of exemplifying the point what we are driving at, but, we think, it serves the present purpose of showing the workings of specialized mind. The specialists are all bound by one thing. They share with the common men the faculty of imagination. But their utilization of this faculty marks them out. They have trained themselves to gear this propensity to fulfill their special jobs, hence their imagination is intensified, thereby making their feeling more sharp, their eyes for relevant details hawk-like, the common man has all these, but has not utilized them to that degree. Now, we shall start to think about the artistes again. They are specialists whose going in search for content is a special way of looking at things. It comes to them as a result of prolonged effort. Their giving expression, to all these - it is also a specialized effort. They are creative to start with, but constantly strive to better their faculties. Otherwise, they cannot hope to retain grip over their arts. Thus the content and form of their creation come to them as a result of sustained effort. They 'utter' and become distinctive. Then start the process –this 'agony', this 'sufferance’, is to be understood in its collectivity in order to be 'uttered’. But today he seeks not only to utter it as he sees, but seeks to learn the cause of it, and the remedy of it. Two events of mighty magnitude have occurred, radically qualifying all his horizon. When Goethe defined the function, he meant also the 'action' of seeking causes and remedies. The genius that he was, he knew that-"In the beginning, there was action", and not word. But, as we have noted before, life has moved from Goethe to Sukanta. Oppressed mankind has wrenched from history its world outlook, and on the light of it, has set on this very earthly earth a beacon, a State where men are moving to that state of things inexorably where there is no oppressed, which is the DEWAN-E-KHAS of down-trodden humanity, where the flag flutters upon which is emblazoned this curious legend: 'IF THERE BE A PRADISE IN ALL EARTH, IT IS HERE, IT IS HERE, IT IS HERE, IT IS HERE. All artistes throughout the ages knew in their heart of hearts that one day this will come to this : .......Sing on! O, Somewhere, at some new moon, We shall learn that sleeping is not death........ Yeats. And Shakespeare, in his last testament, has this to proclaim. With his transcending vision he sees the end of his own class, their proper worth, the

contradictions that will choke them in futurity.... these poor burghers, the new oppressors, the rising bourgeoisie : ....Our revels are now ended.... We are such staff As dreams are made on, and all our little life Is rounded with sleep... (Tempest). Time has moved on, and we have arrived at the twilight of civilization, to be more exact, at the dawn of civilization - because we are leaving behind prehistory, History is now beginning..... The rest is silent no more, the music is started, the musicians have taken their places, curtain is rising, the actors are revealed, the performance is about to ensue : … Our poet has sought and found his SUMMUM BONUM, his cause ultimate, reason for his existence. The quest has let him, like Rolland, through many a winding path, he has taken time to come, but the point is, he has come. "Even the weariest river finds its way somehow somewhere to the sea......" (swinburne). As Rolland says :- Gods of 'Humanity' and ' Liberty ' have passed over to the new order......" and we who were, who are their worshippers, we follow them: that we may serve them, we serve the order they animate. It is thanks to their flame within my breast that I have arrived at length in the new world -- over a road dark and strewn with obstacles, bruised often, falling at times or going as tray, picking myself up and stubbornly resuming my march. May that flame burn ever more brightly. May the free spirits leaven the free peoples, the peoples of Universal Socialist Republics, whose union shall impose peace upon the world and joyously fling open to human toil a field of unlimited progress! ......." (I will not rest). Inexorably, his won logic brings the artiste here. He declares : "For whom do 1 write?" -- For those who are the vanguard of the marching army, for those who are waging the great international battle, victory in which should ensure the establishment of the human community with our frontiers and without classes. Communism is today the only world-wide party of social action which, without reservation and without compromise, is carrying the flag and making its way, with a considered and courageous logic, towards the conquest of high mountain lands. The rest of the army will follow though, it may be, at a distance and with desertions and withdrawals more than once. We, the writers, we summon the laggards to hurry up. But we do not need to wait for them. It is up to them to overtake us. The marching column never stops....." WILL NOT REST) M.P After Goethe, Life has moved today the artiste has come to understand that-Dialectical and Historical Materialism is the most comprehensive, most complete, most total outlook that man in his quest for truth has yet discovered. And he has learnt the other tenet: Unite your thought with your action. So, the artiste turns Marxist.

Creativity is now wedded to Marxism. But here the labor does not end. New problems arise. In order to 'utter' in a better manner, one must better his 'melody and speech’, that is the form, One must also form an idea of expression in human terms ; that is the aesthetic theory. We do not mean the oft-quoted adages. It must be something with a living link with reality in terms of concrete human materials. An artiste sometime or other in his life comes to collide with this necessity. This is not the place to go all out for discussion on this subject. But it is a necessity. Comrade Mao dealt mainly with this problem in his Yean Lecture. "Socialist realism' 1 is the sort of thing that we are aiming at. Our own country has its ancient theories which still are operating on reality. We do not mean that aesthetic attitude should be thrown into a set format. Such a situation will toll the death-knell of all creativity. But an overall theory is needed. Why must we have such a theory? Because nature does not allow any void to exist in her. A blank attracts the surrounding matters, invites them to rush in. We do not have such an agreed standpoint, at the same time all sorts of attitudes are always roaming around us - including many of the age-old idealistic aesthetic theories of our own land, Our class must form its own notion and stick to it. Discussions on these points, should immediately be welcome. Such a theory will have to grow in opposition to idealist aesthetic theories of the ruling classes of the land, which must be admitted to be very strong to day. Under the shadow of idealism, the culture and aesthetics of this land have grown up. So, we must understand the character and idiosyncrasies of this culture. It can be studied properly when Idealism of India in its philosophy and religion is sifted and weighed. And these philosophy and religion are nothing but superstructures of Economic History of India. So, to understand the whole case, a study of History is what is called for. We know that this way of reasoning may seem cheap or flippant, but actually that is where we are led step by step, - and here we meet the whole Party, the problem does not remain ours alone. Indian Revolution is inextricably bound with this question of History and Philosophy. Because it is perfectly clear, we think, that to bring out the masses from the yoke of Idealism to make the Indian Revolution successful, we must wage aware on philosophic FRONT. That never means we need to philosophy over the masses, no such childish thing; we must combat the manifestations thereof in everyday life with the weapon of ‘Marxism wedded to Indian Reality.

In fact, if the Revolution is brought about by national and international events and certain chains of coincidences etc., before such a sifting is done and manifestations of those are located and pinned in reality, that Revolution will be an unfortunate one. We will still have to wage the struggle on this unprepared ground, in order to defend and nurture such a Revolution. But it will be harder task then, not easier, as the stakes will be incomparably high. We will be much hard-pressed for time, and danger-will be tenfold. Because, in the last, we must not forget that subjective factor, ourselves. Our Party today has a class-composition (from the source point of view) preponderantly petty-bourgeois who are vehicles of such alien philosophy and who are the last barricade of the bourgeoisie. Among them, this national Philosophy is constantly operating. Much of it is good, though the whole basis and approach is extremely harmful. We must reshape it, we must bring out the living kernel, if any, out of it, which must be materialistic fundamentally. For, whatever we may think, this operation of alien philosophy is one of the main reasons for our going off to the wrong track again and again in the past. Present also, we fear, will forebode the same tendency. Future , as it is, no better. And in combating this can Marxism strike root in this soil, can become part of national thought, the central part. And, on organizational place, such effort will give birth to Leader or Leaders of National stature from among our ranks. We must understand that man, Gandhi, and what he did to the Indian peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie. Which things he used as levers and how, and so forth. What is this other man, Jawaharlal? How does he retain grip over the masses? Is it only by pursuing a liberal policy in international spheres? And, we must understand, who is Mao. Where is his place in the life of the nation ? Is he merely a Party Leader? Or the father of the nation, near and dear to each of New china's teeming millions? Question of leadership is a very important question in a Revolution. It is, we think, inseparably bound with the question of the party, its cadre, its method and extent of work; but no less is the question of the People and the words that stir their heart. Words that remind them that one among them has risen and is speaking, speaking out what they were vaguely sensing, the words are new, but not new at the same time. Then they will rise up breaking the age-long slumber, tearing the shreds of illusion, - objective condition will find subjective response. A leader is a poet, he bodies forth collective feeling, in his way. His way is much more broad much more mighty, much more lofty. Thus, the question of Philosophy assumes a practical importance. It assumes that importance to the Party's basic tasks even. And this question should be treated as such, -- never isolated from, rather within the framework of living reality, and in

context of party's mass organization building tasks, it should be treated so in all planes - Economic, Political and Cultural. Only then will it always be kept in mind that what is needed is not voluminous works (though they are also necessary, for the specialists), but a profound decision and verdict of a class on National Tradition. In the solution of this question lies the solution of problems of culture. Now, we think, organizationally much can be initiated forthwith. We have workable materials to start work. For the Party as a whole, study of Marxism on the basis of Indian condition and in contrast to the Philosophy of backwardness,--should start. They should be started as special party campaigns when comrades have to take organizational quotas for study and fulfill it. This thing has brought immense good in China 's Party. We know that such campaigns will leave a big portion of the Party cold in the initial period, and we will find it very hard to reconcile it with practical mass-work. But let us inculcate in us this idea that this is Party-building task. It is as important, if not more, as other tasks of the party. And campaigns must be vigorous, repeated, - repeated so long as the whole body of the Party is not swept into the waves of discussion and study. We appeal to the leadership, a grave danger is brewing! At the same time, in our specialized and limited sphere, allow us artistes to meet yearly on party plane and discuss our work - creation. Our problems we ourselves can solve, will solve. Such CONFERENCES are long overdue. Such conferences should start forthwith. We shall now touch upon another point. Question of position of amateurs in our activity. Party artiste's organizational job is to mobilize and guide. Whom? Artistes in general. Professionals are necessarily the leading artistes. But there are others. Artistically much lower but numerically much stronger is the stratum know as Amateurs. Who are they? Mainly - artistes and art-lovers of more or less casual attitude of Mahallas, Bustees, -- Youth, Students, workers and peasants. How to guide them? They are to be guided mainly in two ways - both of which sometimes will coincide: Primarily and deeply - through example of creative art. secondly, through leadership and training physically. For examples, we have our won creative activities. For physical leadership we must get help from the Local committees. Our activity is never a local one, it has a bearing upon much larger slice of land always.. But for 'Party life 1 (in generally used meaning of the term) and for co-ordination of these physical activities Local committees are a 'good,' solution. The professionals and semi- professionals among us must do this job mainly. We should take specific jobs individually and collectively, We should take up responsibilities of Trade Unions, Kisan Sabhas, Bustee Clubs, college Groups, etc. -- their artistic activity should be guided by us.

But one thing has always to be kept in mind. These groups and their guidance is mainly a problem of Party's other mass organizations. Local committees and other higher bodies always consider their problem from that angle.. We have our approach to them, special approach, which is part of party's approach, but none the same, a special part. We shall discuss that approach later. PART II: COMMUNIST ARTISTE AND THE PEOPLE In order to reach out to the people, in order that Party's ideology is propagated by communist and no-communist artistes, in order that anti-people culture is combated and alternative to it is put forwarded by more and more common artistes,--in order that all these are done vigorously, Communist artistes must unite with others of the same craft upon a common platform. It should be a democratic platform of artistes and art-organizations. Are these artistes and art-organizations mass organizations? Or, is this platform a mass platform, a mass 'font'? It cannot be. It is a platform of creative artistes, these artistes and art-organizations are specialized persons and groups with the objective to create art and thereby serve the people. Where does the mass enter? It is the source and gale of all such creative work. Masses are guided by these persons, through creation. All idea of ‘mass’ organization do not correspond with reality. 'Form 1 confuses more as the term is, strictly speaking, applicable to the class organization of basic masses only, Such idea shows a poverty of thinking, lack of understanding the nature of the task. Such a platform must be a democratic platform, based on democratic lines. Following the report of comrade Stalin, Lenin drafted the "Resolution on National Question" which was adopted by the April Conference of the Party in 1 91 7. In it, on National plane, Comrade Lenin has this to say on democratic basis: "It is only the recognition by the Proletariat of the right of nations to secede that they ensure complete solidarity among the workers of various nations and help to bring the nations closer together on truly democratic lines". There lies the crux of the matter - the right to self-determination. This is the main foundation of democratic organization. Our Trade Union congress is based upon this fundamental principle. Any Union or Federation of Unions can join or secede from T.U.C. by a majority vote of its members. Our T.U.C. is based upon this. After four years of reorganization, liquidation of wrong line etc., Some of our art(mass) organizations are not. They should be, forthwith.

And, as far as composition is concerned, they should also be democratic. Broader and broader circle of artistes must be brought under our ideology, must be organized, so that they serve the people, and through them, the Party. All humanist artistes, whether he professes to create art for art's sake or not, can and should be organized. All who loves his art and his people may unite on specific issues upon one platform. The more they are brought within the fold, the more democratic will be its character. Now, there are some, probably many a non-political artistes who are as erratic in their professed political opinions as it can be. For instance, we have come in contact with and artiste of truly great talents who is hateful of present Congress Regime and considers all its attempts and declaration about culture as nothing but hoax. At the same time, he has no faith in the Soviet Union and its achievements. He sincerely believes, India will rise up one day and give leadership to the world. And that through revival of past heritage of India. Another there is, this time a film artiste, who believes in the cause of peace, donates to its funds; but considers going to the masses or standing on a platform and proclaim, is beneath the dignity of an artiste. These and such other people will join with us Communists on one specific issue and disagree with us in three. Shall they be mobilized? They shall be. They are full of confused thinking, but they influence the masses profoundly. They are too valuable to be lost. And to guide them is our task: Guiding by persuasion and logic, not by offensive manner. If they are not mobilized, they cannot be guided. To make the issues on which we both agree occur in more frequent succession, in progressively shorter intervals, we must constantly be in contact with them, upon one platform. Such a platform should compose of all the three of our categories of part-I--Professional, Semi-Professionals and Amateurs. Only with such a composition will we be able to maintain uniformity on ideological Plane in our activity. So, what is needed is AN ARTISTIC PLATFORM BASED ON TRULY DEMOCRATIC LINES IN ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLES AND COMPOSI-TION WHICH WILL INCLUDE ALL SINCERE ARTISTES OF DIFFERENT CALIBERS HIGHER OR LOWER. We can divide artistic activity into two sections: Individual and collective. Individual art 'such as Poetry, Authorship in general, painting and such other crafts which depend mainly upon one individual to be produced. Collective art; such as Stage and Drama, Music and Singing, Ballet and Dancing etc., which depend upon collective effort in the creative process.

This characteristic has been kept in mind in the past while forming our organizations. This principle is a workable one, though there will always be people of the border region. Individual art and its organization is a domain about which the present writers do not know enough to suggest anything. We are mainly concerned with collective art and shall limit ourselves to that department. But, even in collective art there are degrees of responsibility, - we will call them primary and secondary work in the collective. Primary workers are of those persons: Dramatist, Lyricist, Ballet Choreographer, Drama Regisseur, Composer, Conductor etc. These are individualized jobs to a degree. Their arts depend upon a collective to be given birth to. And, those are the secondary works of the collective : Actors, Dancers, Singers, Instrumentalists, Backstage artistes, etc. Their work is also creative work, in the fullest sense of it. But this creation is dependant upon the original vision, to body forth the feeling of content is mainly their jobs. Hence form is much more important in their work than content. We shall call our platform by the name of Federation of Collective Arts. Different groups and collectives of artistes form their own organizations and then join together in such a Federation. Each of these collective organizations will hold the right to secede. Their own organizational forms they themselves work out. In the Federation they are led ideologically, organizational forms bind them so that the ideological unity is maintained. These groups will have conditions peculiar to themselves. Within the general framework of minimum programmed their distinctive approaches may and will be widely divergent; their artistic ideals may and will be different; they may move on strictly professional basis, or may be a group of art-enthusiasts of a Mahalla who come together to appear once in a year on the stage; in fact, they will be as heterogeneous as possible. But on the level of ideological minimum, on the questions of national interest, on the broad platforms of basic problems facing Humanity such as problems of world Peace, - they will confer voluntarily their initiative to the centralized leadership. This will be a federation of ideological unity rather than a homogeneous organization. Any such attempt at homogeneity do not correspond with reality. Such attempts, hence, are bound to defeat their own purpose -- to mobilize and guide artistes. Such attempts are bound to turn into their very opposites according to inexorable law of dialectics.

These groups and organizations are creative units just as a Poet in the individual art is a unit. Each of these groups have their own problems, they should be allowed to be thought of as adults, and allowed to solve then. It is not a case of autonomy, which presupposes conference of power from above; it is a case of affiliation of independent groups joining together ideologically. Such is the platform we should have. In such a Federation Communists will work. What will the nature be of those works, and how should they strive to do them? They will work so that the consciousness of artistes are raised to such a level as to carry on the tasks of the party in the best possible manner. This is one, - and to impose our point of view upon the whole federation is another, that is fatal to the work itself. We must get it into our heads that by personal and collective example of creative work and character, steadfastness, painstaking attitude and clarity of understanding, it is possible to be leaders, so long as we fail to grasp this point and prove ourselves, we remain followers, however tall talks we may emit. Revolution is an Adult's business. So is Revolutionary Art. That such a Federation can be geared more and more towards fulfilling tasks of the Party can be guaranteed. That guarantee is the calibers of the cultural cadre of the Party, their artistic achievements along with their individual fibers. There can be no other guarantee. We all can understand how far we have been able to create that guarantee. But that is still no matter. We can win. We can win over the common artistes first. We must reach out of them. Now we have around us friends and sympathizers, some of whom are of truly artistic mould. But we have to reach out now to the really common artistes, who have integrity of artistes along with entity of human beings, they are not easy staff. At least, they have perused art all their lives with utmost seriousness. Among them we have no consistent work. They reside in places which we have hitherto never trodden. We must reach out to them and bring them in it. Let us remember. Party is interested in guiding them ideologically, Party has no benefit in bullying them in set forms in the organization. That sort of thing may benefit anybody but decidedly not the Party. We are but as drops in the ocean, drops in the ocean of cultural workers. Let us reflect it in our organizational composition. Let the Leadership emerge, gradually, as it should, by diligent service to common ideals of the platform. After performing this, the leadership will be able to guide the flock on to pastures new and evergreen, among the masses, in the midst of mass action. Analyze the phases, put forward

correct slogans, we will yet see really unimaginable numbers of artistes on our flanks, it is absolutely bound to happen. But we are reminded of our past and present. Whenever we go to common artistes, we start moving in a patch-work manner, in an extremely superficial way . Sometimes boosting up a supposed celebrity, sometimes stooping to coaxing, cajoling, even to foot-licking, sometimes elbowing, imposing these are the methods which recur in our work. Why? because we fall to grasp the point. We must be gentle, but must be conscious that we represent a cultural face. That, in them must not be taken in the wrong manner. Do not spoil the artistes; in spoiling them we spoil our cause and ourselves. "In matters of culture, haste and sweeping measures are worst possible things." ideologically and organizationally. We proposed that creative groups should be taken as units. We can call them CREATIVE COLLECTIVES. What does this term convey? It conveys a high degree of cohesion, thorough understanding on cultural and aesthetic questions, an atmosphere of intimacy, Is it possible, can it be possible for a reasonable length of time, to create Communist art in a unit where totally non-party artistes of high caliber are trying out their say? Can the communists lead artistically and carry out party's task in the organization in such a Place? Can a standard of maximum programmed be possible where communist and non-communist elements are at least equal? - None of these things can happen. We shall go down to them, or try to lift them up at a snatch, which will leave us where we are to-day absolutely isolated. If we go down, that will toll the death-knell of Revolutionary art. No MODEL Will be left, which we can point at. We ourselves will vegetate and will become a high-brow coterie. Let both of us flourish', both of our mode of work. To start with, we will be in a bad way, we know. Well, let us not shirk the truth, we are in a bad way to-day. We must lift ourselves. So, all who agree with us, let them join together and start serving party's basic tasks forthwith, of course standing on and owning allegiance to common agreed programme. And let our friends of the federation be encouraged to form groups and create after their hearts' content following whatever aesthetic theory and practices they like, of course standing upon and owning allegiance to common agreed programme. That is the working out in practice the tasks of building of the DEMOCRATIC FRONT IN CULTURE. We hasten to add that it is the major task of building Democratic Front. By creation we must help to mobilize the masses in mass organizations, along with that we must mobilize artistes in our organizations and constantly strive to show these artistes by

example what should be the function of art to-day. That is we must strive to keep a model in art and working methods constantly before them. This question of MODEL is the key question in building the Democratic Front in culture. But key question is only one in many, most important one in many questions. It does not follow that this job needs a huge quantity of cadres or all available forces should be geared to fulfill this one task. Such a thing will be meaningless, it will be singing a song in wilderness, building a model in void. We must understand the nature of the task, put proper stress on the proper point, and find proper relation between different tasks. This keeping a MODEL before the Federation makes our artistic activity among common artiste all the more imperative. We must, through art-work among them, strive to uplift them. This document has been prepared during the month of July 1954, It was born as a result of rigorous discussions among a group of Party comrades mainly working in IPTA. In the course of fifteen months following the 7th conference of IPTA at Bombay , certain things become apparent in the government. Need for concretization of those problems and a comprehensive discussion over them was failed by all the serious-minded comrades, certain of them came together, pondered over them, and the resent writers prepared this paper on the light of their views. During and after the last conference of A.I.T.U.C. at Calcutta , that is, during last week of May and first week of June, the authors had some opportunity to put some questions to our General Secretary. In this connection slight correspondence followed the talks, These have contributed materially in clarifying ourselves on some points and in formulating our ideas in concrete shape. Since the formulations are strictly our own, there can be no question of responsibility anywhere else. Two points about the background of this document 1. It is prepared at a time when the State Government has started taking uncanny interest in matters of culture. Hoards of money are being spent lavishly to build up a cultural army which will definitely play a key role in the coming General Elections for the camp of Congress, among doing other mischiefs. And it is quite apparent this USIS has direct interest in the affair. A sort of cultural 1NTUC 1 is being brought into being. By this recognition of culture as a major weapon in their agit-prop arsenal, the opposite camp forces the issue of culture on to the sphere of practical politics as a burning day-to-day issue. 2. The other significant part of the background for this document is the position and level of IPTA leadership and its organization, Special note, in this connection, is to be taken of two articles published in the August issue of UNITY, one is by Com. Niranjan Sen, the All India General Secretary of IPTA, and the other is by Com. Jaswant Thakkar, the Joint Secretary of All India IPTA.

These two articles are highly significant. Not only for their impossible language which makes laughing stocks of both of them to the common readers; but for the dangerous content and ideology they preach. Incidentally, they voice that line of organization, make that way of thinking articulate, which we in this paper are trying to negate. We consider their approach is' a menace to the Party, and we have tried again and again in the past, lastly in the Bombay Conference, to liquidate and wipe out this way of thinking. Ideologically that was done (it can be shown from the deliberations of fractions etc. and the manifesto itself of the conference); but organizational! these comrades with their thought-processes unchanged {it seems ) got themselves elected again. How, that is a matter of another enquiry. But today, time has arrived to come to grips with these trends of thought, which are an admixture of 'clubbing tendency 1 of the late past - first Party congress period and legacies of second Congress. So, with this background, this document stands to accuse and consolidate the ranks at a time When events are fast-moving in the cultural activities of the country. All our discussions are limited in scope essentially. Two such limitations must be mentioned here. (a) It was prepared before we had the opportunity to go through the Organization of the C. C., which should have been one of the main documents for our study. But our study of such complementary documents, such as, MAIN WEAKNESSES, General Secretary's Articles in the NEW AGE (Nos,4 & 6), etc., and our discussions, among others, with General Secretary, have probably neutralized to an extent this weakness. And we find nothing contrary to the spirit of that Party document in our thinking. So, after all, this may not be regard as a major shortcoming. (b) We have scrupulously avoided spheres with which we are not familiar. Specially, we have not touched the problems facing the workers in Muffussai. We have a nodding acquaintance with those problems, but that cannot and should not form a basis of serious study. But still, we think, the problems discussed here will benefit such workers. Since we consider the problem of IPTA is basically apart of the problem of Culture in general, we consider any isolated investigation in one sphere will never deliver the goods. Only after a thorough study of Culture can we come down to restricted subjects such as IPTA work. To be more exact, it is not IPTA work, but communists' work in IPTA. SO, this paper does not propose to cover all the fields, all the provinces; at the same time proposes to discuss art in general, in its Wide application, and in context thereof, in limited spheres. The document may be published for general circulation among members as some fundamental questions concerning Marxism and Art have been tackled. That is, of course, if the Party considers it to be of any help. With revolutionary greetings.

PART III: Communist Artiste and Art We shall now limit ourselves in a narrow subject which is very important from our point of view. It is connected with our practical work, and as such, assumes importance. We will concern ourselves with the problem of creation in Collective Arts. This, in the last, is the result and proof of correctness of our thinking and activity. Without this, Party cannot hope to derive benefit from our work, nor can we hope to serve Art, the people and the Party. Not being much conversant with detailed problems of Ballet, Music etc, we are forced to concentrate on Drama and its Production which cannot and do not reflect all the aspects of these other arts. But the hope is, it may reflect, to a degree, their problems, - Drama being the most complex of these forms excepting the films. It is possible we think, to find parallels in other arts of the problems tackled here. In our discussions, we shall try to remember them. We also cannot hope to resolve these problems, nor can we dilate upon them at length. We will only aspire after touching the moot points here, Being painfully aware of all these and other limitations in us, we sincerely hope that these brief summing-ups will be taken as ground for further discussions. To proceed: We must, in our work, base ourselves upon a firm theory of Production. But the conditions prevailing today in our midst do not allow this question to come to the fore sharply. Scientific approach to art is the pre-requisite upon which we can build a theory and a practice of Drama Production. Foreign and National experiments and assessments we can and should gear to build such a theory; but that atmosphere is not present to-day. Our works are at par with the most backward of hack actors,- at least so far as form is concerned. And by form we do not mean acting and staging a play only,-- the story and drama construction, situation and character building, handling of the theme-content itself also come in this domain. And sometimes, the conclusions and formulation of content itself fare on better in our hands. Confusion and anarchy are reigning supreme : theme-content-form-quality -popularity,-all these are mixed up, notions about them hazy, separation of each is almost brain-racking. We do not even know where to look for what. Repetition of a play has become the sole criterion of quality, - Popularity of the Party and its mass organizations, Popularity of these very art forms, hunger and need of the People for them, other organizational details, - in fact, all other factors are conveniently forgotten.

In this anarchy of thought, this 'democracy' the primary task is to restore scientific attitude, to bring back the forms of our art, the accepted norms Discussion and profound controversy on theories of production, pondering over the menace of "Expressionism", the flaws of bio-mechanical theatricality of Meyer hold, "Fourth Wall" theory of realism and its limitations, "Super-realism" of Taivov, mechanistic and critical approach of "Epic Theatre" of Bertolt Brecht, - all these will sound like deliberate banters, - satirical, distant discords. But actually there are differences, there are more to it than banters, there are food for thought in many a school. We will have to tackle them some day, this is absolutely certain. Not to-day. Today we have to declare some fundamental, broad points on which basic scientific attitude may be restored. We have to build "Creative Collectives" A total whole comprising many souls, but in art, a single unit. In order to build such units, we have to aspire after Group or Ensemble Acting. That can be done by standing upon the Stanislavsky System, the method of Moscow Art Theatre , the MAT. We have to develop according to the taste and need of our people. We have to learn, fuse, effect synthesis of past heritage of our stage with this theory. That can be done on the basis of group Acting, which is most democratic of all theories of stage, allows maximum development of the individual. Group acting presupposes Repertoire, Repertory system. What is a repertoire? It is nothing but repetition of plays once staged, by rotation. Once staged a play does not die, though the original Producer or the players pass away. It goes on, systematically staged year after year. For instance "Lower Depths" was staged forty years back, the original producer Stanislavsky himself is no more, original actors are no more, but one can go and witness the production this year in winter season at the Moscow Art Theatre. A play contains much more food for soul than is suggested by us. Not only the classics, but experiences of our people as portrayed by our writers can help to soothe, do help to soothe, and enthuse the hearts of these other men. To perform a play continually to a dud, and then to discard it for ever is a terrific waste of valuable emotional material. If we had a Repertory System, "Nabanna", for instance, would have been performed even to-day. It tells of, however strongly or weakly, those dead,-it would enthuse these other dead. Unless we hit upon this system of rotation, full value for our labor cannot be extricated. Repertory system needs some preconditions to exist. First and foremost, no such thing is thinkable on a long-term basis without stage, a people's stage. It is not a matter of the Federation, nor of Democratic front. It is a practical matter with us, the communists, We need a pulpit, solely for ourselves. We can accommodate others, but

we must accommodate them, not the other way round. A cursory glance to the pages of Dramatic history will reveal that without a stage, no drama movement has ever flourished. Irish Abbey Theatre of Dublin , Theatre Libre of Paris, Frie Beutone of Berlin , Independent Theatre of London, Moscow Art Theatre , one can go on and on. Most apt example for us is Frie Volksbeutione of Berlin, -- Berlin Peoples' theatre, (theatre which gave us Max Reinhardt, Erwin Piscator, Bertolt Brecht,) the theatre organized by Bruno Wille and drawing inspiration from the Social Democratic movement of Germany. Wille organized this theatre by penny contributions of thousands of workers and built a huge theatre hall in workers' district. We can learn from its rise and decline. The role of social Democracy in post-war Germany , specially during the Wiemer Republic , is known to us. The rift within the movement, coming out of Sparta cists led by Karl Leibnicht and Rosa Luxemburg, massacre of Sparta cists, rise to power of Nazi gang, - these were stormy years. Years full of desertions and confusion. It had its influence upon the theatre, -- ultimately it collapsed. There are others, - the Group theatre in New York, New Theatre League and Theatre Union of U.S. Sanghai Theatre inspired by Lheo Sun, these were politically conscious attempts. They prove that to go on consistently, the Party must be behind a theatre, and the theatre must preach to and inspire the masses for the Party. Objections on the score of lack of objective development of the country is too lame. This is one of the out-forms for which, at least in Bengal, people are willing to part with money, even today. And we can look into the account books of the most miserable of these moribund Public Boards of the city. We see that they are unable to make both ends meet; but we fail to see that they have extended these two ends out of all proportions and are suffering under a star system, swindling, corruption and court litigations. Profit motive has made superb fools of them. But they still earn a decent sum with those nonsense. That earning can be more than what we may need, on an austerity budget. And we would like to draw attention to our own earnings, not what we actually get, but what each group earns in terms of gross receipts for different funds, charities, and such other things, Specially we should remember the each earnings in muffussal en-gagements were thousands gather to see our works. We think, if we better our works and organize properly, peoples' need for their own stage can be fulfilled by us, and in no distant future too. The figures and statistics involved will force us to this conclusion. We can build a stage and keep it going. Without a stage, Repertory System can be initiated but cannot be kept up. Because Group acting is a whole time activity. It must support the comrades and workers who are engaged in it, just as we run our newspapers. Frie Volksbeutione sets an example from that angle too.

Our units, our fractions, wherever they are working, can mobilize their whole strength around this slogan of a Peoples' stage in workers' quarters and get it. Organizational measures for such drives can be taken by discussion. Even, we think, a single group can do this, if they are persistent enough, within a course of some years, - and then go on playing night after night in one place and create systematically, however, ramshackle that stage may look like. But this is not necessary. All party comrades can join in this one job and start working. What is the approach for building a Repertoire? That is the approach of Creative Collective. Vakhtangov defines such as - "an ideologically cemented collective", the members of the group work together as creative community. Who are these members? Dramatists, Producers and Actors, all other complimentary jobs can be performed by these three. In fact, all other works are to be performed by them so that the correct atmosphere is created. Now, of course, we have an ideologically cemented collective, since all in our group is a communist or a sympathizer. But artistically also we must cement ourselves; and organizationally too. Otherwise that working together as a creative community will remain a myth. We shall now start with Drama and Dramatists. Repertoire needs a well-rounded approach to drama selection. Nationally beloved dramas; adaptations and translations of foreign classics, and, most of all, plays depicting day to day struggles, - these are the aspects of Repertoire. This approach to selection is taken with a view to serving the people and educating them culturally. Along with this, we have to continue to serve the People in another way, - we have to break the theatre by doing theater. Such mobile forms as Living Newspaper, Poster Play, skits, community singing, pantomime, interludes and farces are to be taken up by us, developed and given a place in our overall Scheme of Repertoire. These forms are not fully utilized by us, nor are they adequately developed. Their potentialities have to be tapped. Many of our Folk histrionics (Gambhira Nilpuja, Bhasan, Jigir) and Foreign forms {interludes, Commedia Dell'arte etc.) open up a vista for experiments. And to act in the midst of mass action -in street corners, labor halls, picket lines, processions, -we need actors of such caliber which only group action and Repertoire can give birth to. Actually, to act under these conditions and in villages, and at the same time, to be artistically in one piece needs a special kind of training, which only a well - rounded approach can shape into being. This is the all round approach from which we have to think of Dramatists, - our Dramatists. A Dramatist must be, as far as possible, a member of the group. No. Dramatist ever, flourished without a stage and a group, specially the great ones. [Shakespeare, Marlowe, Thespis Aeschylos, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Ben Jonson, Synge. Moliere, Comeillen, Recine, Lope De Vega, Goethe, Schiller, need we mention any more?]

And Dramatists must find his group, and group should find its Dramatist, otherwise nothing of value will ensue. We should remember what happened to Chekhov's "Sea Gull" in Imperial Theatre, and how he subsequently came to the group of Moscow Art Theatre, and also, we should remember Gorky. So Dramatist should be a part of the collective. He must be reborn on the particular stage, from this standpoint, the group has living contact with great dramas in its practical work, and that immensely broadens its horizon. The Group will have to honor the vision of the Poet (these correct words - vision, inspiration etc. are continually cropping up in our discussion, but we just do not find any substitute for them), Our common error of fixing easy models of dramaturgy before us and with that yardstick criticizing everything, -- will get a rude shock when we learn Maeterlinck's "Blue bird" is so different from Aeschylus "Oresteia", Kalidas's "Avignan-Sakuntalam" has no parallel in Sophoklas' "Oedipus Rex", Synge's "Playboy of the Western World” has nothing to do with J.M.Barrie's "Peter Pan" Shakespeares' "Hamlet" has no link with Odets' "Golden Boy" -- though they all are models of superb dramatic construction. We have to consider playwright in his relation with the next ring of the ladder. The Regisseur. Who is this man with overall view, not bogged down to one point of the play, and why is he necessary? Let us start from the drama, the Dramatist writes for a purpose, which Stanislavsky calls - "the thorough action", which is the theme content, basic thread of Philosopy, the definite "say" of the play-wright. He never undertakes to write without something to say, conscious say we mean, from Shakeapeare to Ibsen, Aeschylus to Ivanov, no true drama has been born without it. He sees a vision - it comes like a concentrated gem to him, this theme-content may be not always sharply defined, may be he becomes aware of its vague urge in himself, but he gets inspired. He undertakes to write about it. Starts inventing things, heaps up lies to tell this truth. He depicts conflicts, presents contradictions, creates and delineates characters and situations with utmost life-like detail. His basic idea is sometimes hidden, sometimes comes froth on the surface, but constantly motivates all actions, moves everything. In this process of translating that idea in human terms, it gets diffused, di-lated, spilled all over. It does not remain an idea any more, it becomes issue or issues, centring which -storms rage, - storms of emotion. This whole process is never something schematic, far from it. It is like life-process itself, - hidden, Seeming spontaneous, but powerful. And, at last, it is resolved and gives birth to the synthesis. Still in human theme, of course. But the theme-content gets established this time on a higher, more complex level of the spiral. All sorts of pressures have been brought to bear upon this idea from all sides, thereby it becomes qualified, and becomes a subject of emotion rather than of reason. It becomes illuminated, so to speak, by the light of truthful insight immediately gained through the emotional experiences of recent imaginary events. Such is the course of thorough action in a Drama.

This course is to be followed all through the breakdown in detail of the physical aspects of production; that is, the rehearsals, casting, presentation. showmanship, elements of light, decor, mise-on-scine, make up, atmosphere building. It is broken down in the preparatory periods so that it can be established more forcefully when the curtain goes up on the first night. This thorough-action is to be kept in mind dubbing all these "hack-works" - kept as a vigorously fresh idea. Rather defender is the term that should be used. This defender is the Regissiur. Without delving deeper in the subject, we can assert that the Regissiur is necessary for this reason from the Dramatist's point of view. Without him, a good play can be performed (?) but the Dramatist cannot hope to be understood, So, the Regissiur walks in. But walking in, he brings in a creative element, he does not remain playwright's sentinel pure and simple. He surveys the field weighs, criticizes, accepts and comments on the theme-content; he does all these through creative action. His attitude becomes apparent in his mode of presentation. Presentation becomes in his hand a powerful weapon of creation. He thereby puts the seal of his creativity on the art work. His independence, in the field of theme-content, is of amazingly wide range. We can safely say, within the channel of original vision, he is inspired again and sees a vision, This can radically reshape a play. It has been witnessed on the stages of the world again and again. For us, lately, it came out sharply from Sambhu Mitra's recent Production of Tagore's "Rakta-Karabi". Sambhu changed not a line, yet changed the whole tenor. Idealistic mist of mysticism yielded place to sharp, vigorous indictment upon all fetters that bind Labor in its earth-building tasks, which was romantic, vague dissatisfaction, became words of rousing action. Is this interpretation? It cannot be. It is creation itself if it is interpretation it is of that degree and quantity - where it does not remain such any more, changes quality lively. It has become creation. Sambhu has only started fulfilling the tasks of Regisseur, by respecting and reshaping dreamful, lynical, ethical in form but innately genuine discontent of that mighty artiste of all times. Sambhu is doing that function which we are not. We must take up another example at least to understand the job of Regisseur tolerably well. Let it not seem that all that a Regisseur does is to come to loggerheads with dramatist or starts radically reshaping him. Though this is a function one has to perform to a degree whenever one is confronted with non-realistic approaches of even the best of other classes. But that also one does by loving and respecting, elongating the original idea inherent in the art work, by pulling off its false emotions and mystic ornamentations, brining out the kernel of social content hidden under them,-which

motivated the author sometimes without his knowledge even. One cannot implant what is not there. That is not Regisseuring, that is Meyer hold. (But -- Thus far, and no further shall thou proceed!" is a maxim which is best utilized when not played any heed to, - and critical attitude or passing of judgment on this demarcation line, to us, is as futile as it can be. One can accept; or one can reject, and one can try to understand the artiste.) If Tagore did not love man and labor, Sambhu could never elongate the line and arrive at the logical conclusion of these oppressed men born of a class, and this labor of those men. Sambhu carried forward logically and came here: if the seeds were not in Tagore, he would have to break Tagore to atoms, it would not have remained Tagore. And, of course, Tagore did not undertake to write "Rakta-Karabi" with the nonchalant attitude of "God's in his heaven, and all's well with the world!" The other example that we have promised --Checokov's "Sea-Gull”. It was performed at the Alexandrinsky Imperial Theatre of St. Petersburg, turned out to be a miserable flop without redeeming features even in the performances of the best players in the land, and critics suavely prophesied Checkov would die in a ditch a leper. Checkov blessed those critics, his consumption took a bad turn, and he retired to his quiet country corner declining: "Never will I write these plays or try to produce them, not if I live to be seven hundred years old." Nemirovitch Danchenko the Dramatist persuaded his friend Constantin Alexeyen (Stanislavsky) to take up this flop for their joint new venture founded in 1898, the Moscow Art theatre. They both went to Anton Checkov. He would not hear of it. But they convinced him at last. As Stanislavsky says: "Checkov cannot be presented; he can only be experienced". This was his approach to the Drama. He emphasized the characters in their milieu rather than on the individual hero, by creating a new technique and new staging: the Group method. Aware that a new failure might be fatal to the ailing and discouraged Checkov, they sought more than ever for the inner emotion of this tenuous tragedy. Two years after the Alexandrinsky Theatre Fiasco, the Moscow Art Theatre, just and excellent provincial troupe, presented "Sea-Gull" became world's most significant theatre, acquired a banner for itself depicting a fluttering white sea gull as its emblem, - and started to shifty the world's capital of Dramatic Arts from London to Moscow. Next world historical event for theatredom after Shakespeare took place. That was all. Checkov did not live to be even hundred years old, but he worte and tried to produce the plays of the stature of "Uncle Vanya", "Cherry Orchard" and "Three sisters." That was all.

What happened? the Regisseur understood the Dramatist "experienced" him, hit upon the correct form of presentation, elongated the content, commented upon it creatively, and critics became silent. The same happened to Gorky , though in a less dramatic manner, Gorky cannot be presented without "Group Method". He will be a flop any time he is played otherwise. For instance, Ashley Dukes, a critic and Regisseur of celebrated and premier theatres of London , finds in "Lower Depths" (incidentally, Danchenko suggested this name to Gorky ) "a series of faithful observation of reality." He uses reality in a derogatory sense. The essential or philosophic realism of Gorky , his profound assertion, "man, how proved the word rings!" the quest for truth of all miserable creatures though all the untruth that surrounds them, and the mighty Beethovenic Symphony of collective emotion surging and rising like a classical column when this problem is resolved, the sharp sabre-thrust of the news cutting like winter-wind through this joy of collective knowledge, the news of a wayward, strayed child lost in the wilderness,-- the actor, the fool, who has hung himself! All these leave these men cold. If allowed to handle, he would have made mincemeat of Gorky . He would have found pleasure in emphasing and gloating over the slang and unbalanced sex-releases, the unhealthy jokes and diseased pastimes of these suffering creatures of darkness. This drain inspector would kill Gorky , he would have popularized him to the coarse by playing on the base instincts of man. Thus, the Regisseur and the Drama, both interact upon each other, and art is born. In presenting the play, the Regisseur comes into contact with other men, first of all, the actors. Actors are concerned with each character, he is moreover concerned with each situation; actors are concerned with the thorough-actions of persons, he is moreover concerned with the thorough-action of the play from which all others spring. His main weapons in this field are composition, choreography, group or ensemble, movement etc. He brings out hidden nuances and motives and imparts them by means of there plastic motives. He takes the eyes of the spectators from particular to general and general to particular with the help of these and light, decor etc. To do these, and to do them on the basis of realistic of Realistic approach to art, his work can fully flourish in a Group only. Group presupposes submission of each for all - for totality. In a Group theme-content becomes more important than individuals. That never means actor becomes subordinated to the Producer in a physical way, - he starts carbon-copying the Producer in voice and manners, style of movement and gesture. That sort of thing will never do, that is not necessary from Regissuer's point of view. In fact, that is not necessary from Regisseur's point of view. In fact, that is detrimental to the cause of Regisseur, it makes the spectator painfully aware of a hidden iron-hand all throughout the play, the play loses spontaneity, actors become megaphones and mouthpieces. Regisseur sets the tempo, and alters it time and again, - and, at the same time, he fixes up the scale of music. Actors have to play to that tempo and that scale, - and they cannot go beyond them without loss of totality, the milieu.

This ensemble gives birth to and captures that elusive quest of all art- the style; that indefinable yet palpable something which lifts craft to the realm of art. Without style no art is individual, and Drama is an art which is collectively individual. It is a total creation resulted by collective effort. So, the Regisseur in a Group takes each for all and gives back each to all, Abuse there is, there will be much more dangerous abuses than are dreamt of today, but they can and will be checked if the scientific approach is kept up. and that attitude is manifested in the Group method of work. We have now come to the last rung of the ladder. the Artistes, the actors, not the players. We should quote here Nemirovitch-Danchenko, the co-originator of Group method. "......In the end, when you watch a performance, you must forget not only the Regisseur, you must forget even the author, you must yield wholly to the actor. He can gratify you, or distress you. The actor speaks and not the author, and not the Regisseur. Both one and the other have died in him, even as have died and become resurrected the innumerable observations and impressions experienced by him in the course of his whole life, from childhood to this very evening. All these, as though long since passed away, is resurrected under the pressure of that force which is embodied in a theatrical performance." Next from Stanislavsky himself: "the only king and ruler of the stage is the talented actor." Harold Clurman, the founder and Regisseur of Group Theatre of New York, has beautifully Summed up the method: "The modern theatre stems from Danchenko and Stanislavsky,- and from their joint creation, the Moscow Art Theatre, because they represent interchangeably the ideals of Content and Form, play and Production,- regarded as a unity; social and human vi-sion, made concrete and beautiful through their spontaneous organic embodiment in the complete medium of the theatre, of which the true focus is a group of actors." Why so? Is it only to coax and cajole the actors, to console them for taking away their rightful possessions? That way of thinking is nothing but a silly one, of course. They are thought so because through them and through them only can all other workers reach the audience, express themselves. That can never be done by making them megaphones of the author or the Regisseur. That can only be done by inspiring them and channelising them on to desired visions. But they must see visions, which are their visions as much as of others. Of course, they cannot start and fret their miserable hours upon the stage as they will of course, they will never be allowed to have fits of divine 'moods' and break composition; of course, they cannot play any more according to their interpretations only or without interpretation at all - of course, they cannot lord over their supposed "

charms" of idiosyncrasies as virtues; of course, they cannot parade or display their voice or body as something by seeing which the spectator will Swoon forthwith, Of course, they can do none of these things. They are given a domain instead, - their own domain: to create full-grown, all- faceted men and women. They have to see visions to create them, those imaginary creatures. It is not possible for any other man to enter into his soul and create an unending line of character which proceeds through all the uttered and unuttered moments of the play. By-play and Sub-text, these undergo a tremendous modification at the hands of an actor. Within the general line of choreography and interpretation, there are so many ways of creating a character which are almost boundless. Group acting demands discipline from the actors, and at the same time, confers the right of full-growth as a man,-as it is the most realistic of all art-theories. In order to be an actor in the Group, one has to develop that overall eye, to understand the Drama, purpose of Regisseur and other elements. Then and there only can he find his place in the pattern and build his house there, For this, he must have and element of Regisseur in him. And Repertoire offers an opportunity to develop that element. Firstly, alternate casting is an important factor. It allows to throw problems from so many sides. Secondly, Repertoire needs Regisseurs. One by one, many among the actors can and should be turned into Regisseurs and have production to their credit; at the same time, they remain actors in other plays. This is the road to democracy. This is a long road. We must be urged along this road. But we must remember the distance. Group building is not possible without a long-term view, as it is not possible to contemplate without men and women of utmost seriousness. There are technical and economic aspects of Group building, Lighting., Decor, backstage, makeup, -these do come in the domain of an actor, they help him to be intimate with his environment. And in a communist Group, which will have to be mobile at the same time be capable of maintaining quality in a settled place, knowledge and working of these are imperative. Same goes for the economic aspect. Understanding of the market, management of office, accounting and control, - these are 'hack-works' but precisely the selfsame things spelt doom to all group activity. They must be mastered by the workers of the Group, mainly. Group must be understood so that individual may flowers. The seeming contradiction of collective and individual is all now existent. It is all for one - and one for all.

At the same time, all abuses from all quarters are to be checked at any cost, ~ for the Group, for the Ensemble. Because Group acting presupposes another thing: the discord and harmony of the Group outside work, even of personal nature, is bound to neglect itself in the work. We are painfully conscious that we have not been able to do full justice to the subject due to our incapacity. Ever so many practical questions arise, so much is to be clarified, that we think that this paper is not the place where to go through the whole hog of it. We strove to outline the structure in a rudimentary form, We think that work should start along this tine. We introduce the subject. We are confident that work can start on this ABC - basis. Questions will crop up, as they should, during the process of and connected with concrete work. They will be solved them. One more point of clarification. Group acting is not something iron-clad. It is rather a basis, a flexible body of accepted principles on which many schools can develop: many ways of production, and character creation is possible by keeping within these general principles. It can be compared, from that angle, with the operation of theory of "socialist Realism" of soviet Union in the Literary field. Moscow Art theatre with its innumerable studios, Vakhtangov, theatre Maly Theatre, different theatres of nationalities and minorities, state theatres of different Republics, such experimental theatres as Tairov's Kamerny, Theatre of the Revolution, theatre of the Red Army, different amateur Groups in Trade Unions and Kolkhozes, Strolling theatres, - and in all these literally thousand of Regisseurs are working with very many different views on art, - and even the big film Studios and actors, - and all united on the basis of these Principles of Stanislavsky system, the MAT method. This is what we must master. This is what we must utilize by setting it among and fusing it with our reality, our people. Such is the task of our building creative collectives, the problems of our art creation. PART IV: IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION We have tried to touch upon all the major problems arising in our work - concerning the party, the People and our Art. We hope that some light might have been thrown on them. Whether or not all bur suggestions are workable is more than what we can say. Because firstly, subjectivism is a thing which we all have in profusion. Sometimes many problems rack our brains, but one stroke of organization sweeps away much of it. This has happened before with us This may happen again. And practicability many a times, plays tricks with us. We consider many things to be good while discussing, but find it hard or impossible to implement. Secondly, whenever we come to think of to-day's reality, our hearts sink. Whether it is possible to clean this Region stable, and bring order, whether this is possible by us,

here in no distant future,- we are actually at a loss to understand. Our honest and sincere reactions are such. We are puzzled and leaderless. Still, we have spoken. Whatever has troubled us in our work, finds its way into our discussions. We have sometimes gone tangentially off into seemingly academic discussion; but, to us, these were absolutely necessary. But we wanted not to discuss things, but to get things done. Our aim is to create that atmosphere where creation can be done organizationally. This is all-important to-day. Only work matters, all else is for it, because of it leading towards it. Let not any amount of discussion make this point get lost in a maze of sound and fury. We must, in the last, attempt to impress the main points of our discussion: (1) The major shortcomings arising in our work today is precisely because of lack of Party attention. Legitimate attention is our slogan. (a) Because of this and other factors, we are isolated, not at all drawn into the Party activities, full of indiscipline, and Sectarianism indeed is the greasiest danger in our work. (b) Party line on culture : To gear all art-activities towards fulfilling basic tasks of Democratic Front, tasks of mass organization building, and at the same time, carrying forward National Heritage by reshaping it and continuing it on to Proletarian ends. Reshape the Past, hammer the present and forge the future! (c) Towards extension of Party life to include all creative activities - professional and otherwise. Towards helping the task of mobilizing the masses by creation and by mobilizing the artistes. (d) Towards conferences on Culture - break this isolation even among the artistes. (e) Towards Study Campaigns for the rank and file of the whole Party. This is an absolute necessity - to-day's quality of cadres makes it imperative. Great dangers await us if we show total slackness about this: Party Building task. Study of Marxism based on Indian Reality: leadership is long overdue, (2) Towards building of broad-based, Democratic art-organizations. (a) Towards organization which are not mass organizations. But organizations for specialized workers. (b) Towards Democratic Federations of individuals and groups on the broad principles of Right to self-determination and broad-based, wide composition.

(c) Towards establishment of our hegemony in such a Democratic Front by models of creation, by examples of worth. (3) Towards scientific approach in our art-works. (a) Group method of creation in collective arts: in Drama, in Opera, in Ballet, and to a great degree, in Histrionic singing too. (b) Towards a Stage, an Academy, and a conservatoire of Music. (c) Towards serious efforts in creations more and more. An attempt at implementing measures chosen at random from among these suggestions will spell disaster to the movement, if they are not thought of in their totality. Specially this is true of parts I and II. That sort of thing will put stress on one aspect of the problem and leave aside the other, resulting again in a swing. Balance is the key-word today. Even wrong stress will upset this balance. And this subject, we just initiate it, balance may come after a thorough shifting of pros and cons. Hence, discussion is what is called for. Party has to take measure in this sphere, and Party cannot take them without such discussions. So, a CONVENTION OF CULTURAL WORKERS is on the order of the day. Towards a CONVENTION OF PARTY ARTISTES, as soon as possible. And finally, we must come to the question of basic attitude itself. Towards an attitude of serious acceptance of Revolution as a matter of arduous hard, sustained effort. Drop the idea that Revolution is around the corner. It is not. Forget all that about previous "elation", previous "enthusiasm", - that romantic feeling of Revolutionary "zeal", in a word, all that guided all of us up to 1950 at least. Do not await the descent of such feeling on your soul. That does not correspond with realty! The other side also does not correspond with reality. That side, which came to the fore from '50 onwards, - feeling of being "lost", sense of lacking "justification" in working and "sacrificing" search for finding one's own worth in the personal sphere and drawing blank each time, -- in fact, all the depths of demoralization. That has nothing to do with reality. There are on the move to-day. We must grasp this with reason and emotionally experience it. History has chosen this path, in this land. Inexorably History is moving, may be the speed is not to our liking. We just cannot help it. We can only prepare for long-drawn offensive, proletarian grit, relentless struggle. Revolution is an Adults' Business.

Mature action born of mature thinking is what is called for to-day. Such are the thoughts that should guide us to-day. Such are our tasks. We shall fulfill it. RITWIK GHATAK 24 BALLYGUNJ PLACE, CAL-19