Progressive Hindi Writers' Conference: An Assessment

Social Scientist

Progressive Hindi Writers' Conference: An AssessmentAuthor(s): Anand PrakashSource: Social Scientist, Vol. 1, No. 11 (Jun., 1973), pp. 56-62Published by: Social ScientistStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516509 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 23:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:43:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=socialscien

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516509?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Progressive Hindi Writers' Conference An Assessment

THE progressive trend in Hindi literature assumed a distinct shape in the thirties. All those writers who were concerned about the evil impact of British imperialism on Indian life and culture decided to work collec-

tively against that impact. At the same time, they also found themselves

pitched against orthodox values which sought to resist any radical change in the people's outlook. One discerned in their writings a critical treat- ment of the then existing living conditions of the peasantry, Harijans, labour, and the middle class in general. There was enough evidence of a desire to contribute significantly towards the socio-political and cultural needs of our people as was reflected in magazines like Hans, Naya Sahitya and Jaya Path.

This trend was a part of our broad political movement against the British. The political unity of different sections of people, including the

bourgeoisie, for the overthrow of British rule created the necessary background for a fight on the literary front also, which meant that the

literary movement got its perspective from the broad national political movement. This period also saw the emergence of progressive move- ments in many other Indian literatures.

This movement bore ample fruit and threw up many a writer wedded to democratic values and ending exploitation of the poor by the rich. But, it remained, by and large, vague with regard to the precise theoretical questions, such as strategy and tactics to be adopted for end-

ing class exploitation in our concrete historical situation. This partly explains the subsequent confusion and petering out of the movement after the attainment of freedom from the British yoke in 1947.

There were also other factors which caused the weakening of the

progressive movement after 1947. At the time of the assumption of state

power, the Indian bourgeois class reached an understanding with the British imperialists, and thus planned to pursue policies against the interests of the toiling masses. They also worked out a class alliance with the landlords. This change in the pattern of class forces made its

impact on the cultural front by creating confusion among the progressive writers regarding their role in the new situation. An illusion was sought to be created that having won freedom for the 'Indian people as a whole', it was no more necessary to wage a collective ideological and political battle against the ruling class within the country in order to safeguard and pursue the interests of the working masses. Instead, writers were

expected to 'co-operate' with the regime so that a 'new nation could be built'. The limited expansion of industry, trade, education, and other



sectors, the unplanned character of which became clear later on, streng- thened the illusion and caused disruption in the ranks of even the

relatively more committed writers. But the economic policies framed to pursue the capitalist path of

development helped only the capitalists while they emaciated the working masses. Gradually, the 'supporters' of the regime among writers were

exposed and the cultural values they wanted to propagate met with disapproval and criticism.

In the meantime, it also dawned upon the writers that the tradition- al values of a bygone era only served to arrest the onward march of history and played a reactionary role, and that the solution of our cultural and social problems lay in the complete smashing of the old concepts and the adoption of the new democratic norms. Again, the democratic norms could not be adopted or cultivated in isolation. They were to be made available to our people who required ,them for their meaning- ful participation in the process of social change.

Being conscious of the new needs and tasks, our writers could not sit idle and watch the ever-worsening conditions of the masses. They had to think anew about the various issues on which they could take a correct and principled stand and thus strive to awaken the masses for united action against the undemocratic policies of the regime. They could do this by forming themselves into a broad and responsible social group and drawing up a clear-cut programme of action. This became evident from journals like Katha, Vaam, Samarambha, Samaiyk, Ore, Uttarardha, Sambodhan, and others which emerged on the literary scene in a span of four years and showed promise of playing an important role in uniting the progressive writers on broad left and democratic issues. Hence the need of a progressive writers' conference to discuss important socio-cultural questions in order to reach general agreement on a minimum concrete programme.

Of the resolutions passed at the end of the Conference of the Progressive Writers at Banda held in February 1973, two drew our attention most specifically. One condemned the recent burning of a Harijan at the hands of a landlord in Banda district; the other highlighted the fact that all thinking people in general and writers in particular, in our country, face the prospect of denial of civil rights and liberties. Of special interest was the fact that this heinous crime was perpetrated soon after the SilverJubilee celebrations of Independence. The relevant question to be asked is this: do we blame one or two individuals who perpetrated such crimes, or do we blame the ruling classes which have failed to create the minimum social conditions under which we could live with, namely, a sense of physical security, if not 'equality', 'justice' and so forth ?

Secondly, the repressive measures taken against writers who gave vent to their sense of disillusionment with the present social system also pointed towards the attitude of intolerance of the rulers for any criticism whatsoever. This was a serious situation. And it could not be viewed in isolation.

NOTES 57



In order to arrive at an understanding of the current socio-political background which may have necessitated a united front of the progressive writers, we have to mark the following:

a) The deepening of the economic crisis in the last few years as a result of policies which encourage the intensive exploitation of the workers by the rich; b) Social oppression of the workers, peasants, landless labourers and salaried employees, generating large-scale discontent, resentment and revolt; c) Denial of democratic rights to the toiling people so that their resentment does not assume an organised character; d) Indirect and direct curbs on writers and intellectuals so that their

plans to lay bare effectively the evil aspects of our society are

systematically thwarted. In response to such challenges-posed on one side by the ruling

classes through their acts of repression against the poor; and on the other

by the oppressed poor masses through their united democratic actions

against their 'masters'- a broad progressive outlook has begun to emerge in Hindi literature recently. As our objective historical situation demand- ed, this outlook has been strengthening itself gradually by showing a consistent concern for the developments in our society. Again, this outlook has moved in the healthy direction of becoming an active parti- cipant in the larger struggle for social emancipation. Considerable numbers of young and enthusiastic writers have rallied together and

registered their general sense of disapproval through articles, short stories and poems and by putting up magazines from their centres of work and influence. The present All-India Progressive Hindi Writers' Conference held at Banda this year seemed to be a step in the direction of enabling writers to reach a common minimum agreement on some of the basic

literary tasks. Kedar Nath Agrawal, a fine sensitive Hindi poet and the chief

architect of the Conference, rightly pointed out at the beginning that a fruitful dialogue between the progressives of various political shades is

possible only if the assembled writers observed proper sobriety while

thrashing out the points of difference. He seemed to have in mind the few 'old hands' many of whom had quietly slipped into oblivion in so far as the fulfilment of a significant literary role at the present time was concerned.

The four sessions into which the Conference was divided were devoted to poetry, short story, literary criticism and the organisation question respectively.

Rajiv Saxena's paper on the poetry of the post-Independence period broadly outlined the reasons for the failure of the progressive movement in the past. He considered the trend of New Poetry as faithfully reflect-

ing the cultural ethos of our country because it had broadened the writer's vision. Thus, it had taken Hindi poetry forward. The same thing

58 SOCIAL SCIENTIST



could be done better by our progressive writers if they adapted themselves to the 'new historical tasks'. He asserted that the success of New Poetry, which was based on the principle of anti-Communism and which ulti-

mately led the essentially self-seeking poets to the negative tendency of individualism, could be traced to the failure of the progressive movement to play its role in the changed circumstances.

The main burden of Vishwambharnath Upadhyaya's paper was that poetry should be tested at many levels. In his view, content was an important part of a poem but it alone was not enough. Undue emphasis on the content made poems look like journalistic comments. He felt that

poems which gave "newer pleasure every time you read them" and which "transformed the soul of the reader" (whatever that might mean) should be distinguished from those which were written on large-scale and which appeared to be "written by one man under various names".

The papers of Lalit Mohan Awasthi and Manmathnath Gupta were similar in many ways. Awasthi proposed a 'judicious' strategy through which our goal of social change could be achieved. In his view, our

country lacked many things for which a ruthless battle could be waged. But, at the same time, he asserted, prosperity had also increased and percolated down to the poorer masses. In one breath, he reeled out figures of immense money concentrated in the hands of the big bourgeoisie (was it outside the influence of economic policies of the class-regime represented by the government ?), and the facilities of gas stoves, pressure cookers, transistor sets, 'enjoyed by the lower strata'. He felt that the situation was ripe for a revolution in the country, and tried to suggest that collaboration with those sections of the ruling classes, which were

'progressive', might be fruitful to combat the big bourgeoisie and the landlords.

Chandrabhushan Tiwari's paper on short story stood in sharp contrast to all others. Tiwari analysed the circumstances in which the New Short Story took origin, and the characteristic answers it presented to the burning questions of the time. He established a link between the peculiar sensibility of storywriters and the approach of that particular social class which cherished dreams of stability and prosperity, the class which wanted to pluck the fruits of 'nation-building' without any significant participation in the socio-historical process. He went on to recognise the fact of disillusionment in this class under the pressures of economic failures, rising cost of living and the growth of the working class movement.

Tiwari did not leave the question here. He examined some important short stories in their concrete artistic context and held that not all writers of the New Short Story could be dubbed trivial or insignificant. In fact, some of the vital aspects of these writers were duly appreciated.

A major part of his paper gave evidence of a mature critical effort. Still, in the last part, Tiwari fumbled. His formulations regarding the new crop of writers were far from convincing. Also, his selection of

NOTES 59



these writers and their stories seemed arbitrary and schematic. It smack- ed of an effort to read more meaning in some stories than actually there was. He could have realised the difficulties we face when we have to discuss stories written in the recent past. In our haste to suggest the

required strategic direction, we tend to pass off some of our inital impres- sions as considered critical statements.

The drawbacks of the papers presented for discussion were many. Our critics seemed to be unaware of the need of the day. No doubt it was necessary to perceive the aspects of inter-relationship and inter-action between literature and the socio-cultural background. But equally important was the question of literature being different from, say political pamphleteering, abstract economic analysis, historical commentary, and so forth. We should have considered literature as a part of the cultural

phenomenon thrown up by the class conflict at a particular time. We should have then gone on to distinguish those aspects of the class literature which were related to the cultural needs, longings and aspirations of the revolutionary class from those which reflected the wishes of the vested interests in society. We should have attempted a deep and scientific study of those literary forms which the revolutionary as well as the decadent urges of our society assumed.

In this way, we could move in the direction of evolving progressive aesthetics based on dialectical reasoning and the consideration of social relevance. Only then could we effectively combat culturalism and aestheticism-the concepts implying that literature is beyond and outside the scope of history. Then, we could also minimise the danger of sectarian- ism and adventurism-the outcome of undialectical reasoning which

negates a correct understanding of the socio-political and cultural scene and encourages empty phrase-mongering in place of a correct selection of themes and emphases.

It must also be noted that these papers generated a healthy clash of views. Most of the participants numbering over 70 recognised that the

vigour and vitality seen in the discussion was a sign of keenness on the part of writers to come together and collectively fight the bourgeois-fedual values. In this respect, Karan Singh Chauhan, Sudhish Pachauri, Khagendra Prasad Thakur, Ramesh Upadhyaya, Surendra Chaudhry, Premendra, Savyasachi, Dhoomil, Surendranath Tiwari, and many others made notable contributions towards evolving a strategy for united action based on frank and sharp criticism, not on "mutual understanding" and compromise.

In the concluding session, the writers unanimously adopted a policy statement and programme in which they sketched a broad and workable

analysis for a common understanding and action. The statement noted that the "pursuance of the policy of mixed economy in the last 25 years in the name of independent and planned economic development had encouraged the monopoly capital, which had adversely affected the whole economic, political and social structure and arrested the growth of

60 SOCIAL SCIENTIST



society and culture". It drew attention to the remnants of feudal set-up like "blind beliefs, religious superstitions, communal ideas and revivalist tendencies" which reflected the historically outmoded and irrational character of the feudal interests in our society.

Hailing the emergence of Bangladesh as a secular and democratic country, and the victory of the people of Vietnam in their liberation struggle against American imperialism, it urged the progressives to remain cautious against a new American conspiracy and mischievous anti-democratic alliance in any part of Asia. It also stressed the need for greater unity of all shades of progressives to wage a united struggle against the aforesaid evils and threats existing in our society. This was not possible if the immediate tactical differences on the political front were allowed to unnecessarily disturb the functioning on the literary front. Among the tasks which the programme urged the writers to undertake were the development of scientific outlook on the basis of which socio-historical questions could be examined with an appropriate sense of perspective; separating of the healthy humanist elements in our cultural heritage from the narrow and constricted social tendencies and a re-interpretation of the former for the benefit of the toiling masses; and, development of the progressive aesthetics and the standards of literary judgement and evalua- tion.

Finally, a 25-member Contact Committee was formed which would mobilise larger support for the cause of progressive movement and thrash out various measures to be taken for the furtherance of unity among like- minded writers in the light of the policy-cum-programme document adopted by the Conference.

Let us hope that the joint statement and programme start a more fruitful dialogue among progressive writers for future collective action. The Conference also underlined the necessity of more vigorous and honest exchange of views on issues like the class character of the Indian state; the precise nature of the imperialist values which are sought to be propa- gated through private, semi-government and governmental agencies; the manner in which the outdated feudal values are used by our ruling classes to frustrate the progressive march of history; the role of Sahitya, Lalit Kala, Sangeet Natak and other academies, radio and television networks, monopoly press and big publishing houses; class values represented by the study-courses of various literatures framed by Indian universities; the possibilities of evolving proletarian culture in literature as a positive counter-measure to the existing cultural values created by the class regime of the country, and so forth.

We have yet to see whether the Contact Committee goes about its job efficiently and sincerely by organising a free and frank debate on the issues related to the area of culture and literature. We apprehend that if we falter because of our deep-rooted tendencies of compromise, collaboration and acquiescence, we would be strengthening our class enemies.

We are likely to face challenges from two quarters. Firstly, a few

NOTES 61



62 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

'progressives' who have allowed themselves to be in the swim temporarily, hoping that their narrow factional interests would be served, may feel frustrated sooner or later and may adopt disruptionist tactics. Needless to say that such elements will have to be spotted without delay and pre- vented, through open and frank criticism, from becoming harmful.

Secondly, a unity of all the left and democratic writers on the basis of a common minimum understanding would certainly induce the writers of the other camp to launch an offensive. This camp of reactionaries and status quo-ists would use all their means to vitiate, divide, confuse and

finally break this progressive front. Considering the nature and quality of discussions in the Conference and the writers' desire to reach an

agreement on broad strategic questions reflected in the statement, programme and resolutions, it seems reasonable to expect that this front would measure up to these challenges effectively.

ANAND PRAKASH



Progressive Hindi Writers' Conference: An Assessment

Documents

Transcript of Progressive Hindi Writers' Conference: An Assessment