[Reader-list] provocation et al

[tarunksaint]

Dear list,

I'm glad the provocation did stir up the list. So there may be a pedagogical value after all to literary criticism! Partition, Proust, English in India and a whole host of concerns which emanate from Sarai's first literary spat. However I'm still far from satisfied with the proceedings, which are somewhat too unstructured for my liking.

I wholeheartedly support the suggestion as regards a discussion, even if not moderated, on a specific subject, or set of subjects. On many discussion lists across the globe, to be differentiated from chat rooms, certain themes are chosen (sometimes by the list members themselves) which become the focus for a discussion in which both the experts and specialists and as well as laypersons may contribute. And who's to say that the experts must have the last word? Sarai has the benefit of being next-door to CSDS, where there is an ongoing project on partition and the recovery of survivors' memories. Perhaps we could begin with an exploration of various aspects of the partition experience and its impact on collective psychology as well as individual psychology. This could be extended to include a discussion including criticism of partition stories and novels-- perhaps even poetry. We might even consider the possibility of a reading list which would feature both Saadat Hasan Manto and more recent practitioners, including PP of course (oops, there I go again!). This could be the first in series which might feature invited guest contributors, on subjects ranging from ELT (on which much research has taken place), to gay writing and contemporary communalism/ fascism. 

These repostings from other lists/magazines are so dreary, after all, and deny this list its originality. Sarai needs to work towards a ratio of fifty to sixty percent discussion/commentary to allay the anxieties/insecurities of those bedazzled by big names. 

Saran misunderstands much of what the debate centred on. It is easy to shoot down straw men from the vantage point he assumes, which is equally value- laden in its assumptions. The vaunted relativism he may wish to celebrate in theory is difficult to practice, as his own decontextualization of my critique of PPism demonstrates. PP himself has understood the source of my difficulty. It is precisely the near impossibility of accommodating the magnitude of distress and suffering that catastrophic events elicit in language, in forms like tragedy or comedy. Attempts to do so often end up trivialising the torment of the survivor, unless attempted by very skilful hands. One might argue that the tragicomic tone in Manto, particularly, emerges as a worthy negotiation with historical trauma. And perhaps only fragments a la Siyah Hashye and Khol Do can encapsulate the disturbing abyss of psychic experience unleashed by the partition itself. 

It is surprising that there should be no mention in Saran's long harangue of the core issues which I sought to raise, which I have explored at greater length in print form, as PP generously acknowledges. As a filmmaker I would have imagined that issues relating to memory and perception and the representation of the partition would be impossible to ignore. Pankaj Butalia's Moksh touched upon the impact of Partition trauma on the second generation in a moving fashion, which can be sharply differentiated from the crowd-pulling jingoism of Gadar. I grant the film-maker his right to vend his product in the marketplace of ideas, but I also hold to my judgement of Gadar as a cheap manipulation of traumatic memories and a prostitution of Partition suffering. The point being made, perhaps with too much vehemence, was as regards the need for care in both one's expression, and in evaluation and interpretation.

Sophistry and debating tricks are no-one's monopoly . Dragging words out of their context to build your case is hardly sound logic-- though it might help in grandstanding, in travestying your opponent's case, and in skewering Professor S., that malicious hate-figure, whose ghost we may now lay to rest once and for all, amen. Saran completely misses my point about the laissez faire moral economy; does he really think that contemporary late capitalism, with its ideologies, has no impact on the universe of this list? Relativism of this sort cannot rationalise the trashing of offlist individuals. This is certainly as much a matter of double standards as proclaiming your allegiance to an oh-so-sophisticated genteel milieu, in which Proustian allusions come tripping off the tongue, and simultaneously holding a brief for (presumably) unwashed hordes, now crowding this virtual salon. Come off the high horse, those with the skill to type, will do so in whichever way they please, regardless of censorial/editorial interventions (depending how you interpret it). One mustn't carry these grad-school analogies too far, after all, the brown sahibs are a bit of an anachronism/cliche these days anyhow. 

To me this sort of relativism is unacceptable, as unacceptable as the mealy-mouthed platitudes of the Hindutva hypocrites, just before they invent a new way of using gas cylinders to blast down Muslim homes in Ahmedabad. No, sir, you must carry the burden of your argument to its conclusion (offline) before I'm convinced.

Meanwhile, 

This is just me ,

Tarun 

(certainly not yet a prof.)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20020415/cd5d11e3/attachment.html