literature, politics, polemics

One can safely say dabbling in Art and Literature requires no entree fee.

If one has to produce something in any other field, scientific or religious, one may be required to spend time studying it. They need to make atleast some effort in learning the practice and take time to study how it is applied. In order for one to be critical of C programming language, one need to know the basics of a programming language, semantics and the jargon. Otherwise it would be too generic (applicable to most languages). If it were to stick to a particular religion, one needs to be conversant in that specific religion. They may have to, again, study it a bit more closely.

I read some place that when certain minimum physical comforts are satisfied, humans enquire into other areas for their satisfaction. Art, Literature fall into that category. These two require minimum skill and a low cost of entry. One need not understand the historical context, the meaning for the present generation or the future orientation of either the Art or Literature in order to become a critic. One could look at a master piece and say that 'these things are produced for millionaires' or the same person could take a different side under a different context to argue that 'art is not just for millionaires'. Both are valid views and a reasonable person can butt heads on either side without any preliminary knowledge of what the object is. The painter could be Jean-François Millet or Vincent Van Gogh, one does not need to know the subject in question, in order to consider and weigh on taking sides.

Literature also thusly lends itself to criticism by common folk. Citizen entry into literature is not limited. It does not mean that either Literature or Art changes in its form with ordinary people taking different sides. Art and Literature do not change based on people taking sides or their perceptions. Literature brings imagination to life from its creator and unveils a form unseen by the viewer or reader. Each piece has its face, many faces in fact, therefore many interpretations. The reader becomes a part of it at one time or the other, in both accepting it and rejecting it. Literature also knows no time. Each produced in different times endure other layers, in time. Literature in my opinion is the single most meaningful invention of mankind, a priceless gift to future generations. Humans must have, unconsciously I believe, decided to pass on their wisdom, playfulness, their fears, behavior and thoughts, and clearly their trials and tribulations to their patrons - future generations.

With such a vastly broad definition, as mentioned in the beginning, with very low cost entry into the field, literature is created sometimes unknowingly by the reader. It still does qualify to be literature, therefore, there are no barriers to not only read, understand and enjoy this creation but there are also no barriers to creating it.

I am no literataeur. I think that title need to be reserved for those whose creations are tested by time and reason. Therefore, I venture into politics.

Associating oneself with literature does not require group behavior. Group behavior alters individual's outlook with respect to literature. An individual is either completely devoid or partly modified of all his/her inclinations as a part of a specific group. One needs to, in order to have an unbiased view of a work in question, think from an individual perspective. The bias is introduced by the group one chooses to be a part of. Therefore, the personal view is foresaken atleast in part as a part of the group, by some or others at any given point of time.

The group imposes Zoon Politikon ideal (somewhat voluntarily from the individual perspective) and adds color to one's views. Aristotle may have other theories on this but the closest to human behavior currently relevant in 'right' and 'left' politics, Marx's observation, apparantly, that an individual's ability to behave independent of others is valued only as long as one is a part of a group. The group already modified the definition of individual with such an acceptance.

The political animal part plays huge with revisiting of a literary subject. Now, all of a sudden an individual is beginning to cede his ability to chose for himself or herself based on his/her convictions. The group's collective wisdom after some arguement, takes over for defining literature. By its very nature any group is after a near term objective. The politics is about near term (short-term).

A group's wish for future, mostly near term, clearly outweighs the idealistic, long-term views of an individual. Any group can elect to be indifferent to an individual taking the shape of 'an entity', that seeks to influence other individuals. Now the entity has a value in a democratic sphere. The politics of an individual, when reinforced by the object of a group, are no longer controlled by the literary taste of an individual. A literary group will be the dullest form of creation, it can not produce a long-term, time tested literature, even when critiquing.

Politics are not to be confused with literature. For an ordinary joe on the street it could be hard to distinguish between the two. There are vast amount of works, infact, I would not be surprised if the majority of the works are in the grey area between these two spheres. In capitalistic societies individuals write to sell their ideas. For a political perspective, 'grey area' sounds good, literateur would not have said such a thing. There are those who might say literature denying politics in itself is political in nature. That may be true, I am happy with that idea, except that politics in itself does not constitute literature. There needs a product, a time tested one at that, to show.

In short, literature defines the longer term view of an individual. Politics represent a shorter course of survival of the group. Both are equally important. Politics influence literature of the time. Literature also modifies political nature of a human being. However closely these two are related neither should be confused with the other in that one is a beauty itself and the other is a reflection based on the beholder.

How can one tell which is which? Are you confused? You are the right candidate for politics. It requires no entry and will not be a hindrance to any claim-to-be a part of literary scene. What more, one can always claim to be in a grey area like this writer and escape the wrath of others. And you will be in majority by doing so.

To those who are confused just like I am on occassion, I offer the following single test:

1. Does this work seek to make a case, an appeal to form a public opinion?

2. With or without public's opinion as in Democracy, does the character of this question change? {To elaborate, if there is a question, in order for it to qualify as a literary question, it must have such a merit regardless of the public opinion.}

3. Can the question be made redundant once people take a vote on it?

If the answer is yes to all of the above three questions, I conclude that the question/work falls in the 'grey area' or if you pay me to be more specific: it is a political question.

PS. Needless to say perhaps, but the above thought is influenced by what DTLC as a literary club went through recently, in losing a couple of individual voices from itself over a political matter.

ceding moral highground

The fear, infact the only fear, I contemplate in an argument is the fear of ceding moral high ground. It truly does not matter whether I am on the losing side or the winning side. A winnable argument can be rendered useless by a questionable morality. It also accelarates losses further down the road, for a losing side.

No outsider or outside of self would contribute to such a threat as much as self.

In the movie, Gandhi, one among a few scenes I remember from has to do with the danDi maarch. It is a scene about non-cooperation movement by satyaagrahi's who defy the orders to make salt in a coastal village named danDi in Gujrat (a NW state in India). The scene is described in many texts. As a batch of satyagrahi's walked over to the site in a row with the intention of picking salt from ground, police charge on these unarmed villagers. The batch falls to the ground and a number of women wokers rush to the scene to treat them or pull them aside. Second batch moves forward. These batches keep coming. They keep taking the beating with no resistance. The saga goes on till dusk.

There is a NY Times reporter, Vincent Walker (played by Martin Sheen) to witness on site and as shown in the movie to be rushing to a nearest phone. His dictates a telegram to Times: After today, the west can no longer claim the moral high ground. It did not take long after that for British to seek an exit from India.

Indians were no better than Britishers. British saw an opportunity and held India as a captive. Capable Indians did that to their own people. Such comparisons were unnecessary until the point of relative greatness on the part of Indian and in great numbers in which it is practiced was made evident to the world. The political masterminds of the time understood that & the British had no choice but exit.

The aggressor is seen always as beginning at a low point from any vantage. Saddam Hussain was seen as having no moral ground to begin with when he rolled into Kuwait. Current President Bush is seen across the world as not having such a ground either. These positions are not comparable however similar they might look from a moral stand point. Not withstanding that, it provides neither consolation nor comfort for a world citizen that America is a liberator of Iraqis.

America has shed nearly two-thousand soldiers thus far in Iraq. When is the war going to be too expensive (in deaths)? No-one would ask a losing side how many of their people died. Iraq is a losing side, so far. As the time wears out, if Saddam is forgotten, America would stand on the losing edge. That is a point when people in the world would begin to not notice or count the number of American deaths.

World offered essentially a blank check to America after 9-11. An incident of that magnitude can change the world. The terrorists funded by Bin Laden fell to the lowest point after 9-11. While those terror seeking organizations continue to self-destroy themselves, the civilized nations can not afford to fall into that trap.

That is a place America can not afford to be in. Moral high ground is the only thing that will come to rescue. The equation is a real simple one at this point. The complexities of cold war are literally under water in Atlantic. World will forget Abu Graib. World will forget WMD. World will forget civilian deaths in Iraq. If America plays a visible role with the following: Africa must be rescued. Middle-east must be settled. Arms in the world should go down. Environmental treaties honored. Fight the disease in the world. Leave Iraq to UN. Offer mea culpa on intelligence (to no one in particular). Get Bin Laden. Curse the French for abandoning friends in difficult times. (I have been a supporter of getting rid of Saddam by what ever means it took, and there is no change in that position -- this is about moving forward). Moral ground's only purpose is to stay afloat above the water and not sink. It's purpose is to protect the interests of future generations.

We go from the international circles and conundrums to the local issues to the state of Andhra Pradesh. Virasam (the self-proclaimed revolutionary writers association in AP) may not have gained much in its literary status with the imposition of ban on them by the AP State Government. They may treat the present ban as a feather in their cap. They have no clue about revolution, the government is the one that acted as a revolutionary in the true spirit of not ceding one inch in strategy and never showing their cards in public. Everyone would only guess what the Government would do next as everyone else's position is very well fixed. That gives an added advantage to the establishment.

Moral highground is never fixed. It shifts with people. It seeks to attract majority to its side. If minority is repelled by it, it shifts with the unexpected swiftness. The establishments will continue to be ruined because they are either too slow to recognize such shifts or because they are too lazy to act on such signs. The Governement of AP should release the so-called virasaM from its list of banned organizations while continuing to pursue every legal case on each individual, if there is sufficient evidence to support any other banned organization. Governement can not afford to test its own limits. MLA Narsi Reddy's murder on Independence day along with ten other people offered a blank check to the establishment by the majority. That has happened once before with the cold-blooded murders in Vempenta by the so-called maoists. These incidents require a measured response from the perspective of public while following through the most rigorous course on the inside. Establishment in Andhra Pradesh gets high marks on this while virasaM gets a zero.

One last thought on this:

Moral authority is never retained by any attempt to hold on to it. It comes without seeking and is retained without effort. - Mohandas Gandhi

But Gandhi lived in different times & it is hard to believe that he once walked on this earth. Today, retaining Moral authority requires considerable, visibile effort. If no effort provides the evidence of such in populace, one must seek it with more effort.