|
In
a remarkable piece of polemic Maharshi Viththal Ramji Shinde (1873-1944), an early twentieth century
thinker and political and social activist, summed up the state of Marathi
letters thus : Marathi language (and literature) was alive (and prosperous) from Jnandadev (1275-1296) to Tukaram (1609-1650). (From the 13th to the 17th century
that is). He then went on to list the people responsible for its decline that
followed. He has actually held them responsible for ‘strangling’ the Marathi
language! His detailed list of culprits responsible for such a heinous act
against the genuine creative urges of Marathi and of course, innocents among
the Marathi authors is not important for our argument. The fact is that there
was something that the colonial period did to our creativity which resulted into
a crisis of the arts especially of literature. I do not think that it is in the
main due to our moving away from nativism. More likely it was due to the general
colonial tendency to trace the cultural crisis to our image of ourselves. The
colonial logic generates an image of the conquered acceptable to the colonizers.
It
is accepted wisdom that writing in Indian languages begins with poetry.
Strangely Marathi is perhaps the only Indian language which can boast an
antiquity for its prose writing that is as old as that of its poetry. The
Mahanubhava prose writing dates back to the thirteenth century. Considered to be the
first work in Marathi - Vivekasindhu (An ocean of thoughts) by Mukundaraj. But Mahanubhava writing is
comparably ancient.
It is
therefore not strange that Shinde, well versed in the literary tradition of
Marathi took umbrage at the scant regard that the “modern” writing showed to
this tradition or to its elegance and achievements. Small wonder then that
Shinde rather ruthlessly attacked the literary mavericks as also the serious
writers and nearly dismissed them from the hall of fame of the Marathi belle
letters.
The
pale romanticism that dominated the Marathi literature during the colonial
period was made worse with the rise of a rather lifeless “new and standard”
language during the colonial period. It was really in the post-independence
period that the Marathi literature especially prose seemed to acquire a new
life-line. The fifties through seventies of the last century suddenly saw a rise
of newer and fresher forms of writing. Fiction came into its own. The famous and
much celebrated authors of the new fiction were Gangadhar Gadgil (1923-2008), Arvind Gokhale
(1919-1992)
and others. At the same time traditional narrative forms also acquired a new
strength and life. Vyankatesh Madgulkar (1927-2001) and Digamber Balkrishna Mokashi
(1915-1981) were the principal
exponents of the latter school. It is not modern or new in the sense Gadgil’s
fiction was. It was in many ways an expression of modernized tradition. Its main
thrust was to demonstrate that a simplified version of a movement from the dated
and pre- industrial oriental tradition to a modernity of industrial and material
world was the modern impulse. What authors like Mokashi and Madgulkar achieved
was to rid the literary history of the linearity that the nineteenth century
seemed to have straitjacketed it into.
Mokashi thus is a writer who along with Madgulkar gave a new lease of life to
the world of Marathi letters. As quite often happens, Mokashi never got his due
recognition. He remained an unsung hero of Marathi fiction His work Anand Owari
is in many ways the statement of modernized tradition. This rendering of that
work in dramatic mode is a tribute to Mokashi that has been due for a while. It
is to be welcomed that the dramatic rendering is now available in a film.
Vijay Tendulkar (1928-2008), easily the most celebrated of modern playwrights of India. He was
also an admirer of Mokashi’s work. But that is not all. He has edited Mokashi’s
work with a sensitivity that is new to Marathi literature.
The
story that Mokashi narrates in this work is the quintessentially central point
of debate in modern Marathi. What does one make of the Bhakti tradition of
medieval literatures of India? Of course it has posed different problems in
different language areas of India. In Marathi the debate has centred on the
contradiction between Pravritti (initiative and action) and Nivritti
(resignation and withdrawal) Mokashi in a sense relives that debate through
Kanhoba, the younger brother of Tukaram, easily one of the greatest poets of
Marathi ever. Kanhoba poses the tension between the mundane world of crass
materiality and the spiritual or mystic renunciation of that world. Kanhoba
emerges in this narrative Tukaram’s alter ego of sorts. In a sense this
narrative rejects the modern day versions of the debate like the one of
nationalist historian Vishwanath Kashinath Rajwade (1863-1926) or a protagonist of the mystic (Mumukshu in
Marathi) tradition like Laxman Ramchandra Pangarkar (1872 - 1941). This story establishes the dialectical nature
of that engagement. Understandably the nationalist zeal of that debate can be
easily dehistoricised and misunderstood today. Indeed that is happening today.
But it appears that Mokashi’s Kanhoba is asking the same question more pointedly
and poignantly.
|
