fहndi - Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya
fहndi - Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya fहndi - Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya
and awakened attitude which afterrecognizing our racial uniqueness, gatheringknowledge from whatever source one getsand uses them to change human societyand also he believes in giving it a modernshape. This is the glorious tradition ofHindi which had been inherited fromMahavir Prasad Diwedi... Mahavir Prasadjiwas not the only critic who emphasizedand recognized the racial form of societyin criticism...Shukulji's criticism is theoutcome of Diwedi age. Both of themrecognize the racial face of language andliterature. Both of them are eager to liberateHindi literature from the orthodoxies of'Ritikal'. In the criticism of both the writersthe basic underlying concept is the closerelation between literature and society."(Mahavir Prasad Dwiwedi Aur HindiNavjagran).Ramvilas Sharma emphasizes that thetraditional Hindi criticism is primarilyracial. It highlights the importance ofBhakti Sahitya movement of Valmiki,Kalidas and Bhavbhuti as a reversal to lovepoetry. It is a reaction against the blindreligious orthodoxies and it supports socialchanges. The tradition of Hindi criticismis not related to blind following of thewestern traditions but they do not refrainfrom progressive western thinking. Theconservative people of India in the nameof Indianism oppose the entire westernculture. This is not our national tradition.Besides, criticism is a continuous evaluationof humanity which has got no end.fgndi •Ramvilasji is a major part of that glorious,awakened and alert tradition of criticismwhich has been talked about earlier.Sometimes earlier because of thebroken relationship between tradition andprogressiveness — hurdles were put notonly to understand tradition but tounderstand progressiveness also. Nowcriticism is becoming only refutation orexaltation, this is also a problem. RamvilasSharma had said about Acharya Shukul,"Literature cannot move forward ignoringpublic welfare, public good and publicopinion." Giving due importance to himRamvilas Sharma accepted the parametersgiven by him. While criticizing him hehad to accept that he was not 'compatiblematerialist'. He said about Nirala, 'In spiteof not accepting Marxism in practice, hewas much ahead of any Marxist writer."He pointed out the failings of the highestpoetry of Nirala 'Ram ki Shakti Pooja' and"Kukurmutta". Thus, his 'criticalappreciation' has great importance incriticism. He replies to the attacks on Niralaand Ramchandra Shukul and enriches theprogressive understanding of literature.Two types of questions are raised aboutHindi criticism. Not one but there are twotraditions. One tradition is that ofRamchandra Shukul and the other is thatof Hazari Prasad Diwedi. The secondquestion is raised that along with RamvilasSharma all these critics are universal critics.Some call Ramchandra Shukul andRamvilas Sharma universal critics and areApril-June 2013 :: 35
silent about Hazari Prasad Diwedi. I thinkboth these beliefs are wrong, these arematters of racial destruction.In spite of their differences and distancewith each other, there was nearness alsoamong Ram Chandra Shukul, HazariPrasad Diwedi and Ramvilas Sharma. Allthree of them were part of the sametradition of criticism. It is only society andpublic which binds all the three together.Ramchandra Shukul talks of publichappiness, Hazari Prasad Diwedi aboutpublic welfare and Ram Vilas Sharma aboutpublic awakening. The center of theircriticism, in one way or the other, is theworld and public only. The public hadbecome important in the period of 'Bhakti'(devotion) movement, and it became thecenter during the anti-imperialistmovement. It is only possible in the publicmovement where there is no pathway; theywill make it by walking on one. Hiswisdom is the gift of his experience. Publicalso decides not only about history andculture, but also about the economicdevelopment. The public has come up witha new entity in the 20th century. Henceit was natural that all the critics havelistened and cared for public instead ofbooks and Government power. They wereworried about the public all the time.One can see that neither RamchandraShukul is against Kabeer nor Hazari Prasadagainst Tulsidas. One more interesting factis Ramchandra liked Valmiki. Ram VilasSharma and Hazari Prasad both likedKalidas. Actually the traditions of criticismfor both should -have developed on parallellines, Ram Vilas Sharma should not havewritten about Kalidas. The important thingis that all the three critics had given higherplace to the world (people) than to thebooks and political discussions. All threeof them wanted to see literature asliterature. These three critics were againstfeudalistic narrowness, European thinkingand imperialism.Actually by using the standards of greatand little subaltern traditions in a verymechanical way Ram Chandra Shukul anadmirer of Tulsi Das, was honoured as asupporter of 'Great tradition' and HazariPrasad who did great work on Kabeer hadbeen honoured for the 'Little Tradition'.This is a method of sabotaging (destroying)Indian Culture. The idea behind it is thatthe tradition of Bhakti movement was notcompatible with the society of that timeand that in India there are innumerabletraditions which go together. The collisionof traditions is not the only reality; theother reality is intermixing andtransformation of traditions also.Ram Vilas Sharma does not opposethe misleading categories of 'GreatTradition' and ‘Little Tradition’ but he putsa forceful question, "In order to prove RamChandra Shukul and Hazari Prasad Diwedias reactionary and progressive respectively,we use the social standards of 'GreatTradition' and 'Little Tradition'. Theirloved poets Tulsi and Kabeer have also been36 :: April-June 2013fgndi •
- Page 1 and 2: A Journal ofMahatma GandhiAntarrash
- Page 3 and 4: LANGUAGEArundhati Roy in Indian Lan
- Page 5 and 6: all is not well with the world. Ult
- Page 7 and 8: After tallying the anubhavas mentio
- Page 9 and 10: sustenance. If it fights shy of phi
- Page 11 and 12: progression from Shringararasabhasa
- Page 13 and 14: glamour and fame, I always looked a
- Page 15 and 16: grandmother. Scolded for stealing t
- Page 17 and 18: of his episodes and characters from
- Page 19 and 20: The short story Najum (astrology) b
- Page 21 and 22: India, Indianness and BuddhaDev Bos
- Page 23 and 24: Buddha Dev Bose's writings on Tagor
- Page 25 and 26: development of the idea of a worldl
- Page 27 and 28: defies the set patterns of known li
- Page 29 and 30: The Concerns of CriticismShambhunat
- Page 31 and 32: On the basis of feudal thinking the
- Page 33: etween the interests of different s
- Page 37 and 38: Imperialism. The imperialists had c
- Page 39 and 40: conventional reformers to evaluatet
- Page 41 and 42: expansion of knowledge emotions are
- Page 43 and 44: unprincipled propaganda takes place
- Page 45 and 46: drowning with shame or pride in it.
- Page 47 and 48: made criticism a pure literary subj
- Page 49 and 50: It is a great paradox that in an ag
- Page 51 and 52: how much they are mixing with it. M
- Page 53 and 54: peculiar way of protest against not
- Page 55 and 56: Radha Worship in Hindi LiteratureL.
- Page 57 and 58: valuable ornaments and clothes. His
- Page 59 and 60: literature in general and Hindi lit
- Page 61 and 62: Not only this the hunger which I go
- Page 63 and 64: 3. We the Janvadi PoetsWe are write
- Page 65 and 66: 5. A FarmerThis time paddy crophas
- Page 67 and 68: isolated, lonely and stained with p
- Page 69 and 70: 3. A COFFIN AND A BOTTLEIn this roo
- Page 71 and 72: The omnipresence of your super imag
- Page 73 and 74: As I look at the black and white pr
- Page 75 and 76: But when I touched the door of the
- Page 77 and 78: 7. LIFEThat day when I entereda mag
- Page 79 and 80: 2. TEA WITH DONNEGood Morning, dear
- Page 81 and 82: 4. HI, KRISHNA!Hi, Krishna!What’r
- Page 83 and 84: Malbe Ka MalikMohan RakeshJai Ratan
silent about Hazari Prasad Diwedi. I thinkboth these beliefs are wrong, these arematters of racial destruction.In spite of their differences and distancewith each other, there was nearness alsoamong Ram Chandra Shukul, HazariPrasad Diwedi and Ramvilas Sharma. Allthree of them were part of the sametradition of criticism. It is only society andpublic which binds all the three together.Ramchandra Shukul talks of publichappiness, Hazari Prasad Diwedi aboutpublic welfare and Ram Vilas Sharma aboutpublic awakening. The center of theircriticism, in one way or the other, is theworld and public only. The public hadbecome important in the period of 'Bhakti'(devotion) movement, and it became thecenter during the anti-imperialistmovement. It is only possible in the publicmovement where there is no pathway; theywill make it by walking on one. Hiswisdom is the gift of his experience. Publicalso decides not only about history andculture, but also about the economicdevelopment. The public has come up witha new entity in the 20th century. Henceit was natural that all the critics havelistened and cared for public instead ofbooks and Government power. They wereworried about the public all the time.One can see that neither RamchandraShukul is against Kabeer nor Hazari Prasadagainst Tulsidas. One more interesting factis Ramchandra liked Valmiki. Ram VilasSharma and Hazari Prasad both likedKalidas. Actually the traditions of criticismfor both should -have developed on parallellines, Ram Vilas Sharma should not havewritten about Kalidas. The important thingis that all the three critics had given higherplace to the world (people) than to thebooks and political discussions. All threeof them wanted to see literature asliterature. These three critics were againstfeudalistic narrowness, European thinkingand imperialism.Actually by using the standards of greatand little subaltern traditions in a verymechanical way Ram Chandra Shukul anadmirer of Tulsi Das, was honoured as asupporter of 'Great tradition' and HazariPrasad who did great work on Kabeer hadbeen honoured for the 'Little Tradition'.This is a method of sabotaging (destroying)Indian Culture. The idea behind it is thatthe tradition of Bhakti movement was notcompatible with the society of that timeand that in India there are innumerabletraditions which go together. The collisionof traditions is not the only reality; theother reality is intermixing andtransformation of traditions also.Ram Vilas Sharma does not opposethe misleading categories of 'GreatTradition' and ‘Little Tradition’ but he putsa forceful question, "In order to prove RamChandra Shukul and Hazari Prasad Diwedias reactionary and progressive respectively,we use the social standards of 'GreatTradition' and 'Little Tradition'. Theirloved poets Tulsi and Kabeer have also been36 :: April-June 2013fgndi •
Change language