The 10,000 Moment: HUG Pauses. To Look Back & Ahead
humanitiesunderground “There are two kinds of poets. Poets and local poets. Those who write in big and reputed magazines are poets. The rest are local poets.” Prasun Bandyopadhyay, Poet’s Preface, Collected Works This is a fine moment. On facebook, we are now 10,000 of us, and counting. And many more outside: those who routinely visit, interact and send us feedback. We receive good wishes and messages from the tiniest of towns in India as well as from such far flung places like Uganda and Chile. We started with 300-odd kindred souls. Then this platform gradually became animated and acquired a life of its own. It grew far wider in scope and participation than we had ever imagined. This continues to surprise us pleasantly. This is a space for all of us and this is an opportune moment for us to collectively acknowledge, without being self-congratulatory, that we have, in fact, been silently doing something here, howsoever small its scope might be. And that we are growing and evolving. Disagreeing on details about the many ways one can think about the humanities as a vocation, as a passion and as a way of living, but keeping the argument going—an impulse we had felt in the originary instant (and still feel) that certain other kinds of people—powerful people—are ill at ease with. These people abhor the flight of imagination and fear the biting edge of invested analytic thought. But this is also possibly a moment to take stock of things. For once, we are also mildly worried about the growing numbers on this platform. Does it take away from the underground spirit which is also kind of sectarian in temperament? And yet it is democratic to get on board as many members as possible. We simply wish every single one of us to have a larger sense of what humanitiesunderground stands for. And we think it is incumbent on us to clarify that aspect anew, to and for ourselves. This moment of introspection and speculation comes after taking into consideration what we have learnt over the past few years, once the site was open to everyone, and it is primarily based on the feedback that we have been receiving steadily from all of you. The second aspect that we need to consider is the actual content and quality of the humanitiesunderground site and the corresponding space on facebook too. Again, there is a democratic proposition that one needs to be catholic and broad; accept ideas from far and wide and debate over them. But is this a space merely to air our brainwaves, a space for indulging in mental jousting and announcing talks and seminars? Or to let lose our solitary flights of fancy? We think we need to highlight emphatically the partisan nature of this endeavour. We have, interestingly enough, received a great deal of feedback from members of our facebook group-page about what should or should not go on it, in order to sustain the brazen edginess that many say they are drawn to HUG for. It was in response to very strong urging from many of you that we changed the character of the group from ‘open’ to ‘closed’, since the increased number of members meant that posts that were irrelevant or even downright opposed to the spirit of the group were creeping into our space. Now, post the ‘closing’ of the group, while we do sift out advertisements and so on, we have still been putting the rest up on the page as long they speak widely to the humanities. But we have begun to agree with many of you who have indicated to us that our facebook page may eventually be in danger of losing its distinctive character by indulging too far a certain democratic sense of ourselves. We have been told by you that we would do better by HUG if we were to be rigorous and even autocratic in choosing what does, and does not, address directly our passionately shared beliefs and concerns, and in fact, if we were to remain bold and intrepid by declaring – through our sieving of what goes on the HUG page and what can be left for many other worthy pages/groups to carry – what our politics are. This emboldens us as we move forward across the 10,000 mark into possible future centuries to play the bat on the front foot, as it were – to give ourselves the guiltless right to collectively decide that announcements and posts that are perfectly valid and relevant for humanities questions at large may in fact dilute the rather more diabolical, quixotic or irreverent issues/ideas we love to juggle with in our humanitiesunderground blog, its facebook page and our margHumanities outfit. Henceforth, therefore, encouraged by you all, we shall try to streamline our contents by being more alive to the nuances of posts and notices, and upload only those which we think are challenging us to think productively along the paths we have chosen to tread. In other words, what we all believe to be part of a borderless broad humanities, however laudable, is irksome, and will no longer find a space on our page. We hope that this will answer the demand for a more rigorous humanitiesunderground group-page post this 10,000 member mark. It is important to clarify the very nature of humanitiesunderground—based on our perception and your feedback—because there is just no use having one more watered-down, all-encompassing space for the humanities people. Just as it is useless to carp on the regressive and self defeating ‘humanities in crisis’ story—a stimulus we had abandoned right from our inception. Those ways may gain us a wider audience but this is surely not a popularity contest we are in. In fact, our whole endeavour is to steer clear of
“Before There Used To Be Romantic Politicians”
Alfonso Daniel Rodriguez Castelao was a Spanish politician, writer, painter and doctor. He is one of the fathers of Galician nationalism. Here is a selection from his series of drawings titled Cousa Da Vida, also recently published as Matters of Life by Monfokira. In these drawings we see the true soul of Galicia, especially in the context of the horrifying civil war (1936-1939), which still has its sequels in Spain. ———————————————————————————— –the man who knows the most in this world is our teacher. it remains to be seen how much he knows –for you it’s one year more; for me it’s one year less –by the souls of your dead forefathers give me money sir, to see film, as I am seeing one and can’t leave it. –it’s good to sleep; then you can dream that there’s justice. –no mummy: tell him not to pour coffee on my sugar. –yes, man, yes! four and two are six. –don’t tell me! that’s three and three. –what are you looking at? –how they eat. –they say that price of stamps is going to rise. –how nice that we don’t know how to write. –i love you very much, but i can’t tell you. –why? –because only the old say it still. –poor mothers who are not guilty!… –what’s this about “liberty, fraternity, equality” ? –it must be something…”like believing in what we don’t see.” –everybody says the Galicia is beautiful. —yes, man; but the landscapes can’t be eaten. –before there used to be romantic politicians. –there also used to be generous bandits. –but man, why do you speak so ill about Mr. Philip? –because he is still alive. –i am dying, have you heard it? and i’ll give you an advice: run from those who talk of democracy. –well, i tell you that the immoral officers are intelligent, hard-working, and they go to office everyday. –men don’t want to be donkey. –they want to be lion, tiger, panther, elephant… frog: the cocks think that the day comes because they sing. –how tiny men are! adminhumanitiesunderground.org
A Bloody Battle and Sundry Changes
[Here is a review of Marc Morris’ recent The Norman Conquest The Battle of Hastings and the Fall of Anglo-Saxon England (Pegusus, 2013)–originally published in the Gulfport Public Library site and Steven Till’s medieval blog steventill.com] ————————- This book is the result of monumental research and careful interpretation, a combination that through Morris’ clear writing style, gives us a distinctly nuanced historical book readable for the general public. Morris iterates many historians when he says that “the invasion is the single most important event in English history. It altered what is meant to be English.” He offers what he calls a “justified narrative,” reconstructing what probably happened from scant contemporary accounts, most of them slanted toward the English or the Norman side. That’s the case of the famous Bayeux Tapestry, 230 feet of embroidery that tell the story cartoon-style, highlighting the role of William’s half brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux. “The story of the Conquest is full of dramatic reversals of fortune and often quite despicable deeds,” Morris writes. “In several instances, the key players in the drama sought to justify their actions by commissioning what are essentially propaganda pieces … it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to say exactly what happened.” In part this is a detective story, and the historian must proceed by inference, indirection and deduction. There are huge holes in the narrative — stretches of years in the life of William the Conqueror, for example, where nothing is known. He begins his account of the Norman Conquest and with an overview of the troubled times in English history of Viking raids and warrior conflicts and the ramifications with the death of the last Anglo-Saxon kings, Edward/later also designated as The Confessor in 1066. Added to English conflict is the inter-Norman conflict in France that was reaching a more than unusual intensity because of the question of successor. William, the right gender and oldest, but he did not have a sufficient traditional “right” due to the requirement of legitimate birth. (Interestingly, in French language histories he is called Guillaume le Batard (the Bastard) , and in English accounts, William the Conqueror.) Political turmoil in England from Edward’s death was profound on succession, for which William has a possible right. The actual pages of the reality of the Conquest are filled with power struggles, bloody conflicts for decades, wanton destruction of churches, property, and the thousands of the unprotected. Mixed in with all of this was the Roman church, gradually turning itself to an institution in this new land. All of this is fully documented with a clarity of language that is a delight. The devil of truth speaks in tangential details — for instance in the signatures on a charter issued the day in 1068 that William’s wife Matilda was crowned at Westminster. “The content of the grant is unimportant,” Morris observes, “but its witness-list allows us to see the composition of William’s court at this particularly crucial juncture.” Far from being a distraction, this scrupulous examination of the record provides balance and perspective in a narrative crowded with names and events, and on many points still controversial today — for instance in the notorious “Harrying of the North” in 1069, when as many as 100,000 English starved under William’s campaign to suppress rebellion. Naturally, a lasting effect of William and the Norman Invasion is William’s having to spend the next 40 years subduing rebellions, usually very bloody and vicious, in England after granting Norman warriors large estates. Another effect is the idea of English “rights” in Normandy and France since William spent considerable time there after the Conquest. The Hundred Years War springs immediately to mind. There are two important areas that Morris gives little attention though: (1) economics (where did they get the actual “geld”?). Morris does point out (p. 25) that “slavery was a widespread institution and one of the main motors of the economy” but does not explain it historically. And (2) in spite of the close association with the Church, a kind of proto-secular history as the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus, which, as recent historical unearthings tell us, carried itself on simultaneously, is not given enough space. William’s organizational ability centered on the Doomsday Book, a monumental undertaking, a sort of Census taken every ten years. In just one short year, the entire country had been catalogued for ownership, size of estates, towns, churches, people. Historians argue about the purpose, but whatever it was, it became a basis for taxation and recognition of what was there. To Morris, the Book “set the feudal system in place,” and ensconced it for hundreds of years to come.A profound social effect of the Book was that it established, almost in stone, the aristocratic hierarchy, a social organization that exists to this day, much reduced of course, but for almost 700 years it defined English society. And in that society, Normans replaced the English in the controlling aristocracy. A side effect of the Book was the rapid development of Common Law to deal with and hopefully settle disputes. The Book was a tremendous help here because there was now data for to support claims. England was literally rebuilt. Normans established their power centres with hundreds of barricaded castles, destroying existing ones if necessary. The Tower of London of later political infamy was built during this time. Morris points out that the Normans destroyed dozens of existing churches and cathedrals and rebuilt them in their own style.There was a close alliance between the ruling Normans and the Catholic Church, an alliance that strengthened both, ultimately leading to a schism with Henry VIII. The French influence continued much further than the political and economic life. Language was a primary change in that French and Latin became the lingua franca in England especially in those powerful areas of politics and social superiority. Existing languages became the “people’s tongue.” It would remain, and then eventually become part of what we know today as English. True, the Normans brought feudalism, Romanesque architecture and the French language to England, but they were themselves originally Norsemen, first plundering and then settling at what
Why Did The Harmonium Disappear From All India Radio?
Amalendu Bikas Kar Chowdhury [Amalendu Bikas Kar Chowdhury is a renowned singer, song writer and music director, associated with All India Radio for a long period of time. This essay appears in a fine selection on the history of the wireless in India—Kolkata Betaar: 1927-1977 (edt. Bhabesh Das & Prabhat Kumar Das, Purbanchal Sanskriti Kendra, 2013). Translated by HUG] ————————————————————————————– Two news bulletins: April 18 and April 19, 1980 from the All India Radio, Calcutta, informs us that all artists of Akashvani are free to perform with the harmonium as an accompaniment once again. Therefore, it is evident that the harmonium did actually disappear from the world of the wireless in this part of the world at some point of time. But why did such a thing happen? There are a couple of interesting apocryphal stories about this matter. Suresh Chakraborty in his well-known essay Sudha Sagara Teere (Desh, June, 1979) writes: “What a portentous moment was that when Pandit Nehru uttered—‘I simply cannot tolerate that instrument. It is revolting to my very being.’— in his mind the cloying custom of inaugurating every meeting or congregation with an inaugural musical composition, with the omnipresent harmonium in tandem. A thoroughly middle class and utterly banal practice, it is still very much a social phenomenon that we tolerate.” So, Nehru’s minions got into the act and made sure that the harmonium made itself scarce from the radio station. In another anecdote, E.R. Ramkumar in the Sunday Magazine, The Times of India, December 10, 1979, tells us in his informative article, Harmonium: Why the Boycott?: “Lionel Fielden, India’s first broadcasting chief, banned the harmonium in 1939 as he felt it was not suitable to the tonal inflections of Indian classical music.” But these kinds of conjectures, as I have already hinted, are largely apocryphal, with no solid factual evidence behind them. The real reason behind this decision was Rabindranath Tagore, who did not think that the harmonium has or should have anything to do with Indian music. So, he had shot off a terse letter to the then Calcutta Bureau chief of Akashvani, Shri Asoke Kumar Sen, on 19/21 January, 1940. Uttarayan Santiniketan, Bengal January 19/21, 1940 Ref: D.O. GC 1414 dated 17.1. 40 ————– Dear Ashoke, I have always been very much against the prevalent use of the harmonium for purposes of accompaniment in our music and it is banished completely from our asrama. You will be doing a great service to the cause of Indian music if you can get it abandoned from the studios of All India Radio. Yours sincerely, Rabindranath Tagore ———————— Sj. Ashoke Kr. Sen All India Radio 1, Garstin Place, Calcutta And who can disregard Tagore of the late 1930s? Naturally the harmonium, promptly and with an air of finality, did make an exit from radio stations beginning March 1, 1940. It reappeared on July 9, 1974 on AIR, Calcutta when that wizard of a harmonium player, Montu Banerjee, initiated a solo programme and started broadcasting his pieces with a new-found gusto. Actually, it is from October 1971 that some of the performers began using the harmonium as accompanying instrument—Manindra Mohan Banerjee, Satyendranath Chakraborty, Dhiresh Chandra Mitra, Muneshwar Dayal, apart from Montu Banerjee himself, were all on the AIR roster. Gradually, Akashvani did seem to facilitate the instrument’s coming back to vogue in group based or special programmes. But make no mistake: this happened gingerly. Because there were classists and Tagoreans of the earlier variety still on the lookout. But no dictum is ever full and final. Many artists did revere the instrument, especially those who would sing folk numbers. And they missed it hugely. The reasons for which the harmonium had to be shown the door are still very much there, if one is persuaded by them, that is. One must remember that there has been a sea change in the manufacturing techniques of the instrument itself. Its tone and musical quality have improved tremendously mainly because of superior artisanal expertise. Though it is still debatable whether the harmonium is able to elicit the right kind of mellifluousness when broadcast through the wireless. But I am trying to question this very mirage: what is this notion of the right kind of musicality? The notion is mystical rather than logical or musical. E. R. Ramkumar tells us that though the instrument got a new lease of life, Akashvani had still dispatched the following note to an artist at one point: “The harmonium has not appeared in the broadcast of Karnatak music from AIR as an accompanying or solo instrument. Even in Hindusthani music, the instrument has only been tentatively introduced. We have not received orders from the Directorate to introduce the harmonium in Karnatak music. According to existing rules, there is no provision for auditions in harmonium either for playing solo or as accompaniment.” To this Ramkumar adds his own little commentary—“This was the reply of All India Radio officials in Delhi and Bombay to an artist’s request for an audition test—eight years after the instrument was supposed to have been allowed into the AIR premises ‘on parole.’” Well, let us examine the arguments for and against banishing the harmonium. Jnan Prakash Ghosh had articulated somewhere that the vitality and colour in which the genre of Thumri finds itself today has much to do with the regular employment of harmonium in its wake. This observation is spot on. It is amazing how much of glow and dazzle an accomplished and imaginative harmonium player can bring out of the instrument revealing a host of notes which the singer himself may not have even thought of while expressing the composition in his voice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am66Kx_I3Ec Some of the astounding voices of our time have used the harmonium to its fullest potential—Faiyyaz Khan, Ghulam Ali, Aamir Khan, Begum Akhtar. And this is only the North of India. If we consider the South—who can forget Chembai Vaidyanatha, S.G. Kittappa, B.S. Raja Iyengar and others. And light classical music and more