The Constellation of Singularity
Adrita Mukherjee, Mantra Mukim and Rohan Kamble [Review of The Deed of Words by Pothik Ghosh, New Delhi: Aakar Books, 2017. The authors are reading for the M.Phil in the Department of English, University of Delhi.] *** For any new form of art, which in its epoch might be censured as being too ‘political’, in its trajectory from the streets, where it was born, to the hallowed grounds of academia is characterized by hostility and diffidence. The tenuous bond that had been forged between art and politics in these incipient stages does strengthen over time and yet remains a conundrum that continues to attract further rigorous analyses and study. Do art and politics constitute non-overlapping magisteria or are they inextricably entangled with each other? What are the dynamics that drive the sustenance of the politico-aesthetic interface, assuming that there is one? Pothik Ghosh’s The Deed of Words is a welcome addition to this area of study. Ghosh swerves away from the conventional path of tracing the political affiliations of authors in their literary oeuvres. Instead he looks at a literary work as a reified entity which by its sheer existence and peculiar aesthetic arrangements necessitates ramifications which are political. Its ‘being’ invariably inflects the domain of what we construe as the ‘political.’ Ghosh’s contention that Akhtaruzzaman Elias in his novel Chilekotar Sepai foregrounds the universality of the struggles in the meditational specificity that they posit is a significant argument in the book. The description of the struggle manages to transcend the boundaries of identitarianism and representation that the politics of capitalism follows. This leads us directly into a caveat: the insurrectionary potential of the identitarian struggles, one has to admit, is derived precisely from the adhesive forces which forge the identity. If the moment of insurrection, the culmination point of localized insurgent forces, results in a new subjectivity emerging which is resistant to ‘externalized determination’ doesn’t it invariably lead to the subsumption of infinitely different space-time configurations under the rubric of the counter-totalization; the force of singularity? If the ‘savage mind’ is a de-identitarianising force it simultaneously dissipates the revolutionary potential that one can find in the underbelly of struggles driven by a mixtures of identity and principles. The non-identity that emerges as a result of the insurrectionary moment will inevitably have to confront the question of newer modes of identification and representation. This yet unresolved question Ghosh may wish to confront more squarely. This question has forever vexed the serious independent left positions but given the current geo-political climate, takes much more ardency. The crisis of capital (capital itself being a moving contradiction) is that it wants to eliminate singularity, the book argues. This is a significant thrust in the book. At this moment, even as there is a will to eliminate the same, singularity is constitutive of capital. It does not lie outside of capital but is significant as a formalization: it can be a moment of launching the critique of capital. But how? One can relate this insight with the insurrectionary politics that the first essay of the book locates in Elias’ work. The moment of insurgency is the moment of break or rupture: an event that harbours the potential to transform the reader-writer relationship, which is that of capital. The expression of this break is one that collates both spontaneity and form—something that can also be seen in Walter Benjamin’s conceptualization of the allegorical. Elias’ description of Tamijer Baap chasing the ashen clouds away in Khowabnama is precisely this moment of a break. That is to say, there is a desire to experience “that past when it was present as its own emerging.” Herein lies the politics of the break, of insurrection. Regarding the moment of rupture and the consequent dream of the implosion of capital: this transformation will occur only by stretching the finite, historically defined moment to the monstrous beyond. Tamijer Baap then becomes an allegorical figure harking to that break. Allegory and politics, therefore, cannot be separated. Politics of insurrection, that is and within this framework, the insurrectionary mind as revealing itself to be a constellation of forces. In other words, the constellation of singularity wherein lies the break and its potential, then, to transform passive practicality. The constellation of singularity, in the text, is the proletariat. One notices the relentless counter-capital strain of the work. One underlines how in Ghosh’s mind the proletariat not at all a sociological group but a living, material concept that questions ideas of historically bound identities. This is an extremely crucial point of departure for the political way of reading literary texts in the way that Ghosh has conducted. Another entry point to this critical work is to notice how the act of reading literature for Ghosh has a use-value, which is non-relational. Unlike the circuit of capital where the value of a commodity is determined by its exchange, literary experience is valued singularly on how it, the work itself, is consumed. Literature, for Ghosh, thereby never becomes a tool for political didacticism as it can never be exchanged for politics. As his reading of Muktibodh makes evident, literature rather becomes politically productive only at the moment of its non-relationality, that is, its withdrawal from exchange. The issue with Ghosh’s argument here is the ease with which he brings together Marxian theory of value with the concept of singularity, particularly Badiou’s. In Capital, Vol I, use-value actually exhausts the object of consumption, that is, if object A is consumed rather than exchanged for object B, then the utilization of A would limit any possibilities of exchange. Thus, it is surprising that Ghosh deploys the concept of use-value to theorize literature as an excess that cannot be supplanted or redistributed for any empirical uses including that of consumption. If use-value is a relation of consumption that exhausts its object, how can literary experience have one such value since the literary work never completely exhausts its field of content/style nor is it ever exhausted by a
MOMENT, META-MOMENT AND THE MINIATURE: NAINSUKH, THE ARTIST AND AMIT DUTTA’S FILM
Amrit Gangar _______________ [This is the pre-screening lecture-text given at the Rachana Sansad, College of Architecture, Mumbai, on 24 January 2017.] This is a beautiful moment indeed, beautiful because it connects me with yet another moment not in a distant past, but nonetheless in भूतकाल – in the sense of a past continuous, where भूत , वर्तमान and भविष्य keep coagulating! That was in far away Zurich, in Switzerland, where I had the opportunity to curate an Indian film program under a big umbrella event called Bollywood in Switzerland, which also had an exhibition around it at the city’s Museum of Design. My week-long stay there took me to the Museum Rietberg that has one of the biggest collections of Indian Pahari paintings. In that elegant museum, a graceful moment made me meet its director Dr. Eberhard Fischer, who welcomed me very warmly and took me around. During our conversation he asked me about the young film maker Amit Dutta and whether I knew him. Well, I did knew Amit Dutta. I said. But not very well, from his film institute days; in fact he was still studying at the Film & Television Institute of India in Pune. He also referred to Prof Suresh Chabria, whom I knew very well. He had been Amit’s professor at the FTII, and it was he who had first recommended Amit’s name to Eberhard Fischer to make a film on नैणसुख And how appropriately so – as we see it now! Amit was a brilliant student and undoubtedly promising to be a distinguished film maker. That pre-birth moment of the film नैणसुख (Nainsukh) to now, when she has grown into a 7-year old lady, (in fact over 15 years from the time she was conceived) – this is a momentous occasion for me, to be here, and talking about her. Cinema or cinematography to me is feminine, but she might turn androgynous off and on during my talk. I must thank the management of Rachana Sansad, Prof Rohit Shinkre, the Principal, Prof Gangadharan, my old friend and a comrade-in-cans for giving me this moment. Cinema has lost her Can-Yug, she is now on DCPs, pen drives, blu-rays, links and tubes. I also thank all of you who have gathered here to see an extraordinary film by Amit Dutta. Actually, it is to him that I owe my presence here today. From far away Palampur in the Himalayas, it was Amit who said this to me on the phone that in his absence, he wanted me to talk about the film in whatever manner I wanted to. I must thank him for reposing faith in me. I will also talk about him and his filmosophy in my own way. There is also my constant wrestling with the God of our times, Googleshwara, as he keeps challenging us all the time, while making things already known universally and all across the board, this God has blurred the difference between guru and shishya. But yes, it is a constant battle, particularly for teachers across the world on how to surprise this god and the shishya at the same time. If I am able to surprise you even a little during the course of my talk, I shall feel I haven’t wasted your time. One way, as I humbly believe, is to create or evoke a भाव or भाव जगत, the state of being and its universe, rather than search for meaning, because meanings keep changing and Googleshwara already has a huge museum of meanings for all of us to see. For me, Amit Dutta’s cinematography is an evocative bhava, his is the cinema of feelings, like music or painting, it touches our heart and enduringly so. Any ‘moment’ that endures, is a good moment. Also, any film that endures, is a good film. And any such film, I believe, defies synopsis. Often, I ask students to try and write a synopsis of Andrei Tarkovsky’s film Mirror. Wanting always to comprehend films through conventional simplistic synopses, they find it impossible to synopsize Mirror. Amit Dutta’s oeuvre is largely synopsis-defying and yet extremely engaging because he is an extraordinary bhāva-sarjak or evocator, both in words and in images and sounds. I will later briefly talk about his recent Hindi novel called Kaljayi Kambakht, which, as Prof. B.N. Goswami has said, is like a दिव्य विमान , a divine aircraft – but more on that later. Invoking a prefix, an = उपसर्ग प्र and its illumination Amit Dutta likes the word प्रक्रिया (prakriya), the process. And that induces me to dwell for a bit on two prefixes – प्र and सं (pra and sam); these miniaturized letters called उपसर्ग and प्रत्यय, if wedded or welded to another word – a verb, a noun or an adjective – have the ability to achieve greater metamorphosis, they have the ability to imbue an expanded meaning – in motion. प्र is an engine. Look, what it does to the word योग (yoga), for instance. प्रयोग (prayoga) to me is a much richer word than the English ‘experiment’. Or what it does to गति (gati), just prefixing गति with प्र and turning it into प्रगति (pragati) pushes the motion forward, making it progressive. In a similar way, it turns simple क्रिया (kriya, performance, activity) into प्रक्रिया (prakriya), which could be both a complex and a forward process. Even in भूमीति (Bhoomiti), in Geometry प्र turns simple मेय (meya, measurable) into a प्रमेय (prameya, a theorem).मेय is also ज्ञेय, meaning discernible. Or what this does to the adjective शांत , it turns it into प्रशांत , which could be, ocean, the world’s largest and deepest ocean, the प्रशांत महासागर, the Pacific Ocean. I believe, Amit Dutta’s cinematography is an invocation to such महासागरú. And you will feel this in his film Nainsukh, as it inaugurates herself. So is the prefix सं (sam). Your own institution, for instance, has it – संसद (samsad or sansad) which is an assembly, a meeting. With Rachana