Tarasankar Bandyopadhyay was mentally devastated by the death of his six-year-old daughter Bulu. It was 1933. In a room at Udayan, he met Rabindranath Tagore for the first time. Blessing him, Tagore said, "Build up the village, otherwise India will not survive."
In another crisis period, Tarasankar registered and sent 'Raikamal' and 'Chalanamayi' to Rabindranath Tagore. It was the first time he sent his books to the poet. Why? His writing was being criticized, which disturbed and pained him. The crux of the criticism was that his writing was 'too loud.'
For one who had few, Rabindranath was there. And so it happened. About a week after sending the books, a letter came from Shantiniketan. Rabindranath wrote on February 10, 1937, "I am pleased to have read your book. The absence of my attendants resulted in the book reaching my hands, which was not regrettable. The story 'Raikamal' has flavor and strength—it is a complete story without any adulteration. The realism in the characters' language and demeanor is not easy to achieve. I will read your other book when I have time."
Tarasankar was overwhelmed. But in his distress from the criticism, he wrote again to the poet, "I don't know if you consoled me about 'Raikamal.' My contemporaries call my writing crude." On March 12, 1937, Rabindranath replied, "I don't know who accused you of crudeness, but I think your writing has a fine touch, and the reality in your pen appears genuine without any pretentiousness. I'm glad you haven't joined those who consider not writing a story while writing one as an achievement."
Notably, Rabindranath criticized two clear tendencies alongside praising Tarasankar in the letter, which is relevant at all times. First, 'pretentiousness' in the name of portraying reality. Second, the 'boasting' of not writing a story while writing one.
Born on July 23, 1898, in Labhpur, Birbhum. Tarasankar was inspired by his mother with patriotism. One of his uncles was a member of an armed revolutionary group in North India. Among many things his mother said, one notable mention by Tarasankar was in 'Amar Kaler Katha,' "My mother's patriotism was more practical. She was from Patna. Her sense of politics was not purely dependent on religion and destiny."
Responding to Gandhi's call, Tarasankar participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement and was arrested in 1930. In jail, he decided to leave politics, but he was seen in various movements later. He didn't ignore the demands of the times. Released from jail in 1931, his first novel was 'Chaitali Ghoorni.' 'Dhatridevata' and 'Kalindi' were serialized in 'Sabater Chithi' and 'Prabasi,' respectively. 'Chaitali Ghoorni' was earlier. According to communist leader Chinmohan Sahanbish, "Though 'Ganadevata' and especially 'Panchagram' did not reach their full potential, these three novels strongly impacted our young, romantic minds."
When? The publication of 'Chaitali Ghoorni' was in 1931. 'Dhatridevata' in 1939. 'Kalindi' in 1940. 'Ganadevata' in 1943. 'Panchagram'? 1944. That same year 'Manvantar' was published. We see Tarasankar at the 'Anti-Fascist Writers' Conference' at the University Institute Hall in December 1942. He was elected president of the Writers and Artists Association. Tarasankar said, "The struggle chapter of my life with the Anti-Fascist Writers and Artists Association is significant." At a writers' conference at Mohammed Ali Park, he voiced a strong hope, "A new pulse is being initiated in the people's consciousness. Dormant hopes are rising... joining with the farmers, workers, educated, and uneducated masses of Bengal, we will journey towards a new life... The time has come, the time is right, I call upon the Bengali literary community—create, create the song of new life."
When? March 1945. The country had just passed through the famine, facing turbulent times—partition and the threat of communalism amidst the strong possibility of revolution.
Even after his death, some wrote that the communists wanted to 'engulf' him. He had already answered this during his lifetime. In 'Amar Sahitya Jibon,' Tarasankar wrote, "Many have perceived me as influenced by Marxism. But I haven't read Marx's Capital or any of his books. I've read some essays on Marxism in Bengali. My reliance is on direct experience, from which I reached my conclusions."
'Conclusions from experience'—knowledge derived from real experience. This means the basic principle of Marxism. The application of knowledge derived from real circumstances was evident in his literature. Hence, he was identified as a 'Marxist!' Again, Rabindranath praised his skill in portraying reality without any 'pretentiousness.'
An inevitable but remarkable coincidence.
Why did the declining feudalism and rising aggressive capitalism manifest in various novels of Tarasankar Bandyopadhyay? Why do we still feel the presence of Ahindra from 'Kalindi,' a son of a decaying feudal family who becomes a revolutionary witnessing the collapsing village under merciless capitalist aggression? There's no mention of people's democracy. There's no red flag. But a clear call for revolution by a follower of non-violence! The reason is simple. These were real pictures.
Among many proofs, let's take 'Chaitali Ghoorni' as an example. The main character, Ghoshto, was a farmer. He had to leave the village due to the oppression of landlords and moneylenders. He became a factory worker. Even there, he faced exploitation by the factory owner. Ghoshto, who became a proletariat from a farmer, organized a trade union against the oppression. Ghoshto and his comrades prepared for a strike. Before the strike, Ghoshto was killed in a conspiracy by the factory owner. Ghoshto became a martyr.
The implication of that novel is easily understood. Tarasankar wrote in this context, "The time of atonement for the injustice done to humans for thousands of years will surely come. I realized this by traveling through villages from 1916-17 to 1930-31, understanding that the day is not far. The Russian Revolution was the dawn of that day without a doubt. The wind rose from there first; from there, the wind rose and stirred the gloom here. I didn't have to read Marxism for this. However, there is an innovative theory in Marxism."
What is that innovation in Marxism? Tarasankar wrote, "I learned this from various essays published in this country. Among the various essays, I found a truth that has come with an unyielding demand to integrate with Indian truth. It is the power of the economic system to control individuals, society, and the state. The way this power drives human society, humans, I first learned from essays—then by traveling through villages, collecting the history of social upheavals, and verifying this theory."
But...
But what? An astonishing conflict. Between his belief and the knowledge he gained through experience. He said, "But I couldn't accept its pure materialism."
Joshi was then the general secretary of the Communist Party. In a letter to Joshi, Tarasankar wrote about his differences in opinion, "Dear Mr. Joshi, My best thanks to you for your very kind letter and the books... Though we met and congratulated each other, we had not the opportunity or occasion of exchanging our views. Still, I hope, you know my views. I know that from your writings, despite my best regards for you, I differ in my outlook from that of yours in some points. But I admire the sincerity of the workers of your party and your boldness. I sincerely believe that everybody has the right of doing what he thinks just and just. My Creed is Ahimsa and truth. Not to accuse anybody and to love all is my motto. I remain, I try to always to remain, true to my creed and motto of life."
This Tarasankar Bandyopadhyay called the success of the Bolshevik Revolution 'the dawn.' He had a strong similarity with Rabindranath Tagore here. Tarasankar examined the primary basis of Marxism by traveling through villages. He reached the conclusion that it was infallible. He established that truth in literature.
Many proofs exist. Let's talk about Shrihari from 'Ganadevata.' Shrihari had immense arrogance. He had the power to break and throw away old stones and plant new ones. Though the old stones had touches of the culture and heritage of society, his hands didn't shake. Rather, he had the audacity to carve his name on the new stones and claim all creation as his contribution. Shrihari had something more—a pair of lustful, greedy, dirty eyes smeared with filth. With those eyes, he could look at the women of poor families in a despicable way. Shrihari was the epitome of a lecher. And he still is. Shrihari is just like that.
Shrihari is a culvert. One of the links between the villages of 1943 and the neighborhoods of West Bengal in 2024 is is this same culvert. Shrihari has merged with the stones, cement, and concrete used in that structure. This connection is unbreakable. The only difference is that the mud hut is missing.
0 Comments