Diptych in verse: gender hybridity, language consciousness, and national identity in Nirala's "Jago Phir Ek Bar".

• Author: Pauwels, Heidi
• Position: Hindi poetry

"Nirala" (literally "the strange one ) was the pen name of Suryakant Tripathi (1899?-1961), one of the four major twentieth-century Hindi poets associated with Chayavad, the first prominent "movement" in contemporary Hindi poetry. Many critics, both Western and Indian, have stressed Chayavad's parallels with Western Romanticism, mainly because of its preoccupation with individual consciousness and subjectivity. One of the most recurrent criticisms of the movement has been that it lacked a concern with the central political and social issues of its era, the twenties and thirties. While that may be true in general, it does not do full justice to at least some Chayavad poetry. Here it will be argued that, in particular, Nirala's poetry is surprisingly polemical, "this-worldly' and is engaged with such issues as language consciousness, national identity, and gender constructs. This paper presents a close analysis of two of Nirala's representative early Chayavad poems that form a kind of "diptych in verse": they a re both entitled "Jago Phir Ek Bar" (Wake up, once more), numbered 1 and 2 respectively. Both poems date from his early, most Chayavad phase (1920-38) and are included in the first anthology, Par final, which he published in l929. (1) The analysis of these poems reveals how Chayavad techniques were adapted to convey a complex nationalist, Hindu- and Hindi-chauvinist message, and how this was overlaid with gender images. This conflation can be understood against the background of Nirala's life: his search for his own linguistic identity in the light of his experience of growing up in Bengal, his obsession with Tagore, and his marriage and early loss of his wife.

INTRODUCTION

THE TERM Chayavad, or "Shadowism," was originally a derisive term referring to a new style of Hindi poetry that had emerged by the second decade of the twentieth century. What was new in Chayavad was a sense of the self, of love and nature, comparable to that in Western Romanticism, as well as an individualistic reappropriation of the Indian tradition in a new type of mysticism. (2) This mysticism harkened back to medieval devotional literature to some extent, yet it was significantly different because of a more personalized style and the prominent role accorded to the poet's individuality. (3) The mystic penchant of Chayavad poetry gave support to its detractors' reproach of "otherworldliness" and lack of political engagement during the time of the independence movement.

Chayavad has come to be associated with four main "representatives": Jaysankar Prasad (1890-1937), Sumitranand Pant (1900-1978), Mahadevi Varma (1907-87), and Suryakant Tripathi (Sanskritized version of Suraj Kumar Tevari), better known by his nom de plume "Nirala" (l899?-l96l). (4) It is no coincidence that the pseudonym means "the strange one." Nirala indeed was a bit of an "odd man out." Whereas the others lived and worked in the Hindi heartland (Benares and Allahabad), Nirala grew up in Mahisadal in Bengal. His first poetry was in Bengali, though at home he was a Baisvari (Eastern Hindi) speaker. He learned Modern Standard Hindi, or Khari Boli, only in his teens and moved to the Hindi heartland in his thirties, to Lucknow and then to Allahabad.

1. THE CHALLENGE: DOES CHAYAVAD LACK POLITICAL COMMITMENT?

   One of the recurrent criticisms of Chayavad has been that it lacked a concern with the central political and social issues of its era, the twenties and thirties. This criticism was there right from the start, (5) though it represented just one of the many qualms of the early critics. The Chayavads were not their own best advocates in countering this reproach. Their response tended to concentrate on literary issues, and they were especially preoccupied with their critics' accusation that the source of inspiration of Chayavad was "foreign." (6)

   The criticism that Chayavad lacked socio-political relevance, however, became ever more vocal. By the end of the thirties, Chayavad had lost its bloom. Prasad had died in 1937, and Mahadevi would soon quit writing poetry (after 1942). The new vogue of the day was Pragativad or "Progressive Writing," a climate hostile to romantic musings. (7) Pant himself had come under the influence of Marxist theories of literature and rejected his former romanticism. (8) Chayavad-bashing became something of the fad of the day. A typical attack on the Chayavadis, representative for the Zeitgeist, is the following:

   Their poems are not progressive (pragatisil), but reactionary pratikriyavadi)... This movement of Chayavad has caused Hindi literature as much damage perhaps as the Hindu Mahasabha or the Muslim League have caused India. (9)

   Of the major Chayavadis, Mahadevi and Nirala were the only ones left to take offense at this type of statement. Mahadevi reacted in her characteristically thoughtful way, mainly against the reproach of lack of realism. (10) Nevertheless, she would soon stop writing poetry, and the anthologies of poetry she edited (Bangdarsan in 1944) and the prose sketches of Indian village life that she published in this period (Atit ke Calcitra in 1941 and Smrti ki Rekhae in 1943) seem much more progressive in tone. (11)

   As regards Nirala's reaction, ironically, it was he who from the start had showed most interest in social and nationalist topics. Now he attended some of the Progressive Writers' meetings, but he was too much of a rebel to identify closely with that association. (12) The main obstacle was Nirala's total aversion to politicians or political theorists meddling with literature and dictating what poets should be writing about. Characteristically, he was not very diplomatic about voicing his aversion and contempt. (13) In the climate of the times, this was not forgiven, and he made many new enemies who wrote in less than flattering terms about his work.

   Nirala, with his volatile temper, took the attacks very personally. He was especially upset when a negative evaluation of his work appeared in English. This happened when Vatsyayana (later, the very influential poet "Agyey") wrote in deprecating terms about the "aesthete" type of modern Hindi poet, "obviously a person who does not face reality and who lives a protected and more or less innocuous life." (14) Vatsyayana went so far as to accuse this type of poet of narcissism. He considered Pant to be the prime exponent of the genre, but classified Nirala too under the heading, with a stinging comment:

   In fact, the pitfalls to which the aesthete is liable show up more glaringly in his [Nirala's] case. His is another ease of artistic liability gone astray due to overwhelming self-esteem ... (15)

   Vatsyayana softens the blow by praising Nirala's early work and lauding his contribution to the use of free verse in Hindi poetry, but he ends on a disconcerting note:

   And having given him due credit for this, let us say no more. Nil nisi bonum, and as a literary force, at any rate, Nirala is already dead. (16)

   It appears that the main reproach of its opponents was Chayavad's self-absorption and its lack of social and political engagement, which is understandable given the political climate of the times. However, the stigma of escapism seems to have stuck, and even some modern authors perpetuate the tradition of belittling Chayavad poets for their perceived lack of social and political commitment.

   A good example is a recent English-language "History of Hindi Literature," where Pant and Nirala are classified as "aesthetes," using the exact language (without acknowledgment) of H. S. Vatsyayana. (17) The author continues with an evaluation in which Vatsyayana's article is reproduced more or less wholesale (again without acknowledgment), providing additionally the Hindi originals for Vatsyayana's quotes and references to the post-1937 poetry of Pant and Nirala. Such "borrowings" from the thirties are not only derivative, but also misleading.

   In fact, far from being isolated, all the Chayavad poets participated in the general effort to raise social consciousness, whether in words or deeds, or both. (18) In terms of activism, right from the start, Pant was involved in the Non-Cooperation movement of 1921 and worked for the Indian National Congress, (19) whereas Mahadevi was a supporter of Gandhi and a staunch promoter of women's education, and was involved in several other projects for social uplift. (20)

   Chayavad poetry itself may not be as straightforwardly socio-political as that of the period just preceding it, the so-called Dvivedi Yug (Schoolmaster Period), but that does not mean that it was bereft of socio-political significance. It has been suggested that the Chayavad poets were in fact doing something of more importance than trying to use poems as vehicles for nationalist propaganda: they were involved in building national consciousness by an entire cultural identity." (21) Mahadevi herself seems to have been aware of this in describing Chayavad as something like a liberation from the cultural inferiority complex that had resulted from British colonial rule. (22) It is however not only in defensive rhetorical statements that these political concerns surface, but also in Chayavad poetry itself.

   It is my contention that, at least in the case of Nirala, Chayavad poetry can carry a complex political message and that it cannot be fully understood if that is ignored. I should, however, briefly point out that Nirala is more than a representative of Chayavad. In contrast to most of the other major Chayavadis, he continued publishing after Chayavad, as a movement, was finished--by the end of the thirties. Naturally, his poetry changed quite a bit in the course of this long, productive career. Nirala's poetic oeuvre is usually divided roughly into Chayavadi (1920-38), satirical (1939-49), and reflective (1950-61) periods.

   In contemporary literary circles, it is fashionable to quote Nirala's non-romantic poetry, especially his poems with an obvious social relevance. On...