Volume:
4,
No.
2
April
–
June
1986
SUDHI
PRADHAN,
(ed.)
MARXIST
CULTURAL
MOVEMENT
IN
INDIA.
In
3
volumes,
Calcutta,
1985
IT
WAS
IN
APRIL
1936
THAT
THE
PROGRESSIVE
Writers’
Association
was
formed
in
Lucknow.
The
Golden
Jubilee
of
that
organisation
was
celebrated
recently
under
the
president
ship
of
one
of
its
founder
members,
Mulk
Raj
Anand,
in
Lucknow
from
April
9
to
11.
Sudhi
Paradhan,
the
editor
of
three-volume
collection
of
materials
on
the
Marxist
Cultural
Movement
in
India
deserves
the
gratitude
of
all
those
who
are
interested
in
studying
the
development
of
India’s
cultural
movement
since
the
1930s---
a
movement
which
is
closely
associated
with
the
political,
trade
union
and
kisan
movements
in
the
country.
With
patient
and
painstaking
labour,
he
has
brought
together
all
that
was
available
to
him
of
the
documents
concerning
the
origin,
growth
and
the
problems
not
only
of
the
Progressive
Writers’
Association
(PWA)
but
of
the
Indian
People’s
Theatre
Association
(PITA)
as
well.
He
appends
his
own
foreword
or
preface
to
each
of
the
three
volumes.
Having
been
an
active
participant
in
this
entire
period
with
personal
experience
of
the
movement,
he
has
brought
all
that
to
bear
on
his
collection
of
material.
Many
paid
tribute
to
him
when
he
brought
out
the
first
volume
in
1979.
Striking
a
personal
note,
I
recall
with
nostalgia
the
function
organised
for
releasing
that
volume
in
which,
in
the
presence
of
the
late
Dr
Adhikari,
Professor
Hiren
Mukherjee
presented
a
copy
of
the
volume
to
me.
That
function
and
the
study
of
the
material
contained
in
the
three
volumes
bring
back
to
memory
the
bitter
battles
in
which
the
founders
of
the
PWA
were
involved---
first
with
the
avowed
opponents
of
the
movement
and
subsequently
among
themselves---
on
what
constitutes
the
PWA
and
the
IPTA.
I
myself
had
the
privilege
and
the
unpleasant
duty
of
participating
in
this
battle
of
ideas,
though
it
was
confined
more
or
less
to
my
home
state
of
Kerala
and
its
cultural
movement.
The
documents
collected
in
the
three
volumes
enable
the
readers
to
have
as
objective
a
view
as
possible
of
the
entire
development
of
the
Marxist
cultural
movement
in
India.
EMERGENCE
OF
LEFT
It
was
no
accident
that
the
PWA
was
formed
in
1936
and
that
too
in
the
city
of
Lucknow.
The
venue
was
the
Congress
Nagar—the
temporarily
build
township
constructed
for
holding
the
annual
session
of
the
Indian
National
Congress.
That
session
was
remarkable
for
the
new
turn
to
the
left
given
to
the
Congress
policy.
The
presidential
address
delivered
by
Jawaharlal
Nehru
and
the
resolutions
adopted
at
the
session
showed
the
clear
impact
of
two
important
events
in
the
development
of
the
left
movement
in
the
country—
first,
the
emergence
of
an
organised
central
leadership
for
the
Communist
Party
of
India
which
unified
all
the
scattered
Communist
groups
working
throughout
the
country,
secondly,
the
formation
of
the
Congress
Socialist
Party.
The
ideas
of
the
left
movement
propagated
by
the
CPI
and
the
newly—formed
CSP
were
echoed
in
the
presidential
address
and
the
resolution
adopted
at
the
Congress
session.
The
same
city
(Lucknow)
was
host
to
another
important
session—the
foundation
conference
of
the
All
–
India
Kisan
Congress
(later
renamed
Kisan
Sabha)
whose
golden
jubilee
was
also
observed
in
the
third
week
of
May
this
year
at
Patna.
Among
the
three
gatherings
in
Lucknow
half
a
century
ago,
the
most
important
from
the
national
point
of
view
was
of
course
the
session
of
the
Indian
National
Congress,
which
marked
a
definite
shift
to
the
left.
That,
however,
would
not
have
been
effective
had
it
not
been
for
the
fact
that
the
other
two
were
also
taking
place.
The
emergence
of
the
Kisan
Sabha
showed
that
the
mass
of
Indian
peasantry
who
had
fought
the
British
rules
first
under
the
dethroned
feudal
chieftains
and
then
under
the
bourgeois
leaders
of
the
anti-imperialist
movement
had
begun
to
search
for
new
allies,
while
organising
themselves
independently
but
as
part
of
the
anti-imperialist
movement.
The
emergence
of
united
action
between
the
re-organised
CPI
and
the
newly
formed
CSP
showed
that,
within
the
Congress
itself,
an
independent
left
force
with
international
contacts
had
started
emerging
and
challenging
the
authority
of
the
right.
The
formation
of
the
PWA
(followed
subsequently
by
the
IPTA)
showed
that
the
new
left
trend
had
started
asserting
itself
not
only
in
the
political
and
economic,
but
in
the
cultural
movement
as
well.
Mulk
Raj
Anand,
with
whose
article
on
the
PWA
the
first
volume
opens,
takes
the
readers
back
to
“those
dark
fogy
November
days
of
the
year
1935
in
London
when
after
the
disillusionment
and
disintegration
of
years
of
suffering
in
India
and
conscious
of
the
destruction
of
most
of
our
values
through
the
capitalist
crisis
of
1931,
a
few
of
us
emerged
from
the
slough
of
despondency
of
the
cafes
and
garrets
of
Bloomsbury
and
formed
the
nucleus
of
the
Progressive
Writers’
Associations.
For,
since
the
historic
meeting
in
the
Nanking
restaurant
in
Denmark
Street
where
the
original
manifesto
was
read,
through
the
eager,
well-attended
fortnightly
meetings
of
the
London
branch
where
essays,
stories
and
poems
were
read
and
lectures
delivered
(and
through
less
eager,
ill
attended
meetings)
through
the
first
All-India
Progressive
Writers’
Conference
held
in
Lucknow
in
April
1936,
and
the
opening
of
branches
or
committees
in
the
various
linguistic
zones
through
the
provincial
conference
and
the
opening
of
more
branches,
our
organisation
has,
today
gathered
into
it
or
around
it,
the
most
significant
writers
in
India
and
commands
membership
so
large
that
it
forms,
quantitatively,
one
of
the
largest
blocks
for
the
defence
of
culture
in
the
world.”
(PP.
1-2,
Vol.
1).
Another
founding
member
of
the
PWA
and
its
General
Secretary
for
long,
Sajaad
Zaheer,
says
in
his
reminiscences:
“Just
remember
the
two
years
preceding
1935.
The
political
effect
of
the
economic
crisis
that
engulfed
the
world
took
in
Germany
the
shape
of
the
dictatorship
of
Hitler
and
his
Nazi
party.
In
London
and
Paris,
we
daily
came
across
the
miserable
refuges
who
had
escaped
or
were
exiled
from
Germany.
Everywhere
one
could
hear
the
painful
stories
of
fascist
repression….
The
painful
darkness,
which,
spreading
from
the
bright
world
of
arts
and
learning
that
was
Germany,
was
throwing
its
fearful
shades
on
Europe
—
all
these
had
shattered
the
inner
tranquillity
of
our
hearts
and
minds.
One
power
could
stem
the
tide
of
this
modern
barbarism
—
the
organised
power
of
the
factory
workers,
the
power
that
emerges
from
the
working
together,
through
co-operation,
through
ceaseless
struggle
against
repression
and
exploitation
of
capitalist.
The
experience
of
the
continuous
class
struggle
creates
on
this
class
a
revolutionary
class
consciousness
enabling
it
to
frustrate
the
attempts
of
capitalism
to
put
the
clock
back
and
to
become
the
creators
of
anew
civilisation.”
(PP.33-34,
Vol.
1)
It
was
to
this
new
awareness
that
a
definite
political
form
was
being
given
in
India
by
the
re-organised
leadership
of
the
CPI
and
the
newly
formed
CSP.
It
was
again
this
that
was
echoed
in
Jawaharlal
Nehru’s
presidential
address
and
in
the
resolutions
adopted
in
the
Lucknow
session
of
the
congress
under
his
guidance.
It
formed
the
ideological
and
programmatic
basis
also
of
the
newly
created
organisation
of
Indian
peasantry.
Lucknow
in
1936,
in
short,
witnessed
the
emergence
of
a
new
class
political
force
—
broad
enough
to
cover
all
classes
and
strata
in
Indian
society
but
under
the
general
guidance
and
leadership
of
the
international
working
class
headed
by
the
Soviet
Union
and
the
Communist
International.
The
new
force,
however,
was
not
a
mere
political
movement
but
all
embracing;
it
did
not
leave
untouched
any
aspect
of
the
individual
or
social
life
of
man.
Struggle
on
the
cultural
front
was
in
other
words
an
inseparable
part
of
the
struggle
on
the
economic,
the
political
and
the
social
arena.
CULTURE
AND
POLITICS
ARE
INDIVISIBLE
The
foundation
conference
of
the
PWA
had
the
blessings
of
such
giants
of
Indian
literature
as
Rabindranath
Tagore,
Sarojini
Naidu
and
Munshi
Prem
Chand.
Prem
Chand
in
fact
presided
over
the
conference
of
the
PWA
and
said:
“Hitherto
we
had
been
content
to
discuss
language
and
its
problems;
the
existing
critical
literature
of
Urdu
and
Hindi
has
dealt
with
the
construction
and
the
structure
of
the
language
alone.
This
was
doubtless
an
important
and
necessary
work
and
the
pioneers
of
our
literature
have
supplied
this
preliminary
need
and
performed
their
task
admirably.
But
language
is
a
means,
not
an
end;
a
stage,
not
the
journey’s
end.
Its
purpose
is
to
mould
our
thoughts
and
emotions
and
to
give
them
the
right
direction.
We
have
now
to
concern
ourselves
with
the
meaning
of
things
and
to
find
the
means
of
fulfilling
the
purpose
for
which
the
language
is
constructed.
This
is
the
main
purpose
of
this
conference.”
(D.
52)
“Our
literary
taste”,
Prem
Chand
went
on,
“is
undergoing
a
rapid
transformation.
It
is
coming
more
and
to
grips
with
the
realities
of
life;
it
interests
itself
with
society
or
man
as
a
social
unit.
It
is
not
satisfied
now
with
the
singing
of
frustrated
love,
or
with
writing
to
satisfy
only
our
sense
of
wonder;
it
concerns
itself
with
the
problems
of
our
life
and
such
themes
as
have
a
social
value.
The
literature
which
does
not
arouse
in
us
a
critical
spirit,
or
satisfy
our
spiritual
needs,
which
is
not
‘force-giving’
and
dynamic,
which
does
not
awaken
our
sense
of
beauty,
which
does
not
make
us
face
the
grim
realities
of
life
in
a
spirit
of
determination,
has
no
use
for
us
today.
It
cannot
even
be
termed
as
literature.”
(P.53)
Recalling
that
religion
had
in
the
past
“taken
upon
itself
the
task
of
striving
after
man’s
spiritual
and
moral
guidance”
and
that
“it
used
fear
and
cajolery,
reward
and
retribution
as
its
chief
instruments
in
this
work,”
Prem
Chand
pointed
out:
“Today,
however,
literature
has
undertaken
a
new
task,
and
its
instrument
is
our
inherent
sense
of
beauty;
it
tried
to
achieve
its
aim
by
arousing
this
sense
of
beauty
in
us.
The
more
a
writer
develops
this
sense
through
his
observation
of
nature,
the
more
effective
will
his
writings
become.
All
that
is
ugly
or
detestable,
all
that
is
inhuman,
becomes
intolerable
to
such
a
writer.
He
becomes
the
standard
bearer
of
humanity,
of
moral
uprightness,
of
nobility.
It
becomes
his
duty
to
help
all
those
who
are
down-trodden,
oppressed
and
exploited-individuals
or
groups-and
to
advocate
their
cause.
And
his
judge
is
itself-it
is
before
society
that
he
brings
his
plant.
He
knows
that
the
more
realistic
his
story
is,
the
more
full
of
expression
and
movement
his
picture,
the
more
intimate
his
observation
of
human
nature,
psychology,
the
greater
the
effect
he
will
produce.
It
is
not
even
enough
that
from
a
psychological
point
of
view
his
characters
resembled
human
beings;
we
must
further
be
satisfied
that
they
are
real
human
beings
of
bone
and
flesh.
We
do
not
believe
in
an
imaginary
man;
his
acts
and
his
thoughts
do
not
impress
us.”
(pp.53-54)
Munshi
Prem
Chand’s
presidential
address
to
the
foundation
conference
of
the
PWA
is
a
remarkable
piece
of
literary
criticism
integrating
the
best
in
the
Indian
and
world
culture,
Indian
patriotism
with
international
humanism.
It
showed
that
Mulk
Raj
Anand,
Sajaad
Zaheer
and
their
comrades
were
not
importing
into
India
something
that
was
alien
to
her
culture,
but
that
our
own
soil
was
fertile
enough
to
accept
and
nurture
the
seeds
thrown
all
over
the
world
by
such
giants
of
world
literature
as
Maxim
Gorky,
Romain
Rolland,
Henry
Barbusse
and
so
on.
Founded
as
it
was
under
those
circumstances,
it
was
natural
that
the
PWA
should
adopt
a
Manifesto,
which
was
at
once
political
and
cultural.
It
said:
“Radical
changes
are
taking
place
in
Indian
society.
The
spirit
of
reaction,
however,
though
moribund
and
doomed
to
ultimate
decay,
is
still
operative
and
is
making
desperate
efforts
to
prolong
itself.
Indian
literature,
since
the
breakdown
of
classical
culture,
has
had
the
fatal
tendency
to
escape
from
the
actualities
of
life.
It
has
tried
to
find
a
refuge
from
reality
in
baseless
spiritualism
and
ideality.
The
result
is
that
it
has
become
anaemic
in
body
and
mind
and
had
adopted
a
rigid
formalism
and
a
banal
and
perverse
ideology.
“It
is
the
duty
of
Indian
writers
to
give
expression
to
the
changes
taking
place
in
Indian
life
and
to
assist
spirit
of
progress
in
the
country
by
introducing
scientific
rationalism
in
literature.
They
should
undertake
to
develop
an
literary
criticism,
which
will
discourage
the
general
reactionary
and
revisionist
tendencies
on
questions
like
family,
religion,
sex,
war
and
society.
They
should
combat
literary
trends
reflecting
communalism,
racial
antagonism,
and
exploitation
of
man
by
man.
(Emphasis
added)
“It
is
the
object
of
our
Association
to
rescue
literature
and
others
arts
from
the
conservative
classes
in
whose
hands
they
have
been
degenerating
so
long,
to
bring
arts
into
the
closest
touch
with
the
people
and
to
make
them
the
vital
organs
which
will
register
the
actualities
of
life,
as
well
as
lead
us
to
the
future
we
envisage.
“While
claiming
to
be
the
inheritors
of
the
best
tradition
of
Indian
civilisation,
we
shall
criticise,
in
all
its
aspects,
the
sprit
of
reaction
in
our
country,
and
we
shall
foster
through
interpretative
and
creative
work
(with
both
Indian
and
foreign
resources)
everything
that
will
lead
our
country
to
the
new
life
for
which
it
is
striving.
We
believe
that
the
new
literature
of
India
must
deal
with
the
basic
social
backwardness
and
political
subjection.
All
that
drags
us
down
to
passivity,
inaction
and
unreason,
we
reject
as
reactionary.
All
that
arouses
in
us
the
critical
spirit,
which
examines
institutions
and
customs
in
the
light
of
reason,
which
helps
us
to
act,
to
organise
our
selves,
to
transform,
we
accept
as
progressive.”
(pp.20-21,
Vol.
1
Emphasise
in
the
original)
The
second
conference
made
certain
amendments
to
the
above,
which
are
not
of
a
substantial
nature.
Among
the
literary
trends
to
be
combated,
(in
the
copy
quoted
above
with
emphasis
added),
the
amendment
added
sexual
libertinism.
Another
amendment
was
the
addition
of
the
aims
and
objects
of
the
PWA
which
were
as
follows:
“The
aims
and
objects
of
our
Association
are
as
follows:
1)
To
establish
organisations
of
writers
to
correspond
to
the
various
linguistic
zones
of
India;
to
coordinate
these
organisations
by
holding
conferences
and
by
publishing
literature;
to
establish
a
close
connection
between
the
central
and
local
organisations
and
to
cooperate
with
those
literary
organisations
whose
aims
do
not
conflict
with
the
basic
aims
of
the
Association;
2)
To
form
branches
of
the
Association
in
all
the
important
towns
of
India;
(3)
to
produce
and
to
translate
literatures
of
a
progressive
nature,
to
fight
cultural
reaction,
and
in
this
way
to
further
the
cause
of
India’s
freedom
and
social
regeneration;
(4)
To
protect
the
interests
of
progressive
authors;
(5)
To
fight
for
the
right
of
free
expression
of
though
and
opinion.”
(pp.
97-98.
Vol.1)
Munshi
Prem
Chand’s
presidential
address
and
the
Manifesto
adopted
at
the
session
would
make
it
clear
that
the
founders
of
the
organisation
completely
disassociated
themselves
from
the
theory
fashionable
in
those
days
that
the
creative
writers
or
other
artists
should
be
above
politics.
Every
sensitive
writer
and
artist
was
concerned
with
what
happened
around
him
or
her.
In
India,
the
aspiration
for
freedom
from
foreign
rule,
putting
an
end
to
all
that
is
out-moded
in
the
centuries-old
Indian
society,
rapid
transformation
of
India’s
life
and
culture
along
the
line
of
modernisation-all
these
could
not
be
separated
from
the
aesthetic
tastes
and
talents
of
the
writers
and
artists.
On
a
world
scale,
no
sensitive
human
being
(which
includes
writers
and
artists)
could
but
be
concerned
with
the
threat
of
fascism
and
war
which
was
hanging
like
a
Damocle’s
sword
over
humanity.
That
is
why,
a
few
week
after
the
PWA
was
born
and
the
second
congress
of
the
International
Writers
Association
was
being
held
in
London
(from
the
19th
to
23rd
of
June
1936),
s
Manifesto
sent
by
the
PWA
and
signed
by
Rabindranath
Tagore,
Sarat
Chatterjee,
Munshi
Prem
Chand,
PC
Ray,
Jawaharlal
Nehru,
Pramatha
Choudhury,
Ramananda
Chatterjee,
Nandalal
Bose
and
others
declared:
“Today
the
spectre
of
a
world
war
haunts
the
world.
Fascist
dictatorship
has
revealed
its
militant
essence
by
its
offer
of
guns
instead
of
butter
and
the
lust
of
empire
building
in
place
of
cultural
opportunities.
The
methods
resorted
to
by
Italy
for
the
subjugation
of
Abyssinia
have
rudely
shocked
all
those
who
cherish
a
faith
in
reason
and
civilisation.
Rivalry
and
contradiction
among
big
imperialist
powers,
deliberate
provocation
of
crude
national
chauvinistic
sentiments,
high-speed
rearmaments
–
these
are
but
portents
of
the
critical
situation
in
which
we
are
placed
today.
On
our
own
and
on
behalf
of
our
countrymen
we
take
this
opportunity
in
declare
with
one
voice
with
the
people
of
other
countries
that
we
detest
war
and
want
to
abjure
it
and
that
we
have
no
interest
in
war.
We
are
against
the
participation
of
India
in
any
imperialist
war
for
we
know
that
the
future
of
civilisation
will
be
stake
in
the
next
war.”
(p.
vii,
Foreword
to
Volume
1)
Political
Differences
The
favourable
circumstances,
national
and
international,
under
which
the
PWA
was
formed,
however,
did
not
last
long.
The
political
unity
which
embraced
communists
and
socialists
at
one
end
and
the
bulk
of
left
Congressmen
on
the
other
was
broken
in
three
years:
the
electoral
victory
of
Subhas
Chandra
Bose
in
the
keenly-contested
presidential
election
of
the
Congress
(1939)
turned
out
to
the
beginning
of
the
spilt
between
communists
and
the
socialists,
both
of
them
with
the
Bose
followers,
the
extreme
vacillation
shown
by
Nehru
and
his
followers
which
landed
them
in
the
end
to
become
the
faithful
followers
of
Mahatma
Gandhi,
culminating
in
the
bitter
battles
that
were
fought
between
the
communists
and
the
rest
of
the
anti-communists
after
the
launching
of
the
Quit
India
struggle.
This
found
reflection
in
the
PWA,
as
was
clear
from
the
forward
written
by
the
PWA
General
Secretary,
Sajaad
Zaheer,
to
the
collection
of
documents
emanating
from
the
4th
All
India
Conference
of
the
PWA.
He
said:
“As
in
the
political
fields,
so
in
literature
and
art,
a
‘deadlock’
seems
to
have
been
reached
in
our
country.
The
4th
All
India
Progressive
Writers’
Conference
which
met
in
Bombay
in
the
fourth
week
of
May
(1943)
attempted
to
break
this
‘literary
stalemate.”
(p.
1,
Vol.
3)
The
hope
of
having
broken
the
‘stalemate’
was,
however,
wishful
thinking.
The
great
divide
on
the
political
front
(between
the
supporters
and
opponents
of
the
Quit
India
struggle)
continued
in
the
country
who
had
earlier
played
a
role
or
participated
in
the
foundation
of
the
PWA
became
bitter
enemies
of
that
organisation
and
everything
it
stood
for.
Nor
was
this
surprising.
After
all,
the
basis
of
the
unity
at
the
time
of
the
formation
of
the
PWA
was
political
–cum-cultural
not
merely
cultural.
When
the
shift
took
place
in
the
political
situation
internationally
and
nationally,
the
original
unity
could
not
but
be
disrupted.
Once
again,
after
the
end
of
the
war
and
the
new
national
developments
culminating
in
the
1947
transfer
of
power
from
the
British
to
Indian
hands,
different
and
conflicting
assessments
emerged
and
the
artists.
Since
then,
for
nearly
four
decades
every
turn
in
the
internal
or
international
political
situation
tended
to
divided
the
political
activists
and
thinkers
from
which
no
artist
writer
or
other
intellectual
can
dissociate
himself
or
herself.
Naturally,
therefore,
the
half-century
that
has
elapsed
since
the
foundation
conference
of
the
PWA
(barring
the
first
three
years)
has
been
a
period
in
which
bitter
battles
were
fought
among
the
leaders
and
activists
as
much
of
the
cultural
as
the
political
movement.
A
reference
may
in
this
context
be
made
of
the
subjective
desire
expressed
by
many
well-meaning
activists
and
sympathisers
of
the
Marxist
cultural
movement
in
India
that
the
differences
that
cropped
up
among
them
during
the
last
50
years
should
be
resolved.
Those
who
give
expression
to
this
feeling
almost
suggest
that
the
PWA
formed
50
years
ago,
and
the
IPTA
nearly
a
decade
later,
should
be
revived
and
made
to
function
as
united
and
cohesive
bodies.
The
editor
of
these
three
volumes
in
his
Foreword
or
Preface
to
separate
volume
also
appears
to
be
inclined
to
this
view.
I
am
referring
to
the
criticism
he
makes
in
several
places
that
the
ideological-political
mistakes
of
the
leadership
of
the
Communist
movement
in
India
are
at
least
partially
responsible
for
the
decline
of
the
Marxists
cultural
movement.
Is
this
view
correct?
I
do
not
think
so.
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
in
this
50
year-period
that
there
has
been
an
unprecedented
upsurge
of
activity
in
the
cultural
field.
It
goes
to
the
credit
of
Sudhi
Pradhan
that
he
has
brought
together
in
the
three
volumes
abundant
material
showing
how,
at
every
state
in
the
history
of
the
movement
---
even
after
it
began
to
“decline
and
disintegrate”
---
the
upsurge
of
creative
activity
continued.
In
fact,
in
the
very
short
period
(Quit
India
struggle)
when
the
Communist
Party
was
fighting
with
its
back
to
the
wall
and
trying
to
break
out
of
its
isolation
among
the
anti-imperialist
masses,
it
was
using
literature,
drama,
folk
arts,
etc.
as
the
most
potent
weapons
against
its
political
opponents.
In
terms
of
output,
creative
production
exceeded,
in
that
period
of
the
Party’s
battle
for
political
survival,
as
compared
to
what
had
been
done
earlier.
The
unique
contribution
of
the
Marxist
cultural
movement
has
been
that
artistic
creation
and
appreciation
is
no
more
confined
to
the
intellectual
elite.
The
growth
of
the
organised
working
class
and
peasant
movement,
together
with
the
movements
of
other
sections
of
the
working
people,
had
awakened
the
millions
to
toilers
not
only
to
political
consciousness
but
uplifted
their
aesthetic
sensibilities
and
creative
talents.
I
myself
had
occasions
to
refer
to
this
in
an
article
in
New
Age
in
December
1955
(quoted
in
vol.
3).
Mentioning
the
worker-peasant
artists
—
dozens
and
scores
of
poets,
story
writers,
producers
and
actors
of
plays,
singers,
etc,
of
Kerala
who
had
risen
from
the
working
people
and
ascribing
the
phenomenon
to
the
fact
that
cultural
activities
have
ceased
to
be
confined
to
a
narrow
circle
of
upper
class
intellectuals,
I
went
on:”
“The
credit
for
such
a
wide
expansion
of
cultural
activities
among
the
working
people
should
undoubtedly
go
to
the
trade
unions,
kisan
sabhas
and
other
democratic
mass
organisations
that
have
rapidly
developed
in
Kerala
during
the
last
25
years.
For,
it
was
the
awakening
of
the
worker-peasant
masses
to
class
consciousness;
the
militant
struggles
which
they
waged
for
the
realisation
of
their
immediate
demands
and
for
their
long-range
objectives;
the
hope
and
confidence
which
were
engendered
in
their
hearts
that
a
glorious
future
awaited
them
if
only
they
united
their
forces
with
all
the
democratic
and
patriotic
elements
in
the
country;
the
sense
of
strength
that
developed
within
them
through
the
struggle
which
they
untidily
waged
against
the
common
foe-it
was
these
that
brought
out
the
hidden
talents
in
the
hundreds
and
thousand
of
common
people
which
were
lying
dormant
for
centuries.
In
other
words,
it
was
the
entry
of
the
workers
and
peasant
masses
as
an
independent
force
into
the
arena
of
economic
and
political
struggle
that
made
their
entry
into
the
field
of
cultural
activity
possible.
“It
is
however,
not
only
in
the
field
of
arts,
but
in
the
field
of
natural
and
social
sciences
as
well,
that
the
growth
of
the
organised
working
class
and
peasant
movement
has
exerted
its
influence.
One
of
the
earliest
and
most
important
activities
of
the
trade
unions,
kisan
sabhas
and
other
democratic
organisations
of
the
working
people
was
the
organisation
of
night
schools,
reading
rooms
and
libraries
and
study
classes
for
the
imparting
of
the
principles
of
political
economy
and
other
social
sciences,
etc.,
all
of
which
were
calculated
to
stimulate
an
interest
in,
and
facilitate
the
study
of,
serious
subjects
which
were
rarely
dealt
with
in
Malayalam
literature.
“The
hunger
for
knowledge
which
has
thus
been
aroused
among
the
common
people
has
made
it
possible
for
the
authors
and
publishers
of
workers
on
such
subjects
to
produce
them
and
get
them
sold
in
a
comparatively
short
space
of
time.
This
has
made
a
fundamental
transformation
in
the
situation
in
the
publishing
world
of
Kerala
in
the
sense
that
publication
which
once
took
as
much
as
four
or
five
years
to
sell
are
now
sold
off
in
less
than
a
year.”
(pp.
482-483,
vol.
3)
I
have
given
the
above
quotation
because,
though
confined
to
one
state,
it
briefly
sums
up
what
happened
to
the
cultural
movement
all
over
the
country
for
two
decades
since
the
formation
of
the
PWA.
Sudhi
Pradhan
has
complied
material
from
most
other
states,
which
tells
the
same
story.
One
can,
therefore,
unhesitatingly
observe
that
just
as
in
the
economic
and
political
field,
the
communist,
socialist
and
other
leftist
movements
in
the
country
have
uplifted
the
common
man
culturally
also:
he
is
increasingly
becoming
the
creator
as
well
as
the
critic
of
productions
in
cultural
field.
Can
this
be
called
‘decline’
or
‘disintegration’
of
the
Marxist
cultural
movement
in
India?
Is
it
not
in
fact
a
creditable
advance?
It
is,
of
course,
true
that
the
organisation
that
came
into
being
half
a
century
ago,
the
PWA
and
its
sister
organisation,
IPTA
which
came
to
be
formed
a
little
later,
do
not
exist
as
All
–India
organisations
today.
(Even
when
they
were
in
existence,
they
were
better
known
in
Hindu,
Urdu
and
Benglee
speaking
regions
though
other
states
also
had
active
regional
branches.)
the
fact,
however,
remains
that
then
as
now,
there
existed
and
still
exist
organisations
and
movements
which,
though
not
formally
affiliated
to
the
PWA
and
the
IPTA
have
been
working
broadly
on
the
lines
indicated
at
the
foundation
conferences
of
the
two
organisations.
I
may
for
example
point
out
that
the
working
people
of
Kerala
produced
in
this
period
as
many
creative
and
critical
works
as
were
produced
in
other
states
of
India;
the
bitter
controversy
that
accompanied
the
setting
up
of
the
Kerala
unit
of
the
PWA
in
1937
and
the
still
more
bitter
controversies
that
raged
in
the
1940s
(between
the
communists
and
others)
were
no
less
intensive
in
Kerala
than
anywhere
else.
These,
however,
do
not
get
adequate
representation
in
the
material
brought
together
in
these
three
volumes-for
which
of
course
the
main
responsibility
should
be
borne
by
the
leaders
and
activists
of
the
movement
in
the
state
itself.
Looking
back
to
the
bitter
debates
that
took
place
in
this
50-year
period
(including
those
in
the
1940s
and
1950s),
I
am
convinced
that
nobody
in
the
Marxist
cultural
movement
has
the
right
to
deplore
the
differences
that
cropped
up
among
the
main
champions
of
the
movement.
The
sharp
polemics
in
which
we
were
engaged,
show
the
virility
of
what
was
growing-the
new
literature
and
art
which
was
for
the
people
as
well
as
by
them.
This
of
course
does
not
excuse
many
of
us
who
used
much
sharper
words
in
debate
than
we
should
have,
nor
even
for
many
of
the
obviously
wrong
ideas
to
which
we
gave
expression
in
those
days.
While
undoubtedly
taking
due
note
of
all
these
deficiencies
and
weaknesses,
however,
the
Marxist
cultural
movement
is
as
much
a
living
reality
today
as
its
political,
economic
and
other
forms
of
expression.
Where
does
the
Marxist
cultural
movement
stand
today?
Anybody
who
has
eyes
to
see
will
agree
that
All
India
organisations
of
the
PWA
and
the
IPTA
type
are
not
possible
today
since
there
are
so
many
organisations
throughout
the
country,
each
of
them
having
their
own
distinctive
identities,
though
they
fall
under
the
category
of
organisations
of
progressive
writers
and
artists.
The
members
and
activists
or
every
one
of
them
having
their
own
distinctive
features,
it
will
be
utopian
to
try
to
bring
them
under
one
organisation
with
one
constitution,
one
set
of
rules.
Added
to
this
is
the
fact
that
the
country
is
divided
into
so
many
linguistic
and
cultural
entities
for
which
nothing
more
than
co-ordination
by
way
of
periodical
gatherings
(with
no
binding
resolutions
adopted)
is
the
best
that
can
be
attempted.
The
very
diversity
of
the
organisation
that
has
sprung
up
in
this
half
a
century
is
a
tribute
to
the
virility
of
the
movement
that
was
founded
in
April
1936
in
the
city
of
Lucknow.
While
it
did
not
develop
into
the
huge
banyan
tree
which
was
the
dream
of
many
votaries
of
the
PWA
and
the
OPTA,
their
roots
have
struck
deep
into
the
soil
of
India,
of
every
linguistic
cultural
group
that
is
inhabiting
this
country.
One
has
to
compare
the
content
of
the
creative
and
critical
works
of
today
with
today
with
their
predecessors
of
half
a
century
ago,
compare
the
two
with
the
materials
of
the
1936
conference
to
find
the
profound
impact
of
the
latter
on
the
Indian
cultural
scene.
The
only
other
point
I
wish
to
make
here
is
the
relation
between
the
cultural
and
political
movements.
As
Munshi
Prem
Chand’s
presidential
address
to,
and
the
Manifesto
adopted
by,
the
foundation
conference
of
the
PWA
had
made
it
clear,
national
and
world
politics
is
an
integral
part
of
human
life
and
therefore
of
the
arts
and
literature
as
well.
At
the
same
time,
politics
is
only
a
part
and
not
the
whole
life.
No
writer
or
artist
can
be
above
politics,
though
as
a
creative
artist
and
writer
he
or
she
may
not
be
subjectively
committed
to
it.
Munshi
Prem
Chand.
Rabindranath
Tagore
and
other
giants
of
Indian
literature
or
Gorky,
Romain
Rolland
and
so
on
of
world
literature
could
not
but
be
influenced
by
political
developments
around
them.
However,
they
are
basically
creative
artists
and
writers
—
a
fact
which,
let
it
be
admitted,
many
of
us
forgot
when
we
engaged
ourselves
in
controversies.
The
position
was
correctly
stated
by
Lenin
in
a
letter
he
addressed
to
Maxim
Gorky
on
July
31,
1919.
Merciless
in
his
criticism
of
one
for
whom
he
had
the
greatest
affection
and
respect,
Lenin
told
Gorky
that
he
was
degenerating.
“The
more
I
read
over
your
letter”,
he
said,
“the
more
I
arrive
at
the
conviction
that
the
letter
and
your
conclusions
and
all
your
impressions
are
quite
sick.”
The
reason
for
this,
Lenin
pointed
out,
was
that
Gorki
was
then
living
in
Petrograd
where
only
one
who
“is
exceptionally
well-informed
politically
and
has
a
specially
wide
political
experience
can
see
what
is
happening
in
the
Soviet
Union.”
“If
you
want
to
observe,
you
must
observe
from
below
where
it
is
possible
to
survey
the
work
of
building
a
new
life
in
a
workers
‘
settlement
in
the
provinces
or
in
the
countryside.
There
one
does
not
have
to
make
a
political
summing
up
of
extremely
complex
data,
there
one
need
only
observe.
Instead
of
this,
you
have
put
yourself
in
the
position
of
a
professional
editor
or
translator,
etc.,
a
position
in
which
it
is
impossible
to
observe
the
new
building
of
a
new
life,
a
position
in
which
all
your
strength
is
frittered
away
on
the
sick
grumbling
of
a
sick
intelligentsia.”
Having
thus
sharply
rebuked
Gorky
for
having
lost
touch
with
the
people
who,
after
all,
are
the
real
creators
of
all
that
is
best
in
the
material
and
spiritual
world
which
man
has
created,
(as
Gorky
himself
has
explained
in
his
writings),
Lenin
adds:
“I
don’t
want
to
thrust
my
advice
on
you,
but
I
cannot
help
saying:
change
your
circumstances
radically,
your
environment,
your
abode,
your
occupation
–
otherwise
life
may
disgust
you
for
good.”
(Lenin
on
Art
&
Literature,
Progress
Publishers,
pp.
224-228).
Using the above advice of Lenin to Gorky as our guidance, can it not be said that many of us political activists tried to thrust our advice on eminent writers and artists, while many of our critics had taken up cudgels against us because, as political activists our observation of the fighting common people was more at one with reality that theirs? Ideology and politics cannot be either divorced from, or mixed up with, the production and appreciation of works of art and literature—a fact which was forgotten by us, the political activists, or our opponents in the field of the arts and literature.