July 1, 1962 THE THUNDER
TRAGEDY OF OSCAR WILDE
Literary genius hated women but turned homo-sexualist
By Late Shri Abani Mukherjee, M.A.
************************************************************************************

"Unnatural things breed unnatural consequences” said Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde wanted to reverse the general conception of man and woman wanted to rebuild an instinct which is primal and eradicable. A woman is half part of humanity a complement to man and both of them need each other. But Oscar's opinion was different His romance did not lay seize on any woman but on a boy named Alfred Douglas and lasted lifelong. Thunder clouds cataracts waterfalls could not deter her free play from the first inception to the end. She was not passive on looker but active champion and great actor of vehemence and resonance, Her range of voice and modulated pitch covered all grounds of life physical, mental ethical and social.

Physical:—‘A boy is more beautiful than a girl said Oscar, Fat hips and udder breasts minimise the beauty of a woman whereas slim lines add special charm to boys. The appeal the boys make is higher and spiritual but the sex prevents us realising this truth.

Mental: — Mentally the girls are very poor. They have no intelligence. Jealous and full of vanities. It is impossible to form an intellectual companion with them. They always remember the trivial to forget the important. A girl is not made for love, She is made to be a mother and when maternity touches her she loses all beauty She is defaced and defiled. He speaks of his wife, in a vein which is simply detestable. "When I married my wife she was a beautiful girl, white shining as a lily with dancing eyes, gay and rippling with laughter”—But with the visit of maternity all forms and grace had vanished she became heavy shapeless deformed. She dragged herself in the house with uncouth misery ... Oh nature! It is disgusting. It takes beauty and defiles it. It defaces ivory-white body with vile cicatrices of maternity. It befouls the alter of the soul and love is not possible to the artist unless it is sterile”. He mixed up love and beauty. He gave away ethics to aesthetics and lost all touches of humanity when he wrote “I tried to be kind to her but she was sick always and Oh! I cannot recall it. It was all loathsome. I used to wash my mouth and open the window to clean my lips in the open''. God save him! A man speaks against his wife in maternity when all sympathies and compassions will rain in torrents.

How can we desire what is shapeless and deformed and ugly desire is killed by maternity and passion buried in conception. Says Oscar. He wanted to change an order which life has established through years and years, How can life tolerate this negative passion to overrun the supreme passion of life-the Humanity. Has life ever tolerated it?

He confuses sins of soul and sins of flesh. His idea of sins of flesh is nothing compared to the sins of soul which are shameful. Tolerance chastity repent abstinence self-denial all virtues recorded by .life are shameful. But the devil in Oscar never dark life's holy water. He has nourished by different factors. Oscar's heritage is not worth mentioning. Father was sort of minotaur using chloroa form to violate the honour of one Miss Trovers while under his care as a patient and mother a woman of Colossal vanity and pride. She gave extraordinary airs for her second rate verses.

Public School: — His education at public school breathed in him many vices and evidences are there that while at school and college this reverse sex-instinct was born in him. Fulding has long ago remarked that "public schools are nurseries of vices" and this remark proved so true to Oscar.

Greek Learning: — His too much obsession with Greek classics made him a pagan. Visible world alone existed for him Greek sensuality and love for plastic beauty flared u/p in him in such a way that while watching students bathing in the river the beautiful white green nude figures of grace and ease appeared before him Sullivan Edward writes that while he matriculated he was already a good classical scholar and in 1874 he got the gold medal for the Greek. Greek was his life blood and flooded every channel of it.

Lack of religious faith: — He had no religious faith. Like Nietzsh and Gautier he was out of sympathy with Christianity. He said that it teaches hard mentality. It limits passion and impoverishes life. It weakens the main spring and narrows the realm of beauty. Sense of sin and repentance are weaknesses to be avoided. Chastity he says, "Is a shining sore on the leprous body of Christianity," What more could he say against religion an established code of life-recognised by all men whether they want to be great in the presence of God when they die or have the greatest share or pleasure when they live? Life still tolerated. But Oscar went further; he wanted to end her, The very source of Procreation he wanted to eradicate. He started advocating "what is the difference between one form of sexual indulgence and another? What do you call vice is vice. It is as good to me as it was to Caesar, Alexander, Mechal-Anglo and Shakespeare It does not carry temptation.

It may be a malady but is allied with the highest nature. "It is a nobler form of passion than the normal fertile are”. He was not unashamed of his reverse sex-instinct but was proud of it. Harris revealed it as his considered opinion in chapter xxii of his biography on Oscar Wild sherard does not admit it but treat it as an offence committed when Oscar was driven mad by a disease. If the lotter was true there was nothing to be afraid of. But a critical study of Oscar proves Harris statement bordering more on truth and danger lays there, A man of his genius if starts advocating a cause on ethical and physical grounds it may contaminate the whole of life and humanity. Life could tolerate no more. She bent herself to punish him.

Oscar never looked out of himself. His child like self-confidence proved fatal to him. He paid no heed to the cares of human affairs. He became a law unto himself. He built up his own realm of epigrims epithiets desire to please and astonish-" He never dived deep into .life. That flaring up of passion that enables a man to see universe in a thing was not his passion. He lived only for the beautiful and not for good and common weal. He left Goethe in the middle and went to Balzac and Bandelair started declaring "No taste should be ostracised." Gifted with picturesque phrases and caustic wit in it he never thought of any other side, but carried away his one way traffic with beauty and lost all connections with humanity, common weal and good.

Master of life Lord of life could do what he liked. But soon lost his way to be handcuffed and sent to prison for two years hard labour to be scorned by the passer by lashing him with wild insults. His wit did not find any argument to justify this punishment but wit of life found it. What right he had to change an order created by life? Is it not a challenge and fight charioted on the wings of vanity and pride? Is it not all out marshelling of his erudition against the Himalayan strength of life.

Romance always in plies opposite sex. What of that if the reverse was practised occasionally by the Greeks? So were many vices- They had all dropped out of life. Life gave him a chance to reform but the devil in him was too adamant and rebellious up to the end.

It is the nature of people to worship those who have been made to suffer horribly. Movement started after his death to defend Oscar and it has at present gained enough strength. It is wrong to say that ''He was punished for his popularity and his prominence, for the superiority of mind and wit: he was punished by the envy of the journalists and by the malignant pedentary of half civilized judges." He was punished because he challenged life. The artist wanted to be superior to humanist in him and any passion which has never tried to dominate It has failed. Tolstoy, Dickens, Tagore, Pastarnak all great men have proved it through their literary works. But Oscar was driven mad by classics. He had never an opportunity to educate himself through living-experiences except once when he was in prison and Ballad of reading goal and Deprofundis were the results. If only this experience would come to him earlier and combine with his vast erudition and genius he would have probably eclipsed Bernard Shaw in the realm of drama. But as fate would have it was too late. Still he has earned pity of mankind and will always be remembered as "Tragic Figure of imperishable renown."

THE THUNDER November 7, 1971
Dr. JOHNSON
BY Mrs. RANJANA GANGULY
Research Scholar, Lucknow University
Ex-Lecturer, Jubilee Girls’ College (Degree Section),
Lucknow.
************************************************************************************

Dr. Johnson was a great talker. He had few equals to him in this respect, and perhaps none superior in his own age. Talking of the essentials of good conversation Johnson recommends the following:-

1. Knowledge
2. Style
3. Imagination, and
4. Wit.

His talk fulfilled all the four. His knowledge was vast right from classical poets like Homer and Virgil to poets of his days. He had read one and all and could quote them freely. He was not merely book-worm He illumined his knowledge with thought and experience. He had travelled enough and discussed customs and manners of the people of different ages and different countries. He was a great religious man. He had read scriptures with great devotion. This being a man of wide learning and experience the subject matter of his conversation had a variety of interests. It included marriage and celibacy, toleration in thought belief and action, savage life and civilised life, town life and country life, trade and commerce. Political and social problems of the day and many other problems of different types were the subjects of his thought. He could easily switch on from art to literature, from books to paints, from politics to religion and philosophy like Jawahar Lal Nehru Variety of interests was the key stone round which his conversation revolved. Besides being a mine of knowledge and information his interest was wide. Though not profound Variety killed dullness, the great killer of conversation.

The subject matter of talk he marshalled in a superb style, lie was a great artist. His conversation had no end beyond itself. He talked for the pleasure of talking He talked just as an artist paints for joy He knew talk is one thing an' preaching another. Such talk may not prove a thing to instruct but it delights, makes us feel we live and do not merely exist. After such talk we may not leave wiser but certainly happier. When Mrs. Siddons the celebrated actress called on Johnson there happened to be no ready chair for her, which he observing said with ready smile ''Madam you who so often occasion a want of seats to other people will the more easily excuse the want of one for yourself." This is an example of aptness of the situation. An embarrassing situation turned to advantage. His praise of Garrick shows his ability for the aptness of words "His death has eclipsed the gaiety of nations and diminished the stock of harmless pleasure."

Knowledge and style no doubt make a good conversation. To make it lively wit is required and in this Johnson stands supreme. His clash of wits made a conversation like a living fountain. A gentleman in support of Dr. Kerkeley's philosophy said "Nothing exists but as perceived by some mind". When he was going away Johnson said “Sir do not leave us; for we may perhaps forget to think of you and the you will cease to exist". But sometimes humour turned to devastating reply. When a gentleman said he did not understand him Johnson said, - “Sir, I have found an argument but I am not obliged to find you an understating". The ready wit made him formidable in retort and repartee winch go to make conversation fascinating and absorbing. Once in the course of conversation Boswell said that he did in deed come from Scotland but he could not help it. Johnson replied “That Sir, I find, is what a very great many of your countrymen can not help". In repartee he was unique. Once Ogilvie observed that Scotland had many noble wild prospects. Johnson at once replied "But, Sir, let me tell you the noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees is the high road that leads to England.”

Not only strikingly significant is quick wit retort and repartee his fertile imagination was also marvelous. How simply he once said "A cow is a very good animal in the field but people turn-her out of the garden".

Johnson loved to prick every bubble of pretension or pomposity. When Boswell said Johnson was neglecting his University teacher he humbly confessed that it was his insensibility. When a lady wondered how he could define pattern as the knee of a horse Johnson said “Ignorance Madam Ignorance". Never did he attempt to defend himself when he was wrong.

Thus we see to Johnson conversation was more a battle of wits than search for Truth. He always talked for victory and had a habit of contradiction. It is said when his pistol missed he knocked the opponent down with the butt end of it. "This rudeness instead of diminishing the importance of conversation added a flavour to it.

July 1, 1963 THE THUNDER
MARXISM & RELIGION
By Late Mrs. Suroma (Bela) Mukerji M.A.
************************************************************************************

(Continued from last issue)

This is what has been emphasised by our ancient philosophers. They were not blind to the internal conflict of concept but they unlike Marx had studied it in the back ground of life. They also found a movement in emergence development and decay from animal to human and from human to spiritual life but to them like Marx this world was not the be-all and end-all of life. They found a spirit world existing above it. Deliberate omission of it by Marx from his theory is the cause of most of the ills that plague the world to-day.

Revenge
Life's greatest ally is religion and what greater betrayal of life could there be than the denial of it? Life without religion is death. The question then crops up why life gave such a lift to communism to cross all frontiers and make its currency Universal? The answer is very simple. It has denied religion in theory but has practiced it the most. As Mao Tse Tung says- “Communism is not a religion but a science." But if you want to call it a religion then "communism is a religion which has for its object the service of mankind." Has it not laid bare the soul of the Tsarist monarchy eating the vitals of life? Has it not explained the true position of the proletariat in Industrial Revolution? Is it not observing "Forget not that the lower classes the sweeper the ignorant the poor the illiterate the cobbler are thy flesh and blood and thy brothers?" Does it not say that rich has no right to build a house unless he builds one for the poor also? Life is always just and it is for this service gave it a universal recognition. But as is with every idea corrupted by power and absolutely by absolute power. Communism under Stalin got adulterated and wanted to be the master of life.

Mistake of Marx
This revolt of communism under Stalin was not his fault nor is the arrogance of Mao-Tse-Tung to be attributed to him. They are the faults of communism itself. In the name of pseudo-religion. Marx committed the greatest blunder of condemning the whole one He did not comprehend or did not like to do it that religion is the voice of God and will never die like feudalism or capitalism. This notice of blatant fact about it could have saved him from his wholesale condemnation of it. But as fate would have it with every concept made by man to distinguish its fleeting career from the eternal one made by God Marx committed a fatal mistake and the error is paying a heavy dividend and if this sort of payment goes on communism will be bankrupt in no time. It may be true that when it started its career criticism of religion was necessary in keeping with the caution that a 'young plant should be hedged and taken care of.' But this does not mean that this archaism will go on forever.

Error
But the error is too deep rooted in communism. It has enslaved emotion to reason disregarding the balance of life. The result is a communist has become a stodgy arid and petrified. Whatever humanising influence Khrushchev may try to imbue it with his denunciation of Stalin weakening the power of the secret police, release of millions of prisoners, introduction of collective leadership against the personality cult of individual all will be superficial unless emotion finds its proper place in Marxism.

The moment it finds its place it will reveal through love new horizon of spirit as the final product and will assert that evolution must support the predominance of spiritual right over material might. Emotion though has not found a proper place yet has stealthily crept in the new force of co-existence.

Co-existence
Though it is a deviation from Marx theory of armed conflict of capitalism and communism is certainly closely related to another side of Marxism—the theory of Relativity. In view of the thermo nuclear weapons threatening the destruction of the whole of humanity co-existence is the only remedy of no-existence. Life has given a chance to communism in co-existence to survive and it is nothing but humanism in disguise the capital pillar and pivot of religion. It is not all competitive one of propaganda diplomacy, economic penetration rather than direct military assault. It is certainly a little change of heart under Khrushchev. But it is too meagre, an emotion against heavy odds of reason in Marxism, It requires herculean force to make the communist understand this challenge of humanism to live and let live. It requires him to inhale a little the incense of religion and there is no harm in it. He has tried his level best to eliminate it but with what result? He could thin it a little but now it has come with greater force. People's surrep-tiotiusly baptising have now come in the open for baptism marriage and burial. Once again it has been proved- "Life is short volga is long but man's need for religion is eternal.”

June 15, 1963 THE THUNDER
MARXISM & RELIGION
By Late Mrs. Suroma (Bela) Mukerji M.A.
************************************************************************************

Religion is the voice of God. It is not all talk and hypocrisy, it is above mind and senses; it begins when mannerism ends; it is eternal. But according to Marx there are no final scientific laws. There are no fixed properties in the world and therefore there can be no fixed concept. He says "Religion in itself lacking content dwells not on the sky but on earth and itself collapses along with the dissolution of the distorted actuality whose theory it represents.

But is the existence of two mutually contradictory aspects their conflict and their flowing together into a new category in matter able to collapse it? Or are the outer agencies —closing churches, destroying property, creating a society of militant Godless, starting anti-religious magazines with burlesque satires able to destroy it?

GREATEST FLAW
The greatest flaw in Marxism is lack of vision for which Sri Arubindo indicated it as Hostile force-Asurie force. That flaring up of passion that enabled great philosophers and poets to see the whole was not that of Marx.

The brutalities perpetrated In the name of religion blinded his vision and he indicated it as 'opium of the people’. His study of history led him to think matter first and then spirit. In the preface to his contributions to the critique of political economy he writes, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being but on the contrary their social being that determines their consciousness. He has taken into account physical life as it is, as is realised by reason. Life felt by intuition has been left out and this narrowness has influenced Pasternak to remark”. As to the interpretation of life and philosophy of happiness which it preaches it is simply impossible to believe that it is meant to be taken seriously, it is such a comic remnant of the past."

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
The philosophical basis of this comic remnant of the past is dialectical materialism or one of eternally developing matter through inner contradictions. Those contradictions are not only found indissoluble in inalienable connection but they crossover and mutually penetrate each other. If one limits himself to the task of weeding out the bad aspect for the preservation of Good he puts an end to the whole process. Mechanist's dialecticism is external as Bukharin expresses. “In the world there exist differently acting forces directed one against the other." Whatever the differences may be between the mechanists and Marxists both the Schools have studied man as a physical substance into a physical world. The orthogenic evolution in the expansion of mind has not been taken into account. Influences of Feuerbach’s materialism and Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest is glaringly visible. But Darwin has spoken only of the animal world of unconsciousness and physical might not the human world of consciousness and spiritual right, Fuerbadh's philosophy of matter is also one-sided.

PSYCHOLOGICAL School
This weakness of one-sidedness in the material philosophy of Marx has been severely criticised by the modern psychological school. The hereditary transmission adapting itself to environment has given way to habit instinct suggestion and imitation. It has passed its whole philosophy of life on mind just as Marx has based his philosophy on matter.

POINT MISSED
The point missed in both is that there is no one way traffic in the world. Life is neither one of matter nor one of mind. She is both. They cross over and mutually penetrate each other. If one wants to separate them he puts an end to life. Marx could understand this in respect of the contradiction of matter but refused to understand in respect of life otherwise why should he want religion a matter of heart to melt into the class-struggle of capital and labour? No doubt this attitude to religion was necessary to show the proletariat the way out of spiritual slavery of sloth and vice, to show them their position in the general system of capitalism, to make them understand that poverty is not the "punishment of sin but a social crime'', to open their eyes to new system of oppression and exploitation in the Industrial Revolution. But he should not have been exclusively blind to the humanistic side of religion.

COMMUNISM AND HUMANISM
Communism itself is the off-spring of this aspect of Religion. Is it not the legitimate successor of the best that was created by humanity in the nineteenth century in the shape of German philosophy English political economy and Freeh Revolution? Is not its birth perfectly in keeping with the saying in Gita. "Whenever spirituality decays and materialism is rampant then I reincarnate myself to protect the righteous, to destroy the wicked and establish the kingdom of God. I am re-born from age to age." In what more propitious time could communism be born? In England Industrial Revolution took humanity to animal life. In Russia the age old prejudices cynicism dissolution rottenness infamy of Tzar's regime headed by monster Rasputin and Romanor Family were stooping to any brutality to maintain the animal life of selfishness. In England pestilential priests were meddling in every sphere of life and indulging in every vice. In colonies Imperialism was taking a heavy toll of human lives.

HISTORY
To eradicate all these evils Marx started reading history and found matter as clue to the riddle of human activities and coupled man with matter. His fanaticism with it took away the balance from the theory of materialism. He deliberately mixed up elementary passion with ordinary one. He forgot that element of religion in man is eternal like mother's love for her child and goes on eternally developing through contradictions of positive and negative of Hegel without passing into oblivion. Feudalism and capitalism may be a process of endless ascendency from the lower to the higher. In them nothing may be final and absolute. But the concept of religion is born with humanity and will end with it.

(To be continued in the next issue)

October 15, 1972 THE PIONEER MAGAZINE
Forster’s ‘A Passage to India’: An appreciation – By Late Shri Abani Mukherjee, M.A. ************************************************************************************

A Passage to India' is one of the great classics of the twentieth century. It is an adventure in deep waters and is different from EM Forster's other novels. Personal relation is the theme of all his novels. In his Italian novels, ‘A Room With a View' and ‘Where Angels Fear to Tread’ contrast of race and nationalism has played a vital part in personal relations. The same contrast has been traced in 'A Passage to India' but it is dwarfed by the tremendous force of human relations. The distinction which is clear in his earlier novels is here mystery and muddle. Secondly, the Natural World is no longer a friend as it is to Stephen in ‘The Longest Journey’, Emerson in ‘A Room With A View’ or Gino in 'Where Angels Fear to Tread'. It is alien and hostile. Thirdly the Echo dominates the novel dwarfing the protagonists challenging the earth that tries to keep men in compartments.

The novel is a reticulation of Echoes and of all of them the dominant one is the booms through the Marabar caves. It reduces everything to Booms as far as human alphabet can express it. Fourthly, the novel is enigmatic and borders both on pessimism and optimism. Fifthly, the form, and meaning are related. The reality and the vision, the Echo and the harmony are reconciled through the symphonic form, mosque, caves and temple.

It demonstrates through 'Echo' how matter is informed with spirit. Sixthly, unlike Forster's earlier books it is devoid of didacticism. The most powerful warning about human predicament - "the weal or woe of the future will depend on the psychic change in man—is implicit rather than explicit. It is the warning that Jung has given in another medium. Lionel Trilling is right when he writes, ‘Great as the problem of India is Forster’s book is not about India alone; it is about all human life.’ Its dominant idea is best expressed by Walt Whitman's poem: beginning:

Passage to India!
‘Lo soul slest thou God's purpose from the first?
The earth to be spanned connected by network',
and ending:
‘Sail forth - Steer for deep waters only ....
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go.
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.’

Different Views
Some critics admit this optimism and suggest 'unity and harmony are the ultimate promises of life'. 'The theme which this book hammers home,' says Stone, ‘is that for all our differences we are in fact one'. But there are other critics who hold ‘separation of the English and the Indian is most dramatic. No less dramatic is the separation of the Hindu and the Moslem'.

During the festival, 'cleavage was between Brahman and non-Brahmans. Moslems and the English were quite out of the running and sometimes not mentioned for days.’ Forster explains, ‘the fissures in the Indian soil are infinite. Hinduism so solid from a distance is riven into sects and clans'. One of the moving figures is the Sudra Pankhawala, who was of the city. ‘Its garbage had nourished him and he would end on its rubbish heaps.'

Plot
This is in outline the plot: Adela Quested comes to India with Mrs. Moore. Roonie Heaslop is her financee Mrs. Moore enters a mosque and develops friendship with Dr. Aziz. He organises a journey to Marahav caves. Fielding the Principal of the local Government College and Prof. Godbole miss the train. Dr. Aziz starts with Adela and Mrs. Moore. In one of the caves in a frenzy of hallucination Adela suspects Dr. Aziz of attempted rape. The English people burn with rage. Trial of Dr Aziz takes place. Meanwhile Adela's illusion is disillusioned. Dr. Aziz is freed from the charge. The plot is simple but it is only a device to combine: (1) Social and political realism. (2) Psychological insight. (3) Symbolism

Social And Political Realism
The social and political world is in and around the city of Chandrapura. The three worlds of the Hindu, the Moslem and the English are given in full. The English are identified by the public school mentality. Roony declared the Anglo Indian creed in reply to her mother’s accusation: ''We are out here to do Justice and keep the peace. We are not pleasant in India and we do not want to be. We have something more important to do." Mrs. Moore cannot accept it as the last word in India. She thinks "One touch of regret —not the canny substitute but the true regret from heart would have made him a different man.” He is an undeveloped heart Colonel Turton. Major Callender Mcbryde all are undeveloped hearts. Mcbryde is brutal at the trial. He speaks, "The darker races are physically attracted by the fairer but not the vice versa.” At once a retort comes “Even when the lady is so uglier than the gentleman." Anglo Indian women are more obnoxious. "It is our women who make everything difficult.' declares Turton.

Besides political remarks there are admirable scenes of social comedy. Mrs. Turton’s comment at the bridge party reminds one of Lady Catherine de Borough of Pride and Prejudice: "Do kindly tell us who these ladies are?" Asks Mrs. Moore Mrs. Turton replies 'You are superior to anyone of them except one or two Ranis’ The irony is well expressed in the phrase "Echoing Walls of their civility.” The writer Santha Ram remembers “Social injustice will break up the British Empire just as the political injustice could.”

Psychological Insight
The political and social issues are very interesting and no less interesting is the study of the individual. The psychological insight is deep and subtle. In the case Adela Roony and Fielding the main cause of breakdown in relation is due to lack of imaginative sympathy. All in sort suffer from undeveloped heart. But Mrs. Moore and Aziz trust too much to their heart. Not a single character is a balance between reason and emotion.

Symbolism
Mosque, caves and temple denote this. The images reinforce it the earth, sky and water co-operate briefly for Peace and plenty and then become antagonistic again in summer. In mosque East and West meet and form a lasting bond. The caves destroy the bond. But the temple 'Some hundreds of miles westward of the Marabar hills and two years later in time brings together the Hindu the Moslem and the English. Affinity is sensed. There is reconciliation everywhere. The boats collide. Ralph Stella Aziz Fielding and Godbole all five are in water. The symbolic wetting links them together. But soon the storm gathers. The Hindus rush to throw God into water 'Thus was He tat own year after year and were others thrown.’ "The divisions of daily life were returning the shrine had almost shut. It is asked "why can't we be friends now? It's what I want it’s what you want.' But the horses did not want it—they swerved apart; the earth did not want it—they said in hundreds of voices "No not yet." “The sky said 'No not there'. The voice of Godbole went on ringing throughout with." “Come come come, come but, He neglects to come." “Men try to be harmonious all the year round and the results are occasionally dangerous. The triumphant machine of civilisation may suddenly hitch and be immobilized into a care of stone."

Defeatism
"This is the main view”, writes one critic. But 'No not there’, or 'come’ come signifies only Postponement not abandonment. The end is thus not defeatism. It is true, the symbol does not transcend. There is no moral victory in the end. But if 'Echo' marks everything by failure, if it sends illusion to Adela it breaks it too. "Evil is not unrelated to good It is the absence of good. It implies good has not been vanished but only receded." The overarching sky holds a promise by its, 'No. not there'. Because the novel ends in promise many record it as pessimistic. The trouble is Forster creates a relativistic world where there is no place for God that might validate the vision of harmony. John Colmer is right when he writes "The novel is not one of pessimism but of qualified optimism." In support Wilfred Stone and GM White may also be quoted: "Without preaching the novel asks us to be responsible to integrate ourselves.” “Separated by race, caste, religion men still strive to unite with each other and achieve some harmonious resolution of their differences."

March 15, 1965 THE THUNDER
HINDI vs ENGLISH – By Late Shri Abani Mukherjee, M.A.
************************************************************************************

Hindi English controversy has assumed a proportion if not curbed in time is bound to cause serious disaster to the integrity of the country. It should be remembered that the real conflict is not one of language as Rajaji says "Languages do not quarrel........ It is the ambition of Hindi speaking leaders their own, and that of the Hindi speaking men in lower tier." He may not be always edifying. But his statement cannot be, utterly dismissed as non-sense. No one can deny that the root cause of the language conflict which has been precipitated almost into a war between North and South is deeper. Monstrous shallowness is at the bottom. Otherwise after 18 years of Independence there would have been very little or no controversy at all.

Most of the people in India still think in terms of themselves first and then in terms of the country. Where as in foreign countries people first think in terms of the country and then in terms of themselves. That is why never, the controversy over language can take an agitation into a frenzied pitch of violence and disorder. Never the people in numbers are killed in firing for such an issue or they immolate themselves. But the point is different in this country and the progress is retraced at every step. The caravan movement of the progress cannot be accelerated unless thinking in this country changes from personal to National first. It is a psychological affair and it will take time to bring about this metamorphosis. But before this desirable is feasible all attempts should be made by patriots to crown Nehru's effort with success.

Pandit Nehru was a great balanced statesman and could understand the approaching storm. That flaring up of passion that enables a man to see the whole was with him and that is why he categorically asserted that English should continue as Link language till the Non-Hindi people themselves agree to switch-over to it.

Nehru's memorials are set up everywhere. All progress is linked up with his name but when we are asked to follow his assurance we fall short of it. Gulf between practice and precept is in-born in use and is widening every day. Otherwise the very people who fanatically sponsor Hindi's case educate their children and grand-children in English schools and take pride in their fluent speaking of the same. Acharya J.B, Kripalani in Lok Sabha has rightly said ''English comes to our children with the milk of their mothers. They do not say Amma or Baba but Mummy and Papa". He further observed "This speaking love is not only for the language but also for the English men. We dress eat and laugh, even our ladies giggle like Eng-lish." Pandit Nehru understood this because he was made of different mettle. Practice and Precept were one with him Balance was the Keystone round which his whole personality revolved. He never was carried away by one way traffic of emotion. Reason and emotion blended in him perfectly. He knew English rooted for 200 years in this country must take enough time to be driven out. In the discussion over the issue in the year 1950 he pleaded 25 years for English, Sardar Patel 10 years, ultimately it rested on 15 years. Apart from the balance in his character he knew the nature of the Indian people well, acting on it the switch over to Hindi he rested on the wish of the Non-Hindi speaking people. What a mag-nanimity! And how tragically Hindi-ites fall short of it.

Sri Prakash, a close friend of Nehru is partially right when he says "Hindi will not be accepted by non-Hindi speaking people even for official purpose because of common human psychology. We cannot forget that jealousy is an overpowering emotion of the mind. It persists in the best of us even when other evils are cast off: while everyone might have submitted to English which was foreign to all and was the language of the foreign rulers no one is going to accept a sister language as his own. This argument is net unconvincing in the present Indian character context, when sentiment, passion and prejudice rule. Such medievalism one day ruled the foreigners also. They are free from it now. The bright sun shine of reason will one day free us also.

Pandit Nehru, a man of vision could understand this which Sri Prakash could not and abstained himself from making any absolute statement. He simply postponed the issue for future when Winter of passion swept away spring of reason will come and there will be no trouble in installing Hindi as a paramount National Language. What he, an acclaimed leader of India understood and advocated the Hindi-ites do not like to do so although they always express they are following him. They bring two main arguments in their armory to demolish the citadel of English in India.

1. Constitutional obligation.
2. Non-Indian character of the language.

As regards the first it may be said that Hindi's right as the only language among the 14 named in the Eight Schedule capable of Link language is undeniable. Father of the Nation Gandhiji endorsed to it. Pandit Nehru followed it and it was included in the Article 17 of the Constitution. But the Hindi-ites in their over enthusiasm for language overlook the conflict behind the issue. Dr. Ambedkar in his book 'Thoughts in linguistic states' has said 'There is no article which proved more controversial than, the article which deals with question, (language) No article produced more opposition. No article more heat.

After prolonged discussion when the question was put the vote were 77 against 77. The tie could not be resolved. After a long time when the question was put to meeting once more the result was 77 against 78 for Hindi. Hindi won its place as a National language by one vote. "It is actually the casting vote which decided the issue. Normally the casting vote ought to have been for the status-quo. This Hindi-its should know that the case for Hindi is not very strong in the Constitutional obligation is no obligation at all when 17 amendments have already taken place in the constitution in a period of 18 years.

Secondly as regards the Non-Indian character of the language, it may be said that they are perfectly right. English is certainly Non-Indian and any amount of arguments in favour of proving it as Indian is baseless. Knowledge may not have sex, race, nationality but language certainly has. And Hindi in this respect stands far superior as a claimant for National Language. But what the Hindi-ites miss here is the utilitarian point of view. They should remember that life is more important than sentiment. Country is more important than langu-age. In the face of tooth and nail opposition from the South and some parts of the North the desire to install it immediately is sheer obstinacy. They should leave it to time. In the meantime they should allow co-existence of both the languages. They should allay the fears of the Non-Hindi people of being dominated by Hindi speaking majority. It is this fear of Hindu domination which created Pakistan. Otherwise in the beginning Mr. Jinnah was called 'The ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity' by Mrs. Sarojini Naidu. It is thus for few Hindu fanatics combined with other factors Pakistan was created and if India is further Balkanized over the language issue the blame will certainly fall on those over-zealous and fanatic Hindi-speaking people.

Wisdom dictates co-existence in the present moment when country is seething with discontent. China armed with Nuclear strength is poised for second attack. Prices are galloping high. Population is increasing at enormous speed. Myriad of vital issues are staring at us for solution. We should take them up first. Meanwhile Hindi-ites have no right to cry for imposition of Hindi or non-Hindi speaking people. Do they not understand that their over-enthusiasm does more dis-service to the cause of Hindi? If they really love the country more than the language the first duty incumbent on them is to weed out the poverty of the language, eradicate the disadvantage in its capable of being an International language. It is to be taken out from the hands of the Pandits who have made a fun and caricature of it. They have turned it into a mono-strosity.

For example-Engine has become vos-ros, Tis Kant-longuti, Telephone Door-bhash; named only are few; but such aberrations are masquerading in numbers in the name of national language. It is this orthodoxism that has forced a critic to condemn it as a 'Bazzar language’. To counter-act this criticism and to take it in international level following must be observed.

1. Flexibility, simplicity and adaptability should be the criterion on which the National language is to be based.
2. It should freely absorb English words.
3. Development of the language should not be trusted on the Fanatic Pandits but to learned men of Strong common sense.
4. Roman alphabets may be used for Devanagri for the time being.
5. Children of leaders, and men of high position, should be taught in Hindi Schools and not in convents.
6. As an interim gap people should be tri-lingual mother-tongue, Hindi and English.
7. Hindi-ites must show tolerance and prudence so long it is not accepted by Non-Hindi speaking people remembering frenzy in Tamil land is not DMK affair but a spontaneous upsurge which may divide the country into North and South.
8. Nehru's assurance should be given a legal base to allay the fears of the people of the South.

9. Binobha Bhave's suggestion of three points formula :
(i) Violence should be eschewed.
(ii) Hindi not to be imposed on Non-Hindi speaking people.
(iii) English not to be imposed on Hindi speaking people be accepted in Toto.

10. Rajaji's one way views of discrediting Hindi may not be consulted but his views on English must not be discarded. They are always sane, thought provoking and sincere. It is admitted he has no right to discredit Hindi when he is not well versed with the language. At the most, he can express his own likes and dislikes. But if he has no right to condemn Hindi language he has every right to speak in favour of English in National context, as his knowledge of the language and Nation stands unchallenged.

The points mentioned above, if observed there will be no necessity to repeal Hindi from the Constitution as advocated by some fanatics, nor will rise the unashamed selfishness of the Hindi-ites to impose it immediately. A balance will be struck. Confusion and chaos will end. Co-existence will reign for the time. And one fine morning the Hindi-lovers will find a fine attractive noble child, is born ready to be embraced by all. But if due time is not given for the birth abortion will take place bringing out a monster creating chaos and confusion everywhere.

Time has come when people must come out of the damnable rut of sloppy thinking and slipshod method of doing things. They must think through common sense and not through neurotic emotion.

August 15, 1973 THE THUNDER
RELIGION AND SCIENCE
By Late Shri Abani Mukherjee, M.A. ************************************************************************************

We have today more scientific knowledge than can be accommodated to the just distribution of peace in the world. The discoveries which should have lightened have added a weight to the miseries of the world. Love has gone. Wisdom has vanished. The principle of self, of which money is the visible incarnation, has enlarged the inequality of mankind. Religion is the only solution of the present impasse.

Love and Religion

The basis of all religion is love. Whatever strengthens and purifies it, whatever enlarges its circumference is religion. It is the only medicine which can cure modern War psychosis. Modernists hold the cause of war is neither political or economic nor biological but psychological. It is a mental disease. Its cause is Fear Mentality Inhuman Mentality and War Mentality. Fear Mentality is best expressed by beliefs of America on the one hand and the Soviet on the other that sooner or later one adversary intends to strike another. Inhuman Mentality lies deep in color, race and class. War Mentality is embellished by Mao’s theory of Force.

Politics is wearing a new outlook today. The two nuclear giants have come to understand that violent hatred will result not in one Rome of the Proletariat but two Carthages. Mao’s dogma of the force is inadequate to the stormy present. People must think a new and act a new. Men are destined to be brothers through the father hood of God; that each man is his brother’s keeper and we should love our neighbor as ourselves.

Edifice of Oneness

Pursuit of this religious sense is not so dramatic as the pursuit of our animal nature. But for the vital good of man it should be pursued with unflagging determination. An Edifice of oneness is not built over night. It cannot be built in a day. Yet there is no place to be panicky Russia and America both have realised the necessity of some sort of brotherhood in the world. What is necessary is to feed fat this realisation by the knowledge of religion – how blood dimmed tide crammed with inhuman miseries has been looked whenever the ceremony of innocence has drowned, how deluge overtook us whenever the falcon could not hear the falconer.

“Surely some revelation is at hand
Surely the Second Coming is at hand
The Second Coming.”

Our Duty

What is our duty? We should become heroic to do away with the excess of scientific mentality, to accumulate materials of external life. The mentality must be assimilated to the internal laws of human nature. The body must be balanced to that which animates it. It should be proclaimed everywhere that a man is great not by what he was but by what he is. Science is the science of Has’ just as religion is the science of Is’. Religion is divine. It is the Centre and circumference of all knowledge’s. It is that which comprehends all sciences.

All science must be referred to it. If it is denied it will deny the fruit and make the world barren and waste as the world has become today. Science has attended more to the cause disaster. We are so much obsessed with science today that we have forgotten our total personality. That flaring of passion which enables man to see the whole has left us. We have become dull to those partial apprehensions of the agencies of the world. We can no more participate in the internal, the infinite and the one.

But oneness is the cry today scientific earth is saying ‘No, Scientific sky is saying ‘no’, yet we must achieve it through love the basis of all religion. It is concealed in deep waters. But let us be mariners equipped with new ship of spirit. We shall steer forth for those deep waters where mariners have never dare to go. We will frame our song with:

“The awful daring of a moment’s surrender
which an age of prudence can never retract
by this and this only,
we have existed.”

THE THUNDER
Independence Day Special, 1964
KINSHIP OF TAGORE AND NEHRU (Part II) - By Late Shri Abani Mukherjee M.A.
*********************************************************************************

Universal truth

Not only this, both reflected that truth is not limited to it but is universal. Nehru said “India must see her struggle in the larger context of world developments and upheavals”. This obsession with other countries while his own country was in bondage puzzled many. Many scoffed at him. But “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.

The international awareness that has grown in Indian Politics is purely the contribution of Nehru and the rich dividends it has paid we have seen during the time of Chinese aggression. This cosmic attitude, a legacy of spiritual transformation saved Tagore also from his sensuousness in literature just as it saved Nehru from his all-consuming Nationalism. The greatest drawback of all embracing Nationalism is narrowness and in-humanism. All dictators Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin ultimately became inhuman and have paid a heavy price for this intense Nationalism not allowing it to flow into Internationalism.

Nehru as a student of history knew this very well and always tried to understand problem in larger context. The same is true of Tagore. Both are angels one in Politics and other in literature and it is for this universality life has granted both of them passports to cross all frontiers and became universal, to become light and echo unto eternity. For a poet it is natural but for a politician it is unique.

Poetry and Religion

Great Gandhiji also radiated politics with spiritualism but he was bit cloudy. His approach to most of the problems was intuitive. He was moved by conscience more than by mind, one critic speaks the truth when he says “To Gandhiji the thing is right, therefore, it is rational. To Nehru the thing is rational therefore it is right”. Sri Feroz Khan Noon once said “Gandhiji is a gentleman whom God alone can understand”. Whereas Nehru is described by Mr. Stowe “A man of great intelligence with an aura of nobility around him”.

In short Gandhiji is religio-politician whereas Nehru is a poet-Politician. The poetry in him certainly would not have been widely known but for his autobiography. Every line in it speaks of unique temperament radiated by universal brotherhood. This fame radiates whole fibers of Tagore and Gandhiji also, but whereas Tagore and Nehru hold a perfect balance between intuition and intelligence Gandhiji if often lets loose the same. All of them came in contact with universal soul and held love as more beautiful than hatred. All of the m hated British Imperialism but never hated British people. With width of imagination they took the whole world as ‘Gods’ Kingdom’.

Love for beauty and creative mind

As poet Nehru and Tagore evinced a deep love for beauty and creative mind. Like Wordsworth they severely castigated man’s obsession with materialism at the cost of spiritualism. They warned man that “Thing is becoming more the Centre of interest than he himself, and the crisis of spirit is bound to emerge. Creative mind for beauty alone can alone solve this human crisis.”
“Beauty is the truth and truth is beauty – that is all, ye know on earth and all ye need to know.” Both realized it and practiced it. Both lived beautifully and simply like flower and children. Both swept aside un-intelligent acquiescence and orthodoxism and held spirit alone of value. With the ‘soul of a poet and the body of bridegroom’ both became dynamic forces-one in politics and the other in literature.

Iron Will

Both are men of iron-will and firm convictions. When Tagore started experiments in literature ha had to face all sorts of criticism but never gave it up. Similarly when Nehru started socialism and internationalism in Indian politics many scoffed at him. Of course he had often to temporize and compromise not to give ideal up but to achieve his end. In this he is a grange contrast to Subhash Bose whose capacity for adjustment was but rigid. He lost his case of Socialism with Gandhiji for his hurry whereas Nehru slowly brought the Great Man in his fold and prodded Congress to accept is as its ideal. For this compromising attitude he is often called ‘Hamlet’ in Indian Politics – Vacillating and brooding. But it is far from the truth. For the sake of larger loyalties he had often to throw some of his cherished beliefs in the background but never abandoned them. He like Fabian conquers by delay. His views on the religion, on economic and on woman are the same as they were when formed in his early age.

Both are Poets

If the definition of a poet is “one who has realized in himself and in whom humanity as gained realization and when this is expressed in fine musical language with grace and refinement he becomes a poet” – then Nehru is certainly a poet of high order. As regards the first part of the definition it has already been proved that he is a poet. As regards the second, one is only to go through his writing and speeches. All the elements of romantic poets will be found in them not only in essentials but also in accidents. Love for the peasants, war against philistinism, accessibility to imagination, hatred for gross materialism, holding of spirit alone of value, are all expressed in words of rich cadences and of aesthetic quality of high order. J.S. Bright rightly remarks “They reflect a rhythm of spiritual experience rising from the subconscious. That alone is responsible for its magic. Words are never jerky. They are bisurely and one in whom divinity is inspired can write like this”.
Both Tagore and Nehru reached soul-state is further proved by their excessive love for flower and children. Both of them fixed children as type of what people should try to become. Dante describes the soul of man coming from God as “weeping and laughing like a little child”. Jesus Christ wanted man to lead a ‘flower like’ life. Love for perpetual youth and strength against worn out ideals also stems from the same state. Pandit Nehru not only loves but also embodies in him perpetual youth to fight out the effete ideals.

Essential Nehru and Essential Tagore

Thus we see Essential Nehru and Essential Tagore are linked so profoundly with universal soul. Both are not only individuals but all men. Both are dreamers and idealists. Both are concerned with freedom struggle; one wants to free man politically and the other psychologically. Moral leadership and over whelming rationality guide them in their crusade against the slavery of the soul.

Gandhiji’s leadership is also moral; he is also a man of soul state but not always rational. Pandit Nehru on the other hand a man of superhuman grandeur, a man of universal spirit, a man whose life is all poetry is all emotional with an aura of rationalism all around him and is a perfect complement to Gandhiji a vital factor in his political mathematics, but certainly not like him. In this sense he resembles Rabindranath Tagore more in serene philosophic temper, in the contemplation of the spectacle of life with proper emotion. Tagore’s best we have seen but in case of Nehru ‘God’s will was different. He was called upon to bear the titan weight of politics for which he was not mentally fit. Yet like Hamlet he did not fall prey to circumstances. He acquitted himself very creditably. He has transcended politics from the devildom of ills. He has infused in it divinity as a true disciple of Gandhiji. But the best of him we have seen in his autobiography which fills one only with appalling wonder, what he would be if the greater part of his life he could devote in literature. But man or woman is born to fulfil certain purpose and it is for Him decide which suits on best and where he is more urgently needed. No amount of skill in science has unlocked this mystery nor does it seem possible that such study will ever do so – The will is women with absent heed And ever will so weave.

THE THUNDER
Independence Day Special, 1964
KINSHIP OF TAGORE AND NEHRU (Part I) - By Late Shri Abani Mukherjee M.A.
*********************************************************************************
“To Gandhiji the thing is right, therefore, it is rational,
To Nehru the thing is rational therefore, it is right”.

Gandhiji, Nehru and Tagore all admitted spiritual element in life; all sought to exclude narrowness in their approach to her. All of them tried to enrich man and woman with wisdom and humanism. That flaring up of passion that enables a man to see the whole was with all of them. Yet Gandhiji and Pandit Nehru are so unlike in their temperament and Tagore and Nehru are so profoundly linked. It sounds strange; but it is true. Common man who swims on the surface may miss it, but one who dives deep, and drinks life’s holy water will find Nehru as compliment to Gandhiji and not like him.

Balance between Intellect and Intuition

The universal soul radiated all of them but she manifested in Gandhiji in intuition, moral courage and vitality, more than in intellect. Intuition often over flooded his intellect and it is Nehru who then reduced Gandhism to an intellectual equation. A perfect balance between intuition and intellect existed in Nehru and Tagore and it is this sense of balance radiated by universal spirit with an urge for poetry that made them so similar in their essential lives.
Many are not aware of the fact that the basic urge of Pandit Nehru was for poetry. He threw it in the background and responded to the call of the country; yet Nehru, the poet has always shone as a polestar and guided him as a beacon light in whatever field he has traversed.

Romantic Poet

The all consuming passion for a romantic poet is humanism, freedom love and youth. All these essentials were in abundance in both of them. Freedom to Nehru meant mainly to free India from the British Yoke, whereas the same for Tagore was to free the soul from human bondage. They are both crusaders and have embarked on the bold voyage of soul, - one in politics and the other in literature. The horizon of both of them was known and unchartered. But fear they knew not. The same is true of Gandhiji; but he laid more emphasis on intuition than on critical intelligence as guide in the unknown journey.
Both Nehru and Tagore were born with silver spoon in their mouths. But the loveliness of the purple pomp of life did not blind them to sorrow which is inherent in it. Development of inner loveliness and meditative mind enabled them to see something of the wonder of both. Simultaneously a new perspective opened before their mind’s eye. Both found humanity in trouble. Both saw the crisis of spirit: Pandit Nehru analysed the cause of the trouble in capitalism and Imperialism whereas Tagore found the crushing power in crude materialism, and irrationalism.

Soul’s Expression is joy

Both realized that soul’s expression is joy and that is to be won in the struggle of life, Pandit Nehru said “the real joy of life is to live for an ideal. Life without struggle for great cause is stupid and silly.” Similarly Tagore says in his Reminiscences – “The soul’s expression is joy but if one wants to have joy only he will have none”. In the symbolic Drama ‘The King in Dark Chamber’ Sudershana wanted to see the King in light but she did not succeed unless he came in the open. The idea of struggle and courage is embodied in the thinking of both and both arrived at the conclusion that success can come only to heroic and brave not to weak and cowards. As a necessary concomitant of this theory, both of them advocated strong energy and vitality in the attainment of the ideal. Pandit Nehru says “Better the honest man of evils who sins consciously and knowingly with strength that is in him. Because when he is reformed he will be the tower of strength in the cause of good, but the hypocritically good can be of no use to the cause.” Tagore harps on the same tune and in his symbolic drama ‘The King’, Nakshyatra hai, the villain of the piece, is reformed and becomes the tower of strength which enables him to see the king, whereas the other timid people could not see Him.

Spirit of adventure

Combined with this vitality and energy the spirit of adventure manifested in both of them in dazzling splendor in their lifelong struggle against bigotry, untouchability, materialism and other crude acquiescence to irritimalism. Nehru had a deep appreciation of Tagore’s theory of education against the narrowness (race, religion and colour). The basis with both of them was Man. They never forget him in their struggle, and they developed a perfect synthesis between idealism and realism. Just as Nehru did not cripple himself in the deadly realism of Politics but kept its windows and doors open for the vision to enter similarly Tagore though scared very high on the wings of imagination never forgot the mother earth. He emphatically laid down his theory of literature “My purpose of literature is not to please the eye and ear but to guide the man in the struggle for existence”. He impresses his poetry and dramas with vigorous ideas, of resisting civil power by a calm and dignified suffering in the name of God. Malini and Chitrangade are love episodes sweeping away caste, prejudice, wealth and everything that stand in the way. In Achalaytan, and Chandalika he has delineated at length the ills of conservatism and untouchability. In Rakta-Karabi, Nandini the life force has triumphed over materialism.

Real Man

Thus the joy of attaining the Infinite within the finite was be-all and end-all for both of them. Tagore wanted to exalt the real man not by denying life but by accepting it. Same is true with Nehru. World renouncing Mahatma was not his ideal too. He always though of real Man, possible only when slavery and poverty are removed. But in the eradication of it he never allied himself with and emotion not allied to humanism like Stalin, Hitler and many other directors. Communism attracted his as a doctrine but could not make him appreciate its means which are not always human. His sense of humanism wanted a synthesis between Western concept of democracy and Marxist socialism. He did not like ‘individual to be submerged by the leviathan of an important government’. He did not like individual to be devoured by the mass man of Erust Toller.
This sense of balance between individual, and community between finite and Infinite, between body and mind, between material and ideal is the Keystone round which all his activities revolve. The same is true of the great poet Tagore.

Transformation

Both Pandit Nehru and Tagore underwent a transformation to arrive at this integrated view of life. The sunrise at Darjeeling transformed Tagore and the same was brought about in the case of Nehru by his contact with the peasants in 1920. In this year he was served with externment order from the bill station of Mussourie. He made then an excursion into villages, “Ever since then” he writes “mental picture of India always contains the naked hungry man”. He wept for them. He bled for them and Oscar Wilde has aptly remarked –

“What never in weeping at his bread,
Who never throughout thee night’s sad hours
Hath sat in tears upon his bed.
He knows ye not, ye heavenly Powers”.

The moment spiritual transformation came to Nehru and Tagore they became mystic and philosophic to an extent that truth revealed all her secrets to them. With this added knowledge Nehru realized that political freedom without economic one is useless and it is he who prodded the congress to commit itself to the principle of socialism. It is this spiritual transformation which saved him from this excitement in communism, and started transcending politics from the insight just as Tagore started spirtualising literature.

August 15, 1966   THE THUNDER
PT. NEHRU
The Beloved Son Of The Muse – By Late Shri Abani Mukherjee, M.A.
**************************************************************************************

Independence to Pandit Nehru did not mean nearly political freedom. It meant to him also freedom of soul. Poverty and slavery are the chains put on it and they must be torn asunder to create an opportunity for its development was his mission. Like Tagore he knew soul’s expression is joy-but slavery was the greatest hindrance in this respect. To put an end to it he embarked on a bold voyage of freeing India from the British yoke. Little he knew Politics was not his field. His field was poetry. Politics is associated with meanness and hypocrisy. Fear hears is more important than love. ‘Oh for a life of sensation rather than of thought’ round which his whole personality revolved and equipped him very little for politics. He is a poet in and out. He lived in poetry, spoke in poetry, and slept in poetry yet he was called by destiny to bear the great burden of politics.

Strange it sounds. But God fulfills Himself in many ways. Inscrutable are his ways. No amount of skill in science has yet been able to unlock this mystery; otherwise all the materials of a romantic poet were in abundance in him. If he could marshal them properly he could shine like Shakespeare and Tagore in the firmament of literature. If the definition of a poet is one ‘who has realized in himself and in whom humanity has gained realization and when this is expressed in fine musical language with grace and refinement he becomes a poet’ – then Nehru is certainly a poet of a very high order. Humanity gained realization in him in the year Nineteen Twenty. In this year he has served with an externment order from the hill station of Mussouri. He subsequently made an excursion in to the villages of U.P. Ever since then he writes “my mental picture of India always contains the naked hungry man”.

Son of a rich man, born with a silver spoon in his mouth he realized in himself under the spell of a deep sorrow that he must devote his energy for the down trodden masses. Spirits of grief transformed him, and with pity in look melancholy in eyes, sigh in breath, he prodded Congress to accept Socialism as its ideal. Poetry here finds expression in action rather than in though. It is this poetry in him which started transcending Indian politics. He emphatically asserted “India must see her struggle in the larger context of world development and upheavals”. The international awareness for which he was often scoffed at is certainly the greatest contribution of the poet Nehru, in the field of Indian politics. As a poet he had great love for beauty and truth. Like Wordsworth he severely castigated man’s obsession with materialism. He boldly laid bare the soul of it in the glowing words – “Materialism is becoming more the Centre of interest than the man himself and the Crisis of spirit is bound to emerge. Creative mind for beauty alone can solve the human crisis”.

Beauty is truth and truth is beauty – That is all ye know on earth and ye need to know” – was realized by him and he lived beautifully and simply like flowers and children. With a red rose buttoned on his chest he embodied in him perpetual youth to fight out the effete ideals.

His love for children breathed a University. It gave him that blessed mood in which he could see into the life of things. It gave him that serene philosophic temper in which he could contemplate the spectacle of life with proper emotion. Sree Y.B. Chavan once remarked “A child always sat upon his face”.

He loved Children and in return they gave him the gift of “Chacha Nehru Zindabad”. It haunted him like a passion. He could see Children playing in divine shore, turn to them, talk to them in their language and shake off all worries of mind.

The celestial light, the glory the freshness never left him. Tagore once likened him to the spirit of the spring. Frank Moraes his friendly biographer writes “There is in him ebullience of spirit and speech a school boy Charm that contrasts strongly with his ascetic and reflective mien.”

Like a poet he had glimpses of vision and was loaded with immense delight when he would see a rising sun or “majestic roof fritted with golden fire.”

The milk of human kindness that nourished all his work flowed from poetry in him. His love for man and individual grandeur emanated from it. His adventure on the bold voyage of soul in unknown and unchartered land breaths more of poetry than of politics.

His language both in speeches and books reflect a rhythm of spiritual experience with a magic known only to Poets who come in contact with universal soul and hold-Love is more beautiful than hatred.

Emotion was natural to him and it is this which could not end of him as a man and place him in the category of pure politician. It is this poetry in him which allowed his reputation to cross all frontiers and make currency universal. In future he may not be remembered as a great politician but he will be remembered certainly a tragic figure of imperishable renown in the realm of poetry.

As a politician he walked with the meanest of she means but his soul like a star always dwelt apart majestic and free. Oh! If he could live at this hour and glitter like a brook in the open sunshine probably the predominance of spirit over matter would have been established gradually. But destiny snatched him in our critical hours leaving nothing but fondly to dream:

“Nehru! Thou should be living at this hour,
India hath need of thee.”