The announcement of the results of by-elections held in three assembly constituencies in Kerala – Alappuzha, Ernakulam and Kannur – was predictably followed by the airwaves being filled with endless repartee between the talking heads of Kerala’s two predominant political outfits. Political chutzpah and punditry were on full display on all networks. TV audience was treated to the sight of commentators after commentators analyzing and scrutinising the verdict to the point of exhaustion. That, even after a harrowing campaign in which allegations of foul play flew thick and fast and barrages of accusations verging on paranoia abounded, politicians could still muster sufficient vigor to offer highly charged analytical acumen, confounded the polity to no end. People of Kerala can rest assured that, at least when it comes talking the talk, their politicians are a reliable breed. Never mind that most of the rhetoric amounted to nothing more than exercises in verbal one-upmanship and would not stand up to scrutiny or common sense.
The UDF stalwarts interpreted the setback suffered by the LDF as yet another illustration of the organization’s withering electoral fortunes, a trend set in motion with the drubbing it received at the parliamentary polls earlier this year. However, the LDF partisans made sure that reduced majorities of the victors were not lost sight of, and they laid emphatic stress on it as a testament to the Left’s resurgence. While M.M. Hassan, his grated voice increasingly resembling that of a hippo with a bad throat ache, donned the role of the chief UDF spokesperson, LDF fielded an array of experts to make the art of scurrying for cover look respectable. Barbs and insults were traded with élan, and both parties ensured that mimicry artists would not run out of material at least until the next election cycle. Hassan Sahib kept reminding those who voted for the Congress how they had contributed to an epoch-making event and graciously offered his LDF colleagues a crash course in how to avoid shrinking into complete irrelevance in Kerala’s political landscape. M. V. Govindan Master and Prakashan Master of CPI (M) started their rebuttals sensibly enough, but inevitably resorted to what they do best even at the best of times, i.e., sounding shrill and self-righteous.
Veliyam Bharghavan once again demonstrated that his descent into senility has reached a point of no-return, as he mumbled his way through press conferences and interviews (but did not come close enough to topping that gem he uttered at the height CPI-CPM feud regarding the Ponnani Lok Sabha seat – the one about CPI winning most of the seats in the elections that followed the split of 1964, an observation that V.S. Achuthanandan took strong exception to). Rajmohan Unnithan reveled in his characteristic grandstanding and once again offered clues as to why Malayalees were largely spared the impact of Navajot Singh Sidhu’s protracted absence from the national scene. He also earned the immense gratitude of Malayalees for volunteering to fulfill every society’s need to periodically exorcise its lingering, atavistic elements of nuttiness. Bhasurendra Babu threw in everything from economic determinism to neo-Marxism but still managed to sound totally incomprehensible, and stood as a shining embodiment of everything the Left should be keeping at bay if it holds any desire to connect with the rising generation of voters.
Also awaited with bated breaths was K.E.N Kunhahammad offering some kind of insight along the lines of how the vulgarity displayed by the electorate in snubbing the LDF provided a rich cultural milieu for the Party to tap into and capitalize on in the future (or some other absurdity of similar kind). Alas, that never came. Well, one should be thankful for small mercies
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Vladimir Mayakovsky: The 'raging bull' and the 'whipped dog'
Vladimir Mayakovsky’s literary genius was not always confined to Agitprop poster propaganda and homages to the ideals of the Revolution. It occasionally trod tortuous and tormented personal trails as well, when he let slip the revolutionary fervor and offered a glimpse into the vexed abyss of his self – manifested morbidly yet movingly in this unfinished poem penned on the day he took his own life:
Past one o’clock. You're probably in bed.
The Milky Way is like Oka of silver
No need for me to rush. I have no reasons left
to stir you with the lightnings of my cable ferver.
And so they say, the incident dissolved.
The Love Boat smashed up on the dreary routine.
We’re even. There’s no use in keeping the score
of mutual hurts, affliction and spleen.
Look here, the world exudes an eerie calm.
The sky bequeathed to us its constellations.
In periods like this I’d like to be the one
with ages, history and the creation.
Unlike most writers who have sworn allegiance to a political ideology or movement, Mayakovsky’s artistic vision, in its heyday, seldom betrayed any perceptible tussle between irreconcilable impulses. The image of conflicting loyalties engaged in ceaseless battle to gain ascendancy was never a hallmark of his poetic vision. The intriguing picture of the artistic conscience torn apart by the act of subordinating his art to political objectives did not fit Mayakovsky. Ardent revolutionary was in harmony with the thwarted lover, at times overlapping but mostly inhabiting separate spheres. Raw exhortations to the proletariat coexisted effortlessly with the avant-garde finesse of futurism. Official recognition and public adulation followed, and the infinite variety and experimental verve were feted by the establishment as long as the Trotskyite axiom of Party not commanding the “domain of art” held sway. But the onset of high Stalinism, with its intolerance towards any real or perceived deviation from the dogma of socialist realism, rang the death knell for Soviet avant-garde art.
The shift in the milieu and its dreadful aftermath did not set Mayakovosky on any course of realignment vis-à-vis how his poetry would relate to the Revolution. There is scant evidence of any expressed desire to renege on his political ideals either. His poetic destiny, or at the very least its political manifestation, would continue to be linked inextricably to the sentiment he had expressed long ago, as a budding poet striving to reaffirm his commitment in the frenzy of the Revolution:
“To accept or not to accept? There was no question for me….My Revolution"
(I Myself)
However, the Stalinist assault on the ‘decadent’ formalist tendencies in Mayakovsky’s work did make a dent in his exalted status as the leading exponent of the Soviet art. The sense of disillusionment that beset him in his later life left its scars on him. The constant scrutiny and hounding by Stalinist apparatchiks took its toll on his creativity, and may have contributed to his decision to end his own life. In a gripping article in The Haaretz newspaper, Dalia karpel strikes at the heart of the troubled poet’s unresolved, and ultimately fatal, predicament: “Mayakovsky, the ‘raging bull of Russian poetry …..is also the ‘whipped dog’, in pain and tormented…”
Past one o’clock. You're probably in bed.
The Milky Way is like Oka of silver
No need for me to rush. I have no reasons left
to stir you with the lightnings of my cable ferver.
And so they say, the incident dissolved.
The Love Boat smashed up on the dreary routine.
We’re even. There’s no use in keeping the score
of mutual hurts, affliction and spleen.
Look here, the world exudes an eerie calm.
The sky bequeathed to us its constellations.
In periods like this I’d like to be the one
with ages, history and the creation.
Unlike most writers who have sworn allegiance to a political ideology or movement, Mayakovsky’s artistic vision, in its heyday, seldom betrayed any perceptible tussle between irreconcilable impulses. The image of conflicting loyalties engaged in ceaseless battle to gain ascendancy was never a hallmark of his poetic vision. The intriguing picture of the artistic conscience torn apart by the act of subordinating his art to political objectives did not fit Mayakovsky. Ardent revolutionary was in harmony with the thwarted lover, at times overlapping but mostly inhabiting separate spheres. Raw exhortations to the proletariat coexisted effortlessly with the avant-garde finesse of futurism. Official recognition and public adulation followed, and the infinite variety and experimental verve were feted by the establishment as long as the Trotskyite axiom of Party not commanding the “domain of art” held sway. But the onset of high Stalinism, with its intolerance towards any real or perceived deviation from the dogma of socialist realism, rang the death knell for Soviet avant-garde art.
The shift in the milieu and its dreadful aftermath did not set Mayakovosky on any course of realignment vis-à-vis how his poetry would relate to the Revolution. There is scant evidence of any expressed desire to renege on his political ideals either. His poetic destiny, or at the very least its political manifestation, would continue to be linked inextricably to the sentiment he had expressed long ago, as a budding poet striving to reaffirm his commitment in the frenzy of the Revolution:
“To accept or not to accept? There was no question for me….My Revolution"
(I Myself)
However, the Stalinist assault on the ‘decadent’ formalist tendencies in Mayakovsky’s work did make a dent in his exalted status as the leading exponent of the Soviet art. The sense of disillusionment that beset him in his later life left its scars on him. The constant scrutiny and hounding by Stalinist apparatchiks took its toll on his creativity, and may have contributed to his decision to end his own life. In a gripping article in The Haaretz newspaper, Dalia karpel strikes at the heart of the troubled poet’s unresolved, and ultimately fatal, predicament: “Mayakovsky, the ‘raging bull of Russian poetry …..is also the ‘whipped dog’, in pain and tormented…”
Thursday, November 5, 2009
On laissez-faire and charlatans
The Economist's review of two recently published works on Ayn Rand (Ayn rand and the World She Made, Anne Heller, Nan A. Talese; Goddess of the Market: Ayn rand and the American Right, Jennifer Burns, OUP) displays a sitting-on-the-fence approach quite uncharacteristic of a publication proud of its 'advocacy journalism'. This aberration is puzzling in more ways than one. Given the subject matter of the review is one of last century's preeminent champions of laissez faire capitalism, a cause zealously promoted by the magazine, one would normally expect a glowing piece of panegyric. But, as even the readers most resistant to what 'The Observer' viewed as the publication's refusal to see "any political or economic problem that cannot be solved by the trusted three-card trick of privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation" would concede, it always backs up its pronouncements with considerable gravitas and rigorous analysis. We can pooh-pooh the stodgy arguments as pretentious, wring our hands over the unwavering allegiance to its version of 'economic liberty', but dare we dismiss them as loosely argued or inadequately thought-through. Also legendary is its intolerance towards intellectual quackery of any hue. So, one would also expect it to steer clear of imparting legitimacy to tall claims made on behalf of a low-brow pretender to the 'hallowed legacy' of Adam Smith, whose 'cult status' has been rightly diagnosed by Johann Hari to be the result of "drilling into the basest human instincts" (that Alan Greenspan and Jimmy wales feature among Rand's so-called acolytes is a conundrum I am at loss to delineate, and a sad commentary on a section of American intelligentsia's occasional baffling failure to distinguish between genuine scholarship and charlatanism). One would hope it to expose the intellectual impostor lurking behind the pseudo-profound economic philosopher. But, sadly the review leaves these expectations in tatters and one feels horribly let down.
The vacillation is discernible at the outset itself, when the reviewer marvels at Rand's abiding popular appeal even as the short shrift that she has received from the intellectual establishment, even from those of the 'right' side of the political divide, is touched upon. That her works appeal to a huge chunk of 'Middle America' despite the virulent ways in which critics and political theorists flayed her "cardboard characters and tabloid style" strikes the reviewer as a phenomenal enigma that it is constantly invoked as if it was the 'riddle of the century' (Of course, the mediocrity/popularity equation is a no-brainer for reasons too obvious to be enumerated). However, the review offers one refreshing insight as it examines how America's alleged shift to the left, embodied by Barack Obama's elevation to presidency last year, has given Rand's ideas a new lease of life and reinstated her "at the heart of the political debate".
"Conservative protesters carry posters asking 'who is John Galt?', referring to one of Rand's heroes. Conservative polemicists suggest that Mr. Obama, by stepping in to rescue the banks and industrial behemoths such as General Motors, is ushering in the collective dystopia that Rand gave warning against. Sales of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" have surged."
Interestingly, Jennifer Burns' hypothesis on Rand's influence on the American right is an idea that received one of the above-mentioned short shrifts in a well-received book co-authored by none other than the present editor-in-chief of The Economist, John Micklethwait. In that insightful study of the American right, titled "The Right Nation", Micklethwait and fellow Economist correspondent Adrian woolridge dwell on the fringe right-wing movements that held brief sway over the public imagination during the 'red scare', and thrived on paranoia and conspiracy-theories. The major examples they cite - The John Birch Society and, wait for it, Ayn rand and her disciples.
After dithering its way through attempts to resolve the central dilemma of whether to offer Rand a paean as the herald of supply-side economics or to subscribe to the overwhelmingly damning mainstream critical view, the review concludes by throwing in a face-saving reflection on how Rand's ideas are gaining currency in free market's fledgling but fertile new breeding grounds, India and China in particular.
"Her insight in 'Atlas shrugged'–that society cannot thrive unless it is willing to give freedom to its entrepreneurs and innovators–has proved to be prescient. ...John Galt is back in business in China and India"
What is conspicuous by its absence in an otherwise laborious process to throw light on Rand's ideology is the telling fact that her vigor in championing the virtue of the individual, entrepreneurial creed over the collectivist nightmare did not extend to other pressing concerns of the era that coincided with the time of her active intellectual involvement, such as civil rights for blacks, women's rights, etc. In this sense at least she is a true forerunner of the free market miracle workers who hold the magic wand of "the invisible hand" and proclaims it to be the ultimate panacea. Of course, nobody said it was gonna be easy. For the path to paradise, at least for the underlings, is fraught with bumps and ditches ...Subprime mortgage, SEZs...
The vacillation is discernible at the outset itself, when the reviewer marvels at Rand's abiding popular appeal even as the short shrift that she has received from the intellectual establishment, even from those of the 'right' side of the political divide, is touched upon. That her works appeal to a huge chunk of 'Middle America' despite the virulent ways in which critics and political theorists flayed her "cardboard characters and tabloid style" strikes the reviewer as a phenomenal enigma that it is constantly invoked as if it was the 'riddle of the century' (Of course, the mediocrity/popularity equation is a no-brainer for reasons too obvious to be enumerated). However, the review offers one refreshing insight as it examines how America's alleged shift to the left, embodied by Barack Obama's elevation to presidency last year, has given Rand's ideas a new lease of life and reinstated her "at the heart of the political debate".
"Conservative protesters carry posters asking 'who is John Galt?', referring to one of Rand's heroes. Conservative polemicists suggest that Mr. Obama, by stepping in to rescue the banks and industrial behemoths such as General Motors, is ushering in the collective dystopia that Rand gave warning against. Sales of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" have surged."
Interestingly, Jennifer Burns' hypothesis on Rand's influence on the American right is an idea that received one of the above-mentioned short shrifts in a well-received book co-authored by none other than the present editor-in-chief of The Economist, John Micklethwait. In that insightful study of the American right, titled "The Right Nation", Micklethwait and fellow Economist correspondent Adrian woolridge dwell on the fringe right-wing movements that held brief sway over the public imagination during the 'red scare', and thrived on paranoia and conspiracy-theories. The major examples they cite - The John Birch Society and, wait for it, Ayn rand and her disciples.
After dithering its way through attempts to resolve the central dilemma of whether to offer Rand a paean as the herald of supply-side economics or to subscribe to the overwhelmingly damning mainstream critical view, the review concludes by throwing in a face-saving reflection on how Rand's ideas are gaining currency in free market's fledgling but fertile new breeding grounds, India and China in particular.
"Her insight in 'Atlas shrugged'–that society cannot thrive unless it is willing to give freedom to its entrepreneurs and innovators–has proved to be prescient. ...John Galt is back in business in China and India"
What is conspicuous by its absence in an otherwise laborious process to throw light on Rand's ideology is the telling fact that her vigor in championing the virtue of the individual, entrepreneurial creed over the collectivist nightmare did not extend to other pressing concerns of the era that coincided with the time of her active intellectual involvement, such as civil rights for blacks, women's rights, etc. In this sense at least she is a true forerunner of the free market miracle workers who hold the magic wand of "the invisible hand" and proclaims it to be the ultimate panacea. Of course, nobody said it was gonna be easy. For the path to paradise, at least for the underlings, is fraught with bumps and ditches ...Subprime mortgage, SEZs...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)