| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LR/RL Copyright © by the International Comparative Literature Association. All rights reserved.
Literary Research/Recherche littéraire 20.39-40 (2003): 346-350 Ipshita Chanda, Tracing the Charit as a Genre. An exploration in comparative literature methodology. Calcutta: Jadavpur University, 2003; 80 pp.; Rs50.00 Ironically, post-Independence India did not witness stripping off of psychological and material structures of the colonial period. Therefore, the education system in general and literary studies in particular continued to exist as they were. Against the pluralistic linguistic literary realities, single language/literature departments were established during the colonial period and they continued to flourish without taking recourse to comparative literature methodology, though it suited Indian literary situation the most. The departments of Comparative Literature did not find favor of framers of policies pertaining to literary studies in India. The manifestation of this gross over-sight, deliberate or inadvertent, is still discernible in the fact that out of nearly 300 universities in the country the number of Departments of Comparative Literature is not more than two; and of the two only the one at Jadavpur University has contributed significantly at the national and international levels. The politics and [end page 346] economics of literary studies, however, prevented this Department from becoming the model for others, and as mere tokenism comparative literature, apart from the establishment of a few Chairs in a few Universities, was appropriated by some of the single language/literature departments particularly English in a half-hearted amateurish manner. Post independence Indian literary scholarship, barring a few distinguished reputations like S.K. Das and Amiya Dev, invested much of its energy and endeavors in viewing and studying its literary writings and trends in terms of categories and methodologies of the West (read American now). As a result, Indian literary scholarship examined Indian texts and literatures in terms of influence/reception, thematology and genology. S.K. Das, Amiya Dev and Swapan Mazumdar in their own way redefined the scope of these terms and categories of comparative literature by keeping Indian cultural ethos, literary movements, traditions and practices. Else, one still repeatedly hears the echoes of Rene Wellek's 'crisis' of comparative literature in Indian seminar rooms. In a situation such as this, one interested in Indian literature, is pleasantly surprised by Tracing the Charit as a Genre: An exploration in comparative literature methodology (2003) by Ipshita Chanda of the Department of Comparative Literature, Jadavpur University. Her perspicuity reveals that the crisis of comparative literature that one hears in the west is almost inconceivable in multicultural situations such as Indian. The 'crisis' in Indian situation, as she rightly mentions, is not of ontology but of epistemology — "how to outline clearly a way of knowing, a method of doing that will define the discipline" (9). The uniqueness of the present monograph on tracing the charit lies in the author's endeavor of addressing the question of method and also of knowing a genre across time and space in Indian pluralistic literary tradition. In the process of doing so, she presents a model or paradigm for genogical studies in India. The reasons for the last statement are implicit in the forthcoming discussion. One reason for the book serving as a model is the author's clarity of hypothesis and objectives that she proposes to achieve. "The study seeks to identify the collection of primary elements which form a generic framework that can be ascribed a generic name. Then it moves backwards into various levels of tradition that exist in the Indian milieu, to discern how far back and in what shape or form these elements subsist there. Next, we move forward into the present to the period of colonization and decolonization and consider this provisionally constructed generic framework with reference to indigenous and colonial literary traditions" (11-2). Despite courting the risk of incongruity and unwanted hurry, I must state that the author succeeds in realizing the objectives in the following [end page 347] thesis to good measure. The clarity of hypothesis is matched with clarity of expression of both matter and manner, as she has resisted the temptation of taking recourse to jargon. After enumerating the objectives or 'questions,' the author traces the development of the genre of charit form its earliest manifestation in the Brahmana of the White Yajus and the Brihad Aranayaka in relation to terms like gatha, itihasa, purana, narasansi, akhayana, vyakhyana, anuvyakhyana, and upayakhyana in the light of the study of Albrecht Weber. The common strain in the use of these terms is that they were used for compositions pertaining to history in prose or verse with certain intentions or objectives. The multiplicity of intentions on the part of composer leads to selection of different terms for it, of strategies for realizing the intentions, and ends up with what the author terms as "the crystallization of genres." The generic tracing is followed by more interesting consideration of the charit in the Indian poetical tradition, particularly in Bhamaha, Dandin, Rudratta, Anandavardana Visvanatha and the compiler of the Agnipurana. Then she tries to come to an acceptable definition of charit, and finds it problemtized, for if it is a biography on the plan of Thucydides or Plutarch, they are the parameters related to history, and India had its tradition of 'history,' 'itihasa' or even 'puranetihasa,' to be precise, that were narrated with the purposes of attaining or imparting dharma (righteous conduct), artha (material prosperity), kama (gratification of desires), and moksha (emancipation from the cause of pain or sorrow). Without skirting the issue, or limiting the genre of charit to "the fabric of fact-based biographical text," the author explores and identifies the elements that constitute the texts bearing the name charit in the Indian literary tradition particularly in Sanskrit, Bengali and Hindi as in Gunadhya's Brahatkatha, Dandin's Dashkumarcharita, Bana's Harshacharita, the later charit texts in Sanskrit and chariu texts of 63 Jain mahapurusha of the Digambara and the Shwetambara sects. In the course of her discussion, the author finds that the charit fits neither in the katha nor in the akhayayika mould. The Jain charit of Paum, the counter-charit of Ram, adds a new dimension to it, as it is, along with being rooted in puranetihasa, valuable not for the irrefutable factuality of its contents, but in their currency among those who are its subscribing audience. Thereafter, the author discusses Ashwaghoha's Buddhacharita and Bana's Harshacharita. Written around the middle of the 7th century, the book can be called an akhayayika, though the material that it is made of falls in the twilight zone between history and literature, factual and fictitious. The charit tradition extends itself in Padmagupta's Navashashankacharita (1005) and Bilhana Vikramakadevacharita (before 1088), [end page 348] followed by Kalhana's Rajatarangini, the chronicle of kings of Kashmir, and the 12th century Rampalacharita of Sandhyakara Nandin. The charita attains an almost pan Indian character, as it finds its manifestation in different parts of the country: e.g. Kumarapalabhupalacharita of Jayasimha II in Gujarat in the 14th century, Mauravarmancharita related to the Kalama ruler Mayuravarman of the south, and the Rajacharita in Oriya with orientations. The Veergathakal (1000-1400) of Hindi literature introduced the raso form, as in Chand Bardai's Prithviraj Raso, and in oral compositions like Alhakhand dealing with the exploits of three brothers Alha, Udal, Malkhan, and Lakhan, the prince of Kannauj against Prithviraj in particular in Bundelkhandi, Bhojpuri, Maithili and Kannauji. The Maharashtrian Bakhar tradition is another extension or manifestation of this tradition. The Bhakti period that followed the Veergathakal added another dimension to this form when the bhakti poets, who were the bhakta first and whatsoever next, made use of it particularly in two seminal texts like Chaitnya Charitmala in eastern India and Ramcharitmanas in the northern parts. With the emergence of the modern India languages and advent of the novel as a consequence of colonial encounter in the 19th century, the charit form was used in Bangla works like Chinibhashacharit, Bangalicharit by Jogendrachandra Basu, Muchiram Gurer Jibancharit by Bankim, in Damarucharit by Trailokyanath Mukhopadhya, and in Dhorai charit Manas by Satinath Bhaduri, all with different purposes. The Hindi writers used it to come to terms with new socio-cultural and colonial reality. Hanumant Singh used it for delineating the confrontation between the Hindu society and its increasing westernization in Grihashtha Charitra, and Mohan Singh to construct the heroic past against the colonized present through his Maharana Charitra. The orientations of the charit writers were as diverse as they themselves ranging from composition of 'life-texts' to construction of history or its re-invention. As the charit meandered through the maze of Indian literature, the texts written in this form become sites of negotiation between historicity and literariness, factual and fictitious, and social and national purposes. The book, thus, traces the growth of charit in Indian literature. In the course of doing so the author establishes its intrinsic elasticity, the plurality of literary relations in Indian literature. She counters the views of scholars on literary historiography, particularly G.N. Devy who wants comparatists to dump what he calls "a non-existent pan-Indian field of literary study" like Indian literature and "step out of the concepts of genre and period." She rightly finds it hard to dismiss the idea of "Indian-ness" of Indian literature so easily "after all." Further, she is more concerned with literature's relationship with history than with the rigid methodology of [end page 349] literary history because the methodology is a means, not an end in itself. She prefers Amiya Dev's idea of comparative methodology from 'below' to Devy's idea of a methodology from above. As a reviewer I was rather keen to find faults in the book to justify the validity of my endeavor. The majority of my questions were tackled in the course of the discussion of the charit. Whatever questions were left, were pre-empted in the last paragraphs. Still to validate my existence, I must point out that the narrative of the charit could have been arranged in a linear way by mutually exchanging Sections VI and VII for maintaining the chronological order of the Veergathakal and the bhakti kal, though linearity is not necessarily a virtue for the Indians believing in cyclical time. Further, before coming to the charits by Kunwar Hanumant Singh Raghuvanshi and by Mohan Singh in the 20th century, one could have considered charitavali (cluster of charits) by Bhartendu Harishchandra, the precursor of the modern Hindi literature, in the 19th century. Criticism is more about asking the right questions rather than about answering questions posed by others. Ipshita Chanda's achievement in Tracing the Charit as a Genre lies in her systematic proposition of questions regarding the form of charit, and the methodology of comparative literary studies in India. Also, she has successfully answered questions that she had posed for herself regarding the form of charit. The need, however, is to persist with the methodology of Ipshita Chanda and study the growth of charit in all Indian languages other than Bengali and Hindi including folk lore and literature. Whenever, whosoever does it, this brief yet significant work would prove to be a major milestone and model in that direction.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||