From: banerjee@usc.edu (Samit Banerjee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: Shaping of Bengali Culture
Date: 24 Dec 1992 20:50:17 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <1992Dec25.010627.25388@zip.eecs.umich.edu> bhattach@quip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:

>I think Arindam is taking a very narrow and elitist view of Bengali 
>culture by claiming that the Bengali language and culture is solely
>a product of the so-called Bengal Renaissance. Of course, the view 
>he espouses is widely held in upper-class Bengali circles.

Why do I get the distinct feeling that I have heard this kind of talk before 
coming from the upper echelons of the petty bourgeois class who
inhabit the crummy corridors of Alimuddin street? Why is it that you must
be so myopic in your political identity that you see literature
and culture as an extension of a non-existant class struggle and therfore
choose to disdain the creativity of some and accentuate those of others?
Why is it that you must create classes amongst people in order to proselytize
your narrow and often sectarian political beliefs that leads to your
appreciation of one facet of our culture, often at the expense of the other?
And finally, why is it that you must thrust this monstrous equivalent
of intellectual apartheid at us, in the fond belief that we will acquiesce
and eventually accept it.


>The fact is, the 'Bengal Renaissance' was an exclusive upper class and
>upper middle class phenomenon, centred in Calcutta city, and confined 
>to the aristocracy. It is simply pathetic to claim that Bengali culture
>is synonymous with the culture that grew from that phenomenon. While 
>I do not wish to deny the genius of people like Vidyasagar, Harish 
>Mukherjee or Michael Madhusudan Dutt, who were partially the product 
>of this phenomenon, 

It is equally blasphemous to claim that the folk culture of Bengal is 
the be all and end all of our creativity. I also find it hard to
accept your contention that the upper class which nurtured the
Bengali Renaissance was by it's very nature contemptible and by extension so
was the work done under it's patronage.  In addition, I fail to see
what relevance if any, the urban or rural background of an author has on 
the quality of the work unless of course it is your contention that
the Bengali peasant is the standard bearer of all Bengali culture.
That is a ludicrous and self serving argument and based on it's woeful
ignorance, it would be a waste of my time to even attempt to refute it.
It is my belief that given the feudal state of our economy then and now,
the abysmal poverty and the continued struggle for existence, it is naive 
to expect the rural inhabitants to be the repository of any culture, let
alone have the final word in that area. Now for some people that may be
an elitist view and it probably is, but it has to be recognised that
intellectual creativity does not go very well on an empty stomach, much
as Lenin would have as believe.

>in my view the true culture of Bengal has rural,
>not urban,  roots , and is inalienably related to the wonderful and
>unbroken continuum of folk culture, as represented in the works of 
>the 'baul' and 'bhatiyali' muicians, and Baru Chandidas, Dwija 
>Chandidas,  Ramprasad Sen, Lalan Fakir and others.

What constitutes an acceptable definition of "true" Bengali culture is
open to interpretation. It might suffice to say however, that your
definition of "true" culture may be reprehensible for me and visa versa.
Any culture by it's very existence has multiple facets and several 
dimensions. It is only the most narrow minded and dogmatic individual
who claims a particular side of that culture which suits his vested
interests, as the final word. 

>If one wishes to really understand the wonderful heritage ,strength
>and resilience of Bengali culture, it is these earthly figures that 
>one needs to turn to, and not to the 'babu' culture of nineteenth 
>century Calcutta of which the effete and pretentious Bengali middle-class 
>'bhadralok' of today is a successor. 

Again the 'babu' culture which you from your myopic point of view choose to
disdain, did give rise to a genius like Tagore and who it might be
remembered was sneered at by the progenitors of the scum who rule
West Bengal today.  The Bengali 'bhadrolok' may also have had his shortcomings,
most notably an inability to resist the burden of Communism being thrust on 
his unwilling shoulders. However, if sheer numbers are any indication, the
middle class are 300 million strong in India today (more than the entire
population of the United  States) and you can only continue to gloss
over their contributions at your own peril.  


Samit
-- 
Samit Banerjee				|			
University of Southern California,	| If you take yourself too seriously, 
Internet  banerjee@aludra.usc.edu       | you will be only one who does.
Bellnet: (213) 342-1401			|