As
mentioned in the preceding blog ( The Disadvantages And Disconnectionsof Diversity ), my long twin track records as a
professional civil servant and amateur journalist had brought me
a unique opportunity for blending hard work with soft play, as
the Member-Secretary of a prestigious panel which reviewed the performance
of four Government-funded apex institutions in the cultural sphere.
At
the outset I had the assurance of the Chairman, Mr. P.N. Haksar, that I
would be solely responsible for writing the panel's report, which had to
survive the severe tests of time. I did produce an excellent
draft on specific issues concerning the arts, but found the
generic concepts governing the true dimensions of culture rather
elusive. In the event, it was the Chairman himself who wrote
the introductory chapter, which enhanced the flavor and force of the whole
report.
I
told the story in an essay a couple of years later, and submitted it to
the Editor of THE HINDU, Mr. G. Kasturi, suggesting it could perhaps be
the prelude to a monthly column on art and culture, to be titled Articulations. His instant
response was to launch the column with Mr. Haksar's exquisite articulations.
_______________
Glossary & annotations
(in
same order as in text)
P.N. Haksar
-- Distinguished Indian diplomat who had
wielded enormous power and influence as Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi's principal private secretary, and after
superannuation, had turned into a highly sensitive and widely respected cultural
philosopher.
Sangeet
Research Institute, Calcutta -- A music-research unit in India's
leading tobacco company (ITC) : a corporate contribution to Indian
culture, meant to dilute adverse impressions arising
from certain negative aspects of the company's cigarette business.
National
Akademis -- Three prestigious Government-funded institutions
in New Delhi, concerned with the promotion of art and culture --
called Lalit Kala Akademi (visual arts
and crafts : drawing, painting, sculpture), Sangeet Natak Akademi (performing
arts : music, dance, drama), and Sahitya
Akademi (literature).
H.Y.
Sharada Prasad -- Civil servant and journalist, who was media adviser to
Indian Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.
Other
Members -- Ebrahim Alkazi (patron of Indian arts and former
Director of National School of Drama); Indira Parthasarathy (South Indian
novelist, writing in Tamil language); K.V. Ramanathan
(High-ranking civil servant who retired as Secretary, Planning Commission,
and then became Editor, Indian Express); Premlata Sharma
(musicologist); and Ghulam Sheikh (artist : oil-painting).
_______________
THE HINDU
Sunday
Magazine
3 February 1991
Articulations
The Chairman's chapter
Addressing
an impressive gathering of classical musicians and dancers, musicologists,
music and dance critics and members of the cultural bureaucracy in New Delhi
recently, Mr. P.N. Haksar outlined his wide-angled vision of culture in a
democratic society and polity.
The
occasion was the inauguration of a four-day symposium organized in the Capital
by the Indian Classical Music And Dance Fraternity and the Sangeet Research
Academy, Calcutta.
Not
so long ago, Mr. Haksar had chaired a committee which had reviewed the
performance of the three National Akademis (Sangeet Natak, Lalit Kala and
Sahitya Akademis) and the National School of Drama. Its report
was submitted to the Government of India in July 1990, and the Department of
Culture released a summary in August.
There
have been several Press reports about the committee's recommendations since
then, but so far they have tended to be sketchy, distorted or
speculative. Although a thousand copies had been printed by the
Government several months ago, they have not been circulated widely.
There seems to be no clear awareness, even among the articulate journalists, of
what Mr. Haksar and his colleagues had actually said about the various issues
involved. I ought to know, because I happened to be the Member-Secretary
of the committee.
The
main theme of the Classical Music And Dance Fraternity's symposium was the role
of the Government in the field of art and culture. The Haksar Committee
had gone exhaustively into that question because it felt that the activities of
the National Akademis had to be viewed in the widest possible perspective,
which naturally covered the legitimacy and limits of the State's intervention
and functions in this sensitive area.
A
few months before we started writing our report, Mr. Haksar had asked me to
prepare a draft on the definition of 'culture' and the values which should
govern the cultural environment in India today. This had to be written at
the conceptual level, incorporating a historic and philosophic vision rather
than a clinical set of views.
I
did try, but not for long. I just could not get a grip on the
composition, though I knew exactly what Mr. Haksar had to say on every aspect
of art and culture. I was confidently looking forward to initiating the
draft dealing with our findings and recommendations, but the chapter on the
definition and dimensions of culture was clearly beyond my credentials.
It
occurred to me after some time that perhaps Mr. H.Y. Sharada Prasad, who was
one of the Members of the Committee, could undertake the job successfully. Just
before we started writing the report, all of us got together and had some long
discussions, so as to crystallize our views. During one of these sessions
I made my suggestion. Mr. Sharada Prasad's response was immediate and
decisive. He declared that Mr. Haksar should himself write the general
chapter. The Chairman said he would prefer to have a first draft, which
he could review and touch up. "Not at all," Mr. Sharada
Prasad told him firmly, "It's your job, Mr. Chairman, not
ours! We shall do some touching up, if necessary."
So
Mr. Haksar had no choice but to agree, and said he would try. He declined
all offers of technical help and said he would be working "in his own
way". He dictated the entire chapter to a very capable
stenographer-friend called Mr. Unni, and took no assistance from anyone else in
the committee. After some time, when we were wrestling with the rest of
the draft, the Chairman's chapter hit us like a tidal wave.
Profoundly simple
It
was an intricate piece of writing, all 25 typed pages of it, so tightly packed
with ideas that it seemed to weigh like a large block of marble. I showed
the manuscript to Mr. Sharada Prasad and asked him whether I should try to
simplify the text.
After
reading the chapter very carefully, he told me not to interfere with the text
except for cutting out some lengthy quotations. "Mr. Haksar should
be quoted, he shouldn't quote so much!" he quipped, repeating a thought he
had once expressed about Indira Gandhi's speeches, many of which he had
either written or edited. He also jotted down half a dozen other
suggestions -- to alter a word here, or moderate a phrase there --
and told me to get them approved by the Chairman tactfully. Apart
from that, he ruled, the text was not to be touched by anybody
including himself.
"We
want this report to stand the test of time," he told me. "It is
Mr. Haksar's chapter which will make that possible. Those who can't take
it in quickly can skip it and go on to the next chapter, but this one will
ensure that the report lives on. We can't take liberties with a piece of
literature!" During our final deliberations, all the other
Members -- Mr. Ebrahim Alkazi, Prof. Indira Parthasarathy, Mr. K.V.
Ramanathan. Prof. Premlata Sharma and Mr. Ghulam Sheikh -- agreed with
him. In the event, the only addition we found necessary to make was a
single paragraph, in which Mr. Ramanathan succinctly articulated some of our
common thoughts on the regional diversity of India.
I
certainly saw the point, but I was not quite satisfied. It was all
right for Mr. P.N. Haksar to address his peers on an exalted plane, but it was
my obligation as the committee's anchorman to produce a document which could be
wholly and readily understood by the ordinary reader. I went on groping
for a solution, and found it when I started drafting the final chapter
summarizing our recommendations.
I
had been worrying for some time about how to condense Mr. Haksar's profound
reflections into one or two pages of our report. It had looked like an
impossible task at first. I was about to give up the idea altogether,
consoling myself with the thought that the last chapter was to be a summary of
our suggestions and not our approach. But when I was brooding over the
problem, it occurred to me that the conceptual chapter contained, apart from a scholarly and philosophic dissertation on the history of Indian culture, certain statements
which had the force of recommendations of a generic kind.
These
were addressed not only to the cultural establishment and the artistic and
literary communities, but to our society as a whole. I realized that I
had only to extract these, and there would be no need to look any further for a
precis.
So
I just marked every sentence which contained a definitive expression of advice,
or of guidance, addressed to any intelligent reader. I arranged them in a
sequence I liked -- and I saw that the core of Mr. Haksar's cultural vision
stood out like a tower, and would be visible even to the layman's naked
eye. Mr. Sharada Prasad condensed and re-phrased my extracts a
little so as to match them properly in length and language with the rest of our
summary of recommendations -- and we had a short section containing a
far-reaching cultural testament, which could be read through and
understood effortlessly.
Glowing vision
I
have since reviewed the text, and made a fresh compilation which is only
slightly longer but fully restores the unique flavor of Mr. Haksar's
prose. Bulging with such a rich haul of gold, I am sure Chairman Haksar's
hold-all is not likely to escape the close attention of the cultural
authorities and the people of India. And what is true of our society, I
should imagine, is likely to be valid in the whole world.
--
The term 'culture', in its most comprehensive sense, refers to diverse creative
activities which give a sense of purpose to human existence, and provides the
reflective poise and spiritual energy so essential to the maturing of the 'Good
Society'.
--
Thus defined, culture refers to a wide range of activities -- literature,
performing and visual arts, and various forms of artistic self-expression -- in
which individuals and communities are perpetually engaged. The definition
of culture, therefore, should not differentiate between the specialist
creator of culture and the lay citizen. Culture constitutes an integral
part of the social and political existence of human beings.
--
While the State has a vital role to play in the field of art and culture, its
political and ideological predilections can have adverse consequences.
Any rash political intervention into culture would be disastrous.
-- There
is a need for the exercise of extreme sensitiveness on the part of the cultural
bureaucracies of the Akademis and the Government departments concerned with
cultural affairs at the Centre and in the States, and by politicians.
Management of culture should be avoided.
--
The State, through institutions specially designed to facilitate creative
activity, can only promote a congenial climate for the stimulation of
culture. It remains the task of the inspired artists to invoke that
spirit which reflects culture in the noblest form.
--
It must be ensured that the cultural life of the individual, no less than that
of the community, should seek to relate aesthetic fulfilment to the everyday
activities of life. Encouragement should be held out to creative activity
which locates both beauty and utility in the artefacts of cultural as
well as material production.
--
We must be constantly be on guard against any surrender to vulgar or populist
forms of artistic endeavor.
--
Manifestations of folk art and culture must not be considered as museum
exhibits for satisfying exotic interests. Their subordination to the laws
of commercial 'mass culture' is a threat against which it is necessary to
provide institutional protection and support.
--
Cultural production today is accomplished in a social context in which the mass
media and the market have emerged as arbiters of taste and quality in
aesthetic activity. Modern economics have converted art itself into a
commodity. In the generation of cultural values, the market needs to be
tamed and harnessed to serve the interests of men, nature and society.
--
The laws of the market of mass-produced culture should not be allowed to
annihilate the artist, even as the artist tries to wrestle with them.
This must be one of the desiderata of State support.
--
Those concerned with the field of culture must sensitize themselves to the fact
that our country is involved in vast, complex and turbulent processes of
economic, political, social and cultural transformation.
--
Culture has to be an important component of our planning processes. Our
response to the 'hunger of the heart' and the 'famine of the brain' need
not await the response to the minimum needs of the body.
--
Cultural development requires the planned and sustained creation of
infrastructure over a long period of time.
--
The approach to culture in India must positively encourage regional diversity,
and not merely tolerate it, so that no region or group can have the
threat of having a feeling of being swamped. There are no 'majority'
and 'minority' cultures. The smallest unit has its contribution to make
to the enrichment of the national sum total, and must be respected.
