My Presentations- Semester 1

1.) The Renaissance Literature
     'Victimisation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern'

To evaluate my presentation click here

Victimisation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern from Bhumi Dangi


2.)The Neo-Classical Literature
'Character of Friday'


To evaluate my presentation click here

Character of Friday in 'Robinson Crusoe from Bhumi Dangi



3.) Literary Criticism
 ' Concept of Poetry- Wordsworth and Coleridge'

To evaluate my presentation Click here

Concept of Poetry- Wordsworth and Coleridge from Bhumi Dangi



4.) Indian Writing in English
'Eklavya - The voice coming From Margin'


To evaluate my Presentation Click here

Eklavya - The voice coming from Margin from Bhumi Dangi

paper.4 Indian Writing in English

to evaluate my assignment click here

When, why, how English started taking place in Indian Literature.

English people wanted to establish their power all over the world. India is the place where they found lots of important things especially like ‘mari-masala-tejana’ and so many other things. They used to commute India via Constantinople. Later on, Constantinople was defeated. Thus they cannot come by that way at all. Then an European named ‘Vasco-da-Gama’ came to India by sea. And now once again they started communicating with India. They first started doing business here. But very first problem they face is – THE LANGUAGE. Language is not only the tool of communication but it is sign of civilization. What the problem is India had not a single or two languages but it contained thousands of dialects and hundreds of languages. Which English people cannot acquire. So they started teaching English as a language to the Indians. British parliament appointed some translators to convey each others’ massages. Thus, LANGUAGE BECOMES THE TOOL OF COLONIZING OF PEOPLE.

Vasco-da-Gama entered India by Calicut Bandar and it was remarkable thing of history. It’s the root of colonized India. He landed at Calicut on 20^th may, 1498. People started to use their languages as well as the other costumes. People wanted to show to Britishers that what India is. If one acquires language then it is but obvious that they will start writing in it. Later on English became widely accepted language of world. And it became global language. Now it’s not mere a language but a tool to get step onto world horizons.

Earlier when Indians wrote in English, People of parliament gave name to that term -

“INDIAN WRITING IN ENGLISH”

The word writing is something which is troublesome. Why that piece of writing is not to be considered as Literature? Because they felt that Indians are inferior and they do not know how to speak, read or write in English. But now it is a different story whole together. So many Indian knows English in far more better way. Any language is not the thing of one’s own pride. If it becomes matter of high concern, anybody can get mastery over it. Nowadays we will be able to find so many Indians whose English is far better than their native speakers.

So now some of us have started calling it –

“INDIAN LITERATURE IN ENGLISH”

Now, when English is becoming global language, each and every nation needs to develop skill of English language. As a second language, everybody will face so many problems acquiring it easily. First of all is ‘A TONE OF SPEAKING.’ Each n every language have their own tone. But as people might be habituated with their mother tongue, an impact will remain while speaking the other language. That other language might be any not only English. So, we saw that it is not easy to remove regional tone while speaking any other language.

Here we can conclude that Americans who speak English, Japanese who use English, and Italian, Russians who use it will differ with standard Britishers who use English. (Why Britishers’ language is standard? Because originally English is their native language) so we cannot say that others language is something like wrong practice. Instead of that, American English is having its own place in the world background. Question here is Why Indian English is not accepted as a special term like American English. They are not at supreme power.

But now it is a different story. According to a survey done by very prolific researcher,

“Indian English is going to have its own place because numbers of its users is increasing. And they are spread all over the world. 60% of English speakers will be using Indian way of speaking it within 100 years.”

Looking at population of India, we can think of it.

Now let us have glance over The English Literature written in India. Who are the contributors of term? If we are to write their names, we have to divide them into two parts.

1.    Pre Independence writers.

It begins with writer as well as social reformer Raja Rammohan Roy. Later on there are so many other contributors like Toru Dutt, Romesh Chunder Dutt, Manmohan Ghose, Rabindranath Tagore, Shri Aurobindo, Savitri, Sarojini Naydu Mahatma Gandhi and Javahar lal Neheru.

2.    Post Independence writers.

Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan, Raja Rao, Bhabani Bhattacharya, Manmohan Malgonkar, Radhakrishnan, Raghunathan, Nirad chaudhuri and how can we forget to mention our contemporary popular writers like Durjoy Dutta, Arundhai Roy, Jumpa Lahiri, Chetan Bhagat. Some of the critics do not consider them as literary writers but they have done marvelous job. We cannot forget that.

It is said that ‘Good beginning is half done.’ The writers have rooted its roots in our Indian Literature. That is most crucial part of all. Now when Indian Literature is being read even outside India, its credit goes to those writers who have given a height to it. Let us see the contribution reflected in works by the writers.

Raja Rammohan Roy

(Born on 22nd May, 1772 to 27^th September, 1833; died at the age of 61)

He is not only writer but he was also very much influential in the fields of politics, public administration and education. He is best to abolish of the practice of sati pratha. He is the founder of Brahmo sabha, along with Dwarkanath Tagore. He was the person who Introduced ‘Hinduism’ to the English Language in 1816. He was against of people doing Murti pooja. He tried to reform and rebuilt the religion.

Toru Dutt –

(Original name: Taruulata Datta, wrote under the pen name of Toru Dutt)

(Born on 4^th March, 1856 to 30^th August, 1877; died at the age of 21)

It is not important how long you live but how you live well. Toru Dutt is a lady who died at very early age but work she has contributed is remarkable until today. She was highly scholar as she had gone to England for studies. She studied French Language and some of her works are in French language also. And some translated works is also done by her. She translated some of French books into English.

Rabindranath Tagore.

(Born on 7^th of May, 1861 to 7^th of August, 1941; at the age of 80)

He is greatest Persona of his age. He is not only writer but a musician as well as a painter as well as a teacher and a great patriarch freedom fighter. He is the founder of institute- Shantiniketan. He wrote Geetanjali for that book he got Noble price for literature. He returned that price after Jaliyan vala bague hatyakand.

We sing today our national song which is written by him. And one other country also sings national song which is written by him. He has done his works in languages like Bengali, Hindi and English. Later on his works were translated in so many Indian regional languages like Gujarati.

R. K. Narayan.

(Rasipuram Krishnaswami Iyer Narayanswami wrote under the pen name of R. K. Narayan)

(Born on 10^th of October, 1906 to 13^th May, 2001; died at the age of 94)

He is post Independence writer who won notable awards like Padma Vibhushan, Sahitya Akadami Award, and AC Benson Mendai award. His most famous works are ‘Swami and Friends’, ‘The Bachelor of Arts’ and ‘The English Teacher’. Here we can find some of auto-biographical elements in the work. His another works are ‘Financial Expert’ and ‘The Guide’, that won Sahitya Akadami Award and it was adapted for film also.

Narayan’s short story writing style has been compared to Guy de Maupassant as they both have an ability to compress the narrative without losing out on elements of original stories. He was also criticized for that of being too simple in narrative of prose. His writing career is about sixty years. Six decades of his life he spent in writing.

Raja Rao

(Born on 8^th of November, 1908 to 8^th of July, 2006; died at the age of 97)

Raja Rao was a professor basically. He had good command over languages like Kannada, English and French. He won some noteworthy awards like ‘Neustadt International Price For Literature’, ‘Padma Bhushan’, ‘Padma Vibhushan’ etc. He was Indian writer of English Novel and short stories which is deeply rooted on hinduism. His notable works are ‘The Serpent and the Rope’ and ‘Kanthapura’.

Jhumpa Lahiri

(Nilanjana Sudeshna wrote under nickname ‘Jhumpa Lahiri)

(Born on 11^th of July, 1967)

Jhumpa Lahiri is one of the contemporary writers of India. She is helping Indian Literature to climb new epitome of highest level in World Literature. She wrote under the term Diaspora Literature. Namesake is one of them. Other notable works are ‘Interpreters of Maladies’, ‘The Namesake’, ‘Unaccustomed Earth’ and ‘The Lowland’. Her short story collection ‘Interpreters of Maladies’ won Pulitzer Prize for fiction.

Namesake was her first novel. We can find so many elements of own her life in the novel. The novel describes mentality of Indians who stays out of India. How they feel alienated it was described beautifully.

Chetan Bhagat.

(Born on 22^nd of April, 1974)

He is one of the best book-seller writers. He is widely read all over India and out of India. Although so many critics does not consider him as writer at all. But it is time who will decide what is prolific and what is not. HE also have contributed to give a new height to Indian Literature in English. ‘Five point someone’, ‘one night at the call centre’, ‘Three mistakes of My life’, ‘Revolution 2020’, ‘Half Girlfriend’ are some of the examples of his work.

Concluding here, we can say that we have gone through the journey of English in the sub-continent India. How it entered, get shaped/ developed and why is it still there. What was the place before and where Indian English stand today. We have had a slight touch upon where i it going to be during time of some decades.

Reference:

1. ‘Indian Writing in English’ by K. R. Srinivas Iyengar.

2. Wikipedia Encyclopedia.  


to evaluate my presentation click here

paper no.3 Criticism

To evaluate my assignment, click here


Dryden-Ancient v/s Modern
Illustrations from other field

Quarrel between both of them is not a new thing to discuss about. It is the tradition as old as the existence of human being on earth. It is something like that that it cannot survive together and also cannot live without each other. They are not absolute; they are depended upon each other. If one is not there, we cannot distinguish the other one.

As a critic, one’s view should remain free from biases. His first duty is to see that where is it bias and where is not. A balanced opinion should be built up. Let us discuss the same thing from three dimensions.

1.     Ancient’s view, 2.Modern’s thoughts, 3.critical notes.

Ancients

They always stand for the things they had had in their times. It is because of sentiments which are connected with things are subjective. They do not like the new lifestyle of youngsters at all. They will always find so many problems with every little thing. They will always favor their age and rules and tradition. e.g., people who are very much fond of movies made during the decades of 1950s and 1960s, they will always find problem with movies coming today. Costumes, concepts, songs, settings, the way of getting entertainment in movie all are not suitable for them.

If we take another example from field like music, those who listens classical music will never get interest in listening Honey Singh and that hip-hop songs. They will get frustrated by listening it.

On one day or the other my generation is also going to take place as Ancients or olds. There was a telecast named SonPari 
I used to watch that serial regularly when I was a child. It is fictional fairy tale. It helped me at so many extend to built-up imaginary world. By watching that telecast, concept of the other world started taking place in my mind for the first that there might be something like OTHER WORLD.

But today, if I see the same kind of TV program Bal veer, I get disappointment at some level that what a kind of fairy tale it was when I was child.

I saw some of the episodes from this serial. It seems childish to me. Then I thought how the fairy tale at my time. This thing can never stand in front of that fairy tales made that time. This point of view becomes subjective. Why only SonPari is prolific? Why not Bal Veer? It is because when I was child, my sentiments got connected with that prticular serial. 

There are some very popular phases which favors Ancients. According to Greek Mythology Moderns are the infants who stand on the shoulders of Ancients. They are like a dwarf standing on shoulders of giant. They are sitting on the height and claims that they can see the things from distance. And they can see it more clearly. But at the time he forgets that cause of that clear image is THE ANCIENTS. If Ancients were not there, that dwarf can never see the things.Another example is Ancients are like lamp and moderns are like mirror. Lamp has its own light to give to the others while mirror have to borrow the light to reflect. In a way the argument wants to prove that ancients were original and what moderns are doing is just copying what ancients have done. They are more depended on the things than the ancients.

And some scholars also compared faze with Honey bee and spider. Those Ancients are like honey bees and moderns are like spiders.

Honey bees go to nature, it wonders from flower to flower to gather the food. Then it comes back to home and prepares the sweetest honey. And by preparing honey, there comes wax as byproduct. Honey stands for sweetness and wax stands for lighting.

Sweetness and lighting is highly symbolical for Ancients as sweetness stands for Aesthetic delight and Lighting stands for enlightenment, knowledge and wisdom. Ancients tend to get it from nature and their purpose is holly. They wanted to cater it to the society and do not wanted to have its fruit all alone.

And then comes spider. What he does? Spider makes a cobweb to stay in. Spider makes it out of dust and its own saliva. Its cobweb works like antenna it catches the bees and the other insects. Spider comes and kills them.

  

Moderns are compared with spiders. They go to library and mug up old and dusty books. They sit and gather knowledge which is thrice removed from live experience.

These are some of the examples which favor Ancient people.

Contemporary being would think differently. They cannot think in the same manner they did. Everything cannot sustain in the same manner. When time changes everything need to have change. If we repeat the same examples, we can have contradictories from juniors.

Films:

As we saw earlier, ancients are not satisfied with films coming out today. But we can say that medium of films are now even better then that era of films. Now we have colors, effects, dimension, screen, cinematography, acting all have new aspects. And if we talk about concept, it is also going to change with time. It will represent what is going in society today. When Ancients were modern, at that time their ancients were not happy with their lifestyles. How they can forget that?

Music:

Just like movie, they also do not like music of new movies or albums. In music also, now we have more effective instruments. Moderns have number of instruments that can create a music which is more effective. They would say that it is not so we have only pop-up songs we also have high quality music like they had. But everything has their own charm. If moderns are in mood of having party then obviously that classical will not work at all. What is wrong in enjoying during party time?

TV program:

If particular program is good and other same kind of program is worse, what is it? Fairy tale- good v/s bad, helping the others, Imaginary world almost all the elements are same.

Effect emerged in mind of child is also the same. But at that level, perhaps most of us become subjective. That time and other elements effects the most in personal liking and disliking.

Cloths:

This is most favorite topic of all to argue upon. No matter of which age group they belong to. Moderns always contradict with their old family members to wear stylish jeans and t-shirts and so many other things. Cloths are often related to customs, nationality and traditions and so on. One obviously won’t carry that much huddles with them as they will have lots of other things to focus upon.

Three phases about ancients:

Ancients are to be taken as giant on which the dwarf is standing and thus is able to see longer ahead. Without any doubt, that dwarf is fortunate enough to stand higher cause of the giant. But moderns would rather put their counter argument they want all moderns to remain grateful ever in life. And by that gratefulness they want moderns to remain their sophisticated slaves in form of most obedient children of family. It is a kind of system perhaps made up by those Ancient who were not so intelligent but then even any how wanted to rule over their next generation.

They are like the stairs to go upwards. Alright they admire it. But if they had not been there then even moderns have had their progress. Not this much progress is possible. They had to start with 0 perhaps.

These are some points and counter points from both the side. But if we are to conclude some core part from it, we again have to check relativity of both of term. We have to minutely observe the thing objectively.

The fact about controversy between Ancients n Moderns are thus

-         They cannot survive all alone and even cannot stay happily with each other.

-         It is but obvious and natural thing. That quarrel started with mankind and end with it.

Questions which make us thoughtful-

-         If history is not necessary portion to be followed then why we go on studying history again and again?

-         What to see in history?

-         Which kind of sense is needed to understand history?

We cannot say that one is absolutely right and another is wrong. They both are right with their own standing point. But what our job is to stand at a distance and observe that what is more appropriate.

We cannot cut down the strings fully with history. It teaches us what not to do. Reading of history with proper manner becomes most crucial part of all.

What I’ve found in history is that, each n every era is working like a pendant of watch. It goes right n left. When extreme point comes, it starts moving in opposite direction. Each an era worked upon that basic. Weather we take English history or world history. There is nothing like new and old. Ancients and moderns. Today which is in fashion will become outdated tomorrow. And day after tomorrow, same thing will take place again.

Time and again we need to check out that is it right thing for what I am standing or not. Is it fruitful or not.

Concluding here, both are equal and here is no need to prove their selves better than the other one. It is never ending process. We should learn from them as much things as possible. Then and then it will work out. 




"To evaluate my assignment, click here"

paper.2 Neo-classical Literature.

 "To evaluate my assignment, click here"



Role of Political parties Whigs and Tories upon the writings of that era

Writer and the write-up are inter-vowel together. Writing is the result of process which is taking place in the mind of writer. The process is affected by so many subjects like- 1 Era in which he is born; 2 social, political, economical conditions; 3. Family background; 4 Education and so many other things like these. Our sole purpose here is to focus upon political condition.

Power always remains as the central theme of writings in any kind of era; irrespective of time, place and the way of governance. Whether the power is in form of Monarchy, Democracy, communist approach or any other way like that. Everything which is going around it takes place in literature also. But when it is about power or governing system, we have to check other references also. Why?

If a person is writing about particular king or queen, they would buy the writers to write the things they want to show to society. Same thing happens in democracy also. Writer is afraid of writing the things what he actually wants to write about. Political leader may harm him or his family members. So what happens is that he cannot write the things he want but it is difficult to bound creative people with any kind of chains. They will not write directly but they will make pun and satire of the things they want to put forward. The same situation is there in India today.  

Politics in this age-Augustan age plays very vital role of all. Augustan age was the rise of politics until that; it was secured under the reign of Queen Victoria. And something which is new will obviously go for whole the attention of people. Democracy was new at that time and it gained whole the attention of people.

This is the reason why the works are satirical works are there in the literature of Augustan age. Satire and Sarcasm played a vital role in the literature of 18^th century. We can have examples like Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope and so many writers like them.

Now let us see as a party whigs and tories have worked during the age. Let us see its origin, historical background of both the parties.

Tory-

The Tories were members of two political parties which existed, sequentially, in the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Great Britain and later the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from the 17th to the early 19th centuries.

The first Tories emerged in 1678 in England, when they opposed the Whig-supported Exclusion Bill which set out to disinherit the heir presumptive James, Duke of York (who eventually became James II of England and VII of Scotland). This party ceased to exist as an organised political entity in the early 1760s, although it was used as a term of self-description by some political writers. A few decades later, a new Tory party would rise to establish a hold on government between 1783 and 1830, with William Pitt the Younger followed by Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.

The Earl of Liverpool was succeeded by fellow Tory Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, whose term included the Catholic emancipation, which occurred mostly due to the election of Daniel O'Connell as a Catholic MP from Ireland. When the Whigs subsequently regained control, the Representation of the People Act 1832 removed the rotten boroughs, many of which were controlled by Tories. In the following general election, the Tory ranks were reduced to 180 MPs. Under the leadership of Robert Peel, the Tamworth Manifesto was issued, which began to transform the Tories into the Conservative Party. However, Peel lost many of his supporters by repealing the Corn Laws, causing the party to break apart. One faction, led by the Earl of Derby and Benjamin Disraeli, survived to become the modern Conservative Party, whose members are commonly still referred to as Tories.

Whig-

The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Between the 1680s and 1850s, they contested power with their rivals, the Tories. The Whigs' origin lay in constitutional monarchism and opposition to absolute rule. The Whigs played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and were the standing enemies of the Stuart kings and pretenders, who were Roman Catholic. The Whigs took full control of the government in 1715, and remained totally dominant until King George III, coming to the throne in 1760, allowed Tories back in. The "Whig Supremacy" (1715–1760) was enabled by the Hanoverian succession of George I in 1714 and the failed Jacobite rising of 1715 by Tory rebels. The Whigs thoroughly purged the Tories from all major positions in government, the army, the Church of England, the legal profession and local officials. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).

Both parties began as loose groupings or tendencies, but became quite formal by 1784, with the ascension of Charles James Fox as the leader of a reconstituted "Whig" party ranged against the governing party of the new "Tories" under William Pitt the Younger. Both parties were founded on rich politicians, more than on popular votes; there were elections to the House of Commons, but a small number of men controlled most of the voters.

The Whig party slowly evolved during the 18th century. The Whig tendency supported the great aristocratic families, the Protestant Hanoverian succession, and toleration for nonconformist Protestants (the "dissenters," such as Presbyterians), while some Tories supported the exiled Stuart royal family's claim to the throne (Jacobitism), and virtually all Tories supported the established Church of England and the gentry. Later on, the Whigs drew support from the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants, while the Tories drew support from the landed interests and the royal family. By the first half of the 19th century, however, the Whig political programme came to encompass not only the supremacy of parliament over the monarch and support for free trade, but Catholic emancipation, the abolition of slavery and expansion of the franchise (suffrage).

Whig and Tory are the members of two opposing political parties or factions in England, particularly during the 18th century. Originally “Whig” and “Tory” were terms of abuse introduced in 1679 during the heated struggle over the bill to exclude James, duke of York (afterward James II), from the succession. Whig—whatever its origin in Scottish Gaelic—was a term applied to horse thieves and, later, to Scottish Presbyterians; it connoted nonconformity and rebellion and was applied to those who claimed the power of excluding the heir from the throne. Tory was an Irish term suggesting a papist outlaw and was applied to those who supported the hereditary right of James despite his Roman Catholic faith.

The Glorious Revolution (1688–89) greatly modified the division in principle between the two parties, for it had been a joint achievement. Thereafter most Tories accepted something of the Whig doctrines of limited constitutional monarchy rather than divine-right absolutism. Under Queen Anne, the Tories represented the resistance, mainly by the country gentry, to religious toleration and foreign entanglements. Toryism became identified with Anglicanism and the squirearchy and Whiggism with the aristocratic, landowning families and the financial interests of the wealthy middle classes.

The death of Anne in 1714, the manner in which George I came to the throne as a nominee of the Whigs, and the flight (1715) of the Tory leader Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, to France, conspired to destroy the political power of the Tories as a party.

For nearly 50 years thereafter, rule was by aristocratic groups and connections, regarding themselves as Whigs by sentiment and tradition. The die-hard Tories were discredited as Jacobites, seeking the restoration of the Stuart heirs to the throne, though about 100 country gentlemen, regarding themselves as Tories, remained members of the House of Commons throughout the years of the Whig hegemony. As individuals and at the level of local politics, administration, and influence, such “Tories” remained of considerable importance.

The reign of George III (1760–1820) brought a shift of meanings to the two words. No Whig Party as such existed at the time, only a series of aristocratic groups and family connections operating in Parliament through patronage and influence. Nor was there a Tory Party, only Tory sentiment, tradition, and temperament surviving among certain families and social groups. The so-called King’s Friends, from whom George III preferred to draw his ministers (especially under Lord North [afterward 2nd earl of Guilford], 1770–82), came from both traditions and from neither. Real party alignments began to take shape only after 1784, when profound political issues that deeply stirred public opinion were arising, such as the controversy over the American Revolution.

Concluding here, we can see the major effect of both the parties over the entire age. And another thing we can notice is that all the events which is taking place in society is not solely taking place but all events are inter connected with each other. 


"To evaluate my assignment, click here"