Contents
Toya
Subedi
Bapu and Other Sonnets: an
Urge to Make a Just World
Bapu and Other Sonnets recently published (May
2006) by Mahakavi Laxmi Prasad Devkota Study
and Research Centre contains fifty-nine sonnets
composed by the great poet Laxmi Prasad Devkota.
Among them thirty eight sonnets were written
in the reminiscence of Bapu (Mohandas Karamchand
Gandhi), the leader of India’s national
struggle for freedom during his stay in India
as an exile during 1950 B.S. The sonnets in
the short anthology contend with a large array
of issues ranging from the topic of everyday
human concern to the deeply philosophical ones.
Very interestingly, whatever themes the sonnets
deal with, they capture the unique response
of the great poetic genius to the situation
of great crisis here at home as well as abroad.
The suffocating situation created by the Rana
regime in Nepal, the sufferings of the British
Raj in India and the “Tongue-tied, all
light denied, fleeced and oppressed”(“To
Algeria” 1) situation of Algerian people
are but the few examples of such crisis the
poet responds to. The response, however, is
not only the expression of grief against the
situation but a strong resistance to that. Most
of the sonnets, therefore, represent an important
historical moment of Nepal as well as outside
that was undergoing a great crisis. Historical
document of such crisis can be of great inspiration
for the readers both to understand the personal
as well as national miseries and learn the ways
to address them effectively. However, this paper
tries to limit on the discussion of Devkota’s
poetic response to the corollary of crisis on
humanity reflected through the assassination
of Mahatma Gandhi in India.
It is quite evident that Mahatma Gandhi led
the national struggle and secured independence
for India through his novel, peaceful and non-violent
revolution against the British Raj in 1947.
During the freedom struggle in India, millions
of individuals sacrificed their present for
future generations and Gandhian vision inspired
the nation to establish certain values and activated
the mass into action and thrilled the nation
with hope. The assassination of such a saintly
person brought the saddest gloom. The whole
nation wept in his death because “. .
. every home had lost a father then” (“When
thou Departest” 11) but the blood of Gandhi
“. . . made the whole world tremble in
its holy flood” (6). All the people poor
or rich, great or small, drowned themselves
in tears and “. . . touched no food”
(14). The gloom, sadness or melancholy created
by the demise of “father” is not
an end of life for everyone who is living. It,
instead, opens up a new avenue and prepares
the ground of resistance against the evil attitude
that tends to deprive the children of father’s
guardianship. Such insight entailed in the following
lines constantly inspires people to fight against
the “serpent” that tends every moment
to bite them:
O Soul arise and walk, thou hast forgotten
Thy proper duty...Sleep not, awake...
Thy time is passing and thy things are stolen
Thou sleepest still…thyself a cautious
make.
The world is a big danger for thy sleep,
Thou gettest voiceless while the world must
howl—
(“O Soul Arise and Walk” ll. 1-6)
The above lines clearly depict the reality of
the day. When people remain in the deep sleep
and become “voiceless,” the enemy
will take this opportunity to silence them for
ever. In giving an intimate but deeply philosophical
suggestion to the humanity like in the above
lines, the sonnets offer a solution to the problem
by revealing the dark underbelly of the selfish
anti-humanist force that was responsible for
terrible frustration of the day worldwide.
The sonnets bring to light that all the virtuous
ideals like non violence, sticking to truth,
selfless action, passive resistance, non possession,
tolerance, humility and humanism, communal harmony,
equality among individuals and fearlessness
in ‘‘karma’’ that Gandhi
practiced in his personal as well as political
life are essential to fight against any form
of oppression. These virtues not only teach
the discipline of higher kind to attain godhood
but also become the powerful means to emancipate
the whole race, “You were a demi-Buddha,
calmed all strife, /Enlightened yourself and
enlightened race” (“I Know a Man.”
11-12). By portraying Gandhi as an enlightened
figure of mythic proportion, Devkota tries to
establish Gandhian ideal as the model for the
whole humanity that is being threatened by the
evil forces of selfishness, corruption, dishonesty,
treachery worldwide.
Devkota employs an important poetic strategy
in which he presents the subject matter in terms
of the implicit binaries. The sonnets demonstrate
the inherent binaries of the human soul, human
culture, and human politics in order to underscore
the one (the bright side) at the cost of the
other –the dark side. On the whole his
aim is to criticize the evil doing of the human
being that killed Gandhi “a fighter with
no weapon sharp and keen” (“Great
Men Have Come” 8). He emphasizes the positive
virtues in such a way that there is no need
of further saying that evil is bad. Throughout
the sonnets the poet seems to be worried about
the present state of humanity that, by ignorance,
was lurking towards the path of destruction,
and he strongly believes that the human civilization
as a whole is in need of a vision that can lead
them to the correct path. To be more specific
“The darkness of ignorance” that
prevailed in Nepal, India, and the whole world
during that period needed the “pure and
shining light.” In response to such an
immediate need of the period, Devkota believes,
“the great souls” like Gandhi take
birth to liberate not only themselves but the
whole race from the darkness. Admiring the eternal
beauty of such liberating treasure he writes:
His light began
To shine the moment when the dark self flown
He walked into his country’s service,
millions
Of ages throw the rays – not crores but
billions…
(“What is Our Wealth” ll. 11-14)
The deeply philosophical and meditative sonnets
on Bapu deal with the theme of quest for greatness
in general, and the achieved greatness of Gandhi
in particular. The quest for greatness, perfection,
permanence, wisdom etc have inspired and awakened
many souls in many times. In this sense Devkota
also participates in that saintly practice by
writing these sonnets. Poetry for both Devkota
and Gandhi is a higher form of art. The only
difference is Gandhi practiced such a “higher
art” in life and made his life “an
epic life” and Devkota as a genius poet
saw poetry being personified in Gandhi. Anyway
the life of quest is poetic life that contains
“a trance of truth”. The rhythm
of such poetry brings harmony among races, acts
as a sweet melody to every human heart where
there is no trace of discordance. To quote:
There is a higher poetry in the soul,
A rhythm to the race, a harmony,
The metre of the heart, a symphony
Of life with all society as a whole.
There’s art in life, beauty in utterance
An epic in a lifetime, Truth’s a trance.
(“When, Bapu, I begin a line…”
ll. 9-14)
The sonnets meditate upon the concept of greatness
more in spiritual sense as an alternative to
the material sense of greatness. For him magnitude
is not measured in terms of the material success
but it is measured in terms of knowledge and
wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom yield to humbleness
which ultimately leads to purification of soul.
Such purified and “…the chastened
soul” he believes, “disciplines
self all hours” (“Humility is Beauty”
l. 12). The poet believes in evolutionary principle
of greatness as he believes that the greatness
is not given, not bestowed rather it should
be earned. It can be earned through the right
conduct. The right conduct for him is not a
magnanimous and vain attempt to achieve unachievable.
For him “True greatness is a thing of
higher grace” (“I Often Wonder in
What Greatness Lies” l. 8). And “It
lies in ordering every nature grain” (l.
9). Similarly disciplining of our thought, will
and emotion, renouncing the personal greed and
selfishness and utilizing the energy of soul
by brain are essential to meet the universal
purpose of humanity.
The enlightened soul can prepare the foundational
path for people to the state of higher kind.
The carnal desire is the great enemy for man
so it is to be conquered to attain the godhood
which Gandhi did and he enlightened not only
himself but the whole race.
Devkota believes in two rounds of existence,
one meek, temporal, vulnerable and mundane where
there is a chance that human soul gets tainted.
There are so many tempting forces that try to
drag them down. The evils like personal greed,
selfishness etc. are not easy to conquer. They
have the beguiling force to blind them. The
poet mocks at such mundane short-sightedness
of materialist society which blinds people of
real quest and deludes them as a result they
start fighting for the trivial. The people in
illusion as he writes in “I Often Wonder
in What Greatness Lies” can not see the
right path rather they,
… want magnitude like a rake
Strain too much wrong till all their effect
dies.
Some strut. Talk big, some death wish to embrace,
Embrace martyrdom, and some make loud cries,
Some play politics…and some thunder skies.
(ll. 3-7)
On the basis of how they discipline their life,
people can take different paths. The very obvious
course is to follow, without questioning; the
“fate” offered to them by the situation,
which is common to majority of the people. But
the superior to this is another round of existence
which is of higher kind, the transcendental
one. Here Devkota sounds more Platonic while
dealing with the theme of eternity, permanence
and transcendence. The permanence and eternity
is followed by sticking to truth, selfless action,
none possession, humility etc. Truth is the
supreme form of beauty and “Great things
are little truths in God’s grand sight”
(“Make me not Great” l. 11). So
to achieve greatness in true sense is possible
by “harnessing to God’s will”
(“The Soul of Man” l. 14). For people
to lead towards such a pious action is nothing
but religion. He says, “Religion is the
way to Truth and God” (“Religion”
l. 10). But the notion of religion he advocates
for is not the sectarian type where people are
divided rather that united. He defines religion
in terms of the universal principle of humanity
that is measured in terms of the true service
to other people. The lines from his sonnet “Religion”
describe it as follows:
Not in the field of conflict, not in war,
Not in the pride of race, Religion lies;
But in broad sympathy without disguise,
In love, in variety, no racial war.
The Koran is the Veda, Bible too-
Are Brahman gospel so far they contain
True words of wisdom. . . .
(ll. 5-11)
The real triumph of life depends upon the capacity
of translating thought into purpose, knowledge
into life, and dream into action. In such a
journey to complete freedom there may arise
many obstacles. The success lies not in the
running away from the troubles but in daring
fight against them. Any kind of adversary is
a test of greatness. Face the difficulties for
good cause. We get success in the test of temporal
life through noble action. Even death is a good
friend. Do not fear it because “with it
we sleep and eat” (I Conquer fear, O Man!”
l. 5). Try to make death meaningful by accepting
it for good cause like Gandhi did. The enemy
of any kind can never be defeated through war
but through the action of non violence that
is “spiritual potent without a flaw”
(“Non-violence is a Force, a Working Power”
l. 4). The violence can never defeat the other
it will kill his own race (“Do you Believe
in War?” l. 1-14).
Having been influenced by such philosophy of
Gandhi, Devkota treats hardships as a necessary
condition for liberation. The affliction, miseries
and oppression experienced by millions of people
can prepare ground to formulate an exceptional
reality to address them. The following lines
show the price of endurance and celebrate heightened
awareness: “He that destroyeth me gives
me rebirth, /He that kills flesh brings out
my soul on wing” (“My Tyrant is
My Benevolent King” ll. 3-4). These lines
clearly echo the national situation of Nepal
and India under Rana regime and British Raj
respectively. He further says, “All evil
in the world has schooled my soul” (ll.
5). But that is not an eternal binding force
because he says, “…that makes me
but wash me, chastens grime” (ll. 6).
In a paradoxical expression he further says,
“The thing that limits makes me sublime/He
that me maketh small makes big my pole”
(ll. 7-8). Therefore, death is not the end of
life; suffering is not an unproductive rather,
Death is my freedom …suffering my power.
Pain is my gain …disturbance gives me
peace.
World’s desert makes me oasis, greatest
dower.
He that glows warms me here, stars me in bliss.
The flesh destroyer is my Mukti’s way.
(“My Tyrant is My Benevolent King”
ll. 9-13)
These lines clearly reflect the immediate response
of the poet to the situation of crisis that
denied him everything, and the defiance of oppression
is raised to a highly emotional level. It might
perhaps be said that the experience of oppression,
traumatic though it may have been in many ways,
did not so overwhelm the creative powers of
the poet as to reduce him to silence, or else
to inconsequential rhetoric. Rather on the contrary,
it evoked a response from the creative imagination
which in itself is unique and valuable.
The social theme and aspiration of the period
supply enough materials for the subject matter
of the sonnets. That means the wounds, sufferings,
or all the derivatives of wretchedness are beautifully
encoded in them. We know that Devkota sacrificed
his personal happiness and comfort and severance
of the family tie due to the repressive measures
of the Ranacracy. The anguish of suppression
stays with him deeply which instils a psychology
of fear that is frequently repeated in the sonnets.
The story of oppression in the homeland tends
to serve as alibi for him in that it provides
a powerful moral force, political energy and
imaginative stimuli to fight against the anti
humanist evil force.
The vision of the new world in the sonnets is
an ideal world where experiences of the homeland
and the outside merge to create something new
which is not divided between “here”
and “there” and does not divide
people between “us” and “them”,
“enemy” and “friends.”
In the just world of Gandian vision and Devkotian
dream all the oppositions created by the narrowness
of humanity are resolved where one loves the
other not hates.
Work Cited
Devkota, Laxmi Prasad. Bapu and Other Sonnets.
Kathmandu: Mahakavi Laxmi Prasad Devkota Study
and Research Centre, 2006.
^top
Prakash
Subedi
Devkota's "Chicken Broth":
Manifold Hues of a Minor Conflict
Devkota's subjective-narrative essay "Chicken
Broth" strikes its first blow upon the
belief that "[p]leasure is probably the
last thing you expect of an essay" (Klaus
4), and presents itself as a wonderful reading
experience. It unfolds with an apparently simple
conflict: whether or not a Brahmin (however
sick or cold he might be) should kill and eat
a chicken in the sacred premises of a Hindu
temple, "a centre of sanctity" (28).
But, as we proceed and contemplate, it is through
this simple conflict that a multitude of individual,
social, cultural, ethical gender issues are
ushered in.
The essayist, who has been reduced to a mere
"ghost of [his] former self" (28)
as a result of a recent gastrectomy surgery,
is joined by his wife, Mana Devi, and his nephew,
Madan Chalise, on a three week retreat to Adeshwar
temple in search of a better climate. Soaked
almost "to the skin" in the "heavy
downpour"(29) and completely exhausted
during the brief journey, he readily endorses
Madan's rather slapdash suggestion that chicken
broth alone could be the best antidote in that
situation. The proposal leads to a prolonged
heated argument between the "God-fearing
and God entranced" lady who is simply "horrified
at the idea" (28), and the essayist who
is obstinately bent upon having the forbidden
fare. She is "started up" and scared
at the very idea, charges him of being an atheist,
a "stark materialist," and speaks
on the "sanctity of animal lives"
(29). The essayist tries to outwit her with
the obvious advantage of his command over logic.
He manipulates scriptures to his purpose, refers
to the "practical common sense," attempts
to prove that even vegetarians live upon "pillage
and murder in vegetable kingdom," and "lectures
on health and hygiene" (29). But the poor
woman who had but a "few solid arguments
against that virile attack of [his] male logic"
sustains her disagreement until the essayist
throws his trump, that is, his argument that
"a husband living [is] worth the sacrifice
of one thousand and one religious texts"
(29). No further possibility of argument survives
for a faithful Hindu woman after hearing this
rather disturbing statement. Once reminded of
her potential widowhood, she has no choice but
to give in. What follows ahead is rather unimportant:
bringing and butchering the chicken, cooking
and eating it, and bribing the keeper of the
place when he happens to discover their secret.
"A lyricist in prose" (Pradhan 196),
Devkota's skill and talent as an essayist is
evident throughout the essay– in his lucid
and articulate language, in his masterful story
telling, in his knack to create the sense of
immediacy and excitement, and in his unparalleled
sense of humour. But what stands apart from
all of them is his ingenuity and ability to
give equal legroom to both sides of the conflict.
One major flaw found in most of the argumentative
essays is that both the motions of the debate
are not given equal consideration, and the argument
the essayist ropes dominates the whole essay.
The stance Devkota has taken in this essay,
however, is noticeably different. Of course,
he follows the path of reason and believes that
"if mutton [does] not lead the way to atheism,
neither could chicken roast or chicken broth"
(29). But he not only gives ample consideration
to his wife's case but also clearly sympathizes
with her inability to fight the "male logic"
(29) of her highly educated witty husband. He
sounds sarcastic towards himself when he declares
that it was "the grand triumph of logic
and dialectics" he had achieved in his
life "in the presence of the orthodox minded
specimens of the feminine species of [his] own
holy race…" (30). In the battle of
logic, it is the essayist's argument that appears
to be the winner. But it is the apparently defeated
woman who wins all the sympathy of the readers,
which the essayist also admits on reflection:
"I felt my own inner soul rather rebelling
against me for befooling or overriding the holy
instincts of a mother spirit of my own holy
race who so wisely protested against my course
as an unintelligent infraction of the holy laws
of our Kind!" (30). Though God Shiva, in
the form of Adeshwar, never tumbles down from
his heavenly abode to punish the impertinent,
the essayist's self-inflicted punishment in
the form of feelings of guilt and regret for
befooling a humble woman is enough poetic justice.
And, there lies the success of Devkota as an
essayist of a different caliber.
This essay was written towards the end of Devkota's
brief but enviably prolific life. In a discussion
of Devkota's essays in Nepali, Rajendra Subedi
mentions his later essays as showing him "moving
ahead from his initial affinity with the pleasant
nature" towards "the complexities
of life and the protest of the traditional values"
(78). This generalization regarding Devkota's
Nepali essays written at this phase is also
equally applicable to his English essays written
around the same time. Its main thrust, thus,
is the conflict between the individual desires
and social-cultural restriction. But the conflict
can be interpreted on other different levels,
too. First and foremost, the essay can be seen
as an explication of how deep rooted cultural
values are. It's not the poor woman who, as
normally is done, is to be blamed for being
dogmatic and rejecting the apparently reasonable
argument of her husband. It's rather the cultural
and social expectations, and restrictions, adhering
to which is a necessary prerequisite to be a
respectable member of that society, that make
her obstinate. Secondly, the same conflict can
also be seen in the light of gender issues:
How male logic, through its adamant attachment
to the cerebral reasoning and through even fallacious
argument, is bent upon laughing at and defeating
the naïve but rather earnest female stance.
If seen carefully, it is not through a genuine
and valid argument that the essayist convinces
the woman; it's rather through an appeal to
her emotion, through threatening her of her
potential widowhood that he patches up the issue
in his favour. Finally, the conflict can also
be seen in the ethical light. The question of
a Brahmin slaughtering a chicken in the temple
premises and eating it may, in itself, be acquitted
of serious ethical incrimination. But the manner
of emotional blackmailing put to use for this
end and the latent consequences of the irreverent
act such as its effect upon the "he-hermits
and she-hermits that dwelt and prayed within
the sacred precincts" (30) obviously raise
questions of ethics. If seen from this viewpoint,
the essayist with the "audacity to tell
[people] to their faces" (33) that he had
committed the sacrilegious act does not anymore
remain the obvious winner that he appears to
be at the end.
The essay confirms Kumar Pradhan's observation
that Devkota "[a] great poet," was
even "greater as an essayist" (196).
Talking about the intensity and breadth of the
essays Devkota wrote, Pradhan writes: "Each
essay is his reverie. His moods differ widely:
if he is compassionate, he is also humorous
and ironical in satire, if he flies on the wings
of his fancy and imagination at one place, he
is all pathos or teasing elsewhere" (196).
Interesting though, all these characteristics
that Pradhan mentions about Devkota's essays
in general can be found in this single essay.
This transformation of an apparently minor conflict
largely arising out of a seemingly humble, commonplace
anecdote, which would have been ignored or brushed
aside as a mere trifle at best by many, into
a compassionate multidimensional piece of art
is the best example of what Devkota, as an essayist,
was capable of doing. Installing the possibility
of virtually innumerable interpretations in
a minor conflict as this proves his matchless
ingenuity.
Works Cited
Devkota, Laxmi Prasad. "Chicken Broth."
A Survey of Nepali Literature in English. (M.
Phil. Course Packet. Unit 2: Prose). Kathmandu:
IACER, 2006. 27-33.
Klaus, Carl H. "Essay." Elements of
Literature. Ed. Carl H. Klaus et al. 4th ed.
Calcutta:
Oxford University Press, 1991.3-118
Pradha, Kumar. A History of Nepali Literature.
New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1984.
Subedi, Rajendra. Shrasta-shristi: drasta-dristi
(Creator-Creation: Observer-Vision).
Kathmandu: Sajha Prakashan, 2043 (B.S.).
^top
Hem Raj
Kafle
Devkota’s “Apology”:
Individual Condition vs. State Policy
Apart from the highly acclaimed works in Nepali
language, Laxmi Prasad Devkota has several English
writings to his credit. These writings fall
into three major categories. The first are his
original writings consisting of such poetic
works as Shakuntala, Bapu and Other Sonnets
and ‘The Brook,” and essays like
“An Apology for the Child-Eater,”
“Pulling down the Higher Leg,” “The
Necessity of a Strongly Organized Writers’
Union for Nepal,” “The Electric
Bulb,” and “Chicken Broth.”
The second category comprises such works as
“The Lunatic,” “The Donkey
Speaks,” and “To a Beautiful Prostitute,”
which have been translated by the poet himself.
In the third category are his translations of
other contemporary poets. Some important works
in this line are Lekh Nath Paudel’s “The
Parrot in the Cage” (“Pinjarako
Suga”) and Madhav Ghimire’s “April”
(“Bashakh”) and “Annapurna.”
The present paper samples Devkota’s essay
“An Apology for the Child Eater”
as one of the most candid expressions on social
issues. The purpose here is to explicate how
the essay shows a conflict between individual
human condition and state policy, and how the
conflict serves as an important rhetorical tool
for social criticism. To begin with, Devkota
builds this conflict on the question of legal
sanction against the “cannibal parents,”
who are “bandied from Patan to Kathmandu
about law courts for the determination of the
correct place for trial” (1). More specifically,
he establishes the conflict through two important
lines of argument. First, he sympathizes with
the “cannibal parents” and justifies
their act of cannibalism at the same time attributing
this act to the irresponsibility of the state.
Second, he declares the state guilty of the
offense of compelling individuals to commit
crimes, and even calls for a heavy penalty against
it.
The essay has three parts, each contributing
to the development of the conflict. The first
part sets the scene for the main issue: the
trial against the “cannibal parents.”
Devkota brings forth the issue with two interconnected
narratives. The first narrative portrays a spectacle
in which the “Mongoloid faced” couple
are being taken to the “correct place
for trial” by the “police dwarfs”
as if they were “a pair of human brutes
in fastening ropes,” and the “jeering,
jostling, scandalized” and “unthinking”
public are watching the whole scene with “indignant
curiosity” (1). The second follows as
Devkota’s inference of the roots of the
act of cannibalism committed by the accused
couple. Devkota says that they “mated
together . . . in utter innocence” and
gave birth to a child in complete ignorance
of the nature of responsibilities involved in
parenting (1). The essayist’s first critical
remark on the state’s negligence comes
in this part itself: “Who told them that
procreation entailed the heaviest of human responsibilities?”
(1). This rhetorical question implies that the
state has not properly educated its citizens
about their individual and social responsibilities,
and that the “innocence” and ignorance,
added to the extreme of hunger and despair,
has been the main cause of the crime. This part
therefore anticipates the essayist’s principal
assertion that individual crimes stem from the
state’s failure to ensure proper living
condition.
The second part contains Devkota’s personal
judgments of the circumstances in which the
poor parents must have commited the crime. Devkota
writes that the “handicapped paupers”
were already “paralysed by the unbearability
of the burden and the inhumanity of the social
whip” (2). The “mother spirit,”
he adds, had killed her son “in a temper
of fury” because she was “irritable
and dehumanized” having been without a
morsel for a week (2). At this point he foregrounds
the concept that individual actions can be justified
under such conditions as enforced impoverishment
and starvation. He warrants this notion with
a revelation of his own personal experience
of the “intensity of famishing flames”
in the Nepalese severe winters when one feels
like eating one’s own kind (2). Here he
maintains that hunger is not unnatural, but
the state, when it neglects the “animal
claims” (2) of a starved individual, is
to blame for the outcomes of the starvation.
The third part highlights the actual conflict
between the individual actions and the state
policy. Here Devkota admits that the mother
cannot be justified for killing her son so far
as the “moral code of human actions”
(2) is concerned. However, he contends that
such action should be judged “in terms
of social atmosphere and the spirit of social
and political organisations” (3). Here
he calls for the consideration of actual social
and political grounds of certain offenses before
undertaking any formal legal action against
an individual offender. The essayist’s
voice becomes vehemently critical against the
state at this point. He presents the main rhetoric
with a more powerful question: “Can you
doom human beings to famished wolfdom in your
society or your state and expect normal standards
of moral behaviour with them?” (3). He
further explicates the state’s failure
to ensure grounds for common sustenance and
well-being, and hence deems it ineligible to
exercise any formal legal action upon individuals.
The conflict comes in full shape when he challenges
the state and its legal authorities: “If
you do not feel guilty of that act of cannibalism,
as a spectator of the brutes [the cannibal couple],
you have absolutely no right to sit in judgment
. . .” (3). And the conflict becomes even
more strident when he calls for “a heavy
fine and a severe penalty upon the state as
a whole, rather than on the individual”
(3). At this point the essay becomes a call
for necessary reformations in the functions
of the state. Devkota appears genuinely concerned
with the plight of people who are often squeezed
between extreme poverty and ineffective state
authority.
The conflict functions as a significant rhetorical
tool in the essay. It mainly foregrounds the
notion of social injustice as an outcome of
ineffective state policy. This kind of policy
actually entails the state’s responsibility
for “maintenance or creation of living
conditions that are conducive to human welfare”
(“Social Policy”), which is the
fulfilment of basic needs like food, shelter,
health, education and social security. The state’s
indifference to public welfare and the subsequent
impoverishment and starvation of citizens actually
leads to social injustice. For Devkota, the
condition of individuals driven to “famished
wolfdom” by the “measure of dehumanisation”
practiced by the state’s “politicians”
and “social pillars”(3) is the actual
condition of social injustice in Nepal. His
argument in this point echoes Jean Jacques Rousseau’s
view of “inequality,” which results
from the “superfluities” of “the
privileged few” while “the starving
multitude are in want of the bare necessities
of life” (116). Thus, Devkota stands in
opposition with the state castigating its failure
to implement social policy correctly.
Furthermore, Devkota questions the viability
of legal sanction against individuals who are
already suffering injustice in impoverishment
due to the failure of state policy. He finds
the state “reflected in the child eating
parent” (4), and “guilty of the
act of cannibalism,” therefore not morally
fit for any action against the individual who
“receives his share of the pressure from
above [the state itself]” (3). Questioning
thus the feasibility of prosecuting the accused
couple, he appears to reflect George P. Fletcher’s
assertion that “punishment makes little
sense unless those who are punished are indeed
responsible for the wrongs that trigger a punitive
action” (519). Devkota here indicates
the need to rationally analyse the grounds of
accusation before passing unfair penalties upon
citizens -- an advocacy of making legal procedures
more realistic and inclusive of alternative
possibilities. With his notion on the precedence
of general welfare, Devkota stands in favour
of the practice of natural law. Natural law
theory’s basic assumption is that human
law is “conceptually connected with the
moral values like justice and the common good”
(Spaak 469). Devkota’s concerns for justice
and welfare clearly reflect this notion. Besides,
natural law also acknowledges the existence
of “higher law,” which governs all
the human laws so as to safeguard general welfare.
Devkota has actually reflected this notion in
“The Highest Law,” one of his sonnets
on Mahatma Gandhi: “The highest law is
not the penal law” (34.1). Here he maintains
that a state mainly has its foundations upon
the questions of “universal welfare”
(34.7), wherein real justice comes when “Conscience
goes a crystal with no flaw” (34.2), but
not through the working of “a human tongue”
(34.9).
Devkota’s position in “An Apology.
. .,” is that of a humanitarian lawyer,
and in a way it reflects his knowledge of law
and legal proceedings. As such, the essay depicts
his unrest at the sufferings of common people
in the custody of an unsuccessful state. The
real strength of the intended conflict lies
in how he indicates a number of faultlines in
the state mechanism. First, the state keeps
its citizens starved. Second, it does not educate
them. Third, it allows them to commit crime
in desperation. Fourth, it arrests them in the
name of legal action, makes a show of their
ill-fate and exposes them to public indignation.
In all these cases, it appears indifferent and
irresponsible about the welfare of the citizens.
Devkota’s concern, however, is not the
acquittal of the “cannibal parents”
in particular, but of the overall reformation
in the state apparatus, such reformation that
would naturally prevent individuals from committing
crimes. His advocacy in the position of a lawyer
underscores sympathy and justice for the poor
accused (common citizens) against the negligent
and irresponsible accuser (the state).
For Devkota, the most essential role as a writer
is to “maintain a high degree of candour
in the expression of [his] personal observations
and expressions of opinion” (“Pulling
Down” 5), and to “exert” against
all the “present day evils and limitations”
(“Necessity” 18). Without such candour
and exertion, he would find himself “unworthy
of democracy” (“Electric Bulb”
22). The present essay no doubt exemplifies
the same Devkotian mode of authorial responsibility,
the same extent of candour in favour of general
welfare against the social ills within an inefficient
state. One finds such candour equally evident
in the poems “The Lunatic,” “The
Donkey Speaks” and “To a Beautiful
Prostitute.” So, as a writer, he presents
himself as a social critic, a master of invectives,
in favor of human dignity against dehumanizing
elements like ignorance, starvation and public
neglect. In “An Apology . . . ,”
he has brought forth a voice of alarm through
the portrayal of conflict between individual
human condition and ineffective state policy,
the voice that urges the state to work for a
social system where life of dignity gets greater
value.
Works Cited
Devkota, Laxmi Prasad. “An Apology for
the Child Eater.” A Survey of Nepali Literature
in English. (M. Phil. Course Packet. Unit 2:
Prose). Kathmandu: IACER, 2006. 1-4.
---. “The Electric Bulb.” A Survey
of Nepali Literature in English. (M. Phil. Course
Packet. Unit 2:
Prose). Kathmandu: IACER, 2006. 21-5.
---. “The Highest Law.” Bapu and
the Other Sonnets. Kathmandu: Devkota Study
and Research
Center, 2006.
---. “The Necessity of a Strongly Organized
Writers’ Union for Nepal.” A Survey
of Nepali
Literature in English. (M. Phil. Course Packet.
Unit 2: Prose). Kathmandu: IACER, 2006.
13-9.
---. “Pulling down the Higher Leg.”
A Survey of Nepali Literature in English. (M.
Phil. Course
Packet. Unit 2: Prose). Kathmandu: IACER, 2006.
5-11.
Fletcher, George P. “Punishment and Responsibility.”
A Companion to the Philosophy of Law
and Legal Theory. Ed. Dennis Patterson. Massachusetts:
Blackwell Publishers, 1996. 514-23.
M. Phil. Course Packet: “A Survey of Nepali
Literature in English.” Kathmandu: IACER,
Fall
2006.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract
and the Discourses. Trans. G. D. H. Cole.
London: David Campbell Publishers, 1993.
“Social Policy.” 29 Dec. 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_policy>.
Spaak, Torben. “Legal Positivism, Law’s
Normativity, and the Normative Force of Legal
Justification.” Ratio Juris 16.4 (4 Dec.
2003): 469-85.
^top
Sarita
Bhattarai
Can Barbarism Be Justified?
One of the major conflicts in the essay “An
Apology for the Child Eater” by Laxmi
Prasad Devkota is that of barbarism vs. civilization.
The dictionary definition of barbarism is “cruel
or violent behaviour” while civilization
is defined as “a state of human society
that is very developed and organized.”
Civilization and barbarism are two conflicting
factors because an individual is expected to
follow certain accepted norms and conventions
in a civilization and is responsible for his
actions. But that same individual also has the
responsibility of gratifying his basic needs
of food and shelter. In other words, an individual
must have food and shelter in order to survive
but must follow certain norms to live in a group.
A conflict arises when one has to choose between
survival and social code. In the essay, the
writer talks about the reprehensible action
committed by a starved mother who killed her
own son and both parents ate the child. For
these parents the desire for self preservation
wins over civilized behaviour. Sigmund Freud’s
book as reviewed by Wikipedia, describes the
people’s place in the world as a hinge
between their search for freedom and society’s
demand for conformity. In other words, civilization
restrains instinctual human drives. Humans,
who are naturally violent by nature must suppress
this violent part in order to live in a civilized
society (Civilization and Its Discontents).
Since the desire for survival is the first concern
of all living creatures, the two parents who
ate their child can thus be regarded as human
beings whose instinctual drive overrode their
civilized behaviour.
Devkota strongly asserts that a state which
is unable to carry out its responsibilities
towards the citizens is equally or in fact more
guilty of the crimes committed by them. He questions
“Can you doom human beings to famished
wolfdom in your state and expect normal standards
of moral behaviour from them?”(3). The
child eating parents have committed the act
of barbarism due to utter hunger and misery
and sheer helplessness. It is the responsibility
of the state to fulfill the basic needs of food
and shelter for its people? However, the writer
argues that when the state fails in its responsibility
“…demons were born of hunger, devils
of appetite, and furies of thirst.”(2)
leading to cannibalism.
One of the inherent features of Devkota’s
prose writings is his presentation of ideas
and opinions through forceful and logical arguments
(Durga Prasad Aryal 102). Through strong arguments
he is able to persuade the reader that although
the act of eating one’s own child is one
of barbarism and considered morally wrong in
a civilized society, the needs for survival
may outweigh morally acceptable behaviour. “In
‘A Modest Proposal’ Jonathan Swift
has concentrated all his indignation at the
terrible poverty he saw everywhere in Ireland”
(Unal Aytur 40). Devkota, who to some extent
is influenced by Swift, has preferred to look
for the innumerable reasons behind the savage
act rather than the act itself. By doing this
he compels us to question what is considered
civilized and ethically correct and what is
not. If a mother’s hunger overpowers her
love for her child who is to blame? Is it only
her fault that she is hungry and doesn’t
have the means to feed herself?
Devkota demands a “severe penalty”
on the state as a whole rather than on the individual.
If the state feels no remorse for that act of
cannibalism then it has “no right to sit
in judgment” and condemn cannibalism because
it has also helped to “create the circumstances”
for such a savage act (3). The writer realistically
persuades the reader that if the two child eaters
are considered guilty of cannibalism then the
state is also equally guilty of not fulfilling
its responsibility and should be punished.
Ziauddin Sardar, in the introduction to Return
From Exile, writes about the Tokyo war crimes
Trial, “Radhabinod Pal was only one of
the judges who found the Japanese accused of
war crimes to be not guilty. . . . Not that
Pal was unaware of Japanese atrocities - he
was simply playing a game . . . beyond the dualistic
logic of the accused and the accusers”
(23). Rather than taking sides and putting all
the blame of WWII on the accused alone, he acted
like a silent dissenter because he was able
to see the dominated in the accused.
Devkota reasons that the action of the child
eaters was wrong but it was the state’s
apathy that drove them to it. This essay therefore
is like a “silent summons not only to
the accused to reflect on their guilt but also
to the accusers and judges, ‘to discover
the accused in them” (Sardar 23).
Works Cited
Aryal, Durga Prasad. Nibandhakar Devkotaka
Darshanik Chintan (Prose writer Devkota’s
philosophical ideas). Kathmandu: Uday Books,
2000.
Aytur, Unal. “Humor and Satire in English
Literature.” Journal of Arts and Sciences
(2005): 40. 30 Dec. 2006 <http://jas.cankaya.edu.tr/05may/04.pdf>
“Civilization and Its Discontents.”
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 15 Dec. 2006,
21: 11 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 31 Dec.
2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civilization
and Its Discontents #>
Devkota, Laxmi Prasad. “An Apology for
the Child Eater.” A Survey of Nepali Literature
in English. (M. Phil. Course Packet. Unit 2:
Prose). Kathmandu: IACER, 2006. 1-4.
Sardar, Ziauddin. Introduction: The A, B, C,
D, (and E) of Ashis Nandy. Return FromExile:
Alternative Sciences, Illegitimacy of Nationalism,
The Savage Mind. By Ashis Nandy. New Delhi:
OUP, 1998. 1-25.
^top
Bal
Krishna Sharma
Insanity in "The
Lunatic": A Device of Social Criticism
Laxmi Prasad Devkota's "The Lunatic"
has elicited different modes of interpretation
among which two predominant ones are social
and biographical. Interpreting the poem from
a social perspective, Anita Dhungel comments
that "The Lunatic" is a portrayal
of the society "full of unqualified intellectual
aspirants" ( Dhungel 20). Likewise, reading
from the biographical perspective, Chuda Mani
Bandhu hints at a turbulent and enraged voice
in the poem and opines that "a rebellious
Devkota can be overtly perceived in the 'The
Lunatic"'(Bandhu 282). Showing the predominance
of feeling in this poem, Michael Hutt explains
" the supremacy of emotion over intellect
is asserted with reference to events from the
poet's own life, culminating in a cry of outrage
at the inhumanity of humankind" (Hutt 18).
Apart from such readings, however, this poem
can be interpreted for its use of persona as
a strategy to examine the society. This paper
focuses on how the poet uses the persona of
insanity--a strategic tool and rhetorical device--
to incisively examine the overall contemporary
social scenario of Devkota's time.
In "The Lunatic" the persona serves
three main functions. First, it exposes faulty
observation, the limitation of human knowledge
and the lack of aesthetic sense of the normal
people. The lunatic differentiates between two
modes of perception: the literal and the penetrative
and aesthetically profound. The people belonging
to the first mode are normal people who stick
to superficial observations of natural beauty.
As opposed to such normal people, the persona
belongs to the second mode because he transcends
superficiality and sees "a flower in the
stone" (L 10). For the normal people, a
rose is a commonplace object; but, for the lunatic,
the same flower gives off the fragrance of "Padmini
and Helen" (L l35). In terms of knowledge
system, the lunatic points out the rigidity
of "formulas" (L 28) within which
normal people must function, whereas the lunatic's
mathematics enjoys an unparalleled freedom in
which "one minus one is always one"
(L 30). In other words, the poet's mathematics
does not function within the confines of rigid
and mediocre formulas that demand strict compliance
and inflexible accuracy. His fluid mathematics
topples down the mathematics of which the rational
society is boastful. Thus, the lunatic, gifted
with the sixth sense, rises above the physical
world and "visualize[s] the sound"(L
3) and "hear[s] the visible" (L 4).
Likewise, owing to limited or partial knowledge,
for the normal people the mountains are "mute"
(L 51), but the lunatic's extraordinary perception
attributes them with the quality of matchless
eloquence and "oratory" (L 52). As
against the rigid and constricting human knowledge,
the poet's insane self is empowered with the
vibrancy of insanity, and transcends this mundane
empirical world and rises upward to commune
with the invisible and the ungraspable.
The second function examines injustice, exploitation
and spiritual poverty existing in the society.
The poet creates a topsy-turvy situation by
dismantling the value-system in the society.
The persona visualizes exploitation in "Nawab's
wine" (L 87), poverty in "the king"
(L 89), and imperialism and expansionism in
"Alexander the Great" (L 90). With
incision and insight, he observes the dearly
held value systems of the society and overturns
them creating a set of distinct binary oppositions
such as those of "learned men" and
"fools," (L 95) "heaven and hell,"(L96)
"gold and iron,"(L 97) and "progression
and retrogression"(L 98). Mocking at the
austerity and spiritualism of the "Cave-Penance"
(L 110), the lunatic calls him "the deserter
of humanity" (L 110-11). Focusing on such
situation, Anita Dhungel remarks that from the
lunatic's perspective "the normal man's
world is upside down” (L 19). The contemplative
self of the insane poet takes him beyond the
mundane experiences to the spiritual realm where
he muses on the question of life and death.
If, on the one hand, the poet is dismayed by
"the first streak of frost on a lady's
tresses,"(65) on the other hand, he joyfully
and merrily drinks the elixir of the "notes
of the harbinger of the spring" (L 69).
For the lunatic, the world's sufferings and
sorrows afflict his soul of which the rational
people are extremely insensitive and indifferent.
Normal people in the society denominate him
as "possessed," "crazy"
and "distraught" (L 62), and, since
he is a potential danger to social norms and
propriety, he is "dispatched" to Ranchi.
However, the poet's insane persona clearly visualizes
the moral bankruptcy of the society that is
standing on the precipice of spiritual disintegration
and mental fogginess. If social oppressions
and spiritual poverty dismay the lunatic, political
dishonesty (L 120) and journalistic corruption
(L 123) prick his conscience with equal intensity.
Furthermore, the images of the tiger attacking
"the innocent deer" (L 136) and "the
big fish after the small ones" (L 137)
reinforce the idea of social injustice and oppression.
Hence, the persona wishes to revive in him the
strength of "Dadhichi" to wipe out
the entire social perversions and anomalies
from the society.
After examining the social problems and lack
of spiritual uprightness, the persona finally
wishes to rescue the people from irrationality
and ignorance. In short and sharp sentences
that let out the gush of his inner restlessness
and ferocity, the poet directs his scathing
criticism at "this inhuman human world"
(L 150) and wishes to "devour the world
immense"(L 161). To uproot all the social
injustices and disparities, the lunatic desires
to possess the strength of Dadhichi and the
impact of "thunderbolt" (L 142). The
full-fledged wrath of the persona erupts in
the form of "volcano" (L 168) and
blazes "like a forest fire" (L 159)
that let out the gush of the lunatic's inner
restlessness and ferocity to cleanse the society
of all kinds of impurities. Quick jerky words
and short and unpredictable turns and twists
of sentences show the rage and restlessness
that intertwine in the persona's consciousness.
This appears to be an attempt on the part of
the persona to purge and rescue the society
from its long-standing malpractice and unscrupulous
behaviour. Although Chuda Mani Bandhu points
out the poet's belligerent spirit, the destructive
self of the poet's persona serves as a device
to awaken normal men out of their self deception
and irrationality, and to fight ignorance. The
use of the phrase "my friend” with
which the poem is bracketed shows his bountiful
and compassionate nature to his fellow human
beings who have unfortunately fallen prey to
irrationality and barbarity. Making an attempting
to warn the innocent people against the rampant
chicanery and the canker of lies that have inundated
the society, the poet exuberates with humane
madness, which he celebrates in this poem.
Hence, the poet puts on the persona of insanity
to scrutinize intellectual emptiness, social
corruption, and spiritual decadence. With the
aid of his insanity, the poet makes a groundbreaking,
realistic observation of the exploitation gnawing
at the society. By adopting the persona of lunacy,
he subjects the time-revered knowledge and value
system of the society to his severe examination.
Insanity is the vantage-point from which the
poet looks at the society pointedly, and makes
a close, valid and realistic observation.
Works Cited
Bandhu, Chuda Mani. Devkota. Kathmandu: Sajha
Prakashan, 2001.
Devkota, Laxmi Prasad. "The Lunatic."
Creative Delights. Eds. Shreedhar Lohani and
Rameshwar Adhikari. Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak,
1997. 332-8.
Dhungel, Anita. "A Portrait of the Society:
Devkota's Lunatic." Essays on Nepal Literature.
Vol.1.
Eds.Padma Devkota and Hriseekesh Upadhyaya.
Literary Association of Nepal.
1999. 18-20.
Hutt, Michael. Modern Literary Nepali: an Introductory
Reader. New Delhi: OUP, 1999.
^top
Shaligram
Bhattarai
Evolutionary versus Non-Evolutionary
Mind in "Pulling Down The Higher Leg"
Laxmi Prasad Devkota's "Pulling Down the
Higher Leg" is solely an expression of
evolutionary (e.g., growing and creative) and
at the same time non-revolutionary (e.g., non-growing
and dull) minds. The major terms in the text
itself, 'self- evolution' and 'moribund mind'
come up with the theme that Devkota has operated
surgically in the laboratory of his own enlightened
soul to make people believe that the human person
is a rational animal only with the mind which
is in the state of evolution, and he has also
been able to prove it at the level of objective
reality so as to get the ordinary minds convinced,
forwarding the names of his contemporaries like
Bal Krishna Sam, Siddhi Charan Shrestha, Lekh
Nath Poudyal as the sensitive and evolving ones.
Holistic thinker Skilomoski says, " There
is nothing in the senses that has not been previously
in the structure of our mind" (Xii). Devkota
still goes a little beyond the idea and adds
that 'self 'or 'mind' should evolve to mediate
the gap which is existing in the quality of
thought and action of man in general, and, therefore,
focuses on 'self-evolution' for the ultimate
emancipation.
The Ethnologist Lorenz suggests:
In the course of evolution from infrahuman forms,
we have lost the instinctual controls that protects
other animals from members of their own species.
He adds that many animals make a great show
of aggression toward other members of their
species. But that the weaker animal usually
withdraws or signals submission. But we humans
have no such instinctive mechanisms (530).
What will be the condition of man if he continues
to develop such an extinct? Is it that he will
lose his power of emotions in the right hemisphere
of the brain and work with the language in the
left hemisphere? This is the point where Devkota
becomes more conscious and brilliantly forwards
his idea in favor of evolutionary self for the
welfare of the whole human species. From the
point of view of Clinical Psychology, 'evolution'
is referred to the state of the growth of the
'inner self' or' evolving mind', whereas, 'moribund'
mind for something dying, passive, dull or inactive
one. The tension of the work lies in the gap
developed between the true and the ideal minds.
He has the eyes to see the inner 'Being' of
individual differences.
For the essayist the moribund mind is the main
cause of the whole social disorganization, fragmentation
in the right sense. Thus, the essay focuses
on the idea that the world needs mending and
healing, so does the human psyche, which has
undergone an unprecedented battering due to
selfishness and superficiality, "You forgo
principles, moral values, healthy criteria,
and under your own clouds, begin to pin your
faith"(7). This is the actual plight of
the moribund mind- the mind having the leg-pulling
attitude. This is the reason that healing of
the self is the most which is possible through
right thinking at right mind- the evolutionary
mind.
Devkota's highly advanced and creative conscience
is against the prevailing trend of extreme selfishness,
nepotism, abnormally developed materialistic
ideas and too much of attachment to the senses
rather than the evolutionary aspect of the self
right knowledge. The writer emphasizes the absolute
need for self-evolution or the evolutionary
mind through the terms like 'divine instincts',
'creative challenges', 'spirit of conception',
'human conscience', 'evolution of the higher
brains', 'independent spirit', 'spirit of competition',
'progressiveness', 'self-evolution', 'spiritual
light', 'powers of inspiration' and individual
conscience'. Therefore, rather than false and
polished ideas, the work stamps on beauty, originality,
truth and creativity.
With close observation, it seems that Devkota's
concept of 'elf-evolution' is the evolution
of human sensitivities. The terms 'moribund
mind' and 'frustration' are more oriented to
non- evolutionary respect of human cognition
which create a sort of intellectual lacuna that
can be mended only through right practice of
the mind. Devkota encourages the human animal
to evolve with the mind, and not to decay with
the 'diseased' thinking. His evolutionary approach
illumines the paths of individual human destiny.
It outlines a new concept of man as a being
endowed with many folds of sensitivity. Hence,
evolutionary mind is the growing mind, a mind
for truth and well being, whereas the non-evolutionary
is a state in which growth can hardly be expected.
Works Cited
Korchin, Sheldon J. Modern Clinical Psychology.
USA: Basic Books, 1999.
Skiomoski, Henryk. The Participatory Mind. England:
Arkana, 1994.
Lorenz. K. On Aggression. New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanch, 1966.
Devkota, Laxmi Prasad. “Pulling Down the
Higher Leg.” A Survey of Nepali Literature
in English. (M. Phil. Course Packet. Unit 2:
Prose). Kathmandu: IACER, 2006. 5-11.
^top
Bhesh
Raj Shiwakoti
Realistic and Romantic Grandeur
in “The Fifteenth of Asadha”
Laxmi Prasad Devkota (1909 - 1959), an age-dominating
talent, has taken a successful plunge into various
genres of literature. Best-known for his tremendous
contribution to the field of poetry and essay,
he is a unique and unparalleled founder and
pioneer of modern Nepali romanticism. His first
essay “The Fifteenth of Asadha”
(Asadhko Pandhra) published in Sharada in 1936
is considered to be the first modern Nepali
essay. Some fifty-five essays have been collected
in his two volumes: published–Laxmi Nibandha
Sanghraha (A Collection of Laxmi’s Essays)
and Dadimko Rookhnera (Near the Pomegranate
Tree).Having written personal and subjective
essays in the romantic stream, Devkota inaugurated
the writing of excellent modern essays at such
a time when this genre was just introduced by
essayists like Shambhu Prasad Dhungel and Balakrishna
Sama with some traditional objective or expository
writing. Moreover, Devkota has translated a
number of essays by English writers like Francis
Bacon, Ben Johnson, S.T.Coleridge, Jonathan
Swift, Charles Lamb, and William Hazlitt, and
has exhibited his profound study and knowledge
of English writers. Though he is obviously influenced
by English essayists, he has given his own inventiveness,
originality and intellectual quality to his
essays. Devkota chooses a variety of topics
for his essays—nature, animal kingdom,
humanism, God and religion, art and literature,
nationality and patriotism, mythology and culture,
social evils, pastoral and rural life etc. He
deals with these topics with simplicity, clarity
and skill, and projects his own personality,
consciousness and creative imagination through
them. His essays are serious, imaginative, satirical,
humorous and highly intellectual. Spontaneity
of thought and expression is the most important
feature of Devkota’s essays.
In “The Fifteenth of Asadha,” Laxmi
Prasad Devkota depicts a realistic and vivid
|
