In conversation with Abhishek Dubey - Part 3

Part 3 of the conversation with Abhishek Dubey - One that is close to my heart. About the struggle in artists and writers to be true to oneself and to the society we live in.

Have you been writing since childhood?

Not much. It was in college that I began to write in earnest.

We wrote together for Jazba and read a lot. When you start creating something together, it influences you to do personal work too.

I started to write by connecting my experiences to the things that I had read about.

Finding your voice, finding your own point of view is very slow, but extremely rewarding.

It began to be a good practice. As you continue to write, some elements in your writing style begin to improve. Your understanding changes, matures and leads to new insights.

I discovered Gorakh Pandey’s “Bhojpuri ke nau geet” and thought that they were splendid. His style of poetry influenced me. He was a people’s poet. And he was writing in  my mother tongue – the language I was born in and knew so intimately.

Until I read him, most of what I had explored was Hindi established literature – written in standard Hindi.

So, it was a revelation for me that poetry could be so powerful in the language that I know best – the language that I had seen things in – the language that tied up my emotions and experiences. So I wrote a poem in Bhojpuri.  And it felt good. I liked what I had come up with. I began writing in both Hindi and Bhojpuri.

And most of it was poetry?

Yes. As I wrote, I came to realize that poetry is not something you just “sit down” to and churn out all day long. You don’t think “Ok, I want to write a poem about such and such a thing. And I will put pen to paper and be done with it.”

Because whatever thought it is that you want to convey, all the things that you have been saying will dry up if you keep hammering out lines without completely immersing yourself in your experiences.

So you would recommend that aspiring writers write sparingly.

Poetry is not something you write every day.

Yes. It’s great practice to turn up volumes of poems and stories and it will sharpen your craft.

But  if you are going to fill reams of paper with every little experience and thought that you have, what more will you write in your poems, What new thing will you be able to create in the readers’ mind?  You will run out of words too, isn’t it?

It becomes so important to go out there and get experiences, experience life.

You have to be among the people.Talk to them, and listen to them. Keep your ear to the ground. Look at things from all kinds of perspectives that are alien to you. Writing poetry is a struggle – and sometimes out of this struggle, something beautiful is created.

How do you mean - A struggle?

There is always a conflict about whether art is for art’s sake, or art is for society, for a larger purpose.

I don’t believe in art for art’s sake. Because I feel art makes sense, has a reason to exist only because you want the world at large to know about it.  So this notion of “I make art for myself. I write only for myself” is self – deception.  If you really wanted to write something for yourself, then why would you write it? You already have the idea in your mind isn’t it? I think it was Eliot who said that poetry is in everyone’s minds –some write it and others don’t.

I am not sure I agree.

What I am trying to say is there can be no literature or art without any purpose.

 Because those people who say that we don’t have any politics in writing poetry – that we have no purpose in writing poetry – what for are you writing then? Even if you have an idea in your mind – how will you take it forward or how will you drive your imagination ahead if you don’t have a purpose?

So you are saying all art should reflect on society, should concern itself with society. Isn’t that a way to reduce art into a cubbyhole?  Do we always have to have a social objective in mind?

See the intention is there – whether it is a social one or a personal one – the objective is always there. When you are writing, you are trying to co-opt the reader into thinking in a certain way.

We train our mind in a particular way and we write the kind of ideas we train our mind to think. This could be the creative choice of the writer. I agree that ultimately the creator is the one who chooses what to write about and I respect that.

But at the same time, isn’t it the responsibility of a writer or an artist to reflect on the social circumstances of her/his times?

 Social welfare is a must isn’t it? If I continuously tell you that “Look, I will write for myself, what’s it to you?” - What is the use of that – what is the purpose behind its existence? Whatever you do in life – it will have a purpose behind it isn’t it? You will look at the productivity isn’t it?

So when I say objective – let me give you an example – Of commercial cinema.

Commercial cinema always tells you “we are creating entertainment for those who are toiling all day – giving them a few minutes of rest from their daily struggle.”

But my question is “why are you not trying to make them aware about their situation. Instead of a few minutes of happiness, why are you not trying to show the oppression that is happening and trying to change attitude and behavior?

If people cannot understand their own oppression, how will they fight against it? And if they don’t fight, how will things get better?

Art can be used to gather people, bring them together.  Instead of looting them, the way it is being done now, use it improve bonding, build peace, resolve differences.

 Corporate uses art and literature as a tool to exploit. Why can't we do it in a different way, I mean, in favour of society? Why can't we use art and literature for social welfare?

You see here, the mode of production is in the hands of the rich. Who makes these films? Who is pumping money into these projects? Why can’t that same capital be used instead in uniting people?

So you feel art cannot be just self-expression?

That is a difficult question.

Let me put it this way.

Your personal experiences exist in a social context. You exist in society don’t you? You are not an island, isn’t it?

Come to think of it, the problems of an individual are in essence, social problems.  

And these social problems need to be addressed by literature. I think personal struggles can find a good resolution when it goes through the route of social change. 

Because it is only when things change on the big social level that slowly these problems around us will disappear.

What does poetry seek? What is its quest? It looks at truths, isn’t it? It tries to look at the root of things. The root of existence. The root cause of problems.

Then according to you, romanticism has no place.

How do I write a poem on love, on beautiful things, on nature, on personal emotions when so many other things are happening in society? How can I write with a clear conscience?

And if I do write a poem on love – the kind of love between two people – how can I keep this love intact and pure? How can I keep the sanctity of such feelings and relationships?

So you see even to love – the kind of love between two people that blossoms into romance, you need a society where there is respect and value for love.

Now that we are talking about love, I wonder why we don’t look at it this way - that the poetry you write for society is also an expression of love. You are thinking about the people, aren’t you? That the things that are happening to people – those shouldn’t happen to them. Those things should be better. So it is the idea of a better world that you are imagining through your poetry, isn’t it?

I think there is a problem with the way we categorize things – that there is no love or aesthetic of love in the poetry written about the working class… why not? There is beauty in everything isn’t it? It is not necessary to find beauty in only those things that are conventionally thought to be beautiful.

But can art not transcend this? My question is – our considerations, prejudices, values and beliefs at any given time in society keeps changing isn’t it? What then makes art enduring? What makes something written ages ago still resonate with a person born today? Isn’t there some experience that transcends through all the social circumstances that we are born in?  That makes it universal and a truth that endures?

Yes. If we take the example of love again - Love is what makes the world go round – I cannot deny it. The feeling of love is universal across generations, across civilizations, I suppose.

It is true that things keep changing in society. And, certainly, my own understanding about the purpose of literature can change in the future. I think literature is a response to the circumstances that lead to its creation. The social context of a particular time creates a demand for a certain kind of literature and writers and artists are responding to this need. 

But I would still say the best kind of poetry – or art – which does endure is where there is a blend - A kind of synthesis between the personal and the political – like how Faiz brings together love and revolution.

There are many poets like Faiz Ahmed Faiz, who could take romanticism in their stride and also talk about social change and nudge the reader towards a larger social awareness.

It could be that it is really a question of craftsmanship – if a writer is not able to create a mixture of these two things, maybe he/she is not effectively communicating the idea.

 It is a very clever thing when a progressive idea and romanticism is brought together in poems.

Yes. That is something I agree about too.

But progressive doesn’t mean being pretentious or intellectual. I don’t believe in making things so high brow that only a certain section of the public have access to it. I think art and literature have to be accessible to all and that they should be so simple that anyone can understand them.

I lean towards simplicity both in thought and words – that poetry should be such that when it reaches the people it was meant for– they can hear it, understand and connect to it.

Here the role of the intellectual comes into the picture.

The role of the intellectual?

Yes. Lawyers, writers, teachers, artists. Those who are well-read, opinionated and understand how the system works.  It is their duty to make people understand the reasons behind the problems they are facing.

It’s not that the public is not smart enough. The public just doesn’t have the time or the mind space to think about the inner workings of the system. They are constantly struggling to make ends meet.

And the system is also preventing them from getting information that can be a catalyst for change. 

See, the middle class will not be doing anything about it because they are complacent with the way things are, the elite will not be doing anything because all their privileges and conveniences are derived from oppression of one form or the other. And the wage earners are worried about their next meal.

 So, it is only the intellectuals who can go and talk to the people about how things actually work in society, why they are happening and what they can do to change it.

It would be an exploitation of sorts if intellectuals, who could have used their knowledge to change society, fell silent.

To read part 1 of the conversation, click here, and part 2 - here.