fought the battle in favour of primacy of content. The debate took the shape of battle between 'perfect form' and 'perfect content'. Later EMS realized andcommented that during debate of 'perfect form' and 'perfect content', bothhimself and his opponent, Prof. Joseph Mundassery were incorrect. Hecommented:" It is fact of life that a truth emerges out of a conflict between two wrongs. The development of society is through contradictions. Thus the Roopa Bhadrata(Perfect2Form) argument, which arose out of our conflict, was wrong, in another sense itwas correct too. Evaluating the worth of literature we should never confineourselves to content alone. Mundassery was correct in insisting that form too is tobe evaluated... We accept that we were wrong on that count....We looked atliterature through political eyes. So we did not pay sufficient attention to theartistic structure of literature. That was our mistake......they viewed form andcontent as two separate categories and argued for perfection in both. That wastheir theory. In fact form and content are not so separate or conflictingcategories."
Aesthetics and Politics
Debate existed regarding priorities, in case of form and content. Anyone seekingto emphasize on forms of a particular art piece was seen as a person indulging inaberrations and persons focusing only on content was accepted as greatrevolutionaries. Truly speaking, to separate form and technique in to twowatertight compartments has been an unfortunate practice in the progressivecultural movement for long. When form or aesthetic part of a cultural piece isseen in isolation from content or politics of the context, one is led to takeinferences where by all the endeavour becomes a mechanical exercise. Change inaesthetics over the long period of human history is effected by the on goingchanges in the politics. On the other hand, denuding aesthetics or form of aparticular art piece of politics is utterly unhistorical. Novels, sonnets, ballads,operas, even Khayal or Dhrupads etc. emerged at different juncture of history indifferent political systems in response to the aesthetic needs of a particularsociety. An art form, which came in to being in a particular time cannot bereplicated in a time essentially different from the time of its origin. A song of protest of present time can never be composed in the format of Khayal orDhrupad. With the change of time a cultural geography undergoes spectaculartransformation compelling the language of art form to be different. History caninspire new productions, but an art piece of yesteryears can hardly be replicated.At different point of history, artists turned to past to draw inspiration, as ithappened in case of artists of Bengal School in our country, but whatever cameout of that endeavour was actually a contemporary version of past. A newdimension in the form of interpretation did get added to them. Hence it isunderstandable that aesthetics and politics of an art piece can never be seenbeing divorced from one another. One not only determines the other, but alsosometimes gets overlapped. It so happens that a particular art form becomessynonymous with a particular period of history. With the change of time, internaldynamics prevalent in the art form effects changes in it too.
Our collective experience
It is true that the IPTA movement, since its inception in the forties of last century,unleashed a powerful cultural movement in the country that sought to liberate the