Abstract

In this paper I will try to place Ritwik Ghatak in a revolutionary tradition, as

opposed to the general left culture that he is placed in. Actually, Ghatak
himself, when he was in the party wrote “on the cultural front”, which
announces his disagreement with the existing policy regarding culture that is
IPTA. So, presenting Ghatak as a rupture or break, which was as much a logical
decision for him to make, as it is now for me not to look at him (as a figure and
also his oeuvre) within the general left tradition.

Two questions emerged, when I presented the paper (not complete though).
One can be ignored I think (that of his works) and not because it is not
substantial argument enough but for the fact that it leads us to ask very
fundamental questions regarding cinema and theatre. How do I (we) look at
cinema and theatre? which depends on an individual to individual. Cinema is a
metaphor for thought, which is how I look at cinema. It may not be for
somebody else. Although, there have been number of his students who testify
to the fact that Ghatak was the one to break away from realism in cinema,
which was for somebody like Satyajit Ray modus operandi in terms of
aesthetics. I won’t go more into the details here regarding this question. Also,
the debate that it will kick start is an endless one.

The other question is a very pertinent question if somebody looks at Ghatak as

a radical figure and aiming for revolution. That of what happened to the
project. Of course, it failed. I would like to respond to the question in my
paper.

So, then what archival document I have which would ground my argument, of
seeing him as a break. The document is as I mentioned above “on the cultural
front”. To anticipate another question or rather another important point
argued by Bishnupriya Dutt: Is Ghatak’s criticism aimed at IPTA, enough to
ground my argument (of seeing him as a break). My answer is no. The point is
that Ghatak cannot by virtue of his critique (of IPTA) be seen as a break. Rather
the argument is grounded in the theoretical arguments that he presented and
those are directly connected to the theoretical works of Marx and Lenin. What
Ghatak was arguing was what other people within the Marxist tradition were
also arguing in Europe and they were trying to wrest Marxism away from the
orthodox reading which can also be called economism.

This paper also gives me an opportunity to clarify some of my confusions and

questions, which I think would not be wrong to include in the paper. Though
they are related to a culture as such but since they are somehow related to the
course even if generally, the opinions would not be out of place in the paper.
These questions led me to another question of why study or read different
cultures at all, if what we understand by culture is mere repetition. Definitely
in time or in history something breaks itself from the previous tradition (that is
how Heidegger thought about tradition, to go back to tradition only to break
oneself from it) but eventually it also gets assimilated in the repetition. (As
Ambedkar would say of the inter-caste marriage or people who have eloped
and married.)

On the cultural front

• Ritwik Ghatak
Why study a culture at all? The cultural practices of a specific a people? I will
directly come to the relation between culture and politics, assuming that I
need not go into the general discourse around this question. We know some
things or we have some answers which tell us about its importance. The more
specific question then: what relation culture and politics (radical or politics of
emancipation) have? Or a more contemporary question: are politics and
culture two separate domains? The answer is yes, they are not but the liberal
discourse does not see them as two separate domains. This explains the
proliferation of studies celebrating rituals as resistance or a form of radical
politics. Definitely politics is the touchstone to understand any society acutely
and the way in which it controls other domains also. But what is at stake when
it is a relation between politics of emancipation and culture? The relation
becomes more intriguing when we know (to repeat some of the points of my
abstract) that culture, even if there are breaks or ruptures in it at the end of
the day remains repetitive. Even at specific historical junctures something new
springs up it eventually is assimilated by the opposing positions of hegemony.
At best there can be counter-hegemony but it certainly does not change the
social relations of a society. Did Brecht’s epic theatre change the social
relations of German society or has performance study has been able to do it?
We know that it is not the case. At this point I think we need to have a
concrete understanding, analysis and answers. The first point be that yes
politics and culture are two different domains but at the same tight not
watertight categories. They definitely do influence each other but also
maintain or have some specific essences, which do not allow us to be able to
use them synonymously. This allows me to critique the question and its
assumption, which is usually asked of theatre, film, music or any other art form
(the word or category culture can be used here) namely: yes, we agree that
Brecht was doing something new but what does it matter. (To repeat my
earlier point) but the epic theatre does not change the social relations. The
question whenever asked presupposes that culture and politics are same
domains. (Later in the essay this same presupposition would have altogether
different stakes, that of its autonomy as a domain). The question is then a
misplaced question. Art should never be expected to contribute politically.
Here the statement should not be misunderstood. It does not mean that art
works don’t involve an ideology or they are not political in content. To state it
very bluntly: art or culture in this scenario is expected of doing revolution,
which is never the case. It also doesn’t mean that art or culture cannot be used
as propaganda. It can be used and there are plenty of practitioners who do it.
But actually, that is never art and Ghatak would also argue the same.

The other question still remains, why to study them then? Which is pretty easy
to answer: to precisely try not to let them be assimilated in the general culture.
Their significance is symbolical. And there is no reason to give up it even if it is
symbolical. Actually, symbolical according to psychoanalysis symbolic is part of
the reality to begin with. This paper is its ambition tries to do it. To intervene
the way Ghatak is taught. His cinema is taught as melodrama. In theatre he is
studied with the general left tradition. Of course, he was in IPTA and wrote
plays but I am precisely arguing the break with it, even if it was just hinted or
anticipated.

To put the end in the beginning Soumyabrata Choudhary in an article (Why the
people to come will not and must not, be sovereign: notes on a political and
mathematical puzzle) actually argues that why these breaks, ruptures (cultural)
cannot be and must not be part of the repetition. I am not fully making use of
the essay here because in its entirety it will be out of place here, at the same
time the central argument remains relevant. There has to be certain openness
for the new thing, so that it does not fall into the cycle of repetition. Actually,
the new thing remains outside of the repetitive circle, precisely breaks the old
structures. Another reason to refer to the paper is that it specifically deals with
spectatorship. But it can be extrapolated and quite rightly to include a culture
in general.

“Literature is an affair of people.”

• Franz Kafka

The spectator is not the count; part of a democracy or monarchy as citizen or

subject and also the spectator is not a subject of the (H)history. The people to
come is an event. It is always-already out of the normative, performative etc. It
is a rarity, an exception.

Adorno also was skeptical towards the kind of subjectivities formed in this
manner, of looking at culture uncritically. (From Uday Kumar’s lecture on
Adorno available on you tube).

The central argument of my paper.

I would like to briefly state that somebody could argue exactly the opposite of
what I am arguing here. Ghatak’s document in that sense is very ambiguous. At
the same time the document only provides one with certain insights, which I
have extracted from it and they are theoretical points made by Ghatak quoting
Lenin more than once in his essay with regard to culture. (I am sorry for being
repetitive on this point but it is so because that is the important point). It is his
theoretical acumen which provides one with an opportunity to argue his break
and not to see him within the general left tradition.
The theses involved in this debate is Marx’s theses regarding the base and the
superstructure. Economy is the base of any society and all other domains are
superstructures. There is a typology involved and it’s a spatial metaphor.
Which means that if there is no base then there is no superstructure as well. A
society if it is a house will have economics as it’s foundation and the first floors
or more are hinged or made upon this foundation. The question of autonomy
also comes in automatically, since it is only a metaphor and not the literal
meaning of it. The orthodox Marxists who reduce the theses to economism,
overlook or ignore the other domains such as law, culture etc. Now each
interpretation is a chain of deductions and finally result in a concrete action
and consequences.

For example: the above-mentioned interpretation, where economy determines

every other domain leaving no scope of autonomy to the superstructure,
actually ignoring the superstructure; will result in a political action and strategy
corresponding to it. At present the means of production are in the hands of the
capitalists, by seizing the state power (strategy) we (the proletariat) will make
it a common property. Henceforth, the proletariat will have the control over
means of production. Revolution complete. Theoretically, the economic
determinism is also seen as a symptom of the Hegelian totality. The
mainstream vulgar way of equating Stalin and Hitler, seen as mirroring each
other. The point actually is also not of Hegelian totality. It is a wrong and
fallacious way of reading the theses. Louis Althusser in his painstaking research
on Marx dispelled these notions. He drew attention, actually put forward a
thesis arguing against the orthodox Marxist way of reading and interpreting
Marx’s work. He argued that the economic determinism is a determinism in
the last instance, not the only instance; which means that the superstructure
also has an autonomy and the superstructure's effect are less conspicuous but
nonetheless they also influence the economy. His most famous work ‘Ideology
and Ideological State Apparatuses’ is actually a thesis explaining the
sustenance of the capitalist mode of production and how the domain of
culture basically helps in maintaining the status quo. As stated by him in one of
his interviews he was dealing with the “most burning question of our times”:
Stalinism. Lenin also knew that if the revolution has to be sustained the
bourgeoise culture has to be replaced with the communist culture and it is a
slow and time taking process. Stalinism (if) could also be summed up as: the
party becoming the state. In turn apparently similar to a fascist dictatorship.
The bureaucratic dogmatism of Stalin and the present China are at one level
the failure of the revolution in terms of culture. Their economic successes do
not need any explanation and defense. Mao knew this very well and precisely
his call for cultural revolution. A revolution cannot be sustained by force even
if it is State force combined with the party. A number of examples can be cited
to illustrate the point. The communist party of India (Maoist); how can they
sustain themselves for 40 odd years? Certainly not by force. They have not
even captured the State but still they are a threat to India’s security, if put in
the language of mainstream media narrative.

I think this is also at stake when we deal with the culture question, when we
draw a relationship between culture and politics (of emancipation).

The paper is divided into three sections. The figure of the artist is common to
all three sections. The communist artist vis-a-vis party, people and art. The
constitution of the artist as a subject is developed through different categories
that is the objective and the subjective but which essentially is the basic
Marxist thesis.
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the
contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” (Karl Marx, A
contribution to the critique of political economy)

The categories that Ghatak uses are objective and subjective. The objective is
the consciousness of stage of historical development, which would correspond
to social being and the subjective (talent, temperament etc.) would be the
consciousness.

It is the autonomy of an art and artist that Ghatak argues for, precisely why
the figure of artist remains constant and central to his essay, and his treatment
as a subject and how he is constituted. This autonomy of the art and artist is a
sort of deductive method that Ghatak adopts, which pre-supposes the
autonomy of something as culture. The autonomy of the superstructure and its
reciprocity on the base. It will be apt here to point out that the debate within
IPTA, which was still relevant after India got independence regarding the
strategy adopted by them, which I would say is sometimes pushed under the
carpet by saying that it was an experimental phase. IPTA still today has not got
out of this debate and its position is exactly the opposite of what Ghatak was
arguing which would theoretically correspond to economic determinism. At
least symptomatic of economic determinism. The symptoms are manifested
under a different guise each time.

Ghatak also argued for high art, in favor of high art. This debate of high art and
low art is also symptomatic of a real theoretical difference or party line or
policy adopted by Marx’s interpreters. This is discussed in the section
communist artist and art. Ghatak asked the communist artist to adopt a
scientific approach towards art, which basically is much rallied point in Marxist
Literature, without much explanation as to what we mean when we say to
adopt a scientific approach towards art. Louis Althusser very schematically
tried to expound a theory, but that also dealt with how an artist without being
covertly political inscribes politics in the art work and precisely because he is
completely immersed in a certain ideology, it will escape the art work but will
manifest itself through a back door.

Besides the low art is always favored or rather to use another sort of category
popular art, because high art is too eclectic for common people to understand.
This point when examined reveals the true nature of the position and the
assumptions. This debate was furiously debated within Marxist tradition.
Another example would be the Hindi poet Gajanan Madhav Muktibodh, who
also was accused of bourgeoise position because of position regarding
spectatorship, audience or readership.

Popular art has no other merit than its sort of instantly consumed quality. It’s a
sort of commodity which is easily consumed and disposed of. The content of
the popular art is superficial and almost-always its end is commercial success.
High art or “art” on the other hand resists this instant consumerism. It
demands a higher degree of attention. A classic book or film has its own time
independent of the reader’s skills. It does not matter whether the reader is a
professor or a first-time reader, it will resist both and reveal its beauty
gradually over a period of time.

Besides the assumption in favoring popular art is that the spectatorship is

something eternal. A kind of mathematical intelligence is attributed to the
masses (actually doled out) and assumed that it cannot be improved. Rather it
is fixed forever for them by people who take this position. Actually, they forget
that this consciousness, in terms of the spectatorship is also something which
has not been developed precisely because they were exposed to a certain kind
of culture which is the capitalist culture. Films aired on television are all
commercial films. It is a stage of their development, if exposed to “art” cinema
or good poetry this consciousness can be developed. And is not this exactly the
point which Lenin also makes when he says that we will have to work with
what we have and what we have is bourgeois culture. It has to be replaced
with communist culture and this has to be done slowly. The party which adopts
this line basically has no understanding of even history.

Another presupposition in this sort of strategy or party line or position is that

there is a hierarchy of intelligence. There is a high intelligence and low
intelligence and for this there are three figures which have argued against this
sort of version of vulgar Marxism. I would not go into the whole theoretical
debates but will state how they fought theoretically with it. Gramsci famously
proclaimed:

“All men are intellectual, but not all men have in society the function of
intellectuals.” (Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the prison notebooks)

Gramsci in this essay argues against the assumption that physical labor does
not involve mental labor or intelligence. Basically, the hierarchy between
physical labor and mental labor. Gramsci’s point is much more fundamental
and radical here but it can at least dispel the notion of such assumptions as
that common people or basically the working class cannot understand high art
works. (I am working with the assumptions of the discourse, which doesn’t
mean that I endorse the division of high and low art. To start with I will not do
away with the division as that would be ideal, but the division would definitely
take into account the commercial aspect which is responsible for mind
boggling production of films and plays. At the same time ideally, I do not
believe in any sort of division, even commercial.) Mao also tried to break this
binary. I won’t go into Mao’s discussion of this binary or division and the policy
adopted for it, which translates obviously in a new culture, trying to replace
the old one- the bourgeoise culture.

I would discuss Jacques Ranciere’s formulation of this practical as well

theoretical problem, within the Marxist tradition. Ranciere sees in such
formulation the manifestation of inequality. The (assumption of) inequality of
thought or intelligence and the perpetuation of it by educational institutions.
Ranciere calls this whole process the stultifying process. The teacher or
professor either places himself or another student in a position of higher
intelligence and the rest are of lower intelligence. The placing of another
student is also structurally always below himself. He projects himself as a
sovereign in the field of reason. Ranciere painstakingly demonstrates that all
intelligence is functions in the same way. It is the necessity which forces the
mind to carve out new ways for itself or learn to use it differently from hitherto
as he has been using his mind. He takes the example of an eighteenth-century
teacher Joseph Jacotot, who himself on different occasions had learnt different
professions. He teaches Belgium without even knowing the language himself,
to children. Hence the name ‘the ignorant schoolmaster’ of the philosophical
treatise on intellectual emancipation.

These are assumptions, when somebody takes a position in favor of popular

art opposing high art or “art” declaiming it as bourgeois attitude. Or at least I
have described what is actually at stake in the debate concerning high art or
“art” and popular art.

The last section to be discussed also has similar assumptions and

misinterpretation of certain thesis, although all of them in some way or other
rather directly or indirectly are related to the main thesis mentioned in the
beginning of the paper.

The section discussing organization of people, the communist artist vis-a-vis

the people. Ghatak here also displays his acumen regarding understanding of
Marx’s writings. This I think is a very subtle point. Although art can help in
educating the masses but at the end of the day it is used to serve some other
end, means to end. The point is art or culture has its autonomy but the
question is of understanding its function in the society and the educating of
the masses is its function and there is no contradiction here. This point is
confused the most at least I had a lot of confusion to reach the point; keeping
in Ghatak’s deceptively simple oft quoted statement that he will use art for
propaganda. Cinema is clearly a mass art or rather the only mass art now and
will be more so in future. These statements appear contradictory but on close
examination are very clearly thought out. It has another point which needs to
be extracted which I have briefly discussed in the introduction to the paper.
Culture and politics are two different domains. A local example to expound this
point would to be examine the structure of any student organization. The
organization invariably has a separate cultural wing and the autonomy of it
depends upon the party line; meaning in nutshell whether to put it in classical
Marxist vocabulary the party is revisionist or revolutionary. Consequently, the
organization from cultural front would have its own strategy. Ghatak proposed
them as: to bring people (artists) on the minimum agreement and that would
be the humanist philosophy of the bourgeois culture. Obviously, the aim is to
bring them to the maximum agreement that of communist philosophy rather a
philosophy for Marxism. As Althusser claimed there is no such thing as Marxist
Philosophy but we can definitely look for an apt philosophy for Marxism and
that would be the materialist philosophy of Epicurus and Democritus. Ghatak
regarding the organization also does not take an orthodox position of
indifferently dismissing the all artists except communist as bourgeois artists.
The same expectation from culture as from politics would be to misunderstand
things. If politics and political organization is keeping in sight the seizure of the
state power. The organization in culture is slow and arduous and even goes as
far to say, more effectual then the political mass organization or mobilization
of people (which is actually a mob). The position in opposition to this
mistakenly misplaces responsibilities of politics upon culture or any specific art
form. The result of such an understanding is to see hip-hop as the new form or
manifestation of radical politics, which is very ridiculous; which at the same
time does not take anything away from the socio-political analysis of such new
forms springing up (in India). Where it is coming from and who are the people
practicing it and, in some senses, opening new forms of culture in that specific
area.

I would end my essay in trying to attempt to answer the failure of Ghatak’s

project. Clearly this a question of failure and drawing from Alain Badiou’s
‘Communist Hypothesis’, failure is the history of a success. Failure also doesn’t
mean to stop thinking the idea of certain new thing, of an event. Definitely
Ghatak failed but this does not stop us from trying to attempt what he
attempted. Or another example the failure of Rosa Luxemburg's revolution or
the success of Lenin’s revolution. One is an Aristotelian, the other one is
classical Hegelian one. The one is potential and the other one is an empty one
if seen from this perspective. The success is empty, where the failure is still
potential of fulfilling its unfulfilled task. The latter is more tempting.
Bibliography

• (Alain Badiou) Communist Hypothesis

• (Louis Althusser) Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses

• (Karl Marx) The Communist Manifesto

• (Ritwik Ghatak) On the Cultural Front

• (Jacques Ranciere) The Ignorant Schoolmaster

• (Uday Kumar) Lecture on Theodor Adorno organized under the heading

of the German critical philosophical tradition

• (Antonio Gramsci) essay ‘all men are intellectual.....’

• (Soumyabrata Choudhary) ‘why the people to come.......’

Submitted by-
Aakash
Ma 2nd year