BLURRING THE DIVIDE: FOLK ART AND CLASSICAL ART Oebaprasad Bandyopadhyay

1. PROBLEMATICS
j

*

Manomohan: SOJ I decided~ after finishing my graduation, I would pin Art Collega. Suddenly, 'one day I got a foreign magazine;':After opening it what / saw is a fuJIpage picture ofa bison! It was not a photograph- but 8 drawing! ... (the bison is) charging by its hom. You know, it was a wondetful picture-:- what strength what a vigorous gesture, as if de Vinci is defeated. Who did draw such picture- who is that artist! The caption says that twenty thousand years ago~in the stone age a primitive human drew this picture in the wall of a cave in Spain's Altamira. The event was so surprising that I said,in myself that I saluted you, my dear brothel; bison, whatever I would be in my life but not an artist. No Art School of the world can teach me to draw like this. From this,point, I was, curious about the dividing practice-the divide between civilized' and uncivilized. .. -An excerpts from Satyajit Ray's firm ·Agantuk' (The Stranger)
Binodbihari MukhopadhyaYI an almost brind artist (on whom

Satyajft Ray, a student of MukhopadhyaYl made a documentary "The tnner tye"), once (-1978) depicted an' fncident to Satyajit Ray, from whfch he had learnt something extraordinary. At the time of drawing a herd' of BLiff'aioes at the bank of the river Khoay, Santinikatan, some Santaf (aso ..caned "tribe" of fndia. I am reluctant enough to carl a ·group' of Homo Sapiens a"'tribe") women intervened'and cornrnented, babu you have drawn the ,group of buffalo excellently, but why don't you put'a buffafo ..kid in your picture?"
II
I

Tak;ng cue from the problems inaugurated by Monrnohan in liThe Stranger and this narrative depicted by Mukhopadhyay, we can problematize the issues of this paper from two standpoints:
l '

...Linguistic

Research Unitt Indian Statlsticar lnstltute.. Kolkata

A.

Art school cannot teach art per se;

B. The division between civilized and non-civilized is not tenable and can be reversed In this paper, I.will concentrate to these two problems by further problematizing the art-science division in connection with A and B by reinterpreting and questioning the folk-non-folk dich9tomy in therealm of Art. The organization of the paper is as follows: • • Section-2 starts with a small reiteration of on the construct of "Folk".

my

earlier stands

Section-3 deals with the Art-Science' divide by only concentrating on Foticault's statements regard ing the division between Ars erotica and scienii« sexuelis. Section-4 will discuss problem B tn connection with the pcilernic on "I ndian" Art as well as Folk-Classical Art dichotomy. Section-5 will briefly comment on the schooling in relation to artistic creation.

• • 2.

REITERATION

Banadyopadhyay (1995, 1997, 2000a, 2001 b) maintained that the construction of the category "folk" was bom out of super-or din'ate's essentialist gaze that de-sign-ates otherness in the form Ofa discipline, "Folklore". The dichotomous divisions between folk-non-folk,tribenon-tribe, civil-savage, sastriya~/oukika typically reflect the colonial pedagogy that constitute otherness by deploying differentexonyms to peripheral other igrioring the ethnoiendonyms as used bya community from their subject-position. These divisions between dornmant centre and dam inated periphery gav~ birth to some surrogated subjects like ';Falklore" or '!Anthmpology" in contrast to t,hevyhitemen's epistemological fields like History, Sociology or Physiology, These subjects subjectify as well as objectify dominated and peripheral "other" in the way of surrogating "human beings". Reiterating the "logic" (!) of such dividing practices Folk Art-Classical Art dichotomy will be (re) examined by analyzing the epistemological discourse on such divisions. The problem is with the imaginative boundary between these two. We must keep in mind, from the standpoint of enlightened science,

that the limit or boundary of different epistemological fields needs to be enumerated or we/ldefined, i.e., in this case determination of folk art and non-folk-art must be determined according to the existing enlightened lOgic. However the construction of such)uoundary, diachronically, is not always transparent, but rather fuzzr,and on the other hand it reflects a terisioh of maintaining the boundary, though it cannot eliminate the' fuzziness of boundaries. Take for as an instance the tension of Bratiridranath Mukhopadhyay, 1999 as revealed at t~e preface of his Banqla book on Folk art and "Higl:( art. He not only put "High" within inverted commas in the title of the book, but he also admitted that the difference between "High" arid Folk art are not always tra nsparent-the boundary In between these two cou Id be transgressed inhe Folk artist gets the opportunity to be sponsored by the superordinates and the socio-economic condition could be "improved". (1999:3) Though, Bratindradanath did not talk about the type of socioeconomic condition hewanted to be proposed, it was Dhurja~i Prasad Mukhopadhyay, the first sociologist cum economist, who had dealt with the problem of socio-economic cdnditiot:1s in the context of Folk Song-Classical song (Bandyopadliyay, 2000) as well as folk-classical art dichotomies (Mukhopadhyay/MukherjE!e, DP., 19'38 reprinted iri Bhattacharya ed., 1990: 243-251). Debabrata Mukhopadhyay; a member of the Communist party and a so-called 'High artist", in his memoir, clearly declared that his acquaintance with the (so-called) the large heterogeneity of so-called "folk" art had enriched' him too much, tholJghhe had notenjeyed any governmental spcnsorshipwhile he was visiting the places like Bhimbhetka, Ajanta, Bora etc, and contacted "folk" artists of Rajasthan. (Bhattacharya ed., 1990: 280). If these are the cases, the crucial question is, howdo we preserve the threshold between Folk and classic or High and Low? It must be mentioned that Bandyopadhyay, 2000a, 2001 b also elaborated the mythical (In the Bartheian sense Qfthe term) constructs of folk Song-classical song and Folk Drama-theatre qichotomies In connectionwith constructed core-periphery relationship among them. This core-periphery relation [eads to the fprmal subsumptlon of the periphery from the part of center, e.g., dhrupad once sung by the subalterns of Gowalior now it is considered as classic after it was sponsored by Akbar and was protested by Abul Fazal regarding its

~9f'9
entry as dhrupad was not consid erea as sastriys: Tappa was also an invention of the camel riders and the female homemakers of Lacknow sang ThumrL Kawals used to sing kheyal as their so-called "folk"songs We can cite similar examples in the realm of painting. " Furthermore, artworks, for the time being, can be seen as thingin-itself (ding an sich) or can bsseen as a permutation and combinations of VIBGYOR 'from the sctentlftco-eplstemoloqical perspective. Different schools in different space-time permute and combine these physical colors and lines to give birth to different types of artistic creation. This type of objectification 6f.artworksneeds no such division such as classical-folk, In this exposition, ] will examine two broad genres of art, viz. classical and folk art, though thisdivision does not consider the physical colors as thing-in-itself, instead some other criteria are deployed to make it visible. I am mentioning this construction of art-science division, as. it was a crucial issue at the late colonial period in Bengal._when there was a debate on the making of 'fantastic Indian Art'.! In fact;the concept of the module "Indian art"was promoted bya certainagency as a part of their nation statist-imagination and opposed by some intellectuals like Sukumar Ray (1910) or Dhurjatiprasad Mukhopadhyay (1938). Sukumar Ray told us that though, the science of-painting is based on optics and physiology, science is not the regulator of tl:1eart, but we had to maintain and. must keep in mind the universa] fa~t~ of science at the moment of judging the work of art. In that Case, any type, of dividing practice leads to error (Ray, 1910 in scmet at ed., 1986:9192). Nowthe questions arewhat is "art" and what is "science"? 3. ART"-SCIENCE DIVIDEFoucault was generalizing a space, quite unknown to him_:an Oriental space: "On the one hand, the societies-and they are numerous: China, Japan, India, Rome, the Arabo-Moslem societieswhich endowed themselves with an ars erotice. In theerone art, truth is drawn from pleasure itself, understood as a practice and accumulated as experience; pleasure is not considered in relation to a'n absolute law of the permitted and the forbidden,' nor by reference to a criterion of utility, but first and foremost- in relation to itself;" (1978190:57)
~."

~~

I db not think that at least in the politico-administrative and metaphysical totality called India, as far as my knowledge is concerned, we cannot g~ner~lize like this. There is no homogenous absolute ars erotica as such which is drawn from pleasu re only without an; reference to '''absolute law" in the "orierttal'vspace. Foucaultis constructing an orients space that is merged only in erotica without any violent (penetration of) science: It is, u fact, softer'version of old oriental discourse-it is almost saying like, "We (white) have science and you (blacks, have arts ..." ~

a

\

'Or, itmay be other way round: FOucault differentiates' between two spaces: science and arts, in fact he does not-find any tliing positive when he says that Western civilization possesses only science: "On the face of it at least, our civilization .possesses no ars etotice. In return, it is undoubtedly, the only civilization'te practice a scientis sexualis; or rather,' the only GiviHzationto have developed over the centuries procedures for telling the truth of sex which are-peared.a form of knowledge-power strictly opposed te the art of initiatiorrs and the masterful secret." (ibid: 58) 'In case of meta-geopolitical entity called lndiaalso, I must sayar may deploy the same statement with or without some modifications: "the only civilization to have devalcpedover the centuries procedures for telling the truth of sex which are geared.a form of knowledge-power strictly (not) opposed to the art of 1nitlationsand the ·masterful secret" Notice that I have erased the "only" and "not", because western civilization is not "only" civilization who developed such thing and furthermore,tbere is the dividing line between art and science in each and every space and time. We also have the procedures of telling the truth of "sex" (in the sense of Foucault) and tecHniques of self care in our own way in our literature, architecture, and in sastras like Kamasutta anc Voga darsana or in numerous treatises on sexual management (especially in smritisastras). Did Foucau)t-saheb have the knowledge of "our" way of teliing the truth of sex through kala and vidya (8andyopadhyay, 2000) before commenting on "our" domain? Did he know how did "we" categorize "our" domain of knowledge(s)? How dare he taxonomize a vast world of China, Japan, India, Rome, and the Arabo-Moslern societies apparently without knowing anyth ing about it? Furthermore. he found traces of ars erotica in the white space:
J

a

r

@f!<!>H9fct
"scieniie sexuelis versus ars erotica, no doubt. But it should be noted that the are erotica did not disappear altogether from Western civi lization; nor has it always been absent from the movement by which one sought to produce a science of sexuality." (ibid: 70) Western civilization possesses both these two and we have onl~ one. Foucault himself is constructing a grand-narrative and he is Keeping up the artscience dividing practice without any hesitation. What was prevalent in tne Brahministic tradition was vidya (vid= 'to know', now may be translated as education). According to Arthasastra,there were four categories: anviksiki (roughly 'logic'), trayi (knowledge of the three Vedas), bartta (Agriculture ,and BUSiness management) and dandaniti (politics). Apart from Vidya, there was another category: Kala (Greek, 'ars', English, 'Arts'). Under this 64 items were listed that included chemistry, carpentry, aesthetics, civil engineering knowledge of excavation, the art of tailoring, beautician's artwork, medical science etc. What is surprising to note that agriculture is absent from the list of kalas and its presence within vidya. It must be-noted here that latter on Foucault rectified himself in an interview,-but not for the reason I am talking about When the interviewer questioned him regarding the difference' between western science of sexuality and oriental ars erotica, Foucault said"One of the numerous points where I was wrong in that book was what f said about this ars erotica. I should have opposed our scienceof sex to a contrasting practice of our own culture." (Rabinow, 1984: 347~8) He then should give-the.title of the book as "The Western History of Western Sexuality". His imagination was excited by the barbaric power of these sculptures, with their disregard for the classical canons of bElauty, and by their abstract delight in form." (emphasis added)" One may ask many questions against such pronouncements. The main questions are: What is branded as barbaric power? Why it is bra nded as barbaric? Do Wh ite-men not im pose their own savagery upon the constructed "other", When they ~re naming ether in a form of reversemimicif? If there is subjective "abstract delight" in these masks, wh)/ they are not included in the classical canon?Has their any timereference for "classical canon"? Is that time-reference similarly applicable to all the lands? I do not want to answer it directly. lnstead I wa'ht to venture into the story of Indian Art at the moment of a certain taxonornization in the colonial context of formation-of nation state and civil societY. In 1915, Abanindranath Tagpre, Vice-Principal, Government Art School Kolkata, resigned and in 1916, J.aminiprakash Gangopadhyay was appointed 'in that post At that time Percy Brown. tHe then Principal of the school introduced a dlvidlnqpractlce- The Department of Fine Art was divided 'into two: Fine Art and Indian Painting. (Please note the difference: it is "painting", not "ad" per se in case af Ihdia. Had not "Painting" got the status of "Art" here in India?). In case of Indian Painti ng, (her€ were certai n.stipulations - stipu lations made from the white space - that this and'this are to be considered as "Indian Paintings." without considering the largescale heterogeneity {How do you streamline KaNRa paintings and Ajanta?) of so called Indian Art, It was obvious as the homogenjzed metaphysioal totality and Orientalist construction of India!"!natioin state is also revealed in the space of Art. Some people celebrated this-divisicn, few_di~ not Sukl!lmar:.Ray (1910 in·Som et. al., 1986) vehemently opposed such division before this incidence actually occurred as he braded this as secessionalisrn in the sphere of art: A special type of pairJfing was promoted by f~w agencies as "Indian Art". This particular painting geme, according to Sunitikumar Cattopadbyay (1344L1937) is astonows: "They are doing this art on the basis of their confused aryami (Aryanism) or pracyami (orientalisrn), Gyveilingfhe untrained drawihg with diluted foggy wash and by Imitating Ajanta and Bora style of

4. FOLK AND CLASSICAL A"RT
Picasso, in 1907, created his famous painting "Les demoiselles d' avig00n". Five female nudes ",{ere standing' almost in a row. They aresupposed to be prostitutes/sex-workers, The five faces area bit strange in their look from the standpoint of document standards, Picasso used the totem figures andmasks of some communities of Africa, l.arn citing here a remark as quoted from unknown source in Majumdar (2001 :111): "[Picasso] started to use totem fig ures and masks in his paintings.

~...f9
pairiti n~_lri th-eads of cosmetics, European blondes has become the symbol-of Bengalee educated females.' role-model by putting on short towel Or by cladding on sanitary towel at their' breasts." . This is wi:lat ealled hybrid space, which was a)so rightly noticed by Su ku ma r Ray(1 ~n Dhrj atiprasad Mu kilo pad hyay (.1938) and b) Cattopadhyay (ibid) as-they observed the amalgamation of European arfwith that of so-called lndianlt isto be noted that fn case offndian songs also, something Was called as "Italian jhiMjh if or "Scotch Bhopali UhlMihitand Bhopali are "IMian" raginis)in the early 20th C. Dhrjatiprasad Mu khopadhyay (19-88 in' Bhattacfiarya ed., '199EL 245) em phasized on the genealogical fantasy of these pouranfka paintings in connection with the lamentation of new civil sodety, which is alien<;ltedfrom the indigenoys cultu re. As the art of the the n Bengal is totally unrelated to the "social progress" (because it repeats the:Purana in fantastic forms) of the then BeQgaI, he depicted this "revival ism" as a fa Ise labar pai n before ~ctuajly ,giving birth to a ch ild. Ray (ibip: 9.3) was against such neo_-Inplan-art~enterprise to him.,it is?ll.sbsurd (in Bj;ingla udbhOT) as, P~QPo.sitionf an i!1'l~gin Cattoj?adhYflY(1 ~76,)ripiculed,this ~yntl)etic o er. site wlth)he h~lp of Parasuram's (A Bengplee s,hort-storywriter,) parodic expressions like,<;Inglo-moglaicafe or as he himself Gained',"Classical Q9zal" OFthe "9th symphony of Thumri". This is what I Called (by extendinq Bachetard) as an "epistemoloqica' amalgamation:' in the realrn.ot Bangia Gremme« (Banqyopadhyay, 1996) ... What fs initially confusing here In {his synthetic site; is the firs! place, is the defusing discourse reception of'ihe donor and receptor. Does doncr wi Ilfullyaonate:or receptor- appropriate or collaborate? .D?nor-re.ceptor often reverse tMir position. It cannot be said' simply that Plcca~o IS a receptor ofGlpnor;savageor savage lsthe receptor of dono f Ei:Jrope in·, ~in g u la r num ber. M u khopad hyay, O. P. (Bandyopad hyay, 2800) showed this-freq uent role-reversal of donorreceptorin case of music In case of painting, he (1938 in Bhattacharya 1990:245) showed only Jamini'Roy and Sunayani Deviwerethe o"nly painters, who Were interested in the "tradition" which was available within the acnbit of urban Kolkata, i.e.; the Kaligh'ata Rata ..What was dorni nant in Mukhopadhyay:s 0' iscourse is real subsurn pfion Of music a nctp<,!inting_y'the receptor super ordinate from the donor subaltern. b This is also true in case of Abanlnoranath's exposition in the realm of art. Abanindranath Thakur (Tagore) put forward this particular hy[:')othesis in his bageswari silpo probondh vaboli (1941/99:230-245) that so called Aryan art was constructed on the basis ot-subsurnption from nqn-Aryan culture-from the the anyavrqtas and akarma:s' (othe~, who, though possess bodYI but were categorized as non-humans, i.e., so-~allec;l non"a;ryans, the ancient tnhabltants: pisaQa, ~rsksss«
etc.),

It is also to be noted that Mira Mukhopadhyay (1.993)r a famous sculptor, also. extended th,is hypothesis when she was searching for poor sons of Viswakarma's and.apparentlycispersed communities of Bricoleu rs, who were a.gro up of non-typecast eng ineers .devoted to sixty four kalas that include architecture, musicology, civil-engineering, painting, etc. M'ukhopadhyay (1993) researched and surveyed these brlcoleurs in the So uth Asia and fou nd surprising equation of Budd ha, Havana, with Visvakarma. Almost all of them exceptB uddhato some extent got the villain status and Visvakarma was placed in between hero and villain inthe rnytbicel narratives.quite contral¥ to th~ n~n:atives. My point is thatif.donor-receptorare exchanging the values of-art, why .shou10' we brand them as classic or f0lk? Second Iy,wh en we are tax0l'lomizing the art in th is way we are hiding the social factof forma I subsumption. To conclude I want to quote Thakur: "It is very difficult todeclde wfHch one is tile best, Rasika (connoisseur) cannot decide to grveJirst or second or third prize for the. artist. Garland, jewelry and the garland with sandal scent and flower can be made but they have got their forms according to subjective liking, With different types of raw materials, art 'is remaining., but the expressions of art are different'," (194111:999: 148)
5. ART AND PEDAGOGY

Let us now, move to problem A, that is the problem of schooling!
Kala was not in the list of Vidya in the Arthasastra, though there is compound k.a/~vidya. How do we interpret this term? Kala and vidya (a copulative) or 1581aas yidya (a karmadharaya Samasa)? If lalitkala

is considered, as vidya or kala and vidya are studied together, in both the cases.there is absolutely no problem at .allat per contemROralY order of things. But there are problems; if art is a part. ot pe.dagogy. If

I ~b-~t

art is included as part of school curriculum it would be a welcoming decision. On the other hand, the artistic creativity will be crippled within the mechanical format of visible pedagogy. 'Even if art is taught within the organic format of invisible pedagogy or something in between mechanical and organic solidarity, visible and invisible pedagogy (the pattern of pedagogy, whether visible or invisible, is perceived from the receivers'/subjects' standpoints), it cannot escape the burden of existing state ideology. School is after all an ideological state apparatus and it instigates Standardization, Chom~ky,who is like an old physicist, is interested in VIBGYOR, instigated oy his Cartesian inheritance, only analyzes so-called "normal", "natural" "formal" sentences. However, in the domain of Art (where infinite sets of colors are illuminating) and literature, there is a prcllferaticn of "deviations" from "normal standard" (as constructed by the Ideologica.l State Apparatuses) and without such "deviations" no work of art or literature is possible. This was, in fact, pronounced by Sukumar Ray (19~O in Som et aI., 1986:101), who was also a "nonsense poetry"- writer in Bangia, when he said" ,,'If an artist, despite his/her merits or demerits, has this qHality of not to conceal her! himself-from- the others, who laugh at him/her as mad, ... s/he will celebrate the joy and success ofrevealing him/herself." In-the every occasion of madness (which is perceived from the-RATIONAL subject position), in the realm of art, there is a ~aradigm shift. Is this domain of Art and Literature a domain of unreason or madness or unscientific'? This question leads me to think about two men of Art and Literature: Binay Majumdar (a Bengalee poet) and Ritwik Ghatak (a Bengalee Film Maker) Both of them "suffered" "insanity" and underwent treatmentin the Asylum. Despite this fact of confinement in the Mental Hospital and severe madness, they had developed their own "languages" (that deviated from the natural standard) intheir respective fields. My future work will be an intervention into the psycho-biographies ·ofthese two insane persons (I will take cue from Nandy,1980/95 and 1995). When we are talRing about monolingual "standardization", we are also, like sexuality, making provision for deviations in the MARKET It is as same as proliferation of sexuality (For Foucault, repressive hypothesis does not work at all.) in the "modem" regime,

Therefore we can <learn something from the pedagogy of the oppressed a la Paolo Friere or de-schooling a la Ivan IIlich, though I have a fear that this otherness of de-schooling can also be subsume in the process of inclusion or hegemonicsubsmption in the days of free flow of private capital or market fundamentalism contr.olled by the Masters of Universe, We have ·to learn then ART of resistance resistance again all pervading market fundamentalism. From Rabindranath, Abanindranath (1941/1999), Nandalal Basu to Binodbihari Mukhopadhyay(1978) opposed schoolinq in case of ART. Notes: 1. It is a hybrid space, a synthetic site, where pouranika or mythlcal contents of "Hindu(which was constructed as a homogenous mirror ima'geof Christianity and Semitic religioh) narratives were painted with certain European techne. If anyone has a chance to look into the oil paintings of Ravi Varma in the Jagmohan palace or in the Royal palace of Mysore, s/he can easily understand the source of today's calendar art or popular re-proouction/presentation of Purana in the form of films or TV soaps. For the understanding of factitive instituting the Nation in the" lndian Art", cf. Guhathakurta, 1.998 .. Side by side, let me cite almost similar enunciation by Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay: "When I was'roarninq in the different rooms, containing crafts of primitive culture of the British Museum and' was observing the imagined, absurd pieces constructed by the unskilled native hands of uncivilized.. barbaric or half-barbaric mayhems, lwas struck by a (casting metal) sculpture of a lady's face in the midst of West African Negro arts.and handicrafts ... My eyes were opened after seeing these African, especially West African Handicrafts."
(1934/93: 134)

2.

However his position was changed after almost 25 years as this delighting surprise moment was vanished: ".... Like most of the people in India and elsewhere, I used to think that the Negroes of Africa were a savage and barbarous people and they have nothing of civilization and art, of thought and religion of high order, comparable with what we find amcnq civilized people." (1960) .

~'t
3, Only savages are not the mimic women. Colonizers ~Iso appropriate their own space by looking through the savage~mlrror of own selves, On the other hand, it must be noted, that Picasso himself and his critiques were explaining this phase of fourth dimensional cubism from the perspective of Science-the . Quantum mechanics, fo'rgetting the contribution of West African sculpture. Reader may remember that, in the realm of Science, the feigned objectivity of classical physics was vanished and questioned at this very moment of the .debut of Quantum mechanics. Chattopadhyay, S. 1993, SaNskritiki. Kolkata: Ananda Foucault, M.1988. The History of Sexuality: A 1'1 Introduction. VoH. New York: Vintage Book, Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Peng uin. Guha-thakurala, T 1998. "Instituting the Nation in Art." In Chatterji, P ed . 199B.. Wages of Freedom. New Del hi: Oxford University Press. Illich, LD 1971 Deschooling Society. london: Calder & Boyars. Majumdar, 0.2001. "pikaSo 0 aphrikar adibaSi bhaSkOrjo". Jubomsnos. (pp. 107-12) Majumdar, K. 1998.~' boll/gio Silpodhara 0 onnannoprobondho. Kolkata: Dipayan. Mukhopadhyay, Binodbihari. 1978. citrOkOr. Kolkata: Aruna Prakasani. Mukhopadhyay, Bratindranath, Kolkata:lokosamskriti Mukhopadhyay, 1999. lokosilpo bonam "ucco" margiO Silpo. 0 adibasi kendro. SOndhane. Kolkata: Oipayan.

.....

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atkinson, P. 1985. Language, Structure and Reotoduction: An Introduction to 'the Sociology of Basil Bernstein. London: Mithuen, Bandyopadhyay, D. 1995 .. Folklore .af}d Folklanguage.: West Bengal: Kalyani University. Myth

or

Reality?

M. 1993. ijiSSokannaf

Bandyopadhyay, 0: 1996. Ar-ehaeology of Bangia Grammar Unpublished Ph.D, Dissertation. School of language Development. Hyderabad: P.S, Telugu University. Bandyopadhyay, 0.1997. "'The My1h ofRegionalism'\Chakraborty, Dasgupta, . Subha ed. Regiohality and Comparative Literature,(pp. 77~83). DSA, Department of Comparative Literature, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, BandyopadhY~y, D. 2000a. "Folksong-Classi.caISongs: The Discursive Formation of Dividing Practice." Pondlcherry Institute of Language and Culture Joum,al of Dravidian Studies, (pp. 62 70). Pondicherry. BandyoRadhyay, D. 200Qb. "The Making of The Indian Philosophy of Science". From the Margins. February 2000. (pp.57-73) Kotkata. Bandyopadnyay, 0: 200laAnekaIJtfJ Sahifya~attva. (The The.ory of Plura~ lnterpretation 0 Literary Texts, A Bilingual Publication) Kolkata. Alocanaca kra. Bandyopadhyay, D. 200'1b. "Folklore: Searching ~or L~gistiCS." Singh, U.N: ed. Culturation, Jawhatjal Handoo FeliCItatIOn Volume. Mysore. CIIL. Bandyepadhyay. 0.2002. "Soul'd in and out: Representation of Body, NoBody in the Hindi Philosophy." From the Margms, (pp. 182-202). Kolkata. Barthes; R. 1973. Mythologies. St. Albans: Paladin. . Bhattacharya, S. ed. 1990. chobi~ rajniti, rajnoytik chobi. Kolkata: Dipayan. Chaltopadhyay, S. 1976 SONSkriti Silpo itiHaS. Kolkata: Jijnasa.

Nandy, A. 1980/1995. Alternative Sciences: Authenticity and Creativity of two Indian Scientist. Delhi: Oxford University Press, Nandy, A. ed: 1995, The Savage Freud. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rabinov, P. (Ed) 1984. Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books. Sarkar, P. 2001 .. /okoSONSkritir nOndontOtto. Pascimbanga' Bangia Academy. (1995). Kolkala (Trends

Som, S.• Acharya, A: ed.t 986. ba Nla S ilpoSOj naloconar dhara. in B~ngali Art Criticism). Kolkala: Anustup. Thakur, A. 1941. bagessori Silpoprobondhaboli.

Kolkata: Ananda (1999).