Stylistics and Literary Criticism in Hindi

STYLISTICS AND LITERARY CRITICISM
IN HINDI

“There were innumerable articles written on poetry, in which one would find nothing but ‘Poetry in the flow of nectar falling from Heaven.’ ‘Poetry is the line of flowers in the ‘wilderness of heart’, ‘Poetry is the echo of sweet divine music.’ Is this the way to know the real nature of poetry?...Such a style is entering even in the criticism of poetry. This spreads the danger of terrible looseness of thought and intellectual lethargy spreading in our literature. In such subjects where subtle and systematic analytical thinking is needed, if such aery nothings are propounded, how far would it be proper?”

–Ramachandra Shukla             
(History of Hindi Literature Hindi-Sahitya-ka Itihas;
N. P. Sabha, Benares; 7th edition, 1950–p. 561)

Hindi criticism even today suffers from this kind of prose-poem-like loose style. It is more of a figurative word-play than real contribution to sophisticated critical thought. I would supplement my statement with several illustrations from articles on or about literary criticism in reference books, critical journals and in Ph. D. theses. The examples given below are so telling that they hardly need any further comments:

1. In an article surveying Hindi criticism in Hindi Sahitya Kosh, edited by several scholars and published by Gyan Mandal Limited, Varanasi in 1957, on page 111-112, one ‘Vi-Ra’ writes the following :

“Reflective criticism started with Ramachandra Shukla….His prefaces of Jayasi Granthavali (1922), Tulasi Granthavali are examples of scientific study...In the second quarter of the twentieth century Western educational system, study of Hindi in higher classes, growing expressiveness of language and personalities of Ramachandra Shukla and Shyamsundardas developed criticism in a new way...the first form adopts the model of R. Shukla...the second is found in the theses for D. Phil, Ph. D. and D. Litt. There is insistence on serious study, objective viewpoint, original interpretation of facts and intellectual analysis. It is found on language and linguistics, on history of literature, on form of poetry, on some poet or author, folk literature, etc.

“Third form, in which a special work of a poet is studied in detail. Deep observation is done on Dhwani, Shabda, Pankti (line), verse, effect and all that. Bhagavatsharan Upadhyaya’s Nurjahanis of this type.

“The fourth form is where the characters in the object of criticism throw light on their defects. Nagendra’s essay on Hindi Upanyas (Hindi novel) and Narottamprasad Nagar’s Shuturmurg Puran are of this type.

“The fifth form is of progressive criticism in which Marxist principles are applied. The work and author are evaluated on real social life and its welfare. Manmathnath Gupta and Ramendra Varma’s Katheker Premchandra is such a work.

“The sixth form is of those critiques which are based on Eastern and Western sciences of literary criticism and their synthesis. Shivanath’s Acharya Ramachandra Shukla and Nagendra’s Sumitranandan Pant, etc., are of this type.

“The seventh is book review published in fortnightly, quarterly or monthly journals which introduce briefly the exterior and interior of the book.”

This profound statement is by a learned professor in a reference work for serious scholars.

2. Here is another specimen of another reference book Sankshipt Oxford Hindi Sahitya Paricheyak (Concise Oxford Campanion to Hindi Literature) edited by Gangaram Garga, published by O. U. P. in 1963. On page 297 there is a brief note on Samalochana(criticism). It has the following statements:

“Previously judgments on literature were passed by pithy poetic couplets like ‘Sur Sur, Tulasi Sasi, Udugan Keshavadas’ (Surdas is Sun, Tulasidas is Moon, Keshavadas is the stars ‘Nandadas Jadiya, aur Kavi gadiya’ (Nandadas is a real ornament maker, rest of the poets are just fake). Criticism meant fault finding. But real literary criticism according to Gulabrai is: 1. Judicial 2. Inductive 3. Historical 4. Psychological. (Nagendra, ‘Agyeya’ etc., try to reach the depth of human mind). 5. Comparison 6. Impressionistic….Nowadays Marxist criticism is also in fashion. Progressive critics attach more importance to farmers and workers, the material needs of the depressed and oppressed, rather than care for art. Under such critics Rahul Sankrityayan, Shivadansingh Chauhan, Rambitar Sharma, Prakashchandra Gupta and Bhagavatsharan Upadhyaya can be classed.” This introduction is followed by a column of arbitrary catalogue of works.

Here are some examples of Ph. D. theses.

3. Jagannadha Prasad Sharma had written a work Hindi ki Gadya-Shaili ka Vikas (Development of Hindi Prose style). In its preface the guide Ramachandra Shukla wrote in 1929: “In this book no special criteria has been used. Different entertaining styles of authors have been explained...The critic has tried to elucidate the special qualities of different writers. Yet I find the same conventional and traditional terminology being used here and there. In my opinion the reason is the want of proper words expressing the subtle nuances and shades of meaning. We hope that this paucity will be remedied with better use of language.” (Page 4, Introduction. Publisher: Indian Press Ltd., Allahabad)

What Ramachandra Shukla wrote 39 years ago continues to be the main defect of Hindi critical writing.

4. A thesis named Adhunik Hindi-sahitya men Samalochana ka vikas (Development of Criticism in modern Hindi Literature by Dr. Venkat Sharma, with an introduction by Dr. Nagendra, published in 1962 by Atmaram and Sons, Delhi).

In the introduction Dr. Nagendra says: “In the beginning there is a discussion of Indian and Western principles of poetics affedting Hindi criticism, which is not original yet is clean and not unconnected with the subject.” In this tome of 510 pages 138 pages are devoted as introduction to vague subjects like ‘Life, literature and criticism’, ‘Modern time spirit and Hindi Literature’, etc., including a history of Sanskrit poetics and Western criticism from Plato to Caudwell. There are 13 pages devoted to Dr. Nagendra. I have been dismissed in a paragraph giving a misquotation torn out of context from my statement in Tar-saptak. On page 443-444, giving summary judgment that “Machwe is illogical and talks irrelevently.” No doubt, this work is full of such contradictions and redundant material.

5. Another thesis entitled Adhunik Hindi Alochana: Ek Adhyayan by Dr. Makkhanlal Sharma (Published by Sahitya Prakashan, Delhi; date nowhere mentioned) has in its body of 401 pages first 100 pages devoted to Chapter 1–Marxism and its main principles. Chapter 2 –Criticism in Soviet Russia before Revolution–Contemporary Russian criticism, Chinese criticism–10 pages of criticism in other countries (these pages deal with Caudwell and Lukaes only). From chapter three the political and social history of Indian renaissance is dealt with and in dealing with Bharatendu Harishchandra, Chou young: The Path of socialist literature and Art in China is freely quoted. While talking of Pratapnarayan Mishra, Mao-tse- Tung is remembered. Marx and Engels are going hand in hand with Balakrishna Bhatt. This work is an ideal example of historical confusion under the name of historical materialism.

On page 251 writing about Dr. Nagendra this thesis writer says–“Humanism is the main principle of progressive viewpoint. Marx’s philosophy is to protect this humanism. Nagendraji does not accept the narrow definition of humanist viewpoint, but gives its importance on a wider level. He has combined social good and social welfare with this viewpoint. “In the beginning I had a certain aversion to moral values, because I thought them against the value of pleasure (Anand). But today it is not so. There is no contradiction in (social) good and pleasure, but there is a close relationship.” (Saptalik Hindustan 26 August 1962, p. 24) Any student of elementary ethics would understand the illogicality and irreconcilability of utilitarianism and headonism, or even physical welfare and spiritual bliss.

In conclusion this thesis writer proves Dr. Nagendra to be basically a progressive critic, on the practical level. This work is a very good example of undigested Marxism and vulgar sociology.

6. In a work entitled Hindi Kavya ki Pravrittryan (Published by Rajkamal Prakashan, date not given) containing articles by me on Mysticism, by Jagadish Gupta on chayavad(Romanticism), by Vijaya Chauhan on Progressivism (not mentioning a single poet but talking about Rambilas Sharma’s vulgar sociological analysis of Bharatendu, Premchand, etc.) and by. Namwarsingh on  Prayogavad (Experimentalism), a few opinions of the last essay are worth quoting. I quote from page 49-50. Namwarsingh is talking about Tar-saptak.

“The images of these poets were broken, indistinct, idiom was anarchic, the verse-rhythm sounded echoing distant foreign lands. But all poets were not in mental delirium. Such anguish was in Nirala, Agyeya, Muktibodh and Nemichandra. It was poignant in Shamsher and Raghuvir Sahae....There were poets like Girijakumar Madhur and Prabhakar Machwe who were bohemian and did not have any deep feeling of pain. They were absorbed in the external attractive atmosphere. Such playful poets had ample leisure to experiment –Mathur with sound-pictures, Machwe with word-pictures and reading several books. They experimented for experiments’ sake. Many experimentalists of the earlier days joined the progressive camp. Muktibodh and Girijakumar Mathur’s change is obvious. If anybody remained where he was or even retreated, they were Nemichandra and Bharatbhushan.”

These lines are written just ten years ago which the editor of Alochana(compare Editorial April, June 1967) will not like to repeat or even own. In any case ‘progressives’ criticism is based on constant self-cancellation. Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and his successors have been doing it continuously. Dr. Namwarsingh should publish his ‘neo-revisionist’ opinions for the benefit of those who may only read his previous works.

This much about critics who acclaim scientific and modern outlook about dialectics and analytical perspectives, etc.

7. Another example of such a progressively changing opinion-expression in an impressionistic fashion is seen in Prof. Prakashchandra Gupta’s article on Jainendra (novelist), published in Hans, October, 1938. On page 38-39 he writes:

“Jainendra is a revolutionary writer of Hindi. He has heavily attacked traditional customs. He is busy in the search of simple, clean, attractive life. But probably he is not able to see his way clearly through this darkness...Jainendra the artist is today fully mastering his creative powers. In future Hindi expects much from him. Reaching the midday, this constellation would brighten our universe.”

8. Sri Banarasidas Chaturvedi wrote in one of his editorials of  Visal Bharat in March 1935, commenting on “College teachers and the literary field” (P. 388)

“Who will do this work of impartial criticism? This work is not of multi-purpose journalists, nor of cowardly writers without means. To be poor is not bad, and those who can keep themselves away from such temptations of wealth are worth our reveration; but in poverty many people have to compromise. But if our college professors like, they can easily do this work of criticism. They have ample time and they need not depend on any one person for their living....But how many professors have the daring to give their independent Judgment? These people see biggest literary atrocities and keep dumb. The result is that a majority of these professors are not able to create their independent personalities. If they like they can become the custodians of the soul of our literature.”

Poor Banarasidas’s idealistic dream remained an idle fancy. Thirty-three years have passed, twenty out of them of our political independence, but very few Professor-critics have developed that ‘yea-saying’, as Niekzsche would have called it. The risk of telling truth is hardly taken by many of them. They prefer goodie-goodie remarks and safe playing and avoid all scientific methodology involving sharpness and self analysis. To exemplify this kind of tendency let me take an M. A. dissertation submitted to Kashi Vidyapeeth on Prayogavad aur Agyeya by Shailbita Shrivastava, published in UpalabdhiNo. 3, Hindi Department, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi-2 in December 1967. She comments on page 53 quoting Agyeya the necessity of ‘experimenting in fields which are untouched and unchartered’. “In fact, this new field of search is nothing but sex taboos of the individual.” She quotes Ramadherisingh ‘Dinkar’ from an article in Dharmayugadated 20, March 1966 that he believes that intellectualism of new poetry is in reality indulgence in sensualism; and comments –“Truly speaking rationalism supports bohemeanism or hedonism.” She concludes on page 61 :

“In reality experimentalism was born because of psychology. In his experimentalism Agyeya has also expressed ‘Psychoanalysis’. The major portion of his poetry is the expression of the unconscious. Expression of the unconscious is surely a new and experimental tendency. Agyeya had to do experiments with language and the technique because the traditionally current technique and language is insufficient to express the external reality in the objects. And then Agyeya had to express the unconscious internal reality. So he did many experiments with technique and language along with objects.”

Such incoherent statements are found everywhere in M.A. these and Ph. D. theses, which are also published and reveal only the fact that probably the ‘guides’ of these students do not know much about extra-literary disciplines like psychology or sociology in which they indulge. Banarasidas Chaturvedi’s idealist teachers are now mere exceptions, if not a fiction.

9. Sri ‘Sahridaya’ writes in Parishad Patrika, Vol. 4, No. 3, quoted in Gyanpeeth Patrika, December 1964 on page 55:

“Who will not be delighted by the light of the development of the national language Hindi is spreading on all sides like the moon in the bright fortnight? Today 40 universities are conducting research in ‘doctorate’ for Hindi. A research scholar spends at least three years in submitting a thesis. Sometimes a student takes five years. According to figures we have, till 1962, 539 research theses in Hindi were completed. Within last two years at least two hundred more have been added to it. The language which has in such a short time so many research theses prepared in such a short time, would have hundreds of theses prepared in next five years. But very few from amongst these see the light of the day. 80 per cent theses are unpublished. On whom would lie the responsibility of their publication: the researcher or the university? It seems that these universities are also vying with each other in producing such ‘doctors.’ Further there is an appeal to U. G. C. to make funds available for such publication.

10. A recent publication of a thesis is Hindi sahitya ko kurmachal ki den by Dr. Bhagatsingh, published by National Publishing House, Jawaharnagar, Delhi-7 (October 1967, price Rs. 30). The dedication of the thesis is to the late wife of the Guru with a photograph. The thesis of 424 pages and neatly divided in ‘What is Kurmachal (the hilly area near Himalayas), and its literary tradition. Further there are sections devoted to poets of Kurmachal, novelists of Kurmachal, dramatists of Kurmachal, etc., and then names and works and detailed introductions. Under Critics of Kurmachal, a book Gadya-path by Sumitranandan Pant is introduced in the following terms. On page 361, the following two paras are consecutive:

“The poet pant studied Freud besides Marx and reached to this conclusion that India cannot progress if she sticks to the medieval feudal culture. The poet protests vehemently against the medieval cultural belief that woman is not a respectable human being but merely a sexual instrument– “In reality we have to throw away branch and root thisso called banyan tree with its roots in the upper region of medieval culture and get rid of this darkness.”

“Pantji wrote in the introduction to uttara–“We are so much influenced by this Western ideology that we do not want to see the face of our ancient culture with high spiritual values.” In turning Pant to Indian culture Gandhi and Aurobindo have a great philosophical contribution. Pant writes–“I think truth and non-violence are the two basic ingredients of my concept of culture.”

Such self-contradictory and irreconcilable statements are non-chalantly repeated in several theses and nobody thinks that there is anything wrong or unsophisticated in such illogicalities.

11. Another thesis recently awarded a D. Litt. by Delhi University is Rasa Siddhant aur Soundarya Shastra by Dr. Ninnala Jain (Published by National Publishing House, Delhi- 7, March, 1967; pages 475). This thesis has such interesting combinations:

Chapter 1: Comparative Aesthetics–Beginning and development–Anand Kumaraswami –Pravas Jivan Choudhari–Kanti–chandra Pandey–R. Noli–Sudan Langer–Van Meter Emis –Archy J. Barn–Krishna Chaitanya–Thomas Munro–conclusion. (pages 1 to 20)

Chapter 2: History of Rasa–Bharat...Natya-shastra...Bhoj (beginning of 11th century)–Modern age–Revival of Rasa Siddhanta–conclusion. (pages 20 to 44)

Any student of philosophy and history of aesthetics would easily find out the fallacy of bundling all kinds of thinkers together without any clear cut logical categorization. Two quotations selected on random sample basis would corroborate the unsophistication throughout this jumble of quotations arranged in a jig saw puzzle fashion; On page 41, she writes:

“In re-interpretation the most modern contribution is of Dr. Nagendra in his Rasa-Siddhant which is logical re-statement of scientific beliefs and a presentation of a comprehensive coordination as far as possible of all opinions about Rasa. Though there is no mention of the creative aspect of poetry and the special concepts of Rasa-Siddhant about the authority and connoisseur (adhikari) of poetry in this work, yet there is complete discussion of Rasa from the viewpoint of the enjoyment of poetry. Dr. Nagendra’s thought process synthesises the about Rasa of Ramachandra Shukla and Prasad. Prasadji had given a definition of Rasa on the basis of philosophy; Dr. Nagendra has given it a psychological basis. Thus he has accepted Shuklaji’s basis and interpretation of Prasadji.”

On page 265 the same thesis-writer comments;
“Dr. Nagendra has believed on the basis of experience as logical though the analysis of feeling in Sanskrit does not quite fit in properly with modern psychology.”

What do such statements mean–only the researcher and her guide (who is Dr. Nagendra himself) alone can understand. The work is full of such sweeping generalizations about foreign and Indian scholars of aesthetics. No Hindi modern critic or poet has been mentioned, though the latest American and European scholars are quoted ad naseum. In any case they won’t contradict as they don’t know Hindi and this work will be hardly translated in English or would be acceptable to any modern, sophisticated scholarship in this field in the West. The very impatience to juxtapose and show similarities in the Western modern thought on aesthetic psychology and Sanskrit poetics, at least eight centuries old, is denying the basic assumption that human reason and scientific thinking has advanced in this historical process. This eclectic attempt of finding something similar in Abhinavagupta and I. A. Richards is not peculiar to this work or critic; it is to be seen commonly in modern Hindi criticism which passes under this garb. It shows that the scholars have had no idea whatsoever of the history of scientific thought in Western logic, philosophy and psychology. A formidable bibliography at the appendix suggests that the scholar has read so much, and yet what an end-product! These opinions can be compared with B. B. Agarwal’s introduction to “Dr. Nagendra Sreshtha Nibandh.”

12. Another source of such confusion of critical thinking springs from the so-called Abhinandan Granths in Hindi. Only this language takes great pride in such tomes full of meaningless tributes, panygeries and hyperbolic flattery. I have three works of this type, recently published, before me:

1. Dr. Ramakumar Varma Visheshank of Kaumudi(Hindi Parishad, Allahabad; date not given but was received by me in 1966)

2. Acharya Kishoridas Vajpai - Vyaktitva aur Krititva (Edited by Ramdharisingh Dinkar and Hazari Prasad Dwivedi; published by Vajpai Abhinandan Samiti; 36, Varanasi Ghosh Street, Calcutta 7, December 1961)

3. Sri Yashpal Abhinandan Granth (Punjabi Vibhag, Pepsu, Partiala, 1956.)

Added to these are the two special numbers of the most popular monthly amongst Hindi examinees–Sahitya-Sandesh: Babu Gulabrai Suruthriti Ank, (July, August 1963) and Bachchan Special Number(November, December 1967). A detailed analysis of all such works would require more space, but I resist the temptation by giving some random quotations from these works, which would prove how jejune, puerile and unscientific modern Hindi critics are. Allthese quotations are from very respectable scholars and critics. I give no comments, but literal translations.

Dr. Ramkumar Varma on page 185 in his article on ‘Research’: “In every research thesis conclusion is very essential. It is the consumation of all the thinking of the research scholar. In story technique whatever is the importance of climax, conclusion has same value in research-technique. After analysing the object, the healthy and conscious process of logic concentrates itself on a point of achievement–it is conclusion. This conclusion sheds new light on whatever has been propounded. In short, the relaxation point curiosity is conclusion. The more scientific the mode of presention, the more powerful will be the conclusion.

Dr. Rambilas Sharma writes about Kishoridas Vajpai’s Shabdanushasanon page 94: “Books on grammar and philology are generally uninteresting (Nirasa). The more difficult the subject is, the more it is made so to appear just to impress others by one’s scholarship. But Vajpaiji had made his book very interesting. There are pieces from folk-songs. The style is decorated by similies. Humour and satire have dressed his style. He did not change his style in spite of the insistance of Sabha (Nagari Pracharini Sabha had commissioned Vajpai to produce a scientific grammar.) We think it was very good. He had made the book useful to common people.”

Dr. Nagendra on Yashpal on page 21–“Sri Yashpal is amongst those thoughtful writers in Hindi whose genius has been helpul through his essays and stories in inspiring the reader with social consciousness. Thinking process of his essays throw light with a special viewpoint on contemporary problems. He has attacked old beliefs in his vehement satirical essays. Though they are ruthless yet they do not lack the feeling of social good...Yashpal is amongst those story-writers of Hindi whose transparent insight exposes different levels of society, different aspects of life and the secret mental tendencies of human mind.”

4. Prof. Prakashchandra Gupta on Babu Gulabrai on page 75 – “Babuji was the editor of Sahitya Sandesh in which he wrote editorial notes. In his criticism there were the qualities of fearlessness and frankness, which aroused respect in the readers,”

5. Acharya Vinayamohan Sharma writes on Bachchen–“Bachchen has completed sixty years of his life...when he saw his milieu and observed that many of his companions are playing with word and solving puzzles. He also wanted to justify his name (Bachchen means child). So he joined them.

Plus one
Minus one
Join and becomes zero
Poem one
Anti-poem one
Join and two poems infants O!

“Friends asked–what has happened to the popular poet Bachchen, that he is just playing with words?” I said, “Brother, he has become sixty. But thinks that he has achieved second childhood. Let his poetry remain eternally young.”
–Head of the Department of Hindi, Kurukshetra University.

Here are a few more gems of such loose thinking and unsophisticated critical writing on which comments are unnecessary:

1. In Kavyashastraby Dr. Bhagirath Mishra (Published by Viswavidyalaya Prakashan, Varanasi, third edition, 1966) on p. 11 here is a passage:

“Famous poet Coleridge has said that ‘Poetry is best words in their best order.’ Now the question arises which are the best words and what is the best order? The words which give the bestmeaning like heaven, gold, flower, beauty, nectar, etc., are best words. In such case death, slime, hell, etc., are bad words and they should be banished from poetry. But such words and their equivalents are freely used in poetry. The first line of Thomas Grey’s elegy “the curfew tolls the knell of parting day” has ‘knell’, ‘parting’ etc., which cannot be said to be best words. Similarly in poet Beni’s line Michu to bhali hai pai na kich Lucknow ki (Death is better not the slime of Lucknow) there are two words ‘Death’ and ‘slime’ which are odius. But these words are the very soul of this line. So this definition is not useful.”

Dr. Gobindram Sharma in his Hindi Sahitya aur uski Pramukh Pravritiyan (1968 edition, p. 380) writing about the inevitability of content and from (Bhavapaksha aur kalapaksha ki Lachari) there is this sentence–“An experimentalist is busy in the search of new experiments, so he is not able to beautify and simplify the subject or content of his poetry.”

In Dr. Gopaldatta Saraswat’s thesis on Tradition and Experiment in Modern Hindi poetry (Adhunik Hindi Kavyamen Parampara tatha Prayoga; Saraswati prakashan Mandir, Allahabad) in one chapter the sub-headings are as follows:

“Chapter VIlI: Experiment in the expression of feelings–Love about nature, Love for the non-personal, experiment in the field of humour...experiment in the field of the heroic (Vir-Rasa), experiment in the field of the tragic (Karuna-Rasa), experiment in the field of horror (Raudra-Rasa...)” etc.

4. Another thesis on “the contribution of women in the development of Hindi short-story” (Hindi Katha Sahitya ke Vikasa men mahilaonka Yoga-dan by Dr. Urmila Gupta; Radhakrishna Prakashan, Delhi) is in two volumes, in the case of every short-story writer the sub-headings (plot, characterization, dialogue, time and locale, purpose, style, conclusion) are mechanically used again and again like a Procrustes’s Bed. As if the short-story writing women had nothing to contribute beyond this stale categorization, nor does the researcher care to know anything more but filling in the boring details. On page 30 it is said about the first short-story in Hindi Dutaiwalithat “on the modern and contemporary criteria of short stories, this story can be proved to be the best in its interesting plot, psycho-analytical characterization and style full of satire.”

5. Hindi Alochana ke Adhara stambha (Basic pillars of Hindi criticism) Edited by Dr. Rameshwarlal Khandelwal and Dr. Sureshchandra Gupta. This book is a compilation of representative critical essays of Ramachandra Shukla, Nandadulare Vajpai, Hazariprasad Dwivedi and Dr. Nagendra, with a longish introduction by the editors trying to present a study on the contribution of these critics. But in this introduction from page 9 to page 64 nowhere have the editors shown how many conceptual words have these critics contributed to Hindi. Their achievement and speciality can be assessed only on the basis of this study. This book is prescribed for the post-graduate students in several universities.

Dr. Asha Gupta’s thesis Khari Boli Kavya men Abhiyanjana Expression in Khari Boli poetry) has seven chapters. In each one of them poetry has been observed through the usual categories of Vocabulary, Suggestion ( Dhwani,) Metre, Figures of speech, etc. And examples have been found out to fit in these groups. Nowhere does the research scholar even touch the problems of expression before these poets.

Many more examples can be added to this kind of fault-finding, for which one need not do any ‘research.’ Pick up any printed Hindi thesis from any university and take any random sample survey, allthe faults mentioned and suggested above can be easily found. The tragedy in that is their hurry to get a degree, neither the students, nor research scholars, nor their so-called guides and even big well-placed ‘critics’ care to (or shall I say, dare to) point out a single illogicality or unscientific categorization or exercize any quality Control. There is a convenient ‘Conspiracy of silence’ reigning in this field. And any person who cares for any objective assessment or fact-finding can be easily dubbed as an opponent of the national language and hence a traitor.

I have no ready-made solutions to this sad state of affairs. But what the Greek philosopher long ago saidseems to be true here too; First educate the educators. That anybody and everybodywho has an M. A. degree and teaching M. A. classes should be automatically authorized to conduct research, is a fallacy. Today many a half-ripe self-styled research guides are producing a number of immature students. I have heard cases where lady-candidates are questioned about whether they know the art of cooking or have been asked to read a passage from their own thesis and given pass-marks in viva voce. I do not doubt the good intentions of these chivalrous or Hindi-patronizing gentlemen, examiners and their kind-heartedness. But critical acumen of any language is hardly enriched in this fashion. Will university heads of Hindi departments ever do any heart-searching and self-criticism? It is high time they did, otherwise, after 10 years, all this junk publication will be thrown to winds.