The Toffs Waffle: A Sociocultural Critique
Mr. Prabha. The Toffs Waffle: A Sociocultural Critique of Indian Writing in English. New Delhi. Oxford University Press. 2000. xiv + 271 pages. 250 rupees / $ 19.95. ISBN 81-204-1359-8.
M. Prabha, who calls his book “an example of socio-literary criticism”, states in The Waffle of the Toffs that most of the “marginalized writers” or the marginal writers of the society in India have not received what It is up to them despite their immense qualitative quality literary output because a handful of scholars and writers with elitist backgrounds (university grants, Oxbridge bureaucrats, bureaucrats) have been monopolizing the scene. His book is a significant document, a review of the socio-literary inequalities in the writing of Indian English.
In Chapter 1, Prabha seeks to interpret 19th century Indian writing in English (IWE) with a sense of the present, which seems to him to flaunt “westernized airs” and an “elitist way.” In Chapter 2, he emphasizes the fact that IWE in the 1920s and 1930s was shaped by political events centered on the freedom movement. She particularly mentions the good works produced by regional writers such as Sharat Chandra, Khandekar, and Premchand and their Indian English counterparts KS Venkataramani, Krishnaswamy Nagarajan, Mulk Raj Anand, RK Narayan, and Raja Rao, who all had humble beginnings and had no elite connections. . He commends Anand, Narayan, and Rao for drawing inspiration from the prevailing social conditions around them; they do not sing about the West and, unlike GV Desani’s Dom Moraes or Nirad C. Chaudhury, they manifest a distinct Indian sensibility.
By comparing desi-trained writers to their Oxbridge- or St. Stephen-educated counterparts, Prabha attempts to show that “the sociocultural milieu a writer comes from is almost inversely related to his quality of writing. That is, the richer a writer is. , the less significant his writing. ” In Chapter 3, he refers to several ancient poets, Bhakti and Sufis, and several recent Dalit (untouchable) writers, pointing out that they all come from the humblest homes and yet constitute significant literature. I appreciate your positive comments on the excellence of Saadat Hasan Manto, Ismat Chugtai, Bhisham Sahani, Mahasveta Devi, Ram Jivan, et alia, in relation to their poor economic background, iconoclastic and progressive views, concern for socio-political issues and commitment to Literature in their native languages, however, I wish it had sounded less ideologically motivated in its critical estimates of so many individual writers.
In Chapter 4, the critique examines dozens of leading European, British, and American authors to reinforce its thesis that the qualitative literary output of poets and novelists of humble origins has been immense. The focus of his argument in Chapter 5 shifts to the “essential extrinsic factors” that have contributed to and decided the claim of “greatness” of a writer or artist. She is very serious: “The situation in my country is so bad that simply speaking in generalities is not enough. It is difficult to make an impartial assessment of any writer or artist today without a biographical approach.” She mentions the biographical details of a Shovna Narayan and a Sonal Mansingh to recall the fact that state honor or corporate patronage in India comes from contacts; there is no cultural or literary space for people who lack such connections. It also alleges deep-seated corruption in bodies such as the Lalit Kala Akademi, the Sahitya Akademi, various art galleries and the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage and suggests that the politico-bureaucrat-artist nexus must be broken, that it is necessary to allow individual and private organizations manage the promotion of culture and the arts. Maybe she is right. There is some weight in his claim that “the ruling elite is the cultural elite.”
In Chapter 6, Prabha reflects on the rise of contemporary novelists, offering sharp criticisms of, for example, Kamala Markandaya (an expatriate, married to an Englishman and based in London), Santha Rama Rau (daughter of a UN official and married to an American), Nayantara Sahgal (daughter of Vijayalakshmi Pandit and niece of Jawaharlal Nehru) and Anita Desai (born to a German mother and a Bengali father, educated at Miranda House and married to a prosperous Gujarati industrialist); the latter two “show a more colonized mind than many other IWE novelists.” Prabha also points to the elite backgrounds of contemporary novelists such as Gita Mehta, Bharati Mukherjee, Ruth Prawer Jhabwala, Gita Hariharan, and Arundhati Roy, stating that genuine creativity and originality are largely absent from these authors.
Returning to the male novelists in Chapter 7, Prabha finds many of them “blue-blooded, Anglo-Saxon, Doon School-St. Stephen’s-Oxbridge educated, pro-market, overconfident, bordering on arrogance. , egocentric, metropolitan type, inclined towards the world “and incapable of educating or regenerating its readers. His specific targets include Khushwant Singh, Shashi Tharoor (a UN official), Vijay Singh (based in Paris), Dom Moraes (UN connections), Amitav Ghosh, Vikram Seth, Anil Chandra and many others, in mostly public officials. He wonders if these writers are not “silencing authentic voices by usurping the cultural space of the nation itself.”
In chapter 8, Prabha divides the poets of the second half of the 20th century into two groups: the Metro group, which includes Nissim Ezekiel, Jayanta Mahapatra, Shiv K. Kumar, R. Parthasarathy, Arvind Krishna Mehrotra, Adil Jussawalla, Agha Shahid Ali. and Eunice de Souza; and Mofussil’s set, which includes a substantial number of professor-versifiers and others “ignored by publishers, media, critics, and readers.” His sympathies are with the latter group, and he accuses the Metro poets that the literary merit and fame of the poets are based more on connections than on talent. It even questions the right of expatriate teacher-poets like Agha Shahid Ali, Meena Alexander and Sujata Bhatt to be called English Indian poets, as they are textually separated from India, do not live in India, and have become NRIs. (She considers AK Ramanujan to be an exception, as she left India to teach Tamil and recreate Dravidian and Sanskrit classics.)
The Waffle of the Toffs is a racy and well-argued read. It is provocative and written with a subversive intent. The hard, mocking and aggressive pen of M. Prabha forces one to rethink the discipline of Indian writing in English in the face of the sociocultural background of its creators. His book is a landmark event of 2000, a step forward in undoing the “conspiracy of silence” that has muffled all fresh voices. I recommend it as a must-read for every Indian English poet, writer, critic, student, and most importantly, every teacher of Indian English writing.
Copyright.