If inspiring “people to struggle for a better life, what can be really called human existence, and to create a better world, free of injustice” is only the test of good literature as Markandey Katju suggests (“Writers must serve a social purpose,” Jan. 28), the Communist Manifesto should be regarded the best literature ever. It did inspire people in large parts of the world to struggle for a better life, and look what happened.
Whether literature (perhaps all arts) should serve a social purpose is an old, hackneyed question. Whatever the answer, if there could indeed be one, readers enjoy and cherish a work of literature not for its social utility or relevance, but its appeal. Art has always existed for art's sake. Art is life. Because it does not serve any social purpose, one doesn't admire the Taj Mahal any less.
P.M. Warrier,
Thrissur
There is something wrong with the two-way theory on the purpose of art and literature — that it either entertains or engineers social change. Art's purpose can be subtler — it can provide fresh insights or open our minds to new possibilities. There is something that art instinctively seeks — to move people. And it can do this through romance or realism, humour, fantasy or science fiction. Secondly, if the only thing holding people back from reading books is that our writers do not address “real problems,” non-fiction works on caste discrimination, gender inequality or India's foreign policy and military strategy should be enjoying spectacular sales. Furthermore, the statement, “In such a poor country, ‘art for social purpose' alone can be acceptable” suggests that only beyond a certain level of depravity are people entitled to be entertained.
P. Jayamohan,
Kayamkulam
If one had not known who the author of the article was, one might well have mistaken him to be a Victorian gentleman writing in 1912. Get real, Judge Sahib. The world has changed. New ways of expressing thought in art and literature have emerged since the times of Dickens. Impressionism, existentialism, post-modernism, magical-realism are some of the ways modern writers use. These are taught in universities.
Kamaljit Singh Garewal,
Chandigarh
I would like to tell Justice Katju that the JLF was not a waste of time, as his friends had him believe. It was a wonderful five-day festival with hundreds of authors who got the attention due to them, if packed halls and people crowding the aisles were anything to go by. As someone who witnessed the festival first-hand, let me assure him that not a moment was a waste of time. His opinions are based on borrowed information. I hope he will visit the festival next year to see for himself the wonderful exchange of ideas that happen at the JLF.
Jayati Grover,
Delhi
I agree with Justice Katju that artists and writers can make a social impact, and we shall forever be indebted to such writers. But it is not right to say Salman Rushdie is a mediocre writer. Leo Tolstoy said the same thing about Shakespeare but did that take anything away from the dramatist's brilliance? I found Midnight's Children very engrossing. Writers like Mr. Rushdie succeed because their works appeal to readers.
Dhananjay Rajendran,
Thrissur
It is true that in the Indian context, writers should give priority to art for social purpose. “Tell the truth but tell it slant,” says Emily Dickinson. If the truth is grasped by readers, it is well and good. Khushwant Singh's Train to Pakistan , a love story of a Sikh boy and a Muslim girl in the horrible backdrop of Partition, for instance, conveys to readers the novelist's point of view without him saying it.
R.K. Jacob,
Palayamkottai
I strongly support Justice Katju's views. But I never had the courage to express them as I thought they were trivial. Contemporary writers betray both theories of art: “art for art's sake” and “art for social purpose.” They have their own theory — “art for attention's sake,” for which they create controversies.
Raj Pratap,
Delhi
I support Justice Katju's views on Mr. Rushdie and his works. The number of awards a writer has won is no parameter to decide the quality of his or her works. Have you ever seen Shakespeare or Kalidas on the bestsellers list? Or Mozart on the top of the charts? Never. But that does not undermine the quality of their works. But we have always seen the Harry Potter series or Chetan Bhagat, which anybody in his right sense of mind would call inferior to Shakespeare, becoming bestsellers.
Ritvik Chaturvedi,
New Delhi
Writers indeed need to stand up for the cause of the oppressed, not those who capitulate to the demands of the pulp fiction market. Historically, literature has driven social change. The American, French and Russian Revolutions were preceded by visionary authors mirroring society's malaise and, in some cases, suggesting the way out. In India, such writers are the need of the hour.
Navjot Sidhu,
Bathinda
