Purpose, Protest
and Social Reconstruction in the Novels and Short Stories of Maxim Gorky and
Thakazhi Sivasankara Pillai
Dr.
Vidya Hariharan,
Assistant
Professor,
Department
of English,
SIES
College of Arts, Science and Commerce,
Sion
West, Mumbai, Maharashtra,
India.
Abstract: Most of the time when we talk of Russian literature
we tend to think of such major writers as Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky,
Gogol, Pushkin, Nabokov or Anton Chekhov. Rarely does the reader think of Maxim
Gorky, one of the most prolific Russian writers. Gorky had had a tremendous
impact on the thoughts and writings of many Indian writers, one of whom is
Thakazhi Sivashankara Pillai, a novelist from Kerala. A comparative study of
both these writers will yield rich dividends. Both Maxim Gorky and Thakazhi Sivasankara
Pillai lived and worked through some very interesting and tumultuous times in
the histories of their regions. Gorky in Russia and Thakazhi in Kerala were at
the forefront of nascent political movements and new creative urges that
changed the cultural, literary, social and political landscape of their
respective regions. In the delineation of their characters and the thematic
concerns of their fictional works, whether short stories or novels, the reader
can find astonishing parallels. Gorky’s revolutionary ideas and Thakazhi’s
leftist leanings, that emerged from lived experience, and led to a passionate
desire to change society for the better, showcases what came to be known as the
‘class novel’. Both writers depict workers/peasants as victims of powerful
social and political forces but also their desire for transformation. In ‘Two
Measures’, ‘The Children of Ousep’, ‘The Rungs of the Ladder’, ‘The Scavenger’s
Son’ and ‘The Rope’ Thakazhi describes the lives of the downtrodden in Kerala
using a simple style and the language of the common man; just as in ‘Foma
Godeyev’, ‘Chelkash’, ‘The Artomonovs’, 26 Men and a Girl’ and ‘Mother’ Gorky
lays out his vision for a better Russia. Both authors worked at a time of
turbulence and change, and utilized the literary form for social awareness and
social rebuilding. This paper attempts to explore the similarities and
differences in the style and themes of select fictional works of Gorky and
Thakazhiin order to get a better understanding of how these writers’ beliefs in
building a better society through the authors’ contribution bore fruit in both
Russia and Kerala.
Keywords: Thematic concern, Style, Social awareness,
Class novel.
“However thick
this layer (of beastly brutalities) may be, bright, healthy and creative things
can nevertheless break through it; fine human seeds grow nevertheless,
fostering an imperishable hope of our re-birth to a brighter, truly human
life.”
(Gorky qtd in Lukacs 1978, 190)
The words quoted
above are Maxim Gorky’s but they might have been spoken by Thakazhi too. Alexei
Maximovich Peshkov, born in Tsarist Russia and Thakazhi
Sivasankara Pillai, well known as Thakazhi, born in Kerala, might as well have
been comrades in arms, where their thoughts and ideas regarding a peasant revolution
are concerned.
Thakazhi’s roots
in a land-owning family gave him a unique insight into the life of the farmers
who worked in the Alleppey district of Kerala, especially the Kuttanad area,
once known as the rice-bowl of the state. His father, Sankara Kurup, was
trained in the art form of Kathakali but considered his profession to be that
of a farmer. After completing high school, Thakazhi wandered around without
purpose for two years. In the end he decided to enroll in the Law College in
the capital city, Trivandrum. During this period he came into contact with the
intelligentsia in the city, especially the great literary critic and editor of
the ‘Kesari’ A Balakrishna Pillai. It is he who introduced Thakazhi to the
modern European writers like Chekhov, Tolstoy, Maupassant, Zola and Gorky. It
was at this time, during the 1940s that the Progressive Writer’s movement was
influencing all of Kerala and Thakazhi was in the midst of this movement. The
period from 1930 to 1947 came to be known as the era of Social Realism in
Malayalam literature. During this period literature became truly democratic.
Stories which were true to life, characters who were representatives of certain
communities or classes, simple and direct language were some of the chief characteristics
of this fiction. The purpose was social awakening and renewal. Both Gorky and
Thakazhi championed the cause of the underdog. They had a deep knowledge of
contemporary life that demanded the righting of long-standing wrongs. The very
structure of society is attacked by these two authors. Thakazhi has penned over
500 short stories and 35 novels and each of these tales speaks of the
unremitting exploitation, the struggle for survival and the desire to overcome
the circumstances of their birth that some classes are doomed to suffer. The
characters are drawn from the lowest rungs of society- Two Measures is about
the life of the landless peasants in Kuttanad, the Scavenger’s Son is about
three generations of scavengers in Alleppey, and Kayar (The Rope), which many
critics consider as Thakazhi’s magnum opus is a chronicle of the rise and fall
of several landowning families with the changing political and social climate
in Kerala over a period of 250 years.
Gorky’s
wanderings around Russia brought him into contact with the suffering populace
of his country and the people he met during this period enriched his fiction
and, moreover, gave greater verisimilitude to his characterization. The
repressive measures of the Tsarist regime of over 300 years had robbed the
peasants of their dignity. Both Thakazhi and Gorky realized the importance of
restoring that lost dignity and rebuilding the damaged psyche of their people.
Social reconstruction was the need of the hour and both the writers knew that
portraying the true picture of the downtrodden would make the readers aware of
the misery and exploitation occurring in their midst. Also the need to educate
the masses themselves that the pathetic conditions in which they were living
were not immutable was realized by both writers.
In Scavenger’s
Son Thakazhi describes the miserable lives of three generations of
scavengers in Alleppey. These scavengers are socially ostracized, they are
exposed to infections and epidemics, they are cheated by their superiors as
they do not know how much they earn, and their children are denied schooling.
In Two
Measures, set in Kuttanad, ironically, the rice granary of Kerala, Thakazhi
portrays the life of the Parayas – the agricultural serfs. They are ignorant,
superstitious and loyal to their landed masters. Their loyalty is rewarded with
severe thrashings for the smallest misdemeanors. If the master does show some
sympathy for them it is merely that of an owner towards his possession and not
a recognition of mutual brotherhood.
Beggar Class is an
exploration of the origin of the beggars who are seen on the city streets. The
author depicts the life of two such families who are reduced to begging to keep
body and soul together as they lost their property. These beggars, he tells us,
were once workers and peasants till their health fails irretrievably and
because of the neglectful attitude of the State and the Capitalists who do not
offer these unfortunates any protection, they fall into despair and become
invisible in society.
Children of
Ousep and Rungs of the Ladder are harsh critiques of the new capitalists.
According to Thakazhi they have lost their moorings from tradition but have
failed to retain any strong relational bonds within their own family or
society. He is critical of their complacency in the midst of plenty. The author
highlights this condition by describing the life of Mannan in Children of
Ousep. He had experienced grinding poverty but manages to become very
wealthy. He then proceeds to kill his younger brother to appropriate his
property and sends another brother into the Seminary against his wishes. Thus
financial improvement is accompanied by moral degradation due to the avarice
and ego of the capitalists or muthalali.
Maxim Gorky was
born during the dawn of tumultuous change in Russia, when the soil was fertile
for a revolution, the necessity of which Gorky believed in absolutely. The
condition of the peasants had not improved materially even after the
Emancipation reforms of 1861, which abolished serfdom; they were forced to pay
a number of taxes and pay rent for using grazing lands and watering holes which
was under the control of the landlord. Hunger was their perennial companion. In
1861 there were more than 4 million landless peasants. Another significant
aftermath of the reforms was the growth of non-gentry private land ownership.
Since gaining independence from the British, several land reforms were sought
to be put into practice, the most famous among which was the Land Reform Act which
caused a terrific uproar among the land owning community of Kerala. The
ordinance set an absolute ceiling on the amount of land a family could own. The
tenants and hut dwellers received a claim in the excess land, on which they had
worked for centuries under the feudal system. In addition, the law ensured
fixity of tenure and protection from eviction. But the historical land reform
act, Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 which put an end to the feudal
system and ensured the rights of the tenants on land, came into force on 1
January 1970. The slogan of the socialists in Kerala was “the land for
tillers”. The land reforms in Kerala imparted drastic changes to the political,
economic and social outlook, as in Russia. So, in both Russia and Kerala there
was the simultaneous existence of the traditional wealthy land owning community
which was slowly but surely losing power, an emergent class of landowners who
benefitted from the land reforms and through sheer hard work managed to buy
arable land who were on an economic upswing, and the landless tenant farmers.
Both Gorky’s and Thakazhi’s tales are drawn from this unfortunate section of
society. And both are extremely critical of the new capitalists. Thakazhi’s The
Rope and Gorky’s The Artomonovs share a similar theme.
“Why
should man thirst for earth? Why this love? Leave the earth alone. Let what the
earth produces be for all” (The Rope, 925).
These words are echoed by Pavel in Mother:
“We
are revolutionaries and will be…as long as private property exists, as long as
some merely command and as long as others merely work” (365).
So the work of
both Gorky and Thakazhi reflects a purposeful writing. Although not overtly a
socialist, Thakazhi’s leftist leanings ensured a sympathetic view of the
downtrodden in his fiction. Not as strident as Gorky, his works reveal an
obdurate intention to expose the real conditions of people who are invisible to
society.
For Gorky,
literature acts as a tool to educate people about their condition and to help
them rise above it. He was astonished and angered at the acceptance of the
workers and peasants towards the crippling conditions of their lives. Gorky
takes on the role of spokesperson to make the workers realize the dignity of
their labour. His early works like Makar Chudra and Old Izergil
explore the concept of freedom, are romantic in style and have some
semi-legendary heroes. But, eventually, he realized the limitations of gaining
a personal freedom and aims for ‘class’ freedom. This realization is
accompanied by a change in the stories he narrates and the characters which
populate them as seen in Twenty six Men and A Girl. The men laboring
under filthy conditions in the bakery idealize the beauty and innocence of a
girl who often visits the bakery to buy bread. Unfortunately their ideal fails
when she is seduced by a man they consider no better than them. The author’s
reasoning is that the worker has to look deep within himself for the redemptive
force rather than rest his hopes on any external agency. Similar themes are
explored in Cheklash and Konovalov, which are populated with
ordinary people whom the peasants and workers can identify with.
Education is
seen as a tool for social change by both authors. In The Scavenger’s Son, Mohanan,
the scavenger’s son is admitted as a student, after the payment of a bribe. Scavenger’s
Son and Mother showcase the awakening of the revolutionary spirit
among the people. An earlier generation simply accepted atrocities committed on
them as part of their fate, their children became aware of the miserable
conditions of life but tried to escape this consciousness and their
helplessness through alcohol or attempted individual liberation, however, it is
the third generation which is the harbinger of revolutionary change. They
recognize the need for the workers to unite under a single banner. Pavel and
Mohanan are at the forefront of this struggle. In Scavenger’s Son
Mohanan leads a procession of workers on the streets “The next day it was he
who was leading the procession that was going through the important parts of
town. The crowds of participants were lined up one behind the other in two
ranks. In front Mohanan stood carrying a large flag. Long love the revolution!
That cry broke the walls of the heavens. They began a battle song that would
give renewed energy. Keeping in step with the rhythm the procession moved off.
The flag was fluttering in the breeze. The crowd, unarmed and possessed only
spiritual strength, moved forward under the leadership of the scavenger’s son.”
(142).
In Mother
Pavel and his friends organize the May Day demonstration to test the workers
solidarity.
“Pavel
lifted his arm and the banner wavered, a dozen hands grasped the smooth white
wood of the flagstaff, and among them was the hand of the mother. Long live the
working class! cried Pavel. Hundreds of voices roared back in response… The
crowd grew. Pavel lifted the banner and it unfolded in the air as he carried it
forward…” (171).
In both novels
the procession is not allowed to move further by the appearance of reactionary
forces, in one, the army, in the other, the police. There is not only the
realistic portrayal of struggle but the criticism of a society that continues
to validate the status quo.
At the heart of
all their work was a belief in the inherent worth and potential of the human
person. The revolutionary humanism of Gorky influenced Thakazhi in his writings;
they do not hold individuals at fault for their trials and tribulations or even
for their wickedness, but consider the social structure to be at fault.
Although most of their characters never attain happiness in their personal
lives, this does not make their works pessimistic. Instead there is a hope for
redemption and a better future for society as a whole.
In the words of
Gorky, “Life is always surprising us, the creative human powers of
goodness…awaken our indestructible hope that a brighter better and more humane
life will once again be born” (1).
What is the
relevance of these two writers today who are clubbed under the banner of social
realists?
In the
increasingly atomistic life led by individuals in the globalized world a
certain way of life described by these two writers – a community-based life, a
celebration of human relationships and the need for struggle could echo once
again in individual minds and reawaken a genuine interest in humanity.Both the writers have created narratives reflecting
the socio-political contexts of their times without romanticising those living
conditions. Gorky's literature addresses pre-revolutionary and revolutionary
Russia, while Thakazhi's writings address mid-20th century Kerala society.
Works Cited
George, K. M., editor. Best of Thakazhi S. Pillai.
Roli Books, 2012.
Gorky, Maxim. The Collected Works. Bibliolife,
2008.
Lukács, Georg. Studies in European Realism.
Merlin, 1978.
Taplin, Phoebe. “Maxim Gorky: 3 Must-Read Books by an
Iconic Soviet Writer.” Russia Beyond, 1 Feb. 2016, www.rbth.com/arts/literature/2016/02/01/maxim-gorky-3-must-read-books-by-an-iconic-soviet-writer_563917