THE WRITER’S RESPONSIBILITY
A
Tribute to Gandhiji
Prof.
S. N. SHANTHAVEERAPPA
Every
writer, including a translator, has a conscience, and hence he has a
responsibility to himself and to society. A translator has to be scrupulously
faithful to the original. He should not add anything to or take away anything
from the original. He should give the most exact interpretation of the
original. Even while taking up a work for translation, he should not select one
which is not conducive to the health and proper development of the world in
general, and of his society in particular, or one about which the translator
himself feels bad. Even as regards the style, the translator, should try his
very best to bring out the qualities of the original. If he knows he cannot do
it successfully, he should not undertake the work at all. Lastly he should not
take up a work the contents of which go against his conscience not because his
conscience is the best of all consciences but because he is not likely to do
full justice to the original in as much as his antipathy to all or some of the
contents of the original, might enter his translation surreptitiously. If this
much is the responsibility of a translator, much more
is that of an original writer.
All
original writers are, in a sense, creative writers and all of them have
responsibility to themselves and towards society, though of different nature
and of different degrees. Writers on Physical, Biological and Social Sciences
should stick to facts, fact not as they perceive it, but as it is. Any
distortion of facts or any sacrifice in exactness will tarnish the work.
Further a writer of this category, or for that matter any writer, should not
make any compromise with regard to truth and exactness. He should have the
ability to judge whether what he reveals will do more good or more harm to
society, and whether it is the right time and the right place for the
revelation of the truth he has discovered. A writer is not a spy on society.
Though he is expected to have a contemporary awareness and should have intimate
knowledge, of the life around him, he should know how much to reveal and how
much to conceal, all in the interests of society.
The
Social Sciences demand a higher degree of responsibility on the part of the
writer, because the facts here lend themselves to various interpretations by
the investigator-cum-writer. Wherever there is scope for interpretation, there
is freedom for the writer and the subjective element comes in however small it
might be. This freedom to interpret as he likes, has to be exercised by the
writer with the utmost caution and with a great sense of responsibility. The
writer should be aware that his interpretation of data is neither the only
possible interpretation nor the best of the possible interpretations. Hence he
should realise that he owes it to society not to misread facts and not to write
anything which is against its interests. This is not to say that his
interpretations should be slanted toward supporting the existing beliefs and
practices in the society in which he lives. A writer worth the name is
definitely at a higher degree of awareness. He knows much better than the
uncritical believers in and practisers of traditions
and customs, which of them are conducive to the health and development of
society and which are not. It is his responsibility to be aware of it and to
give to society the benefit of his awareness.
A
writer of philosophical treatises too, has a responsibility to mankind. He does
not write in a vacuum. He is sure to be influenced either positively or
negatively by the earlier writings in general and by the philosophical writings
in particular. Either he clarifies the previous writings, or adds to them, or
supports them, or refutes them, or modifies them. He might even propound an
entirely new system. In all these cases he should have the good of all living
beings in view. Even if he were to shake the faith of the people in any custom
or belief which is supposed to contribute to the moral foundation of human
affairs or for the smooth running of society, and which he considers as
baseless, he should see to it that he gives a reasonable alternative which can
act as a substitute for the one which he demolishes. If he just demolishes a
social or a moral institution which has contributed to the preservation of
human society, without providing a better alternative, he would be doing the
work of a destroyer, and hence he is acting irresponsibly. Take for example the
common man’s belief in hell, heaven and rebirth. These to some extent have been
influencing the conduct of people in their day-to-day activities. If a
philosopher argues very cogently that there are no such things as hell, heaven
or rebirth, and fails to give something which he considers to be rational and
which can take their place, he will have done great harm to society. Is it
Voltaire who said that if there is no God, create one? So before debunking a
longstanding belief or an institution a writer should ponder the pros and cons
of what he is doing. So before questioning the validity of old beliefs, customs
and institutions, a writer has to be circumspect. He should be equally cautious
before endorsing one, because a noxious belief or an invidious tradition or an
oppressive institution which is tottering, does not deserve to be bolstered up.
As an instance, we might mention the obnoxious practice of untouchability.
No writer worth the name could endorse it.
Of
all the writers, a man of letters enjoys the greatest freedom and it is
literature which is creative writing par excellence. Literature is a case study
of the various facets of life imaginatively conceived and artistically
presented. There is no art where there is no freedom and flights of imagination
constitute the very cream of freedom in an artist. A litterateur enjoys and
exercises vast freedom. He flies on the wings of fancy and imagination. He
imitates and reshapes life as he has seen and as he has conceived it. He even
creates and recreates with the help of his imaginative faculty. So of all the
writers, he enjoys the greatest freedom. Hence a man of letters should have a
deep awareness of the great responsibility he owes to society as a price for
the freedom which the society allows him to enjoy and exercise. The discipline
and responsibility of the creative writer par excellence, should be
self-imposed ones. An irresponsible man of letters can do incalculable harm to
society by his writings and by his way of living. It is not enough if he is
true to facts. It is not enough if he portrays man as he is. He should also
depict man as he should be. He should provide ideals and models. Hence a Utopia
by More, a Faerie Queen by Spenser, a Ramayana by Valmiki.
In the first place there is guarantee that the writer has viewed the facts of
life in the total perspective of all the facts of life. Secondly there is no
knowing if his judgment on life on the basis of the few facts he has come
across, is the right one. It is more so if it is a value judgment, because it
is a great man, a good man, a man who views things in the broadest perspective,
that can make fairly reliable value judgments. So it is not given to every
writer to pass judgments on the incidents of life viewed in isolation.
A
creative writer should have humility. He should be free from the arrogance of
self-sufficiency. He should not pass hasty judgments on the facts of life that
come to his notice and which he portrays in his writings. Mankind in the mass
does not know what is good for it. It is the creative writer who lives and
works at a higher degree of consciousness, who is a seer, a dreamer and a
reformer who knows what is good for mankind. He should have a great sense of
responsibility. The saying that the pen is mightier than the sword, is very
true in his case. Whatever he writes, gets the advantage of the printed word,
and the printed word acquires authority which the spoken word lacks. And
besides the printed word overcomes the limitations of space and time which the
spoken word suffers from. So the greatest declamation of the most accomplished
demagogue, in its ultimate analysis, is not as effective as the printed words
of a great writer. It is said that Rousseau and Voltaire did more for the
revolutionary movement in France through their writings than did the French
haranguers of the time. This underscores the importance of creative writing,
and hence the great responsibility of the creative writer.
A
man of letters should fully equip himself for the supreme task of instructing
his readers while delighting them, the twin goals of a literary
work. He should be a well-informed person. He should be catholic in outlook. He
should be tolerant. He should be able to distinguish the good
from the bad. He should have a keen perceptivity. He should know what is good
for mankind here and now, and forever and everywhere. He should be capable of
making unerring value judgments. Raw portrayal of human passion should not be
his concern.
Sensationalism
which is the quality of cheap journalism, is not his method. While being true
to life, he should realise that with the best of efforts he cannot see life
steadily and see it whole. Since his concern is to portray man as he should be,
he should support virtue and condemn (artistically of course) vice and
injustice. There might not be palpable justice in the happenings in real life,
but there should be justice in the happenings in literature. There should be
poetic justice so that people might continue to have faith in a moral order.
That is what the great writers of the past-Aeschylus, Sophocles,
Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton and a host of others have done. They
justified the ways of God to man. They helped in shaping man in the image of
God. The lives of some of them were themselves poems. This makes it clear that
a small man cannot write a great poem. This makes it clear what great
equipment–mental, moral and spiritual – a great man of letters should have and
what a keen sense of responsibility a writer worthy of his high profession,
should have towards ideas and ideals he cherishes most, and towards the society
of which he is an enlightened member.
It
is said that the best way of understanding the qualities of a Folk Epic, is to analyse the prominent qualities of Homer’s poems. Similarly
the best way of understanding what constitutes the responsibility of a writer,
is to analyse the prominent features of Gandhiji’s writings. That would be a tribute to Gandhiji as
a writer.