Poetry: A Cultural Process

I wish to openly and unapologetically discuss the New Poetry (Nai Kavita) movement. It is not the fault of the New Poets that writers of Chhayavad (romanticism) failed to reach new creative heights. Nor can the present silence of the once vibrant Progressive (Pragativadi) poets be blamed on the New Poets.

The psychological depth of New Poetry is undeniably distinct from that of the previous generations—be they Chhayavadi poets, the Progressive voices, or even the early twentieth-century writers of the nationalist phase. Unlike the romantic poets stirred by a spontaneous surge of emotion, the New Poets engage with individual experience more consciously and instead of being carried away by feelings, they examine and articulate them with genuine engagement. Sometimes, they trace outlines of the mental activity, and on other occasions, contend with color and nuance.

Certainly, it is not to say that the New Poets are devoid of emotional intensity. Instead, they recognize their discontent as real, add intensity to it and give it a form. They also lend to the discontent an intellectual edge as a result of which deeper sensitivity is gained. Let us admit, our mental processes present themselves in the everyday language of prose, not in lyrical, aesthetic form. New Poetry, too, aligns more closely with the rhythms of common language.

There is a pervasive sense of tension characterizing a good deal of New Poetry today. Nearly everything written under its banner reflects this mood. Even when it depicts gentle scenes of nature, playful moments of love, or expressions of desire, a distinct unease lingers beneath its surface. The tension therein may vary in form and intensity, but the underlying mood pervades all through. New Poetry mirrors the realities of modern middle-class life—its joys and sorrows, its highs and lows, and its blend of superficial and profound truths. The poets of today are not just cognizant of the circumstance and the inner emotional states buried underneath, they also feel the tension arising from the conflict between the surroundings and the poet’s role in them that offer little room for hope. The resulting frustration erupts occasionally as self-criticism or surfaces as a melancholic acceptance of fate. At times, it manifests as shaken self-confidence. Poets in this period seek solace in love and longing even as a few among them turn towards issues of broader interest. Scantily though, the cultural dimension is explored.

In short, New Poetry represents a sensitive response of a self-conscious individual. There is a widespread cultural decline at many levels in the modern-day existence owing to inequalities that prevail in our time. Poetry is bound to present a tense mentality for this reason. In fact, poetry in any era exists either in conflict with its environment or in agreement with it. The New Poetry movement, for the most part, has borne tension of the surroundings it is a part of. Despite this, it has had its share of beauty or joy. Thus, it is only fair to evaluate this poetic trend by engaging with its strongest and most telling aspects. It has expanded the horizons of poetic expression by introducing fresh subjects, original metaphors, unique symbols, and novel ideas. I emphasize these contributions for outlining New Poetry’s evolution which is not a monolithic movement but a chorus of diverse viewpoints. At one end we hear gentle lyrical tones embodying it, whereas at the other end, a series of sharp comments. The latter aspect turns both inwards and outwards to baffle the reader. The genre is indeed rich with moving depictions of nature, emotionally resonant truths, and deeply felt experiences. Typically, New Poetry is characterized by a broad range of voices, styles, stances and a whole diversity of expressions. In many ways, it is an umbrella term covering a wide spectrum of forms, techniques, and sensibilities. Attention is drawn to specific individualities with each making a point not consistent with the standpoint of another. Much in the bargain is debated and contested. The poetic landscape of our time is teeming with new voices seeking understanding and appreciation. With that in mind, I wish to present a few key observations as my personal reflections on the issue.

In every new epoch, we see the emergence of poets with very different sensibilities. Not only do their subjects shift, their artistic approach, too, enters novelty. The Chhayavadi poets differed greatly from the Ritikal poets who belonged to the Hindi literary period given to formalism, in both theme and expression. Likewise, the New Poetry movement has brought in a mindset distinct from its predecessors.

A defining feature of the New Poets is their deep sensitivity to the external circumstance. They express it through exploration of self. The New Poets lack a guiding philosophical ideology unlike their Chhayavadi and Progressive counterparts. A few prominent figures in this movement project a worldview and an all-integrating ideology, whereas others operate entirely without it. Some of these poets may show signs of an ideological inclination, the rest certainly do not. At best, the former exhibit a vague belief in humanity or humanism. If one were to probe them a bit more, their notion of humanism would seem abstract and lacking in emotional depth. That said, many in this category do express emotional resistance to the oppressors and persecutors. In a world marked by inequality, they often reflect a lower-middle class viewpoint. I refer here to the majority of the New Poets. There are, of course, others in the group who are politically motivated; in practice they work to suppress dissenting voices, thus choosing not to speak out against injustices of the persecutors. Meanwhile, social and cultural questions continue to grow more urgent, like looming specters. New Poetry cannot avoid these issues. Clearly, a strong current of Progressivism runs through this poetic movement. That needs to be strengthened further. The key issue is whether a poem positions itself in opposition to the established norms, or it simply conforms to convention. Isn’t it crucial for poets to properly examine, understand, and reflect on contradictions that shape and drive their thoughts? Shouldn’t these contradictions be analyzed with intellectual rigour?

How a poet navigates and portrays (1) external reality, (2) internal life, and (3) the tension between the two depends on the worldview held in each case. If the poet has a weak grasp on the dynamics of the process, then the emotional expression will inevitably be distorted, built as it is on a faulty premise.

That is why we find in New Poetry a lot of poetic compositions that can plainly be termed anti-people. On the other hand, there are many with a committed orientation. To my mind, the central question in present-day poetry is inextricably linked with the knowledge of the world, whether it is adequate or not, perverted or pure. The poet today more than ever needs to develop the capacity for attaining an adequate knowledge of his world.

The reason lies in the fact that the poet of today lives in uncommon and extraordinary surroundings. In the present period, the question of human civilization has become crucial. Society is gravely ridden with disparities where scenes of moral decline abound. Exploitation and oppression have reached unprecedented levels. Swindling and opportunism are rampant. Messiahs of yesterday have turned oppressors even as spiritualists have lost touch with the issues confronting the masses. Most of the thinkers and analysts stand alienated from the social reality confined as they are to interpreting the literary aesthetic in isolation from life. Scenes of agony, suffering and injustice multiply by the day. The gap between the oppressors and the oppressed has widened. Note that within the middle class, narrow individualism rules the roost. It has exacerbated existing inequalities. The ordinary school teachers stand apart from university professors. The distance increases between ordinary people and the khadi-clad leaders. At one end there are the office clerks and at the other high officials, not to speak of the gap between the poor peasants and workers on one side and industrialists-landlords on the other. Human relations are immensely strained and tangled. The enormity of the scene is depressing. In New Poetry too, one can see the emergence of two opposing groups, the one enjoying a link with the upper crust of society and the other made to constitute the lower middle class. The class divisions are reflected not just in the poetry, but also in the thoughts and attitudes of the poets.

It is worth noting that New Poetry grew in popularity even as questions were raised about its poetic form. The rise of any new movement in literature has prompted a reevaluation of the poetic practices and aesthetics. The same happened in the case of New Poetry. With one difference, though. The critique of poetic beauty offered by New Poetry negated all that belonged to the preceding era. It labeled as ‘ugly’ those feelings and poetic expressions that had rightly questioned the old norms, and were open-ended in their criticism. That was harsh on the part of New Poetry, as on its part swore by the aesthetic approach per se. Aestheticism, for it, was the watchword and only the poems conforming to the aesthetic framework were deemed acceptable. Thus, poems infused with political urgency were dismissed as unappealing. Whenever a poet gave voice to the struggles of the oppressed, these aesthetes would respond to it with disdain and condescension. They forgot that even barren, black mountains possess a certain stark grandeur, or that a tiny plant in a shadowed corner might release a faint, mysterious fragrance. It was difficult for them to take note of the vast and brutal realities. As a result, they turned a blind eye to the fierce and terrifying social struggles present in the circumstance.

Forgive me for saying this. In New Poetry the wings of passion have been clipped, and imagination is caged. It keeps itself away from the vital, creative force making human life ever vibrant and concrete. This exclusion exists because the creative force in our midst does not fit in with the narrow confines of elitist aestheticism. By focusing solely on the individual’s inner state, New Poetry abandons the powerful revolutionary energy of the collective soul and promotes shallow individualism. The profound emotions that might have shaken the foundations of a decaying and unjust civilization have been cast aside by it and willfully replaced by the newly legitimized ‘modern’ sensibility.

However, what exactly do we mean by ‘modern sensibility’? Speaking from my own experience and those of my friends, I can assert that raising our voices against injustice is a defining aspect of modern sensibility, since it goes beyond the aesthetic norm. Modern sensibility includes a commitment to shaping the future of humanity, improving present conditions, halting moral decline, standing in solidarity with the oppressed in society and devising ways to free humanity from the chains of exploitation. Is it not modern when I wield my pen to write verses aimed at a specific social ideal? Were not the poets, from Mahadevi Verma and Harivansh Rai Bachchan to Maithili Sharan Gupt and even lesser-known voices like mine, writing about the Bengal famine when the times required it? Who doesn’t know that some of the most powerful poetry emerged during that period? Donations in that period went directly to the famine relief fund and served the humanist cause effectively. Was the literary endeavour of that period ‘regimentation,’ or an expression of modern sensibility?

The same point can be raised about ‘self-expressionism.’ We often write about what stirs our souls. On the surface, that seems perfectly valid. But our souls harbor countless experiences—why don’t all of them find their way into literature? The answer, it is believed, lies in the fact that there are some rare moments filled with intense emotion—moments when we truly encounter beauty. It is in these instances, when aesthetic emotion is awakened within us, that we are able to create poetry. Not all that the soul experiences is aesthetic, and not all of it is suited for poetic expression. It is further believed that writers should focus on shaping their aesthetic experience into art unequivocally. If we do not recognize it, we risk losing our way entirely.

Well, I have been a part of the writing scene since 1936 and I know how much of the fake element finds a place in poetry. The same can also be termed ‘skill’. The writer of New Poetry is an extremely conscious being and deals greatly in cheating. In other words, it is not inevitable that the moment of the actual poetic composition should simultaneously be the moment of heart stirring emotion, or of the soul gripped by excited feeling. The heart has gained over time numerous responses, sensations, passionate urges, and unfulfilled desires that rise, swim and flow towards intents long cherished and yet seeking light from the inner eye where they finally assume shape. That for us makes available the aesthetic emotion. Such aesthetic emotions visit us not just when we write, but also when we loiter on the street. We receive those emotions from our mother and friends, in the middle of a procession, when our eye rests on a flower or a leaf, a beautiful face, or when we meet a person worthy of respect and regard. Those emotions aren’t confined to the writer alone, but also come in abundance from the ordinary folk we come in contact with. The populace itself is the storehouse of such emotions. The point is not political, but rooted in fact. Why then do we alone become poets, and not those who are the source of inspiration? That doesn’t happen since the masses, even as they move into a higher zone of sensuousness, aren’t able to achieve abstraction, the alienation from those emotions. Yet, many a time the common folk do attain the said abstraction amidst verbal exchange. In that moment, their expression is poetic with a style of its own that constitutes impressive word-selection. Poetry or literature in general is largely an abstract art, its concreteness is dependent on its fundamental alienation act. The alienation act is indeed an abstraction. An ordinary person is not gifted with a rich vocabulary and for that reason one is not in a position to express subtler thoughts and feelings adequately.

In brief, the New Poets have been instructed to limit themselves to the said aesthetic emotion. It is believed that real life-experiences should not be expressed unless they flow in the moment of aesthetic emotion. This theory is marked by not just a specific artistic sensibility but one that carries a peculiar thematic bias. However, it is accompanied by the stress upon the individual bound to his individuality. This viewpoint is inadequate from the psychological angle and reactionary in social practice. We are sufficiently aware how much of the aesthetic emotion the New Poetry theorists hold in their poetic endeavour.

Let us admit that the New Poet is devoid of an integrated philosophical ideology, yet he is in touch with the reality of his own life. I find it unacceptable that his mind does not carry the burden of modern-day society producing harsh and unbearable feelings, or conversely feelings that are beautiful and appealing. He feels disturbed, too, by scenes of want and deprivation. Without doubt, these poets sensitively appreciate conditions prevailing at this time. Being sensitive, they are distressed on seeing the pain of fellow human beings and feel troubled at the sight of terrifying scenes of our unequal conditions in the present. The fact, however, remains that they do not care to depict such a spectacle. The creative mind’s self-partitioning of the sufferer and the perpetrator is indeed dangerous and unhealthy. One might take the question further–Why is it that they are incapable of filling this gap?

As I see it, there are many reasons behind it. First, their value system vis-à-vis selection of themes, and their ability to discriminate is weak. But why is it weak? My answer would be, they are obsessed with elitist norms of the upper-middle class nurturing an exclusive aesthetic. They are victims of the reigning prejudices of our time. The peculiar aesthetic has given rise to thoughts and forms that the New Poets have prepared as an invisible mould. They have evolved a stance of their own, indeed carrying a distortion within it, call it fossilization if you will. We hardly notice that it has assumed a shape resembling regimentation.

The said literary aesthetic operates in accordance with its own inner censor that works as a persecutor and controls sensations and feelings preserved in the heart. The same are no longer allowed to grow further. Occasionally these feelings might raise their head and the writer might wish to give them a voice. But is this writer aware of the role sustained hard work plays in the nurturing of creative capability? Indeed, without such an effort, comprehensive articulation isn’t possible. That leaves him with a lame and hesitant expression. Secondly, a variety of self-centered ideas function within the writer, affecting the wealth of his vocabulary and linguistic prowess. He is unable to move ahead in his creative journey, fails to realize his potential of doing justice to the felt experience within himself. The poet is frustrated in his venture and leaves the struggle in the lurch. The moment makes him cling to the old patterns of feeling. He loses grip on the passion generated within him by the clashes he watches. The result is a dilution of emotion and crushed self-esteem.

If the writer is honest unto his poetic self, he will have to be answerable to the period he lives in. He will have to loosen the grip on aesthetic sensors working on him, let his inner thoughts awaken to select themes, and persevere to strengthen his expression. Greater courage and capability will be required for achieving this. More importantly, giving in to the aesthetic framework won’t certainly help. Instead, it is essential for the writer to ensure enrichment of experience accompanied by expansion of the aesthetic self and its constant tempering.

For me, beauty exists in the depiction of the writer’s multifaceted inner life, where the sense of selfhood is accorded due significance. The writer should recognize the worth of experiences resting in his mind and how these work in tandem with the external world. If we sever ourselves from the larger context, nothing would sustain us. It is vital to visualize ourselves as integrated in both outer and inner domains of life. The Progressive trend picked up for adoption the political aspect alone, ignoring the breadth of poetic emotion within the human being. If New Poetry likewise confines itself to the inner aspect of human life alone, it would lack a wholesome knowledge of the other side. For this, both consciousness and expression need to be broadened in scope. It is essential for New Poetry to combine creative interest with building a humanist future. I do not underestimate New Poetry’s achievements; indeed, I am a part of that trend.

To repeat, the poetic creation is not an individualist psychological process, but a cultural process. Yet, it is an individual venture. The cultural norms reflected in it do not emanate from the individual himself, but come from society or to be specific, a class. Let it be noted that unless New Poetry recognizes the decadent nature of the existing civilization, aligns itself with fundamental issues of social life, reorganizes itself as an active agent in the struggle for building a constructive future, unless it makes known its partisanship for the exploited and deprived among us and is illumined by their collective strength, our task would remain incomplete. Let us admit, we cannot achieve all that in a day. But we can at least move in that direction by drawing strength from a rational and sensitive view of the pain and suffering in our time.

In this context, a statement from the Italian poet Domenico Cadoresi comes to mind. He had observed,

‘Let us move out of the dense mythical forest of intense individualism. At whichever place man is engaged in protecting himself, there indeed are his own interests involved. Let the hero of our poetry be none other than concrete reality itself . . .

Art should pick up its tools, gunpowder is perhaps necessary too, so that the fossilised rocks are shattered and the epoch’s live, vibrant thought-springs, that are buried deep under the rocks, are set free. Let man alone hold conversation with man, let man begin talking to society. The time has arrived that we discard the mysterious, magical and hazy chants of the past. If pure poetry isolates us from real life then why have such conceptions in poetry? We must break these barriers and leap out of these constrictions. It is time to leave behind self-oriented monologues and soliloquies, and enter into the realm of dialogues, not think of walking alone but join in the struggle, striving to create a unified complete art instead of focusing on fragmented experiences. It is necessary to clearly represent before the people their own conditions of misery and privation. And we must try to find words of consolation and agency that can help alleviate their poverty.’   

In sum, the poet today cannot attain consciousness of the self in the true sense till one acquires a world consciousness. In other words, the poet needs to contemplate the essential dialectics operating in society and get to the root of today’s problems. That is to suggest that we have to realise the totality of real life in our society and equip ourselves with a developed worldview. Thus, we’ll be able to interpret the actual social relations and gain awareness of the people’s movements inherent in them. With such a viewpoint, our understanding will be strengthened; it will enhance our awareness regarding the sensitive layers of human experience. Not limiting us to the rational intellectual vision, it will give a fillip to the sensibility residing in it, and take the said awareness to a new level. In the process, we have to evolve a flexible expression, a rich vocabulary helpful to attain vibrancy, and subtle sensations active in it, in addition to projecting the currents that keep enlivening us by the day. In short, this will meet the demands of contemporary society. 

The poet of today with a progressive bent has to be active in three specific areas of life– 1) struggle for essence; 2) efficiency of expression 3) and an integrated vision. For us, essence concerns visualising the reality of experiences, made richer with a rational perspective. Our epoch is defined by a constant dynamism. That will have to be picked up for projection so we live our time and become truly contemporary. The selection of issues will lend to us a discriminating power supported by a developed consciousness. It is necessary to realise such a vision in life. Our tension-ridden world needs a direction urgently. 

However, the worldview described above cannot be realised until we build a future shaped by constant struggle, enabling us to unite with the process spiritually. In the present time we require a different kind of poetic career. Such a path does not belong to a poet who is merely a composer of verses, a propagator, or an armchair intellectual. Nor will such a writer come from the upper echelons of society or from those pursuing a career in the arts, globetrotting and curating painting exhibitions. We require a poetic figure who assesses competently the human essence, and projects intellectual and emotional oneness with the ordinary people. Such a poet would seek wisdom rooted in collective social experiences and return one’s literary wealth back to the masses in an enriched form. If we project faith in the intellectual and spiritual potential of the common people, we shall prove to be the true sons of the soil. The work of shaping such a vision of the epoch is indeed inspiring. That would bring us closer to our genuine self. We love our life in all its effulgence. Undeniably, our silent efforts to foster poetic sensibility and shape the era’s consciousness are, in themselves, acts of devotion.

Translation as Commitment: My Journey with Muktibodh

My engagement with Gajanan Madhav Muktibodh began as early as 2003, when I was pursuing a bachelor’s degree in English and a new syllabus had been introduced at Delhi University. One of the papers, titled Modern Indian Literature, focused on vernacular writing that was available in translation. Among the many Indian poets we encountered, it was the Hindi poet Muktibodh who captured my attention.

As students and scholars of literature, we were encouraged to read works in their original language if we had the advantage of knowing it. I approached this with tentative steps. The poems included in our syllabus were titled The Void and So Very Far. Upon reading the original Hindi versions, I was appalled by the brutality of their translation. It pained me to see how ruthlessly the translations distorted the writer’s voice. To me, they failed to capture the essence of Muktibodh’s poetry.

The Hindi title for The Void was Shoonya, and for So Very Far, it was Main Tum Logon Se Door Hoon. In Shoonya, Muktibodh was reflecting on the absences that define lower-middle-class life—lack of food, livelihood, and a series of painful ‘nothings’. It was certainly not the abstract, philosophical “void” the English translation suggested. In So Very Far, I felt the translator had dulled the poem’s political sharpness. Where Muktibodh used his verse like a spade to distance himself from the agents of oppression, the translation turned it into a vague existential musing. I was both saddened and outraged. As a student, I felt helpless but also became deeply aware of the transformative—and at times distorting—power of translation. I began to understand the importance of returning to one’s mother tongue to retrieve and, more importantly, rescue committed writers whose works were being devalued by translators.

Over time, my purpose became clearer. I increasingly found myself drawn to translation work—attending workshops led by experts during my MA, and translating stories and poems from Hindi into English. Eventually, I chose to focus on Muktibodh’s poetry for my MPhil research. At the time, he was largely unknown in English-language literary circles and had not achieved canonical status. There was scant scholarly engagement with his work in English, and to this day, there is no anthology solely devoted to his poetry in English translation. My journey in translating this stalwart of Hindi literature began then. Muktibodh, in many ways, is a deeply political poet. He was profoundly attuned to the historical currents shaping post-independence India and wrote consistently on the pressing social and political issues of his time.

In the present essay titled ‘Poetry: A Cultural Process’ Muktibodh examines the various poetic movements that emerged specifically in the early twentieth century and their impact on Hindi literature of the time. His discussion spans a wide historical range—from the Ritikal (Formalism) period of the 18th and 19th centuries to the Chhayavadi (Romanticism) movement of the 1920s, the Pragativadi (Progressive) poetry of the 1930s and 1940s, and finally the Nai Kavita (New Poetry) trend of the 1950s. In doing so, he offers a broad perspective that can be understood as a form of literary history. Muktibodh’s essay draws attention to the evolving literary culture and the changing concerns of writers across these periods. One of the central debates in Hindi literature at the time revolved around the New Poetry movement—specifically, the absence of ideological substance in it, its indifference to social issues, and its preoccupation with aesthetic form. While many contemporary critics dismissed the movement as superficial, Muktibodh recognized in it a sincere effort to grapple with complex realities. Even as he squarely criticized the dubious tendencies in the movement he was open enough to point out that most poets associated with this trend were genuinely committed to the concerns of common humanity. For Muktibodh, one of the most valuable contributions of the New Poets was their exploration of the psychological processes of the individual, which they translated into a poetic form. This, he argued, was a significant and commendable development in Hindi poetry. Instead of condemning these poets, Muktibodh advocated for a more constructive approach—one that would highlight their shortcomings while encouraging them to become more socially aware. In the process, Muktibodh outlined how poetry is not a pure aesthetic entity but deeply rooted in the culture that produces it. 

For me, translation is an act of ideological alignment. An ideal translation arises from a deeper association a translator has with an author. It is then that the translator can truly become the author—taking responsibility not just for the language but for the intent behind it. Without this shared conviction, a self-conscious distance remains, and this tension manifests in the translated text—whether as a lack of clarity or a distortion of meaning. The central question is, has the translator truly grasped the sensibility of the author, and the world envisioned by them? If this understanding is weak, the translation will suffer.