Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Zamana aaya hae baehijabi ka

Aam deedar e yar ho ga

 

Sakoot tha pardahdaar jiss ka

Woh raaz ab askhaar ho ga

 

Guzr gaey ab who dorr saqi

Ke chhup ke peetae thae peenae waalay

 

Bunnae ga sara jahan maekhana

Her koi baadkhwar ho ga

 

Kabhi jo awara e janoo’n thae

Who bastio’n maen phir aa basae’n gae

 

Bey [help] wohie rahae ga

Magar naya khazdaar ho ga

 

Nikl kae sehra sae jiss nae

Roma kie saltanat ko ulta dia tha

 

Sunna hae qudsio’n sae maenae

Who shaer phir hoshiar ho ga

 

Tumharie tehzeeb apnea khanjar sae

Aap hie khud khudkushie karae gie

 

Jo shaakh nazuk peh aashianae

Bunnaey ga na paiedaar ho ga

 

Maen zulmat e shub maen lae kae niklo’n ga

Apnea darmaanda caravaan ko

 

Sirfasha’n ho gie aah maerie

Nafs maera sholahbaar ho ga

 

Na pooch iqbal ka thkana

Abhi wohi kaefiat hae [help]

 

Kahien sir e rah guzaar baetha

Mastam kuns ashzaar ho ga. [help, last two lines too].

Frameworks I Outline Modulation

Final: 13 Nov, 2007[1]

Revised: 25 Nov

 

September

Actual

 

 

Session Content

Mon

4th

Introductions: Only 4 students showed up: made for a cozy introductory discussion.

Fri

7th

Introductions, full class: preliminary discussion on Eagleton prefaces and Introduction

Mon

10th

Eagleton Introduction, “What is literature”:

 

In four groups, and with the instructor tackling the last, we went through and discussed five different definitions offered and deconstructed.

 

*‘Lecture-paper’ from me circulated: a textual analysis of the Preface to the Second Edition.

Fri

14th

Addicted to War. Open discussion on the text. Not as animated as anticipated, but I think it drove home some perfunctory reflections on the close relationship between literature, aesthetics and politics; and also questions on what is and isn’t academic/reality/historical/literature.

Mon

17th

“Landscapes of History” I

–instructor-led discussion

*Landscapes in-class writing assignment

Fri

21st

I was unwell, absent. Students agreed to a make-up session next month (after Ramzaan)

Mon

24th

“Landscapes of History” II

–instructor-led discussion

*Hand-out: detailed notes, tackling the trajectory of the chapter’s development, its central arguments and analyses, and critiques of where I think the text isn’t airtight, and might be susceptible to attack.

Fri

28th

Eagleton Chapter 1. “The Rise of English”

– instructor-led discussion

 


October

Actual

 

 

Session Content

Mon

1st

Eagleton Ch 1 “The Rise of English”, Part II

– instructor-led discussion

*Handout circulated: notes, recapping previous lecture, detailing arguments and developments ahead—leaving questions at the end as a reading-discussion guide for the first half of the chapter.

Fri

5th

Eagleton Ch 1. “The Rise of English”, concluding, Part III

–to have been an instructor-led discussion

scrapped: concluded with final (III) chapter handout distributed…

– Last Soliloquy and Great Torch Handover

–TS Eliot, “The lovesong of Alfred J Prufrock”

                    – group reading

Mon

8th

Eagleton, Ch 2. “Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Reception Theory,

–Group 1 Presentation I

Fantastic presentation: got all the way up to the end of phenomenology.

Group 1 signed up for the other presentation on the chapter. They were permitted also have a third session if required. [This set a precedent: as many presentations as it takes to cover a chapter.]

Fri

12th

Two sessions cancelled out by Eid holidays.

Mon

15th

Fri

19th

Eagleton, Ch 2. “Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Reception Theory

–Group 1 Presentation II

Group 1, for genuine reasons (as in group members were clearly prepared), requested a third session for the more formal presentation. We agreed to make this session an open discussion, which turned out to be semi-structured by the group’s homework on the chapter. The group facilitated the discussion very well, helped also by excellent recaps of ground covered so far in the chapter from outside the group.

Mon

22nd

Eagleton, Ch 2. “Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Reception Theory

 

–Group 1 Presentation III

 

Again, much ground covered, but Group 1 could not conclude the Chapter (again, lesson: detailed textual analysis requires time), and was therefore allotted a fourth session.

 

*Group circulated their handout–a good draft. They’ve been given detailed feedback on it, and have promised to post the final handout on the web-page.

Thurs

25th

Eagleton, Ch 2. “Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Reception Theory

–Group 1, Presentation III and three quarters

A mammoth effort. [This set another precedent: rather than the half-chapter presentations previously designed, the students asked permission for groups to tackle entire chapters—in as many presentations as it would take.]

 

Student presentation and peer review (Half an hour): A student took the initiative to circulate a paper, “The benefits of Ramazaan,” – and invited feedback and dialogue. The paper engendered a little healthy debate, and the class provided general and specific, predominantly constructive, feedback to the author on her text. For me, it was a tremendous individual effort met with a sincere group response.

Fri

26th

Eagleton, Ch 3. “Structuralism and Semiotics,”

 

–Group 3 Presentation I

The group provided a good lead-in to the chapter and covered much ground. Again, proceeding textually—it is my perception that the mass majority of the class is proceeding on-board in terms of grappling with the major developments, and tracking the trajectory and aesthetics of the arguments.

 

First Response Paper due Saturday 27th, by the end of the night by email. Hardcopy to be submitted Monday 29th. [With three exceptions, all papers were submitted dead on the deadline. The three too missed it only by a whisker. Students have been given detailed critiques and comments, have been encouraged to schedule student conferences with me on their papers, and told that the final draft they submit, if they choose to, is the one they will be graded on (if not, the first grade will stick).] –[This was changed in the post-final modeling: now, the first draft will count as the mid-term, and the final draft as the end-term paper. For this one-on-one (or small group) conferences have been made mandatory; the papers are being scaled up. Also, in lieu of having to do two papers, the class has agreed to grid Eagleton.]

Mon

29th

Movie Screening and discussion, Dead Poets Society –We opened this up, each student was asked to bring 3 DVDs and we would decide on the day which to watch. With the choices at hand, we decided to watch DPS : ) ! Immediate responses, particularly from those who hadn’t seen it, were quite intense. Also, one fascinating if disturbing but necessary ideological one — which the student has promised to turn into an extra-credit response paper.

 

Coffee-tea on me!

[The majority of students didn’t respond to my hospitality : (  being considerate to me I’m sure, but still!]

 

 

November

Actual up till Friday 23

Plan thereafter

 

 

Session Content

Thurs 1st

Eagleton, Ch 3. “Structuralism and Semiotics”

–Group 3 Presentation II

Got all the way up to just before narratology – student requested half an hour before the review to complete the presentation on narratology.

Fri

2nd

Eagleton, Ch 3, Structuralism and Semiotics”

–Group 3, Presentation II and a half

Breezed through narratology. Generated an idea for a class assignment: practically using Genet’s framework to analyze one very short story. [Too much going on, hence this didn’t happen. But, important note for future module.]

 

Aesthetic Re-view:

Students were asked to bring all texts covered so far, handouts, and their notes on:

 

Eagleton: Prefaces and Intro, Intro: What is literature? ATW. Landscapes. Eagleton: 1. The Rise of English 2. Phenomenology, Hermeneutics and Reception Theory. TS Eliot, The Lovesong of Alfred J Prufrock. Also, any other poems or short stories annexed or brought into play at any point.

 

Also requested to bring poster or art/drawing paper, and implements of their choosing: charcoal, pastels, markers, color pencils, crayons, paint, clay, whatever… [we were supplemented in this by material support provided by the school]

 

Too much Textuality; an academic review would have been overkill at this point. So, this was a much needed unwinding re-inter-pre(sen)tation session, allowing students to freely relate back to the texts and what we’ve covered creatively. The aesthetics and politics of what was created and is up on our workshop doors and walls is beautiful and inspiring (for me at least).

Mon

5th

Eagleton, Ch 3. “Structuralism and Semiotics,”

 

–Group 3 Presentation III

 

The group continued to cover much ground, with good to mixed to sometimes medium presentations, but not for lack of effort. One student requested a student conference with me before her second presentation [lesson learnt: those who are unclear about how to present or the material they’re presenting on, as individuals, or groups, may benefit from scheduling a meeting with me beforehand]. Much covered in the chapter, but much remained.

Thurs

8th


Black day. Class consensus: session postponed.

 

We did, however, hold two critical group meetings we had scheduled for Wednesday but were not able to convene.[2]

Fri

9th

Iqbal day, declared public holiday

 

I had proposed to the students, before the holiday registered, that we make it another unwinding session. Security situation permitting, I had wanted us to go to an art gallery and write reflective pieces based on whatever aesthetics drew them in (or didn’t).

Mon

12th

Eagleton Ch 3. “Structuralism and Semiotics,”

 

–Group 3 Presentation IV

 

The objective was to conclude the chapter. The group did very well, was prepared, but one component of the plan went awry. One student linking the three presentations suddenly fell unwell. That link is now dangling, and more than one student expressed the need to go through it together. Therefore, it has to be thrown forward.

Wed / Thurs

 

The optional session this week I agreed to cancel at the request of students and faculty (who wanted to work in their own make-up classes).

 

Fri

16th

20 minutes to insert missing link on Structuralism

– this missing link, though adding something, started almost half an hour late and effectively usurped even getting a start on:

 

Eagleton, Ch 4. “Post-Structuralism,” Group 2. Presentation I, which had to be moved forward

Mon

19th

In light of the extra-ordinary socio-political environment, I begged this session off Group 2, who had been prepared to present since Friday.

In-class writing reflection on the current situation, creative or critical, from a personal point of view

Hate-Love exercise

Readings of some remarkable reflections, in prose and poetry

Thurs 21st

Optional discussion section canceled this week too due to faculty and student requests

Fri

23rd

Eagleton, Ch 4. “Post-Structuralism,” Group 2. Presentation I

Good start, recapping a consolidated critique of structuralism

Mon

26th

Eagleton, Ch 4. “Post-Structuralism,” Group 2. Presentation II

Wed 28th

Optional discussion session (If Group 2 wants an extra session to complete the presentation, they could use this discussion session space; they will also have to request the group to make the session mandatory)

Fri

30th

Eagleton, Ch 4. “Post-Structuralism,”

–Group 2. Presentation III

 

 

 


December

Plan

 

Session Content

Mon

3rd

Eagleton, Ch 5. “Psychoanalysis,”

–Group 3, Presentation I

 

Draft of Final Term Paper due

Wed 5th

 

Open discussion

Fri

7th

Eagleton, Ch 5. “Psychoanalysis,”

–Group 3 Presentation II

Mon 10th

Eagleton, Ch 5. “Psychoanalysis,”

–Group 3 Presentation III

Wed

12th

Eagleton, Ch 5. “Psychoanalysis,”

–Group 3 Presentation IV

Fri 14th  

Review Session: Group 2 Facilitated discussion on Eagleton: 3. Structuralism and Semiotics 4. Post-structuralism, and 5. Psychoanalysis

Mon

17th  

Conclusion: Political Criticism I

Wed

19th

Movie Screening, Stranger than Fiction, V for Vendetta, any other suggestions? Extended session for those who wish to discuss the movie. Coffee-tea on me!

 

Friday

21st

Conclusion II, Afterward, may introduce some “political science fiction,” and wrap-up

 

End of Term: Party?

 

Final Term Paper due, hardcopy submissions in class; optional posting on frameworkers by midnight.

 

 




[1] The constant re-modulation of the original course outline has reflected ground realities, new learning and student feedback. Though this “final” module is still flexible and open to adjustments, it is based on a class meeting (not the entire class, but all groups were represented), at which critical final decisions were made – and which are now reflected in this schedule, which we are going to do our utmost to stick to.

[2] Critical decisions made at the meeting on the course, and for the workshop website:

1.        Wednesdays 3.30 to 5 we shall hold optional group discussion sessions – this is to free ourselves from the textual bind we otherwise have to follow to complete, and absorb and debate the context around us and the theories and texts we’re studying across courses. This is a much needed element largely (not altogether) missing from the course design thus far. Therefore, we would not petition for the class to be accorded 4 instead of 3 credit hours, an option floated and discussed.

2.       Because, at the rate at which we are covering the text—which I refuse to speed up, as I see it as a critical and appropriate absorption pace—we would not have finished the text with the plan as it stood. Therefore, we had two choices: a) to drop one chapter (psychoanalysis), or b) do away with workshopping (peer reviews) the final term paper presentations altogether, or pack them into three sessions. Thank God we didn’t go for a) and or the former half of b). We decided on two 2 hour 20 minute sessions covering 6 students, and one 2 hour 40 minute session for 7. This will give 15 minutes for students to comment on one paper, and five minutes for the author to respond (plus a 20 minute break).

3.       We agreed to allocate 2 presentations to the short post-structuralism chapter, and 4 for the longer and denser psychoanalysis chapter.

4.       Website:

      a) We confirmed our decision to shift our bulk to wordpress;

      b) However, we also agreed to keep the google group going for more       technical/administrative announcements and discussions – as they are immediately mailed out to everyone;

      c) we agreed we’d schedule a half hour presentation for Sidra to guide us on using the         site, and registering anyone who is still having problems; d) we decided that if       everyone shifts their own paper onto the new site, the web team can then distribute          anything else to be shifted amongst themselves.

a little trinity of frost’s

a little trinity of frost’s

 

Stopping by woods on a Snowy Evening

 

Whose woods these are I think I know.

His house is in the village though;

He will not see me stopping here

To watch his woods fill up with snow.

 

My little horse must think it queer

To stop without a farmhouse near

Between the woods and frozen lake

The darkest evening of the year.

 

He gives his harness bells a shake

To ask if there is some mistake.

The only other sound’s the sweep

Of easy wind and downy flake.

 

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep,

And miles to go before I sleep.

 

Two Look at Two

 

Love and forgetting might have carried them

A little further up the mountainside

With night so near, but not much further up.

They must have halted soon in any case

With thoughts of the path back, how rough it was

With rock and washout, and unsafe in the darkness;

When they were halted by a tumbled wall

With barbed-wire binding. They stood facing this,

Spending what onward impulse they still had

In one last look the way they must not go,

On up the failing path, where, if a stone

Or earthslide moved at night, it moved itself;

No footstep moved it. “This is all”, they sighed,

“Good-night to the woods.” But not so; there was more.

A doe from round a spruce stood looking at them

Across the wall, as near the wall as they.

She saw them in their field, they her in hers.

The difficulty of seeing what stood still,

Like some up-ended boulder split in two,

Was in her clouded eyes: they saw no fear there.

She seemed to think that two thus were safe.

Then, as if they were something that, though strange,

She could not trouble her mind with too long,

She sighed and passed unscared along the wall.

This, then, is all. What more is there to ask?”

But no, not yet. A snort to bid them wait.

A buck from round the spruce stood looking at them

This was an antlered buck of lusty nostril,

He viewed them quizzically with jerks of the head,

As if to ask, “Why don’t you makes some motion?

Or give some sign of life? Because you can’t.

I doubt as if you’re living as you look.”

Thus till he had them almost feeling dared

To stretch a proffering hand—and a spell-breaking.

The he too passed unscared along the wall.

Two had seen two, whichever side you spoke from.

This must be all.” It was all. Still they stood,

A great wave from it was going over them,

As if the earth in one unlooked-for favour

Had made them certain earth returned their love.

Tree at My Window

 

Tree at my window, window tree,

My sash is lowered when night draws on;

But let there never be curtain drawn

Between you and me.

 

Vague dream-head lifted out of the ground,

And thing next most diffuse to cloud,

Not all your light tongues talking aloud

Could be profound.

 

But tree, I have seen you taken and tossed,

And if you have seen me when I slept,

You have seen me when I was taken and swept

And all but lost.

 

That day she put our heads together,

Fate had her imagination about her,

Your head so much concerned with outer,

Mine with inner, weather.

ten (tonne) poems jalib’s

Ten Poems

Habib Jalib

I
What Does Pakistan Mean?

Bread, clothes and medicine
A little house to live in
Free education, as may right be seen
A Muslim, I, too, have always been
What does Pakistan mean
There is no God, but God, The Rab-al-alameen

For American alms do not bray
Do not, the people, laugh away
With the democratic struggle do not play
Hold on to freedom, do not cave in
What does Pakistan mean
There is no God…

Confiscate the fields from the landowners
Take away the mills from the robbers
Redeem the country from its dark hours
Off with the lordly vermin
What does Pakistan mean
There is no God…

Sind, Baluchistan and Frontier
These three are to Panjab most dear
And Bengal lends them splendour
Anguished should not be their mien
What does Pakistan mean
There is no God…

This, then, is the basic thing
For the people, let freedom’s bell ring
From the rope, let the plunderer swing
Truly they speak, who the truth have seen
What does Pakistan mean
There is no God, but Allah…

I
Pakistan Ka Matlab Kya?

Roti, kapda aur dawa
Ghar rehne ko chhota sa
Muft mujhe talim dila
Mein bhi Musalmaan hoon wallah
Pakistan ka matlab kya
La Ilaha Illalah…

Amrika se mang na bhik
Mat kar logon ki tazhik
Rok na janhoori tehrik
Chhod na azadi ki rah
Pakistan ka matlab hai kya
La Ilaha Illalah…

Khet waderon se le lo
Milen luteron se le lo
Mulk andheron se le lo
Rahe na koi Alijah
Pakistan ka matlab kya
La Ilaha Illalah…

Sarhad, Sindh, Baluchistan
Teenon hain Panjab ki jaan
Aur Bangal hai sab ki aan
Aai na un ke lab par aah
Pakistan ka matlab kya
La Ilaha Illalah…

Baat yehi hai bunyadi
Ghasib ki ho barbadi
Haq kehte hain haq agah
Pakistan ka matlab kya
La Ilaha Illalah…

   

II
Islam Is Not In Danger

Endangered are the idle rich, bursting with cash
Crumbling walls about to crash
All the centuries’ mish-mash
Islam is not in danger
Why do a few clans all the land rights enjoy
And those, who revere the Prophet, are bereft of joy

Endangered are the beasts of prey
Multicoloured cars which in the streets sashay
And for whom the American hearts sway
Islam is not in danger
Due to our slogans the palaces shake and tremble
The towering ornate shops cannot our hopes quell

Endangered are the robbers of the highway
Western traders who make hay
Thieves and tricksters who waylay
Islam is not in danger
Holding aloft the banner of peace, loving all humans, we are on the go
Loving all the world, O Jalib, is our proud credo

Endangered are the palatial predators
The kings and their abettors
Nawabs and other such traitors
Islam is not in danger.

II
Khatre Mein Islam Nahin

Khatra hai zar daron ko
Girti hui diwaron ko
Sadiyon ke bimaron ko
Khatre mein Islam nahin
Sari zamin ko ghere hue hain aakhir chand gharane kyon
Naam nabi ka lene wale ulfat se begane kyon

Khatra hai khun khwaron ko
Rang birangi karon ko
Amrika ke pyaron ko
Khatre mein Islam nahin
Aaj hamare naaron se larza hai bapa aiwanon mein

Bik na sakenge hasrat-o arman unchi saji dukanon mein
Khatra hai bat maron ko
Maghrib ke bazaron ko
Choron ko makkaron ko
Khatre mein Islam nahin
Amn ka parcham le kar utho har insane se piyar karo
Aprna to manshoor hai Jalib, sare jahan se pyar karo

Khatra hai darbaron ko
Shahon ke ghamkhwaron ko
Nawabon, ghaddaron ko
Khatre mein Islam nahin

   

III
Maulana

Too long I have heard you preach and prate, Maulana
But so far there has been no change in my fate, Maulana
Keep to yourself your preachings of gratefulness
My heart, like an arrow, they penetrate, Maulana
The truth, only you know or God knows
They say that Jimmy Carter is your pir* incarnate, Maulana
The land to the landlords, the machine to the despoilers
This, according to you, is God’s dictate, Maulana
Why don’t millions fight for Palestine
Prayers alone cannot from chains liberate, Maulana

* Sufi saint

III
Maulana

Bahut mein ne suni hai aap ki taqreer Maulana
Magar badli nahin ab tak meri taqdeer Maulana
Khudara Shukr ki talqeen apne pass hi rakhen
Yeh lagti hai mere seene pe ban kar teeer Maulana
Nahin mein bol sakta jhut is darja dhitai se
Yehi hai jurm mera aur yehi taqsir Maulana
Haqeeqat ka kya hai, yeh to aap jaanen ya Khuda jane
Suna hai Jimmi Carter hai aap ka peer Maulana
Zameenen hon waderon ki, mashinen hon luteron ki
Khuda ne likh ke di hai yeh tumhen terhrir Maulana
Karodon kyon nahin mil kar Falastin ke liye ladte
Dua hi se faqat kat-ti nahin zanjir Maulana

   

IV
Ghazal

Hindustan belongs to me and Pakistan belongs to me
Both of these, however, are under American hegemony

American aid gave us wheat, as also their deceit
Do not ask me how long we’ve suffered their conceit

And yet the bayonets are all around this flowering valley
Hindustan belongs to me and Pakistan belongs to me

Khan Bahadur, do not follow the English, from them better keep away
Once again they are holding you by the collar, you are still their prey

Macmillan was never thine, Kennedy can never be
Hindustan belongs to me and Pakistan belongs to me

This land in fact, my dear, belongs to peasants and workers
Here will not run the writ of a few clannish marauders

The dawn of freedom is heralding the end of tyranny
Hindustan belongs to me and Pakistan belongs to me.

IV
Ghazal

Hindustan bhi mera hai aur Pakistan bhi mera hai
Lekin in donon mulkon mein Amrika dera hai

Aid ki gandam kha kar ham ne kitney dhokey khai hain
Poochh na hamne Amrika ke kitne naaz uthai hain

Phir bhi ab tak wadi-e gul ko sangeenon ne ghera hai
Hindustan bhi mera hai aur Pakistan bhi mera hai

Khan Bahadur chhodna hoga ab to saath Angrezon ka
Ta bah gareban aa pahuncha hai phir se hath Angrezon ka

Macmilan tera na hua to Kenedy kab tera hai
Hindustan bhi mera hai aur Pakistan bhi mera hai

Yeh dharti hai asal mein, pyare, mazdooron dahqanon ki
Is dharti par chal na sakegi marzi chand gharanon ki

Zulm ki rat rahegi kab tak ab nazdik savera hai
Hindustan bhi mera hai aur Pakistan bhi mera hai

   

V
The Mother

The children were shot dead
The mother, in fury, said
These pieces of my heart
Should cry and I stand apart
Looking on from afar
This I cannot do

I should look on from afar
As the tyrants, night and day
With the blood of my children Holi* play
Besmirched in red
As the children were shot dead
The mother, in fury, said
These pieces of my heart
Should cry and I stand apart
Looking on from afar
This, I cannot do

* Spring festival played with coloured water

She walked came down to the ground
Like lightening flashing around
The tyrant’s hand trembled
Full of fear the gun frowned
Everywhere her echo did resound
I am hereby bound, I am coming for this round
I am hereby bound, I am coming for this round

Then oppression became evil
Panic-stricken were those who kill
When she thundered
As our children were murdered
She said, you vampires
Gold is the be all of your desires
This land belongs to us all
This land, you Dunces Esquires
Lackeys, still, to your British Sires

The sahib’s beneficence
Has not made you landlords: squires
Desist from this tyranny
Back to your barracks, flee
You, who rove ahead
With a gang of plunderers you have bred
As our children were shot dead

V
Maan

Bachchon pe chali goli
Maan dekh ke yeh boli
Yeh dil ke mere tukde
Yun royen mere hote
Mein dur khadi dekhoon
Yeh mujh se nahin hoga

Mein Dur khadi dekhun
Aur ahl-e sitam khelen
Khun se mere bachchon ke
Din-raat yahan holi
Bachchon pe chali goli
Maan dekh ke yeh boli
Yeh dil ke mere tukde
Yun royen mere hote
Mein dur khadi dekhun
Yeh mujh se nahin hoga

Meidan mein nikal aayi
Ek barq si lehrai
Har dast-e sitam kanpa
Bandooq bhi tharrai
Har simt sada gunji
Mein aati hun, mein aayee
Mein aati hun, mein aayee

Har zulm hua batil
Aur seham gaye qatil
Jab us ne zaban kholi
Bachchon pe chali goli
Us ne kaha khun-khwaro!
Daulat ke parastaro
Dharti hai yeh ham sab ki
Is dharti ko naa-dano!
Angrezon ke darbano!
Sahab ki ata-kardah
Jagir na tum jano
Is zulm se baaz aao
Bairak mein chale jao
Kyon chand luteron ki
Phirte ho liye toli
Bachchon pe chali goli

   

VI
The Garden Is A Bloody Mess

This poem is about the oppression in East Pakistan in 1971

Our eyes yearn for greenery
The garden is a bloody mess
For whom should I sing my songs of love
The cities are all a wilderness
The garden is a bloody mess

The rays of the sun, they sting
Moonbeams are a killing field, no less
Deep shadows of death hover at every step
Life wears a skull and bone dress
All around the air is on prowl
With bows and arrows, in full harness
The garden is a bloody mess

The battered buds are like a sieve
The leaves drenched in blood smears
Who knows, for how long
We’ll have this rain of tears
People how long do we have to bear
These days and nights of sorrow and distress
This oppressor’s blood bath is a frolicsome play
For the mighty of the world, a mark of their prowess
The garden is a bloody mess

VI
Bagiya Lahoo Luhan

Haryali ko aankhen tarsen bagiya lahoo luhan
Pyar ke geet sunaoon kis ko shehar hue weeran
Bagiya lahoo luhan

Dasti hain suraj ki kirnen chand jalaye jaan
Pag pag maut ke gehre saye jeewan maut saman
Charon ore hawa phirti hai le kar teer Kaman
Bagiya lahoo luhan

Chhalni hain kaliyon ke seeney khoon mein lat paat
Aur nahjaney kab tak hogi ashkon ki barsaat
Dunya walon kab beeteinge dukh ke yeh din raat
Khoon se holi khel rahe hain dharti ke balwan
Bagiya lahoo luhan

   

VII
God Is Ours

Addressed to religious hucksters of any denomination and the system they defend – translator’s note

God is not yours, to Him we have access
He does not look kindly on those who oppress

How long, you men of pelf, will you bleed us white
Get off our backs, you who in filthy lucre take delight
You satans it is dust that you will soon bite
We believe that He treats mankind with loving tenderness
He does not look kindly on those who oppress

Light of new wisdom we are going to see
A fire flares up, seeing our agony
In this new magical dawn will burst forth the blossoming tree
He brings hopes to those who are mired in distress
God is not yours, to Him we have access
He does not look kindly on those who oppress

We’ll break the shadowy spell of fear and dread
Onwards we will march, chains of despair we will shred
We’ll not betray the hopes of the people, our dear kindred
And long we will remember this time of duress
He does not look kindly on those who oppress

VII
Khuda Hamara Hai

Khuda tumhara nahi hai khuda hamara hai
Use zamin pe yeh zulm kab gawara hai

Lahoo piyoge kahan tak hamara dhanwano
Badhao apni dukan seem-o zar ke deewano
Nishan kahin na rahega tumhara shaitano
Hamein yaqeen hai ke insaan usko pyara hai
Khuda tumhara nahin hai khuda hamara hai
Use zameen pe yeh zulm kab gaawara hai

Nai shaoor ki hai roshni nigahon mein
Ek aag si bhi hai ab apni sard aahon mein
Khilenge phool nazar ke sahar ki bahon mein
Dukhe dilon ko isi aas ka sahara hai
Khuda tumhara nahin hai khuda hamara hai
Use zameen pe yeh zulm kab gawara hai

Tilism-e sayah-e khauf-o hiras todenge
Qadam bandhayenge zanjeere-e yaas todenge
Kabhi kisi ke na ham dil ki aas todenge
Rahega yaad jo ehd-e sitam guzara hai
Use zamin pe yeh zulm kab gawara hai

   

VIII
To Rakhshinda Zoya

13 April 1981, during a jail visit
She cannot say it, but then
My little one manages to say
Father, come home
Father, come home
She cannot comprehend
Why, in prison, I continue to stay
And not return with her, hand in hand
How should I explain to her
That home, too, is like a prison
Kot Lakhpat Jail

VIII
Rakhshinda Zoya Se

Keh nahin sakti par kehti hai
Mujh se meri nanhi bachchi
Abbu ghar chal
Abbu ghar chal

Us ki samajh mein kuchh nahin aata
Kyon zindan mein reh jaata hun
Kyon nahin saath mein uske chalta
Kaise nanhi samjhaoon
Ghar bhi to zindan ki tarah hai

   

IX
On Iqbal Centenary

When we arise to wake the poor, the have nots
A beeline to the police station they make, these wealthy sots

They say that God this wealth to them allots
Oh these trite excuses, oh these dusty plots

Night and day the working men’s blood they suck, o poet of the East
These congenital liars, with the vileness of a beast

IX
Yaum-E Iqbal Par

Log uthte hain jab tere ghareebon ko jagane
Sab shehar ke zardar pahunch jaate hain thane

Kehte hain yeh daulat hamein bakhshi hai khuda ne
Farsudah bahane wahi afsaane purane

Ai shair-e mashriq! Yehi jhute yehi bad zaat
Peete hain laoo banda-e mazdoor ka din raat

   

X
The Government of Jack Boots

If the dacoit had not had
The village guard as his ally
Our feet would not be in chains
Our victory would not defeat imply
Mourn with turbans round your necks
Crawling on your bellies, comply
Once the jack boot government is up
It’s hard, to make it bid good-bye

X
Bootan Di Sarkar

(Panjabi)

Dakuan da je saath na dinda pind da pehredar
Aj paireen zanjeer na hund jit na hundi har
Paggan apne gal wich pa lo turo pet de bhar
Chadh jaye te mushkil lehndi bootan di sarkar

Written during Yahya Khan’s dictatorship
Translated from the Urdu and Punjabi by fowpe sharma.
Transliterated from the Urdu by Hasan Abdullah.
Prepared for publication by Amar Farooqui

Accessed at: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv9n1/jalibpoems.htm

(the urdu punjabi is much better)

acapella: the bnu poetry jam

 

…we had the rock, now let’s have the roll.

 

a bnu poetry jam (to end all poetry jams?)

 

the real birth of the bnu voice;

 

not only sonorous as you proved only moonlights ago,

filled to the brim with lyrics and love and music, and

poetry and life, drama and stage presence,

in this lalaland we want to continue to live in,

for ever, if only we could.

 

just so you can play all our sweet games, our guitars, our readings and writings,

continue singing your own songs, with all your substance, and to your whims;

 

but, let’s just do this one acapella; sans music; for just the poetry of it.

 

this is the first call out to you to let your voices be heard;

short prose, within 800 or so words welcome for a reading too.

 

read your own poetry or (very) short stories, or someone else’s, just read:

move us from this abyss, even if just for one bit.

step up and be heard. your voice

matters more than it ever has, and more than you ever thought it could.

 

 

Power to the people

Thursday 21st January 1971

John Lennon and Yoko Ono
talk to Robin Blackburn and Tariq Ali
for the underground magazine “Red mole”.

TA: Your latest record and your recent public statements, especially the interviews in Rolling Stone magazine, suggest that your views are becoming increasingly radical and political. When did this start to happen?
JL: I’ve always been politically minded, you know, and against the status quo. It’s pretty basic when you’re brought up, like I was, to hate and fear the police as a natural enemy and to despise the army as something that takes everybody away and leaves them dead somewhere.
I mean, it’s just a basic working class thing, though it begins to wear off when you get older, get a family and get swallowed up in the system.
In my case I’ve never not been political, though religion tended to overshadow it in my acid days; that would be around ‘65 or ‘66. And that religion was directly the result of all that superstar shit – religion was an outlet for my repression. I thought, ‘Well, there’s something else to life, isn’t there? This isn’t it, surely?’
But I was always political in a way, you know. In the two books I wrote, even though they were written in a sort of Joycean gobbledegook, there’s many knocks at religion and there is a play about a worker and a capitalist. I’ve been satirising the system since my childhood. I used to write magazines in school and hand them around.
I was very conscious of class, they would say with a chip on my shoulder, because I knew what happened to me and I knew about the class repression coming down on us – it was a fucking fact but in the hurricane Beatle world it got left out, I got farther away from reality for a time.
TA: What did you think was the reason for the success of your sort of music?
JL: Well, at the time it was thought that the workers had broken through, but I realise in retrospect that it’s the same phoney deal they gave the blacks, it was just like they allowed blacks to be runners or boxers or entertainers. That’s the choice they allow you – now the outlet is being a pop star, which is really what I’m saying on the album in ‘Working class hero’. As I told Rolling Stone, it’s the same people who have the power, the class system didn’t change one little bit.
Of course, there are a lot of people walking around with long hair now and some trendy middle class kids in pretty clothes. But nothing changed except that we all dressed up a bit, leaving the same bastards running everything.
RB: Of course, class is something the American rock groups haven’t tackled yet.
JL: Because they’re all middle class and bourgeois and they don’t want to show it. They’re scared of the workers, actually, because the workers seem mainly right-wing in America, clinging on to their goods. But if these middle class groups realise what’s happening, and what the class system has done, it’s up to them to repatriate the people and to get out of all that bourgeois shit.
TA: When did you start breaking out of the role imposed on you as a Beatle?
JL: Even during the Beatle heyday I tried to go against it, so did George. We went to America a few times and Epstein always tried to waffle on at us about saying nothing about Vietnam. So there came a time when George and I said ‘Listen, when they ask next time, we’re going to say we don’t like that war and we think they should get right out.’ That’s what we did. At that time this was a pretty radical thing to do, especially for the ‘Fab Four’. It was the first opportunity I personally took to wave the flag a bit.
But you’ve got to remember that I’d always felt repressed. We were all so pressurised that there was hardly any chance of expressing ourselves, especially working at that rate, touring continually and always kept in a cocoon of myths and dreams. It’s pretty hard when you are Caesar and everyone is saying how wonderful you are and they are giving you all the goodies and the girls, it’s pretty hard to break out of that, to say ‘Well, I don’t want to be king, I want to be real.’ So in its way the second political thing I did was to say ‘The Beatles are bigger than Jesus.’ That really broke the scene, I nearly got shot in America for that. It was a big trauma for all the kids that were following us. Up to then there was this unspoken policy of not answering delicate questions, though I always read the papers, you know, the political bits.
The continual awareness of what was going on made me feel ashamed I wasn’t saying anything. I burst out because I could no longer play that game any more, it was just too much for me. Of course, going to America increased the build up on me, especially as the war was going on there. In a way we’d turned out to be a Trojan horse. The ‘Fab Four’ moved right to the top and then sang about drugs and sex and then I got into more and more heavy stuff and that’s when they started dropping us.
RB: Wasn’t there a double charge to what you were doing right from the beginning?
YO: You were always very direct. ..
JL: Yes, well, the first thing we did was to proclaim our Liverpoolness to the world, and say ‘It’s all right to come from Liverpool and talk like this’. Before, anybody from Liverpool who made it, like Ted Ray, Tommy Handley, Arthur Askey, had to lose their accent to get on the BBC. They were only comedians but that’s what came out of Liverpool before us. We refused to play that game. After The Beatles came on the scene everyone started putting on a Liverpudlian accent.
TA: In a way you were even thinking about politics when you seemed to be knocking revolution?
JL: Ah, sure, ‘Revolution’ .There were two versions of that song but the underground left only picked up on the one that said ‘count me out’. The original version which ends up on the LP said ‘count me in’ too; I put in both because I wasn’t sure. There was a third version that was just abstract, musique concrete, kind of loops and that, people screaming. I thought I was painting in sound a picture of revolution – but I made a mistake, you know. The mistake was that it was anti-revolution.
On the version released as a single I said ‘when you talk about destruction you can count me out’. I didn’t want to get killed. I didn’t really know that much about the Maoists, but I just knew that they seemed to be so few and yet they painted themselves green and stood in front of the police waiting to get picked off. I just thought it was unsubtle, you know. I thought the original Communist revolutionaries coordinated themselves a bit better and didn’t go around shouting about it. That was how I felt – I was really asking a question. As someone from the working class I was always interested in Russia and China and everything that related to the working class, even though I was playing the capitalist game.
At one time I was so much involved in the religious bullshit that I used to go around calling myself a Christian Communist, but as Janov says, religion is legalised madness. It was therapy that stripped away all that and made me feel my own pain.
RB: This analyst you went to, what’s his name. ..
JL: Janov …
RB: His ideas seem to have something in common with Laing in that he doesn’t want to reconcile people to their misery, to adjust them to the world but rather to make them face up to its causes?
JL: Well, his thing is to feel the pain that’s accumulated inside you ever since your childhood. I had to do it to really kill off all the religious myths. In the therapy you really feel every painful moment of your life – it’s excruciating, you are forced to realise that your pain, the kind that makes you wake up afraid with your heart pounding, is really yours and not the result of somebody up in the sky. It’s the result of your parents and your environment.
As I realised this it all started to fall into place. This therapy forced me to have done with all the God shit. All of us growing up have come to terms with too much pain. Although we repress it, it’s still there. The worst pain is that of not being wanted, of realising your parents do not need you in the way you need them.
When I was a child I experienced moments of not wanting to see the ugliness, not wanting to see not being wanted. This lack of love went into my eyes and into my mind. Janov doesn’t just talk to you about this but makes you feel it – once you’ve allowed yourself to feel again, you do most of the work yourself.
When you wake up and your heart is going like the clappers or your back feels strained, or you develop some other hang-up, you should let your mind go to the pain and the pain itself will regurgitate the memory which originally caused you to suppress it in your body. In this way the pain goes to the right channel instead of being repressed again, as it is if you take a pill or a bath, saying ‘Well, I’ll get over it’. Most people channel their pain into God or masturbation or some dream of making it.
The therapy is like a very slow acid trip which happens naturally in your body. It is hard to talk about, you know, because – you feel ‘I am pain’ and it sounds sort of arbitrary, but pain to me now has a different meaning because of having physically felt all these extraordinary repressions. It was like taking gloves off, and feeling your own skin for the first time.
It’s a bit of a drag to say so, but I don’t think you can understand this unless you’ve gone through it – though I try to put some of it over on the album. But for me at any rate it was all part of dissolving the God trip or father-figure trip. Facing up to reality instead of always looking for some kind of heaven.
RB: Do you see the family in general as the source of these repressions?
JL: Mine is an extreme case, you know. My father and mother split and I never saw my father until I was 20, nor did I see much more of my mother. But Yoko had her parents there and it was the same….
YO: Perhaps one feels more pain when parents are there. It’s like when you’re hungry, you know, it’s worse to get a symbol of a cheeseburger than no cheeseburger at all. It doesn’t do you any good, you know. I often wish my mother had died so that at least I could get some people’s sympathy. But there she was, a perfectly beautiful mother.
JL: And Yoko’s family were middle-class Japanese but it’s all the same repression. Though I think middle-class people have the biggest trauma if they have nice imagey parents, all smiling and dolled up. They are the ones who have the biggest struggle to say, ‘Goodbye mummy, goodbye daddy’.
TA: What relation to your music has all this got?
JL: Art is only a way of expressing pain. I mean the reason Yoko does such far out stuff is that it’s a far out kind of pain she went through.
RB: A lot of Beatle songs used to be about childhood…
JL: Yeah, that would mostly be me…
RB: Though they were very good there was always a missing element…
JL: That would be reality, that would be the missing element. Because I was never really wanted. The only reason I am a star is because of my repression. Nothing else would have driven me through all that if I was ‘normal‘…
YO: …and happy…
JL: The only reason I went for that goal is that I wanted to say: ‘Now, mummy-daddy, will you love me?’
TA: But then you had success beyond most people’s wildest dreams…
JL: Oh, Jesus Christ, it was a complete oppression. I mean we had to go through humiliation upon humiliation with the middle classes and showbiz and Lord Mayors and all that. They were so condescending and stupid. Everybody trying to use us. It was a special humiliation for me because I could never keep my mouth shut and I’d always have to be drunk or pilled to counteract this pressure. It was really hell …
YO: It was depriving him of any real experience, you know…
JL: It was very miserable. I mean apart from the first flush of making it – the thrill of the first number one record, the first trip to America. At first we had some sort of objective like being as big as Elvis – moving forward was the great thing, but actually attaining it was the big let-down. I found I was having continually to please the sort of people I’d always hated when I was a child. This began to bring me back to reality.
I began to realise that we are all oppressed which is why I would like to do something about it, though I’m not sure where my place is.
RB: Well, in any case, politics and culture are linked, aren’t they? I mean, workers are repressed by culture not guns at the moment…
JL: …they’re doped…
RB: And the culture that’s doping them is one the artist can make or break…
JL: That’s what I’m trying to do on my albums and in these interviews. What I’m trying to do is to influence all the people I can influence. All those who are still under the dream and just put a big question mark in their mind. The acid dream is over, that is what I’m trying to tell them.
RB: Even in the past, you know, people would use Beatle songs and give them new words. ‘Yellow submarine’ , for instance, had a number of versions. One that strikers used to sing began ‘We all live on bread and margarine’ ; at LSE we had a version that began ‘We all live in a Red LSE’.
JL: I like that. And I enjoyed it when football crowds in the early days would sing ‘All together now’ – that was another one. I was also pleased when the movement in America took up ‘Give peace a chance’ because I had written it with that in mind really. I hoped that instead of singing ‘We shall overcome’ from 1800 or something, they would have something contemporary. I felt an obligation even then to write a song that people would sing in the pub or on a demonstration. That is why I would like to compose songs for the revolution now…
RB: We only have a few revolutionary songs and they were composed in the 19th century. Do you find anything in our musical traditions which could be used for revolutionary songs?
JL: When I started, rock and roll itself was the basic revolution to people of my age and situation. We needed something loud and clear to break through all the unfeeling and repression that had been coming down on us kids. We were a bit conscious to begin with of being imitation Americans. But we delved into the music and found that it was half white country and western and half black rhythm and blues.
Most of the songs came from Europe and Africa and now they were coming back to us. Many of Dylan’s best songs came from Scotland, Ireland or England. It was a sort of cultural exchange.
Though I must say the more interesting songs to me were the black ones because they were more simple. They sort of said shake your arse, or your prick, which was an innovation really. And then there were the field songs mainly expressing the pain they were in. They couldn’t express themselves intellectually so they had to say in a very few words what was happening to them. And then there was the city blues and a lot of that was about sex and fighting.
A lot of this was self-expression but only in the last few years have they expressed themselves completely with Black Power, like Edwin Starr making war records. Before that many black singers were still labouring under that problem of God; it was often ‘God will save us’. But right through the blacks were singing directly and immediately about their pain and also about sex, which is why I like it.
RB: You say country and western music derived from European folk songs. Aren’t these folk songs sometimes pretty dreadful stuff, all about losing and being defeated?
JL: As kids we were all opposed to folk songs because they were so middle-class. It was all college students with big scarfs and a pint of beer in their hands singing folk songs in what we call la-di-da voices-’I worked in a mine in New-cast-le’ and all that shit. There were very few real folk singers you know, though I liked Dominic Behan a bit and there was some good stuff to be heard in Liverpool. Just occasionally you hear very old records on the radio or TV of real workers in Ireland or somewhere singing these songs and the power of them is fantastic.
But mostly folk music is people with fruity voices trying to keep alive something old and dead. It’s all a bit boring, like ballet: a minority thing kept going by a minority group. Today’s folk song is rock and roll. Although it happened to emanate from America, that’s not really important in the end because we wrote our own music and that changed everything.
RB: Your album, Yoko, seems to fuse avant-garde modern music with rock. I’d like to put an idea to you I got from listening to it. You integrate everyday sounds, like that of a train, into a musical pattern. This seems to demand an aesthetic measure of everyday life, to insist that art should not be imprisoned in the museums and galleries, doesn’t it?
YO: Exactly. I want to incite people to loosen their oppression by giving them something to work with, to build on. They shouldn’t be frightened of creating themselves – that’s why I make things very open, with things for people to do, like in my book [Grapefruit].
Because basically there are two types of people in the world: people who are confident because they know they have the ability to create, and then people who have been demoralised, who have no confidence in themselves because they have been told they have no creative ability, but must just take orders. The Establishment likes people who take no responsibility and cannot respect themselves.
RB: I suppose workers’ control is about that…
JL: Haven’t they tried out something like that in Yugoslavia; they are free of the Russians. I’d like to go there and see how it works.
TA: Well, they have; they did try to break with the Stalinist pattern. But instead of allowing uninhibited workers’ control, they added a strong dose of political bureaucracy. It tended to smother the initiative of the workers and they also regulated the whole system by a market mechanism which bred new inequalities between one region and another.
JL: It seems that all revolutions end up with a personality cult – even the Chinese seem to need a father-figure. I expect this happens in Cuba too, with Che and Fidel. In Western-style Communism we would have to create an almost imaginary workers’ image of themselves as the father-figure.
RB: That’s a pretty cool idea – the Working Class becomes its own Hero. As long as it was not a new comforting illusion, as long as there was a real workers’ power. If a capitalist or bureaucrat is running your life then you need to compensate with illusions.
YO: The people have got to trust in themselves.
TA: That’s the vital point. The working class must be instilled with a feeling of confidence in itself. This can’t be done just by propaganda – the workers must move, take over their own factories and tell the capitalists to bugger off. This is what began to happen in May 1968 in France…the workers began to feel their own strength.
JL: But the Communist Party wasn’t up to that, was it?
RB: No, they weren’t. With 10 million workers on strike they could have led one of those huge demonstrations that occurred in the centre of Paris into a massive occupation of all government buildings and installations, replacing de Gaulle with a new institution of popular power like the Commune or the original Soviets – that would have begun a real revolution but the French C.P. was scared of it. They preferred to deal at the top instead of encouraging the workers to take the initiative themselves…
JL: Great, but there’s a problem about that here you know. All the revolutions have happened when a Fidel or Marx or Lenin or whatever, who were intellectuals, were able to get through to the workers. They got a good pocket of people together and the workers seemed to understand that they were in a repressed state. They haven’t woken up yet here, they still believe that cars and tellies are the answer. You should get these left-wing students out to talk with the workers, you should get the school-kids involved with The Red Mole.
TA: You’re quite right, we have been trying to do that and we should do more. This new Industrial Relations Bill the Government is trying to introduce is making more and more workers realise what is happening…
JL: I don’t think that Bill can work. I don’t think they can enforce it. I don’t think the workers will co-operate with it. I thought the Wilson Government was a big let-down but this Heath lot are worse. The underground is being harrassed, the black militants can’t even live in their own homes now, and they’re selling more arms to the South Africans. Like Richard Neville said, there may be only an inch of difference between Wilson and Heath but it’s in that inch that we live….
TA: I don’t know about that; Labour brought in racialist immigration policies, supported the Vietnam war and were hoping to bring in new legislation against the unions.
RB: It may be true that we live in the Inch of difference between Labour and Conservative but so long as we do we’ll be impotent and unable to change anything. If Heath is forcing us out of that inch maybe he’s doing us a good turn without meaning to…
JL: Yes, I’ve thought about that, too. This putting us in a corner so we have to find out what is coming down on other people. I keep on reading the Morning Star [the Communist newspaper] to see if there’s any hope, but it seems to be in the 19th century; it seems to be written for dropped-out, middle-aged liberals.
We should be trying to reach the young workers because that’s when you’re most idealistic and have least fear.
Somehow the revolutionaries must approach the workers because the workers won’t approach them. But it’s difficult to know where to start; we’ve all got a finger in the dam. The problem for me is that as I have become more real, I’ve grown away from most working-class people – you know what they like is Engelbert Humperdinck. It’s the students who are buying us now, and that’s the problem. Now The Beatles are four separate people, we don’t have the impact we had when we were together…
RB: Now you’re trying to swim against the stream of bourgeois society, which is much more difficult.
JL: Yes, they own all the newspapers and they control all distribution and promotion. When we came along there was only Decca, Philips and EMI who could really produce a record for you. You had to go through the whole bureaucracy to get into the recording studio. You were in such a humble position, you didn’t have more than 12 hours to make a whole album, which is what we did in the early days.
Even now it’s the same; if you’re an unknown artist you’re lucky to get an hour in a studio – it’s a hierarchy and if you don’t have hits, you don’t get recorded again. And they control distribution. We tried to change that with Apple but in the end we were defeated. They still control everything. EMI killed our album Two Virgins because they didn’t like it. With the last record they’ve censored the words of the songs printed on the record sleeve. Fucking ridiculous and hypocritical – they have to let me sing it but they don’t dare let you read it. Insanity.
RB: Though you reach fewer people now, perhaps the effect can be more concentrated.
JL: Yes, I think that could be true. To begin with, working class people reacted against our openness about sex. They are frightened of nudity, they’re repressed in that way as well as others. Perhaps they thought ‘Paul is a good lad, he doesn’t make trouble’.
Also when Yoko and I got married, we got terrible racialist letters – you know, warning me that she would slit my throat. Those mainly came from Army people living in Aldershot. Officers.
Now workers are more friendly to us, so perhaps it’s changing. It seems to me that the students are now half-awake enough to try and wake up their brother workers. If you don’t pass on your own awareness then it closes down again. That is why the basic need is for the students to get in with the workers and convince them that they are not talking gobbledegook. And of course it’s difficult to know what the workers are really thinking because the capitalist press always only quotes mouthpieces like Vic Feather* anyway.
*Vic Feather 1908-76 was General Secretary of the TUC from 1969-73.
So the only thing is to talk to them directly, especially the young workers. We’ve got to start with them because they know they’re up against it. That’s why I talk about school on the album. I’d like to incite people to break the framework, to be disobedient in school, to stick their tongues out, to keep insulting authority .
YO: We are very lucky really, because we can create our own reality, John and me, but we know the important thing is to communicate with other people.
JL: The more reality we face, the more we realise that unreality is the main programme of the day. The more real we become, the more abuse we take, so it does radicalise us in a way, like being put in a corner. But it would be better if there were more of us.
YO: We mustn’t be traditional in the way we communicate with people – especially with the Establishment. We should surprise people by saying new things in an entirely new way. Communication of that sort can have a fantastic power so long as you don’t do only what they expect you to do.
RB: Communication is vital for building a movement, but in the end it’s powerless unless you also develop popular force.
YO: I get very sad when I think about Vietnam where there seems to be no choice but violence. This violence goes on for centuries perpetuating itself. In the present age when communication is so rapid, we should create a different tradition, traditions are created everyday. Five years now is like 100 years before. We are living in a society that has no history. There’s no precedent for this kind of society so we can break the old patterns.
TA: No ruling class in the whole of history has given up power voluntarily and I don’t see that changing.
YO: But violence isn’t just a conceptual thing, you know. I saw a programme about this kid who had come back from Vietnam – he’d lost his body from the waist down. He was just a lump of meat, and he said, ‘Well, I guess it was a good experience.’
JL: He didn’t want to face the truth, he didn’t want to think it had all been a waste…
YO: But think of the violence, it could happen to your kids…
RB: But Yoko, people who struggle against oppression find themselves attacked by those who have a vested interest in nothing changing, those who want to protect their power and wealth. Look at the people in Bogside and Falls Road in Northern Ireland; they were mercilessly attacked by the special police because they began demonstrating for their rights. On one night in August 1969, seven people were shot and thousands driven from their homes. Didn’t they have a right to defend themselves?
YO: That’s why one should try to tackle these problems before a situation like that happens.
JL: Yes, but what do you do when it does happen, what do you do?
RB: Popular violence against their oppressors is always justified. It cannot be avoided.
YO: But in a way the new music showed things could be transformed by new channels of communication.
JL: Yes, but as I said, nothing really changed.
YO: Well, something changed and it was for the better. All I’m saying is that perhaps we can make a revolution without violence.
JL: But you can’t take power without a struggle…
TA: That’s the crucial thing.
JL: Because, when it comes to the nitty-gritty, they won’t let the people have any power; they’ll give all the rights to perform and to dance for them, but no real power…
YO: The thing is, even after the revolution, if people don’t have any trust in themselves, they’ll get new problems.
JL: After the revolution you have the problem of keeping things going, of sorting out all the different views. It’s quite natural that revolutionaries should have different solutions, that they should split into different groups and then reform, that’s the dialectic, isn’t it – but at the same time they need to be united against the enemy, to solidify a new order. I don’t know what the answer is; obviously Mao is aware of this problem and keeps the ball moving.
RB: The danger is that once a revolutionary state has been created, a new conservative bureaucracy tends to form around it. This danger tends to increase if the revolution is isolated by imperialism and there is material scarcity.
JL: Once the new power has taken over they have to establish a new status quo just to keep the factories and trains running.
RB: Yes, but a repressive bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily run the factories or trains any better than the workers could under a system of revolutionary democracy.
JL: Yes, but we all have bourgeois instincts within us, we all get tired and feel the need to relax a bit. How do you keep everything going and keep up revolutionary fervour after you’ve achieved what you set out to achieve?
Of course Mao has kept them up to it in China, but what happens after Mao goes? Also he uses a personality cult. Perhaps that’s necessary; like I said, everybody seems to need a father figure.
But I’ve been reading Khrushchev Remembers. I know he’s a bit of a lad himself – but he seemed to think that making a religion out of an individual was bad; that doesn’t seem to be part of the basic Communist idea. Still people are people, that’s the difficulty.
If we took over Britain, then we’d have the job of cleaning up the bourgeoisie and keeping people in a revolutionary state of mind.
RB: …In Britain unless we can create a new popular power-and here that would basically mean workers’ power – really controlled by, and answerable to, the masses, then we couldn’t make the revolution in the first place. Only a really deep-rooted workers’ power could destroy the bourgeois state.
YO: That’s why it will be different when the younger generation takes over.
JL: I think it wouldn’t take much to get the youth here really going. You’d have to give them free rein to attack the local councils or to destroy the school authorities, like the students who break up the repression in the universities. It’s already happening, though people have got to get together more.
And the women are very important too, we can’t have a revolution that doesn’t involve and liberate women. It’s so subtle the way you’re taught male superiority.
It took me quite a long time to realise that my maleness was cutting off certain areas for Yoko. She’s a red hot liberationist and was quick to show me where I was going wrong, even though it seemed to me that I was just acting naturally. That’s why I’m always interested to know how people who claim to be radical treat women.
RB: There’s always been at least as much male chauvinism on the left as anywhere else – though the rise of women’s liberation is helping to sort that out.
JL: It’s ridiculous. How can you talk about power to the people unless you realise the people is both sexes.
YO: You can’t love someone unless you are in an equal position with them. A lot of women have to cling to men out of fear or insecurity, and that’s not love – basically that’s why women hate men…
JL: …and vice versa…
YO: So if you have a slave around the house how can you expect to make a revolution outside it? The problem for women is that if we try to be free, then we naturally become lonely, because so many women are willing to become slaves, and men usually prefer that. So you always have to take the chance: ‘Am I going to lose my man?’ It’s very sad.
JL: Of course, Yoko was well into liberation before I met her. She’d had to fight her way through a man’s world – the art world is completely dominated by men – so she was full of revolutionary zeal when we met. There was never any question about it: we had to have a 50-50 relationship or there was no relationship, I was quick to learn. She did an article about women in Nova more than two years back in which she said, ‘Woman is the nigger of the world’ .
RB: Of course we all live in an imperialist country that is exploiting the Third World, and even our culture is involved in this. There was a time when Beatle music was plugged on Voice of America….
JL: The Russians put it out that we were capitalist robots, which we were I suppose…
RB: They were pretty stupid not to see it was something different.
YO: Let’ s face it, Beatles was 20th-century folksong in the framework of capitalism; they couldn’t do anything different if they wanted to communicate within that framework.
RB: I was working in Cuba when Sgt Pepper was released and that’s when they first started playing rock music on the radio.
JL: Well hope they see that rock and roll is not the same as Coca-Cola. As we get beyond the dream this should be easier: that’s why I’m putting out more heavy statements now and trying to shake off the teeny-bopper image.
I want to get through to the right people, and I want to make what I have to say very simple and direct.
RB: Your latest album sounds very simple to begin with, but the lyrics, tempo and melody build up into a complexity one only gradually becomes aware of. Like the track ‘My mummy’s dead’ echoes the nursery song ‘Three blind mice’ and it’s about a childhood trauma.
JL: The tune does; it was that sort of feeling, almost like a Haiku poem. I recently got into Haiku in Japan and I just think it’s fantastic. Obviously, when you get rid of a whole section of illusion in your mind you’re left with great precision.
Yoko was showing me some of these Haiku in the original. The difference between them and Long fellow is immense. Instead of a long flowery poem the Haiku would say ‘Yellow flower in white bowl on wooden table’ which gives you the whole picture, really….
TA: How do you think we can destroy the capitalist system here in Britain, John?
JL: I think only by making the workers aware of the really unhappy position they are in, breaking the dream they are surrounded by. They think they are in a wonderful, free-speaking country. They’ve got cars and tellies and they don’t want to think there’s anything more to life. They are prepared to let the bosses run them, to see their children fucked up in school. They’re dreaming someone else’s dream, it’s not even their own. They should realise that the blacks and the Irish are being harassed and repressed and that they will be next.
As soon as they start being aware of all that, we can really begin to do something. The workers can start to take over. Like Marx said: ‘To each according to his need’. I think that would work well here. But we’d also have to infiltrate the army too, because they are well trained to kill us all.
We’ve got to start all this from where we ourselves are oppressed. I think it’s false, shallow, to be giving to others when your own need is great. The idea is not to comfort people, not to make them feel better but to make them feel worse, to constantly put before them the degradations and humiliations they go through to get what they call a living wage.

Accessed at: http://unfinishedno9.blogspot.com/2007/11/red-mole-interview-1971.html

structalism-grid.docstructalism-grid.doc

Hello peers;

i have worked on this grid, please go through it feel free to edit it, add more information to it, correct me etc. I have worked VEry hard on this grid, since we all know Reading and outlining Eagelton is quite hard.

I better get an A Now! *Sigh*

Let’s work on this together also let me know if you approve of it as the first draft

thanks!

 

“Given that all meaning is essentially added on, the goal of any reading must be to produce meaning; and more meaning can be produced by allowing one’s own pleasure-oriented or politically-oriented desires to engage, openly and consciously, with the text. Those who claim to ‘respect’ the text are merely less open and conscious about the role of their own desires. Even a strategic wrenching of the text, or a reading against the grain of the text’s explicit message, is no more than a logical continuation of what readers already do.

 

The empowerment of the reader is simultaneously the empowerment of the critic, who stands in as the reader’s representative. The relation of critic to text is no longer that of knower to known. Producing meanings on the text’s own level, the critic operates as a doer rather than a knower – and certainly not a detached or impartial knower. The critic is involved alongside the Postmodernist writer in fighting exactly the same battle against the same conservative forces in literature and politics. If the text does not explicitly subvert established assumptions, then the critic takes over the task on its behalf. In this respect too, critical and creative activity become almost indistinguishable.

 

By helping to produce political meanings, the theorist or critic can hope to make a particular kind of intervention in her/his own social reality. In the Postmodernist period, grand blueprints for future states of society have vanished from the agenda. Grand blueprints must be formulated from a position wholly detached from one’s own society – and we no longer believe in the possibility of such detachment. Instead, the new politics relies upon small leverage-points which be used to initiate a widening destabilization from within. Literary texts are precisely such leverage-points. Although literature may occupy a relatively tiny space in the totally system of contemporary society, literary theorists and critics can lay claim to a crucial political role – the kind once claimed by political philosophers and political scientists.”

 

Harland, Richard, “Epilogue: Into the Postmodern Period,” Literary Theory from Plato to Barthes. Pgs 242 – 243. (I have no more citation info to offer, always photocopy copyrights page!).

now that, thanks to all of you, we have the module just about finalized;

i am currently reconsidering everything, course-wise.

i’m open to ideas, constructive criticism, “humble” suggestions, anything you would like to bring on board, or take off it for that matter, the works.

i do have an idea.

i understand that you are overloaded with coursework this semester, so here is one suggestion:

perfect your papers, as many drafts as it takes; the final version of this one will count for the term paper too.

however, in lieu of this, as a group, instead of the workshopping sessions, in and out of class, we construct this critical comparative grid per chapter and consolidate it — going right back to the beginning, up to where we are now.

i would have loved to have 19 beautiful minds constructively feed into 19 other papers. it would have been something to behold. next time, though there may less of you there.

i shall still keep the writing intensive component alive by working with you on your current papers, as many drafts and conferences with me as it takes.

i told you i am more concerned with quality than quantity, but from what I have seen, 2500 seems like a reasonable word limit to develop a sufficiently complex paper and fulfill the requirements for this course. if you haven’t come to see me about this paper and the expanded idea, do schedule a conference.

That plus if we continue our presentations, and can manage to grid the whole thing will be sufficient, and significant for us, contribution to academia, at least to go up on our little wall.

also don’t relax on your presentations or your readings.

have a nice day.

and for God’s sake, someone at some point volunteer to take over this whole remoduling business. i’ve been doing it all this time:

go into edit, add your own names (at the very least in the numbered slots), and change the framework with consensus.

*Mishel, we’ll have to discuss your grad level conditions, an important technicality. You have less of a courseload this semester so we could talk about whether you can do another paper. But, please don’t stress out about this either.

TWO MORE THINGS, lastword:

1. There will be a B+ or A- pre-req for registering for Frameworks II, if you’re interested in putting yourself through this type of thing, again, hehe. Even for those who aren’t, but are concerned about their grades overall, keep up the effort for a bit longer, we’re almost done: i’m convinced, if you all try your best, everyone could still earn an A in the course.

2. Kyla has agreed that all of you taking her class can “double-dip” extra-credit papers on the current situation for her class(es) and mine. As far as I am concerned anything creative or critical is acceptable. So, if you feel you’re lagging behind, write it. Even if you aren’t.

On Nov 14, 8:19 pm, amna noor wrote:
sir, can you plz explain what actually final term workship [I love this slip of the tongue coinage; and would have loved to explain how our workship is going to sail off into the wonderful world of workshopping, nida-learnt as i am -- but, next time] is going to
be?

 

Dear all:

I am currently working on preparing A detailed Grid for the structalism chapter, i would be putting up a Rough Version of the Grid, i will try to fill in as much information as possible, please feel free to edit it, correct it elaborate on certain points. I am sure if we all work on it together it would be a good Review and a practice to make our own grid in the future for all the frameworks we are currently working on.

 I have till Next Thursday, We have More than a week and a weekend so i hope you will all help me with this.

thanks alot;

Older Posts »