Gurpreet Singh

A cleverly written novel about late Comrade Harkishan Singh Surjeet has sparked controversy in Punjab. Authored by Darshan Singh, the Punjabi novel Bhaau is based on the character sketch of the former Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader, Harkishan Singh Surjeet, who passed away on August 1.
The novel has stirred a debate within the left groups and the intelligentsia of Punjab, the state Surjeet belonged to. The word Bhaau is commonly used in the Majha region of Punjab for a veteran or someone elderly. The novel portrays Surjeet as Bhaau, although he hailed from Doaba and not the Majha belt.
While the author, who worked for long with Soviet Information Center claims in the beginning of the novel that it’s a work of fiction and all the characters are imaginary, its careful examination leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that Bhaau or the central character of the story is none other than Surjeet. Despite the change of his name to Comrade Karam Singh Kirti, the author has used the well known political background of Surjeet in the plot. The facts such as his contribution in the freedom struggle, his rebellious actions and self description as London Tore Singh (someone who could break London) in a British court are all mentioned in the story.
In fact, the author has contradicted his own statement by identifying those prominent politicians who are dead and changing the names of those who are alive. He has named the former Prime Ministers, late Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter, Indira Gandhi while concealing the identity of the latter’s daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi, who is the president of the ruling Congress party.
Similarly, he has named the late Akali leader, Master Tara Singh, but has not identified his communist nephew. The novel hit the market when Surjeet was alive, but wasn’t well enough to challenge the facts mentioned in the story.
The other prominent politicians, whose names have been faked but can be easily identified by a reader, are the veteran communist leader, Jyoti Basu, Surjeet’s successor, Parkash Karat, the Rashtriya Janata Dal leader and the Railway minister, Lalu Yadav, his rival Ram Bilas Paswan, the Samajwadi Party leader, Mulayam Singh Yadav and his right hand man, Amar Singh, the state secretary of Surjeet’s party, Prof. Balwant Singh and the late Akali leader, Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Surjeet’s protégé, Balwant Singh Ramoowalia. The only exception is Tohra, whose name may have been faked because novel suggests secret meetings Bhaau had with him. Since Surjeet was alive this kind of suggestion would have been led the author in trouble. Any suggestion that he was having a dialogue with Tohra - who was a rallying point for the radical Sikhs, would not have gone unchallenged by Surjeet and his party.
The names of the political parties and Desh Sewak, the newspaper aligned with Surjeet’s party have also been changed. The author is biased against the CPI (M)’s state secretary when he dramatizes the dispute between him and the editor of Desh Sewak. He tries to portray the editor - who in all probability is Dr. Prem Singh as a victim, while portraying the party’s state secretary as a villain who forces him to quit. On top of it, he has dedicated his novel to Prem. Whether this Prem is also a character of his novel or not, only he can tell.
The story focuses on the 2004 parliamentary elections and Surjeet’s maneuvering in bringing all the secular parties together to form a Congress led coalition government to keep the Hindu nationalist BJP out of power. The political observers believe that Surjeet was the architect of the present United Progressive Alliance government. Bhaau’s popularity can be partly attributed to the crisis that led to the communists’ withdrawal of support to this government.
The novel portrays Bhaau as a shrewd and manipulative politician, who is flexible enough to compromise the basic ideology of his party and one who has built rapport with the traditional enemies. The story suggests that Bhaau was open to the idea of the communists joining the government instead of supporting it from outside but had to relent because of the opposition from within his party.
The story also gives an idea of factionalism in the party’s Punjab unit. This has annoyed both the factions, as both sides are accusing the author of exaggeration. Within the literary circles too, some agree that the author’s approach lack objectivity.
There are several contradictions in the character sketch of Bhaau as well. He can communicate with the communists of Kerala, who don’t understand Punjabi, but with Sonia Gandhi or Madam he prefers to speak Punjabi instead of Hindi.
He is a villager to the core, who has some prejudice against the urbanites but he never questions his grandson, who wishes to marry an urbanite girl. Whereas he is flexible to entertain the ideological enemies, he is not liberal with the rivals within his own party. However, the book is a juicy read, but this may be because of the hype it has created especially after the death of Comrade Surjeet. At times, the novel also gives an impression of reportage when it mentions in detail the division of seats in the parliament and the composition of the previous and the present government. The most creative chapters of the novel are the ones where Bhaau is engaged in dialogue either with his old friends or his grandson. They question him about the contradictions in his philosophy. Had the author stretched his imagination, he could have written a better story based on these dialogues and conversations. It lacks what makes up a good literary piece and work of art.

BACK

 
Family Tree

Vinod Anand

WHEN we talk of a family (nuclear or otherwise), we also talk of our lineage in terms of family tree and its genealogical chart. A family connotes members of a household that includes parents and children living together. A tree (in botanical sense) means a single-self-supporting trunk containing woody tissues and its branches. In fact, a tree offers a good analogy to understand the exact nature of linkages between children and their parents. Some of these parallels are briefly mentioned below:

1. Parents are like a trunk of a tree, and children are like its branches, bark, leaves, and even flowers and fruits.;
2. There is a one-way (asymmetric) relation between the two: parents through out their lives continue to anchor and serve their children selflessly and without expecting anything in return by providing, amongst other things, emotional and psychological security and such other socially beneficial functions as the rearing and socialization of their children. The trunk does the same for its branches, leaves, and other secondary issues;
3. As the family grows the degree of this asymmetrical relationship also grows, and the parents , like the trunk of a tree, get distanced both physically and emotionally from their offshoots;
4. Parents only aspire for love, affection, and respects from their children just as the trunk of a tree only wishes a shady environment around it;
5. Beyond a certain point, a family is essentially known by its children just as the tree is known by its branches, leaves, flowers, fruit, colour and texture; in case the family performs well, the credit goes to the children, and if it doesn’t, the blame goes to the parents;
6. As the family gets aged and the children get settled, they fully enjoy their lives, and, by and large, ignore their parents in all respects. Of course exceptions are there, but this is the law of nature. Just look at the tree. When it grows, the branches wave with wind and enjoy the atmosphere fully flying upwards without bowing down and paying any respect to the trunk through which they get their life; But when the branches gets dried up, they look down and fall on the trunk.

This analogy gives a powerful message that a lot can be learnt from nature to accept the facts of life, and live it accordingly.

BACK