“War and Peace”: From Literature to Subaltern History

  

“War and Peace”, both in terms of its scope and message is an extraordinary novel. It has a special significance in Tolstoy’s literary oeuvre.    It brings out a great artist’s strengths and peculiarities, and also discontinuities, contradictions and ironies.  With all these, it stands out as an original work of great beauty and substance. But what is generally not acknowledged is that it is also   an important commentary on history and makes outstanding contribution to the discipline of historiography. The dominant view of history in the nineteenth century, until the coming of Hegel and Marx, was that the political leaders, emperors and the aristocracy were the makers of glorious history and the common man was merely a consumer of this history and someone who draws inspiration from it.    “War and Peace” was the first major literary experiment that tried to demolish this view and made serious attempt to place the common man and his life at the core of history. It was a unique literary attempt that tried to reclaim for the common man the central place in historiography that is always largely expropriated by dominant classes, powerful political interests and those who claim to run the powerful business of peddling history.  

  

It was almost about 150 years ago, in 1863, that the first draft of the novel was completed, though it was not until 1865 that it started getting serialized in a magazine. Some sources doubt these dates and indicate that Tolstoy may have started writing the novel in 1865.    Not satisfied with these earlier drafts, and having made many changes, Tolstoy almost rewrote the entire novel to bring it to the text that we today know as “War and Peace”.  Whatever it is,   reading this novel of over twelve hundred pages   is a difficult project.   In addition to the 1200 pages, there is a 60-70 pages long   chapter, known as Part II of the novel, where Tolstoy somewhat gratuitously and often to the increasing annoyance of the tired readers, unleashes his own ramblings on what, according to him,   history is.  

  I could read this mega- novel, somehow, only because I was on a longish leave and was convalescing from a long drawn fever. But not all Tolstoy lovers are so happily lucky.  I feel that   sheer size of the novel could be problematic to many book lovers who approach “War and Peace” with enthusiasm. It is likely that book lovers who   decide to read this classic and leave it unfinished at various stages may constitute a goodly number. It was  tenacity born of  passion for Tolstoy’s works that sustained me through, for I read the novel again after 15 years when I was on my sabbatical. But luckily this time  I was guided to “War and Peace” by no less a person than the great Isaiah Berlin, whose famous classic  essay “The Fox and The Hedgehog” even today continues to provide deep insights into works of Tolstoy, especially his “War and Peace”.

Tolstoy’s Views of History and Historiography

During the 1850s Tolstoy was increasingly being drawn to historical writing. But he did not want to write historical romance and was certainly not interested in fictionalizing history. Like all intellectuals of the nineteenth century Tolstoy was influenced by various strands of historicism. If history is a clue to understanding everything about human beings, he certainly, especially as an artist, wanted to understand how history is made, created, recorded, and its myths perpetuated. He was   interested in showing discrepancies between the actual unfolding of the history and it’s often   deliberate and one-sided recording and writing by the political establishment. And this he wanted to demonstrate through work of art, through a novel.  

 Tolstoy was not merely   critical of the manner in which historians write political history selectively. He denounced   the practice of traditional history writing and described it as selective chronicling of political and military events from the view point of   political establishments. He came heavily   on such great historians as   Gibbon and Buckle and dismissed their histories as empty and devoid of all meaning. According to him they were sweeping and rambling narratives from which were removed all that was human. He was also not very happy with Hegel’s view of history. He had read Hegel, but was not impressed by his idea of Directional History where flow of history moves relentlessly irrespective of the human beings that participate in it. He  despised the idea of   movement towards a predetermined and preordained goal or objective.  He felt that such an idea would preempt human beings and would leave no volition to them in their   universe. As an artist he viewed freedom of human beings in different situations as central to life and human drama, and hence he was not enthused by   Hegel’s project. And yet like Hegel and Marx he too believed in some arcane law that governed unfolding of history irrespective of historical players; but he could not precisely articulate it.

Tolstoy believed that the existing practice and art of writing history missed many dimensions of human motivation and creative activity. An ideal history to him was a larger history of Man who negotiates his universe in all its creative aspects, social, economic, aesthetic, artistic, and literary.   Tolstoy was looking for a much larger, grander and livelier narrative. He wanted a history,   kicking and bustling with innate human activity, of which war and political maneuvering was merely an outer, if rabid, manifestation. 

 More than heroes and emperors he was fascinated by the common man who continues his life in all its complexity.  He believed that history was not made by emperors and the so called great heroes. It was made, according to him, by common man who lives his life courageously despite all the turbulence he finds himself in.   The common man, the ordinary man at work and in his own home, was thus the hero of Tolstoy’s history. He rejected all versions of history in which this ordinary man, who is evolving spiritually, is absent.

 

The Art, Vision and Aesthetics of “The War and Peace”

“War and Peace” happens on the background of the Napoleonic Wars that were fought between 1800 and 1812, especially Napoleon’s Russia war. It is the story of four Russian aristocratic families, Bolkonsky, Bezhuhov, Kuragin and Rostov. It is the story of their private relationships and public responsibilities and important off-war happenings in these families. The three heroes, young aristocrats from these families---- Andrei, Pierre, and Nikolai--- experience war in all its gruesome and absurd reality. Although nations avowedly wage war in the name of such lofty concepts as nationalism and patriotism, in reality in the theater of war and on the actual battlefield, there reigns confusion, crassness, cowardice, madness and a great cloud of meaninglessness. Still more frightening is the prospect of these events being presented by   historians to the posterity as great heroic events unfolding from the brilliant strategies and grandiose plans of the military leaders, generals and others who   stand tall and appear to  dwarf all that is around them. 

The emptiness and meaninglessness of designs and the plans of the   emperors and generals and their irrelevance to the common man who conducts his affairs courageously even under such dispensation of madness and disaster is the theme of the “War and Peace”. The heroes of the “War and Peace” carry with them this dark vision of   meaninglessness   in their life as they strut back home with dull heavy feet: a false history written on the basis of events that were a disgrace to humanity, as great meaninglessness descends on such   concepts as nationalism, patriotism, valor, glorious national history and so on.   And from this dung of activities rise grand heroes of the history, the Napoleons and the Alexanders whose contrived images and   reputations distort the vision and the values of the generations to come. 

Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” contains several pages of moving descriptions of   events that occur on battlefields. There are passages and pages that do not merely make scenes alive in the minds of the readers but radiate pure light of human wisdom. Tolstoy works with words and phrases to carve out rare   sculptures   that shall live as long as human race lasts.    Many critics, however, detested Tolstoy’s commentaries on history that are sprinkled throughout the novel.  Turgenev and Flaubert, Tolstoy’s contemporaries, adored “War and Peace” but felt that serious references to history and commentaries jarred on the literary achievements. It is this dazzling vision and great aesthetics that made readers, especially historians and social scientists neglect Tolstoy's philosophy of history! They regarded Tolstoy as an amateur and a dabbler and dismissed his views of history as his passing views in literature.

  Tolstoy’s Fragmented Vision: Aesthetics of art and Ascetics of Spiritualism

 Despite his great literary talent and ability, Tolstoy is more known as a philosopher of divinity, simplicity and ascetics. And hence perhaps, when it comes to his views on history he is, unfortunately, simply dismissed.   This is mainly because Tolstoy’s enduring reputation was founded more on his later   works such as “What is Art?”, “Confessions” and his later literary works such as “Resurrection” etc. Not that his better works such as “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina” are not acknowledged.   They are regarded as his masterpieces; however, rarely is an attempt made to reconcile the earlier masterpieces with the later day literature that is written in the language of a high priest, a teacher of humanity   and a quaint spiritual leader. When it comes to Tolstoy's art, his earlier works such as "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina are often cited without referring ever to his philosophy of history! And when it comes to Tolstoy's philosophy or thought, it is generally his later works that are cited.    Unless, therefore, one understands evolution of Tolstoy from an aesthete and a philosopher of history to a saintly preacher of humanity, it is difficult to understand the continuing presence of the two opposite movements in his mind. In absence of such an attempt of tracing his thought and philosophy, his musings and critique of history and history writing went largely unnoticed; and when it was noticed it was dismissed as jarring on novel's aesthetics and natural flow. 

 Isaiah Berlin wrote a beautiful essay on Tolstoy with a catchy title “The Fox and the Hedgehog” where he brilliantly brings out Tolstoy's philosophy of history.  He discusses many strands of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” and concludes that Tolstoy’s literary vision was fragmented and that it had much to do with two very strong internal currents that moved in opposite directions. One was a great artist of humanity recording aesthetically everything that went with Man with all contradictions there are. The other was the spiritual nihilist that was set to negate and even destroy everything that fell short of his own spiritual ideals. With increasing age this opposition in his mind increased; and in his later days (especially after publication of “Anna Karenina”, which immediately followed “War and Peace”) the spiritual nihilist got the better of the aesthetic and artistic Tolstoy. But these opposite traits in his vision become   louder and more pronounced   in “War and Peace” where his art and his spiritual nihilism manifest through the long and yet fairly cohesive narrative of over 1200 pages. In understanding this drama and the aesthetics, readers have often not paid much attention to his important views on history in which he tried to place the common man at the very center of the history.  He stands for a Meta narrative of the history where the Man is the centerpiece and is depicted in his entirety, with all his contradictions and achievements.  

Tolstoy’s Contribution to Subaltern History

Subaltern History is a fairly new trend in history writing. It is writing of history from the point of view of the common man, from the point of view of those who have been the victims of an unjust order. We do not acknowledge it but   Tolstoy’s attempt of reclaiming for the common man the center of the history writing   was one of the greatest things that happened in literature. This was Tolstoy’s contribution to the history of ideas and to the history writing. He sought to give dignity to the common man by trying to put him at the center of the universe.

 Most of the historians and thinkers did not look at the “War and Peace” from the point of view of any serious historical discourse. As pointed out above this may have to do with the size and complexity of the “War and Peace”. Moreover, many serious readers get enamored of the pure aesthetics and the literary vision and   pay little attention to the discourse on history that runs throughout the novel.

 History of ideas is a strange discipline; it is difficult to say when and how an idea becomes popular, powerful and then perpetuates its dominance.  It is significant too, that while Karl Marx was busy explaining   how history unfolds, Tolstoy too was revealing great insights in history and history writing and was trying to place the common man at the center of history and history writing. Marx’s project claimed to be more scientific and was written in the language of science that was becoming a norm in the nineteenth century. Tolstoy’s project was equally ambitious, one may say. However, its language and medium was different; it was literature.

 We often regard literature as something that is unsubstantial and peripheral to our hard disciplines such as science, technology, economics and sociology. There are, however, powerful works of art and literature that affect us in great measure.   We often fight shy of acknowledging such influences. But literature is one great way of evaluating and criticizing and representing our very life that is shaped by these hard disciplines. Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” is such a work that reminds us of the power of literature.

  

 

Umberto Eco : Speaking Mahatma's Language

Umberto Eco is one of the finest novelists of our time.  He is also an important philosopher, a great scholar of semiotics and aesthetics of the medieval period. Some of his brilliant novels include “The Name of Rose”, “Baudolino”, “Foucault’s Pendulum” and “The Island of the Day Before”.   Although  an Italian, Umberto Eco represents represents rich European tradition and culture.

 “Turning Back the Clock” is his latest collection of fine essays on war, peace and media populism in our times. These   essays focus on the major world events that occurred between 2000 and 2005.  Eco sees in the pattern of these events something that is fundamentally new and   unprecedented.  So much so that he   wonders whether we are not going back in history and remarks, “Almost as if history, breathless after the leaps forward made in last two millennia, is drawing back into itself, returning to the comfortable splendours of tradition”.  This theme  returns and haunts his essays as he brilliantly takes up one topic after another.

Are we really going back in time? 

That things would go somewhat back, he argues, was indicated by the events that followed the fall of the Berlin wall. The return of  Afghanistan at the centre of the global prospects of peace after fifty years of   cold war, modern versions of traditional crusades, the resurgence  of anti-Darwinian polemics, reappearance of Christian fundamentalism, streaks of fascism here and there, Eco argues, may be signs of history being rewritten.  It is not possible to comment on all the essays here. It is, however, possible to list briefly the concerns  he addresses in his essays.  Eco appears to worry on three counts.

 First he draws attention to widening gulf between people’s aspirations and its understanding by politicians.  He is rightly worried about the increasing disconnect between people and their rulers and politicians. Especially he is worried about the unthinking wars that were launched by major democracies and their political leaders. That today’s politicians and statesmen rarely care to listen to  dialogue history holds with the present is one serious complaint he voices.  This is further exacerbated by their excessive dependence on experts and technocrats.

 He is further worried by the media populism that is generating lot of confusion in the minds of people by resorting to simplifying the terms of intelligent debates and converting important debates into Manichean “yes or no” polls.

And lastly he is worried by the increasing power of technology over science which he says may spell disaster for man. The universe of technology is encroaching on man’s sphere of autonomy, volition and reason. This is the fear he expresses in his important essay on science and technology.

Eco’s essays, brilliant and insightful, speak the language of truth and non-violence. They    examine many aspects of our existence and plead for more reason and more wisdom. Though erudite, his essays speak    universal language of peace and reason. I shall go further and say   that many essays in this collection speak the Gandhian language of Truth, Non-violence and Universal Peace. 

Magical world of technology : Are we jettisoning reason?

   

For constraint of space I shall mention only one essay, “Science, Technology and Magic”   that demonstrates how close he is to Gandhi. Eco argues in this essay that in our daily life and especially in mass media, the terms science and technology are interchangeably and wrongly used with the result that science and technology are often presented as magic in human life. Science and its investigations are more philosophical in nature and they underline the relationships between  cause and  effect.  Science tries to comprehend and understand the world.  Technology, on the other hand, gives power to human beings. This is the power of getting anything done by just pressing a button. An ordinary man does not care to understand the principles of science on which technology is based. He is more interested in getting things done quickly, by pressing a button and summoning at his fingertips great power and extra-ordinary intelligence. Technology encourages taking short cuts to  relationship between cause and effect and goes directly to harnessing power by pressing a button. We are so much used to  fast and instant results given by technology   that the whole thing resembles working of magic.

           Eco is very insightful on the issue of technology. And he perhaps voices concerns that were shown by a galaxy of great thinkers and activists that would include Tolstoy, Thoreau, Goethe and Mahatma Gandhi.    This attitude of the modern man of pressing a button for getting things done, and neglecting the processes of science   for attaining all kinds of pleasures and privileges and successes is abominable.   The philosophy of technology is to get maximum convenience and pleasure at no costs.  It is this that lies at the core of all evil: trying to get everything in the world without paying a price for it.    If this is what we do and if magic and its power is all the language we speak and understand, then somehow we are jettisoning reason from our social and human discourse---a serious matter with grave consequences for Man. Science is supposed to extirpate all magic and establish a Universe of Reason. But with complex technology and its instant, naked and brute power of pressing a button, the Universe of reason slowly gives way to the    Universe of Magic; and then this Universe of magic and power returns with all its dark portents and ranting soliloquies of triumph over the nature.

      Mahatma's language

            It is this universe of magic that Eco fears the most. And it is this fear of wielding unthinking power without ever trying to evolve spiritually that made Mahatma Gandhi and other traditionalists look to science and technology with suspicion. Mahatma Gandhi   hated lofty   technology for the simple reason that in course of time its magical and easily exercisable power would somehow dehumanize man’s relationship with himself and with the nature. Over years Gandhi may have slowly and perhaps carefully allowed some bare minimum technologies in his moral and ethical universe; however, his philosophical opposition to all technologies sprang from his fear of power flowing through science and technology and blindness it causes in human beings. Had I not read this powerful essay I would have never known how close Eco and Mahatma are on the issue of technology and power that flows from it.

The longish essay titled “The Return of the Great Game”, describes how Afghanistan has remained a thorny issue for about two centuries and how despite the world undergoing vast changes, it returns and occupies the centre place in the architecture of war and peace  of the world. And he does it through a number of anecdotes and stories of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson that have a reference to Afghan war and in which Dr. Watson had been wounded. This  essay is remarkable, both for its contents and its style.

 This volume has other essays on emerging fundamentalism, media populism, on war and on our dreams.  They are written with great style and poise and they sparkle with wit and humour. They present to us a gleam of the changing world and try to give meaning to the events that are unfolding around us. And I think that all intelligent and thinking people should read them.

 As to Eco’s fear, whether history will move backwards we cannot say anything.   However, the concerns he underlines are important and statesmen and decision makers should stop for a moment to ponder over them.  Every generation and its thinkers feel that they are living in unique times and amid great and mind blowing events that are set to bring great change. History does sometimes come back and sometimes plays out remaining parts; and, therefore, there is a need to learn lessons from history and gain some insights. Eco’s fear may be genuine but then history is perhaps the most wily and elusive discipline and proves mankind wrong every time something is predicted.  At least I do not think that history is going back or we should be pessimistic about our future unless we ourselves will that way, lose hope hand over  ourselves to the dark and retrograde  powers that wait for an opportunity.

 In the aftermath of the Berlin wall being pulled down Francis Fukuyama wrote  his celebrated piece “The End of the History…..” and majestically declared that  directional history has come to an end. Nobody, not even Fukuyama, really believed that   history has thus ceased to flow in   Hegelian or a Marxist sense. In the meanwhile   capitalism has undergone substantial changes and finds itself in a crisis; but the world has not ceased reading and studying Marx and Hegel. Eric Hobsbawm informs us that in   Marx’s birth centenary year, he was retained by a large American Airlines to write an article on “The Communist Manifesto” in the airline’s on-flight magazine. If  capitalism has gone that far, surely we  shouldn’t be afraid of history coming back and playing out remaining parts!

Although, therefore, Eco’s essays are very good I find his fears somewhat  unfounded!

Hind Swaraj and Evolution of Mahatma Gandhi

Recently, while Anna Hazare was fasting against corruption, there was an unsavory confrontation between his activist followers and the parliamentarians and it sufficiently muddied   our public life.    A friend of mine wrote to me a mail pointing out that there was nothing wrong perhaps in slamming the parliamentarians, for even Mahatma Gandhi had called the British Parliament “a whore” and “a sterile woman that produces nothing” in his classic work “Hind Swaraj”. The logic was that if the great Mahatma could describe the institution of parliament in such derogatory words, there was nothing wrong in hitting out at the parliament or the parliamentarians.

It is a fact that Mahatma Gandhi did describe British Parliament in these words. However, somehow, I did not feel that my friend was quoting Gandhi correctly and in context.  Quoting a great man in support of our arguments of today is   a problem, for often what he said on that occasion was appropriate to that particular stage of his development. Great men evolve continuously. Today they are not what they were yesterday and what comes from them cannot be quoted as gospel truth. Further, people learn mostly from their experience of life and therefore they are often at frontiers in creating and recreating new universe of experience and meaning for the benefit of the humanity.   Mahatma Gandhi said that the truth was his pole star and that he went wherever his pole star led him.  But following the pole star is not a simple thing.  There are often embarrassing discontinuities, singular points, false leads and sure setbacks.   Should we not then take more precaution in quoting great men?

  Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj in 1908 while he was returning to South Africa. Gopal Krishna Gokhale whom Gandhi regarded as his Guru found the book utterly detestable and described it as crudely written. Anybody who reads the book even today would agree with Mr. Gokhale. “Hind Swaraj” is not a commentary on the western political system; it is not a constructive argument that advances an acceptable alternative to our existence.  Its canvas is much larger. It is a thoroughgoing and acidic criticism of the Modern  Civilization.   It negates everything with great force and vigor.   Gandhi denied everything that we adore today. He denounced with special force modern health care, hospital systems, railways, technology, science and practically all modern institutions that go with our life.   

But what is important, and what is not acknowledged is that the Mahatma gradually veered round, though very slowly and imperceptibly; and he substantially changed his position in course of time.   He himself acknowledged such shifts in his opinions and did   mention that in view of the dynamics   of life, no one should quote him out of context. He also further said that if he is to be quoted at all, his latest views on the subject should be referred to.   That is also perhaps a reason why he shuddered at the thought of being canonized by his followers and the laity!

Gandhi changed his views, at least in practice substantially since the publication of “The Hind Swaraj”; though his moral vision was largely defined by “The Hind Swaraj”.  By mid nineteen twenties he was making concessions to some “genuinely good and friendly technologies and machines” such as Sewing Machine for example. His opposition to technology sprang mainly   from fear of human beings being enslaved by the machine. He opposed it also on the ground that machine may replace man and bring upon large scale unemployment.

  

 His opposition to railways had vanished too early and we can say at least this safely, that no Indian statesman traveled so much, so frequently and so easily across the breadth and the length of this country by railway as Gandhi did.   Following Gokhale’s advice Gandhi traveled ceaselessly across the country for over a year, mainly by railway, after he had come to India from South Africa.

Thus Gandhi went on changing his views, but what is important is that he took responsibility for changed views. A Gandhi who would not, in early nineteen twenties, easily agree to the inter-caste marriage of his son, changed so much, that by late nineteen  thirties he would attend marriages only if they were inter-caste marriages. Gandhi, who   dominated his wife in the style of a typical traditional Hindu male chauvinist, increasingly regarded her friend in later life.   In an age when women generally did not come out of the house, Kasturba used to sit along with him on dais in public life.   Importantly,   it was under Mahatma that the Indian women came out in large numbers in social and political movements and fought along with the men folk.  

Gandhi may have called, in his youthful, forceful and rather nihilistic tone, the British Parliament “a whore” and “a sterile woman that produces nothing…”, and yet in 1933 he led the Indian delegation to England for the ‘Round Table Conference” to parley with the British Government and to demand from them Parliamentary System and Dominion Status for India.  And again in the forties we see his enthusiasm for parliamentary system and the representative democracy.

But perhaps an important phase in his life, according to me, unfolded during his   meaningful dialogue and close relationship with the young Jawaharlal Nehru. Although philosophically they were worlds apart, they were and remained very close to each other;  they argued long and ardently, each trying to convert the other to his point of view. Gandhi came to issues from tradition; Cambridge educated Nehru was thoroughly modern. Gandhi suspected science and technology; Nehru considered science and technology as key to human progress. Gandhi glorified villages, simple life and primitive economy; Nehru was practical when it came to technology and economy. But they had a strong common bond in that they both strongly believed in basic human values, democracy, dignity of human beings and non-violence.  Though nothing happened on the surface, Gandhi perhaps yielded sufficiently. And about Jawaharlal, we can only say that he had lost to Gandhi completely since the time Gandhi came in his life.    Evolution of the Mahatma over the years and silent submission of Jawaharlal Nehru to the Mahatma are perhaps of one piece and form  the most beautiful and engrossing poetry that flows alongside the story  of our struggle for freedom.

Today “Hind Swaraj” appears a far cry and may serve as a moral vision and a youthful dream of a yet evolving great statesman and it can be used for a limited purpose of explaining the origin of Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas. Every thinker has a moral vision that is at once inchoate and primitive and this moral vision lies deeply rooted in his psyche.  “Hind Swaraj” should not, I believe, be   quoted in the context of a movement that is conducted in a democratic framework for its tone is sufficiently nihilistic.

  Lastly, “Hind Swaraj” was written largely under the influence of Tolstoy and in a Tolstoyan language, the deliberate high language of the great preacher of humanity.  Later on Gandhi came on his own; and in nineteen twenties, thirties and in forties he evolved uniquely in his own way through his own experience. And he left Tolstoy much behind.

 I regard Gandhi as a great nihilist in the tradition of a motley collection of mainly western spiritual nihilists such as for example Tolstoy. But Gandhi was very shrewd in dealing with his innate nihilism. He said that he rejected all technology and all machine including his body that is also a machine of some sort.  But as all mystics of all spiritual faiths--- Eastern, Western and mystics of all hues-----allow some tenability to the Body, (for without it the  existence and the whole range of spiritual experience including Moksha  is impossible)  he also allowed in his own way, various physical forms such as  technology, social relations and political organization  for  a bare minimum. This was a practical arrangement that served his purpose and his mission of spiritualizing politics and social life.

Incidentally, I feel that Tolstoy and Gandhi, the two great nihilists, evolved in their respective lives in opposite directions. Tolstoy started as a great and accomplished artist and an aesthete, working creatively with different themes and different colors. Perhaps, he could not control his innate nihilism and hence ended with an extreme vision that denied everything; so much so, that ultimately   he rejected even his own creative works. Gandhi, on the other hand, started in a singular Tolstoyan vision and evolved over time and ended  with an inclusive vision.