Categorized research-works of Debaprasad-27

পঁচিশে বৈশাখ আর বাইশে শ্রাবণ শুধূ ? (রবি ঠাকুর বিষয়ক সংকলন)


 Download (.pdf)

# Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay *

^ দেবপ্রসাদ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়



This collection, mainly written in Bangla, represents various aspects of Rabindranath Tagore’s contributions in environmentalism, economics, language planning, literary theory, philosophy and a comparative study of the philosophy of Marx, Rabindranath and Gandhi.

In the paper,  (অন-)অর্থনীতিবিদ রবীন্দ্রনাথ” [City and Village” & “(Non-), The author tried to establish Rabindranath Tagore as a non-mainstream non-conventional economist/fiscal auditor on the basis of Tagore’s different texts, viz. novels, verses, songs, plays and essays. The author emphasized on the following points:

  1. a) Tagore thought that he was a parasite as he was not capable of doing necessary labor and he was depending on surplus labor of the other.
  2. b) According to Tagore, city is also a parasite as it is sucking the blood of the villages.
  3. c) Tagore reinterpreted the concept of necessary labor by introducing a new category: voluntary labor with pleasure/toiling with full of joissance and of course without alienation.
  4. d) He condemned the extraction of others’ labor-time/ surplus labor and critrisized usaries .
    e) He had given the different semantics of private property, which was not merely property in the material sense of the term, but it is a possesion of creative mind.
  5. f) Tagore interpreted money-sign as /taka-rupak/ “money-simile”, by means of which unequals have become equals by some necessary and sufficient conditions. In the “rupaka” figure of speech the identitity and difference between the object compared and comparable are blurred.
  6. g) The “body-politic” of democracy is the joy-ride of the super-rich. Here “opinions are manufactured” (1924). Tagore anticipated the concept of dollar-vote and entered into the domain of political economy.
  7. h) Tagore introduced a novel concept of surplus freedom provided by the cessation of activities (karmavirati) / leisure (udbritto ObokaS) that could be executed if and only if the voluntary labor with pleasure might be performed.
  8. i) He introduced ecology as a variable as a part of his economics. This is one of the unprecedented contributions of Tagore. He was against the extraction of wealth of earth by the violent anthropogenic intervention.
  9. j) He emphasized on the passion of greed as a part of his epistemology. It can be reinterpreted in psychoanalytic terms.
  10. k) Tagore introduced “samavaya” (Co-operative) through the activities of a society called “Sriniketan”, though the semantics of this term is totally different. The author of this paper explained the difference between the detachable (samjoga) and non-detachable (samavaya)relations. As for example, suppose that we are connected by some non-eco-friendly electronic gadgets like CPU, satellites etc. , i.e. we are connected in the web—we have some definite relations. These relations can easily be disconnected according to our whims or by some catastrophic situation. However, may you detach the quivering and leaves when you are perceiving quivering leaves? This is another type of non-detachable relation, which is de-sign-ated as “samavaya”. The small-big i and I non-detachable relationship/communication without any instruments is something different from the anti-green techno-centric communication network between you and me.

In the paper, বুনো রবি ঠাকুর ( Wild Rabindranath Tagore), the author extended the previous paper and described Tagore’s inclination towards ideal forest, hermitage, though the author pointed out some problems in Tagore’s agenda. However, the discontents of modern civilization was emphasized by referring to the problems of anthropogenic global heating. (see also: o King, Stop Killing Deer Of Our Hermitage: Environmental consciousness in Indian science and technology)

On the other hand, in the book, তর্জমার তর্জনী বা একলব্যের বুড়ো আঙ্গুল (The Governance of Translation and Ekalavya’s Thumb), the author dealt with a different issue related to translation studies.  The first part of the monograph deals with the Dronacarya-Ekalavya relationship in case of translation by simply summarizing the propositions made in the paper “তর্জমার তর্জনী বা একলব্যের বুড়ো আঙ্গুল [The Ekalavya Relation: Modernist Locals’ Anti-Modernist Response(s)]”, which elaborates the association of translation enterprise with colonialism, violence and pedagogy . The second part of the monograph subscribes those propositions with an ad hoc hypothesis: Rabindranath Tagore translated Eliot’s ‘(The)Journey of the Magi’ without reading ‘Journey of the Magi.’   (see also: the PowerPoint presentation: Impossibility Of Translation: A Case Study)
This peculiar as well as surprising hypothesis is subscribed by the chronology of events occurred within the pretext of confronting derivative modernity by Tagore. The Bengali young ‘modern’ thinkers, writers poets, viz. Dhurjatiprasad Mukhopadhyay (better known as D.P. Mukherji), Sudhindranath Dutta, Buddhadev Basu, Bishnu De et al., were debating with Tagore on the norms of newly introduced concept of ‘modernity’ and particularly on Eliot’s contribution on the modern ‘international’(?) literature. This polemic is elaborated by the investigator with the citation of four different Ekalavya texts of the same poem, ‘Journey of the Magi’ to reveal the emission of surplus meanings by deploying ankanta (theory of many perspectives) method.

The  paper, “বাংলার খোয়াবনামা (Bangla: A Genealogical Fantasy)”, is a Bangla translation/elaborated version of the two English papers: Language Planner Rabindranath Tagore and Colony’s Burden: a Case of Extending Bangla. The Indian census reports since 1871 were put here to show the lacunas of statistical survey techniques that helped to construct genealogical fantasy and nation statist boundary. Secondly, the tensed relationship between Laksminath BejBarua, an Asamiya writer, and Rabindranth Tagore was shown to understand the impact of extra-linguistic variables at the moment of a birth of nation in the context of colonialism. Thirdly, the role of print capitalism was depicted through the endeavor of Fakirmohan Senapati, an Odia writer, by analyzing the discourse of his biography.
All the linguistic movements in colonial India lead to the demand/desire for autonomy in different spheres and were linked with anti-imperialistic nationalist movement, though, on the contrary, all these movements had become the mirror image of dominant others’ nation statist mimic imagination. In this way, there was a demand for “autonomous” and “pure” tool indigenous grammar (free from “adulteration”) of a well-defined enumerated and “pure” language which is selected centrally as a standard language. Therefore,  language-managers of a given community did two things: a) they, as a member of imagined community, defined the language boundary (i.e. selection of standard and extension of the standard language from centre to periphery) and b) managed that language with the help of a tool called grammar.

The author also  tried to show the Bengali intellectuals’ (language judge/-police/-managers) perspectives (19th. C. and the first three decades of the 20th C) on the issue of autonomy of two neighboring languages, viz. Oriya and Asamiya, two neighboring languages of Bangla. The paper shows a classical centre-periphery relation, where Bengal as a centre, wanted to subsume the periphery through hegemonic selving in course of standardizing and extending the political geography of Bangla with the supposed language module. The situation shows dialectic of hegemonic inclusion, which creates internal colonization, and thus captive languages with a feeling of derivative nationalism were trying to combat external colonization as well. These cases in the colonial period and at the time of the birth of a new nation states might help us to apprehend the post-colonial withdrawal syndrome from the other defeated varieties (i.e., so called “dialects”).

In the paper, “দোস্ত আইয়ুব সাহচর্যে একটি সাহিত্যতাত্ত্বিক পরিভ্রমণ”,  Anekantavada is introduced in the context of Tagore’s philosophy through the analysis of Abu S. Ayyub.

For detailed discussion, kindly follow hyperlinks (blue-colored titles):


 Download (.pptx)




About Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay

Debaprasad Bandyopdhyay (b. 1965), through his 25 years journey in the realm of institutionalized academics did 27 different types of works, which are someway different from the earlier paradigms or, one might say that those works are not only mere reproductions of his inherited institutionalized cultural capital or a mimicry of a colonially imposed model that leads to intellectual anorexia or rather a type falsification of earlier paradigms. However, that might be not only a lofty claim but it also hid the fact that all our information and knowledge are socially accumulated knowledge that was, it is matter of regret, posed as private property through the sign © and the wisdom is rarely available. Bandyopadhyay’s works and projects are the products of his social milieu. Bandyopadhyay is a local sub-altern public sphere academician, who avoids the technical intelligentsia (followers of Sahib’s models and they are not committed to the persons who are accommodating surplus work-time to them by performing surplus labour) or inorganic intellectuals and thus fails to be a part of academic tribe and its subsequent socialization process. Of course, that socialization process does not lead to legendary Socratic dialogue. He is also a political activist though he has not affiliated to any political parties as he was always talking about the corporatization of political parties within the money-sign-based democratic system. He is a regular participant in TV and radio talk-shows and documentary films, street-corners’ talks and International seminars on socio-political, psychological, linguistic, environmental and economic issues. He also writes editorial columns in newspapers. He is also a part of parallel academics as it is found in West Bengal’s Little Magazine Movement, though that was not counted as the part his academic pursuit by his parent institute. His parent institute justifiably does not believe in the domain of parallel academics as this unorganized sector does not directly contribute in the transactions of formal/organized print capitalist eco-enemy paper-publication. Though the dissemination of knowledge is also observed in this space of these parallel academics as all these writings in public sphere simultaneously influence the classroom-discourse and some of them are translated into English, French and Italian. Not only that, Bandyopadhyay also sought engagement with the people, who, by supplying their surplus labour, are sustaining his livelihood. Bandyopadhyay, a linguist by training and a Ph.D.-holder (1996), a junior lecturer (1999-2011) in an autonomous central government institute in India, tries his best for those from he has received and is receiving the manifestation of surplus labour by executing some self-funded projects on economic issues in West Bengal, India. Recently he has got a consolation promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. He has done following 27 research works: 1. Crippled Creativity: An inquiry into language, psyche, society: 2. VALENCY OF BANGLA VERB AND PROBLEM OF COMPOUND VERBS: 3. Archaeology of Bangla Grammar : 4. CAN COMPUTER SPEAK? 5. FUZZY LOGICAL EXPRESSION IN BANGLA : 6. FOLKLORE AND FOLK-LANGUAGE: MYTH OR REALITY? 7. HISTORICISM IN THE DISCOURSE OF BANGLA LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE 8. ABHABA, ECP, DELETION AND TRACE 9. SVATVA OR MY-NESS AND ECONOMIC ENTITLEMEMT 10. TRANSLATION STUDIES 11. MASCULINITY STUDIES 12. YAYATI & BABAR COMPLEX 13. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEYS IN AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY IN WEST BENGAL 14. CONCEPT OF BODY IN INDIAN PHILOSOPHY AND ARCHITECTURE 15. THE CONCEPT OF ERROR (KHYATI) IN MAD-(WO)MEN’S LANGUAGE 16. THE CONCEPT OF PERCEPTUAL TIME AND GRAMMATICAL TIME IN BANGLA 17. BANGLA CALLIGRAPHY, LANGUAGE ART AND LINGUISTIC PEDAGOGY 18. WO(L)D SPACES: NON-EXISTENCE OF WORDS 19. ANEKANTA METHODS 20. SILENCEME: SILENT OTHER IN LINGUISTICS 21. IMAGINED BOUDARIES AND PRE-COLONIAL INDIAN IMAGI-NATION 22. MAKING OF THE INDIAN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 23. SEGMENTING THE SUPRASEGMENTALS : MUSICKING IN SPEAKING 24. INTERPRETING GENETIC STRUCTURE BY DEPLOYING LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE 25. GLOTTOPOLITICS OF LINGUISTIC SUBALTERNITY OR AN AGENDA FOR PLANNING FROM BELOW 26. SEMIOTICS OF PHOTOGRAPHY 27. SOCIOLOGY OF CONTEMPORARY ACADEMICS
This entry was posted in Academic Papers & Books, Contributions and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s