During that period, many masterpieces appeared, which are now known as classic literature in the history of world literature. These were not just artistic writings, they included countless human, social and cultural concerns.
At the last stage of colonialism, where there was anger against colonialism, there was also a sharp opposition to colonial literary criticism. Out of this, post-colonial criticism also emerged, which called for the eradication of colonialism that remained in the mentality despite the British leaving the colonies.
During the 1960s, Marxist criticism raised a new thought as a counter to the criticism that preceded it. By the way, the rise of Russian formalism also took place in Russia, but Stalin exiled it as bourgeois.
As a result, the artistic nature of literary writings was gradually set aside and its social, cultural and political concerns were raised. In this, no attention was paid to the artistry of the writing, only the work that became the voice of the marginalized class, caste, and class was declared a great work. The points of artistry were thrown into the trash bin by calling it colonial or Western. To some extent, it was, but it was also a way out of world-class literary artistry.
The good thing was that this was a period of change and artistry was present in the writers, although the writers of that period wrote literature keeping ideology at the center, they did not give up the edge of artistry. The magnificent works of that period have maintained their status even today.
By the 1980s, this Marxist thought had taken over the academic field around the world. No doubt, many great thinkers of the world level had formulated this criticism and had given very magnificent concepts. Many formulated value theories. They were also inclusive, they also talked about taking artistry and concerns along. They also gave prominence to the question of literary language. This was also the need of the hour and also essential to link literature with the betterment of society… But coming to the grassroots level, the ideological side of Marxist criticism was dominated by these people. Those who talked about artistry were even branded as ‘traitors to the people’. It was made into a dirty commodity by giving it the title of art for art’s sake. In the name of ‘art for the people’, literature was reduced to propaganda, flags and sticks.
Coming to India and Punjab, this became more acute. It was directly said that whatever the conditions of the oppressed classes were, the same language and the same artistry would be there. During this period, a lot of thought-based writing was produced, a large part of which was not artistic, but its thought and communication were so intense that it greatly influenced the people. Critics associated with the ideology left no stone unturned in establishing them as original literary expressions.
The bitter truth of the world was that capitalism, which came with neo-liberalism, earned a big profit by selling even the literature that identified this marginalized class like hot dogs. By making the writers and readers of the oppressed as professors and critics, they were bathed in government and family grants. Separate economic support was always coming from the Russian bloc.
The thing is that within the capitalist system, the remnants of Marxist criticism were fitted into the structure of education and literature so that they could continue to produce the necessary literature and raw material for contemplation to the market and later on, they would continue to verify it by putting their ‘quality check OK stamp’ on it.
They were given freedom until then, wherever they tried to take the political or revolutionary path, they were beaten up and put to bed.
On the world level, Marxist criticism adopted the path of soft revolution as an intellectual army planting Marxist seeds. Many revolutionary writings and writers emerged from its initial period in India and Punjab, including the world, but due to the complete disregard for artistry, within a few years, ordinary readers began to lose interest in this literature.
Theoretical propaganda became so dominant in literature that Marxist thinkers at the world level had to be reminded that a balance between artistry and ideology is essential. Unfortunately, the so-called scholars who occupied departments and factions sacrificed it to factionalism and internal opposition, and it is being sacrificed to this day.
The open market after the 1990s and the internet after 1995 broke all barriers. The rise of social media after the 2010s spelled doom for both the remaining artistry and the wandering ideology.
Now you see, when Instagram poetry/literature has covered Punjabi literature like a cloud of dust, whether it is a Marxist critic or an artist, everyone has cried out in one voice that literature is being destroyed. Poetry has gone down the path of prostitution. There is no difference between literary and vulgar language. Poetry is not found in poetry, narrative in stories, novelism in novels, drama in plays. In today’s era, no scholar has any commitment to ideology or concern, where can they expect it from new writers.
Today they should understand that the foundation of literature they had hollowed out by rejecting artistry, today its lofty edifice is about to collapse on them.
They should listen to our words, not to their own scholars who are saying again and again, that nothing has changed even after the fall of the fallen trees, that there is no escape without a balance between artistry and concern.
They are challenging the critics that criticism alone should pave the way for this comeback.
It has to start from where criticism has taken us today.
In the name of ideology, they have made the artless writers of crude writings the gods of literature and placed them on thrones. There is no choice but to send them to literary training centers. Their presence has transformed the entire literary world into a big torture center.
Along with them, now is the right time to send home the mobile-marketers raised by favoritism and gangism. The learned people who are trying to win honors and awards for them have lost their status. If we want to get our status back, we will have to get rid of them.
The biggest thing is that if the principles of artistry were Western, then Marxist criticism was not created by sitting in a village in Ludhiana. Even its great scholars come from the same pole.
If Punjabi criticism today has to stand with Punjabi literature, Punjabi language and Punjab, then the final path is to grasp the reins of the original thought born from the fertile land of the five waters. We should not forget that the original poetic tradition of Punjabi, starting from Eastern poetry, was created by our own Gurus, from which the Westerners have extracted orientalism and used it very well.
