For me, the difference between those who think of the Indian civilization and those who think of India as a nation is so crucial and widening that an inter-communication maybe really difficult. The difference is a difference in preoccupations and sensibility.  Those conditioned by the idea of nation would take it along the path of Western progress, believing in it, and spurn the very idea of the Indian civilization. They are in every sense modern, their opinions are based on the categories of modernism. This phenomenon of modernism is, of course, due to the Western impact on India. The Indian mind affected by it can only conceive of India as a nation, and has acquired a shape or shapelessness, becoming a veritable danger to the Indian civilization. As a teacher I have pitched upon the relation between English literature and the Indian mind and demonstrated, here, the danger. What this, mind wants, believes, and values is truly in defiance of the Indian civilization, and it proves the poorest in instruction and learning.

 

For instance, the role of English is a good subject on which the difference I point out above can be clearly seen.

 

I do not regard English as indispensable.  I know its value and I don’t confuse it with the received notion of its indispensability for us.  I want to benefit from it without its prestige affecting me.  I don’t want it to render me affected, false and ridiculous.   If I could, I want to use it without any Indian mannerisms.

 

I have to use it, as, in the circumstances, I cannot help it. In the interests of the Indian civilization, I am against the English language being accepted in place of the mother tongue, and its being given a whit more importance than as a language necessary for a set purpose. But those in whom the idea of the Indian civilization as an active force is absent and the image of the nation struggling to catch up with the West is pre-potent think very differently of the role of English.

 

My attempt is novel, and open to criticism.  What success I can hope for is counterbalanced by mistakes I cannot avoid as I write in English.  Yet, I wouldn’t blush for any linguistic solecism pointed out to me in this work, but it will certainly hurt me if my purpose has not been achieved by my argument which observes the logic of conditions rather than mere consistency in statement.

 

I had the advantage of being a close student of late Dr.F.R.Leavis at Cambridge, which was a turning point in my life.  As an undergraduate, I attended his special morning classes at Downing for over two years, and I do not believe there could be a greater teacher at any time. Like Matthew Arnold, he had a way of applying his mind to literature, which is of permanent value.  His was a heroic mind which introduced the force of thought into the academic teaching of literature, making it a creative function for the teacher.  His relevance, to me is the spirit of courage I have drawn from him to keep to the standards I set up in relation to my own civilization. His teaching for me consists in the training of my mind against anything attractive -- attractive, in particular, on account of the popular trends -- which flouts the standards of depth and excellence in literary achievements. More important still for me is the ability I acquired from listening to him and reading his works to set up standards. Only second to that of Dr. Leavis was the impact of Mr. J, M, Newtoll who as my supervisor for one year, taught me how to feel and recognize the essentials in a literary work

 

I owe a debt to Dr. B. M. Herbertson and late R. N. Walters for their kindness and help to me. I cannot recall my Cambridge life without remembering how much I am obliged to my best friends, Mr.Bill Warren and Mr. Martin Darling, who made such sacrifices for my welfare.

 

Raghini is the prime mover, whose interest in my work is the sale cause of this being a separate volume. Support from Venkatramanan and help from Hariharan and Padmanabhan are too large a debt for me to repay. Of several friends with whom I have had discussions, I must thank Ramanujam in particular. Sivaraman's involvement in my work is a mw strength to me. Lastly, from many students I have taught in Madras Christian College and in Thiagarajar College, Madurai, I hare benefited immensely, and no other relation has been so reassuring to me as mine to my students.

 

                                                           

                                                                                                            T V SUBBARAO