80 SOCIAL SCIENTIST philosophy and art that go with it. Once this fact is recognised, critical principles get directed towards not only gauging the intensity and authenticity of such a commitment but also to help literature in becoming more and more involved with the fate of progressive social forces of society. In this way, literature which is a part of the overall conscious—as different from merely natural—activity of a community, synthesises different aspects of social existence, physical and mental, into a highly emotional and moral drama, and becomes, through its interaction with society, an ever-growing material force. Literary criticism, which will also be broadly a part of such an activity, will have to search for tools that distinguish literature committed to the progressive social forces from the literature which either strengthens directly the interests of the exploiting classes, or which blunts indirectly the struggle between the toiling and the exploiting classes, thus ultimately helping the latter (exploiting classes) in extrenching themselves more firmly. No tools that examine the "content" and "form" of literature separately, rather than in their interconnection, can achieve this aim, Unfortunately, Namwar Singh reflects a poor understanding of this vital aspect. At this stage, it will be worthwhile to consider the essential nature of Namwar's pecular understanding that gives rise to so much of expectation at the outset, but peters out into amusing critical snippets during discussion and analysis. When working with a generally correct broad historical frame-work^ he goes to examine the principles of aesthetics, the various "forms" of literature and their significance, new elements in expression and the way those elements do justice, (unlike anything else in the literature of the past), to new historical-cultural realities, things get mixed up and chaos prevails. The fact remains that between Namwar^s general purview and his specific conclusions yawns a wide sea of contradictions, abstractions, quotations torn out of context and misused, eclectic attempts that assume the dignity of drastically "original" and "unique" contributions to the Hindi critical thought. Instead of going into the much-too-current and easy charge that the book is a typical attempt of a critic who has planned a strategy of creating division in the writers of the younger generation, thereby assuming leadership of one part of it against the other, and simultaneously fighting with the old thought and standards in criticism, we may try here to see in brief those points in his understanding which give rise to so much of confusion when the question of analysis of details, and of reaching conclusions, comes up. Namwar agrees mostly with Agyeya in so far as the nature of the cultural background and literary tradition is concerned in the light of which the poet grapples with his problems. Such an upbringing and tradition is "one long unbroken" cultural process which is synonymous with "culture even-purifying and developing" (page 21). He further asserts,