 |
| m k harikumar |
interview :
A New School of Criticism
By G Thulaseedharan Bhopal
M. K. Harikumar is today’s foremost multi-faceted critic. He is the one who transformed literary criticism into readable material for the common reader. As Harikumar enters his 50th year in literary composition, genuine readers need to understand him thoroughly. His weekly column, Aksharajalakam (Window of Letters), is unmatched in India today. It is now entering its thirtieth year. For all this time, he has thought and written with depth and breadth, and he continues to do so. He began writing it in Kerala Kaumudi, followed by Kala Kaumudi and Prasadhakan, and he currently writes it in the Metro Vaartha newspaper. Who else can present such original thoughts week after week?
Aksharajalakam is not merely a periodical review column; it does not simply introduce books or read and comment on substandard works published in periodicals. Harikumar marks our changing times. By analyzing and critiquing all spheres of life, he has created a new world. Harikumar was the first to state that the concept of identity had become obsolete. He was also the first to introduce the trend of post-postmodernism into Malayalam.
He was the first to write individual essays on prominent anthropological historian Yuval Noah Harari, Zen Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh, and theologian Neale Donald Walsch. I recall him saying that he only writes when he has something original to say. Every week, he finds an opportunity to discover something new. His very first work, Aathmayanathinte Khasaak (The Khasaak of Spiritual Journeys), was a revolutionary narrative. Growing beyond what he had studied, Harikumar articulated his own philosophy.
Realizing that none of the existing philosophies were adequate, he came forward with his own philosophy, Navadwaitam (Neo-Advaita). His critical framework constitutes a brand new school. Terms such as Svam Vayana (Self-Reading), Samvedanathmaka Vimarsanam (Interactive Criticism), Pseudo-Realism, and Thanimanasu (Pure Mind) were coined by him for his critical system. Publishing his own manifesto (Ente Manifesto / My Manifesto) in book form for the first time in the history of Malayalam literature, this writer shines as an art thinker, social thinker, critic, novelist, theoretician, story writer, poet, columnist, and journalist.
Harikumar is feared by conservatives and reactionaries. Few writers are unfazed by his criticism. He marched forward independently, without any godfather. He has authored over forty serious books, in addition to thousands of articles.
Reading Harikumar’s novel Sree Narayanaaya transformed my mindset. I continuously recited and propagated that novel in WhatsApp groups for 200 days. At that time, I did not know him, though I would call him on the phone. To understand India's great philosophy, reading Sree Narayanaaya is enough. This book is even worthy of the Nobel Prize. The government should translate it into English and propagate it.
This is a supreme novel that stands shoulder-to-shoulder with any world literature. Presented below is a brief account of a conversation with Harikumar:
G. Thulasidharan: You are entering the fiftieth year of your literary life. What helped you sustain yourself for all this time?
M. K. Harikumar: There were many good individuals who let me know they understood and enjoyed what I wrote, who called and reacted to whatever I penned, asked about my well-being, urged me to write, invited me to give speeches, and helped and supported me. They are the ones who sustained me. In addition, there are the editors of the newspapers and magazines that published my articles. I express my boundless gratitude to them. The readers who supported me came from all walks of life. They all recognized the profundity of my writings. I felt that they enjoyed my outbursts, rebellions, oppositions, and criticisms. Showering affection like a child, they looked upon my adventures with wonder.
My first book, Aathmayanathinte Khasaak, presents a peculiar aesthetics. Those who have enjoyed the works of painters like Wassily Kandinsky and Jackson Pollock will easily grasp it. Aathmayanathinte Khasaak is a work that leaves objective reality behind to seek inner reality. It is like abstract painting. It was not written in the thesis format learned in academic institutions; it is an introspective quest of an artist. I approached words like a painter who sees colors as music, ecstasy, or philosophy. That was very adventurous. At the time, I was an M.A. student at Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha. There were those who turned their faces away from that book. Yet, wonderfully, it still has admirers. They inquire about it and purchase it.
Question: You spoke about those who supported you for 50 years. There must have been those who sidelined you as well?
M. K. Harikumar: I feel I need to give an account of my 50-year literary life. I used to write ever since I was studying in upper primary school. Two forms attracted me back then: first, the drama; second, a speech limited to 12 sentences. We used to stage dramas in the classroom. That prose narrative, titled a speech, would be presented aloud by a student with intense emotion in the form of a lecture.
When I reached high school, I tried my hand at essays and poems. The essays were very brief. I used to write short notes on books taken from the library—reading works by A. D. Hari Sarma, Kainikkara Kumara Pillai, Velayudhan Panassery, and Krishna Chaitanya, and writing notes on them. However, I do not count any of this as my first creation. When I was in the ninth grade (1976), I wrote a poem and showed it to my Malayalam teacher, C. N. Kuppan Sir. He took it home to read. Two days later, he spoke to me about the poem and told me to write again. This is my first creation. Later, when I joined Deva Mata College, I used to write poems and display them on the notice board. The notice board established for the arts club practically became a space to publish my notes and poems.
I wrote poetry at all times. The truth is, I did not give it excessive importance. I do not pay attention to those who tried to sideline me. They have a specific mental state. Even if they abandon me, I will not abandon myself. Hundreds of my articles and books have already been published, and they are still being published. They are all profound subjects.
Only two volumes of the Aksharajalakam column have been published. Six or seven more volumes remain to be published. There is no money for that. In addition to this, a volume of the Anudhavanam column in Pacha Malayalam has been published, with more yet to be published.
Question: What is the idea that inspires you?
M. K. Harikumar: The relationship between man and nature, and the secret of the creation of living beings, give me anxiety. I keep searching for it. The philosophy of Sree Narayana, Gandhian philosophy, Vyasa philosophy, Yoga philosophy, Nietzschean philosophy, Thoreau’s philosophy, and Zen philosophy are what influenced me the most.
Question: Compared to other writers, you use blogs and websites.
M. K. Harikumar: I started writing on blogs in 2007. Now I have 7 blogs and two websites. There are readers who visit them constantly. There is a gadget called Live Traffic Feed on it. By looking at it, you can see from which country and at what time someone entered it. Many people in India and abroad visit my sites almost daily. Now I publish my literary news on my blog.
Question: It is interesting that you publish an Onam special edition on your website. I have also written in it.
M. K. Harikumar: That is for other writers. Including many writers, we published a special edition last Onam. In addition, special editions featuring only my writings have been published on the site in previous years.
Question: You have formulated various theories in the fields of literature and philosophy. Is theory essential in criticism?
M. K. Harikumar: Theories show potential when our thoughts acquire a philosophical direction. Theories are the ripening of our knowledge. Merely studying in classrooms cannot make us creators; classrooms do not teach us how to think. We study the thoughts of many, and those from decades ago. Turning our attention to history is also useful, but no one states what we actually ought to think. Education becomes meaningful only when an idea we need to think about becomes clear.
My theories were fiercely opposed here. For some teachers, even looking at that book is unsettling. Many ask: when there are plenty of theories to study, what is the need for a new one? Once I turned to theoretical construction, my books became unpublishable. I found myself isolated in the face of an organized majority. But I also know those who read me constantly, telling me that I must write just like this. Today, there are people searching for "M. K. Harikumar's theories." But they are neither elite scholars nor their followers; they are independent readers. One can write without theories too; after all, there are those who write criticism by borrowing tools and thoughts from others.
Question: You were the one who announced the death of postmodernism in Malayalam. What is its relevance?
M. K. Harikumar: The death of postmodernism occurred around the year 2000. Its regional, identity, and feminist arguments were sidelined in the global, digital, and social media spheres. There is no feminism or identity on Instagram.
However, post-postmodernism has still not been adopted for study in academic institutions. Therefore, teachers have no way of speaking about it; they need to study it. It has been ten years since I wrote the book Uttar-Uttharadhunikatha (Post-Postmodernism). Many people have seen this and kept their distance in fear. Many who do not know how post-postmodernism entered our society still pass the time writing articles about postmodernism.
Cultural studies belong to postmodernism. That era has ended. Culture is now merely a toolkit. It is not the monopoly of any class or nation; it is public property. Cultural symbols are needed by artists, entrepreneurs, and architects alike. The notion that the human race stays permanently in one place no longer exists. The human race is on a journey—from one land to another.
Question: I remember you introducing a new concept called the reader's work. Could you elaborate on that?
M. K. Harikumar: What a writer writes is their imaginative world. Truly, it is a closed world; it opens only when read. The moment someone reads it, it opens exclusively for them. In the act of reading, they are born again or transformed intellectually—just as Bernard Shaw became a vegetarian after reading Yeats's poems.
The reader writes another work. That happens during the process of reading. There is no hard copy of it; it exists in their mind. They enjoy and critique that very creation. Therefore, a literary work always stands isolated in its innocence. The reader does not accept the text as it is; they blend elements of imagination into it. My Aathmayanathinte Khasaak (1984) was born that way.
Question: How can we understand the difference between Vedic philosophy and your Navadwaitam (Neo-Advaita)?
M. K. Harikumar: No philosophy is destined to remain in its pristine state; experience guides us. I have not followed Vedantic mystery as a branch of study, but I have read a lot. I seek Vedanta not as a systematic science, but as an experience. I possess the knowledge of a cosmic harmony. How does a human individual attain harmony with the structure of the universe, from the movement of a leaf to star clusters? That must be known through experience. This is my Vedanta. The principle that we have an indissoluble connection with this world has influenced me.
However, Navadwaitam is a different principle. In Navadwaitam, there is no ultimate truth, Brahman, Kundalini, or six steps. Every object denies its inner state and becomes something else there. It is an infinite process.
Question: Can writers like Hermann Hesse and Dostoevsky be compared?
M. K. Harikumar: Hermann Hesse is a writer who perceived Indian philosophy through experience. His novel Siddhartha and some stories show a human being proclaiming spiritual freedom. The harmony that man has with this universe is present in Hesse’s works. The experience of hearing Om in the sound of a flowing river is found in Siddhartha. Moreover, Hesse is a writer who sought identification with nature.
Dostoevsky’s path is different. He has no Indian philosophy in him. While seeking Christian truth, he declared that man is incapable of reaching it. Man is a sinner, self-despising, and hypocritical before truth. He thinks man is a hell. I have no interest in comparing them. A comparison between Kafka and Dostoevsky is possible.
Question: Your column Aksharajalakam is approaching its thirtieth year.
M. K. Harikumar: My weekly column Aksharajalakam started in Kerala Kaumudi in February. Later, it started in Kala Kaumudi. Now I write it weekly in the Metro Vaartha newspaper.
Aksharajalakam is now approaching three decades. There is no other serious literary column continuing for such a long period in India today. Everyone has accepted this column. Even the name Aksharajalakam fascinates many. There are those who write by creating names similar to it. A situation arose where one could not think of a column without adding the word Jalakam (Window). Recently, some people wrote columns under the very name Aksharajalakam. This shows the acceptance of this column. Many think that naming something Aksharajalakam ensures success.
Question: Are any fundamental transformations taking place in our literary field?
M. K. Harikumar: This is an era where literary discussions have completely lost their authenticity. Any book can be printed and sold in hundreds of thousands of copies if the publisher is willing. Discussions about values have ended. Position and money are becoming the determining factors.
I have heard children sitting in a physics class talking about physics by reciting lessons they studied, roughly understanding what they learned. But that is not the thought world of a physicist; they cannot reach there. Literary discussions have only this level of standard now.
Question: You mentioned that writing autobiographies has no substance. What should be written?
M.K. Harikumar: There are those who talk only about themselves. They do not know the world at all; they see only their own experiences. What is there to boast so much about oneself? Such hollow autobiographies leave an unpleasant taste. Instead, the world must come into us. We must face all diverse sorrows, enigmas, and knowledge of the world. We must be able to explore what is unknown to us. That is where creative literature lies.
Question: You put forward the philosophy that a novelist is a character in their own novel. I would like to know more about this.
M.K. Harikumar: I am the person who started writing criticism with the concept that the writer is a character. Such an approach is a first in Malayalam literature. I developed and applied it as one of my theories in Aathmayanathinte Khasaak. In it, [O. V.] Vijayan is alongside other characters like Ravi, Nisaamali, and Maimuna. I observe and evaluate Vijayan within it. There is a method where Vijayan speaks aloud whatever he thought. On every page and in every situation of Khasakkinte Ithihasam (The Legends of Khasak), I realized that Vijayan intervenes invisibly. The character Vijayan living in that novel is not O. V. Vijayan the journalist; it is someone else within Vijayan. That person is the cause of the novel.
The novel is a land of imaginations. In that land, the novelist has embedded another form of themselves. The imagined form of the real Vijayan transforms into the character in the novel. That character is a collection of thoughts and imaginations.
Question: I recall you raising the strange claim that everything is literature. How can that be explained, and what is its ideological relevance?
M.K. Harikumar: Literature is all-pervading. Everything is literature. Even a buffalo looking at something is literature. Isn’t a fallen flower literature? Because every movement, object, and existence generates mutually contradictory, mixed, and infinite discussions and thoughts. All sounds, glances, and smells are a bundle of imaginations. By its very structure, all of that is a narrative.
Narrative does not have a uniform nature; it changes according to each individual’s character. Narrative is literature; style and tone in composition are literature. It does not operate according to preconceptions. As glances and movements become narrative, they also become meanings and ideas. Meanings need to be viewed emotionally. It encompasses both man and nature.
Question: What disturbs you?
M.K. Harikumar: The infinite self-negations and self-constructions within every object disturb me. The universe is carrying out repairs in thoughts and dreams every single moment. Time is its instrument. I am not the person I was yesterday; the sun today is not the one from yesterday. Even the past is subject to repair.
Question: You wrote a manifesto. Tell us about it.
M.K. Harikumar: I remember a journalist writing that no critic or writer in Malayalam literature had written their own manifesto, and that my book Ente Manifesto (My Manifesto) is very important in this context. Navadwaitam is the self-negation and construction of objects.
Mutuality (Parasaryam) is the special relationship between the reader and the work—a state where they pierce through one another. Another perspective is that every reader composes a work in their mind while reading. Appreciation arises based on the work we compose in our minds. When it fails to harmonize with the reader's work, disagreement arises. A literary work is born from the emotional wisdom of the writer.
This applies to critical writing as well. That is how knowledge is assimilated. It is not mere experience, but the emotional wisdom beyond it that operates. The mind leaps through super-knowledge from the emotion underlying experience. That is when creative activity reaches its peak.
Question: You conduct explosive protests and reviews in every work. How does one avoid being conditioned in writing?
M.K. Harikumar: Most writers hover in a safe zone, thinking dangerous imagination is perilous. A writer needs the adventurousness of walking on a rope tied above a deep chasm. No single composition is in vain for him. If one keeps waiting to see if more people agree or support, one can never write. The moment others' opinions begin to govern us, thought freezes.
Question: How does a critic succeed?
M.K. Harikumar: A critic must walk alone. They must always be ready to shake up rigid assumptions. There should be an inherent detachment from solidified viewpoints. Importance lies not in everyone agreeing with thoughts, but in the emergence of a new reflection. If a critic is constantly opposed by more people, it means there are certain values in them that deserve attention.
G. Thulasidharan Bhopal
published in YOGANADAM MAGAZINE,OCTOBER 15, 2026
*critic, literature, malayalam criticism, new school, nava adwaitha, swam vayana, aksharajalakam, anudhavanam, sreenarayanaya , novel
