Page 178 - DENG503_INDIAN_WRITINGS_IN_LITERATURE

Indian Writings in Literature

Notes ‘indigenous’ businesses) demand their returns (267/351). Moreover Khanna admits that much of
his success was based on the exploitation of others and on dishonesty and cheating; and he has no
problem taking advantage of the strike to lower workers’ wages and to worsen their working
conditions. This, according to Premchand, is the true face of economic nationalism. For their part,
the workers do not come across solely as heroes or victims: like the peasants in the villages, they
are unable to agree upon or unite for anything, and are more than happy to take advantage of each
other to gain a better position at the mill after the strike is over. In the end, violence breaks out and
the mill is simply burnt down— a stark and poignant symbol of the failure of the Gandhian vision
and of the promise of subaltern unity.

21.3 Political Injustice
Much of the intellectual discussion of political ideas takes place among the characters in the urban
subplot of the novel. In many ways, the very format of the discussion can be taken as the first level
of Premchand’s critique. Mehta and Khanna are intellectuals who talk at length of politics but
never feel obliged to translate ideas into actions or to bring their actions into accord with their
ideals. Here Premchand seems to be making an indirect attack on the elite politicians of the time
by associating them with hypocrisy and narcissism, and by targeting the staleness of political and
intellectual discourse. Of the character Tankha, Premchand states: ‘when Congress had power he
supported the Congress candidate, and when communal parties had power, then he campaigned
for the Hindu Sabha’ (90/116). Another character declares: ‘I no longer have faith in this democracy’,
and goes on to explain why chaotic India will always need an absolute ruler—‘whether Indian or
British doesn’t matter’ (91/117). Yet the novel is not in the least an attack on democracy. Democracy
is not to blame, Premchand demonstrates, but the self-serving opportunism and lack of ethics
among the nationalist political elite that is at fault for ruining and pilfering the democratic promise. 15
The character of Rai Sahib is a case in point. He is described as a ‘nationalist who maintains good
relations with government [British] officials’ (18/23). And when he is awarded the title of ‘Raja’
from the provincial governor, he is filled ironically with ‘pride and patriotism’ (288/384). Yet we
are told that during the Civil Disobedience Movement the Rai Sahib put himself at the head of the
local agitation, was arrested and went to jail, like a good nationalist. To be sure, while in jail he
continued to cheat and exploit the peasants on his zamindari lands, but the peasants could not
complain lest they were seen as ‘anti-national’. Likewise, when Rai Sahib hears that a fine has
been levied against Hori in his zamindari village of Belari he becomes furious and—being the good
nationalist that he is—orders the money to be returned. The village leaders, however, have already
pocketed and spent the money from the fine, so they think of a way to avoid Rai Sahib’s request. 16
One of them, Pateshwari, decides to run a story in the local nationalist paper run by Onkarnath (a
paper that is funded, it turns out, largely by ads selling foreign products) denouncing the
exploitative actions of the Rai Sahib. The latter hits back by visiting Onkarnath and adding one
hundred new subscribers to the cash-starved paper—an action that is simultaneously nationalist
and philanthropic. Onkarnath is trapped: the ethics of journalism require him to run the story, but
the ethics of nationalism require him not to. The fact that such a choice is created at all shows the
emptiness of nationalist rhetoric and action, particularly at the local level.

15. A point foreshadowed in an earlier story of Premchand’s entitled ‘Cakma’ (Deception) (1922), Prem. Rac. 12:
366–71.
16. As would be expected, Premchand also wrote extensively about issues of Panchayat justice. In ‘Panc-
Parameshwar’ (The God Of the Panchayat) (1916), Prem. Rac. 11: 394–403, a friendship is initially torn apart
when one of the friends, who is on the Panchayat, does not automatically rule in favour of the other in a case
brought before the Panchayat. The friendship is renewed when, in a later case, the judgment is rendered in
favour of the friend (but on the merits of the case only). The point is that justice is supposed to be impartial,
and not based, as it is ‘traditionally’ practised, on connections.

172 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY