Commemorating Munshi Premchand on his 125th anniversery....
I was browsing through the BBC web page and I found an essay on Munshi Premchand. A citation by a political science professor, Prof. Ramkrishna Tripathi, caught my attention which hinted that Premchand was rebelious and anarchist by his very nature.
I don't chalange this argument as I never knew him personally but if an author's canon can be an authoritative depiction of his own psychology, any student of Premchand ( I believe each of the premchand's book in itself is a complete doctrine....and as soon as you start reading a book...you become a desciple of the doctrine...) can point out the fallacy of the statement.
What I believe is .... he had shown a disposition of protest but he never was prejudiced. He never bothered to demonstrate a cataclysm in any of his novel. He believed in descretion of a man....probably that was the reason he never tried to influence the people by his would-be ways to deal with a perticular problem. Be it GODAN or NIRMALA or any other novel or be it a short story like "POOS KI EK RAAT" he portrated what he saw...the delapidated the then prevailing socio-economic condition of india. He sought to make a change but never tried to attempt to do it in his work.
When NIRMALA was married with a too-old man for her age.....she never protested or she never made a striking difference. She complied ...defered to her condition...she suffered....she resented her not contending disposition....BUT she never tried to change the prevailing condition.
When HORI was made penniless by "the leech"... more popular as MAHAJAN....he never protested....although DHANIYAN showed a murmer of protest but before HORI's strong aversion for contest ..she also gave-up.
His protagonists are more realistic then anyone's...there are some air of protest ...
BUT he never gave a clue of his being "DISPUTATIOUS".
On the contrary ... his protagonists are quite complaisant as much as they are shown byoyant (even in the face of agony). (Hori feels exurberant when an animal browses through his field and destroyed his DHAN... at least he would not have to stay in the field in the cruel winter again watching for his crops.) ...
He provokes a necessity to deal with this brutalities...not necessarily by revolution.
As Prof. Shubharao clearly states...
I don't chalange this argument as I never knew him personally but if an author's canon can be an authoritative depiction of his own psychology, any student of Premchand ( I believe each of the premchand's book in itself is a complete doctrine....and as soon as you start reading a book...you become a desciple of the doctrine...) can point out the fallacy of the statement.
What I believe is .... he had shown a disposition of protest but he never was prejudiced. He never bothered to demonstrate a cataclysm in any of his novel. He believed in descretion of a man....probably that was the reason he never tried to influence the people by his would-be ways to deal with a perticular problem. Be it GODAN or NIRMALA or any other novel or be it a short story like "POOS KI EK RAAT" he portrated what he saw...the delapidated the then prevailing socio-economic condition of india. He sought to make a change but never tried to attempt to do it in his work.
When NIRMALA was married with a too-old man for her age.....she never protested or she never made a striking difference. She complied ...defered to her condition...she suffered....she resented her not contending disposition....BUT she never tried to change the prevailing condition.
When HORI was made penniless by "the leech"... more popular as MAHAJAN....he never protested....although DHANIYAN showed a murmer of protest but before HORI's strong aversion for contest ..she also gave-up.
His protagonists are more realistic then anyone's...there are some air of protest ...
BUT he never gave a clue of his being "DISPUTATIOUS".
On the contrary ... his protagonists are quite complaisant as much as they are shown byoyant (even in the face of agony). (Hori feels exurberant when an animal browses through his field and destroyed his DHAN... at least he would not have to stay in the field in the cruel winter again watching for his crops.) ...
He provokes a necessity to deal with this brutalities...not necessarily by revolution.
As Prof. Shubharao clearly states...
| "उनके लिए बाग़ी या इस तरह के विशेषण प्रयुक्त नही कर सकते हैं पर हाँ प्रतिरोध | |||
Prof. Tripathi amend your understanding of Premchand, the novelist.
Remember sir
There can't be a more depraved LIE than a misconstrued TRUTH.
meindreams @ 12:14 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
i too think that munsi premchand never tried to preach . He just wrote about the society which is not always good and an ideal one. I always liked his stories...i havenot read his novels
Thanx for ur comment...
I would suggest you to read some of his novels. None can give more accurate picture of the socio-economic condition of pre-ndependence epoch. I admire him for his simplicity and his spontaneity.
Stay arround..
Bye...
Post a Comment
<< Home