SPECIAL ARTICLES

North Indian Intelligentsia andHindu-Muslim Question

A Study of Premchand's WritingsGeetanjali Paadey

Conventional interpretatmts of the nationalist intelligentsia's attitudes to communalism fail to take accountof the idiom and the cultural conttxt in which this intelligentsia perforce had to think, an idiom and a contextthat were permeated by religion (in a broad, non-fanatic sense of the term). While this did not involve any automaticor inevitable 'slide-back'from secular ideals, what was crucial was the manner in which the question was perceiv-ed, the vej-y understanding of what 'communities' meant.

This paper seeks to illustrate this complex pattern through a study of Premchand's writings. It shows that thoughPremchand's was a consistently principled support to communal unity, his reactions to specific situations or issuesat times deviated from this stance. It argues that a body of inherited assumptions, deeply rooted in his mind,militated against the secular nationalist values to which he was attached, and produced an ambivalence in hisresponses to the Hindu-Muslim question.

BY the time Premchand (1880-1936) came tothe height of his powers as a writer, the prob-lem of relations between Hindus andMuslims, of sectarian strife or what has cometo be known as 'communalism', had become amatter of serious concern for everynationalist. Premchand, 'the .story-teller ofthe independence movement', had inevitablyto come to terms with this problem. His writ-ings, fictional and non-fictional alike, are fullof indications of the way in which he tried todo so. They mirror the conflicting trendswithin the nationalist movement. We knowthat all the important nationalist leadersshared an overriding concern to promoteHindu-Muslim unity. What is less known isthat they, in common with the Indian intel-ligentsia as a whole, comprehended Hindu-Muslim relations in complex ways. Theseranged from a dismissal of fhe Hindu-Muslimrift as 'false consciousness' created by vestedpolitical interests1, to a belief that historicallyand culturally the two communities were di-vided by a gulf that could not be bridged. It isthis complexity that is reflected in Prem-chand's treatment of the Hindu-Muslim issue.

The development of Premchand's thoughthas usually been analysed in terms of anevolution from an Arya Samajist to aGandhian to a socialist, and his attitudes tothe communal question are correspondinglyseen in this sequence. There is, of course,considerable evidence in his writings to sup-port such a reading. But it leaves unnoticedcertain nuances and complexities. Premchanddid embody in his work and person most ofwhat was progressive and regenerative in hissociety; he assailed all that he thought wasdecadent in it. The dichotomy between theregenerative and the decadent by no meansparalleled the dichotomy between the newand the old. But while the general espousal of

1664

certain values for the creation of a new andfree society was sustained in terms of abstractprinciples, the elaboration of these principlesin terms of their programmatic content withinthe context of a plural colonial society oftenposed dilemmas that were either ignored orresolved in ways that did not holly conform tothese principles. Hence the fact that just ayear before his death Premchand wrote ashort story like 'Smriti ka Pujari' with a pro-nounced bias against Islam.1 Similarly, it wasduring this progressive phase that he virtuallydisavowed widow marriage which he hadearlier promoted through a novelette, Prema,written in 1905. But later on he so revised thestory; in Pratigya, as to idealise traditionalwidowhood. In a letter of 1932 he confessedthat in showing the marriage of a widow hehad been guilty of making the Hindu womanfall from her ideal. This lapse he ascribed tothe exub'erance of youth.2 (After an unhappyfirst marriage, Premchand had himself mar-ried a widow. One wonders if his wife wasaware of his changed views on the subject.)

This paper seeks to illustrate this complexpattern. It shows that though Premchand'swas a consistently principled support to com-munal unity, his-reactions to specific situa-tions or issues at times deviated from thisstance. It argues that a body of inherited as-sumptions, deeply rooted in his mind,militated against the secular nationalist valuesto which he was attached, and produced anambivalence in his responses to the Hindu-Muslim question.

Conventional interpretations of thenationalist intelligentsia's attitudes to com-munalism fail to take account of the idiom andthe cultural context in which this intelligentsiaper force had to think, an idiom and a contextthat were permeated by religion (in a broad,non-fanatic sense of the term). This did not,

however, involve any automatic or inevitable'slide-back' from secular ideals. More crucial,perhaps, was the manner in which the ques-tion was perceived.the very understanding ofwhat these 'communities' meant.

In its treatment of the Muslims, Prerachand's work reveals some inconsistenttrends. Where they are dealt with directly, arespectful attitude is generally adopted to-wards them. At times Premchand even pleadswith the Hindus to make some sacrifices inorder to reassure and win over the minoritycommunity. The prospect of the freedomstruggle and the future of the country dependon Hindu-Muslim unity. No effort ought to bespared fo ensure its realisation. It is incum-bent on the Hindus, as the majority commun-ity, to allay the fears of the Muslims and letthem have preferential treatment. In certainother contexts, however, Premchand betraysa tone that does not exactly square with hiscommitment to Hindu-Muslim unity. Whileresponding to the western cultural offensive,for example, it swings towards a chauvinisticHindu position. A glorified Hindu past thenbecomes 'our' ideal. The Muslims are notseen as the Hindus' co-sharers in the offen-sive. When the regeneration of the Hindus isthe issue, the Muslims are bypassed, if notdenounced outright. Constituting a differentcultural universe, the Hindus seem to standapart from the Muslims. But so intense wasPremchand's advocacy of Hindu-Muslim unityand so severe his condemnation of the evils ofHindu society; that the constricting effect onhis work of this 'Hindu' orientation oftenescapes attention.

SOCIAL PURPOSE AS WRITER

From the beginning of his writing careerPremchand was aware of his social purpose asa writer. All writing, he believed, must be

geared to the portrayal of social reality,particularly to the exposure of what was deca-dent in society. But realism must be turnedtowards an ideal. This Premchand called hisAdarshonmukhi yathatthavad or 'idealism-realism'.3 Such a conception necessitatedpropagandist literature. For a writer in a colo-njal society, particularly, there was no escapefrom such literature even though this mightentail a serious loss in aesthetic terms. Writ-ing to a friend, Premchand observed about hisown stories: '...it is possible that you do notcare for their didactic nature, but India can-not reach the peaks of artistic glory while it isgroaning under foreign rule.... Our social andpolitical circumstances force us to educate thepeople whenever we get the opportunity.And our didacticism grows more intensewhen our emotion is stronger...'.4 He wantedplots to be taken from real life so that litera-ture could be utilised for solving life's prob-lems.5 The writer must awaken and teach hisreaders.6 Warning against stark realism,7 hewanted literature to be the 'advance gurad'that guided the politics of the country.8

Premchand brought his general normativeconception of the writer's role to bear upon theSB|nfic problem of Hindu-Muslim unity. Re-

'<^eiving a book by Swami Shraddhananda in•*&•*. Which the history of Hindu-Muslim conflict

had been traced, he stressed that communaland sectarian strife had occurred throughoutIndian history. He referred to intra- and inter-religious fights among the Hindus, Jains andBuddhists. The need of the hour was to forgetthis long tradition of conflict, not to rake upthe past and aggravate communal antagon-ism.9 He took Chatursen Shastri to task forproviding, in his Islam Ka Vish Vriksha, adetailed and lopsided account of the atrocitiesperpetrated on their Hindu subjects by theMuslim rulers. To thus incite the communallyminded amoung the Hindus to harbour en-mity against the Muslims did not become aresponsible and eminent writer likeChatursen. All religions, while they were do-minant, had been guilty of oppression. In anycase, nursing past memories and using themto spread hatred among people was to drivethe nation towards disaster.10 Reviewing thework of a Muslim writer, Premchand com-plained that he had addressed himself exclu-sively to the Muslim community to the eleva-tion of which alone he was committed.''

So conscious and conscientious was Prem-chand's commitment to communal unity thathe did not mind recommending, if necessary,the suppression of history and its manipu-lation for serving the cause of unity. Withoutbeing opposed to efforts directed to the re-generation exclusively of the Hindus orMuslims, he did not favour exclusive appealsthat tended to forget the existence of theother community and, consequently, hurt itssentiments.

IIPremchand's earliest writings on the com-

munal question date back to the first decade

of his literary efforts which began around1905. Some of the biographical vignettes hewrote about this time are of special interest.With a few additions that were intended tomake the collection 'communally' more rep-resentative, these essays were later compiledin two slender volumes entitled Kalam Talwaraur Tyag. This was the period of Soze Watan(1908), the first collection of Premchand'sshort stories, when a patriotic ardouf filledthe young writer's heart. The biographicalessays, too, are inspired by the same passion.So enthusiastic is Premchand in these, and socarried away by the love for motherland, thatany thought of facts, their implications andmutual contradictions is swept aside. Only theideal of patriotism shines consistently. Thewriter moves lightly from one hero toanother, praising a particular quality at onetime and condemning the same at another,and remaining blissfully unaware of the re-sultant inconsistencies.

Thus Raja Mansingh and his family arepraised for setting aside 'the religious normsof thousands of years for the sake of con-temporary interests of the country' in order toform ties with the Mughals. The fact that tomake these ties durable they offered a girl oftheir family in marriage to Akbar is praised.The victory of 'Akbar's valour' over RanaPratap is hailed and the latter's attacks aredescribed as 'excesses'.12 The very next year,in 1906, Premchand wrote an essay idealisingRana Pratap whose saga now became worthyof a place in 'our' religious lore. These braveRajputs could not bear the thought offoreigners coming and settling as our equals'.Yet most of them submitted. The Rana alonepreserved his freedom. The marriage of theRajput princess to Akbar now became a rep-rehensible fall. It symbolised the completedegeneration of the descendants of Ikshvaku,the' legendary founder of the venerable Solardynasty, and the house of Prithviraj. Prem-chand concluded the essay with the hope thata lesson in freedom would be taken fromRana Pratap's life.13

In the-following year Akbar was idealisedfor his bravery, tolerance and justice. Pratapand his like were now called 'rebelliouscountrymen'. Premchand got so carried awayby the impulse to promote Hindu-Muslimunity that even while praising Akbar forabolishing thejaziya, he argued that it was notthe kind of vile imposition that Europeanhistorians had made it to have been. In keep-ing with the patriotic fervour that informedthese essays, he even tried to turn the tablesby arguing that it was really the British inIndia who had levied taxes that could belikened to thejaziya. As instances he cited the'home' charges and the money taken formaintaining contingents in the British Indianarmy for the Indian States."

The others praised in this biographicalseries for their tolerance and advocacy ofHindu-Muslim unity were Maulana Wahi-duddin 'Saltm', Badruddin Tyabji, Viv-ekananda, Ranjit Singh and Sir Syed Ahmed

Khan, though the last named was alsocriticised for his anti-Congress views.15

STRESS ON PATRIOTISM

The stress in these essays is on patriotism.A pronounced anti-British streak runsthrough them. They reveal a contradictorypull which, more or less, continued all alongin Premchand's thought. Hindus and Muslimsare seen as two different communities. Unitybetween them is seen as essential for thecountry's freedom. At the same time, thegreatness of the Hindus is upheld as distinctfrom and opposed to the Muslims. Whilethese trends persisted over the years, a newperspective was added later when Premchandbegan to highlight the material basis of com-munal differences. Never could he work hisway towards a resolution of these attitudesinto an understanding of the relative role ofmaterial and cultural-historical factors in thecreation of community identities and inter-community relations. His framework gradu-ally widened to accommodate the complexityof Hindu-Muslim relations. Yet, he kept vaci-lating between two kinds of 'cultural'rhetoric: one that rested on the essential sepa-rateness of the two communities, and anotherthat took for granted common culture sharedby them. Accompanying these vacilations wasthe tendency to wish away the communalproblem in material terms, lack of clarity andan almost desperate recourse, in turns, to'cultural' and 'materialistic' shibbolethscharacterised Premchand's life-long effort totackle the communal tangle.

In December 1922, little realising that thecommunal situation would deteriorate ab-ruptly, Premchand felt happy with the amitybetween the leaders of the two communities.In keeping with the spirit of the erstwhileNon-co-operation-Khilafat combine, henoted that though the Hindus would foreverremain Hindu and the Muslims foreverMuslim, they had united for the commonstruggle. In February 1924, when the com-munal situation was causing anxiety, he ad-mitted that the two communities 'are not andnever will be like milk and sugar'; but hereiterated that unity between them was thecornerstone of swarajya.'17

Premchand's perception of social realitywas influenced by a framework of values andassumptions derived from the traditionalcategories of caste, sect and religion. Thesewere commonly used for an analysis of exist-ing problems. Naturally, wherever this wasdone, Hindus and Muslims emerged as sepa-rate and distinct. Basic to his search for solu-tions seems to have been the assumption thatthe Muslims would not be able to love thecountry with the same intensity as the Hinduswould. During the Non-co-operation-Khilafat stir, he noted, with sympathy andapproval, that the Muslims would love thecause of Khilafat more than the cause of na-tional freedom. He assuaged the disturbedfeelings of his Hindu compatriots by arguingthat like they loved the country more than

1665

September 22, 1984 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

Khilafat and did not expect the Muslims tomind this, they should themselves be ap-preciative of the Muslims' emotional prefer-ences. Besides, he went on, Khilafat was nomere religious issue; it was inspired by theMuslims' desire for worldly power. Was notthe Hindus' desire for swarajya similarlyinspired?18

HINDUS. MUSLIMS AND

NATIONALISM

However liberal and understanding this at-titude might appear, it carried with it the ad-mission that, owing to religious considera-tions, Indian nationalism could not mean tothe Muslims what it meant to the Hindus.Whether articulated or not, the admissiongranted to the Hindus a higher status in thestruggle for independence.

It is significant that such a feeling couldhold in its subtle grip even an ardent advocateof Hindu-Muslim unity like Premchand. Foreven he could take a position that was basi-cally Hindu, a position which rested on as-sumptions that perpetuated the psychosis ofdistrust between the two communities. In anarticle written in 1924 — when communaltension tended to bring out the latent bitter-ness of otherwise sober nationalists — Prem-chand advised the Hindus to give up theirnarrowmindedness and treat the Muslimswith tolerance. He suggested that the Hindusaccept the Muslim demand for the cessationof music outside their mosques without insist-ing that the Muslims in turn show respect forthe cow. At the same time, he admitted that achasm of 'distrust and hatred' divided the twocommunities and that the division lay far backin history. But in elaborating this, he wrote ina vein that was hardly likely to make anyeasier the acceptance of his plea for tolerance.

He wrote, in the same article, that thechasm had been created as a result of theinfliction upon the Hindus of 'the greatestpossible atrocities' by the Muslim rulers.Moving on to the contemporary scene, heconceded that the Muslims were the greaterculprits in the matter of communal riots andsuch irritants as sacrifices. They still huggedthe memories of their old supremacy and triedto dominate the Hindus. Though not over-looking shuddhi activities, he asserted thatthe tablighi Muslims had been guilty of grea-ter excesses. He saw in these excesses a possi-ble explanation for 'the daily, decreasingnumber' of the Hindus.19

At the time of the Non-co-operation-Khilafat stir, we have seen, Premchand em-ployed religious-cultural terms to promotecommunal unity. It could be argued that thiswas to an extent inevitable in view of thenature of the Khilafat issue. Ten years later,when the Salt satyagraha began, the symbolicissue was one that affected the secular in-terests of the entire population. This time,too, Premchand appealed to the Muslims in

religious-cultural terms. Claiming wishfullythat the Muslims were with the Congress, hebetrayed his own disbelief in the claimthrough the pains he took to convince themthat the Congress was where they belonged.He did talk of the common poverty and ex-ploitation of the Hindus and Muslims underthe imperialist dispensation. But he also in-voked the Muslims'natural love for liberty byreferring to the examples of other Muslimcountries. He wrote:'Egypt, Iran, Af-ghanistan and Turkey, these are all Muslimcountries. See what they have done for theirfreedom and are still doing. This 4011m(people) can never go against freedom.'20 Heinvoked the ideal of Islamic brotherhoodwhile exhorting the Muslim youth not to'forsake their national interests for the sake ofsectarian rights'.21 Since this ideal stood forthe equality of all men, how could theMuslims claim special rights and privileges?22

As'in his analysis of the causes of com-munalism, in his search for practical solutionsalso Premchand displayed a tendency to becarried away in sheer desperation. Disturbedby the Muslim refusal to give up separateelectorate, he warned them that one day theywould regret their obstinacy in this matter.Hindus, he argued, would never be able to sounite as to crush the united Muslim commun-ity. Only if they agreed to the'joint electorate,they' would be able to have the Hindus undertheir thumb.23

This assertion offers one of those rare ex-amples of the manifestation of Premchand'sdistance from the Muslims. It betrays a de-gree of impotent irritation with the Hindus fornot being sufficiently united; and an elementof pique against the Muslims for their sup-posed unity. But for the intrusion of thisalmost unconscious animosity, Premchandcould not have drawn this contrast between adivided Hindu and a united Muslim commun-ity. He would have seen, otherwise, that theMuslims; too,, were internally divided. Andthe realisation would have been truer to hisnormally drawn picture of the Muslim com-munity. For, irrespective of whether he wastaking a cultural or material view of com-munalism, he was insistent about a distinctionbetween the communally minded selfish fewand the rest of the. Muslim community.

This inference is further corroborated bythe concluding portion of the above article. Itclearly brings out the feeling of Hindusuperiority that underlay Premchand's

Dalian. He writes with uncharacteristicself-righteousness on behalf of all Hindus: 'Itwould be unjust to them if it is believed thatthe Hindus want to do away with separateelectorate because of their self-interest. Theyknow that it is altogether against their interestto collaborate with the Muslims. Still theywant this collaboration. Why? Simply be-cause they want to make India a united na-tion, and for that unity they are prepared to

efface themselves.'24 Premchand's commentsabout Muslim behaviour during the census of1931 confirm this bias. Maintaining that thecensus figures did not present a correct de-mographic picture, he observed that while theHindus, engaged as they were in the Saltsatyagraha, boycotted the census, theMuslims took full advantage of the situationand ensured for'their community large re-turns in anticipation of the electoral issue.26

Also significant in this context is Premchand'sopposition to the creation of a separate pro-vince of Sindh with a Muslim majority.26 Atthe same time that Premchand wrote underthe assumption that the 'Hindus and theMuslims were separate communities, he alsoargued that it was the British rulers and their'native' henchmen who, for their vested in-terests, kept the two communities divided.Veering towards the material explanation ofcommunalism, he wrote that the communalfire was stoked by selfish Hindu and Musliminterests that were out to please the govern-ment. He advised the Hindus, in this context,to emulate the Muslims and produce such'servants of unity' as Maulana Azad andSaifuddin Kitchlew.27 This line of argumentrested on the assumption that there was nocause for mutual discord in the circumstancesof the two communities. It was the colonialmasters that kept them divided. 'The hardestblow', he wrote in 1931, 'that a conqueringpeople inflicted upon the vanquished was topoison their history'. This is what the Britishhad done. They had instilled into Indians thefeeling that the Hindus and the Muslims hadalways been divided into two oppositegroups. Through this distortion of history, thehearts of Hindus and Muslims had been filledwith confusion and fear. The Muslims com-plained that they were treated by the Hindusas untouchables. The Hindus grieved thattheir temples had been destroyed and theirpilgrim places ransacked by the Muslims, whohad also kept in their palaces the daughters ofHindu kings. But all this was a travesty oftruth. If Islam spread in India, it was not anaccomplishment of the sword. Rather, theoppression of the lower by upper castes andbrought about the conversion of whole vil-lages. Because Islam had no room for in-equality, lower caste people had 'welcomedthis new religion with great joy'.28

It was easy from this point to assert thatHindu-Muslim unity could be effected onlyafter the British had left the country. Thisoffered an escape from the frustrating failureof all efforts to bring about communalharmony; for it permitted the reassuring faiththat all energies could be harnessed to thecause of national liberation without worryingoverly about communal amity.

No BASIC DIFFERENCE

Having argued that the British were solelyresponsible for communal division, Prem-

1666

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY September 22, 1984

chand contended that there was no basic dif-ference between Muslim and Hindu cultures.This was in itself, at least, a tenable proposi-tion. But the way Premchand explicated itsuggests that it was more a special pleadingthan a deeply-held conviction. He mixedsober facts with specious pleas. In clothes andfood habits, he wrote, Hindus and Muslims ofaparticular region were similar. Just as Shiva,Rama, Krishna and Vishnu were the gods ofthe Hindus, Mohammad Ali and Hussainwere the 'gods or venerable men' of theMuslims. Moreover, the Hindus werethemselves riven with differences based oncaste and sect. Nor did the cow constitute abone of contention. 'Only a few, perhaps,among the Hindu princes and those Hinduswho had studied abroad', he asserted in a bidto clinch the argument, 'would be found whohad not eaten beef. The untouchables atebeef as a matter of course. (Not realising thathe was weakening his own case, Premchandcould not help adding, with regard to thebeef-eating habit of the untouchables, that'we' were trying to elevate them by persuad-ing them to give up this habit.) That apart, theHindus could themselves worship the cow;they had no right to force others to dolikewise. Also, it was oly the poor Muslimswho ate beef. And the poor Muslims were theones who had embraced Islam to escape theoppression of caste Hindus. Even the Hindi-Urdu controversy was not the cause of divi-sion between the two communities for thiswas limited to the educated few. 'In anutshell', he concluded, "there appears to beno real reason for Hindu-Muslim enmity'.29

How Premcharid's eagerness to show thisbasic cultural unity could drive him to absurdarguments can be seen from his assertion thatthe two communities were not different,among other reasons, because both of thempossessed good as well as bad qualities. Thiswas in an article of 1933 in which Premchandquoted Nehru admiringly for saying thatculture was a national and not religiousfactor, and that both Hindus and Muslimswere soaked in Indian culture. Premchandfollowed this up with an enunciation of whatculture consisted of: an outer world consistingof language, dress and customs; and an innerworld comprising religious and spiritualprinciples. In matters pertaining to the outerworld, Hindus and Muslims were not diffe-rent; and their similarities with regard to theinner world were even greater.30

To the extent that there was no real reasonfor the Hindus and the Muslims to be an-tagonistic, the solution seemed very simple.'What is required is for us to cleanse ourhearts of distorted history and settle our be-liefs after careful consideration of the needsof time and place. Then we would realise thatthose we had believed were our enemies had,in fact, rescued the oppressed. They haveloosened the rigours of our caste system and

helped in the evolution of our civilisation.'31

Premchand reminded his readers of the 'notinsignificant fact' that the person chosen byboth the Hindus and Muslims as their leaderin 1857 was the effete emperor of Delhi.32 Healso highlighted the fact that religion was notthe basis of wars between Hindu and Muslimrulers in pre-British India. Moreover, thearmies that fought these wars were mixed;Muslims fought on the side of Hindus and viceversa.33

ECONOMIC CONFLICT

Having argued that there was nothing in thecircumstances of the two communities tocause hostility, Premchand did not find it dif-ficult to assert that 'the real wa'r of tomorrowwould be economic'. His enunciation of thecase, however, does not suggest that he quitegrasped the import of it. He seems to havefound in the idea of economic conflict a pos-sible way out of the communal tangle. Thesource of communal Conflict lay, he couldnow argue, in the differences among theeducated with regard to their rights and in-terests.34 He described it as the fight betweentwo beggars for a single piece of bread.35

But this, he thought, was merely a matter oftime. 'The coming age would be the age ofeconomic war. Nobody would then ask as towho is a Hindu and who a Muslim.'36 Ob-viously inspired by Nehru's pronouncementson communalism,37 in believing that the com-ing age could automatically remove com-munal conflict, Premchand argued that forthe time being one might even tolerate 'mild'communalism to ward off rabidcommunalism.38

That there was in this analysis of the causesof communalism a desparate desire to see theend of it is indicated by Premchand's use ofanalogies that had the merit not of suggestingany parallels but of permitting the illusion ofrelief. For, in the very article that welcomedthe future age of economic struggle, he wrotethat if the Hindus and Muslims fought, so didthe Socialists and Democrats.39 Its relief-offering function apart, the analogy did notform an essential part of the economicanalysis of communalism. Though it permit-ted the inference that since the actual area ofstrife was confined to but a 'fistful' of theeducated, the millions that remained wereneither Hindu nor Muslim. They were peas-ants or workers, and very poor and ex-ploited.40 Their material problems were thesame, irrespective of which community theybelonged to.41 Culture was of no interest tothem.42 The tranquillising effect of thisanalysis is confirmed by the fact that havingtalked of the coming economic struggle, heeven wished it into the world of here and now,and wrote: 'The world today has but oneculture and that is economc culture.' Andculture, he added, has nothing to do withreligion.43

Such an argument implied that culture, andalso history, were mere frauds (dhakosala).**He looked forward to the blessed day when'history is banished from our educational in-stitutions'.45 But this was stretching the'economic' interpretation to a point that hecould not sustain for too long. For, in thesame breath that he dismissed culture andhistory as fraud, he called upon people tothink in terms of the nation. But the idea ofnation subsumed within it a good deal morethan the material interests and welfare of thedowntrodden majority. Premchand's own fic-tion shows how well he knew that nationalismcould be, and indeed it was, a deceptive maskfor hiding the interests of a few in society.And this was made possible by the culturaldimension of the idea of nation.

COLLECTIVE MEMORY IN HISTORYUnless it is argued that he was aiming at the

substitution of one kind of fraud withanother, Premchand's insistence on a historyundistorted by the coldhial mediation wouldindicate that he appreciated the role of collec-tive memory in history. The pains he took todemonstrate that culturally Hindus andMuslims were not different would similarlysuggest that he assigned to culture also a rolein the development of social life. But he in-sisted on disengaging culture from religion,4*without necessarily dismissing religion asinconsequential.

Hence his appreciation of the efforts madeby Maulana Abul Kalam Azad to provide anauthentic commentary on the Quran. It wasclear from this commentary, Premchand ob-served happily, that the Quran emphasisedthe unity of all religions and did not direct thefaithful to liquidate the unbelievers. What itdid was to bid the faithful to carry the messageof God to the unbelievers and leave them tothe mercy of God if they did not see thelight.47 Hence also the fact that Premchandhimself wrote in defence of the Prophet who,he averred, respected all religions and foundin the core of each the same single truth.48

In Premchand's fiction, as in his non-fiction, liberal views predominate when theHindu-Muslim question is treated directly.Muslim characters abound in his novels andshort stories. They often occur in innocuouscontexts and are paired with Hindu charactersas symbols of unity between the two com-munities. A similar effect is sought by intro-ducing fleeting glimpses of Muslim charactersas participants in the freedom struggle. Forexample, after the police firing in Rangbhumi(1925), there is the description of nine cre-matory and three funeral processions, indi-cating the martyrdom of three Muslims alongwith nine Hindus.49 In the same novel, RaniJanhavi delivers an impassioned speech say-ing that out there in the field of duty they areneither Hindu nor Muslim. They are all one.Sailing in the same boat, they would sink orsurvive together. Following on this logic,

1667

September 22, 1984 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

Pandeypur, the locale where these Hindu andMuslim nationalists met their valiant deaths,becomes a shahidguh for Muslims and atapobhwni for Hindus.50 There are, how-ever, more substantial and integralcharacters, too, like Kadir in Premashram(1922) who sings bhajans with the Hindus ofhis village and shares with them a commonculture.

Premchand works out in his fiction therhetoric he was employing in his articles. InKayakalpa (1926), violence threatens tobreak out over a sacrifice that the Muslims aredetermined to perform and the Hindus to pre-vent. Chakradhar, the hero, saves the situa-tion by driving home the point that human lifeis more precious than a cow's life. He offershimself to be struck before the cow is sac-rificed. In the argument that follows, theMuslims complain that the Hindus have re-vived, after five hundred years of disuse, theinstitution of shuddhi. Why then, should,they be considerate to the Hindus?Chakradhar replies that Islam has never hurtthe sentiments of the followers of other reli-gions. He says that God is one and that herecognises Hazrat Muhammad as theProphet. Violence is prevented.51

Through Chakradhar Premchand managesto introduce in Kayakalpa much of his well-meaning rhetoric about Hindu-Muslim unity.Chakradhar speaks with nostalgia of the olddays of communal amity and tries to removethe mutual fears of the Muslims and theHindus. He says: "People unnecessarily give abad name to the Muslims... They are aspeace-loving as the Hindus... People thinkthat they dream of ruling over us. Similarly,Muslims think that the Hindus are out toavenge old rivalries and destroy them whole-sale.'52 The novel also shows the outbreak ofa communal riot which is described with equalseverity towards both the guilty communities;for they are interested less in religion andmore in outdoing each other in inhumanity. Awoman, whose daughter has been taken awayby the Muslims, cries: Neither for theMuslims nor for the Hindus is there any otherplace. Both have to live and die here. Whythen this scramble to devour each other?'53

Premchand tries similar devices to stressthe futility of communalism and to inspire hisreaders with nationalist fervour in shortstories like 'Muktidhan' (1924), 'Kshama'(1924), 'Mandir auT Masjid' (1925). and'Himsa Paramo Dharmah' (1926). It may benoted that all these stories belong to a periodwhen the communal situation was alarming;they bear testimony to his desire for Hindu-Muslim unity. During these years of disturbedcommunal relations, he also wrote a play,Karbala (1925), with the specific purpose ofinspiring people with the ideal of unity.

IllThe underlying 'Hindu' orientation of

Premchand's mental make-up emerges moreClearly in contexts where he is not directlyconcerned with the problem of Hindu-Muslim unity and is dealing with the need toregenerate 'his' society. Without deliberateparochialism, it seems, the Hindu society iswhat he sees as his society. It is in terms of hisself-definition as a Hindu that he seeks thelarger identity of nation, and relates himselfto other groups.

Premchand had come of age during the lastquarter of the 19th century when the basicunits of social identities drew their sustenancefrom religion. Nationalism in this tradition-ally structured society represented a new kindof awareness that not only transcended butalso drew upon traditional social identities.Quite often Premchand thought — or wished— that the ideal of nation would bring aboutthe effacement of caste, sect and religion asunits of social identification. 'We want Indiato be one qaum, a nation which means apeople who have one education, one culture,one political unity, one language and one lit-erature", he said in 1936.55 But in his ownconception of the Indian nation he could notalways manage to prevent the intrusion of hisHindu orientation. In ways that he could notalways have perceived, this orientation vit-iated his own professed ideals.

Such an intrusion can be traced back to hisKalam Talwar aur Tyag essays. In the essayon Mansingh, whenever his armies defeat aMuslim rival and consolidate Akbar's empire,they are called Rajput and not Mughalarmies; the obvious inference being that thebrave Hindu Rajputs had defeated theMuslims.56 The essay on Gokhale, to offeranother example, ends with the peroration,'Motherland! They do you injustice who al-lege that the Hindu jati has become dead andlifeless. So long as children like Dadabhai,Ranade and Gokhale play in your lap, this/aft'can never be called dead.'57

EXTENDED IDENTIFICATION OF HINDUS

It is significant that while the motherland isaddressed, the supposed death of only theHindus is challenged. Equally significant isthe fact that Dadabhai, a Parsi, is the first tobe mentioned among the illustrious childrenof the motherland who keep the Hindu jatialive. The significance of this lies in thetendency to equate the Hindus with Indians.This tendency comes out more clearly in anarticle written in 1907 on painting. Almostimperceptibly, in the course of the descriptionof the effect of a painting of Shakuntala, theterm Hindu widens to mean Indian and toembrace Indian nationalism.58 In a speech, towhich reference has been made towards theend of the previous section of this paper,Chakradhar employs the term 'people' for theHindus as distinguished from the Muslims.The unself-conscious manner in which theHindus become the people — the Indian

people — suggests the efficacy of this ex-tended identification of the Hindus.59

It could be argued that the article on paint-ing was written when Premchand was underthe influence of the ATya Samaj, an influencethat ceased to operate from about the periodhe wrote Premashram, if not earlier. And alsothat the way Chakradhar, a character in hisfiction, thinks, need not offer a clue to theunderstanding of Premchand's own thoughtpatterns. A close look at his articles — settingaside his fiction for the time being as belong-ing to a different class of evidence — seems tonecessitate a modification of the view thatthere were clearly marked stages in the evolu-tion of Premchand's mind. Instead, one couldmore profitably look for continuing influ-ences that had to contend, in his mind, withnewly acquired influences.

In some of the articles written during the1930s Premchand uses the word jatiya to de-note institutions that had been established bythe Muslims or the Hindus for the upliftmentof their own communities, and the wordrashtriya to mean national. Some of thesejatiya institutions, he says, are doing realservice to the nation. Not once is a Muslimjatiya institution described as rashtriya. Butsimilar Hindu institutions are. On such occa-sions Hindu, jatiya, rashtriya and Bharatiyaare used synonymously. By way of examplemay be cited his account of the GurukulKangari of which he spoke in stirring terms asa 'national institution preserving ourculture'.60

The persistence of this subtle tendency totake Hindu as Indian or national is reflectedin some of the similes and metaphors also.Writing in 1932, when the problem of theuntouchables had acquired a serious politicaldimension, Premchand stressed that the un-touchables were as much an integral part ofthe nation as the others. To press his point, helikened the Indian nation to the human bodywhich had four parts: the mouth, hands, bellyand feet. The removal of any part would ren-der the body paralysed or lifeless. 'Whatwould be the fate of this body', he asked, 'ifour Shudra brethren — the feet of this body-like nation — are chopped off?'61 Premchandwas obviously influenced by the PunishSukta. Did he, in employing this metaphor,have the Hindu society in mind as a substitutefor the Indian nation? Or did he have one ofthe four parts of the body-like nation reservedfor the non-Hindus of this nation? In anycase, this was certainly the kind of languagethat the Muslims were unlikely to relish; a factthat was not unknown to Premchand.

In other respects also this, tendency foundexpression in ways that could not but haveantagonised the Muslims; more so as theseexpressions left no doubt about the Muslimsbeing seen as 'others'. Many of the writingsabout the untouchables belong to this class.While referring to the lower castes in contexts

1668

that related to the Muslims directly, Prem-chand invariably harped on the oppressionand injustice that had induced lower casteHindus to seek refuge in Islam; he even foundreasons for the Hindus to be grateful to Islamfor having obliged them to reform their soci-ety. But he wrote in an altogether differentvein while dealing with the place of the un-touchables within the Hindu fold, especiallywhen it was related to the question of theelectorate. Written about in this vein, theMuslims became the 'others' who kept wait-ing villainously for opportunities to makemore inroads into the Hindu society.62

FAITH IN HINDU GREATNESS

In the writings of Premchand that deal di-rectly with the question of communal unity,we can discern a constant note of exaspera-tion at the hold of religion. But in writingsinspired by his 'Hindu' orientation, it is con-sidered a matter of pride that India is still apre-eminently religious country where dharmaconstitutes the most important part of life.63

There is nothing in the tone of this exultationto suggest that dharma, the hold of which wasnoted with pride, included Islam also.

Faith in Hindu greatness, moreover, foundexpression in attempts to trace modern con-cepts to early Hinduism. This did not neces-sarily indicate the continuing hold of the AryaSamaj on Premchand's thinking. But it cer-tainly suggests the influence on him, as onmost liberal Hindu nationalists of the time, ofcultural revivalism. Thus, like many CongressSocialists of the 1930s, he maintained thatsocialism was contained in the Vedanta. NoHindu, he contended, could be true to hisdharma without being a socialist.64

This picture is confirmed by Premchand'sfiction. But this dimension of his fiction hasbeen neglected as a result of greater scholarlyinterest in aspects of his work which exposesthe evils and corruption of the Hindu society.Why this should have been so could well bethe starting point for an important enquiryinto the sociology of modern Indian litera-ture. What is relevant for the present study,however, is the fact that the recurrent expo-sure of the sordid side of the Hindu societycould well have been prompted by a desire^torevitalise it. This supposition would be cor-roborated by the fact that most of his heroescombine religion annd social service. Some ofthem may be non-believers in the beginning.But they all come round to see the light ofdharma. Even the US educated Premshankar,an atheist, ends up sounding saintly andreligious: 'I am now convinced that God ans-wers the prayers of the poor. >65 Again andagain, one feels, Premchand creates characterswho realise in their lives Vivekananda's idealthat service of man is the worship of God.66

The most explicit, almost aggressive, state-ment of Hindu superiority is offered inRangbhumi. Though ostensibly the statementwas made with reference to Christianity andthe western cultural onslaught, its tone seems

to have upset at least some of his Muslimreaders who found the novel anti-Islamic andbrazenly Hindu.67 Through the character ofSophia — which is supposed to have beenmodelled after Annie Besant— superiority ofthe Hindus is unmistakably established. Bornin an Indian Christian family of second gen-eration converts from some high caste, hefinds, after an agonising search for truth,peace and light in Hinduism. It is not theabstract principles of Hindu religion andphilosophy that offer her enlightenment. Thenormal pattern of Hindu society offers her ahaven of peace. This, for example, is what shesays about Hindu vis-a-vis Christian families:T have seen how persons of different persua-sions live togejher so lovingly in Hindu house-holds. The father is an orthodox Hindu, theson an adherent of the Arya Samaj. Thehusband belongs to the Brahmo Samaj, andthe wife is an idol-worshipper. All of themobserve their own religion.... The soul iscrushed among us." She also says: 'Our free-dom is worldly and therefore false. Yours ismental and therefore real.' Soon enough sheis able to say: T too am all for the Hindureligion." And Vinay says .of her more thanonce that though by some accident born in aChristian household, she is not a bit less than'our ideal women'. She is, indeed, an Aryalady.68

Occasionally this pride in Hinduism evenacquired an anti-Muslim character in Prem-chand's fiction. In Sevasadan (1918), his firstmajor novel, he dealt with the problem ofprostitution.69 He did not mind including in itthe stereotyped Hindu explanation for illsthat had crept into their society. Vithaldas, areformer in the novel, says: 'How, I wonder,did this evil practice come into being? I thinkit must have begun during the times of thepleasure-loving Muslim emperors.'70 Thiswas not merely the explanation of an isolatedevil. Nor could it be dissociated from Prem-chand's own ideas about the origins of evilpractices within the Hindu society, on theground that through Vithaldas he was merelyportraying — realist that he was a widespreadHindu belief. The fact that as late as 1932Premchand wrote an article in which hetraced the country's general decline to thecoming of the Muslims would confirm theimpression that he himself shared the beliefhe had described through Vithaldas in Sevasa-dan. In this article, Premchand ascribedIndia's decline to the destruction of thegurukul system of education following thecoming of the Muslims. With this destruction,the 'boat of the nation was deprived of itsanchor'.71

If Rangbhumi was seen by some Muslims asan attack on Islam, their assessment musthave followed rather from their uneasinessabout the idealisation of the Hindus thanfrom direct attacks on Islam or the Muslims,which are But a few in the novel.72 But theassessment does not seem to have been totallyunjustified. In Smriti ka Pujari' Premchandmade short work of the supposed greatness of

Islam and idealised Hinduism, going so far asto equate it with manav dharma, the religionof man. The story describes the disillusion-ment of a Hindu who has been enamoured ofIslam. In the end he realises his error. He canno longer believe that Islam is a revealed reli-gion. He feels that, like other religions, evenIslam is but narrow groupism. He becomes aconvinced Hindu, or rather a followerofmaw-ava dharma.73

Premchand did take pains to show thatMuslims were part of Indian culture. Often inhis novels and short stories, especially in theportrayal of rural life, Muslims and Hinduslived in harmony and shared a common cul-ture. Besides Kadir of Premashram who sangbhajans, Miyan Chaudhary of 'Mandir aurMasjid' worshippped Durga, bathed in theGanges, and respected Hindu religiouscustoms even while remaining a devoutMuslim; Rahman of Muktidhan' loved cows;and in 'Vichitra Holi' Hindus and Muslimsplayed holi together. But this was a one-sidedamalgamation; the Muslims joined in with theHindus. The picture of common culturewould have been complete if Premchand hadalso depicted Hindus participating in Muslimfestivals and rituals; after all, many pirs andmazars were then, as now, worshipped byboth Muslims and Hindus. In fact, this one-sided portrayal in Premchand's fiction ismade even more glaring by the fact that hisnon-fiction mentions the other side of thisinteraction.

All this lends credence to the suspicion thatat least the Hindus belonging to Premchand'sown social situation — the urban middle class— were rather distant from the Muslims.More consistent than many of them in hisconcern for communal unity, Premchand,like them, was evidently influenced by a'Hindu' mode of apprehending the con-temporary social reality, without quite realis-ing that in the process the Muslims had beenbypassed or treated as the 'other'.

IVPremchand's commitment to Hindu-

Muslim unity was, without doubt, genuine.He was, as we have seen, unclear about whatit was that kept the two communities apart.He even denied occasionally that they wereapart. But the denial was, perhaps, a reflec-tion of his zeal for unity. Maybe it also stem-med-from occasional realisation of the in-transigence of the communal problem. It wasthis-realisation that prompted him. like itprompted Nehru and Gandhi, to say thatcommunal unity would be achieved only afterthe British had left; although he could see theneed for unity as a prerequisite for freedom.

This commitment, however, had its limita-tions. It operated at the level of politicalpragmatism. Though in the making of a casefor unity cultural dimensions were also intro-duced and a common legacy was shown, thisseemed more an exercise in rationalisation.That this was so is shown by Premchand'sdefence of Indian vis-a-vis western culture.The need for such a defence was more than

ii

1669

just political, ii invoked the very Cji.\:slion ofbeiiig in a color.ral sock'iv. Consequently, themode of Piemchand's reaction to the questionof collective survival and being reflects adeeper level of his personality.

Ussng exaggerated terms, he condemnedthe western culture as steeped in crassmaterial!1- n. This culture had 'strangledhumanitananism and become an instrumentof selfishness'.'5 If such a civilisation had con-quered India, (he conquest was yet anotherproof of the inexorable law of history thatsupcrioi cultures are overrun by inferiorone:-,.''6

Though the culture whose superiority heestablishes as against western culture isaliv:o ' , • liiK1.. Je:-"!bcd as Indian, in itseonit.,.{ it is, almost invariably , ;;:"du. Thesalvation of India lies in reviving that culturewhich her ancestors had perfected thousandsof years ago, a culture which (rather than thegenerosity of the rulers) is responsible for thefai. * that there is yet life in India. Only thenwould she be able to get back her true soul.77

Inucleiualiy, he felt that the revival of thei;:tntkul system '.vas essential for the regent*ra-••• 'ii of I he ctHinir"'.'. Among the heroes cited

' hun :ss exainpl..<• of ihe former greatness 01. is aiiture are K \ , historical and mythologi-

t! ;i;iure!>: Th. include Ram, Krishna,rial., Arjun, B >inii:t, Ashok and Siddhar-

i(.,i. As proof • the poverty of western< ih'iic are citei i>. names of its great men.i lev include ( .mweil, Olive, Napoleon,- ciiin and Mus-.>!,ni.70

The contrast i>, provided to emphasise the.IM<: difference ".•-•ween the two cultures. As•aiiist western .ilture, which is based on

conflict, Indian culture is based on co-(»;>i ration. Its tvo underlying elements areahinisa and universal brotherhood. Westerndemocracy and political revolutions, on thecontruty, illustrate the westerns' proclivity toconflict. Our culture, says Premcnand, iss.-.tialniiii H has < ome down from times im-ii!.:riiori,il ::i,:i i> suik d to our needs.80

For' •'aicly for India. Picmchand argued.:!,•.: ve organising p.,i.', iplcs of our cultureofivia!- he n>_i.jd tui flict. No group orclass in (his ;iu liin ciii.ui need fear the other.The foiir fold vania system ensured aiKii.n.>m.<iss iiixl nun exploitative social exist-v*ivV. ! t ic BidSi i i id i i '̂ a s t h e " r e c o g n i s e d

lead., r uf society and the nation not on ac-count ot his wealth 01 physical prowess butbecause of the strength of his wisdom. TheVaishya made money and spent it on publicwelfare. People's' instincts had been soschooled that they cared r ore for their obli-gations than io. I'heirrigfi: , nctswarajya'Kuciiic'. ed. India will regain her long-lost soul.Diiarma will again become ascendant, andvarnu and ash, "m reigii supreme. Indians will(ben be r eac t ed in tl.: world. Outlined inthis <uiide L iiic concept of Hindu swarajyator India.71

Prernehand mus have got earned away bythe need So u,-,ist western cultuial aggressionwhen he talked of swarajya in unabashedly

religious terms. For, he did talk of swarajya,on other occasions, in more secular and con-temporary terms. He even talked of class war.Obviously he found himself exposed to dis-crete influences and never succeeded inevolving a consistent world-view. In spite ofhis liberal outlook, he remained at heart aHindu to the extent of bypassing the Muslimsas a whole in his idealised vision of what Indiawas; and also, to some extent, in his vision ofwhat she would become. In ways that he didnot always perceive, this attachment to theHindu world adversely affected his efforts topropogate the ideal of Hindu-Muslim unity.

Notes1 Premchand, Mansarovar, Ilahabad, 1975,

vol IV, p 299.2 Premchand to Raghuvir Singh, May 17,

1932. See Karnal Kishore Goyanka, ed,Premchand Vishwakosh, Dilli, 1921, vol I,pp 144-45.

3 Amrita Rai, ed, Vividh Prasang,Ilahabad, 1978, vol III, p 35. This isa compilation, in three volumes, of Prem-chand's journalistic writings on a varietyof subjects. It covers the period from 1905to 1936.

4 Premchand to Keshpram Sabherwal,September 3, 1929, in Amrita Rai, ed,Chiithi Patri, Ilahabad, 1978, vol II, p 207.This and the other passages have beentranslated from Hindi by the author.

5 Premchand to Vinod Shankar Vyas,January 1930, Ibid, p 184.

6 Premchand to Ramchandra Tando.n, De-cember 1934, Ibid, p 166.

7 Premchand to Harihar Nath, January1930, Ibid, p 286.

8 Premchand, Kuchh Vichar, Ilahabad,1973, p 83; see also p 20>

9 Vividh Prasang, vol III, p 323.10 Ibid, vol II, p 414.11 Ibid, vol HI, p 66.12 Premchand, Kalam Talwar aur Tyag,

Dilli, 1979, vol I, p 123.13 Ibid, pp 13,29-30.14 Ibid, pp 76, 78, 80.15 Ibid, pp 31-45; vol II (Dilli, 1974),

pp 67-80. 94-122.16 Vividh Prasang, vol II, p 30.17 Ibid, pp 351, 355.18 Ibid, pp31-4.19 Ibid, pp 351-57.20 Ibid, p 48.21 Ibid, p 46.22 Ibid, p73.23 Ibid, pp 383 84.24 Ibid.25 Ibid, pp 211-12.26 Ibid, p389.27 Ibid, pp 351-5728 Ibid, p 375.29 Ibid pp 374-78.30 Ibid, pp i/S-28.31 Ibid, pi r7-78.32 ibid, p 377.33 Ibid.34 Ibid, p 393.35 Ibid, p i l l .36 Ibid, p394.37 Ibid, p 427.38 Ibid, p402.39 Ibid, p 403.40 Ibid, p 404.41 Ibid, p425.

42 Ibid, vol III, pp 232-35.43 Ibid,44 Ibid, vol II, p 425.45 Ibid, vol III, p 235.46 Ibid, vol II, p 427; voi III, p 232.47 Ibid, vol II, pp 418-19.48' Ibid, pp 411-14.49 Premchand, Rangbhumi, Ilahabad, 1971,

p516.50 Ibid, pp 539, 552.51 Premchand, Kayakalpa, Ilahabad, 1980,

pp 28-3752 Ibid, p 49.53 Ibid, pp 205-08.54 Mansarovar, Ilahabaxi, 1978, vol III,

pp 173-84, 202-10; Amrita Rai, ed, GuptaDhan, Ilahabad, 1978, pp 159-69; Man-sarovar, Dilli, 1980, vol V, pp 86-95

55 Kuchh Vichar,p 85.56 Kalam Talwar aur Tyag, vol I, pp 127-30.57 Ibid, p 44.58 Vividh Prasang, vol I, p 89.59 Kayakalpa, p49.60 Vividh Prasang, vol III, pp 181-84,

198-203.61 Ibid, vol II, p438.62 Ibid, pp 439,443,448.63 Ibid, p 445.64 Ibid, pp 223-24.65 Premchand, Premashram, Ilahabad,

1979,p378.

66 Pratap in Vardan (1921), Surdas inRangbhumi and Chakradhar inKayakalpa combine religion and socialservice. So do Vinaya in Rangbhumi andGajadhar in Sevasadan. In Karmabhumi(1932) Amar turns truly religious after aspell of introspection in jail.

67 See Chitthi Patri, vol II, p 281.68 Rangbhumi, pp 36,44,311,355,415,518.69 Prostitutes figure frequently in Prem-

chand's fiction. Usually they are Muslims.But, significantly enough, Suman, theheroine of Sevasadan, is shown aBrahman housewife who is forced by anunfortunate combination of circum-stances to take to prostitution. The novelis full of lamentations that a high casteHindu woman should have thus fallen.

70 Premchand, Sevasadan, Ilahabad, 1978,p92.

71 Vividh Prasang, vol III, p 202.72 There is, for example, the meeting in

Rangbhumi of Nayakram with AryaSamajists — a meeting wholly extraneousto the development of the story — whomhe praises for their > in saving thecountry from truning N; i • im or Christian,thereby preserving "fa honour of theHindus, pp 315-16. Or ihe fear expressedby Surdas, in the same novel, that Sub-hagi, having been forced to leave herhome, might fall into the hands ofMuslims or Christians, p 358.

73 See note 1 above.74 Vividh Prasang, vol III, pp 232-34.75 Ibid, pp 196-9776 Ibid, vol I, p 182.77 Ibid, vol II, pp 26-8. It is noteworthy that

in this article (1922) Premchand extols thevirtues of Hindu-Muslim unity as essentialfor the success of the freedom struggle.

78 Ibid, vol III, pp 198-200.79 Ibid, pp 204-09.80 Ibid.81 Ibid, vol II, pp 33-4.

1670