THE HAND THAT WIELDS THE PEN: ON LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

In the preface to his 1862 work "Les Misérables", French writer Victor Hugo laid out the purpose that his novel was to serve among its readers:

"So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates a destiny that is divine with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age—the degradation of man by poverty, the ruin of women by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night—are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless."

The novel itself is counted amongst  the most significant social protest novels of 19th century Europe. Come to think of it, Hugo's words hold great importance even today, although the art of writing has been overshadowed by writers, many of who write merely for the sake of being accredited with having an opinion on the Internet.

What many don't realise is that penning down words with a blend of realism and creativity has been crucial in shaping societies in the past, and the hand that wields the pen holds that power to this day.

Munshi Premchand

Looking back at the history of our own native literature, we come across a name that we have long been familiar with: Munshi Premchand, whom many identify as "Upanyasa Samrat" - The Emperor Among Novelists. What one finds in his works is that they were forms of social protest - narratives that highlighted and commented on social practices prevalent during the 20th century in India. At times his works managed to cause quite some stir among his readers. There was this one time during his stay in Dadar when he wrote a script for the film Mazdoor. Directed by Mohan Bhawnani, the film brought to light the poor conditions of the labour class. Interestingly, Premchand himself did a cameo in the film, playing the leader of a labour union. Sadly though, some influential businessmen managed to get a stay on the film's release in Mumbai. But when it released in Delhi and Lahore, it raised quite a storm by inspiring mill workers to stand up against the owners. Unfortunately,  as it was with all those things that resisted an oppressive system during those times, Mazdoor too ended up being banned. A sorry fate for a truly inspiring work.

However, this was not the first time that a story coming from Premchand had faced a ban. His first short story collection Soz- e- Watan, published in 1907 was banned by the British government as a "seditious work". The stories in the book were written to inspire the Indians in their struggle for political freedom.

These happen to be just a couple of instances among a number of other greater works by Premchand wherein he openly fought against the evils of Indian society. In Hamkhurma-o-Hamsavab (Prema in Hindi) and Pratigya, one finds the "Upanyasa Samrat" exploring the issue of widow remarriage. In Nirmala, one sees him shaking his head over the pointlessness of the dowry system and the manipulation of the village poor. In Godaan, he again throws a revealing light over the exploitation of the village poor. And so the list goes on until it falls short of describing the literary prowess of Munshi Premchand- which brings me to cast my glance upon yet another writer who wielded a pen as a mighty weapon against an oppressive society.

Charles Dickens at his desk

Allow me to take you to 19th century England. As the social gap between the rich and the poor ceaselessly widened under the strain of the Industrial Revolution, an imprisoned factory worker's son resorted to pen and parchment to attack British institutions with the ferocity of a lion. Despite the lack of any formal education, Charles Dickens rose to prominent literary fame owing to his yet unparalleled blend of realism and creativity. As George Orwell puts it:

"In Oliver Twist, Hard Times, Bleak House, Little Dorrit, Dickens attacked English institutions with a ferocity that has never since been approached. Yet he managed to do it without making himself hated, and, more than this, the very people he attacked have swallowed him so completely that he has become a national institution himself." 

And this was indeed the master of Dickensian literature. He was one who did not claim that certain amendments could alter the prevailing injustice in the society. Instead, he admitted through his works that the evil in the society is somewhere at the roots, and that there are certain evils that one can't remedy even by pushing them out in the open, or exposing them. All through his works, Dickens can be found attacking the legal system, the parliament, the education system, the workhouses, and the industrial establishments. But what he does to follow up with his outrage against these institutions is what defines his philosophy as a writer: he doesn't suggest replacements for the institutions he blames, slapping them hard on the face instead by revealing their evil and corrupt "roots" before them. Perhaps trusting in them to be ashamed of their manipulative authority and explore those evils roots, which I do not know whether happened or not.

What I do know though, is that a strong piece of literature is more than just the words that the writer allowed to run free on papers. Some works hold mirrors beyond the words that march upon their leaves; mirrors that stand polished and unbiased to reflect the face of the society to the reader. And when one finds this mirror- it happens when one is willing to glance beyond the words- it is then that one transforms from a reader to a beholder.