Premchand’s Thakur’s Well: An Impersonal Observation
by – Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal, Vol. III, Issue. XXVIII, May 2017
Abstract
Premchand was eminent men of letters in Hindi and Urdu Literature. He was the founding member of Progressive Writers’ Movement. He has had given a number of works in the form of novel and story. His works are notable for depiction of lives of downtrodden castes in traditional Indian social set up. His works got international readership for its perceptive insight into the lives of oppressed; and their analyses of impoverishment, exploitation and misfortune. His works exhibit “cultural curiosity”. He has exposed layers of colonialism within Indian society in the name of religion and tradition. In spite of great contribution he became victim of severe criticism and remarked as an insensitive writer because he never gave any solution of depicted issues and problems either it may in Godan, Gaban, Nirmala or Thakur ka Kuan. My paper is a rejoinder on such criticism. Instead of insensitiveness Premchand applied the approach of Negative Capability in his select subjects; it may be social, cultural, ethical or scriptural. His work Thakur Ka Kuan (Thakur’s Well) is an instance of such approach on gender and untouchability through the protagonist Gangi and Jokhu.
Keywords: Negative Capability, rejoinder, Thakur’s Well, Criticism.
“When a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after facts and reason…” – John Keats
After this approach of negative capability given by John Keats in 1817, the understanding of literature has been changed. Instead of focusing on poetic beauty, biographical approach and stylistics for narrating and deriving meaning from a text, psychoanalytical approach that is near to the concept of negative capability preferred by critics and writers. Twentieth century literature more or less is affected by this approach, most prominent critic of era T.S. Eliot’s emphasis on impersonalism in composing a piece of literature “The emotion of art is impersonal. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done”…is not away from Keats’ approach. To put pen on the paper and write is not the work of a common man and not a common job but it’s an art that needs devotion that is not pouring of emotions but an escape from emotion/personality. Keats gave three key words uncertainties, mysteries and doubts that has paradoxical meaning. A great writer like Shakespeare has such ability to ignore his consciousness and engrave the identity of different characters; in the way without having doubts on their doubts, without having a slight apace of mystery on their mysteries and without being uncertain on their uncertainties. In Hindi Literature there have been several thoughtful writers like Makhanlal Chaturvedi, Maithlisharan Gupt,Harivans Rai Bachchan, Mahadevi Verma, Sumitranandan Pant, Jaishankar Prasad, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar but Munshi Premchanchand is exceptionally has different place among them, in short he is the writer having negative capability in Hindi Literature.
Premchand was eminent men of letters in Hindi and Urdu Literature. He was the founding member of Progressive Writers’ Movement. He has had given number of works in the form of novel and story. His works are notable for depiction of lives of downtrodden castes in traditional Indian social set up. His works got international readership for its perceptive insight into the lives of oppressed; and their analyses of impoverishment, exploitation and misfortune. His works exhibit “cultural curiosity”. He has exposed layers of colonialism within Indian society in the name of religion and tradition. In spite of great contribution, he became victim of severe criticism and remarked as an insensitive writer because he never gave any solution of depicted issues and problems either it may in Godan, Gaban, Nirmala or Thakur ka Kuan. My paper is a rejoinder on such criticism. Instead of insensitiveness Premchand applied the approach of Negative Capability in his select subjects; it may be social, cultural, ethical or scriptural. His work Thakur Ka Kuan (Thakur’s Well) is an instance of such approach on gender and untouchability through the protagonist Gangi and Jokhu.
Indian culture has very strong roots; it has Vedic foundation since everything had been related to religion and karma but with the interaction of different creeds and colours affected heavily. In India the status of women were never marginalised they had played very vital role in the formation of Indian Culture, they had been one of the strongest member of society and systems but a period came when they lost their status and respect. The society which was generous and equal for all irrespective of sex became genderised and suppressive for women and patriarchal society came in existence with changed definition of human race- male and female and so of their rights. Another perspective of women’s exploitation is their social status, if they are from swarna class of dalit ; sometimes irrespective of class they became victims of double jeopardy of class and role. As Premchand, in Thakur’s Well has discussed both the classes meticulously. Dalit class woman is in the form of protagonist Gangi and swarna class women are shown on well’s pavements where their conversation reveals a lot about their inner state and a patriarchal obligations. In the story Premchand portrays Gangi a bold lady who is obliged to serve her husband Jokhu not because of compulsion; but because of respect and devotion. She is feared of social customs but wish to revolt meekly, she is conscious of her rights but fears the consequences of protest as she must had seen some bad examples earlier. Her outlook can be seen in her thoughts:
Gangi’s resentful heart cried out against the restraints and bars of the customs. Why was she so low and those others so high? Because the wore a thread around their necks? There wasn’t one of them in the village who was not rotten. They stole, they cheated, they lied in court…. Whenever she came into the village they looked at her with eyes full of lust, they were on fire with lust, every one of them but the bragged that they were better than people like her. (TW, 84)
She is aware enough of the severe consequences of her action that is against set rules but she doesn’t refuse to attempt, though it’s utter failure:
Gangi tiptoed up on to the well platform…Like some soldier stealing into the enemy’s fortress at night she peered cautiously on every side…
No strong-armed athlete could have dragged it up more swiftly….suddenly the Thakur’s door opened. The jaws of a tiger could not have terrified her more. (TW, 85-86)
Genius like Premchand can only see both the sides of a coin, when he touched the psyche of downtrodden class women simultaneously uncovered the plight of swarna class women. In the scene when women of high society were picking water from Thakur’s well, they are in conversation and discussed their routine and status quo of males:
‘There they were eating and they order us to get more water. There is no money for a jug.’
‘The men folk get jealous if they think they see us sitting around taking it easy….they just order us to get it as though we were slaves’.
‘If you are not a slave, what you are? You work for food and clothes and even to get nothing more than five or six rupees you have to snatch it on the sly. What’s that if it isn’t being a slave?’
‘Don’t shame me, sister! All I do is long for just a second’s rest. If I did this much work for somebody else’s family I’d have an easier time, and they might even be grateful. But here you could drop dead from overwork and they’d all just frown.’ (TW, 85)
In above analysis women’s condition of both the classes is observed. Premchand has had given the account of real situation without amalgamating his opinion. In first case women are bond to bear oppression of high class society and sometimes internally because of gender issues; Where women of high society are also destined to serve men without expectations because of patriarchal set up.
Varna system had been strongest system for proper functioning of society till it not became corrupted by violation of humanities. In Vedic period people were given a set status in the society according to their works. Society were segregated in four varnas Brahmin– bearer of knowledge and responsible for educating people irrespective of their caste; Kshatriya (Thakur/Singh) – bearer of power and responsible of protection irrespective of caste and class; Vaisya- bearer of occupation and responsible for providing necessary objects for everyday life irrespective of caste and class; and Shudra – bearer of public service with their works irrespective of class and caste. With this set up society was in order and people of all varnas had equal rights of humanity; but lust and greed molested the purity of the system and brought discrimination and untouchability. In several scriptures it had been proved that no work is less, it’s the people’s thinking that makes it less or great; for proving that Shree Krishna preferred to work as bearer of stale plates in Bhandara (a big religious feast) and charioteer in Mahabharat’s battle. But to talk these things in 19-20 century is just fanaticising the harsh reality of society and Premchand didn’t do it. Dr. Nagaendra has aptly put his pen in his excellency:
The most obvious quality of Premchand’s literature is his unbounded sympathy. The human aspect of his personality was highly developed. The downtrodden people of India- the illiterate peasant in the village, exploited labourer in town, victims of caste-system everywhere and the oppressed women-folk, of course, are the natural and legitimate objects of his affection.
Untouchability is not only social problem but it is a disease as Gandhi Ji said “Untouchability is koda (vitiligo) on society.” The plot of the story Thakur’s Well moves with a simple incident where a dalit caste severely ill Jokhu is thirsty and demands water to his wife Gangi. But the well of their caste is polluted and water is not drinkable because of filthy smell so she is not capable to bring drinkable water. Now there is thakur’s , temple’s and sahu’s well that is highly restricted to dalit people. This tiny twiggy incident has deepest roots as mentioned in above discussion. This is the height of exploitation and oppression that a person who serves someone doesn’t deserve even a “lota of wter” that’s why helplessly Jokhu says, “I am so thirsty I can not standit. Bring me the water, I will hold my nose and drink a little.” Though Gangi knows that neither Sahu nor Thakur will allow bringing water from their well but she consoles him, “The Thakur and the shopkeeper both have wells. Won’t they let me fill just one lota?” and the reply of Jokhu uncovers dark reality and reveals the sub human state of untouchables:
You will come back with your arms and legs broken, that’s all. You would better sit down and keep quiet. The Brahman will give a curse, the Thakur will beat you with a stick, and that money-lending shopkeeper takes five for every one he gives. Who cares what people like us go through? Whatever they say about giving some help, we can just die and nobody will even come to this door to have a look. Do you think people like that are going to let you draw water their well? (TW, 83-84)
Munshi Premchand didn’t offer a fairy tale or a happy ending style of narration. He had been a keen observer of happenings around him and portrayed indifferently without mixing his personal views. He just made society conscious of hardcore reality. And his work Thakur’s Well is one of the apt examples of his impersonality or negative capability. So far with the ending when Gangi returns without water and sees her husband “drinking that filthy water holding his nose with his hand” Premchand justifies T.S. Eliot’s statement “The progress of the artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.”
Introduction to the Author:
Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal is a research scholar in the Department of English and M.E.L. at University of Lucknow, Lucknow. Interested in language, literature and film studies, he has published papers in different International Journals on Language and Communication skills, American, British and Indian Literature. He also works on Bollywood Lyrics and writes as well.
Work Cited
Dr. Nagendra. Ed. Premchand: An Anthology, Delhi: Bansal & Co., 1981. Print.
Premchand. “The Thakur’s Well.” Trans. David Rubin. The World of Premchan: Selected Short Stories.New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001. 83-86. Print.
Verma, Ashok. Gulab Singh. “Deconstructing Power Structure in Premchand’s “Thakur’s Well,” Language In India: Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow.11:7 July 2011.11 March 2017. <http://www.languageinindia.com/july2011/premchandashokfinalpaid.pdf>