edited and translated by Nishat Zaidi, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2023; pp xvii + 219, `1,695.
Of the voluminous body of Premchand’s literary works, a substantial part has been rendered into English, not to mention other modern international languages. His short stories and novels are now available to English readers almost in their entirety. The swelling world of English readership of Premchand’s writings stands as a testimony to the fact that he continues to enthral modern readers across languages and well beyond his time. For the maverick author who always viewed the potential of translation as facilitating cross-cultural dialogue and committed himself to the act of translating select works of some of the important figures of his time, including Leo Tolstoy, George Eliot and Oscar Wilde, into Hindi and Urdu, translations of his own works into English and other world languages are only an appropriate tribute to him.
However, there is one significant genre among his writings, though fewer in number compared to short stories and novels, that has hitherto escaped the gaze of his translators, namely the five plays: Roohani Shadi, Tejurba, Prem ki Vedi, Samgram and Karbala. Interestingly, it is the last play that has now been translated into English by Nishat Zaidi, thereby taking the first step in filling a critical void long felt by readers of Premchand’s works in translation. Originally written in Hindi and published in 1924, Karbala was subsequently serialised in the then popular Urdu magazine, Zamana, between 1926 and 1928, and finally published as a book in Urdu posthumously in the early 1940s.
A Response to Communal Machinations
Among the celebrated works of the 20th-century Hindi–Urdu corpus, Karbala renders the historical legend of Islamic martyrdom in a dramatic form. Composed in the politically turbulent times of the mid-1920s, Karbala is essentially framed as a response to a vitiating political milieu in which nationalist fervour had intense manifestations in terms of sectarian, religious, and communitarian passions, leading to narrowly defined identity formations. Against this backdrop, one in which the long-shared religious, spiritual, and community life alarmingly degenerated into communal rifts and enmity within the social fabric between Muslims and Hindus, Premchand sought to foreground the historical event of Karbala as the story of sacrifice, truth, and justice over politics geared towards narrow ends. At the core of this project remains his vision for a nation of composite cultures, sensitive to one another’s religious and spiritual core, history, and mythology.
Stating unequivocally the motive behind the play, in the prologue of the first edition, Premchand observes that despite living together for so long with Muslims (most), Hindus remain ignorant of a good part of Islamic history, its mythology, and theology. He deemed it as a matter of piteous state and shame. Further, he expresses his concerns over obsessive narrative-building around Aurangzeb as the key protagonist of Islamic history in India whom he counted as a bad example and, at best, an aberration in the long history of Islam in the region. He expresses his unsympathetic and uncharitable views towards the emperor in question. He, therefore, seeks to cast the scope of Islamic history with a view that it is the knowledge of good and great historical figures of any society/community that should determine one’s understanding of a community’s true character. For him, the knowledge of good historical figures and their noble deeds should serve as a basis for the common good and coexistence between the communities and help form a cordial and amicable relationship. To this end, he conceived the historical incident of Karbala and the historical persona of Imam Hussain, the grandson of the prophet, the founder of Islam, who sacrificed his life for the cause of truth and faith when faced with heinous forces who chose political power over human and religious virtue. In the play, Hussain serves as a representative of the humane history of Muslims, which should be known and internalised by Hindus. Obviously, the primary target audience of the play were Hindus.
The immediate precedence to such a conception of Karbala as a literary attempt to illuminate the most celebrated and heart-wrenching event in Islam’s history could be seen in the unfolding situations of the heightened communal tension between Hindus and Muslims. The vilifications of sacred Islamic figures were on public display as a part of the political and ideological design to keep the communal tension simmering. Prophet Muhammad was subjected to uncharitable characterisations, which fuelled the growing rift and violence between both communities. The publication of texts such as Vichitra Jivan (Strange Life) in 1923 by the Arya Samaj leader, Kalicharan Sharma, and an extremely inflammatory pamphlet titled Rangila Rasool (the Merry Prophet) sought to present a distorted depiction of the Prophet, and with works such as these led to the popular consumption of ill-informed accounts of Islam’s history. The circulations of such pamphlets were by no means isolated events; rather, they were part of a design to inflame the charged-up milieu in which agitations over the taziah processions of Muharram, and political and religious campaigns called Shuddhi movements, which called for Muslim reconversion to Hinduism, played out. One must also not forget that an ideological pamphlet authored by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva: Who Is Hindu? published in 1923, sought to draw a sharp line between genuine Indians and Hindus based on the ideas of fatherland and pious land. The othering of Muslims based on such historical representation was at the core of the rising communal tensions. It is against such a backdrop that Premchand conceived Karbala as a historical play. Given his wide reading of Islamic history and its theology, Hindu history and its mythologies, and world literature, Premchand would have been deeply aware of Karbala’s appeal to non-Muslims. For, Muharram and Hussain have been a part of Hindus’ shared sentiments. The commemoration of Muharram among a large section of Hindus in the subcontinent was a cultural norm and Hussain’s sacrifice carried a force to move Hindu sentiments towards his goodness and was culturally expansive enough to build upon.
However, for many Hindu nationalist activists determined to deepen the communal divide, the popularity of Karbala and Muharram commemorations among Hindus came as a matter of concern. For them, such cultural reception of Islamic history was not only detrimental to Hindu patriarchy, masculinity, and purity but also the commemoration of Muharram was religiously and culturally inappropriate.
Emphasising Shared Cultural Sensibilities
Premchand, on the other hand, seems to have been deeply aware of the power of the Karbala story. It had been a part of shared cultural sentiments in the subcontinent which had manifestations in multiple genres. One can observe this beginning with martyrology and elegy, which had evolved to take distinctive shape in the region over the last few centuries given the rise of Shia dynasties. A distinctive genre called marsia (elegiac poem) adopted elements shared across Hindi and Urdu literary cultures. Though mostly celebrated among Shia communities, this genre gained enormous literary standing and was a part of the popular Muharram commemorative practices between Hindus and Muslims. While appropriating thematic concerns of this genre, in his play, however, Premchand made a stride of departure by adding Hindu characters as a part of the Karbala martyr story. His intent, clearly, was not only that Hindus would sympathise with Hussain’s supreme sacrifice for truth and righteousness, but enmesh the role Hindus indeed played in the Karbala story. He introduced Suhas Rai and his seven brothers, then living in Arabia, who sacrificed their lives for the cause of Hussain. The shared cause between a Hindu family and the followers of Hussain was that of universal truth, virtue, and purity of the faith. However, the playwright adds another important element to it: the central tenet of Islam and Vedantic Hinduism, namely the theology of monotheism. Contrary to the prevalent characterisation of Islam as a religion that came from outside, and its belief and doctrines as antithetical to those of Hinduism, Premchand, through Hussain’s words, suggests that while Islam carries monotheistic precepts as its core belief, India remains the reverential land wherein monotheism as a doctrine took its birth. Here, Premchand seemed to be invoking the long-standing dialogue between Vedanta, Sufism, Bhakti, and Islamic mysticism about Wahadut al Wuzud (Unity of Beings). In another interpolation, the playwright introduces a yogi who visits Arabia to pay his homage to Maharshi Muhammad (the great sage Muhammad). These interpolations are purported to demonstrate the accommodative character of Hinduism.
At the core of the play remains the dichotomy between politics and religion. While politics seeks power, which in this case was represented by Yazid, the illegitimate usurper of the caliphate, and religion embodies compassion, truth, and transcendence of identity, represented here by pious religious leader Hussain. Religion in this scheme has a larger appeal as universal truth and it should have a longer life. Premchand could see an uncanny resemblance between Karbala’s story and his time, in which politics was being played out in the name of religion. A filter between the essence of religion and power-seeking politics was needed at the level of conscience and Karbala is an attempt to appeal to that human conscience.
A Translation for Our Times
Nishat Zaidi has produced a lucid and eminently accessible translation of an otherwise complex text, giving another life to a text in a new language which was first conceived almost 100 years ago in response to a political milieu vitiated by hate-mongering and Islamophobia, in a time which bears immense and even threatening similitude. Translation, historically, has been a “speech act,” which makes it possible to say things through our worthy ancestors that are otherwise difficult to state in one’s own time. With Karbala, Premchand was precisely attempting such a speech act through a creative retelling of the story of Hussain, and now, this translation marks a second instance. To make the text more accessible to English readers encountering the text a 100 years after it was written, Zaidi has provided a detailed introduction in which she places the play within its complex context. The introduction discusses many significant questions such as why Premchand chose the genre of plays over others; how was it received then by both Hindu and Muslim readers; what were his apprehensions, and, more importantly, the language employed. This discussion extends to questions about the liberties Premchand took with the historically known and traditionally passed-on records of the event. Deeply familiar with both Hindi and Urdu, Zaidi also points to discrepancies between the two versions of the play, especially the differences between the two when it comes to the rendering of historical figures.
The play’s composition and now its translation are events separated by a 100 years, but both are set against backdrops that mirror each other in multiple ways. In both contexts, the stake concerns as much about the past as the future of a shared life. However, the time in between has fast depleted the resources of a shared imagination and a shared language. At the time of writing, for Premchand, the shared idioms and practices were part of the social reality of his time and he could assume that the event of Karbala would resonate beyond the confines of one community. Both, unfortunately, not being the case now, Karbala may not be an easy text to write in our time.
References
- Hyder, Syed Akbar (2006): Reliving Karbala: Martyrdom in South Asian Memory, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
- Rai, Amrit (1991): Premchand: His Life and Times, Translated by Harish Trivedi, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.