Today is our topic of discussion Sangsaptak Analysis Of Novels .
Sangsaptak Analysis Of Novels
Sangsaptak exposes elaborately the social, political and economic condition of the two decades before partition of 1947 and the dislocation of the post-partition days. The novel deals specifically with the events of the years between 1938 and 1951.
Born in 1927, the novelist Shaheedullah Kaiser, experienced the whole gamut of the political and social atmosphere during the 1940’s, the war and the famine, communal riot and partition. Himself an educated youth and conscious of the existing flaws in the Bengali Muslim society, the author depicted the futility of the war and the communal riots and closely observed the disenchantment at the creation of a separate state based on religion.
Sangsaptak reveals the author’s opinion and ideological beliefs through the political conversation and polemic debates between two major characters in the novel, Sikander and Zahed.
Sikander was an educated and politically conscious teacher of a school at Taltali. Zahed, also an educated youth came from a rich landholder family and was totally committed to politics. The two talked of Swaraj and socialism, communal relation and partition of India.
Sikandar believed in the welfare of people irrespective of religion or culture and did not support division of India on any ground. Zahed, on the other hand, was educated at Aligarh, and indoctrinated by the Muslim League politics, argued in favour of partition.
Zahed pointed out the communal tension and expressed his fear that Muslims in India as a minority community would be in a very unsafe position if the British left without partitioning India was taken over by the Hindu mahajans after the permanent Settlement, 1793.3 Felu Mia cursed Cornwallis and hated the Hindus, particularly the banias and mahajans because his wealth had shifted to their hands.
His lean and bare-boned horse symbolised the economic impoverishment of the ashrafs, who once posessed the wealth to keep horses and elephants.5 But, Felu Mia retained his ashraf status and pride. He refused to take up jobs or do independent trade or business 6 That was against the so-called ashraf prestige.
Felu Mia was rather willing to buy his lost taluks from Ram Dayal, the Hindu mahajan at Taltali.7 Price of rice and jute was high in the pre- war years, in 1938-1939 and Felu Mia was able to make some money 8 He symbolised the conflict existing among the ashrafs in Bengal trying to regain lost wealth and prestige but being unable to do so, nourished hatred and vengeance.
The novel starts with the village panchayat headed by Felu Mia, punishing a Muslim girl, Hurmati, for carrying a child before marriage. Felu Mia, because of his ashraf status acted as the head of the Pachayat.
But, the way Hurmati was punished with a red-hot coin pressed on her forehead exposed the cruelty and barbaric attitude to women. The author exposed the extent of conservativeness and feudal attitude existing in the Bengali Muslim society still in the late 1930’s. Panchayat – Jamat were a common practice in Muslim society headed by the village headman, in most cases, an ashraf.
Bahas (religious debates) were also common in the villages. 11 Ashraf and atrap distinction in rural Bengal is highlighted in the novel. At the maktab, the atrap children had to sit at the back while the children from ashraf families used to sit in the front and the teacher used to give them more attention while teaching.
Polygamy was practiced and Muslim men used to marry more than once disregarding the wishes of the first wife. Women were not allowed to receive education and had to follow strict purdah even in the late 1930’s. The novel also exposes the syncretic influence among the ashrafs in the Muslim society.
Veneration of pirs, visits to mazars and graves of relatives were common. 13 The ashrafs usually patronized the pirs even though in most cases fake and degenerated 14 Rabu’s father was a darvish belonging to the Syed family of Bakulia, who had left home but ocassionally came to the village with his murids (disciples).
He mistreated his wife all through and his battered wife died after giving birth to a dead child. The author points out in the novel that darvishes and pirs were not always moral or spiritual. The presence of sufi darvishes at the house of the Syeds depicts the extent of influence of syncretism among the ashrafs.
The darvishes created a mystical atmosphere while performing dhikr accomparied by loud music. 15 Darvishes of the Naqshbandi order, usually practised dhikr which means remembering God by repeating His name to the extent of ecstacy and trance, 16 They were non-communal, but often the ashrafs accepted only the mystical part of it.
The ashrafs, in most cases, were not tolerant to other religions. They represented both orthodoxy and heterodoxy in the Muslim society. The pirs, faqirs and darvishes usually followed a corrupt form of suflsm. 17 The ignorant and illiterate masses in Bengal and the women folk, totally restricted to home, were also ignorant.
They obeyed the pirs and faqirs blindly. In the novel, Rabu only fourteen years old, was forcefully married to the aged pir, chosen by her darvish father, 18 Zahed, the epitome of the younger generation of educated Muslims, revolted to such excesses of conservativeness and orthodoxy and at the same time, to the practice of distorted and corrupt form of sufism.
The English educated Muslim youths in Bengal were largely progressive who rejected the absurdity of such conservativeness like polygamy, child marriage and purdah but in most cases lacked courage to protest against such social evils. Zahed, educated at Aligarh and rationalistic in his views, demonstrated his protest by driving out the plr and his disciples out of the village .
The novel also highlighted the controversy between the Deoband and the Aligarh school of thought in respect to politics in India. The Deobandis had supported the Indian National Congress since the early 1920’s.
They were religiously fundamentalists but tolerant to the non-Muslims. They wanted India as an “indivisable whole” and reacted sharply to the Lahore Resolution adopted by the Muslim League in March, 1940,20 The Indian ulama who believed in upholding the Muslim legal tradition and the purified principles of Islam, were considered as orthodox. But, in political sense they were secular.
They opposed the “two-nation” theory arguing that partition of the country would split the Muslim community into a smaller and less effective minority 21 Husain Ahmad Madani (1879-1957), the chief spokesman of the Jamlat -ul-ulama-l-Hind believed in the theory of “Composite nationalism” (muttahidah qawmiyat), by which he meant that Indians had one thing in common and that was their Indianness, disregarding their religious and cultural differences, 22 He blamed the British for economic and political backwardness of the Indian Muslims.
He believed that the British colonial rule had systematically destroyed the educational and legal institutions of the Muslims in India, 23 The ulama of the Jamiat-ul-ulama-l- Hind and of the Deoband considered the Pakistan movement a “death-knell” for the Muslim of the regions where they were a minority communtiy,24 They came in direct conflict with the Aligarh-based Muslim thought and the Muslim League for propagating the doctrine of Islamic nationalism and “two-nation” theory. The Aligarh Muslim University became the emotional centre of Pakistan demand.
This institution was not originally anti-Hindu or anti-Congress. It had propagated rationalistic ideals during the Khilafat and non-co-operation movement in the 1920’s. Because Aligarh was an educational centre, it created a large section of educated youths who later provided intellectual and political leadership for the Muslims in India 25 The Aligarh-influenced nationlist Muslims were in many ways progressive in modern thought but gradually becoming less secular.
They were modern in religious sense that they interpreted Islam in a more rationalistic manner but formulation of “two-nation” theory and demand for partition of India on religious ground put them in a way to a category of “pseudo or quasi- modernists” 26 The non-Deobandi ulama formed the Jamiat-ul-ulama -i- Islam and supported the “two-nation” theory and the demand for separate homeland 27 There was conflict between the Jamiat-ul-ulama-i-Hind and the Jamiat-ul-ulama-l- Islam on the question of partition.
The Ulamas were divided among themselves. There were conferences in Bengal where ulamas of the Jamiat-ul-ulama-1- Hind expressed their support for Muslim League. In November 1938 a Muslim Conference was held at Sylhet where Nawab Habibullah and Maulana Azad Sobhani urged the Muslims to join the Muslim League 28 The Jamiat-ul-ulama-i-Bangala had been formed in 1921 which preached the need for spread of education, social reform and unity among Muslims in Bengal 29 The ulamas of this organization also pointed out in the 1930’s that the majority of the Muslims in Bengal were losing confidence on the nationalist Muslims and on the ulamas who had supported the Congress.30 They also began to support the demand for partition.
In the novel, the author has highlighted this aspect of conflict between the Deobandi and the nationalist ulama versus the supporters of the Muslim League, indoctrinated mostly by the Aligarh movement which upheld the Laving right of the Muslims in India as a separate nation, distinct culture, religion and language. Sikandar, represented in the novel as an idealist and a socialist, pointed out that partition of the country would not bring any good to the Muslim community.
Majority of the Muslims, being peasants and in depressed economic condition, needed good harvest, better price for their crops, education for their children and a bania and mahajan- free society .
He contradicted with Zahed, supporter of the Muslim League demand for a separate nation who argued that after partition those things could be achieved easily 32 What was needed, Zahed argued, was the realization by the Muslim masses that the British and the Hindu mahajan were their real enemies and that they had to build up a movement in favour of partition 33 Zahed criticized the Deobandi ulama and the nationalist Muslims who had opposed the idea of partitioning India.
The novel exposes the attitude of the educated Muslim youth in the early 1940’s when socialist ideas had infiltrated into their minds making them secular in their political outlook and at the same time made them aware of the negative attitude of the politicians of both the Congress and the Muslim League about any compromise on keeping India united.
Their half-hearted efforts for improving the condition of the general masses had, in fact, confused them. They were sceptical about the need for partition, whether at all partition would solve the genuine problems of the Bengali Muslims.
The author also exposes in the novel the horrifying effect of the famine in Bengal in 1943 when about thirty-five lakh people died and nearly thirty thousand women took to prostitution for want of food 36 Calcutta city was swarmed by famine- stricken people. Gruel kitchens were opened, Bengal medical relief committees and food committees were formed.
The novel points out the malpractices carried out by the hoarders, smugglers and blackmarketeers who made money out of the misery of millions of unfed people . About a hundred pages or so of the novel deals with the complication of the urban life during the war, famine and the communal riot.
During famine refugees fluxed to Calcutta: lands were left uncultivated due to war, smuggling of food and essential things went on rampant, peasant girls were taken forcefully to entertain the soldiers, 38 In the midst of famine and war- time dislocation communalism reached to the highest peak. As the war ended in 1945, Hindu hatred of the Muslims increased.
When the Second World War started in 1939, Congress government in the provinces resigned but the Muslim League ministry continued to govern in Bengal. The British government was unhappy with the Congress leaders because they had declined to support the British war effort. Many Congress leaders and activists were in prison during the “Quit India” movement in 1942.
The Hindus remained in a low profile and according to the author apparently non-communal during the war but as the war ended they began to express their hatred of the Muslims 41 They blamed the Muslims for increase of communalism in the province and for the commual riot in 1946. The author believes that the Hindus were also to be blamed equally for the riot and the Great Calcutta killing in August, 1946.42 The novel depicts the orgy of killing, looting and burning that went on in Calcutta city on 16 and 17 August 1946.
The Hindus raised “Bande Mataram” slogan and killed the Muslims, burnt and ramshacked houses. 44 There were however, many Hindus who gave shelter to Muslims during the riot and vice versa. The author raises one crucial question as to the legitimacy of creating a separate nation or partition of India on the basis of religion.
The author’s secular attitude to politics and tolerance to other religions is revealed in the novel. The characters portrayed in the novel depict the communal atmosphere prevailing in the pre-partition days. There were many among both the communities who were not communal and who felt such bloodshed and massacre were unnecessary .
In the last over hundred and fifty pages of the novel the author gives a glimpse of the Muslim society in the post-partition days. Most significant aspect depicted in the novel is the freedom of women who had begun to take part in music and drama and in social services.
They had broken the traditional norm of staying home and had started to go to theatres, clubs and restaurants and mixing freely with men. The author pionted out the negative side of it through the sequence of the story that sudden freedom normally brings disasters and disintegration in society.
Freedom attained after tribulation and suffering is more fruitfully used. The complications of the urban life, particularly human relationship which lacked simplicity, honesty, sincerity, love and affection is revealed through the incidents revolving around Malu’s life in Dacca. Life in the then East-Pakistan, hopes and aspirations of the Muslim in their newly independent land is depicted here.
Bengali Muslim youths were getting involved in business and trade and hoping to make wealth by whatever means. Women were liberated but in spite of educating themselves or taking up professions in most cases they were more interested in enjoying life.47 The author wants to make a point that in spite of building the newly independent nation, people were more concerned with getting rich quickly and their attitude getting more self- centered.
The author makes this observation through Mr. Rakib’s comments in the novel 48 Two female characters in the novel are symbolic of two different attitudes to life. Rabu had attained freedom after strict social bindings and much tribulations, while Rehana attained freedom due to relaxed social conditions after the partition.
Rabu took up education and gave service to the society by working in volunteer camps during famine and riot while Rehana craved for material things, foreign goods, like cosmetics made in Europe, and enjoying life freely. Attitude of women had changed greatly just as attitude to women had changed within a gap of only two decades. The author believed that independeene had brought only superficial changes in the society.
Poverty, illiteracy and ignorance remained as before. Life of the common man had not changed. Only middle class benefitted from it. At the end of the novel, Zahed, who once argued in favour of partition was disenchanted and got involved in Communist movement for which he got arrested. Communist party was banned in the new country then.
The novel remains as a classic work on the period under Krishak-Proja Party and Muslim League coalition ministry, the passing of the Tenancy Acts, the war years, famine, riot, partition and the post-partition days leading to the year 1951. The next year, 1952 ushered in a new era through the language movement for the Bengalees which led them to realize the mistake of dividing India on religious ground.
Linguistic identity then became the basis of their movement for liberation from Pakistan. The author Shaheedullah Kaiser was himself killed by the agents of the Pakistan army when they were defeated in the war of liberation in December, 1971.
See more: