Page 293 - Communication Processes Volume 3 Communication Culture and Confrontation

268 Shashi Bhushan Upadhyay

From this time on he remained bitterly critical of capitalism and
the European brand of nationalism, which he considered to be the
hallmarks of modern Western civilization. He thought that ‘Nationalism
is the scourge of modern age’ (ibid.: Vol. 2, 333) and stated that: ‘[T]he
modern nation is an European invention and nationalism is the curse
of modern age.... This nationalism, by giving birth to imperialism,
capitalism, etc., has created mayhem in the world’ (ibid.: Vol. 2, 99).
He believed that: ‘[I]f the modern civilization has, on the one hand,
produced goods for comfort, it, on the other hand, has created means
of destruction …. It has inspired the stronger nations to oppress the
weaker ones, to kill the poor and to torture them’ (ibid.: Vol. 2, 26).
He lamented, ‘[T]he high and pious ideal of universal brotherhood has
been so badly trampled upon by this nationalism that even its traces
are not left’ (ibid.: Vol. 2, 100). But he was hopeful too: ‘This selfish
factionalism known as nation, which has turned the world into hell,
seems to be breaking down’ (ibid.: Vol. 2, 101).
He was equally forthright on modern industry which he considered
to be harmful to the people and village communities: ‘Ours is an
agricultural country.... Therefore, we cannot establish big factories
here, because that will force the workers to live in the cities. They will
fall prey to various vices and will be destroyed physically and mor-
ally’ (ibid.: Vol. 2, 280). In a famous article ‘The Commercial
Civilization’, written towards the end of his life, he defined the modern
age as greed for money. He equated it completely with commercialism
where everything is done for money. If a country establishes its rule
over another country, it is so that the capitalists and traders can make
maximum profit. In this sense, the world today is ruled by capitalists
and traders (Premchand 1988: 595–602).
Therefore, from 1919 till his death in 1936, Premchand remained
critical of modern civilization in various degrees. He considered na-
tionalism and commercialism as two most important aspects of it, as
it also gave rise to the modern industry. He contrasted it to what he
stated as the ‘old age’ or ‘ancient civilization’ by posing an almost
binary opposition between the two. But, as we will try to show in the
following section, this posed opposition is not unproblematic as it held
within it inconsistencies and contradictions (for a detailed discussion,
see Sharma 1999: 35–46).
The influences on Premchand are varied and complex, often
compounded by his inconsistencies (see Rai 1991 and Gopal 1964).