BOOK REVIEWS 79 and even appears at some places to be rather meandering and mazy. Namwar's strong-point through it all is that he views different trends in criticism from the sensibility which was at work at the back of the minds of literary men at the particular time. Thus, a real substantial attack on the "rasa siddhanta'5 that was being forged afresh to suit new historical conditions (as reflected in literature) became possible when it was shown to have acquired fresh roots in the pecular chhayavadi sensibility. And whereas critics like Ram Chandra Shukia judged and interpreted literature with their dynamic understanding of literary principles, Nagendra attempted a more-or-less fake application, couching it in all-too-fashionable new terminology and separating "rasa" in the significant writings of post-chhayavadi period from their total meaning and significance. Then, the wide gulf between the view-points of Tar Saptak and Doosra Saptak, even between the first and second editions of the former, is also shown as reflecting the change that took place in sensibility during the years 1943 to 1951, and then to 1963. In the early forties, Hindi writers were, by and large, sympathetic to the national movement. The movement took them in its sweep, as it became stronger and stronger in correspondence with changes in the pattern of forces at the international level and the growing political consciousness of the masses at home. The writers, then, felt bound to the life of society in turmoil. After the end of the British rule in 1947, however, the same writers entered into a different relationship with society. In the post-1947 India, the representatives of the Indian ruling classes assumed direct and unrestricted State power. They also tried to impose on the people a false conciousness of progress and hopefulness. In the changed situation, these writers bade good-bye to their original concern and involvement with the life of the people in turmoil and joined the camp of the rulers to create the false conciousness of hope which the rulers now needed. Thus, most of the ^Tar Saptak5 poets, including the originator of the idea of the book—Agyeya—deviated slowly but steadily into shallow individualism that took the whole of the Hindi writing in the post-independence era in a big sweep. Muktibodh, a Tar Saptak poet, was one of the very few who remained cautious against such a danger. He fought a consistent intellectual battle for keeping literature in direct correspondence with the ever-moving forces of history. He employed his individual genius to not only catch the conflict of class forces at their most intense but also to join intellectually the conflict on the side of the working masses, {JYai Kavita Ka Atma-Sangharsh and Andhere Mein). Namwar's thesis seems to be this, of course, in general way. And, this is a fairly correct starting-point to evolve new critical principles for literary evaluation. The writer is intensely committed to the struggle which aims at emancipating man from degradation and servility imposed on him by a minority section which controls, for the fulfilment of its own class-interests, the means of production and the