34 SOCIAL SCIENTIST peace." (Quoted in Manju Chatterjee, op. cit., p 1307). The Sahachar was of the opinion that it was incorrect to assume that the zamindars were the sole proprietors of land and therefore they should not be allowed to appropriate all the ^profits which had resulted from the rise in land prices (Sahachar, February 16, 1877. RNP). 22 This was a play in three acts. It drew a vivid picture of the atrocities of a Muslim zamindar, Haiwan Ali of Hawalpur who ravished Nur-un-Neher, the wife of his defaulting tenant Abu Mollah. On the complaint of Abu Mollah, the lower court committed the zamindar to the sessions but the European judge accepted the verdict of a corrupt jury and dismissed the case against Haiwan Ali. For more details about the life and work of Mir Musharraff see Sujit K. Sen Gupta/'Eksho Panchis Bacharer AloycMir Musharraff Hussain," Desk, July 14, 1973. 2 8 This novel described the atrocities of the Sanyals, a leading zamindar family of Pabna which witnessed in 1873 widespread agrarian protest of the tenantry. Cf. Bengalee July 26, 1873. Apart from this reference no information pertaining to the novel is available to the author. See also K K Sen Gupta, op. cit., p 28. 24 It dealt with the acts of oppression on Govinda Samanta, a ryot of village Kanchan-pur in the district of Burdwan by his landlord. 25 Som Prokash wrote on October 3, 1873: "We do not wish to see one class benefited at tlie cost of another. On the contrary, it is our prayer that impartial justice may be meted out...that the weak be protected from oppression, that the night of trouble of the ignorant and dumb ryots may for ever pass away". Sulabh Samachar noted on September 11, 1873: "The government should compel the zamindars to fulfil their ob iligations to the ryots under ihe Permanent Settlement (Italics added). The Dacca Prokash stated on June 2, 18 73: "Our zamindars ought to be careful, it is not desirable that they should disappear altogether from Ihe face of the earth". (Italics added).The Rajshahi Samachar pointed out on June 23, 1873: "We are neither of those that seek to recover for the zamindars the rights lost to them by the passing of Act X nor of those that proposed to obtain an extension of the rights of the tenantry." 26 Chatterjee wrote in Bongadarshan, Bhadra, 1280 BS, p237: "We have been pained and disgusted by the Pabna ryots. It is unnecessary to add fuel to the fire. We advise that the author should forthwith stop the sale and distribution of the play." 27 The Bengalee stated on July 5, 1873: "Though our sympathies are invariably in favour of the oppressed against the oppressor we have none to spare for the Pabna ryots. If they were oppressed by zamindars, they had the courts of justice open to them. Nothing can palliate, much less excuse the outrages which are committed by them." Som Prokash remarked on June 7, 1873: "Our request is that the Lieutenant Governor would enquire and find out the leaders of the present disturbances and visit them with severe punishments." Sulabh Samachar commented on July I5y 1873: "The government will pay attention to the grievances of the ryots. They are no doubt guilty because of the affrays in which they were engaged after they had rebelled and the trouble and loss to which they have put the peasantry at large." 28 Cf. Kalyan Kumar Sen Gupta, "Peasant Struggle in Pabna (1873): Its Legalistic Character" Nineteenth Century Studies, Calcutta, No 3 July 1973. Abbreviation: RNP—Report in Native Newspapers (Bengal).