viewed the reforms critically; yet he should not be construed as an opponent of social reform. He was however dissatisfied with contemporary reforms. A few superficial changes, he opines, will not transform society in totality 7 The basic structure of society should be changed paving way for a new society of individual liberty, social equality and economic justice. But he never openly aired his views. “Gurajada was a firm advocate of social and religious reforms. Indeed, he would have welcomed humanism replacing all religions. What he liked in Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was Comte’s humanism, and what he turned his face against was the religious gloss put on humanism by Comte. It is therefore, wrong to maintain as it is done sometimes, that Gurajada ridiculed social and religious reform. In reality, what he ridiculed was pretence of such reform. He had contempt for those who made religion a cover of means and chicanery; he hated those who, in the name of religion and social reform, tried to gain worldly advantage. His over-zealousness in holding up to ridicule such imposters did create in some minds the impression that he was against all reform. In fact, what he wanted was more than reform; he wanted a change in our thinking and being so that mankind as a whole could scale new heights and score new triumphs”. 8
Gurajada was intrinsically an artist. He viewed the world with a painter’s brush and writer’s creative pen. Through his artistic work he wakes up the reader to social evils. He neither propagates nor resorts to did acticism. But his social views and his personality reflect abundantly in his work. He says, “I paint life artistically, idealizing of course. Though art is my master I have a duty to society.”9 He was modern to the core. His dream and vision were of a new social system. His attitude towards women’s education, social equality and love as the basis of marriage are all surprisingly modern. His concern was with every basic problem that has a bearing on life, the thought of his generation and the generations to come.
The writings of Gurajada should be taken as a whole to assess his personality and his message. His creative writings alone will not suffice. His other works – the diaries, letters and notes should be taken into account. How far these can be treated as literature depends upon their quality and substance. It is the task of the critic to analyze and classify them.
