|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 
|
controversy New
lessons
controversy This is a story
about three giants of Urdu literature, who got embroiled in a bizarre
controversy that, even though it’s very much real, seems a figment of the
fertile imagination of the three luminaries — a poet, a critic, and a
fiction writer. One commonality among them is their love and passion for the
language; the other a facetious controversy that has bonded them together —
mostly against their wishes. One is Shamsur Rahman Faruqi: the arch critic of
the day, another is Intizar Hussain: the leading fiction writer of our times,
and then the poet, Zafar Iqbal: Urdu’s foremost ghazal poet. This story like any spicy
one is based on little facts, more hearsay, and exaggerated claims with no
end in sight — almost in the same order. It begins with “once upon
a time” too; some twenty years ago, when Shamsur Rahman Faruqi in his book,
‘Sher e Shor Angez’, mentioned the new experiments and techniques being
carried out in the ghazal genre. He cited some references to Ghalib and Mir
Taqi Mir, and spoke highly of Zafar Iqbal. He wrote, “In Mir’s ghazal
under discussion, we see a purity, self-righteousness, wryness and, what’s
more, control of expression and tonal dignity. All these things can also be
found in the best couplets of Zafar Iqbal’s anti-ghazal.” This four-volume book is an
exhaustive examination of Mir Taqi Mir and an attempt to rediscover his
poetics that has been lost during the tumult of the 1857. The modus operandi
of Faruqi in that grand book is that he picks up a couplet from Mir and then,
after explicating it, quotes related couplets from other poets as well and,
in the process, points out their merits and demerits. He consistently puts Mir at
the highest pedestal and constantly compares others with him. He invariably
denigrates poets like Atish, Mus’hafi, Hasrat, Firaq, Faiz and Faraz.
According to Zafar Syed, an upcoming Urdu literary figure: “Of the recent
poets, he always waxes eloquent about Zafar Iqbal and puts him head and
shoulders above the likes of Faiz. He lauds Zafar Iqbal’s
cosmos-encompassing passion and his facility to laugh at himself.” Here’s
one she’r that Faruqi particularly praises: Like gold glittered my corpse
till morning; which venom’s pallor was (hidden) in the breath’s sting taa subh damaktii rahii
sonaa sii merii laash; kis zeher ki zardii thii
zafar naish e nafas mein Shamsur Rahman in the same
book wrote further: “Faiz, Firaq, Jigar, etc., suffer from the problem of
psychological insecurity. Same with Fani ... because they were not
self-aware. This self-awareness has only been granted to Zafar Iqbal.” The
aged ghazal critic was not off the mark when he appreciated Zafar Iqbal. In
his first book titled, ‘Aab e Ravaan’ Zafar used the same old traditional
metaphors, but gave them a new and vigorous life: hazaar uzr taraashe bahaar
e laala farosh maiN apna hissa gulistaaN
se le ke Taltaa hoon! and paRe du’aaeN barhna saree
ko do k yahaaN jinheN kulaah ka Khatra
thaa un kaa sar bhii gayaa also .. yahaaN kisee ko bhi kuch
hasb e aarzoo na milaa kisii ko ham na mile aur
kisee ko tuu na milaa To break the rules; you
need to know the rules. Zafar Iqbal very cleverly established that he knows
the rules and henceforth can break them with ease. He totally deviated from
the old traditions, and introduced new subjects in his 1966 book, ‘Gul
Aftab’. The mixture of Punjabi proverbs, simple wordings, and
telling-it-like-it-is phrases and expressions elevated his stature. Consider
these lines: kis ke liye haree huvee har
shaaKh jism kee “bai-mausmaa” khilaa
hai ye gulzaar kis liye and the touch of Punjabi
into Urdu ghazal poetry can be gauged from this one: hum us ke vo “hor kisee”
kaa, pakkee puKhta Doree apnaa dil apnaa mazhab,
kyaa jhagRaa choon chunaaN kaa! Poetic diction like this
ruffled a lot of critical feathers, but on the other hand some quarters
lauded it. Shamsur Rahman Faruqi, as part of the admirers, called the
experiment refreshing. It was all lace and potpourri, until Zafar Iqbal came
out saying that Faruqi has called him a greater poet than Ghalib. This claim
was enough to raise many an eyebrow. Intizar Hussain in his
subtle way never challenged it, but he did, however, write that this claim
has been put forward by Zafar Iqbal himself. What’s known is that
Shamsur Rahman Faruqi never wrote any elaborated article on Zafar Iqbal, or
made any comparisons of his work to Ghalib or Mir. He just praised Zafar
Iqbal’s talent. And that acknowledgement of Zafar Iqbal’s talent
triggered the controversy which should not have happened in the first place,
let alone continue to the present day. Zafar Iqbal in one of his
columns claimed that Faruqi has said, “Zafar Iqbal is a greater poet than
Ghalib.” The accounts of how Iqbal reached this conclusion are fuzzy, but
others remained ‘skeptical’ because of their regard for Shamsur Rahman
Faruqi and his work of critique. The dust had not settled
yet when Iqbal quite conveniently changed names and citations of his earlier
claim. He moved a step ahead and said that he has also been compared with
other ‘larger-than-life’ poets and not just Ghalib. Talking to TNS, Zafar Iqbal
said that Shamsur Rahman Faruqi in another book, on the construction and
comparisons of new and old ghazal style, titled ‘Lafz o Maani’, has
called him a greater poet than Ghalib. Iqbal admitted that he has
not been able to get hold of the book, and has not read it. He said that Dr
Shamim Hanfi had told him that ‘Lafz o Maani’ states the above line. Keep
in mind, it’s the same Dr Shamim Hanfi who praised Shamsur Rahman
Faruqi’s work and has said that, “this era of critique could also be
called the era of Faruqi.” Putting words in Hanfi’s
mouth appears an attempt to give more credibility to the claim Zafar honours
himself with. He told TNS that Shamsur Rahman Faruqi has said that “after
Devaan e Ghalib; his book ‘Gul Aftab’ is the ‘groundbreaking’ book of
Urdu ghazal.” In June 2012, Zafar Iqbal
wrote a piece for literary magazine Tastir, in which he said: “Shamsur
Rahman Faruqi declared me a greater poet
than Ghalib; like the rest I was not happy with it too since I am still
writing.” Zafar Iqbal even today appears quite hesitant yet at the same
time propagates the lofty claim. Interestingly, Shamsur
Rahman Faruqi or Intizar Hussain are not the only ones who have been dragged
into this wrangle. In May 2009 edition of ‘Dunyazad’, Zafar Iqbal claimed
that Jaun Elya had an argument with Faruqi as latter insisted that Zafar was
a greater poet than — get this
— Firaq Gorakhpuri. Again, in the same
magazine, he declared that apparently, Gopichand Narang at a literary
conference in London stated that, “if there was no Urdu language there
would not have been Mir or Ghalib. And if there was no Urdu language there
would have been no Zafar Iqbal — who is the highest ghazal writer of the
subcontinent.” The buck does not stop here
either. Quite recently, in one of his columns in ‘Dunya’ newspaper, Zafar
Iqbal took on Intizar Hussain and claimed more. He wrote that his son Aftab
Iqbal on a visit to India called Shamsur Rahman Faruqi. The renowned critic
once again praised Zafar Iqbal but this time matched him with Mir Taqi Mir.
He reiterated this claim while talking to TNS. This apparent sense of
insecurity and self promotion with fruitless comparisons is hurting Zafar
Iqbal’s reputation; as well as putting his well-wishers in doubts.
Islamabad-based poet, Ali Muhammad Farshi believes that Ghalib was the
curator of modern sensibility in Urdu ghazal. He says that Zafar Iqbal did
break away from the traditional ghazal writing; and introduced new but
laid-back structure. “How it will influence the upcoming ghazal poets is
yet to be seen,” he said. This “claim-game” also
kick started a debate in the public domain, where Zafar Iqbal and Intizar
Hussain wrote columns and articles. Intizar Hussain wrote about
Urdu conference held in Karachi last year, and in passing reference mentioned
Zafar Iqbal’s claim. (‘Daily Express’ Dec 17, 2012). Zafar Iqbal in
return “twisted” that point, and wrote a column. (‘Dunya’ Dec 20,
2012). Intizar Hussain wrote another piece (Daily Express Dec 21, 2012) and
refused to indulge any further. In a nutshell, the conversation was something
like this: Zafar Iqbal: Intizar says
that Faruqi has called me a better poet than Ghalib. Intizar Hussain: Zafar
Iqbal claims that he is better than Ghalib. Zafar Iqbal: Faruqi told my
son that I’m comparable to Mir. Intizar Hussain: Woohoo!
(Good for you, man!) No doubt, that Zafar
Iqbal’s stature has to be defined by time. It could take years or decades,
but Zafar himself says that no great poet is recognised in his own time.
“It took Ghalib more than a century to be accepted,” he said, hinting
that the opposition to his claim stems from jealousy. This statement about
Ghalib has no feet to run. Ghalib was very popular in his own era, and his
poetry and collection of letters were treasured in his own lifetime. It seems that Zafar Iqbal
wants to get to that undying fame in his own lifetime. Meanwhile, his own
“black-and-white” poetic creations are coming under scrutiny. Especially,
these lines: khil rahii thii kalii
safaid kuch havaa bhi chalii
safaid sabaz shalwaar per kameez lag rahii thii bhalii
safaid or likh raha hoon ghazal
siyaah haii koi chal sou chal
siyaah vohii ujlii hai ji, zafar baat ho bar-mahal siyaah Zafar Iqbal endlessly
mentions Shamsur Rahman Faruqi to strengthen his stature; but there are
others who oppose this implication and seek evidence of any and all
comparisons. “What haunts Zafar is that he wants to be the greatest ghazal
poet, and for that he depends on others and collects citations that praise
him, or attacks other poets so that he could climb on their shoulders and
then could prove himself taller than the rest,” says Urdu fiction writer
and critic Hameed Shahid, adding, “this is totally uncalled for. He has
established his identity through his two books, “Aab e Ravaan,” and
“Gul Aaftab.” Poets, as you know, could
be legends, trend-setters, motivators, influential and a lot more; depending
on the relevance of their work. Sometime this work empowers mass movements,
and sometimes it embellishes the language, with the addition of new diction
and coining of new metaphors, phrases and even words. Mir and Ghalib’s poetry
is overwhelmingly regarded as the best out there. It’s one of the reasons
that their popularity never shrank. The ghazal is still making progress with
the passage of time. It’s developing and Zafar Iqbal has made a huge
contribution to this. He has to leave it to the time to attest and readers to
decide where he stands in ghazal poetry. As T.S. Eliot aptly puts
it: “Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion;
it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But,
of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to
want to escape from these things.” Unfortunately, Zafar Iqbal is not
letting his personality escape.
New
lessons Ian Talbot has
written extensively about Pakistan. In his latest publication ‘Pakistan: A
New History’ he has actually levelled the reasons for most of the problems
that Pakistan faced in history. In that way, there is
nothing new about the history of the country if one has to delve deep into
the past to unearth the real causes for the disarray that the country is in
it at present. Though one wonders why the
book has been titled the ‘A New History’ if one had to fish into the
waters of the past. It is difficult to look back and say that a certain
period was not that chaotic or it seemed that the country was on a path of
consolidation. Retrospectively speaking,
the constitution-making crisis to the secession of East Pakistan and from the
overthrow of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s democratically elected government to
four dismissals of elected governments and the three martial laws was enough
to give sleepless nights to anyone. The country has forever been in the
throes of various problems. Actually Talbot’s
approach is the correct one to take because most of the problems that lie in
history shape the future as well. When Pakistan was created, suddenly in a
seven-year-struggle after the Pakistan Resolution in 1940, serious doubts
were raised about the reasons for its creation and because of that the
chances of its survival. Though it had survived the
first twenty five years and then, in a truncated form, the next forty odd
years it has been the cause of instability in the region and a nightmare to
most of the powers that have been fishing for a hefty catch in the pursuit of
their global intentions. Because of it being
vulnerable, Pakistan has also been amenable to manipulation on terms and
conditions that were not always to its full advantage. Its joining the Cold
War was a step taken that brought in more disadvantages than advantages in
the sense that it spilt the country’s insecurity into areas that were of an
international nature, thus making the rest of the world, particularly India,
viewing local problems in the international context. There was also a reason
for India to scuttle the process of solving the local issues by citing an
international cause and in that it found ready allies and supporters. Most of the writers who
have written on the country have only focussed on the recent past. The main
area of investigation has been the Zia ul Haq era and most of the problems
that the country faces are laid at the door of that eleven-year-period. But
the real question is why the country has not been able to reverse that slide
even after more than twenty years. It appears that Talbot’s approach, of
going deeper into the past and the kind of state that was created needed to
be examined, investigated and properly understood is right. Though Talbot does not
consider security threats as the biggest problems facing Pakistan — the
graver problems are the issues of governance, the need for national
consensus, water and energy security and above all the demographic time bomb
and the youth bulge. Due to the various
international causes Pakistan has been able to muddle through but he feels
that unless the above-cited problems are not tackled head-on it will not be
possible for Pakistan to muddle through any more. He thinks these challenges
are bigger than what Pakistan has ever faced. And unless there is a major
turnaround in the national policy direction, a catastrophe is waiting to
happen. He levels the responsibility on the leaders and the people of the
country, and he is hopeful that once that happens the external well-wishers
will be willing to come forth through financial and technical assistance.
This will result in South Asia realising its fuller potential and especially
its economic one, otherwise the failure of a nuclear weapons Pakistan will
have regional and global repercussions. It has to move towards economic
sustainability and democratic consolidation. What has been disquietening
and very disturbing is that in the last sixty five years, or forty one years,
Pakistan has not been able to overcome the legacy of the colonial state. In
other words it has not been able to resolve some of the structural problems
that it inherited. This is a very sorry commentary on the either the lack of
realisation of the problems or the lack on consensus on the resolution of the
problem. It could also be that it was thought that probably it was a better
option to manage them on short term basis the affairs of the state. The
adhocism, the patron client relationship and then the ease with which foreign
assistance was accepted and even asked for have been the shameful areas that
need to be addressed. Even now the main refrain is that the people and the
country have been wronged and victimised. The assumption being that the rest
of the world is wrong and that we are right has created a mindset which is as
entrenched as the jihadi mindset that provides legitimacy to the chosen
people to set the world right according to their worldview. It appears that there is
still no consensus as many believe this to be the only way to manage the
affairs of a country. Not many are willing to challenge the givens of the
situation and, therefore, the future does not look as sanguine as it may to
somebody like Ian Talbot. Title: Pakistan: A New
History Author: Ian Talbot Publisher: Columbia University Press, 2012 Pages: 224 Price: 895 PKR
|
|
