|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
tribute
Search
for truth Zia
Mohyeddin column
tribute
By Abrar Ahmad Ab Tak Beginning as a ghazal poet,
Zafar Iqbal started his creative career in 1955 making him a In 1962 his first collection 'Aab-e-Rawan' appeared with a bang. Consisting of different ghazals, it was yet in line with the tradition. The offerings also contained pointers of the author's further intentions. 'Gul-Aftaab' (1966) unfolded the great promise this poet had. Our conformist climate of that time was shaken by the explosive effect this book generated. Modernism was the prevailing ideological stance of the decade and 'Gul Aftaab' was a model of impressive creative work to fit in that frame. Zafar's first collection was an undeniable evidence of his total command over the genre, both as art form and its traditional decorum, in a way issuing him a license to experiment. Taking advantage of this he produced a magical work enchanting and ingenious, full of creative aura, imagery and freshness while harbouring very bold linguistic experimentation. It remains his most widely discussed book till date. But both these books proved just a beginning of a major work by him in future -- both shades overlapping each other at places while staying as separate trends at other instances. Recently he decided to bring out his work en bloc titled 'Ab Tak' its third volume appearing a few months back. All the three volumes accommodate his six collections. 'Ab Tab-3' comprises of Tamjid, Taqweem, Tashkil, Tajawaz, Tawarud and Tasahil. Gopi Chand Narang on the back title writes: "Zafar Iqbal is a signature of Urdu ghazal in current times without which this era is impossible to define. His appearance on ghazal scenario is like a volcanic eruption." Dr. Tabassum Kashmiri pens down his opinion as follows: "Zafar's ghazal is no more traditional now. He has risen far above the tradition in a way that with him ghazal gets transformed into meta-ghazal." Shamim Hanafi, another highly rated critic observes: "There are only two poets in our contemporary times whose ghazal is free from all sorts of cliche - Zafar Iqbal and Ahmad Mushtaq...The rhythm, tone, vocabulary, experience and sensibility which one finds in their couplets is in no way pre-determined and traditional." The most honourable tribute to him was paid by the celebrated critic Shams-ur-Rehman Farooqi who compared him to Ghalib, even having a stature bigger than him while writing on 'Ghubar Aalood Samton ka Suragh'. Gilani Kamran also talked in the same vein. Owing to the volatility and restlessness inherent in his entire works, reading him becomes a unique experience. At places one is totally carried away by the haunting melodious couplets replete with highly serious subject matter and 'Lutf-e-Sukhan'. While the very next piece leaves you perplexed as to whether such a content deserve to earn a place in poetry. He does this in a single offering too but he never fails to display his command as a superb craftsman. This diversity generates controversy about his status as a poet. He openly admits his affinity for controversies and believes in controversy as a sign of significance. His prose writings and articles have done the same and served the purpose well. It was Francis Bacon who wrote: "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in proportion." If one wishes to meet this strangeness, nothing can be more suitable than Zafar's poetry. His works display a wonderful variety of shades and colours overlapping each other while some stand isolated, pronouncing their individuality. Another aspect of his ghazal is the creative incorporation of Punjabi words. He has written tirelessly since 1955 and has produced huge volumes of worthy ghazal. In this regard he stands at par only with Nazir Akbar Abadi, Mir Taqi Mir and Mushafi in the entire tradition of Urdu poetry. If we go for an intent focused reading of great poets, we never fail to notice the presence of a consistent recurring thought or philosophical question which helps us to identify his distinctness. This evaluation is not easy in case of Zafar Iqbal where we fail to find such a phenomenon. That's why it has been claimed that in order to understand him, new critical parameters are to be evolved. Let's re-visit what have been our criteria for identification of great or major poetry. Wordsworth observed "(Poetry) takes its origin from emotions recollected in tranquility" while T.S. Eliot declared it as "an escape from emotions and personality". Both these definitions do not relate here. Zafar's poetry meets these parameters at many places but negates them at almost equal instances. In the latter case, his poetry is bitterly criticised. Nietzsche wrote that every true artist has a specific intellectual and spiritual problem and anything which doesn't help him in this struggle he fails to even notice its presence. Zafar's pursuits refuse to fit in even here. Zafar Iqbal describes his concept of poetry in an interview in the following words: 1. I believe in using word in a non-routine extraordinary fashion. 2. If anyone creates poetry similar to what has already been created, it's a futile effort. 3. I never reject tradition. Inspite of rebellion, I've never left the ground of tradition. 4. To me, subject matter is far less important than the innovative use of language in poetry. One may find these points debatable but that's how he perceives and exercises them in his own pursuits. I have personally been quite critical of certain aspects of his literary endeavours but I don't qualify to pass judgements. His creative attitude reflects that he perhaps believes in the absurdity of life and to him his own subjective self is the sole reality to which world around him interacts and the aftermath of this collision is what constitutes his subject matter. To believe or follow a philosophical code in itself seems absurd to him -- bringing out the existentialist in him. It goes without saying that he is one of the most significant Urdu poets and is best equipped with tools of expression. Critics will have to do lot of work to decide what place he earns in the tradition of Urdu ghazal. It cannot, however, be anything less than a 'major' poet with a 'modernistic' sensibility.
The
Dust of the Road By Saadia Salahuddin The book, an autobiography,
is a valuable historical document where the writer has penned Dr Raipuri had an unconventional upbringing. When he was sent to Maktab to read Quran at an early age, he insisted on the meaning of what he read. The maulvi wouldn't concede to the demand, so Akhtar stopped going to the maktab and read Quran when he grew up. At school his medium of instruction was Hindi. While he was at school he learnt to read and write English and Urdu as fluently as Hindi. His first articles appeared in Hindi magazines while he was still in school. Akhter had a flair for languages. He learnt Bengali, Sanskrit, Persian, French and later Spanish and put them all to good use. His translations of Nazrul Islam's poetry from Bengali into Urdu titled 'Payam-e-Shabab' had far-reaching effects on Urdu poetry. Josh, Majaz and Makhdoom's poetry were influenced by it. There is a whole chapter on literature. An early starter, he took up his first job in Calcutta at the age of 16 with the largest circulating Hindi daily Vishmamitr at a time when newspapers were freely and openly propagating sectarianism. When he went to Hindustan Times for writing a daily column based on an analysis of the Hindi and Urdu press, Mahatma Gandhi's son Devdas Gandhi said he knew no one more suitable for this work but the proprietor Seth Birla rejected Akhtar on the ground that he did not want to hire a Muslim. Akhtar was given reporting at a time when Nehru Report was to be announced at the annual meeting of Congress. It was a period of great mental confusion and discord in India. The writer's first 20 years were unorthodox, experimental and he had risen to a position of prominence by then. In this book Akhtar states point-wise the events that led to the creation of Pakistan. He says when Jawaharlal Nehru rejected the cabinet mission formula for compromise, he closed the possibility of a constitutional adjustment between Hindus and Muslims. On Muslim League's call Muslims observed August 16, 1946 as Black Day. The bloody riots that started on that day spread all over northern India. Countless people were killed. In Bihar alone the death toll was somewhere between 20 and 50 thousand. This created great mistrust between Hindus and Muslims. Muslims refused to be involved in the Constituent Assembly. This was when the viceroy told its government in Britain that the problem in India was unsolvable and there was no other way but to hand over the government to the Indians. Akhtar writes about his meetings with Jawaharlal Nehru and Gandhi Ji and his impressions of them, of how Mahatma Gandhi was responsible for building controversy over national language by wasting a whole day of the conference on Urdu-Hindi controversy. Akhtar condemns Nehru's underhand act of making changes in the final document of 'transfer of power' secretly. The final document, known only to Mountbatten and Nehru, has not been published till this day, Dr Raipuri writes. He sees Congress had marked a period of two months for partition so that Pakistan could not receive a fair share of the country's asset and it did not. He sees Britain's sagacity in giving its colonies independence just after World War II, first in Asia and then in Africa. "It wrapped its concerns so well that all the affected countries forgot its tyranny, and in fact the newly independent countries were proud to be members of the Commonwealth," he writes. He also points at Britain's duplicity calling it habitual. In India they followed divide and rule policy while in Somalia they actually suppressed the Muslims and worked in support of the Christians. Dr Akhtar Husain Raipuri has remarkable contribution in the reconstruction of Somalia where he was sent by UNESCO as the head of the mission. He gave Somalia its first script. He sees Russian Revolution as the most powerful agent of change in the 20th Century that set free humanity from exploitation in one third of the world. It gave the concept of welfare state to the West and taught colonised states to free themselves from the shackles of imperialism and then struggle for economic freedom. His account of the communist movement in India and his exploration of it when it was a taboo, makes for very interesting reading. The 'globe trotter' sees Iran and Japan as the only two countries where culture has penetrated the common people in the true sense and found no cultural centre in Europe that could rival New York. His love of knowledge and search for truth brought him in contact with nearly all the eminent men of his times. Akhtar gives credit to them where it is due but has written boldly where he finds them lacking in commitment or sees them as untruthful. Of America, he says nowhere is the media more powerful and exerts as much influence on people as the American media. Its people are simple and have rarely raised their voice on political issues. But he reminds that America was constructed with the blood and sweat of the Africans whom the white man forced into slavery. This autobiography gives a larger picture of the globe. Coming from the pen of a historian and a literati, a man well-versed in a number of languages, it gives much insight into what shaped the world in the 20th century. His own character emerges as remarkable. He sees evacuee property as entering Pakistani society like a deadly poison, and avarice changing people's personalities. He never put forward any claim for land. This is a book written by an eminent man of his times who does not waiver from writing the truth because that was his pursuit in life -- search for truth.
Zia Mohyeddin column Misquotations My last year at the university was spent more in the Coffee House than in the classroom. The Coffee House on the Mall, in Lahore, was the haunt of the literati, the thinkers and the sophists. It was here that I heard Bari (Aligue) -- a Marxist historian -- giving an impassioned discourse on the consequences of Colonialism; it was here that I overheard raucous accounts of Abdullah Butt's amorous conquests, and it was here that I befriended Riaz Qadir, the 'English' poet, ever ready to recite his latest poem. We were overawed not so much by his poetry but the way he spoke English -- in a public school accent. He had been to Westminster. In those days, you just ordered a cup of coffee and could spend the next two to three hours in intense conversation -- or silently, if you so wished -- without a waiter hovering over you. There were no big spenders; nobody ordered a meal. The management certainly didn't resent that. Occasionally, a stray customer came in and asked for mutton cutlets, an in-house speciality, (much to the envy of the regulars), but the rest of the customers confined themselves to a hot or a cold coffee. Sometimes a second round of coffee, along with sandwiches, was ordered. This happened only when a newcomer, anxious to imbibe pearls of wisdom, joined an 'intellectual' table. It was understood that the newcomer would pick the tab. How the establishment (with waiters wearing clean, liveried uniform) survived, was a mystery to me. It was in this very Coffee House that I first heard the most atrocious rendering of J Alfred Prufrock's Love Song, by Khalil-ul-Rahman, a rotund modern Urdu poet, who I thought was an opium addict, but wasn't; it was only his manner of speech that led me to believe so. And it was in this very Coffee House that I heard a rather intelligent reading of 'Prufrock', a year later, by Ansar Hussain, a new entrant to our circle. I knew him slightly because we lived in the same hostel. Ansar Hussain was a brilliant economics student and a keen debater; his grasp over English classics was enviable. I do not know whether it was the Coffee House influence or because he felt that he ought to de-anglicize himself, but Ansar Hussain suddenly developed a passion for classical Urdu poetry. One afternoon, when we were walking back to our hostel, he told me that Ghalib had no parallel and, as if to prove his point, declaimed, 'Mein aur Khatt-i-vasl, Khuda raz baat hai'...If I had heard Ghalib's verse so distorted a year ago, I would have laughed in his face, but I had, by now, learnt from Daud Rahbar that ridiculing people for their mistakes was in bad taste. Daud Rahbar had inherited this attitude from his father, my uncle. My uncle, an eminent Persian scholar and a professor of Oriental studies, belonged to an age when correcting a person immediately was tantamount to showing off your superior knowledge -- and showing off, in any manner, was considered to be an unpardonably vulgar act. He had devised his own method of pointing out an error; he would wait until there was a pause and then veer the conversation in such a way that he could introduce the (misquoted) phrase, quoting it correctly, hoping that the listener would recognise his mistake and not be too embarrassed about it. I decided to try my uncle's approach. I talked a bit about Ghalib's penchant for paradox before reciting the actual line "Mein aur hazz-i-vasl..." "No, no," he interrupted, "It is Khatt-i-vasl: the lover, you see, receives this letter from his beloved about their tryst, something so rare that it could happen only through divine intervention." I forgot Daud Rahbar; I forgot my uncle, and laughed. Ansar Hussain never forgave me. In Urdu, Khat and hazz are written exactly the same way; it is only the placement of a dot that distinguishes the two words. Khat means a letter and hazz means delight or pleasure. Vasl (conjunction) is what the lover, in Urdu poetry, always seeks, but is nearly always denied. Hazz-i-vasl is, of course, the ultimate ecstasy that the poet-lover dreams of. Khatt-i-vasl is nothing but gobbledegook. Ansar Hussain, who had been schooled in English, throughout his life, had only just begun to learn to read Urdu and had read the word hazz as khat. The Persian expression rooh-o-rawan (the leading light of a society, an organisation or an institute) which has crept into our everyday jargon is, invariably pronounced as rooh-i-rawan. Not a day goes by without some chairperson referring to a worthy as the rooh-i-rawan of an artistic or a political circle. I have even seen the phrase written in the malaproprian manner in literary journals. This is a splendid example of an affliction that almost everyone has suffered at one time or another; the presence in your vocabulary of a word or phrase which you think you have right but which, if ever uttered, goes off with a nasty bang in your face. The affliction is not just peculiar to our language. You come across many howlers in England as well. My friend, Hilary Minister, once received a letter from his Borough Council in which he was asked to confirm that he used the Christian name he had entered on an application form "for all intense purposes." He resisted the temptation to write back to inform them that, no, he only used it for routine matters and that when things got intense he liked to call himself Peregrine. Pronunciation is more a matter of experience than knowledge. There are some words that you know but still can't pronounce. 'Peripeteia' is a typical example. As a student of dramatic literature you might know exactly what the word means; you might, indeed, be able to write a canonical essay about the use of peripeteia in the works of Sophocles, but when you come to say it aloud, you feel a bit queasy. And even when you have been told where to put the stress you still get it wrong because your mind has always read it as 'peri-patia'. What do you do when someone repeatedly misquotes a line of poetry or pronounces a word wrongly? Do you correct him (or her) immediately? Do you wait until an appropriate moment to point out his mistake? Or do you ignore him altogether and squirm inwardly? To point it out immediately makes you sound like a prig, more interested in superficial correctness than what he or she is actually saying. To remain silent can force you into verbal gymnastics in order to avoid having to pronounce the same word yourself. Well, you can always mispronounce it deliberately. And how do you find a tone of voice that isn't haughtily instructive or condescending?
|
|
contemporary of Nasir Kazmi, Munir Niazi, Shehzad Ahmad, Ahmad Mushtaq and
Salim Ahmed. When he appeared on the scene, Nasir Kazmi and Munir Niazi were
the dominating names. Nasir Kazmi belonged to a select group of Lahore based
writers and intellectual while Zafar Iqbal living in Okara was treated as a
suburban poet.
down all the important political and social developments and literary
movements of his times. Dr Akhtar Husain Raipuri (1912-1992) witnessed the
creation of Pakistan, the rise and fall of communism, the two world wars and
the way they shaped the world. It seems he was at all the places in the world
where action was taking place. No doubt he was a widely-travelled person.