One couldn't imagine that Dr Gopi Chand Narang would modify post-modernism so much as to make it a substitute for modern progressive thought. At the seminar on Urdu criticism in Karachi University Dr Narang's paper went out of the way to paint a rosy picture for post modernism in a Third World country like Pakistan.
May be he thinks that India, with its economy developing at a much faster rate and hence proportionally more integrated with the Western economy has entered the club of developed states, thus, necessitating the advocacy of post-modernism, Notwithstanding Professor Amayrta Sen's views on Indian poverty touching almost 80 % mark.
Dr Muhammad Ali Siddiqui's paper, also being a keynote paper on the agenda, had an altogether different view. He thought post-modernism was responsible for increasing the incidence of poverty in the developing world. Even the Western World couldn't escape from increasing the scale of poverty in the West.
Hence the growing number of unrest and agitation by the working classes of the West at the World Social Forums. Seattle, Geneva, Nairobi and Bombay Forums being clear examples of this contention.
The paper highlighted the three basic pillars which Post-modernism negates (1) Foundationalism (2) Realism and (3) Humanism. Post modernism actually characterises the third stage of humanity's evolution. The first bring Providence, second Progress and the third, Nihilism. The pundits of post-modernism regard reason and logic as two outdated ploys of the world upto the stage of 'Progress'.
The question arises weather Dr Narang regards belief-systems around Providence, belief in God as the being of beings as already irrelevant. Does he regard that the second stage of Progress hinging on the notion that things could be improved with ingenuity innovation and knowledge/equity-based development had also passed. Is there any reason that the third world should cease its struggle to achieve higher goals of social and economic development as a logical step-forward in its belief in humanism.
Perhaps Dr Narang believes that well-known philosophical theories could be modified through his rhetoric to supplant his adversarial school of thought. This rhetoric is against the cannon of post-modernism since post-modernism treats it as an untenable effort.
The realities of the developed world are totally different from the developing world and Dr Narang knows it very well that the audiences couldn't be convinced by confusing and confounding a world-view which the literates, let alone intelligentsia, know to be incorrect.
Dr Narang's rhetoric didn't come to his rescue at all. Rather it proved that nothing could be misrepresented. He may call his adversary a little out dated to save his version of post-modernism, but he needs to be bothered for going through the basic text books on post-modernism written by Kevin Hart, David Lyon, Lyotarel, David Hawkes and Terry Eagleton to name only a few out of scores of writers to appreciate that Dr Siddiqui's views are not out dated.
A large number of post modernist thinkers don't place their reliance on static and spatial models of knowledge or in any specific method to explain the reality. Post -modernism is not the upholder of permanent metaphysical truths about prophets and revealed books.
I could easily use proper nouns instead of generalised word 'Prophets' but the believers in permanent metaphysical truths should know what it means. Dr Narang could well be described as a post-liberal critic believing in changing vocabulary and stances in his discourse. He shouldn't confuse with his post-liberalism with post-modernism.
In the end I will surely call upon the organisers of the seminar that the basic virtue of a seminar is its format sticking to well known rules. No one should be given the right to speak about a speaker's content after that particular speaker has spoken. Had it been followed this note of caution may not have been given. It is strange that Dr Jamil Jabili, who was presiding over the session, didn't observe the standard format to ease Dr Narang's impatience.
WHIP OF CRITICISM: Contemporary Urdu literature doesn't lack in contentious issues about writers and movements'. Needless to say when a writer points his / her finger on others it is necessary to know that he/she doesn't also live in a glasshouse.
Nasir Baghdadi is known as a fiction writer of high seriousness. He has been bringing out a reputable journal Baadban. Its 12th issue has recently come out. Nasir Baghdadi's book Zarb-i-Tanquid comprises critical editorials on literary issues. He is hard on some progressive, modern and post modern writers with equal zeal.
I think that, in some cases, that Nasir Baghdadi has lost his sense of balance. His criticism of the progressive movement doesn't take into account the primacy of class divide and exploitation which were hit hard by it and the society had to take some remedial actions for the betterment of the common lot. He shouldn't have thrown baby along with the bathing-tub.
He has been equally hard on quite a few writers. Jamiluddin Aali, Shams-ur-Rehman Faruqi, Dr Gopi Chand Narang, Mushfiq Khwaja, Ahmed Nadeem Qasimi, shahid Ahmed Dehalvi, Muhammad Hasan Askari, Qudratullah Shahab, Intezar Husain, Shanul Haq Haqqi and Wazir Agha etc-etc.
It is important that Dr Jamil Jabili, in his preface to the book, has called it a pertinent record of literary duels or semantics of Pakistani literature and any one who would like to see the 'other sides' of some well-known Pakistani writers will certainly be interested to know what could be adversely said about some literary reputations.
Dr Jamil Jabili regards the critical writings of Zarb-i-Tanquid as an essential part of our history of literature. Dr Jamil Jabili has, thus, upheld the importance of the issues raised by Nasir Baghdadi in this book.
After all the important literary issues, appreciated so pertinent by him, will be considered worth while for inclusion in the last volume of his History of Urdu Literature. After all what is goose in Zarb-i-Tanquid couldn't be gander in Dr Jabili's History of Urdu Literature.
Without suggesting that Nasir Baghdadi's highly critical views about some men of letters may be taken as the last words, they do provide an opportunity for all those who are under Nasir Baghdadi's hatchet to stand up and dig into the serious charges levied against some eminent writers.
For example it was quite revealing for me that writers like Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Aziz Ahmed, Josh Malihabadi, Professor Mumtaz Husain, Qurratul Ain Hyder and Maulana Salahuddin Ahmed had accepted literary awards from Field Marshal Ayub Khan as Qudratullah Shahab's Shahab Nama has claimed (P171).
I know that Professor Mumtaz Husain had attended the writers convention called by President Zia-ul-Haq's National Academy of Letters. Who doesn't know that Intezar Husain, Ibne Insha, Maulvi Abdul Haq and many other writers had welcomed Ayub Khan's dictatorial reforms. Aali's booklet Nai Kiran is the proof of a great somersault done by some eminent writers.
Very few books of Zarb-i-Tanquid's categories are published in our country. But it is quite right that they should be couched in good style and taste. At times Nasir Baghdadi is unduly harsh. His accusations sound a bit vindictive and they should be properly challenged if they are wrong.
Hence, I join with Dr Jamil Jabili that that there is no harm in publishing the already published material which has remained unchallenged in the courts of Law so far. Let us see what selective use Dr Jabili is going to make of this stuff in his volume on the Modern Urdu Literature.
If it is considered part of our literary history then the readers would surely appreciate all those accounts whose authenticity has remained unchallenged so far. We have had quite a few anthologies, for example Naqoosh's Adabi Maarke Number. Asadullah Khan, Irfan Ahmed and Dr Siddiq Jawed's polemical books and it is about time that we should realise that it would be far better if our writers avoid such writings.
Comments
Comments are closed.