Faiz Ahmad Faiz As A Literary Critic
By:Dr. JawaidRahmani
Assistant Professor,
Department of Urdu,
Assam University,
Silchar 788011
Mob. 9531328278
After Ghalib and Iqbal, it is Faiz who has been the apple of
the eye of literary critics in Urdu.As writing on Faiz has been a fashion among
the Urdu critics, a number of them have written on him, like many have made
Ghalib and Iqbal subject of their study. The state of the literary criticism in
Urdu, in general, can be gauged from the body of criticism that exists on
Ghalib. That is whyShekh Mohammad Ikram, around half a century ago, had written
that
“Having studied books that have
been written on Ghalib, a fair idea of various trends of the Urdu literature
and especially the evolution of our art of criticism can be had. This
literature on Ghalib (Ghalibiyat) itself can be a reference for us to measure
the ups and downs of our art of criticism, its depth and superficiality and its
rational and emotional tendencies.”
The same can still be said regarding the critical
appreciation of Ghalib though Iqbal and Faiz, like Ghalib, have not been
fortunate in this regard.The standard of whatever has been written on Faiz, is
not very satisfactory.Very less of what has been written on him, really does
justice with Faiz. It may also be because it is not long since Faiz has passed
away and also because we stand not very far from the movement he was part of,
hence, the critical appreciation of Faiz seems to becoloured by the emotions of
our critics.Our discussions on Faiz are driven more by our impressions about
Faiz and the Progressive Writers Movement, and less by the critical faculties.
And it seems to be the reason why PitrasBhokhari had said:
“Let us see who will be hailed as
the harbinger of the modern poetry: Raashid or Faiz”.
It is evident by our time that the honour has been awarded/accorded
to Raashid. However, it is no less than a miracle that it has not reduced the popularity
and stature of Faiz.Pitras has meant the Progressives by the word ‘modern’. If
we retain the same connotations of the word ‘modern’, Faiz, in practice, has
been established as the representative of the modern poetry in the Urdu
literature.Tone of Faiz has become the standard of the Progressive ghazalpoetry
while Raashid is regarded as a role model to the modern poets of nazm. To cut a
long debate short, I would like to share few of my thoughts on ‘Faiz as a
literary critic’ as this aspect of his personality ishardly discussed and hence
is yet to be adequately explored.
Meezan(The Criterion),
an anthology of Faiz’ papers in literary criticism, had come out from Lahore
Akademi of Lahore in September 1965. With the permission from Faiz,
MaghribiBangal Urdu Akademi, Kalkatta (now Kolkata) published the same volume
in 1982. A compilation of total 31 papers, it has been divided into four
sections, namely: ideologies, issues, predecessors and contemporaries.In the
preface, Faiz has clearly stated that these papers do “not try to pick up a
thread of conversation with the educated ones”, meaning that they have been
written for the masses.Besides that, some of the papers deal with finer niceties
of literary criticism though in a very simple style. For example,
“Terminologies of Our Criticism”, an undated paper, deals with terminologies
like similes, metaphors, simplicity, fluency, spontaneity and naturality, humour,
jest, melancholy, sufism, creativity,description of the union,diction, rhyme,
figures of speech and shed light on the tendency of their liberal usage in the
Urdu criticism. The paper points out many startling and striking issues. For
example, he writes about similes and metaphors that:
“If we give it aserious thought, it
does not demonstrate mastery over the language but is an expression of
inability. It means that the writer could not encapsulate all his details into
a few words or could not find suitable words to express his ideas. Hence,
instead of taking the straight path, he was compelled to use short-cuts or
alleys of similes and metaphors.”
It is not proper to describe similes and metaphors as tools
or ways because the creative process is not so simple and easy-to-understand
that we can always figure out that the poet has used so and so simile or
metaphor to express a particular idea. It very often happens that a simile or
metaphor itself leads the poet to a concept and to communicateit the poet articulates
that particular idea as well. Moreover, as no concept can exist without words, it
is not possible to say that the poet was interested only in a particular
concept or a word and hence in a particular simile or metaphor. These elements
are so entangled and enmeshed in each other in a particular
creation/composition that it is not possible to discuss them separately. Such a
discussion, to a certain extent, can be had only to meet the needs of class-room
teaching. It neither has any organic relation with the literary criticism nor
is the compulsion or need of the latter.
It is not possible for any student of the Urdu literary
criticism to agree with the way Faiz has described the simile and metaphor as
an expression of the poet’s inability, though; there is no harm in trying to
see the things from this perspective as well. After all, literary norms are no
religious injunctions and debating them will not lead to the annulment of
Imaan.Basically an expression of discontentthat
a poet has with the standards prevalent in his time in literary criticism,the
first paper contains many more startling facts.It terms as misleading and
superficial the very distinction between the rationalities of the eastern and
the western literature and criticism. However, the way it has described the dependency
of the literary criticism on the factors of time and space, is problematic.It
has earned criticism from Mazhar Imam.
The first paper of Meezanis
‘The Progressive Conception of the Literature’.One of the first writings that
were penned down to elaborate the Progressive Writers’ Movement, the paper
opens up with these lines:
“Romanticism, rationalism,
optimism, pessimism, all these hooks have been employed to catch the literary
fishes. Nowadays progressivism and traditionalism are in vogue but these terms
are yet to be properly defined, hence, there are a variety of definitions.
Different people have their own conceptions of the progressive literature and seem
to be hell-bent in defense of or opposition against those conceptions.”
He elaborates about the
progressive literature that it consists of those writings “ that (1) help in
the social progress, (2) fulfill the artistic criteria of literature.” Then he
further explains that “Literature deals mostly with that walk of life that is
known as culture. And if we seek any help of literature in the social progress
then we should understand that this progress stands for the progress of
culture.”
This is such a moderate vision of
the progressive literature that one does not see any reason to differ.
Moreover, this statement represents the role of Faiz as a poet as well. This
paper was written in 1938.In addition to social value and sense of purpose, the
ability of a literary creation to meet the high standard of literature is
another benchmark that most of the ideologues of the progressive movement of the
age consider necessary to qualify as the progressive literature. For example, some
statements of SajjadZaheer and Akhtar Ansari that Mazhar Imam has quoted, also
contain more or less the same theme. Though this paper of Faiz is important in
many ways, its major flaw is that Faiz thinks that “propaganda is the purpose
of literature”.
He
describes as propaganda not only the progressive literature but all the
literature as he writes:
“Difference between the
progressive literature and other forms of literature does not lie in the fact that
the former is propaganda and the latter is not but the difference is that the propaganda
of the formerone is true and useful while that of the latter misleading and
harmful or useless.”
To begin with, it is not possible
to accept the literature as propaganda, andlikewise, the debate on the useful
and non-useful is no less controversial in literature. Moreover, to categorize
literature as propaganda is not consistent with the poetic nature of Faiz. That
is why Mazhar Imam has written that :
“After the passage of this
difficult moment when Faiz’ self-discipline had returned to him, he would have
realized senselessness of his statement.”
It should be borne in the mind
that the most notable feature of the poetic nature of Faiz, according to
Kalimuddin Ahmad, is a sort of self-discipline and the same feature runs
through papers of this volume as well.A few extremist positions that he took,
should be seen as his temporal compulsion, in the sense that the ease with
which we sense their limitations today, was not at all possible in an age when
every progressive used to go to the bed in the hope that when s/he gets up in
the morning, s/he will find before his/her eyes the goddess of the revolutionradiating
her blessings and beauty across the world.Mujtaba Husain has brilliantly
described this situation in his portrait of Makhdoom.
Second paper “Values of the
Poetry” also tries to argue persuasively that “Creation of beauty is not only
an act of aestheticism but is also an act of usefulness. So, all those things
which bring beauty or finesse or colours to our life, whose beauty adds to our
humanism, which purify our inner self, whichenchant our soul and whose light
illuminates our mind, are not only beautiful but useful as well.”
What distinguishes Faiz from other
ideologues of the progressive movement like Ali SardarJafri is that if Faizon
the one hand says that “The verse that qualifies the test ofnot only the art
but also of life, is a good one,in all of its senses.”
,
then on the other hand, his conception of the progressive literature is
accommodating and expansive enough to allow him also tosay that:
“All lyrical literature (in fact
all good art) is admirable for us. This utility is not the monopoly of only such
writings that directly analyze selected political or economic issues of a
particular period.”
This expanse and elasticity is
simply not there in the SardarJafri’s conception of the progressivism. Although
AbulKalamQasmi has written that “SardarJafri initially was convinced of the absurdity
of the Sufism but later he had developed a taste for the sufi poetry of Ghalib,
Meer and Kabir.”, and has tried to show that SardarJafrirevised his viewsand hence
had become accommodating. Suffice it to say here that SardarJafri had declared AsgharGondavi’ssufi
poetry incongruous. With an eye on this fact, an appreciation of the sufi
poetry of Ghalib, Meer or Kabir does not allow to conclude that SardarJaafri
had revised his ideas. SardarJaafri had termed AsgharGondavi’ssufi poetry too
incongruous because he was of the opinion that Asghar’s period was that of
socialism. He writes in his last book Sarmaya-e
Sukhan(The Capital of Poetry):
“Analyses can prove that every
beautiful entityis atlast found to be related to thecommoninterests(social and
physical or intellectual and moral) of the human beings. What is not
beneficial, cannot be beautiful.”
So it is evident that
SardarJaafri’s conception of useful literature was so rigid that no change
could creep in it till he breathed his last.
Written in 1942, title of Faiz’
another excellent paper reads: “Symbolism in the Modern Urdu Poetry”. He argues
in this paper that the first purpose of the poetry is interpretation. This is
not true. He has once mentioned Josh Maleehabadi very contemptuously as he writes:
“It is only Josh Maleehabadiwho had employed a self-styled religious scholarto
be his object of criticism.”
After three years, in a remarkable
paper on Josh, Faiz has not only refused to accept Josh as a revolutionary poet
but dubbed the latter as “conservative” as well. He writes:
“The view that a single person can
encapsulate the revolution within his/her self and that social factors and
reasons do not matter in this struggle for revolution, is quite non-socialist
and is , according to the socialists, conservative.”
Before Faiz, it was only
Kaleemuddin Ahmad who had called into question “the poetic grandeur” of Josh.
Though NeyazFatahpuri has also been writing against Josh, the former’s
objections should be seen more as a matter of personal rivalry and less of
literary nature. But Faiz was the first person who followed Kaleemuddin Ahmad
in interrogating the importance of Josh’ poetry. In his paper “Symbolism in the
Modern Urdu Poetry”, Faiz has surveyed the changes that had occurred in the
Urdu poetry in different phases, with reference to the poetic devices,
especially the changes in the usage of symbols. Though he has used the term ‘symbols’
in an awkwardly wider sense, the paper overall makes an excellent read. He is all praise to Meeraji for inventing a
symbol that is more “personal and inner”. He declares Raashid“the most
successful” among his contemporaries
and presents as a representative of the new poetry of his age a poem of
Noon.Meem. Raashid“in which minaret of the mosque is described as the symbol of
extra-ordinary courage and intellectual heights”.
Mentioning
Iqbal as the predecessor of the progressives, Faiz writes:
“The sweep of Iqbal was very wide
and a good chunk of the same was non-familiar to the eastern poetry as well.
But he, instead of introducing new symbols, deemed it more appropriate to
instill a new life into the old ones….Iqbal cannot be confined within the
boundaries of any movement. He straddles the universes of old nationalists and our
contemporary progressives.The period of nationalist literature paved the way
for the period of the progressive and revolutionary literature that found its very
first expression in his poetry.”
Apart from this, Faiz has written
two more papers on Iqbal. Fatah Mohammad Malik, while commenting on the Faiz’
paper on Josh, has complains that Faiz has not engaged Iqbal and termed this
non-engagement as his bias against Iqbal and his cultural outlook.That is why
the admiration that characterizes Faiz’ account of Iqbal, renders objections of
Fatah Mohammad Malik irrelevant. The latter has not gone through Faiz’ writings
on Iqbal and concluded that Faiz used to harbour biases against Iqbal. On
contrary, among the early ideologues of the progressive literature, it is Faiz
who has been the most generous in whole-heartedly embracing Iqbal.Another paper
of Faiz is “Nazeer and Haali”. Though its year of publication is given 1914 but
it is next to impossible. So, it may be 1941 that was erroneously printed 1914.While
pointing out the difference in the nature of Nazeer and Haali in many respects,
Faiz in this paper has also explored the similarities between the two poets.
Also a brilliant paper, its importance liesin the fact that Urdu critics, till
that time, had not considered poetry of NazeerAkbarabadi a theme of serious
literary exploration. Before this paper of Faiz, Kaleemuddin Ahmad and Abdul
GhafoorShahbaz were the only celebrated critics of the Urdu literature who had
accepted the poetic distinction of Nazeer. Faiz, like Haali, rates Nazeer
higher than Anees. He writes:
“At the first glimpse, variety and
command over expression emerge as the first noteworthy characteristic of Nazeer’s
poetry.Nazeer has written on almost everything, ranging from flies and mosquitoes
to the God Almighty.He has tried his luck in almost every genre of poetry and
has been successful except in ghazal….Nazeer’s nature is not suitable for fine
and melancholic states of ghazal…Nazeer’s verses are devoid of melancholy of Meer,
depth of Ghalib, refinement of Dagh but there is movement in his words, a sort
of velocity and richness, which is the reason that his verses fulfill the
criteria of good poetry.”
And he writes about Haali:
“Haali was not a sermon-delivering
poet by his nature. His soul was filled with melancholy…..When he sought to
digress from it to the composition of moralistic and reformative poetry, he had
to compel his nature………Apart from his ghazals,the Haali’smosaddasmade a great
contribution towards maintaining his eminence because it is in the mosaddaswhere
his natural faculties have found superb expression….When we compare many of his
ghazalslike “O Love! You have consumed most of the communities” with his
moralistic ghazals of the later period, we feel how much sacrifice Haali had made
for the sake of his principles. Had he not written the mosaddas, Haali would
probably have been declared the martyr of modernism.”
This analysis still stands very
relevant and today it is not easy to grasp how relevant it would have been when
Faiz had written this paper. In addition to it, the volume is comprised of many
papers that allude to the highly cultivated critical/literary consciousness of
Faiz and despite some disagreements, I concede to say that such refined
critical consciousness was very rare even among the literary critics of his
age.That Faiz was deeply interested in the fiction, is evident from the fact
that he has written a paper on the Urdu novels, two on RatannathSarshar and a
paper on Premchand as well.The volume also contains the prefaces that Faiz had
written to
Woh Log (Those People), a
collection of HajraMasroor’s dramas and
Chand
Roz Aur (Some More Days), an anthology of Khadija Mastoor’s short-stories
and these prefaces reflect his deep interest in the Urdu
fiction.About these papers Mazhar Imam writes:
“Faiz’ paper on the novels is one
of the early critical writings available on the theme in Urdu. He was aware of
the dearth and inferior quality of the Urdu novels. He offers brief comments on
the novels, starting from Nazeer Ahmad andPremchand, etc. to Krishnachander,
UpendranathAshk and Rajindra Singh Bedi.These comments, despite their brevity, manifestFaiz’
critical thoughts. Although he at one place has mentioned
Qafas(The Cage) as a novel by Ashk but it is not true.
Qafas in reality is a collection of
Ashk’s short stories that Krishnachander had put together. It seems what Faiz had
in his mind was
SitaronKeKhel (Playgrounds
of the Planet) which was an unsuccessful novel of Ashk.”
Likewise, Meezan has many more papers that suggest a long process of Faiz’ serious
engagement with the literary issues. To mention some of them: Old Traditions in
the Urdu Poetry and New Experiments, Demands of Modern Thoughts and the Ghazal,Literary
Creation and Imagination, Poetry of Ideas and the Subject and the Style of
Expression, etc.It is not possible to ignore importance of the issues that have
been discussed in these papers and despite some minor disagreements, it has to
be recognized that Faiz’ critical consciousness has guided him in most of the
cases in right direction, and his literary and critical consciousness is more
cultivated than that of other progressive critics. It is a matter of amazement
that our literary critics have so far not noticed these papers; otherwise Faiz
would have been celebrated as one of the prominent ideologues of the Urdu
literature.The volume has an excellent paper on Pitras that encapsulates his
multi-faceted personality, with such remarkable success that this interesting
paper of Faiz should be regarded as one of the finest portraitsin Urdu.
(This paper has been translated by
Arshad Amanullah, a Delhi-based documentary filmmaker and researcher. He may be
reached at arshad.mcrc@gmail.com.
The postal address is: 5th Floor, 25, Masihgarh, SukhdevVihar, New
Delhi-110025).
