| 14 April 2004 | Wednesday | 23 Safar 1425 |
Haji Najmuddin Sarewal
Resistance poetry
The juxtaposition of events was dramatic. As Condoleezza Rice finally put in a public appearance last Thursday before the September 11 commission in Washington, her nation's soldiers were laying siege to Fallujah.
As George W. Bush's national security adviser dissembled without losing her poise in the face of provocative questioning by Democratic commissioners, foreign forces in Iraq were using some of the frightful firepower at their disposal to establish control over crucial chunks of the occupied country.
The parallel dramas occurred thousands of miles apart. If the same team of scriptwriters thought up both scenarios, it would appear that some of the actors were refusing to follow the script.
That does not happen too often in Hollywood, which may explain why the executives at Pre-emptive Pentagon Productions Inc (PPPI) have been somewhat taken aback. Which is a little surprising, given that most of them are not too young to remember the blockbuster-turned-fiasco called Vietnam.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy last week referred to Iraq as Bush's Vietnam. He ought to know what he's talking about, given that his brother Jack was instrumental in getting the US bogged down in Southeast Asia, while his brother Bobby had second thoughts and sought the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination on a platform that incorporated an American pullout.
That word is anathema to executive producer Bush and many of his corporate allies, including assistant associate producer Tony Blair, whose participation in the venture has made it easier for it to be marketed as a shining example of globalization - and who noted this week that if he and his colleagues took a tumble instead of making a killing, "dictators would rejoice, fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant".
But then, Blair is renowned for his histrionics - as well as an inferiority complex vis-a-vis his superiors across the Atlantic. As someone who considers himself to be the greatest dramatic actor since Laurence Olivier to have strutted and fretted his hour upon the English stage, he resents having been cast as an extra.
Vacationing in Bermuda, he's lately had a go at playing Macbeth: "I am in blood/ Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,/ Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
That is not what Blair said, but that's what he meant when he ruled out any prospect of dissociating himself from a blood-splattered production that has gone months beyond schedule and billions over budget. His personal continuity boy, Jack Straw, had fewer qualms about admitting that the movie is in a mess because "the lid had come off the pressure cooker".
But then, it isn't Straw who will have to face the executive producer this week. Yes, Blair is getting another audience with Bush. It was on a similar occasion barely a week after September 11, 2001, that Blair effectively signed up to the Iraq project.
"When we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq," the then British ambassador in Washington recalls Bush telling his guest. Blair did not demur - although he later pretended that Baghdad wasn't an agreed-upon location until weeks before the shooting started.
Afghanistan wasn't exactly in the can when most resources were diverted to Iraq. The main villain barely figured in the improvised script. That is why it has lately proved necessary to head back to the rugged hills, with Pakistan coerced into an important role off-screen.
But now that elements of shock and awe have found their way back into the Iraq script, it is perfectly possible that the "Search for Osama" segment of the Afghan venture will be put off once more.
Osama bin Laden has been getting a raw deal. At the outset of the "war on terror" series, he was billed as the villain-in-chief, but subsequently he was downgraded to a veritable nonentity. He was supposed to feature not just in Afghanistan but also (at least by proxy) in Iraq.
But no go. Even Saddam Hussein, who initially received top billing, had to make do with a cameo appearance. Perhaps it was his expressionless visage during the "medical examination" screen test that ruined his chances. But at least Saddam has been given a berth at a top-security penitentiary in Qatar.
It doesn't necessarily follow that he's penitent. But he's likely to be marginally better off in terms of creature comforts than Osama, who is believed to favour caves. There was a time when cavemen were popular in Hollywood, but Osama missed the bus and was reduced to releasing amateur videos of his less-than-bravura performances.
He has lately received something of a reprieve via Condee's testimony, and even more so through a CIA memo to Bush, dated August 6, 2001, which the White House - a wholly owned subsidiary of PPPI - was even more reluctant to declassify than it was to send Rice into the lions' den.
That's hardly astonishing, given that the memo underlined Osama bin Laden's determination to increase his stature as a villain by striking on American soil. "FBI information," the memo said, "indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
So, what did Dubya do with this information? He happened to be on vacation at the time of this briefing (as he was last week, and has been for 500 days during his three years and three months in office), and told reporters shortly afterwards that he loved watching his dog chase armadillos.
That wasn't code for the FBI chasing Al Qaeda. He meant it literally. Responding this week to inevitable questions about the memo, he tried to cover his backside by saying it contained no specific information - in other words, it didn't say: "Watch out! Don't go anywhere near the World Trade Centre or the Pentagon after 8.30am on 9/11. And keep an eye on the skies while you're at it...."
During his appearance in camera before the September 11 commission, Uncle Dick Cheney will not leave Dubya's side. Evidently, the presidential backside will need more covering than Bush alone can provide.
The neo-conservatives who believe they have a stake in the ultra-imperialist direction their nation has taken can't afford to have him make a fool of himself at this juncture.
They are as keen as Al Qaeda to make sure he's re-elected. The commission may not have many teeth, but it has quite a few tongues, and Dick will be there to make sure Dubya doesn't get licked by the Democrats.
There won't be any questions about Fallujah, of course, but there could be some about Osama. One can only wonder about whether the shift of the focus back to Iraq means Bush has given up on the prospect of Osama being killed or captured before the November 2 election. Were he to be caught, chances are that, unlike Saddam, he would be designated an illegal combatant.
Now, that may be exactly how their Iraqi assailants saw the four Americans whose burned and mutilated corpses sparked the occupation authority's revenge attacks on Fallujah.
What happened to those four unfortunate souls was utterly despicable and unconscionable. But it wasn't astounding. Not if one takes into account the manner in which the occupiers have been treating Iraqis - hundreds of whom have been killed in the assault against Fallujah.
The Fallujah four were initially cited in most Western reports as civilian contractors. If not inaccurate, it was certainly a disingenuous description. Then they became private security guards.
That was closer to the truth, but a bit more precision would yield the more apt term for their profession: mercenaries. They were employed by the same firm that provides protection to Paul Bremer.
It certainly doesn't follow that they in any way deserved their fate. But they were clearly part of the occupation force - unlike most of those taken hostage by little-known Iraqi groups in recent days.
Mercenaries were once popular action heroes in Hollywood. And Iraq appears to be crawling with them. It stands to reason: if the rest of Iraq is to be privatized, why should the shoot-to-kill aspect of it be left out of the equation? And if the neo-cons could entirely have their way, perhaps the occupation as a whole would be entrusted to soldiers of fortune. Indeed, if the neo-cons had been fully in charge, the first response to September 11 would have been the blitzing of Baghdad.
Condee Rice didn't have much to say about the early, unwarranted focus on Iraq. Bush 'n' Cheney won't dwell much on that either, apart from reiterating, possibly, the advantages of a world bereft of Saddam.
Regime change was, of course, never a good enough reason for raining death and destruction on Iraq - and increasing numbers of Iraqis who were once focused exclusively on the undeniable evils of the Baathist regime are having second thoughts about the occupation.
A similar trend can be discerned among western commentators who unreservedly backed the US-led invasion as it becomes increasingly difficult to pretend that the Bremerocracy will miraculously morph into a democracy, or even that the rebranding exercise scheduled for June 30 will make any meaningful difference to Iraq's status as a reluctant colony.
As for September 11, the blame belongs to the caveman and his cohorts. We may never know whether they could have been stopped, but it has now been established beyond reasonable doubt that enough effort did not go into the endeavour.
So there you have it. A script that opened with a spectacular catastrophe has been reduced to a damp squib. Another, billed as an action-packed thriller, is turning - despite the late addition of Moqtada Al Sadr as a stand-in scoundrel and the multiplication of bad guys, as Shias and Sunnis unite to take on their "liberators" - into a disaster.
Will someone please fire the producers?
e-mail: mahirali2@netscape.net.
Haji Najmuddin Sarewal
Veteran politician Haji Najmuddin Sarewal, who died of heart failure in Hyderabad on Monday, belonged to the rank of politicians of Sindh who served the people without any distinction and sought no reward for it.
Born in 1919 in a traditional family of landlords of Matli, in the then district of Hyderabad, Haji Najmuddin got his early education from the madressah at Tando Bago founded by Raees Ghulam Mohammed Bhurgri, and moved to the Noor Mohammed High School, Hyderabad, an institution that produced politician who later became the backbone of Sindhi Muslims in shaping the future of the province.
As a staunch supporter of the Pakistan Movement, Haji Serewal had first contested the Hyderabad district local board elections and then was elected as a member of the Sindh Assembly in 1953 on a Muslim League ticket.
He was appointed as a minister in the cabinet of Pirzada Abdus Sattar, the then chief minister of Sindh along with Rahim Bakhsh Soomro, Mir Bandah Ali Talpur, Hamid Hussain Farooqi, Syed Noor Mohammed Shah, Qazi Abdul Manan, Mohammed Yousuf Chandio, Syed Ghulam Hyder Shah and Sardar Ahmad Khan Rajpar.
From corridors of power, he served the people in almost every field. He had a special interest in education and laboured to open schools all over Sindh, despite the fact that the portfolio fell outside his domain.
An honest politician, he was popular among his constituents and this was the reason that the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto brought him into the fold of the People's Party.
His health did not allow him to continue in politics for very long as an active participant, but has constantly sought by politicians and people from all walks of life for advice and guidance.
Resistance poetry
Khalid Alig was the guest of the evening at Irteqa on Sunday. Khalid, known as a 'poet of resistance', is a popular name in some areas of Sindh and Karachi. Prof Afaq Siddiqi, who has known Khalid Alig since 1949-50, presided over the meeting.
"There has been no other poet equal to Khalid's merits in the last 50 years," he declared confidently. To back his claim, he pointed out that Habib Jalib had appeared much later on the literary scene, so had Ahmad Faraz. Siddiqui named at least three important living poets from Sindh who were inspired by Khalid and began to use political themes in their verses.
Afaq Siddiqui also said he had great regard for Faiz and had composed verses in his praise. But Faiz's association with the Bhutto government in 1974 had disappointed him.
Siddiqui said he was similarly disappointed in Shaikh Ayaz. Against those stalwarts, he asserted, Khalid Alig was sincere, truthful and steadfast in his person and poetry.
Khalid Alig had come to the meeting with his poetry collection, but he recited some new verses. He was consistently critical of Pakistani rulers for their mis-governance, causing problems for the common people. He has also been critical of the feudal order and army rule. True to his political ideology, his poetry reflects his creative genius.
Sarwer Javed read out some pieces from his published article about Khalid Alig and said that the latter was among the founders of resistance poetry in the country. His ideological commitment was "unrivalled". Javed traced the history of resistance poetry as it first emerged in Josh Malihabadi and was later popularized by the progressive writers during the decades of the 30s and beyond.
Anwer Ahsan Siddiqui's talk on the person and poetry of Khalid Alig was quite impressive. He said Khalid was close to Urdu's classical poetry: at other times, it appeared as an extension of Josh's verses.
The vocabulary, phrases, idioms and images used by Khalid were borrowed from the classical masters but the theme was his own. Faiz had also handled the same tools with dexterity - his poetry was a delicate mixture of romance, revolution and resistance.
But no history of the movement for the revival of democracy in Sindh, the speakers believed, could be complete without taking resistance poetry into account, particularly that of Khalid Alig.
How political and social conditions have influenced literature is always profoundly interesting. We need critics and commentators who can link our poetry with particular periods in our twisted political history.
After all, Ghalib's letters written during the traumatic period of the 1857, depicting the loot and plunder of Delhi and the merciless killing of its people by the Farangi, have became a valuable part of Indian history.
Interestingly, Ghalib appeared to have lost confidence in the decaying political order of his time and seemed to welcome the new system with its province or order and stability.
* * * * *
The publication of the monthly Afkar's Sehba number last week, rekindled memories of fifty years back when monthly papers used to be the major forum for literary discussion and controversies. Afkar used to be one such paper and was known as an exponent of progressive ideas.
Lean and thin and yet a man of iron will, Sehba Lucknowi died in 2002, and his journal is now edited by his daughter, Maqsooda Sehba, and Dr Hanif Fauq.In Sehba's lifetime, Afkar was an institution in the city and its office a popular meeting place for writers.
The journal's previous office near Urdu Bazar was in a godown, a dingy place, its two side walls covered with book-shelves and almirahs, leaving barely enough space for a writing table and a few rickety chairs.
But the office had the honour of hosting many noted men of letters, the late Mujtaba Husain and Kamilal Qadri, among them. Guests were entertained to tea that 'baher walla' would provide in chipped cups.
Some of Sehba's friends and associates gave a helping hand to the editor in the selection of poetry and short stories but the role arbiter was the editor himself.
Monthly papers in the past were always recognized the names of their editors. The most eminent example in this regard is that of Nigar whose editor Niaz Fatehpuri could fill an entire issue with his own writings.
Munshi Daya Narayan Nigam of Zamana, Sir Abdul Qadir of Makhzan, Mian Bashir Ahmad of Humayun, Hakim Yusuf Hasan of Alamgir, and Shahid Ahmad Dehlavi of Saqi are some names to prove the point.
It is also interesting to note that Nigar and Afkar had their beginnings in Bhopal. The former shifted to Lucknow and Afkar re-appeared in Karachi in 1950.
With the passage of time the number of monthly papers is fast dwindling, and most of them actually appear twice in a year. Some of these have been quarterlies. 'Kitabi' silsala' is also a common practice with the editors, giving them latitude to bring out their journals at a convenient time.
Sehba Lakhnawi was a poet, with a collection to his credit; another unpublished work was lost during partition. Asked once as to why he had abandoned poetry for Afkar, his reply was simple: "If you can do only one thing at one time. I preferred the journal." When I agreed and said it was certainly a time- consuming job, he promptly corrected me: 'No, it's life- consuming.'