Literature under attack

At a city function, some time back, a college teacher had complained that literature and poetry were not given their due share in the curriculum. Educational centres too laid greater emphasis on information technology and physical sciences, while social sciences, including literature and economics, were treated lightly, if not ignored completely.

The teacher, Ms Shanaz Shoro, who is a literary critic and story writer, said she feared that given the prevailing conditions, their might be nobody who could understand Ghalib or admire Iqbal 50 years hence.

A few days after these sombre remarks, an Urdu newspaper carried snap interviews of students, who had bagged top positions in the higher secondary examination. Most of them were not happy with the curriculum, teaching methods and textbooks.

One of them, a girl, demanded among other things that literature, specially poetry, should be banished from our colleges, because she felt it could promote obscenity. So, the inauspicious day the learned teacher had referred seems to be approaching much earlier than anticipated.

Actually, the position-holding girl was speaking not only her own mind, but also that of the elders in her family. Probably the bias of her language teacher in her college and the culture of so-called piety and religiosity might also be a reason for such an approach about literature. It is difficult to delve into a cultural phenomenon, where the very word 'Ishq' (love) or similar other words may be seen as injuring the sensibilities of a person.

Poetry and fiction mirror society with all its pain and grief, yearnings, ambitions and aspirations, joy and cheer. Literature brings people together and tells us that all human beings are equal and love is an essential binding force between them.

Poetry mellows the human soul and smoothes the rough edges in one's personality. Actually all forms of fine arts, music, paintings etc, serve humanity in the same way. 'Why literature?' is a question that all those concerned with the teaching of literature at our educational institutions should now be prepared to answer.

* * * * *

"I wish I had not read this book," remarked Rauf Niazi about a collection of light essays and humorous articles by writer Sibte Akhtar. Mr Niazi made the comment at a sitting of the Irteqa Adbi Forum held on Sunday.

Such a direct and devastating comment on a literary piece was astonishing for many of the participants. "It is vulgar and abusive, and I could not allow anyone in my family to look into it," Mr Niazi further said.

Recognized as a literary critic, he began his remarks with a quote from Bertrand Russell, "Humour was embedded in the minds of the readers." But, between humour and vulgarity, there was a very thin line and one unpleasant word could spoil an entire piece.

Niazi's words led many to defend the writer. Incidentally, he himself could not come to face the criticism. But Hasan Abid, Wahid Bashir and Rahat Saeed talked convincingly.

Let me first introduce the writer at the centre of the controversy. Sibte Akhtar, born in Amroha (UP), received his education in Lucknow, graduated in commerce from the Lucknow University and came to Pakistan in the 60s.

He was employed in the PIA, but lost his job due to his involvement in trade union activities. Arrested and jailed, he continued to work as a trade unionist and a free-lance writer. He has been editing a literary journal, Manshoor.

Mr Akhtar spent long years in the US and carries with him the influences of a liberal, free and uninhibited society. That was one explanation in defence of the writer in using words not socially acceptable in our environment. It was also known that an edition of the same book with a preface from the noted humorist, Mujtaba Hussain, was published in India and admired by readers.

Rahat Saeed said that just because a few words were considered unpalatable, the whole book could not be rubbished.

Sibte Akhtar is a good humorist and everybody agreed with Rahat Saeed's assessment after listening to some extracts read out from his different articles. He is original in the choice of his topic and also treatment, some others remarked.

It is also known that he started his writing career as a story writer but life's upheavals did not allow him to settle down to serious writing. During this period, his published and unpublished stories were lost.

As for idioms considered rough, both Hasan Abid and Wahid Bashir quoted examples from Urdu's classical poetry and mathnawis to defend Akhtar. But all those arguments were not found enough to justify incivility in literature.

There are several idioms employed by classical poets in a particular social context, not familiar to us. Words themselves are not obscene, it is the purpose for which a writer uses a particular word and the context in which it is used that should be the defining standard. Words change shades with a shift in social order. Lastly, as the cliche goes, art lies in the concealment of art.