A poet laureate’s balanced squeal

Not all poets are scoundrels by implication, but patriots they all are, without exception.

Love of the country drums stronger in their feeble chests than even the hardy hearts of soldiers. Generals have a hard time keeping pace with their battle strategies. And since poetry tends to embody an exaggerated perception of things, poets generally give a hegemonistic and expansionist colour to their love of the land and do not shy away even from outlining imperialistic designs. Daredevils of imagination they gallop into oceans of darkness without fear. From Homer to Iqbal to Aali in our time the primacy of power over other passions is an unbroken tradition.

Politicians alone have a way with them but quite often the relationship turns sour over the common beloved. Some shut up, some go into exile, some wait in jails. The more pragmatic among the lot with better awareness of what is increasingly being referred to nowadays as “ground realities” become courtiers of the rising sun. The country calls them to duty and their conscience propels them to obey. Thus probably are “poet laureates” born.

In England this title with its privileges, whatever those might be, is regularly bestowed on poets who are faithful to the Crown and whose hearts beat with the Big Ben. On rare occasions though some of them have strayed from the patriotic path. Alfred Lord Tennyson for instance, in his famous poem, The Charge of the Light Brigade (the class of 1950’s would fondly remember) wrote the controversial line:

The soldier knew someone had blundered. The present holder of the honour, Andrew Motion, in a rare display of his knowledge of current affairs has spoken out against the Queen’s troops joining the US-led invasion of Iraq. In his latest poem called Causa Sa Belli he sides with those who are doubtful about the war and are against the political leaderships of Britain and USA.

According to press reports he said the leaders’ rhetoric hid several of the motives which are actually driving the thing forward. In other words, it’s as much to do with oil, imperialism and a sort of strange father fixation (on President Bush’s part). They are not being candid!! The poem whose Latin title means pretext of war, is based on an antithesis between the public which talks straight and the leaders who use war rhetoric to hide the real motive. Though the voices of the doubters are drowned by the war cries of the leaders, the poet claims the doubters’ point of view would prevail as it’s logic was ironclad.

Yet, despite the admission that the doubters would be proved right Andrew Motion is careful to add a balancer: “I do believe that, if there are weapons of mass destruction discovered in Iraq, something needs to be done.” Why? Is Iraq the only one having WMDs? Mr Motion gives no reason. Obviously his inner racial faith is intact, untainted by any suspicion he might be indulging in double standards. He would not like to express that in so many words but his insistence that if the said weapons were found in Iraq, something would be needed to be done, clearly implies that in his view only white people have the right to develop and hold weapons of mass destruction and they alone possess the privilege of using them whenever and wherever they want, as they have been doing during the last 500 years of their ascendance, wiping out entire indigenous civilizations from North and South Americas, enslaving Asian and African people and cleaning the aboriginal people from their homes and hearths in Australia and other distant lands of the world they have visited with the Bible in one hand and bombs in the other. The point is Mr Motion can not help it we all are a product of our past. History goes into the genes. There is nothing new about us. Modern sensibility that the critics talk about is a chimera.

These last few lines look heavy but I feel no remorse in inflicting them as I read further on what England’s poet Laureate has to say in his defence!

“There is no compelling evidence yet. It may still come to light, in which case the picture changes. This is not a poem about whether we should go to war. We can’t decide that because we don’t yet know whether there are weapons. It’s a poem about wishing to be more candid.”

“I have absolutely no misgiving about getting short wards from the Queen. In fact, if weapons do turn out to be there, I may well write a poem supporting going.”

This is exactly the line of defence Sean Penn was forced into taking the other evening by Larry King when the famous actor in the CNN talk show tried to explain his recent visit to Iraq. Larry King’s offensive was pathetically provincial, and Sean Penn’s explanations regretfully apologetic. “I am not a pacifist”, was his constant refrain.

Returning to Andrew Motion who believes poetry ought to be part of general life rather than ghettoized, it appears this is not his first indiscretion as a laureate. The Guardian news service reporting this latest lists other faux pas: He has written on Nelson Mandela, national identity, homelessness and bullying. The title was conferred on him in 1999 on the death of Ted Hughes.

A radical view of mysticism

MYSTICISM has been largely accepted as an informal path of devotion to God. Some scholars take it for granted that a mystic does not need to conform to the prescribed formalism of prayers as the belief in direct communion with God does not leave it to fellow mortals to determine whether a devotee is abiding by God’s commandments or not.

I do not intend to go into the different paths of mysticism in different religions. However the platitude, as A. J. Arberry has rightly said, that mysticism is essentially one and the same in all religions does not hold the ground. There are as many prescriptions of direct communion with God as the number of mystical paths and hence we have quite a few mystic orders within Islam as well. Some scholars have averred that mysticism is largely a parallel development or reaching out God within Islam and some, like the great Shah Waliullah of Delhi, after having admitted the two radically opposite approaches, have gone to the extent of declaring them one and the same - the difference being that of semantics and the states of mind one is approaching the Absolute Reality from. Shah Waliullah thought that the concepts of Wahdat-ul-Wujood and Wahdat-ul-Shuhud, i.e., pantheistic or transcendental paths - were one and the same and hence Ibn Arabi should not be taken as a heretic.

Professor (Dr) Riazul Islam, one of the most distinguished authorities on the Sultanate period - and also an authority on mediaeval mysticism, has come out with his distinctly original book on Indian mysticism Sufism in South Asia, an OUP publication. He has challenged many a theory regarding the contribution of Chishtiya, Qadriya or Suharwardiya orders. There these three Orders are known to be soft towards Wahdat-ul-Wujood and it has for long been thought that it was mainly because of these Orders that the large-scale conversions to Islam took place in the mediaeval times. It is also a popular theory that numerous non-Islamic practices were imbibed by the Chishtiya Order such as devotional singing (Samaa) and Urs ceremonies-including this Order’s non-discriminatory attitude towards the socially depressed classes of the Indians - was responsible for the popularity of Islam which resulted in mass-scale conversions to Islam.

Dr Riazul Islam, who is Professor Emeritus of the University of Karachi, takes a radically opposite view and thinks that Hindus were not converted to Islam in India through mystics. Further on he thinks that the Chishtiya Order, in general, and Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia, in particular, did not achieve any success in this regard. The predominantly Hindu population of India, he maintains, could be cited as a proof of this opinion. May be Prof Riazul Islam has the fast emerging notion that the Muslim majority rim lands of the sub-continent - Pakistan and Bangladesh - were converted to Islam from Buddhism, not from Hinduism. Hinduism was largely entrenched in the present-day India at the time of Mohammed Bin Qasim’s arrival in Sindh and the eastern rim land of the subcontinent, i. e., Bangladesh of today, was more Buddhist culturally at the time of Pathan ascendancy in that part of the world and hence it felt attracted to the egalitarianism and equality preached by Islam. The rest of India was content with its caste system and the Muslim rulers did not touch the susceptibilities of the Hindus. In fact no Muslim ruler believed in the conversion of Hindus as a cornerstone of his state policy. Almost all of them believed that the Hindu population should be given freedom of worship. Rather Muslim rulers ensured that the Brahmin domination continued and the British rulers followed the cornerstone or Muslim dynasties policy towards Brahmin domination and Muslim rules were responsible for the perpetration of Brahmin Raj. No wonder, then, that today’s attempt at saffronizing Indian History has become possible because of the uninterrupted sway of the inequitable caste system, sustained by Muslim rulers and strengthened by the British rulers.

Dr Riazul Islam’s focal point in this book is demystifying the general notion that the Sufis, in general, and Chishtis, in particular, did a lot to proselytize the indigenous population. He believes that the Chishtiya Order set a very high pedestal of service to all - regardless of religious susceptibilities. Their Langars fed all who approached them and they endeared themselves to all with benevolence and warmth. The ethical ideal of the Chishtiya mystics exuded an attractive aroma but it also lost its attraction with the decline and decay of the ideal and with the death of the great saints it lost its appeal.

Dr Riazul Islam has looked at Sufis’ Malfuzat (sayings) Maktubats (letters) and Tazkarah (biographical accounts). Also a great deal of primary sources have been drawn upon. One may not agree with some of his conclusions, for example questioning the great proselytization wonders of the Chishtiya saints. This is the line of argument which Dr Riazul Islam has been holding on consistently. As a matter of fact, any refutation of his well-researched contention requires an equally well- documented refutation.

Dr Riazul Islam’s views also affect our views of the literary tradition - mainly the poetic tradition and hence his book, possibly one of the most well- researched works in this country, is a highly interesting work which should change many a long-held belief. Yes, work of this kind has to be a disturbing one.

Appointment of Shaharyar as manager a good one

DON Bradman’s batting genius did not confer any kind of sainthood on him. The green baggy cap he wore was not a halo. Nor was his name ever associated with any human rights groups. He never spoke out against the treatment of Aborigines in Australia nor against apartheid in South Africa.

Australia had no qualms about playing against all-white South African teams. His son, John Bradman, does not honour the memory of his father by invoking it to support the boycott of World Cup matches in Zimbabwe. John Bradman says that his father would have wanted Australia to consider the fate of Zimbabwe’s people.

Surely he means the white farmers and not the blacks of Zimbabwe. It seems a cheap shot. Bradman was my boyhood hero but he was no Muhammad Ali. If Australia and indeed England do not want to play their World Cup matches in Zimbabwe, it is their business. But spare us the moral clap-trap and the sanctimonious humbug.

In their matches leading upto the World Cup, all three teams from the subcontinent, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka have under-performed and showed a lack of mental toughness.

Pakistan has returned from South Africa, licking its wounds and precious little to show in the way of a combative unit. Instead ‘fatigue’ is being cited as a reason for its poor showing.

The Indians are claiming that the pitches in New Zealand have been too bowler friendly and Sri Lanka has one terrific performance against Australia and very little else. I write this as the VB tournament is still in progress.

Conditions in South Africa will bear no resemblance to conditions at home. A certain adjustment will be necessary. This may appear to be a statement of the obvious but away from home, teams from the subcontinent have shown that their batting is vulnerable to the extra-bounce and lateral movement in the wickets.

Pakistan has a better track record playing abroad but the Pakistan team has other problems. Yet the World Cup means a lot to our cricket publics and expectations are sky-high.

After all, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have won the World Cup, something England and South Africa have not been able to do.

I cannot write on behalf of India or Sri Lanka but Pakistan, an excellent team on paper, seems to be missing that special extra, if it’s performance against South Africa is anything to go by, and we need to identify what that ‘something extra’ is. An inability to combine as a team, perhaps?

Pakistan cricket has always been plagued with reports about in-fighting, personality clashes and a general indiscipline. This is partially true but it has shown an ability to rise above such petty differences when it has come to a crunch. I do not despair on that account.

The appointment of Shaharyar Khan as a manager is a good one. He starts with a clean-sheet. Though no stranger to cricket, he managed the team to India admirably, he is not close enough to have been infected with cricket politics which can impair one’s objectivity.

But he must go with full authority, the unquestioned leader of team management in all matters including the selection of the playing eleven so that no cricket injustice is done to any player.

Given his background, he will not be wanting in tact and diplomacy but he will need to show man-management skills. A team comprises of individuals. Not even two grains of sand are identical. This individuality has to be acknowledged but it has to be blended into a harmonious whole.

Shaharyar is a friend of mine and before his appointment, Lt Gen Tauqir Zia had sounded me out and I had endorsed his appointment and had told him that he would be an “excellent choice.”

It’s not going to be an easy job and he will need all our good wishes. He certainly has mine.

Whether we like it or not, there is the perception that Waqar Younis seems to have some problems with some senior players. And whether the captain and the senior players like it or not, they are in the team together and such grudges they have, real or imaginary, will have to be put on hold.

These players will be representing their country and personal differences have to be subordinated to the team’s interests. The cricket public in Pakistan will expect the players to give their best if not more than their best.

There isn’t any time left for training camps but the team should assemble as soon as possible and start making out strategies against their opponents, get into collective discussions so that there is an in-put from all the players.

In other words, establish a pattern of in-house communications. They don’t need pep talks but they do need to encourage one another. The captain needs to be supported and the captain has to provide leadership. It’s a long tournament and the players will need to stay focussed. The team should be a happy family. It didn’t seem to be one in South Africa. The teams need to re-discover its self-belief. Without it, it cannot win. It’s as simple as that.