But in spite of all this we had to wait for a quarter of a century for his collected works on literary criticism to come out. It is now in 2009 that his critical writings, as collected and compiled by Jamal Panipati, have been brought out by Academy Bazyaft, Karachi under the title Mazamin-i-Saleem Ahmad.
We don't see in it any hard research work on the part of the compiler. Saleem's critical writings were already published in various volumes under different titles. Apart from them the compiler might have been able to collect a few more articles, which, for one reason or the other could not be accommodated in any of the volumes available so far.
Jamal Panipati was expected to explain in his foreword how he had planned to re-arrange these articles along with additions if any. But his untimely death did not allow him to write a foreword to his precious compilation.
However, in spite of all this, the work should be welcomed by serious readers of Urdu literature. Saleem Ahmad deserves to be ranked among the few critics of Urdu whose writings have always been found to be thought-provoking and so have the credit of triggering off a number of meaningful controversies. Their work deserves to be collected and compiled so as to enable us to re-assess their worth as literary critics.
Saleem's poetic works too deserve to be collected and compiled with care. In fact, the poet Saleem precedes the critic Saleem. Soon after Partition he made his debut as a poet. His early ghazals were seen to be a departure from the traditional school of ghazal and drew inspiration from Firaq, thus paving the way for new ghazal, which soon made its appearance carrying with it a new sensibility. At a later stage, Saleem's verses underwent a new change giving birth to what came to be known as anti-ghazal.
He had also ventured to write a long poem, a bold attempt of summing up a life's experience. The poem was published under the title Mashriq Har Gaya.
Of course, it is true that his concern with Islamic thought diverted much of his attention to ideological discussions, which are the hallmark of his literary criticism. Because of the controversial nature of the questions raised by him, his critical writings gained much more prominence as compared to his ghazals, though his anti-ghazal too had provoked a bit of controversy.
He owed much to Mohammad Hasan Askari, and not as a critic alone. For his anti-poetic expression too, which he later developed in his verse, he was indebted to a certain extent to Askari Sahib, who was an ardent advocate of an anti-poetic expression in Urdu verse — perhaps because of his aversion to the sentimentality of modern Urdu poets and story writers. Saleem took pride in calling himself a disciple of Askari Sahib, while Askari Sahib was allergic to be treated as a murshid. But there is no doubt that if there was any such thing as an Askari school of thought. Saleem was its most vocal and aggressive spokesperson.
But, interestingly, in their enthusiasm Saleem's disciples ignore his self-proclaimed indebtedness to Askari Sahib and like to portray him as a rival thinker. The article by Jamal Panipati, which has been included as a foreword in the collection under discussion, is an instance of this kind.
Jamal Panipati is at pains to prove in his article that Saleem was a superior mind as compared to Askari Sahib. He asserts that 'in the history of modern Urdu literature Saleem Ahmad alone is the writer who is foremost in influencing on a deeper level the literary environments both on the creative as well as critical level. In this respect even his mentor Mohammad Hasan Askari cannot stand rival to him.'
The faithful disciple goes on talking in this vein trying all the time to install his murshid on a pedestal higher than all the literary stalwarts of the age, including the murshid of his murshid. In his devotion he is, of course, genuine, though a bit amusing.
