Is it not unusual to find a writer traversing from literary criticism to political writing? Fateh Mohammad Malik was hitherto known to us as a literary critic. But in his newly-published collection of articles, he has something very different to offer. He is seen here crossing swords with politicians. His collection, titled Fikri Tangdasti Aur Nazariyati Baigangi Ka Mausam, has, in fact, a big surprise for me. At first, I felt bewildered and could not decide whether to welcome this changeover from literature to politics or to mourn the loss of a talented literary critic, who had now discovered a new grazing ground other than literature.
It took time to reconcile with the new involvement of Fateh Mohammad Malik, for whose critical writings I had developed a liking. But how strange that while going through the book, I found to my amusement that in spite of this changeover, Malik has not changed a bit. His concerns are the same. His aggressive tone, too, is very much there. In fact, Malik is among those critics who have always been writing in an aggressive mood.
He will hate to be ranked among the critics who try to placate each and every writer and have kind words for all kinds of writing. Malik, as opposed to them, should have someone to attack. Only then his pen picks up speed.
But to be fair to him, he is never personal in his attack as is the way with Urdu writers, in general. Ideological differences, in general, provoke him to write the way be is known for. One may say that he is an ideological writer with a firm belief in the ideology of Pakistan as he understands it, and in Islam he will be seen ever-ready to fight a literary duel with anyone who is found thinking differently.
Malik made his appearance as a budding critic in the early 60s. In those days, the attitudes among writers were slightly different from what we see now. They had not yet known the benefits of patriotism. Malik sensed in those attitudes something which was not in harmony with the ideology of Pakistan. That provoked him to censure those attitudes and attack such writings with full force. He soon made himself felt as a critic with missionary zeal. His approach to literature was very much under the influence of this ideological thinking. He could forgive a poet for his bad verse, but could not reconcile with writings not in harmony with the Pakistan ideology.
Fateh Mohammad Malik entered the arena of political writings along with this ideological baggage. And, perhaps, here he feels more at home. In the field of literary criticism, one with a passion for an ideology doesn’t feel free. Willy-nilly he has to take into account literary values, too, which have always served as stumbling blocks in ideologically-based literary criticism. The progressive critics, in their heyday, tried much to extricate themselves from these stumbling blocks. If any one of them succeeded in the attempt, he found himself deprived of the status of a literary critic. In a way, Malik has done the right thing. Setting aside literary criticism, he has jumped directly into the arena of political writings. Now, he can settle accounts with his ideological adversaries in a more forceful way. “A campaign,” he says, “is on to annihilate the ideological basis of Pakistan. Questions aiming at creating doubts about our national and Islamic national identity are being raised. I have remained constantly engaged in thinking deeply over these questions.”
With this notice, he begins his counter-campaign. He begins by challenging those intellectuals and historians who, in recent years, have written on Partition and have questioned its validity. In the first article, he has targeted K.K. Aziz, who, as pointed out by him, has read Iqbal’s Allahabad Address and has reached the conclusion that Iqbal had only presented the idea of a Muslim province within India in its North-west. The idea of a separate Muslim state has wrongly been attributed to him.
After giving a rebuttal to K.K. Aziz, he turns to Ansar Husain Khan, who is from India and who has argued that as the solution of Hindu-Muslim rift in the sub-continent ended in Partition, which has failed, so a new solution to the problem is needed. He advances that the idea of a federation of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh appears to him to be a better solution to the problem.
Malik vehemently rejects this proposal. And then he takes on Ian Talbott, who has advised the rulers of India and Pakistan to follow the line of thought and action pursued by Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana.
Thus, he goes on talking on all those, who, according to him, are bust campaigning against Pakistan. Pakistan is an article of faith with him. He must defend it at all cost. And he is seen defending it with passion. One may or may not agree with what he says, but let it be granted that he writes with conviction. That is what imparts vigour to his prose. He talks straight and bluntly with no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. That makes his style.
Is it not unusual to find a writer traversing from literary criticism to political writing? Fateh Mohammad Malik was hitherto known to us as a literary critic. But in his newly-published collection of articles, he has something very different to offer. He is seen here crossing swords with politicians. His collection, titled Fikri Tangdasti Aur Nazariyati Baigangi Ka Mausam, has, in fact, a big surprise for me. At first, I felt bewildered and could not decide whether to welcome this changeover from literature to politics or to mourn the loss of a talented literary critic, who had now discovered a new grazing ground other than literature.
