TRUE to its tradition, the latest issue of the quarterly Muasir is also full of interesting material, covering all the shades of opinion in contemporary Pakistani literature.
In one of its past issues, Ahmad Nadeem Qasmi had written a piece on Faiz Ahmad Faiz that took the literary circles by storm. That was the first critical article on Faiz, written by one of his old comrades-in-arms that evoked a lot of comments in the media for and against the article.
Among those who commented on it were Intezar Husain, Ahmad Faraz, Mohammad Khalid Akhtar, Abdullah Malik and others. Most of these writings appeared in the last issue of Muasir. Some of these writers took a strong exception to Qasmi Sahib’s comments. Others supported him, giving him the right to express his opinion. Ahmad Faraz, at that time, took a neutral stance, but in one of his latest interviews given to Mujahid Barelvi of Indus Vision, he has not hesitated in defending Qasmi Sahib, saying that Faiz Sahib was not an angel after all, and was prone to forcing his views on others, sometimes, out of expediency.
He gave the example of a meeting where Faraz was discussing the details of an Afro-Asian conference in London and wanted to move a resolution against Ziaul Haq’s dictatorship that Faiz shot down. “Believe me,” he told the interviewer, “Faiz Sahib would sometimes behave in that manner.” Indirectly, he was supporting what Qasmi had written about Faiz. According to Qasmi, Faiz was not averse to writing speeches for Nawab Mushtaq Ahmad Gurmani, the then governor of West Pakistan. Hameed Akhtar had also written in one of his articles in Afkar, on Josh, that Faiz Sahib, during his meeting with Ziaul Haq, had suggested to him that the government should issue an official condolence for Josh. Why he met Ziaul Haq has intrigued many of his admirers.
Now to put the record straight. Qasmi Sahib, in this latest issue of Muasir, has published an article that he read at the launching ceremony of Dr Ayub Mirza’s biography of Faiz entitled Hum Ke Thehre Ajnabi, where Faiz Ahmed Faiz was himself present. Incidentally, this is the only biography of Faiz available that was written during his lifetime and with his consent. Unfortunately, this is not a well-written biography and many critics expressed their disappointment with the book. In his article, Qasmi Sahib has expressed similar misgivings, asserting that if we consider Dr Ayub Mirza a painter, then he has painted the picture of Faiz Sahib in a strange manner.
“After drawing the outlines, the doctor has first produced the buttons of his shirt and then painted his eyes, and leaving everything halfway, has taken up his nails. Then he thought that there was also a mole on Faiz Sahib’s face. I think such a picture can only be appreciated by Sadeqain who can conveniently convert an inverted picture into a straight one. I can only say that somehow he has completed a picture of Faiz Sahib.”
In this Qasmi Sahib is right because the book has been written in the form of a long interview taken in many sittings and as Qasmi puts it, “We find that Faiz Sahib is speaking and he (the author) interrupts him and starts his own dialogue and then we feel that he (the author) is saying something and we find that it was actually Faiz Sahib speaking.... I don’t know what the purpose was for not using quotation marks.”
Andy McCord, a New York-based American admirer of Faiz, who is doing research on progressive writers, thinks that Dr Ayub Mirza’s book is the only book that tells you about Faiz’s personality but does not explain his poetry. In his article, Qasmi Sahib has pointed out other mistakes, including some funny sentences. But he informs us that Dr Sahib has not claimed to be a writer or a linguist. Talking about the famous polemics between Chiragh Hasan Hasrat and Dr Taseer, he tells us that it happened in 1949-50, and the names of the newspapers are also not correct.
Dr Mirza had written that Faiz got disillusioned with his colleagues of the Progressive Writers Association when they attacked Iqbal, Manto and Ismat Chughtai. Qasmi Sahib explains it in his article in these words: “What Dr Ayub Mirza has written with reference to the PWA of those days is a revelation for me. For instance, his assertion that Faiz was angry with the association. In my simplicity before this book, I was under the impression that all the ‘directives’ we were getting came from Faiz or with his approval. The decision to boycott many renowned writers was, in my opinion, a foolish decision and I was personally against it, but had to surrender before the will of the majority. Later, I withdrew this resolution after an opinion vote. It was revealed to me after the publication of this book that Faiz Sahib also considered it foolish. The exact sentence in the book is: ‘I found it bullshit and so a confrontation ensued’. I wonder where this confrontation took place. As general secretary of the association, I have been unaware of this confrontation till today.”
Qasmi Sahib has conceded that he had read an article on Iqbal in one of the weekly PWA meetings, in which he had expressed his surprise over the practical standards of Allama with reference to his views about Shah Amanullah Khan, Shah Nadir Shah and Nawab Hameedullah Khan of Bhopal and Iqbal’s elation when the eagle swoops down on a pigeon. “These questions are still present in my mind, but I agree that Faiz Sahib had discussed the subject in a highly-intellectual and positive manner and declared that all shortcomings of Iqbal were wiped out by his anti-Mullah and anti-imperialistic stance. In the history of the association, these views of Faiz are like a beacon of light.”
Qasmi Sahib then goes on to clear the misunderstanding that the progressive movement had fizzled out. “Only the association had come to an end, not the movement. Such movements are not finished when the association finishes and whatever activity we find in our literary circles today is all due to this movement.” Qasmi defends the awards doled out by big capitalists in these words: “Dr Sahib has ridiculed the Adamji literary award, but I feel that he should not have any inferiority complex in relation to an indigenous award. If he could justify the conferring of the MBE award from the British government on Faiz, then he could also find a small justification for this award. He could have at least referred to Alfred Nobel, who was also a big capitalist and the prize associated with his name is greatly valued in the world of literature. It carries a fabulous monetary award. Now Adamji is also a capitalist and although his prize money is meagre, yet it is a great consolation. After all, it is an indigenous prize.” Here Qasmi Sahib was rebutting the criticism of radicals who objected to Qasmi’s acceptance of the Adamji Award for his book Dasht-i-Wafa. To be fair to him, many committed writers did not hesitate to accept this award. Among them, one could count Shaukat Siddiqui, Ahmad Faraz, Khadija Mastoor and others.
Qasmi Sahib particularly referred to the MBE award received by Faiz from the British government. His reservation is that both the awards received by Faiz — the MBE and Lenin Peace Prize — were foreign awards. In his book, Ayub Mirza had explained that Faiz accepted these awards as these were given to him in recognition of his services against the international menace of fascism. The former award, according to Faiz Sahib, was a military award and not a literary award, and there wasn’t any tradition of spurning any military award. On the other hand, many of Qasmi Sahib’s admirers were disappointed when he received a medal from General Ziaul Haq.
Another charge levelled against Faiz by some quarters was that instead of being committed to any Pakistani brand of socialism, he was ideologically committed to international socialism. In his article, Qasmi Sahib refers to it in these words: “We are grateful that he (the author) has vocally affirmed Faiz’s commitment to love for Pakistan and even these words have been ascribed to Faiz that ‘the struggle for Pakistan was an integral part of my faith’. For those who have been harping on the theme for the last thirty years that Hindus and Muslims were led into confrontation by the British and Pakistan came into being with their connivance, it is a startling disclosure by Faiz that both the British and Americans were against the establishment of an independent and autonomous Pakistan.”
In his article, Qasmi Sahib complains that besides presenting an account of the discussions with Faiz Sahib, the author should have talked to some of Faiz’s close friends as well. On his part, he has narrated a couple of light-hearted anecdotes about Faiz, including the one concerning their visit to China in 1952, in a delegation led by Faiz because Choudhry Mohammad Ali, the then prime minister, could not make it.
In his controversial article on Faiz published last year, Qasmi Sahib had complained that the former had never introduced him anywhere as a poet during that tour. The second anecdote is interesting, telling us that after borrowing a matchbox to light a cigarette, Faiz would not return it and Ellis Faiz would find a handful of matchboxes in the pockets of his jacket. I think Qasmi Sahib has done well by publishing his commentary on Hum Ke Thehre Ajnabi and only a friend like him could do it to clear the clouds of misunderstanding between the two old comrades-in-arms.
TRUE to its tradition, the latest issue of the quarterly Muasir is also full of interesting material, covering all the shades of opinion in contemporary Pakistani literature.
