Writers who had appeared on TV on the occasion of Gen Pervez Musharraf’s referendum and had spoken in its defence, were severely censured by AtaulHaq Qasmi in his editorial of his literary journal, Muasir. In my column, on May 26, I had made some humble submissions in respect of questions raised by AtaulHaq Qasmi. Now I have received a letter from him in response to that column. It goes:
“I have been a constant reader of your interesting column, Point of View in Dawn. My admiration for you seeks no elaboration. I consider you as a legendary fiction writer of Indo-Pak sub-continent. But I dare to disagree with certain sections of your column, The referendum and Qasmi Jr. published on May 26. I would like to say that in the latest issue of my literary journal, Muasir International, I have not tried to make it a political journal. Rather, I have just showed my reaction towards the political chicanery of some of my contemporary writers. If the “political juggling” of these writers can’t be condemned then how can its reaction be? I think only those should be castigated who have made themselves hostage to their desire of turning up on TV and display opportunism”.
I should first thank Qasmi for the compliment, which I hardly deserve. Let me explain that I had not intended to be a defender or an apologist for the writers who spoke on the referendum. Why should I have done so? Every writer has to bear his own cross and is himself answerable for what he does. I had only dared to point out to a situation best expressed by a Persian line:
Ein gunahaist ke Dar shehr-i-shuma niz kunand
I don’t think this frankness on my part has damaged my neutrality.
Even not being neutral, in a case like this, I will not like to see any of my contemporaries to appear on TV or radio talking in praise or in condemnation of a political act. As stated in the column, referred to above, there have been in our literature two points of view in this respect. One adhered to by all ideology lovers, no matter whether they are Marxists, anti-Marxists or advocates for writers’ direct participation in politics. The other point of view disapproves a writer’s direct dabbling in politics. Personally, I will like to be associated with the latter point of view and will try to stick to it as far as possible. If I have qualified my adherence to it by staying as far as possible, there is a reason for it. In our time, there are so many temptations and so many pressures, which compel or entice a writer to yield to the former point of view and say what the political environment demand from him. AtaulHaq Qasmi has rightly labelled this attitude as opportunism. So it is not always because of love for an ideology or a point of view that a writer or any intellectual appears on the stage and demonstrates his faith in it. Factors other than conviction may have led him to play this role. And in our society opportunism supersedes all other ‘isms’.
I earnestly pray for myself and my friend AtaulHaq Qasmi to have the moral strength and conviction not to yield to this ‘ism’.
Coming back to the two points of view stated above, it is interesting to note that the progressive writers movement was the first to insist on the writers’ participation in political action and its expression in a direct way with no nonsense of any kind of symbolism. Ironically, in due course those who had opposed this movement for reasons other than literary owned and upheld this point of view. In addition they borrowed the term ‘ideology’ for them. So now we have to listen to so much about ‘Islamic ideology’, the ‘ideology of Pakistan’, and the ‘ideological state’.
As for the latter point of view, I doubt if any writer adhering to it believes in being indifferent to what is happening in his times on the political level, nationally and internationally. In times, when politics reigns supreme and is seen influencing every walk of life who, most of all the sensitive soul known as a writer, can afford to be oblivious to it? But he, under this point of view, is expected to make a distinction between political awareness and political dabbling. Moreover, political awareness in literature has its own ways to express itself very different from the ways employed by the political animals in general.
Here I have just made an attempt to explain the point of view, which expects from the writer to mind his own job of writing rather than meddle in the business of politics. But it may also serve as a personal explanation for the benefit of AtaulHaq Qasmi, who in his editorial appears much worried about my so-called contradictory attitudes towards politics.
Last of all, let me express my gratification at what he has implicitly promised in his letter. I am happy to hear from him that he had not tried to make Muasir a political journal, but had just shown his reaction to what he calls the political chicanery of some of his contemporaries. There is in it an implicit promise that the literary journal will remain literary with no contamination by the politics of the day.
Writers who had appeared on TV on the occasion of Gen Pervez Musharraf’s referendum and had spoken in its defence, were severely censured by AtaulHaq Qasmi in his editorial of his literary journal, Muasir. In my column, on May 26, I had made some humble submissions in respect of questions raised by AtaulHaq Qasmi. Now I have received a letter from him in response to that column. It goes:
