A LOCAL television network seems to have decided to refer everything under the sun to the mullahs for their final say. And the mullahs have been found ever ready to sit in judgment and pass their verdict in accordance with Islam as they have understood or, one may say, misunderstood it. So literature and the arts are also under threat from them. That is what I have gathered from the panel discussion on Umrao Jan Ada’s dramatic presentation.
A number of TV artistes, along with those who had acted in this series, participated in this programme. Some noted TV producers and a few intellectuals had also been invited to give their expert opinion. It was expected that the artistes and the producer would tell us how the experiment of the dramatic production of a novel written at the end of the 19th century go with them. The experts and the intellectual observers were expected to discuss the success or failure of the experiment, telling us how far the producers were faithful to the novel and how they were justified in stretching the story for the purpose of the serial.
But this discussion could not be carried through. Why? Because two maulvis — a Sunni and a Shia — had also been invited to participate in the programme. The inclusion of a maulvi in any discussion simply means that the whole discussion would be reduced to the level of a halal-haram controversy. The Sunni maulvi delivered a thunderous speech, giving vent to his anger against the decadent nawabs of Lucknow who wasted their time in mujray and lost their kingdom. This fact, he said, should have been told to the viewers in clear words, otherwise there was no moral justification for presenting decadent nawabs and immoral women on the screen. The Shia maulvi was an experienced zakir. He did not agree with those who were opposed to the presentation of such a bad novel. But his argument was that Ruswa’s tone itself was moralistic and reformative. It needed to be highlighted.
Now the whole discussion was reduced to the question whether this novel deserved to be presented on TV. The poor artistes were in trouble. They did not know how to defend their production. One person from among their ranks betrayed them. He stood up and asked in a lamenting voice: “Thanks to this presentation, my son asks me, papa, what is a mujra and what is a kotha. What should I tell him?”
“Hasnat Bhai,” one fellow artiste retorted, “the serial is not for children. Why did you allow your son to see it?”
But the retort fell flat. The audience present was under the sway of the maulvi’s sermon. Tania Saeed talked sense. But she could not communicate well because of her obsession with English.
At this juncture, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan came to the rescue of the artistes. As was expected, he argued well and almost won the case against the maulana. But his situation was a bit ironical. Here he was, speaking as an intellectual. The poor fellow, in the on-going LFO situation, has been split into two, the intellectual and the politician. Aitzaz Ahsan the politician is the camp-follower of the MMA. There he deems fit to connive at their agenda of Talibanization.
But this ironical situation is common to all those who are known as liberals. Their politics compels them to make common cause with the MMA, and hence does not allow them to be honest with their liberal thinking. In fact, we in the present situation can make a fine distinction between the two kinds of liberals, the politically active liberals and the non-political ones, generally seen in the fields of culture, art, literature and education. The behaviour of the politically active liberals have adversely affected the morale of the latter liberals.
This has created a strange situation in TV discussions, seminars and in all kinds of public discussions. The maulvis and like-minded intellectuals speak with full faith and are very clear in their minds about their aims and objectives, while those belonging to the latter class are confused and speak with a lack of faith. The reference to Islam makes them diffident and apologetic. They rarely challenge their rivals’ understanding of Islam, and take a clear stand.
A few weeks ago, in a TV discussion on the subject of women’s university, on the one side was a maulana and a lady in hejab. On the other side were Anita Ghulam Ali and some professor who were expected to defend the cause of liberal education. I must say that the lady in hejab spoke with full faith and presented her stand in unequivocal terms. Anita Ghulam Ali could not pick up the courage to challenge the idea of education based on male-female segregation. She simply argued that our limited means did not allow us the luxury of having a separate university for girls. The project is too expensive. It means that in case we have means of education based on male-female segregation, it is justified. When instead of taking a stand on the basis of principles we agree in an apologetic way, we lose ground in favour of our opponents.
A LOCAL television network seems to have decided to refer everything under the sun to the mullahs for their final say. And the mullahs have been found ever ready to sit in judgment and pass their verdict in accordance with Islam as they have understood or, one may say, misunderstood it. So literature and the arts are also under threat from them. That is what I have gathered from the panel discussion on Umrao Jan Ada’s dramatic presentation.
