I WAS under the impression that the century-old controversy about the validity of ghazal as a form of expression has grown outdated, and so Fahmida Riyaz’s anti-ghazal statements, howsoever provocative, will go unheeded. But it is not so.
The defenders of ghazal will be found eveready to cross swords with anyone who dares to question the form of ghazal, caring little that the arguments advanced are just a repetition of what has already been said and re-said, nothing of which remained unanswered. A number of young ghazal writers in Lahore were seen preparing to challenge Fahmida Riyaz for her assumptions. As I reached Karachi, I found Zehra Nigah in a state of fury. Mushtaq Ahmad Yusufi, though seemingly neutral, was heard saying that every sort of poet must first demonstrate his ability to write ghazal. In other words, a poet may choose any poetic form for his expression, but the basic qualification for being a poet is one’s ability to write ghazal. One who fails in this test loses the right to assert as a poet.
Now, the situation is that except Maulana Hali, most of the poets who have questioned the validity of ghazal as a form of expression have, in general, failed in this test. And their rivals have off and on asserted that, in fact, their failure as a ghazal writer has prompted them to launch their campaign against the form of ghazal.
It so happened that in the meantime, I got hold of a collection of Shamim Hanafi’s critical articles which have recently been published by Scheherzade, Karachi, under the title Khiyal ki Musafat. An article in this collection tells us that a few years back, this same kind of controversy had flared up in India. It prompted Shamim Hanafi to say that ghazal is once again in danger, the danger this time being Zoi Ansari. The movement of azad ghazal was deemed by him as the second danger.
Fahmida Riyaz may well be seen as a repeat of Zoi Ansari. The only difference between the two is the fact that in the opinion of Fahmida, the salvation of Urdu poetry suffering from the malady of ghazal lies in the adoption of nazm, while Zoi Ansari discovered its salvation in the adoption of masnavi.
Shamim Hanafi has dismissed all such prescriptions by saying that the world of literature cannot afford to have the rule of martial law. No one way of thinking and no one form of expression can be imposed on a literary tradition, “In every age different trends, intellectual and creative, remain at work in one and the same time.” It means that ghazal and modern verse, with its different varieties such as free verse, blank verse, prose poem, can co-exist peacefully, each attracting the creative minds in its own way. The two are essentially different from each other because of the difference between the two poetic traditions wherein they are rooted. Expecting from ghazal to serve the poetic purpose the way modern verse serves it is just like “asking a tamarind tree to produce mangoes.”
The attempt to have an understanding of the form of ghazal is, according to Shamim Hanafi, a kind of journey in the realm of a culture. But then Shamim Hanafi goes a step further and says that ghazal doesn’t simply represent a culture; it is a culture unto itself. Kalimuddin Ahmad, in his hostile mood, defined ghazal as a semi-barbic form of poetic expression. That betrays in him a lack of awareness of the culture expressed in the form of ghazal.
As far as the complaint about the deterioration of standard in contemporary ghazal is concerned, we need to examine it keeping in view the whole situation of contemporary Urdu literature. And now let me refer to another article in Shameem Hanafi’s volume where he has discussed the deteriorating conditions he has perceived in contemporary Urdu literature. He is of opinion that “seen from the moral and intellectual standpoint, ours is an age of decline. Most of the writers lack in the sense of responsibility and the role they are expected to play as writers.” One reason of this insensitiveness, according to him, is their indifference to the moral struggle going on in our times.
Shamim Hanafi has laid much emphasis on the social and moralistic concerns a writer is expected to have in our times. He regrets that most of the literary journals in Urdu are oblivious to such concerns. They hardly care to pay attention to the role literature should play with reference to the human issues and the consequent struggles in our times.
But equally regrettable, I think, is the attitude of those literary groups who, in their fervour for some such mission, turn indifferent to literary values. They rather develop a hostility towards literary values, imaging them as stumbling blocks in the way of their mission.
In fact, writers in our times are often seen oscillating between two extremes. No doubt, a writer should be sensitive to the realities of his times. He should have awareness of what Shamim Hanafi calls “moral struggles going on in our times.” His writings should bear the stamp of this awareness. But this awareness should not be exaggerated to the point where the fine line between a socially conscious writer and a political worker is blurred.
I WAS under the impression that the century-old controversy about the validity of ghazal as a form of expression has grown outdated, and so Fahmida Riyaz’s anti-ghazal statements, howsoever provocative, will go unheeded. But it is not so.
