POINT OF VIEW: The link between Mir, Ghalib and Iqbal
By Intizar Hussain
IT was only in recent years that Aftab Ahmad Khan cared to record his impressions regarding his senior contemporaries, who were personally known to him and who had impressed him over a period of time. He started off as a critic and has to his credit critical writings on Ghalib, which have been acknowledged by all and sundry as valuable contributions to Ghalibiyat. And yet I have a feeling that in the days to come he will be known more as a chronicler.
This should not be taken as an attempt at underestimating his critical writings. They have their own value and speak of his deep understanding of poetry, both classical and modern. His two books, studies of his two favourite poets, Ghalib-i-Ashufta Nawa and Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Shakhs aur Shair, may confidently be referred to as a testimony to the observation.
But, perhaps, he has developed a finer taste for, and a better understanding of, the classical ghazal. Ghalib is his pet subject. In fact, Ghalib has kept him engaged more than anyone else throughout his life. However, in the study recently published by Dost Publications, Islamabad under the title Mir, Ghalib, aur Iqbal, he appears to be a part of a great poetic trio. Aftab Ahmad Khan is here seen trying his best to treat all three of them in equal manner. This is to say that the three centuries of Urdu poetry have been equally distributed among the three giant verse-wielders. Aftab sahib says that the 18th century belongs to Mir, the 19th to Ghalib, and the 20th to Iqbal. Faiz was unfortunate to appear a bit late on our poetic horizon. He is all praise for him, but has no century to devote to him.
In fact, this study was first rendered in the form of a Baba-i-Urdu memorial lecture, delivered at a special function organized by the Anjuman Taraqqi-i-Urdu, Karachi. Now after incorporating certain additional things into it, it has been presented in a volume with an introduction by Fateh Mohammad Malik.
Aftab Ahmad Khan has traced here a common link between the three poets, who are apparently quite different from each other. This common link is the concept of Wahdatul Wajood, which, according to him, “forms the central tradition in Islamic mysticism and has for centuries been a source of inspiration for Muslim intellectuals, more particularly the poets.”
Believing in Wahdatul Wajood or pantheism, as explained by Dr Aftab, leads to a liberal attitude in life, a kind of broad-mindedness, which makes one tolerate and respect adherents to other faiths. It promotes the idea of peaceful co-existence. That is why this kind of thinking, according to Dr Aftab, has been an integral part of our cultural tradition, particularly with reference to our classical poets because of their involvement in mysticism that is always construed as representing this kind of thinking. As analyzed by Dr Aftab, poetry of both Mir and Ghalib is deep-rooted in pantheistic thought. Both were great liberals of their times.
As far as Iqbal is concerned, he too in his early period had drawn much inspiration from this concept. His early poems speak eloquently of this influence. But, later on, he found himself under the influence of Sheikh Ahmad Sarhindi, who rejected the concept of Wahdatul Wajood. As a consequence, Ibnul Arabi along with Hafiz, stood condemned in the eyes of Iqbal. But Aftab Ahmad Khan wonders that Iqbal at the same time owns Roomi as his Murshid knowing that he is a great exponent of Wahdatul Wajood. However, it is hardly contradictory in the eyes of Aftab Ahmad Khan. Taking cue from Sheikh Ikram he tries to prove that the two concepts — Wahdatul Wajood and Sarhindi’s Wahdatus Shahood — are not conflicting. They are, rather, complementary to each other. So in a situation where Sheikh Sarhindi had bluntly refused to be reconcilatory, Dr Aftab manages to find a way for reconciliation. And therefore in this analytical study the pantheistic link between these three poets remains intact.
This analysis of our three most distinguished poets has the distinction to be a kind of study where an attempt has been made at discovering between them a common link tracing it to a common source of inspiration, a concept which had deeply influenced Muslim minds in the past centuries. Dr Aftab has ably explained the role of the concept of Wahdatul Wajood in our culture and literary tradition. In his opinion, this philosophy had played the same kind of role in the history of our fight against religious extremism and obscurantism, which in Europe was performed by the Reformation and Renaissance movements. It is because of this philosophy, says he, that our cultural tradition learnt a lesson in tolerance and owned the principle of acculturation. And I may add that it was because of this philosophy that the literary tradition in Urdu developed a liberal stance, so much so, that the classical ghazal turned into a kind of resistance movement against religious intolerance and obscurantism.
IT was only in recent years that Aftab Ahmad Khan cared to record his impressions regarding his senior contemporaries, who were personally known to him and who had impressed him over a period of time. He started off as a critic and has to his credit critical writings on Ghalib, which have been acknowledged by all and sundry as valuable contributions to Ghalibiyat. And yet I have a feeling that in the days to come he will be known more as a chronicler.
