THIS column published in the issue of March 6, 2005, needs some corrections. Please refer to the sentence: “After many years of partition of the subcontinent we are seeing some intellectuals emphasizing the need for one culture influencing both sides of the border.” The correct sentence is: “For many years, after partition, a number of intellectuals in India had been talking of a common culture on both sides of the divide.”
Also, the statement, “globalization is a monologue of power,” was wrongly attributed to Dr Gopichand Narang. In fact, Prof Satchidanandan uttered these words and in support of his observation quoted Baudrillard.
Soon after that, a delegation of Indian writes belonging to different Indian languages reached Pakistan under the leadership of Dr Narang, who is now president of the Sahitya Academy. It was followed by another delegation of Indian writers, led by Shrimati Ajeet Cour, chairperson of the Saarc Writers Foundation. They were all on their way to Islamabad, eager to participate in the International Urdu Conference. Their short stay in Lahore caused a ripple in the literary circles of the city. Different literary bodies and academic institutions arranged receptions in their honour. Foremost among them was the Government College University, which arranged two receptions. The first one was in honour of Urdu writers of the Sahitya Academy’s delegation who were warmly welcomed by the Urdu Department of the university.
“Our relations have hitherto been of a lyrical nature. But now the lyrical phase appears to be over, giving place to the dramatic phase.” That is how Suhail Ahmad Khan explained Indo-Pak relations in the literary domain.
“Lyrical poetry,” he explained, “is a dialogue between the lover and the beloved; but it is a kind of dialogue where the beloved is never present. In Pakistan, admirers of Indian writers could not get a chance to meet their beloved writers living on the other side of the border. Their admiration has a ring of lyrical poetry. The same was the case of Indian admirers of Pakistani writers. Now, with better travel facilities, the lyrical seems to be giving way to a dramatic situation where the romantic saga turns into something realistic.”
But the exchange of good wishes was brief. The seriousness of the subject proposed for the discussion did not leave much room for sentimental outpourings, which is these days so common at Indo-Pak functions. The proposed subject for discussion was the role of Urdu in the changing perspective of cultural cooperation in South Asia. Discussing the subject, Dr Gopi Chand Narang presented an analysis of the cultural and linguistic situation in the subcontinent during the centuries following the arrival of the Muslims in the region. They had brought with them their own languages — Arabic, Persian, Turkish along with their faith. With that ensued a new linguistic process, resulting in the evolution of a new language, which later became Urdu. Dr Narang argued that Urdu has borrowed from all languages and dialects of the subcontinent, not to mention Arabic and Persian. For this very reason, it is more rich than all languages spoken in the region and is widely spoken and understood in the subcontinent, gaining the status of lingua franca.
Then came the reception in honour of the Saarc delegation led by Ajeet Cour. Here, too, the writers were offered a subject to speak on, thus restraining them from going amok. They were invited to speak on the problems of teaching Urdu and come up with their suggestions in that respect. However, Ajeet Cour had her own tale to tell, the tale of her struggle for the removal of obstacles in the way of the writers crossing the border and meeting their contemporaries on the other side of the divide.
All other members of the delegation spoke on the same subject. And all of them were in the mood to speak to their hearts’ content. They spoke well.
Zubair Rizvi came up with a suggestion. He was of the opinion that teaching Urdu should be accommodating to fine arts too.
Shamim Hanafi was unhappy with what the modern age is doing to us. “Every modern age,” he said, “brings a heap of garbage with it. The present era, called the age of information technology, has surpassed all previous modern periods. It has to its credit or discredit a huge garbage house, a Koora Khana of information.”
Shamsurrahman Farooqi came to the rescue of the critics who had been targeted by some speakers. He granted that in the days gone by there were no critics, yet poetry flourished. But, he argued, there existed an Ustad-Shagird institution. The institution decayed with the passage of time. Now, that kind of guidance is provided by the critic.
But Farooqi had to be brief. Much time had already been consumed by those who spoke prior to him. He had no choice but to be brief. And that helped him to speak a little more sensibly.
THIS column published in the issue of March 6, 2005, needs some corrections. Please refer to the sentence: “After many years of partition of the subcontinent we are seeing some intellectuals emphasizing the need for one culture influencing both sides of the border.” The correct sentence is: “For many years, after partition, a number of intellectuals in India had been talking of a common culture on both sides of the divide.”
