TWO scholars of Ghalibiyat, Dr Aftab Ahmad and Dr Moeenurrahman, have lately passed away in quick succession. However, the two scholars differed widely in their approach to Ghalib. Dr Aftab concentrated on the study of poetry, while Dr Moeen was seen preoccupied with researching in relation to Ghalib. His last researching feat was the find of a manuscript of Diwan-e-Ghalib, which bear corrections from Ghalib in his own handwriting.
Dr Moeen managed to publish it with much care in a deluxe edition. For this researching feat and its publication, he won applause from a number of scholars from India and Pakistan. The distinguished scholars Rasheed Hasan Khan, Kalidas Gupta Raza, Dr Nayyer Masood, Prof Al-e-Ahmad Suroor, Shamsurrahman Farooqi, and Ashfaq Ahmad were foremost in paying compliments to him on this find and its fine presentation.
But the local crowd, comprising some Ghalibian scholars and a number of his ex-colleagues, were not happy over it. They took pains to prove that what he has presented as a precious piece of his research is in fact a case of theft. Dr Moeen soon found himself embroiled in an unpleasant controversy, which knew no end, what at first had brought shower of praise for him had now landed him in trouble.
The controversy in its initial stage appeared to be an academic battle. Those lined up against Dr Moeen gave the impression of being researchers challenging the claims made by him. Theirs were methods usually employed by the scholars engaged in a fight. One should see no harm in this kind of controversy. But, unfortunately, the controversy soon degenerated into a personal feud. The adversaries of the scholar saw in this situation an opportunity to settle their old accounts with him. They formed a united front and launched a campaign against him.
The campaign took an ugly turn when a book, a kind of charge-sheet against Dr Moeen, was brought out and a meeting was held where he was maligned to his adversaries’ hearts’ content.
The besieged scholar, who had till now stubbornly defended his position, betrayed no reaction this time. No reply came from him. However, after a few weeks came the sad news of his death. The controversy came to an abrupt end.
The sad end of Dr Moeen has suddenly brought a wave of sympathy for him. He, after dying, has won a number of defenders. A number of columns have been written in sympathy and defence of him. Asghar Nadeem Syed, who had compiled a complimentary volume for him, was awakened to grim situation and came out with a fiery column in his defence. How ironic that the poor scholar had to lay down his life to win a few defenders ready to speak in his favour.
While alive, he with his Nuskha-i-Khwaja stood undefended. Now the deceased soul has his defenders, who question the validity of the argument proving it to be a case of theft. They are right. After all, thefts are not uncommon in the world of researchers and academicians. In case of Ghalib too we have instances of this kind. The publication of a manuscript, now known as Ghalib’s Nuskha-i-Lahore, had brought in its wake a scandal of theft. Much hue and cry was raised on that occasion. But it was short-lived. Soon the dust settled down. Who now cares to remember that Naqoosh Publications’ Nuskha-i-Lahore carries with it a scandal of theft. The controversy about the procurement of a manuscript as to whether through fair or unfair means remains limited to the academic circles. The common reader rarely bothers about it. He believes in the saying Hamain aam khanai sai matlab hai na kai pair ginnai sai.
This saying is applicable in case of Nuskha-i-Khwaja too. Even if it is proved that the manuscript had been stolen from the Punjab University Library, who after a period, say 20 years, will care to remember it. Even now a Ghalib lover will not like to part with it even when convinced that it is a stolen property.
On the other hand, the adventurers have an argument of their own in justification of their act of so-called theft. If a manuscript has really any value, why then it should be left in the shelf of a library to be eaten by moths. Why should, they argue, it not be procured by hook or by crook and published for the benefit of the knowledge seekers.
To cut it short, Dr Moeenurrahman least deserved the treatment meted out to him. With all the shortcomings pointed out by his ill-disposed rivals he has much work to his credit.
TWO scholars of Ghalibiyat, Dr Aftab Ahmad and Dr Moeenurrahman, have lately passed away in quick succession. However, the two scholars differed widely in their approach to Ghalib. Dr Aftab concentrated on the study of poetry, while Dr Moeen was seen preoccupied with researching in relation to Ghalib. His last researching feat was the find of a manuscript of Diwan-e-Ghalib, which bear corrections from Ghalib in his own handwriting.
