LITERARY historiography has come a long way in Urdu. Beginning from Muhammad Husain Azad’s legendary Aab-i-Hayat (1880), Urdu has produced over 45 major and minor histories of Urdu literature, with Jameel Jalibi’s Tareekh-i-Adab-i-Urdu, in four volumes (1975-2012), being the most authentic and most comprehensive of them.

But in between, Urdu has produced some other remarkable histories, too, for instance, Tareekh-i-Nasr-i-Urdu: Namoona-i-Mansooraat (1930). Penned by Ahsan Marehravi (1876-1940) and reprinted in 1986 by NLA, it is among reliable literary histories of Urdu despite some notions that have been proved incorrect in the light of modern research. It is a brief but comprehensive history of Urdu prose with samples of Urdu prose from the earliest era, that is, late 14th century, to the early 20th century. But it has remained unsung to the point of being almost unknown.

Gian Chand Jain has rightly dubbed it as a “strange” work while appreciating it. One of the reasons for its being strange — and, as a result, obscure — is the way its author has arranged the contents and the book has six categories under which samples of Urdu prose have been reproduced in chronological order: general writings, official documents, newspapers, legal translations, forewords and letters. Every sample is followed by critical and linguistic evaluation by the author, which usually includes some important facts and clues to the deeper understanding.

Every category has been divided into sub-portions of historical eras with samples. The most important is, perhaps, the first category that describes general writings. It includes introduction and evaluation of some major and very important literary works of Urdu such as Me’raaj-ul-Aashiqeen, written in 1398 and considered among Urdu’s earliest prose works, though incorrectly attributed to Sufi saint Banda Nawaz Gesoodaraaz. But this was the general perception about this book in those days and only latter-day research revealed that it was not penned by Sufi Banda Nawaz and was incorrectly attributed to him.

The second category includes samples of language used in government offices, beginning from 1861 and reproducing some legal documents, such as summons, verdicts and petitions. The third one is about newspapers with samples of Urdu newspapers published as early as in 1847 from Lahore, Agra, Bombay and Sialkot. The third portion deals with legal translations and, beginning from 1851, it gives some Urdu translations of legal documents such as Indian Penal Code.

Literary eulogies, critical opinions and forewords are given in the fifth part, which includes Imam Bakhsh Sehbai’s foreword to his translation of Hadaeq-ul-Balaghat from Persian. The translation was penned in 1842. Letters are in the sixth part and the earliest one is by none other Ghalib who wrote to Munshi Har Gopal Tafta in 1852, though an earlier epistolary work by Rajab Ali Baig Suroor is often mentioned by some modern-day researchers as being the earliest examples of Urdu letters.

Gian Chand has paid tribute to Ahsan Marehravi for correctly pointing out in this book some myths about Urdu literature that had been repeated in many literary works. For instance, Ahsan has rejected the notion that Mughal Emperors Akber and Jehangir, and Princesses Noor Jehan and Zaib-un-Nisa, had composed poetry in Urdu. He has criticised some writers who had wrongly attributed some Urdu verses to these Mughals.

Another objection that Ahsan has raised is against a giant like Hafiz Mahmood Sherani, one of the most awe-inspiring researchers of Urdu. Ahsan says Hafiz Sahib’s conclusion that Mas’ood Sa’ad Salman Lahori was the first Urdu poet does not hold water as not even a single verse by Lahori has ever been found.

Though there are some lapses in the book, they may be ignored as in those days modern research on Urdu literature had not begun and many old assumptions have been refuted only by today’s researcher. But Ahsan’s work is much better than his predecessors and contemporaries as he has carefully examined and rejected many unfounded notions usually included in earlier or contemporaneous works.

In the beginning, every book has been mentioned in alphabetical order in its relevant category, making it easier for the reader to find any particular book. Gian Chand is of the view that though the samples are useful, only their occasional quotations would have sufficed as Ahsan’s critical views scattered with samples would have made a better history had they been joined in sequence. One may disagree here as many of the samples reproduced from rare books are very hard to come by today.

Ahsan is critical of those who unnecessarily utter a few English words while speaking Urdu. It seems that the trend is not new, as we often complain, and it had begun as early as in the first quarter of the 20th century.

Despite some minor lapses, the book is useful and carries some rare information.

drraufparekh@yahoo.com

Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2022