In the works of Urdu’s prominent poet and cultural historian Farrukh Yar, the compositeness of South Asian civilisation and its key identity markers continue to serve as major themes of inquiry and inference — exploring myths and customs to music and language.

I particularly refer to his work DoRahey [Crossroads]. Yar’s other work on iconic Punjabi language poet Shah Hussain, titled Ishq Nama [The Testament of Love] is not only focussed on the aesthetics and musicality of Hussain but takes us beyond, to understand the historical context of his verse through investigating his habitat and times.

A deep sense of civilisational history seldom tempts Yar to comment on internal politics or regional current affairs — even in his social media posts. This time round, it happens to be a little different. The ongoing escalation of tension in South Asia after the hasty Indian reaction to the unfortunate Pahalgam terror incident in Kashmir made Yar post a comment. He gives examples to substantiate his argument and writes that Indian literary writers of substance have always somehow defended the official position of India when it comes to Pakistan; he finds no comparable voices in Pakistan that would plead the country’s case.

Yar’s comment comes from someone whose embrace is wide. For me, this poses a few challenging questions about the relationship between authors and war. Essentially, what is the meaning of patriotism for a creative artist? Besides, can there be one meaning?

There are many examples of warrior-poets in history or writers who served in different militaries and even took up arms to defend their nation or ideology. The earliest Urdu resistance poet, Jaffar Zatalli, writing in the 17th and the early 18th century, served in Mughal expeditions before revolting against power through his scathing lampoonery. Pashto warrior-poet Khushal Khan Khattak from the 17th century remains a household name in our part of the world. Faiz Ahmed Faiz served in the information arm of the British military during the later years of the Second World War (1939-1945), after the erstwhile Soviet Union — to which Faiz associated ideologically — joined the war as a part of the Allies against the Axis powers.

During the First World War (1914-1918), the major war poet in the English language and later a celebrated prose writer, Siegfried Sassoon, highlighted the suffering war inflicts. His contemporary poet Wilfred Owen, who also served in the military, chose Sassoon’s path. In 1918, Owen died when only 25. Both are seen as dissenters and critics of jingoism and war.

Likewise, the trailblazing British fiction writer and essayist George Orwell did policing in British colonies during the 1920s and then desired to be a part of the war effort against Fascism during the Second World War. He also witnessed the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Orwell first remained torn between serving and critiquing colonialism and then rejecting totalitarianism in favour of democratic socialism. Towards the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, the leading Spanish poet Federico Garcia Lorca was also murdered for being a socialist, by right-wing nationalists who imposed war on the socialist-leaning republicans.

Coming back to the observation Yar has made in terms of a comparison between Indian and Pakistani creative writers in their endeavour to support the official narratives of their respective countries, I think the context needs better appreciation. The examples Yar offers are of the types of Indian writers who are either from the Hindi-Urdu belt or Punjab, mostly from a Muslim background or those Hindus who had to leave West Punjab in 1947. The wounds of loss of land or families due to the Partition of British India remain unhealed. Besides, there is a desire among learned Indian Muslims to prove allegiance to their motherland.

On the other hand, Pakistanis who continue to believe in the two-nation theory, they should also consider that if five million Kashmiri Muslims are their brethren, why should the other 200 million Indian Muslims be relegated to the position of collateral damage? They are the ones who currently live under Hindutva’s own version of the two-nation theory.

Yar is perturbed by the current jingoism promoted by mainstream and social media — hateful, selective and preferring prejudice over truth. However, the type of writers Yar mentions are not the only representatives of the diverse landscape of our writing. I am not suggesting that all writers from other parts of India or Pakistan think differently from the type of Urdu writers Yar mentions. But there are examples of serious writers such as Arundhati Roy who writes in English and Noorul Huda Shah, who writes in Sindhi and Urdu. They do not buy either of the two official narratives.

The poets and writers in any language in India and Pakistan, whose creative sensibility fuels their desire to see a better world, must band together against war and ignore the cultivated emotional outbursts of populist poets such as Javed Akhtar.

The term ‘Partition of British India’ used above is deliberate because there was no united Indian Subcontinent before 1858. We must also remember that both India and Pakistan, as political entities, were born in 1947, followed by Bangladesh in 1971. Undoubtedly, we have a shared civilisation since millennia and that should be treasured and used to understand our part of the world better. No reason to hark back to the politics of faith and communal divisions encouraged during colonial rule.

It is about time the powers-that-be in the two countries first address the demands of the rights movements within and resolve the discordant issues among them through dialogue instead of desiring to destabilise the whole region. Two billion people inhabiting South Asian countries deserve an end to the poverty of means and poverty of thought they have been subjected to since 1947.

The columnist is a poet and essayist.

His latest collections of verse are Hairaa’n Sar-i-Bazaar and No Fortunes to Tell

Published in Dawn, Books & Authors, May 11th, 2025