THE URDU NOVEL
The term ‘Urdu novel’ refers to fictional works that have emerged over the past one and a half centuries. Research published in literary magazine Adbiyaat’s special issue on the Urdu novel indicates that, by 2021, over 3,000 Urdu novels had been released by around 1,100 authors.

This collection encompasses a wide range of fictional writings, including social, historical, didactic, ideological, recreational, suspense, sci-fi, pulp and serious literary novels. This diversity highlights the rich and complex tradition of the Urdu novel. The very term ‘Urdu novel’ invites a variety of themes and human experiences that can be both diverse and contradictory. My focus will be solely on serious literary novels.

While the term ‘serious literary novel’ may carry a sense of ‘distinctiveness’, it does not necessarily imply a specific ideology; rather, it tends to engage, albeit minimally, in the politics of inclusion and exclusion. However, this focus is essential for addressing the core topic of my discussion. I aim to explore the presence of the Urdu novel within the global context and its place in world literature.

The Urdu novel has experienced three distinct periods of popularity: first in the late 19th century, then shortly after Partition, and currently in the 21st century. The journey of the Urdu novel began in 1862 with Moulvi Kareemuddin Ahmad’s Khat-i-Taqdeer [The Line of Destiny], although some critics argue that Nazir Ahmad’s Miratul Aroos [The Bride’s Mirror, 1869] marked the true beginning of the Urdu novel.

Eminent critic and writer Nasir Abbas Nayyar delivered a lecture at the Arts Council of Pakistan in Karachi on May 30, 2025, on the minimal representation of the Urdu novel on the global stage. Eos presents excerpts from the address, translated from the Urdu by the author himself…

It is noteworthy that, within just a few years of its inception, the Urdu novel gained significant popularity. At that time, Delhi and Lucknow were the primary hubs for Urdu novels and both cities contributed to its rise. However, a crucial distinction must be made: the Urdu novels from Delhi were primarily didactic and catered to school students and women, while those from Lucknow were enjoyed by the general public. What led to the popularity of these novels?

The answer can be found in colonialism, which led the then Indian society to an existential crisis. The initial Urdu novel tackled this crisis by using ‘narrative logic’ — a framework that emphasises coherence, causality and emotional connection.

During the late 19th century, British India was undergoing emotional turmoil due to the breakdown of classical traditions and composite culture, while simultaneously seeking a new national identity. The Urdu novel served as a foundation for the ashraaf [nobility] of northern India to establish this identity.

The Partition brought about another, even more devastating trauma, for the people of Punjab and Bengal in particular. Once again, the Urdu novel addressed this trauma. The Urdu novels that are now considered canonical were created after Partition. The historical and cultural factors surrounding Partition, along with its various impacts on the newly formed nation-states and their populations, sparked the creativity of Urdu novelists. This helps us understand the Urdu novel’s preoccupation with history.

In the 21st century, the Urdu novel has regained popularity to the point where it has overshadowed Urdu poetry. There are several reasons for this shift, including the aftermath of 9/11, which ushered in an era of surveillance, religious extremism, the cultural homogenisation brought about by globalisation, the rise of social media and the decline of ideological movements. When faced with complexity, we turn to stories. It’s important to highlight that the Urdu novel has been widely embraced by local readers since its inception.

THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

This term is quite complex. Many people view this term as the opposite of a local perspective. In their view, a local perspective is confined and restricted by geographical, linguistic, literary and traditional boundaries, which give it a distinct identity — an identity that is fully comprehended and rightly valued within its own defined limits. If we consider global perspective as its opposite, it appears to have no limits or boundaries, encompassing all languages and literary traditions worldwide.

However, the reality is that no such global perspective exists. The reality is that a local perspective is place-oriented, while a global perspective is space-oriented. Places are rooted in the Earth, whereas spaces can become ideological, selectively incorporating elements, prioritising certain canons and establishing rigid hierarchies. A local perspective is inclusive, while a global perspective tends to be exclusive.

In this author’s opinion, the global perspective serves as a modern replacement for the 19th century concept of European universalism. To put it plainly, the global perspective equates to a European-American viewpoint. Both global and European universalism are intricately woven into the foundational epistemology of the Western knowledge system. This is clearly illustrated by the new terminology that categorises the world into the Global South and Global North.

In the 19th century, the world was split into Europe and Asia, then into the West and East, and during the Cold War, it was divided into the First, Second, and Third worlds. The Global South comprises former third-world nations, excluding Japan, Israel and South Korea. The inherent Euro-American nature of the global perspective is evident in the so-called international literary awards. The Booker Prize, established in 1969 for Commonwealth countries, is given to “the best sustained work of fiction written in English and published in the UK and Ireland,” as stated on the Booker Prize website.

IS THE URDU NOVEL RECOGNISED ON A GLOBAL SCALE?

So far, no Urdu novel has managed to secure an international award. In 2013, Intizar Hussain’s Basti received a nomination for the International Booker Prize. Nevertheless, there are only a handful of references to Urdu authors on the global platform.

Apart from Intizar Hussain, Quratulain Hyder’s Aag Ka Darya [River of Fire] and Saadat Hasan Manto’s Toba Tek Singh have been cited occasionally. In 2018, the BBC compiled a list of the world’s 100 great stories that have shaped the world, which included Manto’s Toba Tek Singh.

Why does the Urdu novel fail to enter the discursive spaces of both Western and non-Western worlds? In Aag Ka Darya, Quratulain Hyder undertook a unique experiment by narrating the story of two and a half millennia using the same character names. Through the consistency of these proper nouns, she highlighted the fleeting nature of time and the human struggle to counter it. Yet, this approach failed to captivate global readers and critics.

Some critics argue that there are no standard English translations of Urdu novels available. Is that true? Since its inception, the Urdu novel has been translated into English by both native and South Asian translators. Miratul Uroos was translated by G.E. Ward, while Intizar Hussain’s Basti by Francis Pritchett, and Shaukat Siddiqui’s Khuda Ki Basti [God’s Own Land] by David J. Matthews. Abdullah Hussain and Quratulain Hyder self-translated their novels. A significant number of Urdu novels have been translated into Persian, Arabic, Asian and African languages, and others.

South Asian novels written in English are well-known in the West, but why hasn’t any Urdu novel achieved the same recognition globally? The West recognises Rumi as a household name, yet no Urdu fiction writer has reached that status.

IS THE WHITE CANON TO BLAME?

The answer is: to some degree. The White canon is not a myth; it exists and has an impact. Toni Morrison has notably critiqued the politics surrounding the White canon. However, it was Edward Said who first identified the connection between the novel and the colonial Empire. Through the novel, the Empire narrates its own story and, through the novel, the native responds to the Empire. The novel becomes a battleground for competing narratives.

Toni Morrison, a Black-American Nobel laureate, in her 1988 lecture, Unspeakable Things Unspoken: The Afro-American Presence in American Literature, reveals how the White canon hinders Afro-American fiction from being integrated into the mainstream of American literature. In her quest for underlying reasons, she references Milan Kundera’s Art of the Novel, where Kundera asserts that the novel is a European invention, marginalising non-European writers except for William Faulkner. This exclusion leads to American and all non-European novels being left out of the history and poetics of the novel.

This illustrates how the White canon operates. By rigidly defining the novel through European paradigms, we effectively render a significant portion of Urdu fiction invisible. For example, when theorising the novel, Kundera posits that “the novel is a meditation on existence as perceived through the lens of imaginary characters.” However, not all Urdu novels fit this definition of meditation. The Urdu novel expresses its local authenticities, with its intricate history being a central focus.

So, they are left out of the essential reading list for global fiction. By rigidly defining the novel through European paradigms, we effectively render a significant portion of Urdu fiction invisible.

BEYOND THE WHITE CANON

The pressing question is whether the White canon possesses absolute authority to shape and control the entire landscape of global aesthetics. Is there no liminal space where the dominance of the White canon is contested?

It is crucial to draw a clear distinction between global literature and world classics. Global literature is predominantly influenced by the West through awards, politics of canonisation and anthologies, while world classics remain untouched by the politics of aesthetics and canons. World classics are constituted of collective, apolitical human memory.

We have created remarkable novels, some of which have significantly influenced the reality of the Urdu-reading community. These works have also offered refined aesthetic enjoyment to this audience. Among these notable novels, we can mention a few: Ratan Naath Sarshar’s Fasana-i-Azad [ The Story of Azad], Mirza Hadi Ruswa’s Umrao Jaan Ada, Quratulain Hyder’s Aag Ka Darya, Intizar Hussain’s Basti, Mustansar Hussain Tarar’s Bahao [Sorrows of Sarasvati], Shaukat Siddiqui’s Khuda Ki Basti, Abdullah Hussain’s Udaas Naslain [The Weary Generations], Jamila Hashmi’s Dasht-i-Sus [The Desert of Sus], Shamsur Rahman Faruqui’s Kai Chaand Thhe Sar-i-Aasman [The Mirror of Beauty], Khalid Javed’s Naemat Khana [The Paradise of Food] and Mirza Athar Beg’s Ghulam Bagh [Garden of Slaves]. However, none of these novels have managed to secure a place in the world classics.

INCLUSION IN WORLD CLASSICS

There are several reasons why Urdu novels struggle to establish a foothold in world classics.

1. An obsession with the qissa. The Urdu novel is heavily influenced by the tradition of ‘qissa-kahani’, often in the name of reclaiming the past, which has been misinterpreted and distorted by colonial powers. The qissa is perceived as a centuries-old local/Eastern storytelling tradition that can contest and sometimes negotiate with the colonial exoticism of the novel.

However, there are significant differences between the qissa and the novel. The poetics of the qissa is deeply rooted in obtuse generalisations, with its main character typically being a hero, a larger-than-life fictional figure that embodies an ideal or moral quality. As the novel unfolds, it explores hyper-individualisation, dismissing the concept of a hero and depicting characters as neither larger nor smaller than life, while demystifying all ideals, including moral ones. The narrative delves deeply into the characters’ souls and their experiences, providing context and steering clear of any form of universalisation.

The qissa employs a macro-panoramic narrative technique, whereas the novel utilises a micro-panoptical approach. The hero of the qissa does not permit the narrator (the qissa teller) to access their inner world — a realm filled with contradictions, conflicts, regrets, melancholies and the spectre of Satan, alongside the struggle to overcome them, representing their true humanity.

In many Urdu novels, we encounter mere replicas of the qissa’s hero, rather than authentic human beings. In qissa-type narratives, there is little opportunity to explore the characters’ inner worlds; instead, the focus is solely on recounting events that take place in the external world. Intizar Hussain stands out as an exception; although he employs the qissa-kahani technique, he has managed to create remarkable novels. The pain and suffering associated with migration have infused a personal and experiential dimension into his works, effectively transforming the qissa technique into a novel.

1. The fear of challenging authoritative canons. Indeed, only a handful of Urdu novelists have ventured into the perilous realms of sex, politics and religion — among them, Kashif Raza’s Char Darvesh Aur Aik Kachhwa [Four Seekers And A Tortoise], Asghar Nadeem Syed’s Jahanabad Ki Galiyan [The Streets of Jahanabad] and Ikram Ullah’s Gurg-i-Shab [Wolf of the Night] are notable examples.

However, the Urdu novel generally prefers to remain in safer territories, focusing on engaging stories, poetic styles, comic realism and so forth. According to Milan Kundera, a novel cannot exist in a world filled with answers. All totalitarian regimes, based on any political or religious ideology, leave no room for novels. The essence of a novel lies in questioning what is presented as natural, normal, real, ideal or desired. Rather than following the path of a philosopher, a novel delves into the depths of human experience, where the concepts of ‘normal, natural, ideal and real’ are lived, and their full impact, along with their truths and falsehoods, is profoundly felt.

Great novels shock us, drawing us closer to the realities of history, memory, existence, relationships, power dynamics, love, lust, quests, desires, dreams, ideals and destiny. In Urdu literature, Khalid Javed’s novels, such as Naemat Khana, Arsalan Aur Behzad [Arsalan and Behzad], truly astonish us.

1. Fictional prose. The Urdu novel’s fixation on the qissa leaves limited space for experimentation with prose. Most novelists tend to use poetic, ornamental prose or concentrate on narrating the story in an engaging way. A few novelists proudly label themselves as storytellers. While a novel contains a story, the novelist is not merely a storyteller. Storytelling is deeply rooted in oral traditions, whereas the novel is grounded in written traditions. In fictional prose, the prose reveals its full potential. The creativity of prose reaches its peak in a novel, flowing naturally from the situation, the characters’ emotions, the narrator’s perspective and so on.

To summarise, we can conclude that the Urdu novel has mainly catered to the community of Urdu readers. Although it has been a victim of the White canon, it has yet to produce masterpieces that could challenge the dominance of the White canon and elevate it to the status of world classics.

The writer is a Lahore-based Urdu critic and fiction writer. He is currently the Head of Publications at the Gurmani Centre, LUMS, Lahore. Majmooa Nasir Abbas Nayyar is his most recent publication

Published in Dawn, EOS, June 22nd, 2025