Among Urdu’s literary colossi, Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib (1797-1869) was the first whose death centenary was commemorated with much fanfare. All over the subcontinent, scholars paid glowing tribute to Ghalib. One of the positive effects was the renewed interest in Ghalib and his poetry which resulted in a large number of publications on Ghalib. The year was 1969. In fact, its effect was far-reaching as two institutes — Karachi’s Idara Yadgar-i-Ghalib and Delhi’s Ghalib Institute — were established to carry out more research work on Ghalib.

Then came 1975 and 700 years of the works of Ameer Khusrau (died 1325) were commemorated on a large scale not only in India and Pakistan but in Soviet Union too. Some fine research work on Khusrau was published. The year 1977 was Iqbal’s (1877-1938) centenary and the publicity and publications matched Ghalib’s centennial, if not surpassed it.

It seems that in the recent years the centennials have again caught the fancy of literary circles and centenary commemorations are suddenly back in vogue.

In the year 2010, Punjab University Oriental College arranged an international conference to remind lovers of literature that the year marked Muhammad Hussain Azad’s 100th death anniversary. To go with the occasion, its Urdu department published some scholarly works on Azad. N.M. Rashid’s centennial was commemorated the same year and we saw a steady flow of works on Rashid in 2010 and 2011. Prof Fateh Muhammad Malik, Tehseen Firaqi and Fakhr-ul-Haq Noori, to name a few, penned books on Rashid. Literary journals published special issues or special sections on Rashid. ‘Urdu adab’, the journal of Anjuman Taraqqi-i-Urdu (Delhi), published a special issue on him. But it was Faiz Ahmed Faiz whose centenary commemorations in 2011 kept ringing in the media all year through. Lovers of Faiz and his poetry organised seminars and conferences and the books and special issues of magazines on Faiz are still pouring in.

The years 2012 marks the centennials of two big names of Urdu literature: Saadat Hasan Manto (1912-1955) and Miraji (1912-1949). Both have been receiving much attention ever since their unconventional and rebellious writings challenged the subcontinent’s conventional and confirmatory society in the second quarter of the 20th century. But Manto has been in the limelight along all these years and not only have his books been reprinted many times over but his collected works, too, have been published. Many critical and research works, including dissertations, on Manto have thrashed almost every aspect of his life and works. But Miraji has been treated with more contempt than appreciation and, as a result, his books are hardly available, if at all, in the bookshops. Even many large libraries cannot claim to have all of his books.

Why this apathy towards Miraji? There are three aspects of Miraji’s poetry — and personality — that caused much uproar and disgust (I am using the word disgust with due care) among the readers and even some critics: the unrestrained expression of erotic feelings, deliberate obscurity and unconventionality to the point of total disregard for all values. His deep interest in Hindu mythology and French Symbolists, his novel imagery, deliberate obscurity and revolt against moral and social norms made Miraji appear original but also made him a butt of ridicule and scorn. His peculiar appearance and eccentricities (of which Manto has written in his book ‘Ganje farishte’) made him mysterious but many thought that it was a disguise. Miraji initially embraced progressivism but his later leanings towards symbolists, especially Mallarme, and his joining the Halqa arbab-i-zauq made him controversial. It also earned him wrath of some Marxists and they accused him of spreading obscenity and escapism. On the other hand some moralist critics rejected him for his unconventional thoughts and ‘ambiguity’ (read intentional obscurity) and declared he was a psychopath.

As for Miraji’s erotic expressions, in the foreword to his book ‘Miraji ki nazmain’ he tries to defend his stance by saying that “the ‘pollution’ that culture and civilization have collected around sexuality offends me. As a reaction I see everything under the sun as the image reflected in the mirror of sexuality, and this image is perfectly natural and it is my ideal”. But the problem with this reactionary, ideal image is that the mirror reflects some aspects that betray Miraji’s abnormal or unnatural tendencies. For example, in his poem ‘Dukh dil ka madava’ he clearly shows sadomasochist tendencies and seems to drive pleasure in torture which, as put by Prof Haneef Kaifi, no human culture and no healthy civilization can accept. The question of morality or ‘eastern values’ apart, can this be accepted by any normal human being? Miraji did have some psychological problems and his reaction was purely emotional.

Those who blame Miraji of obscurity cannot understand that not only was it deliberate but he also used it to veil his not-so-moral thoughts. Secondly, most of his poems written in free verse form have this ambiguous or obscure style since the theme of these poems demand symbolism, allusion and obscurity. At times his syntax is somewhat loose, intentionally, in such poems as it increases the obscurity. It is the influence of the French and English literature that Miraji had profoundly studied. One of the objections against Miraji is the same as raised against French symbolists: much of the symbols are personal and private and do not communicate what poet wants to say. Miraji defended this too by saying that obscurity was a relative term and everybody had a different level of understanding.

In fact, Miraji’s style was a true reflection of his personality. As they say, man is the style. He was unconventional, rebellious and sensual; it was Miraji’s personality that made him that way and his poetry blended all that into one. Be it free verse or moral values, he was unique and original.

Let’s not forget that Miraji left some indelible marks on Urdu literature, especially on modern Urdu poem. That he was among the poets who popularised the free verse, or vers libre (azaad nazm) in Urdu, and brought modern sensibility to Urdu, puts Miraji in the ranks of those who are considered the most important in the modern Urdu poetry. Though Tasadduq Hussain Khalid pioneered free verse in Urdu, had it not been for the poetic genius of N.M. Rashid and Miraji, the new genre would have taken much longer to be accepted, let alone be popularized. Perhaps Rashid played a greater role in this regard and Rashid, too, is recognized as a ‘rebellious’ soul. But if anyone among the contemporaries of Rashid can truly match him in rebellious and unconventional ways, it is none other than Miraji.

According to Vaqar Azeem, the ‘notoriety’ that Miraji earned was based equally on the themes and the form of his poetry. He, however, admits that Miraji did not deviate from the traditional prosody and poetic meters just for the sake of experimentation or to be seen as modernist but it was the theme of his poems that forced him to adapt different forms.

Born Sanaullah Khan Dar on May 25, 1912 in Lahore, Miraji was in love with a girl named Mira and this failed love affair brought many changes in his life, so much so that he even changed his name. When he died in a Bombay (now Mumbai) hospital he had already changed much of the landscape of modern Urdu poetry, too.

One hopes that in Miraji’s centenary year some objective and impartial re-evaluation of his works, that also includes critical essays and translations, would be done.

drraufparekh@yahoo.com