Subject: Re: A History of Urdu Literature
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:56:51 GMT
From: il_khan@yahoo.com
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Newsgroups: alt.language.urdu.poetry

In article <36B26341.5CCB@pacbell.net>,
  nrsh@pacbell.net wrote:
> Ashok wrote:
> >
> > In article <36B018C0.52F9@nr.infi.net>, pkapur@nr.infi.net says...
> > >
> > >Padmanabhan Srinagesh wrote:
> > >
> > >During my visit to India, I bought a book called "A history of Urdu
> > >Literature" by Muhammad Sadiq (Oxford India Paperback).*****
> > >________
> > >I read your analysis about the the above writing with considerable
> > >interest.
> > >
> > >In most cases, the obvious bias/slant of a book is determined by the
> > >publishing house. "Oxford India" being a subsidiary of England's Oxford
> > >publishing country would look for authors that support the Oxford
> > >viewpoint.  Which in most instances was against poets of independent
> > >intellect and who favored freedom and self rule. To the best of my
> > >knowledge Ghalib was not an establishment poet.
> > >
> > The above comes close to being the equivalent of "ad hominem"
> > argument, applied to a publishing house.  It appears to me that
> > Sadiq's views are eminently discussable, unless, off course, one
> > only looks for hagiographies of one's favourite artists.
> >
> > Ashok
> My original posting seems to have been merged with Puneet's comments.  I
> had posted some specific cites from Sadiq's book to see if
> there was, in fact, any interest in discussing his views in more
> detail.  Ghalib had his human frailties.  The great puzzle worth
> discussing is why his Persian poetry, of which he was so proud, has not
> been more widely acclaimed.  Professor Sadiq appears to be well versed
> in Ghalib's Persian and Uedu poetry, and I was greatly surprised to see
> his rather tepid response to the sum total of Ghalib's work.  More
> surprising was his rather dismissive attitude to a large body of Urdu
> literature.
>
> I am aware that Sadiq's views are not unique and I am not interested in
> ad hominem attacks on him.  There is a long history of criticism of
> ghazals (in particular) as decadent art.  This body of work includes
> Aab-e-hayaat, of which I have read descriptions. I must admit to being
> surprised anew at the rather low esteem in which Ghalib (and others) are
> held by folks who appear to have studied him in far greater detail than
> I have.  I know there are many on ALUP who have read a lot more than I
> have, and I would be interested in their coments.
>
> Nagesh

        I think Mr. Ashok Dhareshwar's comments were merely in respect
        of and in response to Mr. Puneet Kapoor's observations.  These
        were not connected with Nagesh Sahib's original post which was
        in the nature of an introduction to the nature and tenor of this
        book.

        We all have our favourites, in all fields, whether it is Urdu
        Literature, English Literature, film music, classical music
        or cricket.  (I am naturally talking about fields which are
        close to my heart or, in a manner of speaking my favourites !!)
        And anything which tends to go against our long-held beliefs
        is bound to be resented.  Of course, there are some who prefer
        to be iconoclasts---for the sake of being iconoclasts, not
        necessarily out of sheer, honest, sincere conviction.  Prof.
        Saadiq "seems" to belong to this class.  Unfortunately, I do
        not have access to his book and cannot, therefore, comment
        definitively.  I will gladly confess that there are very very
        few English books on Urdu Literature that I have read.  Since
        there is so much to read in Urdu itself, I probably did not
        try to expand my reading horizons.  I plead guilty.
        Just as with individuals, newspapers and publishing houses
        also have their own "agenda".  But somehow I feel that the
        criticism of OUP (which has been offered in general terms)
        may not be justified.  What we need to do is to discuss the
        book itself, which can be done first by examining a sort of
        a compressed summary of its contents, not too sketchy, nor too
        elaborate.
        What has been said about the general attitude towards Urdu
        ghazal in the late nineteenth century is true.  But this
        attitude can be appreciated only in the larger context of
        the vast changes taking place in the social and political
        life of the Muslim community, particularly after the Mutiny
        was brutally suppressed and the Muslim nobility and gentry
        experienced the full wrath of the vengeful British rulers.
        A whole school of reformers emerged during this period
        and it was in the natural course of things that Urdu ghazal
        and all that it represented came under their critical eye.
        Also, there was a new awareness of English Literature, and
        those belonging to the new school of thought could not fail
        to notice the vast difference in the nature and tenor of
        English and Urdu poetry.
        All this calls for a detailed discussion and analysis of the
        social history of the community during this post-1857 period.
        In the meantime, we may have to confine ourselves to discuss-
        ing the merits (or demerits) of Prof. Sadiq's book.

                                     Afzal

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own