Bored by tragedy
By: Mahmood Farooqui
July 15, 2005
In the wake of the Gujarat riots, the surfeit of media coverage and the universal sympathy for the displaced victims had tended, at times, to create a sense of ennui.
In spite of the scale of the tragedy the sheer number of documentary films, journalistic accounts and seminars sometimes dismayed one because of the monochromatic nature of their understanding and transmission.
Some people were provoked enough to transfer this tiredness on to the Gujarat victims themselves when they wondered whether anybody had ever bothered as much about the conditions of Pandit sharnarthi camps in Jammu.
Depending upon the degree of beleaguerment experienced by you, even causes otherwise right and meritorious can get your goat. Take, for instance the case of Partition riots.
This darkest hour for Muslim Indians, as well as for other Indians, was also the most shining hour for Urdu fiction. When we think of Partition, we think, of necessity, also of Toba Tek Singh or Khol Do or Lajwanti.
For many different strands of Urdu fiction, Partition provided a ready material for weaving satire, pathos, irony and humanitarianism into a lament for the fallen humanity.
The number of writers who wrote unforgettable stories on Partition is a legion. They included Hindu writers such as Krishan Chandra and Bedi, Pakistani writers such as Ahmed Nadeem Qasmi and Qudratullah Shahab, writers associated with cinema like Ramanand Sagar and Khwaja Ahmed Abbas, Progressives such as Ismat Chughtai and Hayatullah Ansari and of course writers who transcend boundaries and categories such as Manto.
Altogether, Urdu writers seemed to have cried out for a balanced, impartisan and humanitarian approach to what was undoubtedly a great tragedy. Who could have any problems with this invaluable legacy? It came as a great surprise to me to learn, therefore, that there is a stream of criticism in Urdu literature that is severely critical of this output.
Unsurprisingly, it is writers based in Pakistan who led this counterattack. I came across a series of essays around the theme of ‘fasadat aur Urdu Adab’ that castigate Urdu writers for their ‘biased’ handling of the riots.
That Mohammed Hasan Askari or Mumtaz Shirin, ideologues who later on also demanded a Pakistani and/or Islamic literature from their writers, criticized this oeuvre was still understandable. What flipped me totally was to discover that my literary idol, Intezar Husain, too had expressed very trenchant views about this phenomenon.
Way back, in 1949, Husain wrote a piece called ‘The Propagandaic Aspects of Riot Stories.’ The piece is worth reading, even if Husain’s views may have changed now, for he takes great issues especially with Krishan Chadra and while his treatment is sophisticated his wit has more bite than I expected.
The riot stories, according to these writers, follow a pre-fabricated formula. The English created the seeds of discord between Hindus and Muslims, the formation of Pakistan that is the partition of the country caused the riots, all communities — Hindu, Sikh and Muslim — must be apportioned equal blame (should be shown as being equally barbaric) and the writers should remain impartial, affirmation of a common humanity linking us all.
They should lament for a lost humanity in man and condemn our barbarism, as in the story titled ‘Wahshi hain hum’ or statements such as ‘main kaun hoon, main insaan hoon.’
What they seem to be alleging is one, that this even-handedness ignores the inequality of actual suffering — Muslims suffered far more in Delhi and East Punjab and so on.
And two, by blaming Partition for the riots these writers are ignoring other prior divisions as well as denigrating a movement that was an ideal for many Muslims.
Of course, they are in empathy with the objectives of these stories, condemning sectarianism and promoting a common brotherhood, but the preachy sententious manner in which this has been portrayed is disdained by them.
Sometimes this balancing act can have counterproductive results. Reports of Noakhali massacre, in the 1940s, provoked counter-retaliation in Bihar but it turned out that the scale of bloodshed in both places was quite disproportionate. Had numbers and communities been properly named, may be the revenge killings would have been smaller.
Gyanendra Pandey, the subaltern historian, who has been working on Partition for some time now, has also questioned the necessity of this rigid, even totalitarian, objectivity and impartiality. The issue is of more direct consequence for the media in reporting on communal conflicts.
Whether it should name communities involved, say in the attack on Kar Sevaks on the Sabarmati Express and risk retaliation or try and keep it under (see-through) wraps, in which case wild conjectures and rumours might lead to greater disasters.
However, in condemning the tendency of riot-writers to speech-making from the platform of the Communist party we should understand that Partition, whatever its justification, was still a ghastly event for millions of people.
Just as the Gujarat Muslims, however much lamented, were still victims. We may become weary of an excess of good causes and well-intentioned speeches but our weariness must not blind us to the plight out there.
http://web.mid-day.com/columns/mahmood_farooqui/2005/july/113985.htm