The way it was: Other side of nationalism
Mian Ijaz Ul Hassan
The awesome might of our two respective countries is demonstrated at the closing
ceremony at the Wagah border, when the two national flags are brought down at
dusk. It is much ado about nothing
I cannot recollect who taught us English poetry. Obviously it needed to be
taught by someone better. As far as the novel is concerned, a student does not
need guidance on how to read Emma or Tom Jones, which were part of the MA
compulsory reading coarse. Tom Jones along with the Godfather is probably the
best film ever so faithfully made to an original text. The Hollywood version of
the Brothers Karamazov was quite terrible and so was the version of Tolstoy’s,
War and Peace. English literature in our days was confined to the English.
Aristotle and Longinus were the only foreigners included in the Paper on
Literary Criticism.
I believe now a number of writers from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas,
including some of our own writings in English, are included in the syllabus.
Besides Shakespeare and Dickens a student now can also read Sophocles,
Dostoyevsky, Ahmed Ali, Taufique Rafat, Edward Said and others. The scope of our
literary engagement can be further enlarged if a student could benefit from our
writers who have not written in English. It would be rewarding if students could
read Khwaja Fareed, Shah Hussain or Shah Abdul Lateef. There is of course the
need to have our poets adequately translated in English but some work has
already been done.
Taufiq Rafat has translated Bulleh Shah and Qadir Yar’s Puran Bhagat. There is
a learned critical introduction to Qadir Yar by Athar Tahir and a splendid book
The Recurrent Patterns in Punjabi Poetry by Najam Hussain Syed. There is then
Christopher Schakell’s Sassi by Hasham and his translation of Khwaja Fareed,
Charlotte Vaudeville’s translation and transliteration of Kabir, and Denny
Matringe’s translation of Waris Shah in prose. Similarly there are
translations of the works of eminent poets of other national languages.
I am aware that some of us can read them in the original but there is no harm if
they can be made accessible to students and scholars who work in English. I for
instance read my first text of the Tuzk-e Babari in an English translation of a
French translation from the Turkic original. I am more than certain that the
Urdu translation of the biography had been from the English and not the Turkic
original. If someone had not undertaken the burden of translation, most of us
would be unacquainted with what EM Forester considered the greatest
autobiography of all times.
It is a positive step that the teaching of literature in English is no longer
confined to the English but includes the best of poetry, prose and drama from
all over the world. This should be made possible even for the arts. In most art
schools for instance, history of art means teaching European History of Art,
thereby denying a student awareness of his own heritage and knowledge of the
great achievements of other cultures and civilisations. To know about the
Renaissance is splendid, but not to know about Ajanta and Mughal paintings would
be tragic. A student raised on the foundation of self-realisation is better
equipped to perceive and gain from the achievements of others.
Unfortunately it was part of colonial educational strategy to denigrate local
art and culture and encourage natives to worship whatever was English or
foreign. Painters for instance were patronised for their skill in copying
western things. Instead of stimulating the mind to be creative and inventive,
artists were encouraged to ape and plagiarise.
The initiation of European aesthetics and artistic standards were the vanguard
of physical aggression to capture markets, material resources and strategically
located territories. Conquest could not have been accomplished and sustained
without establishing cultural dominance. If people are raised on reading the
best of English verse and encouraged to stay away from their own poets,
naturally they would not only defend English poets but also the culture and
people which they represent. It does indeed greatly soften a person’s heart
when he looks West towards England and thinks of Shakespeare, Wordsworth or
Keats, doesn’t it? Who cares about these Bullas and Tullas writing in their
coarse mother tongue?
It is true that cultures, which neglect to benefit from others, gradually dry
out. But obviously there is a difference between being a passive recipient and
an active recipient. A passive recipient is a Wog trying to be English. An
example of an active recipient is a Mughal miniature, which absorbs Chinese,
Central Asian, Persian, South Asian and later European influences to enrich
itself.
A passive recipient receives, as a slave does from his master. There is
undeniably an imperative need for the people of the world to share their
achievements, perceptions and concerns. The world has indeed, due to improvement
in information technology and modern means of travel become a global village. It
is a village, which should be ideally governed not through fear and arrogant
assertion of the one over the other, but based on mutual recognition and
appreciation of talent and virtue. The winner should not take all. There should
be no losers.
The history of the West since the Renaissance can be looked at from two angles.
For the Europeans it has been truly a period of great scientific and
technological advancement. It is a period of immense development of the arts and
literature. It is a period of great inventions and new challenges. But to others
this glorious era of the Europeans is remembered as a period of plunder, when
vast populations were brutally wiped out. When their treasures and resources
were looted and their economies ravaged and destroyed.
It is an era, which represents their subjugation and humiliation at the hands of
a new breed of conquerors, which did not even consider their subjects human. By
adopting different forms and strategies these forces have survived to this day,
and continue to deceive, plunder and monopolise the world. It is irrelevant that
the world has become a global village. What matters is who runs it?
To resist and restrain the common enemy of all inhabitants of the global
village, it is necessary that nationalist aspirations are curtailed and a vision
of a larger human community is evolved. It is true that nationalism was very
important in the struggle against colonialism and imperialism. But it is also
true that nationalism is essentially divisive. It encourages people to claim
superiority over others. Nationalism asserts itself by denigrating other nations
and people who are religiously, culturally or ethnically different.
In Europe it led to the emergence of Nazi Germany based on the belief that Aryan
Germans were racially pure and a better race. In the Middle East the Zionist
State of Israel has been founded on the same principle. If Gandhi had not
pandered to Indian nationalism, Hindu chauvinist sentiment may not have raised
its head and the entire post-war history of the subcontinent may have been very
different.
In our own country Pakistani nationalism has been a tool in the hands of the
federal establishment for depriving and exploiting the federating units. It has
provided succour and strength to an intellectually barren, dogmatic minority who
have helped the establishment to nurse and nourish an ideology of its own
fabrication, which is an anathema to what Iqbal envisioned and the ideals Jinnah
fought for.
The two mighty countries Pakistan and India both suffer from over-inflated
nationalism. I am sure that if there were a drinking bout, each would drink the
other to death. Why not sit back and enjoy the drink? Instead of working
together and letting our people relish life the two mighty nations, to quote a
friend, are ‘intoxicated with the exuberance of their own verbosity’ in a
bid to run the other down at any expense.
The awesome might of our two respective countries is demonstrated at the closing
ceremony at the Wagah border, when the two national flags are brought down at
dusk. It is much ado about nothing. In fact it is positively pathetic and
embarrassing. Our soldiers strut and stamp their heels, kick in the air, rattle
gates, stare and glare across at their counterparts. They stride up and down,
again and again, strut back and forth, kick, strut and snort.
All this is done to overawe the Indians, performing exactly the same routine to
overawe the Pakistanis, a breath away across the border. Can you imagine that
this has been going on for fifty-five years? I wonder what purpose it might have
served, except to make us both look silly!
I fear repeated stamping on the tarmac can only weaken the patriotic spine and
the martial brain. I confess it is better than going to war. At least no one
gets hurt and the farce keeps the silly spectators on both sides entertained for
free.
Prof Ijaz-ul-Hassan is a painter, author and a political activist