THE late recognition of Majeed Amjad as a poet has served him well. He belonged to the period of the 1930s and 1940s which saw a new turn in Urdu literature. But he hardly succeeded in attracting the attention of readers and critics from those decades. They all were under the glamour of poets associated with the trend of modernism or progressivism. Amjad’s voice was not loud enough to attract the attention of such readers. It is only now that they have realised their failure to recognise the significance of Amjad’s poetry.

Efforts are now under way to compensate for the injustice done to Amjad, who was less modern than his glamourous contemporaries. Books and articles in appreciation of what he had written are pouring in one after the other. The latest is a study of his life and works titled Majeed Amjad: Hayat, Shairiyaat aur Jamaliyaat by Dr Nasir Abbas Nayyar.

It may be seen as a valuable addition to what has already been written as it appears to be a study of Amjad’s poetry on a deeper level. While going through this analytical study one part of it in particular attracted my attention. “The world as portrayed by Majeed Amjad,” says Dr Nayyar, “is not confined to man and his aspirations alone. Seasons, trees, birds, other animals too form a part of this world. Not only that. They have been treated as citizens of this world, enjoying the same rights enjoyed by mankind.” He refers to a poem from Amjad titled ‘Harappay ke Katha’ which has three characters — the bull, the plough, and the ploughman.

The poet sees them sharing the same fate. And he is as sympathetic to the bull as to the ploughman. Majeed Amjad, according to Dr Nayyar, seems to share the thinking that man belongs to the mythological age. With his intimate relationship with animals, trees, and with all the elements of nature, Amjad felt as if they all belong to a common society. Enthused with such feeling he felt oneness with all the creatures and elements of nature and consequently was sympathetic to all of them.

Dr Nayyar is critical of those poets who, in their love for their pets, try to find human qualities in them and thus justify their love for them. He asks, “why should we try to deprive animals of their animality.” He cites the example of Mir, who in his excessive love for his kittens, discovers in them human qualities to the extent that they appear losing their animal instincts. He is unhappy to see that Shamsur Rahman Faruqi has extolled Mir on this very count. To add to his unhappiness, Faruqi has gone to the extent of saying that Mir’s empathy with animals is an evidence of his love for them, and that no other poet of Urdu has excelled Mir in this respect.

I am sorry to say that here I dare to differ with Dr Nayyar. I have carefully read all the three poems relating to birds referred to by Dr Nayyar and have enjoyed them.

Here the poet appears to be standing at a distance from the birds and making his own comments while attributing human feelings to them. He forgets that the jungle bird absorbed in warbling is not a human singer, who stands in need of an audience. She is just warbling and enjoying it, not caring whether she is being heard or not. Birds need no audience. They are birds, not singers. The kind of intimacy we find while reading Mir’s verses about kittens is missing here. In this case the poet appears to be enjoying the company of the kittens. Out of excessive love for them he traces human behaviour in their movements. He takes them as his own kith and kin. Every movement on their part sends a thrill through him.

The extreme case of love for animals can be seen in Jataka Tales where we see Buddha undergoing the experience of leaving his human form and transforming into an animal. And not just once but repeatedly undergoing this experience. This experience has its own details. However, it is a different story requiring different treatment on the part of the storyteller.