“Urdu has not produced any critic of global repute.”

— Nasir Abbas Nayyar

NASIR Abbas Nayyar has captured the fancy of Urdu lovers in recent times with his unique approach to linguistics and his critique of literary output through the prism of historical changes over the last couple of hundred years. The Lahore-based academic has a dozen or so titles already to his credit, which is an impressive portfolio for someone of his age.

He was recently at KLF where he spoke about his latest book, Urdu Adab ki Tashkeel-i-Jadeed (Reconstruction of Urdu Literature) that studies the multifaceted process of the making of modern Urdu literature in the backdrop of colonialism. Following are excerpts from his interview with Books&Authors:

What is the focus of your latest book?

I have tried to grasp the wispy thread of modernity engendered by colonialism one way or the other. I observed that modernity of Urdu fiction and poetry got its specific ambivalent characteristics in mimicking and resisting European influence at the same time. Though most of the story of modern Urdu literature revolves around resistance narratives, some exceptional episodes present us with alternative narratives as well. I have focused particularly on discovering and analysing the narratives that were produced by colonised people in their struggle to emancipate themselves and to reclaim what had been lost.

What actually fascinated you about the colonial and postcolonial context to study literature?

History. More precisely, the sense of colonial history. I did my doctorate on the influence of Western critique on Urdu critics. In figuring out the nature of the influence, I came to realise the role of colonial history in the construction of modern Urdu literature. I realised how the narratives and discourses of history generated by colonial rulers and the response of colonised Indians formed the texts that were later considered canons of modern Urdu literature. The fact that very few writings are available in Urdu and the realisation that our culture and ideological state apparatuses are still not quite free of the mayhem of neocolonialism also egged me on. These studies basically aim at decolonisation and reclamation.

Has the modern Urdu critic come any closer to the literary critics in other languages, say, English, French, Russian?

No. As far as theory is concerned, Urdu has not produced any critic of global repute. It must be admitted that only theorists can transcend local boundaries and influence critical minds of different cultures. In the absence of theoretical underpinning, Urdu critics have confined themselves to writing practical criticism. Worthwhile though it is, practical criticism, being text-oriented, remains confined to a single language. It cannot even hope to be universal.

Writers and poets often slam the critic for not being able to understand the creative process itself which, according to them, makes it impossible for the critic to really appreciate the finer points of creativity. Do you agree?

No, I don’t. Writers and poets have demonstrated by and large an ambivalent attitude towards the critic. They condemn the critics, and while doing so they wish to be taken notice of by the critics. Creativity is actually a mysterious process that even the creative people don’t quite understand entirely. What they know to some extent is the intention or the drive that triggers the internal creative process.

People from Punjab have generally been more productive and creative in Urdu literature than people whose mother tongue is Urdu. Is there any particular reason for this?

History, I guess. It can best be understood by studying the case of Urdu in Punjab. In 1854 the education policy of the East India Company was modified by the famous Wood’s Despatch in which vernacular languages were suggested to be made mediums of instruction at the school level across India except Punjab where Urdu was implemented. Just about a decade later, in 1865, Anjuman-i-Punjab was established in Lahore which was the starting point of modern Urdu poetry. Overall, writers of Punjab have owned Urdu more passionately than the Urdu-wallahs. That is for sure.

Literary festivals and conferences have hit it off with the audience in recent years. Should this be taken as a positive sign on the social scale?

Indeed. Because festivals and conferences offer what is missing in the media and campuses, such as talks and discussions even on issues otherwise forbidden on the more conventional forums.

Why don’t these events then add energy to creative output, especially in Urdu, which remains lukewarm at best?

There are varied reasons. First, Urdu finds a diminutive place in these festivals. In reality, the festivals present us with the progressive, liberal, English literary world. Second, Urdu has not yet been able to disengage itself from the religious national identity continuously being consolidated by the conservative and commercial Urdu media and popular Urdu fiction. Only an environment of freethinking and open-mindedness can add energy to the creative output. Unfortunately Urdu discourse lacks this kind of environment.