ALLAMA Muhammad Iqbal’s poetic genius has been acknowledged far and wide. But in his own days, especially early in his literary career, a constant campaign was run to mock and disparage him.
Opponents would raise literary and linguistic points to damage Iqbal’s reputation. Of course, there are a few errors in Iqbal’s Urdu poetry when it comes to lexical or syntactical analysis, but these errors make a very tiny part of his works and are negligible as they do not affect, in any way, his poetic acumen and philosophy when his poetical works are perceived in totality.
Secondly, to err is human, as goes the maxim. Iqbal was a human being, as earthly and prone to error as rest of us are. He was no angel and neither did he ever claim to be one. But then hardly any author has escaped critical remarks and disapproving reviews, be it literature in Urdu or, for that matter, any other language. The ill treatment, however, meted out to Iqbal was unprecedented and if any other example is sought only Ghalib’s name comes to one’s mind that was made target of a similar sinister campaign because of his presumed literary and linguistic sins. Ironically, those who criticised Ghalib and Iqbal unfairly are hardly known today, but both Ghalib and Iqbal are acknowledged as the greatest poets that Urdu language has ever produced. History has its own, strange way of dispensing justice!
Between 1903 and 1950, a large number of articles were written against Iqbal’s assumed poetic and linguistic lapses. But, at the same time, many defended Iqbal and penned rejoinders to what naysayers had written. Akber Hyderi Kashmiri (1929-2012), a Kashmiri Indian scholar, had collected such pieces, both for and against, and published them in a book titled Iqbal Ki Seht-i-Zaban (Lucknow, 1998), with an intro and a foreword. It is generally believed that it was poets and critics from UP who criticised Iqbal for his actual or perceived errors, but the book compiled by Akber Hyderi reveals that those who criticised Iqbal and those who sided with him both included writers from UP and Punjab. According to Akber Hyderi, the first-ever piece that raised objections on Iqbal’s usage was published in Taj, a newspaper from Lahore. Syed Mumtaz Ali (1860-1935), a scholar from UP settled in Lahore, had launched Taaleef-o-Isha’at, a fortnightly from Lahore in August 1902. The fortnightly began publishing articles that supported Iqbal, says Akber Hyderi, and many of these articles were penned by Mumtaz Ali himself.
In this literary feud many magazines and newspapers took part and published articles written by numerous authors. Those who wrote against Iqbal included, for instance, Urdu-i-Mu’alla, published from Aligarh by Hasrat Mohani and Oudh Punch, Lucknow. But some, for example, Paisa Akhbar from Lahore, published views from both sides. Shibli No’mani and Altaf Husain Hali, the two renowned authors from UP, were in favour of Iqbal. Lahore’s weekly Paras published an article in several episodes with the pseudonym Jarrah, or surgeon. It was later on published in book form under the title Iqbal Ki Khaamiyaan (1928). When its second edition was published in 1977, it was revealed that the real author was Josh Malsiyaani, a poet from Punjab. Siraj Lakhnavi, a poet from Lucknow, wrote a reply to Josh’s book in annual issue of Lahore’s Sarosh (1931).
Prominent among writers that severely criticised Iqbal for his supposed lexical and grammatical inaccuracies was Barkat Ali Gosha Nasheen, a poet form Punjab. His book Iqbal Ka Shaeraana Zavaal, or Iqbal’s poetical decline, published in two parts in 1931, pointed out errors in Iqbal’s Urdu and Persian poetry. But Oudh Punch, a humour magazine launched from Lucknow in 1877, continued publishing pieces against Iqbal and parodies of Iqbal’s poems, spoofing at his perceived linguistic and poetic blunders, from the early 20th century till the magazine ceased publication in 1936.
Oudh Punch and other critics that insisted on preserving old poetical styles and themes, frowning upon new ideas and new phrases or lexical structures coined by Iqbal, may be termed purists. Linguistic purism favours ‘purity’ of a language by stressing a particular style or variety of language. Attitudes towards language, any language, can be described with the help of two useful terms: prescriptivism and descriptivism. Prescriptivism tells the users of a language to strictly follow clear-cut rules and suggests how to use a language. But modern linguistic science favours descriptivism that describes how a language is being used currently because every language of the world changes with the passage of time and the concept of ‘purity’ of language is flawed.
The languages that do not embrace change and insist on prescribing usage often fall out of favour and can even die. Urdu is a living language and poets like Iqbal have infused a new life into it by using it creatively.
Published in Dawn, November 4th, 2024
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.