One of the most interesting aspects of postmodernism is that it is extremely difficult to be described. The attitudes or attributes associated with the term postmodernism are so variant and myriad that sometimes one feels puzzled over what postmodernism really is.

Some believe that postmodernism is a reaction against modernism, which means that modernism has died and is no more. While others feel modernism has not been done with and it is still alive since the literary movement “avant-garde” that initiated modernism still exerts its influence on arts and literature. Some say postmodernism is a part of an “attack” on the values and so-called truths of the Enlightenment. But, generally, it denotes the changes that have been taking place in literature and art since the second half of the twentieth century and draws ideas from such a vastly diverse sources that sometimes it seems to have conflicting traits. Experimentation, innovation, revolutionary thinking and a rebellion against the traditional thinking are the attributes of postmodernism and it has a marked tendency to go against any form of authority and even signification. Postmodernism takes ideas from feminism, post-structuralism, deconstruction and many other philosophical movements and trends that have been the hallmark of the twentieth century philosophies and Literary Theory.

In Urdu, we have in recent years had a number of valuable books that explain the issues related to modernism and postmodernism. Aside from Jamal Panipati — a staunch supporter of traditionalism who strongly reacted against modernism — Zameer Ali Badayuni's two books thrash the issue out with a great command. His book “Jadeediyet aur mabaad jadeediyet” is a philosophic and literary discourse that tries to unravel the entangled issues related to modern philosophy and literary criticism. In his other book “Ma bad jadeediyet ka doosra rukh” Zameer Ali Badayuni says “Postmodernism is a cultural, creative and philosophic point of view influence of which can easily be felt on literature, fine arts and culture. And now no writer has a way out other than embracing the postmodernist point of view.” Well, one may not agree with him but it is a fact that arts and literature have greatly been influenced by this movement and the literary genres and styles that proliferated as a result of the influence of postmodernism include anti-novel. In Urdu, we had anti-ghazal.

Nasir Abbas Nayyar, a critic and researcher of the younger generation, has written a number of books and articles on the theory of postmodernism. Vazeer Agha and Faheem Aazmi had been raising questions on postmodernism and structuralism and answering them in their magazines, “Auraaq” and “Sareer”, respectively. There are many others, both in India and Pakistan, such as Rauf Niazi, Wahab Ashrafi, Shamim Hanafi, Abul Kalam Qasmi, Qazi Afzal Hussain and Qazi Qaiser-ul-Islam, who have been deliberating on the issue from their points of view. And the new entrant in the field is one of the most well-read ones Imran Shahid Bhinder, who is also, perhaps, the youngest of them all. But more about him later.

Let me say a few words first about the person who created ripples and earned fame by writing on the issues related to modernism, postmodernism, structuralism and post-structuralism none other than the renowned scholar Gopi Chand Narang. Narang has held many an important post in the past including the coveted position of the chairman of India's Sahitya Academy, earning many awards for his research and critical works with praise being showered on him from every quarter — well, “almost” every quarter, one must say, as many think Narang does not deserve the accolades he has earned. No, I am not pointing to the famous feud between Shamas-ur-Rahman Farooqi and Narang. I am talking about the articles and a book by Imran Shahid Bhinder that have brought more notoriety to Narang than the fame he has earned.

Bhinder, a UK-based Pakistani youngster, has ruthlessly uncovered what he calls “Narang's plagiarism”. C.M. Naim, a US based well-known scholar of Urdu, had written a very interesting article on Bhinder's writings and agreed with Bhinder who proved that Narang was a “plagiarist” and most of what he had written in his so-called “epoch-making” book “Sakhtiyat, pas sakhtiyat aur mashriqi sheryaat” was “nothing but the translation from English and that too without any acknowledgements”. Naim's article “Plagiarize and prosper” had appeared first in “Outlook India” (available online) and was reproduced in the 24 issue of “Annual of Urdu Studies” (2009), a magazine published by the University of Wisconsin's department of languages and cultures of Asia (available online also).

“Bhinder has most convincingly established that Dr Narang's achievement in that award-winning book is not that of an author but only of a translator and that too of a reprehensible kind”, writes Naim in his article. He says that “according to Bhinder, Dr Narang did not read the original authors ... he read only their well-known interpreters and then transferred the latter's analyses and interpretations into Urdu, doing so verbatim and without giving the reader any indication of what he was doing”.

Ever since reading C.M. Naim's article, I had been looking for Bhinder's book “Falsafa-e-mabaad jadeediyet” and luckily came across it in one of the shops at Urdu Bazaar. It is the second edition — quite amazing as the publishers keep on lamenting the slack market for books on purely academic and philosophic issues — and Bhinder has added two new chapters to the second edition, which has just been published by Karachi's City Book Point.

I agree with Naim that the evidence that Bhinder has presented is “quite irrefutable” and that “charges are extremely serious” but “they are also thoroughly documented”. However, while I must appreciate Bhinder's vast study of the western philosophy and his insight, I must say that Bhinder's tone at times is bit more sarcastic than civility allows and while condemning Narang in harshest of terms (he refers to Narang's act as “jahalat”), he takes with him “most of the Urdu critics and intellectuals” who, according to him, do not know much about the modern Literary Theory as they read very little and only know how to write. They are, he says, deprived of vision and imagination. The only Urdu critic for whom he has a little, though only half-hearted, regard is Vazeer Agha. Also, some of the Urdu terms used by him need revision and in absence of any Urdu/English glossary one is not sure of some of the Urdu terms used by him.

While I think C.M. Naim may be right when he says that Marathi and Bengali scholars are “more knowledgeable about modern and pre-modern literary theories than the average Urdu academic”, I also feel Bhinder has to pay some respect to those who keep themselves abreast with the new theories and read a lot but are not ostentatious.

—drraufparekh@yahoo.com