By Ajaz Ashraf
Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj has been praised for the dignity and quiet elegance with which she shamed those who criticised her viciously for intervening in a passport matter involving an inter-faith couple in Uttar Pradesh last month. Singed by the fury of Hindu radicals – luckily only on social media – Swaraj should now script a fight against the politics of hate, which has been gathering intensity across India every passing week.
Swaraj no longer has the option of remaining silent on hate crimes occurring around the country. Her silence would imply that she is either indifferent to the goings on, or lacks the empathy to feel the pain of those who are attacked, even lynched by groups who share the ideology of those who have abused her on social media.
Swaraj is most likely aware that she will needle her Bharatiya Janata Party, and even invite its displeasure, if she speaks out against the politics of hate. Yet, philosophically, politically and personally, it makes immense sense for her to now take a position against that strand of politics.
As Swaraj battled vitriolic abuse on social media following her intervention in the passport matter related to a Hindu-Muslim couple, she tweeted on July 1:
In a democracy difference of opinion is but natural. Pls do criticise but not in foul language. Criticism in decent language is always more effective.
But as an intelligent politician, Swaraj would know that trolls are not just about abusive language.
Ideas produce the language they articulate. Indecent ideas determine an indecent choice of words. An idea propagating hate sounds hateful – even if it is not peppered with expletives. For instance, the politest of anti-Semitic or anti-Black statements will be categorised as hate language in most western democracies. In India, to object to the state providing help to an inter-faith couple reeks of hate. When accompanied with abuse, the vilification is worse just in degree.
The relationship between language and ideas was vividly illustrated in a piece BJP national general secretary Ram Madhav wrote for the Indian Express on July 6. In the piece titled Trolling Sushma Swaraj, a champion of nationalism, on passport issue is unacceptable, Madhav convolutedly defended Swaraj, putting the blame for the passport controversy on Muslim clerics, who, he said, insist that Hindu women marrying Muslim men adopt Muslim names. “The social media activists should have taken on the clerics who insist on writing a different name in the nikahnama…” wrote Madhav.
Madhav’s piece could be called criticism in decent language. Yet his choice of words suggested that he would not have minded if Muslim clerics were abused on social media in the manner Swaraj was. Madhav’s choice of words was perhaps subconsciously determined by the idea behind them.
From this perspective, it will be hypocritical of Swaraj to treat abusive language and the ideas it stems from as separate categories, as she seemed to have done in her July 1 tweet. Perhaps Swaraj is aware of the link between idea and language, but thinks it is judicious to not criticise the ideas of hate. After all, some of these ideas have been deliberately constructed by her own party leaders, spawning a climate in India in which trolls will abuse and people will resort to violence.
But her cautious pushback will have no purchase in her party. This is why her ministerial colleagues, barring Union Ministers Rajnath Singh and Nitin Gadkari, did not defend her. They knew that to condemn the language employed by social media trolls against Swaraj was to also tacitly criticise the Sangh.
In the post-2014 BJP, careers can be built by endorsing ideas, words and actions dripping with hate. Union ministers Jayant Sinha and Giriraj Singh possibly know this all too well. If Sinha and Singh feted and defended men convicted for lynching and accused of fomenting communal tension last week, it was because they knew their party would not condemn their actions and might even appreciate it.
The transformation of the BJP since 2014 underlines Swaraj’s disconnect with the growing lumpen support base of her party. In a poll she conducted on Twitter last month, 43% of 1,24,305 Twitter users approved of the foul language used against her. Though the majority 57% comprised those who disapproved, they presumably also included those who are ideologically opposed to the BJP.
Philosophically then, Swaraj’s silence on hate crimes in the country can be seen as an example of double standards. Politically, her silence does not fit in with her party’s growing extremism and will not win her support among the BJP cadres. Personally, her silence will erode her image as a sensitive and caring politician.
For all these reasons, Swaraj can remain silent on hate at her own peril. The alternative to speaking against hate implies risking marginalisation in the BJP. But then, Swaraj has reached that point in her career where she does not have much to lose – and everything to gain.
Like many senior ministers in the Modi government, Swaraj’s potential has not been allowed to flower. Over the years, the External Affairs Ministry has been increasingly run by the Prime Minister’s Office. This is especially so during the tenure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has a penchant for centralising power in himself.
Perceived to have been sidelined, not least because she was among those who opposed Modi as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate in 2013, Swaraj has shown extraordinary skills to endear herself to the public, deftly using Twitter to provide relief to many. Swaraj has been praised for her creative humanity, although some uncharitably call her India’s Agony Aunt.
Swaraj’s image has given her equity that she perhaps hopes to invest in occupying the Prime Minister’s Office. But as far as the BJP goes, there is no vacancy for that post, such is Modi’s domination and so focused his tactics to beat back competitors.
Political pundits think Swaraj could become a prime ministerial contender if the BJP’s tally in the 2019 elections slides to 200-220. They say in such a scenario, the allies who are part of the National Democratic Alliance and those outside it whose support the BJP might need to form a government could demand that Modi be replaced.
But such a replacement cannot just be the call of BJP allies. It will certainly require the approval of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In that scenario, it is unlikely that the RSS will back Swaraj over Nitin Gadkari and Rajnath Singh. Gadkari has been an RSS favourite for long. Like Swaraj, he is considered amiable and accommodating across political parties.
It is therefore Swaraj’s best bet to speak against the ideas, language and actions of hate. Swaraj should become the face of contradiction to power. This should work in her favour as Indians love politicians who take an ethical position against the government of which they are a part.
There are compelling examples of such politicians in the past. For instance, Jagjivan Ram’s departure from the Congress in 1977 after the Emergency galvanised the Opposition, which also got another infusion of energy when VP Singh rocked the Congress government over the Bofors scandal. Singh grew even stronger when he was ousted from the Congress in 1987.
Now that Swaraj has spoken against the abusive language directed at her, logic demands that she might as well go the whole hog and question the ideas of hate her party leaders peddle. This might imply scripting her departure from the party.
This might seem a problem for Swaraj cannot possibly drift to the Congress against which she has fought many a battle. But there is little doubt that a large segment of the Opposition will enthusiastically welcome her, seeing in her a catalyst for their politics. It will be particularly true of the socialists, with whom she has worked and continues to have warm relations.
Swaraj was 25 years old when she became a minister in the Devi Lal government of Haryana in 1977 and was appointed the president of the Janata Party (Haryana) two years later. Her husband, Swaraj Kaushal, defended socialist leader George Fernandes in the Baroda Dynamite case during the Emergency. In addition, a clutch of regional outfits will be more than eager to have her on their platform.
For this, Swaraj must redefine her role beyond the BJP. She must cultivate a persona beyond party affiliations. This may even be her best bet to become the prime minister. The alternative is to continue to oversee the External Affairs Ministry. Many before her have done this too, rarely leaving their imprint on Indian politics.
Obviously, Swaraj cannot play this role if she does not believe that foul language flows from vile ideas. Swaraj needs to show that her celebrated pushback against trolls is not restricted to her Twitter timeline.
INDESCRIBABLE JOHN ELI
By Shabbir Aariz
This indeed is proverbially a herculean task to describe or define John Elia in any particular frame. Whosoever while mentioning him, is either trapped in contradictions of one’s own opinion or is able to confine to a few verses of John Elia to judge him. But the more one tries to understand John, the more confused one is and I believe that you need another John Elia to explain him. He is a phenomenon, a thing like a live fish to hold in your hand or an elephant amongst blinds to be described. Wusatullah Khan, a noted broadcaster, holds that knowing John is as good as dating with a liberated lady. And it is quite obvious that a man who in him is a philosopher, a scholar, a biographer, a linguist with command over Urdu, Arabic, English, Persian, Sanskrit and Hebrew and needless to say that the Ismaili sect of the subcontinent could not find anyone other than John to translate Ismaili treatises from Hebrew, it becomes a tedious affair to be conclusive about John. Common perception though with an element of truth is that John is a progressive Marxist, an unconventional poet and always in denial of everything including himself while himself saying in three line verse,
“KISKO FUSAT K MUJSAY BAHAS KARAY…..
OOR SABIT KARAY K MERA WAJOOD….
ZINDZGI K LIYAY ZARORI HAY
(Anyone prepared to argue and prove that my existence is imperative for life). His poetry is admittedly very close to life and his verses in the words of a legendry poet, Majrooh Sultanpuri, are like a dialogue which no other poet has the distinction to be capable of. John has an extra-ordinary craft of connecting with his audience that has created an unprecedented fan following which no other contemporary poet can claim to have. So magical is his poetry and its rendition that it has created a cult of his admirers with such an obsession and longing for the life of melancholy lead by John Elia himself. It is no secret that he was never a happy man with defiance and protest against everything and anything around. Loudly a nonconformist when he says
“unjaman main mayri khamooshi…..
burdabari nahin hay wehshat hay”.
His style made him famous and popular. He appears to be disgusted even with creation when he says … “HASILE KUN HAY YEH JAHANE KHARAAB….
YAHI MUMKIN THA AYSI UJLAT MAIN”.
His admirers strangely wish to pass through the same pain and despair that is hallmark of John’s poetry besides satire and the disdain for the system which contributed to his sadness in life. He has so glorified and romanticized the pain and sadness that it leaves his audience in frenzied ecstasy.
John Elia was born in the year 1931 and died in 2002. He originally belonged to Amroha in the state of Uttar Pradesh, younger brother of Rayees Amrohi, a known journalist and writer. John migrated to Pakistan in the year 1957 and settled in Karachi where he is buried now. But Amroha never left his heart and mind. He never felt comfortable after leaving Amroha partly because his stay in Karachi brought him in conflict with the system too. Many other things have also contributed to his sadness in life. He was married to a well-known writer of Pakistan, Zahida Hina but in mid-80’s , the relation between the two became bumpy and ended up in divorce which left John devastated and for ten long years thereafter went in depression without writing a word.
As is true about many in the history of literature, John earned his name and fame more after his death than in his life time while he was not received well and felt a strange type of suffocation when he says,
“AAP APNAY SAY HUMSUKHAN REHNA…..
HUMNISHEEN SAANS PHOOL JATI HAY”.
Thanks to the electronic boom and You Tube that brought him to the lime light and enabled audience to reach him and his works. As if this was not enough that his first poetic collection only came to be published when he reached the age of 60. It is worthwhile mention that he has as many as seven poetic collections to his credit namely SHAYAD, YANI, LEKIN, GUMAAN, GOYA, FARMOD and RAMOOZ. Except one, all other are published posthumously. This is besides his scholarly works in prose which may require greater insight to go into.
John all his life remained honest, direct and straightforward in expressing his views on matters of public interest. He also never demonstrated any pretentions or reservations while expressing the truth of his personal life. He never made any secret of his fantasies, love affairs or drinking habits. Yet he was never at peace either with the times or with himself. John Elia, in my humble opinion lived ahead of times and even the desire of dying young without being bed ridden was not granted to him except that he strangely enough wanted to die of tuberculosis and which he did.
(The author, a senior lawyers, is a well known poet and writer. Feedback at: [email protected])
Manto: Why I wanted to read a ‘lewd’ writer
By Naveed Hussain
I first read Saadat Hasan Manto as a teenager and the spirit of what I’m writing now was etched on my memory in those years.
I was too young to understand the intricacies of his stories but I enjoyed what I read and craved for more. Back then, Manto wasn’t available in the small town of Haripur where I lived. A friend introduced me to a schoolteacher, a bibliophile who had a modest collection of Manto in his personal library.
“Why do you want to read Manto, he’s a ribald, lewd writer,” he quipped. “This is exactly why I want to read him,” I replied, almost impulsively. He smiled and agreed to lend me Manto’s books. Thus began my journey to explore Manto. The more I read, the deeper my love for him became.
Manto was a nonconformist, an unorthodox and ruthlessly bold writer. He didn’t believe in the so-called literary norms of ‘decency’ and ‘civility’ set by didactic writers of his time. For him, truth is truth. No matter how bitter and despicable the reality, Manto never dilutes the truth. Like a muckraker, he pokes his nose into the muck, rakes it, and then holds it up to the reader – in all its profound ugliness and twisted beauty. “If you don’t know your society, read my stories. If you find a defect, it’s the defect of your society, not my stories,” he says.
Manto wrote on socially taboo topics like sex, incest and prostitution, which earned him the wrath of contemporary traditionalists, conservatives and even progressives. For some of his ‘lewd’ and ‘obscene’ stories he had to face lawsuits – among them were great stories such as Thanda Gosht, Bu, Khol Do, Dhuan and Kali Shalwar.
But it is to miss the point to simply say that Manto wrote about sex. He wrote about the sexual debauchery of men and the sexual exploitation of women; about our patriarchal society where women are often treated as a ‘sex toy’, not a human being. Unlike many, I don’t compare Manto with DH Lawrence, because Manto is not lustful, even though he explicitly writes about the female anatomy. He’s more like Guy de Maupassant, who sees the throbbing heart, not the sensuous body, of the prostitute.
Manto blames the ‘diseased mind’ for reading ‘ribaldry’ into his stories. If a sex maniac derives morbid gratification from Venus De Milo, should we blame Alexandros of Antioch for chiselling such a ‘graphic’ sculpture? No, certainly not.
For contemporary literary pundits, Manto was also unacceptable because he wrote ‘indecent’ language. “They [the critics] criticise me when my characters verbally abuse one another – but why don’t they criticise their society instead where hundreds of thousands of profanities are hurled on the streets, every day,” he wonders.
I also love Manto because he was honest. He was an unflinchingly true writer who believed in calling a spade a spade. Sketch-writing was introduced as a genre in Urdu literature much earlier, but Manto created his own peculiar tell-all style. He didn’t write only the good qualities of his characters. “In my bathroom, everyone is naked. I don’t clothe them because it’s the tailor’s job,” he writes.
Manto’s sketches, which he initially wrote for the Lahore-based Daily Afaq newspaper, were later collected and published as Ganjay Farishtay. Manto wasn’t a hypocrite. He minced no words while writing about his dead friends. “I curse a thousand times a so-called civilised society where a man’s character is cleansed of all its ills and tagged as ‘May-God-Bless Him’,” Manto wrote in Ganjay Farishtay. Manto wrote sketches of filmstars Ashok Kumar, Shyam, Noor Jahan, literary figures such as Meera Ji, Agha Hashar and Ismat Chughtai and some politicians. “I have no camera that could have washed smallpox marks off the face of Agha Hashar or change obscenities uttered by him in his flowery style.”
Before embarking on his literary career, Manto had read Russian, French and English masters like Chekhov, Gorky, Victor Hugo, de Maupassant and Oscar Wilde and translated some of their works into Urdu. Surprisingly enough, despite his love for revolutionaries, Manto was not a Marxist ideologue. He was a humanist who was pained to see social injustices, economic disparities and exploitation of the underprivileged. He hated the obscurantist clergy and parasitic elites alike.
Although Manto had migrated to Pakistan after 1947, he couldn’t understand the rationale of partitioning a land along religious lines. His stories of bloodshed and cross-border migration, such as Teetwaal Ka Kutta and Toba Tek Singh, made him unpopular with ‘patriotic’ Pakistanis. To this day he remains a shadowy figure on the official literary lists of Pakistan: our school curricula, our national awards, our drawing room conversations.
Manto was acknowledged as a creative genius even by his detractors. And he knew this, which is perhaps why he wanted these words to mark his grave: “Here lies Saadat Hasan Manto and with him lie all the secrets and mysteries of the art of short story writing. Under tons of earth he lies, still wondering who among the two is the greater short story writer: he or God.”
Manto’s family feared his self-written epitaph would attract the unwanted attention of the ignorantly religious, so on his grave one finds a Ghalib couplet. He faced censorship all his life and even now has chunks of his stories taken out by the authorities. But as we mark his centenary year, I can say this with the instant certainty I felt as a young man in Haripur: the words and stories of Saadat Hasan Manto will outlive us all.
Gauhar Raza: Giving Poetry the Power to Protest
By Asheesh Mamgain
If things were different his poems would have been different, or maybe he would not have been a poet at all. But things are what they are. And that is why Gauhar Raza, the poet is writing, and it is why he writes his poetry of protest.
“Maybe I would have written about love, the beauty of nature and science. But as things stand my poetry is predominantly about resistance and protest,” said Raza, who is faithful to the tradition of resistance poetry to the extent that he has throttled, without much difficulty, the romantic and the scientist in him. “The need to write poetry always arose when something happened around me which affected me, to the core. I have never written and will never write poetry just for the sake of it.”
“The murder of Safdar Hashmi, the breaking up of the Soviet Union, the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the killing of an activist in Afghanistan, the death of Rohith Vemula are some of those things,” he said.
Raza’s second published collection of ghazals and nazms (71 in all) came out in November 2017 and is titled Khamoshi, or Silence.
Is there a lot of anger in his poems? Yes, there is definitely a lot of anger. But then there is also hope. That is where Raza becomes special.
“For me, a poem that merely complains or rants about the injustice, violence and persecution happening all around is not enough. A poet has to go beyond this; he has to give a vision. The vision of an alternative world, of a better world. Only then will his poetry be successful and meaningful. A poet has to show the consciousness he wants to bring into society.”
So how does he define good poetry? “Well, a good poem should be able to raise the level of the reader at least one notch higher, and also give him a fresh perspective about the aspect being dealt in the poem. Something new to dwell upon,” said Raza.
The influences that shaped his poetic thought came pretty early, at home and at the Aligarh Muslim University where he studied. Raza’s father, Wizarat Hussain, worked in the education department there and was a second-generation Leftist.
“The question about the existence of God came up very early in my life and soon I became an atheist for life,” said Raza. Literature was read with passion at home and by the time he was 15 he had read all the Urdu literature available at the AMU library as well as a solid portion of Russian literature.
“During my growing years, Leftist thought had a major presence in the university. On the other hand, the fundamental forces were also steadily getting stronger. I was smitten by the leftist idea. I was part of a literary study circle, we served tea at the secret meetings of leftist groups and listened to discussions at home between my father and other intellectuals such as Irfan Habib and Iqtidar Alam Khan.”
There was a lot of churning in his mind and soon he started pouring the remnants of all that into his poems. When it comes to poetry some of Raza’s major influences have been Ghalib, Faiz Ahmad Faiz and Sahir Ludhianvi. He is often seen reciting their work at length during his various lectures, with Sahir Ludhianvi’s long poem ‘Parchhaiyan’ or Shadows one of his favourites.
“Writing the kind of poetry I do is not easy. Each time a write a poem I must relive all the pain and emotion I went through when the particular incident happened that forced me to write. All those disturbing images come rushing back to me. It is a difficult thing to undergo.”
Nor is poetry Raza’s only means of reaching the people. He recently retired as chief scientist from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. He is also into documentary filmmaking, his documentaries on Bhagat Singh and the 2002 Gujarat genocide being very well known.
Where does poetry stand today, as a means of communication with the reader? According to Raza, “for one, social media has helped. It has helped poets reach a wider audience. Also, the tradition of musharias and kavi sammelans (poetry meets) is still very strong in India. So even if a poet is competing with the multimedia world, it is easy to reach one’s audience with one’s poetry, provided you have something pertinent to say.”
More broadly speaking, however, “I have to say that things have progressed in a disturbing direction. A poem I wrote 20 years ago, I could rededicate it to Rohith Vemula and then to Gauri Lankesh. This disturbing trend is seen all over the world. I believe that the fall of the USSR has been a major turning point in the way our World has evolved.”
A few lines from one of his poems brings out his concern and struggle.
Mein phool khilata hoon jab bhi,
Woh baad e khizan le aate hain,
Mein geet sunata hoon jab bhi,
Yeh aag se ji bahlate hain.
Whenever I make a flower blossom
They bring the autumn wind
Whenever I sing a song
They give the soul succour with flame.
But Raza is still hopeful. “There has been a resurgence of resistance poetry in Urdu in the recent past. The trend of religious poetry in Urdu has also reduced in recent times. The youth today has become more involved in this attempt to bring a positive change. I have seen young people reading protest poetry and reacting to it. Once again universities have become a place of resistance and struggle for change.”