In general, a language can
flourish as long as it remains a functional language, a living language. The
scene in present-day India has completely changed, and with the free market
economy and globalization, whether one likes it or not, any language and its
literature will have to compete for survival in the open market. A language and
its literature can no more survive only on state patronage. If it tries to do
so, it will perish. Urdu’s case is illustrative. The leadership of Urdu, an
admixture of half-baked and superficially ‘knowledgeable’ university teachers
and regressive Muslim politicians, is still churning out the same old tired
clichés of anti-government policies, and Urdu literature has been going down the
same path as Sanskrit. Urdu as lingua franca will survive, Urdu as a written
language in dini madaris will survive, but it has already ceased to grow as a
literary language. Muslim politics and its proponents have successfully
convinced the Urdu-speaking Muslim population that Urdu is a ‘Muslim language’
and that the government and the broad Hindu majority are anti-Urdu. So, they
assert, it is their duty to save Urdu as part of their religious duty and most
Muslims are convinced by this argument. -- Ather
Farouqui
Author
of numerous books and articles on contemporary Muslim politics and Urdu, New
Delhi-based Ather Farouqui speaks to Yoginder Sikand about his work and about
the status of Urdu and Muslim intellectual thought in contemporary
India.
Q: Could
you tell us something about your background?
A: I was born in 1964, in Sikandrabad, still a
sleepy and dusty town in Bulandshahr district, now part of the National Capital
Region and next door to Greater Noida in western Utta Pradeshr. I did my BA and
MA in Urdu literature privately from the erstwhile Meerut University (now
renamed as Chaudhary Charan Singh University). Then, I joined Jawaharlal Nehru
University in New Delhi, first for a part-time diploma in mass media in 1986,
then for an M. Phil in 1998. I went on to do my Ph.D. there, getting my degree
in 1996 from the Centre for Indian Languages, School of Languages, which is now
known as the School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies. I worked under
the guidance of Imtiaz Ahmad, who though not officially my supervisor, guided me
academically. I worked on a socio-political study of Urdu in post-Partition
India for my M.Phil. and Ph.d. For my M.Phil., I worked on ‘Urdu education in
Delhi’ and for my doctoral dissertation, I expanded on the issue, looking at
Urdu in post-1947 India more generally.
Q: A
lot has been written on Urdu in post-1947 India. How was your study
different?
A: For me, Urdu has many dimensions in
post-partition India. Some of these are: Urdu as a language of communication,
Urdu as a functional language (including not only its role as a lingua franca
but its coverage of most aspects of life, most importantly, the teaching of
Urdu), Urdu as a language of canonized literature, Urdu as a language of pulp
literature (whose most prominent name is Ibn-e Safi), and finally, Urdu as a
language of religious studies.
Urdu as a language of religious studies covers
the political dimension of assertive Muslim identity bordering on atavistic
Muslim politics and here the question of Arabic-Perso script plays a vital role.
‘Teaching of Urdu’ or ‘Urdu Education’ both are oversimplified concepts and
expressions. Teaching of Urdu, as first, second or third language in a school
curriculum is one thing and is totally different from Urdu as a medium of
instruction in schools affiliated with state boards. Then again, Urdu as a
medium of instruction for some subjects in dini madaris and its employment as
the only language of communication between students and teachers in these
madaris is an entirely different subject of study. Some dini madaris teach Urdu
literature, but their purpose is twofold: to make the students proficient in
Urdu so that they can study religious text well and to promote literature which
the dini madaris approve of. In the context of Urdu literature, the dini madaris
and the ulema have been very selective from the beginning. They approve only the
kind of literature that extends their agenda.
These are broad distinctions in the context of
Urdu, intermixed most of the time, and we tend to employ the phrase ‘study of
Urdu’ without proper understanding. Most Muslims think that Urdu has a close
relationship with their identity and that no discussion about it without
strident assertions about its script will serve their political purpose. For
most non-Muslims, Urdu is the language of poetry, culture and a sophisticated
lifestyle associated with the erstwhile elite. So the whole discourse of Urdu in
the public domain or in academia is completely misunderstood and
oversimplified.
As I said, because of technical reasons, the
focus during my M.Phil. was on the state of Urdu in Delhi therefore I also dealt
with schools in Delhi that taught Urdu as an optional language or as medium of
instruction. In addition, I dealt with the dini madaris of Delhi as well. To
understand the issue in perspective, I did field work in many states, traveling
for months in Bihar, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The data was
first used for an article in the EPW (‘Urdu in India: Four Representative
States’ April 2, 1994). As far as I know, I was the first, and remain to
this day, the only scholar who has engaged in detailed empirical research to
examine Urdu in its contemporary socio-political context. Most other writings on
Urdu in post-1947 India are, I regret to say, impressionistic, imaginative and
lacking in empirical depth.
Q: You
are a prolific writer, author of numerous books. Can you briefly describe your
writings? What issues have you focused on?
A: Let me say in the first place that I have not
worked on any aspect of Urdu literature. Even while being a keen reader of Urdu
literature and a student interested in the Urdu scenario—observing literary
trends and the literary politics of Urdu—predominantly Muslim politics—I have no
‘literary’ claims or pretensions. Almost all my writings have been about various
aspects of Urdu, Urdu-related politics, and Muslims in contemporary India. I
have done six books so far. Two of these are edited volumes in English, both
published by Oxford University Press:Redefining Urdu Politics in India
(2006), and Muslims and Media Images (2009). The rest are in
Urdu: Azad Hindustan Mai Urdu Siyasat ki Tahfim-e Nau (on the politics of
Urdu); Urdu Zaba, Talim Aur Sahafat (on politics in the name of Urdu, its
education and journalism); Guftagu unki (a collection of interviews with
scholars, activists and politicians on Muslim-and Urdu-related issues); a
collection of essays called Na-Mukammil; and a book each on the leading
Urdu writers, Rashid Hasan Khan and Makhmoor Saidi. Some 15 years ago, I also
rendered the Kulliyat of the noted Urdu poet Akhtar-ul Iman into the
Devnagari script, which has been published as a bulky volume. I have done a
number of translations, most recently, the Urdu and Hindi translations of ‘Sons
of Babur’, with the same title, Babur ki
Aulad.
Besides this, I have written scores of articles
for academic journals as well asfor newspapers. Recently, I have started working
on a new book, Contemporary Muslim India. In it, I intend to explore
different facets of Muslim life in 21st century
India.
Q: That
Urdu has witnessed a considerable decline since Partition, especially because of
discrimination on the part of the state, is a well-known fact. What do you think
should be done to protect the language?
A: In general, a language can flourish as long
as it remains a functional language, a living language. The scene in present-day
India has completely changed, and with the free market economy and
globalization, whether one likes it or not, any language and its literature will
have to compete for survival in the open market. A language and its literature
can no more survive only on state patronage. If it tries to do so, it will
perish. Urdu’s case is illustrative. The leadership of Urdu, an admixture of
half-baked and superficially ‘knowledgeable’ university teachers and regressive
Muslim politicians, is still churning out the same old tired clichés of
anti-government policies, and Urdu literature has been going down the same path
as Sanskrit. Urdu as lingua franca will survive, Urdu as a written language in
dini madaris will survive, but it has already ceased to grow as a literary
language. Muslim politics and its proponents have successfully convinced the
Urdu-speaking Muslim population that Urdu is a ‘Muslim language’ and that the
government and the broad Hindu majority are anti-Urdu. So, they assert, it is
their duty to save Urdu as part of their religious duty and most Muslims are
convinced by this argument. The result is that they have become its victim while
remaining economically backward. By becoming the language of mostly Muslims and
a captive of religious Muslim institutions, the larger appeal of the language
has already disappeared. The strategy for the survival of Urdu in independent
India was completely insane and communal, and only Muslims and their leadership
are responsible for this. For the most part, Muslims have been supporting a
fringe religious and political element, and this attitude, by and large under
the influence of a wrong concept of religion and religious Muslim identity,
persists and is unchanging. Whatever may be the web of factors, a majority of
the Muslims do not support a progressive outlook and democratic structures. They
have constantly supported only corrupt politicians and are marching towards
political suicide in a fast-changing world where they are in minority
everywhere, with only delusions about changing the world as per their
wishes.
Urdu is the most powerful symbol of a culture
associated with a language to which both Hindus and Muslims contributed in the
past. The decisive growth of Urdu took place after the decline of the Mughal
Empire with the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 rather than as a consequence of
Muslim rule. Later, the assertions of Muslims as well as British policies
converted what was once a living, syncretic language into a ‘Muslim language’
having a separatist ethos.
Today, a very large proportion of non-religious
Urdu publications claiming to be literary are being produced across the country
with direct or indirect state patronage, through government-funded institutions
like Urdu academies in almost every state, the National Council for the
Promotion of the Urdu Language (a central government-funded organization) and
the Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Memorial Committee in Uttar Pradesh (fully funded by
the state government, in addition to the U.P. Urdu academy)—to name a few. The
government cannot be blamed for extending this patronage. In most
democracies—and India is no exception to this—governments are populist and seek
to appease any section from which they can garner votes. So, the Central
government as well as all the state governments allocate grants for the
‘promotion of Urdu’ in their bid to get Muslim
votes.
It is foolish, therefore, to blame the government
for the incompetence of Urdu organizations. All government-run institutions tend
to be incompetent and insensitive. But the government cannot be blamed entirely
for the pathetic administrative structure of Urdu academies and their
ill-conceived policies. Most of the blame needs to be apportioned to the Muslim
politicians who run these institutions and are corrupt and incompetent. These
bodies provide funds to ‘Urdu writers’, publish their substandard writings,
subsidize them, make bulk purchases of their books and grant them awards and
prizes. The unfortunate outcome of the situation is that not only third-rate
Urdu literature is being produced. The most lamentable part of this story is
that the really creative writers are just sitting by and have lost touch with
the common reader.
Many creative authors who can write in Urdu but
who also know English or Hindi now prefer to write in the latter two languages,
the market for which is far more extensive and developed. Hence, Urdu has, by
and large, become the province of third-rate writers, who write and publish in
this language because they cannot write in Hindi, English or the other regional
languages. What has added to the problem is the fact that, over the years, Urdu
degree programmes in colleges and universities across India have begun
attracting only those students who, because of poor academic qualifications,
cannot get admission to any other course. This has had a devastating impact on
the quality of Urdu writing in India over recent
decades.
Q: Why
is it rare, even impossible, to find any books other than on Islam, Urdu poetry
and prose in almost all Muslim-owned Urdu bookshops across India? What explains
this almost complete lack of books on subjects such as politics, society,
economics and so on in these bookshops? Even Muslim-owned publishing houses that
generally publish in Urdu have produced few, if any, such books.
Why?
A: I might sound provocative but, perhaps, this
is because, in general, Muslims, who now form the vast majority of Urdu-readers,
are not serious enough about social issues. This is simply because they are not
trained to do so, lack modern education and are excessively dependent on the
views and teachings of madrasas. This said, I think it would be unfair to judge
the quality of the productions of Urdu publishing houses by the same standards
used to evaluate Hindi or English publishing houses. This is because of basic
differences in their clientele. The vast majority of Urdu readers come from poor
or lower-middle class backgrounds, with little or no exposure to liberal
education. Urdu publishing houses as well as Urdu newspapers and magazines set
their standards to suit the tastes of this class as well as to pander to their
prejudices. This is why they focus largely on issues that are Muslim- or
Islam-specific, with much of the writing being sensationalist and provocative,
because this is what their readers want. The sense of Muslims being under siege
or under attack adds to this insular outlook.
By pointing this out, I do not mean to condone
this attitude. We need to get out of this mental ghetto. We need to rescue
ourselves from our fixation only with Muslim-specific issues and begin to take
an interest in broader national issues, issues that affect all Indians. This is
a long process, however, and it cannot happen unless Muslims also broaden their
understanding of their religion in place of the present communal, ritualistic,
sectarian and narrow understanding of it. Further, I must add that the Urdu
media and publishing houses, with a few exceptions, suffer from the same
mismanagement, egotism, nepotism and lack of professionalism that afflicts many
other Muslim institutions, including mosques and graveyards. They tend to lack a
professional work ethic.
Q: Some
of the north Indian elite project Urdu as specifically ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim’
issue. As in the case of a supposedly ‘pure’ Sanskritised Hindi, the politics of
Urdu has historically been deployed to reinforce communal differences between
Hindus and Muslims. Is it not the case that in parts of India where Muslims
speak the same regional language as Hindus, as in Kerala or Tamil Nadu or West
Bengal, Muslims are more integrated and inter-communal relations are far more
harmonious than in the so-called ‘Urdu-Hindi belt’? In other words, how have the
politics of Urdu (and Hindi) impacted inter-community relations?
A: Mirroring the case of a supposedly ‘pure’
Hindi, the Urdu movement has historically tended to reinforce and magnify
communal divides. Muslims outside the ‘Urdu-Hindi belt’, mainly in rural areas,
are much more integrated with their local cultural milieu, which, I believe, is
a very good thing. It is true that from the late nineteenth century, Urdu has
been used decisively as a vehicle for pan-Islamic and Muslim communalist
discourse, just as Hindi has been used to address the Hindu
agenda.
Q: Today,
Muslims complain—and their complaint does have some substance to it—that the
non-Muslim media unfairly targets them and tarnishes the image of their
religion. What have Muslim organizations done to remedy this state of
affairs?
A: Muslim organizations are simply not
interested in engaging with the non-Muslim media because of a well-thought out
strategy. Their survival is based on projecting every-thing as wholly
‘anti-Islamic’ or ‘anti-Muslim’. Any dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslim
segments, including the media, is harmful for Muslim politicians. If such
interaction happens in India they won’t be able to capitalize on Muslim
grievances and fear psychosis and will have to shut up shop. Most organizations
and groups claiming to work for Muslim welfare are simply too conservative,
communal and backward-looking to expect to relate or interact with the media in
a proper manner. The most unfortunate thing is that if any Muslim speaks out
against any irrational thinking or stand, he gets no support at all from other
Muslims and is quickly attacked and damned as an agent of this or that
‘anti-Muslim’ camp by the well-organized groups of atavistic
ideologues.
In this regard, it is important to note that
although the modern, educated Muslim middle-class is still very small, to the
extent of being non-existent in comparison to the Hindu middle class, it is not
an enlightened community. Hypothetically, it can take a leading role in
community affairs, especially in relaying Muslim issues and concerns to the
‘mainstream’ media. Barring some stray cases, this is presently not happening.
As far as I can see, middle class Muslims are simply too involved with its own
lives and careers to be very much concerned about such issues, which is a
terrible pity.
In recent years, a number of Muslim-run
television channels have sprung up, at considerable expense, obviously. But I
regret to say that they have been unable to address Muslim issues and to relate
to people of other faiths and to the non-Muslim media. These channels focus
mainly on Islam—and, not just that, each follows, propagates, and is identified
with just one particular sectarian interpretation of Islam, which only furthers
existing sectarian divisions. Hardly any of these channels pay attention to the
myriad social, economic, political, or educational concerns and issues of
Muslims. The stuff they broadcast is theologically-oriented and preachy. Such
channels hold no attraction at all for non-Muslim
viewers.
I really cannot think of any easy and quick
solutions to this problem of Muslim images in the media, but all I can say is
that Muslims must begin to understand the importance of the media and must seek
to increase their representation therein. They should not forget that they are
no longer the rulers. Actually, this is a bitter pill that Muslims the world
over are not willing to swallow.
Ather
Farouqui can be contacted on farouqui@yahoo.com
11:37 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment