Faraz, who is now plus 70, would like to pass for 60. It has been made possible by his youthful behaviour. Being the son of a bilingual poet, who composed poetry in Persian and Urdu, Faraz started his career as a lecturer in Urdu in Peshawar. Later on he joined the government service. He is still serving the National Book Foundation. It is good that superannuation rules have not affected him. I wish all accomplished writers be exempted from retirement rules if they can maintain good health.
Faraz is a popular poet in the true sense of the word. A Mushaira that has his name in its list of poets, is likely to attract crowd. He has truly stepped into the shoes of Faiz Ahmed Faiz in so far as the crowd-pulling is concerned. I wish he could also have a temperament like Faiz's. It has been universally accepted that temperament is the main factor which stamps the individuality of a poet. The more balanced it is, the more serene and sedate the compositions of a poet are.
Faiz Ahmed Faiz had undergone a great deal of bitter feelings but when these feelings passed through the filters of his temperament, a lot of vitriolic fervour had to subside and all that came out as poetry was couched in a velvety expression which didn't conceal the remnants of 'pain' or 'anguish'. The poet had to suffer as a consequence of his experience. Faraz used Persian tradition of Urdu poetry to good effect but there is something which marks off Faraz as a different personality. No one could expect vitriolic behaviour from Faiz even if the situation so warranted. Not so is the case with Faraz. He doesn't believe in keeping reasons of 'bitterness' to himself; he betrays his impatience. This is one way he could pass for a person young at heart. And my dear readers, this demonstration effect, if it recurs time and again - proves the point. Faraz is appreciative of Faiz because he was a world apart from Faiz's temperament and very much like him in his poetry.
Having spoken about poetic temperament of Faraz, it could be safely said that he is, perhaps the most popular Urdu poet today and that's why he keeps travelling to the four corners of the world to gleefully respond his fans' requests. Surely he is one poet who has not allowed his age to tell on his zest for being loved by his fans. The more they are, the merrier he is.
He talked at the Aga Khan University gathering about his fondness for Faiz. Undoubtedly Faiz has been a great influence on him, but it is his being steeped in Persian tradition which has made him a worthy disciple of Faiz. Both were grounded in Persian and that's why this factor makes Faraz a Faiz of today.
I have had a fairly long track record of his friendship and I am dreadful of the day when, God forbid, Faraz will bow out of this world like every one of us would. I think much will bow out of the grand Mushaira culture with him.
A Canadian publisher has published a book of appreciation on Faraz. Entitled 'Pazeerai', different contributions of contemporary writers have done full justice to the merits of Faraz's poetry in this book.
'Pazeerai' is as good a book as Faraz's poetry is and the lovers of Urdu poetry would do well to have it as a collector's item in their personal libraries.
IS URDU SO ANCIENT?
A book which is being talked about these days is Bashir Ahmed's Mutalea Hindustani. Published by Hayat Publications, Delhi, in collaboration with National Council for the Promotion of Urdu Language. It is an important contribution. It is a history of Hindi-Urdu language and literature in chronological order from 633AD to 1800AD.
The book has been dedicated to U. Narain Panday, a martyr of Urdu who gave up his life in a fast-until-death on 22 August 1967.
This book discusses the contribution of 415 Hindustani poets and writers starting from Devedan (300 BC). Quite an amazing start. Uptil now no one had gone as deep as Bashir Ahmed and he has quoted couplets in Hindustani with proper referencing.
Bashir Ahmed is the first research scholar, praised by Dr. Mohammad Hasan and Prof. Qamar Rais, who has dug out sources which have not been drawn upon to prove the ancientness of Urdu literature.
For example which author has discussed the poetry of Siral 633 AD, Pishya Kavi 317 AD, Loipa 773 AD, Dakhshnacharya 778 AD, Abdullah Iraqi 780 AD, Baropa 900 AD, Ram Singh 900-1000 AD and Pashap Dant (900-1000) AD in History of Urdu Literature.
The second stage begins with Abdur Rehman 1010 AD, Khwaja Masud Saad, Bin Salman 1121 AD and Ramanuj Acharyau 1137 AD.
Bashir Ahmed, let us admit, is the historian of Hindustani and not Urdu. His contention is that Urdu is based upon Surseni Prakrit and hence it is as ancient as the vogue of Buddhism, almost the same view which Dr. Soyhail Bokhari, Dr. Shaukat Sabzwari and Dr. Shabbir Ahmed Kazmi held.
One is surprised that a compendium drawing upon the present day Hindi and Urdu historiography had so much in its store to surprise us.
Had we ever considered Raja Todarmal (1523-1589) as a Hindustani poet? Bashir Ahmed produces some superb vignettes from Todarmal's poetry. One comes across Raja Man Singh (1590), Raja Birbal (1528-1591) and Mulla Dopiaza (1591)'s Hindustani poetry which is as understandable as Amir Khusro's Urdu poetry.
For example Mulla Dopiaza's lines:
Woh Gora Larka Baman Ka Shaukh Ghauna
Aisa Lagey Hai Mujh Ko Joon Khanund Ka Khilona
Bashir Ahmed has made a conscious effort to dig out those names which have not been discussed by the historians of Urdu literature. He has opened a new vista which was not opened before.
Farooqi's impatience or denunciation
Professor Shams-ur-Rahman Farooqi created quite a few ripples during his recent Pakistan tour. In Karachi, his talk on the "Literacy Trends in Urdu Literature in India" he debunked the main thesis of 'First Person Singular' of the Modern Movement by making it subservient to social norms, cultural tradition and importance of strategy of action.
What was significant in what Shams-ur-Rahman Farooqi said was that he didn't think that structuralism, post-structuralism and post-modernism have to offer anything in their Theories of Meaning of the Text.
Our writers, and mystics in particular, have already said that every reader has his own particular context to drive meaning from the text.
This is, perhaps, the most scathing criticism of these theories from the Mentor of Modernism.
This writer has been insisting on the same thesis since 1975. Farooqi said that he believed in the 'strategy of action' to achieve constitutional rights for Urdu in India. I think the strategy could be extended to the social transformation of the society. It doesn't matter if Farooqi doesn't call himself a progressive. All that he talked in NIPA and Newports was nothing but a writer who believes in the strategy of action i.e. social claims on a writer.