Gupta emphasizes that Faiz was a Pakistani nationalist who tried to topple the Government for not conquering Kashmir in 1948 and who served as Bhutto's propaganda chief when Bhutto, taking advantage of Ayub Khan's absence, launched the 1965 war to grab Kashmir. But Gupta thinks Faiz was a Leftist of the Indian sort who had no special connection with Islam. This misses out an important part of the story. The fact is Iqbal had developed a theory that only Muslims could be the vanguard of a genuine Communist revolution in the Indian sub-continent. There were two nations- one was already monotheist and could thus easily transition to complete Socialism- the other was simply ignorant, pagan, and doomed to annihilation along with its idols of clay. Iqbal, who had written a poem praising Lenin in the belief that to say 'there is no God' is to have gone half way to becoming a Muslim, said Nehru could never take India in a Socialist direction. However, Pakistan could develop in that direction. The proof of this was Liaqat's 1946 budget which made headlines in America. It was perceived as an attack on the plutocrats. Liaquat was a clever lawyer and aristocrat who knew well how to 'pump and dump' the Commies and their 'useful idiots. Liaquat got an invitation to the Kremlin, this forced the Americans to roll out the red carpet for him. Pakistan soon became the blue eyed boy of the US State Department. The US Ambassador's daughter married the son of President Iskandar Mirza. The NYT had banner headlines saying 'Khush Amdeed' to the visiting Pakistani Head of Government. Even in Pakistan, this term of greeting is considered too effusive! How had Pakistan achieved all this? The answer is that it astutely used and then abused Leftist nutters like Faiz.
There can be no doubt that Faiz was a Left Nationalist deeply committed to Partition, who saw the Army as having a vanguard role. Leftist English Urdu specialists have admitted as much. Why will the Indians not accept this obvious truth?
As Shekhar Gupta says, Faiz was part of a military conspiracy to topple the Government not because he was a Communist but because he was an ultra-Nationalist who thought Kashmir should be acquired by force. Indeed, it was because he was primarily a Nationalist that he was let out of jail early. I may mention, the leader of the conspiracy was later put in charge of crushing the Baluchis by Bhutto. Faiz, of course, was very close to Bhutto- who was the man most responsible for the Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh. Zia hanged Bhutto. Why did he let Faiz back into the country? The answer is that he wanted to show that even the Soviet Union's favorite poet was backing the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan. Now, it is true that Zia's regime did some things which were not liked by the elite. Consider the wife of General Pataudi- who had been a Minister in Yahya's regime. Zia had asked that wives should not wear the 'Indian' sari. She defied this rule and told everybody about it- even me. Zia could do nothing. Indeed, his own family was culturally more Indic. His favorite actor was Shatrughan Sinha! Thus, there was an element of hypocrisy in Zia's regime. It could be brutal, but it spared its own- and Faiz was very much an ex-Army Nationalist who had conducted anti-India propaganda campaigns. Don't forget, the Communist Party was the strongest advocate of Partition. Even some Muslim Leaguers had doubts on this crazy policy. Indeed, Liaquat himself was perceived as soft. But then even Ayub Khan was portrayed as soft on India. Bhutto gained salience because he represented Left ultra-Nationalism. But what did this ideology really consist of? The answer is that it had three components
1) The Islamist belief that God would bring about the final victory of Islam
2) Fairer skinned 'Aryans' were more Islamic and they should kill darker skinned Bengalis because they were less fitted by nature to follow Islam. Pakistan would one day conquer the whole of India, not just Kashmir- incidentally Sheikh Abdullah turned against India because he thought he could himself head up an Islamic super-power if he could get the Valley to accede to Pakistan. This was because, unlike the Bengalis, his skin was fair.
3) A purer Islam could be established under Socialism because Landlords and Capitalists would not be able to encourage 'bourgeois' Islam which was concerned with personal piety, honesty, thrift, hard-work etc. Instead, some guys dressed in Savile Row tailored Mao Jackets, gulping Chivas Regal and puffing Cuban cigars, would wave a magic wand and achieve Socialism. A 'mard-e-momin'- Islamic superman- would be created who was exactly like that which Zia hand in mind. However, this Superman would quote Neruda and drink Scotch.
If Muslim students in India want to quote Faiz, there is no great stupidity involved. They may genuinely believed that sooner or later, God will destroy the kaffirs and Islam will reign over the country. However, if Hindu students quote Faiz, they are cretins. Look at the meaning of the lyrics of 'Hum dekhenge'-
Hum Dekhenge, Hum Dekhenge, We will see. We will see.
What have we seen? Pakistan was once more prosperous than India. It has fallen behind Bangladesh. The Hindu Nationalist parties were once weak. Now they rule India. The anti-national forces- like the Communists- have retreated to one or two 'safe spaces' on campuses. Some kids flirt with that dated ideology while in College, but then they get jobs and start complaining about high taxes to pay for 'sops' to the poor.
The very notion of a Left Islam has been completely discredited all over the world. Ba'athist parties- i.e. militaristic Islamic leaders whose ideology was Leftist- have either disappeared or are under siege or are wholly corrupt and nepotistic.
Lazim Hai Ke Hum Bhi Dekhenge, It is inevitable (that) we too shall see.
Faiz is appealing to the Islamic notion of predestination- including the predestined victory of Islam over all other Religions even if its leaders were drunk on Scotch whiskey. Perhaps in the Eighties, some Pakistanis believed this. Few now do.
Wo Din Ke Jis Ka Vaada Hai, The day that has been promised. Jo Lauh-E-Azal Mein Likha Hai, Hum Dekhenge That is written in the book of destiny. We will see. Hum Bhi Dekhenge, Hum Bhi Dekhenge We, too, shall see. We also shall see.
What did Faiz see? He is rotting in his grave. Muslims may believe he will be resurrected to see the final victory of Islam. But they must also believe he will be punished eternally for being a winebibber.
Jab Zulm-O-Sitam Ke Koh-E-Garan When the mountains of oppression and cruelty.
Which Faiz helped Bhutto pile on the East Pakistanis
Rooyi Ki Tarah Ud Jayenge, Hum Dekhenge Will float away like carded wool. We will see.
What have we seen? Bangladesh has overtaken Pakistan economically. Sheikh Hasina is a great leader whereas the Bhutto dynasty is a byword for corruption and incompetence.
Hum Mehkumon Ke Paon Tale, Underneath our feet – we the governed.
This is Iqbal's notion that the Muslim is the proletarian of the World. God had promised that they should rule everything. Yet the tangible achievements of more capable people were giving the Muslim an inferiority complex. Still, Muslims could take comfort that God will destroy all the Kaffirs and then the Muslims will be able to indulge in schadenfreude at the spectacle of the more capable and successful people being tortured in eternal Hell fire.
Ye Dharti Dhar Dhar Dharkegi, The ground will echo like a thumping heartbeat. Aur Ahl-E-Hakam Ke Sar Oopar, And the sky over the heads of the rulers.
Who was above Zia's head? Reagan. Zia was fighting Charlie Wilson's war. What profit did Pakistan gain from this? Anarchy and economic devastation.
Jab Bijli Kar Kar Karkegi, Will echo with the sound of thunder. Hum Dekhenge. Hum Dekhenge.
The problem with saying 'We will see' is that we are saying our way of seeing will remain the same. We don't need to change. Our triumph is inevitable.
Mosaraff Khan, who is completing a PhD at NYU, has an excellent blogpost on Faiz's attitude to the Bangladesh war. Essentially, Faiz is expressing sorrow but not apportioning blame. Is he sad that those dark skinned, semi-Kaffir, Bengalis are having to be raped and slaughtered by over-worked, fair skinned, Pakistani soldiers?
This is his poem, as translated by M.Khan-
“Saje to kaise saje qatl-e-aam ka mela
kise lubhaeega mere lahuu kaa vaavailaa
mire nazaar badan men lahuu hii kitna hai
charaagh ho koi raushan na koi jam bhare
na is se aag hi bhadke na use pyaas bhujhe
mere figaar badan men lahuu hi ktina hai”
(How can I embellish this carnival of slaughter,
how decorate the massacre?
Whose attention could my lamenting blood attract?
There’s almost no blood in my rawboned body
and what’s left
isn’t enough to burn as oil in the lamp
not enough to fill a wineglass.)
This is pathetic. The fucker can't even intoxicate himself by working up a lather of righteous indignation. He can supply no great literary ornamentation to this exercise in infamy. Why? Unlike the Iranians, the Bengalis are darker skinned than Pakistanis. So this Jat feels it infra dig to gas on about all that lovely blood being shed.
Still, with Pakistani logic, Faiz feels he can pat himself on the back. Precisely because Pakistan keeps fucking up, God will intervene and give the Pakistanis First Prize and a ticket to Paradise even better than a Green Card.
Bas Naam Rahega Allah Ka, And only Allah’s name will remain. Jo Gayab Bhi Hai Hazir Bhi, Who is both elusive and present. Jo Manzar Bhi Hai Nazir Bhi, Who is the spectacle and the beholder. Utthega An-Al-Haq Ka Nara, ‘I am the truth’ will be the acclamation.
Because Mansoor al-Hallaj was actually a crony of the Bhutto of his time. He used to drink only the finest Scotch whiskey. Whatever 'truth' or 'reality', Faiz identified himself with- the verdict of History is that it was cretinous, corrupt and utterly incapable of helping anybody.
Jo Main Bhi Hoon, Aur Tum Bhi Ho, Which I am, and so are you. Aur Raaj Karegi Khalq-E-Khuda, And then God’s own people will rule. Jo Main Bhi Hoon Aur Tum Bhi Ho, Which I am, and so are you. Hum Dekhenge. Hum Dekhenge We will see. We will see.
Is this the real message of Islam? No. Genuine Muslims quote Holy Scripture to say God does not alter the condition of a people till they do so themselves. Drinking Scotch and talking sentimental Socialistic nonsense does not help anybody.
What is the current C.A.A agitation about? The answer is that it is about a myth- viz. that Indian Muslims will be deported. Already, people can see that the agitators are merely engaging in virtue signalling and gesture politics. A few extremists are using this opportunity to recruit for the Caliphate and other such outfits. They will carry out some atrocities in the years to come. (This actually happened when an Urdu speaking Delhite went off to Kerala and killed some people. But they were Muslims! I suppose, the boy got confused because they were darker skinned) Terrorism of this sort will cause a backlash and a consolidation of the Hindu vote in time for the next General Election. Meanwhile the Muslim vote will get splintered because Extremist candidates will be put up as 'spoilers'. So what we will all actually see is a cretinous Opposition, ably abetted by cretinous students and public nuisance intellectuals, helping the BJP to get another big majority at the Center. Faiz, as usual, will have contributed to the victory of stupidity and sloppy thinking. This is what we have seen and will see in the future.
PS- I have omitted the lines investigated by the IIT Kanpur panel. Though a Muslim may take objection to them, on the grounds of heresy, Hindus are unconcerned with this theological statement-
Jab arz-e-khuda ke kaabe se
sab but uthwaaye jaayenge
Hum ahl-e-safa mardood-e-haram masnad par baithaye jaayenge.
This means 'when the idols have been removed from Ka'ba (which happened long ago) then the 'ahl-e-safa'- which in fact existed at the time of the first Caliphs and was different from the subsequent Sufi tradition- will be triumphant. This could be said to be Khajirite. It is not a current school of Islamic theology anywhere. The Ibadi school is much more moderate and is not causing any trouble. Still, this type of heretical and schismatic utterance is a purely internal matter for Islam. To the best of my knowledge, there is no school of Islamic jurisprudence in the sub-continent which has ever advocated such a mischievous doctrine. On the contrary, Indian Islam says 'change yourself. Help lift up your community. Do this through sober and sensible actions. Don't get drunk and then go mad and run amok.' But this is common sense. Both Religion and Politics are about good conduct, building good character, and telling the truth- not repeating stupid lies and play-acting at 'Revolution'.
No comments:
Post a Comment