Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Faiz on Jinnah and Gandhi v. Faiz’s Indian Admirers
Faiz on Jinnah and Gandhi v. Faiz’s Indian Admirers
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
Faiz Ahmed Faiz is by far the most famous internationalist thinker and poet produced by Pakistan. It continues to be one of the strangest things in history that a country that can produce such intellectual force standing for humanism and universalism can remain mired in the kind of extremism and violence that we have seen increasingly in the last few decades. It is therefore logical that many of Faiz’s Indian admirers, who number as many as his Pakistani admirers, want to claim Faiz as their own and as “un-Pakistani”. In doing so they do a great disservice to the man who was at heart a great Pakistani patriot in the real sense of the word and whose approach to Pakistani national identity was by far the most progressive and liberal.
Of particular annoyance to Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s Indian admirers and hangers-on like Rakhshanda Jalil and before her the late Mulk Raj Anand, both otherwise staunch followers of Faiz, are the two editorials by Faiz on Jinnah, one on his last birthday and the other after his death. Jalil and Anand, from Delhi’s nationalist circles, are gripped with unstinted hatred for Jinnah and the idea of Pakistan. I will deal with Rakshanda Jalil’s continuing obsession with Faiz’s obituary for Jinnah first, a theme that often raises its head in her various articles for the Friday Times and for Himal.
She writes in her article “Dipped in Heart’s Blood” for Himal earlier this year:
However, it seems hard to reconcile – at least for me, as an Indian – the glowing tribute to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, captioned ‘To God We Return’, written upon the Quaid-e-Azam’s death on 13 September 1948, with the poet who wrote Ye daagh daagh ujaala, ye shabgazeeda sehar, Vo intezaar tha jis ka, ye vo sehar to nahin? Was this the same man who lamented in the poem Subah-e-Azadi (Freedom’s Dawn) the ‘stained light and the night-bitten dawn’ that greeted those who had yearned for freedom? For a man like Faiz to write such an unqualified obituary of a political leader whom he calls ‘friend and counsellor, the guide and confidante, the comrade and leader all combined into one’ seems excessive, to say the least. Moreover, in comparing the loss of India and Pakistan who were ‘in quick succession deprived of the two wisest and most humane men in the sub-continent’ (referring to Gandhi and Jinnah in the same breath), he goes on to say, incredibly enough: ‘Ours is very much the greater and the more grievous loss.’ Was Faiz being prophetic? Was he implying that Pakistan’s loss was greater, not because Jinnah’s stature was greater than Gandhi’s, but that India would, or could, move beyond the Mahatma’s death, while for Pakistan it would prove to be a grievous body blow?
It seems that it is not enough for her that Faiz was also an unqualified admirer of Gandhi but she expects that in order to be progressive and liberal, Faiz must also denounce Jinnah. Well well! Faiz never lent himself easily to such pretensions. It must be remembered that it is the same man who left the Progressive Writers’ Association because that organisation had taken to abusing Faiz’s inspiration i.e. Allama Iqbal. As for Subh-e-Azadi, it is plainly obvious to anyone who has read this poem that Faiz is lamenting the bloodshed that accompanied partition and the lost promise of independence and not the creation of Pakistan.
First and foremost it must be remembered that if Faiz admired Jinnah and extolled his virtues, he was also extremely respectful of Gandhi who he went on to compare with Jesus. It must however also be remembered that Faiz was inspired by the Communist Movement in the Punjab which had principly allied itself with the Muslim League’s cause. Three of the biggest influences on Faiz in the period known as the Pakistan Movement were Dr. M D Taseer. Mian Iftikharuddin and Sajjad Zaheer. All three of these gentlemen had become convinced in the 1940s that Jinnah and the Muslim League were a progressive force and their Pakistan idealism was the best way to liberate the Muslim nationalities of North West India from subjugation of feudal-capitalist alliance. Dr. M D Taseer was a protege of Allama Iqbal and therefore steeped in Iqbalian modernist thought. In any essay on Iqbal, Taseer wrote that Iqbal’s two ideas i.e. Pakistan and Islamic Socialism had been pooh poohed by Sir Fazli Hussain but just like Pakistan, the cause of Islamic Socialism had also been taken up by the Quaid-e-Azam and therefore it might become something more than just a political slogan. This one sentence spoke volumes about the faith that intellectuals like Taseer had in Jinnah. Mian Iftikharuddin came from a Congress background but like his Communist friend Sajjad Zaheer, Iftikharuddin saw Muslim League as the only potent force that could overthrow the Unionist-British bureaucracy alliance. Sajjad Zaheer had on his part lobbied extensively to bring Congress and League together and had tried to convince men like Jawaharlal Nehru that Muslim League was a progressive liberationist force.
Faiz himself described the dream and ideal of Pakistan in the editorial of 23 March 1949 titled ‘Progress of a Dream’ as a means ‘to end the vertical division that separated the two major peoples of the sub-continent … by a horizontal division so that the divided halves could each develop an internal harmony that the undivided whole lacked… The dream is as yet unfulfilled. The division has come but neither half is as yet completely at peace, either with itself or with its neighbour.”
The idea that partition was a way to end a vertical division by a horizontal division was first expressed by Jinnah himself in his article in Time and Tide in 1940 before the Lahore Resolution. The language is unmistakably same. Faiz, who signed his letters to Quaid-e-Azam as F.A.Faiz, had clearly internalised Jinnah’s own ideas.
After the second world war, where he served with distinction as a colonel in the British Indian Army fighting against fascism and against propaganda that sought to keep India away from the war effort, Faiz was asked to edit the Pakistan Times by Mian Iftikharuddin. Pakistan Times, funded and published by Iftikharuddin and patronised by Jinnah himself as the founder of the newspaper, was meant to be a progressive, liberal Muslim voice from within the Pakistan Movement. Jinnah had encouraged the arrival of young leftists like Daniyal Latifi and Syed Sibt-e-Hassan in the fold of the Muslim League as a counterbalance to the Nawabs and Landlords that he considered Jee Huzooris within the League. For all the flaws and weaknesses of the Muslim League, it was a representative voice for a major community in the subcontinent. This is how Faiz described the League many years after partition while admonishing a young Pakistani leftist who berated the League and its movement. Rakesh Sood, an Indian ambassador in Europe, in his essay on Faiz published in the Indian publication “Celebrating Faiz” perhaps hit the nail on the head when he wrote that Faiz chose Pakistan at partition because he believed in Jinnah’s idea of Secular Pakistan and because Sialkot, his hometown, was in Pakistan.
Mulk Raj Anand, an Indian short story writer, was a hanger-on and a junker in the galaxy of M D Taseer, Faiz and Mian Iftikharuddin by his own admission. Like many of his colleagues in the Progressive Writers Movement, he had nothing but contempt for Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement. He considered Jinnah a pragmatic atheist who was using religion for his own ends (what ends those were he does not say). In his article “Reminisces of Faiz” published in the aforesaid anthology “Celebrating Faiz”, which is more a tribute to his own greatness and leaves us with nothing concrete on Faiz, Anand makes a huge deal about Jinnah allegedly never having read the Quran even in English. After a diatribe against Jinnah, Mulk Raj Anand seems to project his own antipathy for the Muslim League on Faiz when he out of the blue suggests that Faiz understood the egotism of the so called Muslim leaders who never said prayers except on Id day. Then he goes on to claim that M D Taseer’s conversion to the Pakistan idea estranged “Faiz and I” from Taseer (in or about 1937 when Pakistan demand had not even taken root). No record of such estrangement exists, an irony that is compounded by the fact that around the same time that Faiz was supposedly estranged from M D Taseer over the latter’s support for Pakistan idea, Faiz met Alys, Taseer’s sister in law, and married her. The word “afterthought” was perhaps invented for precisely things that Mulk Raj Anand says in this article. On an unrelated note (or perhaps a very relevant note) Anand also appears in Christopher Mitchell’s “Jinnah and the Making of Pakistan” documentary as a “friend” of Ruttie and comments on how he had predicted that the marriage would not work out between a sensitive soul like Ruttie and a man like Jinnah whose routine revolved arounds courts and law books. Ironically, and very interestingly, Anand was probably 11 or 12 years old when he allegedly made this extraordinary prediction. This is not to mention that no reference confirming his close friendship with Ruttie is available to this writer’s knowledge. But then by his own admission, Anand knew everyone who was anyone in his time. That his piece on Faiz is even included in a serious anthology is a disgrace but it shows the heart felt desire of people on both sides of the border to paint Faiz in their own image.
So where did Faiz stand? Whether it offends one group or another, it must be noted that he was a patriot of Pakistan and a staunch friend of India. He was an admirer of Jinnah and a devotee of Gandhi. To his mind these were never contradictory positions. It is only people like Rakshanda Jalil, Mulk Raj Anand and their counterparts who are thekaydars of Pakistan’s officially endorsed patriotism that make these contradictory positions. To Faiz, Pakistan was his mankooha and India was his mahbooba. He therefore was very much a polygamist in his love for this great subcontinent.
Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: Faiz, Gandhi, Jinnah, Pakistan
36 Responses to "Faiz on Jinnah and Gandhi v. Faiz’s Indian Admirers"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- MilesToGo
said http://youtu.be/7IoMrxMmVSs - Fingolfin
said Mythbuster
another very very significant probl... - Fingolfin said if this were Facebook i would have 'liked' Rex Min...
- PMA
said It is not hard to understand why Manto wrote what... - RajTOO
said Rex Minor,
India after Independence and even earl... - Rex Minor said @Tajender,
Remember my earlier post about the w...
- Rex Minor said One must clean the front of ones own house, before...
- Mythbuster
said "I thought that the educated and intelligent India... - Rex Minor said Why talk abut slavery in Islam, or in the USA and...
- ahem
said to rex
Muslims cannot be part of India and indi...
[...] Faiz on Jinnah and Gandhi v. Faiz’s Indian Admirers [...]
If Faiz did not realize islam’s inherent backwardness, totalitarianism, fascism and arabism then he is not worthy of being admired today. He can’t help Pakistan out of its difficulties.
Well Faiz did not share your views on Islam… so take a hike.
to ylh
True.
After 60 Pakistan-years we know better. What would Faiz have said about this arab-imperialist, totalitarian-finalist, closed-fixated, death-glorifying, hindu-hating ideology if he had been alive today?
But what use such questions about a dead man? As dead as the Jinn and Mulk.
What do the living-dead (I mean dead in brain and intelligence due to this arab religion) say about this ideology after 60 pure-land years?
(But wait a minute, if the brain is deadened then they can’t be saying anything meaningful)
I wish the like of you lead the youth of the pure-land away from these dead men and this deadening ideology. Sooner als soon. Or soon it will be too late.
I would prefer to ignore the hiob-hiob.
And “The (Jinnah) Band Plays On”!
Lady Guinevere
Seriously, the aspect of Mulk Raj Anand (who met me in London once; and of whom i have known mostly as an art critic) brought to light by Yazdani sheds new light on sides that I was quite ignorant about. That broader compilation is commendable and very worthwhile.
Sir Mohummed Iqbal of Sialkot is a tremendously great poet and was a prolific letter-writer but not the proposer or bona fide proponent of the Pakistan idea. That credit rests elsewhere.
Ruttie Jinnah was a great beAuty with a greAter mind … visiting her WORTHY grave to pay my and my nuclear FAMILY’S Homage AT the Isna Ashari Graveyard in Bombay during 1986 left indeliable imprint on me. I pray that All-Mighty God BLESS HER SOUL!! And improve my typing skills!
Every discussion here starts with Hiob’nama’bakhalaf islam va musalmanan .Man hve a heart and dont bring redicule upon the Indians.
‘
Ha ha HIOB nama ! That’s a good one.
@ HIOB: what is your opinion regarding the attack on Prashant Bhushan?
Hiob has gone into hiding, let me tell you what Hiob (which country does he write from is a mystic mystery) would conjecture and conjur; he would smugly claim that Prashant Bhushan, Esquire is really an imported fundamentAlist ‘muslim’ in disguise, ad nauseum…
tut-tut.
tut-tut.
tut-tut.
tut-tut.
tut-tut.
to amin and slarpore and original
Almost every major problem in Pakistan (and the world too) has now an islamic history with islam and its agents playing a negative or destructive role. I am not saying all problems, but many and major ones.
So it is actually a destructive islam-nama. Even muslims know it now and they think “let us join that destructivity in order to reserve a place in allah’s heaven. Let us tell how little we care for the earthly existence and how much more for the arab god and his whims”.
As regards Prashant I don’t know who he is and who is beating whom in India for what reason. Life has become so complicated. There is no one with whom one is in full understanding.
—
My question was:
What would Faiz say about islam after 64 years of islamic paradisical experimentation in Pakistan? (at the cost of hindu blood, dignity and safety)
Why ignore crucial questions and go into hiding from them?
The proof of the fascism, totalitarianism and arab racism-hegemony in this religion is now all to clear for all to see – even for Faiz. May his soul rest in peace after all these confusions and confoundations that a muslim has to go through when he tries to impose the 7th century on the 21st.
Author says,
“It continues to be one of the strangest things in history that a country that can produce such intellectual force standing for humanism and universalism can remain mired in the kind of extremism and violence that we have seen increasingly in the last few decades”
The country that produced Faiz Ahmed Faiz no longer exists. It ended in 1947.
YOU ARE RIGHT VISH
PAKISTAN LIVED FROM THE CAPITAL THAT IT HAD SNATCHED or obtained FROM THE HINDUS AND the BRITISH.
After 1960′s that was all lost and there was and could be no replacement. In this time the USA (ruled by a coalition of christian fascism and capitalist fascism) supplied Pakistan with money, technology and weapons. Then it was China and North Korea and Saudis (all 3 rogue societies and states) supplying technology, money and “inspiration”.
And deceit and bribery was and is the way of life for the ruling elite of Pakistan.
—
My question was:
What would Faiz say about islam after 64 years of islamic paradisical experimentation in Pakistan? (at the cost of hindu blood, dignity and safety).
How long can a nation live on or from lies?
It is people like Rakshanda Jalil that make any compromise between India and Pakistan impossible.
Prashant Bhushan was attacked.Condemnable.but atleast he didnt meet the fate of Salman Taseer
Faiz was a devotee of Jinnah and an idolator of Gandhi.
I am a devotee of Faiz, an idolator of Gandhi and an unconditional worshipper of Zia Ul Haq.
CM,
What about Gandhiji, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi?
Agreed. They all were killed by extreme ideology, so beware.
I never met a Canadian yet that had all his ducks in a row!
Lady Guinevere
Sitting ducks or singing canaries – - Canadian or otherwise – - don’t row in line with principles but follow their principals.They butter their current overLARD (no typo here!).
It is commendable that Gandhji and Ranjiv Gandhi did not spend their lives in Open Graves (or shopping at Harrods like the Bay-Ghum of Gill on the Hill).
Idolation of Ziaul Haq need not be emulated … sil vous plais … because of his choudhurrying the Nation and leaving two dubai-billionaire sons as his double-standard scars.
to Hiob:
As an alumnus (not wellknown for sycophancy but proactive wellwisher of phan’cy for the nouveau-riche semi-illiterate elite, sans frontiers) of The Kamonke as well as the Marrh Bhunguaan Primary Schools, I eeadikly concede that I appreciated the word ‘destructivity’ in your export-quality blurb.
read eeadikly as ‘READily”/. please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
verily, it would be a changed world, if i had learned to type.
to slarpore
There are so many sides to it all and one has to take the decent non-violent honest one.
Hiob, when (and if) in a sober state , you have much potentiality and ample closet talent.
to slarpore
I like to be criticized and not flattered and I take criticism seriously.
Just I read in the daily times an article by a woman advocate of the high court Hina Hafeezullah Ishaq and it shows how decrepit the muslim understanding of law and justice is. She writes: “I am all for the death penalty for those who blaspheme, duly awarded by the courts and not individuals, who commit this grave offence in respect of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), as well as that of the other Prophets and Books, regardless of religion, creed or caste;…”
Neither islam not muslims are capable of differentiating between criticism and blasphemy. Hence criticism has become impossible in and under islam. Thus it goes down into fascism.
Too much of nationalism is harmful for a nation.
Objectively, the Partition has only embittered relations between the 2 countries. Jinnah will always be a villain however much Pakistanis try and explain and vice versa for Nehru/ Congress by Pakistan or allegations on Jalil above..
Lets leave such arguments, as these have no solutions – and be peaceful neigbours instead.
to PC
Why are Nehru and Gandhi villains (in Pakistan)?
Because they did not want to create a constitution and laws based on religion? Because they did not allow themselves to be blackmailed by quisling-e-azam Jinnah and his muslim-feudal gang? Because they gave too much consideration to the demands of muslims over hindus? Because they refused to accept the muslims’ falsified narrative of history? Because Gandhi once said a muslim is by nature a bully? (Was he wrong – not at all). Because they did not allow agents of an arab ideology from Makkah to determine life in the Indian subcontinent?
Nehru and Gandhi are villians in Pakistan because they created a vibrant nation whereas Jinnah failed.
Mr. Jinnah, Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Faiz were great souls and Mr. Nehru was no match. In todays world there is not a single person who can understand such souls, far from analyzing them. Who divided the country? It is the people, the uncivilized lot, led by the butchers. They were not fit to stay as one nation. Germany was divided and today they are united. Will Indians and Pakistanis reunite? No. They will go on finding fault with great souls like Gandhi and Jinnah.
Jyoti Bhai
Agreed if we add Maudoodi to the list. The Four Great Men complete the list of the all-time heroes of Indian Muslims unless the latter are talking about secularism’ or job reservations – times when Nehru becomes useful.
@ Mr. Jyoti Patnaik(Nov 26, 2011 at 12:25pm)
Germany was one nation indeed. It was forcibly divided by the will of non-German powers and subsequently reunited by the peoples’ own will. As for our case, the case of Pakistan and India, I sincerely believe we need to focus and remain focused on the following points:
1. The Indian Subcontinent could have remained as “two nations within one country” or “two sub-nations within one nation” or “three sub-federations within one federation”. The Cabinet Mission Plan provided these opportunities. Without scanning anyone’s intentions, we can safely say that it was Jinnah who endorsed it and no disrespect but it was Nehru who blew it. So first of all, let’s have the facts right.
2. The Subcontinent got divided not by non-Indian forces but by the vote-force of its own citizens. Congress’ chauvinistic attitude and ML’s feeling of being disadvantaged played the role of the perfect catalyst. Later on, Pakistan got divided too, again not by non-Pakistanis, but rather by Pakistanis themselves. The chauvinist’s role this time was played by West Pakistan and it was East Pakistan that had the feeling of being disadvantaged. This is price we have paid for our chauvinistic attitudes. If the fruits of chauvinism are to be undone, our attitudes will first have to be reversed. There is no short cut.
3. We – Pakistan, India and Bangladesh – need to make progress in secularization of our respective internal politics as well as our regional South Asian politics. And Pakistan, no doubt, needs to take greater strides in this direction, beginning perhaps with a new secular constitution.
4. Indians will have to learn to show greater respect to Jinnah when talking to Pakistanis, even if it’s for courtesy’s sake and Pakistanis will have show greater respect for Gandhi when talking to Indians, even if it’s for courtesy’s sake. Pakistanis will also have to learn to show greater respect to Sheikh Mujib. Mujib was as much a committed worker of what eventually became Pakistan as anyone else.
In my honest opinion, these four points will have to be appreciated by all of us. Even in the blogosphere, we have noticed that respect begets respect and disrespect begets disrespect.
Regards
Amaar
Amaar
We need to create mutual respect, but also accept realities which will lead us to accept our differences. The fact is that rightly or wrongly there are no takers for the idea of Cabinet Mission Plan in India today nor were there any amongst the Hindus then. How it came to be ‘accepted’ it is hard to know – probably azad pushed for it, and some Hindus went along to keep the man happy – historians would know the answer better. But most non-Muslim Indians seem thankful that collectively we did not go that route.
This is a real difference across communities and it should be accepted without anyone causing any one else any heartburn. Nehru gets the rap from some Pakistanis for simply stating a position that is almost universally accepted within India. That does not seem fair.
Gandhi is held in great respect but has little meaning in India today. India today is the India of Nehru and of the liberalization that was built upon the foundations of Nehru’s basic contributions. May be that is another source of differences persisting between India and Pakistan today.
Can Pakistanis really respect Nehru? IMHO that is going to be very hard for most of them – they shouldn’t have to, and we shouldn’t expect the impossible from each other.
I guess that was an attempt to highlight how difficult creating mutual respect is going to be…no point underestimating the challenge.
@ Amaar (November 27, 2011 at 8:52 pm)
I agree. Your point 3 is in my opinion most important. You have rightly said:
“We – Pakistan, India and Bangladesh – need to make progress in secularization of our respective internal politics as well as our regional South Asian politics. And Pakistan, no doubt, needs to take greater strides in this direction, beginning perhaps with a new secular constitution.”
This is very true. Secular politics is the most essential and primary remedy for the disease of religious extremism in the Subcontinent. On the thread “Nations within a nation – part 2″, this topic came up and was thoroughly debated. Bin Ismail made a remark, which was perhaps not all that wrong. This is what he wrote:
“Among the many lessons to be drawn from the shared history of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, is to keep Religion out of Politics and Statecraft. We, Subcontinentals are an overly sentimental lot and when we mix Religion and Politics, the two most emotion-arousing spheres of our lives, we tend to rapidly transform from being “Subcontinentals” to being “Neandertals”.” (Bin Ismail, March 20, 2011 at 7:22 pm)
Amaar – I agree with you, when you say that Pakistan’s political reform must begin with a new and secular constitution.
@kaalchakra
Its not really about respecting or accepting the viewpoint of the other. However, some courtesy can easily be inculcated among both Pakistanis and Indians. You can disagree with Nehru’s politics strongly but without insulting the sensibilities of his followers. Likewise for Jinnah.
Correction: “Its not really about respecting or accepting the viewpoint of the other.”
the word “respecting” should be dropped above. I simply meant that we can agree on viewpoints or disagree on them without berating the other personally.