To What Extent Does Ghoses Engagement With Orwell Highlight The Universal Struggle Of Writers To Balance Integrity With The Pressures Of Censorship Exile And Political Turbulence
Zulfiqar Ghose (1935-2022), an internationally acclaimed poet, novelist, essayist and literary critic, was born in Sialkot. He spent some years of his life in Bombay and migrated to England in 1952 at the age of seventeen. After pursuing his education in England, he worked with ‘The Observer’ as a sports correspondent and also taught at various schools. He married an artist from Brazil, serving as a contextual setting for six of his novels. Finally, he moved to the USA in 1969 and taught at the University of Texas, he became a US citizen in 2004 and retired from the University of Texas as Professor Emeritus in 2007.
Ghose was a prolific poet and published several poetry collections which include but are not limited to ‘The Loss of India (1964)’, ‘Jets From Orange (1967’, ‘The Violent West (1972)’, ‘A Memory of Asia (1984)’ and ‘Selected Poems (1991)’. He made abundant use of stylistically appealing language and imagery in his writings. A creative artist from a former colony ofEngland, pursuing his literary career in the language of his former colonial powers, often asserted against the segregation of writers into various geographical boundaries and cultural groups. His primary motive was to produce good literature which could transcend terrestrial and cultural confines and earn him universal appeal.
In the essay ‘Orwell and I’, Ghose analyses some of the challenges faced by non-native writers of English in their struggle of gaining recognition in the literary circles of English speaking world. Like an objective analyst, he presents his arguments based on his personal experiences in addition to quoting anecdotes from other writers. His primary objective is to make explicit how creative writers of former colonies of England face inherent discrimination in gaining scholarly acceptance and establishing literary merit of their works in the western world. Critical reception of their works is often grounded in English speaking world’s preconceived prejudices and biases about their former colonies. The essay highlights the issue that owing to various perceptions and practices of literary practitioners of the centre, the creative works of writers from the ‘periphery’ are often overlooked and remain underrated. Ghose illustrates a constant state of conflict between the vested interests of the centre and artists of creative products from the periphery. He makes a bold claim that the works of the creative artists of the periphery are not judged on the basis of their literary merit alone. Similarly, literary value and worth of their works is not merely determined on the basis of their creative talent. He, further, asserts that literary criticism of the centre often overshadows works created by the writers of the periphery. However, he maintains, it has nothing to do with racism or racist ideologies.
Ghose presents the case of George Orwell as a reference point to support his arguments while quoting some other instances at the appropriate points during the development of his arguments. To him, literary perceptions of English critics do not consider creative literature produced by non- native writers significant enough to receive scholarly attention and critique. The essay, initially, explores Ghose’s personal connection with George Orwell as both share a common background as writers who were born in former colonies of the British Empire. However, there is a salient difference between the two writers, Orwell’s father was an Englishman who was a minor official in Indian civil service, whereas Ghose was born to Muslim parents in Sialkot, Pakistan. Thus, it is nationalism coupled with a sense of literary superiority which determines the critical reception of literary works produced by Ghose and Orwell.
Ghose, further, argues that Orwell was taken to England while he was hardly a year old while he moved there when he was seventeen. He believes there would be no difference if the case was otherwise. Orwell would have still been perceived as an important English writer and Ghose would still have been placed in the peripheral region of the literary spectrum as an instance of blurring the boundaries between the centre and the periphery. Ghose elucidates this point further by sharing his personal experience of publishing his work in London. It was impossible for him to get a job after graduating from a British university unlike his white friends who had no difficulty in finding suitable jobs. However, Ghose reveals that this difference in the treatment of native and non-native writers of English had nothing to do with racism or colonialism. He, further, supports this point by asserting that the British had never been racist in his personal experience of being a writer. It was, in fact, a primitive form of nationalism coupled with instinctive cultural exclusivity exercised by a certain nation to assert its preferences.
Ghose, further, reveals his misconception that people respond to the literary merit of a work without any differentiation between native writers of English and non-native ones and measured by this yardstick, there would not be any difference between Orwell and another writer. He confesses that he was the victim of a false belief that people admired Orwell because of his impeccable prose, superior imagination and impressive articulation. Similarly, any other writer who would demonstrate the same level of intellectual and artistic abilities would be held in high regard. After all, it is a standard practice of judging a literary piece of writing on the basis of its relative literary merit. He cites one of his experiences of reciting poetry at a university along with another English poet. The response of the audience was altogether different as the English poet received much appreciation despite the fact that quality of his verse was not superior to Ghose’s.The audience, essentially, exhibited discriminatory and biased response without having this realization. He adds another incident when along with two other English poets he was added to Penguin Modern Poets. The book reviewer appreciated the poetry of the other two poets in greater detail and failed to even mention Ghose’s name. Racism was, once again, not the inherent cause but a deep sense of nationalism. Ghose goes on to the extent of asserting that English poets reflected a keen sense of superiority when it comes to American poets while masking a simmering resentment that American poets could produce poetry of unmatchable brilliance. Ghose expresses his disappointment in classifying literature into various categories, ranking English and American writers at the top level of the hierarchy, followed by writers from Canada, Australia and New Zealand who were either white or of European origin while English language writers from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean are placed at the lowest level. Ghose, once again, asserts that this may appear to be racial segregation, but its roots lie in nationalism and when literature is classified on a nationalistic basis, it proves to be the worst of the category. This goes without saying that every society is composed of some individuals who have the basic inclination to exercise power, authority, control and superiority over others irrespective of the fact whether or not they are talented or their talent is comparatively mediocre. They treat others as ‘untouchables’. These discriminatory practices in literary perceptions and practices are, essentially, reflective of our larger socio-cultural context which also exhibits such tendencies.
After sharing his grievances, Ghose, like an objective analyst, shows the other side of the picture. He says that some may use this set of grievances and discriminatory bias to rationalize neglect of one’s work. An English writer after seeing a writer from a former colony receiving a prestigious international award may claim that subjects from former colonies are bestowed privileges for some political reasons and not on the basis of the literary merit of their work. As a kind of affirmative action, many writers from the former colonies do receive favours out of post-colonial guilt. Thus, our nationalistic roots may sometimes serve against us and at other times function in our favour. Ghose confesses that he was in demand during the rise of commonwealth literature as he was from Pakistan and could be labelled and placed in a certain pigeonhole. In comparison to the dawn of commonwealth literature in England, America witnessed black studies programs in the universities as a direct outcome of the civil rights movement. Many African and Caribbean writers were assimilated into these programs. Even if there is no categorization on the basis of sociopolitical reasons, there would still be a group of untouchables created on the instinctive desire of the competitive arena to exclude and marginalize others. These are mostly burning sentiments of resentment and envy of another person’s superiority, we become victims of someone’s prejudice and bias, even the great Tolstoy suffered it and attacked Shakespeare.
In short, nationalistic exclusivity thrives upon the total rejection of aesthetic values and judgments are made on the basis of some ideological positioning. Orwell said that ‘what are supposed to be purely aesthetic judgements are always corrupted to some extent by moral or political or religious loyalties’, Ghose, optimistically, adds that time eliminates corruption and reveals the true nature of work. A great literary work survives the tests of time through a combination of several factors including but not limited to exploration of universal themes, socio-cultural relevance, enduring aesthetic appeal and ability to evoke thoughts and emotions across generations. Thus, time has a purifying effect as it removes contaminating influences of all sorts. Ghose concludes his essay on the note that he and Orwell belong to the literature composed in the English language. However, it is Ghose who suffers because of his political history and genetic composition which make him both privileged as a representative of his group and as a victim being a marginalised figure in a dominating culture he struggles to excel. Thus, his peripheral lineage is responsible for both positive and negative reception of his literary works.
Ghose’s essay is an objective analysis of the challenges faced by the writers of English who belong to former colonies of England and consistently form a marginalized group socially, politically, culturally and economically. The situation is further aggravated if the language used for creative expression is not the ‘social capital’ of the marginalized group of the periphery. Thus, the creative artists from the periphery form a doubly disadvantaged group and strive hard to gain critical acclaim in the literary circles of the West.
The Problems of Pakistani Identity and Writers
‘The Problems of Pakistani Identity and Writers’ was written by Intizaar Hussain in 1996. He was born in British India in 1925 and migrated to Pakistan in 1947. He was a prolific Pakistani writer who produced novels, short stories, poetry and prose of unmatched quality. He is widely acknowledged as a leading literary figure in Pakistan. Many of his literary writings received international acclaim and have been translated into English and Persian languages among others. A perennial theme reflected in his works deals with nostalgia linked to the pre-partition era. His stories are often grounded in the livid experiences of British India. Hussain also contributed significantly to the literary columns of the Pakistani English newspaper ‘Dawn’. In acknowledgment and appreciation of the finest literary art he produced, he was awarded Pride of Performance in 1986, the highest civil award of Pakistan. He was the first Urdu writer who was shortlisted for Man Booker Prize. He is greatly celebrated for his unique writing style, narrative structure and exquisite literary appeal of his works. His literary writings are often marked by a profound sense and blend of classicism and traditionalism. The juxtaposition of contemporary superficial values with traditional ones evokes a melancholic expression in his writings. This prolific writer passed away in 2016 and left a vacuum in vast literary spectrum of the country. In acknowledgement of his literary services, Pakistan Academy of Letters announces the ‘Intizar Hussain Award’ every year which is bestowed to a prominent literary figure.
The essay ‘The Problems of Pakistani Identity and Writers’ critically explores the most complex issue of identity which is not fixed but a fluid notion. The issue of Pakistani identity has been the centre of scholarly attention and discussion since the establishment of Pakistan. It has been analyzed from various perspectives and its constituting elements have also been explored. Hussain discusses the issue of Pakistani identity within the context of Pakistani writers and traces its roots in the partition of British India.
Hussain confesses, in the opening lines of the essay, a feeling of jealousy has been brewing in him for a long time and he is yet unable to overpower this feeling. The central argument of his essay is that though Pakistan and India were created at the same point historically and both nations have shared experiences of their colonial past, the problem of identity is more peculiar to the Pakistani nation than the Indian. Consequently, Pakistani writers are more perturbed about their national identity as compared to Indian writers. The problem of Pakistani identity still persists in one or the other form.
Soon after the partition, Urdu writers on both sides of the boarder took this subject matter and discussed the miseries caused by partition including migration, violence, bloodshed, etc. However, some of the Pakistani writers, with nationalistic inclination, expressed their dissatisfaction with the creative writings of their fellow Pakistani writers who wereconstructing such discourses which were further strengthening and reinforcing the discourses produced by the Indian writers based on partition. This reaction led to the creation of ‘Pakistani Adab’ which was distinct from Indian writings with respect to its treatment of issues and challenges faced by the newly established state of Pakistan. The chief proponent of this philosophy was Muhammad Hassan Askari who argued that Pakistani literature must be distinct from the oneproduced in India. However, this philosophical perception was resisted by those Pakistani writerswho believed that literature cannot be segregated by geographical boundaries and is indivisible, as asserted by Muhammad Riaz, a dominant figure of the Progressive Writers’ Movement and a progressive poet.
These opposing viewpoints led to another heated controversy that on what parameters, Pakistani literature would be distinguished from Indian literature. This controversy generated another complex question of identity. Intizaar devolves deeper into the factors which paved the way for the demand of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. Faiz, a great Urdu revolutionary poet, rightfully asked the question that though we demanded an independent country on the pretext of separate culture but how can we now establish Pakistani culture’s distinctiveness from the Indian culture. Relevant to this pertinent question, there are some important issues which need to be addressed to develop a holistic understanding of the concept of our national identity. Is our national identity grounded in the event of dividing India into two separate states on August 14, 1947, or it dates back to Muhammad Bin Qasim entering this land? Can we trace the origins of our national identity in the times of Mohenjo-Daro or Harappa civilization? Does our culture originate from Islam or is it territorial based? Hussein, further, explains that the issue of national identity was not discussed in scholarly circles only. Pakistani citizens, of different walks of life, fondly declared themselves to be a newly born nation without even realizing the serious implication this assertion entails. It was, once again, Muhammad Hassan Askari who warned that if we claim to be a newly born nation and forget the processes of centuries involved in the creation of Pakistan we would not be able to hold east and west wings of Pakistan together. Faiz, on the other hand, championed the notion of a Pakistani nation being born on the eve of partition. Historical developments which led to the creation of Bangladesh proved Askari’s point.
People took different positions to describe the constituent elements of Pakistani culture. One of the groups claimed that our culture is land based so Pakistan has several regional cultural varieties without a unifying force.Another group of scholars believed all regional cultures submerge and evolve into a national culture. Some branded Pakistani culture to be Islamic culture and whichever social practice was in violation of Islamic teachings was declared un-Islamic. Jameel Jalbi also highlighted the importance of religions in developing collective national culture. Prof Gilani emphasized that it was the centuries-old Muslim rule of India which awakened the Muslims of India to demand a separate homeland on the basis of a distinct culture.
After presenting the views of various scholars to develop a holistic argument, Hussain asks a very pertinent question that why the idea of national identity became controversial right after the establishment of Pakistan though this very idea provided the basis for the demand of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. The justification that intellectuals were misled by the propaganda of the enemies of Pakistan does not sound reasonable. Perhaps, the real justification lies in the historical processes which ended with the creation of Pakistan. Hussain makes a very interesting and appealing point at this stage of development of his argument. He asserts that Muslims and Hindus lived together in India for centuries. They shared a common culture and were interlocked into a love-hate relationship. At times, they witnessed turbulent times and fought with each other, however, there were phases of peaceful relationship too. Muslims branded various social and cultural practices of Hindus as un-Islamic but they were also attracted to the cultural mosaic of Hindus. It would not be an exaggeration to claim that Hindus and Muslims influenced each other’s cultural perceptions and practices. However, Muslims being a minority group were always conscious of their rich cultural heritage and tried to preserve it. On the other hand, there was no imminent threat to Pakistani Muslims after the creation of Pakistan. Thus, we lost our cultural balance and our identity got blurred so we are indebted to Hindus for making us realize our independent existence as a nation.
Our regional consciousness remained subdued in the pre-partition era and surfaced after the creation of Pakistan and took pride in its historical roots in the ancient civilizations of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. Ahmad Nadeem Qasmi has rightly pointed out that in this case our historical roots will not be confined to this period only but we have to consider and own subsequent historicalperiods of Buddhist and Greek culture and consequently we have to adopt Ashok, Chandra Gupta, Alexander the Great, and Raja Pours as our heroes. In this case, we will be left with an insignificant part of our history that distinguishes us from Hindus. Convinced of the immense threat this situation will cause to our sovereign identity as a nation, Faiz and Iqbal declared in unequivocal terms that our identity lies in Islam.
The writer claims that our cultural heritage is not only found in our land but also beyond our land. Though we have close links with Taj Mahal, LalQila, Samarqand and Bukhara but they are not our property. Mohenjo-Daro, on the other hand, is our property as well as Sehwan Sharif, Taxila, Lahore, Multan and Khyber. Hussain goes on to cite Dr Wazir Agha who asserted that cultural anarchy seems inevitable with the emergence of new political frontiers. Faiz suggested that securitizing fragments of different cultures scattered around us and carving a culture that is distinctly Pakistani is the only solution to overpower cultural anarchy.
Hussain is reminded of a profound statement by George Eliot, a renowned poet and critic, which he made while discussing culture in his own European context. Eliot expressed his apprehension that their culture would not survive without Christianity. This highlights the importance of religion being one of the most important constituent elements of culture. Cultural values, norms and practices are, often, grounded in religious teachings We cannot create a new culture in a vacuum and it takes centuries to develop a culture and instill its prescriptive standards in collective societal consciousness. Hussain concludes the essay by declaring that though Faiz’s prescription is good but not practical. Our identity, at present, lies in our craving and quest for an identity.