Prof Maula Bakhsh 2

The Courtiers and Clowns

Prof. Maula Bakhsh Exposes C M Naim

Naim’s Note (Outlook online 26 August 2009) clearly vindicates my stand that his piece (July 24) draws its sustenance from hearsay information as his two recent additional short notes (3 August 2009 and 10 August 2009) are braced for supplementing what he has left out which now he has tried to incorporate. He has also revised his translation of Narang’s response in Nand Kishore Vikram’s book. Again his translation is inadequate and does not fully convey the exact import of what Narang had said.

It is a poor testament of his academic integrity when he admits that he has yet not seen Nand Kishore Vikram’s book and was reproducing and translating from a tertiary source where text has deliberately been distorted and Narang’s excerpt was presented out of context. As before, Naim’s arguments are clumsy and faltered on factual counts and unwittingly he is caught on the wrong foot. Naim’s problem is that he has not read Narang’s book from cover to cover as he is deeply prejudiced. Needless to say Narang’s book is an integrated book of more than six hundred pages but poor Naim zeroes in on the first 200 odd pages only and that too against the backdrop of exaggerated and baseless allegations made by a motivated, academically naive third party. That is why he had to revise time again what he had written before.

Having been away from home for too long while teaching elementary Urdu to US students, now retired, (not ‘emeritus’ by an Honorific Title as in Indian Universities where this Title is given to one in thousands for exceptional merit) , it now appears that Naim needs a complete honing up of his Urdu as will be shown later, but before we take that up, let us put first things first.

1. Basing his assertions on hearsay and distorted information passed on by others, Naim lately has raised the sensitive issue of censorship and black mailing the publisher of Jadeed Adab. This shows how biased Naim could be. Only an extremely irresponsible person would hurl such a wild allegation in the absence of any first hand information. Naim always has been on a slippery ground but this time he enters the realm of pure speculation bordering on blasphemy. To expose the absurdity of such an allegation and to nail down the lie, the statement issued by the publisher after this allegation surfaced is being reproduced below:

Educational Publishing House (LETTER HEAD) 

(3108, Gali Azizuddin Vakil, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006), 

We as publishers of Jadeed Adab issue a statement clarifying the fact that “The Journal is being regularly published by us, and to say that Prof. Gopi Chand Narang has black-mailed us and has tried to stop its publication is not only baseless but absurd. We categorically contradict and condemn any such allegation. The journal is appearing without any interruption.”

(Sd/- Mustafa Kamal Pasha)  

 HYPERLINK "mailto:ephdelhi@yahoo.com" ephdelhi@yahoo.com 

Mob. +91-9899622725

5 September 2009.

Obviously this does not need any further comment. C M Naim’s other charges are also of the same nature.

2. Naim has quoted Narang’s response from Vikram’s book, though based on a tertiary source as pointed out earlier. Needless to say he has yet not seen the original book, which is easily available any where. It is naive to think that Narang has said any thing in self-defence. If one knows Urdu well and can appreciate the wider nuances of Narang’s words, it is a statement where in all humility he is saying that he was not born with all this information which he shares with his readers. He has read, digested, examined, assimilated, discussed and interpreted western theory in the background of oriental (Sanskrit, Arabic & Persian) poetics in his own words and thought to make it understandable in his language (Urdu) that lacks strict theoretical discipline and rigour. All authors and writers are discussed and quoted with their full titles, and works are cited and given due credit. Naim knows fully well that Narang has not violated any copyright. The book is his ‘signifier’, his own words, his own interpretation, and the result of his own understanding of an obtrusive subject after pain-staking research of years. Naim with his ostensible prejudice turns it upside down to suit his biased purpose. Furthermore, ‘akhz-o-qabool’ and ‘ifhaam-o-tafheem’ in Urdu are phrases with wider semantic implications and mere literal translations of separate words cannot do justice to the full range of meanings. Much before Vikram’s book Narang has said all this very clearly in the ‘Preface’ of his book (Pp. 11, 13, 14, 1993), which Naim has not read. Narang has even gone to the extent of issuing a disclaimer that “All what I have presented belongs to the thinkers, philosophers, theorists and experts; the shortcomings if any are of course mine; the credit for the Theory and its development goes to the thinkers. The concepts and ideas are theirs, while the interpretation and communication in Urdu is mine. Narang also said that he was enlisting all the sources comprehensively so that the inquisitive reader could go to the original sources. (Preface, P.14,1993). These statements read with his reply in the interview, and the ‘Dedication’ page, and the chapter-wise bibliographies are more than enough to prove that how ill- founded, biased and unethical the charge of Naim is, as if he does not know the meaning of the words he is using. In fact he has committed felony with ill intension.

3. Naim’s assertion about Wittgenstein is also equally flawed. Since he has not read the whole book, he does not know that Wittgenstein also finds mention on page 37 in chapter 1. While on page 219, the reference is to Philosophical Investigations, the reference in chapter 1 is to Tractatus Logico – Philosophicus. Both the books are fully cited. Perhaps only a person of myopic vision cannot see this. Furthermore, in the same chapter elaborating the implications of ‘logos’ as discussed by Derrida, Narang alludes to both the Sanskrit and the Arabic tradition which Naim is ignorant about. Discussing the wider implications of ‘Vak’ in the Indian tradition Narang has cited Bhartrihari’s giving three stages of Vani or Saraswati in Vakyapadya, i.e., Vaikhri, Madhyma and Pashyanti (Para / Pratibha, P. 209). For Naim and his  “greenhorns” all this must also be derived from the western sources. 

4. One does not understand why Naim derides Norris, Culler, and Selden etc. by describing them as mere commentators. Even an ordinary student of literature knows that be it Kalidasa, Shakespeare, or Ghalib, their commentaries are as much part of the Kalidasa, Shakespearian or Ghalibian discourse. It is well known that in Sanskrit studies while reading Panini’s Ashtaadhyayi, or Anandavardhana’s Dhvanialoka, equal attention has to be given to Patanjali’s Mahabhashya and Abhinavagupta’s Dhvanialoka Lochanam respectively. The same is true of the commentaries of Saussure, Derrida, Foucault, etc. They are as much part of the theoretical discourse as the basic texts. Narang while dealing with both the oriental and the western traditions has freely and frankly acknowledged all sources, and interpreted them to his reader. If this is a disservice, then Naim is most welcome to undertake some true service and produce a better book. We know this is beyond his tether.  

5. The pinnacle of Narang’s presentation and arguments lie in his constructing and suggesting a model of literary criticism for Urdu (Pp. 565-573). Before embarking on that he has given a candid appraisal of developments how the progressive writers’ movement in Urdu fell prey to its own regimentation and totalitarianism, and later how the project of modernism was hijacked by the neo-classicists and fundamentalists, and shorn of egalitarian agenda, it was reduced to an ennui and turned into a tool of sectarianism and revivalism. Narang believes that the true role of criticism is ‘oppositional’ and in this he derives his strength from Derrida, Foucault and Edward Said. It looks pertinent to reproduce a quote which he has given:  

“In its suspicion of totalizing concepts, in its discontent with reified objects, in its impatience with guilds, special interests, imperialized fiefdoms, and orthodox habits of mind, criticism is most itself and, if the paradox can be tolerated, most unlike itself at the moment it starts turning into organised dogma.”   (Edward Said, cited by Narang, see P. 496).

6. But why Naim has written with such a vendetta? It might be interesting to note that this is not the first time that Naim has betrayed this sort of ‘kindness’. The fact is while Narang was at the University of Wisconsin ( 1963-1965; 1967-1970), and his book Readings in Literary Urdu Prose was taken up for publication by the University of Wisconsin Press, incidentally Naim was one of the reviewers. Scared of the publication of a better book, he wrote a scathing review to thwart the publication of the book but that was not to be as the other two reviewers were extremely favourable (1967). The book went into many editions and is still used in U.S.A. and many other universities. It is on the recommended list of Urdu readings in the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University and is generally referred to as ‘Narang Reader’. A very recent reaction of a distinguished scholar and former student will not be out of place: 

From: Christopher King <  HYPERLINK "mailto:cr44king@yahoo.com" cr44king@yahoo.com >
Date: Monday, 24 August, 2009, 11:19 AM

Dear Gopi Chand Narang Ji,
You will remember that we met again in 2005 after having first met so many years ago at the University of Wisconsin.

Your book, Urdu: Readings in Literary Urdu Prose has been such a wonderful aid to me these last few months in learning the Urdu script better and in increasing my Urdu vocabulary.  Thank you so much for creating such a useful and 'fun-full' book!  I know it was many years ago that you produced it, but thought that you might like to hear from a former student of yours how useful it still is for him.

Khuda Hafiz
Christopher King

(Copied to Dr Maula Bakhsh,  HYPERLINK "mailto:maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com" maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com )

7. The second episode is related to the publication of Narang’s highly debated article “How Not to Read Faiz” in the journal Soughat, Bangalore (1990). Naim this time again wrote a deriding review trying to tear apart the article which had discussed the clash between the ideological and the aesthetic project in Faiz, and how one cannot be prefaced over the other. Later the article caught on, appearing and reappearing in India and Pakistan, and then in Narang’s Hindi book Urdu par Khulta Dareecha (2005). Recently Dr. Baidar Bakht translated it into English for the journal Indian Literature (IL-249, Jan-Feb 2009). About the nature of this article a recent comment by an unknown discerning reader should suffice:

From: Chander Verma <  HYPERLINK "mailto:chander.verma@gmail.com" chander.verma@gmail.com >
Subject: How Not to Read Faiz Ahmed Faiz?
Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2009, 12:42 PM

Read your translated paper which appeared in ‘Indian Literature’ titled "How not to Read Faiz Ahmed Faiz?" 

I have no words to admire you for your intellectual work and unusual insight into Faiz Ahmed's poetry. Criticism of this quality is rare and unseen. We are proud to have scholars like you in India.

God Bless you!!

Chander Verma

(Copied to Dr Maula Bakhsh,  HYPERLINK "mailto:maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com" maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com )

This would amply show how uncharitable Naim all along has been to Narang. The reasons must be best known to him. 

8. But one wonders the timing? Perhaps Naim himself has provided a clue towards the end of his note. Shifting his position from plagiarism to culture and education, he has cited the latest honours (D. Litt. Honoris Causa) given to Narang by the Maulana Azad National Urdu University and the Aligarh Muslim University. Perhaps it is the honour by the Aligarh Muslim University that has troubled him the most. A friend from Aligarh remarked that Narang received the accolades for his dedication and sustained life-long contribution and for his unflinching faith in Urdu but what is the contribution of his adversaries. For that matter if Naim thinks that Aligarh has forgotten his shady deal in the past, he is mistaken. It is well known that way back in the 1970’s he had invited Prof. A. A. Suroor, Head of the Urdu Department at Aligarh Muslim University to the University of Chicago on the occasion of Ghalib Centenary. Later to return his courtesy Prof. Suroor invited him to Aligarh Muslim University as a guest lecturer. Since Naim never was able to complete his Ph.D., he was denied tenured appointment at Chicago. To bail him out, Suroor appointed him at Aligarh to the post of Reader overnight superseding many a senior teacher. Using Aligarh’s position as a jumping board, within months Naim returned to Chicago assured of his greener pasture. It is quite clear that he not only abused Aligarh’s hospitality but also betrayed the trust of his teacher Prof. Suroor.

9. Lastly, can C M Naim who exuberated self-righteousness and tried to assume high moral grounds deny the fact that he has links with an Urdu caucus deeply rooted in fundamentalism? The nucleus is in Allahabad and its overreach in centres outside India. (See: “Adab mein Talibaani-yat ka Aghaaz aur Adabi Talibaan”, in Aalmi Akhbar, dated 29 August 2009, link:  HYPERLINK "http://www.aalmiakhbar.com/index.php?mod=article&cat=humseymileye&article=8135" \t "_blank" http://www.aalmiakhbar.com/index.php?mod=article&cat=humseymileye&article=8135)

Can he deny that they are the people who wrecked the modernist movement in Urdu by discarding its radical social agenda and subsequently made it a tool of sectarianism? Why has he chosen to be silent about what has been happening around him all these years? The rot is under his very nose. The charity should begin at home. The comic situation is that the courtiers and clowns are clapping and raising blasphemous chatter about others. If at all they could look at their feet of clay and gather the courage to laugh at themselves.

Dr Maula Bakhsh

Professor, Department of Urdu

<  HYPERLINK "mailto:maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com" maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com >

Mob. +91-9818932082

P.S. For Naim’s kind information, his Urdu seems rusted. Just one example should suffice. The name of the journal from Bombay, which he quoted as ‘Asbat’ is in fact ‘Isbaat’ and not ‘Asbat’. There is no journal in Urdu as ‘Asbat’. Asbat is the plural of sabt while ‘isbaat’ stands for ‘confirmation, proof, and certain knowledge’. He might like to check such simple words with his mentors at Allahabad or Lucknow. Enough for his knowledge of Urdu language which he taught at Chicago and on which he chose to comment to expose himself!

P.S. (2) Revised and abridged after the fizzling out and demise of the unethical controversy and reposted for record for posterity.

Prof Maula Bakhsh

CM Naim’s Malicious and Baseless Allegation

Professor Maula Bakhsh

(Aligarh Muslim University) 

                                           

                                               

Relying heavily on beside the point allusions and anecdotes bordering on self-exaltation and self-righteousness, hardly go well with an academic debate especially if it pertains to malicious accusation. Needless to say one counts on reminiscences, hearsay information and unreliable sources when cogent arguments and clinching evidence elude him. CM Naim’s piece “Plagiarise and Prosper” (outlookindia.com, July 24, 2009) bears a testimony to the fact.

Endorsing a malicious and sectarian campaign against an eminent scholar, critic and theorist Professor Gopi Chand Narang, held in high esteem in the academic circles, CM Naim joined those who are at best  “greenhorns” who have touched a new low in irresponsible and unethical writing.  Narang’s trail-blazing book in Urdu, “Structuralism, Post-structuralism and Oriental Poetics” which is extremely popular and has been translated into 14 languages, is the subject of some unknown pseudo writers jealousy. The allegation is absolutely baseless and malicious as Narang has acknowledged all his sources and NOT infringed any copyright of any sort, Relying on pseudo writers of ill repute doesn’t Naim know the meaning of the words and the term he is using? This raises doubt whether he has read Narang’s book from cover to cover. His ill-intention is obvious as he has tried to cover-up the clear fact that Narang’s each chapter is followed by a thorough bibliography where he has acknowledged all sources and also highlighted the seminal sources with the asterisk mark (See Narang’s Book, p.153). Naim’s cover-up is part of a malicious and felonious design.

Contrary to the irresponsible allegation, Narang had categorically mentioned in the ‘Preface’ of his book that the theory and theoretical discourse belongs to the philosophers and theorists, he is introducing them in Urdu; and all such writers and their works are  acknowledged and indicated with an asterisk mark in his Chapter-wise Bibliographies. He has given full credit to theorists and has made it clear. In his words “Only the interpretation and communication (in Urdu) is mine. I am conscious of the deficiencies of Urdu expression as Urdu lacks the necessary contemporary terminology as well as the precision and rigour of the original writers. The basic texts and sources are mentioned as far as possible so that the inquisitive reader may go to the original theorists and sources for deeper thought and further study”. (Narang’s Preface, P 14).  It is quite evident that Narang is hardly claiming any credit for himself as he has given full credit to the original theorists and their seminal works. Naim deliberately and wilfully ignores these facts, he does not mention Narang’s Preface as otherwise his malicious charge will not stick.

Curiously, Naim joined the debate at a much later stage as part of a sectarian and malicious design and certainly he has not examined the book objectively. Though he strove to build a case, nevertheless unwittingly he did leave many a hole in his arguments by acknowledging that Narang’s Bibliographies do contain the names of Selden, Sholes, Hawkes, Culler, Belsey et al besides the original philosophers such as Saussure, Russian Formalists, Jakobson, Barthes, Lacan, Foucault and others. Narang while discussing them has frequently quoted them and given citations; under every citation the name of the writer is mentioned. One wonders once both the names of the authors and the names of the books are mentioned and source bibliographies are given, then how can one be accused of plagiarism. The different editions of some of the frequently referred basic books in the last 25 years notwithstanding, the only count left then is that some page numbers perhaps might not tie up with the later editions or Asian editions. This cannot be called plagiarism by any stretch of imagination.

The fact of the matter is that Narang’s bibliographies, which in Urdu he calls “MASAADIR” (Sources) are chapter specific and have always been comprehensive and inclusive. In his other books also, such as the books on Amir Khusrau, Urdu Masnavis and Urdu Ghazal, credits and annotations are given at the bottom of the page, while in this book they had to be given at the end of chapters to facilitate reading a difficult subject that was being introduced afresh.

It is clear that in an introductory book in order to make a difficult subject more understandable and readable, the Bibliographies were given at the end of each section. Naim ignored the fact that Narang was introducing an altogether new subject on which almost nothing was written cogently in Urdu before him. He is the first who interpreted and introduced the theory to Urdu readers and started a new discourse in Urdu and made it comprehensive for his readers. Naim ill-intentionally and purposely turned a blind eye to Narang’s Note on page 153 of the book where besides the Preface, Narang has clearly stated that his basic sources are marked with an “asterisk”. Naim either did not read the book carefully, or wilfully ignored all this to the point of being unethical and dishonest.

 If Narang did not come down charging on Naim and others and maintained his dignity, the reason is obvious as readers can see for themselves that all this is malicious and part of a sectarian campaign. Many an honest and unbiased writer have spoken out against the malicious  propaganda and rebutted the baseless charge.

Perhaps Narang’s irresponsible detractors did not pass on all the related material to Naim for fear of being exposed. In fact many writers and scholars have come out questioning the credentials of these motivated detractors. Some references / sources may be revealing for those who are interested in fair play:

1. Javed Joya in Jadeed Adab No. 10, 11 (2008) 

see :  HYPERLINK "http://www.jadeedadab.com" www.jadeedadab.com 

2. Shamim Tariq (e-mail :  HYPERLINK "mailto:shamimtariq01@gmail.com" shamimtariq01@gmail.com, Mob.:+91-9224751077) 

in the journal Isbaat (Bombay) No. 3, Dec. 2008-Feb. 2009. “Kargas ka Jahan aur hai…”, Pp. 119-123.

3. Haider Tabatabai (e-mail :  HYPERLINK "mailto:sudhasharma12@hotmail.com" sudhasharma12@hotmail.com) “Heelagaraan-e-Adab” in Aag (Lucknow) and Adabsaaz (Delhi) in No. 8-9, July-Dec. 2008, 

Pp. 281-282. 

see : <  HYPERLINK "mailto:adabsaaz@gmail.com" adabsaaz@gmail.com >

4. Maula Bakhsh in his comprehensive book, Jadeed Adabi Theory aur Gopi Chand Narang, (Delhi 2009)   ISBN  978-81-8223-536-6

“Motarizeen-e-Narang par ek Nazar”, Pp. 230-280. 

see :  HYPERLINK "http://www.gopichandnarang.com/j_a_theory.pdf" www.gopichandnarang.com/j_a_theory.pdf 

5. Zafar Iqbal (e-mail :  HYPERLINK "mailto:zafar.iqbal@dunya.com.pk" zafar.iqbal@dunya.com.pk ), front ranking Pakistani poet in his famous column in Daily Waqt, Lahore (Pakistan), 

dated 29 May 2009. “Aakhir Gunaahgaar Hon Kafir Nahein Hon Mein”. 

see :  HYPERLINK "http://www.dailywaqt.com/editorial" www.dailywaqt.com/editorial 

(He has referred to this campaign as not ‘Eemaani’ (honest) but ‘Shaitaani’     (Satanic).

6. Nusrat Zaheer (e-mail :  HYPERLINK "mailto:nusratzaheer@gmail.com" nusratzaheer@gmail.com) in his open letter dated 23 July 2009, denouncing in the strongest terms the distorting of facts and misquoting out of context in the Akkas Narang Number. 

7. Haider Tabatabai “Adabi Bhujang” (A Literary Black Crow) in Daily Jang, London, (23 July 2009). <  HYPERLINK "http://e.jang.com.pk/07-23-2009/London/" http://e.jang.com.pk/07-23-2009/London/ >

 HYPERLINK "mailto:writers_forum@yahoogroups.com" writers_forum@yahoogroups.com 

The information given regarding translations of Narang’s book into different Indian languages also stands to be corrected. Besides Tamil, the book has also appeared in Hindi, Punjabi, Marathi, Nepali, Bengali, Kashmiri, Maithili, Gujarati, Kannada, Odiya, Assamese and Malayalam, and is extremely well received as there is no such book which introduces and discusses western theory alongside with the oriental Sanskrit poetics, and also the Persian-Arabic Poetics. Some translations have run into many editions, and have three new appendices added, one on “Post-modernism”, the other on “New Historicism” and further, the Dravidian translations have an additional chapter  on the “Sangam Poetics” contributed by a Tamilian scholar. The credit is fully given.

Naim’s reading seems to have faltered on several counts, and wilfully so: 

1. The book comprises four sections, the first is on Structuralism, the second on Post-structuralism, the third on Oriental Poetics, and the fourth on current literary scenario and the evolution of a new model of literary criticism. All the above four parts contain detailed respective Bibliographies, a fact unethically and wilfully down-played by Naim.

2. The first part contains five chapters and the Bibliographies for each chapter appears on Pp. 153, 154 and 155. Similarly the Bibliographies for the six chapters of part two are given on Pp. 329, 330, 331, 332, 333 and 334. In part three, the chapter on Sanskrit Poetics is followed by an extensive Bibliography on Pp. 385 and 386. Similarly the chapter on Persio-Arabic Poetics is followed by a comprehensive Bibliography given on Pp. 489-495. In the concluding section discussions on Post-modernism and New Historicism have copious references to their sources (Pp. 523-543) and (P. 612). The bibliographies and details of sources mentioned above follow the general practice of giving the names of author, title, place, year of publication and the relevant pages. Each chapter begins with a seminal quote by a major writer and the book contains hundreds of excerpts and quotations as part of discussions, and everywhere the names of authors are given and acknowledged under the quote.

3. The original sources for literary theory are extremely diversified in European languages, especially Russian, German and French. The mediation of English translations and those who have written commentaries later on the original texts is indispensable for anyone working on literary theory.

4. At the outset, Narang on the ‘Dedication’ page has stated that, “I am dedicating this book to all those Western and Eastern philosophers, theorists, authors and thinkers who have worked on the nature of language and meaning and have established the discourse of literary theory, and from whom I have benefited in my book.” (Dedication, P. 7) Only a highly irresponsible and dishonest person will use the word ‘plagiarism’ for such a work.

5.  The names of Jonathan Culler, Raman Selden, Catherine Belsey, John Sturrock, Robert Sholes, Terence Hawkes, etc. are all referred to repeatedly with asterisk mark in the Bibliographies indicating that these texts too along with Saussure, Levi Strauss, Jakobson, Barthes, Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, Todorov, Jameson, Julia Kristeva and others in book 1 and 2 dealing with Structuralism and Post Structuralism are all extensively acknowledged and discussed. To term Robert Sholes, Selden, Culler etc. as mere ‘commentators’ is a misnomer. They are theorists in their own right and are repeatedly referred to in discussions of theory.

It may not be out of place to mention that Narang while concluding his book in all humility, had quoted a paragraph from Altaf Husain Hali’s Muqaddama where Hali says: “God’s rule is  in-nal-hasana-te yuzhibnas-saiyaat but man has changed it to in-nas-saiyaat-e yuzhibnal-hasanat-e” (Pp. 573), implying that God has ordained that for a good work done blemishes are forgotten, but the human practice of misguided people is that such people overlook the good work and pick holes to show blemishes.” He said he looked forward to his contemporaries to point out his shortcomings so that he may further improve his work.

It may be suggested that Narang’s detractors would do well by writing a better book to replace Narang’s but maybe it is already too late for them, and Naim included, no body is capable enough (Narang’s book was first published 1993) and then repeatedly reprinted, and already it has left an indelible imprint on the contemporary Urdu world both in India and Pakistan.

(P.S.  Revised and abridged after the fizzling out and demise of the unethical controversy, and reposted for record and posterity).

Prof. Maula Bakhsh

Professor, Department of Urdu

Aligarh Muslim University

Aligarh-202002 (UP)

e-mail ID: maulabakhsk1963@gmail.com

Mob:   +91-9818932082