Marsiya: Mir Anis and Mirza Dabir
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Marsiya, Mir Anis and Mirza Dabir
A tribute to two marsiya writers
By Intizar Hussain
KEEPING in view the bicentennial birth anniversaries of Mir Anis and Mirza Dabir, India’s Sahitya Academy, under the chairmanship of Dr Gopi Chand Narang, held a bicentenary seminar as a tribute to these two giants in the field of marsiya writing.
Dr Gopi Chand Narang, who should be taken as the moving spirit of this seminar, had to his credit two Anis seminars, held in 1975 and 1976 respectively, on the occasion of Anis’ centenary. Later he compiled the articles read there in a volume which was published in 1981 under the title Anis Shanasi. On this occasion too he took care to compile the articles read there along with the discussions that followed in a volume. Sahitya Academy has brought out the volume under the title Anis aur Dabir, Bicentenary Seminar.
Holding a combined seminar for these two stalwarts of marsiya was a risky job. It could easily drift into something akin to Maulana Shibli’s Muwazna-e-Anis-aur-Dabir, providing the audience an opportunity to witness the long forgotten Anisyai and Dabiryai coming back to life and be at loggerheads as in the past. At least I had expected in this volume a repeat performance of that old battle. But as I went through the articles I felt that the admirers of these two poets have grown wise.
Raza Ali Abdi is more explicit in giving expression to this newly-dawned wisdom. “We are,” he says, “Anisyai as well as Dabiryai at one and the same time.” He has taken pains to prove that Anis and Dabir both were equally great in the world of marsiya. He, however, seems conscious of certain failings on the part of Dabir. But for those failings he accuses the great master’s disciples, who prompted him to compete with Anis in domains where Anis stands unrivalled. This way of defence remains of those among us who, while making a plea for their fallen hero, hold his advisers responsible for his wrongdoings.
A few others seem more careful in their defence of Dabir. They are ready to defend him against the onslaughts of Maulana Shibli and censure the unkind critic for his outright dismissal of their favourite marsiya writers. But they are careful enough not trying to show that Dabir stands equal to Anis.
I am sorry to say that Raza Ali Abdi, in spite of his long years in BBC has not been able to outgrow his Shiat-Lucknavi compulsion, and hence his sticking with the traditional bracketing of Anis-au-Dabir. This compulsion does not allow him to see that with the growing new critical awareness in Urdu, the ranking of Anis has altogether changed. He is now to be ranked elsewhere, say with Ghalib and Iqbal.
During recent decades we have been hearing much about modern marsiya with particular reference to Josh’s famous marsiya, ‘Husain aur Inqilab’. But strangely enough, the real challenge to Anis comes not from Josh’s marsiya but from a poet, who stands beyond the pale of marsiya tradition. He is Iqbal. He, with his symbolic treatment of the tragedy of Karbala, is seen trying to discover in it a relevance to our times. This Iqbalian perception of Imam Husain’s stand and the ensuing tragedy poses a real challenge to the marsiya of Anis. So Shibli’s Muwazna and the angry rejoinders are now a part of our literary-cum-cultural history. We now stand in need of a different kind of muwazna – Muwazna-e-Anis-au-Iqbal.
This is neither an attempt to undermine the importance of Shibli’s comparative study nor to ignore the supreme status of Dabir as a marsiya writer. However, the defence of Dabir doesn’t make incumbent on us to deny the importance of Shibli’s book.
An article writer in this volume regrets that the books in reply to Maulana Shibli could not get wide publicity, while Maulana had the support of a publishing house which was ever ready to bring his new edition in the market. The article writer in his naivety has not cared to consider that Maulana Shibli was among the most distinguished scholar and, in addition, a leading critic of his times.
In fact Maulana Mohammad Husain Azad with his Aab-e-Hayat and Maulana Shibli with his Shaer-ul-Ajam had emerged in their times as the two most shrewd critics possessed with a deep critical insight. Their critical judgments could not be easily refuted. A writer with this intent was expected to be well-qualified to talk about poetry and to argue in a convincing way. Dabir had not the luck to have any such figure among his defenders.
A comment from Dr Gopi Chan Narang came at the end of the seminar. In his concluding remarks he said, “We all are under the pressure of Maulana Shibli’s Muwazna. It is because of this pressure that we have gathered here.”
Perhaps he is right. But how to come out of this pressure? At least for the Dabirians, he had a piece of advice. Perhaps they are more in need of some advice in this respect as they are more under Shiblian pressure. Addressing them in particular, Dr Narang said, “If you have wish to establish some new tradition of Dabir-Shanasi, you will have to deal with Shibli and the tradition prior to him the way Derrida has called Deconstruction.”
But for that purpose, the Dabirians will have to borrow the services of some sensible critic. In fact, not only Dabiriyat but the whole tradition of Urdu marsiya is badly in need of a critic. It needs be understood that the critical canons employed in judging ghazal or modern verse will not work here. Marsiya asks for a critic who has the ability to judge this form of expression on its own merits. Marsiya tradition has been able to produce its own researchers. So the researchers are already there. But it has failed so far in bringing out critics in accordance to its requirements. That is what the marsiya tradition at present needs most.
