3. Is Art for Art’s sake?
Sajjad Zaheer, in ‘Roshnaai’ has painted a colorful picture of the meeting. In it he recalls that the Kisaan Sabha was scheduled in Jalianwala Bagh (2) and the PWA decided to hold its meeting there as well. Faiz was the chief organizer and was milling around with the crowd, smiling, with a bag in his hand. Zaheer was noticeably nervous and asked Faiz how they would ever conduct a literary meeting in this noisy multitude since even after the Kissan Sabha finished their meetings a crowd lingered in the area. Faiz responded that he had asked many local colleges and schools for the loan of a hall but no one had agreed until he asked the peasant leaders who happily agreed to let the PWA use their areas in between sessions. Faiz also felt that it was fortuitous since this meant that the local farmers and peasants could get to see ‘their’ writers and poets who would get to read their works in the presence of common people. Zaheer was surprised that even MAO College, where Faiz taught and Taseer was the Principal refused the loan of a hall thereby making clear what they thought about the ideas of the organization.
Zaheer recalls how disturbed he felt at the apparent disorganization of the conference proceedings. How was it possible to have a serious literary discussion under such conditions? He reminded himself though that ‘serious’ discussions are not all that matters in the end. Middle class intellectuals often feel themselves powerless and weak when faced with societal problems. Would not this feeling of impotence and helplessness be erased if fortified with the strength of the mass of people? Are those same intellectuals not part of the people? Zaheer remembers how it felt a little strange to be reciting literary works while being watched curiously by hundreds of young and old peasants who probably did not understand much of what was being said but could, no doubt, appreciate that these educated people were with them, on their side. They probably wished that things would be written and said that they could comprehend and, no doubt, the writers too, felt that even though they were sitting amongst common people, they still had work to do in order to get close to them in their work. Once the poetry recitation began, though, it felt more like a celebration and the conference was generally considered a great success and set the trend for subsequent meetings where peasants, students, workers and representatives of poorer sections of society were especially invited.
It should be obvious by now that state and government officials were extremely suspicious of progressives since it was no secret that they were left leaning, anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist. It is no surprise therefore, that conflict between state officials and progressive groups began immediately upon their founding centered primarily on government efforts to contain and eliminate the ideas and influence of the progressive movement. About 6 months after its inception, the PWA was officially accused of being ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ and government employees were forbidden to participate in any of its activities. This, of course, included a number of poets, writers and artists. In those years of economic depression and rampant unemployment, losing one’s government employment meant exposing one’s family to poverty and potential starvation. A number of writers and artists, as a consequence had to separate themselves, at least publicly, from the movement.
Religious leaders, too, wasted no time coming to the aid of the government and helpfully issued ‘fatwas’ (religious edicts) against progressive writers branding them apostates and heretics.
However, it should be noted that opposition to progressive literature was not confined to government or religious circles. A group of litterateurs (professional writers) also opposed the movement early. Progressive writers had identified early who these opponents would be. It is not by accident that the 1936 manifesto differentiated sharply between ‘progressive’ and ‘reactionary’ or ‘conservative’ literature. It stated clearly that all literary work that led to dissension, confrontation and blind imitation was reactionary while work that led to the development of critical faculties, that encouraged unity and fostered independence of thought and freedom of spirit is progressive. In contrast to officialdom which worried about the ‘socialist leadership’ of the movement, conservative writers opposed all ideas within the movement from its poetic works to its political leanings.
One of their objections was that progressive writers, by dint of their efforts to make literature accessible to common people were ‘debasing’ or ‘spoiling’ the language that somehow, simplicity was devoid of beauty. They also claimed that instead of trying to reform individuals, they were leading them towards revolution and bloody insurrection, that they were propagating irreligious ideas, licentiousness and moral corruption, that their ideas were somehow ‘foreign’ and alien and were corroding culture and society.
The opponents of progressives were those who rejected literature as a source of reforming society, believed in ‘art for art’s sake’ and were, in the words of the progressives immersed in ‘blind imitation’, in this case, of Western literature and poetry.
Their organization, formed in 1939 as a reaction to the PWA, was named the ‘Halqa-e-Arbab-e-Zauq’ and consisted primarily of two young poets who believed in ‘experimental’ literature, N.M.Rashid and Meeraji (3). Their differences with progressives centered on a clash of ideology, their points of view about the problems of life and their opinions about how such problems ought to be portrayed in literature.
Rashid described it once in some detail. He was of the view that the progressives, proceeding from a predetermined ideological point of view wanted to deprive artists of their independence of thought whereas, he maintained, an artist, especially a poet, if he or she is true to their art should only use his or her own impressions of the world for their creations. He asserted that his poetry was a reflection only of his own considered, deep beliefs, not of some external influence imposed by others. He criticized progressives for examining life through a single lens while his world view was informed only by his own experience and his own reflections.
Excerpted and translated from ‘Parvarish-e-Lauh-o-Qalam; Faiz, hayaat aur takhleeqaat’ by Ludmila Vassilyeva.
