The Urdu short story underwent a sea change from the second edition of Niaz Fatehpuri's Nigaristain (1930) to Angarey, published in 1932.
Hakim Syed Ali Kausar Chandpuri, better known as Kausar Chandpuri, thought that the short story should seek to improve the standards of morality even though it dealt with romance so that a modicum of balance could be achieved.
It was more or less a genre contributing to fine-tuning of social norms. It didn't aspire for a role in social transformation. Charles Dickens wanted to strive for the eardication of poverty by focusing on the plight of the downtrodden.
He was quite successful and some studies of poverty in London suggest that his novels depicting the seamy side of the British society paved the way for the politics of poverty alleviation.
Coming through Niaz Fatehpuri's Nigaristan, Sajjad Hyder Yalderum, Majnoon Gorakhpuri, Mrs Abdul Qadir and Hijab Ismail's short stories of the 20's and early 30's one wonders as to why Urdu fiction was reacting so strongly to Sir Syed's Movement of down-to-earth prose.
The Progressive Movement, as heralded by Angarey, brought a radical development owing to the impact of Russia's October Revolution which paved the way for the founding of the Communist Party in India in 1925. Strangely a nationalist leader like Maulana Hasrat Mohani was the head of the Reception Committee of the first session of the party in 1925.
I admit that Maulana Hasrat's presence in the Communist Movement and some prominent Urdu writers' warm reception of the October Revolution created a favourable response even in the religious circles of India. The Muslim clergy in those days looked at the Russian Revolution quite favourably hoping that it would reverse some of the Czarist policies in Central Asia. It was also hoped that the Revolutionary Russia would help the Muslim World which was groaning under the yoke of colonialism.
These feelings couldn't last longer. The reaction against Angarey and the Progressive Writers Association was, perhaps, due to the arrogance of some leftists towards religion. Some of them in their opposition of religion ignored the fact the religion played a great euphoric role in the absence to economic development and lack of socio-economic development of the society. It has always been unwise to disregard the realities on the ground but, thanks to some moderate progressive fiction writers, the class character of the heroes and heroines of Urdu fiction steadily changed and Munshi Prem Chand could declare in 1936 at the inaugural session of the PWA in Lucknow that we well have to change the "standards of beauty". Munshi Ji's marvellous short story 'Kafan' and novel 'Gaodan' had clearly indicated what he meant. He was not indulging in any rhetoric. The freedom struggle had entered a phase when the working class and peasantry were awakening to the need for a concerted struggle. The sleeping villages were coming to life and so was the new literature which was saying good-bye to the imaginary world of fairies, princes and princesses who used to inhabit our imagination as Ideals.
The Urdu short story has not looked back inspite of some parallel tendencies to scuttle the emphasis on life as lived as against the life which sought to comfort the inactive individuals of the Ivory Tower. The battle has neither been completely won or lost but the way the advocates of 'Literature for Literature Sake' try to pass for progressive writers suggests which side is so strong as to attract the chameleon or the turn-coat lot of writers. After all, who can try to pass for one's ideological adversary if the ideological adversary didn't have a more durable future?
RIAZ SIDDIQUI:
Riaz Siddiqui is no more. He met his death while crossing the Sharea Faisal. An irresponsible car driver killed someone who worked for an ideal society in which rapacity and recklessness is emerging as a powerful psychological drive.
I knew him ever since he took literature as a serious intellectual activity He wrote quite vigorously for the last three decades of his literary career. He was a dedicated teacher and served as Chief Assistant Editor of Monthly 'Manshoor', Karachi.
From the days of writing a biography of Aga Khan III to the stage when he was critical of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Aga Khan for their support to the Raj in Monthly 'Naya Zamana' Lahore, he showed that he was quite courageous to change his standpoints. After all one is not expected to stick to as a viewpoint for good. Riaz Siddiqui was always very respectful to his seniors. He worked for his Ph. D. dissertation under Dr Farman Fatehpuri for sometime but he couldn't complete it. He was quite susceptible to be attracted to new fads. His article on my critical writings, published in a Hyderabad Deccan Journal 20-25 years ago, didn't suggest that he was busy writing on Aga Khan III in those days. The article was entitled 'Nai Tanqid Ka Shahsawar' and it came as bolt from the blue to me. He didn't ever mention to me about this piece of his writing. I have mentioned this incident only to show that he could be 'responsive' to works he liked on his own. His articles on structuralism and post-modernism were quite incisive.
I am happy that Monthly 'Tajassus' (Quest), Kotri, is bringing out a special edition on Riaz and it is heartening that he will be gratefully remembered. I think that the consideration of 'class' and 'status' has started playing a role in acknowledging the merits of the dead. An affluent writer succeeds in getting more response from the less affluent writers while a less affluent writer doesn't get proper notice from the writers of his class. What a pity!
Isn't it a malady warranting some attention with a view to arrest this unacceptable trend? Riaz Siddiqui death has gone almost unnoticed and everyone should feel sorry for it.