Nazir Jahangir
Let me begin by apologizing for bringing the topic of “Writing Skills” into this discussion. This is the second part, following the first published two weeks ago in this very Weekly. I understand that some of my words may be unpalatable to certain readers, though my intent is sincere.
I am a writer who has always written extemporaneously, so can confidently claim that the beauty of a genuine literary work is captured only by an aesthetic critic’s eye. This beauty often remains unseen by those lacking depth and understanding. Simply holding a pen or playing on a keyboard does not qualify one as a writer. I pity those who seek fame through superficial efforts.
A true literati has literary commitments. While animals too possess brains, humans have ethics. Intellect alone is insufficient; wisdom is crucial. If you are educated but unaware of moral standards, you are literate but not truly educated—a thoughtless moron, if you will.
Every creative work is deeply connected to its creator, reflecting the writer’s sensibilities. The extent to which a reader can delve into an author’s psyche, art, and knowledge depends on the reader’s own ability and wisdom. A discerning reader or critic can uncover the author’s insights, intuition, and experiences, empathize with its pain, enjoy its delights, and thereby enhance their own vision and understanding.
However, such discoveries are possible only if the writer possesses genuine insight and depth. If a writer is superficial and lacks profound knowledge, his work will merely be an accumulation of words, devoid of true substance. Attempting to find wisdom and meaning in such shallow writing is a waste of effort. A fool’s nature is folly, and an ignorant person’s characteristic is ignorance. Such writings do not benefit the reader and only waste their time. However, even if a piece of writing simply delights the reader, the writer’s obligation is discharged, provided the work meets literary standards.
A fiction writer or poet is distinct from the average person due to their heightened sensitivity and delicate sensibilities. Just as a flower is inherently delicate and thus holds fragrance, a writer’s sensitivity allows them to deeply feel even minor events, while others might remain unmoved by significant occurrences. In my stories, for instance, one character may be deeply affected by the cry of a chick, while another remains indifferent, continuing to carry it off for slaughter.
A concerning trend in our literary circles is the frequent accusation of “Sirqa” (plagiarism). This issue has infiltrated from across borders, with even those lacking literary capability decrying plagiarism. It is disheartening to hear accusations against great poets like Ghalib, Iqbal, and Tagore, with some even alleging that Tagore plagiarized Iran’s Hafiz. Such claims are not inquisitive but rather a disease stemming from a lack of creativity. These individuals indulge in needless scrutiny and groundless claims instead of contributing anything meaningful themselves.
While plagiarism is indeed widespread, labeling every similarity as plagiarism is misguided. Coincidences do happen. Writers may read others’ works, which influence their minds, resulting in traces of those works appearing in their own creations. This is a natural and coincidental process, not plagiarism. No one is born with innate knowledge; they learn by reading what has already been written. When such a person becomes a writer, the influence of others’ thoughts and concepts will naturally be reflected in their creations.
However, this does not absolve those who deliberately plagiarize. Many so-called writers plagiarize because they lack the creativity to produce original work. Our literature has suffered from non-creative minds borrowing from Western works and claiming them as their own. I have personally experienced this, with my plays being stolen, slightly altered, and claimed by others.
In 1984, Bashir Budgami made a short film titled “Jella” based on one of my scripts, but it wasn’t well-received. I can’t say whether the script was weak or if Budgami’s involvement in filming “Habba Khatoon” at the time affected the quality. However, producer J.K. Zutshi successfully created a gripping presentation from my Kashmiri script “Aalav.” During its rehearsal, some well-known playwrights, threatened by my potential, falsely claimed the script as theirs to prevent its production.
To my best recollection, I hadn’t read any local Kashmiri works or met senior writers until then. I won’t name those deceitful playwrights, but I highlight this to show the narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy in our literary scene. Nevertheless, writers like Bansi Nirdosh, Akhtar Mohiuddin, and Kamil, whom I hold in high regard, have shown that mature and genuine writers do exist.
Being academic or holding high positions does not make one a critic. Temporary honors and luxuries do not solidify one’s status. A genuine writer balances creativity with responsibility, adhering to literary principles and norms. A critic, bearing greater responsibilities, must be knowledgeable, experienced, and capable of evaluating literary works with solid arguments.
A fiction writer should create characters that readers connect with, while a poet should evoke emotions through their verses. A critic’s intellectual level should be high enough to articulate social and political experiences artistically. A writer is not a reformer; they subtly highlight issues without providing solutions.
A competent critic should offer fresh perspectives, conducting a graceful analysis to reveal the true meaning of a work. Criticism is not related to teaching; it requires a unique set of skills and intellectual depth.
Last but not least, it merits mentioning here that for the past couple of weeks, my Urdu article titled “Takhliq Kya Hai? Tanqid Kya Hai?” (“What is Creative Work? What is Criticism?”) has been published serially in a weekly newspaper in Kashmir. It is more detailed and reasoned. I would advise all those who are small-scale literati or claim to be big writers here to go through my Facebook page and read these serialized articles so that, in this light, they can determine their literary status, standing, and position as writers, as well as understand what “Literary Theory” is.
I observe that we have a crowd here but not an organization, individuals but not a community, noise but not discourse, an accumulation of words but not masterpieces, impostors but not genuine writers, sycophants but not statesmen, unscrupulous people but not dignified ones, buffoonery but no confidence. Therefore, genuine literature hasn’t flourished here, and a writer of international stature hasn’t emerged. We just have customary writers, conventional scholars, and critics devoid of knowledge and depth. The entire literature is like a confused mixture or hotchpotch.
The reason is that everyone is writing without learning how to write. People don’t even know the etiquette of speaking and lack literary manners, let alone writing, but still roam around claiming to be legendary writers, like the verse of Ghalib: “Banay hain Shah ke mosahib phere hain aawara” (“They have become the king’s companions but wander aimlessly”). As for the literary societies, they are the same, “Kahein ki eent kahein ka roda, baanmati ne konba joda,” a mismatched collection of bricks and stones, like a patchwork family.
Nazir jahangir is a noted journalist
