Nazir Jahangir
Superficial opinions on a creative work do not make one a critic, nor can such opinions be classified as literary criticism. I consider such so-called analytical reviews nothing more than nonsensical outburstsc of mediocre individuals, deserving of ridicule.
The same applies to other self-styled writers, whom I refer to as customary essayists. There has been a surge in such writers, with some even thrusting themselves into the field of art. Now, we see a crowd of customary writers, critics, poets, intellectuals, and storytellers. This is why our literature is struggling. Unless these so-called writers develop a passion for learning, studying, and seeking the company of reliable and skilled artists in this field, they will remain raw and unable to refine their art and hone their craft. The veterans of this literary field can pinpoint their flaws and suggest corrections. Those who have the capacity to accept the suggestions of established artists wholeheartedly will reach the pinnacle of the art for which they have a deep yearning and passion.
Our budding writers should read the story by Moulana Rumi, where a rich man wanted a tiger tattooed on his back but cried out in pain with each prick of the needle, leading the tattooist to say, “I cannot tattoo a tiger on your back.” Similarly, those who aspire to attain greater heights and ranks in literary art must listen to their seniors attentively, shape their craft, and accept their advice. By “seniors,” I do not mean those who are simply older or hold academic qualifications, or those who have cunningly occupied higher positions but remain raw in literary skills, despite winning awards and benefits. I mean those writers whose work impresses you, stirs your emotions, motivates you to move forward, and whose analytical works and reviews thrill you to the point that they inspire you to express your ideas and thoughts in that style. These are the writers I consider as seniors, even if they are younger than I am. Unless these individuals work diligently for the sake of their passion and desire, immerse themselves in the company of skilled artists to refine their craft, identify their flaws, work to correct them, and follow the advice of reputable and established writers, they will remain customary writers and will never gain a place in serious literary circles. In fact, their delusions of grandeur could lead to their literary downfall.
If a critic is not capable and well-equipped with the requisite technical knowledge to reasonably evaluate a literary work and does not impress with the profundity of intellectual depth and interpretative prowess in its narrative, then they are merely a customary critic. Critique is a great art, not everyone’s cup of tea. In my land, I have seen people who only know how to flatter, and to such an extent that their flattery overflows, believing this will earn them a place in the column of critique in the literary ledger.
Mind you, merely showcasing bundles of books, citing quotations from great thinkers, and getting books published does not qualify one as a genuine and bona fide writer, nor does it earn one the status of a critic. These are esteemed positions and elite ranks, achieved through hard work, study, knowledge, capability, learning, and in the company of dedicated veterans of this art and craft.
Literary conquest and winning literary battles are different from pulling the wool over someone’s eyes; these things do not hold the same value. Additional qualities like dedication, sincerity, integrity, a pure heart, and a broader vision are essential requisites for a critic. These qualities are much needed, yet based on my experience and observation, I can say that I have found great greed rather than commitment in ninety percent of the so-called writers here. A writer does not necessarily need to be highly educated or well-read, but a critic must have a deep understanding of the global landscape of creative literature and possess knowledge and awareness of science, history, religion, philosophy, society, economics, politics, and other arts. A critic must be well-informed about the literary, social, and political scenarios unfolding around them and in the world. Creative literature is largely influenced by innate qualities, while the art of criticism is learned through hard work, intellectual capacity, and study.
If a critic lacks understanding, wisdom, and insight, and is ignorant or poorly educated, how can it be possible for such a critic to grasp the vastness and profundity of a great writer’s ideas, evaluate the dimensions and meanings of their work, or be deemed worthy of offering a critique? It is essential to have a deep familiarity with worldly knowledge, creative subtleties, and the necessary elements of creativity and imagination. Without this, a critic cannot do justice to critiquing the profound thoughts, emotional nuances, and layered meanings within a great writer’s work. I have observed this myself when I wrote poems and stories. So-called prominent critics could hardly grasp their profundity because these critics have superficial knowledge and are accustomed to reading superficial literature, so they couldn’t dive into the depths of meaning that my words conveyed in my poems and stories. How could a mediocre mind reach the abyss of life and the unfathomable depths of existence? These people only skim the surface and apparent words. They can only reach the surface and upper layer of poems and stories, but beneath this lid lie treasures of meaning and psychological insights that remain inaccessible to them due to their lack of knowledge, unfamiliarity with deeper religious insights, and inability to grasp the true realities of life. Evaluating high-quality works is beyond the capability of these so-called critics.
Based on personal experience, I confidently assert that even among our youth and non-literary people, there are minds whose assessments and critiques of writings leave the reader in awe. These individuals skillfully highlight points in literary works or identify their strengths and weaknesses so well that even the creators themselves become admirers of these analysts and commentators. I have, at times, read the critical writings of some young intellectuals here, both literary and non-literary, whose names I don’t recall, and felt that I still have much to learn. The way they expressed their impressions with skill and artistic merit astonished me. It was truly astounding, I might say. They were indeed valuable intellectual and literary assets. Unfortunately, due to my poor memory, I cannot remember their names. I am not disappointed in the younger generation here in terms of creativity, criticism, knowledge, or thought; in fact, I admire them. My complaint, however, is against those who are considered great writers in Kashmiri literature, who have been given high positions, received awards, and served as jury members. To me, ninety percent of them were, and still are, hollow, and most of them are mentally and emotionally sick and bankrupt. God knows best.
I am expressing my opinion based on my observations and experiences. It is entirely incorrect to say that we no longer have great writers and critics. In fact, by God’s grace, they are more numerous and better than before. They remain hidden from view because they are not given opportunities to come forward. A genuine writer does not fear the critic, but it is the hollow and superficial writers who are constantly worried that if their works are properly scrutinized, they will be exposed as hollow and fake. A true writer does not fear this; they have confidence in their works and trust in their pen, and they are capable of self-assessment.
Nevertheless, I reiterate that criticism is a touchstone on which the quality and standard of literary works are tested and gauged. However, the use of this touchstone is an art, and this art is based on various principles. Therefore, a critic must be familiar with this art so that they can consider the necessary finesse while offering their evaluation and not target the writer personally. It has been observed that some people even categorize personal attacks as criticism.
Nazir Jahangir is a noted journalist
