A glance at Pakistan’s academic landscape presents a rather discouraging picture. While hundreds, if not thousands, of research papers are published annually in journals produced by universities across the country, the overall quality of these contributions often leaves much to be desired.
Nonetheless, a few notable exceptions stand out – and one such exception is ‘Bunyad’, an Urdu-language journal published by the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).
Edited by Dr Nasir Abbas Nayyar, with Amna Talat as managing editor, ‘Bunyad’ consistently maintains high standards of academic integrity and intellectual depth. It has become a benchmark that many private and public academic institutions would do well to emulate. Dr Nayyar is among the most prominent literary critics and scholars in contemporary Urdu literature. Although his career began in the late 20th century, his work has gained significant prominence over the past 25 years. Under his editorial leadership, ‘Bunyad’ has emerged as a vital platform for Urdu literary criticism and postcolonial scholarship.
The 2025 edition of ‘Bunyad’ features several thoughtful and provocative essays. For instance, Dr Rauf Parekh explores the controversy surrounding ‘Qa’te-i-Burhan’, a Persian prose work by Mirza Ghalib first published in 1862. Ibrar Khattak offers a historical survey of Pashto-Urdu lexicography, examining the development of bilingual dictionaries between Pashto and other languages. Perhaps the most comprehensive contribution, however, is by Dr Akhtar Ali Syed, whose essay investigates critical responses to Edward Said’s seminal 1978 work ‘Orientalism’ – a text that remains foundational in postcolonial studies.
Dr Akhtar Ali Syed, a Pakistani psychotherapist based in Ireland, is a prolific writer whose work spans multiple disciplines. His recent book ‘Istemar Ki Nafsiyaat’ (The Psychology of Colonialism), published by Ilqa Publications, is a valuable addition to Urdu scholarship. It provides a sharp analysis of how colonial and imperial regimes reshaped the psyche of the colonised – often with the willing cooperation of the colonised themselves, who internalised the identities imposed upon them.
Before turning to Syed’s essay in ‘Bunyad’, it is worth mentioning my own modest contributions to this ongoing discourse. On June 3, 2018, I published an essay in the Political Economy section of The News on Sunday (TNS) titled ‘The Lewis–Said Controversy’. In it, I revisited four decades of debate surrounding ‘Orientalism’ and examined Edward Said’s intellectual confrontation with Bernard Lewis. I critiqued Lewis’s pro-imperial stance and described Said as “a better intellectual, never shy of challenging dominant discourses.”
Later that year, on September 23, 2018, I wrote another piece for TNS, ‘Understanding Different Currents of Thought – II’, where I again highlighted Said’s rise to prominence in the 1980s, referencing my earlier article for a more detailed account of the Said–Lewis debate. In March 2022, I published ‘Remembering Aijaz Ahmad’, a tribute that examined the late scholar’s intellectual legacy, especially his landmark work, ‘In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures’ and his Marxist critique of ‘Orientalism’.
In that essay, I emphasised Aijaz Ahmad’s challenge to the liberal-humanist orientation of postcolonial theory, especially in Said’s work. Ahmad insisted on grounding cultural critique in class analysis and faulted ‘Orientalism’ for lacking a Marxist framework.
Now, Dr Akhtar Ali Syed’s 50-page essay in ‘Bunyad’ reinvigorates the conversation around ‘Orientalism’. For those unfamiliar with the original text, Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’ offers a groundbreaking critique of how Western scholarship and political discourse constructed the ‘East’ as inferior, exotic and fundamentally ‘other.’ Said argued that ‘Orientalism’ functions through three overlapping dimensions: a long-standing academic tradition in the West focused on the study of the East; an epistemological and ontological framework that asserts Western superiority over Eastern societies; and a political project that seeks to justify and perpetuate Western domination through specific methods of knowledge production.
Syed stresses that many of Said’s critics fail to recognise that the book primarily addresses the second and third aspects – those concerned with knowledge and power. Said revealed how these intellectual frameworks were deeply intertwined with the ambitions of colonial and imperial projects from the late 18th century onward.
Said’s analysis showed how Orientalist scholarship served not only the interests of empire but also reshaped the self-image and political consciousness of colonised societies – today often referred to as the Global South. Syed reminds us that although ‘Orientalism’ received widespread acclaim, it also attracted criticism from both the political right and left. Right-wing critics, often motivated by jingoism, Islamophobia, or neo-imperialist agendas, sought to discredit Said’s thesis. Left-wing critiques, on the other hand, often emerged from Marxist and materialist perspectives.
Syed’s essay surveys a wide array of these responses, ranging from traditional Orientalists and conservative scholars to Marxist theorists and poststructuralist philosophers. He acknowledges that ‘Orientalism’ is not beyond critique – no book, save religious scripture, is immune to flaws. Syed highlights certain limitations in Said’s work while also exposing the ways many of his detractors either misunderstood or misrepresented his central arguments. For example, Said’s choice to begin his historical analysis with Napoleon’s 1798 invasion of Egypt was a deliberate framing, not an attempt to offer a universal definition of imperialism.
Syed argues that ‘Orientalism’ should be read not merely as a critique of Western academic writing on the East, but as a profound inquiry into how knowledge is weaponised to serve imperial ends. Drawing on the works of Frantz Fanon and the psychoanalytic theories of Jacques Lacan, Syed brings a fresh perspective informed by his expertise in psychology.
Among the critics discussed is Edward Alexander, a staunch Zionist and literature professor who notoriously labelled Said – a Christian Palestinian and outspoken opponent of Zionism – as a “professor of terror”. Yet one of the most intellectually engaging debates was between Said and Syrian Marxist philosopher Sadiq Jalal al-Azm, who objected to Said’s interpretation of Marx.
Multan-based journalist Aamir Hussaini has translated the correspondence between Said and al-Azm, revealing the personal intensity of their disagreement. Al-Azm even compared Said’s Palestinian nationalism to Zionism, citing figures such as Eliezer Ben-Yehuda and Leon Pinsker.
Syed examines al-Azm’s accusation that Said employed “reverse Orientalism”, portraying the West in monolithic and essentialist terms. This, al-Azm argued, compromised Said’s ability to mount a universalist Marxist critique. The essay also revisits the views of Bernard Lewis and his disciple Martin Kramer, both of whom accused Said of discrediting the entire field of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies in the West.
Syed’s analysis also draws upon Stuart Schaar, whose essay ‘Orientalism at the Service of Imperialism’ endorsed Said’s thesis with a wealth of supporting examples. Syed traces the evolution of Orientalist discourse through figures like Louis Massignon and Hamilton Gibb, whose early 20th-century writings provided sanitised justifications for French and British colonial rule.
After World War II, as Britain’s imperial power waned, the intellectual epicentre of Orientalism shifted to the US. Scholars like Gibb and Lewis migrated there and aligned with new geopolitical interests of the American state, giving Orientalism a fresh yet equally problematic life.
Syed’s essay stands out for the breadth of information it offers – insights not commonly found in similar academic work. For instance, he notes Edward Said’s admiration for Michel Foucault’s theory of discourse and references Professor Fazlur Rahman of the University of Chicago, who once argued that “any discourse or statement about a religion must be accepted by at least some of its followers to be considered valid”. This is indeed a provocative and significant point.
Syed also draws on an impressive array of scholars, including Ashis Nandy, Octave Mannoni, Robert Young and Homi K Bhabha (not to be confused with physicist Homi J Bhabha). Robert Young, in particular, regards Bhabha, Said and Gayatri Spivak as the “holy trinity” of postcolonial studies.
One is inclined to agree with Syed when he argues that ‘Orientalism’ is not simply a book about Orientalist scholarship; it is a deep interrogation of the epistemological foundations that have shaped Western discourse on the East for over two centuries.
In his essay, Syed offers a meticulous and insightful examination of almost every major critic of Edward Said, including Aijaz Ahmad, Irfan Habib and Gayatri Spivak. The result is a piece that is both intellectually rigorous and highly accessible. For this, we owe our gratitude to Dr Akhtar Ali Syed and to Dr Nasir Abbas Nayyar for ensuring that such valuable scholarship finds a place in ‘Bunyad’.
The writer holds a PhD from the University of Birmingham, UK. He tweets/posts NaazirMahmood and can be reached at: mnazir1964yahoo.co.uk