Manto and Krishan Chander — a tale of two rebels

Karachi
Saadat Hasan Manto and Krishan Chander were literary maestros of the late 20th century, said Raza Naeem, a critic, translator and prize-winning dramatic reader, in his talk at the T2F on Wednesday which focused on the works of both writers and their inspiration behind it.
Starting with the work of Manto, Naeem said the both the writer and his work had a rebellious nature, probably due to profoundly a disturbed childhood and family life.
However, Manto’s ‘provocative’ work was not accepted kindly by the Progressive Writers’ Association (PWA) – a left-oriented literary body of the country — because they were contrary to the desired ‘line’ of Moscow.
“The first to give up on Manto was the PWA,” said Naeem. “Then Ahmed Nadeem Qasmi went on to reveal that the expulsion of Manto from the organisation was his sole and personal decision. But the Manto didn’t bother about it. His work was larger than the PWA.”
He informed the audience that “Kali Shalwar and Dhuwaan,” were among the books of Manto banned during the British era. However, it had been partition which had had a considerable impact on the writer’s personality and it reflected in his work.
Dilating on a question which usually surfaces in the literary circles of South Asia that why did Manto opt to migrate to Pakistan, Naeem explained that the writer had been mulling over his future in this country. “If he had been based in India, at best he could have been a good scriptwriter, but here in Pakistan, he was recognised as an artist,” he said. “Secondly, he had the perception that his friends in the literary fraternity would become his rivals. Thirdly, Manto’s family had also shifted to Pakistan.”
Naeem said, Manto considered ‘Mullahs and American policies’ to be his enemies and this reflected in his renowned piece “Letters to Uncle Sam” — a satire expressing his dissent on the nefarious alliance of the clergy and the USA against the communist movements in South Asia.
“Unfortunately, we haven’t yet taken his letters seriously,” Naeem remarked.
He then went on to read excerpts from “Allah ka Barra Fazal Hai” and described it as a satire which in the given circumstances could not be written again.
Naeem lamented that the work of Manto had been caged in stereotypes.
“We have restricted his work on sex and partition. Manto had a broader political understanding which is still relevant today,” he said.
In the second session of the event, Naeem looked into the writings of the Krishan Chander.
According to him, Chander — who in his extensive work of 30 collections of short stories and around 5,000 novels — had put more work on paper than all of the combined literature of Manto and Ismat Chughtai.
However, he said, literary circles had unjustifiably recognised him solely on his pre-partition work. Born on November 13, 1914, Chander, unlike Manto, was not a rebellious person by nature. “But with writing, he also spent a considerable part of his life as a political activist. He was a writer who believed in classless societies and he was an activist who was at the forefront in street protests against the arrival of Sir John Simon,” Naeem said.
Chander’s work on streams of consciousness in his story “Do Farlaang Lambi Sarak” expanded on the impact of the English justice system in the subcontinent.
Naeem said the diversity of Chander`s work was remarkable since from the Korean war to Kashmir, his pieces covered all the pertinent developments. “He wrote on the issues still relevant in today`s day and age,” he said.
Naeem also read in his distinguished style one of Chander`s stories, “Aik Tawaif Ka Khat Jinnah aur Nehru Ka Naam”.
Naeem ended the discussion with the thought that given the day-to-day news of communal polarisation, if Chander were present today he would have been present to fight against the “cultural chauvinism” through his pen. “The troubled times in which we are going through, demands from us to remember and read them,” he concluded.