Dr Nasir Abbas Nayyar can be counted among the most authentic and mature voices in the realm of Urdu literature. Over the years, he has enriched the literary landscape with his knowledge and expanded the scope of criticism by introducing a whole new concept of literary theory. His book Maa Baad Nau Abadiat Urdu Kay Tanazar Mein (OUP 2013) was the first book of postcolonial study of Urdu literature. Alamgiriat Aur Urdu, Jadeed Aur Maa Baad Jadeed Tanqeed, Lisaniaat Aur Tanqeed are some of his other books.

His most recent book Urdu Adab Ki Tashkeel e Jadeed (OUP 2016) has already generated quite a lot of interest and holds great promise. Excerpts of his interview that was conducted in Lahore, where he is assistant professor of Urdu at Oriental College, follow.

The News on Sunday: Tell us about your literary journey? How and why did you drift towards criticism?

Dr Nasir Abbas Nayyar: I fully remember the moments, just on the edge of my teenage years, when I somehow discovered the magical and therapeutic power of writing. Well, writing then meant only scribbling that made me gloomy and depressed. Slowly, I came to realise that writing descriptively and a bit analytically would have the power to relieve me of my depression. Though initially I wrote short stories, then light essays and finally criticism, the imprints of the first experience of writing has been a vital force all the time.

Frankly speaking, I never wished to become a critic. Dr Ahsan Zaidi, supervisor of my MA thesis, emphatically told me that I had a natural tendency to write criticism. So I thought about his advice and my inner turmoil helped me write my first book on the poems of Wazir Agha in 1993.

TNS: Initially, yours was the lone young voice that started introducing literary theory in Urdu. What response did you receive?

NAN: Theory was introduced by critics like Wazir Agha and Gopi Chand Narang. Among young critics, I was the one who tried to acquaint Urdu readers with it. Response from seniors was quite heartening. Even progressive critic Dr Muhammad Ali Siddiqui, who became a harsh critic of theory in his last years, appreciated generously my writings on theory. He wrote the introduction of my first book on postmodernism and reviewed it in the Dawn back in 2000.

Now I realise that initially every promising writer is welcomed but as he starts challenging established norms and patterns of criticism, he gets denounced.

TNS: So did you get bogged down by the hostile response it generated?

NAN: The experience of living a life of a writer lets you understand all vulnerable things related to human nature. Hostile response has always given me an opportunity to become aware of the vicious aspects of outer life and the fragile regions of our inner worlds. Sometimes, I do get bogged down and those are moments that let me realise the most fragile region of my psyche. I try to understand the actual motives of hostility and do my best to transform it into a blessing. Many a time, hostile criticism has made me review my way of understanding things or my stance. Moreover, hostile criticism sends a strong message: that you are not alienated from your community.

TNS: People on the right and the left unanimously ridicule theory. How do you analyse the phenomena?

NAN: Both strongly believe in the ‘centre’. Centre and strong belief in centre is common among both schools of thought which are otherwise quite contrary to each other. Interestingly, they define centre in contradictory terms, i.e., rightists conceive centre in metaphysical terms and leftists in Marxian terms. Centre-based thinking devises a certain kind of hermeneutics that advocates primacy of arriving at the intention of the writer and a single meaning of text.

Theory subverts centre and centre-based hermeneutics. What are the repercussions of decentring any system of thought or text is another question.

TNS: How can a common reader of Urdu relate to literary theory?

NAN: There are many misconceptions in the air about literary theory. Literary or critical or cultural theory is not an abruptly-evolved phenomenon. It is in reality the next phase in the western tradition of criticism that goes as far back as to that of Hellenic philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Difficulty on the part of reader arises when it is studied as an alienating phenomenon. It is not easy to delineate the characteristics of common reader of Urdu. If he or she is a reader of popular fiction, there is something really of true substance for him or her in theory.

Theory makes you raise questions on the very process of construction of meaning. It emphasises that meaning is a process that has absolutely social, cultural and political attributes. Ambience of meaning is entirely human. What becomes popular signifies the success of some particular narrative. Theory paves the way for your emancipation from becoming victim of any narrative.

TNS: We have a temperament of sheer worship regarding our celebrated poets and fiction writers like Iqbal, Faiz and Rashid or Manto, Ghulam Abbas etc. Have we been able to objectively judge these stalwarts?

NAN: You are quite right in your observation. We love heroes. When we don’t find real heroes we create them. It happens in every field. We don’t bother what these ‘heroes’ taught in their works. Iqbal had said Apni Dunia App Paida Kar Agar Zindon Men Hae (create your own world if you really exist), or Tu Apni Sarnavisht Ab Apnay Qalam Say Likh (write your destiny now by your own pen). We didn’t take it seriously and have loved to dwell eternally in his created world by way of sheer worship.

Sheer worship only tells us about the hollowness of the worshipper. But I must add that we have produced satisfactory critical works on these poets and fiction writers.

TNS: What ails Urdu criticism as a whole?

NAN: Literary criticism has never been an alienated phenomenon. It means it can’t be restricted to formalist study of literary texts. Criticism evaluates and interprets literary texts as well. Evaluative judgement is somehow ‘natural’, intuitively done usually. But interpretation is embedded in the overall method of finding meaning prevailing in contemporary social disciplines.

In remote early periods it grew along with or as a result of philosophical writings and in modern period its development is indebted to social sciences. As we have not been able to develop our own tradition of philosophy or social sciences, our criticism couldn’t reach the same height as western criticism. Philosophy and social sciences create a true ambience of intellectual freedom required for critical thinking.

TNS: Of late we have seen a flurry of literary activities like high profile conferences in various cities of Pakistan in which some big names from India are also invited. Are you satisfied with the treatises that are read out in these conferences?

NAN: I can’t dare to term the papers read out in these conferences as treatises. Only a well- researched paper deserves to be called a treatise. It is very rare that some big name has presented a memorable treatise in these conferences. Usually scholars express popular opinions, discuss famous authors, and appreciate the already admired authors or texts. They avoid challenging accepted views, abhor questioning hegemonic ways of interpreting texts and shun starting a debate on popular narratives.

TNS: What are your findings about the postcolonial study of Urdu literature?

NAN: It is not unproblematic to sum up the findings of postcolonial study of Urdu literature in a few lines. I will try to offer the gist of findings. Modern Urdu literature evolved during and under colonialism. It reflects, responds, resists and counters colonialism. It is in this convoluted way that all major trends in Urdu literature cropped up. I mean the conservative, progressive and modernist trends. I have discussed these trends in my books Mabad Nauabdiat: Urdu Kay Tanazar Men and Urdu Adab ki Taskeel e Jadeed, both published by Oxford University Press Pakistan.

TNS: When is your new book coming and what is it on?

NAN: My new book titled Urdu Adab ki Tashkeel e Jadeed is about to come out. These days I am working on another subject -- Modernities of Urdu Literature. Modernity has been dubbed as a monolithic concept which implies that there exists only western modernity. This concept impedes understanding of dissimilar innovative and ground-breaking ways of perceiving the world. Without challenging the monolithic western modernity, we can’t grasp the quintessence of modern Urdu literature. At present, it is just an assumption.