OPINION: A Literary Stalwart Is Gone

By M. A. Siraj

Gopichand Narang, Urdu language’s most known author, theorist and literary critic, died on Wednesday. He was 91. The death occurred at Charlotte in North Carolina state of the United States where he had gone visiting his sons. Prof. Narang taught Urdu literature for nearly fifty years, primarily at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University and Jamia Millia Islamia. He was a visiting professor at the Wisconsin University and also taught at University of Minnesota as well as University of Oslo. In 2005, Delhi University named him professor emeritus.

Narang was conferred with Sahitya Akademi Award in 1995 and Padma Bhushan in 2004. Jnanpeetha Awardee Qurratulain Hyder had described Narang as ‘Reviver of Urdu’ while poet Gulzar had described him as Do paon se chalta dariya aur ek paon par thehri jheel, jheel ki nabhi pe tikhi hai urdu ki qandeel (a river moving on two wheels. A lake balanced on one foot. Settled on the lake’s navel is Urdu’s bright lamp).

His contributions cover a wide area of interest ranging from the influence of Indian thought and culture on Urdu poetry, and Indian folktales in Urdu ‘masnavis’ to modern Urdu poetry and fiction. His literary research and criticism is marked by a high degree of originality and depth of thought. His distinguishing feature was his application of stylistics and structuralism to Urdu literary criticism by which he has provided new insights, and a new awareness of tradition and modernity in Urdu literature.

In 1978, he was awarded the President of Pakistan’s Special Gold Medal for his work on the poetry of Iqbal. Still later, the Pakistan Government presented him the Sitara e Imtiyaz. Though authorship is attributed to several dozens of his books, four of them are attributed to be his original contributions. His persona drew deep inspiration from personalities such as Dr. Zakir Hussain, educationist K. G. Saiyidin, poet Raghupati Sahai Firaq Gorapkhpuri, Aal Ahmed Suroor, noted Urdu literary critic Dr. Ehtesham Hussain, Prof. Gleeson, Prof. Noam Chowmsky and Prof. C. B. Oak.

Frequent teaching assignments in the universities in the West broadened his vision to separate grain from the chaff in literature. His work on stylistics in Urdu literature raised him to the heights of literary pinnacle. He meticulously kept away from anything that would carry even a hint or shadow of stagnation, shibboleths, stereotypes or frivolity. He was termed a bridge between traditionalism and modernism by several Pakistani litterateurs who were mournful of the twain being imprisoned in watertight compartments in the nation which adopted Urdu as its official language.

Terming Urdu as a bridge between India and Pakistan, Narang had famously observed in 1985 that “there was no Atlantic Ocean between Urdu in India and Urdu in Pakistan. The same Urdu as yet is the basis of communication for the two sides of the political border. It is as yet a very meaningful, linguistically creative and cultural bridge between the two societies”.

It was in a manner of referring to contradistinction with English which is spoken and used in countries on shores on either side of the Atlantic. He was aware of the challenges for Urdu not being the language of any strong pressure group in India but placed a lot of hope in its resilience as it was making inroads into the Middle East due to its immense aesthetic appeal.

He credited Urdu for Indianising thousands of words borrowed from Arabic and Persian either by changing their semantic usage, or their pronunciation. For example ‘ghareeb’ in Arabic would mean a stranger but in Urdu it is poor or penniless. He would term Urdu a secular language even though its ethos has been Islamic.

According to him, its literature, particularly poetry, had stood against orthodoxy and rigidity. “It spreads the message of secularism, tolerance, peace and assimilation. I call Urdu a forward-looking and progressive language because throughout the last few centuries, it has revolted and reacted against the linguistic chauvinism and reactionary attitudes of the purists.

Urdu has always preferred to patronise the tadbhava (people’s non-pure) elements. To make it clearer, it has adopted the colloquial forms such as man, baap, suraj, chand, ghar, haath etc. instead of pure Sanskritised form such as matri. pitr, surya, chandr, grih, hast etc.” According to him, in no other poetry of the subcontinent has the orthodoxy been criticised to such an extent.

“Shaikh, Zahid, Muhtasib, and Mulla are all criticised and so is the Brahman, who stands for division among people on the basis of caste”, he had said. In an article published in The Herald, Karachi, he had termed Urdu poetry to be extremely anti-establishment and anti-exploitation in character. Narang’s cri