Photo by  Janko Ferlič on Unsplash

After analysis and deduced conclusions of judgments and opinions by Western intellectuals as regards to the predicament of postmodernist conditions, it becomes crucial to ponder on what may be and should be the shape of postmodernism in Urdu. Are the related Western references sufficient for Urdu and pertinent to its disposition? Does our settings correspond to Western tenor to this extent that no transformation, abolition or addition is required? Are the Eastern and Indian contexts similar to the West? Is our material and spiritual elevation understood with reference to the West, or the temperament and modus operandi of both are different as well? Are cultures global or can be global, or these are composed of National or regional identities?

If these questions are aptly answered, the final stage in these debates becomes the most important one, i.e. the debate on culture. If we deliberate on it, this point is actually the backbone of postmodern discourse. If we move forward by analyzing this, we can entangle the threads of discussion and Urdu postmodern poetics is formed on its own accord. 

First of all, take into account the notion of decentralization and the fundamentalism that is in its domain; some naïve critics and reviewers of Urdu deem themselves safe whilst they use the concept of decentralization as an atom bomb. It is the talk of the town that postmodernism is weary of religion. If we, the people of Urdu language, are Muslims; our God is one, Prophet is one and Qur’an is one. So we cannot shake origin* or foundation. Derrida is attacking our belief and faith. The answer is simple. Progressivism prospered under the influence of a clear understanding of Communism during the last fifty years. Marx, Lenin and other thinkers termed religion as opium. Then Marxism overshadowed Urdu progressivism and Communism for a long period of time, and what happened to Islam? It remained in its place. Nothing negated it. It could not be negated as the roots of trust and conviction are deeper than doubt in the Indian soil. The spiritual heritage is stronger than materialism. It has more peace in it than movement and more auspiciousness than agitation in its structure. But its culture is not in harmony with Western culture of constant turbulence. The point is that our spiritual heritage is not one-dimensional but vertically pluralistic. Though in the perspective of Muslims, the foundation is based on the Prophet and the Qur’an, but there are innumerable and diverse chains of spiritualism. Despite a common foundation, several sects originated; despite faith on oneness, plurality found its path. I want to clarify what I am saying with just one example. Music is probably in contradiction with the spirit of Islam. But examine the state of shrines as gatherings of samaa are arranged. The singers of qawwali [1] present different forms of poetry with musical instruments. Ecstasy and fervor define the mood of such gatherings. It is evident to what extent such notion can be correct through this perspective. It is worth pondering. But surprisingly, most Sufis have been considering samaa as religiously permissible and lawful. In Hazrat Khawaja Nizam-ud-Din Auliya’s book of sayings “Fawaid ul Fawaid” (gains of the gains), samaa is praised in many gatherings. It is also debated that many people consider it unlawful but for Sultan-ul-Mashaikh (King of the saints), it is not illegitimate. The purpose of this discussion is only that there are a lot of things which are related to religion or belief, but these are not accepted as single-folded truth. That is why many shades* of beliefs are found in every religion. My purpose is that when Derrida presents his philosophical opinion regarding origin* and aims at Western philosophy, it is his own affair. It can be clearly said about Urdu that there is room for many disagreements as regards to the truths about it and on this basis it can be said that in religion as well, multiplicity of interpretation about any matter keeps on appearing. In short, our own belief is not affected by Derrida’s concepts; rather it brings a sense of reinforcement that where fundamentalism in religious affairs is highly exaggerated, a sense of dilemma is formed within different religions. Discussions on what is better and what is of lesser worth initiate and the matter ends in dispute. At this stage, traits of being human and elements of humanism diminish, and violence and massacre start in the name of religion and conviction. So this must be clear that every person should have liberty as regards to his or her convictions and should be absolved from making life violent by discussing what is better and what is worse. Therefore postmodernism somehow gives the lesson of tolerance* which has no room for aggression. For a pleasant life, plurality* definitely seems better, in which prejudice appears to annihilate. So Urdu postmodernism does not collide with religion but produce the capability to incite religion and this is our cultural state of affairs as regards to religion and conviction. Gopi Chand Narang has rightly said; 

Literary value is not merely a value. It is bearer of meaning and the source of meaning is experience of life and society and its problems.

Obviously since religion is a part of society, it also has its own issues. To resolve these issues, mind has to be made extremely flexible so that different spiritual values can be included in spiritual values, and these can make room for themselves. This means that Urdu postmodernism insists on leaving layers of conviction open under its theory and ideology. When religious elements transform into poetry, then this quality is born on its own accord with reference to culture. This can be proven by poetry of different poets. 

It can be said that in Urdu postmodernism, it will not be correct to think of any theory as final. The scenario that emerges as a result is quite prominent i.e. the artist is free to perceive things, understand and present them, as he or she wants. There is no room for compulsion. He or she is totally free in adopting any path. The openness of life provides him or her opportunity that he or she should pass through the stages of choosing and rejecting by themselves. It is obvious that this rejection and acceptance will be according to the temperament of the society. As a result postmodernism does not want to create any dispute between creativity and freedom. It is evident that this situation is very fruitful for Urdu postmodernism. 

If West thinks that History is not consistent then it’s every aspect tells of some evolution. But History can adopt inversed quality. It can be estimated by whatever is going on today that it cannot be named as historical evolution. This is the reason that postmodernism seems to be against putting concrete boundaries between History and Literature. Although this theory is new and also Western, but isn’t it so that the essence of History that is extracted from literary creations, is more transparent. The reason is that literature is embedded in roots of its culture and History is no different than it. Therefore if it is said that History and Literature has similar enjoined boundaries or their boundaries can be joined, then it is not superficial. The same condition is definitely present in its reality. Much of the literature is perceived to be giving testimony of its time. The reason is that literature engulfs its time and this time corresponds to the relevant region where this literature is born. In this condition, it is no inconvenience to admit that postmodern Urdu poetics is progressing towards building relation of History and Literature all over again. 

Many thinkers pointed out the fact that State and its rule are not satisfactory; rather it has commanding and tyrannical elements in temperament. Though it should always be concerned about well-being of the masses of State but the never-ending rule of oppression continues. Postmodernism wants to collide with such temperament of State. In the recent postmodern form of Urdu, it does not seem unnecessary to adopt it. The way States have been ruling in our region, it is evident that their dictatorial attitude is becoming fiercer. It is the source of the creation of Protest Literature*. It is not a non-literary attitude to take a firm stand against oppression. The postmodern literary attitude does not dictate that a writer should not enter such domain. 

Same is the case with society where hegemony is prevalent. Force is openly demonstrated. In any society, bigger powers want to devour smaller ones. If it is not possible, they want to keep them marginalized. In a postmodern society, such discrimination of powerful and powerless and inappropriate behavior on this basis is not commendable. In Urdu postmodernism, t o adopt such form does not seem wrong. 

In Western scholars, particularly in Ihab Hassan’s discourse, modernism and postmodernism are tried to be differentiated. It must be kept in mind that Western postmodernism and Urdu postmodernism are completely different from each other.  Here postmodernism revolved around inner world of human beings where pessimism reigned; such pessimism where the reflection of a sick mind is visible. Anarchy, invisibility, aloneness, fear, dejection, guilt, alienation and hero-worship appear to be its main components. Obviously all these factors are enough to make a human being and his or her brain worthless. This postmodernism was standing against progressivism, so externalism was not allowed to find a way out. Whereas life is composed of the internal, the external conditions cannot be ignored. It is the demand of our culture to keep an eye on the controversial internal mannerism and external perspectives of life. If progressivism ignores internalism altogether, then postmodernism ignores externalism. In this collision, the face of culture and the identity of society are distorted. Postmodernism exists at the amalgamation of these two extremes. It does not care about accepting or rejecting anything, rather its concern is to grasp the complete condition of life. Therefore postmodernism is essentially an ongoing celebration of creations which has no external barrier in the form of manifesto. This is the reason that Professor Gopi Chand Narang points out that;

Postmodernism is not a philosophy that is entirely to guide, devise formulas and give instructions to creator. To keep connection with life, society and culture has been mentioned as a vision for kind and form of literature and not as a program coming from outside or a plan or as manifesto of any political party. This means that literature is part and parcel of life and social norms and any definition or interpretation of literature cannot be formed without life, society and culture. This is the only gift of new literary thought that literary value cannot be greater than the reference to society and civilization.

One main agenda of postmodernism is human rights and personal freedom. It means that it has those factors in its domain which are not only the reason for propagation of humanism but are also engaged in fighting against any matter facing them. So the quality of a good system is that to what extent it had been safeguarding or it can safeguard the rights of humans. From here stems the perspective that personal freedom is also something to respect. Therefore this direction of postmodernism is not such that Urdu postmodernism would not profit from it or follow its path. If a good system is praised in education and literature, it isn’t wrong in any way. Such literature is tolerable where there is an environment of human freedom, and where there is turbidity in this affair, postmodernism tries to remove it. 

Therefore if it is not the case in any system that neither there is any regard for human rights nor there is any room for personal freedom, then in such a system, all politics or political performance will be deemed as worthless. It can be said that in Urdu, postmodernism can adopt this attitude with ease. If any person highlights these matters freely in his or her literary work and uses their pen for human rights, then it is natural to praise them. 

Meta-narrative has been discussed above as well. With reference to many Western thinkers especially in Leotard’s argument, meta-narrative has been discussed. It is not his time today. In the beginning where I have discussed culture, I have also raised discussion on conviction. Such beliefs which are barriers towards human prosperity, which cannot give purity to life, which takes others to task while considering themselves as self-sufficient, then it is another perspective of meta-narrative. Therefore if postmodernism is standing tall against meta-narrative which collides with higher ideals of humans; then this aspect can be understood. There can be more truth in smaller narratives. Perspective of plurality can also emerge in them. That is why Urdu postmodernism can collide against any meta-narrative which tramples human rights while safeguarding its beliefs. In my view there is nothing wrong in this.

If postmodernism gives importance to specific and indigenous quality and quantity then it is not unintelligible that in any bigger scenario if indigenous form disappears completely, then it would not be commendable indigeneity becomes meaningless where some bigger international scenarios emerge. Their coruscating qualities engulf indigeneity by reducing it to oblivion. From here, indigeneity eclipses and the natives essentially gets inferiority complex about their practices and customs. Postmodernism refute this form. Some time ago, notorious writer Salman Rushdie wrote that literature of vernacular languages is essentially archaic. It is the result of this improvidence that a smaller scene is lost in the background of a bigger scene; although literature with indigenous quality and quantity may be important in many ways. There are so many examples for this. Even Rabindranath Tagore was writer of a local language but who can deny his importance. Therefore it would not be wrong if this perspective is supported in Urdu postmodernism. I completely agree with Gopi Chand Narang that;

Postmodernism is against all sorts of generalization, formulism and regulations and as opposed to this insists on specific and indigenous, also open, natural, without scruple, free and spontaneous* expression and action. 

This aspect also arise here that in search of roots, fables and folklore become much important. So how respectful are the concepts of neocolonialism and how enchanting are literature, art, education and other disciplines in the discourse* of postmodernism. Devinder Rasar rightly wrote that;

Postmodernism refuted the vertical and horizontal traditions of popular history in the age of modernism and neocolonialism. Postmodernism performed the important task of freeing the Eastern cultures from West centered history writing by rejecting the neocolonial concept of Orientalism* and universality of modernism.

If we take this discussion ahead, it will be felt that Urdu postmodernism of this time focus on preferring Dalit [2] over Brahmin [3]. We do not have racial issue of Black Africans but have grave issue of lower castes. It is satisfying that Urdu literature of this era after Prem Chand is emphatically attentive towards this. In discussion on novels and short stories, these perspectives can be noted. Here, I tried to emphasize that Urdu postmodernism is not running after shinny established* things but wants to provide light to those around whom darkness has been spread.