India: Poet Muhammad Allama Iqbal, Who Wrote 'Saare Jahan Se Achha', May Be Dropped From Syllabus

[FearlessRoar]

Yes he was a Pakistani by heart before the creation of Pakistan and before anyone thought about the word Pakistan being a country name.

It is not sure if he was Pakistani by heart or not.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No he's not. Iqbal is only seen as important among Urdu speaking Muslims or lovers of Urdu poetry

British Indian history(1857-1947), as it is taught in schools ,focusses very little on individuals in the Muslim League apart from Muhammad Ali Jinnah .


Unless you pursue higher studies in history at the University level, most Indians have zero clue about Iqbal.

I am surprised. I thought wilful ignorance was a uniquely Pakistani trait.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I am sure Urdu will be banned shortly as it promotes fantastical ideology that caused partition

Urdu is strongly ingrained in Indian languages. Many don't know that they are speaking Arabic words and they think it is a Hindi word. You cannot take those Arabic words out of Indian vocabulary.
South Indians call Bollywood as Urduwood for a reason.

 

[Stewie]

Allam Iqbal is our hero, not India's. They may pretend to not know of him or refuse to acknowledge his importance in their history, but the truth is his philosophy and ideology is what resulted in the creation of Pakistan and that's a major event in the history of the Indian subcontinent. So feigning ignorance or downplaying his impportance in the history of the subcontinent is nothing but a disgruntled reaction. You cannot avoid history and the facts of how the map of the whole region was changed in 1947, and Allama Muhammad Iqbal had a huge role to play in it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Allam Iqbal is our hero, not India's. They may pretend to not know of him or refuse to acknowledge his importance in their history, but the truth is his philosophy and ideology is what resulted in the creation of Pakistan and that's a major event in the history of the Indian subcontinent. So feigning ignorance or downplaying his impportance in the history of the subcontinent is nothing but a disgruntled reaction. You cannot avoid history and the facts of how the map of the whole region was changed in 1947, and Allama Muhammad Iqbal had a huge role to play in it.

Which is why I described this as wilful ignorance. I'm not sure what is even the purpose of it, Indians could simply say he isn't a hero in India. Why would he be? If most Indians are truly ignorant of him, it simply verifies that Indians have been trying to write their own version of history which isn't necessarily useful.

 

[Stewie]

Which is why I described this as wilful ignorance. I'm not sure what is even the purpose of it, Indians could simply say he isn't a hero in India. Why would he be? If most Indians are truly ignorant of him, it simply verifies that Indians have been trying to write their own version of history which isn't necessarily useful.

The Indians seem to have fallen ILL to the same malady that has been plaguing Pakistan. A revisionist history or alternate history not based on actual events or facts. So in a morbid way, their desire to distance themselves from anything and everything Pakistan related or the impact of Muslims in their history, they are actually following in the footsteps of their neighbors to the west.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I am surprised. I thought wilful ignorance was a uniquely Pakistani trait.

There is no wilful ignorance . His political thought was limited to the idea of a Muslim homeland .

The inflated sense of importance given in Pakistan is understandable given the Muslim romanticism .

But I'm not sure why that would be important in India anyway.

And it's not just that he is lightly regarded by those who peddle a nationalist narrative either.

Even from a Marxist/sub altern perspective , he is much considered an intellectual lightweight.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There is no wilful ignorance . His political thought was limited to the idea of a Muslim homeland .

The inflated sense of importance given in Pakistan is understandable given the Muslim romanticism .

But I'm not sure why that would be important in India anyway.

And it's not just that he is lightly regarded by those who peddle a nationalist narrative either.

Even from a Marxist/sub altern perspective , he is much considered an intellectual lightweight.

I don't have any issues with him being considered an intellectual lightweight, that wasn't what I was debating. I was more suprised that you said most Indians have zero clue about Iqbal.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I don't have any issues with him being considered an intellectual lightweight, that wasn't what I was debating. I was more suprised that you said most Indians have zero clue about Iqbal.

A lot of Indians know that he wrote "saare jahaan se accha" and that he was the one who first envisioned a Muslim homeland .

Nobody is contesting that.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

My bad. He died in 1938 in Lahore. I thought he died in 1948.

He was a Pakistani at heart before the creation of Pakistan. He never got to see his dream come true.

Commendable for accepting deficiency in your knowledge and updating it. I Respect it

 

[BunnyRabbit]

what makes you think that?

It is not sure if he was Pakistani by heart or not

 

[Stewie]

On a different note, when I started university in the US years ago, I met a few Irani students who were huge fans of AI and used to refer to him fondly as Iqbal Lahori. That came as a surprise to me, he is really well known in Iran.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

It is not sure if he was Pakistani by heart or not.

he was the one who gave the Idea of a seperate muslim country.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Even most Pakistanis today don't care about Persian loving Iqbal whose foreign sounding poetry they can't relate too. He wrote his "saare jahan" when the subcontinent was ruled by the British. Later on he changed his mind becoming the instigator of the Pakistan movement. Independent India today has the right to remove him from there books if they want. I see nothing wrong with this at all. In Pak we don't care or honour Gandhi, Bhagat Singh or Nehru either.

Those who did their schooling in Pakistan know about him a lot, I am pretty sure. A poet is free to choose what language he wants to use. He used Urdu and Farsi primarily. The national language of Pakistan - Urdu wasn't made official till 1947 or later (after the creation of Pakistan). There was a lot of uncertainty regarding what national language would Pakistan's be. Urdu was spoken by only a minority of people among the whole population of Pakistan. He could have chosen to write poems in Hindi as well.
To say Iqbal was an average poet reflects your knowledge on the whole subject. Kulyaat e Iqbal is among the best work of Urdu Poetry ever and the best thing about his poetry is he didn't need to add topics like lust, nakaam ashiqi etc to write poetry

 

[Markhor]

Iqbal's contributions to literature and the movement for a Muslim homeland is undeniable.

However his legacy is marred by the reports he provided a tearful eulogy of the Mumtaz Qadri of his day - Ilm-ud-Din.

I don't care if people want to criticise me for this - I can never celebrate anyone who eulogises a murderer and a religious extremist. You can draw a direct line from the Ilm-ud-Din case to the mob terrorism Pakistan deals with now which so blackens its name and the name of Islam.

The subcontinent is in dire need of a healthier relationship between faith and state. Part of that process involves examining historical and national icons objectively and not elevating them to sainthood.

 

[PakLFC]

Those who did their schooling in Pakistan know about him a lot, I am pretty sure. A poet is free to choose what language he wants to use. He used Urdu and Farsi primarily. The national language of Pakistan - Urdu wasn't made official till 1947 or later (after the creation of Pakistan). There was a lot of uncertainty regarding what national language would Pakistan's be. Urdu was spoken by only a minority of people among the whole population of Pakistan. He could have chosen to write poems in Hindi as well.
To say Iqbal was an average poet reflects your knowledge on the whole subject. Kulyaat e Iqbal is among the best work of Urdu Poetry ever and the best thing about his poetry is he didn't need to add topics like lust, nakaam ashiqi etc to write poetry

Yes he can write in any language that he wanted only that hardly any Pakistani speaks Persian. Just because Pakistanis have heard about him does not mean they follow him or believe for him to be some revolutionary. How many people in Pakistan speak or understand his poetry? Rather, people like you need to realize that his so called inspirational poetry is not going to bring any practical change to Pakistan. The Prophet of Allah(saw) is enough for me and the only guide for the Muslim's. You take your Iqbal to other Muslim countries and they will not even know who you are talking about. This "Khudi ko kar buland itna" only sound good on a full stomach. It doesn't do anything for poor people at all.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Yes he can write in any language that he wanted only that hardly any Pakistani speaks Persian. Just because Pakistanis have heard about him does not mean they follow him or believe for him to be some revolutionary. How many people in Pakistan speak or understand his poetry? Rather, people like you need to realize that his so called inspirational poetry is not going to bring any practical change to Pakistan. The Prophet of Allah(saw) is enough for me and the only guide for the Muslim's. You take your Iqbal to other Muslim countries and they will not even know who you are talking about. This "Khudi ko kar buland itna" only sound good on a full stomach. It doesn't do anything for poor people at all.

This guy is not even taken seriously in Pakistan. I wonder if he is talking all of this stuff in his full senses?

 

[PakLFC]

This guy is not even taken seriously in Pakistan. I wonder if he is talking all of this stuff in his full senses?

Just because you disagree with him does not mean he is not taken seriously. Many people listen to him and agree as well. No one knows or is interested in Allama Iqbal in most countries including Muslim ones. Most Pakistanis do not understand his poetry either.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Yes he can write in any language that he wanted only that hardly any Pakistani speaks Persian. Just because Pakistanis have heard about him does not mean they follow him or believe for him to be some revolutionary. How many people in Pakistan speak or understand his poetry? Rather, people like you need to realize that his so called inspirational poetry is not going to bring any practical change to Pakistan. The Prophet of Allah(saw) is enough for me and the only guide for the Muslim's. You take your Iqbal to other Muslim countries and they will not even know who you are talking about. This "Khudi ko kar buland itna" only sound good on a full stomach. It doesn't do anything for poor people at all.

I have no idea how one can compare The Holy Prophet SAW with a poet. Like seriously?
I never even called him a revolutionary, I merely mentioned he was a great poet. You are free to like and dislike who you want to. I have no idea why you got triggered by someone praising his poetry. And you're calling yourself a defender of Islam.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Yes he can write in any language that he wanted only that hardly any Pakistani speaks Persian. Just because Pakistanis have heard about him does not mean they follow him or believe for him to be some revolutionary. How many people in Pakistan speak or understand his poetry? Rather, people like you need to realize that his so called inspirational poetry is not going to bring any practical change to Pakistan. The Prophet of Allah(saw) is enough for me and the only guide for the Muslim's. You take your Iqbal to other Muslim countries and they will not even know who you are talking about. This "Khudi ko kar buland itna" only sound good on a full stomach. It doesn't do anything for poor people at all.

This man seems out of his senses these days... nobody bothers to pay attention to what he says.

 

[PakLFC]

This man seems out of his senses these days... nobody bothers to pay attention to what he says.

Plenty off people listen to him. He has many followers.

 

[PakLFC]

I have no idea how one can compare The Holy Prophet SAW with a poet. Like seriously?
I never even called him a revolutionary, I merely mentioned he was a great poet. You are free to like and dislike who you want to. I have no idea why you got triggered by someone praising his poetry. And you're calling yourself a defender of Islam.

Since when did Iqbal become a great Muslim philosopher? Had he been that the entire Muslim world would have been reading him. I get annoyed by his supporters for the same reason that the likes of Hassan Nisar and co do. Yes many people do consider Iqbal as being like the messenger of the messenger(saw). They insist that Iqbal was so great that he could talk to dead people, nonsense. Moreover, most Pakistanis don't even understand what his is on about in his so called poetry.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Plenty off people listen to him. He has many followers.

It does not mean his words are true. Many people also think that he is talking while not in full senses, but it also does not mean all of them hate him. But TBH, his news and chats are not credible enough.

 

[PakLFC]

It does not mean his words are true. Many people also think that he is talking while not in full senses, but it also does not mean all of them hate him. But TBH, his news and chats are not credible enough.

But his views on Iqbal are credible in my opinion. Once again I must emphasize that outside Pak and perhaps India no one reads Iqbal. Nor would doing so eliminate Pak's problems.

 

[BouncerGuy]

But his views on Iqbal are credible in my opinion. Once again I must emphasize that outside Pak and perhaps India no one reads Iqbal. Nor would doing so eliminate Pak's problems.

No poet can remove Pakistan's problem. Those days are long gone when people take these things seriously.

 

[KB]

And it's not just that he is lightly regarded by those who peddle a nationalist narrative either.

Even from a Marxist/sub altern perspective , he is much considered an intellectual lightweight.

Which Marxist and/or subalternist writers considered Iqbal as 'an intellectual lightweight'?

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Since when did Iqbal become a great Muslim philosopher? Had he been that the entire Muslim world would have been reading him. I get annoyed by his supporters for the same reason that the likes of Hassan Nisar and co do. Yes many people do consider Iqbal as being like the messenger of the messenger(saw). They insist that Iqbal was so great that he could talk to dead people, nonsense. Moreover, most Pakistanis don't even understand what his is on about in his so called poetry.

Can you differentiate between the words poet and philosopher? I called him a great poet and you started blabbering about other topics. Poets and prophets are two entirely different things. It's like comparing a stone and a tree. Two entirely different things that have nothing to do with each other. And don't randomly bring any Prophet into a discussion that has nothing to do with them. All Prophets were pious and gifted humans while poets are random flawed individuals like everyone else. Unless someone dares to compare Iqbal with any Prophet (Astaghfirullah), then you can go on about it. Please don't randomly bring up that an x individual did that in 2000 so i would make this discussion all about it in 2024. Go and debate people who think Iqbal could talk to dead people as no one here made that claim here.

 

[Human786]

funny , even Gandhi & Nehru the way vile oaf is going ...

 

[PakLFC]

Can you differentiate between the words poet and philosopher? I called him a great poet and you started blabbering about other topics. Poets and prophets are two entirely different things. It's like comparing a stone and a tree. Two entirely different things that have nothing to do with each other. And don't randomly bring any Prophet into a discussion that has nothing to do with them. All Prophets were pious and gifted humans while poets are random flawed individuals like everyone else. Unless someone dares to compare Iqbal with any Prophet (Astaghfirullah), then you can go on about it. Please don't randomly bring up that an x individual did that in 2000 so i would make this discussion all about it in 2024. Go and debate people who think Iqbal could talk to dead people as no one here made that claim here.

I think it depends on how people look upon a poet or philosopher. In the case of Iqbal our people have put him on a pedestal making him more then a poet. This thing many Pakistanis have of him being able to see and predict the future is absurd. I started going on about his so called inspirational poetry because his followers see him more then just that. What exactly is so great about his poetry? Ghalib is and was probably even more famous then him. Once again it is our people who insist Iqbal was not just a poet but someone who could see dead people, that is the problem I have with his fans more then him. Where did I accuse you off anything, ehh?. If the thread is on Iqbal then like all thread it will evolve. No thread ever remains the same so too bad if you have a problem with it.

 

[PakLFC]

No poet can remove Pakistan's problem. Those days are long gone when people take these things seriously.

Poets like Iqbal come and go every year. He was a normal man.

 

[Hitman]

Poets like Iqbal come and go every year. He was a normal man.

Bro, let be honest. You might not be his fan, but a poet of his caliber doesn't come in every generation. I'm speaking purely about his merit as a poet. Of course he wasn't some type of a messiah like Zaid Hamid claims, but he was indeed a rare talent.​

 

[KB]

In debating the importance or otherwise of Iqbal and his ideas, I think the point has been lost. The original story was not really about Iqbal per se. It is a more fundamental question around the purpose of the humanities.

Return to the comment by the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University, Yogesh Singh, who was quoted as saying “that instead of teaching about such people, we should study our national heroes.”

The question to ask yourself is whether you agree with this, irrespective of what you think about Iqbal?

Based on the quotation, the Vice Chancellor has a ‘vision’ of the humanities as one of fashioning a particular nationalistic ethos and expunging that which does not fit with this purpose. Such an approach, by its very nature, is uncomfortable with difference and intolerant of discordant and dissenting voices.

I see this approach to studying humanities as babyish but even worse, promoting lethal qualities in students by encasing them in a world of ‘artificial’ simplicity and narrowing their horizons.

I think the whole point of humanities is to foster a spirit of critical inquiry, to encourage understanding and not to feel good about ‘your’ nation; it is to know what it is to be human and to understand the range and possibilities of human behaviour. The point is to try to understand different perspectives, rather than to repress them; an effort that requires enormous imaginative and intellectual empathy.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

I think it depends on how people look upon a poet or philosopher. In the case of Iqbal our people have put him on a pedestal making him more then a poet. This thing many Pakistanis have of him being able to see and predict the future is absurd. I started going on about his so called inspirational poetry because his followers see him more then just that. What exactly is so great about his poetry? Ghalib is and was probably even more famous then him. Once again it is our people who insist Iqbal was not just a poet but someone who could see dead people, that is the problem I have with his fans more then him. Where did I accuse you off anything, ehh?. If the thread is on Iqbal then like all thread it will evolve. No thread ever remains the same so too bad if you have a problem with it.

No one is insisting that on this thread, just you are bashing a dead poet (who had nothing to do with some people considering him a supreme being). Iqbal was a flawed individual like every one else. His poetry is very good and he never had to resort to vulgarity to achieve fame.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

In debating the importance or otherwise of Iqbal and his ideas, I think the point has been lost. The original story was not really about Iqbal per se. It is a more fundamental question around the purpose of the humanities.

Return to the comment by the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University, Yogesh Singh, who was quoted as saying “that instead of teaching about such people, we should study our national heroes.”

The question to ask yourself is whether you agree with this, irrespective of what you think about Iqbal?

Based on the quotation, the Vice Chancellor has a ‘vision’ of the humanities as one of fashioning a particular nationalistic ethos and expunging that which does not fit with this purpose. Such an approach, by its very nature, is uncomfortable with difference and intolerant of discordant and dissenting voices.

I see this approach to studying humanities as babyish but even worse, promoting lethal qualities in students by encasing them in a world of ‘artificial’ simplicity and narrowing their horizons.

I think the whole point of humanities is to foster a spirit of critical inquiry, to encourage understanding and not to feel good about ‘your’ nation; it is to know what it is to be human and to understand the range and possibilities of human behaviour. The point is to try to understand different perspectives, rather than to repress them; an effort that requires enormous imaginative and intellectual empathy.

Perhaps I came across sharper in my views of Iqbal than I intended to.

Regardless of what I think of him, I agree 200 % with what you have written here.

There has certainly been a lot of churning in the humanities education in this country. And ultra-nationalists have indeed produced utterly incompetent men(and women) who have attempted to refashion history in particular through a very narrow mindset.

There are mediocre popular historians who have tried to dominate the historical narratives etc.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Bro, let be honest. You might not be his fan, but a poet of his caliber doesn't come in every generation. I'm speaking purely about his merit as a poet. Of course he wasn't some type of a messiah like Zaid Hamid claims, but he was indeed a rare talent.​

You are right about his calibre as a poet.

You add to that his legacy of fashioning a homeland for his people, developing an intellectual and cultural identity for them and a political philosophy ( irrespective of your opinion of its merits/correctness) and You can safely argue that a poet like Iqbal has not existed in human history.

 

[rpant_gabba]

In debating the importance or otherwise of Iqbal and his ideas, I think the point has been lost. The original story was not really about Iqbal per se. It is a more fundamental question around the purpose of the humanities.

Return to the comment by the Vice Chancellor of Delhi University, Yogesh Singh, who was quoted as saying “that instead of teaching about such people, we should study our national heroes.”

The question to ask yourself is whether you agree with this, irrespective of what you think about Iqbal?

Based on the quotation, the Vice Chancellor has a ‘vision’ of the humanities as one of fashioning a particular nationalistic ethos and expunging that which does not fit with this purpose. Such an approach, by its very nature, is uncomfortable with difference and intolerant of discordant and dissenting voices.

I see this approach to studying humanities as babyish but even worse, promoting lethal qualities in students by encasing them in a world of ‘artificial’ simplicity and narrowing their horizons.

I think the whole point of humanities is to foster a spirit of critical inquiry, to encourage understanding and not to feel good about ‘your’ nation; it is to know what it is to be human and to understand the range and possibilities of human behaviour. The point is to try to understand different perspectives, rather than to repress them; an effort that requires enormous imaginative and intellectual empathy.

Well, if that is case, let it be known that his changed his mind and values few years after. That he became communalist whi wanted islam to rule of others.

you know the same communalism indian pseudoseculars keep whining about

 

[PakLFC]

No one is insisting that on this thread, just you are bashing a dead poet (who had nothing to do with some people considering him a supreme being). Iqbal was a flawed individual like every one else. His poetry is very good and he never had to resort to vulgarity to achieve fame.

What was so eye opening about his poetry?

 

[PakLFC]

Bro, let be honest. You might not be his fan, but a poet of his caliber doesn't come in every generation. I'm speaking purely about his merit as a poet. Of course he wasn't some type of a messiah like Zaid Hamid claims, but he was indeed a rare talent.​

I thought Mirza Ghalib was much better! Even Iqbal himself was a great admirer of chacha Ghalib!

 

[BunnyRabbit]

What was so eye opening about his poetry?

when did i say his poetry was eye opening?

 

[Red-Indian]

I don' think the issue is so much about Indian schools. They can't be expected to cover such a minor figure in Indian literature when you have so little space to cover poetry and have to acknowledge poets from the epics like Vyasa, from history like Annamayya, Kalidasa, Tulsidas and contemporary poets like Tagore, even Ghalib. Even all of these aren't covered.

I think the issue is having Political Science students in University not study him. There is little doubt that the Partition is an important piece of Indian political history and Iqbal played a significant part in it. That is not a judgement on his literary merit. Just a factual statement. Whether he deserved a chapter or a paragraph is a matter of debate but to not mention him in a political science syllabus will give students an incomplete understanding of the events leading up to the partition. That is just stupid.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I don' think the issue is so much about Indian schools. They can't be expected to cover such a minor figure in Indian literature when you have so little space to cover poetry and have to acknowledge poets from the epics like Vyasa, from history like Annamayya, Kalidasa, Tulsidas and contemporary poets like Tagore, even Ghalib. Even all of these aren't covered.

I think the issue is having Political Science students in University not study him. There is little doubt that the Partition is an important piece of Indian political history and Iqbal played a significant part in it. That is not a judgement on his literary merit. Just a factual statement. Whether he deserved a chapter or a paragraph is a matter of debate but to not mention him in a political science syllabus will give students an incomplete understanding of the events leading up to the partition. That is just stupid.

This is the real issue.

 

[Hitman]

I thought Mirza Ghalib was much better! Even Iqbal himself was a great admirer of chacha Ghalib!

Mirza Ghalib is definitely revered in my country. What about Pakistan?

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Mirza Ghalib is definitely revered in my country. What about Pakistan?

One of the few names that even kids have heard among the poets are Ghalib and Iqbal. The two names school going kids are expected to know when it comes to Urdu poetry. I am not a fan of poetry as a whole though. (credit to Amir Liaqat for immortalizing Ghalib through his rebellious video jk)

 

[BunnyRabbit]

I don' think the issue is so much about Indian schools. They can't be expected to cover such a minor figure in Indian literature when you have so little space to cover poetry and have to acknowledge poets from the epics like Vyasa, from history like Annamayya, Kalidasa, Tulsidas and contemporary poets like Tagore, even Ghalib. Even all of these aren't covered.

I think the issue is having Political Science students in University not study him. There is little doubt that the Partition is an important piece of Indian political history and Iqbal played a significant part in it. That is not a judgement on his literary merit. Just a factual statement. Whether he deserved a chapter or a paragraph is a matter of debate but to not mention him in a political science syllabus will give students an incomplete understanding of the events leading up to the partition. That is just stupid.

Political Science will always be biased depending on author's liking.

 

[Red-Indian]

Political Science will always be biased depending on author's liking.

You're right of course and that goes back to the problem that KB raised earlier in the thread. You can only go so far in the bias before you turn the entire thing into a joke. Vilify Iqbal if you want to assert your bias...I'm sure the chapter must've already done that to some extent. But to completely omit him from the study of partition could set you down a path where you end up giving students no information at all.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

You're right of course and that goes back to the problem that KB raised earlier in the thread. You can only go so far in the bias before you turn the entire thing into a joke. Vilify Iqbal if you want to assert your bias...I'm sure the chapter must've already done that to some extent. But to completely omit him from the study of partition could set you down a path where you end up giving students no information at all.

I think students who pursue political science will read up a lot of stuff online and will not be contained by a few books of their curriculum (or how ever it works in political science BSc/MSc etc. But the regular kids won't know about it with their regular matriculate/intermediate studies. But there will be still be a lot of kids who will hear that saare jahan se acha and ask their elders about who wrote it and stuff unless they stop playing it on tv etc altogether

 

[KB]

One of the few names that even kids have heard among the poets are Ghalib and Iqbal. The two names school going kids are expected to know when it comes to Urdu poetry. I am not a fan of poetry as a whole though. (credit to Amir Liaqat for immortalizing Ghalib through his rebellious video jk)

I am going to go off topic, but one of my favourite couplets is from Ghalib:

bas ki dushvar hai har kaam ka asan hona
aadmi ko bhi muyassar nahiin insaan hona

[Alas! Not every task is easy to achieve in life / Why, even a child of Adam struggles to be human
A more literal translation:
Although it is difficult for every task to be easy / Even a man doesn’t manage to become human]

Here, there is the distinction between a human (aadmi) as a noun, as something that simply exists, and a human (insaan) as a verb, as something that requires effort to realise and is a matter of choice and action. Being human may be intrinsic to those born of human flesh and bone but achieving humanity is a struggle.

What was so eye opening about his poetry?

I remember reading the words of the Vincent van Gogh: ”I want to reach the point where people say of my work, 'That man feels deeply and that man feels subtly.”

It is of course partly a matter of individual taste and not everyone will feel the same way about a particular poet or artist and that is absolutely fine. But when I read Iqbal, I think: “That man feels deeply.”

 

[PakLFC]

I am going to go off topic, but one of my favourite couplets is from Ghalib:

bas ki dushvar hai har kaam ka asan hona
aadmi ko bhi muyassar nahiin insaan hona

[Alas! Not every task is easy to achieve in life / Why, even a child of Adam struggles to be human
A more literal translation:
Although it is difficult for every task to be easy / Even a man doesn’t manage to become human]

Here, there is the distinction between a human (aadmi) as a noun, as something that simply exists, and a human (insaan) as a verb, as something that requires effort to realise and is a matter of choice and action. Being human may be intrinsic to those born of human flesh and bone but achieving humanity is a struggle.


I remember reading the words of the Vincent van Gogh: ”I want to reach the point where people say of my work, 'That man feels deeply and that man feels subtly.”

It is of course partly a matter of individual taste and not everyone will feel the same way about a particular poet or artist and that is absolutely fine. But when I read Iqbal, I think: “That man feels deeply.”

So what is so great about Iqbal??

 

[PakLFC]

Mirza Ghalib is definitely revered in my country. What about Pakistan?

Chacha Ghalib is the chacha of the entire subcontinent! A maverick, rebel and controversial man yet very much loved for his satirical views on religion in particular.

 

[PakLFC]

when did i say his poetry was eye opening?

Did I accuse of saying that??

 

[BunnyRabbit]

you quoted my post and asked what was so eye opening about his poetry. To which I replied when did i say his poetry was eye opening.

Did I accuse of saying that??

 

[PakLFC]

you quoted my post and asked what was so eye opening about his poetry. To which I replied when did i say his poetry was eye opening.

Where did i use the term "eye opening" saying you said this?. I am used this term saying there is nothing eye opening, liberating or amazing about Iqbal.

 

[Major]

So what is so great about Iqbal??

because the creation of Pakistan is actually credited to two people.

Sir Syed who laid the foundation that Muslims need to work with the British and not try to go against and should learn English because through education they would be able to make a difference, and Jinnah who adopted practical ideas and helped us in carving out a country for us.

Now to show that Pakistan was made in the name of Islam or state religion needs to exist, people had to revere Allama Iqbal. Iqbals idea of Pakistan was dangerous and not practical. Infact, todays Pakistan is what is more of an Iqbals Pakistan that is dominated by religion that logical sense.

Jinnah didnt use religion, he could had used the Khilafat Movement if he wanted, but he didnt.

Iqbals work has been in urdu, and if one studies urdu his poetry is studied, however, for some reason, if you are attempting an Islamiyat paper and write Iqbal's qoutes, you get marks....

 

[jeetu]

I don' think the issue is so much about Indian schools. They can't be expected to cover such a minor figure in Indian literature when you have so little space to cover poetry and have to acknowledge poets from the epics like Vyasa, from history like Annamayya, Kalidasa, Tulsidas and contemporary poets like Tagore, even Ghalib. Even all of these aren't covered.

I think the issue is having Political Science students in University not study him. There is little doubt that the Partition is an important piece of Indian political history and Iqbal played a significant part in it. That is not a judgement on his literary merit. Just a factual statement. Whether he deserved a chapter or a paragraph is a matter of debate but to not mention him in a political science syllabus will give students an incomplete understanding of the events leading up to the partition. That is just stupid.

During my time in school (80's) the only reference regarding Iqbal was in General Knowledge question about who wrote Saare Jahaan Se Acha. During that time school history books covered section about the Sufi and Bhakhti movement from (1000 to 1700 AD).

 

[PakLFC]

because the creation of Pakistan is actually credited to two people.

Sir Syed who laid the foundation that Muslims need to work with the British and not try to go against and should learn English because through education they would be able to make a difference, and Jinnah who adopted practical ideas and helped us in carving out a country for us.

Now to show that Pakistan was made in the name of Islam or state religion needs to exist, people had to revere Allama Iqbal. Iqbals idea of Pakistan was dangerous and not practical. Infact, todays Pakistan is what is more of an Iqbals Pakistan that is dominated by religion that logical sense.

Jinnah didnt use religion, he could had used the Khilafat Movement if he wanted, but he didnt.

Iqbals work has been in urdu, and if one studies urdu his poetry is studied, however, for some reason, if you are attempting an Islamiyat paper and write Iqbal's qoutes, you get marks....

I don't think Iqbal had much to do with Pak's creation. Where as Sir Syed's philosophy and Quaid Jinnah bought Pak in to creation in reality Iqbal in my opinion did not play that big a role. First he wrote the famous "Saare jahan se acha Hindustan hamara" then went full circle against it by insisting on Pak's creation.

The Quaid wanted Pak-Bharat to have a USA-Canada like relationship instead of the hate filled one it has become. I do not believe in Iqbal's Pakistan where we are culturally and linguistically dominated by arabs. His poetry may seem motivational to many where as it never did anything for me. Iqbal suffered from a Persian complex, most of his poetry was in that language too. Quaid Jinnah on the other hand was never an Arab wannabe!

Where as Pak was created in the name of Islam it was not supposed to be an Indian hating country. Quaid Jinnah understood that clearly.

 

[Major]

I don't think Iqbal had much to do with Pak's creation. Where as Sir Syed's philosophy and Quaid Jinnah bought Pak in to creation in reality Iqbal in my opinion did not play that big a role. First he wrote the famous "Saare jahan se acha Hindustan hamara" then went full circle against it by insisting on Pak's creation.

The Quaid wanted Pak-Bharat to have a USA-Canada like relationship instead of the hate filled one it has become. I do not believe in Iqbal's Pakistan where we are culturally and linguistically dominated by arabs. His poetry may seem motivational to many where as it never did anything for me. Iqbal suffered from a Persian complex, most of his poetry was in that language too. Quaid Jinnah on the other hand was never an Arab wannabe!

Where as Pak was created in the name of Islam it was not supposed to be an Indian hating country. Quaid Jinnah understood that clearly.

Iqbal believed in India as whole before. Infact, alot of muslims wanted to India to stay put believing that the Mughals or the Muslims would than eventually get the whole country.

It was later Iqbal shifted towards the idea of Pakistan.

I agree with you that Iqbal's role is over stated and was using religion. Iqbals idea of Pakistan is exactly todays Pakistan. His idea won in the long run if you put it up against Jinnahs Pakistan.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Most of the history brought to us from the past is a lie somewhere. I don't wanna create an opinion about a thing that happened a century ago before I was even born. The books that we read to read this political history could be all lies.

 

[KB]

So what is so great about Iqbal??

To be clear, I have no literary training and no special literary insight to offer. I am not qualified to comment on his greatness or otherwise. Nor do I even find the question of how great (or not) Iqbal was, particularly interesting. Instead, I can only try to place him in some sort of historical context to try to provide some perspective as to why I think his ideas are interesting, whether or not you agree with him.

The Indian Context: inqilab

As Mughal political power declined, Muslim elites in India had witnessed the world change around them. A tradition of poetry - shahr ashob - emerged which expressed melancholy and nostalgia especially in relation to the fate of particular cities. In the eighteenth century, Mir and Sauda, amongst others, wrote of their beloved cities being turned upside down; the moral order being upended; it was inqilab.

In the aftermath of the Rebellion of 1857, which was devastating for many north Indian Muslims, Altaf Husayn Hali drew on this tradition of poetry but also extended it. In his famous Musaddas, Hali described past Islamic greatness and lamented its passing. Sayyid Ahmad Khan was moved greatly: “I was the case of this book,” he wrote to Hali in 1879, “and I consider that my finest deed. When God asks me what I have done, I will say: nothing, but I had Hali write the Musaddas.”

When I think of the impact of the rebellion on the Muslims of northern India, I think of the life of Muhammad Husain Azad (1830 -1910), the famous Urdu writer. In one month, Azad’s father was executed, his baby daughter killed by a stray-bullet, he had lost his work, was separated from his friends and said goodbye to his city. As Frances Pritchett writes, “even years later, when he used to reminisce with an old friend about 1857, ‘all these talks ended in tears’.”

It is in light of this trauma, that Hali and Azad led an attack on the Persian heritage for producing poetry that was too ornate and effete, that ultimately failed to inspire action in the ‘real’ world. This reflected a general shift away from courtly culture, from an emphasis on common descent to one that stressed instead achievement, action and vitally, individual responsibility. Think of the novelist, Nazir Ahmad. In Taubat un Nasuh, Nasuh’s oldest son spends his time with courtesans and poets engages in activities such as cockfights, kite-flying and chess. Classical Persian and Urdu literature were to blame: in one of the “most horrifying scenes in Urdu novels” [in the words of C.M. Naim] Nasuh burns his son’s collection of Urdu and Persian literature in the courtyard.

Iqbal: the Caravan and the Bell

Iqbal extended the emphasis on individual responsibility and action but also emphasised self-affirmation and striving. He tried to channel the sorrow of contemporary Muslim decline into a positive call for action and Muslim agency. Iqbal had complained that “His gaze is fixed on the past / He is burning his heart with an extinguished fire!” (Translated from Persian by Fazlur Rahman). It was time to look forward. Indeed, destruction was a prelude to a new beginning. As Eve Tignol has recently argued Iqbal, decisively “transformed the poetry of lament,” which had been a dominant theme in Muslim poetry in India “into a revolutionary poetry of resilience,” a defiant call to action.

Khudi, was central to Iqbal’s poetry. Khudi was about the affirmation of the self, rather than - as many Sufis would have it - negation of the self. It can be a difficult concept to explicate but I think the most useful way of understanding it is through one poem where Iqbal contrasted the moth and firefly. The moth criticises the firefly because its fire cannot burn (Aatish-e-besoz). But the firefly responds that the moth is enticed to the lamp like a beggar, attracted to an alien (begaana) fire. Whereas the moth relies on an extrinsic source, the power of the firefly is from within - its khudi.

The emphasis on khudi, also implied action. As Christina Oesterheld noted, “Iqbal’s favourite symbols” were “the caravan (karavan, qafila) and the bell. The caravan symbolises movement and dynamism and the bell (dara), the call to action.”

The onus was on individual Muslims to change their circumstances rather than to wait passively for fate or leaders to change:

It is futile to complain of Divine decree -
Why are you yourself not Divine decree?
(Translated from Persian by Mustansir Mir)

For Iqbal revolution and turmoil were the essence of life. It was those who were engaged in constant striving who were truly alive: jis mein na ho inqilab maut hai wo zindagi

This vision of individual striving for self-realisation and the rejection of passivity shaped Iqbal’s vision of community. For Iqbal, in his own words, “the principle of human unification” in accordance with Islam, lay “not in the blood and bones but in the mind of man.” As historian David Gilmartin has argued, for Iqbal, a Muslim community was not made up of unthinking or passive individuals but by individuals actively committed to Islam; the community's will was seen not as a product of blindly following Muslim leaders, but as a personal, passionately active, commitment of individuals to Islam.

As historian Iqbal Singh Sevea has noted, Iqbal was wary of structures or organisations that sought to control individuals. In Iqbal’s words, “In an over-organized society the individual is altogether crushed out of existence.” Rather than offering a blueprint for the operation of state power in the Muslim homeland, he offered an aspirational vision, one where the state was envisaged as enabling the development of “self-concentrated individuals.” Or put differently, as Naveeda Khan has argued, it was not so much the achievement of an ideal society but the act of striving for an ideal society that mattered and that ultimately, for Iqbal, gave the community its vitality.

The General Context: the fire of living conviction

If I started with putting Iqbal in an Indian context and I end with putting him in a more global context. The industrial revolution eventually led to an extraordinary material growth. The age of Enlightenment, of reason and science, led to a revolution in thinking.

But it left some cold. In the nineteenth century many artists and writers felt that wonder and beauty was replaced by the impersonal and mechanical. Historian, Tim Blanning writes that “In the view of the romantics, the Enlightenment and its scientific method had analysed and analysed until the world lay around them in a dismantled, atomized and meaningless heap. It was a common accusation that the Enlightenment ‘could explain everything, but understand nothing’.”

Goethe wrote:

The little earth-god still persists in his old ways,
Ridiculous as ever, as in his first days.
He’d have improved if you’d not given
Him a mere glimmer of the light of heaven;
He calls it Reason, and it only has increased
His power to be beastlier than a beast.

For Thomas Carlyle, “thus is the Body-politic more than ever worshipped and tended; but the Soul-politic less than ever.”

Vincent van Gogh wrote to his brother that “In the end, we shall have had enough of cynicism, scepticism and humbug, and will want to live – more musically. How will this come about, and what will we discover? It would be nice to be able to prophesy, but it is even better to be forewarned, instead of seeing absolutely nothing in the future other than the disasters that are bound to strike the modern world and civilization like so many thunderbolts, through revolution, or war, or the bankruptcy of worm-eaten states.”

Into the twentieth century, dissatisfaction with modernity and the sense that it was in some way soulless, continued to be expressed.

For the influential British socialist, R.H. Tawney, “Modern society” was “sick through the absence of a moral ideal.” The “the heart of the problem” was therefore not “not economic,” but was “a question of moral relationships.”

At the other end of the spectrum, many were drawn to the radical solutions proposed by fascism. Katy Hull in her book - The Machine Has a Soul - has shown why some American sympathised with fascism. Many regretted the “soulless aspects of their mechanised society.” She quotes one individual as writing, “We have invented and found nearly everything: about the only thing we have not found is ourselves.”

In India, Gandhi offered an alternative moral critique of modern industrial civilisation. “Western civilisation is material, frankly material. It measures progress by the progress of matter - railways, conquest of disease, conquest of the air…No one says, ‘Now the people are more truthful or more humble.’ I judge it by my own test and I use the word ‘Satanic’ in describing it. You set such store by the temporal, external things. The essential of Eastern civilisation is that it is spiritual, immaterial…Your idea is the more you want the better you are.”

From left to right, reacting, rejecting or revolting against modernity, many sought to advocate an alternative modernity, an alternative vision for the future.

Iqbal fits with this wider trend of eclectic thinkers that rejected or revolted against modernity as it existed. In his Reconstruction, he writes, "Humanity needs three things today- a spiritual interpretation of the universe, spiritual emancipation of the individual, and basic principles of a universal import directing the evolution of human society on a spiritual basis. Modern Europe has, no doubt, built idealistic systems on these lines, but experience shows that truth revealed through pure reason is incapable of bringing that fire of living conviction which personal revelation alone can bring.”

***

Eve Tignol draws attention to an article by Mohamed Ali Jauhar, a poet in his own right, most famous for being a key mover and shaker in the Khilafat movement. Jauhar had said that Hali was recognised as “the poet of our mazi” while Iqbal was “the singer of our Istiqbal.” Iqbal had “felt the pathos of the fallen race” and he went on to say “but his message, how joyous, how full of faith and celestial fire!”

 

[DeadlyVenom]

@KB - I hope you don't mind me asking and you don't need to go into much detail but what is your background?

You give such indepth insights into such a wide variety of topics.

Often when I read your posts I think to myself that when I grow up I want to be like this guy ( I say this as someone in my late 30s haha.

 

[PakLFC]

Iqbal believed in India as whole before. Infact, alot of muslims wanted to India to stay put believing that the Mughals or the Muslims would than eventually get the whole country.

It was later Iqbal shifted towards the idea of Pakistan.

I agree with you that Iqbal's role is over stated and was using religion. Iqbals idea of Pakistan is exactly todays Pakistan. His idea won in the long run if you put it up against Jinnahs Pakistan.

Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad also warned of what Pakistan would become. He was in confrontation with Iqbal's teachings during those times. Where as I believe in Pakistan it is the Quaid Jinnah's original version that I want. He was not a fanatic in fact he was not even religious in the slightest.

After the Quaid's death the idea of Pakistan was hijacked by religious fanatics who did not want it in the first place. The Quaid did want a pan Islamic state but not a fanatical one. He always insisted on the importance of education and was an admirer of Turkey not the Arab's.

Other then Pakistanis and perhaps some Indian's no one else gives a damn about Iqbal.

 

[PakLFC]

@KB

Not everyone is a fan of Iqbal's poetry. To cut a long story short it is not practical to live a life according to someone's poetry. Iqbal never did anything for me or even most Pakistanis who don't bother about him. Even Quaid Jinnah did not often support Iqbal's ramblings for good reason.

 

[KB]

@KB - I hope you don't mind me asking and you don't need to go into much detail but what is your background?

You give such indepth insights into such a wide variety of topics.

Often when I read your posts I think to myself that when I grow up I want to be like this guy ( I say this as someone in my late 30s haha.

This is an incredibly generous comment to receive, and coming from a thoughtful poster, whose views I respect, it is all the more gratifying.

As to my background, it is perhaps not a surprise - given the nature of my posts - to learn that I studied history at university. That was in a dim and distant past and since then I have pursued a career in a completely unrelated profession. But the pleasure of learning about the past has remained. In that sense I remain a student. History is a capacious subject and once the fire of curiosity is lit there is no end to learning.