2 Progressivism in Urdu literature in the Indian subcontinent

As female writers in Urdu prose and poetry tend to be overlooked, they still struggle for their place and appreciation of their work. A reason for this is their small number as well as the prevailing themes in Urdu poetry, which are “the beauty of the beloved, the plight of the lover and the pains of unrequited love”.1 Mir and Mir show that, despite their commitment to social change and equal rights for everyone, even most of the poets of the Progressive Writers’ Movement write, poems that depict women as the weaker sex. In such cases, the veil of seclusion is criticised or women are shown as rebels, who play a public role in transforming society. A more radical position in which women appear as companions is rarely present.2 Gopal makes a similar argument about the presentation of women in prose and poetry. She particularly highlights that “[g]ender relations and sexual politics, far from being absent, are approached in a variety of compelling and, at times, self-reflexive ways, going beyond the ‘woman question’ to include questions of masculinity and male identity.”3 However, Mir and Mir claim, that no poet of the PWA “unambiguously assumed women’s independent power, subjecthood and agency”,4 until the works of Kishwar Nāhīd and Fahmīdah Riyāẓ.5 This is astonishing as “[b]y the 1930s, women (largely from the middle and upper classes) too had entered the political and public sphere in unprecedented numbers; their presence was noticeable not just within nationalist organisations but also in trade unions and educational institutions.”6 There are of course other female poets, among them Adā Jʻafrī, a modernist, who is considered the first female poet and who published her maiden collection of poetry in 1950. Most women before Nāhīd and Fahmīdah however, are not found within the progressive spectrum of poetry as they did not write boldly or obscenely on women’s issues.7 While Adā Jʻafrī also tried to raise awareness about the reduction of women to sexual objects, Zahra Nigāh after her expressed the right of equality for women in the society and is generally considered a progressive poet. After Nāhīd’s and Fahmīdah’s rebelling voices in the 1960s, which became increasingly political in the following years, other female poets started to emerge. These included Parvīn Shākir, who focused on “exploitative relationships”,8 Sārā Shaguftah, who examined “women’s psychological states”,9 ʻAzrā ʻAbbās, who “explored the relationship of women’s bodies to their emotions”,10 ʻIshrat Āfrīn, who related patriarchal society to women’s lives or Tanvīr Anjum as well as many others.11

To understand their influence on society and resulting impact on feminist Urdu literature it is necessary to sketch the meaning of “progressivism” within the context of South Asian literature and outline the development of the Progressive Writer’s Movement.

2.1 What is “progressivism” in South Asian literature?

According to Coppola the meaning of the term “progressivism” changes during the different stages of the Progressive Writers’ Movement. At the beginning of the Movement, which can be equated with the publication of Angāre, ”progressivism” is considered as modernity, which is “confined to debunking existing social and religious mores in Muslim society”.12 The publication of Angāre and its “stories were intended to shock”.13 After its release and banishment, a small number of Indian writers decided to establish the Progressive Writers’ Association following which sundry manifestoes were presented and various definitions of “progressivism” and progressive literature were constituted.14

Coppola annotates that the first manifesto, which was drafted in London, “set[s] forth a number of liberal, perhaps even leftist, views on religion, society, politics and, of course, literature”.15 Two of the PWA’s founding members, Z̤ahīr and Ānand, were influenced by speeches of international writers which dealt with “the role of Marxism in literature, censorship, the writer’s individual freedom and imperialism”16 in their literature. This first manifesto, published in February 1935, did not define “progressivism”, but the translated version into Hindi from December of that year contained an additional passage that did:

All those things which take us toward confusion, dissension, and blind imitation is [sic] conservative; also, all that which engenders in us a critical capacity, which induces us to test our dear traditions on the touchstone of our reason and perception, which makes us healthy and produces among us the strength of unity and integration, that is what we call Progressive.17

Nehru’s answer about the key elements in progressive literature during the second PWA meeting in Allahabad in March 1938 appends more criteria towards what can and cannot be considered “progressivism”.18 Thus, progressive literature is

keeping [the] eyes on ‘larger issues’ and avoiding entanglement in ‘very minor things’. […] ‘An artist remains aloof from such minor things. His life and environment is different from that of men of politics. For this reason, he can show larger things to society after separating them from the minor things of everyday life. […] The [writer] has the language of the common people; […] Individuality acquires the strength of the nation and moves the world. […] Its [i. e., the revolution’s] responsibility rests on the writer. Solve people’s problems; show them the way; but whatever you say should be through the medium of art and not logic.’19

Until this time no clear definition of “progressivism” had been declared, either by the writers of Angāre or by any other progressive writer. This was the case until Aḥmad ʻʻĀlī and Maḥmud uz̤-Z̤afar, two writers of Angāre, spoke at Allahabad University and in Amritsar, respectively. These speeches likely took place somewhere between the beginning of 1936 and convening of the first All-India Progressive Writers’ Conference in Lucknow on 10th of April 1936.20 In his lecture ʻĀlī spoke about “art […] derive[ing] its material from life”,21 and acting as “the product and direct reflection of the social reality, through symbols”22 which meant it “must be socially conscious”.23 He added that art is “an expression of the highest consciousness of life, and appeals by producing powerful feelings which lead to progressive mental and emotional activity reaction.”24 This kind of art alone “reflects the social reality”25 and as a consequence “is progressive”.26 ʻĀlī also highlighted that “[t]he word progressive, then, implies the consciousness of what we are, what we were, what we should or can be. It is dynamic in essence, and stands for action.”27 In reflecting on previous literature in the subcontinent, he further contrasted past and future literature. While earlier literature was of “an individual type, sentimental, unrealistic, irrational, [and; A/N] mystical”,28 new literature had to be uncompromisingly realistic, “brutal even in its ruggedness, without embellishments and unnecessary insistence on form and technique […], it should lay greate emphasis on the truth of content, be more comprehensive and universal, and insist on the naked facts and realities of life.”29 Stating that “[p]rogressive literature today can only be a literature of opposition”,30 ʻĀlī concluded that the term

‘progressive’ should not be taken to be synonymous with revolutionary. It does, however, mean trying for the betterment of our social life. It implies the banishment of mysticism […] and all that which stands in our way of attaining freedom. It also means the acceptance of realism as a primary factor in the arts and literature.31

Maḥmud uz̤-Z̤afar expressed of a similar opinion of “progressivism.” However, he did not constitute it as art, but pointed out that “progressivism” in literature undergoes a few changes. Hence, it “meant different things at different times - depending on the ever-changing historical conditions” while “Literature, as well as the Arts [must be; A/N] […] vital […] [to not; A/N] becom[e] sterile, lifeless, false.”32 Progressive literature, thus, must be separated from non-progressive literature, which can be summarised as:

All tendencies towards sympathy with reaction, with Imperialism, with feudal superstitions, with Fascism, Imperialist aggression and war – we shall condemn as non-progressive and therefore to be mercilessly attacked and rooted out. All tendencies towards irrationalism, mysticism, introversion, sex-perversion...