Daily Times

Just to hear Urdu (which I, as a societally/culturally integrated Pakistani-American, miss hearing in the US, sometimes), I was watching an infotainment program of a Pakistani TV channel on YouTube. A Sufi singer, who was a guest on the program, recited (in Urdu) passionately a couplet of an Iqbal’s poem from his poetic work, “Bal-e-Jibrael.”

The couplet was: “Jab Ishq Sikhata Hai Adab-e-Khud-Agahi, Khulte Hain Ghulamon Par Asrar-e-Shahanshahi.”

After they attentively listened to the couplet, the program host/members and another guest went wild in an overzealous admiration of the poet. This piqued my interest in the poem. So, I Googled and found the whole poem (thanks to the internet).

During the Google-search, I also found out that Iqbal’s hardcore Pakistani fans touted this poem as a greatly inspiring poem with a wonderful message. But I think this poem, which may make some sense in its historical context, when social sciences were not as advanced as they are now, is outdated or obsolete and seems confusing, contradictory or incoherent within itself. Normally, a poem textually stays on its subject and supports or stands on itself to keep the reader focused on the subject matter. Also, It seems that those Iqbal’s Pakistani fans who seem to be still stuck in the slumber of the centuries-old regional history are not yet awakened to the advancements of modern social sciences of the 21st century in this internet age of information.

Those Iqbal’s Pakistani fans who seem to be still stuck in the slumber of the centuries-old regional history are not yet awakened to the advancements of modern social sciences

Below is my un-poetic/un-rhyming translation in English (with my rusty knowledge of Urdu) of this poem along with my further comments on each couplet of the poem as stated, not as what the poet may have meant, which is selectively subjective.

“Jab Ishq Sikhata Hai Adab-e-Khud-Agahi,

Khulte Hain Ghulamon Par Asrar-e-Shahanshahi;”

(When loves teaches manners of self-awareness; kingdom’ s secrets are opened to the enslaved)

Love (a true, altruistic, blinding love, which is Ishq) psychologically urges a person (free or enslaved) to stay in incessant reveries of the beloved rendering the person forgetful of himself or herself or devoid of self-control. So, love cannot teach a person self-awareness, nor manners thereof. This couplet has a wrong premise. Also, there is no correlation between self-awareness of a non-kingly person and the know-how of a kingdom, nor is there a causal relationship of love to secrets or mysteries of a kingdom. Knowledge, not Love (Ishq) which is about a person, can help open a door to mysteries of the kingdom. This couplet is non-nonsensical or incoherent.

“‘Attar’ ho ‘Rumi’ ho ‘Razi’ ho ‘Ghazali’ ho,

Kuchh Haath Nahin Aata Be-ah-e-Sahar-Gahi;”

(Be it Attar or Rumi or Razi or Ghazali; nothing can be had without awareness of morning sigh.)

First, a sigh can be voluntarily or involuntarily breathed any time, not just in the morning, to express a lack or loss of a material or person that is valued. Secondly, there is no correlation between being aware of a sigh and attaining knowledge (basic or advanced), which correlation is incorrectly implied by the poet, as the poet refers to philosophically and/or ideologically differing Attar (of Nishapr), Rumi, Razi or Ghazali. In other words, knowledge is persistently pursued due to a continual curiosity of a human mind only while sigh is a psycho-physiological function of a human body, which is semi-emotional or probably fully emotional. The idea in this couplet is of a time when people used to incorrectly believe that their heart or emotion was involved in thinking. The mind thinks not the heart which only pumps the blood. This couplet is outdated or obsolete.

“Naumid Na Ho In Se Ai Rahbar-e-Farzana,

Kam-Kosh To Hain Lekin Be-Zauq Nahin Raahi;”

(O wise travel-guide, do not be hopeless of them; the travellers lack activity but not perceptivity.)

The poet implies here that there is a hope for a success of certain people (i.e., Muslims) who are perceptive or have a noble aim (or taste), even though they lack an action to achieve the aim. This idea in the couplet is counter-intuitive (and hilarious, frankly speaking) from my American perspective and it sends a wrong message to Muslims. A well-planned action is required to achieve a noble aim. It is no wonder Muslim countries are very tall on talks describing their dreams but they are very short on deeds or deliveries. They typically show a sabz bagh to impress the audience. It is not inspiring.

“Ai Tair-e-Lahuti Us Rizq Se Maut Achchhi,

Jis Rizq Se Aati Ho Parvaz Men Kotahi;”

(O celestial bird, death is better than a livelihood; which livelihood impedes your flight.)

Metaphorically, this couplet says that it is better for a heaven-deserving person (namely, a Muslim) to die than to earn a livelihood that impedes the person’s movement (possibly to gain a political superiority). First, this couplet is Islamically supremacistic and fatalistic as it seems to be addressed to Muslims. Secondly, in the historical context, it instigates insubordination or insolence against the British Christian employers of Muslims of India who, according to Islam, are not supposed to work under Christians as the Quran considers Jews and Christians unclean enemies and forbids Muslims to befriend them. This divisive and dangerous couplet goes against the modern social sciences, which teach that all humans are equal; and hence it is obsolete. or inapplicable in today’s world.

“Daara o Sikandar Se Vo Mard-e-Faqir Aula,

Ho Jis Ki Faqiri Men Bu-e-Asadul-Lahai;”

(Better is a saintly-man than Darius/Alexander; God’s tiger’s scent exudes from his sainthood.”

Here, a saintly-man or man of a saint implies a pious brave Muslim warrior or a pious brave Muslim leader as Darius/Alexander and tiger are comparatively mentioned in the same couplet. Either way, the emphasis is on piety which, in this couplet, is about worshipping Islamic deity (i.e., Allah), not any other deity. To the poet who seems to indirectly denigrate or ignore the pre-Islamic religions, neither Darius (a Zoroastrian–monotheistic–warrior ruler of a vast Persian empire) nor Alexander (a warrior king of Macedon who conquered Persia) was a pious leader, even though both of them used to worship and/or make offerings to a deity or deities of their respective religions. This couplet, like the previous one, is divisive and Islamically-supremacistic; and it goes against the modern social sciences, which teach that all humans are equal and all religions should be respected and treated equally. Hence it is outdated or obsolete and inapplicable in today’s world.

“Ain-e-Javan-Mardan Haq-Goi o Be-Baki,

Allah ke Sheron ko Aati Nahin Rubahi;”

(Young men’s constitution is truth-telling/daredeviltry; God’s lions do not know any trickery.)

Metaphorically, in this couplet, the phrase, God’s lions or Allah’s lions, implies holy warriors or Islamic warriors who, according to the poet, are truth-tellers for the religion (i.e., Islam) and daredevils for an Islamic war who dive, without knowing any trickery or art of self-saving, into a fight for Islam. The poet here seems to give a pep-talk (a vigorous and emotional speech) to the Islamic warriors to pump them up or boost their morale, determination and zeal to fight for Islam. By doing so, the poet demonstrates that he is an Islamic supremacist and Islamist just like the Islamist leaders of Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and other Islamist organisations who give pep-talks to their Islamic fighters or suicide bombers (jihads) This couplet is dangerous and instigates violence against non-Muslims; and as mentioned before, it goes against the modern social sciences, which teach that all humans are equal and all religions should be respected and treated equally. Hence it is outdated or obsolete and inapplicable in today’s world which strives for peace and religious harmony.

Additionally, it must be noted that Iqbal through his Islam-oriented poetic work talked big but did very little—a big dream, but no delivery on his part—just like today’s Muslim political leaders and Muslim heads of Islamic countries. He could not put his talks into action, nor could he even lead the Muslims of India. Instead, he essentially begged Westernised, pork-eating, alcohol-drinking, flirtatious/philandering M.A. Jinnah to lead the Muslims of India to realise his divisive dream of having a separate Muslim country—Pakistan—in a divided India. In the beginning, however, Jinnah never wanted a separate country for Muslims.

In other words, an Islamist Iqbal only dreamed for Pakistan but a nominal Muslim Jinnah acted diligently for and delivered Pakistan, which contradicts this couplet of Iqbal’s poem: “Daara o Sikandar Se Vo Mard-e-Faqir Aula, Ho Jis Ki Faqiri Men Bu-e-Asadul-Lahai.”

To be a great leader, there is no need for piety, which is a personal matter and/or to please a deity. Personal, professional, political and social ethics are needed to lead a nation and progressively run a pluralistic country, which is based on the motto of unity, freedom and democracy.

The writer is based in California, US