Nazir Ahmad’s “Ibn-ul-Vaqt” casts
a light on the state of perpetual movement that foments when a displaced former
era and submerging culture collides with the advent of a new, enforced regime and
manner of living. This Ahmad accomplishes using countless elements at his
disposal—his story is based in colonial India post-‘Indian mutiny’; the seen
and unseen individuals are generally unsettled, and further disparity spirals
through divisions based on race, religion, sect and socio-economic class. For
this purpose he also delves uninhibited into his protagonists mindset, wherein
said protagonist Ibn-ul-Vaqt is revealed to be caught between the old, dying world
of Muslim Mughal royalty in India and the new, secure Victorian Christian
lifestyle promising that he will no longer be “among the disgraced” as he joins
“those who are honoured.” Added to this, Ahmad’s use of distinctive narrative
voice—now supporting Anglicization, now sardonically poking fun at and stepping
away from the increasingly Anglicized protagonist—is difficult to place in
support of either party and only serves to enhance the sense of instability prevalent
throughout the story.
It is within this instability and state of transformation
that both parties of British colonizers and colonized Indians find themselves
chained to circumstances beyond their control—the Imperialists are faced with
covert and overt hostility displayed by the natives, and the natives discover
themselves shifting in socio-economic class as they move from aristocracy to
the newly formed bourgeoisie, or in the common vernacular, the “middle
class.” Ibn-ul-Vaqt’s too finds himself trapped in a retrograde position in the
local community with his acceptance of English custom; his growing isolation
from his own cultural identity and way of life only grow as the story progresses
and also add to the instability that is a natural repercussion of change.
What we must acknowledge here is the fact that in all these elements
there is no unique factor brought to the table by a state of exile that is not brought
about by normal change in time and place. With the passage of time there is a
displacement of the old to make room for the new; this breeds unsettlement in
culture and identity as people cling to remnants of their past lives and what
used to be, as is reflected in Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone with the Wind,”
wherein a similar displacement is felt by the southerners who aren’t as such directly
under the control of the North. Both normal transition in time and the exilic
state consist of the need for two factors that contradict each other; these are
freedom and security. “Ibn-ul-Vaqt” is the embodiment of the pull from freedom and
security, born of the exilic state for both victim and victimizer. There is a
rational acknowledgement of the need to embrace the new for survival and one’s
own freedom, as Noble Sahib highlights to Ibn-ul-Vaqt the greater possibilities
that exist once one embraces the English lifestyle. There is also a stubborn
refusal to leave the apron strings that once provided the security of a
lifestyle upon which one could rise, fall and rest. Security is bred for the
people in two forms—by clinging to the old set forms, and by swiftly entrenching
oneself in the new set forms. On the other end, freedom is granted, according
to the peoples diverse mindsets, in two differing forms as well—through the
latter method of accepting the new set Victorian manner of living, and through
resistance of the new and a struggle to retain the old that would grant the
natives their former glory and socio-economic class. Each mindset is skillfully
presented by Ahmad and presents divisions within divided factors, further highlighting
the lack of stability prevalent during this time. Within this plethora of mindsets
there is born a displacement from identity for the Indians and this manner of
halfway in, halfway out acceptance on their part of the British causes further
unsettlement for the British. This stands no different from the estrangement
from identity and community one may feel as a result of ordinary change.
Exile breeds strength in resistance; it breeds the
submerging of one time and place to another. Overall what we can see is that in
breeding instability in position, identity and culture, Nazir Ahmad creates for
us a picture of total isolation and reveals little distinction between the
reactions produced by a state of exile and those produced by a state of normal
transition. Mourning for a time lost is a common nostalgic state shared by the
ordinary person, and with increasing globalization it is increasingly becoming
the case as inordinate cultures and lifestyles find themselves merging and
colliding on a daily basis across the globe. So how does one distinguish
between the exilic state and that of normal transition? The only difference one
can note is the use of the word ‘imperialism’—which instantly reminds one of
the coercion of the natives to embrace a lifestyle. We are reminded that whilst
normal change is subtle, subconsciously affecting the ordinary person and
facing little struggle beyond the nostalgic sigh, the state of exile is
enforced and, as Nazir Ahmad depicts, those estranged from their own culture
are very much aware of it—if not initially (as with the Indians when the East
India Company emerged), then definitely later (leading to the Indian Mutiny,
also called the War of Independence); Ahmad’s characters, like all exiled
natives, consciously struggle to retain balance while two colliding worlds
shift and merge beneath their feet, no bow-tie ending in sight.
No comments:
Post a Comment