Imperialism and Exile: The problem of language (Noor Habib)

Adorno (qtd. in Said’s “Reflections on Exile”) asserts that the only home for the homeless is to be found in writing. Said himself notes that those in exile are drawn towards writing, poetry, intellectualism etc. These sorts of occupations are attractive because they depend upon mobility and detachment; two states that are associated closely with the exilic state. Art forms that have emerged as a product of the exilic consciousness are considered to be useful counter-narratives, but more significantly, these literary works shed light on the importance of language itself as a powerful tool to resist the pervasive influence of imperialism on indigenous culture.

 It was suggested in class that the figure of the colonial subject can legitimately be viewed as an exilic figure, as per the definition given to us by Edward Said. In particular, the Muslim in colonial India was perhaps truly disenfranchised from the body politic following the 1857 mutiny. In my reading of Ibn Ul Vaqt, the theme of Language as a refuge for the refugee shines through as one of the important issues.  It is also something that the subjects of a colonial state cling on to desperately, as the last remnant of their ‘discontinuous’ identity. “Ye museebat kis ke aagay roye keh angrezi amaldaari ne hamari dolat, sarwat, rasm-o-rawaj, libaas, waza,  tor tareeqa, tijarat, mazhab, ilm, hunar, izat, sharafat sab cheezon par tou paani phera hi tha, aik zubaan thi ab is ka bhi … angrezon ne ukhree ukhree, ghalat…Urdu bolni shuru kardi thi”.

From the onset of the novel, the narrative voice guides us through the cultural milieu of the time that it is set in. There is a deep rooted aversion to anything English, in particular the language. Ibn Ul Vaqt too dismisses English (despite his relative competency in it) by remarking that one can not know a second language as well as one knows his mother tongue. The irony is not lost on the reader, considering the historical roots of Urdu, which owes its standardization to a policy issued under the Raj. Nazir Ahmad himself performs this act of subversion by way of his novel, but it begs the obvious question; what kind of identity is he trying to protect when it is informed so heavily by the forces that threaten it in the first place?