Towards the latter half of Nazir Ahmad's 'Ibn-ul-Vaqt', the intricate relationship between food and religion plays an important function in not only depicting the theme of exile, but the internal conflict that consumes Ibn-ul-Vaqt.
Ibn-ul-Vaqt saying 'Do you think your staying and dining with me is against Islam' is extremely pertinent as from the outset, we are given a glimpse into Ibn-ul-Vaqt's state of mind where we feel like he knows that his lifestyle is antithetical to religious doctrines yet wants some sort of confirmation or relief about his hybrid lifestyle. What also adds more depth to the scene is that despite Hujjat-ul-Islam's severe tone ('I cannot stay in such a house even for a day'), you still see a conciliatory Ibn-ul-Vaqt' - 'But let us have dinner before you leave'. At this point, he struggles to in a way justify his way of living but Hujjat-ul-Islam is a constant reminder of Ibn-ul-Vaqt's abandonment of cultural beliefs and values.
In light of such events, it almost becomes important to think about food and what it means to be Muslim. When we think of food, we often think of the basics- necessities that are at the lowest level of hierarchy of needs but in this scenario becomes an important contributor to the exilic experience. While both Ibn-ul-Vaqt and Hujjat-ul-Islam are byproducts of the same British subcontinental structure, you see Hujjat-ul-Islam as more grounded in orthodox beliefs while Ibn-ul-Vaqt as a figure who possesses wine for the 'English Sahibs'. Though wine is forbidden in islam, Ibn-ul-Vaqt still keeps it for a reason- to bow to British needs, despite the fact that his own religion doesn't permit him to do so. Also, Ibn-ul-Vaqt's 'What harm is there when there is no intoxication?' further shows the extent to which he has bid farewell to his local culture, which essentially ties into his inner conflicts and inner crisis that starts to externalize itself despite his apparent composure in the scene.
While Ibn-ul-Vaqt's cook enjoys making the soups, cutlets, ox-tail and boiled ruce pudding, Hujjat ul-Islam's mother in law focuses on the 'Paranthas, Nan-Khatai's, Shami Kababs and the Khichri'. This juxtaposition is extremely striking and is probably why Nazir Ahmad presents these images in a progressive manner, just to highlight two things: firstly, Ibn-ul-Vaqt's inability to crutch onto his muslim identity and secondly, how it is possible to retain one's 'Muslimness' despite deliberate Anglicization.
Food, ultimately becomes the tool of distinction, an instrument of exile that presents a pronounced disparity between the two characters.
When one thinks carefully, boiled rice pudding and khichri are both rice derivatives, but represent two different systems, two different and cultures and two different people.
Ibn-ul-Vaqt saying 'Do you think your staying and dining with me is against Islam' is extremely pertinent as from the outset, we are given a glimpse into Ibn-ul-Vaqt's state of mind where we feel like he knows that his lifestyle is antithetical to religious doctrines yet wants some sort of confirmation or relief about his hybrid lifestyle. What also adds more depth to the scene is that despite Hujjat-ul-Islam's severe tone ('I cannot stay in such a house even for a day'), you still see a conciliatory Ibn-ul-Vaqt' - 'But let us have dinner before you leave'. At this point, he struggles to in a way justify his way of living but Hujjat-ul-Islam is a constant reminder of Ibn-ul-Vaqt's abandonment of cultural beliefs and values.
In light of such events, it almost becomes important to think about food and what it means to be Muslim. When we think of food, we often think of the basics- necessities that are at the lowest level of hierarchy of needs but in this scenario becomes an important contributor to the exilic experience. While both Ibn-ul-Vaqt and Hujjat-ul-Islam are byproducts of the same British subcontinental structure, you see Hujjat-ul-Islam as more grounded in orthodox beliefs while Ibn-ul-Vaqt as a figure who possesses wine for the 'English Sahibs'. Though wine is forbidden in islam, Ibn-ul-Vaqt still keeps it for a reason- to bow to British needs, despite the fact that his own religion doesn't permit him to do so. Also, Ibn-ul-Vaqt's 'What harm is there when there is no intoxication?' further shows the extent to which he has bid farewell to his local culture, which essentially ties into his inner conflicts and inner crisis that starts to externalize itself despite his apparent composure in the scene.
While Ibn-ul-Vaqt's cook enjoys making the soups, cutlets, ox-tail and boiled ruce pudding, Hujjat ul-Islam's mother in law focuses on the 'Paranthas, Nan-Khatai's, Shami Kababs and the Khichri'. This juxtaposition is extremely striking and is probably why Nazir Ahmad presents these images in a progressive manner, just to highlight two things: firstly, Ibn-ul-Vaqt's inability to crutch onto his muslim identity and secondly, how it is possible to retain one's 'Muslimness' despite deliberate Anglicization.
Food, ultimately becomes the tool of distinction, an instrument of exile that presents a pronounced disparity between the two characters.
When one thinks carefully, boiled rice pudding and khichri are both rice derivatives, but represent two different systems, two different and cultures and two different people.
No comments:
Post a Comment