Instruments of Exile: The Illusion of Reform

Hujjat-ul-Islam: Tum kion is qadar musalmanon kay peechay paray ho? Kya refomer bannay kay liyay iski bhi zaroorat hai kay zabardasti koi na koi ilzam kisi kay pallay bandh kar apnay taeen surkh-rooh aur doosron ko angsht-numa kijiyay?

Looking at Ibn-ul-Vaqt holistically, a recurrent theme in the story is this 'reform talk'. The author has emphasized upon the notion of reform, bringing it up multiple times with a new conception of the word itself. The story starts with Noble Saheb lecturing Ibn Ul Vaqt on his version of what Muslim reform was.His motivation for Ibn ul Vaqt to 'initiate' a reform for the noble stated that Ibn ul Vaqt 'had it in him' to be the reformer was particularly striking. It strikes me because of two reasons.First, that these 'pearls of wisdom' to rectify the Muslim condition in sub-continent come from a party which has colonized them in the first place. Secondly and more ironically, the epic mockery of the word 'reform' that follows once Ibn Ul Vaqt embraces in his mind the 'responsibility to reform'. His ‘glorious’ reform was characterized by constant chaos and increasing confusion. Ibn ul Vaqt was extremely optimistic about the british intentions.

 In the process of reforming the dwindling muslim community, he abandoned its core principles and then goes further down the drain when this muslim community reciprocates in abandoning its self-proclaimed reformer. After being rejected by both the locals and the colonizers, Ibn Ul Vaqt experiences a horrifying solitary confinement. He is forced to conceive of an alternative reality with a new reform agenda. This time lead by Hujjat ul Islam who personifies a ‘self-righteous’, ‘all pious’ and due to the lack of a better term, a ‘Halal’ reformer. Paradoxically yet again, Hujjat ul Islam speaks big and sounds extremely preachy. He is quite skeptical of the route that Ibn Ul Vaqt took and advocates muslim supremacy. His dialogue with Ibn ul Vaqt is loaded with reform jargon. Hujjatul Islam analogizes reform with a building under renovation. He says, reform is not deconstructing and constructing, it is correcting the faults in that building but building further on the same base. The problem is that he himself was a ‘naukar’ to the colonial masters just like Ibn ul Vaqt and his reform argued that India was not meant for muslims for their epicenter lied miles away in Arabia so essentially he proposes the elimination of any emotional connect with India. I take it as a case of inherent confusion and partially consider it a case of sour grapes as well. Intelligently, Nazeer Ahmed has left the storyline open ended (hasn’t explicitly hinted towards Hujjat ul Islams decline).

One thing common between both the waves of reform is this illusion of being on the right side. Both aim at an exalted status for muslims but both operate under inherently flawed and inconsistent frameworks. This illusion of reform, in my opinion, adds significantly as an instrument of exile leaving the actors in utter confusion and vulnerable to lack of direction. Based on this, one can spot the irony in the following lines from the text. (it is taken as something entirely different in the text).

'Haak kay putlay nay dekh kya machaya hai shor

  Farsh say lay Arsh tak kar raha hai apna zor

Seenay mai Qulzam ko lay kar qatray ka qatra hee raha

 Bal bay-samaaee teri, uf rahay samandar kay chor' - 209 (urdu text)