.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tabraiz Feham's Blog

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Distractive writing

This is with reference to the letter published “Objective writing” (October 3, 2004 - www.dawn.com), in which the writer abreast of Asfhaq Ahmed made some comments about Qudrat-ul-Allah Shahab as well, about his character and his mysticism in which case I completely disagree with him.

This has to be very clear that Mr Qudrat-ul-Allah Shahab was a govt. servant, a govt. servant who took charge when Govt. of Pakistan used Babool's prickles to hold the papers together. It was his duty to serve all those presidents and it is on record that he disagreed and raised his voice over the issues that were somehow against Pakistan . It is because of some people like Mr Shahab that Paksitan was still able to survive all those crisis. Mr Shahab's loyalty, sincerity and faithfulness to the country is unquestionable.

As far as the writer's comments about Mr Shahab's mysticism are concerned again I would disagree, because in “Shahab Nama” he never claimed or presented himself as a “Sufi” or Mystic. In just the last chapter of his more than thousand pages autobiography, he wrote about those mysterious letters that he used to receive during his job, and described how those letters guided him to take the right decisions for Pakistan . He never claimed, but other people specially Mumtaz Mufti in his “Alakh Nagri” claims that he really was something in himself.

Despite being a computer science student I couldn't stop myself to write and clarify that if we as a nation can not pay the deserved tribute to those who best served the country, then we must also not disgrace them by any means. One should take a look at the history and be responsible before making any such comments. Otherwise sometimes “Objective writing” becomes “Distractive writing”.

M Tabraiz Feham


Originial Article
URL : http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/03/letted.htm#10

Objective writing

I refer to recent columns on the distinguished writer Ashfaq Ahmed. Two points have been made. One, that he had a lot of talent in story writing and radio and TV plays. This is very true and full credit would always be given to him, and his work shall always remain a part of our literary history. However, the other point is somewhat debatable. It is about his mysticism.

He remained very close to Gen Ziaul Haq for a long time. What Zia has done to the country and its people is well-known. How could a person who compromised with authority be presented as a 'sufi'? An intellectual has the social obligation to stand up to evil.

The same happened in the case of Qudratullah Shahab. In his autobiography, he has presented himself as a 'sufi' and his admirers who write about him do the same. This is after Mr Shahab had served Ghulam Mohammad, Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan who all destroyed the country.

It is my request to our intellectuals to write to be objective.


Via email



Post a Comment

<< Home