Saturday, 13 December 2014

What is missing in Kashmir political discourse?

Perhaps many important questions are missed but a couple of them haunt me and I wonder would they ever be properly discussed.
First is a question of building up spaces outside the current political system.  And the second is cashing on spaces opened up by changing dynamics of politics. There is belated recognition that election boycotts have been counterproductive. Even in early 1990s we could have been politically active and exploiting given spaces for helping people move forward.
Hurriyats have been increasingly criticized for being almost a spent force. And we can’t avoid an impression that fundamental failures in methodology and conception have been made by it. There is no culture of debate in it, no consultation of latest developments in political theory to help it better understand changing political scenario following major changes in the economic and political order after the end of cold war. One could seriously ask if attention had been given to create certain institutions rather than fight abstractions or trade certain slogans. One wonders how come a discourse if foisted on people; how come a leader poses to be a leader who doesn’t care to update himself. Even the most brilliant political scientists keep updating themselves and visionary leaders countercheck their vision against the reality check that such scientists provide. Why has it taken decades to understand that the boycott shouldn’t have been an issue? Why isn’t copy of discussion amongst leaders provided to people? Don’t they debate issues? Don’t they introspect? Do they lack the courage to register their disagreement on policies? How much internal criticism is tolerated? Are intellectuals and professionals of different fields taken seriously? If not, why? Why don’t the leaders face questions on policy publically? Do they lack the guts or the integrity or the courage to face the public?
To incumbent pro-India leaders one would like to ask: How many contradictions are you able to live up with? How do you gather the courage to repeat the discourse that is hackneyed or disowned or discredited even by some of your own party members? Do you still believe that people can take you seriously when you talk of restoring autonomy? Don’t you notice that people have eyes to see and minds to notice contradictions, election posturing, trading of dreams, countless compromises you made to remain in power at the cost of ideology you are committed to in manifesto? Don’t you notice changes in Naya Kashmir document from 30s to 70s you made? You couldn’t give dignity or sense of care to people. You failed on almost every front – retaining J&K Bank, helping Afzal Guru get a fair trial, getting power houses back or denting NHPC hegemony. You increased age of retirement not because you suddenly got convinced of the rationale behind it, because you lost elections. You gave concessions to ReTs whom you had been opposed in practice because you lost elections. You kept silence on major administrative lapses and corruption because you thought you would lose power or coalition partner. You didn’t side with truth but power. You couldn’t get cases against your own people properly investigated. You couldn’t dent rising capitalism as manifested in mushroom growth of costly private schools. You did nothing to change education policy which is suffering from multiple organ failure syndrome? What did you do to better the knowledge economy? What did you do to help agricultural or livestock sector? One could ask scores of such questions.
So what do we propose to do now framed as we are in a discourse of choosing a particular party or carrying forward a political ideology of complicit democracy? Strengthen those spaces that will help people irrespective of who rules them. And keep leaders- pro-Indian and pro-freedom-reminding that you have been largely failing your people.

Friday, 5 December 2014

Kashmir has legacy of rejecting communalism

It is perceived that we are today in the grip of a communalist politics. Let me hazard a prediction. It will not take roots in Kashmir because we have a long legacy of rejection of communalism. Anything that rejects the mystical or that imposes a sectarian or fundamentalist approach here can’t sustain. Historical and cultural forces are too strong to be appropriated into narrow ideological ends by any politician. It is commonly believed that during medieval times in Kashmir dialogue between Islam and indigenous religious traditions of Kashmir didn’t happen on any level and it was a question of either or with regard to acceptance or rejection of new religious identity.
Communalist interpretations have coloured views of many scholars and common people because religions have been approached as exclusive categories. We need to revisit the Reshi tradition as a space where dialogue happened and keeps going on in Sufi poets until today to question usual exclusive and communalist views that colour even current Kashmiri politics. I use insights from perennialists' traditionalist approach to comparative religion to situate the problem in a new light.
One can begin by noting with the traditionalists and many other scholars of comparative religion that none of the traditional religions is at loggerheads with any other tradition when properly approached with due consideration to deeper esoteric and metaphysical content and symbolism. Thus we can say that Hinduism or Buddhism and Islam are not as divergent at deeper level as literalist theological reading of Islam would have us believe. Originally every human collectivity has been blessed by the presence of prophets according to the Quran. Vedanta, Kashmir Saivism and Buddhism are not dualistic or polytheistic but essentially Unitarian or Tawhid centred traditions if one grants Sufistic-metaphysical understanding of Tawhid as the correct view of it in place of dualistic theological reading. These are all Absolute-centric tradition and this Absolute is not to be subsumed under the theistic theology. Despite distortions and extrapolations in subsequent centuries it is still possible to unearth the core of Tawhid in these religions. Spiritually or mystically one can easily see how all religions are oriented towards God and none allows associating partners with God, the popular “polytheistic” idolatrous interpretation or mask of Hinduism not withstanding as it is quite heterodox reading of originally Unitarian traditions. Abdul Wahid Yaha and Isa Nuruddin, arguably the greatest metaphysicians and authorities on comparative religion in the 20th century, demonstrate that there is no pantheism, no idealism, no rebirth, no individualist subjectivist mysticism as ordinarily understood in orthodox Hindu traditions.
The intimate dialogue between Saivism and Islam in Kashmir as exemplified in relationship between Lalla and Sheikh-ul-Alam is possible only because the masters are situated at esoteric and metaphysical plane where theological divergence largely ceases. Let us try to understand why after Rumi’s death Christians and Jews mourned that Rumi taught them deeper meanings of their own traditions. We need to understand why Lalla’s religion is still a matter of passionate debate and why late Amin Kamil pushed for his Nunda and how Shazanand could be used as a title for Sheikh-ul-Alam. This will help us to understand the poem in praise of Buddha attributed to Sheikh-ul-Alam.
Some critics here are needlessly apologetic about using the word Reshi by Sheikh Nuruddin. It suffices to mention that it was the Sheikh who opted for this terminology and found no need of another term such as Wali for describing himself and his disciples. Had the Sheikh adopted the strategy suggested by our critics, which emphasizes differences instead of common points and wishes to prove that the advent of Islam was a radical break from the traditional past of Kashmir, Islam could hardly have been firmly planted in Kashmir. It was great catholic, assimilating and appropriating genius of the great Sheikh to Islamise Reshi movement and it opened Islam for natives. Loud recital of durood, awraad etc. was another strategy to show Islam’s assimilating potential. Thank God Syed Ali Hamdani had no advisors to censure him for these “un-Islamic” innovations, as otherwise Islam’s diffusion in the masses would have been more difficult.  Our Sufi poets have appropriated pre-Islamic notions and allusions and nothing can be done to edit them from a supposedly Islamic perspective. Sufis are at home in different traditions and don’t feel Islam is polluted or in danger if one appropriates other than Islamic mythological or linguistic resources.
It must be noted that Sufism can’t be practised outside the doctrinal framework of Islam. The fact is that post Nuruudin, Kashmir is Islamic Kashmir that has already appropriated the best of spiritual genius of India. Islamised Reshiyyat appropriates, for all practical purposes, Buddhist, Saivite and other Indian traditional philosophical thought currents and is not to be construed as an appendage to them. By practicing Islam in all its depths, one practices all religions, as Abdul Wahid Yaha (Rene Guenon) said, who wrote, despite being a Muslim, many greatly acclaimed and sympathetic works on Hinduism. We must not allow encroaching of Islamic identity of Sufism or present day Reshiyyat in the name of superficial syncretism. We must understand that at juristic level Sheikh-ul-Alam could have emphatically meant hendenheinz kami travavto and still uphold Unitarian vision of Tawhid that perceives brotherhood of spirit and opens up to the religious other. We say in Kashmir that Adam had two sons, one chose grave and the other Awren. Mirwaiz Ami Sahib is reported to pray for the safe coming of Hindu pilgrims from their pilgrimage in Kashmir.

Revisiting the Life and the Work

How much do leaders matter in the great march of history and do we understand inexorable logic of history
Martin Buber has a great passage that explains who ultimately counts in history. He includes more than leaders or politicians, unknown devoted workers who silently but faithfully pursue their assigned jobs.  Today I recall one such devoted unassuming teacher-translator Prof. Amin who taught generations English literature. I keep recalling his statement that he didn’t pursue PhD and become professor as he thought himself not upto the task of writing a good or original thesis. This humility coupled with his acknowledged mastery of the subject he taught is so rare in the days when many professors vie with one another on the number of papers and books they have authored for reasons we can guess and of a quality one hardly needs to guess.  Amin Sahib has primarily focused on translations and his latest work is translation of famous Aatish-e-Chinar, a work whose author’s legacy evokes strong reactions both for and against. Kashmir tragic story – its divided self – can be gleaned from this polarization with regard to Sheikh Abdullah, better known as Sheri Kashmir. One can’t uncritically read the work that, on first glimpse, invites criticism on a host of grounds (some of them highlighted by diverse scholars including Dr Ahad and G. N Gowhar, to take two very recent examples only, who have deconstructed some key claims of the text) but I feel hardly any problem with the translation that succeeds in even improving on the original as the latter has been occasionally marred by overplaying of metaphors. However, as we can see even in title translations, the language is not always easily accessible. However, generally speaking, it is both simple and lucid. We can’t bypass either the author or the book that presents an insider’s version of modern political biography of Kashmir. A few remarks on the Aatish-e-Chinar and its author.
I am not an historian but a victim of history struggling to understand my predicament of living in a place that others call paradise but its inhabitants have felt as hell, not just for last two and a half decades but for many decades for many more conscious denizens. One of the most important questions all of us are required to answer concerns why we are what we are in this particular moment in history. In our context it could be phrased as why is Kashmir still struggling to resolve basic question of political identity, why don’t we have any heroes whom all Kashmiris (or vast majority of its people) could proudly identify with, why we are still complaining about past and new leaders of almost all hues, why we can’t cheer for either Indian or Pakistani team (without troubling conscience or other fellow Kashmiris who may have different understanding or perception) and why in this big and beautiful world of God Kashmiris feel homeless, voiceless and directionless?
Once dismissed as puny shahruk mashter (Srinagar’s teacher) by some feudal lords of Kashmir, Sheri Kashmir’s rise can’t be attributed to conspiracies. He does emerge, in the first phase of his career that culminated in his struggle for a cause for which his party now persecutes others, as the voice of (most) people of Kashmir. Who can afford to ignore that we all owe a great deal to Sheri Kashmir. If today class divisions are not as marked as in rest of the subcontinent, especially Pakistan, it is because of his land reforms. The facts that an average Kashmiri is not so poor as an average Indian and that we are better educated can’t be explained without his historical role. He helped us jump by almost a century through land and other reforms. However, if our political destiny has been so chequered and littered by enormous tragedies, bloodshed, corruption, if we are still searching for our collective soul or spirit, if our deepest aspirations, dreams, resources and full potential of Kashmiri genius are yet to be realized, he can’t be fully exonerated. But the question is how much do leaders matter in the great march of history and do we understand inexorable logic of history, of forces bigger than ( and determinative of) any leader’s vision or dream.  (I side with Tolstoy who illustrated in War and Peace and argued in its epilogue how leaders are more led than lead, as against Carlyle who argues for determinative role of heroes.) Volumes have been written for and against Sheri-Kashmir but very little of substance that tackles the more basic question of what it means to be a leader in a world that rules by brute force politicians call power or national interests, by inhuman ideologies like market fundamentalism,  where feudalism and slavery have gone only to be replaced by more inhuman capitalism and slavery of soul (“souls on hire,” I keep recalling Dostovesky) and alienated labour. 
Authoritarian, rash, ambitious, bold, admired (seen both as saviour and saint once by many), reviled, appropriated and misappropriated by all kinds of ideologues, idealist in heart and pragmatist in action, Indian to the core for Kashmir’s sake, partly responsible for perpetuating family rule, betrayed by close aides, pushed to the wall by the might and shrewd planning of Indian state, great dreamer, a politician who brought Kashmir to India against the wishes of vast majority of people but who sacrificed much to get modicum of autonomy to the State, insightful critic of two nation theory (that only divided Muslims as Mawlana Azad perceived) and feudalist character of “Islamic” State of Pakistan, terribly suffered for his convictions and strong enough to resist great temptations, at least in early phase ( such as accepting full integration with India by relinquishing autonomy proposal) and convinced that he had a vision and a destiny to shape, “The Lion of Kashmir” contained multitudes, fought battles that he later disowned, lost Kashmir to India rather than gained India for Kashmir and illustrates in his dreams, aspirations, contradictions, failures and successes Kashmir’s tragedy and terrible beauty, contradictory forces in international politics, blunders of Pakistani leadership, Machiavellian character of nationalistic project, conquest of the souls and wills of the commoners by the power of Capital, a colossal human tragedy that cries for justice. The point is not to redeem or convict Sheikh M Abdullah but to revisit his life and work to take some lessons home so that we stand up to the challenge that confronts us today – the challenge of lost moral credibility for Indian and international leadership, sighs from the otherworld of countless Kashmiris from 30s till date that suffered or died for a vision and a dream and surviving with dignity in a world that has surrendered all autonomy to the forces of globalization – consumerism, development myth, – a world where such notions as India or Pakistan or being pro-India or pro-Pakistan or East and West appear as abstractions that have lost content if not relevance as symbolic gestures, a world where souls and environment, neighbours, relatives and friends all seem to be forgotten or abandoned.
Postscript: Some books are to be read with all humility to learn from the author (especially if he is a saint like Eckhart or a poet like Holderlin or Lal Ded) and some to be read with caution or better deconstructively (especially if written by politicians) who have an ideology to sell. I illustrate by noting that  Chinar signifies breeze, shade, cover, strength, grace, beauty. Aatish symbolizes passion. Now let us ask if Sheri- Kashmir’s legacy has turned out to be these things. There is little glow or glory or passion, especially in later Shaikh and his family. Isn’t it more a case of burnt Chinar, not glowing Chinar? And did he die as our Sheri-Kashmir or as caged or wounded and muted lion who couldn’t even roar as he saw history or fate or trap against him? I think our, truly ours, Sheri-Kashmir is still struggling to be born or listened to. So far only fragmentary images of him have we seen and hope we prepare for the birth of our Alamdar in political sphere.

Friday, 28 November 2014

The Entertainment called Election

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right.  
—H.L. Mencken
I begin with the meaning or definition of modern politics in The Devil’s Dictionary: Politics, n: [Poly “many” + tics “blood-sucking parasites”]. I am terribly shocked by some confessional statements of world famous politicians. One is from the former US President Ronald Reagan who confessed that his career in politics has convinced him more and more that politics considered to be the second oldest profession has many resemblances with the first or the oldest profession. Other confessions are from de Gaulle and Jefferson, French and US Presidents respectively. “In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.”  “Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct,” are the sayings of these two presidents respectively.
Given these widely shared perceptions, given time tested disillusionment resulting from repeated rules of opposite parties, given almost universal alienation of common people, given our understanding of relationship between money power and political power, who is not convinced that elections don’t change people’s destinies, that only faces change and not policies, especially the policies of fooling people, giving the illusion of democratic process, feeding them false hopes and selling them dreams? Who believes politicians? I can bet not even politicians of opposite parties. They know what sells and how to sell that, so that somehow they gain power. Or may be we can hope they are sincere this time, that they have no motives other than serving people without any regard for political affiliation or capacity to fund later election or capacity to pay somehow for the favours rendered. But still the fact remains that even their sincerity can’t help because what they promise is contradicting interests of those that fund them, that make them leaders. The question we explore today is if all Kashmiris believe that they(politicians) serve only themselves (panyen gar-i- chi baren). Why do they vote or attend election rallies, then? I think they do this because of three things: entertainment, possibility of career/money attached and lihaz (courtesy). They don’t think real or massive change will come or any of the series of promises made in manifestos is going to be kept.
A few days back an acquaintance of mine confided to me that he has a mountain of guilt for participating in previous parliamentary elections to please an acquaintance who had been a candidate. He said he casted his vote but rejected it there to appease his conscience. He had even campaigned for the candidate though felt that it was wrong. I wanted to say a few words of consolation to apparently terribly remorseful heart and struggled a lot to choose them. I told him that for the weak, the uneducated, the sold or enslaved people votes for or against, casted or rejected, this or that party hardly makes a difference. Freedom is not the manifesto of any party. And those “separatist” parties too are not going to win freedom. People, common people, are fooled anyway, deluded anyhow. Elections don’t really matter. Let us weep over it or laugh at it. It is a tragicomedy or more accurately a farce, a spectacle, an entertainment in which different performers or actors are hired. From those who hoist flags in streets (I wonder why tenders are not advertised to hire those who can do so on lowest payment–we see, reportedly, the same people hoist flags of different parties) to those who write or deliver speeches and prepare ads for media it is a paid business. Party patrons too are paid by those who really control politics. Votes or loyalties are bought or sold, campaigns launched, propaganda against other party is the most – and according to some – only reliable thing in speeches and when we add all the points from all the speeches we find enough evidence to distrust or discredit all. One can’t deny some noble idealistic souls too are in the melting pot but that doesn’t mean one can be naïve enough to think that they will be allowed to deliver.
All this means that we can take election frenzy primarily as entertainment that neither politicians nor workers nor people participating in it really believe in. I wish this entertainment were harmless as well. And it was not associated with the question of destiny of the people.
Postscript:Let us hope one day people will be educated enough to see what divides them, why they need representatives, why they can't better govern themselves. They will see truth of ideologies of nationalism, concept of political party and majoritarianism.

Saturday, 22 November 2014

Choosing politics as a career

It is beneath the dignity of any person who has self respect to beg for votes, observed Nietzsche

Living in a world where:
~ “Politics has replaced philosophy” and we find, around us, politicians rather than statesmen.
~“Politics as industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country”  — and then declares itself puzzled that [people] have lost trust in its politicians.
~One is bound to be soiled by mudslinging which is “in politics, anything bad the opponent says about our candidate; in contrast, when our candidate does this, it is called 'making a good point.”
~“We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.”
~Politics has been “concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.” “There are many men of principle in both parties …but there is no party of principle.” It is the rich that fund campaigns implying justice has been sold.
Isn’t it vain to expect significant results from current sound and fury?  Better we ignore it but it is difficult to ignore dangerous and ominous voices and forces that affect us all, including the souls of politicians. While politicians are busy campaigning for principles they uphold (are there any for them in a world that is controlled by money power, by vote bank bought with money, by majority that is always servant of lower desires and defined best as consuming animals?) let us note what we, including our friends and enemies in politics all know. If these points I list below can’t be denied I wonder if we have any other choice than to choose our place in the opposition camp – not the opposition party’s camp but what is better called resistance camp, but not the separatist resistance camp we identify with certain people around but abstract category of resistance camp that always opposes, scrutinizes and helps make power more accountable – not the power of opposite party but power of politicians, of bureaucrats, of Capitalist elite or Corporates.
Granted that some politicians can be saintly, at least in intentions; not all are after money (one minister  had not enough for his coffin) and many do succeed in some ways in serving people and given our conditions one can’t expect many saintly politicians in a world rotten at core, the following points need a consideration:

1) Current secular understanding of democratic politics is against every religion or every tradition and any great ethical philosophy. From Plato to Al-Farabi to St. Augustine to Vogelin to Guenon we are told by great thinkers with one voice that ‘ king can properly order a state only so long as he has a fair knowledge of the true ordering principles.” 
2) Politics is not a career. In Plato’s famous dialogue Statesman, we find the traditional concept of statesman defined as one who looks beyond the political or what Eric Voegelin says, who is ‘meta-political’. “Statesman is involved ‘in politics’ because that is his vocation but he is not ‘of politics.’”
3) Politicians can’t be or aren’t much trusted even by fellow politicians. Politicians can be bought or sold in the market. They can change parties. They can betray own parties. And most people and almost all political thinkers would agree that they betray people. 
4) It is beneath the dignity of any person who has self respect to beg for votes, observed Nietzsche. So what about campaigns? 
5) They promise the moon they know they can never give.  An important Indian politician was asked why aren’t promises made in elections he replied that if they fulfilled they would be jobless for life as they have to keep problems alive to make possible future elections and campaigning. “Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river”(Nikita Khrushchev).
6) Politicians not pained by the agony of the unemployed, mess in public transport, failing cooperatives, messy educational system, ailing health sector,  threatened environment so if they really want to serve us – all service is a sacrifice- they leave us alone and remove family raj, remove themselves from the scene.
7) Politicians covet ministership or power. Why? The best statesmen like Gandhi couldn’t  or wouldn’t accept posts in independent India; he was in Calcutta and not in Delhi when the nation was celebrating independence.”
8)  “Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” Leaving alone understanding of intellectuals and political scientists even most commoners believe that politicians are there to serve themselves. (Panen gari baren !)
9) They trade in lies.  I am not saying that they are forced to resort to lies or routinely use lies to be in power but that “Truth is not determined by majority vote.”
10) Politician’s lot is the least enviable because he has to trade soul for things that are not worthy of human state. “What does a man gain if he gains the whole world and loses his soul.” So should one choose a career in which such divisive and idolatrous ideologies as nationalism backed by military industrial elite are dogmas, one may gain power but often at the cost of losing one’s soul 
 Postscript: It has been noted that the suffering and death of the Holocaust did not happen because a few psychopaths held ignoble ideologies; for Baum, the Holocaust happened because the vast majority of people simply did not care. Do we care about the deaths, losses, illusions, delusions, false hopes, deferred revolution we have been seeing or living through? If yes how? To vote or not to vote is not the question. There is a much deeper question that we all need to ask.

Monday, 17 November 2014

Shias and Sunnis: Convergence and Divergence

Despite efforts of individual scholars from both Sunni and Shia schools for better relations between the two across the Muslim world, the fact remains that Muslims are divided and this is making them vulnerable. And more importantly, the divide is discrediting their theological leadership in the eye of the world and among its new and educated generations.
Shia-Sunni dialogue has not been happening at the ground level. And the dialogue between intellectual and theological elite has not been very successful and so far, hardly any breakthrough on elementary methodological plane has been achieved.
The self perception of both communities is constructed on certain imagined points that have been questioned by more objective history. And a deeper meaning of theological systems is not clear to both.
Sufism or Irfan is missing in both. Brilliant studies of such scholars on symbolism, esoteric and metaphysical aspects of Shiism as Henry Corbin and Nasr and others, the sophisticated philosophical approach of likes of Mulla Sadra and exploration of the political content in the theological formulations that we find in the likes of Shraiti and Dabashi and encyclopedic scholarship of likes of Allama Tabatabai and Allama Mutaharri are there but ordinary Shias and those who control the pulpit keep on repeating certain points that fuel sectarian images. Deeper meaning of self flagellation escapes its most ardent practitioners and shallow critics, who fail to understand the connection between violence and sacred and the relevant anthropological insights.
I wonder, if we could compare sermonizing local imams and practitioners of both Shia and Sunni schools on the only basis that the Quran recognizes – Taqwa/ilm and both imply each other (The Quran states that only those who are better in knowledge fear God). This requires moral discipline. As anyone gets formally and legally admitted into the fold of Islam by declaration of Shahadah and all agree on the criterion of aml-e-soliha (good deeds) and all agree on what constitutes aml-e-soliha and we know that both imams and companions vied with one another on deeds (some would give half of wealth and some whole of wealth for God’s cause and some die to save other’s lives and some remain hungry but feed those who ask for food) how come we disagree so violently? How come we primarily privilege political and historical over ethical questions. It hardly needs to be argued who was on the right track and maintained high moral ground in early battles within Islamic groups because this is quite evident and only needs common sense and elementary knowledge of history.
When in history did a moment arise when one had to either accept Shia or Sunni creed?
Genealogical criticism blunts the sharp edges of the question. We can move forward to consider insights from mystics and philosophers according to whom to be a strict Muslim one is required to abandon all attachments to all belief systems as ordinarily understood and submit to Truth. And also understand that this truth is the truth of mystery (al-Gayyib) that we are required to affirm in the very opening pages of the Quran (2:3). To put it simply it requires one to deny absolute character of all identities, systems, ideologies, sects, schools, philosophies and be open to Truth. This truth has infinite dimensions as infinite are treasures of God. To be absolutely or unconditionally open to the Other, to Love, to Truth, to experience, to unknown is to be a Muslim. So please let me know how can one accept the trap of a particular sectarian identity (don’t we say that Islam is The Religion rather than a religion? and it is ad-Deen rather than Sha’ria that can ground this notion of The Religion or Universal Religion because Sharias have been changing with many prophets, not so the Deen), not to speak of sectarian identity to which Shia-Sunni question has been reduced today.
The Shiism is in glory only when it is not in power but identified with an element of resistance, as Hamid Dabashi argued in a compelling work, ‘Resisting the Empire’, which evokes significance of Karbala in the wake of postmodern world where Capital and its contradictions reign supreme. Let us learn to see how we respond to Imam Hussain’s (R.A) call for resisting oppression. Daily Karbalas are enacted in our midst and we don’t pay heed to the struggling Hussaini forces. Children die in thousands every day for want of safe drinking water and food. Countless labourers suffer killing, alienation and slow death at the hands of Capitalism. In fact even souls are destroyed in this inhuman world, not to speak of bodies only that were targeted in Karabala. We are called to the battleground and deep down we resist the call to martyrdom. Let us salute those who can truly claim to heed the call.

Reading Kashmir’s Iqbal Critics

We have few scholars of national or international standing in certain fields and what a tragedy if we don’t recognize them

After the death of Amin Kamil many felt that we, as a community, didn’t honour him as he deserved and we failed to make full use of his great erudition in Kashmiri literature. What use do we make of  another literary giant Rahi Sahib, arguably the greatest living Kashmiri poet and critic whose poetic and critical work we have failed to translate and introduce to international audience  and we have failed to familiarize our newer generation with him despite his being the last great link from Lalla till date in what can be called Kashmiri Tradition– for learning to read him  newer generation may profitably consult young critics as Abir Bazaz (his essay “Learning to read Rahi”  comes to mind)  except for gracing certain formal occasions and occasional talks on electronic media? We have no platform for benefiting from our best scholars after they get retired. We have few scholars of national or international standing in certain fields and what a tragedy if we don’t get facilitate them to better contribute when they are free from other concerns and could be highly productive.  All these points haunted me as we celebrated Iqbal day – I recall reading, long back, one of Rahi’s insightful essays on one of Iqbal’s great poems and wonder why we find the author as critic almost forgotten even in his life. We had such illustrious Iqbal researchers and scholars as Akbar Haideri whom we also chose to largely ignore, such renowned Urdu critics as Hamidi Kashmiri who wrote on Iqbal also and have such scholars and brilliant orators as Prof. B. A. Nahvi who would almost qualify as hafiz-i-Iqbal (it is rare aesthetic treat to listen to him on Iqbal especially as he quotes poem after poem) and we have brilliantly witted and humour inflected oratory of Justice Bashir Ahmed Kirmani that makes good use of Iqbal. However today I am especially reminded of our invaluable Iqbal critic Prof. G. R. Malik whose studies on Iqbal have been internationally appreciated but whose address seems to have been lost by us or our cultural organizations. I think new generation needs invitation to and meditation on Iqbal’s poetry – that especially is Prof. Malik’s love and strength – as a mantra for entry into riches of intellectual and spiritual culture that we have inherited. Thanks to intertextuality, reading Iqbal one reads a selection of the best of philosophers, mystics and poets – one becomes truly culture literate. Reading Prof. G.R. Malik on Iqbal we see how the latter qualifies as the conscience of the subcontinent and, in these degenerate times – what Charles Taylor brilliantly analyzes as A Secular Age – a gateway to the treasures of the Spirit he calls Ego. 
 Prof. Malik is both a scholar and a lover of Iqbal. If a critic has both these elements and is also gifted with wealth of insights into majority of the sources from which Iqbal derived inspiration, one can expect criticism of the first rank and that is exactly what Prof. Malik has produced. We have only very few Iqbal critics who wholeheartedly share Iqbal’s faith in transcendence and his evaluation of modernity, who share his doctrine of art and who are good students of the tradition both religious and artistic from which Iqbal derived everything.  
An important feature of Prof. Malik’s Iqbal criticism is his wide range and comprehensive canvass. He covers theological, philosophical, artistic, socio-political and other important aspects of Iqbal’s thought. He is able to comment upon a verse of Iqbal from almost all important aspects that may be required for thorough exegesis. However he is most comfortable with or insightful in his critical review of general aspects of Iqbal’s thought, comparing Iqbal with great masters of literature, explicating his relationship to Islam and Modernity, translating Iqbal and pointing out mistranslation from others and one can claim for him a privileged place as translator of the first rank sharing shoulder with the greatest masters of Iqbal translation. Independence and self confidence of a scholar may be gauged by his recourse to his own translations of most of the verses he has quoted in his works. His critical review of other translators of Iqbal including Nicholson, Arberry and Mathews shows credentials of him as an Iqbal critic quite clearly.
Prof. Malik is a man of strong convictions and this helps him to better appreciate and advocate Iqbal, a poet and thinker of strong convictions. Iqbal is his inspiration and in considered view he is the greatest thinker that modern Islam has produced. 
Prof. Malik largely adopts what can loosely but not strictly be called traditionalism of a sort for appraising Iqbal. Every line that he has written bears witness to this traditionalism that embraces both classicism and romanticism though is identifiable with neither and is even critical of certain aspects of either. He happens to be a vocal critic of such ideas as aestheticism, postmodernism, formalism and generally of any school of thought that defines itself in antitranscendentalist or secular terms. If by tradition we mean that which binds man to heaven as traditionalist scholar Lord Nourbourne has characterized it and involves explicit invoking of First Principles, of symbolism, of subservience/integration of art to Life, to the Good and the Beautiful we can place Prof. Malik in the traditionalist camp though with minor qualifications as his is not a full fledged traditionalism and ignores certain aspects of metaphysical or mystical presuppositions and corollaries of it. His traditionalism constitutes an important aspect of his methodology for approaching Iqbal and invaluable asset for his distinctive flavour of Iqbal criticism. 
Prof. Malik’s  method of commentary on Iqbal’s poetry, as illustrated by his commentary on  "Bazm-i-Unjum” and “Tanhai” is exemplary in many ways: He invokes almost all of Iqbal relevant to the issue. Layer by layer he peels and the layer by layer newer meanings arise the way he introduces the poem, develops the main theses, invokes other parts of Iqbal to put in perspective or elucidate, surveys relevant classics or authorities across traditions to explain parallels and contrasts, takes note of the Islamic Tradition in specific cases before proceeding to give his verdict  where required.
There are scores of passages that we find in Prof. Malik’s work that illuminate certain facets of Iqbal with great power, grace and beauty. One example is his concluding passage in his commentary on “Tanhayi.” 
As a gifted teacher and scholar of English literature Prof. Malik is additionally qualified to be an Iqbal critic of the first order. His felicity of expression and command over all the languages that Iqbal used in his works. His familiarity with almost every important debate around Iqbal make his readings valuable. He is never trite, never shallow, generally convincing and occasionally quite provocative. Generally he doesn’t take extreme positions and does the balancing or mediating act as if he is using a dialectical method. To illustrate we may consider his views on Iqbal on democracy, evolution and early Iqbal’s “pantheistic” verses. Regarding democracy he argues that Iqbal is undoubtedly pro-democracy but is critical of the present form it has taken in the modern West or political thought. Regarding evolution he states that Iqbal’s attitude towards it is ambivalent. Regarding the earlier so-called pantheistic phase Prof. Malik notes that these verses are capable of sustaining alternative interpretation as well. Thus we see Prof. Malik doing the balancing act and not pronouncing unilateral judgments. As a reader he has great humility in approaching a text and letting the text elucidate itself and he is never indulging in play with the text, a postmodern heresy he has been strongly condemning. 
As a careful reader of Iqbal Prof. Malik deplores enthusiasm for farfetched or forced comparisons with which Iqbal criticism is replete. Remarkably Prof. Malik seems to be more adept in pointing out contrasts between Iqbal and others than in seeking to show similarities. How careful a comparativist Prof. Malik is can be gleaned from his detailed studies on Iqbal and major Romantics. One can hardly put a finger on any of the scores of statements made while comparing and contrasting Iqbal with Blake, Byron, Shelley, Wordsworth and Keats.
No modern poet has excelled Iqbal in writing na’t. What is distinctively noted and emphasized by Prof. Malik, however, is, his shift of na’t’s traditional focus on celebration of the Prophet’s (S.A.W) attributes to focusing on revolutionary nature of Prophet’s work and its historical impact and thus his meaning for contemporary man. Further developing this point we can read much of Iqbal’s work as an application or plea for application of Prophetic criticism of life.
Prof. Malik emerges as one of our treasured Iqbal critics who has given us a wealth of insights and well argued case for Iqbalian perspective. Though on a few points he has been too charitable to Iqbal and has assumed Iqbal’s reading of certain important elements of Islamic intellectual tradition  without much ado about its orthodoxy or warrant from a traditionalist viewpoint that he seeks to consistently apply, his advocacy of Iqbal, especially of his theory of art and his relative importance in comparison with important literary figures of the world and religious personalities of the subcontinent constitutes an important contribution to Urdu and Persian criticism in general and Iqbal criticism in particular. Although he does note idiosyncratic or unorthodox character of certain views of Iqbal, he chooses not to dwell on them. As a scholar of Islamic studies he has been able to bring insights from his theological readings to focus on distinctive contribution and place of Iqbal in modern Muslim thought. I perfectly agree with Prof. Rafiuddin Hashmi, a noted Iqbal scholar, that in terms of his range that covers all important aspects of Iqbal’s thought, keeping note of everything written by Iqbal and approaching the whole oeuvre with rare perspicuity and balance, Prof. Malik can be counted amongst the very few first order Iqbalists or Iqbal critics of the world and deserves to be read and appreciated. Though of late there has been extended certain recognition as evidenced by publication of newer editions of some of his works by Iqbal Academy Pakistan, he deserves to be better appreciated. He is Kashmir’s present to world of Iqbaliyat.

Friday, 7 November 2014


Revisiting Ibn Arabi(r.a)

Shias and Sunnis are divided over many issues, including the issue of interpreting sacred text. Both quote the Quran and the traditions in favour of their positions which are often exclusive on particular questions. Dialogue between Shias and Sunnis is thus hinged on agreeing to a theory of interpretation, or exegesis, of the sacred book. Is it possible to revisit certain great thinkers, respected by both Shias and Sunnis, or having influenced both Sunni and Shia thinkers, to help us carry out this dialogue? I think, yes. And that thinker is the master of gnosis, Ibn Arabi.
Ibn Arabi – the greatest Shaykh in the Sunni world – has been appropriated by Shia thinkers, including Mulla Sadra, the greatest Shia philosopher, and Imam Khomeini, the architect of the Iranian revolution.
Today, we try to see how Ibn Arabi advises us to approach the Quran and the question of divergent interpretations.
He repeatedly claims that he is not applying any external ideological paradigm or scheme of interpretation on the sources of Islamic tradition but only reflecting or meditating on them and internalizing deeper meanings implicit in them. He is not reading them selectively, or forcing a certain interpretation on them in order to substantiate or legitimize independently conceived philosophical positions such as monism or pantheism.
From a traditionalist perspective of Ibn Arabi, there is no need to wrangle over interpretations, no point in debating the truth or attempting to find the absolute, final interpretation. The chaos we find in modern criticism on the issue of meaning and correct reading of the text doesn’t arise at all in Ibn Arabî ’s view. As long as one approaches a text as an object and seeks for any hidden or final meaning and tries to establish his own standpoint on that basis one may not get anywhere.
Meaning is experienced or revealed to a traveler on the path. One only needs to polish the mirror of the heart and it will reflect the truth, plain and simple. Truth knowing is being the object of knowledge. Truth is not in words but in states and stations induced on contemplating these words. Ibn ‘Arabî  reiterates time and again that God is to be tasted rather than discussed and this (dis)solves the problems of interpretation for good. Ibn ‘Arabî challenges all theologians and critics to develop that higher perception he calls the unveiling (kashf).
From his perspective, the enterprise of higher criticism applied to the elucidation of sacred texts which make no reference to moral purification or polishing the mirror of the self is a laughable venture. Unless sacred text is revealed afresh to one’s heart, nothing can illumine its real meaning, according to him.
Ibn ‘Arabî says that there is not only one intention of God that we need to get to. There is not one determinate meaning only. He opens up the space for potentially infinite meanings – every new reading should disclose new meanings of the sacred text, according to him. He says that the Author of the Quran intends every meaning to be understood by every reader, and reminds us that human authors cannot have the same intention. Meaning that the closure postmodernists are so concerned about never happens. The real meaning is with God but all meanings participate in that divine meaning. All things speak of the Beloved and are portals to the Infinite. Polysemy, for him, results not from infinity of contexts but because of multiplicity of souls or addresses. All this implies that fundamentalism and theological imperialism have no warrant.
Ibn ‘Arabî thinks that the sacred text contains inexhaustible riches of meaning which can’t be deciphered through a single reading or even multiple readings.  In fact, for him, there can be no final reading, no full stop to this infinite, never-repeatable creation of God. Meanings in the three books – the book of verses, the book of the universe, the book of the soul – are never repeated, according to him. He accordingly tells us that if someone re-reads a Quranic verse and sees exactly the same meaning as before, he has not read it “properly,” that is, in keeping with the haqq of the divine speech. This is a strategy that ensures people will ever be tolerant of divergent interpretations.
There is no such thing as the unique meaning or the final interpretation or the only true interpretation for both Ibn ‘Arabî and such postmodern thinkers as Derrida. For Ibn ‘Arabî, Quran is an open inter-text that contains layers upon layers of hidden meaning. Nothing could be a better antidote to theological imperialism. About Truth he has written in the vein of Hafiz:

She has confused all the learned of Islam,

Everyone who has studied the Psalms,

Every Jewish Rabbi,

Every Christian priest.
So which is the correct interpretation, Shia or Sunni? Why should we accept to get trapped to answer the question either way? Are not all interpretations human and thus not absolute? Isn’t Truth alone the absolute and who can say he has known Truth in all its infinite faces? Islam has scores, if not hundreds, of schools of jurisprudence, theology, Sufism, exegeses. Philosophers, mystics, artists, poets and many great scholars in the Shia and Sunni camps have been cordial with one another. How come little minds clash? Isn’t it only politics that explains it? Theological differences that exist don’t imply war between communities. As humans, we are all different. So are our responses to God, our ways of expressing faith and belief. Our unique egos call for unique responses. As many souls, so many paths, runs a Sufi adage. And God judges us according to our view of Him, according to a prophetic tradition. Who can impose his view as the only true one? To think we know the truth and ours is the only (or final) meaning that God intended is to claim omniscience or infallibility.

Thursday, 6 November 2014

Understanding the Divide

The question is that how do we understand its cosmic or universal essence today?

Are you a Shia or a Sunni? Would one acknowledge to be either in modern ideological sectarian sense? Or wouldn’t the best answer according to both ordinarily categorized as Sunnis and Shias be that they are Muslims – truly Muslim. Isn’t the ideal answer echoed in Salman Farsi’s (RA) answer ‘Salman bin Islam’ when he was asked who he is.
Granted that the tendency to side with Ali (RA) was latent even during the Prophet’s life and emerged to confront certain other forces – it was a hard political choice – the question is how do we understand its cosmic or universal essence today? It could be done only if it revolved around moral superiority of the family of Prophet – even Sunnis grant this – or siding with Justice or Resistance today against oppression – even secular and Marxist historians would recognize this and present Ali(a.s) and Hussain(a.s) as heroes. Shiism can never reduce Ali(a.s) to only a political ally or heir of the Prophet; it emphasizes deeper connections. Now if the deepest question or connection is existential or metaphysical – there can be no doubt about it for anyone who understands ABC of life or philosophy or just is ready to apply common sense – how on earth should I be condemned to disown existential/esoteric/metaphysical understanding of Ali(a.s) or notion of being his friend?
The notion of imamat is perfectly compatible with the notion of Caliphate when we focus on the background idea of Justice or being vicegerent of God informing both. All the traditions agree that the world is never without God’s witnesses. And with Derrida one can’t but agree that Justice is never done on earth, only approximated, ever awaited. Earth is not heaven. Utopias are only ideals, never reality. Mahdis have come only according to or for a fraction of people and this acceptance of some historical person’s claim leads to their excommunication from the mainstream which keeps waiting and waiting.

There are many paths of reconciliation between Shia-thought and Sunni-thought, including esotericism, metaphysics, philosophy and even newer better understanding of history that shows how human elements and power relations have impacted on evolution of both. If all well meaning Shia or Sunni people want dialogue with the other community, why not attempt on these planes? On exoteric theological plane divergences multiply and it is pity that so far polemical and dialogue literature is on this level primarily. The notion of Imam is best understood in light of Irfan that Sufism, a feature of Sunnism, takes care of. For those who can practice hermeneutics Sunnism and Shiism are alternative languages of the soul almost perfectly translatable in each other’s terms. Whatever differences appear irresolvable need not be resolved because human diversity requires diversity of spiritual and theological and juristic expressions and because we can never peep into the dense fog of history in which contending perceptions find support. Our tragedy is being hostage to history we can more speculate about than conclusively verify while forgetting that religion and salvation are wedded to meta-history, to symbols, to revelation which fundamentally transcend history.
The proper question to ask isn’t if one is a Shia or a Sunni but is one  conscious of Tradition. The idea of Tradition can be identified with ad-Deen  and the latter can’t be comprehensively understood except in terms of universal metaphysics inscribed in our hearts (anfus) and cosmos (aafaaq) accessible to Revelation and Intellection. Sectarianism will not be defeated as long as we don’t dissolve it from inside and produce a culture that created and heard such Sunni Shia duos as Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, Ibn Rushd and al-Farabi,  Iqbal and Shariati who talk of God and Love instead of events and personalities  coloured by power structures of history and what Schuon calls human margin. There are no pure Shias or Sunnis in the sense sectarians would have us believe. The best historians condemn Ummayads for converting Caliphate into Mulokiyat, praise Umar ibn Abdul Aziz despite being an Ummayad, vote for Hussain (RA) instead of those who considered him a rebel, appreciate that almost all Sufi orders – and the oceans of gnosis – are traceable to Ali (RA), show almost perfect correspondence of ancient and medieval theory of kingship – of philosopher king – with the ethical ideal of imamate  and hardly question earlier office of Caliphate that was almost indistinguishable from Imamate. Ali (RA) we all know, despite his initial reservations, collaborated with Abu Bakr (RA) and then other predecessor Caliphs.  They see both Sunnism and Shiism getting fully crystallized into current hardened sectarian schools (even today the best thinkers – mystics and poets have always maintained the Religion of Love and hardly know Shia Sunni division – can hardly be called either Shia or Sunni. Nasr, arguably the greatest Muslim philosopher today, has Shia background but his works are treated as authoritative even in Sunni circles. Iqbal, with a Sunni background, confessed despite protest of scholars like Ahmed Javed, his “weakness” for Ali(a.s). Sunni poets have written elegies that rival the best of Shia poets. The great saintly figures of Rumi and Ibn Arabi though Sunni in background have been appropriated by Shia thinkers without any qualms. (Let us also put in perspective their critique of certain Sunni and Shia views respectively) Translated from theological to mystical or metaphysical terms, doctrines of Shiism that are thought to be incompatible with Sunni mainstream, lose their exclusivist marks and one can find them not only in Sunni thought but elsewhere in world traditions. Only serious students of comparative religion can place  sectarian interpretations in proper perspective and on the authority of such scholars as Coomaraswamy, Nasr, Schuon etc. have no problems in declaring both Shia and Sunni interpretations as traditional or orthodox and thus providential helping to cater to different attitudes and sensibilities of Muslim mind and heart. We can’t wish away Shia Sunni divide or convert both to one understandnig – there remains only one Islam with thousand flowers of diverse schools in exegesis, in philosophy, in jurisprudence – we are required to understand it. Interestingly Sunnis do recognize Jafri school of jurisprudence as 5th school. This implies respectful attitude towards doctrinal issues  when properly interpreted can’t be ruled out. Shia interpretation of religion (best seen in masters of gnosis and metaphysics such as Mulla Sadra, philosophers like Nasr  and such scholars as Murtaza Motehari rather than in exotericist theological fanatical polemicists) that is centred on passion or love, that has through and through an esoteric tinge is there by providence rather than by conspiracy. So is the Sunni interpretation  that has been so catholic that hundreds of juristic, theological, mystical and philosophical schools could be accommodated despite how scholars such as Rashid Shaz would construe this power of accommodation, legitimate or orthodox. Without the phenomenal contribution of Shias to Islamic culture – philosophy, poetry, art and architecture, exegeses, mysticism, traditional sciences – the world in general and Islamic world in particular would be much poor. Without Sunni contribution Islam would  not have been a world culture, a tradition with over a billion followers. There would be neither Ibn Rushd nor Rumi nor Ibn Arabi nor Shah Waliullah nor Iqbal. We need to consider again such  works as Barq’s Shia Sunni Bayi Bayi, Nasr’s Ideals and Realities of Islam (chapter on Shiism) and some points regarding purely historical genesis of modern Shia and Sunni structures raised by modern historians, by Raza Arsalan and in captivating prose for Urdu readers by Rashid Shaz ( in bulky Idraki Zawali Ummat or smaller Haqiqi Islam ki Bazyaft) to arrive at a deeper, conciliatory view that appreciates the differences in perspectives of Sunnism and Shiism without absolutizing them and reducing them to ideologies that today cost us virtually a divided Muslim world, at least politically – instability of Middle East, Arab Iran conflict, sectarian violence, and prejudices. No sectarian polemical work can overturn the verdict of history – collective community judgment, poetic and hagiographic narratives –in favour of early Caliphs and Hussain(a.s). Some questions have been raised even in the Sunni camp on certain issues – we can see scholars as diverse as Taha Hussain and Syed Moududi offering somewhat different view on political developments during Uthman’s era.  A view of history that finds only conspiracies everywhere is itself a conspiracy.

Friday, 31 October 2014

Remembering Amin Kamil

Amin Kamil, the poet, the novelist, the researcher, the critic, the organizer, is no more. Yesterday ended a colourful and significant chapter in Kashmir’s cultural history. Gone is a special chapter in the literary history – the great decades long battle of ideas, of perceptions, of sensibilities between giants of Kashmiri literature – Rahi and Kamil intellectual duo is now history.  Without judging in ideological terms, and press for adbi fatwas, at least on aesthetic plane, we could enjoy proceedings of literary exchange between “rival” schools of Kashmiri literature.
As a student of philosophy and literary criticism, I would draw attention to a couple of points on this day when we are shocked by the absence of a grand man of letters.
Our current tragedy – political and cultural – is partly attributable to our amnesia and disowning our best writers. Most of the elderly writers we ignore and leave them to die suffering is a bitter sense of ingratitude from our side. Since how long have we heard Prof. Agha Ashraf and Prof. Rashid Nazki – to name only two important personalities in cultural events? The more age and experience of a person, especially of a man of letters, more visible he should be with time for people to get benefitted from. We have no chairs or mini-chairs in the government devoted to any of our recent or contemporary giants in literature or culture. So much so that we have to look to few centuries back for as if culture is dead, as if no Rahi has come, as if no Kamil has come, as if no mystic poet, no important scholar in any discipline has been produced in last few centuries. New generation has heard something of Sheikh-ul-Alam and Lalded and even they are not being understood because of alienation from language and cultural background of their work – and reads mostly literature of the West. And people are talking about Kashmiri nationalism while all the time they watch the very foundations in language and culture getting eroded. Our tragedy is we have not been able to identify and project our new heroes. For instance we have world class mystic poets that we have never ceased to produce but have not even translated in major languages or even properly introduced to world audience. The most serious scholars here today complain of deliberate veto to their work on part of major organizations that could make the difference.
We are also great leg pullers. Historically conditioned to distrust – and victims of sponsored campaign to instill distrust between people, discredit local voice, and muffle potential “deviants” – we are smart in picking up loopholes, both real and imagined. We have a counter-narrative to all success stories. Genuine people are believed to be products of some behind the scene force, to serve some agenda. Good writers fail to publish or sell works and much of mediocre literature is in libraries. Getting awards is generally perceived to be an art that requires extra-literary skills like better advertizing one’s commodity or pleasing those who have a say in giving awards.
Amin Kamil’s journey is to a significant extent attributable to his own efforts and one can only lament the irony involved in seeking State sponsorship in a corrupt world for a writer who could be much more creative and beneficial to society if he had independent means of livelihood. Only the likes of Iqbal could afford to leave even prestigious professorship to satisfy conscience and be free to express themselves. We are lesser mortals. If likes of Rahi and Kamil were fully supported by community rather than state resources we would perhaps have better works to show to the world and claim our writers without any scruples. In traditional Islamic culture education was not a public sector undertaking in the sense it is today. It was not controlled the way it is today. Scholars did often need some patronage but community or people rather than the State was the real force to direct to nobler higher ends.
We die having this or that grudge against our important literary figures. What a tragedy! When will the day come when we are free to be writers, unmindful of awards or not needing patronage that often comes at great costs to freedom of spirit and creative activity that great literature requires. When will we own our writers as our writers, our conscience keepers? Will we work to create institutional structures and strengthen community spaces to facilitate their growth and development?