n his book Coloniality, Modernity and Urdu Literature, Nasir Abbas Nayyar examines the complex relationship between colonialism and Urdu literature. Nayyar, a notable bilingual critic of Urdu literature, has significantly influenced contemporary literary discourse in South Asia, particularly in post-colonial studies, modernist literature and cultural theory.

Nayyar’s book explores the impact of colonial hegemony and modernity on the themes, styles and narratives prevalent in Urdu literary traditions. His analysis provides a comprehensive insight into the intricate interplay between cultural hegemony and literary expression. The book begins with a critical examination of the effects of colonialism on Urdu literature, highlighting how the British colonial era brought significant changes to the literary landscape of the Indian subcontinent.

In this context, Nayyar identifies two notable forms of colonial influence: the introduction of Western literary forms and ideas and the curtailment of local and indigenous literary traditions. This dichotomy is evident in the work of numerous Urdu writers who navigated the realms of modernism while resisting colonial authority. Nayyar elucidates how the advent of the printing press and the Western educational system enabled the emergence of new literary forms, including the novel and the short story. Writers such as Deputy Nazir Ahmad played pivotal roles in adopting these forms to address local themes and social concerns.

However, this borrowed literary attitude was not without controversy. Nayyar’s narratives often reflect the tension between Western modernity and traditional values. The concept of modernity is a central theme in Nayyar’s analysis, underscoring the dynamic and often contentious relationship between colonial influences and indigenous literary traditions.

He posits out that modernity in Urdu literature was not solely a consequence of colonial influence but also a reaction against it. His scholarly assertion is clear: modernism and secularism are academically connected. In other words, he perceives modernity as a form of individualism. In light of these considerations, the concept of modernity appears to be inextricably linked with the human condition and the rejection of aspects beyond human perception and understanding.

Furthermore, Nayyar asserts that while pursuing secular values is a necessary aspect of modernity, it is not sufficient. A modern individual must also be acutely aware of the realities on the ground and the affairs of the world. Modernism, he argues, is fundamentally concerned with individualism, secularism, questioning traditional authority, and a multitude of other themes. Consequently, the work of colonial era Urdu writers exhibits a pronounced inclination towards portraying themes reflecting broad social and political transformations of the times.

One of Nayyar’s key arguments is that an alternative sense of ambivalence characterises modernity in Urdu literature. Writers such as Saadat Hasan Manto and Ismat Chughtai exemplify this ambivalence through their bold exploration of taboo subjects and incisive critique of social norms.

Nayyar posits that Ismat Chughtai perceived observations about women’s sexual concerns and the veil during the colonial era as predicated on religious presuppositions that contradicted religious reasonableness. This may explain why Chughtai presents herself in her fiction as a rebellious character. Therefore, the evocative portrayal of the tumultuous events resulting from the partition of British India in 1947 in Manto’s stories and the transparent depiction of Chughtai’s feminine sexuality, which challenges both colonial and traditional patriarchal society, is noteworthy.

Nayyar posits that modernity in Urdu literature was not solely a consequence of colonial influence but also a reaction against it.

Nayyar highlights that this ambiguity has been a defining feature of Urdu modernity, where writers have initiated a new literary discourse to construct their identity in a rapidly evolving and volatile world. He illustrates how writers employed literature as a means of resistance against colonial hegemony and cultural colonialism. This resistance was not always overt; it often manifested as an appropriation of the colonial narrative.

Nayyar provides a detailed analysis of Iqbal’s poetic ideas, positing that Iqbal’s poetry serves not only as a catalyst for religious fervour but also as an exemplification of the human condition and its resilience. Iqbal sought to instil a sense of self-awareness and resistance during the colonial era through his poetry. Iqbal’s espousal of self-realisation and spiritual awakening represents a counter-narrative to the colonial discourse that sought to dehumanise colonial subjects.

Additionally, Nayyar focuses on the Progressive Movement as a subject of discourse, which emerged as a collective response to colonial oppression and aimed to use literature as an effective means of promoting social change.

A significant theme of Nasir Abbas Nayyar’s book is the concept of hybridity and the challenge of identity formation in Urdu literature, as exemplified by post-colonial theories, particularly those of Homi Bhabha. This theoretical representation elucidates how the colonisers established hybrid identities that transcended the simplistic dichotomy of the native population and the coloniser. Nayyar posits that Urdu literature became a forum for exploring these hybrid identities.

To illustrate this point, he cites the poetry of Faiz Ahmad Faiz, whose revolutionary work exemplifies the hybrid identity of a poet profoundly influenced by Western socialist ideals and Eastern literary traditions. This hybridity enabled Urdu literature to transcend geographical and cultural boundaries, resulting in the emergence of a distinctive literary style.

The relationship between language and power is a crucial aspect of Nayyar’s analysis. He identifies the impact of the introduction of English as the language of administration and education during the colonial period on Urdu and other native languages, asserting that language became a source of power, identity and cultural hegemony during that era.

The fiction writing of Premchand is discussed in this context, demonstrating how language was employed as a means of resistance. Premchand’s practice of writing in indigenous languages, namely Urdu and Hindi, reflected his anti-colonial stance. By reclaiming cultural autonomy, he sought to ensure that literature was accessible to the masses.

Additionally, Nasir Abbas Nayyar has identified a resistance-related quality in Nayyar Masud’s narratives. He delves deeply into the recurring themes in Masud’s stories, which are often characterised by an atmosphere of enigma, existential distress and an exploration of the human psyche. Nayyar demonstrates how Masud’s narrative transcends conventional storytelling, engaging in profound philosophical inquiries and exploring the intricacy of human existence.

Nayyar’s analysis emphasises the significance of language within the broad discourses of colonialism and modernity. His book, Colonialism, Modernity, and Urdu Literature, provides an exhaustive examination of the intricate relationships between colonialism, modernity and Urdu literary expression.

The writer is a poet and critic. He is an assistant professor of Urdu at Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University in Kanpur, India, and the author of three books