If you
cannot bear these stories then the society is unbearable. Who am I to remove
the clothes of this society, which itself is naked. I don't even try to cover
it, because it is not my job, that's the job of dressmakers.
Sa’dat Hassan Manto
Manto
should be at ease now because our society has managed well to bear the
unbearable, remove Manto from it and cover his stories.
Manto
vehemently rejected Master Abdul Ghani’s appreciation of his story Hatak
(as noted by Krishan Chandra in Khali Botal Bhara Hua Dil) by saying
that Hatak is his worst story because he was well aware of the fact that
his work will be destroyed more by his admirers than by his rejecters. I am
also afraid of Manto’s admirers more than those who loath him. Their admiration
and proliferation of Manto everywhere kills the spirit that his work holds. The
previous generation that saw his work as scandalous are more worthy of
appreciation because they could at least give a genuine response of shock that
Manto evoked. The censorship that his work underwent shows that that age
understood Manto and they could recognize the shock and horror they were not
able to handle. We on the other hand feel no such shock nor do we let others to
discover that shock because we have a strong urge to celebrate Manto bright in
the dark night of our institutional sky.
Manto’s
writing is like his characters. As they grow in the dark margins of society, so
does his writing grow on the fringes of literature. Only then is he able to
evoke the desired reaction of shock, horror and awe. Manto’s admirers, by
celebrating him everywhere force him to disappear instantly. The appropriation
of his work in institutional spheres and artistic entrepreneurs has actually
led to a gradual canonization of his works. By offering an open welcome to his
works his admirers force him to enter their disciplinary enclosures and make
him a part of their world. As if he is telling them what they already knew, and
now when he has told them the reality without shocking them, it calls for a
celebration and party. Manto’s canonization has been a gradual process. The
institutionalization of his work has been done by assimilating only those
stories which are politically, morally and ethically appropriate. It is for
this reason that we meet only Toba Tek Singh in colleges. Universities
have opened doors only to stories like Khol Do and our artistic entrepreneurs
will go as far as Thanda Ghosth. This is the limit to which they can
accept Manto, assimilate him and throw him away. In the process, Manto has been
strangely canonized as a chronicler of partition only. His other stenching
stories which evoke shock and make you vomit in the face of society are kept
well odoured under the sandalwoods of institutional ignorance. The stories like
Asli Jinn, Mozail, Dhuaan, Blouse, Phahaa, Sadak
key Kinarey, License, 100 Candle Power
ka Bulb and many others have a restricted entry to these
enclosures.
The Progressive
Writers Association of Manto’s time in general and leftist circles in
particular was able to see that he is going beyond the rules and confines that
the association upheld. He brilliantly expresses his views regarding Marx and
Marxism in Badtameez where the narrator discusses counter to Izzat
Jahan’s Marxist views by saying, “Maybe anarchism will also find some Karl
Marx.” It is for this reason that time and again Manto was rejected publication
from their journals and Newspapers. Still they deserve our admiration because
they were able to understand his works well and the rejection they showed was
genuine. But, the hypocrisy of today’s progressive and leftist circles is
unbearable. They pronounce Manto’s name in such a way as if he wrote well in
the confines of their agenda and every time they do this I can see the
appropriation that they want do of his works. Actually, he does fit well in
their agenda because their party myopia does not let them see Manto beyond
partition. Even when they will raise gender and religious issues they seek it
from the partition stories of Manto and not from those stories which explicitly
deal with it.
Another
problem with these circles is that even when they express their exorcized
Manto, they do so through their mediums. They will not deliver his short story
as short story but as a drama, Telefilm, Dastaan Goi. By this they bury Manto
and his art of Short Story in one grave. What Georges Bataille said of Marquise
de Sade can well be applied to Manto. He said, “Those people who used to rate
de Sade as a scoundrel responded better to his intentions than his admirers do
in our own day: de Sade provokes indignation and protest, otherwise the paradox
of pleasure would be nothing but a poetic fancy.”
Manto’s
writing is like his characters. It is like the Mother and Child found by the
roadside, it is like Sougandhi and her diseased Dog who cannot be embraced, it
is like Toba Tek Singh who forever shocks and remains in a sphere that cannot
be domesticated.