Reaction of Imran Bhinder

Gopi Chand Narang An Esteemed Plagiarist By Imran Shahid Bhinder Following the publication of Prof C M Naim’s article, a debate has started on different websites including “Outlook” magazine, where Naim’s article was first appeared. The debate has been going on, as I have noticed later today, for past few weeks. The subject is extremely interesting and vitally important as far as the future of Urdu literature and criticism is concerned. I am pleased to mention that despite my extreme busy schedule I had another chance to write about a plagiarist not targeting at the older people but at the new generations whom I consider the real upholder of Urdu literature and culture. I can imagine the severity of the damage that these old slapstick comedians of literature have caused to the standards, norms and ethics of Urdu literature. It is entirely up to the new generation to clean up the mess, which these hoodlums of Urdu literature and poetry have been multiplying constantly for approximately past four decades. I know very well that strange things occur in the Urdu world in both Pakistan and India. Just a few years back, when earthquake caused a huge damage in Muzaffar Abad, I witnessed some astonishing facts on Pakistani media. I watched expert scientists and cosmologists were examining the causes of earthquake on the Western channels, however on almost every Pakistani television channel, the Mullahs were thrashing out the matter. Similarly the implication the "test tubes babies” could create both on the sociological or medical level, had been discussed by the scientists again on the Western television channels. On the other, Mullahs like a real crown of all creations sitting like experts and discussing a fourteen hundred years old society. No wonder this time Zafar Iqbal, a Pakistani (poet) expressing qualitatively no different opinion from Mullahs on such an important issue of literary and philosophical scholarship in his few lines newspaper column. Although the issue of plagiarism is of extreme importance, nevertheless it has not been addressed with the integrity, sincerity and honesty, which are required for such a serious issue. We cannot expect from a vast majority of old hooligans to display some sort of honesty as these one way or the other have always flattered the issue. I am immensely grateful to these hooligans that they motivated me once again to undertake a huge task of writing a detailed essay in English, of approximately forty pages, about Narang’s plagiarism and forward a copy of that to the relevant publishers. I accused Narang of colossal plagiarism that appeared to me one of its unique kinds in the history of Urdu literature. All the views produced as a defense of Narang, I understand, are completely hostile and irrelevant. Most of the contributors pose themselves as preservers of literary ethics but unfortunately they seem to me completely deprived of honesty that lies at the heart of literary ethics. It does appear that no one has read any of my original articles. These people are guided properly by their mento Mr. Narang, but how can a plagiarist, who himself needs some fundamental guidance about literary ethics, can guide others? On the contrary, most of the participants are more interested about irrelevant issues such as, the religion I practice, about my education, weather I am an Indian or Pakistani, what does “Bhinder” mean and so on. Interestingly someone is talking about an analysis based on “objective assessment” of Narang’s plagiarism. How sarcastically one day a person agreed with C M Naim’s ‘objective assessment’ and few days later he contradict again with himself because according to his understanding of objective assessment Naim says he has not read a certain paragraph which is available in ’Akkaas’ where Narang defends himself. How closely his sense of objectivity is attached with Naim saheb’s increasing curiosity about Narang’s plagiarism which take a new turn as the investigation brings new facts in. That malicious act demonstrates the real intention behind the person’s claim of objective assessment. These sorts of deaf literary characters are only available in the world of Urdu. Western philosophers must be lamenting on their unique understanding of ‘objectivity.’ If Derrida had come across such a definition of objectivity, he would certainly have not in a position to deconstruct the objectivity of these objectivists. Likewise, another ambitious or confused character ignoring Narang's plagiarism is trying to put me in the category of "ideological" people. What a ridiculous defense of Narang’s plagiarism. Astonishingly, I did not understand what he means by the term "ideology." Does he live in such a world where ideology persists no longer? Perhaps he has been living in a fantasy world since his birth or in the world of post-modern extremist Jean Buadrillard. Nevertheless, who says fantasy world is not ideological? Has this great anti-ideological person stopped using his senses, understanding and ‘reason’ (if he has one) to discover the essence of things. I think he does not need to discover the truth because truth was not only already discovered for such kinds of people, but had revealed to them a long time back too. May I ask these "writers" "scholars” and "objectivists" to adopt a rational approach and explain to me that who is not ideological among them? Ironically these sorts of questions are posed by those people who have been writing “Naatein” and Hamdein” since they started writing poetry. Let me explain to these literary comedians few things in the Western context. Derrida, a Jewish philosopher, argues, “Deconstruction, I have insisted is not neutral. It intervene (Positions, P, 93). He further states that "The irreducibility of spacing is the irreducibility of the other….That "spacing designates not only intervals, but a "productive", "genetic", "practical" movement… (ibid, P 94). Let us see what Norris says about ideological aspect of Derrida. "It was always a fiction, Derrida maintains, this belief in keeping philosophy pure and preventing it from any admixture of practico-political interest. (Derrida, P, 151). Derrida, in his Specters of Marx, has absolutely smashed the radical view of Fukuyama, which he developed in his controversial book The End of History to serve the interests of American Capitalists slaughterhouse, by fallaciously synthesising Hegelian-Kojevian philosophical interpretation. I know Foucault and Lyotard abandoned the project of historical subject which was put forward by Marx and developed further by Lenin, however it does not mean that both Foucault and Lyotard deserted minoritarianism or micro politics. Being persuaded by perhaps the post-modern fascinations and theological narcissisation, these ideological impotents could just desire an eternal life. Apart from plethora of such gauche points, Narang fostered defenders are curious to know about myself, perhaps for their inner satisfaction. Before I take a slight critical glance on Narang’s plagiarism again, I am going to give my short introduction here. If it is not enough, don not hesitate to contact me. Here are some of my details anyway: Imran Shahid Bhinder Birthplace: Gujranwala Pakistan (Advocate High Court, Lahore Pakistan) MA in International Broadcast Journalism, Birmingham City University England MA in English Literature, Birmingham City University, England Certificate in Teaching, Solihull College, Birmingham, England Certificate in Information Technology, City College Birmingham England (References are available on request) I suppose that all these facts are beside the point; it has nothing to do with the actual issue of plagiarism. The real issue is Narang’s plagiarism. Everyone must as an honest student of Urdu literature must adhere to the real issue and develop our opinion following the evidence it has brought forward so far. My main concern has always been to unearth the facts about Narang’s plagiarism. I undertook a difficult task of comparing several books by the Western interpreters of structuralist theory with Narang’s award-winning (as an author not translator) Sakhtiyat Pas e Sakhtiyat aur Mashriqi Sheriyat. It was not such an easy task that anybody can undertake by ordering a book today and exactly after few hours pronounce an ‘objectivist’ fatwa. It is not even a matter of following the principles of any subjective idealist philosophy. We could not even take advantage of some transcendental principle that could only be revealed to an Indian mystic who has been following Nagarjuna, Sankara or Aurobindo, In addition, if the pursuer of some ‘Reality’ says, after some meditation, that he has viewed the Ultimate Reality he is not required to produce some evidence to prove his experience. Everybody should believe that what he says is correct. Neither is it related to some sort of twentieth century Saussurean abstract objectivism that means to believe what the proponents of Narang attempt to construct. Unfortunately, I am not a great admirer of Derrida, Saussure, Nagarjuna or Aurobindo. I still need to examine the actual nature of the subject-based rationalism, logocentrism or ‘metaphysical’ reference, which is gravely rejected by these so-called postmodernists and their interpreters. That leads the human subject to construct meaning while referring to the signified or concept. Certainly, we do not live in language, we live in a real world where billions of people are exploited and brutally murdered by the champions of Western capitalism, or I would say to these Urdu jokers who indirectly support Zionist’s terrorism and the acts of terrorism by the Western terrorists indirectly. However, the point I need to bring forward is to challenge Narang’s and his exponents to produce references to negate my claim, not a plethora of articles by some mentally incapable people in Narang’s favour is required, who needs promotion or award by an academy or ten rupee pay rise as a lecturer. Have they something rational to say so far about Narang’s plagiarism as they have been repeating themselves since the very beginning of this plagiarist controversy three years back? Could anybody take the trouble of going through all the articles, published so far in support of Narang, and indicate just one different aspect that has not been repeated before? I state my point explicitly and emphatically now; I need a reference or evidence that proves that Narang is not a plagiarist. Evidence, here does not mean what different people utter about Narang, but what documentary evidence they provide to refute the evidence I have already provided. For instance, if I produce twenty pages and claim that they are word for word translation, Narang or his well-wisher in order to invalidate my claim, must reveal the reference of those twenty pages within the text or page reference in the bibliography that is not literally the exact translation. To explore the reality about Narang’s plagiarism, irrespective of what I have already stated, at least three months are required to carry out a subtle investigation. However, there is another condition, which cannot be ignored; an investigator must be a stupid. He must be an intelligent and impartial person; on the one hand, he or she should investigate the actual nature of the arguments to comprehend the inherent ideological aspects in the theoretical debates, on the other to discover the similarities between the words in its original as well as translated form. Is anybody willing to undertake the task to prove Narang innocent? It is my challenge to Narang and to all his collaborators including all the members of Sahitya Academy to come up with twenty original pages that are not word for word translation. Could anybody indicate 20 pages from Narang’s book and claim that these pages are not plagirised? Will Sahitya Academy, in order to maintain the integrity of its awards, can prove my claim wrong. Let me make the matter more accessible for everybody. Give Narang a call, this time not for devising new conspiracies, for a noble cause this time however, and ask him to indicate twenty pages that are not accurate translation of western interpreters. In Narang’s book (if this book really his) structuralist theory has been introduced between pages 29-329. Could anybody come up and show the readers of these lines 20 pages, which are not exact translation. Let me challenge here all the dumb and deaf literary comedians by examining carefully certain facts. As I have understood by now the limits of their intellectual capabilities, therefore I will give them an extremely easy task to analyse here. I hope they will undertake this easy task as an honest investigator. This is my first lesson to them in English, which I have prepared while keeping in view their potential to discover reality. If they become successful then systematically we will move forward and eventually know how Narang has plagiarised the whole part on Western structuralism. Narang has discussed "Marxism Structuralism and Post-Structuralism" in the fifth chapter of his award-winning book. The fifth chapter consists of 27 pages. This list of the books on chapter five is available in the bibliography on page 332. I claim that the whole chapter that includes the discussion of Lucien Goldman, Pierre Macherey, Louis Althusser, Terry Eagleton and Fredric Jameson is a word for word translation of Raman Seldon’s A Readers Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, (1985). I will not discuss here other plagiarised books by the Western theorists because I know the matter will become complicated as I am aware that how mentally capable these old hooligans are. Seldon has discussed Eagleton on page 92 onwards. I claim that Narangs has just translated the whole section on Eagleton between pages 264-265 and failed to acknowledge the actual sources. Could any member of Sahitya Academy or anybody else show me the exact page numbers in Narang’s award-winning book? Before I finish this week's lesson here, let me draw the attention of the pupils to chapter six in Narang’s book, which is again an exact translation of Seldon’s book. For instance, Narang has plagiarised the Seldon's interpretation of French semiotician Michael Riffaterre on pages 316-318. Again, Narang dishonestly tries to keep it a secret. Seldon discusses Riffaterre between pages 60-61. Could anybody come forward to show the reader of these lines the pages Narang has not plagiarised. I hope this lesson will be enough for today. Gradually if someone responds to my allegations with equally stable evidence, then I will certainly teach a common reader and plagiarists supporters about each plagiarised page in Narang’s book. Narang got awards as an author not as a translator; it means all the awarding bodies consider Mr. Narang an ‘author’. Could these awarding bodies or anybody else on Narang’s behalf or Narang himself can prove the man really is an author of Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtiyat and Mashriqi Sheriyat? Another extremely important point is that if Narang or someone on his behalf makes a false claim that Narang has given page numbers. Still they will not be in a position to call Narang an author. If somebody x or y translates eight different chapters of different books, should the person call himself a translator or author? A group of Narang’s well-wishers has come forward so quickly to criticise Dr Khan, it seems to me an act of extreme disappointment. Did Khan plagiarise the words? He had an in-depth comprehension of the formula. If you do not believe, ask Mr. Bush or Mr. Mush about the importance of the man. First, he conceived and then logically utilised the theoretical material and emerged as one of the most important scientist in the history of Pakistan. It is not a right attitude to criticise Dr Khan and ignore all subsequent Christianised scientists. Should we spare Jewish hardliner Einstein who has been a sole ruthless mind behind the terrorizing invention? If the Christian terrorists or Jewish terrorists sell the product to Christian nations or their fellow of the book, then these literary hooligans have no objections. In order to defend a third rate plagiarist how irrationally they go to such an extent? I would only say here that anybody can understand a piece of literary criticism and can explain it in his or her own words. That is a process of learning. Have you forgotten that Aristotle believes learning occurs through imitation? That is what happens here in England on undergraduate level. For an interesting study of how learning occurs read David Kolb’s Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Although it is considered hugely influential in the western Academics, however, I do not appreciate this book much because Kolb has monopolised Hegelian philosophy of concrete objectivity. Here it is just to give the so-called Urdu Academic scholars an idea about how learning occurs through various ways. The “poets” who use other people’s ‘Zameen’ to write a ghazal can never understand the tangible meaning of plagiarism. However, on a scholarly level you have to take an original angle and explore it from different dimensions while relating it to the concrete aspect of society so that the theoretical process could move forward. I still remember few years back a prominent contemporary poet and a lecturer came to England to attain a degree in English literature, but failed to write an original essay. I can assure you here in Britain a sixteen years old kid thinks more imaginatively and creatively than these literary hooligans. He or she does not need the permission of some superior entity to criticise revered entities. They just do it because the system understands that this process is required to move on rather than remain stuck to the old absurd notions
Imran Shahid Bhinder
Birmingham, United Kingdom

Is Narang's structuralism translated from the west?

Just have a look what CM Naim wrote in Outlook...

There was a time when people wrote a literary piece and then ascribed it to someone whom they held in high esteem out of love, admiration, reverence or some other strong sentiment. Jalaluddin Rumi wrote a magnificent volume of ghazals but did not put his name to it. It has always been known as Diwan-i-Shams-i-Tabriz (The Diwan of Shams of Tabriz). An unknown poet wrote another, smaller diwan of ghazals and ascribed it to Khwaja Mu’inuddin Chishti of Ajmer. Later some other people concocted ‘table-talks’ of some of the Chishti Sufis and circulated them as genuine collections. In Urdu literary history, two examples of something similar immediately come to mind. When Muhammad Husain Azad desired to publish a definitive edition of the ghazals of Shaikh Ibrahim ‘Zauq,’—the first poet laureate of Bahadur Shah ‘Zafar’—he felt no qualms in composing new ghazals and verses to fill in the gaps he felt his beloved master would have filled in himself. Then there is the fascinating case of one of the foremost modern poets in Urdu: when Sana’allah Dar took on the name “Miraji” after a woman named Mira whom he obsessively loved, he might have had in mind the exemplary bond between Rumi and Shams.
Urdu literary culture, however, has known many more cases where someone took the work of another person and claimed it as his own. Particularly among the poets. The practice of ustadi/shagirdi in Urdu poetry encouraged it. Many an ustad or master poet earned his meagre living by giving away his verses to his pupils or shagird, who in turn provided for his needs. Some ustad openly sold verses to anyone who came with money the night of a musha’ira (a gathering of poets). A nawab or king would appoint some good poet as his ustad and then quite as a norm expect him to put together a volume of ghazals in his name.
It also happened in prose. Imam Bakhsh ‘Sahba’i’, a contemporary of Ghalib and teacher at the famous Delhi College, reportedly wrote for a Mughal prince a tazkira or account of the poets of his time. The book, Gulistan-i-Sukhan, carries the name of Qadir Bakhsh ‘Sabir’ as its author, but Ghalib always referred to it as “Sahba’i’s tazkira.” Much later, when the Anjuman-i-Taraqqi-i-Urdu (“Association for the Development of Urdu”) published The Standard English-Urdu Dictionary in 1937, the organization’s Secretary, Maulvi Abdul Haq (a.k.a “Father of Urdu”), put his own name on the cover as its editor, instead of the Anjuman’s. But at least he was honest enough to clearly acknowledge in the Introduction that the work had mainly been done by Dr. Abid Husain of Jami’a Millia. Since then, however, things have been going downhill in Urdu, particularly in its academia. The late Azhar Ali Farooqui of Allahabad earned his living by writing Ph.D. dissertations for others, with the full knowledge of the university’s professors. I personally witnessed how he worked.
In the old literary culture plagiarism of the ordinary kind was also common and not made much of. The stakes were not high then. But now the stakes are quite high in the academic world. Ambitious university teachers no longer can make do by merely taking care of their patron’s grocery shopping and milk cows—I witnessed both at Aligarh. Now they must publish “research” in order to get coveted promotions and titles. Sadly, quite a few take to plagiarism as the shortest route. I became involved in the case of one such ambitious academic at Aligarh back in the early 1980s.
The Department of Urdu, Aligarh Muslim University, had obtained some money from the government for a professorship in Aesthetics, and advertised the job. One of the candidates was a Reader in the department, who was far better known for his fiction than research—he wrote at least one superb novella that will always be admired. In no time that gentleman managed to publish a volume on Urdu Aesthetics. I was most surprised when I came across the book in our library at the University of Chicago. Having known the person since our shared college days, I couldn’t imagine him as the author of the book. A couple of hours of digging around in the library solved the mystery. The talented academic had taken a well-known book on Aesthetics in English by a Bengali scholar and diligently translated most of it into Urdu. Dutifully I prepared a short article, presenting page-and-line references to the original. It was published in Urdu, and received plenty of notice. But nothing actually happened. The gentleman didn’t get the job—no one did, as I remember—but he went on to become a full professor, and soon chaired the department for a while. Needless to say he received—justly, I must add—a ‘Padma Shri’ as a fiction-writer.
Presently the Urdu literary/academic world has been violently shaken by what must be termed “the mother of all plagiarisms”. Instead of the out of fashion field of Aesthetics, it is the currently much more fashionable field of Literary Theory that is at issue, and the person at the ‘heart of darkness’ is no less than Dr. Gopi Chand Narang, Professor Emeritus, Delhi University, who from 2003 to 2007 presided over the Sahitya Akademi and has received two “Padma” awards from the Indian state—the latest being “Padma Bhushan” in 2004. (A full list of his honours and publications may be seen at his website.
At the centre of the scandal is the book Sakhtiyat, Pas-i-Sakhtiyat Aur Mashriqi Shi’riyat (“Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, and Eastern Poetics”), for which Dr Narang received the Sahitya Akademi award in 1995. Though the title suggests that it might be a comparative study, bringing out the commonalities and oppositions between two contemporary Western literary/linguistic theories and their counterparts in Sanskrit and Urdu—a rather curious undertaking—but in reality it only describes and explains the three topics in the book’s title, and the major thinkers who contributed to them.
As far back as 1997, an Indian Urdu critic named Fuzail Ja’fari had explained in some detail how Dr Narang’s book shied away from original thinking and analysis, limiting itself simply to what X wrote and Y said in Western languages (Zahn-i-Jadid, Delhi, #22-3). In fact, he described the book as a “compilation” (talif), adding that it was not an original piece of writing (tasnif). Now a young scholar Imran Shahid Bhinder, a doctoral candidate in the Department of English at the University of Birmingham, U.K., has made a much more serious charge. Bhinder published in 2006 in the annual issue of Nairang-i-Khayal, a Pakistani journal, an essay entitled “Gopi Chand Narang is a Translator, not an Author.”
A year later, a revised and expanded version of the essay appeared in the journal Jadeed Adab (July–December, 2007), which at the time was printed at New Delhi—now allegedly stopped under pressure from certain people—and published from Germany. (It is also available on the web). In 2008 Bhinder published two more articles in Jadeed Adab, the first in its January–June issue, entitled “Plagiarism in Urdu Literature – How Long will it be Defended?” and the second in the July–December issue, entitled “Gopi Chand Narang’s ‘Truth’ and ‘Context’ [as] Thievery.” Both articles found plenty of circulation in both India and Pakistan, and excerpts were reproduced in a couple of Indian journals. Now a Pakistani journal, ‘Akkas, published from Islamabad, has brought out a special issue devoted to Dr Narang’s oeuvre and career, including a more detailed analysis by Bhinder.
In summary, Bhinder has most convincingly established that Dr Narang’s achievement in that award-winning book is not that of an author but only of a translator, and that too of a reprehensible kind. According to Bhinder, Dr Narang did not read the original authors—Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude LeviStrauss, Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, and others. He read only their well-known interpreters, and then transferred the latter’s analyses and interpretations into Urdu, doing so verbatim and without giving the reader any indication of what he was doing. In his third article mentioned above, Bhinder has given extraordinary details of the Dr Narang’s “authorial” enterprise. He has quoted excerpts from the Urdu book and then placed them next to their unacknowledged English original. Further, he has listed with precision the countless pages in Dr Narang’s book that correspond almost word-for-word with the English pages of American and British scholars. For example, pages 79–106, 234–240, 243–267, and 288–329 of Dr Narang’s book, according to Bhinder, are exact translations of pages 27–42, 149–158, 86–103, and 49–70, of Raman Selden’s book, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory (1985). The other exploited scholars that Bhinder similarly identifies are Terence Hawke, Catherine Belsey, John Sturrock, Jonathan Culler, Christopher Norris, and Robert Scholes. (I must add that Bhinder’s critique has some other dimensions too that are important and relevant for all academics in a general manner.
The evidence Bhinder presents is quite irrefutable. When, for example, I checked the pages he points out in Selden’s book, they indeed turned out to be the unacknowledged source of Dr Narang’s remarks. I also stumbled upon something equally interesting. Dr Narang has a note on Michel Foucault (pp. 193–8) in the second chapter in his “Book Two,” i.e. the second section of his book. The text on pages 194–6, as pointed out by Bhinder, is merely a translation of pages 158–9 in Selden’s book.
I checked the “sources” that Dr Narang’s has helpfully listed for each chapter, and found that he does list Raman’s book as a source for that particular chapter. And gives exact page numbers too: 79–84 and 98–102. The first reference, however, turned out to be where Selden discusses Bertolt Brecht, Theodor Adorno, and Walter Benjamin The second was equally curious: in Selden’s book, page 98 deals with Frederic Jameson, but pages 99–102 contain only a bibliography. Again, the opening paragraph of Dr Narang’s note on Jonathan Culler (pp. 318–9) is, as per Bhinder, entirely Selden’s (p. 62). But in the sources, Selden’s name is listed with page numbers 106–27! In other words, while Dr Narang twice went to the trouble of indicating precise—though unrelated—pages in Selden’s book, he somehow failed to include the pages he had actually abused.
Bhinder’s charges are extremely serious. They are also thoroughly documented. First made three years ago, his accusation has remained unchallenged—unlike in the past when the slightest criticism of Dr Narang promptly produced a spate of articles in his defence and diatribes against the critic. This time he and his admirers are remarkably silent. And for good reason. They understand that any attempt would only bring more notoriety. Sadly, they also know that the academic circles in India in general, and the university departments of Urdu in particular, take no notice of inconvenient details. With them it is always “business as usual.”
After all, soon after Bhinder’s original article came out in 2006, Dr Narang received the degree of ‘D.Litt. Honoris Causa‘ from the Central University at Hyderabad. Then after two more articles, two similar honorary degrees were conferred on him in the past six months, by the Maulana Azad National Urdu University and the Aligarh Muslim University.
Sahitya Akademi has an excellent policy of making its award-winning books available in other major languages of India, including English. Dr Narang’s book received the award some fourteen years ago, but, to my knowledge, it has so far been translated only into Hindi (2000). May I ask the Akademi to do a major favour to Urdu letters? Marathi and Bengali scholars, in my experience, are usually far more knowledgeable about modern and pre-modern literary theories than an average Urdu academic. (I very much include myself among the latter.) The Akademi should have Dr Narang’s award-winning book translated into both Bengali and Marathi so that it can properly be judged by his peers in India. Given the international protocols on copyright, however, an English translation might not be advisable at this time.

C.M. Naim is Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago

نوٹ: تعجب کی بات تو یہ ہے کہ نارنگ صاحب سے ابھی تک اس کا کوئی جواب نہیں بن پڑا ہے۔
PS: Interestingly, Narang had not uttered a word about this episode.

Urdu Current affairs are on the net now.
This will be a place to watch and to follow as we are going to keep scrutinizing all that is happening and all that is not happening in the Urdu world of India.

We believe that Urdu is not dying but there are people who want to write its obituary. They not only want to bury the language but also to create a memorial, fit for the few last few emperors of the long Moghul regime. They want to enjoy everything that this language could offer before it finally rest forever, be it awards, (well awards are not important; of course not.. but the money attatched to it is very dear to the writers, journalists and sympathisers of Urdu language), recognition, an elevated 'Chabootra' in the Urdu circle... and anything else that is on offer. So...the crux of the matter is that they want to give this language a grand burial, bury it under a mammoth pyramid, and want to become the Mujawars of that grave... so that a regular income could be generated by the coming generations.
Keep writing in... so that we create a better atmosphere for Urdu...

Keep watching the space...