‘Khayalat’

In the novel, there is a recurrent mention of conversation concerning ‘Siyaah baal’ and ‘Safaid baal’. The ageing process, not just of the characters but the movement of time over a sequel of distressed national events is translated remarkably by Hussain. The conversation on page 86/87 is an insight into the partition crisis but I feel like apart from the deep remorse, the communal movement; this man’s white hair symbolize that, this was a deeply personal experience. A markedly visible and mutated outlook is presented. This scene and the author’s description of greying of hair is a smart way to describe both permanence and mortality of it all. They talk about salvaging Pakistan and exchange ‘khayalat' on it all, and later –quiet, yet telling sessions over tea really emphasize on the failure of the new state to offer a peace of mind.

I feel the ramblings of Zakir are not only very messy but also deeply ingrained in the confusion of this society in general. In words, Zakir prescribes people with little or no opinion, he provides no argument, complaint or answers to people who approach him. Often statements like ‘Pata nahin kia honey wala hai’ and ‘Patani log keh rahay hain’ appear as responses to people’s questions from the historian whose thinking they feel can be imitiated and appreciated. He fails them but his  his musings are worth a great deal to draw opinion from. One can’t be sure whether he finds 'jang' a good idea but the narrative presents Zakir’s imagination and thinking as observant, detailed and non linear. “Kahan kahan se log aye they, jaisey patangey kat kar ati hain aur kisi chath par gir parti hain.” The idea of landscapes and migration is so effectively and hurtfully described in the above lines that Zakir’s previous description about embracing hearts and houses falls into place. Later, describing the same point of ‘makaanat’ he mentions that ‘pehley dil sey phir murawaat se’ and at another place, targeting the settlement at large, he says ‘Kisi tarah dekhtey dekhtey sham nagar ke makan khushada se tang hotey chaley gaye aur dilon main gunjaish kam hoti chali gayi’. The lines represent in the novel a realistic human and societal trait that in part is a transition that Zakir himself goes through. At first calling himelf an ‘awaragard’ in the city, he later finds it a disappointing place and think good days have been lost ‘Who din achay hi thay. Achay aur sachay’.

In the extract above, the concept of ‘Amanat’ is striking cause the separation of East and West Pakistan is soon to come and the smarts of the description leave me quite amused.The narration as Zakir’s memory and thinking process is what is more isolated  and while it’s easy deconstruct the society and events at time through the window of his observations, it makes it all the more difficult to explore Zakir as a person because quite often we switch from the narration as an autobiographical account of the author to analysis of Zakir as a character and his nomadic critic of the cities and its people. Sometimes Zakir doesn’t seem part of the settlement and the people especially when he walks on the streets and notices the general walk of the passersby. Then and at other instances he’s more of a silent onlooker to his own friends’ conversations, the city roads, the naarey, the jalsay and the general activity and concern of the city. It’s questionable whether this detachment is natural or deliberate on part of Zakir or the author respectively.