Naveen's Post

After reading ‘Ihsan Manzil’, I feel that perhaps it was not Intizar Hussain’s major concern to explore the veracity of different kinds of narratives that are interwoven into this story but such an endeavor on the part of the reader can prove to be a fruitful experience.

The story begins with a potent form of oral narrative: the rumour. The magazine ‘Ismat’ has just arrived at Ihsan Manzil and we are told that this news is met with a ‘shor’ (noise) in the neighbourhood. Intizar Hussain is much interested in conveying the spread of this news and the consequent responses it is met with – ‘’jis nay suna uss nay dantoon main aungliyan dabaein’’. As the plot progresses and we move onto the second generation, we see once again the power of rumours  - ‘’Khabar aag ki tarha phel gaye keh Mehmooda ki beti angraizi parh rahi hai’’. Why are rumours so important? Perhaps it has to do with the idea that the ‘shareef’ family must be acknowledged as being ‘shareef’ by others. This appearance of morality was of utmost importance – and hence Ihsan Manzil’s deviation from the set norm sparked a discussion within other households. This is a society where appearances matter – and Hussain’s use of rumours in order to convey the force of societal reactions is very apt and also helps the reader contextualize the ideological paradigm within which the plot is based. 

Then, ofcourse, is the fictional narrative: the books and magazines which constitute the main conflict present within the plot. It is interesting to see how the access to this fictional narrative is a policed process: some writings are permissible while others are deemed unfit.  The characters in the story seem to make an implicit connection between literature and the individual: that the latter is undoubtedly influenced by the former and that any sort of relationship with this sort of ‘un-shareef’ literature will taint the virtuosity of the individual.  

Which form of narrative comes off as most powerful? For me, it is the historical narrative. Most generations feel themselves to be morally superior to the last. The past is romanticized and viewed as a time where morality was held in high regard. This is the mistaken notion of the past that many characters of Ihsan Manzil retain. And it is exactly this idea that comes off as most powerful to me as it drives most of the plot. The ending is so effective precisely because it plays on this irony - that every generation attributes this 'fall of morality' as a historical process that happens in front of their eyes. They contextualize it into a particular period. The irony is that this process is in some sense ahistorical - every generation subscribes to this view and one cannot allot a timeframe to this entire process.