Many lost their homes and families, some rued the loss of identity and couldn’t fathom what had actually happened. It was a violent human earthquake that had shaken the very foundation of the land which was divided by the British
Was Manto the so-called harbinger of truth or reality? Did he evade the curtains of societal norms and the accompanying hypocrisy to display the picture as it actually was? Was he treading into forbidden territory, that should not have evoked a stirring controversy about prostitutes and their inner feelings? Was his representation of societal outcasts as being merely human beings a sin?
There is a feeling of his works being contentiously foreboding and thundering in their depictions. The irony is that Manto debunked and denuded all those fabrications with a ruthlessness that was shocking indeed. There is an admittance to make, his works as riling and shocking they were left me bemused and gasping for breath. An ability to scrutinise the morality compass of a society which was living a farce, was bound to disturb the majority which couldn’t fathom being questioned in such a manner. Truth always stings and irritates; its existence a disturbing reality for societal diversion towards hypocrisy.
The dimensions of Manto’s short stories was immeasurable and unquantifiable, the variety was unbelievable to say the least. The dramas he wrote for All India Radio in New Delhi during the 1940s broke social conventions and divulged into topics that were considered a taboo then and still are. The vision of his ingenuity was far-fetched and distinctly truthful, a right assessment of what lay forth much to the bemusement of his critics. Shying away from reality wasn’t what he ever intended to do, neither was being archetypal ever his intention. Back then, he broke the shackles of societal servitude to traditions and lay bare the actual image of the times that people were living in.
As a writer, restless as he was and agile to the nuances of those times, coupled with a sharp observation and attentiveness. He pinpointed the morbidity and societal decay which hurt his sensibilities and deeply impacted him. To the consternation of his critics, Manto was imbued with a gift of diligence and sharpness combined with an intellect that was unparalleled. His intellectual arrogance left him in hot waters with most of his contemporaries and soiled some close friendships due to the divergent views he housed.
In his famous essay “Hindustan Ko Leaderon Sai Bachao” written in 1942, he said “Religion is what it was and will always stay that way. The spirit of religion is a concrete reality that will never change. Religion is like a rock unaffected by the waves of the sea”. He heaped scorn on politicians for using religion as a tool to rally the masses and blatantly remarked that they were only interested in filling their own pockets with goods stolen from the downtrodden. Manto saw through the bigotry of those times and identified the intentions of such diabolical politicians, who in his eyes were wretches leeching and feeding off the poor to build up their palaces with abundance of richness and pleasure.
The political and religious turbulence alongside the savagery that accompanied partition greatly influenced Manto and resulted in some of his most iconic yet controversial works after migrating to Pakistan in early 1948. One of the best aspects of his writings in regard to partition was walking a line of neutrality and impartiality. He never pinned the blame on those protagonists that formed the crux of his stories and more had to do with the circumstances that had arisen as a result of a marked increase in communal violence. The unveiling of the psyche that surrounded the hellish nightmare that partition brought forth in his works was a reality check waiting to happen. It depicted a historical happening in a narrative that piqued the readers mind and as unbelievable it may have seemed, the truth in some cases was unforgiving and ruthless.
The seismically charged works of Manto could vacillate from a brothel to the graveyards of Bombay, which he wrote about in a satirical manner in “Tarakiyafta Kabiristan”. For me, such an in-depth ability to diversify as a writer was testimony to his adaptation and adjustment depending on what the situation was. He never was stereotypical in his works, of course some of them weren’t as iconic or eye-opening but that is what made him distinctively different from his peers. He could move from a fake pir in “Sahab-e-Karamat” to a notorious builder in “Shaheed Saaz” who hastens the martyrdom of hapless people by construction of substandard buildings. He then wrote about a dog in his short story “Titwal ka Kuta” that is acrimoniously placed in between the border who is labelled a ‘Pakistani’ or an ‘Indian’ agent by soldiers from both sides. The dog’s end is a befitting finale of the foolishness and dastardliness on both sides, but it didn’t matter.
Shortly after moving to Pakistan, Manto wrote a lot about the cause of those abducted women that became the focal point of his stories. He said, “When I think of the recovered women, I think only of their bloated bellies-what will happen to these bellies?” For him, those born out of this unfortunate happening will be called a “Pakistani” or an “Indian” he lamented. It was a tragedy that women displaced and taken away from their families had to undergo such transgressions, humiliation, sexual molestation and rape alongside changing their religion and forgetting about the families they belonged to. It was societal aversion to the monstrosities that engulfed partition and a blunt refusal to accept the traumatic happenings of it, which left millions of families broken apart. Many lost their homes and families, some rued the loss of identity and couldn’t fathom what had actually happened. It was a violent human earthquake that had shaken the very foundation of the land which was divided by the British.
He brought societal outcasts into the mainstream, gave them a voice and championed their cause. These outcasts were on the fringes, sort of untouchables and unaccounted for who weren’t recognised since they didn’t fulfill the prerequisites of being considered worthy members of society. Their existence was a living example of the wretchedness and sinfulness that they were born in, as per societal perspective. Manto’s portrayal of such outcasts raised condemnations from various segments of society, who considered it an affront to the self-defined values and morals that had to be met at any given cost. Nothing better than to sum it up in his own words “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 dress-makers.”
