Firdausi (940-1020 AD) is among the great poets of the world. He has done not only his countrymen proud, but has left behind an image of Mahmud Ghaznavi which is more damaging in the Muslim World than what it is in Hindu India.
What’s that which harmed Mahmud most: he didn’t keep his word with Firdausi and his dismantling the Muslim principalities of Mansura and Multan along with his intermittent invasions of India culminating in the ransacking of the temple at Somnath. The British General who brought the ‘door’ of Somnath to India did a great PR exercise with the Hindu devotees by giving them back the ‘door’ of the sacred temple which was located in the former state of Junagarh, now part of India. The tie for the worse deal - sacrilege of the temple or the betrayal of the ruler of Ghazni - remains undecided.
The Khana-i-Farhang-i-Iran’s collaboration with the Arts Council of Pakistan in organizing an evening on Firdausi was an apt occasion to look back on a glorious era of Persian poetry which made a discussion of his work and times possible.
Mahmud has been castigated for ‘betraying’ Firdausi, but researches have been proving beyond any shadow of doubt that Mahmud had not assigned Firdausi the writing of Shahnama. He had started writing it some 20 years before Mahmood’s ascended the throne in 998 AD. And Firdausi’s famous Hajv (a diatribe against Mahmud) is not on valid grounds. Right from Prof Mahmud Khan Shirani’s book Firdausi Per Char Maqalay, published by the Anjuman Taraqqui-i-Urdu in 1942, to the latest writings on the subject by Iranian scholars it appears that prejudices have been instrumental in building an uncharitable image of Mahmud on this score.
Actually the writing of the Shahnama could be ascribed to an insignificant incident in Firdausi’s life. Lying in the garden of his house one night he found that sleep was eluding him. He called out his wife and she, sensing the agony, offered him a cup of wine and told him that she would like to narrate the story of Beezan. Firdausi readily agreed in order to drive out the uncomfortable feeling caused by insomnia. His wife extracted a promise that he would versify the story. Firdausi agreed.
The story began soon after its circulation among lovers of poetry. Mahmud was nowhere around. It was after Firdausi remained glued to it for years that the poet Unsari took him to the court of Mahmud. Prof Shirani insists - and rightly so - that no promises were made. It was, however, taken as a potential work to receive the king’s munificence which proved right and Firdausi was awarded with whatever he was thought entitled. How could a mediaeval king blind himself to a contract.
Firdausi created a landmark. From his hometown he reached Bokhara and from there to Herat and Merv and then to Bactria. He went on collecting details. The era of Ghaznavids began when Alaptagin moved to Ghazni from Khorasan. Mahmud succeeded his father, Subaktagin.
Firdausi spent 30-35 long years when he finished composing the Shahnama in 400 Hijra. He was 78 when he reached this milestone. The Shahnama has 60,000 couplets. Firdausi’s quality of pithiness is acknowledged the world over. He is sweet and brief. No other poet could rival him on this score. One of the reasons why Firdausi couldn’t have his way to Mahmud’s heart was that one of his bosom friends, Fazal bin Ahmed, had made a lot of enemies at Mahmud’s court and they did everything possible to keep a masterpiece like Shahnama remain underrated.
The question, then, arises, as to what made a perfect gentleman like Firdausi turn against Mahmud so much so that his Hajv (derogatory poem) seems dipped in a frenzy of uncontrollable anger. In the Hajv, Firdausi emerges as a poet totally different from his temperament and character. It is still a riddle needing unfolding as to what made Firdausi a different person in his Hajv. Prof Shirani would like us to believe that what is purported to be Firdausi’s Hajv of Mahmud could not and should not be ascribed to Firdausi.
The Hajv of Mahmud differs from one version to another. Prof Shirani is of the opinion that the most lamentable aspect of this Hajv is that it does not have the beauty of Firdausi’s language.
At times it is very ordinary and pedestrian and it would be downright unbelievable to think that Firdausi could stoop so low in intentions as well in his faculties of mind to acquit himself so poorly in this composition.
Prof Shirani, moreover, finds some ‘factual errors’ like the one critics point out errors in Shakespeare’s plays to suggest that Bacon couldn’t make such silly mistakes as one comes across in Shakespeare. Shakespeare had given ports to countries which didn’t have any sea around them and had made Homer quote Aristotle which couldn’t be the case. The bard of Stratford-upon- Avon should remain what he is: a simple person who had ‘theatre’ in his blood and didn’t care to appeal to reason. Maybe, the dramatic effect he could create didn’t attach much importance to reason and truth. Truth was nothing but what appeared to be happening on the stage.
The speakers of the evening, Prof Affan Seljuk included, didn’t deem it proper to involve themselves much in the popular controversy. They contented themselves with emphasizing the importance of Firdausi to the Persian and world literature. Unlike the mystical tradition of Persian poetry, Firdausi instilled an unusual vigour in Persian poetry and made it a vehicle of perfect communication capable of challenging any poetic tradition of the world.
Among other participants of the Firdausi evening were Dr Tahira Siddiqui, Dr Jaafer Halim and Dr Rehana Afser. Syed Javed Hasan read out pieces from the Urdu translation of the Shahnama. He has a suitable voice to create the grandeur evoked by the great epic. It was nice to see that the Consulate-General of the Islamic Republic of Iran had provided a silver lining of liberalism by owning up Firdausi who has, for long, been dubbed an atheist, Zoroastrian and what not. Mahmud has also, for that matter, come under fire. He also has fared no better than Firdausi, but for many of us in the subcontinent he enjoys the indefensible reputation of a defender of the faith.