Adab for the Sake of Adab: Artistic Merit as the True Standard of Literature

When a government constructs a road, its quality is determined by its technical design, engineering principles, and construction standards. It is not evaluated based on whether people use it to go to a mosque or a temple, a casino or a bar. Similarly, bridges, trains, buses, and other amenities are judged by their own specific criteria, not by their potential uses.

The same principle applies across all fields of knowledge and art. The value of mathematics is assessed by its logical and systematic structure; the utility of physics and astronomy lies in their scientific rules. What they are used for is a secondary concern.

Art and literature are no exceptions to this rule. The essence of literature lies in its artistic composition, the elegance of its style, the loftiness of its thought, and the aesthetic expression of language. When literature is subordinated to some external purpose, ideology, or movement, it loses its creative autonomy and becomes nothing more than a vehicle for ideology.

The true standard of literature should be its artistic quality, stylistic beauty, and creative vitality—not any temporary political or social agenda. Just as science and philosophy are evaluated by their internal principles, so too must literature be assessed within the framework of its own literary attributes.

Unfortunately, in the twentieth century, Urdu literature was repeatedly used as a tool for political and ideological movements. The Progressive Writers’ Movement, for instance, turned literature into an instrument for raising social awareness, protesting injustice, and advocating economic and class struggle. Though this movement gave Urdu literature a new semantic direction, its most significant cost was the loss of the core principle of “adab for the sake of adab.” Art, which ought to be synonymous with freedom, was reduced to the servant of ideology.

Renowned writers such as Saʿādat Ḥasan Mantō, Kr̥ṣhṇa Chandar, Rājindar Siṅgh Bēdī, Faiz Aḥmad Faiz, and Aḥmad Nadīm Qāsmī were prominent representatives of this movement. Mantō boldly explored human psychology and the trauma of Partition; Kr̥ṣhṇa Chandar portrayed poverty, love, and class struggle in a simple yet impactful manner; Bēdī’s writings reflected deep observation and humanism; Faiz blended romance and revolution in his poetry; and Qāsmī elegantly highlighted rural life and its issues with artistic dignity.

These writers brought Urdu literature closer to the public sphere, but that intimacy came at the cost of creative freedom. Literature became bound by ideology, and the subtlety of art began to erode.

In response to the Progressive Movement, the Islamic literary movement emerged, aiming to use literature as a means of promoting religious and ethical values. This movement was a religious and intellectual necessity of its time. The credit for effectively introducing this movement on a global level goes to the thinker of Islam, Mawlānā Sayyid Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī Nadwī (may Allāh have mercy on him).

Mawlānā Nadwī organized seminars across the Indian subcontinent, the Arab world, and the broader Muslim world, launched journals, and produced intellectual literature to amplify the voice of Islamic literature. Under his leadership, the movement gained academic and intellectual credibility and developed firm foundations.

However, over time, the Islamic literary movement too began to subordinate literature to a specific ideology. Consequently, creative freedom suffered, and literature was reduced to a medium for preaching, moral instruction, or religious expression.

This is not to deny the interaction between literature and religion or politics. The essential question is: does making literature merely the mouthpiece of an ideology or belief not confine its natural breadth and creative potential?

Islam appreciates the fine arts, but that does not mean every piece of art must convey a religious message. The real task of literature is to give artistic expression to human experience, emotions, feelings, and imagination. It not only reflects life but also offers the reader a new sense, a fresh perspective.

Binding literature to ideology—whether religious or secular—imprisons the imagination of the creator and reduces literature to mere propaganda.

The creator must have the right to see life from any perspective and to express it. Whether this expression includes religion or politics, Sufism or philosophy—all are welcome, as long as they fall within literature’s scope, not the other way around.

The soul of literature lies in freedom. As long as the creator has that freedom, literature remains alive and dynamic. The moment literature becomes a prisoner of ideology, it loses its aesthetic and semantic expansiveness.

Disclaimer: This article was translated by AI. Original post: https://t.me/DrAkramNadwi/6238