Anchal.Afzal
Lyndon Humanities College in Solihull, UK

I am a GCSE student in Lyndon Humanities College in Solihull, UK. I am interested in Literary issues and politics and that’s how I came across this subject; I read the interview on this website, “The World of Urdu”, of Imran Shaid Bhinder which made me more curious, So I done some more research to this ‘shocking’ subject. I read this article by Bhinder, ‘Gopi Chand Narang translator or author’ which was published in 2006, A well known person for his writing and theory’s and so much more, Dr. Gopi chand narang basically got all the fame and awards by copying from English and pasting it in Urdu. If a well known person like Dr. Gopi Chand Narang does plagiarism, what does that show to the youth of tomorrow? Because in my eyes it shows that it is the easiest way of getting ‘fame’. The only way no one knew until know about the plagiarism, because he did not publish it in English, if he did; he would publish the same old words from all the famous writers!
I have to add even though this may be out of the subject, is that ‘Derrida’s books’ are made to confuse people so no one can totally argue back or disagree with the valid reason. If a person does not understand the language that derrida is using, how is anyone going to disagree and prove their point; which I think is the whole game to his writing. Who ever understands his theory would come to this point ‘Deidra purposely created confusion so no one can disagree with his theory’s only because no one understand it, that’s the only reason people don’t disagree if he wrote the same words in a simpler form it would make more sense which I think ‘Derrida’ does not want! I have not read ‘derrida’ academically or personally, I got this point of view from Imran Bhinder’s articles, which have been published in many websites, any way to come back to my point about Disgusting act of (Dr. Gopi chand narang) plagiarism, the articles and arguments now discussed in English on websites. Now this is not only a big topic in Asia it is a big topic to people who everywhere who can read English And Urdu, not only some countries in Asia are victim of war and poverty, Now there are going to be bad accusations about clean writers of Urdu.
Anchal_2k9@hotmail.co.uk

Narang Needs Elementary Education
Shabana Yousaf
Student of Social Sciences at Milton Keynes University

I have just read a clarification by one Mr. Maula Bukhsh to prove biggest plagiarist of the twentieth century Mr. Gopi Chand Narang innocent against the severe charges of plagiarism levelled by Imran Shahid Bhinder. Interestingly, the debate has shifted from Urdu Journal to e-magazines and news papers. I have kept a constant eye on the writings about the issue of plagiarism and I have personally read both Western’s writers, who have been mentioned by Bhinder, as well as in Narang’s award-winning book “Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtyiaat or Mashriqi Sheriyat”(1994).

First of all let me correct Bukhsh misleading statement in his article that Narang’s controversial book has over 600 pages, Narang’s book consists of about 573 pages – excluding the childish details on other 13 pages of his books. If I include those pages it becomes a total of 590. The statement shows that Bukhsh has not even seen the book, he is just arguing on the bases of “hearsay” or “distorted” information.

Let me assert here an interesting quotation from Bhinder’s first article entitled “Gopi Chand Narang, Translator or Author?” published in Jadeed Adab#9; it will clearly show that Bukhsh himself has not read Narang’s book as he mentions in his article. While criticising C M Naim quite enviously, he says that Naim has not read the whole book, Wittgenstein also finds mention on page 37 in chapter one. I understand that Narang following others - which I am going to disclose in next few lines - has mentioned Wittgenstein, but it is not Narang’s own analysis. Surprisingly Bukhsh has written just about page 37 in a partial way, albeit Narang wrote about Wittgenstein in his book on page 34 as well, which Bukhsh seems reluctant to mention (for good reason though) becaue he knew Bhinder has cited the same page in his first article and how Narang has plagiarised the whole chapter. Before we move forward as part of this stage, you will find it equally helpful for facts and interesting about Bukhsh’s ignorance of Narang’s book, to cast your eyes once again over the quotation of Bhinder’s article, which he wrote two years ago. Bhinder compares the following passages of both from Robert Scholes book “Structuralism in Literature” and the translation of the same paragraph from Narang’s book. Bhinder quotes in his article Scholes interpretation of the theoretical changes occur in the beginning of the twentieth century and how Narang has plagiarised the interpretation of Scholes on page 1 of his book, Bhinder quotes the same paragraph in “Jadeed Adab#9, P, 46):

“The last half of the nineteenth century and the last half of the twentieth were characterized by the fragmentation of knowledge into isolated disciplines so formidable in their specialization as to seem beyond all synthesis. Even philosophy, the queen of the human sciences, came down from her throne to play solitary word games. Both the language-philosophy of Wittgenstein and the existentialism of the continental thinkers are philosophy of retreat……”

Bhinder identified plagiarism of Narang from Scholes book on page 34 in his award-winning book in these words:

“uneesween sadi k nisf aakhir or beesween sadi nisf awul main fikray insaani takhsees k mukhtlif maydaanoo main but btaa ker iss had tak para para ho gaee thi k iss main ksisi terhaa ki koee shiraza bandi mumkin nazer nahi aati thi- or to or khalis falsfa bhi jisay aloom-e- insanieea ka badisha kahaa ja at hay, wo bhi lafzoon k alag thalag per janay walay khail main lag chukaa tha. Wittgenstein ka falsfa lisaan ho ya euoropi mufakreen ki wajoodiyat, aslant yay sab mirajat k falsify hain ( Jadeed Adab#9, P, 46).

Should I think Narang is referring to Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations”? This is a big joke! I am sure Narang hasn’t even seen that book. Likewise, only a blind person can’t identify this plagiarism. It looks to more elusive evidence of how Narang exercises his skills of plagiarism, which is undoubtedly the ubiquitous structuring found in every page of his book.

Bukhsh adds that Narang has “gleaned up, culled, derived, adapted and abridged it and assimilated it to make it understandable in a language that lacks strict theoretical discipline and rigour.” If this was Narang’s attempt to “gleane up” then he really needs to learn how to be selective, that is definite skill: there’s no point in trying to translate everything from the books of other writers he doesn’t make it understandable, instead of that he has just stolen not only the Ideas of Western writers but their words and presentation too.

Bhinder has been writing ceaselessly on this particular point from his very first article, that (in the words of Bukhsh, “akhz-o-qabool and ifham-o-tafheem in Urdu)” are not Narang’s ifham-o-tafhim on the contrary these understandings and interpretations are of Westerns writer’s. How can Narng think as the same as Western writers, even though he belongs to a different culture and society? This statement of Bukhsh, of course, seems somewhat exaggerated in respect of “mere literal translations of separate words.” Although he translated lots of chapters from Norris, Culler, Belsey and Selden’s books ( it can be “mere translation” only for stereotypes like Bukhsh but for an honest writer or reader this is the plethora of plagiarism.

The distinctive value of interpretation and translation needs to be understood in a very coherent way, especially for our so-called scholar of Urdu Literature; as Bhinder has been trying to differentiate.

Try to avoid the reiterate arguments material in a way that does not solve the question of plagiarism, which has been done by Narng deliberately and tactfully; I would like to draw the attention to another awful approach by Bakhsh towards Naim, Just because he tried to confirm that Bhinder’s charges of plagiarism against Narang are irrefutable, which has been condoned or denied within traditions of Urdu Literature by Bukhsh. Unfortunately Bukhus through his envious approach has nothing positive to offer apart from his weak defence of a person (Narang) who sincerity need a certificate in GCSE from Britain. Attacking on someone’s personal life is not the solution of answerless position of Narang or any other. In the whole article Bukhsh could not alleviate the intensity of the charges of plagiarism levelled against Narang. It seems that he has just come out on purpose to distract the attention of the readers from the real issue. Let the people dig out reality as Bhinder suggested in his every article and recently in his interview on the website “The World of Urdu.” He is again challenging that nobody can come up with “twenty original pages.... I do not refer to ideological, linguistic or sociological originality, I mean those twenty pages, which Narang has not plagiarized. Is anybody out there to prove it wrong?” Unfortunately still nobody came “out there to prove it wrong

Narang Needs Elementary Education
Shabana Yousaf
Student of Social Sciences at Milton Keynes University

I have just read a clarification by one Mr. Maula Bukhsh to prove biggest plagiarist of the twentieth century Mr. Gopi Chand Narang innocent against the severe charges of plagiarism levelled by Imran Shahid Bhinder. Interestingly, the debate has shifted from Urdu Journal to e-magazines and news papers. I have kept a constant eye on the writings about the issue of plagiarism and I have personally read both Western’s writers, which have been mentioned by Bhinder, as well as in Narang’s award-winning book “Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtyiaat or Mashriqi Sheriyat”(1994).

First of all let me correct Bukhsh misleading statement in his article that Narang’s controversial book has over 600 pages, Narang’s book consists of about 573 pages – excluding the childish details on other 13 pages of his books. If I include those pages it becomes a total of 590. The statement shows that Bukhsh has not even seen the book, he is just arguing on the bases of “hearsay” or “distorted” information.

Let me assert here an interesting quotation from Bhinder’s first article entitled “Gopi Chand Narang, Translator or Author?” published in Jadeed Adab#9; it will clearly show that Bukhsh himself has not read Narang’s book as he mentions in his article. While criticising C M Naim quite enviously, he says that Naim has not read the whole book, Wittgenstein also finds mention on page 37 in chapter one. I understand that Narang following others - which I am going to disclose in next few lines - has mentioned Wittgenstein, but it is not Narang’s own analysis. Surprisingly Bukhsh has written just about page 37 in a partial way, albeit Narang wrote about Wittgenstein in his book on page 34 as well, which Bukhsh seems reluctant to mention (for good reason though) becaue he knew Bhinder has cited the same page in his first article and how Narang has plagiarised the whole chapter. Before we move forward as part of this stage, you will find it equally helpful for facts and interesting about Bukhsh’s ignorance of Narang’s book, to cast your eyes once again over the quotation of Bhinder’s article, which he wrote two years ago. Bhinder compares the following passages of both from Robert Scholes book “Structuralism in Literature” and the translation of the same paragraph from Narang’s book. Bhinder quotes in his article Scholes interpretation of the theoretical changes occur in the beginning of the twentieth century and how Narang has plagiarised the interpretation of Scholes on page 1 of his book, Bhinder quotes the same paragraph in “Jadeed Adab#9, P, 46):

“The last half of the nineteenth century and the last half of the twentieth were characterized by the fragmentation of knowledge into isolated disciplines so formidable in their specialization as to seem beyond all synthesis. Even philosophy, the queen of the human sciences, came down from her throne to play solitary word games. Both the language-philosophy of Wittgenstein and the existentialism of the continental thinkers are philosophy of retreat……”

Bhinder identified plagiarism of Narang from Scholes book on page 34 in his award-winning book in these words:

“uneesween sadi k nisf aakhir or beesween sadi nisf awul main fikray insaani takhsees k mukhtlif maydaanoo main but btaa ker iss had tak para para ho gaee thi k iss main ksisi terhaa ki koee shiraza bandi mumkin nazer nahi aati thi- or to or khalis falsfa bhi jisay aloom-e- insanieea ka badisha kahaa ja at hay, wo bhi lafzoon k alag thalag per janay walay khail main lag chukaa tha. Wittgenstein ka falsfa lisaan ho ya euoropi mufakreen ki wajoodiyat, aslant yay sab mirajat k falsify hain ( Jadeed Adab#9, P, 46).

Should I think Narang is referring to Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations”? This is a big joke! I am sure Narang hasn’t even seen that book. Likewise, only a blind person can’t identify this plagiarism. It looks to more elusive evidence of how Narang exercises his skills of plagiarism, which is undoubtedly the ubiquitous structuring found in every page of his book.

Bukhsh adds that Narang has “gleaned up, culled, derived, adapted and abridged it and assimilated it to make it understandable in a language that lacks strict theoretical discipline and rigour.” If this was Narang’s attempt to “gleane up” then he really needs to learn how to be selective, that is definite skill: there’s no point in trying to translate everything from the books of other writers he doesn’t make it understandable, instead of that he has just stolen not only the Ideas of Western writers but their words and presentation too.

Bhinder has been writing ceaselessly on this particular point from his very first article, that (in the words of Bukhsh, “akhz-o-qabool and ifham-o-tafheem in Urdu)” are not Narang’s ifham-o-tafhim on the contrary these understandings and interpretations are of Westerns writer’s. How can Narng think as the same as Western writers, even though he belongs to a different culture and society? This statement of Bukhsh, of course, seems somewhat exaggerated in respect of “mere literal translations of separate words.” Although he translated lots of chapters from Norris, Culler, Belsey and Selden’s books ( it can be “mere translation” only for stereotypes like Bukhsh but for an honest writer or reader this is the plethora of plagiarism.

The distinctive value of interpretation and translation needs to be understood in a very coherent way, especially for our so-called scholar of Urdu Literature; as Bhinder has been trying to differentiate.

Try to avoid the reiterate arguments material in a way that does not solve the question of plagiarism, which has been done by Narng deliberately and tactfully; I would like to draw the attention to another awful approach by Bakhsh towards Naim, Just because he tried to confirm that Bhinder’s charges of plagiarism against Narang are irrefutable, which has been condoned or denied within traditions of Urdu Literature by Bukhsh. Unfortunately Bukhus through his envious approach has nothing positive to offer apart from his weak defence of a person (Narang) who sincerity need a certificate in GCSE from Britain. Attacking on someone’s personal life is not the solution of answerless position of Narang or any other. In the whole article Bukhsh could not alleviate the intensity of the charges of plagiarism levelled against Narang. It seems that he has just come out on purpose to distract the attention of the readers from the real issue. Let the people dig out reality as Bhinder suggested in his every article and recently in his interview on the website “The World of Urdu.” He is again challenging that nobody can come up with “twenty original pages.... I do not refer to ideological, linguistic or sociological originality, I mean those twenty pages, which Narang has not plagiarized. Is anybody out there to prove it wrong?” Unfortunately still nobody came “out there to prove it wrong”.

Gopi Chand Narang: A Stubborn Plagiarist (2)
By
Imran Shahid Bhinder

The crux of my claim, I finally made in my last article appeared in “Akaas International” in 2009 entitled “Himalaya of Plagiarism” is that one can hardly discover 20 pages in Dr Gopi Chand Narang’s award-winning book “Sakhtiyat Pas e Sakhtiyat and Mashriqi Sheriyat” that are not an exact translations of the Western interpreters of post-modernism. In 2006, I established that Gopi Chand Narang had plagiarised the entire first part on structuralism, second part on post-structuralism and the last part that entails the discussion of the “Situation, Problems and Potentialities.” However, I never carried out a thorough research on the first half of the third part that examines “Mashriqi Sheriyat and Structuralism”, because of this, I never claimed that this part had also been plagiarised. This part consists of only 152 pages. In this part, Narang claims to have comparatively identified certain themes that originate both in the Western and Eastern structuralist poetics. After a thorough investigation of the larger part of the book (excluding a part on Mashriqi Sheriyat), uncertainties about the remaining part have further strengthened. I can unhesitatingly assert that the scholars who have an in-depth knowledge of the Eastern linguistics and poetics, particularly of a tradition that were formulated by Nagarjuna, Sankara or Aurobindo, may extend the sphere of the research to that part and finally can successfully emerge with some superior evidence about the fragmented expositions assembled in that part.

Narang’s book consists of 575 pages, if I deduct 152 pages on “Mashriqi Sheriyat, and 9 pages of preface from the total of 575pages; the remaining particulars demonstrate that Narang has daringly plagiarised approximately 393 pages. It must be borne in mind that Narang seems to have employed his own language in remaining twenty pages quite technically. For instance, when a Western interpreter gives an example of Wordsworth, Narang instantaneously drags Ghalib in, just to create an impression of originality. According to my systematic investigation, the numbers of the pages, where he exercises his own language, I reiterate again, cannot exceed the limit of twenty pages. Should I think that credit must be given to Dr Narang for advocating Western post-modernism without executing an in-depth analysis that could have revealed (if carried out) the inherent contradictions between the two economically, culturally, socially and politically opposite societies?


The recent heated controversy about the fact that Narang confessed in the preface that the ideas are of the Western philosophers, I had already answered by quoting the same sentences of Narang in my first Urdu article appeared in a Pakistani journal, “Nairang e Khayal” in 2006. Unfortunately, harsh criticism, on the bases of least understanding or distorted facts, comes from those who do not read original sources. On the contrary, either they merely rely on the pre-conceived image of a writer or they have their own ideological preferences that prevent them to face the reality. I would want to disclose briefly some of the fundamental facts here, a larger part however, has already been exposed in my extensive Urdu articles appeared in a Urdu journal ‘Jadeed Adab’ and reappeared in ‘Akaas International’ (with the exception of fourth article entitled “Himalya of Plagiarism”, it only appeared in Akaas). Nevertheless, here rather than repeating old paragraphs. I have endeavored to give a zest of some new evidence. This article will also unveil that how Narang does his best to conceal the facts and distorts textual material just to create confusion about his plagiarism. That confusion can be identified and eventually overcome by undertaking a meticulous and comprehensive comparative study of at least those chapters that I have already unequivocally documented.

First, I would concentrate on Raman Seldon’s introductory book A Readers Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, because the existing evidence fortifies my claim, which I have repeatedly asserted that Narang has plagiarised more or less 150 pages from a single book, that is why I insist the readers of these lines should directly embark on a comparative study based on the facts that I am going to investigate fleetingly however, in the next few pages.

I call for the attention of the reader to an extremely bizarre fact that everlastingly transformed my perception about Narang as a literary or cultural ‘critic’ in particular and about Urdu scholarship in general. The moment when I discovered that Narang had not just absolutely failed to perform an original analysis of Edward said’s Orientalism (whom he claimed to have invited at a conference in India), but absolutely failed to give a brief description of Said’s ideas in his own words. Being incredibly influenced by Derridean deconstruction and Foucault’s theory of ‘power’, Said’s certain ideas, particularly decentred consciousness and his conception of dismantling exclusive domination, required severe criticism entirely in the Eastern context. Being a representative of the Western world, Seldon also did not critically analyse the work of any of the Western philosophers as deeply as it could have been expected in the Eastern context, here too he shortly pursued the ideas of Said with reference to Foucault. Seldon dedicates just three pages to Said’s overall contribution (see P, 190-193). What Narang accomplished was extremely astonishing; he dedicated just one page to the entire work of Said, regrettably however, that particular page was not in his own words; that was the perfect translation of Seldon’s words. That can vividly be witnessed on page 199, starting from second paragraph. If anybody proves this evidence false, I will be quite willing to acknowledge Narang one of the greatest literary critics in the history of Urdu literature. On the contrary, what title the plagiarist really deserves for? How can a scholar who claims to have obtained his PhD in 1958 perform such an act of plagiarism? The name and ideas of Said are so common in today’s world that every student of social and political theory have an idea about the intellectual project of Said. Was Mr. Narang teething some troubles in formulating terminologies for the explanation of Said’s ideas? Is he not capable of writing just one page on Said in his own words? What a shameful act.

Another deceitfully managed aspect became apparent, when I discovered that how Narang had included the discussion of French structuralist Marxist Louis Althusser in the fifth chapter of “book two” starting on page 253. I assume that the comparative study of Althusser’s work in chapter four of Seldon’s book to Narang’s award-winning book is enormously disappointing for the students of Urdu literature. When I compared Seldon’s transitory analysis to Narang’s words, I was shocked once again. That appeared to me simply an act of line-by-line translation. Seldon had a brief look at Althusser’s entire work (to identify translation, see P, 88-89). Narang has just translated these pages 252-253. However, while comparing the work of Seldon and Narang, I came across a dubious approach. For instance, Seldon also discusses Althusser in chapter six (129-130) and has identified some commonalities between Althusser’s ideas and French structuralist psychologist Jacque Lacan’s ’real’ and ‘imaginary’ approach in psychoanalysis, which seems to have inspired from Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Sausurre. Narang, quite shrewdly, gives a false impression that originally he has identified the similarities between Lacanian psychoanalysis and Althusser’s theory of ideology. However, the facts here are creating an entirely different picture. Seldon himself attempts to identify certain similar factors to motivate the students to explore the theoretical issues further. Narang has done nothing apart from translating these two pages (see, 256 onwards).


Seldon describes briefly about “The Historical Development of Formalism” in the second chapter of his book. Seldon examines the subject between pages 28-30. Then Seldon moves forward towards each theorist starting from Russian formalist Victor Shklovsky and Tomashevsky. Narang, without stopping on any point and having a second thought, begins translating the whole section of Seldon on the historical background of Russian formalism on page 81 onwards. Astonishingly, Seldon shows a soft corner for the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, considering Trotsky’s criticism of formalism in his classic Literature and Revolution (1924). In Seldon’s words, “Trotsky’s sophisticated criticisms of formalism.....ushered in a defensive phase (P, 29). The readers would be surprised to know that why I had started analysing the works of Russian revolutionary and the formalists. Readers would be more surprised to find out that Narang, because of his hostility to Marxist aestheticism, adopts a propagandist attitude on the same pages by giving altogether a different reference. Narang has not only erased just one word (sophisticated), which Seldon used admiringly about Trotsky’s criticism of formalism, but is also referring towards entirely different source that he has not plagiarised here at least. Let me translate a sentence by Narang, “Bennett says that those who belong to Bakhtin School attempted to combine formalist and Marxist traditions in fruitful ways that anticipated later development...” (P, 82-83). Narang has lifted this short sentence from Seldon’s book just to divert the attention of the reader. When I compared these words to Seldon’s words, for instance, “especially in the writings of ‘Bakhtin School’ which combined formalist and Marxist traditions in fruitful ways that anticipated later developments....” (P, 29), Narang’s purpose of generating confusion became apparent. The question here is if Narang has not translated this paragraph from Tony Bennett’s Formalism and Marxism, as the evidence shows, then why is he referring here to Bennett? I have carefully read and checked Bennett’s book and now I can firmly affirm that the same sentence has been lifted from Seldon’s book, without giving any reference, as I referred above. Bennet and Seldon belong to a different literary and cultural tradition. They cannot use the same sentence without actually acknowledging the real sources. Dishonesty only occurs in Urdu literature by these kinds of critics who have their own ethnic or ideological agendas.

Now come to the next point that is equally startling like the one explained above. Seldon briefly describes why the Russian formalists focussed on the importance of techniques and devices in poetics and literature. For this purpose Seldon discusses “Art as device: Shklovsky and Tomashevsky” on page 30 onwards. Narang translated the entire analysis by Seldon into Urdu that could be observed on page 83 onwards. Quite expertly however, Narang has only changed the title as “Poetic language.” The rest of the words are an exact translation of Seldon’s work. I have come across another strange fact about this part of translation. Narang has quoted Shklovsky on page 85 (Seldon has already quoted the same passage on 31). Ironically, Narang has translated this quotation in Urdu and has put it in inverted commas as Seldon has done, but he has provided neither any page numbers nor the name of the actual book. Being extraordinarily flexible here, while ignoring the norms, standards and quality of literary scholarship, Narang can be spared for four or five lines mistake. Nevertheless, the evidence revealed - that must be taken into consideration while analysing the rest of his work - Narang knew about the importance of using quotations and the use of it. Nonetheless, I observed that the whole part was a word-by-word translation, therefore I supposed, rather than just one sentence, the whole paragraph should have been in inverted commas.

Equally surprising is the fact that on page 32, Seldon quotes Tomashevsky’s quite lengthy paragraph, again Narang translates this paragraph and keeps it in inverted commas. As he keeps it in inverted commas, he deserves to be spared of this minor mistake. However, the point here is again the same that is the worst example of literary plagiarism; if he is just translating the whole chapter, it is expected that he would explicitly state either that the whole chapter was just a translation, or he should have been kept the whole chapter in inverted commas. If ten pages are, nothing more than translation than what is the point to keep just one or two short sentences in inverted commas?

Similarly, the rest of the chapter where Seldon has discussed Jakobson on pages 36-38 is also an exact translation. For word-by-word translation of “Bakhtin School” see 38-42, and finally on “The Aesthetic Function: Mukarovsky” see pages 42-46. In Narang’s book the exact translations of the above pages the third chapter on pages 79-106 can be checked.

Seldon has analysed “Poststructuralist theories” in chapter six of his book. I firmly establish that the whole chapter, apart from the discussion on French literary critic Roland Barthes, is a sheer example of worst plagiarism. However, it does not mean that the part (on Roland Barthes) he has not plagiarised from Seldon’s book is his own analysis. Large part of the essay on Barthes has been lifted from John Sturrock’s Structuralism and Since: From Lev- Straus to Derrida (1980). However, as I have already compared the plagiarised pages of Sturrock’s book in my previous essays therefore, here I will not go into its detail. Those who are interested in knowing the particulars about Roland Barthes’s essay and the exploitation of it by Narang can compare pages 54-58 in Sturrock’ book to pages 161-163 in Narang’s book. Interestingly, the essay on Barthes is quite lengthy, Narang has not just plagiarised the essay on Barthes from Sturrock’s book; Seldon has also carried out a short interpretative analysis of Barthes’s most important book S/Z on pages 133-134. Narang has also plagiarised this short interpretation on pages 167-168. I can securely establish that Narang has plagiarised every word of this 28 pages long essay. Narang has rejoiced the full benefit of reading and exploiting by misinterpreting the theory of inter-textuality the idea of which Julia Kristeva derived from eighteenth century German objective idealist philosopher Georg Hegel.

The only difference, however, is that in Narang’s book the discussion about Barthes has been made available in the first chapter of book-2. And the rest of the theorists such as Lacan, Foucault, Kristevan Deleuze and Guattari have been discussed in the second chapter of book-2 and the discussion about Derrida along with the American deconstructionists can be found in chapter three and four respectively. As I have identified the page numbers in my detailed essays in Urdu, the reader could accessibly compare the plagiarised material against the actual source. I claim that the section on Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, Jacques Derrida, De man, White, Bloom, Hartman, Miller and Michel Foucault are word-by-word translations. For instance, to make the comparison comprehensible, when we start reading Seldon’s book from the first paragraph of page 138 onwards, we instantly spot Narang with the astonishing fact that how he translates several pages on lacan on page 183 onwards. Narang, so deviously, has just given one quotation in English; here is the translation: “this force of desire is the unconscious” (Narang, P, 185). It was imperative here to give the appropriate page numbers but Narang, intentionally though, avoided giving the actual source. In fact this is not a quotation by Lacan’s; this is just the last sentence on page 138 in Seldon’s book, that important sentence Seldon inscribed just to explicate the theoretical avenues of Lacanian psychoanalysis. When I discovered that Mr. Narang, so courageously, is plagiarising several pages from Seldon’s book, predictably, I continued my research to expose more facts about Narang’s Plagiarism. There is another grievous mistake by Narang that can never be overlooked in literary scholarship. It is interesting to know how he studies Seldon’s analysis about Julia Kristeva. Seldon continues his analysis of Lacan and fleetingly examines the impact of Lacanian psychoanalysis upon Kristeva on the following pages as I have given the details above. Narang shrewdly gives an interval of discontinuity in order to make the whole episode more perplexed; he drags the discussion of Foucault into the text soon after Lacan, and relocate the word-by-word discussion on Kristeva on page 200. When I compared intimately the first paragraph in Seldon’s book on page 139 to the second paragraph in Narang’s book on Page 185, I stunned that how promptly Narang had plagiarised the entire study of Seldon.

Narang has done his best, although unconsciously, to make himself a public spectacle by plagiarising so many important discussions from a single book. Lets us move on to chapter four of book-1 in “Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtiyat aur Mashriqi Sheriyat” where Narang has discussed the “poetics of fiction and structuralism.” As I have shown elsewhere that Narang has plagiarised innumerable paragraphs from Scholes early book entitled Structuralism in Literature, I will not repeat the same episode here. On page 126 Narang has discussed A.J Greimas while giving a reference of Greimas’s book Semantique and Structurale (1966), unfortunately however, Narang does not give a single quotation from the same book, instead of that from page 126 onwards, he plagiarises the whole section from Seldon’s book starting from page 111. The next important point that necessitates the attention of the reader is that entails the discussion of Gennete and Todorov. To see the reality about discussion on Gennet; I compared the last paragraph on pages 113-115 in Seldon’s book; I came to know another worst example of an exact translation of the same section on Gennet. A reader can compare the page 132 onwards in Narang’s book. The details about Todorov are extremely astonishing. I claim that each word on Todorov is a translation of books by two different authors. For the first part see Seldon’s interesting interpretation on pages 112-113 and Narang’s exact imitation of the words on pages 127-129.

A certain sect who claims to be a “student” of Urdu literature is in a perplexing situation about Narang’s act of plagiarism. In-fact the honesty that is required to identify and reject consequently the balatant act that constitutes plagiarism is absolutely lacking in these sorts of people. Narang has many allies assembling in his support promoting dishonesty in literature, there are many, on the other side, who cast doubt upon Narang’s credibility, endorsing Narang’s constitution of plagiarism.


Since my preliminary inquiry about Narang’s plagiarism, the actual purpose has never been to launch a denigrating campaign against him, but to draw attention of the relevant authorities and genuine literary figures towards this extremely important issue that has been detrimental to Urdu scholarship for several decades. Narang’s exponents completely overlook the central point when they argue that the accusations against Narang are unjust and the purpose, they claim, is nothing but to disparage Narang as a scholar. The issue of plagiarism cannot be restricted to just one individual; it is related to the whole Urdu literature and criticism. It is a time to admit that the issue of plagiarism has been a colossal obstacle in understanding the contextual importance of theoretical approach that I conceive must be tested against the contextualised empirical reality. For past many decades, as I understand, its impact on the free and original research has been disastrous. The purpose of my articles is to create an understanding about plagiarism and its unpleasant impact on the Urdu scholarship. I believe that not a single book of an international caliber has been written in Urdu for more than last eighty years. If we have authentic writers to quote, why do we still need to give a reference of Edward Said, Michel Foucault, Frantz Fanon, Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, and Louis Althusser and so on when a question of imperialism, criticism, culture and other social sciences is being answered? Because from the core of our heart we are certain there is no original writer in Urdu who could independently reflect upon the real situation. As a representative and part of posterity I must resist these kinds of harmful tendencies to prosper any longer, literature serves the people not a single individual. Condemning such acts candidly, at present, it seems to me utterly rationale to eradicate all the unethical and unliterary approaches inherent in Urdu literature and criticism. I understand that the corruption in the Urdu literary world is just the super-structural expression of the underlying contradictions rooted deep in the ideological as well as corrupt capitalist structure that has besieged the literary world, where notorious desire are free to flourish. However, it is a time to explicitly condemn these kinds of absurdities showing some decency, rather than be a part of immoralities. Certainly, the future of Urdu language and literature cannot be left on the mercy of a hostile plagiarist or his dishonest supporters.

The whole story of Gopi Chand Narang’s threats and censorship is a reality and it is already published in literary journal “Esbaat” Thane (December 2008 to February 2009 issue, published from Mumbai). The Daily Hindustan Express Delhi reproduced the same story and since then it is available on its website. On the same page my article entitled “Munir Parvez Saami kay Heelon ki Roodad” (“The Story of Munir Parvez Saamis Tactics”) revealing the real nature of Dr Narang’s tactics in order to defend himself against the charges of plagiarism was published. My both Articles are available at this link:
http://dailyhindusta...adbi_sargarmiyan.htm
Apart from these, in 2009, the same story was again appeared in “Akaas International.” Dr. Gopi Chand Number May 2009.The question here is why Narang and his defenders have considered it necessary at this stage to break the silence particularly about the censorship issue? Just because the extremely condemnable act of their adviser has appeared in the English press now?

The censorship was imposed on “Jadeed Adab-12” three times. Last time, a letter by Ali Jawed was censored and replaced it with a letter by Salim Agha. It is a harsh though but an extremely condemnable reality. Mustafa Kamal Pasha sahib will never (on oath) repudiate the story of threats and censorship that I have written in a greater detail in my article entitled “The story of Jadeed Adab-12”. I cannot utter a word about the validity of the facts mentioned by one of Narang’s companion. At this stage I don’t want to go into more detail.

It will also be interesting to know that Narang again put pressure on the editor of “Daily Hamara Maqsad” (published from Delhi) in order to stop the publication of another article of mine that was expected to appear in the publication of 19th of August. On 18th Augusts evening The final copy was ready but the editor could not bear the pressure and consequently my article was erased. I have also got the proof of that story. The article was later appeared in three newspapers and unfortunately Narang failed to achieve his objectives again
in the end i also enjoyed the letter of Munir parvez Saami, the article MUNIR PARVEZ SAAMI KAY HEELON KI ROODAAD is very much about his tactics too.
(after getting the translation of my urdu statement i am going to post it in english.H.Q)

As a student of Urdu literature living in diaspora, I noticed the reference to Educational Publishing House, in Dr. Maula Bakhsh's comments here.

Over the years I have been a board member of PEN Canada, and Chair of its Writers in Exile Committee, and have just stepped down from my positions. I also moderate an internet group on South Asian topics promoting enlightenment and moderation, with over 1700 members. Prof C M Naim has been a respected contributor to our group. We have also been fortunate to interact with Dr. Gopi Chand Narang, Shamsur Rehman Farooqui, and other literary personalities of South Asia.

While we believe in Freedom of Expression, we do not believe in overt or covert libel, and willful vilification of a literary icon.

Educational Publishing Houses is also the publisher of major books by Dr. Gopi Chand Narang.

The fact that it published material against him shows the integrity of the publisher and the grace of Dr. Narang despite a long movement of character assassination against him.

As students of literature we know the tensions, antipathies, and conflicts between great personalities of Arts and Literature. These include, Shakespeare-Ben Jonson, Ghalib-Zauq, Mozart-Salieri, Michael Angelo-Raphael-Leonardo, and others.

We also know that in the history of arts and literature, the totality of the work and its impact on the posterity is the ultimate winner. Any perceived errors are ultimately forgotten and forgiven.

In the case of Dr. Narang v/s his rivals, his works are expected to stand out. I do not name his adversaries but their coat hangers are well known and are only damaging themselves before the students of Urdu literature.

What one hopes is that, like Ben Jonson who rose to the occasion and ultimately recognized Shakespeare, Dr. Narang's adversaries will also show the grace towards him, and put an end to the mockery that is being played here before the audience of contemporary Urdu literature. One can always hope.

I share here a reference on Ben Jonson,

"Jonson's most influential and revealing commentary on Shakespeare is the second of the two poems that he contributed to the prefatory verse that opens Shakespeare's First Folio. This poem, "To the memory of my beloved, The AUTHOR, Mr. William Shakespeare: And what he hath left us," did a good deal to create the traditional view of Shakespeare as a poet who, despite "small Latine, and lesse Greeke",[9] had a natural genius. The poem has traditionally been thought to exemplify the contrast Jonson perceived between himself, the disciplined and erudite classicist, scornful of ignorance and skeptical of the masses, and Shakespeare, represented in the poem as a kind of natural wonder whose genius was not subject to any rules except those of the audiences for which he wrote. But the poem itself qualifies this view:

Yet must I not give Nature all: Thy Art,
My gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part.

Some view this elegy as a conventional exercise, but a rising number of critics see it as a heartfelt tribute to the "Sweet Swan Of Avon," the "Soul of the Age!" It has been compellingly argued that Jonson helped to edit the First Folio, and he may have been inspired to write this poem, surely one of his greatest, by reading his fellow playwright's works, a number of which had been previously either unpublished or available in less satisfactory versions, in a relatively complete form."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jonson

Thanks Munir

The Courtiers and Clowns
===================

Maula Bakhsh on C M Naim
===================

Naim’s recent Note (26 August 2009) clearly vindicates my stand that his piece (July 24) draws its sustenance from hearsay information as his two recent additional short notes (3 August 2009 and 10 August 2009) are braced for supplementing what he has left out which now he has incorporated. He has also revised his translation of Narang’s response in Nand Kishore Vikram’s book. Again his translation is inadequate and does not fully convey the full import of what Narang had said.

It is a poor testament of his academic integrity when he admits that he has yet not seen Nand Kishore Vikram’s book and was reproducing and translating from a tertiary source where text has deliberately been distorted and excerpts were presented out of context. As before Naim’s arguments are clumsy and faltered on factual counts and unwittingly he is caught on the wrong foot. Naim’s problem is that he has not read Narang’s book from cover to cover. Needless to say it is an integrated book of more than six hundred pages but poor Naim zeroes in on the first 200 odd pages and that too against the backdrop of exaggerated allegations made by a motivated academically naive third party. That is why he had to revise time again what he had written earlier.

Having been away from home for too long to teach elementary Urdu to US students, it now appears that Naim needs a complete honing up of his Urdu as will be shown later, but before I take that up, let me put first things first.

1. Basing his assertions on hearsay and distorted information passed on by others, Naim lately has raised the sensitive issue of censorship and black mailing the publisher of Jadeed Adab. Only an extremely irresponsible person would hurl such a wild allegation in the absence of any first hand information. Naim always has been on a slippery ground but this time he enters the realm of pure speculation bordering on blasphemy. To expose the absurdity of such an allegation and to nail down the lie, the statement issued by the publisher is being reproduced below:

===================
Educational Publishing House (3108, Gali Azizuddin Vakil, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006), publisher of Jadeed Adab has recently issued a statement clarifying that “The Journal is being regularly published by us, and to say that Prof. Gopi Chand Narang has black-mailed us and stopped its publication is not only baseless but absurd. We categorically contradict and condemn any such charge. The journal is appearing without any interruption.”

(Sd/- Mustafa Kamal Pasha)
ephdelhi@yahoo.com
5 September 2009.
===================

Obviously this does not need any further comment. C M Naim’s other charges are also of the same nature.

2. Naim has once again quoted Narang’s response from Vikram’s book, though based on a tertiary source as pointed out earlier. Needless to say he has yet not seen the original book which is easily available. It is naive to think that Narang has said this in self-defence. If one knows Urdu well and can appreciate the wider nuances of Narang’s words, it is a statement where in all humility he is saying that he was not born with all this information which he shares with his readers. He has gleaned up, culled, derived, adapted and abridged it and assimilated it to make it understandable in a language that lacks strict theoretical discipline and rigour. Naim with his ostensible prejudice turns it upside down to suit his purpose. Furthermore, akhz-o-qabool and ifham-o-tafheem in Urdu are phrases with wider semantic implications and mere literal translations of separate words cannot do justice to the full range of meanings. Much before Vikram’s book Narang has said all this very clearly in the Preface of his book (Pp. 11, 13, 14, 1993). He has even gone to the extent of issuing a disclaimer that all what he has presented belongs to the thinkers, philosophers, theorists and experts; the shortcomings if any are his but the credit for the discourse goes to the thinkers. The concepts and ideas are of the others only the interpretation and communication in Urdu is his. Narang also said that he was enlisting all the sources comprehensively so that the inquisitive reader should go to the authorities. (P.14, 1993). These statements read with the reply in the interview, the Dedication lines and the chapter-wise bibliographies are more than enough to prove that how ill- founded and ill- conceived the campaign against Narang has been.

3. Naim’s discussion on Saussure and Christopher Norris is also misleading. A couple of pages before coming to this point Narang has introduced Norris’ book to the reader as one of the best expositions of theory. Norris also finds mention in the bibliography with an asterisk underscoring the point that Narang has used this source. Then follows the discussion on the subtle point of how language constructs reality independent of others. To illustrate the point to his reader, Narang besides citing examples from French, German, and English etc. from the original and driving the point home to his oriental reader ropes in ample examples not only from Urdu, Persian and Arabic but also from Hindi, Punjabi, Marathi and Bengali. All this obviously is beyond the range of Naim. In his awful hurry to join issue with Narang, Naim cites two sets of examples and in a show of pedantry he again falters forgetting that by doing so he is contradicting his own charge of plagiarism as he unwittingly admits that all this interpretation is Narang’s. Further, he also fails to appreciate the crux of Saussure’s arguments that there is no essentiality between word and meaning, and every language constructs meaning arbitrarily and independently by a system of differentiation.

4. Naim’s assertion about Wittgenstein is also equally flawed. Since he has not read the whole book, he does not know that Wittgenstein also finds mention on page 37 in chapter 1. While on page 219, the reference is to 'Philosophical Investigations', the reference in chapter 1 is to 'Tractatus Logico – Philosophicus'. Both the books are fully cited. Perhaps only a person of myopic vision can not see. Furthermore, in the same chapter elaborating the implications of ‘logos’ as discussed by Derrida, Narang alludes to both the Sanskrit and the Arabic traditions. Discussing the wider implications of Vak in the Indian tradition he has cited Bhartrihari’s giving three stages of Vani or Saraswati in Vakyapadya, i.e., Vaikhri, Madhyma and Pashyanti (Para / Pratibha, P. 209). For Naim and his “academic greenhorns” all this must also be derived from the western sources.

5. One does not understand why Naim derides Norris, Culler, and Selden etc. by describing them as mere commentators. Even an ordinary student of literature knows that be it Kalidasa, Shakespeare, or Ghalib, their commentaries are as much part of the Kalidasa, Shakespearian or Ghalibian discourse. It is well known that in Sanskrit studies while reading Panini’s 'Ashtaadhyayi', or Anandavardhana’s 'Dhvanialoka', equal attention is given to Patanjali’s 'Mahabhashya' and Abhinavagupta’s 'Dhvanialoka Lochanam'. The same is true of the commentaries of Saussure, Derrida, Foucault, etc. They are as much part of the theoretical discourse as the basic texts. Narang dealing with both the oriental and the western traditions has freely and frankly used all sources, and introduced them to his reader. If this is a disservice, then Naim and associates are most welcome to undertake some true service and produce a better book. I know this is beyond their tether.

6. The pinnacle of Narang’s presentation and arguments lie in his constructing and suggesting a model of literary criticism for Urdu (Pp. 565-573). Before embarking on that he has given a candid appraisal of developments how the progressive writers’ movement in Urdu fell prey to its own regimentation and totalitarianism, and later how the project of modernism was hijacked by the neo-classicists and fundamentalists, and shorn of egalitarian agenda, it was reduced to an ennui and turned into a tool of sectarianism and revivalism. Narang believes that the true role of criticism is ‘oppositional’ and in this he derives his strength from Derrida, Foucault and Edward Said. It looks pertinent to reproduce a quote:

“In its suspicion of totalizing concepts, in its discontent with reified objects, in its impatience with guilds, special interests, imperialized fiefdoms, and orthodox habits of mind, criticism is most itself and, if the paradox can be tolerated, most unlike itself at the moment it starts turning into organised dogma.” (Edward Said, P. 496).

The model suggested by Narang has in fact been quite discomforting for the well -entrenched revivalist Urdu establishment. So if their sympathizers attack Narang, it should not come as a surprise.

7. But why Naim of all the people has written with such a vendetta? It might be interesting to note that this is not the first time that he has betrayed this sort of ‘kindness’. The fact is while Narang was at the University of Wisconsin, and his book 'Readings in Literary Urdu Prose' was taken up for publication by the University of Wisconsin Press, incidentally Naim was one of the reviewers. He wrote a scathing review to thwart the publication of the book but that was not to be as the other two reviewers were extremely favourable. The book has gone into many editions and is still popular in foreign universities. It is on the recommended list of Urdu readings in the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University and is generally referred to as ‘Narang Reader’. A very recent reaction of a distinguished former student will not be out of place:

===================
From: Christopher King
Date: Monday, 24 August, 2009, 11:19 AM

Dear Gopi Chand Narangji,
You will remember that we met again in 2005, …, after having first met so many years ago at the University of Wisconsin.

Your book, 'Urdu: Readings in Literary Urdu Prose' has been such a wonderful aid to me these last few months in learning the Urdu script better and in increasing my Urdu vocabulary. Thank you so much for creating such a useful and 'fun-full' book! I know it was many years ago that you produced it, but thought that you might like to hear from a former student of yours how useful it still is for him.

Khuda Hafiz
Christopher King

(Copied to Dr Maula Bakhsh, maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com)
===================

The second episode is related to the publication of Narang’s highly debated article “How Not to Read Faiz Ahmad Faiz” in the journal Soughat, Bangalore (1990). Naim again wrote a deriding review trying to tear apart the article which had discussed the clash between the ideological and the aesthetic project in Faiz, and how one cannot be prefaced over the other. Later the article caught on, appearing and reappearing in India and Pakistan, and then in Narang’s Hindi book 'Urdu par Khulta Dareecha' (2005). Recently Dr. Baidar Bakht translated it into English for the journal Indian Literature (IL-249, Jan-Feb 2009). About the nature of this article a recent comment by an unknown discerning reader should suffice:

===================
From: Chander Verma
Subject: How Not to Read Faiz Ahmad Faiz?
Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2009, 12:42 PM

Read your translated paper which appeared in ‘Indian Literature’ titled "How not to Read Faiz Ahmad Faiz?"

I have no words to admire you for your intellectual work and unusual insight into Faiz Ahmad's poetry. Criticism of this quality is rare and unseen. We are proud to have scholars like you in India.

God Bless you!!

Chander Verma

(Copied to Dr Maula Bakhsh, maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com)
===================

This would amply show how uncharitable Naim all along has been to Narang. The reasons must be best known to him.

8. But one wonders the timing? Perhaps Naim himself has provided a clue towards the end of his latest note. Shifting his position from plagiarism to culture and education, he has cited the latest honours given to Narang by the Maulana Azad National Urdu University and the Aligarh Muslim University. Perhaps it is the honour by the Aligarh Muslim University that has irked him the most. A friend from Aligarh remarked that Narang received the accolades for his dedication and sustained life long contribution and for his unflinching faith in Urdu but what is the contribution of his adversaries. For that matter if Naim thinks that Aligarh has forgotten his shady deal in the past, he is mistaken. It is well known that way back in the seventies he had invited Prof. A. A. Suroor, Head of the Urdu Department at Aligarh Muslim University to Chicago on the pretext of Ghalib Centenary, and later in return Prof. Suroor invited him to Aligarh Muslim University as a guest lecturer. Since Naim had not completed his Ph.D., he was denied tenure appointment at Chicago. To bail him out, Suroor appointed him to the post of Reader overnight superseding many senior teachers. Using Aligarh’s Readership as a jumping board, within months Naim returned to Chicago assured of his greener pasture. It is quite clear that he not only abused Aligarh’s hospitality but also betrayed the trust of his teacher.

9. Lastly can C M Naim who is exuberating self-righteousness and has tried to assume high moral grounds deny that he has links with an Urdu caucus deeply rooted in fundamentalism? The nucleus is in Allahabad and its overreach in centres outside India. (See: “Adab mein Talibaniat ka Aghaaz aur Adabi Taliban”, in AALMI AKHBAR, dated 29 August 2009, link: http://www.aalmiakhb...mileye&article=8135)
Can he deny that they are the people who wrecked the modernist movement in Urdu by discarding its radical social agenda and subsequently made it a tool of sectarianism? Why has he chosen to be silent about what has been happening around him all these years? The rot is under his very nose. The charity must begin at home. The comic situation is that the courtiers and clowns are clapping and raising blasphemous chatter about others. One wishes they could look at their feet of clay and gather the courage to laugh at themselves.

Dr Maula Bakhsh
Head, Urdu Department
Dayal Singh College
University of Delhi
New Delhi-110003
< maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com >

===================
P.S.: For Naim’s kind information, the name of the journal from Bombay, which he quoted is ‘Isbaat’ not ‘Asbat’. There is no name in Urdu as Asbat. Asbat is the plural of sabt while isbat stands for ‘confirmation, proof, and certain knowledge’. He might like to check with his mentors at Allahabad or Lucknow.

.....

...

Facts provided by C.M.Naim are eye-openers.
I am also getting so many emails from our literary world.
Here I want to share an e-mail of a friend regarding this subject.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
"Dear Haider Saheb,
I thank you for being so proactively pursuing the question of purity of thought, creativity and expression in Urdu making Dr.Gopi Chand Narang's case as symptomatic of the malaise.
While this kind of plagarism is condemnable unequivocally, Mr. C.M.Naim has drawn attention to another issue of manipulations in the corridors of powers to win patronage and positions. This is what had happened in case of Dr.Narang. This is a weakness of the system because of it real talent suffers while mediocrity thrives.
I also wish to inform you that I am presently in Canada and will move back to India around 25th September.
Jagdish Prakash"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Facts provided by C.M.Naim are eye-openers.
I am also getting so many emails from our literary world.
Here I want to share an e-mail of a friend regarding this subject.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
"Dear Haider Saheb,
I thank you for being so proactively pursuing the question of purity of thought, creativity and expression in Urdu making Dr.Gopi Chand Narang's case as symptomatic of the malaise.
While this kind of plagarism is condemnable unequivocally, Mr. C.M.Naim has drawn attention to another issue of manipulations in the corridors of powers to win patronage and positions. This is what had happened in case of Dr.Narang. This is a weakness of the system because of it real talent suffers while mediocrity thrives.
I also wish to inform you that I am presently in Canada and will move back to India around 25th September.
Jagdish Prakash"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

...

.....

The Courtiers and Clowns
===================

Maula Bakhsh on C M Naim
===================

Naim’s recent Note (26 August 2009) clearly vindicates my stand that his piece (July 24) draws its sustenance from hearsay information as his two recent additional short notes (3 August 2009 and 10 August 2009) are braced for supplementing what he has left out which now he has incorporated. He has also revised his translation of Narang’s response in Nand Kishore Vikram’s book. Again his translation is inadequate and does not fully convey the full import of what Narang had said.

It is a poor testament of his academic integrity when he admits that he has yet not seen Nand Kishore Vikram’s book and was reproducing and translating from a tertiary source where text has deliberately been distorted and excerpts were presented out of context. As before Naim’s arguments are clumsy and faltered on factual counts and unwittingly he is caught on the wrong foot. Naim’s problem is that he has not read Narang’s book from cover to cover. Needless to say it is an integrated book of more than six hundred pages but poor Naim zeroes in on the first 200 odd pages and that too against the backdrop of exaggerated allegations made by a motivated academically naive third party. That is why he had to revise time again what he had written earlier.

Having been away from home for too long to teach elementary Urdu to US students, it now appears that Naim needs a complete honing up of his Urdu as will be shown later, but before I take that up, let me put first things first.

1. Basing his assertions on hearsay and distorted information passed on by others, Naim lately has raised the sensitive issue of censorship and black mailing the publisher of Jadeed Adab. Only an extremely irresponsible person would hurl such a wild allegation in the absence of any first hand information. Naim always has been on a slippery ground but this time he enters the realm of pure speculation bordering on blasphemy. To expose the absurdity of such an allegation and to nail down the lie, the statement issued by the publisher is being reproduced below:

===================
Educational Publishing House (3108, Gali Azizuddin Vakil, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006), publisher of Jadeed Adab has recently issued a statement clarifying that “The Journal is being regularly published by us, and to say that Prof. Gopi Chand Narang has black-mailed us and stopped its publication is not only baseless but absurd. We categorically contradict and condemn any such charge. The journal is appearing without any interruption.”

(Sd/- Mustafa Kamal Pasha)
ephdelhi@yahoo.com
5 September 2009.
===================

Obviously this does not need any further comment. C M Naim’s other charges are also of the same nature.

2. Naim has once again quoted Narang’s response from Vikram’s book, though based on a tertiary source as pointed out earlier. Needless to say he has yet not seen the original book which is easily available. It is naive to think that Narang has said this in self-defence. If one knows Urdu well and can appreciate the wider nuances of Narang’s words, it is a statement where in all humility he is saying that he was not born with all this information which he shares with his readers. He has gleaned up, culled, derived, adapted and abridged it and assimilated it to make it understandable in a language that lacks strict theoretical discipline and rigour. Naim with his ostensible prejudice turns it upside down to suit his purpose. Furthermore, akhz-o-qabool and ifham-o-tafheem in Urdu are phrases with wider semantic implications and mere literal translations of separate words cannot do justice to the full range of meanings. Much before Vikram’s book Narang has said all this very clearly in the Preface of his book (Pp. 11, 13, 14, 1993). He has even gone to the extent of issuing a disclaimer that all what he has presented belongs to the thinkers, philosophers, theorists and experts; the shortcomings if any are his but the credit for the discourse goes to the thinkers. The concepts and ideas are of the others only the interpretation and communication in Urdu is his. Narang also said that he was enlisting all the sources comprehensively so that the inquisitive reader should go to the authorities. (P.14, 1993). These statements read with the reply in the interview, the Dedication lines and the chapter-wise bibliographies are more than enough to prove that how ill- founded and ill- conceived the campaign against Narang has been.

3. Naim’s discussion on Saussure and Christopher Norris is also misleading. A couple of pages before coming to this point Narang has introduced Norris’ book to the reader as one of the best expositions of theory. Norris also finds mention in the bibliography with an asterisk underscoring the point that Narang has used this source. Then follows the discussion on the subtle point of how language constructs reality independent of others. To illustrate the point to his reader, Narang besides citing examples from French, German, and English etc. from the original and driving the point home to his oriental reader ropes in ample examples not only from Urdu, Persian and Arabic but also from Hindi, Punjabi, Marathi and Bengali. All this obviously is beyond the range of Naim. In his awful hurry to join issue with Narang, Naim cites two sets of examples and in a show of pedantry he again falters forgetting that by doing so he is contradicting his own charge of plagiarism as he unwittingly admits that all this interpretation is Narang’s. Further, he also fails to appreciate the crux of Saussure’s arguments that there is no essentiality between word and meaning, and every language constructs meaning arbitrarily and independently by a system of differentiation.

4. Naim’s assertion about Wittgenstein is also equally flawed. Since he has not read the whole book, he does not know that Wittgenstein also finds mention on page 37 in chapter 1. While on page 219, the reference is to 'Philosophical Investigations', the reference in chapter 1 is to 'Tractatus Logico – Philosophicus'. Both the books are fully cited. Perhaps only a person of myopic vision can not see. Furthermore, in the same chapter elaborating the implications of ‘logos’ as discussed by Derrida, Narang alludes to both the Sanskrit and the Arabic traditions. Discussing the wider implications of Vak in the Indian tradition he has cited Bhartrihari’s giving three stages of Vani or Saraswati in Vakyapadya, i.e., Vaikhri, Madhyma and Pashyanti (Para / Pratibha, P. 209). For Naim and his “academic greenhorns” all this must also be derived from the western sources.

5. One does not understand why Naim derides Norris, Culler, and Selden etc. by describing them as mere commentators. Even an ordinary student of literature knows that be it Kalidasa, Shakespeare, or Ghalib, their commentaries are as much part of the Kalidasa, Shakespearian or Ghalibian discourse. It is well known that in Sanskrit studies while reading Panini’s 'Ashtaadhyayi', or Anandavardhana’s 'Dhvanialoka', equal attention is given to Patanjali’s 'Mahabhashya' and Abhinavagupta’s 'Dhvanialoka Lochanam'. The same is true of the commentaries of Saussure, Derrida, Foucault, etc. They are as much part of the theoretical discourse as the basic texts. Narang dealing with both the oriental and the western traditions has freely and frankly used all sources, and introduced them to his reader. If this is a disservice, then Naim and associates are most welcome to undertake some true service and produce a better book. I know this is beyond their tether.

6. The pinnacle of Narang’s presentation and arguments lie in his constructing and suggesting a model of literary criticism for Urdu (Pp. 565-573). Before embarking on that he has given a candid appraisal of developments how the progressive writers’ movement in Urdu fell prey to its own regimentation and totalitarianism, and later how the project of modernism was hijacked by the neo-classicists and fundamentalists, and shorn of egalitarian agenda, it was reduced to an ennui and turned into a tool of sectarianism and revivalism. Narang believes that the true role of criticism is ‘oppositional’ and in this he derives his strength from Derrida, Foucault and Edward Said. It looks pertinent to reproduce a quote:

“In its suspicion of totalizing concepts, in its discontent with reified objects, in its impatience with guilds, special interests, imperialized fiefdoms, and orthodox habits of mind, criticism is most itself and, if the paradox can be tolerated, most unlike itself at the moment it starts turning into organised dogma.” (Edward Said, P. 496).

The model suggested by Narang has in fact been quite discomforting for the well -entrenched revivalist Urdu establishment. So if their sympathizers attack Narang, it should not come as a surprise.

7. But why Naim of all the people has written with such a vendetta? It might be interesting to note that this is not the first time that he has betrayed this sort of ‘kindness’. The fact is while Narang was at the University of Wisconsin, and his book 'Readings in Literary Urdu Prose' was taken up for publication by the University of Wisconsin Press, incidentally Naim was one of the reviewers. He wrote a scathing review to thwart the publication of the book but that was not to be as the other two reviewers were extremely favourable. The book has gone into many editions and is still popular in foreign universities. It is on the recommended list of Urdu readings in the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University and is generally referred to as ‘Narang Reader’. A very recent reaction of a distinguished former student will not be out of place:

===================
From: Christopher King
Date: Monday, 24 August, 2009, 11:19 AM

Dear Gopi Chand Narangji,
You will remember that we met again in 2005, …, after having first met so many years ago at the University of Wisconsin.

Your book, 'Urdu: Readings in Literary Urdu Prose' has been such a wonderful aid to me these last few months in learning the Urdu script better and in increasing my Urdu vocabulary. Thank you so much for creating such a useful and 'fun-full' book! I know it was many years ago that you produced it, but thought that you might like to hear from a former student of yours how useful it still is for him.

Khuda Hafiz
Christopher King

(Copied to Dr Maula Bakhsh, maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com)
===================

The second episode is related to the publication of Narang’s highly debated article “How Not to Read Faiz Ahmad Faiz” in the journal Soughat, Bangalore (1990). Naim again wrote a deriding review trying to tear apart the article which had discussed the clash between the ideological and the aesthetic project in Faiz, and how one cannot be prefaced over the other. Later the article caught on, appearing and reappearing in India and Pakistan, and then in Narang’s Hindi book 'Urdu par Khulta Dareecha' (2005). Recently Dr. Baidar Bakht translated it into English for the journal Indian Literature (IL-249, Jan-Feb 2009). About the nature of this article a recent comment by an unknown discerning reader should suffice:

===================
From: Chander Verma
Subject: How Not to Read Faiz Ahmad Faiz?
Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2009, 12:42 PM

Read your translated paper which appeared in ‘Indian Literature’ titled "How not to Read Faiz Ahmad Faiz?"

I have no words to admire you for your intellectual work and unusual insight into Faiz Ahmad's poetry. Criticism of this quality is rare and unseen. We are proud to have scholars like you in India.

God Bless you!!

Chander Verma

(Copied to Dr Maula Bakhsh, maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com)
===================

This would amply show how uncharitable Naim all along has been to Narang. The reasons must be best known to him.

8. But one wonders the timing? Perhaps Naim himself has provided a clue towards the end of his latest note. Shifting his position from plagiarism to culture and education, he has cited the latest honours given to Narang by the Maulana Azad National Urdu University and the Aligarh Muslim University. Perhaps it is the honour by the Aligarh Muslim University that has irked him the most. A friend from Aligarh remarked that Narang received the accolades for his dedication and sustained life long contribution and for his unflinching faith in Urdu but what is the contribution of his adversaries. For that matter if Naim thinks that Aligarh has forgotten his shady deal in the past, he is mistaken. It is well known that way back in the seventies he had invited Prof. A. A. Suroor, Head of the Urdu Department at Aligarh Muslim University to Chicago on the pretext of Ghalib Centenary, and later in return Prof. Suroor invited him to Aligarh Muslim University as a guest lecturer. Since Naim had not completed his Ph.D., he was denied tenure appointment at Chicago. To bail him out, Suroor appointed him to the post of Reader overnight superseding many senior teachers. Using Aligarh’s Readership as a jumping board, within months Naim returned to Chicago assured of his greener pasture. It is quite clear that he not only abused Aligarh’s hospitality but also betrayed the trust of his teacher.

9. Lastly can C M Naim who is exuberating self-righteousness and has tried to assume high moral grounds deny that he has links with an Urdu caucus deeply rooted in fundamentalism? The nucleus is in Allahabad and its overreach in centres outside India. (See: “Adab mein Talibaniat ka Aghaaz aur Adabi Taliban”, in AALMI AKHBAR, dated 29 August 2009, link: http://www.aalmiakhb...mileye&article=8135)
Can he deny that they are the people who wrecked the modernist movement in Urdu by discarding its radical social agenda and subsequently made it a tool of sectarianism? Why has he chosen to be silent about what has been happening around him all these years? The rot is under his very nose. The charity must begin at home. The comic situation is that the courtiers and clowns are clapping and raising blasphemous chatter about others. One wishes they could look at their feet of clay and gather the courage to laugh at themselves.

Dr Maula Bakhsh
Head, Urdu Department
Dayal Singh College
University of Delhi
New Delhi-110003
< maulabakhsh1963@gmail.com >

===================
P.S.: For Naim’s kind information, the name of the journal from Bombay, which he quoted is ‘Isbaat’ not ‘Asbat’. There is no name in Urdu as Asbat. Asbat is the plural of sabt while isbat stands for ‘confirmation, proof, and certain knowledge’. He might like to check with his mentors at Allahabad or Lucknow.

As a student of Urdu literature living in diaspora, I noticed the reference to Educational Publishing House, in Dr. Maula Bakhsh's comments here.

Over the years I have been a board member of PEN Canada, and Chair of its Writers in Exile Committee, and have just stepped down from my positions. I also moderate an internet group on South Asian topics promoting enlightenment and moderation, with over 1700 members. Prof C M Naim has been a respected contributor to our group. We have also been fortunate to interact with Dr. Gopi Chand Narang, Shamsur Rehman Farooqui, and other literary personalities of South Asia.

While we believe in Freedom of Expression, we do not believe in overt or covert libel, and willful vilification of a literary icon.

Educational Publishing Houses is also the publisher of major books by Dr. Gopi Chand Narang.

The fact that it published material against him shows the integrity of the publisher and the grace of Dr. Narang despite a long movement of character assassination against him.

As students of literature we know the tensions, antipathies, and conflicts between great personalities of Arts and Literature. These include, Shakespeare-Ben Jonson, Ghalib-Zauq, Mozart-Salieri, Michael Angelo-Raphael-Leonardo, and others.

We also know that in the history of arts and literature, the totality of the work and its impact on the posterity is the ultimate winner. Any perceived errors are ultimately forgotten and forgiven.

In the case of Dr. Narang v/s his rivals, his works are expected to stand out. I do not name his adversaries but their coat hangers are well known and are only damaging themselves before the students of Urdu literature.

What one hopes is that, like Ben Jonson who rose to the occasion and ultimately recognized Shakespeare, Dr. Narang's adversaries will also show the grace towards him, and put an end to the mockery that is being played here before the audience of contemporary Urdu literature. One can always hope.

I share here a reference on Ben Jonson,

"Jonson's most influential and revealing commentary on Shakespeare is the second of the two poems that he contributed to the prefatory verse that opens Shakespeare's First Folio. This poem, "To the memory of my beloved, The AUTHOR, Mr. William Shakespeare: And what he hath left us," did a good deal to create the traditional view of Shakespeare as a poet who, despite "small Latine, and lesse Greeke",[9] had a natural genius. The poem has traditionally been thought to exemplify the contrast Jonson perceived between himself, the disciplined and erudite classicist, scornful of ignorance and skeptical of the masses, and Shakespeare, represented in the poem as a kind of natural wonder whose genius was not subject to any rules except those of the audiences for which he wrote. But the poem itself qualifies this view:

Yet must I not give Nature all: Thy Art,
My gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part.

Some view this elegy as a conventional exercise, but a rising number of critics see it as a heartfelt tribute to the "Sweet Swan Of Avon," the "Soul of the Age!" It has been compellingly argued that Jonson helped to edit the First Folio, and he may have been inspired to write this poem, surely one of his greatest, by reading his fellow playwright's works, a number of which had been previously either unpublished or available in less satisfactory versions, in a relatively complete form."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jonson

Thanks Munir

The whole story of Gopi Chand Narang’s threats and censorship is a reality and it is already published in literary journal “Esbaat” Thane (December 2008 to February 2009 issue, published from Mumbai). The Daily Hindustan Express Delhi reproduced the same story and since then it is available on its website. On the same page my article entitled “Munir Parvez Saami kay Heelon ki Roodad” (“The Story of Munir Parvez Saamis Tactics”) revealing the real nature of Dr Narang’s tactics in order to defend himself against the charges of plagiarism was published. My both Articles are available at this link:
http://dailyhindusta...adbi_sargarmiyan.htm
Apart from these, in 2009, the same story was again appeared in “Akaas International.” Dr. Gopi Chand Number May 2009.The question here is why Narang and his defenders have considered it necessary at this stage to break the silence particularly about the censorship issue? Just because the extremely condemnable act of their adviser has appeared in the English press now?

The censorship was imposed on “Jadeed Adab-12” three times. Last time, a letter by Ali Jawed was censored and replaced it with a letter by Salim Agha. It is a harsh though but an extremely condemnable reality. Mustafa Kamal Pasha sahib will never (on oath) repudiate the story of threats and censorship that I have written in a greater detail in my article entitled “The story of Jadeed Adab-12”. I cannot utter a word about the validity of the facts mentioned by one of Narang’s companion. At this stage I don’t want to go into more detail.

It will also be interesting to know that Narang again put pressure on the editor of “Daily Hamara Maqsad” (published from Delhi) in order to stop the publication of another article of mine that was expected to appear in the publication of 19th of August. On 18th Augusts evening The final copy was ready but the editor could not bear the pressure and consequently my article was erased. I have also got the proof of that story. The article was later appeared in three newspapers and unfortunately Narang failed to achieve his objectives again
in the end i also enjoyed the letter of Munir parvez Saami, the article MUNIR PARVEZ SAAMI KAY HEELON KI ROODAAD is very much about his tactics too.
(after getting the translation of my urdu statement i am going to post it in english.H.Q)

Gopi Chand Narang: A Stubborn Plagiarist (2)
By
Imran Shahid Bhinder

The crux of my claim, I finally made in my last article appeared in “Akaas International” in 2009 entitled “Himalaya of Plagiarism” is that one can hardly discover 20 pages in Dr Gopi Chand Narang’s award-winning book “Sakhtiyat Pas e Sakhtiyat and Mashriqi Sheriyat” that are not an exact translations of the Western interpreters of post-modernism. In 2006, I established that Gopi Chand Narang had plagiarised the entire first part on structuralism, second part on post-structuralism and the last part that entails the discussion of the “Situation, Problems and Potentialities.” However, I never carried out a thorough research on the first half of the third part that examines “Mashriqi Sheriyat and Structuralism”, because of this, I never claimed that this part had also been plagiarised. This part consists of only 152 pages. In this part, Narang claims to have comparatively identified certain themes that originate both in the Western and Eastern structuralist poetics. After a thorough investigation of the larger part of the book (excluding a part on Mashriqi Sheriyat), uncertainties about the remaining part have further strengthened. I can unhesitatingly assert that the scholars who have an in-depth knowledge of the Eastern linguistics and poetics, particularly of a tradition that were formulated by Nagarjuna, Sankara or Aurobindo, may extend the sphere of the research to that part and finally can successfully emerge with some superior evidence about the fragmented expositions assembled in that part.

Narang’s book consists of 575 pages, if I deduct 152 pages on “Mashriqi Sheriyat, and 9 pages of preface from the total of 575pages; the remaining particulars demonstrate that Narang has daringly plagiarised approximately 393 pages. It must be borne in mind that Narang seems to have employed his own language in remaining twenty pages quite technically. For instance, when a Western interpreter gives an example of Wordsworth, Narang instantaneously drags Ghalib in, just to create an impression of originality. According to my systematic investigation, the numbers of the pages, where he exercises his own language, I reiterate again, cannot exceed the limit of twenty pages. Should I think that credit must be given to Dr Narang for advocating Western post-modernism without executing an in-depth analysis that could have revealed (if carried out) the inherent contradictions between the two economically, culturally, socially and politically opposite societies?


The recent heated controversy about the fact that Narang confessed in the preface that the ideas are of the Western philosophers, I had already answered by quoting the same sentences of Narang in my first Urdu article appeared in a Pakistani journal, “Nairang e Khayal” in 2006. Unfortunately, harsh criticism, on the bases of least understanding or distorted facts, comes from those who do not read original sources. On the contrary, either they merely rely on the pre-conceived image of a writer or they have their own ideological preferences that prevent them to face the reality. I would want to disclose briefly some of the fundamental facts here, a larger part however, has already been exposed in my extensive Urdu articles appeared in a Urdu journal ‘Jadeed Adab’ and reappeared in ‘Akaas International’ (with the exception of fourth article entitled “Himalya of Plagiarism”, it only appeared in Akaas). Nevertheless, here rather than repeating old paragraphs. I have endeavored to give a zest of some new evidence. This article will also unveil that how Narang does his best to conceal the facts and distorts textual material just to create confusion about his plagiarism. That confusion can be identified and eventually overcome by undertaking a meticulous and comprehensive comparative study of at least those chapters that I have already unequivocally documented.

First, I would concentrate on Raman Seldon’s introductory book A Readers Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, because the existing evidence fortifies my claim, which I have repeatedly asserted that Narang has plagiarised more or less 150 pages from a single book, that is why I insist the readers of these lines should directly embark on a comparative study based on the facts that I am going to investigate fleetingly however, in the next few pages.

I call for the attention of the reader to an extremely bizarre fact that everlastingly transformed my perception about Narang as a literary or cultural ‘critic’ in particular and about Urdu scholarship in general. The moment when I discovered that Narang had not just absolutely failed to perform an original analysis of Edward said’s Orientalism (whom he claimed to have invited at a conference in India), but absolutely failed to give a brief description of Said’s ideas in his own words. Being incredibly influenced by Derridean deconstruction and Foucault’s theory of ‘power’, Said’s certain ideas, particularly decentred consciousness and his conception of dismantling exclusive domination, required severe criticism entirely in the Eastern context. Being a representative of the Western world, Seldon also did not critically analyse the work of any of the Western philosophers as deeply as it could have been expected in the Eastern context, here too he shortly pursued the ideas of Said with reference to Foucault. Seldon dedicates just three pages to Said’s overall contribution (see P, 190-193). What Narang accomplished was extremely astonishing; he dedicated just one page to the entire work of Said, regrettably however, that particular page was not in his own words; that was the perfect translation of Seldon’s words. That can vividly be witnessed on page 199, starting from second paragraph. If anybody proves this evidence false, I will be quite willing to acknowledge Narang one of the greatest literary critics in the history of Urdu literature. On the contrary, what title the plagiarist really deserves for? How can a scholar who claims to have obtained his PhD in 1958 perform such an act of plagiarism? The name and ideas of Said are so common in today’s world that every student of social and political theory have an idea about the intellectual project of Said. Was Mr. Narang teething some troubles in formulating terminologies for the explanation of Said’s ideas? Is he not capable of writing just one page on Said in his own words? What a shameful act.

Another deceitfully managed aspect became apparent, when I discovered that how Narang had included the discussion of French structuralist Marxist Louis Althusser in the fifth chapter of “book two” starting on page 253. I assume that the comparative study of Althusser’s work in chapter four of Seldon’s book to Narang’s award-winning book is enormously disappointing for the students of Urdu literature. When I compared Seldon’s transitory analysis to Narang’s words, I was shocked once again. That appeared to me simply an act of line-by-line translation. Seldon had a brief look at Althusser’s entire work (to identify translation, see P, 88-89). Narang has just translated these pages 252-253. However, while comparing the work of Seldon and Narang, I came across a dubious approach. For instance, Seldon also discusses Althusser in chapter six (129-130) and has identified some commonalities between Althusser’s ideas and French structuralist psychologist Jacque Lacan’s ’real’ and ‘imaginary’ approach in psychoanalysis, which seems to have inspired from Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Sausurre. Narang, quite shrewdly, gives a false impression that originally he has identified the similarities between Lacanian psychoanalysis and Althusser’s theory of ideology. However, the facts here are creating an entirely different picture. Seldon himself attempts to identify certain similar factors to motivate the students to explore the theoretical issues further. Narang has done nothing apart from translating these two pages (see, 256 onwards).


Seldon describes briefly about “The Historical Development of Formalism” in the second chapter of his book. Seldon examines the subject between pages 28-30. Then Seldon moves forward towards each theorist starting from Russian formalist Victor Shklovsky and Tomashevsky. Narang, without stopping on any point and having a second thought, begins translating the whole section of Seldon on the historical background of Russian formalism on page 81 onwards. Astonishingly, Seldon shows a soft corner for the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, considering Trotsky’s criticism of formalism in his classic Literature and Revolution (1924). In Seldon’s words, “Trotsky’s sophisticated criticisms of formalism.....ushered in a defensive phase (P, 29). The readers would be surprised to know that why I had started analysing the works of Russian revolutionary and the formalists. Readers would be more surprised to find out that Narang, because of his hostility to Marxist aestheticism, adopts a propagandist attitude on the same pages by giving altogether a different reference. Narang has not only erased just one word (sophisticated), which Seldon used admiringly about Trotsky’s criticism of formalism, but is also referring towards entirely different source that he has not plagiarised here at least. Let me translate a sentence by Narang, “Bennett says that those who belong to Bakhtin School attempted to combine formalist and Marxist traditions in fruitful ways that anticipated later development...” (P, 82-83). Narang has lifted this short sentence from Seldon’s book just to divert the attention of the reader. When I compared these words to Seldon’s words, for instance, “especially in the writings of ‘Bakhtin School’ which combined formalist and Marxist traditions in fruitful ways that anticipated later developments....” (P, 29), Narang’s purpose of generating confusion became apparent. The question here is if Narang has not translated this paragraph from Tony Bennett’s Formalism and Marxism, as the evidence shows, then why is he referring here to Bennett? I have carefully read and checked Bennett’s book and now I can firmly affirm that the same sentence has been lifted from Seldon’s book, without giving any reference, as I referred above. Bennet and Seldon belong to a different literary and cultural tradition. They cannot use the same sentence without actually acknowledging the real sources. Dishonesty only occurs in Urdu literature by these kinds of critics who have their own ethnic or ideological agendas.

Now come to the next point that is equally startling like the one explained above. Seldon briefly describes why the Russian formalists focussed on the importance of techniques and devices in poetics and literature. For this purpose Seldon discusses “Art as device: Shklovsky and Tomashevsky” on page 30 onwards. Narang translated the entire analysis by Seldon into Urdu that could be observed on page 83 onwards. Quite expertly however, Narang has only changed the title as “Poetic language.” The rest of the words are an exact translation of Seldon’s work. I have come across another strange fact about this part of translation. Narang has quoted Shklovsky on page 85 (Seldon has already quoted the same passage on 31). Ironically, Narang has translated this quotation in Urdu and has put it in inverted commas as Seldon has done, but he has provided neither any page numbers nor the name of the actual book. Being extraordinarily flexible here, while ignoring the norms, standards and quality of literary scholarship, Narang can be spared for four or five lines mistake. Nevertheless, the evidence revealed - that must be taken into consideration while analysing the rest of his work - Narang knew about the importance of using quotations and the use of it. Nonetheless, I observed that the whole part was a word-by-word translation, therefore I supposed, rather than just one sentence, the whole paragraph should have been in inverted commas.

Equally surprising is the fact that on page 32, Seldon quotes Tomashevsky’s quite lengthy paragraph, again Narang translates this paragraph and keeps it in inverted commas. As he keeps it in inverted commas, he deserves to be spared of this minor mistake. However, the point here is again the same that is the worst example of literary plagiarism; if he is just translating the whole chapter, it is expected that he would explicitly state either that the whole chapter was just a translation, or he should have been kept the whole chapter in inverted commas. If ten pages are, nothing more than translation than what is the point to keep just one or two short sentences in inverted commas?

Similarly, the rest of the chapter where Seldon has discussed Jakobson on pages 36-38 is also an exact translation. For word-by-word translation of “Bakhtin School” see 38-42, and finally on “The Aesthetic Function: Mukarovsky” see pages 42-46. In Narang’s book the exact translations of the above pages the third chapter on pages 79-106 can be checked.

Seldon has analysed “Poststructuralist theories” in chapter six of his book. I firmly establish that the whole chapter, apart from the discussion on French literary critic Roland Barthes, is a sheer example of worst plagiarism. However, it does not mean that the part (on Roland Barthes) he has not plagiarised from Seldon’s book is his own analysis. Large part of the essay on Barthes has been lifted from John Sturrock’s Structuralism and Since: From Lev- Straus to Derrida (1980). However, as I have already compared the plagiarised pages of Sturrock’s book in my previous essays therefore, here I will not go into its detail. Those who are interested in knowing the particulars about Roland Barthes’s essay and the exploitation of it by Narang can compare pages 54-58 in Sturrock’ book to pages 161-163 in Narang’s book. Interestingly, the essay on Barthes is quite lengthy, Narang has not just plagiarised the essay on Barthes from Sturrock’s book; Seldon has also carried out a short interpretative analysis of Barthes’s most important book S/Z on pages 133-134. Narang has also plagiarised this short interpretation on pages 167-168. I can securely establish that Narang has plagiarised every word of this 28 pages long essay. Narang has rejoiced the full benefit of reading and exploiting by misinterpreting the theory of inter-textuality the idea of which Julia Kristeva derived from eighteenth century German objective idealist philosopher Georg Hegel.

The only difference, however, is that in Narang’s book the discussion about Barthes has been made available in the first chapter of book-2. And the rest of the theorists such as Lacan, Foucault, Kristevan Deleuze and Guattari have been discussed in the second chapter of book-2 and the discussion about Derrida along with the American deconstructionists can be found in chapter three and four respectively. As I have identified the page numbers in my detailed essays in Urdu, the reader could accessibly compare the plagiarised material against the actual source. I claim that the section on Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, Jacques Derrida, De man, White, Bloom, Hartman, Miller and Michel Foucault are word-by-word translations. For instance, to make the comparison comprehensible, when we start reading Seldon’s book from the first paragraph of page 138 onwards, we instantly spot Narang with the astonishing fact that how he translates several pages on lacan on page 183 onwards. Narang, so deviously, has just given one quotation in English; here is the translation: “this force of desire is the unconscious” (Narang, P, 185). It was imperative here to give the appropriate page numbers but Narang, intentionally though, avoided giving the actual source. In fact this is not a quotation by Lacan’s; this is just the last sentence on page 138 in Seldon’s book, that important sentence Seldon inscribed just to explicate the theoretical avenues of Lacanian psychoanalysis. When I discovered that Mr. Narang, so courageously, is plagiarising several pages from Seldon’s book, predictably, I continued my research to expose more facts about Narang’s Plagiarism. There is another grievous mistake by Narang that can never be overlooked in literary scholarship. It is interesting to know how he studies Seldon’s analysis about Julia Kristeva. Seldon continues his analysis of Lacan and fleetingly examines the impact of Lacanian psychoanalysis upon Kristeva on the following pages as I have given the details above. Narang shrewdly gives an interval of discontinuity in order to make the whole episode more perplexed; he drags the discussion of Foucault into the text soon after Lacan, and relocate the word-by-word discussion on Kristeva on page 200. When I compared intimately the first paragraph in Seldon’s book on page 139 to the second paragraph in Narang’s book on Page 185, I stunned that how promptly Narang had plagiarised the entire study of Seldon.

Narang has done his best, although unconsciously, to make himself a public spectacle by plagiarising so many important discussions from a single book. Lets us move on to chapter four of book-1 in “Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtiyat aur Mashriqi Sheriyat” where Narang has discussed the “poetics of fiction and structuralism.” As I have shown elsewhere that Narang has plagiarised innumerable paragraphs from Scholes early book entitled Structuralism in Literature, I will not repeat the same episode here. On page 126 Narang has discussed A.J Greimas while giving a reference of Greimas’s book Semantique and Structurale (1966), unfortunately however, Narang does not give a single quotation from the same book, instead of that from page 126 onwards, he plagiarises the whole section from Seldon’s book starting from page 111. The next important point that necessitates the attention of the reader is that entails the discussion of Gennete and Todorov. To see the reality about discussion on Gennet; I compared the last paragraph on pages 113-115 in Seldon’s book; I came to know another worst example of an exact translation of the same section on Gennet. A reader can compare the page 132 onwards in Narang’s book. The details about Todorov are extremely astonishing. I claim that each word on Todorov is a translation of books by two different authors. For the first part see Seldon’s interesting interpretation on pages 112-113 and Narang’s exact imitation of the words on pages 127-129.

A certain sect who claims to be a “student” of Urdu literature is in a perplexing situation about Narang’s act of plagiarism. In-fact the honesty that is required to identify and reject consequently the balatant act that constitutes plagiarism is absolutely lacking in these sorts of people. Narang has many allies assembling in his support promoting dishonesty in literature, there are many, on the other side, who cast doubt upon Narang’s credibility, endorsing Narang’s constitution of plagiarism.


Since my preliminary inquiry about Narang’s plagiarism, the actual purpose has never been to launch a denigrating campaign against him, but to draw attention of the relevant authorities and genuine literary figures towards this extremely important issue that has been detrimental to Urdu scholarship for several decades. Narang’s exponents completely overlook the central point when they argue that the accusations against Narang are unjust and the purpose, they claim, is nothing but to disparage Narang as a scholar. The issue of plagiarism cannot be restricted to just one individual; it is related to the whole Urdu literature and criticism. It is a time to admit that the issue of plagiarism has been a colossal obstacle in understanding the contextual importance of theoretical approach that I conceive must be tested against the contextualised empirical reality. For past many decades, as I understand, its impact on the free and original research has been disastrous. The purpose of my articles is to create an understanding about plagiarism and its unpleasant impact on the Urdu scholarship. I believe that not a single book of an international caliber has been written in Urdu for more than last eighty years. If we have authentic writers to quote, why do we still need to give a reference of Edward Said, Michel Foucault, Frantz Fanon, Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, and Louis Althusser and so on when a question of imperialism, criticism, culture and other social sciences is being answered? Because from the core of our heart we are certain there is no original writer in Urdu who could independently reflect upon the real situation. As a representative and part of posterity I must resist these kinds of harmful tendencies to prosper any longer, literature serves the people not a single individual. Condemning such acts candidly, at present, it seems to me utterly rationale to eradicate all the unethical and unliterary approaches inherent in Urdu literature and criticism. I understand that the corruption in the Urdu literary world is just the super-structural expression of the underlying contradictions rooted deep in the ideological as well as corrupt capitalist structure that has besieged the literary world, where notorious desire are free to flourish. However, it is a time to explicitly condemn these kinds of absurdities showing some decency, rather than be a part of immoralities. Certainly, the future of Urdu language and literature cannot be left on the mercy of a hostile plagiarist or his dishonest supporters.

Narang Needs Elementary Education
Shabana Yousaf
Student of Social Sciences at Milton Keynes University

I have just read a clarification by one Mr. Maula Bukhsh to prove biggest plagiarist of the twentieth century Mr. Gopi Chand Narang innocent against the severe charges of plagiarism levelled by Imran Shahid Bhinder. Interestingly, the debate has shifted from Urdu Journal to e-magazines and news papers. I have kept a constant eye on the writings about the issue of plagiarism and I have personally read both Western’s writers, which have been mentioned by Bhinder, as well as in Narang’s award-winning book “Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtyiaat or Mashriqi Sheriyat”(1994).

First of all let me correct Bukhsh misleading statement in his article that Narang’s controversial book has over 600 pages, Narang’s book consists of about 573 pages – excluding the childish details on other 13 pages of his books. If I include those pages it becomes a total of 590. The statement shows that Bukhsh has not even seen the book, he is just arguing on the bases of “hearsay” or “distorted” information.

Let me assert here an interesting quotation from Bhinder’s first article entitled “Gopi Chand Narang, Translator or Author?” published in Jadeed Adab#9; it will clearly show that Bukhsh himself has not read Narang’s book as he mentions in his article. While criticising C M Naim quite enviously, he says that Naim has not read the whole book, Wittgenstein also finds mention on page 37 in chapter one. I understand that Narang following others - which I am going to disclose in next few lines - has mentioned Wittgenstein, but it is not Narang’s own analysis. Surprisingly Bukhsh has written just about page 37 in a partial way, albeit Narang wrote about Wittgenstein in his book on page 34 as well, which Bukhsh seems reluctant to mention (for good reason though) becaue he knew Bhinder has cited the same page in his first article and how Narang has plagiarised the whole chapter. Before we move forward as part of this stage, you will find it equally helpful for facts and interesting about Bukhsh’s ignorance of Narang’s book, to cast your eyes once again over the quotation of Bhinder’s article, which he wrote two years ago. Bhinder compares the following passages of both from Robert Scholes book “Structuralism in Literature” and the translation of the same paragraph from Narang’s book. Bhinder quotes in his article Scholes interpretation of the theoretical changes occur in the beginning of the twentieth century and how Narang has plagiarised the interpretation of Scholes on page 1 of his book, Bhinder quotes the same paragraph in “Jadeed Adab#9, P, 46):

“The last half of the nineteenth century and the last half of the twentieth were characterized by the fragmentation of knowledge into isolated disciplines so formidable in their specialization as to seem beyond all synthesis. Even philosophy, the queen of the human sciences, came down from her throne to play solitary word games. Both the language-philosophy of Wittgenstein and the existentialism of the continental thinkers are philosophy of retreat……”

Bhinder identified plagiarism of Narang from Scholes book on page 34 in his award-winning book in these words:

“uneesween sadi k nisf aakhir or beesween sadi nisf awul main fikray insaani takhsees k mukhtlif maydaanoo main but btaa ker iss had tak para para ho gaee thi k iss main ksisi terhaa ki koee shiraza bandi mumkin nazer nahi aati thi- or to or khalis falsfa bhi jisay aloom-e- insanieea ka badisha kahaa ja at hay, wo bhi lafzoon k alag thalag per janay walay khail main lag chukaa tha. Wittgenstein ka falsfa lisaan ho ya euoropi mufakreen ki wajoodiyat, aslant yay sab mirajat k falsify hain ( Jadeed Adab#9, P, 46).

Should I think Narang is referring to Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations”? This is a big joke! I am sure Narang hasn’t even seen that book. Likewise, only a blind person can’t identify this plagiarism. It looks to more elusive evidence of how Narang exercises his skills of plagiarism, which is undoubtedly the ubiquitous structuring found in every page of his book.

Bukhsh adds that Narang has “gleaned up, culled, derived, adapted and abridged it and assimilated it to make it understandable in a language that lacks strict theoretical discipline and rigour.” If this was Narang’s attempt to “gleane up” then he really needs to learn how to be selective, that is definite skill: there’s no point in trying to translate everything from the books of other writers he doesn’t make it understandable, instead of that he has just stolen not only the Ideas of Western writers but their words and presentation too.

Bhinder has been writing ceaselessly on this particular point from his very first article, that (in the words of Bukhsh, “akhz-o-qabool and ifham-o-tafheem in Urdu)” are not Narang’s ifham-o-tafhim on the contrary these understandings and interpretations are of Westerns writer’s. How can Narng think as the same as Western writers, even though he belongs to a different culture and society? This statement of Bukhsh, of course, seems somewhat exaggerated in respect of “mere literal translations of separate words.” Although he translated lots of chapters from Norris, Culler, Belsey and Selden’s books ( it can be “mere translation” only for stereotypes like Bukhsh but for an honest writer or reader this is the plethora of plagiarism.

The distinctive value of interpretation and translation needs to be understood in a very coherent way, especially for our so-called scholar of Urdu Literature; as Bhinder has been trying to differentiate.

Try to avoid the reiterate arguments material in a way that does not solve the question of plagiarism, which has been done by Narng deliberately and tactfully; I would like to draw the attention to another awful approach by Bakhsh towards Naim, Just because he tried to confirm that Bhinder’s charges of plagiarism against Narang are irrefutable, which has been condoned or denied within traditions of Urdu Literature by Bukhsh. Unfortunately Bukhus through his envious approach has nothing positive to offer apart from his weak defence of a person (Narang) who sincerity need a certificate in GCSE from Britain. Attacking on someone’s personal life is not the solution of answerless position of Narang or any other. In the whole article Bukhsh could not alleviate the intensity of the charges of plagiarism levelled against Narang. It seems that he has just come out on purpose to distract the attention of the readers from the real issue. Let the people dig out reality as Bhinder suggested in his every article and recently in his interview on the website “The World of Urdu.” He is again challenging that nobody can come up with “twenty original pages.... I do not refer to ideological, linguistic or sociological originality, I mean those twenty pages, which Narang has not plagiarized. Is anybody out there to prove it wrong?” Unfortunately still nobody came “out there to prove it wrong”.

Narang Needs Elementary Education
Shabana Yousaf
Student of Social Sciences at Milton Keynes University

I have just read a clarification by one Mr. Maula Bukhsh to prove biggest plagiarist of the twentieth century Mr. Gopi Chand Narang innocent against the severe charges of plagiarism levelled by Imran Shahid Bhinder. Interestingly, the debate has shifted from Urdu Journal to e-magazines and news papers. I have kept a constant eye on the writings about the issue of plagiarism and I have personally read both Western’s writers, who have been mentioned by Bhinder, as well as in Narang’s award-winning book “Sakhtiyat Pas-e-Sakhtyiaat or Mashriqi Sheriyat”(1994).

First of all let me correct Bukhsh misleading statement in his article that Narang’s controversial book has over 600 pages, Narang’s book consists of about 573 pages – excluding the childish details on other 13 pages of his books. If I include those pages it becomes a total of 590. The statement shows that Bukhsh has not even seen the book, he is just arguing on the bases of “hearsay” or “distorted” information.

Let me assert here an interesting quotation from Bhinder’s first article entitled “Gopi Chand Narang, Translator or Author?” published in Jadeed Adab#9; it will clearly show that Bukhsh himself has not read Narang’s book as he mentions in his article. While criticising C M Naim quite enviously, he says that Naim has not read the whole book, Wittgenstein also finds mention on page 37 in chapter one. I understand that Narang following others - which I am going to disclose in next few lines - has mentioned Wittgenstein, but it is not Narang’s own analysis. Surprisingly Bukhsh has written just about page 37 in a partial way, albeit Narang wrote about Wittgenstein in his book on page 34 as well, which Bukhsh seems reluctant to mention (for good reason though) becaue he knew Bhinder has cited the same page in his first article and how Narang has plagiarised the whole chapter. Before we move forward as part of this stage, you will find it equally helpful for facts and interesting about Bukhsh’s ignorance of Narang’s book, to cast your eyes once again over the quotation of Bhinder’s article, which he wrote two years ago. Bhinder compares the following passages of both from Robert Scholes book “Structuralism in Literature” and the translation of the same paragraph from Narang’s book. Bhinder quotes in his article Scholes interpretation of the theoretical changes occur in the beginning of the twentieth century and how Narang has plagiarised the interpretation of Scholes on page 1 of his book, Bhinder quotes the same paragraph in “Jadeed Adab#9, P, 46):

“The last half of the nineteenth century and the last half of the twentieth were characterized by the fragmentation of knowledge into isolated disciplines so formidable in their specialization as to seem beyond all synthesis. Even philosophy, the queen of the human sciences, came down from her throne to play solitary word games. Both the language-philosophy of Wittgenstein and the existentialism of the continental thinkers are philosophy of retreat……”

Bhinder identified plagiarism of Narang from Scholes book on page 34 in his award-winning book in these words:

“uneesween sadi k nisf aakhir or beesween sadi nisf awul main fikray insaani takhsees k mukhtlif maydaanoo main but btaa ker iss had tak para para ho gaee thi k iss main ksisi terhaa ki koee shiraza bandi mumkin nazer nahi aati thi- or to or khalis falsfa bhi jisay aloom-e- insanieea ka badisha kahaa ja at hay, wo bhi lafzoon k alag thalag per janay walay khail main lag chukaa tha. Wittgenstein ka falsfa lisaan ho ya euoropi mufakreen ki wajoodiyat, aslant yay sab mirajat k falsify hain ( Jadeed Adab#9, P, 46).

Should I think Narang is referring to Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations”? This is a big joke! I am sure Narang hasn’t even seen that book. Likewise, only a blind person can’t identify this plagiarism. It looks to more elusive evidence of how Narang exercises his skills of plagiarism, which is undoubtedly the ubiquitous structuring found in every page of his book.

Bukhsh adds that Narang has “gleaned up, culled, derived, adapted and abridged it and assimilated it to make it understandable in a language that lacks strict theoretical discipline and rigour.” If this was Narang’s attempt to “gleane up” then he really needs to learn how to be selective, that is definite skill: there’s no point in trying to translate everything from the books of other writers he doesn’t make it understandable, instead of that he has just stolen not only the Ideas of Western writers but their words and presentation too.

Bhinder has been writing ceaselessly on this particular point from his very first article, that (in the words of Bukhsh, “akhz-o-qabool and ifham-o-tafheem in Urdu)” are not Narang’s ifham-o-tafhim on the contrary these understandings and interpretations are of Westerns writer’s. How can Narng think as the same as Western writers, even though he belongs to a different culture and society? This statement of Bukhsh, of course, seems somewhat exaggerated in respect of “mere literal translations of separate words.” Although he translated lots of chapters from Norris, Culler, Belsey and Selden’s books ( it can be “mere translation” only for stereotypes like Bukhsh but for an honest writer or reader this is the plethora of plagiarism.

The distinctive value of interpretation and translation needs to be understood in a very coherent way, especially for our so-called scholar of Urdu Literature; as Bhinder has been trying to differentiate.

Try to avoid the reiterate arguments material in a way that does not solve the question of plagiarism, which has been done by Narng deliberately and tactfully; I would like to draw the attention to another awful approach by Bakhsh towards Naim, Just because he tried to confirm that Bhinder’s charges of plagiarism against Narang are irrefutable, which has been condoned or denied within traditions of Urdu Literature by Bukhsh. Unfortunately Bukhus through his envious approach has nothing positive to offer apart from his weak defence of a person (Narang) who sincerity need a certificate in GCSE from Britain. Attacking on someone’s personal life is not the solution of answerless position of Narang or any other. In the whole article Bukhsh could not alleviate the intensity of the charges of plagiarism levelled against Narang. It seems that he has just come out on purpose to distract the attention of the readers from the real issue. Let the people dig out reality as Bhinder suggested in his every article and recently in his interview on the website “The World of Urdu.” He is again challenging that nobody can come up with “twenty original pages.... I do not refer to ideological, linguistic or sociological originality, I mean those twenty pages, which Narang has not plagiarized. Is anybody out there to prove it wrong?” Unfortunately still nobody came “out there to prove it wrong

Anchal.Afzal
Lyndon Humanities College in Solihull, UK

I am a GCSE student in Lyndon Humanities College in Solihull, UK. I am interested in Literary issues and politics and that’s how I came across this subject; I read the interview on this website, “The World of Urdu”, of Imran Shaid Bhinder which made me more curious, So I done some more research to this ‘shocking’ subject. I read this article by Bhinder, ‘Gopi Chand Narang translator or author’ which was published in 2006, A well known person for his writing and theory’s and so much more, Dr. Gopi chand narang basically got all the fame and awards by copying from English and pasting it in Urdu. If a well known person like Dr. Gopi Chand Narang does plagiarism, what does that show to the youth of tomorrow? Because in my eyes it shows that it is the easiest way of getting ‘fame’. The only way no one knew until know about the plagiarism, because he did not publish it in English, if he did; he would publish the same old words from all the famous writers!
I have to add even though this may be out of the subject, is that ‘Derrida’s books’ are made to confuse people so no one can totally argue back or disagree with the valid reason. If a person does not understand the language that derrida is using, how is anyone going to disagree and prove their point; which I think is the whole game to his writing. Who ever understands his theory would come to this point ‘Deidra purposely created confusion so no one can disagree with his theory’s only because no one understand it, that’s the only reason people don’t disagree if he wrote the same words in a simpler form it would make more sense which I think ‘Derrida’ does not want! I have not read ‘derrida’ academically or personally, I got this point of view from Imran Bhinder’s articles, which have been published in many websites, any way to come back to my point about Disgusting act of (Dr. Gopi chand narang) plagiarism, the articles and arguments now discussed in English on websites. Now this is not only a big topic in Asia it is a big topic to people who everywhere who can read English And Urdu, not only some countries in Asia are victim of war and poverty, Now there are going to be bad accusations about clean writers of Urdu.
Anchal_2k9@hotmail.co.uk