Creativity

Creativity is so fundamental to human life that life cannot be imagined without it. Iqbal said:

اپنی دنیا آپ پیدا کر اگر زندوں میں ہے
سرِّ آدم ہے ضمیرِ کُن فکاں ہے زندگی

ہر دور میں کرتا ہے طواف اس کا زمانہ
جو عالمِ ایجاد میں ہو صاحبِ ایجاد

(If you are among the living, fashion your own world;
Life is the secret of Adam, the essence of the words Be and it was!)

(He who creates in this world of Becoming,
Time revolves around him in all ages)

The meaning is that creativity is the “center of gravity” or the ‘Gravitational Force’ of life, and the world has made itself obligated to revolve around this force. But in Iqbal’s view, what is the concept of creativity? In this regard, Iqbal said:

جہانِ تازہ کی افکارِ تازہ سے ہے نمود
کہ سنگ وخشت سے ہوتے نہیں جہاں پیدا

(New worlds derive their pomp from thoughts quite fresh and new
From stones and bricks a world was neither built nor grew)

In Iqbal’s view, creativity means new ideas or new knowledge. The entire human history is proof of Iqbal’s claim that a “new” world is “always” born from new knowledge. Those who think that new worlds are built from bricks and stones know nothing about life. It should be clear that “سنگ وخشت” here does not only mean bricks and stones but also power and wealth. This is because it is this new knowledge that makes power and wealth the “means” to build a new world. Without new knowledge, both power and wealth are nothing more than bricks and stones. Such bricks and stones that can break someone’s head but cannot make any flowers bloom or heal any wounds. In other words, without new knowledge, power and wealth can only be destructive forces, but never constructive. However, in our times, a strange problem has become associated with the concept of creativity.

If creativity were to be explained in two words, it would be said every creation is a “familiar strangeness” in its nature. The reason is that if there is no “familiarity” in creativity, its “comprehension” will not be possible, and “deriving pleasure” from it or “benefiting” from it will become impossible. Similarly, if there is no “strangeness” in creativity, there will be no “charm and beauty” or “effectiveness”. This is why every good creation is a blend of familiarity and strangeness. This is true from the highest to the lowest levels of creativity.

But the question is where is the source of creativity in human existence and how does the thread of creativity rupture in human existence? From a religious standpoint, the answer to this question is quite clear: creativity is linked to “inspiration”, and the source of inspiration is God Almighty. But the question is, how does the creative process occur in human existence? A definitive answer is difficult, but there are important clues in this regard in the writings of the world’s great creative minds. For example, T.S. Eliot said that poetry is not an expression of personality but an escape from it. Not just in Western literature, but in Urdu literature as well, there has been much discussion on this quote of Eliot’s, and some of our critics have even dismissed this quote as meaningless and negligible. But the reason is the inadequacy of those critics’ understanding. The meaning of this quote by Eliot is that when a poet, by abandoning or deviating from his personality and establishing a real and profound connection with his self, becomes capable of great poetry. This is because, in human existence, the source of inspiration is not “personality” but “self”. Personality is not completely devoid of inspiration, but its share is only drops of inspiration. The shower of inspiration is only for the self. Therefore, creative people who remain captive to personality become minor poets, minor writers, and minor creative people. On the other hand, those who detach themselves from personality and link themselves to the realm of the self emerge as great creative people. The concept of tradition in Eliot and the insistence on the commitment to it also means the same thing: that man should incorporate his individual personality into “collective personality”. This is how an atom can become sunlight and a droplet a waterfall.

In Urdu poetry, Meer has also left an important clue towards the source of creativity. Meer said:

درد و غم اتنے کیے جمع تو دیوان کیا

(Amassed in such abundance these sorrows; thus, this collection of verses came to life)

Some people understand the meaning of this verse that sorrows are the source of poetry. That is a superficial interpretation. The actual exegesis is that the abundance of pain and grief has destroyed the edifice of Meer’s personality and made him “self-centric”. However, in this process, Meer did not lose his individuality. Rather, in Meer, pain and grief became the tone of his poetry, while the immense material for his poetry was provided by the source of his self. In one of his poems, Iqbal called creativity the result of the “blood of the liver”. The meaning is the same as what is found in Meer’s verse.

The matter of creativity is so mysterious that sometimes just changing one word in a poem turns non-poetic lines into poetic ones, and minor poetry into great poetry. The greatest example of this in world literature is found in John Keats. The famous line in Keats’ poem “Endymion” was originally written like this:

A Thing of Beauty is a constant joy. Its loveliness increases and it will never pass into nothingness

In these lines, the word “Constant” was unpoetic or less poetic. Keats changed this word and used “Forever” instead. So Keats’s line became:

A thing of Beauty is a joy forever

Just changing this one word made Keats’s line great and everlasting. What was the reason? If you think about it, Beauty is related to eternity, and the word “forever” conveys the eternity of beauty in a way that the word “Constant” does not. Therefore, not only is the “sonic effect” of Keats’s line better due to the use of the word “forever”, but its true spirituality has also been revealed.

When we were in the second year of intermediate, we showed our poetry notebook to an Urdu literature teacher. It had a three-line poem that went like this:

دل پیار کا عادی ہے
یہ بات سمجھنے میں
ایک عمر گنوا دی ہے

(The heart is accustomed to love
Understanding this matter,
An entire lifetime has been spent)

The Urdu literature teacher advised using the word “راز” (secret) instead of “بات” (matter) in this poem, and his advice was correct. Because using the word “secret” increased the depth and impact of these lines, and a kind of “cosmic color” was created in them. This is what is called the “beneficence” (فیضان) of the entire linguistic tradition, and without this beneficence, great poetry and great literature are inconceivable.

Some people consider the “individual ability” of language very important in poetry and literature, but if the awareness of tradition is not behind the individual ability of language, then the individual ability of language also becomes a major obstacle in the path of creativity. In modern Urdu poetry, the biggest example of this is Josh Malihabadi. Josh had extraordinary linguistic ability. Words stood before him hands folded. Josh was aware of this fact, but in Josh, dependence on language increased so much that language became a substitute for everything. As a result, in Josh, the “ability” of language became the biggest disability for him in creative terms.

But Josh’s problem was not only this. Another problem in Josh’s poetry was the extreme lack of sincerity. As a result, language ability became the echo of such words that lacked meaning. In Urdu, the amazing example of extraordinary impersonal linguistic ability combined with sincerity is found in the poetry of Meer and Iqbal. There is abundance of meaning and impact in this poetry. It holds the miracle of creativity.

The importance of the ‘topic’ is also fundamental to creativity. In history, it has often happened that a great topic became the cause of great creativity, while a small topic did not allow the creativity of the creator to flourish, or reduced even great creativity to its own level. But sometimes it also happens that two writers have a great topic in front of them, but one writer shows that he can produce great literature from a great topic while the other writer is unable to produce great literature. An example in Urdu literature is Qurratulain Hyder and Naseem Hijazi. Qurratulain Hyder’s subject is history and she has made history into world-class great literature. On the contrary, while Naseem Hijazi’s novels are very motivational, they are not great literature after all.