This work of literature is based on the political struggle witnessed in central Asia in the early 20th century. This was a period when Turkey was fighting against restrictive policies of the Muslim hierarchies and oppressive communism. Fitrat’s work targeted literate Asians. The discussion in this paper involves a critical analysis of Abdalraul Fitrat’s work. This is critical especially for a literature student so as understand Fitrat’s work and have an insight of it in regard to its general contribution to the genre of literature.. This is prompted by the need to understand the differences of modern and ancient literature in terms of styling, theme, and even the ideologies. It is also instigated by the queer mode with which Fitrat has composed his work, and which has evoked different interpretations and understanding and by critically analyzing the work, one can be able to deduce the correct interpretations and understandings. This discussion will reveal to the reader the role of literature in mobilizing people along a course perceived to be crucial to the human kind.
At the time when Abdalraul Fitrat was writing his piece of work, the Asians in Turkey were being oppressed ‘do not lament, it seems our condition is just such darkness. In this universe where you live, revolutions will contrive” (Allworth 170). The author is, therefore, giving the people hopes as well as prospects of them rising up to revolt against the oppressors. By the time Abdalraul Fitrat was writing his work, the Conciliar Republic did not have a full identity for it was under the rule of Soviet Union. Under the Soviet Union, the governing system was communism. People’s opinions were rarely regarded as they feared to contravene the direction of the communist leaders and therefore strictly followed the opinions of their communist leaders. The author writes, “don’t drug me into a conversation, there is no public opinion amongst us” (Allworth 127)
The empty streets show that the government oppressed its people. It symbolizes the infringement of both freedoms of speech and movement.
“Bedil”, also exposes the disunity between the people of Russia and Turkey whereby it is seen that each wanted to be distinct from the other. This is evident by the inclusive dressing that was imposed to the people of Bukhara. Such restrictive rules were imposed by the Muslim hierarchies and the communist. For example, in one scene, an instruction is given to one of the characters; “Tell him he should a turban and robe and go around in Bukhara. As soon as he goes to Moscow again, he will wear his clothes.’ (Allworth 129)
Fitrat has used different linguistic difference to his characters so as to create emphasis between Central Asia and Westernized Russia. Here, he provides westernized students with a dialogue that speaks fervently. The use of this style is meant to bring out the indifference of those who spoke well the Turkish Persian language and the educated speakers. This clearly showed how a greater percentage of the Central Asia was illiterate. It is, therefore, imperative to say that the literacy level of Mr. Fitrat was quite higher than that of his audience as those who read his work made out different understanding from whatever they read.
This is because Mr. Fitrat represented his work in form of a riddles. An example of a riddle which can be derived for his work is when he talks about preachers using the concept of freedom to guilt people into believing and being hopefully and almost willing to die for this hope.
His intention in writing this is to condemn the corrupt ways of the preachers who fleeces their flocks because of their belief in faith.
Though his work sounds proverbial, however his literacy level cannot be underestimated for he has employed good mastery of both English and has splendidly used poetic language. This can be confirmed by how someone like Qutlugh marvels at Bedils pieces. He tells of Bedil being a great philosopher, a great thinker who is capable of putting together various important or weighty matters by communicating them as play within his words. The ingenuity with which he composes allegories, homonyms and metaphors make Fitrat stand above many poets. Qutlugh’s equals this to Mr. Filtrat’s work as giving color to his words. One of the verses pointed out by Qutlugh is this; “Those of the monastery, because of the preponderance of ritual, do not bring their heads forth from the collar of thought, they are sunk in humility by the sound of the gong and those of the mosque, not having totaled the account of the soul are busy counting their heads” (Allworth 132)
When comparing this work to the modern literature, one notices a gap between these two sets of literature. For example, in terms of genre, it is noticeable that this is a combination of ordinary play and poetry. The stage play begins with a prologue where Qutlugh has just arrived from Moscow for a vacation in his homeland Bukhara city. His mission during the vacation is analyzing the historic, economic, and literacy level in his Bukhara city. Such intention is equal to analyzing the effects of communism to the people of Central Asia.
This work is a hybrid of both modern and ancient literature. This is because Fitrat employs almost all elements of poetry that are used in the modern literature. However, the mode of play totally distinguishes itself from the modern style. This play does not have stage movements, but rather it is composed of much dialogue than a modern play can be. Also as compared to the modern literature, the literature composition of the text poises a challenge for a reader to understand as Fitrat has combined various styles as he is driven by the motive to speak out in deception so as to avoid ostracism from the authorities of the communist regime. It is for this reason that in the play, Qutlugh, Mullah Qurban and Rastam, all have different opinions and understanding regarding each verse of the work. Therefore, by employing numerous styles in combination in his work, it is imperative to say that Fitrat work is quite complex as compared to the memoir of Aini thus pitching him above Aini as one of outstanding poets of Asia.
It is also crucial to note that high difference in literacy level during those old times as compared to the continuing development of literature has created such differences between the modern literature and the old literature as high percentage of people are more literate than before. Notably, the themes of modern literature cannot be different as all the ages and societies still have issues that are relatively no differences from the usual struggles of mankind. However, the modern society have become more liberal as compared to the traditional societies thus are able to convey their messages more clearly for both the protagonists and the antagonist to understand.
In the text, Bedil starts out as a revolutionary but this trait fades away as more ideologies engulfs his purported trait. He becomes an ideologist who speaks about religion and human conscience. He states “The ascetic is so cold that he is like a hard mountain, Hell would have difficulty in curing his nature, if this lump of great of great cold should fall into a fire, It would freeze solid, like a hard-boiled egg” (Allworth 152)
He discredits the nature of people following the opinion leaders. He is of the favor that everyone follows their ideologies. This conflicts the quality of a revolutionary whose main objective is to rally the mass behind him towards a course that he believes in. Filtrat writes “Deny the other; this believes, Return to your heart this is grace, Imitating people made you headless of the truth, Abandon imitation; this is truth-seeking” (Allworth 132).
This approach has made Fitrat’s work an ideology treatise rather than a play. Through the entire text, the characters are driven by a motive of wanting to understand the meaning of Bedils’s work. Bedil, the character in the play, lay a foundation through which the entire text is embedded. His poem is marred with riddles thus triggering differences in meanings and competing opinions regarding it.
Works Cited
Allworth, Edward A. Evading Reality: The Devices of ʻAbdalrauf Fitrat, Modern Central Asian Reformist. Vol. 4. Brill, 2002.
