Orwell and I by Zulfiqar Ghose: summary

Orwell and I by Zulfiqar Ghose: summary

Zulfiqar Ghose was a Pakistani poet, educationalist, and auto biographer, essayist and literary critic. He wrote his first novel “Murder of Aziz Khan” in which he depicts the realities of society. As like other Pakistani writers the problem of identity is also obvious in his writings. and this essay Orwell and I is also a good example of it.

Zulfiqar Ghose

Zulfiqar starts his essay by drawing his comparison with Orwell. He insists that they both born and breathed in the same society. They both studied in the same education system provided by the Britishers in sub-continent before partition. But the fame that Orwell’s writings can gain his writing could not gain it. He insists that Orwell is considered as an important English writer but English writers have placed him same before I started publishing my writings.

He insists that he does not aim to blame English as raciest. There are many white graduated people who even cannot find job. But he is astonishingly asking a question about their nationalist approach that they are even ignoring their own people.

He argues that I made an assumption that people respond to the quality of work. There are many good writers than Orwell. Who wrote in English but his wide idea, writing style and imagination power, is given more fame.

He shares different incidents of his life. First when he went to a university with his English friend to read poem. His friend was facing problems in reading poem but he was appreciated. On the other hand he done his job in outstanding way but he could not same response.

Secondly, he and two other English writers, Gavin Ewart and B.S Johson, represented in a book. The book was viewed by guardian English poet. He only spoke later about English poets, he did not mentioned Zulfiqar's name. He says that this is not the only case with me but many English writers ignore Americans writes. But they struggled and proved their poetry of unmatchable brilliance.

He further says that the literature of world is divided and the worst type is of nationalists that they only consider United Kingdom, Ireland and American writers as mainstream and Canada, Australia and new Zealand are second. He calls it racial discrimination and disagrees with it.

He further talks about two Indians writers, G.V Desani and Raja Rao. They both work hard and wrote finest in English literature. They can get fame in Indian society, between students. But in western countries it is hard to find their name.

He argues that every society is composed of human begins driven by other human beings. Rather than they are master in their field activity or not. We have established a caste system in our society that eliminates the power of structure. He further says that society is divided into regional’s blocks and each have a different picture.

It is too easy to make a list of graveness and accuse other that they are neglecting someone’s work. It is true, you may have different opinion. Like I case of many Indians and Sri Lankan writers who won the booker prize but the judge were blamed as favoring them. He insists that there are many inferior writers, their work have nothing to do with merit.

He further talks about commonwealth literature, combined struggle of different writers from different parts of world. But the fame that English writers gained, others are far away from it. He labeled it as worst kind of nationalism those others wise writing has nothing to do with literature.

He insists that we find opportunities to publish our work but when we find ourselves falling in the category of untouchable’s writers so it is bit ridiculous. While commonwealth writes were accepted highly around the England in 1960s.

He insist that society where is no hierarchal sociopolitical categories but again literary work is divided in groups, like untouchables writings. it is just because of competition that they exclude other writers. This is on the base of race and colonial attitudes. This is the reason; many famous English writers were attacked.

He insists that the categorizing encourages the neglecting of formal quality because work is solely judge upon ideological consideration. Orwell believes that writings are always corrupted by some extent and Zulfiqar Ghose insists that I would add that time eliminates the corruption and reveal work for what it is. He ends his by commenting that he and Orwell both have contributed in literature written in English language.

Thank you for reading

Note: don’t forget to give your feedback.