Mabaad Jadeediat or Gopi Chand Narang

# !!
"
E-Mail: haider_qureshi !!!@yahoo.com
$%
+**************************************************************************************** &
( ')
/ ************************************************************************************ . - ,
2 *************************************************************************************** 0 1
<= ***************************************************************9:; 8 7 6 5 34
I
</*********** E ( L E ( L D ( KJ 6 5 34 H G EF D < C A B @ &
( >8 >(?
T *********************************************** C 6
5 34
( S QR OP MN
I
"*********************************************************************Z[ Y X8 W 8 VUP
I
=T *********************9f e cd 8 ab GGGG` D ^_ @ \] @ 6 H
+j *************************************************** &
( i Q h g X8 @ ( KJ 6
+" ******************************* &
( i q r X8 @
p8U W o8 nlm k @ 6
T ********************************************************************** u ( X8 t &s
T= ************************************************************ xe w W v
T+ ***********************************************************************
, u ( X8
D \y xp8U W
/<******************************************************* ~ W X8 } { | @ &z
w x
/j ************************************************* } { | @ 8 U>8 >(?
/+ ***************************************************************
8 U>8 >(?
2 ******************************************************** & 5 } p8 lm x
I
2/*************************************************** D \] @ 6 5 34 H
< / ******************************************************** Plagiarize And Prosper
<j= ************************************************* The Emperor's New Clothes
<=< ************************************** Jagdish Prakash to Haider Qureshi
p8U - 8
Q &
Q @ ( S QR OP MN
I
C6 5 34H
Q @
@&
( >8 >( ? \
I
GA S }\] @6 5 34 H
Q l - Q
\ &
( i
i M
GA \W &
( i @ 8 } x
\
\
{}&
D xe w W < CA B@&
( >8 >( ?
@M f xe w W
D\ D \y xp8U W ( ( K
D xe w pU @Q p( U \M
I
* 8 \
@ & ( v S ( ( K K@ &z - &z

I
f} D DM W @ xg X8 G x ^
I
M D \ } ( KJ ( H ( ( K ^ G } \ f
M D\ 8
{x
o ( @ E w A
( U G M }& (
I
I
H

@ &z - &z M
G
S
I
M \ R } ( KJ S H \ w G M \ & ( D ( KJ (
I
G
GD D \ S x
I
W
M
@\
R } ( KJ
( ( K\ @Q
& M GJ 8 U>8 >( ? %7} #G$
M R ! "
G
D7G
,- + D7@M v & ( W w * ' ( )(

I
&1@&A2 ( %7 8 U>8 >( ? 0 G. /
8 i x 7Q M x 5 6 F 3 @\R4 @&
& A @ @ &? \ #A = ( } > ; 8 >(?
K
FIK { GV)J
H w E
X8 D G6 A C B&
(GD >8 D L M
w x }N@ 8 U>8 >( ? }& M W \ }{ | M

O '
PQX
I
U S M R z G<
_ \ \ G 8k ^ ]M ( KJ6 G A 8 \ Z[
@ WX vY D \V
AT
7 >8 d Me x S D x bc X8 G[
W z a `
a ` _6 x 8 U gbc x
G x f
I
&1@&
Ga `
I
X8 D kW&
( D\ 9j ( } > ; S D x W Gb hi
'
Gr8 )q p D xnMe
@\ o m- lW
I
z jT j/CyG#<""=x fi j CA B A w tuv~s
< \ }~@ z| K sz \{ G
I
\ f x X8 xgM Gf S D
R { ( 8 U
I
\F G S M A 8
x x } 8 VKR ;i R
0
6 @ E ' ( ( K
I
M } # # R j ( } > ; { S D x # #
8 Q }@ x @ # # ( }
%}
@x
o ( c
M4} 3 D&
( G x G
#&
( Me \^ _} C 8 G S p(U
G \ X8
I
x A A B uvGMM \W C@< @
s
zC
#<""+ A BG &
G#<""+ w
(
D\ # 7@& >8 >( ? A 6
( i- X8
M{ "@\ D\ E S \ @
D >? { z7 s @\ 8 D3@\ b
I
I
H i + D M @ - x M @ 8 U>8 >( ? G
G \V ( KJ (
G pU
X8 K i ( @ ( ) M
b
bRlK
X \{ GP Z[ }\ o >8 >( ? PZ[} \o ( ( K

GX D&
(
I
@ & 8 &z - &z D ( KJ6 5 34H ( ( K 0
I
CA B@&
( >8 >( ? M G S W-@ 8 }@ 8 U>8 >( ? & ( v S
I
( & v \ \ z# !!/x fis"
W^@ Postmodern Literary Theory } p( U \
I
G &
( i@\ G < ( KJ6 5 34&
( i \M G x 3
>8 M \ &
( # !!T @ 6- \
I
G G6 &
w G l }\
( >8 >( ? \ &
I
34H 0 { ' D\] << " <! CA B@&
( >8 >( ?
D\] @ ( KJ6 M 6 ( ( K < CA BG 8 &

( i f \ ( KJ6 5
v o - >8 X \F 0G \ f \ '
I
I
b>? } x v W\] @\
iW&@ FIK 8 ( W A Q
D < CA B@&
( >8 >(? \ ( W</ C y @&
( D @ DM s Gv
z G A R EF
&
( >8 >( ? w ) @o - x f W FIK @ < CA B ( KJ6 5 34
@ M Gx DM @ w ) D\ G \ f :
I
K
&
H w
D w ) ( KJ6 H 0G
( i@M Gvq WGV)J
G 8 \

\
8 U7 X8 bR? } 9 D _ X8 @\\F
f D\M
, - ' \4C W
u &
(
D\M
G } }\ D \
@ ( KJ t&s\A f M ( ( K
bC6 5 34 MN G 8 c x
A A \F i &
M D ( KJ6 G 8 C x
( i
X8 ( KJ t&s \{ G D & D &
( \
X8
bc
\ X f } A ( ( K
G6 ( ) M ( KJ6
( A F @
DM ( KJ6
@\
F G6 ( KJ6
@\M F} &
w S
G\ F >8 G\
<\F 8
MNu
8 \ ( KJ6 X d b \{
f M ( KJ6 X G A
e
DC6 @MN
G ( KJ t&s&
C6 @
(
&
(
Gf f >w DM x @
DC6 @MN
In"
f \#M$@ & M o8 @\] ! X8 f 06 ^_ ( KJ6
\4C5@
@&
G% Z&
( i
I
I I
G 8 ( KJ6 5 34H &>8
D&M
(
( KJ6 @M 0Gv Q & M v S ( ( K &

( i f C6 @MN
'(@\ MN '(@ \ ) { b) \]
f Gx ^
` \ ( D %Q h +vY D '\
@\ G* W A 8
Q h - ( o @ fi` x M G D x , f 6 8 Q h A
2c )1 D ( KJ6 0 S M / x f. b @
I
\ G Rw ? S 3&
( KJ6 5 34H 4 x &M
(
7 8 4 G W @&
( i v 6 ^_ G5e @
M$ x & ( o @8M kW 7 ( ( K G kW
6
( o @ ; &
9 &#
( i@& h GD @ :
A }^@\] @ ( KJ6
kQ@\
G< W^@\] @ ( KJ
G \=i , @
\ : X8 u \ @ @ \ >@? ( KJ6 i ( @ ( ) M
& x u &
( KJ6 ( M 5o G
( i@M 8
&
@ & 2c@ )1 D\ 8 \ A>8 '
(
\% X D! R% ' G AB x &
( M D\
) -A p( U &
v 8 ( KJ6
( i M C 8k&>? D\4C ( KJ6 ( ( K 0
A2 } ( KJ6 G&
( i : &
( x&
( &
( i : C6 MNG
}! ' ( ( K bR? @ '} \

DC6 @MN
& - M 8 bR? A \
v Z H( - c D G ( F m>? DD ER4
E I G6 & D&M
x&
&
(
(
GP\\ A 8 } ( KJ6 & ( J D f
I
p( U } ( ) K D&
& 8 &z - &z D ( KJ6
(
&
( O}MM xN ' G& ( D @ M 8 L ' @ ' G
I
I
I
p( U
@ xX x xp( U Q~p( U G & P\C
I
RST ( KJ6 M X8 G ( ( K xo @ i G
@ UW
D\C
M x G Z \ (
}bc D ( KJ6 Y G X W @\ \V
(
@\] i W@ {
A @&
< x\ 0 [ DZ
@ 8 U `K D ( KJ6 _ T vY D^W 'u ]W* S & M
G
@ 8 U>8 >( ? A R4 @ { 7{ a}\] @ ( KJ6

\ S G &M
Z[ X8 \ E W5
(
/ cM G ( MM @\8 x c@ 8 b & M \
I
G X*W&f g
@\8 A ev E S f X /
@
d
( KJ lm xk M G j X W xp8Ui x \h D f S 8M D
X8 - { S W\ \ @\ G @ xp8Ui @
G\6 &
( M &n
(
) 8M Qo
q G p
I
M xr6l(K Dg i
6 5 34H G ) sI i ( @ E
b K D&
I evA xk D xk 6l)'8 u D t e D ( KJ
(
G w
@ ( KJ6 W D D v
z| x@\ y ' ' \ \ Q\ \x S

I
~ \ ~ H }\ w W qG 8 X O}\GfTe| x D f {
I
I
8)
>8
M W >?( } 8 >
7 ~ D M l
>8 } m lm xk } - p8U x
}
x } } A \e } 6
x A _ } m
G M< ( ) >? G\ f { | D >8
# !!"
" z }
I
&
&'( " %
!" #
@& >?8 @ & 8 &z - &z &

( D6 5 34 \
" CA B &
\{ }{ |@b)
( >8 >(? \ G6 8 \z is
I (U
@ K xp v \ \ A B-@&
( >8 >( ? G
@ \
G < ( KJ6 5 34&
( i \M
I
6 5 34H b&
\ \
( i8 \ 0 v - d
QGf A K D ; &
( ik ( KJ6 Gv W S }bc D ( KJ
&
& W Q h W 0 # l) \( i@
G
>8 p8U - p( U \ M
\ q A \x &
( i @\ &
( &
( i ( KJ6 b
0i >8 &
( G A K ( @ @ z s%@{ | }
G Q &
( i M } ( KJ \ ( ( K W &
( i ( KJ
G 8 8 U\ W v }bc x ( KJ 0i
G Z m>? D d - \
\{ G &@ FIK } 8 S
( -
i &
( d W\@
\ x f & }\ &
(
w\
D{ @ +k &
G FIK w A G $ b & D ( KJ6
( X8
@% |R( ( KJ6 \ R G GV R%Q @ +k
5 34 G & ( D ) A p( U &
( @^_ x f @\ 0 Q}
\@ ( KJ 0i >8 { ^_ \ v }^_ @6
6 C D& GV | x} u@
D ( KJ6 $ X8 pU
I
I
& A 8 D\@M G 8 $ f i} w
I
W N 9 X \ Gv } : % |R( @ ( KJ6 8
\- - x W\ \{ 0 G\ A 8 } 0i >8 '(@ \
: ( KJ 0iX G K / a}bc D % |R(
K ( @\
\ A & M i@ ( KJ 6
\M G 8 } K D M G ` : E
\ @&
( i
\x W&
\ v }
\ q @\ i@
\ G S Z& f D8k&
( i}
\ : f \ \
S < 0i >8 X8 pU
I
m>? Z \\ @D o
MG
bc\ G
( @ : % |R( @ ( KJ6
e }bc\ @ q
kGv 8 S 3 /@ p8UX}\ ^_ x f
%Q h x f
G fk&@&
( >8 >( ? 6 &
(
}p( U b S # !!= \F \ \{ ( @ \
I
I I
} D \F # !!T @M GD8k xX D Q ) p( U OP
I
I
8U>Il) x
\
G
D8k
x
X
x
D
p
I
I
@ ' \\F W D D x \(_ W &@U
I
>8 >( ? G Q W{(@ x 3A M G ApU } & 8 @\ &
(
@\ @& M >8 T A B ( S QR MN\ \ A " CA B@&

(
m
V
' Dz X8 \ 8 s 8 : % |R( >8 @ r8 )
G
& M
A R4 @& M { T MN " &
( >8 >( ? A & M i A BM G
G6 { Q
X X8 5b&
( x D<6 6 5 34 x ( M
R% D&
(
8 D
\
%Q h G 8 }Q c $% D
I
@ S d 0 p( U W# l) \- D5 34H G S D
@\] A i
QGe K < Dv }{ |@ 8 %
} &
( D<6 X G E A &
( ( KJ6 }{ |@&
( D<6
X \ A < f \ 8 A % &
\ b X
( ( KJ6
@ >? G\ & }\ W X \ ' D
I
I
B x bR? D U 3 ( KJ6 H A v S \ x @
z# !!2 \i x
G<! A BG
&
( >8 >( ? uvs
2- 3 1
- - /0 ) * + ,- . % (
" .
" -4 5#
$
Q&
D# !!"x x ( U ( < CA B@&
( >8 >( ? G # !!2 p( U
( >8 >( ?
I
p(U @ p- ( U \ }S x \ D A } K l m W
I
iz 2 " <! << Cs B - G}\ w \
} 8 > &
( >8 >( ? G
M G R # 1} >@
A ( KJ w "@ M 6!
Q \ G6 %
Q $ @\
( KJ w g & W
& 22 p( U G\ )__ @ ( D < CA B G }'
I
I
G
w 8
( fiA E W ( KJ6 5 34H }6 * ( 0
@\ . - E ' 0GV Q & W , A Y x + D ( KJ
@\ 0 ( KJ6 G S }6 * ( &
( >8 >( ? @M G /
I
}bc D ( KJ6 H
D < CA B&
( >8 >( ? 0G &
( >8 >( ? bR?
U
GF \ D 1 D\ D ( p
I
&z - &z _ S A- D6 5 34H << " <! A B@&
( >8 >( ?
\ W&@&
( >8 >( ? G @ \ ( @ & 8
& @
iA D4 Z 3 ( KJ6 @ 8 Up( U }Q h 2 @
) 8 <\ \F 0Gv 6 } 5&
( i
<
G 8 A &#RJ x ; x \F &
( \6 8 $ lm : 9 D
u&
( i ( ( K 0 G AQ } @M P } 'v bRlK
G &
( ( KJ6 G A }@&
( i >? A_} + D1 = \ '
I
B }@ \
^ 7
\C \ D-- A
I
U
r) I8 x M AH AH i G8l( RFG&
( i fM w @ ( KJ6 \] E
I
V m
6 &
SJ \ \> 8 l)
( i x X @ X }\ D r8 )
+K@ X Structuralism and Semiotics&
( D<6 G @ ( KJ
& 8 &z - &z L x D x @ }
&M } Contemporary Literary Theory &

( D Selden, Raman G+
y@ << A B&
( >8 >( ? @ ' D G N MM A @MM o x
A A G O W ' D C&@&
L D ( KJ6
(
&8
W 2! C
(
G\ A | \{ &
I
&A @&
( D6 5 34 &@&
( D \> 8 l)
<!T /"
j " 22
/! ="
=! j=
<+2 <="
T/ =j
< !j 2T
\ P
@M W E '8 )w D&
(
Q S T R } ( ) \
DX &
( D6 Q W
W b yX Y V -
&z - &z x
U
I
^_ ( KJ6 @M v S { Z\] S( [ )
I
&z - &z A\ \{ Gx ^ M DD \
D&
( >8 >( ?
\ &M
X G&
} ( ) \ D X &
(
(
( D ( KJ6 & 8
D\ 9 A 5 D\ ( D ( KJ6 8 ( U \
G ]( U Y V -
M `
M
U L
I
{W _^ ^ M ( KJ6 5 34H
x ; @ x A 0G A w lb? w K # a
G 8k 8 l)
&z - &z x

I
p( U \C M 6!
( ) X << CA B {} 2 CA B@&
( >8 >( ?
d M 0 G
@
< CA B G } cc'
I m
I
Gv b>? on8l bR? @ ( KJ6 } A BM F G& ( KJ6
le \ f ' D\] @ ( KJ6 A BM 8
x + D&
w S 8 Af S GF ) p( U } ( M } ( KJ6 G 8 - R( ? R d
I
I I
Gv b>? on8lm : 6 }bc D ( KJ w 0G\C> g fu 8 \Z
( KJ6 &
( d b>? hA } FIK Q W &@ FIK
I I
Wk f l DyGjk + }& ip8U @M G x D\] @
I
8 &
I
~ pJ x An} &@ FIK m- x S & x f
&
( \ Q d G r GGG G b>? h} FIK q
Dm- x S GGGG # ' G Z f , x- S u GGG\ s( @ }

G\6 FLA
WM j +y X8 A BM ( @ w )
G o }
v L tuw \CL\ G\ FLA
Wy X8
M A1 w
M}Q @x
( KJ w @_E_ y\ D& x S
L X8 @b>? LM ? L } M 8 ( KJ w Gx
< A BX &
} A | ( @ ( KJ6
( F} ( KJ w
D Gf >w
A ( 3 D&@E_ D &@ FIK GF ) p( U }
I
8 J w ) 6 5 34 H ~@ , x- S u ( X8 xe
6 8 S } DvM x
w ) A f Gv 8 b>? } ~i ( KJ >8 @ M
M S { p( U / X8 1 @M b 0
G8
W @ MM ~ X8 @
Z \{ A @b>? ~@ >8 i~A

b D&
(
}&@ BA G << CA B &

( >8 >( ?
x <&
w S G 8 Me e iQ2 D 0 ' x k BA N M
GGG k BA o @ &
( >8 >(? ' }{ | M } e2 ( '
A
G ( i X \94 l 8 WA W T @&
w S
G A }
( U xW Z 8 WA M G g
I
zT 4 G& sM -
b>? ~ >8 D @ %M ( x\E_ D& D&@ FIK

>8 v ( KJ6 }M G ~ M S k DM @
I
( co W ( KJ w @ b>? ~ \ &
( >8 >( ? 0 | D
I
i ( @M Gf D5 34H i ( @v Xw }bc x G
X8 M w @M Gx
Xw & D x + G d
}| D ( KJ w 0 G\ } 'v \ + D ( KJ w
I
CA B &
( >8 >( ? &
( x & D d u} E ( L D ( KJ6 5 34H
G
\ w \ x S D}# !!" x
<
@ << " <! A BA G Wk D ( KJ6
( ( o( nJ M W - x}5 0 ) p( U
FIK G
I
FIK lG
\6 ( \{ FIK A W @ GS IK
FIK GM<W D A 8
8 b>? Q
( KJ6 b}
@\ e \6 &
w (
b>? Q
( KJ6 b}
8 \ 8 @ \A
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
FIK A
A @ < CA B@&
( >8 >( ?
The article of Imran Shahid Bhender in Jadeedadab.com is
indeed an eye opener. We are very well familiar with many
other qualities of Narang sahib but this aspect is particularly
interesting. Anyway, this is very unfortunate and plagiarism
should be discouraged and condemned at every level. To
achieve this goal I think wider publicity should be given to such
cases. I am writing this letter to request you to allow us to
reproduce the article in a new quarterly journal launched from
Delhi. The journal 'Behs-o-Mubahisa' is started by a group of
teachers and writers from Delhi. Asif Azmi is its editor and
publisher. If you allow us, we would also like to have the matter
as inpage file. I hope you would do this favour. However, if the
permission is required from Imran shahid sahib, I would request
you to send his email ID*
z s>8
7-R( G} >o D \ }6 5 34
( DM P } zs 8 U _ D ) A 8
W
@g M 9 S
A 8
\C
A>8 \
6 5 34 & Ge . X

( KJ6 : 8 V S `
D \ bc X8 G g Underestimate
I
D6 H
( U x z G - zp(Us nb r s
U
w
]M P & ( D &
( ****** p? } x l) \
&
w S 8 Gf S
I
p( U DM 8 & i&
w S @G -@ DM
X8 &
( D 5 \ & ( D\ G x * W D\C
I
I
( v M Q W &
M \ X8 5
&
(
X ( S =4 DM + z W z v Q }_ s
I
z s G & &
w S &
( x . G
\M \F GR GV ( @ @6 5 34\ \ u ( X8
>8
G @ \ & ( kG Z 9 >8 ( @ @M
S Rw ? Q }^ \{ G & ( U f & \ w & ( M ( KJ\
Q @&
w ( ER8lK( G xa S D&
w ( @M ER8lK( &
w S G6
)w
'8 K A \ X8 ( KJ x M G ~i @ M
Qo&
w S bR? @ x DcM G
w S G D >( ? X8 &
I
x o8 n'8)J @ x G3 @ z s \ Q W @\ 8 &
(
bcp( U \ Q W G x W\ x \@o ( \F i G @
\ W G \= bR? @
I
& ( G & D H x 3 G G G @\ Q @\ W
W @ lm FApU &
' D ( KJ6 &
(
( A \x } ( KJ 8
D \ QW}
q&
( ( x S G bJ6W ( KJ6 M
A & \ (
QGx GR s( W
M >8
I
G f6 G { &o
\ GT c G
I
I
I
S @( x 6 x 9 p( U @
9 p( U @ g p( U }M
I
& Q A M ( o @ G p( U <
@q < D S Q&
T
w S X & ( D 8 U
8 Uon X 9Q } & x G M h (
I
G\ v >? & ( KJ6 \ ] i D\4C
\
N z# !!T x p( U A B G >-8 t uvs - D x \ X8
G 6 ` ( D1&
( &}&
(
(M
I
9 ` xp
I I
G QR4
\ o A >8 bR? @ L D
X8 M \ &<
( <-p( U \ 9\6 X8 8 U>8 >(?
D] D D - @ x
\ G^ A 8 U 6 U
I
I
G K x D & 8 x ]M \ X8 i@ Qon`8 >8 -

( KJ6 8 { " X8 & ( X8 A ^ A
I
&
( X8 D f \ & G &
( f 8)( xa D
}& r ( KJ6 @
5 \{ }
( U 8
6l(K } 3 ( xa DR4
\{ %&

( D xp8Ui D \ \? A G
G _ S A-@
( KJ6 } S
I
I
\{ \ U 3 8X Ge 8 > i f
&
( f D xp8Ui
I
\4C \ w GP f F }Q &
w S \ w 8 > i
( x &
& h @ ( KJ\ }G 8 &
( i f\ A ( @ M } ( KJ6
I
I
\ w ( U
GP
f 8 > q ( KJ6
G 8 U
X x
vc \
vY@GV ) -A p( U \4C ( ( K GQ(
I
I
&@\
8 UH \ v S C G
( ) v x &
( ( - 8 xe
z\sx A
G ' G ZA (
\ &
( W 6 5 34&
( z<<s A A B z<!s M A B z"sA B&
( >8 >( ?
I
\ &
@ ( )
( KJ 0i & @&
w S G
( G
I (U
DR
v Z @\C | & M } c p &_)
D6
+9
X Q\ n M G 8 ( U K
@
Z 4 O A CA B~ n 8 \ ( KJ | D8k f
C G 8 ZA M &
f DG) @ G
( G (
}\ \ ( KJ 0i
>8 W @ G S !W D ( KJ6
I
GGG # S S G Z[ X8 v p( U v $ ' &"
z sx
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
\' %& G A 8
, x- S \6 c$ X ( @\
A 0 ) ( @\ ( @\ \ @\
I
\ , x- S M ' 0G & & D+ G6 * 8 >
I
Me G6 c>( ? Q , @\
\cF? D 8 > } D G
I
I
&
( KJ6 5 34H 0 i i x S %& 8 >
(
D\ A z - civY D ; &
( i \#E@\] E }
G^ X8 W* %&
I
. -M + D}
( U D ( KJ6 5 34H \ ) < } mF?
I
8 > {B
c D G D + 01R2 , x- S { } cc&/
(
4iv fR 3 X8 @ & 8 &z - &z &

( D\
\( U bJS w A X G Q h W\ 8
S( 5 ( KJ6
@\] @&M
&
D\
(
( >8 >( ? Gv 8 W x % xp8Ui &A
(
I
I
K
G\ " @ 6 7o @\ @ 8 > @ on8lm { GV)J
H w }{ |
K
d }\6 }\ \ w ( ) @ ( ) GVw)Jw E w@
I
} 8 > i i8 x DE Q M w G ] % A 8 \ G
I
] S h D d t } 8 > E w X8 G
d }&
w
K
i ( @ ( KJ6 G }&
H w E
G
( N { GV)J
<A S : O 9 i M W 9 G
A
I
; S @\C ; S vY D( \] GS f @\C
G <o M
I
9 \ = S > &
w S
( KJ6
G?VU @ # &
w S
z}
G# !!2 x = A s
Gj CA BGA & tuvs

z# !!" x A x
# !!2x
\ s
I
z# !!" BC6 5 34H ( S QR OP MN
G & C @
p( U D\ M
) #
- . 9 :;< 8
2 6 7
\ ( @ & 8 &z &z L D6 5 34H
M G B M &
-
(
X8
X8 \ X8
}M GDo D < D &

( >8 >( ? \M @ } \ \
" CA B&
@ >8 \\F E X8 \
( >8 >( ? G 8
I
K
D6 5 34H 8 \ \M G G F GVw)Jw \
&
(
( i@M <! CA B@&
( >8 >( ? G% |R( }\ D\ &
|R( W ( KJ6 @^_ : 0 D D^_ ( KJ6 0i >8
&
( i t \M \ G} 6 @ ) A p( U vY DQ h @%
I
@6 5 34H @\C | >8 \ <<CA BuG
\ G&9\]
(
I
K
I
Qd \ W xp( U S w > ( @GV)J
H w &
( >8 >( ? \FV8) @
D \ { ' D GD
H D\ E &
}Q h @ ( KJ6 0 5&
( i \ <A D ) < } ( KJ6 &
(
8 U7 DM G 8 \
} D&
( >8 >( ? vY D ; &
( i f @ 8 Up(U
I
E ( L D 6 5 34H GGEF D < CA B@&
( >8 >( ? \ S
>8 >( ? @
@6 & G ] jCA B@ A & }\ I @ E ( L

G8 &
( i M & C DM D^_ \]
&
( @ D \V @ JM
( A CM G C6 5 34 " CA B ( S QR OP MN & D
\ A R4 @\ G 8 b @& |
I
D6 5 34H & M M @\] \ G BA
I
Lp( U >8 G O WM b 0 G
@ K +
xp8Ui i & MbX jj= @} jj Cy@&
( D6 G< G
I
}Contemporary Literary Theory &
( D \> 8 l) G G\%N \
\
Structuralism and &

( D<6 Gj G A 8 }&O A i
G + &
( x D x @ +K@ X Semiotics
d Q G.P 3 ( @\] X ( KJ6 0Rw?
G 8 S }
~ 'bR? @6 &
( >8 >( ? R
}
/ D\] @ ( KJ6 }
b @\C |Y 9 MN
G 0 S c x
@ WR UV M G} S *@ ( KJ6 T C6 5 34
\ ~ _ ] _ ^ f\ <[ \ Z Q WXY
i S D\ Z Q W G &_) & @ x `~ m x x
dWe @Mx
( X8 D ( KJ6 i c X8 D a b
I
$ @ h UV c G D6 \ ( go f bR? @\f
I
\C "@ 8 > G 8
o &z < &z <[G Di
I
@ lcb 8@\C xJ> k j @ x x ( KJ6 b)
lG+8kn D x x @ lc R z Q m QR
@ ( KJ6 \
@^ A @
v> \ ( D B 2 &o
(
9 RJ( \ (
\ @ p
I I
G CM T X8 8 U>8 >( ? x>8 X9 m- \@ xr q
I
wp( U l@ fv ~ u H s A t t&sA R4 @M
I
8 } z > H @\ w CqM G vy x DCM & M S T
I
D x | &
z > H G \{
(
I
W G k J @ @6 \ G D x 3W^@ 8 U
I
xp8U CM } D ; b on8lm }\] @\ C6 5 34@MN
x
A } }CM { Q / W ( KJ6 G 8k +
I
G T
Q
X8 lU M %
= 2
GGt &s
I
&
6 5 34@ OP MN @\ b& ( 8 }bc D ( KJ t&s
I
@M 0 G D x |cM 8 & } 1A 8 MM i \ C
X f. & ( \F
l G
> (
I
I
& } 1 @ ( KJ t&s x x K x @\ (
I
\ ( D G
- W \] @6 5 34 H Q h @ x |
x Go ( } @^@8 }M p8UX} ; &
( i \
I
G\6 vW @ D^ & DZ[Y < ( KJ t&s i( U ~
zGs
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
(
I
" f d W ( @ # !!" \i " x tuw D ( KJ t &s
(
G m>? Z3 p8lm \ G 8 d &
( i W ( A @ / \i
<G
Q$ t &s
&
Qn
( S ( KJ
I
)
X CM 6 &
w S M f p( U K ( - K r8 )l8 x
G M w d
A GV >8 } &
( \%i
M &
w S 0 >8 z &
w S >8 sW$ DAi l@ ( KJ6 &
w S
D&
&
GV 8 D
w S
w S X &
( M c$A J
&
( 0 G\ b r \ l M
\6 bJ 8
Ge E % &
M & M @\ X8 &
w S D ( KJ 6
A Wk&
- D&
( A k G bR? @ ( KJ6 5 34 \ 8 4 C
I
@6 g @ 8 U>8 >( ? S ( KJ6
@ 8 U>8 >( ? -&
w S M G
( )&
w S ( ( K M - WT - 1 8@&
w S Gf S & p( U &
- D ( KJ _
K
b>? b X }q r W \ S - }~ { GV)J
H w h@\<
M * }
A w w K \ WM !touchy
&
w S G z W D ( KJ _ D
GQ( &
- Wv { |@& M l n &
w S
( D ( KJ6 ( KJ \ &
&
w S ZcM 1 \ 0 q
G %p(U } i x 3 k M
K
@&
H w &
w S \ X8 { GV)J
w S
( \ X8 S UW A w & ( M &
\ w
D&
w S @ &
w S < 0 D D R8lbw & A( bR? @&
(
K
H w }U &
'Q h E@ UW A kkW ( KJ6 C M { GV)J
( KJ6 X \{ Gf S Q x f
Dc '&
w S M
v @&#
&/
X8 @&
w S below the belt W\ }N@ x x
(
DMN 0z A / s ( l Vm &
w S D \{ &
( G
w S G %R &
w S \ go
8 ' D ( KJ6 F}&
G\ QR4 &
w S @ 8 ( &
w S
&
w S
( ( KJ \ ) @MN >8 8 &
\ b M G\ X8 v
( KJ6 \F v
I
m
DQ 6l f s( l G @ Q X8 D b ( KJ\
8 @& ( M e
G8k >8 &
} x &
( i \ M
MN t @\ &
w S
G\6
G\
t &s
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
< Gt&sQ$
\QR ( KJ t&s Q p(U
K
G6 % x f r8 )l 5 &
w S
( i@M G G+i x D &
W A M \ ibR? &
w S b r &
w S &
w S
6 W 4 8 <&
@ p8lm x tuw G (
w S e D\
w S ( KJ
( } X8 }&
6 G &
w S }{ |@ &? x &
w S \ o A 8 &
( i
&
w S A 8 @ &
w S ( KJ
( W < D &
( i <}&
&
w S i\ A G S \
( @X # !!2 x A # !!"x A &
i&
w S 9 4 M i +
D!M
b r &
w S W A @\ X8 G `&
w }
}&
9 W@< i ( @ -
M G } @ &
w S } D & ( \M S
K
G?VH)l? b @ &
H w # !! W A B@\ W&
w S ( ( K W @ D!
( \ GV)J
&
w S ^_ @ ( KJ6 ( KJ G D \ 8 } D _!M \6 <&
w S
$ 9@ \ 8 } D _ <i !
W A i \ :
\ S \ 8 D
\ 8 <i
A f. D \ D ( KJ6 8 4G
I
\ ( ) G
M { S \ y
DCM \ b r 3 \{
0v x xX x Ws( @ 6l)'8) 8 u M Gv
&
( 8 A l @
I
& M Q G 0 S W @6 H /
G\ A o \{ 9@\] R% Z C 6 @MNv
& MbX jj= @} jj Cy@&

( D ( KJ6 G 8 l) G G\%N \ xp8Ui
&
( D<6 Gj G A 8 }&O A i}Theory
&
( x D x @ +K@ X Structuralism and Semiotics
3 ( @\] X ( KJ 6 0Rw ?
} G +
.P
p( U k >? A M @ R
G \ + D ( KJ 6 &
( ( KJ G F8k 8 Up( U }Q h
J bR? @\ }
@\4C{ ] & }\
I (U
I (U
I (U I
}p f p }p f&
( G6 \] @\ GV) } D&
I
G iWk / 1 ( ) GPg 1 D\] @\ p( U
I
I
ig &f
N f6 D & } 1MM @&
w SX \
g }\ y@\
MM &
w S Gbc D<v
M o bJMM &
w S G A &
w S
G\6 Z
m>? D&
\K \{ Ge D '} D\K
( \(
I
)
x H 8 Q W @Q @ o r8 )l8 Qn u A - x }
I
I
$ X8 &
< @ &z - &z 8 U>8 >( ? 8 U>8 >( ? \
(
}&_ \C
M? GGGG
I
M A }
<,-M
<
@ 8 U>8 >( ? GvT ( @<A4
8 D &z - &z 8 U>8 >(
X # <++ 9ev S 8 U>8 >( ? @ 8 U>8 >( ? @ M f S 8 U>8 >( ?
T DM G
9e 8 U>8 >( ? &

(
I
} & 1@M e G GV A
zMM }
@ t&ss
< d bc<v
MM M
\ d c D R 1@MM M <&
Q h &
w S G
w S
I
G Z& } 1 'o o MM @&
w S Gv E w E w i i
I
H &
G A 8 Up(U @}&@6
w S >8
(
WQ @
i 8 e xA \F
( KJ _ ( ( K
G * x D&
w S Qo&
w S G &
w S } M G6
\c R D RQ &
w S \ < >8 xWQ @
W @ ( KJ _ A 8 }M G\ 8 D ( KJ _} G 8
{ |@ 8 U>8 >( ? D\ \ d D D ; i&
w S0
@\5@\ vW @\ \6G\ &

( WM z Ii}
G 8 b>? hM vW @\ Me <@b>?
- W G >8 \M G >8 W
K
A E A 8 }\ GV)J
H w # !!2 fi << A B&
( >8 >( ? '(@\{
6 u@ \ @ ( &
w S
q r f Q &
w S } } + D \
: G
X8
G
( KJ6 } N \94l}{ |@ e D ( KJ6 X \

I
K
MN \ A WQ @^_ @ ( J6 &
w S G 8kW> ( x
W
@ ( KJ6 \A &
w S X G
M <&
w S >8 { S G &
(
&
w S
( S C6
DC6 M @MN
G\M<W& (
I
Q h G Z& } 1MM &
w S 8k8 ~@&
w S
M G( U f @ Z 1 M G 8 Z @ ( ) MM &
w S G
+ va}\] @ ( KJ6 G &
w S i6 }MM
&
< & D\ \# @\] @\ v b}
x f
(
6 } \ D\ ( ' 8 \ 5 @ 'G &
( i ( KJ6
G 8 Up( U D\] @ ( KJ
&
w S G\ & WM D&
w S f
&
w S p8U &
w S 0 8
( G &
\6 &
( i
* &
w S p8U
X8 }{ |@ x | &
0 G\ \ + D
(
\W&
D ' \{ }
w S G M<&
w S G
G 8 \ G S Gv A Z&&
w S } \ \ +
f &
w S
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
(
l)l8 w U ( O S & @ \i j! \ ( KJ t&s&
( i M
(
Gx d WA ( M @ &
( i@ ( KJ t&s G d W
Q$ t &s
&
( S ( KJ
D\
Qn
w S
( i@ &
( &
\4C A R4 @ ( KJ6 W4@ &

( G<
\ E { e o ( } p( U &
( iF &
( i}
( )9 \ 4W\ & (
M 4W z&
w S S w s
) p( U ( KJ6 G
7 M <A D &
( i} \F G
G \ D ? f &
( \F G\ &
( i} '
G ] &
( ( K
( UA
P &
w S \Gj
\ & f D } x \ A X 8
( U \ \
A ( \F
vA >8
( U G 3 >8 A E_i\F G
I
I
M ( KJ6 G x &
w v WM DU & \M G \
I
( ) &
w S M G v c x o @ 6 8 &
w S G

D{
D\M A BA Gv &
w S }
&
w S i6 f
G i f : }
D&
w S o i ( KJ6 @ G=
( l Vm @ ( KJ _ D\ i ( &
ev S
w S
f x}M
\K
K
{ GV)J
H w ' E
GD
q
\ G+
x &
w ~i &
( R%A x ( @
}M \ G }& 8 V ( KJ6 ( W @
I
&
w S i & ( ' 8 S W >8 T \ k
w
G &
w S g G G \ S ' G+
>8 G } ( ) ~@&
w S & ( D&
w S+
D}&@
( KJ6
(
G\ M x DM &
w S
@ S ]
( U 8 e} D 6 b Y
( ( K ( KJ _GT
&
w S 8 G Q R fG f x pU_W@
D$( 8 X8 } x { M G * W& ( '

]X
Fw M e@{ M involve X O ( >( ?
\c
! Rl() ( E < ( KJ _G @ S
<
x \ Gv{Z NbR? @Y
mF?
k G s
D\ (
A }
}) A
A \< ( ) \
( U G
D f
} X8 @
s x} '
\C x {
s @M } @
A DM D >8 \ D +
} xp8Ui x
\ q & ( M M Rl() 6 &
w S G[ f D ( KJ6
( KJ6 x e K A D\\ @ o8nlKw Y ( KJ _

I
}bc D D
f <\F k DM G. DM
I
I
I I
(
w
tu
\ \ @ W \6 Q- ( S & GR &
( 8
e@ Y
X8 G
@ &
(
( U G 8 $\Rw
\ $ x
M &
G } ( KJ _G\ } 'A
(
\V c Q G A &
( KJ _
(
I
} 8 >8 lm x G6 &
X8 & bR? @\ v 6
(
w
@ &
( }\ ( ( K f
( U o R? tu ( KJ _G : GPRw?
G Bo x f
8 9 6
. G
M \ 6@ ( KJ6
\F GDM D B
{ ' A F\F
( U G
( ( (K
8 S A B &
( U Q G
<
BM Qo \ A @ ( KJ6 q G
D{ G }
X \{ GD ) < D }\ ( ( K M
I
G Qo} <W& ( < } ( KJ _
f f p( U f f S ' }' q YW& ( M G&( D E ' A &
( G/
f ( KJ6 G f& ( f f S p( U }p( U
Gev f& ( f f ( KJ _ e f f
A8 }
X8 & ( D
G. 8 8 f
@&
w S bR? @ x &
( G2
#&
( G6 # &
(
] -G Q M w M b \W x q \6 G"
m R D sl)8 ?w
( S R VRS R X8 R We S
G\
t &s
Gt&sQ$
\QR ( KJ t&s Q p(U
D&
w S G vQ &
w S ( M '(@ x tuw f D& ( M <
@ Cv @&
\! A i
w S G f "}
I
G W ( ) G\6 Z&
( i } $% D
z# !!" x A s x X8 &
w S & ( #X O
} K A i D&
w S -G<
G /8
} i ( @ M ( KJ6
w S
( U 6 A ( ( K & ( D4@ &
\F \ X8 A @M ( ( K G &
w \
$}\F
w 4 \ )
( N d }\ G 8 &
( g 9 $
I
s( (@ S w x 4W \ { o ( } \ w 8 > \
I
& A 8
GF &
w S @% A 8 }M E ( X & ( x D&
w S b
M MM W GP A
}MM A 8 D &
( i ( KJ6 G
G&
( i
x + x A s
&&
w S } @ ( KJ6
D\ Gj
G &
w S
G\
F G6 ( KJ6
@\M F } &
w S
G\ F >8
C6 MN &
w S \ \'u G\ W &
w S
I
M W \
( >8 >( ? G*
( @ w ) D ( KJ6 WA ( A B@&
I
G 8 +WQ X8 lU @S(\ &
w S G ^
+
D&
X8 \' ) G=
w S ( S bs G6 * '} ( KJ _}
D , Dbc x Gq+ f} '@ ( KJ _Gz &
( i
I
@ ( KJ6 b G o} '& (
.\ @ }\p( U M -
\ / ( - K G\6 &9t
(
Gv 8 @E } x K f D\] ( KJ6 X G\
9 f \F K D\
I
* D&
w S G Z& } 1 D&
w S &
w S G+
x l)( }M G Q X &
w S 0 G Z @ 18 } x
I
G +*
Dco u x P& ( Dco \ G0 W
6
G 3
x G0 ^X Q2 '} 1- x
1WQ2 &
w S
M GGGD @ ' 8 @&

w S ( KJ _ GT
I
G4&
w S \5 D * X 0\ ">? S ip( U }&
w S
6 }{ | @Q @ ( KJ _&
4 ( KJ _
( e G4 ( KJ 6
0 G 8 ( KJ6
( @\] A 7& ( +
A 8 x |
\ A9 } M &
w S v G A }
_ 8 M
G\
< \:< ' G u \; \:<\ ' ( ) G\ b Y }& ( M D&

w S G/
G
d v x
I
D > xp( U D\C =
\ s 6 B
M G2
A ( KJ6 UW
0 z \P^
?Q } X8 G
\
( KJ6
@@&
w S X 0 G6 #
(
( U 6 #&
u ( KJ6 06 #&
& ( DM >8 G Q \ 8 v6
(
&
(
G
D
p( U @&
w S G"
G >8 &
w S
f &
w S
(
I
W l)l8 w U ( O S & fi A @ \ u ( KJ t&s&
( i M
G 8 x &
( i M @ d
jG
Q$ t &s
I I
> g "@\
&
( S ( KJ
te &
w S :
K @ A M v bRlK MM @ x A B@&
K xG<
w S
I
*** ) $}\F
e 9 S D D x D& ( D MM C
G0 G &
&/\F
w S ( KJ6 EF -
(
}q+ DIk x H bG 8 } MM &
w S
G N *** M G\L '&

w S >8 }JK &
( i G
\ z ( KJ6 s \F g @M \6 =Gj
GF @ \ ' 8 ~ } ( KJ6 S G
4 Q &
w S G AO \
( P&
( i&
domain D g
I
A B G\ l8 U "n &
w S } &
w S G A 8 &f G
( G <&
Go ( } x& ( + w ) D ( KJ6 WA (
@&
M \ S w < & f D> R? G=
w S G\ q W\
( S S \ @ ( KJ _ >8 &
w S 6 -} W\ ( l } \V
& ( D&
w S G GV }6 T f defame ( KJ6 b
G \ ( S &
w S UW V G q
-
Wo f{
\W D\K
\ o \Z q
\ 1 G 3
G (
A
\ G+
X \
C6 } &
w S M 1&
( G ( KJ 6 Y
GZ 6 } C &
w
f S D \F G
( @g A 0GD D [ f ( KJ _GT
GA ^ 8 g \
\ ] 8 U>8 >( ? bR? @ x %v
I
X8 W&
( D 5 \ x ( ERw ? X8 W&f@D s @Y
(
M ]3 D 8 Rw ? p w? Q _W D (
c
)
l
X )W A 9 E 6 5 34M` G D ( KJ6 q+ x
I
d X8 @ c @ x R f> S bR? @ b @ a +
D 8 D a + \6 @e M
D 5 \ M G f f
l)
A 96 _\ `
h g &
v \ ] R bR? @&
(
(
I
L @ x: DM 6
o p( U } ( ) @ S QR iov +- i
_\6 G > S \FbR? @kM A M &jM
&
w S Gv + D
(
l &
w S Yv&
w S 8 n : f \{ @ ( KJ
M MW }\ e G eMW f} ( KJ _ G \ X8
q @\ D& p n o pluralism x
m E A \ lb<
\ S &
w S XP
} \ut 3 D f S 3 DGP rs} ' \{ G\ M S

A J \ G @&
w S D&
w S &v% x G }&
w S G
x}y&9
( - S M z z A {| S G w K ( (
G } G6 S }"@6 ) @\ \ D\4C&
w Si
<
G> M G iRJ(
~- M GGVb - x W& b
I
I I
G\ p( U Mp( U ip8U X8 }&
w S \6 M
t &s
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
j Gt&sQ$
( KJ t&s Q p(U
\ QR
}bc 0 G \ K @ X8 b@ x D &
w S
D & ( }\ &
w S 0 &
w S 8 : EF
( KJ6 G
6 @M i x + x A D&
w S G c
Aap ke goshe ki baat ye he ke jab wo chhap raha tha tab
Narang sb ne iska ilm honay ke bawajood mujh se nahi
poochha ke kyun chhaap rahe ho. Jab chhap chuka to us ke
bhi j= maah baad ek din unhon ne poochha ke ye to batao
Haider Qureshi kahaan se tumhaare ese dost ban gae ke un ka
gosha chhaap diya. Un se itna gehra talluq kab hua tumhara.
Maen ne sach baaten bata deen. Aur ye jawaaz bhi ke maen
India Pakistan se baahar rehne waale do adeebon par goshe
chhaapna chahta tha. S P Anand Sb ke muqabil mujhe
HaiderQureshi ziyada suit karte they*
& ( D 9
GV H `} 0
GV 4& ( }\ ( E ( &
w S
I
\ w U
} i ( @ M ( KJ6
w S
( U 6 A ( ( K & ( D4@ &
\F \ X8 A @M ( ( K G &
w \
$}\F
w 4 \ )
( N d }\ G 8 &
( g 9 $
I
s( (@ S w x 4W \ { o ( } \ w 8 > \
I
& A 8
X \F} &
w S G Z0 G f}bc x
( f &
( ic x }&
9
`
Q p(U
1MM @&
w S }{ |@ 8 U>8 >( ? & ( x 8 X8 }bc D &
w S
@ 18 @M } 8 ZMM &
w S G Z@% }
G\ ZuMM A G Q M &
w S G
m>? D&
\K \{ Ge D '} D\K
( \(
I
)
x H 8 Q W @Q @ o r8 )l8 Qn u A - x }
I
I
$ X8 &
< @ &z - &z 8 U>8 >( ? 8 U>8 >( ? \
(
}&_ \C
M? GGGG
I
M A }
<,-M
<
@ 8 U>8 >( ? GvT ( @<A4
8 D &z - &z 8 U>8 >(
X # <++ 9ev S 8 U>8 >( ? @ 8 U>8 >( ? @ M f S 8 U>8 >( ?
T D M G
9e 8 U>8 >( ? &

(
zMM }
@ t&ss
W ( KJ6 o W ( ) / x D&
w S ( U % } 1 M
Go
D&
w S&
( G 8 ( ( K C6
MN x W @ &
w S
x 4& ( D \ ( x a }\] @ ( KJ6
@\] @ ( KJ6 G6 >8 ( KJ6 } M D&
w S 0 Gv
I
I
I
I
G &
w S W\] p( U b & M o8 n" \ o8n"
( i \ \S &
xp8Ui i
& MbX jj= {} jj Cy@&

( D ( KJ6 G 8 l) G G\%N \
Structuralism and &

( D<6 Gj G A 8 }&O A i
G + &
( x D x @ +K@
X Semiotics
P 3 ( @\] X ( KJ6 0Rw ?

I
T
G. f @ 8 Up( U }\]
G&
w S G.
( i Q h M &
( U Q h MM &
w S M
&
w S
( ( U ~A i @ &
BA@ ( KJ6 .
G bc 'u F&R &

( G W
f &
w S
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
(
x W ( & # !!" fi
( KJ t&s ( - K &
( i M
I
W D x W Y \F G 8 } >8 @\ ( & 5
(
(
" ( <! G W O S ( <! @& W &
( i@M G }%
Gx d Y W
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
=G
Q$ t &s
( KJ
&
( S
I
W6l @@&
w S W &
w S
( Gf S !uG 8 S 'i ( D&
@ ] MW} ( KJ6 }) M A \ W G6
q- &
c ' ( KJ6 G Z & ( x&
w S&
w S
(
I
D S M%W D&
w S G Wk@&
w S &
w S&
( obsession
w @BMM @ x x x M &
w S
Haider Qureshi kahaan
se A *** ) : $}\F
K D tumhaare ese dost ban gae

M i A i l DEF
I
\F \6 =G\ &
( i 6 X8 D - uWM 9 \@
& D&
w S
9 M<&
w S&
( G \ G D &
( i
( KJ6 \M \ w ? &
( ( KJ fG W\ u@ M
M X8 <vY&
x
( } 8 $ ' Q x ( x
1 G 8 D&
w S G 8 W ( KJ6 } &
w S 6 D\K & ( G
G\P 6 S D&
w S&
( G\
+ BA i@ &
( Ge E & &
( G &
( &
( S
I
Af S GG?V Q @6l ' <@ >? G } v T D &
f} @&
w S G\ &
w S
( i f 5 G5~ f ]M &
w
w wK
A
v S =@&
A b ]M >u G
w S i (
Ru(
Gk >? G
G( A
8
t &s
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
= Gt&sQ$
( KJ f
G \ d +
I
pU }
w S &(
( X8 vY D u ^ &
I )`<
> & D&
& | FIK
w S M G )l8
GG\ X8 &
( G GV } E S W 'C W M ] -iX
@M &
w S A ( S \6lK( G\ G\ A y\ FIK \
G \V -}&
w S
I }\l
6 8 F - M f ( KJ _ F - { GFbJ & ( X8
GN f} _
9\ )_ y \
f W &
w S
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I
G D x Y
@ 8 V UP
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
( KJ t&s&
( x
A Wy
x W G x ( KJ t &s
I
@\6l(K ( S G W Wu&
( A \ S iGf +
GW @ W @
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
K
z iW "Cy@&
H w \6l(Ks
( D A GV)J
% D E 1111' " - B . ,- C D < ,- #

& A !"
2- 3
I
}@ @C6 5 34H @ ( S QR OP MN @
6 e GD K f 8 &
( i f}{ |@\] ( KJ6 X &
( {
6 @E M \ 8 i X8 \] @\ @
DC
x f GDM D$ ' X8 \ l@ ( KJ
G D D M + z Q X8
u D f i Dc 9
I
x b S \ S k @\ } |@\] @ ( KJ6 \ K
I
6 8 6 8 X8 G Q a}\] @\
&z - &z &
( D ( KJ6 G A WA ^ f GT X8 - _
s X
D\{}\{ \ ' D\] @ & 8
( )( X8 } G
( KJ _ z
b C6 \

i M ( KJ _v $^W @0 G
@ R D x @ +kA 8 ( KJ6 ( KJ _
I
I
I
M G ] @\] D6 H GF
p( U d
MA< o &
S
( ( K&
( KJ _
(
( \6G A
G - , W\] \ 3&
( - ( KJ _G{k
$ NbR? @ \ @
i UW A D\f8 6 8
}M G u d
A \\f A
f ' M G\ 5 DQ
vY DQ GQn f
b X8 pU
X8 \ \bb = w i GP S b r @ f A
I
I
I
( 6 5 34H G Q p( U
- w i X8 pU G\ p( U
I
Q ( KJ6 5 34 '(@\ p( U M W ; w i i ( @M 0
' G #<"2+ C w i &

( >8 >( ? G ( )( A
| '(@&^ D ( ( K c D G Q
M A
&
( #<""" @ ' &
( 9 M$ 8 S Q = v
W ; v | '(@&^ Gx v | E ( @
GD A W D\ ( A 0 GM D\ A D \ l) \
W& # D*@ w i v | M -8k u
I
I
H G & Wu x X8 X8 @
G O S
\ ( G G ( @ ^_ @\] @6 5 34
I I
b b
@ \ p( U d ( KJ6 G
I
G
I
p8lm x + f { | 8 8 VW ' D\] @6 H }bc D\

i ) @ S
DM W xp8Ui J G
G \ i ( ) xp8Ui
G\6 Z \{ x DM W >?( + - K D # !!" ? A ( S bW @&#
@ f >w + -}bc D\
jagdishpin@yahoo.com
Dear Mr. Qureshi
Thanks for drawing attention to this thought provoking
article by Prof.Naeem*
I never knew that an eminent Urdu scholar of the
repute(??) of Dr. Narang should be indulging in this kind of
reprehensible act of plagiarism and getting an award for the
same*
I remember a case when Mr.Narayanan, once an editor of
daily " Hindustan Times" who lifted passages from another
author's articles and published as his own was summarily

dismissed from the editorship and has since receded into
oblivion*
Knowledge is any one person's monopoly but if you rely on
someone else's views of opinion, you must gracefully
acknowledge it and never pass on as your own original work*
Jagdish Prakash
Qk ' ' ( ' M
6 o - cM
I
G A A S D UW A @ x D\ &o
( @ ( KJ6 G) f}
G }bc D@ ( KJ6 & - UW A @@ UW
@ \ \ ( f xX} m R? i &
( ( KJ t&s
\ }^_ ER4 D\ ( \M G C6 MN
I
x~ A X G @ xS &f X8 <vY x~
I
\ X D D UW A G c 8 l)J 8 U7c ^_ @\] @ ( KJ6
( U
G i
@MN @`q X8 X # !!" fi {}# !!" \i T \x &
(
M D& D \ ( x f @ ( KJ
( U ~ x D
@ x G W p( U A @ ( KJ 6
( ) f
\ G x & D ; { |@\ X O X8 \F x A Q p( U
D( U ~ x M <A
@O f x D\ G MN&
( i
x Y DM \- 1 ( ) G\ p8lm x \ \{
G\
{
A G
9@ \ 8 } D _@\
@ x \i T
I
\ } x Gf S DQ @& X8 ! { ] &- D
G x W x 3E_ D U\i 2 G A ( E_G3
\
\ I @b>? hA A 8 l} \M G
I
I
) X8 @6 H 8 > } @
@ Q h @\] W6 M G &
w
\] GP &
w S ^ A @ 9 A &# 8 X8 f&
w S
^_ 6 &
w S G \] } E ( ; \ G f @
<
K
&
H w # !! W \ W &
w S G
( i G?VH)l? b @&
( \{ GV)J
( KJ6 o & ( X8 G\ &
w @&
w S \A G\ f.
( i@&
I
vY DQ @ &
&
w S x Gf S x @&
w S \6 G
w S @\
A < & &
w S G f9
Q @& '
I
~ 6 & X8 }bc D& M 8 }Q D _M &
( i M
X ^8 M < >8 D x D M
D ( KJ S w X8 \ @ x A D# !!" \i 2 D G\ lb<
I
I
\ S D x f S D \ X8 b( U ~ X x GE x \ X8 }
( U
G8
< d G S M `@\ S w G \ @
9
I
G GV `K xp( U A W@ 9 { @\ G
M % D6 A
F @ ;
@
GV
I
M W }\ 6 5 34H W
G&
(
w
x D 9 @\ ( KJ &
( i@ x tu D ( KJ S w
Q @ fi A WM G\6 A B @MN ~ &

w S @ G S x D ( KJ S w
v x ( G\L X DM \ f \
G\ \ b&
&
w S v S &
w S X v x G\
( i x &
} \ \ <X ( S G >? f}&
w S
( G
G S w & &
w S G\ B \ G\
f u ( KJ S w ( KJ fi @ @\
E_ y\ X8 G\ x D&
w S G\ X D X &
( ( KJ S
G %
X8
Gf S x i }
( i@ M
( U D ( KJ S w fi &
Bhai jaan: aadab. This is only in my personal context please. I

have no quarrel with you. So, let's forget and forgive. Nothing is
to appear in press. /" years old that I am, I have always been
an uncontroversial literary figure and want to remain so, a
friend to all, till my last breath. Satyapal Anand
I
G
/ Db) @\] @6 5 34 H ( KJ S w /
@ ( KJ S w \{ G out of the way % D ( KJ6
0
P 8 Rw ? Q } @&
( p( U @ x s&
( p( U X8 @# !!" x j! Q
<
&
( >8 >( ? @ x Fw Vb 4 & \ X8 @\ G + ( KJ6 z
\F W
G { G\6 x x &
( S \ f
I)
G slw 6 >8 G complication Wk + Radiation therapy
I
& | B ( @& @\ ' xpU X8 M w
<
&
( >8 >( ? x Fw Vb 4 & G\ zbibliographys&V zreferencess
I
Q|- 9G6 *Mp( U } e2 ( G i | M xpU x 0
@ D&
w S A x &
w S iGD xX A<= G<j M
( >8 >( ? @&
<
Q W@ xp8Ui iCG }{ |@ x Fw Vb 4 &G &
( >8 >( ? '
referential f O M
4A R4 @
( U + Gvmistake
P ( KJ6 G\6 T & D&}\p
(
S w G M<&
w S G \V GP
X fi j }\i T }&M
@ = S w { } P ( KJ6
(
I
I
t&s ) p8U
X8
@ a D &c&@ x ( x M +
@\ G[Q p8lm x Y D\ G ^ } & D x Y ( KJ
\i " x tuw ( KJ t&s G\6 v & DZ[ - +

(
x M GD x W A ( ( & # !!" fi x x S D x # !!"
Y D ( KJ t&sQ p( U G & 8 }] x Z[ >8 \F
% } 1A 8 MM i ( KJ t&s C6 @MN - x p8lm x
I
\ p8lm x i GQ p( U } x | G x |i Z@
\ x |@ Z 18 A F ( (
Z@ c x MM
6 D & A u G. : X Q S A 0
eG
X &@\] @ ( KJ6
18 @MM @\ b
I (U
w (
& ( 8
x Q p } t&sQ p( U \6 &
0
8 z C 5v csC { & @ ( KJ6

= 8 \]
@ -
G vy = 8
I
W x | Q ( KJ6 &
( G i
\ S } ( @\
@ @\
'G W ( G C = % A 8
I
& ( G^ 0
X8 & G\P A onl8 m }
Z i & \F oGx @ x fi ( KJ t&s
# !!" fi G 8 ZJ X8 fi` x M x X8 D&
( Q p( U k 0
I
(
A >8 \ Ic x 6 5 34H ( KJ&
( W ( "
& f D\
I
&
( S ( KJ6 H &
(
G
n
lW G >8 c<&
w S G?Vb8
w S ) @&
w S WQ @ 8 U `K D&
I
\A f f ' t&s } M bC6 H MN D
I
c D G ( G}c 9 damage 8 & &
w S \A G
6 i @\ M ^ ^_ &
w S ; f. c ( KJ t&s&
(
\ /
\
^
M<W M &
w S G6 % &
w S 8 06
Q 4 W & 8 &
( @ f A i D ( KJ t&s G}
M f S & ( M$ f GS X &o DM G
{ | @ & 8 &
w S&
w S k 0G\ &
w S fA
( \F8 V)8 `K A @&
G\ A9 W M G }
&
w S
( &
- &z Q
+ &z i &
( KJ6 W & X & 8 b& ( \
2c @\ \6 G 8 S
& 8 &z
\&9
A ( ( K ( )(
(
>8 M G6 L
Ge{ <
%@ " \F 6 o }&
( p( U A
@ fi ( A @&
(
&s%@& D A S } @ \;X D \F8 V)8 `K @\ ( KJ6
I
W&
( i G% } f x A ip( U X8 & D ( KJ t
G& ( KJ S w
8 ^
} - b c W@ ( KJ6 c
P G 8
9
)
e Q } v &@&
(
( @ ( l b c \FV)8
G M ( KJ6
^ X8 b ( )
G GV {Q } &
( d @^X
'
Z 9
z# !!" ? / # !!" ? T \ G
uvs
( - : F? ,G >% ,- 4 5 #
I
&9
@ & 8 &z - &z &
(
( D ( KJ6 5 34H } ( ( K
\ ? D D &
( i }\ \y# ( KJ6 }
( U v
I
f. f <A ( @\] 8 0vRw ? bc ' }\] @
\ G% X8 f}{ |M ^_ f \
6 @ Q h X8 } \ G\
x 8 l) @ \ @ Q h
\ ( A
& h 9f
ecd 8 ab
Q - D Z d@bRlK _
& h \ \ GM D ; W A } v S
G\
o8nlm @ G\x & 5}{ |@Q h g X8 &

(
I
@ D x t ( KJ6 H Q h W Qo
} D G ( KJ6 G pU G
%x
X8 ( KJ
G6 \] \
I (U
,A v W\ 6 !
X8
&
D
,
+
x
p
X8
(
@ \F8 V)8 `K vY D A WM " x A X G bJ
@M { W} ^
\ A M w ( KJ6 GQ h M
(
A ( U ( p( U Ws( @ 6l)'8 u vY D , m WM @(
G6 G ( &
( i
{ |@ x t \F Gbc DQ h { pU v}bc D ( KJ6

S&
(
( KJ6 e G t x o( nJ D ( KJ t }{ |M G }
G Q h M
+& m- G d{ \ U@ c
A M { v }bc D ( KJ6 M GP
pU @
uv z# !!" \i x s < CA B@&

( >8 >( ? G i M X8 D}Q h
D ( KJ6 b}M G ZMM X8 \ 8 E W U5 &
( ( @\ 8
G P A
- c ( @ & x
D K R \ ( u G \ 8 + D W} x ( A
@ d \ &
( ] i D }\ \ f
A u Gv 8 8 S f A 8 }>l) p( U < >l)' G & } W
D x t G+& } 0 } S 8 d
I
D % z H <&
- >( t x o( nJ D\ }{ |@ &
I
W^@
\
U
D
Q
@
c
6
5
34
H
@
lm
I
)l8 8
D \ d@ H d{
G D& } ( ) \ GGG D@ M @
] f 0 + x D A Q Q \ & Q GGG9
@&
D >8 f G >8 } ( 8 VK( \
( M lb8 >(?s
G\
] \b 8 \M<W& ( M
z j= CyG< A B&
(
@
( ( K # !!j \ K \{
\ G+& } m- ; bc X8 ^
&/
x + fX G
(
& x ( A G\ A
\ &
w S F ( KJ 6
( U +& } ( ( K G
1 } ' x} M X8
G\
&
w S F <\4C
G G 8
\
=% A 8 WQ @ \ U D ( KJ6 fM 0 o 1
A x $ >( # !!+ \i& ( KJ6 @M G 5 \ @
' G\ ' '@&W*
X8 G\ A D
(
I
G E 6l)'8 u G4 ZA xp( U G\ W*@
I
( KJ6 } f4bJ xp( U 0
G x A f -i
@ x @ ( KJ6
x \ X8
( U GA S } / D \ U D
@
D
G A x MM ~uv # !!+ ? fiA B

I
}
( U D ( KJ6 5 34H 8 }
( U D c # !!+ w
&( W\4C = v X8
C = b M G 8 d W \
e +& } ^ M Ai Gz } Qg A
s v
8 VKw & (
@ x }\ x k&
\ W A D ( KJ6
( G 8
~ i
> M ( s G =
D \{ 8 f
\{z G^% X8 A
{ @ ti >
{
G\6 Z m>? D d T
( U ~ p( U x + \ X8
# !!+ \i/
I
=2! Ws( @ \{ G ip @ x |b \ E \ U D
>8 Cl e( U A @ G vy
C
I
6 5 34 H &
( i@M *************
AZIZ-E-MAN !
I AGREE WITH YOU ENTIRELY THAT
MOST OF THE PEOPLE CLAIMING TO BE WRITERS ARE
NOT WRITERS AND ONLY ! ARE GENUINE WRITERS.
THAT EXACTLY IS WHAT I MEAN TO HAVE SOME
ARTICLES ON THOSE GENUINE WRITERS*
D &
( i@ x M D \ b }& ( x\F
I
D6 5 34H
u K
~ 8 C v {(W 8 } \C }o ( d@&
w S
D
W\
/ f 3 x | x D\ 8 {
I
` \ on <A \6 M | 6 5 34H
8 D \ \ A A 8
} E 8 E w '
d}{ |
G lb<
C ~ Mb \\ \ G /
Z MM M G # !!/W x
)
&
A B@
G\ A
8 \ 8 + D \
X8 # !!+ ? fiA B@
~ X8 d@~ D
@ ( KJ6
\6 K { M

\ F} ( KJ6 ~
C ~ = 2!
b }& ( x ( KJ6 G
W\4C =
vy
&
A BA Ds
( i x M D ( KJ6 / \ 6 &
( z
\
f ( ' ' X8 Gv A } \F
+ S A
\
\ X8 <W ~ '
\ A
Gz vM w x 8 D\ s G \
UD
&
(
[ A \ M_i d{ \ \ D\ M : A
I
I
i ( @0M? M Gv 8 p( U p( U \ 1 \g}i ( 15 @\g}Gv
5 M P w k \ U D &
( U D\ @ \R( W
z GGG u
A S } /8 <A
Gv
sA S } /8 ( KJ6
- K M GUu (
K ) -
bRlK fX PA
A P ( fX @ J M
bc D\ ( ( K
=A
( U , ( )( M G} ! W D \ 8 \
z @ t G d@ 1 pU G 0 }
I
f\ L G @ @ @6 H @
'}
' \ @\p( U A"@ Q
!
I
I (U
# x xp M >? G D f @ ^ 8 D A } ' @
I
G\ p( U >? W$@%M G
I
t G6 S Rw ? \ S }#<""= bRlK @ ( KJ6 } { |@ &z - &z
I
X8 @ ( KJ6 M G i ~ X8 #<""= fiA B@& A w
8
A ^ &A Z@\
- , @ '' W\
u 8 $T \ '~M Gv S S @\
( U k G
G\C ug@
I
I
- ^ 0 G\ S ( xp( U A Ge\&>? A @ D ( KJ6 H
B}\ & 8 &z - &z \F
( @ ) D S
&>? A D\
D\] i : f X8 f} \ @) D\ G S( A 8 l
@M
& h \ }\ xp8Ui 8 u * { '
@\ +W 8 U `K D#R \F M GGG9 \V /8 3
\] @\
X 9 8
e X w ( @&
- i : X8 } \ v D& (
(
}Q h @ x A ?&>? B A q ( KJ6 Gs( @
@\] D\ } ; ,bc ' ? e Ep
GV xp(U
I
x DM ( w )c\F W < CA B @&
( >8 >( ? G &}Q
]
X O X8 9 M G ] D M ( KJ6
I (U
& @ m A X 9 8
W -p \F 9 8 G
:;A k& A i GP :; - D\ F
I
I
G p( U } ( ) xM \F
I
D .( S ( KJ\ ~ H Q Wv A W < CA B@ &
( >8 >( ?
<j CA B G @% A 8
M G+
# !!" x
X8 M Ti G h G T\ / w 0 + M
0 <j A B&
2M 1 D
( >8 >( ? M G
I
}bc D >? }? Q i} \ 8 \] @ ( KJ6 H G fA M
4 D\vY D S ( KJ6 M G\ B /q 3
&
( 4 O D
i G 8 &
( i
I
WQ @&
G 4 , DM } @ Up8UW
( @M
& r 7}k ? k \ M } ( KJ6 G\6 }^ }
Q h \& ( }{ |M <v (
\]
&
( vY D
G: xp( U }Q @\] @\ 9 + , ^ \8 %
z# !!" ? <! G
uvs
>% ,- " < F%A
" " ,- #
( -H 7
2- 3
I
; W @ ( KJ6 H p8U W o8nlm & X8 @ s
d }Q @\ ) - G\6 Z \ X8 }%
S D
M GZ N &
( WQ
&
( iA
< G
@ d WQ @\ i\6 Z&
( i q r X8 {
zG 8
GGGGGG
I
vY D xp( U }Q h @ Q \ k @ ( KJ6 5 34H
I
_ X8 M i @^_ @6 H X G = &
( >8
I
6 H ( U @ } x : \
>& ( ( o vY DM G }\ & 8 &z - &z

/ D p8U W o8nlm / @ G D D '
I
( >8 >( ? &
( } f
8 $^ ^ DQ @6 5 34H & ? D&
@&
( i@ MR @ ( KJ p8U W o8nlm M G
G &
( i q r @\ & M W6
I
I
}\ W -p( U M ( KJ6 5 34H &
( x
}&
( i@& r
\ 9 8 ( M @ m X8 '} \;k@\ 9 8
^_ \ D\ D ( KJ6 G & &
( i AA@\C
G D\C
W 2 Mp( U -&
( i q r }{ |@ ^ Q2 8 ^ & ? D&
( >8 >( ?
@ / CA B@ B
Rp8 lm @ www.urdudost.com x >8 lm G\
G\ 6 Z \{ &
( i@\C @ P M G P X8 }
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
P}
& D&
I
G E
A
x >8 lm C@ \C
L G6 AD L 8 U>8 >( ? - x >8 lm
W & 8 l) @M 9#X O<} L >8 >( ? L >8 >( ?
- 9
P : ( U ( DL Ci GGG9L D 8 U>8 >( ? D\ f
8 U>8 >( ? ~ \ G P : @M< '
F e
&
( x D\ G Q } > &
( # S I8 A 8 >? H G D
X8 @ 8 Up(U }Q h @ x 8 f. ]( U L @\ xp8Ui
\ <! " A B@&
} G | D
( >8 >( ? GZ % Q h
k @ 8 U>8 >( ? \ G GV l D& ( xi @
&
w S \ 6} GGG9 & ( DL >8 >( ? <&
w S }{ |@M Q SdJ
@ D >8 G6 ( } &
( }\@ \K D ` <\
G << A B@&
( >8 >( ?
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
9 8 % \ &
w S 6 5 34}& ? D &
( >8 >( ? {
x >8 lm
G @& ? ' &

( >8 >( ? 8
@& +t k @ ^ \F GD& ( } ( KJ6
( U G^
&
P X8 W
( # S I8 \F @ + A BG 8 = A B } 8
M W @\
G 8 8 U \ ' ( @ & 8 &z &z

I
o & }^ @M @ @ 8 U>8 >( ?
A B X8 Q \ @ }& DM D ( KJ6 G \A
G\ @& ? &
( & ( G 8 b>? @
G\ &
8X \ K }{ |@ ( KJ6
( >8 G\M S @
L D\
0 i ( @ @\ @ + A B\v W&
( # S I8 D\
>8 ?
W&
( D <! " CA B @M
G
z / A BB
I
Rp8 lm 8 VUP uvG # !!2 W & s
\ uv & r @MNM @ M >8 D p8U W o8nlm ) /

+ ( KJ o8nlm }bc x ( M Rfk G ( A 8 G\ Z }
Cheers
I
&z - &z ( KJ6 5 34H &
( x
I (U
AA M \;k@\ 9 8
W -p M & 8
96 \ X W
z# !!" ? <2
uvs
>%
I !
M- 0 x ( KJ t&s
@ x x S # !!" fi
I
&s D^ ` D& r }u
@ o8nlm k X8 @ 6 H ( ( K
I
& D x Y X8 # !!" ? </ ( S \F G S OP A D x ( KJ t
Gv Q X8 xp8Ui
M
Rw ? X8 D ^ ( @ ( KJ6 }R) &

w S G ( KJ Qn
GF A R ( ) J@ ( )
D Y D ( KJ t&s } Q ( )(u 0
W &
( i M
G 8 d & D Y ? </ D } Gv d Y c
G&
( i
6 G\6 &
w S f
( i & h A 6 Rw ? ` f GR Wk@&
A Z 8 ' G } eA8 { ^_ '@ ( KJ
& h A W ( G S( 8 U7W G Q h i{ |
9\ &
( i & h \
>? G\ \ ' D X8 'G &
( i
&
w S
i \ \ ' D\ X8 '
G 6@ >? \b8 &
xp8Ui i ( KJ t&s &
( i@M \6
M fu G U
iv&
w U \;k@ ( KJ6 WQ M }
( i
( U
A@
GG 8 S WQ
>%
I I
t\ }{ |@ \e w Wv , D ( KJ6 5 34H &
@ ( S QR MN uG @Q \ @ &
I
}bc D\ D ( KJ6 H G C6 5 34
I
f ?
&
( i@ \ 0 A W f \;k@\
5 34 MN \ & EF D w ) D < CA B@&
( >8 >( ? Gv
I
\
@ ( KJ6 H ( ( K \ Bk&
@t
@ C6
( G i d
v^
&
( i}bc x &
( i@ A W @
I
R%A ( W M Q D# !!" ? <2 ( S M 0 G }Q
$J S W
V K D }bc D ( KJ6 G x
D\
w
@h D w ) A i&
G
( \WQJ EF tu D w ) D ( KJ 6
I
D\] @6 H G x
D \6 Z @ \A
I
6 & }Q @ 8 U>8 >( ? 6 5 34H }
I
zGG # ' e}\\ \ w 8 > &
( G\
I
I
W oX8 >8 x } o X8 # !!" ? <2 @& ( A D \y xp8U W \
\A @ }
X8 @ d & D x Y
GGG 8 &
. .A
I
>
- C L
KF%A
X8 8 U `K D ( KJ 6
D? / T \9f ecd 8 ab
I
I
( KJ p8U W o8nlm Y @Q 8 VU P X8 } ? & G \ \
X8 \F i ( @M G Z Q @\ G S p8lm x DQ
} E ( \ D _@\ x X8 ? & G 8 ^
} & 8
( KJ p8U W o8nlm v Q\ t
Some Urdu poet has written, "baat niklay gee to phir door talak
jaaey gi". Here is another article on the recent spike of
accusations re Dr. Narang. I share it without comments. This
shows you the unfortunate state of minds in Urdu literature*
I <
)
l
n
6 bc x
o8 \ X8 @)l A Pbbc X8
ev\
& ( [ &
( i@\] @ ( KJ
f @\] \ S W\] @ ( KJ6 u uQ1 0 fX & (
6 A ] D ( KJ G S }bc 'X K f 8 f.
K
G6 >8 W S @GV)J
H w \ 9f ecd 8 ab ( KJ
@\ G &n
Ae^\F G\ A D&n
( KJ o8nlm } \F ( M
(
(
&
D? k G
( i@ M D p8U W o8nlm D?
G \ D\ x 0 _
I
>
( KJ6 X
@&
w S
G &
( i \
D d x v A WQ u D \F &
( i@ M
I am sharing this message from Haider sahib, who runs a web

magazine from Germany and is among the main accusers of
Dr. Narang. Objectivity requires that I share it. I am surprised at
this comment, "aap kay zareeay agar narang saheb doosra
round shuru karna chhatay heN to bismillah
You may have noted that I rarely share any item, message, or
input about Narang sahib at our forum and in my
communications. My interaction with Narang sahib is minimal.
Such accusations are at best sad indeed*
You be the judge*
Cheers*
\R4 x / ( KJ o8nlm
I
I
8 & f D&# ` ' @M A DD A WW \
@ Z@b>? { \ D ( KJ6 } \
b D a\F A R4 @M GD^ f W @ ( KJ6 b
D ( KJ6 c \R4 D
@ X8 }M f S kA G Z @ f S k A 8
cd& ( + \] @ ( KJ6 @M 0
b^ @ ; &
( iX O X8
a G S W &
( i M
xp8Ui
3
X8 pU D G
( KJ6
9 8
+ @ a \ I M G \b X8 >8 @ &
( i@ b D
aG9 : f ; 8 $u x S @ x S D
@ eA A @ b b }\@ >8 + @\ +
@& f x
GP
p8U W o8nlm
{ \ ( @a}\] @ x e 8 U7bc
\ M G\ p8lm x A D\ K D? & b + M Mi@\ G
G &>? ( @ D ( KJ6
\R4 x / @M Mibc X8 ( KJ

i&
@\
( i M W x Q h A { pU
I VU
8 P Q }\ M W QG # !!" ? <! A B@
\ ib >8 G~\ S # !!" ? " \ G 8 W
I
(
( w @ ~\ S \ @\FV)J 5

G8
c x \] @ ( KJ6 @ @& h A i\\

X f b& ( 0G 3Qt x / D\ \ G d ( KJ o8nlm
(
D\ ? <! @ Gg >8 oi@ S / D\ G
v REPLY @ X8 D? &
@ % K D MG ( &
w S @ M E x S D &
w S
I
\ _ <&
w S&
( i G 8 d &
( i + @ ( KJ a ( KJ >8
h f \ &
&
w S 0G 8
w S
( i Q h g @ ( KJ6 m>? D&
D E6 8 b G
f S }bc D\ &
( i@ M
Hello Qureshi Sahib, Thanks. I became busy with some of my
professional activities and am currently traveling*
f S x }bc D\ @ /@ M
I do not have access to my forum links. Regards. Munir
Sending you this message from my blackberry that does not
provide full internet access*
D ( KJ
p8U W o8nlm { Q } \y xp8U W X @ @ x x
Quick question? Are you a member of the forumi

W x WM G o 3&
( Db
l p8lm A k + 8 U `K A D6 &
w S ( ( K o8nlm j
&
w S
w S M? d c x x
w S GG9Z Q @&
( U &
M? [ D ^
I
II
v ( )s _ p8lm >8 l)l8 8 x DQ &
w S 9Z Q @
&
w S 8 S &
( i Q h A @pU 8 S &
( i + { a&
( 9Z Q
I
\ &
w S&
w S ( U G S 8 X8
( G " @> 6 &
w
D'\ D&
w S&
( G 8 m S } tu G p8UX} I
( G I d G 8
G
} & +
( ) @&
w S&
(
@&
w S M? z
GGG
>8 A l Gv S % X OM W \y xp8U W
p8U W o8nlm @& @ M x

f S D\ -
Hiader Sahib
I have some personal questions if you cared to reply
<. Are you a Pakistani by origin or Indian *
. Did you live in India for a sustained period ( j yearsz
j. Did Gopi Chand Narang publish an article by you in a book
titled Urdu ki Nai BastiyaaN (I have not seen the book but a
friend suggested that he may have seen such an articlez
=. Where do you live now, Germany or Denmark. My
understanding is Germany
I will be going to sleep in a few minutes and will look at my mail
tomorrow*
x \ W x D W M
x / 7Q D&
w S Gn d p8lm x i&
w S 0&
w S
( i o @ &
x DX &
/ &
w S @M G3Qt
( G & f D '}\
I
G p8lm
I
p8lm x @ A &
p8U W o8nlm @ & A 8 }\FV)J M
I U
W D @ p QG W o D\ M GC d
b G iWM A d @\ S
?A X
( U
I
M }{ |@\] @ ( KJ6 H G6 ~\ S
? <! \ \ M
G T A 8
} > DK D d @
vQ h wW W@ ( KJ6 X
I
Z & f A 8 D G q ( q r ( KJ6 onl8 m d } \
o8nlm kg t&s{} D < CA B@ &
( >8 >( ? G S
<
I
G R8lb X8 r G W \ v S w ( KJ6 X
@ ; &
( i \
X8 \u}bc\ M 9E w t x GGG 5 34 GGG s o

S X ( ( K E w ^ }\xG D E w vw X8 \
8 $Q
I
{ z
&fP
\ } \{ }\ 6\ w y u
(
I
X @\ E w \ X ( KJ6 5 34H G | X P R(
6@
6 } \O %Q h A D 'bR? X \}
{} ;
@& G
G ( @ m
Q h M G 8 Up( U }Q h @\] D ( KJ
< ( KJ6 G 8 Up( U D\ f} \ @&
I
p( U M z >? >?s } k D\ G X @\ E w G\( Q
( U D^X @ E w S 3Q A W cM Q lb
M >8 G
GA S
I
x D -p( U M
E w tF ?w- @3Q
G d b &R
D \;k @\ @b) @\] GGG } \~ ( KJ 6

X @\ E w W @\ 8 U `K
# !!" ? = G
z# !!" ? ! G GApU uvs

I I
G>8 8 VUP \
G &
( WM X \
http://dailyhindustanexpress.com/adbi_sargarmiyan.htm
NM
>% ,< ,?
,- I M 8 gM }M D r8 )l i C
G\
f ( ( K f D7
x # f G x
G A ^
I
@3 @ gM \% X
& D7 @M S i 3
( x G + < f D #G
,- = + D7\6 G\ S } M G < x # 7
XG
0 < x M < 9 z l 0
< f D #X 0 G z 7
M f
+< +
@ # D7
G \ ( \ u +
I
[@ WX vY D \V AT U S M R z
` _ \ \ G 8k ^ ]M ( KJ6 G A 8 \ Z
&7 >8 d Me x S D x bc X8 G[
W z a
I
` a ` _6 x 8 U gbc x G x f &1@
Ga
I
X8 DkW&
( D\ 9j ( } > ; S D x W GGGb hi
'
Gr8 )q p D xnMe
@\ o m- lW
D i X8 G @ x I X8 Ro m- @ &z -
I
I
A #\ G
o8n" Q ]
x Y 0 .4W @ f X8 c
WQ ] &# G similarities x
\
I
G Q_Ge D b} x Y9 D4 ` x
&_RlK
fc D{ _
Q_ m-
I
'
@ xp( U i r8 )q D m- } 8 Up - D3
I
\ Q ] }v % Grand Narrative GQ } D i (
Me
m- bc X8 @ R? % Q ] \ o { N} %@
G t}Q_ m- R? %M bc x
E
I
M G - } ]} - EFi D z @@ >8 lm
G A bc D v @^ x @ ( KJ6
I
z jT j/CyG#<""=x fi j CA B A w tuv~s
,< ,?
,- R% % ( Q " PO < K "
(
p( U 6 \p( U O -&
G W }{ | b} 6 6 W @ S @ D & 8
I
M D = S @ e D7&
( D D - @ w R> A }
I U
D F } x xp( U
( 8 ^ A 8 U>8 $ ( ( K >8 >( ? G D
} \ X 8 # G
G x x Q x G W S
G[ \= x ( ) \ G $ G?) k X@&
& D\ #
(
{ |@ 8 U>8 $ G f } } 0 f x X8 $@ 8 U>8 $
D ( } >M &R
( 8 l) 8 U G 8 S &R
( 8 l) 8 U >8 >( ? }
\ R8l) M \ G bJ ] C S 6 i 8 U E W
D x @ R8l) \ G} @ 8 U U \{ @
\{ @\ Q
}k R8l) D 8 U i 0 f & (
@\ G Qo } k + E w vB \{ @\ . S o ( X
I
G} x D ? } \ D\ i
R
5 M
G 8 & x
f 5 D # #X
8 U < \ }~@ z| K sz \{
I
0\ f x X8 xgM Gf S D
R { (
I
\F G S M A 8
x x } 8 VKR ;i R
G u 6 @ E ' ( ( K
I
M } # # R j ( } > ;{ S D x # #
8 Q }@ x @ # # ( }
o ( c
%}
@x
M4} 3 D&
( G x G
#&
( Me \^ _}C 8 G S p(U
G \ X8
I
zT f 1 \W C@< @
s
#<""+ w x A A B uvs
zC
#<""+ A BG &
(
ST
? 7 A R% % ( Q "
zT @
&
( >8 >(?s
@\ G X &
( b >{ ] N} D &z &z
D ( ) \ G{ O X8 D\ \ @\ GG D\ GGG
( ( K \{ G -lc X8 K G 5 k
& } X8
(
( U X8 % &
A @( q G D QpUt Q i ( @
&z ( ( K G
I
D D ( } K xp( U l
( U ~@ \ #@ &z
X 5 D x @ & 7 3
\ c D G D 3@ E S QW DM
Q bR? @\
&
f& ( Ds- ( @ x
( G 8 S - Deconstruction
x f 8
@R x D Deconstruction W
\ l
Q Gv ApU M d@o W@M @ D x
l}bc D\ m- 8
8 }^M i.W A 8 \ 6@\ o \?
I
- \ & W@ M A bcM o Q G
Ge.e
z# !!j x fi < A B
A 8
&
( >8 >( ? uv s
- W L
8 U>8 >( ?
z s S H
}{ |@ 8 > - : X8 &
w S M G @s- ( W
8 GGG @ d &
( xq ( G 8k& D
&
w S

Q G D D @ Logo-Centrism 8 p - &z &z

D < D R A R m- GMp( U }( S R @ A
>8 >( ? R & ( D& ( D web of relations @\ vY@p - &z G
- G Dp -} D p - K G -} &
A f iWQ(o @ K x p - K A Z D &z
G Z
Q c xp(U D p - > W\C &z 8 4 G x iC &O i
G D @ x D p -
K - @ &z Deconstructionists R
@x
D\ < \ Gv
| K @\C &z
M &
( i@M G Labyrinth U X8 & F x D
bJ @ <G D GI?VU D }
\ ' &
(
&
A W A Wi @ -/ G D ' D @ }
(
P{
X8
\FV)8 x
3 7 x # 8
X `
W& ( M
&z \PP v & ( GP f} + D 8 7 8 4

G i D & S
@ & 8 \ <
Z & 8 i R
@ &z
G 8 Deconstruct <& \F
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
zs M
M
ApU M d@o W@M @ D x
D Z p8U &
w S
D1 b z &z &z s x &
w S S p8UM D&
w S Gv
8k( @ x
@f
= D - W
\ l (
I
M + W x x DM Ao - 8 ( ` R \ 8 4 G
X 5 D x @ & 7 3 &
w S
3@ E S Q W M
G Q bR? @\ l}bc D\
m- 8
& s
&i x D D &\ @&

w S D& G D
o i6 M { _ @\ %W @&
w S Q
I I
I
8 B ` @ X8 %k& D x &
i} )1>
w S G
K
G x f r8 )l l \{ G
I I
M G xr xp( U xp( U W s( @ x b) (& (
I
E & ( GGV GV &R D1 A M & 8
8 L ' x GV & 8 @( U pU 8 Up( Up( U 6l(K

I
o 3 8 L x 8 VKR +K DDeconstruct3 8 M L
I
8 )' u 8 f ' 8 8 V8 U 8 x DM L D G
\ D
@x
w @\ } D8 x cM
( M g R k D\ X i ( @ 8 U `K M D& x
G @\A
} g xTN x o }& x
c D x
& ( tuw M @7 3X \
G i
8 xp -& DM 38 @ 7 Go 3 7
J xT q X8 7 D1 f @7
D D \{ G
G 8 &z \ ' B W e i D7q d
@ } D DM G A D &z
G8kQ{ M G @ 5 8 >u k f
I I
I I
Q 8 l) m G W X8 A } L M G W
M vY@ >u 7G ,
A zSignifying systems
@\c
$ 7 & 8 & 8 8 8 U
7 8 4 G , @Q
Rlm G } @
( UX O D&kR ( ,
D
l) } 8 U @ w@ D w * '
5 O 8 U ( )
(
@
@ w * 'c
( G x @] v ( 7v Z@
I
I
@M 6 8
p( U
( } D G6 T }@
(
X8
8 U7 x D w * #@M 8 7X G&on D
S & D7G ( )( b}7 @& } M Gv

M @ Ds D 8 U D7 \ ( G Dc D$
WM G &
GV R &(W^
w S z
( }\ m- @7&
D &z &z G & ( \ 9 A \R4 & D 7G f &

: A G D D m- W A G A `
- G , &WM ` X z R s P^ A x \
I
GGGGGGGGGGGAf S ( G
B \ 9@ x S >8 A @
z &
M s
( i@ M
I
% GG ( >( ? } v , - W L M Q p( U
D \ ' D %Q h + D}
( U D @M \ f 1 @ X8
G D ' D D %Q h + D @ S @ K 8 U>8 >(?

I
M D \ } o
9 ( H R lm GQ ( )( o
8
\ A S Z ( ( K 0 ( )(
} X O D&
X8 D K\ G
(
~ Q h G& ( x S ( @ K
u v E D& h
\ o m- \? }>? E@3 D7 } @ \
D M & ( D , G bR? @ UW D l} i en
\R4 @ GI?VU G ( D\R4 @ GI?VU & ( \ D@ E S W
5}N@ m- 8 U>8 >( ? } ( ( K G6 ZG\6
b
D \ \ g\ 6 , S 3 ( @
I
X8 pU @&
w S X 9Q f M D i} m- } v '
\P @ , @ e v
&
x 8 U>8 >( ? M ]M N K D&

w S D D3X \
(r f} @ \ 8 s( @ g M X8 D _~ _@M x 5 i
9A 5 D3uv S X Q( ( ( K Gx n 8
I
&R D1 A M & 8 M k X8 M
\C &X
: E D M f GGV GV
(
I (U
8
\F
&
R
p
@
&
@
@}QR
G
D
(
8
(
I
G\ A Z |
X8
S H p( U @ ( KJ M
D \] A b z GGI?VUs @ R v &
(
xr v @ x \ @ x %
& @ z Super nationsQ] z Super Races @

ws
SR( D
SR( m-
SR( uG
z/<q W
N S \F8 V8 = D1 D\6
&8
&
o } WM
(
9
I
X8 @\ ' @ x G< p( U o Z i x # &
(
D1 x 8 UM 0z
D 8 U <& %# ksx
I
M @ \ O
` & D @ M 9R
I
8 U D 8 U D x G >8 Q @ ` <bR? @
G( f WM 9 8 E f
M A G 8 S M \ o m- 0 f 1 D& z } A
\ o m- 0 } A \R4 & D K
GE 5 f
sD1\6
DU6 D - G z A } K & D\ 8 S M
I
S Q}Wo z W & 8 W s
z 8 >8 lm X s= zxecd
( S S WM G x \m #<""/ Huntington G 8 ^
I
>8 I S W 8 >8 lm m- c Huntington6 S b G6
I
)W X8 pU 8 PX \{ p(U M \ Bk G6
\ G
& % & V
X8 \f G l f \f \f
I
@\ o m- &
w S M G 8 \ @\ m- i P f 8 >8
G\
DX
@\ GF} e
}& @ X8 %
f&
@ 8 U>8 >( ?
I
d@ M \ \] D1d@ X8 M? P
5 X G( f & ( W i Q2 8 i @ m- { Q @(q
e3W^M M G E
: X S } :
G q WM G E
8 D '^M \
I
}\ G o X8 M }\ o x eq G
s- (
\ f D @ ( X8 A S ZA DT
'- Gv 8 $
G
z# !!= x
' G D E W & \F A
w i
G ZMM
G CA B
&
( >8 >( ? uvs
} Bk X8 D M & ( D <
A E W & v \
D M G ( U \ xT p( U @
X8

( U
I
Dk W D M L W\ x \ O Dq A
I
I
& xvo u 8 ( 8 R8 lbw

@ 8 >8 lm ? L VM L }\\
I
I I
S X8 &
M L M G 8
+
( D S s6 fo? V?
z<< q
I V
$ ,< U " FL " K ? 5 "
Thanks for sending me your piece. I read it with great interest

and hope that your and Professor Naim's efforts will bear fruit.
Please keep up the good work. Warmly, Muhammad Umar
Memon (U.S.A*
I
I
q+ D S ( ( K G v x D| D&
w S F i \ D &
w S
G } D ( D Q u Q f4
z- 40s m
I
G x Q m>? xp( U D&
(
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
@Q (
&
w S &
@6 5 34
Masha'allah, very well written. You are doing a great service to

modern Urdu literature. I am circulating its copies among
friends and have saved it for publication in the Khabar Namah
at the proper time*
I also read and enjoyed your hard hitting reply to Munir
Sami*
z ( S s _
( }\
I I
8 V
C 0
G t}&
I
_ on8lm
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
d&
w S
@c D
\G
z s
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
&
@8@ &
w S D& ( M <
w S
( >8 >(? i ( @&kM &
I
) p( U p( U Q (
&
G }
}
w S @8i
z s~ G x f } ( ) M Q
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
( KJ6 b
S( G f g D ( KJ6 k
W ( ( KJ6 G Z}Q @%
}&
( xp8Ui \oJ
I
x x &
( x \R G
z( S
s 7 ~ G x D ( ) &9\4C\
G
(
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
AQ G ( S A
B'
&# | D ( m>? D&

w S
( &
I
WQ ? D6 06
i \F8 V)J( b w K {
z s>8 G \~ W \
I
8)
z s
\ G
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
very, very interesting
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Thanks for drawing attention to this thought provoking

article by Prof.Naeem.
I never knew that an eminent Urdu
scholar of the repute(??) of Dr. Narang should be indulging in
this kind of reprehensible act of plagiarism and getting an
award for the same. I remember a case when Mr.Narayanan,
once an editor of daily " Hindustan Times" who lifted passages
from another author's articles and published as his own was
summarily dismissed from the editorship and has since receded
into oblivion*
Knowledge is any one person's monopoly but if you rely on
someone else's views of opinion, you must gracefully
acknowledge it and never pass on as your own original work.
Jagdish Prakash
******************************************
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 plagiarism 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 for which 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 +th September.
Jagdish Prakash
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
thanks for your e-mail . i read your clarificatory article on Dr
Narang's sarqas with interest. he seems to have crossed all
limits of decency
With regards
Arshad Kamal
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I
& x f }^8 f S / } D
I
&A
D6 5 34H 8 S 6 X8 } \p( U A ( G v
(
I
\ &
A ( D6 5 34H GGG9 K |R( ! % 8
fRu<
(
I
&z - &z &
( D6 5 34H ( U &
( } p" D
( cM K D&
( &
( # |R( ! % & 8
z s>8 Gzp8U Q$se
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I
W& ( + G &$' } ( KJ6 4GT} xp( U \ &
w S
&
\ % G & A 8
w S G } , \"i D ( KJ6 iW\
&
w S & ' < X8 lU x G \ &
w S M A &@
{ 2 p 1D
GGGGGGGGGG
G @
\ \ ' ( &R8 l ' D K ) p( U M ( ( K &

w S
( G \ x &
S( \ A G @
@ x&
w S d GV ( ( K G % \ GV )
E D&
w S G \
*&C D&
w S @&
( G 8 d ` i ( @ e b D \6 i (
G G mR &
w S >? G
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
It is an interesting debate indeed. I would try to follow both

sides as a student of Urdu literature. So far you seem to have
been using proper references and that shows the objectivity.
Although these kind of Manashqaat are unfortunate for Urdu
literature however for some of us these become a great
learning experience.
Ahmad Safi (Karachi)
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I
}\? ( KJ6 H G S ? W }
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
\F& '
I
GV 6 &
w S W =6 G
M G\ send 3 y\ DM G&
w S D W D G \
I
z/ s G&
( \. G\ )
M G
&
I
p( U
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I
8 >? &
w S c@&
( A D6 H
z As W& |
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I
I
J m S D&f
P 1 - D&
w S S P 0 D5 34 H
(
I
I
G Gg \u c D\C@ f 0GV) iA G ( KJ
I
z6 2 s
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I
v S % W \O %Q h 34 vY D ( @\] E 6 H & ( D E
z s x G] lw? ) D\ G
>LJ( - C D < ,- #
2- 3
I
Z @& M x c\] @6 5 34H
6 5 34 &
( UD
\ S @& M \ G\6 Z@ b \{ \
@& M Q\ G6 MM A X8 } 8 U>8 >( ?
d
O Z d@& M \6
A b@
\ \{
\ b x G x f
I
- A D\ G X8 b D\] @6 5 34H ( ) MM X8 & M
}{ | D D \ @\ G S B >8
Z} A @
G + S &
(
X8
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
6 5 34
G 6 s- (
5 x /Y A &
( o } d xpU }M
@\ ( W 8 i
/X G zTautologicals 7 ( b Z
@\ ( i Z
M x / 8
/Q _
c$ /A - x }
Z
/ x /
zTautologys 7 ( o zConstructed in Languages

z/2 qs GGGGGG
U
9 G8l( RF
From this post-Saussurean perspective it is clear that the

theory of literature as expressive realism is no longer tenable.
The claim that a literary form reflects the world is simply
tautological. If by 'the word' we understand the world we
experience, the world differentiated by language, then the claim
that realism reflects the world means that realism reflects the
world constructed in language. This is a tautology****************
(Belsey, Catherine. Critical Practice, London, Routledge, !!j,
P,=j)
U
I
A G8 l( } b>? )
MM ( \
U
@ G8l( } M ( MM i6 5 34
G
| Cy@M G
'R q D D R 7 (
U
G <}&
G : /
( D G 8 l( Z \{ YMM
U
6 5 34 G8l( RF W (
U
}Q c & M }&
6 5 34
( D D G 8 l( BMM X8
<}
\ -WMM X8 S G %
I
v w \ ( # @ X8 i W \p \ D\; Don :
v w @\ \ ( x }\ ( X8 @& i< X
8
o b W # \ 4 D 4 ( # / z<<T q M s : 0
@M xp8Ui p( U @M Mouton X8 A G x F lm on :G
GzT2 q 6 5 34s A Sheep Mutton
U
î bc D G8l( &
(
Saussure's argument depends on the different division of the

chain of meaning in different languages. ' If words stood for
pre-existing concepts' they would all have exact equivalents in
meaning from one language to the next; but this is not true'
(Saussure, <"/=: <<T). The truth is that different languages divide
or articulate the world in different worlds. Saussure gives a
number of examples. For instance, where French has the
single mouton, English differentiates between mutton, which we
eat, and sheep.............(Belsey, jTj/ *z
U
LW G8l( - s- ( f
MM M ( @
n:
on : 6 5 34 ZCy={ | }&
D
o
(

U
) -A p( U on :\ >? }&
( D G 8 l( \ |
G lm
Strucuralist D>? iT &

( ( W x 8 V) D A R4 @& | ( A
)q8lK(
(
D<6 &
( ( Y W r A R4 @M G B }Poetics
D 8
MM S G %6 5 34 c }Structuralism and Semiotics&

(
A R
*6 ; \ ( v S } M @ [ @\ 8 V) D
)ql8 K(
WM r( \ 8 &
w S x , S { J -Z \ ( w
A 8 & DR' \ ( ; DN x \ 8 & @ \ ( ; D x 'v
8 U c G 5 M x zequivalencesA - Gx x k
z<=!s GGGGGGG X8 A -
A WMM xp8Ui M @Terence Hawkes &

(
We have already noticed the argument of Jakobson's fellow

Prague school critic Mukarovsky with regard to foregrounding:
that the aesthetic use of language pushes into the foreground
the 'act of expression' itself. Jakobson offers the more refined
proposal that the metaphoric mode tends to be foregrounding in
poetry, whereas the metonymic mode tends to be foregrounded
in prose. This makes the operation of 'equivalence' of crucial
importance to poetry........(Structuralism and semiotics, <"2=, p2! z
Structuralism and Semiotics &
( D<6 6 5 34 x
G x }Q @ %&
( x D x @ $% D b X X8 5
c &
( x ( KJ 34} Structuralism and Semiotics &
( D<6
34 b X D B b X X8 <6 X R lm G DB $% D\
P
G }D $% D b X
M S G M X x
X G \
( KJ
D intertexualityD K i @\ M
' \ &
( ( v W Todorov <6 G < flavour b X
The notion that literary works are ultimately about language,

that their medium is their message, is one of the most fruitful of
structuralist ideas and we have already noticed its theoretical
foundations in the work of Jakobson. It validates the postromantic sense that form and content are one, because it
postulates that form is content. At one level, this permits, for
instance, Todorov to argue that the ultimate subject of a work
like The Thousand and One Night is the act of story-telling, of
narration itself: that for the character involved- indeed for homo
loquens at large- narration equals life: 'the absence of narration
death'........... (Structuralism and Semiotics, p,<!! *z
A \ ( KJ6 5 34
THE MEDIUM IS THE D QC \ (
}\ ( A w *
w G \ 8 DM E z x DMESSAGE
X8 8 Q _ D x
^ x L
F f> 8 U7 k X8 b W$ D D G
{ D zHOMO LOQUENSs \ ' ( )
EF <8
G&
@ EF mR4 D A
EF @\

Q _ \ M
NARRATION EQUALS LIFE: THE ABSENCE OF D
G< " & & 8 &z &z s NARRATION DEATH' P' "
Gz<j!
Gl MM { W ( KJ 34 G 0 f } d b X (
( CyX \{ xp8Ui AG X8 S @M
R
\F D A }M G |
8
&
( D<6 MM M c G &
( D Todorov
M GP W <!! Cy@
: '\ ( KJ6 5 34 9
G -bc D&
( D<6
'<6 G
-WMM X8 &
(
We have already noticed the arguments of Jakobson's fellow

Prague school critic Mukarovsky with regard to 'foregrounding':
that the aesthetic use of language pushes into the foreground
'the act of expression' itself. Jakobson offered the most refined
proposal that the metaphoric mode tends to be foregrounded in
poetry, whereas the metonymic mode tends to be foregrounded
in prose. This makes the operation 'equivalence' of crucial
importance to poetry, not only in the area of analogy, but also in
the area of 'sound' of those metrical, rythmic and phonic
devices,.......continue. (Terence Hawkes, P, 2!*z
\ MM w ( KJ 6
*6 ; \ (
v S } M @ [
@\ D
WM E G \ 8 &
w S x , S { J Z \ ( w
A 8 & DR' \ ( ; DN x \ 8 & @ \ ( ; D x 'v
G 5 M x EQUIVALENCE A - Gx x k
D A 5 i D 8 U c H \
& ] @ G X8 A - 8 U c
Gz<=! qs x } I
WMM X8 @<6 S
? oetic language is deliberately self-conscious, self-aware. It
JP
emphasises itself as a medium over and above the 'message' it
contains: it characteristically draws attention to itself and
systematically intensifies its own linguistic qualities. As a result,
words in poetry have the status not simply of vehicles for
thought, but of objects in their own right, autonomous concrete
entities, In Sausure's terms, then, they cease to be 'signifiers'
and become 'signifieds', ...(P, TjT=*z
( KJ 6
i %} QC 8 ^ G M < A S < Me i \ ( x
L
@M
( U Kb x \ ( x G Me + < \V
< $
N% D>( ? 8
\ ( x M G \ 8 bJ
signifiers
@ o8nl) G & O ( i
Gz2" qs x GGG
/M$
signified
A WMM M @<6
Formalist theory realised that the 'meaning' habitually carried
by words can never be fully separated from the words
themselves because no word has 'simple' one meaning. The
'meaning of A is not simply A< or A or Aj, for A has a larger
capacity to mean which derives from its particular context or
use. No word is ever really a mere proxy for a denoted object.
In fact the transaction of 'meaning' has a complexity of
dimensions which the 'poetic' use of language further
complicates. Poetry, in short, does not seperate a word from its
meaning, so much as multiply - bewildering - the range of
meanings available to it... (P, T=)
I
WMM M @ ( KJ 6
A d Q
GV >( ? & } } Me M \
} 1 @
j 8 <
G QQQ ( P
G @ @ ' f G & } \;
& [ R #@M >( ? } M 0 & O ( 8X \ ( x

D V D&U
& 8 -T on ES D G M]
(
- 8 l) m
Gz2" qs x GGGGGGGG k
I
\> 8 l) Q W
There is another stand in poststructuralist thought which

believes that the world is more than a galaxy of text, and that
some theories of textuality ignore the fact that the discourse is
involved in power. They reduce political and economic forces,
and ideological and social control, to aspects of signifying
processes. When a Hitler or a Stalin seems to dictate to an
entire nation by wielding the power of discourse, it is absurd to
treat the effect as simply occurring within discourse. It is
evident that real power is exercised through discourse, and that
this power has real effects....... The father of this line of thought
is the German philosopher Nietzsche, who said that people first
decide what they want and then fit the facts to their aim:
'Ultimately man finds in things nothing but what he himself has
imported into them.' All knowledge is an expression of the 'will
to power'. This means that we can not speak of any absolute
truths or of objective knowledge.... Foucault regards discourse
as a central human activity, but not as a universal, 'general
text', a vast sea of signification. He is interested in the historical
dimension of discursive change. What it is possible to say will
change from one era to another. In science a theory is not
recognised in its own period if it deos not conform to the power
consensus of the institutions and official organs of science.
Mendel's genetic theories fell on deaf ears in the <2T!s; they
were promulgated in a 'void' and had to wait until the twentieth
century for acceptance. It is not enough to speak the truth; one
must be 'in the truth*D
sSelden, Raman. Contemporary Literary Theory,jrd ed,
Britain,<""j,P<+2<+"z
L
( U D @6 5 34
( ) zTEXTUALITYs 8 V)) i T xT X8 &z
I
W G z\V s M L @3vY @
\Y = D1 L@ 8 V)) X x zMICHEL FOUCAULTs
f ( ( K / G Z + D\ E @ x =C 8 m S
I
@ M G
@ D M L : Rw ? W[ Q] x X8 8
I

@ M L 6 8 ' G& ( \ X 3 &
I

C FG ) GGGGG
( U-& M$@ M
I
< \ i S #8 \ ' MG T @ u
I
WILL TO s D < D Q'v Tp( U S M G M
M G zPOWER
'C GGV & ( D 1 8 8 ]
_ D b L 8 ^
=C 8 m S 8 & ` o D1@ A ( ( K
I
X xp - D E ' - M L G%?
W \-
@ 8 v } f 8
b D gA GW @ s a X8 @ x W @ 3 _ S Q X8
c G } X8 A
i'A G lb<
@\% x @\ \
@c A X ( ( K _X M f
#<2T! D L@> @ zMENDELs e' G{ d}

\@ ^ D \ v Z #R? & 8 4 f f >w f @
x f
@ f
gb ] f M G x
Gz<"T G<"= q 6 s
I
\> 8 l) G
I
ZMM }&
( ( W>? i@ \> 8 l) Q W
Jonathan Culler (see also chapter +) has argued that a theory

of reading has to uncover the interpretative operations used by
readers. We all know that different readers produce different
interpretations. While this has led some theorists to despair of
developing a theory of reading at all, Culler argues in The
Pursuit of Signs (<"2<) that it is this variety of interpretation which
theory has to explain. While readers may differ about meaning,
they may well follow the same set of interpretative
conventions.... (Selden, PT
*z
A R
( KJ 6
U
W& ( M > rb i
x H g Qh A x f@ L@& A
3 X8 & ( M G
6 \ @& d QQ ( i.e
} @ M x 8 ^k g j8X G
S p(U i # x #}
L L 'v > 0 l)( ( @\
0PbRlK d M v e^k@ i
& [ @\l
8 \? m] \
6 cc v i d @ j g
Gzj<" Gj<2 q 6 s D
D
I
A R MM M } &
( ( W K i@ \> 8 l)
The word 'revolution' in Kristeva's title is not simply metaphoric.

The possibility of radical social change is, in her view, bound up
with the disruption of authoritarian discourses. Poetic language
introduces the subversive openness of the semiotic 'across'
society's 'closed' symbolic order: 'What the theory of the
unconscious seeks, poetic language practices, within and
against the social order.' Sometimes she considers that the
modernist poetry actually prefigures a social revolution which in
the distant future will come about when society has evolved a
more complex form. However, at other times she fears that
bourgeois ideology will simply recuperate this poetic revolution
by treating it as a safety valve for the repressed impulses it
denies in society. Kristeva's view of the revolutionary potential
of women writers in society is just as ambivalent.... (Selden,
P<=
*z
( KJ 6
I
I
W@ x o p M L g n>8 = &R
( K
I
(
z t" 3 s x A S D x p ' Q qR4 V e@\
( x Gp
(
(
K G WGV &p( U bR? @
@M
\ ( x xi z G A
@\ ( x Uv Ar A 8 e A 8 ( ( K Q = q
I
x X M 4 Uo =C 8 m S >? M 0
@( @ & tv \ 6 W @C s X8 =C 8 m S &R
(
( D
Gz ! q 6 s & QQ (
. 8 &R
(
:; < \F 0 %&
( x D ( KJ6 q
I
I
( KJ6 & M X8 5&Q
D \> 8 l) G6 \ u M F
(
I
I
'G \ \ S M 8)( @ ( KJ 6 G f }Q
@ E6 q x A \ S Q @!
I
W ; D D&bvY D ; { | >8 @& M }&
( D \> 8 l) W \{ M
G \ 8
G \8k f
fX & >?8 x AAG \O
I
&@&
( D6 5 34 GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG&@&
( D \> 8 l)
<!T /"
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG= /
j " 22 GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/! ="

=! j= GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG<+2 <="
T/ =j GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG<!j 2T
I
G v }Q 6 5 34&Q }&
( D \> 8 l) x
& D G\ < 5 >8 &M
( KJ6 - A &
(
<\ G& f DQ 7 - W&
( KJ6 M
(
Gv 0 S ( S h
I
X8 &
( @ Z D%Qv@ @ ( KJ6 }&
( D \> 8 l)
8 G 8 A \W ( \ ( KJ6 }&M
G
î
(
( U
D&
( x
W \{ 0 G v } Structuralist Poetics D > ? ihl@\ D
w &M
SJG }&
(
( D John Sturrock A Z& M i
SJA ( KJ6 \G
( U- W\ >8 >( ?
6 G }Q @\x@\ Q > fw SJ GA
\ S GQ \vW ( v > A_ t \ ( x ( KJ
SJ\ G
yJExistentialism, on the contrary, preaches the total freedom of

the individual constantly to change..... Barthes, like Sartre, pits
therefore the fluidity, the anarchy, even, of existence against
the rigor mortis of essentialism; not least because, again
following Sartre, he sees essentialism as the ideology which
sustains that traditional bugbear of all French intellectuals, the
bourgeoisie... he writes at the conclusion of his most feroriously
anti-bourgeois book, the devastating Mythologies (<"+/ *********
In one way, Barthes goes beyond Sartre in his abhorrence of
essentialism. Sartre, as so far as one can see, allows the
human person a certain integrity or unity; but Barthes professes

a philosophy of disintegration, whereby the presumed unity of
any individual is dissolved into a plurality or discontinuous. This
biography is especially offensive to him as a literary form
because it represents a counterfeit integration of its individual.
It is a false memorial to a living person
*******
sSturrock, John. Structuralism and Since. London, Oxford
University Press,<"/", P +j)
zbc D ( KJ 6
W x S x M D\ ' 8 U i {(@ zESSANTIALISMs
8 VK( & } Dco bR? @ 8 U| c D% ( G D go i 8
M }&] x
\ ' x
A c D% GE X zD s
Go } zMYTHOLOGIES (<"+/ S f 1 X8 DM
~
S }% } X8 ( D x
^@ bR? @ ~ x ( 0 plm zINTEGRITYs
v } X c X8 &O D\ ' M G p8UX}X 8 U `K D
&O %
i 4A o >? E }
&O A G 8 X8 o }
D &O &
( D M G 8 U `K DM ( O
Gz<T< G<T q 6 s G8 Z[
WMM X8 } \ D @SJ\
his arch enemy is the doxa, the prevailing view of things, which
very often prevails to the extent that people are unaware it is
only one of several possible alternative views. Barthes may not
be able to destroy the doxa but he can lesson its authority by
localizing it, by subjugating it to a paradox of his own ******
Barthes is only fully to be appreciated, then, as some one who
set out to disrupt as profoundly as he could the orthodox views
of literature he found in France...........The grievances against
contemporary criticism with which Barthes began were deeply

influential on what he came to write later. There were four main
ones. First, he objected that literary criticism was predominantly
ahistorical, working as it did on the assumption that the moral
and the formal values of the texts it studied were
timeless.....Barthes was never a member of the Communist
party - let us say neo-Marxist objection. He dismissed existing
histories of French literature as meaningless chronicles of
names and dates... (Sturrock, P, +=++
z
I
}& xp( U D D b X @fg S D x ( KJ6 W D
DMM @ ( KJ6 GPA } DM k ' x X
G
î bc
I
p( U } ( ) ( }? 8 Uon Y A _ #8 DOXA
CQQ ( Y A / 8 Me % M 0 8 %A DOXA A Gq
\ W @&
( GGGG X8
} & }@ /
q W & 8 }? G ( ( M W Gf&f
( x (
R? 8)l D3 Q
8 V8 \
( q r
' U ' M ( @ 8 V8 D&
( 06 t ( G
)
Gz<T G<Tj q 6 s 8
A l?w \ r8 )l \ \
D M G f
8 >
\qr
}{ |@ ( SJ
Barthes's second complaints against academic criticism was

that it was psychologically naive and deterministic....when
critics chose to explain textual data by biographical ones, or the
work by the life....The elements of a literary work - and this is
an absolutely central point in literary structuralism - must be
understood in the first instance in their relationship to other
elements of that work..... (Sturrock, P,+T
z
D
\ Wq r
}{ |@ ( @SJ ( KJ6
GFX O z &p q r
M W X8
@3 X8 pU @M GGGQ s- ( X8 pU @M 3} D&o
T z - G }
@3A iP Q} D\
\ b
Gz<Tj q 6 s @ x
\
@SJq r \W }{ |@ ( @ SJ
They could see only one meaning in the texts they concerned
themselves with, and that one meaning was usually a very
literal one. This they subsequently held the meaning of the text,
and that to search further for supplementary or alternative
meanings was futile. They were men of narrow and autocratic
temper who fancied they were being scientific when they were
merely being culpably dogmatic. Their minds were closed to the
ambiguities of language, to the co-existence of various
meaning within a single form of words,....... (Sturrock, P +/+2 z
8 T D \ q r \@ ( A \V@SJ 6
I
G WM } f 8 U7 A b@3
@\ 9 G
X O D e on &
GV xb
(
I
0 8 U A \? ( (
@ 8 Uon &
(
GV # S Q _ X8 p8U}Q '' &
~
( GGG
Gz<Tj q 6 s
I
I
V m
S G k f WhL&p( U @ r8 ) Q ( ( KJ6
zbc DhL
Attempting to distinguish between constant and variable

elements in a collection of a hundred Russian fairytales, Propp
arrives at the principle that though the personage of a tale are
variable, their functions in the tales are constant and limited.
Describing function as "an act of a character, defined from the
point of view of its significance for the course of the action,"
Propp developed inductively four laws which put the study of
folk literature and of fiction itself on a new footing. I their

baldness and universality, laws j and = have the shocking
effect of certain scientific discoveries
<. Functions of characters serve as stable, constant elements in
a tale, independent of how and by whom they are fulfilled. They
constitute the fundamental components of a tale.
. The number of function known to the fairy-tale is limited
j. The sequence of functions is always identical
=. All fairy tales are of one type in regard to their structure *
zMorphology of the Folktale, pp. < js
In comparing the functions of tale after tale, Propp discovered
that his total numbers of functions never surpassed thirty-one,
and that however many of the thirty-one functions a tale had
(none has every one) those that it had always appeared in the
same order.... After the initial situation, in which the members of
a family are enumerated or the future hero is introduced, a tale
begins, consisting of some selection of the following functions
in the following order
<. One of the members of a family absents himself from home.
. An interdiction is addressed to the hero
j. The interdiction is violated
=. The villain makes an attempt at reconnaissance
+. The villain receives information about his victim
T. The villain attempts to deceive his victim in order to take
possession of him or of his belongings
/. The victim submits to deception and thereby unwittingly

helps his enemy *
)Y G W )
> D&v x )YX G x f
i v D\} ;
< W&\ x M G cX
\6 D D @6 v
Scholes, Robert, Structuralism in Literature, New York, VailBallou Press,<"/= P, T /!
-W D ( KJ6
sKb @\
xe D\
8 } LW &n
\FSC X8 &
w W
(
K D \FSC\ W#$ D zFUNCTIONS
P &9
(
\
\ W M W S # @ \F\ M G D} <<
zFUNCTIONSs Kb \ 0 8X \F
@ 8 U D EFi v A Kb@ Gx X8 \F
@ aV &
w W }
( SC S \
( U- ] W x &
Q
on \ } @ R _ S Gx A U@
8
EF A Q \ \}M
&>(
( @ EFKb@\
G
8
G<
x @
G \F > D Kb G
G
D X8 zSEQUENCEs
G P X8
% D Kb Gj
K \FQ@^k i ( G=
&
w Wv W EF X8 @ X8 } @ zFUNCTIONSs Kb @ \
c ' } j< >s? D zFUNCTIONSsKb @\ \FW M
I
GGGGG $% D\? 0 \ 8 r D \Fl8X p( U
Kb\ EF ' D
A @ y ( ( K @J f 1
\V} $% D } Dl 8 ( ) } zFUNCTIONSs
G
( U }y A f \ G<
G D ` D G
G D x bR? D ` Gj
G
D D G=
G ^R ( @ zVICTIMs 0 G+
G{W&
@M 8 WM A g 0 GT
(
Gz<<! G<!" q 6 s
G Dq V
S Q- 0 G/
B c LW@hLA R4 @ B c X )M ( KJ6
G
x f |
{X <</Cyv
& M A <c }\#@&

( D ( KJ6 A R4 @& \
I
\ WMM M @hL&p( U xp8Ui S G
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******
Scholes, Structuralism in Literature, New York, Vail-Ballou
Press,<"/=, p,<
# MM @6 5 34
I
( U \ #@ E ' -T - x \ S - @ x \
G S
xe A
f Dc ' M A w A w X OM
I I
- 4 Y
~ l) G% { % @\; A FA ( a ' QF
Gz j= qs GG ^@ - ( ) R 8 U i D R 3 8 \
M A H
x p( U
Derrida's professional training was as a student of philosophy

(at the Ecol Normale Superieure in Paris, where he taught until
recently), and his writings demand of the reader a considerable
knowledge of the subject. Yet Derrida's texts are like nothing
else in modern philosophy, and indeed represent a challenge to
the whole tradition and self-understanding of that discipline *
Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction. jrd ed, London,
Routledge, !! , P<2<"z
( KJ 6
Ecol Normale Superieure, GGA M
>8
>8
} @ -%
\ ( x D^ \ DM G ^ Paris
4 f ` @ \ D >8 ^M S B ^ \ D
q 6 s L gW \ \ 8 U x A
M AH GGGGGz </
Derrida refuses to grant philosophy the kind of privileged
status it has always claimed as the sovereign dispenser of
reason. Derrida confronts this pre-emptive claim on its own
chosen grounds. He argues that philosophers have been able
to impose their various systems of thought only by ignoring,
suppressing, the disruptive effects of languages. His aim is
always to draw out these effects by a critical reading which
fastens on, and skilfully unpicks, the elements of metaphor and
other figural devices at work in the texts of philosophy.
Deconstruction in this, its most rigorous form acts as a constant
reminder of the ways in which language deflects or complicates
the philosophers project. Above all deconstruction works to
undo the idea-according to Derrida, the ruling illusion of
Western metaphysics- that reason can somehow dispense with
language and achieve a knowledge ideally unaffected by such

mere linguistic foibles. Norris, P<2<"z
*z
\ WMM M @&
( D6 5 34
vQ @^@ E ' -T " ; - S g^ >8
- ( & @\ ( @k Tv6Q R x M G L
I
\ 8 \ \ \ D^ & - >8 G 8 d
$%S}SQ @ A * D\ ( 8 } 8 U7 ( ( A G
f w A }\ ( c ' ' E ' T6 Q & 8 V() 8X G
z </ G <2 qs GGG
cX f \V
W x : fA M G A S } 5 D^} + DR M AH
\F W\ MM ( Gv D x f D^} x \V
I I
G 8 @ >8 \F W\6 ^} { |@ on')q8
' \F P F v ApU DX &

( X D ( KJ6
}MM M @\ i ( @Â
M Gf> W @
+ A 8 } T D^ ( U W >8 %s- ( >8 0
Gz <2qs
S }@\ (
M AH
In this sense Derrida's writings seem more akin to literary
criticism than philosophy. They rest on the assumption that
modes of rhetorical analysis, hitherto applied mainly to literary
texts, are in fact indispensable for reading any kind of
discourse, philosophy included. Literature is no longer seen as
a kind of poor relation to philosophy, contenting itself with mere
fictive or illusory appearances and forgoing any claim to
philosophic dignity and truth. This attitude has, of course, a
long prehistory in Western tradition. It was plato who expelled
the poets from his ideal republic, who set up reason as a guard
against the false beguilements of rhetoric, and who called forth
a series of critical 'defences' and 'apologise' which runs right
through from Sir Philip Sydney to I. A. Richards and the
Americans new critics. The lines of defence have been

variously drawn up, according to whether the critic sees himself
as contesting philosophy on its own argumentative ground, or
as operating outside its reach on a different - though equally
privileged - ground. (Norris,P<")
8 8 E \ x M
}MM M ( KJ6
S D&
( A 8 }^v }M
@ \V =z discourses\V ' / A Q 3
^&
( I >8
i W
G x f@ AA
D&
( @ T f W @{ $ \ t8l @
\
\ \R Qo& ( Gq @î
&
E G ) p( U s- ( 8 U 7 D&
( {(@ 8 ( D } ) 8 + lm
I
Gz <2 q 6 s GGGGG6 ^_ + S D&
( X U {}
\;
q }Q @ - { ?
8 b>? m- @M W \{ ( KJ6
I
< ( KJ6 t } 8 xp8Ui M L \F @M G
G 8 6 xp8Ui Q x f\F \
Z W
}&
( DM AH Q V -
>8
&
( D6 5 34 x
M AH G\ WMM X8 S G%
The counter-arguments to deconstruction have therefore been

situated mostly on commonsense, or 'ordinary-language'
ground. There is support from the philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein (<22"<"+<) for the view that such skeptical
philosophies of language rest on a false epistemology, one that
seeks (and inevitably fails) to discover some logical
correspondence between language and the world. Wittgenstein
himself started out from such a position, but came round to
believing that language had many uses and legitimating
'grammars', non of them reducible to a clear-cut logic of
explanatory concepts. His later philosophy repudiates the
notion that meaning must entail some one-to-one link or
'picturing' relationship between propositions and factual status

of affairs. Languages now conceived of as a repertoire of
'games' or enabling conventions, as diverse in nature as the
jobs they are require to do (Wittgenstein <"+j). The nagging
problems of philosophy most often resulted, Wittgenstein
thought, from the failure to recognise multiplicity of language
games. Philosophers looked for logical solutions to problems
which were only created in the first place by a false conception
of language, logic and truth. Skepticism he argued, was the
upshot of a deluded quest for certainty in areas of meaning and
interpretation that resist any such strictly regimented logical
account. (Norris, P< /< 2
*z
D ( KJ 6
ORDINARY-s \ ( QA D bR? @ V - D >8
I )I
GG~ l }\4C \ ' c G D } l @ zANGUAGE

M L ') }\ ( PzLUDWIG WITTGENTEIN <22" - <"+<s
c ' ' #8 \ ( i T zEPISTEMOLOGYs & 8 lt4 f
I )I
@\ ( @W D A 0 ^ } D <~ l G
\ X Dc } 6 @c
I I
\ ( >8 % D& ( M ~ l) G f W D\C bN
bJ@ X f} \
X8
cc@(@cc W @ Q X8 \ ( A G X8
I )I
V
@
R GP Q - 8 D\ ( A ^ ~ l
G D
(Z D & f D @Ep
I I
GV \FV( ^ # \ @ / \( i^ ') QA ~ l) @q+
Gz <" q 6 s G
+W 0 &
I
Contemporary Literary &
( D \> 8 l) 6 q <}M
6 @ 4 x G z & D _s% 8 A 8
} Theory
I
(
I
I
K
8
&
M 8 r r) I8 G 8 % &Q
(
( ( x S &
( D \> 8 l)
}M i
I
I
W&
( \ G %} &
( D \> 8 l) X8 X8 W A pU
I
G \> 8 l) 9:; 8 !
u G Z
<
Eagleton, like Althusser, argues that criticism must break with

its 'ideological prehistory' and become a 'science'. The central
problem is to define the relationship between literature and
ideology, because in his view texts do not reflect historical
reality but rather work upon ideology to produce an effect of the
'real'. The text may appear to be free in its relation to reality (it
can invent characters and situations at will), but it is not free in
its use of ideology. 'Ideology' here refers not to formulated
doctrines but to all those systems of representations (aesthetic,
religious, judicial and others) which shapes the individuals
mental pictures of lived experience. The meanings and
perceptions produced in the text are a reworking of ideologie's
on working of reality. This means that the text works on reality
at two removes. Eagleton goes on to deepen the theory by
examining the complex layering of ideology from its most
general pre-textual forms to the ideology of the text itself. He
rejects Althusser's view that literature can distance itself from
ideology; it is a complex reworking of already existing
ideological discourses. However, the literary result is not merely
a reflection of other ideological discourses but a special
production of ideology. For this reason criticism is concerned
not with just the laws of literary form or the theory of ideology
but rather with 'the laws of the production of ideological
discourses as literature
*D
Eagleton surveys a sequence of novels from George Eliot to
D.H Lawrence in order to demonstrate the interrelations
between ideology and literary form.... Eagleton examines each
writer's ideological situations and analyses the contradictions
which develope in their thinking and the attempted resolutions
of the contradictions in their writing. After the destruction of
liberal humanism in the first world war Lawrence developed a
dualistic pattern of 'female' and 'male' principles. This antithesis
is developed and reshuffled in the various stages of his work,

and finally resolves in the characterisation of Mellors (Lady
Chatterley's Lover) who combines impersonal 'male' power and
'female' tenderness. This contradictory combination, which
takes various forms in the novels, can be related to a 'deepseated ideological crises' within contemporary society
*
The impact of poststructuralist thought produced a radical
change in Eagleton's work in the late <"/!s. His attention shifted
from the 'scientific' attitude of Althusser towards the
revolutionary thought of Brecht and Benjamine. This shift had
the effect of throwing Eagleton back towards the classic Marxist
revolutionary theory of the Thesis on Feuerbach (<2=+): 'The
question whether objective truth can be attributed to human
thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical
question...The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways; the point is to change it'. Eagleton believes that
'deconstructive' theories, as developed by Derrida, Paul de
Man and others can be used to undermine all certainties, all
fixed and absolute forms of knowledge**************
Raman Seldon, Contemporary Literary Theory, jrd ed, Britain,
<""j,P, " "j
I
I
z 6 s \ W r) I8 \> 8 l)
I
I
8 ( K
- \{ G 8 S W r \> 8 l) @M G X "+ Cy &
( D \> 8 l)
I
I
I
I
I
)
8
)
)
\ D r \> 8 l G \> 8 l i ( @r) I8 r8 )'
N% Qh 6 : G 8 $
N% Qh W&5 @ x
ZMM 6 x | W xT f @6
I
@ 8
@ r) I8 Gx ( @\ X
I
x % c @6 G D\> 8 l) Q W N% Qh W
G
/
p( U @6 }{ |
\R S 6 G x f @
} 1 m S A x f @ ' r) I8 v b } }F8 Vb
&
(
w @ =C 8 m S &
( 8 Gvc
} /3 G / S @ =C 8 m S Z
G S } =C 8 m S 0 P
S \
A S
z - & D1A b} =C 8 m S
@3 G $v A } D&QA &2 & 8 l
&=
G =C 8 m S
- ( / - M 8 & {
I
\ D =C 8 m S D D}3 r) I8 G S }c / 3 8 4cM
}F8 Vb M G >8 L @ W \ Ar@\

I
K
G 8 ( D @ =C 8 m S &
( r) I8 @ G Wz_} =C 8 m S &
( ( )(
o W @ q X8 D =C 8 m S W @
@ @ =C 8 m S &
( Mk
]\ w 8 =C 8 m S 8 @ bQ Q G
I
K m S } D
G D&
(
I
I
(
=C 8 m S
\C X x } r) I8
I
U
o & @ @\ @ W Ap I m S @7o r) I8 G
- \{ @ @ (6l(K tuw G D D& \ S (
}\C M k 8 UFVU D E
I
3 p8lm G S & D @ p8lm C on8lKw x S ( v
I
E M @cM r) I8 @ Gk \ E &] - W
(
G 0
o m S
I
) I8 ( @T z - @ <"/!
DM &
Q
@
r
(
I
R @< r) I8 MG -WT R D p( U } L @ }F8 Vb

*zThesis on Feuerbach (<2=+ L R
"THE QUESTION WHETHER OBJECTIVE TRUTH CAN BE
ATTRIBUTED TO HUMAN THINKING IS NOT A QUESTION
OF THEORY BUT AIS A PRACTICAL QUESTION.... THE
PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ONLY INTERPRETED THE WORLD
IN VARIOUS WAYS; THE POINT IS TO CHANGE IT"
}M \
\ x w >8
I
V b }M r) I8
Gz T= G T+ 6 s P 6 @ A
I
&z G Rw ? X T/ Cy D r) I8 bi x 6
@ &z &z 8 )' &
( ( \/ w @ &
( D & 8 &z
I
G x D f D&W\6 > c Q W A r) I8 }\ I
5 34 G i D D& W\6
@] v$
& ( G %
x W jj y D D&
( ( \/ w @ &
(
\6 x f\ F P 6
} -WMM ( A G L kk Quotations @8
I
Quotation X8 MM M 8 %}&
( D \> 8 l) M Q6
7 'MM X8 b D D } x xp8Ui
@] v$
& ( \6 DM & f\ F P 6
& ( 6 Quotation
\
W 6
<}
Z Quotation
D] v$ \ | w W @ ] v$
o
: }MM ( A G f8k
A <c
Gb ;@&
AA- l ' Q2
(
I
8 ( K
\ \i G > \ \i6 M D W r \> 8 l) Q W@ M
I
8 ( K I l)
8 ( K
@ r \> 8 &
>
( ' D r 6 c D r) I8
c M 6
Zb yi @Q \ S
( }{ |
I
I
z
Z$ N% Qh u ( X8 N% Qh D \> 8 l) >
( U D \> 8 l) G
In America, where the labour movement has been partially
corrupted and totally excluded from political power, the
appearance of a major Marxist theorist is an important event.
Jameson believes that in the post-industrial world of monoply
capitalism the only kind of Marxism which has any purchase on
the situation which explores the 'great themes of Hegel's
philosophy - the relationship of part to whole, the opposition
between concrete and the abstract, the concept of totality, the
dialectic of appearance and essence, the interaction between
subject and object'. For dialectical thought there are no fixed

and unchanging 'objects'; an 'object' is inextricably bound up
with a larger whole, and is also related to a thinking mind which
is itself part of a historical situation. Dialectical criticism does
not isolate individual literary works for analysis; an individual is
always a part of a larger structure (a tradition or a movement)
or part of a historical situation. The dialectical critic has no preset categories to apply to literature and will always be aware
that his or her chosen categories (style, character, image, etc.)
must be understood ultimately as an aspect of the critics on
historical situation........ A Marxist dialectical criticism will always
recognise the historical origins of its own concepts and will
never allow the concepts to ossify and become insensitive to
the pressure of reality. We can never get outside our subjective
existence in time, but we can try to break through the hardening
shell of our ideas 'into a more vived apprehension of reality
itself
*D
His The Political Unconscious (<"2<) retains the earlier dialectical
conception of theory but also assimilates various conflicting
traditions of thought (structuralism, poststructuralism, Freud,
Althusser, Adorno) in an impressive and still recognisably
Marxist synthesis. Jameson argues that the fragmented and
alienated condition of human society implies an original state of
primitive communism in which both life and perception were
collective.............. All ideologies are 'strategies of containment'
which allow society to provide an explanation of itself which
suppresses the underlying contradiction of history; it is history
itself (the brute reality of economic Necessity) which imposes
this strategy of repression. Literary texts work in the same way:
the solutions which they offer are merely symptoms of the
suppression of history. Jameson cleverly uses A.J Greimas'
structuralist theory (the 'semiotic rectangle') as an analytic tool
for his own purposes. Textual strategies of containment present
themselves as formal patterns. Greimas' structuralist system
provide a complete inventory of possible human relations...
which when applied to a text's strategies, will allow the analyst

to discover the possibilities which are not said. This 'not said' is
the represses history
*
Jameson also develops a powerful argument about narrative
and interpretation. He believes that narrative is not just a
literary form or mode but an essential 'epistemological
category'; reality presents itself to the human mind only in the
form of the story. Even a scientific theory is a form of story*
*zSeldon, P, "+"/ s
8 ( K
r GGGG J
@ i &
(
b DQ A
'
&
( D6
)`8( K I A
8
r S >8 -
x A \
xo M$ -} f x} ( D^
8 ( K
A f T >( ? r @GA q 8 ^ >( ? 8
I
{ W s( } p( U X8 q 8o q 8 S
X8 A
W% % \ w * x >( ? G } <i}
I
\ - A}W&
( 9 >( ? G X8 8 8 U X8 iT K xp( U % a
S ( A
&
R lm - A @M < > & ( M A R
(
& Me >? >( ? ' G pK( ? DM <
o ( }k @\ G S / o
I
GX gW D / GV <v @ & 0 GV S
8 ( K
@T >( ? zTHE POLITICAL UNCONSCIOUS, (<"2< &
( D r
}F8 Vb 8 Um A &z - &z R lm @

( i r8 ( K GA
e D o D k 8 l()l(K A w A w DA
8 ( K
p =C 8 m S Q r @ * ( ) &
(
& ( M i
D \c @ zCONTAINMENTs ] 8k

D& f x i K & ( D G. 8 ( & r8 )' @ K T
/
DD THE BRUTE REALITY OF ECONOMIC NECESSITY DD
S c D 3 G k < \c \ @ |
8 ( K
( ' @ eX z r G mR4 D|@ K <A Z
}Q z eX G
o \[ )l8 cc @| G p( U }
@
G i
o &(A v 8 S W\cX } G W\ 94@\ E '
i3QQ (
K A &(
I
8 ( K
aV M G D S xp( U ( @ DM aV r
8 Q _ X8
M zEPISTEMOLOGICAL CATEGORYs A- 8 lt4 X8
X8 G Z Q _@ EF&
w S < @ s- ( /
G x ( i
Gz T/ G T"s P EF
v \\ D / x X G W f MM 6
} x f 6 4 Gx x % c vb) }] x
DD $% D\ i ( @% c \ X #
% X8 6 W @ lm G 8 @ \ S K D
G x %}A ( > b X X8 } @M
% c G ( ( K x Q
\ S X @c
I
w
| \
%G
>8 PA
L GO S @M 0
M
8 > b X
f} M @M P S - @M G 8 }
( U DA ( 6 - GP
@] v} er x G
&@ A
K
t D$ x @%
\A% q &
( D6 D
xp8Ui M 4 G 8 R } 6 | xp8Ui 6 c<
MM { W Gv
MM
< 0
x e G
Dq r M G 8 Cy MM
| M D ' D q &
( ( M Z \{ i
i P o X O D:;b < @M 0
R &
( ( Y
G%A 46
I
S GT D @6 i &
( ( M @&
( D \> 8 l) u ( X8
I
)
l
\R @ \> 8
W&
( ( W M 8
Jauss, an important German exponent of "reception" theory,
gave a historical dimension to reader-oriented criticism. He tries
to achieve a compromise between Russian Formalism which
ignores history, and social theories which ignores the text.
Writing during a period of social unrest at the end of the <"T!,
Jauss and others wanted to question the old canon of German
literature and to show that it was perfectly reasonable to do
so.... He borrows from the philosophy of science (T.S Kuhn) the
term "paradigm" which refers to the scientific framework of
concepts and assumptions operating in a particular period.
"Ordinary science" does its experimental work within the mental
world of a particular paradigm, until a new paradigm displaces
the old one and throws up new problems and establishes new
assumptions. Jauss uses the term "horizon of expectations" to
describe the criteria readers use to judge literary texts in any
given period.... For example, if we consider the English
Augustan period, we might say that Popes's poetry was judged
according to criteria, naturalness, and stylistic decorum (the
words should be adjusted according to the dignity of the
subject) which were based upon values of Popes's poetry.
However this does not establish once and for all the value of
Pope's poetry. During the second half of the eighteenth
century, commentators began to question whether Pope was a
poet at all and to suggest that he was a clever versifies who put
prose into rhyming couplets and lacked the imaginative power
required of true poetry. Leapfrogging the ninteenth century, we
can say that modern readings of Pope work within a changed
horizon of expectations: we now often value his poems for their
wit, complexity, moral insight and their renewal of literary
tradition
*
In Jauss's view it would be equally wrong to say that a work is

universal, that its meaning is fixed forever and open to all
readers in any period: 'A literary work is not an object which
stands by itself and which offers the same face to each reader
in each period. It is not a monument which reveals its timeless
essence in a monologue.' This means, of course, that we will
never be able to survey the successive horizons which flow
from the time of a work down to the present day and then, with
an Olympian detachment. to sum up the works final value or
meaning. To do so would be to ignore the historical situation.
Whose authority are we to accept? That of the readers? The
combined opinion of readers over time?
(Raman Seldon.
P,+ +j)
I
x Q 6
; lm D - 88 \> 8 l) Q W@MM M
D M 8 G DZb M x
< @6
S
I
@ ^ M 8 &p( U
I
K X O xp( U s x
3is \ = z
\
@M M 8 G &
( ( K <"T! GGG D D S z
(
I
A- R D M 8 G 8
}u&
W& f DD UW 8 U
(
& M 8 }M -} @c 8 zPARADIGMs
q X8 'Q ( $ c G A 'i -uA & 8
A - A- f & x w Q D -
& Gg & gcM
HORIZON AND s & @\ M 8

6 ]
'A G
W @ - i 6 R D zEXPECTATIONS
I
I
F W r)' S @ x xp8Ui X W @ lm
@ M x D&
w Qo
@ &@M A
l & )R DM M G @&
@*W D3 d @ ' G
Dx
D&
w } D& @ M G x D@&
8 > on xp8Ui D @ x \ > G @
I
A8 5 &
x G 8 Qf} G?V M QR X8
w
k Gf gu ( M x \ G 8 \{ @&
w A i @
&
( S G
@& D c x
v{ X8 l >8 >( ? D&
w
w
D 8 U
& R? M A R4 @ G6 6 X8 x D
Gj!= q 6 s
}\ D
+MR \V< ( ) 8 U p(U
Gzj!j
D6 @M
A G \} yb x 6
I
\> 8 l) G\ &l
R? D } D& M vY DGV ( sw @ \F'8
G D
6 G ZW i b X
< i@M 8 _ S 8 @\ QA w * f ' M 8

& O ( i 4 A w * G ( ( K W x o @M
}\ Qi & 8 fA w * M 8 @G AD X8 x o i
( ) iGV & ' D&
( 8 4Ge& ( \ ( X8
4 < G k : G @\
8 v D d
88 @M Gzj!+ Gj!T q 6 s v D d D < 8 v D d @
u ( X8 G 8 Cy
x 6 } @ I
z
( U D \> 8 l)
The French semiotician Michael Riffaterre agrees with the

Russian Formalists in regarding poetry as a special use of
language. Ordinary language is practical and is used to refer to
some sort of 'reality', while poetic language focuses on the
message as an end in itself. He takes this formalist view from
Jakobson, but in a well-known essay he attacks Jakobson's
and Levi-Strauss's interpretation of Baudelaire's 'Les Chats'.
Riffaterre shows that the linguistic features they discover in the
poem could not possibly be perceived even by an in formed
reader. All manner of grammatical and phonemic patterns are
thrown up by their structuralist approach, but not all the
features they note can be part of the poetic structure for the
reader
*
However, Riffaterre has some difficulty in explaining why

something perceived by Jakobson does not count as evidence
of what readers perceive in a text*
Riffaterre developed his theory in Semiotics of Poetry (<"/2), in
which he argues that competent readers go beyond surface
meaning. If we regard a poem as a string of statements, we are
limiting our attention to its 'meaning', which is merely what it
can be said to represent in units of information. If we attend
only to a poem's 'meaning' we reduce it to a (possibly
nonsensical) string of unrelated bits. A true response starts by
noticing that the elements (signs) in a poem often appear to
depart from normal grammar or normal representation: the
poem seems to be establishing significance only indirectly
and in doing so ' threatens the literary representation of realty'.
It requires only ordinary linguistic competence to understand
the poem's 'meaning', but the reader requires 'literary
competence' to deal with the frequent ' ungrammaticalities'
encountered in reading a poem. Faced with the stumbling-block
of ungrammaticalness the reader is forced, during the process
of reading, to uncover a second (higher) level of significance
which will explain the grammatical features of the text. What will
ultimately be uncovered is a structural 'matrix', which can be
reduced to a single sentence or even a single word. The matrix
can be deduced only indirectly and is not actually present as a
word or statement in the poem. The poem is connected to its
matrix by actual versions of the matrix in the form of familiar
statements, clichs, quotations, or conventional associations. it
is the matrix which ultimately gives a poem unity. this reading
process can be summarised as follows
<. Try to read it for ordinary 'meaningD
. Highlight those elements which appear umgrammatical and
which obstruct on ordinary mimetic interpretation
j. Discover the 'hypograms' (or commonplaces) which receive

expanded or unfamiliar expression in the text
=. Derive the 'matrix' from the ' hypograms'; that is, find a single
statement or word capable of generating the ' hypograms' and
the text
*
(Seldon, P,T!T<)
z
( U D @ 6
Q G6 q \ ( x
\ 8 V) D ( @\ ( x _
M \ ( x Z z REALTYs / ' ' W& W@ , \ (
l
)
8
_ L 1 8M o G& O ( T 8 V) i W ^R
I U
)q8lK(
)q8lK(
)q8lK(
(
(
(
l
n
@ o8 M J x r i } \ @ r A 0 } r
)q8lK(
M J r( K EA ' G Z LW@ Les Chat
c z \ \ G@Q@ x 8 VKR ( Q 'A
GGV T
8 VKR D x
'
K \[ "
_ G} ccqM 3A D T } x 8 -% X8
)q8lK(
_ G c< 3 x A \ & D& ( M r(
_ M G zsemiotics of poetry (<"/2 &

( DM V D L@
I
8 VKR ( + E W M
MX G S } { W D3 x
\ & X8 G }&oi
vw
X M b
u &o
} E% D Q 8 - XQi ^ }W z signss & '

W D3 p8UX} E% x D /A cM S W ) C ( x
G\v
p8UX }- XQ & @ , 0
E +K @" @
Dcq @ x H DM
b }Q6
K E G
} K @ , \ D x A
+ x
M} G f D
K l@ \V \ ( A W&(Q\ G
x f GP X8 8 X8 @ Y' MATRIX z
M G GV >? }3M 8 i M & D % 8 X8 MATRIX
QQ ( MATRIX xo G x} MATRIX
@ MATRIXxo
D MATRIX @M &O DM G l( U? }&( & R 8 G?) & V@
GGGG R
G @ Q3} ( ) G<
E%Q D /i
p8UX}
x- XQ@\ ( \ ' \ u G
I
G
& A D
G 8 8 l()l(K 3v
3 8 & , Qi
%8
8
W& , Q\ @M Gj
x A v >? Matrix }& , Q\ S G=

Gzj<T Gj<2 q 6
s generate
The notion of 'structure', he argues, even in 'structuralist' theory

has always presupposed a 'centre' of meaning of some sort.
This 'centre' governs the structure but is itself not subject to
structural analysis (to find the structure of the centre would be
to find another centre). People desire a centre because it
guarantees being as presence. For example, we think of our
mental and physical life as centred on an 'I'; this personality is
the principle of unity which underlies the structure of all that
goes on in this space. Freud's theories completely undermine
this metaphysical certainty by revealing a division in the self
between conscious and unconscious. Western thought has
developed innumerable terms which operate as centring
principles: being, essence, substance, truth, form, beginning,
end, purpose, consciousness, man, God, and so on. It is
important to not that Derrida does not assert the possibility of
the thinking outside such term; any attempt to undo a particular
concept is to become caught up in the terms which the concept
depends on. For example if we try to undo the centring concept
of consciousness by asserting the disruptive counter force of
the 'unconscious', we are in danger of introducing a new centre,
because we cannot choose but enter the conceptual system
(conscious/unconscious) we are trying to dislodge. All we can
do is to refused to allow either pole in a system (body/soul,
good/bad, serious/unserious) to become the centre and
guarantor of presence. This desire for a centre is called

'Logocentrism' in Derrida's classical work Of Grammatology.
'Logos' (Greek for 'word') is a term which in the New Testament
carries the greatest possible concentration of presence: ' In the
beginning was the word'......... Phonocentrism treats writing as
a contaminated form of speech. Speech seems nearer to
originating thought. When we hear speech we attribute to it a
presence which we take to be lacking in writing. The speech of
the great actor, orator, or politician is thought to posses
presence; it incarnates, so to speak, the speaker's soul. Writing
seems relatively impure and obtrudes its own system in
physical marks which have a relative permanence; writing can
be repeated (printed, reprinted, and so on) and this repition
invites interpretation and reinterpretation. Even when a speech
is subjected to interpretation it is usually in written form. Writing
does not need the writer's presence, but speech always implies
an immediate presence. The sounds made by a speaker
evaporate in the air and leave no trace (unless recorded), and
therefore do not appear to contaminate the originating thought
as in writing. Philosophers have often expressed there dislike of
writing; they fear that it will destroy the authority of philosophic
truth. This Truth depends upon pure thought ( logic, ideas,
propositions) which risk contamination when written. Francis
bacon ............ (Seldon, <==<=+)
v D ' D @6 x f M
GM z Js K T z ' >8 v } &z
K p - G Centress p - c ' '
p -M < 0 lb<
Dp - \ ' z MR p -
' Dp -@ K s P 8 @ LW
U D e i p - M D <
W
W @ lmCENTRE GUARANTEES BEING AS PRESENCE

A
5 D 8 &}6 @ &
Z 8 Up - e E
\ `& e i \ 8 & \ ( q A P }M
>8 G A D K D \;X Q D i &O M e i q G
I
Gx 3Z D 8 V() @&O D i @&9
_ D z z> A
(
>? R lm W @Z p - iW& D^v }
o ( }&kR \ x >8 G8 oi & z &O i \ '

X q A G \ A W p - @ &kR G
_p - G p - o8n ( & O ( &
X R lm G & O (
_p - 8 X \|R }u
m
@s` { X8 S E ' &] p D zv P p -@ z

@
_p -g X8
M A W
8
z @& W\; OF GRAMMATOLOGY

E LOGOS G F 8 Up - LOGOCENTRISMs
IN THE D GGGG f xt
( } @ e i iR LOGOS
Gz !/ G !2 q 6 s
DBEGINING WAS THE WORD
i A D z s 8 } D z zPHONOCENTRISM 8 Up - &
I
GV) z s ( ( K G A 8 } 8 Gv & R D
&}
z zPRESENCE e i }
(
I
F \ e i M p( U p( U ( @ D\ )1 8
p( U
' G M
x Q {(@ G D D{ D P
G GV &
GV v GV o G
i A C S }& '
w
( (
M : QQ ( D g ( ( K D G A ] l) @ g ( g
-}
p(U @M G x f e i D7 @ G D Gx ( \ ' f M
D D D \ G
WT
S D G e i x D
I
i ! & R @
\ Gv# } "
U
x GGGGGGGGr8 l( % A G>? e C S } \ z 8 $ & s
z <! q 6 s
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I
MM A
X8 6 H
@& M A Z @ \ i
In the context of his own concept of ideology, and also of the
work of Roland Barthes on literature and Jacques Lacan on
psychoanalysis, it is possible to construct an account of some
of the implications for critical theory and practice of Althusser's
position. The argument is not only that literature re-presents the
myths and imaginary versions of real social relationships which
constitutes ideology, but also that classic realist fiction, the
dominant literary form of the nineteenth century and arguably of
the twentieth, 'interpellates' the reader, addresses itself to him
or her directly, offering the reader as the place from which the
text is most 'obviously' intelligible, the position of the subject
(and of) ideology
*
According to Althusser's reading (rereading) of Marx, ideology
is not simply a set of illusions, as The German Ideology might
appear to argue, but a range of representations (images,
stories, myths) concerning the real relations in which people
live. But what is represented in ideology is 'not the system of
the real relations which govern the existence of individuals, but
the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations in
which they live' (Athusser, <"/<: <++). In other words, ideology is
both a real and an imaginary relation to the world-real in that it
is the way that people really live there relationship to the social
relations which govern their existence, but imaginary in that it
discourages a full understanding of these conditions of
existence and the ways in which people are socially constituted
within them. It is not, therefore, to be thought of as a system of
ideas in people's heads, nor as the expression at a higher level
of real material relationships, but as the necessary condition of

action within the social formation. Althusser talks of ideology as
a 'material practice' in this sense: it exists in the behaviour of
people acting according to their beliefs (<++")
It is important to stress of course, that ideology is by no means
a set of deliberate distortions foisted upon a helpless populace
by a corrupt and a cynical bourgeoise. If there are sinister
groups of men in shirt-sleeves purveying illusions to the public,
these are not the real makers of ideology. In that sense, it has
no creators. But, according to Althusser, ideological practices
are supported and reproduced in the institutions of out society
which he calls Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs). Unlike the
Repressive State Apparatus, which works by force (the police,
the penal system and the army), the ISAs pursuade us to
consent to the existing mode of production
*
The central ISA in contemporary capitalism is the educational
system, which prepares the childer to act in accordance with
the values of society, by inculcating in them the dominant
versions of appropriate behaviour as well as history, social
studies and, of course, literature. Among the allies of the
educational ISA are the family, the law, the media and the arts,
each helping to represent and reproduce the myths and beliefs
necessary to induce people to work within the existing social
formation
*
The destination of all ideology is the subject. The subject is
what speaks, or signifies, and it is the role of ideology to
construct people as subject
The obviousness of subjectivity as the origin of meaning and
choice has been challenged by the linguistic theory which has
developed on the basis of Saussure's. As Emile Benveniste
argues, it is language which provides the possibility of
subjectivity, because it is language which enables the speakers
to posit himself or herself 'I', as the subject of a sentence. It is
in language, in other words, that people constitute themselves
as subjects. Consciousness of self is possible only on the basis
of the differentiation: 'I' can no be signified or conceived without

the conception 'non-I', 'You', and dialogue, the fundamental
condition of language, implies a reversible polarity between 'I'
and 'You'. 'Language is possible only because each speaker
sets himself up as a subject by referring to himself as I'
(Benveniste <"/< +). But if in language there are only
differences with no positive terms, as Saussure insists, 'I'
designates only the subject of a specific utterance
DIt is literally true that the basis of subjectivity is in the exercise
of language' ( T) (Belsey, + ++).
} ( ) G x f &5\ ZMM 6 }M
U
8
8 Q &
b\6 6 | & t8l 8 }F8 Vb S
\ G8l(
(
U
U
@MM } &
( D& MM x S G 8 l( G 8 | Cy
( D G 8 l( }&
& 8 > MM 6 G ZW
I
: 6 G c - \C Z& M + x 3
Cy \6 6 MM xp8Ui \ 6 }{ |@6 G
<"+2 6 G | f
DMM vv @6 G 8 MM Q }
>?8 M
G z
( U
- U D ( \ 8 Um A D\ S X
M @ =Cm S @ }F8 Vb S
<?
sJ I }F8 Vb S ( @& @\
&
( v R @
V D =Cm S i ) 'G( \? 8 - m D\ = \? &
( b G S
I
-A p( U } x \ x k x \X O xp( U x> \? i- /
4 + S } E S &
&
( } Z + x
( K )
U D< D }F8 Vb S G} D =Cm S @ =Cm S b ^ +

I
m
D - m p( 8 z& V sM L u & x>8 $ =Cm S @j
e C }\
\ iQA \)f
\? =Cm S
i} +M? & @ i A & }\
M$\? A
} ? =Cm S 8 4 G
e A @ }\
\;
=\? A i
*\
\? A } ? D cA M
x \+k D i < A M + G
w \+k D i @\? i }
}F8 Vb S G G,m @\+k\? W =A } D \? GV c

\ 8 , 8 \ u \- A Y Q : & =Cm S
GGGGGGG k x f D@ A @ V = W ' D
I
Y f =Cm S + E WM =Cm S . }F8 Vb S
e G i f D } M =Cm S G 8 W04 / x
\ \ }F8 Vb S G
vT\ W
\ = &KCm S
IDEOLOGICAL STATE APPARATUSES
REPRESSIVE STATE s v S @| U 8
\ A cM G '
v6 S Cm S U 8 G A A B2 ( R lm zAPPARATUSES
& = K @ G w (( } ? D A + xp - iQ@|
A
(
( D 8 R \? } ^
@ -%
}Q@i
A &
X @M? 8
iQ i M G 1 S
I
I
} D
$ | ? ( 2 & \? ( ) @ ( ) G& S 8 >8 lm \
( As ^Q(8 =Cm S G \ ' @ V = i
z @
\
TO CONSTRUCT PEOPLE AS D A V ^ Q Q 8 M
DSUBJECT
I
}i 8 34 M? M @ zSUBJECTIVITYs 0
8
@ zEMILE BENVENISTEs & t8l G 8 S i } D &@pU
i P < } D \ ( \[ *i \ ( A
W A M z x - G w V^ \ ' Q
@ \ ( G^
6 r8 ) x D\ ( i 5[ G @ f G
I
P < o M L D \ ( G r8 )c D A @
@ Q & @] f@pU }\ ( X 0 GP ^
( U G^
- '' * D
Gz +T G +2 6 s }6 @\ ( *
8 D 8 W xT
6 c< W G }Q @%
&@&6 c
TO CONSTRUCT PEOPLE AS D Z xp8Ui AG
b ( U 6
M DSUBJECT
U
8 f c D&
( q }&
( D G 8 l( & GV W G }
: G( |Q &
Z x |@6 G v v Ao
(
xp8Ui \ AG X8
\ \i
( ( K GPRu< 7 f} ; Q &@%
(
7 f@%&
( M}\# M G
` A 5
R B
GPRu<
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
\( U } L ( KJ6 \- k QR 7R?
i
& MbX jj= {} jj Cy@&

( D ( KJ6 G<
G\%N
+K@
\ xp8Ui
X Structuralism and Semiotics &

( D <6 G
G + &
( x Dx @
I
M i}Contemporary Literary Theory &
( D \> 8 l) Gj
G X8 D
I
&@&
( D6 5 34 GGGGGGGGGGGG&@&
( D \> 8 l)
<!T /"
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG= /
j " 22 GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/! ="

=! j= GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG<+2 <="
T/ =j GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG<!j 2T
!
!!
" #
"
%"
$ "
&
Monday, August !j, !!"

C M Naim
There was a time when people wrote a literary piece and then
ascribed it to someone whom they held in high esteem out of
love, admiration, reverence or some other strong sentiment.
Jalaluddin Rumi wrote a magnificent volume of ghazals but did
not put his name to it. It has always been known as Diwan-iShams-i-Tabriz (The Diwan of Shams of Tabriz). An unknown
poet wrote another, smaller diwan of ghazals and ascribed it to
Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti of Ajmer. Later some other people
concocted table-talks of some of the Chishti Sufis and
circulated them as genuine collections. In Urdu literary history,
two examples of something similar immediately come to mind.
When Muhammad Husain Azad desired to publish a definitive
edition of the ghazals of Shaikh Ibrahim Zauq,the first poet
laureate of Bahadur Shah Zafarhe felt no qualms in
composing new ghazals and verses to fill in the gaps he felt his
beloved master would have filled in himself. Then there is the
fascinating case of one of the foremost modern poets in Urdu:
when Sanaallah Dar took on the name Miraji after a woman
named Mira whom he obsessively loved, he might have had in
mind the exemplary bond between Rumi and Shams*
Urdu literary culture, however, has known many more cases

where someone took the work of another person and claimed it
as his own. Particularly among the poets. The practice of
ustadi/shagirdi in Urdu poetry encouraged it. Many an ustad or
master poet earned his meagre living by giving away his verses
to his pupils or shagird, who in turn provided for his needs.
Some ustad openly sold verses to anyone who came with
money the night of a mushaira (a gathering of poets). A nawab
or king would appoint some good poet as his ustad and then
quite as a norm expect him to put together a volume of ghazals
in his name. It also happened in prose. Imam Bakhsh Sahbai,
a contemporary of Ghalib and teacher at the famous Delhi
College, reportedly wrote for a Mughal prince a tazkira or
account of the poets of his time. The book, Gulistan-i-Sukhan,
carries the name of Qadir Bakhsh Sabir as its author, but
Ghalib always referred to it as Sahbais tazkira. Much later,
when the Anjuman-i-Taraqqi-i-Urdu (Association for the
Development of Urdu) published The Standard English-Urdu
Dictionary in <"j/, the organizations Secretary, Maulvi Abdul
Haq (a.k.a Father of Urdu), put his own name on the cover as
its editor, instead of the Anjumans. But at least he was honest
enough to clearly acknowledge in the Introduction that the work
had mainly been done by Dr. Abid Husain of Jamia Millia.
Since then, however, things have been going downhill in Urdu,
particularly in its academia. The late Azhar Ali Farooqui of
Allahabad earned his living by writing Ph.D. dissertations for
others, with the full knowledge of the universitys professors. I
personally witnessed how he worked*
In the old literary culture plagiarism of the ordinary kind was
also common and not made much of. The stakes were not high
then. But now the stakes are quite high in the academic world.
Ambitious university teachers no longer can make do by merely
taking care of their patrons grocery shopping and milk cowsI
witnessed both at Aligarh. Now they must publish research in
order to get coveted promotions and titles. Sadly, quite a few
take to plagiarism as the shortest route. I became involved in
the case of one such ambitious academic at Aligarh back in the

early <"2!s. The Department of Urdu, Aligarh Muslim University,
had obtained some money from the government for a
professorship in Aesthetics, and advertised the job. One of the
candidates was a Reader in the department, who was far better
known for his fiction than researchhe wrote at least one
superb novella that will always be admired. In no time that
gentleman managed to publish a volume on Urdu Aesthetics. I
was most surprised when I came across the book in our library
at the University of Chicago. Having known the person since
our shared college days, I couldnt imagine him as the author of
the book. A couple of hours of digging around in the library
solved the mystery. The talented academic had taken a wellknown book on Aesthetics in English by a Bengali scholar and
diligently translated most of it into Urdu. Dutifully I prepared a
short article, presenting page-and-line references to the
original. It was published in Urdu, and received plenty of notice.
But nothing actually happened. The gentleman didnt get the
jobno one did, as I rememberbut he went on to become a
full professor, and soon chaired the department for a while.
Needless to say he receivedjustly, I must adda Padma
Shri as a fiction-writer*
Presently the Urdu literary/academic world has been violently
shaken by what must be termed the mother of all plagiarisms.
Instead of the out of fashion field of Aesthetics, it is the
currently much more fashionable field of Literary Theory that is
at issue, and the person at the heart of darkness is no less
than Dr. Gopi Chand Narang, Professor Emeritus, Delhi
University, who from !!j to !!/ presided over the Sahitya
Akademi and has received two Padma awards from the Indian
statethe latest being Padma Bhushan in !!=. (A full list of
his honours and publications may be seen at his website. At the
centre of the scandal is the book Sakhtiyat, Pas-i-Sakhtiyat Aur
Mashriqi Shiriyat (Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, and
Eastern Poetics), for which Dr Narang received the Sahitya
Akademi award in <""+. Though the title suggests that it might be

a comparative study, bringing out the commonalities and
oppositions between two contemporary Western
literary/linguistic theories and their counterparts in Sanskrit and
Urdua rather curious undertakingbut in reality it only
describes and explains the three topics in the books title, and
the major thinkers who contributed to them*
As far back as <""/, an Indian Urdu critic named Fuzail Jafari
had explained in some detail how Dr Narangs book shied away
from original thinking and analysis, limiting itself simply to what
X wrote and Y said in Western languages (Zahn-i-Jadid, Delhi,
8 j). In fact, he described the book as a compilation (talif),
adding that it was not an original piece of writing (tasnif). Now a
young scholar Imran Shahid Bhinder, a doctoral candidate in
the Department of English at the University of Birmingham,
U.K., has made a much more serious charge. Bhinder
published in !!T in the annual issue of Nairang-i-Khayal, a
Pakistani journal, an essay entitled Gopi Chand Narang is a
Translator, not an Author. A year later, a revised and
expanded version of the essay appeared in the journal Jadeed
Adab (JulyDecember, !!/), which at the time was printed at
New Delhinow allegedly stopped under pressure from certain
peopleand published from Germany. (It is also available on
the web). In !!2 Bhinder published two more articles in Jadeed
Adab, the first in its JanuaryJune issue, entitled Plagiarism in
Urdu Literature How Long will it be Defended? and the
second in the JulyDecember issue, entitled Gopi Chand
Narangs Truth and Context [as] Thievery. Both articles
found plenty of circulation in both India and Pakistan, and
excerpts were reproduced in a couple of Indian journals. Now a
Pakistani journal, Akkas, published from Islamabad, has
brought out a special issue devoted to Dr Narangs oeuvre and
career, including a more detailed analysis by Bhinder. (Also
available onlinez
In summary, Bhinder has most convincingly established that Dr

Narangs achievement in that award-winning book is not that of
an author but only of a translator, and that too of a
reprehensible kind. According to Bhinder, Dr Narang did not
read the original authorsFerdinand de Saussure, Claude
LeviStrauss, Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan,
Michel Foucault, and others. He read only their well-known
interpreters, and then transferred the latters analyses and
interpretations into Urdu, doing so verbatim and without giving
the reader any indication of what he was doing. In his third
article mentioned above, Bhinder has given extraordinary
details of the Dr Narangs authorial enterprise. He has quoted
excerpts from the Urdu book and then placed them next to their
unacknowledged English original. Further, he has listed with
precision the countless pages in Dr Narangs book that
correspond almost word-for-word with the English pages of
American and British scholars. For example, pages /"<!T, j=
=!, =j T/, and 22j " of Dr Narangs book, according to
Bhinder, are exact translations of pages /= , <="<+2, 2T<!j,
and ="/!, of Raman Seldens book, A Readers Guide to
Contemporary Literary Theory (<"2+). The other exploited
scholars that Bhinder similarly identifies are Terence Hawke,
Catherine Belsey, John Sturrock, Jonathan Culler, Christopher
Norris, and Robert Scholes. (I must add that Bhinders critique
has some other dimensions too that are important and relevant
for all academics in a general manner. See: herez*
The evidence Bhinder presents is quite irrefutable. When, for
example, I checked the pages he points out in Selden's book,
they indeed turned out to be the unacknowledged source of Dr
Narang's remarks. I also stumbled upon something equally
interesting. Dr Narang has a note on Michel Foucault (pp. <"j2)
in the second chapter in his Book Two, i.e. the second section
of his book. The text on pages <"=T, as pointed out by Bhinder,
is merely a translation of pages <+2" in Selden's book. I
checked the sources that Dr Narang's has helpfully listed for

each chapter, and found that he does list Raman's book as a
source for that particular chapter. And gives exact page
numbers too: /"2= and "2<! . The first reference, however,
turned out to be where Selden discusses Bertolt Brecht,
Theodor Adorno, and Walter Benjamin The second was equally
curious: in Selden's book, page "2 deals with Frederic
Jameson, but pages ""<! contain only a bibliography. Again,
the opening paragraph of Dr Narangs note on Jonathan Culler
(pp. j<2") is, as per Bhinder, entirely Seldens (p. T ). But in the
sources, Seldens name is listed with page numbers <!T /! In
other words, while Dr Narang twice went to the trouble of
indicating precisethough unrelatedpages in Seldens book,
he somehow failed to include the pages he had actually
abused*
Bhinders charges are extremely serious. They are also
thoroughly documented. First made three years ago, his
accusation has remained unchallengedunlike in the past
when the slightest criticism of Dr Narang promptly produced a
spate of articles in his defence and diatribes against the critic.
This time he and his admirers are remarkably silent. And for
good reason. They understand that any attempt would only
bring more notoriety. Sadly, they also know that the academic
circles in India in general, and the university departments of
Urdu in particular, take no notice of inconvenient details. With
them it is always business as usual. After all, soon after
Bhinders original article came out in !!T, Dr Narang received
the degree of D.Litt. Honoris Causa' from the Central University
at Hyderabad. Then after two more articles, two similar
honorary degrees were conferred on him in the past six
months, by the Maulana Azad National Urdu University and the
Aligarh Muslim University*
Sahitya Akademi has an excellent policy of making its awardwinning books available in other major languages of India,
including English. Dr Narangs book received the award some

fourteen years ago, but, to my knowledge, it has so far been
translated only into Hindi ( !!!). May I ask the Akademi to do a
major favour to Urdu letters? Marathi and Bengali scholars, in
my experience, are usually far more knowledgeable about
modern and pre-modern literary theories than an average Urdu
academic. (I very much include myself among the latter.) The
Akademi should have Dr Narangs award-winning book
translated into both Bengali and Marathi so that it can properly
be judged by his peers in India. Given the international
protocols on copyright, however, an English translation might
not be advisable at this time*
C.M. Naim is Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx? T!<!
The recent case of plagiarism is only symptomatic of the truly
serious issue: the utterly cynical and self-serving attitude of a
great many people who walk the corridors of power in New
Delhi, wearing cloaks labelled 'Culture' And 'EducationD
'
'
"
!
!
"
%
"
"
"
(
"
!
&
C.M. Naim
My previous note concerning the scandal swirling around Dr.

Gopi Chand Narangs award-winning Urdu bookon
Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and Eastern Poetics was
based on the three Urdu articles by Imran Shahid Bhinder of
Birmingham City University that appeared in various issues of
the journal Jadeed Adab (published from Okriftel, Germany,
and Delhi, and also available on the web). Since then I have
obtained a copy of the special issue of Akkas International, 8"
( !!"), published from Islamabad (also available on the web).
Besides a fourth, well-documented essay by Bhinder, it
includes some other interesting and revealing articles *
In one such article (The Story of Jadeed Adab No. < ), Haidar
Qureshi, the editor of Jadeed Adab, reveals how he was forced
to exclude from that particular issue material that was critical of
Dr. Narang. The previous four issues (Nos. 2, ", <!, and <<),
Qureshi writes, were published by Mustafa Kamal Pasha
Sahib of the Educational Publishing House, Delhi I liked
Pasha Sahib as my publisher. And so I sent him the final files of
the < th issue. It was printed in October !!2. But before it could
go to the binders, Dr. Gopi Chand Narang put pressure upon
the publisher by threatening legal action. Pasha Sahib, rightly,
did not wish to be dragged into any litigation And so the
binding was stopped. Dr. Narang wanted that Jadeed Adab
should not publish anything against him. And so only a
censored version of the < th issue came out in !!". (Qureshi
informs me that I was in error when I wrote the magazine was
no longer published from Delhi. It still is, but under the contract
it cannot include any article or letter that is critical of Dr.
Narang.) After reproducing the censored letters, Qureshi
concludes his essay by appealing to the government of India to
take notice of this act of blackmailing *
Qureshis article also appeared in the Urdu quarterly Asbat,
Mumbai, in its issue # j, Dec. !!2Feb. !!". But it went
unnotedlike Bhinders three articles between July !!/ and
October !!2by the academics and authorities at the Aligarh
Muslim University and Maulana Azad National Urdu University
who conferred honorary degrees on Dr. Narang early this year *
The most interesting thing for me was to discover that, contrary
to my earlier belief, Dr. Narang had in fact defended himself in
printin an interview given to Nand Kishore Vikram, the editor
and publisher of Adab-i-Aliya International (Classics
International), a magazine infrequently published from Delhi.
The interview appeared in its issue for AprilJune !!; the
relevant portion is reprinted in the special issue of Akkas
International, (p. <!"). I immediately posted a translation in the
Comments to my first essay; here is a revised version
Nand Kishore Vikram: People say that those who presented
Structural Criticism (sakhtiyati tanqid) in Urdu did so either
through translation (tarjuma) or by means of adaptation (akhz)
and summarization (talkhis). What do you say about that i
Gopi Chand Narang: When I began my work on Theory I was

awaremy training is in Structural Linguistics (sakhtiyati
lisaniyat)that the fundamental requirement in Philosophy
(falsafa) was Scientific Objectivity (sainsi maruziyat). I had
before me many examples where people started with some talk
of Philosophy but very soon began to soar on wings of
Imagination, eventually becoming victims of their own silly
inventions (ijad-i-banda). Many of them toiled to make
themselves more prominent than the original texts, while others
succumbed to their own writing style and wrote what would be
called light entertaining essays (inshaiya).
The problem I faced] was that the needed terminology did not
exist in Urdu. Secondly, the style of writing of the New
Philosophers was so complex, so brimful with meaning, and so
dense that it was a major issue for me to transfer it [into Urdu]
with scientific accuracy and objectivity. In order to maintain the
Preciseness and Rigour[both words are in English in the
original]of their texts it was necessary for me to use all
available means in my expositions (afham-o-tafhim; lit.
comprehension and explanation), all the while avoidingas it
is required in the discipline of Philosophyany coloration from
my own imagination (takhyil ki rang-amezi) as well as any
subjective flight of thought of my own (mauzui khayal-bafi *z
The first two parts of my book[entitled Structuralism and
Post-Structuralism]are of the analytical kind (tashrihi
nauiyat). The third part[entitled Eastern Poetics] and the
final section [of conclusions] are of a very different nature. In
my expositions of the New Philosophers and their ideas and
insights I have unhesitatingly used akhz (adaptation) and
qubul (extraction; lit. acceptance). Where it became
necessary I also used talkhis (abridgment) and tarjuma
(translation). In order to retain the force of the argument I
have also quoted at many places from the original texts so that
the philosophical issue or the insight of the thinker might reach
the Urdu reader with its full impact. To every section of the
book I have attached a bibliography of all its sources *
Further, in the bibliographies, I have marked with a star the

books that I used much more extensively than others. Let me
make it clear: the ideas are not mine, they are of Saussure,
Levi-Strauss, Roman Jacobson, Lacan, Derrida, Barthes,
Foucault, Kristeva, Shklovsky, Bakhtin, etcetera. That is why I
have dedicated my book to all the philosophers and thinkers
whose ideas it consists of. And I have clearly indicated in my
Introduction: The concepts and ideas (khayalat aur nazariyat)
are of the Philosophers, the understanding, explanation, and
language (afham-o-tafhim aur zuban) are mine 9*
Dr. Narang is right about the lack of established terminology in
Urdu literary criticism. We must, therefore, take him at his
precise word when he claims that the first two chapters of his
book were analytical (tashrihi), and that what he had done as
a whole was to first comprehend (afham) and then explain
(tafhim)in his own language (zuban), Urduthe ideas and
concepts of the people whom he calls the New Philosophers.
That, however, is exactly what Bhinder has solidly refuted.
According to him, only the language (Urdu) is Dr. Narangs; the
analysis and exposition are by other peopleRaman Selden,
John Sturrock, Catherine Belsey, Terence Hawkes, and many
more who find no mention in the interview. Nor are their names
mentioned in the Introduction and the Dedication. They
make only desultory appearances in the expository chapters,
and seldom when whole lines of their English become Dr.
Narangs Urdu. To give just one example from the many that
Bhinder meticulously identifies, Christopher Norris, in his book
Deconstruction: Theory and Practice (jrd edition, London, !! ),
writes on Derrida at some length on pages <2 and <". Bhinder
has quoted fifteen lines from those pages (Akkas International,
8", p. 2/), and identified them as the original of ten lines in Dr.
Narangs book (pp. </2). One might say that turning fifteen
lines into ten was a nice act of summarization (talkhis), but
what is one to make of the fact that every Urdu sentence in
those ten lines is the exact translationnot a summaryof
some sentence in the fifteen lines of Englishand the Urdu

sentences occur in the original English order i
When I looked up the Urdu pages cited by Bhinder, I found that
Dr. Narang had actually mentioned Norriss book two pages
earlier, calling it the best and most comprehensive book on
Deconstruction. It is also listed in the bibliography of his
sources for the chapter. The book is starredas explained by
him abovebut then so is also Ludwig Wittgensteins
Philosophical Investigations, listed two names below Norris. No
page numbers are listed in either case. Are we then to assume
that Dr. Narang used Norris and Wittgenstein equally
extensively in his analysis and exposition of Derridas ideas i
Rereading Bhinders first article in the special issue of Akkas
Intrnational and checking its accuracy, I stumbled upon
something else. On pages " and j! of the journal, Bhinder
states that Dr. Narang had extensively translated passages
from Catherine Belseys introductory textbook, Critical Practice.
One of the examples he cites is this passage in Belseys book
Saussures argument depends on the different division of the
chain of meaning in different languages. If words stood for preexisting concepts they would all have exact equivalents in
meaning from one language to the next; but this is not true
(Saussure, <"/=: <<T). The truth is that different languages divide
or articulate the world in different [ways]. Saussure gives a
number of examples. For instance, where French has the
single word mouton, English differentiates between mutton,
which we eat, and sheep, which roams the hills. (pp. jTj/ z*
I compared it with the passage he mentions in the Urdu book
(p. T2). The Urdu is a meticulous translation of the Englishit
even includes the page number in Saussures book, which, as
Bhinder points out, creates the false impression that Dr. Narang
was quoting directly from Saussure. As I compared Dr.
Narangs page T2 with Catherine Belseys page j" (a different

edition from what Bhinder used), I realized that Dr. Narang had
twice done the same injustice earlier. In support of Saussures
argument Belsey had quoted more examples as given by
Jonathan Culler and Louis Hjelmslev in their separate books
properly acknowledged by Belsey. Dr. Narang has translated
those examples, without mentioning Belsey, and then cited the
page numbers given by her as if he were quoting directly from
Culler and Hjelmslev *
But what really surprised me was on the opposite page (p. T"),
where Dr. Narang, leaving the safety of translation, offers his
own examples for Saussures contention. If we wish to see,
Dr. Narang begins, there is no lack of such examples even in
Urdu where words are similar but meanings are different. Just
take [the terms for] kinship. Baba is used in Urdu for father,
the same as Abba, while in Hindi it is used for grandfather. He
then goes on in that vein for the next <j lines, citing how some
words mean one thing in Urdu but quite another in Arabic, from
which Urdu borrowed them. Apparently, Dr. Narang totally
failed to comprehend (afham) Saussures radical notion that
different languages divide the world differentlyeven after
Belsey further explained it by citing examples given by Culler
and Hjelmslev. (A correct example for Urdu readers would have
been how Urdu divides the world of parents siblings into
chacha, phuphi, mamun, and khala, while English divides the
same world into Uncle and Aunt z9*
Dr. Gopi Chand Narang is presently a Member, Advisory
Committee on Culture, government of India, which is
symptomatic of the bigger, truly serious issue: the utterly
cynical and self-serving attitude of a great many people who
walk the corridors of power in New Delhi, wearing cloaks
labelled Culture and Education and bartering favours among
themselves. The big issue is not the individual, who did what he
considered was necessary in order to prosper in Indian
academia and win patronage from politicians. Let us also not
forget that it was the literati of India who chose Dr. Narang to
preside at the Sahitya Akademi, over Mahashweta Devi, one of
Indias most honest and courageous writers. The rot has settled
deep and at many places, and unless more people begin to
protest, challenge, and condemn publicly what they shake their
heads over privately, nothing much is going to change in
Education and Culture*
***********************************************************************
http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx? T<+</
Aug 2, !!" !< =+ PM

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 +th September *
Jagdish Prakash
Haider Qureshi
Okriftel,Hattersheim, Germany
http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx? T<+</
:::
D;E_ @& \ 7
< = VDX( x R g}y\

Mabaad Jadeediat or Gopi Chand Narang

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mabaad Jadeediat or Gopi Chand Narang

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

# !!

@ & ( v S ( ( K K@ &z - &z

,- + D7@M v & ( W w * ' ( )(

w x }N@ 8 U>8 >( ? }& M W \ }{ | M

X \{ GP Z[ }\ o >8 >( ? PZ[} \o ( ( K

D\] @ ( KJ6 M 6 ( ( K < CA BG 8 &

( KJ6 @M 0Gv Q & M v S ( ( K &

}! ' ( ( K bR? @ '} \

@ 8 U>8 >( ? A R4 @ { 7{ a}\] @ ( KJ6

z| x@\ y ' ' \ \ Q\ \x S

@& >?8 @ & 8 &z - &z &

@ ' \\F W D D x \(_ W &@U

@\ @& M >8 T A B ( S QR MN\ \ A " CA B@&

&M } Contemporary Literary Theory &

Dm- x S GGGG # ' G Z f , x- S u GGG\ s( @ }

v L tuw \CL\ G\ FLA

Z \{ A @b>? ~@ >8 i~A

}&@ BA G << CA B &

b>? ~ >8 D @ %M ( x\E_ D& D&@ FIK

@ << " <! A BA G Wk D ( KJ6

N z# !!T x p( U A B G >-8 t uvs - D x \ X8

G K x D & 8 x ]M \ X8 i@ Qon`8 >8 -

4iv fR 3 X8 @ & 8 &z - &z &

Gj CA BGA & tuvs

\ ( @ & 8 &z &z L D6 5 34H

}M GDo D < D &

@6 & G ] jCA B@ A & }\ I @ E ( L

Structuralism and &

G8k >8 &

& MbX jj= @} jj Cy@&

9e 8 U>8 >( ? &

@\5@\ vW @\ \6G\ &

( KJ6 } N \94l}{ |@ e D ( KJ6 X \

\4C A R4 @ ( KJ6 W4@ &

D$( 8 X8 } x { M G * W& ( '

( KJ6 x e K A D\\ @ o8nlKw Y ( KJ _

M GGGD @ ' 8 @&

< \:< ' G u \; \:<\ ' ( ) G\ b Y }& ( M D&

G N *** M G\L '&

} \ut 3 D f S 3 DGP rs} ' \{ G\ M S

9e 8 U>8 >( ? &

& MbX jj= {} jj Cy@&

Structuralism and &

P 3 ( @\] X ( KJ6 0Rw ?

G bc 'u F&R &

K D tumhaare ese dost ban gae

% D E 1111' " - B . ,- C D < ,- #

' G #<"2+ C w i &

author's articles and published as his own was summarily

G x W x 3E_ D U\i 2 G A ( E_G3

Q @ fi A WM G\6 A B @MN ~ &

Bhai jaan: aadab. This is only in my personal context please. I

\i " x tuw ( KJ t&s G\6 v & DZ[ - +

8 z C 5v csC { & @ ( KJ6

( KJ6 W & X & 8 b& ( \

o8nlm @ G\x & 5}{ |@Q h g X8 &

@ \F8 V)8 `K vY D A WM " x A X G bJ

{ |@ x t \F Gbc DQ h { pU v}bc D ( KJ6

uv z# !!" \i x s < CA B@&

G E 6l)'8 u G4 ZA xp( U G\ W*@

G A x MM ~uv # !!+ ? fiA B

>% ,- " < F%A

>& ( ( o vY DM G }\ & 8 &z - &z

P : ( U ( DL Ci GGG9L D 8 U>8 >( ? D\ f