Analysis of Imitiaz Dharker’s Poems

Imitiaz Dharker was born in Lahore, Pakistan in the year 1954. She is a poet, documentary film-maker and an artist. Her family moved from Lahore to Glasgow when she was less than year old. Presently she divides her time between London and Mumbai. Her other works includes Purdah and other poems (1988), Post Cards from God (1997), I speak for devil (2001), Terrorist at my table (2006), Leaving foot prints (2009). Dharker is also a documentary film-maker and has scripted and directed over a hundred films and audio-visuals, centering on education, reproductive health and shelter for women and children. In 1980 she was awarded a Silver Lotus for a short film. She is also an accomplished artist. The main themes of her poetry include home, freedom, journeys, geographical and cultural displacement, communal conflict and gender politics. Today she is considered as one of the most important contemporary poets. The theme of social exclusion can be clearly seen in both of the poems. It is also her background and her personal experience that influence her work. In her poem Minority, Imitiaz Dharker talks about the condition and the problems faced by a person who belongs to a minority. As her other notable works even in this poem her own cultural background and her personal experiences can be clearly understood. When we first see the tittle we can clearly infer that it has something to do with minority group or people belonging to minority. The tittle says it all. It is a first person narrative but it is difficult to find out the gender of the speaker. Let’s just take into account that the speaker is a female. There is a heavy use of metaphor in the poem. So the speaker says, she was born a foreigner and after that wherever she went she carried the tag of foreigner with her. These lines can be directly linked with the life of the poet herself as she was born in Lahore but soon the family shifted. So even where the speaker was born she is foreigner in that country. Further the speaker says that she went to places where her relatives stayed but, just like the roots of tubers even when the hold was deep within she felt like she was an outsider like she didn’t belong there. Everything was new to her. This is probably a reference to poets’ home country. People like to maintain a safe distance from a person who is different than them. The people who are supposed to understand the speaker are the ones who distance themselves from her just because she is a minority, isolating her culturally and socially. This people are the educated ones who are isolating her. The speaker has compared herself to a clumsily translated poem. Her life is a poem but a translated one which lacks the grace and is full of gawky moments. She doesn’t seem to fit anywhere. She can’t find a place where she can adapt because she is never given a chance to do so. Cooking food in coconut has long been a Indian tradition. To people she is like the food cooked in coconut. The mention of ghee and cream contradict each other because both of them belong to different cultures. So where people expect ghee and cream speakers’ life is like food cooked in coconut and it gives an aftertaste of neem and cardamom instead of two good items like ghee and cream. Neem and cardamom it’s bitter and people don’t like it. Whether it’s in her home country or any other country and thus makes her a minority. There comes a point when people find her language strange and don’t seem to accept her. It’s like she has landed into a trap by saying anything to the people at all. They are just waiting for their traps to work and are waiting to put her down and make her a minority on basis of her language. There is an frame fixed in the minds of people, a perfect frame which is as good as them and they view everyone through this frame but when the speakers picture comes into the frame the frame slips. Her picture is not good enough for the frame like they can’t accept someone like her, someone from the minority and that she is not good enough to be with them not good enough to be called as their own. They see someone who is not tuned with them, someone who is not like them, someone who is from a different world, someone like a ghost. For them the speaker stands out for apparently all wrong reasons and she is an outsider to them, in their midst she is an alien. So the speaker sits scratching throughout her lonely nights. It can be interpreted as she is scratching a desperate plea a message on a piece of paper. But if we infer the deeper meaning it can also mean that she is scratching because she is feeling uneasy, she is scratching over the scab of division and the label that she is a minority. She is scratching over the scab of people treating her minority over her skin colour. ‘A page doesn’t fight back’, according to me this is the most powerful line in the whole poem. By page here she is referring to a minority person like herself. The speaker hopes that whatever she has spoken so far shoots through the thick layer of stereotypes the community has set and the noise of repression of the community. So whole carrying on with this life of hers, the speaker comes across a person who is stranger to her yet there is something about the person that makes her feel like she knows him or her. The face of the person is pure and simple without any mask of stereotypes. The speaker can actually read through the persons face and his or her outcast eyes. She comes to a realization that the person is like her a minority. She comes to a realization that she is not only the one who is an outcast, one who has no place to call home and one who is a foreigner wherever she goes. It gives speaker some hope to know that she doesn’t stand alone. The poem reflects the life of the poet herself. While she visits India people view her as a visitor and also because she is a Muslim, who come under minority in our country. On the other hand when she is in western countries people view her as an immigrant. The poem gives us an idea about the feelings of people belonging to minority. ‘They’ll say: â€Å"She must be from another country†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ The poem, ‘they’ll say: â€Å"She must be from another country†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ is also written by Imitiaz Dharker. The poem is a sharp critic on various forms of exploitation that are carried in India as well as in different parts of world. The poem is about how people of the world can’t come to terms with a person who is liberal and open-minded. The poet has criticized old and traditional minds. The poem gives various indirect references to racial discrimination, state repression and curbing the right to freedom of expression. We have examples of painters like MF Husain and writers like Salman Rushdie who were opposed at different times due to their work. The poet talks about them indirectly without mentioning their names. Numerous films have been opposed just because they clash with some minds. The speaker is a female as it is clearly said in the poem and as well as the tittle. In country like India or any other country for that matter, not everything is welcomed open mindedly. Pieces of literature and art which are found to be offensive are taking down while not looking or hearing what the creator of the masterpiece wants to say about it. Whether he she really means any offence to particular religion, group of people and if he or she wants to hurt any sentiments. There are some traditional and orthodox minds that do not seem to respect freedom of expression. In today’s ever changing and modern world lines like right to freedom of speech and expression are only to say but in reality this things are not welcomed. Certain anti-social minds think they are protecting their identity or uplifting the interests of their religion or community. But this is not true. They are just not bold enough to take whatever falls on their ears even if it is the truth. So as the speaker says books are burned and paintings are taken down. Just because the thoughts expressed in those pieces of work clash with the orthodox thinking. Sometimes even the educated minds do this. Of course all are open to say whatever they want but I think it can be done in a better way other than taking down the books and the paintings. This people aren’t mature enough to accept ideas which come across them. We have numerous examples of books which have been banned. They condemn the pieces of master pieces to dust when a particular piece of art is found disturbing. Art is expressed in different ways. Every artist has his or her own style of expressing their ideas on a paper. Not all naked pictures of Gods and Goddesses are painted to tarnish a particular religion. We need to look through the artist’s eye to understand them to understand the beauty of it. Burning the work isn’t going to help. There are cases in our country when artists were forced to leave the country. Whenever this happens we lose these valuable masterminds. Then the speaker also talks about films which are banned. Whenever films are released on controversial topics, there are people who oppose their screening and in most of the cases even stop them from getting screened. They vandalize the cinema houses and destroy the property if their demands are not met. When the speaker questions such behavior she is told that she must be from another country. It indirectly indicates that this type of behavior is not going to stop and that it happens often. There are times when a person is criticized due to the language and accent. They point it out and explain it the way it should be spoken and they’ll say she must be from another country. The speaker further says when she walks with her head up, with dignity, commanding respect they criticize. As being a woman they expect her to keep her head down and walk as if she’s some less of the person. When the speaker wears table cloth to go to town, it means when she wears different type of clothes like stylish clothes she is condemned. Even today i8n certain places women are not allowed to wear western outfits. The speaker says there is discrimination on the basis of colour and sexual orientation of a person. If any Indian or Asian goes in western countries, they are often discriminated on the basis of their skin colour. The speaker also says that, if a person is gay then he or she is not accepted in society by the orthodox minds. Hence when they see a black person or a gay they whisper to each other that he or she doesn’t belong here. The speaker further adds about how there is a huge gap between a country like India and other western countries like the Great Britain. They find the speakers habits disgusting. Such as eating olives and spitting out the pits, peeing outside. These people belong to a sophisticated place and hence do not like such things. The mention of Bombay shows that she is clearly talking about India. The places like opera are meant for serious minded and elite class of society. So the speaker says when she yawns in opera and laughs, they do not like it. They say very sadly and with disgust that she is same as rest and does not belong here. So due to all this un-acceptance she receives everywhere, the speaker says that maybe there is a country foe all the freaks like herself. By freaks she means the liberal minded people who are considered as freaks by the orthodox minded people. This are the people who do not owe any allegiance or loyalty to the old fat fools who wear the uniform. By this she does not necessarily mean the police. It means all those people in power and influence. According to her they are the one who act like crooks and thugs and take away the rights of people when they are the ones supposed to protect the interests of people. The people with power suppress anyone who comes in their way and by doing so they break the same rules which they are supposed to abide by. Further the speaker says the country is just for namesake and to her and other people like her it doesn’t look like a country at all. There are cracks all over and people like her live behind the backs of those who rule with their cruel power. There are divisions and this is tearing up the country. So the words like national integration and universal brotherhood look good only in books and pages. The speaker has never understood this eccentric behavior and is at peace with it. She is happy that she is not associated in any way with the fat old fools and happy that she remains an alien to the customs and traditions. She readily accepts the tag of outsider. She accepts that she indeed belongs to a different country which probably doesn’t exist. A country where freedom is put down and chained in every way possible. The two poems are related to each other. In both poems the person is made to feel different and unwanted and in the end somehow in both poems the speakers have found some hope and solitude.