Modern Persian Literature in Afghanistan

With the unleashing of the “War on Terror” in the aftermath of 9/11, Afghanistan has become prominent in the news. However, we need to appreciate that no substantive understanding of contemporary history, politics and society of this country can be achieved without a thorough analysis of the Afghan encounter with cultural and literary modernity and modernization. Modern Persian Literature in Afghanistan does just that. The book offers a balanced and interdisciplinary analysis of the rich and admirable con- temporary poetry and fiction of a land long tormented by wars and inva- sions. It sets out to demonstrate that, within the trajectory of the union between modern aesthetic imagination and politics, creativity and produc- tion, and representation and history, the modernist intervention enabled many contemporary poets and writers of fiction to resist the overt politiciza- tion of the literary field, without evading politics or disavowing the modern state. The interpretative moves and nuanced readings of a series of literary texts make this book a major contribution to a rather neglected area of research and study. It is essential reading for students and scholars in comparative literary analysis, Middle East and Central Asian cultural studies and the emergent Afghanistan studies.

Wali Ahmadi is Associate Professor of Near Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, USA. Iranian Studies Edited by: Homa Katouzian University of Oxford and

Mohamad Tavakoli University of Toronto

Since 1967 the International Society for Iranian Studies (ISIS) has been a leading learned society for the advancement of new approaches in the study of Iranian society, history, culture, and literature. The new ISIS Iranian Studies series published by Routledge will provide a venue for the publica- tion of original and innovative scholarly works in all areas of Iranian and Persianate Studies.

1. Journalism in Iran From mission to profession Hossein Shahidi

2. Sadeq Hedayat His work and his wondrous world Homa Katouzian

3. Iran in the 21st Century Politics, economics and confrontation Homa Katouzian and Hossein Shahidi

4. Media, Culture and Society in Iran Living with globalization and the Islamic state Mehdi Semati

5. Modern Persian Literature in Afghanistan Anomalous visions of history and form Wali Ahmadi Modern Persian Literature in Afghanistan Anomalous visions of history and form

Wali Ahmadi First published 2008 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2008 Wali Ahmadi

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ahmadi, Wali. Modern Persian literature in Afghanistan : anomalous visions of history and form / Wali Ahmadi. p. cm—(Iranian studies) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Persian literature—Afghanistan—History and criticism. 2. Persian literature—Political aspects—Afghanistan. 3. Politics and literature—Afghanistan. I. Title. PK6427.6.A3A33 2008 891′.55099581—dc22 2007036608

ISBN 0-203-94602-2 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 10: 0–415–43778–4 (hbk) ISBN 10: 0–203–94602–2 (ebk) ISBN 13: 978–0–415–43778–3 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978–0–203–94602–2 (ebk) To the memory of my parents and to Geeta, Yassna, and Yamna

Contents

Acknowledgments viii

Introduction: the conundrum of modernity 1

1 Beyond “Mist and Pebble”: ordering the culture of modernity 16

2 The poetics of (national) truth content 38

3 Perilous ends of history: the rhetoric of commitment and the poetics of nationalism 62

4 Literature of Commandement and the crisis of commitment 88

5 De-centering dissent 114

Epilogue: contending with history 141

Notes 148 Bibliography 169 Index 181 Acknowledgments

In the writing of this book, much gratitude is owed to many. I am particu- larly grateful to Amin Banani for his continued interest in, and unfailing support of, my research and scholarly endeavors over the years. I have bene- fited greatly from his encouragement and incisively subtle suggestions about my approach to contemporary literature in Persian. I have also learned much from the late Ali Razawi’s vast knowledge of literary and intellectual trends in Afghanistan. He was undoubtedly a genuine representative of modern Afghan literature and culture. The debt I owe to Wasef Bakhtari is, as it has always been, so immense that it is impossible to define or measure. His critical writings, his poetry, and his intellectual example have been a constant inspiration to me. My colleagues at the Near Eastern Studies department in Berkeley have provided me with a warm collegiate atmos- phere in which to finish this project. I am also indebted to my editor Kathryn Summer Drabinski. I should gratefully acknowledge that in the preparation of this book I received generous support from the Hillman Family Faculty Fund and a crucial sabbatical grant from the University of California’s Committee on Research. I dedicate the book to the memory of my parents and to my loving wife and daughters. I am deeply grateful to Geeta for her amazing patience, her charm, and her faith in my work. She endured so much while several drafts of the manuscript were being written, rewritten, and revised. No words can express the depth of my endless love and affection for my precious and adorable little angels Yassna and Yamna. Heartfelt thanks also go to my supportive sisters and brothers and delightful nieces and nephews. Wali Ahmadi Introduction The conundrum of modernity

All works of art, including those that pretend to be completely harmonious, belong to a complex of problems. As such they participate in history, transcending their uniqueness. Theodor W. Adorno

On October 1, 1901 the “Iron Am¯ır”
Abd al-Rahma¯n died in Kabul. In the wake of the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001 in America, the iron rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan came to a violent end. The intervening hundred years—the tumultuous twentieth century—constitute Afghanistan’s intricate and often tortuous encounter with modernity. This book is not a study of Afghan modernity, in all its varied and complex facets, in a social context where aspects that are considered hallmarks of modernity remain full of paradoxes, contradictions, and twists and turns. Rather, as the first full-length analysis of a hitherto neglected area in the fields of contemporary comparative, post-colonial, and Persian literary studies, it is a study of the experience of cultural modernity as projected and expressed in the elaborate interweaving of texts and their socio-historical contexts in a “Third-World” society. More specifically, it elucidates the dynamic conjunction of intel- lectual and literary-aesthetic discourses with history and politics in the peculiar propagation and reception of modernity in Afghanistan. The experience of modernity can function to make historical development and social vitality more visible; literature has contributed to that experience throughout the twentieth century. Afghan writers of poetry and fiction were more than aware that the introduction of an array of continuous literary innovations radically reinforced the development of a modern literary- aesthetic discourse and the concomitant destabilization of traditional dis- cursive frames. Nevertheless, in what reveals the vigor as well as the protean nature of modernity, as inheritors of a long-preserved cultural legacy and literary tradition, these writers attempted to integrate a number of specific traditional literary forms and sensibilities within the emergent aesthetics. A distinguishing aspect of the new aesthetics consisted of the impulse towards synthesizing formal laws that derived from traditional literature—and 2 Introduction constituted the purported inherent autonomy of a work of literature—and its inexorable entwinement with the realms of ideological constructions, intellectual machinations, and social/political praxes. Therefore, as the fol- lowing chapters demonstrate, throughout the twentieth century, the Afghan reception of modernism has been characterized by the complex dialectic between poetics and politics, between textuality and historicity, between aesthetic autonomy and aesthetic purposiveness, and between literary- formalist innovations and socially-conscious commitments. It should be mentioned that modern Afghanistan has been officially a bilingual country. Both Persian (Dari) and Pashtu are considered the official languages of the state. Although a splendid array of modernist writings exist in Pashtu, the discourse of cultural and literary-aesthetic modernity in Afghanistan has been predominantly articulated in the Persian language.1 Despite institutional patronage of Pashtu throughout the twentieth century, Persian has remained the cohesive cultural force throughout the land. Modern Persian Literature in Afghanistan: Anomalous visions of history and form engages with works of Afghan writers and poets in the Persian lan- guage, but the discursive strategies that are symptomatic of modern Persian literature, powerfully reverberate in the modern Pashtu literature as well, and some prominent poets and writers (including some whose writings are studied here) also produce, with equal versatility and adaptability, in Pashtu.

Modernity: identity and hybridity Few concepts in the human sciences have proved as dynamic and complex, as well as so contested, as the concept of modernity. Generally referring to a belief in reason, the doctrine of progress, and confidence in perpetual human possibilities, modernity’s characteristics are said to include “disintegration and reformation, fragmentation and rapid change, ephemerality and inse- curity. [Modernity] involves certain new understandings of time and space: speed, mobility, communication, travel, dynamism, chaos, and cultural revo- lution.”2 “Western discourse on modernity,” as Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar has suggested, “[has been] a shifting, hybrid configuration consisting of dif- ferent, often conflicting, theories, norms, historical experiences, utopic fan- tasies, and ideological commitments.”3 On a global scale, the project of modernity initially professed an “enlightened” reception of the presence and distinctiveness of the non-Western other.4 Yet, most proponents of modern- ity in the West have increasingly stressed that its universality draws from the specific sense that all human societies will inevitably, and irreversibly, be the same. They foresee the necessary triumph and successful transmission and diffusion of this particular reading of modernity over the encumbrances of traditional forms of cultural manifestations, social values and norms, and institutions of political authority everywhere. Clearly, in the universe of “pure modernity,” while non-Western societies experience a necessary and inevitable process of “de-traditionalization,” the unique sovereignty and Introduction 3 cultural superiority of the West remains intact.5 A relatively recent elabora- tion of the universalist order of modernity (measured primarily through purportedly quantifiable economic development, scientific advances, and social progress) is found in theories of “modernization” and “development” in the social sciences.6 Characterized by an “evolutionary logic,” these the- ories are meant “to reinforce a conceptual field wherein the non-West never emerges in its commensurate ‘coevalness’ but as an eager aspirant to a preconstituted ideal.”7 The conundrum of modernity’s teleological grasp is that, in the context of non-Western regions of the world, modernity signifies a process that is con- tinually deferred and incessantly belated. The “other” of the West remains perpetually a peripheral dependency of the West.8 Such a view of modernity, despite its prevalence, goes against the hypothesis that modernity, being itself inherently dynamic and flexible—“a maelstrom of perpetual disinte- gration and renewal, of struggle and contradiction, of ambiguity and anguish”9—needs not to be applied uniformly in non-Western contexts. Furthermore, it reinforces the view that the Western monopoly over the definition of the course of modernity is aimed to perpetuate and maintain the West’s position of superiority as the focal point of global hegemony and domination. Western colonial and imperial expansion in the modern era has provided sufficient ground to validate this point. It has given impetus, in conjunction with the formation of anti-colonial liberation movements, to the growth of a forceful discourse of cultural resistance persistently pre- sented in the anti-colonial thought emerging from the (former) colonies. Premised on a concept of impermeable identity (the “self”) and essential difference (the “other”) this project (later to be culminated in the post- colonial agenda) is derived from, and nourished by, the notion of irreducible cultural identity and authenticity. This notion, according to the Arab political philosopher Aziz Al-Azmeh,

designates the self in contradistinction to the other, the essential as against the accidental, the natural as opposed to the artificial. Only thus can individuality and specificity properly be said to designate any genuine distinctiveness in opposition to “the loss of distinctiveness and dissolution in another specificity [i.e. the West] which claims universality.”10

A mirror reflection of the notion of modernity as triumphal Westernization, the dehistoricized discourse of authenticity delineates that there is a different “order of truth” found in non-Western culture(s), signifying an undiluted identity that can be defined in terms of “a sort of collective ‘one true self,’ hiding inside the many other, more superficial or artificially imposed ‘selves,’ which people with a shared history and ancestry hold in common.”11 What most proponents of the discourse of cultural authenticity have tended to ignore is that the emergence and consolidation of Western 4 Introduction modernity could not have happened in the absence of a vast, though often unacknowledged, structural process that required the active, material pres- ence and contributions of the non-Western world. In other words, the course of modern history of the West could not have been shaped without the con- tributions of “the people without history.”12 Historically, the non-Western world (for instance, the “Orient”) has been consistently “not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring images of the [o]ther.” It has also been “an integral part of European material civilization and culture.”13 This inescapable factor undermines the Eurocentricity of modernity per se. Not confined to the West, modernity has become a radically polycentric, poly- valent project, with manifold participants. Instead of a singular, “ordinary” modernity, then, one may appropriately suggest that there are “multiple modernities,”14 “alternative modernities,”15 or, considering the structural composition of the non-Western societies, “belated modernities.”16 To acknowledge the multiplicity and diversity of modernity implies that mod- ernity is now entrenched, in a recognizable way, in the social fabric of vast areas in the non-Western world. Most of these societies have long been engaged productively in negotiating with modernity—in whose self- definition and legitimation they have played a crucial role.17 As the discussion above demonstrates, the inherent diversity of global modernity makes its reception in the non-Western contexts more than the reproduction of the historical and intellectual situation of the West. Modernity in non-Western contexts does not follow some abstract “ori- ginal” Western blueprint with the aim of producing a “faithful duplication of Western prototypes.”18 To suggest—as I do in this book—that the twen- tieth century constitutes the era of modernity in a society like Afghanistan is not to imply that the project of modernity, as defined and manufactured in the West, was ingrained, in toto and systematically, in a marginal(ized) trad- itional setting. However, by scrutinizing the literature of Afghanistan within the prevailing intellectual discourses of the twentieth century, this study does imply that a certain modality of modernity, derived from a perceptible shift in “time categories” and a comprehensive “temporal-sequential con- cept of history,” assumed privilege over “mythical and recurrent models”19 and culminated in the preponderance and ubiquity of a variegated, multi- faceted form of modernity throughout nearly every space of enunciation in the Afghan society. This transformative act obviously means that the dis- semination of modernity in a remote peripheral society like Afghanistan has been—and, indeed, must be—necessarily a selective process. It gives credence to the contention that the project of modernity of the periphery may be profoundly uneven, deeply ambiguous, and infinitely shifting. Such a project may also be consistently agonized by the sense of its own historical anomalies. This agony is felt most deeply and reflected most elaborately in the field of modern literature as an intellectual practice. Introduction 5 Aesthetics and forms of authenticity Cultural modernity in general, and literary-aesthetic modernism in par- ticular, is difficult to define. Although it is acknowledged that it would be “invidious to have to say what [m]odernism [is] precisely because any his- tory or definition insinuates many implicit exclusions,”20 and “[d]espite the overwhelming evidence that modernism defies reduction to simple common denominators,”21 numerous attempts have been made to proceed with pro- viding a general definition of literary modernism. “What critics present as a set of distinctive features is usually always only a selective modeling of modernism, determined by the critic’s special purposes and perspectives.”22 The complexity and heterogeneity of modernism becomes especially discern- ible when one considers its manifestations as a literary-aesthetic movement and analyzes its mechanisms as an intellectual project of modernity within the larger cultural system in the context of non-Western societies. The study of modernism in non-Western literatures often draws from an essentially binary perspective, from certain generalizations that insist on the dichotomous and inherently antagonistic relations between such abstractions as autochthonous (native) traditions and imported (Western) innovations, and assumes a view where either literary innovation irreversibly triumphs over various manifestations of démodé traditions, or indigenous heritage resists the penetration of some gratuitous novelty. In the latter case, which is directly relevant to my discussion of literary modernity in a contemporary “Third-World” society (Afghanistan), one finds an evocative thesis which insists that only in so far as a text has its roots in the pre-modern, pre- colonial encounter (whether in oral myths and legends or, as in the case of Afghanistan, in the almost unlimited reservoir of classical textual heritage in Persian) can it represent the authentic non-Western self and be regarded as a true work of literature. Whatever is “influenced” (i.e. diluted) by Western literary works and movements ought to be discarded as inauthentic and unoriginal. Since modernity is regarded as an imposed order that came about in conjunction with Western colonial encroachment and imperial domina- tion, modernism and modernist aesthetics and poetics are also seen as alien, expressing the alienated selves of a few deracinated writers and poets who are intellectually disconnected from the masses, the vast subaltern classes, and their collective history, memory, and identity. Frantz Fanon’s postula- tions, especially in The Wretched of the Earth (considered a foundational thesis of the cultural discourse of post-colonialism), exemplify a project of “Manichean aesthetics” that is prone to privilege counter-modernist works that reflect a rather strict definition of identity in the (former) colonies.23 Theoretically, this project represents the rigorous, counter-hegemonic, and subversive resistance in part of the (formerly) colonized people against the continuing cultural domination of the hegemonic Western imperial struc- tures ingrained in the minds of the subjugated natives. Dealing primarily with the production and reproduction of the cultural sphere, the discourse 6 Introduction of post-colonial criticism thus defined inevitably “force[s] a radical rethink- ing and re-formulation of forms of knowledge and social identities authored and authorized by colonialism and Western domination.”24 The case of twentieth century literature in Afghanistan demonstrates that contemporary poets and writers live and write in a world of multiple determinations, not of single or predominant ones. The Afghan stance towards the dissemination of cultural and literary-aesthetic modernity effec- tively evaded the dual points of a “Manichean” cultural position—namely, that the “passionate search for [an authentic] national culture” by native writers and poets in colonial societies “finds its legitimate reason in [their] anxiety to shrink away from that Western culture in which they all risk being swamped” and that these literati realize that they are in danger of “becom- ing lost to their people.”25 In the domain of literary-critical practice in Afghanistan, to reclaim an exclusive self-identity has proven highly improb- able, mainly because of the realization on the part of Afghan writers that such a “project usually posits precisely the impossibility of that identity ever being ‘uncontaminated’.”26 By focusing on the industrious and prolific lit- erature of a marginalized area (Afghanistan) within the larger Persian litera- ture, a central aim of the present study is, therefore, to see literary modernity (determined by the “generic field” in which it is situated) as a particularly effective subject of literary transmission and aesthetic transference across and within cultural traditions in modern history. As Mineke Schipper maintains,

New approaches to literature leave ample room for the intercultural comparative study of literature, whether this involves relationships of contact (influences, for example) or of typological similarities (genre characteristics, for instance). Profiting from developments in semiotics, the study of literature has begun to liberate itself from the old approach with its inflexible Western norms and values that characterized so many researches for so long.27

The point that needs to be emphasized here is that modern literary forms proliferate when they travel far and wide from their purported original homes, to the extent that they can no longer claim to be representative of any one specific cultural tradition. After all, as a literary sociologist has put it succinctly, “[w]hereas art forms owe their birth to a specific social [and national] context, they are not tied to the context of their origin or to a social situation that is analogous to it, for the truth is that they can take on different functions in varying social contexts.”28 It is from such a critical perspective that Michael Beard, in his discussion of the seminal Persian novel The Blind Owl, for instance, emphatically rejects as “ambiguous ges- ture” the view that bestows upon (Third-World) writers a strong, auto- chthonous cultural identity immune to Western influence: “On the one hand [such a view] portrays them as self-sufficient, as possessors of an indigenous Introduction 7 narrative tradition that obviates importations; on the other hand it puts a wedge between our world and theirs, which prevents the possibility of com- parison on equal terms, and in a sense forestalls taking them with complete seriousness.”29 Let us not lose sight of the fundamental fact that because of the imperial structures of power, the center/periphery bifurcation of the global cultural economy is indeed real and that the “world literary system,” in its present constitution, is profoundly marked by “a relationship of growing inequal- ity.”30 It is true that “[l]iterature has for too long been a given institution; it has been accepted for a very long time, especially in the Western world, that most of what is called world literature is necessarily Western literature.”31 Similarly, the transferring into non-Western literatures of literary forms and genres that originated (in complex historical circumstances) in the West is certainly a difficult process, as much charting new territories as excluding existent ones. The modern novel can be a case in point here. On the one hand, “as a challenge to preexistent narrative forms . . . [the novel] made available certain narratives or discursive possibilities.” Yet, at the same time, “it foreclosed other possibilities and postulated them as impossibilities or aporias.”32 Therefore, an enormous challenge to the scholar of literature, especially one of comparative literature, would be to radically re-evaluate “the conceptual structure of the category modernism, its limits and internal organization”33 not only vis-à-vis various forms of Western modernism but also in relation to the modernity of the periphery as “emblematic and symp- tomatic” of a diverse and heterogeneous modernist literary movement. Such a revaluation would find the phenomenon of “pluralizing poetics” essential to any conceptualization of literature(s). But “the model of poetics here [should be] rhizomatous, not arborescent: it is not a question with either ‘general literature’ or with national literature of a major trunk and minor branches, but of horizontal networks variously intersecting.”34 In concert with the discussion of modernity above, the present study maintains that there are necessarily differences among various cultural traditions of mod- ernism (as there are within each tradition), but these differences ought to be seen primarily as notional and definitional rather than fundamental and national.35

Alter(nation)ing allegories The analysis of the relations between cultural production and national iden- tity and ideals has been the subject of a number of influential critical studies.36 The idea of the nation in modern intellectual and literary discourse in Afghanistan has been pervasive ever since the country inherited the foremost ubiquitous form of polity in modernity: the nation-state. If a nation is assumed to be “a collectivity existing within a clearly demarcated territory, which is subject to a unitary administration, reflexively monitored both by the internal state apparatus and those of other states,”37 and a state, in its 8 Introduction part, is “[a] compulsory political organization with continuous operations (politischer Anstaltsbetrieb) [where] its administrative staff successfully upholds the claims to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order,”38 Afghanistan emerged as a nation-state only towards the end of the nineteenth century, during the reign of Am¯ır
Abd al-Rahma¯n (1880–1901). Although the Am¯ır was a major beneficiary of British financial aid and well served their interests in the region, the modern Afghan state was not a direct colonial construct built upon old colonial models of polity and governance. Unlike most states that emerged in the post-colonial era, notwithstanding the Soviet occupation during the 1980s, Afghanistan was never run by foreign administrators or their native aco- lytes. Thus, the conjunction of culture and politics in twentieth century Afghanistan has been, in so many ways, markedly unique. Part of my argu- ment in this book is to evaluate the many promises as well as the perils of post-colonial cultural theories in explaining notions of identity and alterity in complex historical contexts such as Afghanistan. The socio-historical condition of non- or semi-coloniality in Afghanistan meant that a post- (in the sense of after) colonial discourse of cultural authenticity stemming from the entwinement of a politics of anti-colonial national resistance and a counter-modernist aesthetics proved itself only marginally influential. It was rather the establishment of the modern state and its corollary agencies that meant, on the one hand, an incessant, though often incoherent and unsystematic, expansion of a vast (and overwhelm- ingly dysfunctional) administrative bureaucracy and, on the other hand, a military of enormous power capable of large-scale violence.39 The essence of the intricate ideological association of literature and politics in Afghanistan during most of the twentieth century lies (in addition to the abundance of the idea of national identity, integrity, and congruity) in the evolving con- junction of the sphere of the literary with structures of domination and the charting of the institutional perimeters of an Afghan polity. Thus, there emerged at the forefront of what may be termed an alternative modernity, a small but determined group of intellectuals (whose formation and social fortitude owed so much to the modernization efforts of the state) who emphasized and promoted modern literature’s purposiveness—its social fun- ction and its commitment to political practice—and, to this end, explored literature, both as an imaginative enterprise and as a linguistic system, in order to offer a radical cultural critique of the state and society. In the controversial article “Third-World Literature in the Era of Multi- national Capitalism” (originally published in Social Text) Fredric Jameson contends that, in the realist and modernist literary texts in the West—the “First-World”—there is “a radical split between the private and the public, between the poetic and the political, between what we have come to think of as the domain of sexuality and the unconscious and that of the public world of classes, of the economic, and of the secular political power.” “We have been trained in a deep cultural conviction that the lived experience of our Introduction 9 private existences is somehow incommensurable with the abstractions of economic science and political dynamics,” he affirms.40 In contrast, “Third- World” texts—“even those which are seemingly private . . .—necessarily project a political dimension in the form of national allegory.”41 For the sake of my argument, the pertinence of Jameson’s thesis to the case of modern literature in Afghanistan can be seen not so much in its obviously sweeping argument that “[a]ll third-world texts are necessarily . . . allegorical, and [are] to be read as . . . national allegories,” but rather in its insightful accentuation that “the story of the private individual destiny is always an allegory of the embattled situation of the public third-world culture and society.”42 Equally significantly, in a move away from the conventional meaning of the term “allegory,” he defines allegory as “an elaborate set of figures and personifications to be read against some one-to-one table of equivalences: that is, so to speak, as a one-dimensional view of this signify- ing process.”43 For my discussion of modern literature in Afghanistan, I find Jameson’s revisiting of the term allegory regarding “Third-World” literatures to be especially apposite. An “allegorical” reading of the nation, then, would not necessarily mean that one is dealing with the over-abundance of the idea of the nation in literature in some overtly simplistic, directly expressivist, purely doctrinal, and ideologically dogmatic forms (although plenty such works do exist in the literature of Afghanistan). Rather, “the allegorical spirit is [or can be] pro- foundly discontinuous, a matter of breaks and heterogeneities, of the mul- tiple polysemia of the dream rather than the homogeneous representation of the symbol.”44 With such a view of allegory in mind, I contend that modern literature in Afghanistan can indeed be read as an allegory, an allegory, however, that is “national”—because it imagines and narrates the national community/society of modernity—but is also, in a strict sense, profoundly “political.” It is precisely this latter sense that presents a substantial ground of distinction between the officially sanctioned delineation of the nation (as a conventional allegory) prescribed by the dominant state and inculcated by its affiliated cultural institutions and the imagination of the nation as a deeply political allegory as part of an overall critical/oppositional project. Despite their broad consensus as national allegories the two forms are to be dis- tinguished by their anomalous, incompatible envisioning of the nation of modernity. Such a differentiation is significant for it reveals that, in its ambivalent position vis-à-vis Western hegemonic imperialism and residues of colonial incursions, the Afghan cultural encounter with modernity has indeed been allegorizing “the embattled situation” of contemporary Afghan society in its complex relations to the dominant form(s) of modern polity.

The principle of aesthetic purposiveness The allegorization of the Afghan nation propagated by the ruling state con- veyed an overwhelmingly strategic position: to impinge upon the nation a 10 Introduction form of imagination that legitimated the hegemonic designs of a state intent on expanding the paradigm of its domination and governance through devi- sing a union of “citizens” rather than pure “subjects.” To portend that such a collectivity derives its power and legitimacy, at least theoretically, from the “people,” the state wished to dominate the propagation of the nation, the mapping of its identity, the delineation of its language(s), the construction of its shared historical memory, and the constitution of its future destiny. Its monopoly over the implementation of development programs enabled the state to establish and effectively control modern schools, universities, teacher training colleges, cultural centers, literary associations, historical institutes, archeological departments, publication houses, scholarly journals, seminars, conferences, symposia, etc. As a result of these modernizing steps in the twentieth century, Afghanistan witnessed the exceeding expansion of an educated elite, most of whom subscribed to the state’s official views of the nation. In the meantime, the state attempted to subordinate, or at least manage, potentially different readings of the nation, to manipulate alterna- tive processes of national allegorization. This move would require the use of the educational and cultural reservoir at its disposal in capitalizing its claim of intellectual and moral leadership. After all, at least within the time frame analyzed in this study, the intellectuals in Afghanistan did not constitute an entity independent of the state but were actually practical employees and salaried functionaries of the state. Theoretically, the fact that an overwhelm- ing majority of the emergent intellectuals were products of, and absorbed by, state institutions should have enabled the state and its ruling elites to exercise at least some form of hegemonic leadership. From the start, however, the project pursued by the state suffered from a number of structural deficiencies and historical anomalies. In the early decades of the twentieth century—especially during the reign of the “enlight- ened” Sha¯h Ama¯n Alla¯h in the 1920s—the discourse of modernity was dom- inated by calls to salvage the decrepit nation and thrust the backward society forward on a new, culturally advanced and economically developed phase. The ruling state and the emergent intellectuals found themselves in tacit agreement that only the institution of the state was sufficiently capable of formulating tangible modern development and introducing social change in Afghanistan. It appears that they both saw the state as essential in construct- ing the imaginative trajectory of the nation in conjunction with the cultivation of a broad, comprehensive civil society. In the subsequent decades (during the Musa¯hiba¯n dynastic rule, 1929–1978), the concerns and visions of the intellectuals radically and widely diverged from those pursued by the state. This period saw not only the appearance of a group of educated elites who, by and large, subscribed to the state cultural agenda and proposed gradual change within existing political structures, it also saw the development of an exceeding number of intellectuals—poets, writers, artists, publicists, pamph- leteers, and, to a large extent, teachers, scholars, and academics—who increasingly contended that the actual existing state, with its capitalization Introduction 11 of authoritarian rule, had hardly proven itself an effective instrument of realizing genuine modernity and promoting civil society. Rather, through its development schemes of limited scope and increasingly diminishing impact, it made Afghanistan a miserable case of protracted belatedness in incorpor- ating modernity, where no effective public sphere could operate and no civil society be achieved. In their contentious and adversarial encounter vis-à-vis the dominant state, intellectuals, therefore, could be described in terms no less than dissident, oppositional, and resistant. Throughout most of the twentieth century, the dominant Afghan state was ever determined to exercise its prerogative to silence and subjugate dissident intellectuals. In their resisting the coercive measures taken by the state, the intellectuals, in their part as a potent social movement, advocated nothing short of a radical cultural agenda that meant the inevitable involve- ment of all forms of cultural and literary production in politics, in order to bring about comprehensive social change and propel the nation forward towards what they considered “genuine” modernity. It was their under- standing of modernity, both as a social and economic phenomenon as well as a fundamentally cultural-political project, that made their modernizing efforts so vastly different from those of the dominant state. The social responsibility of the intellectuals (in the case of the present study, primarily poets and writers of fiction) inevitably involved their commitment to the evolution of a purposive aesthetics that was principally engaged with the development of the nation and the state or, more precisely, the political formation of the nation-state—the ever paradigmatic hyphenated structure that, as a quintessentially disciplinary institution, has overwhelmed the domain of politics and public authority in modernity and cast its long shadow over the sphere of literature and culture. But what could be considered genuine modernity? For most of the intel- lectuals who were dissatisfied with the modernizing efforts of the state, genuine modernity consisted of expanding the modern culture to the vast number of ordinary masses in society leading to the empowerment, collective agency, and social awareness of the “people” or the “masses” (mardum, khalq, tudah). The true function of the modern polity should be the inculca- tion of a cultural revolution, to awaken the “people” from their historical lethargy, to revitalize them not simply through gradual improvement of their material circumstances or further Westernization, but through the genuine transformation of their ossified consciousness; in short, to make them aware of themselves-as-their-own-true-selves. Nothing short of such a transformative act would constitute genuine modernity. Nowhere did the discourse of the people and the aim of enlightening the masses to push them forward on the progressive track of historical devel- opment come to prominence more elaborately than in the field of literary production, where a whole range of oppositional and subversive literatures flourished. Literary writing became the sine qua non of intellectual practice and the poet and writer as intellectual identified his/her own omniscient 12 Introduction subject with the absolute subject of history. Thus, Afghan literature of mod- ernity has been paradigmatically inundated, implicitly or explicitly, with the flowing idea of a predestined telos of historical progress. Modern literature, in order to contribute to the process of social transformation and change, is supposed to serve as an instrument in fulfilling a cultural as well as a political agenda: to assume a socially practical function, to convey objec- tive historical facts, to express progressive principles—in short, to turn essentially teleological.45 Therefore, with such a view of literary function, throughout most of the twentieth century, the emphasis on an authorial sub- ject—who was, all at once, the same as the authoritative subject—clearly meant that rhetorical techniques and stylistic innovations in modern litera- ture were often ignored, concealed, or undermined, although the principle of formal autonomy of the aesthetic field was never abandoned within the poetics of determinacy. The function of literature and the responsibility of the intellectual, who was supposed to possess superior subjective capacity and agency, were to reintroduce the people as the true actors on the arena of history, the undeniable subjects (rather than the passive objects) of social change and political transformation. As the chapters of the present book attempt to make clear, in Afghanistan, at least until the late 1970s, the role of literature—and cultural production in general—in engendering and envisioning this transformation had been momentous.

Purposiveness in fragments Until the latter part of the 1970s, the principle of aesthetic purposiveness, in conjunction with the transmission of radical political ideologies, pervaded the texture of modern literary texts in Afghanistan. As the chapters that follow show, the view that the literary-aesthetic domain should be engaged with socio-political factors and historical context had been predicated, con- sciously or unconsciously, on the base-superstructure dualistic paradigm propagated by traditional Marxist criticism.46 This paradigm employed a certain kind of causality in defining relations between the social reality and the form(s) of literature, a view which assumed that literature is determined by the socio-economic conditions in which it is produced and which it, in its part, reproduces through authentic “verisimilar,” “mimetic,” and “reflect- ive” representation. As part of the ambivalent relationship of the “Third- World” writer and poet in embodying literary modernity, the writers and poets of Afghanistan tended to transcend the sociologism inherent in the above model and inject into it a profoundly political, “utopian” worldview. Thus, literature not only reflects reality, it reflects upon reality. In other words, literature draws from the existing reality but never fails to envision an ideal reality, the realization of which may be, ironically, perpetually deferred. That is precisely why genres that were more conducive to the notion of linguistic transparence and proved capacious enough to incorporate litera- ture’s commitment to convey an explicit doctrine or a “message”—such Introduction 13 as social(ist) realism in fiction and revolutionary populist romanticism in poetry—assumed a canonical position until the late 1970s. By this period, however, partly in response to the excessive interest in literature’s didactic function, the epistemological foundation of the revolutionary-romantic tradition of poetry was destabilized and the representational modes and mechanisms of the social(ist)-realistic narrative unraveled. From a literary- historical perspective, this move to transcend the hitherto dominant bound- aries of the literature/politics conjunction signaled the unveiling of an inherently ideological crisis of the poetics of determinacy and the resultant paradigm of aesthetics purposiveness. In poetry, for instance, experimental attempts were made not only to go beyond the conventions of traditional Persian poetry, but perceptible breaks were also made with the now estab- lished practice of “New Poetry” (shi
r-i naw) that had been introduced earlier in Afghanistan through the writings of the Iranian poet N¯ıma¯ Yu¯ sh¯ıj. The pinnacle of the social(ist)-realistic fiction, too, coincided with the conception of the first tangible seeds of a modernist, experimentalist literature and the start of a conscious effort in part of a small “avant-garde” group of writers to transcend the domain of authorial/authoritative and representational subjectivity. Under the shattering effects of a succession of traumatic events of unprece- dented historical proportion—namely the “communist” revolution of April 1978, years of devastating Soviet occupation and proxy wars, a most uncivil “civil war,” and the incessant violence of the Taliban rule—fundamental changes in the composition of the modalities of power occurred in Afghani- stan. Throughout most of the twentieth century, as a remedy to cover up its own structural deficiencies, the Afghan state had at least attempted to appear to be an effective agency managing “the conduct of conduct,” that is, a gouvernement, in the particular sense meant by Michel Foucault who sought to explain modernity (“our present”) not so much in the sense of “the statization [étatisation] of society” than as “the ‘governmentalization’ of the state.”47 With the “communist” seizure of power and the subsequent Soviet intervention in December 1979, the state fast turned into (what the philosopher and critic Achille Mbembe has called in the context of the post- colonial polity in contemporary Africa) a regime of commandement. In the new regime, more than ever before, “[p]ower was reduced to the right to demand, to force, to ban, to compel, to authorize, to punish, to reward, to be obeyed—in short, to enjoin and to direct. The key characteristic of [‘communist’] rule was thus to issue orders and have them carried out.”48 Above all, after the “communist” military coup, the discourse of aesthetic purposiveness and literary commitment, which had long constituted the proper cultural project of counter-establishment oppositional intellectuals, was at once co-opted and converted into the now dominant discourse of the “revolutionary” state. With the imposition of an all-encompassing, rigid doctrine of cultural and literary production, the conception of experiment- ing with novel literary forms, genres, and themes that had started to take 14 Introduction shape in the latter part of the 1970s came to an end. New literary move- ments had to turn subterranean in the face of the ascendance of a dogmatic doctrine of “revolutionary” aesthetics championed by the newly founded state-supported Writers’ Union (Ittiha¯diyah-i Nivı¯sandaga¯n). Thus, during the 1980s, the poetic was to be completely subordinated to the political, and literature was to be subsumed officially as an absolute ancillary of the dom- inant state ideology. A crude form of “literature-of-and-for-the party” was officially propagated and alternative forms of literary expression (particu- larly modernist interventions) were systematically discarded, debunked, or at least criticized and discouraged. As far as the literary-cultural sphere was concerned, a closer reading of the officially endorsed literature of the 1980s clearly demonstrates that “[t]he signs, vocabulary, and narratives that the commandement produces are meant not merely to be symbols; they are officially invested with a surplus of meanings that are not negotiable and that one is officially forbidden to depart from or challenge.”49 Ironically, such an aesthetic was replicated, albeit in an inverted form, in the “resistance” literature that used to be overtly sympathetic towards the “anti-communist” opposition, the so-called Muja¯hid¯ın “freedom fighters.” In addition to attempting to silence the adversary, even by resorting to “the systematic application of pain,” both sides were actively inventing entire constellations of contrasting ideas and adopted distinct sets of powerful cultural repertoires that, as predominantly monologic and monoaccentual discursive orders, were meant not just to overwhelm the vast expanse of the cultural field but also to totally shatter the sign, and completely subdue the voice of the “other” from accentuating itself. In these trying circumstances, in a curious way, modernist and experi- mentalist literature that had emerged but not effloresced during the 1970s, re-engaged many poets and writers—albeit in a subversive, subterranean manner—inside Afghanistan and, as part of the increasing diasporic litera- ture, in exile. The context of its production, however, convinced its practi- tioners to turn ever more modernist and experimental and explore new rhetorical devices. Such a conscious move signified the disillusionment of the intellectuals with the overtly political and openly ideological literature of their times, but it did not necessarily mean the dismantling of the prin- ciples of purposive and committed literature that had long dominated twentieth-century literary discourses. It meant, however, the destabilization of fundamental premises of the hitherto dominant paradigm of mimetic, representational fiction as well as romantic, heroic poetry. What is significant is that, precisely in such a crucial historical juncture, defined by social crises, political rivalry, and revolutionary change—where the survivability of Afghanistan as a nation-state became a question of para- mount importance, and the intellectuals and literati have encountered pro- found despair and disillusionment—it is literature that embodies, to use Bakhtinian terms, the kernel of its “inner dialectic quality” and “maintains Introduction 15 its vitality and dynamism and the capacity for further development.”50 In the experience of literary modernity in Afghanistan, in the gradual (almost paradigmatic) redirection of the course of literary creativity, one can, per- haps for the first time, speak of multiaccentuality of literature. What can be said with a fair degree of certainty is that, while in the realm of “the Real,” the traumatic events of the recent past have made visions of an Ideal- symbolic future appear perhaps like an outlandish landscape of pure utopia, in the literary-aesthetic field—at the level of narrative, concept, metaphor, or simile, where “real” social conflicts and contradictions are resolved— “anticipatory” utopic visions still survive.51 Such visions are fundamentally subsumed by the historical situation that gives the work of literature its ideological coherence but also provides the conditions of its deconstruction. History has been reconfigured, but it has not turned into a “subject-less” discursive trope. It still remains integral to literary representation, although not as a traditional totality, but as a deterministic “grand narrative.” It is in the nebulous space between politics and poetics, between society and aes- thetics, between History and history that the genuine modernity of Afghan literature and culture perpetually radiates itself, now dimly, now brilliantly, yet constantly retaining its margins of critical possibility by transforming and changing itself. As the present study shows, now more than ever, the aesthetic experience of modernism resists turning into a reified, sclerotic gesture; it is rather engaged in continuing formal innovations and social application—a dialectic moment of imagination and production charac- terized by literature’s ultimate potential towards the realization of a progressive, emancipatory, and ever critical praxis. Bibliography

Abdali, Fahima. “The Sawr Revolution and Revolutionary Literature in Afghani- stan.” Afghanistan Quarterly 36, no. 1 (Spring 1983): 70–76. Adamec, Ludwig W. Afghanistan’s Foreign Affairs to the Mid-Twentieth Century. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1974. A¯ damiyat, Far¯ıdu¯ n. And¯ıshah ha¯-i M¯ırza¯ A¯ qa¯ Kha¯n Kirma¯n¯ı (The Ideas of M¯ırza¯ A¯ qa¯ Kha¯n Kirma¯n¯ı). Tehran: Kita¯bkha¯nah-i Tahu¯ r¯ı, 1357/1979. Adorno, Theodor W. Aesthetic Theory. Ed. Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedermann. Trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. Afand¯ı,
Abd al-Qa¯dir. Tasv¯ır-i
Ibrat (A Cautionary tale). Madras, India: n. p., 1300/ 1922. A¯ hang, Muhammad Ka¯zim. Sayr-i Journalism dar Afghanistan (The Evolution of journalism in Afghanistan). Rev. ed. Kabul: Kita¯b-kha¯nah-i Saba¯, 1383/2004. Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. New York and London: Verso, 1992. Ahmadi, Wali. “Exclusionary Poetics: Approaches to the Afghan ‘Other’ in Con- temporary Iranian Literary Discourse.” Iranian Studies 37, no. 3 (2004): 407–429. ——. “Ruma¯n-i tar¯ıkh¯ı dar Iran” (Historical novel in Iran). Iran Namah 21, nos. 1–2 (2003): 185–202. Akbar, Isma¯
¯ıl. “Matbu
a¯t va Rushanfikra¯n” (The Press and the intellectuals). Durr-i Dar¯ı 2, no. 6–7 (1377/1999): 41–52. A¯ ju¯ da¯n¯ı, Masha¯  Alla¯h. Ya¯ Marg Ya¯ Tajaddud: Daftari dar Shi
r va Adab-i Mashr- u¯ tah (Either modernity or death: on the poetry and literature of the Consti- tutional era). Tehran: Akhtara¯n, 1282/2003.
A¯ lamsha¯h¯ı, Muhammad Ibra¯h¯ım Kha¯n. Sha¯m-i Ta¯r¯ık, Subh-i Rushan (Dark evening, bright morning). Reprinted ed. Kabul: Intisha¯ra¯t-i Kum¯ıtah-i Dawlat¯ı, 1367/1988. Al-Azmeh, Aziz. Islams and Modernities. London and New York: Verso, 1993. Ama¯n Alla¯h, Sha¯h. Ha¯kimiyat-i Qa¯nu¯ n dar Afghanistan (The Rule of law in Afghanistan). Ed. Hab¯ıb Alla¯h Raf¯ı
. Peshawar: n.p., 1999. Am¯ın, Haf¯ız Alla¯h. “Text of the Speech.” Afghanistan Quarterly 32, no. 1 (Spring 1979): 1–35. Anderson, Benedict. The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the World. London and New York: Verso, 1998. ——. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Rev. ed. London: Verso, 1991. 170 Bibliography An¯ıs, Muhyi al-D¯ın. Nida¯-i Talabah-i Ma
a¯rif ya¯ Huqu¯ q-i Millat (The Call of the pursuers of education or the rights of the nation). Herat: Matba
ah-i Huru¯ f¯ı, 1302/1924. Reprinted in Nukhust¯ın Da¯sta¯n ha¯-i Mu
a¯sir-i Dar¯ı. Ed. Farid Bezhan. Kabul: Matba
ah-i Dawlat¯ı, 1367/1988: 80–191. ——. “Fann-i Qissah” (The Craft of fiction). In Nasr-i Dar¯ı Afghanistan: S¯ı Qissah (Dari prose literature in Afghanistan: thirty stories). Ed.
Al¯ı Razav¯ı-Ghaznav¯ı. Tehran: Bunya¯d-i Farhang-i Iran, 1357/1978: 37–79. ——. Buhra¯n va Naja¯t (Crisis and salvation). Kabul: An¯ıs Publications, 1930. Anu¯ shah, Hasan and Haf¯ız Alla¯h Shar¯ı
at¯ı, ed. Afghanistan dar Ghurbat (Afghanistan in exile). Tehran: Nas¯ım-i Bukha¯ra¯, 1382/2003. Arghand, Babrak. Pahlava¯n Mura¯d va Aspi ki As¯ıl Nabu¯ d (The Horseman Mura¯d and the horse that was not noble). Holland: Intisha¯ra¯t-i Ayendah, 1383/2005. ——. Marja¯n. Kabul: Viza¯rat-i Ittila¯
a¯t va Farhang, 1369/1990. ——. “Tak Marm¯ı” (A Single bullet). Zhivandu¯ n 1, no. 1 (1361/1982): 82–86. A¯ ryanpu¯ r, Yahya¯. Az Saba¯ ta¯ N¯ıma¯ (From Saba¯ to N¯ıma¯). Vol. 1. Tehran: Kita¯b ha¯-i J¯ıb¯ı, 1354/1975.
A¯ s¯ı, Qaha¯r. Az A¯ tash az Bar¯ısham (From fire, from silk). Ed. Aya¯m Barak¯ı. Slovakia: n.p., 1995. A¯ zarakhsh, Sarvar. A¯ va¯r-i Shab (The Night load). Peshawar: Saba¯, 1376/1997. Ba¯ba¯-Ku¯ h¯ı, Zalmay. “Kha¯k-i But” (Dust of the statue). Naqd va Arma¯n 12 & 13 (Autumn 2000–Spring 2001): 12–25. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. The Dialogic Imagination. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980. Balaÿ, Christophe. La genèse du roman persan moderne. Tehran: Institut français de recherché en Iran, 1998. —— and Michel Cuypers. Aux sources de la nouvelle persane. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1983. Balibar, Etienne. “The Nation Form: History and Ideology.” In Becoming National: A Reader. Ed. Geoff Eley and Ronald Grigor Suny. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 132–150. Balkh¯ı, Sayyid Isma¯
¯ıl. D¯ıva¯n-i
Alla¯mah-i Shah¯ıd Sayyid Isma¯
¯ıl Balkh¯ı (Collected poems of
Alla¯mah Balkh¯ı). Ed. Sayyid H.
Alav¯ınizhad and Sayyid M. Ha¯shim¯ı. Mashhad: Nashr-i Sunbulah/ Markaz-i Muta¯li
a¯t va Tahq¯ıqa¯t-i
Alla¯mah Balkh¯ı, 1381/2002. Ba¯riq-Shaf¯ı
¯ı. “Murgh-i A¯ tash” (Phoenix). Zhivandu¯ n 3, no. 3 (1363/1984): 45–46. Beard, Michael. Hedayat’s Blind Owl as a Western Novel. Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1990. Bennett, Robert. “National Allegory or Carnivalesque Heteroglossia? Midnight’s Children’s Narration of Indian Identity.” In Bakhtin and the Nation. Ed. Barry A. Brown, et al. Lewisburg, Penn: Bucknell University Press, 2000: 177–194. Bennett, Tony. Outside Literature. London and New York: Routledge, 1990. Berman, Marshall. All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. New York: Penguin, 1988. Bezhan, Farid. “Hafta¯d Sa¯l Da¯sta¯nparda¯z¯ı Nav¯ın dar Afghanistan” (Seventy years of modern fiction writing in Afghanistan). In Adabiya¯t-i Mu
a¯sir-i Dar¯ı Afghanistan (Contemporary Dari literature in Afghanistan). Ed. Shar¯ıf Husain Qa¯sm¯ı. Delhi: Bakhsh-i Fa¯rs¯ı Da¯nishga¯h-i Dihli, 1994: 123–146. ——, ed. Nakhust¯ın Da¯sta¯n ha¯-i Mu
a¯sir-i Dar¯ı Afghanistan (Early modern Dari fiction in Afghanistan). Kabul: Matba
ah-i Dawlat¯ı, 1367/1988. Bibliography 171 B¯ıdil Dihlav¯ı,
Abd al-Qa¯dir. Kulliya¯t. 4 vols. Ed. Khal¯ıl Alla¯h Khal¯ıl¯ı. Kabul: Viza¯rat-i Ma
a¯rif, 1341–1344/1962–1965. Bisha¯rat, Farha¯d, et. al. Zaru¯ rat-i Huzu¯ r-i Communism dar Afghanistan (The Neces- sity of communism in Afghanistan). Köln: Hizb-i Communist-i Ka¯rgar¯ı Iran, 1997. B¯ıta¯b,
Abd al-Haqq. Gufta¯r-i Rava¯n dar
Ilm-i Baya¯n (A Lucid discourse on [Persian] rhetoric). Kabul: Da¯nishga¯h-i Kabul, 1346/1967. Blaut, James M. The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History. New York: Guilford, 2000. Bloch, Ernst. The Principle of Hope. Trans. Neville Plaice, Stephen Plaice, and Paul Knight. Vol. 1. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986. Boroujerdi, Mehrzad. Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996. Brennan, Timothy. “The National Longing for Form.” In Nation and Narration. Ed. Homi K. Bhabha. London: Routledge, 1990: 44–70. Bürger, Peter. Theory of the Avant-Garde. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Calinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity. Durham: Duke University Press, 1987. Caute, David. The Illusion: An Essay on Politics, Theatre, and the Novel. New York: Harper, 1971. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Chaliand, Gérard. Report from Afghanistan. Trans. Tamar Jacoby. New York: Penguin, 1982. Chandhoke, Neera. The Conceits of Civil Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003. Chatterjee, Partha. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Dis- course. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. Chaturvedi, Vinayak, ed. Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial. London: Verso, 2000. Cheah, Pheng and Jonathan Culler, ed. Grounds of Comparison: Around the Work of Benedict Anderson. New York: Routledge, 2003. Childs, Peter. Modernism. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Clark, Katerina. The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual. 3rd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. Clinton, Jerome. “Shams-i Qays on the Nature of Poetry.” Edebiyat, n.s. 1, no. 2 (1989): 101–128. Culler, Jonathan. “Anderson and the Novel,” Diacrtics 29, no. 4 (1999): 19–39. Dasta¯n,
A. K. “
Irfa¯n, A¯ za¯dand¯ısh¯ı, va Farhang-i Democratic” (Mysticism, Free- Thinking, and Democratic Culture). Kankash 7 (Winter 1991): 237–244. Davis, Lennard J. “A Social History of Fact and Fiction: Authorial Disavowal in the Early English Novel.” In Literature and Society. Ed. Edward W. Said. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980: 120–148. Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophre- nia. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Dupree, Louis. Afghanistan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and Literary Criticism. London: Methuen, 1976. Editorial. “Ma¯hiyat-i Farhang va Farhang-i Muqa¯vvamat” (The essence of culture and the culture of resistance). Ga¯h-na¯mah 2 (1985): 1–4. 172 Bibliography Edwards, David B. Before Taliban: Genealogies of the Afghan Jihad. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. ——. Heroes of the Age: Moral Fault Lines on the Afghan Frontier. Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press, 1996. Fakhr¯ı, Husayn. Shukara¯n dar Sa¯tg¯ın-i Surkh (Poison in a red goblet). Peshawar: Maiwand, 1378/1999. ——. Da¯sta¯n ha¯ va D¯ıdga¯h ha¯ (Stories and perspectives). Peshawar: Intisha¯ra¯t-i Jayha¯n¯ı, 1374/1995. ——. “Dar Changa¯l-i Duzhkh¯ım” (In the Claws of the executioner). Zhivandu¯ n 3, no. 2 (1363/1985): 64–68. Falak¯ı, Mahmu¯ d. Niga¯h-i ba Shi
r-i N¯ıma¯ (A Glance at Nima’s poetry). Tehran: Murva¯r¯ıd, 1373/1994. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Trans. Constance Farrington. New York: Grove Press, 1968. Farhang, M¯ır Muhammad Sidd¯ıq. Afghanistan dar Panj Qarn-i Akh¯ır (Afghanistan during the past five centuries). 2 vols. 2nd ed. Tehran:
Irfa¯n, 1380/2001. Fischer, Ernst. The Necessity Of Art: A Marxist Approach. Trans. Anna Bostock. New York: Penguin Books, 1963. Fleishman, Avrom. The English Historical Novel: Walter Scott to Virginia Woolf. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971. Foucault, Michel. The Essential Foucault: Selections from the Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984. Ed. Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose. New York and London: New Press, 2003. Futu¯ h¯ı, Mahmu¯ d. Naqd-i Khiya¯l: Naqd-i Adab¯ı dar Sabk-i Hind¯ı (Criteria of imagination: literary criticism in the Indian Style). Tehran: Ru¯ zga¯r, 1379/2000. Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar. “On Alternative Modernities.” In Alternative Mod- ernities. Ed. Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar. Durham: Duke University Press, 2001: 1–18. George, Olakunle. Relocating Agency: Modernity and African Letter. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003. Gharghasht, Muhammad Na¯sir. “Sarguzasht-i An¯ıs” (An¯ıs’s adventures). In Kita¯b-i Sa¯l-i An¯ıs (The An¯ıs Yearbook). Ed. Muhammad Bash¯ır Raf¯ıq. Kabul: An¯ıs Publications, 1345/1966: 31–52. Ghuba¯r, M¯ır Ghula¯m Muhammad. Afghanistan dar Mas¯ır-i Tar¯ıkh (Afghanistan in the path of history). Vol. 2. Alexandria, Virginia: n. p., 1999. ——. Afghanistan dar Mas¯ır-i Tar¯ıkh (Afghanistan in the path of history). Vol. 1. Kabul: Matba
ah-i Dawlat¯ı, 1346/1968. Ghula¯m, Muhammad. Ruma¯n-i Tar¯ıkh¯ı: Sayr va Naqd va Tahl¯ıl-i Ruma¯n ha¯-i Ta r¯ıkh¯ı Fa¯rs¯ı 1284–1332 (The Historical novel: evolution, critique, and analysis of Persian historical novels 1906–1953). Tehran: Chashmah, 1380/2001. Gibbs, David. “The Peasant as Counter-Revolutionary: The Rural Origins of the Afghan Insurgency.” Studies in Comparative International Development 21, no.1 (Spring 1986): 36–59. Giddens, Anthony. The Nation-State and Violence: Volume Two of A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Polity, 1985. Giustozzi, Antonio. War, Politics, and Society in Afghanistan 1978–1992. Washing- ton, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000. Gorky, Maxim. On Literature: Selected Articles. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publication House, 1960. Bibliography 173 Gregorian, Vartan. The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969. Gross, David. The Past in Ruins: Tradition and the Critique of Modernity. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992. Hab¯ıb, Asad Alla¯h. Vida¯
ba¯ Ta¯r¯ık¯ı: Suru¯ dah-ha¯-i az D¯ıru¯ z va Imru¯ z (Farewell to darkness: poems from yesterday and today). Kabul: Intisha¯ra¯t-i Kum¯ıtah-i Dawlat¯ı, 1354/1985. ——. “Niga¯h-i Tar¯ıkh¯ı bar Adabiya¯t-i Mu
a¯sir-i Dar¯ı” (A Historical glance at contemporary Dari literature). Salna¯mah-i Afghanistan (Afghanistan Yearbook). Kabul: Matba
ah-i Dawlat¯ı, 1359/1980: 949–1024. ——. Sap¯ıd Anda¯m (Marble body). Kabul: Mud¯ıriyat-i
Umum¯ı Tashv¯ıq-i Asa¯r va Hunar, 1345/1966. ——. Sih Muzdu¯ r (Three laborers). Kabul: Matba
ah-i Dawlat¯ı, 1344/1965. Hab¯ıb, Qad¯ır. Zam¯ın (The Land). Kabul: Ittiha¯diyah-i Nivisandaga¯n, 1364/1985. Hab¯ıb¯ı,
Abd al-Hayy. Junbish-i Mashru¯ tiyat dar Afghanistan (The Constitutional movement in Afghanistan). Rep. ed. Washington, DC: Sa¯zma¯n-i Muha¯jir¯ın-i Musalma¯n-i Afghanistan, 1364/1986. ——. “Ta r¯ıkhchah-i B¯ıda¯r¯ı-i Siya¯s¯ı dar Afghanistan” (A Brief history of political awakening in Afghanistan), A¯ za¯d Afghanistan, 15 Hu¯ t 1330 (March 1951). Ha¯ ir¯ı,
Abd al-Ha¯d¯ı. A¯ za¯d¯ı ha¯-i Siya¯s¯ı va Ijtima¯
¯ı az D¯ıdga¯h-i And¯ıshagara¯n (Political and social liberties from the points of view of (some) thinkers). Mashhad: Jiha¯d-i Da¯nishga¯h¯ı, 1374/1996. Hall, Stuart. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” In Identity, Community, Culture, Dif- ference. Ed. Jonathan Rutherford. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990: 222–237. Halliday, Fred. “War and Revolution in Afghanistan.” New Left Review 119 (January–February 1980): 20–41. Ham¯ıd, Ham¯ıd. “Ya¯d-da¯sht ha¯-i dar Ba¯rah-i
Irfa¯n-i Ijtima¯
¯ı” (Notes on the Concept of “Social Myticism”). Kankash: A Persian Journal of History and Politics 7 (Winter 1991): 211–236. Ha¯mid, Sami
. Bugza¯r Shab Ham¯ıshah Bima¯nad (Let the night last forever). Pesha- war, Kita¯b-kha¯nah-i Saba¯, 1377/1998. Ham¯ıdia¯n, Sa
¯ıd. Da¯sta¯n-i D¯ıgard¯ıs¯ı (The Account of a transformation). Tehran: N¯ılu¯ far, 1381/2002. Harrison, David. The Sociology of Modernization and Development. London: Unwin Hyman, 1988. Hentsch, Thierry. Imagining the Middle East. Trans. Fred A. Reed. Montreal and New York: Black Rose, 1992. Herder, Johann Gottfried. Reflections on the Philosophy of History of Mankind. Ed. Frank E. Manuel. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Himmat, Muhammad Musa¯. Payma¯nah: Da¯sta¯n ha¯-i az Niv¯ısandaga¯n-i Mu
a¯sir (The Goblet: stories from contemporary writers). Kabul: Muassisah-i Cha¯p va Nashr-i Kutub, 1342/1964. Hobsbawm, Eric. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hourani, Albert. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age 1798–1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Hutcheon, Linda. “‘Circling the Downspout of Empire’: Post-Colonialism and Postmodernism.” Ariel: A Review of International English Literature 20, no. 4 (1989): 149–175. 174 Bibliography Hutchins, Francis G. The Illusion of Permanence: British Imperialism in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. Jameson, Fredric. A Singular Modernity: Essays on the Ontology of the Present. London: Verso, 2002. ——. “Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism.” Social Text 15 (1986): 65–88. ——. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981. JanMohamed, Abdul R. Manichean Aesthetics: The Politics of Literature in Colonial Africa. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1983. Jawrkash, Sha¯pu¯ r. Bu¯ t¯ıqa¯-i Shi
r-i Naw (The Poetics of modern poetry). Tehran: Qaqnu¯ s, 1383/2004. Johnson, Chris and Jolyon Leslie. Afghanistan: The Mirage of Peace. London and New York: Zed, 2004. Jones, Ann. Kabul in Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan. New York: Metropolitan, 2006. Jusdanis, Gregory. The Necessary Nation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. ——. Belated Modernity and Aesthetic Culture: Inventing National Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991. Kahdu¯ ¯ı, Muhammad Ka¯zim, ed. Adabiya¯t-i Afghanistan dar Adva¯r-i Qad¯ımah (The Literature of Afghanistan in the earlier times). Selections from the Da¯ irat al-Ma
a¯rif-i Arya¯na¯ (The Arya¯na¯ encyclopedia). Tehran: Al-Huda¯, 1384/ 2005. Kaiwar, Vasant and Sucheta Mazumdar. “Race, Orient, Nation in the Time-Space of Modernity.” In Antinomies of Modernity: Essays on Race, Orient, Nation. Ed. Vasant Kaiwar and Sucheta Mazumdar. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003: 261–298. Kakar, M. Hasan. Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response 1979–1982. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Kakar, Hasan Kawun. Government and Society in Afghanistan: The Reign of Amir Abd al-Rahman Khan. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979. Karimi-Hakkak, Ahmad and Kamran Talattof, ed. Essays on Nima Yushij: Animating Modernism in Persian Poetry. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Karimi-Hakkak, Ahmad. Recasting Persian Poetry: Scenarios of Poetic Modernity in Iran. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1995. Ka¯zim¯ı, Muhammad Ka¯zim. Hamzaba¯n¯ı va B¯ızaba¯n¯ı (On Sharing a language but being unable to express it). Tehran:
Irfa¯n, 1382/2003. Khal¯ıl¯ı, Khal¯ıl Alla¯h. Kulliya¯t-i Ash
a¯r (Collection of poetry). Ed.
Abd al-Hayy Khura¯sa¯n¯ı. Tehran: Nashr-i Balkh, 1378/1999. ——. D¯ıva¯n (Collected works). Ed. Ibra¯h¯ım Shar¯ı
at¯ı. Tehran:
Irfa¯n, 1378/1999. Khusraw, Kha¯lid. “Vaz
iyat-i Zidd-i Adabiya¯t” (The Anti-literature situation). Parniya¯n 1, no. 2 (Summer 1383/2004): 71–73. Khwa¯jah-za¯dah. “Ru¯ z-i Sivum-i Hu¯ t-i 58” (The Uprising of 23 November 1978). Ga¯h-na¯mah 2 (1985): 5–10. Kipling, Rudyard. The Man Who Would Be King and Other Stories. Ed. Louis Cornell. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Kolb, David. The Critique of Pure Modernity: Hegel, Heidegger, and After. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Bibliography 175 Kronfeld, Chana. On the Margins of Modernism: Decentering Literary Dynamics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Kuhbud (pseud.). “Junbish-i Muqa¯vvamat va Hunar” (The Resistance movement and the arts). Ga¯h-na¯mah 2 (1985): 14–24. Kurzman, Charles, ed. Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Laber, Jeri and Barnet Rubin. “A Nation Is Dying”: Afghanistan Under the Soviets 1979–1987. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1988. La¯ iq, Sulayma¯n. Ba¯dba¯n (Sail) Kabul: Matba
ah-i Ta
l¯ım va Tarbiyah, 1360/ 1982. La
lza¯d, Ghula¯m Muhammad. Shi
r-i Mu
a¯sir-i Dar¯ı dar Afghanistan (Contemporary Dari poetry in Afghanistan). Delhi: Bunya¯d-i Farhang va Tamaddun-i Afghanistan, 1998. Lane, Christopher. The Ruling Passion: British Colonial Allegory and the Paradox of Homosexual Desire. Durham: Duke University Press, 1995. Layoun, Mary N. Travels of A Genre: The Modern Novel and Ideology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Lazarus, Neil. “Fredric Jameson on ‘Third-World Literature’: A Qualified Defense.” In Fredric Jameson: A Critical Reader, ed. Sean Homer and Douglas Kellner. New York: Palgrave, 2004: 42–61. Leitch, Vincent B. Cultural Criticism, Literary Theory, Poststructuralism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Lloyd, David and Paul Thomas. Culture and the State. New York: Routledge, 1998. Ma¯ il-Hirav¯ı, Naj¯ıb. Ta r¯ıkh va Zaba¯n dar Afghanistan (History and language in Afghanistan). Tehran: Bunya¯d-i Mawqu¯ fa¯t-i Mahmu¯ d Afsha¯r, 1362/1983. Male, Beverley. Revolutionary Afghanistan: A Reappraisal. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982. Maley, William, ed. Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban. New York: New York University Press, 1998. Mamu¯ n, Razza¯q.
Asr-i Khudkush¯ı (Time of suicide). Peshawar: n.p., 1379/2000. Mara¯gha¯ı, Zayn al-
A¯ bid¯ın. Siya¯hatna¯mah-i Ibra¯h¯ım Bik (Travelogues of Ibra¯h¯ım Bik). Ed. Ba¯qir Mumin¯ı. Tehran: Nashr-i And¯ıshah, 1353/1974. Marx, Edward. “How We Lost Kafiristan.” Representations 67 (1999): 44–66. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Marx–Engels Reader. Ed. Robert Tucker. New York: Norton, 1978. Mawla¯ ¯ı, Muhammad Sarvar. “Ba Ya¯d-i Khal¯ıl Alla¯h Khal¯ıl¯ı” (In Memory of Khal¯ıl Alla¯h Khal¯ıl¯ı). Preface to Khal¯ıl¯ı, Khal¯ıl Alla¯h. D¯ıva¯n (Collected works). Ed. Ibra¯h¯ım Shar¯ı
at¯ı. Tehran:
Irfa¯n, 1378/1999: xxiii–xlvi. ——, ed. Barguz¯ıdah-i Shi
r-i Mu
a¯sir-i Afghanistan (Selections from contemporary poetry in Afghanistan). Tehran: Raz, 1350/1970. Mbembe, Achille. On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. McChesney, Robert D. Kabul Under Siege: Fayz Muhammad’s Account of the 1929 Uprising. Princeton: Markus Wiener, 1999. Metcalf, Thomas R. Aftermath of Revolt: India, 1857–1870. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964. Mihr¯ın, Muhammad Nas¯ır. Ya¯d-i az An¯ıs (In Memory of An¯ıs). Hamburg: n.p, 1377/ 1998. Milani, Abbas. Rethinking Modernity in Iran. Washington, DC: Mage, 2004. 176 Bibliography Milani, Abbas. Tajaddud va Tajaddud-sitı¯zı¯ dar Iran (Modernity and anti-modernity in Iran). Tehran: A¯ tiyah, 1378/1990. Mirsepassi, Ali. Intellectual Discourse and the Politics of Modernization: Negotiating Modernity in Iran. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Mı¯rza¯yiv, Sa¯bir and Pu¯ ya¯n, Sulta¯n. “Payvand-i Adabiya¯t-i Muttahahid ba¯ Falsafah-i Navı¯n” (The Conjunction of committed literature with modern [Marxist-Leninist] philosophy).
Irfan 62, nos. 11–12 (1363/1985): 85–94. Moran, Neil K. Kipling and Afghanistan. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2005. Moretti, Franco. “Conjectures on World Literature.” New Left Review 1 (2000): 54–68. Muwahhid-Balkhı¯, Sayyid Husayn. “Aknu¯ n ba ¯ın Su
a¯l biba¯yad Java¯b-i Naw” (Let us seek a new answer to this [old] question). Khatt-i Sivum 3–4 (Spring-Summer 1382/2003): 243–249. Nafici, Majid. Modernism and Ideology in Persian Literature: A Return to Nature in the Poetry of Nı¯ma¯ Yu¯ shı¯j. Lanham: University Press of America, 1997. Na¯ibı¯, Abdulla¯h. “Gu¯ nah-yi Barrası¯ az Zindagı¯ va Furu¯ pa¯shı¯ Hizb-i Democratic-i Khalq-i Afghanistan” (A Concise revaluation of the life and disintegration of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan). Ayenda 1, no. 1 (May 2000). Accessible online at: www.ayenda.org. ——. La Virginité du Feu: choix de peomes. Trans. Abdulla¯h Na¯ibı¯ and Bernard- Marie Garreau. Paris and Montreal: Harmattan, 1998. Najafı¯za¯dah, Haru¯ n. “Vaqti Ru¯ zna¯mah ha¯ az Ra¯h Narası¯dah Varshikast mı¯sha- vand” (When Newspapers go bankrupt before hitting the news-stands). In the Persian site of BBC (www.bbc.co.uk-BBCPersian.com), Sunday, April 2, 2006. Nawid, Senzil K. Religious Response to Social Change in Afghanistan, 1919–1929: King Aman Allah and the Afghan Ulama. Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda, 1999. Nawı¯sa¯, Kha¯lid. Bonjour, Douleur! Trans. Amir Moghni. Paris: Éditions de l’aube, 2003. ——. Tasavvura¯t-i Shab ha¯-i Buland (Vagaries of long nights). Peshawar: Kita¯b- kha¯nah-i Saba¯, 1378/1999. Na¯zimı¯, Latı¯f. Na¯zimı¯, Latı¯f. Ba¯d dar Fa¯nu¯ s (Wind in the lantern). München: n.p., 1991. ——. Sa¯yah va Murda¯b (The Shadow and the lagoon). Kabul: Anjuman-i Nivisand- aga¯n, 1365/1987. ——. “Ya¯d-da¯shti bar ¯ın Guzı¯nah” (A Note about a book of selected poetry), Preface to Azı¯z Asu¯ dah-Tahma¯s. Ashk-i Qarn (The Tear of Century). Kabul: Anjuman-i Nivisandaga¯n, 1366/1987: i–v. Ngu˜gı˜ wa Thiong
o. Penpoints, Gunpoints, and Dreams: Towards a Critical Theory of the Arts and the State in Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Nihuftah, Azı¯z Alla¯h. Khwa¯b-i Chashmah ha¯-i Subh (The Dream of morning springs). Peshawar: Sayyid Jama¯l al-Dı¯n, 1377/1999. Nı¯ksiyar, Abd al-Ghanı¯. “Fikrı¯-Salju¯ qı¯: Mu
arrikhi Nastu¯ h va Sha¯ iri Shiva¯ Kala¯m” (Fikrı¯-Salju¯ qı¯: an indefatiguable historian and capable poet), Paya¯m-i Ru¯ z 1, nos. 4–5 (April 2007). Panjshı¯rı¯, Dastgı¯r. “Adabiya¯t-i Dawra¯n-i Inqila¯b-i Sawr” (The Literature of the Sawr Revolution). Zhivandu¯ n 7, no. 1 (1367/1988): 28–36. Parsinejad, Iraj. A History of Literary Criticism in Iran 1866–1951. Bethesda, Maryland: IBEX Publishers, 2003. Paya¯m, Shafı¯q. Jashn-i Jina¯zah (The Funeral party). Kabul: Parniya¯n, 1384/1996. Bibliography 177 Pierson, Christopher. The Modern State. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. Poullada, Leon B. Reform and Rebellion in Afghanistan, 1919–1929: King Amanul- lah’s Failure to Modernize a Tribal Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973. Prakash, Gyan. “Postcolonial Criticism and Indian Historiography.” Social Text 31/ 32 (1992): 8–19. Pu¯ hanya¯r, Sayyid Mas
u¯ d. Zuhu¯ r-i Mashru¯ tiyat va Qurba¯niya¯n-i Istibda¯d dar Afghanistan (The Emergence of constitutionalism and the victims of despotism in Afghanistan). 2 vols. Peshawar: Kita¯b-kha¯nah-i Saba¯, 1376/1997. Qa¯r¯ıza¯dah, Ziya¯. Zaba¯n-i Tab¯ı
at (The Language of nature). Kabul: Matba
ah-i Dawlat¯ı, 1330/1951. Qa¯sm¯ı, Shar¯ıf Husain. “Maza¯ya¯-i Shi
r-i Mu
a¯sir-i Dar¯ı Afghanistan” (Character- istics of contemporary Dari poetry in Afghanistan). In Adabiya¯t-i Mu
a¯sir-i Dar¯ı Afghanistan (Contemporary Dari literature in Afghanistan). Ed. Shar¯ıf Husain Qa¯sm¯ı. Delhi: Bakhsh-i Fa¯rs¯ı Da¯nishga¯h-i Dihli, 1994: 106–122. Qav¯ım,
Abd al-Qayu¯ m. Muru¯ ri bar Adabiya¯t-i Mu
a¯sir-i Dar¯ı (An Overview of contemporary Dari literature). Vol. 1. Kabul: Fajr, 1385/2006. Qays al-Ra¯z¯ı, Shams al-D¯ın Muhammad. Kita¯b al-Mu
jam fi Ma
a¯y¯ır Ash
a¯r al-
Ajam. Ed. Muhammad Qazv¯ın¯ı. Tehran: Da¯nishga¯h-i Tehran, 1338/1959. Qina¯
at, Mumin, ed. Payvand (Conjunctions). Dushanbe:
Irfa¯n, 1987. Al-Ra¯duya¯n¯ı, Muhammad b.
Umar. Tarjuma¯n al-Bala¯ghah. Ed. Ahmad A¯ tash. Tehran: Asa¯t¯ır, 1362/1983. Rahel, Shafie. Cultural Policy in Afghanistan. Paris: UNESCO Press, 1975. Rah¯ım¯ı,
At¯ıq. Haza¯rkha¯nah-i Kha¯b va Ikhtina¯q (A Thousand riddles of sleep and suffocation). Paris: Kha¯vara¯n, 1381/2002. ——. Earth and Ashes. Trans. Erdag M. Goknar. New York: Harcourt, 2002. ——. Kha¯kistar va Kha¯k (Ashes and earth). Paris: Kha¯vara¯n, 1999. Rahya¯b, Muhammad Na¯sir. Sap¯ıdah-dam-i Da¯sta¯nniv¯ıs¯ı (The Dawn of writing fiction in Afghanistan). Mashhad: Tara¯nah, 1383/2004. Rais, Rasul Bakhsh. War Without Winners. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1994. Rapley, John. Understanding Development: Theory and Practice in the Third World. 2nd ed. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002. Rashid, Ahmed. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Razav¯ı-Ghaznav¯ı,
Ali, ed. Nasr-i Dar¯ı Afghanistan: S¯ı Qissah (Dari literary prose in Afghanistan: thirty stories). Tehran: Bunya¯d-i Farhang-i Iran, 1357/1978. Roberts, Jeffery J. The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2003. Rubin, Barnett R. The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Rypka, Jan. History of Iranian Literature. Ed. Karl Jahn. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1968. Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf, 1993. ——. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979. Sakha¯warz, Bash¯ır. Chand Maqqa¯lah (Collected essays). Delhi: Sal¯ım Ayub¯ı, 1997. Sa¯lihuf, Tal
at. “Adabiya¯t ba Masa¯bah-i Shakli az Aga¯h¯ı-i Ijtima¯
¯ı va Shina¯kht-i Va¯q
iyat” (Literature as a form of social consciousness and recognition of reality),
Irfa¯n 63, no. 1 (1364/1985): 84–97. 178 Bibliography Salju¯ q¯ı, Sala¯h al-D¯ın. Naqd-i B¯ıdil (Evaluating B¯ıdil). Kabul: Viza¯rat-i Ma
a¯rif, 1343/ 1964. Sartre, Jean-Paul. What Is Literature? And Other Essays. Intro. Steven Ungar. Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press, 1988. ——. Adabiya¯t Ch¯ıst? (What is literature?). Trans. Abu al-Hasan Najaf¯ı and Mustafa¯ Rah¯ım¯ı. Tehran: Zama¯n, 1352/1973. Schinasi, May. Afghanistan at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1979. Schipper, Mineke. Beyond the Boundaries: African Literature and Literary Theory. London: Allison & Busby, 1989. Schultheis, Alexandra W. Regenerative Fictions: Postcolonialism, Psychoanalysis, and the Nation as Family. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Shahrani, M. Nazif. “State Building and Social Fragmentation in Afghanistan: A Historical Perspective.” In State, Religion, and Ethnic Politics: Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan. Ed. Ali Banuazizi and Myron Weiner. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986: 23–73. ——. “Marxist ‘Revolution’ and Islamic Resistance in Afghanistan.” In Revolutions & Rebellions in Afghanistan: Anthropological Perspectives. Ed. M. Nazif Shahrani and Robert L. Canfield. Berkeley: Institute of International studies, 1984: 3–57. Shuja¯
¯ı, Sayyid Isha¯q, ed. Muha¯jira¯n-i Fasl-i Diltang¯ı (The Migrants of a season of anguish). Tehran: Hawzah-i Hunar¯ı, 1375/1997. ——. Sa¯l ha¯-i Barzakh va Ba¯d (The Years of isthmus and storm). Tehran: Hawzah-i Hunar¯ı, 1377/1999. Sidd¯ıq-Afzal¯ı, Ziya¯ Ahmad. Ka¯j ha¯ va Sarzam¯ın-i A¯ hak (Pine trees and the land of lime). Peshawar: Sayyid Jama¯l al-D¯ın, 1377/1999. Sidd¯ıq¯ı, Jala¯l al-D¯ın. “Barras¯ı-i Nahvah-i Tar¯ıkhniga¯r¯ı pas az Inqila¯b-i Sawr” (A Revaluation of the historiographical methods since the Sawr Revolution),
Irfa¯n 63, nos. 5–6 (1364/1985): 58–68. ——. “Problem-ha¯-i tar¯ıkhniv¯ıs¯ı dar Afghanistan” (Issues in Afghan historiography),
Irfa¯n 62, nos. 9–10 (1363/1984): 1–14. Sipihra¯n, Ka¯mra¯n. Radd-i Pa¯-i Tazzalzul: Ruma¯n-i Tar¯ıkh¯ı Iran 1300–1320 (On the Footprints of instability: Iranian historical novel 1921–1941). Tehran: Sh¯ıra¯zah, 1381/2002. Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism. London and New York: Routledge, 1998. Smyth, William. “Early Persian Works on Poetics and their Relationship to Similar Studies in Arabic.” Studia Iranica 18, no. 1 (1989): 27–52. Sullivan, Zohreh T. Narratives of Empire: The Fictions of Rudyard Kipling. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Sulta¯nzadah, A¯ sif. Dar Gur¯ız Gum M¯ıshav¯ım (We Disappear in flight). Tehran: A¯ ga¯h, 1379/2000. Szeman, Imre. Zones of Instability: Literature, Postcolonialism, and the Nation. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Tarz¯ı, Mahmu¯ d. “What Is to Be Done?” Trans. Helena Malikyar. In Modernist Islam, 1840–1940: A Sourcebook. Ed. Charles Kurzman. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002: 126–130. Bibliography 179 ——. Maqa¯la¯t-i Mahmu¯ d Tarz¯ı dar Sira¯j al-Akhba¯r-i Afghaniyah (Mahmu¯ d Tarz¯ı’s articles in Sira¯j al-Akhba¯r-i Afghaniyah). Ed. A. G. Rava¯n Farha¯d¯ı. Kabul: Matba
ah-i Dawlat¯ı, 1355/1976. ——. Para¯kandah: Majmu¯
ah-i Ash
a¯r (Collection of scattered poems). Kabul:
Ina¯yat Press, 1333 H (1294)/1915. Tawf¯ıq,
Abd al-Husayn. Khatti dar Dastht (A Line in the plain). Kabul: Viza¯rat-i Ittila¯
a¯t va Kultu¯ r, 1367/1988. ——. Jariqqah ha¯ (Sparks). Kabul: Muassisah-i Cha¯p-i Kutub, 1344/1966. Taylor, Charles. “Two Theories of Modernity.” In Alternative Modernities. Ed. Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar. Durham: Duke University Press, 2001: 172–196. Taylor, Peter J. Modernities: A Geographical Interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. Vatanabadi, Shouleh and Mohammad Mehdi Khorrami, trans. and ed. Another Sea, Another Shore: Persian Stories of Migration. Northampton, Mass: Interlink, 2004. Volosˇinov, V.N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986. Wa¯sef Ba¯khtar¯ı, A¯ b ha¯-i Shi
r-i Jaha¯n A¯ lu¯ dah N¯ıstand (Waters of world poetry are not polluted). Intro. Wali Ahmadi. Kabul: Parniya¯n, 1383/2005. ——. Baya¯n-na¯mah-i Va¯risa¯n-i Zam¯ın (Manifesto of the inheritors of the earth). 2nd ed. Kabul: Parniya¯n, 1383/2004. ——. D¯ıba¯chah-i dar Farja¯m (A Prolegomenon to the end of time). Peshawar: Kita¯b-kha¯nah-i Saba¯, 1375/1997. ——. “D¯ıru¯ z, Imru¯ z, va Farda¯-i Shi
r-i Afghanistan” (The Past, present, and future of Afghanistan’s poetry). Shi
r 14, no. 2 (1373/1994): 70–82. ——. Va A¯ fta¯b Nam¯ım¯ırad (And the Sun dies not). Kabul: Ittiha¯diyah-i Nivisand- aga¯n, 1362/1984. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Wolf, Eric. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Yang, Xiaobin. The Chinese Postmodern: Trauma and Irony in Chinese Avant- Garde Fiction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002. Yarshater, Ehsan, ed. Persian Literature. New York: Bibliotheca Persica, 1988. Young, Robert J. C. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Black- well, 2001. Zarya¯b, Rahnavard. Gulna¯r dar A¯ yinah (Gulnar in the mirror). Kabul: Kita¯b- kha¯nah-i Saba¯, 1382/2003. ——. “Khamsah-i Avvaliyah: Niga¯h-i ba Avval¯ın Da¯sta¯n ha¯-i Nav¯ın-i Afghanistan” (Earliest novellas: a glance at the first five modern narratives in Afghanistan). Khatt-i Sivum 3–4 (Spring–Summer 1382/2003): 235–240. ——. “Az Modern Sa¯khtan ta¯ Modern Shudan” (From Making modern to becoming modern). Durr-i Dar¯ı 2, no. 5 (Spring1377/1998): 7–15. ——. “Ya¯saman ha¯ Sukhtand” (The Jasmines burned). Zhivandu¯ n 8, no. 1 (1369/ 1991): 16–28. 180 Bibliography ——. Naqsh ha¯ va Pinda¯ar ha¯ (Images and perceptions). Reprint ed. Kabul: Anjuman-i Nivisandaga¯n, 1366/1987. Zarya¯b, Sepu¯ zhmay. Dasht-i Qa¯b¯ıl (Cain’s plain). Kabul: Matba
-i Dawlat¯ı, 1367/ 1988. Zhivandai, Gul Muhammad. F¯ıru¯ z. Kabul: Matba
ah-i
Umu¯ m¯ı, 1318/1939. Zhu¯ bal, Muhammad Haydar. Ta r¯ıkh-i Adabiya¯t-i Afghanistan (History of Afghani- stan’s literature). Rev. ed. Kabul: Mayvand, 1382/2003.