SILENT STRATEGY

Altaf Husain Hali (1837–1914) preferred reformist poetry. When he critically examined traditional Urdu poetry through this lens, he found that much of it lacked meaning. He saw it as filled with exaggeration, tales of beauty and romance, and fanciful imagination. Hali sharply criticized this style of poetry and advocated for purposeful, socially aware writing.

His criticism angered those who took pride in classical Urdu poetry. They could not tolerate someone undermining what they considered a cultural treasure. In response, they turned against Hali and began publishing mocking and hostile articles attacking him.

Hali, however, chose silence in the face of this baseless opposition. Taking advantage of his silence, Oudh Punch—a satirical publication based in Lucknow—published a mocking poem. One of its couplets boasted:

“Hali lies crushed by our attacks,
Like the plains of Panipat after the battle.”

This opposition was entirely one-sided and lacked substance—and thus, it could not last. After some time, the critics fell silent. Someone once asked Hali how it happened—how those who had seemed so loud had suddenly gone quiet. Hali responded with a couplet:

“Why ask how the critics fell silent?
They said all they could—and I said
nothing at all.”

When a criticism is serious and thoughtful, it deserves to be considered. If it is valid, it should be accepted. If it is flawed, it should be met with reasoned argument.

But when opposition is driven by prejudice or insult, lacking seriousness or substance, the best response is silence. Answering such voices is like offering wise counsel to a braying donkey—as the Quran says: “Lower your voice, for the ugliest of all voices is the braying of the ass.” (31:19)