in do sheroN kaa matlab kyaa hai?
Naaz Baano
aap sab se iltijaa hai k niiche likhe sheroN kaa matlab samjhaa deN.
mujh ko diqqat ho rahii hai. baRii mehrbaanii ho gii.
Naaz Baano
1: zakhm ne daad na dii tangii-e-dil kii yaarab
tiir bhii siina-e-bismal se par-afshaaN niklaa (Ghaalib)
2: hazaaroN saal nargis apnii be-nuurii pe rotii hai
baRii mushkil se hotaa hai chaman meiN deeda-var paida (Iqbaal)
Naaz Baano
Vasmi Abidi
>
> 1: zakhm ne daad na dii tangii-e-dil kii yaarab
> tiir bhii siina-e-bismal se par-afshaaN niklaa (Ghaalib)
>
ye she'r samajhne vaala hai, samjhaane vaala naheeN.
In other words, I don't understand it myself :)
phir bhi, koshish meN kyaa harj hai:
pahle misre meN do baateN kahee gayee haiN:
(1) shaayar ka dil bahut 'tang' hai, yaani chhoTaa, sukDaa hua,
pareshaan.
aur (2) "zaKhm ne daad na dii". iska matlab ye ho sakta hai ki zaKhm
gahraa nahi hua, ya shaayar zaKhm khaa kar karaaha naheeN.
doosre misre meN "pur-afshaaN" ke matlab ke baare meN shak hai. Does it
refer to "shiny" or "sprinkled with drops of blood"? donoN tarah se
matlab nikaala ja saktaa hai.
aap Ghalib ki isi Ghazal ke agle she'r ka matlab poochhteeN, to maiN
aasaani se bataa deta:
"boo.e.gul", "naala.e.dil", "dood.e.chiraaGh.e.mahfil"
jo teri bazm se niklaa, so pareshaaN niklaa!
>
> 2: hazaaroN saal nargis apnii be-nuurii pe rotii hai
> baRii mushkil se hotaa hai chaman meiN deeda-var paida (Iqbaal)
>
'nargis' phool aankh kee shakl ka hota hai.
pahle misre meN kahaa hai ki nargis ki aankheN to haiN, magar unmeN
dekhne kee qoovat naheeN hai.
doosre misre meN kahaa hai ki 'deeda-var', yaani 'nazar rakhne vaala',
"visionary" kam hi paida hote haiN.
'nargis' phool ko English meN 'narcissus' kahte haiN.
maze ki baat hai ki lafz 'narcissus' ke bhi Khaas maani haiN.
Vasmi
Raj Kumar
> >
> >
> > 1: zakhm ne daad na dii tangii-e-dil kii yaarab
> > tiir bhii siina-e-bismal se par-afshaaN niklaa (Ghaalib)
> >
>
> ye she'r samajhne vaala hai, samjhaane vaala naheeN.
> In other words, I don't understand it myself :)
>
> phir bhi, koshish meN kyaa harj hai:
Vasmi Saahib:
vaaq'ii, koshish meiN kyaa harj hai? sirf yihi naheeN balke aap ki
koshish laa'iq-e-sad-taihseen bhi hai.
albatta, yeh she'r kuchh aisa hai k ise samajhne ya samjhaane ke liye
mazeed tashreeh ki zaroorat hai. is ka matlab yeh hargiz naheeN k maiN
is gutthi ko poori tarah se suljhaa paaooN ga ---
phir bhi, ba-qaul-e-shaKhse, koshish meiN kyaa harj hai? :-))
>
> pahle misre meN do baateN kahee gayee haiN:
> (1) shaayar ka dil bahut 'tang' hai, yaani chhoTaa, sukDaa hua,
> pareshaan.
yahaaN taNgi-e-dil se yeh muraad naheeN k dil chhoTa hai ya sukRaa
huaa hai, balke yeh k jitne raNj-o-Gham is bechaare ko saNbhaalne paR
rahe haiN un sab ke liye is ke paas jagah naheeN hai!
doosri baat yeh k jo aap ne yahaaN par lafz "taNg" ke ma'ani
"pareshaan" ke bhi likkhe haiN --- us par arz hai k, she'ri istelaah
meiN, yeh do alfaaz aek doosre ke 'synonym' naheeN balke "antonym'
samjhe jaate haiN. misaal ke taur par, aap Ghaalib hi ka yeh she'r
dekhiye:
taNgi-e-dil ka gilaa kyaa? yeh voh kaafir dil hai
k agar taNg na hotaa to pareshaaN hota!!!
pareshaaN = bikhraa huaa, phailaa huaa, etc.
> aur (2) "zaKhm ne daad na dii". iska matlab ye ho sakta hai ki zaKhm
> gahraa nahi hua, ya shaayar zaKhm khaa kar karaaha naheeN.
is phrase ka matlab kuchh yooN hai k "hamaare zaKhm ne hamaari
taNgi-e-dil ka paas naheeN rakkha, ya'ani us ka lihaaz naheeN kiyaa,
aur bilaa-rok-Tok phailta chalaa gayaa"!
>
> doosre misre meN "pur-afshaaN" ke matlab ke baare meN shak hai. Does it
> refer to "shiny" or "sprinkled with drops of blood"? donoN tarah se
> matlab nikaala ja saktaa hai.
saheeh lafz yahaaN par "pur-afshaaN" naheeN, "par-afshaaN" hai.
par-afshaaN hona = par jhaaRna, phaRphaRaana, to flutter one's wings.
is lafz ko Professor Abid Ali Abid ne apni aek musalsal Ghazal ke
matle meiN kyaa Khoob baaNdha ahi. zaraa mulaahiza keejiye; farmaate
haiN k
aaj phir baaGh meiN us but ko KhiraamaaN dekhaa
raNg ko raqs meiN, nak_hat ko par-afshaaN dekhaa
goya, aaj us pari-vash ka sehn-e-chaman meiN aana aur aa kar
mehv-e-Khiraam hona kuchh yooN lagaa jaise raNg mehv-e-raqs ho aur
Khush-boo (apne par phaRphaRaati huyee) idhar udhar uR rahi ho!!!
Coming back to Ghaalib's she'r, what does he mean by --- teer bhi
seena-e-bismal se par-afshaaN nikla ---
is zimn meiN, hameN yeh baat zehn meiN rakhni paRe gi k aksar-auqaat
teer ki shakl kuchh aisi hoti hai k nok ke peechhe voh kuchh chapTa sa
aur dono taraf phaila huaa sa hota hai; is do-tarafa phailaao ko "teer
ke par" kahaa jaata hai. ab agar teer zaKhm meiN se par-afshaaN ho kar
nikle ga to zaKhm aur khulaa ho jaaye ga. is ri'aayat se, Ghaalib keh
rahe haiN k mere zaKhm ne, aur us teer ne jis se yeh zaKhm paida huaa
hai, mere dil ki taNg-daamani ka ratti bhar Khayaal naheeN kiya aur
dono ne nihaayat be-dardi aur be-muruvvati ka suboot diya hai!
This is (roughly) the way I understand this she'r. albatta, is she'r
ko kehte huye Khud Ghaalib ke dil meiN kyaa tha, use kaun jaane?
:-))
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar
paabagil
na jaane kyoN aisaa mehsoos hotaa hai k aap se pehle bhee sharf e
taKhaatub haasil ho chukaa hai ... aur aap ne jin ash'aar kaa
intiKhaab kiyaa hai un se bhee is shubhe ko taqvee'at miltee hai, k
aap maidaan e she'er o adab meN nau-vaarid naheeN haiN. Khair, ho
saktaa hai ye meraa vehm ho ... aap ke she'eroN kee jaanib chalte
haiN:
> > > 1: zakhm ne daad na dii tangii-e-dil kii yaarab
> > > tiir bhii siina-e-bismal se par-afshaaN niklaa (Ghaalib)
is she'er par dostoN ne Khoob daad e suKhan dee hai. peer e muGhaaN,
"guru e rindaaN", suKhan-var e laajavaab, izzat-ma'aab, janaab, Raj
jee, ne, hasb e 'aadat o ma'amool, nihaayat 'alaa zauq e she'eree, aur
"parakh e jauharee", kaa muzaahira karte huve zanbeel e she'er e
haazaa meN band guhr e ma'anee ko khoj nikaalaa hai. maiN sirf aik
aadh nukte kaa izaafa karnaa chaahooN gaa:
> Coming back to Ghaalib's she'r, what does he mean by --- teer bhi
> seena-e-bismal se par-afshaaN nikla ---
> is zimn meiN, hameN yeh baat zehn meiN rakhni paRe gi k aksar-auqaat
> teer ki shakl kuchh aisi hoti hai k nok ke peechhe voh kuchh chapTa sa
> aur dono taraf phaila huaa sa hota hai; is do-tarafa phailaao ko "teer
> ke par" kahaa jaata hai. ab agar teer zaKhm meiN se par-afshaaN ho kar
> nikle ga to zaKhm aur khulaa ho jaaye ga. is ri'aayat se, Ghaalib keh
> rahe haiN k mere zaKhm ne, aur us teer ne jis se yeh zaKhm paida huaa
> hai, mere dil ki taNg-daamani ka ratti bhar Khayaal naheeN kiya aur
> dono ne nihaayat be-dardi aur be-muruvvati ka suboot diya hai!
ye baat to solah aane durust hai k rivaayat meN teer ke "par" farz
kiye jaate haiN, lekin ye par teer ke "phal" ko naheeN kehte. agar aap
aik sach much ke teer ko zehn meN laa'eN to ma'aloom ho gaa k teer kee
"dum" par ('aam taur par) 2 "par" lage hote haiN (agar aap ne aslee
teer naheeN dekhaa to "Darts" ke teer kaa tasavvur keejiye, jis meN 4
par lage hote haiN). in paroN kaa maqsad teer ko uRaan ke dauraan
seedha rakhnaa hotaa hai.
ab is she'er kee nasr dekhiye: aik Khudaa, zaKhm ne mere dil kee
tangee kaa kuchh Khayaal na kiyaa. teer seene e bismil se par
phailaa'e huve niklaa.
ab tasavvur keejiye k teer (e ishq) seena e bismil ke aar paar guzar
gayaa. chooN k teer ke par phaile huve the is liye ibtidaa'ee zaKhm
(jo teer ke nokeele sire ne paidaa kiyaa thaa) aur bhee gehraa ho
gayaa. is zaKhm ne itnaa sitam Dhaayaa k mere dil kee tang-daamaanee
(Gham sehne kee salaahee'at) kaa kuchh lihaaz na kiyaa.
qissa muKhtasar ye k mujhe jo dard e ulfat milaa, vo meree bardaasht
se baahar thaa!
Naaz saahiba, aap ke doosre she'er ne kuchh puraanee yaadeN taaza kar
deeN. ye baat hai 1940s kee (jab maiN AligaRh University meN jumaa'at
e panjum kaa taalib e ilm thaa :), jab us daur ke mash'hoor risaale
"ChaTaan" ke mudeer janaab Shaurish Kaashmiri ne ai aik dilchasp
adabee behs kaa aaGhaaz kiyaa. mauzoo' thaa, "kyaa Iqbal kaa ye she'er
muhmal (meaningless) hai?" aur aap maaneN yaa na maaneN, she'er yehee
aap vaalaa thaa!!! is da'avat ke javaab meN ka'ee mashaaheer ne
Khutoot likhe aur apnee apnee aaraa is she'e par paish keeN. in logoN
meN Shaurish Kaashmiri, Prof Rasheed Ahmed Siddiqui, Allama Niyaz
Fat'hpoori, Maulanaa Abdul Maajid Dariyabaadi, Dr. Syed Abdullah,
Maulana Abdul Majeed Salik, Maulana Ghulam Rasool Mehr, Ghulam Ahmed
Pervez, vG, shaamil the. (mujhe yaqeen hai k aap in as'haab ko jaantee
hoN gee).
jahaaN tak meree naaqis yaaddaasht kaam kartee hai, "jury" kisee
faisile tak naheeN pahunch paa'ee thee, ya'anee kuchh 'ulamaa kaa
Khayaal thaa k she'er muhmal hai, jab k kuchh kehte the k is meN ko'ee
ibhaam yaa uljhaa'o naheeN hai.
ummeed hai aap kaa mas'ala hal ho gayaa ho gaa.
Zaff
Vasmi Abidi
aapki behtareen tashreeh paRhkar lutf-andoz hua.
baat samjhaane ke liye aapne jo ashaar inaayat farmaaye haiN, vo bhi,
hasb-e-ma'mool, Khoob haiN:
> ...misaal ke taur par, aap Ghaalib hi ka yeh she'r
> dekhiye:
>
> taNgi-e-dil ka gilaa kyaa? yeh voh kaafir dil hai
> k agar taNg na hotaa to pareshaaN hota!!!
> ..is lafz ko Professor Abid Ali Abid ne apni aek musalsal Ghazal ke
> matle meiN kyaa Khoob baaNdha ahi. zaraa mulaahiza keejiye; farmaate
> haiN k
>
> aaj phir baaGh meiN us but ko KhiraamaaN dekhaa
> raNg ko raqs meiN, nak_hat ko par-afshaaN dekhaa
>
> > This is (roughly) the way I understand this she'r. albatta, is she'r
> ko kehte huye Khud Ghaalib ke dil meiN kyaa tha, use kaun jaane?
> :-))
>
perhaps,
meri qismat meN Gham gar itna tha
dil bhi yaarab ka'ii diye hote!
shukriya,
Vasmi
Sarwar Alam Raz
Naaz saaheba: aadaab!
meHfil meiN tashreef laane kaa shukriya! gustaaKhee muaaf, aap ne aate
hee aik :shosha ChhoRaa hai: umooman log aise muaa'malaat meiN zaraa
sabr se kaam lete haiN! Khair, yeh ko'ee qaabil.e.e'tiraaz baat naheeN
hai. haaN ash'aar bhee aap ne aise muntaKhib kiye haiN jo aap kee
:naa.shuneeda-naa.deeda: shaKhsiyyat kee taraH mua'mma haiN!
ma'loom naheeN shaariHeen ne in kee kyaa tashreeH kee hai. maiN jo
samjhaa hooN voh likh rahaa hooN. gumaan aGhlab yeh hai k agar ham sab
sar joR kar beThe to ashaar poore naheeN to aadhe.paune samajh meiN aa
hee jaayeN gey!
iss qadar aur arz kar chalooN k jab apnaa yeh Khat likh chukaa to
Zafar saaheb kee teHreer nazar se guzree. chand baateN meree aur un
kee teHreer meiN mushtarik haiN. lekin ab to maiN meHnat kar chukaa!
iss ko post kartaa hooN. do aik baatoN kee takraar ke liye ma'zarat!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) zaKhm ne daad na dee taNgee.e.dil kee yaarab!
teer bhee seena.e.bismil se par.afshaaN niklaa!
(Ghalib)
taNgee = jagah kee kamee honaa
par.afshaaN = par bakhertaa huaa
par: teer kee uRaan behtar banaane ke liye uss ke piChhle Hisse ,
ya'nee uss kee :dum:, per aik Khaas tarteeb se parindoN ke par lagaa
diye jaate haiN. in se teer seedhaa aur sachchaa jaataa hai.
yeh baat bhee vazaaHat.talab hai k teer ko kabhee bhee uss kee :dum:
pakaR kar peeChhe kee jaanib naheeN kheeNchnaa chaahiye kyoN.k uss kaa
:phal: jiss shakl kaa hotaa hai (ya'nee aage se tez aur peeChhe se
chauRaa) uss kee vajh se aisaa karne se zaKhmee ko intihaa'ee shadeed
takleef hotee hai. yeh taqreeban vohee sooraat hai jo maChhlee kaa
kaaNTaa nikaalne meiN pesh aatee hai. teer nikaalne kaa saHeeH tareeqa
yeh hai k (agar mumkin ho to!) uss kaa phal pakaR kar usee ruKh
kheeNch liyaa jaaye jiss rukh uss kee uRaan thee (yaa jiss taraf uss
kaa phal hai.) yeh tab hee mumkin hai jab teer :aar.paar: ho gayaa ho.
meree samajh meiN iss she'r kaa matlab yooN aayaa hai:
:meraa dil pehle hee zaKhmoN se choor choor thaa aur uss meiN mazeed
zaKhm khaane kee gunjaa'ish (jagah) baaqee naheeN reh gayee thee lekin
iss naye zaKhm.e.muHabbat ne dil kee iss taNgee kaa ko'ee Khayaal aur
paas na kiyaa. yeh teer.e.Gham aisaa lagaa k dil ke aar.paar ho gayaa.
phir voh bhee iss taraH k jab uss ko kheeNch kar nikaalaa gayaa to dil
kee taNgee kee vajh se teer ke par zaKhm se nikalte vaqt bikhar bikhar
gaye!:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) hazaaroN saal nargis apnee be.nooree pe rote hai
baRee mushkil se hotaa hai chaman meiN deeda.var pedaa! (Iqbal)
nargis: aik phool jiss kee shakl aaNkh kee see hotee hai.
nargis apnee be.nooree (ya'nee aaNkheN aNdhee hone) kee vajh se ussee
chaman kee ne.raNgiyaaN aur gul.fishaaniyaaN naheeN dekh saktee hai
jiss meiN voh Khud bhee sab ko da'vat.e.nazzaara de rahee hai, aur yeh
amr uss ke liye baa'is.e.raNj.o.malaal bhee hai. magar qudrat ke
nizaam ko kyaa kahiye k her chaman meiN kisee deeda.var kee aamad ke
intizaar meiN her nargis ko rote rote sadiyaaN guzar jaatee haiN jab
kaheeN aik aisaa deeda.var pedaa hotaa hai jo uss chaman kee
qadr.o.qeemat kaa saHeeH iHsaas rakhtaa ho.
Haashiya: maiN Zafar saaheb se mut'tafiq naheeN hooN k yeh she'r
muhmal ho saktaa hai. Iqbal se aisaa soo.e.zan kam az kam mujh ko to
naheeN hai!
iraadat kesh
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
paabagil
> muhmal ho saktaa hai. Iqbal se aisaa soo.e.zan kam az kam mujh ko to
> naheeN hai!
janaab e vaalaa:
aap Ghaliban meree post se sarsaree guzar ga'ye! sarkaar e pur-vaqaar,
"maiN" ne kab kahaa k she'er muhmal hai? maiN ne to chand ulamaa e fan
ke havaale diye the aur bas. aap kehte haiN to jaanibain kee aaraa
paish kar detaa hooN:
1.
jin shurakaa kaa Khayaal thaa k she'er muhmal hai:
Shaurish Kaashmiri
Allama Niyaz Fat'hpoori
Dr. Muhammad Baqir
Ghulam Ahmed Parvez
Maulan Abdul Majeed Salik
2.
jin kaa Khayaal thaa k she'er baa-ma'anee hai:
Prof. Rasheed Ahmed Siddiqui
Prof. Ziya Ahemd
Pro. Muhammad Azeez
Maulana Abdul Majid Dariyabaadi
Dr. Syed Abdullah
Maulana Ghulam Rasool Mehr
agar aap jamhooree tareeqe se faisila karnaa chaaheN to keh sakte haiN
k she'er baa-ma'anee hai, kyoN k is da'ave ke mu'eed 5 ke muqaabile
meN 6 voToN se jeet rahe haiN :) lekin agar aap mujh se poochheN ge to
maiN yehee kahooN gaa k yahaaN ittifaaq e raa'e paidaa naheeN ho sakaa
thaa -- aur yehee baat maiN ne us post meN bhee likhee thee.
qaar'een kee dilchaspee ke liye bataataa chalooN k in tamaam
mashaaheer ne baa-qaa'ida behs karte huve dalaa'il ke saath apnaa
apnaa mau'aqqif paish kiyaa thaa ... ba'aneenahee aise hee jaise ham
yahaaN ALUP par karne kee koshish karte haiN.
muKhlis,
Zaff
Sarwar Alam Raz
> > Haashiya: maiN Zafar saaheb se mut'tafiq naheeN hooN k yeh she'r
> > muhmal ho saktaa hai. Iqbal se aisaa soo.e.zan kam az kam mujh ko to
> > naheeN hai!
>
> janaab e vaalaa:
>
> aap Ghaliban meree post se sarsaree guzar ga'ye! sarkaar e pur-vaqaar,
> "maiN" ne kab kahaa k she'er muhmal hai? maiN ne to chand ulamaa e fan
> ke havaale diye the aur bas.
sadeeq.e.mukarram: tasleemaat!
maiN Ghareeb aap kee teHreer se sarsaree guzar jaa'ooN? taubah
keejiye, taubah:
yeh taab, yeh majaal, yeh taaqat kahaaN mujhe!
dar.asl aap kee tashreeHaat ke ba'd she'r ke zimn meiN aap kee
saraaHat na paa kar mujh ko Khayaal huaa k aap bhee she'r ko muhmal
samajhte haiN varna iss kee tashreeH ke silsile meiN Khaamosh kyoN
rehte?
to, banda.parvar mere zehn meiN iss she'r per :vote: donoN jaanib 6:6
hai kyoN.k aap kaa :Khufiyah: vote aik jaanib hai! agar aisaa naheeN
hai to :foran se peshtar: likhiye k aap iss she'r ko kiss taraH
samajhe haiN. (yahaaN yeh mafrooza hai k aap vaaqa'ee samajh gaye
haiN! LOL). aur aap ne meree :samajh: per ko'ee :ChheeNTaa: naheeN
uRaayaa! Khair to hai? maiN muntazir hooN. jald likhiye. shukriya!
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
Afzal A. Khan
JahaaN aise aise "buzurgaan-e-deen" maujood hoN, wahaaN
mera kuchh kehna bahut baRi gustaaKHi hai. As an excuse,
I can do no better than quote GHalib himself :
siwaaye iske ke aashufta_sar hai kya kahiye !
GHalib has talked about "taNgi-e-dil" and "teer" in quite a
few of his verses. It is interesting to take a look at some of
these :
Sharh_ asbaab-e-giraftaari-e-KHaatir mat poochh
Is qadar taNg huwa dil ke main zindaaN samjha
Gila hai shauq ko dil men bhi taNgi-e-ja ka
Guhar men mahv huwa iztiraab darya ka
Koi mere dil se poochhe tire teer-e-neem_kash ko
Yeh KHalish kahaaN se hoti jo jigar ke paar hota
NaheeN zareea-e-raahat jaraahat-e-paikaaN
Woh zaKHm-e-teGH hai jis ko ke dil_kusha kahiye
In one of his letters, GHalib himself has offered an
explanation for the sher under discussion. It goes
something like this :
"TaNgi-e-dil = Narrowness of the heart
TaNgi-e-dil ki daad dena = ZaKHm ko kushaada karna
TaNgi ko zaail karna
Teer taNgi-e-dil ki daad kya deta, woh to KHud dil ki
taNgi (narrowness) se pareshaan ho kar ya ghabra kar
par phaRphaRaata huwa nikal gaya"
The expression "taNgi-e-dil" also refers to "sorrows"
("afsurdagi" or "ranj-o-GHam"). The two meanings add to
the enjoyment of the sher. Agar teer dil men paiwast rehta
to main uski Khalish se lutf_andoz hota aur is tarh_
meri afsurdagi ka izaala bhi ho jaata. Magar afsos aisa
na huwa.
If we examine the last sher quoted above (jaraahat-e-paikaaN),
it may help us in appreciating the other sher being discussed.
It is the sword-wound, rather than the grazing by an arrow, which
sort of "widens" the heart and provides greater pleasure.
"Dil_kusha" being used in both senses.
Interestingly, these two shers (jaraahat-e-paikaaN & teer-e-
neem_kash) seem to be each other's "anti-thesis" !
As regards Iqbal's sher, I would request Zafar Sahib to please
provide us with a gist of the arguments (as to whether the sher
is mohmal or otherwise). Is there any particular personality
about whom the sher was composed ? Is ki "shaan-e-nuzool"
kya hai ?
Afzal
Sarwar Alam Raz
> In one of his letters, GHalib himself has offered an
> explanation for the sher under discussion. It goes
> something like this :
>
> "TaNgi-e-dil = Narrowness of the heart
> TaNgi-e-dil ki daad dena = ZaKHm ko kushaada karna
> TaNgi ko zaail karna
>
> Teer taNgi-e-dil ki daad kya deta, woh to KHud dil ki
> taNgi (narrowness) se pareshaan ho kar ya ghabra kar
> par phaRphaRaata huwa nikal gaya"
janaab Khan saaheb: salaam!
aap ne yeh to bohat hee dilchasp baat bataa'ee k Khud Ghalib ne iss
she'r kee tashreeH kee hai. maiN iss se qata'ee laa.ilm thaa.
shukriya! aik savaal phir bhee zehn meiN reh gaya k she'r meiN kahaa
gayaa hai k :zaKhm ne tagee.e.dil kee daad naheeN dee: aur ooper kee
tashreeH meiN Ghalib yeh kehte hue bataa'e gaye haiN k :teer kyaa daad
detaa: in donoN sooratoN meiN jo farq hai voh aap per vaazeH hee hai.
zaraa phir apnaa reference dekh leN.
aap kaa Khat bohat dilchasp aur mufeed thaa. maiN mamnoon hooN!
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
paabagil
> paab...@hotmail.com (paabagil) wrote in message news:<6f3cbf2.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Haashiya: maiN Zafar saaheb se mut'tafiq naheeN hooN k yeh she'r
> > > muhmal ho saktaa hai. Iqbal se aisaa soo.e.zan kam az kam mujh ko to
> > > naheeN hai!
> >
> > janaab e vaalaa:
> >
> > aap Ghaliban meree post se sarsaree guzar ga'ye! sarkaar e pur-vaqaar,
> > "maiN" ne kab kahaa k she'er muhmal hai? maiN ne to chand ulamaa e fan
> > ke havaale diye the aur bas.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> sadeeq.e.mukarram: tasleemaat!
(lagtaa hai aaj kal Maulana Abuul Kalaam kaa mutaali'a ho rahaa hai :)
> maiN Ghareeb aap kee teHreer se sarsaree guzar jaa'ooN? taubah
> keejiye, taubah:
>
> yeh taab, yeh majaal, yeh taaqat kahaaN mujhe!
>
> dar.asl aap kee tashreeHaat ke ba'd she'r ke zimn meiN aap kee
> saraaHat na paa kar mujh ko Khayaal huaa k aap bhee she'r ko muhmal
> samajhte haiN varna iss kee tashreeH ke silsile meiN Khaamosh kyoN
> rehte?
>
> to, banda.parvar mere zehn meiN iss she'r per :vote: donoN jaanib 6:6
> hai kyoN.k aap kaa :Khufiyah: vote aik jaanib hai! agar aisaa naheeN
> hai to :foran se peshtar: likhiye k aap iss she'r ko kiss taraH
> samajhe haiN. (yahaaN yeh mafrooza hai k aap vaaqa'ee samajh gaye
> haiN! LOL). aur aap ne meree :samajh: per ko'ee :ChheeNTaa: naheeN
> uRaayaa! Khair to hai? maiN muntazir hooN. jald likhiye. shukriya!
are janaab, ham kyaa hamaaraa vote/samajh kyaa: kyaa piddi kyaa piddi
kaa shorba!!! LOL. "aap" ye farmaa'iye k aap ne jo kahaa thaa:
>> maiN Zafar saaheb se mut'tafiq naheeN hooN k yeh she'r muhmal ho
saktaa hai. >> Iqbal se aisaa soo.e.zan kam az kam mujh ko to naheeN
hai!
mujhe to ye soch ka haul aa rahaa hai k, ba-qaul aap ke, bai-chaare
Shaurish Kaashmiri, Allama Niyaz Fat'hpoori, Dr. Muhammad Baqir,
Ghulam Ahmed Parvez aur Maulana Abdul Majeed Salik Allama Iqbal se soo
e zan kaa murtakib, balke mujrim! :) paa'ye ga'ye haiN!
aisaa kaisaa?
Zaff
Afzal A. Khan
Janaab Sarwar Sahib,
Wa-'Alekumus_Salaam
GHaaliban aapka ishaara is jaanib hai ke "daad aaKHir kis ne
naheeN di". Qusoor_waar "zaKHm" tha ya "teer" ?
Possibly, this could be something similar to what is known
in English as a "transferred epithet", although both words
here are nouns.
Ya yooN bhi samjha ja sakta hai ke yeh bhi "eehaam" hi ki
koi shakl hai, y'ani "zaKHm" kehna aur "teer" muraad lena.
Waise bhi "zaKHm" behr_haal sirf "zaKHm" hai. Is se kuchh
karne ya na karne ki tawaqqo naheeN ki ja sakti. Is liye
"teer" ko hi "qusoor_waar" Thahraaya jaega.
Ek nukta yeh bhi hai ke "daad dena" ke ek m'ani "insaaf
karna" bhi haiN. (To do justice). Shaa'ir kehta hai ke
mera dil is qadar taNg hai (ya tha) ke is men aur raNj-o-GHam
apne men samo_lene ki ya bardaasht karne ki jagah baaqi hi
naheeN thi. Jab yeh teer-e-sitam laga to insaaf ka taqaaza to
yeh tha ke zaKHm itna kushaada hota ke dil men raNj-o-GHam
sehne ke liye aur jagah nikal aati. Magar afsos aisa na huwa.
ZaKHm to laga magar itna kaari naheeN ke dil ki taNgi zaail
ho jaaye aur dil men zaKHm ke zariye kushaadgi aa jaaye.
Afsos hai ke zaKHm ne mere dil (ya dil ki taNgi) ke saath yeh
insaaf na kiya. Teer (jis ki waj_h se mujhe yeh zaKHm aaya)
KHud bhi mere dil ki taNgi se itna ghabraaya ke par phaRphaRaata
huwa nikal gaya.
Behr_haal yeh sab taaweeleN haiN. Meri naaqis raaye men yeh sher
GHalib ke bahut achchhe ash'aar men shumaar karne ke laaiq
naheeN. KHayaal_aaraai ya m'ani_aafreeni ka 'unsar zyaada balke
bahut zyaada hai magar dil ko chhoo lene waali baat naheeN.
Kisi naaqid ka qaul hai (shaayad Mas'ood Hasan Rizvi Sahib ka)
ke "shaa'iri jazbaat ki zabaan hai". Main isi ka qaail hooN.
Aap ne reference dubaara dekhne ke liye kaha hai. Ab yahaaN
(y'ani US men) main yeh reference kahaaN se laaooNga. Saalaha_
saal guzar gaye jab main ne is qism ki kitaabeN India men
paRhee theeN. Kuchh baateN, jo abhi tak zehn se mahv naheeN
huweeN, yaad aati haiN to ALUP ya ek do aur Newgroups men
kabhi kabhaar hissa leta hooN.
Aap ne jin alfaaz men mujhe yaad kiya hai, yeh aapki zarra_
nawaazi hai, mamnoon mujhe hona chaahiye. Is "maidaan" ke
maahir to aap aur Zafar Sahib jaise log haiN. Mera shumaar
to "also ran" waloN men bhi naheeN !
With best regards,
Afzal
Yashowanto N. Ghosh
sarw...@yahoo.com (Sarwar Alam Raz) wrote in message news:<267193df.02111...@posting.google.com>...
>
> (2) hazaaroN saal nargis apnee be.nooree pe rote hai
> baRee mushkil se hotaa hai chaman meiN deeda.var pedaa! (Iqbal)
is she'r ko to, aGjh#3 ke dauraan, aap ne dar-pardagee kaa misaal
keh kar :quote: kiyaa thaa. us vaqt maiN ne (thoRee der sochne ke
ba'd) is kaa aik :interpretation: iKhtiyaar kar liyaa thaa---aur ab
dekhtaa hooN k maiN ise Ghalat samajh baiThaa thaa :(
aap kee tashreeH par aik savaal---
>
> nargis: aik phool jiss kee shakl aaNkh kee see hotee hai.
>
> nargis apnee be.nooree (ya'nee aaNkheN aNdhee hone) kee vajh se ussee
> chaman kee ne.raNgiyaaN aur gul.fishaaniyaaN naheeN dekh saktee hai
> jiss meiN voh Khud bhee sab ko da'vat.e.nazzaara de rahee hai, aur yeh
> amr uss ke liye baa'is.e.raNj.o.malaal bhee hai. magar qudrat ke
> nizaam ko kyaa kahiye k her chaman meiN kisee deeda.var kee aamad ke
> intizaar meiN her nargis ko rote rote sadiyaaN guzar jaatee haiN jab
> kaheeN aik aisaa deeda.var pedaa hotaa hai jo uss chaman kee
> qadr.o.qeemat kaa saHeeH iHsaas rakhtaa ho.
Huzoor, Iqbal ne to deeda-var kaa chaman meiN *paidaa* hone kee baat
kee hai---kyaa yeh us ke chaman meiN *aane* ke saath :synonymous: hai?
maiN to is she'r ko yooN samajh rahaa thaa---
Literary meaning:
pehlaa misra: hazaaroN saal nargis (kaa jhaaR) apnee aaNkheN (us ke
phool) aNdhee hone par ro rahee hai.
doosraa misra: use Khvaahish/intezaar hai k aik aisaa *phool khile*
jis meiN aaNkh kee shakl hone ke ilaavaa dekhne kee qaabiliyat bhee ho.
Actual meaning:
pehlaa misra: substitute (a) "duniyaa" for "chaman"
(b) "Hindostaan" for "nargis (kaa jhaaR)"
(and "Hindostaan ke log" for "nargis ke phool")
doosraa misra: "deeda-var" ya'ni ko'ee aisaa shaKhs jo mulk ko
saHeeH rastaa dikhaa sake, raahnumaa'ee kar sake.
lekin shaayad is she'r meiN *itnaa* kuchh kahaa naheeN gayaa hai...?
With best regards,
Jasho.
Sarwar Alam Raz
Zafar saaheb: Khush rahiye!
kabhee sunaa thaa k :maarooN ghuTnaa, phooTe aaNkh:, aaj aap ke
haathoN dekh bhee liyaa! Allaah aap ko salaamat rakhe! ma'loom naheeN
abhee aur kyaa kyaa sun.ne ko mile gaa! :-)
Hazzat! maiN aap se mut'tafiq naheeN thaa, in buzurgoN kaa to maiN ne
zikr bhee naheeN kiyaa! LOL!!! yooN aap gol.mol (elliptical) samajh ke
maahir haiN. aap kee zabaan meiN hee kahooN?
jaa ChhoR diyaa Haafiz.e.Quran samajh kar!
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
Vasmi Abidi
mere paas Ghalib ke Khutoot ka ek angrezi tarjuma hai [*], jahaaN mujhe vo Khat mil gayaa jisme
Ghalib ne is she'r ki tashreeh dee hai. Ye Khat Ghalib ne Muhammad Abdur Razzaaq Shaakir ko 1865
meN likha tha.
to ab English translation suniye:
"...
zaKhm ne daad na dii tangii-e-dil kii, yaarab
teer bhi seena-e-bismil se par-afshaaN niklaa
This is an original idea delivered up by my mind. I have expressed it elsewhere in the following
way:
naheeN zariya-e-raahat jaraahat-e-paikaaN
vo zaKhm-e-teGh hai, jisko k dilkusha kahiye
The wound caused by an arrow is not respectable if the arrow makes a hole in the victim's flesh
which is not tight enough to hold the arrowhead. A wound caused by a sword is admirable to the
extent that it creates a kind of niche in the flesh. "zaKhm ne daad na di tangi-e-dil ki" - this
statement implies that the wound did not relieve the heart of its tightness. "par-afshaaN"
signifies restlessness. This statement is suitable also as an indication of an attribute of the
arrow. So, the meaning is this: how could the wound do anything to relieve the heart of its
straitness? Confounded by the congestion, the arrow spread its wings and fled. ...."
[*] "Urdu Letters of Mirza Ghalib", Translated by Daud Rahbar,
pub. State University Of New York Press, 1987.
Khaaksaar,
Vasmi
--------------
UVR
> mere paas Ghalib ke Khutoot ka ek angrezi tarjuma hai [*], jahaaN mujhe vo Khat mil gayaa jisme
> Ghalib ne is she'r ki tashreeh dee hai. Ye Khat Ghalib ne Muhammad Abdur Razzaaq Shaakir ko 1865
> meN likha tha.
> to ab English translation suniye:
Vasmi saahib:
You deserve our utmost gratitude for posting (the English translation
of) Ghalib's own interpretation of the sh'er. So, thank you, thank
you, thank you very much!
There is a school of thought (our own 'Zaff-ji', I think, subscribes
to it), which avers that all interpretations of a poem, no matter how
widely divergent from each other, are as valid a the poet's own. I
am not sure if that kind of thing is acceptable for a sh'er like this
one. All interpretations are "interesting", of course, but "valid?"
Be that as it may. Thanks again. You can be sure I'm going to 'get
me a copy' of this book.
Regards,
UVR.
Sarwar Alam Raz
> mere paas Ghalib ke Khutoot ka ek angrezi tarjuma hai [*], jahaaN mujhe vo Khat mil gayaa jisme
Vasmi saaheb aadaab!
vallah mazaa aa gayaa! aap ne Khud Ghalib kee tashreeH sunaa kar dil
Khush kar diyaa. jab shaa'ir apne she'r kaa matlab Khud samjhaa de to
phir doosroN ko qiyaas.aaraa'ee kee zaroorat naheeN reh jaatee hai.
Iqbal ke she'r ke silsile meiN agar logoN ko ma'ne meiN ko'ee
iltibaas nazar aayaa thaa to Khud Iqbal se kyoN naheeN pooChh liyaa?
jin buzurgoN kaa naam Zafar saaheb ne liyaa hai voh to Iqbal ke
ham.asr the! Khair aap kee post kaa shukriya!
Sarwar Raz :Sarwar:
Afzal A. Khan
UVR wrote:
> There is a school of thought (our own 'Zaff-ji', I think, subscribes
> to it), which avers that all interpretations of a poem, no matter how
> widely divergent from each other, are as valid a the poet's own. I
> am not sure if that kind of thing is acceptable for a sh'er like this
> one. All interpretations are "interesting", of course, but "valid?"
> UVR.
I am not inclined to agree with your view. First, there are
very few instances where the poet's own interpretation is
available for our scrutiny. This particular sher is one of
those rare examples. Secondly, what exactly is "validity",
and who is going to sit in judgment and determine it ?
In most cases, a sher's enjoyment gets enhanced if it can be
explained and/or understood in more than one sense. Of course,
such an explanation has to be plausible. Even this test of
"plausibility" can be made only if it is discussed in a
group (such as ALUP). Otherwise a person can interpret a sher
in his own way and he can be left to enjoy it in that fashion.
Just examine this sher itself. There have been quite a few
responses and several different interpretations. Of course,
it is possible that, in the course of general discussion,
a consensus can emerge and everyone can subscribe to that.
But the probability of that happening is rather low in most
cases.
Even within a sher, there can be individual words that are
capable of different interpretations and that fact adds
to our enjoyment of that sher. The theory of "validity"
seems to be a sort of mathematical proposition where there
can be only one solution to a given problem. All this of
course, IMHO.
Afzal
paabagil
> to it), which avers that all interpretations of a poem, no matter how
> widely divergent from each other, are as valid a the poet's own. I
> am not sure if that kind of thing is acceptable for a sh'er like this
> one. All interpretations are "interesting", of course, but "valid?"
Yes, I do subscribe to this school of thought and must add that at
least in the West, the issue has long been settled! In fact, all the
great literary theories of the 20th century, Modernism, Formalism,
Structuralism, Post Structuralism, etc., propose that the author
cannot be given absolute authority as the interpreter of the text he
has created. Here, I'll try to present a gist of what I understand of
these theories regarding author's viewpoint.
Consider this: if a poet, who enjoys "absolute" command over the
interpretation of the text, composes a misra, <i> nikaltaa hai maGhrib
se har shaam sooraj </i> and "explains" that what he meant by this is
that sooraj mashriq se har sub'h nikaltaa hai, on what we grounds are
we gonaa confront him? (ham us kaa kyaa bigaaR leN ge? :) So, the
important question to ask is, what does the "text" say, not what the
"author" says.
Structuralism (saaKhtiyaat) -- whose main proponents in the Urdu world
are Dr. Wazir AGha, Gopichand Narang and Shamsur Rahman Farooqi --
encloses the whole literary process into a triangle: the author, the
text and the reader, with each component being of equal importance.
A blast from the past:
There was a man in the seventeenth century England, called William
Prynne. He wrote in a book "Histriomatrix" that women who go to
theaters are "abandoned slatterns". Now the unfortunate fact that the
queen was also an avid patroness of theater landed our poor author
into trouble. He was tried in a court and despite pleas that he didn't
"mean" that the queen was an abandoned slattern and that since he was
the author, he must be given the ultimate say as to what did his
created text mean, he was fined, pilloried, jailed and got his ears
shorn! This little episode managed to raise sustained ripples in
European literary criticism over the centuries, until a consensus was
reached in around mid 20th century.
In the Orient too, the author's viewpoint never enjoyed absolute
command. Maulana Hali, for example, opines in Ghalib's bio, Yaadgaar e
Ghalib (while discussing a Persian she'er):
is she'er ke aik aur ma'anee nihaayat lateef aur paakeeza, zamaane ke
hasb e haal, bhee ho sakte haiN, jo shaayad she'er kehte vaqt Mirza ke
Khayaal meN na guzre hoN!
Allama Iqbal, in connection with a she'er of Maulana Girami (great
Indo-Persian poet and a contemporary of Iqbal) wrote that it was not
important if Maulana didn't have "this" meaning in his mind.
(... many other examples).
Moreover, in my humble opinion, a poet should not try to interpret his
kalaam, a point that I have raised before as well on these pages. A
few weeks back, in a meeting of the Halqa e Arbaab e Zauq, Islamabad,
a critique of a poem of the renowned poet Aftab Iqbal Shameem was
presented. As is the custom of the Halqa, many people commented on the
poem and there was some disagreement. Somebody asked Shameem saahib if
he had something to say. What he said is a memorable quote: "Whatever
I had to say, I've already said in the poem; if I add something here,
it will mean that the poem was incomplete and I must rewrite it!!!"
In this connection, I'd like to quote a passage from Plato's "Apology"
(sorry for the repetition, for I used this passage before as well)
[Plato goes to poets in order to learn something from
them]Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in
their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them - thinking
that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost
ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that there is hardly a
person present who would not have talked better about their poetry
than they did themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by
wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration
...
!!!
(more later -- if need be -- on UVR saahib "valid" and invalid
interpretations of a text. Suffice is to say here that this "theory"
actually degrades a text!)
> Be that as it may. Thanks again. You can be sure I'm going to 'get
> me a copy' of this book.
naaaaa, UVR saahib, meree hidaayat, naseehat -- balke vasee'at --
yehee hai k "is" kitaab se "stay away" raheN aur kaheeN se "Makaateeb
e Ghalib az Maulana Ghulam Rasool Mehr" pakaRne kee koshish kareN.
vajh e tasmee'a is hidaayat kee ye hai k Ghalib aik "zabardast" nasr
nigaar bhee the. Ghalib ke "wit", "humor" aur, sab se baRh kar, un kee
Urdu e Mu'alla kaa "chaTKhaaraa" to un kee "asl" tehreer meN hee mile
gaa naa, na k kisee tarjume meN ... chaahe vo Shakespeare ne hee kyoN
na kiyaa ho :) hai k naheeN? jab tak aap ko MGaMGRM naheeN miltee
(btw, mujh se tavaqqu mat rakhiye k maiN aap ko yahaaN se bhaijooN gaa
:)), aap kuchh karaare Khutoot yahaaN paRh sakte haiN (some in his own
handwriting!), jo is Khaaksaar ne baRee diqqat e nazar e muntaKhib
kiye the:
http://www.eurdubazaar.com/ghalib_letters.htm
Zaff
UVR
> UVR wrote:
>
>
> > There is a school of thought (our own 'Zaff-ji', I think, subscribes
> > to it), which avers that all interpretations of a poem, no matter how
> > widely divergent from each other, are as valid a the poet's own. I
> > am not sure if that kind of thing is acceptable for a sh'er like this
> > one. All interpretations are "interesting", of course, but "valid?"
>
> > UVR.
>
>
> I am not inclined to agree with your view. First, there are
> very few instances where the poet's own interpretation is
> available for our scrutiny. This particular sher is one of
> those rare examples. Secondly, what exactly is "validity",
> and who is going to sit in judgment and determine it ?
> In most cases, a sher's enjoyment gets enhanced if it can be
Afzal Khan saahib:
I do NOT disagree at all that the enjoyment of a sh'er is enhanced
if it can be explained in more than one sense. However ...
I take the view that there is one "correct" interpretation of every
poem: the ideas which the poet him/herself had when writing it. This
"correct"ness is what I called "valid"ity. The availability of the
poet's own interpretation, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do
with the fact that his/her interp. is (the) "correct" (one). [Note
that it is possible for the poet him/herself to superimpose several
ideas onto one sh'er -- I'm counting this as "one" interpretation.]
Notwithstanding how many ideas the poet used in writing the sh'er,
its readers may attach yet other ideas and interpretations to it.
All such interpretations, including those that fully or partially
coincide with the poet's own, or completely diverge from it, are
simply "opinions." I will agree with absolutely no reservations
that each and every single one of these interpretations can be
interesting. The curious thing is, some of these may even be more
'interesting' (as in containing more complex thoughts and ideas)
than the poet's own interpretation. That is great. More power to
such opinions, I say. But I somehow cannot accept the assertion
that all of these are at the same 'level' as the poet's own ori-
ginal idea(s). How can they be?
Coming back to the sh'er at hand, we saw several interpretations,
and some came very close to Ghalib's own. Now, THAT is something
I find incredibly amazing: that a poet (Ghalib) can convey what
he was thinking (and with such difficult metaphors!) to a reader
over a century after his death[*]. That, indeed, is the power of
the poetic word!
-UVR.
[*] Ghalib's, not the reader's, death! Though the latter would be
even more amazing :)
Afzal A. Khan
Ravindra Sahib,
Whether you call it "correctness" or "validity", it is the
same thing. As I said before, the poet's original opinion
or "tashreeh" may be available in the case of perhaps one
percent of his total poetic output (if that). So, if a poet
is keen that the readers should understand (only) his sense
of the sher or the "correct/valid" interpretation, he may have
to write a sort of "Cliff's Notes" for his Deewaan !
You state that the opinions or interpretations of others
cannot be placed at the same "level" as that of the poet's
original ideas. First of all, in the absence of the latter,
that "level" cannot be determined. Also, the other inter-
pretations/opinions can become a subject matter of discussion
only when they are openly expressed to others, or aired or
published. What about the majority of cases where the
readers have opinions but they remain unknown except to
themselves ? As far as published opinions are concerned
(works of literary criticism, for example), I doubt whether
any writer ever expresses the view that HIS interpretation
is superior to that of the poet. In almost 100 % of cases,
these critics are trying to explain the sher in their own
fashion in the awareness that the poet's own interpretation
might also have been the same. But they make no such claim
in an overt manner. It is immaterial whether such opinions
are "interesting" or otherwise, but they need not be classified
as "incorrect" or "invalid", for the simple reason that no
standard of such "correctness" is available.
Many years ago, (maybe 45 or so) I had read an opinion of a
noted Urdu critic that the most important factor contributing to
a sher's greatness is "ib_haam", which means "lack of clarity".
Kisi sher men paikar (imagery) jitna mub_ham hoga, sher utna
hi achchha samjha jaega. Or words to that effect. Maybe
Zafar Sahib can ferret out the actual quote. Now one need not
agree with that opinion, but the fact remains that the possi-
bility of there being more than one meaning in a sher is
definitely a factor in its enjoyment. And here, the question
of "validity" or "correctness" does not enter into it. Such a
notion at best is nebulous.
Afzal
paabagil
> noted Urdu critic that the most important factor contributing to
> a sher's greatness is "ib_haam", which means "lack of clarity".
> Kisi sher men paikar (imagery) jitna mub_ham hoga, sher utna
> hi achchha samjha jaega. Or words to that effect. Maybe
> Zafar Sahib can ferret out the actual quote. Now one need not
> agree with that opinion, but the fact remains that the possi-
> bility of there being more than one meaning in a sher is
> definitely a factor in its enjoyment. And here, the question
> of "validity" or "correctness" does not enter into it. Such a
> notion at best is nebulous.
muhtarim Afzal sahaib:
It's not "ibhaam", it's actually "kaseer ul ma'anveeat" (plurity of
meaning) that is the biggesting differenting factor between sublime
and ordinary literature. Tons of material has been written on this
issue in both the Western and Eastern poetics.
Coming back to your quote, I'll go a step further and present Mirza
Abdul Qadir Baidil's famous -- and extremely poignant -- quip:
she'er e Khush ma'anee na daarad!!!
(For those who might not know, MAQ Baidil was one of the greatest
Persian poets of India, with a distinct diction that Ghalib took pride
in emulating)
Zafar
Afzal A. Khan
paabagil wrote:
>
> > Many years ago, (maybe 45 or so) I had read an opinion of a
> > noted Urdu critic that the most important factor contributing to
> > a sher's greatness is "ib_haam", which means "lack of clarity".
> > Kisi sher men paikar (imagery) jitna mub_ham hoga, sher utna
> > hi achchha samjha jaega. Or words to that effect. Maybe
> > Zafar Sahib can ferret out the actual quote. Now one need not
> > agree with that opinion, but the fact remains that the possi-
> > bility of there being more than one meaning in a sher is
> > definitely a factor in its enjoyment. And here, the question
> > of "validity" or "correctness" does not enter into it. Such a
> > notion at best is nebulous.
>
> muhtarim Afzal sahaib:
>
> It's not "ibhaam", it's actually "kaseer ul ma'anveeat" (plurity of
> meaning) that is the biggesting differenting factor between sublime
> and ordinary literature. Tons of material has been written on this
> issue in both the Western and Eastern poetics.
>
> Coming back to your quote, I'll go a step further and present Mirza
> Abdul Qadir Baidil's famous -- and extremely poignant -- quip:
>
> she'er e Khush ma'anee na daarad!!!
I suppose one should put a comma after "KHush",
to avoid any kind of "ib_haam" !
In any case, I was merely trying to quote (from memory)
an observation by a leading Urdu literary critic.
And he did say "Ib_haam". Probably he was thinking in
terms of Browning and his well-known obscurity. Come
to think of it, many Urdu critics have relied a great
deal on western critical thought in formulating and
propagating their own views.
Afzal
> Zafar