sab kahaaN, kuchh laala o gul meN ...
Zafar
(sab se pehle to ma'azarat ke achaanak shehr se baahar jaanaa paRaa
jis kee binaa par ye post tehreer karne meN taaKheer ho ga'yee)
she'er par behs se pehle chand baateN arz karnaa zarooree samajhtaa
hooN. ye sab kuchh maiN pehle bhee ka'yee dafa' isee forum par arz kar
chukaa hooN lekin ba-vujooh in kee takraar Ghaliban bai-sood na ho
gaa. in nikaat meN 20veeN sadee ke ka'yee tanqeedee nazariyaat kaa
Khulaasa paish kiyaa gayaa hai:
1.
kisee matn (text) meN ma'anee musannif naheeN Daaltaa, bal k vo sirf
sayyaaq o sabaaq (context) faraaham kartaa hai jis se ma'anee aKhaz
(derive) ki'ye jaa sakeN. asl ma'anee kaa ta'een mu'aashira (society)
kartaa hai.
2.
no. 1 se ye nateeja nikaalaa jaa saktaa hai k manshaa e musannif
(author's viewpoint) kee ko'yee Khaas ehmeeyat naheeN, kyoN k ma'anee
to us kee milkee'at haiN hee naheeN.
3.
chooN k har qaaree apnee savaab-deed, ta'leem o tarbee'at aur adabee
zauq, vG, vG, ke mutaabiq matn se ma'anee aKhaz kartaa hai aur chooN k
ko'yee se 2 qaar'een har aitibaar se yaksaaN naheeN ho sakte, is li'ye
ye nateeja nikaalaa jaa saktaa hai k har matn ke ma'anee ke
laa-ta'adaad (infinite) "shades" mumkin haiN.
janaab e Afzal ne doosree laRee meN shaayad ye kahaa hai k Ghalib ke
kisee she'er kee ko'yee na'yee ta'abeer Ghalib ke saath naikee
*naheeN* ho gee. agar vaaqa'ee un kaa yehee matlab hai to maiN arz
karooN k shaariheeN ne Ghalib jaise kaseer ul jihat
(multi-dimensional) shaa'ir ke aik aik she'er ke ka'ee ka'ee mataalib
bayaan kiye haiN. to ham kaise keh sakte haiN k un meN se konsee
tashreeh "official" yaa "harf e aaKhir" hai, aur us ke ba'ad kisee
na'ye nukte kee gunjaa'ish naheeN reh ga'yee?
reh ga'ye vo ash'aar jin kee Ghalib ne Khud tashreeh kee hai (meree
gintee ke mutaabiq aise ash'aar kee ta'adaad 15 hai) to arz kar dooN k
Ghalib ne aksar muqaamaat par Khud apne she'er ke ma'anee ko mehdood
kar diyaa hai!
vaise bhee (jaisaa k oopar arz kiyaa ga'yaa hai) Ghalib kee apnee
tashreehaat bhee harf e aaKhir naheeN haiN. lekin vaazih rahe k sirf
ye jadeed critical theories hee kaa "shoshaa" naheeN hai bal k hamaare
haaN Hali aur Iqbal ke aqvaal bhee is kee sanad meN paish kiye jaa
sakte haiN. Hali "Yaadgaar e Ghalib" meN likhte haiN:
"...is she'er ke aik aur ma'anee nihaayat lateef aur paakeeza, zamaane
ke hasb e haal, bhee ho sakte haiN jo shayad she'er kehte vaqt Mirz ke
Khayaal meN na rahe hoN, magar zarooree hai k unhee ke nataa'ij e
afkaar meN shumaar ki'ye jaa'yeN."
is toolaanee tamheed ke ba'ad she'er kee taraf aate haiN.
sab kahaaN kuchh laala o gul meN numaayaaN ho ga'eeN
Khaak meN kyaa soorateN hoN gee k pinhaaN ho ga'eeN
ye she'er Ghalib kee mash'hoor Ghazal kaa matla' hai, jo unhoN ne 1852
meN shaahee darbaar meN mun'aqid hone vaale aik mushaa'ire ke li'ye
likhee thee. Ghalib ne apne aik dost Munshi 'Haqeer' ko ye Ghazal Khat
ke zaree'e bhejee aur saath meN ye likhaa:
"bhaa'ee, Khudaa ke vaaste [is] Ghazal kee daad denaa. agar reKhta ye
hai to Mir [Taqi Mir] o Mirza [Rafi Sauda] kyaa kehte the, agar vo
ReKhta thaa phir ye kyaa hai?"
ab is she'er ke ma'anee kee taraf aate haiN.
Sarwar Alam Raz:
yahaaN Ghalib un Haseen sooratoN kaa zikr Hasrat aur Gham se kar rahe
haiN jo iss dunyaa meiN apne Husn kee aab.o.taab chand din dikhaa kar
maut ke haathoN Khaak meiN mil gayeeN aur iss taraH hamaaree aaNkhoN
se ojhal ho gayeeN. in meiN se kuChh to laala (aik Khoobsoorat surKh
raNg kaa phool) aur gul (=gulaab) kee dilpazeer aur Haseen shakl meiN
pedaa ho kar dobaarah numaayaaN ho jaatee haiN aur ham ko
da'vat.e.nazzaara detee haiN lekin beshtar to aisee Ghaa'ib hu'eeN k
ab un kee yaad hee baaqee reh gayee hai.
Sarwar saahib ne baat saaf kar dee hai, lekin (ehtiyaatan) maiN doosre
chand ahbaab kee aaraa bhee paish karnaa chaahooN gaa:
Munshi Prem Chand:
falak e sitam kash ne bai-had o hisaab dilkash soorateN tah e Khaak
kar DaaleeN. laala o gul kee soorat dekh kar pata chaltaa hai k vuhee
soorateN jo miT ga'yee, ab is andaaz se zaahir ho rahee haiN.
Maulana Abdul Bari Aasi:
nairang e falak ne itnee pyaaree pyaaree soorateN Khaak meN milaa'yee
haiN jin kaa had o hisaab naheeN. vuhee soorateN, sab to Khabar kyaa,
magar haaN, kuchh laala o gul ban kar duniyaa meN numaayaaN huvee
haiN.
Jaush Malsiyani:
sab soorateN to naheeN, haaN kisee qadr laala o gul kee shakl meN
numaayaaN ho ga'yee haiN aur laala o gul ko dekh kar un ke husn kaa
andaaza ho saktaa hai.
lage haathoN chand Amreeki shaa'iroN ke tarjume bhee mulaahiza hoN:
WS Merwin:
Here and there in a rose or tulip
a few of the faces
only a few
but think of those that the dust
keeps to itself!
Adrienne Rich:
Not all, only a few, return as the rose or the tulip;
What faces there must be still veiled by the dust!
William Stafford:
Only the survivors come forth in the rose, the tulip.
What faces have gone down under the dust!
saaf zaahir hai k she'er kaa mazmoon bahut umda hai, lekin kyaa ye
Ghalib kee apnee iKhtiraa' (creation) hai? she'er mulaahiza ho:
naasiKh:
ho ga'ye dafn hazaaroN hee gul-andaam is meN
is li'ye Khaak se hote haiN gulistaaN paidaa
dekhaa aap ne? aisaa ma'aloom hotaa hai k Ghalib ne NasiKh ke she'er
se istifaada kiyaa hai. lekiN Khair, ye mazmoon to Mir ke haaN bhee
baar baar aayaa hai, sirf 2 misaaleN:
har qata' e chaman par Tuk gaaR kar nazar kar
bigReeN hazaar shakleN, tab phool ye baanaaye
haiN mustaheel [transformed] Khaak se ajzaa e nauKhataaN [innocents]
kyaa sehl [easy] hai zameeN se nikalnaa nabaat [flora] kaa
lekin ye mazmoon Mir kaa bhee naheeN hai! meenaar e ilm o adab, janaab
SR Faruqi ne apnee kitaab "Tafheem e Ghalib" meN likhaa hai k ye
mazmon dar'asl Amir Khusrau kee eejaad hai. is vaqt ye kitaab mere
saamne naheeN is ki'ye Khusrau kaa she'er paish naheeN kiyaa jaa
saktaa, lekin maiN ye kar saktaa hooN k Khusrau (died 1325) se bhee
puraanee aik misaal paish kar dooN. Urdu meN kyaa tarjuma karooN,
angraizee matn hee paish e Khidmat hai:
[In Greek mythology Narcissus was a handsome youth, the son of the
river god Cephissus. When he did not return the favors of a lovelorn
maiden named Echo, the avenging godess Nemesis cursed him.]
There was a clear fountain, with water like silver, to which the
shepherds never drove their flocks, nor the mountain goats resorted,
nor any of the beasts of the forest ... Hither came one day the youth,
fatigued with hunting, heated and thirsty. He stooped down to drink,
and saw his own image in the water; he thought it was some beautiful
water-spirit living in the fountain. He stood gazing with admiration
at those bright eyes, those locks curled like the locks of Dionysos or
Apollo ... He fell in love with himself ... [he gazed onto his
reflection continuously for days] so that by degrees he lost his
color, his vigor, and the beauty which formerly had so charmed the
nymph Echo ... He pined away and died ... in its place a flower,
purple within and surrounded with white leaves [grew], which bears the
name and preserves the memory of Narcissus.
from Bulfinch's Mythology <http://www.loggia.com/myth/echo.html>
(parentheses and editing mine)
(...
yahaaN Ghalib kaa aik aur she'er yaad aataa hai:
aa'eena dekh apnaa saa moonh le ke reh ga'ye
saahib ko dil na dene pe kitnaa Ghuroor thaa!
...)
Khair, ye yaad rahe k is phool ko Urdu meN "nargis" kehte haiN. lafz
"nargasee'at" isee se mushtaq hai jo "mareezana Khud-pasandee"
(narcissism) ke ma'anee meN iste'maal hotaa hai.
maiN ye da'ava to naheeN kar saktaa k Ghalib is myth se baaKhabar the,
lekin NasiKh -- jin se Ghalib ne kaafee istifaada kiyaa hai -- kaa aik
aur she'er dekhi'ye:
gire the aik din chaar aansoo chashm e jaanaaN se
bajaa'ye sabza nargis phooltee hai mere madfan par
**********
to kyaa ham keh sakte haiN k ye she'er maut o zindagee ke chakkar tak
mehdood hai? (Hali ne is she'er ke havaale se aavaagavan kee baat kee
hai.) mere Khayaal se aisaa naheeN, bal mazeed ma'anee faraaham ki'ye
jaa sakte haiN, misaal ke taur par:
duniyaa meN har taKhleeq-kaar (artist) ko apnee salaahee'yatoN
(potential) ke izhaar kaa mauqa' naheeN miltaa. chand hee log hote
haiN jo numaayaaN ho kar saamne aate haiN, aksar gosha e gumnaamee hee
meN mar-khap jaate haiN.
she'er kaa aik musbat pehloo bhee nazar aataa hai, aur vo ye k
maut/gumnaamee/zulm chaahe kitne hee bai-rehm/taaqat-var kyoN na ho,
zindagee/fan/salaaheeyateN kaheeN na kaheeN se apnaa raastaa nikaal
letee haiN!
so qaar'een, maiN ne aap ko kaafee "bore" kiyaa, is ke li'ye aik aur
ma'azarat!
Zaf
Afzal A. Khan
Thanks are due to Zafar Sahib for providing a new
insight into this sher.
Firstly, let me clarify that my (earlier) comment was
merely in a light vein and ought not to be taken as a
criticism.
That said, let me also add that I am not an adherent
of the "jadeed" theories of literary criticism. Any
discussion about the merits or demerits of these
theories may prove to be contentious. Even then, please
permit me to offer a few observations.
I believe, like most "traditional" literary critics, that
"sha'iri jazbaat ki zabaan hai". A sensitive soul, with
a genuinely poetic mind, would like to express his
thoughts in verse. So I find it difficult to assume that
a text or sher does NOT have some meaning infused by the
author himself. If the meaning of a sher is absolutely
clear, there is little or no need for a "shaarih" to offer
his interpretation. The "shaariheen" come into the picture
only where the diction is too difficult or where an ordinary
reader is likely to get non-plussed. Ghalib happens to be
a favourite in this respect, because his poetry represents
extreme difficulties for the sometimes hapless reader.
I believe this is the principal reason why we don't find
any worthwhile "sharah" of poets like Aatish, NaasiKH,
Momin and Zauq. While we have whole libraries filled with
"Ghalibiyaat" or "Iqbaliyaat", we hardly find any
"Mominiyaat" or "Zauqiyaat". To sum up, I think a sher is
nothing but an expression of a poet's feelings.
Secondly, I find it difficult to accept that a genuine poet
expends so much thought and effort to compose a ghazal or
nazm, ONLY with a view to provide his listeners or readers
opportunities to affix their own interpretations. Here, I
am primarily thinking of the Classical School of Urdu Poetry
comprising poets of the 18th/19th century.
Thirdly, when we try to interpret these poets through
modern theories, we should also bear in mind whether the
the new interpretation fits the atmosphere or milieu in
which the poet lived and which shaped his poetic output.
By stretching one's imagination, it may be possible (for
instance) to interpret Meer or Ghalib through the main
principles of 20th century movement/s (class conflict,
supremacy of the proletariat, withering away of the
state or the pre-eminence of democracy etc.) but this
can hardly be justified if these movement/s or beliefs
didn't exist at all in the poet's lifetime.
It is widely believed that any poet or man of letters is
a product of his times. And this is as true today as it
was a few centuries back. The literary output of late
seventeenth century England can hardly be understood or
enjoyed unless we are familiar with the Restoration
period of British history, just as it is impossible to
appreciate the Romantic Age poets without thinking of
the French Revolution.
Lastly, when the "shaariheen" give different interpre-
tations of a sher, they do try to take into account the
times and modes when the poet lived. The reader, when
reading such annotations, should be able to think : "the
poet could also have had the same meaning in mind while
composing this sher". I doubt whether modern theories
cause this sort of impression on the readers' mind.
The first "alternate" interpretation offered by Zafar
Sahib reminded me of the following lines by Milton
(from "Lycidas") :
Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen
And waste its fragrance in the desert air.
But Ghalib has taken this mundane thought to much
loftier heights. While acknowledging the emergence of
roses and tulips, he is also lamenting the passing away
from the scene of great minds and great beauties.
Milton, on the other hand, is content by saying that
these "gems" and "flowers" spent their lives in a
forgettable and non-descript existence.
I hope my differing views would not be taken amiss.
Afzal
Zafar
maiN aap kaa shukr-guzaar hooN k aap ne vaqt nikaal kar meree
"hafvaat" ko mulaahiza kiyaa aur un par apnee raa'ye kaa izhaar bhee
kiyaa. ye hamaaree Khush-naseebee hai k aap ne, aik lambe "hiatus" ke
ba'ad hee sahee, dubaaraa ALUP kaa ruKh kiyaa hai. maiN tavaqqu
rakhtaa hooN k aap aa'inda bhee yahaaN tashreef laate raheN ge aur
hameN apne afkaar se mustafeed hone kaa mauqa faraaham karte raheN ge.
aap ne "differing views" ke "taken amiss" kee baat kee hai, to arz kar
dooN k ham sab yahaaN taalib e ilm haiN aur iKhtilaaf e raa'ye na ho
to 'ilm kee raaheN masdood ho jaa'yeN! is li'ye aap ke "differing
views" sar aankhoN par :))
aik baat yahaaN vaazih kar dooN k in tehreeroN se meraa maqsad
sivaa'ye is ke kuchh naheeN k ALUP ke qaar'een ko kuchh "food for
thought" muhayyaa kiyaa jaa'ye.
Afzal saahib:
ma'azarat ke saath arz karooN k maiN is baat se ittifaaq naheeN kartaa
k shaa'iree "jazbaat kee zabaan hai".
aap ne classical Urdu Ghazal ke mutaali'ye ke dauraan ye zaroor
mulaahiza kiyaa ho gaa k shaa'ir dar'asl apne dilee o zaatee jazbaat
kaa izhaar naheeN kar rahaa hotaa bal k mazaameen kee aik "matrix" (jo
Farsi se aa'yee thee) ke andar reh kar ma'anee aafreenee ke muKhtalif
imkaanaat ko "explore" kar rahaa hotaa hai. (aik aadh misaal ke
istisnaa ke ilaava) ham ye naheeN keh sakte k (masalan) Mir ne jo
bayaan kiyaa vo un kee aap beetee hai! thoRee see koshish se ham ye
jaan sakte haiN k jo kuchh Mir ne (yaa Dard ne, Sauda ne, Ghalib ne,
vG) kahaa hai vo aksar o baishtar isee matrix ke andar reh kar kahaa
hai. Ghalib ke isee "sab kahaaN..." vaale she'er kee misaal le leN, is
ke DaanDe kahaaN jaa kar milte haiN!
> Secondly, I find it difficult to accept that a genuine poet
> expends so much thought and effort to compose a ghazal or
> nazm, ONLY with a view to provide his listeners or readers
> opportunities to affix their own interpretations. Here, I
> am primarily thinking of the Classical School of Urdu Poetry
> comprising poets of the 18th/19th century.
aap kee baat aik baar phir sar aankhoN par, lekin maiN is mauzoo' par
pehle Khaama-farsaa'ee kar chukaa hooN, use yahaaN, ma'amoolee
tabdeelioN aur editiog ke saath, "cut & paste" kar rahaa hooN:
I subscribe to this school of thought [not giving the central
importance to author's viewpoint] 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,
Deconstruction, Post Modernism, 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, to 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 roughly 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 the 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 his created
text meant, 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. [example of Maulana Hali from Yaadgaar
e Ghalib]
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 "that" meaning in his mind.
(... many other examples).
In this connection, I'd also like to quote a passage from Plato's
"Apology".
[Plato goes to poets in order to gain some wisdom 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
... !!!"
is baat meN to ko'yee shubah naheeN hai. aap kee ijaazat se maiN
yahaaN shaa'iree kee tafheem ke li'ye darkaar vasaa'il bayaan kar
detaa hooN:
1.
vo zabaan jis meN shaa'iree kee ga'yee
2.
vo usool jin ke teht shaa'iree kee ga'yee
3.
vo tehzeeb (mu'aashira) jis ke andar shaa'iree huvee
4.
qaaree kaa zauq aur adabee salaahi'yat
aap ne dekhaa ho gaa k meree "interpretations" Ghlalib kee tehzeeb se
mutasaadim naheeN haiN. :)
> The first "alternate" interpretation offered by Zafar
> Sahib reminded me of the following lines by Milton
> (from "Lycidas") :
>
> Full many a gem of purest ray serene
> The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear
> Full many a flower is born to blush unseen
> And waste its fragrance in the desert air.
bahut Khoob! aap ne Milton ke niyaahat "hasb e haal" ash'aar kee
nishaan dahee kee hai, jis ke li'ye maiN aap kaa az-had mamnoon hooN.
maiN soch rahaa thaa k is mauzoo' par kisee adabee risaale meN kuchh
tehreer kiyaa jaa'ye. aap kee ijaazat se maiN ye ash'aar us mazmoon
meN iste'maal karnaa chaahooN gaa.
> But Ghalib has taken this mundane thought to much
> loftier heights. While acknowledging the emergence of
> roses and tulips, he is also lamenting the passing away
> from the scene of great minds and great beauties.
> Milton, on the other hand, is content by saying that
> these "gems" and "flowers" spent their lives in a
> forgettable and non-descript existence.
aadaab arz hai,
Zaf
Afzal A. Khan
"Afzal A. Khan" wrote:
Sorry to follow up my own post.
But the attribution of the English verses was an error. The lines
are
actually from "Elegy Written In A Country Churchyard" by Thomas
Gray. I don't quite know why I thought about Milton and
"Lycidas".
The latter is usually termed as a "Pastoral Elegy" and possibly
this
word "Elegy" caused the confusion. In any case, my apologies.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Zafar wrote:
Zafar Saheb,
I am grateful to you for acknowledging the true spirit behind
my "KHaama-farsaa-i" . I am all in favour of such discussions
where differing viewpoints are dilated upon within "daaera-e-
tehzeeb". I hope the use of this sort of language does not
provoke Sarwar Saheb's ire !
I am quite in agreement with you when you talk about the
"matrix" derived from Farsi. After all, Urdu itself can be
termed a derived or "created" language. But should we take
umbrage against our poets for their versification within this
matrix ? Should we expect that they ought to have charted
a different course ? Farsi poetry has had a much longer history,
whereas Urdu poetry (at the time of the Classicists) had had
barely a century or so of existence. I firmly believe that no
blame
attaches to these poets for following the Farsi traditions. As a
matter of fact, this sort of tradition has now become an
established
Urdu tradition and, perhaps, we can now talk of an Urdu matrix too.
Obviously, I cannot speak in the language usually employed by
modern critics, but I hope I have been able to explain my views.
I don't quite understand why we should expect these poets to write
about their "aap-beeti" only. As a criticism, we can say, though,
that
in many cases, these poets have sort of re-hashed the same or old
("farsooda" or "paamaal") mazameen. This would be a valid
criticism.
And, probably, this would be applicable to much of the poetry being
purveyed in our NG too, although we are now in the 21st century !
But my point is that these poets should not be blamed for following
the Farsi tradition in that early period, when Urdu poetry was in
its
nascent stage, in a manner of speaking. Also, poets like Ghalib
are
in a class of their own for their poetry has that element of
universa-
lity or "aafaaqiyat" that is the hallmark of great poetry. When we
speak of acknowledged Urdu experts like yourself and Sarwar
Sahib etc., there is little need to quote examples. Even then, a
few
shers of Ghalib can be cited below :
Yak nazar besh naheeN fursat-e-hasti GHaafil
Garmee-e-bazm hai ik raqs-e-ssharar hone tak
GHam-e-hastee ka Asad kis se ho juz marg ilaaj
Shama' har rang men jalti hai sahar hone tak
Jab ke tujh bin naheen koi maujood
Phir yeh haNgaama ai KHuda kya hai
Aage aati thi haal-e-dil pe haNsee
Ab kisi baat par naheeN aati
Kehte haiN jeete haiN ummeed pe log
Hum ko jeene ki bhi ummeed naheeN
Rau men hai RaKHsh-e-umr kahaan dekhiye thame
Nai haath baag par hai na paa hai rakaab men
There can be scores of such examples where the sher and its mazmoon
can be enjoyed in much the same way today as it was 150 years back.
You have referred to modern Western theories like Formalism,
Structuralism and Deconstruction etc. I do not quite understand
why we should try to measure Classical Urdu poetry within the
parameters of these theories. Ghalib, Momin, DaaGH etc. were the
products of their time and if they somehow fail to pass muster
when
examined with reference to these modern theories, it would be
unfair to blame them. To quote an analogy from cricket, "form"
is temporary but "class" is permanent. Similarly, theories may be
propounded today and discarded tomorrow, but the true worth of a
genuine poet is something eternal. Our lives are all too brief but
I daresay that Ghalib and Meer etc. would still be remembered with
fondness and reverence even 200 years hence.
You have stated that Structuralism places the whole literary process
into a triangle ---> the author, the text and the reader, with each
component
being of roughly equal importance. This seems to contradict the
view
expressed in your earlier post, viz.
" kisee matn (text) meN ma'anee musannif naheeN Daaltaa, bal k vo
sirf
sayyaaq o sabaaq (context) faraaham kartaa hai jis se ma'anee aKhaz
(derive) ki'ye jaa sakeN. asl ma'anee kaa ta'een mu'aashira
(society)
kartaa hai."
I do have a great deal of respect for Modern Urdu literary
criticism.
But I feel it is too "high-brow", and meant mostly for scholars. On
the
other hand, poetry is for the general masses. IMHO, a literary
theory
should also be understood by the people who generally read and enjoy
Urdu poetry. If the purpose of a theory is to mould public opinion
or
guide it towards a particular path, this can be best achieved if it
is made
easier to understand. Each component of the triangle you speak of
has to play a meaningful role. Right now, it seems as if these
critics
sort of stand apart and take shots at the poetic offerings of old
and new
poets. The general poetry-reading public remains more or less
ignorant
of these criticisms.
While I agree that the author need not be given "absolute" command
over
his compositions, he definitely deserves to be given at least a
"hearing" !
Also, it is to be noted that a poet has absolutely NO command over
what the
general public chooses to make of his verses. Even Ghalib was
helpless when
the general public did not quite follow his diction and thought
processes and
criticised him mercilessly. It is open to the readers to interpret
a sher in
their own way. But it would be too churlish to claim that the
author or poet
does NOT infuse any meaning in his poetry and that this is the sole
prerogative
of others.
The misra quoted by you "Nikalta hai maghrib se har shaam sooraj" is
absolutely "mohmil", and need not be used as an example in such
discussions. If any "poet" chooses to write such "poetry", he
deserves to
be "pilloried and have his ears shorn".
I am in full agreement with the four "wasaails" enumerated by you
for
understanding and interpreting Urdu poetry. I also agree that your
interpretation and Ghalib's "tehzeeb" are not "mutasaadim". But,
methinks,
these four points and the modern theories cited by you may not be
completely congruent.
As regards using the English verses, quoted by me, in some adabi
risaala, please do so by all means --- except that I had made a
wrong
attribution about the author. The poet is not Milton but Thomas
Gray.
In another post, I have explained how the confusion occurred.
Please do
read it. The poem in question is "Elegy Written In A Country
Churchyard".
It is a masterpiece of English poetry. Perhaps it might interest
you to know
that the poet spent about 30-35 years in polishing the poem before
allowing
its publication.
There is no need for me to tell you how much I (and other ALUPERS)
value your contributions. When your article is published, perhaps
you
can share the same with us on this NG.
Afzal
Zafar
janaab Afzal saahib:
sab se pehle to mujhe apne 'ijz e bayaan kaa etiraaf karne deeji'ye k
meree kisee baat se naa chaahte huve bhee ko'yee aisaa matlab niklaa k
jaise maiN maGhrabee tehzeeb yaa tasavvuraat ko mashiriqee tehzeeb o
tasavvuraat par muqaddam samajhtaa hooN. huzoor, aisee ko'yee baat
naheeN hai. meraa to 'aqeeda ye hai k har tezheeb kaa'inaat aur us ke
mazaahir ko samajhne aur baratne ke li'ye apne daaKhilee tareeqe
eejaad kartee hai, aur adab kisee bhee tehzeeb kaa sab se taaqat-var
zaree'a e izhaar hai. is li'ye har tehzeeb apne taur par tai kartee
hai k konsee cheez adab hai aur konsee naheeN, konsee adab a'alaa hai
aur konsaa adnaa. chunaanche kisee tehzeeb ke fan paare ko parakhne ke
li'ye usee tehzeeb ke tanqeedee usooloN ko baroo e kaar laanaa
laazimee hai.
LEKIN, ye to aap maaneN ge k maGhrabee tanqeed o falsafe ne baRee
taraqqee kee hai. aur aap ye bhee maante haiN k "ilm to maumin kee
meeraas hotaa hai, jahaaN se mile, le lenaa chaahi'ye". to kyoN na un
sadee'oN par muheet tehqeeq se faa'ida uThaayaa jaa'ye, aur agar in se
ko'yee madad miltee hai to kyoN na in ko ist'emaal kiyaa jaa'ye? haaN,
in se mar'oob honaa aur in ko apnee tehzeeb se bartar samajhnaa aur
baat hai. aur maiN aap se arz karooN k apnee tehzeeb aur adab ko
samajhne ke li'ye mujhe maGhribee tareeqa e tanqeed o tehqeeq o tajzia
se baRee madad milee hai!
is baat par maiN aap se 16 aane muttafiq hooN aise log yaqeenan qaabil
e 'etiraaz o muzammat haiN jo classical Urdu shaa'iree ko "paamaal"
aur "farsooda" samajhte haiN (alhamdu lillah, maiN un meN shaamil
naheeN hooN :) dekhi'ye naa, hamaaree classical shaa'iree kee jo bhee
matrix thee, vo chand usooloN par qaa'im thee. aik to us vaqt kee
tehzeeb aur musannif kaa tasavvur e kaa'inaat (worldview) thaa. jis
kaa Khulaasa kuchh yooN bayaan kiyaa jaa saktaa hai:
*kaa'inaat Ghair-taGhayyur-pazeer (unchangeable) hai
*kaa'inaat meN fard ko markazee haisiyat haasil naheeN hai
*aafaaq kaa mutaali'a zarooree hai, na k anfus kaa
aap dekheN ge k tamaam classical adab inhee usooloN ke gird ghoomtee
hai. aap ne dekhaa ho gaa k Ghazal kaa rivaa'atee 'aashiq hai to
hamesha se naakaam o naashaad, mehboob hai to hamesha bad-Khoo, raqeeb
hai to hamesha bul-havas, vG, vG. goyaa is matrix meN ko'yee tabdeelee
mumkin naheeN hai. isee tarah aap ne ye bhee dekhaa ho gaa k maGhribee
shaa'iree ke bar'aks -- jahaaN kisee phool ko bayaan karne kaa ye
tareeqa hotaa hai k us kee har rag aur rang kaa har "shade" saaf nazar
aa'ye (aap ne Walter Scot ke baare meN sunee ho gaa k vo jungle meN
jaa kar daraKhtoN aur jhaaRioN ke baare meN "notes" letaa thaa aur
phir ghar aa kar likhtaa thaa, yaa Gustave Flaubert ne sardioN kee aik
pooree raat khule aasmaan tale guzaaree taa k paudoN par paale ke
asaraat kaa jaa'iza le sake) -- hamaare haaN sirf "gul" kehnaa kaafee
hai, kyoN k gul se muraad aik "ideal" aur "perfect" phool hai, us kee
juzi'yaat bayaan karne kaa ko'yee faai'da naheeN hai, vG, vG (ye
Khayaal Ghaliban musalmaanoN ne Plato se liyaa hai).
phir ye dekhi'ye k mazaameen kee takraar bhee aik "unchangeable"
duniyaa ke usool se mutaabiqat rakhte hai!
ye tasavvur e kaa'inaat aaj se 150 saal pehle maGhrabee tehzeeb kee
chakaa-chond ke saamne chaknaa-choor ho gayaa. na vo usool rahe, na vo
zamaana rahaa, na vo tasavvuraat. magar is sitam zareefee ko kyaa
keeji'ye k aaj, ya'anee 2003 meN bhee, hamaare "Ghazal-go" unhee
usooloN aur usee tasavvur e kaa'inaat ke tehet shaa'iree ki'ye chale
jaa rahe haiN!!! aur un meN se bahut soN ko ye bhee ma'aloom naheeN k
ham jo likh rahe haiN, aaKhir us kee "playing conditions" kyaa haiN!!!
aadaab arz hai,
Zaf
Afzal A. Khan
Zafar wrote:
Zafar Saheb,
You will please excuse me if I say that the first and second paragraphs
of your message under reply seem a little bit contradictory. It is not a
question of preferring one Tehzeeb over another. In my humble view,
it is a question of using those methods for evaluating (Urdu) poetry which
are appropriate for the purpose. Like Urdu poetry itself, I think even
Urdu literary criticism has a "classical" tradition --- seemingly, it is
only
during the past 50-60 years that "younger" critics (having had
a good deal of exposure to Western influences) have
introduced new ideas or methods in this area. Only
during this period, we find mention of such names as
Richards, Foucault or Paul de Man. What I find
rather bewildering is why Sauda, Meer, Ghalib, Daagh
or Iqbal should be evaluated according to the princi-
ples propounded by the Western thinkers. Admittedly,
I have only a nodding acquaintance (if that) with
these modern theories, but I seriously doubt whether
these thinkers ever had an opportunity to read, under-
stand and judge Farsi and Urdu poetry. Even such
popular and well-read poets (for Indian people) as
Milton, Wordsworth, Shelley and Keats can hardly be
compared (that is, weighed alongside) with Meer or
Ghalib. The "playing conditions" are so different.
Perhaps a question of apples and oranges.
Aap ne jis (qadeem) tasavvur-e-kaainaat ka zikr kiya
hai, us ke muta'alliq muKHtalif a~ra ho sakti haiN
magar is behs men paRna mujhe maqsood naheeN. GHaur-
talab baat yeh hai ke aaj 2003 men bhi shaa'iree unheeN
puraane tasavvuraat ke tehet kyoN ki ja rahi hai.
I think you are well suited to write something about
this subject.
Most (if not all) of us are very fond of the classical
traditions of Urdu poetry but I feel that this sort of
attachment (or even addiction) has, in a way, limited
the scope and range of Urdu poetry. For example,
agar aap "manaazir-e-qudrat" pe koi nazm paRHna chaaheN
to aap ko Meer Anees ke marsiyoN ka sahaara lena paRega.
Aisa kyoN ? Maulana Azad is known mainly as an "Insha-
pardaaz". But he has an honoured place in my eyes as a
poet too --- for his poem "Qila-e-AkbarAabaad". Here,
I would like to mention a rather obscure Urdu poet by
the name of Syed Benazeer Shah who wrote mostly about
a subject I have already mentioned above --- "manaazir-e-
qudrat". Why can't we try to discuss other genres of
Urdu poetry ? Some years back, I had mentioned a poem
"Noor JahaaN ke Mazaar Par" --- a sort of elegiac tribute
to the Mughal Empress and a dirge about the vicissitudes
of time. Some friends were good enough to post the
entire poem by Munshi Tilok Chand Mehroom.
Baat ho rahee thi Ghalib ke ek sher ki. Aap ne jo
"jadeed" interpretation faraaham ki hai, woh apni
jagah GHalat qaraar naheeN di ja sakti. You have given
the sher an optimistic twist. Lekin aap yeh bhi dekhiye
ke sher ka qaari par kya asar paRta hai. And here, I
feel that the original or "rivaayati" interpretation
leaves a deeper impact on the reader's mind.
In an earlier post, I had mentioned that an ordinary
reader of Urdu poetry may not have had any access or
exposure to literary theories of Oriental or Western
critics. For such people (and I would like to include
myself in this group), there can be a rule of thumb.
Achchha sher wohi hai jo dil ko chhoo jaaye. Main ek
sher ki misaal dena chaahooNga jo mujhe bahut pasand
hai. Aap GHaur kareN ke sher men koi mushkil lafz ya
dilpazeer tarkeeb naheeN hai magar dil par ek 'ajeeb
asar hota hai :
Dil men ik dard uTha, aaNkh men aaNsoo bhar aaye
BaiThe baiThe hamen kya jaaniye kya yaad aaya
Many years back, I had come across a sher by Mas-hafi
in some book. Now, I can't recall the sher, but I still
remember a phrase used by him in one misra : "ji kuchh
aisa ruNdha...". Yeh lafz "ruNdha" aaj kal ist'emaal
naheeN kiya jaata. Lekin agar aap yeh sher DhooNDh
nikaaleN, to mujhe yaqeen hai aap bhi yehi kaheNge ke
us jagah is lafz se baRhkar koi doosra lafz naheeN ho
sakta tha.
I think I have aleady taken a lot of your time.
So, Allah Haafiz and God bless you.
Afzal
Naseer
>
>
> Many years back, I had come across a sher by Mas-hafi
> in some book. Now, I can't recall the sher, but I still
> remember a phrase used by him in one misra : "ji kuchh
> aisa ruNdha...". Yeh lafz "ruNdha" aaj kal ist'emaal
> naheeN kiya jaata. Lekin agar aap yeh sher DhooNDh
> nikaaleN, to mujhe yaqeen hai aap bhi yehi kaheNge ke
> us jagah is lafz se baRhkar koi doosra lafz naheeN ho
> sakta tha.
>
> I think I have aleady taken a lot of your time.
> So, Allah Haafiz and God bless you.
>
> Afzal
Could the shi3r you had in mind, be this one?
us kii raftaar kaa mazkuur jab aa jaataa hai
jii kii hotii hai yih haalat kih ruNdhaa jaataa hai
...............................................................
Naseer
Raj Kumar
***janaab Naseer sahib:
Urdu shaa'irii meN lafz ruNdhaa/ruNdhii ka ist'emaal maiN ne pahli baar Firaaq Gorakhpuri ki taveel nazm "hinDola" meN dekha tha. aur aaj aap ke tavassut se ise duusri baar yahaaN dekha hai. ba-har-Haal, jis misr'e meN maiN ne yeh ist'emaal pahli baar dekha tha, voh misr'a Haazir hai:
ruNdhii sadaa se mahabbat ki bheek maaNgii hai
Khair-aNdesh, Raj Kumar***
Afzal A. Khan
Ab yaad'daasht kamzor ho chali hai, phir bhi jahaaN tak yaad
aata hai, yeh hawaala maiN ne kisi Urdu naqqaad ki kitaab men
paRha tha, jahaaN unhoN ne Mushafi ke is sher ke muta'alliq
kaha tha k(e) yahaaN is lafz {'ruNdha"} se behtar koi aur
lafz ho hi naheeN sakta tha.
Afzal
Naseer
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Mukhtaruddin Ahmed Saheb "Aarzoo" (of Aligarh Muslim
University).
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Instead of going through Mukhtaruddin Saheb's books, I think a
better alternative would be to examine the Deewaan of Mushafi.
IIRC, the expression {"ji kuchh aisa ruNdha.."} occurs in the
second misra' of a ghazal. I can only wish you "Best of luck".
Afzal
Naseer
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
That is why I had wished you "Best of luck" !!
BTW, Mus'hafi had also complained :
Dilli men bhi chori mira deewaan gaya tha
Imagine, your haystack would have been much bigger
if that theft had not occurred !
I will try and see if the search can be narrowed somewhat.
Afzal
>
Naseer
maiN jii meN ruNdhuuN/ruNdhaa huuN kih yih kyoN aaj milaa garm
Is this the shi3r in question?
.............................................................
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
I cannot get that idea out of my mind that the second misra'
began with the words "ji kuchh aisa ruNdhaa....."
Also, the wordings in the above sher are a little convoluted.
If you can paraphrase it, the sense can become clear(er).
Thanks for continuing the search.......
Afzal
Naseer
jii meN ruNdhuuN huuN itnii garm-joshii se kyoN milaa mujhe aaj
jab mujhe tere saath dekh kar vuh mujh se naagahaaN lipaT gayaa
jii meN ruNdhaa huuN k itnii garm-joshii se kyoN milaa mujhe aaj
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Bahut bahut shukriya. Afsos yeh hai k(e) matlab ab bhi waazeh
na ho paaya.
YahaaN shaa'ir ke 'ilaawa(h) do aur "ash'KHaas" ka zikr ho raha
hai. To is se kya nateeja aKHaz kiya jaaye ? Does he want to
have his cake and eat it too ? Isn't there a saying in Faarsi
---> "Hum KHurma o hum Sawaab --- or words to that effect ?
I am sure the blame is all mine.
Afzal
Naseer
yih jii ruNdhaa kih ziist se bezaar ham hu'e
Mushafi
kyaa yih aap kaa matluubah shi3r hai?
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Nujhe be~had sharmiNd'gi hai k(e) meri KHaatir aap itni zehmat
uTha rahe haiN.........
Agar is sher men thoRi "islaah" kar di jaaye to shaayad baat ban
sakti hai :
Jab fasl-e-gul qafas men giriftaar huwe
Ji kuchh aisa ruNdha, jeene se bezaar huwe
The late actor/singer K.L. Saigal had sung a ghazal that used to be
very popular :
Haaye kis but ki mohabbat men giriftaar huwe
Zind'gi talKH huwi, jeene se bezaar huwe
Afzal
Naseer
The latest shi3r that I have posted and I thought I had struck the jackpot is listed on page 177 in a book called "Mushafi aur un kaa kalaam" by Dr Abu Lais Siddiqi. The shi3r is printed as...
jab fasl-i-gul qafas meN giriftaar hu'e
yih jii ruNdhaa kih ziist se bezaar hu'e
...........................................................................
Now, as I have indicated earlier, it is quite possible that the shi3r that you have in mind is somewhere in the remaining three diivaans. And if we are lucky, perhaps some scholar may have quoted it in his/her book. So, the search continues!:-)
Naseer