A Ghazal By A Pakistani Shaa'ir
Afzal A. Khan
There hasn't been much activity on our Newsgroup in recent
days. So I decided to post the following ghazal that I came
across some time back. The poet is a relatively lesser-known
Pakistani poet Ameen-ul-Basheer Ameen.
KaheeN jo tazkira-e-mauj-e-raNg-o-boo Thehre
Tira shabaab hee mauzoo'-e-guftugoo Thehre
Yeh 'ahd-e-tark-e-t'alluq bhee saaniha hai koi
Ke ek 'umr huwi aaNkh men lahoo Thehre
HameeN ne aaiinoN ko bolna sikhaaya tha
Wagar na taab thee kis men ke roo~ba~roo Thehre
MaiN jaaN luTa ke mohabbat ke mujrimoN men raha
Woh jaan le ke zamaane men surKH~roo Thehre
Bacha ke rakhkhe kahaaN tak koi bikharne ko
Jab aab~geenoN ko patthar kee aarzoo Thehre
Malaal dil ko na ho phir kisee ke khone ka
Mira naseeb, mira hum~safar jo tu Thehre
Kuchh is tar'ha khula mujh pe raNg-o-roop us ka
MaiN jo bhee naqsh utaaroN woh hoo~ba~hoo Thehre
MaiN dekhta hooN to har koi apna lagta hai
Jo sochta hooN to ha shaKHs hee 'adoo Thehre
Du'aa-e aaKHir-e-shab hai ke dahr-e-ulfat men
Miree tarah se na koi be~aabroo Thehre
Yeh shauq bhee hai paRhooN us ko harf~harf Ameen
Yeh soch bhee ke mira zauq baa~wuzoo Thehre !!
Afzal
Amjad
salaam arz hai
Ameen saHib ki bahot khoobsurat ghazal pesh ki hai aap ne.
darj-e-zail ash'aar khaas taur per pasand aaye :
KaheeN jo tazkira-e-mauj-e-raNg-o-boo Thehre
Tira shabaab hee mauzoo'-e-guftugoo Thehre
HameeN ne aaiinoN ko bolna sikhaaya tha
Wagar na taab thee kis men ke roo~ba~roo Thehre
Bacha ke rakhkhe kahaaN tak koi bikharne ko
Jab aab~geenoN ko patthar kee aarzoo Thehre
Kuchh is tar'ha khula mujh pe raNg-o-roop us ka
MaiN jo bhee naqsh utaaroN woh hoo~ba~hoo Thehre
Yeh shauq bhee hai paRhooN us ko harf~harf Ameen
Yeh soch bhee ke mira zauq baa~wuzoo Thehre !!
kia kehne. bahot bahot shukria
Amjad
UVR
> There hasn't been much activity on our Newsgroup in recent
> days. So I decided to post the following ghazal that I came
> across some time back. The poet is a relatively lesser-known
> Pakistani poet Ameen-ul-Basheer Ameen.
>
> KaheeN jo tazkira-e-mauj-e-raNg-o-boo Thehre
> Tira shabaab hee mauzoo'-e-guftugoo Thehre
>
>
> Kuchh is tar'ha khula mujh pe raNg-o-roop us ka
> MaiN jo bhee naqsh utaaroN woh hoo~ba~hoo Thehre
>
>
> Du'aa-e aaKHir-e-shab hai ke dahr-e-ulfat men
> Miree tarah se na koi be~aabroo Thehre
>
> Yeh shauq bhee hai paRhooN us ko harf~harf Ameen
> Yeh soch bhee ke mira zauq baa~wuzoo Thehre !!
>
> Afzal
Afzal saahib,
Thanks for posting this Ghazal.
A couple of questions came to mind as I read it, related to the
ash'aar
with the qawaafee "hoo-ba-hoo" and "be-aabroo" that I have retained
above from your post. Both questions have to do with the validity
(for
lack of a better term) of constructs employed by the poet.
1. "rang-o-roop": In previous discussions on ALUP as well as
elsewhere
it has been suggested that using 'atfi waaw in phrases constructed
with words of Hindi origin is not considered all that acceptable.
Is
this considered 'faseeh' usage (at least in the Urdu that is
being spoken these days in Pak)?
(Aside: is the word 'se' missing between 'tarha' and 'khulaa' in
the
first misra of this sh'er?)
2. "be-aabroo": It would appear that in order to "fit" this word into
the
Ghazal, the poet has used it as if its pronunciation were 'bi-
aabroo'
-- i.e., by contracting the length of the 'be'.
To me, this sounds unnatural, but what do I know? Perhaps from
your experience with the works of other poets you are familiar
with,
you could tell us whether this type of contraction has been
practiced
by anyone else, especially one of the Masters?
-UVR.
Naseer
janaab-i-UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
Although your post is directed at Afzal Sahib, please allow me to at
least look at part of your query.
> A couple of questions came to mind as I read it, related to the
> ash'aar
> with the qawaafee "hoo-ba-hoo" and "be-aabroo" that I have retained
> above from your post. Both questions have to do with the validity
> (for
> lack of a better term) of constructs employed by the poet.
>
> 1. "rang-o-roop": In previous discussions on ALUP as well as
> elsewhere
> it has been suggested that using 'atfi waaw in phrases constructed
> with words of Hindi origin is not considered all that acceptable.
> Is
> this considered 'faseeh' usage (at least in the Urdu that is
> being spoken these days in Pak)?
Well spotted UVR Sahib! I am also aware of this restriction although I
am of the view that one must be allowed to experiment and try untested
waters. "rang-o-roop" kind of construction is not really new. Older
poets were "validating" this usage. It is possible (and Zafar Sahib
may be able to offer examples from the new generation of poets) that
both Indian and Pakistani poets are breaking down old shackles.
dhuup meN GHam kii taazgii hai use
dil nahiiN hai gul-i-do-paharii hai
Sayyid siraaaj-ud-Diin Siraaj, 1715-1763
aa kar kahiiN maze kii nanhii phohaar barse
chihroN kaa rang chhaT kar Husn-o-nikhaar barse
Naziir Akbaraabaadii
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb,
Like yourself, I too looked askance at this construct. And the
same explanation occurred to me too --- that (in Pakistan at
least) some new experiments are being tried. But then, there
could be another "explanation" too. How about omitting the
"waav" altogether ?
Kuchh is tar'ha khula mujh pe raNg~roop us ka
A slight pause after 'raNg' may perhaps take care of the "wazn".
It is possible that the "kaatib" might have carried out this
"islaah", by adding the 'waav' !!
Your second point reminded me of this misra' by Ghalib :
MaiN ne yeh jaana ke goya yeh bhee mere dil men hai
In fact, I wanted to transcribe this word as "bi'aabroo", but then
thought better of it.
The poet belongs to the same place where Shri Gulzar (of our
film industry) was born --- to kuchh na kuchh asar hona
"suvabhaavik" hai !!
Afzal
UVR
That's entirely possible -- we are familiar with not only the
Printer's Devil but also with Devilish Printers, especially
in out subcontinent. "rang roop" does indeed fit the meter
at that place. However, and I will say this again, the line
is not in behr as written above (or with the waaw) -- it's
short one syllable --
kuchh is tarha [se] khulaa mujh pe rang roop us kaa
OR
kuchh is tarha hai khulaa ...
OR
kuchh is tarha bhi khulaa ...
Perhaps the same "devil" responsible for the inclusion
of the waaw is responsible for the elision of 'se'!
> Your second point reminded me of this misra' by Ghalib :
>
> MaiN ne yeh jaana ke goya yeh bhee mere dil men hai
>
> In fact, I wanted to transcribe this word as "bi'aabroo", but then
> thought better of it.
>
> The poet belongs to the same place where Shri Gulzar (of our
> film industry) was born --- to kuchh na kuchh asar hona
> "suvabhaavik" hai !!
>
> Afzal
You may be on to something, Afzal saahib! The Gulzar connection
might explain more than just 'bi-aabroo'. It could provide insight
into the "rang-o-roop" construct as well! For it is Gulzar's pen that
is responsible for creating the compound misaal-e-os[1]
"Innovation" is not limited to one side of The Border :)
-UVR.
[1] Both from the film Dil Se, in the song chhaiyyaa.N chhaiyyaa.N,
transcribed here (with minor errors) --
http://thaxi.hsc.usc.edu/rmim/giitaayan/cisb/355.isb
Afzal A. Khan
>>>> Kuchh is tar'ha khula mujh pe raNg-o-roop us ka
>>>> MaiN jo bhee naqsh utaaroN woh hoo~ba~hoo Thehre
>>>Afzal saahib,
I am not very sure that "se" is definitely required in
the above misra'. If you read "tar'ha" with a slight
pause in between, the metre may not possibly be disturbed.
I am reminded of a song from the 80's film "Aap To Aise Na
The" : Tu is tarah se miree zindagi men shaamil hai
It is to be noted that, here, "rah" is pronounced rather
quickly. But, I suppose, it is permissible to slightly
alter the pronunciation (the way I had transcribed the word
originally) to suit "ri'aayat-e-sh'eri".
Afzal
UVR
I feel that a word of the weight of "se" _is_ required, but we can
agree
to disagree, since we seem to be doing a lot of that these days!
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
Mukarramee UVR Saheb,
Aap naaraaz na hoN.
There is no question of any disagreement here. If one
pronounces the word as "tarah" (with a zabar over 're'),
then I suppose "se" can and should be added. Essential-
ly, there is no disagreement here.
But I do feel there is another fundamental question here. Is
there a "jazm" or "zabar" over 're' ? I am under an impression
(erroneous perhaps) that "tarah" (with zabar over 're') is
a sort of colloquial pronunciation. The more acceptable pro-
nunciation could be "tar'h(a)", with a jazm over 're' and a
short (a) added after the last letter --- a little like
"Ram(a)". Maybe you can consult some good, authoritative
dictionary. And we can also call upon Naseer Saheb to go
through his resources and give us his opinion.
In searching the Archives of ALUP, I came across several
instances where the word "tar'h(a)" has been used.
Some examples are given below :
Two verses by Masud Reza Saheb. Regrettably we haven't
seen any posts from him lately :
Dil ke, jigar ke aar paar, is tar'h(a) teer-e-naaz ho
Dil ho hareem-e-naaz men, dil men hareem-e-naaz ho
Sehn-e-chaman men aaj woh, is tar'h(a) mahv-e-naaz ho
Mauj-e-naseem-e-subh kee, zulfoN se saaz~baaz ho
Another sher that I came across is as follows :
Tujh se kis tar'h(a) maiN izhaar-e-tamanna karta
Lafz soojhe to ma'aani ne baGHaawat kar dee
A sher from a ghazal by Kaifi. It seems he was very young
(merely 11 years old) when he composed it :
Is tar'h(a) haNs raha hooN maiN pi~pi kar ashk-e-GHam
YooN doosra haNse to kaleja nikal paRe
Ek sher Janaab KHursheed Saheb ka bhi sun leejiye : !!!
KahooN to 'ishq men kis tar'h(a) KHud ko laa~saanee
JunooN men aage haiN jab Qais-o-Kohkan mujh se
A sher from a long poem by Josh Maleehabadi ("Jungle Ki
Shahzaadi") :
Sunna tha yeh ke zaalim is tar'h(a) muskuraa-ii
Fariyad kee nazar se armaaN ne dee duhaa-ii
I am sure many more examples of a similar nature can be found in
our Archives and also in 'kalaam-e-asaatiza".
In all the verses that have been cited above, the wazn/behr may
not possibly be disturbed if the word "tar'h(a)" is enunciated
as "tarah" (with 'zabar'). But, to my mind, it is the former
transcription/spelling/pronunciation that makes for easier and
more fluent reading. Just my opinion.
Afzal
Asa'd
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for posting this Ghazal, Afzal Sahib!
taraH vs tar'Ha reminds me of a she'r from Sirajuddin Zafar.
aur abhii rauNd inheN, ai kaf-e-paa-e-teHqiiq
dil meiN sau tar'Ha k auhaam abhii baaqii haiN!
How about dedicating this one to our dear friend Naseer Sahib! :-)
UVR
Respected Afzal saahib,
naaraazgi, aur woh bhi is adna se iKhtilaaf-e-raaye par?
sawaal hi paida naheeN hotaa, sir! aap se dast-basta
guzaarish hai k is Khayaal ko dil se nikaal pheNkeN.
In my opinion, the disagreement is on a very trivial matter:
syllabic count. It has merely to do with whether or not the
line in question --
kuchh is tarha khulaa mujh pe rang roop us kaa
(sans a "se") conforms to the behr of the Ghazal or not.
By my reckoning, it does not. Yet, I too am reading the
word as "tarha", as you are. In fact, I don't think this word
can even be read the other way in this sh'er.
In my view, where the rub lies is not in how one reads
'tarha', but rather how one reads the word khulaa! Just
as there are two ways of reading 'tarah', there are
two ways of reading "khulaa" -- with the terminal alif being
prolonged to its full length, or with it being cut short ("alif
ko 'giraa' kar paRhnaa.").
My question to you, therefore, is, "how are you reading the
word khula"? Do you give it a fully elongated alif at the end,
or are you shortening the alif?
Based on your answer, I will proceed with the rest of my
reasoning for why I think "se" (or a word of like wazn)
is needed.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
{ Excerpts from earlier posts deleted }
To put it in a nutshell, I think we can drop the additional
'a' at the end of "khula". I think that is how I had originally
transcribed the word.
Afzal
UVR
Naseer saahib,
aap kaa shukriyaa k aap ne in puraane asaateza ke
kalaam se misaaleN faraaham keeN. zaahir hai k
siraaj-o-nazeer ke zamaane meN aisi istilaaheN
Ghair faseeh naheeN samjhi jaatee theeN.
Unfortunately for us, or fortunately, depend on one's
point of view, language is a living and breathing entity.
For one especially as vibrant as Urdu was 300-200
years ago, it is not surprising for usages to go in
and out of popular use. Not to mention falling out
of favor with the pedants. It seems that this is verily
what happened with izaafat/'atf-compounds using
Hindi-origin words. The problem now is that Urdu
has ceased to be as vibrant as it was in those days.
Consequently, the ustaads of our time take a harder
line with respect to changing the "rules" as they exist
today. And we are doomed to live within the chaar-
diwaari imposed by them.
-UVR.
Naseer
>
> Mukarramee UVR Saheb,
>
> Aap naaraaz na hoN.
>
> There is no question of any disagreement here. If one
> pronounces the word as "tarah" (with a zabar over 're'),
> then I suppose "se" can and should be added. Essential-
> ly, there is no disagreement here.
>
> But I do feel there is another fundamental question here. Is
> there a "jazm" or "zabar" over 're' ? I am under an impression
> (erroneous perhaps) that "tarah" (with zabar over 're') is
> a sort of colloquial pronunciation. The more acceptable pro-
> nunciation could be "tar'h(a)", with a jazm over 're' and a
> short (a) added after the last letter --- a little like
> "Ram(a)". Maybe you can consult some good, authoritative
> dictionary. And we can also call upon Naseer Saheb to go
> through his resources and give us his opinion.
>
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
My resourses? More like ONE resourse!!! As for opinion, I am sorry to
say that I am not qualified to give any views on this topic as it is
beyond my understanding. I think I have said this repeatedly.
Regarding tarHa (the terminal a is not a full zabar but what is termed
as a neem fatHah) and taraH, Finn Thiesen in his "A Manual of
Classical Persian Prosody"'s Urdu section (Chapter 24 page188 Section
284) says....
"In poetry, however the poets take the utmost care to employ the
"correct" forms. Since the Urdu poets were also Persian scholars, but
unacquainted with Sanskrit, this means that Persian loanwords in
poetry revert to their original form, whereas Sanskrit loanwords are
used in their popular form.
bharam khul jaae zaalim tere qaamat kii daraazii kaa
agar us turrah-i-pech-o-KHam kaa pech-o-KHam nikle (Ghalib)
The discrepency between the pronunciation of Persian (and Arabic)
loanwords in the spoken language and in the poetic diction is often
surprising. Thus subaH and shama' of the spoken language revert to
"subHa and sham'a {terminal a =niim fatHah} in poetry, as in the
following verse in which 'aish bravely faces the hardships and
infirmities of old age:
ai sham'a subHa hotii hai rotii hai kis liye
thoRii sii rah gaii hai use bhii guzaar deN"
On page 203 he adds...
" As might be expected popular forms with anaptyctic vowels or
suppressed a's turn up here and there in poetry. Instances are,
however, surprisingly rare. In the following two examples we find
taraH for tarHa and qadmoN for qadamoN...
ham suKhan teshah ne farhaad ko shiiriiN se kiyaa
jis taraH kaa kih kisii meN ho kamaal achhchhaa hai (Ghalib)
'arz kii maiN ne kih ai gulshan-i-fitrat kii bahaar
daulat-o-'izzat-o-iimaaN tire qadmoN pih nisaar (Akbar Illahaabaadii)
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
UVR
> UVR wrote:
>
> { Excerpts from earlier posts deleted }
>
> >> pronounces the word as "tarah" (with a zabar over 're'),
> >> then I suppose "se" can and should be added. Essential-
> >> ly, there is no disagreement here.
>
> >> But I do feel there is another fundamental question here. Is
> >> there a "jazm" or "zabar" over 're' ? I am under an impression
> >> (erroneous perhaps) that "tarah" (with zabar over 're') is
> >> a sort of colloquial pronunciation. The more acceptable pro-
> >> nunciation could be "tar'h(a)", with a jazm over 're' and a
> >> short (a) added after the last letter --- a little like
> >> "Ram(a)". Maybe you can consult some good, authoritative
> >> dictionary. And we can also call upon Naseer Saheb to go
> >> through his resources and give us his opinion.
>
>
> > 'tarha', but rather how one reads the word khulaa! Just
> > as there are two ways of reading 'tarah', there are
> > two ways of reading "khulaa" -- with the terminal alif being
> > prolonged to its full length, or with it being cut short ("alif
> > ko 'giraa' kar paRhnaa.").
>
> > My question to you, therefore, is, "how are you reading the
> > word khula"? Do you give it a fully elongated alif at the end,
> > or are you shortening the alif?
>
> > Based on your answer, I will proceed with the rest of my
> > reasoning for why I think "se" (or a word of like wazn)
> > is needed.
>
> > -UVR.
>
> To put it in a nutshell, I think we can drop the additional
> 'a' at the end of "khula". I think that is how I had originally
> transcribed the word.
>
> Afzal
Thank you for indulging me, Afzal saahib. Let us now proceed
further fromwhere I had left off earlier. The rest of this post
may be a bit "technical" (for lack of a better term) and may
seem dry and boring because I do not possess the skill to
make such matters more 'dilchasp'. Anyway ...
Before we proceed with the "case', let us stipulate to some
basic facts:
1. Whereas the behr of Ameen saahib's Ghazal is the same
as that of Ghalib's --
har ek baat pe kahte ho tum k tuu kyaa hai
2. Whereas the syllabic arrangement of Ameen sb's line:
kuchh is tarha khula mujh pe rang roop us kaa
must therefore be identical to the syllabic arrangement
of Ghalib's misr'a:
huaa hai shah kaa musaahib phire hai itraataa
We observe, using the pronunciations recommended by
your kind self for 'tarha' and 'khula', that by comparing the
syllables from each poet's line, we arrive at the following:
(individual syllables are split below using hyphens)
hu - aa - hai - shah == ku - chh is - ta - rah
kaa - mu - saa - hib == khu - la - mujh - pe
phi - re - hai - it == <???> - ran - g - roo
raa - taa == p us - kaa
Thus, one (short) syllable (of the weight of 'phi') is missing
from Ameen saahib's line.
On the other hand, if we were to add the word 'se' (with a
shortened 'e') at the location suggested by Yours Truly,
we will find --
hu - aa - hai - shah == ku - chh is - ta - rah
kaa - mu - saa - hib == se - khu - laa - mujh
phi - re - hai - it == pe - ran - g - roo
raa - taa == p us - kaa
which conforms perfectly to the syllabic distribution
needed by this behr.
I must mention here that the "se-added" line will require
that we pronounce 'khulaa' with a fully elongated "aa".
If we are determined to use the short-a pronunciation of
'khulaa' then the line will continue to be out of behr until
we add a single short syllable word (such as, say, yeh)
at the location experiencing the shortfall:
kuchh is tarha khula mujh pe "yeh" rang roop us kaa
My opinion, however, is that this latter type of tarmeem
does not quite 'cut it'.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
As'ad Saheb,
Ghazal pasaNd farmaane ka shukriya --- jise aap shaa'ir kee
jaanib se bhee samajh leejiye !
Bahadur Shah Zafar ka sher bhee KHoob hai. Ise 'inaayat
farmaane ka shukriya.
Aur aap kee tajweez be~had munaasib hai !!
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
There seems to be some problem with this news server. Many
posts are not appearing here. But I have seen UVR Saheb's
reply. That and my response are as follows :
> UVR Saheb,
>
> Sab se pehle to yeh 'arz kar dooN ke maiN kabhee
> behr aur taqtee' ke jhagRon men naheeN paRa. Ise
> meree mehroomi hee samajhna chaahiye. Kuchh to
> taufeeq naheeN huwee aur kuchh deegar masroofiyaat
> ne ijaazat bhee naheeN dee. Woh baRa pur~aashob
> daur tha. KHair.......
>
> Coming back to the sher in question, the error (if any)
> can be attributable to three sources :
>
> (a) The poet himself. But I won't like to blame him
> in any way.
>
> (b) The kaatib who could have written it wrongly.
>
> (c) Yours Truly. I could have misread the sher.
> This may perhaps be the true cause.
>
> As far as comparison with the Ghalib ghazal is concerned,
> I am transcribing below one misra' from that ghazal and
> then writing the misra' from the impugned sher. I cannot
> say anything about the taqtee'. But the discrepancy (if
> any) seems very minuscule :
>
> Har ek baat pe kehte ho tum ke tu kya hai
>
> Kuchh is tar'ha khula mujh pe rang~roo pus ka
>
> For ease and 'fluency' of reading, I have linked the 'p'
> with "us".
>
> Regrettably, Naseer Saheb has not been of much assistance to
> us. But I am more or less convinced that "tar'h(a)" needs to
> be read just like that in this sher.
>
>
>
> Afzal
Naseer
> Afzal A. Khan wrote:
> > Regrettably, Naseer Saheb has not been of much assistance to
> > us. But I am more or less convinced that "tar'h(a)" needs to
> > be read just like that in this sher.
muHtaram Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
With out doubt, the correct transliteration and pronunciation is
"tarH" (te+zabar+re majzuum+He) and presumabaly, even after a final
consonant, there is bound to be a trace of a vowel, in this case
Thiesen indicating it by a "niim fatHah" i.e half a zabar.
>From what I have understood, Thiesen is saying that almost invariably
Urdu poets would use tarH, subH and sham' etc but occasionally,
examples of popular pronunciation also occur, as indicated in the
examples provided in my previous post. Now, whether in Ameen's misra',
the word is "tarH" or "taraH", I do not know! Would that I knew 'ilm-
i-'uruuz !!
KHair-KHaah,
Naseer
Naseer
Essentially, I am in agreement with you. My personal feeling is that
our writers ought be adventurous and innovative. I think if "top
notch" Urdu poets and prose writers were to consistently use
constructions such as "jhiil-i-munjamad" (Firaq), this trend would
become accepted, gradually, by the general public. The problem is that
our writers are not taking such "risks".
It is not as if there has n't been mixing of Hindii-ul-asl words with
Persian and Arabic ones in the past...
Prefixes
be-chain, laa-patah, naa-samajh
sih-pahr
Suffixes
Theke-daar, samajh-daar, {saaiNs-daan}, chaar-diivaarii, chuuhe-daan
bach-pan (bachhah+pan), jaan-levaa
Plurals
{mimbar-aan} jangal-aat, khanDar-aat
One wonders why "chiiKh-o-pukaar" and "kamarah-i-imtiHaan" have become
acceptabe. I'll tell you why they have. In my opionion, "pukaar" could
easily be a Persian word and "kamrah" fits into both the Arabic and
Persian consonantal systems. rang-o-ruup would also follow this logic.
What seems to be "kabaab meN haDDii" for the writers are the
consonants T, Th, D, Dh, R, Rh, bh,ph,th, jh,chh,kh,gh etc. jhiil-i-
munjamad, pakoRaa-i-namkiin and ghoRaa-i-tez seem to be a big "NO". I
don't see this as logical at all.
In Iran, one often comes across constructions such as..
muHandis-i-shiimii (chemical engineer)
baa ham-kaarii-i-kamisyuun...(With the co-operation of the
Commission....).
Having said this, Farsi speakers can not avoid using izafat (and vaav-
i-'atf) because they have no alternative whereas Urdu user has "kaa/
kii/ke" and "awr" respectively.
There is perhaps an analagous situation in English for plurals based
on Latin words.
stratum...> strata
datum....> data
radius....> radii
locus....> loci
larva.....> larvae
abscissa..> absassae
In theory, one could add an -s to form plurals even here, but I don't
think it would be seen as "Queen's English".
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
UVR
> Afzal A. Khan wrote:
>
> > As far as comparison with the Ghalib ghazal is concerned,
> > I am transcribing below one misra' from that ghazal and
> > then writing the misra' from the impugned sher. I cannot
> > say anything about the taqtee'. But the discrepancy (if
> > any) seems very minuscule :
>
> > Har ek baat pe kehte ho tum ke tu kya hai
>
> > Kuchh is tar'ha khula mujh pe rang~roo pus ka
>
> > For ease and 'fluency' of reading, I have linked the 'p'
> > with "us".
The difference is of one short syllable -- minuscule, as you
say, but not something one can ignore.
It does not matter which line from Ghalib we compare it
with. All lines in the Ghalib ghazal have the same syllabic
distribution. I chose the 'musaahib' line because I felt the
comparison would be easier, but clearly I did not do a
good enough job.
In any case, I think we have (again!) arrived at the same
point in the discussion as we had earlier -- where we
must agree to disagree that Ameen saahib's line, as
written above, does not conform to the behr of the Ghazal.
In my respectful and humble opinion, spending any more
time putting forth our respective points of view will not be
a gainful use of time. Therefore, unless someone else
wants to comment on this matter, I think I would like to
stop here.
Regards,
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb,
It is not my intention to prolong this debate unnecessarily.
It may be that the difference is just of one short syllable,
minuscule but not something that can be ignored.
At the same time, you have been suggesting that the problem
can be solved by adding "se" at the appropriate place.
Somehow I am not very sure that this would be the proper
solution. Is it really necessary to add "se" after "tar'h(a)"
in Urdu poetry ? And I am not referring to just this sher ---
it is a general enquiry. I am inclined to believe, but am
open to correction, that whenever "tar'h(a)" is used in this
sense, "se" is sort of redundant. Maybe we can call it "hashv".
In an earlier post in this thread, I had quoted a few verses
where "tar'h(a)" had been used. And I don't think the word (in
any of those shers) was followed by "se".
In this context, you will recall that the original version of
this sher, as posted by me at the start of the thread, was
different --- it contained an additional "waav", viz.
Kuchh is tar'h(a) khula mujh pe raNg-o-roop us ka
MaiN jo bhee naqsh utaaroN woh hoo~ba~hoo Thehre
We have discussed this issue several times in the past --- whether
it is permissible to deviate from some old regulations, and make
new experiments. If we consider this sher also as an experiment
in that direction, maybe that "waav" can provide the additional
short syllable that was found missing, after we "decided" to
drop it altogether.
Afzal
UVR
Respected Afzal saahib,
I too do not wish to needlessly prolong this discussion.
1. Nowhere in this thread have I said that "se" is the precise
word that must be added to Ameen saahib's line. From
the very first post where I raised the issue of this line being
out of meter, I have been saying something to the effect
that "se or a word of similar metric weight" was missing.
That being said, it is indeed my opinion that 'se' is the
most appropriate word to add to Ameen sb's line in order
to cause it to conform to the behr of the Ghazal.
2. Adding "-o-" to 'rang-roop' does not alter the metric weight
of the compound in any manner in this sh'er -- such are
the rules of scansion in Urdu prosody.
3. Not to put too fine a point on it, but when on the one hand
we are willing to accept traditionally Ghair faseeh constructs
such as "bi-aabroo" and "rang-o-roop" from this poet, is it
necessary to quibble over "tarah se"? That too, when
"tarah se" does seem to have been also used by some
other (and rather well-regarded) poets in their work. For
example:
-- Dagh Dehlvi
ho chukaa aish kaa jalsaa to mujhe Khat bhejaa
aap ki tarHa se mehmaan bulaaye koi
-- Brij Narayan 'Chakbast' in 'raamaayan kaa ek scene',
describing the goings on after Rama has declined his
mother Kausalya's entreaties to flout his father's command
to leave for a 14 year banbaas:
donoN ke dil bhar aaye, huaa aur hi samaaN
gang-o-jaman ki tarHa se aaNsoo hue rawaaN
-- Khwaja Hyder Ali 'Aatish', in his Ghazal, 'yeh aarzoo
thi tujhe gul ke roo-ba-roo karte', has a sh'er:
miree tarah se mah-o-mahr bhi haiN aawaara
kisee habeeb ki yeh bhi haiN justujoo karte
-- Aatish again:
aatii hai kis tarah se miree qabz-e-rooh ko
dekhooN to maut DhooND rahi hai bahaana kyaa
This Ghazal has been sung incredibly beautifully
by Begum Akhtar that you can hear here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4XuL7zca9I
-- I found this via a Google search. Begum Akhtar singing
a Ghazal that goes: use kis tarah se sukoon ho --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3V1gINgxx4
-- Jagannath Jha 'Azad' has a nazm whose first misr'a
reads:
Khwaab ki tarHa se hai yaad k tum aaye the
Amongst modern poets, we have
-- Nida Fazli
tu is tarah se miree zindagi meN shaamil hai
-- Shahryar
kis kis tarah se mujh ko na ruswa kiyaa gayaa
GhairoN kaa naam mere lahoo se likhaa gayaa
-- Tasleem Fazli:
kuchh is tarah se jiye, zindagi basar na hui
tumhaare ba'ad kisee raat ki sahar na hui
which has been sung by Mehdi Hassan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpHTeOxc34g
I think these examples suffice to show that "tarah se",
even if rarely used, is not absent entirely from the work
of Urdu poets, even traditional ones.
-UVR.