GHazal and other forms of Urdu Poetry in Hindi Movies
Abhay Avachat
Thanks RMIM for the recent interest in GHazals. After my articles, I think
still some major doubts persist. Many have aksed about more clarifications,
so here is another attempt to reduce some confusions.
If you are finding it difficult to decide if a poem/song is a GHazal then
try this simple litmus test. It's quite easy to check if a poem/song is NOT
a GHazal. Only of the song passes the following litmus test, you can try
other criteria.
If the song is NOT a collection of couplets (shers, two-liners) then
the song/poem is NOT a GHazal.
Consider the above as a law and not a rule :-) This test rules out many
songs like "chaudaviN ka chaand ho tum", "rang aur nur ki baarat" etc.
The reverse is of course not true. Any collection of Shers is not a GHazal.
e.g. "yeh mera deewanapan hai".
Then try this second simple litmus test ...
The rhyming pattern of a GHazal is AA, BA, CA, DA ...
If this doesn't apply to your song in question, rule it out ! Again there
is no way getting around this. So the example "ye mera deewaanapan" is
ruled out.
If you like dualities, then what I am saying is, GHazal is a form and not
content. It's a syntax and not semantics. Do NOT equate "ishqiaana shayari"
(poetry of love) with GHazals. What's more, none is a proper subset of
another. There are no restrictions on the type of subjects to discuss, the
type of language to be used. The restrictions are only on the form.
Now let's turn our attention to songs like "chaudaviN ka chaand". This is
one type which is perhaps most frequent in the Hindi movies. Shakeel has
used it extensively. It follows the following rhyming pattern ...
AA, BBA, CCA, DDA ...
No wonder, these songs are mistaken for GHazals !
Note that the stanzas are of 3 lines and not two. Also it is not necessary
for lines A and others (B, C ..) to be of the same meter. Often they are
not. But most of the times the differing lines B, C .. are of the same
meter.
Examples of these songs are "chaudaviN ka chaand", "guzare hai aaj ishq me"
and "rang aur nur ki baaraat". Frankly they are innumerable.
Note that in above format the "mukhada" is very much like that of a GHazal.
It's indeed a Sher. But some songs have variations here. Examples are
"mere mehbbob tujhe", "dil jo na keh saka" among others.
I do not know the name for this form. I have asked many, but have not
received any answer. But this form is so definite in its syntax, so strong
in its structure, that I feel, there has to be some grammar for this.
Another frequent form, particularly in the songs tuned by Shankar-Jaikishen
is the following one.
mukhada, BBB, CCC, DDD ...
Example, "maiN kahiN kavi na ban ...". Note that the stanzas are 3 lines,
with all the lines in one stanza ending in the same rhyming pattern. Again,
no idea about the name of this form.
Finally, there are songs/poems like, the original poem Kabhie Kabhie or the
one called "Khoobsurat mod" by Sahir. Taken in movie Humraaz, "chalo ik
baar phirse ...". Here the stanzas are of 4 lines with rhyming pattern ...
mukhada, xAyA, pBqB, mCnC ...
Maybe there is no name for these forms. But I am sure the grammar of these
have been studied. If anyone has any definite ideas about forms of Urdu
Shayari (apart from GHazals), please let me know.
- Abhay.
Not just a GHazal lover, a Shaa'iri lover as well.
Ashok
In article <55lgjn$d...@lex.zippo.com>, ab...@InfoGain.com says...
>
> If the song is NOT a collection of couplets (shers, two-liners) then
> the song/poem is NOT a GHazal.
>
>Consider the above as a law and not a rule :-) This test rules out many
>songs like "chaudaviN ka chaand ho tum", "rang aur nur ki baarat" etc.
>
>
> The rhyming pattern of a GHazal is AA, BA, CA, DA ...
>
>If this doesn't apply to your song in question, rule it out ! Again there
>is no way getting around this. So the example "ye mera deewaanapan" is
>ruled out.
>
>one type which is perhaps most frequent in the Hindi movies. Shakeel has
>used it extensively. It follows the following rhyming pattern ...
>
> AA, BBA, CCA, DDA ...
>
>No wonder, these songs are mistaken for GHazals !
>Note that the stanzas are of 3 lines and not two. Also it is not necessary
>for lines A and others (B, C ..) to be of the same meter. Often they are
>not. But most of the times the differing lines B, C .. are of the same
>meter.
>
>Examples of these songs are "chaudaviN ka chaand", "guzare hai aaj ishq me"
>and "rang aur nur ki baaraat". Frankly they are innumerable.
>
>Note that in above format the "mukhada" is very much like that of a GHazal.
>It's indeed a Sher. But some songs have variations here. Examples are
>"mere mehbbob tujhe", "dil jo na keh saka" among others.
>
>I do not know the name for this form. I have asked many, but have not
>received any answer. But this form is so definite in its syntax, so strong
>in its structure, that I feel, there has to be some grammar for this.
>
>
Thanks for a succinct and clear account, Abhay. I do have a couple of
problems. First, unless there is a strict requirement on the length of
a line, it is not obvious what a line is. I believe there are metres
that allow the two miSra's of a sher to vary in length. If so, songs
such as "chaudavi.n ka chaand ho" can be transformed to be ghazals. Just
concatenate the first two lines into one. That is, take your formula
AA, BBA, CCA, DDA, ... .. ad infinitum
and define B'=BB, C'=CC, ..... and you get
AA, B'A, C'A, D'A, ... .. ad infinitum
which is a ghazal. I have a faint memory of a somewhat similar question
asked by Sami sometime ago; I don't think it was answered convincingly.
If one pays attention to how filmi ghazals are composed musically, the case
becomes stronger. Let us look at two Shakeel-Ravi-Rafi songs. First, an
instance of "the ghazal" from 'Do Badan':
bhari duniya me.n aaKir dil ko samjhaane kahaaN jaaye.n
mahabbat ho gayi jin ko wo diiwaane kahaaN jaaye.n
sunaana bhi jinhe.n mushkil chhupaana bhi jinhe.n mushkil
zara tu hi bata ey dil wo afsaane kahaaN jaaye.n
The way the stanza sher is sung is:
sunaana bhi jinhe.n mushkil chhupaana bhi jinhe.n mushkil (low)
sunaana bhi jinhe.n mushkil chhupaana bhi jinhe.n mushkil (high)
zara tu hi bata ey dil wo afsaane kahaaN jaaye.n
bhari duniya me.n ...
Now on to the non-ghazal:
chaudavi.n ka chand ho yaa aafataab ho
jo bhi ho tum khuda ki qasam lajawaab ho
zulfe.n hai.n jaise kaandhe pe baadal jhuke hue
aankhe.n hai.n jaise may ke pyaale bhare hue
masti hai jis me pyar ki tum wo sharaab ho
chaudavi.n kaa ...
That is how the stanza is sung. My question is, what is wrong with
treating the stanza as the following sher:
zulfe.n hai.n jaise kaandhe pe baadal jhuke hue ankhe.n
hai.n jaise may ke pyaale bhare hue
masti hai jis me pyar ki tum wo sharaab ho
The first miSra is longer, but there does not seem to be any rule
(leave alone a law :))) about line lengths. The first line has interesting
internal structure, but so what? We can treat it as a subset of ghazals
with an additional, interesting feature.
Article Unavailable
Abhay Avachat
In article <55qm9k$h...@lex.zippo.com>, ADhar...@WorldBank.Org says...
>
>Thanks for a succinct and clear account, Abhay. I do have a couple of
>problems. First, unless there is a strict requirement on the length of
>a line, it is not obvious what a line is. I believe there are metres
>that allow the two miSra's of a sher to vary in length. If so, songs
>such as "chaudavi.n ka chaand ho" can be transformed to be ghazals.
I don't know how many songs would fit these metres. But I doubt whether
many would. Because, if you concatenate the first 2 lines, then their
length (in most of the songs) becomes atleast twice the length of 3rd
line. Sometimes much more. Not many songs would pass the metre test.
But I have understood your point. How do we define a line/misra of a
Sher ? Without metre, there is not much hope of any objective definition.
So, strictly speaking, the litmus test has faults. But, I still contend,
in reality/practice we CAN identify "misra/line" of a Sher. Intuitively,
by common sense etc. It removes the precision, but hey, gives a start to
people who are not much interested in technicalities.
The problem remains still ! I, unlike Irfan, support the rebels. Metre is
NOT the most important factor to me. If I hear a great Sher, which has
some faults from the point of view of metre, I won't mind. But then, there
is the same technical loophole in my viewpoint. We have to resort to a bit
of subjectiveness to decide the 'misra'. Makes me uneasy. A lot. But still,
somehow, I feel, I am justified. More about this, in the reply to Irfan.
> Just
>concatenate the first two lines into one. That is, take your formula
>
> AA, BBA, CCA, DDA, ... .. ad infinitum
>
>and define B'=BB, C'=CC, ..... and you get
>
> AA, B'A, C'A, D'A, ... .. ad infinitum
>
>which is a ghazal. I have a faint memory of a somewhat similar question
>asked by Sami sometime ago; I don't think it was answered convincingly.
No. It wasn't. I have asked about this form on ALUP too. Haven't received
any answer from there either. My efforts to formally understand this form,
have been totally unsuccessful :-( I don't know why. Leaves me perplexed.
There has to be a grammar. I am just not able to find a person who knows it.
But, in any case, my gut feeling is, it won't be possible to convert the
ghazal-oids (as you have called them) into GHazals. A formal conformation
is of course necessary.
>If identical line length is not prescribed, I can perhaps do the reverse
>with some ghazals: break up the first miSra into two and convert a proper
>"the ghazal" into a ghazaloid! Some other time; haven't found a suitable
>one yet! The point is, if a the-ghazal is a purely formal entity, I can
>do all that so long as I follow the formal rules of the game.
As I said, the formal rules won't allow this to happen. But your ideas
are interesting. As far as breaking up a GHazal is concerned, may be the
KK song from Sharabi can be taken up. I don't know the metre rules, but
may be, "manzile apani jagaah hai" can be consedered as a GHazal of long
metre ? Then it can be broken up into another form as you are suggesting !
Experiments like this have been done. During ASAD, one Syed Ali pointed
out an interesting thing about my comments on "kal chaudaviN ki raat"
GHazal sung by GHulam Ali and Jajgit Singh. The second Sher does not make
any sense till you heear the first one ! A violation of basic rule. A Sher
must be complete semantic unit. Now, he told me that Ibne Insha was trying
out an experiment, and the first 2 Shers are not 2 shers, but 2 parts of
a Rubaayi !! This explanation fits !!! I liked the idea.
This brings us to perhaps the most important fact. And a one which is most
of the times ignored !! A Sher has to be a complete semantic unit. A poem
in itself. Will all the GHazals pass this test ?? I doubt. But this, IMHO,
introduces a bit a of subjectivity. Many times you need the context to
understand a Sher. Should we permit this ? This is an intersting topic and
will throw at us some questions which are difficult to answer. But we are
perhaps drifting away from RMIM.
>My second question is about when an assorted bunch of shers becomes a
>ghazal. Is is the case that the only requirements are formal: all
>the shers ought to share the same metre, radeef and qaafiyaa? (Plus
>matla, maqta, and the rule that there should be at least five shers;
>most filmi ghazals seem to obey only the matla requirement.)
I missed out this rule in my article about definition. Also the one, which
says that the number of shers must be odd ! Should have updated this long
time back. But these rules have more exceptions than followers :-) Even in
the compilations of GHalib and Meer, I have found GHazals not following
these rules. (There may be other reasons for this to happen, though).
> In other
>words, the shers in a ghazal can vary all over the place, regarding
>theme. mood, context, style, diction, etc. The question is, is it
>required that all the shers in a ghazal should not have the same
>theme?
No. Every sher in a GHazal can be on a different topic ! That's such a
strange peculiarity. It is both the strength and the weakness of the GHazal.
Strength in a way, which allows the Poet to display his powers on many
topics, which attracts a general person without boring him etc. Weakness,
it is, as it does not allow the poet to develope a theme gradually and
take it to a logical end. Consider the complete poem Taajmehal by Sahir.
( It was taken in the movie GHazal, and was very stupidly amputated. The
tune by Madanmohan is just unable to any justice to such fantastic lyrics.)
If anybody wants the complete poem, I can post it. Notice how the theme is
developed. It's a masterpiece. Amazing. This is not possible in GHazal.
This has made many great poets to prefer Nazm over GHazal. Iqbal, Chakbist,
Josh and many. Sahir's Nazms IMHO are many times better than his GHazals.
Shakeel, Faiz OTOH were good at both. But, then, GHazal has other aims in
minds. Brevity, indirectness are its strength.
But there are GHazals which have only one central theme. Such GHazals are
called, "ghazal musalsil". Examples are fewer, but most famous is of course,
"chupake chupake raat din". OTOH, the ones which we hear most of the time,
are called "ghazal GHair_musalsil". They have no central theme.
> Note that it is certainly crucial for a filmi ghazal to have
>a unified theme, mood, and context. So, it would look as if most or
>all so-called filmi ghazals are not "the ghazals" and as if "the ghazal"
>is a very unsuitable lyrical form for film songs (if not serious and
>extended poetry).
It's really a very very interesting point !! You see, the "ghazal musalsil"
CAN be used for films. Although we see a lot of "ghair_musalsil" GHazals
too, like "hum hai mata-e-quchaa-o-bazaar". I have addressed it in my
RJGK, and I hope the answer is a nice surprise :-) GHazal has been used
very intelligently for films. That's my opinion. Another topic which can
be addressed is - Were MM and Khayyam better than other MDs at the
"ghair_musalsil" type only ?? Interesting thought ? But all these questions
definitely need a seperate discussion. Let's do it after the RJGK ? Maybe
then, the entire RMIM would be interested, as it won't be that technical ?
- Abhay.
GHazal usne chhedi, mujhe saaj dena
zaraa umr-e-rafta ko aawaaz dena
Rama Karedla
Abhay !
Thanks a lot for educating on the
intricacies of a Gazal..
A question i have for you and other netters is,
do Gazals exist in other Indian languages as well ?
Would it be incorrect to call them gazals ?
I have personally heard "gazals" in gujarati..i believe
they exist in Marathi too..I am not sure
of other languages, especially south Indian
languages, like Telugu and Tamil..
I have always wanted to take an existing gazal
from Urdu and translate it into one of
these languages..!
Thanks, and Happy Diwali !
- rama
U.V. Ravindra
Hi Abhay,
I have taken a long time to catch up with this excellent thread ...
thanks a lot for all the information that you have posted on GHazals
and Nazms.
In article <55tv0d$n...@lex.zippo.com>
ab...@InfoGain.co (Abhay Avachat) writes:
=> The problem remains still ! I, unlike Irfan, support the rebels. Metre is
=> NOT the most important factor to me. If I hear a great Sher, which has
=> some faults from the point of view of metre, I won't mind.
I disagree with this line of thought. Firstly, as Irfan pointed out,
a sh'er of a GHazal is a technical construct. If a poem is to be
accepted as being a GHazal, it should conform strictly to the
requirements of being a GHazal. If it doesn't conform to those
requirements, it won't be a GHazal.
IMO, great sh'ers can always be written with a perfect meter. If the
meter is not correct, then it's just an *idea*, a *thought*, a "soch",
not a "sh'er".
Attempting to write good "sh'er" without a proper metric setting is
like trying to make gulab jamun without any sugar (or Nutrasweet, for
health freaks :-)) ... the idea/thought is great and mouth watering,
but when you eat it, it's just too insipid for your enjoyment.
At the same time, a great POEM need not be written with any
conformance to any kind of meter. As you pointed out in your posts in
the thread of discussion with Irfan, a poem can sound rhythmic even
though it is not in any recognizable meter.
Therefore, meter is not a requirement for a *poem* to be great, but if
the poem is to be a GHazal, or, for that matter, if it has to be a
nazm or a qawwaali, it has to have a meter.
If, however, one is attempting to write an "aazaad-nazm" (the
equivalent of a muktachhand-kavita), then you don't need any meter.
Perhaps the most accomplished exponent of all these forms of poetry in
recent times was Faiz Ahmed Faiz. I would urge all lovers of
Urdu/Hindi poetry to attempt to read a collection called "saare suKHan
hamaare" published in India by Rajkamal Publishers (or is it Rajkamal
Paperbacks?) in the Devanagari script. This collection purports to be
an anthology of Faiz, and supposedly contains all works that Faiz ever
published in any form.
Ashok Dhareshwar wrote:
=> > Just
=> >concatenate the first two lines into one. That is, take your formula
=> >
=> > AA, BBA, CCA, DDA, ... .. ad infinitum
=> >
=> >and define B'=BB, C'=CC, ..... and you get
=> >
=> > AA, B'A, C'A, D'A, ... .. ad infinitum
=> >
=> >which is a ghazal. I have a faint memory of a somewhat similar question
=> >asked by Sami sometime ago; I don't think it was answered convincingly.
Abhay Avachat writes:
=> No. It wasn't. I have asked about this form on ALUP too. Haven't received
=> any answer from there either. My efforts to formally understand this form,
=> have been totally unsuccessful :-( I don't know why. Leaves me perplexed.
=> There has to be a grammar. I am just not able to find a person who knows it.
=>
=> But, in any case, my gut feeling is, it won't be possible to convert the
=> ghazal-oids (as you have called them) into GHazals. A formal conformation
=> is of course necessary.
Firstly, I don't think one can do the kind of mathematical
collapsing/concatenation of line pairs into one and define B'=BB etc
as Ashok suggests. The first and foremost reason for this is the
requirement that all lines in the GHazal should be of the same metric
length. This is a strict requirement; this is not a "rule" (thanks,
Abhay!) :-))
=> >If identical line length is not prescribed, I can perhaps do the reverse
=> >with some ghazals: break up the first miSra into two and convert a proper
=> >"the ghazal" into a ghazaloid! Some other time; haven't found a suitable
=> >one yet! The point is, if a the-ghazal is a purely formal entity, I can
=> >do all that so long as I follow the formal rules of the game.
=>
=> As I said, the formal rules won't allow this to happen. But your ideas
=> are interesting. As far as breaking up a GHazal is concerned, may be the
=> KK song from Sharabi can be taken up. I don't know the metre rules, but
=> may be, "manzile apani jagaah hai" can be consedered as a GHazal of long
=> metre ? Then it can be broken up into another form as you are suggesting !
This breaking-up will also be in violation of the metric requirement
of GHazals. However, the main point I want to make in connection with
the AA-BBA-CCA-DDA format of poems is this:
"Isn't this the traditional metric format in which qawwaali-s were
written, considering that B, C, D, etc., were in the same meter as A?"
In your original "GHazals, Nazms and NaGHma" article, you had
mentioned that this metric form has been exploited by the
Sahir-Shakeel-Majrooh-Hasrat-RajinderKrishan quintet with great
success. This is very true, and one reason I can think of for this is
that this form offers a greater freedom and a larger metric space to
the poet to express and elaborate on an idea. The strict AA-BA-CA
format of a GHazal is very suitable for metaphorical suggestions and
subtle similes, but it sometimes proves very restrictive for the type
of elaborations on an idea that one observes in film songs. If one
examines the lyrics of qawwaalis written by Faiz/Sahir, for example
(though these are not traditional qawwaali writers), one can see that
the BB-CC-DD lines in the BBA-CCA-DDA format actually introduce and
elaborate on one single idea, and the last line which rhymes with A
connects this poetic unit to the opening misr'a.
=> Experiments like this have been done. During ASAD, one Syed Ali pointed
=> out an interesting thing about my comments on "kal chaudaviN ki raat"
=> GHazal sung by GHulam Ali and Jajgit Singh. The second Sher does not make
=> any sense till you heear the first one ! A violation of basic rule. A Sher
=> must be complete semantic unit. Now, he told me that Ibne Insha was trying
=> out an experiment, and the first 2 Shers are not 2 shers, but 2 parts of
=> a Rubaayi !! This explanation fits !!! I liked the idea.
Insha was not the first poet to carry out this experiement. In the
Diwan-e-Meer, one can find a couple of GHazals where one can only
understand the full import of a sh'er if one reads it in conjunction
with the previous/next GHazal. In many GHalib GHazals too, one finds
the existence of a "qita'" of sh'ers: a group of sh'ers basically
elaborating on a single idea. The reason for the existence of
"qita"-s could be the same restrictiveness of the formal GHazal rules,
OR the desire of the poet to describe the same idea in more than one
way ...
=> This brings us to perhaps the most important fact. And a one which is most
=> of the times ignored !! A Sher has to be a complete semantic unit. A poem
=> in itself. Will all the GHazals pass this test ?? I doubt. But this, IMHO,
=> introduces a bit a of subjectivity. Many times you need the context to
=> understand a Sher. Should we permit this ? This is an intersting topic and
=> will throw at us some questions which are difficult to answer. But we are
=> perhaps drifting away from RMIM.
Many modern day sh'ura (=shaa'irs, pl. or sh'aair) including Sudarshan
Faakir, Bashir Badr, Nida Fazli, Ibrahim Ashk etc., have written
GHazals that have sh'ers which are related to each other, or need some
reference to a particular context to make sense. Most GHazals from
Hindi films also fall into this category. Even a relative "old-timer"
like Jigar Moradabadi has written such GHazals. Hasrat Mohani, the
shaa'ir of the famous "chupke chupke raat din aaNsoo bahaanaa yaad
hai" GHazal has written SEVERAL such poems. Momin's famous "woh jo
ham meiN tum meiN qaraar thaa, tumheiN yaad ho ke na yaad ho" is a
GHazal that has several ash'aar which refer to the same context or
elaborate on the same idea ... however, the point to note is that in
the GHazals of the old timers, like Momin and Hasrat Mohani, one still
finds that any given sh'er is a complete semantic unit, whereas in
GHazals by later sh'ura, this requirement seems to have got diluted.
Still, the works of the later poets are also accepted as GHazals ...
=> >My second question is about when an assorted bunch of shers becomes a
=> >ghazal. Is is the case that the only requirements are formal: all
=> >the shers ought to share the same metre, radeef and qaafiyaa? (Plus
=> >matla, maqta, and the rule that there should be at least five shers;
=> >most filmi ghazals seem to obey only the matla requirement.)
=>
=> I missed out this rule in my article about definition. Also the one, which
=> says that the number of shers must be odd ! Should have updated this long
=> time back. But these rules have more exceptions than followers :-) Even in
=> the compilations of GHalib and Meer, I have found GHazals not following
=> these rules. (There may be other reasons for this to happen, though).
I do not think GHalib and Meer would have flouted this requirement.
The appearance of an even number of ash'aar, or the lack of a maqtah
in the GHazals of Meer/Ghalib in their collections has more to do with
editorial liberties taken by the poets/intellectuals who compiled
these collections than with the real shape/form of the GHazals
included in these collections. This is particularly true in the case
of Meer's poems.
=> > In other
=> >words, the shers in a ghazal can vary all over the place, regarding
=> >theme. mood, context, style, diction, etc. The question is, is it
=> >required that all the shers in a ghazal should not have the same
=> >theme?
=>
=> No. Every sher in a GHazal can be on a different topic ! That's such a
=> strange peculiarity. It is both the strength and the weakness of the GHazal.
=> Strength in a way, which allows the Poet to display his powers on many
=> topics, which attracts a general person without boring him etc. Weakness,
=> it is, as it does not allow the poet to develope a theme gradually and
=> take it to a logical end. Consider the complete poem Taajmehal by Sahir.
=> ( It was taken in the movie GHazal, and was very stupidly amputated. The
=> tune by Madanmohan is just unable to any justice to such fantastic lyrics.)
=> If anybody wants the complete poem, I can post it. Notice how the theme is
=> developed. It's a masterpiece. Amazing. This is not possible in GHazal.
=> This has made many great poets to prefer Nazm over GHazal. Iqbal, Chakbist,
=> Josh and many. Sahir's Nazms IMHO are many times better than his GHazals.
=> Shakeel, Faiz OTOH were good at both. But, then, GHazal has other aims in
=> minds. Brevity, indirectness are its strength.
And the same brevity and indirectness sometimes become its weakness.
On the topic of GHazal vs Nazm, Faiz Ahmed Faiz has gone on record
saying that it is more difficult to write good nazms than good
GHazals. In a nazm, there is a necessity to keep up one particular
thought for a long time ... in the GHazal, this is not so.
=> But there are GHazals which have only one central theme. Such GHazals are
=> called, "ghazal musalsil". Examples are fewer, but most famous is of course,
=> "chupake chupake raat din". OTOH, the ones which we hear most of the time,
=> are called "ghazal GHair_musalsil". They have no central theme.
Filmi GHazals are more often "GHazal-e-musalsil (GM)" than
"GHazal-e-GHair_musalsil (GGM)". But, IMO, rather than making extensive
use of the GHazal form itself, the filmi poets have gone for the
qawwaali-based form (and that too a "musalsil" one) because it
provides more freedom and metric space for idea-elaboration. This is
what I feel.
BTW, on the topic of the format of Nazms, there are several poems of
Faiz which he has classified as Nazms, but which appear, from their
format to be GHazals. Not only do they conform to the AA-BA-CA
format, but their constituent ash'aar are also individually distinct
and are semantically independent, as in a typical GHazal. This makes
me feel that GHazals may form a subset of Nazms, though this subset
may not be what mathematicians call a "proper subset". That is, all
GHazals are not nazms and all nazms are not GHazals, but some poems
conforming to the GHazal format can be nazms ... My doubt is, since
they conform exactly to the GHazal format, aren't they also GHazals?
I don't know ...
=> > Note that it is certainly crucial for a filmi ghazal to have
=> >a unified theme, mood, and context. So, it would look as if most or
=> >all so-called filmi ghazals are not "the ghazals" and as if "the ghazal"
=> >is a very unsuitable lyrical form for film songs (if not serious and
=> >extended poetry).
This is true, unless the situation itself is a GGM-type one :-)) What
I mean is, if you have a situation where the hero is a poet and has
gone to a "propah" mushaa'irah, and he's reciting one of his GGM
GHazals, then the film song could easily be GGM. For example, in Pyaasa,
we see the existence of a GGM GHazal in a GGM-type situation ("tang aa
chuke haiN kashmakash-e-zindagi se ham")...
=> It's really a very very interesting point !! You see, the "ghazal musalsil"
=> CAN be used for films. Although we see a lot of "ghair_musalsil" GHazals
=> too, like "hum hai mata-e-quchaa-o-bazaar". I have addressed it in my
=> RJGK, and I hope the answer is a nice surprise :-) GHazal has been used
=> very intelligently for films. That's my opinion. Another topic which can
=> be addressed is - Were MM and Khayyam better than other MDs at the
=> "ghair_musalsil" type only ?? Interesting thought ? But all these questions
=> definitely need a seperate discussion. Let's do it after the RJGK ? Maybe
=> then, the entire RMIM would be interested, as it won't be that technical ?
=>
=> - Abhay.
=> GHazal usne chhedi, mujhe saaj dena
=> zaraa umr-e-rafta ko aawaaz dena
I can resist everything but this type of temptation ... Abhay, hameiN
taD.paa-kar hi cho.Doge kyaa ... I can't wait for your RJGK to hit the
stands...
Ravindra.
wOh bhi kyA din the ke har lafz GHazal kahtA thA
mEra har harf "merA nAm 'fazal'" kahtA thA
--
U.V. Ravindra
u...@vnet.ibm.com
Irfan Moinuddin
On 11 Nov 1996, U.V. Ravindra wrote:
>
> Firstly, I don't think one can do the kind of mathematical
> collapsing/concatenation of line pairs into one and define B'=BB etc
> as Ashok suggests. The first and foremost reason for this is the
> requirement that all lines in the GHazal should be of the same metric
> length. This is a strict requirement; this is not a "rule" (thanks,
> Abhay!) :-))
>
Minor correction necessary here, a technicality, if you please:
All lines of a ghazal must be in the same meter but the meter may
allow the lines to be of different lengths. That is to say that
individual lines may vary in their pattern of syllabic periodicity as long
as the variation is acceptable within the meter.
> elaborate on the same idea ... however, the point to note is that in
> the GHazals of the old timers, like Momin and Hasrat Mohani, one still
> finds that any given sh'er is a complete semantic unit, whereas in
> GHazals by later sh'ura, this requirement seems to have got diluted.
> Still, the works of the later poets are also accepted as GHazals ...
It really is alright for a ghazal to be on a single topic.
Such a practice has been in existence for a long
time. There is no sense in constraining the quality and nature of poetic
inspiration (and note here that, if it is not inspired then it is not
poetry; that is MY rule but I feel it is an important one). Besides,
there never really was a rule against composing ghazals on one topic.
It just so happens that the nature and construction of the ghazal
leads naturally to the potency and completeness of each couplet and
hence to each sher being concerned with a different topic because
frequently further elaboration is unnecessary and would lead to
redundancy. This can, of course, be argued because it is an all too
philosophical and subjective piece of rhetoric but I firmly believe that
anyone who is a poet at heart, whether he composes ghazals or writes
mazmun, will understand what I am talking about.
>
> I do not think GHalib and Meer would have flouted this requirement.
> The appearance of an even number of ash'aar, or the lack of a maqtah
> in the GHazals of Meer/Ghalib in their collections has more to do with
> editorial liberties taken by the poets/intellectuals who compiled
> these collections than with the real shape/form of the GHazals
> included in these collections. This is particularly true in the case
> of Meer's poems.
It is true that ghazals must have at least five shers (this number has
been arrived at after much evolution) and the number of shers must be odd
if greater than five.
But again, I want to emphasize that it is inspiration that drives the
ghazal and not numbers. If a poet writes two ash'ar and receives no
further inspiration then it is unhealthy and inappropriate for him/her to
force him/herself to write three more. If he tries to, he will only end
up writing mediocre verse. Hence, in many diwans, one will come across
pairs of couplets or a couplet alone etc. These frequently are very good
ash'ar. So what if they're not part of a whole ghazal. They're still
very good ash'ar. If you think about it, at one time, the minimum
requirement for a ghazal was somewhere in the twenties! Of course, the
intrusion of editors and so on also adds artifice to some diwans,
unfortunately.
> And the same brevity and indirectness sometimes become its weakness.
> On the topic of GHazal vs Nazm, Faiz Ahmed Faiz has gone on record
> saying that it is more difficult to write good nazms than good
> GHazals. In a nazm, there is a necessity to keep up one particular
> thought for a long time ... in the GHazal, this is not so.
The nazm can be a far more powerful mode of
expresion than a ghazal and it can be just as hard to compose.
The important point here, of course, is not whether something is easy or
difficult to compose but whether the poetic construct facilitates the
aesthetic presentation of one's inspired feelings. Needless to say, the
nazm is more conducive to the elaborate and potent expression of one's
thoughts, partly because one has the opportunity to explore themes more
extensively and partly because there are less constructive rigidities that
one must conform to. But, on the other hand, the beauty of the ghazal is
certainly, at least partially, derived from its constructive appearance
and from the liberties it allows the poet concerning the exploration of
whatever inspiration enters the mind at a certain moment. One doesn't
have to force oneself to concentrate on a particular theme, just let
oneself be intoxicated by the wine of ecstatic inspiration. And I am not
exaggerating a bit.
> Faiz which he has classified as Nazms, but which appear, from their
> format to be GHazals. Not only do they conform to the AA-BA-CA
> format, but their constituent ash'aar are also individually distinct
> and are semantically independent, as in a typical GHazal. This makes
> me feel that GHazals may form a subset of Nazms, though this subset
> may not be what mathematicians call a "proper subset". That is, all
> GHazals are not nazms and all nazms are not GHazals, but some poems
> conforming to the GHazal format can be nazms ... My doubt is, since
> they conform exactly to the GHazal format, aren't they also GHazals?
> I don't know ...
>
This is the way I look at it: Nazm is really only defined by meter.
Other than that, it has no further constraints. Rhyme etc. are optional
variables that one may attach to nazm. So, in that sense,
ghazal is most certainly a subset of nazm because it is simply a nazm with
specified rhyming patterns (radif and qafiya).
> Ravindra.
Irfan.
Balaji A.S. Murthy
In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.96111...@icarus.cc.uic.edu>, Irfan says...
>
>On 11 Nov 1996, U.V. Ravindra wrote:
>
>All lines of a ghazal must be in the same meter but the meter may
>allow the lines to be of different lengths. That is to say that
>individual lines may vary in their pattern of syllabic periodicity as long
>as the variation is acceptable within the meter.
>
>> elaborate on the same idea ... however, the point to note is that in
>> the GHazals of the old timers, like Momin and Hasrat Mohani, one still
>> finds that any given sh'er is a complete semantic unit, whereas in
>> GHazals by later sh'ura, this requirement seems to have got diluted.
>
>Such a practice has been in existence for a long
>time. There is no sense in constraining the quality and nature of poetic
>inspiration (and note here that, if it is not inspired then it is not
>poetry; that is MY rule but I feel it is an important one).
(deleted)
>
>> The appearance of an even number of ash'aar, or the lack of a maqtah
>> in the GHazals of Meer/Ghalib in their collections has more to do with
>> editorial liberties taken by the poets/intellectuals who compiled
>> these collections than with the real shape/form of the GHazals
>> included in these collections. This is particularly true in the case
>> of Meer's poems.
>
>It is true that ghazals must have at least five shers (this number has
>been arrived at after much evolution) and the number of shers must be odd
>if greater than five.
>But again, I want to emphasize that it is inspiration that drives the
>ghazal and not numbers.
>If you think about it, at one time, the minimum
>requirement for a ghazal was somewhere in the twenties!
>
(deleted)
>
>This is the way I look at it: Nazm is really only defined by meter.
>Other than that, it has no further constraints. Rhyme etc. are optional
>variables that one may attach to nazm. So, in that sense,
>ghazal is most certainly a subset of nazm because it is simply a nazm with
>specified rhyming patterns (radif and qafiya).
>
>> Ravindra.
>
>Irfan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks Abhay, Ravindra and Irfan for an enlightening discussion on various
forms of Urdu poetry.
I have been following this thread with the same enthusiastic interest as
I imagine many other nettors are. What is becoming increasing clear (I think)
from the above discussion is that in the process of classification of a
work is only the written form and not the musical form. In fact the musical
classification may more populist in nature and as far as the scholars are
concerned only the written word counts towards defining a work as, say
ghazal or nazm.
Am I right in drawing in the above conclusion. If not, why? The reason I ask
this question is, this discussion really had its origins in the musical aspects
of ghazal. Lyric was hardly in picture. For example, (not their exact words)
Ashok:
"Rafi sang most ghazals like geets. Mukesh OTOH, sang them properly".
Also,
"Rafi's rendition of 'yeh na thi hamari qismat' is by far the worst I
have heard".
Ikram:
"Suraiya's version was the least ghazal like".
Kalyan:
"Even though MM and Khaiyaam composed more authentic ghazal-like tunes,
GM's compositions were light and IMHO, more likeable".
Malini:
"Suraiya's 'nuktacheen hai gham-e-dil' was more ghazal like than 'yeh
na thi'. In contrast, Begum Akhtar's is by far the best version, and
most authentic ghazal like rendition".
Abhay:
"Rafi certainly sang ghazals like ghazals, more so than Talat/Kishore et al.
although, it can be said that Mukesh sang no-film ghazals better than Rafi".
Clearly, in the above statements, lyric is not what being discussed, in fact, the
nettors make specific qualitative statements about the music and rendition.
So, other than the lyric, are there rules also for singing the ghazal in a specific
manner, or is the lyric sufficient to call something a ghazal. More specifically,
are the following ghazals:
1. tadbeer se bigdi hui taqdeer bana le,
apne pe bharosa ho to daav laga le
Baazi/SDB/Geeta
2. ham hai raahi pyaar ke, ham se kuchh na boliye
jo bhi pyaar se mila, ham usi ke ho liye
Nau Do Gyarah/SDB/Kishore
3. koi hamdam na raha, koi sahara na raha
ham kisi ke na rahe, koi hamara na raha
Jhumroo/Kishore/Kishore
4. yuNhi koi mil gaya tha, sare raah chalte chalte
wahi tham ke rah gayi hai, meri saNs chalte chalte
Pakeezah/Ghulam Mohammad/Lata
Most people would probably not classify the above (with the possible exception of no. 3)
as ghazals. Why? All the above seem perfect ghazals to me, except that none of them satify
the min. 5 ash'ar rule.
Also, how does one define a geet or a naghma?
Hopefully, someone takes time to answer the above!
Thanks,
- Balaji
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Balaji A.S. Murthy | Email: fj...@cleveland.freenet.edu
3039, NW Overlook Dr, #1123 |
Hillsboro, OR 97124 | Ph: 503-617-1695(h)