Meaning of Ruke ruke se kadam
Pramod
Returning back after a long time!
A happy new year to everybody!
As I was listening to ruke ruke se kadam yesterday, I realised how much
I didn't know about the song content. Therefore, I decided to to look
up in rmim on this theme. I found only one reference, therfore I
thought, I would share my thoughts with you.
ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale (2)
The person is going away, but is looking behind, if his/her beloved
(he/she) might stop him/her and thus can return back.
qarAr leke tere dar se beqarAr chale
Taking solace from you, I'm going disturbed away.
I know this verse is beautiful, but what does it mean. Does it mean. I
got solace from the grief that I had through your love, but that very
love has left me so disturbed?
ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale
ruke ruke se kadam
subah nA AyI kaI baar nI.nd se jaage (2)
The dawn didn't arrive, although I was expecting it every time I woke
up.
Is Dawn meant here as a solution to a problem. As a hope! Then why not
" subah nA AyI kaI baar raat me jaage "? Why nI.nd? Sleep is something
calm.
Or does it mean, I slept in your arms, hoping that this dark night
would pass away, but even that couldn't make the night (my dark life,
in the movie: my life as a prostitute) end.
ki ek raat kI ye zi.ndagI guzaar chale (2)
Thus I spent a night of life time
That sounds discontent and reproachful. Like This single night made me
feel it was a whole life time. But I think the poet means, thus I am
ending this episode of my life. Or does it have anything to do with a
one-night stand (in the movie it is surely not) or a short affair.
uThAye phirte thhey ehasAn dil kA sIne par (2)
le tere kadamo.n pe ye kaz.r bhI utaar chale (2)
This has already been discussed in a thread started by Neha Desai,
where Guri describes it in the following words:
" dil jo mere seene meiN hai, vo to kabhee-kaa tunhaaraa ho chukaa,
isliye
mere seene meiN tumhaaraa ehsaan hai ki abhi tak dhaRak rahaa hai, lo
tumhaare qadmoN meiN is dil ko rakh kar tumhaaraa ye qarz bhi utaarey
jaataa/jaatee hooN... qaraar leke tere dar se beqaraar chaley! "
And then Malini countered:
" tumne jo mujhe dil diya thhaa (OR 'maine jo tumse dil liya thha' as a
karz),
wo itne dino se maine seene mei.n rakhha thhaa, ke seene par tumhara
ehsaan
saa ho gaya thha. Isliye aaj mai.n ye dil tumko tumhare qadmo.n mei.n
wapas
kar rahi hoo.n, aur ye karz utaar rahi hoo.n. "
Both are satisfactory!
qarAr leke tere dar se beqarAr chale
ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale
ruke ruke se kadam
Wonder what you think!
best Rrgards
Pramod Harvey
UVR
Pramod wrote:
> hi !
>
> Returning back after a long time!
> A happy new year to everybody!
Welcome back, and a happy new year to you, too.
> As I was listening to ruke ruke se kadam yesterday, I
> realised how much I didn't know about the song
> content. Therefore, I decided to to look up in rmim on this
> theme. I found only one reference, therfore I thought, I
> would share my thoughts with you.
An interesting thread you've started. Let's hope more RMIMers
will join in this discussion. This is a song that I like
quite a bit -- it's one of those rare outputs from Gulzar
where he has not used any strange (bizarre!) metaphors.
> ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale (2)
>
> The person is going away, but is looking behind, if his/her
> beloved (he/she) might stop him/her and thus can return
> back.
>
> qarAr leke tere dar se beqarAr chale
>
> Taking solace from you, I'm going disturbed away. I know
> this verse is beautiful, but what does it mean. Does it
> mean. I got solace from the grief that I had through your
> love, but that very love has left me so disturbed?
My interpretation of this couplet is a little different from
yours (but, mind you, that doesn't mean I'm saying your
interpretation is WRONG!). For one thing, I "love" doesn't
figure in my inter- pretation as centrally as it does in
yours. For another, IMO, it makes more interesting sense to
try to interpret this song [Ghazal] by itself, outside the
straitjacket of the film and picturization it was made part
of. You may or may not agree with that, but that's what I
feel.
Anyway, as far as the first couplet goes, I think Gulzar might
be saying: "My feet hesitate repeatedly to leave this place,
for my disquieted self has found such solace at your
doorstep." In other words, the hesitation (ruk ruk ke chalna)
to leave is a consequence of the poet (who was beqaraar)
having obtained qaraar at [the beloved's] doorstep.
There's another way also of looking at this: the poet is
saying (lamenting?) that it is his [her] very nature to be
beqaraar (uneasy) -- so beqaraar that in spite of finding
qaraar at the beloved's doorstep, s/he cannot overcome the
innate complusion to walking around (looking for something?).
Although some- where, at the back of the mind, there is a
hesitation that says, "hey, maybe this qaraar *is* what you
are looking for, is liye in qadamo.n ko *roko! mat jaane do!*,
the compulsion to be beqaraar trumps all this, insisting,
"*roko mat! jaane do!*" Hence the ruk ruk ke chalanaa.
> subah nA AyI kaI baar nI.nd se jaage (2)
>
> The dawn didn't arrive, although I was expecting it every
> time I woke up. Is Dawn meant here as a solution to a
> problem. As a hope! Then why not " subah nA AyI kaI baar
> raat me jaage "? Why nI.nd? Sleep is something calm. Or
> does it mean, I slept in your arms, hoping that this dark
> night would pass away, but even that couldn't make the night
> (my dark life, in the movie: my life as a prostitute) end.
>
> ki ek raat kI ye zi.ndagI guzaar chale (2)
>
> Thus I spent a night of life time. That sounds discontent and
> reproachful. Like This single night made me feel it was a
> whole life time. But I think the poet means, thus I am
> ending this episode of my life. Or does it have anything to
> do with a one-night stand (in the movie it is surely not) or
> a short affair.
I think the poet is using "nii.nd" as an escape from the dark
reality of the night. It's a variant of the proverbial
ostritch approach, if you will -- close your eyes and hope
that when you wake up, your troubles would have magically
disappeared! And if for this reason alone, this nii.nd is not
calm, peaceful slumber by any means. Nay, it's fitful,
troubled sleep. This person wakes up (here's the 'beqaraari'
coming into the picture again), hoping that the subah (the End
of the night. And the end of his troubles?) has arrived.
But it hasn't. So escapist nii.nd again. And again. And again.
As for "ek raat ki yeh zindagi", I think this is a way of
saying that the poet's whole life has been like one single,
long, dark night, troubled, painful.
> uThAye phirte thhey ehasAn dil kA sIne par (2)
> le tere kadamo.n pe ye kaz.r bhI utaar chale (2)
>
> This has already been discussed in a thread started by Neha
> Desai, where Guri describes it in the following words: " dil
> jo mere seene meiN hai, vo to kabhee-kaa tunhaaraa ho
> chukaa, isliye mere seene meiN tumhaaraa ehsaan hai ki abhi
> tak dhaRak rahaa hai, lo tumhaare qadmoN meiN is dil ko rakh
> kar tumhaaraa ye qarz bhi utaarey jaataa/jaatee
> hooN... qaraar leke tere dar se beqaraar chaley! "
>
> And then Malini countered: "tumne jo mujhe dil diya thhaa
> (OR 'maine jo tumse dil liya thha' as a karz), wo itne dino
> se maine seene mei.n rakhha thhaa, ke seene par tumhara
> ehsaan saa ho gaya thha. Isliye aaj mai.n ye dil tumko
> tumhare qadmo.n mei.n wapas kar rahi hoo.n, aur ye karz
> utaar rahi hoo.n. "
>
> Both are satisfactory!
Ok, then.
-UVR.
Vinay
ek tho.Daa alag khayaal. unromantic saa.
doosaraa misaraa ba.Dii aasaanii se khud ke baare me.n bhii kahaa ho
sakataa hai aur kadamo.n ke baare me.n bhii. agar kadamo.n ke baare
me.n maane.n, to ek sambhaavanaa ye aatii hai:
thake hue se (ruke-ruke se) mere ye kadam himmat karake (ruk ke bhii)
baar-baar chale
tere dar pe tho.Daa aaraam to milaa inhe.n, par jab phir chale to
beqaraar hii the
yaani, she'r ko pa.Dhane ke do tariike (kam se kam) ho sakate hai.n -
ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar-baar chale
qaraar leke, (ham) tere dar se beqaraar chale
ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar-baar chale
(ye kadam) qaraar leke, tere dar se beqaraar chale
phir agar qaraar kaa "settlement" yaa "agreement" waalaa matlab le.n to
kissaa aur aage jaa sakataa hai :). yaani,
tujh se samjhautaa to kar liyaa (agreement to le liyaa), par dil to
beqaraar hii rahaa.
gulzar. parate.n. chhilake.
--
vinay
<snipped>
> -UVR.
Abhijit
UVR wrote:
>
> My interpretation of this couplet is a little different from
> yours (but, mind you, that doesn't mean I'm saying your
> interpretation is WRONG!). For one thing, I "love" doesn't
> figure in my inter- pretation as centrally as it does in
> yours. For another, IMO, it makes more interesting sense to
> try to interpret this song [Ghazal] by itself, outside the
> straitjacket of the film and picturization it was made part
> of. You may or may not agree with that, but that's what I
> feel.
>
it is Gulzar who made the film as well and this song is the *key* song
of the film though "dil Dhuu.NDhataa" is more popular. I have to admit
though I only remember traces of the movie.
> > ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale (2)
> > qarAr leke tere dar se beqarAr chale
As you said, first line depicts the hesitation. Who would want to leave
a place where one gets "qaraar", yet there are compulsions which made
her leave. Hence the "beqaraarii".
> > subah nA AyI kaI baar nI.nd se jaage (2)
> > ki ek raat kI ye zi.ndagI guzaar chale (2)
She (older Sharmila) had been spending a miserable life until Sanjeev
Kumar brought some *roshanii* into it. That occasional hint of light
made her wake up again and again only to find it's still dark night.
And that's how she spent all her life (night), later part mostly
waiting for Sanjeev Kumar ("roshanii") to arrive to take herself+kid
along.
> > uThAye phirte thhey ehasAn dil kA sIne par (2)
> > le tere kadamo.n pe ye kaz.r bhI utaar chale (2)
During her later part she's been carrying the fruit of their love
(ehasaan dil kaa -- younger Sharmila) all by herself. But how long? She
had to finally leave the world hoping he now looks after the girl. It's
just a different way of presenting -- "ye lo, tomhaaraa karz utaar
rahii huu.N, ab mujhe aur kuchh naa puu.Nchho".
shri37
I would like to understand the lyrics of -" Chupkese lagaja gale
"-..can you help ? thanks
V S Rawat
> > > subah nA AyI kaI baar nI.nd se jaage (2)
> > > ki ek raat kI ye zi.ndagI guzaar chale (2)
>
> She (older Sharmila) had been spending a miserable life until
> Sanjeev Kumar brought some roshanii into it.
And why exactly you think that life of older Sharmila was
miserable?
She was young, had dreams in her eyes, was jovial, her father
was making some earning and had earned respect of people, they
were living a happy, content and peaceful life.
Why exactly is such a life miserable.
If so, billions of people are having such a "miserable" life.
> That occasional
> hint of light made her wake up again and again only to find
> it's still dark night. And that's how she spent all her life
> (night), later part mostly waiting for Sanjeev Kumar
> ("roshanii") to arrive to take herself+kid along.
Why do I remember that this song is picturised on younger
Sharmila on the eve of the day when she was to leave Sanjeev
Kumar and go back to her kothaa for jismfaroshi. She yet did not
know anything about Sanjeev's real relationships with and
feelings about her, nor with and about her mother.
In that case, it is actually immaterial to link that song to
life and feelings of Older Sharmila and Sanjeev Kumar.
> > > uThAye phirte thhey ehasAn dil kA sIne par (2)
> > > le tere kadamo.n pe ye kaz.r bhI utaar chale (2)
>
> During her later part she's been carrying the fruit of their
> love (ehasaan dil kaa -- younger Sharmila) all by herself. But
> how long? She had to finally leave the world hoping he now
> looks after the girl. It's just a different way of presenting
> -- "ye lo, tomhaaraa karz utaar rahii huu.N, ab mujhe aur
> kuchh naa puu.Nchho".
Again, if the song was on younger Sharmila, the life and
feelings of older Sharmila don't come in picture.
In any case, by the time Older Sharmila had given birth, she had
almost turned mad, thus, her feelings must have been rather
chaotic.
I wish that Gulzar should have picturized another song on Older
Sharmila when she had gone mad. Then, we could have got a
glimpse of what Gulzar feels about the working of the minds of
mad people. I wonder why Gulzar let go of such a rare
opportunity.
--
Rawat
V S Rawat
> ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale (2)
>
> The person is going away, but is looking behind,
The "looking" aspect is not at all there in these lines.
Thus, these lines, I would say, are more about internal
struggles of oneself, rather than the explanation of
relationship.
Younger Sharmila, not knowing that Sanjeev Kumar is her father,
had tried to have sex with Sanjeev. That was the only skill she
had and she was, in her own way, trying to reward Sanjeev Kumar
for the favours he had showered upon her.
Sanjeev Kumar, having known about their true relationship, had
spurned her approach and had scolded her heavily by giving her a
lecture questioning her entire carnal outlook of life. In any
case, most of what Sanjeev Kumar had said, must have gone above
her head.
But, she can have no illusions of love between Sanjeev Kumar and
herself. Sanjeev Kumar had made it very clear, and the feeling
she had towards Sanjeev Kumar, were the feelings more of
gratitude, and not at all of love. For her, Sanjeev Kumar was
her kharidaar, and she thought that he is old, or he feels shy,
so even after buying her out, he is not able to utilize her, so
she tried to ease it out for him.
At best, younger Sharmila was utterly confused, not able to make
out what is it that Sanjeev wants out of her.
Also, younger Sharmila does not come out in this film as the one
who understands love at all. she was only in carnal trade.
Where do you find love in it? between younger Sharmila and
Sanjeev Kumar?
> if his/her
> beloved (he/she) might stop him/her and thus can return back.
I am not clear about what was the scenario in the film. I think
Sharmila was going on her own accord, (or was it that Sanjeev
Kumar had told her to go back to her kotha after her seduction
attempt)?
But, I would say, it must have been clear to younger Sharmila,
in spite of all her confusion, that she can stay as long as she
wants and Sanjeev is never going to get fed up nor send her back.
She was going back because she was a honest tradeswoman. Hence,
when she finds that Sanjeev is not interested in the only
commodity she can offer, she nullifies the deal and decides to
go back.
In that case, where do feel the possibility that younger
Sharmila can expect Sanjeev Kumar to stop her?
>
> qarAr leke tere dar se beqarAr chale
>
> Taking solace from you, I'm going disturbed away.
> I know this verse is beautiful, but what does it mean. Does it
> mean. I got solace from the grief that I had through your
> love, but that very love has left me so disturbed?
the line does not make sense to me.
It is a typical afiirmation and negation that poets put in
lyrics just to enjoy the beauty of words, rather than the
meanings.
the line would make sense if "leke" had been "deke"
qarAr deke tere dar se beqarAr chale
then, it would have meant that she has renounced her peace of
mind. And, normally, one "willinging" renounces something, and
renouncing makes one happy and calm and peaceful.
but, she was not feeling happy or calm or peaceful. she was
beqaraar.
And that is what is to happen, if one has given qaraar. one
becomes beqaraar.
Then, it would have been a beautiful play of emotions as well as
words by Gulzar, and would have fitted perfectly well on the
situation of not youner Sharmila but also of Sanjeev Kumar.
I don't have this song off-hand with me. Could someone give it
an ear and find whether it is really "leke" or is it "deke".
>
> ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale
> ruke ruke se kadam
>
> subah nA AyI kaI baar nI.nd se jaage (2)
>
> The dawn didn't arrive, although I was expecting it every time
> I woke up.
> Is Dawn meant here as a solution to a problem. As a hope! Then
> why not " subah nA AyI kaI baar raat me jaage "? Why nI.nd?
> Sleep is something calm.
Holy God.
I envy you, Pramod!
your sleeps are always calm.
send me some of your luck. or wake up to realize what lot of
troubles you are also having with your sleep, like everybody
else.
> Or does it mean, I slept in your arms,
again, she had no illusions nor feelings that she is in love
with Sanjeev, nor that Sanjeev is in love with her. So no
question of sleeping in arms.
> hoping that this dark
> night would pass away, but even that couldn't make the night
> (my dark life, in the movie: my life as a prostitute) end.
again. She had no intention of ending her life as a prostitute.
That was the only way of life known to her, and she had no pangs
of guilt about her. It was her trade, her means of earning and
of living.
--
Rawat
vrk
woh khwaab me aake taskeen-e-iztiraab to de
vale mujhe tapish-e-dil majaal-e-khwaab to de
here. would have been soothed in my dreams by you, if calm enough to
sleep. So the solace or happiness or taskeen or qaraar that I have
received and taking away (almost as a commodity) shall be the cause of
my disquiet. and thus my hesitation to leave.
Pramod
V S Rawat schrieb:
> > The person is going away, but is looking behind,
>
> The "looking" aspect is not at all there in these lines.
True, but I am allowed some imagination, ain't I?
> Thus, these lines, I would say, are more about internal
> struggles of oneself, rather than the explanation of
> relationship.
Why not?
> Younger Sharmila, not knowing that Sanjeev Kumar is her father,
> had tried to have sex with Sanjeev. That was the only skill she
> had and she was, in her own way, trying to reward Sanjeev Kumar
> for the favours he had showered upon her.
>
> Sanjeev Kumar, having known about their true relationship, had
> spurned her approach and had scolded her heavily by giving her a
> lecture questioning her entire carnal outlook of life. In any
> case, most of what Sanjeev Kumar had said, must have gone above
> her head.
>
> But, she can have no illusions of love between Sanjeev Kumar and
> herself. Sanjeev Kumar had made it very clear, and the feeling
> she had towards Sanjeev Kumar, were the feelings more of
> gratitude, and not at all of love. For her, Sanjeev Kumar was
> her kharidaar, and she thought that he is old, or he feels shy,
> so even after buying her out, he is not able to utilize her, so
> she tried to ease it out for him.
>
> At best, younger Sharmila was utterly confused, not able to make
> out what is it that Sanjeev wants out of her.
But this is what makes him special. He is the first person, who doesn't
use her sexually. He is the first person, who doesn't treat her as a
sexual object. Naturally she falls in love with her. He respects her as
a woman. At least that is what she thinks, She doesn't know that his
love is paternal one and that too a guilt-ridden one
> Also, younger Sharmila does not come out in this film as the one
> who understands love at all. she was only in carnal trade.
Come on! "She was only in carnal trade" sounds as if prostitutes cant
love!
> Where do you find love in it? between younger Sharmila and
> Sanjeev Kumar?
Just imagine, you (not exactly you, Rawat!) have been treated as a
sexual object for the greater part of your youth and can find favours
only through sex and then somebody comes makes you lots of presents.
Naturally she (Kajri, I think is her name) falls in love with him.
> I am not clear about what was the scenario in the film. I think
> Sharmila was going on her own accord, (or was it that Sanjeev
> Kumar had told her to go back to her kotha after her seduction
> attempt)?
To tell you the truth, I can't remember as well!
> But, I would say, it must have been clear to younger Sharmila,
> in spite of all her confusion, that she can stay as long as she
> wants and Sanjeev is never going to get fed up nor send her back.
> She was going back because she was a honest tradeswoman. Hence,
> when she finds that Sanjeev is not interested in the only
> commodity she can offer, she nullifies the deal and decides to
> go back.
Really!
> In that case, where do feel the possibility that younger
> Sharmila can expect Sanjeev Kumar to stop her?
One always hopes against hope! Even if one ends a relationship from
his/her own side. One still expects, that the other person says "just
let us forget the old things and start again".
Kajri might be just hesitating to go, because she hopes (against hope),
that somethign might arise in between and they can come together again.
> >
> > qarAr leke tere dar se beqarAr chale
> the line does not make sense to me.
>
> It is a typical afiirmation and negation that poets put in
> lyrics just to enjoy the beauty of words, rather than the
> meanings.
>
> the line would make sense if "leke" had been "deke"
>
> qarAr deke tere dar se beqarAr chale
Well, if Gulzar used the above line, he isn't Gulzar!
After going through the song it does make some sense and just look at
all the above explanations. Now there are so many to chose from!
> then, it would have meant that she has renounced her peace of
> mind. And, normally, one "willinging" renounces something, and
> renouncing makes one happy and calm and peaceful.
>
> but, she was not feeling happy or calm or peaceful. she was
> beqaraar.
>
> And that is what is to happen, if one has given qaraar. one
> becomes beqaraar.
>
> Then, it would have been a beautiful play of emotions as well as
> words by Gulzar, and would have fitted perfectly well on the
> situation of not youner Sharmila but also of Sanjeev Kumar.
>
> I don't have this song off-hand with me. Could someone give it
> an ear and find whether it is really "leke" or is it "deke".
It is leke!!!!
I checked it up!
> Holy God.
>
> I envy you, Pramod!
> your sleeps are always calm.
> send me some of your luck. or wake up to realize what lot of
> troubles you are also having with your sleep, like everybody
> else.
So here, I'm sending you some sweet dreams and a peaceful slumber!
Well, even if you can't sleep, the period of time in which is always
calm, isn't it?
I find UVR's reply very apt here!
> > Or does it mean, I slept in your arms,
>
> again, she had no illusions nor feelings that she is in love
> with Sanjeev, nor that Sanjeev is in love with her. So no
> question of sleeping in arms.
Well, I mean it figuratively. so to say "the time I spent with you".
Kajri is brought by SK in a new environment, which had a halo of
peacefulness and much more of "respectfulness" (sic!) to it. Everytime
when she had to think about her real identity (nI.nd se jaage), it was
still there. The new surroundings hadn't given her a new identity or
respect (subah nA AyI)
> > hoping that this dark
> > night would pass away, but even that couldn't make the night
> > (my dark life, in the movie: my life as a prostitute) end.
> again. She had no intention of ending her life as a prostitute.
> That was the only way of life known to her, and she had no pangs
> of guilt about her. It was her trade, her means of earning and
> of living.
Yeah, until now. Now she has met SK, and realised, here is a man who
can give her things, which she never had really dared even to dream
about!
UVR's ostrich idea is also not bad!
If you take the ghazal for itself, without the context of the film
naturally many more interpretations come into the field! And this way
Vinay has given a new face to this ghazal!
Well, that is why I find Gulzar's songs so rewarding, you can discuss
it for so long and it opens like a lotus and with every petal opening
it gives you more sugandh!
Thanks to everybody who contributed to this thread!
BTW, anybody tried to decipher "siilI havaa chhU gaI siilaa badan chhil
gayaa" form Libaas.
And BTW, why doesn't the producer release the film? A DVD release would
do as well.
And still BTW, does anybody have the album with the dialogues of the
movie?
A friend of mine had it (13 years back!). I don't even know, where she
is now!
best regards
Pramod Harvey
> --
> Rawat
Abhijit
V S Rawat wrote:
> Abhijit wrote:
>
>
> Why do I remember that this song is picturised on younger
> Sharmila on the eve of the day when she was to leave Sanjeev
> Kumar and go back to her kothaa for jismfaroshi. She yet did not
> know anything about Sanjeev's real relationships with and
> feelings about her, nor with and about her mother.
>
> In that case, it is actually immaterial to link that song to
> life and feelings of Older Sharmila and Sanjeev Kumar.
>
I will have to see the movie again. But Gulzar may still wish to convey
the theme of the entire movie through this song, even though it is
picturised on younger Sharmila.
> > > > uThAye phirte thhey ehasAn dil kA sIne par (2)
> > > > le tere kadamo.n pe ye kaz.r bhI utaar chale (2)
> >
I wish he had used this on older Sharmila. par sarakaar, is baat ke
liye apun ke naam kaa supaarii mat denaa | maaf karanaa ##boss## | aap
bole.ngaa to apun ##reverse-engineering## karake ek "bemausam" pikchar
bhii banaa daale.ngaa sarakaar |
vijay...@my-deja.com
ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale
qaraar le ke tere dar se beqaraar chale
"beqaraar" may be a noun or an adjective here.
Imagine someone sitting in a room...(s)he
has had a visitor who has just left...very
reluctantly.
The singer could solace him/herself and say
"yes, he is gone, but he left reluctantly, you know...
he has taken your peace, but he has lost his own, you know..."
Alternatively, taking "beqaraar" as a noun
"I leave your presence with a heavy heart and reluctant feet
I, the disturbed one, has at least found a little peace here"
Have fun. Onionvale.
Vijay
Abhijit
vijay...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Taking the first couplet as a standalone
>
> ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale
> qaraar le ke tere dar se beqaraar chale
>
> "beqaraar" may be a noun or an adjective here.
>
Animesh Kumar
I think beqaraar here can refer to either noun or adjective, as Vijay
pointed out. beqaraarii doesn't seem a noun to me, however.
UVR
> I will have to see the movie again. But Gulzar may still wish to convey
> the theme of the entire movie through this song, even though it is
> picturised on younger Sharmila.
Oh, puh-lease. On the one hand, you have a problem with the song
being taken out of context, saying (I paraphrase, but, essentially),
Gulzar would have written it with particular reference to the situation
in the film. And now this. Make up your mind, boss.
-UVR.
Abhijit
the context of the film. I have just put my interpretation which is
based on the film's story AFAIR. As I said, I need to see the movie
which (again) IIRC is full of flashbacks. And I did say this song
appears to be the *key* song of the movie. Other songs -- "dil
Dhuu.NDhataa", "chha.Dii re chha.Dii" or "mere ishq me.n laakho.n
laTake" don't seem anywhere close to the theme.
Could anyone please describe the immediate situation which leads to
this song?
UVR
What do you mean beqaraari isn't a noun? And what do you mean
beqaraar can be a noun OR adjective? For starters, present the
definition of "noun" and "adjective."
-UVR.
Animesh Kumar
Let me try some sentence constructions (I could be wrong, just point it
out):
* usakaa dil beqaraar hai. (Adjective going with the noun dil).
* beqaraar huu.N. (An implicit "mai.n" is there. Here it serves as a noun).
Def: Noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. (The basic one that
I learnt).
Def: Adjective -- A word which tells about some quality of the noun.
And yes, I think beqaraarii can serve as a noun too; I managed to make a
sentence from it.
* dil kii beqaraarii ba.Dh rahii hai.
Best,
A
UVR
>
> Let me try some sentence constructions (I could be wrong, just point it
> out):
>
> * usakaa dil beqaraar hai. (Adjective going with the noun dil).
> * beqaraar huu.N. (An implicit "mai.n" is there. Here it serves as a noun).
There's no difference in how 'beqaraar' is used in these two sentences.
In the first case, it qualifies the noun "dil". In the second case,
it does so to the pronoun "mai.n". Just because 'mai.n' can remain
implicit doesn't mean beqaraar will become a noun!
Try again. As far as I know, there's only one situation in which
'beqaraar' can be a noun.
> Def: Noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. (The basic one that
> I learnt).
>
> Def: Adjective -- A word which tells about some quality of the noun.
>
> And yes, I think beqaraarii can serve as a noun too; I managed to make a
> sentence from it.
>
> * dil kii beqaraarii ba.Dh rahii hai.
Ok. Do you have an example of beqaraari serving as something
OTHER than a noun (since you say it can serve as a noun "too")?
-UVR.
Abhijit
UVR wrote:
>
> Try again. As far as I know, there's only one situation in which
> 'beqaraar' can be a noun.
>
"ab mai.nne jaanaa ##noun## kyaa hai tere ##post##o.n kii qasammmmm..."?
Animesh Kumar
> Animesh Kumar wrote:
>
>>Let me try some sentence constructions (I could be wrong, just point it
>>out):
>>
>>* usakaa dil beqaraar hai. (Adjective going with the noun dil).
>>* beqaraar huu.N. (An implicit "mai.n" is there. Here it serves as a noun).
>
>
> There's no difference in how 'beqaraar' is used in these two sentences.
> In the first case, it qualifies the noun "dil". In the second case,
> it does so to the pronoun "mai.n". Just because 'mai.n' can remain
> implicit doesn't mean beqaraar will become a noun!
>
> Try again. As far as I know, there's only one situation in which
> 'beqaraar' can be a noun.
>
Do these work:
* Narrator saying: unake dar se beqaraar uTh gayaa. (Well, I wonder; an
implicit referece is there to a person and you can argue it is an
adjective).
* mohabbat kii dhun beqaraar se puuchho. (Inspired by the Dil e Nadan
song - Shakeel Badayuni).
>
>>Def: Noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. (The basic one that
>>I learnt).
>>
>>Def: Adjective -- A word which tells about some quality of the noun.
>>
>>And yes, I think beqaraarii can serve as a noun too; I managed to make a
>>sentence from it.
>>
>>* dil kii beqaraarii ba.Dh rahii hai.
>
>
> Ok. Do you have an example of beqaraari serving as something
> OTHER than a noun (since you say it can serve as a noun "too")?
None that I can think of right now. I guess you got me there :-).
>
> -UVR.
>
UVR
> UVR wrote:
> > Animesh Kumar wrote:
> >
> >>Let me try some sentence constructions (I could be wrong, just point it
> >>out):
> >>
> >>* usakaa dil beqaraar hai. (Adjective going with the noun dil).
> >>* beqaraar huu.N. (An implicit "mai.n" is there. Here it serves as a noun).
> >
> >
> > There's no difference in how 'beqaraar' is used in these two sentences.
> > In the first case, it qualifies the noun "dil". In the second case,
> > it does so to the pronoun "mai.n". Just because 'mai.n' can remain
> > implicit doesn't mean beqaraar will become a noun!
> >
> > Try again. As far as I know, there's only one situation in which
> > 'beqaraar' can be a noun.
> >
>
> Do these work:
>
> * Narrator saying: unake dar se beqaraar uTh gayaa. (Well, I wonder; an
> implicit referece is there to a person and you can argue it is an
> adjective).
There's nothing to argue. You have yourself pointed out that it is
an adjective.
> * mohabbat kii dhun beqaraar se puuchho. (Inspired by the Dil e Nadan
> song - Shakeel Badayuni).
Sorry, adjective again. Here, again, there's an implicit reference:
ask the "person (noun) who is beqaraar (adj)". That is, muhabbat
kii dhun mujh/us/kisi beqaraar se puuchho.
Let's cut the "game" short. The only possible way in which beqaraar
can be a noun is when it is the name of a person (proper noun).
In all other cases, it will qualify a noun or a pronoun, implicit or
explicit.
> >>Def: Noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. (The basic one that
> >>I learnt).
> >>
> >>Def: Adjective -- A word which tells about some quality of the noun.
> >>
> >>And yes, I think beqaraarii can serve as a noun too; I managed to make a
> >>sentence from it.
> >>
> >>* dil kii beqaraarii ba.Dh rahii hai.
> >
> >
> > Ok. Do you have an example of beqaraari serving as something
> > OTHER than a noun (since you say it can serve as a noun "too")?
>
> None that I can think of right now. I guess you got me there :-).
Right. :)
-UVR.
vijay...@my-deja.com
UVR wrote:
> Animesh Kumar wrote:
> > * mohabbat kii dhun beqaraar se puuchho. (Inspired by the Dil e Nadan
> > song - Shakeel Badayuni).
>
> Sorry, adjective again. Here, again, there's an implicit reference:
> ask the "person (noun) who is beqaraar (adj)". That is, muhabbat
> kii dhun mujh/us/kisi beqaraar se puuchho.
>
muhabbat kii dhun beqaraaro se puuchho
?
muhabbat kii yaaro se puuchho
?
Vijay
vijay...@my-deja.com
Vijay
Abhay
UVR wrote:
(snip)
> Anyway, as far as the first couplet goes, I think Gulzar might
> be saying:
I have raised this question before on RMIM without finding the answer:
*is* it Gulzar saying this?? The same couplet appears in the film
"Birbal My Brother", a film that predates "Mausam" by at least half a
decade and a film that - AFAIK - had no Gulzar connection.
There is a sequence in the film where the protagonists are being taken
around Fatehpur Sikri, and the guide tells them about the mehfils that
used to take place there, at which point there is an imaginary sequence
of a girl performing a mujra to a ghazal, and the couplet used is this
one. The context leads me to believe the couplet must be part of a much
older ghazal that Gulzar must have borrowed for the mukhadaa of his
song (as in "dil Dhuu.NDhataa hai").
Does anyone know about this for sure? Maybe Pavan could ask Gulzar
himself!
Warm regards,
Abhay
asi...@my-deja.com
Abhay wrote:
>
> I have raised this question before on RMIM without finding the answer:
> *is* it Gulzar saying this?? The same couplet appears in the film
> "Birbal My Brother", a film that predates "Mausam" by at least half a
> decade and a film that - AFAIK - had no Gulzar connection.
>
> There is a sequence in the film where the protagonists are being taken
> around Fatehpur Sikri, and the guide tells them about the mehfils that
> used to take place there, at which point there is an imaginary sequence
> of a girl performing a mujra to a ghazal, and the couplet used is this
> one. The context leads me to believe the couplet must be part of a much
> older ghazal that Gulzar must have borrowed for the mukhadaa of his
> song (as in "dil Dhuu.NDhataa hai").
>
> Does anyone know about this for sure? Maybe Pavan could ask Gulzar
> himself!
>
> Warm regards,
> Abhay
On a related note, there was an interesting thread sometime back in
which Vinay Jain had written the lyrics of other related aashar.
Cheers
Arun
UVR
> UVR wrote:
> > Animesh Kumar wrote:
> > > * mohabbat kii dhun beqaraar se puuchho. (Inspired by the Dil e Nadan
> > > song - Shakeel Badayuni).
> >
> > Sorry, adjective again. Here, again, there's an implicit reference:
> > ask the "person (noun) who is beqaraar (adj)". That is, muhabbat
> > kii dhun mujh/us/kisi beqaraar se puuchho.
> >
> Maybe if we got the quote right...
>
> ?
Why will that make any difference? Your sentence is no different,
constructionwise, from the one Animesh wrote (feel free to replace
"mujh/us/kisii" in my reply to Animesh with "ham/un/kinhii.n", if you
think that will clarify matters). BTW, is it your experience (in
any language you know -- I know you speak more than two) that
the mere act of pluralization leads to the conversion of an adjective
to a noun?
> muhabbat kii [dhun] yaaro.n se puuchho
> ?
A common mistake. Yes, 'yaar' (friend) is a noun. So what? Your
(unstated yet obvious) assumption that "yaar can be supplanted
'in situ' with beqaraar here, ergo beqaraar must also be a noun"
is flawed.
-UVR.
PS: I feel this discussion has long since become OT not only to
this thread, but to RMIM as a whole. I'll be happy to continue it,
but on e-mail (with anyone who may be interested in it). You
can get me on gmail at u dot v dot ravindra
Amarendra
>
> doosaraa misaraa ba.Dii aasaanii se khud ke baare me.n bhii kahaa ho
> sakataa hai aur kadamo.n ke baare me.n bhii. agar kadamo.n ke baare
> me.n maane.n, to ek sambhaavanaa ye aatii hai:
>
> thake hue se (ruke-ruke se) mere ye kadam himmat karake (ruk ke bhii)
> baar-baar chale
> tere dar pe tho.Daa aaraam to milaa inhe.n, par jab phir chale to
> beqaraar hii the
Another interpretation of the second line ... that follows from your
understanding of the first line :
<ruke-ruke se qadam rukake baar-baar chale>
qaraar leke tere dar se beqaraar chale
--------------------------------------------------------
qaraar leke tere dar se, (vo jo beqaraar "the"), chale
meaning , tere dar se qaraar lene ke baad ab beqaraarii nahii.n hai .
That there is 'beqaraarii' in the end is probably the interpretation
in/for Mausam only .
If Gulzar has indeed borrowed the sher as Abhay mentioned, the original
meaning could have been different .
Thanks and Regards ,
Amarendra
vijay...@my-deja.com
> know -- I know you speak more than two) that
> the mere act of pluralization leads to the
> conversion of an adjective to a noun?
No...in my [limited] experience of languages
adjectives do not have plurals. Nouns do.
One red shirt -> many red shirts
one red shirt NOT -> many reds shirt
Vijay
Animesh Kumar
>>BTW, is it your experience (in any language you
>>know -- I know you speak more than two) that
>>the mere act of pluralization leads to the
>>conversion of an adjective to a noun?
>
>
> No...in my [limited] experience of languages
> adjectives do not have plurals. Nouns do.
Not quite! In sanskrit the adjective becomes plural with noun.
Your english example is very right, however. I think the same is true
for Hindi - ek safed gadhaa, ka_ii safed gadhe :-).
Animesh Kumar
> hi !
>
> Returning back after a long time!
> A happy new year to everybody!
>
> As I was listening to ruke ruke se kadam yesterday, I realised how much
> I didn't know about the song content. Therefore, I decided to to look
> up in rmim on this theme. I found only one reference, therfore I
> thought, I would share my thoughts with you.
>
> ruke ruke se kadam ruk ke baar baar chale (2)
>
> The person is going away, but is looking behind, if his/her beloved
> (he/she) might stop him/her and thus can return back.
>
> qarAr leke tere dar se beqarAr chale
Okay, one thought came in my mind. Could the first qaraar refer to an
*agreement* instead of *solace/satisfaction*? Then the line would mean:
"Though we have agreed [on something], I am still hesitant and perturbed
while leaving your door."
Best,
A
<snip>
Surjit Singh
Animesh Kumar wrote:
> vijay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>> BTW, is it your experience (in any language you
>>> know -- I know you speak more than two) that
>>> the mere act of pluralization leads to the
>>> conversion of an adjective to a noun?
>>
>>
>>
>> No...in my [limited] experience of languages
>> adjectives do not have plurals. Nouns do.
>
>
> Not quite! In sanskrit the adjective becomes plural with noun.
>
> Your english example is very right, however. I think the same is true
> for Hindi - ek safed gadhaa, ka_ii safed gadhe :-).
>
ek kaalaa juutaa, do kaale juute
>>
>> One red shirt -> many red shirts
>> one red shirt NOT -> many reds shirt
>>
>> Vijay
>>
>
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
http://hindi-movies-songs.com/index.html
UVR
What are you talking about? What about this:
[ek] kaalaa naag
[ka_ii] *kaale* naag
I hope you're not going set about to prove that 'kaalaa' is a noun!
I seriously doubt we can get anywhere by giving each other
examples and counter-examples in this manner. You see, it's
hardly a matter of your convincing me, or of my convincing
you. Why don't you pick up an authoritative Hindi/Urdu grammar
text, or even a respectable dictionary and see for yourself if
'beqaraar' is described as a noun. Or, for that matter, other
words that perform a similar function in the language (pareshaan,
paagal, aawaara, ...). If you like, here's a good dictionary to
start your [re]search with: here: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/d/platts/
-UVR.