Sahir's Taajmehal
Archana
In article <5uknf2$4...@drn.zippo.com>, ava...@hotmail.com says...
>
>Hello All,
>
>I wrote this article quite some time back. Didn't post it as IMHO, it's a
>bit dull - no humour etc. But after seeing Nitin's article today, I thought
>of posting this. This is certainly Sahir's original poem :-)
>:
:
>
>Taaj tere liye, ik maz'har-e-ulfat hi sahi
>tum_ko is waadi-e-rangi se aqeedat hi sahi
> meri mehboob ! kahiN aur mila kar mujh_se !!
>
>[ maz'har-e-ulfat = place of revelation of love
> waadi-e-rangi = valley of beauty
> aqeedat = faith
>
> Maybe Taaj is THE place and symbol of love for you. Maybe.
> But my dear, please ! Let's meet somewhere else. ]
>
>bazm-e-shaahi me, gariboN ki guzar kya maani ?
>sabt jis raah pe ho, satwat-e-shaahi ke nishaaN
>us pe ulfat bhari roohoN ka safar kya maani ?
>
>[ bazm-e-shaahi = royal congregation
> sabt = inscribed
> satwat-e-shaahi = fear of the king
> ulfat = love
> rooh = soul
>
>
>I don't know how many of you notice it or agree with me. The line "meri
>mehboob kahiN aur ..." appears in the refrain. This is what my book
>has. But if it's put in the first stanza, then the poem has a nice
>structure of a 2-line refrain and stanzas of 4 lines each with 2nd and 4th
>line rhyming. Of course, it is also repeated at the end. But I guess, that's
>done for emphasizing the emotions expressed. How is it in the original
>TalkhiyaaN ? Anyone has the edition ?
Isn't the first stanza still a three line one? Sorry, couldn't help noticing
:-)
>
>Hope you like the poem - as much as me !
>
Thanks for posting this Abhay but unfortunately it does cast a shadow on Taj's
romantic stature :-(
-Archana
>- Abhay.
> A Sahir fan !
Abhay Avachat
In article <5ul4gn$l...@drn.zippo.com>, Archana says...
No, after adding "Meri mehboob kahiN ..." won't it become 4-line one ?
Even semantically too, it won't be wrong to put it with those 3 lines.
>Thanks for posting this Abhay but unfortunately it does cast a shadow on Taj's
>romantic stature :-(
Isn't that a proof of the poems greatness ? Whether one is convinced by the
thoughts or not, it does manages to make you think. It really toches you.
And THAT is what needed to make ANY poem great. Not Nazm or GHazal, not
meter or muktachhand not complicated similies not the usage or non-usage
of words like "bartan". Of course, it's very much subjective what will
touch whom. I really love this poem. It's very dear to me.
And TalKHiyaaN was published in 1945. I do not know when Shakil wrote his
poem. His poem - the song in Leader - is also good, but Sahir's one is
exceptional. A true masterpiece.
Pradeep Dubey
In article <5umrgj$h...@drn.zippo.com>, ava...@hotmail.com (Abhay Avachat) writes:
|> In article <5ummol$8...@news1.zippo.com>, <Ashok says...
|> >
|> >>And THAT is what needed to make ANY poem great. Not Nazm or GHazal, not
|> >>meter or muktachhand not complicated similies not the usage or non-usage
|> >>of words like "bartan".
|> >
|> >> A Sahir fan !
|> >
|> >
|> >Bzzzt! A synthesized voice (imagine Darth Vader speaking) says:
|> >
|> >"A sideways slimy aside directed towards Pradeep as well as Gulzar fans."
Ashok,
What is 'Darth Vader'? Sounds like 'Dahi VaDa' to me.
See this is why I adore Gulzar. He does not resort to
using complicated sanskrit/urdu words to convey his
deeeeeep thoughts.
I had a dream last night. All the Bollywood lyricists,
except Gulzar, had gathered at a Mushaira. This included
Majrooh, Sahir, Shakeel, Hasrat, Gulshan, ABakshi, etc.
There was a brief question-answer session, and I got
the opportunity of my lifetime, when I was allowed to
ask them all one question. I asked:
Could you all please tell me why is it that 90%
of your most commonly used words are not understood
by 90% of your audience?
Looking at the shock on their face, I had to clarify
and add, I am referring to words such as: hushn, ishq,
ulfat, maikada, saaqi, sanam, aarzoo, aabroo, ...
If you think otherwise, think again. How many on
the streets of say, Raipur, could explain to
me the difference between "hushn and ishq"?
An old face among them responded after minutes
of silence: Beta ... we learnt that trick from
AIR hindi news bulletin ... :-)
Pradeep
P.S. Of course, Gulzar would just say:
sapne mein dekha sapna
|>
|> Before anyone makes the mistake of believing this (I hope there aren't
|> many, and certainly not Pradeep), let me hasten to clarify how wrong and
|> baseless this Darth Vedar comment is.
|>
|> What I was saying is the issues of whether a poem should rhyme or whether
|> the words like 'bartan' are objectionable or not etc. --- are NOT as
|> important as -- whether the poem touched you. And this touching is very
|> very subjective.
|>
|> As for Gulzar, I think my comment __supports__ his poetry. This has been my
|> stand for years and I think would remain so forever. I have often criticized
|> Gulzar, when __I__ felt like critisizing, but I have supported him too.
|> Following is an extract from my article during a Gulzar-Sahir war. The
|> entire article and some other from the War are at ...
|>
|> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/4797/svg_2.txt
|>
|> You can also visit the site at
|>
|> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/4797/index.html
|>
|> And search for Gulzar. That will say a lot about what I think about his work.
|>
|> Please read the following article before getting misled by such propoganda
|> posts. The following post of mine is a reply to Sami who was replying to
|> Chetan. In those days, we RMIMers could agree, diagree, argue, counter-argue
|> ie. have a discusssion without hurting anyone's feelings and without being
|> afraid of getting ridiculed. Anyway.
|>
|> I have not highlighted any part of the article, but do look out for the
|> discussion of "bartan" !!
|>
|> - Abhay.
|> Facts vs Fiction - Current mood on RMIM !
|>
|> -------------------------------- BEGIN EXTRACT -----------------------------
|>
|> : > Gulzar's lyrics are too weird for me. I cannot understand
|> : > and/or appreciate most of them ! In this category
|> :
|> : I agree with Chetan here.. sometimes, Gulzar puts a simple thought in vague
|> : terms and foists it as deep poetry. For instance, while talking about KHwaab,
|> : Gulzar says "..palkon me lena inhe, aankhon me chubh jaaenge...".
|>
|> Well, that's just his style. You may like it or you may not. But IMHO
|> it does not reduce the beauty of a Poem. There are many others who
|> do those kind of tricks, but they sound like hyppos. Gulzar does it
|> naturally.
|>
|> :
|> : > "koi kinara jo kinare se mile woh apna kinara hai". The
|> : > use of words like "bistar" and "sofe" and "bartan" find a
|> : > place only in Gulzar's lyrics. Such words somehow seem
|> : > inappropriate for poetry.
|> :
|> : EXACTLY my thoughts!! Words such as "bartan" and "choola" completely put me
|> off.
|> : Of course it's good to express thoughts in simple terms, but there should be
|> : a basic minimum quality level for words used in poetry.
|>
|> Actually, I do not mind such words like "budhaa baabaa" present in the
|> songs of Gulzar. Again that's just a style of expression. And it does
|> give a distinctive flavour. You may like it, or you may not !!
|>
|> : And then again, we have
|> : that classic "Prose or Poetry" (Abhay kuch yaad aaya ? :-) ) song "Mera kuch
|> : saamaan...." in which he says "Gila to main le aae, sookha lauTado...." or
|> : something to that effect. So, he's either putting simple thoughts in abstract
|> : form or going to the other extreme and using words such as bartan etc.
|>
|> YES ! That's the point !! The borderline between Prose and Poetry is
|> thin, but does one have to stay on the borderline ? Gulzar sacrifices
|> the rhyme so often ! It's not that he cannot stick to the norms or
|> he is incapable of writing a smooth Poem. His overusage of Muktachhand
|> puts me off. It doesn't seem necessary.
|>
|> And as Sami says, Gulzar deliberately indulges in using dificult
|> similes and complicated expressions, when they are not necessary.
|> Why does he ignore ..
|> saadagi bhi to ek qayaamat ki adaa hoti hai
|>
|> Again, that's just a style ! And I don't like it much !!
|>
|> And before anyone gets a doubt about my admiration of Gulzar, I must
|> say that I have a tremendous respect for this great Poet. But that
|> doesn't mean I like all the aspects of his work.
|>
|> --------------------------------- END EXTRACT --------------------------------
Chetan Vinchhi
Pradeep Dubey wrote:
> Could you all please tell me why is it that 90%
> of your most commonly used words are not understood
> by 90% of your audience?
Of course, if G had been present he would have said
ye nabbe kyaa chiiz hai? ise na unniis ke taraazu me.n tolo
tum so rahe ho bachchu, dhiire dhiire ab aa.Nkhe.n kholo
C
U.V. Ravindra
The time has come to talk of many things ... :)
I am glad there is a resurrection, in a way, of the Gulzar-Sahir
war on RMIM. Here are my tuppence on this matter.
At the outset, let me start off saying that I admire both Sahir
and Gulzar. Of the two, however, I prefer Sahir. The reason
is not, as Pradeep might put it, because Sahir uses DIFFICULT
words, but because I like his style of writing more than Gulzar's.
According to me, the common argument that Gulzar-proponents advance
against Sahir is nothing but a means of hiding their own ignorance
of Urdu :) If you ask me, Gulzar's verse is as complicated as
that of Sahir, only it's so because of different reasons. And it
is these reasons that I am going to talk about in this post.
There are essentially two ways in which a particular poem can be made
complicated:
A) Use familiar feelings and sentiments, even cliche'd ones, but
garb them in "difficult" (I'd prefer the word "unfamiliar") words.
For example, Majrooh's 'mere mehboob tujhe meri muhabbat ki qasam',
or Faiz's "mujh se pehli si muhabbat", Shakeel's "ek shahenshaah ne
banvaa ke haseeN taaj-mahal", etc. These poems are difficult
(for some people) because the language used in them is "shuddh" :)
Urdu, and many people are unfamiliar with that language. To them,
therefore, these songs offer linguistic difficulty and unnecessary
complications.
b) Use unfamiliar metaphors and complicated sentiments by using
common and easily understood words (like "bartan"). Take Gulzar's
famous song from Khamoshi "ham ne dekhi hai in aaNkhoN ki mahakti
Khushboo", for example. I like this song *very very much* and
I think this is one of Gulzar's all time gems. However, how many
people, at first glance, are able to directly comprehend the meaning
of "aaNkhoN ki mahakti Khushboo". For that matter how many do
understand what "rishtoN ka ilzaam" means? To me a line that
says "anginat sadiyoN ke tareek baheemanah tilism" is simpler in
meaning than "aaNkhoN ki mahakti Khushboo". The former just has
difficult words: if I can look at a dictionary and figure out their
meanings, I am done: it just means "the dark, looming magical charms
of countless centuries", but where do I go with "raat hai jaise
andhaa kuaaN", or "waqt se lamha gira kahiN"? I have to spend some
time trying to work out the meanings, right? How does this type
of poem become "simpler"? Huh?
So, you see, it is wrong to say that Gulzar's poetry is easy or
anything. It is as profound and difficult as they get. It's just
that the words used are common and familiar words, and that gives
listeners and readers a mistaken sense of simplicity.
This is not to say that Sahir only wrote simplistic poetry, or
that he always used 'difficult' words to hide his cliche'd ideas.
Anyone who has read "jinheN naaz hai hind par" or "yeh duniya agar
mil bhi jaaye" or "taaj mahal", can easily sense the greatness
of the poetic intellect of Sahir Ludhiyanvi. He was a great poet.
Period. As for his language, *I* don't think it is difficult,
because I find I can understand most of the words he uses pretty
easily.
Saying Sahir's poetry is difficult is the same as saying
'hari hari vasundhara' is a difficult song. How many people use
"vasundhara" in real life to describe the Earth? Most people I
know call it "zameen" :) I know of several people who are
hopelessly at a loss when it comes to understanding the meaning
of "vande mAtaram" or "jana gaNa mana". Would you criticise Bankim
Chatterjee or Rabi Tagore for writing "difficult verse"?
My intent in this post is not to show that Gulzar is worse than
Sahir or that Sahir is greater than Gulzar [yes, yes, chit maiN
jeeta, paT tu haara :))]. I wouldn't care to do that. To me,
Sahir v/s Gulzar is like Carnatic classical music v/s Western
classical music. I enjoy both, I don't compare either, but if
my life depended on making a choice, I'd go with Carnatic.
I'm sorry for such a serious post in response to what was
clearly a light-hearted and jocose remark by Pradeep. So, RMIM,
lighten up. Or, to put it as Nita would ...
Keep smiling :-))
--
Ravindra.
Hemlata N Khemani wrote:
>
> In article <5un5qp$13sn$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
> Pradeep Dubey <pra...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> >What is 'Darth Vader'? Sounds like 'Dahi VaDa' to me.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >See this is why I adore Gulzar. He does not resort to
> >using complicated sanskrit/urdu words to convey his
> >deeeeeep thoughts.
> >
>
> This is totally hillarious, the best joke on RMIM in the past couple
> weeks. Thanks Pradeep for lightening the atmosphere. BTW, I admire
> Gulzar from the day I heard the song "humne dekhi hai" from khamoshi. He
> can really convey his thoughts through uncomplicated words. The wonder is
> that his ultra-simple words create confusions.
>
> Hema.
> tap-tap topi-topi top mei.n jo doobe.:-))
> --
Hemlata N Khemani
In article <340F4505...@informix.com>,
U.V. Ravindra <u...@infogain.com> wrote:
>b) Use unfamiliar metaphors and complicated sentiments by using
>common and easily understood words (like "bartan"). Take Gulzar's
t This is exactly what I meant by saying that Gulzar's simple words create
confusions.
>famous song from Khamoshi "ham ne dekhi hai in aaNkhoN ki mahakti
>Khushboo", for example. I like this song *very very much* and
>I think this is one of Gulzar's all time gems. However, how many
>people, at first glance, are able to directly comprehend the meaning
>of "aaNkhoN ki mahakti Khushboo". For that matter how many do
>understand what "rishtoN ka ilzaam" means? To me a line that
>says "anginat sadiyoN ke tareek baheemanah tilism" is simpler in
>meaning than "aaNkhoN ki mahakti Khushboo". The former just has
>difficult words: if I can look at a dictionary and figure out their
>meanings, I am done: it just means "the dark, looming magical charms
>of countless centuries", but where do I go with "raat hai jaise
>andhaa kuaaN", or "waqt se lamha gira kahiN"? I have to spend some
>time trying to work out the meanings, right? How does this type
>of poem become "simpler"? Huh?
Right said, UVR. I was reading the "Taaj-mehal" post and I could
understand the poem by looking at the meanings of the urdu words but it
really took me a while (or years I should say) before I could understand
the khamoshi song. Gulzar's words are simple (mostly)but the poem itself
is not.
Hema.
--
Pradeep Dubey
In article <5un95o$p...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, hnk...@pitt.edu (Hemlata N Khemani) writes:
|>
|> In article <5un5qp$13sn$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
|> Pradeep Dubey <pra...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
|> >What is 'Darth Vader'? Sounds like 'Dahi VaDa' to me.
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >See this is why I adore Gulzar. He does not resort to
|> >using complicated sanskrit/urdu words to convey his
|> >deeeeeep thoughts.
|> >
|>
|> This is totally hillarious, the best joke on RMIM in the past couple
|> weeks. Thanks Pradeep for lightening the atmosphere. BTW, I admire
|> Gulzar from the day I heard the song "humne dekhi hai" from khamoshi. He
|> can really convey his thoughts through uncomplicated words. The wonder is
|> that his ultra-simple words create confusions.
Thanks ... and
Yes Hema, you have said it beautifully in that last sentence.
That is the wonder! When it comes to G, I stay submerged
in those multiple interpretations and the whole world
around me: bartan, kauwaa, billi, dhakkan, chimtaa, VIP-underwear,
start conveying universal truths, which they never did before.
The depth I admire is this depth which Kabir and Ghalib had too.
For the rest I alluded to in my last post, there is depth too.
But that depth is not in their thoughts but how deep I have
to go into some dictionary to understand the meaning of their
hushn-o-ishq-tadbeer-e-qayamat phrases. The payback from this
hard-work of tearing dictionary pages is pathetic!! Because,
the thought that results is in fact almost always restricted
to the same small subset, such as what Abhay said:
"She was the most beautiful women on earth.
I loved her deeply, but in the end she didn't give a damn"
Some rhyme better than others but so what?, Rhyming is Poetry 101
and even I can rhyme better than most of them :-)
Pradeep
Pradeep Dubey
In article <5up5c4$3...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, "guri" <bu...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
|>
|>
|>
|> Anup Pandey wrote in article <5uodd8$e...@drn.zippo.com>...
|> >O my lord war is between Gulzar and Sahir and I am discussing Shakeel. :))
|> >I hope my membership in Gulzar fan club is not in danger.
|>
|> ==>The GFC is much more secular, Anup :)) and, besides, Ravindra has done a
|> commendable job already for us... the fact that he thinks Gulzar uses
|> 'simple, easily understandable' words/phrases to present complex thought
|> whereas others use 'mushkil-Urdu/Hindi' to 'recycle cliche thoughts' and
|> that Gulzar's poetry takes you directly from what you hear to a thinking
|> session on what he means whereas others' stuff takes you from what you hear
|> to the dictionary only to find meaning/s that present thoughts you've heard
|> a zillion times before... all that should make it amply clear that Gulzar
|> the poet/lyricist has a lot of 'artistic-joy' to offer especially to people
|> who admit to being fans of Gulzar -the director :)) After all, it's his
|> poetic structure of the moving/talking images that makes his stuff unique.
|> Ikram and I were discussing the picturization of 'chappaa-chappaa' (Maachis)
|> the other day, and even in the decisions he has taken on the timing of that
|> song and the sequences that constitute the song, one can see a multi-layered
|> thought, just like most of the lyrics/poetry that ensue from the G-mind :)
|> Not a whole lot to prove, is there? :)
|>
|> g
|>
clap ... clap ... wonderfully said Guri!
The difference here is as 'saaf' as 'safaai'
ever can be. Recall, Ashok's famous lyricist
quiz at last east-coast get-together. When I
said few months back "G is the only lyricist with
his own stamp", there were many skeptics.
However, if there was a single conclusion
to be drawn from Ashok's commendable attempt
at exploding lyricists' myths from people's
mind, it was just one:
If there is a lyricist in Bollywood with his
own unique style, it's one and only G.
Gulzar was the ONLY lyricist every team got
right, again, I must add, inspite of Ashok's best
attempts at hiding G.
BTW, yes, there have been many in the past
as well as present (let them stay unnamed) who
have tried to 'chalo hans ki chaal', but barely
walked a few steps of the road, G has travelled
miles and miles on !! They took their turn
back towards the crowded 'meena bazaar' to
write yet another: raja dil maange chawanni
uchhaal ke ... :-)
Pradeep
|>
|>
|>
sm...@lehigh.edu
Pradeep, thanks for the recent series of hilarious posts :-)
The Chacha Chaudary Chamchas Club (CCCC) President wrote:
>the thought that results is in fact almost always restricted
>to the same small subset, such as what Abhay said:
>"She was the most beautiful women on earth.
>I loved her deeply, but in the end she didn't give a damn"
Sheesh! What a stupid thought. If we run it thro' the Gulzar processer, the
profound Gulzarized output would be:
She was the most beautiful woman on earth
And I loved her because she was ugly :-)
More Gulzarized verses (remnants of the previous "war") can be found at:
http://www.lehigh.edu/sm0e/public/www-data/R-sahirGul
Reg. the argument that Gulzar was the best because he was different from the
rest, it's similar to calling Usha Uthup the best female singer we ever had
:-)
Sami Mohammed (A Naushad fan)... and a Sahir camper
>Pradeep
****************************************************************************
Lines for the day:
Subah na aaee kaee baar neend se jaage
Thhi ek raat ki ye zindagi guzaar chale
Gulzar in "Ruke ruke se quadam, ruk-ke baar baar chale...."
****************************************************************************
Unknown
>lighten up. Or, to put it as Nita would ...
>
>Keep smiling :-))
Somebody quick! tell me the way to the patent office........:-))))
Oh well, all in a good cause! :-))
Keep smiling
Nita
tujhse to kuchh qalaam nahin lekin aye nadeem
meraa salaam kahiyo agar naamaa_bar mile
- Ghalib
Balaji A.S. Murthy_
In article <5upng2$i...@drn.zippo.com>, Nita says...
>
>>Now my question is who else besides Naushad, Hemant K and Ravi(Do Badan,
>>CKC) did Shakeel work with. I am sorry I don't have Sami's article handy, I
>>remember he discussed other MDs in his post. AFAIK there should be atleast 2
>>more MDs Shakeel worked with.
>
>Apart from Naushad, Hemant Kumar and Ravi, the other MDs that come to mind are:
>
>S.D.Burman - Benazir, Kaise KahooN
>Ghulam Mohammed - Mirza Ghalib
Ghulam Mohammad has many more with Shakeel. Also, add C.Ramachandra to the list.
They came together in 'zi.ndagii aur maut'(1965). Can someone list the songs
from this movie?
Was Shakeel in 'jaag uThaa insaan'? Vividh Bharati always used to give the
details for 'chaa.Nd saa mukha.Daa' as SDB/Shakeel. But recently, I saw the
details somewhere as SDB/Shailendra.
- Balaji
>Benazir had a lovely Rafi number - dil me.n ek jaan-e-tamanna ne jagah paayi
>hai............:-)
>
>The songs in Mirza Ghalib other than Ghalib's own work, were all penned by
>Shakeel. Two that I remember are:
>
>Chali pee ke nagar, ab kaahe kaa Dar, O more baa.Nke sajan/balam kotwaal....
>sung by Shamshad Begum
>Ganga ki reti pe banglaa banayi deo.....sung by Sudha Malhotra ( a sweet song)
Unknown
>Now my question is who else besides Naushad, Hemant K and Ravi(Do Badan,
>CKC) did Shakeel work with. I am sorry I don't have Sami's article handy, I
>remember he discussed other MDs in his post. AFAIK there should be atleast 2
>more MDs Shakeel worked with.
Apart from Naushad, Hemant Kumar and Ravi, the other MDs that come to mind are:
S.D.Burman - Benazir, Kaise KahooN
Ghulam Mohammed - Mirza Ghalib
Benazir had a lovely Rafi number - dil me.n ek jaan-e-tamanna ne jagah paayi
hai............:-)
The songs in Mirza Ghalib other than Ghalib's own work, were all penned by
Shakeel. Two that I remember are:
Chali pee ke nagar, ab kaahe kaa Dar, O more baa.Nke sajan/balam kotwaal....
sung by Shamshad Begum
Ganga ki reti pe banglaa banayi deo.....sung by Sudha Malhotra ( a sweet song)
Keep smiling
Nita
yeh sikhaayaa hai dostii ne hame.n
dost bankar kabhii wafaa na karo
- Sudarshan Faaqir
Pavan Kumar Desikan
I hunted through the various posts that have sung praises of Gulzar, and
many of them mention the song "hamane dekhii hai" from Khamoshi. But what
does this song mean? Long time back, I had requested for an
interpretation of the song, but no response as of now. Does the song really
mean anything, or is it just supposed to sound "high funda"?
pra...@watson.ibm.com (Pradeep Dubey) writes:
>
> For the rest I alluded to in my last post, there is depth too.
> But that depth is not in their thoughts but how deep I have
> to go into some dictionary to understand the meaning of their
> hushn-o-ishq-tadbeer-e-qayamat phrases. The payback from this
> hard-work of tearing dictionary pages is pathetic!! Because,
> the thought that results is in fact almost always restricted
> to the same small subset, such as what Abhay said:
>
> "She was the most beautiful women on earth.
> I loved her deeply, but in the end she didn't give a damn"
>
> Some rhyme better than others but so what?, Rhyming is Poetry 101
> and even I can rhyme better than most of them :-)
>
> Pradeep
--
Pavan Kumar Desikan
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~pkd
Balaji A.S. Murthy
>>CKC) did Shakeel work with. I am sorry I don't have Sami's article handy, I
>>remember he discussed other MDs in his post. AFAIK there should be atleast 2
>>more MDs Shakeel worked with.
>
>Apart from Naushad, Hemant Kumar and Ravi, the other MDs that come to mind are:
>
>S.D.Burman - Benazir, Kaise KahooN
>Ghulam Mohammed - Mirza Ghalib
Ghulam Mohammad has many more with Shakeel. Also, add C.Ramachandra to the list.
They came together in 'zi.ndagii aur maut'(1965). Can someone list the songs
from this movie?
Was Shakeel in 'jaag uThaa insaan'? Vividh Bharati always used to give the
details for 'chaa.Nd saa mukha.Daa' as SDB/Shakeel. But recently, I saw the
details somewhere as SDB/Shailendra.
- Balaji
>Benazir had a lovely Rafi number - dil me.n ek jaan-e-tamanna ne jagah paayi
Unknown
[snip]
>However, if there was a single conclusion
>to be drawn from Ashok's commendable attempt
>at exploding lyricists' myths from people's
>mind, it was just one:
>If there is a lyricist in Bollywood with his
>own unique style, it's one and only G.
>Gulzar was the ONLY lyricist every team got
>right, again, I must add, inspite of Ashok's best
>attempts at hiding G.
Pradeep, what you call "unique style" can also mean that Gulzar is incapable of
conveying his thoughts in any way other than his 'complex' metaphors :-) If you
remember correctly, we (we were in the same team, remember?:-) ) identified
Gulzar by the phrase "'dhuu.Nye.n kii chhaa.Nv" in the lyrics.
Maybe not being able to identify the other lyricists is a further proof of their
versatility and Gulzar's lack thereof? :-))) Just like OPNayyar's signature
ghoDaa-ghaaDi tunes, make him (in some people's mind, not mine) a less versatile
music director than others.
Using Ashok's lyricist quiz as proof of Gulzar;s greatness may turn out to be a
case of apne paa.Nv pe kulhaaDi marnaa, Pradeep.:-)))
Keep smiling
Nita
waqt ke sitam kam hasii.n nanhii.n
aaj hai.n yahaa.n kal kahii.n nahii.n
waqt se pare agar, phir mile kahii.n
Gulzar in "naam gum jaayegaa....."
Abhay Avachat
In article <5upsgl$a...@drn.zippo.com>, Nita says...
>Maybe not being able to identify the other lyricists is a further proof of their
>versatility and Gulzar's lack thereof? :-)))
clap ... clap ... wonderfully said Neeta!
- Abhay.
An example of deeeeeeeeeeep poetry without 'cliches' ...
aayeNgi bahaareN to, abake unhe kahanaa zaraa, itanaa sune
mere gul binaa, unakaa kahaaN ... bahaar naam hotaa
Unknown
Guri, with due apologies, I think you are missing the point made by UVR. Gulzar
may use simple words but the metaphors he uses are so complicated and unusual
that it is difficult for the common man to understand the emotion/feeling that
the poet is actually trying to convey. Hamne dekhi hai... and hawaao.n pe likh
do..... are two songs which come to mind almost immediately. You know what the
words mean individually but when you try to put them together, you are at a loss
as to what is being said/indicated/meant.
Taking the other half of your statement, I do not agree that Urdu sha'irs
present or recycle 'cliched' thoughts. Urdu poetry runs the whole gamut of
emotions, feelings, thoughts and situations from sadness to happiness, from
social issues to romance to the spirit of independence to God. Agreed that more
than one poet has written about the same emotion but as UVR points out, they
have all undergone similar experiences in life. However, everybody has their own
reaction to life and its experiences, and so every one of these poets has looked
at the same emotion from a different perspective, to the extent where some poets
have ended up with opposing viewpoints also. Example:
ishq ne Ghalib nikammaa kar diyaa
varnaa ham bhii aadmii the kaa ke
- Ghalib
ishq jab tak na kar chuke rusvaa
aadmii kaam kaa nahii.n hotaa
- Jigar
Urdu poetry has always been known for presenting you with a new way of looking
at things.Even if the same thought is conveyed, the use of words, the 'andaz' of
the poet imbibes it with a beauty all its own. After all isn't poetry an
amalgamation of thoughts and words? Even Gulzar writes about things which have
been talked about by these poets, doesn't he? So, isn't he recycling the same
thoughts?
As far as metaphors go, there are some which are used extensively in Urdu poetry
e.g. saaqi-sharaab but every poet has his own style of writing which is what
makes it unique.
Let us now come to the point of difficult or mushkil words... Even when
difficult Urdu words are used, once the meaning of the word(s) is known, the
meaning of the poetry becomes clear to the listener, unlike Gulzar's poetry.
This is not to say that all of Gulzar's work is incomprehensible :-) but enough
of it is to the common man.
:-)) Before I get scorched by the GFC, let me add that I do like some of his
work but if I had to make a choice between Gulzar and ANY of the other Urdu
sha'irs ( Meer, Ghalib, Jigar, Faiz, Momin,...), I wouldn't even have to think
twice about giving up Gulzar. But of course, that is my personal preference :-))
As regards interpretation of Gulzar's work of anybody's work for that matter,
well, I think that is highly individualistic in nature, as I am sure you found
out, Guri, in our *loooooooong* discussion at Denver airport. Sometimes, if one
is looking for complexity, one will find it even where it does not exist. :-))
Before I end, I would like to point out that Indian films for over 50 years has
had songs written for the same kind of situations - boy falls in love with girl
and is trying to 'pataao' the girl, girl and boy affirming their undying love
for each other, rooThna-manaanaa, let's-get-wet-in-the-rain and have fun, losing
one's love temporarily, losing one's love permanently, getting to married to the
one you love, not getting married to the one you love, ..... there are just so
many stock situations that comprises an average Indian film. And yet *recycling
the same/cliched thoughts* has given us the treasure trove of old Hindi films
that brings us together on RMIM, hasn't it? :-))
Keep smiling
Nita
merii umr se na simaT sake, mere dil me.n itne savaal the
tere paas jitne javaab the, terii ik nigaah me.n aa gaye
Abhay Avachat
In article <5uodd8$e...@drn.zippo.com>, Anup says...
>No Sir its not Majrooh but its extremely talented Shakeel who wrote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jiyo Anup saahab, jiyo !
>this gem from Mere Mehboob, a seldom disscussed lyrics writer in RMIM
>(and outside RMIM too) thanks to vociferous Sahir and Naushad lobby :)).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>O.K. to be fair to this lobby, Sami (firmly in Sahir and Naushad lobby)
>wrote a great article on Shakeel (to be found in his web page) on request
>of Abhay(a lifetime member of Sahir Fan Club).
No, I take back my thanks :-) :-)
Bhai Anup, Apart from Sahir lobby, who else even bothers to discuss
Shakeel ? And you blame the lack of discussion on us ? Yeh to wo baat hui,
neki kare so pachhataae. :-)
To some, he is in OTHERS category :-) After all, an Urdu Poet writing about
love and love only, is by the very nature of classification, a poet of
"cliches", isn't it ? Perhaps some see only "difficult words" in these lines
taaj wo shamma hai, ulfat ke sanam_khaane_ki,
jiske parawaanoN me muflis bhi, zardaar bhi hai
sange-marmar me taraashe hue KHwaaboN ki qasam
marhale pyaar ke aasaaN bhi, dushwaar bhi hai
where as I also _see _ MUSIC in these lines ! It's this aspcet of poetry
where Shakeel scores well above OTHERs :-) and certainly no less than Sahir.
It's a contradiction that leaves me perplexed. We, RMIM, is a music group.
But we somehow don't appreciate MUSIC present in POETRY.
Let me try to address all the issues raised here. Friends, you take a
dictionary, understand all the meanings of the words, and say "Fine, all
that there was to this poem is difficult words. What's the big deal ? All
these poets can do, is include some unknown words in their poems".
Firstly, these poets are writing __Urdu__ poems. If you are not familiar
with the words, it's not their fault ! Even in Hindi or your language,
I am sure poets use all the power of the repsective language. What's wrong
with it ? Many a times, I do not understand all the words in an Urdu or
even a Marathi poem. But that's my lack of knowledge or vocabulary. The
poet is not to be blamed.
Ok. The nest step. "I found out the meanings, understood difficult words
and hence understood a poem in matter of minutes. NOW, what's the big deal ?"
A poem is great if we don't understand it, at least for a long time ???
This is nothing but reducing poem appreciation to puzzle-solving !
I consider the following lines from Taajmehal of the same class as the
more famous lines at the end ("ek shahenshah ne daulat ka sahaaraa ...")
daaman-e-dahar pe, us rang ki gulakaari hai
jisme shaamil hai, tire aur mire ajdaad ka khuN
Once again, my poor translation ... samay ke kapade par us rang ka 'design'
hai, jisme tumhaare aur mere purvajoN ka khoon shaamil hai !
Is "difficult words" all there is to these lines ?? There is thunder in
these lines. It's a "thappad" delivered straight. There is tremendous
pain captured there. There is anger. And there is also a fundamental
truth captured about many monuments of the world. My God, if this is not
great poetry, then what is ?
To talk about Shakeel ... he was a king when it comes to music in poetry.
The sheer simplicity ... coupled with unbelievable fluidity. Perfect choice
of words. Perfect rhythm. His lines sound so sweet ... so musical. To equate
it with "just another rhyming poetry" is not fair. Even Sameer can do that.
Is the art of inducing music into poems is something "everyone" can do ?
Or is it something that's of no or least importance ?
Honestly, we are ignoring a lot ... and I really mean A LOT ... of factors
of what makes a great poem. If it's a matter of personal preferrence, where
one likes fuzzy notions indicated by "saaRi me udas lee hai chhabiya ghar ki",
then it's perfectly fine. We all have different tastes. But if putting
Music in poetry is important to you, Shakeel is the poet to read. No two
thoughts about it, in my mind.
- Abhay.
dil gaaye magar aawaaz na ho ... kuchh aise taraane aur bhi haiN !!
[ Guess the song ... a quiz for Shakeel fans :-) ]
Kalyan
In article <5uodd8$e...@drn.zippo.com>, Anup says...
>
>Now my question is who else besides Naushad, Hemant K and Ravi(Do Badan,
>CKC) did Shakeel work with. I am sorry I don't have Sami's article handy, I
>remember he discussed other MDs in his post. AFAIK there should be atleast 2
>more MDs Shakeel worked with.
There is Ghulam Mohammed for one. Shakeel was the lyricist for a majority
of his movies. IMO his lyrics with GM are in general better than those
with Naushad. For one thing GM was more into ghazals, Shakeel's forte.
With Naushad the lyrics in MeA and Aan are excellent while I find those
in Ganga Jamuna to be pedestrian (I think Naushad claimed in some interview
that he helped out Shakeel in the lyrics dept in GJ and looking at the
results it's not difficult to believe :)
Kalyan
guri
Nita wrote in article <5uprd0$5...@drn.zippo.com>...
>
>Guri, with due apologies, I think you are missing the point made by UVR.
Gulzar
>may use simple words but the metaphors he uses are so complicated and
unusual
>that it is difficult for the common man to understand the emotion/feeling
that
>the poet is actually trying to convey. Hamne dekhi hai... and hawaao.n pe
likh
>do..... are two songs which come to mind almost immediately. You know what
the
>words mean individually but when you try to put them together, you are at a
loss
>as to what is being said/indicated/meant.
==>It's certainly a matter of individual choice... no point in forcing
anything down anyone's throat... I did refer to the 'point made by UVR' when
I talked about the differences, pretty much the same way as you've done
above... now, if you prefer direct/cliche thoughts in poetry instead of
thoughts with several possible layers, it's your choice of course... not
everyone has to get into complex thought that gives you more pleasure every
time you happen to come across another layer of, from the same 'simple'
words that you've heard before... it's like noticing, for the first time
after hearing a Salil composition nth times, what the background strings are
doing! :)) You don't want to get into that kind of stuff, some of us love
to... that's the point.
g
KSiddi1228
The quiz from Abhay:
> dil gaaye magar aawaaz na ho ... kuchh aise taraane aur bhi haiN !!
> [ Guess the song ... a quiz for Shakeel fans :-) ]
Answer: Dil harne wale aur bhi hain -- Asha in Dil Diya Dard
Liya
Khalid
Nitin Sharma
Pradeep Dubey (pra...@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: starting such serious discussions. This seems too early
: for such an effort :-) Anyway, I never consider it as Gulzar-Sahir
: war, it's Gulzar vs. Rest. I insist Sahir is NOT fundamentally
: different from Majrooh/Kaifi/Shakeel and others. The problem
Whoa! The Gulzar club is on fire!
keep it going folks.
I'd like to add that the complexity part is one of appealing features
of Gulzar's poetry. In art, a certain level of complexity is
definitely desired, even essential, I'd say.
Otherwise we would never get past the nursery rhymes stage! :-)
My only problem is with the complexity-for-complexity-sake kind
of art - you know twisting something just to make it sound, as
Pavan said so eloquently, "high funda".
-nitin
guri
Nitin Sharma wrote in article ...
> I'd like to add that the complexity part is one of appealing features
>of Gulzar's poetry. In art, a certain level of complexity is
>definitely desired, even essential, I'd say.
>
> Otherwise we would never get past the nursery rhymes stage! :-)
>
> My only problem is with the complexity-for-complexity-sake kind
>of art - you know twisting something just to make it sound, as
>Pavan said so eloquently, "high funda".
==>I propose that the format of poetry where 'difficult' or
'non-conversational' or 'too-literary' words come together to express an
oft-expressed or cliche thought: *that's* poetry that fits the above
description of 'complexity-for-complexity-sake', and, too many
'poetry-lovers' fall prey to the superficial glamour of the 'language' of
such poetry, not caring much whether the THOUGHT presented has a) any
novelty or b) any complexity (layers).
Gulzar is obviously not alone in producing complex thought garbed in easily
understandable language... but he's the most consistent, primarily becoz he
doesn't 'construct' the poems... like any other good artiste, he's just the
vehicle. Examples of others doing this 'layered thought' stuff are:
Kapil Kumar: Anubhav (koyee chupke se aa ke..., phir kahee.n
koyee phool khilaa...)
Aavishkar (nainaa hai.n pyaase mere...)
Kishore Kumar: Door Gagan Ki Chhaon Mein (jin raato.n kee bhor nahee.n
hai...)
A. Irshad: Door Ka Rahi (khushee do ghaD.ee kee...)
Yogesh: Anand (kahee.n door jab din Dhal jaaye...)
Pdt. Narendra Sharma: Phir Bhi (kyoo.n pyaalaa chhalaktaa hai...)
Kaifi Azmi: Uski Kahani (aaj kee kaalee ghaTaa...)
Anupama (kuchh dil ne kahaa...)
Some of these (like Kaifi) border on Gulzar's style, others come closer...
but they all carry 'some' level of complexity of thought... some stimulus
for the listener to 'think', 'explore' and find the joy of discovery! :) Not
everyone has to like this process of exploration... a lot of listeners want
to be touched by the emotions expressed in the song without having to make
the effort of exploration... others cannot help but explore: this latter
category of listener belongs in the GFC :))
g
>-nitin
Pradeep Dubey
Nita and Abhay,
You guys have made G-Fans' case much easier than I imagined.
Both of us are no more questioning G's uniqueness, and you have
in fact shown how Shakeel was another Sahir, or Majrooh
was another Shakeel ... In other words, ye baaki saare
ek hi ghaat ke chitte/bitte the :-)
Given that, one also needs to realize that the
'lack of versatility' charge on G is kind of
irrelevant, as it doesn't weaken his case
of 'far superiority' at all.
Suppose, you were at some sabzi mandi in India.
You find tens of 'aaloo' vendors, and then in
the corner, one 'rasgulla' vendor. Are you
going to go to the 'rasgulla' vendor and complaint
'lack of versatility' because he/she is not selling
'aaloo' as well :-) ?
I have never said, I don't enjoy 'aaloo', but
I have no problem finding them. If I need
one, I get ten, i.e., they are always in excess supply.
In fact, I can even grow them :-)
What I really miss here is the 'rosogollaa' of KC Das.
So I will finish by saying:
tumheN bollywood ke ye aaloo mubaarak,
rasgulle hameiN aaj raas aa gaye haiN
aaloo kha ke hum, (ras)gulle se door ho gaye the
aaloo pheNk kar, (ras)'gullu' ke paas aa gaye haiN
Pradeep
Pradeep Dubey
Yes, Guri, yes!! So true.
One request:
Next time, please use an analogy of similar kind
with 'KK' in it somehwere. That will make my life so logical,
consistent, complete, free-of-any-confusion etc. :-)
No, on second thought, let it stay less boring.
Pradeep
Worshipper of GKS Trinity
|> g
|>
|>
Ashok
There is some chance that I won't be posting on Gulzar
for a year, so, before that happens, let me sneak this
one in. :)
In article <5un5qp$13sn$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
pra...@watson.ibm.com* says...
>What is 'Darth Vader'? Sounds like 'Dahi VaDa' to me.
>See this is why I adore Gulzar. He does not resort to
>using complicated sanskrit/urdu words to convey his
>deeeeeep thoughts.
During YB Chavan's heyday at the Centre, there used to be a joke
in Karnataka: that Chavan is not just any odd kind of "raashtra premi"
but a "mahaa raashtra premi". Analogously, it looks like Gulzar doesn't
just convey deeeeeep thoughts, but p[a]radeeeeeep thoughts. (Sorry,
couldn't resist!) Anyway, it looks like Han Solo has been unsuccessful
in educating you in more than a year. Hope he has had better luck with
Yesrafidas.
>Looking at the shock on their face, I had to clarify
>and add, I am referring to words such as: hushn, ishq,
>ulfat, maikada, saaqi, sanam, aarzoo, aabroo, ...
>If you think otherwise, think again. How many on
>the streets of say, Raipur, could explain to
>me the difference between "hushn and ishq"?
I haven't been to Raipur, but judging from what you write, the dialect
they speak, as they eat their "dahi boraa", seems to be interesting:
. you say they don't know "husn" and "ishq", but they seem to
lap up "nasheman" and "mukhtasar";
. they don't say "boond" but "qatraa".
. they don't struggle for daal, paani, aur makaan, but for
"aab-o-daanaa" and "aashiyaanaa".
. they don't use "ulfat" and "saaqi", but are very conversant with
"peshaanee" and "sajde".
. they don't know "sanam", but are full of talk of "rooh" and
"ahsaas" and "mehsoos".
. they haven't heard of "hayaat", but are familiar with its
opposite "ajal" (see "pukaaro mujhe naam lekar" from
'Bhool Na Jaana')
. they perhaps aren't familiar with "khudaa", but expertly
use "maseeha".
. they don't need UVR to explain that "lamhaat" is the
sophisticated plural of "lahmhaa", while "lamhe" is the
crude Hindi-ied plural.
Most of the instances of Gulzar's usage of these words above
stick out like a sore thumb, whatever "safaai" anyone might try.
In article <5upfnj$12gi$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
pra...@watson.ibm.com* says...
>However, if there was a single conclusion
>to be drawn from Ashok's commendable attempt
>at exploding lyricists' myths from people's
>mind, it was just one:
>If there is a lyricist in Bollywood with his
>own unique style, it's one and only G.
>Gulzar was the ONLY lyricist every team got
>right, again, I must add, inspite of Ashok's best
>attempts at hiding G.
Good time to quote Nita here.
>Using Ashok's lyricist quiz as proof of Gulzar;s
>greatness may turn out to be a case of
>apne paa.Nv pe kulhaaDi marnaa, Pradeep.:-)))
Right on! To begin with, I had included Gulzar
in the list of lyricists purely as a joke!
Well, my "findings" were: The guy doesn't have
much output (low in quantity). Whatever little there
is shows little variety. He was the only lyricist with
no hidden gems out there to discover. In sum, low
on quality also.
Mind you, I was looking for songs that even the
faitful shouldn't be able to identity just based on
P-statistical knowledge. I had, in fact, earmarked
'Poornima' songs for the purpose, but unfortunately
they got discussed just prior to the Meet. :( Lastly,
I wanted to avoid scrapping the bottom of the barrel;
the song had to be decent. Note that 'Shaq' has a
few other pointless songs as does 'Naram Garam'.
I had 9 lyricists, and thought 10 would a nice round
number. Prem Dhawan would have been my choice,
but felt that his work might not be sufficiently familiar.
So, Gulzar was trotted out, fully clothed or not, for
comic effect. :)
>BTW, yes, there have been many in the past
>as well as present (let them stay unnamed) who
>have tried to 'chalo hans ki chaal', but barely
>walked a few steps of the road, G has travelled
>miles and miles on !! They took their turn
>back towards the crowded 'meena bazaar' to
>write yet another: raja dil maange chawanni
>uchhaal ke ... :-)
>
>Pradeep
He may have traversed miles, but how does it matter?
He has been going round and round in the same small
circle! I might even say he is turning around where he
is standing; there is so little evidence of any growth over
the years!
I remember reading long time ago a superb description
of Ranjit Singhji's batting (written by a famous personage,
was it EM Forster? Or GH Hardy? I have forgotten.)
Ranjit Singh's approach to batting was compared to a richly
endowed person generously expending his vast repertoire
of strokes. In contrast, other plodding batsmen were
described as misers painfully accumulating meagre amounts
of runs through their limited set of strokes, often ugly ones.
For me the comparison is very apt, between, on the one hand
poets like Sahir, Rajinder Krishan, Shakeel, Majrooh, and, on
the other, word-tossers like Gulzar, Sameer, and Mehboob.
As an example, take the idea of "sounds of silence." The
first time one comes across this phrase, the juxtaposition
of contradictory words is arresting and the contrariness is
thought-provoking, but over-use robs it of all significance
and reduces it to the level of one more cliche, as has
happened at the hands of Gulzar.
Gulzar freaks seem to think he invented the phrase, but
he was a latecomer into the game. Paul Simon didn't
invent it either! It is perhaps an age-old construct. In
Hindi film songs, the earliest use I have come across is
in the wonderful Lata song, composed by, interestingly,
Hemant Kumar. No, not 'Khamoshi'; that's much later.
I am talking about 'Durgesh Nandini'. There we have
ye khamoshiyaa.N bhi ek daastaa.n hai koi
kahataa hai mujh se mahabbat javaa.n hai
Yes, it is from the song
kahaa.N le chale ho bataa do musaafir
sitaato.n se aage ye kaisaa jahaa.N hai
The lyricist was Rajinder Krishan and the year, 1956.
Now come to 1961 and you will hear Rajendra Kumar
wooing Asha Parekh in aSouth film, scored by Ravi.
tere hoTho.n pe vo khaamoshi hai
jaise bikhare hue ho.n afsaane
Got it? It is "husnvaale tera javaab nahi.n" from
'Gharana', penned by Shakeel.
A year after that, you have Hemant playbacking for
Dev Anand under SD Burman's baton:
khamoshi sunaane lagi hai daasataa.N
RMIMers should have no difficulty with that one:
Majrooh in 'Baat Ek Raat Ki.'
One more year and we have Sahir:
khamoshiyo.n ki sadaaye.n bulaa rahi hai.n tumhe
ye vaadiyaa.n y fizaaye.n bulaa rahi hai.n tumhe
A marvellous Rafi song by Ravu from 'Aaj Aur Kal'
Despite their high output (and naturally of varying
quality), I am not aware of these lyricists over-using
this idea. They have so many different weapons at
their disposal that they move on, displaying other
"shots".
What about our man, His Emptiness, himself? He
seems to have discovered it in 1969, with the much-
touted banality from film 'Khamoshi.':
pyar koi bol nahi.n, pyar awaz nahi.n
ek khaamoshi hai sunati hai kahaa karti hai
I wouldn't grudge hiim any one use of the idea, but
Gulzar, despite his small output, is so bereft of ideas
that he keeps at the few that he has ad nauseam.
He has gone back to this well at least twice more
that I know of (and I have no idea how many times
in the 1980s). In "dil DhoonDhataa hai" (Mausam, '75)
we get
vaadi me.n goonjati hui khamoshiyaa.n sune.n
and then in 1978, we have in film 'Ghar'
aap ki khaamoshiyaa.n bhi aap ki awaz hai.n
The mukhaDa of the song would be of interest to
those mystified by "ham ne dekhi hai in aa.Nkho.n
ki mehakati khushaboo", because it goes
aap ki aa.Nkho.n me.n kuchh mehakate hue
raaz hai.n
This suggests that it is pointless to look for sensible
ways to see and touch with hand "aa.Nkho.n ki
mehakati khushaboo." All these look to be quite
arbit constructions. It is like a chef that wants to
serve specialty dishes, but has no clue how to make
them; he randomly tosses all kinds of ingredients into
the pot and hopes that something comes out that
some people find interesting.
Looks like all kinds of junk food have their own junkies. :)
Ashok
Nitin Sharma
Pradeep Dubey (pra...@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: Suppose, you were at some sabzi mandi in India.
: You find tens of 'aaloo' vendors, and then in
: the corner, one 'rasgulla' vendor. Are you
: going to go to the 'rasgulla' vendor and complaint
: 'lack of versatility' because he/she is not selling
: 'aaloo' as well :-) ?
: I have never said, I don't enjoy 'aaloo', but
: I have no problem finding them. If I need
: one, I get ten, i.e., they are always in excess supply.
: In fact, I can even grow them :-)
: What I really miss here is the 'rosogollaa' of KC Das.
A point very well made.
You have argued the 'uniqueness' case of Gulzar very effectively.
The logical incorrectness (or at least, incompleteness) in your case
is equating uniqueness with greatness. You've to argue the second part
too (ie the uniqueness = greatness leap). Otherwise, as Abhay said,
even Usha Uthup is unique in her own way.
(Of course, its not that Gulzar's case needs any argument, but for the
non-believers...)
-nitin
U.V. Ravindra
Pradeep Dubey wrote:
>
> In article <5uqr0n$6...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, "guri" <bu...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> |> complex thought that gives you more pleasure every
> |> time you happen to come across another layer of, from the same
> |> 'simple' words that you've heard before... it's like noticing,
> |> for the first time after hearing a Salil composition nth times,
> |> what the background strings are doing! :)) You don't want to get
> |> into that kind of stuff, some of us love to... that's the point.
> |>
>
> Yes, Guri, yes!! So true.
yeh GFC-waale apne hi paaNvo.n par kulhaa.Di kyo.n maar rahe hai.n,
Abhay? :-)
Let's talk about vegetables and food ... (because Pradeep started
it ...)
Agreed that complex thought does give more pleasure everytime you come
across it. Agreed that the nukka.D-ke-kone-waala rasgulla hawker is
unique in selling rasgullas ... agreed that you can grow the potatoes
yourself in quintals, if you so desired. But tell me, how many times
have you had a complete meal with rasgulla-s taking the place of the
aaloo-curry? Can you eat rasgullas in the same quantity as aaloo ki
sabzi? Does the rasgulla go well in combination with roti or rice?
How many times have you made "rasgulle ke paraa.NThe"? nahiN, janaab,
it is not possible. Uniqueness and singularity is worth only that --
rare and occasional pleasure. A dessert can never be the main course
of the meal. For my part, I would consider that chef greater who can
use the "same old potato" and create a tasty new recipe for me to enjoy
and eat as the main course. I would eat it again and again and again,
if only to experience the delight of eating something with a different
flavor, different texture. Heck, I'd even love a meal which gave me
aaloo ke paraa.NThe with maTar paneer, and then in the next course
had a delectable concoction of aloo-gobi or baigan-aaloo-ki-sabzi
to eat with rice. I wouldn't even forgo the rasagolla dessert at the
end of the meal. BUT ... but I would (and you would too, Pradeep
and Guri) eat more of the aloo dishes than the rasagolla. And I would
(you would, too) enjoy every mouthful of the aaloo dish.
saari zindagi sirf rasgulle khaate rahoge to
a. aloo ka swaad nahiN jaanoge (a.k.a bandar kyaa jaane ... :-)) :-)))
b. diabetes ho jaayega, aur rasgulle kya, aaloo bhi nahiN khaa paaoge :)
(because of the sugars in it :-)
kahne ka matlab yeh hai ke 'layered thought' and 'complex metaphors'
and 'pleasure of unravelling the mystery of the simple word' is all
very fine, and one does need it, but one can have only so much of it.
Plus, complex ideas can be found anywhere you want them, even in
seemingly "simplistic verse garbed in 'mushkil alfaaz'". That is
another discussion for another day, however, when I will prove that
Sahir, Shakeel, Majrooh aren't "ek hi thaili ke chaTTe-baTTe". Not by
a long shot.
--
Ravindra.
tum ne alfaaz sune, daad bhi de di mujh ko
ab zara dekh lo jazbaat ki gahrAyI bhi.
Pradeep Dubey
I am curious to learn more about Pt Narendra Sharma. Has anyone
read Lata's new book (assuming it has come out): PHULE VICHITA
(marathi book). It supposedly has chapters on Narendra Sharma,
Salil, and others. I of course, have read enough about Lata-Salil
chemistry, but am unaware of Lata-NShrama chemistry, if any.
Pradeep
P.S. Time to recycle again:
Gulzar is to other bollywood lyricists what Zen is to other religions
Pradeep Dubey
I thought I had explained how Gulzar is the only one
who elucidates "unified field theory" to me in almost
every song of his. What could be greater than this
greatness of his?
Pradeep
P.S. Usha Uthup perhaps elucidates the "unified male-female
theory" too but not a whole lot more to me :-)
Pradeep Dubey
Ashok,
Please don't stop posting on Gulzar! I loved your
research into the history of 'sounds of silence'
to explain why Gulzar shouldn't be credited with
invention and how he has really just been recycling
few phrases and thus been standing still!!
Assuming that to be the case, I request your
help in quickly going through the 'few' kernel
phrases he recycles and trace their history back
to the original source he 'copied' from. This
has to be fairly simple exercise as G has
basically been 'standing' and not moving much at
all over the years.
So here is a list of similies, Guri emailed me sometime
back. Let us just map them onto the few G recycles
and trace the origin. BTW all of these are from
just one movie: AASTHA. So though they look
many in number, given your hypothesis, that should
just be an illusion :-)
Here is the AASTHA list from Guri:
aankhoN se thaam lo
ek muTThee meiN so rahe the (do jism)
tumhaare jism se hokar nikal rahee thee
bahut haseen the jo raah meiN gunaah mile
tumhaaree lau ko pakaD ke chalne ki aarzoo meiN
apane-hi-aap se lipaT kar sulagH rahaa thaa
aaNkhoN ka saahil
khushbuON ka noor
vaqt se kaT ke gire lamhe ki tarah bhaTaknaa
kaaNch ki booNdeN
barf se ThaNDee aag ki booNdeN dard chugeN to jaaneN !
chiNgaaree si beleN
gulmohar ki lapTeN
lobaan si saaNseN
raat lachaktee hai
chaaNd ki chikanee Dali
aus ki daanaa/raat ka khazaanaa
dhoop uDaatee chaltee chhaNv
aakaash meiN chalnaa mushkil hai (taare pairoN meiN chubhte haiN!)
nadi zameeN ki jaayi hai
peDoN ke sabz gehne
baadaloN ki holi
jo is baras hai... vo har baras barse :)
Pradeep
P.S. BTW: the only 'dictionary-tearing-class' word here is 'lobaan'.
In fact, even a dictionary is not of much use here, given its
folk origin. But the 'pain' of finding its meaning IMO is
more than justified by the 'gain' in insight it offers.
Unlike that in the case of OTHERS :-)
P.P.S. If this seems too long a list, we can restrict ourselves to
just one song, say: hawaaoN pe likh do !
Arunabha
Hi pradeep et al,
>
>Suppose, you were at some sabzi mandi in India.
>You find tens of 'aaloo' vendors, and then in
>the corner, one 'rasgulla' vendor. Are you
>going to go to the 'rasgulla' vendor and complaint
>'lack of versatility' because he/she is not selling
>'aaloo' as well :-) ?
Clap ! Clap ! Clap ! standing ovation ! Kya munhtod jawaab diya hai ! Kudos to
you ! GFC ki jai ! Gulzar rules !!!!!!!!!
Arunabha
Unknown
>==>It's certainly a matter of individual choice... no point in forcing
>anything down anyone's throat... I did refer to the 'point made by UVR' when
>I talked about the differences, pretty much the same way as you've done
>above... now, if you prefer direct/cliche thoughts in poetry instead of
>thoughts with several possible layers, it's your choice of course... not
>everyone has to get into complex thought that gives you more pleasure every
>time you happen to come across another layer of, from the same 'simple'
>words that you've heard before... it's like noticing, for the first time
>after hearing a Salil composition nth times, what the background strings are
>doing! :)) You don't want to get into that kind of stuff, some of us love
>to... that's the point.
Let's think of complex thoughts like an onion since the food motif seem to be
rampant on RMIM today :-)) According to Guri ( and other GFC members:-) ),
Gulzar's poetry is like an onion. You peel away a layer to reveal another
underneath it and this process can be repeated many times, each time revealing
something new. The point I was trying to make was that if the uppermost layer is
so hard as to be impregnable, the onion is likely to be thrown away as unusable.
If people find his poetry hard to decipher, they will not bother to delve into
the inner layers.
Also, how many people are ready to shed the tears necessary to work with an
onion? :-))
I like the SalilC's music analogy though I do not agree with you totally on that
either, Guri. But that can be the subject of another post/e-mail :-))
Using simple words is good but that is not to say that Urdu poets do not use
simple words. We also seem to be forgetting that they are writing in Urdu. For
someone who knows Urdu, most of the poetry probably appears to be in simple
words. If you argue about the common man understanding the poetry then Gulzar's
work suffers too as his complex thoughts would be beyond the ken of common man.
Even Hindi poetry for that matter uses 'shudh' Hindi words which may appear
incomprehensible to the 'new' generation:-)) And poets like Sahir have changed
their poetry to incorporate simpler words when they were used in films......
kabhi kabhi mere dil me.n khayaal aataa hai
Ke zindagi teri zulfoo ki narm chaaoN mein
Guzarne paati to shaadaab ho bhi sakti thi
Yeh teergi jo meri zeest ka muqaddar hai
---> ye ranj-o-Gam ki siaayi to mere dil pe chhaayii hai
Teri nazar ki shuaaoN mein kho bhi sakti thi
Complexity does not a great poem/poet make. It *may* make Gulzar unique but
whether it makes him great is very much debatable. To say that all the great
Urdu poets like Ghalib, Meer, Momin, Zauq, Zafar and Sahir,Shakeel, Majrooh,
Kaifi Azmi, et al are all alike and Gulzar is in a class of his own, is to
delude oneself. It is like saying that the Red Fort is in a class of its own as
far as monuments go and all others monuments/buildings/structures like the Taj,
the Sun temple at Konark, the Elephanta caves, etc, are ek hii thaali ke
chaTte- baTTe. :-)))
Looking forward to hearing more on this from GFC :-))
Keep smiling
Nita
maangaa kare.nge ab se duaa hijar-e-yaar kii
aakhir ko dushmanii hai asar ko dua ke saath
- Momin
Kalyan
In article <5uvko4$s...@news2.zippo.com>, <Ashok says...
>
Thanks Ashok for demolishing a lot of myths about Gulzar. You also
have to be commended for going through a lot of pain exploring Gulzar's
poetry to prove your point. Though I feel Gulzar's poetry contains
a lot of unintended humour :)
>
>>If you think otherwise, think again. How many on
>>the streets of say, Raipur, could explain to
>>me the difference between "hushn and ishq"?
>
has been brought into picture, I have to respond. As an average guy from
Raipur I am prepared to answer the above question if the GFC folks explain
allegedly multilayered phrases like "Aankhon ki mehakti khushboo" etc.
To end I agree with Pradeep that Gulzar is indeed unique and IMO happens
to be one of the funniest Bollywood poets :)
Cheers,
Kalyan
Kalyan
In article <5uvko4$s...@news2.zippo.com>, <Ashok says...
>
Thanks Ashok for demolishing a lot of myths about Gulzar. You also
have to be commended for going through a lot of pain exploring Gulzar's
poetry to prove your point. Though I feel Gulzar's poetry contains
a lot of unintended humour :)
>
>>If you think otherwise, think again. How many on
>>the streets of say, Raipur, could explain to
>>me the difference between "hushn and ishq"?
>
I had no intention of getting into this thread but since my hometown (Raipur)
has been brought into picture, I have to respond. As an average guy from
Raipur I am prepared to answer the above question if the GFC folks explain
allegedly multilayered phrases like "Aankhon ki mehakti khushboo" etc.
To end I agree with Pradeep that Gulzar is indeed unique and IMO happens
to be one of the funniest Bollywood poets :)
Cheers,
Kalyan
>
Kalyan
In article <5uvko4$s...@news2.zippo.com>, <Ashok says...
>
Thanks Ashok for demolishing a lot of myths about Gulzar. You also
have to be commended for going through a lot of pain exploring Gulzar's
poetry to prove your point. Though I feel Gulzar's poetry contains
a lot of unintended humour :)
>
>>If you think otherwise, think again. How many on
>>the streets of say, Raipur, could explain to
>>me the difference between "hushn and ishq"?
>
I had no intention of getting into this thread but since my hometown (Raipur)
has been brought into picture, I have to respond. As an average guy from
Raipur I am prepared to answer the above question if the GFC folks explain
allegedly multilayered phrases like "Aankhon ki mehakti khushboo" etc.
To end I agree with Pradeep that Gulzar is indeed unique and IMO happens
to be one of the funniest Bollywood poets :)
Cheers,
Kalyan
>
Kalyan
In article <5v1c2p$16kp$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, pra...@watson.ibm.com
says...
>
>
>Assuming that to be the case, I request your
>help in quickly going through the 'few' kernel
>phrases he recycles and trace their history back
>to the original source he 'copied' from. This
>has to be fairly simple exercise as G has
>basically been 'standing' and not moving much at
>all over the years.
Pradeep, I feel you should explain the undermentioned similies before
someone explores their history etc. IMO one can come up with far
more similar phrases after watching "Forrest gump". IMO it is
not a difficult task to come up with mulitilayered meanings
for nonsensical phrases using a number of links. e.g try
"Life is like a box of chocolate". One can find lots of profound
meanings by going a few layers deep. With some creativity the same
can be true for almost any seemingly nonsensical stmt. What is creative is
the complexity and beauty of expression of poets like Ghalib as Abhay
has shown in his example.
IMO (note, merely my opinion) Gulzar has a rhyming problem. He has
written some excellent poems ("Hazaar raahen", "Tujhse naaraaz nahin
zindagi" etc) but I feel that a lot of times he cannot come up with
an appropriate rhyming word and many times he comes up with a fairly
unrelated match and hopes his fans will be creative enough to find
some meaning in it. While a lot of "conventional" poets would restrain
themselves and be more choosy (I guess that's why Pradeep considers
them to be similar :) ).
Regards,
Kalyan
Jungle jungle baat chali hai, pata chala hai
Are chaddi pahen ke phool khila hai, phool khila hai
- Gulzar
Abhay Avachat
Wow ! Pradeep, I haven't seen a more self-defeating post. :-) Thanks ! :-)
I will just ask you some questions here. Try to find the answers. It
will be really interesting for you, I promise. :-)
In article <5v1c2p$16kp$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, pra...@watson.ibm.com
says...
>Here is the AASTHA list from Guri:
>
> aankhoN se thaam lo
Very original :-). "aaNkhoN ka sahaaraa" is a cliche, right ? :-)
> bahut haseen the jo raah meiN gunaah mile
Are you sure this is the first time anyone called "gunaah" as "haseeN" ?
Or is it "raah me milna", that is novel here ? Since Gulzar fans like
contradictory words how about "maasoom gunaah" ? Or is that a "cliche" ?
> vaqt se kaT ke gire lamhe ki tarah bhaTaknaa
Am I the only one feeling a sense of deja vu ? Maybe I missing some joke.
> barf se ThaNDee aag ki booNdeN dard chugeN to jaaneN !
"aag ki boondeN" sounds extremely novel. I have only heard of "aag ka dariya"
before. By the same shayar who wrote "maasoom gunah". :-)
And "THanDee THanDee aag" is absolutely original. I admit. :-) :-) :-)
> dhoop uDaatee chaltee chhaNv
How different will it be to say "chhaNv ko choomati machalati dhoop" :-)
You are really projecting Gulzar as a factory churning out weird phrases. :-)
> aakaash meiN chalnaa mushkil hai (taare pairoN meiN chubhte haiN!)
What's the second line of "inhi pattharoN pe chalke agar aa sako to aao" ?
Since that's opposite in meaning, Gulzar's line is definitely original. :-)
- Abhay.
Just timepass, no offense intended. Advance apologies if taken.
Abhay Avachat
In article <5v0238$hba$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, pra...@watson.ibm.com
says...
>you have
>in fact shown how Shakeel was another Sahir, or Majrooh
>was another Shakeel ... In other words, ye baaki saare
>ek hi ghaat ke chitte/bitte the :-)
Now this repeated usage makes me doubt my belief that this was just
a humourous accusation. If you are indeed serious, then all I can say
is "ignorance is bliss".
Another repeated argument was that Gulzar's poetry has "layers" and
only Gulzar fans are said to have liking for this highly intellectual
excercise in finding a variety of interpretations. Pradeep even hinted
at Gulzar being in the same league of GHalib on this issue. Again this
is something only the Gulzar fans can claim.
There is pheneominal difference in GHalib's being difficult and Gulzar's.
Ghalib would have never written (and has not) a line as hideous as "saari
me udas lee hai chhabiyaa ghar ki". Ghalib's difficulty comes mainly from
his logical twists, extra-ordinary word-play and the art of bringing
apparent paradoxes to poetry. Let me mention a sher from the recently
discussed GHazal - not a great thought - but have a look at the logical
twists and the word-play. (This sher was not mentioned before.)
ta kare na ghammaazi, kar liya hai dushman ko
dost ki shikaayat me, ham ne ham_zubaaN apanaa
[ta = so that, ghammaazi = chuGali, ham_zubaaN = sahamat]
I won't give the meaning here. Go through the steps of decoding. The
"dushman" has been made "ham_zubaaN" so that the "dushman" will not
complian to the "dost" that Ghalib was complaining about him/her. Now
who is dost and who is dushman and why is he a dushman ? And what's the
"shikayat" ? Why Ghalib and his "dushman" have the same "shikayat" ?
Is there any hope that by doing the same "shikayat", the "dushman" won't
mention it to the "dost" ? Isn't all this amazing ? Even a not-so-great
thought has been made into a fascinating sher. The brain goes into a
limited spiral while understanding such shers. But there is no vagueness.
Gulzar on the other hand relies on being vague and obscure for being
difficult. His poetry is like - attach any meaning whatsoever. I argue
that it's just a matter of manufacturing such phrases. It does not
require any genius whatsoever in coming up with phrases like "ek badali
jo TuTi aasmaan se, bhuchaal aagayaa paani me" :-) Go figure ! :-)
Or have a look at
- "Gila maiN le aayi thi aur sooka tum ne rakh liya" or
- "Gila tum ne rakha, sookha maiN le aayee" or
- "Gilaa sookh gayaa aur sookaa gila ho raha hai" or
- "gilaa sookh kar bhi gilaa hi raha aur sookhe ka gilaa_pan ab bhi
mehsoos ho raha ha" or
- "gila to gilaa kab thaa ? wo to sookhe se bhi sookha hai"
- or whatever :-) :-) How does it matter ? :-) Really !
I hope this contrast between Ghalib's OKish lines (by his standard) and
Gulazar's one of the best lines (by his standard :-) ) amply demonstrates
the emptiness of the claims of "multi-layered" poetry :-)
Gulzar fans seem to be caught in their own arguments. :-) Ashok exploded
their "khamoshi" myth, I wonder why they had the myth in the first place.
I always thought it as an over-used phrase, a sort of "cliche". Gulzar's
real strength - emotional poetry - is something always ignored by his
fans. Instead they always get lost in attaching too much Intellectual
Properties to it. We can't help you there friends :-)
- Abhay.
Anyone for discussing "aaNkho me khwaab chuubhana" funda ?
Another of Gulzar's "orriginal" creations ? :-)
guri
Is it just me, or did we all see a systematic *total flip-out* performed
here by someone with a tremendous intellect but a less-than-serious (and
thus frustrated) attempt at just plainly 'hame.n bhee khilaao nahi.n to khel
bigaaD.e.ngay' type of thing :) Remember those moments at trying to
draw/paint alongside another kid who seemed to do it effortlessly? Some of
us were so frustrated we used language totally uncharacteristic of us, some
of us went to the extent of so much 'jhu.njhlaahaT' that we either blabbered
stuff like: 'ye kyaa hai?? kyaa hai ye??!! ye bhee koyee painting hai??!!'
or worse still, went ahead and miTaao'ed the whole thing (our own attempt
and theirs) :)))
Case in point:
Abhay Avachat wrote in article <5v1h8n$2...@drn.zippo.com>...
>this highly intellectual excercise in finding a variety of
interpretations...
>a line as hideous as "saari me udas lee hai chhabiyaa ghar ki".
>vague and obscure for being difficult. His poetry is like - attach any
meaning whatsoever. I argue
>that it's just a matter of manufacturing such phrases. It does not
>require any genius whatsoever in coming up with phrases like "ek badali
>jo TuTi aasmaan se, bhuchaal aagayaa paani me" :-) Go figure ! :-)
>Or have a look at
> - "Gila maiN le aayi thi aur sooka tum ne rakh liya" or
> - "Gila tum ne rakha, sookha maiN le aayee" or
> - "Gilaa sookh gayaa aur sookaa gila ho raha hai" or
> - "gilaa sookh kar bhi gilaa hi raha aur sookhe ka gilaa_pan ab bhi
> mehsoos ho raha ha" or
> - "gila to gilaa kab thaa ? wo to sookhe se bhi sookha hai"
> - or whatever :-) :-) How does it matter ? :-) Really !
==>[THIS WAS THE FLIP-OUT PHASE :))]
>their "khamoshi" myth, I always thought it as an over-used phrase, a sort
of "cliche".
>too much Intellectual Properties
>"aaNkho me khwaab chuubhana" funda ?
>Another of Gulzar's "orriginal" creations ? :-)
Now, it's another matter that (I think) I know him better, this sharaarratee
babuvaa :))
g
Unknown
In reply to Nitin's and Guri's post.........
>Nitin Sharma wrote in article ...
>> I'd like to add that the complexity part is one of appealing features
>>of Gulzar's poetry. In art, a certain level of complexity is
>>definitely desired, even essential, I'd say.
>>
>> Otherwise we would never get past the nursery rhymes stage! :-)
Since when has the ability to be able to express one's thoughts in simple words
been discarded as a hallmark of a great poet? And if such is the case then more
than half of the world's poems should be thrown out because their beauty lies in
the simple words used to paint a scene in the reader's mind and leave its
impression there. (Mark, simple words not used for complex thoughts :-) ) The
first example which comes to my mind is Daffodils by William Wordsworth.
There are innumerable examples in every language of great poems which use simple
words and express simple thoughts. No complexity is needed to make them great.
>> My only problem is with the complexity-for-complexity-sake kind
>>of art - you know twisting something just to make it sound, as
>>Pavan said so eloquently, "high funda".
which IMO is what Gulzar has done on certain occassions...... introduced
complexity where none was needed. Though, to be fair to him, there have also
been cases where his fans have sought (and found!) the complexity where none
existed :-))
>==>I propose that the format of poetry where 'difficult' or
>'non-conversational' or 'too-literary' words come together to express an
>oft-expressed or cliche thought: *that's* poetry that fits the above
>description of 'complexity-for-complexity-sake', and, too many
>'poetry-lovers' fall prey to the superficial glamour of the 'language' of
>such poetry, not caring much whether the THOUGHT presented has a) any
>novelty or b) any complexity (layers).
Does this mean that the play of words has nothing to do with the beauty of a
poem? Does every poem have to express new thoughts? If a poem shows you the same
emotion in a different light, froma different viewpoint, is it to be discarded
because the thoughts are 'cliched'? So what if the thought is simple?
ham ko unse wafaa ki hai ummeed
jo nahiin jaante wafaa kyaa hai
uski is bewafaaii pe fidaa hotii hai jaa.N merii
Khudaa jaane usme wafaa hotii to kyaa hotaa
Both speak of bewafaaii but in different words... does this mean that we keep
only one and discard all others which speak of infidelity, betrayal, etc.
because they have already been expressed?
>Gulzar is obviously not alone in producing complex thought garbed in easily
>understandable language... but he's the most consistent, primarily becoz he
>doesn't 'construct' the poems... like any other good artiste, he's just the
>vehicle. Examples of others doing this 'layered thought' stuff are:
So poets who 'construct' poems in accordance to the requirements of a particular
style of poetry are lesser poets? Doesn't the fact that they are able to
express their thoughts so eloquently and keep within the stringent requirements
of their particular poetry style speak volumes of their abilities/talents? If
sticking to a particular style of expression lessens the greatness of a poet,
then poets like Kabir should be counted as negligible because all their work was
'constructed' to conform to a particular style of writing.
>Some of these (like Kaifi) border on Gulzar's style, others come closer...
>but they all carry 'some' level of complexity of thought... some stimulus
>for the listener to 'think', 'explore' and find the joy of discovery! :) Not
>everyone has to like this process of exploration... a lot of listeners want
>to be touched by the emotions expressed in the song without having to make
>the effort of exploration... others cannot help but explore: this latter
>category of listener belongs in the GFC :))
>
I have strong objections to this point Guri, You are implying that non-Gulzarish
lyrics do not provide food for thought, and secondly only GFC members can/like
exploring the emotions/feelings/thoughts expresed in a song. I think you are
wrong on both counts. I consider myself in the latter category of people but
like I said before, I do not really qualify for the GFC membership.:-))) and I
think most works of urdu poets provide us with more than ample food for thought.
You have to have the ear to listen to it. :-)) Be a little more objective in
your assessments. Perhaps the GFC members will be able to appreciate the beauty
of 'ghazal' :-)) (Miracles do occur, you know :-) )
Keep smiling
Nita
'daaG' ke sher jawaani me.n bhale lagte hai.n
'meer' ki koyii ghazal gaao to kuchh chain paDe
- Ganesh Bihari 'Tarz'
Abhay Avachat
I thought someone else will point it out. Maybe RMIM is
showing some mercy towards the GulluBabas. But I won't :-)
>What about our man, His Emptiness, himself? He
>seems to have discovered it in 1969, with the much-
>touted banality from film 'Khamoshi.':
>
> pyar koi bol nahi.n, pyar awaz nahi.n
> ek khaamoshi hai sunati hai kahaa karti hai
>
>I wouldn't grudge hiim any one use of the idea, but
>Gulzar, despite his small output, is so bereft of ideas
>that he keeps at the few that he has ad nauseam.
He used the same idea again in the very same song !
hoNTH kuchh kahate nahiN, kaaNpate honThoN pe magar
kitane khaamosh se afasaane ruke rahate haiN
So even in one song he couldn't use 2 different ideas :-)
I wonder how it was missed by everyone.
Shakeel's usage "tere hoNtho pe wo khamoshi hai, jaise
bikhare hue ho afasaane" makes him a poet of cliches !
But an exactly same construct makes Gulzar a genius !!
When Sahir says "vahem si bhi jo nazuuk wo yakiN lagati ho"
it is just another nursery rhyme (!) but any similar contrasting
similes makes Gulzar's poetry milti-layered !!
In case, anyone is dreaming up an argument saying Gulzar never
resorted to cliches here are some. Some of them are worse than
usual cliches. He couldn't even rhyme them properly, he couldn't
even use them in *musical* way. These are also those songs often
mentioned by his fans as a testimony of his greatness.
1. jhUThe tere vaade pe, baras bitaae
zindagii to kaaTe.nge, raat kaT jaae
kaise naino.n me.n ni.ndiyaa samaae
Has anyone heard, "neend kabhi rahati thi aaNkhoN me, ab rehate haiN
sawaariNya" ?
2. aaye.ngI bahaare.n to, abake unhe kahanaa zaraa, itanaa sune
mere gul binaa, unakaa kahaa.n bahaar naam hotA
Does anyone need better examples of "bahaar" being used in Urdu poetry ?
3. kahii.n kisii roz yuu.n bhI hotA , hamaarii haalat tumhaarii hotI
jo raate.n hamane guzaarii marake vo raat tumane guzaarii hotii.n
If any Urdu poet says that, the GulluBabas would be quickly at his
throat, shouting "cliche" etc. Far better examples of such thoughts
exist in "mere mehboob qayaamat hogi" and "guzare hai aaj ishq me".
4. apanii tanahaaI kaa auro.n se naa shikavaa karanaa
tum akele hI nahii.n ho sabhii akele hai.n
Again anyone needs better example of "tanhaai" shers ?
5. chain to us din khoyaa mai.nne, jis din tumase nain mile
This is truely original, what say ?
I could probably go on. But the point is not to list all the cliches
used by Gulzar. The point is, the arrogant argument against other
lyricists can be directed at Gulzar too. And this - Gulzar is the only
one gifted with creativity and others are same AND stupid has been
going on for a long time on RMIM.
- Abhay.
Who loves good poetry - no matter who wrote it.
Ashok
In article <5v14q0$164c$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
pra...@watson.ibm.com* says...
>|> >more nayan paakhi bechaare
>Ashok,
>Yes ... I know PkP had both Shailendra and G as lyricists.
>You know I will never be disappointed even if turns
>out to be a Shailendra song!!
The main receiver Gulzaar has fallen down on his face.
The quarterback, Pradeep, is flushed out of the pocket!
> I have been paying membership
>dues in these other fan clubs Burmans', Yesudas,
Sorry. Ineligible receivers.
> Yogesh,
>Shailndra, etc., for many many years as well.
The QB seems dazed.
The are in the enemy (OTHERS) team!
>I claim such flowers are plenty in G's bagiyaa
Name some tender and delicate ones. QB is
scrambling, folks!
>but it's my intuition against your filmkosh!
>I have only watched it on the video.
Let me quote what I said:
"You contend that the song is written by "who else
but Gulzar" and I say that "It is certainly not by
Gulzar; in all likelihood by Shailendra"."
The spotlight is on your intuition! Scramble continues!
The QB has entered his own end-zone!
>P.S. The original post was a sombre post to mark
> Salil's PuNyatithi and I would never try to
> extract G-mileage out of it. If it came out
> that way for whatever reason, that's my mistake.
The point is, you didn't try to avoid it.
>P.P.S. Before you get carried away with your
> 'kiddie-part-to-G' theory, think of ANAND!
It fits! The inferior songs are by Gulzaar. The gems
are by Yohesh!
Pump fake to buy time! No one open!
In article <5v1c2p$16kp$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
pra...@watson.ibm.com* continues ...
>
>
>Ashok,
>Please don't stop posting on Gulzar! I loved your
>research into the history of 'sounds of silence'
>to explain why Gulzar shouldn't be credited with
>invention and how he has really just been recycling
>few phrases and thus been standing still!!
Fumble! QB has lost the ball in the end-zone! Recovered
by OTHERS. Touchdown!!
> aankhoN se thaam lo
> ek muTThee meiN so rahe the (do jism)
> tumhaare jism se hokar nikal rahee thee
> bahut haseen the jo raah meiN gunaah mile
> tumhaaree lau ko pakaD ke chalne ki aarzoo meiN
> apane-hi-aap se lipaT kar sulagH rahaa thaa
> aaNkhoN ka saahil
> khushbuON ka noor
> vaqt se kaT ke gire lamhe ki tarah bhaTaknaa
> kaaNch ki booNdeN
> barf se ThaNDee aag ki booNdeN dard chugeN to jaaneN !
> chiNgaaree si beleN
> gulmohar ki lapTeN
> lobaan si saaNseN
> raat lachaktee hai
> chaaNd ki chikanee Dali
> aus ki daanaa/raat ka khazaanaa
> dhoop uDaatee chaltee chhaNv
> aakaash meiN chalnaa mushkil hai (taare pairoN meiN chubhte haiN!)
> nadi zameeN ki jaayi hai
> peDoN ke sabz gehne
> baadaloN ki holi
> jo is baras hai... vo har baras barse :)
>
>Pradeep
What is this, Pradeep? A complete song of Gulzar? Let alone read it.
looking at it gives me a headache! Must be the lecture notes for UFT!
>P.P.S. If this seems too long a list, we can restrict ourselves to
> just one song, say: hawaaoN pe likh do !
I prefer: paani pe likhi likhaai!
Ashok
PS: Here's an etymological trivium just for Pradeep. The word
"zen" is derived from the word "dhyaan".
Pradeep Dubey
In article <5v1m37$o...@drn.zippo.com>, Kalyan writes:
|>
|> In article <5v1c2p$16kp$1...@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, pra...@watson.ibm.com
|> says...
|> >
|> >
|> >Assuming that to be the case, I request your
|> >help in quickly going through the 'few' kernel
|> >phrases he recycles and trace their history back
|> >to the original source he 'copied' from. This
|> >has to be fairly simple exercise as G has
|> >basically been 'standing' and not moving much at
|> >all over the years.
|>
|> Pradeep, I feel you should explain the undermentioned similies before
|> someone explores their history etc. IMO one can come up with far
|> more similar phrases after watching "Forrest gump". IMO it is
|> not a difficult task to come up with mulitilayered meanings
|> for nonsensical phrases using a number of links. e.g try
|> "Life is like a box of chocolate". One can find lots of profound
Kalyan,
An excellent example. So you think "Life is like a box of chocolate"
is example of a 'nonsensical' phrase. See, that's why I think
"RMIM is like a box of chocolate" :-). Because it is made up
of people such as you, me, and others with even more different
tastes.
I may be wrong, but I am reasonably sure, if you in stead read:
zindagi kabhi teri reshmee zulfoN ki narm chhaoN si thanDee lagati hai
zindagi kabhi ek khaali botal, to kabhi barsaat ki raat si sulagati hai
you would not be complaining (see I didn't get an 'F' in rhyming either).
And I know you are not alone, because I am sometimes you too,
and so are many others!
Pradeep
|> meanings by going a few layers deep. With some creativity the same
|> can be true for almost any seemingly nonsensical stmt. What is creative is
|> the complexity and beauty of expression of poets like Ghalib as Abhay
|> has shown in his example.
|>
|> IMO (note, merely my opinion) Gulzar has a rhyming problem. He has
|> written some excellent poems ("Hazaar raahen", "Tujhse naaraaz nahin
|> zindagi" etc) but I feel that a lot of times he cannot come up with
|> an appropriate rhyming word and many times he comes up with a fairly
|> unrelated match and hopes his fans will be creative enough to find
|> some meaning in it. While a lot of "conventional" poets would restrain
|> themselves and be more choosy (I guess that's why Pradeep considers
|> them to be similar :) ).
|>
|> Regards,
|> Kalyan
|>
|> Jungle jungle baat chali hai, pata chala hai
|> Are chaddi pahen ke phool khila hai, phool khila hai
|> - Gulzar
|>
|>
|> >
|> >So here is a list of similies, Guri emailed me sometime
|> >back. Let us just map them onto the few G recycles
|> >and trace the origin. BTW all of these are from
|> >just one movie: AASTHA. So though they look
|> >many in number, given your hypothesis, that should
|> >just be an illusion :-)
|> >
|> >Here is the AASTHA list from Guri:
|> >
|> > aankhoN se thaam lo
|> >
|> > ek muTThee meiN so rahe the (do jism)
|> >
|> > tumhaare jism se hokar nikal rahee thee
|> >
|> > bahut haseen the jo raah meiN gunaah mile
|> >
|> > tumhaaree lau ko pakaD ke chalne ki aarzoo meiN
|> >
|> > apane-hi-aap se lipaT kar sulagH rahaa thaa
|> >
|> > aaNkhoN ka saahil
|> >
|> > khushbuON ka noor
|> >
|> > vaqt se kaT ke gire lamhe ki tarah bhaTaknaa
|> >
|> > kaaNch ki booNdeN
|> >
|> > barf se ThaNDee aag ki booNdeN dard chugeN to jaaneN !
|> >
|> > chiNgaaree si beleN
|> >
|> > gulmohar ki lapTeN
|> >
|> > lobaan si saaNseN
|> >
|> > raat lachaktee hai
|> >
|> > chaaNd ki chikanee Dali
|> >
|> > aus ki daanaa/raat ka khazaanaa
|> >
|> > dhoop uDaatee chaltee chhaNv
|> >
|> > aakaash meiN chalnaa mushkil hai (taare pairoN meiN chubhte haiN!)
|> >
|> > nadi zameeN ki jaayi hai
|> >
|> > peDoN ke sabz gehne
|> >
|> > baadaloN ki holi
|> >
|> > jo is baras hai... vo har baras barse :)
|> >
|> >Pradeep
|> >
|> >P.S. BTW: the only 'dictionary-tearing-class' word here is 'lobaan'.
|> > In fact, even a dictionary is not of much use here, given its
|> > folk origin. But the 'pain' of finding its meaning IMO is
|> > more than justified by the 'gain' in insight it offers.
|> > Unlike that in the case of OTHERS :-)
|> >
Mahesh Halpeth
This was something guys ! I strictly agree to a great quote
" Every one is Unique like everyone else " , But what the heck, be it
the Gulzar camp or some kaifi / shakeel / Sahir ... some guys went to
the extent of comparing them to 'aloos' and 'ras-gulles' ,
bloddy hell !!! atleast someone reacted to it strongly ( Bandar kya
jaane ... !!! )
Wasnt the very same Gulzar who gave lyrics as 'chhod aaye hum' and
'lakdi pe kaathi ..' and also the 'Jungle Jungle pata chala hain Chhadi
pehen ke phool khila hain ...'
Guys ! enjoy the beauty of the nazms, ghazals, shers ... written by
these greats and dont fight for 'camps' and be a Anu-Malik ( Am i
starting a controversy here ?? )
Wo khayal kya tha jo dil per chayi
na khud samaj sakey na kisi ko samjha sakey
Ise ishq kehna mohabbat ki tauheen hai
Dillagi kehna unki tauheen hai.
Mashy.
(Wishing U Happiness!)
Pradeep Dubey
Ashok,
You have seen my back many times and you still
called me "quarterback". How could you miss
3/4th of it. I am really hurt and the whole back
is aching :-):-)
Ashok, is every RMIM thread a win-lose baseball
or basketball game? Do you really hear commentaries
of such RMIM-games on some radio frequencies :-)
I still remember 'saridon lijiye or sar-dard
se chhutkara paiye" ads on AIR, and can never
forget: VIP: underwear-baniyaan!
BTW your guesswork of lyricist here is as irrelevant
as mine. Because, as Vish pointed out in email to
us: the original lyricist here is the philospher
poet Salil himself, who wrote the Bengali original:
"o tui nayanaa paakhi amaar re". [This should also
answer Arunabha's query about the bengali original].
The hindi version is more or less translation of that
theme to fit the tune.
Pradeep
P.S.
A Zen master was once asked: can a dog attain nirvana?
The master responded: "bhowN bhowN".
|> > aankhoN se thaam lo
|> > ek muTThee meiN so rahe the (do jism)
|> > tumhaare jism se hokar nikal rahee thee
|> > bahut haseen the jo raah meiN gunaah mile
|> > tumhaaree lau ko pakaD ke chalne ki aarzoo meiN
|> > apane-hi-aap se lipaT kar sulagH rahaa thaa
|> > aaNkhoN ka saahil
|> > khushbuON ka noor
|> > vaqt se kaT ke gire lamhe ki tarah bhaTaknaa
|> > kaaNch ki booNdeN
|> > barf se ThaNDee aag ki booNdeN dard chugeN to jaaneN !
|> > chiNgaaree si beleN
|> > gulmohar ki lapTeN
|> > lobaan si saaNseN
|> > raat lachaktee hai
|> > chaaNd ki chikanee Dali
|> > aus ki daanaa/raat ka khazaanaa
|> > dhoop uDaatee chaltee chhaNv
|> > aakaash meiN chalnaa mushkil hai (taare pairoN meiN chubhte haiN!)
|> > nadi zameeN ki jaayi hai
|> > peDoN ke sabz gehne
|> > baadaloN ki holi
|> > jo is baras hai... vo har baras barse :)
|> >
|> >Pradeep
|>
|> What is this, Pradeep? A complete song of Gulzar? Let alone read it.
|> looking at it gives me a headache! Must be the lecture notes for UFT!
|>
|> >P.P.S. If this seems too long a list, we can restrict ourselves to
|> > just one song, say: hawaaoN pe likh do !
|>
Rajiv Shridhar
sm...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
:
: The Chacha Chaudary Chamchas Club (CCCC) President wrote:
:
: >the thought that results is in fact almost always restricted
: >to the same small subset, such as what Abhay said:
:
: >"She was the most beautiful women on earth.
Well, unless this was a typo (women <-- woman) I think the one line above
is quite a bit more significant and deep than one realizes at first glance.
Comments strictly reserved about the second line. :-)
Rajiv
: >I loved her deeply, but in the end she didn't give a damn"
:
: Sheesh! What a stupid thought. If we run it thro' the Gulzar processer, the
: profound Gulzarized output would be:
:
: Sami Mohammed (A Naushad fan)... and a Sahir camper
:
--
Rajiv Shridhar
Communications & Digital Signal Processing Research Center
230B Egan Research, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115
ra...@cdsp.neu.edu, ra...@coe.neu.edu
Pavan Kumar Desikan
"guri" <bu...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> ==>I propose that the format of poetry where 'difficult' or
> 'non-conversational' or 'too-literary' words come together to express an
> oft-expressed or cliche thought: *that's* poetry that fits the above
> description of 'complexity-for-complexity-sake', and, too many
> 'poetry-lovers' fall prey to the superficial glamour of the 'language' of
> such poetry, not caring much whether the THOUGHT presented has a) any
> novelty or b) any complexity (layers).
I second the proposal. I propose to add the poetry that has "high
complexity", i.e., many layers, but each layer itself is either a meaningless
novelty or expresses an oft-expressed or cliched thought in the same
category.
> Not
> everyone has to like this process of exploration... a lot of listeners want
> to be touched by the emotions expressed in the song without having to make
> the effort of exploration... others cannot help but explore: this latter
> category of listener belongs in the GFC :))
>
> g
>
Guri, are you mocking at the GFC members? :) The impression I get on
reading the above para is that the GFC members enjoy only the exploration
process and do not care if they find a pot of gold or a pot of filth at the
end of the exploration, whereas the others are happy if a pot of gold is
delivered to them at their home!:) I certainly do not blame the others.
BTW I was very very serious when I requested an interpretation of "hamane
dekhii hai". It is not a slimy aside, or a sarcastic remark, or an attempt
at mocking Gulzar. I want to know what it means and my exploration efforts
bear no fruits. So...
--
Pavan Kumar Desikan
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~pkd
guri
Pavan Kumar Desikan wrote in article ...
>BTW I was very very serious when I requested an interpretation of "hamane
>dekhii hai". It is not a slimy aside, or a sarcastic remark, or an attempt
>at mocking Gulzar. I want to know what it means and my exploration efforts
>bear no fruits. So...
==>here you go, sir! A quick 'exploration' of Dejanews bore this [fruit or
not is up to you :) ]
Subject: Re: Gulzar's 'noor ki boond' [was re: Pintu Diwana 10]
From: bu...@ix.netcom.com (Guri)Date: 1995/04/21
Message-Id: <3n7h3h$1...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.indian.misc[More Headers] Pintu/Manoj/Abhay
wrote:
humne dekhee hai un aaNkhoN kee mehektee khushboo
haath se chhoo ke ise rishtoN kaa ilzaam na do
sirf ehsaas hai ye rooh se mehesoos karo
pyaar ko pyaar hee rehene do ko-ee naam na do
>I get a feeling that I understand the above, but yet don't understand
>It is something like, shabdaarth samajh meN aa gaya, magar bhaawaarth
>naheeN :-)>What does this mean ? What is "rishtoN kaa ilzaam dena" ? That
>too by doing "haath se chhoo ke" ? How does it give a "naam" to >"pyaar" ?
>Please, please explain somebody. Guri...?
Here’s what I’ve always felt about Gulzar’s thoughts in this thing:
The ‘muddaa’ is in the recurring line :
SIRF EHSAAS HAI YE, ROOH SE MEHSOOS KARO
There’s a reason why this line comes as the beginning of the refrain
following each of the two stanzas, as follows:
pyaar koyi bo nahiN, pyaar aawaaz nahiN
ek khaamoshee hai, suntee hai kahaa kartee hai
na ye bujhtee hai, na rukti hai, na thehree hai kahiN
noor ki boond hai, sadiyoN se bahaa kartee hai
SIRF EHSAAS HAI YE, ROOH SE MEHSOOS KARO
pyaar ko pyaar hi rehne do, koyi naam na do hamne dekhi hai...
muskuraahaT si khili rehtee hai aankhoN mein kahiN
aur palkoN pe ujaale se jhuke rehte haiN
hauNt kuchh kehte nahiN, kaaMpte hauNtoN pe magar
kitne khaamosh se afsaane ruke rehte haiN
SIRF EHSAAS HAI YE, ROOH SE MEHSOOS KARO
pyaar ko pyaar hi rehne do, koyi naam na do
humne dekhee hai un aaNkhoN kee mehektee khushboo
haath se chhoo ke ise rishtoN kaa ilzaam na do
sirf ehsaas hai ye rooh se mehesoos karo
pyaar ko pyaar hee rehene do ko-ee naam na do
The main feeling expressed, IMHO, is the eternity and the universalityof
love.
The ‘eyes’ here represent the door to the 'rooh' that houses this ‘noor
ki boond’, this ‘beher’ that’s been flowing effortlessly (khaamosh),
unbound (by names/titles/rishte) since ‘azal’. And in it’s silent flow
is contained (ruke rehte haiN) a whole slew of experiences/incidents
(afsaane), not in the least creating any ripples...the love flows.
So, it’s such pure state of love that G is imploring the reader/listner
to *feel*! SIRF EHSAAS HAI YE, ROOH SE MEHSOOS KARO
p.s. rishtoN kaa ilzaam na do: names/titles/rishte invariably link this
love to expectations/give-and-take, which is something that ‘people’
indulge in not this state of love that he’s referring to...isliye is
pyaar ko ye rishtoN ka ilzaam na do, isne kabhi ye nahiN kahaa tha ki
rishte se pyaar, pyaar na rahe.
==========================================================guri
ps: the original article also houses the text of two related
poems by someone-else to illustrate the point/s... but the
current curfew on 'non-tuned' poetry here prohibits reproduction
of that part :)
Pankha Road se Pintu Diwana
> Pavan Kumar Desikan wrote in article ...
> >BTW I was very very serious when I requested an interpretation of "hamane
> >dekhii hai". It is not a slimy aside, or a sarcastic remark, or an attempt
> >at mocking Gulzar. I want to know what it means and my exploration efforts
> >bear no fruits. So...
Arey Pavan!! I thought you were very much around in April 95, when I posted
this song in Pankha Road se Pintu Diwana #10 and we had exact same query
from Abhay Avachat :-))
Some added interpretations follow after the included post:
Here is what I dug out of the saved posts. At that time I was not fortunate
enough to have my own account, so was using rava0002@gold, a major cause of
confusion among RMIMers :))
I am planning to put the old posts on the web soon and also restart the
series as I had promised earlier.
Bear withthe length because of the inclusion of the previous post.
|------------------- begin included posts --------------------------------
|
|From rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu Sat Apr 8 13:24:46 CDT 1995
|Article: 25475 of rec.music.indian.misc
|Path: newsstand.tc.umn.edu!not-for-mail
|From: rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Sivakumar Ravada)
|Newsgroups: rec.music.indian.misc
|Subject: Re: Pankha Road se Pintu Diwana [10]
|Date: 8 Apr 1995 13:18:53 -0500
|Organization: University of Minnesota
|Lines: 26
|Message-ID: <3m6k2d$a...@gold.tc.umn.edu>
|NNTP-Posting-Host: gold.tc.umn.edu
|Xref: newsstand.tc.umn.edu rec.music.indian.misc:25475
|
|=============================================================
|#10
|
|Song : Hamane dekhee hai un aaNkhoN kee mahakatee khushaboo
|Movie : Khaamoshi
|Singer : Lata
|Lyrics : Gulzar
|Music : Hemant(?)
|Note : Gives an esoteric meaning to love.
|
|
|Hamane dekhee hai un aaNkhoN kee mahakatee khushaboo
|haath se chhoo ke ise rishtoN kaa ilzaam na do
|sirf ehsaas hai ye rooh se mahasoos karo
|pyaar ko pyaar hee rahane do ko-ee naam na do
|
|pyaar ko-ee bol naheeN, pyaar aawaaz naheeN
|ek khaamoshee hai sunatee hai kahaa karatee hai
|na ye rukatee hai, na bujhatee hai na thaharee hai kaheeN
|noor kee booNd hai sadiyoN se bahaa karatee hai
|
|muskuraahaT see khilee rahatee hai aaNkhoN meN kaheeN
|aur palakoN pe ujaale se jhuke rahate haiN
|hoTh kuch kahate naheeN, kaaNpate hoThoN pe magar
|kitane khaamosh se afasaane ruke rahate haiN
|
|-- ShashiKant Joshi
|
|
|From abhay....@blr.sni.de Thu Apr 20 12:28:04 CDT 1995
|Article: 26137 of rec.music.indian.misc
|Path: newsstand.tc.umn.edu!umn.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newshost.marcam.com!hookup!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
|From: abhay....@blr.sni.de (Abhay Avachat)
|Newsgroups: rec.music.indian.misc
|Subject: Re: Pankha Road se Pintu Diwana [10]
|Date: 20 Apr 1995 01:35:54 -0500
|Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
|Lines: 46
|Sender: nob...@cs.utexas.edu
|Message-ID: <9504200624.AA07911@delss02>
|References: <1995041816...@cs.umn.edu>
|NNTP-Posting-Host: news.cs.utexas.edu
|Xref: newsstand.tc.umn.edu rec.music.indian.misc:26137
|
|The famous musician Guri wrote :
|
|: In <D76JE...@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM>
|: ra...@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ramakrishnan.Krishnan) writes:
|: >
|: ========================================
|: >|> #10
|: >|>
|: >|> Movie : Khaamoshi
|: >|> Singer : Lata
|: >|> Lyrics : ?
|: >
|: >Lyrics were by Kaifi Azmi.
|:
|: ===>Helllllllo!!!! This is perhaps the most famous of Gulzar's
|: filmi-stuff...the style is obvious, I think...'ek khaamoshi hai
|: suntee hai kahaa karti hai'
|
|Yes, it's all the way a Gulzar creation. But about the first lines, I
|have a request.
|
|: >|> Note : Gives an esoteric meaning to love.
|: >|>
|: >|>
|: >|> Hamane dekhee hai un aaNkhoN kee mahakatee khushaboo
|: >|> haath se chhoo ke ise rishtoN kaa ilzaam na do
|: >|> sirf ehsaas hai ye rooh se mahasoos karo
|: >|> pyaar ko pyaar hee rahane do ko-ee naam na do
|: >|>
|
|I get a feeling that I understand the above, but yet don't understand
|it. What does this mean ? What is "rishtoN kaa ilzaam dena" ? That
|too by doing "haath se chhoo ke" ? How does it give a "naam" to "pyaar" ?
|Please, please explain somebody. Guri, Pintu ?
|
|- Abhay
| Now it's my turn to ask :-)
|
|
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Abhay Avachat Internet : Abhay....@blr.sni.de
|Siemens Information Systems Ltd.
|B/8 Jangpura B, Mathura Road.
|New Delhi 110014. INDIA. Phone : +91 -11 463 1245
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|From rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu Thu Apr 20 12:28:20 CDT 1995
|Article: 26155 of rec.music.indian.misc
|Path: newsstand.tc.umn.edu!not-for-mail
|From: rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Sivakumar Ravada)
|Newsgroups: rec.music.indian.misc
|Subject: Re: Pankha Road se Pintu Diwana [10]
|Date: 20 Apr 1995 12:27:45 -0500
|Organization: University of Minnesota
|Lines: 55
|Message-ID: <3n65ih$j...@gold.tc.umn.edu>
|References: <1995041816...@cs.umn.edu> <9504200624.AA07911@delss02>
|NNTP-Posting-Host: gold.tc.umn.edu
|Xref: newsstand.tc.umn.edu rec.music.indian.misc:26155
|
|In article <9504200624.AA07911@delss02>,
|Abhay Avachat <abhay....@blr.sni.de> wrote:
|
|>: >|> Note : Gives an esoteric meaning to love.
|
|>: >|>
|>: >|>
|>: >|> Hamane dekhee hai un aaNkhoN kee mahakatee khushaboo
|>: >|> haath se chhoo ke ise rishtoN kaa ilzaam na do
|>: >|> sirf ehsaas hai ye rooh se mahasoos karo
|>: >|> pyaar ko pyaar hee rahane do ko-ee naam na do
|>: >|>
|>
|>I get a feeling that I understand the above, but yet don't understand
|It is something like, shabdaarth samajh meN aa gaya, magar bhaawaarth
|naheeN :-)
|
|>it. What does this mean ? What is "rishtoN kaa ilzaam dena" ? That
|>too by doing "haath se chhoo ke" ? How does it give a "naam" to "pyaar" ?
|>Please, please explain somebody. Guri, Pintu ?
|
|I haven't seen the movie, so can't say how this relates to the story,
|and there it may have a different shade of meaning, but looking at it
|as a mere poem, I can make some comments.
|
|haath se chhoo ke = physical relationship
|rishtoN kaa ilzaam = the social obligation
|naam to pyaar = categorizing love (wife, GF, husband, BF etc.)
| (similar to rishtoN )
|
|I guess, here the woman does not want to be bound/defined in some
|relation she does not think will do justice to her love. She loves him,
|but not necessarily wants to get married or have a physical
|relationship. HE apparently can't digest teh relationship without the
|assurance of a wedlock or some other commitment. It may seem outrageous
|to imagine such for Indian 'dewi of a naaree' but there is nothing
|wrong here. The woman may not be ready yet, doesnot want to be rushed
|in, maybe because the 'life' of 'love' is gone if it is moulded in
|relations/naam etc.
|
|reminds me of
|'tan se tan kaa milan ho na paayaa to kyaa,
| man se man kaa milan koi kam to naheeN' of Saraswati-Chandra (chhoD.
| de saaree duniyaa)
|
|Hope that helps :-) that was just my interpretation. The woman seems to
|be more philosophical in her statements (of course it is Gulzar, I know :)
|Maybe the movie's situation can shed some more light, since the
|lyricists wrote at least the mukhaD.aa for the situation!
|
|>- Abhay
|> Now it's my turn to ask :-)
| :-)
|
|-- Pintu Diwana urf ShashiKant Joshi
|
|
|------------------- end included posts --------------------------------
here is osme addition in interpretation independentof the movie situation
or box office needs of a song:
>>Hamane dekhee hai un aaNkhoN kee mahakatee khushaboo
>>haath se chhoo ke ise rishtoN kaa ilzaam na do
>>sirf ehsaas hai ye rooh se mahasoos karo
>>pyaar ko pyaar hee rahane do ko-ee naam na do
khushaboo ko dekhanaa?
aaNkhoN kee khushaboo? is aaNkh a flower?
remember kamala-nayana? I am not sure if lotus has fragrance, does it?
the beautiful lotus eyes are profusely emitting the
fragrance of love (not lust). Don't malign it with bodily relationships.
Not every love has to be "baptised" by physical intimacy. (Hard to even
imagine in the "modern new" world of "Yurmilla" ?? :-) someone could even
think of such philosophy AND put it in a movie? )
Like the halo, the energy spheres (which are apparently recent scientific
discoveries , the spheres I mean), the fragrance of love can be seen
floating, drifting from those eyes, since eyes tell the tale of the heart
(reverse process to the "aaNkhoN se jo utaree hai dil meN" ).
Seeing the fragrance of love is like feeling it with the soul. How can you
feel with the soul, soul has no "senses" :-) something like we say
"feel with your heart not think with your brain"
similarly you see this fragrance.
Love, be that as elaborated by Khalil Gibran in relationship or by Indian
philosophy of Gita and similar texts, is beyond and above the body and
nomenclature. It is the lust that needs more than "ehsaas".
This love can be felt with the soul (rooh) as mentioned above.
pyaar ==> naam ?
remember izaazat ? maayaa says to mahendra (Nasiruddin)
"mahinder! maiN ne kai rishte dekhe haiN. kuchh TooT jaate haiN, kuchh khatm
ho jaate haiN. magar shaadee jab khatm ho jatee hai to saD.ane lagatee hai"
and that is why she didn't want to get married. What she meant there was if
you love someone, you don't have to be hasty to name it. Sometimes you can
love someone just as another human being. It is difficult to think
laterally when most of our lives are spent in the grooves well-trodden by
bullock carts of thinking (i.e. following things without understanding, our
religions, our jobs, our aspirations are all well defined. How many of the
"cream of the nation" have thought of doing something else than medicine or
engineering?). How many missionaries would help without putting the
condition that you convert (pyaar ko naam denaa! )
How many of us ever challenge the statement logically and sincerely,
that "all Hinduism is orthodox and worth throwing away if we need to
survive in the MODERM world"?
>>pyaar ko-ee bol naheeN, pyaar aawaaz naheeN
>>ek khaamoshee hai sunatee hai kahaa karatee hai
>>na ye rukatee hai, na bujhatee hai na thaharee hai kaheeN
>>noor kee booNd hai sadiyoN se bahaa karatee hai
Ever seen a dog roll on the ground and yelp and jump up and down when the
owner gets home after the day or you take the dog to park?
You can see love in the eyes. This statement (dogs eyes can convey
emotions) has a large following especially in the pet-crazy american
society. No voice, no words, and the dog can convey the love and happiness
to you.
"true friendship comes when silence is not uncomfortable"
Think about it for a while, please, it has lot of weight!
Gulzar has written a whole beautiful poem on this simple statement (plus
more), and for once
"words are like leaves and where they most abound
much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found"
does not hold true!
What love actually is, is a feeling. The sense you get when you go home
(hoping you are not from a broken home) in the summer break or from US on
your once in two years trip (twice a year if it is me!). dar-o-deewaar se
pyaar Tapakataa hai!
Love is actually the celestial, heavenly energy force flowing through
soul to soul nourishing it. Souls don't feel lonely, it is our clouded
"thinking" that isolates us and blocks the divine plumbing of soul
connections.
We try to give names to these and meanings to these, but it is to be felt,
not rationalized. Taking it just one step further, it applies to the
"godhood". "God" (== love) is not confined in the lables of Christ's father,
Allah or Raam. It is truly felt if you can feel this free FLOW from soul
to soul rather constrained by label. And this has been happening from time
immemorial.
>>muskuraahaT see khilee rahatee hai aaNkhoN meN kaheeN
>>aur palakoN pe ujaale se jhuke rahate haiN
>>hoTh kuch kahate naheeN, kaaNpate hoThoN pe magar
>>kitane khaamosh se afasaane ruke rahate haiN
This one doesn't need thatmuch explanation. When in love, or more
appropriately, aware of the flow of this celestial energy, the inner peace
and strength and joy expresses itself as a perpetual smile in your looks
(the way you look, e.g. sad or happy looks), and the divine light sparkles
through the eyelashes, as if the light is hanging on the awnings of the
window to your heart (i.e. your eyes).
Phew, that was long! more becauseof the archived post inclusion.
And this is not in the category of "untuned-ghazals" so is legit!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pintu Diwana pi...@shift-f1.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pintu Diwana pi...@shift-f1.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pradeep Dubey
Great job Pintu Diwana!!
Of course, the Markovian nature of RMIM makes sure this
was not the last time someone claimed: "aankoN ki mehakti
khushboo, what? ... That's meaningless, emotionless ...".
Just say: "kya aanhkeN hai, walla walla ... or ...
in madbhari aankhoN se barsati hai shabnam ... ".
Pradeep