Mirza Ghalib - Trip Down Memory Lane
shariq...@yahoo.com
hairline was not quite receeding and the waistline was still not that
out of control. God I am getting old...anyways enjoy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is yet another notable incident in the life of the great Ghalib.
Have some translations down incase you have a have a problem in urdu
comprehension
Background:
The friendly (or not so friendly) rivalry between
Ghalib and Zauq is well known, and each took small
shots at the other's expense. One day, as Zauq was
travelling in a palenquin near Ghalib's area, he
encountered Ghalib and his pals playing dice on the
streets.
Ghalib was amused at how proudly the "royal poet"
was travelling on the shoulders of two bearers. He
said the follwing verse (as a taunt) loud enough so
that Zauq could hear it:
Banaa hai shaah ka musahib, phire hai itraata
(how proudly the friend of the Emperor roams !!)
Zauq put the she'r to memory, and left that day
without saying a word.
Later on, a musha'ira was to be held in the honour
of Bahadurshah Zafar's coronation as King, and
Zauq requested His Majesty to call Ghalib as a
guest, since Zauq wanted to humiliate Ghalib in
front of everyone, especially the King !
On the day of the mushai'ra, Zauq brought up the
fact that Ghalib had uttered the above sneering
remark to a royal member, which was not very polite.
When the king asked Ghalib for an explanation,
Ghalib replied that it was the "MAQTA" to a new
ghazal that he had just written. Not to be so easily
undermined, Zauq asked the king to let Ghalib begin
the mushai'ra with this new ghazal. Now it was Ghalib's
turn to be shocked. However, Ghalib pretended to take
a blank piece of paper from his pocket and read. He
composed
the following poem on the spot to save his face .
Har ek baat pe kehte ho tum ke "tu kyaa hai"
Tum hi kaho ke yeh andaaz-e-guftagu kyaa hai
Na shole meiN yeh kar shamma, na barq meiN yeh adaa
Koi bataao ke shokh-e-tand khu kyaa hai
Yeh rashk hai ke woh hota hai hum-sukhan tum se
Wagarna khauf-e-bad aamozi-e adoo kyaa hai
Chipak rahaa hai badan par lahoo se pairaahan
Hamaari je'b ko ab haajte rafoo kyaa hai
Jalaa hai jism jahaaN dil bhi jal gayaa hoga
Kuredte ho jo ab raakh, justjoo kyaa hai
RagoN meiN daudte phirne ke hum naheeN Qaayal
Jab aankh hi se na tapkaa to phir lahoo kyaa hai
Woh cheez jis ke liye hum ko hai behesht azeez
Siwaa-e- baada-e-gulfaam-e-mashkboo kyaa hai
PiyooN sharaab agar Khum bhi, dekh looN do chaar
Yeh sheesha -o- vaqr -o- kozah -o- saboo kyaa hai
Rahi na taaqat-e-guftaar, aur agar ho bhi
To kis umeed se kahiye ke aarzoo kyaa hai
Banaa hai shaah ka musahib, phire hai itraata
Wagarna shehr meiN Ghalib ki aabroo kyaa hai
Glossary:
barq = lightning
Wagarna = and if not, otherwise
rashk = malice, jealousy
Qaayal = confessing, acknowledging
behesht = Paradise, heaven
adoo = enemy, foe
haajat = neccessity, requirement
rafoo = mending, darning
kuredna = To sift
Vaqr = dignity, honour
saboo = wine pitcher
musaahib = comrade, accomplice
Itraana = To strut, to give one self airs, to be boastful.
--------------------------------------------
Afzal A. Khan
Shariq Mian,
I don't quite know the occasion which prompted you to
post your message today. In any case, let me suggest
a few amendments in the above ghazal. I am sure the
errors are through typos :
"tum hi" = tumheeN
"kar shamma" = karishma
"tand khu" = tuNd~KHoo
"haajte" = haajat-e-
"mashkboo" = mushk~boo
"vaqr" = qadah
"kozah" = kooza(h)
"saboo" = suboo
"umeed se .." = umeed pe
"bana hai" = huwa hai
"shaah" = sheh
Also, in the eighth sher, the punctuation comma comes
after "sharaab", and not after "bhi".
I too had seen this serial when it was telecast. But,
frankly, I am convinced that Gulzaar didn't do justice
to Ghalib's character, nor to that of Zauq.
In this context, I had contributed a post to ALUP some years
back. I am quoting it below, FWIIW :
------------------------------------------------------------
It is true that Gulzar took a lot of liberties in this TV serial,
which is surprising, considering Gulzar's avowed love for and
familiarity with Urdu milieu and literature. Another surprise
was the fact that the two actors who played the roles of Zauq
and Ghalib (the late Shafi Inamdar and Naseeruddin Shah) could
surely have been expected to have a greater insight into the
literary history and the behavioural mores of polite society
of those days than what was being depicted in the serial.
Fortunately for us, these aspects have been so well-documented
in the biographies and memoirs of that period that it is not
difficult for us to know that the serial had done a grave
injustice to the major players on the literary stage of that
era. I still recall the sickening facial gestures that Zauq
is shown to make at the mushaira. Also, for that matter,
the ghazal that Ghalib recites at the mushaira was also very
inappropriate. It happens to be the first ghazal of his
Diwan and, comparatively, not of that high literary merit
which characterizes many others. (I am talking in the context
of Ghalib's own high standards.) Not only Zauq. Even Ghalib
has been portrayed in a very negative manner. Anybody seeing
the serial would carry away an impression that Ghalib was a
crusty, cantankerous person, forever displaying a morose and
testy temperament. Nothing is farther from the truth. Ghalib
was a member of the aristocracy (though not correspondingly
rich). He was a most erudite scholar. As a person, he was
urbane, hospitable and the epitome of the genteel ways of
the nobility (ashraaf). He also had been gifted with a great
sense of humour. His letters and the authentic anecdotes
recorded at the time prove this, as has been testified to by all
biographers and contemporaries, including Maulvi Mohammed
Husain Azaad (author of Aab-e-Hayaat) who, in his zealous
regard for his mentor Zauq, has not accorded that recognition
to Ghalib's literary pre-eminence to which he is entitled.
This is not, however, attributable to misplaced zeal alone.
This was a more or less common belief amongst the people in
the latter half of the 19th century and Azaad was, in a way,
reflecting the popular impressions about Ghalib. It is
difficult to account for the totally misleading image of
Ghalib that has been portrayed in the serial. Surely, Gulzar
knew better than that. Zauq himself was a person of exemplary
politeness, and the pages of literary history are replete with
instances of his gentlemanly conduct. Even when one concedes
a certain amount of rivalry, it would be most unjust to attri-
bute anything like bitter rivalry or spiteful behaviour to
either of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Afzal
asi...@my-deja.com
Btw, I saw this serial again last year, since its DVD is readily
available. My friends and I used to meet every weekend to see one
episode and dissect it in detail. I did not carry the same impression
as you. In fact, Gulzar's Ghalib was a man of great merit, superb sense
of humor, very irreverant, dutiful host, faithful husband, and a
secular progressive individual. Gulzar, however, did not paint him as a
deity. He was shown with all his blemishes - his drinking and gambling
habits, his frustrating habit of being perennially in debt and so on.
Regarding the recitation of Naqsh-i-faryadi', Zauq is not shown as
scheming or angry. Zauq was shown as unhappy by Ghalib's conduct per
the above anecdote quoted by Shariq. However, he applauds him in an
unabashed manner after listening to the aashar in the ghazal quoted
above. Also, Zauq is shown as a perfect court poet, obsessed with
poetry (he holds sessions in his home with Mohani et al), and decorum.
In fact, he advises Zafar that Ghalib would not be a suitable teacher
for the prince, not because he is jealous of his supreme talent, but
because of his other bad habits (i.e. irreverance, drinking and
gambling). Zauq freely appreciates Ghalib's talent during this
conversation with Zafar.
Ghalib is shown as one of the persons who carries Zauq's coffin during
his funeral procession.
Now, you have to remember that this serial was made when Doordarshan
did not really spend much money on teleserials. The low budget had
clearly taken its toll. Also, given that Gulzar had to complete the
story in 13 episodes, he has edited a lot, including aspects of Zauq
and Mohani's works, and often cut songs in half. Plus, he has tried to
work out a good balance between a dry presentation of his poetry and
his personal life story to maintain viewer interest. In other words, he
was not making a documentary.
Even with DVD subtitles, some of the Urdu-Persian words are hard to
follow. When it was first shown on DD, a vast majority of viewers could
barely comprehend the poetry. Thus, he had to focus on Ghalib's
personal side as well, without making it a soap opera or a long
exercise in self-pity. It was also interesting that Gulzar (the most
feminist minded of all our directors) gave a lot of footage to Ghalib's
wife (played by the fabulous Tanvi [Kiran] Azmi), a facet that would've
been ignored by most directors.
Given all those constraints, imho, Gulzar did a fabulous job.
Cheers
Arun
asi...@my-deja.com
Afzal A. Khan wrote:
> testy temperament. Nothing is farther from the truth. Ghalib
> was a member of the aristocracy (though not correspondingly
> rich). He was a most erudite scholar. As a person, he was
> urbane, hospitable and the epitome of the genteel ways of
> the nobility (ashraaf).
<snipped>
Btw, that the nobility of those days were genteel [or even gentle :-)],
is not always borne by the episodes recording during those days. I've
posted this excerpt from Pritchett's 'Nets of Awareness' on RMIM
before. This is translated from "Aab-e-Hayaat".
====
In short, when this scheme didn’t succeed, Mirzā Fāḳhir took
another tack. He had many shagirds in Lucknow, especially the
Shaiḳhzādahs, who at one time [before Akbar’s conquest] had been
the rulers of that very land of Avadh; the vapors of impertinent
aggressiveness and arrogance had not left their minds. One day Saudā,
all unaware, was sitting at home, and they forcibly invaded his house
and surrounded him. They placed a knife against his stomach and said,
“Take along everything you’ve written and come before our ustad, so
things can be resolved.” Mirzā was very skilled at inventing the
roses and flowers of poetic maẓmūns, and creating the parrots and
mynahs of speech, but this was quite a new maẓmūn! He was completely
at a loss. The poor man gave his folder of poems to a servant, and
himself climbed into the palanquin and went with them. That Satanic
crew were all around him, he was in the middle. When they reached the
Chauk, they wanted to dishonor him there. After some argument, they
again began to harangue him. But who can dishonor him to whom God has
given honor? By chance Sa‘ādat ‘Alī Ḳhān and his entourage
came by that way. Seeing the crowd, he halted; and inquiring about the
circumstances, he seated Saudā with him on his elephant and took him
away. āṣif ud-Daulah was in the ladies’ apartments, having a meal.
Sa‘ādat ‘Alī Ḳhān went and said, “My dear brother, it’s an
awful thing—while you rule, such a calamity in the city!” āṣif
ud-Daulah said, “What is it, brother, is everything all right?” He
replied, “Mirzā Rafī‘—whom Father used to call ‘Brother’
and ‘Kind and generous friend’ when he wrote letters to him, whom
Father used to beg to come, but who never came—is here today, and in
such a state that if I hadn’t arrived, the ruffians of the city would
have dishonored the poor man.” Then he told him the whole matter.
================
In short, the noble court poets of the 1800s were much like RMIM
members. :-) [1] [2]
Cheers
Arun
[1] How many more posts before a certain someone indicates that if only
Shariq had talked to him, he would've repudiated the greatness of
Ghalib?
[2] Any instances of HFM lyricists or their fans giving such treatment
to their rivals?
shariq...@yahoo.com
spelling Urdu words in English. Plus I had gotten into Ghalib around
1995 and wrote this from memory so there were some holes in the recall.
And last but not least I posted this as I had in 1995/96 so I made no
changes
I too felt Ghalib was shown as a devious and impish fellow in Gulzar's
serial - this was in stark contrast to what impression I had about
Mirza Sahab growing up. A year back ago I saw Ghalib the movie with
Bharat Bhushan playing the central character and Suraiyya playing the
Domni. That was exactly the image of Ghalib that was narrated/portrayed
to me when I was younger
I still am not sure which one is historically accurate although I
figure that Gulzar being the brilliant man he is did his homework on
the life of Mirza Sahib more so than the director of that movie. Plus,
my impression of scholars is that they often have this hard edge to
them that does not exactly endear them to the common man and vice
versa. However, you seem to suggest otherwise. Since there is no
worthwhile/credible account of Ghalib's life it's certainly hard to
reach a valid conclusion
Shariq
Afzal A. Khan
Nobody has ever claimed that Ghalib was a saint, much less a
"deity". He too had human frailties. But his character, his
habits etc. have been so well-documented by his contemporaries
that it is not at all difficult for any discerning connosseur
of poetry to have a clear idea of his persona.
He did have a weakness for drinks. But he never imbibed any
"cheap" liquor. It is recorded that he never drank it "neat".
And it was always at night at his home --- never in public.
Also, he was not a regular gambler as such. It is no doubt true
that he was always in financial distress. In this context, it
should be remembered that he did not have a regular source of
income. In those days, much stress was laid on a social "caste"
system -- Ghalib belonged to an aristocratic lineage and was
counted amongst the social elite or "ashraaf". {Zauq, OTOH, was
comparatively a plaebian.} And Muslims belonging to noble
families were neither shopkeepers nor businessmen/artisans.
They either had 'mansabs' (ranks) in the military or were
administrators. Also, in most cases, they had jaagirs that kept
them supplied with sufficient funds. Ghalib, as the scion of a
noble family, was entitled to a suitable "pension" but due to
various factors, could not get it. He kept on trying all his
life with the authorities, but to little avail. He was
the son-in-law of a royal family. He was on extremely cordial
terms with several royal households, who were his patrons.
Gulzar may not have had a lavish budget -- and I have no quarrel
with him as to the manner in which he made the serial. It was a
noteworthy attempt. My only grouse against him is that his
characterization of Ghalib was at fault. I will quote again from
my old post :
"Anybody seeing the serial would carry away an impression that
Ghalib was a crusty, cantankerous person, forever displaying
a morose and testy temperament. Nothing is farther from the
truth.......He was urbane, hospitable and the epitome of the
genteel ways of the nobility (ashraaf)."
Anybody who has delved deep into the contemporaneous accounts of
that period would readily agree with the above assessment.
The incident reported in Mr. Shariq's post (about Ghalib having
a dig at Zauq, while the latter was travelling in a "hawadaar")
is absolutely unbelievable. There is no account of any such
incident in any book. And if it is there, I would like to hear
about it from some authoritative source. The maqta of this ghazal
is strictly self-deprecatory in nature and has nothing to do with
Zauq or anybody else. Such an incident is absolutely out of
character for Ghalib.
I vividly remember the mushaira scene where Ghalib recites the
"naqsh fariyaadi" ghazal. Zauq (played by Shafi Inamdar) is
made to stare at Ghalib in a very contemptuous and hostile
manner. This too is completely out of character for Zauq.
And, as I said in my original post, the choice of Ghalib's
ghazal too was plain wrong. When nobody responds to his
recitation of the first sher, Ghalib is made to say : "Hazraat,
misra uThaaiye". All this is simply unbelievable.
That Gulzar did a fine job with the limited resources at his
disposal is not in dispute. But I have indicated the areas or
points where his visualization or conceptualization is, IMHO,
at fault. By way of contrast, I would say that Sohrab Modi
really did a fabulous job in his film, where Ghalib's por-
trayal is much nearer to his real persona.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
This is an exaggerated account. Azad is well-known for his
flowery language and unique style of writing. And these were
ruffians (not "ashraaf"). When Sauda is made to leave with
these hooligans, Azad himself writes : "Seena~zori aur sar~shori
ke buKHaar abhi tak (in logoN ke) dimaaGHon se gaye na the.
Gird woh lashkar-e-shaitaan tha".
Mirza FaaKHir was not a court poet. There was no doubt some
poetic rivalry between Sauda and FaaKHir. But this attack on
Sauda's house etc. was carried out by his "shaagirds". What
happened subsequently is also worth reading, in order to get
the full picture.
I would suggest that you should read the full account in
"Aab-e-Hayaat" before reaching any conclusion about the
"noble court poets of the 1800s".
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
> Afzal Sir you are right - these were phonetic fallacies as a result of
> spelling Urdu words in English. Plus I had gotten into Ghalib around
> 1995 and wrote this from memory so there were some holes in the recall.
> And last but not least I posted this as I had in 1995/96 so I made no
> changes
I understand.
>
> I too felt Ghalib was shown as a devious and impish fellow in Gulzar's
> serial - this was in stark contrast to what impression I had about
> Mirza Sahab growing up. A year back ago I saw Ghalib the movie with
> Bharat Bhushan playing the central character and Suraiyya playing the
> Domni. That was exactly the image of Ghalib that was narrated/portrayed
> to me when I was younger
Your earlier impression is in fact the correct impression.
Please see my reply to Shri Arun Simha's posts.
>
> I still am not sure which one is historically accurate although I
> figure that Gulzar being the brilliant man he is did his homework on
> the life of Mirza Sahib more so than the director of that movie. Plus,
> my impression of scholars is that they often have this hard edge to
> them that does not exactly endear them to the common man and vice
> versa. However, you seem to suggest otherwise. Since there is no
> worthwhile/credible account of Ghalib's life it's certainly hard to
> reach a valid conclusion
I would say that Ghalib's portrayal in Sohrab Modi's film is
much nearer to the poet's real persona. Please see my reply to
Shri Arun Simha's posts.
I am surprised when you say that there is no worthwhile/credible
account of Ghalib's life. Maulana Haali has written a most
authoritative account of his life and times. There are other
contemporary records. Ghalib's Letters (printed editions are
readily available) give an illuminating insight about his
habits, character and his relationship with his colleagues,
royal personages etc. All these books are readily available in
Pakistan. And, if you have no difficulty with Urdu, you can
have someone send these books to you. My library is locked up
back in India, otherwise I would have sent them to you,
(strictly on a loan basis !)
Afzal
>
> Shariq
>
asi...@my-deja.com
Afzal A. Khan wrote:
>
> Nobody has ever claimed that Ghalib was a saint, much less a
> "deity". He too had human frailties. But his character, his
> habits etc. have been so well-documented by his contemporaries
> that it is not at all difficult for any discerning connosseur
> of poetry to have a clear idea of his persona.
>
> He did have a weakness for drinks. But he never imbibed any
> "cheap" liquor. It is recorded that he never drank it "neat".
> And it was always at night at his home --- never in public.
Yes, Gulzar conveyed that. Ghalib is shown drinking only in his
upstairs room, in isolation. As for th quality of liquor, he goes all
the way to Meerut cantt (iirc) on his horse to get high quallity stuff.
> Also, he was not a regular gambler as such. It is no doubt true
> that he was always in financial distress. In this context, it
> should be remembered that he did not have a regular source of
> income. In those days, much stress was laid on a social "caste"
> system -- Ghalib belonged to an aristocratic lineage and was
> counted amongst the social elite or "ashraaf". {Zauq, OTOH, was
> comparatively a plaebian.} And Muslims belonging to noble
> families were neither shopkeepers nor businessmen/artisans.
> They either had 'mansabs' (ranks) in the military or were
> administrators. Also, in most cases, they had jaagirs that kept
> them supplied with sufficient funds. Ghalib, as the scion of a
> noble family, was entitled to a suitable "pension" but due to
> various factors, could not get it. He kept on trying all his
> life with the authorities, but to little avail. He was
> the son-in-law of a royal family. He was on extremely cordial
> terms with several royal households, who were his patrons.
>
All of the above is shown in the serial. In fact, the patronage that he
gets from his well wishers is extaordinary. As is their patience with
him. :-)
> Gulzar may not have had a lavish budget -- and I have no quarrel
> with him as to the manner in which he made the serial. It was a
> noteworthy attempt. My only grouse against him is that his
> characterization of Ghalib was at fault. I will quote again from
> my old post :
>
> "Anybody seeing the serial would carry away an impression that
> Ghalib was a crusty, cantankerous person, forever displaying
> a morose and testy temperament. Nothing is farther from the
> truth.......He was urbane, hospitable and the epitome of the
> genteel ways of the nobility (ashraaf)."
>
I don't think he comes across as cantankerous. If anything, he is shown
as a cordial, respectful person, who is - like most artists - careless
with money and forever complaining about lack of recognition for his
poetry. ;-)
> Anybody who has delved deep into the contemporaneous accounts of
> that period would readily agree with the above assessment.
>
> The incident reported in Mr. Shariq's post (about Ghalib having
> a dig at Zauq, while the latter was travelling in a "hawadaar")
> is absolutely unbelievable. There is no account of any such
> incident in any book. And if it is there, I would like to hear
> about it from some authoritative source. The maqta of this ghazal
> is strictly self-deprecatory in nature and has nothing to do with
> Zauq or anybody else. Such an incident is absolutely out of
> character for Ghalib.
>
I agree with the above assessment.
> I vividly remember the mushaira scene where Ghalib recites the
> "naqsh fariyaadi" ghazal. Zauq (played by Shafi Inamdar) is
> made to stare at Ghalib in a very contemptuous and hostile
> manner. This too is completely out of character for Zauq.
> And, as I said in my original post, the choice of Ghalib's
> ghazal too was plain wrong. When nobody responds to his
> recitation of the first sher, Ghalib is made to say : "Hazraat,
> misra uThaaiye". All this is simply unbelievable.
>
True. I doubt if they would be so informal in front of the royal court.
[Although of a ineffective king.]
<snipped>
Cheers
Arun
asi...@my-deja.com
I did - at least the English translation - which will be made available
online soon:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00fwp/published/txt_ab_e_hayat.html
My Urdu isn't good enough to read books with. I can read poems and
signboards, but it takes me forever. :-)
Cheers
Arun
UVR
> online soon:
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00fwp/published/txt_ab_e_hayat.html
>
> My Urdu isn't good enough to read books with. I can read poems and
> signboards, but it takes me forever. :-)
If you want to practice your Urdu, as well as compare the Pritchett-
Faruqi English rendition against the Urdu original version of Azad's
Aab-e-Hayaat, the latter is *already* online! Here:
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/digbooks/dig_toc.html?BOOKID=PK2167.A84
-UVR.
PS: Just wondering: why hasn't anyone pointed out that this post
(thread) is more relevant to ALUP than to RMIM? :-P
Afzal A. Khan
> -UVR.
>
> PS: Just wondering: why hasn't anyone pointed out that this post
> (thread) is more relevant to ALUP than to RMIM? :-P
One reason : Gulzar could be a persona non grata there !
Afzal
Pavan Jha
thought I should share it..
==
" I feel that Gulzar saab had woven the scenarios in the serial rather
than presenting the life of ghalib straight from the history books..
Many of the scenes in the serial were not exactly depiction the exact
happenings in the life of Ghalib, but were created on the basis of the
couplets and ghazals written by Ghalib.. I believe gulzar saab created
small small episodic scenarios woven around ghalib's poetry..ki ghalib
ne jab ye sher likha to kya hua hoga.. here is an example..
Ghalib Scenario - Harek Baat Pe
****
If you recall the serial, Ghalib comes to Delhi from Agra but in his
first mushayara he failes to impress the listeners and poets in
mushayara due to a very difficult ghazal he selects to render.
when he renders the opening couplet, none of the listeners understands
that and could't follow it (misra ko uthana in appreciation)
ghalib asks : what happend
the listeners : bahut bhari hai uthaya nahin jaata
ghalib stops rendering and boycott the mushayara and when King Bahadur
Shah Zafar asks ki why are you not completing the ghazal, ghalib says
"Uthane ko Kuli nahin mile" and walks out..
after that ghalib was not invited to any mushayara's and he usually
shared his poetry with the street workers..
One day on the streets he finds Ustaad Zauq's savaari passing by, so he
comments (shouts) a line 'Bana hai shah ka masaahib, phire hai it-rata'
(Ustaad Zauq was very close to bahadur shah jafar, and with this line
ghalib commented that zauq is chamcha of jafar).. Ustaad Zauq and his
assistants find it very insulting.. complains Shah jafar
about it and plans to invite Ghalib to the next mushayara so that they
can complain and insult ghalib in the mushayara..
Ghalib comes to mushayara and when he is about to start his some
ghazal, zauq and his assistants complains to the king that Ghalib is
insulting Ustaad Zauq in public as he commented "bana hai shah... phire
hai itarata"
Shah Jafar asks ghalib if he had done so... ghalib finds himself caught
in the web but he confidently says No.. he gives an exuse that he
did'nt insulted Ustaad Zauq but was sharing his latest couplets with
his friends on street..
Asks jafar 'how.. ?'
Ghalib says "They (ustaad zauq and party) haven't heard the full
couplet) it goes as
'bana hai shah ka musaahib phire hai it-rata, (pauses, warna is shahar
me ghalib ki aabaru kya hai'..
He saves himself with the above couplet..
but ustaad zauq asks, ki jab misra itna achha hai to poori ghazal
sunaiye.. ghalib takes a paper out and starts reading this ghazal
"harek baat pe kahte ho tum ki tu kya hai, tumhi batao ki ye
andaz-e-guftgu kya hai' and impresses almost everyone (including ustaad
zauq and king zafar) with 'ragoN me daud-te phirne ke hum nahin kaayal,
jab aankh hi se na tapka to phir lahu kya hai'...
When another poet sitting near by wants to check the piece of paper to
read the complete ghazal, he finds it a completely blank...
****
Now I am not sure if it had happened exactly the same way shown in the
serial, but it was an excellent scenario to show how ghalib had created
this ghazal "harek baat pe kahate ho", and his relationships with
contemporary poets and entry and acceptance as a poet..
Not only that, if you remember the ghazal from the audio cassette/cd of
mirza ghalib, it was uniquely composed by jagjeet singh and had three
different parts in three different meters by three different singers..
if you observe closely, you will find a masterpiece by gulzar.. Ghalib
was initially rejected by kings court, but first he is recognized by
the king's court (Jagjeet's part in "harek baat pe"), and in
continuation to this scene we have a fakeer on the road singing
the subsequent couplet "chipak raha hai badan par" (rendered by vinod
sahgal) and then we have Neena gupta singing the subsequent part in the
mujra at the kotha (sung by chitra singh)..
It establishes how ghalib reached the awaam.. and his poetry was being
appreciated by
king, poets, fakeers and at mujra's (all walks of life)
==
To add here, gulzar saab has recently come out with a book on the
script of his serial on Mirza Ghalib.. and its titled "Biographical
Scenarios".. The title itself makes it clear that its more scenarios
that were created in the serial..
Now checkout the preface, what gulzar saab has said about his take on
Ghalib..
he starts with a very important quote of ghalib 'Aur phir bayaa.N
apna...'
*****
School me.N maulavi mujeebur-rahman se urdu padhi aur unhi.N ki
badaulat ghalib, zauq, zafar, momin, naasikh, aur doosre shora se
taaruf hua. baDe baDe shaayar aur baDii baDii shakhsiyate.N unki
swaanahii umarii bhii padhi. lekin ghalib ki swaanahii umarii padhte
hue, ek ajeeb-o-ghareeb apanepan ka ehsaas hota tha. shayad isiliye
hamaare maulavi saahab bhi unhe.n 'chachaa ghalib' kah-kar khataab
karte the. aisaa koi khataab kisii aur shayar ke naam ke saath kabhii
nahii.n lagaaya gaya.
aisaa hota hai, kuchh baDii baDii shasiyato.n se aap rob kha jaate
hai.n, kuchh se Darte hain aur aur kuchh bujurg aise bhi hote hain jo
bujurg kam aur dost jyda lagte hain. maulavi saahab jab jab ghalib
padhate the to ghalib padhte hue isi tarah ka ehsaas hota tha.
urdu bas school tak hi padhi, iske baad har jagah hindii ka zor aa
gayaa. phir se qaaydaa lekar baithane ki na umra thi, na niyat hui.
urdu hii qinaat kii aur usii rasmulkhat me.n likhte-padte rahe.
maulavii saahab pakistan chale gaye, urdu ghutti me.n paDii thii,
wajood kaa hissa ban gaI. zahi hai, ghalib ke baare me.n merii
dilchaspii badhtii hii rahii.
ghalib kii shakhsiyat me.n ek 'down to earth' mizaaj milta hai. ek aam
insaan ka, jo baDii aasaanii se ghalib ko identify karaa eta hai.
kam-se-kam aisaa mahsoos hota hai. ghalib ka had se zyada aamo.n ka
shauq aur phir zyada aam khane se phoDo.n ka nikalna aur phir phoDo.n
par marham ka istemaal aur marham lagaane kii tafseel ve baqaul khud
bayaan karte hai.n, lagta hai ye shakhs aapka paDosii hai. mujhe lagta
hai mai.n ghalib ke saath unke ghar par rahta hoo.n
ghalib ka udhaar lenaa, udhaar na chuka sakne ke liye purmazah bahaane
talaashna, phir apanii khaft kaa izhaar karna, jazbaatii taur par mujhe
ghalib ke qareeb le jaata hai. kaash meri haisiyat hotii aur mai.n
ghalib ke saare karz chuka deta. ab haal yah hai ki mai.n aur merii
nasl usakii karzdaar hai.
dosto.n ka zikr, shikwe, ha.Nsee mazaak, ghar me.n baithkar se lifaafe
chipkana aur khat bhejna, lagta nahii.n ki ham apne zamaane ke sabse
aziim shaayar aur donikhwar kii baat kar rahe hai.n
pata nahii.n koii mujhse mutaafiq hoga ya nahii.n, lekin jis shakhs ke
yahaa.N saat aulaade.n huii.n aur koii zindaa na rahii, us shakhs me.n
kyaa jaan hogii ki us gham ke baavzood usakii 'sense of humor' apne
daur ke tamaam daanishvaro.n se alag saaf sunaaii detii hai aur us
shakhs ne doosarii shaadii karane kii nahii.n sochii. mujhe lagta hai
ki tamaam nauk-jhonk ke baavjood ghalib ne apni begham se muhabbat kii
aur unki izzat kii aur unke saath aulaado.n ka poora poora gham baa.NTa
'chachaa ghalib' kahte hai.n to lagta hai, mhsoos kiyaa hai. sirf
sochkar nahii.n kah diyaa. zindagii ke har mauqe ke liye quotation
muhaiyya kara dete hai.n
ve juaa bhii khelte the, khel kii tarah khelte the. sharaab bhi piite
the, is par parda nahii.n daala, use sharmindagii ka baus nahii.n
banaaya. ghalib ki shakhsiyat me.n koii baat odhii huii (put on)
nahii.n lagti. shaayad isiiliye ghalib kii shakhsiyat itnaa muttassir
kartii hai aur gyaarah baras me.n jo bhii mavaad jamaa huaa mere paas
usase maine ghalib ki zi.ndagii par ek serial banaya.
ab aap hii bataae.n, maine ghalib kii 'zi.ndagii banaaii' yaa ghalib ne
meri zi.ndagii banaa dii..
*****
Pavan Jha
> School me.N maulavi mujeebur-rahman se urdu padhi aur unhi.N ki
> badaulat ghalib, zauq, zafar, momin, naasikh, aur doosre shora se
.
.
> ab aap hii bataae.n, maine ghalib kii 'zi.ndagii banaaii' yaa ghalib ne
> meri zi.ndagii banaa dii..
> *****
Request to ignore itrans mistakes, as I am vary casual with it
specifically in log texts..
thank
pavan
Pavan Jha
> School me.N maulavi mujeebur-rahman se urdu padhi aur unhi.N ki
> badaulat ghalib, zauq, zafar, momin, naasikh, aur doosre shora se
.
.
> ab aap hii bataae.n, maine ghalib kii 'zi.ndagii banaaii' yaa ghalib ne
> meri zi.ndagii banaa dii..
> *****
Request to ignore itrans mistakes, as I am very casual with it,
specifically in long text..
thank
pavan
Pavan Jha
> School me.N maulavi mujeebur-rahman se urdu padhi aur unhi.N ki
> badaulat ghalib, zauq, zafar, momin, naasikh, aur doosre shora se
.
.
> ab aap hii bataae.n, maine ghalib kii 'zi.ndagii banaaii' yaa ghalib ne
> meri zi.ndagii banaa dii..
> *****
Request to ignore itrans mistakes, as I am very casual with it,
specifically in long text..
thanks
pavan
Pavan Jha
Afzal A. Khan
> Comedy of errors :) did I said Angoor? :)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Worse compounded ?
Afzal