Subject: Re: Quirky rhymes and meter in Urdu (was: ghazal by kaash)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:52:51 -0500
From: Umang Bali <umangb@nortel.ca>
Organization: Bell Northern Research
Newsgroups: alt.language.urdu.poetry

> > Philip Nikolayev wrote:
> > >
> > These traditions are linked primarily to the
> > pattern that has prevailed over time in both Persian and Arabic poetry,
> > and to a lesser extent to the pattern that has been prevalent in the
> > poetry of North India. I have often wondered why, despite these
> > challenging rigors, Urdu poets have done so well on the whole; one
> > reason presumably has to do with the fact that their idiom, coming from
> > a variety of sources, is so rich. For instance, they have so many
> > different words for the 'sky' --- charkh, falak, samaa, gardoon,
> > aasmaan, gagan, ambar, aakaash, etc. --- which help them a lot in
> > meeting these poetic rigors.
>
> I wonder if there really are any rigors in a true sense. Any language
> has all the resources for producing great poetry. In English, we have
> "sky," "heaven," "the spheres," "firmament," "dome," "empyrean," "the
> ether," "argus," "welkin," let alone an infinity of such types as "the
> heavenly blue," vaghaira. It seems to me that the only rigor there is
> is that there must be true poets who can do what they want with their
> language. Where poets come from I haven't the cloudiest idea, and
> would greatfully listen to anyone willing to enlighten me.
>

Philip sahib,

        It is not a matter of wondering if the rigours are there in a true
sense or
not. The fact of the matter is that these rigours in Urdu poetry are an
undisputed
fact. The most important part of an Urdu verse is it's meter, then how a
khayaal
has been incorporated in it.

    English might have a 100 words for sky, but for an Urdu poet, he just
can't
use any word to complete his line, it has to fit within the constraints of the
meter
in use. Hence you see Ghalib write:

            hue tum dost jiske dushman uska aasmaaN kyoN ho?

or in one of his nazms when Majaz wrote:

               bint-e-mahtaab ho, gardoon se utar aayi ho

or when Momin wrote:

            pamaal ham na hote faqat jaur-e-charakh se

or when Bashir Badar writes:

            wohi dukh bhari zameen hai, wohi gham ka aasmaan hai

they are all using the words that fit the meter of their ghazals/nazms.
Why don't you try to replace the prevalent word for "sky" with another,
and you'll see for yourself how the flow gets broken, and how the beauty fades

away with it.

>
> > Nonetheless, there came a period in Urdu poetry when the so-called
> > progressive movement challenged some of these rigors and brought in
> > the so-called 'aazaad nazm'.  Even there, while the restriction of
> > an over-all meter was discarded, each line individually did conform
> > to some meter! That style in nazm is still in vogue, but only in
> > limited quarters. The ghazal, on the other hand, has continued to be
> > rigorous, and my hunch is that much of its appeal to the listeners
> > comes from its very conformity to the rigors of meter and rhyme!!!
>
> Undoubtedly there is much truth in what you say. But might there not
> be another possible level to viewing this? It seems to me that there
> are basically two temperaments in poetry, the traditionalist and the
> experimental. Both with some luck can produce tremendous results. And
> then there is the lucky type, my favorite - the eclectic - which has
> the best of both worlds. It's they that always move poetry especially
> far ahead. To me, the embodiment of this type in Urdu is Ghalib, for
> whose sake I am undertaking a study of Urdu.
>

Ghalib from all stretches of my imagination can be called  everything, but
lucky.
Yes, his andaaz-e-bayaan was aur, but part of the credit to his mastery stems
from
his ability to bind such novel ideas in meter. So much so that poets today not
only
take inspiration from his writing, but sometimes take the meter, the zameen,
in which
he wrote a particular ghazal, to write one of their own. A good example is the
following
sher( I think it's Wasim Barelvi, but not quite sure):

                Ghalib teri zameen mein likhi to hai ghazal
                tere qad-e-sukhan ke barabar nahin hun main

>
> > > For example, there is a well-established concept of "slant rhyme" or
> > > "off-rhyme" in contemporary English verse. It is a kind of rhyme that
> > > derives its pleasure precisely from the fact that it is a rhyme, yet
> > > not precise: it thus subverts expectation, as it were. Some of the
> > > greatest English poets of this century are famous for such
> > > rhymes. Take these lines of Dylan Thomas, for example:
> > >
> > >         I see the boys of summer in their ruin
> > >         Lay the gold tithings barren,
> > >         Setting no store by harvest, freeze the soils;
> > >         There in their heat the winter floods
> > >         Of frozen loves they fetch their girls,
> > >         And drown the cargoed apples in their tides.
> > >
> > > As you can see, "ruin" rhymes here with "barren," "soils" with
> > > "girls," "floods" with "tides." There are many varieties and flavors
> > > of slant rhymes. Are these used in Urdu at all?
> >
> > Not at all. They would simply be laughed at --- even by novices!
>
> Why? To me that's precisely the question. You see, Dylan Thomas is one
> of the greatest poets of this century, and it's quite unlikely that
> the novices you mention could even dream of writing verse comparable
> to his in quality. There is absolutely nothing naive about the above
> rhymes. My question is: if it seems to you that it is impossible to
> use sophisticated slant rhymes in Urdu, then why?

My question to you is why are you comparing oranges with apples? Dylan Thomas
is undoubtedly one of great names in English poetry. But why does he have to
have
an exact equivalent in Urdu poetry?(and I mean in terms of writing style) The
novices
being talked about are not laughing at the "slant rhyme" used in English
poetry by
Dylan Thomas, but at the some one trying to use a qafiya that does not rhyme
in
Urdu poetry, a good example is the one you quoted about kidhar and giidhaD.

Before you go about bringing revolution in the world of Urdu poetry, how about

taking some time to understand how the world of Urdu poetry exists, what are
its key elements and how are they intertwined?  The questions you have asked
will give you quite a good grounding for you to lay a foundation for
understanding
Urdu poetry, and questions with regards to meter are not only asked by you but

by a great many of us on this forum. The answers in turn by scholars like Raj
sahib,
or Jamil sahib go a geat length in educating a lot of us. But before you go
about
bringing in comparisons of Urdu poetry with English or Russian poetry, try to
get a firm grasp of some of the fundamentals of Urdu poetry, and then most of
your questions will be answered themselves.

Regards,

Umang