EXACTLY 124 years ago, on February 15, died Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, one of Urdu’s greatest bards. However, critical evaluation —commentaries and re-evaluation — of Ghalib’s poetry and prose goes on even today.

Ghalib has a unique distinction: about 100 books have been written alone for interpretation and explanation of his poetry, not to mention hundreds of books and thousands of articles on his life, art and thought. The large number of these sharhs, or commentaries, try to expound Ghalib’s verses as many of Ghalib’s couplets are either too obscure or have several layers of meaning, something that Ghalib did intentionally.

Shamsur Rahman Farooqi, one of the most renowned scholars and critics of our times, began in 1968 writing on Ghalib’s couplets under the title Tafheem-i-Ghalib (understanding Ghalib). He would reinterpret Ghalib’s verses in Shabkhoon, the literary magazine that he had launched in 1966 from Allahabad. It was a sort of run-up to Ghalib’s centennial that was to be commemorated on a grand scale in 1969. But even after the centennial, Farooqi Sahib kept on writing his explanatory notes on Ghalib’s poetry in his own style.

Farooqi was an omnivorous reader and had devoured much of English, Urdu and Persian literatures, with a penchant for poetics, lexicology and critical theories. So he would illustrate hidden meanings of Ghalib’s verses with examples in the light of both eastern and western poetics. This had made his elucidating of Ghalib’s verses something to reckon with as it offered a different point of view, profound knowledge and courage to differ from many of the critics, no matter how luminous and reputed they were.

These commentaries by Farooqi on Ghalib’s verses kept on appearing in Shabkhoon till 1988, that is, for 20 years. In 1989, Delhi’s Ghalib Institute published them in a book form. Titled Tafheem-i-Ghalib, it had 138 of Ghalib’s verses, some of them perplexing and others apparently plain but with subtle ideas and implicit meanings. The second edition, published in 2005, had added more couplets, taking the total to 150. Some time ago, a Pakistani edition appeared. Published by Book Corner, Jehlum, it is a well-produced tome.

In his intro to this Pakistani edition of the book, Muhammad Shahid Hameed, a fiction writer and critic, has deftly compared Farooqi’s critical approach towards Ghalib and Mir Taqi Mir. As Farooqi’s assessment of Mir is often questioned and general perception is that he preferred Mir over Ghalib, especially after Farooqi’s book Shear-i-Shor Angez, Hameed has clearly defined what Farooqi’s point of view was. And this comparison, based on Farooqi’s own writings, clearly says that he was hesitant to call Mir Khuda-i-Sukhan, or the god of poetry, as Mir is often referred to, since Ghalib had almost the same stature. But, at the same time, Farooqi thought it would be unfair to give this title to Ghalib when he had poet like Mir.

But in the final analysis, Farooqi was intellectually more impressed with Ghalib than Mir, though he tries to strike a balance between these two, as well. He thought Mir was a better poet when it came to experimentation with Urdu language, analysing life’s variegated colours and describing pathos and ethos. But Ghalib surpassed Mir in that Ghalib had richer logicality, abstraction, subtlety of ideas and delicacy of perception.

Farooqi in his preface has described briefly how it all started in 1968. And then gives details about the criterion for choosing the specific couplets included in the book: a couplet must have a point ignored by writers of commentaries on Ghalib’s poetry or something could be added to what had already been said. While preparing the manuscript for book form, Farooqi had rewritten all the allusions used in the book. He had also revised almost the entire text. It was exactly this kind of perfectionist attitude that had made Farooqi one of the most revered critics of Urdu.

Farooqi has acknowledged the contribution of earlier commentaries on Ghalib, especially 20 odd books by critics that he had referred to. But he believed many of the scholars and critics who wrote these books were awed by the western criticism, though they had a rather shallow study of western critical theories. Farooqi avowedly wrote that he had studied western criticism deeply but was not wonderstruck by these theories as he believed that every literature has its own poetics and as such should be judged against that backdrop.

It is surprising that, contrary to the most of Urdu’s literary works and two early editions of the book, for page numbers, years and other figures Urdu digits have not been used.

Farooqi in the beginning has quoted I.A. Richards who said: “Understanding it is not a preparation for reading the poem. It is itself the poem”.

One can vouch for the truth in these words after reading his book.

drraufparekh@yahoo.com

Published in Dawn, February 13th, 2023