Meer Aur Naee Ghazal-1

It is becoming increasingly clear that our ghazal is now being influenced more by Mir than by Ghalib. The reason for this is not merely a desire for variety. Today's ghazal poets are experiencing new intellectual and spiritual needs that Ghalib's poetry cannot fulfill. They are now confronted with issues that Mir felt much more intensely. Mir attempted to cultivate a temperament that could help maintain a sense of harmony with life. This dilemma is not unique to our poets and writers; literature across the entire world is currently grappling with this very struggle. In this regard, Mir is more modern than Ghalib and more attuned to contemporary demands.

The question now arises: why did our critics begin calling Ghalib modern in the first place? Abdur Rahman Bijnori was perhaps the first to sense Ghalib's modernity. This was because the process of dissatisfaction with prevailing values, which began in Europe in the late eighteenth century, only started here in the late nineteenth century. It then took another decade or two into the twentieth century for this dissatisfaction to take a conscious form. When those with an English education read a bit of the Romantic poets, it provided the perfect catalyst—like a nudge to someone already nodding off. Consequently, rebelling against societal values became the hallmark of an intelligent and sensitive individual. At the time, this truly was the definition of modernity, and to some extent, it still is today. However, this modernity could not remain stagnant; it had to evolve in one direction or another. Therefore, if modernity is an essential attribute of poetry, we cannot make a sound judgment between Ghalib and Mir until we understand the trajectory of European modernity.

This modernity began as a rebellion against prevailing values. If this mindset is allowed to develop to its logical conclusion, the inevitable result is that every value—from the greatest to the smallest—in religion, ethics, economics, politics, and eventually even the established exact sciences, must be proven false and obsolete. However, to declare something false or obsolete, you must have a standard by which to judge it. One such standard could be to accept a few prevailing values and use them as a touchstone to prove all others false. But this approach would not allow for a complete rebellion. Therefore, personal preference, or individuality, was established as the ultimate standard of modernity.

Once the modern poet had rejected every external principle, only one thing remained to be negated: his own personality. The poet then turned inward and began to tear his own self to pieces. Things reached a point where not only was internal centeredness destroyed, but even thoughts and emotions came to be viewed with suspicion. In short, this has been the trajectory of modernity, and in many ways, it continues today. But these are merely offshoots. After the complete negation of the self, if one encounters a fundamental, elemental truth, a new creative process begins; otherwise, there is no path left but silence. There is nothing in the works of the existentialists that was not already present in Baudelaire, Mallarmé, or Rimbaud. The later writers are merely providing the details.

However, after negating everything, modernity took another turn. Having dissolved even his own self, the artist assumed that everything was finally over. Yet, upon looking around, he realized that other people still existed, and erasing them was no easy task. Consequently, upon reaching the absolute limit of his spiritual struggle, the artist has once again leaned toward affirmation. You can observe this dual process in the works of Marcel Proust and James Joyce. While the destructive process might not be as prominently displayed in Thomas Mann, the details of the constructive process are far more abundant in his work.

At the core of all this action and reaction lies a fundamental conflict: what should the relationship be between the artist and other human beings? After molding one's spiritual life according to the highest standards of justice, truth, and beauty, can a person still live peacefully alongside other people? Until now, writers and poets have answered this question with a resounding no. However, the most modern artists have discovered that there is something even greater than justice, truth, and beauty—life itself. If a person accepts life in its purest form, at least one reason for communal connection emerges; in fact, such a connection becomes biologically imperative. The realization of this vital force of life has sparked this new affirmation among artists.

The essence of Mir’s spiritual struggle is precisely this: to harmonize the highest form of existence with the most ordinary, everyday life. In his poetry, this highest form of existence is called Ishq (Love). He does not wish to keep love isolated from the mundane affairs of the world; rather, he seeks to weave it seamlessly into them. As Firaq noted, Mir’s endeavor was to infuse a little spirituality into materialism, and a little materialism into spirituality. (Curiously enough, the French Surrealists used to say the exact same thing about themselves). Mir’s lover turns toward the beloved while carrying the weight and influence of hundreds of human relationships upon his soul.

Masaib aur the par dil ka jana

Ajab ik saneha sa ho gaya hai

[There were other hardships, but the loss of the heart

Has become a strange tragedy of its own]

The innocence of tone here is not merely a product of poetic style; it is born out of a genuine participation in the lives of ordinary people. However, this does not mean that Mir never experienced loneliness, or that he spent his life harboring foolish illusions about other human beings. Outwardly, Ghalib’s life was full of social vibrancy, and he enjoyed the friendship of the most sensitive and intellectual minds of his era. In contrast, neither Mir’s era nor his temperament proved favorable in this regard. He knew all too well what happens to a person who possesses the capacity to cultivate the highest level of meaning in their life.

Begana waza barson is shehar mein raha hoon

Bhaga hoon door sab se main kis ka aashna hoon

[For years I have lived in this city like a stranger

I have fled far from everyone, whose friend am I?]

Teri chaal terhi, teri baat rookhi

Tujhe Mir samjha hai yan kam kaso ne

[Your ways are crooked, your words are harsh

Few here have truly understood you, Mir]

Yet, notice how even while complaining, Mir concedes that if a person is inherently harsh and aloof, what else can the poor people of the world do? Regardless, he never allowed himself to be consumed by the delusion that he was some exceptionally rare being whom no one was capable of understanding. This arrogant mode of thinking, however, ran deep in Ghalib’s veins. Momin goes as far as to say:

Be-sair-e-dasht-o-badiya lagne laga hai ji

Ab is kharab ghar mein keh veeran nahin raha

[Without wandering the deserts and wastelands, my heart has begun to settle

Now in this ruined house, for it is no longer desolate]

This essentially means that the intoxication of love has either vanished or faded, so one might as well find amusement in the colorful distractions of the mundane world. In Mir’s poetry, however, there is no such massive gulf between the lover and the people of the world. In his poetic universe, ordinary people possess boundless sympathy for the lover. They respect the profound meaning his life carries; even if they lack the courage to follow in his footsteps, they still recognize his elevated status.

Jee mein toh hai keh dekhiye aawara Mir ko

Lekin Khuda hi jaane woh ghar mein ho ya na ho

[I do wish to go and see the wandering Mir

But God only knows if he would be at home or not]

Those who are eager to meet Mir do not do so merely to mock him or make a fool of him. Rather, they speak of him as if seeking to draw grace from his company. Yet, at the same time, they are bewildered as to why people like Mir become so peculiar. Mir himself shares this bewilderment; in fact, he sometimes regrets being so different from others. Regardless, Mir’s personality leaves a profound impact on people, and they, in turn, make every effort to unravel the mysteries of his character.

[Mir sahab rula gaye sab ko

Kal ve tashreef yan bhi laye the]

(Mir brought everyone to tears;

He had graced this place with his presence yesterday as well.)

Similarly, in Mir’s poetry, the healers and counselors do not act like rigid moral censors. They understand Mir’s spiritual state and do not even wish to deter him from the path of love, recognizing it as the manifestation of the highest form of existence. However, unable to bear the sight of his suffering, they counsel him with the tender affection of a mother or an elder sister. They offer advice as though they themselves are intimately familiar with such experiences, or as if their own hearts ache in sympathy with his.

[Zo'af bohat hai Mir tumhein kuch us ki gali mein mat jao

Sabr karo kuch aur bhi sahab taqat ji mein aane do]

(You are too frail, Mir, do not venture into her street;

Have some patience, my friend, let a little strength return to your body.)

[Bura haal us ki gali mein hai Mir

Jo uth jayen wan se to acha karein]

(You are in a wretched state in her street, Mir;

It would be best if you simply got up and left.)

[Be-qarari jo koi dekhe hai so kehta hai

Kuch to hai Mir ke ik dam tujhe aaram nahin]

(Whoever witnesses your restlessness says:

Something is surely the matter, Mir, that you do not have a moment's peace.)

[Wajah kya hai ke Mir munh pe tere

Nazar aata hai kuch malal hamein]

(What is the reason, Mir, that upon your face

We perceive a certain sorrow?)

[Qamat khameeda rang shikasta badan nazaar

Tera to Mir gham mein ajab haal ho gaya]

(A bowed stature, a broken complexion, a frail body;

Grief has reduced you to a strange state, Mir.)

[Hum ko to dard-e-dil hai tum zard kyon ho aise

Kya Mir ji tumhein kuch bimari ho gayi hai]

(I am the one with the heartache, why are you so pale?

Tell me, Mir, have you fallen ill?)

[Danista apne ji par kyon tu jafa kare hai

Itna bhi mere pyare koi kurha kare hai]

(Why do you deliberately inflict such cruelty upon your soul?

Does anyone fret this much, my dear?)

If others ever adopt a critical tone toward him, it is only because Mir has withdrawn from human relationships, or because he has attempted to endure suffering beyond the limits of human endurance.

[Phir bhi karte hain Mir sahab ishq

Hain jawan ikhtiyar rakhte hain]

(Yet Mir continues to engage in love;

He is young, he has the right to choose.)

[Raha tu aksar alam-nak Mir

Tera taur kuch na aaya hamein]

(You remained sorrowful most of the time, Mir;

We could never quite understand your ways.)

And when these admonitions fail to have any effect on Mir, the tone of the people still does not turn bitter. Instead, they feel a certain sense of reassurance, realizing that Mir has found the only path through which his life could reach its true fulfillment.

[Aate kabhi jo wan se to yan rehte the udas

Aakhir ko Mir us ki gali hi mein ja rahe]

(Whenever he returned from there, he would remain melancholic here;

Ultimately, Mir went and settled in her street.)

If Mir’s death serves as a cautionary tale for others, it is not in the sense of good riddance, he deserved it, but rather because enduring such immense suffering is simply beyond the capacity of an ordinary person.

[Na-muradana zeest karta tha

Mir ka taur yaad hai hum ko]

(He lived a life of unfulfilled desires;

We still remember the ways of Mir.)

[Laga na dil ko kahin kya suna nahin tu ne

Jo kuch ke Mir ka is aashiqi ne haal kiya]

(Do not give your heart to anyone; have you not heard

What this romance did to Mir?)

[Nazar Mir ne kaisi hasrat se ki

Bohat roye hum us ki rukhsat ke baad]

(With what deep longing did Mir cast his final glance;

We wept bitterly after his departure.)

In short, there is a place for Mir’s love within the world and among its people. For Mir, love is not something detached from ordinary human relationships; rather, it is their most refined and deeply ingrained form. Therefore, when he seeks the beloved’s attention, it is not because his emotions possess greater intensity and depth than those of others, nor because he is more deserving of attention, but simply on the basis of shared human connection.

[Tum to tasveer hue dekh ke kuch aaina

Itni chup bhi nahin hai khoob koi baat karo]

(You turned into a statue upon gazing into the mirror;

Such absolute silence is not good, say something.)

[Hum faqiron se be-adai kya

Aan baithe jo tum ne pyar kiya]

(Why this indifference towards mendicants like us?

We came and sat by you because you showed us affection.)

[Wajah-e-begangi nahin maloom

Tum jahan ke ho wan ke hum bhi hain]

(The reason for this alienation is unknown;

We belong to the same place that you do.)

[Aaj kal be-qarar hain hum bhi

Baith ja chalne haar hain hum bhi]

(These days, we too are restless;

Sit down, for we too are on the verge of departing.)

[Koi na-umeedana karte nigah

So tum hum se munh bhi chupa kar chale]

(I might have cast a despairing glance;

But you walked away, hiding your face from me.)

As is evident from this final couplet, even his grievances and complaints are grounded in the terms of ordinary human relationships; they are not the entitled demands of a lover.

[Khush na aayi tumhari chaal hamein

Yun na karna tha paimaal hamein]

(Your conduct did not please me;

You should not have trampled upon me like this.)

[Jafayen dekh liyan kaj-adaiyan dekhin

Bhala hua ke teri sab buraiyan dekhin]

(I have seen your cruelties, I have seen your evasiveness;

It is well that I have witnessed all your flaws.)

[Mat kar ajab jo Mir tere gham mein mar gaya

Jeene ka is mareez ke koi bhi dhang na tha]

(Do not be surprised if Mir died in his grief for you;

This patient had no means left to survive anyway.)

In essence, Mir has attempted in his poetry to bridge the gulf between the most exalted existence and the most ordinary life. In his universe, the common man is not so callous as to harbor enmity or alienation toward the lover, nor is the lover so consumed by his own anguish and ecstasy that he disregards everyone else. For Mir, the ordinary person and the lover are not two entirely different species. Instead, life gradually ascends from the level of the common man, rising to that pinnacle of refinement, innocence, intensity, depth, and expansiveness that defines the lover; it does not make a sudden, abrupt leap. There is no void between these two states, but rather a staircase leading to the highest plane. For Ghalib, severing human ties is a necessity. For Mir, let alone abandoning these ties, one cannot remain indifferent to them even after reaching the highest spiritual echelon. Much of the ache, tenderness, mellowness, and universality in Mir’s concept of love stems directly from these human connections. Ghalib, on the other hand, viewed the life of the lover and ordinary life in the following terms:

[Latafat be-kasafat jalwa paida kar nahin sakti]

(Refinement cannot manifest its splendor without the presence of the coarse.)

That is to say, for Ghalib, the relationship between the two was one of contradiction and contrast. For Mir, however, refinement is essentially the purified form of the coarse. If this coarseness does not continuously pump blood into the veins of refinement, the refinement will simply wither away.

In the beginning, Proust and Joyce were also confronted with this same dichotomy between the refined and the coarse. Ultimately, however, they concluded that refinement cannot survive if it remains confined within itself; at the very least, it cannot serve as a creative force—it merely becomes trapped in narcissistic self-indulgence. (D.H. Lawrence leveled this very accusation against both of them, though he failed to grasp the complete truth of Proust and Joyce). Consequently, both writers ended up embracing the coarse—that is, ordinary human relationships. This represents the most recent milestone of modernism. You might remind me that Joyce was followed by Sartre, who famously declared that Hell is other people. But consider this: is there any depth of negation that Proust and Joyce had not already plumbed before Sartre got there? Having traversed all the stages of negation, both had ultimately arrived at affirmation. Setting those two aside, even the entire endeavor of the French Surrealists was fundamentally affirmative.

The second point is that Sartre has explicitly admitted that he is merely engaged in exploring those corners of the human mind that become prominent in a decadent environment. Therefore, alongside this spiritual investigation, he has also declared it the duty of literature to champion the truth in social matters. This is precisely the meaning of the theory of the freest and most responsible literature. Thus, while he has accepted that a writer should take an interest in economic and political issues, he has not yet felt the need for harmony between a writer's spiritual endeavors and the authentic, primal demands of life. Proust and Joyce have acknowledged the necessity of this harmony. Mir has successfully manifested this harmony. This does not mean I am elevating Mir above these two. Had Mir been forced to confront the spiritual battles these two endured, who knows what the situation would have been. If these two even manage to reach the stage of affirmation, it is a significant achievement. I am merely stating a matter of fact: this harmony and balance are permanently present in Mir's work.

Consequently, elements of the most modern modernity are found more in Mir than in Ghalib. And for the world of 1949, Mir's poetry is far more meaningful. This is why the temperament of the new ghazal poets has a natural affinity with Mir, and Mir's influence is growing day by day, even though very little has been written about him. So much so that even Firaq Sahib has not yet written a detailed essay on Mir.

In reality, the meaning of the ghazal in Mir's work is not at all what it is in Persian. That is why those who become too enamored with Persian poetry cannot attune themselves to Mir—with the exception of Mirza Yagana. In my opinion, we must now abandon the habit of treating the Urdu ghazal as a mere appendage to the Persian ghazal. As I have written before, I felt a great sense of satisfaction upon hearing this question from Nasir Kazmi: Sir, what exactly is taghazzul?

James Joyce has presented some thoughts regarding the genres of poetry. I am tempted to use them as a framework to try and understand the true nature of the Urdu ghazal. Well, as the saying goes: if life permits, the conversation will continue!

It is becoming increasingly clear that our ghazal is now being influenced more by Mir than by Ghalib. The reason for this is not merely a desire for variety. Today's ghazal poets are experiencing new intellectual and spiritual needs that Ghalib's poetry cannot fulfill. They are now confronted with issues that Mir felt much more intensely. Mir attempted to cultivate a temperament that could help maintain a sense of harmony with life. This dilemma is not unique to our poets and writers; literature across the entire world is currently grappling with this very struggle. In this regard, Mir is more modern than Ghalib and more attuned to contemporary demands.

The question now arises: why did our critics begin calling Ghalib modern in the first place? Abdur Rahman Bijnori was perhaps the first to sense Ghalib's modernity. This was because the process of dissatisfaction with prevailing values, which began in Europe in the late eighteenth century, only started here in the late nineteenth century. It then took another decade or two into the twentieth century for this dissatisfaction to take a conscious form. When those with an English education read a bit of the Romantic poets, it provided the perfect catalyst—like a nudge to someone already nodding off. Consequently, rebelling against societal values became the hallmark of an intelligent and sensitive individual. At the time, this truly was the definition of modernity, and to some extent, it still is today. However, this modernity could not remain stagnant; it had to evolve in one direction or another. Therefore, if modernity is an essential attribute of poetry, we cannot make a sound judgment between Ghalib and Mir until we understand the trajectory of European modernity.

This modernity began as a rebellion against prevailing values. If this mindset is allowed to develop to its logical conclusion, the inevitable result is that every value—from the greatest to the smallest—in religion, ethics, economics, politics, and eventually even the established exact sciences, must be proven false and obsolete. However, to declare something false or obsolete, you must have a standard by which to judge it. One such standard could be to accept a few prevailing values and use them as a touchstone to prove all others false. But this approach would not allow for a complete rebellion. Therefore, personal preference, or individuality, was established as the ultimate standard of modernity.

Once the modern poet had rejected every external principle, only one thing remained to be negated: his own personality. The poet then turned inward and began to tear his own self to pieces. Things reached a point where not only was internal centeredness destroyed, but even thoughts and emotions came to be viewed with suspicion. In short, this has been the trajectory of modernity, and in many ways, it continues today. But these are merely offshoots. After the complete negation of the self, if one encounters a fundamental, elemental truth, a new creative process begins; otherwise, there is no path left but silence. There is nothing in the works of the existentialists that was not already present in Baudelaire, Mallarmé, or Rimbaud. The later writers are merely providing the details.

However, after negating everything, modernity took another turn. Having dissolved even his own self, the artist assumed that everything was finally over. Yet, upon looking around, he realized that other people still existed, and erasing them was no easy task. Consequently, upon reaching the absolute limit of his spiritual struggle, the artist has once again leaned toward affirmation. You can observe this dual process in the works of Marcel Proust and James Joyce. While the destructive process might not be as prominently displayed in Thomas Mann, the details of the constructive process are far more abundant in his work.

At the core of all this action and reaction lies a fundamental conflict: what should the relationship be between the artist and other human beings? After molding one's spiritual life according to the highest standards of justice, truth, and beauty, can a person still live peacefully alongside other people? Until now, writers and poets have answered this question with a resounding no. However, the most modern artists have discovered that there is something even greater than justice, truth, and beauty—life itself. If a person accepts life in its purest form, at least one reason for communal connection emerges; in fact, such a connection becomes biologically imperative. The realization of this vital force of life has sparked this new affirmation among artists.

The essence of Mir’s spiritual struggle is precisely this: to harmonize the highest form of existence with the most ordinary, everyday life. In his poetry, this highest form of existence is called Ishq (Love). He does not wish to keep love isolated from the mundane affairs of the world; rather, he seeks to weave it seamlessly into them. As Firaq noted, Mir’s endeavor was to infuse a little spirituality into materialism, and a little materialism into spirituality. (Curiously enough, the French Surrealists used to say the exact same thing about themselves). Mir’s lover turns toward the beloved while carrying the weight and influence of hundreds of human relationships upon his soul.

Masaib aur the par dil ka jana

Ajab ik saneha sa ho gaya hai

[There were other hardships, but the loss of the heart

Has become a strange tragedy of its own]

The innocence of tone here is not merely a product of poetic style; it is born out of a genuine participation in the lives of ordinary people. However, this does not mean that Mir never experienced loneliness, or that he spent his life harboring foolish illusions about other human beings. Outwardly, Ghalib’s life was full of social vibrancy, and he enjoyed the friendship of the most sensitive and intellectual minds of his era. In contrast, neither Mir’s era nor his temperament proved favorable in this regard. He knew all too well what happens to a person who possesses the capacity to cultivate the highest level of meaning in their life.

Begana waza barson is shehar mein raha hoon

Bhaga hoon door sab se main kis ka aashna hoon

[For years I have lived in this city like a stranger

I have fled far from everyone, whose friend am I?]

Teri chaal terhi, teri baat rookhi

Tujhe Mir samjha hai yan kam kaso ne

[Your ways are crooked, your words are harsh

Few here have truly understood you, Mir]

Yet, notice how even while complaining, Mir concedes that if a person is inherently harsh and aloof, what else can the poor people of the world do? Regardless, he never allowed himself to be consumed by the delusion that he was some exceptionally rare being whom no one was capable of understanding. This arrogant mode of thinking, however, ran deep in Ghalib’s veins. Momin goes as far as to say:

Be-sair-e-dasht-o-badiya lagne laga hai ji

Ab is kharab ghar mein keh veeran nahin raha

[Without wandering the deserts and wastelands, my heart has begun to settle

Now in this ruined house, for it is no longer desolate]

This essentially means that the intoxication of love has either vanished or faded, so one might as well find amusement in the colorful distractions of the mundane world. In Mir’s poetry, however, there is no such massive gulf between the lover and the people of the world. In his poetic universe, ordinary people possess boundless sympathy for the lover. They respect the profound meaning his life carries; even if they lack the courage to follow in his footsteps, they still recognize his elevated status.

Jee mein toh hai keh dekhiye aawara Mir ko

Lekin Khuda hi jaane woh ghar mein ho ya na ho

[I do wish to go and see the wandering Mir

But God only knows if he would be at home or not]

Those who are eager to meet Mir do not do so merely to mock him or make a fool of him. Rather, they speak of him as if seeking to draw grace from his company. Yet, at the same time, they are bewildered as to why people like Mir become so peculiar. Mir himself shares this bewilderment; in fact, he sometimes regrets being so different from others. Regardless, Mir’s personality leaves a profound impact on people, and they, in turn, make every effort to unravel the mysteries of his character.

[Mir sahab rula gaye sab ko

Kal ve tashreef yan bhi laye the]

(Mir brought everyone to tears;

He had graced this place with his presence yesterday as well.)

Similarly, in Mir’s poetry, the healers and counselors do not act like rigid moral censors. They understand Mir’s spiritual state and do not even wish to deter him from the path of love, recognizing it as the manifestation of the highest form of existence. However, unable to bear the sight of his suffering, they counsel him with the tender affection of a mother or an elder sister. They offer advice as though they themselves are intimately familiar with such experiences, or as if their own hearts ache in sympathy with his.

[Zo'af bohat hai Mir tumhein kuch us ki gali mein mat jao

Sabr karo kuch aur bhi sahab taqat ji mein aane do]

(You are too frail, Mir, do not venture into her street;

Have some patience, my friend, let a little strength return to your body.)

[Bura haal us ki gali mein hai Mir

Jo uth jayen wan se to acha karein]

(You are in a wretched state in her street, Mir;

It would be best if you simply got up and left.)

[Be-qarari jo koi dekhe hai so kehta hai

Kuch to hai Mir ke ik dam tujhe aaram nahin]

(Whoever witnesses your restlessness says:

Something is surely the matter, Mir, that you do not have a moment's peace.)

[Wajah kya hai ke Mir munh pe tere

Nazar aata hai kuch malal hamein]

(What is the reason, Mir, that upon your face

We perceive a certain sorrow?)

[Qamat khameeda rang shikasta badan nazaar

Tera to Mir gham mein ajab haal ho gaya]

(A bowed stature, a broken complexion, a frail body;

Grief has reduced you to a strange state, Mir.)

[Hum ko to dard-e-dil hai tum zard kyon ho aise

Kya Mir ji tumhein kuch bimari ho gayi hai]

(I am the one with the heartache, why are you so pale?

Tell me, Mir, have you fallen ill?)

[Danista apne ji par kyon tu jafa kare hai

Itna bhi mere pyare koi kurha kare hai]

(Why do you deliberately inflict such cruelty upon your soul?

Does anyone fret this much, my dear?)

If others ever adopt a critical tone toward him, it is only because Mir has withdrawn from human relationships, or because he has attempted to endure suffering beyond the limits of human endurance.

[Phir bhi karte hain Mir sahab ishq

Hain jawan ikhtiyar rakhte hain]

(Yet Mir continues to engage in love;

He is young, he has the right to choose.)

[Raha tu aksar alam-nak Mir

Tera taur kuch na aaya hamein]

(You remained sorrowful most of the time, Mir;

We could never quite understand your ways.)

And when these admonitions fail to have any effect on Mir, the tone of the people still does not turn bitter. Instead, they feel a certain sense of reassurance, realizing that Mir has found the only path through which his life could reach its true fulfillment.

[Aate kabhi jo wan se to yan rehte the udas

Aakhir ko Mir us ki gali hi mein ja rahe]

(Whenever he returned from there, he would remain melancholic here;

Ultimately, Mir went and settled in her street.)

If Mir’s death serves as a cautionary tale for others, it is not in the sense of good riddance, he deserved it, but rather because enduring such immense suffering is simply beyond the capacity of an ordinary person.

[Na-muradana zeest karta tha

Mir ka taur yaad hai hum ko]

(He lived a life of unfulfilled desires;

We still remember the ways of Mir.)

[Laga na dil ko kahin kya suna nahin tu ne

Jo kuch ke Mir ka is aashiqi ne haal kiya]

(Do not give your heart to anyone; have you not heard

What this romance did to Mir?)

[Nazar Mir ne kaisi hasrat se ki

Bohat roye hum us ki rukhsat ke baad]

(With what deep longing did Mir cast his final glance;

We wept bitterly after his departure.)

In short, there is a place for Mir’s love within the world and among its people. For Mir, love is not something detached from ordinary human relationships; rather, it is their most refined and deeply ingrained form. Therefore, when he seeks the beloved’s attention, it is not because his emotions possess greater intensity and depth than those of others, nor because he is more deserving of attention, but simply on the basis of shared human connection.

[Tum to tasveer hue dekh ke kuch aaina

Itni chup bhi nahin hai khoob koi baat karo]

(You turned into a statue upon gazing into the mirror;

Such absolute silence is not good, say something.)

[Hum faqiron se be-adai kya

Aan baithe jo tum ne pyar kiya]

(Why this indifference towards mendicants like us?

We came and sat by you because you showed us affection.)

[Wajah-e-begangi nahin maloom

Tum jahan ke ho wan ke hum bhi hain]

(The reason for this alienation is unknown;

We belong to the same place that you do.)

[Aaj kal be-qarar hain hum bhi

Baith ja chalne haar hain hum bhi]

(These days, we too are restless;

Sit down, for we too are on the verge of departing.)

[Koi na-umeedana karte nigah

So tum hum se munh bhi chupa kar chale]

(I might have cast a despairing glance;

But you walked away, hiding your face from me.)

As is evident from this final couplet, even his grievances and complaints are grounded in the terms of ordinary human relationships; they are not the entitled demands of a lover.

[Khush na aayi tumhari chaal hamein

Yun na karna tha paimaal hamein]

(Your conduct did not please me;

You should not have trampled upon me like this.)

[Jafayen dekh liyan kaj-adaiyan dekhin

Bhala hua ke teri sab buraiyan dekhin]

(I have seen your cruelties, I have seen your evasiveness;

It is well that I have witnessed all your flaws.)

[Mat kar ajab jo Mir tere gham mein mar gaya

Jeene ka is mareez ke koi bhi dhang na tha]

(Do not be surprised if Mir died in his grief for you;

This patient had no means left to survive anyway.)

In essence, Mir has attempted in his poetry to bridge the gulf between the most exalted existence and the most ordinary life. In his universe, the common man is not so callous as to harbor enmity or alienation toward the lover, nor is the lover so consumed by his own anguish and ecstasy that he disregards everyone else. For Mir, the ordinary person and the lover are not two entirely different species. Instead, life gradually ascends from the level of the common man, rising to that pinnacle of refinement, innocence, intensity, depth, and expansiveness that defines the lover; it does not make a sudden, abrupt leap. There is no void between these two states, but rather a staircase leading to the highest plane. For Ghalib, severing human ties is a necessity. For Mir, let alone abandoning these ties, one cannot remain indifferent to them even after reaching the highest spiritual echelon. Much of the ache, tenderness, mellowness, and universality in Mir’s concept of love stems directly from these human connections. Ghalib, on the other hand, viewed the life of the lover and ordinary life in the following terms:

[Latafat be-kasafat jalwa paida kar nahin sakti]

(Refinement cannot manifest its splendor without the presence of the coarse.)

That is to say, for Ghalib, the relationship between the two was one of contradiction and contrast. For Mir, however, refinement is essentially the purified form of the coarse. If this coarseness does not continuously pump blood into the veins of refinement, the refinement will simply wither away.

In the beginning, Proust and Joyce were also confronted with this same dichotomy between the refined and the coarse. Ultimately, however, they concluded that refinement cannot survive if it remains confined within itself; at the very least, it cannot serve as a creative force—it merely becomes trapped in narcissistic self-indulgence. (D.H. Lawrence leveled this very accusation against both of them, though he failed to grasp the complete truth of Proust and Joyce). Consequently, both writers ended up embracing the coarse—that is, ordinary human relationships. This represents the most recent milestone of modernism. You might remind me that Joyce was followed by Sartre, who famously declared that Hell is other people. But consider this: is there any depth of negation that Proust and Joyce had not already plumbed before Sartre got there? Having traversed all the stages of negation, both had ultimately arrived at affirmation. Setting those two aside, even the entire endeavor of the French Surrealists was fundamentally affirmative.

The second point is that Sartre has explicitly admitted that he is merely engaged in exploring those corners of the human mind that become prominent in a decadent environment. Therefore, alongside this spiritual investigation, he has also declared it the duty of literature to champion the truth in social matters. This is precisely the meaning of the theory of the freest and most responsible literature. Thus, while he has accepted that a writer should take an interest in economic and political issues, he has not yet felt the need for harmony between a writer's spiritual endeavors and the authentic, primal demands of life. Proust and Joyce have acknowledged the necessity of this harmony. Mir has successfully manifested this harmony. This does not mean I am elevating Mir above these two. Had Mir been forced to confront the spiritual battles these two endured, who knows what the situation would have been. If these two even manage to reach the stage of affirmation, it is a significant achievement. I am merely stating a matter of fact: this harmony and balance are permanently present in Mir's work.

Consequently, elements of the most modern modernity are found more in Mir than in Ghalib. And for the world of 1949, Mir's poetry is far more meaningful. This is why the temperament of the new ghazal poets has a natural affinity with Mir, and Mir's influence is growing day by day, even though very little has been written about him. So much so that even Firaq Sahib has not yet written a detailed essay on Mir.

In reality, the meaning of the ghazal in Mir's work is not at all what it is in Persian. That is why those who become too enamored with Persian poetry cannot attune themselves to Mir—with the exception of Mirza Yagana. In my opinion, we must now abandon the habit of treating the Urdu ghazal as a mere appendage to the Persian ghazal. As I have written before, I felt a great sense of satisfaction upon hearing this question from Nasir Kazmi: Sir, what exactly is taghazzul?

James Joyce has presented some thoughts regarding the genres of poetry. I am tempted to use them as a framework to try and understand the true nature of the Urdu ghazal. Well, as the saying goes: if life permits, the conversation will continue!