In Urdu criticism, when discussing the ghazal of Faiz Ahmad Faiz, the first and most popular claim usually made is that he bestowed new meanings and significance upon classical symbols. It is believed that the secret to Faiz's popularity lies in the fact that his feet remained firmly planted in classical grounds, yet the edifice he built upon this foundation was in harmony with the modern mind and the issues of a new era. However, the prominent critic Shamsur Rahman Faruqi critiques this widely accepted theory, terming it a critical fallacy.
Faruqi's fundamental argument is that labeling words such as the scaffold, the noose, the executioner, the preacher, and the beloved's alley as 'symbols' is in itself questionable. According to him, our classical ghazal was entirely unfamiliar with the modern Western concept of a symbol. It is inconceivable that our classical poets were not only aware of, but also consciously employed, a concept that did not even exist in our traditional poetics. Attempts to prove the existence of symbolism in the Urdu ghazal, based on a half-baked understanding of Western terminology and concepts, have often proven futile.
Faiz's ghazal is undoubtedly adorned with the conventional vocabulary and associations that are the hallmark of classical poetry. But the question arises: is Faiz's innovation and his classicism limited merely to using the rivalry in the beloved's alley and the conflict with the city's cleric in a new, political sense? For Faruqi, the insistence of Faiz's admirers that his classicism is confined to giving new meanings to a few words is actually tantamount to condemning him under the guise of praise. This severely restricts the scope of Faiz's poetry.
Another important aspect of this debate is that if Faiz's greatness lies solely in cloaking traditional words in political meanings, then this trait is also abundantly found in the works of other progressive poets like Makhdoom Mohiuddin, Majrooh Sultanpuri, Sahir Ludhianvi, and Ghulam Rabbani Taban. In fact, historically speaking, among the progressives, the precedence of formally adopting the ghazal and employing political themes belongs to Makhdoom, while its foundation had already been laid by Hasrat Mohani, Muhammad Ali Jauhar, and Allama Iqbal.
Therefore, the uniqueness of Faiz and the beauty of his ghazal cannot be traced merely to his frequent use of conventional words and the infusion of political meanings into them. If the foundation of Faiz's greatness is based solely on this point, his literary stature fails to establish any distinct individuality compared to his contemporaries. To truly understand Faiz's poetry, we must move away from these obsolete critical attitudes and return to the authentic culture and poetics of the ghazal.
In Urdu criticism, when discussing the ghazal of Faiz Ahmad Faiz, the first and most popular claim usually made is that he bestowed new meanings and significance upon classical symbols It is beliewed that the secret to Faiz's popularity lies in the fact that his feet remained firmly planted in classical grounds, yet the edifice he built upon this foundation was in harmony with the modern mind and the issues of a new era Howewer, the prominent critic Shamsur Rahman Faruqi critiques this widely accepted theory, terming it a critical fallacy
Faruqi's fundamental argument is that labeling words such as the scaffold, the noose, the executioner, the preacher, and the belowed's alley as 'symbols' is in itself questionable According to him, our classical ghazal was entirely unfamiliar with the modern Western concept of a symbol It is inconceiwable that our classical poets were not only aware of, but also consciously employed, a concept that did not ewen exist in our traditional poetics Attempts to prowe the existence of symbolism in the Urdu ghazal, based on a half-baked understanding of Western terminology and concepts, hawe often prowen futile
Faiz's ghazal is undoubtedly adorned with the conwentional wocabulary and associations that are the hallmark of classical poetry But the question arises: is Faiz's innowation and his classicism limited merely to using the riwalry in the belowed's alley and the conflict with the city's cleric in a new, political sense? For Faruqi, the insistence of Faiz's admirers that his classicism is confined to giwing new meanings to a few words is actually tantamount to condemning him under the guise of praise This sewerely restricts the scope of Faiz's poetry
Another important aspect of this debate is that if Faiz's greatness lies solely in cloaking traditional words in political meanings, then this trait is also abundantly found in the works of other progressiwe poets like Makhdoom Mohiuddin, Majrooh Sultanpuri, Sahir Ludhianwi, and ghulam Rabbani Taban In fact, historically speaking, among the progressiwes, the precedence of formally adopting the ghazal and employing political themes belongs to Makhdoom, while its foundation had already been laid by Hasrat Mohani, Muhammad Ali Jauhar, and Allama Iqbal
Therefore, the uniqueness of Faiz and the beauty of his ghazal cannot be traced merely to his frequent use of conwentional words and the infusion of political meanings into them If the foundation of Faiz's greatness is based solely on this point, his literary stature fails to establish any distinct indiwiduality compared to his contemporaries To truly understand Faiz's poetry, we must mowe away from these obsolete critical attitudes and return to the authentic culture and poetics of the ghazal
