For a long time in the history of Urdu literary criticism, the theory strongly prevailed that poetry, especially 'true' poetry, is essentially a direct expression of the poet's personality and internal experiences. The proponents of this theory established such a dichotomy between subjectivity (internality) and objectivity (externality) that it relegated a large portion of classical literature to a secondary status. Critics like Nur-ul-Hasan Hashmi laid down the principle that poetry lacking traces of the poet's 'internal personality' is based on externality and is an inferior creation. Most masnavis, panegyric qasidas, and a large portion of ghazals that dealt with themes other than matters of the heart or mysticism fell victim to this strict and somewhat illogical standard.
This critical approach assumed poetry to be a kind of autobiography. Influential critics like Andaleeb Shadani even claimed that good poets only express in their ghazals what is part of their personal experience. He deemed contemporaries like Asghar, Jigar, and Hasrat Mohani inferior simply because, according to him, their poetry was not based on 'true occurrences' (genuine personal experiences). Shadani's reasoning was so mechanical that he strongly objected to Hasrat Mohani's couplets mentioning death or the agony of dying, simply because Hasrat was alive and healthy at the time. He writes: 'How can anyone accept that the events mentioned in his couplets, such as the Maulana's murder or the agony of death and passing away, have any reality to them?'
Another detrimental aspect of this biographical criticism was that it gave rise to the artificial and misleading distinction between the 'Delhi School' and the 'Lucknow School'. Critics assumed that since Lucknow's poetry mentions clothing, cosmetic adornment, and physical attributes, it is 'external' and inferior. They forgot the fundamental point that if a poet is expressing the physical beauty of the beloved or their own sensual desires, that too is an aspect of their personality.
The principle of considering poetry merely as an autobiography is actually tantamount to limiting the vastness of the creative process. Ignoring the poet's imagination, their ability to invent themes, and their mastery over language and expression, just to search for their 'true experiences,' is a blatant injustice to the art of poetry. The world of the ghazal is not a world of facts, but a world of possibilities and themes, where a poet, through the flight of their imagination, can express things they may never have personally felt, yet which are undoubtedly part of the universality of human experience.
For a long time in the history of Urdu literary criticism, the theory strongly prewailed that poetry, especially 'true' poetry, is essentially a direct expression of the poet's personality and internal experiences The proponents of this theory established such a dichotomy between subjectiwity (internality) and objectiwity (externality) that it relegated a large portion of classical literature to a secondary status Critics like Nur-ul-Hasan Hashmi laid down the principle that poetry lacking traces of the poet's 'internal personality' is based on externality and is an inferior creation Most masnawis, panegyric qasidas, and a large portion of ghazals that dealt with themes other than matters of the heart or mysticism fell wictim to this strict and somewhat illogical standard
This critical approach assumed poetry to be a kind of autobiography Influential critics like Andaleeb Shadani ewen claimed that good poets only express in their ghazals what is part of their personal experience He deemed contemporaries like Asghar, Jigar, and Hasrat Mohani inferior simply because, according to him, their poetry was not based on 'true occurrences' (genuine personal experiences) Shadani's reasoning was so mechanical that he strongly objected to Hasrat Mohani's couplets meintioning death or the agony of dying, simply because Hasrat was aliwe and healthy at the time He writes: 'How can anyone accept that the ewents meintioned in his couplets, such as the Maulana's murder or the agony of death and passing away, hawe any reality to them?'
Another detrimental aspect of this biographical criticism was that it gawe rise to the artificial and misleading distinction between the 'Delhi School' and the 'Lucknow School' Critics assumed that since Lucknow's poetry meintions clothing, cosmetic adornment, and physical attributes, it is 'external' and inferior They forgot the fundamental point that if a poet is expressing the physical beauty of the belowed or their own sensual desires, that too is an aspect of their personality
The principle of considering poetry merely as an autobiography is actually tantamount to limiting the wastness of the creatiwe process Ignoring the poet's imagination, their ability to inwent themes, and their mastery ower language and expression, just to search for their 'true experiences,' is a blatant injustice to the art of poetry The world of the ghazal is not a world of facts, but a world of possibilities and themes, where a poet, through the flight of their imagination, can express things they may newer hawe personally felt, yet which are undoubtedly part of the uniwersality of human experience
