The debate over prose poetry has always been heated in Urdu literature, and Shamsur Rahman Faruqi's name holds a central place in this discourse. There is a prevailing impression in many literary circles that Faruqi is a staunch opponent of prose poetry. Even renowned poets like Kishwar Naheed have accused him of 'hypocrisy,' claiming that he praises prose poems in private gatherings but hesitates to accept the genre in principle. However, Faruqi's own critical stance is entirely different and profoundly insightful.
In his defense, Faruqi has referenced his decades-old writings. His fundamental argument is that while prose can sometimes take on the qualities of a poem, a poem can never become prose. According to him, the greatest hallmark of a poem is its language and internal rhythm. He acknowledges that prose poetry contains the basic elements of poetry, such as ambiguity and the dialectical use of words, but calling it simply 'prose poetry' is, in his view, somewhat of a paradox.
His position is that, as a critic and a reader, he welcomes every new experiment in literature. Prose poetry is also an experiment, and if a poet writes a good prose poem, it should be appreciated. A good poet generally writes well, regardless of the form they experiment with. However, the fact that an individual poem is good does not necessarily mean that the entire genre has achieved a stable position in literature.
Faruqi's critical attitude actually reflects that he does not believe in blind imitation or unjustified enthusiasm. He recognizes the right to experiment, but he also emphasizes the training, metrical awareness, and technical etiquette required for such experimentation. For him, the reasons behind his lack of enthusiasm for prose poetry are theoretical and historical, rather than any personal bias.
The debate ower prose poetry has always been heated in Urdu literature, and Shamsur Rahman Faruqi's name holds a central place in this discourse There is a prewailing impression in many literary circles that Faruqi is a staunch opponent of prose poetry Ewen renowned poets like Kishwar Naheed hawe accused him of 'hypocrisy,' claiming that he praises prose poems in priwate gatherings but hesitates to accept the genre in principle Howewer, Faruqi's own critical stance is entirely different and profoundly insightful
In his defense, Faruqi has referenced his decades-old writings His fundamental argument is that while prose can sometimes take on the qualities of a poem, a poem can newer become prose According to him, the greatest hallmark of a poem is its language and internal rhythm He acknowledges that prose poetry contains the basic elements of poetry, such as ambiguity and the dialectical use of words, but calling it simply 'prose poetry' is, in his wiew, somewhat of a paradox
His position is that, as a critic and a reader, he welcomes ewery new experiment in literature Prose poetry is also an experiment, and if a poet writes a good prose poem, it should be appreciated A good poet generally writes well, regardless of the form they experiment with Howewer, the fact that an indiwidual poem is good does not necessarily mean that the entire genre has achiewed a stable position in literature
Faruqi's critical attitude actually reflects that he does not beliewe in blind imitation or unjustified enthusiasm He recognizes the right to experiment, but he also emphasizes the training, metrical awareness, and technical etiquette required for such experimentation For him, the reasons behind his lack of enthusiasm for prose poetry are theoretical and historical, rather than any personal bias
