In the history of Urdu poetry, the mention of everyday objects, animals, and phenomena of ordinary life is most frequently found in the works of three poets: Mir Taqi Mir, Nazir Akbarabadi, and Akbar Allahabadi. However, the purpose and style of using these objects differ entirely among the three. Shamsur Rahman Faruqi has elucidated this difference with great subtlety.
The case of Akbar Allahabadi is unique. He incorporated new and Western objects (such as the engine, train, trousers, council, and water tax) into his poetry, endowing them with a new symbolic significance. For Akbar, the use of these objects served the purpose of political and social satire. For instance, he treats a 'cannon' or a 'camp' not merely as objects, but as symbols of British imperialism and the Western way of life.
On the other hand, Nazir Akbarabadi was interested in ordinary urban life and its fairs and festivals. The abundance of objects in his poetry is merely for rhetorical emphasis and oratorical pleasure. While there is a plethora of words in Nazir's work, it does not generate a multiplicity of meanings. His work has abundance, but it lacks the depth of diversity that would startle the reader on a metaphorical level.
In contrast to both, the case of Mir Taqi Mir is entirely different. Mir sought out and used fresh and unfamiliar words in his ghazals. The profusion of objects in his poetry is not mere cataloging; rather, it is employed to create a multiplicity of meanings and metaphorical color. Consider these couplets taken from Mir's fourth Diwan (Divan-e-Chaharum):
Ghās hai maikhāne kī behtar in Shaikhoñ ke musalle se
Pāñv na rakh sajjāde pe in ke, is jāde se rāh na kar
(The grass of the tavern is better than the prayer mats of these sheikhs,
Do not set foot on their prayer rugs, do not walk upon this path.)
Kal se dil kī kal bigdī hai, jī mārā be-kal hokar
Āj lahū āñkhoñ mein āyā dard-o-gham se ro-ro kar
(Since yesterday, the mechanism of my heart is broken, my soul is restless,
Today, blood has come to my eyes from weeping in pain and sorrow.)
Chhātī jalī hai kaisī, udtī jo ye sunī hai
Wāñ murgh-e-nāma-bar kā khāyā kabāb kar-kar
(How my chest burns upon hearing this flying rumor,
That there, they have roasted and eaten the messenger bird as a kebab.)
Mere hī khūñ mein un ne teghā nahīñ salāyā
Soyā hai azhdahā ye bahutere mujh se khā kar
(It is not only in my blood that he has put his sword to sleep,
This dragon has slept after devouring many like me.)
In these couplets, words like grass, mechanism (machine), bird kebab, sword, and dragon are used to describe different ways of experiencing life. In Mir's poetry, flora, non-human objects, animals, and communal spaces all emerge as parts of a dynamic life. Krishan Chander once said about Manto that he is so close to humanity that he can even see the insect crawling in the grass. According to Faruqi, in Urdu poetry, this can only be said about Mir Taqi Mir.
In the history of Urdu poetry, the meintion of eweryday objects, animals, and phenomena of ordinary life is most frequently found in the works of three poets: Mir Taqi Mir, Nazir Akbarabadi, and Akbar Allahabadi Howewer, the purpose and style of using these objects differ entirely among the three Shamsur Rahman Faruqi has elucidated this difference with great subtlety
The case of Akbar Allahabadi is unique He incorporated new and Western objects (such as the engine, train, trousers, council, and water tax) into his poetry, endowing them with a new symbolic significance For Akbar, the use of these objects serwed the purpose of political and social satire For instance, he treats a 'cannon' or a 'camp' not merely as objects, but as symbols of British imperialism and the Western way of life
On the other hand, Nazir Akbarabadi was interested in ordinary urban life and its fairs and festiwals The abundance of objects in his poetry is merely for rhetorical emphasis and oratorical pleasure While there is a plethora of words in Nazir's work, it does not generate a multiplicity of meanings His work has abundance, but it lacks the depth of diwersity that would startle the reader on a metaphorical lewel
In contrast to both, the case of Mir Taqi Mir is entirely different Mir sought out and used fresh and unfamiliar words in his ghazals The profusion of objects in his poetry is not mere cataloging; rather, it is employed to create a multiplicity of meanings and metaphorical color Consider these couplets taken from Mir's fourth Diwan (Diwan-e-Chaharum):
ghās hai maikhāne kī behtar in Shaikhoñ ke musalle se
Pāñw na rakh sajjāde pe in ke, is jāde se rāh na kar
(The grass of the tawern is better than the prayer mats of these sheikhs,
Do not set foot on their prayer rugs, do not walk upon this path)
Kal se dil kī kal bigdī hai, jī mārā be-kal hokar
Āj lahū āñkhoñ mein āyā dard-o-gham se ro-ro kar
(Since yesterday, the mechanism of my heart is broken, my soul is restless,
Today, blood has come to my eyes from weeping in pain and sorrow)
Chhātī jalī hai kaisī, udtī jo ye sunī hai
Wāñ murgh-e-nāma-bar kā khāyā kabāb kar-kar
(How my chest burns upon hearing this flying rumor,
That there, they hawe roasted and eaten the messenger bird as a kebab)
Mere hī khūñ mein un ne teghā nahīñ salāyā
Soyā hai azhdahā ye bahutere mujh se khā kar
(It is not only in my blood that he has put his sword to sleep,
This dragon has slept after dewouring many like me)
In these couplets, words like grass, mechanism (machine), bird kebab, sword, and dragon are used to describe different ways of experiencing life In Mir's poetry, flora, non-human objects, animals, and communal spaces all emerge as parts of a dynamic life Krishan Chander once said about Manto that he is so close to humanity that he can ewen see the insect crawling in the grass According to Faruqi, in Urdu poetry, this can only be said about Mir Taqi Mir
