tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80498621445914327262024-03-13T11:57:52.901-04:00Mehr-E-Niimroz: The Noonday SunReflections on poetry, politics, science, history, economics and everything in between by Amit Basole. Here you will find stuff on Ghalib and Borges, on Eurocentrism in the social sciences, on alternative economic theories and practices...Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-44696198759238601102015-01-24T09:59:00.000-05:002015-01-24T10:03:05.245-05:00बनारस का साड़ी उद्योग और विकास का मतलब<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
(To be published in <a href="http://www.vidyaashram.org/karigar_nazaria_akhbar.html">Karigar Nazariya</a>)<br />
<br />
नयी सरकार बनने के बाद विकास के नाम पर गतिविधियाँ और भी तेज़ होती जा रही हैं. विदेशी पूँजी निवेश और श्रम कानून के "सुधार" से लेकर भूमि अधिग्रहण तक मोदी सरकार कई जन विरोधी कदम उठा चुकी है. लेकिन यह भी सच है कि विकास के मुद्दे पर लगभग सभी पार्टियां एकमत हैं, फिर वह कांग्रेस-भाजपा हों या सपा-बसपा. ऐसे माहौल में कारीगर समाज को चाहिए कि वह विकास की पूरी सोच को मौलिक चुनौती दे और वह सारे मुद्दे सार्वजनिक बेहेस में लाए जिन्हे बेहेस से बाहर किया जा चुका है.<br />
<br />
उदहारण के तौर पर दो मुद्दे ले लीजिये: मशीनीकरण और बाज़ार. हस्तउद्योग का मशीनीकरण और बाजार का विस्तार ये दोनों विकास की आम परिभाषाएँ हैं. मगर यह दोनों ही केवल आर्थिक आयाम हैं जिनमे कोई सामाजिक मूल्य नहीं हैं. या यह कहिये कि पूंजीवादी व्यवस्था में मशीनीकरण और बाज़ार का विस्तार जान विरोधी रूप धारण करते हैं, बेरोज़गारी और विस्थापन की शकल में. कारीगर नज़रिये से सवाल मशीनीकरण बनाम हस्तशिल्प या बाज़ार के होने-न-होने का नहीं है. सवाल यह है की कारीगर समाज में और पूरे देश में अगर लोगों के अपने इल्म और ज्ञान के बल पर खुशहाली लानी है तो इस के लिए अर्थव्यवस्था किस प्रकार की होगी? फिर इसमें मशीन की कितनी भूमिका होगी और बाजार की कितनी यह सवाल दोयम दर्जे के हैं.<br />
<br />
साडी उद्योग पर एक नज़र डालें तो यह साफ़ हो जायेगा की सवाल हथकरघा बनाम पावरलूम का नहीं है. आज पावरलूम के तेजी से फैल जाने से प्रोडक्शन तो बहुत बढ़ चूका है, लेकिन कारीगर की कमाई पर कोई अच्छा असर नहीं पड़ा है. अगर पहले हथकरघे पर एक दिन में एक मीटर कपडा बना कर डेड सौ रूपया मज़दूरी मिल रही थी, तो आज मशीन पर एक दिन में एक कारीगर दस गुना कपडा तैयार कर लेगा लेकिन दिन की कमाई वही डेड सौ रूपया रह जाएगी क्यूंकि मज़दुरी घट कर एक मीटर की १५ रुपये होगी. बिजली की परेशानी सो अलग. यानी कुल मिला कर कारीगर अपने को वहीँ का वहीँ पाता है. बनारस का कारीगर इस वस्तुस्तिथि को भलीभांति समझता है. लेकिन अपने आपको दोष देने की बजाये कारीगर को नीतियों को और उस ढांचे को चुनौती देनी होगी जिसके चलते "विकास" का उसे कोई फायदा नहीं होता।<br />
<br />
इसी तरह नए नए राष्ट्रीय और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय बाज़ार उपलब्ध होने से कारीगर को मौजूदा अर्थव्यवस्था में कोई ख़ास फायदा नहीं पहुँचता। और अगर पहुँचता भी है तो सिर्फ चंद लोगों को. मोदी सरकार ने बड़ा लालपुर में बुनकरों के लिए ट्रेड फेसिलिटेशन केंद्र खोलने की घोषणा तो ज़रूर कर दी है क्यूंकि सरकार विकास चाहती है और विकास का मतलब है बाजार का विस्तार. लेकिन आज बाजार की रचना कारीगर के हित में है ही नही. तो इसके विस्तार से उन्हें क्या लाभ होगा? कपडे के बाजार की रचना पर नज़ार डालें तो यह दिखाई देता है की तेज़ी से बदलते फैशन के दौर में रोज़ नए डिजाइन आते हैं. और इससे जो रिस्क पैदा होता है वह कारीगर ही को झेलना पड़ता है. पूँजीपति प्रोडक्शन से जुडी जोखिम अपने कारीगर के कंधे पर डाल देते हैं. यानी डिजाइन चल पड़ी तो फायदा पूँजी वाले का और नहीं चली तो नुक्सान कारीगर का!<br />
<br />
विकास के पक्षधर ये कहते नहीं थकते की हम भविष्य के बारे में सोचते हैं और देश को आगे बढ़ाना चाहते हैं. इनका विरोध हस्तशिल्प को "बचाने" की बात करके नहीं किया जा सकता। हमें भी आने वाले कल की ही बात करनी होगी. न कि परंपरा की या बीते हुए कल की. लेकिन हमारा कल बेरोज़गारी और विस्थापन वाला नहीं होग. कारीगर समाज को यह दावा पेश करना होगा की वह सबकी खुशहाली का रास्ता दिखला सकता है. अगर कारीगर समाज संघठित तरीके से विकास पर सार्वजनिक बेहेस चलाये तो मेक इन इण्डिया, विदेशी पूँजी आदि सब योजनाओं और नीतियों पर हो रही चर्चा को अर्थशास्त्रियों और अन्य पढ़े-लिखे लोगों की चंगुल से छुड़ा कर समाज के बीच ला सकता है. यह एक ऐसी बेहेस होगी जिसमे "विकास" "औद्योगीकरण" आदि को लेकर कोई पूर्वाग्रह नहीं होग. न मशीन बेहेस के दायरे से बहार होगा और न बज़ार.<br />
</div>
Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-44725690555101085292014-08-21T16:18:00.000-04:002014-08-22T10:24:25.441-04:00Alternative Cinema of the 1980s<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
If you are like me, you might have at some point dismissed the 1980s as the "lost decade" for Hindi cinema. Sure there might have been as occasional Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron or Mirch Masala, but largely it was the decade of Himmatwala and Mard. I am glad to have been very off the mark. In fact the 80s saw some of the best Hindi films released from directors like Govind Nihalani, Kundan Shah, Saeed Mirza, Sai Paranjape, and many others.
So here are 24 movies released in the period 1980-1990, all available on You Tube. Sure, the period is somewhat arbitrary. Some very good movies like Gaman didn't make the list because they were released before 1980. But the point was to redeem the 1980s! Also, the list is not meant to be exhaustive. I will keep adding more as I find them. If you know of some, please leave a comment.
<br></br>
<b><br> Aakrosh - 1980
<br> Dir - Govind Nihalani</br></b>
Note: This one is in 4 parts. The first of what I think of as Nihalani's "A" trilogy.</br>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lxzTSDTiA-Y?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Bhav ni Bhavai - 1980
<br> Dir - Ketan Mehta</br></b>
Note: This one is strictly speaking Gujarati but mixed with Hindi and stars the usual suspects.</br>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VcvUc1Jva5U?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br>Satah Se UThata Aadmi - 1980
<br>Dir - Mani Kaul</br></b>
Note: Mani Kaul's highly abstract take on the life and work of Hindi poet Muktibodh.</br>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/iArsL2lsUJ8?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br>Sparsh - 1980
<br>Dir - Sai Paranjape</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qmj9hl4nyxs?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Albert Pinto ko Gussa Kyon Aataa Hai - 1981
<br>Dir - Saeed Mirza</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/olcLcDMBBxk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Sadgati - 1981
<br> Dir - Satyajit Ray</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/R4vBUd5gQKg?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br>Arohan - 1983
<br>Dir - Shyam Benegal</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3PDgFDOu5Js?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br>Ardh Satya - 1983
<br>Dir - Govind Nihalani</br></b>
Note: Second of Nihalani's "A" trilogy. Now you get the reason behind calling it "A".</br>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Xh4K0WN3nv0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron - 1983
<br> Dir - Kundan Shah</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1QhtqGmGCRA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Katha - 1983
<br> Dir - Sai Paranjape</br></b>
Note: Sai's re-telling of the classic tortoise-hare parable, with a twist. Enjoy the lightness of her touch. Sadly taken off You Tube recently. Wll no doubt show up again.</br>
<br></br>
<b><br> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmh6wwFedxA">Mandi - 1983</a>
<br> Dir - Shyam Benegal</br></b>
<br></br>
<b><br> Giddh - 1984
<br> Dir - T.S.Ranga</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-uPQiaBwrXY?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Mohan Joshi Haazir Ho - 1984
<br> Dir - Saeed Mirza</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VX6lc3s8Fdg?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Party - 1984
<br> Dir - Govind Nihalani</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jksguHwHBlE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br>Subah (Umbartha) - 1984
<br>Dir - Jabbar Patel</br></b>
Note: This is the Hindi version of Patel's Marathi movie Umbartha. Both were made at the same time with the same cast.</br>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dnqu-TPBzAA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Aaghaat - 1985
<br> Dir - Govind Nihalani</br></b>
Note: The last of the "A" trilogy. The first one was about tribals, the second about urban decay, and this last one is on unions.</br>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WxuKrdiJ_yE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Mirch Masala - 1985
<br>Dir - Ketan Mehta</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/J0qvpM1DtwM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BNutWRIfZg0">Genesis - 1986</a>
<br>Dir - Mrinal Sen</br></b>
<br></br>
<b><br> Susman - 1987
<br>Dir - Shyam Benegal</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pS5gFrS8VM4?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Sutradhaar - 1987
<br> Chandrakant Joshi</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WXIcOw-7vxk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> The Perfect Murder - 1988
<br> Zafar Hai</br></b>
Note: This may strike some as an odd choice. But watch it and see for yourself! Amjad Khan speaking English the way Englishmen think Indians speak English is just too precious. "Inspector Detector"might be my favorite Khan-ism from the movie. Also a very young Stellan Skaarsgaard.</br>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bvE2bp6Un7Q?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Salim LangDe pe mat ro
<br> Dir - Saeed Akhtar</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-H0ZrIW7eGI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Ek Doctor ki Maut - 1990
<br> Tapan Sinha</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lSDnqlOdAbI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br></br>
<b><br> Disha - 1990
<br>Dir - Sai Paranjape</br></b>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jNgM_Ovxnq4?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-78689607389443363862014-07-22T12:57:00.003-04:002014-07-22T12:58:18.731-04:00The 2014 Budget in Perspective: Pushing Forward the Anti-People Agenda<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
An <a href="http://sanhati.com/excerpted/10790/">article on the 2014-2015 Indian Budget</a> published at <a href="http://sanhati.com/">sanhati.com</a>.<br />
<br />
Abstract: The 2014-2015 Budget largely carries forward the neoliberal agenda of the previous governments, but also carries Modi’s stamp. The two striking but less noticed features of the budget are a transfer of resources from the social sector to infrastructure and a larger transfer of resources to the States. <a href="http://sanhati.com/excerpted/10790/">Read more here.</a></div>
Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-70734760444191110692014-06-29T15:01:00.001-04:002014-06-29T15:04:47.461-04:00“The moon waxes big so that it might become your forehead”: Ghalib’s metaphor-inverting verses<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<style>@font-face {
font-family: "MS 明朝";
}@font-face {
font-family: "Cambria Math";
}@font-face {
font-family: "Cambria";
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; }p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; }span.MsoEndnoteReference { vertical-align: super; }p.MsoEndnoteText, li.MsoEndnoteText, div.MsoEndnoteText { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; }span.FooterChar { }span.EndnoteTextChar { }.MsoChpDefault { font-size: 10pt; font-family: Cambria; }div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; }</style>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><i>[Note: I am returning to blogging on this site after nearly four years. I hope to continue with a series of posts on Urdu poetry.]</i> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">The human mind
works through metaphors and analogies. And no one understands this better than
a poet. In the sub-continental Urdu-Persian poetic tradition, the metaphor was
carried to great heights of sophistication during the classical period. The
“Indian style” of Persian poetry (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sabk-e-hindi)</i>
and its allied Urdu tradition became famous (some would say notorious) for
their “metaphorical excesses.”[1] <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8049862144591432726#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span></span></span></span></a>Mirza Asadullah Khan “Ghalib” (1797-1869) one of the foremost exponents of this
style, is known for his intricate and abstract metaphorical constructions, so
much so that he is sometimes called a “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mushkil
pasand shaayar</i>” or “difficulty loving poet.” But Ghalib also wrote many accessible
verses and has always been a very popular poet in India and Pakistan. Choosing
some verses from his Urdu and Persian <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ghazals</i>,
in this essay I discuss a particular device that Ghalib used to impart
freshness to established metaphors. </span><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Both simile (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">tashbiih</i>)[2] <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8049862144591432726#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span></span></span></span></a>and metaphor (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">istiyaara</i>) form the
soul of the Urdu-Persian poetic tradition. An entire universe of equivalences
has been poetically established over the centuries. Many have been used (and
overused) in Bollywood songs. The beloved is like the flame of a lamp (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sham’a</i>) and the lover like the moth (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">parwaanaa</i>). The world is like a
wine-tavern (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">maiKhana</i>), a place of
sin. The beloved’s glances are like arrows (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">tiir-e-nazar</i>),
her eyes like cups of wine (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">aaNkhoN kii
mastii</i>). Her lane (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">kuu-e-yaar</i>) is
like heaven while the lover’s house is like the desert or wilderness (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">biyaabaaN</i>).[3] <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8049862144591432726#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span></span></span></span></a>The list is long. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Good poets
create new meanings out of old metaphors thereby lending freshness to them.
Here we will see one technique Ghalib uses towards this end. But before we go
into that let us understand a bit more about the use of metaphors in Urdu-Persian
poetry. All the examples here are in the form of a two-line poem, known as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">she’r</i> which forms part of a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ghazal</i>.[4] <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8049862144591432726#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>But since a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ghazal</i> does not usually have a thematic unity, a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">she’r</i> can be considered in isolation as
a stand-alone poem. Consider the following famous verse by Jigar Moradabadi
(1890-1960): </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">yeh ishq nahiN aasaaN bas itnaa samajh
lijiye</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">ek aag kaa daryaa hai aur Duub ke jaanaa
hai.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">What they call
love, understand, it isn’t easy </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">You must immerse
yourself in this river/sea of fire.[5]</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8049862144591432726#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span></span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">The metaphor is
straightforward here: love (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ishq</i>) = a
river or sea of fire (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">aag kaa daryaa</i>).
And both appear explicitly in the verse. But metaphors such as this one have
become so thoroughly part of the language that usually poets do not need to be
as explicit. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example here is Meer
Taqi “Meer” (1723-1810) on another fiery aspect of love, the burning it
produces within the lover: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">chhati jalaa kare hai soz-e-daruuN balaa
hai</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">ek aag lag rahi hai kyaa jaaniye ke kyaa
hai</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">The breast burns
with a calamitous ache</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">A fire is
burning, who can tell what it is </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Love is not
mentioned in this verse at all. The rhetorical (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inshaiyaah</i>) style of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">she’r</i>
(“who can tell what is it?”) leaves it implied. Similarly, whenever a poet uses
the words “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sham’a</i>” or “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">parwaana</i>” the audience knows instantly
that these are stand-ins for something else. A coded language comes into being,
through which poets and their knowledgeable audiences (the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ahl-e-zabaan</i> or the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sah-hridaya</i>)
communicate. So whenever the word “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">chaman</i>”
(garden) is used, we know that the poet’s intention is not to talk about an
actual garden, but to call to the readers’ mind the entire corpus of poetry
that has previously used the word “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">chaman</i>”
to speak about a flower garden as a metaphor for the world as a collection of
objects endowed with divine beauty, the coming of the spring season with the
beloved’s arrival, and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With
equations being so well established only half the metaphor need appear in the
poem. And the verse “says” a lot more than is contained in its words. This is a
very handy device because in a two-line poem every word counts. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Naturally, poets
also compete with each other to see who makes the most skillful, startling,
beautiful use of a well-worn metaphor. Indeed, a poet’s reputation and stature
is measured by the freshness that he or she brings to an old theme (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mazmuun</i>) and the way a new theme is
created using well-known symbols (known in the tradition as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mazmuun aafriinii</i>). A particularly
interesting such device is the turning of a metaphor on its head. Let us take
the same metaphor on which we have seen two verses so far, fire and love.
Ghalib says in a Persian verse:[6]<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8049862144591432726#_edn6" name="_ednref6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span></span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">az daruun-e-siina-am iN taur paidaa
aatish ast</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">khalq migoyand aatish ra ke goyaa aatish
ast</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">loose Urdu
translation: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">mere siine meN paida hui aisi aatish hai</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">duniya ne aatish ko kaha, yeh goyaa
aatish hai</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">In my heart such
a fire has been born</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Seeing fire,
people said, ‘in a manner of speaking, that is fire.’</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">This verse is
difficult to translate without losing all its beauty but the gist is conveyed. Before
coming to the metaphor inversion, let us note some other strengths of this
verse. Recall that classical poetry was composed to be recited in oral
performance (the expression in Urdu is still “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">she’r kehnaa</i>” not “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">she’r
likhnaa</i>” i.e. to “say a she’r” to “to write a she’r”). Thus the placement
of the words and their sequence was critical in achieving the correct mood. A
common trick used by many poets was to withhold the punch till the last
possible minute. Thus a well-constructed verse would have a first line that was
deliberately vague or general. And in the second line, the word right before
the refrain (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">radiif</i>) would deliver
the punch.[7]<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8049862144591432726#_edn7" name="_ednref7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span></span></span></span></a> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">In this verse, the most important word is “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">goyaa,</i>”
which Ghalib holds back till the last minute, right before the refrain or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">radiif</i>, which in this ghazal is “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">aatish ast</i>.” “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Goyaa</i>,” is a beautiful word that can mean “so to speak,” or “as it
were” or “in a manner of speaking.” So Ghalib says, what a fire there is within
me, when people see real fire out there in the world, they say that it is fire
only in a manner of speaking. What a marvelous though, and so compactly
expressed! This verse is an excellent example of how a well worn, almost stale,
theme like “fire in the heart” can be taken and elevated to a different level
through metaphor inversion.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Consider another
common theme. The beloved’s lane or street is a crowded, thriving place. Her
famous beauty attracts lovers, rich and poor, from near and afar, to her
neighborhood. Before we see Ghalib’s “inverse metaphorical” take on this theme,
let us see a more conventional treatment by Ghalib’s contemporary, Momin Khan
“Momin” (1800-1851):</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">rahte haiN jamaa kuucha-e-jaanaaN meN
Khaas-o-aam</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">aabaad ek ghar hai jahaan-e-Kharaab meN</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Rich and poor
gather in the beloved’s lane</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">One house
flourishes in this wretched world</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">In itself, this
is a good verse. Specially, the two contrasting words “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">aabaad</i>” or flourishing, and “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Kharaab</i>”
or wretched, bracket the second line creating a pleasing effect. Note that
wordplay (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">riaayat</i>) and relationships
between words are extremely important in appreciating a well-crafted <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">she’r</i>. But now consider the following <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">she’r</i> by Ghalib on the same theme:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">kam nahiN jalwaagarii meN kuuche se tere
bahisht</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">yehi naqshaa hai vale is qadr aabaad
nahiN</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Heaven is not
any less splendorous than your lane</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">It has the same
design/plan, though its not as flourishing</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">The point is to
extoll how popular, thriving, and attractive the beloved’s lane is, and to this
end poets will often compare it to heaven. But Ghalib is not comparing the
beloved’s street to heaven; he is comparing heaven to the beloved’s lane. And
he finds it wanting. This simple inversion adds an incredible mischievousness (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">shoKhi</i>) to the verse. The first line
starts with a back-handed complement to heaven by saying it is “no worse” than
the beloved’s lane. But the second line takes it to another level. The word “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">naqshaa</i>” can mean a design, a plan, a
map, or a model. So Ghalib is saying to the beloved, heaven is modeled on your
street! Just as the metaphorical fire in the heart became the measure of real
fire, instead of the other way around, here too the same trick is employed. And
the final stroke is the use of the rhyme word “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">aabaad</i>” before the refrain, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nahiiiN</i>.”
Notice that it is the same word used by Momin in his verse to describe the
beloved’s lane. But in Ghalib’s verse it does much more work because of the
inverse-metaphorical construction. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Ghalib uses this
technique repeatedly and to phenomenal effect. An extension of the beloved’s
lane-compared-to-heaven metaphor is that the guard (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">darbaan</i>) who watches the entrance to the beloved’s house is like <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rizwaan</i>, the guard who stands at
heaven’s door. Our poor lover has no better chance of entering his beloved’s
house than he does of entering heaven. Again, watch Ghalib in action with this
popular metaphor:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>ba’ad-e yak umr-e vara’a baar to detaa baare</i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">
<br />
<i>kaash rizwaaN hii dar-e yaar kaa darbaaN hotaa</i> </span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">After a whole
lifetime of abstinence, he would have granted entry</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">If only <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rizwaaN</i> had been the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">darbaaN</i> of the beloved’s door.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Once again, the
verse is carefully constructed to achieve maximum effect. The first line is
ambiguous. It most likely refers to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rizwaaN</i>
since there is a reference to a lifetime of piety and to entry being granted
somewhere, most probably heaven, though we can only guess at this point. Only
in the second line, and towards the end of the verse do we get the full impact,
with the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">darbaaN</i>. What makes it
special is the complete inversion of the metaphor. It is not that the fellow
guarding the beloved’s door is as strict and impassable as heaven’s guard. No!
If only it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">were</i> heaven’s guard on
duty at the beloved’s door! He at least would let the lover through after a
lifetime of abstinence and piousness. No chance of that happening here, because
the beloved’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">darbaaN</i> is far more formidable.
Though, the way the poet has constructed it, it doesn’t even need to be said
explicitly. The word “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">kaash</i>” does all
the work. There are also obvious affinities in the verse between a lifetime of
abstinence and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rizwaaN</i>, as well as
granting entry and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">darbaaN</i>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Let us take
another example. Tears are often compared to blood, as in the expression <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">khoon ke aaNsoo rona</i> (to cry tears of
blood). The metaphor is simple and rooted in the daily observation that when
say, a hand or a leg suffers a physical wound, blood runs down it. Similarly
when the heart is (metaphorically) wounded in love, tears run down the cheek. Many
verses can be found on this theme, but for illustration purposes, here are two,
the first by Meer and the second by Ghalib, which make straightforward use of
this metaphor.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">we din gaye jo zabt kii taaqat thii hameN
bhii</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">ab deeda-e-Khoonbaar nahiN jaate
sambhaale</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gone are the
days when we had self-control</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">We cannot
control these blood-steaming eyes</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">juu-e KhuuN aaNkhoN se bahne do kih hai shaam-e
firaaq</span></i><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
<i>maiN yeh samjhuuNgaa kih sham’eN do furozaaN ho gaiiN</i></span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Let a river of
blood flow from the eyes, it is the evening of separation</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">I will think
that two lamps have become radiant </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Note, this
metaphor works by elevating tears to the status of a much more precious bodily
fluid, viz. blood. Now here is a verse by Ghalib that turns it on its head. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">ragoN meiN dauDte phirne ke hum nahiN
kaail</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">jab aaNkh hi se na Tapka to phir lahuu
kyaa hai</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">We don’t accept
its running around in the veins,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">If it doesn’t
drip from the eyes, what good is blood</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Let us see what
makes this verse work. It is one of Ghalib’s famous verses and also “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mushaira</i> verse,” (see note 7) a verse
carefully constructed to achieve maximum effect in oral recitation. The first line
is deliberately ambiguous. It makes a general proposition without giving too
much away. In the second line too, the most important word, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">lahuu</i>, does not make an appearance till
the last possible minute, right before the refrain (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">kyaa hai</i>). Adding pleasure is the inventive use of the colloquial
expression “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dauDte phirna</i>” or to run
around, usually without purpose or without result. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Using this phrase for blood
coursing through the vein is, of course, highly ironic, since this movement is
anything but pointless. In real life, if anything, it is the flowing of tears
that can be said to be pointless. For the lover, however, blood running in the
veins is blood wasted. Unless it pours through the eyes, it has not fulfilled
its potential. The overall effect is that of a metaphorical inversion. Instead
of comparing tears to blood Ghalib is comparing blood to tears.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not tears that are elevated to the
status of blood, but blood that is found wanting in status before tears.
Running around pointlessly in veins, what is that good for? As long as it
doesn’t flow from the eyes, its not really blood is it?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">A final example
is again from Ghalib’s Persian verse:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">chun ba-Khabar ke na aaNast bakaahad az
sharam</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">maah yak chand babaalad ke jabeen-e-to
shavad</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">loose Urdu
translation:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">jab Khabar hoti hai ke woh, woh nahi hai,
sharm se ghaTtaa hai</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">chaaNd baDhtaa hai ke teri jabeeN ban
jaaye</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">when it thinks
it is not that, then it diminishes in shame</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">the moon waxes
big so that it might become your forehead</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">(English
Translation – Yusuf Husain, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Persian
Ghazals of Ghalib</i>)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">The comparison
between the moon (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">maah</i>) and the
forehead (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">jabeen</i>) is so much part of
the language that there is a word in Urdu that embodies the metaphor: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">maahjabeen</i> (it also a name). Ghalib
makes clever use of this common association in the verse. By now readers know
to look at the crafting of the word order: the ambiguous first line followed by
the second line which delivers the punch at the very end, right before the
refrain (which in this ghazal is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">–e-to
shavad</i>). But the wordplay is also worth noticing here. There is an obvious connection
between diminishing or waning in the first line and increasing or waxing in the
second. Further both these actions are connected to the moon. Finally, the
waxing and the waning of the moon are connected to the beloved’s forehead. The
moon waxes in an attempt to rival the forehead and wanes (in shame) when it
realizes that the task is hopeless.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">No doubt many more
examples can be found in Ghalib as also in other poets. Classical Urdu-Persian
poetry is worthy of many more such pleasurable explorations. It is hoped that
interested readers will explore this and other themes further.</span></div>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8049862144591432726#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;">Notes</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> See S R Faruqi’s “A
Stranger In The City: The Poetics of Sabk-i Hindi,” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Annual of Urdu Studies </span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Vol.
19 (2004)</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8049862144591432726#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> Urdu words have been
transliterated into Roman script using a simplified version of the scheme
developed by Frances Pritchett, available here:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/about/txt_translit.html?</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> Note that even though I
am using the feminine pronoun to describe the beloved, conventionally the
beloved is referred to as male in Urdu poetry. Persian of course has no genders.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> For a description of
the ghazal form see:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/about/x_genre_overview.html?</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[5]</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> All translations are
the author’s unless otherwise noted.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[6]</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> Quoted by Ustad Ahmad
Javed in his lecture on the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sabk-e-hindi</i>
(Indian School) style of Persian poetry The lecture is available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=almrPXMjPMQ&feature=relmfu (see 1:30:00 for
the verse.)</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[7]</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> Prof. Fraces Pritchett
has labeled such verses “mushairah verses.” See http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/apparatus/terms_index.html#mushairah</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-90512447690487797772010-09-08T21:22:00.003-04:002010-09-08T21:30:17.983-04:00Man Kunto Maula at Sufi Dargah in Sarnath, IndiaI have blogged before about the "<a href="http://thenoondaysun.blogspot.com/2008/03/little-qawwali-traditions.html">little qawwali traditions</a>" referring to the countless qawwals who sing at small town dargahs all over South Asia. Here is another example of the same. Bachcha Mohsin Qadri Qawwal and Part from Ghazipur, UP sing qaul at the urs (death anniversary) of a Sufi saint who lies buried in Sarnath near Banaras. Sarnath is famous as a "Buddhist town" because the Buddha preached his first sermon there after gaining enlightenment. But on this day, Muslim weavers from Banaras were to be found in the hundreds, strolling down Sarnath's main thoroughfare usually populated by Buddhist monks and European tourists.<br /><br /><object style="height: 344px; width: 425px;"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rHcDxP6aE5A?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rHcDxP6aE5A?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-69444615177802885562010-09-02T16:21:00.002-04:002010-09-02T16:28:45.095-04:00Interviews with Sunil and Chitra Sahasrabudhey, Vidya Ashram, Sarnath, IndiaDuring my stay in Varanasi for my PhD field work this past year, I sat down for a chat with long-time political activists Sunil and Chitra Sahasrabudhey of <a href="http://vidyaashram.org/">Vidya Ashram</a>. I have uploaded the videos on a <a href="http://vimeo.com/channels/130474">Vimeo channel here</a>. Issues discussed are mainly to do with the social basis for radical change in India today.<br /><br />Sunilji elaborates on his concept of the "bahishkrit samaj," the externed society, i.e that vast majority of India society which did not find a place in the new colonial society and continues to be the "informal economy" today. He also talks about the concept of lokavidya (knowledge among the people) and its relationship to radical politics today.<br /><br />Chitraji discusses feminism from the bahishkrit pespective and also talks about the relationship between lokavidya and the local market.<br /><br />Again all the videos are <a href="http://vimeo.com/channels/130474">cataloged here.</a>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-58957688380514231402010-08-16T20:37:00.002-04:002010-08-16T20:42:49.310-04:00महंगाई समाज में गैर-बराबरी बढ़ाती है (Inflation increases inequality in society)Another article (unedited version) written for <a href="http://vidyaashram.org/">Vidya Ashram</a>'s Hindi monthly <a href="http://vidyaashram.org/lokavidya_panchayat_akhbar.html">Lokavidya Panchayat.</a><br /><br /><br /><u><b>महंगाई समाज में गैर-बराबरी बढ़ाती है</b></u><br /><br />पिछले कुछ सालों से दाल, चावल, चीनी और दूध जैसी जीवनावश्यक वस्तुओं की कीमतों में तेज़ बढौतरी की वजह से देश की आम जनता बहुत परेशान है. महंगाई के इर्द-गिर्द विपक्ष ने अपनी राजनीति खड़ी करने की काफी कोशिश की है. महंगाई के मुद्दे को लेकर यू पी ऐ सरकार के खिलाफ वाम दल भारतीय जनता पार्टी के साथ एक मंच पर खड़े दिखायी पड़े. आखिर महंगाई क्या है और समाज के विभिन्न वर्गों पर इस का क्या असर पड़ता है? आइये इस पर एक नज़र डालें.<br /><br />महंगाई यानी बाज़ार में बिकने वाली चीजों के दाम में वृद्धि. इस वृद्धि के कई कारण हो सकते हैं. जब तेल जैसी वस्तु महँगी होती है तो इसका परिणाम बाज़ार की लग-भाग हर वस्तु पर पड़ता है क्यूंकि तेल का उपयोग हर चीज़ के वितरण में होता है, और इंधन के रूप में यह कई वस्तुओं के निर्माण में भी आवश्यक होता है. महंगाई की एक और आम वजह है. जब आर्थिक विकास बहुत तेज़ गति से होता है, तो समाज का वह तबका जो विकास का लाभ उठा रहा है, ज़्यादा पैसा खर्च करने की क्षमता पा जाता है. इस तबके की बढती हुई मांग अगर आपूर्ति से ज़्यादा हुई तो दाम बढ़ते हैं और महंगाई का दौर शुरू होता है. इसके अलावा किसी विशेष वस्तु के दाम में बढौतरी की और भी वजहें हो सकती हैं. जैसे खाद्य वस्तुओं का ही उदहारण ले लीजिये. इसके पीछे सरकार की निति और शेयर बाज़ार की सट्टेबाजी का भी हाथ था. सरकार ने आर्थिक उदारीकरण के नाम पर बहुराष्ट्रीय और अन्य बड़े निगमों को स्टॉक मार्केट पर जीवनावश्यक वस्तुओं में व्यापार करने की छूट दे दी और इस सट्टेबाजी का नतीजा सामने है.<br /><br />महंगाई के सरकारी आकडे पूरा सच नहीं बताते क्यूंकि यह आंकड़े कई वस्तुओं की औसत कीमत में वृद्धि को दर्शाते हैं, और यह बात छुपाते हैं कि जीवनावश्यक वस्तुओं की कीमतें अन्य कीमतों के मुकाबले बहुत तेज़ी से बढ़ी हैं. उदहारण के तौर पर पिछले साल सरकारी आंकड़ो के अनुसार महंगाई केवल ३ % थी जबकि उसी दौरान खाद्य पदार्थों के भाव २०% बढे. और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण दम, श्रम का दाम (यानी आय या मजदूरी) नहीं बढ़ी है. अगर हर चीज़ के दाम में एक जैसे वृद्धि होती है, तो इसका जीवन स्तर पर कोई ख़ास असर नहीं होता. यानी अगर आटे-दाल के भाव के साथ-साथ मजदूरी या वेतन भी उतनी ही तेज़ी से बढे तो इसका कोई परिणाम नहीं होगा. दाल का भाव दुगना हुआ और साथ ही साथ मजदूरी भी दुगनी हुई, तो कोई परेशानी की बात नहीं. लेकिन ऐसा नहीं होता. हमारे देश की अधिकांश जनता जो लोकविद्याधर हैं, फिर वह किसान हो, कारीगर हो, छोटे धंधे वाले हो, इनकी आय सरकारी या अन्य संघठित उद्योगों में पाए जाने वाले वेतन कि तरह महंगाई के हिसाब से अपने-आप नहीं बढती. हाल में जो महंगाई का दौर चला है उसमे एक साल में डालें, दूध, चावल, फल आदि की कीमतों ने तो आस्मां छु लिया है (पांच साल में ४०-८० प्रतिशत बढौतरी) पर किसानों, कारीगरों, और मजदूरों की आय में बढौतरी नहीं के बराबर हुई है. बल्कि कई जगहों पर, जैसे हथकरघा उद्योग में और किसानी में, आय या मजदूरी घटी है. जब मजदूरी घटती है और कीमतें बढती हैं, तो बाज़ार जाने वाले को दुगना सदमा पहुँचता है. <br /><br />मगर समस्या केवल यहाँ तक सिमित नहीं है. महंगाई के दुष्परिणाम सब पर एक सामान नहीं पड़ते. महंगाई न सिर्फ तमाम लोकाविद्याधर समाज का जीवन स्तर घटाती है, बल्कि गैर-बराबरी भी बढ़ाती है. इसका असर अमीरों और मध्यम वर्गियों से ज़्यादा गरीबों पर पड़ता है. इसकी कई वजहें हैं. जैसे हम पहले कह चुके हैं, माध्यम वर्ग के वेतन महंगाई के साथ बढ़ते हैं जबकि किसानों, कारीगरों और छोटे धन्धेवालों की आय में वृद्धि हो यह ज़रूरी नहीं है. एक और वजह यह है की पैसेवालों के मुकाबले गरीब अपने धन का बड़ा हिस्सा नगद के रूप में रखता है, और पूँजी निवेश नहीं करता (जैसे शेयर, ज़मीन, अन्य संपत्ति आदि). महंगाई की वजह से रुपये की कीमत (उसकी चीज़ें खरीदने की क्षमता) घटती है, और जिनकी बचत अन्य किसी रूप के मुकाबले नगद रुपये में ज़्यादा है, वे इससे अधिक प्रभावित होते हैं. तीसरी बात ये है की आम आदमी के बजट में खाद्य पदार्थों (आता, दाल, चावल, चीनी, दूध, सब्जी, फल) की अहमियत, पैसेवालों के बजट के मुकाबले बहुत जयादा है. इस लिए जब इन चीज़ों के दाम अन्य चीज़ों के मुकाबले ज़्यादा तेज़ी से बढ़ते है (जैसे कि पिछले कुछ सालों से लगातार हो रहा है) तो इसका दुष्परिणाम गरीब ही ज़्यादा महसूस करता है. एक और बात भी है. बाज़ार में खरीदनेवाले के लिए जो खर्च है, बेचनेवाले के लिए वही आय है, और अगर तैयार माल की कीमत बढ़ी मगर मजदूरी (जो लागत का हिस्सा है) वह नहीं बढ़ी तो इसमें मजदूर का नुकसान और मालिक का फायदा है. इसलिए महंगाई खरीदनेवालों से बेचनेवालों, मजदूरों से मालिकों, और गरीबों से अमीरों तक आय का पुनर्वितरण करती है. कई विकासशील देशों का अध्ययन करने के बाद अर्थशास्त्री इस नतीजे पर पहुंचे हैं, के इन सारी वजहों से महंगाई समाज में गैरबराबरी बढ़ा सकती है.<br /><br />एक बात यहाँ कहना मुनासिब होगा. अगर अन्न बेचनेवालों का महंगाई की वजह से फायदा हो रहा है तो क्या महंगाई किसानों के लिए अच्छी है? बिलकुल नहीं. पहली बात यह है की कई किसान, जैसे गन्ने के किसान, प्याज, कपास आदि जैसे नगद की फसल करने वाले किसान दाल, चावल, सब्जी, किसी भी अन्य उपभोगता जैसे बाज़ार से ही खरीदते हैं. अगर उनके फसल की कीमत आटे-दाल-चीनी जितनी नहीं बढती तो उन्हें भी महंगाई से नुकसान ही होता है. दूसरी बात ये है की जिन किसानों की फसलों के भाव बाज़ार में बेतहाशा बढे हैं, उन्हें इस बढौतरी का लाभ नहीं पहुंचा है. किसान को मिलने वाली कीमत और फुटकर कीमत में का अंतर लगातार बढ़ा है, और इसका फायदा व्यापारियों को हुआ है. नतीजा ये सामने आता है की आम जनता दोनों तरफ से मार खा रही है.<br /><br />तो क्या यह संभव है कि महंगाई बिलकुल हो ही न? क्या कीमतें ज्यों-की-त्यों रहनी चाहियें? ऐसा सोचने में भी दिक्कत है. हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था एक पूंजीवादी अर्थव्यवस्था है, जिसमे समाज के अनगिनत अंतर्विरोधों का आर्थिक विकास के ज़रिये ही प्रबंधन किया जाता है. और जहाँ आर्थिक विकास हो रहा है, वहां महंगाई तो रहेगी. अगर सरकार रोज़गार बढ़ाना चाहती है, तो इस पूंजीवादी व्यवस्था के तहत उसका ऐसा करना महंगाई को भी बढ़ाएगा. इसकी एक वजह यह है की रोज़गार बढ़ने पर मजदूरी या आय भी बढ़ती है, और मुनाफे का दर कायम रखने के लिए वस्तुओं की कीमतें भी बढती हैं. लेकिन इस पूंजीवादी ढांचे के अन्दर भी यह सवाल तो उठना ही चाहिए की कौनसी चीज़ें महँगी हो रही हैं? जीवनावश्यक वस्तुओं के मुकाबले आराम की वस्तुएं महँगी हो तो हर्ज नहीं है. दूसरी बड़ी बात यह है की संघठन के मार्फ़त असंघठित लोकाविद्याधर समाज को महंगाई के मुकाबले अपनी आय बढाने की लगातार कोशिश करनी होगी. वरना महंगाई गरीबों को मारेगी और महंगाई घटाने को लिए गए सरकारी कदम भी उन्हें परेशानी में ही डालेंगे.<br /><br />अमित बसोलेAmit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-2056817695254307532010-08-16T20:26:00.004-04:002010-08-16T20:37:53.198-04:00गरीबी नहीं गैरबराबरी की वार्ता चाहिए (We need a public discourse on inequality, not on poverty)<a href="http://www.vidyaashram.org/">Vidya Ashram</a>, Sarnath, Varanasi, India has recently started publishing a Hindi monthly with the aim of offering analysis, commentary and new from the point of view of a people's knowledge movement. The paper is called Lokavidya Panchayat and issues will be available <a href="http://vidyaashram.org/lokavidya_panchayat_akhbar.html">here</a>.<br /><br />An article I wrote for the July issue is below in its unedited version.<br /><br /><u><b>गरीबी नहीं, गैरबराबरी की वार्ता चाहिए</b></u><br /><br />वैश्वीकरण और नयी आर्थिक निति के चलते देश में गरीबी बढ़ी है या घटी है इस पर अर्थशास्त्री लगातार बहस करते दिखाई पड़ते हैं. गरीबी घटी है सिद्ध करने के लिए यह आंकड़ा दिखाया जाता है की १९९३-९४ में देश की ३०% आबादी गरीबी रेखा के नीचे थी जबकि २००४-०५ तक यह संख्या घट कर लगभग २१% हो चुकी थी. लेकिन यह "गरीबी रेखा" (रुपये ११ प्रति दिन प्रति व्यक्ति खर्च कर पाना) इतनी बेमतलब है की सरकार की ही एक कमिशन (अर्जुन सेनगुप्ता कमिशन) ने हाल ही में जारी की गयी रिपोर्ट में इस बात पर जोर दिया है की अगर इस रेखा को हम २० रुपये प्रति दिन प्रति व्यक्ति तक ले आयें तो देश की ७७% आबादी गरीब कहलाएगी. साथ ही साथ इस रिपोर्ट ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया की महज़ ७% लोग सरकारी अथवा निजी नौकरियों में महीने के अनुसार नियमित वेतन पाते हैं. बाकी ९३% असंघठित क्षेत्र में हैं और उनकी आय या रोज़गार की कोई गारंटी नहीं होती है. इस ९३% में शामिल हैं सारे किसान, कारीगर, छोटे दुकानदार, महिलाऐं, यानी वह तमाम लोकाविद्याधर जो अपने ज्ञान और हुनर के बल पर जीविका चलते हैं और इस पूरे समाज की नीव डालते हैं. सेनगुप्ता कमीशन का यह एलान की देश के ७७% लोग मात्र २० रुपये या उससे कम में जीविका चलाते हैं, आर्थिक विकास दर के दीवाने शासन-प्रशासन में किसी को रास नहीं आया है और इस भयंकर सच्चाई लो लेकर कदम उठाना तो दूर, अप्रैल २००९ में पूरी की गयी इस रिपोर्ट को औपचारिक तौर पर प्रधान मंत्री के दफ्तर में स्वीकार तक नहीं किया गया है.<br /><br />सेनगुप्ता रिपोर्ट "इंडिया शायनिंग" की सच्चाई क्या है इस बात को तो उजागर करता है, लेकिन वैश्वीकरण के युग की सबसे बड़ी "उपलब्धि," तेज़ गति से बढती आर्थिक विषमता, को नहीं छूता. देश में गरीबी की तो लगातार वार्ता होती रहती है. लेकिन इस वार्ता का फायदा गरीबों को नहीं बल्कि उसके अमीर तबके को होता है. क्यूंकि जितनी ज़्यादा बात गरीबी की होगी उतना ही गैरबराबरी से ध्यान हटाया जा सकता है. वार्ता में यह बात लाना ज़रूरी है की जहाँ एक ओर तीन चौथाई आबादी अत्यंत गरीब है, वहीँ भारत "डालर अरबपतियों" (जिनकी संपत्ति सौ करोड़ डालर है) की गिनती में दुनिया में ५ नंबर पर पहुँच गया है. महज़ दो सालों (२००७ से २००९) में डालर अरबपतियों की संख्या २५ से बढ़कर ५० हो गयी है. ब्रिटेन और कैनाडा जैसे विकसित देशों को भी हमने इस मामले में पीछे छोड़ दिया है. गरीबी बढ़ी हो चाहे घटी हो, इसमें कोई दो राय नहीं है की नयी आर्थिक निति के चलते गैरबराबरी हद से ज़्यादा बढ़ चुकी है. और यह न सिर्फ भारत में बल्कि दुनिया के कई छोटे-बड़े देशों में हुआ है. जितनी आर्थिक विषमता अमरीका में १९३० में थी, आज फिर उतनी ही है. जो थोड़े-बहुत फायदे इस दौरान अमरीका की आम जनता को हुए थे, वे उदारीकरण और बाजारीकरण के ज़रिये वापस ले लिए गए हैं.<br /><br />वैश्वीकरण जहाँ जाता है, अपने साथ आर्थिक विषमता लाता है. १९९०-९१ के बाद भारत में भी गैरबराबरी बढती चली जा रही है. उधारण के तौर पर अस्सी के दशक में सबसे अमीर १% लोगों के पास देश की ५% संपत्ति थी. सन २००० के आते आते यह बढ़ कर १०% बन चुकी थी. आज भारत के सबसे अमीर १०% लोगों के हाथों में उतनी ही संपत्ति है जितनी बाकि के सारे (९०%) लोगों की कुल मिला कर है. यानी चंद शहरों में रहने वाले सरकारी या निजी नौकरियां करने वाले कर्मचारी अथवा कारोबार करने वाले पूंजीपति एक तरफ, और देश की सारी जनता दूसरी तरफ. गाँव की हालत अलग से देखि जाए तो वह और भी बुरी है. वैश्वीकरण के चलते शहर के माध्यम और उच्च वर्गियों को जो फायदा हुआ है वह तो इस बात में साफ़ दिखाई देता है की वे अब पहले से ४०% ज़्यादा खर्च करने की क्षमता रखते हैं. और इस नए खर्चिलेपन का कुच्छ लाभ शहरों के गरीबों को मिल भी सकता है. लेकिन गाँव की ८०% आबादी (यानी देश के बहुसंख्य लोग) पहले से कम खर्च कर पा रही है. यानी शुद्ध और तुलनात्मक नज़रिए दोनों से ही गाँव और भी अधिक गरीब हुआ है.<br /><br />अगर उपरोक्त आंकड़े कुछ अजनबी से दिखाई पड़ते हैं तो उन आंकड़ों की तरफ देखें जिनसे हम सब भली भांति परिचित हैं. असंघठित क्षेत्र में काम करने वाले तमाम कारीगर मुश्किल से १००-२०० रुपये रोज़ कमा पाते हैं. महिला कारीगरों को १०० रुपये रोज़ भी नसीब नहीं हैं और ५०-६० रुपये रोज़ में गुज़ारा करना पड़ता है. दूसरी और निचले तबके के सरकारी कर्मचारी भी ४००-५०० रुपये रोज़ (१० से १५ हज़ार महिना) कमा लेते हैं. और १०००-२००० रुपये रोज़ महानगरों के आफिसों में काम करने वालों के लिए कोई बड़ी बात नहीं है. अगर हम किसी से पूंछे के ऐसा क्यों है तो यह जवाब अक्सर मिलेगा की ऐसा इसलिए है की किसान और कारीगर पढ़े-लिखे नहीं होते हैं. जब यह बात कही जाती है तो इसका मतलब यह होता है की किसान और कारीगर विद्या, नारी विद्या समाज में तिरस्कृत है, इस विद्या को विद्या ही नहीं समझा जता है. वर्ना क्या हमारे किसान और कारीगर स्कूल-कालेज में पढ़े लिखे लोगों से कम हुनर और जानकारी रखते हैं? उनके श्रम और ज्ञान की कीमत इतनी कम क्यूँ कर दी गयी है की एक कुशल बुनकर को बिनकारी के मुकाबले मनरेगा में मिट्टी फेंकने से ज़्यादा कमाई होती है? और इसे अर्थशास्त्री और आर्थिक नीतियाँ बनाने वाले एक प्रगतिशील कदम भी मानते हैं!<br /><br />यह बात अब बिलकुल साफ़ हो चुकी है की उदारीकरण किसानों, कारीगरों, छोटे दुकानदारों, महिलाओं, यानी सारे लोकाविद्याधर समाज को नए सिरे से उजाड़ने का कार्यक्रम है. बड़े शहरों में रहनेवाली देश की १०% आबादी की चकाचौन्द लगातार मीडिया में दिखाने से यह बात कितने समय तक छुपी रह सकती है की ९०% लोगों की ज़िन्दगी बढती गैरबराबरी की वजह से और भी बदतर होती जा रही है? गरीबी रेखा के नीचे रहनेवालों की घटती संख्या दिखा कर हमें फुसलाया नहीं जा सकता. अगर इस देश में सभी बराबर के नागरिक हैं तो सारे राष्ट्रीय संसाधनों जैसे शिक्षा, स्वस्थ्य, बिजली, वित्त, बाज़ार, में सब का बराबर का अधिकार है. जिसको दो वक़्त का खाना भी नहीं मिलता उसे दो वक़्त खाना दे दिया जाए तो गरीबी हटाने का दवा हम कर सकते हैं. लेकिन हम इंसानों की बात कर रहे हैं, जानवरों की नहीं. और इंसान को सिर्फ खाने की नहीं, बल्कि, शिक्षा, स्वस्थ, मनोरजन, काम, बाज़ार, सभी की ज़रुरत है. अगर हम केवल गरीबी की बात करते रहेंगे तो कभी यह सवाल नहीं उठा पाएंगे की जो ज़रूरतें बड़े शहरों के वासियों की हैं क्या वही ज़रूरतें गांववासियों की नहीं हैं? शाम के वक़्त पढाई, मनोरंजन आदि की लिय बिजली की जितनी ज़रुरत एक शहरी को है क्या उतनी ही एक गांववासी को नहीं है? गैरबराबरी का सवाल केवल आय या संपत्ति के बटवारे तक ही सिमित नहीं है, बल्कि इसके ऐसे कई आयाम हैं. इस लेखों की शंखला में हम इन आयामों को उजागर करने का प्रयास करेंगे।<br /><br />अमित बसोलेAmit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-26228662313225571192010-07-26T18:58:00.002-04:002010-07-26T19:11:19.410-04:00Subverting Our Epics: Mani Ratnam's Retelling of the RamayanaA review I wrote of the recent film Raavan came out in the Economic and Political Weekly last week. It can be found here:<br /><a href="http://epw.in/epw/user/viewAbstract.jsp#" onclick="return openFile('14968','pdf')"><br /></a> <p>Mani Ratnam’s film Raavan depicts the contradiction between the adivasis and the State through the framework of the Ramayana. The film, however, deviates from the message of the Ramayana, and raises the disturbing possibility that our myths of morality and bravery are someone else’s stories of rape and conquest. The recasting of Raavan as the wronged subaltern and Ram as the scheming agent of imperialism brings to mind similar reinterpretations of other Hindu legends by Phule, which completely subvert the orthodox interpretation. In the context of the ongoing struggle between the tribals and the State, one hopes that the movie Raavan might stir this debate up once again. <a href="http://epw.in/epw/user/viewAbstract.jsp#" onclick="return openFile('14968','pdf')">View Full Article</a> </p>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-18055285816892415732010-04-10T22:15:00.002-04:002010-07-26T19:11:48.564-04:00Knowledge Satyagraha: Towards a People’s Knowledge MovementVideo of a talk I gave on the ideas and work of <a href="http://www.vidyaashram.org">Vidya Ashram</a>, a collective that I am part of here in Varanasi and where I am based this year. The rest of the talks at this conference (Critical Point of View: Wikipedia Research) are <a href="http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/videos/">available here</a>.<br /><br /><object width="400" height="225"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10800206&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1"><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10800206&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="225"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/10800206">Amit Basole (IN) Knowledge Satyagraha: Towards a People’s Knowledge Movement</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/networkcultures">network cultures</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-26871560830914119342010-04-10T22:13:00.001-04:002010-07-26T19:12:00.915-04:00The Almond Workers of Karawal Nagar, Delhi: A ReportOn a brief visit to Delhi in January 2010, I went to Karawal Nagar to speak to the activists of the Badam Mazdoor Union and also to talk to some workers who were involved in a recent strike. See my report on this huge informal sector strike (20,000 workers participating for two weeks) here:<br /><br /><a href="http://sanhati.com/excerpted/2111/">The Almond Workers of Karawal Nagar, Delhi: A Report</a>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-13856338703539800552010-04-10T22:08:00.003-04:002010-07-26T19:12:14.753-04:00Dantewada, Dec 14th to 17th 2009: Three days in the cauldron, on the eve of the PadyatraSome of my readers know that I have been in India since September 2009 working on my dissertation research. I have had little time to write on the blog although there has been no shortage of things to write about.<br /><br />A couple of my recent travel reports were published on sanhati.com. One on my experience of visiting Himanshu Kumar's Vanavasi Chetna Ashram in Dantewada (the site of the latest battle between the Maoists and the CRPF) is available here:<br /><br /><a href="http://sanhati.com/excerpted/2041/">Dantewada, Dec 14th to 17th 2009: Three days in the cauldron, on the eve of the Padyatra</a><br /><br />Here is an audio recording of a press conference on the Maoist issue held in the Raipur Press Club by HImanshu Kumar, Sandeep Pandey (NAPM), and Rajendra Saiil (PUCL-Chhattisgarh):<br /><br /><object width="400" height="300"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8574824&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1"><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8574824&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/8574824">Press Conference on Dantewada, Raipur, Dec. 17, 2009</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user2920116">amit basole</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-39577226149293030002009-07-21T17:48:00.004-04:002009-07-21T19:11:50.235-04:00Ghalib: Idols and the Ka'baWith this verse we are concluding, at least for now, our collaborative series of commentaries on Ghalib.<br /><div class="verse"><div class="boxer"> <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />{231,6}<br /></span> <p class="text"> <em class="urdu">go vaa;N nahii;N pah vaa;N ke nikaale hu))e to hai;N<br />ka((be se un buto;N ko bhii nisbat hai duur kii</em> </p> <p class="translation">1. even though [they] are not there, still [they] have been expelled from there<br /><class="translation">2. with the ka'ba even those/ also those idols have a distant relationship</class="translation"></p><p class="translation"><em style="font-family: 'titus cyberbit basic','lucida sans unicode';" class="urdu">nisbat</em> : 'Referring (to, - <em style="font-family: 'titus cyberbit basic','lucida sans unicode';" class="urdu">se</em> ); deriving (from); --reference, respect, regard (to); attribute; relation, connexion; affinity; analogy; comparison; --ratio; proportion; --relationship by marriage; matrimonial alliance; betrothal; --a relation, or connexion; --a conundrum'. (Platts p.1137)</p><p class="translation"><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/231/231_06.html?unicode">Click here</a> for translation and commentary on Desertful of Roses. <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/ghalib-%E2%80%93-30-similarities-and-differences/">Click here</a> for parallel commentary on The South Asian Idea</p><p class="translation">A charming and straightforward verse, though not without its hidden depths, as we explore here. The historical reference necessary to appreciate the verse is the episode in early Islamic history when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) orders the Ka'ba cleared of all idols since these can have no place in a monotheistic faith which preaches belief in the one abstract God.<br /></p><p class="translation">But Ghalib is not content with this. So what if the idols are not in the Ka'ba, have they not been expelled from there? Hence they have a relationship, albeit a distant one, to the Ka'ba. One cannothelp but think of Ghalib (or the archetypal poet/sinner) who has similarly been expelled from the mosque, but seems to be saying: sure, I have been removed, I am no longer welcome there in the house of worship, but at least I have been expelled (as opposed to never having been there at all), so I have a relationship still, its one of expulsion!</p><p class="translation">This theme, that even expulsion or a negative relationship is better than nothing at all is explored by Ghalib in other ways where the beloved's greatest "sitam" is to ignore the lover. <a href="http://thenoondaysun.blogspot.com/2009/02/ghalib-indifference-is-worse-than.html">Click here for an example</a>. To be expelled from her mehfil would be a far greater honor than to not be there in the first place due to neglect! In a volte face here it is the idols (but, which is the usual metaphor for a beautiful person or the beloved) who are being expelled from God's mehfil. And interestingly some of these idols were indeed of godesses (banat allah or daughters of God).</p><p class="translation">Philosophically Ghalib seems interested in exploring the relationship or connection between True and False belief. He seems to challenge the everyday perceptions of idol-worshipers (but-parastaaN) (Hindus) and idol-crushers (Muslims) as being really different, unrelated when it comes to matters of faith. He is obviously constrained by space in how much he can say in two lines, but does a great job, in the process using the word "but" (idol) in its non-metaphorical form.<br /></p><p class="translation">Structurally, the she'r follows all the usual rules to make it work in a recitation. The first line gives almost nothing away, it is too general. The second line holds back the punch until we hear the word "nisbet" and then if we have kept the radif (rhyme scheme) in mind, we can fill in the end in unison with the poet, since "duur" is the obvious choice. In terms of wordplay, Ghalib uses the potential hidden in "bhi" which doubles as "also" and "even." Both those meanings work here, even though "even" seems to work better in context.</p><p class="translation"></p></div></div>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-2373506488897601772009-06-28T21:55:00.002-04:002009-06-28T22:10:28.012-04:00Ghalib sets off for Mount SinaiThis week, Ghalib at his irreverent best.<br /><div><div> <h2>{231,7}</h2> <p> <i>kyaa far.z hai kih sab ko mile ek-saa javaab<br /> aa))o nah ham bhii sair kare;N koh-e :tuur kii</i> </p> <p> 1a) is there an assumption/obligation that all would get a similar answer?<br /> 1b) what assumption/obligation is there that all would get a similar answer?<br /> 1c) what an assumption it is-- that all would get a similar <span style="display: block;" id="formatbar_Buttons"><span class="on" style="display: block;" id="formatbar_CreateLink" title="Link" onmouseover="ButtonHoverOn(this);" onmouseout="ButtonHoverOff(this);" onmouseup="" onmousedown="CheckFormatting(event);FormatbarButton('richeditorframe', this, 8);ButtonMouseDown(this);"><img src="img/blank.gif" alt="Link" class="gl_link" border="0" /></span></span>answer!<br /> <br /> 2) come on, won't you? let's even/also us take a stroll around <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/apparatus/names_index.html?#tur" target="_blank">Mount Tur</a></p> </div></div><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/231/231_07.html?">Click here</a> for translations and commentary on The Desertful of Roses. Parallel commentary on <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/ghalib-29-on-being-modern/">The South Asian Idea</a>.<br /><br />This verse is impossible to interpret until we understand the significance of Mount Sinai (koh-e-tuur). As many readers will be aware this is the mountain on which Moses goes in order to ask God for an appearance, so that his people would believe that Moses was truly a prophet. The answer (jawaab) that Moses receives is "No! You cannot behold the radiance of God." (I am not sure what the exact words are according to the Quran. I am giving the gist here). There follows a bolt of divine lightning which burns the mountain and strikes Moses down.<br /><br />Now for Ghalib's take on this story. Frances Pritchett, who offers us the translations above, calls this verse "mischievous." We could call it downright cheeky and insolent (gustaaKh). Why so? There are multiple reasons for it. First, taking the verse as a whole there is the basic premise: "it is not necessary/why is it necessary that everyone should receive the same answer (No!)? Come let us try our own luck, who knows maybe we will be graced by the vision that was denied Moses." This is already a cheeky proposition. But the way it is made, as Pritchett notes, is even better. Ghalib uses the expression "sair karna," i.e. to take a stroll. So we are not setting out determined or prepared or afraid or any such thing. We are just out for a stroll and we will see if we might not get a glimpse of God.<br /><br />As the parallel commentary on The South Asian Idea notes, we see in the two lines a link to tradition (via the symbolism of Mount Sinai) and to modernity (via the questioning of received wisdom). The questioning is effected via the clever use of "kyaa" which as the translation above shows is compatible with a few different readings. A derisive reading, "as if everyone would get the same answer, what a thought!" or a more innocent question "what is the necessity of everyone getting the same answer?"<br /><br />Finally let talk about the structural properties of the verse itself. As always, the suspense is withheld till the last minute. We don't get the full import of the verse, or indeed in this case, we do not understand anything specific about what is being said until we hear the rhyme word, tuur. Fran Pritchett makes this point very well. Next, commentators of this verse have also noted the use of the very colloquial "aao nah" which we use in contemporary language as an expression of familiarity. If fact all the words used are of a simple nature. The power of the verse lies in the bringing together of simple words and sentiments with the complex valences associated with a significant event (Moses going to Sinai).<br /><br />From the point of view of theme-creation (mazmuN afiirnii) I wonder if one can point to a novel theme being generated here to do with "cosmic sawaal-jawaab" the questions posed by humans and answers given by life. This theme would be a sort of variation on the more traditional sawaal-jawaab between the lover and the beloved in which also the lover repeatedly asks the question only to receive the predictable answer (No!). Perhaps readers who know more poetry would know of a precedence for this "cosmic sawaal-jawaab" theme.Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-76217949617171502192009-06-17T22:39:00.001-04:002009-06-17T22:43:05.714-04:00Ghalib is...GodWe are back after a long hiatus with an ever-green favorite.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode'; font-size: 16px;"><h2 style="margin: 0px; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode',sans-serif; font-weight: normal;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt;">{32,1}</span></h2><p style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode',sans-serif;"><b style="font-weight: normal;"><i style="font-style: oblique;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">nah thaa kuchh to ;xudaa thaa kuchh nah hotaa to ;xudaa hotaa</span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span><i style="font-style: oblique;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">;Duboyaa mujh ko hone ne nah hotaa mai;N to kyaa hota</span></i></b></p></span><p> 1a) when there was nothing, then God existed; if nothing existed, then God would exist<br /> 1b) when I was nothing, then God existed; if I were nothing, then God would exist<br /> 1c) when I was nothing, then I was God; if I were nothing, then I would be God</p> <p> 2a) 'being' drowned me; if I were not I, then what would I be?<br />2b) 'being' drowned me; if I did not exist, then what would I be?<br />2c) 'being' drowned me; if I were not I, then what would exist?<br />2d) 'being' drowned me; if I did not exist, then what would exist?<br />2e) 'being' drowned me; if I were not I, then so what?<br />2f) 'being' drowned me; if I did not exist, then so what? </p><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/032/32_01.html?">Translations</a> are by FWP. <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/032/32_01.html?">Click here</a> for commentary on Desertful of Roses. And the parallel entry on The South Asian Idea <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/ghalib-%E2%80%93-28-who%E2%80%99s-afraid-of-multiple-meanings/">is here</a>.<br /><br />This is probably one of the most famous verses in Urdu poetry and justly so. FWP calls it "a two-line complete portable library of possible existential speculations." And as you can see from her possible translations above she does an fantastic job pulling out the possible meanings hidden in the verse. In fact, until I saw her commentary on the verse I had rather a poor understanding of it merely as a combination of 1a and 2b. And many native Hindi/Urdu speakers I have talked to haven't grasped the magic of the omitted subject which is revealed spectacularly here. Ghalib exploits the ambiguity caused by omitted subjects all the time to great effect but this is truly mind-boggling. And as Shamsur Rahman Faruqi notes multiple profound meanings are generated via the use of extremely simple language. Only one word, Khuda is Persian and that too a very common Persian word. This verse also perfectly illustrates Ghalib's famous description of poetry: bhaii, shayari ma'ani aafirnii hai, kafiyah paimaaii nahiN hai" (my friend, poetry is meaning creation, not the measuring out of rhymes).<br /><br />In a mushairah where the first line would be repeated several times to allow people to absorb it an interesting effect is produced. One may be inclined after just hearing the first line to go for interpretation 1a. Other meanings are hidden and the line appear well crafted but somewhat plain apart from the obvious existential profundity (what does it mean for nothing to exist?). But then after the seemingly impersonal reflection on existence of the universe, Ghalib surprises us with the second line coming straight to the highly personal: "being was my downfall, if I had not been [I], then what would [I] have been?" When we encounter the personal note in line 2, we go back to line 1 and find a hidden personal reflection there too. This is FWP's 1c: when I was nothing, then I was God; if I were nothing, then I would be God.<br /><br />This then makes line 2 appear to us in a new light. What Ghalib is effectively saying is that if he had not taken this human form he would have been one with God, one with that which is beyond existence and non-existence. In this interpretation (1c, 2b), the question kyaa hotaa? is a regret of sorts. "See, if only I had not existed what I could have been (God)." Of course the irony of expressing non-existence as a form of existence (na hota to kyaa hota?) is also not lost on Ghalib.<br /><br />The second interpretation of "to kyaa hotaa" which is "so what" rather than "what could have been" is also intriguing. For it says, if I had not existed, so what? After all, it would be a good thing to not exist. Because then I would have been God.<br /><br />It reminds me of a qawwali by Aziz Mian in which he weaves this couplet of Ghalib in the middle of the following words:<br />yahaaN hona na hona hai aur na hona ain-e-hona hai<br />here existence is non-existence and non-existence the essence of existence<br /><br />And this train of thoughts ends with Aziz Mian saying:<br />na yeh duniya bani hoti na yeh aalam banaa hota<br />aur woh bandaa kise kehte aur woh kiskaa Khuda hota?<br /><br />neither the world would have been, nor would time/space<br />then who would He call his follower and whose God would He be?<br /><br />I haven't yet managed to discover who has penned this lines above.<br /><br />Finally, I can't resist juxtaposing Ghalib's pontifications on the nature of existence with the famous creation hymn of the Rig Veda (translation by Wendy Doniger). Note the very last line.<br /><p align="center"><span style="font-size: 11pt;font-family:Arial;" ><span style="font-weight: normal;">There was neither non-existence nor existence then.<br /> There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.<br /> What stirred?<br /> Where?<br /> In whose protection?<br /> Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?</span></span></p> <p align="center"><span style="font-size: 11pt;font-family:Arial;" ><span style="font-weight: normal;">There was neither death nor immortality then.<br /> There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.<br /> That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.<br /> Other than that there was nothing beyond.</span></span></p><p align="center">[deleted text]<br /><span style="font-size: 11pt;font-family:Arial;" ><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span></p><p align="center"> <span style="font-size: 11pt;font-family:Arial;" ><span style="font-weight: normal;">Who really knows?<br /> Who will here proclaim it?<br /> Whence was it produced? <br /> Whence is this creation?<br /> The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.<br /> Who then knows whence it has arisen?</span></span></p> <p align="center"><span style="font-size: 11pt;font-family:Arial;" ><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Whence this creation has arisen<br /> � perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not �<br /> the One who looks down on it,<br /> in the highest heaven, only He knows<br /> or perhaps He does not know.</span></span></p>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-6341354276775686762009-06-17T15:25:00.001-04:002009-06-17T22:43:17.011-04:00The “People’s Movement Left” and Rammanohar Lohia: an evaluation at a time of crisis<p><b>June 13, 2009</b></p> <!--content--> <p>By Amit Basole, Sanhati</p> <p>Simplifying matters somewhat at the present juncture three significant streams of Left political practice can be identified in India: first, the Communist Parliamentary Left or what <a href="http://sanhati.com/excerpted/1540/">Dipankar Basu has termed the Social Democratic Left (SDL)</a> which includes the CPM, CPI and their allies, second what may be termed the Communist non-Parliamentary Left (CnPL) which includes CPI (Maoist), CPI (ML) and smaller Maoist Parties and third, the People’s Movement Left (PML), sometimes called the “non-Party Left,” which is also largely non-Parliamentary (though for reasons different from the Maoist Left). PML includes various organizations belonging to the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) and other related movements (such as the anti- caste movement, the new farmers’ movements).</p> <p>This essay argues that the socialist tradition that lies behind the PML has much to offer to overcome the shortcomings of the Marxist Left. </p> <p>The SDL faces multiple crises at this juncture, some of which have been extensively analyzed following its electoral defeat. Whatever may be its failings on the leadership and organizational fronts (and those are many), it is clear that there is a profound crisis of thought also. The SDL suffers from excessive attachment to a Eurocentric and stagist theory of history (wherein industrial capitalism is a necessary step to socialism) and an economic determinist philosophy (which gives short shrift to non-economic forms of oppression and expression). In addition its theory does not allow significant revolutionary agency to peasants and informal sector workers who constitute the overwhelming majority of the working population of India. The demise of the Soviet Union has added to the bankruptcy of thought and the feeling of “TINA.”</p> <p>The CnPL is also unable to break completely from a Eurocentric form of Marxism and a stagist theory of history, albeit due to its Maoist moorings it is sensitive to an ex-colonial reality not only in practice but also at the level of theory, and recognizes the central role of the peasantry in revolutionary transformation of society. Despite significant experiments in direct democracy as well as economic development in Maoist controlled territories, its strategy of armed struggle and its boycott of parliamentary politics has precipitated a crisis of its own as the State retaliates in a violent manner, and the working population is caught between the two. The ensuing cycle of violence has claimed many lives and within current praxis there does not seem to be an end to it. Furthermore, arguably the abdication of the Chinese leadership to a particularly vicious form of industrial capitalism may have contributed to a muddying of the CnPL’s vision for a future Indian society. </p> <p>The PML has risen to prominence in the 1980s and 90s, as the Soviet and Chinese experiments were running their course. It is thus less burdened with their failures. It is also more rooted theoretically in the Indian political tradition, drawing more inspiration from Gandhi rather than from Marx. It has largely relied on non-violent methods of resistance and some of its ideologues speak of “alternative models of development” in a manner reminiscent of Gandhi’s critique of development. However it seems to lack theoretical coherence since it takes the form of myriad local struggles over jal, jungle aur zameen (water, forest and land). The degree to which a given local movement challenges the established order also varies greatly across the country. Hence it is difficult to ascertain the revolutionary potential of the sum of such movements. Notwithstanding this it has received widespread support from Left intellectuals, academic ones in particular, perhaps because it is unburdened with failures of “actually-existing Socialisms” of the 20th century.</p> <p>The theoretical backbones of the SDL and the CnPL are well-known. The writings of Marx, Lenin and Mao stand tall in this regard. The theoretical basis of the PML is less clear but in fact has a long and distinguished career in India. This is a type of Socialism that takes not only Marx but also Gandhi seriously and attempts to construct both a political practice and a vision for a future society different from orthodox Marxism. In this article I will use Rammanohar Lohia’s writings as an example of this tradition. </p> <p>Lohia is an unjustly neglected figure in the Indian political tradition. To the extent that people are familiar with him, they either know him as Gandhi’s disciple or perhaps as Nehru’s critic in the 1960s and if they are familiar with some socialist history, as Jayaprakash Narayan’s co-worker in the Socialist wing of the Congress and later a leader of the Socialist Party. In fact Lohia was a highly original thinker who had something interesting to say on questions as diverse as mode of industrialization, possibilities for an India-Pakistan Federation and the “national language” question in India. He is also someone whose world-view is most in harmony with the PML. Below I highlight some crucial aspects of Lohia’s thought that are helpful to us in charting a way forward.</p> <p>Lohia is an atheist and a materialist who takes Gandhi’s critique of modernity seriously. He believes, as Gandhi did, that the promises of modernity are only for making and not for fulfilling. Gandhian ideas of non-violence and inseparability of means and ends also influence Lohia’s thinking. Yet, from his early years in Germany, Lohia is also deeply influenced by European socialist traditions in which Marx looms large. From Marx Lohia takes materialism and class, but rejects his theory of history and progress. If Ram Guha’s assertion that “inside every thinking Indian is a Gandhian and a Marxist struggling for supremacy” is correct, in Lohia the two are hybridized in a fecund manner. However, characteristically Lohia himself rejects any suggestion that he tries to combine Marx and Gandhi and says: “Socialism does not need to claim either that it is Marxist or Gandhian, nor that it is anti-Marxist or anti-Gandhian.” In Lohia’s hands Gandhian theory and practice acquired a far more radical edge. Distinguishing himself from the “official Gandhism” of the day (and people like Vinoba Bhave) Lohia jokingly referred to himself as a “kujaat Gandhivaadi” (low-caste Gandhian).</p> <p>Another significance of Lohia’s elaboration of Gandhi’s ideas is that he is far more well-acquainted with the European socialist traditions than Gandhi ever was and as a result may be more approachable to those who are unwilling to take Gandhi seriously only because he was unacquainted with Marx</p> <p><strong>Eurocentrism: </strong></p> <p>Arguably most Indian political thinkers with some mass following have thought within European modernist paradigms, ways of thinking about society that reached their culmination in 19th century Europe. This includes “indigenist” (”swadeshi”) thinkers on the Right who do so unwittingly. Prominent exceptions are Gandhi and later Lohia. Of the modernist paradigms, Liberalism and Marxism in particular have profoundly influenced Indian thinkers. Marxist thinkers, despite their radical aspirations, have been mostly unable or unwilling to shake of the modernism of Marx, which in keeping with its time viewed the world from the point of view of Europe, and measured progress as a process of Europeanization of the non-European world. The advent of postmodernism in the Euro-American and later the Global Academy has served either to seduce some Marxists to postmodernism or to harden Modernist positions among others. It is not clear yet if postmodern Marxists can create a different socialist vision for the 21st century. </p> <p>In his books “The Wheel of History,” and “Marx, Gandhi and Socialism” (of particular interest is an essay titled “Economics After Marx”) Lohia challenges the Eurocentrism of orthodox Marxist accounts of History. He notes that the vast majority of humanity has only a secondary place in a narrative centered largely on the “Rise of Europe.” Further he challenges a narrative of progress which only recognizes the adoption of industrialism in either its capitalist or (then) communist forms by the colonies as progress. Struggling to keep history open-ended and the fate of post-colonial societies in their own hands Lohia notes:<br />“Capitalism and Communism are two completely elaborated systems and the whole world is in their grip. The result is poverty, war and fear. A third way of thinking is also making its presence felt on the world stage. It is still insufficient and has not been completely elaborated, but it is open-ended. An open system retains the possibility of truth and progress, while in a closed system facts are treated violently, declared meaningless and cast aside.”</p> <p><strong>Mode of Development: </strong></p> <p>Along with the question of Eurocentrism, the question of the type of economic development was Lohia’s most fundamental theoretical challenge to Marxism. Marxists have been by and large unwilling to confront the possibility that industrialism and not capitalism may be the primary impediment to achieving the good life everywhere on the planet. Dazzled by the spectacle of modern science and technology and seduced by promises of plenty, Marx and later Marxists gave short shrift to two of their own fundamental insights: that history matters and that technology is both a cause and effect of the social relations of production. Assuming that the evils in industrialism (which have never been particularly hidden in its two centuries of existence) would disappear under socialism amounted to forgetting the peculiar historical conditions under which industrialism took shape in Europe and America and overlooking that fact that modern technology is profoundly shaped by capitalist social relations (early Soviet experiments with Taylorism in an effort to increase productivity are a case in point).</p> <p>Thinkers in the Lohia tradition have long emphasized that the availability of colonies was crucial to Europe’s industrial development and that the non-availability of such colonies for India means a process of internal colonization in the manner that we have seen ample evidence of since 1947. Thus crucially, history has borne out the Gandhian-Lohiaite position on this issue. Marxists and other modernists still find this difficult to accept wholly since it calls into question the very possibility that industrial capitalism in the European manner could take shape in the colonies. And if it cannot, what prospects then for socialism?</p> <p>Kishan Patnaik, another unjustly neglected figure in the Indian Socialist tradition notes that Lohia returns time and again to the question of technology. In his essay “Gandhi, Lohia and Modern Civilization,” Patnaik quotes Lohia:</p> <p>“That scientific progress will bring forth an age of plenty is a pitiable thought, one that forsakes intellect. We must consciously build a political and economic structure that bridges the gap between and within nations. Current industrial technology cannot do this- that it can do this is extremely doubtful. This technology originates in very specific circumstances: one low population and abundant land; two, a certain given amount of capital available per capita and developed machinery; three, Western Europe producing industrial goods for the whole world.” (translated from Hindi)</p> <p>Further Patnaik notes that “In Independent India’s politics Lohia is the only leader whose agenda included the ‘obstinate’ insistence on challenging Nehru’s policy of Westernizing the Indian economy and society as well as organizing the masses to resist it.”</p> <p>Lohia is able to avoid the “productivity-fetishism” of Marxism because of the influence of Gandhi. Yet by forcefully bringing up the question of class, private property and economic equality, as well as by adopting a stance that is not anti-technology, but rather anti-industrialism, he is better able to deal with allegations that he is merely glorifying poverty. This also means that a “small is beautiful” approach to technology is not taken to be a panacea for the problem of development. </p> <p><strong>Economic Determinism: </strong></p> <p>Lohia explicitly rejects economic or class reductionism and accords equal importance to caste and gender oppression. Caste as well as class are center-pieces of his theory of history. And his idea of the “seven revolutions” (sapt-kranti) anticipates “race, class and gender” analyses that are popular today. The seven revolutions are for: gender equality, end to racial inequality, end of caste inequality, end to imperialism and creation of a world government, end to economic inequality based on private property, end to use of arms and institution of the principle of civil disobedience and opposition to encroachments upon individual freedom. </p> <p>The followers of Lohia have thus found it far easier than Marxists to take caste struggle on its own terms and to recognize that the question of caste cannot be reduced to the question of class.</p> <p><strong>State: </strong></p> <p>Lohia also anticipates contemporary notions of decentralized governance although he tempers Gandhi’s anarchist tendencies with a sort of “functional federalism.” His concept of the “four-pillar state” (chaukhamba raj) is a pragmatic attempt to combine Gandhian village democracy with a modern State apparatus, the four pillars being: village, district, state and center. It is important to remember that Lohia was speaking of a decentralized socialist state at a time with such ideas were not part of Left mainstream thought.</p> <p>A few words by way of conclusion. The foregoing is not intended as a comprehensive survey of Lohia’s thought or as a complete critique of the SDL and CnPL from the Lohiaite perspective. Nor is it meant to be a mud-slinging exercise against Marxists. Rather it is a modest effort to acquaint those who may not be so acquainted with attempts to “Indianize Marx” as it were. Marx has encountered Gandhi in a very productive way over the past hundred years in India. While Communists of various persuasions have not taken Gandhi particularly seriously, the Socialists have done so. This is not an arm-chair intellectual tradition but rather a political one. From Jayaprakash Narayan and Lohia to Shankar Guha Neogi those who have contributed to it have been in the thick of politics. As such it may suffer from theoretical inconsistencies and dead-ends. However, it is a heritage which in attempting to build a new Socialism for the 21st century it would behoove us to engage critically with.</p> <p><strong>Further Reading:</strong></p> <p>1. Rammanohar Lohia, <em>Itihaas Chakra</em> (The Wheel of History) Navahind Prakashan, 1963<br />2. ________________, Marx, Gandhi and Socialism, Navahind Prakashan, 1963<br />3. ________________, Fundamentals of a World Mind, Sindhu Publications, Bombay, 1987<br />4. Kishan Patnaik, <em>Vikalpheen nahin hai duniya</em>, Rajkamal Prakashan, New Delhi, 2000<br />5. Sunil, Nandigram and the Blind Faith in Industrialization, Samayik Varta, June 2007 (original in Hindi, English translation at <a href="http://sanhati.com/excerpted/588/">http://sanhati.com/excerpted/588/</a>)<br />6. Special Issue of Hindi Journal Samayik Varta (March 2003), Lohia in the 21st Century<br />7. Blogs: http://samatavadi.wordpress.com and http://samajwadi.blogspot.com</p>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-70192278416294139782009-04-08T10:02:00.002-04:002009-04-08T10:09:39.652-04:00Ghalib: In captivity I retain the power of flightAfter a longish break, we are back with Ghalib. This time we have selected a verse remarkable for its simplicity and its power.<br /><br />{71,4}<br />huu;N giriftaar-e ulfat-e .sayyaad<br />varnah baaqii hai :taaqat-e parvaaz<br /><br />1) I am captured/captivated by love/affection of the Hunter<br />2) otherwise, strength for flight is still left<br /><br /><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/071/71_04.html">Click here </a> for translation and commentary on Desertful of Roses. <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/ghalib-%E2%80%93-27-rhetoric-or-reality/">Click here </a>for parallel commentary on The South Asian Idea.<br /><br />Before we get to interpretations, a note on the construction of the verse. As we have seen on this blog before, and as Fran Pritchett often points out in <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/index.html">her commentaries</a>, the positioning of the lines and words usually are the result of great thought. We see that at work here. Upon hearing the first line, our first thought might be that the poet is going to tell us what happens to him in this state of captivity. Perhaps some lament on his helplessness or something about how enjoyable this bondage of love is, etc. But Ghalib delivers a completely contrary idea. The lover is thinking of flying away! What heresy! And yet, not really, because does he actually fly away? Of course not. But "I am just saying, I could fly, I retain the power of flight...I am just saying..." And via the skillful use of parvaaz, the metaphor of ensarement and hunting is complete.<br /><br />Coming t0 the interpretations, they turn on who the "sayyaad" (hunter) is in this story. The simplest reading is the earthly beloved, the beuatiful one who has ensnared the lover in her love. So despite having the physical strenght to get up and walk away from it all, the lover is simply unable to do so. Anyone who has experienced romantic love will know what this is about. Moving on and enlarging the scop;e of our reading, the Hunter can be, as <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/071/71_04.html">Nazm and Josh </a>both read it, "wordly relationships." So here, the trappings of the maerial world ensanre and bind us in captivity "lovingly." We have it within us (as humans) to escape these bonds and to be free, but the attachment (ulfat) to the world and its attractions keeps us unfree. In this reading it is a simple lament of one who has discovered the transience or ephemeral nature of the world and yet lacks the capacity to trascend it. A typically Ghalibian moment. Awareness without trascendence. Knowledge without action.<br /><br />A few other readings are possible. If the hunter is not the earthly beloved but rather the Divine Beloved of Sufi thought, then the verse says: I am ensnared in the love of the Absolute/God. That is why I remain a Believer. Otherwise I retain the power to fly (or in this case "to doubt"). This reading doesn't sit too well with the general Sufi inclination of Ghalib's thought, but on the other hand it fits right in with his impish sense of humor. It says, look I have the power to break free of the bondage of your love, O Divine One, but your love keeps me here. For anyone other than Ghalib I would not suggest such as reading!<br /><br />Finally, more in keeping with the socio-political dimensions of our project, the hunter can be our beloved leaders, politicians, even institutions in our society who are objects of our affection and who keep us from being free. For more along these lines see the post on <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/ghalib-%E2%80%93-27-rhetoric-or-reality/">The South Asian Idea</a>.Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-87251227967226192352009-03-21T12:50:00.003-04:002009-03-21T13:14:34.304-04:00For Ghalib the world is merely children at playThis week we proceed from last week's mood of resignation and defiance combined, to a mood of bemused indifference towards the goings-on in the world. Here it is:<br /><br />{208,1}<br />बाज़ीचा-ए-अत्फाल है दुनिया मेरे आगे<br /><span class="">होता है शब-ओ-रोज़ तमाशा मेरे आगे </span><br /><br />baaziichah-e a:tfaal hai dunyaa mire aage<br />hotaa hai shab-o-roz tamaashaa mire aage<br /><br />1) the world is a game/plaything of children, before me<br />2a) night-and-day is [habitually] a spectacle, before me<br />2b) night and day, a spectacle is [habitually] before me<br />(Translation: FWP)<br /><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/208/208_01.html">Commentaries on Desertful of Roses</a> and <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/ghalib-%E2%80%93-26-a-tale-told-by-an-idiot/">parallel post on The South Asian Idea</a>.<br /><br />This is a justly famous verse from a justly famous ghazal. The various commentaries collected by Prof. Fran Pritchett offer the agreed-upon reading of it. It is indeed a relatively simple yet powerful verse. Though as wee will see it is not without its hidden meanings. As far the language itself goes, the only phrase likely to pose some difficult is baaziichah-e a:tfaal, for which here are the meanings:<br />baaziichah : 'Fun, play, sport; wagering; toy, plaything'. (Platts p.122)<br />a;tfaal is the Arabic plural of tifl which means child.<br /><br />The clear reading is that this temporal world is merely a children's game or plaything as far as I am concerned (mere aage = in front of me, or in my estimation). Note that "dunyaa" is a loaded word and evokes the meaning of this material/temporal world as opposed to the next immaterial/eternal one (diin wa dunyaa). And how do I know that the world is a mere plaything? Well, night and day there is a spectacle in front of me. The word tamaashaa is used brilliantly here and again contains more possbilities than conveyed by "spectacle." It has the sense of something fake or theatrical, as in, when someone is said to be doing tamaashaa we mean that they are creating a scene or behaving in a manner that is not only undignified but also shallow ("creating a scene" perhaps). This entire range of commotations is appropriate here. We of course do not know what sorts of tamaashaas Ghalib had in mind when he said this, but as the post on <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/ghalib-–-26-a-tale-told-by-an-idiot/">The South Asian Idea </a>notes, contemporary politics often provides us with plenty of opportunities to remember this verse.<br /><br />There is a second meaning in the verse which is not mentioned by any of the commentators. This meaning is allowed by the grammatical structure of sentences in Hindi/Urdu and Ghalib uses it very often. Any line that says "A is B" can equally well be read as "B is A" in Hindi/Urdu. Thus <em>baaziichah-e a:tfaal hai dunyaa</em> can be read as "the world is a plaything of children" (or "the world is merely children at play"), which is the favored reading here, or it can also be read as "plaything of children is a world" ("or "children at play show us a world"). The second reading adds an entire new dimension as we consider below and provides a delightful new angle to the verse, since we now see the playing of children as a metaphor for the material world just as the world reminds us of children at play.<br /><br />What does it add? Coming back to the idea of <em>dunyaa</em> as speciafically the material world, we can also see why activities in this world are like children at play. Because, just as children at play are in their own play-world and oblivious of the "real world" (i.e. for them their toy world <em>is</em> the real world), but we who are adult or grown-up see them as being in error or just being children, so also those who possess knowledge of existence beyond the material world consider those whose thought is limited to the temporal/material world, to be in error. Thus "children" are a metaphor for spiritually unaware people.<br /><br />As always a seemingly simple verse hides a world of meanings (alaam-e-ma'ani).Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-72271983346299564352009-03-20T10:36:00.003-04:002009-03-20T16:28:38.383-04:00Pakistani classical vocalist Ustad Naseeruddin Saami of the Delhi GharanaAn absolutely stellar performance from Karachi-based Ustad Naseeruddin Saami of the Delhi Gharana, trained by Munshi Raziuddin and by the descendants of Tan Ras Khan, Bahadur Shah Zafar's music teacher. This was performed at the All Pakistan Music Conference in 2006. Hindustani classical has many excellent practitioners in Pakistan, another in a long list of shared cultural traits between India and Pakistan, that deserves far greater awareness. So we may counter the virulent logic most recently articulated by Varun Gandhi, who appears foolish and immature and yet only strongly vocalizes that which many softly mutter.<br /><br /><object width="400" height="302"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=2118140&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" /><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=2118140&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="302"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://vimeo.com/2118140">Ustad Naseeruddin Saami</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/tasawwuf">Tasawwuf</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-23007056255414251132009-03-11T23:43:00.001-04:002009-03-11T23:48:06.082-04:00Ghalib trusts in the Seven Heavens<h2>{46,2}</h2> <p><b><i>raat din gardish me;N hai;N saat aasmaa;N<br />ho rahegaa kuchh nah kuchh ghabraa))e;N kyaa</i></b></p>1) night and day they're in [a state of] revolving/turning/wandering, the seven heavens<br /> 2) something or other will end up happening-- why would/should we be perturbed/agitated?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/046/46_02.html?">Commentary on Desertful of Roses</a> and <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/">parallel post on The South Asian Idea</a>.<br /><br />A <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/046/46_02.html?">FWP notes</a>, this was a verse Ghalib often quoted in his letters. It is an excellent verse to keep handy in difficult times or when the heavens really seem against you. A defiant yet humble verse. Defiant because we refuse to be intimidated by circumstances, yet humble becuase really we know out own efforts are small compared to the movements of the heavens.<br /><br />Gardish is again a very multivalent word. According to Platts:<br /><em>gardish</em> : 'Going round, turning round, revolution; circulation; roll; course; period; turn, change; vicissitude; reversion; --adverse fortune, adversity; --wandering about, vagrancy'.<br /><br />Ghalib uses it here in the sense of eternal or perpetual movement of the stars (the "seven heavens" of Aristotle). Elsewhere he has used it in the sense of a frightenning perpetualness of motion as in:<em><br /><br /></em><i>kyuu;N gardish-e mudaam se ghabraa nah jaa))e dil<em><br />insaan huu;N piyaalah-o-saa;Gar nahii;N huu;N mai;N</em></i><p> </p> Why would this perpetual motion/circulation not terrify the heart<br />I am human, not a glass and flagon (wine pitcher)<br /><br />Anyway, returning to the present verse, it is a great example of one of Ghalib's inshaiiyah verses, i.e interrogative, exclamatory, rhetorical versesm, as opposed to ;xabariyah (informative) verses. The meaning itself is straightforward. There are no profundities or paradoxes here. "Merely" a well-put summary of the human condition: eternally hopefully yet eternally powerless also. We get the feeling that many things are happening outside our control. Ironically, not only do adverse things happend witohut our permission, but as Ghalib puts it, even solutions appear by themselves. ho rahega kuch na kuch, has an excellent idiomatic feel that conveys the sense of "something is bound to happen one way or another. "Thus "aasmaaN", the heavens are our friends as they are our enemies. So contrast this "heavans as friends" verse with an explicit "heavens as enemy" take:<em><br /><i><br /></i></em><i>ham kahaa;N ke daanaa the kis hunar me;N yaktaa the<em><br />be-sabab hu))aa ;Gaalib dushman aasmaa;N apnaa</em></i><br /><br />What kind of wise men were we, in posession of what unique skill<br />Without cause, Ghalib, the heavens turned against us/became our enemy<br /><br />This verse also relies on ordinary Urdu vocabulary ("baazaar-haaT language"), showing that Ghalib is quite capable of stating things in a simple straighforward manner if he wishes. Contrast this with some of the heavy duty Persianized verses (See for e.g. <a href="http://thenoondaysun.blogspot.com/2009/02/ghalib-heart-is-mirror-and-mirror-heart.html">this one</a> and <a href="http://thenoondaysun.blogspot.com/2008/12/ghalib-on-difference-and-unity.html">this one</a>) we have <a href="http://thenoondaysun.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Ghalib%20Project">blogged about in the past</a>.Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-87735665509110185072009-03-01T10:44:00.002-05:002009-03-01T11:17:31.262-05:00Ghalib is openly deceivedThis week,s verse reaches outside the usual compilation of ghazals in Ghalib's divaan. It is from a qasiidaa (panegyric) in the form of a ghazal.<br /><br />ہیں کواکب کچھ نزر آتے ہیں کچھ<br />دیتے ہیں دھوکا یہ بازیگر کھلا<br /><br />हैं कवाकिब कुछ नजर आते हैं कुछ<br />देते हैं धोका यह बाज़ीगर खुला<br /><br />haiN kawakib kuchh nazar aate haiN kuchh<div class="Ih2E3d">detey haiN dhokaa yeh baaziigar khulaa<br /><br /></div>1. The stars/constellations are some [one] thing and appear another<br />2. These conjurers/tricksters trick/fool [us] openly<br /><br />Acc. to Platts:<br />A کواکب <i>kawākib</i>, s.m. pl. (of <i>kaukab</i>), Stars; constellations.<br />P بازي बाज़ी <i>bāzī</i>, vulg. <i>bājī</i> (see <i>bāz</i>, 'playing'), s.f. Play, sport, game, trick; game of chance, hazard; gaming; stake (at play), wager, bet:<br /><br />This verse does not appear in Desertful of Roses. The translation is ours. Please visit the <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/ghalib-%E2%80%93-24-on-deceivers-and-the-deceived/">parallel entry on The South Asian Idea</a>, placing the verse in contemporary social context.<br /> <br />It is a charming verse which exploits the power of the simple yet multivalent word "kuchh" which can mean both "something" and "a few things." The rhetorical power of the verse also derives from the idiomatic use of "khulaa dhoka dena" (to trick or cheat openly).<br /><br />In one reading here we can imagine the word "aur" at the end of line one. Then the verse reads straightforwardly as the stars are open tricksters because in full view they appear as one thing but are actually something entirely different. Of course we don't know what precisely Ghalib has in mind. Is he talking about real stars in the sky which appear as tiny twinkling spots but are really immense, fiery balls spewing gas plumes?<br /><br />Or less scientifically and more poetically is he referring to the stars on Earth, the beautiful ones who appear sweet and innocent but really are heartless killers who won't think twice about trampling on lovers' hearts. They trick (play with the lover's heart) openly, in full view of the world. The word "baazigar" is more complex than "trickster," carrying an implication of someone who gambles on love or plays with one's affections. <br /><br />This verse also sustains a nice socio-political implication if we think of baazigar also as siyaasatdaan (politicians). The post of South Asian Idea explores this connection further.Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-86185642842344393042009-02-16T14:35:00.005-05:002009-03-14T10:39:01.097-04:00Aashiq huuN jiskaa maiN: Murli Raju Qawwal and PartyA rare treat! Qawwali by sons of the famous Murli Qawwal from Lucknow.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2krEOUO5NDc&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2krEOUO5NDc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vOhyK4dSjyc&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vOhyK4dSjyc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-6101243439955219652009-02-12T23:02:00.004-05:002009-03-01T11:17:31.262-05:00Ghalib: Heart is a Mirror and Mirror a Heart<span></span>This week we have chosen a lesser known and complex verse which nonetheless offers richly rewarding readings.<br /><p class="text"> <strong><em class="urdu">az mihr taa bah-;zarrah dil-o-dil hai aa))inah<br /> :tuu:tii ko shash jihat se muqaabil hai aa))inah</em></strong> </p> <p class="translation">अज मिहर ता बा-ज़र्रह दिल - ओ - दिल है आइनह <class="translation"></class="translation"><br /><class="translation"><class="translation">तूती को शश जिहत से मुकाबिल है आइनह<br /><class="translation"></class="translation"></class="translation"></class="translation"></p><p class="translation"><class="translation"><class="translation"><class="translation">1) from sun to sand-grain-- heart; and heart is a mirror<br /> 2) {from / by means of} the six directions, a mirror confronts the parrot</class="translation"></class="translation"></class="translation"></p><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/128/128_01.html?roman">Translation and commentary</a> on Desertful of Roses. Parallel commentary on <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/">The South Asian Idea.</a><br /><br />The most straightforward reading is offered by Bekhud Mohani on Desertful of Roses:<br />"From the sun to the sand-grain-- that is, everything in the world-- is a heart, and the heart is a mirror. Thus the parrot sees a mirror in every direction. That is, the world is a mirror-house, in which the mystical knower sees his own face in every direction."<br /><br />The parrot is a well-used metaphor for the poet since at least Khusro, if not earlier, since it, like the poet is famous for its sweet speech (shirin sukhan). There is something very intriguing about the image Ghalib constructs in the second line. The poet surrounded on all sides by mirrors: an infinite number of reflections surrounding him. But lets take the verse in detail.<br /><br />The first line, as FWP points out, has a flowingness (ravaangii) created by the phrase dil-o-dil. Semantically, the line can easily be read as two separate thoughts as outlined above: the world is a heart and the heart is a mirror. However, other readings are not ruled out. Breaking the first line after sand-grain, we get 'from sun to sand-grain, heart after heart is a mirror.' But this does not substantially change the meaning, particularly given the more specific context of the second line. A more radical departure from the interpretation given above would be to take advantage of Urdu grammar which allows "dil hai aainah" to be read both as "heart is a mirror" and "mirror is a heart." Thus, we interpret the first line as the whole world (or each aspect of the world) is heart-like and the mirror too is a heart. Why privilege the mirror separately? Is it not part of the world as well. Yes and no. The mirror is of the world and also reflects the world. It is thus like the heart (or in modern terminology consciousness or the brain), which is also part of the world and at the same time reflects it. Thus both heart and mirror are united in this property and the equation works both ways (heart = mirror).<br /><br />Coming to the second line. As I said, here Ghalib constructs a highly memorable vision, almost Borges like in its exploitation of the mirror theme (I will write something soon exploring the Ghalib-Borges parallel a bit further). The parrot/poet/seeker wherever he turns is confronted by a mirror or is confronted by the heart/consciousness. Wherever we turn we find both a conscious reality and we find ourselves reflected in it. Further we cannot rule out a double meaning of finding ourselves face to face with ourselves. We face ourseleves everywhere as ego that we are unable to get rid of, but we also face ourselves because we know that the atman (self) and brahman (universe) are One.<br /><br />The language of mirror and confrontation is used by Ghalib in a Persian verse that I have <a href="http://thenoondaysun.blogspot.com/2008/07/lesser-known-ghalib3-mirror-of.html">blogged about before</a>:<br /><br />Ghalib chuN shaKhs-o-aks dar aainah-e-Khayaal<br />ba Khveshtan yaki o do char khudiim ma<br /><br />Ghalib, like the person and the reflection in the mirror of thought<br />With ourselves we are one annd we confront ourselves <br /><br />Mirrors are particularly favored by Ghalib's paradox-loving nature, because of that aspect I alluded to earlier of mirror being part of reality and also reflecting it, as do minds.Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-78368663209536993402009-02-06T13:40:00.005-05:002009-02-06T14:18:33.192-05:00Ghalib: Indifference is worse than enmityLast week's she'r brought to mind another excellent use of the word "laag" by Ghalib. This one fully exploits the fast that "laag" can mean affection/love as well as animosity/enmity.<br /><div class="verse"><div class="boxer"> <p class="text"> <strong><em class="urdu">laag ho to us ko ham samjhe;N lagaa))o<br /> jab nah ho kuchh bhii to dhokaa khaa))e;N kyaa</em></strong> </p> <p style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);" class="translation"><span style="font-size:130%;">لاگ ہو تو اس کوہم سمجھیں لگاؤ</span><br /><class="translation"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);font-size:130%;" >جب نہ ہو کچھ بھی تو دھوکا کھائیں کیا</span><br /></class="translation"></p><p class="translation">लाग हो तो उस को हम समझें लगाओ<br /><class="translation">जब न हो कुछ भी तो धोका खाएं क्या<br /></class="translation"></p><p class="translation">1) if enmity/love would exist, then we would consider it a bond<br /><br /> 2a) when nothing at all would exist, then-- why would we be deceived?<br /> 2b) when nothing at all would exist, then-- would we be deceived?</p> </div></div><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/046/46_03.html?">Commentary and translation</a> on Desertful of Roses. <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/ghalib-%E2%80%93-22-against-indifference/">Parallel commentary</a> in a social context on The South Asian Idea.<br /><br />Let us explore this simple yet alluring verse. First here are the meanings of the two key words in the first line according to Platts Dictionary:<br /><em class="urdu">laag </em>: 'Attachment, affection, love; ... enmity, animosity, hostility, rancour, spite'. (Platts p.946)<em class="urdu"><br />lagaa))o </em>: 'Attachment, connexion; bond, link; ...inclination, propensity'. (Platts p.961)<br /><br />Now the first line: If affection or hostility existed we could understand a bond to exist. Both are relationships albeit of the opposite kinds. So far what we have is an excellent use of the double-meaning of the word "laag." Incidentally this is a good time to reitirate that word play (iham) appears so centrally in Ghalib's poetry that there is no way to consider it incidental or accidental. Punning or word-play are considered inferior devices in much of poetry today (certainly in English poetry, but I think also in Urdu/Hindi). But in the hands of masters like Ghalib word-play is used in a way that greatly expands the meanings in a she'r. Since the she'r is severely constrained in its length and the ghazal very rarely extends a particular thought beyond one verse, the ghazal poet has to say as much as she can in a very small amount of space. In classical poetry this is achieved in several ways. One, metaphors build upon previous metaphors obviating the need for explanation within the poem. Thus one can speak of the Beloved or wine or the gatekeeper to the Beloved's lane and explain no further relying on the knowledge of the listener/reader to conjure up the full range of associations in the ghazal universe. Second word-play and ambiguity allow an even greater expansion of meaning. Ghalib is the master of both strategies.<br /><br />In any case I digress. After the word-play of the first line the second line then says: when nothing exists then why would we be deceived? So neither enmity nor affection is displayed by the Beloved. Notice, connecting to my point earlier about brevity in a ghazal, that Ghalib does not even bother to mention " by the Beloved." It is understood. Now if nothing exists between the lover and the Beloved, why then would the lover be confused or deceived about whether the behavior implied affection or hostility? Indifference is complete and allows for no false hopes.<br /><br />Exploting the divine meaning of the Beloved, this also becomes a plaint for one who feels ignored or forsaken by God. If God at least punished me I could imagine that She cared about me, enough to be hostile or rancorous. But when there is nothing between us, why would I be deceived? Asking rhetorical questions is a common and powerful device often employed by Ghalib.<br /><br />Dont' forget to visit the parallel post on<a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/ghalib-%E2%80%93-22-against-indifference/"> The South Asian Idea</a>.Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8049862144591432726.post-60560607927416433582009-01-31T09:43:00.004-05:002009-02-06T14:23:11.442-05:00Ghalib: Paradise Lost and a Good Thing Too!A wealth of Ghalib verses relate to theological or religious notions of the Godhead, of reward and punishment for good or bad behavior, of the nature of true worship, faith and so on. In our series we have seen several examples of these already. The question of the nature of God came up on <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/">The South Asian Idea</a> and that prompts the latest post.<br /><p class="text"> <strong><em class="urdu">:taa((at me;N taa rahe nah mai-o-angabii;N kii laag<br /> doza;x me;N ;Daal do ko))ii le kar bihisht ko</em></strong> </p> <p style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);" class="translation"><span style="font-size:130%;">طاعت میں تا رہے نہ مے و انگبیں کی لاگ</span><br /><class="translation"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">دوزخ میں ڈال دو کوئ لے کر بہشت کو</span></span><br /></class="translation"></p><p class="translation">ता'अत में ता रहे न मै ओ अन्गबीन की लाग<br />दोज़ख में दाल दो कोई ले कर बहिश्त को।<br /></p><p class="translation"> 1) so that, in obedience/worship, the attachment/desire of wine and honey does not remain<br /> 2) take Paradise, and cast it into Hell</p><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/118/118_02.html?">Click here </a>for translation and commentary on Desertful of Roses.<br /><a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/ghalib-%E2%80%93-21-heaven-unto-hell/">Click here</a> for the parallel entry on The South Asian Idea.<br /><br />Platts Dictionary: Arabic <pa><span style="color: rgb(204, 51, 0);"><b>اطاعت</b></span></pa> <i>it̤āʻat</i> [inf. n. iv of <pa>طوع</pa> 'to be or become submissive'], s.f. Obedience, submission, subjection, subordination, fealty, allegiance; observance; reverence, worship, homage; obsequiousness:—<i>it̤āʻat karnā</i> (-<i>kī</i>), To obey, do the bidding (of);<br /><br />This verse is from a relatively short ghazal (118) consisting of only four verses. The brief length might be explained by the somewhat unusual rhyme scheme, "isht ko." It is a mischievous, even blasphemous verse. Paradise (bahisht) is famed as the land of flowing honey and wine. The preacher (shaikh, vaaiz) regularly demands obedience and worship from his followers by tempting them with the prospect of paradise. This of course rubs Ghalib the wrong way. Of what use is worship or obedience or submission to God (see above for the Platts entry on the word ta'at) if it is motivated out of a desire for such rewards? So Ghalib says: so that reverence and obedience are not obtained with wine and honey in mind, let us just take Paradise and cast it into Hell. Na rahe gaa baaNs, ne bajegi baaNsuri (a Hindi idiomatic expression, lit. neither the bamboo will remain, nor the flute make its sound, meaning to remove the root cause of some trouble).<br /><br />The verse's content is shocking but not particularly profound. What makes it work is the chutzpah and the way it is constructed, as also the choice of words. First, as always notice that the first line does not give too much away. It simply makes a general proposition: we are going to do something such that worship is no longer tied to the promise of reward. The second line reveals the momentous nature of what we propose to do. It is fun to try and guess the informed listener's reaction as the verse is recited. As the first line is repeated a few times, our mind starts spinning, "what could be coming?" Then as the second line starts, "cast into hell..." initially it seems only a regular curse (in English "to hell with"). But since we have already h eard the first verse of this ghazal and therefore know the rhyme scheme, our mind is drawn to the word that both fulfills the rhyme scheme and offer a wonderful counter-point to "dozakh" (hell), and that word of course is bahisht (paradise). In a sudden "ah" moment we get the full impact of the verse. This is one of those verses which one gets the full meaning as soon as it is heard and understood.<br /><br />Lastly the choice of words, once again Ghalib makes full use of Urdu's vocabulary which ranges from Arabic, via Persian to the Prakrit derived languages of the Subcontinent (the languages like braj, awadhi, hindvi that came together to form modern Hindi). So the wonderful word "laag" appears here. A very evocative word that conveys fondness, attachment, desire, the feeling of being entangled, all at once. It works perfectly here because it conveys exactly how attachment to earthly pleasures, which gets int the way of true worship, is simply transferred to heavenly pleasures. The fact of attachment remains and hence the obstruction to true worship also remains...as long as we don't do away with the whole notion of paradise. And not only should we do away with Paradise, Ghalib even tells us how we should do it- to hell with it! What excellent wordplay and contrast!<br /><br />The conversation continues into more contemporary and socially relevant territory on <a href="http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/ghalib-%E2%80%93-21-heaven-unto-hell/">The South Asian Idea.</a>Amit Basolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11971441501623497376noreply@blogger.com0