THE TWO SCHOOL THEORY OP URDU LITERATURE By CARLA RAE PETIEVICH M.A., The University of California, Berkeley, 1979 A.B., The University of California, Berkeley, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Asian Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July, 1986 ©Carla Rae Petievich, 1986 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ftsxAN STUDICS The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date \C Qcrro&eg. \9%$> DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT The Two School theory, perhaps the most prevalent in Urdu literary criticism, holds that the Delhi School and the Lucknow School comprise the bulk of classical poetry. The two schools are named after the cities of Delhi and Lucknow, Muslim India's two greatest centers of Urdu culture. Dihlavi poetry (the poetry written in Delhi), considered by critics to be truer to the Persian literary tradition than the poetry of Lucknow, is described as emphasizing mystical concerns, Persian styles of composition, and a straightforward, melancholy poetic diction. Lakhnavi poetry (that written in Lucknow) by contrast, is characterized as sensual, frivolous, abstruse, flashy, even decadent. Reasons posited for Lakhnavi poetry's decadence are the deleterious effects of the city's prosperous, even opulent, economic and social climate during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Delhi's ravaged condition during the same period is likewise considered the cause of Dihlavi poetry's allegedly contrasting, melancholic outlook. The present study challenges the Two School theory on several counts, arguing that it is more an expression of cultural values than the supportable results of rigorous textual analysis. In the first place this study does not recognize the literary distinctions between Dihlavi and Lakhnavi poetry which are claimed by "Two School" critics. Secondly, it places the Two School theory in the context of cultural and political events of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which touched the two cities of Delhi and Lucknow, including their literary spokespeople. This study's challenge is two-fold: it first traces the development of the Two School theory's articulation in Urdu critical literature. It follows the theory's transition from usually unspecific, subjective statements about Lakhnavi poetry by Urdu's earliest critics, Maulana Azad and Altaf Husain Hali—who were Dihlavi poets themselves—into a full-blown, formal classification of literary distinctions between a "Delhi School" and a "Lucknow School." This later classification was formalized by such twentieth century critics as Abdus Salam Nadvi, Andalib Shadani, Nurul Hasan Hashmi and Abul Lais Siddiqi. The next section challenges both Nadvi*s and Shadani's literary distinctions and their methods of argumentation as well. A comparative study of Dihlavi and Lakhnavi poetry, based on a structurally-controlled sample of verses composed in the same zamin (meter and end-rhyme), suggests that the poetic choices made by any Urdu poet—regardless of his or her domicile—is influenced at least as much by the structural demands of the ghazal form as by societal influences. Following the comparison between Dihlavi and Lakhnavi poetry comes a comparison of the two most important Lakhnavi ghazal poets, Nasikh and Atish. Though named by critics as co-founders of the Lucknow School, their styles are also characterized by the same critics as fundamentally different—some have even called Atish a "Delhi-style" Lucknow poet. This study concurs with the claim that Nasikh and Atish often write in two characteristically different styles, showing various differences in choice which the two exercise. These characteristic differences can be seen in ghazals composed by both poets in a single zamin. as well as in Nasikh's and Atish*s individual address of conventional ghazal themes (mazamin). The differences between the two foremost Lakhnavi poets further challenge the claim that Nasikh and Atish both developed and manifest the characteristic "Lakhnavi" style which forms the basis of a "school" distinction between Dihlavi and Lakhnavi poetry. The concluding chapter argues that despite its literary questionability, the Two School theory endures because it satisfies fundamental elements of Indo-Muslim cultural identification. The theory's origins are tied in with the birth of literary criticism in Urdu, which occurred during a time when political circumstances had caused Indian Muslims to question established perceptions, both of themselves and of their role in Indian society as a whole. The symbolism attached to "Lucknowness" and "Delhiness" seems to reflect these socio-political dynamics better than they reflect text-based analyses of Delhi and Lucknow poetry. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE: Background to Conventions of the Ghazal vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xxiii INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTERS I. LITERARY TENETS OF THE TWO SCHOOL THEORY 19 II. TRACING THE GENESIS OF THE TWO SCHOOLS: Dihlaviyat and Lakhnaviyat 26 III. CULTURAL ASPECTS OF THE TWO SCHOOL THEORY 39 IV. ORIGINS OF_THE DELHI-LUCKNOW DIFFERENTIATION in Azad's Ab-i Hayat 48 V. LAKHNAVI POETRY IN HALT.1 S MUQADDAMA-I SHE'R-0 SHA'IRI 69 VI. ASSESSING NADVI'S EXPOSITION OF THE TWO SCHOOLS..... 92 VII. ANDALIB SHADANI'S "LAKHNAVI SHA'IRI KI CHAND KHUSOSIYAT" 117 VIII. ZAIDI'S CHALLENGE TO THE TWO SCHOOL THEORY 125 IX. COMPARISON OF LAKHNAVI AND DIHLAVI POETRY IN THE SAME ZAMIN 142 X. COMPARISON OF NASIKH AND ATISH 218 XI. CULTURAL IDENTITY AND LITERARY PRINCIPLES 268 BIBLIOGRAPHY 317 -V- PREFACE BACKGROUND TO CONVENTIONS OF THE URDU GHAZAL Before embarking on a study of the Two School theory it will be useful to provide a general introduction to the structure and conventions of the Urdu ghazal, the literature with which that theory is concerned. In the following pages a number of the ghazal's stock themes and conventions will be introduced through presentation and discussion of specific verses. The ghazal is by far the most popular of the four major poetic genres in classical Urdu.l It is a love lyric form, consisting of varying numbers of two-line verses called she'rs (pronounced much like the English word "share").2 Cohesion within a ghazal is considered, conventionally, to be provided by the uniform structural pattern of all its she'rs rather than by a narrative sequence such as that which exists in a ballad. Thus, in a manner of speaking, individual she'rs rely on the greater context of the ghazal genre rather than on a context to 1. The others are the narrative form, masnavi; the panegyric qasida; and the elegaic marsiya. For fuller discussion of these other forms, see M.A.R. Barker, A Reader of Modern Urdu Poetry, Montreal: McGill University, 1968, Introductory chapter on Poetics, p. xvii. 2. Though the plural of "she'r" is technically "ash'ar" we will refer to the plural as "she'rs" for the sake of reading fluency in English. -vi- be provided by verses in sequence, as would be the case in a ballad or other narrative verse form. Each she'r is composed in a particular structural 3 _ framework called a zamln. That zamm is defined by its meter (bahr) and rhyme-scheme. Bahr (literally, "sea, bay, flow, 4 rhythm)" consists of a fixed sequence of short and long syllables. End-rhyme has two components, qafiyah and radlf. The radlf of a ghazal is the repeated portion which concludes each verse, while the qafiyah is a single syllable leading into the radlf. which rhymes in the same way that rhyme is experienced in Western literatures. Thus, in the she'r below the radif is "ka"5 while the qafiyah is the long syllable "-an." giving this she'r (and the entire ghazal in which it appears) the end-rhyme "-an ka;" {N Mira sina hai mashriq aftab-i dagh-i hijran ka tulu'-i subh-i mahshar chak hai mere girlban ka My breast is the eastern horizon whence the wounded sun of separation rises: The dawn of Doomsday breaks through the rend in my collar. 3. Literally, zamln is defined as "the earth, soil, land, ground, region," etc. John T. Platts, h. Dictionary of Urdu. Classical Hindi and English. London: Oxford University Press, fifth imprint, 1974, p.617. 4. Platts, p.137. 5. "Ka" is the masculine singular possessive postposition, roughly equivalent to " *s" in English orthography. -vii- The qafiyah-word in the second line (called a "misra'") is "giriban"—the qafiyah itself being "-an"—and the radif, as we have said, is "ka." The reader may have noticed that this she1r has end-rhyme in both lines. While the rhyme-scheme of a ghazal typically appears only in the second misra' of each she' r, the ghazal*s opening verse (called matla1) reveals the poem's zamln by including the end-rhyme in both misra's. Thus, the rhyming pattern of every ghazal is AA, BA, CA, DA, etc. with the end-rhyme contained in every "A" line. The second she'r in the ghazal from which the above matla' was taken shows the rhyming pattern (B,A): Azal se dushmanl ta'us-o mar apas men rakhte hain Dil-i pur dagji ko kyonkar hai 'ishq us zulf-i pechan ka The peacock and snake have and will always maintain deep enmity: Why then does this scar of a heart so love those coiling tresses? The pattern of Western-style rhyme can be seen in the final long syllable of the words "hijran." "giriban" and "pechan." In the following pages we will present selected she'rs, along with notes, in order to introduce the reader to the poetry under consideration in this study.