Dil se jo baat nikaltee hai asar rakhti hai par nahi taqt e parwaz magar rakhti hai
These two lines from Jawab e Shikwa by Iqbal, a great revolutionary Urdu poet started an interesting and thought provoking debate with a friend some time back More than the discussion it was the questions raised about deciphering the meaning of any art or literally work which caught my attention and which makes me write this piece.
Before I start I need to admit that my knowledge about the said poet’s writings is negligible and hence I have no idea of his complete oeuvre or style. Therefore when my friend interpreted and translated these lines as follows I couldn’t see any point to disagree upon.
‘The voice emerging right from one’s heart has a sure impact
But it alone is not enough as it does not have power to fly’
Here he was referring to the revolutionary aspect prominent in Iqbal’s writings. He kept stressing on the fact that what the poet here wants to convey is that all weeping and wailing by itself is not enough but there is a need to wake up and put in real effort to make things actually work.
To tell the truth till last fortnight I hadn’t bothered about the couplet and also his explanation which we had discussed once before sounded quite plausible. But the turning point came when another friend, a poet in her own right, gave a totally different and to me a more apt sounding interpretation of the same couplet which goes on as:
The voice emerging right from one’s heart has a sure impact
Even though it does not have wings still it has the power to fly
As one can see here she has interpreted ‘par’ as wings rather than ‘but’ and by doing so the meaning of the couplet not only changes drastically but also it gives a whole positive and optimistic meaning to the entire piece. Though on one hand in a flash of moment I saw such a wonderful possibility in these lines my another friend remained adamant on the socio-revolutionist meaning and started quoting other couplets by Iqbal to stress his point.
While both of them were discussing and debating their manner of interpretation I was deeply hit by the Vyanjana aspect in the lines…ie. The meaning beyond the literal and the metaphorical one. The capacity of a real work of art or literature to create various and sometimes totally opposite meanings. I intercepted their rather loud argument by this sublime thought even on cost of sounding entirely ridiculous and uselessly complicating the issue. My dear friend laughed at me and declared that because I don’t know Iqbal I am taking refuge in intricate theoretical fabrications…an allegation which I often have to face from various quarters as people nowadays cannot see or don’t bother to see the relevance of our ancient thought on the present day scenario.And isn’t it why we turn to western scholars who have for most part simplified our own ancient wisdom for us?
Anyways that is a huge debate in itself..coming back to the discussion, since we were reaching no where we decided to ask few experts for their opinion. After grammatically analyzing the lines and drawing comparisons and contrasts between Ghalib and Iqbal we were informed that the second interpretation is the valid one ie.the one where ‘par’ is translated as ‘wings’
Finally our argument seem to have reached somewhere. While my friend was reluctantly somewhat convinced the question of interpretation kept troubling me and raised various questions in my mind…Would like to share some part of this introspection here…..
Why should one fix a work of art with one final meaning?…Doesn’t it limit the scope of the piece? To me a real engaging work of art or a poetry would be that which has the power of generating various meanings. To substantiate my point I would like to draw your attention to ‘Rasa Sutra’ of Bharata which has been commented upon by not less than six scholars including the great Abhinavagupta. Imagine if Rasa Sutra would have been fixed with one meaning would such a stimulating body of literature exist?
Let a work of art grow on you…explore its various facets …and if you feel like going back to it again and again then it surely will have the capacity to generate various meanings for you….isn’t that how an art writer culls out meanings not even dreamt of by the artist and hence in the process becomes an artist her/himself.
These two lines from Jawab e Shikwa by Iqbal, a great revolutionary Urdu poet started an interesting and thought provoking debate with a friend some time back More than the discussion it was the questions raised about deciphering the meaning of any art or literally work which caught my attention and which makes me write this piece.
Before I start I need to admit that my knowledge about the said poet’s writings is negligible and hence I have no idea of his complete oeuvre or style. Therefore when my friend interpreted and translated these lines as follows I couldn’t see any point to disagree upon.
‘The voice emerging right from one’s heart has a sure impact
But it alone is not enough as it does not have power to fly’
Here he was referring to the revolutionary aspect prominent in Iqbal’s writings. He kept stressing on the fact that what the poet here wants to convey is that all weeping and wailing by itself is not enough but there is a need to wake up and put in real effort to make things actually work.
To tell the truth till last fortnight I hadn’t bothered about the couplet and also his explanation which we had discussed once before sounded quite plausible. But the turning point came when another friend, a poet in her own right, gave a totally different and to me a more apt sounding interpretation of the same couplet which goes on as:
The voice emerging right from one’s heart has a sure impact
Even though it does not have wings still it has the power to fly
As one can see here she has interpreted ‘par’ as wings rather than ‘but’ and by doing so the meaning of the couplet not only changes drastically but also it gives a whole positive and optimistic meaning to the entire piece. Though on one hand in a flash of moment I saw such a wonderful possibility in these lines my another friend remained adamant on the socio-revolutionist meaning and started quoting other couplets by Iqbal to stress his point.
While both of them were discussing and debating their manner of interpretation I was deeply hit by the Vyanjana aspect in the lines…ie. The meaning beyond the literal and the metaphorical one. The capacity of a real work of art or literature to create various and sometimes totally opposite meanings. I intercepted their rather loud argument by this sublime thought even on cost of sounding entirely ridiculous and uselessly complicating the issue. My dear friend laughed at me and declared that because I don’t know Iqbal I am taking refuge in intricate theoretical fabrications…an allegation which I often have to face from various quarters as people nowadays cannot see or don’t bother to see the relevance of our ancient thought on the present day scenario.And isn’t it why we turn to western scholars who have for most part simplified our own ancient wisdom for us?
Anyways that is a huge debate in itself..coming back to the discussion, since we were reaching no where we decided to ask few experts for their opinion. After grammatically analyzing the lines and drawing comparisons and contrasts between Ghalib and Iqbal we were informed that the second interpretation is the valid one ie.the one where ‘par’ is translated as ‘wings’
Finally our argument seem to have reached somewhere. While my friend was reluctantly somewhat convinced the question of interpretation kept troubling me and raised various questions in my mind…Would like to share some part of this introspection here…..
Why should one fix a work of art with one final meaning?…Doesn’t it limit the scope of the piece? To me a real engaging work of art or a poetry would be that which has the power of generating various meanings. To substantiate my point I would like to draw your attention to ‘Rasa Sutra’ of Bharata which has been commented upon by not less than six scholars including the great Abhinavagupta. Imagine if Rasa Sutra would have been fixed with one meaning would such a stimulating body of literature exist?
Let a work of art grow on you…explore its various facets …and if you feel like going back to it again and again then it surely will have the capacity to generate various meanings for you….isn’t that how an art writer culls out meanings not even dreamt of by the artist and hence in the process becomes an artist her/himself.
