Our editorial assistant, Shahab Saqib, converses with Raza Mir about Ghalib’s life and times, Urdu poetry, and his recent novel. Raza Mir grew up in Hyderabad, India and teaches management at William Paterson University, US. He is the author of The Taste of Words: An Introduction to Urdu Poetry and the co-author of Anthems of Resistance: A Celebration of Progressive Urdu Poetry and his recent outing Murder at the Musharia: A Novel with Asad ullah Khan Ghalib as the protagonist.
Shahab Saqib: Like Shamsur Rahman’s Kayi Chand The Sar-e-Asmaan, your novel Murder at the Mushaira also does very well in terms of capturing the atmosphere of 19th Delhi, vividly. The novel transports you back in time. It is interspersed with Urdu phrases, idioms, and ghazal couplets, and there are plenty of references to the Mughal literary, and artistic culture of the time. Where you refer to paintings, Delhi’s tombs and mosques, courtesans and music, dance styles, tales and myths, courtly, aristocratic customs, and etiquettes.
Could you share how much research went into writing this book? Secondly, how difficult was it for you to recreate that time and place?
Raza Mir: You know many us who read a lot, always harbor a desire to write something. I had been writing a fair amount of non-fiction before I wrote this. I always thought of myself as writing a murder mystery. My familiarity with Urdu poetry was growing in the meantime, so I started writing about poetry.
Mirza Ghalib is someone akin to a holy scripture, ever present in the life of Urdu speaker. Ghalib was born in Mughal India and passed away when India had been already colonized. The advent of modernity in the Indian-subcontinent had left indelible marks on Ghalib’s life. During the process, I thought that his character is super-interesting and might make an excellent character for a novel.
We’re fortunate that Ghalib wrote a lot about himself and his life times. Reading on Ghalib’s life and times, I realized that the Revolt of 1857 was a cataclysmic event – not just of the 19th century Indian continent, but on the scale of the world’s history. He wrote a diary in Persian entitled Dastanbuy: A Diary of the Indian Revolt of 1857 which I got to read in Urdu translation. I thought that this should be the propelling event of my novel.
As far the plot of the novel is concerned, because I was interested in murder mystery, I began to put these two together.Enough has been written in English language on the event of 1857. Most of it is from the British viewpoint, about their experiences, the way they responded to it. The sort of desi side was never really written. Fortunately, you find that there’s a lot about it in the Urdu world, for instance Zaheer Dehlvi’s Dastaan-e-Ghaddar. I have provided several references at the end my book.
But the most important thing in the novel to find a voice for Ghalib. That I was able to do, I think, with a reasonable level of authenticity. Because I read what he had himself written, so I did not pay much attention to his poetry, but to his personality and character. And that’s how the book took shape.
Shahab Saqib: Since, you write a lot about Urdu literary culture and civilisation, did you ever consider writing the novel in Urdu?
Raza Mir: Not really. First of all, it is the accident of our own abilities. If I had written this book in Urdu, it wouldn’t have been that good. However, I conceptualized the novel in Urdu. As a result of that, some people might think that some of my turns of phrase are inelegant. For example, Ghalib meets a woman in the book and says “how should I praise you?” Anyone who knows Urdu will realize that I am saying “Aapki tareef?”
This novel could have been easily written in Urdu language. You mentioned Shamsur Rahman Faruqi’s book, for example. Faruqi sb was mobile between the two language – English and Urdu – and later on he also translated into Urdu with the title the Mirror of Beauty. And they’re quite different novels. If you know both languages and you read them, you say Kayi Chand the Sar-e-Asmaan is much better. So, he was more an Urdu-type of person, I’m English-type of person. And if you read Qurratulain Hyder’s River of Fire, you will say, alright, not a big deal. But if you read the original Urdu, Aag ka Dariya, it is an excellent work.
Shahab Saqib: I just want to know how your novel has been received in India and beyond. Did it meet your expectations?
Raza Mir: My fear was that it wouldn’t even be noticed at all. The acclaim it received was beyond my expectations. It was a best-seller in India. It has been praised more than it deserves. Perhaps the reason is that both the central character and historical context appealed to people a lot.
People enjoyed a lot this this idea of turning Ghalib into detective. The novel hit a spot that people were looking for. In India, and even in Pakistan, there is not a huge tradition of historical fiction in English. So there was a gap, and the book filled that.
Shahab Saqib: Were you primarily focused on Ghalib, the genius, or did you intend to convey something about colonialism and the War of Independence?
Raza Mir: The idea of 1857 came later to me. Any good suspense novel will incorporate some kind of race against time. In a writer’s mind, the thought process is that if a certain event is not introduced on the right time, the result may turn out to be a mess.
I used 1857 quite effectively to produce that [suspsense]. The thing is that the landscape of 19th century Delhi has been written about quite a lot. It is not impossible to extract many interesting characters, each one of whom might have motivations to commit a crime. But this is a novel primarily about Ghalib.
Shahab Saqib: Were there any conscious or unconscious influences of any writer, style, or work? Because you blend historical fiction with the detective genre, and as we know, in Urdu there has been a tradition of jasoosi novels.
Raza Mir: Influences can sometimes be very unusual. I was influenced by a book that has nothing to do with India or Pakistan, or this region, for that matter.
I am referring to Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The book is set in the times of the American Civil War. So Lincoln works when it is daytime, and fights vampires during the nightime. That gave me the idea of having Ghalib play the role of a detective.
Someone like Charles Dickens, I would say, could be an influence. Modern novelists are reluctant to have a linear narrative. My novel follows a linear narrative. I wanted to write a conventional novel, with “good” and “bad” guys in it. I did not want it to be a “modern” novel in that sense.
Shahab Saqib: In your non-fiction book Ghalib, you described him as a paradoxical personality. Could you elaborate on this aspect and readers with a contextual understanding of his era and circumstances, and how these factors converged to shape the paradoxical nature that defines Ghalib?
Raza Mir: Ghalib embodies multiple paradoxes.
First, Ghalib lived in poverty but his nature can be likened to that of rich, wealthy nobility. So he was very generous and spendthrift. On the other hand, he had a very low opinion of the bigwigs (nawabs) of his time but considered himself in high regard. But in his real life, he didn’t have money, respect, or fame. In 1854 he was made the Poet Laureate of the Mughal court, before him it was his rival, Zauq, who held it. He really was a stranger in his milieu: extremely proud, extremely thin-skinned, and almost disastrously self-confident.
Second, Ghalib used to write convoluted, complex verses, to confound his audience. He would bask in a smugness when people were unable to comprehend what he wrote. Yet, he eagerly looked forward to receiving attention and recognition and would feel very bad when it was not forthcoming.
Third, he exalted his ancestors, and forbears, and considered himself a man of high importance, because he was descended from a long line of soldiers. He was neither a soldier himself, nor had great capabilities other than his literary output. Yet, he also loved modernity, and all the modern institutions. He exploited the postal system English colonialists had started in the 19th century and wrote a lot of letters. He made use of telegram. Then he lodged cases in modern courts, and went on a 3-yearlong journey to Calcutta for [the pension case].
Fourth, he was a Muslim but poured scorn on religions, and was very sympathetic to Hindus. In a Persian masnavi (Charaagh-e-Der) he says:
Ibaadat-e-khaana-e- naaqusiyaan ast
Hamaana Kaab-e Hindustaan ast
(Translation: It is the prayer house of the conch blowers Verily, it is the Kaaba of India)
Which is, you know, probably embodies the time but also comes across as a very interesting thing. The last thing I want to say is that 1857 was the point of decline for the Subcontinent, Indian civilization. Ghalib also felt the impact of it. So he personally experienced that decline that we associated with Indian society. After 1857, he wrote a little, and always lived in extraordinary fear. The Britishers were extremely vengeful. So living as a Muslim in Delhi win 1857 was not an easy job.
Shahab Saqib: I would also like if you could tell us our reader about the broader philosophical and intellectual influences that Ghalib had absorbed.
Raza Mir: You can’t talk about Ghalib without talking about Urdu. So Urdu was the language that was emerging in India from the 14th century onwards. But around 18th century, Mir Taqi Mir comes in, and a whole group people began to layer the Urdu language with Farsi. You know local dialects as well as Persian. Ghalib himself was influenced by Persian poets: Saadi, Faiz, and Bedil, in particular.
So these people brought in a fair amount of Persian vocabulary, which was very compatible with the local poetic forms. Which is why 19th century is seen as sort of peak of the Urdu literary scene. But at the same time, the society was in decline. From 1707 to 1857 is the period of decline of Muslim and in particular the Mughal civilization, and the ascendancy of the British. So modernity comes in, but it comes at the expense of the existing thing.
So ironically, a certain group people, they were free from the responsibility of governing the society. Bahadur Shah Zafar was formally the Sultan, but in reality he had no powers. But in the Mughal court, poetry, music and as art forms were at the peak. So Ghalib imbibed the Persian, the Hindu influences, modern influences, along with his personal greatness, and his personal greatness. And that’s why his output is so great.
Shahab Saqib: Another intriguing facet of Ghalib’s persona is his poetic output in Persian. It’s widely documented that Ghalib transitioned to composing poetry in Persian in 1826, abstaining from creating Urdu poetry for well over two decades. Ghalib seems to have offended the literary establishment of Delhi and embroiled in a literary controversies, many of which revolved around the Persian language and its poetry. Where does that come from?
Raza Mir: Ghalib did not pride himself on his Urdu literary output, which is an odd thing. The Persian output was close to his heart, but I think it was derivative.
To to go back to Farsi literature, it was developed in Iran. This was not a globalized atmosphere. Information flows across border was rather slow. A particular type of Persian developed in India: the ‘sabke-Hindi’. There was a guy who had written a book on Persian grammar. Ghalib went after him, and penned a critique of it.
What he didn’t realize was that he [Ghalib] was actually wrong, not the other person. Not everybody liked Ghalib, so on this occasion he was lampooned by his critics. This happened in Calcutta in 1928, where he displayed his talent in mushairas. After this incidence, he turned to Persian poetry, and stopped writing in Urdu altogether for the next two decades years. It was a very frustrating experience.
Shahab Saqib: Aside from your work, recently, Afshan Farooqi has authored a biography of Ghalib. Even though debates continue regarding who holds the title of the greatest “Khuda-e-Sukhan” between Ghalib and Mir, with some, like Shams ur Rehman Farooqi, advocating for Mir, it’s Ghalib who consistently captures the lion’s share of attention. What sets Ghalib apart and makes him so uniquely compelling in your view, say for instance, in comparison with other literary figures?
Raza Mir: I think, Mir Taqi Mir has got his share of tareef [appreciation], including from Ghalib.
Aap bay-behra hain jo muatqad-e-meer nahi
(He himself is portionless/destitute, who is not a believer/ followers of Mir – trans. Pritchett)
Rekhte ke tum him ustad nahin ho Ghalib
Kehte hain agle zamane mai koi Meer bhi tha.
(Of Rekhtah, you are not the only ustad Ghalib
They say that in an earlier time/age there was even/also some Mir/’Master’ – trans. Pritchett)
Except for Bedil and Mir, Ghalib did not admire other poets. So I don’t think it is necessary to get into the comparison. Shamsur Rahman Faruqi’s contribution is noteworthy is this regard. Nobody has time to read all the work of a given poet, so people rely on selected works. In the selected version of Mir’s poetic output, there were many sad poems. So reader would say Mir is a sad poet, and it’s all just about wailing and woes. So Faruqi sb wrote four or five volumes on Mir and said that this is because of the poor selections of his overall work.
I also want to say that Mehr Farooqi’s book is a rare and valuable addition to what we know about Ghalib. Her first book was about Ghalib’s unpublished/rejected verses. It just goes on to show that these people had a lot of quality control issues. So they left a lot of things out.
As far as comparison is concerned, Ghalib speaks to us more than Mir does. I could be because he is a little more recent. It’s like saying whether Dilip Kumar is a better actor or Shahrukh Khan.
Shahab Saqib: In the novel, Master plays the role of Ghalib’s aide in solving the mystery surrounding Khairabadi’s murder during the mushaira. Can you shed some light on the relationship between Ghalib and the real Ram Chandra?
Raza Mir: All that we know about Ghalib and Master Ram Chandara is that they knew each other. The rest that I cover in my book is product of my imagination. Rama was a great person. I really wanted a scientific, rational viewpoint to counterbalance Ghalib’s intuitive, cultural approach. So by chance I stumbled upon his work.
I read about him, and it shows the level of scientific temper of the 19th century India. He was a very important man, but there were also others beside him such as Munshi Zakaullah, who was also a scientist and mathematician. But he was more inclined towards religion. Ram Chandara, as we know, was of secular orientation and converted to Christianity.
So there are two axis – Ghalib and Ram Chandra. In way they’re the Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Whereas, Ram Chandra and Munshi, two scientists of the same time who happened to be in a same university, their relation was something that I visualized myself
Shahab Saqib: Shifting our focus to Ghalib’s poetry, one cannot discuss his work without delving into the ghazal form. Could you shed light on the foundational elements that constitute a ghazal and tell us something about the evolution of the ghazal form?
Raza Mir: Ghazal remains the most popular format of Urdu poetry. It can be described as poems two lines long. The most important thing about ghazal is that there need not be any kind thematic continuity between two verses. So you have to have a complete thought in just two lines. Then in ghazal, there is bahr (different rhyme schemes).
This format has existed for a very long time. Actually, it comes from Arabic poetry, where long poems would follow a kind of prologue. Then they kind of carved it out and that was what we know as ghazal today. But ghazal poetry reached its peak under in 14-15th century Hafiz and Sadi in Iran. And as Urdu poetry emerged in the subcontinent, everybody began to experiment with it.
It has also received a fair amount of criticism as art form. You know that ghazal is about mindless romanticism. After 1857, several versions of this criticism were raised. Modern Urdu poem writers usually have these kind of complaints against ghazal. But that is not necessarily true. It is just an art form like others.
For example, in the first ghazal in Divan-e-Ghalib, Ghalib does not talk about love or romance. Ghazal really linked itself to a certain kind of poetic expression and poetic output. It began to get famous in mushairas. And in Ghalib’s hand, it became, as it were, a mighty sword. But there were many others before that. Mir was also a prominent ghazal poet. Ghazal has multiple directions, it’s not just in the direction of eroticism. People used to say ghazal would just disappear in 20th century, but that is not going to happen.
Shahab Saqib: Can you highlight some specific contributions that Ghalib made to the ghazal form?
Raza Mir: Three big contributions. Use of similes and metaphors.
Many people who write ghazal these days, write about things that originated through Ghalib’s poetry. Simple things like shama/parwana (candle, moth). It was an odd formulation. But now if you say shama/parwana, it is a metaphor for love, and everybody understands it.
Some rhyme schemes current today were contributed by Ghalib. Lastly, and most importantly, philosophy in poetry was a huge contribution. Metaphysics, Sufi thought, and then different ways in which thought can be distilled into words.
Ghalib had a very important role to play in this regard. There is this a Hollywood film, Citizen Cane, which was a very important movie back then. If you watch it today, you will say, it’s a good picture but what’s the big deal? The thing is that the protocols of filmmaking that were formalised and put to use in the movie were completely new at the time. Similarly, today if you write ghazal, most probably you will be writing in Ghalibian zameen (ground).
Shahab Saqib: What impact did Ghalib have on subsequent generations of Indian writers, and what changes did Urdu poetry undergo after Ghalib?
Raza Mir: After 1857, people in the subcontinent in general and Muslims in particular, raise the question of as to why Indian society went on a decline. Some said that culture at that time was a big problem. Even Iqbal embodies that critique of the culture. He said that people are not forward-thinking, you’re backward thinking. And that sort of criticism had also to be leveled at poetry.
In the late 19th century, people said that poetry should be natural, less focused on romance, and that should be more about current state of affairs. This criticism was targeted at both the form and content of classical poetry, but more focused on content.
In the 20th century, writers associated with the Progressive Writers Association (PWA) became very prominent. But if you look at their work, they still adhered to the forms and protocols that were formalised by Ghalib. They use the same metaphors that Ghalib had deployed. So separation and closeness to Ghalib produced a tension in which Urdu poetry lived.
Shahab Saqib: I am not much familiar with the situation in India, but in Pakistan Urdu’s role has been pretty controversial, historically speaking, because of its association with the project of state nationalism. Other ethnic nationalities have felt resentment because of preferential access of Urdu-speaking peoples to state resources and what not. Historically, as you write in your book, Urdu has been a subaltern language, which has absorbed influences from other Indian languages. Do you think Urdu is not exhibiting that kind of openness today? Some would say Pakistan’s Urdu literary community is quite insular, myopic. If we compare it with how Urdu has fared in India, now that it is being stamped out, what would you say?
Raza Mir: In Pakistan, in particular, I think that the way in which Urdu was imposed onto the new Pakistan state, other communities – Sindhi, Baloch – might have found it very oppressive. I mean I just think it was insufferable for these people.
I come from Hyderabad where it was like this as well. There people used to speak Telugu which was looked down upon. Urdu-wallahs thought of themselves as cultured. The hegemony of Urdu and the way it was mobilised by the elite Urdu nobility should be critiqued.
As a Pakistani, people like you are better situated to offer that criticism. But the other side is what you said. With the rise of religious extremism, Urdu got associated with Muslims, which is a joke. It was never just a language of Muslims. As secular, liberal people, we have to fight against the political project of the right-wing.
This is a paradox that does exist. But Urdu is a language that has survived in India despite everything. It will also survive in Pakistan but it has to learn to have a friendly relationships with other languages.
Shahab Saqib: Back to where we started. Your novel is historical fiction. Why do you think Urdu fiction lags behind, let us say, compared to its contemporary English South Asian counterpart?
Raza Mir: There are, I am sure, a lot of producers. But consumption of Urdu fiction has decreased. I remember when I was a child, people would buy Urdu paperback and used to read them. There were magazines for serials. But in Pakistan and India, that space has narrowed down today. There is only one way to deal with this issue: you have to translate from other languages into Urdu. We’re fortunate to have Shamsur Rahman’s work which is of such high-quality and influential. But aside from that, there is not much that is being written, at least in India. In Pakistan, Ali Akbar Natiq’s novel (Nau Lakhi Kuthi) came out which is a great work. So it’s not like the tradition has vanished altogether, but it definitely has weakened.
Shahab Saqib: For someone new to Ghalib’s life and poetry, what sources would you recommend in both Urdu and English for a comprehensive understanding of this iconic figure?
Raza Mir: You have already mentioned Mehr Afshan Farooqi’s book. It is written with contemporary sensibility. Before that Ralph Russell wrote a lot on Ghalib. One can also browse Francis Pritchett website which includes commentary on Ghalib. That one requires advanced knowledge of Ghalib to appreciate and may not be particularly helpful for those new to Ghalib. There is a lot of work available on the internet.
