agana might be one of the most important poets of Urdu ghazal in the early and mid-20th Century, paving the way for a new style of Urdu ghazal alongside the likes of Firaq Gorakhpuri and Fani Badayuni, as some critics argue.

However, his claim to fame nowadays is less concerned with the poetry he composed and more with the essays he wrote in opposition to Ghalib, who is considered the greatest Urdu poet by many.

It was somewhat natural for this reviewer, who is enamoured with Ghalib, to develop a dislike for Yagana without having read much of his work, simply because Yagana is perhaps the most significant Ghalib-Shikan (intent on destroying Ghalib’s reputation as a great Urdu poet) in the tradition of Urdu literature.

Nevertheless, the curiosity to understand Yagana’s arguments against Ghalib persisted. Perhaps there was some substance in his criticism – after all; one might argue for instance that Ghalib is not among the greatest poets due to the pervasive incomprehensibility in his works.

In one of its two newly published books on Ghalib, the Idara Yadgar-i-Ghalib has provided an opportunity for readers interested in Ghalib to catch a glimpse of what Yagana and some other critics of Ghalib had to say against him.

The book, Muhmilaat-i-Ghalib (Meaninglessness in Ghalib’s work), has brought to the fore a literary battle that was fought across several issues of the periodical Shabab-i-Urdu in 1921 and 1922.

The battle was triggered by an essay by Muhammad Abdul Malik, published in the February 1921 issue of the periodical, which called for the removal of all the ‘meaningless’ couplets from Ghalib’s diwan. The essay attracted both supporters and detractors of the suggestion, with Yagana jumping on the bandwagon, expanding on Malik’s original criticism – that some of Ghalib’s couplets lacked meaning – to include allegations of plagiarism.

These essays were first compiled and published in the 19th issue of Ghalib, a periodical of the Idara-i-Yadgar-i-Ghalib. Researcher Mushfiq Khwaja wrote a comprehensive introduction to this debate. Now, the Idara Yadgar-i-Ghalib has published these essays, along with Khwaja’s introduction, in the form of a book titled Muhmilaat-ie-Ghalib.

In the footnotes to his introduction, Khwaja has provided brief biographical material about the critics who participated in the debate. Malik, who sparked the chain reaction with his initial article, was the grandfather of renowned Urdu humourist Muhammad Khalid Akhtar and worked for the Bahawalpur state.

Interestingly, Khwaja concedes that he could not find any details about at least two of the authors – Abu Aziz Hakim Ghulam Ghaus and Abul Ata Amil Ilahabadi (spelt as Abul Afaa in one instance) – both of whom, especially the latter, were critical of Ghalib.

Those who wrote in Ghalib’s defence included Gohar Jaisi and Chiragh Hasan Hasrat. The latter’s piece brought the debate to a close, or at least led the periodical to end it, in its January 1922 issue. However, the compilers of Muhmilat-i-Ghalib have also included a related piece that was published a year later, in March 1923.

Before turning to Yagana, in whom we are most interested, it would be appropriate to briefly outline Malik’s arguments. Malik says that while Ghalib’s poetry is widely admired, this does not mean that every verse he wrote is rich with meaning. He adds that Ghalib’s work is being taught to literature students, who are confronted with the challenge of his so-called meaningless verses.

Malik recalled that Ghalib had destroyed a significant portion of his verses because he considered them substandard. The article suggested that the remaining meaningless verses in his Diwan, which Ghalib had failed to expunge, should be purged from his collection by contemporary scholars.

In a subsequent article, Ghaus supported Malik’s suggestion of removing meaningless verses from Ghalib’s Diwan but disagreed with him on the specifics of implementation. He found two of the couplets that Malik deemed meaningless to be beautiful and imaginative. These were:

Tujh Say To Kuch Kalam Nahin Lekin Ae Nadeem/ Mera Salam Kahio Agar Namabar Milay

Husn Aur Us Peh Husn-i-Zan, Reh Gayi Bul Hawas Ki Sharm/ Apnay Peh Aitemaad Hai, Ghair Ko Azmaye Kyun?

In the first of his two articles in the book, Yagana laments that Ghalib’s popularity extends even to those who have no real concern with poetry or literature. He then references Malik’s article and expands the criticism of Ghalib by adding the charge of plagiarism (sarqah), insinuating that many of Ghalib’s meaningful verses are actually the result of borrowing. Yagana claims that Ghalib borrowed phrases, words and ideas from earlier poets such as Saaib, Bedil, Urfi and Sauda.

In the final article of the debate, Hasrat msasterfully debunked this criticism, arguing that the repetition (tawarud) of ideas and themes in poetry is not the same as plagiarism. He further pointed out that if Yagana applied the same definition of plagiarism to his own work, his poetry, too, would be subject to the same charge.

In his second, longer piece, Yagana delved into the subject of meaninglessness. He argued that if literary scholars were unable to reach even a broad consensus on the meaning of a couplet, then that couplet must be deemed meaningless. To support his point, he cited several couplets by Ghalib and mentioned that different exegetes had arrived at entirely different interpretations of those, suggesting that these couplets were devoid of intrinsic meaning.

In one instance, Yagana asserted that a particular couplet by Ghalib was not inherently meaningless but lost meaning after Ghalib provided an explanation in a letter that did not align with the text of the couplet.

One might disagree with Yagana, and many surely do, but his articles are fascinating due to his choice of words, which never verge on impertinence. Even when he accused Ghalib of plagiarism, it did not feel like a smear. It is perhaps his Lucknawi tehzeeb (etiquette) that he cannot abandon, even when writing about someone he considers grossly overrated.

The other book recently published by the Idara-i-Yadgar-i-Ghalib is titled Ahwal-i-Ghalib. Unlike the first book, which has a central theme, this one is a collection of diverse critical and biographical essays on Ghalib. The topics range from the depiction of Mughal civilisation in Ghalib’s poetry to the ontological framework in his work. One of the articles seeks to clarify widespread misconceptions about Ghalib’s literary feuds during his time in Calcutta.

The authors whose pieces have been included in the book include Dr Aftab Ahmed Khan, Shanul Haq Haqqee, Syed Qudrat Naqvi and Dr Haneef Naqvi. Many of these articles feature excerpts from Ghalib’s letters written in Persian. It would have been useful if the compilers had included Urdu translations of these excerpts in the footnotes, allowing readers like this reviewer, who do not know Persian, to better understand the articles.

It was not very pleasant to find Ghalib using derogatory words like ahmaq and paji for his literary adversaries in Dr Mukhtaruddin Ahmed’s article on Ghalib’s prose work Taigh-i-Taiz. The article showed a vulnerable aspect of Ghalib’s personality. One of the articles that this reviewer liked most in the book was Haqqee’s short piece on how dil (heart) and jigar (liver) behave differently in Ghalib’s poetry, with the former inducing patience in the lover and the latter forcing him to wail.

The reviewer may be reached at bilal89ahmed@gmail.com