THE ghazal form is known to be rich in metaphors, similes and allusions, better known as taghazzul. Two metaphors occupy a central position in it, namely Gul-au-Bulbul and Bada-au-Saghar.

Even Ghalib felt compelled to recognise the inevitability of these two metaphors in ghazal. On one occasion he felt the need to say that even while grappling with a metaphysical experience we are obliged to talk in terms of Bada-au-Saghar.

A newly published collection of ghazals by Ubaid Siddiqi titled Rung Hava Main Phail Raha Hai and published by Maktaba-i-Jamia, Delhi, conspicuously stands absolved from these two dominating metaphors. What does this signify? Is it a conscious attempt on the part of the poet, who might be thinking that taghazzul is something outdated and so is trying to get rid of it?

Siddiqi is professionally a media person. At the outset of his career he joined the All India Radio. Receiving an offer from the BBC, he proceeded to London yet could not stay there for long. After returning to Delhi, he joined the department of Mass Media at the Jamia Millia Islamia.

Rung Hava Main Phail Raha Hai is Siddiqi’s first collection of ghazals, even though, as he informs us in his foreword, he has been writing since 1969. According to his own estimation he is late by around 25 years in bringing out his first collection. Poets, more particularly ghazal writers, are in general impatient souls. Each newly written ghazal asks for a quick response and so a ghazal writer is always seen in search of an audience.

Siddiqi tells us that he has worked long and hard to forge an individualistic style for himself. He had started writing under the guidance of a great master of ghazal in the city of Meerut. However, when he went to Aligarh and found himself amid a crowd of young poets at the university, he was able to discover a new tone very different from what had been in currency in the world of Urdu ghazal.

We can infer from this that under the influence of new trends in Urdu poetry, Siddiqi seriously laboured to rid himself of the traditional mode of expression associated with the ghazal. His ghazals do not carry shades of taghazzal.

Not only that, he also seems to have abandoned the Persianised expression, which at times can be considered an obstacle in the way of poetic expression.

In fact, the very form of ghazal had come under attack after the end of the classical period around about 1857, when it was being rejected with the argument that the form has grown outdated and is no longer capable of reconciling with the demands of changing times. Despite such opposition, the ghazal form remained resilient even though it showed tendencies of change.

The progressives were perhaps more successful in their attempts when they tried to give new meanings to old metaphors in accordance to the demands of their ideology. So terms such as bahar, khizan, sayyed and qafas now appear with vibrant new meanings as seen in the poetry of Faiz.

There were also rebels who rejected taghazzul altogether and wrote a kind of ghazal which came to be known as the anti-ghazal. This revolutionary form did shock, yet had an appeal of its own, the kind that rebellious acts carry.

However, this appeal did not last long. Soon the newly emerged anti-ghazal stood discredited.

Siddiqi has neither followed the prescription suggested by the progressives, and nor do his verses contain elements of anti-ghazal. He does not come to us as a rebel. Rather, he merely shrugs off what appears burdensome to him and turns to the spoken idioms of the times he is living in. This act brings spontaneity and flow in his expression.

He cares not to appear profound. Instead, he loves to talk in an easy manner which may make his ghazals appear devoid of subtleties in the metaphorical expressions.

He has achieved simplicity of expression, which is a quality in itself. This expression is in perfect harmony with the times and human conditions we are living in today.