I am a humble student of Urdu poetry and an ardent admirer of Ghalib. But I have been time and again struck by the conspicuous lack of national feeling in Ghalib's poetry.

It is not necessary that poets should be imbued with patriotism. Intellectuals like Ghalib do not write for one country or one age. They write for all ages. But there is much more than that in the case of Ghalib. He lived at a time when the country was passing through a very difficult time. Ghalib lived in Delhi, the nerve-centre of the struggle for the country's independence. He was the ustaad of the Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah 'Zafar' who was at the head of this struggle against the British rulers. The existence of his disciple and patron, the Emperor Bahadur Shah, was at stake. The Muslims of that time were in the lead and it was under their green flag that the forces of freedom had gathered with the determination to drive out the foreign usurper. When the whole of the Northern India was buring with the fervour of patriotism how could a person of Ghalib's eminence remain aloof and unaffected by this? And we know, on his own authority, that he did not remain untouched by the flames. He suffered heavily. During those turbulent days he was almost a prisoner in his own home. The description of his misery is recorded in the various letters that he wrote during that period to his well-wishers. Now we know that Ghalib was affected and that he made clear references to it in his prose. My question is: Why there is no mention of it in his poetry which affords greater scope and freedom for guarded and indirect suggestions.

Ghalib was sensitive and self-respecting. We are told that he once refused a job at a time when he needed it most —simply because there was nobody to receive him at the outer gate when he went for the interview. When our poet was so sensitive to the affront to his personal prestige, how could he gulp down his throat that great affront to national prestige? Even if he was indifferent to the national cause how could he remain indifferent to an event, or a series of events, which afflicted him? How could he overlook the humiliation of his patrion? At least the personal tragedy of Bahdur Shah 'Zafar' must have tormented his soul, and he must have become impatient to give expression to his agony in verse. That poet who could write on such a trifling subject as 'Chikni dali' could have remained silent on the tragic fate of his benefactor and also of his country, is unbelievable. There must have been some reason for this.

It might be that the occurrences were so cruel that the super-sensitive poet was mute with horror and anguish. If it was so he could have described them later on for he lived for more than eleven years after 1857.

...So the question before us is: Was Ghalib ungrateful to his master and unpatriotic to the country? ...Or was he so much shaken by the events in and around Delhi that he thought it discreet to remain silent and also never to mention them while he lived? Or did Ghalib refrain from referring to it in his poetry for fear of losing shatever little hope he had of the restoration of his withdrawn pension? And we know that he made great efforts and took enormous pains for its restoration.

...Three inferences can be drawn: (i) Ghalib was a great poet but a very ordinary human being and it was on this account that he was so unpopular during his time. His contemporaries studied his poems in the light of his conduct and did not attach much value to his literary productions. (ii) Ghalib was, like many other intellectuals, a great snob. He considered it below his dignity to make any reference to that great event of history. (iii) Ghalib did write poems which were either directly related to, or alluded to, that great national calamity but discreetly refrained from publishing them. I am of the opinion that the last possibility is worth greater consideration while the others should also be honestly investigated. It is up to scholars to work hard to find out those poems.
April 26, 1969