One Possible Interpretation
Mohammad Zaheeruddin (Hyderabad) has this scholarly critique of the 10-word sher written by Daagh Dehlvi in the 1800s.
—-
I realised that I have a problem with this she’r. We get so carried away with our conditioned God/No-God and Religion/No-religion notions that we fail to identify obvious lapses.
To begin with, I don’t find ‘ishq’ and ‘aashiqi’ to be one and the same. I believe that ‘ishq’ is the most evolved and refined form of love with an innate element of frenzy or madness that tends to defy reason or logic.
Ishq, in its true form, is completely unmindful of either its cause or its consequences; it is oblivious to why and what for; the idea whether it’s requited or not is inconsequential to it; it is seized by the object that is both the source and purpose of its survival. It knows no confines - it may have as its source and purpose, a human, a value system, an ideology, a faith, and in its highest form, the creator himself.
Aashiqi, on the other hand, is the act of conducting ishq and hence, involves an element of deliberation or effort. Ishq happens but Aashiqi is performed. Even as a passion, Aashiqi carries the elements of romance and sexuality as its innate features; its contours are more physical in nature; it is therefore confined to humans. It’s so physical and so sensual that a hedonist like Mahesh Bhat couldn’t resist making a sequel of ‘Aashiqi’ after over 20 years.
In this she’r, Daagh Dehlvi, unquestionably an ustaad sha’er, fails to appreciate the nuance between Aashiqi and Ishq.
It’s not Aashiqi that draws one closer to the Divine; it’s Ishq that does so. I believe, the she’r must read as follows to make sense.
Ishq hi se milega ae zahid
Bandagi se khuda nahi milta
Even if we abide by the theory that ‘ishq-e-majaazi’ (love for God’s creation) too, is meant to pave the way for ’ishq-e-haqiiqi’ (love for the Creator), it first has to qualify as ‘ishq’ and not as ‘Aashiqi’.
Before we let our impulses run wild on God/No-God notions, let’s understand that this she’r is no commentary on the existence or otherwise of Divinity or Religion.
It’s rather a critique of the ritualistic worship of those who are devoid of any ishq either for the Creator or his creation. ‘Zahid’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘priest’; it could mean any devout person or ascetic who advocates piety. Here he’s a person who overemphasises religious rituals without going through the spiritual refinement that rests upon the binding principle of selfless love both for the Creator and the creation.
Urdu poetry is full of scathing criticism of ritualistic worship. It upset Ghalib so much that he suggested that heaven be thrown into the fire of hell if worship is prompted by want of reward and not by the love for Divine:
Taa’at meN Taa rahe na mae-o-angbeeeN ki laag
Dozakh meN daal do koi lekar bahisht ko
Iqbal warned:
Ye zikr-e-neem-shabi, ye muraqibe, ye suroor
Teri khudi ke nige’hbaaN nahiN to kuch bhi nahiN
Khirad ne ka’h bhi diya la-ilaah to kya haasil
Dil-o-nigaah musalmaaN nahiN to kuch bhi nahiN
Iqbal also had a lament over the trivialities that acquired significance relegating the soul of worship to the background:
Haqeeqat khuraafaat meN kho gaii
Ye ummat rivaayat meN kho gaii
Faraz ridiculed chanting of beads as a means to reach God:
Mera qalam nahi tasbee’h us muballigh ki
Jo bandagi ka bhi her dum hisaab rakhta hai
And Mumtaz Mirza talked about proximity to the Divine to be the ultimate destination and a distant goal while the very practice of worship is a mere means to an end:
Manzil hai bahot duur tasavvur se bhi aage
Ye dair-o-haram ek sar-e-raahguzar haiN