The amount of elevated and refined literature produced in the Urdu language over the past fifty to sixty years—and still being produced—is perhaps unparalleled in any other era. Tragically, however, the forces and individuals determined to demean quality literature have also become more ruthless than ever before. In such a situation, the question arises: what is the solution, and how can this decline be addressed? The fundamental realization I have arrived at is that the most crucial task in the contemporary age is to clearly distinguish between genuine and artificial literature, and to identify true versus fabricated poets and writers. It is with this purpose that I felt the need for a parallel study of Zafar Iqbal and Ghulam Muhammad Qasir.
Moreover, one of the aims of the Perceptionist critical school is to liberate criticism from sterile academic formalism and purely bookish debates, and to reconnect it with a living, breathing dialogue within society—so that criticism may strengthen its bond with vibrant literature instead of beginning and ending in lifeless, irrelevant abstractions. Another purpose of this comparative study is to expose a major literary deception that has misled three generations: namely, the promotion of non-poetic gimmickry under the banners of "new poetry", "modern poetry", or "unique poetry". Through persistent propaganda, people were compelled to accept such verbal acrobatics as genuine—and even innovative—poetry.
The movement for "new poetry" gained significant momentum in the 1970s and 1980s. Among its enthusiastic proponents were Iftikhar Jalib and Dr. Anees Nagi, who argued that nothing new remained to be said in the ghazal; that it had become stagnant, repetitive, and limited in themes, rhyme schemes, and imagery—like still water. They called for something radically new to break this inertia. It is for Zafar Iqbal himself to explain how and when he aligned with this movement and drifted into what I consider a non-creative experimentalism. In the name of experimentation and novelty, poetic essence and spirit were abandoned to such an extent that trivial, crude, and even vulgar imagery was presented as innovation in ghazal and linguistic construction. Nothing could be a greater mockery of literature—or a greater insult to poetry as a refined art.
The purpose of this study is to analyze this distortion and juxtapose it with the work of a pure and authentic poet, so that this long-standing literary misdirection may be challenged. Zafar Iqbal’s widely cited verses, which he presents as achievements of new linguistic formations, often fail to uphold poetic dignity. The excessive praise of such work—amplified through literary circles and even his newspaper columns—has created an illusion of greatness.
A recurring psychological issue in our literary culture is that mediocre writers, out of insecurity, tend to elevate similarly artificial poets while ignoring truly great creators. Through constant repetition, these constructed reputations begin to appear real to impressionable minds. Despite decades of acclaim for Zafar Iqbal’s "modernity" and "experimentation", the verses cited as examples often derive their strength from earlier poets such as Shakeb Jalali. A poet whose own work cannot substantiate his claims invites not celebration but critical scrutiny.
Zafar Iqbal himself has likened his poetry to manual craft—carpentry and assembling charpoys—thus critics should also treat it accordingly and not mislead future generations by presenting it as great poetry. In contrast, when I read Ghulam Muhammad Qasir, my eyes moisten and my heart trembles at the depth of emotional sincerity and creative innocence. One begins to question the intellectual and aesthetic judgment of those who have sidelined such a genuine poet in favor of artificial constructs.
It must be said repeatedly: weak critics and scholars—whether due to conformity, academic fashion, or personal limitations—have promoted respectable elders like Zafar Iqbal, Ahmad Mushtaq, and Khurshid Rizvi as major poets, while systematically neglecting profoundly gifted poets like Ghulam Muhammad Qasir. Even senior poets who initially described Zafar Iqbal as "different" soon fell silent. Shamsur Rahman Faruqi himself reportedly refuted exaggerated claims about Zafar Iqbal before his passing.
The difference between Zafar Iqbal and Ghulam Muhammad Qasir is essentially the difference between a craftsman and a poet. Poetry, at its core, is the aesthetic expression of inner emotional states and subtle feelings. Zafar Iqbal, unfortunately, appears largely devoid of this fundamental quality. Even if an occasional verse of emotional depth appears in his work, it does not establish him as a poet of feeling—just as an occasional flat verse does not define Qasir’s poetry.
Zafar Iqbal’s poetry often presents a clever, calculating persona, while Ghulam Muhammad Qasir’s voice embodies innocence, sincerity, sadness, and compassion—rooted in truth, love, and peace. The absence of a coherent worldview in Zafar Iqbal’s poetry results in a disconnect between thought and language. The few verses of his that are frequently quoted contradict his own claims of linguistic innovation, instead echoing the tones of poets like Ahmad Faraz and Adeem Hashmi.
In contrast, Ghulam Muhammad Qasir’s poetry gains even greater beauty when read within the context of his complete ghazals. His creative world is shaped by profound emotional experiences—love, longing, fear, loss, helplessness, and existential anxiety—which generate the internal turbulence necessary for true poetic creation. His verses appear spontaneous, as if they descend fully formed upon the heart and effortlessly take shape on paper.
Qasir is not only deeply attuned to his inner world but also empathetically connected to his era. His poetry reflects social, moral, and human concerns with remarkable sensitivity. Where Zafar Iqbal’s experiments often distort language without meaningful purpose, Qasir’s work demonstrates how authenticity, emotional depth, and artistic integrity produce enduring poetry.
It is possible that someday Zafar Iqbal may realize that by abandoning his natural inclination and following the path of "anti-poetry", he not only harmed his own poetic potential but also misled students of literature through lifeless constructions masquerading as modern poetry. Today, despite being alive, he must rely on external references to remain relevant, whereas Ghulam Muhammad Qasir, though long gone, continues to live vibrantly through his poetry—breathing life into his readers. This is the fundamental difference between artificial and genuine poetry.
I conclude with a verse that encapsulates both a poetic and philosophical vision of life:
"Better that books come into our hands instead of gunpowder;
Would that the twenty-first dream of our eyes be a beautiful one".
