Reading through the history of Urdu poetry, one comes across a number of stories where poets needed patrons to sustain themselves as the patrons needed poets to eulogise them. Thinking of patrons and poets is also thinking of the development of Urdu as a language as well as the strength of this language to become the medium of literary expression. We also get to know in this process how Urdu’s literary cultures emerged through ages.

The account of the patrons must begin with Mohammad Quli Qutub Shah (1565-1611), the fifth ruler of the Qutub Shahi dynasty of Golconda, and end with Bahadur Shah Zafar (1775-1862), the last Mughal emperor. Similarly, the account of the patronised poets must begin with Amir Khusrau (1253-1325) and come down to Asadullah Khan Ghalib (1797-1869).

Many patrons and one poet: Amir Khusrau

An accomplished poet, musician, and a celebrated disciple of the great Sufi saint, Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya (1238-1325), Khusrau is known for his association with several nobles and rulers. This association started when he was only twenty. By the time he reached his 40s, he received the title of Amir, meaning a commander or a noble man, from one of his patrons, Jalaluddin Khilji. Among all the poets who cultivated, craved, or developed their bond with their patrons, Khusrau stands apart as he enjoyed respect like none else during his own times or even afterwards. His association with Nasiruddin Mehmood, (1246-1266), Gheyasuddin Balban (1266-1287), Jalaluddin Khilji (1290-1296), Alauddin Khilji (1296-1316), Qutbuddin Mubarak Shah (1316-1320), Gheyasuddin Tughlaq (1320-1325), and Mohammad bin Tughlaq (1325-1351) is spread over a larger portion of his life. While he eulogised Jalaluddin Khilji for his four conquests in Miftah-ul Futooh, he celebrated the accomplishments of Gheyasuddin Tughlaq in Tughlaqnama. Nuh Sepehr, written in nine different metres to describe nine different spheres, is a unique work in which Khusrau wrote a panegyric for Mubarak Shah. In his prose work entitled Khaza’in-el Futooh, also known as Tareekh-e Alai, he described Alauddin Khilji’s conquests with great pride. Apart from putting all his patrons in good humour with complete objectivity, he developed his narratives in a manner that might also be read as the sources for understanding the larger political and cultural life of medieval India. This apart, Khsrau is remembered today as a poet and an icon of popular culture having great contemporary relevance.

Deccan poets and patrons

The tradition of patrons patronising poets may further be traced in the Deccan rulers of the Qutub Shahi and Adil Shahi dynasties of Golconda and Bijapur. At least four Qutub Shahi rulers--Mohammad Quli Qutub Shah, Mohammad Qutub Shah (r. 1611-1625), Abdulla Qutub Shah (r. 1625-1672), and Abul Hasan Qutub Shah (r. 1672-1682)--were poets themselves and pursued the craft of poetry as genuine poets do. The most noteworthy of them all is Mohammad Quli Qutub Shah who wrote in Persian, Telugu, and Deccani—a variant of Urdu—and came to be acknowledge as the first poet in Deccani Urdu with at least fifty thousand shers and a complete divan to his credit. Acclaimed to be a major poet, he practiced all poetical forms. He wrote on a variety of issues concerning communal life and the sentiments of the common people, their festivals and faiths, love and the pleasures of union, in a frank and disarming manner.  Drawing upon Hindu culture, as also upon the Persian culture and its literary tradition, he developed a secular view of love, life, and literature. He blended the best traditions of the two streams of thought and life to impart a new halo to his poetry. His poetic merit lies in his simplicity and musicality which he appropriated to project an inclusive view of life and art. Essentially a poet of his own flora and fauna, Quli Qutub Shah was a kind-hearted ruler, a passionate lover, and a great patron of arts and architecture. A legend goes that Quli Qutub Shah founded a city called Bhag Nagar after one of his beloveds called Bhagmati which later became Hyderabad, once Bhagmati came to be re-named as Hyder Mahal. Quli Qutub Shah who had appointed Mulla Asadullah Wajahi (1551-1660) as a poet laureate, wrote a poetical narrative called Qutub Mushtari. This poetical narrative celebrated Quli Qutub Shah’s love for this lady called Mushtari who was none else but Bhagmati herself.

From the Adil Shahi dynasty of Bijapur, we have the examples of Ali Adil Shah (1558-1580) himself who patronised Mohammad Nusrat Nusrati (d1674) and appointed him as his poet laureate. Nusrati wrote several panegyrics for his patron which could also be read as the histories of Deccan. Noted for his skill as a poet and his appeal to the ruler, Nusrati was later appointed as poet laureate by Emperor Aurangzeb (r. 1658-1707) also when he gained control over Bijapur in 1686. While Nusrati revelled in this pride, he also earned enemies and wrote lampoons on them only to be killed by his staunch critics. This underlines the problem of rivalry among court poets and their followers of which several cases appeared later also but none as heinous as this one. Like Ali Adil Shah, Ibrahim Adil Shah II (1580-1626) too patronised poets although those poets did not prove their potential to earn their place in literary history.

Delhi and Lucknow poets and patrons

Poets and patrons in Delhi and Lucknow wrote the most remarkable chapters in Urdu’s literary history. Mohammad Rafi Sauda (1713-1781), however, offers a different case in point. He chose to refuse the title of poet laureate from Emperor Shah Alam II (r. 1759-1806) as he could not abide by his growing demands to advise him on his verses. Instead of bowing down to his dictates, he chose to accept the patronage of other nobles who respected him and gave him his due. His many patrons included Basant Ali Khan, Nawab Saifuddaulah, Nawab Ghaziuddin Khan Imadulmulk in Delhi and Meharban Khan Rind in Farrukhabad and Nawab Shujauddaulah in Faizabad. The most important of them all was Nawab Asifuddaulah of Lucknow who rewarded him with a monthly stipend of rupees two hundred which was later converted to a jagir of rupees six thousand per annum. He wrote panegyrics for all his patrons, as also for some others like Alamgir II, Nawab Hasan Raza Khan, and Mir Mohammad Kazim. Sauda wrote in Persian, before coming to Urdu and distinguished himself as a major panegyrist in the history of Urdu poetry. He wrote forty three panegyrics celebrating his patrons and historicising his times.

We have a very different example in Meer Taqi Meer (1723-1810) who migrated from Agra to a shattered Delhi to seek the sources of his sustenance. In Delhi, he could meet his ends with great difficulty. He lived a life with poor means and later went from court to court but his proud self did not allow him to stay anywhere for a long period of time. Some of the prominent nobles, apart from several others who patronised him, included Riayat Ali Khan, Raja Jugal Kishore, Mahanarayan Diwan, Amir Anjam Khan, Nawab Azam Khan, Raja Bishan Singh, Nawab Imad-ul-Mulk, and Nawab Saadat Ali Khan. Of all his patrons, he received the best of favours from Raja Nagar Mal for as long as fourteen years. However, his relationship with him came to an end when Meer’s proud nature made him feel that Nagar Mal did not really respect him as much as he deserved. Meer also received patronage from Shah Alam II and at the ripe age of sixty. Finally, Meer left Delhi for Lucknow where he received patronage from Nawab  Asifuddaulah (r. 1775-1797) and  Saadat Ali Khan (1798-1814) until his death.

Yet another example of a patronised poet is that of In sha Allah Khan Insha (1757-1817) who got admittance in the court of Shah Alam II. He was despaired at the failing powers of the Mughal Empire and left for Lucknow where Nawab Saadat Ali Khan employed him as a poet and a personal companion. Later, he resented the growing demands of the nawab for writing more verses and remaining in constant attendance. Unable to yield he chose to part ways with him as he could not check his defiant nature, nor keep his unsparing wit against the nawab in abeyance any longer. He spent the rest of his life in misery, penury, and silence. His bitterness was further deepened with the ongoing literary brawls he had with his contemporary, Ghulam Hamadani Mus’hafi (1750-1824) who could not get admittance in the court even though his talent as a poet was well acknowledged for his great command over diction and the degree of spontaneity in which none could match him then.

The lineage of Khusrau, Nusrati, Sauda and Insha reached its end with Sheikh Mohammad Ibrahim Zauq (1789-1854) and Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib (1797-1869) who received patronage from Bahadur Shah Zafar. A poet, a kind patron of poets, an aesthete, and a man of religious leanings, Zafar, the crown prince, was a disciple of lesser poets like Shah Naseer, Mir Kazim Husain Beqarar in the early years, and of Zauq and Ghalib in the later years. For him, composing poetry was cultivating a difficult art that called for perseverance and devotion. This also explains his choice for multi-syllabic lines and difficult qaafia (the rhyming syllable at the end of a two line verse) and radeef  (repeated after rhyme). He is remarkable for the typical Indianness of his poetry and his apprehension of the musical that helped him modulate his tone of voice. Zafar wrote the characteristic poetry of love and despair in his early phase and of more serious concerns like the failings of human fate and the mystic apprehensions of life during the later period that saw his dethronement and exile. It has been claimed that he was not such a faithful portrayer of human sentiments, and that he exploited language only to his limited gain, but it may also be posited that in drawing upon the potential of the same language and the same poetic skills, he emerged as a sensitive commentator on the fall of the royalty. Zafar had completed four divans before 1857 although much was lost during the terrible events of the year. 

Zafar was not a major poet but he certainly was a chronicler of the last days of the Mughal Empire that had lost its glory and had fallen a prey to the British Empire. Similarly, his literary mentor, Sheikh Mohammad Ibrahim Zauq too was a poet and eulogist of little consequence but he enjoyed respect on account of being in his court although its glory had already become a thing of the past. Zauq joined the young prince to train him in the art of writing poetry and was given four rupees a month for his services. Recognising him for his skills as a wordsmith, Akbar Shah II gave Zauq the title of Khaqani-i-Hind after the great Persain poet Khaqani (1106-1190) when he wrote a panegyric for him at the age of nineteen. When Zafar came to the throne, he appointed him as his mentor in 1808 and poet laureate in 1837. He also raised his stipend to rupees one hundred per month. Zauq lacked philosophical depth but he had mastered the idiom. His capacity to exploit the splendour of the written word turned him into an important panegyrist which won him favours from the emperor. Although he had little to contribute to form and style, he could distinguish himself for his verbal felicity:

In spite of his limitations, Zauq continued as the poet laureate as long as he lived and was succeeded by Asadullah Khan Ghalib with whom he had a long standing rivalry. Ghalib excelled Zauq in all respects as a poet and enjoyed no less respect in the court of Zafar.  He was an exceptionally accomplished poet and a prose writer, an epistolarian and a diarist, a lexicographer and a polemist, a critic and a historian, but above all, an arbiter of taste. He was assigned the job of writing the Mughal history of which he completed the first part called Mehr-e Neem that takes the period from Timur to Humayun into account.

In return for being Zafar’s literary mentor and in recognition of his multiple talents, Ghalib earned three coveted titles of Najm-ud-daulah, Dabeer-ul-mulk, and Nizam Jung from Zafar. Ghalib lived a life of want and longing and wrote poetry of great metaphysical depth. He received rupees fifty from the Mughal court and rupees one hundred from the court of Rampur. Ghalib maintained a queer position as he subscribed to the given order of the day yet remained confident about maintaining a difference. Being the last of the court poets, he put a seal on the institution of patrons and poets and made way for poetry to survive in a secular world after him.

Patronage and poetry

Considering these poets associated with courts, one comes across some questions that call for consideration. Did these poets write because their association with the court could empower them socially, or did they write to earn financial favours by eulogising their patrons? Another question underlines a political issue, that is, whether these poets maintained their individual stances even at the risk of losing their patronage, or whether they appropriated their skill as poets only to indulge into politicking with their patrons at the cost of a literary tradition? Yet another serious question poses itself, that is, whether these poets played only a limited role towards promoting a larger literary culture, or whether they were more interested in constructing their personal myths? Finally, it is equally pertinent to ask whether these poets chose only to romanticise and create utopias, or whether they were broadly writing their times while writing themselves. 

With reference to the patrons like Quli Qutub Shah, Ali Adil Shah, Akbar, Jahangir, Shahjahan, and Bahadur Shah Zafar, I might posit that these patrons took pride in patronising their poets but all the poets they patronised did not necessarily submit themselves to their patrons at all costs. While Khusrau, who constitutes a class by himself, maintained his position and dignity; Sauda, Meer, and Insha remained proud and unyielding. Zauq and Ghalib are two different kinds of cases. Zauq took great pride in being the emperor’s mentor and also in having too many disciples in his fold. Ghalib accommodated with his lot and made compromises taking exceptional pride in his genius that he rightly thought was unsurpassed. It would be justifiable to posit that the poets who sought, or got patronage from the courts, wrote poetry of subterfuge quite often but they mostly wrote a kind of poetry that was intensely their own.  As such, when they wrote of themselves, they also wrote their times and their patrons. Being in the court imparted them an identity and a strength of their own which distinguished them on the one hand and earned them rivals on the other.  They created socio-cultural contexts for themselves and problematised their vocation in the process. In this respect, they obliterated the distinction between the court and non-court poets, and took to sharpening their talent and refining their language to join and promote a great tradition of poetry and poetry writing. In this manner, they also re-defined the form, rhetoric, and tools of poetic expression. While they wrote as poets, they also helped their patrons to write as poets and discover a language for themselves as they could not have written in the language available to them as rulers and nobles. It may be posited further that though rulers and nobles might be patrons and poets might be patronised but only those poets survived who served poetry and not necessarily the patrons.

Ultimately, it was poetry that found a space for itself and through that the poets who constructed a genre of court poetry. In this process, the poet emerged as a chronicler and the patron as the chronicled.  The relationship between literary writing and patronage has always been dichotomous. In medieval India, nobles and kings patronised poets and established their own identity as liberal promoters of arts. The significant feature of this patron-poet relationship is that it helped develop a literary culture of a certain kind. It also brought forth a readership that made way for this culture to grow and sustain. Without this critical and crucial readership, neither literary culture, nor canon, nor form, nor genre; not even the patrons and their poets could have survived beyond a time.