The Tints of Disgust (The “honorable” art of Farting in classical Urdu Literature)

In Urdu-speaking society, it is rare for anyone to accept that in early human societies (or semi-settlements), passing gas (farting/flatulence) was considered a basic shared human value. One of the major intellectual and mental challenges for humans is creating distinctions and classifications based on differences that humans possess.

The question is: What is the “Thing” that can bring all humans to the same level of equality? If a practical reality can put everyone on the same surface, what could be more interesting than that?

The research from the University of Helsinki on this topic is worth considering:

“In early jokes, one of the most important roles of the fart was to demonstrate our shared humanity and to add a modicum of equality between people: we are at the mercy of our bodies and capable of laughing together.”

This research is not a joke or something trivial; rather, it is based on deep anthropological insight. 

Farting is an aspect of human life that even the greatest realists in the world have avoided confronting. For a moment, let’s accept that this act is unpleasant, but unpleasantness is entirely subjective. It is a well-known Nietzsche that described the general delicacy and refinement of women’s bodies as a soft (strange) repulsion. He also referred to women as frail and awkward beings.

The question to think about is whether this feeling or perception of humans is natural or acquired.

Why is it that in ancient stories or traditions, this act was presented in a very lighthearted manner? Instead of going too far back, consider the 15th-century German thinker Johann Faust’s book “Book of Sociable Conversation.” This book, along with other tales, collects jokes related to farting. Studying it reveals an interesting fact: in ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, and German cultures, passing gas was associated with the expulsion of evil forces from the body. In other words, farting was not just seen as a relief but as something to take pride in. 

One of the anecdotes in the book tells of a wealthy man who suffered from such severe intestinal inflammation that he was completely unable to fart. His body became weak, and he was near death. Desperately, he prayed to God to allow him to release gas. Someone suggested he pray, saying, “O Lord, you have given me the vastness of the earth and sky, but now will you not grant me even a single fart?” His prayer was answered, his pain was gone, and his condition improved. His physician remarked on the occasion, “If people understood the importance of farting, they would trade it instead for gold and silver.”

There are fewer examples like this in Urdu literature, but they are not completely absent. Such topics have always been a matter of interest for the Classical Urdu poets; we, on the other hand, are unable to read these colorful and deviant aspects too.

For example, in the second Dewan by Qaim Chandpuri (born in 1726), the first story under the title “Hikayat” is similar to this. It is the tale of a famous king who faces the same trouble.

جو مسدود تھی ریح رودہ کے بیچ
ہوئی رفع کھلتے ہی سدہ کا پیچ

(The air, stranded into the channels of the intestines, started passing through when the passage got cleared.)

Ministers took the king before a Qalandar for a solution. He promises the king to resolve the issue for some value.

In the end, the advice that the Qalandar gives to the king is worth considering.

کہا مرد درویش نے کاے عزیز
اسے چاہیے شخص پر بے تمیز
کہ خواہش میں اس سلطنت کی دے جاں
جو وابستہ اک گوز پر ہے نداں

(He said, “Oh my dear, he needs a person to make him see. He is sacrificing for the empire that values a single fart.)

It means, how can one rely on a kingdom whose entire worth depends on something as trivial as a single fart? It’s clear that our serious poets have expressed this idea in profound ways, but its crude and earthly expression often feels embarrassing to us.  Recently, I had the chance to read Laporte’s book “The Psychology of Shit.” This book introduced me to the intellectual and psychological importance of such topics. Laporte provided examples from various writers around the world. In my opinion, the collection of classical Urdu poetry by Charkeen Lucknowi (unfortunately infamous) could have been a rare inclusion in this book. 

However, we often feel embarrassed by poets who deviate from normal traditional norms, leaving poor Charkeen. Among refined circles, even reading Charkeen’s poetry can make people uncomfortable, despite the fact that these verses are neither obscene nor offensive—only unconventional in subject matter. Their style, undoubtedly, holds significance.

It’s worth reflecting that even if sophisticated writers ignore the sexual inklings in Shakespeare’s plays, what would they do with the tales of passion in “Masnavi Ma’navi,” packed with erotic metaphors, or the stories of love and youth in Saadi’s “Gulistan”? Who would dare to read Saadi’s verse?

لمّا رَأَت بَینَ یَدَی بَعلِها
شَیئاً کَأرخیٰ شَفَةِ الصّائِمِ

(When she saw of her husband something like the drooping lip of a fasting person.)

Charkeen Lucknowi, is the only Urdu poet who wrote extensively on topics like excretion and its related themes, compiling them into a collection. Beyond the subject matter, he established a unique literary tradition in excretory poetry. The glossary in his small collection is so rare and original that no lexicographer can overlook it. 

To call his poetry vulgar or trivial would be an injustice to literature. Shamsur Rahman Faruqi, in his brief but significant essay, considered Charkeen’s approach a rare contribution to global literature. Thankfully, Faruqi’s essay helps liberate Charkeen’s work from the rigid taboo surrounding it. This essay serves as the preface to “Diwan-e-Chirkeen”, edited by Shatir Gorakhpuri, published in India. Studying this modern edition and Faruqi’s essay sparked my interest in Chirkeen’s glossary. 

Charkeen wrote dozens of poems that humorously explore societal rituals related to excretion and hygiene. For instance, consider this verse relevant to the above discussion:

روتے انسان کو ہنساتا ہے
پاد میں وہ کمال ہے صاحب 

(It makes a weeping person smile; this is the value of a fart.)

Who can read this poem without smiling to themselves? While it may not be suitable for discussion, it is impossible to ignore in terms of its necessity and its underlying aspects.

Shan ul-Haq Haqqi used to say that laughing and making others laugh are among the poetic functions of poetry. Our classical poets were well aware of poetic logic and its functions.

In Charkeen’s above verse, the scientific point is that no matter how sad a person is, this act (of farting) creates a feeling of joy. When a person is relaxed, they smile, and the person in front of them, affected by this feeling, finds psychological comfort in the shared experience of human discomfort. In other words, in this situation, everyone is equal. The phrase of Urdu “laughing in a saffron field” has been used many times, but it took poor Charkeen to express this very earthly idea. This topic is perhaps a key feature of his scatological thoughts, and it has been repeated in his short Dewan. In another place, he has put it this way:

بیت الخلاء میں بیٹھ کر خوش ہے وہ شرمگیں
روتے کو بھی ہنسائے یہ ہے پاد کا خواص

(He is sitting happily in the bathroom : bashfully; making a weeping person smile, this is the quality of a fart.)

However, this verse does not have the same flow as the first one. The first verse, although it seems simple, has depth. Notice that the word “pad” is used in the singular form. This can either be general or emphasize the singularity of the power, meaning that just once(one fart), this action (or its result) can turn crying into laughing. Apparently, this is both more interesting and easier because making a crying person laugh is perhaps difficult in many ways. But this seemingly simple thing can lead to a psychologically extraordinary transformation. Nearly every artist or poet has reflected on the large outcomes of small and seemingly insignificant actions. This reminds me of Nida Fazli’s work:

گھر سے مسجد ہے بہت دور چلو یوں کر لیں
کسی روتے ہوئے بچے کو ہنسایا جائے

(The mosque is far from the house, let’s amuse a weeping child to compensate.)

In childhood, I read the poem Little Things by Carney, and two lines of it came to mind:

And the little moments,
Humble though they be,
Make the mighty ages of eternity.

It’s unnecessary to mention that in the second line of Charkeen’s poem, he uses a demonstrative pronoun in a way that also serves as an excellent example of poetic expertise, acting as a powerful form of exaggeration.

This verse is a bold expression of a common observation. Charkeen has also written verses on the themes of power and weakness of a fart through logic and generalization, which can leave you stunned for a moment when you read them. Consider this example:

توڑتے ہو گوز سے اپنا وضو
شیخ جی صاحب تمہیں کیا ہو گیا

(You are breaking ablution by a fart. What is wrong with you o Pious man?)

This poem cleverly uses a subtle contrast to make a point. Breaking the purity of a state of ablution with a fart may make sense biologically, but it’s quite a puzzle from a logical perspective. To understand this better, let’s look at a simple everyday example. Common sense tells us that something pure can temporarily become impure, and then need to be purified again (for example, performing ablution again after farting). Similarly, water can become dirty but can be purified and made drinkable again using various methods. We usually clean water that is polluted by dirt, stones, or things that have no moral significance. However, if the water is mixed with urine or something filthy, even if it can be purified, our conscience would not allow us to drink it. This is the subtle point made in the poem: breaking the purity of ablution with a foul thing like a fart doesn’t make sense logically.

It’s also interesting that the common expression is “ablution breaks” rather than “breaks ablution,” which suggests a difference between something done intentionally and something unintentional. In the second line of the poem, “Sheikh and Sahib” are both words of respect, indicating the surprise that even someone so honored would perform such a simple task. The poet has filled the simple line with many meanings. The poem also suggests that no matter how hard we try, humans are always subject to earthly needs.

The poet’s use of “What happened to you?” brings a sense of familiarity and casualness. Re-reading the poem reveals even deeper insights. A famous line by Ghalib is:

میری تعمیر میں مضمر ہے صورت اک خرابی کی

The purity we are so proud of is never a contingent construct. We’ve consciously accepted that, despite inevitable impurities in our bodies, we can still be pure. That’s why we tend to shy away from thinking about the natural needs of being a Human. Shamsur Rahman Faruqi once wrote about Charkeen’s thought-provoking piece, where one of his friends would wonder with surprise, seeing beautiful women, “Does the same happen to them too?” This is a thought we’ve probably all had at some point in our lives. Philosophically, this means that we, as a society, are under the influence of an archetype searching for total and absolute purity. This brings us back to the beginning of the story of life, as expressed by Mir.

خوش باشی و تنزیہ و تقدس تھے مجھے میرؔ
اسباب پڑے یوں کہ کئی روز سے یاں ہوں

(I was blessed with the modesty, pleasure and high esteem ( In paradise),
Things gone wrong in such a way as i happened to reach this world for many days.)

At the end let’s take a look at another line from Charkeen’s ghazal, where the idea is expressed more openly:

پیٹ میں فضلہ ناپاک بھرا رہتا ہے
کیا طہارت میں یہ شک کرتے ہیں زہاد عبث

(The intestines are filled with the disgusting filth.
Why are you so proud of the apparent sanity and cleanliness O Zahid?)

Would any realist dare to express such a harsh and unfiltered truth?