Comparative Analysis

Context

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): Written in 1819, ‘The Mask of Anarchy’ is a direct
response to the Peterloo Massacre, a brutal cavalry charge on a peaceful pro-democracy
demonstration in Manchester, England. This event, which resulted in numerous deaths
and injuries, exposed the repressive nature of the British government and its fear of
popular dissent. Shelley, an ardent radical and advocate for social justice, was deeply
affected by the news while in Italy. His poem critiques the British monarchy, the ruling
elite, and the systemic political violence employed to suppress the working class and
reformers. The poem’s context is thus one of nascent industrial capitalism, burgeoning
democratic movements, and severe state repression, where the rights of assembly and
free speech were brutally curtailed.
Dastoor (Jalib): ‘Dastoor’ was written during the authoritarian rule of General Ayub
Khan in Pakistan, likely in the 1960s. Ayub Khan’s military dictatorship, characterized
by a highly centralized government, suppression of political opposition, and a facade ofcontrolled democracy,
provided the backdrop for Jalib’s defiant verses. Jalib, a
staunch opponent of military rule and a champion of the common people, used his
poetry to expose the hypocrisy of the regime and its disregard for fundamental human
rights. The context of ‘Dastoor’ is therefore one of post-colonial nation-building
struggles, the fragility of democratic institutions, and the pervasive influence of military
power, where dissent was met with imprisonment and censorship.
Comparison: Both poems emerge from periods of intense political repression and state-
sanctioned violence. Shelley’s context is that of an established imperial power
grappling with internal demands for reform, while Jalib’s is that of a newly
independent nation struggling to define its political identity under authoritarian rule.
Despite these differences, both poets respond to a fundamental abuse of power by the
state against its own citizens. They highlight the universal struggle between oppressive
authority and the aspirations of the populace for freedom and justice. The poets act as
immediate voices for the oppressed, using their art to document and condemn the
injustices of their time, thereby illuminating how socio-political contexts shape poetic
expression and how poets, in turn, become crucial chroniclers and critics of their eras.
This directly addresses Research Objective 2 by exploring poetry's role in expressing
socio-political concerns across different cultural contexts.

Theme

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): The central themes in Shelley’s poem revolve around
political oppression, class injustice, and the urgent need for revolution, albeit one
rooted in nonviolent resistance. Shelley condemns the tyranny of the ruling class,
personified by figures like Anarchy, Fraud, and Hypocrisy, who ride roughshod over the
common people. The poem champions liberty and justice, advocating for a moral and
political awakening among the masses. A significant theme is the power of nonviolent
resistance, as Shelley urges the people to “Rise like lions after slumber / In
unvanquishable number” (Stanza 38) but to do so with “folded arms and looks which
are / Weapons of unvanquished war” (Stanza 89). This theme of peaceful yet resolute
defiance is a cornerstone of the poem’s political philosophy.
Dastoor (Jalib): Jalib’s ‘Dastoor’ is permeated by themes of tyranny, false
democracy, and the unwavering spirit of popular resistance. The poem directly
challenges the legitimacy of a constitution (dastoor) that serves only the elite and
perpetuates injustice. Jalib’s voice embodies martyrdom, a fearless witness who
rejects the lies and domination imposed by the ruling class. The theme of revolutionary
defiance is palpable, as the speaker repeatedly declares, “I refuse to accept” (Main
Nahi Manta) (Stanza 1, 2, 3, 4), a powerful mantra of rejection against an illegitimate
system. The poem critiques the superficiality of a democracy that benefits only a few,exposing the inherent
contradictions of an authoritarian regime masquerading as a
legitimate government.
Comparison: Both poems share the overarching theme of resistance against oppressive
regimes and the pursuit of justice. Shelley focuses on the class struggle and the moral
imperative of nonviolent action, while Jalib emphasizes the rejection of false authority
and the dignity of individual and collective defiance. Both poets address the core issue
of political oppression, but their approaches to revolution differ: Shelley advocates for a
disciplined, nonviolent mass movement, whereas Jalib’s defiance is more
individualistic yet resonates with collective sentiment, embodying a spirit of unwavering
rejection. This thematic universality across cultures and eras demonstrates how poets
articulate similar struggles, fulfilling Research Question 1 and Objective 2 by showing the
enduring relevance of these themes in diverse socio-political landscapes.

Tone

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): Shelley’s tone in ‘The Mask of Anarchy’ is complex
and multifaceted. It is at once satirical, employing biting irony to expose the grotesque
nature of the oppressors, as seen in his depiction of Anarchy: “Last came Anarchy: he
rode / On a white horse, splashed with blood” (Stanza 7). There is an apocalyptic and
prophetic quality to the speaker’s voice, foretelling a future where justice prevails,
evident in lines like “And many more Destructions played / In this ghastly
masquerade” (Stanza 8). Despite the urgency of his call to action, the tone remains
remarkably restrained, particularly in its advocacy for nonviolent resistance, as he
advises the people to “Stand ye calm and resolute, / Like a forest close and
mute” (Stanza 89). This restraint lends moral authority to the poem, distinguishing it
from mere revolutionary fervor and elevating it to a philosophical treatise on political
change. This aspect directly addresses Research Objective 3 by demonstrating how tone
reinforces protest.
Dastoor (Jalib): In contrast, Jalib’s ‘Dastoor’ adopts a tone that is overtly defiant,
sarcastic, and fearless. The sarcasm is evident in his critique of the “constitution” that
benefits only the powerful: “The light which shines only in palaces / Burns up the joy of
the people in the shadows” (Stanza 1). The emotional intensity of the poem is palpable,
reflecting the raw anger and frustration of a populace living under military rule. Jalib’s
tone is direct and confrontational, leaving no room for ambiguity in his rejection of the
oppressive system, as powerfully conveyed by the repeated refrain, “I refuse to
accept” (Stanza 1, 2, 3, 4). This fearless and emotionally charged tone directly reinforces
the poem’s function as a protest, making it a powerful anthem for resistance. This also
addresses Research Objective 3 by showing how tone reinforces protest.Comparison: While both poets employ a
tone of protest, their specific tonal qualities
differ significantly. Shelley’s tone is more nuanced, combining satire and prophecy
with a call for disciplined nonviolence. Jalib’s tone is more direct, defiant, and
emotionally charged, reflecting the immediate and visceral nature of his protest against
military dictatorship. These differences demonstrate how tone reinforces protest
(Objective 3), with each poet adapting their emotional and rhetorical stance to best suit
their specific context and intended impact. Shelley’s restraint aims to guide a moral
revolution, while Jalib’s defiance aims to ignite immediate rejection. This comparison
directly contributes to Research Objective 1 by examining how poetic devices like tone
highlight political injustice.

Voice

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): The voice in ‘The Mask of Anarchy’ is that of a
prophetic, visionary speaker. This voice emerges from a dream-like state, granting it an
almost divine authority, as indicated in the opening lines: “As I lay asleep in Italy /
There came a voice from over the Sea” (Stanza 1). It calls upon the masses to awaken
from their slumber and rise against their oppressors, urging them to “Rise like lions
after slumber” (Stanza 38). The speaker acts as a guide, imparting wisdom and strategy
for a successful, nonviolent revolution. This prophetic voice elevates the poem beyond a
mere political tract, transforming it into a timeless appeal for human dignity and
freedom. The voice is both empathetic to the suffering of the people and resolute in its
conviction for change. This aspect emphasizes the poet-as-leader role, addressing
Research Objective 1 and Research Question 1.
Dastoor (Jalib): Jalib’s ‘Dastoor’ features a powerful first-person speaker who
embodies the role of a martyr and a fearless witness. This voice is deeply personal yet
resonates with the collective experience of oppression. The speaker is an individual who
refuses to compromise with falsehood and domination, declaring his unwavering
rejection of the illegitimate system. The repeated declaration “I refuse to
accept” (Stanza 1, 2, 3, 4) establishes a defiant and unyielding persona, making the
voice a direct instrument of protest. This voice is not merely an observer but an active
participant in the struggle, willing to face consequences for speaking truth to power. This
also emphasizes the poet-as-leader role, addressing Research Objective 1 and Research
Question 1.
Comparison: Both poems feature strong, authoritative voices that serve as catalysts for
change. Shelley’s voice is that of a visionary leader, guiding the masses towards a
moral revolution. Jalib’s voice is that of a defiant individual, a martyr who fearlessly
rejects oppression and inspires collective resistance through his personal example. Both
emphasize the poet-as-leader role (Objective 1, Research Question 1), demonstratinghow poets, through their
unique voices, can articulate the grievances of the oppressed
and galvanize them into action, even across vastly different cultural and historical
landscapes. This comparison directly contributes to Research Objective 1 by examining
how poetic devices like voice highlight political injustice.

Symbolism

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): Shelley employs rich and vivid symbolism to convey his
political message. Anarchy, personified as a grotesque figure riding a blood-stained
horse, symbolizes the lawless and destructive nature of the tyrannical government:
“Last came Anarchy: he rode / On a white horse, splashed with blood” (Stanza 7).
Hope is depicted as a weak maiden, initially frail but gaining strength as the masses rise,
symbolizing the potential for a brighter future: “And Hope, a gentle maiden, came / And
she was pale and thin and lame” (Stanza 35), later rising with the people. Other
symbols like light, chains, and lions represent awakening and resistance, urging the
oppressed to break free from their bonds and assert their inherent power: “Shake your
chains to earth like dew” (Stanza 38). The imagery of a ghastly masquerade further
underscores the deceptive and corrupt nature of the ruling class. This use of symbolism
directly addresses Research Objective 3 by showing how symbols are used as protest
tools.
Dastoor (Jalib): Jalib also utilizes powerful symbolism to critique the oppressive
regime. The “light in palaces” symbolizes the concentrated power and privilege of the
elite, which comes at the expense of the common people: “The light which shines only
in palaces” (Stanza 1). The “prison” represents the state’s fear tactics and its
attempts to suppress dissent through incarceration and intimidation. The phrase
“dawn without light” powerfully symbolizes the false promises of democracy and the
deceptive nature of the authoritarian government, which offers an illusion of progress
while perpetuating darkness and injustice: “Such a dawn without light, I refuse to
accept” (Stanza 1). These symbols effectively convey the pervasive nature of oppression
and the yearning for genuine freedom. This use of symbolism directly addresses
Research Objective 3 by showing how symbols are used as protest tools.
Comparison: Both poets effectively use rich imagery and symbols to critique power
structures (Objective 3). Shelley’s symbolism is often allegorical, personifying abstract
concepts like Anarchy and Hope to represent political forces. Jalib’s symbols are more
direct, drawing from everyday realities to expose the hypocrisy and brutality of the
regime. Despite these differences in approach, both poets succeed in creating powerful
visual and conceptual representations of oppression and resistance, making their
messages more accessible and impactful to their respective audiences. The use of light
and darkness imagery is particularly prominent in both, albeit with different nuances, tosignify the struggle
between truth and deception, freedom and tyranny. This comparison
directly contributes to Research Objective 1 by examining how poetic devices like
symbolism highlight political injustice.

Diction

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): Shelley’s diction is elevated, metaphorical, and

rhythmic, characteristic of Romantic poetry. He employs a sophisticated vocabulary and
complex sentence structures, often drawing on classical and biblical allusions. Phrases
like “Rise like lions after slumber / In unvanquishable number” (Stanza 38) are highly
poetic and memorable, designed to inspire and galvanize. The poem is rich in figurative
language, including metaphors and similes, which contribute to its artistic depth.
Shelley also makes extensive use of repetition and imperative commands, lending a
sense of urgency and directness to his call for action, despite the overall elevated tone.
This choice of diction directly addresses Research Question 2 by reflecting the political
struggles of his time through elevated language.
Dastoor:In stark contrast, Jalib’s diction is simple, direct, and rooted in local
idiom, making it highly accessible to the common people. His language is devoid of
complex metaphors or classical allusions, focusing instead on clear and unambiguous
statements. The most striking feature of his diction is the powerful repetition of “I
refuse to accept” (Main Nahi Manta) (Stanza 1, 2, 3, 4) as a defiant mantra. This direct
and repetitive phrasing creates a chant-like quality, making the poem easy to remember
and recite, thus enhancing its effectiveness as a protest anthem. Jalib’s choice of
simple language reflects his commitment to being a poet of the masses, ensuring his
message resonated widely. This choice of diction directly addresses Research Question 2
by reflecting the political struggles of his time through accessible language.
Comparison: The contrasting diction styles across the two poems highlight how poetic
language is adapted to express protest in different cultural contexts (Research Question
2). Shelley’s elevated diction appeals to an educated audience and aims for a more
philosophical and moral persuasion, while Jalib’s simple and direct language is
designed for mass appeal and immediate emotional impact. Both, however, effectively
use repetition to emphasize their core messages and create a memorable, rallying cry.
This demonstrates that while the linguistic choices may differ, the underlying purpose of
inspiring resistance through powerful rhetoric remains consistent. This comparison
directly contributes to Research Objective 1 by examining how poetic devices like diction
highlight political injustice.

Form & Structure

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): ‘The Mask of Anarchy’ consists of 91 stanzas,

primarily written in a lyrical ballad form, characterized by its narrative quality and
regular rhyme scheme (ABAB). The poem exhibits a structured buildup to a climax, with
alternating sections of hope and despair, reflecting the emotional journey of the
oppressed. The long form allows Shelley to develop his allegorical narrative, introduce
various characters, and elaborate on his political philosophy. The consistent rhythm and
rhyme contribute to its memorability and its potential for public recitation, despite its
length. For example, the consistent rhyme and meter in stanzas like “As I lay asleep in
Italy / There came a voice from over the Sea, / And with great power it forth led me / To
walk in the visions of Poesy” (Stanza 1) provide a rhythmic flow. This formal choice
directly addresses Research Objective 3 by showing how poetic form is used as a protest
tool.

Dastoor (Jalib):

‘Dastoor’ is a much shorter poem, comprising only four stanzas,

written in free verse. Its structure is chant-like, with each stanza building a claim of
rejection. The absence of a strict rhyme scheme or meter gives it a conversational and
immediate feel, mirroring the directness of its diction. The brevity and repetitive
structure make it highly suitable for oral dissemination and collective recitation in
protest settings. For instance, the repeated phrase “I refuse to accept” at the end of
each stanza creates a powerful, unifying chant. The poem’s form reinforces its function
as an anthem of defiance, designed for immediate impact and widespread adoption.
This formal choice directly addresses Research Objective 3 by showing how poetic form
is used as a protest tool.
Comparison: The contrasting formal approaches in ‘The Mask of Anarchy’ and
‘Dastoor’ demonstrate how structure is tailored to suit each context and reinforce the
message (Objective 3). Shelley’s longer, more traditional form allows for a detailed
allegorical narrative and a nuanced exploration of political philosophy. Jalib’s concise,
free-verse, chant-like structure is designed for immediate, powerful impact and easy
memorization, reflecting the urgency of his message in an authoritarian context. Both
forms, however, are highly effective in their respective aims of inspiring and mobilizing
their audiences, proving that there is no single prescriptive form for effective protest
poetry. This comparison directly contributes to Research Objective 1 by examining how
poetic devices like form and structure highlight political injustice.

Imagery

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): Shelley’s poem is replete with powerful and often
disturbing imagery, drawing heavily on Gothic and biblical allusions. Anarchy is depicted
as a monstrous figure, “a many-headed thing,” and Fraud as a “Bishop, with a mitreand a crozier” (Stanza 9).
The imagery of a “blood-stained horse” (Stanza 7) and
“blood like dew” (Stanza 2) vividly portrays the violence of the Peterloo Massacre and
the suffering of the common people. The stark class divide is emphasized through
images of the oppressors feasting while the masses starve. The poem also uses imagery
of nature, such as the “forest close and mute” (Stanza 89) and “lions after
slumber” (Stanza 38), to evoke a sense of latent power and collective strength among
the oppressed. This blend of grotesque and natural imagery creates a compelling visual
narrative that underscores the poem’s message of injustice and potential for liberation.
This use of imagery directly addresses Research Objective 3 by showing how imagery is
used as a protest tool.
Dastoor (Jalib): Jalib’s imagery, while less allegorical than Shelley’s, is equally
potent in exposing stark social realities and the hypocrisy of the ruling elite. Images like
“joy in shadows” and “branches bare” (Stanza 1) depict the deprivation and
suffering of the common people under the oppressive regime. The “light in
palaces” (Stanza 1) contrasts sharply with the darkness experienced by the masses,
highlighting the vast disparity between the rulers and the ruled. Jalib also uses imagery
that exposes propaganda and false promises, such as the “dawn without
light” (Stanza 1), which symbolizes the deceptive nature of the government’s claims
of progress and democracy. His imagery is direct and visceral, designed to evoke
immediate recognition and emotional response from his audience. This use of imagery
directly addresses Research Objective 3 by showing how imagery is used as a protest
tool.

Comparison: Both poets utilize strong visual and emotional imagery to enhance their
resistance literature. Shelley’s imagery is often grander, more allegorical, and draws
from a broader literary tradition, creating a sense of epic struggle. Jalib’s imagery is
more grounded in everyday realities, directly reflecting the lived experiences of the
oppressed and exposing the immediate injustices of his time. Despite these differences,
both effectively use imagery to create a vivid portrayal of oppression and to evoke
empathy and anger in their readers. The common thread is the use of imagery to
highlight the stark contrast between the oppressors and the oppressed, thereby
strengthening their political critique and call for action. This comparison directly
contributes to Research Objective 1 by examining how poetic devices like imagery
highlight political injustice.

Call to Action

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): Shelley’s poem culminates in a powerful and direct
call to action, famously encapsulated in the lines, “Ye are many—they are few” (Stanza
38). This serves as a direct appeal for nonviolent mass protest, urging the people torecognize their collective
strength and to rise up against their oppressors through
peaceful means. The poem provides a blueprint for organized, disciplined resistance,
emphasizing unity and moral fortitude over violent confrontation. Shelley’s call is not
for a bloody revolution but for a moral uprising, where the sheer number and moral
righteousness of the people will overwhelm the tyrannical few. This call to action is both
inspiring and strategically significant, advocating for a new form of political
engagement. This directly addresses Research Objective 1 and 4 by showing how the call
to action inspires political awakening and contributes to political discourse.
Dastoor (Jalib): Jalib’s call to action is more personal yet equally potent, expressed
through the repeated mantra, “I refuse to acknowledge, I refuse to accept” (Stanza 1,
2, 3, 4). This personal refusal is presented as the foundation for collective resistance. By
articulating an individual’s unwavering rejection of an illegitimate system, Jalib
inspires others to adopt a similar stance of defiance. The power of his call lies in its
simplicity and directness, making it an accessible and repeatable act of protest for
anyone living under an oppressive regime. It is a call for dignity and self-respect in the
face of tyranny, suggesting that true freedom begins with the refusal to submit. This
directly addresses Research Objective 1 and 4 by showing how the call to action inspires
political awakening and contributes to political discourse.
Comparison: Both poems serve as powerful catalysts for political awakening,
addressing Research Objective 1 and 4. Shelley’s call is a direct, strategic appeal for
organized mass action, emphasizing the power of numbers and nonviolence. Jalib’s
call is a more personal, yet universally applicable, act of defiance that encourages
individual refusal as a precursor to collective resistance. While their approaches differ,
both poets aim to empower the oppressed and inspire them to challenge the status quo.
They demonstrate how poetry can transcend mere commentary to become an active
instrument of social and political change, providing a moral and emotional impetus for
action. This comparison directly contributes to Research Objective 1 by examining how
poetic devices like the call to action highlight political injustice.
Stylistic Devices
The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): Shelley employs a wide array of stylistic devices to
enhance the poem’s impact and convey its complex message. Allegory is central, with
abstract concepts personified as characters (Anarchy, Fraud, Hypocrisy) to represent
political forces, as seen in Stanzas 7-12. Personification is also used for elements like
Hope and Despair. Rhetorical questions engage the reader directly, prompting reflection
on injustice, such as “What is Freedom?–ye can tell / That which Slavery is, too
well” (Stanza 77). Repetition, particularly of key phrases and ideas, reinforces the
poem’s central themes and call to action, as in the repeated “Rise like lions” (Stanza38). Apostrophe, addressing
an absent or imaginary person or thing, is used to directly
confront the forces of oppression and to appeal to abstract ideals. These devices
contribute to the poem’s elevated tone and its persuasive power. This use of stylistic
devices directly addresses Research Objective 3 by showing how they are used as protest
tools.
Dastoor (Jalib): Jalib’s poem, while simpler in diction, is equally rich in stylistic
devices that strengthen its political critique. Irony is a prominent feature, used to expose
the hypocrisy of the “constitution” that claims to uphold justice while perpetuating
oppression, as implied in the opening lines about the light in palaces. Repetition, as
noted, is a key device, with the phrase “I refuse to accept” (Stanza 1, 2, 3, 4) serving as
a powerful refrain that unifies the poem and reinforces its message of defiance.
Metaphor is used to create vivid comparisons, such as “light in palaces” for elite
power. Direct address engages the audience, making the poem feel like a personal
conversation or a public declaration. Sarcasm is also employed to mock the pretensions
of the ruling class. These devices contribute to the poem’s directness, emotional
intensity, and memorable quality. This use of stylistic devices directly addresses
Research Objective 3 by showing how they are used as protest tools.
Comparison: Both poets effectively utilize varied stylistic devices to strengthen their
political critique (Objective 3). Shelley’s devices are more aligned with classical
rhetoric and allegorical traditions, creating a layered and intellectually engaging text.
Jalib’s devices are more direct, confrontational, and designed for immediate
emotional and political impact, reflecting his commitment to accessible protest poetry.
Despite these differences in approach, both demonstrate a masterful command of poetic
craft to articulate their messages of dissent. They show how literary techniques can be
deployed strategically to amplify political messages and inspire resistance across diverse
cultural and historical contexts. This comparison directly contributes to Research
Objective 1 by examining how poetic devices like stylistic devices highlight political
injustice.

Political Vision

The Mask of Anarchy (Shelley): Shelley’s political vision, as articulated in ‘The Mask
of Anarchy,’ is one of a just England rising through peace and unity after shaking off the
shackles of tyranny. He envisions a society where true liberty, justice, and wisdom
prevail, replacing the corruption and violence of the current regime. This vision is not
merely utopian but provides a practical framework for achieving change through
collective, nonviolent action. Shelley’s poem is a blueprint for a moral revolution,
where the power of the people, united in their pursuit of justice, can dismantle
oppressive structures and establish a more equitable society. His vision is deeply rootedin Enlightenment ideals
of human rights and self-governance, as conveyed in his call for
“Justice, Love, and Wisdom” (Stanza 91). This vision directly addresses Research
Objective 4 by contributing to literary and political discourse.
Dastoor (Jalib): Jalib’s political vision in ‘Dastoor’ is centered on the breakdown of
false authority and the restoration of dignity through the people’s defiance. He
envisions a society where the “constitution” truly serves the common good, rather
than the interests of a select few. His poem implicitly calls for a genuine democracy, free
from military interference and elitist control. While less prescriptive than Shelley’s in
terms of a detailed plan for political change, Jalib’s vision is equally revolutionary in its
insistence on the inherent right of the people to reject illegitimate rule and reclaim their
agency. His vision is one of empowerment through unwavering resistance and the
triumph of truth over deception, encapsulated in his refusal to accept the unjust system.
This vision directly addresses Research Objective 4 by contributing to literary and
political discourse.
Comparison: Both poems serve as revolutionary blueprints rooted in poetic form
(Objective 4), offering distinct yet complementary political visions. Shelley’s vision is
more explicitly detailed, advocating for a specific strategy of nonviolent mass protest to
achieve a just society. Jalib’s vision is more focused on the immediate act of defiance
and the moral imperative of rejecting false authority, implicitly paving the way for a
more just future. Both, however, share a fundamental belief in the power of the people
to effect change and a deep commitment to challenging oppressive systems. Their
political visions, though shaped by their respective contexts, offer universal lessons on
the enduring struggle for freedom and justice, demonstrating the transformative
potential of poetic expression. This comparison directly contributes to Research
Objective 1 by examining how poetic devices like political vision highlight political
injustice.
Conclusion
This comparative textual analysis of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s ‘The Mask of Anarchy’
and Habib Jalib’s ‘Dastoor’ reveals the profound and enduring role of poetry as a
form of political protest across diverse historical and cultural landscapes. Despite being
separated by over a century and distinct socio-political contexts—Shelley responding to
the Peterloo Massacre in 19th-century England and Jalib to military dictatorship in
mid-20th-century Pakistan—both poets masterfully employed their craft to challenge
injustice, articulate the grievances of the oppressed, and inspire collective action.
Our examination of various poetic aspects has highlighted both the universalities and
specificities of their approaches. In terms of Context, both poems emerged from periodsof intense state
repression, demonstrating how poets become crucial voices in times of
crisis. The shared Theme of resistance against oppression, albeit with different
emphases on nonviolence versus defiant rejection, underscores the universal human

struggle for freedom. The Tone adopted by each poet—Shelley’s satirical yet restrained
prophecy versus Jalib’s defiant and sarcastic directness—illustrates how emotional
and rhetorical stances are tailored to specific contexts to maximize impact. The Voice of
the poet, whether Shelley’s visionary guide or Jalib’s fearless martyr, consistently
emphasizes the poet-as-leader role in galvanizing public consciousness.
Symbolism in both poems effectively critiques power structures, with Shelley’s
allegorical figures and Jalib’s stark depictions of social realities creating powerful
visual narratives of oppression. The contrasting Diction—Shelley’s elevated and
metaphorical language versus Jalib’s simple and direct idiom—demonstrates how
linguistic choices are adapted to reach different audiences while still conveying powerful
messages of protest. Similarly, the divergent Form & Structure—Shelley’s lengthy
lyrical ballad versus Jalib’s concise free-verse chant—showcase how poetic
architecture reinforces the message and suits the context. Both poets utilized
compelling Imagery to expose injustice and evoke emotional responses, whether
through Gothic allusions or stark social realism.
The Call to Action in both poems serves as a powerful catalyst for political awakening,
inspiring their respective audiences to challenge the status quo. Their use of Stylistic
Devices, from Shelley’s allegory and rhetorical questions to Jalib’s irony and
repetition, underscores the strategic deployment of literary techniques to amplify
political critique. Finally, their distinct yet complementary Political Visions—Shelley’s
blueprint for a just England through nonviolent unity and Jalib’s insistence on dignity
through defiance—offer enduring lessons on the transformative potential of poetic
expression in the pursuit of freedom and justice.
References
[1] Cameron, Kenneth Neill. The Young Shelley: Genesis of a Radical. Macmillan, 1962. [2]
Bate, Jonathan. Romantic Ecology: Wordsworth and Environmental Tradition.
Routledge, 1991. [3] Jalib, Habib. Kulliyat-e-Habib Jalib. (Various editions, specific
publisher and date may vary depending on edition)