Advertisements

Happy Sir Syed Day: Hindi Transcript of Complete Nazm of Majaz Titled “nazr-e-aligarh”- Later Abridged and Adopted as AMU Tarana

22389b38-e37b-4d5f-b40d-77afac92c22a.jpgये मेरा चमन है मेरा चमन, मैं अपने चमन का बुलबुल हूँ
सरशार-ए-निगाह-ए-नरगिस हूँ, पा-बास्ता-ए-गेसू-संबल हूँ

हर आन यहाँ सेहबा-ए-कुहन एक साघर-ए-नौ में ढलती है
कलियों से हुस्न टपकता है, फूलों से जवानी उबलती है

जो ताक-ए-हरम में रोशन है, वो शमा यहाँ भी जलती है
इस दश्त के गोशे-गोशे से, एक जू-ए-हयात उबलती है

इसलाम के इस बुत-खाने में अस्नाम भी हैं और आज़ार भी
तहज़ीब के इस मै-खाने में शमशीर भी है और साघार भी

याँ हुस्न की बर्क चमकती है, याँ नूर की बारिश होती है
हर आह यहाँ एक नग्मा है, हर अश्क यहाँ एक मोती है

हर शाम है शाम-ए-मिस्र यहाँ, हर शब है शब-ए-शीराज़ यहाँ
है सारे जहाँ का सोज़ यहाँ और सारे जहाँ का साज़ यहाँ

ये दश्त-ए-जुनूँ दीवानों का, ये बज़्म-ए-वफा परवानों की
ये शहर-ए-तरब रूमानों का, ये खुल्द-ए-बरीं अरमानों की

फितरत ने सिखाई है हम को, उफ्ताद यहाँ परवाज़ यहाँ
गाये हैं वफा के गीत यहाँ, चेहरा है जुनूँ का साज़ यहाँ

इस फर्श से हमने उड़ उड़ कर अफ्लाक के तारे तोड़े हैं
नहीद से की है सरगोशी, परवीन से रिश्ते जोडें हैं

इस बज़्म में तेघें खेंचीं हैं, इस बज़्म में साघर तोड़े हैं
इस बज़्म में आँख बिछाई है, इस बज़्म में दिल तक जोड़े हैं

इस बज़्म में नेज़े खेंचे हैं, इस बज़्म में खंजर चूमे हैं
इस बज़्म में गिर-गिर तड़पे हैं, इस बज़्म में पी कर झूमे हैं

आ आ कर हजारों बार यहाँ खुद आग भी हमने लगाई है
फिर सारे जहाँ ने देखा है येह आग हमीं ने बुझाई है

यहाँ हम ने कमनदेँ डाली हैं, यहाँ हमने शब-खूँ मारे हैं
यहाँ हम ने कबायें नोची हैं, यहाँ हमने ताज़ उतारे हैं

हर आह है खुद तासीर यहाँ, हर ख़्वाब है खुद ताबीर यहाँ
तदबीर के पा-ए-संगीं पर झुक जाती है तकदीर यहाँ

ज़र्रात का बोसा लेने को, सौ बार झुका आकाश यहाँ
खुद आँख से हम ने देखी है, बातिल की शिकस्त-ए-फाश यहाँ

इस गुल-कदह पारीना में फिर आग भड़कने वाली है
फिर अब्र गरजने वाले हैं, फिर बर्क कड़कने वाली है

जो अब्र यहाँ से उट्ठेगा, वो सारे जहाँ पर बरसेगा
हर जू-ए-रवान पर बरसेगा, हर को-ए-गराँ पर बरसेगा

हर सर्द-ओ-समन पर बरसेगा, हर दश्त-ओ-दमन पर बरसेगा
खुद अपने चमन पर बरसेगा, गैरों के चमन पर बरसेगा

हर शहर-ए-तरब पर गुजरेगा, हर कसर-ए-तरब पर कड़केगा
ये अब्र हमेशा बरसा है, ये अब्र हमेशा बरसेगा

here english text can be seen

Advertisements
Posted in earth | 1 Comment

Functional Classification of Cities

The structure and functions of any region varies in terms of function, history of development as well as age of the town. Some towns and cities specialize in some functions and they are known for some  products or services. However, each town performs a number of functions. On the basis of functions, Indian cities and towns can be broadly into – Administrative towns and cities, Industrial towns, Transport Cities, Commercial towns, Mining towns, Garrison Cantonment towns, Educational towns, Religious and cultural towns, and Tourist towns.

Towns are  classified according to their dominant function. This dominant function may be trade, administration, defence or entertainment.

All towns are supposed to provide various services like health, education, municipal (water, electricity, sanitation), transportation and marketing. Therefore, it is not always  worth­while to classify urban places into a single particular function.

Here are some notable attempts classifications of cities by different scholars.

Aurousseau’s Classification:

In 1921, M. Aurousseau classified towns into six classes: administrative, defence, culture, production-towns, communication and recreation. His classification though a simple one, however, suffers from the defect of over-generalization. To classify a town into one major category, generally neglects the role of other classes.

In his classification economic activities are neglected. These are important in the sense that a town also caters for the need of people residing outside its municipal limits. Various classes of functions as suggested by Aurousseau create confusion in the sense that both functional and location characteristics are mixed; for example, under communica­tion-class group of towns performing function of ‘transfer of goods’ are put.

Towns with tidal-limit, fall-line-towns, bridgehead towns point out attribute of location in performance of their function. It is thus doubtful that such towns are exclusively communicational, and not locational. Similarly, pilgrimage centres are cultural towns, but these equally are significant in their geographical location on mountainous terrain, in valleys or on banks of rivers.

Univer­sity-town is also a misnomer because this type of adjective cannot be its function but only a single quality among its overall urban milieu. But Anuousseau’s classification marks a signif­icant stage and provides a springboard for sophisticated methods. It is actually a comprehensive scheme bringing together polygonal functional urban activities to classify urban centres.

Harris’s Classification:

Chauncy D. Harris remedied the deficiencies of the former subjective and common-sense-judgement-based classifications. He was able to identify quantitatively dominant function out of multifunctional character of cities. He used employment as well as occupational figures reduced to percentages to indicate cut-off points for urban activities varying in importance.

This classification is based on the fact that some activity-groups employ many more persons than others do. For example, USA’s 27 per cent employed persons of the total urban employment are in manufacturing, while wholesale trade has about 4 per cent. Thus, it is obvious that some functions should be assigned higher percentages than others. From analyzes, he was able to set up limits for each of his types as shown in the Table 9.1.

Criteria used by Harris in Functional Classification of Cities 

Harris’s classification suffers with some grave defects and cannot be universally viable. He used metropolitan districts as functional units because the industry-group data such as those published now were not then available when he did his research. Consequently, number of cities which were too small to have metropolitan districts were left unclassified.

Carter labelled Harris’s classification as subjective because the decisions to access or delete with a minimum number or cut-off points seem to be a personal one and were set by simple empirical means. Under the class of ‘Transport and Communications’, workers engaged in telephone and telegraph services were omitted simply on empirical grounds which was nothing more than a subjective decision.

Duncan and Reiss tried to revise the problem of functional specialization by using the lowest value of supper decline or quantile groups. This revision is advantageous in the sense that it made an allowance for the different size-classes in the classification.

Howard Nelson’s Classification:

Howard Nelson published A Service Classification o f American Cities, in 1955. Nelson used employment data in 24 industry groups for 897 urban concentrations of 10,000 or more people. The data were then arbitrarily grouped into nine major categories of service functions. For each industry group, the average proportion of the labor force engaged in that activity was determined. Most cities didn’t have average employment in a given industry; therefore, a variation from the mean existed. This was done because Nelson wanted to create a classification based on clearly stated statistical procedures. Nelson used a more statistical method than his predecessors – standard deviation. He used standard deviation to establish degrees of functional specialization in a given industry group. Nelson calculated three standard deviations above the mean of each industry group, since he was specifically concerned with higher levels of employment. This would allow for a degree of emphasis inside the overall functional specialization in a city. This research discovered many instances of geographical patterns. Manufacturing was the most common of all functions, with more than 1/5 of the 897 cities, and was located in the traditional manufacturing belt of the country. (Nelson 1955) Retail trade tended to be located more in the central portion of the country, and wasn’t present in the region dominated by manufacturing. Nelson’s method was a multi-functional approach, which is a stronger method of measuring economic levels than a simple dominant classification.

Nelson further removed the shortcomings of the classifications of those of Harris and others by using a stated procedure that could be objectively checked by other workers. He decided to base his method of classification entirely upon major industry groups as listed in the 1950 Census of Population for standard metropolitan areas, urbanized areas and urban places of 10,000 or more population. He omitted the little significance groups like agriculture and construction, and finally, arrived at the nine activity groups.

The problem of city specialization, and also the degree of specialization above the average was solved by giving margins of different degree to different size classes. He did find a definite tendency for the percentages employed in some activities vary with city size. The question – ‘When is a city specialized?’ was solved by using a statistical technique – the Standard Deviation (SD).

A city can be specialized in more than one activity and to varying degrees. Thus he showed for each city all activities that qualified for plus 1, plus 2, or plus 3 SDs above the mean. Table 9.2 indicates averages and SD in percentages for selected nine activity groups (1950) as developed by Nelson.

Link(s) and Source(s):

ArticleLibrary

Posted in Class Notes, earth, urban morphology, Urban Studies | Leave a comment

Few countries are meeting the Paris climate goals. Here are the ones that are.

Exposing the Big Game

Dead trees stand in a recently deforested section of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

This week, a top scientific body studying climate change released a terrifying report. The world has just a decade to take “unprecedented” action to cut carbon emissions and hold global warming to a moderate — but still dangerous and disruptive — level. That would require a “rapid and far-reaching” transformation of the world’s economy, one of such scale and magnitude that it has no historical equivalent.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that nearly every country will need to significantly scale up the commitments made under the 2015 Paris climate accord if humans hope to avoid disaster. Under that agreement, 195 countries pledged to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions to try to keep global warming under two degrees Celsius.

But it’s hard…

View original post 572 more words

Posted in earth | Leave a comment

Bases of Classification of Urban Centres

Urban centres are numerous, and these vary in their size, functions, location and in their social composition, culture and heritage too. It is therefore worthwhile to classify towns into categories for better understanding about their role .

The problem of classifying urban centres is not an easy task. This is because of several reasons. First, the number is too large to handle on some viable grounds. The size of towns has a wide span ranging between 5,000 to 10,000,000, and this might not characterize town’s personality by breaking these into subjective or arbitrary classes. Tier classification system of Indian Cities is an example.

Second, the towns have a long historical background and have been under various regimes dating back thousand years from birth of Christ to the present era of democratic set-up. Finally, the data about functions and economy of Indian cities have not yet been standardized because of the absence of a suitable urban agency to deal with these. Under these circumstances classifications and categorization of urban places in India differ from state to state and from author to author.

There may be several methods, ways and means to classify urban centres. Site and situation of towns, population, size and functions, their social and cultural environment, etc., are some of the recognized bases to put them into groups. Out of all the bases of classification, the variable of ‘function of a town’ is widely accepted and reliable too. ‘Reliable’ in the sense that town itself is defined as an unit characterized by non-agricultural activities.

Non-agricultural activities include administrative, industrial, commercial, cultural, etc. It is rarely that a town is ‘mono-activity’ centre. Often towns develop diversified activities and are known to posses multifarious functions like economic, administrative and cultural.

Source(s) and Link(s):

ArticleLibrary

Wikipedia

Posted in earth | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: