At ninety-two, the poet Gulzar continues to write, and in doing so he reminds us that the deepest artistic vocations do not retire — they simply deepen. For more than half a century, his lyrics have given Indians a language for love's quieter registers, threading through over one hundred fifty films and across generations of listeners who reached for his words when their own fell short. His ongoing work raises an old question with new urgency: what do we owe to artists who refuse the comfort of legacy, who keep risking the page when silence would be forgiven?
At 92, Bollywood's Poet Laureate Still Crafts Love's Tender Verses
The quiet, observant kind that lives in the space between two people
Mark
What makes Gulzar's work endure when so much of cinema from his era has faded?
Mimi
He wrote about feelings that don't change—longing, attention, vulnerability. The language feels both classical and immediate, which means it doesn't sound dated the way some lyrics do.
Luke
But we should be careful here. The source material is quite thin—it tells us he's ninety-two, that he's written for 150+ musicals, that he's shaped ideas about romance. It doesn't actually give us examples of his work, or quotes from him, or evidence of his current creative activity. We're inferring his ongoing relevance from the fact that he's still alive and still working, but we don't know what he's working on or whether it's being received the way his earlier work was.
Mark
So we don't actually know if he's still creatively vital, or if he's just... still around?
Mimi
The source says he remains creatively active, but you're right—we don't have the details that would prove it. No recent projects named, no recent collaborations mentioned, no sense of what audiences think of his newer work.
Luke
Exactly. And that's a real gap. The headline promises us a poet laureate still crafting verses, but the source material only confirms that he exists and that he once did important work. There's a difference between being ninety-two and still alive versus being ninety-two and still making art that matters.
Mark
Does the source tell us anything about his influence on contemporary filmmakers?
Mimi
Not directly. It establishes that he shaped how Indians understand romance across generations, but it doesn't say whether younger directors are still seeking him out or whether his influence is more historical now.
Luke
Right. And that matters for the story. Is this a piece about a living artist or a piece about a legacy? The metadata suggests it's about his ongoing work, but the actual source material reads more like a retrospective. We're left guessing.
The Pulse
- At an age when most have long surrendered their desks, Gulzar is still writing — and filmmakers are still calling.
- The sheer scale of his output — more than 150 musicals — represents not just productivity but a sustained cultural authority that reshapes itself with each decade.
- His particular gift, a poetry of quiet attention rather than grand gesture, has proven stubbornly resistant to the fashion cycles that consume most popular art.
- The tension at the heart of his story is whether continued creation enriches a legacy or risks it — and Gulzar, characteristically, seems untroubled by the question.
- His work now sits at the intersection of classical Indian poetic tradition and a modern cinema industry still hungry for words that make audiences feel recognized.
At ninety-two, the poet Gulzar continues to write, and in doing so he reminds us that the deepest artistic vocations do not retire — they simply deepen. For more than half a century, his lyrics have given Indians a language for love's quieter registers, threading through over one hundred fifty films and across generations of listeners who reached for his words when their own fell short. His ongoing work raises an old question with new urgency: what do we owe to artists who refuse the comfort of legacy, who keep risking the page when silence would be forgiven?
Gulzar is ninety-two years old, and he is still writing. For more than half a century, the poet and lyricist has shaped how Indians understand love — not its operatic extremes, but its quieter, more observant form: the romance of noticing, of vulnerability, of believing that the right words can close the distance between two people. He has done this across more than one hundred fifty Bollywood films, reaching tens of millions of viewers across India and its diaspora.
What distinguishes his contribution is not its volume but its depth. His lyrics became the emotional vocabulary of one generation, and then another. When Indians wanted to say what love felt like, they often borrowed his language. His songs appeared in films that became cultural touchstones — moments when a nation sat in darkened theaters and recognized itself in the words he had chosen.
That he has remained relevant through decades of technological upheaval, shifting audience tastes, and the transformation of Indian cinema itself speaks to something durable in his work. The feelings he writes about — longing, tenderness, the need to be seen — are not tied to any particular era. A lyric about absence written in the seventies can still move someone today because absence itself does not change, and Gulzar has always found language that feels simultaneously timeless and alive.
His continued work at this age raises questions we rarely ask directly: do we want artists to preserve their legacy in stillness, or to keep risking the page, even when silence would be forgiven? Gulzar appears to have answered quietly, by continuing. Whatever he writes next, his place in the emotional inheritance of Indian culture is already assured — and still, apparently, unfinished.
Gulzar is ninety-two years old, and he is still writing. The poet and lyricist has spent more than half a century shaping how Indians understand love—not the grand, operatic kind, but the quiet, observant kind that lives in the space between two people. He has done this through verse and song lyrics written for more than one hundred fifty films, most of them Bollywood productions that reached tens of millions of viewers across India and the diaspora.
What makes this continuity remarkable is not merely its length but its depth. Gulzar did not simply contribute songs to movies the way a hired hand might. His work became the emotional vocabulary of an entire generation—and then another, and then another. When Indians wanted to express what it felt like to love someone, they often reached for his words. His lyrics appeared in films that became cultural touchstones, moments when a nation sat in darkened theaters and recognized itself in the language he had chosen.
The scale of his influence is difficult to overstate. One hundred fifty musicals is not a number that sits easily in the mind. It represents decades of sustained creative output, of being called upon again and again to find the precise word, the exact image, the turn of phrase that would make an audience feel what the director wanted them to feel. It represents a kind of cultural authority that is rare in any medium, rarer still in cinema, where fashions change quickly and yesterday's sensibility becomes today's cliché.
At an age when most people have long since stepped away from their professions, Gulzar continues to work. This fact alone carries weight. It suggests something about the nature of his gift—that it has not calcified or grown repetitive, that there is still something in him that wants to make language do what language can do. It also raises a question about what we expect from artists as they age. Do we want them to retire gracefully, to preserve their legacy in amber? Or do we want them to keep working, to risk the possibility that their later work might not match their earlier achievements, because the alternative—silence—seems like a kind of death?
Gulzar's career spans a period of enormous change in Indian cinema and Indian society. He began writing when Bollywood was still finding its voice, when the conventions of the musical film were still being established. He has continued through decades of technological transformation, through the rise of television and then the internet, through shifts in what audiences wanted to see and hear. That he has remained relevant through all of this—that filmmakers still want his words, that audiences still respond to them—suggests something durable in his work, something that transcends the particular moment in which it was created.
The idea of tender romance that Gulzar has helped to shape is not the romance of Bollywood's most famous tropes—the grand gestures, the elaborate dance numbers, the triumph of love over impossible odds. It is something quieter and more difficult to articulate. It is the romance of attention, of noticing the small things about another person. It is the romance of vulnerability, of admitting that you need someone. It is the romance of language itself, of the belief that the right words, carefully chosen, can bridge the distance between one person and another.
This is work that does not age quickly. The feelings Gulzar writes about are not tied to any particular decade or fashion. A song about longing written in the nineteen-seventies can still move someone in the twenty-twenties because longing itself does not change. What changes is the language available to express it, and Gulzar has always had a gift for finding language that feels both timeless and immediate, both rooted in classical Indian poetry and alive to the way people actually speak.
As Gulzar continues his work at ninety-two, he carries with him the weight of having shaped how millions of people understand one of the most fundamental human experiences. He also carries the possibility of adding to that legacy, of writing words that will reach people not yet born, that will become part of the emotional inheritance of generations he will not live to see. Whether he continues to work or eventually steps away, his influence on Indian cinema and Indian culture is already secure. What remains to be written is what he will write next.
Want the full story?
Read the original at The New York Times ↗
General News