Schools of Urdu poetry in India can be broadly categorised into two parts, namely Dihlavi or a Lakhnavi because overwhelming bulk of classical poetry was composed in Delhi and Lucknow, India`s two major Muslim cultural centres (marakiz). The two schools of Urdu language serve as an organising principle for surveying Urdu poetry. The first principal that the schools follow is that nearly every major Urdu poet can be considered either a Dihlavi or a Lakhnavi because a major bulk of poets who wrote in Urdu language were from Lucknow or Delhi.

Though there is universal agreement that the Delhi School was anteceded by Dakani poetry from Muslim courts in Southern India and that the classical ghazal tradition ended with the death of Dr. Muhammad Iqbal in the year 1938. On a general perspective, classical poetry (specifically the Ghazal) is understood by the critics to be primarily that which was composed from about the middle of the eighteenth century to the late-middle nineteenth century in the two great seats of culture: Delhi and Lucknow.

The second tenet, as has been indicated, is that Lakhnavi and Dihlavi poets wrote in characteristically different styles. The terms by which these characteristic styles are known are Dihlavlyat and Lakhnaviyat. The literature of the Two School theory is essentially comprised of various essays of critics at defining Dihlavlyat and Lakhnaviyat.

Dihlavlyat is the name of a point of view, an outlook, an intellectual simplicity, a poetic temperament, in order to comprehend which a step-by-step comparison with Lakhnaviyat will be made. Lakhnaviyat in poetry and literature is that special quality which the early poets of Lucknow adopted and established, and whose special characteristics distinguish it from traditional poetry. Perhaps the most common attributes of Lakhnavi poetry are sensuality and effeminacy.

A general effeminacy was born in among the populace of Lucknow and its influence manifested in the poetry as well From a survey of Lucknow divans a detailed index of women`s jewels, dress, and adornments can be compiled. Furthermore Lakhnavi poetry`s idiom and expression is often that of the society. The poets of Delhi do not speak in women`s idiom.

Besides effeminacy, other non-traditional features of Lakhnavlyat can be differentiated into two types. One can be related as the new conventions in describing the beauty of beloved that pay special attention to her particular items of apparel and secondly a tendency toward mu`amla bandi, or repartee between the lover and beloved.

Both of these tendencies are thought to weaken the conventional ambiguity of the beloved`s identity and gender. The first point not only suggests very strongly that the beloved is female, but also that she is unequivocally mortal. Not only gender ambiguity, but also the divine/human ambiguity is important parts of the traditional ghazal. Based largely on the Lakhnavi convention of elaborately enumerating the (female) beloved`s dress and adornments, critics have argued that the Lakhnavi ghazal is almost devoid of spiritual or mystical thought or emotion. This particular charge is perhaps the most devastating condemnation that could be made, since it alters the entire nature of ghazal expression, robbing it of its essential truth (haqiqat).

Mu`amla bandi (amorous banter, repartee) was also consistently listed as a feature of Lakhnaviyat. The general style of Lakhnavi poets were mu`amla bandi which, spreading over all, created the tenor of the marketplace, and one does not, therefore, find the vigorous and genuine style that is found in the writings of the poets of Delhi.

Language usage is another area where the Two School can be clearly distinguished. The Lakhnavi poets employ too much wordplay, and that it is employed in a base fashion; similarly, that they affect excessive delicacy of expression which results in abstruseness of thought rather than charming and delightful constructions which resulted from the Persian and Dihlavi poets usage of language.

Lakhnavi poetry exhibits a certain vulgarity, and they tie it to language use in several ways. Firstly, the desired diction of the ghazal is elegant and plaintive, employing words and phrases which allude to greater layers of meaning than are obvious from their surface definitions. To be too specific is to overstate one, and that is considered vulgar in noble (sharif) society, which has been the ghazal`s preferred venue.

Secondly, the excessive wordiness of Lakhnavi poets is considered to render their poetic output frivolous. One critic claims that this frivolous love of word-play contributed to a trend of much-lengthened ghazals in Lucknow which resulted in ridiculous resolution of qafiyas and, therefore, degraded themes, while the poets of Delhi, in accordance with tradition, generally wrote short ghazals and thereby avoided superfluity and degraded themes.

This general outline of the Two School critics literary differentiation between the poetry of Lucknow and that of Delhi, although necessarily abbreviated, includes all the major distinctions articulated in relevant literary criticism. The theory articulated elements of differentiation rest largely in the realms of thematic content, or subject matter, and in language usage.

Distinctions of special note are the Lakhnavi poets` attention to the details of female dress and adornment and the Lakhnavis` elaborate diction, as opposed to the spirituality and Farsi tarakib (Persian manner of verbal construction) of Dihlavi poetry.