Guncha-e-nashagufta
Padmanabhan Srinagesh
guncha-e-nashagufta ko door se mat dikha ke yoon guncha: bud;
nashagufta: not bloomed
bosey ko chahta hoon main, moonh se mujhe bataa ke yoon bosey: kiss
I has thought that teh sher said: Ghalib asks his mehboooba for a kiss,
and she responds by pouting her lips, which then resemble a rosebud.
She complies literally with his request, but he does not get what he
wants.
He does, however, get to use striking imagery.
I have seen another interpretation that states that when he asks for a
kiss, his nashooq holds up a rosebud and kisses it, tantalizing him and
leaving him unfulfilled.
Are there any other interpretations? What do netters think Ghalib
meant?
Nagesh
SF786
is not even attempting a flying kiss. All she is doing is pointing at or
showing her closed lips, from a distance. The second misra has a dual meaning.
Galib is content with her only opening up her lips while still maintaining the
distance.
Or he really wants her to come close and kiss him.
Nau-shagufta (as opposed to nashagufta) is a newly bloomed flower.
Saleem A Khanani
il_...@yahoo.com
One difficulty about explaining Urdu verses in English is
the gender of the beloved. Traditionally, Urdu poetry
refers to the beloved in the masculine gender, which may
look somewhat odd if we were to refer to the Mehboob as
He. But I think we should respect and follow the Urdu
tradition, even while writing about poetry in English.
In this sher, I feel the poet's meaning is this:
I had asked my mehboob: what is a kiss ? He showed
me a rosebud and said "A kiss is like this". Although
I know what he means, I am not quite satisfied. I would
much prefer if he were to use his lips to tell me what
really is a kiss. Here the poet is saying subtly that
the beloved's pout is even more beautiful than an
unopened rosebud. The poet is not really asking the
beloved for a kiss. He is merely encouraging him to
pout his lips which is a sight the poet is so keen to see.
To stretch the meaning further (that the beloved should
actually kiss the lover) will make this a very "sat'hi"
sher. For a "routine" reader or listener, the latter
may perhaps be the obvious meaning but it is a measure of
Ghalib's art that he infuses a deeper meaning into his
verses. The use of the words "ke yoon" in the second
misra renders the more "sat'hi" meaning redundant. After
kissing the lover, the beloved does not really need to
add "ke yoon". The kiss itself would be meaning enough !
This is of course my interpretation. Jamil Ahmad Sahib
and Raj Kumar Sahib may also please tell us what they
think about of this sher.
Khuloos-kesh
Afzal
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Padmanabhan Srinagesh
>
> In article <199808091305...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>
> One difficulty about explaining Urdu verses in English is
> the gender of the beloved. Traditionally, Urdu poetry
> refers to the beloved in the masculine gender, which may
> look somewhat odd if we were to refer to the Mehboob as
> He. But I think we should respect and follow the Urdu
> tradition, even while writing about poetry in English.
>
>
>
> Afzal
>
>
I liked your interpretation a lot. It would never have occurred to me
independently.
But I think your comments on gender take us down a troublesome path.
Here is an extract from "The Golden Tradition" by Ahmed Ali, Columbia U
Press, 1973.
"The Urdu ghazal invariably uses the male gender for the loved one,
though in translation it has not been possible to follow this
convention. This has its origin in the prevalence of love of the male
for the male, particularly in Iran. Like the ancient Greeks, the
Persians were introverts and developed a homosexual bent of mind; and
when young and good-looking Turks were taken prisoners of war, they
became fashionable throughout Persia, in the eighth and ninth centuries,
as hosts, cup bearers, confidants and companions." And on and on.
Now this is taking the sher to its "sat'hi" (?) limit. I far prefer
mystic interpretations. Incidentally, I have found Ali's translations
very useful.
Nagesh
Raj Kumar Pathria
> > Nashagufta literally means "not open". In other words closed. Galib's mehboob
> > is not even attempting a flying kiss. All she is doing is pointing at or
> > showing her closed lips, from a distance. The second misra has a dual meaning.
> > Galib is content with her only opening up her lips while still maintaining the
> > distance.
> > Or he really wants her to come close and kiss him.
> > Nau-shagufta (as opposed to nashagufta) is a newly bloomed flower.
> > Saleem A Khanani
> >
>
> the gender of the beloved. Traditionally, Urdu poetry
> refers to the beloved in the masculine gender, which may
> look somewhat odd if we were to refer to the Mehboob as
> He. But I think we should respect and follow the Urdu
> tradition, even while writing about poetry in English.
>
> I had asked my mehboob: what is a kiss ? He showed
> me a rosebud and said "A kiss is like this". Although
> I know what he means, I am not quite satisfied. I would
> much prefer if he were to use his lips to tell me what
> really is a kiss. Here the poet is saying subtly that
> the beloved's pout is even more beautiful than an
> unopened rosebud. The poet is not really asking the
> beloved for a kiss. He is merely encouraging him to
> pout his lips which is a sight the poet is so keen to see.
> To stretch the meaning further (that the beloved should
> actually kiss the lover) will make this a very "sat'hi"
> sher. For a "routine" reader or listener, the latter
> may perhaps be the obvious meaning but it is a measure of
> Ghalib's art that he infuses a deeper meaning into his
> verses. The use of the words "ke yoon" in the second
> misra renders the more "sat'hi" meaning redundant. After
> kissing the lover, the beloved does not really need to
> add "ke yoon". The kiss itself would be meaning enough !
>
> This is of course my interpretation. Jamil Ahmad Sahib
> and Raj Kumar Sahib may also please tell us what they
> think about of this sher.
>
> Khuloos-kesh
>
> Afzal
Huzoor, aap ne khaaksaar ko is she'r par kuchh kehne ki daawat di hai
magar, qibla, main aisa karne se majboor hoon. aap ise hukm-udooli mat
samjhiye. baat dar-asl yeh hai ke "yeh jo aap ne hamaari mehbooba ko aek
launde ke roop mein pesh kiya hai" us se mera to jee matlaane laga hai.
aur khaas kar jab ke mu'aamla bosa-dahee ya bosa-kashi ka tha!
maana ke urdu shaairi mein mehboob ko tazkeer mein byaan kiya gaya hai
magar phir bhi jab aap ise paraphrase karen to yehi munaasib hai ke
'aashiq' ko muzakkar aur 'maashooqa ya mehbooba' ko muwannas ki shakl
meinh pesh karen. warna, qibla, bahut se log aap ki tashreehaat parhne
se gurez karen ge aur aap ke chaahne waalon mein sirf kuchh mehmood aur
kuchh ayaaz reh jaayen ge. goya 'muhabbat karne waale kam na hon ge,
tiri mehfil mein lekin hum na hon ge'.
meri aap se haath jorh kar guzaarish hai ke is rawish ko yahin rok dein.
agar aap yeh waa'da karen to khaaksaar aap ka hukm zuroor bajaa laye ga.
Khair-andesh, Raj Kumar
il_...@yahoo.com
nr...@pacbell.net wrote:
> il_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <199808091305...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> >
> > the gender of the beloved. Traditionally, Urdu poetry
> > refers to the beloved in the masculine gender, which may
> > look somewhat odd if we were to refer to the Mehboob as
> > He. But I think we should respect and follow the Urdu
> > tradition, even while writing about poetry in English.
> >
> >
> >
> > Afzal
> >
> >
> I liked your interpretation a lot. It would never have occurred to me
> independently.
>
> But I think your comments on gender take us down a troublesome path.
> Here is an extract from "The Golden Tradition" by Ahmed Ali, Columbia U
> Press, 1973.
>
> "The Urdu ghazal invariably uses the male gender for the loved one,
> though in translation it has not been possible to follow this
> convention. This has its origin in the prevalence of love of the male
> for the male, particularly in Iran. Like the ancient Greeks, the
> Persians were introverts and developed a homosexual bent of mind; and
> when young and good-looking Turks were taken prisoners of war, they
> became fashionable throughout Persia, in the eighth and ninth centuries,
> as hosts, cup bearers, confidants and companions." And on and on.
>
> Now this is taking the sher to its "sat'hi" (?) limit. I far prefer
> mystic interpretations. Incidentally, I have found Ali's translations
> very useful.
>
> Nagesh
Thank you, Nagesh Sahib, for your kind words.
What you state about the practice in Iran and Greece is
no doubt true. "Amrad Parasti" was in fact prevalent in
both countries and found expression in literature and
the fine arts too. Babar, in his Memoirs, frequently
refers to various historical personalities of his time
in a very contemptuous manner by observing "...and he
keeps a large number of catamites !".
At the same time, I think that, many a time, such references
in Persian poetry occur more as a concession to the
prevalence of the Poetic tradition, rather than as an
indication of the poet's own preferences. In English,
we would say :"It was the IN thing at the time." Or
"It was the fashion of the day." These examples may,
therefore, be taken as occasional aberrations. This
seems particularly true of Urdu poetry which, like
other Persian influences, made use of this attribute too
(of "Amrad Parasti"). As if the Poets want to say, "Kuchh
sher is rang men bhi hone chaahiyen." Two shers of Meer
come to mind :
Meer kya saada hain beemaar huwe jiske sabab
Usi attaar ke launde se dawa lete hain
Kaifiiyaten attaar ke launde men bahut hain
is nuskhe ki koi na rahi hum ko dawa yaad
As observed previously, Urdu poetry refers to the beloved
in the masculine gender. The reason for this seems to be
a sense of respect and deference for the women of the times.
It appeared somewhat 'infra dig' to involve womenfolk in
intimate love poetry and refer to them as blatant participants
in amorous situations. Poets and their audiences preferred
to be discreet in such matters. That is how the traditional
Beloved of the poets came to be cast in a somewhat amorphous
mould. While "ITS" attributes are absolutely feminine (chashm,
aariz, gesoo, naaz, ghamza etc. etc.), it is clothed in a
masculine garb. We need not go into the justification for
what I have called a sense of respect and deference for the
womenfolk in that period.
The question that remains to be discussed is the form
in which the Beloved is to be referred, while we are parti-
cipating in this Newsgroup. I have suggested the observance
of the original Urdu practice, as a concession to tradition.
It does not really matter, since all the participants do
in fact know who or what is meant when we are discussing
Urdu poetry in all its nuances. If others feel that the
Beloved should be referred to in the feminine gender, my
regret would be the sacrifice of an old, well-practiced
tradition, even while we try to keep alive the tradition of
Urdu poetry itself.
ahm...@noka.ub.bw
...
> But I think your comments on gender take us down a troublesome path.
> Here is an extract from "The Golden Tradition" by Ahmed Ali, Columbia U
> Press, 1973.
>
> "The Urdu ghazal invariably uses the male gender for the loved one,
> though in translation it has not been possible to follow this
> convention. This has its origin in the prevalence of love of the male
> for the male, particularly in Iran. Like the ancient Greeks, the
> Persians were introverts and developed a homosexual bent of mind; and
> when young and good-looking Turks were taken prisoners of war, they
> became fashionable throughout Persia, in the eighth and ninth centuries,
> as hosts, cup bearers, confidants and companions." And on and on.
>
> Now this is taking the sher to its "sat'hi" (?) limit. I far prefer
> mystic interpretations. Incidentally, I have found Ali's translations
> very useful.
>
> Nagesh
Mr Ahmed Ali's explanation of the origin of the use of male gender in Urdu is
based on a misunderstanding.
In the Persian language, there is no distinction between male and female
verbs or pronouns, and gender is impossible to determine from the
construction of the sentence. Thus,"aamad" means he came or she came, unlike
in Urdu where we have aaya or aayee. Similarly "aamadee" means, just as in
English, "you came", and could be addressed to a male or a female. This
identity of the pronoun and verb for the masculine, feminine and indeed
neutral, gender, and the absence of any gender-sensitive inflection of the
verb, extends to all tenses and all forms of construction. The same applies
to pronouns; "oo" means he or she, "to" means you (both male and female), and
so on.
Along with many other traditions of Persian poetry, early Urdu poets
preserved this ambiguity of gender. The way they did in Urdu what came
naturally in Persian, was to use only masculine verbs and pronouns. There is
no denying that in that society there was (and still is) a tradition of love
of male for male; Meer Taqi Meer talks unequivocally about his attraction for
boys both in his prose and poetry. But there were plenty of male poets who
pined for some female beloved or another. The recently mentioned "domni",
the beloved of Ghalib is a well-known example, yet Ghalib used the male
gender in all his poetry. Several contemporary poets are known for their
promiscuous (heterosexual) love liaisons, yet they commonly use the male
gender in their ghazals.
In some of his nazms, Faiz has used the feminine gender, but when it came to
ghazal, he followed the tradition. Try reading this she'r of Faiz,
Weeraan hai maikada khum-o-saaghir udaas hain
Tum kiyaa gayey keh rooth gayey din bahaar ke
with "gayee" instead of "gayey", and see how it sounds.
Jamil Ahmad
kashif
i think it is beacuse of the influence of sufis, they mentioned Allah as
their mahboob in their poems and obviously , by tradition God is
referred in a masculine gender.
later poets carried that tradition as according to the sufis love to the
fellow creatures brings people closer to God.
kashif
hum kHuda kay kabhi qayal hi naH thay
unn ko dekha to kHuda yaad aaya.
Padmanabhan Srinagesh
> > Tum kiyaa gayey keh rooth gayey din bahaar ke
> >
> > with "gayee" instead of "gayey", and see how it sounds.
> >
> > Jamil Ahmad
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
enlightening. I did not realize that Persian grammar did not
distinguish between genders. As I said, I prefer the sufi or mystic
interpretations.
Nagesh
Raj Kumar Pathria
> Mr Ahmed Ali's explanation of the origin of the use of male gender in Urdu is
> based on a misunderstanding.
>
> In the Persian language, there is no distinction between male and female
> verbs or pronouns, and gender is impossible to determine from the
> construction of the sentence. Thus,"aamad" means he came or she came, unlike
> in Urdu where we have aaya or aayee. Similarly "aamadee" means, just as in
> English, "you came", and could be addressed to a male or a female. This
> identity of the pronoun and verb for the masculine, feminine and indeed
> neutral, gender, and the absence of any gender-sensitive inflection of the
> verb, extends to all tenses and all forms of construction. The same applies
> to pronouns; "oo" means he or she, "to" means you (both male and female), and
> so on.
>
> Along with many other traditions of Persian poetry, early Urdu poets
> preserved this ambiguity of gender. The way they did in Urdu what came
> naturally in Persian, was to use only masculine verbs and pronouns.
I would like to endorse, without reservation, the point made in Jamil
Sahib's message that this male-gender form used for 'maashooq' in Urdu
poetry is NOT of Persian origin. In Persian, there is NO gender
distinction among nouns, pronouns, adjectives or verbs. The origin of
this seemingly incogruent usage lies, to some extent, in the earlier
poets' desire to be discreet in expressing love and, to some extent, in
the powerful influence of mysticism. But, most of all, it arose out of
the way our beloved language Urdu got 'invented', i.e. by the impact of
Hindi grammar and syntax on which Urdu was based.
First of all, to practically all the words they had borrowed from
Persian, they had to allocate gender (because the Hindi syntax demanded
that). To be discrete, one could refer to a 'maashooq' as 'that person
or shakhs', but then what about the gender of 'shakhs'? Persian doesn't
have an answer here, so they would look around for help. Pretty soon
they would note that the corresponding word in Hindi is 'vayakti', which
is masculine --- regardless of sex! So they would settle on making
'shakhs' masculine. Now read this line of Maulana Haali
khud-ba-khud dil mein hai ik shakhs samaaya jaata
and imagine how it would sound with 'samaayi jaati' instead. Of course,
allocating gender wasn't always as straightforward as this example would
indicate, but this seemed to me a good example in the present context.
Thus, regardless of the sexual preferences prevailing anywhere in that
region, this gender business in Urdu is, almost entirely, of Indian
origin. A further factor influencing this matter was that practically
all the Hindi poetry dealing with the subject of 'birah, i.e. judaaee'
was written as if it was 'addressed to males who had gone far away'. And
let's not forget the fact that in much of the Hindi folk-lore that
naughty (nat-khat) Krishna was a popular target of numerous female
lovers, making him an ideal sex-object --- that was again masculine.
In any case, after all is said and done, when we paraphrase or translate
Urdu poetry into English (in which only pronouns are gender-based), the
most comfortable route for us is to give an 'aashiq' the male form and a
'maashooq' the female form.
Khair-andesh, Raj Kumar
Ashok
>
<snip>
>
> As observed previously, Urdu poetry refers to the beloved
> in the masculine gender. The reason for this seems to be
> a sense of respect and deference for the women of the times.
> It appeared somewhat 'infra dig' to involve womenfolk in
> intimate love poetry and refer to them as blatant participants
> in amorous situations. Poets and their audiences preferred
> to be discreet in such matters. That is how the traditional
> Beloved of the poets came to be cast in a somewhat amorphous
> mould. While "ITS" attributes are absolutely feminine (chashm,
> aariz, gesoo, naaz, ghamza etc. etc.), it is clothed in a
> masculine garb. We need not go into the justification for
> what I have called a sense of respect and deference for the
> womenfolk in that period.
<snip>
>
> Afzal
Afzal, I don't really buy that line of reasoning. I am insintively
suspicious of a discourse that purports to deal with women in any
exclusive manner: put them on a pedestal, shield them from seamy
side of life, and so on. It generally is a surface gloss that hides
an ugly reality.
Also there is a contradiction in what you say, because what you say
follows only if the poets thought that the pursuits they extolled
(love, intimacy) were indeed something base and undignified! I
doubt if devout Christians who think amorous pleasure as the
original sin will make good ghazal poets.
I don't know about Persia, but in Greek society, during its peak
homoerotic phase, women were seen as little more than chattel,
physical relation with women little more than a necessity. Instead,
higher sentiments were associated with relations involving "Platonic
love". A value system similar to that would be a more plausible
ground for the masculine orientation of the ghazal (than the one
that would consider women above love!).
Fascinating thread.
Ashok