Ghalib!
Vijay
kucch din pehle maiN ne Ghalib ke kucch mushkil asha'ar kii tashriih
janaab T N Raaz ki aik PaNjabi kii kitaab se naqal karne kaa vaada kiia
thaa. socha ki is ke liie aik naii laRii shuruu karuuN. maiN aaj aik
aur she'r pesh kar raha huuN jo shayad itna mushkil nahiiN hai lekin
mujhe iska doosra misra samjhne meN hamesha diqqat hii pesh aai hai. to
phir pehle TN Raaz sahib kii puNjabi meN tashriih aur phir mera
aNgrezii meN uska 'verbatim translation' pesh hai:
pehle she'r:
use kaun dekh sakta, ki yagaana hai voh yakta
jo duuii kii buu bhii hoti, to kahiiN do chaar hota!
"Khuda jihii be-misaal shaktii toN ilaawa brihmaND 'ch koii duuji
hastii maujuud nahiiN. oh ikk maatar (yagaana) arthaat addutti hai.je
kar ohde 'ch doosra-pan jaaN dawait dii kan maatar jhalak vii huNdii
taaN oh sathal ruup 'ch kite na lite zaroor dikhaaii deNdaa."
'Other than God's incomparable existance, nothing else (divine) exists
in this universe. He is one, meaning unique. If He had even a
semblance, a smidgen of 'the otherness', 'of the multiple', He would
have become visible to us mortals some place, somewhere.'
Here 'do chaar hota' is taken to mean 'ruu ba ruu hota'.
Unless I hear some strong objection, I will continue off and on to post
Ghalib's difficult* asha'ar and their tashriih in this format.
*difficult for me, that is!
Regards,
Vijay Kumar
Kali Hawa
Thank you.( by the way this particular sh'er isn't very difficult to
comprehend, is it?) Do go on pl., at least I learnt meaning of yagaana
Naseer
Vijay wrote:
> Unless I hear some strong objection, I will continue off and on to post
> Ghalib's difficult* asha'ar and their tashriih in this format.
>
> *difficult for me, that is!
>
> Regards,
>
> Vijay Kumar
janaabi-Vijay Sahib,
aap ne jo shi'r-fahmii kaa silsilah shuruu' kiyaa hai , nihaayat
qaabil-i-taHsiin hai awr ise zaruur jaarii rakhiye gaa. aaj ke ba'd jab
maiN Ghalib ke ash''ar sun kar yaa paRh kar vaah vaah karuuN gaa to kam
az kam unheN samajh kar hii karuuN gaa!
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
mishra...@yahoo.com
baad bhi kayi sher aise hain jinka matlab nahi pata chal paya hai,
Sadkaam-e-nihang-b-hungama-e-kamaal achchha hai,
is se mera meh khursheed-e-jamaal achchha hai...
aur bazaar se lekar aaye, toot gaya,
saagar-e-jam se mera jaam-e-sifaal achchha hai...
regards..
Vijay
problems for me (and perhaps only for me), hence I am sort of taking
the license to post thse. You are right about this she'r. It certainly
does not seem that difficult (now) that meaning of 'duui' and 'do chaar
hota' is clearer. Normally the word 'duuii' or 'dwait' carries with it
a sense of animosity, and I wouldn't have guessed 'do chaar hota' to
mean 'ruu ba ruu hota'.
Thanks for the encouragement.
Vijay Kumar
Vijay
diwaan kii tashriih ka aik urdu nuskha hai. So please feel free to add!
I will follow 'is' 'us' thread with great interest.
Vijay
Vijay
kitaab bohatt chhotii siii hai (is meN asha'r kii wazaahat ko sirf 130
safe hii mile haiN), phir bhii is meN yeh aap ke donoN asha'ar hii
maujuud haiN. is liie maiN koshish karuuNga ke aaj kal meN in donoN kii
tashriih pesh karuuN.
Regards,
Vijay Kumar
Naseer
janaab-i-Mishra Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
agar aap ko Mirza Ghalib ke bahut se as'aar ke ma'nii samajh meN nahiiN
aate, to aap akele nahiiN; aap kii Tiim meN maiN bhii shaamil huuN!
is mushkil ko Hal karne ke liye ek kitaab Khariidii thii, jis kaa Vijay
Sahib ne apnii posT meN zikr kiyaa hai. lekin sitam zariifii dekhiye
kih aisaa bhii hotaa hai kih kaii baar mujhe tashriiH kii bhii samajh
nahiiN aatii!!!
ba-har Haal, jo ash'aar aap ne likhe haiN, mere KHayaal meN thoRe
muKHtalif haiN.
pahlaa shi'r kuchh is tarHa hai..
Husn-i-mah ba-hangaam-i-kamaal achhaa hai
us se meraa mah-i-KHurshiid-jamaal achhaa hai
awr duusaraa shi'r
awr baazaar se le aae agar Tuut gayaa
saaGhar-i-jam se miraa jaam-i-sifaal achhaa hai
rahii tashriiH kii baat, to vuh maiN Vijay Sahib par choR detaa huuN.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Vijay
mera kaam thoRa aasaan kar diia hia. yeh dono asa'ar itne ziaadah
mushkil nahiiN. agar maiN mushkil alfaaz ke ma'ani likh duuN to mujhe
puura yaqiin hai aap pe in ka matlab baa-Khoobi aur Khud-ba-Khud waazeh
ho jaaegaa.
Husn-i-mah garche b-haNgaam-i-kamaal achhaa hai
us se meraa mah-e-KHurshiid-e-jamaal achhaa hai
husan-e-mah= moon like beauty
garche= although, eventhough
bhaNgaam-e-kamaal= full moon night (14th night of the lunar cycle)
Khurshiid-e-jamaal=beauty like the sunshine
So ghalib's is comparing his beloved's beauty to the sun-shine rather
than the full moon as moon's beauty is changable because of the lunar
cycle whereas sun shine has a permanency. But as sun can be a little
harsh on the eyes, ghalib has gotten around it by calling his beloved
mah-e-Khurshiid-e-jamaal. Literally, my moon (beloved) whose beauty is
like the sunshine.
aur baazaar se le aae agar TuuT gayaa
saaGhar-e-jam se miraa jaam-e-sifaal achhaa hai
saaghar-e-jam= king jamshed's cup
jaam-e-sifaal=cup made of clay
jamshed was a king in Iran who could see the whole world (events) in
his cup!
Hence ghalib is preferring a somewhat simpler life of meager
acquisitions, easily replaced at very little cost, to a life of
expensive, irreplaceable material goods.
Regards,
Vijay Kumar
Amjad
aadaab arz hai
bahot acha silsila shuru' kiya hai aap ne. ise jaari rakhiye, umeed hai
Mirza Ghalib ke bahot se ash'aar per sair.Haasil guft.goo hogi
shukria
Amjad
Vijay
ghalib ka ai kaur she'r pesh hai. mere Khyaal meN ghalib ke asha'ar do
tarah se mushkil ho sakte haiN; aik to aise ki un meN bohat se faarsi
ke mushkil alfaaz hoN lekin jab un alfaaz ka matlab samjh aa jaae to
she'r itna mushkil na rahe. doosre voh asha'ar jin meN alfaaz to saada
hoN lekin un ka her pher aisa ho ki samjhne meN tashriih kii zaroorat
paRe. jaise. shuruu shuruu meN mujhe 'maiN na accha huua ,buraa na
huua' ya 'haq to yeh hai ki haq adaa na huua' samjhne meN bhii mushkil
aai thii. meri is laRi meN ziaadah misaaleN in doosre kism ke asha'ar
kii hoNgii.
aaj ka she'r yuuN hai:
maNzoor thii yeh shakal, tajjallii ko, nuur kii
qismat khulii, tire qad-o-ruKh se zuhuur kii
tajjalli= ruhaanii noor
zuhuur= jalwa, dlikhaii dena
TN Raaz:
'ai mere mehboob, terii nuuraani shakal us daivii (ruhaanii) parkaash
da hii jalwa hai. uh rabbii nuur Khud nuuN pargaT karan laii terii
suurat nuuN chun'naa chauhNdaa sii. tere Khoobsoorat chehre te qadd
nuuN vekhya taaN uhdii qismat khul gaii te daivii parkaash nuuN apne
aap nuuN pargat karan laii manpasaNd jagah mil gaii. saraaNsh ih hai ki
rabbii nuur dii chir-kaal dii icchhaa puurii ho gaii. ghalib de
she'raaN choN ih ik ucch-kotii ga she'r hai.'
Englsish translation:
"O my beloved, your luminous visage is but a representation of that
divine light (word 'tajjalli' has been discussed at ALUP at lenght in
the past but if anyone wants to know more about it, kindly e-mail me at
vijay76atgmaildotcom). That divine light wanted (something like) a face
with your splendour, luminiscence to manifest itself. When it saw your
beautiful face and your tall stature, fortunes smiled on Him as it
found an appropraite, soul stirring medium to manifest itself. In
summary, the divine light got its long unfulfilled desire. Amongst
ghalib's verses, this one is of high calibre."
Regards,
Vijay Kumar
P.S. Amjad sahib, hausla afzaaii ka shukriia!
Naseer
Vijay Sahib, agar maiN aap kii taraf Ghalib ke vuh ash'aar bhejuuN jo
merii samajh se baalaa-tar haiN, to aap do hazaar ninaanve tak tashriiH
karte raheNge (kam az kam..awr Allah ta'aalaa aap ko is ke liye ek
taviil 'umr baKhshe!!) !. yahaaN sirf Ghalib hii kaa qusuur nahiiN hai
balkih Vali, Meer, Sauda, Momin, Iqbal, Faiz, Josh.....bahii kis kis
kaa naam luuN. maiN to sab shaa'iroN ko qusuur-vaar Thahraataa huuN!!!
to aap kii "Ghalib" kii gaaRii ko aage chalaane ke liye aap kaa haath
baTaane ke liye Haazir huua huuN. agar buraa nah maaneN to kabhii
kabhii ek aadh shi'r kii tashriiH ke liye aap ko takliif dene ke liye
aa jaayaa karuN gaa!
maiN ne majnuuN pih laRak-pan meN asad
sang uThaayaa thaa kih sar yaad aayaa
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
Vijay
aap bhii shayad Gulam Rasuul kii kitaab se kucch 'supllementary'
tashriih pesh kareNge, mere diie huue aha'r par. lekin aap ne haath
bataane kii bajaae, lagta hai meraa kaam baRha diia hai, lol.
aap ne jo she'r darj kiia hai, voh mere nazdiik koi itna mushkil
nahiiN! merii tajviiz yeh hai ki aap mujhe agle aik do mahiine tak
merii pasaNd ke asha'ar, yaani voh jo mujhe mushkil lagte haiN, pesh
karne deN. uske baad maiN koshish karuuNga ki farmaaishii asha'r par
bhii TN Raaz sahib ki tashriih pesh karuuN!
Khiar, aap ka diia huaa she'r hai:
maiN ne majnuuN pih laRak-pan meN asad
sang uThaayaa thaa kih sar yaad aayaa
yahaaN pe ghalib farmaate haiN ki (auroN kii tarah) jab bhii maiN ne
bachpane meN (ghaur kareN, bachpan meN nahiiN, balke bachpane meN) yaa
khel khel meN majnuu ko maarne ke liie patthar uthaaya, to maiN ruk
gaya, chuuN ke mujhe yeh Khyaal aaya ki aashiqii meN maiN bhii kya
Majnuu se kam diiwaana huuN? aise patthar mere sar bhii to paR sakte
haiN! yaani ki mujhe apne sar ki jo haalat ho saktii hai, uska ehsaas
huua aur is liie maiN ne majnuu ko patthar marne se apne aap ko rok
liia.
maiN apni pasaNd ka agla she'r aaj kal meN pesh karuuNga.
Regards,
Vijay
p.s. maiN abhii bhii iNtezaar meN huuN ki koii suKhan parwar is/us
laRii meN kucch likhe. mere zehn meN aik do baateN haiN, jo maiN mauqa
paate hii arz karuuNga.
Naseer
> Naseer Sahib, jab aap ne haath bataane kii baat kii to main ne socha
> aap bhii shayad Gulam Rasuul kii kitaab se kucch 'supllementary'
> tashriih pesh kareNge, mere diie huue aha'r par. lekin aap ne haath
> bataane kii bajaae, lagta hai meraa kaam baRha diia hai, lol.
janaab-i-Vijay Sahib, aadaab!
yaqiin maaniye jab maiN ne haath baTaane kii baat chheRii to mujhe
saKHt iHsaas thaa kih aap kaa haath nahiiN baTaa rahaa balkih aap kaa
kaam baRhaa rahaa huuN. lekin (baqaul Dev Daas) "mujh se rahaa nah
gayaa"!!!
tashriiH kaa bahut bahut shukriyah. agar aap Hukm karte haiN to aap kaa
Hukm sar aaNkhoN par. maiN zaruurat paRne par, gaahe ba-gaahe Ghulam
Rasool Mihr kii sharH se izaafah kar diyaa karuuN gaa, KHwaah un kii
tashriiH KHud mujhe samajh meN aae yaa nah aae!!
KHair-KHwaah,
Naseer
Vijay
ghalib ka yeh she'r dekheN:
maNzar ik bullaNdi par, aur ham bana sakte
arsh se idhar hota, kaash! ki makaaN apna
is she'r meN ghalib neN bohat saada alfaaz ko muKhtalif ma'ani meN
istemaal kia hai. maiN pehle in alfaaz ke ma'ani (in PaNjabi and
English) likh deta huuN, jaise TN Raaz sahib neN apni kitaab meN likkhe
haiN:
maNzar=drish, prabhu naal mulakaat (scene, meeting with God)
bullaNdi=uchaaii, anaNt, asiim (height, without bounday, limitless)
arsh=saariaaN aasmaanaN toN upparly jagah (a place above all skies,
universes)
makaaN=kalpna dii uDaan (flight of fancy, imagination)
TN Raaz:
'asiiN aje arsh tak pohaNche haaN, arthaat Khuda sabaNdhii saaDii
kalpna dii uDaan hun tak ih hai ki oh arsh te biraajmaan hai. kaash!
iNj huNda ki saaDaa tassavur us vaastvik param satta dii praapti laii
arash diiaaN simaavaaN toN paraaNh viia anaNt te asiim tak pohaNch
jaaNda'
Englsih translation:
"we have so far merely touched 'arash', (meaning that) flight of our
imagination about God so far is limited to our belief that His abode is
at arash. Alas, were it in that the pursuit of that Reality and Supreme
Truth, we had let our imagination soar beyond the boundaris of 'arash'
and reached the limitless."
Regards,
Vijay Kumar
Amjad
> tashriiH kaa bahut bahut shukriyah. agar aap Hukm karte haiN to aap kaa
> Hukm sar aaNkhoN par. maiN zaruurat paRne par, gaahe ba-gaahe Ghulam
> Rasool Mihr kii sharH se izaafah kar diyaa karuuN gaa, KHwaah un kii
> tashriiH KHud mujhe samajh meN aae yaa nah aae!!
Vijay saHib aur Naseer saHib
aadaab arz hai
maiN ye thread baRee dilchaspi se paRh rahaa hooN. meri aik guzaarish
hai ke Ghalib ke baa'z ash'aar aise haiN jin meiN khud
shaar'Heen-e-Ghalib ka ikhtilaaf hai. in meiN baRe naam , Maulana Suhaa
, Abdul Bari Aasi, Haider Taba.tabaai, Hasrat Mohani, Shaukat MeeraThi,
Ghulam Rasool Mehr, Abdul Wajid, Abdul Rahman Bijnori, Sa'eed, be.khud
aur aakhir meiN Nabbaaz-e-Ghalib Altaf Hussain Hali saHib haiN. (vaazeH
rahe ke maine sirf baRe aur aham shaar'Heen ka zikr kia hai). is liye
meri guzaarish hai ke sirf ba.vaqt-e-zaroorat jab Mehr saHib ki sharH
pesh ki jaaye to agar in Hazraat ki shar'HoN meiN se koi baat izaafay
ke qaabil ho to use bhi shaamil kar lia jaaye.
aisa hamesha nahiN kia jaaye ga, sirf us vaqt jab koi baat ya koi nuqta
mazeed tafseel-o-taaveel ka mutaqaazi ho.
umeed hai meri ye tajveez aap ko pasand aaye gi
aqeedat kesh
Amjad
Amjad
On Jan 11, 12:25 am, "Vijay" <guz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> maiN ne majnuuN pih laRak-pan meN asad
> sang uThaayaa thaa kih sar yaad aayaa
>
> yahaaN pe ghalib farmaate haiN ki (auroN kii tarah) jab bhii maiN ne
> bachpane meN (ghaur kareN, bachpan meN nahiiN, balke bachpane meN) yaa
> khel khel meN majnuu ko maarne ke liie patthar uthaaya, to maiN ruk
> gaya, chuuN ke mujhe yeh Khyaal aaya ki aashiqii meN maiN bhii kya
> Majnuu se kam diiwaana huuN? aise patthar mere sar bhii to paR sakte
> haiN! yaani ki mujhe apne sar ki jo haalat ho saktii hai, uska ehsaas
> huua aur is liie maiN ne majnuu ko patthar marne se apne aap ko rok
> liia.
>
moHtaram Vijah saHib
aadaab arz hai
gustaakhi mu'aaf, aap ki ijaazat se is she'r per apni raaye pesh karna
chaahata hooN, maqsad aap se ikhtilaaf nahiN balke iz'haar-e-raaye hai.
yahaaN laRak.pan se muraad bachpanaa nahiN , balke bachpan hi hai.
ye baat mash'hoor hai ke akser deevaanoN ko shareer bachhey hi patthar
maara karte haiN. is liye Ghalib ne yahaaN "laRakpan" ka lafz iste'maal
kar ke ye maa'ni paida kiye haiN.
Ghalib ke taqreeban tamaam shaar'Heen jinka maine pehle zikr kia hai
yehi shar'H bayaan ki hai, sirf Abdul Bari Aasi saHib ne mukammal
shar'H-e-deevaan-e-Ghalib meiN aur Haider Taba.tabaai ne apni shar'H
meiN is baat ka izaafa kia hai ke apne sar ka jab khayaal aaya to vohi
patthar maine apne sar per maar liya :)
magar ye raaye sirf Aasi aur taba.tabai saHib ki hai.
mukhtasaran ye ke bachpan meiN jab maine majnooN per patthar uThaaya to
mujhe ye khayaal aaya ke baa'd meiN meri bhi yehi Haalat ho sakti hai
aur mere sar per bhi log patthar maar sakte haiN, is liye maine majnooN
per patthar nahiN phaiNka.
ye aap ne bajaa farmaaya ke Mirza khud ko Majnoon se yaksar kam nahiN
samajhte the ;), jabhi farmaaya :
tum ko bhi ham dikhaaiN ke majnooN ne kia kiyaa
fursat kashaakash-e-gham-e-pin'haaN se gar mile
dakhl.andaazi ke liye maa'zirat
amjad
Vijay
maiN aap kii baatoN se bilkul sehmat huuN aur sabhii se guzaarish
karuuNga ke voh apnii yaa asaatzaa kii raae in she'roN ke baare meN
yahhaN pesh kareN. rahii baat 'laRakpan' kii, to yeh sirf merii zaati
raae thii ki ghalib neN ise ba ma'ani 'bachpna' istemaal kiia hai.
Ghalib ko aadat sii hii hai apnii tulna baRe logoN ke saath karne kii,
maslan 'miir' yaa phir 'aasmaaN'. to merii soch meN yeh baat aaii ki
agar ghalib apne 'bachpan' kii baat kar raheN haiN to unheN shayad tab
MajnuuN ke baare meN acchhi tarah se pata bhii nahiiN hoga ke voh kitna
pohNchaa huua ashiq hai aur apne mustaqbil ke baare meN (ki voh Khud
aap bhii utne hii baRe diwaane baNenge ka) bhii aNdaaza lagana mushkil
hoga.
Khair, yeh post maiN apne office se likh raha huuN. ghar pauhNchuuNga
to Raaz sahib kii kitab meN dekhuuNga kya likha hai.
Ghalib kii shayarii kii yeh aik Khaas baat hai ki aik aik she'r ke kaii
kaii pehluu nikal aate haiN!
aik baar phir aap kaa shukriia, aur meharbaani kar ke,
'daKhal-aNdaazii' aaiNda bhii karte
raheN:-)
Regards,
Vijay
Naseer
phir vahii "is/us" kaa jhaNjhaal!! is par Amjad Sahib kii raae bhii
maqsuud hai. Amjad Sahib "kis alif-siin ko is paRhuuN awr kis alif-siin
ko us?" par bhii ek nazar Daaliye gaa.
Maulaanaa Ghulaam Rasuul Mihr kii sharH "navaa-i-sarosh" meN yih shi'r
aise likhaa huaa hai..
manzar ik ba/ulandii par awr ham banaa sakte
'arsh se Udhar hotaa kaash kih makaaN apnaa
Mihr Sahib ke ek duusare nusKHe meN "Idhar" likhaa huaa hai. dilchaspii
kii baat yih hai kih qablu_zzikr meN tashriiN karte vaqt Mihr Sahib ne
idhar hii ko zihn meN rakhaa hai...
"agar hamaaraa makaaN 'arsh se niiche hotaa to ham bulandii par jaa kar
ek awr jharokaa ya shah-nashiin banaa lete, jahaaN se apne makaan awr
apnii Haqiiqat-o-Haisiyyat kaa andaazah kar sakte. lekin nah huaa
kyoNkih 'arsh hii hamaaraa makaan hai".
Haamid 'Ali Khan ke nusKHe ke mutaabiq lafz "udhar" hai. likhte haiN
"aksar nusKHon meN udhar kii jagah idhar chhapaa hai.
nusKHah-i-Hamiidiyah meN "pare" chhapaa hai. shi'ir kaa saHiiH mafhiim
"udhar" yaa "pare" se adaa hotaa hai. "idhar" likhne vaaloN ne is shi'r
kii jo sharHeN likhii haiN, vuh tasalli baKhsh nahiiN haiN."
zaahir hai kih shi'r ke saHiiH ma'noN tak pahuNchne hii se yih mas'alah
Hal ho saktaa hai.
'arsh=the throne of God
makaaN= place (of being/existance)
manzar= vantage point
Josh Malsiani kii tashriiH Mihr Sahib se miltii jultii hai.
"(Ghalib) farmaate hain: keh kaash hamaara makaan jo
dar-asl arsh par hi hai, arsh se kuchh aik taraf ko (idhar) hota, aur
ham arsh
par manzar bana kar apne maqaam ko dekh sakte. Magar afsos hai makaan
aisi
bulandi par waqe' hua hai ke jis se buland-tar aur koi maqaam naheen.
Maqsood-e-kalaam yeh hai keh ham apni haqeeqat aur maheyyat se bilkul
nawaaqif
hain. Is be-khabari ki wajeh bhi kaisi falsafiyaana hai!"
Raj Kumar Qais's ke mutaabiq "udhar/pare" shi'r meN bihtar jachtaa hai.
un kii raae hai kih
"The poet is expressing a desparate desire that his abode were
somewhere away from, or on the other side of, this sky. Apparently, he
is not happy or satisfied with the present sky over his head. Note the
word aur in the first line. He wishes that he had over his head a
security-blanket different from the one he has now.
Again, I don't think he wants this for the sake of capturing a better
or bigger view of God's world; he simply wants a better cover. I am
sure many of you know that , in poetry, the sky is also regarded as the
medium 'jis ke zariey khalqat par qaihr naazil hote hain'. Ghalib is
presumably referring to that feature of the sky and is wishing that he
had an alrernative."
mijhe yih tashriiH ziyaadah munaasib lagtii hai.
Naseer
Vijay
liaa hai. aur aKhir meN yeh bhii likha hai ki ghalib yeh jataana
chaahte haiN ki voh bachpan se hii ashiq mijaaz the.
lekin bhaii mujhe to 'laRakpan' ba-ma'ani 'bachpna' ya 'naadaanii'
ziadah durust lagta hai.
There was once on ALUP (actually more than once) a long debate on
whether the 'correct' interpretation of poetry is the prerogative of
the writer or the reader. Zafar and UVR sahebaan took the opposing view
( don't quite recall who supported what view) but my sympathies llean
towards the reader!
Please keep writing.
Vijay
Amjad
salaam arz hai
manzar ik bulandi per aur ham banaa sakte
arsh se udhar hota kaash keh makaaN apna
aap ne bajaa farmaaya ke agar ham ise "idhar" paRheN to tasalli bakhsh
maf'hoom saamne nahiN aata. go ke maf'hoom "idhar" se bhi nikalta hai
magar "udhar" ke iste'maal se baat zyaadah vaazeH ho jaati hai.
maine ab tak jo mustanad nuskhe dekhe haiN un meiN taqreeban sab meiN
"udhar" hi likha hai, khaas taur per Nuskha-e-Mehr aur Nuskha-e-Mohani
meiN.
maine ye bhi ghaur kia hai ke "udhar" aur "us taraf" se muraad bhi
shaar'Heen-e-ghalib ne arsh se neeche hi liya hai. kyuNke arsh usi
soorat meiN manzar ban sakta hai jab makaan us se neeche ho, ye baat
mazeed vaazeH ho jaaye gi jab maiN kuch aham shar'HeN pesh karooN ga.
aur ab tak jitni bhi shar'Hen nazar se guzri haiN, un sab meiN aik baat
to mushtarik hai voh ye ke is she'r meiN Ghalib ne apna maqaam arsh
bataaya hai. baa'z ne ye kahaa ke kaash arsh se neeche makaan hota to
ham arsh ko manzar banaa ker apni Haiciyat ka andaaza lagaate.
mehr aur Josh saHib ki shar'H aap ne pesh ki hai, maiN deegar
shaar'Heen ke mataalib apni shar'H ke saath pesh karna chaahooN ga.
jaisa ke Vijay saHib ne farmaaya ke Ghalib ke ash'aar ke aik se zyaada
mataalib nikalte haiN, aur ye kaarnaama Shaukat Meerathi saHib ka tha
jinhoN ne her she'r ke saat saat mafaa'heem bayaan kar ke ahl-e-zauq se
daad-o-teHseen Haasil ki.
is baat ko madd-e-nazar rakhte hue aik maf'hoom aur bhi nikalta hai jo
maiN darj kar rahaa hooN jo vijay saHib ke bayaan kardah maf'hoom se
qareeb tar hai:
"Ghalib kehte haiN ke hamaara makaan zameen per vaaqe' hai aur hamaara
manzar ARSH-e-barreeN hai , vohi hamaari nighaahoN ka markaz hai. aur
vohi hamaare liye nuqta-e-urooj hai. is liye har qism ki bulandi ki
Hadd hamaare liye ARSH hi hai. agar hamaara makaan ARSH se ooper hota
to yaqeenan us vaqt hamaare liye nuqta-e-urooj kuch aur hota, hamaara
manzar ARSH se bahot ooper hota, goya us bulandi per aik nayaa manzar
ham banaa lete. lekin aisa nahiN hai, hamaara makaaN arsh se ooper
nahiN hai is liye hamaare liye buland tareen jo manzar hai voh ARSH
hai."
ye maf'hoom jo ooper bayaan kia gayaa hai voh un mafaaheem meiN se aik
hai jo she'r per ghaur karne se nikalta hai, magar ye meHz aik taaveel
hai jo mustanad shar'HoN se mukhtalif hai.
ab aaiye dekhte haiN ke mukhtalif shaar'Heen ne is she'r ke kia ma'aani
bayaan kiye haiN :
1. Maulan Suhaa (Mataalibul Ghalib) :
"agar hamaara makaan arsh se us taraf hota to ham arsh ko nazar nigaah
Thehraate lekin apna maqaam arsh-o-laa.makaaN hai jo bulandi ka
munta'haa hai aur ab koi baalaai fazaa baaqi nahiN, goya
madaarij-e-urooj-o-kamaal sab tae ho chuke haiN aur himmat aur
sa'ee-e-talab abhi taazah haiN"
2. Haider tabatabaai (shar'H-e-deevaan-e-Ghalib)
" yaa'ni kaash ke hamaara makaan arsh se us taraf hota aur ham arsh ko
manzar banaa ker apne maqaam ko dekh sakte.lekin mushkil ye hai ke
hamaare makaan se buland koi jagah hai hi nahiN, yehi vajah hai ke ham
apni Haqeeqat-o-maahiyyat se be.khabar haiN."
shar'H-e-mohani aur shar'H-e-nizaami meiN is ghazal se sirf chand
ash'aar ki shar'H ki gayee hai aur mazkoora she'r ki shar'H maujood
nahiN hai.
3. Dr. Baaqir (bayaan-e-ghalib shar'H-e-deevaan-e-ghalib))
"is vaqt hamaara makaan arsh per vaaqe' hai aur arsh se buland koi aur
muqaam nahiN hai, ae kaash hamaara makaan arsh se neeche hota , phir
ham arsh ko apna manzar banaa lete aur is ki achi taraH sair
karte.goyaa ham apni Haqeeqat se be.khabar haiN, yooN samajhiye ke ham
aur aage baRhna chaahate haiN, magar arsh per makaan hone se ye aarzoo
poori nahiN ho sakti, kyuNke arsh aalim-e-baalaa ki aakhri Hadd hai".
CONCLUSION : maiN is she'r ke dono mataalib se mutmain hooN, aur dono
mataalib meiN "Udhar" hi se maf'hoom vaazeH ho rahaa hai :
1. yaa'ni agar shaair ka makaan arsh per hai to voh us se buland manzar
banaana chaahata hai, isi aHsaas ko Maulana Suhaa ne "sa'ee-e-talab" ka
naam diya hai, goyaa shaa'ir ki fitrat khoob se khoob tar ki justujoo
aur buland se buland tar ki talaash meiN hai, baqaul-e-Iqbal :
sitaaroN se aage jahaaN aur bhi haiN
abhi ishq ke imteHaaN aur bhi haiN
2. shaa'ir ka makaan arsh per nahiN balke us se neeche vaaqe' hai aur
us ke liye buland tareen manzar arsh hai, is soorat meiN bhi voh arsh
se ooper makaan banaana chaahata hai taa'ke us ki nighaahoN ke saamne
aik nayaa manzar ho, aik nayaa urooj ho, nayee bulandi ho, nayee rif'at
ho.
Amjad
Vijay
tashriih in sabhii wazaahaat se bilkul zudaa hai aur isii baat kii
tasdiiq hai ki shaayirii kii interpretation paRhne waalw pe mabnii hai.
rahii idhar/udhar kii baat, to mujhe zaatii taur par yahaaN 'udhar'
ziaada thiik lagta hai lekin merii kitaab meN ise 'idhar' likhaa gaya
hai. maze kii baat yeh hai ki tashriih meN Raz sahib ne is ke ma'ani
'udhar' ke istemaal kiie haiN.
In the end, the interpretations that you have included, seem a little
more 'literal', including Raj Sahib's. Whereas what I had posted goes a
step beyond and makes it more far reaching and interpretive. What I am
not sure about is whether his use of the meaning 'meeting with God' for
'maNzar' and 'flight of imagination' for 'makaaN' is a little for
fetched. Regards,
Vijay Kumar
Vijay
Vijay
Vijay
Naseer sahib ki tarah itne nagiine pesh kiie aur apnii zaati raae se
bhii hameN nawaaza!
Regards,
Vijay
Amjad
Vijay wrote:
> kya kehne Amjad sahib. aap kaa bhii bohat bohat shukriia ke aapne
> Naseer sahib ki tarah itne nagiine pesh kiie aur apnii zaati raae se
> bhii hameN nawaaza!
>
> Regards,
>
> Vijay
> Amjad wrote:
> > Naseer saHib
> >
Vijay saHib
mere pesh.karda mafaaheem-o-mataalib ko pasand farmaane ke liye
shukria.
aur Raaz saHib ki shar'H se laRak.pan vaali baat ki tasdeeq karne ke
liye bhi shukria.
maine jo apni zaati shar'H bayaan ki hai voh Raaz saHib ki shar'H se
qareeb tar hai.
aap silsila jaari rakhiye aur mazeed ash'aar pesh keejiye
Amjad
Vijay
yeh week-end hai to do she'r pesh haiN
dushmani ne merii khoya ghair ko
kis qadar dushman hai dekha chaahiie
TN Raaz:
'mehboob nuuN mere naal ainii dushmanii hai ki ghair ne uhde saahmne
merii buraaii vii kiitii taaN uh uhde naal vii naraaz ho gaya. merii
vajaah kar ke mehboob ghair nuuN vii guaa baithaa'
English translation:
"My beloved harbours such animosity towards me that when my rival tried
to put me down infront of her, she got angry with him too. Because of
me, she lost him too."
Here a word of explanation may (or may not, for that matter, but her
goes anywyas:-)) be needed. It is the 'intensity of animosity towards
me, that my beloved doesn't even want hear my name mentioned even if
someone tries to agree with her views on me. This is a little different
from 'kucch nahiiN hai to adaavat hii sahii' where adaavat is at least
seen as some link with the beloved. Here even 'enemy's enemy my friend'
hasn't worked for the rival.
ab doosra she'r:
hotaa hai nihaaN garad meN sehraa, mire hote
ghista hai jabiiN Khaak pe, darya mire aage
TN Raaz:
'merii diiwaangii ainii ret uDaa rahii hai ki regstaan vii ihdii DhuuR
'ch luk jaaNdaa hai. maiN jadoN ron te auNdaa haaN taaN darya dii
ravaanii mere agge natmastak ho jaaNdi hai te mere atthruuaaN de veg de
agge Khud nuuN nimaana samjhdii hai'
" my frenzy creates such a cyclone of dust that it hides in it even the
desert. (And) when I cry (wail, weep), the flow of the river bows its
head in front of me and feels inferior in front of the flow of my
tears"
This is the first time that I have understood this she'r properly. It
is beautiful in its simplicity, yet this had alluded me before. I
remember vaguely this particular she'r being discuused on ALUP but
don't remeber this interpretation.
Regards,
Vijay Kumar
Kali Hawa
Vijay wrote:
> Dosto:
>
> yeh week-end hai to do she'r pesh haiN
>
> dushmani ne merii khoya ghair ko
> kis qadar dushman hai dekha chaahiie
>
> TN Raaz:
>
> 'mehboob nuuN mere naal ainii dushmanii hai ki ghair ne uhde saahmne
> merii buraaii vii kiitii taaN uh uhde naal vii naraaz ho gaya. merii
> vajaah kar ke mehboob ghair nuuN vii guaa baithaa'
>
> English translation:
>
> "My beloved harbours such animosity towards me that when my rival tried
> to put me down infront of her, she got angry with him too. Because of
> me, she lost him too."
It is tough to interpret this sh'er in the manner T N Raaz did, but
yes this is one plausible interpretation and very satisfying. However
art isn't restricted to one explanation or seeking out its
creator's interpretation. Often work of art comes about in an
inspired moment, a spark ignited! The poet himself may not know what he
has done except the spontaneity may have an aura of immense
satisfaction. Therefore work of art appears to appreciators in myriad
forms not necessarily in the same way. If the appreciator gets a sense
of exhilaration the purpose is well achieved.
To me this sh'er unfolds in this manner:
I am a kind of guy who stretches enmity to the limit so much so that
the target guy goes of the radar of my beloved/acquaintances. I should
be careful about picking up an enemy.
Thanks Vijay Sahib, you are doing a great job.
Aadaab arz hai!
Kali Hawa
Kali Hawa
>
> hotaa hai nihaaN garad meN sehraa, mire hote
> ghista hai jabiiN Khaak pe, darya mire aage
>
while 'pahla misra' is magical, second one is arrogance personified. I
think Raaz is being very generous to Mirza Ghalib. ( would it be "hotaa
hai nihaaN gard maiN")
Naseer
muHtaram KalaSahib, aadaab 'arz hai!
aap ne durust farmaayaa hai, kih lafz "gard" hai.
jahaaN tak "arrogance personified" kaa ta'alluq hai, kyaa yih nahiiN ho
saktaa kih shaa'ir kah rahaa hai kih saHraa meN merii Haalat jo 'ishq
ke junuuN se ho jaatii hai us se jo dhuul uRtii hai, us se saHraa bhii
dikhaaii nahiiN detaa awr jab yih gard vaapas saHraa kii sataH par aa
Thahartii hai to daryaa ke kinaare par daryaa us KHaak ke paaNo dhotaa
hai...duusare lafzoN meN daryaa mere paaNo kii dhuul par maathaa Tek
rahaa hai??
pahle shi'r kii tashriiH se mujhe bhii qadre iKhtilaaf hai. mere Khyaal
meN maHbuub kii dushmanii ke baare meN zikr nahiiN balkih Ghair kii
dushmanii ke baare meN Ghalib ne aise kahaa hai..
Mihr kii tashriiH Haazir hai..
Ghair baraabar mere Khilaaf lagaaii bujhaaii meN sar-garm rahaa. yahaaN
tak kih maHbuub kaa dil bhii us se uktaa gayaa awr jo vaqaar i'timaad
use maHbuub ke haaN Haasil huaa thaa, vuh Khaak meN mil gayaa. goyaa
merii dushmanii meN is siyaah-baKht ne apnaa bhii beRaa Gharq kar
liyaa. dekhiye, is kii dushmanii kaa darjah kahaaN pahuNchaa huaa hai.
jab insaan kisii ke saath dushmanii meN apne nuqsaan kii bhii parvaah
nahiiN kartaa to yih dushmanii kii aaKhirii Had hotii hai, kyoNkih
dushmanii meN apnii zaat ko bhii bhuul jaataa hai. yahii Haqiiqat Mirza
ne is shi'r meN pesh kii hai.
aadaab 'arz hai,
Naseer
Vijay
Many thanks for your response. I am in total agreement with you opener.
I have already stated in this thread somewhere that I am one of those
who believe it to be readre's prerogative as to how to interpret poetry
(more than even the writer). This, as you state is true of any art
form/. Ghalib's work seems particulary multifaceted as even the few
asha'r that I have psoted so far have proven.
It is all about which interpretation touches you. In this 'dushamani'
she'r, I am equally impressed with the interpretation offered by 'Mihr'
as in Naseer sahib's post. Your interpretation, as always, also brings
a singular perspective. For me, the whole point of this exercise, is to
try to understand 'difficult' ghalib and try to bring out, with the
help of other ALUPers, as many perspectives out as possible. One can
then pick and chose what appeals to one's individual sensibilities.
Thanks once again for the encouragement.
Vijay Kumar
Vijay
I think ghalib is famous for his playful arrogance. I see it mostly as
tongue and cheek. I think Raaz sahib is merely interpreting him, in his
own way. This particular she'r has eluded me before and I seem to
understand it a bit better now. It makes more sense to me this way if
the two lines of the she'r are seen as grandiloquent in their own
different ways, first one talking about poet's supermacy over the
vastness of 'sehra' and the second one over the 'expanse of a river'.
Keep posting,
Sincerely,
Vijay Kumar
Kali Hawa wrote:
> >
Amjad
> Dosto:
>
> yeh week-end hai to do she'r pesh haiN
>
> dushmani ne merii khoya ghair ko
> kis qadar dushman hai dekha chaahiie
>
> TN Raaz:
>
> 'mehboob nuuN mere naal ainii dushmanii hai ki ghair ne uhde saahmne
> merii buraaii vii kiitii taaN uh uhde naal vii naraaz ho gaya. merii
> vajaah kar ke mehboob ghair nuuN vii guaa baithaa'
>
> English translation:
>
> "My beloved harbours such animosity towards me that when my rival tried
> to put me down infront of her, she got angry with him too. Because of
> me, she lost him too."
>
vijay saHib
aadaab arz hai
is she'r per aap ki pesh.karda tashreeH ke baa'd maine Naseer saHib aur
Kali Hava saHib ki raaye bhi paRhi.
maiN bhi aap ki taraH is she'r ke dono mataalib se mutaffiq hooN, magar
maiN zaati taur per T.N.Raaz saHib ki shar'H se mutmain hooN. ab tak
maine jitni bhi shar'HeN dekhi haiN, un meiN T.N.Raaz saHib (jo aap ne
pesh ki) aur Agha M. Baaqir saHib ne is she'r meiN meHboob ko dushman
bataaya hai, aur deegar shar'HoN masalan Haider Tabatabai, G.R.Mehr aur
Maulana Hasrat Mohaani ke mutaabiq GHAIR dushman hai.
Ghair ko dushman bataaya jaaye to ye voh shar'H hai jo she'r paRhte hi
saamne aati hai, aur agar meHboob ko dushman bataaya jaaye to ye voh
shar'H hogi jo she'r per ghaur karne se saamne aati hai, khaas taur per
doosra misra. "kis qadar dushman hai" se mujhe yooN lagta hai ke ab
mirza Ghair ki nahiN balke apne meHboob ki baat kar rahe haiN.
yehi mazmoon mirza Ghalib ne aik aur jagah bhi bayaan kia hai :
zikr mera ba.badee bhi use manzoor nahiN
Ghair ki baat bigaR jaaye to kuch door nahiN
al.Gharaz she'r ke dono mafaaheem bayaan kiye jaa sakte haiN magar
mujhe Raaz aur Baaqir saHib ki shar'H zyaadah pasand hai.
ab aaiye chand aur shaar'Heen ki shar'H bhi pesh kar dooN : (mehr saHib
ki shar'H to Naseer bhai pesh kar chuke haiN)
1. Maulana Hasrat Mohaani :
"dekhna chahaiye ke raqeeb mera kis darja dushman hai ke meri dushmani
ke peeche aap bhi tabaah ho gayaa hai kyuNke meHboob us se bhi
bad.gumaan ho gayaa"
yaa'ni mohaani saHib ki shar'H ke mutaabiq Ghair (raqeeb) ne meri
dushmani meiN meri buraai mere meHboob ke saamne ki jis ki vajah se
mera meHboob us se khafaa ho gayaa is taraH meri dushmani ki vajah se
voh mere meHboob ko bhi khud se bad.zan kar baiTha.
2. Maulana Suhaa (mataalibul.ghalib)
"yaa'ni Ghair meri dushmani meiN sab kuch bhool gayaa hai aur ye us ke
Haq meiN dushmani hai ke maa'shooq ki bhi khabar nahiN, dekhiye voh
hamaara kitna dushman hai".
3. Haider tabatabaai
"(dekha chaahiye) yaa'ni ye baat dekhne ki hai ke meri dushmani meiN us
ne apne ta'eeN bhi miTaa liya".
4. Agha M. Baaqir (bayaan-e-ghalib)
Agha Baaqir saHib ne taqreeban vohi shar'H ki hai jo Raaz saHib ki hai,
aur ye she'r bataur micaal pesh kia hai :
zikr mera ba.badee bhi use manzoor nahiN
Ghair ki baat bigaR jaaye to kuch door nahiN
"is mazmoon ko ab is taraH adaa karte haiN ke meHboob mera is qadar
dushman hai ke raqeeb ne us ke saamne mere khilaaf zehr uglaa aur voh
mera zikr sunte hi aag bagolaa ho gayaa is taraH dushman ko meri vajah
se nuqsaan pauNcha."
shukria
Amjad
Vijay
When I started this thread, my motives were partly selfish. I thought
reading and then posting the interpretation of difficult ghalib asha'r
will help enhance and consolidate my own understanding of ghalib. lekin
merii khwaahish zaroor thii ki deegar ALUPers bhii is meN hissa leN aur
apnii zaati raae ke saath saath aur asaatiza kii in sheroN par kii gaii
sharah bhii yahaaN likheN. aap ne, kali hawa aur Naseer sahib ne merii
dilii muraad puuri kar dii. aap sab kii likhii huui posts bohat
aalimaana haiN aur mujhe ummiid hai ki aap aage bhii shirkat karte
reheNge. I am hoping that archive of this thread will become a valuable
reference source.
is 'dushmani' vaale she'r par maiN aap se muttafiq huuN. Although
interpretation by Mihr' as provided by Naseer sahib, is appealing, I
find that the other interpretation is more intuitive and closer to my
heart.
shukriia,
Vijay
Vijay
gada samajh ke voh chup tha, miri jo shaamat aaii,
uThaa, aur uTh ke qadam* maiN ne paasbaaN ke liie
TN Raaz:
'haali marhoom 'yaadgaar-r-ghalib' 'ch likhde han ki urdu adab 'ch
ajihe DhukveN vichaar pargaT karan vaale she'r do chaar hii hor niklan
ge. ik vyaapik vichaar nuuN do satraaN 'ch ajihii Khuubii naal byaan
karna ki gadd 'ch vii is taraaN adaa karna mushkil jaape.
matlab ih ki maiN jadoN mehboob de dar te jaa ke baiThaa taaN paasbaaN
ne maiNnuuN faqiir samjhyaa, is laii kujh na kihaa. par maiN ih
muurkhtaa kiitii ki thoRii der baad uThh ke uhde qadmaaN te Dig piaa.
uh turaNt samajh giaa ki ih faqiir nahiiN sagoN aashiq hai. is laii
uhne meri gardan napp ditii.'
Englsih translation:
"Late (Maulana) Haali writes in 'yaadgaar-e-ghalib' that one will find
only two three verses like this in whole of Urdu literature that
express such appropriate thoguths. To express an expansive idea in two
lines with such beauty (and economy) that one would find it difficult
to express such thought even in prose (?paragraph).
It means that when I sat at the doorstep of my beloved, the doorman
took me for a pauper, a begger. Hence he didn't say anything. But I
committed this folly that after a while, I prostrated myself on his
feet. He instantly sensed that this is no faqir, but an ashiq. So he
caught me by the nape of my neck (and beat me up)."
Regards,
Vijay
P.S. I have also seen second misra as 'uTh ke *paaoN* maiN ne paasbaaN
ke liie'
Naseer
mere pass aap kaa pesh-kardah shi'r kuchh yuuN likhaa huaa hai..
gadaa samajh ke vuh chup thaa mirii jo shaamat aae
uThaa awr uTh ke qadam maiN ne paasbaaN ke liye
Naseer
UVR
> dostaan-e-alup: ghalib ka aik aur she'r pesh hai:
>
> gada samajh ke voh chup tha, miri jo shaamat aaii,
> uThaa, aur uTh ke qadam* maiN ne paasbaaN ke liie
>
> P.S. I have also seen second misra as 'uTh ke *paaoN* maiN ne
> paasbaaN ke liie'
>
I am doubtful that Ghalib would have used 'uTh ke *paaoN* ...'.
It seems to me that this would throw the couplet out of meter,
aur Ghalib se is qism ki Ghalati ki ummeed naheeN ki jaa sakti.
-UVR.
PS: Allow me to congratulate you on starting this exceptionally
enjoyable series. I have perused all of your (and others') posts
on this thread and have been enthralled no end! Thank you.
Vijay
I am posting today's she'r, not because it is particularly difficult to
understand but because of its context. This she'r has appeared on ALUP
before and has been used to bolster the argument in support of
structure of naz'm c.f. that of ghazal. Something to the effect that
ghalib's admission of narrowness/limits of ghazal's range indirectly
favors the vastness of naz'm structure. Well, to-day's narrative should
put paid to that theory.
Here is the she'r:
b-qadr-e-shauq nahiiN, zarf-e-taNg naa-e-ghazal
kucch aur chaahie vusa'at mire byaaN ke liie
TN Raaz:
'is ghazal de agle chaar she'r nawaab tajammul hussain KhaaN, jo ki
riaasat faruuKhaabaad de shashik sann, dii tariif 'ch likhe gae hann.
nawaab saahib mirza ghalib de qadardaanaaN 'choN sann. kyuNki ghalib
ghazal 'ch qasiide daa joR launa chaahuNde san, is laii nawaab sahib de
gungaan laii ih bhuumika bannh de hoe pharmaaOnde han. ghazal daa
kuucha (taNg-naa-e-ghazal) mere she'r kehan de shauq mutaabik samartha
nahiiN rakhda, is laii maiN ihde 'ch visthaar paida kar riha haaN bhaav
ghazal 'ch qasiida shaamil kar riha haaN'
English translation:
" the next four verses of this ghazal are in praise of the ruler of
district Faruukhaabaad, nawaab Tajammul Khan. Nawaab sahib was amongst
admirers of ghalib. Because ghalib wanted to add qasiida to the ghazal,
in order to sing nawaab sahib's paraises, he adds this (she'r) as a
foreword (to the next four):
the narrow strait of ghazal doesn't have the capacity to fulfill my
desire (for the purpose I have in mind), so I am expanding its
vastness, meaning I am including qasiida in the (structure of this)
ghazal"
Here are the next four asha'ar that constitue the qasiida:
diia hai Khalak ko bhii taa use nazar na lage
bana hai aish tajammul husaain KhaaN ke liie
zabaaN pe baar-e-Khudaaya, yih kis kaa naam aaya
ki mere nutak ne bose mirii zabaaN ke liie (what a wonderful she'r)*
nasiir-e-daulat-o-diiN aur muiin-e-millat-o-mulak
bana hai charKh-e-bariiN jiske aastaaN ke liie
zamaana ehd meN uske hai mehv-e-aaraaish
baneNge aur sitaare ab aasmaaN ke liie
*O God, whose name appeared on it that power of my speech itself
bestowed my tongue with kisses.
Thanks,
Vijay
Vijay
same vein as the 'qitaa' that I posted above:
adaa-e-Khaas se, ghalib huua hai nukta-saraa
salaa-e-aam hai yaaraan-e-nuktaadaaN ke liie
TN Raaz:
'ghalib farmaauNde han ki maiN dhazal 'ch qasiide daa raNg paida kar ke
ik naviiN shailii iijaad kiitii hai te shayer dostaaN nuuN is shailii
da anukaran te anusaran karan dii aam daawat deNdaa haaN'
"ghalib avers that by injecting shades of a qasiida into the normal
structure of a ghazal, I have devised a new style. And I extend a
general welcome to all my poet friends to follow it and critique it"
Regards,
Vijay
UVR
> I thought I will post the maqta of the ghazal also as it is also in the
> same vein as the 'qitaa' that I posted above:
>
> adaa-e-Khaas se, ghalib huua hai nukta-saraa
> salaa-e-aam hai yaaraan-e-nuktaadaaN ke liie
>
> TN Raaz:
>
> 'ghalib farmaauNde han ki maiN dhazal 'ch qasiide daa raNg paida kar ke
> ik naviiN shailii iijaad kiitii hai te shayer dostaaN nuuN is shailii
> da anukaran te anusaran karan dii aam daawat deNdaa haaN'
>
> "ghalib avers that by injecting shades of a qasiida into the normal
> structure of a ghazal, I have devised a new style. And I extend a
> general welcome to all my poet friends to follow it and critique it"
>
Vijay sb:
is kaRi meN aap ki pichhli post paRhkar ek sawaal zahn meN
uThaa zaroor thaa, magar yeh soch kar k aap, yaa digar ahbaab,
bas abhi us[ee] mauzoo' par roshni Daalte hi hoNge, chup rahaa.
lekin ab sochtaa hooN ba-zaahir poochh hi looN --
So how valid is the proposition that Ghalib 'invented' this new
poetic 'shailee' (style) -- viz., qaseede ko Ghazal kaa jaama'
pehnaana? Was there really nobody before Ghalib who wrote
Ghazals with contents like a qaseeda (or, perhaps, a qaseeda
in the form of a Ghazal)?
-UVR.
Vijay
I am sure (at least hope that) some learned ALUPer/s will respond. I
would like to point out only that here ghalib is not talking about
writing 'qasiida in the form of a ghazal' but about taking part of a
ghazal, a few asha'r, a qita if you will, and using them as a qasiida.
I have only come across qasiidas as complete poems, be they naz'ms or
ghazals.
Regards,
Vijay Kumar
Naseer
lagtaa hai kih "Ghalib" kii laRii ne ruKH badal liyaa hai. aap ne is
kii ibtidaa Ghalib ke kaThin shi'roN ko sahl zabaan meN pesh karne se
kii thii. ab aap ne
ba-qadr-shauq nahiiN zarf-i-tangnaay-i-Ghazal
kuchh awr chaahiye vus'at mire bayaaN ke liye...
shi'r, qaari'iin ke saamne rakh kar yih savaal puuchhaa hai kih kyaa
Ghalib kaa ishaarah is taraf hai kih Ghazal ke "restricted vessel" meN
un kaa "shauq" samaa nahiiN saktaa; lihaaza unheN kisii vasii'-tar zarf
kii zaruurat hai? mere KHayaal meN, aap, laRii ke is moR par ALUPers ko
is mauzuu' kii baHs par mad'uu kar rahe the kih kyaa Ghazal "tang" hai
awr "nazm" vasii'-tar?
abhii kisii ne is savaal ke javaab meN kuchh kahaa hii nahiiN kih aap
ne Ghazal kaa maqta' likh kar, awr Raaz Sahib kii tashrriH ke tavassut
se ek awr pahluu ko jaa TaTolaa hai. ya'nii kyaa Ghalib ne Ghazal meN
kissi shaKHs kii madH meN shi'r likh kar use "qasiidah-numaa" banaa
diyaa hai yaa yih "Ghazal-numaa" qasiidah hai?
adaa-i-KHaas se, Ghalib huaa hai nukta-saraa
salaa-i-'aam hai yaaraan-i-nuktaa-daaN ke liye
TN Raaz:
"ghalib avers that by injecting shades of a qasiida into the normal
structure of a ghazal, I have devised a new style. And I extend a
general welcome to all my poet friends to follow it and critique it"
yahaaN "adaa" se "style" ke ma'ne shaayad nahiiN lenaa chaahiyeN balkih
"KHaas adda" = "a special charm".
awr vuh sab nuktah-shinaas logoN ko ek khulii da'vat de rahe haiN kih
aap log bhii is rang kii pairavii kareN.
pahle savaal kaa javaab bi_lkul aasaan hai. bilaa-shak, nazm meN har
qism ke mauzuu' par, chhoTii sii baat se le kar ek taviil daastaan
likhii jaa saktii hai jabkih Ghazal kaa daa'irah-i-'amal maHduud hai.
duusare pahluu ko, jise UVR Sahib ne savaal kaa jaamah pahnaayaa hai,
is taraH parkhaa jaa saktaa hai kih agar Ghalib se pahle kisii shaa'ir
ne Ghazal meN madH ke shi'r shaamil nahiiN kiye haiN to ham kah sakte
haiN Mirza Ghalib ne vaqi'ii ek naii iijaad kii bunyaad Daalii hai. yih
to ALUP-NAGAR ke daanish-var awr sukhan-var hii bataa sakeN ge. agar
aisaa pahle bhii huaa hai, to phir Ghalib faqat apnii "KHaas adaa" par
naazaaN haiN.
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
Vijay
gaya lagta hai. dar-asal maiN ne to sirf she'r aur uskii tashriih hii
pesh kii thii. yeh she'r chuuN kih kaafi istemaal huua hai ALUP par,
mujhe iskaa sahiih 'context' maaluum nahiiN thaa. socha baat saaf ho
jaaegii agar maiN ALUPers ko yeh bhii bataata chaluuN. ab jo muda'a UVR
sahib ne uthaaya hai, aur jis pe aap ne tabsiraa kiia hai, voh shayad
tafsiilii jawaab maNgta hai. to maiN soch raha huuN ki aik do din ruk
kar dekhte haiN ki koi aur ALUPer kucch kehta hai ya nahiiN. nahiiN to
phir 'I will be back to square one':-)
Vijay Kumar
P.S. This point is central that ghalib is talking about including a
short 'qasiida' in the middle of a ghazal. To illustrate, the other
she'r I posted before, "gada samajh ke voh chupp thaa...." is also from
the same ghazal.
UVR
>
> P.S. This point is central that ghalib is talking about including a
> short 'qasiida' in the middle of a ghazal. To illustrate, the other
> she'r I posted before, "gada samajh ke voh chupp thaa...." is also from
> the same ghazal.
Believe me, I understand the distinction you are drawing,
Vijay saahib, between "qaseeda numa Ghazal" or "Ghazal
numa qaseeda" and what Ghalib has done here. It may
also well be that that's the central distinction we must focus
on, here. After all, Ghalib was hardly the first one to include
a 'qita' in his Ghazals! Indeed, insofar as including a qita
(whatever the contents of it may be), he has not invented
any new 'style'.
However, Ghalib may have been the first one to include
a qita with contents which, up until that time, were only
included in qaseedas. And this single distinction may be
enough to justify his claim as to the invention of a new
poetic idiom for Urdu.
So, my question was actually only about that claim -- was
he or was he not the first to do what he has done? And, on
a related note, if Ghalib was not the first, is there another
way to interpret the matla or the maqta? We all know very
well that Ghalib could have directly composed a qaseeda
if he wanted, instead of trying to 'mess with' the idiom of
the Ghazal.
-UVR.
Vijay
qaid meN yaquub ne lii, go na yuusif kii Khabar
lekin, aaNkheN rauzan-e-diiwaar-e-zindaaN ho gaiiN
yaaquub: Respected father of Yuusaf who lost his eyesight in grief of
separation from his son.
yuusaf=a prophet who was extremely beautiful.
rauzan=hole.
diiwaar-e-ziNdaaN=prison wall.
T N Raaz:
'yaquub diiaN akkhaaN nuuN qaidKhaane dii diiwaar da suraaKh mannya
hai. jad ki hazrat yaquub qaid vele apne beTe hazrat yusaf dii madad
nahiiN kar sake, par akkhaaN roNde roNde diiwaar da suraaKh ban
gaiiaaN sann, arthaat be-nuur ho gaiiaan san.
doosra matlab hai ki premi premika nuuN kise musiibat toN na bacha
sake, ih taaN mumkin hai, par uhde laii bechain na hove, ih na-mumkin
hai.'
" Here yaquub's eyes are taken as synonymous with the (two) holes in
the wall of the jail (where he was imprisoned). When hazrat yuuqab
during his imprisonment couldn't come to the aid of his son, hazrat
yuusaf, but his eyes wept so, that they were reduced to two holes in
the wall of the prison. In other words, they became sightless.
The other meaning is that it maybe possible that lover can't save his
beloved from a certain calamity, but it is not possible that he won't
suffer/be in emotional turmoil."
I personally find the alternative interpretation somewhat weak.
The other 'fact' I couldn't ascertain from the she'r or TN Raaz's
interpretation is whether the allusion here is to the imprisonment of
yaquub or yuusaf. I think it is yaquub who is meant to be in prison
but wouldn't mind confirmation from someone who knows the story.
Regards,
Vijay
UVR
I am not too intimately familiar with the story here, but if I recall
correctly from when it was told to me (by someone who attempted
to explain a Faiz quatrain to me[1]), it would appear that Jacob
really had no way that he could "help" Joseph, even if he could.
I think the story goes that Joseph is Jacob's favorite (youngest) son,
which drives the other sons into a maddening extent of jealousy.
One day Joseph's jealous brothers take him into a desolate area
to herd sheep, and push him into a bottomless pit (andhaa kuaaN?)
and leave him to die. Jacob is told that Joseph "fell" and could
not be rescued even after multiple attempts. Jacob refuses to
believe that Joseph is dead, but cries himself blind from the
misery of having lost his dear son. Meanwhile, a caravan passing
by rescues Joseph and takes him along to Egypt, where Joseph
is eventually sold in the slave bazaar to a nobleman for mere
pennies [1]. Joseph bears every single one of these trials. In
Egypt, he is treated decently by his master, but his master's wife
is always "after" Joseph. Eventually, finding Joseph and herself
alone one night, she attempts to grab (molest?) him, but Joseph
gets away. In the process, Joseph's tunic gets torn from the back.
Just then, the master happens to return, and the wife accuses
Joseph of trying unspeakables with her. Seeing the tunic torn
from the back, the master realizes that it is his wife and not
Joseph who was the aggressor, but gets Joseph convicted and
imprisoned ... Eventually, Joseph is freed and becomes the
Pharaoh's right hand man. Then once his brothers happen to
visit Egypt for trade, and Joseph, recognizing them, sends for
them ... [stuff happens] ... and then he sends his brothers back
with gifts and monies and the blood smeared tattered clothes
that he had worn when he was pushed into the well/pit. It is
not until Jacob "sees" Joseph's clothes that he realizes that
his son is still alive.
Long story short -- Jacob really didn't have a way of helping
Joseph when he was imprisoned in Egypt. That said, he did
not stop thinking of and pining after his lost "dead" son!
-UVR.
[1]
jaaN bechne pe aaye to bedaam bech di
ai ahl-e-misr, waz'-e-takalluf to dekhiye
insaaf hai k jurm-e-aqeedat se peshtar
ik baar soo-e-daaman-e-Yusuf to dekhiye
Afzal A. Khan
First, it is to be noted that the Islamic historical view of the
the two Prophets is different from that of the Bible. As per
the Islamic view, Hazrat Yusuf was the (favourite) son of Hazrat
Yaaqub. Out of jealousy, Hazrat Yaaqub's other sons managed to
lure him away and pushed him into a deep well. His father
grieved so much that he lost his eyesight. But, in Ghalib's
sher, it is stated that Hazrat Yusuf had been thrown into a
prison. "Rauzan" refers to "an opening". It can be just a hole
or a small window.
One interpretation could be : The "rauzan" had constant visual
access to Hazrat Yusuf. In the same manner, the eyes of
Hazrat Yaaqub were "riveted" in the direction of the
prison cell where Hazrat Yusuf had been lodged.
Another interpretation could be : The eyes becoming like the
"rauzan" in the prison wall is symbolic of loss of vision.
The allusion is of course to the fact that Hazrat Yaaqub had
lost his vision due to excessive grief. The "rauzan" merely
served the purpose of ventilation but (due to the all-pervasive
darkness) was of no use for visual purposes.
This is a very obscure sher or, in other words, it is little
more than "alfaaz ka gorakh~dhaNda". The first misra
is particularly difficult to interpret. The poet seems to be
saying that Hazrat Yaaqub did not (rather than "could not")
try searching for his son. This shows inaction or indifference
and does not reflect the emotional grief of the father at the
sad fate of his favourite son.
It is possible that "KHabar na lena" is a sort of equivalent
of "KHabar na milna". He knew that his son was in the prison
but had no means of "seeing him" and didn't know anything
about his son's actual condition.
Afzal
Vijay
Afzal aur UVR sahebaan: aap donoN (?dono:-)) hazraat kaa shukriia.
Afzal sahib, I am struck by the similarity rather than the difference
in the biblical and islamic version of this story.
Regards,
Vijay
UVR
>
> Afzal aur UVR sahebaan: aap donoN (?dono:-)) hazraat kaa shukriia.
> Afzal sahib, I am struck by the similarity rather than the difference
> in the biblical and islamic version of this story.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vijay
Vijay saahib,
I was reading the final lines of your post in which you discussed
the sh'er in question:
qaid meN Yaqub ne lii go na Yusuf ki Khabar
lekin aaNkheN rauzan-e-deewaar-e-zindaaN ho gayeeN
While there is little doubt as to whose "aaNkheN" the second
misr'a is referring to, I was wondering whether the first misr'a,
instead of being interpreted as saying "go k Yusuf ke qaid
meN rahte, Yaqub ne unki Khair-Khabar naheeN lee", could
be construed as referring to _Yaqub_ as constrained by his
own lack of sufficient will power -- or lack of conviction in his
gut instinct that Yusuf was not dead -- to take some real
steps to determine the latter's true whereabouts. That is,
whether Yaqub is being called a *prisoner* of his own
circumstances.
For it is also true that just like a prisoner tries incessantly to
peer through the hole in his prison wall in the vain albeit
life-sustaining hope of catching a glimpse of something
'on the other side', so also reportedly did Yaqub, for nary a
fleeting moment, stop peering through the hole in the wall
of his hopeless existence looking for the slightest wisp of
news of his long lost son.
Perhaps this was all Ghalib was seeking to convey by this
sh'er, i.e., his take on the anecdote.
-UVR.
PS: I will freely admit however that thinking of Yaqub as the
prisoner runs directly contrary to the actual story where
Yusuf was indeed the one thrown in prison (that too for
attempted adultery, an offence worthy of drawing, if I am not
wrong, the "ultimate" punishment?).
Naseer
Just a few words in addition to what has been said so far. Chapter 12
of the Qur'aan has the full story.
Hazrat Yuusuf ('alaihi_ssalaam) was one of 12 sons of Hazrat Ya'quub
('alaihi_ssalaam);he and his younger brother Binya'miin (Benjamin)
being step-brothers. As the elder brothers perceived that Joseph was
centre of their father's unwarranted attention, they hatched a plot to
remove him from the scene. They convinced their father by
saying.."send him with us tomorrow and he will enjoy himself and play;
we will take good care of him. He (Jacob) replied, "I am affraid a
wolf may eat him when you are not paying attention. They said, "If a
wolf were to eat him, when there are so many of us, we would truly be
loosers!" This is another way of saying...NOT LIKELY AT ALL!
They threw him in a well and returned home by nightfull, weeping
(crocodile tears) and said.."We went off racing one another leaving
Joseph behind with our things, and a wolf ate him. You will not
believe us though we are telling the truth; and they showed him his
shirt, deceptively stained with blood. He cried, " No! Your souls have
prompted you to do wrong. But it is best to be patient: from God alone
I seek help to bear what you are saying.
According to Steingass and Platts "rozan/rauzan" (and Sanskrit
"rochan") is an aperature in the middle of a house (to allow smoke to
escape), a hole; a window. I wonder if this aperture is a means of
allowing "raushanii" too and perhaps "rochan" and "roshan" (the latter
Classical Persian pronunciation) are related whence we get our
"raushan-daan", "daan" being connected to "denaa".
My understanding is somewhat akin to Afzal Sahib's explanation in that
Hazrat Ya'quub ('alaihi_ssalaam) could not really bring himself to
believe that his beloved son was dead. In his heart of hearts he still
expected he would return any day and to use Afzal Sahib's very apt
wording, "riveted" his eyes to the outside, keeping a constant look
out for him. This and the continuous weeping, inevitably, led to his
blindness.
So, although he did not visit Yuusuf ('alaihi_ssalaam) {Yuusuf kii
KHabar nah lii} not because he did n't want to but because he did not
know for certain that he was alive and in prison AND perhaps did not
have the means or the energy to search for him. However, the least he
could do was that his (blind) eyes became the aperature/hole/raushan-
daan which was constantly looking at Yuusuf whilst he was in prison.
The implication is that the "drip drip" of his tears resulted in the
formation of the "rauzan" in the prison wall. Yuusuf in turn benefited
from the "rauzan" that he could see the outside world through it and
hence did not become dispirited.
KHair-KHwaah,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Vijay Saheb,
I was only referring to the differences in the historical view
of the two prophets in Islam and Christianity.
I am no expert in Biblical studies, but, as per the New Testament,
I think Joseph is regarded as the husband of Mary, who gave birth
to Jesus Christ. Jesus preceded Prophet Mohammed aby about 570
years. This is a historical fact.
On the other hand, Yusuf 'Alaihis~salaam was the son of Prophet
Yaaqub 'Alaihis~salaam and he preceded Hazrat 'Isa (i.e. Jesus
Christ) by several hundred years. Traditionally, it is believed
that when Hazrat Musa 'Alaihis~salaam (Prophet Moses) decided to
leave Egypt, he took with him the coffin containing the mortal
remains of Hazrat Yusuf.
The Quraan does NOT refer to Hazrat 'Isa as the son of Joseph.
OTOH, he is referred throughout as "'Isa son of Mariam".
Afzal
UVR
Respected Afzal saahib,
I am no expert in Biblical stories myself, and I sincerely hope
you will excuse my saying this, but I believe there may be
some confusion in your mind as far as "the Joseph in the
Bible" goes. AFAIK, there does exist a Joseph in the Bible
who is the *exact* equivalent of Yusuf bin Yaqub. I think
this Joseph is also described in the *OLD* testament as the
son of Jacob and Rachel (Jacob was Isaac's son, Isaac was
Abraham's). The stories of Joseph's brothers being jealous
of him, of Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt, of his later
rising to great power in the Pharaoh's reign are also known
to many Christians.
The Joseph you have mentioned above is also a figure from
the Christian gospel, but is not (I think) generally understood
to be the same Joseph. Rather, he is said to hail from the
"House of David", and is typically referred to as "Joseph,
husband of Mary" (or Joseph of Nazareth).
It is the former Joseph (son of Jacob) who is the chief
protagonist of the famous Andrew Lloyd Webber musical
"Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat".
I offer my sincerest apologies to yourself and to all ALUPers
for posting this "off-topic" message.
-UVR.
Sushil Sharma
>
> - Show quoted text -
Afzal saheb (and other friends on ALUP),
Adaab. Though there are certain differences in minor details of the
story of Hazrat Yaqub (Jacob) 'Alaihis~salaam and Hazrat Yusuf
'Alaihis~salaam (Joseph), the Koranic and Biblical versions do not
differ a lot. Joseph, the son of Jacob, is not the same person as
Joseph the husband of Mary, in the Bible. The story of Joseph and
Jacob appears in the Old Testament in the book of Genesis, while the
story of Jesus' birth and his genealogy are described in the books of
Mathew and Luke in the New Testament. Joseph, the husband of Mary,
came several generations after Jacob (the father of Joseph), from the
line of Jacob's son Judah. Again, the biblical literature (AFAIK) only
mentions Joseph as the step-father of Jesus (who is mentioned as the
son of the Holy Spirit), while both the Koran and Bible agree in
calling Jesus as son of Mary.
Prof. Frances Pritchett's praiseworthy website gives the commentaries
of several prominent Ghalib experts, for the she'r under discussion in
this sub-thread, and also provides some details on "rauzan" with
references to other Ghalib ash'aar where this word occurs. By the way,
it appears the explanation provided by TN Raz saheb shows a striking
resemblance with that of Bekhud Mohani.
Here is my own humble take on this she'r. As is not uncommon with
Ghalib's works, this she'r could be interpreted in various ways. It is
very appropriate that Ghalib refers to this famous story from surah
Yusuf, as one of the important messages from this surah is about Allah
being "ghalib" (Allah is dominant and in complete control of His
affairs, but most people are not aware of it)!
1. Jacob was a man of piety and firm belief in the benevolence of God.
While he privately wept to no end at the loss of Joseph, he also
showed sabr and tried to reconcile himself to God's decision. It may
appear that he did not (or could not) find the whereabouts of Joseph
while Joseph was in prison, he wept so much that he lost his eyesight.
Metaphorically, the light that left Jacob's eyes, became the light
that (though feeble) constantly kept shining on (and keeping watch
over) Joseph through the holes in the wall of his prison cell. So, to
anyone else who might have been in prison in place of Joseph, it would
appear at that time as if his relatives and even his father had
forsaken him, but in due course of time it would be clear to him that
he was not forgotten at all, and instead his father had kept thinking
about him so much that his eyes saw nothing except the vision of
Joseph (just like the wholes in the prison wall saw nobody except for
Joseph), and this realization would redeem the father-son love at that
point. In other words, it may appear that our loved ones do not care
for us at some point in time, but in due course it may be shown not to
be so.
2. Perhaps there is also some allegorical significance in Ghalib's use
of this story. Joseph and Jacob both were men of faith. Joseph was
taught lessons of piety and faith, by his father. So, the true light
(unwavering faith, piety) that actually shone on Joseph and helped him
overcome all his difficulties including imprisonment, was actually the
light/eyesight that was imparted to him by his father, and this true
light constantly kept watch over him, like eyes of a loving father.
While Jacob's faith was strong, there might have been a veil of doubt
in his mind, caused by the grief at the loss of his dear son, that may
have temporarily kept him from being complete in his devotion, which
might be symbolized as loss of his eyesight. This symbolism is
validated again, as the story goes, Jacob's eyesight is restored when
he gets confirmed news of Joseph being alive and well (Jacob's
eyesight was restored when Joseph's shirt brought from Egypt, was
placed on his face). So, Jacob's faith in the benevolence of God is
restored when he realizes that Joseph is alive.
3. Both the Biblical and Koranic legends repeatedly mention how God
tried the patience and faith of great people, and the theme of
sacrifice. Ghalib might also be hinting that Joseph gave up his
eyesight as a sacrifice, for God's help for Joseph in overcoming all
the troubles that he had to endure. Thus, outwardly, Jacob didn't
enquire for Joseph's whereabouts, in truth, he sacrificed his eyes so
that God could keep a watchful eye on Joseph.
I am aware of the limitations of my own knowledge of the Biblical and
Islamic scriptures, and of the perils of trying to re-interprete
religious legends, so let me clarify that if anything is found
incorrect or offensive in what I wrote above, it is to be attributed
to my ignorance and lack of facility in communicating my thoughts, not
to any wish on my part to give offense or to disrespect any person's
sentiments or beliefs.
Regards,
Sushil
Sushil Sharma
[I posted this reply about an hour ago, but somehow that post has not
showed up on the Google Groups site. I suespect it is lost somewhere
in the cybersphere, hence reposting it. My apologies if the original
post reappears and you see two posts where I intended only one.]
Afzal saheb and other friends on ALUP,
Adaab. Though there are certain differences in minor details of the
story of Hazrat Yaqub (Jacob) 'Alaihis~salaam and Hazrat Yusuf
'Alaihis~salaam (Joseph), the Koranic and Biblical versions do not
differ a lot. Joseph, the son of Jacob, is not the same person as
Joseph the husband of Mary, in the Bible. The story of Joseph and
Jacob appears in the Old Testament in the book of Genesis, while the
story of Jesus' birth and his genealogy are described in the books of
Mathew and Luke in the New Testament. Joseph, the husband of Mary,
came several generations after Jacob (the father of Joseph), from the
line of Jacob's son Judah. Again, the biblical literature (AFAIK) only
mentions Joseph as the step-father of Jesus (who is mentioned as the
son of the Holy Spirit), while both the Koran and Bible agree in
calling Jesus as son of Mary.
Prof. Frances Pritchett's praiseworthy website gives the commentaries
of several prominent Ghalib experts, for the she'r under discussion in
this sub-thread, and also provides some details on "rauzan" with
references to other Ghalib ash'aar where this word occurs. By the way,
it appears the explanation provided by TN Raz saheb shows a striking
resemblance with that of Bekhud Mohani.
Here is my own humble take on this she'r. As is not uncommon with
Ghalib's works, this she'r could be interpreted in various ways.
Ghalib is presenting two distinct images, leaving it up to the
audience to come up with an explanation that combines the two images.
Vijay
Bohat Khoob UVR sahib, I like the idea of Yaquub imprisoned and
restrained by circumstances. Very poetic. I guess it takes one (poet,
that is) to know one. Many have commented on the story now and I am
truly grateful to all of you. Interesting how a two liner can
encapsulate such wealth. No 'zarf-e-taNgna-e-ghazal' here!
Regards,
Vijay Kumar
Afzal A. Khan
Sharma-ji,
I did not mention the Old Testament in my earlier post. My
reference was only to the New Testament. My purpose was to
highlight the fact that the Bible refers to two different
persons as Joseph, whereas the equivalent term (Yousuf) has
been used in the Quraan only for one person i.e the Prophet
Yousuf 'Alaihis~salaam.
If one goes deeply into the life=history of the Prophets
Yaaqub and Yousuf, one will find a great deal of difference
between the Quraanic account and the Biblical account, and
even the Talmudic tradition. But that is for scholars of
Scriptures and need not concern us. Also, that would be
strictly off-topic. Though I stand by what I said earlier
and reiterate here, I do not propose to give detailed com-
parisons to highlight the differences. So let us leave it
at that.
Also, if you don't mind, I would like to express my disagreement
with what you state in paragraph 2 of your above post (about the
true light that shone on Yousuf (PBUH) and helped him overcome
all his difficulties etc. was actually the light/eyesight that was
imparted to him by his father Hazrat Yaaqub (PBUH)}. The Quraan
makes it very clear that it is God Alone Who chooses to exalt
certain people and confer on them Prophethood in His infinite
wisdom. Hazrat Yaaqub had several children and he must surely have
tried to inculcate in them good moral values. But their execrable
behaviour throughout has been given in great detail. I give here
a translation of the relevant verses from Sura-e-Yousuf{12:21-22}
" ....thus We found a way for Yousuf to become established in
that land (Egypt) and in order that We might teach him to
comprehend the deeper meaning of things. Allah has full
power to implement His design although most people do not
realize that.....And when Yousuf reached the age of maturity,
We granted him judgment and knowledge...."
That last sentence is how Quraan often describes God's choice of
certain persons and conferment of prophethood on them. The word
"knowledge" refers to that special knowledge of the Truth which is
directly intimated to Prophets through divine Revelation.
I must also express my strong disagreement with the last sentence
of the above paragraph 2, where you state : "So, Jacob's faith in
the benevolence of God is restored when he realizes that Joseph is
alive". Hazrat Yaaqub too was a Prophet and there could never be
any question of his losing faith in God's benevolence. You have
said earlier that he showed "sabr". In fact the Quraan uses the
term "fa~sabrun jameel" --- "with patience characterized by grace".
I do hope that you will not take my disagreement amiss, just as I
am sure that these statements made in your post are not due to any
ulterior or base motives.
Adverting to Ghalib's sher now......
I think we are missing a crucial element in interpreting this sher.
In my time, I had read quite a few exegeses explaining Ghalib's
poetry. But all that seems so long ago, and is (in fact) a long
long time ago. But I don't quite recall coming across any explana-
tion or interpretation that covers this particular point that I am
going to describe now. This particular discussion made me read the
the Quraanic Sura-e-Yousuf all over again and I am indebted to the
Holy Book for providing this thought.
Many years after the initial episode of Hazrat Yousuf being put in
a well, God puts him in a position of authority in Egypt. And when
his brothers come to him again during the period of a famine, he
contrives to keep back with him one of his brothers (Benjamin).
On their return, when Hazrat Yaaqub learns that Benjamin hasn't
come back, he becomes extremely sorrowful and feels that his sons
have also caused some dreadful harm to Benjamin, just as they did
with his beloved son Yousuf years earlier. Again, a translation of
the relevant verses :
"...Then he (H.Yaaqub) turned away from them (his sons) and said
'Alas, for Yousuf'; and his eyes turned bleak (white) with
grief...."
Here, the Quraan uses the words : "w'abyazzat'ainaahu.."
The word "abyazzat" means 'turning white' in a literal sense.
When one is in a dark cell, with only a small hole or opening
(rauzan), one can just see a little bit of (white) light, without
being able to discern anything tangible. And (this is my take on
this misra), this is exactly what happened with Hazrat Yaaqub :
his eyes turned "white" with grief. It was as if he was in a cell
with only a meaningless ray of light coming in, but that wasn't
sufficient for him to discern anything. In such a situation, even
a man with full eyesight cannot see anything and, for all practical
purposes, becomes a blind person.
According to this interpretation, Ghalib is using the word occur-
ring in the Quraan {"abyazzat"} to describe Hazrat Yaaqub's
blindness.
To appreciate this further, please consider the expression
"White Paper". In Urdu, it is referred to as "Qirtaas-e-abyaz".
Afzal
Sushil Sharma
aadaab. Thanks for sharing your erudite comments and a new perspective
on the Ghalib couplet under discussion. After going through your
response I find myself in general agreement with all your points...
nothing more for me to add. :-)
Regards,
Sushil