Revival Of An Unresolved (?) Issue -- A Ghalib Ghazal
Afzal A. Khan
Some 3 years back, one of our friends --- a worthy poet in his own
right --- had raised some questions relating to a Ghalib ghazal.
Another issue was added by one of the responders (Yours Truly).
There were very few rejoinders. Somehow I feel that these questions
were not sufficiently discussed --- the thread "died" too soon.
This is an attempt to revive that thread. I shall give texts of the
various comments/views expressed in the responses. There would be a
lot of copy/pasting. Please bear with me.......
The earlier thread was started by Irfan Abid Saheb in April 2004.
And here is his original post :
------------------------------------------------------------------
> :Ghalib: kaa ek mash.huur sher hai:
>
> ik khel hai aurang-e-sulemaaN mire nazdeek
> ik baat hai ejaaz-e-maseehaa mire aage
>
> sher kaa mafhuum, qaabil ahbaab se tazkiraat kii roshnii meN, aur
> motabar tashreehaat ke mutaabiq, kuchh yuuN hai: aurang-e-sulemaaN
> mere nazdeek ek khel hai, yaanii kuchh nahiiN, aur ejaaz-e-maseehaa
> mire liye ek baat hai, yaanii kuchh nahiiN.
>
> is mafhuum par jab itne saare maahireen ek.raae hoN, to shak kii koii
> gunjaaish nahiiN honii chaahiye. lekin buraa ho is dil kaa ki ise phir
> bhii tasallii nahiiN! mujhe mazkuurah mafhuum meN jo baat hameshaa
> khaTaktii rahii hai vo ye hai ki :ik khel hai: aur :ik baat hai: donoN
> fiqroN ko :haqeer samajhne: (to trivialize) ke maanii meN liyaa gayaa
> hai. ab mushkil ye hai ki kisii cheez ko haqeer bataane ke liye :ye to
> ek khel hai: kahnaa to aam hai, lekin :ye to ek baat hai: kahnaa
> kam.az.kam merii nazar se nahiiN guzraa. :ek baat hai: kaa istemaal
> tab hotaa hai jab do cheezoN kaa mavaazinah kiyaa jaa rahaa ho, jaise
> :aish meN jeenaa ek baat hai, aur iflaas meN jeenaa dussrii baat!: is
> ke ilaavah lafz-e-:baat: kaa istemaal kisii cheez kii taareef bayaan
> karne meN hotaa hai, jaise :kyaa baat hai!: yaa :ye huii na baat!:
> vaGhairah. kahiiN aisaa to nahiiN ki :Ghalib: ye kahnaa chaah rahe
> hoN: aurang-e-sulemaaN (jis kii sifat us kii shaan-o-shaukat thii)
> mere nazdeek kuchh nahiiN, (lekin) ejaaz-e-maseehaa (jo faiz-e-aam kaa
> zareeaa thaa) mere Khayaal meN kaam kii cheez hai. is mafhuum kaa
> javaaz is haqeeqat meN bhii miltaa hai ki :Ghalib: ne maal-o-daulat ko
> kabhii baRaa nahiiN samjhaa, lekin auroN kii imdaad meN (mushkil
> haalaat ke baavujuud) pesh pesh rahe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The first rejoinder was from Yours Truly : Text given below
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sawaal aap ne KHoob uThaaya hai. Hamaare ahbaab men
> itne "diggaj" log haiN aur yaqeenan woh is mauzoo' par
> saheeh tareeqe se izhaar-e-raaye kar sakte haiN.
>
> Agar aap meree haqeer raaye sun sakeN to maiN aap kee
> "baat" se muttafiq naheeN hooN (Pun intended !)
>
> Is ghazal ke beshtar ash'aar men Ghalib ne apnee baRaayee
> ke mazmoon baaNdhe haiN. Ta'allee aur mubaaliGHe se kaam
> liya hai magar shaa'ir ko is ka poora haq hai. Is qabeel
> ke jitne sher is ghazal men haiN, kisee men bhee aisa pehloo
> mehsoos naheeN hota jahaN Ghalib ne kisee aur cheez kee
> ta'areef kee ho ya use bhee baRa bataaya ho. Ek tarah se
> dekhiye to yeh sab sher qita'~baNd se ma'aloom hote haiN.
> Is liye yeh kyoN farz kiya jaaye ke sirf is sher men Ghalib
> ne kisee doosree cheez kee baRaayee bayaan kee hai. Aur woh
> bhee is tarah ke ek hee sher ke donoN misroN men taqaabul
> aur mawaazine ke zariye.
>
> Pehle misre' ke muta'alliq aap ne jo matlab likha hai,
> us men kisee shak kee guNjaaish naheeN. Doosre misre' ke
> ta'alluq se yeh baat sabhee jaan~te haiN ke Hazrat 'Isa
> (Allah ke hukm se) murdoN men dobaara jaan Daal dete the.
> Agar yeh mo'jiza un ko Allah kee jaanib se 'ata na huwa
> hota to log shaayad unheN hee (a'ooz~o~billah) KHuda
> tasawwur karne lagte (aur Christian hazraat to ab bhee
> karte haiN). Mash~hoor yeh hai ko aise mauqoN par woh
> ek jumla kehte the "Qum be~iznAllah" aur murda ziNda ho
> jaaya karta tha. Ho sakta hai ke Ghalib ne isee jaanib
> ishaara kiya ho ke "aaKHir is men kaun see kamaal kee
> baat hai ? Hazrat 'Isa ne jo aisa kaha to woh bhee to
> sirf ek "baat" hee huwee". LaboN se kahe huwe jumle ya
> kalaam ko Ghalib ne sirf "ek baat" se ta'abeer kiya hai.
> Aur is tarah ise ek ma'amoolee baat Thehraaya hai. Y'anee
> aNdaaz wuhee ta'allee ka hai ke "meree nazroN men in cheezoN
> kee koi ahmeeyat naheeN".
>
> Ghalib ke character ke muta'alliq aap ne do baateN likhee
> haiN :
>
> (1) Ghalib ne maal-o-daulat ko kabhee Baraa naheeN samjha
>
> (2) Mushkil halaat ke bawujood woh doosroN kee imdaad men
> pesh pesh rehte the
>
> In men se pehlee baat men to maiN ap se bilkul muttafiq
> naheeN hooN. Ghalib tamaam zindagee wasaayil kee kamee
> ka shikwa karte rahe. Pension ke muqaddame ke silsile men
> Calcutta gaye. Badshah kee KHidmat men ek manzoom
> 'arzdaasht daaKHil kee jis men tanKH(w)aah kee shashmaahee
> ke bajaaye har maah addaegee kee maaNg kee. Un kee KHud`daaree
> men kisee ko shak naheeN lekin kisee ne un ko apne haal par
> qaane' ya saabir-o-shaakir naheeN kaha. Mere KHayaal men
> kisee sawaaneh~nigaar ne un ka mawaazina Meer ya Aatish se
> naheeN kiya.
>
> Reh gayee doosree baat to Maulana Haali apne bemisaal marsiye
> men pehle hee likh chuke haiN ke :
>
> Dar~KHor-e-himmat iqtidaar na tha
>
> Ghalib bechaare KHud hee likhte haiN :
>
> Jis paas roza khol ke khaane ko kuchh na ho
> Roza agar na khaaye to naachaar kya kare
>
> Aur yeh rubaa'ee :
>
> Saamaan-e-KHor-o-KH(w)aab kahaaN se laaooN
> Aaraam ke asbaab kahaaN se laaooN
> Roza mera eemaan hai Ghalib lekin
> KHasKHaana-o-barfaab kahaaN se laaooN
>
> Deeagar ahbaab kee raaye ka iNtezaar rahega.
>
> Afzal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarwar Alam Saheb "joined the fray" next. His views :
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ghalib ke she'r par aap kee Khayaal-aafreenee naz^ar se guZree hee
> th^ee aur maiN apnee naacheez raa,Ye likh^ne beTh^aa hee th^aa k Afzal
> SaaHeb kaa Khat shaa,e' ho gayaa. mauSoof ne KhaaSee tafSeel se Ghalib
> kee Ghazal kaa tajziyah kiyaa hai. aur maiN un ke tajziyeh aur us ke
> nataa,ij se muttafiq hooN. Ghazal paRh^iye to kaheeN se bh^ee aap ke
> dalaa,el kaa jawaaz naheeN miltaa hai. itmaam-e-Hujjat ke liye chand
> asha'ar likh^ rahaa hooN.:
>
> bazeechah-e-at^faal hai dunyaa mire aage
> hotaa hai shab-o-roz tamaashah mire aage
>
> ik khel hai auraNg-e-SulemaN mire nazdeek
> ik baat hai e'jaaz-e-maseeHaa mire aage
>
> juz naam, naheeN Soorat-e-a'alam mujh^e manz^oor
> juz vehm, naheeN hastee-e-ashyaa mire aage
>
> hotaa hai nihaaN gard meN Sehraa mire hote
> ghistaa hai jabeeN Khaak peh daryaa mire aage
>
> sach kehte ho Khudbeen-o-Khudaaraa hooN, nah kyoN hooN?
> beTh^aa hai but-e-aa,eenah-seemaa mire aage
>
> a'ashiq hooN pah ma'shooq-farebee hai miraa kaam
> majnooN ko buraa kehtee hai Laila mire aage
>
> yeh asha'ar Ghazal kaa u'moomee raNg vaaZ^eH kar rahe haiN. in meN
> Ghalib apne hee baare meN rat^b-ul-lisaan haiN! kaheeN bh^ee kisee aur
> cheez yaa shaKhSiyat kee ta'reef naheeN hai. Afzal SaaHeb kee yeh baat
> bh^ee SaHeeH hai k yeh asha'ar aik :qita'-band: kaa HiSSah ma'loom
> hote haiN. albattah maiN un ke us bayaan se ittifaaq naheeN kartaa
> hooN jo unhoN ne HaZ^rat E'esaa aur :qum b_iZn-Allah: ke Hawaale se
> kahee hai. meree naaqiS samajh^ meN :ik baat: se muraad :ik ma'moolee
> see baat: hai. aur aisaa iKhtiSaar Z^aroorat-e-she'ree ke taqaaZ^e se
> shaai'ree meN hotaa hee rehtaa hai!
>
> aap kaa sawaal dilchasp Z^aroor hai. albattah us kee ifhaam-o-tafheem
> ke liye aap ko bohat door jaane kee Z^aroorat naheeN honee chaahiye!
> ziyaadah Hadd-e-adab!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a brief reply from Irfan Saheb to my post : (Quoted below)
muhtaram Afzal Sb, aadaab!
javaab kaa shukriya! aap ke dalaail qaabil-e-Ghaur haiN. baat samajh
meN aatii hai. baaqii :maal-o-daulat ko baRaa na samajhne: se merii
muraad :sab kuchh samajhnaa: thii. ye sach hai ki :Ghalib: vasaail ke
liye jadd-o-jahd karte rahe, lekin un ke liye daulat haasil karnaa
:zindagii kaa maqsad: nahiiN thaa. jahaaN tak duusre nukte kaa savaal
hai, is baabat bhii kayii jagah paRhaa hai. filhaal sirf ek havaalaa
de saktaa huuN, kyoN ki maaKhiz (K. C. Kanda kii Ghazal par mash.huur
kitaab) is vaqt mere paas hii hai. mausuuf raqam.taraaz haiN: He loved
good living, expensive wines, and luscious mangoes. At the same time,
he was deeply benevolent and hospitable, wanting to play host to the
entire world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irfan Saheb also posted a very brief reply to Sarwar Saheb :
javaab kaa shukriya! jaisaa ki maiN pahle arz kar chukaa huuN, mujhe
dar.asl mazkuurah sher meN :ik baat hai: ke javaaz kii talaash thii.
Afzal Sb kaa Khayaal sahiih maaluum hotaa hai. aap kaa ye qaul bhii
bajaa hai ki ye riaayat-e-sherii kaa muaamilah hai.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Next (on 10th April 2004) I sent a detailed rejoinder. And it was in
this post that I attempted to add another dimension to the discussion.
The full text is quote below :
> Sarwar Saheb ka KHat nazar se guzra. Woh kuchh had tak
> meree raaye se muttafiq haiN aur ek jagah unheN
> iKHtilaaf bhee hai. MaiN un kee raaye ka ehtiraam karta
> hooN.
>
> Dar~asl is silsile men kuchh aur baateN 'arz karnee
> chaahta tha, lekin pichhla maktoob hee kaafee taweel
> ho gaya. Ab dubaara "sama'-KHaraashee" ke liye
> ma'azrat~KH(w)aah hooN.
>
> Aap yeh dekheN ke is ghazal kee zameen/radeef "mire
> aage" rakhee gayee hai. Jab aap kisee cheez ya kisee
> shaKHs kee ta'areef karte haiN to kya is ke liye "mire
> aage" jaise alfaaz ka iste'maal karte haiN ? Shaayad
> naheeN. Maslan agar maiN yeh kahooN ke "mire aage
> Ghalib bahut baRe shaa'ir the" ya "mire aage Imran Khan
> behtareen bowler tha" to log in jumloN ko shaayad
> GHair~faseeh hee kaheNge. 'Aam taur par aise mauqoN
> par "Meree nazar men" vg. jaise alfaaz iste'maal kiye
> jaate haiN.
>
> Ab jo baat maiN KHaas taur par kehna chaahta tha :
>
> Shaayad yeh tauba ka maqaam ho, magar kabhee kabhee
> mere zehn men yeh KHayaal aata hai ke hum in sheroN
> men paayee jaane waalee ta'allee ya mubaaliGHe ko
> KHud shaa'ir ya kisee aur insaan se hee kyoN juRa huwa
> samajh rahe haiN. Yeh bhee to ho sakta hai ke kam~az~kam
> pehle do sheroN men shaa'ir yeh baateN apne ta'alluq se
> naheeN balke KHudaaye~buzurg~o~bartar ke hawaale se
> keh raha hai. AaKHir Allah ke nazdeek yeh duniya balke
> saaree kaa~inaat ek "bazeecha~e~atfaal" hee to hai.
> Aur yahaaN jo kuchh din aur raat men hota hai woh bhee
> us Hastee~e~mutlaq ke nazdeek ek tamaasha hee hai.
> Hazrar Sulemaan ka (Flying Saucer) jaisa taKHt Allah
> ke liye ek khel (ya "toy" -- plaything) se baRHkar
> naheeN. Aur yehee haal Hazrat 'Isa ke mojize ka hai.
> Shaa'ir kitna hee maGHroor ya KHud~pasaNd kyoN na ho,
> woh in jaisee cheezoN ko haqeer aur hech qaraar de,
> yeh qareen-e-qiyaas naheeN ma'aloom hota. Ghalib se yeh
> tawaqqo' naheeN kee jaanee chaahiye ke woh is tarah ke
> be-ma'anee mubaaliGHe ko is tarah nazm kareN.
>
> Aap chaaheN to teesre sher ko bhee isee zumre men shumaar
> kar sakte haiN :
>
> Juz naam naheeN soorat-e'aalam mujhe manzoor
> Juz wehm naheeN hastee-e-ash'ya mire aage
>
> Allah ke nazdeek is duniya aur yahaaN paayee jaane waalee
> cheezoN kee bhala kya haqeeqat ho saktee hai. Ghalib ne
> aise KHayaalaat ka izhaar aur sheroN men bhee kiya hai :
>
> Hastee ke mat fareb men aa jaaiyyo Asad
> 'Aalam tamaam halqa-e-daam-e-KHayaal hai
>
> Na tha kuchh to KHuda tha..... vg.
>
> Aise KHayaalaat ahle-hunood ke "maaya jaal" (unreal
> world) ke tasawwur se milte julte haiN.
>
> JahaaN Sarwar Saheb ne meree raaye se iKHtilaaf kiya hai
> us ka bhee kuchh zikr ho jaaye, aur woh hai Hazrat 'Isa
> ka aejaaz. Is misre' ko agar saadee nasr men likha jaaye
> to jumla kuchh aisa hoga :
>
> Aejaz-e-maseeha mire aage ik baat hai
>
> Kya yahaaN hameN laazmee taur par "baat" ke pehle
> "nihaayat m'amoolee" ya "bilkul m'amoolee" jaise
> lafz farz karne paReNge jo shaa'ir ko hazaf karne
> paRe ? Ghalib "qatre men darya" ke to qaa~il the
> magar yeh baat un ke afkaar ya KHayaalaat ke hawaale
> se hee munaasib m'aloom hotee hai. "Baat" jaise saade
> se lafz ko is tarah "iKHtisaar" men iste'maal karna
> Ghalib ke tarz-e-tehreer se mel khaata naheeN m'aloom
> hota. Is ke 'ilaawa is lafz se woh doosre m'anee bhee
> nikal sakte haiN jo Irfan Saheb ne bayaan kiye haiN,
> y'anee t'areef ke ta'alluq se : Waah, kya baat hai.
> Mere nazdeek yeh ziyaada qareen-e-qiyaas hai ke "baat"
> ko us ke talmeehee m'anee men dekha jaaye. Yeh baat
> to taareeKh se saabit hai ke Hazrat 'Isa murda ashKHaas
> ke paas ja kar yeh jumla kehte the : "Qum b~iznillah"
> (Allah ke hukm se uTh ja). Goya shaa'ir ka matlab yeh
> hai ke Allah ke nazdeek aejaaz-e-Maseeha sirf ek "baat"
> (y'anee ek kalime ya ek jumle) se ziyaada koi haqeeqat
> naheeN rakhta. Aur yeh mo'jiza bhee unheN KHuda kee
> jaanib se hee 'inaayat huwa tha.
>
> Ghalib ka hum logoN par yeh ehsaan bhee hai ke aaj
> 150 saal ke taweel 'arse ke ba'ad bhee hum sab in
> "moo~shigaafiyoN" men mashGHool haiN !!
>
> Afzal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thereafter, Zafar Saheb (in a very detailed post) explained the
various meanings of the word "baat" as occurring in the verses of
the 'asaatiza'. He made some other interesting points too. His
rejoinder is quoted below in full :
maiN ne dekhaa hai k yahaaN baat kaa kaafee batangaR ban gayaa hai :)
lekin mas'ala bil-kul jalebee kee tarah seedhaa-saadaa hai ;)
asl meN "baat" aik aisaa naadir lafz hai jis ke ma'anee hazaar! janaab
Irfan saahib, maiN ne ko'yee saal-DeRh saal qabl Sardar Jafri ke aik
mazmoon se muta'aasir ho kar "baat" kee khaal nikaalnaa shuru' kee
thee, ya'anee aik lafz "baat" ke jitne ma'anee nikalte haiN, un kee
asaatiza ke kalaam se ash'aar kee shakl meN misaaleN DhoonDne
kee koshish. Khudaa jhooT na bulvaa'ye, ko'yee 25-30 ma'anee khoj
nikaale the. dekhi'ye:
lafz "baat" ke muKhtalif mataalib aur un kee she'eree misaaleN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
andaaz e bayaan
aik matlab hai baat kaa hai farq
but use kahi'ye yaa Khudaa kahi'ye
[Khan Aarzoo]
qusoor
Saudaa kisee ko vo to sataa'ye na bai-sabab
kyaa jaaniye k tujh se hai kyaa baat ho gayee
[Sauda]
ta'ana
ab mujh za'eef-o-zaar ko mat kuchh kahaa karo
jaatee naheeN hai mujh se kisu keei uThaaee baat
maqoola (saying)
jalne se shauq e dil ke sabab bach gayaa Khaleel
vo baat hai k saanch ko hargiz naheeN hai aanch
[Mus'hafi]
Khoobee
hazaar gul kee kalee meN agar che hai tangee
magar hai baat kahaaN aap ke dahan kee see
[Jur'at]
sarguzasht
yaas dekho k yaar se keh dee
baat apnee ummeed vaaree kee
[Maumin]
kaarnaama
kis taiGh ke vo moonh se ho baat jis se jo huvee
zaKhmee ke lab se aah jo niklee to vo huvee
[Dabeer]
vajh
aaj to bai-sabab udaas hai jee
ishq hotaa to ko'yee baat bhee thee
[Nasir Kazmi]
haalat
dil kee baat kahee naheeN jaatee, chupke rehnaa Thaanaa hai
haal agar aisaa hee to jee se jaanaa jaanaa hai
[Mir]
aur sab kee hikaayateN keh deeN
baat apnee kabhee kahee na ga'yee
[Munir Niazi]
qeemat, vuq'at
jis dhaj se koyee maqtal meN gayaa vo shaan salaamat rahatee hai
ye jaan to aanee jaanee hai is jaaN kee to ko'yee baat naheeN
[Faiz]
kahaaN tak likhooN? sirf ma'anee dekhi'ye: ittifaaq, mahaarat,
chaal-Dhaal, bad-kalaamee, chuTkala, lateefa, hikmat e 'amalee, takiya
e kalaam, rasm o raah, vG, vG, vG ... hattaa k "baat" kaa aik matlab
*mangnee* bhee nikaltaa hai! agar yaqeen na aa'ye to ye dekhi'ye:
Banno kee baat Ghair se karne kee naheeN maiN
sau baar maiN ne aap se inkaar kar diyaa
[Jan Sahib]
kehne kaa maqsad faqat ye hai k "baat" kaa aik matlab "khel-tamaashaa"
bhee hai, aur Ghalib ne is lafz ko she'er e zair behs meN inhee
ma'anoN meN bartaa hai!
aik dil-chasp "baat"
-----------------------
Eesaa (AS) ke havaale se aik she'er mere paas hai jis meN Qum e Eesaa
ko aik baar phir "baat" kahaa gayaa hai, lekin yahaaN "baat" kaa
matlab izzat, shaan, martaba, vuq'at, vG, nikaltaa hai:
aap hee ke dam se thee baat "Qum e Eesaa" kee
Khizr kaa raah-numaa hai ba-Khudaa kaun k aap
[Dagh]
bazaahir ye she'er na'atitiya hai, jis kee daleel ye hai k Dagh ne aik
aur jagah bhee Qum e Eesaa ko isee saiyaaq o sabaaq meN istemaal kiyaa
hai:
phooTeN ye kaan gar Qum e Eesaa kee ho havas
marte haiN jis pe ham vo Maseehaa hee aur hai
aik "tid-bit"
-------------
rivaayat hai k Hussain bin Mansoor Hallaj Eesaa (AS) ke bar'aks murdoN
"Qum ba iznee" (*mere* hukm se uTh!") keh kar jilaaya karte the!
(daruGh bar gardan e raavee :)
=====================================================
> :Ghalib: ne maal-o-daulat ko
> kabhii baRaa nahiiN samjhaa, lekin auroN kii imdaad meN (mushkil
> haalaat ke baavujuud) pesh pesh rahe.
ye kyaa, Irfan saahib? huzoor e vaalaa, Ghalib ne to ka'yee Angraiz
uhde daaroN -- bashamool Malika Victoria! -- ke qaseede likhe haiN jin
meN un kee ta'areef meN zameeN aasmaan ke qulaabe milaa'ye ga'ye haiN.
Ghalib kaa dast e tama' to marte dam tak daraaz rakhaa. June 9, 1866
ko Navvab e Rampur ke naam likhte haiN:
dar par Amir e Kalb Ali KhaN ke hooN muqeem
shaa'ista e gadaa'ee e har dar naheeN hooN maiN
booRhaa huvaa hooN, qaabil e Khidmat naheeN 'Asad'
Khairaat Khaar e mehz hooN, naukar naheeN hooN maiN
yahaaN tazaad mulaahiza ho k is se paishtar jab BS Zafar (ma'aloom
naheeN discussion boards par log inheN "Shah Zafar" kyoN kehte haiN!)
baadshaah the to ye Ghazal -- ma'amoolee hair-phair ke saath -- un kee
Khidmat meN paish kee ga'yee thee! maiN ziyaada misaaleN naheeN denaa
chaahtaa, sirf isee navaab ke naam aik aur Khat kaa iqtibaas de kar
"baat" Khatm kartaa hooN:
Dec 29, 1867 (goyaa marne se 2 saal qabl)
"maah e saiyyaam meN salaateen o umaraa Khairaat karte haiN ... is
booRhe apaahaj faqeer ko rupiya mil jaa'ye to is maheene taiyyaare ho
rahe ..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is Irfan Saheb's brief acknowledgment of Zafar Saheb's post :
baat baat meN itnii baateN sirf aap kar sakte haiN! :) Ghalib kii
tangii-e-haalaat mash.huur hai. meraa matlab sirf ye thaa ki unhoNne
daulat ko :zindagii kaa maqsad: nahiiN samjhaa, aur jahaaN tak ho
sakaa, auroN ke kaam aaye. ye sab kahaaN paRhaa hai, yaad nahiiN. ek
havaalaa Afzal Sb ko likhaa hai. dekh leejiyegaa. aakhir meN, is
dilchasp aur maaluumaatii Khat kaa shukriya!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the matter ended there !!
I hope at least some ALUPers will agree that there is still much to
be said in respect of the various issues. And I invite all of them
to share their thoughts with us. It is noteworthy that UVR Saheb
had not participated in this thread, and Naseer Saheb was still to
discover our Newsgroup.
Although all questions originally discussed in the earlier thread
can be commented upon afresh, it is my suggestion that one particular
point can be omitted altogether --- that Mirza Ghalib had little or
no love for "maal-o-daulat", as opined by Irfan Saheb in his first
post. I believe the general consensus is that this view may not be
correct. The omission of this point would enable responders to
concentrate on other issues.
I have tried to accumulate all the pertinent material from the
earlier thread at one place, so that there would be no need for
anybody to search the archives.
Afzal
UVR
> I hope at least some ALUPers will agree that there is still much to
> be said in respect of the various issues. And I invite all of them
> to share their thoughts with us. It is noteworthy that UVR Saheb
> had not participated in this thread, and Naseer Saheb was still to
> discover our Newsgroup.
>
Respected Afzal saahib,
Thank you for revisiting this sh'er. The reason I hadn't participated
in this thread when it originally appeared was because at the time
I really had nothing of substance to add to the discussion. It's not
that things are much different now, but you have specifically called
out my name above and it would be discourteous of me to not
respond.
>
> Although all questions originally discussed in the earlier thread
> can be commented upon afresh, it is my suggestion that one particular
> point can be omitted altogether --- that Mirza Ghalib had little or
> no love for "maal-o-daulat", as opined by Irfan Saheb in his first
> post. I believe the general consensus is that this view may not be
> correct. The omission of this point would enable responders to
> concentrate on other issues.
>
Indeed. As I see it, the two main issues here are:
a. What was Ghalib referring to by "ik baat" in the second misr'a of
ik khel hai aurang-e-sulaimaaN mere nazdeek
ik baat hai 'aijaaz-e-maseehaa mere aage
In particular, was he or was he not referring to the incantation
that Christ reportedly used when bringing the dead back to life
("Live! by the Will of the Lord").
b. Whether Ghalib has indeed used "mere aage" to refer to himself
in all the ash'aar, or whether a different interpretation is
possible,
at least in the first two ash'aar.
Other ALUPers may add to these issues as they see fit. The larger
question of the interpretation, in toto, of this sh'er, is of course
a
matter that can always be discussed at any time (although, in my
view, that matter has already been adequately dealth with in the
previous 'incarnation' of the current thread.) For my part, I will
take
the liberty of presenting my opinion on the two points listed above.
a. What was Ghalib referring to by "ik baat"?
Previously, there has been unanimous agreement that "ik baat"
here is a way of saying "ek ma'amooli si baat". What disagreement
there is seems to center around whether 'baat' refers, specifically,
to "qum b'iznillah" or not. It is my opinion, there exists sufficient
reason to believe that it DOES.
Looking at the construction of the first misr'a, Ghalib is referring
to Solomon's Throne, with its elaborate build and the various
animal figurines carved on its umpteen steps, as little more than
a mere toy (in reality, this is verily how a child's plaything might
be constructed). I think 'aurang-e-sulaimaaN' in the sh'er not
only refers to the throne itself, but also the elaborate legend
surrounding it -- of how the throne itself was a manifestation of
Solomon's extreme wisdom, how the (animals on the) throne
would behave when Solomon was ascending the throne or
perched upon it, how they would help Solomon administer true
and wise justice, how they would "extract the truth" from those
bringing a plaint before the King or those bearing witness ...
all these are nothing but mere fables concocted to capture
impressionable minds. But look, Ghalib seems to be saying,
to me all this is nothing but a pastime. If it is granted that
aurang-e-sulaimaaN refers to the throne-and-the-legend,
then it seems reasonable to believe that 'aijaaz-e-maseehaa
also might refer to not just the miraculous cures administered
by Hazrat Isa, but also to the legend(s) surrounding them.
The question now arises as to what might be making Ghalib
not only treat these things as mere "nothing"s, but also to
assert boldly that he does so. I think Ghalib might be saying
that he knows enough to realize that all this is the doing of
the One True Being, and the rest is all fluff, false, mere
appearance, a show, a whatchamacallit.
b. Whether Ghalib is referring to himself with the phrase
"mere aage" in this sh'er.
is par aap ki raaye, Afzal saahib, yeh hai k mumkin hai Ghalib ke
is sh'er meN "mere aage" se muraad "Khudaa ke aage" hai, goya
yeh saari baat(!) Khudaa kar rahaa ho! --
- Show quoted text -
is baat kaa 'aiteraaf karte hue k mujhe aap kaa nukta-e-nazar
az_hadd dilchasp lagaa, mujhe ma'azrat ke saath kahna paR
rahaa hai k maiN us se muttafiq naheeN hooN. mere Khayaal
meN yahaaN "mere aage" se Ghaalib ki muraad "Khudaa ke
aage" se naheeN bal-k Khud apne hi aage se hai. I don't
think that Ghalib has necessarily used the phrase "mere aage"
in the sense of "in comparison to me" in the second sh'er.
I think it's used in the sense of "in my opinion"; as a sort of
an equivalent of "mere nazdeek". It *is* idiomatically correct
in Urdu, is it not, to say things like "mere *saamne* yeh baateN
(yaa cheezeN) koi ahmiyat naheeN rakhteeN", and mean that
"in my opinion, these things don't mean anything." Likewise,
in the succeeding sh'er, where he says: juz wahm naheeN
soorat-e-ash'yaa mere aage, I don't think he is saying that
"compared to me" these are merely imaginary or fantastic
things. I think he's saying, "I think this is all superficial." You
have mentioned the halqa-e-daam-e-Khayaal sh'er. The
same thought is expressed again by Ghalib:
haaN khaaiyo mat fareb-e-hastee
har-chand kaheN ki hai, naheeN hai!
Consequently, I don't think it is necessary (nor, if you will
kindly excuse my saying so, pertinent) to interpret the first
2 or 3 ash'aar as having been "uttered by God". The first
3 ash'aar *do* appear to be linked (almost as if they were
part of an "undeclared qit'a"), but they are linked by being
"Ghalib's point of view."
It seems to me that the 4th sh'er can also be treated as
part of this "undeclared qit'a". For example, after saying
that "all the world is a stage" (tamaashaa) and that all this
talk of miraculous and exalted things is mere idle prattle
(ik khel, ik baat) to him, and that this existence is but
all "non-existence" (wahm), he proceeds to say:
hotaa hai nihaaN gard meN sahraa mere hote
ghistaa hai jabeeN Khaak pe daryaa mere aage
But then these are things that happen normally -- it doesn't
take a "top (cannon) cheez" of a person to cause the
desert to become entombed in dust, or to make a river
"grovel in the mud". kisi bhi aire-Ghaire-naththu-Khaire
ke saamne yahi "drama" aaye din hotaa hai. Gharaz k
jis tarah sehraa kaa gard meN nihaaN honaa yaa daryaa
kaa Khaak par jabeeN ghisnaa ma'amooli see baat
hai, usee tarah (previous 3 couplets) meN kahee gayee
baateN bhi, kam az kam Ghalib ke nazdeek, ma'amooli
baateN haiN.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb,
You are a person after my own heart !
After sending my "Revival" post, I had been thinking that its
sheer length, (with all that copy/paste stuff), may perhaps
inhibit ALUPers from going deep into the various issues .
And, therefore, I was thinking of posting a brief re-cap,
sort of crystallizing or "framing" the various topics to be
discussed. And now you have done the same, saving me some
trouble.
I am not dealing with your comments right now. Hopefully,
a few other ALUPers may also join in.
But I would like to clarify just one point --- I do not
interpret "mire aage" as "in comparison to me". I also
think (like you) that the words merely mean "for me" or
"in my eyes" or "as far as I am concerned".
So let us wait for some other opinions. I feel at least
Naseer Saheb would have something to say.
Afzal
Naseer
A post like this needs some serious thinking and I am affraid these
days, for various reasons, my mind is not at its sharpest. However, as
UVR Sahib has indicated, it would be most impolite if we were to
ignore your call :)
Irfan Sahib started an interesting debate. I do not agree with his
analysis that when Ghalib says "ik khel hai..." he is contrasting a
trivial matter with "ik baat hai..", a momentous event.
I am also in disagreement with your suggestion that, in the first two
couplets at least, the speaker is not the poet but, in your words
"KHudaa-i-buzurg-o-bartar". I am aware that a Ghazal is a rosary,
where each beautiful bead (couplet) can be and often is distinct from
the preceding and following couplets. But, to my mind at least, it
does not quite seem right that God is the speaker in two or three
couplets of the Ghazal and then Ghalib comes into the picture for the
rest of the Ghazal!
This Ghazal is number 208 in 'Arshi's compilation. It consists of
fourteen couplets and the radiif "mire aage" occurs, as expected.
fifteen times. The beauty of "mire aage" is that although it means
"before me" {spatially and not in time} most of the time, in the first
two couplets the implication is clearly "in my view".
Before I attempt to present an explanation of these two couplets, I
would just like to comment on Ghalib's choice of some words in them.
In the first couplet, "baaziichah" can mean a toy or play/sport.
"tamaashaa" means a spectacle/sport. In the second couplet "khel" is
of course play/sport/pastime etc. So, it appears that Ghalib has used
three words, baaziichah, tamaashaa and khel for essentially the same
concept. For "aage" he has used its synonym "nazdiik". According to
Professor Frances.W. Prichett, the word tamaashaa is one of Ghalib's
fundamental concepts. It has both a this-worldly meaning (the
spectacle of the world's beauty, variety, change, inexhaustibility)
and a mystical meaning (a scene of mystical knowledge that is visible
only to the eye of the heart, and that can be seen only by closing or
rejecting the eye of the senses).
So, what does Ghalib mean by these two couplets?
baaziichah-i- atfaal hai dunyaa mire aage
hotaa hai shab-o-roz tamaashaa mire aage (before me)
The world is nothing but a child's play before me/in my view
A habitual spectacle enfolds day and night before me
That is, the heart of a possessor of insight (Ghalib) refrains from
attaching itself to anything in the world.
ik khel hai aurang-i sulaimaaN mire nazdiik
ik baat hai i'jaaz-i-masiiHaa mire aage
The throne of Solomon is (just) one pastime/amusement/game, in my view
The miracle of the Messiah is just one utterance in my view
According to Bekhud Dehlavi, Ghalib feels that he is the one who sees
the perfect power of God Most High. The throne of Solomon, in his
view, is but a mere pastime or play; that is, it's a commonplace
thing. As for the miracle of the Messiah, again, its just an
utterance! The word "baat" , in juxtaposition to the miracle of the
Messiah, has created an extraordinary pleasure. This is because Hazrat
'Iisaa (AS) used to say certain words to perform his miracles. This
verse is the 'high point of the ghazal'
In Prichett's view "ik baat hai..." has two possibilities: one is the
idiomatic, which is something like 'all one to me' or 'nothing
special' or 'more of the same'. The other reading, as the commentators
observe with admiration, is 'one utterance'; it thus evokes the
utterance of the Messiah that made the dead come to life. However, one
must not forget that bringing life to dead people was not Hazrat
'Iisaa (AS)'s only miracle and everytime he performed a miracle, he
uttered a "baat"!
The tendency of 'one' something to be dismissive, to imply 'merely
one' something, is also conspicuous in Urdu, though hard to capture in
English.
So, Afzal Sahib, I do not believe that Ghalib is considering these
events as trivial. What he IS saying is that these events are part of
a whole host of God Almight's display of his majesty and he, Ghalib,
has the insight to observe the full picture rather than the component
parts which comprise it.
UVR Sahib, I am not sure whether Ghalib is implying that "all these
things are mere fables concocted to capture impressionable minds..."
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
UVR
>
> UVR Sahib, I am not sure whether Ghalib is implying that "all these
> things are mere fables concocted to capture impressionable minds..."
>
Fair enough -- that was my "extrapolated interpretation", if you will.
It may be that I am projecting my own opinions in this matter upon
Ghalib :-P
However, I think it is fairly clear that Ghalib is placing himself and
his intellect above that of the average man on the street. Ghalib
can see Reality for what it is, but the average man on the street,
isn't smart enough to realize, for example, that
ik khel hai aurang-e-sulaimaaN
or ik baat hai 'aijaaz-e-maseehaa
or other such things. He (the man o.t.s) finds these things truly
fascinating and miraculous and is unable to cut past the "legend"
(fable). At least insofar as this, the m.o.t.s is more impressionable
and ignorant than "the exalted Ghalib."
-UVR.
Naseer
janaab-i-UVR Sahib, tasliimaat,
maiN soch rahaa thaa kih Afzal Sahib "ke piichhe" mujhe raat gae is
"posT" kii KHaatir sham' jalaanaa paR rahii hai magar aap ne to sham'
jalaate jalaate saHar kar dii!:)
jii haaN, mujhe aap se ittifaaq hai kih har koii "diidah-var"/"ahl-i-
nazar meN se" nahiiN ho saktaa awr nah hii "chasm-i-biinaa" rakh
saktaa hai. yih Zarf-nigaahii Ghalib jaise mufakkir hii rakh sakte
haiN.
yih sab kuchh kahne ke baa-vujuud mujhe aap ke ek aadh alfaaz ke
intiKhaab meN "shak" saa maHsuus hotaa hai. 'ain mumkin hai kih yih
mirii hii kam-fahmii ho awr maiN aap ke KHayaal ko GHalat samajh rahaa
huuN. meraa ishaarah faqat "Ghalib can see reality for WHAT IT IS" kii
taraf hai. lagtaa hai maiN baat kaa bataNgaR banaa rahaa huuN.
gustaaKhii kii ma'zarat chaahataa huuN.
haaN, ek baat awr hai. "mire aage" ba-ma'nii "compared with me" kaa
zikr huaa hai.
'aashiq huuN, pah ma'shuuq-farebii hai miraa kaam
majnuuN ko buraa kahtii hai Lailaa mire aage
kyaa yahaaN "mire aage" ke ek ma'nii "mere muqaabile meN" nahiiN ho
sakte?
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
UVR
> On Jun 29, 3:26 am, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 5:45 pm, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > UVR Sahib, I am not sure whether Ghalib is implying that "all these
> > > things are mere fables concocted to capture impressionable minds..."
>
> > Fair enough -- that was my "extrapolated interpretation", if you will.
> > It may be that I am projecting my own opinions in this matter upon
> > Ghalib :-P
>
> > However, I think it is fairly clear that Ghalib is placing himself and
> > his intellect above that of the average man on the street. Ghalib
> > can see Reality for what it is, but the average man on the street,
> > isn't smart enough to realize, for example, that
> > ik khel hai aurang-e-sulaimaaN
> > or ik baat hai 'aijaaz-e-maseehaa
> > or other such things. He (the man o.t.s) finds these things truly
> > fascinating and miraculous and is unable to cut past the "legend"
> > (fable). At least insofar as this, the m.o.t.s is more impressionable
> > and ignorant than "the exalted Ghalib."
>
> > -UVR.
>
>
> intiKhaab meN "shak" saa maHsuus hotaa hai. 'ain mumkin hai kih yih
> mirii hii kam-fahmii ho awr maiN aap ke KHayaal ko GHalat samajh rahaa
> huuN. meraa ishaarah faqat "Ghalib can see reality for WHAT IT IS" kii
> taraf hai. lagtaa hai maiN baat kaa bataNgaR banaa rahaa huuN.
> gustaaKhii kii ma'zarat chaahataa huuN.
>
Naseer saahib,
I simply meant to write, "Ghalib (is saying that he) can see
Reality for what *it* (= Reality) is: dunyaa = baazeecha-e-atfaal,
hastee-e-ash'yaa = wahm, taKht-e-sulaimaan = khel, ...
rahaa sawaal baat kaa batangaR banaane ki, to janaab,
baGhair yeh jaane k aaKhir woh kaun-si cheez thi jo aap
ko mere inteKhaab-e-lafzee meN mashkook ma'aloom
hui, kuchh bhi kahnaa mushkil hai :-)
> haaN, ek baat awr hai. "mire aage" ba-ma'nii "compared with me" kaa
> zikr huaa hai.
>
> 'aashiq huuN, pah ma'shuuq-farebii hai miraa kaam
> majnuuN ko buraa kahtii hai Lailaa mire aage
>
> kyaa yahaaN "mire aage" ke ek ma'nii "mere muqaabile meN" nahiiN ho
> sakte?
Yes, absolutely.
-UVR.
Afzal A. Khan
I don't think there would be any further responses......
Mire aage = "For me", "In my eyes" etc. Actually this inter-
pretation was strictly restricted to the verses we were origi-
nally considering. In other verses, these two words can have
other meanings. For example :
Mat poochh ke kya haal hai mera tire peechhe
Tu dekh ke kya raNg hai tera mire aage
Here, I would say "mire aage" means "in my presence" or "when I am
in your presence".
K'aaba mire peechhe hai, kaleesa mire aage
Here the sense is of physical (and separate) presence.
Rehne do abhi saaGHar-o-meena mire aage
"Let them remain before me".
UVR Saheb talked about the legends surrounding the two phenomena.
Maybe he was thinking of the legends of (Hazrat) Sulaiman as per
the Jewish or Christian theology. In Muslim belief, "auraNg-e-
Sulaiman" merely denotes a revolutionary means of transport. And
this was conferred on Hazrat Sulaiman by God Almighty only. I do
not think the other details furnished by UVR Saheb (lions, their
behaviour, extracting the truth, dealing with plaints etc.) are
part of Muslim theology. Secondly, "aejaaz-e-maseeha" is an arti-
cle of faith with Muslims. I seriously doubt whether Ghalib could
think of them merely as something "the stuff of legend" or purely
mythical.
UVR Saheb seems to believe that Ghalib is sort of a detached
observer, for whom these things do not mean anything. This
kind of interpretation can perhaps be validated for the misra'
"hota hai shab-o-roz tamaasha mire aage". But did Ghalib think
of himself in this light ("detached" or "absolutely aloof") in
the case of happenings, events and phenomena which lie in the
remote past ? These are by no means commonplace or every-day
occurrences. How can you "pooh-pooh" something that happened
about 1850 years back in one case, and thousands of years before,
in the other case ? One can understand "tamaasha" as the daily
goings-on in the world around us. But not two specific and rare
phenomena that were witnessed for a finite period, all too brief
on a cosmic scale.
But these comments do make sense if one ascribes them to God. And
here I may quote from my post in the earlier thread :
"AaKHir Allah ke nazdeek yeh duniya balke saaree kaa~inaat ek
bazeecha-e-atfaal" hi to hai. Aur yahaaN jo kuchh din aur raat
men hota hai woh bhee us Hastee~e~mutlaq ke nazdeek ek tamaasha
hi hai> Hazrat Sulaimaan ka (Flying Saucer) jaisa taKHT Allah
ke lie ek khel (ya "toy" --- plaything) se baRhkar naheeN. And
yehi haal Hazrat 'Isa ke mojize ka hai".
In my humble view, threfore, the first two shers of the ghazal can
be regarded as a sort of "divine comment". So can we agree to
disagree ?
Afzal
Naseer
> In my humble view, threfore, the first two shers of the ghazal can
> be regarded as a sort of "divine comment". So can we agree to
> disagree ?
>
> Afzal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab,
I don't think this agreeing to disagree is a resolution to the issue:)
I am sure you will not feel that this is a satisfactory conclusion. It
may be that ultimately we may have to agree to disagree but let us not
abandon this issue so easily.
I wonder what Vijay Sahib's commentator (Raz Sahib?) has had to say on
these couplets. The sharaH that I have is by maulaanaa Ghulam Rasool
Mihr who has used such sources as Hali and TabaTabaaii. He has not put
forward your perspective. Are there any other examples in Ghalib's
diivaan where the words can be attributed to God?
In short, let us see if any other ALUPer has anything further to add.
I know that Zafar Sahib has recently returned from Pakistan with a
fresh tan:)
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
UVR
>
> these comments do make sense if one ascribes them to God. And
> here I may quote from my post in the earlier thread :
>
> "AaKHir Allah ke nazdeek yeh duniya balke saaree kaa~inaat ek
> bazeecha-e-atfaal" hi to hai. Aur yahaaN jo kuchh din aur raat
> men hota hai woh bhee us Hastee~e~mutlaq ke nazdeek ek tamaasha
> hi hai> Hazrat Sulaimaan ka (Flying Saucer) jaisa taKHT Allah
> ke lie ek khel (ya "toy" --- plaything) se baRhkar naheeN. And
> yehi haal Hazrat 'Isa ke mojize ka hai".
>
> In my humble view, threfore, the first two shers of the ghazal can
> be regarded as a sort of "divine comment". So can we agree to
> disagree ?
>
By all means, Afzal saahib, if you feel that doing so is the only way
we can conclude the present discussion!
However, I feel I must mention one thing -- I did not describe Ghalib
as being "absolutely aloof". I feel, rather, that he is describing
himself
here as an 'enlightened observer'[1], because he is himself saying,
"meri raaye meN yeh sab khel tamaashaa hai, aur us se ziyaadah
kuchh naheeN. Asl Haqeeqat kuchh aur hai aur (chooN k maiN yeh
jaantaa hooN) isliye maiN samajhtaa hooN k taKht-e-sulaimaan aur
'aijaaz-e-maseehaa jaise m'ojize bhi ma'amooli si baateN haiN". You
and I have both pointed out other instances in Ghalib's deewan
where he has voiced similar thoughts.
I think Naseer saahib asks a very pertinent question in his reply to
you -- if we are to accept the proposition that the first two ash'aar
in this Ghazal are written as uttered by God, then is there any other
instance in Ghalib's published work where he has done likewise?
By my (admittedly limited) exposure to Ghalib's work, he has not.
On the other hand, one finds abundant material in Ghalib's deewaan
whence to draw a reasonably good picture of what his overall
metaphysical opinion was, and, going by those, I daresay the
sentiments presented in this Ghazal seem to be very much
Ghalib's own words. In addition to the 'fareb-e-hasti' ash'aar,
the following also seem relevant:
jab k tujh bin naheeN koi ma'ujood
phir yeh hangaama ai Khudaa kyaa hai (hangaama // tamaasha)
'asl-e-shuhood-o-shaahid-o-mash_hood ek hai
hairaaN hooN phir mushaahidah hai kis hisaab meN
ham ko ma'aloom hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin
dil ke Khush rakhne ko Ghaalib yeh Khayaal achchhaa hai
shaahid-e-hastii-e-matlaq ki kamar hai 'aalam
log kahte haiN k hai, par hameN manzoor naheeN
It may also be relevant to note that Ghalib wrote this Ghazal fairly
late in his life (according to Ghalib himself, as quoted at Dr. FWP's
website[2]). It can be assumed that at this stage in his life (if
not
much earlier) he was quite comfortable with his overall belief-system
to be able to state it unhesitatingly and on demand (this Ghazal was
apparently written for a particular mushaaira).
-UVR.
[1] One can ask whether being an 'enlightened observer' of the
goings on of this world doesn't automatically imply also being
'detached from' (= 'unaffected by') them. I have my own opinion
about this, but since it's not directly relevant to the current topic
of discussion, I'll keep them to myself.
[2] http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/208/208_01.html?
Afzal A. Khan
> Naseer
Naseer Saheb,
The discussion can continue, but what else remains to be said ?
I don't think Vijay Saheb participated in this thread. Also, we
don't know what HIS commentator had to say.
You are right in one respect. In my time, I have had occasion
to see some exigeses on Ghalib's poetry, but I do not recall any
critic/commentator having the same perspective on these verses
as was presented by me. I think I had made this clear in the
earlier thread also. In many such books, the comments are quite
brief (generally speaking) and some may even be "outmoded". The
very fact that there have been so many Commentaries published
over the years points to the fact that people continue to read
different meanings/interpretations into Ghalib's kalaam. I am
not saying all this merely to suggest that my perspective also
deserves to be considered on par with the Commentaries written
by such eminent people.
The views expressed by UVR Saheb are mostly based on circums-
tantial evidence --- taking into account Ghalib's sentiments
in other verses. But I am still not convinced how Ghalib can
refer to two unique, specific phenomena that occurred over a
certain finite period (and then ceased altogether) on the same
footing as everday commonplace occurrences which he calls
"shab-o-roz ka tamaasha". How can something so revolutionary
and unique as (Hazrat) Sulaiman's 'taKHt" be like a common -
place toy or plaything ("khel") for an ordinary individual ---
however aloof or detached he may consider himself. He says :
"mire aage", and we are agreed that, here, the words mean
"for me" or "in my eyes". Can there be a rational explanation
for an individual to consider the well-documented "mo'jiza"
attributed to (Hazrat) 'Isa as something very trivial ? As I
said, I am not convinced.
Iqbal's "Jawaab-e-Shikwa" is composed almost entirely in "God's
own words" :
Ki Mohammed se wafa tu ne to hum tere haiN
Yeh jahaaN chhez hai kya, Lauh-o-Qalam tere haiN
So poets writing verses as if the words are those of the
Almighty is not something unknown.
Please read the two shers twice, as per the common view and
then as per my perspective, and see which interpretation strikes
you as more acceptable.
It is true that a preponderance of examples from Ghalib's kalaam
supports the common view. But should this mean that a contrary
view or interpretation could not have occurred to Ghalib ?
There is hardly anything else I can add to the discussion.
Afzal
Naseer
Since my last posts, I have given some more thought to the current
debate. I was wondering whether Mirza Ghalib is expressing his views
on what he sees as fact and what he perceives as fiction. To some
extent UVR Sahib's comment ( "...all these things are mere fables
concocted to capture impressionable minds....") is a trigger to this
post and any "gum-raahii" exhibited by me is as a consequence of this
comment and other hints I have deduced reading "between the lines":)
We tend to rely on the views of scholars and literary critcs for
meanings behind poets' words. Let us, at least for the moment, throw
some if not all of our "received" explanations of the ash'aar out of
the window and apply our own mental prowess to come to some sort of
understanding.
When I read...
ham ko ma'luum hai jannat kii Haqiiqat lekin
dil ke KHush rakhne ko yih KHyaal achhchhaa hai
I often wonder if MG believed in the Islamic concept of Heaven and
Hell. Certainly with regard to this, in MG's view we are perhaps
simple minded gullibles.
Let's imagine a brief dialogue between an interviewer and MG.
Q. janaab-i-Mirza Sahib, how do you see the world in terms of
metaphysics?
MG. baaziichah-i-atfaal hai dunyaa mire aage
hotaa hai shab-o-roz tamaashaa mire aage
(The spectacle that takes place before me night and day
For me is nothing more than a child's play)
{ Is MG insinuating that he has no difficulty discerning between what
is real and true from that which is fiction and false?}
Q. Surely Solomon's Temple and all the asociated paraphernalia is not
child's play. The miracles of the Messiah were not child'd play?!
MG. ik khel hai aurang-i-sulaimaaN mire nazdiik
ik baat hai i'jaaz-i-masiiHaa mire aage
(Solomon's temple is just a [stage] play [naaTak?] for me
Messiah's miracles are plane fiction [baat=kahaanii/afsaanah] for me
Q. Mirza Sahib! Are you suggesting that people and the objects and
events associated with them were not real?
MG. juz naam nahiiN suurat-i-'aalam mujhe manzuur
juz vahm nahiiN hastii-i-ashyaa' mire aage
( The world-picture is seen by me only in name terms
The existence of objects is only an imagination for me)
Q. Pardon me Mirza Sahib for saying this but you appear to be
portraying the view point of a disbeliever!
MG. iimaaN mujhe roke hai jo khiiNche hai mujhe kufr
ka'bah mire piiche hai kaliisaa mire aage
( Faith/Belief is holding me back whilst disbelief is pulling me
towards it
The Ka'bah is behind me, The Church (Temple) is before me
{ Here MG is perhaps alluding to the dilemma of "belief" and
"disbelief" in the first line. He then seems to be abandoning "belief"
and going into the fold of "disbelief" (?)
......................................................................................
Afzal Sahib, this angle of thinking has possibly turned the debate on
its head! You were suggesting that at least two of the couplets can be
attributed to God Almighty. However, I am asking...Is Ghalib speaking
from an atheist's perspective? It's just a thought. Please accept it
as a query and no more.
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> Naseer
Naseer Saheb,
Now, we seem to be entering a different field altogether ---
Ghalib's religious beliefs.
I remember when I was very young, we used to read in books an
oft-quoted misra' of Ghalib :
"Shee'ii kyoN~kar ho maora~un~nehrii"
And, from this, it was sought to be proved that Ghalib's
"maslak" was Sunni. Maybe this conclusion used to be drawn
because a majority of Muslims in India were (and are) Sunnis.
I think we now know better. At least I personally believe
that Ghalib was (or had become) a Shia. But should this be
allowed to affect our view of his poetry ? Absolutely not.
Having said that, I personally believe that Ghalib was not
overly religious. At the same time, it would be a mistake to
consider him an agnostic, much less a non-believer.
Ghalib's 'mysticism' pursues two main lines of thought. One
is the principle of "Wahdat-ul-wujood". And the other is
that of the unreal nature of this world. This is not perhaps
the proper place to discuss this issue in detail, nor am I
sufficiently "learned" to speak on it with any degree of
authority. Quite a few examples would be found in his poetry
to support BOTH lines of thought. However, I get a feeling
that the two trains of thought are a bit self-contradictory.
"Wahdat-ul-wujood" presupposes the existence of (and Ghalib's
belief in) a Supreme Being. This does not quite gel with the
idea of the world being just a "maya-jaal". But, as I said
earlier, this is not the proper place for a detailed "behs".
You have cited one sher of this ghazal :
EemaaN mujhe roke hai to kheeNche hai mujhe kufr
Ka'aba mire peechhe hai, kaleesa mire aage
Please note that "kaleesa" meaning a Cathedral or Church
represents Christianity. How can this be taken as a
synonymous symbol for "Kufr" ? Christians are considered
to be "ahl-e-kitaab". On an unrelated note, marriage with
a Christian (ahl-e-kitaab) girl is permissible. So why should
we consider this sher as seriously representing Ghalib's
religious beliefs ? I feel this sher is more or less on par
with the other Ghalib sher viz. "Hum ko ma'loom hai jannat ki
haqeeqat lekin". In other words, a light-hearted comment on
"over-religiousness". Another sher of his, I think, belongs
to the same category :
Ta'at men ta rahe na mai-o-aNgabeeN ki laag
DozaKH men Dal de koi le kar bahesht ko
I believe the "kaleesa" sher does not signify that Ghalib is
speaking from an atheist's perspective.
Afzal
Naseer
>
> You have cited one sher of this ghazal :
>
> EemaaN mujhe roke hai to kheeNche hai mujhe kufr
> Ka'aba mire peechhe hai, kaleesa mire aage
>
> Please note that "kaleesa" meaning a Cathedral or Church
> represents Christianity. How can this be taken as a
> synonymous symbol for "Kufr" ? Christians are considered
> to be "ahl-e-kitaab". On an unrelated note, marriage with
> a Christian (ahl-e-kitaab) girl is permissible. So why should
> we consider this sher as seriously representing Ghalib's
> religious beliefs ? I feel this sher is more or less on par
> with the other Ghalib sher viz. "Hum ko ma'loom hai jannat ki
> haqeeqat lekin". In other words, a light-hearted comment on
> "over-religiousness". Another sher of his, I think, belongs
> to the same category :
>
> Ta'at men ta rahe na mai-o-aNgabeeN ki laag
> DozaKH men Dal de koi le kar bahesht ko
>
> I believe the "kaleesa" sher does not signify that Ghalib is
> speaking from an atheist's perspective.
>
> Afzal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
You may have noticed that I posted my comments prior to being aware of
your penultimate post. However the contents of my post would not have
been any different.
I agree with you as to the meaning of the word "kaliisaa" and the way
the Christian community is seen from the Islamic perspective. I can
provide you with two reasons to counteract your argument.
1) In the first misra' the poet is contrasting "iimaaN" with "kufr".
The second misra', IMHO, is directly linked to the first and therefore
"Ka'bah" goes with iimaaN and "kaliisaa" is linked with kufr.
2) My understanding is that only "Unitarian" christianity is
considered to be "true" christianity from an Islamic perspective.
Trinity is in total opposition to "tauHiid". For this reason
"kaliisaa" could be equated with kufr.
Our current discourses and the 2004 thread is proof, if one was
needed, that Ghalib's poetry is not straight forward and people
understand his verse in different ways. Your understanding is one
interpretation and I don't personally see why it should have any
lesser value than the so called professional critics and commentators.
In Professor Prichett's site (UVR Sahib has kindly provided a link to
it), she enumerates many commentators whose works she has referred to.
I can not categorically say that none of them have put forward an idea
similar to yours. But, I do feel she would have mentioned this
interpretation had it been mentioned by any one or more of them.
These are the commentators she mentions on this site..
Hali, Tabatabaaii, Bekhud Dihlavi, Bekhud Mohani, C.M.Naim, Naiyar
Masud and S.R. Faruqi. Faruqi's work was published in 1989 and covers
only those ash'aar which he believes have been misinterpreted by other
commentators. Others are..
AZAD (1880)
VAJID (1901)
HASRAT (1905)
BAQIR (1939)
SHADAN (1946)
JOSH (1950)
ARSHI (1958)
CHISHTI (1959)
MIHR (1967) and
GYAN CHAND (1971)
This is what she has to say about the first four couplets of this
Ghazal...
"The first four verses of this ghazal feel like-- not quite a verse-
set, but a kind of informal group with the same general tone of tongue-
in-cheek grandiloquence. Each one is so calmly, blandly, over-the-top
extravagant that the effect is not only enjoyable but truly funny. The
wit and humor become more apparent as we go along. Here, as so often,
I part company with the commentators: they tend to read the whole
thing straight, as verses full of heavy-duty mystical claims that are
meant to be taken seriously. They should remember that when Ghalib
seems to be saying something pompous and one-dimensional, that's often
when he's at his most clever and tricky. Read on and see how the four
verses work together. For true closural effect, {208,3} is the most
flatly pompous of all, then the delightfully witty {208,4} both
inflates the balloon to the maximum-- and punctures it."
I believe you mentioned also this "tongue in cheek" way Ghalib is
imparting his thoughts. Whether he is being serious or light humoured,
the question is, "What did he actually mean by at least the first two
couplets?" I don't find the "accepted" explanation behind "baaziichah-
i-atfal" and "baat" quite convincing. Neither, with due respect to you
sir, I find your angle acceptable. This is not because the words do
not "suit" God, because they most certainly do, but it is just that
they seem totally out of place. God talking for two or three couplets
and then Ghalib carries on from where He left off. It just does n't
seem right!
All this has not taken us an inch closer to any form of mutual
agreement! I wonder if a direct communication with Professor Prichett
would clarify the situation. If I were approaching her, I would ask
the following two questions..
1) What in your view did Ghalib actually mean by the first two
couplets?
2) Have you come across any commentator who has attributed these lines
to God?
If the answer to the first question is contrary to your understanding
of the couplets and is a plane "No" to the second, would you feel this
issue has been resolved?
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> Naseer
Mukarramee Naseer Saheb,
I think you are making too fine a distinction between the two
forms of Christianity --- "Unitarian" and "Trinit-arian" !
For most people, including (Ghalib himself, I daresay), the
"Trini-tarians" are the most dominant Christian grouping.
Frankly, I very much doubt whether Ghalib ever made such a
distinction, or (indeed) whether was aware of it.
I must again clarify that ours is not a religious debate per
se.
I have already made it amply clear that, as far as my memory
goes, I had NOT come across MY interpretation of these two
shers in any exigeses that I had come across in my younger
days. In fact, you may perhaps notice that I had not mention-
ed it in my first response to Irfan Abid Saheb's initial post.
It was only when I was in the process of typing out my SECOND
response that this particular idea struck me. In a way, this
sort of exemplifies Ghalib's own experience !!
Aate haiN GHayb se yeh mazaameeN KHayaal men !!!
On a more serious note, I tend to believe that we are commit-
ting a mistake if we think that Ghalib propagated a sort of
straightforward philosophical thought or pursued any parti-
cular line of thinking unswervingly. He has spouted (do
pardon the expression) a great many ideas (some of them philo-
sophical in import); but these are by no means consistent.
They keep on clashing with each other. That perhaps is one of
the reasons for Ghalib's greatness --- that someone or the
other always seems to identify with each one of these ideas,
without perhaps realizing that contradictory ideas can be
found easily in other parts of his Deewaan !
I will try to give a few examples :
Bandagee men bhi woh aazaada(h)-o-KHud~beeN haiN ke hum }
UlTe phir aaye dar-e-Ka'aba agar waa na huwa }
}
Jaana paRa raqeeb ke dar par hazaar baar }
Ai kaash jaan'ta na tiree rah~guzar ko maiN
(I am sure it is not necessary to point out the contrast)
Similarly,
Gada samajh ke woh chup tha, miree jo shaamat aayi }
UTha aur uTh ke qadam maiN ne paas~baan ke liye }
Dair naheeN, haram naheeN, dar naheeN, aastaaN naheeN }
BaiThe haiN rah~guzar pe hum, GHair hameN uThaaye kyoN }
And
Wa hasrata ! ke yaar ne kheNcha sitam se haath }
Hum ko harees-e-lazzat-e-aazaar dekh kar }
RaNj ka KHoo~gar huwa insaaN to miT jaata hai raNj }
MushkileN mujh par paReeN itnee ke aasaaN ho gayeeN }
And here are two shers dealing with sorrow and hopelessness,
in contrasting styles :
Haif us chaar girah kapRe ki qismat Ghalib
Jis ki qismat men ho 'aashiq ka girebaaN hona
SaNbhalne de zara ai naa~umeedi, kya qayaamat hai
Ke daamaan-e-KHayaal-e-yaar chhooTa jaaye hai mujh se
And contrast the above with the following :
GHam naheeN aazaadoN ko besh~az~yak~nafas
Barq se karte haiN raushan sham'-e-maatam~KHaana hum
In one of my previous posts, I had quoted a couple of shers,
by way of example, dealing with issues of religion, like
"jannat, dozaKH" etc. There are quite a few of these where
he has talked of such matters in a very light-hearted manner :
Jis men laakhoN baras ki hooreN hoN
Aisi jannat ka kya kare koi
PakRe jaate haiN farishtoN ke likhe par naahaq
Aadmi koi hamaara dam-e-tehreer bhi tha ?
KyoN na firdaus men dozaKH ko mila leN yaarab
Sair ke waaste thoRi si faza aur sahi !!
In short, what I am trying to say is that it would be a
mistake to treat Ghalib on the same footing as, say, Iqbal,
insofar as a single, straightforward, unswerving line of
philosophical thought is concerned.
And I feel the same is true of his thoughts about the
Unreal World etc. Let us not try to bring in any ideas of
consistency where none may exist.
So, it is quite conceivable that he CAN write a couple of
shers as from God's perspective too.
If I am not mistaken, UVR Saheb has tried to explain these
verses in a serious vein, and as part of a single theme
underlying the ghazal. And UVR thinks why Ghalib sort of
belittled the "taKHt" and "aejaaz" was because G. thought
these were (mostly, if not wholly) legends and/or myths.
I first brought in the idea of Ghalib composing similar
verses in a "light-hearted" manner. And now you quote Prof.
Frances Pritchett as echoing almost similar thoughts. She
dismisses "heavy-duty, mystical claims" altogether. Instead
she uses words like "tongue-in-cheek grandiloquence", "calm,
bland, over-the-top extravagance" --- "...the effect is not
only enjoyable but truly funny" and "(the 'taKHt-e-Sulaimaan'
verse) being "most flatly pompous".
I can understand when someone calls Ghalib's humour "tongue-
in-cheek". But do you seriously think that words like
"grandiloquence", "over-the-top", "extravagance", "pompous"
and "funny" do proper justice to Ghalib's humour ? With due
respect to F.P.'s scholarly credentials, I think not.
I would request you to please read the verses in question and
then ponder whether these words accurately describe their
import ? Should Ghalib be reduced to this level ?
Naseer Saheb, you have given one specific reason why my inter-
pretation does not appeal to you and I quote your words here :
"I do not find your angle acceptable. This is not because
the words do not 'suit' God, because they most certainly
do, but it is just that they seem totally out of place ---
God talking for two or three couplets and then Ghalib
carries on from there where He left off. It just doesn't
seem right !"
It is not as if it is a duet song, God and Ghalib uttering
their lines in turn. It is Ghalib and Ghalib alone who is
writing or composing the verses --- except that the impugned
shers can be interpreted by US (the readers) as representing
God's views. I had previously cited Iqbal's "Jawaab-e-Shikwa"
in an earlier post. The first four stanzas (a total of 24
lines) are Iqbal's own words --- the words of the original
complainant. It is only from the fifth stanza that, in your
own language, "God takes over". So why should this same com-
bination or style not feel right in Ghalib's ghazal ?
I hope nothing in my submissions will be taken amiss.
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
I am sorry for the follow-up.........
The above post was sent late at night, so it sort of
remained incomplete. I just wanted to add a few comments.
This is only an academic debate. It isn't as if there is
some definite solution or answer which we are seeking, like
some holy grail. Like most of Ghalib's kalaam, these shers
are also capable of more than one interpretation. I think
someone once observed (Zafar Saheb ?) that a sher's real
beauty lies in being "kaseer-ul-m'aani" --- "jo sher jitna
kaseer-ul-m'aani hoga, woh utna hi achha samjha jaayega".
In the present case, apart from my own interpretation, we
have seen at least two ways of looking at their meaning or
interpretation. We are indebted to Ms. Frances Pritchett
for highlighting the same. One is the "heavy duty, mystical
claims". And the other is the light-hearted sense, a sort
of literary fun, although I do feel that the lady used
rather inappropriate words to describe the effect. It is my
personal belief and I am sure most would agree that Ghalib's
humour is quite "lateef" --- it is not "heavy-duty levity".
It can produce a smile on the reader's lips, but not a
guffaw.
Having said that, it occurs to me that there can be yet
another way of looking at these shers ---maybe we can call
it a fourth interpretation. It is a sort of off-shoot
from the "mystical claims". We can accept that these are
indeed Ghalib's own words and views, but not quite in the
"aloof, detached" Greek philosopher type manner that UVR
Saheb mentioned. Instead, we can imagine Ghalib saying,
in a combination of nonchalance and lamentation, that these
phenomenal things/happenings ("taKHt" and "aejaaz") have
no meaning for him. "These truly amazing phenomena did
occur but, for me, these are nothing but past events that
are not relevant any more. The "taKHt" is just like a toy
or plaything --- one can imagine it as a fantasy, but can we
see it today ? No. It is gone and done for. Hazrat 'Isa
no doubt used to perform this mo'jiza, but can it avail me
anything ? Not at all. When I lie dying, there would be no
Hazrat 'Isa who can bring me back to life. So, for me, it
is just like an old story."
I think we can now conclude this debate. Or maybe Naseer
Saheb would offer a few comments, by way of "doing the
honours" !
Afzal
Naseer
Dear Alupers, aadaab 'arz hai,
ik khel hai aurang-i-sulaimaaN mire nazdiik
ik baat hai i'jaaz-i-masiiHaa mire aage
I know it has been sometime since the last post in this thread. There
has been a continuous shift
in interpretations of this couplet, especially from Afzal Sahib and
myself. This should not surprise
anyone because it seems that the more one ponders over Ghalib's
ash'aar, the greater the possibility of
perceiving newer meanings.
Irfan Sahib began the original thread by asking whether the meaning in
the second line is in sharp contrast
to that of the first one. That is to say the first line is indicating
that Solomon (a.h.s)'s throne is nothing but a
show where as the Messsiah's miracle is indeed something to write home
about! This interpretation appears to have been "dismissed" by
everybody including me but I have had second thoughts!
Zafar Sahib gave a lengthy list of meanings behind the word"baat"
including "maquulah" (a saying) and "kaar-naamah"
(a feat). The accepted explanation falls within the meaning of
"maqouulah" because it is prophet 'Iisaa (a.h.s)
who uttered mere words to perform his various miracles. If we take the
meaning of "baat" as "kaar-naamah", then indeed the meaning is as
Irfan Sahib has suggested.
If we say that Ghalib is trivializing both the throne and the
miracles, as has been the view in general, the question arises
as to what is behind this thinking. If we leave it here it does not
seem to make sense that Ghalib gives no importance to these events
which were momentous, at least in the eyes of followers of Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. The way this apparent exaggeration by Ghalib
is explained is that Ghalib is saying that his vision of these
phemonena is much broader than the average person and he sees these
events beyond what the accepted version is.
Another explanation which has been put forward for this "ta'aalii" is
from Afzal Sahib who has suggested that it is not
befitting Ghalib to be suggesting such sentiments and it is almighty
God who is the speaker of these words and if we accept that these
words are uttered by God, then they make perfect sense. Whilst this is
not an impossibility, the general view of the participants has been
that this is not the case.
Another extension of this "ta'aalii" has been that perhaps Ghalib does
not believe in these events at all and in his eyes
they are no more than a "naaTak" (khel) and "afsaanah" (baat). The
counter argument has been that though Ghalib may not have been a
strict follower of the various tenants of Islam, it would be a mistake
to call him an agnostic let alone an
atheist.
Afzal Sahib, being forever creative, then puts forward yet another
twist to the tail!:) He suggested that Ghalib though
believes in the majesty and glory of Solomon's throne (and Kingship)
and the miracles of Jesus, he feels they are
irrelevant to him (or anyone else for that matter in today's life) as
they are not going to be of any use to anyone. This may not be exactly
what Afzal Sahib has said but I think this is the general sense. My
personal view is that this is quite
a plausible explanation.
Having looked at the various possibilities, I hope Afzal Sahib now
feels that the discussions generated in the new thread
have "resolved" the issue somewhat:)
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Naseer
Afzal SaaHib, if I am not mistaken and my memory serves me right, I recall reading somewhere that Josh Malsiyani's "sharH" of Divan-i-Ghalib is one of the most respected and valued. So, I shall quote his commentary on these two ash3aar and see what you make of it.
baaziichah-i-atfaal hai dunyaa mire aage
hotaa hai shab-o-roz tamaashaa mire aage
mere xayaalaat ne dhu'eN kii tarH uTh kar ek pardah saa taan diyaa. maiN ne us kaa naam aasmaan rakhaa. merii aaNkhoN ne ek pareshaan saa xvaab dekhaa. us kaa naam maiN ne jahaan rakh diyaa.vahm ne merii aaNkhoN meN xaak jhoNK dii. ab jo kuchh nazar aayaa us kaa naam biyaabaan rakhaa. paanii kaa ek qatrah gudaaz ho kar phail gayaa. use samundar ke naam se mausuum kar diyaa.
ik khel hai auraNg-i-SulaimaaN mire nazdiik
ik baat hai i3jaaz-i-MasiiHaa mire aage
donoN misr3oN meN taqaabul kii shaan aur baraabar kaa zor qaabil-i-diid hai. is shi3r ko shaah-bait kahnaa chaahiye. farmaate haiN xudaa kii qudrat-i-kaamilah har vaqt merii nazroN meN hai. usii ke jalvoN kaa tamaashaa'ii huuN. SulaimaaN kaa taxt aur Hazrat 'Iisaa kaa mu3jizah mere nazdiik ek khel aur ma3muulii baat hai."
................................................................................
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
"......and see what you make of it."
Mukarramee,
Aap kyoN mujhe kaaN'ToN men ghaseeT rahe haiN !
Aur aap ko yeh bhi ma'loom hai k(e) 'umooman maiN apne KHayaalaat
ka iz'haar zara saaf'goii se karta hooN !
It would, therefore, seem that you have put me in double jeopardy.
********************
There have been any number of "shaariheen" of Ghalib's poetry ---
right from Maulana Haali onwards.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity of reading the
"sharah" compiled by Shri Josh. If the complete book is available
on the Net, kindly furnish the link. Thanks in advance.
I presume the extracts from his explanation of these two ash'aar
(as quoted by you) are complete. If that indeed is the case, the
two 'talmeehaat' in these verses, viz. "TaKHt-e-SulaimaaN" and
"Aejaaz-e-Maseeha" remain unexplained. It would not be appro -
priate, IMO, to expect the ordinary reader to be completely
familiar with these two allusions. So the interpretation of Shri
Josh omits a very important input.
Additionally, I have some misgivings and reservations about the
tenor of the language employed in these extracts. A few examples
are given below :
"bahut zor~daar likhe haiN"
"paani ka ek qatra gudaaz ho kar"
"samandar ke naam se mausoom"
"taqaabul ki shaan"
"baraabar ka zor"
"qaabil-e-deed" etc.
MuKHtasir taur par yeh kaha ja sakta hai k(e) yeh zabaan aur
tarz-e-teHreer, donoN, zauq-e-saleem par kisi qadar giraaN guzarte
haiN. Just my opinion, for which please do excuse me. However,
please do not think for a moment that I myself, as an individual,
am free from blame in my own writings. But even a "faqeer" is
entitled to have an opinion about a rich or monied guy !
To sum up, the language employed here is, on the whole, rather
"sat(a)hee", particularly when the author is writing a weighty
tome for the edification of the ordinary readers. Our friend,
UVR Saheb, used to employ a particular acronym for such folks ---
m.o.t.s (man on the street).
In short, the book (as per the extract furnished here) does not
do justice to Mirza Ghalib's kalaam which, in its multitudinous
complexities apart from the richness of its imagery, is
unparalleled and beyond compare.
*********************
Shri Malsiyani's interpretation of these two verses does not
seemingly add anything to the rather mundane and commonplace
explanations that are found in other books belonging to this
genre. As far as writing style is concerned, other exigetists
offer a far more readable and pleasurable experience. For
instance, you can contrast this book with the writings of
authors like Shams-ur-Rehman Farooqi (reference : "Tafheem-e-
Ghalib".
********************
I also recollect that, some years back, there had been a very
lively discussion (about these verses) in our Newsgroup, where
scholars like Jamil Saheb and UVR Saheb had also participated,
apart from your good self.
***************
That, in short, is "my take" that you had asked for.
Afzal
Naseer
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/deewan-e-ghalib-maa-sharh-josh-malsiani-ebooks/?lang=ur
Apart from the thread you have alluded to at the start of this thread, I have not been able to find a thread on the same topic in which Jamil and UVR SaaHibaan have participated.
aurang-e-sulemaaN aur ejaaz-e-maseehaa (Irfan ‘Abid 18/04/2004)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.language.urdu.poetry/dunyaa$20mire$20aage%7Csort:date/alt.language.urdu.poetry/cJXebz4-S2k/OBWgAYXbB1YJ
The gist of the interpretation that my meagure mind has been able to comprehend is that compared to all of God's manifestations which the poet experiences on a daily basis, the extraordinary feats that Solomon's Throne accomlished and the miracles which Jesus (Peace be Upon Him) performed were very insignificant. I have taken a look at "Tafheem-i-Ghalib" but these ash3aar are not listed since Faruqi has provided a commentary on a selection from the Divan.
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
I will see if I can locate the "missing" thread that has
been cited by you. But that may be like 'carrying coals
to Newcastle' --- (Or more like "to out-Naseer Naseer
Saheb) !!)
IIRC, my understanding in this particular context was as
under :
In the first two ash'aar, Ghalib had been speaking, so to
say, on behalf of the God Almighty. It was as if God
Almighty had Himself recited these two ash'aar...
In the remaining ash'aar, it was the poet himself (as a
normal human being) who was expressing his own ideas.
So far, I have not been able to abandon that line of
thought and replace that interpretation with something
much more acceptable to my "meagre" mind --- to quote your
own words.
But I will certainly give it another shot.
***********************
I examined "Tafheem-e-Ghalib".....it does not cover these
two ash'aar.
I will also read through Josh Saheb's book --- and then
revisit the issue.....
Afzal