Ghalib Ka Ek Sher -- "Un ke dekhe se jo....."
Afzal A. Khan
This particular sher has been the subject of some discussion in
an on-going thread.
Jamil Saheb explained the sher as under (I quote) :
"Quote"
unke dekhe se jo aa jaati hai muNh par raunaq
vuh samajhte haiN keh biimaar ka Haal achcha hai
The observed (the sick lover) is affected by the very act of
observation (by the beloved), and there is no way for the observer to
know the true state of the observed.
"Unquote"
Naseer Saheb opined as under :
"Quote"
Jamil Sahib, in the shi'r that you have quoted, I always felt
that it
was the poet/'aashiq 's looking at the beloved/ma'shuuq which results
in the be-raunaqii of his face changing to raunaq and not the other
way round. So, if my thinking is not flawed, the observer's condition
is changing by the observed!!! Have I totally misunderstood this
shi'r?
"Unquote"
Zafar Saheb observed as follows :
"Quote"
Very interesting indeed! But there is a small chink in the theory:
The raunaq on the face of the beemaar does not arise from his being
observed by the mehboob, but by the *beemaar's* seeing the face of the
mehboob instead!
In other words, it's not the act of observation that changes the state
of the particle, but the particle changes because it (the particle)
observes the observer! Otherwise, the state wouldn't have changed if
the beemaar was observed unbeknownest to him ... for example, when he
were sleeping, etc.
"Unquote"
I don't have access to any books here, so am unable to say if there
is a specific explanation offered by the poet himself or his contem-
poraries or the various exegesists about the exact interpretation
of this sher.
On the face of it, the sher is quite simple --- the only "doubts"
are about who exactly is the observer, and who the "observed".
I have heard many people explain the sher in the same manner as
Jamil Saheb did. But Naseer Saheb and Zafar Saheb have offered the
alternative interpretaion --- and that too with a certain forceful-
ness that theirs is perhaps the only acceptable explanation.
What do other ALUPers feel ?
To start a meaningful discussion, here is my own (humble) opinion :
I think Jamil Saheb's view is quite reasonable and more "qareen-e-
qiyaas". (And not because it seems to explain the Principle of
Uncertainty !)
Let us examine the likely scenario :
'Aashiq saKHt beemaar hai. JaaN laboN pe hai. Yeh KHabar mehboob
tak pahuNch'ti hai aur woh apne beemaar 'aashiq ko dekhne aata hai.
Shaayad dil men KHush bhi hai ke aaKHir-e-kaar is "nuisance" se
chhuTkaara mil jaayega. Lekin yeh bhi ek turfa~tamaasha hai ke
mehboob ki tashreef~aawari se bechaare 'aashiq ke naheef jism men
ek nayee jaan aa jaati hai. Us ka chehra KHushi se damakne lagta
hai. Mehboob ko kuchh ta'ajjub bhi hota hai ke 'aashiq ka haal
aisa bura bhi naheeN. Shayaad kisi ne yeh jhooTi KHabar uRaayee
ho gi. Aur who waapas lauT jaata hai.
Sawaal yehi hai ke kya bechaara naheef-o-nazaar 'aashiq is haalat
men bhi mehboob ke ghar ja sakta hai aur baar~yaabi haasil kar sakta
hai ? Doosri soorat men kya yeh ziyaada qareen-e-qiyaas hai ke
mehboob KHud 'aashiq ke dekhne ke liye aaya hai ?
In Urdu poetry, one can find numerous examples where it is the
'mehboob' who visits (or is expected to visit) the sick-bed (or the
death-bed) of the poor 'aashiq. A few examples :
Dam TooT'ta jaata hai, ummeed naheeN jaati
Yeh aas abhi tak hai, shaayad koi aata ho
Yeh muzh'da laaya hai qaasid : sahar woh aayeNge
Sahar bhi ab hameN ho ya na ho, KHuda m'aloom
Janaaza rok kar mera woh is aNdaaz men bole
Gali hum ne kahi thi, tum to dun'ya chhoR jaate ho
Faateha ko aaye miri qabr par GHairoN ke saath
B'ad marne ke bhi zaalim ki wuhi bedaad hai
Itna to poochh leejiye jaane se pesh~tar
Hasrat to ab naheeN dil-e-umeed~waar men
Maut aane tak na aaye, ab jo aaye ho to haaye
Zindagi mushkil hi thi, marna bhi mushkil ho gaya
{AaKHiri do ash'aar Faani ke haiN}
Ghalib ke haaN bhi yeh mazmoon paaya jaata hai :
HooN kash'makash-e-naz' men, haaN jazb-e-mohabbat
Kuchh keh na sakooN par woh mire poochhne ko aaye
Afzal
Naseer
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab.
I don't think there is any argument over who is visiting whom.
Logically, it is the sick 'aashiq who is visited by the maHbuub. But
even if the situation were the other way round where the bed-ridden
lover drags himself to the beloved's house (extremely unlikely!!), the
poet/lover is describing the situation from his perspective. The
beloved can look/stare at the lover till the cows come home without
having any effect on the lover whatsoever. It is only when the lover
sees the beloved and is overjoyed with the sight that some life and
happiness returns to his pale and dejected face. It is at this point
that the beloved realises that the situation is not as dire as one was
made to believe.
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
Zafar
Naseer saahib, I'm sorry I missed your comment. Hence the
duplication.
Afzal saahib:
ye to Ghaliban kisi ne naheeN kahaa k 'aashiq is Khasta o shikasta
haalat meN baisaakhiyaaN Tektaa, laRkhaRaataa, Dagmagaataa, uftaaN o
KhaizaaN mehboob ke dar par aan dhamkaa hai. bal k jo manzar mere
zehn meN aataa hai wo kuchh yooN hai:
mehboob aTwaaTi-khaTwaaTi le kar paRaa huwaa hai aur maut ke intizaar
meN din gin rahaa hai. achaanak aik din use apne kulba e ahzaaN meN
mebhoob kaa ruKh e raushan tulu' hotaa nazar aataa hai, jis se na sirf
us ki tang o aareek koThRi buqqa e noor ban jaati hai bal k Khud us
kaa chehraa bhi maare Khushi ke tamtamaane lagtaa hai.
goyaa mehboob ke chehre, yaa aankhoN se koyi aisi sihhat-afzaa yaa
hayaat-baKhsh shu'aayeN naheeN Khaarij ho raheeN jo beemaar k tan e
laaGhar se Takraa kar us meN nayi rooh phoonk deN -- ya'ani ye koyi
"photochemical reaction" naheeN hai k reagent ke oopar raushni ki
dhaar phenki to reaction chaaloo ho gayaa aur A --> B ban gayaa -- bal
k beemaar ki haalat meN behtari ki waj'h mahaz nafsiyaati hai aur
mehboob ko apne dar par dekhne ke baa'is hai.
is she'r ke muqaabile par Mir kaa she'r rakkheN:
dekh roo e zard par mere bhi aansoo ki Dhalak
ai k too ne dekhi hai Ghaltaani e gauhar bahut
to donoN asaatiza kaa farq saaf zaahir ho kar saamne aa jaataa hai.
aik nishat ke liye Ghaaliban itnaa kaafi hai.
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
Naseer
> I don't have access to any books here, so am unable to say if there
> is a specific explanation offered by the poet himself or his contem-
> poraries or the various exegesists about the exact interpretation
> of this sher.
>
> On the face of it, the sher is quite simple --- the only "doubts"
> are about who exactly is the observer, and who the "observed".
janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
I think the "difficulty" encountered is perhaps in the ambiguity of
the phrase in the first line of the couplet " un ke dekhe se...". One
might interpret this as:-
un ke (mujhe) dekhe/dekhne se jo aa jaatii hai (mere) muNh par raunaq
or:-
(mere) un ke/ko dekhe/dekhne se se jo aa jaatii hai (mere) muNh par
raunaq
Here is a link to Francis.W.Prichett's site and explanations.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/174/174_05.html?
KHair-Khvaah,
Naseer
UVR
Interesting (as usual) discussion. My own opinion is closer to Jamil
saahib's as far as the mapping of this sh'er to Heisenberg's Principle
goes: for the mapping to be meaningful, the ma'ashooq *has to be* the
observer; after all, it is the ma'ashooq who is drawing the inference
(about the system being observed). The 'aashiq is the particle being
observed.
As regards the other matter -- does it really matter so much who is
looking at whom in the sh'er? More important, for the "scene" being
described in the sh'er to be meaningful, isn't it pretty much
imperative that BOTH must be looking at each other? Here's why:
It is obvious that the 'aashiq is looking at the ma'ashooq. There is
no other logical explanation for a sudden raunaq to spread itself on
the 'aashiq's face.
But it's also equally obvious that the ma'ashooq must be looking at
the 'aashiq. Were the ma'ashooq not observing the 'aashiq, it would
be quite impossible for the former to draw any kind of inference about
the latter's health -- raunaq hi ko to dekh kar woh samajhte haiN ke
beemaar ka haal achchhaa hai?
-UVR.
Naseer
Thank you for dropping in.:)
On Sep 22, 9:42 am, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting (as usual) discussion. My own opinion is closer to Jamil
> saahib's as far as the mapping of this sh'er to Heisenberg's Principle
> goes: for the mapping to be meaningful, the ma'ashooq *has to be* the
> observer; after all, it is the ma'ashooq who is drawing the inference
> (about the system being observed). The 'aashiq is the particle being
> observed.
Yes, one would have to interpret the shi'r in the manner Jamil Sahib
and Afzal Sahib have understood it in order for it to conform with
"Heisenberg's Principle". There is no disagreement here.
> As regards the other matter -- does it really matter so much who is
> looking at whom in the sh'er?
Again, I will have to concede agreement because most certainly 99.99%
(recurring) of the Urdu knowing public are unlikely to know of this
principle and will not necessarily delve into the observer/observed
mode of thinking.
> As regards the other matter -- does it really matter so much who is
> looking at whom in the sh'er? More important, for the "scene" being
> described in the sh'er to be meaningful, isn't it pretty much
> imperative that BOTH must be looking at each other? Here's why:
>
> It is obvious that the 'aashiq is looking at the ma'ashooq. There is
> no other logical explanation for a sudden raunaq to spread itself on
> the 'aashiq's face.
>
> But it's also equally obvious that the ma'ashooq must be looking at
> the 'aashiq. Were the ma'ashooq not observing the 'aashiq, it would
> be quite impossible for the former to draw any kind of inference about
> the latter's health -- raunaq hi ko to dekh kar woh samajhte haiN ke
> beemaar ka haal achchhaa hai?
Now since we are talking about science and precision, what I am
suggesting is (and I believe Zafar Sahib likewise) that it is as a
consequence (read *cause*) of the lover seeing his beloved that a
certain freshness and bloom returns to his face. When/after the
beloved sees this*effect* she forms the opinion that her lover's
situation is not as bad as first thought. In scientific terms, I am
not denying the possibility of simultaneous exchange of glances!! Were
it the case that the beloved managed to see the lover first, she would
have seen him in his *true* desperate state.
I think the ultimate answer lies in the linguistic analysis of the
couplet in question.
un ke dekhe se jo aa jaatii hai muNh par raunaq
I don't think there is any dispute about whose face freshens up. It is
the lover's of course. The "riddle" is "un ke dekhe se". What does "un
kaa dekhaa" mean? I am interpreting this as "un ko dekhnaa", i.e (my)
seeing her.
un ko dekhe se aa jaatii hai muNh par raunaq
vuh samajhte haiN kih biimaar kaa Haal achchaa hai
Upon my seeing her my appearance (momentarily) blossoms
But *she* thinks that the sick person is just doing fine
There is of course the possibility where the beloved is so cruel that
she does n't even look at the lover for months on end, even though she
has heard that he has fallen seriously ill. He does have the
opportunity to see her but no glances are exchanged.The lover yearns
for just one solitary glance from her . And when this auspicious
moment finally arrives, the lover is over the moon and his face
brightens up!! As the time-span for this "reaction" is exceedingly
small, she only sees the "after-effect" and not the true former
situation.
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
Jamil
Janaab Naseer Sahib aur Zafar Sahib
You are quite right that literal sense of the first part of the she'r
is that the aashiq sees the mehboob and that is the cause of sudden
upturn in aashiq's condition. But the observation is not limited to
just casting a glance on the sick man, but is the whole process, which
includes the very act of visiting by the mehboob. Afzal sahib has
established, and we all agree, that it is the mehboob who goes to
visit the sick aashiq. UVR sahib has rightly pointed out that the
person drawing the inference is the mehboob, therefore the mehboob is
the observer (in the broader sense). The act of observation (visit by
the mehboob) has affected the observed (the one who is the object of
the visit).
Having said that, why should we allow a mere inconvenient technicality
stand in the way of a good analogy?
Jamil
Afzal A. Khan
> Zafar
Zafar Saheb,
With due respect, I must say that I felt quite disappointed with
the tone and tenor of your response.
This particular sher of Ghalib has been widely acknowledged as
amongst his best. On Ms. Pritchett's site (as cited by another
friend), the observations by two well-known "shaareheen" are
as follows :
Ali Haidar Naz'm : The excellence of this verse is manifest in its
own right; no other words can go beyond it.
Bekhud Mohani : This is not a verse; it is a masterpiece of
poetry.
Unfortunately, however, your description is couched in a most
"'aamiyaana" language. Maybe it was your intention to compare it
to Meer's sher and show the Ghalib verse in a much poorer light.
In the original thread, there were definitely divergent views
expressed about the sher and my query was made in a serious vein.
Firstly, in the second para of your reply, I think the first word
"mehboob" is a mistake and you really mean "'aashiq".
Atwaa(N)Ti~khaTwaa(N)Ti : This expression, I think, is often used
by or for womenfolk. Also, there is an element of "make-believe"
or "bahaana~baazi".
Aan dhamka, raushni ki dhaar phenkna, chaaloo etc. : Should we
use such words while discussing a worthwhile sher by an acclaimed
master ?
As to the discussion itself, I shall be posting a response to the
reply given by another friend who has treated the issue with the
seriousness and refinement it deserves.
Afzal
Zafar
>
> With due respect, I must say that I felt quite disappointed with
> the tone and tenor of your response.
I'm also disappointed at your outburst Afzal saahib. I had already
said that all this is in a lighter vein in reply to Jamil saahib's
other thread.
And, by the way, Ghalib's she'r is also in a lighter tone, as most of
his kalaam is. Moreover, if I commited any crime by using "aamiyaana"
language, I'd submit that you are also guilty of the same offense.
This is what you wrote earlier:
"Shaayad dil men KHush bhi hai ke aaKHir-e-kaar is "nuisance" se
chhuTkaara mil jaayega."
Now what kind of language is this, compared to the "high seriousness"
that you demand of others?
> This particular sher of Ghalib has been widely acknowledged as
> amongst his best. On Ms. Pritchett's site (as cited by another
> friend), the observations by two well-known "shaareheen" are
> as follows :
>
> Ali Haidar Naz'm : The excellence of this verse is manifest in its
> own right; no other words can go beyond it.
>
> Bekhud Mohani : This is not a verse; it is a masterpiece of
> poetry.
>
> Unfortunately, however, your description is couched in a most
> "'aamiyaana" language. Maybe it was your intention to compare it
> to Meer's sher and show the Ghalib verse in a much poorer light.
This is "jumping to conclusions" of the worst kind. I never said or
implied that Mir's she'r is better than Ghalib's or vice versa.
> In the original thread, there were definitely divergent views
> expressed about the sher and my query was made in a serious vein.
>
> Firstly, in the second para of your reply, I think the first word
> "mehboob" is a mistake and you really mean "'aashiq".
>
> Atwaa(N)Ti~khaTwaa(N)Ti : This expression, I think, is often used
> by or for womenfolk. Also, there is an element of "make-believe"
> or "bahaana~baazi".
>
> Aan dhamka, raushni ki dhaar phenkna, chaaloo etc. : Should we
> use such words while discussing a worthwhile sher by an acclaimed
> master ?
Why not? When the "acclaimed master" himself can use words like
"dhool-dhappa" etc., and his most observant pupil calls him "haiwaan e
zareef", should we put his kalaam in a rehl and touch it only after
making ablutions?
--
Zafar
Afzal A. Khan
Jamil Saheb,
With due respect, I must admit that I know very little about
modern scientific thought. Things like the Principle of
Uncertainty etc. are quite beyond me. In my time, the science
we used to study was quite rudimentary, as compared to the what
is being taught even in schools these days. {However, I do
know a little bit about 'Entropy' ! But that, and the Ghalib
sher illustrating it is not the subject-matter of our discussion
today.}
I am not, therefore, looking at the sher from a scientific point
of view. There can be no two opinions about the fact that it is
a wonderful expression of Ghalib's poetic genius.
I am only concerned with what the words "un ke dekhe se..."
really mean. And, I think, even Naseer Saheb has narrowed down
the discussion to this point.
There can be two possible interpretations :
1. "Un ke dekhne se...". In other words..."Mehboob ke ('aashiq
ko) dekhne ke nateeje men....
2. 'Aashiq jab apne mehboob ko dekhta hai, us (dekhne) ke nateeje
men
My own feeling is that the sher (as a whole) concentrates on the
mehboob --- or is "mehboob-oriented". In both misra's, the ref-
erence is to the mehboob. In the second misra', the reaction of
the mehboob is described.
Ghalib has often employed a device by which he leaves a good deal
unsaid --- it is left to the imagination of the reader. It tends
to enhance the charm of his verses. At the same time, he would
not perhaps have employed this device, unless he felt that his
readers would be able to supply the missing pieces, or to fill in
the blanks. Perhaps the best example of this device is the follo-
wing sher :
Qafas men mujh se roodaad-e-chaman kehte na Dar humdum
Giri hai jis pe kal bijlee, woh mera aashiyaaN kyoN ho
In the current sher (under discussion), I think the same device
is employed. A lot has been left said. In the scenario that I
sketched in my original post, I had tried to supply the missing
pieces :
1. 'Aashiq kee haalat kuchh Theek naheeN hai. Ek tarah se woh
jaaN~ba~lab hai.
2. Yeh KHabar mehboob ko bhi pahuNchti hai.
3. Mehboob pays a visit to see the 'aashiq.
4. This can be for the genuine purpose of enquiring about his
health.
5. Or the visit could be for the purpose of determining for
certain that the 'aashiq may not survive.
6. During the visit, the poor 'aashiq also gets to look at his
mehboob.
7. He feels overjoyed and there is a perceptible change and
improvement in his appearance.
8. The mehboob too gets to see this improvement. And concludes
that the 'aashiq is in fact in good health.
9. There is an implicit admission that the 'aashiq is really
quite unwell and the (momentary) change for the better was
only due to his being able to see his mehboob.
10. Ghalib leaves it unsaid, but there is a sort of post-script
too. The mehboob goes away, leaving the poor 'aashiq in a
possibly poorer state.
All this has been compressed in just two lines.
I think the piece "un ke dekhe se" should be linked to the second
misra' which describes the reaction of the mehboob.
From a linguistic angle, Ghalib could also have said : "Un ko
dekhe se...", rather than "un ke dekhe se...". The word
"dekhe" is no doubt a shortened form of the word "dekhne".
Writing it in prose, let us see which seems more meaningful :
(a) Un ke dekhne se jo raunaq mooNh pe aa jaati hai.....
(b) Un ko dekhne se jo raunaq mooNh pe aa jaati hai.....
I rest my case.
Afzal
UVR
>
> Now since we are talking about science and precision, what I am
> suggesting is (and I believe Zafar Sahib likewise) that it is as a
> consequence (read *cause*) of the lover seeing his beloved that a
> certain freshness and bloom returns to his face. When/after the
> beloved sees this*effect* she forms the opinion that her lover's
> situation is not as bad as first thought. In scientific terms, I am
> not denying the possibility of simultaneous exchange of glances!! Were
> it the case that the beloved managed to see the lover first, she would
> have seen him in his *true* desperate state.
>
> I think the ultimate answer lies in the linguistic analysis of the
> couplet in question.
>
> un ke dekhe se jo aa jaatii hai muNh par raunaq
>
> I don't think there is any dispute about whose face freshens up. It is
> the lover's of course. The "riddle" is "un ke dekhe se". What does "un
> kaa dekhaa" mean? I am interpreting this as "un ko dekhnaa", i.e (my)
> seeing her.
>
> un ko dekhe se aa jaatii hai muNh par raunaq
> vuh samajhte haiN kih biimaar kaa Haal achchaa hai
>
> Upon my seeing her my appearance (momentarily) blossoms
> But *she* thinks that the sick person is just doing fine
>
>
> Naseer
mohtaram Naseer saahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
I hope you will excuse me for not thinking that this is as big a deal
(or "riddle", if you will) as we seem to be making out to be. And I
am not being thrown for a loop by the phrase "un ke dekhe se".
There is absolutely no question in my mind as to what is causing the
raunaq on the 'aashiq's face. And it is *NOT* the mere fact of the
'aashiq looking at the ma'ashooq. Rather it is (has to be) the
'aashiq looking at the-ma'ashooq-looking-at-him.
(a) If the ma'ashooq were looking elsewhere, the 'aashiq would hardly
be similarly overjoyed. After all, taGhaaful is a well-known killjoy,
is it not? :) In fact, it would perhaps be even more of a killer were
the ma'ashooq to barto-fy taGhaaful after having finally come to ask
after the 'aashiq.
(b) If the ma'ashooq were looking at the 'aashiq, and the 'aashiq were
looking elsewhere, then too ... ... but-hey!-waitaminit! we don't even
have to consider this scenario! Because, well, ma'ashooq pursish-e-
haal ko aaye aur 'aashiq us ki jaanib na dekhe? Simply naa-mumkin!
As I have previously suggested, the entire story behind the sh'er is
meaningless unless both are in fact looking at each other at the same
time. There is absolutely no other scenario in which both "chehre pe
raunaq" and "beemaar ke haal ko achchhaa samajh lenaa" are
simultaneously possible. And I think that Ghalib, by using the
(apparently confounding) construct "un ke dekhe se" has brilliantly
conveyed this entire "raamaayan" in the space of 2 lines. But then
that's hardly surprising, given it's Ghalib.
I guess what I'm saying is, "yes, I fully agree with you and Zafar
saahib that the cause of the raunaq is the 'aashiq's looking at the
ma'ashooq. But you cannot disagree with me that it's the ma'ashooq's
looking at the 'aashiq that's the cause of the raunaq!" :-)
-UVR.
slowpoison
It's pretty obvious that both the lover and beloved are looking at
each other. If the lover wasn't looking, how will his condition
change? If the beloved wasn't looking, how will she judge the
condition of the lover?
And on top of this, I'm turned off by the over dramatization on the
list, of the scenarios in which this could happen. One of the reasons
I liked this sher is that it applies to a wide range of "bimaar"
people. I could be just sad, having a bad hair day, and an eye-to-eye
contact with my beloved and this could happen. In fact, to me it makes
more sense in cases where the lover and beloved meet quite regularly,
with the beloved constantly undermining the sadness in lover's heart,
that she alleviates at least superficially and temporarily.
Naseer
janaab-i-"slowpoison" sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
I apologise for addressing you by the above title as you have not
indicated your name in your post. Thank you for showing interest in
this topic and participating in the debate.
Concerning the question of "wasting a lot of time", this is an Urdu
poetry newsgroup and consequently there is often a lot of discussion.
Anyone taking part in such discussions is making a free choice of how
best to use their time.
You might know that this discussion has arisen from another thread
where Jamil Sahib has talked about "Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle", the gist of which is that "no observation can be made
without affecting or disturbing the object being observed". Jamil
Sahib provided an example whereby light is bounced off an atomic
particle to measure its location. The results obtained map out a
location which is not the true location since the light hitting the
particle disturbs it and results in a false location reading. He then
went onto quote a Ghalib couplet in question and the analogy provided
was that the observer (the beloved) affects the observed (the lover)
by the act of observation.
un ke dekhe se jo aa jatii hai muNh par raunaq
vuh samajhte haiN kih biimaar kaa Haal achchhaa hai
My understanding, and I said at the outset that it may be flawed, of
who the observer and the observed is in this couplet was quite the
opposite of Jamil Sahib's explanation. In other words I always
understood the lover to be the observer and the beloved to be the
observed. The change does not take place in the observed's appearance
but in the observer's!! This is what I suggested to Jamil Sahib and my
thought pattern is confirmed by Ms. Francis.W.Prichett's site where
she translates the couplet literally as:-
1) from seeing her, the radiance that comes upon the face--
2) she considers that the sick person's condition is good
Co-incidently, it transpired that Zafar Sahib was in agreement with my
suggestion. Afzal Sahib then began a new thread and suggested that he
was broadly in agreement with Jamil Sahib's explanation and this is
the explanation he had heard from others. He then invited others to
air their views. He also added that as it is the beloved who
customarily visits the lover and is doing so on this occasion too, it
is the beloved who is the observer. I was not in any disagreement with
Afzal Sahib about the beloved visiting the lover but, as we were
discussing a couplet from a scientic perspective and fitting it with
Heinsberg's Principle, I was interpreting the beloved as the
"particle" under study which was affecting the observer. This,
seemingly, meant that Ghalib's shi'r did not conform with Heisenberg's
principle. However, this Principle did succeed in raising the temper-
ature of the bazm but this is nothing new. In any healthy debate,
strong feelings invariably come to the forefront.
I think that even though Ghalib's couplet has observation ("un ke
*dekhe* se) as the core element, we the paricipants in the debate
should not have given this notion the prominence that we have. If we
substitute observation with "interaction", then the mere news of the
beloved's arrival is likely to bring at least some raunaq to the
lover's face. The sound of her voice, the fragrance of her hair etc
etc would no doubt have the added effect.
So, in conclusion, I would like to say to Jamil Sahib that
Heisenberg's Principle still holds for this couplet of Ghalib's. The
lover (the obsever) has succeeded in changing the mindset of the
beloved (observed). She came with the view that he was ill and went
away, somewhat relieved, thinking that he was pretty well!!
KHair-andesh,
Naseer
mfm...@gmail.com
ADAB ARZ HAI
Can you please explain to me the meaning of this sher of Mirza Ghalib.
" NAQSH FARYADI HAI KISKI SHOKHI E TEHREER KA
KAGHAZI HAI PAIRHAN HAR PAIKARE TASWEER KA "
> Kindly reply to me on mfm...@gmail.com
please see some interesting things on www.mfmakki.com
Many Thanks and Regards
Muhammad F. Makki
This particular sher has been the subject of some discussion in
>
>
umerhay...@gmail.com
shagird
> JANAB AFZAL KHAN SAHEB
>
> ADAB ARZ HAI
>
> Can you please explain to me the meaning of this sher of Mirza Ghalib.
>
> " NAQSH FARYADI HAI KISKI SHOKHI E TEHREER KA
>
Kabhi ay haqeeqat e muntazar nazar a libaas e majaz main
> KAGHAZI HAI PAIRHAN HAR PAIKARE TASWEER KA "
>
shagird
> This particular sher has been the subject of some discussion in
> an on-going thread.
>
> Jamil Saheb explained the sher as under (I quote) :
>
>
> "Quote"
>
> unke dekhe se jo aa jaati hai muNh par raunaq
> vuh samajhte haiN keh biimaar ka Haal achcha hai
>
> The observed (the sick lover) is affected by the very act of
> observation (by the beloved), and there is no way for the observer to
> know the true state of the observed.
> "Unquote"
>
>
> Naseer Saheb opined as under :
>
>
> "Quote"
> Jamil Sahib, in the shi'r that you have quoted, I always felt
> that it
> was the poet/'aashiq 's looking at the beloved/ma'shuuq which results
> in the be-raunaqii of his face changing to raunaq and not the other
> way round. So, if my thinking is not flawed, the observer's condition
> is changing by the observed!!! Have I totally misunderstood this
> shi'r?
> "Unquote"
>
un kay dekhay say (deknay say)
un kay poochay say (poochnay say)
un kay kahay say (kahnay say)
un kay aay say (aanay say)
In all other examples (poochay, kahay, aay) the act of aanaa, kahnaa, poochnaa belongs to un.
un kay daikhay then would mean that by the beloved glancing (paying attention)to him (in his direction)the poet feels good. It is more an acknowledgment of the poet (meeting of the eyes)that brings the poet some respite.
Or to carry the QM analogy further both are not only systems that can be observed but also simultaneously observe and the process of observation affects the observer.
shagird
Bila shak voh hai jag men maqsad e dahr
Ahe mashhur us ka nam surat
Keh jave jis ke dekhe son kadurat
Vali Dakani
Unke jo dekhe hain namoonay bure
Pahle se ham ho gai done bure
Nazeer Ahmad
(From Science and Modern India)
vij...@gmail.com
Shagird sahib, thank for bringing some semblance of sense to this thread. I never could figure out what the matter was with the interpretation that is staring us in the face and which has quite typical Ghalib irony.
Vijay
shagird
1. The meaning is not very different from how see is used in English.
She can see you tomorrow.
I'll see you when i'll see you.
Parting he said, "I'll see you again."
The meaning is that of meeting not just the physical act of seeing.
2. Fairoz ul lughaat (wahid dictionary jis main daikhay as a separate entry nazar aayee) daikhay kay do matlab aur wazah karti hai jin main say aik yeh hai: samnay aa kar nazar aanaa.
3. Is ko Shakespeare kay "parting is such sweet sorrow" say compare keejee'ay to mutlab kuch yoon hogaa: Seeing (in the sense of meeting) is such sweet succor.
4. Is ghazal kay do asha'ar ko agar makhooz (not literal translation) kiya ja'ay:
Seeing is such sweet succor
That she will think the ill sound.
To know the truth is one thing
To string the heart along I think heaven sound.
shagird
> On Sunday, December 9, 2012 7:12:10 AM UTC-8, mfm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > JANAB AFZAL KHAN SAHEB
>
> >
>
> > ADAB ARZ HAI
>
> >
>
> > Can you please explain to me the meaning of this sher of Mirza Ghalib.
>
> >
>
> > " NAQSH FARYADI HAI KISKI SHOKHI E TEHREER KA
>
> >
>
>
>
> Compare to Iqbal's
>
> Kabhi ay haqeeqat e muntazar nazar a libaas e majaz main
>
har rahguzar main naqsh e kaf e paa'ay yaar daikh
Balvinder
Maulaanaa "Haali" ne apnii kitaab "muqaddama-e-sher-o-shaairii" meN is sher ka pahla misra kuchh yooN diyaa hai...
"unke aane se jo aa jaatii hai muNh par raunaq"
Raj Kumar
*** aur maiN ne is puure she'r ko kisii risaale meiN yuuN paRhaa thaa:
un ke dekhe se jo aa jaati hai mukh par shobhaa
voh samajhte haiN k rogii ki dashaa uttam hai! ;)
Khair-aNdesh,
Raj Kumar***
Naseer
Naseer
Raj Kumar
> Balvinder SaaHib, in both "Nusxah-i-Hamiidiyyah" and "Nusxah-i-Sherani", this shi3r is as has been posted. All I would suggest is that "jaane" is a printer's error.
*** janaab-e-Naseer saahib:
The word "aane" could very well be a printer's error --- magar lafz "jaane" bhi to kisi ki error hai!
Khair, jaane deejiye, yeh "aanaa jaanaa" to lagaa hi rehtaa hai! ;)
R.K.
Naseer
jaane nah jaane "Qais" hii nah jaane baaGh to saaraa jaane hai :-)
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> JANAB AFZAL KHAN SAHEB
> ADAB ARZ HAI
> Can you please explain to me the meaning of this sher of Mirza Ghalib.
> " NAQSH FARYADI HAI KISKI SHOKHI E TEHREER KA
> KAGHAZI HAI PAIRHAN HAR PAIKARE TASWEER KA "
>> Kindly reply to me on mfm...@gmail.com
Janaab Makki Saheb,
So many months have elapsed, but there has been no reply
to your query.
I feel my own knowledge of the Urdu language and poetry is
too meagre to explain the complexities of the above sher.
So I can do no better than to provide below the explanation/
interpretation of this sher offered by Janaab Ali Haidar Naz'm
Tabatabaii in his well-known explanatory book (i.e. Sharah)
about Ghalib's poetry.
******************************
"Musannif Marhoom ek KHat men KHud is matle' ke m'ani bayaan
kate haiN. Kehte haiN Iran men rasm hai k(e) daad~KH(w)aah
kaaGHaz ke kapRe pehn kar haakim ke saamne jaata hai, jaise
mash'al din ko jalaana ya KHoon~aalooda(h) kapRa baaNs par
laTka le jaana. Pas shaa'ir KHayaal karta hai k(e) naqsh kis
ki shoKHi-e-tehreer ka far'yaadi hai k(e) jo soorat-e-tasveer
hai; us ka pair'han kaaGHazi hai. Y'ani hasti agar~che misl-e-
hasti tasaveer e'tibaar mahaz ho moojib-e- raNj-o-mallal-o-
aazaar hai. 'Arz musannif ki yeh hai k(e) hasti men mabda~-
e-haqeeqi se judaaii aur GHairyat ho jaati hai aur us m'ashooq
ki mufaariqat aisi shaaq hai k(e) naqsh-e-tasveer tak is ka
far'yaadi hai. Aur phir tasveer ki hasti koi hasti naheeN.
Magar fana~fil~laah hone ki ise bhi aarzu hai k(e) apni hasti
se naalaaN hai. KaaGHazi-e-pair'han-e-far'yaadi se kinaaya(h)
Faarsi men bhi hai; aur Urdu men Meer Mamnoon ke kalaam men aur
Momin Khan ke kalaam men bhi maiN ne dekha hai. Magar musannif
ka yeh kehna k(e) Iran men rasm hai k(e) daad~KH(w)aah kaaGHaz
ke kapRe peh'n kar haakim ke saamne jaata hai --- maiN ne yeh
zikr na kaheeN dekha na suna. Is sher men jab tak koi lafz
aisa na ho jis se fana~fil~laah hone ka shauq aur hasti-e-
aitibaari se nafrat zaahir ho, us waqt tak ise baa~m'ani naheeN
keh sakte. Koi jaan boojh kar to be~m'ani kehta naheeN. Yehi
hota hai k(e) waz'n aur qaafiye ki taNgi se b'az b'az zaroori
lafzoN ki guNjaaish na huwee aur shaa'ir samjha k(e) matlab ada
ho gaya to jitne m'ani k(e) shaa'ir ke zehn men reh gaye, isi ko
"al-m'ani fi batn-ush-shaa'ir" kehna chaahiye. Is sher men
musannif ki GHaraz yeh thi k(e) naqsh-e-tasveer far'yaadi hai
hasti-e-be~aitibaar-o-be~tauqeer ka; aur yehi sabab hai
kaaGHazi pair'han hone ka. Hasti-e-be~aitibaar ki guNjaaish na
ho saki, is sabab se yeh qaafiya mazaahim tha. Aur maqsood tha
matla' kehna. Hasti ke badle shoKHi-e-tehreer keh diya aur is
se koi qareena hasti ke hazaf par naheeN huwa. AaKHir KHud un
ke mooNh par logoN ne keh diya k(e) sher be~m'ani hai"
**********************************
Ummeed hai is tafseeli bayaan se aap ki tashaffi ho gayee hogi.
Afzal