KHwaaja Mir Dard Ki GhazloN Ka Silsila - TerhweeN ghazal

[Afzal A. Khan]

Is silsile men KHwaaja Saheb kee ek aur ghazal pesh-e-
KHidmat hai :

Tohmat-e-chaNd apne zimme dhar chale
Jis liye aaye the hum so kar chale

Zindagi hai ya koi toofaan hai
Hum to is jeene ke haathoN mar chale

Kya hameN kaam in guloN se ai saba
Ek dum aaye idhar, oodhar chale

Dosto, dekha tamaasha yaaN ka bus
Tum raho, ab hum to apne ghar chale

Aah bus ji mat jala, tab jaaniye,
Jab koi afsooN tira us par chale

Ek maiN dil~resh hooN waisa hee dost
ZaKHm kitnoN ke, suna hai, bhar chale

Shama' ke maanaNd hum is baz'm men
Chashm-e-nam aaye the, daaman tar chale

DhooN'D'te haiN aap se us ko pare
ShaiKH saaheb chhoR ghar baahar chale

Hum na jaane paaye baahar aap se
Woh bhi aaRe aa gaya jeedhar chale

Hum jahaan men aaye the tan'ha wale
Saath apne ab use le kar chale

JooN sharar ai hasti-e-be~bood yaaN
Baare hum bhi apni baari bhar chale

Saaqiya yaaN lag raha hai chal~chalaao
Jab talak bus chal sake saaGHar chale

Dard kuchh m'aloom hai yeh log sab
Kis taraf se aaye the keedhar chale

This ghazal had already been posted here some 8/9 years back,
except for the seventh sher. But I thought it needed to be
re-posted in this series.

The second sher above has become a "zarb-ul-masal".

If you see the ghazal's overall tenor, the maqta' seems a
little "weak". Just my view.

Afzal

[Naseer]

janaab-i-Afzal Sahib, subH ba-KHair,

Ghazal pesh karne par sipaas-guzaarii qubuul kiijiye. maiN ne is
silsile meN yih Ghazl pesh is liye nahiiN kii hai kyoNkih Thiik ek
saal pahle yahii Ghazal pesh kar chukaa huuN. us meN mere KHayaal meN
ek shi'r kam thaa jab kih aap kii pesh-kardah Ghazal mukammal hai.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/browse_frm/thread/80ae9b4f94995c15/d75418f24e1925bb?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=tuhmate+chand#d75418f24e1925bb

> The second sher above has become a "zarb-ul-masal".

I shall add this to the "Proverbial ash'aar" thread.

> If you see the ghazal's overall tenor, the maqta' seems a
> little "weak". Just my view.

One could say that this simple shi'r is a query about the whole
purpose of life.

KHair-KHvaah,
Naseer

[deedawar]

On Sep 13, 2:56 am, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

I enjoyed this ghazal. It is simply written and therefore easy for me
to understand.

Farah

[nawa...@gmail.com]

Post reply






13/09/2008











janaab-i-Afzal Sahib Adaab ALLAH aap ko nawazay bohut shukria

[Vijay Kumar]

> On Saturday, 13 September 2008 06:56:30 UTC+5, Afzal A. Khan  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Is silsile men KHwaaja Saheb kee ek aur ghazal pesh-e-
> >     KHidmat hai :
>
> >       Tohmat-e-chaNd apne zimme dhar chale
> >       Jis liye aaye the hum so kar chale

'Tohmat-e-chaNd' -----> ?TohmateN chaNd?

Vijay

[Afzal A. Khan]

The 'nusKHa" I had seen contains the text exactly as I had
transcribed.

The language in KH(w)aaja Saheb's kalaam is somewhat archaic.
Numerous examples can be cited in this regard. I would say
that "tohamt-e-chaNd" has the same sense as the "amendment"
suggested by you.


Afzal

[Afzal A. Khan]

On 9/27/2012 9:26 AM, Vijay Kumar wrote:


>

The 'nusKHa" I had seen contains the text exactly as I had
transcribed.

The language in KH(w)aaja Saheb's kalaam is somewhat archaic.
Numerous examples can be cited in this regard. I would say

that "tohmat-e-chaNd" has the same sense as the "amendment"
suggested by you.


Afzal

[Naseer]

Indeed, it is "tuhmat-i-chand" and we have had discussion on this
construction in another thread. I myself was not happy with it but,
fortunately, Zafar SaaHib provided the solution.

tuhmat-i-chnad (ashxaas) apne zimme dhar chale

Naseer

[Vijay Kumar]

Thanks Naseer sahib. I seem to have missed the discussion on the other
thread. As I am not as good a digger as you, would you kindly point me
to the thread or perhaps post here the gist of Zafar sahib's comments?
I am particularly interested to know if such a construct is only of
historic value or is it considered OK in modern usage?

TIA,

Vijay

[Naseer]

Here is that particular thread. As I have said earlier, I am not 100%
mutmain with this explanation but it is not totally out of place
either.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/browse_frm/thread/80ae9b4f94995c15/d75418f24e1925bb?lnk=gst&q=tuhmat+zafar#d75418f24e1925bb

Naseer

[Afzal A. Khan]

Naseer Saheb,

I too am not satisfied 100 % with --- wait --- the opinion or
views expressed by you/Shri Vijay/Zafar Syed.

I have also studied the contents of the posts under the earlier
thread now, though I had forgotten all about it. Thank you for
ferreting it out. More importantly, thanks are due to Janaab
NawabDera Saheb, for resurrecting the ghazal and this sher, so
that all of us can have a re-think about it.

The three of you seem to think that the sense of the expression is
"(false) allegations levelled by others against me (i.e. the
poet)". Instead of concentrating merely on this tarkeeb, we
should also try to look at the meaning of the full sher. What
exactly is KH(w)aaja Saheb trying to say ? As per the view
mentioned above, the meaning of the full sher would be somewhat
along the following lines :

'Others have levelled (false) allegations against me, which I
have readily accepted. This indeed was the purpose for which
I had come (or been sent) and which purpose I have fulfilled.'

What do you make of this sense ? Or does it make sense ?

Here is my view about the sher. Maybe, just maybe, the poet is
referring to Man (created by God Almighty) and the purpose for
which he had been sent down to this world. And this purpose
was to carry the burden of a blame or allegation that was
manifestly unjustified. Possibly, there is an implied allusion
to Satan's sin (disobedience of God) and his challenge to the
Creator as to how Man would behave on being sent to this world.
Thus whatever is befalling Man in this world is directly linked
to what somebody else (Satan) did, at the beginning of Creation.
Thus Man is bearing the burden of somebody else's mischief.

Mind you, I am not claiming that this indeed is the meaning of
the sher. At the same time, I do believe that linguistics or
semantics ALONE need not receive our entire attention, but we
should also try to get at the meaning of what a poet is trying to
say. I would request you and others to please ponder over my
humble suggestion and post you/their interpretation/s in this
thread.

Reverting to the original (though limited) point of discussion,
we are linking "chaNd" to 'others'. Is it not possible to think
of "tuhmat" as a sort of collective noun ? In that case, the
sense would change to "a few (false) allegations", without
bringing in 'others' into the picture.

Regrettably, many knowledgeable ALUP veterans are no longer
active in our Newsgroup, like Jamil Saheb, Sarwar Saheb, UVR
Saheb and Rajiv Chakravarty Saheb etc. Their views in this
regard would have been invaluable.



Afzal

[Vijay Kumar]

> https://groups.google.com/group/alt.language.urdu.poetry/browse_frm/t...
>
> Naseer- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks Naseer sahib for providing the link. I have a couple of points
to make:

1. I agree with Zafar sahib's asserion that what the writer wrote,
goes! I have no problem with that. If Ghalib wrote 'hote tak', then
that is what it is. But how do we go about estabilishing what the
writer wrote? If Khwaaja sahib's original manuscript (what we call
khar'Raa in Panjabii) is available, then that should resolve the
issue. If not, then we have to take into account the possibility of
'printing error' that could prepetuate from edition to edition.

2. The misra requires 'tohmateN' in the plural. Whether it is chaNd
'logoN' kii tohmateN or not. So it is either:

ham chaNd tohmateN apne zimme dhar chale
or
ham chaNd logoN kii tohmateN apne zimme dhar chale

'tohmat' as a collective noun requires a leap of faith and I don't
know why a poet of repute would take a less intuitive rout to say
somethin like this.

Just some random thoughts that I am posting from work, so in a bit of
a rush.

Regards,

Vijay

[Naseer]

Before we go on to discuss the meaning behind the shi3r, Azal SaaHib,
which I agree should be our primary purpose, please allow me to give
the "tarkiib" a little twist. (3aadit se majbuur huuN!:-)) Let our
premise be "tuhmat-i-chand".

I was thinking about this construction yesterday. Could it be that
"chand" here means not "some" (kuchh) but "How much/How many" (kitnaa/
kitne).

kitnoN kii tuhmat apne zimme dhar chale
kis liye aa'e the ham, kyaa kar chale

Now "kitnoN" here is not a question but an exclamation. ya3nii...

bahutoN kii/bahuteroN kii tuhmat apne zimme dhar chale
kis liye aa'e the ham, kyaa kar chale!!

Naseer

[Naseer]

Sorry to follow up..AFZAL SaaHib. And also "3aadat"!!

Naseer

[vij...@gmail.com]

I thought it was a good humoured reference to his age!

Vijay

[Afzal A. Khan]

On 10/1/2012 12:48 PM, vij...@gmail.com wrote:

> I thought it was a good humoured reference to his age!
>
> Vijay

Like "Sharaab-e-kuhna", eh ?

But I am a teetotaller !


A(f)zal !!

[Afzal A. Khan]

On 10/1/2012 12:01 PM, Naseer wrote:

> Before we go on to discuss the meaning behind the shi3r, Azal SaaHib,
> which I agree should be our primary purpose, please allow me to give

> the "tarkiib" a little twist. Let our

> premise be "tuhmat-i-chand".
>
> I was thinking about this construction yesterday. Could it be that
> "chand" here means not "some" (kuchh) but "How much/How many" (kitnaa/
> kitne).
>
> kitnoN kii tuhmat apne zimme dhar chale
> kis liye aa'e the ham, kyaa kar chale
>
> Now "kitnoN" here is not a question but an exclamation. ya3nii...
>
> bahutoN kii/bahuteroN kii tuhmat apne zimme dhar chale
> kis liye aa'e the ham, kyaa kar chale!!
>
> Naseer

Naseer Saheb,

I think you are trying to say that "chaNd" here does not mean
"kuchh" (i.e few or some); instead it is used here in the sense
of "bahut kuchh" or "quite a few", hence the reference to
exclamation. But shouldn't you tell us through examples whether
the word is normally used in the latter sense ? Because the two
meanings are sort of contradictory.

We can say : "Woh chaNd hafte school se GHaair~haazir raha."
This would not mean that he absented himself from school for a very
long time.

We do say "kitna kuchh", which means "bahut kuchh" but that is not
the same as "chaNd". You may refer to established Dictionaries
and then come up with pertinent information.

At the same time, it is to be noted that this would not absolve
you of the duty (and need) to explain the meaning of the full sher.
I have already done my part......


Afzal

[Naseer]

aadaab-o-tasliimaat,

I think it would be appropriate to finalise the meaning implied by the
construction "tuhmat-i-chand" before proceeding to the sense of the
whole shi3r.

We all know about the common usage of "chand". It means "some/a few",
as in chand roz, chand laRke, chand tuhmateN but its use is much more
extensive in Classical Persian. Any Urdu poet worth his salt would be
well versed in Persian language and literature and Dard was most
certainly no exception. In fact he has a Persian Divan to his name.
One common construction with "chand" in Persian is an indefinite noun,
often in the singular, followed by "chand". The following Hafiz shi3r
is a good example where one finds both the singular and plural noun
followed by "chand".

حسب حالی ننوشتیم و شد ایامی چند
قاصدی کو که فرستم به تو پیغامی چند

Hasb-i-Haale nanavishem-o-shud aiyyaame chand
qaaside kuu kih faristam ba-tuu paiGhaame chand

apnaa Haal nahiiN likhaa ham ne aur guzar ga'e haiN ayyaam chand
qaasid kahaaN (mar gayaa) hai kih bhejuuN tujh ko paiGhaam chand

But this construction is not used in Urdu, as far as I know. Coming to
our "tuhmat-i-chand" construction, I have said earlier that I have not
come across anything of this type in Urdu or Persian. Well, I might
have to revise my statement with regard to Persian.

ba-tiir-o-kamaan-o-ba-gurz-o-kamand
biyafgand bar dasht naxchiir-i-chand (Firdausi)

With bow and arrow and with net and mace
He overcame many a prey in that place

tiir aur kamaan se awr gurz aur jaal se
us ne dasht meN kitne hii shikaar kiye

I hope both you and Vijay SaaHib will be able to tell me if it is
indeed "naxchiir-i-chand" and not "naxchiir chand". If it is the
latter, then the whole of my argument is going to fall flat on its
face!! Here is another example..

bi-zad xaimah gird-i-lab-i-hermand
bar aasuud baa xurramii roz-i-chand

Asadi

He camped by the bank of the river Helmand
And rested there cheerfully for many a day

Based on these examples "tuhmat-i-chand" would mean "kitnii tuhmateN"
in the sense of "Many a charge". Vijay SaaHib has mentioned if there
are any manuscripts available where we find the term "tuhmat-i-chand"
written by Dard. I am not aware of any evidence of this sort. But in
my humble submission "tuhmateN chand" specifies that there are a few
(specific) charges that the poet is accepting.

tuhmateN chand apne zimme dhar chale
jis liye aa'e the ham so kar chale

I am off, pleading guilty to a few charges
I have achieved the purpose for which I came

Here it implies that the whole purpose of his being (on Earth) was to
take the blame for some/a few charges. What are these charges? I am
not happy with the couplet as it stands. It is too specific. My copy
of the Dard Divan published in 1922 has this couplet as Afzal SaaHib
has quoted. However, the "Nur-ul-Lughaat" dictionary, published in
1917 has the couplet quoted thus.

tuhmat-i-chand apne zimme dhar chale
kis liye aa'e the ham kyaa kar chale

I am off, accepting the burden of many a charge
What did I come for? What am I going with?

This version seems more plausible because to my mind it makes more
sense.

Afzal SaaHib, now for the "tashriiH"! :-)

I came into this world with certain decrees from my Lord and his
Messenger. I am leaving this world not having fulfilled any of these.
My inability to comply with the seemingly simple instructions has
culminated into many a charge which I plead guilty to. A charge from
my God and Prophet, a charge from my parents and family, my friends,
my lover and more!!

Naseer

[Afzal A. Khan]

Naseer Saheb,

I am glad that you have posted a quite detailed rejoinder.

I find that you have quoted some Faarsi verses and then said that
"this construction is not used in Urdu, as far as I know". So
what do we make of these examples ?

I have no problem with your assertion that KH(w)aaja Dard was
a regular practitioner of Faarsi and, indeed, wrote a Deewaan in
that language. But how does that help us ? You have also used
the following terms : "extensive use", "indefinite noun",
"singular" and "plural". These are sufficient to cause the
reader to scratch his head in confusion. And, after navigating
through them, one comes across the Haafiz sher, which (as you have
said) has no application in our case.

BTW, I think Haafiz has used the word "chaNd" in the same sense
as postulated by me, viz. "a few". It doesn't sound plausible that
the poet has not written his "diary notes" for a VERY LONG TIME,
nor that he wishes to send A GREAT MANY epistles to his beloved.
The more likely sense is that he has not been able to write for
some time and, since the messenger too is not to be seen for
awhile, he cannot send his letters to his mehboob.

As regards the sher of Asadi Tusi quoted by you, I have the same
feeling, viz. (his hero) spent A FEW DAYS in peaceful happiness
by the bank of the Helmand river. How can a brave warrior spend
a prolonged period of idle revelry in a temporary abode (like a
tent) ?

One example of such usage ("chaNd" = some or a few) that comes to
my mind is the following sher :

ChaNd tasweer-e-butaaN, chaNd haseenoN ke KHutoot
B'ad marne ke mire ghar se yeh saamaaN nikla

In my view, the sense here is clearly in the sense of "few or
some".

Also, you must be aware of a derisive saying in Faarsi :

Chaar~paaye bar-oo kitaab-e-chaNd


You have also quoted a different second misra' as per the Noor-ul-
LuGHaat. As you are aware, such verses are quoted in Dictionaries
by way of illustration (or example) of some particular word or
usage. It would be interesting to see the actual entry in this
Dictionary (where this sher is given as an example). But, between
such a dictionary example and a complete Deewaan by itself, I would
be inclined to give more credence to the latter, as far as correct-
ness of text is concerned.

Let us now examine the two versions of the sher :

N-L version : I had come here for some other purpose. But I have
ended up doing something else. And that is acceptance of certain
allegations. And now I am going away. This meaning sort of
assumes that my entry and its original or real purpose was some-
thing as per my own wish or choice. But I ended up doing something
else (accepting allegations or blame). It is not at all clear as
to why he had to accept these allegations, particularly when these
were 'false' ("tuhmat").

Now contrast this with the Deewaan version. What I have done is
indeed the same, original purpose for which I had come or been
sent. There is a sense of compliance here. And also a sense of
compulsion. I have been MADE TO accept these (false) allegations.
The poet has used the words "dhar chale". These indicate a sort of
reluctance or lack of willingness. Clearly, the context suggests
that the urge for acceptance did not come from within and was
an imposition, quite unjustified and unwarranted.




Afzal



Note : I am assuming that you interpret "chale" as 'dying'.
If so, I liked your translation "I am off" !
This reminded me of Marathi folks who use the same
expression : "woh off ho gaya" ---> "he has died".

[shagird]

dam e chand
http://www.clepk.org/oud/viewword.aspx?refid=51741


اے صبا غیروں کی تربت پہ گل افشانی چند
جانب گور غریباں بھی کبھی آیا کرے ( 1824ء، مصحفی، دیوان (انتخاب
رامپور)، 88 )

http://www.clepk.org/oud/viewword.aspx?refid=3782

http://www.clepk.org/oud/viewword.aspx?refid=73475

[Afzal A. Khan]

On 10/5/2012 5:24 AM, Naseer wrote:

> I think it would be appropriate to finalise the meaning implied by the
> construction "tuhmat-i-chand" before proceeding to the sense of the
> whole shi3r.

I have already posted a reply to this part of your response.
I shall await your further views.

>
> Afzal SaaHib, now for the "tashriiH"! :-)
>
> I came into this world with certain decrees from my Lord and his
> Messenger. I am leaving this world not having fulfilled any of these.
> My inability to comply with the seemingly simple instructions has
> culminated into many a charge which I plead guilty to. A charge from
> my God and Prophet, a charge from my parents and family, my friends,
> my lover and more!!
>
> Naseer

Tashreeh :

You are making a specific reference to Allah (SWT) and the
Prophet (PBUH), though the sher itself does not do so.
No matter..... But you go on to add parents, family, friends,
lover and many more. Literally, the whole world has sort of
ganged up against the poor poet. And he has readily accepted
all these allegations.

One feels reluctant to accept this kind of an explanation.


Further, if the allegations are attributable to God Almighty and
the Prophet too (apart from the others), why does the poet
call these allegations as "tuhmat", thereby branding them as
"unjustified" and "unwarranted" ? Also, "dhar chale" suggests
a sulky acceptance, an unwillingness for such a 'plea deal'.

And why is there a sense of all this being pre-ordained (as per
the second misra') ? The poet clearly specifies that he had
come or was sent into this world specially for this purpose.

Pardon me for suggesting that this "tashreeh" perhaps needs a
re-think.


Afzal

[Afzal A. Khan]

(My response relates to the following post, though I haven't
deleted the foregoing discussion)

>>
>
> dam e chand
> http://www.clepk.org/oud/viewword.aspx?refid=51741
>
>
> اے صبا غیروں کی تربت پہ گل افشانی چند
> جانب گور غریباں بھی کبھی آیا کرے ( 1824ء، مصحفی، دیوان (انتخاب
> رامپور)، 88 )
>
> http://www.clepk.org/oud/viewword.aspx?refid=3782
>
> http://www.clepk.org/oud/viewword.aspx?refid=73475

Janaab "Shagird" Saheb,

Aap KHud ko "shaagird" likhte haiN, lekin yahaaN aap ki
madaaKHilat KHaalisitan "ustaadaana" hai !!

I have been saying the same thing, viz. the word in this sher has
been used in the sense of "few" or "some" --- not in the sense of
"a lot" or "a great many". I suppose Dictionaries like Platts
may give both senses or meanings in relation to this word "chaNd".
But we should be able to determine the actual sense meant by the
poet, in the context of the sher or its "siyaaq-o-sabaaq".

As regards the text of the secnd misra', Maulvi Mohammed Husain
Aazaad's "Aab-e-Hayaat" also has the second misra' as appearing
in the Deewaan, and as cited by me.


Afzal

[Vijay]

Adaab-o-tasliimaat, Naseer sahib.

Firstly:

allah kare zor-e-raqam aur ziaadah!

Now, a couple of minor points before I respond to the 'tashriih' part.
I feel that the trakiib 'tohmat-e-chaNd' here means 'kucch (chaNd-aik)
tohmateN'. If the original construct, indeed, was 'tohmat-e-chaNd',
then it is most likely transplanted directly from Persian as it does
seem out of place in an Urdu poem (where 'tohmateN chaNd' seems a lot
more effective and falls more immediately to hand, if you may).
In any case, if it is indeed 'tuhmat-e-chaNd', then one could accept
it as archaic or even esoteric although it shouldn't change the
meaning from 'chaNd (a few) tohmateN'.

Now to the tashriih. I think it has been agreed here on ALUP by most
(UVR sahib excepted) that a she'r can have very personal meaning to
the person doing the interpretation. You have evoked God as well as
His Prophet, which clearly reflects your reverence for your religion
and particularly the 'Messenger'. This will likely resonate with quite
a few other like minded people but in my view, this interpretation
limits the scope and the appeal of the she'r, and may even diminish
it. I think the she'r has a more universal appeal. So here is my
take.

We come in this world for a purpose and that is to be good human
beings, to do our best so that rest of humanity benefits and when the
end comes, hopefully leave the world a better place. This theme is
common to most religions as well as non-religious codes of moral
living. Some do this job better than others and ones towards the top
of the pyramid attain greatness in posterity. But many of these
greats, in their life time, are not only not recognized but are often
vilified and blamed (many killed by the misguided lesser beings). It
is as if one attribute of greatness is the ability to absorb others'
weaknesses and flaws and accept the abuses and brickbats with a degree
of equanimity.

To me then, the she'r seems to be saying that the purpose for which I
had come on this earth, I have accomplished. i.e. I lead a moral and
ethical life and done my best to leave the world a better place. And
how do I know this? Because I accepted/absorbed (quite) a few
'tohmateN' in my life time. (i.e. This proves to me that I must have
done some good)

Best regards,

Vijay

[Naseer]

Afzal-o-Vijay-o-Atif SaaHibaan, aadaab 3arz hai.

Apologies for the delay in replying. Regarding the "tashriiH", I don't
really wish to add any more apart from that my explanation, Vijay
SaaHib, had nothing to do with my personal religious views. I just
thought that as "Dard" is considered a sufi poet, his inclination is
bound to be towards God and his prophet.

Returning once more to the "tuhmat-i-chand" construction, I thought I
had made my point pretty clear but from reading Afzal SaaHib's lengthy
reply, it is quite clear that I have failed in my humble efforts.

In essence, I had three versions in my mind:

1) tuhmateN chand = chand tuhmateN = a few charges/allegations

This construction is quite straight forward. However, reliable sources
do point to "tuhmat-i-chand" (with an izaafat)

2) tuhmat-i-chand (as mentioned above)

You must agree that finding "chand" with an izaafat is not such a
common construction in Urdu poetry. I was n't aware of any other such
examples and no one had quoted anything from another Urdu poet in this
or another ALUP thread. Based on this and knowing that "chand", as an
adjective also means "kitnaa/kitne", I formed the opinion that in this
couplet "tuhmat-i-chand" implies "kitnii tuhmateN" and not "chand/
kuchh tuhmateN". Finding a different second misra3 in the Nur-ul-
LuGhaat dictionary (under usage of "tuhmat") seemed to give more
credence to my argument, so I brought that line into my discussion. I
managed to find couplets from Classical Persian authors which, to my
mind, not only had the izaafat construction but also pointed to the
"kitnaa/kitne" meaning. I have to confess that this was more so in
Firdausi's couplet than Asadi's. Without context it is not possible to
say with any degree of certainty, one way or the other.

3) I mentioned Hafiz's "ayyaame chand" and "paiGhaame chand" Ghazal,
as additional information purely from the perspective that this was a
much more common construction in Persian. Your چہار پائے براو کتابے
چند is an example of this.

I have found a Ghalib Ghazal which has thrown my view into the rubbish
bin but I will still insist that "tuhmat-i-chand" can mean "kitnii
tuhmateN" in the right context.

dil-i-betaab kih siine meN dam-i-chand rahaa
bah-dam-i-chand giriftaar-i-Gham-i-chand rahaa

zindagii ke hu'e naagah nafas chand tamaam
kuuchah-i-yaar jo mujh se qadam-i-chand rahaa

likh sakaa maiN nah use shikvah-i-paimaaN-shikanii
laa jaram, toR ke, 3aajiz, qalam-i-chand rahaa

ulfat-i-zar hamah nuqsaaN hai kih aaxir QaaruuN
zer-i-baar-i-Gham-i-daam-o-diram-i-chand rahaa

3umr-bhar hosh nah yak jaa hu'e mere kih, Asad
maiN parastandah-i-ruu-i-sanam-i-chand rahaa

In all these ash3aar, the only meaning that one can assign to "chand"
is " a few". Atif SaaHib, thank you for your example. I do not always
rely on this dictionary because on quite a few occasions I have found
errors in it. But on this occasion it has proved me wrong! I am
grateful.

Naseer

[mutahi...@gmail.com]

perody mil sakti hai is ki

[Naseer]

An example of "tuhmat-i-chand" from Mushafi.

tuhmat-i-chand MiyaaN tujh ko lagaa chaahte haiN
terii aaNkheN tirii palkoN kaa buraa chaahte haiN

...................................................

Naseer

[Naseer]

A while back (August 2019), I found the following example in a Persian grammar book, by Muhammad Ibrahim 1841, who was a native of Iran.

"امّا این حیوانک بازیچہء چند میارد کہ بسیار متعجّبند۔"

"But this little animal exibits several tricks that are very surprising."

Today, I have been flicking through the pages of a book called "Iqbal Aur Ghalib" by Dr. Haamidi Kaashmiri. One of the chapters/sections of the book is entitled "nuktah-i-chand" which could be translated as "A few points". So, Afzal SaaHib, you have been right all along when you mentioned in post 7 that "tuhmat-i-chand" is equivalent to "chand tuhmateN". In conclusion, this construction is to be interpreted as the noun in the plural with "chand" preceding it. In other words "chand" has the usual meaning of "some", "several", "a few" etc.

Naseer

[Afzal A. Khan]

Thank you for agreeing with my take on this sher !


Afzal