bharam khul jaaye tere qaamat kee - what does this mean
v
flummoxes me. well it still does. but the extreme feeling of being
flummoxed has been mitigated thanks to the palliative discussion on
this group.
there is another couplet which I wonder about at times
bharam khul jaaye zaalim tere qaamat kee daraazii kaa
agar is turrah e pur pecho Kham kaa pech o Kham nikle
literally translated it would mean
the claims of your tall stature would stand exposed
if this curly and twisted forelock uncurls itself
but that doesnt make too much sense.
so is the poet saying that the fact that I have attached myself as a
forelock to your great tresses on your tall figure because I love you.
but dont go arrogant on me. if this little curly tuft of hair was to
unwind itself, the reputation of your tall stature would stand
exposed.
any expert comments?
thanks in advance.
Ravi
Naseer
Ravi Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
It is quite possible that learned ALUPers may come to your assistance
(yet again!:-) ). But I would like to offer you one piece of advice,
agar aap buraa nah maaneN. Search ALUP archives and you will find
answers to most if not all of your difficulties regarding the
interpretation of this couplet or the "aah ko chaahiye.." one or
indeed any other one. The reason I am saying this is that those kind
souls who have offered detailed explainations may have had enough of
repeating the same or similar.
kabhii kabhii apnii madad aap meN bhii kuchh i'timaad rakhnaa
chaahiye! saHiiH yaa Ghalat?
Khair-andesh,
Naseer
v
>
> - Show quoted text -
sirjii mai.n to apnee madad aap hee karne me.n bharosa kartaa hoo.n
jin kaa jawaab 'search' me.n naa mile vuhi sawaal parosaa kartaa hoo.n
:)
did the standard pritchett and platts search. did not find great
clarity. alup search did throw up 14 references but most were just
quotations and not indepth meanings.
mai.n jaantaa hoo.n aap kii kaRii nazar hai mujhpar. par kyaa karoo.n
rahaa nahee.n jaataa
phir khotaa vaT thalle!
Jamil
One meaning of bharam khul jaana is to stop being believed or trusted.
So the she'r can be explained as: You seem tall now, but if you
straighten your hair and remove all the curls, your hair will become
longer than you and in comparison your own stature will no longer seem
as tall as it appears now.
Does that make sense?
One more example of Ghalib's scientific ash'aar: optical illusion?
Jamil
v
>
> - Show quoted text -
it does sir. except that he says 'agar is turrah ...' so he is
referring to one particular tuft. if he generally meant curly hair
unwinding, the usage wont be 'is turrah...'.
Jamil
"turrah" may mean hair or a fringe of hair, so the word may be also be
used for all the hair, just as zulf can represent zulfeN. (kaun
jiitaa hai terii zulf ke sar hone tak).
The entry for the word in Platts's on-line dictionary is:
"P طره t̤urra (for A. طرة, v.n. fr. طرّ 'to cut'), s.m. Hair, or a
fringe of hair, on the forehead; a forelock; a curl, ringlet; an
ornament worn in the turban; an ornamental tassel, or border, &c.; a
plume of feathers, a crest; a nosegay; (met.) the best, or the cream
(of a thing):—t̤urra-dār, adj. Fringed (the hair); crested, &c."
Jamil
UVR
I wonder if I could get the opinions of ALUPers (esp, Afzal saahib,
Jamil saahib and Naseer saahib) on the significance of the phrase
"tasweer ke parde se" in this Ghalib sh'er:
shauq har rang raqeeb-e-sar-o-samaaN niklaa
Qais tasweer ke parde se bhi uryaaN niklaa
I have a slight confusion "tasweer ke parde se bhi" -- the 'bhi' seems
to indicate an allusion to other 'parda'-s; what might those be?
Like Ravi saahib, I have also perused the explanations provided by
Ghalib's commentators on Dr. Pritchett's site, but this question
remains unanswered.
-UVR.
Baad-e-Siyaah
Janaab e UVR saahib
GustaaKhi muaaf,
mere Khayaal se 'pardah' is merely the canvas on which tasveer is
made.
aadaab arz hai
baab e siyaah
Afzal A. Khan
UVR Saheb,
JahaaN tak mujhe yaad hai, is sher ka saheeh matn yooN hai :
Shauq har raNg raqeeb-e-sar-o-saamaaN nikla
Qais tasweer ke parde men bhi 'uryaaN nikla
In other words, it is "men" rather than "se" in the second
misra'.
I do not know whether your difficulty is on account of "se"
{which needs to be replaced by "men"}.
Otherwise, the sense is quite clear, to my mind.
The poet wants to say that 'ishq ("shauq") makes the lover
oblivious to all his surroundings. He doesn't care about
material things ("sar-o-saamaaN") which (ordinarily) are
so necessary in a man's life. Qais was one such lover who
was so 'lost' or 'involved' in his single-minded devotion
that he did not even care for his clothing. He would move
about in an "unclad" state. So much so that when painters
would paint his picture on a "parda" (canvas or other stuff
on which paintings are made), they too would depict him in
an "unclad" state. The "bhi" is not linked to any other
"parda" as such, but to the state in which Qais was to be
found. That state continues to be depicted even in his
pictures or paintings.
Lastly, let me state frankly that I have not gone through
the explanations available on FP's site. If there is some -
thing that we can readily follow on our own, we do not really
have to use these western scholars as our guide. {Of course,
I do not mean any disrespect to FP or other scholars.)
Afzal
UVR
Afzal saahib
Thank you for correcting the transcript of the sh'er. It is 'mein'
indeed, not 'se'.
Thank you also for your explanation of the couplet (it seems to agree
with those on Dr. Pritchett's site!) But confusion still remains in
my mind in some measure -- why does Ghalib specifically mention
"tasweer" (ke parde mein bhi uryaaN nikalna)?
The meaning of the first line itself is quite clear, and, dare I say,
non-controversial. Ghalib is stating it as a fact that har rang [meN]
(i.e., har tarah, har haal meN, har waqt, in every instance, from
every perspective, etc) shauq 'aashiq ko be.sar-o-saamaaN kartaa hai.
In the second line, Ghalib appears to be trying to provide "proof" (or
supporting evidence to back up his claim). He seems to be saying, "an
outstanding example of this, my friends, is Qais. He is to be found
in an 'unclad' state even in a 'veil of pictures.'
Whilst this is fine on its face, and even fascinating to a large
extent (veils are used to cover oneself to stay within society's mores
of modesty, and being 'naked even in a veil' is a terrific image),
there are two things that I am unclear about:
(a) Less severe: Ghalib seems to be generalizing from exactly one
instance -- Qais was found unclad in pictures, therefore shauq in
general is the enemy of ... &c. This is odd.
(b) More severe: What's the significance of *tasweer* -- what is so
special about pictures? Of course, it could well be that I'm mistaken
in thinking there's any significance at all -- maybe I am trying to
look for a thing that simply isn't there. Am I?
Lastly, on the matter of Dr. Pritchett's website, I have to say that
my primary interest in going to the site is NOT her "western
scholar"ship. It is, rather, the "easternness" of the content of her
site! On it, she has collected and published the comments of
authoritative critics of Ghalib -- 'Arshi, Nazm, Bekhud Mohani, et
al. Even, sometimes Ghalib himself (excerpts from letters of Ghalib
where he has commented on or explained his own verses). To be frank,
I don't see visiting her site as a wasteful or needless endeavor in
the least. For, even if one is fully capable of interpreting a given
couplet oneself, and is quite comfortable with one's own explanation
of it, what harm is there in reading the words of these established
critics of Ghalib's deewan? It can only serve to expand one's
horizons of awareness.
-UVR.
Naseer
UVR Sahib, aadaab.
It is possible that I might not add anything of value to what Afzal
Sahib and you have said in your posts.
shauq har rang raqiib-i-sar-o-saamaaN niklaa
Qais tasviir ke parde meN bhii 'uryaaN niklaa
This is how I would remove your "difficulty" concerning the use of the
word "tasviir".
'ishq in every possible form (rang /ruup/Haalat) leaves the lover
destitute (for these worldy goods and chattels are of no concern to
him). This is the reality. This is infact so true that when people
depict Qais (the supreme lover) even in the form(at) of a picture
(tasviir ke parde meN bhii), and this is only an image and not the
real Qais, he is shown stripped of all his worldly belongings, namely
his clothes.
One needs to look at the words:
rang: (Connected to picture, but not here. Here it signifies "shakl,
ruup" etc)
pardah: In the context of this shi'r it also means form(at)/pretext. I
don't think it means "canvass" here. I would have expected "tasviir ke
parde par". This is in contrast to 'uryaan which is "be-pardah", i.e.
without a covering, screen or curtain. In other words "zaahir",
manifest, exposed or naked.
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
> general is the enemy of ...&c. This is odd.
>
> (b) More severe: What's the significance of *tasweer* -- what is so
> special about pictures? Of course, it could well be that I'm mistaken
> in thinking there's any significance at all -- maybe I am trying to
> look for a thing that simply isn't there. Am I?
>
> Lastly, on the matter of Dr. Pritchett's website, I have to say that
> my primary interest in going to the site is NOT her "western
> scholar"ship. It is, rather, the "easternness" of the content of her
> site! On it, she has collected and published the comments of
> authoritative critics of Ghalib -- 'Arshi, Nazm, Bekhud Mohani, et
> al. Even, sometimes Ghalib himself (excerpts from letters of Ghalib
> where he has commented on or explained his own verses). To be frank,
> I don't see visiting her site as a wasteful or needless endeavor in
> the least. For, even if one is fully capable of interpreting a given
> couplet oneself, and is quite comfortable with one's own explanation
> of it, what harm is there in reading the words of these established
> critics of Ghalib's deewan? It can only serve to expand one's
> horizons of awareness.
>
> -UVR.
UVR Saheb,
First, let me clarify my views about FWP. These are just my views.
I am not saying that people should not try to benefit from the
great job she has been doing in this regard. In today's age, her
labours are best exemplified by the great many original texts (by
exegists and others) that she has made available on the Net. Also,
please permit me to point out that I never called her work as
"western scholarship". But I did call her a "western scholar".
Would you call this wrong ? It is a sad commentary on the state
of affairs in South Asia that people like us have to take resort
to her website/s to whet our appetite and quench our thirst in
regard to Urdu poetry.
Over the years, there has been a growing tendency on the part of
our critics to refer to foreign (or maybe Western) literary cri-
tics, while offering their learned theses on Urdu writings. Now,
I believe (though I cannot say whether I am right in this respect)
that the principles of literary criticism established in foreign
languages need not be applicable ipso facto and in toto to Urdu
writings. Also, the purpose of the writings of our own Urdu
critics is (or it should be) to make it possible for our own
people to understand Urdu writings (Poetry or Prose) and
appreciate them in a more enlightened frame of mind. At the very
least, our people should feel encouraged to read more and more
Urdu books (both Poetry and Prose). Please do try to read the
writings of our own Urdu critics and let us know whether these are
calculated to work to the advantage of the Urdu readers, generally
speaking. {There may be a few exceptions. But my comment is to be
taken in the sense of "by and large".}
About two years back, I had occasion to write a rather detailed
article on Mr. Mohammed Hassan Askari, or rather about one of his
articles "The Famine of Verbs". Mind you, the original Urdu
article was not available and my post was based purely on its
English translation. Now he was no doubt a very learned scholar
and was regarded as a respected critic. Even then, I didn't quite
agree with the tenor and contents of that article. I do realize
that I am a very insignificant being. But even people like me have
a right to speak up on such occasions. Amongst other things, I
had pointed out that, in a short article of about 7/8 pages, he had
referred to the writings/views of the following western writers and
critics :
Gustave Flaubert "Madame Bovary"
James Joyce
Marlowe
Ben Jonson
Chapman
Shakespeare
T.S. Eliot
Charles Baudelaire "Les Fleurs du Mal"
Delacroix
Stendahl
Honore de Balzac
Aristotle
Wilhelm Reich
Fenollosa
The original article was in Urdu and meant for Urdu readers. And
how many Urdu-wallahs do you think are familiar with the afore -
mentioned writers and critics ? How can the average Urdu-wallah
benefit from the quotes or views of these foreign experts ? At
best, the Urdu reader can only get intimidated. And that perhaps
is the intention of such critics --- to talk down to their
readers. And I, for one, just cannot appreciate such attempts.
It is this tendency (to quote and rely upon the views of foreign
literary critics) that I deprecate, and again, these are just my
views. If one can understand and appreciate a sher on one's own,
there should be little need for seeking the supportive opinion of
a western critic. I am speaking in very general terms, and this
is in no way related to your citing FWP in your posts.
Recently, there was a thread about Premchand's "ShatraNj Ki Baazi"
and Stayajit Ray's film on that story. There too, FWP was cited.
Nothing wrong in that. But I did feel constrained to point out
that Premchand's story was easy enough to understand, and leave
its impact on the reader. In fact, most of his stories and
novels, I think, were centred round ordinary folks and meant for
ordinary folks. Films, on the other hand, are a different
medium and a film-maker can have a different take on how he can
project the story for the film-goers. Another instance I can
give in this context is Bimal Roy's "Devdas" and the later
version made by Sanjay Leela Bhansali. Both are vastly different.
Now all this has nothing to do with Prof. Pritchett. She has read
(and relied heavily, I daresay) on South Asian writers/critics/
exegists of Ghalib and other Urdu poets. If you can provide the
relative quote, I too would like to read what she has to say about
this sher. I repeat, I meant no disrespect to her or to people who
have visited or consulted her website/s.
Coming back to the sher itself : Ghalib has used the word
"tasweer" in the sense of a painting, or an image. Several
examples of similar usage can be cited, e.g. :
Dil ke aaiine men hai tasweer-e-yaar
Jab zara gardan jhukaaii, dekh li
ChaNd tasweer-e-butaaN, chaNd haseenoN ke KHutoot
B'ad marne ke mire ghar se yeh saamaaN nikla
Lyricists have used this word even in Indian films. In (the old)
film "Sargam", Rehana's song ("Koi kisi ka deewaana na bane")
begins with the words --> "Tasweer-e-yaar dil se miTaaii na gayee".
There are other songs too, but their mention is not necessary here.
What other word do you think Ghalib should have used ?
As regards "parda", one can deem this word as Ghalib's delicate
use of a picturesque figure of speech. (And I am not thinking
of any pun here !) My reference is to "Eehaam" --- something that
causes (as it is supposed to) some initial confusion in the mind
of the listener or reader. An "eehaam" can have a double meaning.
First, the reader's mind thinks of an obvious meaning, and since
this doesn't satisfy his inquiring mind, begins thinking about its
second (and intended) meaning. "Parda" (in a normal sense) can be
thought of as a 'veil' --- a device that is intended to conceal or
hide something. At the same time, Ghalib talks of the "unclad"
state of Qais which can be readily seen (instead of being hidden or
veiled) even in his pictures. And then it dawns upon the reader
that Ghalib is in fact referring to the material (canvas or even
paper) on which the picture of Qais has been painted. Thus, the
tarkeeb ("tasweer ka parda") refers to the actual stuff on which
the picture is painted. In a modern analogy, one can say that the
reference is to the film roll, on which Qais has been photo -
graphed and (according to Ghalib) comes out nude.
Why Ghalib has offered just one instance as proof of a generaliza-
tion ? Firstly, how many such instances can a poet compress in
just one misra' ? Secondly, it is not really just one instance.
Ghalib intends to say that ALL such pictures of Qais that have
been drawn or painted since centuries have depicted Qais in an
unclad state. In the process, Ghalib holds him up as the truest
example of a devoted lover.
This is how I have understood the sher. And I cannot claim that
this interpretation is the correct one. You and others can offer
different explanations and we can continue a meaningful discussion.
I don't know whether I have been able to satisfy your misgivings.
It should now be the turn of Jamil Saheb and Naseer Saheb to offer
their take on this Ghalib sher.
Afzal
UVR
Thank you for your elaborate epistle. As usual, it made for gripping
reading.
I hope you will excuse me for choosing to elide a rather extensive
portion of your post: the portion discussing western scholars and
critics in connection with Urdu. For my part, I will point you to Dr.
FWP's site on the sh'er in question (shauq har rang):
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/006/6_01.html?
Note how the good professor supplies commentary on the sh'er from (1)
Ghalib himself, (2) Nazm Tabatabai, (3) Mohammed Abdul Wajid 'Wajid',
(4) BeKhud Mohani (and finally herself). Not only does she present
the commentary of the Urdu master in their English forms, but she even
includes snippets of the original Urdu transcript of Nazm's and
Wajid's treatises.
On May 13, 4:14 pm, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> Coming back to the sher itself : Ghalib has used the word
> "tasweer" in the sense of a painting, or an image. Several
> examples of similar usage can be cited, e.g. :
>
> Dil ke aaiine men hai tasweer-e-yaar
> Jab zara gardan jhukaaii, dekh li
>
> ChaNd tasweer-e-butaaN, chaNd haseenoN ke KHutoot
> B'ad marne ke mire ghar se yeh saamaaN nikla
>
Interestingly, the page from Dr. FWP's site that I pointed at above
suggests (with "proof") that the second one isn't by Ghalib at all!
> Lyricists have used this word even in Indian films. In (the old)
> film "Sargam", Rehana's song ("Koi kisi ka deewaana na bane")
> begins with the words --> "Tasweer-e-yaar dil se miTaaii na gayee".
> There are other songs too, but their mention is not necessary here.
> What other word do you think Ghalib should have used ?
>
I don't know! But, Afzal saahib, perhaps you misunderstood my
question. It wasn't "why didn't Ghalib use some other word?" It was
"does the use of 'tasweer' have any special significance?" Now, it
seems to me that apart from the ri'yaat-e-lafzi (rang -> tasweer),
there isn't another purpose behind the use of that word. I am happy
to leave it at that.
At the present time, I do not find myself capable of offering any
alternate explanation or interpretation. I am still trying to come to
terms with the sh'er myself. This is one of those that I have been
unable to "digest" for the longest time -- clearly the problem is
within me, not in the sh'er itself.
> I don't know whether I have been able to satisfy your misgivings.
> It should now be the turn of Jamil Saheb and Naseer Saheb to offer
> their take on this Ghalib sher.
Naseer saahib has obliged me with his opinion, for which I am
grateful. I hope Jamil saahib will also provide us with his take.
-UVR.
UVR
>
> UVR Sahib, aadaab.
>
> It is possible that I might not add anything of value to what Afzal
> Sahib and you have said in your posts.
>
> shauq har rang raqiib-i-sar-o-saamaaN niklaa
> Qais tasviir ke parde meN bhii 'uryaaN niklaa
>
> This is how I would remove your "difficulty" concerning the use of the
> word "tasviir".
>
> 'ishq in every possible form (rang /ruup/Haalat) leaves the lover
> destitute (for these worldy goods and chattels are of no concern to
> him). This is the reality. This is infact so true that when people
> depict Qais (the supreme lover) even in the form(at) of a picture
> (tasviir ke parde meN bhii), and this is only an image and not the
> real Qais, he is shown stripped of all his worldly belongings, namely
> his clothes.
>
> One needs to look at the words:
>
> rang: (Connected to picture, but not here. Here it signifies "shakl,
> ruup" etc)
>
> pardah: In the context of this shi'r it also means form(at)/pretext. I
> don't think it means "canvass" here. I would have expected "tasviir ke
> parde par". This is in contrast to 'uryaan which is "be-pardah", i.e.
> without a covering, screen or curtain. In other words "zaahir",
> manifest, exposed or naked.
>
> Naseer
Naseer saahib,
Thank you for your response to my question. The only place I would
part ways with you is regarding the word 'rang'. I think (as others
have suggested) that Ghalib has indeed played on the word 'rang' in
connection with 'tasweer', just as he has juxtaposed purdah and
'uryaaN next to each other. The idea seems to be to present the
listener/reader with an extremely complicated metaphor calculated to
draw "waah waah"s from the more intelligent ones and "whaa(t)?
whaa(t)?" from idiots like me.
-UVR.
v
>
> - Show quoted text -
UVR Saahib
This is one of my favourite couplets - I use it often (prob wrongly)
but I do use it. I also love ghulam ali's rendition of this ghazal.
IIRC ghalib was berated for the use of 'har rang' which is not the
correct idiom (har haal is prob more apposite). he prob did it for
purposes of behr.
I interpret it as
Your passion will always be the enemy of your bank balance/networth
if you want proof look at this son of a chieftain qais who even when
painted (generally a painting was commissioned by the person being
painted and hence it was a richman's pastime) is painted in tatters.
so even when he is commissioning his own painting his passion gets
manifested through the artist's art. and how do you show an indigent
man on canvas. as raj kapoor famously said in shri 420 khaa gayee naa
aap bhii kapDo.n se dhokhaa.
that is my interpretation. hope you liked it, if you didnt (as groucho
marx said) I have others :)
Regards
Ravi
v
>
> - Show quoted text -
but uvr saahab aapne meraa thread hijack kar diyaa. kripayaa mere sher
kee bhee vazaahat kar de.n
Naseer
I too was wondering why someone had suddenly decided to change the
title of the thread without (?) any mutual consultation.
Naseer
UVR
Naseer and Ravi saahibaan,
I do think I'm once again being accused of a crime I didn't commit. I
didn't really change anything! Firstly, the thread pertaining to Ravi
saahib's queries is still visible (it is to me, and I'm sure to
numerous other nettors). Secondly, it is still available under the
very title (Subject) he chose for it. Thirdly, "hijacking" would be
if I retained Ravi saahib's Subject and discussed some other topic in
it. Creating a new Subject for a different sh'er -- I don't know how
that amounts to hijacking in any way -- perhaps someone would like to
educate me on this. Lastly, I have been on the net for well-nigh 20
years now and I have never heard of any "netiquette" requirement that
say I need to consult anyone before I set the subject of a post.
-UVR.
UVR
>
> but uvr saahab aapne meraa thread hijack kar diyaa. kripayaa mere sher
> kee bhee vazaahat kar de.n
I didn't do any hijacking.
I don't have anything to add beyond what Jamil sahib has so eloquently
said.
Thank you for your response to my question. I do appreciate your
input greatly.
-UVR.
Jamil
The operative words here are "niklaa" and "tasviir ke parde"
nikaa: Someone being found out to be different from what was
expected. "maiN use qaabil samajhtaa thaa, magar vuh to naalaa'iq
niklaa"
tsviir ka parde: A fine paradox if ever there was one. tasviir can
hide almost as much as it reveals. All blemishes and socially
unacceptable characteristics are "touched" out, whether in modern
photography or in the paintings of the old days. Hence the
paradoxical tasviir ka pardah.
So the explanation of the second line becomes: (As opposed to what one
would expect), even a picture could not succeed in hiding the fact
Qais is in shreds.
Regarding "raNg"; it is a more picturesque word than "haal" but here
it means the same thing. Ghalib has used it elsewhere: "dil kaa kyaa
raNg karuuN Khuun-e-jigar hone tak." In modern times Faiz has used
the word in the same sense: "raNg hai dil kaa merey KHuun-e-jigar hone
tak"
One thing, I think, bears repeating. A she'r can have many meanings
and Ghalib's poetry is especially amenable to this multi
interpretation. It is for nothing that over 100 books have been
written to explain the slim volume. I am told, and this may be just
an exaggeration, that Ph.D degrees have been awarded for dissertation
written on a single she'r of Ghalib!
Jamil
Afzal A. Khan
> Afzal saahib,
>
> Thank you for your elaborate epistle. As usual, it made for gripping
> reading.
>
> I hope you will excuse me for choosing to elide a rather extensive
> portion of your post: the portion discussing western scholars and
> critics in connection with Urdu. For my part, I will point you to Dr.
> FWP's site on the sh'er in question (shauq har rang):
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/006/6_01.html?
>
> Note how the good professor supplies commentary on the sh'er from (1)
> Ghalib himself, (2) Nazm Tabatabai, (3) Mohammed Abdul Wajid 'Wajid',
> (4) BeKhud Mohani (and finally herself). Not only does she present
> the commentary of the Urdu master in their English forms, but she even
> includes snippets of the original Urdu transcript of Nazm's and
> Wajid's treatises.
Thank you very much for the above link. I have now gone through
the same, and will be referring to it again while dealing with
Jamil Saheb's post, which shall follow soon (I hope !).
I have already paid tribute to her painstaking efforts in
collating the comments of Urdu scholars. But what exactly is
her (original) contribution towards an explanation that
ordinary readers like us can readily comprehend ? And this is
a genuine enquiry, not meant as a disparaging remark. She does
say the following, however :
"The phrase sar-o-saamaa;N also has overtones of 'dignity,
self-possession'; thus I translate it 'proper possession'.
As a madman Qais is out of his head [sar], as a naked
wanderer in the desert he has renounced all possible forms
of 'equipment' [saamaa;N]."
The expression "sar-o-saamaaN" {and other related terms like
"be~sar-o-saamaanii"} are well-understood by most of us. But,
with due apologies to her, I am inclined to feel that bringing
in a sense of "out of his head" ("sar") and "deserting all
equipment" ("saamaan") borders on the ludicrous. I don't know
if she used the word "deserting" as an instance of "ri'aayat-
e-lafzii" --- after all, Qais was a denizen of the desert !
>>
>> Coming back to the sher itself : Ghalib has used the word
>> "tasweer" in the sense of a painting, or an image. Several
>> examples of similar usage can be cited, e.g. :
>>
>> Dil ke aaiine men hai tasweer-e-yaar
>> Jab zara gardan jhukaaii, dekh li
>>
>> ChaNd tasweer-e-butaaN, chaNd haseenoN ke KHutoot
>> B'ad marne ke mire ghar se yeh saamaaN nikla
>>
>
> Interestingly, the page from Dr. FWP's site that I pointed at above
> suggests (with "proof") that the second one isn't by Ghalib at all!
Even the first sher is not by Ghalib !
>
>> Lyricists have used this word even in Indian films. In (the old)
>> film "Sargam", Rehana's song ("Koi kisi ka deewaana na bane")
>> begins with the words --> "Tasweer-e-yaar dil se miTaaii na gayee".
>> There are other songs too, but their mention is not necessary here.
>> What other word do you think Ghalib should have used ?
>>
>
> I don't know! But, Afzal saahib, perhaps you misunderstood my
> question. It wasn't "why didn't Ghalib use some other word?" It was
> "does the use of 'tasweer' have any special significance?" Now, it
> seems to me that apart from the ri'yaat-e-lafzi (rang -> tasweer),
> there isn't another purpose behind the use of that word. I am happy
> to leave it at that.
Qais has been a sort of legend. A figure from the hoary past,
it has not been possible for anyone to see how he looked like.
The only way to make him known to modern generations (that is,
several centuries after his death) is through sketches, or
drawings. And "tasweer" is the only word that not only
describes the sense of a 'sketch' or 'drawing' or 'painting', it
also gels well with other words used in the sher, like "parda"
and "raNg". A fascinating composite whole, I feel. One need
not try to see what other purposes Ghalib might have had in
view. Just my thoughts.
> I hope Jamil saahib will also provide us with his take.
I have seen his post and shall try to send in a reply soon.
Afzal
>
> -UVR.
v
UVR saahib
aap to naaraaz ho gaye. mai.n to apnee naaKhushii zaahir kar rahaa
thaa, ki ravi ne khilaayaa phool, phool ko le gayaa UVR. thoRaa itr
idhar bhee phenkte chaliye :) ab dekhiye na sab aapke sawaal kaa
jawaab dene me.n itnaa mashGool ho gaye hai.n ki meraa sawaal bhool
gaye hai.n. interviews me.n ise recency effect kehte hai.n :)
varnaa mere liye to internet kaa sabse baRaa faaydaa yehi hai, ki aap
jo kuchh bhee poochhnaa chaahe.n poochh sakte hai.n. basharte kee yeh
shaaleentaa ke daayre me.n ho.
Afzal A. Khan
Jamil Saheb,
Your input is quite thought-provoking.
I have since had the benefit of going through the link furnished
by UVR Saheb (FWP's site).
Your take on the meaning of "nikla" is not one that occurs in the
explanations/interpretations of any of the exegesists mentioned
and quoted on the above site. It is quite novel and worth noting.
First, let us take a very brief look at the sense of the sher in
question. Everybody seems to be agreed that Ghalib has put
forward a proposition or "d'awaa" in the first misra', viz.
passionate and all-consuming love is the inveterate enemy of
worldly possessions. The second misra' contains a comprehensive
"proof" of the above proposition.
Now, all "shaariheen" are agreed that Qais is always depicted in
the nude state in all his sketches or paintings. I quote from
the observations of two of them, as given on the above site :
Naz'm : "...MajnooN ki tasweer bhi khiNch'ti hai to naN'gii hi
khiNch'ti hai....."
Wajd : "....daleel (proof) yeh ahi keQais jo zindagi men naN'ga
paRa phirta tha, tasweer ke parde men bhi naN'ga hi raha. Lutf
yeh hai ke MajnooN ki tasweer baa~tan-e-'uryaaN hi khiNch'ti hai
jahaaN khiNch'ti hai...."
{Janaab-e-Wajd has expressed his misgivings in this context on
two counts, but this is not the place where these can be
discussed. Personally, I do not think that the two objections
make much sense.}
Now, let us consider your explanation of the word "nikla". In
this sense, the paraphrase of the second misra' would be some -
thing like this : "One thought that Qais (or MajnooN) would appear
clothed in his picture/s but, against all our (normal) expecta-
tions, he appears in a nude state even in his picture/s".
Why should the poet or narrator (who has put forward a particular
proposition in the first misra') expect that Qais would appear in
a clad state in his drawings ? If this was his normal expecta-
tion, it would go against the very proposition that is mentioned
in the first misra'. In other words, his positive belief (that
shauq is the 'enemy' of all material goods, including clothing)
is in fact not a firm belief but a matter of doubt. How can this
apparent dichotomy be explained ?
I would also like to submit that " 'uryaaN " may not necessarily
be interpreted as being completely devoid of clothes. It can
also be taken to mean "clad in dirty and torn rags" which do
not represent any regular dress code acceptable to the society.
These rags can in no way be regarded as part of a man's wealth or
material possessions.
Afzal
Baad-e-Siyaah
> The operative words here are "niklaa" and "tasviir ke parde"
Jamil Saahib,
aadaab
'niklaa' is present in pahla misra as well. Do we take it then
statement in pahla misra is also an expression of surprise?
baad e siyaah
Jamil
baad e siyaah sahib
Yes, indeed if 'nikla' expresses surprise in the second line, the
same would apply to the first. The first line anticipates the second
one, in that it was surprising that love had this effect in EVERY
situation including the inanimate one described in the second line.
I have been told by practitioners of the art that the second line is
usually written before the first one, though that would probably not
apply to rhyming two lines, such as a matla'.
Jamil
Jamil
Afzal Sahib
I agree with you that the meaning of 'uryaaN' is more appropriate as
torn and shredded rags. As for your other point that the poet would
not expect anything other than tattered clothes in the pictures would
be valid if the tradition of paintings did not dictate otherwise. The
paintings of old in the East rarely depicted adversity. Of course
depiction of a nude was out of question (unlike Western paintings),
but torn rags must also have been rare, if at all.
Maybe I am just stretching the meaning and unduly forcing an
interpretation on the she'r, but I find other interpretations equally
unsatisfactory; they leave me with the feeling that the primary value
of the she'r is just the play on words 'raNg', 'tasviir' 'pardah', and
we know GHalib better than that.
Jamil
Afzal A. Khan
Jamil Saheb,
The point I was trying to make was that, so far as I know, this
particular explanation of yours is not to be found in any of the
scores (and more) of well-known exegeses. If you have come
across such an explanation, maybe, we can all benefit if you can
cite the same.
What Wajd has written includes Ghalib's own explanation of this
sher. Ghalib says (in one of his letters) :
"Raqeeb ba~m'anii muKHaalif, y'anii shauq sar-o-saamaan ka
dushman hai. Daleel is ki yeh hai ke Qais jo ziNdagi men
naNga tha, tasweer ke parde men bhi naNga hi raha. Lutf
yeh hai ke MajnooN ki tasweer jahaaN khiNch'ti hai, baa~
tan-e-'uryaaN hi khiNch'ti hai."
Our own UVR Saheb is on record that if the poet's intended
meaning can be ascertained, that alone should be considered as
the correct interpretation of that sher. I am in general
agreement with this view. However, if somebody can come up with
some other explanation that can be demonstrated as valid, there
is no harm in discussing it.
The translation of this sher, as given in Ralph Russell's book
is given below :
"The true lover can never hope for worldly affluence.
Qais lost all for love. Even in the pictures of him,
which cannot capture more than a part of the reality,
this essential characteristic of him is depicted."
You state that (unlike Western paintings) depiction of a nude
was out of question in old paintings of the East. OTOH,
Ghalib himself seems quite sure of this --- that such pictures
did exist and all of them showed Qais as a nude, or wearing some
rags. If such sketches or paintings did not exist, I am sure some
commentator or exegesist would have commented upon this point.
There is another sense of the word "parda" that I can think of.
{There have been so many posts that I can't quite remember if
some other ALUPer has written about it.}. It can be a (thin or
translucent) sheet that is used to cover up a painting. The
sketch itself can be seen clearly only when this (thin) covering
is lifted and the drawing is exposed.
But, frankly, this sense of being surprised (when looking at a
Qais picture and finding him nude) is something that I have not
been quite able to comprehend. It tends to show Ghalib's sher as
an exercise in absurdity.
Afzal
UVR
Ravi saahib,
naaraazgi kaa sawaal hi paida nahin hotaa. aap ne mujh par (yaa yooN
kahiye k mere kiye par) ek "ilzaam"-saa dharaa thaa. ab chooN.k
ilzaam Ghalat thaa, mujhe use Ghalat kahna paRaa. ilzaam ki tardeed
baGhair naaraaz hue bhi ki jaa sakti hai -- ek baar aap bhi kar ke
dekhiye :)
rahi baat mere sawaal par logoN ke ziyaadah dhyaan dene ki (ba.nisbat
aap ke sawaal ke), to bhai is meN maiN haqeer pur.taqseer kyaa kar
saktaa hooN? I hope you're not suggesting that I should have waited
until the discussion on the sh'er you posted was well and truly
finished and put to bed before I came forth and admitted to being
confused by a different sh'er?
-UVR.
UVR
Thank you very much for your response, Jamil saahib. I find the
following from your post particularly satisfying -- "tasviir can hide
almost as much as it reveals. All blemishes and socially unacceptable
characteristics are "touched" out, whether in modern photography or in
the paintings of the old days." This ('touched out') provides a new
perspective on the sh'er that I had not hitherto considered.
-UVR.
Baad-e-Siyaah
I just want to comment on two aspects of this discussion.
> > be valid if the tradition of paintings did not dictate otherwise. The
> > paintings of old in the East rarely depicted adversity. Of course
It is not true that eastern painting did not have nudes. In fact west
was much influenced by eastern miniatures showing nudes. Although
Europe had long tradition of nude paintings and sculptures from Greek
traditions however until the miniatures from India reached Europe
their painting were quite prudish, you won’t see bold nudes in
classical western paintings. Hindus in particular were quite a breed
in taking the clothes off their subjects. In fact beautiful nudes are
considered auspicious therefore all traditional temple portals are
adorned by nude women. Of course there is Kamsutra and Khajuraho
temples celebrating sex not in a sense of perversion but as an act of
creation. It is a myth that arrival of Muslims put a lid on this
promiscuity; the tight leash came with arrival of British and their
Victorian values.
>
> Our own UVR Saheb is on record that if the poet's intended
> meaning can be ascertained, that alone should be considered as
> the correct interpretation of that sher. I am in general
> agreement with this view. However, if somebody can come up with
> some other explanation that can be demonstrated as valid, there
> is no harm in discussing it.
I don't think in art there is thing called correct interpretation.
Even in some cases an artist's interpretation can be foolish as often
an artist is not a good critic just as a good critic is not a good
artist. Good art is created in a moment of inspiration therefore an
artist’s interpretation of his own work is post facto like anybody
else's. As an appreciator we expect a sense of exhilaration on
encounter with art, it may come just by seeing or listening to it or
through somebody's deft interpretation. Eventually it depends on an
individual what he finds best in a work of art.
aadaan arz hai
Naseer
Gentlemen, aadaab 'arz hai.
It has been a long while since we had a hearty debate on the meaning
of an Urdu couplet. I have been attempting to follow this discussion
but unfortnuately, due to various reasons, it has not been possible to
participate actively in this thread.
Firstly, I would like to say that in my humble opinion, we might be
making a "mountain out of a mole hill". I do not believe we need to
look into any latent meanings in this particular shi'r. We might have
different slants on the significance of the word "pardah" but I do not
think this causes substantial difference in the final analysis. Having
said all this, I personally do not find the meaning of "pardah" to be
"canvass" etc. As I have pointed out before, I feel linguistically it
should be "parde par" and not "parde meN" if the meaning was a flat
surface like paper or canvass. An example of the former is from Afzal
Sahib's latest thread.
Jab bhi dil par mire jazbaat ka GHalba ho jaaye
Parda-e-zehn *pe* chupke se chali aaye ghazal
Secondly, as has been hinted by Afzal Sahib, one need not take the
meaning of
"'uryaaN" as "stark naked". A person partially dressed or exposing
parts of his body through tatterd and shreaded clothing could be
classed as "bare", "naked". Interestingly, in Arabic "'uryaan malat"
means "stark naked" and not "'uryaan" on its own.
Coming to UVR Sahib's original query, I think I do understand his
"unease" about the word "tasviir". To quote him, "Why does Ghalib
specifically mention "tasweer" (ke parde mein bhi uryaaN nikalna)?"
Well UVR Sahib, let me put a little more pressure on the old grey
matter! When Ghalib talks about "tasviir ke parde meN bhii", he is
talking about the tale of Laila and Majnuun passing through several
media: namely the spoken word (word of mouth), the written word (prose
and poetry) and finally the visual image ("tasviir") in the form of
minature paintings, pictures in manuscripts and even mats, rugs and
carpets were woven to include pictures. The link below mentions rugs
with Lailii Majnuun pictures on them.
http://rugsofwar.wordpress.com/2006/08/19/leyli-and-majnun-another-interpretation/
The orthodoxy did not approve of pictures and sculptures of the human
form. This was and is connected to the worship of "graven images",
i.e. idolatry.Paintings of the "'uryaan" form would be even more of a
"taboo" in the consevative Arab
society. Despite this, there are cases of the human form and nudity
being depicted in paintings as the link below shows.
Although the story was known in the Farsi speaking world even in
Rodaki's times, it was popularised by the Azeri Persian poet, Nizami
Ganjawi (1141-1209) in the shape of "Lailii-o-Majnuun". This was one
of the five (Khamsa or paNj gaNj) long narrative poems which he wrote.
By his time manuscripts began to be illustrated by pictures and his
Khamsah are no exception.
http://www.shangrilahawaii.org/Islamic-Art-at-Shangri-La/Collection-Highlights/Layla-and-Majnun/
You will not fail to notice in the link above that MajnuuN is depicted
"semi-naked", i.e. he is not wearing a "qamiis" but the "shalvaar" is
certainly there!
Ghalib is saying that in the spoken word Qais is described as
"'uryaan", in the written word (prose and poetry) he is depicted as "
'uryaan" and even though the human form in general and nudity in
particular is a big "no no" in the drawn or painted form (picture/
tasviir), still Qais "tasviir ke parde meN bhii" is portrayed as
'"uryaan". The society can not and does not "cover up" Qais's
"'uryaanii" even in a visual form which blatantly stares at you.
"shauq" can not be put in "shackles".
Naseer
Naseer
UVR Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
> I do think I'm once again being accused of a crime I didn't commit. I
> didn't really change anything!
I think you are over reacting somewhat by using the word "crime". Yes,
you did change something. You have added another subject within the
body of the original thread. To me this can not be described as a "no-
change" situation.
> Firstly, the thread pertaining to Ravi Saahib's queries is still visible (it is to me, > and I'm sure to numerous other nettors). Secondly, it is still available under the
> very title (Subject) he chose for it. Thirdly, "hijacking" would be if I retained
> Ravi saahib's Subject and discussed some other topic in it.
Agreed on all three counts, although the word "pollute" has been used
in the past in place of "hijacking":-)
> Creating a new Subject for a different sh'er -- I don't know how
> that amounts to hijacking in any way -- perhaps someone would like to
> educate me on this.
One does go off-topic quite often in threads. That, I believe does not
happen as a deliberate act but just happens. In this case, a new topic
has been initiated. It is true that one can participate in both topics
within the thread simultaneously but I do sympathise with Ravi Sahib's
feelings. It is as if one person starts to talk about his favourite
topic. Other like minded people join in with the conversation. Then,
all of a sudden, a new person who has hitherto not taken part in the
first conversation begins to talk about a totally different subject.
That distracts the group's attention to the new topic and the focus
shifts.
> Lastly, I have been on the net for well-nigh 20
> years now and I have never heard of any "netiquette" requirement that
> say I need to consult anyone before I set the subject of a post.
And I bow to your superior knowledge of the "netiquette". But, what
prevented you from starting a new thread altogether? Why was there a
need to graft your topic within the body of Ravi Sahib's thread? Am I
being too naive?
Naseer
Jamil
Afzal Sahib
No, I did not come across this interpretation anywhere else. I alone
am guilty. The reason for coming up with this meaning was that I
found other, usual, interpretations unsatisfactory. That such in-
depth discussion is taking place here on the meaning of this she'r,
alone points to the fact that in spite of all the interpretations the
she'r remains a mystery.
This includes Ghalib's own interpretation. As Baad-e-Siyaah Sahib
pointed out, the fact that an interpretation is by the artist himself
is irrelevant. Poet creates, readers interpret. Of course I am aware
of the other school of thought too, which debunks this idea. This
question has never been resolved.
In my opinion, if the she'r had "parde peh" instead of "parde meN",
there would be no ambiguity. Most of the other interpretations ignore
this difference and they would be exactly the same if the word was peh
rather than meN.
Jamil
Jamil
Baad-e-Siyaah sahib
I realize I should not have said paintings from the East in general,
when I was referring to paintings in the tradition of the society to
which Qais belonged, i.e. Arab paintings. Indeed Persian art had a
tradition of nude paintings, and of course there is the well known
ancient Indian art (painting and sculpture) depicting the nude form.
I agree with your other point: If the work of art is inspired, the
artist's interpretation is not necessarily any more authentic than
anyone else's. That is why there are still multiple interpretations
even of those few ash'aar on which Ghalib himself commented.
Jamil
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
Jaane bhi deejiye, mu'aaf kar deejiye !
If what UVR Saheb did comes under the category of a crime, what
I am going to say now will be nothing short of abetment !
Actually, I sort of welcomed UVR Saheb's "intrusion" and felt
happy that he was initiating something that is so close to my
heart --- and that is an in-depth discussion of a literary
topic. To me, it didn't matter that this discussion began in
a thread that was already "on", so to say.
They say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You
can see for yourself the number of responses to UVR Saheb's
question, as compared to the responses to the "original"
topic. One could be forgiven for thinking that ....pehle
mauzoo' ka to bharam khul gaya .... though that too was a
Ghalib sher.
To ab aap GHussa thook deejiye --- please !
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
I must compliment you on your perspicacity. You have not only
pointed out certain links (that are very relevant), but you
have also brought in an absolutely new angle, which not only
seems valid, but is also very characteristic of Ghalib's style.
In some cases, Ghalib leaves a lot unsaid and leaves it to
the reader to sort of fill in the blanks on his own. One
famous example is the following sher :
Qafas men mujh se roodaad-e-chaman kehte na Dar hum~dum
Giri hai jis pe kal bijlee, woh mera aashiyaaN kyoN ho ?
The theory you have put forward falls in the same category. It
neatly covers the word "bhi". In this sense, Ghalib has referred
to other channels or conduits through which the legend of Laila
and MajnooN has come down to us. These other channels (left
unmentioned) are "the word of mouth" or oral traditions, and
the written chronicles (poetry and prose). All of them tell
the same story (about Qais becoming absolutely destitute).
The final proof of the first misra' proposition is the visual
medium i.e. pictures and drawings. And even here Qais is
depicted in such a manner that leaves no one in doubt that
passionate love leads to absolute ruin. Q.E.D.
As we have already seen, this angle has neither been stated by
the various exegesists, nor even by Ghalib in his own personal
explanation. But this does not necessarily mean that Ghalib
never had this idea (of other channels) in his mind. Be that
as it may.
We have also talked about UVR Saheb's belief that the poet's
own interpretation is the only correct interpretation. I too
had indicated my agreement with this view --- for two reasons.
One : "KHayaal-e-KHaatir-e-ahbaab chaahiye har dum". {Agar
har dum naheeN to kabhi kabhi to zaroor hi chaahiye !}
Secondly, such instances are very very few where the poet himself
has offered his own explanation. At the same time, I had also
mentioned that there is nothing wrong if readers formulate other
interpretations which may seem valid.
There is another school of thought (very much discernible in this
very thread) which does not lay great store by the view propounded
by UVR Saheb. One ALUPer has put forth this counter-argument in a
very eloquent manner --- I quote :
"I don't think in art there is thing called correct
interpretation.
Even in some cases an artist's interpretation can be foolish
as often
an artist is not a good critic just as a good critic is not a
good
artist. Good art is created in a moment of inspiration
therefore an
artist�s interpretation of his own work is post facto like
anybody
else's. As an appreciator we expect a sense of exhilaration on
encounter with art, it may come just by seeing or listening
to it or
through somebody's deft interpretation. Eventually it depends
on an
individual what he finds best in a work of art."
Janaab UVR Saheb and myself have had quite a few discussions in
this regard in the past. Perhaps Naseer Saheb and other
participants in this thread might have seen these debates.
It was and continues to be my view that we should not stress the
"correctness" part. But we should give the author's view due
respect. Other valid interpretations can also be discussed in a
free and frank manner.
But, with particular reference to the paragraph quoted above, the
argument may be applicable to a greater degree in the case of
paintings or sculpture. But we need not apply it as a general
rule of thumb to literary efforts. And my "reservations" in
this regard are only in those cases where the author's own
view (or his interpretation) is readily available. Otherwise,
one can completely disregard the poet or writer's view, supplant
it with one's own (different) interpretation and then proceed
to criticise the author, based solely on this second inter -
pretation. Such a criticism would be manifestly unfair.
In a juridical sense, this may amount to assuming a fact NOT in
evidence and, based on that, reach a decision to convict an
accused. In such cases (where the author's views are well
known), one can still put forward a different view. But that
should not form the basis of patently critical comments.
Just a thought.
Afzal
v
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jamil Saahab
While the idea can certainly be discussed. but I am reminded of the
famous story of how kalidas got married to a woman of great wisdom
because she misinterpreted his answers to be those of great wisdom. in
our case, there is no marriage taking place, but I would feel strange
if the original writer had a certain level of intellect and other
people discussing it attribute more depth than existing.
just because someone is seen as a holy cow, it does not mean that
every one of his couplets has to be manifestations of great intellect.
case in point, me looking for a deeper meaning in the 'bharam khul
jaaye...' couplet. it possibly is what one of my friends calls a
'Tuchchhaa sher' :)
so if we are discussing a sher beyond a level which Ghaalib intended
it would prob be a case of muddayii sust gawaah chust.
UVR
>
> > The orthodoxy did not approve of pictures and sculptures of the human
> > form. This was and is connected to the worship of "graven images",
> > i.e. idolatry.Paintings of the "'uryaan" form would be even more of a
> > "taboo" in the consevative Arab
> > society. Despite this, there are cases of the human form and nudity
> > being depicted in paintings as the link below shows.
>
>
> > Although the story was known in the Farsi speaking world even in
> > Rodaki's times, it was popularised by the Azeri Persian poet, Nizami
> > Ganjawi (1141-1209) in the shape of "Lailii-o-Majnuun". This was one
> > of the five (Khamsa or paNj gaNj) long narrative poems which he wrote.
> > By his time manuscripts began to be illustrated by pictures and his
> > Khamsah are no exception.
>
Afzal saahib,
(I will reply to Naseer saahib's post soon, time permitting, on the
matter of Ghalib's sh'er itself).
Regarding "correct" vs. "other" interpretations, I would not like to
restart the discussion here, but I am pretty sure what I intended to
say in all of our past conversations is this:
1. At the time a sh'er is composed, a poet has an idea (or ideas; for,
indeed, there may be more than one) in his mind. This idea, then,
which the poet had originally intended to convey by the sh'er is the
*ORIGINAL* meaning of the sh'er.
2. No other meanings could have existed at the time of compostion save
the poet's own, and the terms 'correct' and 'incorrect' do not come
into the picture.
3. Subsequent (re)interpretation of the sh'er by others (why, by the
poet himself too!) can either coincide with the "original" meaning of
the sh'er, or reveal hitherto unknown meanings of the sh'er. Nothing
wrong with those other meanings. The more the merrier, say I.
4. The poet is in a unique spot vis a vis his sh'er that no other
individual can be. This does not invalidate or put down other
interpretations of the poet's sh'er, but there is something unique
about the poet's original intent that does not exist in other "post
facto" interpretations.
That's my position on this matter.
-UVR.
Naseer
Ravi Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
is baat meN ko'ii shak nahiiN kih kisii baRe se baRe shaa'ir kaa har
ik shi'r ik naa-yaab yaa kam-yaab gauhar nahiiN ho saktaa. phir bhii,
Khvaah mazaaq hii kii ruu se, Ghalib ke is shi'r ko "Tuchchaa" kahnaa
nah sirf Ghalib ke saath naa-insaafii hai balkih is shi'r ke liye aise
lafz kaa isti'maal nihaayat ghaTiyaa lagtaa hai.
aap ne is shi'r kii tashriiH Frances.W.Prichett kii site par to zaruur
dekhii ho gii. nahiiN to phir zaruur dekhiye gaa. mumkin hai kih aap
aur aap ke dost kii raa'e par kuchh asar paR jaa'e.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/219/219_04.html?
Naseer
UVR
>
> just because someone is seen as a holy cow, it does not mean that
> every one of his couplets has to be manifestations of great intellect.
> case in point, me looking for a deeper meaning in the 'bharam khul
> jaaye...' couplet. it possibly is what one of my friends calls a
> 'Tuchchhaa sher' :)
>
> so if we are discussing a sher beyond a level which Ghaalib intended
> it would prob be a case of muddayii sust gawaah chust.
Ravi saahib,
yeh sh'er itnaa bhi buraa naheeN hai, saahib!
The way I understand this sh'er, it seems that Ghalib has devised a
rather clever way of extolling the beauty of his beloved. The
beloved's handsome height and tantalizing tresses are attributes that
other poets too have used to great effect, but Ghalib is something
else.
First, he focuses our attention on her height, but in a 'diversionary'
way -- he starts off by ostensibly criticizing the beloved for being
too much thrall of her own statuesque stature. This way, he makes
sure we are squarely focused on (a) her height, (b) her hauteur (c)
his 'criticism' -- and THEN he comes out and unleashes on us her
captivating curls and her flowing mane! What a masterstroke! In one
swoop he turns the ambience of the couplet fully around, and we
realize to our utter amazement what Ghalib was really doing all
along. Her height and her hair, her cascading curls and her comely
curves -- just see how he has weaved everything into a rich tapestry
of words. What is all this if not verbal legerdemain?
So, yeah, there may not be any "hidden meaning" in the words of the
sh'er, but no one can deny that this couplet is imbued with the sweet
nectar of sheer poetry. You should take that word of your friend's
back to him and tell him to stick it.
-UVR.
UVR
>
> Ghalib is saying that in the spoken word Qais is described as
> "'uryaan", in the written word (prose and poetry) he is depicted as "
> 'uryaan" and even though the human form in general and nudity in
> particular is a big "no no" in the drawn or painted form (picture/
> tasviir), still Qais "tasviir ke parde meN bhii" is portrayed as
> '"uryaan". The society can not and does not "cover up" Qais's
> "'uryaanii" even in a visual form which blatantly stares at you.
> "shauq" can not be put in "shackles".
>
> Naseer
What a fascinating interpretation, Naseer saahib! You have unraveled
the mystery of "tasweer ke parde meN" as well as of "bhi" in a very
masterful way. One that I would say (going by Dr. FWP's site) is
superior even to Ghalib's own explanation of it!
Thank you.
-UVR.
v
Dear UVR, Naseer and deegar Saahibaan
Fascinating interpretation of both the couplets. Khudaa bhii mil gayaa
aur visaal e sanam bhii..
I cannot go and tell that friend to 'stick it' :) woh khaate peete
ghar kaa hai. and I am a bit risk averse. hence I will let it be. :)
bharga...@gmail.com
> some months ago I had posted 'aah ko chaahiye' as a ghazal which
> flummoxes me. well it still does. but the extreme feeling of being
> flummoxed has been mitigated thanks to the palliative discussion on
> this group.
>
> there is another couplet which I wonder about at times
>
> bharam khul jaaye zaalim tere qaamat kee daraazii kaa
> agar is turrah e pur pecho Kham kaa pech o Kham nikle
>
> literally translated it would mean
>
> the claims of your tall stature would stand exposed
> if this curly and twisted forelock uncurls itself
>
> but that doesnt make too much sense.
>
> so is the poet saying that the fact that I have attached myself as a
> forelock to your great tresses on your tall figure because I love you.
> but dont go arrogant on me. if this little curly tuft of hair was to
> unwind itself, the reputation of your tall stature would stand
> exposed.
>
> any expert comments?
>
> thanks in advance.
>
> Ravi
Ravi ji, this couplet has a story in making,
once a shayr friend (I don't remember the name exactly) came to Ghalib's home when incidently Ghalib was not at home and his wife who was very tall compare to Ghalib, as Ghalib was little short in physical height, opened the door and informed him that Ghalib is not at home and you may come later, as in those days ladies of house used to remain in other room behind the parda, this was the first time friend saw Ghalib's wife and her tallness so while going out he wrote the first line on the door. 'भरम खुल जाए ज़ालिम तेरे कामत की दराज़ी का' when Ghalib came and saw what was written he asked wife who had come. and then went out and wrote the second line
अगर इस तुर्राह ए पुर पेचो ख़म का पेच ओ ख़म निकले.' making it a sher of his ghazal hazaro khwahishe aisi nikli. and called the friend so that he would read it.
Naseer
Naseer
Naseer
I have managed to find FWP's translation of the relevant part of a letter written in 1869 in which Qais's nakedness is mentioned. She provides an English translation and the reference given is a book compiled by Khaleeq Anjum bearing the title "Ghalib ke Khutuut" published in 1985 (Vol 2 P 837). Unfortunately, I have not been able to find this publication to quote Ghalib's actual words in Urdu.
" (32) on the nakedness of Majnun: in a letter (1865), "Rival" has the meaning of "opponent". That is to say, ardour is the enemy of proper possession. The proof is that Qais, who in life wondered around naked, remained naked even within the veil of a picture. The pleasure of it all is that Majnun is always pictured with his body naked, wherever he is pictured." (Khaliq Anjum 1985, 2:837)
My interpretation of the misra3 "Qais tasviir ke parde meN bhii 3urnaaN niklaa" matches Ghalib's own thought pattern!:-)
Naseer