be-;xabar mat kah hame;N be-dard ;xvud-biinii
se puuchh
qulzum-e ;zauq-e na:zar me;N aa))inah paa-yaab thaa
1a) don't call us unaware/ignorant, cruel one-- ask
Self-regardingness!
1b) don't ignorantly/unwittingly call us cruel-- ask Self-regardingness!
2) in the ocean of the relish of/for sight, the mirror was {within its depth
/ fordable}
be-;xabar : 'Uninformed; without intelligence, senseless, ignorant, stupid; incautious, imprudent, careless, heedless; --unwittingly, unintentionally'. (Platts p.202)
paa-yaab : 'Within (one's) depth, fordable'. (Platts p.213)
SETS == A,B; GENERATORS
MIRROR: {8,3}
Raza p. 124; Raza p. 125. S. R. Faruqi's choices. Ghalib originally composed one ghazal of eleven verses, and another of twelve verses, from which he selected verses to include in a new ghazal in his published divan. This is the unpublished fifth verse of the second of the two original ghazals.
Well, Faruqi has given this one his highest ranking, but he hasn't commented on it. Perhaps I'll be able to get him to provide some thoughts. But when I look at it myself, I simply find too many possibilities, with no particular way to narrow them down. This means that the verse is among what I call the 'generators', verses that reject all attempts at closure-- not only can you not definitively choose among three or four readings (as is common in Ghalib's verses), but you often can't even confidently formulate a small number of readings to try to choose among.
At least the literal grammar of the verse is fairly straightforwardly translatable, and I have translated it, word by word. You, dear reader, can see for yourself exactly where the difficulties lie. How many important entities are in the verse? There's the addressee (who receives the intimate tuu and is presumably the beloved), and the speaker, who seems to be the lover.
But then is 'Self-regardingness' a form of behavior-- and if so, is it the beloved's, or the lover's?-- or is it a personified abstract quality, an agent in its own right (since it can be 'asked' something)? And the same goes for the mirror-- is it 'within its depth', a description that makes it sound like a possibly independent agent, wading through the water; or is it 'fordable', which makes it sound like a mere shallow place amidst deeper water?
And then, of course, we have the two possible readings of be-;xabar in the first line, and the i.zaafat of ;zauq-e na:zar (is it a relish 'of' sight, experienced during sight, or is it a relish 'for' sight, experienced as a longing to see?). And even more radically, we have the 'A,B' situation: how do we connect the two lines? There are so many possible ways to do so that I really find myself at a loss for how to start. This doesn't seem satisfactory. I think I must be missing something. I will give more thought to this verse.
For other verses about 'self-regardingness', see {22,2}.
Gyan Chand:
Whose is the 'relish of/for sight', the beloved's or the lover's? From both aspects, two meanings emerge:
1) Oh cruel one, don't call us unaware and self-ignoring! You, before the mirror, were so absorbed in self-regardingness that your relish for the sight was as fathomless as an ocean in which the mirror, having come within its depth, was passing. That is, you were immersed in mirror-regardingness. What did you know about my state? Thus you're not entitled to call us unaware.
2) Don't call us unaware! What do you know-- ask your own self-regardingness! You were looking at the mirror, and we were looking at you with such intensity and absorbedness that our relish of/for sight was like an ocean, in which the mirror, within its depth, was wandering around.
The first meaning is better. From 'self-regardingness' it appears that the relish of/for sight is that of only/especially the beloved. (81)