Ghazal 21, Verse 11

Nazm:

That is, I absolutely don't make the claim that I can have any peace without you. (23)

== Nazm page 23

Vajid:

Urdu text: Vajid 1902 {21}

Bekhud Dihlavi:

He says, the tyranny or negligence or troubles of separation that seek to make me writhe with restlessness-- when did I ever make before you a claim of liver-possession, that is, of courage and strength? (46)

Bekhud Mohani:

In this verse is a picture of an incident. [The lover is persuading the angry beloved that he never made any arrogant claims of fortitude.] (55)

FWP:

SETS == EXCLAMATION; IDIOMS; KYA
JIGAR: {2,1}

About bhalaa : The verse centers on bhalaa kyaa . I've given the full meaning from Platts, to show its range. (It mustn't be confused with balaa expressions; on them see {58,1}.) The literal meaning of bhalaa is something like 'good', often with overtones of almost simplicity or naivete (for an example of this straightforward use, see {162,9}). But colloquially, bhalaa becomes an interjection that vigorously rejects, or expresses lively irritation or vexation about, whatever is being said. (This sarcasm is what Platts is trying to get at in the second part of the definition, though it doesn't emerge very clearly.) Here are some other such uses: {114,4}, {153,1}. I originally translated this colloquial sense as 'what the hell!', which conveyed the slangy, indignant energy better than any other expression I could think of. But the reference to 'hell' made the English phrase sound more radical than bhalaa does in Urdu. My wonderful ghazal class of spring 2009 thought 'what the hell' was overdone, and after some brainstorming we came up with 'for goodness sake', which has the advantage of retaining the literal sense of the word bhalaa . They all firmly endorsed the change, so even though I was a bit sulky about it, I've now made it. And I dedicate this choice of wording to the collective will of that excellent and inspiring group of students. (Hi, everybody, wherever you are-- remember our evenings in Kent 522B!)

The wonderfully amusing part of this inshaa))iyah verse is its tone of indignation. It is turning what would normally be a reproach-- the charge that the lover has no fortitude or dignity-- into an accusation. What! Who made such a stupid claim as that of having fortitude? Certainly I never did! The very idea! What the hell-- as if lovers have any dignity of temperament!

There is a twofold indignation, in fact: to be suspected of claiming to have dignity or fortitude is an insult, since no true lover would be rash or foolish enough to make such a claim. And it seems from the second line that it's equally insulting for a lover to be suspected of having dignity or fortitude. After all, it's a lover's proper duty to be wild, transgressive, bound for death and destruction-- what an insult to be described in terms appropriate to the Advisor! The lover's indignation is a delight to behold.