Ghazal 27, Verse 6

Nazm:

That is, airs and graces are a claim that demands the heart. I didn't even let the occasion for the claim arise. (28)

== Nazm page 29

Vajid:

Urdu text: Vajid 1902 {27}

Bekhud Dihlavi:

To say that airs and graces are seeking out the heart and making a claim is a new kind of invention. The meaning is that on her side the airs and graces had as yet not even begun; even before them I offered up my heart. The second pleasure of thought in this verse is that I became a lover merely of beauty, which was in a state of simplicity. Not even airs and graces, which are considered the adornment of beauty, were necessary to overpower me. (57)

Bekhud Mohani :

The beloved's showing airs and graces is as if to make a claim of the heart. We are a lover of beauty, and a perfect beholder of beauty wherever it is visible. We offered our heart. We couldn't wait for the claim. (71)

FWP:

SETS == KA/KE/KI; KAHAN

There's a nice doubleness in hame;N dimaa;G kahaa;N , which can be either a question, or a scornful exclamation. Literally, where indeed would we have a mind or fancy, or desire for the 'claim' or 'dunning' or 'importunity' of beauty, after we had already given up our heart in the very first moment? In the absence of our heart, where would this mood or desire even be located? And in its idiomatic sense, it's something like 'who needs that?!' or 'how could anybody put up with that?!" For another example of this idiomatic use, see {68,3}. (The idiomatic compound verb de bai;Thnaa suggests stubbornness and firm determination.)

And then there's the clever use of ;husn ke taqaa.zaa kaa -- here the kaa forms work as flexibly as any i.zaafat . For is the claim or dunning or importunity 'of' beauty something that beauty does to us, or something that we do to beauty? The grammar makes either reading possible.

Do we surrender our heart so quickly and absolutely because we couldn't stand it if Beauty had to dun us, or importune us, or nag us, or otherwise press its claim on us? Such a thing would be humiliating both for Beauty (since it shouldn't have to go to such lengths to receive the homage that is its due), and for us (since we shouldn't be so dilatory or reluctant, like debtors trying to escape from a creditor).

Or is it the other way around-- do we surrender our heart so quickly and absolutely because we couldn't stand it if we had to dun, or importune, or nag, or otherwise press our claim on Beauty? Our insisting on a show of more airs and graces, more coquetries, more attentions before we gave our heart, would be vulgar in the extreme. It would be humiliating for Beauty (since it would imply that Beauty had to try hard, over time, through a series of displays of charm, to obtain our heart). And it would be humiliating for us, since we'd be in the position of a creditor demanding payment before handing over the merchandise. How could we endure such a role?

Or do we surrender our heart so quickly and absolutely because we find 'airs and graces' and other explicit signs of the 'claim' of beauty distasteful, and we want to avoid being subjected to them? Perhaps we feel that flirtatiousness or coquetry on the beloved's part is somehow beneath her dignity-- she should command or ignore, but not flirt. Perhaps Beauty should just 'be', and not lower itself to make any overt 'claim'. Thus we have no 'mind' to put up with this; we will do anything necessary to spare her, and ourselves, the humiliating parade of 'airs and graces'.

For another example of the possibilities of taqaa.zaa , see {24,5}.