afsos kih dandaa;N kaa kiyaa rizq
falak ne
jin logo;N kii thii dar-;xvur-e ((aqd-e guhar angusht
1) alas, that the heavens made [it] a food of the
teeth!
2) those people whose finger was worthy of a necklace/collar of pearl
((aqd : 'A necklace, a collar; ... a string (of pearls, &c.)'. (Platts p.762)
In case anyone finds the grammar of the verse a bit confusing,
here's my reconstruction of its ideal prose form-- afsos
kih falak ne [un logo;N kii angusht ko] dandaa;N kaa rizq kiyaa /
jin logo;N kii angusht dar;xvur-e ((aqd-e guhar thii . It's still rather
a stretch, though, to have to insert the whole correlative construction
into the first line in order to justify his relative clause in the second
one.
The gesture of touching the tip of the first finger of the right hand to the front lower teeth conveys astonishment, perplexity, bafflement. This mood can easily shade into stupefaction and helpless dismay, as Ghalib presumably intends us to realize. The teeth are parted to permit the finger to be conspicuously perched there, so it's possible to imagine that the teeth encircle the finger as if to prey upon it. Thus people whose finger deserves a necklace made of pearls, are instead condemned to have their finger encircled only by a ring of (pearly) teeth.
This image works in several ways. On a literal level, the teeth surround and thus implicitly threaten the finger, as if the finger were encircled by predators. On a metaphorical level, the teeth enable the finger to express stupefaction and dismay. And when the two lines are juxtaposed, the teeth are compared, to their disadvantage, with pearls. Both teeth and pearls are white and shining, but teeth are humble while pearls are aristocratic; teeth are mere body parts while pearls are expensive; teeth are dangerous, while pearls are delicate; teeth just happen to grow, while pearls are the result of much travail (as for example in {78,2}).
That being said, this still seems to be basically a 'mushairah verse'; see {14,9} for more on this concept. When you've got it, you've got it, and there's nothing more left to keep on thinking about.
Hasrat:
Those people whose finger was worthy of a string of pearls, alas that the heavens made their finger the food of teeth-- that is, alas that those people have their finger pressed to their teeth in vain longing. (50)
Bekhud Mohani:
The revolutions of the times made the fingers of those people the prey of teeth, who were worthy to have pearl rings on their fingers. That is, the times have overpowered the most beautiful ones, and so ground them up that the finger would remain on the teeth [with amazement]. That is, the times have always been the enemy of people of accomplishment and beauty. (114)
Baqir:
[If dandaa;N is accepted, then it becomes] those people are biting their fingers in vain longing. The meaning is that possessors of accomplishment lead lives of poverty and vain longing, not of peace and rest. (148)
FWP:
SETS == MUSHAIRAH
FOOD: {6,4}
Ghalib originally composed a ghazal of ten verses (Raza p. 133), from which he chose three (Hamid p. 41) for publication in his divan. More on this topic: S. R. Faruqi's choices.
There's a textual disagreement about this verse. Nazm defends diidaa;N [worms] instead of dandaa;N [teeth] (47), as does Bekhud Dihlavi (90), as does Baqir (148), as does Chishti (402), as does Mihr (186). As always, I follow Arshi, and this time with pleasure-- I think dandaa;N makes for fine wordplay, instead of mere grotesquerie.
And in fact, without wordplay, what does this verse have to offer? Surely whatever piquancy it has comes from the comparison/contrast between teeth and pearls. (Worms and pearls offer no possibilities at all, as far as I can see.)