Ghazal 108, Verse 7

Nazm:

This is a sneer at the 'people of wisdom', that if there is a blister on their foot, then they apply henna to it. That is, for one thing the blister itself would be a cause of lagging, and on top of that they also apply henna, and became fatigued and 'excused'. By comparison to this, praise of the 'people of madness' is intended: that with their blister-filled feet they run around in the thorn-filled desert. (113)

== Nazm page 113

Bekhud Dihlavi:

That is, first of all a man with blisters on his feet becomes 'excused' from walking and moving about. And on top of this, by way of medicine, to put henna on them makes the feet absolutely useless. By comparison to this, look at the 'people of madness': even with blistered feet, they traverse the thorn-filled desert. (164)

Bekhud Mohani:

He expresses the virtue of madness: the people of madness, running over thorns, burst their blisters. They don't, like the people of wisdom, apply henna to their blisters. (216)

FWP:

SETS == BHI; EXCLAMATION; GROTESQUERIE

For another, and much more graceful, use in this ghazal of a hennaed foot to indicate slowness, see {108,3}. By contrast, the present verse hovers on the edge of what I call grotesquerie. The commentators explain the image that they feel underlies this verse: that of mad lovers with blistered feet, running over thorny paths-- until the bloody blisters burst on the thorns, and create red patterns on the feet like those of henna (they don't explicitly extend the imagery this far, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt). (For more on henna, see {18,4}.) I say, ugh! Here's where my own taste parts company with the ghazal world.

But of course, the verse itself also deserves the benefit of the doubt. For its actual words concern not mad bloody-blister-footed lovers, but persons of contrivance or invention or forethought-- clever persons who so arrange things that they are doubly excused from putting their blistered feet to the ground. Playing it safe, they put henna on their blisters, perhaps just with the excuse of festivity, or perhaps by way of medicine, as Bekhud Dihlavi maintains. Thus they are doubly able to avoid hard work, danger, and running around even on smooth paths, much less on thorns. To the mad lover, such shows of languour, fastidiousness, and self-regard are ludicrous, or even contemptible. So he exclaims sarcastically about them.

This is the general commentarial opinion. But since the verse is so open-ended, I want to take a different direction. The 'people of contrivance' are, by definition, clever enough to present themselves always in a good light, and to make everything of theirs desirable. Thus they are ready to decorate, gloss over, henna-adorn, everything they possibly can. In the process, they distract attention from their worse features by diverting the eye to beautifications instead. Since they do this so habitually, if they have blisters on their feet, such that the feet would be unattractive and one wouldn't normally call attention to them, they go right ahead and put henna on them too, just as they do on everything else. This is a resourceful attempt at concealment-- which invokes the secondary meaning of vaamaa;Ndagii , 'openness, exposure'. The speaker then exclaims sarcastically at the 'openness' of the people of contrivance-- which is really, and very cleverly, a concealment.

Or one could ask, if the lazy 'people of contrivance' are so clever at avoiding toil and trouble, how would they come to have blisters on their feet in the first place? Perhaps lovers themselves are, in their own way, 'people of contrivance'. They are joyous in the midst of their sufferings. When the time comes for festivity and celebration, even their blistered feet will not stop them. They are ready to put henna on right over the blisters, as a way of affirming that the blisters are natural to their feet, that they accept and even celebrate the pain, that they are ready to cope with whatever eventualities come their way. Thus one may exclaim at their 'fatigues' or 'delays' which are not really due to henna, as a bystander would think, but to pain; or at their 'openness', their rejoicing in their wretched condition.

And why the plural abstraction? Just to emphasize the complexity and multifariousness of their behavior? For more on such pluralized abstractions, see {1,2}.