Ghazal 215, Verse 7

{215,7}

rok lo gar ;Gala:t chale ko))ii
ba;xsh do gar ;xa:taa kare ko))ii

1) stop someone, if s/he would go mistakenly/erroneously
2) forgive someone, if s/he would make an error/mistake

Notes:

;Gala:t : 'Mistake, error;-- adj. Wrong, erroneous, incorrect, inaccurate; untrue, false'. (Platts p.772)

 

;xa:taa : 'A wrong action, fault; a mistake, an error; an unintentional fault or offence, a slip, an oversight; failure; miss (as of an arrow, &c.)'. (Platts p.490)

Nazm:

[See his comments on this verse in {215,6}.]

== Nazm page 244

Bekhud Dihlavi:

He says, 'If some person would be going on a mistaken road, then immediately stop him; and make his error apparent to his mind. And if some person would commit some fault toward you, then immediately forgive him.' (303)

Bekhud Mohani:

[See his comments on this verse in {215,6}.]

FWP:

SETS == A,B; PARALLELISM; REPETITION

This verse and the previous one have such strong structural affinities that they feel like an unofficial verse-set; for discussion, see {215,6}. The present verse, like its predecessor, masquerades at first as a piece of simple, sententious moral advice. But, as so often, we can't quite get it to hold still and behave.

What is the relationship between the two lines? Do they describe the same situation, or two different ones? Is there a progression from the situation of the first line to that of the second? If we take the first line as literal, the misguided traveler on the wrong road will surely be grateful to if someone would 'stop' him and provide correct directions. But if we take the first line as metaphorical (with 'going down the wrong path' meaning evil-doing), then to 'stop' someone might involve some kind of confrontation. And if one can't 'stop' him, does one then have to 'forgive' him after the fault has been committed? Or are these two quite different situations, such that if you see a ;Gala:t you are to stop the offender, but if you see a ;xa:taa you are to forgive him?

Both ;Gala:t and ;xa:taa are relatively mild words; they suggest error, inadvertence, mistakenness, rather than deliberately evil will. Are we meant to take them as entirely parallel, or to notice subtle differences between them? Is something ;Gala:t a bit milder, or a bit more predictable, so that it can be headed off in advance, while a ;xa:taa can only be pardoned? And so on, with ever more gnomic possibilities, depending on how finely we want to slice and dice them.