Ghazal 226, Verse 6x

{226,6x}

takalluf-saaz-e rusvaa))ii hai ;Gaafil sharm-e ra((naa))ii
dil-e ;xuu;N-gashtah dar dast-e ;hinaa-aaluudah ((uryaa;N hai

1) the {pains/elaboration}-{maker/apparatus/ornamentation} of disgrace, {heedlessly / heedless one}, is the shame/modesty of loveliness/grace
2) the turned-to-blood heart in the henna-smeared hand is naked

Notes:

takalluf : 'Taking (anything) upon oneself gratuitously or without being required to do it, gratuitousness; taking much pains personally (in any matter); pains, attention, industry, perseverance; trouble'. (Platts p.331)

 

saaz : 'Making, preparing, effecting; feigning; —maker; counterfeiter (used as last member of compounds)... ; —s.m. Arms, accoutrements; apparatus; instrument, implement; harness; furniture; ornament'. (Platts p.625)

 

sharm : 'Shame, bashfulness, modesty'. (Platts p.725)

 

gashtah : 'Returned; turned; inverted, reversed; converted; perverted; changed; —become; formed'. (Platts p.910)

 

aaluudah : 'Defiled, polluted, sullied, soiled, stained, spoiled; smeared, immersed, covered; loaded (with), overwhelmed'. (Platts p.78)

Asi:

Oh heedless one, loveliness/grace ought to show shame, since its takalluf is creating the equipment for disgrace. Through takalluf you apply henna. And that henna-filled hand is saying that you have shed the blood of the heart, and the world is seeing it. This henna-stained condition, by making 'naked' the heart's being turned to blood, is disgracing you. (233)

Zamin:

takalluf is an external decoration and a forced adornment. And the adornment remains in flower for a single day, which is a cause of disgrace; and shame too is a natural thing. So just as disgrace is necessary to takalluf , in the same way loveliness/grace is necessary to shame, because in the personality of the lovely one it must necessarily be present.

It says that 'You did takalluf and applied henna to your hands, and you didn't understand that loveliness/grace is in shame, not in takalluf . At length what happened was that people suspected that the color of henna was the heart's blood of the lover-- which is a cause of disgrace for you.' (351)

Gyan Chand:

Even if after adornment and decoration shame would be felt, disgrace nevertheless occurs. Your hennaed hand has turned my heart to blood. After the applying of henna you might feel a thousandfold shame, but from its color it's clear that you've turned someone's heart to blood, and from his blood color has come upon the hands. In this way, in the hennaed hand the heart that has turned to blood is clearly to be seen.

In the second line both aspects are possible: [One is that] the heart isn't present in the hand; from the henna color it is guessed that she has turned someone's heart to blood. The second aspect is that in fact the heart is really in the hand. Even if the beloved would wish to hide it, it's not possible.

== Gyan Chand, p. 358

FWP:

SETS == MULTIVALENT WORDS ( ;Gaafil )
HENNA: {18,4}
SHAME/HONOR: {3,5}

For background see S. R. Faruqi's choices. For more on Ghalib's unpublished verses, see the discussion in {4,8x}.

Well, something very abstract involving two multivalent i.zaafat constructions is going on in the first line. And just to create further complexities the line asserts that 'A is B', so that 'B is A' is also equally possible. Who could make head or tail of it, without an absurd degree of arbitrariness?

Under the circumstances, we have to be grateful for the relative clarity and simplicity of the second line. It does seem safe to say that the beloved is holding, in her red-stained hand, a blob of blood that once was the lover's heart. The beloved's hand is red-stained because it is smeared with blood, or henna, or both; on the nature and effects of henna, see {18,4}. This heart-blob is 'naked' because it's been removed from the breast that once contained it, and because the beloved's little hand isn't able to conceal it. (On Ghalib's remarkably consistent positioning and use of 'naked' [((uryaa;N], see {6,1}.)

Taking both lines together, it seems safe to say that the first line is a cause, or an effect, or a general principle, of the second line. But the interpretive possibilities for it still remains maddeningly vague and obscure. Just consider the word sharm alone-- is this 'shame' in the sense of 'disgrace, humiliation' ('You've caused us such shame!'), or in the sense simply of a commendable 'bashfulness, modesty'? It's easy to imagine variant readings involving the henna/blood on the beloved's hands and the question of whether she should feel any kind of (guilty or modest) 'shame' about this. For what exactly is the shame 'of' loveliness/grace? (A shame identical to it, a shame felt by it, a shame felt about it, etc., are all possibilities.) It's not at all clear whether the line would approve or disapprove, in either case. And then, compare {18,4}, in which the very use of henna is a cause of rusvaa))ii . This verse is a Rube Goldberg contraption with a few too many parts, and no really compelling way to put them all together. Still, that second line-- it's hard to look away from it.