go vaa;N nahii;N pah vaa;N ke nikaale hu))e
to hai;N
ka((be se un buto;N ko bhii nisbat hai duur kii
1) although they are not there, still they are [in
a state of having been] expelled from there
2) with the Ka'bah, even/also
those/these idols have a distant relationship
nisbat : 'Referring (to, - se ); deriving (from); --reference, respect, regard (to); attribute; relation, connexion; affinity; analogy; comparison; --ratio; proportion; --relationship by marriage; matrimonial alliance; betrothal; --a relation, or connexion; --a conundrum'. (Platts p.1137)
The general rule is that the mention of idols is pleasing in a verse where it would be a metaphor for beautiful ones; otherwise, it's nothing at all. In this one, the late author's special style is not present. Perhaps some poet might emerge who would mention idols in the real meaning, but it's always unpleasing. And the metaphor of an idol for the beloved is proper for a number of reasons: beauty and dignity and aloofness and silence and being worshipped, etc. (261)
He says, we grant that now the idols are not in the chamber of the Ka'bah, but at some former time they were there, and they have been expelled from there. Thus these idols have a distant relationship to the Ka'bah. (318)
In Janab [Nazm] Tabataba'i's commentary I agree only with the part in which he has written the causes of idols' being used as a metaphor for the beloved. The rest of his commentary, through my ill-fortune I cannot understand. The claim that the mention of idols in theie original meaning is devoid of pleasure-- the Lord knows on what proofs it is based! And to top it all, the commentary has begun like this: that this is the 'general rule'. The Lord knows who has established this 'general rule'! (487)
The wit and pleasure of this verse lie in the cleverly chosen word nisbat . Its Arabic root, nasab , means 'Genealogy; lineage, race, stock, family, caste' (Platts p. 1137). And among the meanings of nisbat in Urdu are very common and prominent ones that involve just such a sense of family ties: 'relationship by marriage', or a kinsman ('relation, connexion', in Platts's English usage).
Many pre-Islamic idols were removed from the Ka'bah by the Prophet's command, and at least some of them were goddesses. Does this mean that these idols were formerly members of the Ka'bah 'lineage' or 'family', but then were banished from the family? If so, it's tempting to imagine that they were banished for some kind of bad behavior. We all know that the 'idols' of the ghazal world, the beloveds, are willful, arrogant, and perhaps less than chaste. Does that mean these idols/beloveds, despite their unacceptable behavior, still have some kind of Divine blood in their veins? Is there still perhaps some kind of grudging recognition by the Lord of the Ka'bah, of their 'distant' kinship? Playing with such thoughts is just the kind of 'mischievousness' [sho;xii] that Ghalib so often enjoys.
Less mischievously, the reference can also be one of philosophical or theological meditation: what in fact is the relationship between the true God and false pretenders to divinity? This is a general question, and also a particular one. The Ka'bah was apparently sacred in some very real sense even before the idols were expelled from it; otherwise, the need to expel the idols would hardly have been so pressing. So if the false idols were parts of a true holy space, does that give them any kind of a claim on it? Were they mere interlopers? The word nisbat , and the ongoingness of the relationship, suggest something more; but as so often, Ghalib leaves it for us to decide exactly how much more.
In his commentary on {231,3}, Ghalib points out, 'Notice that [in {231,6}] pah is short for par , with the meaning of "but".' It's somewhat surprising to see this, because really, in that situation what else would it be? Is Ghalib assuming that he needs to help out an exceptionally inept reader?
Ghalib:
[See his comment in {231,3}.]