Verse 11816aahai


G2

1
my existence is an expanse of amazement/stupefaction, inhabited by longing
2
what we/they call a 'lament'-- it is the Anqa of only/emphatically that world

'Width, spaciousness, openness; extensiveness (of ground, &c.); an open area, a court, a yard; a spacious tract, a wide expanse of land, a plain (syn. )'.
'Perturbation and stupor (of mind), astonishment, amazement, consternation'.
'Inhabited, populated, peopled; full of buildings and inhabitants, populous; settled (as a colony or town); cultivated, stored; full; occupied.... --flourishing, prosperous; pleasant; happy'.

References
Arshi, Imtiyaz Ali Ghazal# 181
Raza, Kalidas Gupta 277-79
Nuskhah-e-Hamidiyah 234-241
Asi, Abdul Bari 238-240
Gyan Chand 367-371
Hamid Ali Khan Open Image

In case anyone thought the previous verse, 144,1 , was too down-to-earth, here's the ideal antidote: a wildly esoteric, unvisualizably abstract one. The speaker's existence is a world of its own. This world consists of at least three things: a spacious plain of 'amazement' (on this see 51,9x ); a habitation lived in by 'longing'; and an Anqa bird. Moreover, in the second line we learn that the Anqa has some kind of complex, crossover identity. What people call a 'lament' is the Anqa of that world. But what does this mean exactly? Does what is called a 'lament' in this world somehow morph, in that world, into an Anqa? Or does that world use 'Lament' as the name of the bird which in this world we call an Anqa? An Anqa would be exactly the right kind of bird to fly over the expansive field of 'amazement' and the town of 'longing', after all. Thus in that world, a 'Lament' would be a kind of bird that was known to exist, but that could never even be seen, much less captured. Nazm's reading, which emphasizes the stupefied silence imposed by 'amazement'-- on lamentation as well as all other speech-- makes good use of this sense of the Anqa. Another question also hovers around the second line. To say 'what people call an X' is often a way to question a common opinion-- people think it's an X, but it's really a Y. Could the (unidentified) people possibly be wrong in their judgment? (Compare 20,6 , for a case in which the people are definitely wrong.) If people can see a crow and mistakenly call it a raven, perhaps they can see an Anqa and mistakenly call it a 'lament'. is there perhaps something wrong with our this-worldly notion of 'lament'? Needless to say, the verse gives us no way to decide. I'd call this a verse of mood . Isn't its real charm the obscure eerieness of the first line? The silence and amazement are a perfect semantic fit to the elegance of the imagery. The second line provides a delicate finishing touch that completes the effect. Ghalib's other Anqa verses tend to be equally subtle and obscure. graphics/emptycage.jpg