Verse 11835aarakhte the


G5

In this meter the first long syllable may be replaced by a short; and the next-to-last long syllable may be replaced by two shorts.


1
when our life passed wretchedly/'in this shape', Ghalib
2 a
will even/also we remember that we used to have a Lord ?
2 b
how even/also we will remember that we used to have a Lord !
2 c
as if even/also we will remember that we used to have a Lord !

References
Arshi, Imtiyaz Ali Ghazal# 207
Raza, Kalidas Gupta 386
Hamid Ali Khan Open Image

Ghalib chose to include in the divan only this closing-verse . But if we rejoin this verse to 150,2x and 150,3x , the companions that originally preceded it, it takes on an intriguingly literary cast. The speaker's life has passed 'in this shape'-- that is, no doubt, 'wretchedly', in an idiom that Nazm confirms. But still, there are many kinds of wretchedness: perhaps every miserable life is miserable in its own way. The clever use of 'in this shape' invites (or requires) the reader to speculate and imagine-- was it simply a matter of more misery, or unadulterated misery, or some special kind of misery? The second line makes masterful use of the triple possibilities of . All three of the readings resonate wonderfully with the first line. Since the speaker's life has passed 'in this shape'-- then what? =Perhaps he asks a genuine yes-or-no question (2a): Will he, or won't he, remember that he used to have a Lord? A plausible case could be made either way; he is mulling it over. =Or perhaps he exclaims (2b): how yearningly he'll remember that he used to have a Lord, and how in those days he was much better cared for! Or else he'll remember it urgently, even if futilely, because he's desperate and wants to renew his connection ('there are no atheists in foxholes'). =Or perhaps he exclaims just the opposite (2c): he won't by any means remember that he used to have a Lord-- one who has abandoned him so long and so thoroughly that the Lord's very name is hard to recall. Perhaps, of course, he's abandoned the Lord too, so that the connection of loyalty and memory may have been broken on both sides. And then the , with its alternatives of 'even' he (although one wouldn't expect it from him) versus he 'too' (since he'd do what everybody else does under those circumstances), creates additional possibilities; or else-- perhaps best of all-- it can be read as a colloquially punchy intensifier. The question of time also looms large. The speaker seems to be looking back on his whole life, and describing all of it as wretched. So when was the time when he 'used to have' a Lord? Before birth (in some garden of Paradise)? In infancy? Or did he keep on desperately praying, even when he received no response? (The in the first line, rather than , makes it improbable that the perfect form of the verb is really working as a subjunctive, as it is in 111,7 and elsewhere.) And when will he do the future behavior described by , if not in some mystical afterlife? The question only deepens when the reader reflects that the verb is actually , literally 'to keep' or 'to maintain' a Lord. It almost puts the Lord into the category of household possessions (one 'keeps' a car, after all). Think of the skeptical force of 93,2x , or 174,10 . graphics/despair.jpg