Verse 6after 1826ilme;N hai


G1

1
a {glory/appearance}-garden of the fire of Hell, our heart-- so be it!
2
the mischief of the tumult of Doomsday-- in whose constitution/'water-and-clay' is it?!

'Water and clay, i.e. the human frame'. (Steingass p.3)
'Earth, mud, clay, bole'.

References
Arshi, Imtiyaz Ali Ghazal# 201
Raza, Kalidas Gupta 375
Hamid Ali Khan Open Image

SETS == PARALLELISM DOOMSDAY: 10,11 JALVAH: 7,4 The commentators point out the repartee-- the verse seems to reply to a sort of teasing remark or taunt. (For more on this colloquial use of , see 9,4 .) The idea would be, 'If I'm (like) the fire of Hell, then you're (like) the turmoil of Doomsday!'. (And, of course, if the lover is to be blamed for hotly and passionately desiring the beloved, she's to be blamed for provoking and inciting him with her disastrous beauty.) There's also a fine affinity among the elements named here: the 'fire' of Hell is supplemented by the 'water' and 'earth' of the petrified phrase , meaning 'constitution, composition'. And of course, the heart is a {glory/appearance}-garden, while the water and earth/'clay' are elements of such a garden. Then , with its double meanings of 'water' on the one hand, and the fire-evoking 'radiance' or 'luster' or 'splendor' on the other, is a perfect crowning touch. The second line is in Ghalib's favorite mode: it asks a simple question-- and of course implies the answer. The first example of this excellent device is the first line in the whole divan : 1,1 . It's also a device beautifully suited to counterattack in an argument ('Well, whose idea was it to go to the party?'). Comparing the beloved to Doomsday is no uncommon idea. My favorite example is the very explicit 96,3 , in which the beloved and Doomsday are actually measured against each other. graphics/hellflower.jpg