Verse 4after 1847armile


G3

1
there's no criticism/'speech' toward you, but, oh companion
2
give/'say' my greetings, if you would encounter the Messenger

'Word, speech, discourse; a complete sentence or proposition; composition, work; --disputation; anything said (or to be said); against, objection, question'.

References
Arshi, Imtiyaz Ali Ghazal# 212
Raza, Kalidas Gupta 399-400
Hamid Ali Khan Open Image

The central word is obviously , which is positioned with fine flair right in the middle of the first line, and resonates with in the second line. (The way is so precisely echoed by is also an enjoyable sound effect.) The speaker speaks to his friend-- in order to make the friend himself a speaker-- an oral messenger to the (written-letter-bearing) Messenger . In a verse about trust and untrustworthiness, about written letters and oral messages, about complaints and greetings, every meaning and overtone of (see the definition above) works beautifully, and enhances our enjoyment of the verse. In particular, can mean either 'to hold discourse with someone', or 'to have an objection, etc., against someone'. Thus on the first reading, the first phrase becomes something like 'I have nothing to say to you' (because my message is only for the Messenger); on the second reading, it becomes 'I have no quarrel with you' (but I do have one with the Messenger). In either case, the tone of voice (friendly? hostile? neutral? wryly amused?) will provide a further range of interpretive suggestions. It's thus very markedly a verse of implication , and we're fortunate to have Ghalib himself explain (with unusual elaborateness and care) what he means to imply. In his explication of what he calls 'this theme ', Ghalib refers first to 'the poet', then later to 'the lover', in a way that completely identifies them with each other. His third-person references also make it entirely clear that neither one of these abstract personages is to be identified with himself. Ghalib does not explain his prominent wordplay with . Why not? My theory: because his correspondent is not a leading light of literary subtlety, and has been having (the usual?) trouble getting any sense out of the verse (or out of several others, including the not-so-difficult 115,6 ). Ghalib good-naturedly gives him the 'meaning' that he's asked for, but doesn't feel obliged to provide an exhaustive discussion. In only one ( 62,9 ) of the four verses explained in that letter does he discuss the wordplay; and that one is so simple there's not much else to discuss. graphics/messagecase.jpg