Verse 9after 1816aariihai


G8

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
again the door of the courthouse of coquetry {is open / has opened}
2
there's a 'hot market' in the criminal-court

'Equity, justice, law; —a court of law or justice, assize, tribunal'.
'Activity or briskness in a market, brisk (or great) demand, good sale; high value or estimation (of anything)'.
'Of or relating to crime, (a court) for criminal cases'.

References
Arshi, Imtiyaz Ali Ghazal# 188
Raza, Kalidas Gupta 300-01
Nuskhah-e-Hamidiyah 252-253
Hamid Ali Khan Open Image

Well, here in {164,9-13} we have a verse-set that really is a verse-set! Arshi presents it as one, and also it feels like one in every way. Nazm treats it as one, and so do almost all the other commentators as well. Moreover, every single verse in it contains , which means that enough of a context develops so that in the case of this verse-set can basically be read as 'again', without much need to invoke its alternative meaning of 'then'. To my surprise, Nazm's objection to its 'un-ghazal-like' language is echoed by several more commentators, although less passionately and at less length. I join Bekhud Mohani in telling them they should lighten up. Not only are there plenty of counterexamples to their narrow, restrictive claims about classical ghazal language, but also, who are they to say what kind of terms the ghazal can and can't assimilate? Who's to tell Ghalib (or Shakespeare, that powerful coiner of dozens of neologisms) what words he can or can't use? In a two-line verse, after all, 'a fresh word is equal to a theme '. And Nazm himself knows this perfectly well: he has cited this very quotation in his discussion of 17,2 . His literary instincts seem to be pulled in several directions at once; his commentary on different verses expresses attitudes that are sometimes strikingly self-contradictory. In the present verse, do both lines describe the same situation-- that the beloved is coquettishly holding 'court', and judging her lovers guilty of all kinds of offenses? Or do the lines refer to two different situations? After all, as Shadan observes, in Ghalib's day colonial courts came in three varieties, so that 'court' might be a general term, used for the coquettish, arbitrary, dictatorial salon of the beloved, while the rush at the 'criminal court' [] might refer to the cases of mad lovers doing crazy things and getting arrested in a whole different context (of actual criminal behavior). Or, thanks to the versatility of the construction, the 'courthouse of coquetry' could even be the courthouse in which coquetry will be brought to trial, as Shadan proposes-- and since coquetry murders the lovers, this might well be an affair for the criminal court. It's true, as Nazm sneers, that not much is done with the word . But then, this is the introductory verse of a verse-set, so it's entitled to be judged and enjoyed along with its companions. And (Nazm to the contrary) their technical, law-court language is indeed manipulated very cleverly and wittily. Note for grammar fans: It's not possible in this context to distinguish , 'has opened' (present perfect), from , 'is in a state of having become open' (past participle with the colloquially omitted). But surely it doesn't make much difference here. graphics/courtgavel.jpg