Anisur Rahman's Ghalib

In the pages of Scroll.in, Anisur Rahman offers this translation of Ghalib 

naqsh faryaadii hai kis kii shoKHii-i tahriir kaa
kaaGhazii hai pairahan har paikar-e tasviir kaa

Whose crafty creation am I; the image implores –
Every image stands enrobed – but in paper robes

This is bad English. The image may inquire about some thing. It may implore than an answer be given to its question. But it can't implore a question. It can only pose it or press for an answer to it.

Some images appear on pieces of paper. Some don't. It is not the case that every image is inscribed on paper.  

What this verse actually means is 'against whom is the image complaining of an mischievous passion for manumission?' The figures in the picture wear a 'robe of paper'- i.e., as Job says of himself in the Bible, they appear dressed in their own petition for redressal of an injustice.

It seems, Anisur Rahman's principal qualification for translating Ghalib is an impartial ignorance of both Urdu and English. 

Ghalib opens his diivaan with a unique stroke of his genius.

No. Ghalib's genius may have been unique. But if there was a unique stroke of his genius, then he only wrote one original couplet which could be called so superlatively good as to be the product of genius. Is that what Anisur Rahman means? I doubt it. The guy writes carelessly and uses cliches. He doesn't care if what he writes is illiterate nonsense.  

The imploring in the first line,

There is no 'imploring'. There is simply a faryaad, which means- 'Exclamation; lamentation; cry for help, or redress; complaint; charge; suit'. 

followed by an answer in the second line,

there is no answer in the second line. There is a comment on the painted images, being 'robed in paper'- which alludes to Job's unjust suffering at the hands of Satan.  

opens up various avenues of interpretation.

No. The meaning is clear. The image complains of a certain agent's mischievous passion for manumission. But against whom is the complaint? The second line supplies the answer. God- who gives us fee will at the same time as predestination- is being indicted, as in the Book of Job.  

The implication here is that the implorer is seeking justice as he has been subjected to oppression.

No. An image is not 'oppressed'. Still, it may complain against some particular passion which motivated its creator. Think of a Picasso portrait which has both eyes on one side of the face. We may, humorously, imagine the image complaining against the artist's passion for 'Cubism' or some other such fad.  

Apart from being an individual, he is also a stock figure – an everyman – in a state of eternal entreaty, insofar as he represents the perpetual human condition marked by suffering.

Ghalib does not say that. He speaks only of an image and how it may be seen as protesting against its maker. But that image could be of a giraffe or a mountain. Rahman is simply substituting some shit inside his own head for what the poet has written. 

This imploring is being made to God, or to the one in the seat of power on this earth.

There is no imploring. Neither God nor the King is mentioned. A question is asked- whom is the image complaining against? It could be that it has a grievance against the artist. It could even be that the self-image of the poet is complaining against the excessively free creativity of that same poet. Thus, suppose the poet sees himself as suffering in love but, because of his own literary genius, does not convey a pathetic image of himself but rather produces something of dizzying metaphysical complexity dripping in 'romantic irony', then the poet may picture himself as having a grievance against himself. Thus a chap who wants to send his g.f the message that he will die of grief unless she puts out may be aggrieved that the poem he ended up sending her caused her to think he was real smart and could crack the IAS. In that case, she may want him as her study buddy rather than a casual hook-up. 

The implorer thus underlines what we know today as a discourse on the dialectics of power and powerlessness, or the oppressor and the oppressed.

Fuck off! Picasso did not oppress anybody when he painted a picture. Even if God created us in his image, he did not oppress us by so doing. Rahman is writing nonsense. 

Interestingly, the image of the implorer is also like the one that a painter paints on a paper canvas, puts in a frame and hangs on a wall, as a reminder of the eternal human condition.

Rahman does not know that paper is not canvas. He doesn't get that the 'image' here is painted on paper. Ghalib tells us so.  There is no 'eternal human condition' because Humanity has not endured from eternity not will it endure for ever. 

In this much-debated but iconic verse, Ghalib creates a cosmos of meaning relating to the metaphysical meaning of human existence and survival which constitutes the kernel of his poetry at large.

No. Ghalib has a clever verse which references the Book of Job. There is no 'kernel' of his poetry at large. The fact is, some of his verse is philosophical. But much is purely devotional.  

It should now be easy to mark the significance of the deeply implicated questions

I suppose Rahman means 'the deeper implications of the question'. What he has written suggests that a question can be implicated in something else- a crime of some sort. Such is not the case.  

Ghalib puts frontally: (a) whose caprice, or craft, does the image stand as witness to?

The one who made it. But, Ghalib is speaking of 'complaint' not 'witnessing'. We can complain of things which aren't true. Indeed, when speaking affectionately, we often do. 

(b) why has the creator cast the image in a paper robe, which is essentially ephemeral?

Rahman is as stupid as shit. He doesn't get that the reason painters use paper or canvas is because such things aren't ephemeral. If you trace a figure on the sands of the beach- that is ephemeral.  

(c) is the creator a flippant being to have done so?

or is the thought that there is a Creator itself a capricious exercise of human freedom? It is it a coquettish type of narcissism? 

(d) why is the created one so still and silent in his protest and appeal?

Ghalib says nothing of the sort. The fact is, a good artist can make what he draws seem to move or speak.  

and (e) is it the individual or the entire phenomenon, which is subjected to eternal suffering?

There is no mention of eternal suffering. Still we may hope Rahman burns in Hell forever.  

Answers to all these questions are clearly self-suggestive.

Self-suggestion means the influencing of your physical or mental state by thoughts and ideas that come from yourself rather than from other people. It is a type of self-hypnosis. What this silly man means is 'answers to these questions suggest themselves'. 

Ghalib was once told to his face that this was a meaningless verse. He then asked a friend in a letter to listen to the “meaning of this meaningless verse” and related it to a custom in Iran where the appellant used to put on a paper robe and appear before the ruler to protest and seek justice.

Why? The thing was mentioned in the Book of fucking Job! Thus, this must have been a very ancient custom in the Middle East. 

This was similar to carrying a lighted torch in India, or hanging the blood-soaked clothes of the murdered one on a stick in Arabia. This allusion takes us to the heart of the verse and adds to its foundational strength. Far from being meaningless, this verse represents a metaphysical meaning.

Actually, it is merely clever. Ghalib was a kid when he wrote this. He wasn't well educated. Suppose he had learned Arabic, then the Hebrew of the Book of Job would have been child's play to him. What would have amazed him was how much of the terminology of Sufism is already present in that ancient piece of 'Wisdom Literature'. We are welcome to improve on Ghalib's own interpretation of his lines. It is a characteristic of genius that it 'shows more than it knows'.  

This is one of the most precise verses of Ghalib where words act like metaphors: naqsh for the picture of suffering,

No suffering is mentioned. Naqsh just means image.  

faryaadii for the oppressed ones,

Nonsense! Sultans might write whiney poems begging for a kiss from the 'cruel fair' even though they had thousands of virgins in their harems. Genuinely oppressed people don't present petitions. Why? They will be killed.  

shoKHii-i tahriir for the craftiness of scripting,

No. ShoKHi may mean coquetry or playfulness as well as yearning but, paired with tahrir, it means a passion for free creativity such as that which would seek to manumit its own creation- like Pygmalion giving life to Galatea. This is like 'takwin' - the artificial creation of life. 

An artist is also a craftsman. But 'craftiness' is different from craftsmanship. 

kaaGhazii for ephemerality,

Nope. Paper is not ephemeral. I suppose Rahman is thinking of 'paper flowers'. But they are less fucking ephemeral than actual flowers. Speaking Urdu makes you stupid- as Sir Sayyid Ahmad pointed out.  

pairahan for perishability,

Fuck off! I inherited an overcoat from my Dad. It will outlast me. Well made clothes last longer than the flesh they cover. 

and paikar-e tasviir

which means picturesque 

for the suffering human being inside a robe,

There is no such suffering. Rahman may suffer greatly if people insist he put on a bathrobe rather than just wander around naked, but few are like Rahman.  

which together bears the structural and thematic burden of the verse.

So, according to Rahman, Ghalib said 'We are suffering eternally because we are having to wear robe. Also robe is of paper. This is causing paper-cuts on our privates. Boo hoo! We must protest against this injustice which has probably been perpetrated by Narendra Modi.'  

jazba-i be-iKHtiyaar-e shauq dekhaa chaahiye
siina-i shamshiir se baahar hai dam shamshiir kaa

This is a weak conceit. The sword could be said to 'breathe' when it is swung about in the air slicing off heads. If so, its breath is outside its own breast. That's worth observing- right? 

This uncontrollable passion, this ardour,

is worth a watch indeed

The sparkle of a scimitar shows

beyond its breath, beyond its breed

but not beyond Rahman's creed.  

The passion of genuine lovers for their love is always uncontrollable.

Like diarrhoea.  

An idea as simple as this gets an exceptionally rich poetical configuration with the terribly beautiful image of a shamshiir (scimitar).

Rahman likes scimitars. They are so beautiful. He wants to play with them.  

Ghalib invites us to watch the lover’s ardour and zeal in terms of the sparkling scimitar, which compares well with the sparkling desire of lovers for each other. As the scimitar’s sparkle shows beyond its sheath and sharpness, the verse is enriched with multiple imports with reference to the desire of the lovers. It is in this aspect that the unique beauty of the verse lies.

Ghalib didn't want to use sheath. He wanted to wave his shamshir about. Rahman thinks this is very beautiful. Wife is having sheath only. I have something to wave around. This makes my passion uncontrollable. 

A master of creating connotations, Ghalib projects several possible meanings for us. He seems to suggest: (a) the scimitar lies breathing as if in the sheath of its own breast, just as the passion of lovers breathes in their breasts (b) just as the scimitar cannot hold its sparkle within its own breast, the lovers too cannot hold their desire within their breasts (c) the lovers’ overwhelming passion is as sparkling as the scimitar itself, and (d) the sparkling edge of the scimitar and the lovers’ heart, brimming with desire, are two images of the same beauty and they reflect upon each other.

Unless the lovers are heterosexual. In that case the dude repeatedly puts his 'sword' into the lady's 'sheath' and, after some time, there is an exchange of bodily fluid. 

Two expressions, in particular, hold the key to this verse. While siina-i shamshiir (cutting-edge of scimitar) implies the shining breast of the scimitar, dam (sparkle/breath) suggests the breath of life. Both these expressions are metaphorically charged and are richly suggestive in the larger context of the verse. Importantly enough, the second line far outweighs the first line in its impact, as the first one is only an inviting statement, while the second one flows out of it with its own resilience to complete the web of meaning.

Ghalib is highlighting what would be a paradox if the sword were a living thing. The breath is outside whereas the breast is inside. But a sword is not a living thing. It may make a sound when being swung through the air. 

The verse clearly works through the device of establishing a reason to express a reason which adds a magical quality to it.

This verse fails because the conceit is shit. Still, in a ghazal, some couplets will be duds though, combined with others, they can add value.  

We may refer to another verse of Ghalib here to mark how differently he plays upon the sparkling beauty of a scimitar here: ‘ishrat-e qatl-gahe ahl-e tamannaa mat puuchh / ‘iid-e nazzara hai shamshiir kaa ‘uryaa.n honaa.

Again this is a bit shit. Naked scimitar is like the Moon of Id. Stereotypical Muslim love-jihadi starts jizzing because what really gets his rocks off is decapitation and torrents of blood erupting all over the place.  

If we consider the two verses together, we may mark how a poet’s imagination soars to seek poetic strength in different verses with different images.

Yes, but sand-niggers fondling scimitars is a bit on the nose. You need to find something fresh here.  What could it be? Sufi Love as that of the pharmakos, qurbani, for that which is expressed as 'An'al Haq' or some such shite. 

The following appears pedestrian-

thaa KHvaab

khvaab is dream and hence, by Hadith, the one forty-fifth (خمسة وأربعون (khams wa arba'oon)) portion of Prophesy. Proverbially, this is something accomplished after many arduous attempts- i.e. this is a reference to current 'Dream Science' and related mystical practices which are perfectly compatible with orthodox Islam- if done under proper guidance.

KHayaal ko tujh se mu‘aamila

Khayal or tayf is the vision of the beloved the Bedouin poet gets while he is awake, or is awakened, and others in the encampment are asleep. The dream was for the vision a 'transaction' with you. Of what sort? In Byzantine law, there was a case where a man made a contract with a courtesan that they would have sex on a certain date. Sadly, in a dream, the whore appeared to him and satisfied his desire so thoroughly that he then didn't want to go through with the contract. She sued. The Judge found for her but instead of giving her the gold promised under the contract, he merely held it up and requested her to take its shadow. 

jab aa.nkh khul gaii na ziyaa.n thaa na suud thaa

In dream, my thoughts had a deal with you to obtain
But when the eyes opened, there was no loss, no gain

Still, from a Muslim point of view maybe this is 'rationalist' or subversive of orthodoxy. This is because of the hadith-  'When the time draws near (when the Resurrection is near) a believer's dream can hardly be false. And the truest vision will be of one who is himself the most truthful in speech, for the vision of a Muslim is the forty-fifth part of Prophecy, and dreams are of three types: one good dream which is a sort of good tidings from Allah; the evil dream which causes pain is from the satan; and the third one is a suggestion of one's own mind; so if any one of you sees a dream which he does not like he should stand up and offer prayer and he should not relate it to people, and he said: I would love to see fetters (in the dream), but I dislike wearing of necklace, for the fetters is (an indication of) one's steadfastness in religion. The narrator said: I do not know whether this is a part of the hadith or the words of Ibn Sirin.'

In this case, since the dream featured a satisfactory outcome, it would class as coming from Allah. Why is there no 'gain' from it? You may say, the 'loss' is waking up and thus losing the dream. As with the Jews, the Muslims begin their day at sunset. Thus the profit and loss of a dream falls on the same day and can cancel each other out. But that's not what Ghalib says. He says there was no profit- i.e. the thing was not from Allah. Nor was it from Satan or unfavourable in some sense (which is why it doesn't matter if it is revealed) and thus there was no loss. So, what was it? The answer is it was a 'suggestion' of the mind relating to the incommensurable. This is actually quite interesting because Ghalib was a gambler and thus knew the rudiments of probability theory which in turn is related to measure theory.  Briefly, you have commensurability if information about the value of the process (e.g. a combination of stochastic processes- i.e. 'accumulator' bets)  at a given time is available at that same time. The problem here is that a dream about a transaction is not part of the information basis of that transaction yet it is informative. Indeed, 'forty fifth portion of Revelation' is suggestive. It sounds like the application of a rule regarding inheritance of property. But, mathematically too, it is interesting. Something more could be said here to rescue this couplet from triteness. 

The two states of dream and awakening have long constituted the major themes in the poetry of love and longing. Ghalib mythicizes this common experience in this verse.

No. He refers to it. He has not shown a fairy or a goddess crossing over from the dream realm or anything of that sort.  

In plain terms, the lover suggests that in his dream his thoughts had a deal with his beloved but when he woke up, he realized that the deal got him neither a profit nor a loss. This brings a sense of futility to the lover and makes him reflect upon his miserable predicament.

That is Rahman's view and it chimes with the notion that the Ghazal poet is whinging misery guts. The problem is that the English language, the English sensibility, is unwelcoming to such poets or poetry. True, this means any nutter can write illiterate shite and say 'this is a translation of Ghalib' but why bother? Ghalib did quite well for himself under difficult circumstances. He has a higher IQ than people who translate him. Why not reflect this in what one writes?  

Playing upon these two states, Ghalib imagines such prospects for the lover that portray him in a truly romantic disposition.

As opposed to what? A disposition to shit on her?  

Several possible interpretations come to the fore: (a) in psychological terms, dreams are the manifestations of desires lying in the subconscious, which, in this case, relates with the lover’s desire for union with the beloved (b) it was the thought, not the lover, that had a deal with the beloved in his dream

Thoughts can't make deals.  

(c) the thought could be the lover’s persona itself

No. Don't be silly. You can't fuck a thought.  

(d) this thought could also be of a sexual or material nature, as the word mu‘aamila suggests in semantic terms (e) dreams are deceptions and are soon forgotten, and finally, (f) the dream could be meaningful if metaphorical, but meaningless if literal.

Why not mention the relevant hadith? Muslims may already know it but not all English speakers are Muslim.  

The kernel of meaning in the first line lies in three inter-contextual words – KHvaab (dream), KHayaal (thought) and mu‘aamala (deal) –

they are not 'inter-contextual'. They are independent and arise within a single context. Ghalib was a Muslim writing in a Muslim context. If you are translating him into English, you need to tell the non-Muslim reader about relevant Islamic precepts or conventions in this regard.  

that collectively create a context for the lover to engage with himself.

Wank? 

They make way for the concluding thought in the second line that highlights the essence of reality which, upon awakening, brings to the lover in terms of ziyaa.n (loss) and suud (gain).

This is nonsense. The essence of reality- i.e. what would be true of it in all possible worlds- is not knowable and Ghalib has made no speculation about it. He just says he woke up and decided that the dream was neither favourable nor unfavourable. The implication is that even if the 'transaction' goes ahead, such would be the outcome.  

The second line completes the circle of meaning, and leaves the lover forlorn and wondering.

No. The reverse appears the case. Consider the couplet 'Once only I dreamed of Happiness/ But even in the dream the Happiness was past'. That is melancholy. That is forlorn. Ghalib's line is more philosophical. 

This verse acquires its strength in the way Ghalib defines the two states of being for the lover

being asleep or being awake? But those are states of being common to all. Ghalib doesn't need to define either.  

and how he places him in those states.

Falling asleep and waking up. Cats do it. Dogs do it. Babies do it. It really isn't rocket science.  

Interestingly enough, he also defines how the lover can find himself in two different states when his eyes are closed and when his eyes are open.

i.e. asleep or awake. 

The hiatus between the two states

i.e. being half awake or half asleep 

is where lies the crucial meaning of the verse which may be appreciated further with reference to the disinhibition model of hallucination theory

Nonsense. You have to be fully awake to compute profits and losses. Rahman ignores what Ghalib wrote to give us translations of stuff he hallucinates. Sadly, his hallucinations aren't poetry. They are stupid shit.

As for any couplet of Ghalib, savour it by all means but- as with the dream of making an agreement with the beloved- to gain profit from it, consult no soothsayer but only such Islamic religious authorities who specialise in such matters. The Creator also created Religion. Avail of it. By all means, write poetry when you fall short but we pray for commentators or translators who will elucidate the clear path while showing compassion for those who miss the mark. 

Rahman is a good Muslim. If he weren't a fucking Professor, he would translate Ghalib and comment on it in a manner beneficial to jaahil kaffirs like me whom everybody, not just Hindus, should treat as a fucking pariah.