khalq, amr and barzakh

There's a famous couplet from Ghalib-

Apni gali mein na kar mujhe dafan-e-bad-e-qatl

Kyoun mere pate se khalq ko tera ghar mile?

No! Not after I'm slain, fair assassin, I thee implore

Bury me not in your lane, lest others find your door

 The theme here is an old one. The Hubb al Udhri lover dies on the road to the beloved. The kuh-e-yaar- the street of the fair one- is the earth under which the lover wishes to be buried. 

However, the mystical twist behind this particular verse is by no means easy to comprehend for a Hindu. This is because Ghalib has chosen to use a word- khalq- with heavy religious and philosophical overtones. 

Muslim intellectuals grasp these overtones at a subconscious level. The non-Muslim must ponder the imagery and consult dictionaries and reference books to arrive at the same level of comprehension.

When considering why a poet choses a particular word, we begin by considering the rules of prosody. One word may be more apt than another which has the same meaning. However, we also need to consider what other concept that particular word is bracketed with. In the case of khalq, there is a bracketing with amr.

Searching on the web, I find this-

(click on the link for the full essay)

'The Theory of 'Alam al Khalq and 'Alam al-'Amr 

 by  Sayyid Muhammad Husayni Beheshti
Translated from the Persian
by Shams al-Huda 
Published by:
al Tawhid Islamic Journal
Vol. I, No. 2 - Rabi al Thani - 1404 

In theological philosophy, the domain of. being has been divided into various classifications from different angles: necessary and contingent, essential and accidental and so on. One of the divisions is into `non‑material' (mujarrad)and `material' (maddi). The material beings are subject to motion, change and alteration. The non‑material beings are free from matter, movement, change and alteration. A material being is bound by time and space, whereas a non‑material being is free from them, and is not limited by these two binding factors. The complete domain of non‑material being is called `alam al‑'amr(the World of Command).

In the `World of Command' every being assumes existence spon taneously on exercise of Divine will or command, without the need of preparation of any material, temporal or special ground.

The realization of every being is subject to its essential possibility (al‑imkan al‑dhati). Anything which is essentially impossible (al‑mumtani` bil‑dhat)and incapable of assuming existence, whether material or non‑material, God does not command for its coming into being. However, the essential possibility of a being is always with its essence, and time and space do not intervene in it.

As opposed to the World of Command, there is the World of Creation(`alam al‑khalq). The material world is called the Word of Creation. In this world, the existence of every being, in addition to its essential possibility(al‑imkan al‑dhati), depends on its possibility of preparedness (al‑'imkan al‑isti'dadi); that is, its materialization can take place only under the presence of favourable conditions and readiness of ground. Here also, the realization of every being takes place with the will and command of God. However, so long as the ground for the emergence of a material being is not prepared, the necessary conditions are not fulfilled and hindrances are not removed, God does not will its creation and does not command its realization.

Relevance of this distinction.

The distinction between alam al Khalq and alam al Amr is useful to reconcile socio-political,  hermeneutic, historical, and  scientific theories based on Evolution with Revealed Religion as in the following argument put forward by Dr.Hamidullah- 

“He created you in stages” (Wallah-o-Khalaqaqum Atwara ,71:14). The word tawr is the basis of tatawwar, which means evolution. This is then further defended: This can also mean that God created man as a mineral in the first instance. Mineral developed into vegetation, which developed into animal life. There is no contradiction.'

Similarly Dr, Ahmad Afzal writes- 'According to Shah Waliullah Dehlvi (1703—1762 A.D.  ), there are two types of Divine Creative activity viz; Al-Aalam Khalq & Al-Aalam Amr. The Al-Aalam Khalq, the world of Allah’s ordinary creatures, in which every thing that happens takes times (e.g. the universe took approximately 15 billion years to develop from Big Bang and the primitive gaseous state to its presents form. A fertilized ovum takes 270—280 days to grow into a fully developed baby). But there is Al- Aalam Amr, or the domain of Divine Creative Energy, that is a direct manifestation of His Word or Logos that is His command of Be! There is absolutely no time factor involved in this realm and things happens instantaneously. He says: Be! and it becomes (Al-Quran 36:82). The initial act of the creation of matter out of nothing (creatio ex Nihilo) represents a direct command or Amr of Almighty Allah. According to the Holy Quran “Ruh (soul) is an Amr-i-Rabb (17:85)]. (15)'

However, the learned scholar first quoted- anxious to build bridges and unify Islam by pruning back mystical or metaphysical extravagances which might prove stumbling blocks- has this to say-

"The Verse of Surat al‑'Isra

They ask you about the soul. Say, `The soul is of the amr [command or affair?] of my Lord, and you have been given of knowledge nothing except a little.' (17:85)

What purpose lies behind the reply "the soul is of the amr of my Lord ....", given to answer the questioners? There can be two possible answers to this question: firstly, that the verse throws light on the obscure matter of the soul. Secondly, it may be said that the verse wants to say that the very question about the soul is pointless, because the soul, like many other unknowables, is not known to anybody except God. The more the human understanding expands, the more it finds itself confronted with greater number of obscurities. "You have been given of knowledge nothing except a little," would, therefore, imply that man should apply his energies to matters which have not been put beyond the scope of his intellect, cognitive and even imagina tive faculties, and abstain from indulging in matters beyond their power and range. In such affairs, his share is only to the extent that, he may, through the guidance of his inborn insight, realize that such and such beings do exist in the universe‑ just as he realizes that the Creator exists‑‑though he is unable to fathom their reality.

In the light of the last part of the verse, "You have been given of knowledge nothing except little", the second view seems more accept able. Therefore, the meaning of the sentence, "Say, `The soul is of the amr of my Lord'," is, "Say that the soul is one of those affairs that relate to my Lord, and that He has reserved the knowledge of it to Himself. The knowledge which has been put within man's reach is very limited."

However, the second part of the verse also seems appropriate in the light of the first viewpoint. Seen in its perspective, the meaning of the verse shall be: "Say, `The soul is by the command of my God. and O Jews, who want to test Our Prophet by raising these questions and want to judge his sayings with what you find in your Book, know that not much share of knowledge had been provided for you.' " Neverthe less, the two parts of the verse seem more coherent when interpreted according to the second viewpoint. Well, what is the meaning of the sentence, "The ruh (spirit or soul) is by the command (amr) of my Lord," according to the first viewpoint? Does it mean that theruh is the work and creation of God? Or that the ruh is by the command of God? Or that the ruh is from the World of Command? None of these meanings can be clearly derived from the verse itself.

What is here meant by ruh? The human "spirit" or "soul", the "Spirit" meaningRuh al‑Qudus (the Holy Spirit or Angel Gabriel), "spirit" in its common unspecified sense, "ruh" when used for the Quran, "ruh" to mean Jesus (A) who is also called Ruh Allah or the "Spirit of God"‑are the various instances in regard to which the word "ruh" has been employed by the Quran. Now which of these meanings the questioners had in view, is not clear. Perhaps, the purpose was to ask the same generally understood meaning of human soul. But if the Jews or the idolaters (mushrikun) under the influence of Jewish no tions, had raised this question, it is possible that all or some of these meanings of the word ruh were in view. Therefore, can the notion of the World of Command, or the theory of creation and command, be considered as being validly supported by the Quran? Not at all. Follow ing are the reasons behind this unwarranted and baseless transference of an extraneous notion to the Quran:

A study of the books of exegesis and a comparison of various commentaries written under the influence of ideas expounded by the scholastic theologians(mutakallimun), philosophers, mystics and gnostics, with other commentaries .written by others who have escaped such influence, show that the correspondence contrived between the Quranic verse   (His, verily, is all khalq and amr) and the theory of creation and command, originated from the controversies of mutakallimun.

With the beginning of `ilm al‑kalam (Islamic scholastic philosophy), following the discussion about the Essence and Attributes of God, the question arose whether the Quran, being the Word of God, was pre‑eternal (qadim) or of temporal original (hadith). This problem was, for centuries, the subject of heated controversies between many thinkers during the distinguished epoch of Islamic culture and civiliza tion. The discussions regarding pre‑eternity (qidam)and temporality (huduth) became a typical and fundamental issue between the two schools of kalam known as the Mu'tazilites and Ash'arites. Each of these theories, which incorporated many other views, gathered a number of staunch and warring supporters. The gatherings of the elite, in which the major political and religious personages of the time were present, set the usual stage for a show of debates and controversies of the adept exponents of each school. During these controversies, raged with the tongue or the pen, the rivals tried to avail of every possible means to prove the authenticity of their views. They put all their thinking effort into looking for new tools and fresh arguments in support of their position. Throughout these efforts, which were aimed at only getting hold of fresh arguments, the spirit of truth‑seeking remained very weak. It is a well‑known fact that the spirit of rivalry and flair for controversy, despite one's intellectual keenness and knowledge, deviate the mind from the path of truth and lead to extreme distor tion in perception of rational issues and understanding of textual material.

It was in the midst of such tempestuous controversies that the matter relating to Divine verses came under discussion. During these debates, their attention was mainly or totally devoted to finding new `evidence' in the Quran to support their preferred viewpoints, thereby arming themselves with lethal weapons to demolish their enemies' positions. If they came across any faintest literal resemblance of meaning that corresponded with their viewpoints, they endeavoured to forge interpretations that would fit their views. It was not their concern to check the meaning of one verse against other verses on the same subject. Very often, if one portion of a verse seemed to corres pond with their viewpoint, the fact that the rest of the verse would not affirm such a correspondence did not discourage them. Novel interpre tations and new notions circulated from mouth to mouth and were handed down by ancestors to succeeding generations. In many cases that interpretation was considered as the only interpretation of a certain verse by the later generations.

This is what happened in regard to the sentence   in the verse of Surat al‑'A`raf. In early centuries when the Word of God was not considered as created and temporal, the argument was laid out in this manner: The distinction made between khalq and amrshows that the Word of God is uncreated; because all creatures are temporal (hadith), and amr, in opposition to khalq, means the domain of pre‑eternal (qadim), uncreated things. Therefore, the Word of God, being His amror command is pre‑eternal and not temporal. This mode of interpretation of this Quranic sentence was mixed up with what was said in philosophy in regard to material and abstract beings. Thereafter, this interpretation was transferred to the verse of Surat Ya Sin

and it was taken to mean creation of abstract beings in the World of Command, and the two commonplace concepts of "material world" and "abstract world" were substituted by the terms "World of Creation" and "World of Command". Later, the main purpose, which was to seek justification from the Quranic verse for believing in pre- eternity of the Quran, was forgotten. From the view that "khalq" and "amr" in the verse represent two mutually exclusive things, the conclusion was derived that the phrase  (creation and command) means the "World of Creation and the World of Command." Subsequently, even those who considered the Quran as temporal and created also accepted this idea.' [2]

WHAT IS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN KHALQ AND AMR?

It would appear, from the view quoted above, that alam al Khalq is constrained by what is possible because alam al Amr is such that God does not command what is not possible. This raises the question- is possibility, as such, something arising out of an occult aspect of alam al amr- that is God's Will- or is there some sort of reciprocal relationship, at least to the temporal eye, such that the state of preparedness of the ground constrains what is commanded to be?

A related question has to do with the boundary between the worlds of Amr and Khalq. 

Ibn al Arabi's concept of the barzakh as a dimensionless limit or boundary appears relevant here.

However, the question arises as to whether this limbo, this phantom zone, is exempt from the constraint of possibility- or its seeming appearance to the temporal eye- whereby only that which is possible exists on both sides of the boundary.

Does the barzakh encompass impossible objects and incompossible states of affairs?

But this begs the question- are what present themselves to our minds as logically impossible objects or states of affairs merely a reflection of our ignorance, imaginative poverty, and lack of creativity?

Al amr al takwini vs al amr al taklifi

The command by which God engenders Life (takwin), is represented as an aspect of His Mercy (Rahman) as gratuitous gift, and gives rise, in the opinion of 

Vincent Cornell  to Universal Human Rights irrespective of Sectarian differences.

The command which creates specific sectarian duties (taklif) arises out of that Mercy (Rahim) which would seek enjoin Mercy on its object because Mercy is a good in itself.

Cornell writes- 'Unlike the altruistic "Mercy of the Gratuitous Gift" (rahmat al-imtinan), which is part of the Creative Command and is an expression of divine love and creativity, the Mercy of Obligation refers to the mercy that is required in every moral action, according to the Qur'anic verse: "Your Lord has prescribed mercy for Himself" (6: 12).[34] Ibn 'Arabi further relates the concept of mercy to the divine names al-Rahman and al-Rahim, with the Mercy of the Gratuitous Gift corresponding to al-Rahmanand the Mercy of Obligation to al-Rahim. Because of the reciprocal nature of justice, any act of mercy bestowed by one human being upon another constitutes a gift for both the receiver and the giver. For the receiver, the gift of mercy compensates for the severity of justice. For the giver, the duty to act mercifully is also a gift from God because it counteracts the tendency of the ego to indulge in self-righteousness:'

Is the alam al amr subject to a constraint?

Does 

the Qur'anic verse: "Your Lord has prescribed mercy for Himself" (6: 12) imply that God only commands the existence of that which is compossible with the Rahim of revealed amr al taklifi? 

Are the chaotic universes invoked in the nightmares of Chesterton ruled out by this verse? 

Perhaps, to the eye of faith, such indeed is the case. However, a common sense view- especially of Religions or Ideologies unfamiliar to one- is that they are, each and every one, precisely the sort of lawless Universes composed of incompossible objects that Chesterton cited as the seed bed of what is wickeder than vice and more callous than crime.

"And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. Even when they come to you arguing with you, those who disbelieve say, "This is not but legends of the former peoples." (6.25)

The question of how a Necessary Being could ordain unbelief in his created creatures from before time and solely by his Command unconstrained by considerations of possibility links with the problem of 

predestination- one possible way of reconciling a merciful God with eternal damnation- is if God has a relationship with the soul in the realm of pre-existence. But then, events of this life are dictated from that realm. Karma might seem a more economical, indeed merciful, solution because it leaves open the possibility of future births in which the true doctrine can be assented to. 

Equally good, if not better, would be the notion of a sort of shadowy life in the limbo between death and resurrection where imaginal progress can be made towards union with God. This, would be one way of interpreting Ibn Arabi's concept of the barzakh.

However, the difficulty remains that God can command not merely unbelief but also a wholly spurious existence, or illusion of existence. This is a frightening world to live in, more not less frightening because it is sheer nonsense. More not less cruel because of the claim that it is founded upon infinite and gratuitous Mercy.

Ghalib's couplet reconsidered.

The objection to being buried in the beloved's street, after (rather than before) being slain by her- even thought this involves not separation but proximity- arises for the following reason- the khalq will more easily be able to find the beloved while the lover remains in  sort of limbo- tantalized by proximity but unable to do anything about it for in a ghostly state. The poet's grave then is a barzakh analogous to that between alam al amr and alam al khalq and the Mercy for which appeal is being made relates  not to postponement of death but the collapse of an ontological divide from whose benefit that which is imaginal merely is excluded.

In another verse, Ghalib has imagined the fair assassin as being so heedless- even to the horn of resurrection- as to protest his rising from the grave. T

he beloved, here, seems to be acting mechanically from habit, or temperament, or a sense of duty, rather than gratuitously. But this begs the question, if the original engendering command (amr-al-takvini) had the nature of Mercy-as-Pure-creativity is not the Resurrection more of the quality of amr-al-taklifi? 

The word cruelty goes with the notion of mercy. Poems about the cruel fair are understood as emotional appeals for mercy- i.e. the requital of love not on the basis of worthiness but as a gratuitous act of pity and compassion. Unlike Indic religions where cremation safeguards from the terrors of the grave, and re-birth assures one of eventual Moksha, Semitic religions stress the importance of God's mercy for, in its absence, there is simply no default mechanism to save one from a fate as cruel as it is everlasting.

Quite true, some enlightened souls feels disgust at the thought of the wheel of samsara- something to do with the fear of eating their former relatives, I believe- but ordinary people look forward to being reborn in better circumstances, finding their old relatives and loved one's wearing the delightful disguise of prattling infants, and having the assurance that sooner or later they will gain complete Liberation.

WHAT IS THE NON TRIVIAL MEANING OF GHALIB'S COUPLET?

To sum it up briefly- the poet expresses himself in an imaginal limbo such that there is no direct contact with either that which is signified- viz. beings- nor that which saves signifiers from chaos- viz. organizing principles. The danger that, while in this limbo, the two realms may have collapsed into each other, consists in that same imaginal world becoming detached from both realms- in effect, the artist has been buried alive.

Since this is a fate no one escapes, and literature teaches no other lesson, Ghalib's couplet becomes a little less trivial on each reading.

A visit to the kotha- extract from 'Samlee's daughter'

---------------------------10/IX---------------------------

Gar kiya vo mujhé nazar se raqibon mein shaamil

Hunooz zaban se karti vo ummidon ko baaTil!

(If her glance invites me into the company of my rivals

Her tongue cuts off Hope- both Death’s & Survival’s!)

It was a tawdry ghazal- and the Besura Begum singing it strained each note and marred every syllable. The two infirm and wasted tabalchis kept up accompaniment in desultory fashion, passing a joint back and forth to each other. The harsh, resinous, smell of charas mingled with the sickly-sweet fumes rising from the brazier.

Ki ho zaalim ki rassi daraaz hoon main ta’mil

Hua sabr-e-sitam se insaan kabhi kaamil?

(There’s this virtue in hemp- it gives the tyrant enough rope

Was patience with persecution beyond the Prophet’s scope?)

Arif was impatient to go. Coming here had been a bad idea. Iyer, on the other hand, being a first time visitor, was greatly taken with the place. He had been subdued earlier but, as the harsh liquor started to go down smoother, he was experiencing an alcoholic second wind.

Pehchan meeTi tabassum mein tajassum-e-filfil

Karta Ishq rooh faraaz to nafs ko fanaa’fil!

(See in sweet smiles the black essence of pepper

If Love exalts the soul, it makes the ego a leper!)

The pathetic aspect to it was that the Besura Begums were taking it all so seriously. Earlier, the men had been entertained by two or three elderly courtesans- witty enough in their way, though no very great virtuosos of their Art- but, as the hour grew late, these veterans had decorously withdrawn so as not to impede business.

Gar hui vo Saqi aur jaam mujhé haasil

Sharab aur tezaab main karé koun faasil?

(If she became the Saqi and I received some wine

Between alcohol and acid, who could draw the line?)

An exceptionally ugly Besura Begum was refilling Iyer’s glass and leering at him grotesquely. In truth, the liquor tasted more like acid than alcohol. Nevertheless, Iyer thought fit to set up a great clamour of appreciation. Indeed, and ludicrously, he went so far as to nudge his companion, and drunkenly repeat the couplet to him, as if it were a pearl of Ghalib’s piercing.

Hai jaama-zeb zaalim khudh khabar-e-haamil

Apni khagazi pairaahan mein zafar-e-a’dil!

(Now accoutred as accuser, now in judge’s clothes

Victory becomes her, whatever her clothes!)

Noticing Iyer’s animation, another of the Besura Begums- but one ludicrously miscast and costumed as a Bharat Natyam dancer- stirred hopefully. Iyer quickly averted his eyes. She had wanted to dance for him earlier but he had very vehemently insisted that it was against his religion to witness such spectacles outside the Temple. Nevertheless, she continued to eye him with dumb reproach- like a dog which hasn’t been taken for its evening walk.

Unpé is shér kahné gaya main Maah rukh ki mehfil

Par samné hua sham‘ma sirf Shams ko ai dil!

(I went to Selene’s salon where poets compete all night

But the Sun carried off the palm ’fore I could air my plight!)

With the ending of her ghazal, the Besura Begum had to pass the sham‘ma- in this case an aromatic candle in a, quite handsome, tinted-glass shield- to the next person whose turn it was to recite. Normally, this should have come as a relief because her sallow skin had looked terribly jaundiced by its flickering light.

Unfortunately, she chose to pass the sham‘ma to Iyer Sahib.

---------------------------10/X---------------------------

I’m sorry, I can’t go on.

Dwelling on what happens in brothels- especially when I’ve had the chance to depict the holy atmosphere of an Ashram during the course of the same narrative- is totally against my principles and character. However, in fairness to myself, I must point out that if such episodes do, quite unavoidably, arise in the course of my books then the blame must be placed, fairly and squarely, at the feet of Society rather than on any weakness or vice of my own.

Moreover, the fact is, due to extensive and intensive oppression of women throughout Classical and Romantic periods of Indian Cultural History, the activities of denizens of kothas represent the only free play of Feminine Intellect and Spirituality within the country. Hence, if this narrative is to give you a balanced picture, it is extremely essential to dwell on such matters. Indeed, the fact that, throughout the State, it was the prostitutes who were the first adult converts to the cause of Anti-Masturbation, is sufficient proof that India hasn’t really changed. Only place where women can throw off their ‘mind forg’d manacles’ is in the kotha. Other females are merely puppets of Patriarchy, mouthing slogans they can neither mean nor master. Feminism- even when represented by such Internationally acknowledged ‘Masters of those who Know’ as Gayatri Chakroboty Spivak, Daksha D’Souza Rice & Vagina Dentata Choothopadhyay^[1]- is nothing but an ‘Intermediate Technology’, or International AID package, recycling ideas which have passed their sell-by date and palming off pharmakons proved toxic in their own milieu of origin.

Hence, as a responsible observer and critic of Society- one, moreover, deeply committed to the Feminist cause- I simply have no choice. A few suggestive song and dance sequences in the kotha must be included so that this work can stand alongside such masterpieces of Socially Conscious reportage as John Steinbeck’s ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ and Franz Fanon’s ‘The Wretched of the Earth’.

In this context, I may mention- I should be played by either Shah Rukh Khan or Brad Pitt in the film version of ‘Samlee’s daughter’. I assure you, this is not at all because I hold the Actor’s profession in contempt. Why, then, you may wonder- given my overwhelming beauty and grace- do I want someone else to play me? The answer has to do with my own preparations for Stardom. Because I’m deeply Spiritual, I began my crash-fitness program by buying Kyrie Minorc’s ‘Patanjali’s Yoga-aerobics Sutra’ exercise Video. For the benefit of less Pop-savvy readers, I should explain, the diminutive Kiwi in question first attained fame because her face was perpetually frozen in an expression of orgasmic bliss. However, as the decades went by, and the novelty of this approach wore off, sales began to suffer and so Kyrie was re-launched by the Sekkupu Corporation as the possessor of the perfect bum. However, so as not to disappoint old fans, Kyrie mastered Yoga so as to be able to keep her orgasmic face always in frame and poised a few inches perpendicular to her pert and deliciously upthrust bum. My mistake, I feel, was in seeking to emulate this asana of hers too closely. Actually, I was able to maintain this posture all through my grocery shopping at Kwiksave, but then my disc slipped and so I’m having to spend some time in traction that’s all.

Anyway, returning to the theme of this section, I must tell you that verses like the following- on the Medieval theme of the mystic Rose- as sung by the mirasins, represent a tremendous treasure-trove of Spiritual knowledge and Soteriological insight.

Bear in mind, if you’re trying this mantra at home, a lot of wiggling and jiggling must also occur, throughout the recitation, to ensure its efficacy-

Rosa Mystica

What, forever, Faith, the flower, proposes, must Truth, the thorn, oppose?

As when, Rose, I wooed with roses, but those roses wounded Rose

She said “I hope it won’t be broken, I know hearts are hard to fix”

          “ But, tho’ thrilled with your love-token, I’m so tired of little pricks!”

(Chorus)           “ tho’ thrilled with your love-token, I’m  tired of little pricks!”

To fully grasp this verse, you should read Rumi, Leibniz, and the ‘Paradiso’ section of Dante’s Divine Comedy.

Similarly- but this time performing a seductive hip grind- you may wish to ponder the esoteric underpinning to this melancholy shikva-

O say not Love’s song is sung

Nor to idle rue give tongue

Making phrases marks the fool

& a bad lover blames his tool!

(Chorus)                                  & a bad lover blames his tool!

However, I should clarify, the chief literary importance of the kotha does not lie in the poetry typical of its denizens- rather, it arises out of the verses it inspires in its occasional patrons. Arif, for example, on being passed the sham’ma, and not wishing the mirasins to understand him, took a long swallow of his drink and then uttered this Farsi verse-

‘Hurled from Heaven- we’re not in Hell

While Pleiades, Seven, work their spell

Our crippled wings seem debonair

& Love, the soft name we call Despair!’

(Chorus)                      ‘& Love, the soft name we call Despair!’

Indeed, as the evening progressed, his responses darkened in mood. This was his Sindhi riposte to an (utterly crap) rendition of some stanzas from Shah Abdul Latif’s ‘Suhuni Mahiwal’-

‘Like Suhuni, who well knew, being a potter’s daughter

An unfired pot but melts in water

Yet, who trusted to one to cross Indus’ spate

Unfired by Love, still we mate!’

Similarly, he rejected, but this time in English, the Besura Begums’ Bihari overture of some sub-standard, Sufi, mishmash, derived from either Fariduddin Attar’s Mantiq ut Tayr- or, more deplorably yet, Ahmed Ghazali’s Savaanih- & which, for brevity, I translate-

Sultan Mahmud (played by a particularly obese & hirsute bull dyke)-

With God’s shadow to me, as to mine heart’s gold

Ah! for our trespasses free, ‘fore Love took hold!

Now a galley slave, I, by Thy mercy whipped

Yet, Thou the shore from whence I’m shipped!!

The slave, Ayaz, (a wizened & wall-eyed trull)-

To drink from the Sky, Eyes’ antelope fails

Only Dazzlement is, or yet Ego veils

For once your slave, your Sultan yet awhile

Union’s path is paced but single file!

Arif’s response-

‘Jacob’s loss is Zuleikha’s gain

& Farhad’s bliss were Khusroe’s bane

& if Ghazni’s Lord^[2] sweet Love beguiles

Which Attar physics Ayaz’s piles?

(Envoi)-               Prince! If of the true mystic creed I speak a word

’Tis for crap is liefer talked than heard!’

Indeed, Arif’s poetry- it seemed to me- had taken on an uncharacteristically sour note. His response to this quatrain of mine-

‘For the veil that I wear is not the veil that you see’

In Shiduri’s tavern, said the Saqi to me

‘Let Politicians & Pundits mulct who they can

‘Make Sri Devi’s breasts your five year plan!’

showed a sceptical attitude to Religion- on the lines of Dharm-o-deen ki dekho har baat/ Baazaar-e-Haq mein hota baarjaat!- as shown by this verse

‘Since Truth’s a Saqi, casts no reflection

In Jamshed’s cup, or Christ’s resurrection

Worse than Death’s chill breath has us shiver

That barmaid’s face in Maryam’s mirror!’

Speaking for myself, and pausing to place on record my deep distress at Arif’s debauching of the English language, I must tell you, quatrains like the following chronicle my own opinion of illicit sex- be it mercenary or hedonistic.

‘Recking not reciprocity, the Other each enters

For the reverse were atrocity & each Self-centres

Together they hunt, what hounds them apart

For, ‘I haven’t a cunt & she hasn’t a heart!’

You may well protest at my use of four letter words. Indeed, so chastened is my usual English prosody, you may consider it ‘a blemish on white jade.’ However, let me assure you, bad language is an aesthetic necessity because-

Tho’ Pan you reave- so a reed might write

Be ruled, Poet, by what I, rude, indite

Only old maids read & School boys recite

So variegate your verse with ‘fuck’ & ‘shite’!

Moreover, as Kulapati K.M Munshi once said- though perhaps as a mere obiter dicta on Heidegger’s Holwege & the inevitable Nuremberg to which must tend all Black Forest no-paths nonetheless blackened by too frequent ‘Shepherds of Being establishing Meaning by means of the Word’- not that it could be otherwise for, to finally & perhaps fatally quote the aforementioned words of the late great founder of the till lately great Bhatratiya Vidhya Bhavan- “Inspiration is like a tramp in the Woods- it wont come unless you talk dirty to it!”

In this context, and broaching a cellar’d vintage of deeper delved metaphysics, you may wish to savour the following more melancholy quatrain on the signally vacuous but soverignly unvanquishable theme of ‘each mind holding in confinement its mere solitary dream of a world’-

Odd that an old lag like me should so fondly dwell

On the little hole in each prison cell

We blundered through when we were small

Or that, humping you, I kissed the wall!

In this context, I have something to confess to you. The fact is, shocking as this might seem, my virginity is not entirely unspotted. I haven’t always looked upon all women as mothers, sisters, grannies, etc. Indeed, I think I’ve hinted to you that, when I was employed as an Economics teacher, my relationship with female students left something to be desired.

However, in fairness to myself, I am obliged to observe, blame should not at all be pitched upon me but, rather, must fasten upon this totally Evil and Materialistic Consumer Society in which, due to ‘fast-food’ and other such godlessness, people are not able to maintain a proper sattvic diet and hence become contaminated by lust and promiscuity due to passional rajsic, and sensual tamsic, additives and ingredients in processed food products. Indeed, I should clarify, my anti-Masturbation commitment does not arise from laziness, lack of dexterity, or traditional Brahminical disdain for manual labour- rather, it is because my personality is naturally sattvic, free from blemishes, and thus eminently suited to being entrusted with large sums of money for philanthropic purposes- that’s all.

In this context I may quote the following words of Bhim Singh to indicate the purely majazi, or illusory, nature of any vices- be they ‘wine, women or song’- that might otherwise be attributed to me. Here is an extract from Bhim’s précis of my personal history-

‘…unable to bear the brilliance of his tejas, Iyer-wife, like Saranyu quitting Surya’s side, speedily departed leaving a shadow in her place, who, however, being a Saqi by profession, bore him but sickly children- some of whom became poems, while others- more horribly- became ‘humorous’ novels &c….’

Actually, that wasn’t the extract I was thinking off. Can’t think where it’s wandered off to. Anyway, fuck it, just take my word for it already.

---

^[1]    Vagina Dentata Choothopadyay- a registered trademark of the Sekkupu Corporation. Probably the most virulent Virtual Feminist of the mid Nineties- Vagina first appeared in the Feminist ‘Womb Raider’ M.U.D (Since bought out by the Sekkupu Conglomerate). She organised the planet’s post-holocaust women into a human chain- all sullenly fisting each other- circling the last surviving forest, thus protecting it, and their own eggs, from evil, technology-obsessed, male ‘Womb Raiders’ intent on genetically modifying the last surviving strands of Gaia’s original mitochondrial D.N.A.

^[2]    Ghazni’s Lord. The perfect love between ,‘The Shadow of God’,  Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni and his faithful slave Ayaz is a fertile subject for Sufi poetry.  Once when Huma, the bird of fortune whose shadow’s touch confers Empery, appeared in the Sky, all Mahmud’s soldiers went running hither & thither in the hope that the shadow would fall upon them. Ayaz however went & stood in Mahmud’s own shadow. Later, so Ahmed Ghazali (brother of the theologian) tells us, the Master /Slave relationship was reversed but in a manner more profound than that outlined by Hegel. Thus, Mahmud complains that veil upon veil has fallen between him & his beloved. In the mirasin’s version of the story, Mahmud is like the Indian antelope, which gallops through the drought stricken forest, hoping to quench its thirst in the blue waters of the sky. Incidentally, I should mention, sodomy is heavily condemned in Islam. Fariduddin Attar was a pharmacist by profession.

Ghalib's ghazal 111

There is a theory that if a poem means the same thing to us each time we read it, then either it isn't really a poem, or else, we aren't really reading it. Our exercise is but empty naql, bereft of aql-  blind taqlid, not visionary tahqiq- to employ the terminology of the great Sheikh.. 

One of Ghalib's most translated ghazals is- Sab_kahan_kucch lalao gul me numayaan ho gaen [Begum Akhtar] [Jagjit]

Here is my attempt at re-reading it-

In what the flowers display and what the dust yet hides

Resurrected Beauty,  for aye, Thy veil abides

What in Memory as our colorful legend presides

Life's quotidian but cobwebs provides

The Pleiades, whose conceits our day elides
 Lie naked to a fate, night decides

If from Jacob, Joseph a dungeon hides

His eyes, in darkness, its chink betides

On cutting up rivals, if Love, itself, prides

Zuleikha's jury, Justice derides!

For Separation's dark, the nightmare so rides

The Eye, erupting blood, its ember, chides

If, in Heaven, as houris, Beauty resides

Revenged are we on who weren't our brides!

His is sleep, and mystic dream, & Night & all besides

Your coiffure on whose chest its undoing confides

Wine is life giving; gain Wine and no March's Ides

Mars your hand's hold on the immortal guide's!

 All Faiths are One for their Observance divides.
 Nothing is won by but warring sides.

'Fore Cities and Towns, which tears' flood subsides?

  Dams my isthmus of wreckage a damn Deicide's?

.

Ghalib, ghazal 20- yeh na thi hamari qismat

Click here for audio-


 To be in tryst united, not I could twist my fate

If longer life invited, I'd yet forlornly wait

Did I live on thy oath, know, my life were a lie

Of happiness I'd die! held thy troth to a date

For as feebly as fond entreaty, bindst thy Word
Its sequel, an equal treaty, art surd to sublate

Why was that arrow drawn without brawn, not art?

That, in my heart, it stick, not sever it straight!

Why admonishes like a priest, my old comrade and mate?

If you haven't a pain killer, at least, my pain giver hate!

Were what it mock as 'woe wilful'-  flint struck sparks

Thy Ark's veined rock, would ruck Red sans bate

Anguish is certain arson; know! -the heart must burn

If not to yearn, then to earn, or learn chalk's slate!

By his assent, this night of grief, did an Adam create?

Death's a Thief, or Madam, my ruin can't sate

My grave- ghazal's fresh ground?! Better I'd drowned!

My clay, they claim-jump, with elegies on 'the late'!

His vision can't anoint, who is but a singular viewpoint

Were a second scented... Ah! God alone is Great!

Since Sainthood has its Arabi seal, thy mystic spate
For Drunkard's weal, ope's a  Ghalibian gate!

- Show quoted text -