Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This is another philosophical sher of Ghalib. Here he talks about human desires which define human
existence. Life is all about desires. While some of these desires do get fulfilled, others don’t. With the
passage of time new desires keep getting added in this long list of desires. So even if many of a man’s
desires are fulfilled, he is never satisfied, for many still remain unfulfilled.
Why should my murderer/killer be afraid for what will remain on her neck?
This blood that has flowed continuously from my wet eyes throughout life.
Ghalib asks his slayer (his beloved), why she fears slaying him? No blood will remain on her neck
(hand), even if she slays him for he has no blood left in him. All his blood has flown continuously
through his eyes all his life. So she need not fear any legal or moral compunction in killing him. She
will not be punished for slaying him.
This ‘sher’ though one of Ghalib’s of-quoted ones has been subject to various interpretations by
scholars. While the apparent meaning is pretty clear, some of the different interpretations are like, (a)
while the fate of Adam was long in the past, I suffer this disgrace now (b) people have heard about
Adam’s case and so sympathize with his suffering, I have suffered no less. Hali (Ghalib’s student) says
that the addition of the word ‘bahut’ implied that his disgrace was far greater than Adam’s. Take your
pick…
Ghalib says that in this era wine drinking has become synonymous with his name. So the time for King
Jamshed’s goblet to reappear has come. It is believed that King Jamshed was the discoverer of wine
and goblet. Here he compares his prowess of drinking to King Jamshed.
Another of Ghalib’s sher subject to multiple interpretations and also according to us, philosophical.
Here he says that how could he expect any appreciation of his sufferings, when others suffer more
than him. In this world everyone seeks understanding of their own problems but fail to realize that
others have problems too and that their problems may be of a far greater magnitude than ours. Some
writers have interpreted it as Ghalib’s lament as to how his beloved could appreciate his wounded
feelings when her own feelings had been wounded by someone else i.e. her love for the other person
had not been reciprocated.
In love, the boundary between life and death is erased. One thinks of the lover all the time, lives in the
hope of seeing her, and is ready to lay down his life for her. Well, slightly run of the mill stuff from
Ghalib, this one.
Where the door to the bar, where Ghalib and where the preacher (how can you compare them)
But I know this much, yesterday, when he was going, I was coming out.
The preacher calls wine drinking all bad and goads people against it. But I guess he too has his ‘pegs’.
So despite all his teachings of abstinence, he too drinks (implying that addiction to wine is universal
and that drinking comes naturally to people). Now, what we like about this sher is its tongue in cheek
approach. He does not directly accuse the preacher of drinking, but says yesterday he saw him
‘passing by’ the bar and so was surprised. The rest he leaves to the imagination of the reader.