Ghazal 4, Verse 11x

Asi:

Why would Ghalib's wildness/madness not receive the tax/revenue [;xaraaj] of peace/tranquility? -- since the person whom negligence has killed is the enemy of the blood-price.

== Asi, p. 53

Zamin:

The one who has been slain by negligence will remain subject only to neglect; what does he have to do with a blood-price? Ghalib too is slain by negligence-- his wildness/madness receives taxes from peace/tranquility. That is, the rank of his wildness/madness is higher than that of peace/tranquility. The idea is that Ghalib is not among those madmen who would be 'clever about their own affairs' [bah kaar-e ;xvesh hushyaar]. Rather, his madness is the result of a disconnection from property, that would be a cause of inner peace.

A second aspect can also be that the one who is slain by negligence-- for what crime will his murderer be seized, and from whom will the blood-price be received! Then, if Ghalib would want to do something, what could he do?

== Zamin, p. 32

Gyan Chand:

baaj-;xvaah = that individual who would receive taxes from zamindars or highway guards [raah-daar] or merchants of the bazaar, and would convey them into the royal treasury. baaj-;xvaah-e taskii;N = a receiver of taxes from peace/tranquility; that is, an acquirer of property from peace/tranquility.

Ghalib himself is slain by the negligence of the beloved. One who is dying from the beloved's negligence considers death to be the end of longing. Therefore he doesn't demand the blood-price from the beloved. Then after dying, why wouldn't wildness/madness attain peace?

Or again, there can be this related meaning, that Ghalib saw that the one who was dying from the beloved's negligence was an enemy of the 'blood-price'. Which would mean that to die from negligence would be some greatly pleasing thing. Thus his wildness/madness has attained peace: if we too would be compelled to die through negligence, then it will be no loss.

== Gyan Chand, p. 68

FWP:

SETS == PEN-NAME
[DEAD LOVER SPEAKS: {57,1}]
MADNESS: {14,3}

For background see S. R. Faruqi's choices. This verse is NOT one of his choices; I thought it was interesting and have added it myself. For more on Ghalib's unpublished verses, see the discussion in {4,8x}.

The 'blood-price' was a payment traditionally exacted from a murderer (or the murderer's family or clan), to satisfy the claim of the victim's family or clan, and remove the right or duty of killing the murderer (or members of the murderer's family or clan) to avenge the victim's death. For other examples of 'blood-price' verses, see {21,9}.

Obviously, the beloved's guilt for 'murder by negligence' is a special case. The one who has been slain that way apparently still has opinions, and is able to make them known, for he has been found (by a person or persons unknown, by some bureaucratic 'them') to be an 'enemy of the blood-price'. Thus this verse is one of the group in which the dead lover still somehow speaks from beyond the grave; for more examples, see {57,1}.

Why is this person an 'enemy of the blood-price'? As so often, we're left to decide for ourselves. Perhaps because he's grateful to the beloved for putting him out of his misery, and thus doesn't want to see her punished? Perhaps because he thinks that to be slain by the beloved, even through negligence, is a gloriously desirable thing? Perhaps because he doesn't think that 'negligence' really constitutes murder, and doesn't want the beloved to be pestered about it?

Or perhaps because he doesn't want his requital in money, but in something else more desirable. Perhaps he'd rather take it out in trade, in the form of peace, tranquility, the serenity of surrender? Such a 'peace dividend' could be applied directly to his 'wildness/madness', and would surely have a soothing effect. In fact this wildness/madness might be ;Gaalib in the sense of 'overpowering' that gives rise to (1b), so that the verse might be about the fate of any lover slain by the beloved's cruel neglect.