FWP:
SETS == A,B; INEXPRESSIBILITY; IZAFAT
MADNESS: {14,3}
SHAME/HONOR: {3,5}
For background see S. R. Faruqi's choices. For more on Ghalib's unpublished verses, see the discussion in {4,8x}. This verse is from a different, unpublished, formally identical ghazal, {313x}, and is included for comparison. On the presentation of verses from unpublished ghazals like this one along with formally identical divan ghazals, see {145,5x}.
The first line uses the 'inexpressibility trope'. We shouldn't ask about the chaotic 'wildness' of life-- but why exactly? Is it so inexpressibly cruel and evil, something unjustly inflicted on us from outside? Or is it something neutral and inevitable, something we choose when we choose the lover's way of life, and thus to be (ruefully) accepted without discussion? Or is the inexpressibility simply hyperbolic ('The speed of the train? Don't even ask!')? And what exactly is it we're not supposed to ask about in the first place-- the 'wildness' in itself (whatever that may be); or the general way that life happens to us (like 'drinking from a firehose' perhaps); or something about our reaction to this kind of life?
The second line adds one more question: is the situation depicted in the first line something that reflects either 'shamefully' or 'honorably' (through the multivalence of nang ) on us? The 'shame' side of nang appears more prominent no doubt: a madman's hair is disgracefully and barbarously tangled. But surely the 'honor' side hovers in the background: the way the madman's tangled hair keeps growing even under difficult conditions could be seen as a tribute to the principle of 'growth/flourishing' itself. For more on the nuances of nang , see {3,5}.
In addition, it's an 'A,B' verse, so that we have to decide for ourselves how to connect the two lines. Do both lines describe the same situation, in different metaphorical terms? Or do the two lines describe three similar situations (life, ourself, a madman's hair)? Or do they envision a kind of contrast-- life does certain things to us, but we react in certain ways? Or is one line a cause and the other an effect? (And if so, which way around?)
And on top of that, the verse is crammed with fully five i.zaafat constructions, each of which opens out into a series of possibile connections (identity with? possession of? cause or effect relationship with? some other kind of association?). For more on this, see {16,1}.
Moreover, the particularly wide range of meanings of va;hshat (see the definition above) works effectively to keep open all these ambiguities. It's a state, after all, that can be located either in the world, or in the human psyche. It can range from 'fierceness' to 'fear', from 'sadness' to 'barbarousness'.
Interpreting verses like this is like following along through the twists and turns of life, or tracing out the tangles of a madman's hair.
Asi:
Why do you ask us about the wildness of the disconnectedness of the twists and turns of existence? Like the hair on a madman's head, their growth/flourishing is a cause for disgrace. That is, the way in the hair of madmen there are tangles and twists and turns, in the same way there are twists and turns in our existence-- and because of this very disconnectedness, wildness has occurred, because of which we are a disgrace to growth/flourishing.
== Asi, p. 158