Ghazal 266x, Verse 2

Zamin:

That is, the cotton that had been stuffed into the crevice-work in the wall made the crevice-work into a white eye (blind eye). The beloved had wanted to be glory-scattering through the crevice-work in the wall (the beloved's wish is revealed through the word 'awaiting'), but the opposition of modesty stuffed cotton into the crevice-work, and kept our ardent gaze deprived of even a single glimpse.

In the first line the adjective ik ought to have come with 'eye'; the distance of four words between them has created an extremely unattractive convolutedness. [A mystical interpretation of the verse is also offered.]

== Zamin, p. 88

Gyan Chand:

chashm-e safed = an unseeing eye. inti:zaar-e jalvah-rezii = that person who is waiting for glory-scattering. In the wall or door-panel of the beloved's chamber there is a hole. The lover keeps standing there with his eye applied to it, so that if the beloved would pass by shedding glory, then he would see a gleam of it. So to speak, from the crevice-work a single seeing eye had sprouted, and it remained there.

Now the shy beloved stuffed cotton into the crevice-work, because her modesty had been lying in wait for the sight. After the applying of cotton, the eye of the crevice-work became white, or lightless.

== Gyan Chand, p. 120

FWP:

SETS == EK
JALVAH: {7,4}

For more on Ghalib's unpublished verses, see the discussion in {4,8x}. See also the overview index.

On the nature of a rauzan , see {64,4}; for more on the punbah-e rauzan in particular, see {87,4}.

Well, the verse certainly offers an obscure manipulation of obscure imagery. Zamin is right about the awkward positioning of ik in the first line. But it's the grammar of the second line that's so difficult to resolve. 'I found A to be B' [alif ko be paayaa] is a perfectly basic structure, and it means that the speaker found 'modesty' to be an 'awaiting'. Gyan Chand simply declares that here inti:zaar means 'that person who is awaiting', but I think he's just trying to cram a square peg into a round hole by main force.

Zamin and Gyan Chand differ greatly in their interpretations, so let me add a third one of my own. The speaker found modesty to be 'in ambush'-- stalking a prey, waiting longingly for the beloved's glory-scattering to show itself. For this ambush, the crevice-work (on the nature of this see {64,4}) in the beloved's wall was something like a hunter's 'blind'; for discussion of kamii;N , see {266x,1}. So the gaze of modesty, lying in wait, hid itself amidst the cotton-- on this see {87,4}-- that filled the crevice-work.

But because it was 'modesty', it couldn't really presume, or bear, to keep on shamelessly staring. So its 'eye' that was hidden amidst the cotton ultimately became a 'white eye' of blindness. In {111,4}, Jacob's blind white eyes become (white-appearing) crevice-work in Joseph's dark cell. Here, the gaze of 'modesty' never stops seeking a vision of the (human or divine) beloved's glory-- but it also guards itself against presumptuousness by becoming blind.

Ideally, my interpretation would require ke kamii;N me;N . I'm trying to make it work with a colloquial sense of adverbial location (as in mai;N ne alif ko be ke ghar paayaa ). I know that's really stretching a point! If you, dear reader, come up with something better, please let me know.