zabāñ se ʿarẓ-e tamannā-e ḳhāmushī maʿlūm
magar vuh ḳhānah-bar-andāz guft-gū jāne
1) through speech/'tongue', the presentation/petition of the longing of/for silence-- 'known' [to be impossible]!
2a) but/perhaps that house-overthrower would consider [it to be] conversation/contention
2b) but/perhaps that house-overthrower of conversation/contention would know
ḳhānah-bar-andāz : 'A traveller; a wandering monk; a prodigal, spendthrift; a beloved object'. (Steingass p.444)
andāz : 'Throwing; thrower, caster, shooter; (used as last member of comp.)'. (Platts p.90)
guft-gū : 'Conversation, discourse, dialogue, common talk, chitchat; altercation, dispute, debate, expostulation, controversy, contention, squabble'. (Platta p.910)
That is, for a silent longing to be presented with the tongue is difficult. Indeed, if the house-overthrowing beloved would understand silence itself to have some meaning, then she would. This can be the meaning, but the expression of the verse is not helpful to the presentation of meaning. In the iẓāfat of tamannā-e ḳhāmushī there's confusion, and the beloved's attribute of 'house-overthrower' too is inappropriate.
ḳhānah-bar-andāz : One who causes a house to be looted; the beloved. Through the tongue, the presentation of the longing of/for silence is 'known' [to be impossible]. That is, our silence will make no use of speech. That is, beneath my silence will be the expression of a suppressed longing. Indeed, if that 'house-overthrower of conversation' (that is, the beloved who speaks a great deal) would understand our silence itself to be an expression of meaning, then let her understand it.
[Unlike Asi] I consider it better to put an iẓāfat on ḳhānah-bar-andāz . He has opposed his own silence to her efflorescent speech.
SETS == MAGAR
SPEAKING: {14,4}
For more on Ghalib's unpublished verses, see the discussion in {4,8x}. See also the overview index.
On this idiomatic use of maʿlūm , see {4,3}. On the translation of jān'nā , see {16,5}.
The second line offers two choices. We can read the line without, or with, an iẓāfat between ḳhānah-bar-andāz and guft-gū . If we don't put one (2a), then Zamin's objection that 'house-overthrower' has been given no special appropriateness to the beloved is well grounded. If we do put one (2b) as Gyan Chand proposes, then the epithet 'house-overthrower of conversation/contention' becomes awkward in a different way (why does 'conversation/contention' have, or resemble, a house?).
I can't get excited about the question either way. After that very promising first line-- with its opposition between speech and silence, and its ambiguity between the longing 'of' silence (for something unspecified) and the longing 'for' silence-- the second line is something of a letdown. If Ghalib had been in his best form, he would have replaced 'house-overthrower' with something else-- something that would have had more resonance with guft-gū .
Asi:
It is not at all possible that my silence will ever utter a longing with the tongue; this is something like an absurdity. Now the thing can only move along if that house-overthrower would consider my silence too to be speech/conversation.
== Asi, p. 288