Interpreting a couplet of Ghalib through Multiple Prisms.
Original couplet :
“Main ne chaaha tha
ki andoh-e-vafa se chhutoon,
Woh sitamgar meray marne pe bhi raazi na hua”…..….Ghalib
Simple Translation:
(I had wished to be freed from the sorrow of fidelity,
but that tyrant was not satisfied even with my death.)
The phrase ‘Andoh-e-vafa’ (grief of fidelity) suggests
that faithfulness in love has brought nothing but pain. Ghalib wishes to escape
that sorrow, even implying that death might be the
only release. However, the beloved is described as ‘Sitamgar’
(cruel one/tormentor), a common term in classical Urdu poetry for an indifferent or
heartless beloved. The hyperbole lies in the final line: even the
lover’s death does not satisfy the beloved. This
exaggeration intensifies the theme of unrequited love; the beloved remains
unmoved, showing ultimate indifference. Ghalib seeks escape from suffering born
of attachment, yet even death does not grant release. Now, let us interpret this
through four philosophical lenses.
(1)
Through Albert Camus
(Absurdism)
For Camus,
the central human condition is the Absurd
— the clash between our longing for meaning and the indifferent silence of the
universe. The lover desires release from suffering (“andoh-e-vafā”). Even death
fails to deliver resolution. The beloved remains unmoved. From a Camusian
perspective, this resembles the human cry for relief from existential anguish,
and the world’s refusal to respond. The “sitamgar” (cruel beloved) becomes
symbolic of an indifferent universe.
(2) Through
the Upanishads
The Upanishadic
view identifies suffering with Avidya (ignorance
of the Self). The sorrow here arises from:
· Identification
with the ego (“I am the lover”),
·
Attachment to another (“the beloved”),
·
Expectation of reciprocity.
From a
Upanishadic lens:
·
The grief is born of misidentification with the limited self.
·
Death does not free one from attachment because ignorance persists
beyond bodily death.
·
Liberation (moksha) requires realisation of the non-dual Self (Atman
= Brahman).
Thus: The
lover seeks release externally (even in death), but true release lies in
Self-knowledge. The “cruel beloved” is a
projection within ignorance.
(3) Through
Nagarjuna (Madhyamika / Emptiness)
Nagarjuna’s
philosophy centres on Shunyata (emptiness): all things lack inherent, independent existence.In this light:
· “Lover,”
“beloved,” “sorrow,” and “death” are relational constructions.
·
Suffering arises from reifying these concepts as solid realities.
·
The idea that death could resolve sorrow assumes a fixed self who
suffers.
Nagarjuna
would deconstruct the entire framework:
·
There is no inherently existing “I” to suffer.
·
No inherently existing “beloved” who withholds satisfaction.
·
No independent “death” as escape.
Freedom comes
not from death, but from insight into emptiness. When the dependent nature of
self and attachment is seen, grief collapses.
(4)
Through Adi Shankara (Advaita
Vedanta)
Sankara radicalises the
Upanishadic insight:
·
The world of lover and beloved is Maaya (phenomenal
appearance).
·
Attachment arises from superimposition (adhyaasa).
·
Death is merely another event in the realm of illusion.
From Advaita’s standpoint:
·
The sorrow of fidelity persists because the Jiva (individual self)
still identifies with body and mind.
·
Death cannot grant Moksha.
·
Only the realisation of Brahman as one’s true nature ends suffering.
Thus, the lover’s tragedy lies in
seeking liberation through an event (death) rather than knowledge ( Gyana ).
(5) Through
Kashmir Shaivism (Especially the tradition articulated by Abhinavagupta)
Kashmir Shaivism (Trika) does not see the world as mere
illusion. Instead:
·
The universe is the self-expression (spanda)
of Śiva-consciousness.
·
Bondage is not a real limitation but a contraction (Sankocha) of universal awareness.
·
The lover’s sorrow arises from forgetting one’s identity as the
whole.
From this
standpoint:
·
The “beloved” is none other than Shiva.
·
The pain of fidelity is the ache of separated consciousness
longing for its own fullness.
·
Death cannot free the lover because bondage is not physical — it
is a limitation in awareness.
Kashmir
Shaivism would say, The cruelty of the beloved is divine play (Leela ). The longing itself is Shiva tasting separation
from Himself. Liberation comes not by escape, but by recognition
(Pratyabhijna), realising,
“I was never other than the beloved.” Thus, the couplet of Ghalib becomes
mystical rather than tragic.
(6) Through
the Sikh Gurus (Especially the teachings of Guru
Nanak and enshrined in the Guru Granth
Sahib)
The Sikh Gurus often use lover–Beloved
symbolism. But here is the crucial shift: If the beloved
appears cruel,
it is because the ego still stands between lover and Divine. According to Sikh
teaching:
· Mere physical
death cannot liberate.
·
What must die is Haumai (Ego-centeredness)
·
When the ego dissolves through Naam-Japa(Divine
remembrance), union occurs even while alive.
So the line
“not satisfied even with my death” becomes spiritually precise: If ego remains,
death changes nothing. Liberation is jeevan-mukti
— freedom while living.
(7) The Gita on Sorrow (Shoka)
The Gita opens with Arjuna in
despair, overwhelmed by attachment and grief. In Chapter 2, Sri Krishna teaches:
·
Sorrow arises from attachment
(Sanga).
·
What is born must die; what dies is reborn.
·
The Self (Atman) is unborn,
undying.
Thus, from
the Gita’s standpoint:
If suffering
arises from attachment, death cannot end it, because the Self does not die. The
lover wants to escape from “andoh-e-vafā” (the grief of attachment). Sri Krishna
would say: grief is not ended by death, but by right understanding. The Gita is
clear:
“Just as a person casts off worn-out garments and puts on others
new,
so the embodied Self casts off worn-out bodies and enters others new.” (2.22)
So in Gita’s
philosophy:
·
Physical death is merely a transition.
·
Unresolved attachment carries forward.
·
Desire binds the soul to rebirth (3.39–40, 8.6).
Thus, the line
“not
satisfied even with my death” aligns perfectly: death does not dissolve bondage if attachment persists. The
Gita prescribes three integrated paths:
· Karma Yoga — act
without attachment to results.
·
Gyana Yoga — realise the Self as eternal.
·
Bhakti Yoga — surrender
the ego to the Divine.
The sorrow of
fidelity in the couplet is painful because it is ego-centred love. The Gita
transforms attachment into devotional
surrender without possessiveness.
The Most Striking Convergence
Across
radically different metaphysical systems — existentialist, Vedantic, Buddhist,
Shaiva, Sikh, and the teaching of the Bhagavad
Gita, one theme quietly repeats:
Physical death is not liberation.
In the
couplet attributed to Mirza Ghalib, the
lover assumes that suffering belongs to life, and therefore, the negation of
life will negate suffering. This is the subtle metaphysical error. Every one of
these traditions, despite their vast doctrinal differences, denies that
assumption:
· For Albert Camus, death evades the absurd rather
than resolving it.
·
The Upanishads and Adi Shankara teach that ignorance, not
embodiment, is the root of sorrow.
·
Nagarjuna dismantles
the very notion of a fixed self that could escape through annihilation.
·
Abhinavagupta sees bondage
as contracted consciousness, not mortal existence.
·
Guru Nanak insists that
ego must die, not the body.
·
The
Bhagavad Gita would conclude in one line: “Do not seek freedom by ending life; seek it by ending attachment through
right knowledge, action, and surrender.”
Thus, Ghalib’s
cry, though poetic, dramatises a
universal confusion: he seeks release through negation. But true release, in all these systems, is
not the ending of existence; it is the transformation of consciousness. Death changes circumstances. Insight
changes being. And suffering ends only with the latter.
( Avtar Mota )
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.
