INTERPRETING A COUPLET OF GHALIB THROUGH VARIOUS PRISMS

                                                                          

                                                                 ( Ghalib's Haveli in Delhi ) 

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 )

 

 

CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.