Citation : Singh AR (2023) God, Existence, Ego And Godliness.In :Ghalib, Psychology and Human Behaviour - 1 (A.R Singh and S.A Singh Eds), Mens Sana Monogr; 21:1.pg 60-61
نہ تھا کچھ تو خدا تھا کچھ نہ ہوتا تو خدا ہوتا
ڈبویا مجھ کو ہونے نے نہ ہوتا میں تو کیا ہوتا
न था कुछ तो ख़ुदा था कुछ न होता तो ख़ुदा होता
डुबोया मुझ को होने ने न होता मैं तो क्या होता
na thaa kuchh to KHudaa thaa kuchh na hotaa to KHudaa hotaa
Duboyaa mujh ko hone ne na hotaa mai.n to kyaa hotaa
(DG 33:1:204)
Meaning
When there was nothing, there was God,
when there will be nothing, God will be.
It’s my existence that drowns me,
if ‘l’were not to be, what would have been?
Explanation/Comment:
Ghalib makes a profound submission in the first line, acknowledging the permanence of God ie ‘His’ existence in the past, presence and future.
He then goes on to the description of himself. He says that his very existence drowned him (duboya mujhko hone ne). That is, it was the cause of his all-engulfing sorrow. If this ‘I’ (main) were not to be, what would have happened?
This “I” can have two meaning. One, the ‘I’ as an individual; other, the ‘l’ as the ego.
I) If ‘l’ as an individual had not existed, it would have hardly mattered. Here Ghalib would be stressing on the greatness of the Almighty and the insignificance of an individual.
2) If ‘l’ were to be interpreted as one’s ‘ego’ – in other words, if one could rid oneself of one’s ego then what would one have been?
One would have attained Godhood. Both interpretations seem legitimate. I am more inclined to accept the second one:
Even if God be great and a human being be insignificant, she/he retains the ability to attain Godliness, if only she/he can get rid of the shackles of a massive ego that constantly pull the individual to baser activities.