===
0015,
9
===

 

{15,9}

aag-sii ik dil me;N sulge hai kabhuu bha;Rke to miir
degii merii ha;D;Diyo;N kaa ;Dher jyuu;N ii;Ndhan jalaa

1) some single/particular/excellent/unique thing like fire burns in the heart; if it would sometime flare up, then, Mir
2) it will burn the heap of my bones like kindling/fuel

 

Notes:

ek : 'One, single, sole, alone, only, a, an; the same, identical; only one; a certain one; single of its kind, unique, singular, preëminent, excellent'. (Platts p. 113)

 

sulge hai = sulagtii hai

 

sulagnaa : 'To be kindled, be ignited, be set light to; to light; to burn without smoke or flame, to burn clearly or brightly; to be inflamed, be excited, be roused, be irritated'. (Platts p.670)

 

kabhuu = kabhii

 

bha;Raknaa : 'to break or burst forth into flame, blaze up, break out; to take fire; to fly into a passion, become very excited; to be over-heated; to break, crack (as a vessel); to be dislocated, be displaced'. (Platts p.188)

*Platts Dictionary Online*

S. R. Faruqi:

To call one's body a 'heap of bones' is a very subtle style, because by way of implication [kinaayah] it has also made clear that within the body all the flesh has melted away, and only bones have remained; and also that the body is of no importance, it's only a worthless skeleton. By using the simile of kindling/fuel he has made the feeling of contempt even stronger. In the whole verse is an intense mood [kaifiyat] of pain.

In the first line, he has used the break after hai the way usually vuh or jo would be used; in this way tension has been created in the line. In the style there's melancholy, but also a kind of sarcasm, because there's no expression of sorrow that the body has become a heap of bones, nor is there any sorrow that when the fire would flare up it would turn even that heap into dust. it's a verse of great dignity.

FWP:

SETS == EK
MOTIFS
NAMES
TERMS == IMPLICATION

The use of ek in situations like this is a marvelous Mirian and Ghalibian device too. Its range of meanings (see the definition above) extends from the dismissive ('single, only') to the greatly laudatory ('excellent, preeminent, unique'). The ek refers to 'something like a fire' [aag-sii], which itself is, by no coincidence, ambiguous. It's not exactly a fire, but is it (now) 'merely' something minor, something a bit less than a fire? Or is it something 'excellent, preeminent, unique', so that it's more than just a fire? Or is it something 'certain, particular' with its own nature, something that's just a bit different from a fire?