dil taab hii laayaa nah ;Tuk taa yaad rahtaa ham-nishii;N
ab ((aish roz-e va.sl kaa hai jii me;N bhuulaa ;xvaab saa

1) the heart didn't show only/emphatically a bit of endurance, so that the companion would have been remembered
2) now the luxury/sensuality of the day of union is, in the inner-self, like a forgotten/strayed dream



((aish : 'A life of pleasure and enjoyment, pleasure, delight, luxury; gratification of the appetites, sensuality; carnal intercourse'. (Platts p.767)

S. R. Faruqi:

Ghalib has taken this theme from such a level, to such a level:


But Mir too has, by speaking of the heart's non-endurance, created a subtle point. The luxury of the day of union was intense and tumultuous to such an extent, that the heart wasn't able to endure this extremity of enjoyment. The beloved was not available a second time, the heart too wasn't able to endure a second shock of enjoyment.

Thus now a foggy-ish memory of union has remained. As though it would be remembered that there had been some dream, but there would be no memory of what the dream had been about.



In the first line, who is the ham-nishii;N ? The 'companion' could very plausibly be the beloved ('so that she, my companion, would have been remembered'). Or it could, a bit awkwardly, be the heart itself: overwhelmed by the ecstasy of union, the heart disintegrated entirely, and failed to show even enough endurance 'so that it, my companion, would have been remembered'. Or the term could also be a vocative ('oh companion'), making the verse an address to a sympathetic friend, in which case what 'would have been remembered' would be the 'luxury of union'.

Note for grammar fans: bhuulaa hai can be taken as either the present perfect ('has been forgotten') or a short form of the adjectival perfect participle bhuulaa hu))aa hai ('is in a state of having been forgotten'). In the present verse it hardly seems to make much difference.