hai qaa((idah-e kullii yih kuu-e mu;habbat me;N
dil gum jo hu))aa hogaa paidaa nah hu))aa hogaa

1) this is a universal rule, in the street of love:
2) the heart that will have become lost, will not have become discovered/manifest [thereafter]



kullii : 'Universal, all, entire, total; every; complete; general, common, generic'. (Platts p.845)


paidaa : 'Discovered, manifested, manifest, exhibited; procured, acquired, earned, gained'. (Platts p.298)

S. R. Faruqi:

'In the street of love' is related to the second line. The prose form of the verse will be like this: 'This rule is general: (that) the heart that will have become lost in the street of love, (it then) will not have become manifest'. A verse in which the speech of the second line is not complete without adding some of the speech of the first line is called, as a literary term, 'enmeshed' [mu((aqqad]. Some people have called it a flaw [((aib], although this manner has been customary in Urdu and Persian poetry from the beginning to the end, and has not been called a flaw in any book of criticism.

Muhammad Husain Azad, in aab-e ;hayaat [p. 458], in his account of Zauq notes this verse of Zauq's:

mu;Nh u;Thaa))e hu))e jaataa hai kahaa;N tuu kih tujhe
hai tiraa naqsh-e qadam chashm-numaa))ii kartaa

[with your head held high, where are you going-- for to you
your footprint represents an eye]

He writes that Kalb-e Husain Khan 'Nadir', in his book tal;xii.s-e mu((all;aa , has objected that 'to you' belongs to the second line, and ought not to be brought into the first line. Muhammad Husain Azad writes, 'I don't know how to answer that'. If in truth he wasn't able to frame an answer for this nonsensical objection, it's surprising. It's possible that he might have written this sarcastically, and the point would have been that the objection is meaningless; or perhaps the point would have been that the objection wasn't especially important.

In any case, the truth is that 'enmeshed' verses are found in the poetry of every Ustad. Another point is that if the line would be put into prose like this: 'in the street of love, this rule is universal', then the verse would no longer be 'connected'. But in Mir's poetry 'entangled' verses are in any case present; see for example,


[See also {183,12}.]



The term 'enjambment' is usually used in English criticism for verses in which single lines are semantically incomplete, and a sentence takes two (or more) lines to be fully expressed. A substantial majority of ghazal lines are 'end-stopped' or semantically complete, but by no means all of them. It's quite easy to find examples of enjambment in the work of all the classical poets, as SRF says, and most certainly in Ghalib and Mir. It's hard to believe that Azad wouldn't have known this. So why would he make such a fuss over it? As with so many aspects of Azad's anecdotes in aab-e ;hayaat , it's impossible to figure out which of his various hidden agendas might have been operative. For further discussion of such 'entanglement of words'[ta((qiid-e laf:zii], see {183,12}.

And in this particular verse, as SRF notes, we don't even need to postulate enjambment. Why shouldn't there be a 'universal' rule that applies always and forever in the 'street of love'? I don't see why 'in the street of love' can't be read just as well with the first line as with the second.

In any case, the whole picky business of finding small 'flaws' in the work of the classical Ustads is a very odd and futile pursuit. Who has the authority to go around identifying 'flaws' in Mir's poetry? And who cares, anyway? Poetry either works or it doesn't; if it works, it laughs at nuktah-chiinii , and if it doesn't, no amount of rule-following will redeem it.