ik vaqt ham ko thaa sar-e giryah kih dasht me;N
jo ;xaar-e ;xushk thaa so vuh :tuufaa;N-rasiidah thaa

1) at a single/particular/unique/excellent time, we had a mind/'head' for weeping, so that in the desert
2) whatever dry thorn there was-- that one was in receipt of a typhoon



rasiidah : 'Arrived; at hand; received; reached or overtaken by'. (Platts p.593)

S. R. Faruqi:

This very theme he has expressed in a lighter form in


Here in the second line the image is extremely fine.

There are two meanings of :tuufaa;N-rasiidah . One is that a typhone had arrived at every dry thorn, and the second is that every dry thorn had arrived near a typhoon. As though in the typhoon we raised there was so much ardor for flowing and drowning that every dry thorn was drawn along and had arrived near this typhoon. In the first line, ik vaqt ham ko thaa ... kih is a very fine style of expression.

[See also {124,2}.]



The speaker looks back (nostalgically?) at a special, singular time-- but, thanks to the multivalent possibilities of ek , an ambiguously described one. Plainly things are different now. But how exactly? Here are some of the possibilities:

=He used then to weep with ardor and enthusiasm, whereas now his weeping is more a sign of helplessness and despair.

=He used then to weep while wandering in the desert, while now he is unable or unwilling to wander there so freely.

=He used then to weep so abundantly that the torrent of his tears flooded every dry thorn, but now he is weaker and cannot weep up such a storm.

Of course, there's no telling whether the thorns appreciated this treatment or not. Presumably they would have been glad to have some water, so it's conceivable that the speaker is proud to have so lavishly contributed to their well-being. But salt water? --and in a huge wind-blown torrent that might uproot or drown them? Maybe not. So it's also possible that the speaker is totally indifferent to their fate, and is mentioning them only to convey the intensity of his zeal for weeping. As usual, the speaker's tone of voice is crucial-- and we readers are required (or permitted) to decide on it entirely by ourselves.

Note for grammar fans: The izafat after ;xaar isn't metrically necessary, and omitting it would hardly change the meaning much (from 'whatever dry thorn there was' to 'whatever thorn was dry'). SRF seems to use it in his reading, so I went ahead and showed it.