ab miir-jii to achchhe zindiiq hii ban bai;The
peshaanii pah de qashqah zunnaar pahan bai;The

1) now Mir-ji has settled in as only/emphatically a fine infidel!
2) having put a sectarial-mark on his forehead, having determinedly put on a sacred-thread



zindiiq : 'A magian, fire-worshipper; —one of a bad religion, an infidel, atheist'. (Platts p.618)


qashqah : 'The sectarial mark made by the Hindus on the forehead with sandal, &c.'. (Platts p.791)


zunnaar : 'Waist-cord, belt (particularly a cord worn round the middle by the Eastern Christians and Jews, and also by the Persian Magi); the Brahmanical or sacred thread'. (Platts p.618)

S. R. Faruqi:

It's an interesting verse, although with regard to meaning it's nothing special. On the level of everyday language, the word achchhe is fine. Here it has no special meaning, except that it's been used in order to create force in the sarcastic style of address. For example, we say aap achchhe shaa((ir hai;N kih qaafiyah radiif nahii;N pahchaante !

We can also consider the word achchhe to be a quality of the zindiiq -- that 'Mir-ji, has now settled in as a good (high-quality) zindiiq '. But in this case the force becomes less.

On this theme, there's an extremely famous verse in the first divan itself:


In 'dramaticness' and flowingness both verses are equal; and indeed, in {7,15} the insha'iyah style has created more tension. The question is worth reflecting upon, of whether if the present verse had been at the beginning of the kulliyat, it would have been as unknown as it now is. For more, see




This ghazal is unusual in that the pen-name occurs in the opening-verse, and not in the closing-verse at all. As far as I'm aware, that's just a happenstance or casual choice by the poet; it doesn't seem to have any larger significance.

The nature of the 'infidel' that Mir-ji has become, is intriguingly contradictory. By calling him a zindiiq the first line strongly suggests a Zoroastrian ( zindiiq is related to the 'zend' in Zend Avesta). But by speaking of a qashqah , the second line seems to mark him indisputably as a Hindu. Then the zunnaar can go either way (see the definitions above). Perhaps the sarcastic tone of 'You're a fine zindiq!'-- which SRF particularly notes-- could be taken to refer to these seemingly mixed-up borrowings from other religions.

For a verse that creates an unambiguously Hindu kind of infidel, see


Note for grammar fans: Nowadays, in actual pronunciation ban and pahan do not rhyme, although in theory they should. Were things different in Mir's day? Or did he just feel entitled to force them into the rhyme they had in theory (though not in practice)? For discussion see my Urdu script notes, section 8.2. For another such case, see {552,5}.

Note for translation fans: How in the world to capture ban bai;The and pahan bai;The ? It really can't be done. You can see how I've flailed around, without much success.