kar ga))ii ;xvaab se bedaar tumhe;N .sub;h kii baa))o
be-dimaa;G itne jo ho ham pah magar ham ne kiy

1) it woke you from sleep/dreams and went on, the dawn breeze
2) since you are so ill-tempered toward us-- perhaps/but we did it!



S. R. Faruqi:

The dawn breeze, which has awakened the beloved, can also be the lover's dawn sigh. The lover, using a faux-naïf approach, says that 'If you are angry with us to such an extent, why is this? We haven't awakened you!'. It's an entirely new theme.

The second meaning is that if you're angry with us, then be angry with us, but we awakened you. That is, you have no sympathy for anybody, you take your ease and sleep sweetly. We pass the night in wakefulness; at dawn we make a lament. We woke you so that you too should listen to it. With regard to this interpretation, Iqbal's [Persian] verse is extremely fine:

'I lamented so that you would awaken and arise; otherwise
Passion is the kind of task that can also be fulfilled without sighs and laments.'



The little pah is a metrically shortened contraction for par , which can mean not only 'on' but also 'but'. Then, magar more often means 'but' than 'perhaps', even though in this verse is means 'perhaps'. So we have two words that can mean 'but', pushed right up against each other. Is that juxtaposition in any sense part of the wordplay of the verse? Is it a piquant little something that we subtle ghazal fans are supposed to notice? Or is it just wild over-reading? Sometimes this whole project makes me feel that I'm losing my grip on reality.

In any case, the sense of magar as 'perhaps' would mean that either sarcastically or sincerely, the lover offers to assume the blame, since the beloved is so angry at him. If magar is taken as 'but', then the first line might be an excuse or alibi that the lover vainly offers-- 'It wasn't I who woke you with my sighing, it was the dawn breeze!' Then in the second line he confesses, resignedly but triumphantly, 'Well, you're determined to be angry at me-- but all right, I did do it!'