mar to nahii;N gayaa mai;N par jii hii jaantaa hai
gu;zrii hai shaaq mujh par jaisii judaa))ii-e dil

1) I didn't after all die, but only/emphatically my inner-self knows
2) how grievous it was, when a thing like separation from the heart happened to me



shaaq : 'Difficult, hard, distressing, grievous, burdensome, afflicting, troublesome, severe, perplexing, embarrassing, wearisome, &c.'. (Platts p.718)

S. R. Faruqi:

The understatement of this verse too is peerless. The following verse, from the first divan, is deservedly famous [{616,2}]:

mu.saa))ib aur the par dil kaa jaanaa
((ajab ik saana;hah saa ho gayaa hai

[there were other difficulties, but the going of the heart
has become like a single/particular/unique, extraordinary event]

But my view is that the present verse is better than {616,2}. With regard to theme both verses are supreme, because in both verses a great thing has been expressed in a scaled-down way, but there's not even a suspicion of any attempt to elaborate or boast. But in {616,2} there's a slight flicker of self-pity ('there were other difficulties'-- that is, I am in any case afflicted with difficulties).

In the present verse there's a tone of matter-of-factness, as though some event of everyday life would be in the process of being narrated. For example, we say that the pain of our toothache was so severe that 'what can I say-- well, I didn't die, but it almost did me in'. Then, in comparison to dil kaa jaanaa , to say judaa))ii-e dil is more eloquent, because in it is the suggestion both of an intention, and also of duress. That is, we deliberately separated the heart from ourself, the way we give some dear one leave to depart, although his/her going is felt by the heart as grievous. The duress was of a kind such that the heart became restless and became separated from us, and we were unable to do anything.

For the separation of the heart, to say that this grief jii hii jaantaa hai is very fine, because dil and jii also have the same meaning. Then, there's the presence of four characters in the verse. One is the person who's being addressed; the second is the speaker. The third is his inner-self (because that is who knows this grief); and the fourth is the heart, that has become separated.

In addition to all this, there's the fact that the verse contains no unnecessary kind of pain or burning, etc.-- nothing that our Western-worshiping elders would have called 'pathos' [dard-o-gudaaz] and would have admired. In the English literature of the Victorian period, emotionality and 'pathos' were very much in fashion. Later generations rightly began to dislike this. But our English education hasn't been able to advance beyond the perceptions of the Victorian period. For just this reason, Majnun Sahib and Firaq Sahib, etc., preferred {616,2}, because in it they saw 'pathos'-- and the present verse never received their attention.



In discussing this verse SRF twice uses the English word 'pathos', as well as supplying an Urdu counterpart, dard-o-gudaaz . He also discusses its historical role in English and Urdu criticism. On the 'Terms' page I've supplied a few more examples where the term could be applied, but there are of course plenty of others. SRF's view of them is consistent: he prefers understatement and eschews emotional excess-- as, he maintains, Mir does as well.

Note for grammar fans: The jaisii seems to be part of a relative-correlative construction in which the correlative cause is not explicitly stated. The full form might be something like this: jii hii jaantaa hai kih jaisii judaa))ii-e dil mujh par shaq gu;zrii hai , vaisii hii maut gu;zrii hotii . This explains the relevance of the first part of the first line: 'I didn't actually die, but what I felt at the separation of the heart was very much the way death would have felt'.