dil me;N to lagii do;N sii bharii;N chashme sii aa;Nkhe;N
kyaa apne ta))ii;N ro))uu;N idhar aag udhar aab

1) in the heart, only/emphatically fire flared; the fountain-like eyes filled
2) how will I weep for myself-- this way fire, that way water?!



S. R. Faruqi:

do;N = fire, especially a flaring-up fire

The word do;N itself is so fresh that it has the power of a whole verse. As in the opening-verse [{1109,1}], here too he has mingled fire and water. Keep in mind the wordplay of 'fountain' and 'eyes'. He's put into place the kind of second line that evokes amazement. With what ease he has provided an answer to the first line; but if the second line were not before us, then even if we thought a thousand times, we wouldn't understand what there was to say after the first line, what the poet could have composed.

From the point of view of meaning, it's also fine. The weeping is fruitless, because through it the fire in the heart won't be extinguished; and the eyes won't be empty, because they are filled like a fountain. Then, if I weep over the fire, the fountain-like eyes are present; if I grieve over the fountain-like eyes, the fire in the heart is present. That is, it's not possible to stop the fire in the heart because the fountain of the eyes is in attendance; and it's not possible to stop the fountain of the eyes because the fire in the heart is in attendance.

Fire and water, Ghalib too has commingled in one verse:


Saha Mujaddadi [sahaa mujaddadii] says that 'In this verse [of Ghalib's] the pleasure is that in the heart a hidden fire, and the heart to be drowned in an ocean of tears-- he has brought together two opposites'. And there's no doubt that where Mir has merely commingled fire and water, Ghalib's accomplishment is that he has lit a fire within the water.



Sometimes Mir uses the archaic spellings iidhar and uudhar , which are visibly distinct. Here he uses the modern spellings, which can be distinguished only by diacritics that Mir didn't provide. Thus he's created an additional layer of confusion in the second line, since we can only guess whether 'this' or 'that' comes first.

The positioning of kyaa opens out various rhetorical possibilities. 'How I will weep for myself!'-- since the lover in such an awful state of misery. Or else, of course, 'How will I weep for myself?'-- when the unholy mixture of fire and water would seem to make tears impossible.

Most uncharacteristically, SRF uses an incorrect version of the text (with the first word as sozish instead of shorish ) for the Ghalib verse that he cites. See G{212,4} for discussion. If Arshi's correct text is used, that verse's relevance to the present verse disappears.