dil kii tah kii kahii nahii;N jaatii naazuk hai asraar bahut
anchha;R hai;N to ((ishq ke do hii lekin hai bistaar bahut

1) [a thing] from the depths of the heart is not said; secrets/mysteries are very delicate/sensitive
2) the words/spells/charms of passion are only/emphatically two, but there's much spreading/amplification/detail



anchha;R : 'A mystical or magical word or formula; spell, charm'. (Platts p.89)


bistaar : 'Spreading out; spread, extension, expansion, diffusion, development, amplification, detail, prolixity, copiousness, abundance'. (Platts p.155)

S. R. Faruqi:

Hasrat Mohani calls the first line of this verse an example of 'awkward repetition' [takraar-e naa-ravaa] and 'conflict' [tanaafur], because in it the word kii has been placed two times, very close together; and to crown it all, after the second kii (which has been metrically shortened), the word kahii comes-- that is, it is read kih kahii .

About Ghalib's line mere pate se ;xalq ko kyuu;N teraa ghar mile [from {159,2}], Hasrat ordains that in it is the flaw [((aib] of 'conflict of sound' [tanaafur-e jalii], since together with the qaaf , two kaaf sounds have been juxtaposed.

Well, no doubt it's so, but now what can be done, if our great poets paid no heed to the self-invented rules of others, but instead preferred their own creativity? People who have heard Ghalib's line as sung by Begam Akhtar will testify that not to speak of recitation, even in singing this line is very 'flowing'. Similarly, in Mir's line too, the double use of kii and the repetition of kaaf in kih kahii help to increase its flowingness, and certainly don't create any 'conflict'.

The point is that if the rules for constructing a verse are established through one's own temperament, then they often turn out to be incorrect. Only those rules are proper that are drawn from the work of great poets, and in the light of their usual habits.

Well, now please consider the meanings of the verse. Because of fresh words like anchha;R and bistaar , one doesn't immediately notice that in the two lines he's said two quite separate things. In the first line he's said that the thing that is hidden in the depth of the heart is very subtle/delicate, thus it can't be expressed. In the second line he says that the thing is very extensive, thus it can't be expressed. Both these ideas are interesting in their place, but they also have the meaningful 'connection' that the subtlety/delicacy of the secret of passion is that it depends on only two words, but in them is so much expansiveness that it cannot be completely expressed.

This expansiveness may be because the idol is within the passion of the whole temperament; or because of the colorfulness and emotional affect and many-layered depths of passion; or because passion flows throughout the whole world; or, again, because of the unfathomableness of longing, as in this peerless [Persian] verse by Abd ul-Rahman Khan-e Khanan:

'I could not reckon how far passion extends,
Except to this extent: that my heart is very full of longing.'



I fully agree with SRF's objections to Hasrat Mohani's critical methodology. It's really hard to fathom Hasrat's procedures, since he does in fact basically make up his own rules. What's the point of going around and retrospectively labeling petty little technical things in the work of great poets as 'flaws'? I always want to ask 'huh? who says so?'-- and since the answer is 'Hasrat Mohani', we have an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the authority of Hasrat on the one side, and that of Mir and Ghalib on the other. How many milliseconds is it going to take for us to figure out which side we like better?

SRF's point that in the two lines Mir has said 'two separate things' is also well taken, but of course the possibilities are even wider than the one he mentions. Since this is an 'A,B' verse, we have to decide for ourselves how the two lines are related to each other. The two lines could both refer metaphorically to the same situation; they could refer to two different, parallel situations that were to be compared for their similarity or contrasted for their opposition; or one (which?) situation could be a cause, the other an effect; and so on.

The colloquial omission of baat in the first line is the kind of touch that usually only a grammar fan would notice and enjoy. But in this case it works so well-- it refers to the thing that is not said, and it also is the thing that is not said.

We're told that the 'words/spells/charms' of passion are do hii , 'only/emphatically two'. It would be enjoyable if we could take that literally, but I can't find a way. Since ((ishq has three letters [akshar , the source of anchha;R], it can't be a direct reference. Could the two primal 'words' be the lover and the beloved? In any case, the line of least resistance is to take it as a casual expression, 'a few', 'a small number'.