lohuu me;N ;Duube dekhiyo daamaan-o-jeb-e miir
biphraa hai aaj diidah-e ;xuu;N-baar be-:tara;h

1) they {are / might/would be} drowned in blood, look-- Mir's garment-hem and collar!
2) today the blood-scattering eye has struggled/rebelled disorganizedly/unstylishly



bipharnaa : 'To struggle (against, - se ), resist; to disagree, jar, clash; to become vexed, irritated or enraged (with, - se ), to break into a passion ... ; to break loose from control. to revolt, rise (against), make an attack (upon); to turn wild and wanton, run riot; to get into disorder, run to ruin; to be perverse, refractory. obstinate, &c.'. (Platts p.130)


be-:tara;h : 'Ill-mannered, unmannerly, uncivil, rude, awkward, uncouth; —badly, &c.'. (Platts p.203)

S. R. Faruqi:

This verse, with some alteration of words, he has already composed in the first divan [{194,5}]:

lohuu me;N shor-bor hai daamaan-o-jeb-e miir
biphraa hai aaj diidah-e ;xuu;N-baar be-:tara;h

[they are soaked in blood, Mir's garment-hem and collar
today the blood-scattering eye has struggled/rebelled disorganizedly/unstylishly]

There was certainly an affinity between shor-bor and biphraa , but in ;Duube dekho the dramaticness, and immediacy and repetition of the future, lift the present verse to a much higher level.

One meaning is that dekho is admonitory-- look out, quick, they are about to be drowned! A second meaning is that you should look 'today'. That is, in the light of one meaning the blood-scattering eye is showing an effect [of vanishing] like camphor-- that now garment-hem and collar are about to drown in blood, because today Mir's blood-scattering eye is in a disorganized agitation; thus you must watch out, his garment-hem and collar will be drenched in blood.

The metaphorical image biphraa for the blood-scattering eye is also fine. And in it too is the implication that the blood-scattering eye constantly keeps on moving, but today its style/color is something else. In saying biphraa hai aaj there's also the pleasure that it does bipharnaa every day, but today its bipharnaa has a special meaning. If he had said biphraa hu))aa then this idea would not have arisen, because then the meaning would have been that today bipharaaha;T is upon him, it's not like that every day.



What exactly is different about today? Does the blood-scattering eye usually do its scattering with poise and control, so that it doesn't bipharnaa at all? Or does it usually show bipharnaa , but not in such a wild and crazy, be-:tara;h way? Is the problem with the bloodied garment-hem and collar the idea that only the former should usually be bloodied, not the latter as well? Or is it that they should be sprinkled with blood-drops in an elegant, decorative way, not simply drenched with blood?

In any case, I consider this a classic case of grotesquerie. I keep thinking of the blood-scattering eye as something like a garden hose with the water running at full blast-- once you've dropped it, it writhes ferociously and soaks everything and resists your best efforts to control it. Do we really need this kind of imagery? Ugh! (I know, I know, I'm just being frivolously subjective. But still.)

Note for grammar fans: SRF points to the possibility of the perfect tense ( ;Duube , 'drowned', translated as 'are drowned' to accommodate English usage) being colloquially used to convey a future subjunctive effect ('would be drowned', replacing ;Duube;N ). Both readings, the literal and the colloquial, are possible in the first line.