naaz ;Guruur taba;xtur saaraa phuulo;N par hai chaman kaa so
kyaa mirzaa))ii laalah-o-gul kii kuchh ;xaa:tir me;N nah laa))o tum

1) the coquetry, pride, strutting of the garden-- it is all [based] on the flowers, so
2) what lordship/rank/arrogance do the tulip and rose have?! --pay no heed to them!



taba;xtur : 'Walking with a proud and self-conceited gait, strutting; inclining from side to side in walking'. (Platts p.308)


mirzaa))ii : 'The behaviour or manners of a mirzaa ; gentility; princeliness; princedom; —arrogance'. (Platts p.1023)


;xaa:tir : ''Whatever occurs to or passes in the mind,' cogitation, thought, suggestion; memory, remembrance;—mind, soul, heart; inclination, propensity; affection, regard, favour; pleasure, satisfaction; will, choice'. (Platts p.484)

S. R. Faruqi:

mirzaa))ii = arrogance, pride

This theme too is entirely new, that all the coquetry and pride of the garden is because of the colorfulness of the flowers. In the second line, the implication is that the colorfulness of the flowers is short-lived. What trust can be placed in their pride? Or, the garden that prides itself on this-- what reality does it have? Pay no heed to these things. Your beauty is eternal, it's not short-lived like that of the flowers.

In addition to the theme, the state of affairs from which the theme has been born is also of interest. The beloved has gone into the garden; and there, seeing the flourishing beauty of the spring, she feels somewhat inferior and downhearted, that perhaps she's not as beautiful as that. The lover, who knows her temperament, guesses her mood, and says this verse in response.



SRF is certain that it's the 'colorfulness' of the flowers that is the source of their pride, and their ephemeralness that permits their arrogance to be discounted. But neither of these points is made in the verse itself.

For perhaps the beloved has simply remarked on the beauty of the garden. In response she's being reminded by the speaker that she herself is the source of all springtimes, the envy and despair of every flower in the garden. Does she really need to be reassured about this, when so many verses make it clear over and over again, and none contradict it? Just for one example out of many, consider


in which the beloved barely takes the trouble to stroll in the garden, yet she drives the rose and the cypress mad with envy, to the point of actually enslaving them with her beauty. This is the almost invariable hierarchy-- the beloved is primary, the flowers secondary. It's hard to believe that she could really doubt it.