;xaalii pa;Re hai;N daam kahii;N yaa .said-e dashtii .said hu))e
yaa jis .said-afgan ke liye the us ko ;zauq-e shikaar nahii;N

1) the nets lie fallen empty, somewhere, either the wild/desert prey have become prey
2) or that prey-overthrower for whom they were [destined], has no relish for the hunt



.said : 'Hunting; the chase; game, chase, prey, an object of the chase; an animal pursued, or fished for, or ensnared'. (Platts p.747)


afgan : 'Casting, throwing down'. (Platts p.62)

S. R. Faruqi:

This verse too [like {1851,9}] is the bearer of a strange mystery. The point is fine, that all the animals have come into existence only so that the beloved would hunt them. Khusrau has [in Persian] brought this theme to the level of extreme perfection:

'All the deer of the desert, with their heads on the palms of their hands,
Wait in hope for the day when you would come on a hunt.'

Mir, by saying jis .said-afgan ke liye , expressed Khusrau's whole idea. But the mystery is that the prey-overthrower for whom all these animals had come into existence-- why does she have no relish for the hunt? Mir has again composed this same theme in the same divan, but there too the matter doesn't become clear [{1856,10}]:

ab ;zauq-e .said us ko nahii;N varnah pesh az-ii;N
uudham thaa va;hsh-o-:tair se us ke shikaar me;N

[now she has no relish for the hunt; otherwise, before her
there was a clamor/commotion from birds and beasts in her hunt]

The abundance of possibilities has made the verse interesting: (1) Now she has renounced beloved-ship. (2) Now her heart doesn't incline toward commonplace prey. (3) Now her attention is only on herself.

In the present verse, in the first line he's 'seated' the word kahii;N well. The prose of it will be: daam ;xaalii pa;Re hai;N _ yaa .said-e dashtii kahii;N .said hu))e -- that is, he's mentioned one possibility in this line too, that perhaps all the animals have already been hunted down, now there are none left at all. The word .said has been used in each place with a different meaning. The first .said means 'those animals that are hunted', and the second one means 'hunted down, captured, etc.'.



SRF praises the positioning of the word kahii;N ; it seems to me that it's even a bit better than he has shown. SRF reads it with the clause after it; but it can equally well be read with the clause before it: 'the nets lie fallen empty somewhere'. In that case the 'somewhere' shows that the nets are so neglected that it's not even clear where they've been abandoned.

And what about 'that prey-overthrower for whom they were [destined]'? SRF is sure that the they refers to the prey animals-- the Hunter is the one for whom they 'had come into existence' [bane the]. But surely another (though definitely secondary) possibility is the nets-- the nets had been made for the use of the Hunter who has now abandoned them. Since the is such a minimal verb, it has to be implicitly supplemented in either case: SRF sees it as short for bane the ; on the 'nets' reading, it could also be short for banaa))e ga))e the . In a verse so full of 'mystery', it's only appropriate that a secondary reading should add even another layer or two of uncertainty.