S. R. Faruqi:

Between band band judaa honaa and .saa;hib ko bande se judaa karnaa there's the pleasure of a zila. He's used a fine curse too; it seems that Mir also was fluent in the use of women's language. If the occasion arises, then he uses every kind of language. The word .saa;hib makes the zanaanah -like tone even stronger.

By bande the speaker himself can be meant. Or again, any servant at all, any lover, who is being forcibly separated from the beloved. The word dekhuu;N is also worth attention. Because until the separated joints are seen, the revenge will not be complete.

Let's consider some additional aspects of meaning. One question is who those people are, who are separating the master from the servant. A second question is who the speaker is. If we consider the speaker to be the lover, then the meaning becomes that the beloved too is to an extent dominated and oppressed-- she is being separated from the lover, and she can do nothing. In the light of this interpretation the people who are separating the master (the beloved) from the servant (the lover) are not merely worldly, superficial people, but rather such powers, or such circumstances, or such people, as have a command and intention that operates on the beloved as well.

If we assume that the speaker is not the lover himself, but rather is someone with some connection to servitude with him (or the beloved), then a different kind of story is being told in the verse. Now it seems that (for example) this verse is being said about the banishment of some king or chieftain, and the people doing the banishment are from the world of country-seizing and politics.

If we assume that who are separating the master (the beloved) from the servant (the lover) themselves have the qualities of beloveds (that is, the beloved is in love with them or him), then this verse presents the theme of the beloved's being coerced by passion.

In any case, there's always the pleasure that the servant [bandah] is captured by the bondage [band] (slavery, lover-ship) of his master. The breaking of this bondage (that is, the opening of the knots or chains of servitude) has, for the servant, the effect of every joint in every limb of his body being separated. The master (the beloved) is becoming separated, and every one of the servant's (the lover's) joints is becoming separated. He prays that the way his every joint is being separated, in the same way those who have torn him apart in the Doomsday of separation may also have their every joint separated. Here again there are two meanings. One is that that their every joint may actually be separated. The other is that their master may be separated from them.

Here the familiarity and intimacy in the usage of .saahib and bande has not been able to come into this verse of Momin's:

.saa;hib ne is ;Gulaam ko aazaad kar diyaa
lo bandagii kih chhuu;T ga))e bandagii se ham

[the master freed this slave
what servitude-- that we were removed from servitude!]

Though indeed, in its own right Momin's verse has the pleasure that his beloved's pen-name was 'Sahib'.

Although Shah Nasir has well versified band band and bande ( band-e qabaa ), he has none of Mir's kind of 'meaning-creation':

band band us ke judaa kiije yihii hai dil me;N
jaan-e man band-e qabaa jis ne tumhaaraa kholaa

[let his every joint be separated! --this is in my heart
the one who, my dearest, opened the belt of your robe]

FWP:

SETS == BHI; REPETITION; WORDPLAY
MOTIFS == BONDAGE
NAMES == GOD
TERMS == ZILA

The overarching word- and meaning-play opposes the idea of binding with that of loosing. The joints of the body [band band] hold it together; the servant [bandah] is tied or 'bound' to his master both by definition, and by ties of affection. Those who 'separate' the servant from the master are cursed with the fate of having the joints of their own bodies become 'separate'.

Here bhii has only its special colloquial sense, as a kind of intensifier.

As SRF notes, this is a wonderfully evocative curse, and also suggests that the servant who is forcibly separated from his master feels as though he is being torn limb from limb. In such a tiny poem, the result is that close to one-third of the words are part of the repetitive 'bound' or 'separated' sets. This feat has been achieved so effortlessly that the verse feels colloquial and spontaneous.