Ghazal 19, Verse 2

{19,2}

be-niyaazii ;had se guzrii bandah-parvar kab talak
ham kahe;Nge ;haal-e dil aur aap farmaave;Nge kyaa

1) inattention/independence passed beyond the limit-- Protector of Servants, for how long

2a) we will say the state of our heart and you will command, 'What [did you say]?'
2b) we will say the state of our heart, and you will command, 'What [-- how dare you]!'
2c) we will say the state of our heart, and you will command-- what?!
2d) we will say the state of our heart-- and what will you command?

Notes:

be-niyaazii : 'Freedom from want, ability to dispense (with), independence'. (Platts p.204)

 

talak is an archaic form of tak ; GRAMMAR.

 

farmaanaa : 'To order, command; (in polite or respectful speech with reference to superiors, &c.) to say, affirm, declare'. (Platts p.779)

Nazm:

He says, your inattention has passed beyond all limits: you ignore my state and don't listen to me, and constantly say negligently, 'What did you say?'. In this verse kyaa is in a narrative mode, the way the author has later said: {21,2}. (20)

== Nazm page 20

Bekhud Dihlavi:

From the second aspect of the word kyaa a meaning of sarcasm emerges: that is, whatever you said, it's a lie! (40)

Bekhud Mohani:

In this verse he's shown the limit of the lover's restlessness and the beloved's indifference. When the hearer doesn't listen to the speaker's words, it very much displeases the speaker.

Note: If anybody else besides the beloved would be the addressee, then the verse can also be read in a tone of challenge. (47)

Faruqi:

[See his comments on Mir's M{921,5}.]

FWP:

SETS == DIALOGUE; KYA
SPEAKING: {14,4}

In the second line, another remarkable example of the versatility of kyaa . The lover makes his plaint to the beloved, who is (with either irony or naive hope) addressed as 'Protector of Servants,' a title fit for saints or virtuous kings. Her reply, fittingly, takes the form of a 'command'.

Perhaps her reply takes the form of a languid 'What?' of total negligence (2a), since she hasn't been listening; or perhaps she responds with a 'What!' of indignation and anger at his presumptuousness (2b).

Or else she says something so outrageous that the lover himself exclaims in disbelief at it (2c), as Bekhud Dihlavi suggests. Or else the lover simply wonders what she will in fact finally say (2d).