Ghazal 19, Verse 6

{19,6}

;xaanah-zaad-e zulf hai;N zanjiir se bhaage;Nge kyuu;N
hai;N giriftaar-e vafaa zindaa;N se ghabraave;Nge kyaa

1) [we] are a hereditary/'house-born' slave of curls, why will we flee from chains?

2a) [we] are a captive of faithfulness; will we be flustered by a prison cell?
2b) [we] are a captive of faithfulness-- as if we will be flustered by a prison cell!

Notes:

;xaanah-zaad : ''Born in the house'; child of a slave, a slave'. (Platts p.486)

 

ghabraanaa : 'To be confused, confounded, flurried, or flustered (by, or in consequence of, -se); to be perplexed, bewildered, or embarrassed (by); to be perturbed, disturbed in mind, agitated, disquieted, distracted; to be alarmed, scared, dismayed'. (Platts p.930)

Nazm:

The subject-- that is, the word 'we'-- is omitted. (20)

== Nazm page 20

Bekhud Dihlavi:

The verse is a two-part one; both lines have been arranged as equals. (41)

Bekhud Mohani:

That is, captives of faithfulness and prisoners of curls neither fear a prison cell nor flee from chains, because in passion, these things are constant occurrences. (48)

FWP:

SETS == EXCLAMATION; KYA; PARALLELISM
BONDAGE: {1,5}
CURLS: {14,6}

As Nazm notes, the subject, 'we' has been omitted, though it's clearly implied (since the verse really makes sense only if said by a 'we', so there's no ambiguity. The essential, default voice in the ghazal world is that of the lover.

This verse follows nicely from {19,5} right before it. If the lover is a hereditary slave of curls, why would he flee from chains? He would not, of course, for at least two possible reasons: (1) the chains resemble curls, and thus remind him of the beloved, so that he welcome them; and (2) the beloved's curls confine him much more tightly and cruelly than any chains, so he will hardly even notice the chains. For another example of curls/chain imagery, see {36,4}.

Similarly, he who is a captive of faithfulness would never by anxious about a prison cell, because (1) the cell reminds him of the familiar bondage of faithfulness in which he has lived so long, so he can't fear it; and (2) the bondage of faithfulness is much more narrow and straitened than any cell, so he will hstfly even notice one more layer of confinement.

In short, chains and cells are like his present state of passion, but are also laughably feeble and trivial by comparison. And the lover either asks rhetorically why he would flee from them, or denies indignantly that he would. Just the usual inshaa))iyah language. And as usual, how well it works.