Ghazal 183, Verse 3


kyaa bayaa;N kar ke miraa ro))e;Nge yaar
magar aashuftah-bayaanii merii

1a) as if, having mentioned me, the friends/beloved will weep!
1b) having mentioned me, will the friends/beloved weep?
1c) having mentioned me, how the friends/beloved will weep!

2) perhaps/but -- my distractedness/disorderedness of speech


aashuftah : 'Distracted, disturbed, distressed; disordered; uneasy, wretched, miserable; enamoured, deeply in love'. (Platts p.57)


That is, after having mentioned my qualities [va.sf] how they will weep. And this type of omission after kyaa commonly occurs-- [for example] mai;N ne tumhaaraa kyaa kiyaa , that is, kyaa nuq.saan kiyaa . (205)

== Nazm page 205

Bekhud Dihlavi:

He says, 'What quality is there in me, having mentioned which my friends will weep after my death? But/perhaps there is my distractedness of speech, perhaps having remembered this they might weep.' Distractedness of speech has here been said because of humility. The truth is that the mischievousnesses of Mirza Sahib's expression are so incomparable and unique that no [other] poet's style can reach the special character of his style. (265)

Bekhud Mohani:

An individual is downcast at the thought [that] in me there's no quality such that anybody, remembering it after my death, would weep. In this state something comes to mind, and he says, 'Perhaps they'll remember my tangled speech and weep'. (362)


SPEAKING: {14,4}

The first line provides a classic open-ended threefold use of kyaa , the kind we've seen so often. But look at the second line! First, the double sense of magar (as either 'but' or 'perhaps') helps the line easily accommodate any of the three senses of kyaa . But even more ravishing is aashuftah-bayaanii merii . The phrase, verb-less as it is, itself forms an example of 'distractedness of speech'; it 'enacts' the condition it describes.

And how beautifully it both echoes and contrasts with the bayaa;N karnaa that the friends/beloved might be doing in the first line. When the friends/beloved mention the lover, their speech is apparently fluent, self-controlled, and unhindered; the lover's 'distractedness of speech' is just the opposite. Yet in its wildness and pathos it's his only claim to fame-- the only reason that, when they mention him, they might weep (or not, as the case may be).

Nazm thinks that meraa has to modify a colloquially omitted masculine noun like va.sf . I don't see why it can't be considered to modify bayaa;N itself.