S. R. Faruqi:

In this verse a whole story is contained. Formerly I was in the garden, then I emerged from there; I came to regret this emerging (the 'wound' is either the 'grief of separation', or merely 'grief'). Or, in the garden I received some wound ('the wound of the garden', that is, the wound that was received in the garden); that wound so embittered me that I went and left the garden. In any case there was a wound in the liver, whether it was the wound of separation or a wound from some event that occurred in the garden.

But when I left the garden, I was captured. Or perhaps I was captured in the garden itself. There was already a wound in the liver, but the tears caused by this wound were ordinary, they weren't blood-colored. Now, after being captured, when in the cage I wept, then the tears emerged blood-colored. It seems that the wound of the garden has, because of this captivity, turned to blood, and that same blood has flowed out by way of tears.

The last word in the first line, shaayad , is related to the second line. In this regard see:

{54,5}.

[See also {483,3}.]

FWP:

SETS == KA/KE/KI; MIDPOINTS; SE
MOTIFS == BONDAGE; LIVER; [LOVER AS BIRD]
NAMES
TERMS

As SRF explains, this verse is a fine example of the multivalent powers of the little postposition set kaa / ke / kii ; in fact their ambiguating powers are fully as great as those of an izafat (except for the fact that sometimes an izafat may or may not be present). What is the wound 'of' the garden? It may be 1) a wound that itself is the garden; 2) a wound inflicted by the garden; 3) a wound inflicted in the garden; 4) a wound inflicted on the garden; 5) a wound pertaining to the garden in some other way. Of course, some of these possibilities are more compelling than others, but the reader is never able to reach any kind of closure, through any one secure or overwhelmingly probable interpretation.

SRF assigns the shaayad to the second line; I see it as what I call a 'midpoints' case, in which it can go either way. If it goes with the first line, then it marks a speculation about the external cause of the bloody tears (perhaps it was imprisonment in the cage that worsened the wound described in the second line). And if the shaayad goes with the second line, then it marks a speculation about the internal cause of the bloody tears (perhaps it was the worsening of the earlier wound that caused the bloody tears that have become apparent since the speaker's imprisonment in the cage). On the former reading the versatile little postposition se means 'from, because of', and on the latter reading it means 'since, from the time'.

Note for meter fans: It's permissible to rearrange the scansion of gu-lis-taa;N ( - = = ) the way Mir has done, by turning it into gul-si-taa;N (= - = ), for metrical convenience.