S. R. Faruqi:

naaz-parvar = protected/nourished by coquetries [naazo;N kaa paalaa]

To call the heart 'protected by coquetries' is a novel thing, and the pleasure is that an authorization for it is present among the idioms, because dil machalnaa or dil machal jaanaa ['for the heart to sulk, pout, like a wayward child'] is an idiom. A naaz-parvardah child is one whose every demand is accepted; from that the suggestion emerges that if the heart has to be given to the beloved, this is because of the heart's insistence. The heart has sulked: 'We'll go only to her!'.

In bhii there's the suggestion that if the heart was indulged [naaz-parvardah] by others in addition to us (probably by other beautiful ones), then why wouldn't it be indulged by you as well? But the tone is such that it seems that this is only a dim kind of hope, that the beloved will keep our heart indulged and pampered. In fact, it seems to be a great thing that she shows some respect for the heart-- that is, that she wouldn't tear it apart, or waste it, or lose it. The meaning of losing it is better, because having declared the heart to be naaz-parvar , he has supposed it to be a child. It's a fine verse.

The famous twelfth-century French philosopher and monk Abelard received letters from his beloved Heloise, which for their philosophical and mystical discussion of romantic themes of pain and suffering, and for their purity of emotion, occupy a high rank among the world's literary letters. In one letter Heloise writes:

'My heart was not in my possession; rather, it was with you. And now even more than before, if it's not with you then it's nowhere at all. Without you, the truth is that its existence is impossible. Look, take care of that heart-- this is my plea. Whatever might happen to that heart, would happen for the best. And so it will be, if you'll be gracious to it.'

Look how excellently Mir's verse confirms a heart-stricken Western lover of six hundred years before!

Mir Asar has also versified this theme. In his verses Mir's multivalence of meaning doesn't exist, but the 'mood' is fine:

mujh se le to chale ho dekho par
to;Riyo mat magar miyaa;N dil ko

[you've taken it from me, but look
don't break it, my dear sir-- the heart]

tuu bhii jii me;N use jagah diijo
manzilat thii a;sar ke haa;N dil ko

[you too must give it a place in your inner-self
it received esteem at Asar's house, the heart]

(These verses are not a verse-set, but are from a single ghazal.)

FWP:

SETS == BHI
MOTIFS
NAMES
TERMS

SRF's commentary is based on the passive-participial sense of parvar as 'protected, nourished, cherished'. This is certainly a good reading and works well. (Though more commonly that sense would be parvardah , which SRF elides it into.)

But what about the at least equally obvious active-participial reading of 'protector, nourisher, cherisher'? Both meanings seem fully available; Platts even gives the active one first (see the definition above). And for a prime Ghalibian example, in which the parvar can have only this active sense, see Ghalib's use of the common phrase bandah-parvar ('protector/cherisher of servants') in G{19,2}.

On this active-participial reading, the lover's heart becomes not the indulged, pampered child, but the indulger, the nurturer, the pamperer. The heart used to nurture and nourish the 'pride', the 'airs', the 'whims' (see the definition of naaz above) of the lover (which is of course a suitable role for a heart to play). But that was back in the days when the lover was a pampered, indulged, free agent, enjoying his ego and his youthful vitality. Now, of course, everything is different. Now the lover's heart has passed over into the beloved's hands, and (as shown by the bhii ) it is playing the same role 'even' or 'also' for her-- supporting her, nurturing her, cherishing her airs and graces, indulging her temperamental demands.

So what the lover asks for, it seems, is just a bit of continued respect for the heart. That 'keep showing respect' evokes the respect the lover used to pay to the heart (the respect due from a cherished child to an affectionate guardian), and also perhaps recalls an initial show of interest from the beloved toward the newly-acquired heart. But now the lover feels impelled to remind the beloved that the heart is an indispensable enabler, it will 'support, nourish, nurture' her pride and self-assertion; it will serve her as effectively as it used to serve the lover himself.

There's a kind of pathos in that second line-- like the last words spoken to someone who has just adopted the speaker's beloved pet pony or faithful dog, the last injunction about care, the last chance to try to ensure a good home for the dear old creature.