S. R. Faruqi:

This verse too [like {254,2}] is a good example of establishing the first line on the basis of the second line. In the second line he has said something ordinary; in the first line, how beautifully he has provided a proof that an actual candle by means of its light (for which he gives the simile of the tongue) expresses the burning and pain of the heart, but the speaker is like the picture of a candle-- which has a tongue, but it is without effect, because in the light of the candle in a picture there's no heat, and it cannot express the state of its heart.

The question can be raised, that the candle in a picture doesn't burn at all, so what can it mean to burn like the candle in a picture? He has given an answer by means of the word ;xaamosh , for it means 'extinguished' (we usually say chiraa;g-e ;xaamosh , sham((a-e ;xaamosh ); thus since the candle in a picture is a picture of a burning candle, we can suppose it to be burning; but since the candle in a picture has no burning or light, it burns ;xaamosh . It's a very fine verse.

FWP:

SETS
MOTIFS == CANDLE
NAMES
TERMS

Note for grammar fans: In ta.sviir kii sii sham((e;N , why the plural? SRF simply treats it as singular, which doesn't really solve the problem. It would be possible to imagine the candles as (the speaker's) two eyes, but the verse shows no sign of doing that. It seems necessary to assume a plural group of lovers, each one a single candle: 'We, picture-pertaining-ish candles, silently burn'. Although then jaltii hai;N to go with the candles would be better, if 'we' actually, appositionally, are the candles. And the second line seems to envision a single lover (though it could also be claimed to be generalizable to a group).

I thank Kamal Abdali for help (May 2014) with the appositional aspect of the grammatical analysis. I can't manage to be happy with this vision of a lot of silently, picture-ishly, burning lover-candles; but after all, the ghazal world can and does provide even stranger scenes.