=== |
![]() |
qalb-o-dimāġh-o-jigar ke gaʾe par ẓuʿf hai jī kī ġhārat meñ
kyā jāne yih qalaqchī in ne kis sardār ko dekhā hai
1) on the departure/going of heart and mind and liver, there's weakness, in the destruction/destroyers of the inner-self
2) who knows about these servants-- what chieftain/commander have they seen?!
gaʾe par is an archaic form of jāne par .
ġhārat : ''A raid, foray'; plunder, pillage, rapine, havoc, devastation'. (Platts p.768)
ġhārat : 'Making a hostile incursion into an enemy's country; a raid; plunder, pillage; havoc, devastation; a predatory troop of horse'. (Steingass p.877)
FWP:
SETS == KYA
MOTIFS == LIVER
NAMES
TERMS == FRESH WORD; METERWhen 'heart and mind and liver' have gone, the result is a 'weakness'-- not of the inner-self, but of the 'destruction' of the inner-self. The implication is that those three agents were previously active in this destruction; perhaps they even constituted a marauding band of 'destroyers', as SRF suggests. This idea is conceivable, but perverse, because the general, plausible assumption in the ghazal world is that when the lover's 'heart and mind and liver' are gone, the lover is dying, if not already dead. It's a pity that SRF's conjecture of ʿimārat instead of ġhārat finds no textual support, because it could remove this awkwardness and implausibility.
And if the first line became less problematical, then the second line with its superb word qalaqchī would have a better chance to shine. The fascination of the line is enhanced by the double presence of the 'kya effect'-- both kyā jāne and kis sardār invite the usual kinds of unpacking (straightforward questions? exclamations of wonder? exclamations of scornful denial?). The result is to call into question the identity, nature, and even existence of the mysterious 'chieftain' to whom these mercenery soldiers have so readily transferred their allegiance. Or perhaps they recognize no 'chieftain' at all?