FWP:
SETS == DIALOGUE;
KAHAN
LOSING/FINDING: {4,6}
KAHAN verses: {4,1}**; {5,4}; {5,08x}**; {20,5}; {21,2}; {26,3}; {35,6}; {43,8}; {77,1}; ghazal {85}, with the refrain of kahaa;N ; {85,7}, kahaa;N ... kahaa;N ; {91,14x}; {98,4}*; {111,1}*; {115,7}, also kyuu;N ; {123,3}*; {158,3}; {214,15x} // {286x,2}
DIALOGUE verses: {4,1};
{15,15}; {19,2};
{20,11}; {21,2};
{21,8};
{25,9}; {26,10}; {32,3};
{42,1}; {46,1};
{46,7}; {59,2}*;
{66;3}; {66,4};
{66,10}; {71,10}; {72,7};
{77,8}; {91,10}*;
{99,5}; {100,6};
{104,1}; {107,4};
{107,7}; {116,4}; {116,6};
{116,7}; {116,10};
{123,6}; {123,12x};
{126,2}; {126,6}; {126,10}*;
{129,7x}; {134,2}; {143,5};
{151,4}; {151,9};
{162,3}; {162,9}; {163,1}; {174,2}; {178,9};
{191,4};
{193,5}; {193,6x};
{196,4}; {201,9}; {209,1};
{209,2}; {211,2}; {231,4} // {438x,4}
The two Bekhuds explicate (2a) and (2b) respectively. The Urdu is carefully ambiguous, and Ghalib surely intended both. For another such play on paanaa , see {153,6}.
In the second line, dil kahaa;N kih gum kiije is a wonderful question. 'Where is the heart, that we might lose it?' is the obvious meaning, but the question also contains 'Where is the heart?'-- which of course is just what you'd say if you did lose your heart. Or you might say, 'Where is the heart?' and be eagerly looking for it, specifically because you wanted to lose it [kih gum kiije].
There's also the strong rhetorical-question reading of kahaa;N -- 'Where? Why, nowhere, of course! Nowhere, never, no way! As if!'. In this case, 'As if I had a heart! How would I possibly have a heart?!' The question might be seen as almost insulting, as well as absurd, to think that a passionate lover would still retain his heart. And then of course by so utterly not having a heart that he can't even lose it, the lover claims to have found or attained his goal.
Justin Ben-Hain suggests (Feb. 2013) that the nah could be taken as a kind of emphatic pointer, so that the first line would read 'You say, don't you, "we'll give back the heart, if we find it lying around"?' The colloquial, teasing feel of this reading is enjoyable, and since the second line calls the beloved's credibility into question, in a sense it hardly matters whether she tells one kind of lie or another (since she already has the heart and thus can't possibly 'find it lying around' anyway). The weakness of this reading is that it makes less sense of 'We found out your object!', since her claim to be ready to give back the heart doesn't reveal her true object (to keep the heart) the way her claim not to be ready to give up the heart does. But the complexities of the second line invite complexities in the first one, and Justin's proposed reading has a pleasure of its own, so why should we not add it to the other pleasures of the verse?
For another ambiguous use of mudda((aa paayaa , see {4,15x}.
On the use of the perfect verb form as a subjunctive, see {35,9}.
Nazm:
That is, your expression is saying: if we find your heart lying somewhere, then we won't give it back. Here, there's no heart at all that we might lose and that you might find lying somewhere. But from this attachment/intimacy we understood that the heart is in your custody alone. (4)
== Nazm page 4; Nazm page 5