FWP:
SETS == MIDPOINTS
MIDPOINTS verses: {5,5}*; {6,14x}** ; {21,12}*; {22,3}; {24,3}; {25,3}; {25,6}* with jaise ; {27,3}; {30,3}; {39,4}; {42,6}; {45,3}*; {53,3}, with hūñ ; {53,9}; {68,9x}; {71,8}; {84,4x}; {88,1}; {91,1}; {91,8}; {94,2}*; {96,2}; {98,1}; {111,1}; {116,4}*; {125,9}; {131,1}; {131,9}; {132,2}; {133,1}; {146,4x}; {147,1}; {152,6}; {172,2}; {173,5}; {173,6}; {177,1}*; {190,6}; {191,7}**, Ghalib explains; {202,3}*; {207,1}; {208,1}; {209,5}*; {226,5}; {230,9}; {231,1} // {389x,3}*; {424x,6}; {430x,6}
ABOUT chirāġhāñ : Grammatically, the word is simply the Persian plural of chirāġh , a lamp (meaning of course an oil lamp). Compare the chirāġhāñ usages in:
{10,4} (where it is a sarv-e
chirāġhāñ or 'lamp-tree'); {12,5x};
{15,4}; {18,6x}
(where it seems more like fireworks); {29,8x}
(where a mirror might also be involved); {49,8};
{81,3}; {105,2}; {190,5}; {190,10}; {190,12x}; {233,1}; {233,4} // {296x,6}; {329x,4} (where it's compared to Divali); {333x,1}; {379x,7}; {399x,4}. It's really not possible in most cases to tell exactly what kind of a structure (if any) Ghalib might have had in mind. For a different vision of a chirāġhān as a form of cruel torment, see Zamin's comments on {18,6x}. On these two senses of chirāġhāñ see also Steingass's definition above, and the discussion in Mir's M{1650,2}.
A 'flourishing', literally a 'springtime' [bahār], of wounds creates a vigorous image of vitality, energy, newness, fresh and copiously flowing red blood, etc. But spring has now finished springing, it's over-- the energy was such that the heart, the source of it all, has been consumed in its own fires.
The wounds themselves become cold, dead, scarred over, without constant fresh blood from the flaming, glowing heart-- which has now burned itself out entirely. The lover shrugs his shoulders, unable to offer the fine spectacle he once could have provided: he's like a carnival owner whose show-manager has suddenly quit.
The two readings of the second line, both so colloquial and so appropriate, are a great source of enjoyment. They are generated by the fact that karūñ kyā can be read either with the phrase after it, as in (2a), or with the phrase before it, as in (2b). I am calling the (mostly adverbial) phrases used in this way 'midpoints', for want of a better name. Ghalib uses them occasionally, but Mir relies on them as a major feature of his poetics.
Do we read is or us , 'this' or 'that' chirāġhāñ ? Arshi, whose text I have taken as normative, doesn't say. Hamid says 'this'. Faruqi says (July 2000) 'that'. To me, 'that' works better, since it shows the detachment the speaker feels from his own burnt-out amusement-park display. But 'this' could be plausible as well, for a sense of immediacy.
And besides the literal meaning of jal gayā
, just look, in the definition above, at the wide array of metaphorical and
emotional reactions that might also explain the heart's-- the 'operator's'--
inability or unwillingness to provide the anticipated spectacle.
Nazm:
He has made the heart an operator, and wounds a chirāġhān . The word chirāġhān ought to be understood as the plural of chirāġh . (6)
== Nazm page 6