FWP:
SETS == EXCLAMATION;
KYA; PARALLELISM
BONDAGE: {1,5}
CURLS: {14,6}
As Nazm notes, the subject, 'we' has been omitted, though it's clearly implied (since the verse really makes sense only if said by a 'we', so there's no ambiguity. The essential, default voice in the ghazal world is that of the lover.
This verse follows nicely from {19,5} right before it. If the lover is a hereditary slave of curls, why would he flee from chains? He would not, of course, for at least two possible reasons: (1) the chains resemble curls, and thus remind him of the beloved, so that he welcome them; and (2) the beloved's curls confine him much more tightly and cruelly than any chains, so he will hardly even notice the chains. For another example of curls/chain imagery, see {36,4}.
Similarly, he who is a captive of faithfulness would never be anxious about a prison cell, because (1) the cell reminds him of the familiar bondage of faithfulness in which he has lived so long, so he can't fear it; and (2) the bondage of faithfulness is much more narrow and straitened than any cell, so he will hardly even notice one more layer of confinement.
In short, chains and cells are like his present
state of passion, but are also laughably feeble and trivial by comparison. And the lover either asks rhetorically why he would flee from them,
or denies indignantly that he would. Just the usual inshaa))iyah
language. And as usual, how well it works.
Nazm:
The subject-- that is, the word 'we'-- is omitted. (20)
== Nazm page 20