FWP:
SETS == HI
The first line is vague and abstract, forcing us to wait for the second line before we can even begin to interpret it. (When 'they say' this, are 'they' to be considered right, or wrong?) Under mushairah performance conditions, we will have to wait a bit for the answer.
Then when we finally hear it, we realize that Ghalib has cleverly arranged for the second line to express both hope and hopelessness, both wistful belief and radical cynicism. The two cleverly managed meanings of hii ('emphatically' or 'only') are the key to the line's multivalence.
Thus reading (2a) rests on 'emphatically, especially', and suggests that one might argue through to a hopeful conclusion (as Bekhud Mohani does). 'Hey, if there's a cure for everything else, why shouldn't there be one for my disease, the grief of passion? I should go and track it down! Then I can escape from this suffering.'
By contrast, reading (2b)-- Nazm's preferred one-- rests on 'only, alone', and suggests a negation of all hope. 'There may be a medicine for everything else, but why then is the grief of passion alone left devoid of any cure? It's so unfair!'
While Bekhud Dihlavi, in what amounts to a third reading, takes the question as a genuine expression of uncertainty-- 'Would there be a cure for passion, or would there not be? It's something that needs further consideration.'
Maybe there would be an ambivalent 'cure' of some kind, that both did and didn't work-- see {4,2} for a perfect description of the form it might take.
On kyuu;N nah ho , see {119,1}.
Nazm:
yuu;N ho -- that is, if what people say is true, then why wouldn't there be a cure for the disease of passion? But there's no cure for our passion. So how would I believe that a cure has been created for every pain? (127)
== Nazm page 127