Ghazal 126, Verse 3

Nazm:

By 'love' is meant the sympathizer's affection. In this verse the author's information-conveying [āshnā-pardāzī] is worthy of praise. How rapidly he has moved from information to inshā ! Only the mere informative [ḳhabariyah] phrase kiyā ġham-ḳhvār ne rusvā -- and the rest of the verse is inshā .... The second reason for eloquence [balāġhat] is connected with the theme: that is, he has made clear through implication the grief of his heart-- having heard which, the sympathizer became so restless and anxious that through his restlessness the secret of passion became revealed. Jur'at:

dam bah dam dekh dekh rotā hai
māre ḍāle hai ham-nishīn hameñ

[at every moment/breath, while watching, he weeps--
the companion kills us] (135-36)

== Nazm page 135; Nazm page 136

Bekhud Dihlavi:

He says, 'We had concealed the secret of passion, but our sympathizer's restlessnesses revealed it. May fire burn this love, because of which our sympathizer saw our difficulties and became restless, and could not have enough endurance for grief and suffering. Why did that wretch ever become our confidant?' For the presentation of meaning, it is the very limit of eloquence. (190-91)

Bekhud Mohani:

My sympathizer revealed the secret of my passion. May fire burn this love! When that cruel one didn't have the strength to endure grief, why did he become my confidant at all? This also makes it clear that the difficulty that has fallen upon us and which we are enduring, are such that somebody who even hears about them becomes so restless that he can't uphold his promise of secrecy. He [the lover] is all the more angry because the cause of disgrace was no enemy, but a friend. (255)

FWP:

SETS == EXCLAMATION; SUBJECT?

In a brief space the verse succeeds not only in conveying a good deal of information through implication, as Nazm observes, but also in making that information highly ambiguous. Just look at the first phrase: kiyā ġham-ḳhvār ne rusvā . It has no object, so we have to decide for ourselves who or what was made notorious and disgraced by the 'sympathizer'. Was it the lover, disgraced for violating his proper duty of confidentiality, and/or for his illicit intrigue? Was it the beloved, disgraced for being compromised by such an illicit intrigue? Was it passion itself, disgraced by being publicly savored by a thousand gossippy tongues?

Then, when the lover exclaims, 'to hell with this love!'-- which love is he condemning? Nazm thinks it's the sympathizer's affection for the lover, which caused all the trouble, after it wore down the sympathizer himself and caused him to (inadvertently?) reveal the secret. Or, it could be the lover's affection for the sympathizer, which caused him to trust his friend and rashly pour out all his secrets to him. Or, it could be an expression of vexation with the dangerous, unstable state of passion itself, which has gotten everybody into the whole mess in the first place.

As Nazm rightly observes, most of the verse is inshāʾiyah and exclamatory. Even the second line, which the commentators read as blaming the sympathizer, could equally express the lover's vexation at his own stupidity: why in the world did he choose such a weak and vulnerable person to be his confidant?

Then there's the enjoyable wordplay (and meaning-play) of tāb , with its triply relevant meanings of 'endurance', and 'grief', and also 'heat' (which resonates so well with āg lage ).