Ghazal 228, Verse 6

Nazm:

By pach aa pa;Rnaa is meant to uphold something against which there would be a suspicion of sadistic pleasure [shamaatat]. He says, when she made a promise of coming, then it's necessary for me to wait. Although she's a promise-breaker, if I don't wait then she'd say that I considered her promise false. In the meaning of 'but', par is more eloquent than pah , and yahaa;N is better than yaa;N . That is, if the second line were like this: vuh aa))e yaa nah aa))e yahaa;N inti:zaar hai , then it would be better.... But to tell the truth, nobody at all pays attention to such small things. (256-57)

== Nazm page 256; Nazm page 257

Bekhud Dihlavi:

He says, 'We intend to uphold our word. That is, since we have taken from the beloved a promise of coming, we are a claimant for this event: that promise-forgetter might not come as she has promised, but it's necessary for us to remain awake, waiting, the whole night through'. This verse is the 'high point of the ghazal'. (313)

Bekhud Mohani:

It's become necessary for me to uphold the promise of the kind of beloved who does heart-captivating things and who ought to be called a 'lover-like beloved' because she considers it forbidden to tear apart the lover's heart. Now she might come or might not come; in any case, it's necessary for me to wait. [He also provides extensive examples to refute Nazm's criticisms.] (465)

FWP:

SETS == IZAFAT
VOWS: {20,2}

The very first word, the unusual (in the ghazal world) pach , has the vigor and impact of a 'fresh word'. This is its only appearance in the divan. It is not only colloquial, but also a bit ambivalent (see the definition above); such 'obstinacy' or 'prejudice' ( pach aa pa;Rnaa ) may in fact be a bad quality.

The verse also makes wonderfully clever use of the possibilities of the i.zaafat construction. The commentators take va((dah-e dil-daar to mean the 'promise of the heart-possessor', which is of course perfectly possible; but it can equally well mean, as a noun-adjective pair, a 'promise that is heart-possessing'. The promise itself, in other words, could be irresistibly beguiling, such that the lover clings to it at all costs.

This second reading in fact makes the second line much more amusing. For the speaker then seems to be so captivated by the charming promise, and so busy defending and protecting it against all comers, that he's hardly interested in the beloved herself any more. 'She might come or might not come', he says indifferently-- what would he care? He has the absorbingly delightful promise itself to think about. And he also has 'waiting'.

On the commentators' reading, that 'waiting' is just a source of further suffering. But on the second reading, it may even be a kind of beloved in its own right. It may be merged or allied with the 'heart-possessing promise' that so enchants him, and so it may satisfy him wonderfully. When he has that all-absorbing process of 'waiting', does he even need the actual beloved herself?