naa-chiiz : 'Of no consequence, of no account, insignificant, trifling, worthless'. (Platts p.1111)
navvaabii : 'The office of a navvaab ; viceroyalty, deputyship; ... — (fig.) anarchy, misrule'. (Platts p.1157)
At this time we are seeing in our very own city that every son of a peon or servant or maidservant is a king, and every daughter is a lady or princess.... Although this verse is seemingly nothing more than a humorous anecdote, it is an extremely clear picture of a special aspect of the decay and bad condition of a community.
When the king himself would have so little power, then how is it strange if in Delhi ordinary people would begin to call themselves nawabs?
For more on Ghalib's unpublished verses, see the discussion in {4,8x}. See also the overview index.
As Asi observes, there are two ways to read the question in the second line: sarcastically, as a rhetorical question ('And how outrageous that would be!'), or straight, as a genuine question ('It could hardly be worse than what we're got now!').
On either reading, the verse crackles with Ghalib's disdain for uppity behavior in the lower orders of society-- an attitude not so surprising in someone whose own aristocratic pretensions were both exalted and constantly in jeopardy. Decades later, describing the situation of Delhi in 1857, he spoke of social turmoil as 'the wickedness of these newly rich, vile-natured ones': 'Noble men and great scholars have fallen from power; and the lowly ones, who have never known wealth or honour, now have prestige and unlimited riches' (Dastanbuy, translated by Khwaja Ahmad Faruqi, p. 34). Ghalib made it quite clear that such a reversal of roles was an evil in itself.
Such a (temporary) reversal of roles was part of a longstanding European tradition of 'carnival' (and has sometimes been acted out during some of the rougher versions of Holi); it gave rise to a widespread 'world turned upside-down' trope in many literatures, including Urdu; I have written a paper about this.
But of course, a 'natural poetry' reading could also be advocated. This ghazal dates to around 1816; the Mughal emperor, Akbar Shah II (r.1806-37), was certainly during this whole period under British pressure, and was gradually losing more and more of his limited sovereignty. For a discussion of possible 'natural poetry' readings of Ghalib, see {66,1}.
Asi:
Oh Ghalib, Delhi's kingship as just like that of some minor nawab. Then when the kingship here has become this, it's obvious that every single nobody and low person too can make the claim of nawab-ship. Or else this: when Delhi's kingship has become so weak, then why wouldn't every single person, low or high, have a claim to nawab-ship?
== Asi, p. 293