;xaraaj-e diih-e viiraa;N yak kaf-e ;xaak
bayaabaa;N ;xvush huu;N terii ((aamilii se
1) the revenue of a desolate village-- a single/whole palmful of dust!
2) oh desert, I am happy with your revenue-collectorship
;xaraaj : 'Tax, tribute, impost, duty, revenue'. (Platts p.488)
diih : 'A village.' (Platts p.537)
((aamil : 'A worker, doer, an operator; an agent; a governor, ruler, administrator; an intendant of finance, a collector of revenues; an official, officer, functionary'. (Platts p.758)
The desert is the addressee; that is, 'oh desert, I am happy with having been made your revenue-collector'. Having made me a revenue-collector of the desert, what revenue will be obtained from me beyond a fistful of dust? .... What has even been given to me, of which they will take an account?'
In the second line it could be huu;N [for a single first-person speaker], or ho;N ]for a plural future subjunctive]. I give preference to huu;N and take this meaning: the revenue of a desolate village is only a handful of dust-- that is, it's not necessary to give anything at all. Oh desert, I am happy with your governance, since you gave me authorization only for the revenue-collectorship of a desolate village, and did not take any revenue.
Asi established the desert as the subject: 'oh Lord, the deserts can be happy with your governance, because they are required to give as revenue only a single palmful of dust'. The first meaning is preferable to this one, because according to the refrain of the ghazal, the lover is usually fond of desolation.
SETS == EXCLAMATION
COMMERCE: {3,3}
DESERT: {3,1}
GRANDIOSITY: {5,3}
For more on Ghalib's unpublished verses, see the discussion in {4,8x}. See also the overview index.
The verb-free first line is technically a 'list' of two items, but the semantic context strongly suggests that they are to be equated. The effect is exclamatory, but it's not clear how. Does this amount of revenue seem very small, or very large? And is this situation good, or bad? Under mushairah performance conditions, we're kept in suspense for as long as is conveniently possible.
Then when we're allowed to hear the second line, its abstractness opens several possibilities for the relationship among the desert, the speaker, and the revenue-collectorship. (On the ambiguity of possessive constructions like terii ((aamilii , see {41,6}.) Here are some obvious possibilities:
=The desert is a revenue-collector, acting on behalf of the speaker. The speaker praises the desert for collecting a certain (large?) amount of revenue.
=The speaker is a revenue-collector, acting on behalf of the desert. The speaker praises the desert for requiring from him only a certain (small?) amount of revenue.
=The desert is a region for which the speaker is a revenue-collector, acting on behalf of someone unspecified. The speaker expresses to the desert his satisfaction at the (small?) amount of revenue required from him.
In any case it seems that the revenue in question, the palmful of dust, comes from the 'desolate village'; on the third reading, that 'desolate village' would be identified with the desert. The terms ;xaraaj and ((aamil (see the definitions above) were general commercial rent-collection terms current in colonial India.
Compare {38,7}, with its more more explicit terminology of estate ownership and revenue-collection.
Asi:
The revenue of a desolation is usually nothing.... Thus for the deserts it's an occasion of happiness that they are the revenue-collector. They don't have to give anything more.
== Asi, p. 272