The story of Shirin and Farhad is told in various versions; see 1,2 for further discussion. This verse is another in the series of snide remarks about famous lovers of the past; for more about such verses, see 100,4 . The chief charm of the verse is surely its shock value. As Mihr observes, Ghalib has brought out a new and unexpected aspect of a traditional story-- and has insulted, with a show of virtuous indignation, one of the great lovers of ghazal tradition. He's done a similar thing already in 3,6 , in which he sneers at Farhad for needing to use an axe to kill himself. All such snide remarks can of course also be taken as tongue-in-cheek. The later lover might well be jealous of his predecessor's fame, and could thus be reacting with a sour-grapes attitude. He might well jump at the chance to do, himself, what he accuses Farhad of doing. (In this connection, consider 99,3 .) For after all, isn't the beloved properly worth any sacrifice-- including the sacrifice of pride, and self-respect, and one's good name? Note for grammar fans: Nazm's criticism is that 'by us X is [not] accepted/granted' is what the grammar needs to be, just as in the case of . But this isn't the sense of , which means 'accepting, granting'. Nazm's objection assumes that there is no after ; if there were one, then the grammar would work well: 'by us is [not] the accepting/granting of X'. Of course, the is a Persian construction, and in principle it should not be used with Arabic words. Perhaps that's why Arshi gives no ; as usual, I follow his text. (However, in 169,3 , Ghalib has clearly used .) graphics/khusraupalace.jpg