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: . 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 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 , with its triply relevant meanings of 'endurance', and 'grief', and also 'heat' (which resonates so well with ). graphics/secrets.jpg