Verse 4after 1816aakho ga))e


G3

1
who calls the Nightingale 's lament 'ineffective'?
2
in the rose's veil/pardah, a hundred thousand livers became torn/lacerated

'A curtain, screen, cover, veil, anything which acts as a screen, a wall, hangings, tapestry; ... secrecy, privacy, modesty; seclusion, concealment; secret, mystery, reticence, reserve; screen, shelter, pretext, pretence'.

References
Arshi, Imtiyaz Ali Ghazal# 196
Raza, Kalidas Gupta 304
Nuskhah-e-Hamidiyah 278
Hamid Ali Khan Open Image

There's a name for what this verse is doing: ' elegance in assigning a cause '. We had previously thought that the rose's petals opened out and bloomed, and then withered and fell away, in the natural course of the seasons. But now we realize that we were wrong. In the rose's heart, the Nightingale's lament did after all have an effect; although the rose tried to maintain its privacy and seclusion, it suffered severely. The rose's heart was ripped to pieces, its liver was lacerated and torn. Ultimately it was unable to conceal the marks of its suffering-- so now we know that no one should call the Nightingale's lament 'ineffective'. But then-- if the Nightingale's lament, his love-song to the rose, ends up hastening the already imminent death of his beloved, can such a lament really be called 'effective'? If the lament lacerates the livers of a hundred thousand (dying) roses, does that count as a properly romantic 'effect'? For a more complex meditation on the 'effectiveness' of laments, see 86,4 . For structural parallels, see 16,6x . Compare Mir's vision of the rose's lacerated liver: M 276,1 . graphics/tornrose.jpg