For general comments on this most unusual ghazal, see 66,1 . The colloquial is hard to translate; 'all right' is not ideal, and I'll try to think of something better. For more on , see 9,4 . As to the interpretation, Nazm surely misunderstands this one, and Mihr gets it right. The point of supposedly 'granting' that Arif may have hated Ghalib himself and quarreled with Naiyar ('Naiyar' was the pen-name of Navab Ziya ul-Din Ahmad Khan of Loharu, Ghalib's distant relative and close friend) is to emphasize that even these two extreme improbabilities could be imagined as possible motives that might cause Arif to think of leaving his loved ones. Thus the second line begins with an invisible but strongly rhetorically present 'but'. 'But' even these powerful motives for going would be so quickly outweighed by a much stronger motive for staying. 'Even if you would leave us, Arif, how is it possible that you would leave your young children? It's inconceivable that you wouldn't-- that you didn't-- linger a while, to enjoy the sight of your children at play!' We are back to the bitterness and irremediableness of grief-- the reproaches that endlessly well up, even with no one present any longer to receive them. A note about the 'children': Arif's wife Zainab had died a few months before he did, also from an illness, so that Arif's death in early 1852 left their two young sons orphaned. Ghalib and his wife initially took both boys into their care (see the letter above). Then the younger boy, Husain Ali Khan (aged two) remained with them, while the older boy, Baqir Ali Khan (aged five) went to live with his grandmother. She died in 1855, and from then on Ghalib and his wife undertook the full care of both boys. Ghalib loved them dearly and often spoke of them in his letters. For a good account of this period in Ghalib's life, see Russell and Islam , pp. 104-08. graphics/childrenplaying.jpg