Who says Ghalib can't be simple, when he wants to be simple? Here's a verse that anybody would be hard put not to understand at once. As Nazm observes, the opposition between the sitting and the standing is a source of pleasure in itself. But we should consider it a little more deeply, for the opposition is carefully developed. The heart is invited to 'sit'-- comfortably, informally, at ease-- right 'in' the tiger's mouth. But by contrast, it is urged not even to 'stand'-- humbly, fearfully, formally-- anywhere even 'near' the cruel beloveds. Shadan's rewritings of Ghalib are usually notable, but this one is not very interesting, since it's only a change of verb-forms and a little padding. Shadan doesn't like the idea of a polite address, rather than an intimate one, to the heart. But surely the formality of the polite imperatives gives a sense of cautious handling, elaborate care. At all costs the heart mustn't be offended-- the lover is too afraid of what it might do! Advice can be given only diffidently, with a great show of courtesy and respect. Note for grammar fans: is an irregular polite form of ; for the irregular familiar form , see 190,6 . It's like from , only more understandable since the root ends in a vowel (and indeed is nowadays often replaced by ). Why then do we never hear ? Because instead there's , once just a compound form of but now virtually an independent verb that means 'to become'. So in modern speech now we'd hear (and similarly, instead of ). The same constant compounding applies to , and for the same reason (that is, the clumsy-sounding vowel ending of the root; nowadays it's always instead. graphics/tiger.jpg