Ibid.

Āzād states that “the Arab and Indian poets in their amatory poems express
love towards a female beloved, contrary to the Iranians and the Turks, who base
their amatory poems on boy-beloveds” ( taghazzulāt-e sh‘orā-e ‘arabī wa hīndī bā
nisā ast khilāf-e sh‘orā-e fārsī wa turkī kih īnhā binā-e taghazzul rā bar amārad
guzashtah’añd). Both these distichs indite the homoerotic topos of the boy-
beloved (amarad). Āzād also states that “while bringing Persian poems into
nāyikābheda, they must necessarily be modified so that the lover’s utterance to a
boy-beloved must be at times posited to be addressed by a Hero to a Heroine
and since male and female gender and pronouns are grammatically the same in
Persian, this positing is legitimate” ( wa ash‘ār-e fārsī kih dar nāykābhed āwardah
mī shawad dar ān hā taghayyur-e mu‘āmilah żarūr y‘anī maqawlah-e ‘āshiq kih
bā amarad ast gāhay az zabān-e nāyak nisbat bah nāykah farż bāyad kard wa
chūñ ṣīgh-o żamāir-e tazkīr-o tānīss dar fārsī yakay ast īn farż rāst mī āyad). And
also that “at times, a Heroine’s utterance to a Hero must be posited and since in
Indic poetry love is expressed by a Heroine, this is also legitimate” ( wa gāhay az
zabān-e nāykah nisbat bah nāyak a‘etibār bāyad namūd wa chūñ dar hiñdī iẓhār-
e ‘ishq az jānib-e nāykah ast īn a‘etibār ṣaḥīḥ mī uftād . Bilgrāmī 2003,116-117,
my ellipsis). Hence, these distichs in the context of nāyikābheda are to be
posited as the utterance of a Hero about a (young) Heroine “averse to
lovemaking.”