e.g. of some other poet: तिमी यसरी आयौ हेर, मन्द पवन बग्न थाल्यो तिमी मुस्कुरायौ हेर, बन्द धडकन चल्न थाल्यो । तिमीनै त एउटा छौ मलाई धेरै धेरै मनपराउने तिमीले हँसायौ हेर, उदण्ड पिडा घटन थाल्यो । मन मेरो जल्दा ऐ मायाको सितलताले भीजाउने तिमीले मनायौ हेर, स्वच्छन्द प्रीत बढन थाल्यो । Nepe wrote on above quafia: बग्न BA G NA चल्न CHA L NA Gha t NA Bad h NA सबै शेरहरले NA मा टुङ्गिएका 'हम-काफिया' बोकेका छन्, नियमको पूर्ण पालना गर्दै (Here Nepe supports the quafia because of hum quafiya being" NA") My usage of su t chan chu m chan dhu n chan why can't the same logic of hum quafia be applied here? ' Chan ' being the " hum quafia" If your previous arguments still exist all the middle letters end in "a" just like Bikrams. There is no difference in the usage of the letters. These variations do exist and even though they are so rhythmical but acceptable and i posted so many examples of the established writers. You your self have been able to prove that सशस्त्र SASHASTRA and प्रष्ट PRASHTA rhymes based on roman translation and the end letter being "a". Who introduced this rule? I dont think I can argue with you anymore based on your views on Bikram Kramash's quafia. Still I respect you as a "Janifkar" and a ghazalkar.