I think the film cheats a little by not showing the ghost taking over the husband at the end (if this is what happens). Every other time we see the ghost turn to smoke when he comes and goes, but this time we don't. Let's call it artistic lisence. Within its own world it can have its own rules I suppose as long as they're consistent. I guess it doesn't come from any established mythology? The film works nicely as a fairytale with many other interpretations sitting side-by-side. Could the husband/ghost split represent the husband learning to break away from the domination of his father and becoming a loving and responsible husband? The 5 years could represent how long it would take Kishan to grow strong enough to stand up for himself and his family. We see part of him 'away' on business, however another part of him is the devoted husband/lover. It will take a long time to break away from his father. However as he falls in love with Lachchi so completely the process is accelerated. The son part makes inroads on his father's rule - writing letters home and eventually coming home early, risking father's anger. I love the scene where he starts to write a letter to his dear wife, looking uncertain and hesitant, then happily changes it to his father. By the end it is his wife who is his main concern. His vigil in the desert is when he realises where his heart really lies. Is it significant that Kishan comes home (could read as 'unites his 2 selves') just as his child is born? He now has a family in his own right. The quest to establish the real Kishan is just a way of bringing the 2 characters into one for the story. The ghost discards the body he has been using and enters Kishan's body. Kishan is still in there somewhere, the 2 characters are one. Now Lachchi has the best of both.