FWP:
SETS
ROAD: {10,12}
SOUND EFFECTS: {26,7}
WINE: {49,1}
This apparently prosy little verse invites speculation:
=Is the speaker doing the traversing in a state of intoxication, or merely in a manner that evokes or imitates that of intoxication? (Is he drunk, or just imitating drunkenness?)
=Since a 'road' and a 'valley' or 'channel' [vaadii] are linear, would walking along them 'intoxicated(ly)' really cause one to lose one's way so irrevocably? Or is the speaker deluding himself?
=Since his goal is that no thought of returning 'would remain' [rahe], is he actually still struggling with a desire to return?
=Is he walking intoxicated(ly) not along a real road, but only along the metaphorical road of the valley of thought, so that his thought will be impaired, and he won't be able even to form a coherent claim or intention or meaning [mudda((aa] about returning?
It's not surprising that the subtleties accumulate, when a wild card like 'thought' is invoked. Don't forget the ominous shufflings of the 'card-player of Thought' in {81,2}.
In addition, we can admire the unobtrusively clever affinity and sound effects between rah-e in the first line, and rahe in the second. Though the former is about traveling, and the latter about remaining, the two are only very subtly distinguishable in pronunciation.
Nazm:
That is, I want to be so immersed in my thought that I would never be able to emerge again. From Mir Muhammad Husain Sahib Azad we learn that karuu;N huu;N and maruu;N huu;N have for some time been considered contrary to eloquence even in Delhi. [There follows an extremely long discussion of Delhi and Lucknow usages and archaisms.] (158)
== Nazm page 158; Nazm page 159; Nazm page 160; Nazm page 161