S. R. Faruqi:

In the first line what a superb aural effect he has created, and how fine is the clash of sounds! The whole 'mood' of shor aur sharābā has come before us. With 'intoxication', sharābā too is very fine. His courage is also praiseworthy, since although sharābā is usually used as part of the compound shor-sharābā , Mir has used it as a single independent noun. Then there's the affinity of piyālah phūṭne with shor , and the affinity of qarābah luñḍhne with sharābā .

In all the manuscripts all the 'rhyme'-words of this ghazal have been written with ā [at the end]-- that is, qarābā , sharābā , etc. But in my opinion this isn't necessary, and perhaps Mir too might not even have written it this way. It's not necessary at all that if from the rhyme the sound of ā is to be created, then its spelling should be changed from h to ā . In the opening-verse, since the second line will in any case be written with ā , there's no harm in placing this ghazal in 'refrain' ā . But it would have been better if it had been placed in refrain h , because the rhyme-word of the first line is qarābah . If we would insist on writing h words with ā for the sake of the rhyme, then we'd be forced to write [for example] shikastah as shikastā [and many other odd and unacceptable things]. Compare

{84,1}.

FWP:

SETS == EK; IDIOMS
MOTIFS == SOUND EFFECTS; WINE
NAMES
TERMS == AFFINITY; RHYME

As SRF points out, the verse has at its heart the various forms of wordplay based on the excellent idiom shor sharābā .

The word yāñ , however, adds an extra possibility: the whole scene could be taking place inside the intoxicated drinker, within in his whirling head. And the ik makes a point of leaving open the question of exactly what kind of turmoil it was.

As for the technical question of the spelling of the rhyme-words, here they all are in order: qarābah , sharābā ; ʿarābah ; do-ḳhvābah ; muḥābā ; qulābah ; do-ābah ; āftābah ; ḳharābah ; tābah . It seems that only two of them truly do end in ā , while the other eight end in ah ; so quantitatively speaking, SRF certainly has a point. SSA gives their original spellings, while the kulliyat standardizes all of them to ā . In any case, we can be sure that Mir felt comfortable mixing them together freely. More such cases: {84}; {711}.

Note for grammar fans: The perfect plus karnā makes a form without much of a special name that I call the 'always' construction. Thus phūṭā karnā would mean 'to always break/burst', and phūṭā kiye huʾe would be a perfect participle in the adverbial masculine plural form ('in a state of always having broken/burst'). Then luñḍhtā huʾā phirnā would, by contrast, contain a straightforward masculine singular adjectival present participle: 'to wander around in a state of rolling'.