S. R. Faruqi:

In the verse the eloquence [balaa;Gat] is that the thing on the basis of which he has become angry and is going-- of that thing he's made no mention at all. He has created an 'implication' such that it appears that in the gathering the beloved, or the Rival, or the Doorkeeper of the gathering, has ill-treated or mocked him. And perhaps this is not the first such event. The word aa;xir is very meaningful.

This same theme he has expressed, with just a little change, in the fourth divan [{1321,1}]:

dar par se tire ab ke jaa))uu;Ngaa to jaa))uu;Ngaa
yaa;N phir agar aa))uu;Ngaa sayyid nah kahaa))uu;Ngaa

[from your door, this time, if I go then I go
if I ever again come here, then I won't call myself a Sayyid!]

By emphasizing the door he's made the idea a bit lighter, but the sarcasm about his being a Sayyid is fine.

Jur'at uses the theme on a commonplace level:

aaj us :tar;h se jha;Rkaa kih phir us se jaa kar
kuchh bhii ;Gairat ho jo dil ko to nah zinhaar mile

[today she kicked me out in such a way that another time
if my heart would have any pride/honor at all, then I would never ever go and meet her]

FWP:

SETS
MOTIFS == VOWS
NAMES
TERMS == IMPLICATION

The poor lover swears that 'this time' [ab kii followed by an implied baar], 'after all' or 'finally' [aa;xir], he's going to walk away from it all. As SRF notes, the result is a clear implication that on one or more previous occasions he either didn't walk away, or else if he did he came back later for more punishment.

The wordplay of 'going' (twice) and 'coming' also works well. The 'go' in the first line suggests that the speaker is on foreign territory, perhaps in the beloved's street or house, rather than in his own home. The second line envisions that the beloved might 'come' to the lover, but that he wouldn't 'go' with her. So the verse clearly imagines two places, one belonging to the lover and one not. SRF construes this as implying that the lover has been in a gathering of some sort, where he has been humiliated-- which is quite plausible but not necessary. The speaker could simply have been on the beloved's territory in some other, unspecified way.

The second line at first seems almost redundant: just a petulant emphasizing of what's already been asserted in the first line. But on second thought it actually is a delight. For the 'even if you come to persuade me' hangs in the air like a suggestion, like a challenge. The lover claims that he's through, that not even if the beloved comes in person, not even if she deigns to visit him in his own house, can she reestablish her dominion over him. But is this true? Isn't it also a form of wheedling, or of reverse psychology? It shows the lover's desperation, and his (naive? pathetic?) attempt at cleverness. In the process, it further calls into question, most enjoyably, the emphatic, 'protesting too much' claim in the first line.