S. R. Faruqi:

It's a verse of Mir's special style, both with regard to language and with regard to theme. For lu:tf hai chaah is everyday idiom, but it's not far from the dictionary definition. And mazaa hai ((ishq is purely everyday speech, because when the Persian word mazah is made into mazaa in Urdu, then its meaning is not only 'taste, relish', but also 'pleasure, and especially sensory pleasure'; the phrase is utterly appropriate and entirely Hindustani.

By contrast, in the first line he has used pure Persian. Hearing muujib-e tal;xii-kashiidan , the thought occurs that now in the next line too there will be speech similarly immersed in Persian. Thus when hearing lu:tf hai chaah mazaa hai ((ishq , a pleasant surprise arises that makes the interpretation of these phrases even more illumined and well-established. The wordplay between tal;xii and mazaa should also be kept in mind.

Now look at the theme. On one hand it's utterly this-worldly and pragmatic: that if her temperament is contrary, bitterness is experienced in love; for indeed, if the beloved's temperament would be favorable to your own temperament, then what could be better? But a clear allusion to the romantic image of passion is also present-- that is, he hasn't said one ought not to fall into a temperamentally contrary love.

That is, the speaker perceives that no one has power over love. Love doesn't look at whether the beloved's temperament is favorable or unfavorable. Now if the beloved turns out to be contrary to the temperament, then your destiny will draw in bitterness upon bitterness. And if through destiny a favorable beloved would be attained, then you've thrown double sixes.

Another reading of yaar-e muvaafiq mil jaave is, if a beloved favorable in mood would be attained. That is, the very same beloved can sometimes be favorable, sometimes unfavorable.

It's a peerless verse. Compare this ghazal with

{1658}

and

{1659}.

All, in their own ways, are masterpieces.

[See also {1040,1}.]

FWP:

SETS == SYMMETRY
MOTIFS
NAMES
TERMS

Who has the 'contrary-to-temperament' love? It might be the beloved, who could find herself pestered or even hounded by the love of someone who didn't please her at all; this might well cause her to feel 'bitterness'. However, the grammar leaves the question entirely open, so it could just as well be the lover, who would suffer from her hostility. It's clear that yaar can be a unisex term (see the definition above), which also goes to permit both these readings.

And then, the ideal outcome, if one acquires a 'favorable' beloved or lover, is impossible to be sure of. Just look at the definitions of lu:tf and chaah and mazaa (which is spelled that way to suit the rhyme). There's obviously considerable overlap among them-- but also a considerable range of meaning, from the lofty ('beauty, graciousness') through the neutral ('enjoyment, inclination') to the dubious ('jest, sport').

And don't forget the inevitability of 'symmetry'-- if we affirm that A is B, we also unavoidably affirm that B is A. There could thus be a notable difference in some of the possible readings (to say 'pleasure is a desire' is not the same as to say 'desire is a pleasure'). But again, because of the polyvalence of three of the four words, it's hard to say.

The second line could even be taken as saying, in effect, 'If you find a suitable beloved (who shares your tastes), then it's great fun for you both to go around together pursuing frivolous pleasures and amusements'. This might be construed as something vulgar and unworthy, so that it might be better to have a real, proper, 'contrary-to-temperament' love that would, in its 'bitterness', deepen one's mystical understanding of the nature of passion. Of course this is a secondary reading, but the verse has been framed in a way that does leave room for it. It's so rare that the lover actually even imagines having 'fun' in his passion, that perhaps it's just hard to take it seriously!

Note for grammar fans: It's true that ;xilaaf-e mizaaj can also be adverbial, but any reading that takes it that way seems to lose the necessary 'connection' with the second line.