S. R. Faruqi:

The pleasure of 'embracing, and taking the heart in the hand' is obvious. In the first line there's a mention of 'remaining with hand on the heart', through which an implication is created about the pain of the heart.

But there's also the subtlety that if the beloved had embraced him, then he too, in order to clasp her to him and to press his breast to hers, would have removed his hand from his heart. And when he had removed his hand from his heart, the beloved would have taken his writhing heart into her hand, or his writhing heart would have gone over to her hand.

To create in a melancholy verse a concealed smile, and a mood of cleverness/trickery [chaalaakii]-- people should learn it from Mir.

FWP:

SETS
MOTIFS
NAMES
TERMS

It's hard to form a clear vision of the action that the beloved didn't take. If she embraced her lover, she would surely need both hands to do so, and would have no hand free for taking his heart. (The conspicuous hand and heart imagery in the first line forbids us to simply decide that 'taking the heart in the hand' is a metaphorical consequence of an embrace.) So perhaps we're meant to take the temporal sequence of the kar construction literally: first she would have embraced him, then she would have 'taken his heart in her hand'.

And if she had done that, it's still not clear what kind of gesture it would have been. Would she seize the heart right out of the lover's breast, and would this cause his (ecstatic?) death? Or would she take the heart in her hand in a gesture of weighing it, assessing it, and then accepting it? (After all, to be be-dil is a common condition for the lover.) Or would she take the heart in her hand only momentarily, perhaps in a romantic form of courtesy, the way she would take him briefly in her arms in an embrace? Or would she only make a show of embracing him, as a pretext for getting near enough to snatch away the heart? Perhaps the lover himself doesn't know, since after all this has never happened even once in all those many years.

I don't see where any particularly strong mood of cleverness/trickery [chaalaakii kii kaifiyat] comes in. And to me the 'concealed smile' may or may not be there. This is apparently one of those questions of 'tone' that I find hard to decipher as confidently as SRF does; for more on this see {724,2}.