S. R. Faruqi:

Within everything in the world is the movement of passion; taking up this thought, he has created this theme, that water and dust both are in search of someone, both are wandering and distracted in separation. To express its mood by making nature correspond to it is a special feature of eastern poetics.

Here, the basic qualities of that expression (for dust to fly up and wander, for water to crash against stone) have been used with the additional excellence that dust is associated with the desert and the wilderness, and water with the wilderness and the mountains. The lover too is generally associated with both of those (desert or wilderness, and mountains).

Two [Persian] verses from Shahzadi Zeb un-Nisa are noted here; it's possible that the theme of the present verse might to some extent have occurred to Mir through these verses:

'Oh waterfall, for whom do you mourn?
In grief for whom do you bow your head like this?
What grief do you have, such that all night long,
Like me, you wept and beat your head against a stone?'

But it's clear that these verses are explicit, and also artificial. Mir's expression is more abstract, it contains mention of both dust and water; and his technique is one of revelation/showing.

Mir never leaves off from his wordplay. Here too, there's the wordplay of sar and basar .

FWP:

SETS == BHI; MUSHAIRAH
MOTIFS == DESERT
NAMES
TERMS == IHAM

That little bhii is a nice touch; it means that the mushairah audience could readily have imagined that the second line would somehow liken the ardent dust to the ardent human lover. Not until they were allowed (after a suitable delay) to hear the second line-- and even then, not until the very end of the line, at the last possible moment-- could they at all guess that the comparison would be to passion-crazed water, and that the human lover wouldn't figure in the verse at all. This small touch of 'misdirection' surely counts as a kind of minor iham.

Then of course, we listeners ask ourselves, is the verse really about dust and water? If so, it would probably illustrate the cosmic harmony between the lover and all of nature (in that order), as SRF suggests. Or are we to take dust and water merely as metaphoric stand-ins for the lover's wildly totalizing vision of a universe moved by mystical longing? Or if the lover projects his own emotions onto dust and water, does that merely show that he's crazy? As so often, we're left to decide for ourselves.

Note for grammar fans: In the first line, u;Rii ;xaak is short for the adjectival perfect participle u;Rii hu))ii ;xaak , literally 'in-a-state-of-having-flown-up dust'.