Storey Online

12.1 History of India: General
(22,409 words)

In Volume 1-1: Qurʾānic Literature, History, and Biography | Section 2, History, Biography, etc.

previous chapter: 11 History of China and Japan

[For the general histories of the Muḥammadan world, including India, see pp. 46–123 of this work.]

§ 612. A certain “ʿIṣāmī” composed in 750/1349–50 and dedicated to ʿAlāʾ al-Dunyā wa-’l-Dīn Abū ’l-Muẓaffar Bahman-S̲h̲āh Sulṭān, the first ruler of the Bahmanī dynasty, his

Futūḥ al-salāṭīn, an epic poem on the rulers of India from the G̲h̲aznawids to the date of composition, one of the authorities of the Ṭabaqāt i Akbarī: Ethé 895 (damaged. 16th cent.), Ḥaidarābād Maulawī M. G̲h̲aut̲h̲’s Library (see Oriental College Magazine, vol. xiv no. 1 (Nov. 1937) p. 901), possibly also Rehatsek p. 131 no. 16 (cf. p. 388 infra) and Āṣafīyah i p. 226 no. 673 (cf. p. 388 infra).

Edition: Āgrah 1938 (ed. Āg̲h̲ā Mahdī Ḥusain).

Description etc.: ʿIṣāmī-nāmah, by S. Yūs̲h̲aʿ, Madras 1937 (see Oriental College Magazine, vol. xiv no. 1 (Nov. 1937) p. 89).

§ 613. K̲h̲wājah Niẓām al-Dīn Aḥmad b. M. Muqīm al-Harawī was appointed Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī of Gujrāt in Akbar’s 29th regnal year and Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī of the empire in the 37th year. He died at the age of 45 on 23 Ṣafar 1003/1594, the 39th year.

Ṭabaqāt i Akbarī, as it is usually called, or Ṭabaqāt i Akbar-S̲h̲āhī, as the author himself called it, or Tārīk̲h̲ i Niẓāmī, as it is sometimes called, written ah 1001/1592–3 (but Akbar’s reign is brought down to the end of the 38th year ah 1002/1593–4), the earliest of the general histories of India and the basis of subsequent works like the Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲ and the Guls̲h̲an i Ibrāhīmī, divided into a muqaddimah (the G̲h̲aznawids). nine ṭabaqāt ((1) Delhi ah 574/1178–1002/1593 concluding with notices of celebrated men of Akbar’s time, (2) the Deccan ah 748/1347–1002/1593, (3) Gujrāt ah 793/1390–980/1572, (4) Mālwah ah 809/1406–977/1569, (5) Bengal ah 741/1340–984/1576, (6) Jaunpūr ah 784/1382–881/1476, (7) Kas̲h̲mīr ah 747/1346–995/1586, (8) Sind ah 86/705–1001/1592, (9) Multān ah 847/1443–923/1517) and a geographical k̲h̲ātimah (apparently never finished, since in the mss. it consists of only a few lines): ʿAlīgaṛh Subḥ. mss. p. 57 no. 954 (3) (ah 1003/1594–5), Rieu iii 906a (lacks circ. 40 foll, at beginning. Late 16th cent.), 906a (transcribed from the preceding, ad 1854), i 220a (17th cent.), 221b (ah 1049/1640), 221b (18th cent.), 222a (from Balban to Ibrāhīm Lōdī. 17th cent.), 222a (Bābur and Humāyūn. 19th cent.), Eton 182 (ah 1020/1611–12), 183 (ah 1059/1649), Ethé 225 (ah 1031/1622), 226 (ah 1069/1659), 227, 228, 229 (lacks Ṭabaqah ix. Collated ah 1079/1669), 230 (Muqaddimah and Ṭabaqah i. ah 1066/1656), 231 (Muqaddimah and part of Ṭabaqah i. ah 1103/1691), 232 (portion relating to S̲h̲ēr S̲h̲āh. ah 1046/1636), ii 3014 (Ṭabaqah iii), Bodleian 184 (ah 1049/1639), 185 (ah 1088/1677), 186–191 (six undated copies, of which 190 is described as very good, 191 (Muqaddimah and most of Ṭabaqah i) as old, and 189 as differing in arrangement), Oxford Ind. Inst. ms. Pers. A. iv 54 (ah 1131/1719), Vollers 972 (ah 1063/1653), 973, Blochet i 530 (lacks Ṭabaqah ix and k̲h̲ātimah. Mid 17th cent.), 531 (Muqaddimah and Ṭabaqah i. ah 1089/1678), 532 (Muqaddimah and Ṭabaqah i. Late 17th cent.), 533 (Ṭabaqāt ii, iii, v, vi (?), vii. 17th–18th cent.), Aumer 235 (collated ah 1081/1670–1), Bānkīpūr vii 535 (lacks Ṭabaqah iv. 17th cent.), Mehren p. 21 no. 56 (Akbar’s reign from ah 969 to 1001. Copied ah 1114/1702–3), Ivanow 115 (early 12th cent, h.), 116 (12th cent, h.), Curzon 24 (defective. 18th cent.), 25 (defective. 18th cent.), Lindesiana p. 205 no. 934 (circ. ad 1750), no. 405 (circ. ad 1780–1830), Būhār 60 (23rd year of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam’s reign = 1195–6/1781–2), Berlin 485 (ad 1809), Āṣafīyah i p. 246 no. 732 (ah 1298/1881), p. 226 no. 720 (part relating to the Deccan), Edinburgh 77 (old), Lahore Panjab Univ. Lib. (one nearly complete copy and one of the Delhi ṭabaqah only. See Oriental College Magazine, vol. ii, no. 4 (Lahore, August 1926) pp. 45–6), r.a.s. P. 59 = Morley 46 (defective), Rehatsek p. 100 no. 54, Salemann-Rosen p. 12 no. 269* (“jild i awwal az Tārīk̲h̲ i Akbar-S̲h̲āhī?”. Author not stated).

Editions: Ṭabaqāt i Akbarī [Lucknow,] 1870°, 1292/1875*, Calcutta 1913– (edited by B. De. Bibliotheca Indica. The three parts so far published (in 1913, 1927 and 1931) contain the Muqaddimah and the whole of Ṭabaqah i).

English translation: by B. De, Calcutta 1913—(Bibliotheca Indica. The two fasciculi published in 1913 and 1927 form “vol. i” of the translation and contain the history to the end of Ibrāhīm Lōdī’s reign. “Vol. ii,” published in 1936, carries the translation to the end of Ṭabaqah i).

Translations of extracts: (1) Elliot Bibliographical index pp. 186–203. (2) Elliot and Dowson History of India v pp. 187–476 (translated by J. Dowson).

Descriptions: (1) Elliot Bibliographical index pp. 178–80, 183, 203–4. (2) Elliot and Dowson History of India v pp. 177–87.

Anonymous epitome: (Muntak̲h̲ab i Ṭabaqāt i Akbarī) i.o. D.P. 746.

Condensed extract relating to various dynasties of the Deccan (only?): D̲h̲ikr i aḥwāl i salāṭīn i Hindūstān, Ivanow 117 (ad 1811).

[Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲ ii 397; Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i 660–4 (English translation in Elliot and Dowson History of India v 178–80); Elliot Bibliographical Index i 180–5; Elliot and Dowson History of India v 178–83, vi 130; Rieu i 220; K̲h̲wājah Niẓām al-Dīn Aḥmad (in Urdu) by S. Aḥmad Allāh Qādirī (in the Urdu periodical Maʿārif, Aʿẓamgaṛh, August 1931, pp. 121–37); Ency. Isl. under Niẓām al-Dīn.]

§ 614. ʿAbd al-Qādir “Qādirī” b. Mulūk-S̲h̲āh b. Ḥāmid Badāʾūnī1 was born on 17 Rabīʿ ii ah 947/21 August 15402 at Tōdah3 [i.e. apparently Toda Bhim, now in the state of Jaipūr]. Soon afterwards he seems to have been taken to Basāwar,4 evidently for a time at least the home of his family.5 At the age of twelve he was at Sambhal, where his father had taken him to pursue his studies under S̲h̲aik̲h̲ Ḥātim Sanbhalī (M. al-t. i p. 425, iii pp. 2, 66).6 In 966/1558–9 he went from Basāwar to study at Āgrah (M. al-t. ii p. 32) and for some years he was a pupil of S̲h̲aik̲h̲ Mubārak Nāgaurī (M. al-t. iii pp. 67, 74). In 969/1562 his father died at Āgrah (M. al-t. ii p. 53), and not long after he evidently removed to Badāʾūṅ. He was there, for example, in 971/1563–4 (M. al-t. ii p. 73), and it was there that he married for the second time in 975/1567–8 (M. al-t. ii p. 105). In 973/1565–6, however, leaving Badāʾūṅ, he entered the service of Ḥusain K̲h̲ān, the Jāgīrdār of Paṭiyālī, and remained with him for nearly nine years (M. al-t. ii pp. 86–7, 222), moving with him when his jāgīr was transferred to Lucknow and again to Kānt u Gōlah.

It was at the end of 981/1574 that ʿAbd al-Qādir, having severed his connexion with Ḥusain K̲h̲ān, went from Badāʾūṅ to Āgrah and was presented to Akbar through the influence of Jalāl K̲h̲ān Qūrc̲h̲ī and Ḥakīm ʿAin al-Mulk (M. al-t. ii p. 172). In 982/1574–5 he was appointed an imām (M. al-t. ii p. 206) and in 983/1575–6 he became one of the seven imāms and was instructed to lead the prayers on Wednesdays (M. al-t. ii p. 226). In the same year he was granted 1,000 bīg’hās of land as a madad i maʿās̲h̲ (originally at Basāwar, but in 997/1588–9 the grant was transferred to Badāʾūṅ. M. al-t. ii p. 368). From 982/1574 onwards he took a prominent part in the literary activities—mainly historiography and the translation of Hindu works into Persian—which Akbar promoted. His religious orthodoxy made him unsympathetic to Akbar’s free-thought and he regarded his master’s innovations with a disapproval which he does not conceal in the Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲. It is stated in the K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah on the authority of a pupil of his that he died in 1004/1595–6. According to the Mirʾāt i jahān-numā, however, he died in 1006/1597–8 and according to the Ṭabaqāt i S̲h̲āh-Jahānī in 1024/1615. According to Bak̲h̲tāwar Sing’h’s Urdu Tārīk̲h̲ i Badāyūṅ (quoted by Blochmann, j.a.s.b. 38, Pt. i (1869) p. 143) his grave is at ʿAtāpūr near Badāʾūṅ.

The works with which ʿAbd al-Qādir’s name is associated as author, epitomator, translator or collaborator are the following:

Kitāb al-aḥādīt̲h̲ (a chronogram = 978/1570–1), a collection of forty traditions on the merit of waging war. Presented to Akbar in 986/1578 (see M. al-t. ii p. 255), but now apparently lost.
Nāmah i k̲h̲irad-afzā (a chronogram = 989/1581), a translation of the Sing’hāsan battīsī undertaken by Akbar’s order in 982/1574 and begun immediately with the help of a pandit designated by Akbar (M. al-t. ii pp. 183–4). The date indicated by the chronogram is puzzling and is not explained by ʿAbd al-Qādir’s further statement (M. al-t. i 67) that he translated this work first in 982 and again in 1003. Several Persian translations of this work are extant, but none of them seems to be definitely identifiable with ʿAbd al-Qādir’s.
Razm-nāmah, a translation of the Mahābhārata undertaken by Akbar’s order in 990/1582 (M. al-t. ii p. 319). In this enterprise ʿAbd al-Qādir had only a small share, being associated with Naqīb K̲h̲ān (for whom see p. 92, n. 56, supra) for three or four months during which a translation of two of the eighteen parvas was produced. For manuscripts of this translation see Rieu i 57, Ethé 1928–46, Bodleian 1306–12 etc.
Tarjamah i kitāb i Rāmāyan, a translation or abridgment of the Rāmāyaṇa undertaken by Akbar’s order in 992/1584, completed in four years and submitted to Akbar in 997/1589 (M. al-t. ii 336, 366).
Tārīk̲h̲ i alfī. The part taken by ʿAbd al-Qādir in the compilation of this history has already been mentioned (pp. 93–94 supra).
Najāt al-ras̲h̲īd (a chronogram = 999/1590–1), described by Blochmann as a polemical work and by Ivanow as “a Sufico-ethical treatise, richly interspersed with interesting historical anecdotes, controversial discussions, etc.” It contains inter alia an account of the Mahdawī sect. ʿAbd al-Qādir makes a passing reference to this work in M. al-t. ii p. 208. For a manuscript see Ivanow 1263.
Tarjamah i Tārīk̲h̲ i Kas̲h̲mīr. In 999/1590 by Akbar’s order he rewrote and abridged a translation made for Akbar by Mullā S̲h̲āh-Muḥammad S̲h̲āhābādī of a history of Kas̲h̲mīr [probably the Rāja-taraṅgiṇī]. M. al-t. ii p. 374.
Tarjamah i Muʿjam al-buldān. In 999/1590 he was one of ten or twelve persons, both ʿIrāqīs and Indians, who collaborated in a translation of Yāqūt’s geographical dictionary. He completed his portion, one twentieth of the whole, in one month (M. al-t. ii p. 375). This translation does not seem to be preserved.
Intik̲h̲āb i Jāmiʿ i Ras̲h̲īdī. In 1000/1591–2 he was instructed by Akbar to epitomise the Jāmiʿ al-tawārīk̲h̲, evidently the Arabic version (see p. 57 supra), since he speaks of translating from Arabic. The words in which he describes the result of his labours (M. al-t. ii p. 384) suggest that he epitomised only a part of the work.
Baḥr al-asmār. In 1003/1595 he was ordered to complete the Baḥr al-asmār, a fragmentary translation of a “Hindī” (i.e. no doubt Sanskrit) tale (afsānah)7 made for the Sulṭān Zain al-ʿĀbidīn of Kas̲h̲mīr (ah 820–872). In five months he translated the last volume (jild i ak̲h̲īr) of this work and then received instructions to modernise the old Persian of the earlier translation (jild i awwal). When he wrote about this in the Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲ (ii pp. 401–2) he was hoping to finish the work in two or three months.

In 983/1575–6 he had taken part in the unsuccessful attempt to produce a translation of the At’harva Vēda (M. al-t. ii p. 212).

Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲, often called Tārīk̲h̲ i Badāʾūnī, a history of India from the time of Subuktigīn ah 367/997–8 to ah 1004/1595–6, the fortieth year of Akbar’s reign, followed by short biographies of contemporary s̲h̲aik̲h̲s, scholars, physicians and poets (the notices of the last being based on the Nafāʾis al-maʾāt̲h̲ir of “Kāmī”): Blochet i 534 (ah 1132/1719–20), Bānkīpūr vii 536 (ah 1141/1729), Bodleian 192 (ah 1143/1730), 193 (n.d.), 194 (part ii only (i.e. Akbar’s reign with the biographies of saints and poets), ah 1219/1804), Ethé 234 (vol. i only. ah 1159/1746), 233 (n.d.), Rieu i 2226 (18th cent.), 223a (18th cent.), iii 906b (circ. ad 1850), 906b (extracts. Circ. ad 1850), 1030b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Ivanow 119 (ah 1255/1839–40), 118 (early 13th cent, h.), 120 (13th/19th cent.), 121 (Akbar’s reign etc. ah 1267/1850–1), Āṣafīyah i p. 254 no. 197, Aumer 247 (apparently, to judge from the opening words. History of India from ah 923/1517 (accession of Ibrāhīm Lōdī) to ah 1002/1593–4 (Akbar’s 39th regnal year) with appendix on the contemporary s̲h̲aik̲h̲s), Berlin 469, Browne Suppt. 1252 (King’s 77), Eton 162.

Abridgment made in 1049/1639–40 by Ṭahmāsp-Qulī: Berlin 470.

Editions: Calcutta 1864–9°* (edited by Aḥmad ʿAlī, Kabīr al-Dīn Aḥmad, and W. Nassau Lees. Bibliotheca Indica), Lucknow 1868°*.

English translation: Muntak̲h̲abu-t-tawárík̲h̲ by ʿAbdu-l-Qádir ibn i Mulúk Sháh known as al-Badáóní [sic] translated … [vol. i [from the beginning of the work to Humāyūn’s death] by G.S.A. Ranking, Calcutta 1895–9°*, vol. ii [Akbar’s reign] by W.H. Lowe, Calcutta 1884–98°*, reprinted 1924*, vol. iii [biographies of saints, poets etc.] by T.W. Haig, Calcutta 1899–1925°*. Bibliotheca Indica].

Condensed translation by W. Erskine: b.m. ms. Add. 26,609.

Translated extracts: (1) Elliot Bibliographical index, Calcutta 1849*, pp. 227–58. (2) The Emperor Akbar’s repudiation of Esllám and profession of his own religion, called “Tovohhyd Elahy Akbar Shahy” or “Akbar Shah’s Divine Monotheism”. Consisting of passages from the Muntakhab al-Tawárikh of Abd al-Qádir bin-i Malúk Shah Al-Badáuni. Translated by E. Rehatsek. Bombay 1866°*. (3) Elliot and Dowson History of India v 485–549 (translated by H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson). (4) [Extracts relating to Akbar’s reign translated by J. Leyden] b.m. ms. Add. 26,601.

The passages relating to Akbar’s new religion were summarised by H.H. Wilson in an article entitled Account of the religious innovations attempted by Akbar, which he contributed to the Quarterly Oriental Magazine, Calcutta, 1824, vol. i, pt. i, pp. 49–62 and which was reprinted in Works by the late Horace Hayman Wilson, vol. ii, London 1862, pp. 379–400.

Descriptions: (1) Elliot Bibliographical index, pp. 219–26. (2) H. Blochmann Badáoní and his works (in j.a.s.b. 38 (1869), pt. i, pp. 105–44).

[Autobiographical statements in the Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲ (some, not by any means all, of these are collected in the 16-page biography prefixed to vol. iii of the Calcutta edition and a few are translated in Elliot’s Bibliographical index and History of India); Ṭabaqāt i Akbarī ii p. 468; Āʾīn i Akbarī tr. Blochmann i 104 (translation of the Mahābhārata), 104 n. 2 (a brief biography by Blochmann), 547 (merely his name in the list of scholars); Mirʾāt al-ʿālam (quoted in M. al-t. iii, preface, p. 12 foll.); K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah p. 323, no. 79; H. Blochmann Badáoní and his works (in j.a.s.b. 38 (1869), pt. i, pp. 105–44); Rieu i 222, iii 1082b ad 222; Raḥmān ʿAlī 130; Ency. Isl. under Badāʾūnī; Bānkīpūr vii pp. 6–8.]

§ 615. ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Dihlawī, who died in 1052/1642, has already been mentioned as the author of the S̲h̲arḥ Sufar al-saʿādah (p. 142 supra), the Madārij al-nubuwwah (p. 152 supra), the Aḥwāl i Aʾimmah i It̲h̲nā-ʿas̲h̲ar (p. 168 supra) and the Jad̲h̲b al-qulūb ilā diyār al-maḥbūb (p. 336 supra).

Dh̲ikr al-mulūk, or Tārīk̲h̲ i Ḥaqqī, completed ah 1005/1596–7, a concise history of India from the time of Muʿizz al-Dīn M. b. Sām to that of Akbar based on the Ṭabaqāt i Nāṣirī, the Tārīk̲h̲ i Fīrōz-S̲h̲āhī (of Baranī), the Tārīk̲h̲ i Bahādur-S̲h̲āhī and, for the period from Buhlūl Lōdī onwards, on oral tradition and personal observation: Bānkīpūr vii 537 (ah 1023/1614), Bodleian 195 (with a continuation (little more than dates) to ah 1044/1634. Old), 196 (with the same continuation), 197 (n.d.), 198 (ah 1039/1629), Rieu ii 855b (ah 1066/1656), 823 (ah 1129/1717), i 223b (a later and enlarged recension. ah 1136/1724), Āṣafīyah i p. 224 no. 612 (29th year of Aurangzēb), Browne Pers. Cat. 81 (ah 1221/1807), r.a.s. P. 60 = Morley 47.

Description, 5 pp. of extracts and translated extract of 1 1/2 pp.: Elliot Bibliographical index to the historians of Muhammedan India pp. 273–80, and (Arabic pagination) 60–4.

Description and translated extract of 2 pp.: Elliot and Dowson History of India vi pp. 175–81.

§ 616. Nūr al-Ḥaqq al-Mas̲h̲riqī al-Dihlawī al-Buk̲h̲ārī was the son of ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Dihlawī, whose D̲h̲ikr al-mulūk or Tārīk̲h̲ i Ḥaqqī has just been mentioned and whom he succeeded as a religious teacher at Delhi. In S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s time he became Qāḍī at Akbarābād (i.e. Āgrah). He died at Delhi in 1073/1662 at the age of ninety. Among his works were a Persian commentary on the Saḥīḥ of al-Buk̲h̲ārī entitled Taisīr al-qārī fī s̲h̲arḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Buk̲h̲ārī (see Brockelmann 1st Suppt. p. 263 no. 31), a Persian commentary on the Ṣaḥīḥ of Muslim entitled Manbaʿ al-ʿilm fī s̲h̲arḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim revised and enlarged by his son Fak̲h̲r al-Dīn Muḥibb Allāh (see Brockelmann 1st Suppt. p. 266 no. 13) and a commentary on “K̲h̲usrau’s” Qirān al-saʿdain entitled Nūr al-ʿain fī s̲h̲arḥ Qirān al-saʿdain (see Rieu ii 617b, Ivanow Curzon 220, Sprenger 330).

Zubdat al-tawārīk̲h̲, a general history of India from Muʿizz al-Dīn M. b. Sām to the accession of Jahāngīr (ah 1014/1605), being a much enlarged edition and continuation of his father’s history: Blochet i 535 (ah 1068/1657–8), iv 2324 (ah 1104/1692–3), Lindesiana p. 207 no. 384 (ah 1082/1671–2), Rieu i 224b (17th cent.), ii 821b (portion only. 17th cent.), 906b (17th cent.), iii 1039b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Browne Suppt. 733 (ah 1118/1706–7. Corpus 220), Berlin 471 (ah 1197/1783), Āṣafīyah i p. 242 no. 160, Ethé 290.

Extracts: Elliot Bibliographical index, Muntak̲h̲abāt pp. 65–8.

Translations of extracts: (1) Elliot Bibliographical index pp. 283–96. (2) Elliot and Dowson History of India vi pp. 184–94.

Descriptions: (1) Elliot Bibliographical index pp. 281–97. (2) Elliot and Dowson History of India vi pp. 182–4.

[ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ (b.m. ms. Add. 26,221 = Rieu i 263, fol. 692b, i.e. the 19th leaf from the end of the work); Mirʾāt al-ʿālam (b.m. ms. Add. 7657 = Rieu i 1256, fol. 455a, i.e. the 43rd leaf from the end); Subḥat al-marjān 53; Farḥat al-nāẓirīn (passage quoted in Oriental College Magazine iv no. 4 (Aug. 1928) pp. 58–9); K̲h̲azīnat al-aṣfiyāʾ ii 356; Itḥāf al-nubalāʾ 426; Rieu i 224b; Ḥadāʾiq al-Ḥanafīyah 418; Raḥmān ʿAlī 246; Ency. Isl. under Dihlawī.]

§ 617. M. Qāsim Hindū-s̲h̲āh8 Astarābādī known as (al-mas̲h̲hūr bi-) Firis̲h̲tah, as he calls himself in the Guls̲h̲an i Ibrāhīmī, or M. Qāsim sumamed (al-mulaqqab bi-) Hindū-S̲h̲āh known as (al-mas̲h̲hūr bi-) Firis̲h̲tah, as he calls himself in the Dastūr al-aṭibbāʾ, was the son of G̲h̲ulām-‘Alī Hindū-S̲h̲āh [see Bombay ed. ii p. 449, [Lucknow] ed. ii p. 120]. Neither the date nor the place of his birth seems to be known.9 On reaching years of discretion Firis̲h̲tah entered the service of Murtaḍā Nīẓām-S̲h̲āh10 (ruler of Aḥmadnagar ah 972/1565–996/158811), and it was at Aḥmadnagar that, while still in the prime of youth,12 he conceived the idea of writing a history of the Islāmic kings and saints of India. At Aḥmadnagar, however, he was unable to obtain all the historical works that he desired and so his project had to be deferred. When the Prime Minister Mīrzā K̲h̲ān13 (Sulṭān Ḥusain Sabzawārī) plotted with Dilāwar K̲h̲ān, Regent of Bījāpūr, to depose Murtaḍā Niẓām-S̲h̲āh in favour of his son Mīrān Ḥusain and mobilised an army ostensibly to defend the kingdom of Aḥmadnagar against the forces of Bījāpūr, which by arrangement had assembled on the frontier, Firis̲h̲tah was sent by the king to find out what was really happening.14 Mīrzā K̲h̲ān, knowing that Firis̲h̲tah’s loyalty to the king would cause him to make a true report, intended, when he joined the army a little later, to arrest Firis̲h̲tah, but the latter was warned by a friend and managed to escape on a dromedary. He disclosed the plot to the king and, on being asked for his advice, made certain recommendations. Yielding to the persuasion of a disloyal favourite, the king decided to remain in the palace, contrary to Firis̲h̲tah’s advice. Hearing of this, the troops who had remained loyal lost heart and left Ahmadnagar to join Mīrzā K̲h̲ān. Firis̲h̲tah, who was apparently captain of the palace guard15 or something of that kind, and five or six others were all who remained in the palace with the king. Not long afterwards Mīrzā K̲h̲ān and Mīrān Ḥusain with thirty or forty ruffians entered the palace and Firis̲h̲tah would have been killed if Mīrān Ḥusain had not recognised him and, respecting his claims as a school-fellow,16 spared his life.

The deposition and murder of Mīrān Ḥusain Niẓām-S̲h̲āh after a reign of only ten months led to xenophobic disturbances and a massacre from which few “foreigners” (g̲h̲arībān, i.e. non-Dakanīs, and their descendants, g̲h̲arīb-zādahā) escaped, and these, less than 300 in number, were expelled to Bījāpūr on the “ʿĪd i Ramaḍān” 997/1589. Through the influence of Dilāwar K̲h̲ān, Regent during the minority of Ibrāhīm ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āh ii, they were given appointments, and on 19 Ṣafar 998/28 Dec. 1589 Firis̲h̲tah was presented at court and entered the government service at Bījāpūr.17

At the end of Rabīʿ al-Awwal 998/1590 Burhān Nizām-S̲h̲āh, desiring to obtain the throne of Aḥmadnagar, then occupied by his son, Ismāʿīl, sent messengers to Firis̲h̲tah with an autograph parwānah asking him to place before the King of Bījāpūr some letters appealing for support. Firis̲h̲tah took the messengers to Dilāwar K̲h̲ān, the Regent, who submitted the letters to the king and obtained his consent to a campaign.18 In a battle which ensued between Dilāwar K̲h̲ān and Jamāl K̲h̲ān, the dictator of Aḥmadnagar, Firis̲h̲tah was wounded and after fleeing to Dārāsang fell into the hands of Jamāl K̲h̲ān but escaped by a stratagem.19 In Rajab of the same year he was among those who accompanied the king on the night journey against Dilāwar K̲h̲ān, which resulted in the latter’s fall and flight to Bīdar.20

In Ṣafar 1013/July 1604 Firis̲h̲tah accompanied the palanquin of Bēgam Sultān, Ibrāhīm ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āh’s daughter, from Bījāpūr to Paiṭhan on the Gōdāvarī, where she was married to Akbar’s son Dāniyāl, and thence to Burhānpūr, where Dāniyāl died a few months later.21 At the beginning of Jahāngīr’s reign (ah 1014/1605–1037/1628) Firis̲h̲tah was sent to Lahore by Ibrāhīm ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āh for a purpose which is not specified.22 In 1023/1614 he visited the fortress of Asīr,23 and he was still alive in 1033/1623–4, if the record of the death of Bahādur K̲h̲ān Fārūqī at Āgrah in that year24 was not inserted in his history by a later hand.

As Firis̲h̲tah tells us in two places,25 he was encouraged in the writing of his history by Ibrāhīm ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āh, who on an occasion when he was presented at court by S̲h̲āh-nawāz K̲h̲ān (K̲h̲wājah Saʿd al-Dīn ʿInāyat-Allāh S̲h̲īrāzī) gave him a copy of the Rauḍat al-ṣafāʾ (for which see p. 71 supra) and instructed him to write a history of India which should be an improvement upon the very concise and, especially in matters relating to the Deccan, inadequate history of Niẓām al-Dīn Aḥmad Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī. He also received much encouragement from S̲h̲āh-nawāz K̲h̲ān.26 Firis̲h̲tah wrote also an exposition of the Indian system of medicine, entitled Dastūr al-aṭibbāʾ and often called Ik̲h̲tiyārāt i Qāsimī, which is extant in many manuscripts (e.g. Rieu Suppt. 160, Ethé 2318–24, cf. Fonahn Zur Quellenkunde der persischen Medizin pp. 22–3).

Guls̲h̲an i Ibrāhīmī, usually called Tārīk̲h̲ i Firis̲h̲tah, a general history of India dedicated to Ibrāhīm ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āh and existing in two slightly different recensions, the first dated (in the preface) 1015/1606–7, the second, with a new title, Tārīk̲h̲ i Nauras-nāmah, 1018/1609–10 (both contain later insertions),27 both divided into a muqaddimah (on the beliefs of the Hindus, their early rājahs and the coming of Islām to India), twelve maqālahs ((1) the g̲h̲aznawids of Lahore, (2) the Sulṭāns of Delhi, (3) the Deccan in six rauḍahs ((i) Bahmanids, (ii) ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āhs, (iii) Niẓām-S̲h̲āhs, (iv) Quṭb-S̲h̲āhs, (v) ʿImād-S̲h̲āhs, (vi) Barīdīs), (4) Gujrāt, (5) Mālwah, (6) Burhānpūr, (7) Bengal (including the S̲h̲arqīs of Jaunpūr), (8) Sind, Tattah and Multān, (9) the Samagān or Zamīndārs of Sind (the Jām and Arghūn dynasties and the Sulṭāns of Multān), (10) Kas̲h̲mīr, (11) Malabar, (12) Indian saints) and a k̲h̲ātimah (a short description of India): Ethé 296 (defective and damaged, ah 1042/1633), 291 (ah 1058/1648), 292 (ah 1141/1728–9 and 1163/1750), 293 (ah 1176/1762), 294 (Nauras-nāmah [?]. N.d.), 295 (apparently Nauras-nāmah. N.d.), 297–301 (five incomplete copies), Rieu i 226b–227a (defective, breaking off near the beginning of Maqālah xi (Malabar). 2 vols. in the same hand, the first dated ah 1048/1639), 225a (18th cent.), 227a (ah 1209/1795), 227a (Nauras-nāmah. Late 17th cent.), 227b (Nauras-nāmah. Lacunæ. 17th cent.), 227b (Nauras-nāmah. ad 1779), 228a (from Akbar to beginning of Rauḍah 6. 18th cent.), 228a (Maqālah iii only. 19th cent.), Lindesiana p. 141 nos. 378–9 (circ. ah 1079/1668–9), 826 (circ. ad 1760), 380 (“Parts i. ii. and iii. only.” Circ. ad 1810), Aumer 236 (Nauras-nāmah? ah 1087/1676–7), Blochet i 536 (late 17th cent.), 537–9 (lacuna, ah 1164/1750–1), 540 (fragments. 18th cent.), Berlin 465 (Nauras-nāmah. ah 114 = 1114/1703 [?]), 462–3 (ah 1212/1797–1214/1800), 464 (ah 1208/1793), 466 (defective at both ends and elsewhere), 467 (vol. i, defective), 468 (part of Maqālah iii only), Oxford Ind. Inst. ms. Pers. a.i. 9 (Muqaddimah and Maqālahs i–ii. ah 1139/1727), Leningrad Asiat. Mus. (ah 1146/1733. See Mélanges asiatiques iii (1859) p. 499. For another ms. see Mélanges asiatiques vi (1873) p. 124), r.a.s. P. 61 = Morley 48, P. 62 =Morley 49 (ah 1147/1734–5), P. 63 = Morley 50 (defective. ah 1159/1746), P. 64 = Morley 51 (Muqaddimah (part) and Maqālahs i–ii), P. 65 = Morley 52 (Muqaddimah and Maqālahs i–ii), Ivanow 138 (2nd half of Maqālah ii. ah 1147/1734–5), 135 (early 12th/18th cent.), 136 (late 12th/18th cent.), 137 (Maqālahs i–ii. 12th/18th cent.), 139 (Maqālah iv. Late 12th/18th cent.), Browne Pers. Cat. 82 (Maqālahs i–ii), 83 (vol. ii (i.e. Maqālah iii, Rauḍah 2 to the end of the work), ah 1152/1739–40), Suppt. 1100–2 (3 copies. Christ’s), 1103 (ah 1198/1783–4. King’s), Edinburgh 200 (vol. i. Not later than ah 1178/1764–5), Vollers 977, 978 (vol. i), 979 (vol. ii. ah 1246/1830–1), 980 (ah 1208/1793–4), Rehatsek p. 90 nos. 33–5 (ah 1222/1806–7), 36 (Muntak̲h̲ab az Tawārīk̲h̲ i Firis̲h̲tah (most of Maqālah iii apparently), ah 1243/1827), Bombay Univ. 17 (vol. i. ah 1256/1841), Āṣafīyah i p. 228 no. 704 (ah 1257/1841), iii p. 96 nos. 998, 1074, 1233 (the last dated ah 1160/1747), Bānkīpūr vii 538–9 (19th cent.), Bodleian 217 (Muqaddimah and Maqālahs i–ii), Caetani 71, Dresden 376 (vol. i).

Editions: Tārīk̲h̲ i Firis̲h̲tah, Bombay (and Poonah) 1831–2°*28 (edited by Major-General J. Briggs and Mīr K̲h̲airāt ʿAlī K̲h̲ān “Mus̲h̲tāq”. Some of the copies have also an English title-page: Tarikh-i-Ferishta, or History of the rise of the Mahomedan power in India, till the year A.D. 1612, by Mahomed Kasim Ferishtaedited and collated from various manuscript copies … by Major-General J. Briggs … assisted by Mir Kheirat Ali Khan Mushtak), [Lucknow], Nawal Kishore, 1281/1864–5°, Cawnpore 1290/1874*, 1884*.

Extracts: (1) [Maqālah xi (Malabar) with English translation by Anderson] The Asiatick Miscellany, vol. ii (Calcutta 1786) pp. 278–.29 (2) Elliot Bibliographical index, Muntak̲h̲abāt, pp. 76–84.

English translation [somewhat abridged] of the whole work except Maqālah xii: History of the rise of the Mahomedan power in India, till the year A.D. 1612. Translated from thePersian of Mahomed Kasim Ferishta, by J. Briggs. To which is added, an account of the conquest, by the Kings of Hydrabad, of those parts of the Madras Provinces denominated the Ceded Districts and Northern Circars. London 1829°*, Calcutta 1908–10°*.

Urdu translation by M. Fidā-ʿAlī “Ṭālib” (with a few brief notes by S. Hās̲h̲imī Farīdābādī): Ḥaidarābād 1926–32* (Osmania University Press. 4 vols., containing apparently the whole work except the lives of the saints. Only vol. i contains an index).

Translations of extracts: (1) [Maqālahs i and ii only] The history of Hindostan, from the earliest account of time to the death of Akbar; translated from the Persian of Mahummud Casim Ferishta … together with a dissertation concerning the religion and philosophy of the Brahmins. With an appendix containing the history of the Mogul Empire from its decline in the reign of Mahummud Shau to the present time. By A. Dow. 2 vols. London 1768°, 1770–2°* (2nd ed., enlarged. With a third volume containing The history of Hindostan from the death of Akbar to the … settlement of the empire under Aurungzebe [compiled from various writers] … A dissertation on the origin and nature of despotism in Hindostan … An enquiry into the state of BengalBy A. Dow), 1792 (3rd ed. See Morley, p. 67, n. 4), 1803 (4th ed. See Morley ibid.), 1812* (“New edition”). (2) [Maqālah xi (Malabar)] see above under Extracts (1). (3) [Maqālah iii (the Deccan)] Ferishta’s History of Dekkan, from the first Mahummedan conquests: with a continuation from other native writers [or rather, from Bhīm Sēn’s Dil-kushā in abridged translation] of the events in that part of India to the reduction of its last monarchs by the Emperor Aulumgeer Aurungzebe; also, the reigns of his successors in the empire of Hindostan to the present day [translated from the Memoirs of Irādat K̲h̲ān and other works]: and the history of Bengal, from the accession of Aliverdee Khan to the year 1780 [translated as far as the death of ʿAlī-Wirdī K̲h̲ān “from a Persian manuscript” (see p. 563 infra) and thereafter from the Siyar al-mutaʾakhkhirīn of G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain K̲h̲ān]. Comprised in six parts. [Translated] By Jonathan Scott. Shrewsbury 1794°*, London 1800 (2nd ed. See Morley p. 67, n. 6), London n.d. [?] (3 vols. 8vo. See Morley ibid.). (4) [Extracts from Briggs’s translation] Elliot Bibliographical index pp. 322–36. (5) [The same extracts] Elliot and Dowson History of India vi pp. 218–36. (6) [The Muqaddimah] Elliot and Dowson History of India vi pp. 532–69.

Descriptions: (1) J. Mohl in Journal des savants, 1840, pp. 212–26, 354–72, 392–403. (2) Elliot Bibliographical index pp. 310–39. (3) Elliot and Dowson History of India vi pp. 207–36. (4) Ency. Isl. under Firis̲h̲ta.

[Autobiographical statements in the Guls̲h̲an i Ibrāhīmī; Briggs’s translation, 1829 ed., vol. i pp. xxxix–xlvi (unsatisfactory, since there are no precise references to the translation, which, moreover, omits some of the author’s allusions to himself); J. Briggs Essay on the life and writings of Ferishta (in Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. ii (1830) pp. 341–61); J. Mohl in Journal des savants 1840 pp. 212–20 (contains references to the Bombay text); Elliot Bibliographical index pp. 310–13 (based on Briggs and Mohl); Elliot and Dowson History of India vi pp. 207–9 (a repetition of the preceding); Morley pp. 63–4; Rieu i 225; Bānkīpūr vii 538; Ency. Isl. under Firis̲h̲ta (some conjectures are stated here as facts. No precise references).]

§ 618. An anonymous author30 compiled from Firis̲h̲tah and other histories a

Tārīk̲h̲ i rājahā (or ḥākimān) i Hind (beg. Dar muʿtaqadāt i ahl i Hind), a sketch of Indian history in twelve maqālahs corresponding to those of Firis̲h̲tah: Ethé 303 (ah 1149/1736), 304 (n.d.).

§ 619. M. S̲h̲arīf al-Najafī (Ḥanafī acc. to Elliot and Dowson) was born in the Deccan. In an official capacity he visited Gujrāt, Mālwah, Ajmēr, Delhi, Agra, the Panjāb, Sind, and Kas̲h̲mīr, the last in 1031/1621–2 in the train of Jahāngīr and under the command of Qāsim K̲h̲ān.

Majālis al-salāṭīn, a brief history of the kings of Delhi, the Deccan and Kas̲h̲mīr, completed ah 1038/1628–9: Rieu iii 906b (circ. ad 1850).

Extracts (chiefly on Kas̲h̲mīr) translated by a muns̲h̲ī: b.m. ms. Add. 30,779, foll. 92–102.

Description and 4 ½ pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India vii 134–140.

§ 620. Banwālī or Banwālī-Dās “Walī”, who is sometimes called Walī Rām,31 was a muns̲h̲ī under S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s eldest son Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh and received instruction in Ṣūfism from Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh’s pīr, Mullā S̲h̲āh Badak̲h̲s̲h̲ī (for whom see p. 15 supra). His Mat̲h̲nawī in six wazns (beginning Qādirā az man manī bi-stān u bas. See Ivanow Curzon 270, 462 (27), Sprenger no. 564) was written, in part at least, in 1054–5/1644–5, and his Gulzār i ḥāl, a translation of the Sanskrit drama Prabōd’ha c̲h̲andrōdaya, in 1073/1662–3 (for mss. see Rieu iii 1043, Ethé 1995–6, Ross and Browne 195, Eton 157. Editions: Bombay 1862*, Lucknow 1877*, 1887°). According to the editor’s preface to the 1868 edition of his dīwān he died in 1085/1674–5.

An incomplete manuscript of his dīwān, containing g̲h̲azals, couplets, rubāʿīs and part of the above-mentioned Mat̲h̲nawī, is preserved at Calcutta (Ivanow Curzon 270). The Dīwān i Walī published at Lahore in 1868* contains only g̲h̲azals (beginning, as in Ivanow Curzon 270, Ganjī kih būd mak̲h̲fī aknūn s̲h̲ud ās̲h̲kārā) and two pages of rubāʿīs. According to the preface to that edition “Walī” wrote many works such as the Muḥīṭ i maʿrifat (a mat̲h̲nawī), the Gulzār i ḥāl, a Hindī dīwān and a Persian dīwān entitled Ganj i ʿirfān. The Mat̲h̲nawī i Walī Rām published at Lahore in 1867* by the same press as the aforementioned Dīwān i Walī and at Siyālkōṭ (though printed apparently at Gūjrānwālah) in [1876°*] seems to differ considerably from the mat̲h̲nawī described by Ivanow. It is divided into six jilds and begins Mā zi-kufr u dīn hamah bi-gd̲h̲as̲h̲tah īm. The third jild opens with the words given by Ivanow as the beginning of the third wazn. The King’s College ms. no. 14 (Browne Suppt. 1446) is described as “A collection of five Persian tracts on Hindu religion, etc., viz. (1) Kayán top-hí in verse; (2) Rám Gítá; (3) Miṣbáḥu ’l-Hudá; (4) Arjun Gítá; (5) Discussion between Dárá Shukúh and Bábá Lál, all by Walí Rám, except No. 4, which is by Abu ’l-faḍl”.

The Mat̲h̲nawī i Walī Rām maʿrūf bah C̲h̲as̲h̲mah i ʿirfān published at [Lucknow] in 1875°* and at Rāwalpindī in [1890°†] begins Ai s̲h̲udah mak̲h̲fī ba-kamāl i ẓuhūr and consists of only a few pages (ten in the Lucknow edition).

Rājāwalī,32 a short account of the Hindu rājahs of Delhi from Jud’his̲h̲tir to the invasion of S̲h̲ihāb (Muʿizz) al-Dīn M. b. Sām followed by a tabulated list of the subsequent Muslim rulers to S̲h̲āh-Jahān (usually with continuations to later rulers such as Muḥammad S̲h̲āh and ʿĀlamgīr ii): Berlin 14 (80) (earlier than ah 1154/1741–2),33 Ethé 205 (n.d.), 206 (?) (late 18th cent.), Blochet i 551 (18th cent.), 552 (1) and (2) (two slightly different recensions. Late 18th cent.), Rieu ii 855a (ah 1208/1793), 916b (circ. ad 1850), 925a (ad 1849), Lindesiana p. 127 no. 451 (circ. ad 1840), Āṣafīyah i p. 240 nos. 519, 778, Bodleian 170 (n.d.), Browne Suppt. 644 (King’s 198), 1458 [?] (Corpus 1152), Leyden iv p. 223 no. 1968, Mehren p. 18 no. 47.

[Gul i raʿnā (Bānkīpūr viii p. 133); other sources mentioned above.]

§ 621. Rāy Bindrāban,34 son of Rāy Bihārā-Mal,35 was Dīwān to S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam Bahādur-S̲h̲āh for a time before his accession.36

An inscription found at Elgandal Fort (in the Ḥaidarābād State) seems to show that he was at one time Governor of that fort, “an important outpost on the north-east frontier of the Quṭb-S̲h̲āhī kingdom” (see Annual report of the Director-General of Archaeology in India, 1920–1, p. 39). During the siege of Bījāpūr in 1095/1684 he was dismissed from the army by Aurangzēb on the ground that he was implicated in S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam’s secret communication with the enemy (see K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān ii p. 321).

Lubb al-tawārīk̲h̲ i Hind, or, as in some mss., Lubb al-tawārīk̲h̲ simply, a concise history of India from S̲h̲ihāb al-Dīn (Muʿizz al-Dīn) M. b. Sām (ah 572/1176–7) to ah 1101/1689–90, abridged mainly from Firis̲h̲tah as far as ah 1000/1591–2, in ten faṣls ((1) Delhi, (2) The Deccan, (3) Gujrāt, (4) Mālwah, (5) K̲h̲āndēs̲h̲, (6) Bengal, (7) Jaunpūr, (8) Sind, (9) Multān, (10) Kas̲h̲mīr): Rieu i 228b (late 17th cent.), 229b (ah 1119/1707), 229b (ah 1149/1737), 229b (18th cent.), 229b (19th cent.), iii 907b (ah 1196/1782), 907b (extracts), 965b (extracts. Circ. ad 1850), Ethé 358 (ah 1110/1698), 359 (ah 1131/1719), 360 (ah 1156/1743), 361 (extract), i.o. D.P. 715 (ah 1148/1735), Mehren 48 (ah 1144/1731), Blochet i 543 (late 18th cent.), Ivanow 161 (late 18th cent.), Lindesiana p. 127 no. 430 (circ. ad 1820), Āṣafīyah iii p. 108 no. 1067 (date given as ah 1019 [!]), Bodleian 245 (defective at both ends), Eton 176, Lahore Panjab Univ. Lib. (see Oriental College Magazine, vol. ii no. 4 (Lahore, August 1926) p. 46).

Description and 2 ½ pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India vii 168–73.

§ 622. Muns̲h̲ī37 Sujān38 Rāy Bhandārī,39 or Sujān Sing’h D’hīr,40 whose name is mentioned in the text of some mss.41 of the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲ and in some of the copyists’ colophons, tells us that he was born at Baṭālah42 (K̲h̲. al-t. p. 7120) and that from his youth up he had been a muns̲h̲ī in the employ of officials (K̲h̲. al-t., preface). In the colophons of the b.m. ms. Add. 5559 (cf. Rieu i p. 230a) and the i.o. ms. 637a it is said that he was well-versed in the Hindī, Persian and Sanskrit ʿulūm. The latter colophon (perhaps also the former) says that he was nādir al-ʿaṣr wa-’l-daurān in calligraphy, muns̲h̲īgarī and ba-hamah ṣifat (!). Another work of his, the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-ins̲h̲āʾ, was completed, according to Rieu, in ʿĀlamgīr’s 35th year, ah 1102–3 (cf. n. 4 on this page, where the date is given as 1105, perhaps by a misprint). Extracts from it are preserved in the British Museum (see Rieu iii p. 1017a). The K̲h̲ulāṣat al-makātīb, “a rich collection of specimens of refined prose-style intermixed with verses, on all possible topics, by Sujân Singh or Sujân Râi Munshî of Patyâla [sic]” (Ethé 2109), was written in ʿĀlamgīr’s 42nd year, ah 1110 (see Oriental College Magazine, vol. x no. 4 (Lahore, August 1934) pp. 66–7).

K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲, written in two years and completed in 1107/1695–6, Aurangzēb’s fortieth regnal year, a history of India from the earliest times to Aurangzēb’s accession:43 r.a.s. P. 66 = Morley 53 (probably copied from a ms. written in 1130/1717), P. 67 = Morley 54 (ah 1223/1808), P. 68 = Morley 55 (ah 1239/1823), Ivanow 162 (ah 1140/1728), 163 (late 12th cent, h.), Curzon 32 (1194 Faṣlī/1787), 33 (defective at both ends. Early 19th cent.), Bodleian 2354 (to end of Hindu Rājahs only. ah 1150/1737), 246 (ad 1816), ms. Pers. d. 28 (“recent”), Rieu iii 907b (ah 1161/1748), 907b (circ. ad 1850), 908a (to Buhlūl Lōdī only. ah 1237/1821), i 230a (ah 1188/1774), 231a (ah 1164/1751), 231a (ad 1767), 231b (late 18th cent.), iii 1014b etc. (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Lindesiana p. 217 no. 159 (circ. ad 1750), no. 122 (ah 1215/1800–1), no. 371 (circ. ad 1800), no. 821 (ah 1229/1814), Edinburgh 201 (ah 1175/1761), Blochet i 544 (ah 1180/1766–7), 545 (ah 1182/1768–9), 546 (with another preface containing the title Tad̲h̲kirat al-salāṭīn(?). Defective at end. 18th cent.), 547 (late 18th cent.), 548 (late 18th cent.), Aumer 237 (n.d.), 238 (Akbar to Aurangzēb only. ad 1792), Ethé 362 (ah 1216/1802), 363 (ad 1854), 364 (fragment only, to end of Hindu Rājahs. N.d.), ii 3012 (18th cent.), i.o. D.P. 637a (18th cent.), Calcutta Madrasah 128 (defective. Circ. ad 1800), Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (4 copies dated ah 1224/1809–10 etc. three of them containing a continuation, Ḍamīmah i K̲h̲. al-t., by Jai Kis̲h̲an Dās Mihrah, dealing with Aurangzēb’s reign and one an anonymous further continuation from Aurangzēb’s death to ah 1158/1745. See Oriental College Magazine, vol. ii, no. 4 (Lahore, August 1926) pp. 46–8), ʿAlīgaṛh Subḥ. mss. p. 58 no. 954 (10) (ah 1226/1811), Berlin 472 (ah 1227/1812), Bānkīpūr vii 540 (ah 1234/1819), Suppt. 1762 (ah 1231/1816), Vollers 984, 985 (ad 1842), Āṣafīyah i p. 238 nos. 515 and 648, iii p. 102 no. 1062 (ah 1263/1847), Browne Pers. Cat. 84 (breaks off in the history of Multān, which is inserted in Babur’s reign), Suppt. 436 (King’s 156), Madras 128, Rosen Institut 16 (breaks off in Humāyūn’s reign), Upsala Zetterstéen 401.

Edition: The Khulasatu-t-Tawarikh by Sujan Rai Bhandari edited by M. Zafar Hasan …, Delhi 1918* (540 pp.). The editions of the Muqaddimah to the Siyar al-mutaʾakhkhirīn (for which see p. 501 infra) can also be regarded as editions of the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲.

Translation of the topographical and statistical account of the ṣūbahs (omitting the last, Kābul): The India of Aurangzib (topography, statistics, and roads) compared with the India of Akbar with extracts from the Khulasatu-t-Tawarikh and the Chahar Gulshan translated and annotated by Jadunath Sarkar, Calcutta 1901°*, pp. 1–122 [corresponding to pp. 28–83 in Ẓafar Ḥasan’s edition].

Descriptions: (1) Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 5–12 (including a translation of the account of Delhi, 1 ½ pp.), (2) The k̲h̲aláṣat [sic]-at-Tawáríkh, or Essence of History; being the description and history of India as told by a Hindu two hundred years ago. By H. Beveridge (in jras. 1894 pp. 733–68), (3) The India of Aurangzib … by Jadunath Sarkar, Calcutta 1901, pp. xi–xv.

Free Urdu translation (or, in places, adaptation44) of the earlier part (less than one-third of the whole), which deals mainly with the geography of India and the Hindu Rājahs of Delhi:45 Ārāyis̲h̲ i maḥfil begun in 1219/1804 and completed in 1220/1805 by Mīr S̲h̲ēr ʿAlī “Afsōs” Jaʿfarī b. S. ʿAlī Muẓaffar K̲h̲ān, an Urdu poet, who was Head Muns̲h̲ī in the Hindustani department at the College of Fort William, and who died at Calcutta in 1809 (see Sprenger p. 198, Saksena History of Urdu literature pp. 244–5): i.o. 2048 = Blumhardt 39 (a ms. from the College of Fort William which does not contain “Afsōs’s” preface and introduction).

Editions of the Ārāyis̲h̲ i maḥfil: Calcutta 1808°*, 1848°*, 1863°, Lahore 1867*, Lucknow 1870*.

English translation: The Araish-i-Mahfil; or, The ornament of the assembly, literally translated from the Oordoo by Major46 Henry Court …, Allahabad 1871°*, Calcutta 1882°*.

Extracts from the Ārāyis̲h̲ i maḥfil: (1) [The general description of India, its spring and rainy season, fruits, flowers, animals, Hindu learning, ascetics, army, women] Muntakhabāt-i-Hindī, or Selections in HindustaniBy John Shakespear … vol. i (London 1817°*) pp. 79–134, (2) [The description of the ṣūbahs] ibid. vol. ii (London 1818°*) pp. 3–188.

Translations of extracts from the Ārāyis̲h̲ i maḥfil (1) [The Hindu “sciences” (French)] Quelques lignes sur les sciences des Indiens, extraites de l’ Araïch-i-mahfilet traduites de l’hindostani par M. [J.H.S.V.] Garcin de Tassy (in the Journal asiatique [1st series] tome ix (Paris 1826*) pp. 97–115). (2) [On the fruits and flowers of India (French)] Quelques lignes sur les fruits et les fleurs de l’Hindostan, extraites de l’Araïch ï Mahfil ou Statistique et histoire de l’Hindostan, … et traduites …, par M. Garcin de Tassy (in the Journal asiatique [1st series] tome xi (Paris 1827*) pp. 94–105). (3) [Most of the general description of India, its spring and rainy season, elephants, carriages and palanquins, inhabitants, army, women, and of the geographical description of the ṣūbahs (French)] Histoire de la littérature hindoui [so] et hindoustani [so] par M. [J.H.S.V.] Garcin de Tassy [First edition], tome ii (Paris 1847°*) pp. 310–411. (4) [Most of the general description of India, its spring and rainy season, carriages and palanquins, inhabitants, army, women (but not the description of the ṣūbahs, which is now omitted)] Histoire de la littérature hindouie et hindoustanie par M. [J.H.S.V.] Garcin de Tassyseconde édition, tome i (Paris 1870°*) pp. 125–36. (5) [History of the Pāndavas (French)] Histoire du règne des Pandavas dans l’Hindoustan, traduite du texte hindoustani de l’Araïch-i Mahfilpar M. l’abbé [François Marie] Bertrand (in the Journal asiatique, 3e série, tome xiv (Paris 1842°*) pp. 71–107. (6) [The Hindu Rājahs from Parīks̲h̲it to the Muslim conquest (French)] Histoire des rois de l’Hindoustan après les Pandavas, traduitepar M. l’abbé [F.M.] Bertrand (in the Journal asiatique, 4e série, tome iii (Paris 1844*°) pp. 104–23, 229–57, 354–77. (7) [Ten of the fourteen chapters or sections contained in Shakespear’s Muntakhabāt-i-Hindī, vol. i (only), those on the fruits, flowers, crocodile, etc., Hindu sciences and women being omitted] Ārāyis̲h̲ i maḥfil [these words printed in the Arabic character] or Assemblage of ornament. Ten sections of a description of India, being the most interesting portion of J. Shakespear’s Muntak̲h̲abāt-i-Hindī … Translated … and accompanied with notes, explanatory and grammatical, by N.L. Benmohel, Dublin 1847°.

Descriptions of the Ārāyis̲h̲ i maḥfil: (1) Histoire de la littérature hindoui et hindoustani par M. Garcin de Tassy, [first edition], tome i (Paris 1839*), pp. 31–2, seconde éd., tome i (Paris 1870*) pp. 124–5, (2) Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 6–7, (3) H. Beveridge k̲h̲aláṣat-[sic] at-Tawáríkh … (in jras. 1894) pp. 734, 747–8, 750–2.

[K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲ pp. 611–12 (for many years muns̲h̲ī to officials), 7120 (Baṭālah his birthplace), 86 penult, (saw certain women in the neighbourhood of Kābul), 3516 (visit to the gardens at Pinjaur); colophons of certain mss.; H. Beveridge The k̲h̲aláṣat-[sic] at-Tawáríkh … (in jras. 1894) pp. 737, 763–4; Jadunath Sarkar The India of Aurangzib, Calcutta 1901, p. xi; Ency. Isl. under Sandjān [sic] Rāy (M. S̲h̲afīʿ).]

§ 623. Jagjīwan Dās, son of Manōhar Dās, Gujrātī entered the Imperial service as harkārah in 1105/1693–4 and from that time kept a record of current events. In 1119/1707–8 he received a k̲h̲ilʿat from Bahādur S̲h̲āh at Lahore, where he had been for two years in the Intelligence Department.

Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲,47 a sketch of Indian history written in 1120/1708–9 and, apart from the chapter dealing with Bahādur S̲h̲āh, based apparently on the Lubb al-tawārīk̲h̲ of Bindrāban (see p. 356 supra): Rieu i 232a (ah 1144/1731), 231b (ah 1257/1842), Oxford Ind. Inst. ms. Pers. A. iv 23 (ah 1231/1816, said to have been transcribed from a fair copy of the author’s dated ah 1131/1719), i.o. 4517 (ah 1240/1825).

[Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲, preface (cf. Rieu i pp. 2316–232a).]

§ 624. The year 1118/1706–7 is twice mentioned as the current year in a

Dastūr al-ʿamal beginning Fihrist i tawārīk̲h̲ i Rājahā i Dihlī wa-g̲h̲airah and containing chronological records down to Farruk̲h̲siyar’s 2nd year, ah 1126/1714, with lists of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s and Aurangzēb’s amīrs, their titles etc.: Ivanow 381 (ah 1271/1854–5), Rieu iii 989b (transcribed from the preceding ms.).

§ 625. M. Hādī, a convert from Hinduism, entered the imperial service in Aurangzēb’s time. In the second year of Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s reign he received the title of Kāmwar K̲h̲ān at the recommendation of Prince Rafīʿ al-S̲h̲ān, Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s second son, and was appointed Mīr-Sāmān to Rafīʿ al-S̲h̲ān’s third son, M. Ibrāhīm. He is the author of a history of the Indian Tīmūrids brought down to ah 1137/1724–5 and entitled Tad̲h̲kirat al-salāṭīn i C̲h̲ag̲h̲atā (see p. 407 infra).

Haft guls̲h̲an i Muḥammad-S̲h̲āhī (or Haft guls̲h̲an i Ilāhī, as the author calls the work in the preface to his Tad̲h̲kirat al-salāṭīn i C̲h̲ag̲h̲atā), a general history of India to ah 1132/1719–20 divided into seven guls̲h̲ans ((1) Delhi to the time of Bābur, Jaunpūr, Mālwah, (2) Gujrāt, K̲h̲āndēs̲h̲, (3) Bengal, (4) the Deccan, (5) Sind, Multān, (6) Kas̲h̲mir, (7) Indian saints) and based mainly on Firis̲h̲tah and Bindrāban’s Lubb al-tawārīk̲h̲ (see p. 356 supra): Ethé 394 (a later edition finished in 1136/1723. Autograph), Lindesiana p. 169 no. 871 (ah 1207–6/1792–1 (so)), Berlin 494 (ah 1209/1794), Edinburgh 202 (lacks Guls̲h̲an vii. Late 18th cent.), Rieu iii 908a (18th cent.), Bānkīpūr vii 541 (19th cent.).

English translation of some extracts by Sadāsuk’h Lāl: B.M. ms. Add. 30,782 foll. 3–60.

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 13–16 (with a translated extract of 1 page).

[Haft guls̲h̲an, preface (see Rieu iii 908a, Elliot and Dowson viii pp. 13–14), Tad̲h̲kirat al-salāṭīn i C̲h̲ag̲h̲atā, vol. ii (in the account of Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s reign. See Bānkīpūr vii p. 15, where the words are quoted): M. Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ “Ās̲h̲ōb” Life of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh (Rieu iii 943–5) fol. 44 (cf. Rieu iii 945a), where Kāmwar K̲h̲ān is said to have been originally a Hindu named C̲h̲andīdās.]

§ 626. ʿAbd Allāh “Yaqīn”, a descendant of Mīr S̲h̲āh Manṣūr Barlās, and consequently described in the Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū as a Mug̲h̲ul of Tūrānī origin, is said to have lived the life of a darwīs̲h̲ and to have spent his time in the coffee-shops of S̲h̲āh-jahānābād (see the Bānkīpūr catalogue viii p. 106). According to the same authority he wrote a dīwān.

Tārīk̲h̲ i T̲h̲ābit, a metrical history of the Muḥammadan dynasties of India written in 1133/1720–1, in the reign of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh, at the suggestion of T̲h̲ābit-Qadam K̲h̲ān: Blochet iii 1928 (12th regnal year [of M. S̲h̲āh ? ah 1142/1729–30]), i.o. D.P. 614 (18th year of M. S̲h̲āh [ah 1149/1736]), Rieu ii 824b (28th year of M. S̲h̲āh [ah 1158/1745]).

[Autobiographical statements at the end of the Tārīk̲h̲ i T̲h̲ābit; Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 130); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bānkīpūr viii p. 106).]

§ 627. M. Hās̲h̲im K̲h̲āfī48 (M. al-l. iii p. 23) entitled (muk̲h̲ātab bi-) Hās̲h̲im ʿAlī K̲h̲ān (M. al-l. i p. 21) and afterwards K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān Niẓām-al-Mulkī (M. al-l. i p. 21, iii p. 23–4) was the son of an official49 in the service of Prince Murād-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲, S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s youngest son.50

He makes no precise statement concerning the date of his birth, but in one passage (M. al-l. i p. 739) he mentions that at the time of writing (li-g̲h̲āyat i ḥāl) seventy-four years had passed since the death of Saʿd Allāh K̲h̲ān (Jumādā ii ah 1066/April 1656) and fifty-two since he himself had reached the age of discretion (ḥadd i tamīz).51 H. Beveridge in the Ency. Isl. assumes (with a query) that the age of discretion was fourteen years and infers, doubtless with substantial correctness, that K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān was born about ah 1074 (i.e. 1140–66).

The place of his birth is unknown, but his connexion with the Deccan dates at least from an early period in his life. Thus he tells us (M. al-l. ii p. 55518–19) that he attended the funeral of the saint Sh. Burhān52 [Burhānpūrī], who died according to him53 in the 22nd year of Aurangzēb’s reign [i.e. ah 1089/1678]. With another saint of Burhānpūr, Mīr Naṣīr al-Dīn Harawī, he was in close relation as a disciple (M. al-l. ii p. 558 penult.). His teacher (ustād) was a certain Mīr Saiyid Muḥammad, whom he describes as a well-known scholar and an incomparable mathematician (riyāḍī-dān) contemporary with Jahāngīr (M. al-l. i p. 308), but it is not clear who this person was or where he lived.

He was attached54 to the unsuccessful expedition sent by Aurangzēb [in 1093/1682] under the command of S̲h̲ihāb al-Dīn K̲h̲ān against the fort of Rāmsēj55 (M. al-l. ii p. 28211). In the days when Aurangzēb was resident in the Deccan,56 K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān noticed that from the year 1097/1685–6 onwards the Deccan was free from any sign of pestilence (wabā. M. al-l. i p. 28716–18).

For a time he was residing with ʿAbd al-Razzāq K̲h̲ān Lārī57 in a house adjacent to the fort built by S̲h̲ivājī at Rāhīrī58 (M. al-l. ii p. 3907–9 = E. & D. vii p. 341). This must have been within the period 1103–6/1691–5 (or thereabouts), since ʿAbd al-Razzāq K̲h̲ān was appointed Faujdār of Rāhīrī in (or soon after) the former year (M. al-l. ii p. 405) and removed from that post in the latter (M. al-l. ii p. 449).

In 1105/1693–4 K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān went to Sūrat as ʿAbd al-Razzāq K̲h̲ān Lārī’s authorised agent in order to convey from that port to Rāhīrī property worth nearly two lakhs of rupees. On his way back he received and accepted an invitation to visit an English acquaintance of ʿAbd al-Razzāq K̲h̲ān’s at Bombay. His interesting account of that visit to Bombay (M. al-l. ii pp. 424–7) is one of the passages translated by Dowson (E. & D. vii pp. 351–4).

This was not his only visit to Sūrat. At the time when he wrote his history he had been there repeatedly (mukarrar, M. al-l. i p. 469. Cf. ii p. 441), and once (in 1106/1694–5 apparently) he was present at a banquet given by Amānat K̲h̲ān K̲h̲wāfī,59 the Mutaṣaddī of the town, to S̲h̲. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Muftī on his return from a pilgrimage to the Ḥijāz (M. al-l. ii p. 444). Another place with which he was connected was Baglānah,60 in which he spent two years at some unspecified time (M. al-l. i p. 562).

A few days after Aurangzēb’s death he was in the company of M. Murād K̲h̲ān (see p. 367 infra), who at that time was Wāqiʿah-Nigār and Sawāniḥ-Nigār of the province of Aḥmadābād and also Faujdār of the sarkār of T’hāsrah61 and Gōdrah.62 It must have been about this time that he was brought into contact with the leader of an Ismāʿīlī sect at Aḥmadābād in connexion with the release of some prominent members of the sect who had been imprisoned by order of Aurangzēb.63 It was than that he obtained some Ismāʿīlī law-books with a view to investigating the names Ismāʿīlīyah and c̲h̲irāg̲h̲-kus̲h̲, by which the sect was known.

He was present on the battlefield near Ḥaidarābād where Prince Kām-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ was defeated on the 3rd of D̲h̲ū ’l-Qa‘dah 1120/13 January 170964 by Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s forces (M. al-l. ii p. 62410). In the early part of that Emperor’s reign he was Qalʿah-dār at C̲̲h̲ānpānēr65 in Gujrāt (M. al-t. i p. 77).

In 1121/1709–10 (having recently arrived in Aḥmadābād66) he was appointed by G̲h̲āzī al-Dīn K̲h̲ān Fīrōz-Jang, the Governor (Ṣūbah-dār) of the province of Aḥmadābād, to be Dīwān and Mihmāndār67 to a distinguished visitor, Mīrzā M. Hās̲h̲im,68 who had come, presumably from Persia, via Sūrat [to Aḥmadābād] on his way to Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s court at Delhi.

At the beginning of Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s reign (ah 1124 or 1125/1713) Qilīc̲h̲ K̲h̲ān received the title of Niẓām al-Mulk Bahādur Fatḥ-Jang and the Governorship (ṣūbah-dārī) of the Deccan. Apparently at this time he appointed K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān to be his Dīwān.69 In the following year, however, S. Ḥusain ʿAlī K̲h̲ān became Governor of the Deccan, and Niẓām al-Mulk returned to Delhi. K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān next tells us (M. al-l. ii p. 798) in his account of the year 1131/1718–19 that after three distressful years he was appointed Amīn and Faujdār of the estates (maḥāll) of Muṣtafā-ābād,70 which belonged to the Royal domains. From this new appointment he was dismissed after only a very short time by S. Ḥusain ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, who took him with him71 on his march to Delhi [in 1131/1719].

In Ramaḍān 1132/1720 he rode through Delhi to see the damage caused by an earthquake (M. al-l. ii p. 8839 seq). According to Beveridge (Ency. Isl. under K̲h̲wāfī K̲h̲ān) it was Muḥammad S̲h̲āh who conferred upon him the title K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān. No statement to this effect seems to occur in the printed text of the Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb.

In a Persian note at the end of the British Museum ms. Add. 26,224 (a copy of vol. ii) it is stated (according to Rieu i p. 232b) that the author had written four or five leaves further when he died (probably therefore in, or not long after, 1144/1731–2).

More than once in the Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb he takes occasion to reflect on the evil consequences of oppression (ẓulm, mardum-āzārī) not only to the oppressor but to his descendants (the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children), and in one passage (ii pp. 676–7) he claims that he himself never stooped to such conduct. Even at a time when peculation was rife in the Deccan of Aurangzēb’s days he took care that matters should not go so far as to cause accusations of oppression. In or soon after Aurangzēb’s 32nd year there did indeed occur a regrettable incident, of which he declines to give particulars, but thereafter he strove whole-heartedly—but with incomplete success—to avoid imputations of financial irregularity.72

He was on friendly terms with his much younger73 contemporary and fellow-K̲h̲wāfī, Ṣamṣām al-Daulah S̲h̲āh-Nawāz K̲h̲ān, the author of the Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ.74 Another friend and at one time a colleague of his was his kinsman (birādarī) M. Murād K̲h̲ān (for a time entitled Saʿādat K̲h̲ān), who for two or three years was Aurangzēb’s Ḥājib at Ḥaidarābād,75 and who died in 1120 (according to M. al-l. ii p. 661) or in 1122 (according to the Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii 687).

In a preamble which occurs in the b.m. ms. Or. 176 (latter part of vol. ii, Aurangzēb and his successors) but not in the printed text and which is summarised by Rieu (i p. 234b), K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān describes himself as having been successively attached to the train of three or four sovereigns and says that he had spent sixteen or seventeen years of his life on the composition of the Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb, especially on the last forty years of Aurangzēb’s reign. Of that period, owing to Aurangzēb’s prohibition of historical writing, he had found no previous record76 except Mustaʿidd K̲h̲ān’s account of the Deccan conquests, but he had tried to compile a truthful narrative from the official records, the reports of trustworthy persons and his personal experiences.

Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb, a history of India from the Muḥammadan conquest “to the beginning of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh’s 14th year”, ah 1144/1731,77 divided into three volumes ((1) perhaps never completed except in the rough,78 from the Muḥammadan conquest to the end of the Lōdī dynasty, (2) the Tīmūrids to Muḥammad S̲h̲āh,79 the detailed narrative closing with ah 1137/172480 and being followed by a chapter on events, especially in Persia, from the eighth to the thirteenth year of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh, (3) the local dynasties (“the kings of the various ṣūbahs of India, with the exception of those of Delhi and Akbarābād”) abridged from Firis̲h̲tah, Nūr al-Ḥaqq and others but perhaps never continued beyond the Deccan dynasties81): Ivanow 173 (very defective, but apparently old. ah 1146/1733–4 (?)), 169 (vol. ii only. ah 1191/1777), 170 (vol. ii, defective. Late 18th cent.), 171 (vol. ii. Late 18th cent.), 172 (vol. ii, pt. 2 (from Aurangzēb’s 32nd year), ah 1194/1780), 1st Suppt. 763 (Vol. iii (not vol. i as stated in the catalogue). Deccan dynasties only. Urdībihis̲h̲t 1313 Ilāhī (sic, but the Ilāhī era, which starts in 963/1556, has not yet reached 1313)), Rieu i 232b (vol. ii. ah 1196/1782), 234a (vol. ii. ad 1821), 234a (vol. ii, part = Calcutta ed. i p. 1–ii p. 177. 18th cent.), 234a (vol. ii, part=Calcutta ed. i p. 2–ii p. 127. 18th cent.), 234a (vol. ii, part = Calcutta ed. ii pp. 492–978. ah 1224/1809), 234b (vol. ii, part = pt. ii of the Calcutta ed. ad 1823), 234b (Vol. i, part (the Lōdīs) and vol. ii, part (Bābur to Aurangzēb’s tenth year, but lacking the later part of Akbar’s reign and the whole of Jahāngīr’s). 18th cent.), 235b (Vol. iii, first part (the Deccan dynasties), ah 1237/1822), iii 1049b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Lindesiana p. 175 no. 822 (circ. ad 1780), Ethé 396 (vol. ii. Late 18th cent.), 397 (vol. ii. ah 1225/1810), 398 (vol. ii. ah 1239/1823), 399 (vol. ii. Modern), 400–1 (vol. ii. N.d.), 402 (vol. ii, part of 2nd half (Aurangzēb’s 4th year to accession of Farruk̲h̲-siyar). N.d.), 403 (vol. ii, part (Farruk̲h̲-siyar to M. S̲h̲āh)), 404 (vol. ii, extracts from 1st half. ad 1806), 405 (vol. ii, selections), 406 (vol. ii, extracts), 407 (Vol. iii, small portion (86 folls. Bahmanīs to Niẓām S̲h̲āh (d. 867/1463)), ii 3013 (vol. ii, defective), i.o. 3936 (Aʿzam S̲h̲āh to the end), Blochet i 549 (vol. ii. 18th cent.), Caetani 2 (belonged to Jonathan Scott), Āṣafīyah i p. 254 no. 216 (Vol. iii), no. 403 (Vol. iii. ah 1204/1789–90), iii p. 92 nos. 1367 (an abridgment of Vol. iii ?), 1172 (an abridgment of Vol. iii. ah 1269/1851–3), Rehatsek p. 91 no. 37 (“all the four volumes” [sic], ah 1207/1793), no. 38 (an abridgment?. N.d.), Brelvi & Dhabhar p. 63 no. 4 (Vol. iii. ah 1214/1799–1800), Bodleian 259 (vol. ii, extending to M. S̲h̲āh’s 3rd year = 1133/1720–1), 260 (vol. ii), 261 (vol. ii. ad 1842), Oxford Ind. Inst. ms. Pers. A. i 24–7 (“recent”), r.a.s. P. 102–3 = Morley 98–9 (vol. ii, to Aurangzēb’s death), Browne Suppt. 1253 (vol. ii, part (Aurangzēb’s reign). N.d.), 1254 (vol. ii, part (from Aurangzēb’s 11th year). ah 1237/1821–2, copied from an original dated ah 1183/1769–70), Browne Coll. H. 15 (13) (Vol. iii, part (105 foll, only)), Bānkīpūr vii 592 (vol. ii. 19th cent.), Berlin 435 (vol. ii, extending to M. S̲h̲āh’s 3rd year, ah 1133/1720–1), Majlis 275.

Edition: (1) (of vol. ii82 only): The Muntakhab al-lubáb of Kháfí Khán. Edited by Maulaví Kabír al-Dín Aḥmed [and Ghulám Qádir], 2 pts. Calcutta 1860–74°* (Bibliotheca Indica). (2) (of vol. iii (Deccan dynasties only)): Muntakhab-al-lubāb by Khāfi Khānvolume iii. Edited by Sir Wolseley Haig. Calcutta 1909–25* (Bibliotheca Indica).

Translations of extracts: (1) [by W. Erskine, dated 1811] an extract extending from S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s accession to ah 1067/1656–7: b.m. ms. Add. 26,613–14. (2) [by W. Erskine] a transcript of the preceding, with another extract [also translated by Erskine?] extending from ah 1070/1659–60 to ah 1130/1718: b.m. ms. Add. 26,615–16. (3) [by Captain A. Gordon, dated Nāgpūr 1821] an extract extending from the beginning of vol. ii to Mahābat K̲h̲ān’s capture of Jahāngīr: b.m. ms. Add. 26,617 and (another copy) 26,618–19. (4) [by J. Dowson] extracts nearly all relating to Aurangzēb: Elliot and Dowson History of India vii pp. 211–533.

Descriptions: (1) W. Nassau Lees Materials for the history of India for the six hundred years of Mohammadan rule (in jras. 1868 pp. 414–77) pp. 465–9, (2) Elliot and Dowson History of India vii pp. 207–10.

[Autobiographical statements (nearly all of these are referred to above); Elliot and Dowson History of India vii pp. 207–9; Rieu i 232b, 234b, 235b; Ency. Isl. under K̲h̲wāfī K̲h̲ān (Beveridge).]

§ 628. Lāl Rām, son of Rāy Dūlah Rām b. Rāy Kunjaman K̲h̲uld-Makānī, once held Mūngī Patan, in the Deccan, as a jāgīr (T. al-H. fol. 22a). He was in the service of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh and wrote his Tuḥfat al-Hind in the 18th year of that sovereign’s reign, ah 1148/1735–6.

Tuḥfat al-Hind, a history and topography of India to the time of Farruk̲h̲-siyar (reigned 1124/1713–1131/1719) in four sections (faṣl), the third containing an account of the early kings of Persia and the Greek philosophers, the fourth miscellaneous historical anecdotes, and a k̲h̲ātimah: Edinburgh 203 (ah 1182/1768), Rieu i 236 (lacking k̲h̲ātimah. 18th cent.).

§ 629. Yaḥyā K̲h̲ān was Mīr Muns̲h̲ī to the Emperor Farruk̲h̲-siyar (reigned 1124/1713–1131/1719).

Tad̲h̲kirat al-mulūk, a general history of India to ah 1149/1736–7, based chiefly on the Ṭabaqāt i Akbarī (see p. 341 supra): Ethé 409 (ah 1212/1797).

§ 630. Rustam ʿAlī b. M. K̲h̲alīl S̲h̲āhābādī was serving in the army of Bājī Rāō at the taking of Mālwah in 1150/1737–8. He then went to Bhōpāl and lived under the patronage of the Nawwāb Yār-Muḥammad K̲h̲ān.

Tārīk̲h̲ i Hindī, a general history of India to ah 1153/1740–1, completed in 1154/1741–2, and divided into a muqaddimah, ten ṭabaqahs and a k̲h̲ātimah (on contemporary or nearly contemp. s̲h̲aik̲h̲s, ʿulamāʾ and poets), much space being devoted to Muḥammad S̲h̲āh:83 Rieu iii 909a (ah 1264/1848), 1057b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850).

Translated extracts: b.m. ms. Add. 30,780 foll. 118–160.

Description and 27 pp. of translated extracts (on M. S̲h̲āh’s reign): Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 40–69.

§ 631. Rāy C̲h̲aturman84 Kāyat’h85 Saksēnah,86 surnamed Rāy-zādah, (Rāy c̲h̲aturman, qaum Kāyat’h Saksēnah, laqab Rāy-zādah, as he calls himself in the preface) completed his C̲h̲ahār guls̲h̲an in 1173/1759–60, a date which he indicates by a metrical chronogram.87 According to the colophon of his grandson (nabīrah), the redactor, which occurs in most of the manuscripts, the author died one week after finishing the work.

C̲h̲ahār guls̲h̲an, or Ak̲h̲bār al-nawādir, a history and topography of India to ah 1173/1759–60 in four guls̲h̲ans ((1) the ṣūbahs (provinces) of Hindūstān, (2) the ṣūbahs of the Deccan, (3) itineraries from Delhi to various parts of India, (4) Muslim and Hindu saints) edited by the author’s grandson, C̲h̲andar-bhān Muns̲h̲ī Kāyat’h Saksēnah, surnamed Rāy-zādah, who added a preface dated 1204/1789–90: Bodleian 264 (ah 1203/178988), i.o. 3779 (18th cent.), 3944 (ah 1221/1807), d.p. 627 (early 19th cent.), 3935 (ad 1895), 3880 (ad 1895 ?), Lindesiana p. 130 no. 448 (circ. ad 1800), Edinburgh 410, Rieu iii 909b (19th cent.), Bānkīpūr vii 542 (19th cent.), Berlin 476 (1), Āṣafīyah i p. 236 no. 350 (ah 1299/1881–2), Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (Guls̲h̲an i and pt. of Guls̲h̲an ii. See Oriental College Magazine, vol. ii, no. 4 (Lahore, August 1926), p. 48).

English translation of the topographical and statistical portions, i.e. parts of Guls̲h̲an i, most of Guls̲h̲an ii and all of Guls̲h̲an iii: The India of Aurangzib (topography, statistics, and roads) compared with the India of Akbar with extracts from the Khulasatu-t-Tawarikh and the Chahar Gulshan translated and annotated by Jadunath Sarkar, Calcutta 1901°*, pp. 123–78.

Descriptions: (1) Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 255–6, (2) J. Sarkar The India of Aurangzib, Calcutta 1901, pp. xv–xxv.

§ 632. Dastūr al-ʿamal (?) (beg. Ba-mūjab i tawārīk̲h̲ i Hinduwī), a history of India from the earliest times to ah 1179/1765 with chronological, statistical etc. notices largely in tabular form: Berlin 473 (ah 1179/1766), 474 (transcript of the preceding ms.).

§ 633. Ānand-rūp, a Brāhman born at C̲h̲āngulnāt’h89 near Nārnaul, spent some years in the service of Jānōjī90 Bhōṅslā and Sītā-Rām. Having gone from Nāgpūr in the suite of Nāṣir al-Mulk Nāṣir-Jang, he wrote his Mīzān i dānis̲h̲ at Ilāhābād (Allahabad) in 1182/1768–9.

Mīzān i dānis̲h̲, a brief sketch of Indian history: Rieu iii 910 (ad 1851).

§ 634. For the Farḥat al-nāẓirīn, a history, mainly of India, completed in 1184/1770–1 by M. Aslam Parasrūrī, see pp. 109–110 supra, and for the Ḥadīqat al-ṣafāʾ completed in the same year by Yūsuf ʿAlī K̲h̲ān see p. 109 supra.

§ 635. Nawwāb91 Maḥabbat K̲h̲ān92 b. Faiḍ-ʿAṭā K̲h̲ān was a descendant of Dilēr K̲h̲ān Dāwud-zāy (d. 1094/1683), a Rohilla general in Aurangzēb’s service, whose elder brother, Bahādur K̲h̲ān, founded S̲h̲āhjahānpūr.

Ak̲h̲bār i Maḥabbat, a general history of India to ah 1186/1772, giving special attention to the author’s ancestors and to S̲h̲āhjahānpūr and Bengal:93 Rieu iii 911a (ad 1850), 1052b (extracts only), i.o. 3926 (probably ad 1878).

Extracts translated by Muns̲h̲ī Sadāsuk’h: b.m. ms. Add. 30,782, foll. 309–415.

Description and 14 pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 376–393.

§ 636. Jūgal Kis̲h̲ōr compiled for Sir Elijah Impey (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at Calcutta 1774–83, d. 1 Oct. 180994)

(Tārīk̲h̲ i Jūgal Kis̲h̲ōr), an unimportant95 history of India from the death of ʿAdlī to the date of composition: Rieu iii 1029b (foll. 38b–42. Extracts only), 1051b (extracts only).

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii p. 300.

§ 637. A resident of the district of Sanbhal and Badāʾūṅ in Rōhēlk’hand wrote in 1194/1780, when Najaf K̲h̲ān96 was master of Delhi and the Jāt territories and Faiḍ Allāh K̲h̲ān was the reigning Rohilla chief,

A sketch of Indian history from Akbar to ah 1194/1780 written as a supplement to ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Dihlawī’s D̲h̲ikr al-mulūk (see p. 346 supra), with special attention to the Rohillas: Rieu iii 1007a (19th cent.).

§ 638. For the Siyar al-mutaʾakhkhirīn of S. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain K̲h̲ān Ṭabāṭabāʾī, which is a history of India from Aurangzēb’s death in 1118/1707 to ah 1195/1780–1, but to which the author subsequently added a Muqaddimah consisting of Sujān Rāy’s K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲ with slight alterations and which thus became in effect a general history of India, see pp. 499–503 infra.

§ 639. G̲h̲ulām-Bāsiṭ Amēṭ’hawī,97 having lost his estate in Oudh and tried unsuccessfully to enter the service of the Tīmūrids, became muns̲h̲ī to General Giles Stibbert (Commander-in-Chief of the Bengal Army 1777–9 and 1783–5), who took him to Calcutta. At the latter’s request he wrote the Tārīk̲h̲ i mamālik i Hind.

(Tārīk̲h̲ i mamālik i Hind), a short history of India to ah 1196/1781–2 (the date of composition) based mainly on Firis̲h̲tah: Rieu i 237 (18th cent.), ii 798a (history of Malabar only. ah 1197/1783), iii 1051b (extracts only), Suppt. 83 ii (chapter on Gujrāt only. 19th cent.), Rehatsek p. 76 no. 15 (ah 124098 /1824–5), Ethé 2835 (only the preface and the latter half of the history. Transcribed from the preceding ms. ah 1296/1879).

Description and a short translated extract: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 200–3.

§ 640. Har-c̲h̲aran-Dās b. Ūdai Rāy b. Mukund Rāy b. Sāgar-Mal, a native of Meerut, went to Delhi soon after Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion [ah 1151/1739] and some years later entered the service of Nawwāb Qāsim ʿAlī K̲h̲ān b. Qāsim K̲h̲ān, who was father-in-law and k̲h̲ān-sāmān to Najm al-Daulah M. Isḥāq K̲h̲ān.99 In 1167/1753–4 Qāsim ʿAlī K̲h̲ān moved from Delhi to Faiḍābād (Fyzabad) but died immediately afterwards, and Har-c̲h̲aran-Dās, who had accompanied him, remained there in the service of his late master’s descendants. For many years he received an allowance from Nawwāb S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah of Oudh. In 1199/1784–5, when he wrote the preface of the C̲h̲ahār gulzār i S̲h̲ujāʿī, he had reached an advanced age.100

C̲h̲ahār gulzār i S̲h̲ujāʿī, a history of India to ah 1201/1786–7, dedicated to S̲h̲ujāʿ al Daulah and divided into five c̲h̲amans ((1) Brahmā, Mahēś etc., (2) the Satya Yuga,101 (3) the Trētā Yuga, (4) the Dwāpar Yuga, (5) the Kalī Yuga, this fifth c̲h̲aman being subdivided into two ṣafḥahs, of which the first treats, in twelve qisms, of the Hindu Rājahs from Jud’his̲h̲tir to the Muslim conquest, and the second, in nine qisms, of the Muslim sovereigns, the ninth qism containing the history of the Tīmūrids from Humāyūn to S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam and including a discursive but valuable account of the author’s own times): Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (autograph? See Oriental College Magazine vol. ii no. 4 (Lahore, August 1926) p. 48), Rieu iii 912a (preface and chapters from the latter part of the last qism only. 19th cent.).

Extracts translated by Muns̲h̲ī Sadāsuk’h Lāl: b.m. ms. Add. 30,782, foll. 113–205.

Description and 23 pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 204–31.

[Autobiographical statements in the preface and elsewhere (see Elliot and Dowson viii pp. 204–6, Rieu iii 92).]

§ 641. Lac̲h̲hmī Narāyan “S̲h̲afīq” Aurangābādī was born at Aurangābād in 1158/1745. His father, Rāy Mansā-Rām, for many years held high office in the Niẓām’s dominions and in 1204/1789–90 was (had perhaps long been) Dīwān.102 Lac̲h̲hmī Narāyan entered the service of ʿĀlī-Jāh, son of Niẓām-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān103 (Rieu i p. 326a, iii p. 1083a, apparently from the Natāʾij al-afkār). The date of his death does not seem to be recorded,104 but it was not before 1214/1799, the date of the Bisāṭ al-g̲h̲anāʾim. He received instruction in Persian from “Āzād” Bilgrāmī (Nis̲h̲tar i ʿis̲h̲q, Sprenger p. 645), whom he calls his pīr (Gul i raʿnā, Bānkīpūr viii p. 128). He wrote poetry both in Persian and Urdu, and called himself at first “Ṣāḥib” but afterwards, at “Āzād’s” request, “S̲h̲afīq.”105 In addition to the Ḥaqīqat-hā i Hindūstān he wrote three tad̲h̲kirahs, the C̲h̲amanistān i shuʿarāʾ (ad 1761. Urdu poets. Edition: Aurangābād 1928. See b.s.o.s. v/4 (1930) p. 927), the Gul i raʿnā (ah 1182/1768–9. Indian poets. Bānkīpūr viii 701, i.o. 3692–3, Rieu iii 972b, Rehatsek p. 161) and the S̲h̲ām i g̲h̲arībān (ah 1182/1768–9. Poets who visited India. No copies recorded), the Tanmīq i s̲h̲igarf (ah 1200/1786. A history of the Deccan. Ethé 447, 448. Cf. Rieu ii 859b), the Maʾāt̲h̲ir i Āṣafī (ah 1204/1793. A history of the Niẓāms. Ethé 468, Ivanow 196, Rieu iii 1039a), the Bisāṭ al-g̲h̲anāʾim (ah 1214/1799. A history of the Marāṭhās. Rieu i 328–9, Āṣafīyah i p. 220, Ethé ii 3018, Rehatsek p. 73), a description of Ḥaidarābād (ah 1214/1799. Rieu i 327a) and a historical work entitled K̲h̲ulāṣat al-Hind (Āṣafīyah i p. 238, where the precise subject is not stated).

Ḥaqīqat-hā-yi Hindustān106 (a chronogram = 1204/1789–90), a historical and topographical account of India written for the benefit of the author’s munificent patron, Captain William Patrick (so Rieu, but perhaps Kirkpatrick107 should be read) and divided into four maqālahs ((1) revenue returns based on some drawn up by the author’s grandfather, brought down from various dates to the Faṣlī year 1139, and signed by Niẓām al-Mulk, (2) account of the ṣūbahs of Hindūstān, (3) account of the ṣūbahs of the Deccan, (4) sketch of the Muslim rulers of India from Muʿizz al-Dīn b. Sām to ʿĀlī-Gauhar (S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam)): Rieu i 238b (ah 1224/1809), 238a (ah 1283/1866), iii 913a (ad 1851), Ivanow 179 (ah 1288/1871), Bānkīpūr vii 543 (19tb cent.), Ethé 426.
K̲h̲ulāṣat al-Hind: Āṣafīyah i p. 238 no. 705 (where the precise subject is not stated).

[Gul i raʿnā (Bānkīpūr viii p. 131); Nis̲h̲tar i ʿis̲h̲q (“S̲h̲afīq’s” biography summarised in Sprenger p. 645); Natāʾij al-afkār (information summarised in Rieu iii 1083a); Rieu i 327a, iii 1083a; Niẓāmī Badāyūnī Qāmūs al-mas̲h̲āhīr (in Urdu) ii p. 167.]

§ 642. Muns̲h̲ī Hīrām [?] or Hanīrām [?], son of D’hanīrām, son of D’hanrāj, was Qānūngō of the paryanah of Ūnām (i.e. Unao in Oudh). It was after 1207/1792 that he compiled from various Sanskrit and Persian sources his

Rāj-Sōhāwalī, a history of the Hindū Rājahs and the Muḥammadan rulers of India to ah 1194/1780 in S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam’s reign together with statistical tables of the ṣūbahs of Hindūstān: Ethé 208.

§ 643. Sarūp C̲h̲and K’hatrī compiled in 1209/1794–5 for Sir John Shore (afterwards Baron Teignmouth, Governor-General 1793–8)

Ṣaḥīḥ al-ak̲h̲bār, a general history of India to the author’s time: Rieu iii 1031a (extracts only).

Description and a translated extract (1 1/3 p.): Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 313–5.

§ 644. Aʿazz al-Dīn Muḥammad wrote in 1218/1803–4 for Major William Yule (the father of Sir Henry Yule) his

Muk̲h̲taṣar i Yūl, a sketch of the Delhi Sulṭāns and the Tīmūrids, said by Rieu to be merely a transcript of the Tārīk̲h̲ i Ḥaqqī (see p. 346 supra) with a meagre continuation: Rieu i 238b (early 19th cent.).

§ 645. Mirzā Masītā,108 a descendant of Ilāh-wirdī K̲h̲ān Jahān-gīrī, wrote in the time of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam (reigned ah 1173/1759–1221/1806) for the instruction of his son Karīm Allāh K̲h̲ān, called Mirzā Kallū, his

Intik̲h̲āb al-tawārīk̲h̲, a mere sketch of Indian history in an introduction, two books ((1) Northern India, (2) the Deccan) and a conclusion: Rieu iii 1052a (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850).

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 334–5 (the only ms. known to Elliot was in one of the Royal Libraries at Lucknow).

§ 646. Harnām Sing’h “Nāmī” b. Gūrdās Sing’h, a Sāraswat Brāhman, of Brāhmanābād in the province of Lahore, resided near Lucknow. His father was Nāʾib to ʿAin al-Dīn K̲h̲ān, Governor of Barēlī ah 1195/1781–1199/1784–5 and afterwards of Gōrak’hpūr, and Harnām Sing’h himself was in his service from childhood.

Tārīk̲h̲ i saʿādat i jāwīd, a general history of India to ah 1220/1805–6, written in 1221/1806–7, dedicated to Saʿādat ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, the Nawwāb Wazīr of Oudh, and divided into four faṣls ((1) Early Rājahs, (2) Kings of Delhi to S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam, (3) Amīrs and Rājahs of Āṣaf al-Daulah’s time, etc., (4) the Seven Climates, etc.), useful for biographical details of Indian nobles: Rieu iii 913a (defective at end. Circ. ad 1850).

Extracts translated by Muns̲h̲ī Sadāsuk’h: b.m. ms. Add. 30,786, foll. 1–81.

Description and 14 pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 336–354.

§ 647. Rāy Amar Sing’hK̲h̲wus̲h̲-dil” tells us in the prose preface109 to his Razmistān that he was born and bred at Ghāzīpūr but had been resident for some years at Benares. In the poem itself he speaks of his being appointed Muns̲h̲ī to Alexander Duncan.110 The Qāmūs al-mas̲h̲āhīr states on unspecified authority that he was the son of Jīwan Rām Kāyast’h, that his [his father’s ?111] original home (aṣlī waṭan) was Kaṛṛah Mānikpūr, that in the time of S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah [ah 1169/1756–1189/1775] he [his father?2] was Nāẓim and Ḥākim i aʿlā of G̲h̲āzīpūr, that on completing his education he entered the service of Mahārājah C̲h̲ait112 Sing’h of Benares (reigned ah 1185–95), that subsequently he was appointed Nāẓim113 of ʿAlīgaṛh by the East India Company, that he wrote a Tārīk̲h̲ i farmān-rawāyān i Hind, and that he died in 1225/1810.114

Zubdat al-ak̲h̲bār, an abridgment of Sujān Rāy’s K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲ (see p. 357 supra) continued to ah 1221/1806–7: Rieu iii 1052a foll. 170–94 (extracts only).

Translated extracts: b.m. ms. Add. 30,781 foll. 60–69.

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 374–5.

Razmistān (or Bazm i k̲h̲ayāl?115), a versified sketch of Indian history, chiefly the British period, to ah 1210/1795–6, dedicated to Jonathan Duncan, Resident at Benares 1788–95, and completed in 1211/1796–7:116 i.o. 3975 (ad 1896), 4019 (ad 1892), Rieu iii 1017b foll. 34–46, 52–57 (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850).

[Razmistān, preface etc.; Niẓāmī Badāyūnī Qāmūs al-mas̲h̲āhīr (in Urdu) i p. 104; probably also Riyāḍ al-wifāq (Sprenger p. 167) and Beale Oriental biographical dictionary p. 70.]

§ 648. A certain Kānjī-Mal wrote

A chronological list of the Hindu Rājahs from Jud’hishtir to Pit’hōrā and of the Muḥammadan rulers from S̲h̲ihāb al-Dīn G̲h̲ōrī to the accession of Akbar S̲h̲āh in 1221/1806: Rieu iii 9176 (ah 1225/1810).

§ 649. Daulat Rāy Kāyat’h Saksēnah composed in 1225/1810

C̲h̲ahār (c̲h̲ār) chaman, a general history of India: Rieu iii 10586 (description only).

§ 650. Muns̲h̲ī Sadāsuk’hNiyāzDihlawī was employed at the close of the 18th century in some official capacity under Government at C̲h̲unār. At the age of 65 he left Delhi for Ilāhābād, where after ten years spent in literary work, including the composition of Persian, Urdu and Bhākā verse, he began his history. In addition to this work he wrote also the Tanbīh al-g̲h̲āfilīn (cf. Rieu iii 918a), on Hindu tribes and sects, and the ʿAjāʾib al-Hind (cf. ibid. 1030b) on remarkable places etc. in India.

Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲, composed in 1234/1818–19, a general history of India to 1233/1817–18, valuable for the reign of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam and later times: Rieu iii 914a (complete. ad 1849), 1021b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), 1052b (extracts only).

Extracts translated by Muns̲h̲ī Sadāsuk’h Lāl: b.m. ms. Add. 30,786, foll. 82–291.

Description and 4 pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 403–411.

[Elliot and Dowson viii 403–5; Rieu iii 914a.]

§ 651. Nūr-Muḥammad b. Mirzā M. K̲h̲urāsānī completed in 1240/1824–5 and dedicated to Sirāj al-Umarāʾ ʿAẓīm-Jāh, Nawwāb of the Carnatic,

Sirāj al-tawārīk̲h̲, a vast general history with special reference to India: Ethé ii 3009 (autograph brouillon).

§ 652. A large work on the political and natural history of India projected by ʿAẓīm-Jāh, Nawwāb of the Carnatic (i.e. M. ʿAlī K̲h̲ān Bahādur Sirāj al-Umarāʾ, who was installed on 3 Feb. 1820 and died on 12 Nov. 1825), was entrusted by him to the superintendence of Maulawī M. Ṣibg̲h̲at Allāh entitled ʿAẓīm-Nawāz K̲h̲ān Bahādur Muʿtamad-Jang ʿUmdat al-ʿUlamāʾ Muftī Badr al-Daulah, who has already been mentioned (pp. 174–175 supra) as the author of a Dāstān i g̲h̲am written in 1250/1834–5. Of the collaborators selected by Maulawī Ṣibg̲h̲at Allāh for the various parts the most prominent was Riḍā Ṣāḥib known as Ḥakīm Bāqir Ḥusain K̲h̲ān Bahādur, who devoted himself particularly to the history of the Carnatic from the time of Saʿd Allāh K̲h̲ān to that of Wālā-Jāh (this portion of the history does not occur in the only recorded manuscript). After Riḍā Ṣāḥib’s death S. Murtaḍā (i.e. no doubt “Bīnis̲h̲”, author of the tad̲h̲kirah, Is̲h̲ārāt i Bīnis̲h̲, mentioned below in the subsection Biogbaphy: Poets) undertook to supply other portions of the political history, but the work was interrupted by the Nawwāb’s death and remained unfinished. Both Maulawī Ṣibg̲h̲at Allāh and S. Murtaḍā were still alive in 1859, the latter as teacher in the Madrasah [at Arcot presumably].

ʿAẓīm al-tawārīk̲h̲,117 a history, mainly of India, planned to consist of seven maqālahs and five muqaddimahs, but differently divided in the only recorded manuscript, which is evidently incomplete, lacking, for example, the Carnatic and Mysore history (which was to be the subject of Maqālah vii): Ethé 430 (consisting of (1) a general introduction on the value of historiography, the sources for the Hindu period and an outline of pre-Muḥammadan Indian history, (2) history of the Creation, the Patriarchs, the Hindu rājahs and the rise of Islām in India, (3) [called Maqālah iii] the G̲h̲aznawids, (4) [called Maqālah iv] the Delhi Sulṭāns to ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn [K̲h̲aljī], (5) [called Maqālah v] the Delhi Sulṭāns from Buhlūl Lōdī, (6) [called Maqālah vi] the Indian Tīmūrids to Muḥammad S̲h̲āh. These are followed by a portion called Jāmiʿ al-as̲h̲yāʾ or Has̲h̲t c̲h̲aman on natural history).

§ 653. Kis̲h̲an-Dayāl K’hatrī, of Delhi, completed in 1826 his As̲h̲raf al-tawārīk̲h̲, which he wrote for presentation to Rājah C̲h̲andū Lāl “S̲h̲ādān”,118 Pēs̲h̲kār at Ḥaidarābād.

As̲h̲raf al-tawārīk̲h̲, an enormous compilation in seven books ((1) epitome of the Śiva-Purāṇa etc., (2) translation of the Rāmāyaṇa, (3) translation of the Bhāgavata-Purāṇa, (4) Hindu saints, (5) epitome of the Mahābhārata, history of the Hindū Rājahs, the Muḥammadan kings of G̲h̲aznī and Delhi to Akbar ii, (6) the revenues of Hindūstān and Persia, (7) account of the seven climates etc.): Rieu iii 1026b (foll. 48–70. Extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), 1042b (foll. 147–152. Account of the K’hatrī caste only. Circ. ad 1850), cf. 1052b. [Elliot knew of only two mss., both in the possession of the author’s family.]

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 411–2.

§ 654. S. Aḥmad K̲h̲ān b. S. Muttaqī K̲h̲ān, or Sir119 Saiyid,120 as he is commonly called by the Muḥammadans of India, was born at Delhi on 17 October, 1817. His maternal grandfather, K̲h̲wājah Farīd al-Dīn Aḥmad,121 was Prime Minister to Akbar ii. Entering the East India Co.’s service, he was appointed Saris̲h̲tah-dār (Record-keeper) of the Ṣadr Amīn’s122 Court at Delhi in 1837, Nāʾib Muns̲h̲ī “or deputy reader” in the office of the Commissioner of Āgrah in 1839, Munṣif or Sub-Judge at Mainpūrī in 1841, at Fatḥpūr-Sīkrī in 1842 and at Delhi in 1846.123 Subsequently he was Ṣadr Amīn at Rohtak (1850) and Bijnaur (1855), Principal Ṣadr Amīn124 at Murādābād (1858), G̲h̲āzīpūr (1862), and ʿAlīgaṛh (1864), and Judge of the Small Cause Court at Benares (1867). He retired in 1876, settled at ʿAlīgaṛh, died there on 27 March 1898 and is buried at the side of the mosque of the ʿAlīgaṛh Muslim University. He was a Member of the Legislative Council of the North-West Provinces and from 1878 to 1882 a Member of the Viceroy’s Council. In 1882 he was made a k.c.s.i.

Sir Saiyid Aḥmad’s fame, however, rests not on his official career but on the distinguished services which he rendered to education and the spread of enlightenment among the Muḥammadans of India. Unlike his bitter opponents125 among the orthodox, who regarded modern knowledge as useless and dangerous to faith, he believed education of the European type to be the only means of raising the status of India’s Muḥammadans and enabling them to play their part worthily in the history of their country. In 1858 he opened a school at Murādābād for the study of modern history, in 1864 he founded the Translation Society of G̲h̲āzīpūr (which afterwards became the Scientific Society of ʿAlīgaṛh) for the translation of English books into Urdu, in 1870 he started a monthly periodical entitled Tahd̲h̲īb al-ak̲h̲lāq (English title: The Mohammedan social reformer) and formed a “Committee for the better diffusion and advancement of learning among the Mohammedans of India”. Finally in 1875 came the opening of the Muḥammadan Anglo-Oriental College at ʿAlīgaṛh (now the ʿAlīgarḥ Muslim University), of which he was the chief promoter and which is the most widely known of the memorials which he left behind him.

Sir Saiyid’s labours had lasting effects in several different directions. They profoundly influenced Indian Muslim education. They stimulated the growth of a modernist or liberalising school of religious thought among educated Indian Muḥammadans. They contributed to the promotion of friendly relations between Europeans and Indians.126 They changed the course of Urdu prose style. According to T. Grahame Bailey Sir S. Aḥmad “exercised more influence upon Urdu than perhaps any other single man in the nineteenth century … He wrote good, flowing and simple Urdu, discarding the florid style of his predecessors in journalism…. Ultimately, so far as prose went, he won a complete victory, and no one now thinks of writing in the style of Surūr when he has before him as a model the forceful and straightforward writing of Sir Sayyid”.

In the latter part of his life S. Aḥmad was the leading personality among the Muḥammadans of India. He was undoubtedly the greatest man produced by Indian Islām in the nineteenth century.

Sir Saiyid’s numerous works127 were nearly all in Urdu. Among them were Āt̲h̲ār al-ṣanādīd (on the archaeology of Delhi. Delhi 1847°*, Delhi 1853–4°, Lucknow 1876*. French translation: Description des monuments de Dehli en 1852, d’après le texte hindoustani de Saiyid Ahmad Khan, par M. [J.H.] Garcin de Tassy (in, and offprinted from, the Journal asiatique 1860–1), Tabyīn al-kalām fī tafsīr al-Taurāh, wa-’l-Injīl ʿalā millat al-Islām (The Mohomedan commentary on the Holy Bible. Urdu and English. Pts. i (Introduction) and ii (Genesis), G̲h̲āzīpūr 1862°. Pt. iii (St. Matthew) is described by Graham (p. 71) as “now in the press”128), Tafsīr al-Qurʾān (an Urdu translation and commentary. Vols. i and ii, ʿAlīgaṛh 1880°. Vol. vi 1309/1891–2.129 Part of the series entitled Taṣānīf i Aḥmadīyah. Six volumes (to the end of Sūrah xvii) were published and a seventh (to Sūrah xxi, completing about half of the work) was ready for the press when Sir Saiyid died), Ibṭāl i g̲h̲ulāmī, on the evils of the slave trade, Āgrah 1893,* Sīrat i Farīdīyah, a life of his maternal grandfather, Āgrah 1896*.

Among the works of which English translations130 have appeared are The loyal Mohammedans of India (on the Muḥammadans who remained loyal to the Government, saved the lives of Europeans and rendered other services at the time of the Mutiny), 1860–1 (see Graham pp. 58–69, where some extracts are given but where the place of publication is not mentioned, and Oriental College Magazine xiii no. 2 p. 13, where it is said that this publication was issued in parts as a sort of periodical in Urdu and English), A series of essays on the life of Mohammed and subjects subsidiary thereto, vol. i, London 1870*,131 Review on Dr. Hunter’s Indian Musalmans132 Benares 1872*, The causes of the Indian revolt. Written [in 1858] … in Urdoo … and translated … by his two European friends [Auckland Colvin and G.F.I. Graham], Benares 1873*, On the present state of Indian politics, Allahabad 1888*.

Collections of his lectures and speeches were published under the titles Lakc̲h̲arōṅ kā majmūʿah (Lahore 1890*), Majmūʿah i lakc̲h̲ar-hā (Sād’haurah 1892*) and Tahd̲h̲īb al-akhlāq (speeches delivered from 1287/1870 to 1293/1876. Vol. ii published at Lahore in 1896*). A collection of his letters compiled by his grandson, S. Ross Masood, has been published under the title K̲h̲uṭūṭ i Sar Saiyid (2nd ed., Badāyūṅ [1931]).

He was editor of the Tārīk̲h̲ i Fīrōz-S̲h̲āhī (of Baranī) published at Calcutta (Bibliotheca Indica) in 1860–2, of the Tūzuk i Jahāngīrī printed at his own presses at G̲h̲āzīpūr and ʿAlīgaṛh in 1863–4 and of the Āʾīn i Akbarī published by Nawal Kis̲h̲ōr at Lucknow in 1869.

Jām i Jam, written for r.n.c. (afterwards Sir Robert) Hamilton, Commissioner of Āgrah,133 and completed in Ṣafar 1255/1839, tabulated information (viz. title, father’s name, mother’s name, race (Lōd’hī, C̲h̲ag̲h̲atāv etc.), date of birth, place of accession, date of accession, poetical chronogram, if any, for that date, length of reign, length of life, date of death, poetical chronogram, if any, for that date, posthumous title, if any, place of burial, observations) concerning the Muḥammadan sovereigns of Delhi from the time of Tīmūr, who comes first followed by Nuṣrat S̲h̲āh, to that of the last Tīmūrid, Bahādur S̲h̲āh: Rieu i 284b (ad 1839), Lindesiana p. iii no. 416 (ah 1258/1842), Bānkipūr vii 595 (ah 1266/1849–50), 596, Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (Dībāc̲h̲ah only. See Oriental College Magazine, vol. iii/1 (Nov. 1926) p. 66), i.o. 4030 (transcribed apparently from a Delhi edition of 1268).

Editions: Akbarābād [i.e. Āgrah, not Delhi, as stated in the b.m. Catalogue] 1840°, Delhi 1268/1851–2 (from which the i.o. ms. mentioned above was apparently transcribed).

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 430–1.

[His genealogy in the preface to the Jām i Jam and in the K̲h̲uṭabāt i Aḥma­dīyah (and also in Ḥayāt i jāwīd Pt. 2, appendix 1); Garcin de Tassy Histoire de la littérature hindouie et hindoustanie, seconde éd., tome iii (Paris 1871), pp. 37–41; Beale Oriental biographical dictionary under Sayyad Ahmad; Safar-nāmah i Panjāb [an Urdu account of S. Aḥmad’s visit to the Panjāb in 1884], by S. Iqbāl ʿAlī, ʿAlīgaṛh 1884; G.F.I. Graham The life and work of Syed Ahmed Khan, Edinburgh and London 1885 (portrait frontispiece); G.F.I. Graham Reviews on Syed Ahmed Khan’s life and work, ʿAlīgaṛh 1886; Ḥayāt i jāwīd [a detailed Urdu biography], by Alṭāf Ḥusain “Ḥālī”, Cawnpore 1901 (portrait frontispiece); G. Zaidān Mashāhīr al-s̲h̲arq [in Arabic], pt. ii (Cairo 1903), pp. 67–74 (Portrait p. 67); Ḥayāt i Sar Saiyid Aḥmad [an Urdu translation by M. Fārūq of Zaidān’s notice], ʿAlīgaṛh 1903; Buckland Dictionary of Indian biography p. 7; Ency. Isl. under Aḥmed K̲h̲ān (Blumhardt); Niẓāmī Badāyūnī Qāmūs al-mas̲h̲āhīr [in Urdu], i pp. 315–16; Ram Babu Saksena A history of Urdu literature, Allahabad 1927, pp. 269–72; Sir Saiyid Ahmed Khan. By H.G. Rawlinson (in Islamic culture, iv/3 (July 1930) pp. 389–96); T. Grahame Bailey A history of Urdu literature pp. 85–6; Unnīswīṅ ṣadī kā ēk muṣannif aur mufakkir, by S.M. ʿAbd Allāh (in the Oriental College Magazine, vol. xiii, no. 2 (Lahore, Feb. 1937) pp. 3–25, no. 4 (August 1937) pp. 20–31, in progress.]

§ 655. In 1262/1846 was composed

Tārīk̲h̲ i Hindūstān: ʿAlīgaṛh Subḥ. mss. p. 58 no. 11 (defective at end).

§ 656. It was in 1264/1848 that M. Riḍā “Najm” Ṭabāṭabā134 (for whom see p. 115 supra) completed his

Ak̲h̲bārāt i Hind (chronogram), a general history of India to ah 1264/1848 dedicated to Sir H. Elliot, forming vol. v of the author’s historical encyclopaedia Baḥr al-zakhkhār and consisting largely of matter abridged from vol. iii (Majmaʿ al-mulūk, see p. 116 supra) and vol. iv (Mafātīḥ al-riʾāsat, see p. 413 infra) but with considerable additions:135 Rieu iii 914b (circ. ad 1848), 1014b ii (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), 1018b v (extracts only. ad 1849).

Account of the work by the author with full statement of contents: Rieu iii 1053a.

Description with 3 ½ pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 436–440.

§ 657. Mīr K̲h̲wurs̲h̲ēd ʿAlī “K̲h̲wurs̲h̲ēd”, commonly called Saiyid S̲h̲āh ʿAlī, b. S. Dastgīr “Dastgīr” translated into Persian under the title Tārīk̲h̲ i Hind (the first part only (?) of) an English work entitled apparently Epitome of the History of Hindoostan, in which according to the preface the author proposed to give the history of India from the time of Maḥmūd G̲h̲aznawī to the British conquest.

Tārīk̲h̲ i Hind. Edition: Madras 1267/1851°* (extending to the year ad 1289).

§ 658. Ḥakīm Jawāhir La‘l Akbarābādī, a physician by profession, was editor of the Urdu newspaper Ak̲h̲bār al-nawāḥ wa-nuzhat al-arwāḥ which was published at Āgrah and which, according to Garcin de Tassy, at first contained good literary and scientific articles but after 1851 became less interesting and more exclusively devoted to the news of the day. He edited also the Etawah newspaper published in English, Hindi and Urdu editions entitled respectively People’s Friend, Prajāhit and Muḥibb i raʿāyā.

His works include (1) Mak̲h̲zan al-tawārīk̲h̲, an Urdu translation of the Zubdat al-tawārīk̲h̲ (an abridgment of the Siyar al-mutaʾakhkhirīn). Āgrah 1853*, (2) Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲, an abridgment of the Mak̲h̲zan al-tawārīk̲h̲, Āgrah 1855*, (3) Maʿdinīyāt (in Urdu) on minerals and their uses, Āgrah 1855*, (4) Śakuntalā nāṭaka, an Urdu translation from the Sanskrit of Kālidāsa, Āgrah 1873*, (5) a Persian translation of Mōtī La‘l’s Urdu Pand-nāmah i kās̲h̲tkārān, Āgrah 1854°.

Tārīk̲h̲ i Hind, a history of India from the earliest times to the Second Burmese War in 1852, translated by Jawāhir La‘l from an Urdu original (also by J.L.?). Edition: Āgrah 1855°*.

[Garcin de Tassy ii 91–2.]

§ 659. G̲h̲aut̲h̲ Muḥammad K̲h̲ān succeeded his father ʿAbd al-G̲h̲afūr K̲h̲ān as Nawwāb of Jāōrah (a state of 568 square miles in Mālwah, Central India) in 1825 at the age of two. During the Mutiny of 1857 he rendered important services to the Government of India. He established kōṭwālīs in the taḥṣīls, where criminal cases were heard, and opened a hospital and a court of Muḥammadan law. He died in 1865.

Majmaʿ al-salāṭīn, “tabulated lists of the emperors of Hindustan and the sovereigns of England, with statistical accounts of the provinces of India” (pp. 69). Editions: Jāōrah 1272/1856°, place ? 1279/1862–3136 (Āṣafīyah i p. 252 no. 257), place ? 1286/1869–70 (Āṣafīyah i p. 252 no. 872).

[Central India State Gazetteer Series: Western States (Mālwā) Gazetteer. Vol. V.—Part A, Text. Compiled by Capt. C.E. Luard, Bombay 1908, pp. 184–5.]

§ 660. Mīrzā Naṣr Allāh K̲h̲ān “Fidāʾī”,137 entitled Nawwāb Daulat-Yār-Jang Bahādur, was the son of M. Ḥusain K̲h̲wus̲h̲-nawīs Iṣfahānī. A year or two after leaving Persia for the purpose of travel he conceived the desire of doing some work which should be both a present to his countrymen and a service to the language of his ancestors. He decided, therefore, to write a history of India. For some years he hesitated to undertake unaided so difficult a task and he was moreover occupied with the duties of tutor to Mīr Maḥbūb ʿAlī K̲h̲ān138 (bah āmūzgārī u ham-nishīnī i Bandagān i wālā Nawwāb Fatḥ-Jang Niẓām al-Daulah Niẓām al-Mulk Āṣaf-Jāh Mīr Maḥbūb ʿAlī K̲h̲ān Bahādur nām-zad būdam).

Early in 1301/1883 he began the Dāstān i turk-tāzān i Hind and he completed it towards the end of 1303/1886.139 According to the Āṣafīyah catalogue, i p. 730 no. 133, he died in 1314/1896–7.

Dāstān i turk-tāzān i Hind, a history of the Muḥammadan rulers of India from M. b. Qāsim’s invasion to the death of Bahādur S̲h̲āh in 1862, based mainly on English sources and written in “pure Persian”.140 Edition: Bombay141 1309/1892*142 (5 vols.).

§ 661. Kunwar Durgā-Pars̲h̲ād “Mihr” Sandīlī, the son of Rājah D’hanpat Rāy, was born in 1846. In 1867 he succeeded his father as raʾīs, and in 1884 he was appointed an Honorary Magistrate of Sandīlah. He was still living in 1897. In addition to the Gulistān i Hind he wrote a history of Oudh, Būstān i Awad’h, which was published at Lucknow in 1892°*, and a tad̲h̲kirah of poetesses, Ḥadīqah i ʿis̲h̲rat, published at Sandīlah in [1894°*].

Gulistān i Hind (alternatively, in the 1889 edition, The Universal History of India in commemoration of the Queen’s Jubilee 1887) in four daftars ((i) Hindu Rājahs, (ii) the Muḥammadan period, (iii) the British period to 1877, (iv) the author and his ancestors) written in 6 months after the Jubilee darbār at Hardoi. Editions: Lucknow 1889°, Sandīlah 1897°*.

[Gulistān i Hind (Sandīlah 1897) pp. 23 etc. (portrait at beginning of book); Būstān i Awad’h pp. 213 etc.; Hardoi District Gazetteer pp. 71, 85; Portrait in An illustrated historical album of the Rajas and Taaluqdars of Oudh compiled and illustrated by Darogah Haji Abbas Ali, Allahabad 1880*, no. 90.]

§ 662. Mīrzā Muḥammad b. M. Rafīʿ, entitled Malik al-kuttāb, S̲h̲īrāzī was born at S̲h̲īrāz in 1269/1852–3. In 1285 he settled in Bombay and there he founded the bookselling and publishing business in connexion with which he was best known. In 1300/1882–3 the title of Malik al-kuttāb was conferred on him by the Persian Government and in 1317/1899–1900 that of K̲h̲ān Ṣāḥib by the Government of India.

His works include (1) Iksīr al-tawārīk̲h̲ wa-Siyar al-aʾimmah (see p. 165 supra), (2) Mirʾāt al-zamān (see p. 340 supra), (3) Tārīk̲h̲ i Inglistān (see p. 337 supra), (4) Tārīk̲h̲ i qadīm Yūnān (see p. 338 supra), (5) Alf nahār, “anecdotes and reflections on various subjects” (Edwards), Bombay 1313/1896°, (6) Āyāt al-wilāyah, a defence of the claims of ʿAlī and the 12 Imāms to the Caliphate, Bombay [1898°], (7) Miftāḥ al-rizq, on the mutual relations of employers and employed, Bombay 1315/1898°, (8) Kas̲h̲f al-ṣinā‘ah, or Muntak̲h̲abāt i Muḥammadī, an account of various arts, Bombay 1311/1894°, (9) Tad̲h̲kirat al-k̲h̲awātīn, notices of Islāmic poetesses, Bombay 1306/1889°, (10) Tuḥfat al-k̲h̲awātīn, on the hygiene of married women, Bombay 1325/1907°.

Among the books published by him was the Tad̲h̲kirah of Daulat-S̲h̲āh (Bombay 1887°).

Zīnat al-zamān fī tārīk̲h̲ Hindūstān mausūm bah Tāj al-tawārīk̲h̲ wa-sulālat al-siyar. 143 Edition: place ? 1310/1892–3 (see Āṣafīyah iii p. 104 no. 1036).

[Prāg Narāyan Bhārgava Ṣaḥīfah i zarrīn (in Urdu), Lucknow 1902, Bombay section p. 97.]

§ 663. Appendix

Kanz i maḥfūẓ,144 a history in nine rauḍahs subdivided into hātifahs by “Mirzā Mahdi Samad b. ʿAli ’l-Hādi ʿAlīm ad-dīn Muḥammad Mahdi” [sic]: Eton 178.
Nasab al-ansāb, a general history of India: Lindesiana p. 201 no. 881 (ah 1210/1795).
Tad̲h̲kirat al-mulūk, a brief review of Indian dynasties to 1208/1793–4, apparently different from Ethé 409: Ivanow 180 (mid 19th cent.).
Tad̲h̲kirat al-salāṭīn, by Abū ’l-Qāsim Nūr-Muḥammad: Lindesiana p. 109 no. 419 (circ. ad 1770).
Tārīk̲h̲ i Kār-nāmah [?], metrical narratives relating inter alia to M. b. Sām, Quṭb al-Dīn Aibak and Īltutmis̲h̲:145 Rehatsek p. 131 no. 16 (inadequately described).
Tārīk̲h̲ i salāṭīn i Dihlī, manẓūm (? identical with the preceding): Āṣafīyah i p. 226 no. 673.

next chapter: 12.2 Sulṭāns of Delhi


^ Back to text1. According to H. Blochmann, jasb. 38 (1869) p. 119 n., “The word Badáon [sic] has the accent on the penultima, and a final nasal n; hence badáoní, with a short o or u, and the Shakl i Hamzah above the wáw, an inhabitant of Badáon. The transliteration Badáúní, which I have seen in some works, is misleading; for بداونی has the wazn of مفاعلن, ⏑ – ⏑ – , and Badáúni would be مفاعیلن, ⏑ – – –.” Blochmann’s pronouncement is probably based on the scansion of the nisbah in M. al-t. iii pp. 14412 and 14614–15. The name of the town occurs in a verse on p. 139 of vol. ii, where the scansion is ⏑ – –. The last word has not yet been said on this subject. Cf. jras. 1924 p. 272; 1925 pp. 517 and 715–16; 1926 pp. 103–5.

^ Back to text2. Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲ i p. 363 penult.

^ Back to text3. M. al-t. ii p. 236,1.9: qaṣabah i Tōdah kih maulid i faqīr ast u [sic] Basāwar kih nisbat iwa-awwalu arḍin massa jildī turābuhādārad. This appears to mean that he was born at Tōdah and learned to walk at Basāwar. It is, therefore, difficult to see why the Encyclopaedia of Islam should say that ‘Abd al-Qādir was “born at Basāwar in the sarkār of Sambhal [sic]”. That Tōdah and Basāwar were west of Āgrah (and therefore not in the sarkār of Sambhal) seems clear from M. al-t. ii pp. 235–6, where ʿAbd al-Qādir records a journey from Gōgundah to Fatḥpūr via Mōhanī, Bāg’haur [sic], Māndalgaṛh, Anbēr, Tōdah, and Basāwar.

^ Back to text4. I.e. Bhasāwar, now in the Bharatpūr State, about 18 miles N.E. of Toda Bhim.

^ Back to text5. ʿAbd al-Qādir often mentions the place. His father was buried there (M. al-t. ii p. 53) and so was his maternal grandfather Mak̲h̲dūm As̲h̲raf (M. al-t. ii p. 64). ʿAbd al-Qādir was not the first of his family to be connected with Badāʾūṅ, since we learn from M. al-t. iii 75 that his father studied at Sambhal and Badāʾūṅ.

^ Back to text6. In the third volume of the Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲ there is a section (pp. 66 seq.) devoted to the author’s teachers.

^ Back to text7. Apparently the Kathā-sarit-sāgara. The India Office manuscript Ethé 1987 seems to be a copy of ʿAbd al-Qādir’s translation. It is clear from the words of the Muntak̲h̲ab al-tawārīk̲h̲ that the title Baḥr al-asmār belonged to the earlier translation and was not given by ʿAbd al-Qādir, as stated in the Encyclopædia of Islam.

^ Back to text8. Not M. Qāsim ibn Hindū S̲h̲āh.

^ Back to text9. The two biographies of Firis̲h̲tah by General Briggs contain a number of unsupported statements which are not easily verified from his own abridged and unindexed translation and from the equally unindexed editions of the Persian text, the sole source of information. [The Urdu translation published by the Osmania University has an index in the first volume but not in the other three !] Mohl is more scientific in giving references to the Persian text, but he, like several later writers, repeats unevidenced statements from Briggs. Firis̲h̲tah, says Mohl, following Briggs, “était né à Asterabad dans le Mazenderan,” and he gives a reference to vol. i, p. 4, where the only reference to Astarābād is the nisbah Astarābādī appended to Firis̲h̲tah’s name. This, of course, does not prove that he was bom at Astarābād. According to the Encyclopædia of Islam Firis̲h̲tah was “born 960 = 1552”, but no evidence is produced, and no such statement is found in the authorities mentioned in the bibliography, though they do contain conjectural and approximate dates. Among the assertions of Briggs and his followers for which they cite no evidence are the following: (1) His father, “quitting his native country, travelled into India and eventually reached Ahmudnuggur in the Deccan, during the reign of Moortuza Nizam Shah” [acc. to Ency. Isl. Firis̲h̲tah “was brought to Aḥmadnagar as a child in the reign of Ḥusain Niẓām S̲h̲āh i”], (2) Firis̲h̲tah “states that he had only attained his twelfth year when he reached Ahmudnuggur”, (3) “Gholam Ally Hindoo Shah … was selected, on account of his erudition, to instruct the Prince Meeran Hoossein in the Persian language”, (4) “it seems probable that the former [i.e. Firis̲h̲tah’s father] died at Ahmudnuggur not long after his arrival there. Ferishta was [sic !] thus left an orphan in his youth”. Mohl’s statement that Firis̲h̲tah was at one time in Badak̲h̲s̲h̲ān is based on a misconception. The reference to Badak̲h̲s̲h̲ān occurs in a quotation from the Tārīk̲h̲ i Ras̲h̲īdī. It was Mīrzā Ḥaidar, not Firis̲h̲tah, who was at one time in Badak̲h̲s̲h̲ān.

^ Back to text10. Bombay ed. ii p. 253 penult., [Lucknow] ed. of 1281/1864, ii p. 130, 1. 6: dar ʿahd i fark̲h̲undah i ān s̲h̲āh i Jam-jāh bah sinn i rus̲h̲d u tamīz rasīdah dar silk i naukarān muntaẓim gardīd. Not in Briggs’s translation.

^ Back to text11. 994/1586 according to Ency. Isl. under Niẓām-S̲h̲āh, but Firis̲h̲tah gives the date of his death as 18 Rajab 996.

^ Back to text12. dar ʿunfuwān i jawānī, Bombay ed. i p. 4,11. 5–6, Lucknow ed. i p. 3 penult., Briggs’s trans. i p. xlvii.

^ Back to text13. Mohl consistently calls this person Miḥrāb K̲h̲ān.

^ Back to text14. Bombay ed. ii p. 286,1. 9, Lucknow ed. ii p. 146, l. 15, Briggs’s translation iii p. 267, Journal des savants 1840, p. 214 (where Mohl gives a detailed account of these events).

^ Back to text15. Rāqim i ḥurūf rā kih ba-muḥāfazat i darbār is̲h̲tig̲h̲āl dās̲h̲t ān-rūz ba-ḥuḍūr i aqdas ṭalabīdah ba-mukālamah i s̲h̲arīf sar-afrāz sāk̲h̲t, Bombay ed. ii p. 287 ult., Lucknow ed. ii p. 147, 1. 6, Briggs’s trans. iii p. 268.

^ Back to text16. S̲h̲āh-zādah bandah rā s̲h̲ināk̲h̲tah u nisbat i ham-maktabī manẓūr dās̲h̲tah māniʿ i kus̲h̲tan s̲h̲ud u marā ham-rāh i k̲h̲wud bālā-yi ʿImārat i Bag̲h̲dād burdah etc., Bombay ed. ii p. 288,11. 9–10, Lucknow ed. ii p. 147, 1. 13, Briggs’s translation iii p. 269. Firis̲h̲tah tells us that Mīrān Ḥusain on his accession was sixteen years old. Firis̲h̲tah, to judge from the part played by him in these events, must have been at least several years older. The word ham-maktabī in this context seems to be the basis for General Briggs’s imaginative statement that “Gholam Ally Hindoo Shah, the father of Ferishta, was selected, on account of his erudition, to instruct the Prince Meeran Hoossein in the Persian language”.

^ Back to text17. u rāqim i ḥurūf nīz dar nūzdahum i Ṣafar sanah i t̲h̲amān wa-tisʿīn wa-tisʿ-miʾah az Aḥmadnagar bah Bījāpūr āmadah ba-wasāṭat i Dilāwar Khān ba-s̲h̲araf i āstānah-būsī i s̲h̲āh i ʿadālat-gustar mus̲h̲arraf gardīd u dar silk i naukarān u mulāzimān i ū intizām yāftah tā yaum al-taḥrīr az k̲h̲āk-rūbān i ān ʿatabah i ʿalīyah ast, Bombay ed. ii p. 295, 1. 8, Lucknow ed. ii p. 150 antepenult., Briggs’s trans. iii p. 277. Cf. Bombay ed. i p. 4, 1. 11, ii p. 120, 1. 5, Lucknow ed. i p. 4, 1. 3, ii p. 62, 1. 9, Briggs’s trans. i p. xlvii (the passage occurring in vol. ii p. 120, 1. 5 of the Bombay edition is omitted by Briggs). In the last passage Firis̲h̲tah says that he received his appointment on the 1st of Rabīʿ al-Awwal.

^ Back to text18. Bombay ed. ii p. 120, Lucknow ed. ii p. 62. Not in Briggs’s translation.

^ Back to text19. Bombay ed. ii p. 124, 11. 4, 11, Lucknow ed. ii p. 64, 11. 7, 11, Briggs’s trans. iii p. 164, 11. 4, 11.

^ Back to text20. Bombay ed. ii p. 126 ult., Lucknow ed. ii p. 65, 1.18, Briggs’s trans. iii p. 167.

^ Back to text21. Bombay ed. ii p. 543, 1. 12 (cf. i p. 516, 1. 11), Lucknow ed. ii p. 277, 1. 14 (cf. i p. 271,1. 21), Briggs’s trans. iv p. 284 (cf. ii p. 279).

^ Back to text22. Bombay ed. i p. 230 antepenult.: Musawwid i īn aurāq M.Q.F. c̲h̲ūn dar awā’il i ʿahd i Nūr al-Dīn M. Jahāngīr Pāds̲h̲āh az jānib i sulṭān i ʿaṣr Ibrāhīm ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āh ba-baldah i Lāhaur rasīdah az baʿḍ i mardum i ān-jāistifsār i aṣl u nasab u dūdmān i Tug̲h̲luq-S̲h̲āhī numūd, Lucknow ed. i p. 130, 11. 6–8, Briggs’s trans. i p. 401.

^ Back to text23. Bombay ed. ii p. 567, 1. 7, Lucknow ed. ii p. 290,11. 26–7. Not in Briggs’s translation.

^ Back to text24. Bombay ed. ii p. 568, Lucknow ed. ii p. 291 ult. Not in Briggs’s translation.

^ Back to text25. Bombay ed. i p. 4, ii p. 153 penult., Lucknow ed. i p. 4, ii p. 79, Briggs’s trans. i p. xlvii (the second passage is not translated by Briggs).

^ Back to text26. Bombay ed. ii p. 151, 1. 6, Lucknow ed. ii p. 77, 1. 23 (not translated by Briggs).

^ Back to text27. The Bombay and Lucknow editions have the date 1015 and the title Guls̲h̲an i Ibrāhīmī in the preface, but they contain the later dates 1018 (described as the current year Bombay ed. i p. 104,1. 12, Lucknow ed. i p. 60,1. 4, ii p. 177), 1023 (Bombay ed. i p. 693, 1. 16, p. 724, 1. 2, ii p. 77, antepenult., p. 567, 1. 7, Lucknow ed. i p. 358, 1. 5, p. 373, 1. 11, ii p. 41, 1. 17, p. 290, 1. 26) and 1033 (Bombay ed. ii p. 568, 1. 7, Lucknow ed. ii p. 291 ult.).

^ Back to text28. 1831 is the date given on the English title-page. In the Persian colophon the date of completion is said to be the last day of December 1832 [sic] corresponding to the 27th of Rajab 1247. The 27th of Rajab 1247 was the 1st of January 1832.

^ Back to text29. The i.o. copy of vol. ii is defective, ending with p. 124.

^ Back to text30. Ethé gives 1018/1609–10 as the date of compilation, but presumably the passage where 1018 is mentioned as the current year is a quotation from Firis̲h̲tah.

^ Back to text31. In the colophon of the Tōp-k̲h̲ānah ms. of the Mat̲h̲nawī i Walī Rām (Sprenger no. 564) he is called Swāmī Walī Rām ʿurf Bābā Banwālī-Dās. Other forms in which his names and designations occur are Banwālī-Das al-mutak̲h̲alliṣ bi-Walī muns̲h̲ī i Sulṭān Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh (colophon of b.m. ms. Rieu ii 855a), Banwālī Rām mutak̲h̲alliṣ ba-Walī (editor’s preface to the 1868 edition of the dīwān), Walī Rām Gōsā’īn Dārā-S̲h̲ukōhī (Āṣafīyah i p. 240), etc. A rubāʿī which is quoted in the editor’s preface but which does not occur in the body of the 1868 edition of the dīwān contains the words Ism i badan-am nīst ba-juz Banwālī Dar s̲h̲iʿr tak̲h̲alluṣ-am Walī, ai Wālī.

^ Back to text32. This is a Sanskrit word meaning “a line of kings”, “a royal dynasty or genealogy”. Rieu mentions (vol. iii, p. 916b) that according to Sujān Rāy [K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲, p. 7, 11. 1–2] the Rājāwalī was written originally in Hindī by Miṣr Bidyād’har and was translated into Persian by Sāhū Rām [Rieu writes Nibāhu Rām], a disciple of Walī Rām (Nusk̲h̲ah i Rājāwalī kih Miṣr Bidyād’har asāmī i rājahā ba-k̲h̲aṭṭ i Hinduwī nawis̲h̲tah u ān rā Sāhū Rām k̲h̲ulāṣah i murīdān i Gusā’īn Walī-Rām baʿibārat i marg̲h̲ūbah ba-Fārisī dar-āwardah).

^ Back to text33. Pertsch ascribes the work to M. K̲h̲alīl Allāh.

^ Back to text34. Bindrāban Dās Bahādur-S̲h̲āhī is what K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān calls him (vol. ii, p. 211 ult.).

^ Back to text35. According to the Tad̲h̲kirat al-umarāʾ (b.m. ms. Add. 16,703, fol. 134, cited by Rieu i p. 228b) Bihārā-Mal, Dīwān to Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh, received the title of Rāy in S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s 20th regnal year and died in the 26th year.

^ Back to text36. This is stated by a former owner of the b.m. ms. Add. 25,786 (Lubb al-tawārīk̲h̲ i Hind = Rieu i 229b) in a note dated ah 1149/1736–7. Cf. K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān ii p. 211 ult.–2121, where the word Mutaṣaddī is used, not Dīwān.

^ Back to text37. Muns̲h̲ī al-manās̲h̲ī [sic] is the title prefixed to Sujān Ray’s name in the colophon of the i.o. ms. d.p. 637a. This is evidently the title which Rieu quotes in a corrupt form.

^ Back to text38. Sujān, a Hindi word of Sanskrit origin meaning “well-informed, wise, intelligent”, is probably the correct form of this author’s name, though the Ency. Isl. appears, for some unexplained reason, to prefer the form Sanjān, which occurs in some of the colophons. Rieu points out that no less than three Sujān Sing’hs are mentioned in the Tad̲h̲kirat al-umarāʾ (cf. Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ ii pp. 291, 452).

^ Back to text39. This caste-title is a Hindi word meaning “store-keeper, steward, treasurer”. In the corrupt colophon quoted from by Rieu it appears as “Bhzārī”.

^ Back to text40. Cf. jras. 1895, p. 211, where the following statements are made in a letter from Qāḍī Taṣadduq Ḥusain, of Baṭālah: “… Sujān Singh, was a dhír khatri … Among his writings there is also a book called k̲h̲aláṣat [sic] al-Inshá, in which he describes the art of polite writing. This was written in 1105 Hijri. Some people also call him Suján Rái, but in both books he signs himself [sic] Suján Singh Dhír…. The above information is derived from his books, for the inhabitants of Batála of the dhír caste know nothing about him.”

^ Back to text41. According to Rieu he “designates himself as Sujān Singh Dhīr” in the preface as given in the b.m. ms. Or. 1924 (Rieu iii p. 908a). Cf. Ivanow Curzon 32.

^ Back to text42. The largest town in the Gūrdāspūr District of the Panjāb. Several of the colophons describe Sujān Rāy as a resident of Baṭālah.

^ Back to text43. The first volume of the Siyar al-mutaʾakhkhirīn is little more than a verbal transcript of the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲. According to ʿAbd al-Muqtadir the K̲h̲. al-t. contains little that is not found in Firishtah (sc. to the death of Akbar). It enters into minute details concerning the contest between Aurangzēb and his brothers.

^ Back to text44. The translator has both added and subtracted, especially in the accounts of the ṣūbahs.

^ Back to text45. In his preface the translator expressed his intention of translating the part relating to the Muḥammadan rulers, but there seems to be no evidence that he ever carried out this intention.

^ Back to text46. Major is a Christian name of the translator’s, not a military title. At the date of publication M.H. Court was a lieutenant in the Bengal Cavalry.

^ Back to text47. Muntak̲h̲ab i tawārīk̲h̲ in i.o. 4517.

^ Back to text48. So spelt in the printed text, but K̲h̲wāfī according to Rieu iii p. 235b (cf. Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii p. 680 and note 429 on p. 362 infra). However spelt, this nisbah doubtless indicates a family connexion with K̲h̲wāf or K̲h̲āf, a town and district in K̲h̲urāsān. The idea (stated by Morley, r.a.s. Cat. p. 100, without mention of any authority but evidently of earlier origin, since Elliot refers to it) that the title K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān contains an allusion to the “clandestine” composition of the Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb in the period when historical writing was forbidden by Aurangzēb is contrary to K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān’s own statements concerning the composition of his work and has long been discredited, having been disputed by Sir H. Elliot, who died in 1853, and still more emphatically by W. Nassau Lees in the jras. for, 1868.

^ Back to text49. By name K̲h̲wājah Mīr K̲h̲wāfī according to Elliot History of India vii p. 207 (“His father, Khwája Mír, also a historian [? C.A.S.], was an officer of high rank in the service of Murád Bakhsh”) and p. 208, where it is stated that “not only does Ghulám ’Alí Sháh style our author Muhammad Háshim the son of Khwája Mír Khwáfí, but he himself gives his father’s name as Mír Khwáfi”. Unfortunately Elliot does not say where K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān mentions his father by name nor does he even specify the work in which “Ghulám ’Ali Sháh” (= Ghulām-ʿAlī “Āzād” ?] speaks of him. Neither Mīr K̲h̲wāfī nor K̲h̲wājah Mīr K̲h̲wāfī seems to occur in the indexes to the Calcutta edition of the Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb. p.s. At the beginning of the anonymous history Bānkīpūr vii no. 590 (cf. p. 505 infra) K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān is called Muḥammad Hās̲h̲im ibn K̲h̲wājah Mīr muḥarrir i tārīk̲h̲ kih K̲h̲wāfī al-aṣl az zumrah i namak-parwarān i Ṣāḥib-Qirān i T̲h̲ānī S̲h̲āh-Jahān Bāds̲h̲āh u ū u pidaras̲h̲ rafīq i Sulṭān Murād-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ būdand. The words are quoted in Bānkīpūr vii p. 1022–4.

^ Back to text50. wālid i marḥūm kih az naukarān i muʿtamad i rū-s̲h̲inās i Murād-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ u tā rūz i farāg̲h̲ i muqaddamah dar pāy i qalʿah nis̲h̲astah dar fikr i manṣūbah i kamand bastan u firūd āwardan i Āqā-yi k̲h̲wud ba-sar burdah būd u ba-fikr i naukarī i ʿĀlamgīr na-pardāk̲h̲t (M. al-l. ii 155 = E. & D. vii p. 266). He was with Murād-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ at the Battle of Samōgarh and was severely wounded (M. al-l. ii 277–9 = E. & D. vii p. 223). He subsequently asked for and eventually obtained a manṣab from S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam (M. al-l. ii pp. 554–5).

^ Back to text51. Az-ān ast kih az zamān i qadīm li-ghāyat i ḥāl az rūy i tawārīk̲h̲ ān-c̲h̲ih ba-muṭālaʿah dar āmadah u dar muddat i panjāh u dū sāl kih musawwid i aurāq ba-ḥadd i tamīz āmad mus̲h̲āhadah mī numāyad hīc̲h̲ ẓālim k̲h̲wud ʿāqibat ba-k̲h̲air na-gas̲h̲tah … u aulād i Saʿd Allāh Khān li-g̲h̲āyat i ḥāl kih haftād u c̲h̲ahār sāl az zamān i wafāt i ūst hamah ʿāqibat-maḥmūd

^ Back to text52. For S̲h̲. Burhān see Ethé 1897, Ivanow 1278, etc.

^ Back to text53. Rieu (iii 1091b) gives an earlier date, ah 1083/1672–3, for the death of this saint on the authority either of the Mirʾāt al-ʿālam or the Riyāḍ al-auliyāʾ or both.

^ Back to text54. Muḥarrir i sawāniḥ az jumlah i mutaʿaiyinah i ān fauj būd.

^ Back to text55. Mentioned by Tieffenthaler, who spells the name Rám Sedj, in his list of forts in the province of Aurangābād (see his Géographie de l’Indoustan, Berlin 1786 (forming Tome i of Bernoulli’s Description historique et géographique de l’Inde) p. 479 and Sarkar The India of Aurangzib p. lxxxvii no. 114 (misprinted 144) and p. 163 no. 114).

^ Back to text56. Aurangzēb was in the Deccan from 1092/1681 to the end of his reign (1118/1707).

^ Back to text57. ʿAbd al-Razzāq Lārī was in the service of Abū ’l-Ḥasan Quṭb-S̲h̲āh and fought bravely against Aurangzēb’s troops at the time of the final attack on Golconda in 1687, when he was severely wounded. After resisting Aurangzēb’s overtures for a time he entered the Imperial service in the 36th regnal year [ah 1103/1691–2], received the title of K̲h̲ān and was appointed Faujdār of the ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āhī Kōṅkan (in the neighbourhood of Goa), from which he was subsequently transferred to the Faujdārī of Rāhīrī. K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān chronicles these appointments under the year 1103/1691–2. S̲h̲āh-Nawāz K̲h̲ān, who in this matter is less likely to be correct than K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān, places the appointment to Rāhīrī in the 36th year and that to the ʿĀdil-S̲h̲āhī Kōṅkan in the 40th. See Elliot and Dowson History of India vii pp. 330–5 (= M. al-l. ii pp. 360–2), etc., Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ ii pp. 818–21, Beveridge’s trans. pp. 70–71, etc.

^ Back to text58. “The name was afterwards changed to Ráí-garh. It lies due east of Jinjera.—See Grant Duff, vol. i, p. 190” (Elliot and Dowson vii p. 288 n.).

^ Back to text59. I.e. Amānat K̲h̲ān i T̲h̲ānī (Mīr Ḥusain) the third son of Amānat K̲h̲ān Mīrak Muʿīn al-Dīn Aḥmad. For his life see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i pp. 287–90, Beveridge’s trans. pp. 230–2.

^ Back to text60. “Between Surat and Nandurbar is an inhabited hilly region called Baglana. The country is cultivated and has a good climate … It has seven famous forts, of which Saler and Mulher* [Footnote *In the Nosari district of the Gaekwar’s dominions] are [the most] celebrated. The chiefs are of the clan of Rathor” (Sarkar The India of Aurangzib p. 63, the above passage being a translation from Sujān Rāy’s K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲). See also Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i pp. 413–15, Beveridge’s trans. pp. 352–4, where a much fuller account is given.

^ Back to text61. So Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii 6865. The printed text of K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān has the corrupt reading T’hānēsar [!].

^ Back to text62. Dar ān aiyām muḥarrir i aurāq dar rafāqat i M. Murād K̲h̲ān kih wāqiʿah-nigārī u sawāniḥ-nigārī i tamām ṣūbah i Aḥmadābād u faujdāri i sarkār i T’hāsrah u Gōdrah dās̲h̲tah būd (M. al-l. ii p. 567 = E. & D. vii p. 388).

^ Back to text63. M. al-l. iii p. 17714 seq. (Chunānc̲h̲ih dar awāk̲h̲ir i ʿahd i ḥaḍrat i K̲h̲uld-Makān [i.e. Aurangzēb] kih ḥaqīqat i ān-hā ba-ʿarḍ rasīd c̲h̲and nafar pīs̲h̲wā-yi ān-hā rā ḥukm i ḥabs farmūdah būdand. Dar ʿamal i ṣūbah i Ibrāhīm K̲h̲ān muqtadā-yi ān jamāʿah rā bah muḥarrir i aurāq dar Aḥmadābād sarūkār i k̲h̲alāṣī i ān-hā uftād. u kutub i fiqh i ān-hā rā barā-yi taḥqīq i lafẓ i Ismāʿīlīyah u C̲h̲irāg̲h̲-kus̲h̲ ba-dast āwardah muṭālaʿah numūd). Ibrāhīm K̲h̲ān was appointed Governor of Ahmadābād in succession to Prince M. Aʿzam (in the last year of Aurangzēb’s reign according to K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān ii 54115, but the Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i 2997 places this event in the 46th year, at least according to the printed text). He was superseded by G̲h̲āzī al-Dīn K̲h̲ān Fīrōz-Jang not long after Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s accession (see M. al-l. iip. 61613, Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ ii p. 8783, Beveridge’s trans. p. 591). It is not clear whether the Ismāʿīlī leader referred to here is identical with Mullā Jīwan, an Ismāʿīlī mujtahid, whom K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān met on one occasion at Aḥmadābād and questioned concerning the Ismāʿīlīs (M. al-l. i p. 593).

^ Back to text64. See Ency. Isl. under Bahādur S̲h̲āh. K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān places this battle in the year 1119.

^ Back to text65. Kātib i ḥurūf dar awāʾil i ʿahd i K̲h̲uld-Manzil S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam Bahādur dar ān-jā taʿalluqah i mālī u qalʿadārī dās̲h̲t.

^ Back to text66. Musawwid i aurāq dar ān aiyām tāzah wārid i Aḥmadābād gardīdah būd (M. al-l. ii p. 66412). We have seen that he was in Aḥmadābād in the governorship of Ibrāhīm K̲h̲ān.

^ Back to text67. u muḥarrir i sawāniḥ rā diwān u mihmāndār az ṭaraf i k̲h̲wud sāk̲h̲tah ba-ābrū-yi tamām rawānah numūd (M. al-l. ii p. 66623–): muḥarrir i sawāniḥ rā G̲h̲āzī al-Dīn K̲h̲ān Bahādur Fīrōz-Jang az ṭaraf i k̲h̲wud mihmāndār u diwān i s̲h̲āh-zādah muqarrar numūdah ham-rāh dādah būdand (M. al-l. ii p. 678–9). Cf. Maʾat̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii p. 680 (K̲h̲wāfī K̲h̲ān ṣāḥib i tārīk̲h̲ i Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb kih bā muḥarrir i īn aurāq maḥabbat i tamām dās̲h̲t u ittifāqan K̲h̲ān i Fīrōz-Jang az Aḥmadābād az ṭaraf i k̲h̲wud ū-rā mihmāndār i s̲h̲āh-zādah muqarrar kardah būd u s̲h̲āh-zādah dar rāh kār-hā-yi diwānī i k̲h̲wud rā ba-ū farmūdah.

^ Back to text68. A great-grandson (nabīrah) of the Persian Prime Minister K̲h̲alīfah Sulṭān (K̲h̲alīfah S. ʿAlī b. Mīr Rafīʿ al-Dīn. See Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii pp. 109–10) and at three removes (ba-sih wāsiṭah) a nawāsah (daughter’s child) of S̲h̲āh ʿAbbās. For a biography of this person see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii pp. 677–83.

^ Back to text69. Dar aiyāmī kih in ʿājiz rā ba-kamāl i nā-dānī az rāh i luṭf u qadr-dānī dīwānī i sarkār i k̲h̲wud dar ṣūbah-dārī i Dakan muqarrar numūdah būd (M. al-l. ii p. 74814–15).

^ Back to text70. Az ān-jumlah muḥarrir i sawāniḥ kih baʿd i kasālah u taṣdīʿ i sih sāl kih az Dakan ba-ḥuḍūr raftah dar rikāb būdah ba-k̲h̲idmat i amānat u faujdārī i maḥāll i Muṣṭafā-ābād, kih ba-k̲h̲āliṣah i pāds̲h̲āhī taʿalluq dās̲h̲t, maʾmūr gardīdah (M. al-l. ii p. 798 3–6). Muṣṭafā-ābād is evidently “Muṣṭafā-ābād ʿurf c̲h̲ōprah” (M. al-l. i p. 71713, ii p. 274 ult.), which was in K̲h̲āndēs̲h̲.

^ Back to text71. u maʿzūlān rā mag̲h̲ḍūb numūdah muḥtāj ba-nān i s̲h̲ab gardāndah bā-k̲h̲wud girift. Az ān-jumlah muḥarrir i sawāniḥ … (M. al-l. ii p. 7982–3). Cf. M. al-l. ii p. 8115–6, where K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān mentions that he watched the flight of the Marāthā troops [at Delhi].

^ Back to text72. Al-ḥamdu li-llāh kih musawwid i aurāq … hargiz rāḍī ba-mardum-āzārī kih dar zabān-hā ba-ẓulm munjarr gardad na-gardīdah. K̲h̲udā rā, … ba-ʿaẓamat yād numūdah iqrār mī numāyad kih tā san [sic] i sī u du-yi ʿĀlamgīr dar tabaʿīyat i nafs i kāfir-kīs̲h̲ k̲h̲wud rā, muʿāf na-mī dās̲h̲t u māl i ḥadrat i K̲h̲uld-Makān kih dar ṣūbajāt i Dakan k̲h̲wān i yag̲h̲mā, būd bisyār k̲h̲wurdah s̲h̲udah ammā, dar-ān aiyām ham iḥtiyāṭ i tamām dās̲h̲t kih kār ba-ān-jā na-rasad kih dar zabān-hā guft-gūy ba-ẓulm munjarr gardad. Baʿdahu ba-sabab i rūy dādan i baʿḍī muqaddamāt kih ba-taḥrīr i tafṣīl i ān pardāk̲h̲tan pardah i ru-siyāhī i k̲h̲wud rā, az miyan bar-dās̲h̲tan ast ba-K̲h̲udāy i k̲h̲wud ʿahd numūdah u tā maqdūr ba-dil u jān kūs̲h̲īdah kih dar akl u taṣarruf u talaf numūdan i māl i Musulmānān tabaʿīyat i nafs i s̲h̲ūm na-numūdah ammā har c̲h̲and k̲h̲wāst kih az bad-nāmī i ẓāhirī i qabūl i ʿummālī kih sagbānī u k̲h̲ūk-c̲h̲arāʾī ba-marātib bihtar az-ān-ast najāt yābad u dast u pāy bisyār zad kih ba-diyānat-dārī kūs̲h̲īdah k̲h̲wud rā dar zabān-hā az bad-nāmī i akhdh u jarr i ʿummāl i bad-maʾāl maḥfūẓ dārad c̲h̲ūn īn faiḍ maḥḍ ba-faḍl i Ilāhī wā-bastah ast muyassar na-y-āmad.

^ Back to text73. Ṣamṣām al-Daulah was born in 1111/1700.

^ Back to text74. See Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii p. 680 (K̲h̲wāfī K̲h̲ān ṣāḥib i tārīk̲h̲ i Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb kih bā muḥarrir i īn aurāq maḥabbat i tamām dās̲h̲t).

^ Back to text75. See M. al-l. iii p. 412 (Az ān-kih muḥarrir i aurāq dar k̲h̲idmat i M. Murād K̲h̲ān kih birādar i kalān i Mīrzā Muḥammad mī bās̲h̲ad az muddat i madīd rafāqat i taʿaiyunātī bah ʿaqīdat u bandagī u irādat i k̲h̲āṣṣ dās̲h̲t u M. Murād K̲h̲ān rā kih dar ān aiyām muk̲h̲āṭab bah Saʿādat K̲h̲ān numūdah būdand muddat i dū sih sāl ḥijābat i Ḥaidarābād dās̲h̲t u īn ʿājiz rā ziyādah az farzandān i k̲h̲wud mī k̲h̲wāst …) Cf. M. al-l. ii p. 290 = E. & D. vii p. 313 (Ammā ān-chih az zabān i rāwiyān i t̲h̲iqah masmūʿ gardīdah u ba-sabab i taʿaiyunāt būdan i birādarī i g̲h̲ufrān-panāh M. Murād K̲h̲ān kih az tarbiyat-yāftahā-yi ḥuḍūr būd u bar aqwāl i ū iʿtimād i kullī dās̲h̲t u k̲h̲wud dar safar i Rām-darrah u ḥijābat i Ḥaidarābād mus̲h̲āhadah numūdah baʿd i taḥqīq i ik̲h̲tilāf i aqwāl az bīs̲h̲ u kam ba-zabān i qalam mī dihad. M. Murād K̲h̲ān was the son of Murs̲h̲id-Qulī K̲h̲ān M. Ḥusain and was not a brother of K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān (as Dowson’s translation suggests). For a biography of him see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii pp. 682–92.

^ Back to text76. This statement must be regarded as untruthful, if Prof. Sri Ram Sharma is correct in his belief (published in the jras. 1936 pp. 279–83) that K̲h̲āfi K̲h̲ān’s account of Aurangzēb’s reign is largely borrowed from a history of that reign “by Abū ’l-Faḍl Maʿmūrī”. See pp. 466 infra.

^ Back to text77. li-g̲h̲āyat i s̲h̲urūʿ i sanah i c̲h̲ahārdah bah taḥrīr i mujmalī az sawāniḥ i ʿahd i Muḥammad S̲h̲āh Bāds̲h̲āh pardāk̲h̲tah … (M. al-l. ii p. 978). According to Nassau Lees (jras. 1868 p. 468) the mss. differ considerably. “… no two copies that I have met with—and I have compared five apparently very good mss.—are exactly alike, while some present such dissimilarities as almost to warrant the supposition that they are distinct works, some passages being quite accurate, and others again entirely dissimilar.”

^ Back to text78. In a preamble preserved in the b.m. ms. Or. 176 (the latter part of vol. ii: see Rieu i 234b) the author says that vol. i had been completed in the rough but not yet in a fair copy. The only recorded manuscript of this volume is the fragment dealing with the Lōdīs which Rieu has described (i p. 235a).

^ Back to text79. According to the preamble already referred to the author spent sixteen or seventeen years of his life on the composition of his work, especially on the last forty years of Aurangzēb’s reign. Of that period, an account of that sovereign’s prohibition, he had found no previous record except Mustaʿidd K̲h̲ān’s account of the Deccan conquests. According to Prof. Sri Ram Sharma, however, the account of Aurangzēb’s reign is copied almost word for word from a history of that reign “by Abū ’l-Faḍl Maʿmūrī” (see jras. 1936 pp. 279–83 and pp. 466 infra).

^ Back to text80. At the beginning of vol. ii the year 1133/1720–1 (in the printed text erroneously ah 1130) is referred to as the date of composition (see Rieu i 233a ult.).

^ Back to text81. The author did not intend to confine himself to the Deccan, as is clear from the words “s̲h̲urūʿ az s̲h̲as̲h̲ ṣūbah i Dakan numūdah” (iii p. 29), but only Deccan history is contained in such of the few recorded mss. of this volume as have been adequately described.

^ Back to text82. This printed edition ignores the existence of vol. i and, dividing vol. ii into two parts (ḥiṣṣah), calls them part i and part ii of the Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb.

^ Back to text83. “Altogether a useful compilation, as it is not copied verbatim from known authors, and in the latter part of it the author writes of many matters which came under his own observation or those of his friends” (Elliot and Dowson viii p. 41).

^ Back to text84. This name has been variously written by different cataloguers—Chatarman (Rieu and others), Ćáturman (Ethé in the Bodleian catalogue, where the long vowel in the first syllable is evidently a slip or a misprint), Chaturman (Edinburgh catalogue (Ethé?)), Chhatar Mān [sic] (Edwards, following Sarkar in respect of the (incorrect) long vowel in the last syllable).

^ Back to text85. = Kāyast’h, the name of the writer caste among the Hindus.

^ Back to text86. The name of a subdivision of the Kāyast’h caste.

^ Back to text87. Quoted in the Bodleian catalogue as follows: Zi-dil guftam bi-gū tārīk̲h̲ raus̲h̲an * Nidā āmad C̲h̲aturman nīk guls̲h̲an Buwad nām i tu dar tārīk̲h̲ dāk̲h̲il * Ham az majmūʿah s̲h̲ud tārīk̲h̲ ḥāsīl.

^ Back to text88. This copy apparently lacks the editor’s preface, though it contains his colophon.

^ Back to text89. So Rieu.

^ Back to text90. Rieu writes Khālūjī Bhonslā, but presumably Jānōjī, the second Mahārājah of Nāgpūr (1749–72), is meant.

^ Back to text91. So Elliot.

^ Back to text92. This Nawwāb Maḥabbat K̲h̲ān is to be distinguished from Ḥāfiẓ Raḥmat K̲h̲ān’s eldest son Nawwāb Maḥabbat K̲h̲ān “Maḥabbat”, who died in 1223/1808 and is the author of an Urdu dīwān (see i.o. Catalogue of Hindustani mss. nos. 161–2) and a Pushtu grammar and vocabulary written in Persian and entitled Riyāḍ al-maḥabbat (see Ethé 2452–4).

^ Back to text93. “In too abridged a form to be much use, except towards the end, where the author expands the narrative, giving an unusually minute account of the Durrānī invasions, and some of the transactions of Sháh ’Álam’s reign” (Elliot and Dowson viii 376–7). In earlier reigns also he gives special attention to Afghan exploits.

^ Back to text94. See Buckland Dictionary of Indian biography p. 215 and the histories of India dealing with the British period.

^ Back to text95. “It is of no value, at least in the passages which I have examined” (Elliot and Dowson viii p. 300).

^ Back to text96. Nawwāb D̲h̲ū ’l-Faqār al-DauIah Mīrzā Najaf K̲h̲ān, a Persian who rose to be Ṣūbah-dār of Allahabad and subsequently Wakīl i Muṭlaq to S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam. died in 1196/1782.

^ Back to text97. Amēṭ’hī is a small place in the Sulṭānpūr District of Oudh.

^ Back to text98. Kahmān Singh, whom Rehatsek gives as the author, was presumably the copyist and ah 1240 the date of transcription not, as Rehatsek supposed, the date of completion by the author.

^ Back to text99. I.e. Muʾtaman al-Daulah M. Isḥāq K̲h̲ān, who was Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī i c̲h̲ahārum in the reigns of M. S̲h̲āh and Aḥmad S̲h̲āh and who died in 1163/1750. A sister of his was married to S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah of Oudh. See Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii pp. 774–6.

^ Back to text100. Eighty years according to his own statement, but this seems to be only a rough approximation, since he was in his twentieth year in 1143/1730–1, when his grandfather, Dīwān Mukund Rāy, died at Meerut (see Rieu i p. 912a).

^ Back to text101. The Yugas are the four ages into which the Hindus divide the history of the world. The first three are legendary, the fourth, the Kalī Yuga, is that now in progress.

^ Back to text102. In the Ḥaqīqat-hā-yi Ḥindustān, written in 1204/1789–00, Lac̲h̲hmī Narāyan describes his father as Dīwān. According to the Natāʾij al-afkār, as quoted by Rieu (iii 1083a), Mansā-Rām held for nearly forty years “the office of Ṣadr of the six Ṣūbahs of the Deccan”. It is apparently on the same authority that Rieu says in another place (i p. 327a) that he “filled for nearly forty years the office of Pīshkār of the Deccan”.

^ Back to text103. Niẓām-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān was Niẓām from ah 1175/1761 to ah 1218/1803.

^ Back to text104. The Natāʾij al-afkār (as quoted by Rieu iii 1083a) says merely that he died in the early part of the 13th century.

^ Back to text105. According to T. Grahame Bailey (b.s.o.s. v/4 (1930) p. 927) he used the Tak̲h̲alluṣ “S̲h̲afīq” in his Persian and “Ṣāḥib” in his Rēk̲h̲tah (i.e. Urdu) poetry.

^ Back to text106. Hindŭstān, not Hindūstān, which would give the wrong date.

^ Back to text107. For William Kirkpatrick, who translated a selection of Ṭīpū’s letters, see Buckland’s Dictionary of Indian biography.

^ Back to text108. Elliot writes Másítá, but see Rieu iii 1052a and Kullīyāt i G̲h̲ālib, Lucknow 1924–5, p. 437–8.

^ Back to text109. This preface occurs in i.o. 4019 but not in i.o. 3975.

^ Back to text110. A. Duncan died at sea in 1210/1795–6. He was a brother of the better known Jonathan Duncan, Resident and Superintendent at Benares 1788, Governor of Bombay 1795–1811 (see Buckland’s Dictionary of Indian biography).

^ Back to text111. These statements concerning the aṣlī waṭan and the appointment at G̲h̲āzīpūr seem to have been accidentally transferred from the father to the son.

^ Back to text112. The Qāmūs al-mas̲h̲āhīr writes Ajīt.

^ Back to text113. It may be doubted whether this is the correct technical term. According to Elliot and Dowson “He seems to have been employed by the British Government in the Revenue Department”.

^ Back to text114. In view of the similarity of names and the connexion with Benares and ʿAlīgaṛh it seems likely that he is the same person as “Khúshgú [sic], Munshiy. Ammar [sic] Singh Banársy [sic]”, of whom there is a notice in the Riyāḍ al-wifāq (Sprenger p. 167) as well as in Beale’s Oriental biographical dictionary, p. 70, and the Qāmūs al-mas̲h̲āhīr (the Riyāḍ al-wifāq being apparently the original source). “Khúshgú, Munshiy Ammar Singh Banársy held a government appointment in the Coel [i.e. Kōl = ʿAlīgaṛh] district. He compiled a short history of Akbar’s palace and of the Táj of Agra and put the Baháre Dánish into verse and called it Tarjamah i Bahār i dānis̲h̲”… [Sprenger p. 167, where the last title is printed in the Arabic character].

^ Back to text115. Razmistān is the title given to the work in the author’s prose dībāc̲h̲ah fin i.o. 4019), but Rieu in describing extracts evidently from the same work calls it Bazm i k̲h̲ayāl. The extracts described by Rieu seem to include the dībāc̲h̲ah (since it is in the dībāc̲h̲ah that the author says that he was born at G̲h̲āzīpūr, a fact mentioned by Rieu), and it seems possible that the author changed the title. On the title-page of i.o. 3975 it is called S̲h̲āh-nāmah i Hind.

^ Back to text116. In order to console himself for the death of his patron, A. Duncan, the author read ancient and modern histories and then conceived the idea of telling in verse the story of some events in the ancient and modern history of India. He wrote an account of the war of Lord Cornwallis against Ṭīpū Sultān, prefixed to it some account of the sulṭāns of Hindūstān and called the poem Razmistān.

^ Back to text117. An English note on a fly-leaf ascribes to the work the general title of Sirāj al-tawārīk̲h̲ (cf. § 651 supra), but, according to Ethé, no such title is mentioned in the Persian text.

^ Back to text118. He was the author of dīwāns both in Persian and Urdu. The former will be mentioned in the section of this book devoted to Poetry. He died on 19 April 1845 (see Garcin de Tassy iii 90–92, Buckland Dictionary of Indian biography, and the authorities mentioned on p. 196, n. 208, supra).

^ Back to text119. This is the English title prefixed to the name of a knight. Sir Saiyid was created a Knight Commander of the Order of the Star of India in 1882.

^ Back to text120. An old transliteration “Syed” still survives in India side by side with other transliterations.

^ Back to text121. See Qāmūs al-mas̲h̲āhīr i pp. 236–7.

^ Back to text122. “A subordinate judge (lower than ṣadr-aʿlā;—the office has been abolished)” (Platts). Sudder Ameen was the old spelling.

^ Back to text123. The dates given by the different authorities are not in all cases quite the same.

^ Back to text124. The vernacular equivalent seems to be Ṣadr Aʿlā or Ṣadr al-Ṣudūr.

^ Back to text125. An interesting account of the campaign of vituperation, menace and slander directed against him will be found in “Ḥālī’s” Ḥayāt i jāwīd, pt. ii pp. 266–312. A series of fatwās denouncing him is given at the end of Maulawī Imdād al-ʿAlī’s Imdād al-āfāq, Cawnpore 1873*.

^ Back to text126. It may be mentioned in this connexion that at the time of the Mutiny S. Aḥmad showed much courage and resource in saving the lives of Europeans and that he defied the prejudice against eating with Christians and defended the practice in his Risālah i ṭaʿām i ahl i kitāb published in 1285/1868–9.

^ Back to text127. For a list of these works see “Ḥālī’s” Ḥayāt i jāwīd, pt. 2, appendix 2.

^ Back to text128. According to the b.m. catalogue only pts. i and ii were published.

^ Back to text129. See Ḥayāt i jāwīd, pt. 2, appendix 2, p. 3, where 1296–1309 is given as the date of the publication of the Tafsīr.

^ Back to text130. It is not necessarily to be assumed that these works were ever published in the original Urdu.

^ Back to text131. Only one volume seems to have been published. The Urdu title seems to have been K̲h̲uṭabāt i Aḥmadīyah: see S.M. ʿAbd Allāh’s article in the Oriental College Magazine vol. xiii no. 2 p. 15, where no date or place of publication is mentioned and where it is not stated whether the work appeared in Urdu as well as in English.

^ Back to text132. A reply to W.W. Hunter’s The Indian Musalmans: are they bound in conscience to rebel against the Queen? (London 1871*).

^ Back to text133. See Buckland’s Dictionary of Indian biography.

^ Back to text134. Ṭabāṭabā, not Ṭabāṭabā’ī, seems to be the form used by the author himself.

^ Back to text135. It “includes a full and minute account of the period of dissolution of the Moghul empire” and “is chiefly based, for the last sixty years, on oral information received by the author from his father and uncle, and on his personal recollections. The copious details it contains on the rise, progress, and decline of the native states of India, down to the latest period, are nowhere else to be found in a connected form” (Rieu).

^ Back to text136. The Āṣafīyah catalogue gives the author as Muḥtas̲h̲am al-Daulah ʿAbd al-G̲h̲afūr K̲h̲ān, but this seems to be an error.

^ Back to text137. For his Dīwān i g̲h̲azalīyāt (Bombay 1310) and his Dīwān i qaṣaʾid (Bombay 1310 likewise) see Harrassowitz’s Bücher-Katalog 430 (1931) nos. 499 and 500 and Āṣafīyah i p. 730 no. 133.

^ Back to text138. Niẓām of Ḥaidarābād, born 1866, succeeded 1869, invested with full powers 4 Feb. 1884, died 1911.

^ Back to text139. This is stated on the unnumbered leaf prefixed to the author’s portrait in the 1309 edition.

^ Back to text140. The fifth volume is consequently a glossary.

^ Back to text141. According to a statement on the leaf prefixed to the author’s portrait the work was published by Messrs. Jehangier B. Marzban & Co., Bombay. In the Bombay quarterly catalogue for the 1st quarter of 1893 the Dattaprasad Press, Bombay, is given as the place of printing. According to the title-page the work was printed dar c̲h̲āp-k̲h̲ānah i k̲h̲ānagī i Nawwāb i nāmah-nigār u ba-nigarānī i k̲h̲wudas̲h̲ān.

^ Back to text142. This is the date of publication by Messrs. J.B. Marzban according to the statement mentioned in the previous note.

^ Back to text143. The Āṣafīyah catalogue gives no particulars which would show whether this work deals with the history of India in general or with a special period.

^ Back to text144. Apparently different from the Kanz al-maḥfūẓ of which the second volume, a history of India to 1150/1737–8, is described in Elliot and Dowson viii pp. 37–9 (the only ms. known to Elliot belonged to Saʿīd al-Dīn Aḥmad K̲h̲ān of Murādābād and lacked the first volume. Cf. Rieu iii 1050b ix).

^ Back to text145. Possibly this and no. 6 may be copies, or parts, of “‘Iṣāmī’s” Futūḥ al-salāṭīn (see p. 340 supra).

Cite this page
“12.1 History of India: General”, in: Storey Online, Charles Ambrose Storey. Consulted online on 02 June 2023 <>
First published online: 2021

▲   Back to top   ▲