Storey Online

12.3.6 History of India: The Tīmūrids: S̲h̲āh-Jahān
(6,046 words)

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

previous chapter: 12.3.5 Jahāngīr

§ 722. The author of the Aḥwāl i s̲h̲āh-zādagī i S̲h̲āh-Jahān does not mention his name in the text, but “endorsements” (apparently on all the three recorded mss.) ascribe the work to Muʿtamad K̲h̲ān. The person intended is doubtless the author of the Iqbāl-nāmah i Jahāngīrī (see p. 440 supra), but the correctness of the ascription is doubted by Rieu on the ground that, whereas in the Iqbāl-nāmah Muʿtamad K̲h̲ān refers to himself by such phrases as “the present writer”, the author of the Aḥwāl i s̲h̲āh-zādagī i S̲h̲āh-Jahān speaks of Muʿtamad K̲h̲ān by name in the corresponding passages.

(Aḥwāl i S̲h̲āh-zādagī i S̲h̲āh-Jahān), an account of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s life until his accession in 1037/1628: Bānkīpūr vii 565 (1) (44th year of ʿĀlamgīr), Rieu Suppt. 76 ii (18th cent.), Būhār 74 i (ah 1235/1819–20).

§ 723. Mīrzā M. Jalāl [al-Dīn], or Jalālā, Ṭabāṭabāʾī Zawārī1 Iṣfahānī went to India in 1044/1634–5, and, having been appointed one of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s court chroniclers, wrote an account of five2 years of the reign, but owing to the envy of rivals he had to discontinue this work. In 1062/1652, according to his own statement, he began to translate from the Arabic for Prince Murād-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ the work known as Tauqīʿāt i Kisrawī, or, chronogrammatically, Dastūr-nāmah i Kisrawī, a collection of answers alleged to have been given by K̲h̲usrau Anūs̲h̲irwān to ministers of his who questioned him concerning matters of administration or other subjects [Arabic text unknown (?)]. mss. of Persian translation: Bodleian 1470, Browne Suppt. 335–7, 488. Editions: K̲h̲udāʾī Press [Lucknow] 1261/1845*, Nawal Kis̲h̲ōr [Lucknow] 1287/1870*, Nawal Kis̲h̲ōr [Cawnpore] 1874*, Cawnpore 1886°, Lucknow 1892°* (The Wisdom of Naushirwan “the Just” … commonly called Tauqiyat i Kisrawiya. With transliteration and English translation by W. Young). According to the Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī he died some years (c̲h̲and sāl) before the composition of that work (which was begun in 1083/1672–3, but added to in 1089/1678–9 and 1092/1681). He was regarded as the master of a new style of Persian composition.3 For collections of letters and other pieces by him see Rieu iii 933a, Āṣafīyah i p. 132 no. 20, and Lindesiana p. 161 no. 425.

(Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah or S̲h̲āh-Jahān-nāmah), a prolix account of the 5th–8th solar years of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign (i.e. 28 S̲h̲aʿbān 1041/20 March 1632 to 11 S̲h̲awwāl 1045/19 March 1636): Āṣafīyah i p. 244 no. 359 (ah 1187/1773–4), Lindesiana p. 161 no. 410 (circ. ad 1800), Rieu iii 933a (ah 1216/1801), 1035b (a notice of the work with extracts. Circ. ad 1850), 1048b (a notice of the work), i.o. D.P. 684 (early 19th cent. This is the ms. referred to by W.N. Lees in jras. 1868 p. 463).
(S̲h̲as̲h̲ fatḥ i Kāngrah), six stylistically different accounts of the expedition sent by S̲h̲āh-Jahān, when governor of Gujrāt, and commanded by Rājah Bikramājīt, against the rebel Sūraj-Mal in Jahāngīr’s 13th year ah 1027/1618 and the capture of the fort of Kāngrah (in the Panjāb below the Himālayas): Lindesiana p. 161 no. 879 (circ. ad 1750), Bānkīpūr Suppt. ii 2198 (ah 1195/1781), i.o. D.P. 498 foll. 402–29 (24th year of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam, i.e. 1196/1782), d.p. 686 A (ah 1240/1824–5), 686 B, Rieu i 258a (ad 1829–30), iii 932b (19th cent.), 932b (19th cent.), 933a (circ. ad 1850), Ivanow Curzon 29 (ah 1257/1841), Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (see Oriental College Magazine, vol. ii, no. 4 (Lahore, August 1926), p. 52).

Descriptions and partial translations: (1) Elliot and Dowson History of India vi pp. 517–31 (the whole of the first account is translated and the beginnings of the other five), (2) The Zafarnāma-i-Kāngṛā, or an account of the conquest of Kāngṛā during the reign of Jahāngīr. By Raza Husain (in the Journal of the United Provinces Historical Society, vol. ii (1919) pp. 56–62).

[ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ, near the end; Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī i pp. 102–3; Rieu i 258a.]

§ 724. Mīrzā M. Amīn b. Abī ’l-Ḥusain Qazwīnī, usually called Amīnā i Qazwīnī, a Persian by birth, entered the service of S̲h̲āh-Jahān as a muns̲h̲ī in the fifth year of his reign, and in the eighth year (ah 1045/1635–6) was appointed Historiographer with orders to prepare a history of the first ten years of the reign. According to the Mirʾāt al-ʿālam (Rieu i, 125b, fol. 462b) he was an eminent calligraphist, but he does not seem to be mentioned in the Tad̲h̲kirah i k̲h̲wus̲h̲-nawīsān of G̲h̲ulām-Muḥammad Dihlawī.

Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah, a history of the first ten years of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign, with a muqaddimah on his life before accession and a k̲h̲ātimah on the contemporary s̲h̲aik̲h̲s, scholars, physicians and poets: Edinburgh 409 (autograph ?), Rieu i 258b (17th cent.), 259b (18th cent. 9 good Pictures), 259b (ah 1251/1835), iii 933b (ah 1240/1824), 935 (extracts only), r.a.s. P. 126 = Morley 122 (ah 1173/1759), Bānkīpūr vii 566 (1) (18th cent. Good Pictures), Būhār 69 (ah 1228/1813), i.o. D.P. 683 (ah 1248/1832–3), Ivanow 151 (ah 1258/1842), Bodleian 236 (? ?), Windsor Castle (see Journal of Indian Art, vol. v (London 1894), plate 69), possibly also Blochet i 590 (18th cent.).

[Amal i Ṣāliḥ (quoted Bānkīpūr vii p. 72).]

§ 725. Muḥammad-Qulī “Salīm” Ṭihrānī was for a time attached to Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh, Governor of Lāhijān, but subsequently went to India and found a patron in Islām K̲h̲ān Mas̲h̲hadī.4 He died in Kas̲h̲mīr in 1057/1647. (For further information see the section Poetry.)

(Jang i Islām K̲h̲ān5), a mat̲h̲nawī on the victories of Islām K̲h̲ān in Kūc̲h̲ Hājō and Assam:6 Ivanow 748 (6) (early 18th cent.), 749 (18th cent.), 750 (18th cent.), Bānkipūr iii 311 fol. 21b (described as “A Masnawî in praise of Spring”. 18th cent.), Rieu iii 1032a (circ. ad 1850), and doubtless in other mss. of the Dīwān (for which see the section Poetry).

[Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī; Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū no. 731; Haft āsmān pp. 144–5; Bānkīpūr iii pp. 88–9 and the authorities cited there. See also the section Poetry.]

§ 726. M. Ṣādiq Dihlawī is probably identical with M. Ṣādiq Kas̲h̲mīrī Hamadānī, the author of the Ṭabaqāt i S̲h̲āh-Jahānī (written in 1046/1636–7) and the Kalimāt al-ṣādiqīn (completed in 1023/1614. See Bānkīpūr viii no. 671).

Āt̲h̲ār i S̲h̲āh-Jahānī or Ak̲h̲bār i Jahāngīrī, dedicated to S̲h̲āh-Jahān, and divided into a muqaddimah (on kingship), a maṭlaʿ (on S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s ancestors), a maqṣad (anecdotes of prophets, caliphs and kings), and a k̲h̲ātimah (probably on S̲h̲āh-Jahān): Bānkīpūr vii 564 (lacking k̲h̲ātimah. 18th century), Browne Suppt. 23 (King’s).

§ 727. Ḥājjī M. Jān7Qudsi” Mas̲h̲hadī was born at Mas̲h̲had. Coming to India in 1041/1631 he was patronised by ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān Fīrōz-Jang and in 1042/1632 presented by him to S̲h̲āh-Jahān. He received liberal rewards from S̲h̲āh-Jahān, but did not become Malik al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ,8 having been forestalled by “Kalīm”, who received the title before “Qudsī’s” arrival at S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s court. He died ah 1056/16469 at Lahore,10 and was buried at Mas̲h̲had. According to M. Amīn Qazwīnī11 (for whom see p. 445 supra), “Qudsī” and “Kalīm” (for whom see p. 449 infra) were simultaneously (in 1047/1637–8) engaged in composing poetical records of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign.

Ẓafar-nāmah i S̲h̲āh-Jahānī, an uncompleted mat̲h̲nawī on the life of S̲h̲āh-Jahān: Browne 293 (extract only. Bears seal of 1071/1660–1), Rieu ii 685 (“confused series of detached fragments.” 17th cent.), iii 1001b (portion only. Circ. ad 1850), 1048b (“Iqbāl-nāmah.” Extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Suppt. 323 (ah 1071/1661), Būhār 391 (17th cent.), Bodleian 1102 (5) (ah 1114/1703), 1106 (defective. 17th cent.), Bānkīpūr iii 308 (1) (18th cent. Full analysis), Berlin 940 (1) (n.d.), Ethé 1552 (2) (n.d.), 1553 (2) (detached fragments. Bears a seal of 1155/1742–3), 1554 (extracts only. ah 1093/1682), Ivanow 745 (extracts only).

[Ṭabaqāt i S̲h̲āh-Jahānī; ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah i pt. 1, pp. 444, 530, pt. 2, pp. 19, 21, 50, 80, 142, 351–3; ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ, near the end; Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī (Sprenger p. 90); Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl pp. 85–8 (Bodleian 374 no. 69. Wrong date given here by a mistake of Ethé’s, see Bānkīpūr viii p. 76); Kalimāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 113); Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 128); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bodleian 376) no. 728; Yad i baiḍāʾ; Wāqiʿāt i Kas̲h̲mīr; Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis; Sarw i āzād; K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah (Bodleian 381) no. 96; Ātas̲h̲-kadah (Bodleian 384) no. 217; K̲h̲ulāṣat al-kalām (Bānkīpūr viii 705, no. 37); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār (Bodleian 391) no. 214; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib (Bodleian 395) no. 2067; Nis̲h̲tar i ʿis̲h̲q; Natāʾij al-afkār; Sprenger p. 536; Haft āsmān 143–4; Rieu ii 684; Ethé 1552; Ency. Isl. under Ḳudsī; Portraits in E.B. Havell Indian sculpture and painting, 2nd ed., plate Iviii, and Būhār 391.]

§ 728. Mīr M. Yaḥyā “Yaḥyā” or “Kās̲h̲ī”12 (perhaps both) Kās̲h̲ī, whose father had migrated from S̲h̲īrāz to Kās̲h̲ān,13 went to India in the reign of S̲h̲āh-Jahān and wrote panegyrics on him and his eldest son Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh. He was appointed Imperial Librarian (Kitāb-dār), and commanded to write in verse a record of the reign, but he afterwards lost the royal favour and discontinued the poem. He died in 1064/1653.14 His dīwān was collected after his death by his friend “Ās̲h̲nā” (see p. 453 infra). A copy is preserved at Bānkīpūr (iii no. 331).

Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah, a metrical history of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign: Rieu iii 1001b (a fragment of 45 foll, consisting of panegyrics on S̲h̲āh-Jahān and florid descriptions of some of his buildings. ah 1267/1851).

[ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah ii 758–9; Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī (Sprenger p. 91); Kalimāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 115); Yad i baiḍāʾ; Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār no. 742; Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis; K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah (Bodleian 381 no. 134); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-kalām (Bānkīpūr viii 705 no. 58, Bodl. 390 no. 78); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār (Bodl. 391 no. 468); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib (Bodl. 395 no. 3101); Haft āsmān pp. 156–8; Bānkīpūr iii pp. 120–2.]

§ 729.

Ḥilyah i S̲h̲āh-Jahān, a mat̲h̲nawī of 25 foll, describing the physical features of S̲h̲āh-Jahān (beg. Ilāhī ba-iqbāl u bā farr u s̲h̲ān): Bānkīpūr iii 325 (20th regnal year [of S̲h̲āh-Jahān probably]).

§ 730. Rāy C̲h̲andar-bhān “Barahman” or “Barhaman” (both of these forms, but not of course “Brahman”, being used in his dīwān), the son of a Brahman named D’haram-Dās, was born at Lahore and was a pupil of the well-known divine ʿAbd al-Ḥakīm Siyālkōṭī (for whom see the i.o. catalogue of Arabic mss., vol. ii no. 1122, Brockelmann i 417 and Sptbd ii pp. 613–14). He became secretary to Afḍal K̲h̲ān (Mullā S̲h̲ukr Allāh S̲h̲īrāzī, who was appointed Mīr-Sāmān in S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s first year, ah 1037/1628, and Dīwān i Kull in the second year, and who died in 1048/1639. See Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i 145–51). After Afḍal K̲h̲ān’s death (but not immediately after, since according to Rieu iii 935b, evidently on the authority of the C̲h̲ār c̲h̲aman, his first introduction to Court took place in Sirhind, when S̲h̲āh-Jahān was preparing for the conquest of Badak̲h̲s̲h̲ān (ah 1055)) he was appointed Wāqiʿah-nawīs i Ḥuḍūr, his duty being to attend S̲h̲āh-Jahān on his journeys and to record the daily occurrences of his court (Rieu i 397b, again apparently on the authority of the C̲h̲ār c̲h̲aman, written shortly after 1057). It must have been later than this that, as K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān relates (i, p. 74010), he entered Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh’s service with the Emperor’s consent. After a time (apparently in 1066/1655–6, the year under which K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān mentions the occurrence) he was taken from Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh and given employment in the Dār al-Ins̲h̲āʾ with the title of Rāy C̲h̲andar-bhān. According to the Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl he retired from employment after the death of Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh15 (in 1069/1659), went to Benares and died there in 1073/1662–3. According to the Mirʾāt jahān-numā (cited Rieu iii 1087a ad 397b) he died in 1068/1657–8.

He was distinguished both as a poet and as a prose writer. For his dīwān see Āṣafīyah i p. 718 no. 453, Bodleian 1123, Brelvi and Dhabhar p. xxv no. 10, Browne Suppt. 517, Ethé 1574–5, Ross and Browne 258 (4), Ivanow 762–3, Ivanow Curzon 740, Lindesiana p. 129 nos. 84 and 640, Rehatsek p. 98 no. 50, Sprenger no. 168. A mystical mat̲h̲nawī of his was published in a Majmūʿah i rasāʾil at Lucknow in 1877°*. An edition of his Muns̲h̲aʾāt or Ins̲h̲ā, letters to S̲h̲āh-Jahān and others, was published at [Lucknow] in 1885°. For mss. see Āṣafīyah i p. 114 no. 60, Bodleian 1385–6, Ethé 2094, ii 3047, Berlin 1070, ʿAlīgaṛh Subḥ. mss. p. 53 no 9, Rieu i 397. A Vēdāntic work, Nāzuk k̲h̲ayālāt, translated by C̲h̲andarbhān from the Ātma-vilāsa ascribed to Shankara Āc̲h̲ārya, was published at Lahore in [1901°]. He also translated from Hindi into Persian Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh’s questions concerning Hindu beliefs and customs and the answers to them (Berlin 1081 (2)).

C̲h̲ār c̲h̲aman i Barahman written soon after 1057/164716 and divided into four c̲h̲amans ((1) descriptions of various festivals at Court with poems recited by the author at them, (2) the daily occupations of S̲h̲āh-Jahān, his capital S̲h̲āhjahānābād etc., (3) the author’s life and some of his letters, (4) moral and religious reflections): Rieu ii 838b (ah 1123/1711), iii 935b (ad 1849), Brelvi and Dhabhar p. 60 no. 8 (1) (ah 1186/1772–3), Ethé 2093 (ah 1193/1779), ii 3047, i.o. 3760 foll. 132–70 ((Qawāʿid al-salṭanat i S̲h̲āh-Jahān), Eton 54 (? Qawāʿid al-salṭanat, finished 1196), Browne Suppt. 376 (n.d. Corpus 94), Madras (Qawāʿid al-salṭanat i S̲h̲āh-Jahān. Author not stated. 2 copies).

Extracts by the author: Guldastah i C̲h̲ār c̲h̲aman i Barahman (beg.: Gauhar-afs̲h̲ānī i saḥāb i qalam): ʿAlīgaṛh Subḥ. mss. p. 53 no. 22 (ah 1146/1733–4), Brelvi and Dhabhar p. 60 no. 8 (2) (ah 1186), Rosen Inst. 23 (3).

Extract with English translation: Kowáyid us Sultanet Shahjehan, or Rules observed during the reign of Shahjehan (in F. Gladwin The Persian Moonshee, Calcutta 1795°, London 1801°*).

[C̲h̲ahār c̲h̲aman i Barahman, C̲̲h̲aman iii; ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ,; Kalimāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 110); Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl pp. 139–40 (Bodleian 374 no. 78); Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 119); Muntak̲h̲ab al-lubāb i 74010; Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār no. 107; Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Gul i raʿnā; Farḥat al-nāẓirīn (passage quoted in Oriental College Magazine, vol. iv no. 4 (Lahore, August 1928) p. 89); Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 404; Tad̲h̲kirah i k̲h̲wus̲h̲-nawīsān 55; Riyāḍ al-afkār (Bānkīpūr Suppt. i p. 51); Sprenger 168; Rieu i 397, ii 838, iii 937, 1087a ad 397; Oriental College Magazine vol. iv no. 4 (Lahore, August 1928) pp. 2–12 (an article by S.M. ʿAbd Allāh).]

§ 731. Mirzā Abū Ṭālib “Kalīm” Hamadānī (by birth) Kās̲h̲ānī (by a period of residence) went to India first in Jahāngīr’s reign. He became S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s favourite poet and received from him the title of Malik al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ. According to M. Amīn Qazwīnī (for whom see p. 445 supra) he and “Qudsī” (for whom see p. 446) were simultaneously (in 1047/1637–8) engaged in composing poetical records of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign. Having been sent to Kas̲h̲mīr to prosecute this task, he died there on 15 D̲h̲ū ’l-Hijjah in the 26th year of the reign, ah 1062/1652.17

An edition of his dīwān (H. K̲h̲. iii p. 304) was published at Cawnpore in 1879°.

Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah, or S̲h̲āh-nāmah or Shāhans̲h̲āh-nāmah or S̲h̲āh-Jahān-nāmah, an uncompleted account of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign in mat̲h̲nawī verse: Sprenger 305 (Mōtī Maḥall), Rawān Kös̲h̲kü 1521 (1) = Tauer 552 (full analysis) (ah 1071 /1660–1), Bānkīpūr iii 316 (ends with Ẓafar K̲h̲ān’s expedition to Tibet in the tenth year of the reign, ah 1046–7/1636–7.18 ah 1109/1697), 317 (ends with same expedition. 17th cent.), Rieu ii 687 (five fragments (210 foll.). 17th cent.), iii 1048b (extracts only), Browne Suppt. 792 (N.d. King’s 253), Ethé 1570 (“two mat̲h̲nawīs” (300 foll.)).

Among the poems included in some copies of the dīwān is

an account of the flight and pursuit of Jhujhār Sing’h in mat̲h̲nawī verse: Rieu ii 686a (17th cent.), 686b (18th cent.), Bānkīpūr iii 314 foll. 147a–159b (19th cent.), Ivanow 754.

[ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah i pt. 2, pp. 353–6; ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ; Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī (Sprenger p. 90); Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl pp. 90–1 (Bodleian 374) no. 71; Kalimāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 113); Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 128); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bodleian 376) no. 747; Yad i baiḍāʾ; Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis; Sarw i āzād; K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah(Bodleian 381) no. 101; Ātas̲h̲-kadah (Bodleian 384) no. 588; K̲h̲ulāṣat al-kalām (Bānkīpūr viii 705, no. 40); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār (Bodleian 391) no. 223; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib (Bodleian 395) no. 2189; Nis̲h̲tar i ʿis̲h̲q; Natāʾij al-afkār; Sprenger p. 453; Majmaʿ al-fuṣaḥāʾ ii p. 28; Rieu ii 687; Ethé 1563; Bānkīpūr iii 314; S̲h̲iblī Nuʿmānī S̲h̲iʿr al-ʿAjam iii pp. 205–230; Browne Lit. Hist. iv 258–63; Ency. Isl. under Kalīm.]

§ 732. In S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign was written

S̲h̲āh-Jahān-nāmah, a metrical history of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign, beginning Sipās u t̲h̲anā Izadī rā sazāst: Aumer 262 (332 foll.).

Rieu (ii p. 687a) identifies this with “Kalīm’s” S̲h̲āh-Jahān-nāmah (see p. 450 supra), but the opening words are different.

§ 733. Ras̲h̲id K̲h̲ān known as (ʿurf) M. Badīʿ (so K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān i 722), or Ras̲h̲īd K̲h̲ān Badīʿ al-Zamān (so Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ ii 8295), or Badīʿ al-Zamān Mahābat-K̲h̲ānī (so Rieu i 264b, probably from the Tad̲h̲kirat al-umarāʾ), accompanied Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh on his campaign against Qandahār in 1063/1653, being then Dīwān to Mahābat K̲h̲ān (? Ras̲h̲īd K̲h̲ān ʿurf M. Badīʿ kih dar-ān muhimm dar k̲h̲idmat i pāds̲h̲āh-zādah ham-rāh i Mahābat K̲h̲ān taʿalluqah i dīwānī dās̲h̲t ba-ṭarīq i waqāʾiʿ rūy-dād i muḥāṣarah mī-nawis̲h̲t u ba-ʿarḍ i pāds̲h̲āh-zādah rasāndah inʿām girift u ān tārīk̲h̲ rā musammā ba-Tārīk̲h̲ i Qandahār sāk̲h̲tah,19 K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān i 722). In the 24th year of Aurangzēb’s reign he became Dīwān i K̲h̲āliṣah (he is called Daftar-dār i K̲h̲āliṣah in the Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ ii 829s in a statement referring to the 35th year). He was Dīwān to S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam when he died at Āgrah ah 1107/1695–6,20 more than eighty years old.

Laṭāʾif al-ak̲h̲bār, or Tārīk̲h̲ i Qandahārī, a detailed account of Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh’s unsuccessful siege of Qandahār in 1063/1653: Ethé 338 (ah 1094/1683 ?), 339 (n.d.), i.o. D.P. 609 (ah 1241/1826), Rieu i 264b (18th cent.), 265a (ah 1217/1802), 265a (ah 1234/1819), iii 1056a (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Suppt. 78 (slightly defective at end. 17th cent.), Bānkīpūr vii 567 (17th cent.), Bodleian 238 (ah 1115/1704?), 239 (ah 1210/1795), Blochet i 593 (19th cent.), 594 (defective at end. Late 18th cent.), Ivanow 155 (18th cent.), 156 (19th cent.), Āṣafīyah i p. 250 no. 583, Vollers 983.

Rough ms. English translation by Major Raverty: i.o. mss. Eur. D. 220.

[Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammadī (Rieu ii 895) fol. 234b; K̲h̲āfī K̲h̲ān i 722 5–7; Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ ii 829 5–7; Tad̲h̲kirat al-umarāʾ; Rieu i 264, iii 1083b, Suppt. p. 54.]

§ 734. S̲h̲āh-Jahān, having heard that ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Lāhaurī was a master of the style of composition exemplified in Abū ’l-Faḍl’s Akbar-nāmah, summoned him from Paṭnah,21 where he was living in retirement, and asked him to write the official record of the reign. Having completed the account of the first two decades, which was revised by the Wazīr Saʿd Allāh K̲h̲ān, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd was compelled by old age to discontinue the work, and the annals of the third decade were written by his pupil and collaborator M. Wārit̲h̲ and revised, after Saʿd Allāh K̲h̲ān’s death (ah 1066/1656), by ʿAlāʾ al-Mulk Tūnī.22 ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd died in 1065/1654–5, and M. Wārit̲h̲ was killed by a mad student on 10 Rabī‘ al-awwal 1091/1680 (the latter fact is recorded in the Maʾāt̲h̲ir i ʿĀlamgīrī. See a translation of the passage in Elliot and Dowson vii p. 121).

Pādshāh-nāmah,23 a history of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign in three daftars each devoted to a period of ten years (the first daftar, “containing nearly the same matter as the Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah of Muḥammad Amīn” (but omitting the full account of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s predecessors and the history of his minority) “differs from it in its wording and its division” (Rieu)): Ivanow 149 (vol. ii. Transcribed by M. Ṣāliḥ al-Kātib (i.e. perhaps “Kas̲h̲fī”, for whom see p. 168 supra). Bears an autograph note by S̲h̲āh-Jahān), Ivanow Curzon 30 (vol. ii, slightly defective. 19th cent.), Rieu i 260 (vols. i–iii. ah 1109/1697), 261a (vol. i. 17th cent.), 261a (vol. i. ah 1124/1712), 261a (vol. ii. ah 1159/1746), iii 934a (extracts from vol. i. Circ. ad 1850), 934a (vol. iii. 17th cent.), 1031a (extracts only. Circ. ad 1844), 1048b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Blochet i 586–7 (vols. i–ii. 17th cent.), 588 (vol. iii. ah 1109/1697), 589 (vol. i. ah 1208/1793), 590 (vol. i. A redaction quite different from 586.24 18th cent.), 591 (vol. ii. 18th cent.), 592 (vols. ii–iii. Late 18th cent.), Ethé 325 (vol. i. N.d.), 326 (vol. i. N.d.), 327 (vol. i. ah 1162/1749), 328–9 (vols. ii–iii. ah 1109/1697–8), 330 (vols. ii–iii, defective), Bānkīpūr vii 565 ii–iii (vols. i–iii. ʿĀlamgīr’s 45th year, i.e. ah 1112/1701), Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (one copy of vols. i and iii written in the 16th and 17th years of M. S̲h̲āh. one of vol. i dated ah 1262/1846, and an old but defective copy of vols. i and ii. See Oriental College Magazine, vol. ii no. 4 (Lahore, August 1926) p. 53), Browne Pers. Cat. 98 (vol. ii. ah 1147/1734 ?), Lindesiana p. 207 no. 928 (circ. ad 1750), Bodleian 232 (vols. i–iii. N.d.), 233 (vol. i. N.d.), 234 (vol. i. N.d.), 235 (vol. i. N.d.), 1967 (vols. i–iii. ah 1197/1783) 1968 (vols. ii–iii. N.d.), r.a.s. P. 127 = Morley 123 (vol. i), P. 128 = Morley 124 (vol. i. ah 1231/1815), Būhār 74 ii (vol. i. ah 1235/1820), 75 (vol. iii. ah 1235/1820), Āṣafīyah i p. 220 no. 221 (vol. ii), no. 525, p. 244 no. 235 (? S̲h̲āh-Jahān-nāmah by ʿAlāʾ al-Mulk Tūnī), iii p. 92 no. 1298 (vols. ii–iii), p. 104 no. 1459 (apparently a fragment of vol. iii dealing with events from 1067 to 1068), Aumer 261, Bombay Fyzee 6 (vol. iii only ?), Mehren 59 (vol. ii), Salemann-Rosen p. 16 no. 142 (vol. iii).

Edition [of vols. i and ii only]: The Bádsháh Námah, by ’Abd Al-Hamíd Láhawrí edited by Mawlawis Kabír Al-Din Ahmad and Abd Al-Rahím. Under the superintendence of Major W.N. Lees …, Calcutta 1866–72°* (Bibliotheca Indica).

Translated extracts: (1) Koch Bihár, Koch Hájo, and Ásám, in the 16th and 17th centuries, according to the Akbarnámah, the Pádisháhnámah, and the Fathiyah i ’Ibríyah. By H. Blochmann (in the jasb. 41 (1872) pp. 49–101), (2) Elliot and Dowson History of India vii pp. 3–72, 121–2, (3) A complete key to the Persian Entrance Course for 1897–1898. By Oude Behari Lal and Jwala Prosada, pt. 1, Allahabad [1896°], [1897°], pp. 80–108.

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India vii pp. 3–5.

[For ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd see Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah, preface; ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ, in the section on prose writers near the end; Elliot and Dowson vii p. 3; Rieu i p. 260.

For M. Wārit̲h̲ see Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah, Daftar iii, preface; Maʾāt̲h̲ir i ʿĀlamgīrī p. 192 (cf. Elliot and Dowson vii p. 121, where the passage is translated); Elliot and Dowson vii p. 121; Rieu i 260.]

§ 735. M. Ṣādiq entitled Ṣādiq K̲h̲ān, apparently a Persian by birth, held at different times in S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign the offices of Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī, Tutor (Atālīq) to Prince S̲h̲āh S̲h̲ujāʿ, S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s second son, Dārōg̲h̲ah of the G̲h̲usl-k̲h̲ānah or private audience chamber and Waqāʾiʿ-nawīs at Āgrah. Having remained faithful to S̲h̲āh-Jahān, he was deprived of the last office by Aurangzēb and summoned to the royal presence in Jumādā ii 1068/1658.

(S̲h̲āh-Jahān-nāmah or Tawārīk̲h̲ i S̲h̲āh-Jahānī or Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah), a plain narrative of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign to the time of his confinement by Aurangzēb: Rieu i 262 (ah 1220/1805?), iii 1008b (defective at end. ah 1244/1829), Rāmpūr (modern. See jras. 1936 p. 281).

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India vii p. 133.

[Autobiographical statements (see Rieu i 262); Abū ’l-Faḍl Maʿmūrī’s (?) History of Aurangzēb (b.m. ms. Or. 1671 fol. 100b. See Rieu iii 1008b).]

§ 736. M. Ṭāhir “Ās̲h̲nā” entitled ʿInāyat K̲h̲ān was the son of Ẓafar K̲h̲ān “Aḥsan”, who held the governorship of Kas̲h̲mīr and other offices in S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign. He became Dārōg̲h̲ah i Ḥuḍūr and Dārōg̲h̲ah i Kitāb-k̲h̲ānah, or Imperial Librarian, to S̲h̲āh-Jahān. In Aurangzēb’s reign he retired to Kas̲h̲mīr, where he died in 1077/1666–7 or 1081/1670–1. For his dīwān etc. see Sprenger pp. 111, 339, Ethé 1584–5.

Mulakhkhaṣ (usually called S̲h̲āh-Jahān-nāmah), a history of the first thirty years of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign abridged from the Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah of ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd and M. Wārit̲h̲ and, so far as the 4th–10th years are concerned, from that of M. Amīn: Būhār 70 (only the last ten years with the special title Qarnīyah i S̲h̲āh-Jahān Bāds̲h̲āh. 17th cent.), Ethé 331 (ah 1155/1742), Rieu i 261b (18th cent.), 262a (Introduction, first 4 years and part of the 5th. 17th cent.), Bodleian 237 (ad 1834), Bānkīpūr vii 568 (19th cent.), r.a.s. P. 129 = Morley 125 (defective at end).

English translation (nearly complete) by Major Fuller: b.m. ms. Add. 30777 foll. 1–562.

Description with 45 pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India vii pp. 73–120.

[Mirʾāt al-ʿālam (b.m. Add. 7657 fol. 476. Cf. Rieu iii 1083b ad 261b); Tad̲h̲kirah i Ṭāhir i Naṣrābādī i pp. 58–9; Mirʾāt i jahān-numā (cf. Rieu iii 1083b ad 261b); Kalimāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 109); Hamīs̲h̲āh bahār (Sprenger p. 118); Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Bāg̲h̲ i maʿānī; Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ ii 762–3; Tad̲h̲kirat al-umarāʾ; Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammadī (b.m. ms. Or. 1824, fol. 217. Cf. Rieu iii 1083b ad 261b); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-kalām (Bānkīpūr viii no. 704 p. 138); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār (Bodl. 391 no. 314); Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm A 227; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 214; Sprenger pp. 109, 118, 339; Rieu i 261, iii 1083; Bānkīpūr vii p. 77.]

§ 737. S̲h̲. ʿInāyat Allāh Kanbō Lāhaurī was born at Burhānpūr, though a Lāhaurī by descent, and was (metaphorically?) the elder brother of M. Ṣāliḥ Kanbō, the author of the ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ (see p. 455). He is best known as the author of the collection of tales entitled Bahār i dānis̲h̲ which he completed in 1061/1651 (see Ency. Isl. under Bahār-i dānis̲h̲). After a period of service as an official he retired from the world and lived in a k̲h̲ānaqāh beside the shrine of Quṭb al-Dīn Bak̲h̲tyār Kākī [at Delhi]. He died at Delhi on 19 Jumādā i 1082/1671, aged 65.

Tārīk̲h̲ i dil-gus̲h̲ā, a history of S̲h̲āh-Jahān and his predecessors (cf. Rieu i 263a): Browne Suppt. 234 (n.d. King’s 71).

[ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ iii pp. 379–82 (among the Saiyids and saints), pp. (among the prose writers. Not yet printed); Rieu ii 765, iii 1093b; S.M. Laṭīf, Lahore: its history etc., Lahore 1892, pp. 208–9; Ency. Isl. under ʿInāyat Allāh Kanbū.]

§ 738. M. Ṣāliḥ Kanbō Lāhaurī was the pupil and protégé of S̲h̲. ʿInāyat Allāh Kanbō (see p. 454 supra), whom he calls his birādar i kalān, or elder brother.25

Practically nothing is known about his life,26 and the date of his death is uncertain. S.M. Laṭīf states on unspecified authority that he died in 1085/1674–5.27 It is scarcely possible that he can have been still alive in Ṣafar 1120/1708,28 as is implied by the use of the formula sallama-hu ’llāh after his name in the colophon of the ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ preserved in the Lahore Public Library (for the words of this colophon see ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ, dībāc̲h̲ah i muṣaḥḥiḥ, p. 8).

His tomb still exists outside the Mōc̲h̲ī Gate at Lahore. A small, but beautiful, mosque built by his order and completed in 1079/1668–9 stands to this day inside the Mōc̲h̲ī Gate. The inscription recording the date is quoted by G̲h̲ulām-Yazdānī (ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ, dībāc̲h̲ah i muṣaḥḥiḥ, p. 9).

A collection of his letters and other prose compositions, which bears the title Bahār i suk̲h̲un and includes letters written by him on behalf of Aurangzēb, S̲h̲āh-Jahān, Āṣaf K̲h̲ān and others, was completed in 1065/165529 (see Ethé 2090 and 2091), and a later edition in 1074/1663–430 (see Rieu i 398, Ivanow Curzon 144).

ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ, a detailed history of S̲h̲āh-Jahān completed ah 1070/1659–60 (but with later additions): Ethé 332 (ah 1112–3/1700–2), 333 (ah 1157/1744–5), 334 (ah 1213/1799 and 1225/1810), 335 (n.d.), 336 (extracts), i.o. 3907 (18th cent.), Lahore Pub. Lib. Jīm 23 (ah 1120/1708–9. See ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ, dībāc̲h̲ah i muṣaḥḥiḥ, p. 17), Rieu i 263a (ah 1142/1729), 264a (latter half (from 11th year). 18th cent. Pictures), 264a (latter half (from 8th year), ah 1186/1773), ii 793a (extract. ah 1232/1817), iii 935a (latter half (from 11th year). Defective at end. ah 1263/1847), 935a (concluding portion (from 22nd year). 18th cent.), 935a (extracts from latter half. 19th cent.), 1048b (extracts. Circ. ad 1850) 1069a (18th cent. 16 Pictures), Lindesiana p. 196 no. 62 (circ. 1730), nos. 381–3 (circ. 1780 and 1800), r.a.s. P. 130 = Morley 126 (latter half (from 11th year). Circ. 1759), Bānkīpūr vii 565 iv (only the years 1067–9. ʿĀlamgīr’s 45th year, i.e. ah 1112/1701), 566 (2) (latter half (from 11th year). 12 Pictures. 18th cent.), 569–70 (18th cent.), Ivanow 152 (19th cent.), 153 (only the years ah 1048–69. ah 1258/1842), 154 (from 21st year. ah 1228/1812), Āṣafīyah. i p 248 nos. 671–2, Browne Suppt. 791 (King’s 252), Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (see Oriental College Magazine, vol. ii, no. 4 (Lahore, August 1926), p. 53), Mehren 58 (to end of 10th regnal year). Edinburgh 81 (ah 1224/1809) is described as apparently an abridgment of the ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ.

Edition: ʿAmal-i-Ṣāliḥ or S̲h̲āh Jahān Nāmah of Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Kambo…. Edited by Ghulam Yazdani, Calcutta 1912– °*31 (Bibliotheca Indica).

Description and 8 pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India vii pp. 123–32.

A pompous account of the expedition sent by S̲h̲āh-Jahān under the command of Prince Murād-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ and ʿAlī Mardān K̲h̲ān against the Uzbak chief Nad̲h̲r Muḥammad and of the capture of Balk̲h̲ on 28 Jumādā I 1056/1646: Rieu iii 934b (19th cent.).

[ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ iii p. 3812, i, editor’s introduction pp. 2–9; Maʾāt̲h̲ir i ʿĀlamgīrī 222; Rieu i 263.]

§ 739. Sud’hārī La‘l.

Tuḥfah i S̲h̲āh-Jahānī, a concise (32 foll.) history of S̲h̲āh-Jahān based on the ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ and other works: Ethé 337 (n.d.).

§ 740. “Bihis̲h̲tī” S̲h̲īrāzī was a panegyrist of Prince Murād-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲, S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s youngest son.

For a ms. of his Kullīyāt (in which the Ās̲h̲ūb i Hindūstān apparently does not appear) see Edinburgh 305 (ah 1096/1684).

Ās̲h̲ūb-nāmah i Hindūstān or Ās̲h̲ūb i Hindūstān, a historical mat̲h̲nawī on the war of succession between S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s sons from the rising of Murād-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ at Aḥmadābād in 1067/1657 to the death of Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh in 1069/1659: Ethé 1579 (ah 1182/1768), Bodleian 1124 (defective at end), Rieu ii 689b (18th cent.), iii 1044a (circ. ad 1848).

Edition: Lucknow 1883°*.

§ 741. Other works:

A short (78 foll.) history of Bābur, Akbar and S̲h̲āh-Jahān, preceded by an account of Tīmūr (beg. Maḥāmid i jamīlah): see § 677 supra.
Waqāʾiʿ i Dak’han, an account of events in the Deccan in S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign: Blochet i 620 (18th cent.), perhaps also Āṣafīyah i p. 258 no. 417 (ah 1287/1870–1).

next chapter: 12.3.7 Aurangzeb


^ Back to text1. For the meaning of this nisbah see p. 11 supra, n. 36.

^ Back to text2. It will be seen below that the b.m. ms. at any rate does not contain five full years.

^ Back to text3. Cf. the statement of Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn K̲h̲ān, cited by Rieu (iii 933b), that none but S̲h̲. Abū ’l-Faḍl ever wrote history with equal elegance.

^ Back to text4. For Islām K̲h̲an see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i pp. 162–7. In S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s eighth year he was appointed Governor of Bengal.

^ Back to text5. This, according to Ethé, is the title given to the poem in the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-kalām (see Ethé col. 8516). In some of the mss. it seems to be headed [Mat̲h̲nawī ?] dar fatḥ i Bangālah.

^ Back to text6. In 1047/1637 (see ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah ii 68–90, ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ ii 286–8).

^ Back to text7. Not K̲h̲ān, as in the Ency. Isl.

^ Back to text8. As is erroneously stated by some authorities, but it is expressly denied by M. Ṣāliḥ.

^ Back to text9. In 1055/1645 according to some authorities.

^ Back to text10. In Kas̲h̲mīr according to other authorities.

^ Back to text11. Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah, fol. 431, according to Rieu, who does not make it clear which ms. he is referring to, but evidently the passage occurs in the account of the poets at the end of the work.

^ Back to text12. In the alphabetically arranged tad̲h̲kirahs Mīr Yaḥyā seems always to be placed under Yaḥyā, which would imply that this was his tak̲h̲alluṣ. ‘Abd al-Muqtadir, however, in describing the (unique?) Bānkīpūr ms. of his dīwān calls him “Mîr Yaḥyâ, who adopted the poetical title of Kâs̲h̲î”.

^ Back to text13. In support of this statement ʿAbd al-Muqtadir quotes some lines ascribed to Yaḥya Kās̲h̲ī by “Ārzū”. If they are really by Yaḥyā Kās̲h̲ī, they are decisive enough, but ʿAbd al-Muqtadir does not say whether they occur in the dīwān.

^ Back to text14. There is some confusion in several of the tad̲h̲kirahs between Mīr Yaḥyā Kās̲h̲ī and Qāḍī Yāḥyā Lāhijī (Gīlānī), who according to Taqī Kās̲h̲ī (Sprenger p. 22) died in 953 and according to the Ātas̲h̲-kadah (Bodl. 384 no. 344) in 952.

^ Back to text15. It is implied that he was at that time in Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh’s service, but this may be incorrect.

^ Back to text16. “The work was written shortly after ah 1057; the restitution of Balkh to Naẕr Muḥammad, which took place at that date, is mentioned, fol. 54b, as a recent transaction” (Rieu ii 838b).

^ Back to text17. According to M. Wārit̲h̲ and the Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl. The date 1061/1651 is given by several authorities.

^ Back to text18. According to the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-kalām (Bānkīpūr viii, p. 144, no. 40) “Kalīm’s” S̲h̲āh-nāmah gives a detailed account of ten years of S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s reign and consists of 14,948 verses.

^ Back to text19. This is the authority for ascribing the work to Ras̲h̲īd K̲h̲ān, who does not mention his name in the text.

^ Back to text20. According to the Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammadī (cited by Rieu iii 1083b ad 264b). According to the Tad̲h̲kirat al-umarāʾ he died in the 41st year of Aurangzēb.

^ Back to text21. Or Tattah, see Bānkīpūr vii p. 68.

^ Back to text22. ʿAlāʾ al-Mulk Tūnī was appointed K̲h̲ān-sāmān in S̲h̲āh-Jahān’s 19th year (ah 1055–6/1645–6), received the title of Fāḍil K̲h̲ān in the 23rd year (ah 1059–60/1649–50), and died in 1073/1663 a few days after becoming prime minister to Aurangzēb (see Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah ii. 755; Maʾāthir al-umarāʾ iii 524–30, Beveridge’s trans. pp. 550–3; Rieu i 260b; Binyon and Arnold Court painters of the Grand Moguls pp. 83–4 (portrait Plate xxvi)).

^ Back to text23. That S̲h̲āh-Jahān did not call this work the Bāds̲h̲āh-nāmah (with a B) is clear from an autograph note reproduced by Blochmann in jasb. 1870 p. 272.

^ Back to text24. “Rédaction complètement différente de celle du n° 586, au point qu’on serait presque tenté d’y voir le Padishah namèh de Mohammed Emin ibn Aboul Hosein Kazwini (Rieu, Catalogue, p. 258).” Unfortunately Blochet does not give sufficient particulars to render identification possible.

^ Back to text25. G̲h̲ulām-Yazdānī argues (ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ, dībāc̲h̲ah i muṣaḥḥiḥ, p. 6) that M. Ṣāliḥ cannot have been the brother of ʿInāyat Allāh, because the latter is always called s̲h̲aik̲h̲ ʿInāyat Allāh, whereas M. Ṣāliḥ by prefixing the words Āl i Muḥammad to his name shows himself to have been a Saiyid. The latter statement, however, is based on a misconception. The words which M. Ṣāliḥ prefixes to his name are bandah i Āl i Muḥammad (as in the inscription on his mosque) or fidawī i Āl i Muhammad (ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ i p. 46–7), i.e. the devoted supporter of Muḥammad’s family.

^ Back to text26. It seems impossible to identify him with the M. Ṣāliḥ Kanbō, whom ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Lāhaurī describes as a brave soldier (Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah ii p. 71 antepenult.: M. Ṣāliḥ Kanbō kih az dilīrān i jān-sipār i dargāh i k̲h̲awāqīn-panāh būd) and whom he mentions among those who took prominent parts in Qāsim K̲h̲ān’s operations against the Franks of Hūglī in 1041/1641–2 (Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah i 4369) and in Islām K̲h̲ān’s expedition against Kūc̲h̲ Hājō and Assam in 1047/1637 (op. cit. ii 71 antepenult.,7214,19, 733,17, 767). M. Ṣāliḥ in recording the same events, evidently on the basis of the Pāds̲h̲āh-nāmah, speaks of M. Ṣāliḥ Kanbō in the third person (see ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ i 4982) and describes him as a brave and resourceful man (ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ ii 28711–12: M. Ṣālih Kanbō rā kih mard i mardānah i ṣāḥib i tadbīr u taraddud būd bā las̲h̲karī ārāstah rawānah i ān-jānib numūd).

^ Back to text27. Lahore p. 209.

^ Back to text28. The Bahār i suk̲h̲un, a collection of letters composed by himself, was compiled at the suggestion of his friend “Munīr”, who died in 1054/1644. Even supposing that “Munīr’s” suggestion was made in the last year of his life and that Ṣāliḥ was not more than twenty years old at the time (a very improbable assumption), his age in 1120 would have been eighty-five lunar years.

^ Back to text29. According to Ethé, who is responsible for distinguishing two editions of the work.

^ Back to text30. In 1073 according to G̲h̲ulām-Yazdānī (ʿAmal i Ṣāliḥ, dībāc̲h̲ah i muṣaḥḥiḥ, p. 79).

^ Back to text31. Nearly the whole of the text has now (June 1938) been printed. The fourth fasciculus of vol. iii, which appeared in 1936, extends to the notice of ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Dihlawī, the second in the section devoted to the ʿulamāʾ etc.

Cite this page
“12.3.6 History of India: The Tīmūrids: S̲h̲āh-Jahān”, in: Storey Online, Charles Ambrose Storey. Consulted online on 03 June 2023 <>
First published online: 2021

▲   Back to top   ▲